A BROAD

I E OF VEDANTA
A BROAD OUTLINE OF
VEDANTA
Satchidaananda Vaak-Jyotl Series

SWAMI SATCHIDAANANDENDRA SARASWATI

D.B. GANGOLLI

ADHYATMA PRAKASHA KARAYALAYA

BANGALORE
1989
 Foreword
This is the second of a series of small books under the head - -Satchidaananda Va.k.Jyotf-
or -The Enlightening Words of Satchidaananda-. All these booklets contain a tr.e translit.r.·
tion of 'the enlightening and immortal words and teaching's of Shri Satchidaanandendr.
Saraswati Swamiji, of revered memory, found in his numerous Kannada books. Tho.e r••der.
who do not have the facility and advantage of reading and understanding book. in the Kan·
nada language will be immensely benefited by th ••• English publicationa written in limpl.
language and style.
This small plan of publishing these 'gems of spiritual llteratur.', unrivalled In their esoteric
import and teachings of the highest order and based on the pristine pure original Bha.hy.'
of Adi Shankara, was first mooted by Shrl D.B. Gangolli, a devotee and admirer of Swamlji.
He had brought out the first of the series entitled - -The Relevance of Vedanta in Thi. Modern
Age of Civilization- - with the munificent financial help of Subharam Trult (Regd.).
It is an irony of our times that even that great Acharya'slmmaculate teaching. of Atma Vldya
or Self-Knowledge, purely based on the strength of the Upanishadic statementa, their veracity
based on Intuitive dialectics or ratiocination (called Anubhavaanga Tarka) and finally on the
strength of the culmination or consummation of all those teachings in on. 'a own Intuitive ••-
perience here and now, have been distorted beyond r.cognltion and red.mption.
The devoted and disceming seeker of the Ultimate Reality of Atman or the Sa", of the ....n·
tial nature of Pure Being-Consciousness-Bliss (Intuition), is aure to benefit a great deal by
studying and cognizing the truths that are taught in these booklets which have adopted.
well-planned sequential order of a spiritual theme so as to enable hi,!, to get rid of many a
deep-rooted misconception that was hitherto proving to be a big stumbling block in his path
of spiritual progress. It can be affirmed here that if the student honestly applies hi. mind and
intellect and devotes all his efforts and energies with a high sense of purpose and per·
severance, he will never fail to get the conviction and complete ..tisfaetion accruing from
this lofty pursuit.
We have great pleasure in publishing this book under the auspice. of Adhyatma Prakasha
Karyalaya, Tyagarajanagar, Bangalore - 560 028 and are thankful to itl author, Shri D.B. Gan-
golli, for making over to us the copyright of this book. We hope that those who are lincerely
interested in and devoted to the pursuit of a genuine spiritual path will avail them.'v•• of
this opportunity.
K. G. Subraya Sharma, M.A.,
Secretary, Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya,
Bangalore - 28.
and Editor, Shankara Bhaskara,
January 1, 1989. Tyagarajanagar. Bangalore - 580 028.

Price : Rs.5.00
Copyright @ 1989 by Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya
Typeset and Design by Artintel, Bangalor••
Printed at Lotus Printefs, Bangalore.
 A BROAD OUTLINE OF VEDANTA
1. Brahm. Vldya means to know Brahman, the Ultimate Reality. To know
the real essential nature of Brahman alone is the ultimate goal of human ex-
Istence or life; this alone Is the greatest among all the things wanted or
desired by man. If Brahman Is cognized, all the miseries and calamities
which man suffers from in this life are completely mitigated (Sutra Bhashya
1-1-1; Bhashya portion 18).
2. Brlhmln means that entity which exists eternally, absolutely pure, in the
essential nature of Pure Consciousness, endowed with an essence of Being
which is not susceptible or vulnerable to any subjugation or bondage what-
soever. There is no object or thing that is not known by this Reality or en-
tity; It knows everything; there is no force or energy that is not to be found
In this entity, all kinds of forces or energies (of the empirical sphere) belong
to this entity alone (Sutra Bhashya 1-1-1; Bhashya portion 19).
3. In this World or Prapancha that is before us there are various kinds of
substances or objects having different names and different forms, which are
being perceived; there are innumerable Jeevas or souls who are performing
different actions and functions and are experiencing their results or fruits;
with regard to the actions or Karmas performed by the Jeevas there is a rigid
law of nature stipulating that for a particular action done in a particular place
and at a particular time, by virtue of a particular cause alone the fruit or result
should accrue. Who formulated this rigid law and how? -- This question can-
not even be imagined by the mind. The substratum for such a world like this
to appear or manifest and then disappear is Itself Brahman, the Ultimate
Reality. (Sutra Bhashya 1-1-2; Bhashya portion 24).
4. This Brahman Is not an entity which Is not seen by anyone and existing
somewhere. It is indeed our essential nature of Being alone. Our real nature
or core of Being or existence is called Atman. Thus because our Atman
Iione 'SBrahman, the knowledge of Atman (Atma Vidya) itself is the
knowledge of Brahman or Brahma Vidya. If Atman or our Self is known or
cognized, then It amounts to our knowing or cognizing Brahman alone.
(Sutra Bhashya 1-1-1; Bhashya portion 19; Maandukya Upanishad 2).
5. If a person who is suffering a great deal because of an illness gets cured
from it, he regains his healthy state, is it not? Similarly, when we human
beings, who are experiencing the miseries of this Samsaara or mortal exist-
ence passing from one birth to another, attain the knowledge that our Atman
or Self is Brahman alone and this Atman is Pure Consciousndss which ex-
ists eternally, is pure and is not in the least vulnerable to be subjugated by

1
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

the bondage of mundane existence or Samsaara, then all our miseries dis-
appear and our innate nature of Being is regained. This alone Is the benefit
accruing from Brahma Vidya or the Knowledge of Brahman, the Ul-
timate Reality. (Maandukya Upanishad 1. Bhashya portion 2).
6. We superimpose or misconceive happiness and misery, which are not
there at all in our Atman or Self, upon our essential nature of the Self and
then further misconceive that the body, the senses, the mind, the Intellect
and the ego or 'I'-notion -- all these are tagged on or appended to Atman or
the Self. To do so is itself Avidya or Ignorance. To determine that our Atman
or Self is eternally pure, that He does not have even the least contact or
relationship with any other thing or entity and further that such a contact to
exist is an improbability -- Is Vidya or Knowledge (Adhyaasa Bhashya 4).
7. Ever/one knows that --'I exist'; no one can ever get to know that -- 'I do
not exist'. We should cognize or know the real essence of Being of this en-
tityof 'I'. This essence of Being Itself means -- Atman alone 18 Brahman.
Therefore, there is no cause whatever for the doubt that - "Whether the
entity called Brahman exists or not 111 (Sutra Bhashya 1-1-1, Bhashya por·
tion 19).

