Drk Drsya Viveka

cit-chāyā-āveśatas, buddhi, bhāna, dhī, tu, dvidhā, sthitā;
eka-aham-kṛti, anyā, √as, antar-karaṇa-rūpin.
चित्-छाया-आवेशतस् (चिति-प्रतिबिम्ब-अनुप्रवेशात्) बुद्धौ भानं [बुद्धिः स्वयम्-प्रकाशमाना इव वर्तते]। धीः (बुद्धिः) तु द्विधा [न एकधा] स्थिता। एका अहम्-कृतिः [अहम्-विषय-अन्तर्-करण-रूपिणी], अन्या [इदम्-विषय-]अन्तर्-करण-रूपिणी स्यात्॥

Due to the presence of the “reflection” of consciousness (cit-chāyā) there is the light of intelligence in the mind (buddhi). The mind is two-fold. The one aspect is the I-notion (ahaṅ-kṛti) and the other is in the form of the rest of the internal organ of thinking.

The mind (antaḥ-karaṇa) has four aspects – the first is the I-notion called ahaṅ-kāra or ahaṅ-kṛti, the second is the intellect called buddhi, the third is the tendering of sense perceptions, the vacillations in thinking and the emotions all called manas, and the fourth is memory called citta or smṛti. The words “buddhi,” “manas” or “citta” can each be used to indicate the entire mind in all of its four aspects or in only its separate aspect.
In this verse, although the I-notion is just one of the expressions of the mind, it is here presented as inherently present in every thought. This can be understood from the inherent presence of consciousness, the real I, in every thought. It expresses as “is-ness” in every cognition. Every thought is a variation of that “is-ness” – “I am,” “this is,” “that is,” etc. In which case, this I-notion means only this is-notion.
Now, because we additionally load onto it our individual perspective, this “is-notion” is the “small is,” not the “limitless is.” This “is” is natural to every person, whether there is self-knowledge or not, and does not necessarily afflict the person. It is even in every insect onward. It is the “is” that radiates out to a varied distance from the perspective of this mind, these senses and this body, so that “this moon is,” “that star is,” “that supernova was.” Nevertheless, by itself that “small is,” the I-notion, is natural and non-afflicting. This is the non-afflicting “is-ness I,” from the view-point of this body-mind-sense complex.
The other I-notion, the “possessive I,” is afflicting. This is the I in most thoughts from the perspective of the inherent, and occasionally explicit, notion of doer-ship and enjoyer-ship in the manifest thoughts we entertain as someone who is ignorant of reality. This notion is more than the natural presence of consciousness in the mind and the body. It is the erroneous determination that I, the real I, am the doer of all the actions of the mind and body, and the owner of the results of those actions. This determination is born of ignorance (really just lack of knowledge that can only be informed by the scripture) of the nature of reality. It expresses as the understood “possessive-I” in various thoughts, such as, “(I) did this,” “(I) am smart,” “(I) see that object,” “(I) am unsure,” “(I) am sad,” “(I) remember that,” etc.
There are three ways of expressing the apparent relationship between consciousness and the mind using three different analogies, depending on what one wants to emphasize. These three will be taken up in earnest starting with verse 32, but need to be introduced here.
The first is consciousness reflecting in the mind, with the analogy of the sun reflecting in a pool of water. This expression is useful in illustrating how the mind seems to both limit and affect myself, like a “reflection” on its restless surface. Yet it also shows this connection as only apparent, since there is a real distinction of consciousness from the mind, like the sun from the water. This analogy emphasizes the complete distinctness of consciousness, of reality, from limited appearances, which the other analogies don’t do so explicitly. On the one hand, if I identify with the reflection, i.e., the case of the “possessive-I,” then I am limited and am as disturbed as my mind. If I identify with my real self, in the analogy as the sun, then this reflection is just an expression of my “presence” in the mind, the waters, i.e., the case of the “is-ness I.” In this later understanding, I am not afflicted by the mind, whereas in the prior, I seem to be afflicted.
The second way of expressing the apparent relationship is consciousness delimited (avacchinna) by the mind, with the analogy of space and a pot. This expression is useful in emphasizing the limitlessness of consciousness which appears to be limited within the limiting adjunct (upādhi) of the mind or the body, like space itself is really unlimited, being outside of, inside of, and between the walls of the pot, yet, from a relative standpoint, seems to be contained inside the pot. This analogy emphasizes the pervasiveness of consciousness, of reality, in and through everything, which the reflection analogy does not. It also expresses the understanding that whether there is or isn’t a pot, or whether anything happens or not to the pot, the space is perfectly unaffected in reality, and even relatively it is not affected (in a Newtonian understanding of space in this example).
The third apparent relationship is consciousness within the dream. This analogy has two different expressions and thus two very different applications. The first is the practical (vyāvahārika), i.e., awakened, understanding of the dreamer, once one is awake, as having been the sole and complete basis of the dream world. This is useful in emphasizing consciousness as the sole reality of, the actual material basis (upādāna-karaṇa) of, everything in its experience – the dream body, dream mind and dream world. The second, which is the application used in this text, expresses a dream-like notion of oneself within the dream, taking itself as real and being totally helpless, like in a dream that it also takes as real, completely identified with the dream that is actually one’s imagination only. This situation is entirely imaginary (prātibhāsika). Although the analogy is of a dreamer within his or her own dream, this is similarly the unfortunate condition of most of us, since our empirical I-notion takes itself as absolutely real, completely identified with this mind and body and its relations in the empirical world that it also takes as real. Like in the dream that first takes the ignorance of deep sleep to enter into, the waking I-notion’s identification with what it is not is itself due to a fundamental ignorance that had no beginning. From this ignorance one must “wake up.” The awakening is gaining knowledge of the real self as limitless reality, and that simply its practical (vyāvahārika) presence in the mind and body is this empirical life, which cannot and does not afflict a wise person in his or her awakened experience.
All three of these ways of expressing the relationship of consciousness with the mind, body and the world are relative ways of expressing an unreal relationship, as there can be no real relationship between something real and something less real. But they have their separate pedagogical value

