Man ! Know Thyself. 2.

Man! Know thyself.-2.
(Self- Realisation.)
V. M. Upadhyaya.
Page 1 of 140
Foreword
Man! Know thyself
To know and not to act on what you know is equal to ignorance.

The whole art of spiritual living is to live what one knows and not just
theorize on what one knows. This is the foremost challenge of spiritual
living. The author has made a sincere effort in unfolding the spiritual
paradigm. Vedanta is a profound subject and to unfold it is an immense
task.
Any
Masters have tried, and any effort to unfold would be
limited.
action has limitation, and the object of this knowledge is limitless.
The author has put a heart full effort to point out this pathless path.
His exposure to western systems of learning will help the reader in
understanding the depth of the subject. His language is easy and at the
same time deep.
The end portions of the Vedas are known as the
Upanishad. The Vedas are probably the most ancient literature of the
world, and the Upanishad is the end potion of the Vedas. Upanishad
means sitting under the feet of the master and hence it has to be
understood with commitment and humility.
If one is committed and
humble, this book will be a suitable opening to seekers seeking truth.

The Katho-Upanishad says, One who is focused on the outer will
never understand the self. One who lives only in the outer world will
indeed be destroyed. Joy is the nature of oneself, and if one seeks joy
outside, one would be deluded. Hence the Veda declares, One who
knows oneself crosses the path of sorrow.
The Veda is an excellent
source of wisdom and this should not be understood through concepts

Page 2 of 140
but by living them.
This book will inspire one to look into oneself in a
way which will liberate one from the pangs of sorrow.

I wish the readers all the best and wish the author from the depth
of my heart. I appreciate his effort to make this place a better place to
live in the domain of understanding.
Swami Sukhabodhananda
www.prasannatrust.org
Page 3 of 140
PROLOGUE.
The most wanted thing is happiness; but no one is permanently

happy because no one is completely satisfied. No one is completely
satisfied because no one knows what to want to be completely satisfied.
Ignorance of what to want makes a person either dissatisfied or
unsatisfied both of which can yield only unhappiness to him. The most
unwanted
thing
is
the
unhappiness.
The
activities
coupled
with
achievements are the sources of happiness. Activities are not done for
activities sake. They are only a means to an end. Whether means should
justify the end or end should justify the means is a legal and moral or
ethical problem. Happiness through satisfaction is the end of all activities.
Those activities which end in achievement appear to be the means of
happiness. Though happiness seems to depend on activities, it does not.
Happiness does not necessarily follow activities. Activities are motivated
by the desire for happiness. Because external objects are believed to be
the sources of happiness men run after the objects and engage
themselves in hoarding things. Mistaking objects for happiness people are
entangled in the tedious job of securing and protecting the things
hoarded. Property brings responsibility with it. Responsibility begets and
increases
mental
responsibility
and
decreases
physical
rest,
alertness
satisfaction
and
and
work.
Increase
happiness.
So,
of
men
embrace exhaustion and unhappiness for mistaking objects for happiness.

Ignorance of what to want leads man to perpetual unhappiness. Youth,
pride and wealth singly and jointly make men blind and deaf to the
teachings and preaching of the experienced wise men. Desires are the
seeds of dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Satisfaction and happiness
produce fruits that contain the seeds called desires and passions. This
Page 4 of 140
cycle perpetuates mans journey, like that of a snail on a corrugated zinc

sheet spread wide as sea, towards mirage.
There are people who find a little time even in the middle of
their busy quotidian duties to seek satisfaction in searching answers to
the problems regarding the value and meaning of life as a whole. To a
considerable extent the history of mankind is the history of his search for
the solace in life and solace in death. Wonderfully enough all people
think in a particular way because perhaps they cant help it. The pursuit
for the realization of the ultimate truth by man has been unending not
because of the nullity of the truth but because of the way of thought he
adopted to discern the Reality. The wise thinkers all over the world have
proclaimed form time to time whatever they believed to be true, but it
resulted only in increasing the number of creeds and sects which already
existed. Philosophers and thinkers poured out postulates and theories
only to be nullified by the successors. Some agnostics ventured to
promulgate that the search for the ultimate reality is a futile endeavor as
ultimate reality is a mirage. In spite of their sincerity, prudence, open
mindedness and intellectual maturity the failures and frustrations are the
results of the method of thinking they adopted.
The preliminary error people generally commit is thinking in the

world centre habit which stimulates, guides and goads mans thought
process. The meaning and description of this type may please be found
in the forgoing pages. The Vedic sages who were well aware of the
limitations of this type of thought in dealing with the subtle thing like
Ultimate Reality, searched, practiced and handed down the technique of
the other way of thought
following which they had realized the Ultimate

Page 5 of 140
Reality. In the Taittiriya Upanishat the disciple who realized the soul
exclaimed with ecstasy, `` I have realized that the Braham or the soul is
the absolute happiness. The Brahadaranyaka
Upanishat announces,
This is the greatest happiness that a man can have. So, beyond doubt,
the Vedic sages had realized the unbounded happiness. Mercifully they
had arranged for the continuity of the flow of that knowledge form mind
to mind hoping to bring salvation to every one who care
to listens to
them. Every one may raise his eyebrow if I say that the technique that
the Vedic sages adopted is not to be found in any books or with any
thinkers of the world. This technique is found hidden in the Upanishats.
Shankaracharya says in his comments on the Brahma Sootra, The
knowledge of the soul as the ultimate reality cannot be had except from
the Upanishats. (Brahma Sootra Bhashya.1-1-4-4).
In this little book I
humbly tried to elucidate this knowledge. I know that my work is not

complete. I hope to give some more explanations about this subject in
my next book. I will be grateful to the learned readers if they bring to
my notice any errors or short comings they may find herein. In my books
on the same subject in Kannada namely, Marana-Paraloka- Punarjanma?,
Atmanveshane,
Poorna Satya, Adwaitanubhava, Adwaitanusandhana, and
Manthana. I have discussed the matter in greater detail. This book is not
the translation of my Kannada books.
My earnest desire to spread this
knowledge to as many readers as possible stimulated me to venture to

write in English in which I dont claim fluency. Opinions of the readers
are cordially welcome.
I thank with respect
Shri
having kindly expressed his opinions
Swami Sukhabodhanada for
about this book in his Forward.
Page 6 of 140
V. M. Upadhyaya.
Phone: 08385-266349.
upadhyayavm@gmail.com
Page 7 of 140
Abbreviations.
Ai.U.
----------------- Aitareya Upanishat.
B.G. ----------------------Bhagavadgita.
B.S. ----------------------Brahmasootra.
Br.U. --------------------Brahadaranyaka Upanishat.
C.U. ---------------------Chandogya Upanishat.
K.U. ------------------- -Kataka Upanishat.
Ke.U. -------------------Kena Upanishat.
M.U.---------------------Mandukya Upanishat.
M.K. -------------------Mandukya Karika.
Mu.U. -----------------Mundaka Upanishat.
P.U. -------------------Prashna Upanihst.
P.Y. -------------------Patanjala Yogasootra.
Sh.Br.-----------------Shatapata Brahmana.
Sh.U.-----------------Shwetashvatara Upanishat.
B. =Shankara Bhashya. e.g. K.B= Kataka Upanishat,
Shankara Bhashya.
Page 8 of 140
1.
Once Socrates,
(About.469-399.B.C.) the ancient Greek philosopher,
paid a visit to the temple of god Delphi in Greece. There, the inscription
Man! Know thyself. attracted his attention and then on that became the
chief problem of his enquiry, ignoring the scientific enquiry into the
external world. He says, `Ì
cannot as yet `Know Myself, as the
inscription of Delphi enjoys, and so long as that ignorance remains it

seems to me ridicules to enquire into extraneous matters. Consequently I
do not bother about such things, but accept the current beliefs about
them, and direct my inquiries, as I have just said, rather to my
self.(Phaedrus.23a.) So, knowing ones own self meant for Socrates, the
analyses of knowledge for determining the universal validity of moral
principles, laws of the state and the nature of religious faiths. Even this
greatest thinker of the ancient times could not grasp the true meaning of
the dictation the inscription displayed. As he was the offspring the
circumstances he could not pull himself away from the then problem of
knowledge, to think independently.
Every man, with his varying degree of wisdom, is fully occupied

with his daily pursuits. Nothing more is real to him than the means
by
which he earns his bread, or the domestic and social events which
concern him in his struggle for existence. An active man feels no
necessity, and so thinks, has no time for spiritual meditation. Man
absorbed in duties of immediate urgency feels not the goad to discern
Page 9 of 140
truths transcending the present moment. Man engaged in the willful

preponderant active pursuits, attaches the highest significance naturally to
the ones that attract his own interest and energy and as a result, not
knowingly develops a bias against the rest and his mind rejects a
comprehensive grasp of questions affecting mankind as a whole. The
creature of the day or the event of the hour is apotheosized, and rarely,
only a few feel the fever of curiosity to know life as a whole or the
mysterious
principles
underlying it. This world, not
withstanding its
features of seductive beauty, glory and sublimity, is not all. To those who
seek consolation, philosophy appears to be something too high or too
fanciful to be of any practical value. Mans awareness of his innermost,
undying desire for ``Solace in life and solace in death, as Schopenhauer
puts it, does not enable him to escape from its haunting.
We all think and do not doubt our ability to think. But, why do we
think?
Our aposteriori answers may not truly satisfy even ourselves.
We do not know that we cant help thinking. We think of
almost all the
things and events that we come across, but not about our thoughts. If
answer you, yes, to the question, `Do all think in the same way? you
may object strongly. But I am helpless. I am told that there can be only
two types of thinking; one is the way that all men think and the other is
the way that perhaps no one thinks or no one knows. Of these two
types of thinking let me call the first, popular and every mans way as
`World centre habit. I call it a habit because we are habituated to think
that way. It is so much habitual that we can think in no other way.
Common man in the streets, merchants, politicians, lawyers, doctors,
scientists and even philosophers think the same way. Men, other than
the students of philosophy, do not differentiate perception, reason,
thinking, knowledge and conception etc. from one another, as a rule. As
Page 10 of 140
we are going to deal with thought, to help you understand easily and
clearly
what
propose
to
bring
home,
warming
up
with
little
precondition would be desirable. That may help you to advance from

known to unknown.
The word philosophy consists of two Greek words, namely `philos

and `sophia. The etymological meaning of the word is `love of wisdom.
As such a philosopher may be called a `wise man. Once Socrates
visited the temple of Delphi, there the oracle came that Socrates was the
wisest man. (Apology 24.) But Socrates was confused. Socrates said,
Whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance.that I do not think that
I know that I do know. ( Apology21.) Socrates defined a philosopher
seeker after wisdom. But still the term philosophy does not become any
more precise. The important thing is to note that philosophy seeks
wisdom
but not `knowledge.
The earliest Greek religion is said to be Homeric. The Gods of

Homeric religion were not anthromorphic.
They were powerful and
immoral. Homeric religion was polytheistic and Zeus was the chief of
Gods.
But the Homeric Gods were not moral so
the Greek thinkers
protested against the immoral Gods and polytheism. So the principle,

Nature has to be explained according to natural stuff, emerged.
Mans first response was to the outer world and only afterwards he
became reflective about his inner life. The beginning of Greek speculation
is essentially cosmogonic.
So instead of God as the creator, nature was

Page 11 of 140
to be explained according to natural stuff only. According to Thales (624550 B.C.), the world arises from water and returns into it again. For
Aneximenes
(588-524B.C.),
air is the fundamental stuff of which the
world is composed of . Mobility, changeability and inner vitality of the air

were taken into account. So this breathing world was considered to be a
living organism. Aneximenes is really a hylozoist. Heracleitus( 535475.B.C), held that all things came from and return to fire. For him every
thing
is in constant flux. He says Reality is change, flux and Becoming.
Empedocles (490-430B.C) said that fire, water, air and earth were the
four
equally
fundamental
stuff
of
which
the
world
is
constituted.
Aneximander(611-547 B.C), argued that earth, water, air and fire cannot
be the ultimate stuff of the universe because they have opposite
characters. For example, fire burns and water dampens. For him the
primary matter was `boundless something. Pythagoras (580-500 B.C.)
speculated that there is a central fire around which the earth, the sun,
the moon and the five planets move. Anaxagoras (500-428B.C), fell upon
a new idea of `Nous, a quasi-psyche or mind. Nous is quite different in
kind and opposite of the countless mixed elements of Empidocles,
composing the universe. Nous is pure, thin, unmixed and simple. It is
self moved and all other corporeal elements are set in motion by Nous.
Democritus (460-360.B.C) put forth the theory of àtoms. Leukippus
unfolded the theory of atoms. He says that all atoms are indivisible,
invisible and countless in number. They differ from one another only in
shape and size. For the atoms, weight is really a function of size. Some
of the atomists were of the opinion that even human soul is made up of
fire atoms. Perhaps this seems to be the root of modern atomic theory.
This is the beginning of explaining the `known, or the external world.
Page 12 of 140
Socrates did not want to enquire into the external world like
his predecessors as he had decided to enquire into himself. The
Sophists by that time had laid down the maxim knowledge is perception.
Sophists had concluded that perception can give only relative knowledge,
for perception differs from person to person and even with the same
person at different moments. Hence the maxim of the Sophists was
Homo mensura, i.e. man is the measure of all things. In other words,
what appears to me is true for me and what appears to you is true for
you. According to Socrates, the fundamental mistake of the sophists was
that they denied the role which reason played in the formation of
knowledge and morality. The sophists did not distinguish between reason
and perception, and reason and feeling. So the sophists came to support
the
claims
of
scepticism
and
nihilism
in
their
epistemology
and
conventionalism in morality and politics. Socrates opposed this and made

clear cut distinction between reason and perception. Consequently, for
Socrates, perception can yield only what is relative with regard to the
realm of becoming. Reason alone can give us what is universal and valid
for all persons, while perception differs from person to person it depends
on senses in which all persons differ. The case of feeling is much worse
than the perception. So morality and political laws, being based on
feelings, can only be relative and conventional. Against this, Socrates
declared that virtue is knowledge of good through concepts and concepts
are formed by reason, and reason is one and the same for all. So, if
virtue is knowledge through concepts which are given by reason, then
there will be universal knowledge and moral and political laws.
Later, the philosophers were divided themselves into two groups

namely, Idealists and Realists. With the advance of age, almost every
philosopher in the west opened up his own theory or ìsm. To be short,
Page 13 of 140
the whole host of western philosophers has been hankering
over
`knowledge. They tried to define knowledge and tried to classify the

means of knowledge.
It means that they focused their attention on
`knowledge and the `known. While the attention on knowledge gave

birth to different speculative theories, the attention on known led to the
advancement of natural sciences.
Regarding the source of knowledge, we may observe two views.

According to Empiricism, John Locke says that mind at birth is tabula
rasa or a clean slate. All characters of knowledge are àcquired through
the sense experiences. Empiricism says that knowledge begins and ends
with experience. Here experience means sense experience, or impression.
Locke says that there is nothing in the intellect which is not previously
given in the senses. Every form of knowledge should ultimately be based
on sense experience, outer or inner. For example, our knowledge of a
chair is fully analysed in terms of the sense qualities or sensory data of
colour, weight, touch etc. According to this theory, apart from these
nothing more is required for explaining the knowledge. Unfortunately, this
èxperience may not include mystic intuition, poetic vision and even the
yogic perception.
According to Rationalism, intellect is an independent source of

knowledge. This gives innate ideas and knowledge consists in these
innate ideas alone. These self evident truths are given by our intellect,
the best example of this is found in mathematics. For example, two and
two is together equal to four. The extreme form of Realism denies the
part which the sense organs play in the formation of knowledge. But still,
the
rationalism
gives
subordinate
place
to
sense
experiences.
Page 14 of 140
Therefore, it holds that sense experience does not constitute, but serves
an occasion for the experience of intellect, whose innate ideas constitute
knowledge. So the sense experience serves only an opportunity for the
play of intellect and its innate ideas. While Empiricism holds that mind is
passive with regard to simple ideas, Rationalism supposes mind to be
active, both in obtaining self evident innate ideas and in constituting
knowledge. According to Kant, innate ideas or truths are Ùniversal,
because they follow from common mental constitution of all human
thinkers as thinkers. Kant says mind gives its own laws and without
these laws it cannot think at all. Therefore mind cannot help noting these
very laws which it gives to things, whilst thinking about them.
Philosophers use metaphorical and symbolic thinking. They

take their models from certain field of enquiry and according to the vision
the model gives them, they build their theories. The empiricists draw their
model from empirical experiences of everyday life, and the Rationalists
have their model from mathematics. It is a pity that they did not pay
heed to empirical sciences like physics and chemistry. In physics we can
see the healthy blending of experience with mathematics.
The ancient Greek thinkers were independent thinkers in the

sense that they did not allow their mind to be subdued under the then
prevailing religions. Medieval philosophy remained wedded with theology.
Modern
philosophy
arose
in
the
wake
of
science
and
remained
subservient to scientific methodology. Modern philosophy was backed with

three ideas and they are philosophical method, formation of philosophical
system and humanism. As against this, contemporary philosophy begins
Page 15 of 140
with antimetaphysical tendencies because of excessive pre-occupation

with linguistic analyses. A student of philosophy can observe three
phases of philosophical thinking. The first is the `creative phase in which
the thinker is gripped by his vision. In his attempt to express his vision
meaningfully to others, he has to seek the help of logic, scientific
statements and other cognitive statements of every day life. He remains
unconscious of the gaps which cannot be brought under his system. It
requires consolidation and analyses. In the second phase, ànalyses, the
entire system reveals the difficulty of the work and the limitation of the
solution. This leads to the third phase, `skepticism. The knowledge of
the limitation of the system and its failure in concluding many outstanding
details of experiences lead to the rejection of the whole system. This is
skepticism
in
which
the
very
possibility
of
knowledge
is
doubted.
Skepticism is halt in the progress. But the belief of man in his capacity
to do every thing pushes him forward. Brave mans failure provides an
opportunist a chance of his success. For thousands of years man has
been thinking in order to solve many of his problems. He penetrated the
secrets
of
nature.
His
knowledge
has
brought
him
strength
and
prosperity.
Before advancing further, let us make a difference between

knowledge and belief.
understanding
of
We use the word` know to indicate our
a thing of
which we have no
doubts.
Lack
of
definiteness of knowledge is expressed by the use of the word` belief.

Knowing is backed by evidences, at least in principle. Believing lacks
sufficient evidence to be sure of its content. Scriptural truth is a matter of
faith or belief, but not the subject of knowledge. St. Augustine says, I
confess that I believe rather than know the things in those (scriptural)
stories were true at that time as they have been written; and those
Page 16 of 140
whom we believe know the difference between believing and knowing

..therefore, what I understand I also believe, but I do not understand
everything I believe. Some considered believing to be the prerequisite of
deeper things. So there came the formula credo ut
understanding
intelligam
(I believe in order to understand). Belief is begot by feelings
and sentiments. Feeling may be warm and comforting, but its weakness
is latent. It is fleeting, unstable and relative and sometimes may prove
treacherous. So we can say that the belief is the language of the heart,
whereas, knowledge is the language of mind or wisdom.
Speculation
enriches belief and belief spurs speculation. Speculation is the vehicle of

heart whereas reason is the vehicle of mind. Reason is strong and
stable. It leads wisdom and wisdom rides reason.
You are taught that you can see a flower or other objects
only if the light reflected from the surface of the objects penetrates into
your open eyes. This is to say that our sensory organs are the gate
ways for the external objects to reach our mind. This is what the
physical science describes. Perhaps this is the experience of every man
that when our mind is absorbed in some important thought we do not
notice the presence of objects before our open eyes.
It led to the notion
that mind should reach the object if we are to be aware of their being.
Light can reach only the retina, but not our mind. Sound and taste etc.
cannot reach our mind. External objects, penetrating through our body to
reach the mind which is believed to be in the body, is a thing that we
cannot explain.
Mind jumping out of the body through the sense organs
to reach the objects to become aware of them is not a less problem.

The
empiricists
dogmatically
maintained
that
experience
exclusively
constituted knowledge, and the rationalists with equal dogmatism held

that innate ides alone constituted knowledge. The dogmatists set no limit
Page 17 of 140
to knowledge and the sceptic set no limit to ignorance.
So it is a call of
reason to undertake anew the most difficult of all its task, namely, that of
self knowledge, and institute a tribunal which will assure to reason its
lawful claims. So Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) says that instead of the
mind approaching the objects, we have to assume that the objects must
approach the mind to be known at all. Reason must approach nature not
as a pupil but as a judge. We have to assume that the mind lays down
certain conditions for the objects to become the objects of knowledge.
Unless they confirm to these preconditions, they will not be objects for
human knowledge. These preconditions for the objects are the two forms
of
sensibility
(space
and
time),
and
twelve
categories
of
the
understanding, substance, causality etc. The conditions which the mind

puts forth to the objects are the common properties of all minds, for all
minds as knowers
will view objects
under these very conditions.
This
explains uniformity and universality of cognitive prepositions concerning

any object whatsoever. Kant says, these conditions are not the conditions
under which the mind knows the objects, but are those conditions under
which the mind `must know them. The mind cannot help seeing but in
accordance with its own native constitution. Kant says knowledge `begins
with experience, but does not necessarily òriginate from it. As soon as
the
sense
experiences
preconditioning
register
contributes
its
their
own
impressions
ordering
on
activity
the
into
mind,
discrete
impressions. So knowledge proper is a joint venture of sense and

understanding. Kant also says that mind does not remain satisfied with
scientific knowledge of the phenomena only. It also tries to know the
supersensible,
ùnderstanding,
and
this
there
is
is
not
`reason
possible.
which
Apart
from
`sense
usually
tries
to
and
constitute
knowledge. But these ideas of reason are not `constitutive or `regulative

principles. So he says knowledge begins with sense, proceeds thence to
the understanding and ends in reason.
Page 18 of 140
Agnosticism is that branch of philosophy which holds that

human beings have no faculty for knowing ultimate realities. We know
`that they are, but we do know that `they are.
Kant says that there are
things in themselves which are unknown and unknowable. This doctrine

of unknown follows from his transcendental philosophy, which affirms that
only those objects are known which lend themselves to human forms of
knowing. Naturally the objects of knowledge can be transformed and
transfigured by the preconditioning of human knowing. We can know
objects only as they àppear to us, coloured and transformed by our way
of knowing. What these objects are in themselves, apart from our way of
knowing, of course, can never be ascertained by us. So knowledge of
phenomena alone is possible, and the noumena or the things-inthemselves remain unknown and unknowable.
Kant refutes Newtons idea of
space as
an objective
receptacle, existing in its own right. Newton says that space or time is
really objective, existing outside human mind. If the idea of space or time
were derived empirically, then it could be imagined to be non-existing as
in the case with colour, taste, smell etc., or even having not colour, taste
and smell etc, at all. But we can never think of an object not to have
spatial characters at all. Leibnitz holds that space or time is not an
objective receptacle, but is an appearance and is relative. For him, there
could be no space or time as real. But Kant argues that if there were no
notion of space for the beginning, then certainly there could be no
experience
of
things
experience
of
objects
outside
as
or
alongside
outside
or
one
alongside
another.
of
The
one
very
another,
presupposes the notion of space. So instead of taking the experience of

objects
as near, far, outside and inside as explaining the notion of

Page 19 of 140
space, we have to maintain that the notion of space is presupposed for

explaining such experiences themselves. Therefore experience cannot
explain the notion of space. The idea of space is a prerequisite for any
perceptual experience.
Kant says that we are not in space and time, but space and
time are in us.
This paradox simply means that space and time are the
subjective form of perceiving any object for all human beings. Because
they are subjective in the same way for all human beings, therefore, they
are truly objective. Ordinarily, in the terminology of commonsense realism
and science òbjective is that which is free from any subjective
involvement that is, in the cognition of which no desire, passion, or any
other condition of the subject or the knower should enter. For Kant,
òbjective means that which is the same for me is for you and all at all
times and space. In this sense, space and time are objective, for they
are the public and the same for all. He says that objectivity is the
universal validity. A dream all men dream together, and which all men
must dream, is not a dream, but a reality. Whatever we perceive we
colour them, modify and transform them by spacing them and timing
them. Without doing this we cannot perceive them at all. But what things,
apart from our modes of perceiving them are in themselves, we have no
means of knowledge. Might be that objects are really spaced and timed
or, might be they are not at all in space and time. A fish can know what
life is in water, but it cannot know what life in any other media could be.
We dont know how angels and Gods perceive objects.
We only know
this much that we perceive objects only by spacing and timing them. In
this world of phenomena scientific knowledge is possible. Every body
perceives objects in the same way and must perceive them in space and
time. Illusion like seeing a rope as snake can disappear after being
Page 20 of 140
checked. But perception of objects in space and time cannot disappear,

as they remain permanent and do not obfuscate. Illusion and dream can
vary from person to person, but perception is common for all. Space and
time have universal validity and they are empirically real, but no less
transcendentally ideal. This means that space and time are real for
practical concerns of life, but they are not real absolutely. So far as the
world of science and commonsense are concerned, they would be
experienced alike as spatially and temporarily real. But in the final
analyses they are simply subjective forms of knowing.
Let me remind you that the inscription at Delphi did not