8. Although no one entertains any doubt whatsoever with regard to the ex-
istence of the entity of 'I', each one has a different knowtedge as to 'what
that entity of 'I' is ?' Some think that in our body there exists a quality of
knowledge of the nature or form of Consciousness or Chaitanya and the
body that is endowed with that Consciousness alone is our Atman or Self.
Some others believe that this Consciousness exists in the senses and thers-
fore the conglomeration of these senses alone is our Self. Yet some others
think that the mind to which the entire external world is perceptible Is our
Self. Sor:1e others say that the flow of thoughts goes on in our mind alone
and that alone is our Self. Others have opined that the entity of Atman or
Self Itself does not really exist. It is the belief of some others that apart from
the body, the senses, the mind and the intellect -- there exists a Jeev8 or
soul and to be performing his actions and experiencing their fruits all along
is his real essential nature. Although the fact that for a Jeeva or soul both
happiness and misery accrue is certain, in reality he does not perform any
Karma or action at all -- this is the opinion of some other people. Still some
others opine that apart from this transmigratory Jeeva or soul there exists
another Atman called Ishwara or Lord and He alone is omniscient (Sarva)-
na) and omnipotent (Sarvashakta). But yet others say that this Ishwara or
Lord who is omniscient and omnipotent is Himself our Atman or Self.

2
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

(1) Does the essential nature of Being or this entity which appears or
manifests thus as 'I' exist or not? (2) If it does exist, is it one among the
body, the senses, the mind, the intellect or the ego, or is it different? (3) If it
is different from all these, is it enjoying or experiencing happiness and misery
or not? (4) If it is experiencing them, is it performing Karma or actions and
then experiencing their fruits or Is It just arbitrarily, without proper or just
cause experiencing happiness and misery? (5) If it is to be assumed that
this 'I' is experiencing happiness and misery, is there a 'Paramaatman' or
Supreme Self who does not have even the least contact or relationship with
happiness and misery existing or not? (6) If He exists, what is the relation-
ship between Jeevaatman or the soul and Paramatman or the Supreme Self
or Lord? -- These six doubts are likely to occur to all thinkers. If these doubts
are not cleared and if anyone opinion is entertained and we act according
to that fallacious belief or opinion, then whatever progressive status that is
to be attained will not accrue; on the other hand, unexpected calamities or
hazards will confront us. Therefore, it is very important and necessary to
enquire about the entity of Atman or Self (Sutra Bhashya 1-1-1; Bhashya
portion 20).
9. "Although It is true that people are transacting in their day-to-day life as
"', 'I', there does not exist at all a real entity like 'I'. In the same way, the ex-
ternal world which appears to us does so in our day-to-day dealings alone,
but if deeply deliberated upon it cannot be sustained with the help of any
evidence or proof that the world has any essential nature of Being or exist-
ence at all. Therefore, the dealings of the type -- Jeevas or souls, Jagat or
the world, Ishwara or the Lord -- are all a mere delusion. By virtue of that
latent impression alone, people repeatedly imagine and keep on saying that
there exists a world; there are many Jeevas or souls and there exists an Ish-
wara or the Supreme Lord -- that's all, and not that in reality there exists any
entity whatsoever. Without being in consonance with reason or logical
devices, merely to manifest or appear is the hallmark of the world". Thus
some protagonists were saying, and they are called Shoonyavaadins or
proponents of the theory that everything is essenceless.
This theory is opposed to the experiences of the people in general. If there
does not exist any real entity at all, what is it that manifests itself in all such
ways? If it is proper to believe that because what appears is appearing, it is
real -- then what is the cause or reason to say that it is a delusion? Much
more than saying that -- "Because the world that appears does not comply
with reason or logical devices, it is a delusion" -- is it not better to sayar

3
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

argue that -- "Because our reasoning Is not In consonance with what Is seen
in everyone's experience, the reasoning itself should be wrong? .. Therefore,
Shoonyavaada is a theory opposed to empirical means of knowledge.
Because no one can have bel ief in this at all. there is no need to refute It
also. (Sulra Bhashya 2-2-31: Bhashya portion 64).
10. Saying that our Atman or Self Himself does not exist cannot be sustained;
for. one who tries to assert that his Self does not exist. that person's essen-
tial nature of Being Itself is Atman or the Self (Sutra Bhashya 1-1-4). Atman
or the Self is not an entity which Is to be established afresh with the aid
of another means or instrument of knowledge or cognition. He eve,
s.lf-established only.
.1
That entity with the aid of which we know or perceive -- that Is called
Pramaana or a means of knowtedge or cognition. That which is known or
perceived by us -- that is called Prameya or the known or cognized object.
Before the transaction or dealing of the type - IIThis is a Pramaana or
means of knowledge or cognition" and "This is a Prameya or an object
known or cognized" - it desiderates unquestionably the Self or Atman
(of the essential nature of Pure Consciousness). For, Atman or the Self
knows the Prameya or objects by means of Pramaana or the means of
knowledge or cognition. If it is said that the knower who knows the objects
through the proper or valid means of knowledge does not exist, the empiri-
cal dealings of using the means of knowledge in order to know or cognize
the objects will have themselves become false. Even if it Is persisted that
stand also is acceptable, then it amounts to saying that Shoonyavaada or
the theory of essencelessness is contrary to everyone's experience; for,
even to determine that everything is essenceless Atman or the Self of the
essential nature of Pure Being-Consciousness is required (Sutra Bhashya 2-
3-7; Bhashya portion 99).
11. There are two types (\f means of knowledge or cognition (Pramaanas).
What the general run of people use as their means or cognition in general
or their day-to-day dealings like perception (Pratyaksha), Inference
(Anumaana) etc. are the empirical means of cognition or Loukik8
Pramaanas; that scientific treatise or Shaastra which indicates or teaches
the phenomena or things which are not within the ken or realm of the em-
pirical means of cognition is a metaphysical means of cognition or Aloukika
Pramaana. All the objects or phenomena which are within the purview of
these two kinds of means of cognition are called objects of cognition or
Prameya. But Atman or the Self i8 unobjectifiable or imperceptible or

4
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

Apr.mey. - the knowledgeable people say. That means, Atman or the Self
cannot be objectified or perceived by any empirical means of cognition, be-
cause He does not desiderate any such means; on the other hand, He Him-
self Invests or Imbues the whole gamut of empirical dealings with life force
or dynamism, and that he is Swataha Siddha or self-established. That
means, without desiderating any means of cognition He is by Himself
Intimately well-known, i.e. His essential nature of Being can be Intuited
.s one's own innate immediate, and not mediate, core of existence as
Pure Consciousness which is self-illumining. (Sutra Bhashya 2-3-7;
Bhashya portion 99; Geeta 2-18. Bhashya portion 29).
12. Some people are of the opinion that Atman or the Self exists apart
from the body and that when the body exists only the Knowledge or Con-
sciousness appears and hence Consciousness is a distinctive quality
or function of the body. This is not proper. For, the body is an object to
Knowtedge or Consciousness. That which illumines is called Vishayi or the
Witness or subject. That which the subject or the Witness objectifies or il-
lumines is called Vishaya or the object or the witnessed thing. Because
Consciousness knows the body, the senses etc. Consciousness is the
Vishayi or the subject or Witness, and the body, the senses etc. are the
Vishaya or the objects or the witnessed things. The Vishayi or the witness-
ing Consciousness cannot be the distinctive quality or faculty of the Vishaya
or the witnessed object; the lamp is not the distinctive quality of a pot which
the former illumines or shows up. Neither do the distinctive qualities or facul-
ties which exist in the body 'know' their own respective essential natures nor
does one distinctive quality(Dharma) know another; Consciousness knows
not only the body but also all its distinctive faculties. For this reason too.
Conciousness is not the distinctive quality or faculty of the body. Besides
there is no rule or regulation that only when there is a body there arises
Consciousness; in the dream, though this present waking body does not
exist, (even so) Consciousness is produced therein, and this fact is known
to everyone. Therefore, Consciousness is different indeed from the body.
Consciousness Itself is also called Chaitanya or Pure Consciousness. This
alone is Atman or the Self. (Sutra Bhashya 3-3-54; Bhashya portion 418).
13. Because Atman or the Self (of the essential nature of Pure or Absolute
Consciousness) is Himself knowing or illumining the senses, the mind etc.,
the statement or argument of those who say that . . liThe distinctive faculty or
quality of the senses, the mind etc. which are themselves the witnessed ob-
jects to Atman or Pure Consciousness is itself Atman or the Self" - is con-

