Verse 1 of Drk Drsya Vivek (DDV) is translated by Swami Nikhilananda:
“The form is perceived and the eye is its perceiver. It (eye) is perceived and the mind is its perceiver. The mind with Its modifications is perceived and the Witness (the Self) is verily the perceiver. But It (the Witness) is not perceived (by any other).”
Analysis
A seeker understands on the basis of experience that the sense organ is the perceiver of the perceived sense object. On the same basis, it is accepted that the mind is the perceiver and the sense organ is perceived. The two levels of perceiver and perceived are validated by experience. In the third level, the verse says that the Self is the perceiver of the perceived mind and there is no perceiver of the Self. Is this based on experience or reason, or a combination of both?
Pure Consciousness (PC) is the other name for Self. As PC is beyond the realm of experience, it would mean that the third level is to be understood intellectually only. However, a seeker could (rightly) say: I experience the thoughts, i.e., modifications of the mind and therefore the third level is also validated by experience. A little probing would expose the fallacy. Who is ‘I’? It is not PC, it is ego, the conscious mind, the locus of I thought. Thus, in the third level, the ego is the perceiver of perceived modifications of the mind. As the mind is inert and the ego is sentient, reason tells us that its sentiency must have its source outside the inert mind and body complex. The source is PC. And it is to be (only) intellectually understood that PC is the perceiver of the perceived ego and there is no perceiver of PC. It is the fourth level. Please note that in this, ego is perceived.
A guess: The fourth level is merged with the third level ( treating mind and ego as the same) in the verse for the sake of brevity and/or to conform to the requirement of a verse or for a commentator to do the separation.

There are basic human needs for survival: food, clothing, and dwelling. A commoner would be content if these needs are reasonably fulfilled. Any other material thing is a luxury. An item is considered a luxury if a person is not emotionally affected by its absence. As time passes and technology advances resulting in the availability of more and more sensory objects, human desire increases, and the scope of needs widens. Gradually a luxury becomes a need. It is material progress and is perceived as growth and prosperity. Think about the reverse effort. Can a person who has gained more than enough material progress convert a need (other than the basic needs in a reasonable measure) into a luxury? Is it possible and can s/he be successful? The answer is yes. It would require, on his or her part, increasing control over sense organs and the mind. It is the beginning of the spiritual journey.

There are four ashramas(stages) of human life according to Vedic tradition. They are brahmacharya (student life), grihastha(householder), vAnaprastha(gradual withdrawal from family), and sannyAsa ( renunciation). They are compatible with four purushArthas (human goals): artha(wealth), kama(desires), dharma (morality and ethics), and moksha (liberation). Moksha is the ultimate goal. It has two aspects, namely, freedom from suffering in the present life and freedom from rebirth. Two important spiritual sAdhanAs(disciplines) for moksha are karma yoga and jnAna yoga. As the name suggests, karma yoga is action-oriented and jnAna yoga is knowledge-oriented. For the purpose of simplicity, karma yoga is taken to include all action-based disciplines, e.g., rituals and upAsanA (meditation). Brahmacharya is preparatory to grihastha and vAnaprastha is preparatory to sannyAsa. Accordingly, grihastha is taken to include brahmacharya and sannyAsa includes vAnaprastha. Thus, there are broadly two lifestyles: grihastha and sannyAsa, and two sAdhanAs: karma yoga and jnAna yoga. Sri Krishna praises both karma and jnAna in Bhagavat Gita (BG)
Continue reading →

Mahabharata is a famous epic describing diverse aspects of human life, like family and its intrigues, kingship, loyalty, friendship, dharma, war, Vedantic teaching, etc. Bhagavat Gita is in the 12^th Book named Bhisma Parva because Bhisma is the commander of the Kauravas army during this part. 18 chapters of BG are chapters 23 to 40 of Bhisma Parva.  BG is a moksha shastra and a student of Vedanta should have read and understood Bhagavat Gita fairly well.  Surprisingly, there are other portions of Mahabharata that too have Vedantic teaching.  Mokshadharma Parva as the title suggests has Vedantic messages. It is a conversation between Yudhishthira and Bhisma.

After the Mahabharata war is over, Bhisma is lying on the bed of arrows awaiting his death to come at a time chosen by him. Yudhishthira is the new king but is depressed due to the destruction caused by the war. At the behest of Sri Krishna, he visits Bhisma to get instructions on various topics. Bhisma, though lying on the bed of arrows, is willing to answer Yudhishthira’s questions. He does so mainly through stories. One such story in Mokshadharma parva relates to the teaching given by a son to his father. Continue reading →

Advaita means non-dual. Advaita Vedanta (AV) asserts that Brahman alone is; there is no creation and that the world is a manifestation of Brahman. For a beginner seeker, like me, it is difficult to accept this assertion because the world is perceived and experienced. It constantly stares at me announcing its existence and reality. AV uses a gold-ornament metaphor to make its point. Ornament is a manifestation (name and form) of gold because there is no ornament separate from gold. To this, a counter poser would be that in the gold-ornament example both gold and ornament are material things and are perceived whereas the world is perceived and Brahman is not perceived. Secondly, how can the material world be a manifestation of immaterial Brahman?

It seems to me that the confusion is due to the term ‘manifestation’ as there is a tendency to perceive both ‘manifestation’ and the ‘thing’ that is manifested. It is preferable to explain the matter in terms of order of reality. Brahman is the highest order of reality; creation, though it exists, is a lower order reality borrowing its existence from Brahman. And in this sense only it is said that Brahman alone is; there is no creation, and that it is a manifestation. With this explanation, the metaphor is more illustrative. The existence of the world is not denied, instead, it is mithya. Idealism (i.e., creation is a manufacture of mind) has no place in AV.

Theorem:  I am  awareness.  Proof: In plane geometry there are a few axioms, e. g., a point has no dimensions; a straight line has no width and is infinite. They are axioms because they are obvious and taken as proved. The axioms are necessary to prove geometrical theorems. In the same manner, there are three axioms, namely, (1) I am different from what I am or can be aware of, (2) I can be aware of what I am not, and (3) awareness is different from object of awareness.They are obvious and do not need any proof. Call them vedantic axioms in the present context. Now let us try to find out the things which I am aware of. It is simple to accept that I am aware of objects in the world outside. For example, I am aware of tree and building. Therefore I am not the tree or the building. What about my body? It is also true the I am aware of different parts of the body and the complete body. I am aware of eyes, ears, etc. Thus I am not the  body including the sense organs. What about the mind? Mind in simple terms is where thoughts  arise or which gives rise to them. Thoughts are in the form of ideas, emotions, memory, feeling, etc. My experience is that I am aware of my thoughts. It would follow that I am not the mind. To understand this fact is a crucial step.I am aware of all the worldly objects including my mind and body. Therefore, I am different from them by application of axiom (1).  After excluding/ negating the worldly objects, the mind and the body, two entities are left, namely, I (negator) and  awareness. It is another important step. As this awareness is without any object, it is  pure awareness. Now analyse the validity of statement, ‘I am aware of awareness’. It is not valid because vide axiom (3) it would mean that awareness is different from awareness, an absurdity. Thus I cannot be aware of awareness. By virtue of axiom (2) it leads to the conclusion that I am not different from awareness. In other words, I am awareness.