Aparokshānubhuti- Selected Verses

PART 11

DISCRIMINATION

Of the Nature of the Illuminator

22                                                                   The luminosity of Atman consists in the

                                                       manifestation of objects. Its luminosity

                                                        is not like that of fire or other such

                                                         lights, for in spite of the presence

                                                          of such lights, darkness prevails.

This verse serves to elaborate on the nature of the Illuminator explained in Part 10. The luminosity of the Atman, the Self, is not physical. It is not a physical light; so 'luminosity' in this context should not be construed to mean physical light in the same way as fire or the Sun etc are physical lights. The Atman is like a light because it manifests objects, makes them knowable. Just as a lamp illuminates the objects of a room through its physical light, so does the Atman illuminate all objects, including the physical lights, through the nature of its luminosity. What is the nature of the luminosity? It is Knowledge, Consciousness, Existence. It is by virtue of the existence of the Atman that all else exists; because the Atman is pure, unchanging existence itself. Atman is the substratum of existence on which all objects appear like a mirage seen in sand. It is by virtue of the Consciousness of the Atman that all beings are conscious; it is the same Inner Witness (Saakshin) manifesting as the Subject in all the various bodies. It is by virtue of the Knowledge of the Atman that all things are knowable; the Atman is utter Knowledge which is the ground for the subject-object distinction seen in empirical experience.

These three, Knowledge, Consciousness and Existence are one and the same; they are not separate attributes belonging to the limitless Self, but are the very nature of it. The ultimate ontological entity is the same as the epistemological Reality. Knowledge is existence. This is not to be misunderstood as solipsism, however. The objective world exists independently of the individual body and mind- it does not cease to exist when these means of knowledge do, or when they temporarily cease functioning as in deep sleep, coma etc, or when they are limited. The knowledge of the Self is not limited, since it illuminates even all of the other means of knowledge which are. The verse says the luminosity of the Self is not like that of fire, not only because it is non-physical but also because it is not limited. Physical light offers only partial illumination, since darkness is seen to prevail in places even when the Sun shines at its zenith. In this respect the Sun can be compared to the mind and the senses, since these too are limited in their capacity to know. The Sun, like the eye and the mind, is a means of knowledge; its light connects the eye to the world and helps it see- which is in turn known by the mind. All of these are partial, however, since the light of the Sun, fire, the senses and the mind are all subject to defects, changes, and limitation in terms of space and time, whereas the Self is not, and is the Illuminating substratum of existence for all of them. Without the Self, the existence, nothing else exists or is knowable, thus the Self is the Supreme Illuminator.

                                                        

'Darkness' may be understood in a secondary sense, also; as ignorance. The Self is the supreme Illuminator because not even the darkness of ignorance can fully obscure it. Both erroneous cognitions (false knowledge) as in the case of confusing a rope for a snake, and non-apprehension as in the case of having no knowledge of the inner components of a plant, have a positive substratum of existence- the Self, as the ultimate Knower or Illuminator of even these forms of ignorance. It is for this reason that Avidyaa is spoken of only in a partial sense, and not in a complete sense. Even the most ignorant man in the world has some semblance of knowledge; since even he knows that he exists when he says 'I'- even if he does not know what that 'I' refers to. The Self is supreme because it is never sublatable; not even by the darkness of ignorance.

In part 12 we shall have a short divergence from the current text to provide an illustration from shruti further explaining how the Self is the Supreme Illuminator.

End of Verse 22.

Aparokshānubhuti- Selected Verses

PART 10

DISCRIMINATION

Between the Illuminator and the Illumined

20                                                   Atman is the supreme Illuminator and

                                                   purity itself; the body is said to be of

                                                       the nature of darkness and yet

                                                     people confound these two as one!

Now we come to another way of distinguishing the dis-similarity of the Self from the body. The verse describes the Self to be of the nature of light ie as the supreme Illuminator, and the body is said to be of the nature of darkness. We have, then, on first glance, a fairly simple, straightforward distinction to understand. However, a literal understanding of 'light' and 'darkness' will miss the subtlety of what the verse is conveying, so let us elaborate more on what the text means.