5
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

trary to universal experience. In the empirical dealing of the type - .., am

smelling this thingll - the one who knows or experiences the smell Is Atman
or the Self of the nature of Consciousness or Knowledge and the sense per-
ception in the organ of nose is the means or Instrument of knowledge to
know or experience 'smell' The Kartru or agent of action should be different
from the means of action, or Karma, is it not? The sense perceptions or
faculties (Indriyas) implicit in the sense organs of eyes, ears etc. are the
means of knowledge (Karanas) which enable us to know or experience the
respective objects of knowledge or experience and with their aid one who
knows is Himself Atman or the Self. Therefore, Atman or the Self is dif-
ferent indeed from the Indriyas or the sense perception etc. (Sutra
Bhashya 2-3-18; Bhashya portion 124).
14. Just as He Is different from the body and the Indriyas or sense percep-
tions, Atman or the Self is different indeed from the mind too. In deep sleep
there does not exist a body, nor the sense perceptions and the mind (Sutra
Bhashya 1-1-9; Bhashya portion 85; 2-3-40, Bh. por.1S2). "Because there
does not exist any knowledge or Consciousness whatsoever, we should say
that Atman of the essential nature of Pure Consciousness also does not exist,
is it not? - if this argument is forwarded, then the answer to this is: In deep
sleep, because there is no second thing or entity existing other than Atman
or the Self of the essential nature of Pure Consciousness, there is no distinc-
tive knowledge or consciousness alone, and not because there did not exist
the Self or Pure Consciousness (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4-3-23). Be-
cause the knowledge or consciousness of 'I'-ness too does not exist then
(i.e. in deep sleep) it looks that the statement -- "Atman or the Self also does
not exist" - is itself the proper or correct one , To this argument the answer
is: The statement to the effect - "In deep sleep nothing whatsoever appearsll
- also is based on an Intuitive experience alone. That Intuitive experience
alone is Atman or the Self of the essential nature of Chaitanya or Pure Con-
sciousness. 'I' and 'this' - these kinds of knowledge are called 'Vlshesh.
Jnaana' or distinctive knowledge; this knowledge appears only when things
other than Atman or the Self are there. Therefore, from the experience to the
effect - IIln deep sleep I did not know anything whatsoever" - it becomes es-
tablished that then, i.e. in deep sleep, there did not exist a second thing.
Otherwise, if one persists in saying that - Itln deep sleep I myself did not exist"
- then it amounts to saying that there does not exist a state called 'deep
sleep'; this becomes contrary to universal, or everyone's, experience. There-
fore, it will have to be determined from the experience of deep sleep that
Atman or the Self is of the essential nature of Pure Consciousness or

6
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

ChlitlnYI, quite different from the body, the sense perceptions, the
mind, the intellect and the ego. (Upadesha Sahasri prose 2, Bhashya 56)
15. Is Atman or the Self of the nature of Kartru (the agent of action) and
Bhoktru (the enjoyer), or not? Performing action, obtaining or procuring
their fruits and then enjoying or experiencing them is the nature of our
Atman, is It not? To this que~tion there are two answers: From one view-
point, both Kartrutwa (agentship of action) and Bhoktrutwa (enjoyership)
are there for Atman; from another viewpoint, they are not there for Him at
all. Only when a man Is using implements like chisel, hammer, saw etc. he
is called a carpenter; otherwise he remains like all others as man only. Similar·
Iy, in waking and dream when Atman or the Self is conjoined with the body,
the sense perceptions etc. He has Kartrutwa (agentship of action) and
Bhoktrutwa (enjoyership); In deep sleep because there does not exist any
Instruments or means of knowledge or cognition, then Atman is neither a
Kartru nor a Bhoktru. On the whole if it is keenly observed, it should be said
that performing an action and then enjoying or experiencing its fruit
does not pertain to or is applicable to the essential nature of Atman
(Sutra Bhashya 2-3-40; Bhashya portion 152).

16. When in the Self there exists agentship or doership i.e. Kartrutwa, are we
ourselves performing the actions or does a Parameshwara (Supreme Lord)
who prompts us to perform actions exist separately? When we enjoy or ex-
perience the fruits of action, does the fruit accrue from the action itself or
does (a Lord) Ishwara who dispenses the fruits exist? In this manner a doubt
may arise. Such (a Lord) Ishwara does exist; one who misconceives the
body, the senses etc. to be his Self and suffering from the cataract called
Avidya (Ignorance) who cannot see anything in front of him (i.e. one who is
deluded) is the Jeeva or soul; being the presiding deity for the actions of the
souls (Jeevas) one who resides in all creatures (as their very essence of
Being) and who exists as the Witness (Saakshi) as well as of the essential
nature of (Pure Consciousness) Chaitanya Roopa is Ishwara. The
religious acts of merit (Dharma) and the acts of demerit (Adharma)
which the Jeeva or soul performs as also their respective fruits accru-
Ing - all these take place by the grace of (the Lord) Ishwara alone (Sutra
Bhashya 2-3-41,42; Bhashya portion 155; 3-2-38, Bhashya portion 314;
Geeta 13-22. Bhashya portion 273; Mundaka Upanishad 3-1-1, Bhashya por-
tion 91).
17. What is the relationship between Jeeva or the soul who performs Karma
(actions) and experiences their fruits and Ishwara (the Lord)? To this ques-