invite to know what is knowledge or what is known, but it only advised
man `to know himself. The word `man in the sentence, `Man! Know
thyself does not address Socrates or any particular man. It invites man
in general or the whole of mankind.
With this understanding of the first
word we can go forward. It invites man not to know by search or

research any particular thing under the sun or even the world as a
whole. It demands of man only to know his `self. Whoever has come
across this gospel, if you permit me to use the word, did not stop to
discriminate between him and his `self. The sentence has to be taken
as a maxim, in the sense of Sootra-
in Sanskrit literature. Sootras are
the result of compressing the maximum meaning in minimum words, or

better say, letters. Know thyself - ! is the injunction of the
Vedas. Now we have two sentences, one from ancient Greece, and the
other from ancient India. We are not told who the author of the
inscription at Delphi was, and the tradition holds that the Veda was not
written by any person. Though the two sentences are in different
languages, the meaning is one and the same. Now let us try to
understand the sentence to some extent. We already know the meaning
Page 21 of 140
of the word man, to be all human beings irrespective of race, religion,

sex and nation. The next word is `know in imperative mood. To know
means to become aware of the existence of something. How do we
become aware of the being of something?
perception.
It is through sense
Knowledge of the perceivable things can be had through five
senses or the sensory organs that we have. Secondly, we can guess the
existence of something by logical thinking, as in the case of gravity. We
are also aware of hunger, anger, joy and the like, and it is called feeling.
Though some persons are said to have intuitive knowledge, we can
leave it aside as it is not with in the experience of common man and it
all depends upon the belief.
We are left with no other way to be aware of the existence

of things apart from perception and hypotheses. Only with these two gate
ways of acquiring knowledge, the sacred sentence commands man to
know, but, to know what? The answer is also there. The object of
knowledge is the `self. Now we reach a critical point because, we are
left to find out the answer to the question, ``Can either perception or
inference prove the existence of the self?
Even if the word self
commonly means ones nature, character and ability etc, we have to

understand it as the soul, for the sacred inscription could mean nothing
less. As the soul is said to be not a material thing and, it is beyond the
reach of sense organs and perception has nothing to do with it. Neither
can inference. Though inference does not deal with direct objects, it
depends on the recollection of the objects.
Inference works out
knowledge working on the mental pictures of the objects. It is only a

secondary knowledge of the direct objects. So no inference can yield any
knowledge of the soul.
Page 22 of 140
2.
In the west, philosophy is more a matter of speculation and

theory, but in India it is more a matter of experience in life.
We have
different religions in India and of them the three, the Vedic religion, the
Jainism and the Buddhism are remarkable. All of these religions have
their own philosophies as their back bone.
But philosophy is not religion.
Religion is a matter of act and philosophy is a matter of thought. So

religious, pious and austere men may not be, and need not be expected
to be philosophers or students of philosophy. A philosopher need not be
religious as well. Religion, appearing as the wide spread green tree full
of flowers and fruit, has an invisible seed at its beginning called
philosophy. Religious activities are matters of faith or belief and one may
be content and happy with his participation in such colourful and
glamorous rites. Religion may grant contentment to it followers, but it
cannot pacify the questioning intellect, for in religion `there is not to
Page 23 of 140
question why. Solutions to emotional dissatisfaction and intellectual unrest

are to be found on separate levels.
Every motion in nature is an exploring step towards its unknown

beginning, and just the same way every thought of mind is limping to
reach its womb. Man is not conscious of the nature and aim of his own
mind. Though he says `my mind, he does not seem to discriminate
himself from his mind. He cannot guarantee that he is not `his mind.
Ancient Indian Vedic sages knew this very well. They studied mind and
its various activities, and discovered the secret ways of its work. A study
of
the nature of
mind is more rewarding and interesting,
though
challenging, than the study of the nature outside. Though brain varies
from person to person, the same cannot be said with regard to mind. If
the mind too varied we could not have the criterion to consolidate all
men and group mankind.
In spite of the vast difference of languages
and gestures, all appear to think and understand in the same way.
mean all are equal in their way of understanding, though they differ in
expression. Feelings, emotion, desire, ambition, hate, anger, pride, sense
of beauty, are all common factors all over the world. A study of history
and literature supports
this.
In whichever corner of the world a man may live he is, by nature,

bound to think,
I am born of these parents. I am tall, short, strong,
weak, white, black, wise, good etc. I am living in this locality. My name
is such and such. My friends are good and my enemies are ill natured. I
am born on such and such date and my age is this. I love my family
and they like me. This world is big and beautiful. The light of the sun,
the moon and the stars make me happy. I wish to do such and such
Page 24 of 140
works and earn a lot of money and my fame would spread far and wide.
I like to do such adventures at which the others would gasp with
wonder. I am told that death is inevitable and hence before death knocks
at my door I wish to make all my dreams a reality. There may be or
may not be rebirth, but to me this life is real. Before departing this world
I would do such works that would bring peace and prosperity to a lot
and that would make the people drop their tears when my body is laid
to rest. And so on.
Broadly speaking, when we are healthy and
comfortable, we are not exempt from this kind of thought.
Shall we enquire, what are the principles underlying the stimulations

for such thoughts? The first and the most important understanding behind
every person to think so is, the idea that,
I am a visitor to this world.
And the second one is, My stay here is temporary one. An analysis of
the first stimuli, namely, I am a visitor to this world could reveal the
following understandings: This world is there for millions and trillions of
years of its own accord. How did it come to be we know not. Scientists
are pouring theories after theories trying to explain the origin of it. But
every new theory gains popularity by denying its preceding ones. None
of them is final and satisfactory. We agree that man was not man
millions of years ago because great men like Darwin and Dalton said so.
To those who know not, or have no faith in rebirth, this life here in this
world is an accident. And to them, who believe in rebirth, this life is the
occasion resulted out of their righteous or wrongful activities in the past
lives, to reap as they saw. Some of them are taught to worry as to how
to escape from the vicious circle of birth and rebirth. To escape from
rebirth is to escape from visiting this world again. Any way, this life is
understood to be a visit to this world irrespective of man`s belief or
disbelief in rebirth. To all, their visit begins with birth and ends in death.
Page 25 of 140
Men may come and men may go but the world goes on for ever. From
this it is clear that the world is a permanent entity and man`s life here is
temporary. Mans temporary stay here begins with his body coming to
this world out of the womb as all of us agree. This agreement of ours
exclusively reveals our conviction, I am this body. So the implication of
the statement, I am a visitor to this world is, I am this body.
Now, let us take up the second opinion, My stay here is a

temporary one. This
sounds like, In the middle of my journey, I am
forced to stay here for some time. This implies that I am something
other than this body. Of these two views we are sure of the first one i.e.
I am this body and remain obfuscated with regard to the second one.
This means that man has the knowledge of his being the body and the
ignorance of what he is other than the body. Man is not ignorant of his
knowledge, and has no knowledge of his nescience.
The knowledge, I am this body, has some thing more to reveal.

It is a well earned knowledge that the body is born and one day or the
other it will perish and decompose. That is why man thinks that he is
not permanent. The knowledge of the history of mankind and that of the
earth or universe gives him the idea that men come into and go out of
this permanent world. Thus two things, worlds
permanence and mans
transience are embedded in one idea. Mans conviction of worlds

permanence and mans transience act as inner vitality of all his thinking,
imagining, feeling and reasoning capacities. This stimulation, of which
man is unaware, controls and guides all his mental and physical
activities, and gives meaning to his life. He is compelled to fix value to
himself and to outer world only being goaded by this under current. The
Page 26 of 140
knowledge of his being a transient and his unavoidable departure haunts

him in the disguise of the` fear of death.
Why should one be afraid of
death of which one has no experience at all? To understand this we

have to know the meaning of the fear of death. You may say that the
beauty of the world, the love one gets from his family and friends, and
the pleasure and comforts that sensory organs yield, make one reluctant
to die; and the sorrow one feels for having to leave them all results in
fear of death. You may add that the ugliness and the horror of hell of
which one is told creates fear of death, which could mean the gate way
to hell. This answer may satisfy those who think according to `World
Centre Habit, or the natural way of thought because it is peoples
knowledge. But to me it seems that ignorance of death is the cause of
the fear of death. The intrinsic value of the fear of death will be
discussed in due course. Now let us mind that no man is exempt from
the fear of death. Fear of death means reluctance to be other than body
or to quit the body. So fear of death is the concealing outfit of the
definiteness
of, I am this body.
Till now I have been using the word `knowledge to express the
ìdea of I am this body and My stay in this world. In the previous
chapter difference between knowledge and belief was made clear.
Bearing that in mind, we have to consider the appropriateness of the
word, knowledge, in this context. Do we have sufficient evidence, and are
we not left with doubts, while using the sentence I am the body? We
are certainly ambivalent. One says one is tall, strong, and white and so
on, as well as ones body is full of pain, too fat, too weak etc. When a
man remarks, `my body is too fat, it reveals his awareness of his being
some thing other than his body. The presence of this ambiguity in
expression provides strong evidence against the legitimacy of using the
Page 27 of 140
word `knowledge. Though there is secret awareness of being some thing

other than the body, it is hushed up and not cared for. The expressions
like, I see, hear, speak, taste, smell, work, rest etc. show oneness of
man with his body. With the changing ages, our awareness of being a
boy, a teenager, a young man, an old man and a decrepit shows that
we are not different from the body. But the remarks, I am wise,
educated, happy, angry and so on express mans understanding of his
oneness with the mind. So, man is not sure of either being his body or
being his mind. Your decision of your being whether the body or the
mind now oscillates between body and mind, and so you may agree with
the statement that identification of one self with ones body is not
knowledge. It is only a belief, may be a very strong one. Right from
birth, your body has been undergoing continuous changes for all these
years. Body is nourished and built by the food and drinks. Material food
builds up material body. So the process of in taken food changing itself
into cells of the body leads to the growth of the body. In the course of
this change there could have been no discontinuity or pause. Continuous
change means continuous movement. The same continuous change must
have been taking place with the size, shape, weight and look of the
body also.
After all what difference do you notice between body and food?
Plants are the food of animals, and the dead bodies of the animals
become food of plants. Bodies of birds, insects, and small animals are
the food of some other types of insects, birds and animals. Outside
bodies are food and food inside is body. One body is the food of
another body. Food and body are two different points in their cyclic
movement. Parasites live on other living bodies. Five elements, earth,
water, air, fire and space make up all the bodies and there can be no
Page 28 of 140
body with out these constituents. If this is the teaching of the Upanishats,
present day scientists say that every thing in nature is made up of
fundamental elements. Biodegradation is a process which makes the
body return to its elementary stage. Our inability to notice the slowest
movement of the hour stick in a watch could not be a proof, even to
ourselves, of its immobility. So also our failure to notice the incessant
change taking place in the body is not an unerring evidence to prove I
am what I was ten years ago. In spite of all these changes in the body,
Ìness remains the same. If you ask the people, whose hands or legs
are amputated, they could only say that their hand and legs are
amputated, but none of them would say `he or `she was amputated. It
is because he never ceases to feel his indivisible entity. So identifying
your self with your body may not be called true knowledge, and we may
rightly call it a belief, that too for the time being only.
We cannot define mind with the ease with which we define body as
mind is a conglomeration of ideas, reason, memory, knowledge, doubt,
decision, guess, belief and the like. Physical science does not define
mind as it does not deal with it. Psychologists definition of mind is more
or less an explanation of behavior. More over, they do not say what
mind is made of. But, The Chandogya Upanishat says, In taken food
(and drink), is decomposed during digestion and the solid form of which
is excreted in the form of wastes, the finer form transforms itself into
muscles and the finest form becomes mind. #$

+ .+ 4 8 9+# :. #(C.U.6-5-1.) We
are told by the great physicists and chemists that there is nothing
constant in the universe, in whichever state a thing may be, solid, liquid
or gas, and so
the world is said to be in flux. When it is decided that
the change is the nature of things, mind which is the finest form of
Page 29 of 140
substance, cannot be an exception to this natural law. We are all aware

of frequent changes of our mood, desire, thought, decision, hope, idea,
and even knowledge. Remember, we also speak of immaturity, maturity,
development, and ripening of the mind and this confirms the change in
mental states, mutability of mind.
Of all these innumerable changing states of mind none could claim

to be a person. If you say that these are all the changing states or even
components of mind, what else could be a mind apart from all these?
No one can say that he is either anger, or love or hatred or wisdom and
so on. If a man is not his body, it was supposed that he could be his
mind. We have heard of, and some of us might have seen, some
patients lying on hospital beds for months and years together in a coma.
We are told that they have no consciousness, no sensation and their
minds are inactive and they are not conscious of anything.
Even in this
condition if the patient is said to be living, who could it be? Before birth
a child cannot think anything. Could you imagine an unthinking mind?
Not to speak of a brain, but mind.
If the absence of a mind cannot
make a man lifeless, neither the presence of mind can make a living
person. It may be clear by now that man is neither his body nor his
mind. If a man is not his body, in the beginning it was supposed, then
he could be his mind, but both the factors are falsified now. Now say
who are you?
I expect that it could make you jump to the conclusion that you are
Prana,-< Jeeva- or life or vital energy, as may be called. So long
one respires one is believed to be alive. Respiration is the fundamental
activity that causes all other physical and mental activities in the body.
Page 30 of 140
So this respiration or the energy that enables respiration is called Prana

or life. In taken oxygen is the source of energy for all activities. Can
anybody say that he is oxygen? No. The work of oxygen starts only after
it is taken in. The oxygen in the atmosphere cannot of its own accord
enter into any lungs and start organic activities. It does not enter into the
lungs in a dead body. So no one can say that he is oxygen or Prana or
life. Still more important to think is that though all living beings seem to
respire,
and
cessation
of
respiration
symbolizes
death,
we
cannot
conclude that there could be no life without respiration. Children in the

womb, eggs, and seeds do not respire, but we cannot judge them as
dead or lifeless. Semen of animals is preserved in liquid nitrogen for
months together for purpose of artificial insemination, but still the sperms
in it do not die. We cannot hope the sperms to breath under liquid
nitrogen. It is said that some animals during hibernation do not eat and
do not respire for pretty length of time.
Life means the period between birth and death. It also means the
active force that makes those forms of matter(animals and plants) that
grow through feedings and produce new young forms
like themselves,
different from all other matter ( stone, machine, object etc,). Self means
a person with his own nature, character, abilities etc. Soul means the
part of a person that is not the body and is thought not to die. These
definitions are taken from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.
For sake of convenience, here after, let us consider the word life equal
to Jeeva or Prana and soul to Atman Please note carefully the
difference between the definitions of life and soul. ` Iness
in
person is denoted by the word Jeeva, and this we may call life or ego.
Perhaps the last resort to identify is the soul. We say that we
have a soul not because it is our own discovery or even experience but
Page 31 of 140
only because we were told so. But we believe it so firmly that we do

neither wish to verify the testimony to the statement nor to doubt the
reality of its being. We never tried to understand its nature. How
superficial is our knowledge of our own soul!
Now recollect the
difference between knowledge and belief. In this condition how do you

justify your admitting the being of the soul in you? or, again the journey
of the soul to heaven or hell after death? People who are very skeptical
in their day to day affairs do not hesitate to claim their knowledge of the
existence of soul and its journey after death and, what is more, spend a
lot of money, time and energy to promote the status of the soul and
make its next journey possible to the heavens, without the least doubts.
All right. That is the nature of men. Just for the convenience of
advanced study,
let us probe into the matter. Even as a good doctor
cannot say that a particular medicine is the final and the only remedy to
a particular disease, we cannot deny different truths applicable to a
particular thing. Reverse the truth, and there will be a newer truth; and
that explains and exemplifies the true freedom of thought.
For the time being, for purpose of inquiry, let us grant the soul its
being. We have already seen that body is not and cannot be the soul,
but still they are seen to be together. So we can at the most presume a
relationship between the two. For any kind of relation to be established
two different things are a necessity as the related things can never be
one and the same. This necessitates to guess a beginning and an end
of relation. Logically, whatever begins must end and whatever ends must
have begun. As it is everybodys knowledge that the relation between the
body and the soul ends in death, there is nothing wrong in presupposing
the beginning of it at a time. That means to say that if the relation ends
in death it must have a beginning also. But before continuing our inquiry
Page 32 of 140
into the beginning, we shall have a glance at the nature of their

relationship. Generally it is believed that the invisible soul dwells in the
visible body and so the body shelters the soul till death. Without body
we cannot think of the being of the soul. Both are together but still they
are separable, as in the case of bad disease, heavy blow, and the like,
in spite of old age. Body undergoes birth, growth, change, age and
decay, but the same cannot be said of the soul. Still, all these changes
take place in the body only when it is with soul and the next moment
the soul departs, the body will be a corpse and perishes.
Soul itself
cannot walk, talk, think, and work. Some are of the opinion that body is
the instrument of the soul, but not without opposition. Any way this
bilateral relationship is not perpetual and is bound to terminate. Neither
body nor soul singly makes a man.
Termination of the relation between body and soul is always a

matter of mourning, but the problem of its beginning becomes a matter
of curiosity and offers a challenge to the intellect. Guessing the entry of
the soul into the body at the time of or soon after the birth will be too
unscientific, for otherwise the growth of the child in the womb could have
been impossible. Even the duration between
conception and could not
provide a chance of an entry to a new life into a body in which one

must have already existed ensuring multiplication of cells into a body.
Since we know that conjugation is the exchange of nuclear material
between two single celled simple forms of life just before each divides,
none can entertain the possibility of soul entering into either cells, which
have life in them and are called living cells. Two different living cells
from two different bodies of male and female exchange their nuclear
material before division. Nucleus is the central part of almost all cells of
living matter. Chromosome is a thread like body found in the nucleus of
Page 33 of 140
cells, which passes on and controls the nature, character etc. of a cell or
young animal. Each type of animal has a certain number of these, fixed
for that type. Chromosomes are of two types i.e. X and Y. Human cells
consists of twenty three pairs of chromosomes, normally. In female cells
X chromosomes exist in pairs and in male cells singly. After the union of
the male and female, X chromosome will produce a female when
combined with a Y chromosome.
Y chromosome exists singly in male
cells, and after union of male and female, will produce a male when
combined with an X chromosome.
We can trace the genesis of a spices perhaps even up to

deoxyribo nucleic acid or DNA
trace the origin of the soul.
as it is called, but by no means we can
Male or female is not singly responsible for
propagation. Gift of a life to a body cannot be claimed by either singly.

A combination of two live chromosomes cannot lead to the construction
of a new soul, for the soul is not made up of components or pars. An
explanation of neither mitosis
nor meioses can help us to find out the
origin of soul or its entry into the body. If we analyse the act of entering,
it is known that only a physical body can
get into the cavity available
in another either through an existing opening or by making a hole on the

wall of the cavity by piercing. Solid bodies or drops of liquid or atoms of
gas, being physical, can enter into or mix with others. In any case, the
act of entering denotes the movement of a physical thing, as only
physical things can move. Because the soul is said to be non-physical,
our efforts to establish the commencement of relationship between soul
and body can never bear fruit.
Page 34 of 140
In spit of accepting all the impossibilities of the origin of the

relationship between body and the soul, the problem boomerangs in our
helplessness to disprove the existence of our own individual soul.
To
find a way out from this tight corner we may argue in favour of division
of the soul at the end of copulation from the parental bodies. In this
case we have to grant the improbable union of two souls emerging from
male and female to make a whole, or the survival of one of the two.
More over greater difficulty arises in accusing the soul, which is not
material, of dividing itself like a physical cell.
You might have observed the planting of the cut pieces of the
plants and creepers like rose, pepper, vanilla etc.
These planted pieces
grow and in their turn will be cut and planted in other places. When
such plant is cut into pieces what happens to its soul? As soul cannot
be divided like a physical thing we can see only two pieces of plants but
cannot even imagine two pieces of soul. One can cut a plant but not
soul. Still, we see both the plants growing separately, and none of them
can be claimed lifeless. We cannot even postulate the entry of a new life
into the cut piece of the plant supposing that the act of cutting and
separating would have made the life abandon it making room for the new
one to enter, because the same circumstance which causes one to
desert cannot be conducive to invite and foster the other. Advancement
of scientific knowledge enabled the scientists to make tissue culture and
clawning successful. Here only a tissue or a particle of a living body is
made to grow differently, but a soul is not created newly. We can
conclude that the starting point of the combination of the body and
individual soul cannot be fixed. Now one can question the indivisibility of
the soul which has been the basis of our logical arguments. Indivisibility,
immortality and non duality of the soul, being the very foundation of the
Page 35 of 140
theme of the Upanishats, every Upanishat with all prudence and sincerity
tries to enlighten us the same unchanging absolute reality. These
examples can be noted. Atman is all pervasive and the inner most part
of all the things. @A @
# (Sh.U.6-11.)This soul is the all
experiencing and all including. BC @
(Br.U.2-5-19.)
(Whatever is seen and heard here) That all is Atman. @
(Br.U.2-4-6.) He (soul) is in all and out side all and is never
born. C#C (M.U.2-1-2.) Before the beginning of this creation,
all was one called Sat or Atman. I J (C.U.6-2-1.)
Atman is spread every where like the sky or space. @L
8 (Sh.Br.10-6-3-2.)
All is Brahma only. @ P BC (C.U.3-
14-1.) You can see hundreds of such sentences in the Upanishats

proclaiming the oneness and immortality of the soul.
Our inability to trace the origin of the individual soul is the logical
out come of commonsense reasoning. The Upanishats support this view
as they declare the beginninglessness of the soul in clear words like,
beginningless,
not born, very old. . Q etc. The logical
outcome of the beginninglessness is the endlessness. All that is born

must die and which is not born cannot die. So our reasoning has shown
the beginninglessness of the soul, and this is enough to raise the
question, is man immortal?
Socrates is mortal.
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. So
This logic is very popular among the students of
logic and philosophy. I do not dispute, but can only say that all men are
mortal but not the soul. Still, I do not expect that this simple statement
may not quench the thirst for knowledge of the thoughtful readers. One
may ask, Is not man mortal? Have we not seen people dying? Animals,
birds and plants are subject to death; otherwise earth would be left with
no place to live in for the new-borns. Some would even think that
Page 36 of 140
agreeing
with
consciousness.
me
could
be
commensurable
with
betrayal
of
Let me remind you of the British custom of expressing
their condolence, when a king dies, The king is dead; and long live the
king. I let you think over the matter, for the time being.
Of course it is customary to think that a man is dead when a man

is dead, and a horse is dead when it is no more. But I do not
understand who is dead when a man is dead, because the body as such
cannot die and the soul is immortal. Still the denial of the existence of
the soul is commensurable with the annulment of our own being. When a
man is dead we can say that his life has come to an end but not his
soul is dead. A man, a tiger, a parrot, a hen, a mango tree etc. may
die, that does not mean the death of the soul. The death of human
beings , animals, birds, insects and plants begins the decay and
decomposition of the bodies alone, but not of the soul .
The death of a
born is definite and the dead is bound to reborn. + Q R