Remembering Part 8, whereby the Self was likened to a ruler and the body ruled and recalling to mind how the body can only be compelled to function through the presence of the Self, the current verse serves as an elaboration on this idea viz, conscious and non-conscious. The Self, as consciousness, illuminates and brings into operation the mechanism of the mind and the sense organs via its inherent luminosity; therefore lending to the body sentience and the impression of it being an individual, conscious agent. By itself, the body (composed of the five sheaths previously mentioned) is inert matter, and therefore is likened to darkness because it does not have the capacity to know itself or anything else. The body has no consciousness of its own that knows and therefore illuminates other things; it is instead, illumined by another, the Self which is distinct from it, and through which it (the body) appears to be conscious of itself and the world around it.

The Self as subject is said to illuminate because by its presence all objects are manifested and known. Objects by themselves are not known by other objects and nor do they know; they are always illuminated by a subject which is distinct from all of the objects. All experiences, all perception, cognitions, and determinations presuppose the perceiver, the knower, the subject. The subject is like the light which illuminates everything else. It is the constant, unflickering, unchanging core of 'I'; it is Atman. All of the constituents of the body depend upon the presence of this constant unchanging Self in order for it (the body) to exist and survive.

The verse describes this Atman as purity itself. Bringing to mind the fact that the text has previously described this Self as the innermost internal subject (and is therefore distinct from every object due to their 'externality' in terms of relational dis-similarity), and also described this Atman as unchanging amidst the changing phenomena of the body- therefore, it is now called pure. Pure means in this context untainted; not touched by that which it illuminates. Just as the Sun, though said to illumine all of the objects in space by its very nature, is in reality distinct from and unaffected by either the presence or absence of those objects, so too is this Self spoken of as an illuminator due to the presence or absence of the body and its constituents, and yet is untouched, unchanged by its waxing and waning attributes or conditions.

In contrast with the purity of the Self we can say the body is impure because it is at the mercy of cause and effect; it is a product of birth and continuous change and later subject to death, therefore it is tainted by its very nature. Hence, the term 'darkness' can also be understood to mean impurity, since the body is subject to change (or contamination) by other things. Another way of understanding the term darkness in this context is the fact that association (or superimposition of the Self and the body)  is the cause of ignorance, which is a form of darkness, and therefore the multitude of sorrows. Shankara, in the Vivekachudamani, likens the body to poison for the ignorant, whereby even contact of the senses with an object inevitably lead to miseries (such as attachment, desire, etc). Therefore, the text says that the body is said to be of the nature of darkness, because it is non-conscious, subject to change, and is wrongfully superimposed onto one's own Self. This Self is purity itself, and light, since knowledge of it removes the dreadful darkness of superimposition; and the very nature of the Self is utter knowledge.

The next verse will elaborate on why the Self is called the 'supreme' illuminator.






End of Verse 20.

Aparokshānubhuti- Selected Verses

PART 9

DISCRIMINATION

Between the Changing and the Unchanging

33                                                          It is a fact of direct experience that the 'I' (Atman)

                                               is without any change, whereas the body is always

                                               undergoing changes. So how can this body be the

                                                                                     Self?

We have established that the self is distinct from the body (and therefore one is not the body) due to being the ruler (owner) of it, due to being the subject and the body is the object, due to being conscious and the body is inert by itself and due to being the innermost nature of oneself. Now the text proceeds by wishing to provide incontrovertible logical proof for one being different from the body. Keep in mind that we have already established the subject to be one only and closely meditate on the following;

The Self ('I') is without any change, and the body is always changing.

To illustrate the meaning of this verse, I am quoting from Vidyaranya's Panchadashi;

1-3.The objects of knowledge, viz., sound, touch etc., which are perceived in the waking state, are different from each other because of peculiarities; but the consciousness of these, which is different from them, does not differ because of its homogeneity. 

1-4.Similarly is the case in the dream state. Here the perceived objects are transient and in the waking state they seem permanent (so the two states are different). But the perceiving consciousness in both states does not differ. It is homogeneous. 

1-5.A person awaking from deep sleep consciously remembers his lack of perception during that state. Remembrance consists of objects experienced earlier. It is therefore clear that even in deep sleep 'want of knowledge' is perceived. 

1-6.This consciousness is indeed distinct from the object, but not from itself, as is the consciousness in the state of dream. Thus in all three states the consciousness (being homogeneous) is the same. It is so in other days too. 

1-7. Through the many months, years, ages and world cycles, past and future, consciousness is the same; it neither rises nor sets; it is self-revealing.