7
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

tlon the answer Is: Jeeva (the soul) Is himself Ishwara (the Lord). As long as
we, the Jeevas or souls, misconceive the body, the senses etc. as oursel-
ves of the essential nature of our Self, Ishwara (the Lord) remains separate
from us. If the reality is known or cognized, then there does not exist Jeewat-
wa (soulhood) at all. For, Ishwara (the Lord) I. ever our (Supreme Self)
Paramaatman, that means, our essential nature of Being or Pur. Exl ..
tence which is the Ultimate Reality. (Geeta 13-2, Bhashya portion 216; 13-
22, Bhashya portion 273; 15-19, Bhashya portion 382; Sutra Bhashya 1-1-6,
1-3-19, Bhashya portions 75. 274).
18. With regard to the fact or topic that Jeeva (the soul) Is really Permllt-
man (the Supreme Self), many doubts will arise. Jeeva keeps on getting
born and dying; is it proper to say that such a Jeeva is Paramaatman (the
Supreme Self) who exists devoid of birth and death? - This is the first doubt.
But if observed keenly Jeeva really does not get born, nor does he die. The
body gets born and it alone dies. Merely because a man discards an old gar-
ment or apparel and wears a new one, does he become different? No.
Similarly, if the body gets born it does not amount to the Jeevi getting
born, nor if the body falls or dies it amounts to the Jeeva dying. (Geeta
2-22, Bhashya portion 44; Sutra Bhashya 2-3-16, Bhashya portion 118; 2-3-
17, Bhashya portion 121).
19. The body, the senses, the vital breath (Praana), the mind, the Intellect
and the ego or ('I' notion) - all these are the adjuncts of, or things that get
tagged on to, the Jeeva. It being so, how can he (Jeeva) at all be Paramaat-
man (the Supreme Self) who is devoid of any body whatsoever? - This is the
second doubt.
If properly observed, there Is no evidence or means of proving or estab-
lishing the fact that Jeeva possesses the body, the senses etc. The body,
the senses etc. - all these are objects of cognition (Vlshaya) and he Is the
subjective principle or the cognizer (Vishayi). To conceive or know that In
oneself who is the cognizer there exists any relationship of the objects of
cognition will not be reasonable or justifiable. An earthen pot becomes an
object of cognition to our Consciousness, is it not? Then, we do not take It
or conceive that the earthen pot itself is our essential nature of Being, nor
do we conceive that the earthen pot is related to us. Similarly, there is no
means of proving or establishing that the body, the senses etc. belong to
us. In the scriptural texts it is also enunciated that Atm. or the Self I. body-
les8 or devoid of • body. (Katha Upanishad 1-2-22, Bhashya portion 78;

8
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

Geeta 13-13. Bhashya portion 254; Sutra Bhashya 1-1-4, Bhashya portion
58).
20. To conceive or believe that Jeevaatman (the soul) possesses the body,
the senses etc. quite naturally is also wrong only, for in the dream these very
phenomena like body, senses etc. are not there at all. Therein (i.e. in the
dream) the transactions are carried on through an illusory body, illusory sen ..
ses etc. alone. Because It Is not possible to show any difference whatsoever
between the waking and the dream, and further because it is not possible at
all to cognize distinctly by differentiating in the manner - "This is waking, this
Is dream" - the body, the senses of the waking are also illusory alone. It is
not possible at all to assert that there exists any relationship between
these illusory body, senses etc. and Atman or the Self. (Sutra Bhashya
3-2-3, Bhashya portion 256; Maandukya Kaarika 2..4, Bhashya portion 81:
Katha Upanishad 2-5-11. Bhashya portion 148).

21. There are many Jeevas; all of them have accepted that they have a body,
senses etc. Merely on the ground of one Jeeva knowing that in his dream
he had illusory body, senses (Maayika) etc. how can it at all be said that the
body, senses etc. of the waking which everyone has accepted do not exist?
How can the Jeevas, who are many, be Paramaatman (the Supreme Self)
who is one? -This is the third doubt.

But In the dream too, just as In the waking, it appears as if there exist many
Jeevas who are agents of action (Kartru), enjoyers (Bhoktru) and all of them
together appear to be carrying on transactions mutually! Just because of
this. do we reckon that the Jeevas and their bodies, senses etc. which ap-
pear therein are real? No. In the same manner alone, we should discern with
regard to the many Jeevas as well as their body, senses etc. in the waking.
Just a. in the dream although there exists one Atman or the Self alone
It appears a. though there are many, in the waking too we must discern
that it appears in the same manner. (Sutra Bhashya 2.. 1-28, Bhashya por-
tion 465; Maandukya Kaarika 4-37, Bhashya portion 278).

22. At least the relationship of the illusory body, senses etc. is there invariab-
ly to the Jeeva, is it not? To this question, the answer is: That too is not the
Innate nature of Atman or the Self. Atman or the Self existing in His natural
state of Pure Being-Consciousness (Brahma Sthiti), completely having
given up any relationship with the body, senses etc. is therein the ex-
perience of everyone of us in deep sleep; besides, even through efforts
when one attains Samaadhi this essential nature of Pure Being-Conscious-

9
 A Broad Outtlne of Vedanta

ness(of Brahman) can be Intuitively experienced - this fact Is mentioned In

the scriptural texts (Shaaltral). (Sutra Bhashya 3-2-7, Bhashya portion 270;
3-2-24, Bhashya portion 299).
23. Either in deep sleep or In Samaadhi there Is no knowledge of the kind "'
am Brahman"; immediately on waking up It appears In the manner - liTo me
nothing was known (i.e. In the deep sleep)". Therefore, it amounts to saying
that either In deep sleep or In Samaadhi Jeeva has Avidya (Ignorance)
alone. How can such a Jeeva be the all-knowing (Sarvajna) Brahman? - This
Is the fourth doubt.
But for not having the knowledge of the type - "I am luch and such •
perlon in deep Ileep the caule or realon il the non-dual exiltence of
ll

the real Self (of the ellentlal nature of Pure Belng-Consclousnes.)

alone and not the exiltence of Ajnaana (ignorance); for, the statement-
"I did not know anything at all" - means a second thing did not appear only
and not that one's essential nature of Pure Consciousness also did not exist.
It is true indeed that in deep sleep the distinctive knowledge of the type -
IIThis is such and such a thing" -- does not exist; but then the absence of the
senses alone is the cause for the distinctive knowledge not occurring and
not the absence of the essential nature of Pure Consciousness of Atman or
the Self. (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4-3-21, 4-3-23).
24. The Jeeva's relationship with the body, the senses etc.la In the waking
and In the dream, but not in the deep sleep. Thus one who keeps on having
and giving up relationship with the body, the senses etc. - can he be called
a Mukta or a liberated one? - This Is the fifth doubt.
It has been previously stated that the body, the senses etc. do not exist at
all from the absolute viewpoint; that they appear as though they exist both
in the waking and in the dream, and that Atman or the Self is observing all
the states of Consciousness as the Witness (Saak.hl). Because the Pure
Consciourness of Atman or the Self exists in one and the same nature or
form without ever getting changed and because by the association of the il-
lusory body, senses etc. no changes whatsoever of increase or decrease
are observed in the Pure Consciousness of Atman or the Self. to say that -
IIAtman or the Self i. Nitya Mukta (eternally liberated)" -- there does not
exist any hindrance or objection whatsoever. - (Maandukya Upanishad 7;
Kaarika 2-32, Bhashya portion 115).
25. Jeeva is stated to be a part of Paramaatman (the Supreme Self) In the
scriptures, is it not?Transgressing the authority of the scriptures can It be

