Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind
19.07 An ignorant mind believes that it can improve the status of I, the Atma. The wise person knows that the mind can neither improve Atma nor is there any need for such improvement, for Atma is already complete. Any improvement that occurs in time is destined to disappear with time. Therefore, every improvement in the mind, or brought about by the mind, is mithya. How can a mithya mind improve the real Atma? Therefore, Atma tells the mind to remain quiet and attend to its own welfare. Atma is self-effulgent. It requires no external support, including that of the mind, to shine. Rather, it is the mind that is illumined by Atma.
19.08 Bhagavad Gita 2.16 teaches that what changes is never permanent and the Real is immutable. A Self-realized person understands both these facts. Change and time are two sides of the same coin. All worldly objects, including the mind, undergo change with time. Time eventually consumes everything. Atma, whose nature is consciousness, alone is eternal and changeless. It alone is Reality, beyond time, space, and causation.
An object coming within the range of a sense organ produces a modification in the mind, giving rise to a thought. When that thought is illumined by Atma, perception takes place. An inert mind cannot perceive anything. It is only in the presence of Atma that the mind functions and enjoys perception. Therefore, Atma advises the mind to acknowledge that its sentiency is borrowed from Atma.
19.09 and 19.10 Non-dual Atma, whose nature is pure consciousness, is free from the triad of seer, seen, and seeing. This triad is created by the mind and is superimposed upon Atma.
The one Atma pervades the three states of experience—waking, dream, and deep sleep. Atma is changeless and alone is Reality. All other entities, including the mind, are mithya.
There is no real relationship between Real and mithya. Their apparent relationship exists only because of ignorance. When ignorance is removed through knowledge, Atma alone remains, self-effulgent and non-dual.
19.11 Some philosophical schools hold that each mind-body system has a distinct Atma and that there are many Atmas. This view is not acceptable. If there were many Atmas, each would limit the others, making Atma finite and therefore subject to destruction. If all Atmas were to perish, creation itself would cease. According to Advaita, however, creation is beginningless (anadi) from the empirical standpoint. Hence, the theory of many Atmas cannot be correct.
19.12 Atma wants the mind to recognize its mischief in creating two powerful misconceptions, namely, ahamkara and mamakara, because of which samsara continues endlessly. Through ahamkara, I identify myself with others, and through mamakara, I identify others as belonging to me. The truth is that I have no relationships, because there is no second entity of My order of reality. Relationships exist only at the level of the mind for the purpose of worldly transactions. I am the substratum of mithya. I am not a superimposition, because I, the Subject, exist prior to all superimpositions.
19.13 and 19.14 The fact that Atma cannot be seen is no proof of Its non-existence. I cannot see My Atma because I am Atma just like eyes cannot see the eyes. Others also cannot see My Atma because there is only one Atma. The mind’s debate about whether Atma exists or does not exist is a non-starter. The mind itself is a product of creation and is mithya. It is like a child questioning the existence of his father. Atma is the substratum that exists even before the appearance of the debating mind and continues to exist after the mind is resolved when creation dissolves. The mind can analyse everything except the existence of Atma, upon which the mind itself depends.
Whatever is experienced is mithya. Atma is beyond experience and alone is Real. Even mystical experiences are mithya. This is the death knell of the commonly held belief that reality and experience are identical.
All controversies must ultimately be resolved into that which is finally existent. Consider the example of an enquiry. Before the enquiry, there are opposing views and counterviews. They are eventually resolved into a verdict, which represents the truth, the substratum. Likewise, the debate concerning existence and non-existence is finally resolved in the substratum, namely, Atma.
19.15 Shankaracharya refutes the theory of emptiness (Sunyavad). The very debate about whether the perceived world of duality is empty or non-existent presupposes the existence of something that makes such a debate possible. Without an underlying reality, the debate itself could never arise.
19.16 to 19.18 The proponent of the theory of emptiness had earlier argued that everything is empty and unreal. This view has already been rejected because every unreal entity requires a real substratum. He now argues that the real substratum is as good as non-existent because it cannot engage in transactions and is therefore useless. Shankaracharya replies that lack of utility does not imply non-existence. Conversely, utility is not a proof of existence. It is an oversimplification to dismiss Atma as useless. Through the power of maya, Atma is the basis of the creation, which undoubtedly serves practical purposes. Scripture also declares that after the world of duality has been negated, Atma alone remains.
Atma belongs to a higher order of reality than creation. Although the screen is not a part of the movie, its usefulness is beyond question. Likewise, Reality is the very subject of enquiry and therefore serves the highest purpose. Atma, the witness, is the substratum of creation. It exists independently of, and prior to, creation.
CONTD