Professional Documents
Culture Documents
memory : may be I am memory? Again, I am the one who gathers and recollects memories of my
childhood and what I ate yesterday. I cannot be me memories that constitutes the autobiographic I, since I
am aware of coming and going of all the thoughts related to past.
I sense or ego : If I am neither body, nor senses nor emotions, nor intellect nor memories, finally, I must
now say: I am the subject, the individual who is aware of all these body, senses and mental activities. But
what is exactly this I sense? For example, while you read this page, you are aware not only of the page you
are reading and the words on the page, you are aware of the changes of thoughts as you go along with the
ideas presented, you are aware of the emotions triggered by them but you are also aware of yourself reading
the page. Try to see this as you read this page. This is the 'I' thought. Or when I jog in a park, I can see the
trees around me, and I am aware not only about my heart beat and the pain in my muscles, but also aware
of myself jogging.
This capacity to relate to the external world and one's own body, mind and senses is also a product of a
evolved neurobiological processes in the brain that gives rise to this sense of I, of being a conscious being,
knowing and doing various things. The brain has been designed in such a way that it includes the self
reflective capacity that gives rise to sense of I. This 'I' in turn has the ability to know the internal activities
of the body, mind, senses, etc, and the capacity to know external things.
Am I the body or mind?
However this 'I' sense itself, what seems to be the basic I or subject, is nothing but a series of thoughts
whose subject matter is 'I'. It is changing all the time along with the changes of the objects of my
environment, the changing conditions of the body, etc. For example, at one moment, one says, I know a
given thing, at the other moment, knower is replaced by the doer and one says 'I do a certain act', etc.
Moreover, this I sense which seems such an integral part of me, becomes unmanifest during deep sleep, it is
not present in the same manner as it is in the waking. The wonder is that even though the I thought is the
result of always changing neurobiological process, it is able to give me a seeming continuous sense of I, a
seeming continuity of my individuality through all my different experiences. But the fact that it is changing
means that I am not essentially these series of 'I' thoughts which constitute the ego.
If I am none of these, am I emptiness?
If I am not the body, not the senses, not the various modes of mind, such as emotions, cognitions,
memories, ego, who am I? As everything has been negated, maybe I am emptiness, I am nothing, a void?
No, because you are not non existent 58. You may doubt about many things, but one thing you are sure,
that is 'I am', 'I exist' 59. But then, if all the conclusions about myself are wrong and if still 'I am', what is
the nature of I?
I am consciousness that is the truth of the body-mind-senses
The Upanishads reveal that the true nature of I is consciousness, because of which my sense of I, my
emotions, the conditions of the body, senses, etc, are known to me 60. This consciousness is completely
independent of all the above conditions and is never affected or displaced by any of them 61. How can I
recognize this fact that I am consciousness, invariable in all of them? To understand this, we need to revisit
the definition of satyam and mithya explained in the section about orders of reality Satyam was said to be
that which does not depend upon anything for its existence. Mithya is that which depends upon something
else for its existence.
Consciousness is satyam and the mind is mithya
Now, let us first apply this definition with reference to all the different types of thoughts that take place in
the mind, including the I thought. The Upanishads point out that thoughts are just forms and are variable.
But as one given thought exists momentarily and gives way to a completely new thought, the content of
both thoughts is invariable and that is consciousness 62. When one thought is replaced by another thought,
for example, a cow thought by horse thought, what changes is the thought, that is a form, but the content of
both thoughts is consciousness that is invariable in both thoughts. You can see it, the thought forms keep
changing, but the content of all thoughts is the same. You can apply this principle to all other types of
thoughts such as emotions, memories, etc. My emotions keep changing, sometimes I say 'I am sad' which is
then replaced by 'I am happy'. The content of both these thoughts is consciousness. It is clear that every
thought depends upon consciousness for its existence, therefore it is mithya. And consciousness does not
depend upon any thought for its existence; therefore it is satyam in terms of reality.