10
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

reckoned that Jeeva himself Is Paramaatman (the Supreme Self)? -- This is

the sixth doubt.
But because the scriptures too are means of knowledge (Pramaana) just
like perception, Inference etc. they invariably maintain their nature of being
the valid means of knowledge or cognition. The valid means of cognition or
knowledge (Pramaana) are the instruments which indicate or signify an ex-
Isting thing as it Is; that instrument or means without which we cannot know
or cognize a particular thing -- that means or instrument alone is said to be
that thing's Pramaana (valid means of cognition). A Pramaana (means of
cognition) denotes what exists alone but it does not create what does not
exist. The scriptural texts (Shaastras) are the Pramaana in respect of the
Self or Atman. These scriptures will be valid means only if they signify without
creating in us any doubt, (Ajnaana) ignorance or misconception with regard
to Atman or the Self, and if they tell us contrary to our expe;'ience then they
will never become the valid means. That our Atman or Self is of the es-
••ntial nature of Pure Consciousness or Being of Brahman or the Ul-
timate Reality Is also established on the strength of Intuitive
experience; that Atman or the Self alone is Brahman or the Ultimate Reality
Is also stated in the scriptures. No one will ever give any validity as being
the right means of cognition whatsoever to any statement or sentence
which il contrary to experience. (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2-1-20,
Bhashya portion 315; Geeta 18-66, Bhashya portion 600).
26. If so, it has been stated both In the Shrutis (Upanishads) and the Smritis
(Geeta and such other works) by Rishis or sages based on the scriptural
texts that Jeeva or the soul is a part of Paramaatman (the Supreme Self);
what will be the fate of such statements? -- such a question may be raised.
By the statement - tlJeeva Is a part of Paramaatman" -- it is meant that --
"Just as the reflection of the Sun (in a bucket of water) is said to be a part
of the Sun; just as the sparks emanating from red hot coal are said to be
parts of that fire in the coal and just as the space within a pot is a part of the
open space ll
--in the same sense the Jeeva is a 'part' of Paramaatman (i.e.
Jeeva is of the essential nature of Pure Consciousness of Paramaatman).
Just as In the case - though the reflections are many in number the central
source for the reflection is one and one only, similarly in the case - apparent-
ly though the Jeevas are many their true central source or Atman (of the es-
sential nature of Pure Being-Consciousness) is one and one only; Jeevas
and Brahman (the Ultimate Reality) are Pure Consciousness (Chaitanya)
alone. Although there are empirical transactions of many spaces like the pot

11
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

space, the house space etc. In reality space Is one and one only; slmllarty,
although there is an empirical dealing of the type - uJeeva. are manY"
- (in reality) their essential nature of Being, viz. Brahman, 'lone and
one only. To denote in this manner alone is the purport of the sentences
mentioning 'parts'. (Sutra Bhashya 2-3-43, Bhashya portion 158; 2-3-50,
Bhashya portion 168; 3-2-18. Bhashya portion 285; Brihadaaranyaka
Upanishad 2-1-20, Bhashya portion 316; Maandukya Kaarlka 3-3,7. Bhashya
portions 132, 142).
27. If for the statements of the type -- IfJeeva Is a part of Paramaatman" -
their literary meaning is taken or assumed, what Is wrong? To this question
the answer is: Then in that case, to the word - 'part' - anyone of the mean-
ings like a limb or organ of a body, mutation or change, power and a state
will have to be given or assumed. If It is assumed that in Paramaatman (the
Supreme Self) i.e. the Ultimate Reality, there are many parts and that each
part is a Jeeva then It will have to be stated that just as when these limbs or
organs of the body are integrated or conglomerated only the whole or the
integrated body will exist and as soon as these limbs or organs get disin-
tegrated it will be destroyed, similarly Paramaatman will get destroyed. This
is not an acceptable statement. Therefore, Jeeva is not a limb or organ of
Paramaatman. In the same manner, if Jeeva is said to be a mutation or
change of Paramaatman -- just as clay has changed and has become an ear-
then pot -- it will amount to saying that Paramaatman has changed or trans-
formed Himself into Jeeva. Even then, it is tantamount to accepting
destruction to Paramaatman. Therefore, Jeeva Is not 8 mutation or tran ..
formation of Atman or the Self too. Because it is not proper or reasonable
to say that the omnipotent Ishwara (the Lord) is subject to bondage, it can-
not be accepted that Jeeva ia a power of Ishwara (the Lord). Because
the statement that -- "In the beginning Paramaatman, having been very pure
and clean, devoid of misery, later on got entangled in SamBaara (trans-
migratory nature of getting repeated births and deaths) which is impure and
full of misery" - is also not acceptable. it does not suit to say that Jeeva
ia a state of Paramaatman. Therefore, for the statement -- "Jeeva is a part
of Paramaatman" -- the literary meaning cannot be taken at all.
(Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3-8-12, Bhabhya portion 94)

28. ·'This should be performed or done"; "This should not be done" -- In this
manner Karmas (religious actions or duties) are stipulated in the scriptural
texts with a view to cleansing the mind (Antahkarana or the inner instru-
ment) of the Jeeva; in order to obtain the grace of Ishwara. the Lord.

12
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

Upa... n•• (meditations) have been stipulated; to help attain Liberation or

Emancipation (Moaksha), Jnaana (Self-Knowledge) has been propounded,
If jeeva Is himself Brahman, all these disciplines and purificatory practices
will become worthless or useless, is it not? -- This is the seventh doubt.
To this the solution Is: Because in the scriptural texts Self-Knowledge or
In.ana ha, been propounded or taught for attaining (Liberation) Moak-
aha, It become, established that all bondage is caused by (ignorance)
Ajnaana alone; for, removing ignorance alone is the function of Knowledge,
and not to create afresh what does not exist; to the ignorant people who
have misconceived that they are the body, the senses etc. alone (i.e. who
have Innate identification with their body, senses etc.), merely because in
the scriptural texts religious actions or meditations have been stipulated
there cannot be any hindrance or objection whatsoever to the teaching
propounded from the Absolute or Transcendental viewpoint to the effect --
"Atman is Brahman". (Sutra Bhashya 1-1-4; Bhashya portion 51; 2-3-48,
Bhashya portion 164,165; Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2-1-20, Bhashya por-
tion 323).
29. Let It be that Karmas (the religious duties or actions) have been stipu-
lated by virtue of the relationship with the body, the senses etc. alone. Even
so, the body, the senses etc. do exist indeed. It is not possible to avoid them
at all. Therefore, there is no stratagem or logical device to destroy (the ig-
norance) Ajnaana which is born out of the relationship with the body, the
senses etc., Is it not? To this question too there is an answer: The body, the
senses etc. really do not exist. If it is properly and deeply deliberated upon,
we are in fact transacting Atman or the Self alone as the body, the senses
etc., but there is no other authentic or authoritative evidence for the body,
the senses etc. to exist separately by themselves and this truth will be known
or discerned. Either in the waking or the dream the various things are seen
as objects to the Pure Consciousness (Chaitanya) and they, being in Its
control alone, appear. But being dissociated from Pure Consciousness, any
object whatsoever independently appearing to us-we do not know at all. Just
as the Sun is illumining the whole universe, Pure Consciousness of the Self
or Atman alone is illumining the body, the senses etc. and all such
phenomena. In states like deep sleep and Samaadhi (trance) etc. the body,
the senses etc. do not exist. Therefore, the body, the senses etc. as well
as their relationship and the resultant Samsaara (transmigratory life of
repeated births and deaths) -- all these do not exist in Atman or the Self
in the ultimate analysis or in reality. (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2-4-7