As we have explained in Part 7, the subject who is consciousness is one and the objects of consciousness are many. Vidyaranya is expounding the same idea in the quote I have given. He goes further, however, by saying that because the Self is one only, it is also the same Self that persists through all the states of experience and all of the objects contained within those states viz., waking, dream and dreamless sleep. The current text declares the same truth as a directly experienced fact. Why is it a directly experienced fact? It is so because one is the self; and one ever remains as oneself, of course! One never becomes somebody else, another self.

One may object; But I do change, I change all of the time, I have aged etc. However, this logic is easily toppled by the seekers of truth. When one says 'I have changed' this is nothing but the play of ignorance in the form of superimposition. The superimposition is to take the changing condition of the body; intrinsic and incidental, and identify it with the subject, the self. The self is not the body or its changeful conditions, it is the knower of the body and the knower of the change- there is a clear distinction. If we accept this wrongful superimposition, for example that the self is identical to the body- then, when the body is fat, 'I am fat', however when the body loses weight, we do not see the Self ceasing to exist , we then say 'now I am thin'- the Self outlives the change and therefore cannot be identical in any way to them. To bring out this obvious fact, see all of these statements which pertain to change;

I go

I come

I woke up

I dreamt

I slept

I am old

I am young

I am hungry

I am tired

I am energetic

I am fat

I am thin

I am ill

That which is constant and connects all of the changing experiences is very clearly seen to be the 'I' - it is the thread by which the change is established and made sensible. When the superimposed objects are dismissed from the list above, what remains is constantly 'I'; it is not changing though it appears to undergo change. The change is apparent only when one has overlooked the fact that the self as subject is distinct from the body and its conditions as objects. We have taught that the Self is constant and the same in all states, however, doubts may arise. Let us settle any doubts by displaying the elegance and strength of Vedantic thought;

Doubt: May it not be that there are many selves, such as one who undergoes youth, one who undergoes adulthood, and another who undergoes old age, and that therefore the Self is not unchanging?

Reply: No, for direct experience proves otherwise. It is a fact for all of us that the one who experiences old age is the same as the one who experienced childhood. I who am old remember when I was young; the two states of change were experienced by me, therefore I am the same self in both instances, and therefore neither have I really undergone any change (but for false superimposition). If there be another self who undergoes old age, then one would not identify as the same person who was once young, but this is not so; remembrance of identity proves the Self is one only and the same in all the states.

Doubt: There is no Self in deep sleep, therefore the Self is not unchanging.

Reply: No, for your statement is self-refuting. In order to make a statement regarding the absence of anything whatsoever, you must first be there (witnessing the absence)  to say it. Knowledge pertaining to the absence of the Self in the state of deep sleep requires a knower by which the absence was seen, otherwise your assertion is groundless.

Objection: But there is no memory of anything at all in deep sleep, so the doubt is valid.

Reply: No, for the absence of particular knowledge is itself evident (seen) by the Self in the state of deep sleep. The very fact that on waking you know 'there was nothing' is proof that even ignorance of objects has a positive substratum of knowledge viz., the Self. That you do not see in deep sleep is because there was nothing to see due to the cessation of the activity of the senses and the mind, and not that the seer himself was absent (as this leads to a contradiction). The Self is present in deep sleep, but there is no object distinct from it that it can know, and therefore even the absence of knowledge (of objects) has knowledge (being the very nature of the Self) as its basis. Therefore, it is the changing states of experience and their contents which are present or absent, and not the Self which remains persistent as the knower of both the presence and absence of everything else.

Objection: Suppose the Self does cease to exist in deep sleep, and instead, upon waking a new Self is born. Therefore we may say that that which is absent in deep sleep is not the mind or the senses, but the knower (Self), which is why they are not experienced.

Reply: No, for this rails against direct experience and leads into absurd reasoning. The same person who goes to sleep is known by all to be the very one who wakes up again. Nobody wakes up and says 'the one who slept is another, and not I, and now I am a different one waking'. The fact that one recollects previously being awake and also the absence of the waking state during deep sleep is proof enough that it is the same Self which undergoes both states. To elaborate; All that constitutes the waking state viz., the mind, the senses, the whole internal subjective experience and the objective world are recognised by oneself when one is awake, and, after waking up again after deep sleep their absence is recollected; therefore the same Self survives the state of dreamless sleep and is identical to the Self in the previous waking state. 