R

#
+ (B.G.2-27.) This is the commonsense
knowledge of every
Hindu. The Christianity upholds the continuity of the soul after death till
the day of the judgment though it does not approve rebirth. To them,
soul is that part of the person that is not the body and is thought not to
die. Moreover, if the death means the death of the soul, who will be left
to go to the heaven or hell? Perhaps all religions speak of hell and
heaven as the next abode of man, wherein he would be either rewarded
or punished according to his bad or good works he does here in this
life. Belief in other worlds supports the perpetuity
of soul.
The comment that the soul or Atman survives death could provide
a chance to some for identifying Ìness with soul, and to have the
Page 37 of 140
contentment of having solved the problem, Man! Know thyself. Then,

with a big expectation of sincere answer, I like to ask them, Are you
immortal?
Neither `no nor `yes could satisfy even the answerer, let
alone the listener. `No could mean he is only the body which perishes,
and `yes could mean he is the soul which survives death but of which
he is not sure for lack of experience. Knowledge halts to tread where
uncertainty prevails. It is ripe time to understand what death is. To be
true
to
our
experience,
mental
and
physical
inactivity
of
body
symbolizes death. Death as such is not seen. Stoppage of all activities in

a
body
persuades
our
natural
tendency
of
understanding
through
aposteriori, to find out a cause to the stoppage of activities. To avoid the

insulting exhibition of our own ignorance in the matter, we find shelter in
the public word death. To be true, we have no knowledge of death for
want of experience and we are not taught either. As it is the case with
every body, no one can venture to teach. This situation invites us to use
our reason.
Death is followed by the decomposition of the body. Decomposition

takes place only in a composed structure. Body, which is gradually
composed of matters, is biodegradable after death. Here we should
observe two things and they are, no new composition takes place and
biodegradation is quick, and so it becomes visible. When a man or
animal is alive, only growth through composition cannot be imagined as it
could lead to unusual size as a result of only accumulation of matters.
Slowly, but continuously, the whole body changes which means new
parts are formed and
the new ones become old and useless and then
perish. Growth also is a partial and slow death. Both growth and death
are simultaneous, contemporaneous, continuous, slow and invisible.
So
we cant claim every part of our present body to be the same as it was
Page 38 of 140
some years ago. It is said that a human body undergoes a complete

change in twelve years, and this may be the reason for the fixation of
more than twelve years of exile both in the Ramayana and the
Mahabharata. So we cannot reasonably claim that we, even physically,
are the same as we were some years ago. Photos and films of
childhood days may prove this. This should convince us that we are
physically growing and dying simultaneously. This reminds us that food
and body are two different points in the cycle of creation. To every living
being its body is the dearest thing, and no one hesitates to call it my
body, even though ones body is anothers food in nature. Even now
you do not know how many parasites live on your body happily.
It is equally true that we are mentally living, growing and dying

simultaneously and continuously. Every moment we perceive things and
perceiving is knowing. Information of outer or inner things is being added
continuously to our knowledge, and the process of forgetting is equally
continuous. We see persons and things wherever we go and we see
many incidents also. But we do not claim to remember each and every
one of them. Can we recollect each and every person we saw just
yesterday? No. Can we reproduce from memory what were our food
items the day before yesterday?
No. Are we able to repeat each and
every sentence spoken by us just since this morning? No. May we recall
the report of an incident we heard of sentence by sentence?
No. We
are forgetting continuously but we do not remember it. Learning and

forgetting are continuous mental activities. Not only that. Even our
emotions cannot be long lasting. Moods, whims, volitions, notions and
emotions keep changing. David Hume says that self or mind is nothing
but a heap or collection of passing sensations. Mind is just a construct
of sensations, feelings and images. So our belief of our being mentally
Page 39 of 140
the same as we were or our mind being the same as it was is simply a
treachery. Not only that, we speak of mental maturity which no one has
by birth. Along with the age both body and mind grow. Growth means
accumulation of new components. Though the components continuously
change, the whole pretends to be the unchanging one. This trick induces
us to ignore the
every one.
truth. This ignorance is the root cause of Ìness in
Now it would be easy to understand that the same is true in
the case of Ìness or the soul, which is said to be the bearer of sin and
virtue as it is said to enjoy the heavens or suffer the hells. It is the
belief of religious people that the causes of our pleasure and pain in this
life are the results our activities in the previous lives. Pleasures and
pains come and go, that means the fruits of the past actions are
experienced here continuously. So the bearer of sin and virtue is also
undergoing changes, but still is believed to be the same. To say that a
whole remains unchanged in spite of the change of all its components is
not a paradox, but nonsense. A whole cannot be the same whole even
after confiscating or replacing all its components. The components make
a whole. Apart from the components a whole has no separate existence
of its own. New information refreshes knowledge. The knowledge of
Ìness in the body or mind is our own knowledge and that knowledge
which is not eradicated even by this explanation, is a true and nurtured
ignorance.
Let us consider the status of soul which is said to survive death

and continue its journey to heavens or hells. Death may mean only
separation of the body and soul, but not the annihilation of the soul.
Death is followed by decomposition of the body but not of the soul. This
may mean that soul continues to live after death, but in what form? We
cannot imagine its form or figure, but still it is said that a mans soul will
Page 40 of 140
be a mans soul different from all others, and continues to live and will
either be rewarded or punished as the case may be. Different hells and
heavens are described in scriptures. Of course, that is a matter of belief.
It is not our own knowledge. My problem is can a man, after death, be
a man? Can a woman, after death, be a woman? Can child, after death,
be a child only, or could it grow into a man or woman? Can a person
have the knowledge of the language which was his mother tongue before
death?
Can the soul remember at least major incidents of the life
previous to death?
The only answer to all these question is `no. In that
case the soul is neither a physical nor a cerebral entity. A mango, which
is denied of all its physical qualities like, length, breadth, weight, colour,
taste, smell etc. cannot have an existence at all. In the same way a man
bereft of all the physical qualities can have no physical existence at all.
The mind bereft of all its qualities like, knowledge, thought, reason,
emotion, decision, wish, etc. cannot be imagined to have an existence
because the total of all these qualities is the mind. Even if there be a
soul, its being cannot be acknowledged apart from physical or mental
qualities. How can we be assured of the existence of a soul after death
without mental qualities like memory, thought, reasoning etc? Soul or
anything which is devoid of physical and mental qualities can neither be
perceived nor be inferred. If someone says soul can continue to live
apart from these qualities, we may grant the statement a status of belief
but not of knowledge for lack of evidence. Moreover, even if the soul
continues to be after death, how can we differentiate one from the other,
when all others are in the same naked state? I used the words `bare
and
`naked,
only
to
help
your
imagination.
Nudity
explains
the
uncovering of a body, and a body, to be a body, must have some

qualities to be able to be spoken of. On what ground of individuality one
soul can be identified as different from the others? Qualities or properties
give individuality to things. Without qualities we cannot recognise any
Page 41 of 140
individual. An individual having no qualities whatsoever is a nonentity.

Soul which has not qualities left after death must be a nonentity.
The scriptures proclaim that good doers go to heaven and the bad
doers to hell. Still worse are bound to find rebirth in lower animals.
Animals and other lower spices are exempt from the fruits of sin or
otherwise as they have no moral codes. Does it mean the life of an
animal is a platform to suffer? Let it be. Different religions proclaim the
existence of hells and heavens and the followers of those religions are
believed to go to those heavens or hells as the case may be. Hells and
heavens are not on earth. In other words, are there different hells and
heavens for the people of different religions? Where does a convert go?
Is he not bound by the codes of the earlier religion?
He is not free to
travel to wherever he likes. Angels or servants of Gods of which religious

hell or heaven should take hold of his soul? Could there be no conflicts
among them? Let it be, dont worry.
In these days of globalization, why
should we not think of globalization of hells and heavens?
We may take into account one more possibility of soul having some
form after death. The scriptures describe the journey of the soul to hell
or heaven wherein it is obliged to enjoy reward or suffer punishment as
a result of its activities before death. This means, we may assume, to
say that soul has a form finer than that of the mind and that will be its
individuality at that time. We may call that form, for the sake of
convenience, the bearer of vices - and virtues -T
. is the result
of prohibited or sinful doings, and
is the opposite of it. The form
which is said to be the bearer of sin or otherwise is obliged to meet with

the results of its doings, in the hells or heavens. . What justification do
Page 42 of 140
we find in either inflicting torture or otherwise on this bearer form at a

time or state when it has no connection whatsoever with the physical or
mental
forms
which
were
the
tools
of
offence
or
righteousness?
Secondly, pleasures or pains, happiness or unhappiness can be caused

to a living being either through body or through mind. The bearer form
having neither of these cannot have sensation and sentiment. Moreover,
reward or punishment is also an action which intends to cause reaction
from the bearer in an intended way in the future.
An action is
fundamentally a movement of physical thing. Action or reaction without

physical body cannot take place. The action of reward or punishment and
the reactions from the bearer would never be possible without physical
body or mind.
Whosoever is in charge of punishment in the hell should
have a body as well as a mind to exercise the torturing works. That

bodied and minded entity cannot work on this bearer form as it has no
body of whatever kind. It would be like beating the air. Still further, the
experience of having undergone punishment or reward is expected to
either refrain from bad or enthuse over good works in the future.
Recollection works it. The bearer having no physic or mind may not be
able either to experience or to recollect. So the whole story proves to be
a myth.
It is everybodys knowledge that no one refrains from his
proposed sinful works or blasphemy as a result of his remembering the

tortures that he had experienced in the hell. Nor is the
pleasures
enjoyed in heavens inducing anyone to do good deeds here on earth.
At this juncture one may raise a doubt like this: Man is born of
man only and a tiger of tiger, but not of a man. If there could be no
individuality of soul after death or before birth, we need not wonder if a
lizard is born of a man. The understanding behind this type of thought is
that soul continues its individuality even after death.
Just now it was

Page 43 of 140
made clear that soul after death cannot have any kind of individuality.
If
still doubt persists, let us examine the other problems that follow this
belief. It is natural to mourn the death of a person or a pet.
Religious
ceremonies are held to wish the soul rest in peace, or even a better life
after death. In this world we see innumerable spices of life. The only
criterion to divide them into groups is their body. The same criterion
cannot hold good to the souls devoid of bodies to discriminate one from
the other either before birth or after death. Whatever the belief may be,
we have no reason to presume individuality to soul after death. When a
man dies it is natural to think that a man is dead and his life has come
to an end. I do not think the soul continues to live with individuality. All
individual souls become one after death, as they were before birth. We
assume plurality of souls only between birth and death, considering the
bodies only. Death means only the end of the activities of the body and
mind, as a whole. When a man or animal dies, I think, the soul is freed
from the bondage of body and mind.
Yes, life is bondage. Life means the duration between birth and
death. So life is bondage to the soul. Denial of freedom is bondage, and
the soul is denied of its pristine glory of limitlessness during life time.
Satisfaction or the pacification of sense organs is a matter of biochemical
activity which is concerned with the physic of man. Some are of the
opinion that pain, dissatisfaction and fear etc, are the causes of
sufferings and these sufferings are said to be the bondage. But life is
not brimming with sufferings only; it is a mixture of both pleasure and
pain. The fear of the possible ending of the pleasure is again a suffering
or unhappiness. So wise men say that happiness is the disguise of
unhappiness. All such thoughts may turn one to a pessimist. To a
pessimist whole life is bondage. Revolving round the cycle of birth and
Page 44 of 140
death is bondage, is also the opinion of some others. But I do not agree
with these ideas. The true meaning of the bondage is the limitation of
the pristine glory of the limitlessness or oneness of the soul. Man has to
come out of his basic ignorance to realise his original pure state and
that is salvation. That is the achievement man has to do and the same
is suggested in the inscription at Delphi.
Biological changes take place both in living or dead animals.

Composition or decomposition is merely biological activities. Even after
death the activities concerning the structure do not stop. Decay results
only in the change of appearance of the body, but not the entire or final
destruction of the matters contained in the body. Perishing of the body
obviously means the change of structure only. Both metabolism and
biodegradation are chemical activities. When a soul is said to be in the
body it cannot stop metabolism and after death, it cannot cause
biodegradation. If you say soul when inside the body causes metabolism,
how can you disagree with the same soul left out of the body causing
decomposition? If one says that it is an automatic activity, the same
holds good with metabolism also as it is not a willful action of a person
or soul. Apart from this, àutomatic action itself is not a satisfactory
explanation. Automatic action means an action not done willfully. An
action is a movement. Here the word `will refers to mans intention. We
cannot say that metabolism is a willful or purposeful activity of a man.
Moreover, only a living being can have a `will or mind. This will does
not cause either metabolism or decomposition. Take the example of an
automatic watch which seems to run of its own accord without depending
on mans will. But there must have been a `will or mind behind its
construction, and the winding of the spring is caused by the movement
of the hand of a person. Take any example of automatic action in man
Page 45 of 140
made things, the very fact that it is planned and set to work by a mind
proves that it has a will behind it. A will and an external force are the
indirect causes of all the automatic actions. Still, the use of the word
àutomatic makes us believe that it has no connection whatsoever with
man and his will, as a result of mistaking. There is nothing automatic in
the world, or still better, every movement in nature is automatic. This
makes some thinkers to presuppose the necessity and existence of a
power to motivate and regulate each and every activity in nature. When
Darwin and Dalton published their theories, many theistic minds were
forced to convert into atheistic. The theorists did not explain what nature
means, in `natural selection. In the Middle Ages religion was ruling and
guiding mans thoughts in western world. It seems that many believe
religion to have an independent objective existence.
Now a days
majority of educated people seem to look upon science in the same

manner. Either religion or science can have no objective existence
outside mind. Religion is a bundle of ideas and science is also a bundle
of ideas. Ideas are ideas only and ideas rule the world. Neither religion
nor science can monopolize truth. The impact of the advancement of
science made the common man who was a believer of religion, a
believer of science. There is just a change in the content of belief. In the
long travel man has traversed in search of ultimate reality, various
religions and various scientific discoveries are different mile stones only.
Religion took the road of imagination and belief, and science, evidence
and reasoning. Neither road has ever been successful in landing man on
ultimate reality. Some scientists may say that they are not in search of
ultimate reality, but are only satisfied with discovery of truths concerning
some selected things. Some philosophers are of opinion that there is no
ultimate reality as such, and a search after it is like trying to find a black
cat in a dark room where it is not.
Page 46 of 140
Neither religion nor science has yet taught man who he really is.
They have been teaching man all other things but left the fundamental
necessity unfulfilled. Man, being ignorant of himself or his reality, claims
to discover many truths concerning outside world. Believers are not in
less number, because all are sailing in the same boat. Knowledge has
come to mean what one teaches others to believe. Think of it, and we
have no way out. This exhaustion may result in fixing man in a hopeless
condition and could raise the question, ``what is the necessity of finding
the ultimate reality? Of course, some may be happy with what they eat
and where the sleep. But there are others spurred by the inner urge to
solve the problem, ``Man! Know thyself, and find pleasure in accepting
that challenge; and in them mankind marks a hero or a leader.
Commoners follow, but leaders do not follow the followers.
Some may
ask for a proof for the being of the inner urge in man to solve the said
problem, because none is seem to speak of such inner urge in him. The
doubt is genuine. Unless man is taught, he has no means to know it,
because of mans nescience of his true nature, he fails to understand
from
where the spur comes
and in which form it is
expressed.
Psychology says that the first instinct in living beings is `to live. Sex is
the next instinct. Fondness of life is the desire to perpetuate his living,
so no one likes death. Instinct to live longer means
hatred
at death.
The urge to live is expressed through the efforts to avoid death.

Thescripture puts it like this: May I not be denied of my being; may I
live forever.

$8 (P.Y.B.4-10)
Mans desire to live forever is the first instinct, and it is not a
willing or feeling, or reasoning or even imagination. Instinct is a natural
urge, not learnt or acquired. No living being can live without this instinct.
Instinct to live for ever is the translation of the pristine immortality of the
soul. It is not the language of mind or heart, but of naked soul. Man,
and all living beings have sprung from that single pristine state called
Page 47 of 140
`Brahma and after death return to it only. During life time that Brahma is
the Ìness in every one. But this Ìness is not pure as it is expressed
as a mixture of physical body and mind. It is like looking through
coloured glasses; single soul expressed through different coloured glasses
appear being besmeared with those colours only. Its purity cannot be
perceived in life. So every Ì is Brahma or soul in its naked state.
Naked soul does not appear, and what appears is only the covering or
sheaths on that nude purity. What appears is not real and the real does
not appear. It is simple to understand that Jeeva or life is nothing but
impure soul or Brahma or better, Brahma is or life devoid of all
impurities. What we call knowledge is impure consciousness; and pure
consciousness is knowledge devoid of all impurities.
We shall go deeper
into this mater in a later stage, and for the time being about the
condition of soul after death, let us see what Chandogya
Upanishat
says. There, a father will not be a father, a mother not a mother, people
will not be people, Gods not Gods, the Veda not the Veda, a thief not
a thief,he is not followed by his sin or good works.

++ 8--------
T
# (B.U.4-3-22.)
A father here will not be a father after death because he is freed
from all worldly and family relationships which are the outcomes of, and
restricted to his body only. A mother will not
be a mother and even a
thief will not be a thief. Father and mother are the examples to show
bodily relations. Thief suggests of mind and its works like, greed, sense
of
right
and
wrong,
happiness,
achievement
and
even
guilty
consciousness and repentance. That is a state where man is completely

relieved from his physical and mental attributes. The fruits of his sinful
works etc. do not follow him. We should give attention to this statement.
The fruits of his sinful works do not affect or inflict him. We can clearly
Page 48 of 140
observe three things herein this mantra. After death the soul is denied of
all its physical attributes like father, mother, sister, friend, political and
social status etc. Secondly, with the example of the thief, all mental
attributes are denied. The negation of the impact of sin etc. suggests the
freedom from the bondage of even moral and religious codes. This soul
is not blemished by sin and it has no old age, no death, no sorrow, no
hunger and no thirst. V
(C.U.8-7-1.) This is intact from all worldly things and happenings.
Now remember, the British condole with,

the king.
King is dead. Long live
It clearly shows a difference between a man sitting on the
throne and a king. Kingship is an attribute. No man is born king or

queen. All official designations like minister, soldier, merchant, doctor,
lawyer, teacher, servant, master etc are attributes only and they are not
permanent. A son becomes a father and grandfather, a servant may
become a master, and a subject may become a king, and so on. One
man may have more than one attributes at a time. These attributes are
not the permanent parts of life. They have a beginning and an end. They
come and go, so are temporary. Ì is different from all these physical,
mental, social and political adjectives. Moreover, Ì cannot be a father,
mother, friend etc. These are the relative pronouns. All these attributes,
to give complete meaning, require at least two or more persons. A
woman singly cannot be a mother; her relation with a child gives
meaning to the word mother. All these attributes bring the sense of
duality or plurality, but Ì is always singular. So the real I am not any of
these attributes because they are relative and impermanent things. We
always feel singularity. We may do different jobs, hold many offices, but
sincerely one is always one only. So Ì am different from all other
domestic, social, political positions. Even a king is a king only so long as
Page 49 of 140
his subjects recognize, honour and obey him. History tells us of many
stories of dethroning kings. Our fundamental responsibility is to search
and realise the real Ì devoid of all attributes. This is the implication of
the warning Know thyself. Even after all these explanation it is not
improbable to have a doubt as to how the pristine stat of life could be.
In olden days people who believed in religions were satisfied with the
answer God, Brahma, Paramatma, soul etc. now a days people would
seek satisfaction with the answer, energy, basic force, strange strength,
special power etc. It all belongs to individual beliefs and the impact of
their previous knowledge.
Page 50 of 140
3.
Whatever answer you think of to the question, who are you?, they
are all wrong because you are not your body, mind, life and even the
bearer of sin and virtue. You are not your name, designation, work, post,
power, job, relation etc. This is the method of negation. In Sanskrit it is
called not this, not this. 8 8 (Br.U.4-4-22.) We may call this litotes.
With an example we can understand this method. Out of five hundred
and fifty books in your home library, suppose, your friend wishes to
borrow a particular book. How can your friend tell you which book he
wants? The simple and
straight way is to tell the name of the book he
wants. You may select that book from the heap and lend him. Your
friend also may use litotes, in which he goes on telling you the names of
five hundred and forty nine books to tell you they are not what he wants.
To select the book of his choice you ought to find out the name of the
book which he did not mention. This litotes is not practicable in our daily
affairs as it is laborious and tedious. We can point out the desired thing
by its name. This method is used by some parents and teachers as it
gives mental exercise.
The litotes is the best method rightly used in the Upanishats to find
out, Who am I. The Upanishats use this method only as no other
method is suitable for their purpose. We can perceive a sensible thing
and recognise them with the help of the perceivable qualities they have.
Page 51 of 140
Truly speaking, to perceive a thing is to perceive its physical qualities

only. Apart from qualities we can perceive nothing. All the physical things
have qualities and the quality means appearance. We are capable of
perceiving a thing only if the thing appears to our one or more sense
organs. We cannot see a book lying on the floor of a room in the
absence of light. Though the book is there, we cannot perceive it for
want of light. Our failure to see the book does not mean the non
existence of the book. The same holds good regarding other sensory
organs also. Ì am not a physical object. You can see my body, listen to
my sound and touch my skin, still they may be mine, but not I. You
cannot see my mind also. But I am conscious of the activities of my
mind. I am not my mind because when I say `my mind it clearly tells
you about two things, Ì and `mind. Though I am not my wisdom,
memory, knowledge, intellect, feeling etc, I cannot say Ì am nothing,
because I should be present to tell it. So I am the only unavoidable and
undeniable reality.
I can never deny my existence because the denial
should be done by me only. I can deny the reality of the whole world,
but not the reality of my own existence. This undeniable reality is not
only in me, it is invariably present in every one and every thing, and to
every one it appears beyond doubts as Ì. With every one this I is
common and fundamental. In its naked form it is one only. Unless we
realise the singularity of this Ì we cannot escape from the pangs of
bondage. This singular limitless reality is experienced by every one but
for the coverage of body and mind. To speak of it we all use the word
Ì. You cannot use any other word. Our ignorance of this singularity of
our soul makes us believe that we are limited to this body, mind, etc.
Realisation means the realisation of the singularity of our soul. Body,
mind, life, prana, bearer of sin etc. are the attributes of this soul. There
is no my soul, your soul, his soul, her soul and its soul, as the soul is
one and the same. It cannot be spoken of through words, and mind
Page 52 of 140
cannot grasp it. 8@# <V (T.U.2-9.) Its existence

may be suggested through litotes only.
The greatest fear is the fear of death, and no living being is

exempt from this fear of death. Death is nobodys experience but still
every one is afraid of death.
Why are we afraid of death? You may
satisfy yourselves by making a list of the causes which create the fear of
death. It is all your assumption. But the Upanishats tell the intrinsic value
of death. Mans knowledge of his being the body and ignorance of his
being the soul jointly create the fear of death. Man claims to be his body
fundamentally. He sees men and animals dying and naturally concludes
that they are mortal. His love of his body is unequalled. Throughout his
life he has been with his body and has had no chance of living without
it and perhaps this
prevents him from discriminating himself from his
body. Pain or pleasure, caused to the body is felt by him. Every time he
feels he is at pain or pleasure. He beautifies it and enjoys its look
before the mirror everyday. Whenever he remembers that death destroys
the body, it means to him his own destruction and he never wants to be
destroyed. By death he means self destruction. So for man fear of death
means his own annihilation. This is quite against the natural and
fundamental
instinct
to
live
long.
This
instinct
persuades
him
to
perpetuate his body. His desire to perpetuate the body is threatened by

the fear of death. He aspires for immortality, but is assured of mortality.
He finds no way out. His knowledge does not help him to make his
body immortal. He, with a great fear, decides that he is mortal. He can
never be ready to accept this torturous but unavoidable truth. He may be
ready to forsake anything dearest to him in the world to escape form
death.
Religions and sciences have been striving to drive away death.
But mans helplessness against death makes him sad and fearful. This
Page 53 of 140
greatest sadness and unavoidable fear are the result of mans knowledge
of his being the body.
Mans ignorance of his being the soul is also an equal share

holder of his sadness and fear of death. Nescience is lack of knowledge.
Mere absence of knowledge of any physical thing cannot make the thing
nonexistent. A mans ignorance of the existence of a cockroach on his
bed cannot make the cockroach nonexistent there. To know means to
have information in mind, and ignorance means to have no information in
mind. The information about a thing is different from the thing itself.
Absence or presence of information can make no effect on the thing. It
is about the knowledge or ignorance of physical things. Physical things
are knowable. In this sense the soul is not knowable. Now, one may
ask, Is the soul unknowable? At present I do not answer this question,
but it will be answered in due course. If I say that it is unknowable, I
may have to answer the question, What is unknowable? If I say that
the soul is unknowable, it will be self contradictory because what is
unknown is already known. But, be cautious, we know only the word or
sound `soul. But the word or sound is not its meaning (soul). We have
the knowledge of the sound, but not the soul. Now that is enough. We
can deny everything including our body and mind but not the denier who
denies. Remember Rene Descartes co gi to, ergo sum. It means Ì
doubt (or think), therefore I exist.
Even the truths of science can be
doubted, but I cannot doubt that I doubt. Whether it is a dream or real

life, I must exist as a doubting or thinking being. I not only doubt or
think, I know that I doubt or think. To doubt means to think. I not only
think but also know that I think. I know what I know. I may know
anything or everything before me, but this knower is unknowable. This
unknowable knower is the soul. It is unknowable in the sense that it has
Page 54 of 140
no knowable qualities. Everything in nature is made up of components or

parts. The total of parts is a whole. Even the smallest particles of a
thing is said to be structured by fundamental elements. Again the
fundamental elements are the totals of atoms. Atoms too are divisible.
Everything consists of something and so is limited. But the soul does not
contain anything and so is unlimited. Things are structures and the
structures are bound to collapse. The soul is not a structure and so is
indivisible, all pervasive, omnipresent and immortal.
The sky is one only, indivisible and it makes the sky all pervasive
and omnipresent. To be simple, sky offers countability to things. To make
the things countable is to give them individuality. Individuality means
being separate from others. Separation is a spatial condition. Even the
minute known things are encompassed by the space. So we say that
space determines things. We cannot even imagine the absence of the
sky or space. There is nothing inside or outside the sky and so it is all
pervasive and omnipresent. Limited things exist in the unlimited sky. The
sky is unlimited because it is not a structure composed of parts. The
soul is all pervasive and permanent like the sky. @L 8
(Sh.Br.10-6-2.) It is only a comparison and the sky cannot be the soul.
As we cannot deny the existence of the sky so we cannot deny the
existence of the soul also. The sky is not a subject to any of our sense
organs. In spite of it we cannot say that we do not know it. Who can
imagine the birth and death of the sky? It is not born and so it is
immortal. The soul is also immortal because it is not born. Time does
not restrict the sky and so also it does not restrict the soul. Life, but not
soul, is restricted by time. An actor may enact different characters, but
he is constantly conscious of himself. Enacting is a mental activity but
the experience of being is consciousness. All of us are conscious of our
Page 55 of 140
being, beyond doubt. We are conscious of being, but being what? We