13
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

Bhashya portion 361; Geeta 13-33, Bhashya portion 299; 18-50, Bhaahya
portion 556; 18-66, Bhashya portion 598).
30. It has been stated In the scriptural texts that one should meditate upon
Brahman or the Ultimate Reality; that in It (i.e.Brahman) all the Karmas
(religious duties or actions), all the desires, all the fragrances, all the tastes
and many more qualities exist. If the Jeeva who meditates Is himself Brah-
man, It amounts to saying that one should meditate upon oneself, I. It not?
Because In the Jeeva or soul no qualities whatsoever of Brahman seem to
exist, it amounts to the scriptural texts losing all their validity or credibility.
Is it not? What about this predicament? - This Is the eighth doubt.
It has been previously Itself Indicated that meditations have been stipulated
In the scriptural texts for the sake of Ignorant people who are Incapable of
deliberating upon the Self or Atman (as one's own essential nature of Pure
Being-Consciousness). and who are also desirous of various kinds of per-
ceptible and imperceptible fruits. It is very clearly stated or enunciated In the
scriptural texts that -- "That which we meditate upon is not Brahman or the
Ultimate Reality" -- and that - "Pure Consciousness (Chaitanya) alone which
objectifies the body, the senses, the mind and the intellect Is Brahman or

port of teaching the essential form of Brahman a.

the Ultimate Reality", Therefore, the scriptural texts do not have the pur-
projected or
described In the meditations; there, In those contexts, the qualities of the
adjuncts (Upaadhis) alone have been stated as the qualities of Brahman;
because all the adjuncts are superimposed on or conceived in Brahman or
the Ultimate Reality of Pure Being-Consciousness, it should be discerned
that the statement -- "They are the qualities of Brahman" -- is made Just as a
formality or for name's sake. (Sutra Bhashya 3-2-14, 15. Bhashya portion
281; Brlhadaaranyaka Upanishad 1-4-10. Bhashya portion 82).
31. It Is stated in the scriptural texts that Brahman is the cause for the birth.
the sustenance and the dissolution of the entire universe and that Brahman
is omniscient (Sarvajna) and omnipotent (Sarvashakta). The world or
universe is not born out of the Jeeva; there are so many things that are not
known to the Jeeva; there are many actions or functions which the Jeeva
cannot perform at all. This being so, Is it proper to assert that the Jeeva alone
is Brahman? -- This is the ninth doubt.
To this doubt the solution Is: The worlds that appear in the waking and In
the dream can appear only within their respective states alone: then (I.e. In
those respective states) the worlds appear to be within the control of the

14
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

Pure Consciousness of Atman or the Self alone. In deep sleep there does
not exist any world whatsoever; It gets dissolved in Atman alone. Therefore,
It is tantamount to saying that the world sprouting and spreading out,
manifests and then submerges in Atman alone. For this reason, it amounts
to saying that the power of creating all the worlds exists in Atman. Be-
cause the whole world exists as an object alone to the Pure Consciousness
of Atman, it amounts to saying that Atman is omniscient.
But even the statement to the effect that - "Brahman is the cause for the
world, II omniscient al well as omnipotent" - is made from the view-
point of Ajnaana or (ignorance) alone, but not from the viewpoint of
Reality; for. apart from Brahman no other entity exists -- this alone is the
truth. (Maandukya Upanishad 1-6, Bhashya portion 29; Sutra Bhashya 2-1-
14, Bhashya portion 434; 2-1-7, Bhashya portion 420).
32. If Brahman alone Is the real entity, it amounts to saying that those who
say that Brahman should be known do not exist separately; perception, in-
ference etc. -- all these valid means of cognition are rendered as not real
means of cognition; the religious duties or actions and meditations stipu-
lated in the scriptural texts become futile; because the disciple who studies
the Knowledge about Brahman (Brahma Vidya) or the preceptor who
teaches it are really not existing, the scriptural texts teaching Self-
Knowledge too become futile. Thus, to render the whole gamut of empirical
transactions into a big zero -- is it reasonable? -- This is the tenth doubt.
But, first of all, for the doubt of the type -- "If Brahman alone is real" --in which
an IIf' Is used. itself there is no cause or room; for. it is established on the
strength of our reasoning and experience that Brahman alone is the really
existing entity and that alone is our Atman or Se'f of the essential nature of
Pure Being-Consciousness. Perception, inference etc. -- these valid
means of cognition belong to the empirical dealings carried on within
the state of waking; they do not indicate anything whatsoever with regard
to Brahman, the Ultimate Reality. Therefore, for them there is no harm at all;
It has been stated at the beginning itself that the religious acts and medita-
tions mentioned in the scriptural texts are meant for the ignorant people who
have an innate identification of reality in actions and means of action.
(Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2-1-20, Bhashya portions 319, 324).
33. Although what is seen in the dream becomes falsified in the waking, in
the dream those things exist in reality alone. In the same manner, from the
Itandpoint of Jnaanis (Liberated or Realized souls) there is no

15
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

bondage, no Liberation, no a'plrent, no dl.clpllne, no ••eke,. of

Liberation; there I. no creation, no .u.tenance and no dl••olutlon of
the world. To signify or teach this there is no need of the scriptural text.
too. Then the scriptural texts are not scriptural texts; even 80, from the
8tandpoint of the Ignorant people all the.e exl.t In r.allty. Therefore,
whether they are religious acts or duties or scriptural texts or the knowledge
about the Self - from the empirical standpoint they do not become futile; the
emptrical dealings of valid means of cognition and the objects of cognition
also are real. (Sutra Bhashya 2-1-14, Bhashya portion 436; Maandukya
Kaarlka 2-32, Bhashya portion 113; Brlhadaaranyaka Upanishad 2-1-20.
Bhashya portion 326).
34. Both the valid means of cognition (Premaan.) and the scriptural text8
(Sha.'tre) must be treated as absolutely real and not that they are true only
from the standpoint of the Ignorant people, and to say like that Is not proper.
In ignorance can they be real or valid means of cognition? -- This 18 the
eleventh doubt.
To this the solution Is: The valid means of cognition (Pramaan.) are the
mediate Instruments to the experience which 18 real. Because the senses.
the mind etc. are such mediate Instruments of cognition they are themsel-
ves called the valid means of cognition (Pramaana). The senses are at-
tached to and accompany the body. One who does not know or identify the
body as 'I' and 'mine' cannot be a cognizer (Pramaatru). A cognizer or
Pramaatru means one who desires to use the valid means of cognition and
to know the reality of the object of cognition. But because for Atman or the
Self (of the essential nature of Pure Being-Consciousness) neither the body
nor the senses really exist, He cannot be truly (a cognizer) Pr.ma.tru. Be-
cause of the fact that unless It is surmised or conceived that Atman or the
Self of the innate nature of Pure Consciousness has relationship with the
body, the senses etc. Atman cannot become Pramaatru (8 cognizer) and
further because of the fact that unless there Is Pramaatru (a cognizer) trans-
action of using valid means of cognition Pramaana Vyavahaar. cannot take
place. the ignorance of conceiving or Imagining the relatlon.hlp of the
body, the 8.ns.s etc. I. It.elf the basic foundation for aU valid mun.
of cognition. It being so, the statement that (the valid means of cognition)
Pramaanas are real in the state of ignorance Is not a vain pronouncement.
(Adhyaasa Bhashya 5).
35. If the valid means of cognition like perception, inference etc. as well 88
the scriptural texts are given up or discarded, other means of knowing or