For the further reason the Self does not cease to exist in deep sleep is that in order to posit the cessation of one Self and the birth of another Self a third Self must be admitted. Why so? Because the cessation of the first self must be in evidence to a subject by which it is known, and this subject must survive the cessation of the first self. Likewise, a subject which precedes the existence of the second self must first exist before its arising for its birth to be known. Simply put, the birth or death of the self presupposes an entity which objectifies (knows) the series of birth and death, and is therefore outside of the series, being an entirely different entity. Admitting to this third self one must then account for how the presence of the third self can be known in deep sleep, which amounts to both admitting the existence of the Self in deep sleep and also landing into an infinite regression of selves since knowledge of the third self has to be accounted for.

To resolve this issue one must simply recognise the fact that there is only one Self through all of the states, and it does not cease to exist in any of them. This one Self is the seer of all the changing phenomena which constitutes the three states of human experience, and is not to be counted amongst the phenomena, it being different from them, and permanent. If one argues that the Self changes, then this change must itself be known to one which persists through and outlives the change (in order for a comparison between the two states to be made) and therefore either another Self must be admitted leading to an infinite regression or one must concede that the Self does in fact not change and this change belongs to something else.

Objection: The Self is seen to be born and die.

Reply: Not so; what you see is the birth and death of a body, not of the Self. Nobody has ever known the Self to be non-existent, as this is self-contradictory. We put it that this is because the Self is birthless and deathless, and persists through all states, connecting them all.

Objection: Let it be that the Self is one only and it does not change during life. However, it can be that the Self  is a product of the body, and therefore arises only when the body is born, and dies with the death of the body.

Reply: We hinted at this doubt in the previous post, and now we will address it. All that constitutes the body is, as the current verse says, always undergoing changes. Macro-cosmically, the body is born, ages, becomes ill or healthy, changes weight, constitution, appearance, mental agility, knowledge, etc and micro-cosmically it is composed of cells and tissues which are constantly being replaced, constituted by neurons and atoms etc all of which are never the same but noticeable for their changefulness. We have already established that the Self is unchanging and distinct from the body, therefore by no means can a permanent entity arise from a constantly changing collection of objects called the body; on the contrary the substratum out of which the body is born must in fact be the Self.

Taking into account the previous reasons given for the non identity of the self and the body, ie ownership, subject-object distinction, conscious v non-conscious, one v many, and now changeless v changing, it is well established that the Self is not the body, and therefore that they should no longer be conflated by the seekers of truth.  Meditate on all the reasons given so far, and see if they conform to your own immediate, direct experience.

End of Verse 33.

Aparokshānubhuti- Selected Verses

PART 8

DISCRIMINATION

Between the Internal and the External

18                                                   Atman is the ruler of the body and internal,

                                                      the body is the ruled and external, and yet

                                                    people confound these two as one! What else

                                                              can be called ignorance but this?

This verse is very helpful when correctly understood. Let us split the verse into two parts so that we may comprehend its meaning precisely. First, the Atman is the ruler of the body and the body is the ruled, and then secondly, the Atman is internal and the body is external. The reasoning presented in this verse serves as a corollary to the verses already presented, so it is important to keep in mind those aspects already covered viz. subject-object and conscious/non-conscious. 

Now, the Atman is called the ruler. Let us understand this thoroughly. The Upanishads often use the analogy of the King ruling over His Kingdom in order to explain the Atman.  The body is often likened to a city, and the Atman, the self, is the king of it. The senses and the mind are likened to magistrates under the command of the ruling Atman. It is from the King's order that the magistrates do their duty, and in the same way it is due to the presence of the self ie consciousness that the mind and the senses operate and are compelled. The King has no ruler; there is no higher authority for him in the city, and in the same way there is no further subject or knower by which the self itself is seen or known. The senses and the mind are to be understood as instruments of knowledge; they are for the use of another- the Atman, just as the magistrates work for the city's upkeep on the King's behalf only. The King himself does not act, he simply oversees the work of his court. In the same way, the self does not act; it is merely the witness or seer of the senses and the mind which serve him by controlling and maintaining the body under his authority. Without the King ruling the city, if he abandons it, the city will collapse; without the self or consciousness then the mind is inert, and the body dies.

By 'body' should be understood all that constitutes the body, including the senses and the mind; just as a 'city' or 'kingdom' is figuratively used to mean both the walls and buildings and the people within it. And just as the King is known as distinct from his Kingdom, so too should the self be known as distinct from the body. In the presence of the conscious self, the body is animated and becomes an agent of action, therefore, it is called the ruler and the body is called the ruled. Just as the Kingdom belongs to the King who rules it, so too does the body belong to the self who rules it; and hence we say there is a distinction between the two.

