18.201–18.206
The opponent argues that liberation is not realized simply by knowing the meaning of TTA, just as boiled milk-rice cannot be produced from cow dung. Knowing about food is not the same as eating it.
Shankaracharya clarifies that indirect knowledge is produced by understanding sentences regarding the non-Self. However, in the case of the Self, knowledge is immediate, as illustrated by the story of the tenth man.
The opponent argues further that what is conditionally evident cannot be self-evident. If the knowledge of the Self depends on knowing the meaning of TTA, how can Advaita claim that the Self is self-evident?
Shankaracharya maintains that the Self is self-luminous. TTA does not reveal the Self; strictly speaking, the Self reveals TTA. The sentence TTA removes ignorance regarding the ego. When the ego is negated, Self-realization occurs. This is figuratively called the immediate knowledge of the Self.
The illustration of digging a well is apt here. When layers of soil are removed, water eventually appears. This process is figuratively called “digging a well.”
The ego is the instrument of cognition. It is negated, but it does not completely disappear. It is the ego that, on behalf of the Self, claims, “I am Brahman.” This is a figurative expression meaning “the Self knows Itself.” The Self remains free from action and is unchanging.
18.207–18.210
Liberation is the true nature of man, and it is eternal. If it were brought about by an external process, it would be transitory. Vedanta does not grant liberation; it merely removes ignorance about a person’s true nature. The fact is that he was Brahman in the past, is Brahman right now, and will remain so in the time to come.
Repetition of the idea “I am Brahman” would only be necessary if there were differences between the Self and Brahman. Moreover, requiring repetition would mean that TTA does not produce knowledge.
“Knowing that one is eternally existing Liberation, one who desires to perform actions is a man of clouded intellect and nullifies the scriptures.” (Translation by Swami Jagadananda, Advaita Ashrama).
In worldly life, certain duties are cast upon a person. The performance of duties requires the ego, which acts as the agent of action. In the case of a knower of Brahman (jnani), the ego stands negated. Therefore, a knower of Brahman has no duties to perform, nor can a man truly be a knower of Brahman if he entertains the idea of fulfilling worldly duties. One only deceives oneself by trying to cling to both sides.
18.211–18.213
These verses relate to the Purva Paksha (the opponent), who holds that action is necessary to realize ultimate reality. He argues that because a person experiences suffering, he naturally wants to get rid of it. Therefore, the scriptures treat him as an active agent and enjoin duties upon him to help him realize reality. The opponent also claims that the scriptures prescribe sannyasa specifically for the sake of repetition and continuous meditation.
18.214–18.232
These verses systematically refute the Purva Paksha position:
1. The Dilemma of Action: There are only two possibilities: action (like the repetition or meditation) is required either before knowing the meaning of TTA or after knowing it. There is no possibility of such action before knowing TTA, as the practice would be blind. Conversely, once the agency of the ego is negated by knowing TTA, no performer remains to undertake action after knowing it. Furthermore, repetition or meditation itself is not an independent means of ultimate knowledge.
2. Immediate vs. Mediate Knowledge: The opponent may argue that while understanding TTA gives knowledge, that knowledge is not immediate. He might argue that tasting sugar is different from merely knowing that sugar is sweet. The reply to this is that the distinction between immediate and mediate knowledge applies only to the non-Self, not to the Self. Regarding the Self, there is either immediate ignorance or immediate knowledge. TTA removes immediate ignorance, resulting instantly in immediate knowledge. Understanding TTA is realization. There is no time gap, unlike the step-by-step experience of external objects like sugar.
3. Fact vs. Commandment: TTA is a statement of fact, not a commandment. “Ram is a king” is a fact; “drink water” is a commandment. A single statement cannot be both. One learns from a statement of fact simply by understanding its words. A commandment, however, only works when its words and parameters are already known. Furthermore, choice exists in a commandment—one may or may not choose to drink water. There is no choice in a statement of fact; a student has no choice regarding the objective truth the teacher reveals. A commandment requires an action to be fulfilled, whereas a fact requires no action. Because TTA is a statement of fact, it demands no action. Scripture removes ignorance about the Self; it does not command one to undertake any action.
The opponent is still not fully convinced by these refutations because he claims that he continues to suffer in daily life despite knowing “I am Brahman.” Shankaracharya acknowledges this psychological reality but asserts that the remedy is never action. He replies:
• Incontrovertible Truth: The true knowledge, “I am the Absolute,” is not contradicted by the lingering notions of “I am an agent,” “I have desires,” or “I am in bondage.” “I am Brahman” is based on the scriptures, which are a valid and incontrovertible means of knowledge (Pramana). Instead of doubting the scripture, the personal experience of suffering itself should be challenged.
• The Meaning of “I”: In the statement “I am Brahman,” the “I” refers strictly to Pure Consciousness, not to the Mind-Body System (MBS). Consciousness is distinct from the MBS. The MBS is mithya, and therefore, the happiness and sadness belonging to it are also mithya
• Localization of Pain: Sufferings like anxiety and bodily pain belong exclusively to the MBS and never to Pure Consciousness.”Pain is a property belonging to the intellect. How can it, therefore, belong to the Innermost Self which is of the nature of Pure Consciousness and not connected with pain?” (Translation by Swami Jagadananda, Advaita Ashrama)
Hunger and other physical or mental sensations belong to the mind and body, not to the Self.
• The Role of Prarabdha: Contrary thoughts, such as “I am sad” or “I am in pain,” may continue to arise due to Prarabdha Karma (past actions bearing fruit in this life), which affects the physical vehicle.
• The Teacher’s Purpose: The student approaches a teacher to resolve his suffering. Through TTA, the teacher teaches that the student’s true nature is Consciousness, which is neither a doer nor an enjoyer, and thus cannot suffer. Vedanta does not claim that the non-Self (MBS) is free from pain. To alleviate the suffering of the MBS, other conventional or medical methods exist, which one can use to improve bodily health. Consciousness itself requires no improvement, nor is it possible to alter it.
• The Bottom Line: Whenever contrary thoughts arise, they must be intellectually challenged, relocated to their proper place (the MBS), and negated as mithya.
• The True Purpose of Sannyasa: Regarding the argument that sannyasa is meant for continuous repetition and meditation, Shankaracharya replies:
“One who has once with effort attained to a place of safety from a place of danger, or who is struggling to do so, does not wish to return to that place of danger if he is free in the matter.” (Translation by A. J. Alston).
There are two types of sannyasa. A seeker chooses vividisha sannyasa (renunciation to gain knowledge) because it helps him pursue knowledge if he faces obstacles as a householder. If a seeker can successfully pursue knowledge as a householder, he may choose not to take it. On the other hand, an enlightened knower chooses vidvat sannyasa (renunciation of the wise) for nididhyasana (contemplation on the truth). Therefore, sannyasa is not meant for mechanical repetition.
• Freedom from Misconduct: Shankaracharya refutes the argument that mechanical repetition is required to prevent a sannyasi from misconduct. Having chosen sannyasa, he does not return to worldly life as his sole goal is liberation and has completely lost interest in worldly pursuits. Shankaracharya rules out the possibility of misconduct using an analogy: Imagine a cup of poison placed in front of two persons, and both know that it is lethal. One person is starving, while the other has just finished a hearty meal. Neither will drink the poison. The hungry person will not drink because he knows that drinking is fatal. The other person will not drink because he has no hunger to consume anything.
18.233
Shankaracharya concludes the chapter by paying deeply respectful obeisance to his teacher, who is a true knower and has gathered the sweet nectar of knowledge from the Upanishads, just as a bee beautifully collects honey from flowers.
The Chapter 18 is concluded.
Contd