16
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

cognizing reality do not exist at all. Then how can the reality be known? Be-
cause even the scriptural texts, which are the valid means, are real as a result
of ignorance, the knowledge called "Brahma Vidya" or "Knowledge of Brah-
man, the Ultimate Reality", will also become ignorance alone, is It not? Then
how can that Brahma Vidya be believed to be true or proper? -- This is the
twelfth doubt.
It has been previously Itself mentioned that because Atman or the Self is
self-established, to know Him there Is no need for any kind of valid means
of cognition whatsoever. If what is not Atman or the Self is conceived to be
Atman, then the scriptural texts tell us In the manner -- "That is not Atman";
to that extent, the scriptural texts are the valid means of cognition. But be-
cause the scriptural texts teach us that the empirical transactions involving
the valid means (Pramaana) and the objects of cognition (Prameya) also are
themselves ignorance alone, once this knowledge or conviction arises even
the scriptural texts also become means which are rendered invalid. From
this there Is no harm or damage done to their validity as the right means (of
teaching the Ultimate Reality of Brahman or Atman). Thus because the
Icrlptural texts teach U8 that the empirical transaction of using the valid
means of cognition to know the objects of cognition is itself born out
of misconception, the nomenclature of "Antys Pramsana" or lithe final
valid me.n. of cognition" given to the scriptural texts suits them. (Sutra
Bhashya 2-1-14, Bhashya portion 436; Geeta 2.. 18, Bhashya portion 29;
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4-4-20).

36. Instead of calling or stating all that is seen to be false in the manner --
"Liberation, bondage are unreal; the empirical transaction of valid means of
cognition Is real only from the standpoint of Ajnaana (ignorance); the scrip-
tural texts too are valid means from the standpoint of ignorance alone II - -

Is not the argument of saying -- "Perception, inference etc. are real; the
scriptural texts too are the valid means; bondage, liberation etc. are real; if
Jeevas or souls adopt the practices or disciplines as stipulated in the scrip-
tural texts and gets rid of bondage they attain Liberation which is real" -- it-
self better? .... This is the thirteenth doubt.
If bondage Is real, that can never be removed by Knowledge. Whatever
practice or discipline it may be, it can obtain a fruit which is attainable
(Praapya Phala) only, but it cannot destroy a real entity or thing. Nor
can it transform or change the essential nature of being (Paramaartha
Swaroopa) of a substance or an object. Nor can it make or produce that

17
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

which's obtained afresh or anew as eternl. allo. If this fact Is kept In

mind the innate identification or misconception that 'bondage must be real'
will vanish into the thin air. (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4-4-6).
37. The argument or theory that - IIBondage which II reI I Is to be cut
asunder and Liberation is to be attained afreshu - cannot be sustained.
For, apart from Paramaatman (the Supreme Self) a separate Jeeva or soul
who is in the clutches of bondage does not exist at all. If it Is contended that
Jeeva is now really in bondage and thereafter attains the nature or state of
Liberation, it will amount to saying that the Liberation got afresh will be non-
eternal. It should not also be understood that after a particular refinement
or purification of Atman or the Self, Liberation is attained. For, to bring about
a good quality and to remove a blemish or fault goes by the name of
'Samskaara' (refinement). But there is no quality whatsoever which does
not exist in Atman and which exists apart from Him; in Atman (of the essen-
tial nature of Pure Being-Consciousness) there does not at all exist any
blemish or impurity whatsoever. Therefore, to say that - 'By virtue of
Samskaara (refinement or purification) Liberation is attained' -Is not proper.
Even to think that Brahman exists in a particular place and we can attain It
by going there is wrong only; for. as Brahman is all-pervading there is no
question of attaining It afresh. (Sutra Bhashya 1-1-4, Bhashya portion 49;
Geeta 18-66.Bhashya portion 585; Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4-4-6).
38. Even if it is maintained or insisted upon that Liberation (Moaksha) Is not
attained through any practice or discipline, it has to be necessarily or In-
variably accepted that only after the attainment of Jnaana or Self-Knowledge
this Liberation is attained. Therefore, it amounts to saying that Liberation i8
the effect of (the cause of)Jnaana (Knowledge) alone. If all effects are non-
eternal, then Liberation which is the effect of Jnaana also will have to be-
come non-eternal, is it not? -- This is the fifteenth doubt.
Liberation (Moaksha) il not caused by Jnaana (Self-Knowledge); al-
ready (ever) existing Liberation Itself Is known through Jnaana (Self-
Knowledge). Proper or correct knowledge means the knowledge that
signifies an eXisting entity alone, and not the one having the power or
capacity of creating what is not existent. Therefore, becaule Liberation
(Moaksha), being ever-existing, Is known or cognized through Jnaana
(Self.knowledge), it should be understood that the statement to the .f-
fect - IILiberation is the effect of Self-Knowledge" - ie made as • for-
mality or for name's sake alone. (Maandukya Upanishad 7, Bhashya

18
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

portion 39; Sutra Bhashya 1-4-4, Bhashya portion 47; Brihadaaranyaka

Upanishad 3-3-1).
39. If apart from Atman or the Self there is no separate Brahman, then it
amounts to saying that Brahman Himself is a Samsaaree (transmigratory
soul) t What about this predicament? -- This is the sixteenth doubt.
The fact that Samsaara (transmigratory state of repeated births and
deaths) does not exist to anyone -- this alone is the real philosophical
teaching. Because it has been substantiated, by following (everyone's) ex-
perience, that Atman or the Self of the essential nature of Pure Being-Con-
sciousness Is Brahman Itself, I.e. the Ultimate Reality, and that in Him there
does not exist any Samsaara whatsoever, it will never be proper to say that
Brahman is a 'Samsaaree'. Therefore, to say that '5amsaara exists' is itself
Ajnaana (ignorance). (Sutra Bhashya 1-2-8, Bhashya portion 162; Geeta 13-
2, Bhashya portion 217).
40. In that case, because Atman has to have Ajnaana (ignorance), it amounts
to saying that Brahman has Ajnaana, is it not? By knowing Brahman who
has Ajnaana (ignorance), what benefit or purpose on earth are we to attain?
-- This is the seventeenth doubt.
To this doubt the solution is: Atman or the Self knows Avidya (ignorance) by
making It an object to His Jnaana (Pure Consciousness); therefore, it
amounts,to saying that Ajnaana (ignorance) is different from Atman or the
Self indeed, and not that it, i.e. Ajnaana, is (an inherent quality) Dharma of
Atman. Can it be said that in one who knows an earthen pot, the qualities of
that earthen pot exist? It should not be said like that. In the same manner,
Avidya, 'I' notion, intellect, mind etc. -- all these are called 'Anaatman' or not-
self; they are not Atman at all. In Pure Consciousness (Chaitanya) which
Is of the essential nature of Pure Being of Atman there does not exist
any Avidya (ignorance) whatsoever. Sushupti (deep sleep), Samaadhi
(trance) etc. -- by means of these experiences this essential nature of Pure
Being can be cognized or Intuited. This fact has been previously mentioned
too. (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4-4-6; Geeta 13-2, Bhashya portion 218).
41. In that case, it amounts to saying -- "No one has Ajnaana (ignorance)"
and "No one has Samsaara too" -- is it not? Then, what purpose can be
served by the scriptural texts at all? -- This is eighteenth doubt.
After it is known that no one has either Ajnaana (ignorance),Samsaara
(the transmigratory state of repeated births and deaths) and that Atman