chāyā-aham-kāra, aikya, tapta-ayas-piṇḍavat, mata;
tad-aham-kāra-tād-ātmya, deha, cetanatā, √gam.
छाया-अहङ्कारयोः (चित्-छाया च अहम्-कृतिः च तयोः) ऐक्यं [विरुद्ध-धर्मि-]तप्त-अयस्-पिण्डवत् मतम्। तद्-अहङ्कार-ताद्-आत्म्यात् [अ-चेतनः] देहः चेतनताम् अगात् [ज्ञान-स्व-रूपत्वम् प्राप्नुयात्]॥

The (mistaken) identity (aikya) of the I-notion (ahaṅ-kāra) (the “is-notion”) with the reflection (chāyā) of consciousness in the mind (from which the entire mind itself is subsequently taken as sentient) is considered like (the identity of iron and fire in) a red-hot iron-ball (where the naturally cool, dark iron appears hot and luminous, and, mutually, the shapeless, weightless heat and light of the element fire appears in the shape of and as the weight of the iron ball). Similarly the body is (mistakenly) assumed sentient from the taking of the nature of each other (tād-ātymya) by that I-notion (ahaṅ-kāra) (passing on the characteristic of sentiency of the reflection of consciousness to the body).

The I-notion, and hence the rest of the mind, takes on the nature of sentience via the “reflection” of consciousness in the mind, i.e., the “presence” of consciousness therein. Secondarily, this nature of sentiency appears to be passed on to the body, which hence becomes “me,” via the I-notion’s borrowed sentiency.

aham-kāra, tād-ātmya, cit-chāyā-deha-sa-akṣin;
saha-ja, karma-ja, bhrānti-janya, ca, tri-vidha, kramāt.
अहङ्कारस्य ताद्-आत्म्यं त्रि-विधं चित्-छाया-देह-साक्षिभिः (चिति-छाया देहः प्रत्यक्-आत्मा च तेभिः) – सह-जं, कर्म-जं, भ्रान्ति-जन्यं च क्रमात् [अहङ्कारस्य चित्-छायया सह-जं ताद्-आत्म्यम् इत्यादि-क्रमात्]॥

The taking of the nature of each other (tād-ātymya) of the I-notion (the “is-notion”) with the reflection of consciousness (cit-chāyā), the body and the witness-self (sākṣin) is of three kinds – (with the reflection of consciousness) it is naturally spontaneous (saha-ja), (with the physical body) it is due to karma (karma-ja, bring about rebirth in this particular body) and (with the witness-self, the true I) it is due to error (bhrānti-janya, due to beginningless self-ignorance), respectively.

The first two are an identity of two things belonging to the same transactional (vyāvahārika) level of reality – the I-notion, the small “is-notion,” with the reflection of consciousness in the mind and that small I-notion with the body, and thus are naturally occurring within that reality. These manifest as “I am sentient” and “this sentience is me,” and secondarily “I am the the sentiency in the body” and “this sentience in the body is me.” By themselves, that I take my mind and secondarily the body as sentient because of this mistaken identity with the I-notion, with the is-notion, is not a problem that causes affliction. Not every mistake in life is necessarily a cause of affliction.
The third identity is an identity of the limited, transactional (vyāvahārika) reality I-notion with the limitless, absolute (pāramārthika) reality witness-self. That identity is imaginary (prātibhāsika) due to ignorance of realities. This is where I go beyond taking my mind and body as just sentient. It is where I take my mind and body as myself, and, thinking that I am time-bound, limited and incomplete due to ignorance of the real I, and, mutually, where this mind and body should last forever, be unlimited and fully satisfying. This I-notion then expresses as the “possessive-I,” otherwise known as the problem-some ego, because now it necessarily needs to have the full satisfaction of what is naturally its nature but now believes is elsewhere, and that elsewhere then needs to be pursued and possessed. This third identification is the fundamental source of all afflictions.

sambandhin, sat, na, √as, nivṛtti, saha-ja, tu;
karma-kṣaya, prabodha, ca, ni-√vṛt, kramād, ubha.
[छाया-अहङ्कार-]सम्बन्धिनोः सतोः [यावत् सति], [तावत्] सह-जस्य तु [ताद्-आत्म्यस्य] निवृत्तिः न अस्ति, उभे [कर्म-ज-भ्रान्ति-ज-ताद्-आत्म्ये] कर्म-क्षयात् प्रबोधात् च क्रमात् निवर्तेते॥

Whereas, whenever the two (the continuous “is-notion” and the continuous reflection of consciousness) are present, there is no termination of the spontaneous (saha-ja) (taking of the nature of each other – of the I-notion, the is-notion, with the reflection of consciousness), on the other hand both the latter two cease upon the exhaustion of the karma (that brought the embodiment, in the case of the I-notion, the is-notion, with a particular body) and then upon (self) knowledge (in the case of the I-notion, here the “possessive I,” with the witness-self), respectively.

