18.97–98
In the waking and dream states, there are experiences respectively of the external world and the internal world. This proves the existence of consciousness in these two states. In deep sleep, however, there is blankness. From this, one inference could be that consciousness does not exist during deep sleep. Another inference is that consciousness does exist, but there is nothing to experience.
In such a situation, when reason and experience are inconclusive, Sruti is the pramaṇa. Sruti (Br. Up. 4.3.9) discriminates between Consciousness (pure consciousness), the knowing principle, and mental modifications, that is, experiences. Consciousness is self-luminous, which means that its illuminating power never ceases (Br. Up. 4.3.23). In deep sleep, there is apparently no experience because the mind is dormant and there are no mental modifications to be illumined. As a result, there is the experience of nothingness which proves the existence of Consciousness.
18.99–101
As shown above, Consciousness is immutable and never ceases. This knowledge by itself is not the goal, for it does not ensure liberation. Some further knowledge is required. When a seeker becomes convinced, on the authority of the teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA), that his true nature is Consciousness, ignorance is removed and liberation is actualized. Nothing further, by way of action, is required.
It is like the case of Rama, who realized that he was an incarnation of Vishnu when he was so informed by Brahmaji.
18.102–106
In Part 27, a purva-pakṣa (Prasaṃkhyavadin) was introduced who maintained that merely hearing the teaching of Tat Tvam Asi from a teacher is not sufficient for liberation. It should be followed by actions such as repetition or meditation.
In these verses, Sri Shankara refutes this purva-pakṣa. He says that the injunction of actions would have been necessary if hearing did not produce right knowledge. But this is not the case. Hearing does produce knowledge, and that knowledge removes a seeker’s ignorance regarding his true nature and his identity with Brahman.
If the meanings of the words Tvam and Tat are clearly understood, right knowledge arises. Tat means Consciousness and Thou means Existence. Consciousness and Existence are two aspects of the same reality, thereby establishing their identity. The word Asi indicates that this knowledge is a fact. It existed in the past, exists in the present, and will continue to exist in the future. Indeed, it exists even before the commencement of teaching.
18.107 to 18.114 Sri Shankara answers the question, namely, ‘who is the hearer?’ See Part 31.
18.115-117 Sri Shankara replies to the opponent who does not accept the reflection theory. See Part 31
18.118–122
In these verses, the Self is shown to be distinct from the mind by demonstrating that, although there is an external world, its experience consists only of mental modifications like saying so in 18.117 about a dream.
In the waking state, the sense organs come into contact with their respective objects. Since the organs are connected to the mind, modifications arise in the mind conforming to those objects. The reflected consciousness illumines these modifications, resulting in the cognition of the sense objects.
Because the object is the cause of desire and prompts action (karya), grammarians call it karma (object). The mind, which is the instrument by which the object is known, is called karaṇa (instrument). The ego, which is the mind associated with reflected consciousness, is called the knower or the agent of action.
One consciousness, through its reflection, illumines the mind. The mental modifications differ according to the objects perceived. These modifications may give rise to valid, erroneous, or doubtful cognition, but all of them borrow their existence from the same source, namely, the Self.
Sri Shankara says:
“Just as in the case of (the colours taken on by) a crystal all distinctions arise from distinctions in the adjuncts (upadhi) with which it is associated, so in the case of consciousness all impurity and modification is grounded in the mental modifications.”
— The Thousand Teachings of Shankara: Upadesahasri translated by A. J. Alston
Finally, one who knows the Self as distinct from the mind, its modifications, and the cognitions arising from them is the true knower.
18.123
Mental modifications, such as manifestation, apprehension, and existence, are cognized. This establishes the existence of the Self, which is different from the empirical cognitions and because of which they are known. The metaphor of a lamp illuminating different objects is apt. The existence of the lamp is inferred from the fact that objects are visible. Similarly, the manifestation of empirical cognitions points to the existence of the witnessing-consciousness (Self) that illumines them. In this sense, the Self is established by positive evidence. In the following verses, Sri Shankara refutes the doctrine that the Self can be established by negative evidence alone.
18.124–127
An opponent is introduced who asks how the teacher imparts the knowledge of the Self to an ignorant person. Does he employ a pramaṇa, or does he merely use the method of “not this, not this” (neti neti)?
Sri Shankara clarifies that the mere use of neti neti is not sufficient, for it would result in a void. If I say, “not a table,” “not a fruit,” and so on, I am left with nothing. For the method of neti neti to lead to consciousness, there must be a prior familiarity with consciousness.
The opponent then advances another argument: consciousness is self-evident, as in the statement, “I am conscious.” Sri Shankara replies that this too proceeds by negation, namely, “I am not the body.” A Buddhist also knows himself to be a conscious being, but he does not accept Consciousness because he rejects scriptural authority. He lacks the knowledge that Consciousness is an independent entity, that it is the witnessing consciousness, and that it is the real “I,” the Self. Scripture is the only means of knowledge for understanding Consciousness.
18.128–132
The opponent now appeals to memory and says, “I saw this.” He claims that the knower, the knowledge, and the object are simultaneously known and that, therefore, no separate Witness is necessary.
Sri Shankara rejects this theory of simultaneity. He cautions that memory may be deceptive. Memory presupposes an earlier experience, namely, “I saw this.” This experience comprises three cognitions: the cognition of the knower, the cognition of the process of knowing, and the cognition of the object. Each cognition requires a distinct triad of knower, knowledge, and object. As they occur in rapid succession, they appear simultaneous in memory.
Further analysis shows that the statement “I saw this” involves mutual dependence: “I” depends on “this,” and “this” depends on “I.” It is therefore relational. Relational knowledge has distinct components, and distinct components cannot be strictly simultaneous.
The theory of simultaneity implies that each factor knows itself as well as the other two. This is impossible because when the knower is engaged in perceiving itself, it is not available at the same time to perceive either the act of knowing or the object of knowledge.
There is also the defect of infinite regress. Suppose the knower (the ego) says, “I reveal myself.” The question immediately arises: who knows this self-revelation? The same question then arises with respect to that knower, and so on indefinitely. To avoid this infinite regress, the process must terminate in a self-luminous Witness that reveals all other entities without itself requiring another revealer.
Sri Shankara employs a grammatical argument to reinforce his position. An object is that which an agent strives to attain. Thus, objecthood belongs entirely to the empirical field consisting of agent, action, and object. The Witness is beyond this triad. It merely illumines it.
Contd