Without the presence of consciousness in the body, the body cannot function; so the body is dependent upon consciousness. Without the presence of the self, the body cannot be compelled to act and nor can it sustain the vital functions needed for embodied living. The body is owned as is known when we speak of the body as 'mine', and the body, which is inert and non-conscious, is made active and conscious due to the presence of the indwelling consciousness which sustains it through the means of knowledge and action viz. mind, senses, limbs etc, just as the King rules over and maintains his Kingdom through his magistrates and officers etc. 

Now for the exposition of internal and external. This part requires of the reader some time to meditate on its meaning, since it is very subtle. The verse says the self is internal, and the body is external. Does it mean that the self is internal spatially? No, it does not mean that. Internal and external here do not pertain to space; nor does it mean that the self is internal to the body in a spatial sense- for it would then mean that the body is external to the body spatially, which makes no logical sense. Internal and external here mean in order of subtleness. 

The body in Vedanta is said to be constituted by five sheaths; gross or physical sheath, vital sheath, mental sheath, intellect sheath and bliss (causal) sheath- the five sheaths will be met with in detail in later verses. These five sheaths which make the body are all objects of knowledge to the self, the subject. Now, the sheaths of the body become gradually more subtle from physical sheath to causal sheath. The intent of the verse is to say that all of these sheaths in order of subtleness are to be considered external or distinct from the self. Why is it? Because the self as the subject or knower of all objects, of all the sheaths, is subtler still than all of them. The self is the innermost because it is the subject; any object which is known by it is necessarily distanced from it due to dissimilarity. One is the self, the witness, the subject; so anything which one knows is external to oneself due to being distinct from oneself- this is the intention of the verse. Anything that is distinct from oneself, such as the sheaths constituting the body, is external to oneself, the witnessing awareness. The self is the innermost seer, distinct from all of the objects such as the body, therefore that which is distinct from the innermost self is external to it in relation. 

At face value, the statement 'the self is internal and the body is external' seems extremely unusual. We think of the self as the body, and that same body divided into internal experience (mind and senses) and external appearance, such as its physical condition and location in space. According to Vedanta, this is a wrong view due to ignorance of one's real nature. Everything that constitutes the body, including the internal, subjective experience of the mind and senses is external to oneself in terms of the subject-object relational distinction. You experience the  body as external to yourself; you experience the mind and the senses also as external to yourself- and why? Because you know them all apart from and distinct from yourself, the seer. Therefore we say that the self is the innermost ruler, the most internal, closest, subtlest identity, and everything else constituting the body is external, relationally distant in deepening degrees, and ruled over. Because of this fact, a profound insight results; I am different from this body, from this mind, from these senses, from all that I see and know. This is the import of the verse.

End of Verse 18.

Aparokshānubhuti- Selected Verses

PART 7

DISCRIMINATION

Between the One and the Many

17                                                   Atman is verily one and without parts,

                                                    whereas the body consists of many parts;

                                                   yet the people confound these two as one!

                                                  What else can be called ignorance but this?

Not only is the body an object of our possession, but for this further reason it is not the self; it is manifold! When we say 'body' we are not referring to a single entity, but rather, a combination of a great number of objects constituting a physiological system which is arbitrarily seen as separate from a whole universe of objects and on which it depends. 'Body' is an umbrella term, it means many things; limbs, organs, mind, senses and the vital processes. Taking all of these parts together we wrongly assume equivalence to the self. Nobody who identifies themselves as the body identifies exclusively only with one constituent of the body- only the 'whole'.  Even the one who hangs on to the notion of identity with the mind alone will shout 'don't touch me!' when a stranger grabs his arm. Nobody says 'I am this hand only, I am this eye only, I am this hearing only, I am this thought only' - all of these things are known to the person as an object of their knowledge, and yet when all of these objects are viewed collectively, then one says 'this I am, this is me'. 

Despite the fact that the body consists of many parts everybody overlooks the fact that they (the self) do not. Why do they not? Because the entity which identifies with the various parts is itself one only. The same entity which identifies with the limbs is the one who identifies with the senses. The same entity which identifies with the mind is the one who identifies with the vital processes such as breathing, excretion etc. Even though the objects are many, the entity which is identifying itself wrongly with them is always one and the same. Nobody experiences 'I am the mind, and another is the senses, and another is the limbs, and another performs actions'; the very same entity identifies with all of the parts and at the same time owns all of the parts. This is the confusion. First we say 'this is mine' as in; 'this is my mind, my organs, my limbs, my skin, my hair, my eyes' etc, and then we say 'this is me' when all of these possessions are taken together! Indeed, what else can be called ignorance but this? 