For the person, upon becoming wise, the mutual confusion of a notional-I with the real, limitless I ceases immediately. This effectively ends the person’s individuality, the person’s jīva-hood. Being limitless reality itself, this person can suffer no affliction at the hands of mother nature. Whereas, mother nature carries on. There is the continuation of a non-afflicting I-notion, the “is-notion,” with the body until the death of the body. Upon the death of the body, then the mind, and hence the reflection of consciousness in that mind, of the wise person is said to dissipate, since there is no longer a body that requires it, nor an individuality to lay claim to its store-house of karma to effect a rebirth.

aham-kāra-laya, supti, √bhū, deha, api, a-cetana;
aham-kāra-vikāsa-ardha, svapna, sarva, tu, jāgara.
अहङ्कार-लये सुप्तौ, [तदा] देहः अपि अ-चेतनः भवेत्। अहङ्कार-विकास-अर्धः ‘स्वप्नः’ [नाम], सर्वः [विकासः] ‘जागरः’ [नाम भवेत्]॥

When the I-notion (ahaṅ-kāra, the “is-notion”) dissolves in deep sleep (supti, suṣupti), (the mind and thus) the body (both the physical as well as a dream body) also becomes insentient (and insensible). But the half manifestation (with only the reflection of consciousness in the mind but not with the physical body) of the I-notion (ahaṅ-kāra, the “is-notion”) is called dream (svapna), whereas the full manifestation (in both the mind and body) is called waking (jāgara).

In deep sleep, since the body and mind consciously disappear, there is temporarily no I-notion (as “possessive-notion”) in the mind to identify with either the body or the reflection of consciousness in the mind. The witness-self, is still there, so upon waking, one recollects that “I knew nothing at that time.” That witness-I is of its own pure nature – limitless and unafflicted. That is why deep sleep is so desirable and refreshing, and so dearly missed when it is in short supply. When the I-notion half awakens to just the reflection of consciousness in the mind, then that mutual identification spontaneously re-manifests and I live in my subtle, dream world. When the I-notion fully awakes to the physical body also, then I live in my subtle and physical, waking world, with the subtle mind and this physical body.

antar-karaṇa-vṛtti, ca, citi-chāyā-aikya, āgatā;
vāsana, √kḷp, svapna, bodha, akṣa, viṣaya, bahis.
[इदं-विषय-[अन्तर्-करण-वृत्तिः च (अपि) (DrDV.6) चिति-छाया-ऐक्यम् आगता [तप्त-अयस्-पिण्डवत्]। स्वप्ने [सा वृत्तिः इमाः[] वासनाः कल्पयेत्। बोधे (जागरे) [सा वृत्तिः इमान् विषयान् अक्षैः (इन्द्रियैः) बहिस् कल्पयेत्॥

The flow of thought (vṛtti) that is the internal organ (antaḥ-karaṇa) also is united with the reflection (chāyā) of consciousness (citi) (DrDV.6). It presents the memories (vāsanās) in the dream (svapna) state. In the waking (bodha) state it externally presents the physical objects via the outgoing senses (akṣas).

manas-aham-kṛti-upādāna, liṅga, eka, jaḍa-ātmaka;
avasthā-traya, anu-√i, √jan, √mṛ, tathā.
मनस्-अहम्-कृती-उपादानं [इदं-विषय-अन्तर्-करणं च अहम्-वृत्तिः च तयोः उपादान-कारणं] लिङ्गं (सूक्ष्म-शरीरं) एकं [प्रत्येकं भवति]। [तद् लिङ्गं] जडा-आत्मकं [अपि। [तद् लिङ्गं] अवस्था-त्रयं (जागर-आदि-त्रयं) अन्वेति (अनुभवति)। तथा ‘[इदं लिङ्गं] [जीव-उपाधिः] जायते म्रियते [च]’ [इति अनुभवः]॥

The material cause (upādāna) of the mind (the internal organ of thinking) and thus the I-notion (ahaṅ-kṛti, the “is-notion”) is an individual subtle body (liṅga) and has an insentient nature. It undergoes the three states (avasthā-traya, of experience – deep sleep, dream and waking). It is the one which can imagine it is born and dies.

The subtle body consists of the internal organ (the mind) with the I-notion, the five organs of sensing (the jñānendriyas), the five organs of activity (the karmendriyas), and the five life-energies (the prāṇas). It is the total subtle energy that enlivens the physical body. It thus becomes the material cause of this life’s particular I-notion, the mind, organs of sensing and activity, and its energies.
We will later see that, along with the naturally reflecting consciousness therein, it constitutes the transactional individual, the vyāvahārika jīva. It is this subtle body along with the reflection of consciousness that survives the death of the body and is said in the scripture to transmigrate from beginningless time from one embodiment to another. Because of its additional identification with the physical bodies, it may also think that each time it is born and dies, though these are only conditions of the physical body.