are
not
certain.
That
is
the
difference
between
knowledge
and
consciousness. Consciousness of other things makes knowledge. We

have no knowledge of what we are at least. Still, we are conscious of
ourselves.
Consciousness
is
undeniable,
though
unknowable.
Pure
consciousness is the soul. We are conscious of the soul means we are

conscious of its immortality. That is the truth. But we are confused. What
is the nature of this confusion?
Man does not know that he is the soul, but he knows that he is
the body. Nature of immortal soul is taken to be that of the body and
nature of mortal body is taken to be that of the soul. The knowledge of
the mortality of the body and the consciousness of the immortality of the
soul are mistaken to each other. He believes himself to be the body and
hopes the body to be immortal which is impossible. He knows that his
hopes will not be fulfilled and that makes him sad. As the soul though
he is immortal but ignorantly by death of the body he means the death
of the soul. The mistaken mortality is the cause of the fear. The pure
consciousness is immortal and the body is mortal. He wants to assign
the nature of pure consciousness (immortality) to the body, but it is not
possible. He transfers the nature of the body (mortality) on the soul and
is
threatened
by
death.
Mutual
transfer
of
mortality
on
soul
immortality on body is the result of nescience a, 9.
and
Reality
does not cause fear but uncertainty is the cause of fear. Immortality of
the body and the mortality of the soul are unreal and mortality of the
body and the immortality of the soul are real. Mans knowledge of his
being the body and the consciousness of his being the soul together
build confusion, and as a result he finds a mutual transfer of the
qualities of the soul and the body. He wants the body which is subject
Page 56 of 140
to death to be immortal and he is afraid that the soul which is immortal

would die. His mind is caught between two untruths i.e. mortality of the
soul and immortality of the body. These untruths
, 9 express
being disguised in the fear of death. The immortal soul is feared to be
mortal and the mortal body is hoped to be immortal. The two are mere
beliefs and not true knowledge. Beliefs may prove treacherous but
knowledge gives courage, nay, knowledge is courage.
Man does not need to escape from death; but he needs only to
escape from the fear of death. Death as such does not make us suffer
because we dont have the experience of it. We suffer not death, but we
suffer the fear of death. Death of the body may be an objective reality,
but fear is not an objective reality. Fear can never be outside the mind.
Where there is knowledge there can be no fear. Fear dictates only the
reign of doubts and ignorance. We need not exile death to make
ourselves brave. Get rid of nescience, and there will be bravery. There
could be no peaceful coexistence of knowledge with fear and ignorance
with bravery. Doubts and ignorance beget cowardice. Fear of death is
more horrible than death itself. Ignorance is more dangerous than fear
because it is the cause of fear. We cannot throw out fear from our mind.
To overcome fear is to eradicate ignorance. Ignorance is not a material
thing to be thrown off or destroyed. Ignorance is fundamentally an idea
or group of ideas. Idea means a picture or image in mind. On a big wall
different pictures can be drawn, pasted or removed. The pictures hide the
wall to their extent. The pictures when drawn or pasted on the wall gain
the vertical standing ability of the wall and hide the true colour of the
wall. The onlookers see only pictures but not the wall. Mind is like a
bare wall without colours, pictures and figures. The images of the
external objects in the mind are the pictures of things. The pictures are
Page 57 of 140
not permanent like the wall. They can be drawn, pasted and removed or
erased. Learning is equal to drawing or pasting pictures on the wall.
Whether willful or not, learning draws pictures on the mind. The pictures
or the images so acquired will be the properties of the mind. The
pictures do not have independent existence apart from mind. But the
mind is not the picture and the pictures are not mind. Knowledge is an
idea, and an idea is a picture drawn on mind. So the ideas become the
properties of the mind. Hence we say `my idea, `my knowledge. These
statements
denote
the
separateness
of
and
idea
or
knowledge.
Knowledge can be acquired, but not the mind. To learn means to acquire
knowledge. Acquisition of knowledge is a continuous process and equally
continuous is the process of forgetting. Some knowledge may last long
and some others may be transient. The present knowledge is called the
personality or individuality.
In the last chapter we have seen that mind is in a flux. It keeps

changing. Change in mind means the change of ideas or knowledge. To
teach means to give new ideas to the mind. Personality or individuality
changes with the changing knowledge. Usually, we ignore this factor and
assume a constant individuality in a man. A sinner may become a saint,
and a saint a sinner. An orthodox can be changed into a heterodox and
heterodox an orthodox. A theist can be converted into an atheist and an
atheist a theist. Any kind of personality is not and need not be
permanent. We too can change our personality by acquiring suitable
knowledge. An individual means the expressed present knowledge in him.
A personality or individuality means what others judge a person to be.
Personality means knowledge expressed through speech, gestures and
work. Apart from a mans speech and actions we have no other means
to estimate his personality. Hidden or unexpressed thoughts do not
Page 58 of 140
constitute a personality. Thoughts, when expressed through language,

gesture, and action help others to understand and estimate the person.
So I said that personality means the expressed present knowledge. An
example could make it clearer. Suppose a clever student appears for an
examination or an interview. He fails to answer some of the questions on
that particular moment due to physical or mental uneasiness at that time.
He may recollect the answers to the unanswered questions just when he
steps out of the examination hall. But the result declares that he has
failed. He knew the answers to those questions before entering into the
hall and he remembers those answers when he comes out of the hall.
His failure means the unexpressed knowledge at the required time.
is declared to have failed?
Who
The person before the examination; at the
time of the examination or, after the examination? If you were the
interviewer, could the result be otherwise? Orators, lawyers, teachers,
preachers, doctors and even anyone may have the same experience.
Now it may be clear that individuality is not constant because it is
nothing but the knowledge expressed at a given time.
Knowledge of death is an idea of death. An idea is a picture or

image in mind. You have a knowledge of death means you have a
picture of death in your mind. Death as such is not a physical object
and so you cannot have the picture of death. The picture in your mind
may be the picture of a dead body you might have seen. An inactive
body has no reason to cause fear in you by its look. So it must be your
imagination only that causes the fear. Some times it so happens that the
people around a patient in hospital believe that the patient is in sleep or
a coma until the doctor declares patients expiry. The people, who were
calm and patient before the doctors bulletin, immediately burst out in
tears and begin to roar on hearing the word `death. Their longing to
Page 59 of 140
save the body immediately changes into the decision of cremating it.
Love for that body is turned into fear. It is all mind-made. Imagination,
more than fact, causes greater fear. To imagine means to draw
some
pictures in the mind. A rope in dim light is taken to be a snake and

causes fear. A second look in bright light helps to overcome the fear.
The picture of a snake in the mind causes fear. A picture of a rope
pasted on the picture of the snake abolishes fear. First the picture of the
snake was open. Next the picture of a rope hid the previous picture and
made the rope visible. As long as the first picture was visible there was
fear and when it was made invisible by a second, the fear vanished. You
dont need to kill the snake to overcome your fear or you need not bring
a rope to make yourself feel safe. The objects out side did not change,
only the pictures in the mind changed. So the cause of the fear is not
the outside object, but images of inside only.
Once, a pilgrim was on his way to a holy place. He had to spend

a night in a small town. Though he could collect some food in the form
of alms to meet his hunger, he could find no place to sleep in as the
people were not ready to trust a stranger. So he went outside the town
and lay down under a tree. Just before dawn, he heard loud sounds and
woke up to see some men carrying a dead body for cremation. When
they began preparation for cremation, the pilgrim jumped up with horror
as he understood that it was a crematory ground on which he was alone
for all the night and began to run as fast as his legs could carry him.
Here you can see what creates fear, objective reality or subjective
imagination.
Imagine a team of players. Of them one is elected leader, and he
does very good works. All the others are equal and obey him. After a
year or so, another player is elected as the leader.
This newly elected

Page 60 of 140
player, who knew that he was an ordinary player, and was obliged to
obey the leader, now begins to believe himself a leader. He wants to do
better works for the good of the team and orders others to do as he
wishes expecting them to obey him. Now think of the pictures he created
in his mind. First his picture in him was that of an ordinary player and
that made him obey the then leader. After the election, he removed or
erased the old picture and drew a new picture of a leader in his mind
and that makes him a real leader with all the required qualities which
were not exhibited in earlier days. He works according to the visible
picture. Unemployed persons worry because of the picture of the
unemployed person in their mind. When they get a job, the picture of the
employed person gives them the satisfaction. When unemployed, they
hate and dislike their own pictures. Some desperately kick the jobs and
start self employment willfully. Not the objective reality but the subjective
image makes proud. Usually, we require or depend on some incidents or
persons to bring about a change in ourselves. But none draws pictures
in our mind. Pictures of social or political status may depend on
concurrent situations. But we can draw our own good, honest, truthful,
lovable, orthodox, benevolent, benign pictures independently. Reformers of
criminal persons help them to have a good picture of their own in their
minds. Educated and wise people can change their pictures into better
ones in themselves without waiting for others to help. We know the story
of a cruel and notorious robber Angulimala, consciously changing himself
into a faithful follower of the Buddha. These examples and explanations
can help us to replace our picture of being a body by a picture of being
the soul. If we achieve this successfully that will be the end of all
troubles.
When we are able to identify ourselves with our soul we do
not need to bother the changing conditions of the body. We can make
ourselves free from death. The only way to achieve this is logical
reasoning. Emotions and beliefs betray us. Chandogya Upanishat teaches
Page 61 of 140
us Thou art that. $ (C.U.6-8-6. It means You are that. `That,

here means the immortal soul, Atman, Paramatma, and Brahma. This
mantra of the Upanishat may nip your doubts in the bud.
4.
The Upanishts mercifully preach us that we are not body,

mind or life etc. but we are truly the soul or Brahma, in different ways.
Broadly
speaking,
Upanishats
we
may
divide
the
methods
employed
to preach this secret knowledge into two, one
centre habit - #b
by
the
is the World
or natural way of thought, and the other is
Soul centre technique- #b #
or bare experience. I shall make it
clear to the learned readers in the beginning only that these are my own
coinages only for my purpose of explanation,
across these words anywhere.
and so you cannot come
The explanation of World centre habit
was already given in the first chapter and I find no need to elucidate it
again. As it is the natural way of thought no man can think otherwise. I
sincerely tried to convince the readers the true nature of soul in this
World centre habit of thought, of which the readers are aware of. The
name World centre habit is my own choice to illustrate the natural way
of thought. The Mundakopanishat calls it Peoples knowledge <
c (Mu.U.2-2-1)
Page 62 of 140
The Upanishat calls the other way of thought as different

from peoples knowledge, and beyond peoples knowledge. The Vedic
sages were well aware of the limitations of this method. Every language
is limited. Teaching is possible through words and sentences or pictures
and solid things. The necessity of
pictures or a solid objects explains
the poverty of he language. This limitation of the language is experienced

even in teaching about the sensory things. The sages who were about to
impart the knowledge of the soul which is not a physical thing to their
disciples found the language to be too poor to help them and their
disciples. So they took to the method of litotes or not this, not this.
Instead of sensory organs it appeals to wisdom. The capacity of the
mind either to imagine or to reason is limited. Mind uses mental pictures
or images to imagine or reason. Using the parts of pictures, mind can
build up a new picture which may not have an equivalent in the outside
world, like the image of lord Ganesh
But
mind
cannot
imagination
work
without
or lord Narasimha or the sphinx.
using
any
pictures.
Reasoning
or
is a mental construction of a new whole using parts of
other wholes. For this purpose pictures of things are unavoidable.

Primary pictures are formed by the sensory organs and using them the
mind constructs images to its likings. Sensory organs can supply only the
pictures of physical things.
So sounds and pictures (ears and eyes)
cannot help to understand the soul. The soul is that Which cannot be
made to appear through the words and which cannot be realised by
mind.
8@# <V (T.U.2-9.)The great sages, who
had realised the absolute reality, expressed their difficulty in making their
disciples to realise it in these words:
We do not know how to impart
this knowledge to the disciples. . j a$ . (K.U.13.) It does not mean that they were ignorant of the means to impart. It
only describes the difficulty they faced in imparting their knowledge by
means of words, and to the disciples who had the habit of world centre
Page 63 of 140
thought.
However
wise a teacher may be and however sharp a student
may be, language and world centre habit cannot help them, because the
soul is indescribable and unimaginable. To overcome this difficulty, the
Vedic sages discovered a new method and called it The knowledge
other
than,
and
caal.
beyond
the
knowledge
of
people.
< (Mu.U.2-2-1.) They called it
The best
knowledge. l. c (Mu.U.2-2-1.)
name it, Soul centre technique, or
Before embarking on an
For the sake of convenience, I
Bare experience.
altogether new subject, the new way of
thought, I like to make it clear to the readers that this Soul centre
technique- #b#
or `bare experience method
was founded by
the Vedic sages as an instrument to fulfill their purpose. You cannot see
this method in any books of the world or any thinker of the world. It is
solely Vedic and only the Upanishats make use of this technique.
Language is a media which transfers ideas from one mind to another.
Ideas are images of objects in the mind. We may say that knowledge is
a group of ideas. Transformation of ides in their true form solely depends
on the clarity and exactness of language. Even a person, who has
extraordinary mastery over the language, cannot make a person, who has
never visited the Himalayan Mountains, to feel the frightening cold of
minus
twenty
Mountains.
five
degrees
he
has
experienced
in
the
Himalayan
The word `cold or `very cold may help the listener to
recollect nothing more than his past experiences. Lack of experience

commensurable with that of the speaker makes him unable to grasp the
meaning which the conveyer wants to transform. Usually, we do not
bother about such things. The word `cold cannot be cold enough to
convey its intended content. The speaker cannot send his real experience
in any forms like words and pictures. Still it would be sufficient for our
Page 64 of 140
day-to-day business. But for the sages who had decided to make their
disciples to experience exactly what they had experienced, the language
was of no use. The knowledge of
physical things can be conveyed to
the listeners by helping them to recall the images of things in their mind.
The experiences earned by other sensory organs can also be made to
recall to a limited extent. There ends the capacity of the language.
People who are immersed in their daily bread and work do not
doubt the reality of the things they use or of the world as a whole. They
are not interested to know how the world came into being or would it
come to an end one day or the other. Though there may be an inner
urge to know such things, they may not find an opportunity to think
about it or they may not be able to meet a suitable person who could
enlighten them. But there are some who do not wish to rest until they
find answers to such questions. In the first chapter we have seen
different opinions expressed by many wise men in the matter. We have
noticed the gradual growth of the ideas in the course of time. But it is
unfortunate that none could give a final and undeniable answer to the
fundamental questions about the world. We can see two groups of
thinkers. One group holds that the outside world is real and the other,
the mind is real. None claims to solve the problem without opposition. In
spite of their wisdom and sincerity none could tell what the ultimate
reality is. Theories after theories are poured out only to be disproved by
the next theorists. Man and world are two problems not yet solved by
anyone. The fundamental question is what the self is, and its correlate,
the non self. In other words, who am I? And what is the world that I
perceive? Is this duality worth examining? Should we accept it as real
and be content?
This multiplex, mysterious world with its duality of good
and evil, pleasure and pain, beauty and ugliness,
love and hatred, life

Page 65 of 140
and death can hardly satisfy the intellectual and emotional cravings of
human mind. A naive pluralism would be the last word in philosophy.
Pluralism explains nothing and reveals nothing, and condemns the higher
philosophical efforts as destined to end in despair. Still there is the
underlying human instinct, working incessantly in all men, forcing us to
rise above the limitations of the phenomenal view, to rise to the unity
behind the appearance. The Vedic sages had determined the ultimate
reality because they had followed a method different from that of the
other wise men of the world. If so, what could be the difference between
their ways of thought? All other wise men thought according to the world
centre habit but the Vedic sages used soul centre technique. It is a
technique, but not knowledge. While the others followed the natural way
of thought, the sages broke down the bondage of nature which restricted
and goaded the others by its laws.
Life presents three independent aspects commonly recognised as

the three states of the soul, namely, waking, dream and sleep. All people
assume that reality is presented to us in waking state, and that sleep
and dream, though unavoidable, are but appendages to our waking life,
contributing next to nothing for understanding of life and world. The world
is the grand fact involving itself every moment, bringing into birth
innumerable living beings which flourish for a time and perish in the end.
The human being is one among them. To us waking is a reality and this
conviction makes us neglect the other two states. This is common to all
men. All the thinkers of the world accept only the reality of waking state
and their entire thesis are based on their sense of waking state only.
Our waking state presents antitheses of subject and object, the self and
the non self, the ego and the non ego. So the thinkers who are bound
to accept the reality of the waking state only could never understand that
Page 66 of 140
they are bound by the limitations natural to the waking state. All men
have three states, waking, dream and sleep. Only waking does not make
a full man.
The people who neglect the two states, and depend only on
waking, cannot escape from the limitations of the waking state and this
limits their freedom of thought. Being limited, prejudiced and partial
they pass on judgments regarding truth which can only be a partial truth.
While permanent reality is conceded to the waking state by them dream
is dismissed as a mere phantasmagoria. As to sleep any philosopher has
not yet attached any real significance except as it many be necessary to
health. The spiritualists indeed refer to a sub-consciousness functioning in
mesmeric or hypnotic sleep and the mediums are supposed to behave as
if they have temporarily lost their individual identity, easily assuming
individuality suggested. Physical science and psychology may advance
revealing layer after layer of consciousness in the same person, either
active or passive, even in hypnotic sleep but the aim is to only explain
the phenomena of waking life and not to discover its ultimate basis. The
Vedic sages knew that these endeavours are futile as they proceed from
a fundamental error that underlies them, and that is the waking life is
the only reality. The essence of world centre habit or natural way of
thinking is that life seen or experienced in the waking state is the only
reality. This conviction has two fundamental beliefs and they are, only
waking state is real and the world as appears is real. Man cannot get rid
of himself from the clutches of these two convictions. As long as you
believe that the world is real you cannot understand the reality about it.
However much wise man may be, unknowingly he is bound by these
limitations and he is only able to think being limited and guided by these
two convictions. His thoughts are blindfolded and he gropes to search
the reality which is out of his reach. He is not aware that his thought
system is tethered to a peg of waking state which does not monopolize
reality. The peg to which he is tethered is the world and the rope which
Page 67 of 140
binds him and limits his movements is the waking state. This is the
bondage of man. All the philosophers, thinkers, scientists, artists and
even common men are tethered by nature. Their capacity to think is
restricted by the length of the rope, that is waking state, and they cannot
go out of the circumference to encounter reality. It is a misfortune that
though the inscription at Delphi advises man to know himself, it does not
teach him how to know it or it might have lost. The same Know thyself
is the gist of the teachings of the Vedas and fortunately the Upanishats
which are the last parts of the Vedas tell us of the way how to achieve
it.
Soul centre technique - #b# , or Bare experience

may be explained like this. Reality or soul, indivisible in itself, manifests
as a whole in each of the three states, waking, dream and sleep. In
waking state it is recognised as ego and non ego. In dream also it
appears itself in the form of ego and non ego. So, there is duality in
both waking and dream states. But in sleep, which means deep sleep
only, it is recognised as undivided pure consciousness. In sleep the pure
consciousness
is
in
its
pristine
purity
and
glory
and
the
same
consciousness manifests itself as the ego and the non ego in the other
two states. Every integral part of the waking experience, the ego and the
non ego every object perceived or conceived, subtle or gross, small or
great is pure consciousness in its entirety, and is reality itself , since
unreality cannot exist. No object in the world, no ego can exist apart
from pure consciousness. The intellectual separation of the world from
the pure consciousness reduces the world to mere nothing. Subject and
object being correlates are equally real and eternal concomitants. They
are dissolved into undifferentiated unity in the pure consciousness or
soul, from which they originate, into which they are absorbed every day
Page 68 of 140
in sleep. This all is soul or Brahma, @ P BC (C.U.3-14-1.) and

all is Reality only. The ego and the non ego appear to be independent
entities and real in waking state and in dream. But both of these are not
ultimate realities. There is difference between appearance and reality. All
that appears may not be real and the real may not appear. Reality is no
abstraction, but is immediately realised as our own soul on which all
standards
of
reality
rest.
The senses
being the gateways of our
knowledge of concrete life, what does not enter through them is liable to
be discarded as dreamy and unreal. But this is a delusion. The senses
are external organs and as such they are rightly relied on to prove the
reality of only objective things.
The reality of our own soul, on the
contrary, can never be questioned or denied. While the reality of the

external objects has to be established by inference that of the soul is
immediately intuited and by its own nature can never be a subject of
controversy. The soul is the essence of self and can be intuited through
its identity with ego. It transcends speech as it transcends both ego and
non ego. Both the ego and the non ego bear unmistakable marks of
their origination from the soul. The ego, like the soul, cannot be
pluralised and the non ego or the world cannot be conceived to exist
without being correlated to consciousness. The soul is neither I nor you
but is the indivisible reality of which I and you and the common percepts
are a full and entire manifestation. O dear, though all beings originate
from that ultimate reality they do not understand that they have come out
of it. I < I m 8 (C.U.6-10-2.)
Space and time, the necessary conditions of divisibility, rule

only the sphere of manifestation and cannot divide the soul which is
beyond them. To realise the nature of objectivity, we have to study its
manifestation, the world spread out before us, which is identical with it.
Page 69 of 140
Each of the states, being independent of one another, is an entire aspect

of experience, and cannot be parts of some other entity beyond
experience. The soul centre
technique or bare experience can be
understood only through an analyses of the three states and their

meanings. Prejudice may spring up to betray you
and may prove
treacherous through out the exploratory journey on the untrodden path.
5.
The soul centre technique or bare experience is a process

in which all the
three states, waking, dream and sleep are taken into
consideration giving equal importance so as to make sure that nothing in

the world can escape from
the jurisdiction of enquiry
and so it
the enquirer from limiting himself to the sensory organs and
saves
inference.
As the sensory organs are the gateways of perception, the things

perceived must be real and mans natural ability to infer may be made
use of to subordinate perception. This is the opinion of one group. The
opponents hold that the appearance of the objects keep changing and as
perception cannot be the same to all persons and a person at all times.
Experiences depend on conception of things and not the perceived
things. These two groups can be called the idealists and the rationalists
respectively.
Each
group
has
many
sub
groups.
Both
the
groups
perceive, conceive, infer, postulate and argue in their waking state and
Page 70 of 140
their perception, conception and inference are limited to the waking state
only. They completely ignore dream and sleep as they did not seem to
be of any value to them. This negligence miserably disabled them to
catch hold of the truth either of the soul or of the world. This is the
fundamental error which disabled them to discover the absolute reality in
spite of their prudence, vigilance, sincerity and unmatched intellectual
abilities. In the technique of examining the three states this error does
not creep in. In this technique we examine the three states one by one
and compare and contrast them to discover the hidden reality from which
nothing in the world and no experience can escape. Every thing that is
supposed to be and all types of experiences are included in this method
which makes it impossible to deny it as nothing is left out of its
jurisdiction.
We say, I am awake, I dreamt a dream and I had a good, sound

sleep. The person who says like this is conscious that he himself
experiences all the three states. But still, all his affairs are directly
connected with the waking state only, not only that he feels that his
waking state is the only true state and in dream there is no truth at all,
and sleep is equal to nothing. Though he experiences all the three
states, his partiality goads him believe that waking state is the only real
one. He has a blind love and erroneous conviction on his waking state
by nature and he is bound to restrict his individuality to the waking
experiences only. What do we understand by our waking state? How do
you define the waking state? Perhaps you are puzzled and grope in the
dark to find and answer. From a common man I expect this explanation:
I am awake and this is my waking state. Waking state may be defined
as that state in which I am conscious of myself and at the same time of
the outer world. In waking state my being is real. I perceive the objects
Page 71 of 140
and so they are real. I infer also. The objects give me pleasure and pain
and so they are real. The world outside me with all its plurality is true; I
talk, listen, work, think and also deal with family and friends. Our
relationships are real. My business and jobs help me to earn a living. I
do, I think, I experience joy and sadness and all this is real. I am
conscious of past, present and future and all my works are related to the
time. I never felt that there could be other states more real than this.
The objects of the world are independent of me and I am independent of
them. Both are real. There could be a real world other than this. This is
not like a dream in which things and experiences are not real. More than
all this, I am living here and so I cannot doubt this waking state. This
could be the summary of the explanation of the waking state.
How far this general understanding of the waking state is correct? If