First, the idea of ownership is superimposed onto the subject, 'I', and then the subject itself is conflated with those very objects! As we have already established, the fact of the distinction of subject and object necessarily proves that one cannot be identical to the objects which constitute the body, and the fact that the objects are many whereas the subject is one further proves non-identity. Another reason is put forth here; the self is partless. A bike is composed of many parts, all of the parts together we call 'bike', and so too with the body. The self, however, does not have parts, because the self is the subject. Only objects are composed of parts; manifoldness is a quality which is known to the self, to the subject. The subject itself cannot be constituted by parts, because then it would cease to be a subject. Why? Since manifoldness is objectified, therefore, if the subject be composed of two or more parts, the second part and so on would be known to the first part as objects and therefore the subject as manifold would cease to be. When there are many things, that to which they are evident is itself one only.  The verse says that objects are many but the self is ever one only. 

Since the self is known to be distinct from the body due to ownership, and since the self is the conscious, unchanging subject and the body is the non-conscious, changeful object,  and since the body is composed of many parts and the self is one and partless, for these reasons the self is distinct from the body and they should not be thought of as identical by those seeking discriminatory knowledge. 

Yet more reasons are being given in the following verses.

End of Verse 17.

                                               

Aparokshānubhuti- Selected Verses

PART 6

DISCRIMINATION

Between the Self and the Body

32                                               'I' is well established as the subject of perception whereas

                                            the body is the object. This is learnt from the fact that

                                              when we speak of the body we say, 'This is mine.'

                                                         So how can this body be Puruṣa?

Now, let us continue. The reasoning introduced in the previous verse is elaborated and expounded upon here. The fact of ownership denotes two distinct entities; the owner and the owned. The owner is 'I'- that is to say, the content of one's nature or identity, whatsoever that may be. The owned pertains to whatever is not 'I', and is always an object. The relation between the two is called the subject-object distinction. The subject is always different from the object. One may object; why must they be different? Can the subject also be the object? The answer is: no. In this case, the subject is a conscious knower, a seer, and the object is always non-conscious and seen. The subject is one and partless, whereas the objects are many and diverse. If the subject were to be an object, then this would amount to an infinite regression of knowers knowing each other in a never ending series (this will be examined in a later verse).

 The verse says 'I' is well established as the subject of perception; but how? Remember from an earlier verse;

When the mind changes, you know the change; you see the changing mind. When the body moves, when it grows, when it weakens, when it is hungry, thirsty, unwell, blind, dumb, deaf; you see all of this, you know it all. When you are awake, you know you are awake. When you dream, you see the dream, you know it. When you are in dreamless sleep, then, on waking, you know that you did not dream, that you did not experience any object of knowledge. That which persists through all of the states, through the presence or absence of mediate knowledge is you, the Seer, the Knower, the Self. Everybody knows this fact intuitively, it is self-evident to everybody, but it is overlooked because it is so obvious!

The Seer, the Knower, which has already been introduced, is 'I'- the subject. It is well established because it is constant in and presupposes all perceptions. How so? Because all perceptions are objects, and all objects are seen or known by the subject. Furthermore, not only is the subject well established since it is the subject of all perceptions, but for the additional reason that it knows the body as distinct from itself also. The body is spoken of as 'mine'; that is to say, an object that belongs to me, and therefore, is different from me (see the example of the pot in the previous verse). There is a consciousness, and then there appears to be things which one is conscious of. This basic distinction is known as Puruṣa and Prakriti (or, consciousness and matter). In Western thought, we tend to divide the categories as mind and matter, however, the mind itself is an object of our consciousness and therefore logically it belongs to the category of matter. Vedanta uses this distinction as an aid to help discrimination and remove the superimposition, and not because we wish to say there really is a permanent or eternal difference between the self as subject and the body/world as object. By pointing out that the Puruṣa ('I') is distinct from the body, we are helping to remove the mistaken notion of their exclusive identity, which is the cause of sorrow.

