Moksha

≪ back | 1 | 2 | 3 | next ≫

The purpose of the dream example is to make us see that the waker's experience of duality is not any different. While the difference between the waker and the dreamer is accepted in terms of qualities (vishesas) the basic non–difference is shown in detail in the karika. In the Jyotir–Brahmana of the Brihadaranyakopanishad, the invariable atma in dream and waking is presented as the light of awareness (jyotis–svarupah). The svarupah of the atma is not the dreamer, dream, or dreamt; nor the waker, waking experience, or waker's objects. But the knower, known and knowledge vikalpa is also not separate from the atma and therefore the division is mithya. It is obvious that atma is always nirvikalpa, in spite of the apparent division. That is what is said in the Kenopanishad, ‘in every form of knowledge, atma is understood by the discriminative as the invariable.’ Therefore, the knowledge that I am thought–free (nirvikalpa) is in spite of the experience of vikalpa. This is entirely different from a state wherein there is absence of thoughts.

In ashtanga–yoga, the angi, the main thing to be achieved, is nirvikalpa-samadhi, a state wherein there is the absence of subject–object relationship. Even though it is a desirable accomplishment, the state itself is jada (inert) inasmuch as there is no thought (vritti) that can destroy ignorance. In samadhi (a mental state of absorption) and also when there are thoughts, what obtains as invariable is the svarupa of atma, which is nirvikalpa. Again, the notion that when there is no more thought, then there is enlightenment, implies a duality such as atma and thought. When thought is, atma is not. When atma is, thought is not. Both become equally real because one exists in the absence of the other. But that is not true. If one exists whether or not the other exists, both the objects enjoy the same order of reality, like the table and chair. If one exists only in the absence of the other, they both belong to the same order of reality, like illness and health. Both are equally real. Does thought deny atma? Is there a thinker without atma? In fact, thought is atma. But atma is not just a thought. Atma is satyam, being present in all situations — while situations are mithya, dependent as they are for their existence on atma. There is no mithya without adhishthana–ananyatvam, that which is non–separate from its cause.

The wave being not independent of water, you don't have to remove the wave in order to see the water. So too, if the thinker, the thought and what is thought of are dependent upon the atma, which is satyam, you don't have to remove any of them to recognise the atma. The recognition is that all three are atma while atma is not any of them.

‘Teaching Tradition of Advaita Vedanta’ pp11–12, Swami Dayananda © Copyright Arsha Vidya