we start to examine these statements we can evaluate his understanding.
First of all he feels awake and this is the greatest proof of waking state.
Does a dreamer +V$@ know or feel at the time of dreaming that he is
dreaming? What is your experience? A dreamer +V$@ can never feel
that he is dreaming, and to be true to his consciousness, he feels awake
even when he is dreaming. Not only that he does not and cannot even
imagine that
there is a waking state different from the one he is in. To
him he is awake while he dreams. The second statement is, `this is the
waking state and he is sure to give the same statement if he is asked,
what state it is, while he dreams. He cannot tell that it is a dream. The
next, in a waking state he says that he is conscious of himself and at
the same time conscious of the outer world. In dream also he ought to
be conscious of himself and of the outside objects without which he
could have no experiences at all. Next he says in waking state his being
is real, and he can never think of his being unreal in his dream.
In his
Page 72 of 140
waking state he says the objects are true because he perceives them
and he could never dream of anything if he does not perceive anything
which appears to be real. In waking state he says that the objects are
real because they are outside him. If the objects do not appear to be
outside he could not perceive them at all, even in the dream. The
objects of perception can never be inside the perceiver. In waking state
he infers, he says. Inference is possible in dream also. Outside objects
give him pleasure and pain in waking state. The causes of pleasure and
pain he experiences in his dream ought to be the outside objects only.
Talking, listening, moving, enjoyment, suffering, thought and work are not
monopolized by waking state, leaving no room for them in dream. It is
not impossible to have family and friends in dreams as in waking. He
cannot say that the relation he has with others in dream is false, as
there
cannot
be
any
false
relation.
Can
dreamer
+V$@
be
unconscious of time and space? No. His feeling that there could be no
other state more real than the waking, while he is awake, will be the
same while he dreams, as it is his waking state at that time. Mutual
independence of himself and the external world cannot be denied in
dream also. To a dreamer +V$@, the external objects are as real as
he himself is. He who thinks he is alive in his waking state cannot think
otherwise in his dream as there can be no dead dreamer and a dreamer
can never doubt his own existence. The remark that the objects and
experiences of a dream are not real is the remark of a waking person
and not of a dreamer.
What is a dream? How can one define a dream? The general

comment on dream may be like this: Dream is an illusion in which the
things only appear and do not exist. All dream experiences like drinking,
eating and working are false. Dream is not real. Before proceeding
Page 73 of 140
further on the remarks on dream state, let us find out whether these
statements are justifiable. The appearance of a snake in a rope is an
illusion. Illusion is a condition of seeing things wrongly. It is seeing a
thing not as really it is. Illusion is seeing one thing in the place of
another. When illusion disappears, the seer sees the other thing which
did not appear before. So illusion is mistaking one thing for another. The
sight of the later real thing judges the sight of the former thing unreal
and so the former experience is proved to be unreal and so an illusion.
We do not see any real thing in place of dream things when the dream
is gone. So the remark that the dream is an illusion is preposterous.
Dream
experiences
are
false,
is
the
next
remark.
When
dream
experiences are judged in waking state it appears to be not true for it is

prejudiced by the waking experience.
A dictionary defines dream, A dream is a group of
thoughts,
images, feelings, experienced during sleep ...or when half awake or

when the mind is not
we
should
evaluate
completely under conscious control. First of all

the
justification
of
the
statement
`dream
is
experienced during sleep. To be true to our experience, the sleep is

such a state in which we do not experience any thing; and more than
that if anything be seen, heard, or experienced it ceases to be a sleep
for sleep means natural resting state of unconsciousness of the body and
of the external objects. The state in which any other thing is seen or
experienced can either be a dream or a waking but never a sleep. So a
dream can never be during sleep or in the sleep. The definition
continuous to say that dream is half awake state. A waking state is that
in which a person is conscious of himself and the objects out side. Half
awake cannot mean the consciousness of any one only of the two for it
is impossible as even a common man can understand it. To be true,
Page 74 of 140
`half awake can mean nothing.
The next part says that in dream mind
is not completely under conscious control. An insane mind may be said

to be not under complete control of consciousness as the behavior in
that state is not censored. A dreamers reactions to the outer world
cannot be like those of an insane person. Consciousness makes a
person aware of inner thing like hunger, anger, pleasure, pain etc. or
outer objects in the world. Though the consciousness may be granted the
status of controlling the mind, it is not said to be completely different
from mind, and it has no independent entity of its own outside the mind.
Moreover the dreamer +V$@ is conscious of his being and the things
outside, and this proves the presence of consciousness in dream. For
what reason can we decide the mind to be out of control of the
consciousness in dream?
A general opinion that dream occurs due to disturbance in sleep is

not a well thought of one as there
cannot be any thing inside sleep
to
cause disturbance or inconvenience
or nothing can enter into sleep
to
cause disturbance. It is also wrong to say that insufficiency of sleep due

to long hours of working causes dream because both timely sleepers and
late
sleepers
dream.
Dreams
are
believed
to
be
the
transformed
influences of the waking state. All the members of a family or a group of

friends who spend a whole day together may not dream, and even those
who dream may not dream commensurable with those of others who
have equal experiences during the previous waking state. A change in
climate, food, thought, works etc. have their impact on dreams is a
postulate without sufficient evidence because a group of people in a
season, who share a common
food and work together are not bound to
dream equal dreams. Throughout a season a person does not dream the
same dream or the season cannot influence all to see the same dream.
Page 75 of 140
Ambition, aspiration, frustration, enjoyment, suffering, and others are

reflected in dreams in disguise, is a hypothesis which fails to prove in
what disguise they appear in dreams decisively. The theory that people
stricken with poverty, disappointment, failure, frustration, negligence and
insult etc, feel emotional satisfaction in dreams in which they find
themselves in contrary situations to those of real life. The story of a
beggar becoming a monarch in his dream pleases the children very
much. How many beggars are fortunate enough to be kings in their
dreams?
Do all students have the emotional satisfaction in dreams in
which they get a first class? Do you hope all the frustrated lovers
celebrate their wedding in their dreams?
Is a defeated wrestler sure to
dream to make his opponent fall on his back? So these hypotheses may
refer to daydreamers but not dreamers. Some are of the opinion that
dreams are the mysterious arrangements wrought by nature to bring
about a balance in an individual. It may mean that it is the work of
nature which makes a poor a rich man, a patient a healthy man, a
defeated a winner in their dreams. Can we call it a perfect balance
unless rich are made poor, winners defeated, a doctor a patient and a
king
a beggar? People who face difficulties and unsolvable problems in
real life find solutions in their dreams, is a worthy point that may be
applied to ourselves and find answers as to how many of our unsolved
problems are solved in our dreams to relieve us in our waking state. If
this be true, no problems could have been left unsolved in the world
which is still bustling with problems and difficulties. Shall we advise the
scientists and other men of intellect who spend years and years worrying
their heads over the multifarious problems to just sleep and dream? Is a
hunger stricken man sure to have a dinner at that night in his dream? It
is not impossible for a person who has had dined to his fill to find
himself hungry and thirsty in his dream. Do we hope every sinner to be
a saint in his dream?
Page 76 of 140
That dreams forecast the future events may be the experience

of some individuals but an individuals occasional experience should not
be generalised and may never apply to all. Sigmund
Fryde
in his book
Dream Analyses gives some examples of forecasting dreams. Still it is

not beyond question. Some psychologists treat their patients depending
on the analyses of their dreams. How much their patients are fortunate
we cannot tell.
Can you repeat verbally all your dreams or the dreams
of one night? No. First of all, we cannot recollect the full dream or all
the dreams the next day. Largely all dreams cannot be recollected; the
most part of the dream is forgotten within a few minutes after waking.
Secondly, we cannot translate many experiences of dream into language,
for mysterious and abnormal things and events are general in dreams.
So
patients
experiences
memory
completely
and
and
language
truly
without
cannot
convey
distortion
to
his
the
dream
listening
psychologist. On such meager scrap of things available, ignoring the

linguistic ability of the dreamer +V$@, on which the diagnosis and
prescriptions must rely, the fate of the patient rests firmly. Let us not
bother about it as it is out of our reach.
The psychologists believe that there are two parts or rooms in the
mind, one conscious and the other unconscious state. Of all our
experiences which are important and could be of frequent use in the
future are made to enter into the conscious state and the unimportant
and those which could be of rare use in the future find shelter in
subconscious state. Suppressed desires, hushed up feelings, censored
impulses are thrown into the subconscious state it is said. The contents
of the subconscious mind find no chance to come out in waking state
and so they appear in the form of dreams, but in disguise. This is an
Page 77 of 140
explanation of the cause of dreams. The first question is how
can
we
be sure of the two compartments in the mind. Who evaluates every

experience as it happens? Who decides the utility or the uselessness of
the experiences in future? Who knows and foretells what happens in
future and finds out the necessity of the present experiences to fulfill the
requirement of the context in future? What is the criterion
that enables
to judge some of the experiences to be not suitable for the future

requirements? Has everybodys mind the mystic power to foresee the
future events? Naturally, a mind cannot be the doer of all these activities.
As it is said that there are only two parts in the mind, we cannot hope
for a third one to sit in the judges seat and act as a foreteller. The
possible answer will be, it is nature that does it. We dont have
knowledge of the existence of nature having an independent entity out
side mind or objects. As examining, discarding, selecting and foretelling
etc. can be the ability of intellect; this necessitates the nature to have a
mind like a man. A nature having a mind is not yet discovered. To
explain the theory of evolution and the like the same word `nature is
used. The nature is said to be selecting the organisms to survive. But
what nature is, is not satisfactorily explained. Whether the nature which
is said to be thinking, without which it cannot decide what to select and
why to select, is in side the world or outside of it, is to be made clear.
If the nature is said to be outside the world or even the organisms, how
does it think, decide and select being nothing and nowhere? If it is
claimed to be inside the organisms, we like to know when does it come
into or go out of the organisms, and in what form it hides in them. Mind
is not called the nature, so could thoughts and decisions that motivate
the activities be allotted to nature to make the mind inert? The orthodox
believe that God created the world. `Let there be light, and there was
light. Heterodox believe the nature to be either creator or maintainer or
both, of the world. Both are believers, no one can blame the other to be
Page 78 of 140
a more obedient follower of a greater superstition than himself. So this

kind of treatment to a patient may be fruitful in proportion to the doctors
behaviour, encouragement, consolation, expression of optimism and the
patients faith. Experts in therapeutics agree with this opinion with regard
to the effect of the administration of medicines on the patients. All the
views that we have seen on
dreams are mere postulates and not based
on plain facts. And more over, they are the results of misinterpretations
of the dream. Dreaming about the dream cannot make the dream a
reality. These are the results of the daydreams of the enthusiast thinkers
in their waking state. All these discussions on waking state and dream
state were based on commonsense. This is the Peoples knowledge.
Next we may see what the Upanishat says about them.
6.
The Mandykya Upanishat
which is the smallest of its kind,
but still the most important one, deals mainly with the three states,
waking, dream and sleep and with rare technique wonderfully opens the
Page 79 of 140
gateway to the knowledge of the soul. The mantras are so compact with
meanings that we cannot understand the secrets hidden in them without
an authoritative commentary which only could decode them. Fortunately
enough Acharya
Goudapada wrote an elaborate and enlightening
commentary on it. The Upanishat defines waking state in these words:

He, who is awake, is conscious of external objects, has seven organs
and nineteen faces, enjoys gross things and is the first step. l
+ Q.<c V 8
+

L < (M.U.3.)
Dream is defined as: He who dwells in dream has inner consciousness,
has seven organs, nineteen faces, enjoys the divided
things and is the
second step. +V+# <c V 8

< s

a (M.U.4.)
If we compare the two states we can observe that while in

waking state we have both inner and outer consciousness but in dream
we are conscious of inner things only. In waking state we experience
external objects as well inner thoughts, feelings and emotions.
In each
state we have a body limited to that state only, consisting hands, legs,
head, mouth, eyes, ears, waist, urinary organ and life. Five sense organs
are common to both the states. Working limbs like hands, legs etc are
common to both the states. In both the states we have minds, wisdom,
thoughts, feelings, emotions etc. Five types of vital energy or breathing
called < are to be found in both the states. In waking state we enjoy
gross objects i.e. real objects of the world. But in dream the enjoyment
is said to be divided because our sense organs do not come into direct
contact with real objects. Waking state is said to be the first step as we
have to start our enquiry from this state only. As the dream is not given
primary importance from the waking point of view it is considered to be
Page 80 of 140
the second step. This explanation is given to suit the people with world
ecntre habit.
First we have to bear in mind that the three states are

completely different and independent from one another. The general belief
is that waking state is real but dream is not real or it is an inferior kind
of reality. But this is absurd as it is a remark made in waking state and
from the point of view of waking. The three states are different because
our experiences prove it. They are independent as they are not related
or linked with one another in any way. Dream is neither in waking nor in
sleep, and the sleep is not in dream or in waking and again waking is
neither in dream nor in sleep. But it is generally believed that we dream
in sleep or dream occurs in the middle of sleep. A little pondering shall
prove it to be fatally false. Sleep is a state in which a person is not
conscious of his own being, or his body, mind and etc. He is not
conscious of the external objects of the world. In sleep one sees nothing,
experiences nothing and does nothing. He has no time consciousness.
Nothing can enter into sleep and come out of it also. It has no
beginning, middle or end as no one can point out the starting point of
sleep and none can say how the end of the sleep appears. Sleep is
total and always one only. This is the meaning of sleep and anything
falls short of it can never make it a sleep. If anything is seen or heard
or experienced it is never called a sleep for it must be either waking or
dream.
So
to
say
that
we
dream
in
sleep
or
during
sleep
is
preposterous. We can never dream in the middle of sleep also because

anything falls short of its definition cannot make it a sleep at all and
sleep cannot be cut into two or more pieces. Sleep has no cavity in it to
shelter dreams.
Whether the duration is short or long sleep is sleep
only and sleep does not depend on its duration to be a sleep. No dream
Page 81 of 140
can be a sleep and sleep cannot be a dream. Then how can a dream
be in sleep? Wherever it is, dream is dream only. None can have the
experience of being awake in sleep. We do not sleep in the middle of
dream or waking. We do not awake in the middle of dream as waking
means the end of dream. We cannot be awake in the middle of sleep.
So it is clear that no state can enter into another as the states are not
contemporaneous.
You may agree with this. Though it is natural to think that

the states come one after another, I tell you, the reality is quite different.
The general understanding that sleep comes after waking state, dream
occurs after sleep and sleep is followed by waking is the result of lack
of
thorough knowledge of reality.
to
create relationship among the states which are not at all related and
are
It is because, in thinking so we try
beyond the bondage of relation. We cannot understand anything
without creating relations, in other words, to understand means to create

the relations or causality in our mind among things. A relation between
two or more things has to be established with two conditions, space and
time.
A books
spatial relation with a table may be explained by
drawing a picture to the effect or through the language by the use of

prepositions like in,
the book is on, under, near, away, in, above etc, of
the table. Temporal relation between two or more incidents can be

demonstrated by the use of the words like, after, before, simultaneously
and ago etc. To establish a spatial relation the things concerned must be
on common ground or zone like the floor of a house, a surface of a
table,
sea,
the
earth
etc.
separateness and countability.
The
spatial
relation
gives
the
objects
As the three states are not physical
objects they exist neither in any place nor in space and hence they are
not
bound by spatial relations. States, to be experienced through

Page 82 of 140
temporal relations, must be incidents. But the states themselves are not
incidents or events though incidents may occur in the two states, dream
and waking. So, to establish a reasonable temporal relation among the
three states we are not left with any right, logical, legitimate way.
Relationship is not a physical object having objective existence with

any object. Relationship is a mysterious creation of mind to establish its
own relation (understanding) with the objects. Mans utilitarian conception
joins the independent objects that he sees with one another in such a
way that they appear to be related with one another and totally be of
some use to man. As Kant says, we are not in time and space but the
time and space are in us. They are in us means, not in our mind; they
are the creations of mind. To be frank, to understand means to establish
relationship among external objects and òbjects includes our body also.
Father, mother, son, daughter, friend, enemy, servant, master and all
these relations are created by mind only. None is born father, mother,
son, friend etc. All are fundamentally human beings only. To understand
an object means to compare and contrast it with other objects and to
decide its location among others. Sense of space gives individuality and
countability to the objects. Space determines objects. Existence of space
is a must between two objects. Even atoms, electrons, protons and
neutrons exist as independent entities only because of the space which
divides them form others. Whatever is divisible must have space in it. In
case of minute particles the existence of space may not be decided with
bare eyes but this factor cannot prove the absence of space there.
Numeration starts from two. The sky, being only one, is not called à
sky. One has and needs no number. Existence of two should be proved
by the space in between. Impossibility of being divided into two or more
is
singularity or indivisibility. On understanding all these things, now we

Page 83 of 140
can try to examine whether we have three states. `Three states is

peoples knowledge. To make it understandable we may consider this
example. We know this pillar is at a distance of ten feet from the wall.
The distance between the two binds of this book is about an inch. With
the help of micro miters even the space between the two papers of a
closed book may be measured in nano meters. We know that there is
space in atoms, in between electrons and protons and neutrons. The
space is measurable however minute it may be, with suitable scales.
With which scale can we measure the distance between waking

and sleep, or sleep and dream or even between dream and waking?
What could be the exact distance in between them? From waking state
how much do we need to travel to reach sleep? How much time could
our journey from waking to sleep consume? How much distance do we
need to cross to reach dream from sleep? And what could be the
duration of that journey? Could our journey from dream to waking be
shorter or longer than that from sleep to dream? You know the answers.
Can we use any most modern vehicles to quicken our journey from one
state to another? Can we consume more time than usually required for
the journey by resting in the middle? No. Throughout the journey do we
meet anybody or see anything?
Do we walk or jump from one sate to
the other? Do we travel at all, at least? No. How do we move from state
to another? We do not know. Do we really move? We dont have such
experiences. Is it possible to pass on from one state to another without
movement? Are we really shifted from one state to another? Are we at
least conscious of passing from one state to another? We can answer all
these questions only if the three states are spatially and temporally
different form one another. We dont find any answers to these questions
only because the states are not different. They are not different means
Page 84 of 140
they are not three. They are not separable spatially means they are one.
They are not separable temporally means they are one. But our prejudice
makes us to have them three. Are there really three states or only one?
What is that one? To whom they are three, and to whom they are not
three?
Let us examine the temporality of the states. We shall find out

whether they are temporally related or not. Temporal relativity requires
common time zone among the things to be connected one another.
Duration is the span of time between two events. Duration is measurable,
however short it may be. After, before, ago etc, are the prepositions to
denote the connection of events in time. We say the clock strikes one
after another because we observe a gap of time between the bells, and
hear the sounds following one another. Time separates events and gives
them individuality and countability. How much time do we need to go
from one state to another? The gap between two states must be
recognised as duration. What duration do we experience in passing from
one state to another? We dont have any time consciousness in between
the states. If the states are not separable in time, there can be no two
or more states but only one. That is our own experience. Neither space
nor time separates the states and neither or both of them may not
countenance countability to them. Tools and machineries cannot be
discovered and applied to measure the time gap between the states as
there is no time existent. Therefore the idea of `three states is peoples
knowledge.
The strange thing in spite of all these agreeable and undeniable

arguments is that our consciousness does not countenance oneness to
Page 85 of 140
the states. Therefore, obviously one can suppose that something must be
wrong either with these arguments or with our won understanding of the
states. We shall try to find out whether there is any justification in our
usual statements like, I went to bed at ten p.m. yesterday, and woke up
at six oclock this morning. After lunch I slept at two oclock and woke
up at five in the afternoon, and dreamt a beautiful and pleasing dream in
the middle. A common time zone is a prerequisite for any event to be
connected with others and explained sensibly. With an example we shall
make it clear. On a Sunday, that being the holiday, you may say that
you woke up at seven, had your breakfast at nine, went to market and
purchased vegetables and other things at ten, and after returning home
had your lunch at one oclock, went to sleep at two p.m. and woke up at
five in the evening, and in the middle had a pleasant dream. All these
events seem to happen one after another on a common time zone of
that
Sunday.
You
and
your
listener
do
not
find
any
discrepancy
whatsoever. I advise you to have a blank paper and pencil and draw a
horizontal straight line on the paper and graduate the line so as to show
every hour of that day from morning six oclock to eight in the evening.
On that line, now you have fourteen marks on equal length each
representing every hour of the day. Mark the above described incidents
in their respective places above the line. At the second mark at seven in
the morning you woke up and at the fourth mark i.e. nine a.m. you had
your breakfast and so on. You had your lunch and at ninth mark, i.e.
two oclock you slept. You woke up at twelfth mark which shows five in
the evening. As long as you were awake from seven to two hours, your
narration holds good. The events of the day tally with the marks on the
graduated line. You slept at ninth mark, that is two oclock, and then as
you say you had a pleasant dream. Are you sure exactly at what time
that dream started? No. How long were you in (deep) sleep before the
commencement of that dream? Even after the dream you might have
Page 86 of 140
slept for some time before you woke up at twelfth mark that is five in
the evening. The dream might not have begun immediately after you put
your head on the pillow. Some time must have been elapsed between
the starting of the sleep and the commencement of that pleasant dream.
You cannot decide the length of that duration as you were not conscious
of time in your sleep. Now let us have the pleasure of enjoying that
sweet dream.
Unfortunately you really did not dream, so we may borrow the

experience of Mharshi
Naradas dream of the olden days . One day on
his way Narada felt thirsty and wished to quench his thirst. Drinking
some water from a cool pool he rested under the shade of a tree for
some time as he was tired. There he dreamt. In his dream Narada felt
that he was unmarried (in real life also he was unmarried) and felt a
strong urge for immediate marriage. (This could not have happened in
his real life as he is a renowned celibate and led austere life) He met a
charming girl and fell in love with her. After a little enticing he succeeded
in marrying her. The couple led a happy conjugal life enjoying all sorts of
comforts and luxuries. In due course some children were born of them.
The children grew up and got married. Narada lived with his children and
grandchildren for some time. Narada became old and decrepit; fell
seriously ill and had a fear of immanent death and that made him
awake. It is not impossible or improbable to have such dreams either in
day time or at night. Imagine you had that same dream on that Sunday.
Your dream gives you the experience of having spent forty or fifty years
of time. You yourself cannot deny your experience of living for such a
length of time in the course of dream. While dreaming you cannot deny
the truths of any thing you see or experience. You dont even remember
that you had a waking state just a little while before the dream began
Page 87 of 140
and even you cannot think of the waking state that awaits you soon after
the dream. Nothing under the sun proves you that it is a dream while in
dream. How did it become possible for you to have the experience of
such a length of time in between two and five hours of that Sunday?
Only after waking you could calculate the time you had slept or dreamt
to be three hours. Seven hours of that Sunday, from seven to two, must
be your own experience. After you woke up you believe to experience
the same Sunday duration. You believe that the duration of that Sunday
continues to spread after five oclock as it is your waking time. You have
two different experiences of time, one of waking, and the other of dream.
After awaking you simply brush aside your experience of having spent
years of time in your dream as mere illusion or false. While dreaming
every experience was your own and for you they were no less than
reality. You had no memory of you waking state. Remember, you are
already told that dream is not an illusion with good reasons. Seeing a
thing in the place of another is an illusion. The real thing does not
appear as long as the illusion continues and the experience of illusion
ceases only on looking the real thing. One thing when appears like
another thing becomes an illusion. It is mistaking one thing for another.
A dream cannot be a mistaken thing for the real thing doesnt appear
when the dream is gone. So, on that ground you cannot dismiss your
dream as an illusion.
If the dream is not an illusion, then it is false, you may add. Have
you ever seen a false thing like a dog, a tree, a car, a pen, a river, or
a child? There cant be a false dog or a false car. A statement of a thief
that he has not snapped the chain of a woman may be false. A sons
statement that he has not picked up the money from his fathers pocket
may be false. Objects and incidents can never be false. Only the
Page 88 of 140
pictures given through the words can be false like, black fire, horns of
rabbit, sweet pepper, proboscis of a lion etc. which never exist. The false
things cannot be seen or experienced by any sense organs. Even a
snake in the place of a rope cannot be false. However transient the
experiences may be, the experienced things cannot be labeled as false.
Your calling the dream a false is a mere misuse of the word.
If you are convinced that dream is neither illusion and nor false,
you cannot justify your negligence in taking into consideration your own
true experience of the duration of the dream so as to include it in the
duration of that Sunday. What makes you to accept one experience to
be true and discard the other to be not equivalent to it? To escape from
this problem you may decide to include the dream duration into that of
that Sunday. Suppose you are narrating the dream to your friend on that
Sunday about seven in the evening.
You know your experience of that
Sunday started at seven in the morning and continued to seven in the

evening till your narration to your friend. You believe that you are
conscious of the duration of twelve hours of that day. If you join the
duration of that dream, say forty years, between two and five, the total
duration of that Sunday will be forty years and nine hours! I expect your
remark that it is ridiculous or funny. To escape from this clutches of
ridicule, you may plan to exclude it from that Sunday. In that case, to be
honest to your experience, you have not only to exclude
dream duration
but also the three hours of duration between two and five, as you were
not conscious of your waking time sense of that day in sleep. Then from
seven in the morning to seven in the evening of that Sunday you have
the experience of only nine hours but not of twelve hours. Now you can
understand what happens if you try to connect two states.
Page 89 of 140
We also use the word state to indicate different stages of growth.