Then, what about in between the thoughts? When there is silence? There also, there is consciousness
without any thought or form. This means that consciousness is invariable in absence and presence of all
types of thoughts that comprise emotions, intellect, memories, ego. Consciousness is never displaced by
any of them, it is independent of them all. However, all the thoughts are only forms and depend entirely
upon consciousness for their existence. Hence, consciousness is satyam, and all thoughts are mithya.
Consciousness is satyam and the body is mithya
Now, let us apply the definition of satyam and mithya with reference to the body to understand that
consciousness is also the reality of the body. Body consists of cells, which in turn can be reduced further to
their constituents, namely nucleus, cellular membrane, mitochondria and so on.
If you take the DNA in the nucleus of a cell, you find there is a unique sequence of genes that defines our
biological individuality. Actually, these genes are molecules assembled together in the peculiar helix shape
of DNA. These molecules themselves can be reduced further into atoms and particles, etc. What is
invariably present in and through all these forms is the intelligence which makes each DNA or cell to
behave in a given way and gives each individual a unique body-mind-sense capacity. This intelligence, like
any other intelligence, depends upon consciousness for its existence. Thus, consciousness is satyam while
the body-mind-senses are mithya. They have no being of their own, no independent existence from this
consciousness.
Consciousness is not a parallel reality
If the relation between satyam and mithya is seen properly, we can understand that consciousness and the
body-mind-sense complex are not two parallel things having the same order of reality. Like clay with
reference to pot, when I look at the pot, there is only clay. The pot is only as though real, empirically real,
just a name for a form. Similarly when I look at this body-mind-senses, there is only consciousness. The
body-mind-senses, are only empirically (as though) real, because each one is a name for a form within
many forms, whose reality is consciousness 63.
The nature of I
Consciousness is the reality of everything including space and time
Is this consciousness, that is the reality of I, confined to my body and mind, even though independent from
them? When I think that thought or any mental process is consciousness then I may conclude wrongly that
consciousness is within the body or the brain. It therefore would have a form and be confined within the
limits of my body. However, I have already seen that I am the content of any type of thought form and
hence not any particular form.
The question arises as to if consciousness is not any particular form, how far does it extend? The
Upanishads reveal that consciousness that is I, which is the truth of my body and mind, is also the truth of
all objects, as well as the truth of time and space64. How can that be possible, it is a tall order to understand
that!
First, I understand that just as my body-mind-sense complex depends upon consciousness, the same
analysis can be applied to understand that consciousness is also the truth of all sentient beings whether it is
human, animal, bird or insect or any other form. Then what about insentient objects?
Existence is the reality of all objects
We have to go back to the analysis of all objects we saw in the section about the orders of reality. Any
object I take, let us say pot, can be further divided, into clay which in turn is nothing but molecules, atoms,
particles, etc. That means any object that you see is nothing but a form within forms to the extent that you
don't even know what it is really. The tangibility or solidity of the object has vanished. Upanishads point
out that when you take a form, it resolves into another form, but what is invariable in all forms is existence,
an 'is' upon which each and every form depends. That means existence is satyam and simultaneously
appears as particles, atoms, molecules, clay and pot which are mithya in terms of their order of reality.
Similarly, when you take all other objects belonging to empirical reality, whether a planet or a flower, a
mountain or a river, this 'is', existence, is invariable in all of them while forms are variable. Being
invariable, existence is completely independent of forms while forms cannot even exist without existence.
Consciousness is existence
Does it mean that the truth of my and all other body-mind-senses is consciousness and the reality of
insentient objects is existence? Are those two different entities? No, that consciousness is existence;
consciousness is the same as the invariable 'is' that is existence. Is it also true the other way around? Is
existence that is invariable in a mountain, the moon, a river, a flower also consciousness? Yes, because
there is some intelligence which makes every form what it is and enables this existence to be
simultaneously mountain, moon, river, flower, molecules, atoms, particles, etc. That intelligence is in and
through all the forms. What is the content of that intelligence? It is consciousness, just like the content of
my intelligence is consciousness.