śakti-dvaya, hi, māyā, vikṣepa-āvṛti-rūpaka;
vikṣepa-śakti, liṅga-ādi-brahma-aṇḍa-anta, jagat, √sṛj.
मायायाः [समष्टि-लिङ्गस्य] शक्ति-द्वयं हि [प्रसिद्धं श्रुत्या] विक्षेप-आवृति-रूपकं (विक्षेप-आवरण-रूपम्)। विक्षेप-शक्तिः (जनिका-शक्तिः) जगत् लिङ्ग-आदि-ब्रह्म-अण्ड-अन्तं [व्यष्टि-आत्मक-लिङ्ग-शरीर-आदिं आ समष्टि-आत्मक-ब्रह्म-अण्डात्] सृजेत्॥

Indeed (it is well known from the scriptures that) there is a two-fold power (śakti-dvaya) of māyā (the manifesting power within the total, within the Lord) in the form of projecting (vikṣepa) and covering (āvṛti). The projecting power manifests the universe (jagat) from the total subtle body (brahma-aṇḍa – literally “the egg of reality”) to the individual subtle bodies (liṅgas), and everything else.

sṛṣṭi, nāma, brahma-rūpa, sat-cit-ānanda-vastu;
abdhi, phena-ādivat, sarva-nāma-rūpa-prasāraṇā.
[श्रुतितस्] ‘सृष्टिः’ नाम ब्रह्म-रूपे सत्-चित्-आनन्द-वस्तुनि सर्व-नाम-रूप-प्रसारणा, अब्धै फेन-आदिवत् [यथा एक-समुद्र-जले नाना-जल-रूपाणि]॥

What is called the manifestation (sṛṣṭi) of the universe is the flowing forth of all the names and forms (nāma-rūpas) (that constitute the universe) in the reality (vastu) that is existence-consciousness-fullness (sat-cit-ānanda) expressed as brahman, like bubbles, etc. in the ocean.

Like bubbles, waves, etc. in the ocean, that have their own individual forms with separate names that distinguish them from each other, but are, in fact, not other than their reality, water itself, so too the various names and forms of the universe distinguish them from each other, but are, in fact, not other than their reality, called brahman.

antar, dṛk-dṛśya, bheda, bahis, ca, brahma-sarga;
ā-√vṛ, aparā, śakti, tad, saṃsāra, kāraṇa.
अपरा शक्तिः [आवरण-शक्तिः] दृश्-दृश्ययोः भेदम् अन्तर् [व्यष्टितस् आवृणोति], ब्रह्म-सर्गयोः [भेदं] च बहिस् [समष्टितस्] आवृणोति। सा [आवरण-शक्तिः] संसारस्य कारणं [न तु विक्षेप-शक्तिः ईश्वर-सृष्ठि-कारणम्]॥

The other power (śakti) (of māyā, called āvṛti-śakti or āvaraṇa-śakti, the concealing power) conceals the distinction (bheda) internally between the seer (dṛk, the witness self, the sākṣin) and the seen (dṛśya, the thoughts in the mind) and externally between brahman (limitless reality) and the manifestation (sarga of the universe, the names and forms that constitute the universe). That concealing power is the cause (kāraṇa) of saṃsāra (the jīva’s notional life of constant becoming).

Notice it is the concealing power that is the cause of affliction, not the projecting power. That the universe, both the imaginary (prātibhāsika) and the empirical (vyāvahārika) reality, appears, is projected, is not a problem. What is the problem is that I do not see the distinction of myself from the names and forms of the universe.

sa-akṣin, puratas, bhāta, liṅga, deha, saṃyuta;
citi-chāyā-samāveśa, jīva, √as, vyāvahārika.
[यद् व्यष्टि-]लिङ्गं देहेन संयुतं [संयुक्तं कर्मेण] चिति-छाया-समावेशात् साक्षिणः पुरतस् [अग्रं] भातं (भासमानं), [तद् लिङ्गं] व्यावहारिकः जीवः स्यात्॥

The subtle body (liṅga) that shines in the presence of the witness-self (sākṣin) due to the infusion of the reflection of consciousness (citi-chāyā) and that is connected with a body is the transactional (vyāvahārika) individual (jīva).

This individual jīva, being transactional (vyāvahārika), is not a problem. The problem is when there is a mutual imposing of the natures of this individual and the real self, the sākṣin.

idam, jīvatva, āropa, sa-akṣin, api, ava-√bhās;
āvṛtti, tu, vinaṣṭā, bheda, bhāta, apa-√yā, tad.
[दृश्-दृश्य-अन्यस्-अन्य-धर्माणाम्] आरोपात् (अध्यासात्) अस्य [व्यावकारिक-जीवस्य] जीवत्वं [संसारित्वं] साक्षिणि अपि अवभासते। आवृत्तौ विनष्टायां [भ्रान्ति-अन्-उदये] तु, भेदे (अ-ताद्-आत्म्ये) भाते [स्पष्टं ज्ञाते विवेके सति] च, तद् [जीवत्वं] अपयाति (अपगच्छति)॥

However, due to mutual imposition (āropa) (of their natures out of error, DrDV.8, the individuality (jīvatva) of this (transactional jīva) appears to be even in the witness-self (sākṣin) too. Whereas, when their distinction (bheda) is clear upon the complete removal of the concealing (āvṛtti), that (individuality, jīvatva) goes away.