A bud becomes a flower, a kitten a cat, an egg a chicken, a child a boy
or girl, teenager etc. these are also called states. Every natural change
that an object undergoes is said to be a state. Ice, water, vapour, steam,
cloud are all states. Can waking, dream and sleep be equivalent to these
states? No. Due to variation in temperature ice becomes water, vapour,
snow, cloud etc. External temperature causes these changes. We cannot
presuppose an external object to change waking into sleep, or dream
into sleep or sleep into dream. An egg changes into a chicken, a
chicken into a hen, this type of change of state occurs due to internal
changes or growth from inside. We can see chemical and physical
changes in nature. Dream does not undergo chemical or physical
changes to become sleep. Chemical or physical activities do not cause
waking, dream and sleep. Meiosis, mitoses and the like do not claim
responsibility of mutation of these states.
Moreover, a bud, a child, an
egg, milk, change their states into a flower, a boy, a hen, and curds, but
these things do not go back to their previous states.
A flower does not
become a bud, a chicken an egg, a man a child, curds milk etc. These
states do not repeat also. But the waking, dream and sleep keep
repeating. Independency of states can be realised in this way. The three
states by their nature are different from one another and naturally they
are not related. Our efforts to establish relations among the states are
sure to create
only confusion instead of easy understanding.
We
cannot divide the states into two or three as they are not divided by time
or space. So the conception of three states is only a misconception.
these
explanations
are
made
only
in
accordance
with
All
peoples
knowledge.
Page 90 of 140
7.
Entirely following the World centre habit or peoples knowledge we

have scrutinised the two states, waking and dream and came to the
conclusion that we cannot reasonably divide them into two states. In
spite of all these explanations we are likely to continue to consider them
to be two states only. A comparison of the two states, with a little more
reasoning, could enable us to solve this paradox. As peoples knowledge
did not help us to find out the truth regarding the two states, and if you
have a sincere thirst for the experience of reality, I cordially offer you an
advice gratis to fulfill your longing. You have been reading this book in
your waking state. Your partiality to this state is natural as long as you
are awake. Try to avoid this criminal fondness and partiality which have
proved treacherous and have disabled to reach the truth. Learn to be
sincere to your experiences. While you recall a dream to analyse it put
yourself in that dream state or in other words, remember what your
experiences were at that time. To give an example, a tiger might have
threatened you in dream and for fear of death you might run away as
fast as your legs could carry you. But after the dream is gone, you know
that that tiger cannot cause trouble any more, so you are no more afraid
of it. Even when you are narrating the experience to your friend, you are
not afraid of it, though you recollect that experience. The tigers presence
in dream caused fear in dream and the tigers absence in your waking
state cannot frighten you. In waking you are not afraid because you are
sincere to your waking experience, i.e. the absence of tiger. Fearlessness
in your waking is your own experience. Dream experience was also your
own experience. Brushing aside the tiger, rely on your feeling at that
time. You have two experiences, one of dream and the other of waking
Page 91 of 140
state. You cannot disown either of
the two.
The dream experience has
its effect on your feeling, emotion and activities like crying, running and
sweating. Though you cannot see the dream tiger in waking, you are
able to recollect its picture and your feelings. Out of waking view and
dream view, practise to judge the dream experiences from dream
perspective only instead of waking view, though you are awake. With this
mental preparation, we can proceed.
Recall a dream you dreamt. A dream is a group of thoughts,

images, feelings, emotions and experiences of that state. You, as a
dreamer +V$@, had a body or you were conscious of having a body
of your own. This is the first thing to be noted carefully. While in dream
you have not even a slightest doubt of its being your real body, the
body of your waking state. You had a conviction that it was your body
and you never thought of the possibility of possessing a separate body in
waking state which lay on the bed
Secondly, you had a world outside
and that world was perceivable to you. The perception of the objects of
the world was possible only through the sensory organs of that body and
this makes clear that that body had sensory organs. The limbs of that
body were useful for different desired activities like swimming, running,
talking and eating. You were alive at that time and you never felt that
you were dead or lifeless during dream. A mind was also present in
dream with all its activities like thought, imagination, feeling, reasoning,
doubt, decision etc. During the dream your walk, talk, run, and all the
activities were consciously done, and more than all this you yourself
were the doer, thinker, enjoyer and sufferer because none else could be
there to do them on your behalf.
You saw people, animals, birds, trees,
land, and all through your eyes only, like you do in waking. You touched,
tasted, smelt, and heard the objects and realised their experiences just
Page 92 of 140
as you do in waking. The external objects caused fear, pain, pleasure,

likes and dislikes just as they do in waking state. In both the states tiger
causes fear, water quenches thirst, fire burns, sugar tastes sweet, and
jasmine smells like jasmine only. In waking you see familiar and
unfamiliar people, places and animals, and in dream you see familiar and
unfamiliar objects as well. During dream you had no idea that it was a
dream and so unreal or illusion. In no way you can decide that the
dream is an illusion or false and you have no reason to grant dream a
lower reality than that of waking state. During dream it was your waking
state for you could never have felt that it was a mere dream of a lower
reality. Dream and waking states are equal in all respects. On what
criterion do you consider it a dream during dream? You cant.
So what
was a waking state at one time became a dream in your waking state.
Only after the dream, in waking state you labeled it a dream. So dream
is a dream from the point of view of waking state only and otherwise
dream is a waking state.
Dream is followed by waking and so it is
always considered to be a past event. If waking is followed by dream,

and it happens, and if you imagine remembering your past waking state,
you could not but label it a dream. To be true to your experience, you
can never tell dream from waking. Prejudiced view of the waking state
makes a dream a dream otherwise, dream is nothing but waking. A
dream which all men dream and all men must dream is not a dream,
but a reality. The sages say that dream and waking states (are not two
but) one only. +V l + C
@ (M.K.2-5.)
Experiences are natural and true, but our prejudiced mind betrays
us. Experiences show the truth but mind tells a lie. When you recollect a
dream in your waking, your experience of the dream does not allow you
to deny it , but your mind being prejudiced forces you to say contrary to
Page 93 of 140
your experience, and as a result you say that a dream is an illusion or

false. Even in waking state you tell that the outside objects of dream
were unreal, but you dont agree that you were unreal at
waking sate you disown your dream body but
time. In
not yourself. This
experience of your own may lead you conclude that your existence in
dream is understandable as distinct from body, mind etc. You cannot
deny or disown that experience of being.
The bare experience is
reliable whereas the mind often deceives. Waking and dream are not
different, and there is no difference in their nature. Whether you consider
them to be two or one or the same in your mundane affairs, we must be
apt to treat them one and the same as long as we continue our scrutiny.
Bare experience makes no difference between the two. Upanishat declare
that they are perfectly equal and really one. Mandukya
Upanishat in its
mantras 2and 3, the meaning of which is already given, explains that in

both the states body, limbs sensory organs, and mind are common. It is
peoples knowledge that in waking the objects are out side and in dream
inside. But any object that a dreamer +V$@ perceives cannot be in
him. In all respects both the states are perfectly equal. Aacharya
Goudapada says,
The wise men consider waking and dream to be
one only. +V l + C
@ (M.K.2-5.)
In the beginning of this discussion it was stated that the

three states are different and independent. Postponing our adjudication
over sleep, let us restrict our discussion to the two states only at
present. If you concede the truth of your bare experience and do not
incline to your waking minds provocations, we can conclude that there
are not two states waking and dream, but there is only one state and let
us call it dream. Now we have come to the decision that there are only
Page 94 of 140
two states sleep and dream. From three states we have stepped down to
two states now.
As we are left with only two states now, the difference between
them may be made clear. As one is sleep and the other is dream, we
can say that what is not dream is sleep, and what is not sleep is dream.
The qualities of dream cannot be the qualities of sleep. We can easily
make a list of the qualities of dream. First of all we are conscious of
ourselves, our body with all the limbs and sense organs, mind with all its
capacities of feeling, reasoning etc. We have a sense of living and we
know that we are living. We have a will to do or not to do works. We
live in a world which is out side. The world is full of natural things and
man made ones also. All types of people, animals, birds etc are
perceivable. We have emotions and feelings. We work and get tired. We
need rest to refresh ourselves. Sleep is that which has none of these
qualities.
Page 95 of 140
8.
A general definition of sleep many be, a natural resting state of

unconsciousness of he body. Modernisation, globalisation, scientific world,
universal
culture,
global
society,
economic
stability,
achievement,
progress, success, world family and many such words are getting
success on one side in making men and women to forget their natural
individuality
and
on the
other side in teaching
them to conceive
themselves as negligible transient parts of the imaginary wholes like the

above listed ones. To be busy has not only become a fashion but also
has become haunting ghost even in leisure. Busyness has forfeited
leisure from mans mind making him suffer busyness even at his leisure.
They are taught with `there is not to question why, you are but to do
and die. Physical slavery of olden days has come in the disguise of
intellectual slavery as exploitation cannot be annihilated all together.
People are taught to live only under the mask of any type of designation
or post without which they could be ridiculed. Educationalists and the
educators are equipping themselves with more and more knowledge and
newer methods to teach man every thing else except what he is. He is
taught to be so busy that
though he would, he could not have enough
leisure to understand himself. Sleep has become a whipping boy or

scapegoat in mans pursuit for wealth, status and luxury. Man is taught
to sleep as less as possible and so sleep has become a necessary evil.
If he could, he would not hesitate to forsake sleep as ransom against
success, wealth, luxury and status. Man is not taught how heavy it could
Page 96 of 140
tell upon his physical and mental health. Man has come to believe that
he is nothing more and nothing less than his waking state. In many
places the tranquil night, a gift of nature, which is the abode of sleep, is
holed with piercing light and made to roar with sounds and turbulent
activities, to vanquish sleep where night groans and sleep grizzles. This
could be the modern untold definition of sleep.
Still, if a common man is asked what a sleep is, he could tell

that sleep is a state where there is nothing. During sleep he sees
nothing and hears nothing, smells nothing, tastes nothing and does
nothing. He is not aware of himself or the outside objects. Sleep is
nothing or it is a zero state. But sleep gives rest and relaxation and after
waking he feels refreshed and energetic. This report tells us only what is
not in sleep. Objects, sounds etc. are not in sleep means the sleeper is
not conscious of the outer world and rest is the result of sleep. Sleep
cannot be zero or nothing because sleep is experienced and a `nothing
or zero cannot be experienced. In sleep we are not reduced to the state
of a stone. Though every one experiences sleep no one can express his
experience of sleep in his language and that makes it indescribable. The
experience of sleep cannot
be expressed through speech. a
tQ (T.U.2-9.) None can deny the existence of sleep as it could be

against his own experience. Though we can doubt the reality of dream
and many
things
in waking state,
doubtlessly none doubts
sleep.
Mandukya Upaniahat describes sleep in these words: Where one desires

nothing and not even dreams that is sleep. The sleep is an indivisible,
single, knowledge solidified, full of flawless ecstasy, tranquility is the only
experience, having energy and pure consciousness, sleep is the third
step.
V +V L8
V
V
+ u
<c #C#

<c
(M.U.5.)
Page 97 of 140
The
sleeper neither desires anything nor dreams. Here dream means
either perception of things or mistaking one thing for another. In two

states (dream and waking) the mind, because of its movements appears
like the duality i.e. ego and non ego -
+a < s
+# a (M.U.B.5.) In waking and dream states knowledge

is divided into knower and the known, but in sleep the knowledge is an
undivided single. The sleeper is not divided into ego and non ego; he is
an undivided single sleep. Pleasure in the other two states depends upon
the pleasing things and the limitations of the capacities of the sense
organs. But in sleep pleasure is unlimited and so can be called ecstasy.
Sleep is ecstasy in its eternity. Serenity exists in sleep in its true
meaning and to its fullest extent. As serene as the fire after the fuel is
completely burnt. v#$ (Sh.U.6-19.) In sleep one enjoys
ones own pure consciousness. In our discovery of reality sleep is the
third step.
We have already seen that dream and waking are not

separate states as they are equal in all respects except from the point of
view of waking, and so must be recognised as one state only, i.e.
dream. So it has become easy to understand sleep as not what dream
is. In dream as well as in waking fundamentally we are more conscious
of the objects before us than what we are. Here the words `than what
we are are used cautiously and attention may please be given to it. We
are conscious of many things out side us in dream and waking. The
word `conscious requires an object to give complete meaning in the
sentence where it is used. Other wise the sentence may be incomplete
and may not give full meaning, as in, ``He is conscious. This sentence
can only be complete and give full meaning if the objects like `òf the
danger or `òf the pain etc. are added. So in dream and waking our
Page 98 of 140
consciousness is invariably connected with one or the other things

outside or inside. It means that in dream and waking our consciousness
in coupled with an object or idea. The same is true with the word
èxperience also. An object is a must to give meaning to experience. It
is the law of understanding that experience must have an object. But
consciousness and experience are not objects. Without any connection
with objects perhaps we cannot imagine the existence of experience or
consciousness.
It
is
clear
that
they
are
different
from
objects.
Consciousness and objects are two different things, but whether they are
independent, is a question we should try to find answer. You cannot
show any object to be free from the connection with or independent of
your consciousness. Can you tell me a thing which is not in your thought
or an incident which you dont remember?
You cant. Whatever object or
idea you name you must be conscious of it, other wise you may not
speak of it. So consciousness, awareness and experience cannot be with
out objects. You cannot be sure of the existence of any thing which is
not connected with your mind.
You cannot claim independency to the
objects.
A thing is said to be pure only when it does not contain

any other thing or is not mixed with other things. Purity cannot be found
in a conglomerate. Consciousness or experience when contains other
things cannot be considered to be pure. In dream and in waking where
consciousness is mixed with other objects or ideas are not pure
consciousness; and sleep in which the sleeper or the experiencer
experiences none other things is pure consciousness. But when the
experiencer experiences none other things it cannot become a dream. In
dream and waking the pure consciousness is mixed with other things, or
we may say that consciousness is contaminated. So we can conclude
Page 99 of 140
that when the experience or consciousness is contaminated with other

objects or ideas the experience is a dream or waking. The experience
which
is
not
contaminated
is
pure
consciousness
and
the
bare
consciousness is nothing but sleep. In sleep consciousness is in its

pristine state. The experience when it is naked or bare is pure and we
call it sleep.
The Mandukya Upanishat says in sleep one desires

nothing and dreams nothing, and by this it hints two states, dream by
the word dream and waking by the word desire. Though these two words
appear to indicate waking and dream, they convey something more. In
dream and waking perception of outer objects is
common and desire,
passion, fear etc. are also common. We cannot say that one does not
desire in dream. The Vedic sages were not of common wisdom. So the
meaning of this is not as superficial as it appears to be. With one word
`dream they refer to the two states as they did not make any difference
between dream and waking. The objects of experience must be outside
and the word dream refers to the perception of these outside objects. A
desired thing may or may not be perceived which means it may or may
not have existence. None can perceive a non existent thing. So the word
desire refers to all
the activities of the mind like conception,
imagination, postulate, feeling etc. that consciousness can witness.
The
words dream and desire are to be taken for perception and conception
respectively. Mind creates pictures and images too of its own accord. In
sleep mind does not create anything and so we do not see any thing.
As things are not created in sleep the possibility of perceiving uncreated
things does not arise.
Sleep is bare experience or pure consciousness. Sleep is not
`nothingness or zero. After the sleep in waking we say that we have a
Page 100 of 140
good sleep. Had I not existed, I could not experience anything;
without
being the witness of the sleep how shall I be able to remark the
goodness or soundness of the sleep? No one can say that he has not
experienced sleep.
In sleep we are not reduced to the state of rock. We
are there in sleep but we do not know that we are there. We did not
know that we were there and we do know that we were there. The
common man says that sleep is a state of nothingness by which he
means his absence in sleep and from a common man we cannot expect
anything more. But we may enquire whether his statement that he was
not in the sleep is credible. Without being a witness to the sleep how
can he
say that he slept? We remark in waking state that we had a
good sleep. Was the waking man asleep an hour ago? A waking man
can never sleep. If you say that waking man sleeps, by that you mean
that there is a man in every man apart from his waking state and that
man sleeps. Let me agree with you for the time being and if I ask what
the waking man was doing when the other man was sleeping, what can
you answer? Then there is dream. What was the waking man doing
when the other man was dreaming? What may be the dreamer +V$@
doing when the waking man is awake? What could be the other two
doing when the other man sleeps? Tell me truly, at all time do you feel
singularity or plurality? None can feel he is more then one. Our
experience or feeling of singularity is an undeniable truth.
Mandukaya Upanishat says, sleep is knowledge solidified or made one

whole. In dream and waking knowledge is divided into two, the knower and the known- as there can be no knowledge without any
of the two. We are conscious of outer objects in dream means the same
thing because consciousness and the object of consciousness are
separate. The same holds good with regard to the experience since the
Page 101 of 140
experiencer and the thing experienced are different from each other. The
dream and waking states are called the states of duality. Appearance of
duality or plurality is itself a staete. (The divided) mind becomes one
with the soul in sleep. w +u 8 (P.U.4-2.)
there is no duality as the knowledge or mind
In sleep
which is divided in dream
and waking sheds its duality and becomes one in sleep. This is the
meaning of the word `knowledge solidified. We cannot say that there is
no knower in sleep, but there may not be knowledge and the known.
Neither the knowledge nor the known can exist independent of the
knower. With an example let me make it easy. You see things through
your eyes. Whatever things are before your eyes you may see them. If
all the things are removed you cannot see anything. But it does not
mean that your easy have no capacity to see. Or, imagine that you are
sitting in a complete dark room. You cannot see any thing there because
there is no light. Not seeing the things must not mean the absence of
your eyes.
The Upanishat uses another word to describe sleep, ìndivisible

single. In the other two states man finds himself divided into ego and
non ego; or we may say that mind is divided into two parts, subject and
object.
Without the consciousness of these ego and non ego neither
dream nor waking state can occur. It also reveals the secret that which
is the single in sleep, has the capacity of being divided into two in other
two states. All these are nothing but soul.
@ (C.U.7-25-2. In
other words, what appears to be divided into two in other two states the
same becomes one, without any remainder, in sleep. The objects in
dream and waking are countable because not only they are separate and
plural but also because the countables are not the one who counts. This
duality is the foundation of the edifice of plurality. As duality and plurality
Page 102 of 140
cannot exist in sleep of which they are emerged, the sleep is hailed to
be the indivisible single.
The Upanishat describes sleep as full of flawless

ecstasy. In dream and waking states we enjoy pleasure of various kinds
but these pleasures are limited as any thing we find pleasurable liable to
give pleasure only with in its limitations and not beyond that since all
things are not considered to be equally pleasurable. We find pleasures in
various degrees in various objects, but none can give unlimited pleasure
as it is itself limited. Secondly, our capacity to enjoy is limited to the
power of our sensory organs. Our eyes cannot see either ultraviolet rays
or infrared rays. Our audibility is restricted to twenty to twenty thousand
hertz only, it is said. As all our sense organs have naturally limited
strength, the pleasures they supply must also be limited within those
limits only. Age and health play a major role in making the things
pleasurable or otherwise.
So even the highest pleasure that we seem to
enjoy is strictly limited by both these factors. Apart from these, our
circumstances, mood and leisure also influence our enjoyment. Every
pleasure has one or the other flaws. Unavoidable dependency on the
pleasurable things cannot make the pleasure independent and flawless.
Apart from this, the economists
describe diminishing marginal utility. A
person who has no cars gets the highest satisfaction and pleasure when
he affords one. The second, third and fourth cars, if he buys, will not
give him the same amount of pleasure which the first one gave. Not only
that the satisfaction he derives from each car goes on diminishing with
increase in their numbers. So, in dream and waking states we cannot
have the pleasure to our fill. The pleasure that we have in sleep is
complete and flawless and we are pleased our fill to such an extent that
there is nothing in us except pleasure. Not only that, no difference can
Page 103 of 140
be established between ourselves and pleasure. We are not even related

with
pleasure
demarcation
in
sleep
as
the
pleasure
is
inseparable
from
us.
between the two collapses means we are pleasure only.
We all desire to have what we like and when we get them we feel
contented. Whatever we get in dream or in waking our contentment is
limited only as in the case with pleasure. Nothing can make us so
contented as not to make us aspire for any other things. But the
happiness
that we have in sleep is so great that our contentment
reaches its limits. So sleep is happiness solidified or contentment

personified. To be true, I pity the word `pleasure for its poverty of
meaning. Even the word ecstasy, beatitude or any other word known to
me, excuse me for my ignorance, cannot satisfactorily convey the
experience of sleep. The Upanishat calls it the absolute happiness,
Brahmananda.
The word BC# literally means, that pleasure which
has none to second it. To be short, there is nothing but happiness in

sleep.
The Upanishat says that in sleep one experiences nothing but

happiness. In enjoying mundane pleasures we may be happy only to a
certain extent. As we are aware of the pleasing objects, the media of
pleasure i.e. sensory organs, and the happiness itself, apart from the
surroundings, we are not able to be absorbed completely in the joy.
Secondly, even when enjoying, our mind keeps its fickleness and
happiness can only be in inverse proportion to it. Sometimes anticipation
gives more emotional satisfaction than the actual objects or incidents do.
Satisfaction of the sense organs is not the limitation of the happiness.
The threat of possible transience of happiness may couple pleasure with
grizzle. So in dream and waking states total happiness becomes a dream
that is not realised. Contrary to this happiness in sleep reaches its limits
Page 104 of 140
as there is nothing in sleep to disturb or limit it. In dream and waking

we can accept happiness only with all other things before us and so we
cannot consume, if you permit me to use this word, happiness alone or
even pure happiness.
happiness
alone
is
The reason for our inability to experience

mainly
botheration, tension, anxiety
the
activities
of
the
mind.
Problems,
and the like might have told upon your
enjoyments as your retrospections may prove. So the possibility of the

enjoyment of the fullest happiness is available only during sleep. In sleep
happiness is in its entirety for there is nothing but happiness, and this
nothing includes mind also. Dont you remember that you had not your
mind in sleep? Do you doubt? You doubt in this waking state only
because doubting mind makes waking. Mind makes dream and waking
but not sleep. The absence of mind itself is sleep. The duality (waking
and dream) is only the misconception of mind. P
a (M.K.2-32-4.)This is the secret of complete happiness in sleep.
Complete
tranquility
is
real
happiness
or
pure
consciousness.
As
happiness is contaminated in other two states sleep is the only state left
for pure happiness and the mind makes it possible by vanishing itself.
The absence of mind is true tranquility. So it is said that tranquility is the
only experience in sleep.
The
use
of
words
like
knowledge,
experience,
consciousness, happiness, pleasure and the like could not perhaps satisfy
the doubting readers as they cannot make out who experiences, who
enjoys etc. The Upanishat in its next word, energy, proposes to make it
clear. Happiness, pleasure etc. do not have independent entity. When the
mind is said to be non existent in sleep, who else could be there to
know or experience or to enjoy etc. is the new problem. Since the sleep
is not the state of nothingness and the possibility of the presence of
Page 105 of 140
anything is denied in it, it could be meaningful if it is described as

having energy. Instead of saying it has energy it could be better to say it
is energy in its pure state. We know different forms of energy like
electricity, light, sound and so on. All these are only the types or forms
of energy. The precise definition of energy perhaps has not yet become
possible as it is beyond perception. The scientists say that total energy is
constant. Energy in motion is matter. Einsteins theory says that if a
matter is made to move in the velocity of light it becomes energy. As
light is a form of energy a matter moving in the velocity of light may be
transformed into light only. Whatever is in the velocity of light it can be
light only. Light itself is not pure energy and it is a physical thing. If we,
for the time being, consider all physical things as matters, then the world
could be of matter only, whether gross or subtle. For scientific purposes,
in mundane world whatever the definition of matter and energy may be
pure energy is still out of our reach. According to these definitions
neither mater nor energy has consciousness. None of them is claimed to
be self-conscious. Pure energy is pure consciousness; and in any state
consciousness may not be separated from energy. This is the teaching of
the Upanishats. Even after centuries of research
the secrecy of
consciousness has not yet been discovered.
The total of physical and chemical activities in a human body is

not a person. The scientists have discovered a lot of things and are able
to explain different functions of the different parts of the body. They try
to find out how do they work, but have not yet found out what makes
them work. For our benefit, let us try to understand what the scientists
say about the function of perception or the different functions involved in
seeing and understanding an object. Light reflected from the surfaces of
the objects reaches the retina through cornea, pupil, aqueous humour,
Page 106 of 140
lenses and vitreous humour. The light reflected on the retina causes
electrical impulses and they reach the oxipetal lobe through optic nerves,
optic chiasma, optic tract, lateral geneculate body and optic radiation. In
hearing,
sound
waves
first
vibrate
tympanic
membrane.
Tympanic
membrane transforms the vibrations to the malleus, incus and stapis of