That means, what is invariable in all forms, all objects is existence-consciousness which is also invariable
in my and all other body-mind-senses. Now, I can understand that consciousness is not confined to an
individual but is also in and through all objects in the universe, being their reality 65.
The nature of I
Consciousness-existence is the truth of time and space
Then, there still remains one important question. The individual and the world of objects both exist within
space and time framework. Is consciousness located within time and space?
Again, the Upanishads declare that consciousness is not limited by time and space but is the truth of time
and space. How is it possible? In order to understand this, let us analyze time and take an interval of one
hour. That hour can be divided further in minutes which constitute one hour. One minute can itself be
further divided into seconds, milliseconds, nanoseconds, etc. Then what is really this interval of one hour?
What is the building block of time, its reality? Time looses also its seeming absolute reality. What is
invariable in minutes, seconds, nanoseconds, etc, is existence which simultaneously appears as hour,
minutes, seconds, nanoseconds, etc. What makes that existence simultaneously appear as hour, minutes,
seconds, nanoseconds, etc., is intelligence, which again depends upon consciousness. That means,
existence-consciousness is truth of time.
We can analyze in the same manner space. Space is generally measured in terms of distance between two
points, for example one meter. This measurement of a meter can further be divided in centimeter,
millimeter, etc. which ends up with existence as before. The intelligence which makes the existence appear
in those units of measurements is consciousness.
Therefore both time and space depend for their being upon existence-consciousness, they are mithya,
whereas existence-consciousness is satyam, not displaced or subject to time and space since it is the very
truth of time and space.
Modern physics helps us to assimilate the relativity of space and time. Objects are not inserted in a fixed
and eternal frame work of space and time. A massive object can also curve the space/time by the
gravitational field it creates. Time and space are changing, collapsible in some conditions and relative to
the speed and the location of the observer as the theory of relativity shows. It also shows that there is not on
one side time as a linear one absolute dimension flow towards the future and the other side, an absolute
space with its three dimensions. The space and time are not only relative but also not independent from
each other.
To conclude, the inquiry into the nature of the individual, of I, led me to the discovery that I am limitless
existence-consciousness, that is the truth of all names and forms, both sentient and insentient and not
limited by space or time or any object in the entire universe 66.
I am not subject to birth, death, sorrow or fear
That means my conclusions that I am limited by space and time, subject to birth and death, confined to this
body, limited in my knowledge and skills, subject to sorrow, fear, etc. are therefore wrong 67. This sense of
limitation is not real. It is just a notion. The notion that I am the body, the mind, etc., has its origin in my
not knowing the true nature of myself.
One by one, these notions are negated by the teaching which then makes me see that the entire space time
framework and the objects and beings within this framework, exist in me alone. I am limitless
consciousness-existence, free from mortality and not confined by space, I am the limitless whole that is the
truth of the entire universe.
To sum up, upadhi alone (the body-mind-senses complex on one hand and all knowledge and power on the
other hand) accounts for the apparent difference between individual and Isvara. In reality, there is only one
consciousness that you can see from two different standpoints, the individual upadhi (the body-mind-senses
complex) and Isvara upadhi (the laws governing the universe of forms and the forms themselves) 75.
That means, from the standpoint of the ultimate reality, there is only one non dual consciousness that is
satyam, upon which both the individual upadhi and the universal upadhi depend for their being. In other
words, consciousness has not undergone any change whatsoever to create this universe.
To understand this, let us take the example of wave and ocean. The wave can understand that the wave is
water and the ocean is water. There is only water as though appearing in form of different waves and ocean.
By understanding all that is here is only water, the wave can say 'I am the ocean', 'I am everything that is
here', as the difference between wave and ocean is only in terms of form, but not in terms of content, the
water.
When this identity between the individual and Isvara is understood, the sense of limitation and bondage
born out of identification with body-mind-senses goes away 76. I understand I am consciousness and all
that is here is me, one non dual limitless existence-consciousness.