Again it bears repeating, the body and mind are not a problem to me, only believing “I am them” is the cause of all afflictions. The transactional jīva, recognized as such, and not as absolute (pāramārthika), is then not a problem. The transactional jīva transactionally continues, but the erroneously imagined individuality (jīvatva) of the real pāramārthika I disappears. The wise person lives life without the affliction of ignorance.

tathā, sarga-brahman, ca, bheda, āvṛtya, √sthā;
yad, śakti, tad-vaśa, brahman, vikṛtatva, √bhās.
[यथा व्यष्टि-आत्मके] तथा [समष्टि-आत्मके] च [यावत्] सर्ग-ब्रह्मणः भेदम् आवृत्य या [आवरण-]शक्तिः तिष्ठति, [तावत् तद्-वशात् ब्रह्म विकृतत्वेन [विकारिणा] भासते॥

In that same way (as the micro level), (at the macro level) as long as this concealing power remains, concealing the difference (bheda) of the manifestation (sarga) (of names and forms that constitutes the universe) and brahman (its reality), then, under the influence of that, reality (brahman) appears to have the nature of modifying (vikṛtatva) (which belongs only to the names and forms).

atra, api, āvṛti-nāśa, vi-√bhā, brahma-sarga;
bheda, tad, vikāra, √as, sarga, na, brahman, kva-cid.
अत्र अपि आवृति-नाशेन ब्रह्म-सर्गयोः भेदः (अ-ताद्-आत्म्यं) विभाति [विवेकेन स्पष्टं ज्ञायते]। तयोः [ब्रह्म-सर्गयोः] विकारः सर्गे [एव] स्यात्, न क्व-चिद् ब्रह्मणि॥

Here also, by the removal of the concealing (āvṛti), the difference (bheda) of reality (brahman) and the manifestation (sarga) (of names and forms that constitutes the universe) becomes clearly evident. Between the two, modification (vikāra) is only in the manifestation (sarga), nowhere in reality (brahman).

√as, √bhā, priya, rūpa, nāman, ca, iti, aṃśa-pañcaka;
ādya-traya, brahma-rūpa, jagat-rūpa, tatas, dvaya.
अस्ति, भाति, प्रियं, नाम, रूपं च इति [सर्वस्य] अंश-पञ्चकं। आद्य-त्रयं [अस्ति भाति प्रियं च इति-प्रथम-त्रयं] ब्रह्म-रूपम्। ततस् [त्रयात्] द्वयं [नाम रूपं च इति-द्वयं] जगत्-रूपम्॥

The five aspects (of everything in the universe) are “it exists (asti),” “it is known (bhāti),” “it is beloved (priya),” “it is a form (rūpa)” and “it has a name (nāma).” The first three are the nature of reality (brahman), whereas the other two are the nature of the universe (jagat).

What is reality alone we find in the universe. There is no such thing as absolute non-existence. It simply doesn’t exist. Everything is-is-is. Again this universe is also what is evident to our senses and mind. The universe consists of what is known and knowable. It is impossible to conceive of a part of this universe that is not known and is unknowable. Any imagination one may entertain that such a part exists, already lays bear its know-ability, because one has imagined it. One can always know more, but its imagination suffices for now. The reason it is knowable is because it exists; the reason it exists to us is that it is knowable, we are aware of it, even if it be just an imagination. Its reality and its presence in knowledge, in our awareness, are one and the same thing.
As was pointed out before, knowledge is the attainment of the reality that is there. Because of the limitations of the mind, it takes a process of removal of ignorance, of wrong notions, so it seems like knowledge is being created. However, it is simply already there to be dis-covered once the ignorance that covers is removed. Arriving at the reality of anything is its knowledge. The ignorance that covers and is being removed is also known. That is how we were able to identify and remove it.
Attaining knowledge is itself the source of fullness and satisfaction. That is the reason for our curiosity throughout our life. We always want to be in the know because knowledge is satisfying. The attainment of what we imagine we want is also the source of fullness and satisfaction. That is why we go on acquiring things in life. Even the attainment of success at avoiding what we imagine we don’t want is seen as a source of fullness and satisfaction. It is, in fact, the reality and the knowledge themselves that are the actual source of fullness and satisfaction. The details of the circumstances always vary and are unpredictable, but it is always where the attainment and the knowledge takes place that the fullness and satisfaction attains.
That fullness and satisfaction also is not really different from reality and knowledge, because once we finally attain these, then fullness and satisfaction is also there. Short of their attainment is that much short of our sense of fullness and satisfaction. There is even fullness and satisfaction in regard to the unpleasant and painful. Finding out what doesn’t match our body-mind complex, with all its complexes, is a life-long learning process. In that process, there is attainment of knowledge of what to avoid and satisfaction, to whatever extent, that we are able to attain in reality their avoidance. So again, it is in knowledge and reality that fullness and satisfaction is found.
These are the three-faces, as it were, of reality. It exists, it shines and it is beloved. Being reality, it cannot possibly be other than oneself. So you, yourself are the source of your fullness and satisfaction. This is evident once we think about it. Fullness and satisfaction cannot be there without you being there. The “finding” or “gaining” fullness and satisfaction is the result of the success in the seeking of whatever is known to be sought. What is sought varies throughout life, but it is in the momentary gain of the sought that we sense the moment of fullness and satisfaction. This only happens when the sought finally is no longer away from you. Only when you partake of the sought is fullness and satisfaction at its peak. When you no longer are separated from the reality of whatever you seek, in that moment of oneness with the reality of the sought, this is the peak of fullness and satisfaction. The more we are awareful of this at-one-ment, the greater the fullness and satisfaction. Any degree of separation, imagined or not, creeping back in then becomes the passing of the moment of joy.
Where we make the mistake, though, is in thinking that it was the particular form or fame of the sought that created the fullness and satisfaction. The fact that our sense of fullness and satisfaction is of one nature, though differing in degree because of differing thoughts of separation, while the particular forms or fame of the sought are as many and varied as the universe, should tell us it is the attainment of one thing, the at-one-ment, that is the fullness and satisfaction. That one thing is yourself, no longer separated from the beloved – whatever it is imagined to be, and as many and varied as it is.
These moments of fullness and satisfaction keep us going, but pale in the continuous fullness and satisfaction of clearly knowing oneself as their source, with or without the varied things of the universe. Whether they are in my possession or not, I am there in full wherever I am. Attaining clarity on this truth, is clearing away the ignorance that has, until now, kept one with a sense of being unfulfilled and unsatisfied.
The flashy forms and the fame in name are the glitter that attract the senses of the crowds with everyone chasing after the popular everyone else seems to want. Maturity is simply being and enjoying one’s own presence and knowing that, having been there, I do not have to ever do that again. It is not a dropping out of the race because it can’t be won, but simply watching and enjoying the race because it is already won in one’s own being and heart.