the middle ear and of them stapis hammers the inner membrane. The
liquid in the tube receives the vibration and then it is transferred to the
auditory nerves. The sound waves are converted into electric waves and
these electric waves reach the temporal lobe in the brain through
auditory nerves, trapezoid body, lateral lemnisscus , medial geniculate
body and auditory radition. The different types of sensory receptors in the
skin receive temperature, pain, pressure etc. and send the impulses
through nerves to somatosensory cortex of parietal lobe in the brain. The
taste buds in the tongue receive different tastes and the same is
transmitted to somatosensory cortex of parietal lobe in the brain. Smell of
different types is received by olfactory receptors and mix up with odorant
binding protein, which is in liquid form in a tube. This chemical causes
electric waves at the end of nerves ending in olfactory membrane. These
waves reach rhinen cephalon or limbic system which is a part of the
brain.
The cerebrum is divided into two hemispheres and each of

which is divided into four subdivisions. Cerbral cortex is made of gray
substance but the cortex is not so. Nerve cells called neurons are the
units which carry out the works of brain. They transmit electronic
impulses. Nerve cells have small openings called synapses. The electrical
impulses going through these synapses discharge neuro transmitter
chemicals. All impulses discharge neuro transmitter chemical in related
neurons
and
these
become
electric
waves.
Different
experiences
Page 107 of 140
transmitted through the nerves to the cortex make the neurons to

produce millions of electrical impulses at a time. These simultaneously
produced
electric
impulses
make
different
patterns.
The
electrical
impulses in nerves last for only a millionth of second. But the patterns
they produced remain. Neurons have the ability to recollect or reproduce
the duplication of these patterns. This is called memory. The instruments
like MRI and PET have enabled the scientists to observe the forming of
thoughts, fear and pain etc. causing red light in limbic system.
In
spite
of
all
physical,
chemical,
biological
and
biochemical discoveries that have been going on for centuries it is a pity

that the scientists are not in a position to explain the secrecy of the
consciousness. In the future the discoveries which may poke into the
minute parts of the brain and analyse its works, we may not hope for
the discovery of the principle of consciousness. Matters in the body like,
the cells, DNA, genes or even subatomic particles and energy as that of
electricity that is said to be produced in the process of understanding,
are not consciousness
and not conscious of themselves. It is like
searching for the existence of sky in the cup with a very strong
electronic microscope and declaring at the end that the sky is not
present in the cup. Some are of the opinion that matter and energy or
the combination of inert things in them produces consciousness. Even the
Charvakas of ancient India had put forth the same kind of theory
regarding the soul. The theory that the oscillation of neurons and
electronic waves cause consciousness proves its failure in the example of
sleep where they do not exist and in spite of their non-existence
consciousness exists without which man cannot have the experience of
sleep at all. Experience of sleep is the proof of consciousness during
sleep. Immediately after the death of a person, even when there is some
Page 108 of 140
temperature in the body, though heart and lungs stop working, the corpse
cannot be conscious of the mourning with tears and uproars around it.
Though ears and eyes are open they do not work. You may satisfy
yourselves by saying that the neurons stop working and that makes man
unconscious. But you may not deny the existence of neurons or the
patterns created by the neurons at that time in that body. Mere existence
of neurons cannot create consciousness or electricity in a body. As
neurons themselves are not consciousness, and have no capacity of self
movement, some other thing must be there to force them to work; and
they are at work not of their own accord as they cannot stop their
activity whenever they like. They are subordinate to some other factor
which the biologists do not know. Neuron may produce electric patterns
which could create knowledge of various things according to the designs
of the patterns. But the neurons do not produce consciousness and they
themselves are not self conscious. Even the electricity which is created
in the body is neither self conscious nor conscious of other things.
With my limited knowledge I have tried to show that

whatever energy is said to be working in a body from the point of view
of biology, biochemistry or physics that energy is not conscious of itself
and does not create consciousness. Whenever we use the word matter
or energy we do not mean that they are conscious of themselves.
Energy means the opposite of inertia and so which causes the matter to
move is definable as energy. Energy as well as inert things are lifeless.
The meaning of energy that the Upanishats suggest should not be taken
in these forms of energy or lifeless energy. Sleep is filled with energy
and this energy is the pure energy .This pristine energy is altogether
different from all that is known and all that can be known and all that is
unknowable also. The meaning of the pure energy is given in the next
Page 109 of 140
word pure consciousness. We are conscious of whatever perceivable is

before us. We are also conscious of our body and the changing moods
of our mind. We are conscious of time and action. We may say we are
conscious of ourselves. When a person says he is conscious of himself
what does he mean to say?
First he is conscious of his body, his
awareness of his being other than the body, the activities of his mind
and even the presence of awareness in him. Unknowingly he reveals his
awareness of his being different from his body, mind etc. in his
statement like `my body, `my mind etc. As long as he is awake he
cannot wither all these things even if tries to do so because it is the
nature of mind to have one thing or the other in it. Mind cannot be
empty even in dream as dream is nothing but waking at
that time. So,
in these two states mind has two fold awareness; one of the outside
objects,
and
the
other
of
its
own
being.
Mind
is
nothing
but
consciousness with its two fold activities. As the awareness of objects

and ideas are filled in the mind in two states the consciousness is said
to be mixed with other things or contaminated. Q a <s
!
a
9 ( A.U.) )
In the language of the Veda mind is the
contaminated consciousness. In the two states consciousness is not pure

and so the same is called the mind. As mind is ever present in the two
states there the pure consciousness cannot be recognised. Mind is the
turbulent state of consciousness. If the mind is tranquilised to the fullest
extent it reaches the state of pure consciousness. Mindlessness is not
consciousnesslessness. In sleep mind is naturally tranquilised to its fullest
extent or vanished. To make it more clear, because mind is duality pure
consciousness does not appear in dream and waking. It means to say
that we cannot sleep in either dream or waking and dream and waking
are not in sleep. This pure consciousness is energy in its pure form,
says the Vedanta. Pristine consciousness is pristine energy.
In the other
two states consciousness becomes impure because of the presence of

Page 110 of 140
objects and ideas, that means pure energy converts itself into different
forms of energy and matter which make objects. Before the creation of
the world every thing was Sat (pure energy)or Atman,
the undivided
one. J a (Ai.U.1-1-1.) In what form could

the world have been before it came into being? Before its creation the
world must not have been the world at all. Mind is always accompanied
by its correlates (objects of the world or the world itself) in dream and
waking, but pure consciousness need not accompany pure energy, as it
is nothing but pure energy itself, in sleep. Sleep is so delightful, restful,
refreshing, pleasing, content, energetic and tranquil because of the
absence of the mind only. The correlate of the mind is the world. So the
longevity of the world directly depends on the presence of mind. The
world or the universe exists to the extent of mind only. The dream mind
appears only with the dream world and this real world as you call it, can
appear only to the waking mind and is bound to vanish along with the
waking mind. The reality of the world is not with the world but it is in
the waking mind. Without the world (whether dream or real) there can be
no mind, and without mind there can be no world. The duality of mind
and world finds unity in the singularity called sleep. If my attempt to
convey the real meaning of sleep as revealed in the Upanishats helped
you to understand sleep properly, without making you sleep, that could
encourage you to proceed further for more enlightenment.
Page 111 of 140
9.
You are in the habit of saying like, ` Ì am in waking state

now or I dreamt a strange dream or I slept peacefully. etc. But are
these statements of yours true? You may not doubt what you say, but I
doubt for I dont find truth in such statements. I confidentially say that
you do not and cannot dream and even you did not dream. Before you
venture to protest against my remarks or even doubt it, please take a
paper and a pen available nearby and write down your name, age,
names of your parents, your sisters and brothers if any, your wife if you
have one, your children if you have any, some of your friends, your
village or town, your educational qualifications, job if you are doing, or
any other work you do, your specialisation if any, expertise etc. After this
list is completed recollect a recent dream you dreamt or any memorable
dream you dreamt. In your recollected dream you ought to have a body
but you must be sure that it was not the body you have now in your
Page 112 of 140
waking state for it should have been lying on the bed unconsciously.
When the dream body was moving, speaking, working, playing, enjoying
or experiencing many things, the present body must have been at rest,
inactive and inert on the bed. The mind which was at work in dream
could not be the one of your waking state as it could not be working
then and must have been unconscious and inert. Your family, friends,
village or town or the locality you find yourself in dream may not be
those of your waking state. Even unmarried persons may have their
spouse and children in dreams. Job, expertise, wealth, poverty, property,
power, status, name, fame etc of your waking state are not sure to
follow you into your dream. To be short, the world of dream is altogether
a different one; and the strange thing is that the dream world includes
dream body, dream mind, and a dreamer +V$@ of its own, and this
you are not that dreamer. Yes you are not the dreamer because the
body, mind and the world of dream are different from yours. You may
not tally your attributes in dream experiences with those of yours in
waking state as shown in your list.
A person in his dream may have his tooth pulled by

a dentist and on waking he finds himself on his bed but not in a hospital
and all his teeth are strong and safe. If a dreamers leg is amputated in
dream, the waking person does not lose his leg. The pain and pleasures
experienced in the dream is limited to the dream body only and do never
effect the other one. A lame may climb up a steep hill with his strong
legs in the dream. A deaf may listen to pleasing songs in the dream. A
blind in the dream may see beautiful sceneries. An ordinary mans mind
may compose poetry in the dream. A biologists mind may wonder on
seeing a snake changing into a girl without any doubt that his knowledge
of biology would beget. A physicist may find himself flying with his wings
Page 113 of 140
in the sky, against the law of physics, like a bird enjoying the greenery
of the landscape beneath without doubting the possibility. A rich man
may in his dream curse his poverty and fate that made him beg and
suffer insults. A beggar becoming a king in his dream is a popular story.
All these possibilities show that the mind and the body of the dream are
absolutely separate. So the body of the waking state never enters into
the dream and those of dream can never come down to waking state.
Though a person experiences his assassination in dream he is not found
dead on his bed. Generally people do not bother about such things after
their dreams. Even tough in every dream your location and circumstances
keep changing and none of them is that of your waking state you
continue to believe that you dreamt not one but all the dreams. In spite
of all these discrepancies between real you with your real world and your
dream body, mind, experiences and the whole dream, your belief that
you yourself dreamt the dream is pitiably treacherous. If these logical
arguments do not shake your belief, try to establish justification in
peoples behaviour in your waking state in the following examples. A
person who gives birth to a child in dream does not agree that she is
the mother of that child in the waking state. If one sees the death of
ones child in dream that will not make the one lament over the death of
ones child in waking state. A person who lends money to his friend in
dream does not persuade his friend for repayment in his waking state
and we cannot expect that friend to repay the money; and if he had
borrowed
he could not repay it in his waking also. Whatever crime a
person commits in dream he does not repent in his waking state and he
in not punished for it also. The alms a person gives to the needy in
dream are not believed to bring him good fortune in his waking. None is
punished for the crimes done in dreams in the waking state. It is a
paradox that you do not agree that you yourself were in the dream and
at the same time you say that experiences like joy and sorrow of the
Page 114 of 140
dream are
your own experiences. Suppose you killed your unbearable
enemy in your dream, and do you repent your sin in waking state? Or
do you feel relieved of the troubles from your enemy in your waking
state? But still how do you say that that was your experience? Body and
mind appeared in the dream
were not the body and mind of your
waking state. Does it not show that you have two separate sets of body
and mind, one for the dream and the other for the waking state? Not
only two sets of body and mind, if you are sincere and vigilant enough
you understand that for every dream you have a separate body and
mind. Nay, you were not even the experiencer, for your behaviour in
waking
state
is
not
concomitant
to
your
experiences.
Is
it
not
contradictory to say that you experienced the dream even when your
body and mind were not in that dream? To be sincere, you must admit
that you have at least two different personalities or individualities,
ignoring different dreams, one of your waking and the other of the
dream. Even though all people have such experiences almost every day
people do not express it for short of or for fault in reasoning. People
never mind their own mind. Temporarily we can conclude that there are
two in every one, one in the waking state and the other in the dream
(ignoring many dreams). Ponder over this calmly and be sincere to you
own experience at dreams to realise the truth in this reality. Beware of
your prejudice which is likely to spring up and betray.
Let us give special consideration to two words,

dreamer SUXZ (one who experiences each dream) - +V$@
the awake(one who experiences waking state)- Jx$@
and
which should
mean the person in his waking state, with special attention. To be true to
your experience, your entire personality in the dream is completely
independent from that of your waking state. For this reason for a crime
Page 115 of 140
committed by a dreamer the awake Jx$@ is not punished. The

dreamers loans need not be settled by the awake. The dreamer +V$@
need not be as rich as the awake. The dreamers pleasure and pains
need not be those of the awake Jx$@. A wise awake may be a stupid
dreamer. A dreamer sinner need not be the saint awake. Your dream
body and mind cannot jump into the waking state in its bustling revenge
to retaliate the person who offends you in dream. A dreamers amputated
legs or hands need not be those of the awake. A dumb awake cannot
be a singing dreamer. A poor awake cannot be the rich dreamer. Now,
tell me who are you, dreamer or the awake Jx$@?
dreamer and the awake Jx$@, who is real?
Of these two, the
The answer,
the awake
is real is not less incorrect than the `dreamer is real. Both of them are
equally real in their own states and equally indescribable in the other
states.
Now let me remind you of my statement that you do no

or cannot dream. I am conscious that you are reading this book in your
waking state; and my question ``Do you dream? is addressed to only to
a reader in his waking state Jx$@. You have an individuality or
personality which includes your body, mind, knowledge, skill, social
relation, family, and all that of your waking state only. Your present body
cannot creep into your dream world and that dream body cannot jump
into this world. Your mind with all its knowledge, skill, memory, emotions
etc. does not enter into the dream world. The world that you see in
dream is not this world. What is your night in waking state is the day in
dream. Your personality or individuality ends with the end of the waking
state and this world which you call the real world comes to an end with
the vanishing of your waking state. You with your body and this mind
cannot dream. In dream you cannot trace this individuality or this world
Page 116 of 140
which you believe the real world. In waking state you are not responsible
or answerable to any speech or act of the dreamer. Now to you, you
mean waking you only. If you say that you dream, or can dream, it
means that you dream when you are awake. Nothing could be more
absurd than this statement. Dream and waking are not concomitants and
contemporaneous. Men say that they dream, the Upanishat declares that
it is peoples knowledge. Now you may be convinced how hollow and
shallow is peoples knowledge.
You may agree with this. But all is not well. I help you
remember that you are always single in dream as well as in waking and
never feel duality or plurality. Denying the singularity in all states could
not be less difficult than refuting the appearing duality in waking state
while recollecting a dream. You cannot deny the existence of either the
dreamer +V$@ or the awake Jx$@ still on this basis you cannot say
that you in waking state are not the dreamer for one cannot recollect
anothers experiences. While you narrate your dream you recollect all the
objects, individuals, locations, events and experiences of the dreamer in
your waking state. This singularity forbids accepting the duality. The
difference in body, mind, location and acquittal of the awake from the
fruits of the good or bad deeds of the dreamer forbids accepting the
singularity and denying duality. Man! Who are you, is not the only
question, how many are you, follows it.
This is the proper time for you to remember our

discussion regarding body, mind, life and soul in which it was made clear
that body and food are just two separate points on the natural cycle of
Page 117 of 140
transformation of matter. In spite of the continuous change, growth and

ware and tear of his body, a person identifies himself with it always and
still continues to feel indifferent from the one at present. The changes in
the body never influence his oneness with it so a person always feels
one with his body. As a result of identifying himself with all the changes
in the mind he seems to believe that he is the same person. The body
and the mind of a two years child cannot be the same when the person
attains the age of sixty. It was made clear that the soul is not the body,
mind and life or any thing else. If this knowledge is coupled with the
present knowledge about the individuality in waking state, understanding
of the reality revealed in the Upanishat would become easy and quick.
Acharya Goudapada, regarding sleep, says these words,
In sleep one
is neither conscious of himself nor of the external world. He is not aware

of truth and untruth. He is not aware of anything.

(M.K.1-12.) Commenting on this verse, Shankaracharya
says that the sleeper is neither conscious of himself nor of the external
world which appears as a result of ignorance, and of which the dreamer
+V$@ and the awake Jx$@ are conscious. It means that self
awareness and the consciousness of the outer objects are common to
the awake and the dreamer, whereas the sleeper is not conscious of
either. But sleep is said to be the seed or potential of duality which
means it gives birth to the other two states. In dream (which also means
waking state) there is the duality of the ego - and the non ego but in sleep this duality is not found. Here the meaning of this
statement ought to be made clear. Sleep is such a state that it has the
capacity of dividing itself into ego and non ego and appears either like a
dream or waking state for both the states must be composed of both
ego and non ego. All that appears in dream and waking is nothing else
but ego and non ego. Whatever is perceived or inferred in both the
Page 118 of 140
states it nothing but non ego. In this sense sleep is the seed of the
other two states. Sleep is potential.
Sleep is the seed of the other two states means it is the

seed of mind since mind is duality incarnated. The imagination of a
common man in comparing the sleep with a seed
or an egg from which
the dream (also waking) comes out like a seedling or a chicken should
not be entertained as it can only be the `peoples knowledge. The word
`change has its inherent meanings like chemical change, physical
change, biological change etc. which are not meant when the word is
used in the sentence, `sleep changes into dream and waking. It is like
the change of a golden or silver cup into a plate in which there is
change in form only and not in substance. Cups and plates are none
other than gold. In the same way sleep wholly changes into either dream
or waking. Mathematically one cannot become two and two one. But
Adwaita Vedanta does not bother about
mathematics which has the
limited capacity of dealing with only two or more numbers. Mathematics

does
not
generate
numbers
whereas
the
Vedanta
does
it
in
its
declaration, one becomes two and then it leads to plurality .We know
one is there in two without which it cannot be two at all, and one is
inseparable from the two. One does not depend on two for
its
existence (to be one) but the same cannot be said of two. In two there
are no twos but two ones and in duality there must be singles as two
singles make a duel. Sleep is single and dream (and waking) is duality.
In dream duality exists in the form of the knower - and the known . The first single in the duality is the knower and the second single
is the known, and together they make a duel. None of them without the
other can make a duality or dream. The existence and the appearance of
dream mean the presence of the knower and the known together.
Page 119 of 140
Though they appear to be two, they are dependent on each other and
only this mutual dependency makes each exist. Any one of them can
never exist in the absence of the other. Each gives meaning to the other
and the two together make a different meaning i.e. dream. Each gives
the other its value and together they become a valuable. The meaning or
value they together establish is dream (also waking state). In duality or
dream one has no meaning or value independent of the other. I wish to
draw your attention to a note worthy thing in the duality. The duality in
dream and waking states is only the knower and the known. What all the
knower knows is known only and this makes it known that even the
body, mind and the ego or Ì all should be understood as known only
as the knower knows all of them. The knower continues to be a knower
so long as he knows the knowable but in the absence of knowable he
ceases to be a knower. Even if the knower ceases to be a knower the
capacity to know is not nullified. In the absence of known knower may
cease to be a knower, but the potentiality to know is not vanquished.
That is the pure knowledge which does not consist knowable.
Now we know that dream or waking is nothing but a whole

composed of two halves known as the knower and the known. Mark it
well, dream world or the real world, as people call it, consists of the
witness of the world and the world witnessed, and not even a single
blade of grass more. Of these two halves one is the knower and the
other is the known. Make it sure that known includes the whole world
and the body and the minds of the knower for he knows them also.
From dream (and also waking) if the known is taken out (supposing the
possibility) what remains is the knower only. It is only hypotheses not
practicable, for the time being let us grant it. Even so, what does` the
knower mean? Or who is the knower? Only the act of knowing the
Page 120 of 140
knowable gives the knower the status of à knower. And the knowable
becomes known only when it is known by the knower. Without the
presence of knowable and without the act of knowing it, a knower cannot
be called a knower at all.
What could remain in the place of the
knower if the knower is denied of his knowledge of the knowable which

makes him the knower? Certainly there will be zero, one of you may
answer. Obviously there can be no knower; still to call that state a zero
is peoples knowledge. The Upanishast calls that state or condition `pure
energy. Pure energy is that which has the capacity to know when the
knowable is present and because of which becoming the knower. So the
knower is the pure energy expect for the presence of the known only
which has the power to make it the knower. The known becomes known
only when and only if he knower knows it, otherwise it ceases to be the
known and turns to be pure energy.
Sleep is the direct experience of
soul. y
V

(V.C.404.)
Therefore we can say that the
known makes the pure energy a knower and the knower makes the pure
energy a known. In dream both the knower and the known are present
and this presence of duality makes it a dream. The duality, ego and non
ego, that appears in the two states is resulted by the movements of the
mind. J J c +# (M.K.4-7.)
If mind stops its
work or ceases to be mind then duality will not appear at all.

C a t (M.K.3-31.)
Sleep is a state where pure
energy is not divided into knower and the known. This makes it clear
that sleep is not ` a nothing or à zero or nullity but it is every thing or
you may say `latent everything. In it (sleep) all the worlds take shelter
and none can overpower it. + z{ | #8 L a
(K.U.2-2-8.)
In sleep we have no knowledge only because there is
nothing knowable to know, but still knowers ability to know is not

annihilated.
Page 121 of 140
Pure energy is pure knowledge. When a person knows

something he is said to be conscious of or aware of that thing.
Consciousness and awareness also depend on their correlates. When
independent both are pure energy only and so can be called pure
consciousness and pure awareness. Both the knower and the known are
pure energy in their seed form. Now it is possible to doubt if both the
knower and the known are equally pure energy, what extra power has
the knower to be a knower and the known to be a known the absence
of which may make the knower a known, and the known a knower. In
duality the knower is always a knower and the known is always a
known, so we cannot grant equality of energy to them. This objection
has to be over ruled in two steps. A person is the knower and all other
persons and every bit of thing in the world is knowable and when he
knows them they become known to him. In this a person is always a
knower and the rest of the world is always the known. This is peoples
knowledge. A person who is a knower is himself a known to the others
who see or know him. So, all are knower and known equally. Secondly
the knower is not the body, sense organs, mind or any thing of that sort
as the knower knows his body, mind etc. A person knows his body and
others bodies equally. The true knower is not the body or sense organs.
The knower knows all the activities of the mind also. Though they are
pure knowledge, the knower and the known are not equal and the offer
to sanction equality is rejected temporarily.
Energy or consciousness or
awareness in pure form is nothing but sleep. It may be clear now for
knowing nothing in sleep. Though we experience nothing in sleep, we
cannot deny our own existence and our knowledge during sleep because
we know that we know nothing during sleep. The sleeper experiences
sleep.
V +

(M.U.B.7). As knower of all states we are
in sleep. You do not sleep and cannot sleep as we have already seen
that your individuality ends with the beginning of sleep. With all your
Page 122 of 140
body and mind present you cannot sleep because their presence must
make it either dream or waking state. Reality in its fullest extent is sleep
and you are that àbsolute reality. Every attempt you make to deny this
is bound to enlighten you the very reality. You are nothing but the
unborn, immutable and immortal absolute reality. When you realize this
you will be free from all sorrows, pains, sufferings and fears. Death
becomes pickle like to him who realizes this state,
@
+
(K.U.1-2-25.) says the Upanishat. To the emperor Janaka who realized
this state the Upoanishat confirred absolute fearlessness in these words.
O Janka! You have achieved absolute fearlessness.
<V$ (Br.U.4-2-4.
One who realises this becomes immortal. The wise
men (who have this erudition) are not born and will not die.
} L (K.U.1-2-18.)
10.
Sleep is not a state; it is experience in its nudity. A

state is a condition in which a thing or a person is. As no person or
nothing can be in any state permanently, the states are subject to
changes. Changes can take place only in matters. Sleep is not a matter.
A person or an individual cannot be in sleep with his individuality. So
sleep is not a state and it has no possibility of changing into other
states. (Doubt regarding dream state will be dealt with later). As sleep is
pure energy and pure energy is not a matter, sleep is not subject to any
changes which cause different states; hence sleep is not a state and
Page 123 of 140
does not change itself into any other states; I mean no real physical,
chemical or material changes take place.
An individual may find himself
in different states but not the pure consciousness does. As sleep is bare
experience it is beyond the jurisdiction of states. The energy we and the
scientists speak of is neither self conscious nor conscious of any other
things. Pure energy is still out of our reach. But Adwaita Vedanta
declares that sleep itself is pure energy. In this sense sleep is bare
experience and energy in its pristine state. So Goudapada says sleep is
not aware of truth or untruth. Though all beings go to this soul (sleep)
they do not understand it because they are overpowered by nescience.
@ < @m# BC #8
Q < ~| (C.U.83-27.) As sleep is duality denied, and where one only exists, whatever is,
is truth only and truth is seconded by none which could prove to be
untruth
because
of
its
being
other
than
truth.
When
the
duality
disappears and when he becomes one with happiness in sleep and does
not dream that (there he) is the soul. That is the Brahma and that is the
state of immortality and absolute fearlessness. a
V +
<# +V 8
BC8 (C.U.8-11-1.)
Sleep
is
bare
experience
and
pristine
energy,
and
therefore one is not dead in sleep. As you are truly this bare experience,
in your ultimate reality you can never experience your absence. In sleep
you are not conscious of your body and mind etc. as they are not you;
still you were in your ultimate reality which is
nothing but pure
consciousness, and you cannot deny the existence of that pure energy in
your waking state as the denial would mean self negation. Till now you,
as all human beings, were accustomed to think that you are only your
waking states because
you did not understand the reality and were not