19
 A Broad Outtine of Vedanta

'1
or the Self of the e••ential nature of Nltya (eternal existence), Shud-
dha (pure existence), Buddha (omnilcience), Muktl (liberated etate).
there is no other purpose whatsoever remaining to be lerved by the
scriptural texts at all. Only for those who do not know this truth the scrip-
tural texts are needed. (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1-4-10, Bhashya por-
tion 154; Sutra Bhashya 4-1-3, Bhashya portion 510).
42. What benefit can be achieved from such Brahma Vldya (the Knowledge
of Brahman)? Even those who are called 'Brahma Jnaanll' (Knowers of
Brahman) are also, just like all others only, live as Samlaare.s alone, Is It
not? -- This is the nineteenth doubt.
To say that -- liThe Jnaani or Realized Soul or Knower of Atman, who has In-
tuitively known that Brahman Itself which is of the essential nature of eter-
nally pure, omniscient and liberated state is His own Self also knows that he
is a Samlaaree (a transmigratory soul) who performs a Karma (action) and
enjoys its fruit" -- is a ridiculous statement. For, the person who has the mis-
conception that the body, the senses etc. are himself alone suffers from the
onslaught of miseries or calamities, one after another, like - (I) the desire
that his body, the senses etc. should be healthy and comfortable: (U) the
hatred towards things which are inconvenient or uncomfortable to them: (iii)
the fear that the body, the senses etc. may get destroyed or they may meet
with some danger or harm; (iv) the attachment that somehow or other those
should be protected. This is a fact known to all Samsaareel. In fact, the
group of these miseries or calamities alone goes by the name of Samsaara.
But for one who has known that the body, the senses etc. are not his Self,
that they do not exist at all in reality and that his essential nature of Pure
Being is eternal, is pure, is of the essential nature OT Pure Consciousness, Is
devoid of any bondage whatsoever -- if it is said that to such a Jnaani there
exists Samsaara as described above -- can it be accepted? Therefore, the
disappearance or mitigation of all kinds of calamities is one benefit ac-
cruing from Brahma Vidya (Knowledge of Brahman), the Ultimate
Reality. To one who is a Jnaani (a Realized Soul) there does not exist any-
thing whatsoever that is to be obtained for his own sake; nor does there exist
anything whatsoever that is to be discarded or given up. By this he .. unlike
others, is not afraid of anything and remains peaceful. This supreme peace
is another benefit accruing from Brahman Vidya. (Sutra Bhashya 1-1-4;
Bhashya portion 57; Geeta 3-17, Bhashya portion 174; 3-18, Bhashya por-
tion 175).

20
 A Broad Outline of Vedanta

43. This Brahma Jnaana (knowledge of Brahman) is not attained by all

people. Is it not? If this alone is the real Knowledge. why does it not appear
so invariably to all people? Why are the people discussing about this topic?
-- This is the twentieth doubt.
It is true that this Knowledge does not accrue to all the people. For this, their
not aspiring to attain It as a necessity alone is the cause. Giving up false
pride; practising spiritual disciplines like Shama (control over the
mind), Dama (control over the senses), Uparati (introverted mind), Titik-
sha (tolerance irrespective of pleasure or pain), Shraddha (one-pointed
dedication) and Samaadhaana (equipoise or tranquillity); as stated in
the Vedantic texts, acquiring the guidance of preceptors or Gurus who
Ire Brahma Nishthas (those who are established in the Ultimate Reality
of Brahman), jf one discriminates about that instruction alone then
surely the knowledge of Brahman or Atman is attained. (Sutra Bhashya
1-1-1. Bhashya portion 13; Geeta 2-21, Bhashya portion 40; 18-50, Bhashya
portion 557).
44. Just as by Brahma Jnaana our empirical knowledge is reckoned to be
wrong, why should it not be reckoned that by means of another knowledge
stronger than Brahma Jnaana (Self-Knowledge) the latter is also reckoned
to be wrong alone? How can it be determined that this alone is the correct
or proper Knowledge? -- This is the twenty-first doubt.
"Atman alone is the Absolute Reality" -- this alone is Brahma Jnaana. Be-
cause once the Brahma Jnaana (Self-Knowledge) is attained there does
not exist a second thing or entity at all which can destroy It, for the
doubt that - "There may be a second knowledge that can arise which
will falsify Brahma Jnaana" - there is no scope at all. This alone, i.e. Brah-
ma Jnaana, is the final Knowledge. Beyond this neither doubt nor percep-
tual knowledge (Pramaana Jnaana) arise. (Maandukya Kaarika 1-18,
Bhashya portion 57; Sutra Bhashya 2-1-14, Bhashya portion 438).
45. All the protagonists of various schools of philosophy are showing by
using various types of reasoning or strategies that their respective teach
ings or doctrines alone are proper; they are exemplifying the scriptural state-
ments. It being so, how can it be said that those philosophical teachings are
not proper? - This is the last twenty-second doubt.
Many things which the remaining schools of philosophy propound are mere
conceptions without the support of any reasoning and valid means. People
have merely to believe those philosophers alone, but it is not possible for

21
their teachings to be established to be within anybody's experience In this
world. Because those philosophers are saying that (the Emancipation or
Liberation) Muktl or Moaksha, which they are propounding to be the
supreme benefit, Is one which will accrue In distant time and In a wortd
beyond after people die - even that aspect also Is to be believed alone and
not that It is possible to be experienced here and now. It Is true that some
among the things that they say are likely to be within the ken of experience;
but they are likely to appear only if the experience of the waking state, which
Is one part of everyone's totality of experience (i.e. all the three states). I.
taken into the reckoning. Vedanta Philosophy which propounds the essen-
tial nature of Pure Being of Brahmaatman Is not like that. Vedanta Philosophy
teaches that here itself as soon as Jnaana (Self-Knowledge) Is attained (the
materialization) Saakshaatkaara or Intuitive experience of the essential na-
ture of Pure Being-Consciousness of Atman or the Self accrues. The Sld-
dhaanta or Phil080phica' Truth which .1 •
matter that can be
experienced now only which this school of philolophy hal undertaken
to propound can be experienced (Intuited) by all. Taking into account all
the experiences here like waking. dream and deep sleep and examining
them, one can cognize or Intuit as to which that entity which Is absolute and
real is. This is not opposed to any reasoning or strategem or any philosophi-
cal text Thus in the Vedantic philosophy there Is a greatness much more
than in all other schools of philosophy. (Sutra Bhashya 1-1-4, Bhashya por-
tion 216; Maandukya Kaarika 4-2, Bhashya portion 54).
46. Because this Brahma Vidya (Knowledge of Brahman) Is thus a
Knowledge which has greater benefits than all other knowledges. JIJnaasus
or aspirants. seekers who are wise and desirous of Liberation look upon this
alone with veneration. By mean8 of thil Knowledge If the e.sential na-
ture of Pure Being of Brahmaatman i8 cognized or Intuited, then (I) an
doubts are dissolved; (Ii) the impediment of delir.s which Is caused by
milconceptions lurking In one'. heart glv.s up Its hold or sway; (III)
whether to obtain anything whatsoever or whether to avoid anything
whatsoever - there do not exilt any functlonl or actions whatsoever to
be performed once again. (Mundaka Upanishad 2-2-9, Bhashya portion 83;
Mundaka Upanishad 3-2-9, Bhashya portion 123).

OM TAT SAT