kha-vāyu-agni-jala-urvī, deva-tiryak-nara-ādi;
a-bhinna, sat-cit-ānanda, √bhid, rūpa-nāman.
ख-वायु-अग्नि-जल-उर्वीषु [पञ्च-भूतेषु] देव-तिर्यक्-नर-आदिषु [शरीर-लक्षणेषु भौतिकेषु] सत्-चित्-आनन्दाः अ-भिन्नाः। [सर्वेषु] रूप-नामनी भिद्येते [अ-निर्वचनीय-माया-कार्यत्वेन]॥

In (the five constituent elements of the entire universe) space, air, fire, water, and earth (i.e., dimension, movement, heat/light, liquidity and solidity, YS.3.41), and in celestials, animals, mankind, etc. the existence, knowledge and fullness (sat-cit-ānanda) aspects are the same (a-bhinna) in every one, whereas the form and name (rūpa-nāma) aspects differ in each one.

upekṣya, nāma-rūpa, dva, sat-cit-ānanda-tad-para;
samādhi, sarvadā, √kṛ, hṛdaya, vā, athavā, bahis.
द्वे नाम-रूपे उपेक्ष्य [अवज्ञाय मानस-कायेन अ-परम-अर्थत्वेन], सत्-चित्-आनन्द-तत्-परः [सन्] हृदये अन्तर्-करण-विषये वा [वक्ष्यमाण-स-दृशेन] (DrDV.23–26) अथवा बहिस् [बाह्य-वस्तु-विषये वक्ष्यमाण-स-दृशेन] (DrDV.27–31) समाधिं सर्वदा कुर्यात्॥

Disregarding both name and form (rūpas) and having as one’s ultimate existence-knowledge-fullness (sat-cit-ānanda), one should always remain in contemplation (samādhi), both in one’s mind (in regard to one’s inner world and in the seat of meditation) as well as outside (in living one’s life in the world).

This disregarding the things that differ and having as one’s ultimate the thing that always remains the same is the sub-rating of the grosser reality by the most subtle, the most permanent and inmost, reality. This is not by closing one’s eyes, but by opening one’s eyes through inquiry into the nature of the universe within and without. With eyes wide open, seeing the multitude of phenomena in the mind and in the world, they dismiss themselves by their obvious nature. Reality, as manifest through the constant, unchanging witness of these phenomena, remains as the ultimate by its obvious nature.
Some might have to close their eyes in meditation for long periods and others not, to help overcome the powerful or not so powerful habitual tendencies in the mind that try to obstruct this new understanding from taking root. With perseverance of purpose, and never as a hobby, this understanding will prevail. As identity with the phenomena alone proved to be the affliction of countless sorrows in life, then this recognition of realities is the ultimate freedom in life. It is what all seek, but know not how to gain, without this understanding of realities. Once gained through understanding, living life with this continual understanding is called the internal and external contemplation, samādhi.
Contemplation is not a part-time occupation. This understanding of realities is the contemplation, and it has to be applied in one’s life throughout. This is unlike the Sāṅkhya-Yogin’s contemplation that is generally described as only in the seat of meditation, since they imagine that the nature of the self is totally different from the nature of the universe, and therefore one should meditate to reach the self, but should manipulate to get the most out of the “real” world.
Here in this tradition, since the nature of the reality of oneself and of the universe is the same, the same contemplation is always retained. This is also why the freedom this contemplation brings clearly applies both within meditation as well as out, whereas Sāṅkhya-Yogins talk mystically when it comes to what happens outside of meditation in their interpretation of freedom – such as the yogin either knows everything or knows nothing and either doesn’t come out of meditation or by superpowers conjures up many bodies to become active again for who knows what reasons, etc., etc. These varied descriptions smack of imaginations of varied stories, like their imaginations of superpowers from varied stories.

sa-vikalpa, nis-vikalpa, samādhi, dvi-vidha, hṛd;
dṛśya-śabda-anuviddha, sa-vikalpa, punar, dvidhā.
हृदि [व्यष्टौ] समाधिः द्वि-विधः – स-विकल्पः निस्-विकल्पः [च]। पुनर् (भूयस्) स-विकल्पः द्विधा – दृश्य-शब्द-अनुविद्धेन [अनुभव-दृश्य-विषयेण श्रुति-शब्द-विषयेण च], [अथवा ‘अनुविद्धः’ श्रुति-अनुरूपेण स्थापितः इत्यर्थः]॥

In one’s mind (such as in the seat of meditation) samādhi is two-fold – with-distinction (sa-vikalpa) and without-distinction (nir-vikalpa) (between meditator-meditating-meditated). Again, the with-distinction (sa-vikalpa) contemplation is two-fold by having an appropriately inserted mental object (dṛśya) (whose nature is to be contemplated according to the teaching) or by having appropriately inserted words (śabda) (of the teaching itself, whose meaning is to be appreciated).