Page 124 of 140
attentive to it. To you, you meant the total of the consecutive waking
states only as your thoughts were controlled and guided by that
conviction. Your waking state invariably accompanies this mundane world
and the world means whatever you know in your waking state. Your
waking state and the world that you see are concomitants. The reality
and the longevity of this world are commensurable with the duration of
your waking state. This world appears, and so makes you believe that it
exists, only so long as you are awake. In dream and sleep you do not
experience this world, but still your existence continues and never
ceases. You can experience the non existence of this world but not your
own nonexistence. This transiency of the world proves your permanency.
As long as you believe that this world is permanent you consider yourself
to be transient. From the point of view of a passenger in a moving train
all outside objects seem to move, but not his train; but for the passenger
standing on the platform the train moves but not he. Sense of motion is
relative. It is an irony that you believe that the world is permanent in
which every one believes the world to be permanent which is composed
of such individuals; and you believe that you are temporary relative to
the world which is composed of the individuals who believe that they are
transient relative to the world of which they are parts; conviction of your
own transience appears true to you because you believe the world which
is a whole made of such transient parts to be permanent. To be short,
your assumed mortality is a byproduct of your belief in the permanency
of the world. This is the natural way of thought and this is called
`peoples knowledge- <
c (Mu.U.2-2-1) As you are convinced
of your permanency, now think that you are static and the world moves.
I call this the Soul centre technique- #b # . I call it a technique
because you need to inculcate it a new abandoning your old habit of
world centre habit. You know habit is the second nature and to give up
a habit is much more difficult than acquiring one. This is called The
Page 125 of 140
path of knowledge, ct (M.K.B.3-44.) as mans reasoning, guided

by the Upanishats, leads him to his final destiny. Remember the call of
the inscription at Delphi and the call of the Veda to know thy self.
Search for the absolute reality leads man to his own soul in its purity.
Sleep is nothing but soul which is the only unborn, immutable, and
immortal ultimate reality. As long as you believe sleep to be a sleep it
will be nothing more than sleep; but an understanding of the sleep to its
fullest extent results in understanding it to be the ultimate reality. Have a
conviction that you are nothing but soul, the true nature of which is
exhibited in sleep. Imagine that soul is the centre from which cycles of
varying sizes appear and after a time become one with it.
The centre of
the circle, being a point, has no dimensions and all the patterns or
figures which have dimensions emerge from it and the denial of
dimensions make them nothing but a point. Let the sleep be the point
and the dream and waking the circles or figures.
As long as you believe that the world is real you cannot

realize the reality of the world as your mind will continue to be
prejudiced with that belief.
If you follow world centre thought, the world
seems to be constant and you appear to be coming into it and going out
of it. By birth we mean coming into the world and death means going
out of the world. See what happens when you apply soul centre
technique. Remember a dream you dreamt which must have appeared in
the middle of your sleep as you are accustomed to say. At the end of
your waking state the sleep must have begun. After a considerable time
the dream starts and continues for some time and at the end of the
dream the sleep starts again or some time you would be awakened.
Dream is followed by and preceded by sleep. When you dream it is not
less real to you than the waking state as it appears to you in your
Page 126 of 140
waking, and dream is a waking in dream. When you recollect a dream

experience in your waking sate it appears to be unreal only because
none of the things seen in dream has its existence in waking state or
still better your assuming this body and mind hinders you to own the
dream body and mind as you cannot own two sets at a time. You
cannot call the dream a false as falsity can exist only in verbal
expression, and you are convinced of this already. It was also explained
that dream is not an illusion even. Where does the dream world exist
now when you are awake? You are bound to say that
the dream world
has disappeared. Where does the waking state exist when you dream a
dream? You are accustomed to explain that while you dream, this world
(of waking) will be here only and it needs not disappear. When you are
awake, why dont you say that the dream world is there only? They
should equally be true but your partiality confounds you. Moreover, your
going out of your waking sate to dream and returning into it may not be
equal to your exit from and entering into a room, a house, a village or a
town. Through which door or road do you enter and exit from dream? If
you were asked in your dream about the existence of this waking world
your answer could never be different from the one in your waking state
about the dream. Both dream and waking are followed and preceded by
sleep. You say that your dream appeared in the middle of sleep because
it is followed and preceded by sleep. Is not your waking state followed
and preceded by sleep? But you never say that your waking state
appears in the middle of the sleep. What difference do you find between
the appearances of the two states? No difference can be found. You are
sure of the appearance and disappearance of the dream in the middle of
sleep, but what refrains
you from admitting the appearance and
disappearance of the waking state in the middle of the sleep?
Page 127 of 140
You cannot solve this riddle as long as you follow

world centre habit. Dream and waking states appear and disappear in the
middle of sleep without any doubt. You do not hesitate to say that dream
disappears but your ignorance -9 does not permit you to agree with
the disappearance of the waking state. Why this difference? It is because
you believe dream to be untrue or illusion and this conviction gives you
the courage to grant temporariness to the dream and as a result its
disappearance
becomes
acceptable
to
you.
Without
any
authentic
authority you have granted undue reality to the waking state and this self
imposed restriction prevents you to accept the reality as it is. Dream and
waking states are not contemporaneous and none of them is permanent.
Both have beginning
and end, but sleep is not so. You may oppose
this by saying that the end of waking state is the beginning of sleep and
the beginning of dream or waking is the end of sleep. This is peoples
knowledge. But let me ask you first, Who witnesses the commencement
of the dream? May a dreamer +V$@ notice the beginning of the
dream and understand that the dream is beginning?
No. Does the
waking individual see the starting of a dream? Not at all. Who witnesses
the ending of dream, the dreamer or the waking person?
Do they
understand that the dream is going to end in a short time? No.

Secondly, who witnesses the beginning and the end of the waking state?
The dreamer cannot see them at all. When you get up do you think that
your waking state has started? Who witnesses the starting and ending of
the waking state every day? Did you point out when your waking state
ended at least once? None could have said `now my waking state has
come to an end. You say that dream appears at night. Who is in the
night, waking person, or dreamer? As the waking person cannot be
conscious of night as he is sleeping, he cannot see the dream. Does the
dreamer +V$@ see the dream in night? Could it be night for him? No.
What kind of lights does he use to light up the dream? So your
Page 128 of 140
statement that you dreamt at night is preposterous. Either dream or

waking state cannot appear at night or in day time. Your waking state is
not in day time, instead day time is in the walking state.
Nights and
days may be in either state. A state as a whole may neither be in day

nor be in night because time and space are not outside the states. To
whom does the dream appear? Do you see the appearance of the
dream as a waking man? You cannot. Why dont you say that your
waking state is appearing now? Who or what makes the dream appear,
but not the waking state? Both the states appear and disappear alike. If
you were the real seer of states you could choose to see dream now.
But you cant. It means you are not free to select the states. Who
presents the states to you? Are you able to withdraw from seeing dream
or waking? When we say both the states appear and disappear, we must
know from where do they appear and into what do they disappear? Both
of them appear from the sleep and disappear into sleep only. Both of
them are followed and preceded by sleep. The soul in sleep state is
called
ultimate knower. The two states appear like the grains coming
into and going out of measuring unit.
V +
<c +
$@ $8 @8L 8 (M.U.11.) Liquids like

oil and milk are measured with the help of a measuring unit. In olden
days grains were also measured in the same style. The grains appear
like coming into
and going out of the measuring unit. Sleep is compared
with the measuring unit
and the dream and waking states are compared
with the grains. Sleep is static and immutable and the two states emerge
from
and merge into sleep. If you understand sleep to be the sleep you
may not understand how dream and waking can emerge from and vanish
into sleep. Sleep is not sleep but it is bare experience and or pristine
potential
energy and is the immortal witness of all the dreams and
waking states. The Veda calls it the soul. Before the creation nothing
Page 129 of 140
existed and nothing exists in sleep and this similarity proves that sleep is
the pre-creation state.
V A $! 8 @ (M.U.B.3.)
In your waking state, you believe, you recollect and

understand what the dream was. Since the waking mind has not
witnessed the dream it is meaningless to say that your waking mind
recollects the dream. One cannot recollect the others experiences. When
do you recognize a dream to be a dream? It is only in the waking state
after the dream is gone. How do you recognize your waking state? What
proofs have you to say that this is your waking state? Who witness your
waking sate? Your mind in waking state cannot witness the whole waking
state as a whole, but it can witness only what appears in the state.
Witnessing the whole state means, witnessing its entirety; the beginning,
the
middle and the end of the stat and, a state must include
+$@.
As your present mind is not able to see the beginning and
the end of the waking state, and as it is also out of the reach of the
dream mind, the sleep or the soul must be the only witness. Soul
witnesses both the states along with the dreamer or the awake Jx$@ .
Sleep is the embodiment of energy and knowledge and that is why it is
justly declared to be the witness of the two states. That there is no
absence of knowledge in any state is the proof for the reality and
omnipresence of the knowledge. @
Al c +~+
(M.U.B.3.) Even in sleep knowledge is present. So non existence of

knowledge is impossible and therefore knowledge is the ultimate reality.
This soul is the witness of the beginnings and ends of both dream and
waking states. A dreamer +V$@ sees only what is in the dream world
and an awake sees only what is in this world but a dreamer cannot see
the dream as a whole and the awake Jx$@ cannot see the waking
states as a whole because they are in the states. A passenger in a ship
Page 130 of 140
or a plane cannot see the whole ship or plane but if stands out of the
ship or plane he can see them wholly. In the same way either the
dreamer or the waking person cannot see the whole states as long as
they are in the states, not only that they cannot see the whole states at
any time as they cannot move out of their respective states. Can we
imagine a dreamer +V$@ going out of the dream and the waking
person moving out of the waking state? No. Though the soul or sleep
witnesses the rise and set of
dream and waking including the dreamer
+V$@ and the awake it has neither beginning nor end. Who else can
see the beginning and end of the sleep? No one can see. So, it is
beginning less, endless and so unlimited, permanent and immortal. I
hope to give a vivid description of the three states and reveal more
secrets in my next book.
Dream and waking states are not permanent; they are

short lived in the sense that they are limited by sleep. Time limits dream
and waking states from both sides because they have beginning and
end. But the soul or sleep has none of them. Where can this time come
from? We have seen that time cannot limit the soul as it has no
beginning and end. Can time be contemporary to or concomitant of the
soul? It cant be as soul is always single and cannot coexist with any
other thing. Now you may understand that my earlier statement `time
limits dream and waking states from both sides is a very good example
of a statement which has no meaning at all. It may be clear to you now
that time cannot limit any state instead, each state limits time to its
extent. The time of each state is limited to its duration and can never go
out of that state to restrict the other states. Time is presumable only in
relation to space and matter or objects. Sleep does not consist of space
and objects and hence the possibility of its existence in sleep is never
Page 131 of 140
entertainable.
There the world does not exist. The night of the waking
person may be the day to a dreamer. An hour of the waking man can
be forty years to a dreamer. Waking state has two fundamental features,
objects and space which are limited to that state only and the time
resulting from the movements of objects in space cannot transcend that
state. The objects and space of dream are limited to that state and the
related time cannot trespass the other states. Dream and waking states
cannot exist without space, matter, and time. To be true, a state,
whichever it may be, is nothing more than the trinity of space, objects,
and time. Space, object, and time make a state and any one of them
cannot exist without the other two. So dream and waking states are not
in time and space, but time and space are in dream and waking. As a
state means a trinity of matter, space and time, sleep is not a state as it
has none of them. Therefore time is not in sleep and sleep is not in
time. So sleep is declared to be beyond time. That (the soul or sleep)
which is beyond past, present and future times is nothing but Omkara.
m#
V (M.U.1.) Really speaking, the trinity
of space, matter, and time has no objective reality. Every incident

happens in a spatial-temporal condition, which means that space, matter
and time do not exist independently. We cannot imagine space without
objects and objects, without space. We cannot imagine time without
space and matter and space and matter without time. Space determines
objects and time determines incidents. Space determines objects means
extension of objects is limited by space. Time determines incidents
means movements of the objects in space is encompassed by time.
Space is nothing but distance among objects. We cannot imagine space
void of all objects. Time becomes unimaginable without space and
objects. Movement of objects in space which is called incident gives birth
to the sense of time.
Time originated in either state is restricted to its
extent only; therefore time cannot go out of a state. Incidents are

Page 132 of 140
restricted to a particular state only. Matter or objects, space, time and

incidents cannot exist outside a state.
We know in waking state the sun is the source of

light. What was the source of light in dream? Did you see the sun
burning? Did you feel the heat of the sunlight? No. Still there was light
enough for all your purpose. Dream is not lit by the sun or the moon.
The state itself is complete in all respects. Our sun cannot light the
dream at night and we cannot even imagine a special sun to light the
dream. According to peoples knowledge physical objects like sun, moon,
stars and fuels are the source of light. But none of these glow in dreams
and ensure light. But still we see light in dream or better, we see objects
without depending on the source of light. Eyes may depend on light to
perceive things, but knowledge does not depend on light or sources of
light for its existence. While waking we are bound by a way of thinking
which is subjected to this state only. The wonder is we do not wonder at
our own ability of perceiving things in dreams without depending on any
source of light while we dream. In waking state too you have not yet
wondered at it probably.
Your individuality in waking state appears to be

real to you and you also cannot deny your existence in dream. In your
search for reality of your own self these two only confound you instead
of minimizing the burden.
The ultimate reality is that sleep is your
pristine state. The real you are the soul. So sleep is not sleep in its
usual meaning but it is the ultimate reality. Whereas the other two states
are bound by their limitations, the soul is beyond their reach and
limitations as soul is boundless. Your thinking ability is a byproduct of
Page 133 of 140
your waking state and that which is the creation of the waking state
cannot lead you out of that state of which it is a part because a part
cannot over power the whole. As mans thoughts are produced, regulated
and limited by waking state it is natural to think himself as a part of the
state only and no man can be successful in understanding what he really
is. The same is true with dream also. This is the paradigm #
of a state. Reality is not restricted to, and cannot be a creation of,
waking state which itself is not absolutely real. Reality is not in any
state. A state is a modified and polarized
reality.
Only the Vedic sages
could understand what the absolute reality is but how did they come to
know it is a matter of curiosity. Every fool believes that he is wise but
the wise men know what he is.
In the beginning only I had told you
that our knowledge is nothing but ignorance. The truth of that statement
may reveal itself to you now. Though I like to tell you something more
concerning the ultimate reality, hoping to do it in my next book, now I
like to tell you who you really are.
When you recall a dream and narrate it to your friends you

say that it was your dream. I have already made it clear to you that you
dont dream but in spite if it you are sure to tell that you have seen it.
When you wake up do you say that it is your waking state in the sense
when you say dream was your dream? No. You are not conscious that it
is your own waking state, and you feel as if you are sharing a common
waking state with others. Recollect your experience during dream when
you were not considering it to be your private dream. You shared the
dream, as you share your waking state now, with all others in your
dream world. No difference could be found between your ways of
experiencing dream and waking states. What makes you regard your
dream a private and personal thing, and your waking, a public property
Page 134 of 140
in which you occupy a little place? How ridiculous!
Both the states are
equally private as they are experienced by you only and none else, or
equally public following your feeling during the actual experience.
When
you wake up, you say that you had a sound sleep as if it was your own
private
state.
Your
dream
and
waking
states
may
be
your
own
experiences as the others may not have any knowledge of them. Can
you say the same with regard to your sleep? No. Sleep is not your
private experience and property because you do not and cannot sleep.
Sleep is not your experience. How can you say that you slept a sound
sleep? You did not exist in sleep at all. To say my sleep, your sleep, his
sleep, her sleep, and a hibernating bears sleep is meaningless because
none exists in sleep and so none experiences sleep. Sleep is nobodys
property; it is only one, the ultimate one. Everybodys experience of
dream and waking may differ from those of others, but the experiences
of sleep are equal to all. Individuality dissolves in sleep, so sleep cannot
be experienced by any individual. Therefore in sleep all become one with
sleep and there exists nothing but pristine soul. The soul cannot become
an individual , but all individuals are ultimately only soul which is the
absolute reality. O dear one, though all beings emerge from Sat (pristine
energy or sleep) they do not understand that they have come from it.
I < 8Ia 8IVa 8 (C.U.6-9-2.)
To realize this ultimate reality, sit in a lonely, dark and silent

place with head and spinal cord straight. Stop your thoughts. In the
beginning, sitting silently appears to be the most difficult task. But
constant and regular practice can help you to achieve it. Let there not be
any image or picture before your mind. After some time you can observe
two important things, mental images and sounds. Mental images means
remembrance of things, persons etc. and sound means speech coming
Page 135 of 140
out of its own accord. In spite of your attempt to stop them they are
sure to continue. Your `will fails to stop them. Though they are not
willful activities, you cannot escape from involving with them. Only your
firm decision and an expert guide may lead you to your destination. You
may hear your mind speaking with out stop.
Yes. Generally you believe
that you willfully talk but when you try to sit silently you cannot do so.
Though you shut your mouth your mind continues to talk. In spite of your
will to stop you cannot. Try to silent it to its fullest extent. The inner
sounds, more than the outer sound, annoy and retard your silence.
Tranquilize your mind. I tell you it requires steady and regular practice
for a long time.
If you find it difficult, recollect or repeatedly try to
recollect your experience of sleep. But do not sleep. Sit erect. The most
important thing is to see that no images or sounds are entertained.
Imagine that you are in sleep. By that unlimited peace you be overtaken.
Just before the start of dream your sleep must have been like this only.
Your dream should have emerged from that silent total vacancy and
before dissolving into the same must have appeared for a period. Just
before and after the dream, you were that complete tranquility. That is
the undeniable reality whereas the dream is nothing but a fleeting
appearance. Then think of the waking state which also is followed and
preceded by the same silent total vacancy. If you become successful in
tranquilizing your mind to its fullest extent, then there will be no mind at
all but still you will be there in your pristine form i.e. pure energy and
pure knowledge or bare experience. This is called Mindlessness.
(M.K.3-31.)
You may imagine it to be the unlimited space
consisting of no objects whatsoever. Out of that pristine consciousness

your waking state should have emerged and after appearing for some
time obviously returns into it without any remainder. The end of the
waking state must begin with the same absolute tranquility. In sleep the
self becomes one with the Almighty and therefore the Vedas suggest to
Page 136 of 140
realize the soul there.

V
BC m8
QA { 8I (B.S.B.1-4-5.) Both the states

appear and disappear, but the unbounded peace has no beginning, no
middle and no end as it is beyond time and permanent. It really exists
and the other states only appear and disappear and so they are called
Unreal. $ (M.K.2-7.) That is the source of all (states) and the
cause ?of all things. 8 @+ <V Q
(M.U.6.) You do
not disappear. You do not appear to any one. Though the two states
cease to be, you are pure existence which never ceases to be. You are
like space incarnated. There is nothing in you and you are in nothing.
You may experience it in Samadhi. To experience it mind should be
made no-mind.
A lot of thing has to be explained before describing the
meaning and process of making mind no-mind, so I hope to do it in my

next books.
This world means your waking state. This world which

you believe to be real and permanent lasts so long as your waking sate
lasts. This world springs up simultaneously with the waking sate and the
disappearance of the world is the end of your waking state. This world
can never be separated from the waking state. The same
is true with
dream also. The dream world is the concomitant of your dream. Both of
them
are
inseparable
from
each
other.
The
dream
world
is
commensurable with and contemporaneous to the dream and the same is

the case with the waking state and this world. You cannot imagine the
appearance of either dream or waking without respective worlds, or those
worlds with dream and waking. Contemplate upon this and realize the
truth. In the two states you seem to have individualities but in sleep you
have no individuality at all. You are one without duality or plurality.
Look at dream and waking from that unbounded tranquility and dream or
Page 137 of 140
waking
worlds could appear like the full moon in the sky. You are intact
from the happenings in them.
We should be grateful to the Vedic sages for giving us this

precious knowledge. But one thing must be remembered that the words
cold and sweet are not cold, not sweet and even their utterance cannot
make the tongue cold and sweet. Verbal knowledge of Vedanta can give
intellectual erudition but not the experience. The Adwaita Vedanta is
more
for
practice
memorization.
than
for
preaching.
So
prefer
realization
to
He is the owner of all, omniscient, omnipresent, creator
of all, cause of all states and creator of all times. | @c

#@$ (M.U.6.)
Sleep itself is the God who is the owner of all
things for whatever a thing is it must be in either waking state or dream

which are nothing but his creations. He knows all things as all dreamers
and all waking individuals who know things are none other than himself.
As both the states appear and disappear in Him, He is
omnipresent.
All beings and things that appear or exist in either dream or waking
states are his creations only. He causes not only dream and waking but
also states like childhood, teenage, manhood, old age and all states of
all things. Though He is not bound by time, He creates time in dream
and waking states. He is the almighty. The Veda not simply advises to
know thyself; it also enlightens you by initiating You are That, and
that here means the soul. The Chandogya Upanishat assures you with
these words Thou art That. $ (C.U.6-8-6.)
realized the soul exclaimed
The disciple who
that it is beatitude. He understood that the
soul is the absolute happiness. # BC8 A (T.U.3-5.)

sages
who
had
this
knowledge
proclaimed
This
is
happiness one can have. + # (Br.U.4-3-32.)
the
The
greatest
There is no
greater or complete happiness than the realization of the soul. He who

Page 138 of 140
realizes Brahma becomes Brahma only. BC BC 8 (Mu.U.3-2-9.)
.
The readers are advised to read part 3. And 4 also.
Books in Kannada by the same author:

1. - - ?
2. .
3. !.
4. $ .
5. $ +.
6. -.
7. 0 0 3 56! 78+!.
Except the third one all are published by Shri Bhagavatpada
Prakashana. Swanavalli Mutt. Sonda. Sirsi. Karnataka. India.
The third one is published by Shri Ramakrishnashrama. Mysore.
Karnataka.
Page 139 of 140
Page 140 of 140

Man ! Know Thyself. 2.

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Man ! Know Thyself. 2.

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Man! Know thyself.-2.

To know and not to act on what you know is equal to ignorance.

Masters have tried, and any effort to unfold would be

action has limitation, and the object of this knowledge is limitless.

The end portions of the Vedas are known as the

If one is committed and

humble, this book will be a suitable opening to seekers seeking truth.

The Veda is an excellent

source of wisdom and this should not be understood through concepts

but by living them.

This book will inspire one to look into oneself in a

way which will liberate one from the pangs of sorrow.

The most wanted thing is happiness; but no one is permanently

embrace exhaustion and unhappiness for mistaking objects for happiness.

cycle perpetuates mans journey, like that of a snail on a corrugated zinc

The preliminary error people generally commit is thinking in the

following which they had realized the Ultimate

In this little book I

humbly tried to elucidate this knowledge. I know that my work is not

Poorna Satya, Adwaitanubhava, Adwaitanusandhana, and

My earnest desire to spread this

knowledge to as many readers as possible stimulated me to venture to

having kindly expressed his opinions

Swami Sukhabodhanada for

about this book in his Forward.

----------------- Aitareya Upanishat.

(About.469-399.B.C.) the ancient Greek philosopher,

cannot as yet `Know Myself, as the

inscription of Delphi enjoys, and so long as that ignorance remains it

Every man, with his varying degree of wisdom, is fully occupied

truths transcending the present moment. Man engaged in the willful

underlying it. This world, not

Our aposteriori answers may not truly satisfy even ourselves.

We do not know that we cant help thinking. We think of

almost all the

precondition would be desirable. That may help you to advance from

The word philosophy consists of two Greek words, namely `philos

but not `knowledge.

The earliest Greek religion is said to be Homeric. The Gods of

They were powerful and

But the Homeric Gods were not moral so

the Greek thinkers

protested against the immoral Gods and polytheism. So the principle,

So instead of God as the creator, nature was

air is the fundamental stuff of which the

world is composed of . Mobility, changeability and inner vitality of the air

is in constant flux. He says Reality is change, flux and Becoming.

conventionalism in morality and politics. Socrates opposed this and made

Later, the philosophers were divided themselves into two groups

the whole host of western philosophers has been hankering

`knowledge. They tried to define knowledge and tried to classify the

It means that they focused their attention on

`knowledge and the `known. While the attention on knowledge gave

Regarding the source of knowledge, we may observe two views.

According to Rationalism, intellect is an independent source of

Philosophers use metaphorical and symbolic thinking. They

The ancient Greek thinkers were independent thinkers in the

subservient to scientific methodology. Modern philosophy was backed with

with antimetaphysical tendencies because of excessive pre-occupation

Before advancing further, let us make a difference between

We use the word` know to indicate our

definiteness of knowledge is expressed by the use of the word` belief.

whom we believe know the difference between believing and knowing

(I believe in order to understand). Belief is begot by feelings