The verse wishes to point out that there is an undeniable distinction between the self and the body. The entity which knows the body as distinct from itself and owns it is conscious, whereas the object (the body) is non-conscious. There is a clear demarcation between the conscious self and the non-conscious body. The body cannot own itself, as this is illogical, nor can a non-conscious object be the owner of a conscious subject, and nor can the object know the subject as the object is always the known and never the knower. One may speculate that the consciousness of the subject is a product of or located inside the body (brain) and therefore there is no incongruity in supposing that the self and the body are identical, however, as we shall see in later verses, the subject cannot be located or limited by its very nature. For now, though, let us simply accept the fact that there is a conscious knower, a subject (wheresoever it may be), and that it is logically and experientially distinct from everything that it knows (objectifies). Further reasons for the non-identity of the self and the body are being explained in the following verses.

End of Verse 32.

Aparokshānubhuti- Selected Verses

PART 5

DISCRIMINATION

Between the Self and the Body

23                                           How strange is it that a person rests ignorantly contented with

                                     the idea that he is the body, while he knows it as something 

                                         belonging to him and therefore apart from him, even 

                                         as a person who sees a pot knows it as apart from him!

The next selection of verses begins the enquiry into the nature of the Self through a discrimination between the Self and the body. The text commences by using logical reasoning coinciding with direct experience to get its point across and help remove superimposition. The Self is always being identified with the body; it is completely taken for granted. Whatever condition the body is in, that is my condition and at the same time, it is what I am. If the body is fat, then I am fat. If it is stupid, or blind, or tired, or hungry, then I am stupid, blind, tired, and hungry. All of this is a given for everybody; it is an unspoken axiom on which all of our views about ourselves and the world are based. Superimposition is the foundation on which all our ideas are based; on which the very distinction of self and other, world and self, subject and object, is maintained. 

It's a fact of experience that most people are content with the idea that they are their body. Even people who loathe their body will still identify with it and create a negative self-image from it. And yet, we intuitively perceive it as something different from ourselves. Why is that? It's because, even though we identify ourselves with the body, we speak of the body as an object of our possession. My body. My mind. It is mine, I am its owner. This is my hair, and my eyes, and these are my clothes. But these clothes are not me, whereas, these eyes are me! How strange is this! For some reason, it is okay for us to identify with this body which we own, but not okay to identify with our clothes, or anything external to the body which we own. The verse points this out. 

Logically, something that I own is something that is not me, but which is in my possession. I own a television, clearly, it is not me. It is an object of my perception, my knowledge. The body, intuitively, is perceived as an object also; its functioning, its qualities and conditions, whether intrinsic (such as its gender) or incidental, such as its weight (thin) are all known to me, and I am seen to be the owner of them. In order to possess something, two distinct entities are required; the possessor and the possessed- therefore, there cannot be identity between them, only a relationship. I cannot be my television, since it is distinct from me, and I own it. Likewise, I cannot be this body, since it is distinct from me as an object of my knowledge, and because I am its possessor. The text uses the example of a pot. Just as we perceive a pot as external (distinct) from ourselves, the seer, even though we may be the owner of it, so too do we perceive the body as external, or distinct, from ourselves, even though we may possess it. This idea of the body being 'external' will be explained in a coming verse. 

We know a pot is not ourselves, because we perceive it as something different from us; its quality, condition, uniqueness, all are apart from the seer, the knower- and so we never identify ourselves as the pot, unless we were insane. So why do we do it for the body, when its uniqueness etc. are known to us as distinct from what we, as the knower, are? Again it is because of ignorance- we rest contented with the idea that what is not so is so, we think the superimposition is perfectly alright. The difference between relation and identity is forgotten through our ignorance, and so it becomes plausible to suggest that we are both the owner and the thing being owned. 

Some may object; but what is wrong with it? It seems plausible to me, I am this body, and I am also in control of it, its owner, because I have to look after myself, and be responsible for myself. The answer is that all the miseries that pertain to the body become your miseries if you identify with it. Furthermore, many of the miseries, especially mental suffering, are caused by the superimposition in the first place. 'I hate myself' why? because 'I am too fat' - the body is fat, and I have identified with it, and therefore, I have come to hate myself. One may then object; but, that doesn't solve the issue of being overweight! It doesn't, but it allows you to deal with the issue without subjectively suffering, without it bringing you unnecessary misery. It is identification which brings misery, not the objects with which you identity in and of themselves. 

We have to stop being content with this identification if we wish to experience what the Self actually is. Nobody but a madman identifies himself with a pot which is external to the body, so why should anybody identify with the body which is external to the Self?

End of Verse 23.