In the seat of meditation, this internal samādhi starts as a contemplation on the reality of a mental object according to this teaching or directly on appreciating the words of this teaching itself. Both of these two types of contemplation are a samādhi in which there is naturally evident from the start a distinction between myself and what is being contemplated upon, as well as an awareness that I am entering into this contemplation.
When this sa-vikalpa samādhi succeeds, there is an absorption, since nir-vikalpa is both the reality of what is being contemplated upon, as well as the reality of oneself, the contemplator. When the subject-object distinction drops away, the awareness of a process of objectifying cannot remain. Sa-vikalpa samādhi then becomes nir-vikalpa samādhi. The latter cannot be practiced, but it can be arrived at through the practice of sa-vikalpa samādhi, whose successful culmination will be nir-vikalpa. It is not a wishing away of the distinctions, which would only be another imagination, nor is it a sit-up nap. It is a clear, awareful knowledge that is the reality being contemplated. These three types of internal samādhi will be explained in the next three verses and will be supplemented with three types of external samādhi in verse 27.

kāma-ādi, citta-ga, dṛśya, tad-sa-akṣitva, cetana;
√dhyai, dṛśa-anuviddha, idam, samādhi, sa-vikalpaka.
चित्त-गाः (हृदय-स्थाः) दृश्याः काम-आद्याः [भवन्ति]। चेतनं [आत्मानं चैतन्यं] तद्-साक्षित्वेन [काम-आदि-साक्षित्वेन] ध्यायेत्। अयं स-विकल्पकः दृश्य-अनुविद्धः समाधिः॥

Internal objects (dṛśyas) such as desire, etc. are available in the mind. One should contemplate on consciousness (cetana) as the witness of them (tad-sākṣin). This is with-distinction contemplation (sa-vikalpaka samādhi) having an appropriately inserted mental object (dṛśya).

The contemplation of objects in this samādhi is to simply be their witness. To recognize them as the seen and thus other than oneself, the seer. It is not to figure out how to get some comic-book superpowers from them.

a-saṅga, sat-cit-ānanda, sva-prabha, dvaita-varjita;
√as, iti, śabda-viddha, idam, samādhi, sa-vikalpaka.
“सः अ-सङ्गः, सत्-चित्-आनन्दः, स्व-प्रभः, द्वैत-वर्जितः [आत्मा अहम्] अस्मि” इति, अयं स-विकल्पकः [श्रुति-]शब्द-विद्धः समाधिः॥

“I am existence-knowledge-fullness (sat-cit-ānanda), self-evident (sva-prabha), without a second (dvaita-varjita) and without attachment (a-saṅga)” – (with such words of the scripture) this is with-distinction contemplation (sa-vikalpaka samādhi) having appropriately inserted words (śabda of the teaching).

These words have to be already clearly understood by you through listening to a teacher and study, called śravaṇa and manana. If after gaining clarity on the meaning of the words, one does not fully appreciate their truth in oneself, then this contemplation, also called nididhyāsana, is prescribed in order to own up to the meaning of these words.

sva-anubhūti-rasa-āveśa, dṛśya-śabda, upekṣitṛ;
nis-vikalpa, samādhi, √as, ni-vāta-sthita-dīpavat.
दृश्य-शब्दान् उपेक्षितुः [अवज्ञानिनः मानस-कायेन] स्व-अनुभूति-रस-आवेशात् [स्व-ज्ञानम् एव स्व-रूप-अनुभवः तस्य आवेशात् अ-भेद-भावात्], समाधिः [व्यष्टौ] निस्-विकल्पः स्यात्, नि-वात-स्थित-दीपवत्॥

From owning up to absorption in one’s self-evident (sva-anubhūti) nature (which is also the source of fullness), for the one who sees past the objects and the words (dṛśya-śabdas) (to their reality, their meaning) there is without-distinction (nir-vikalpa) samādhi. It is likened to (a flicker-less flame of) an oil lamp in a wind-less spot.

The flicker-less flame can be, but need not be, analogous to a completely still mind. It can as well be a doubt-less knowledge, prajñā, which was the purpose for stilling the mind. The analogy then is to be steady in the truth without a flicker of doubt. A temporary stilling of the mind might be a relief for a while, but the teaching seeks an ultimate resolution in complete freedom from thinking the mind pose any real problem.

hṛd, iva, bāhya-deśa, api, yad, kim, ca, vastu;
samādhi, ādya, sat-mātra, nāma-rūpa-pṛthak-kṛti.
हृदि इव, यस्मिन् कस्मिन् वस्तुनि बाह्य-देशे [समष्टौ] अपि च, आद्यः [स-विकल्पः दृश्य-अनुविद्धः] समाधिः सत्-मात्रात् नाम-रूप-पृथक्-कृतिः [नाम-रूप-विवेकः]॥

Like internally in the mind, in regard to the eternal world also the first (with-distinction, sa-vikalpa, and having an appropriately inserted object) samādhi is separating name and form (rūpas) from pure reality.

a-khaṇḍa-eka-rasa, vastu, sat-cit-ānanda-lakṣaṇa;
iti, a-vicchinna-cintā, idam, samādhi, madhyama, √bhū.
“[इदं] वस्तु अ-खण्ड-एक-रसं सत्-चित्-आनन्द-लक्षणं [अस्ति]” इति इयं अ-विच्छिन्न-चिन्ता [वि-जातीय-प्रत्यय-रहित-स-जातीय-प्रत्यय-प्रवाह-रूपा चिन्ता] मध्यमः [द्वितीयः स-विकल्पः श्रुति-शब्द-अनुविद्धः] समाधिः भवेत्॥

The middle (with-distinction, sa-vikalpa, and having appropriately inserted words) samādhi (with reference to the external world) is this uninterrupted contemplation, “This reality (vastu) before me is undivided (a-khaṇḍa) and of one nature (eka-rasa), though indicated by the three words ‘existence,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘fullness’ (sat-cit-ānanda).”

This contemplation is uninterrupted as it is not limited to just contemplating my internal world in the seat of meditation. Everywhere I am, this should be my vision, my well-ascertained understanding of all I experience. There is absolutely no duality, not even in the nature of the one reality. Existence-knowledge-fullness does not indicate three different natures of one reality, but are three different perspectives indicating the same reality. As “I exist,” “I know” and “I am complete” are not three “me”-s, but only myself from three perspectives, so “this exists,” “this is known,” “this is beloved” is the one reality of everything including myself from three perspectives.

stabdhī-bhāva, rasa-āsva, tṛtīya, pūravat, mata;
etad, samādhi, ṣaḍ, √nī, kāla, nis-antaram.
[यः] स्तब्धी-भावः (स्थिर-भावः) [स्व-विज्ञानं] रस-आस्वादात् पूर्ववत् [रस-आवेशात्] (DrDV.26), [सः समाधिः तृतीयः [समष्टौ निस्-विकल्पः] मतः। एतैः षड्भिः समाधिभिः [व्यष्टि-समष्ठि-दृश्य-शब्द-चथुर्-स-विकल्प-समाधिभिः व्यष्टि-समष्ठि-द्वि-निस्-विकल्प-समाधिभ्यां च] निस्-अन्तरं कालं नयेत्॥

The third (without-distinction, nir-vikalpa samādhi) (with reference to the external world) is regarded, as before, a steadiness (of the mind, of knowledge, in the reality of oneself and the universe) due to the direct appreciation of the nature of reality. One should spend one’s time without interruption in these six samādhis.

How is it possible to spend one’s entire time contemplating like this? It is easily done by never giving a contrary notion any validity! Contrary notions will arise. But, if one gives them no chance of validity that they could be true, they just flounder and fade away. Then, all one’s understanding will be in keeping with this vision of reality. In this constant contemplation there is no one thing one must do or not do, see or not see. Everything is this reality that is myself – this is the vision. This is not a lock myself in a cave mentality. It is moving in the world with this vision of reality firmly in place, with nothing to fear internally or externally. That being said, one must first be very clear what that reality is. This requires exposing oneself to the teaching sufficiently to gain this clarity. Then the rest of one’s life is enjoying this grand vision. All of this life then becomes only beautiful; it is the beloved (priya) itself. Since any contrary notion is painful limitation trying to get back in, then it is easily seen and avoided.

deha-abhimāna, galita, vijñāta, parama-ātman;
yatra, yatra, manas, √yā, tatra, tatra, samādhi.
परम-आत्मनि विज्ञाते, [तद्-फलं च] देह-अभिमाने गलिते [शिथिली-भूते यावत्], [तावत् मुमुक्षोः] यत्र यत्र मनस् याति, तत्र तत्र [इमे षड्] समाधयः [स्युः]॥

When the ultimate (parama) nature of oneself (ātman) is clearly known and thus the possessive identification (abhimāna) of oneself with the body naturally drops off, then wherever the mind goes there will be these samādhis.

√bhid, hṛdaya-granthi, √chid, sarva-saṃśaya;
√kṣi, ca, idam, karman, tad, dṛsṭa, para-avara.
तस्मिन् पर-अवरे [समष्टि-व्यष्टि-रूपे अथवा पर-अ-पर-तत्त्वे] दृष्टे [सति], हृदय-ग्रन्थिः भिद्यते। सर्व-शंशयाः छिद्यन्ते। अस्य कर्माणि च क्षीयन्ते। (MunU.2.2.8)॥

When that which is both far and near (both the universe and oneself, or, alternatively, both the absolute and the relative) is known as clearly as one sees, then the binding knot (granthi) of the heart (all binding desire in the mind) is dissolved, all doubts are lopped off, and one’s karmas are ended.

avacchinna, cit-ābhāsa, tṛtīya, svapna-kalpita;
vijñeya, tri-vidha, jīva, tatra, ādya, pārama-arthika.
अवच्छिन्नः, चित्-आभासः, तृतीयः [च] स्वप्न-कल्पितः [इति] जीवः त्रिविधः विज्ञेयः। तत्र आद्यः [अवच्छिन्नः इव जीवः] पारम-अर्थिकः [ब्रह्म-भूतः]॥

The individual (jīva) is to be known in three ways – as (seemingly) limited (avacchinna), as a reflection of consciousness (cit-ābhāsa) (from a transactional perspective, vyāvahārika), and the third as imagined (kalpita) in dream (svapna) (from an imagined perspective, prātibhāsika). Among these, the first (avacchinna) is from the absolute perspective (pāramārthika).

The individual is nothing but limitless consciousness, but limitless consciousness is not an individual. This individual may be understood from the three perspectives of reality – pāramārthika, vyāvahārika and prātibhāsika. The first gives no credence to consciousness being actually limited to an individual. The second assumes a practical perspective of a relative version of consciousness, the reflection of consciousness, lighting up the individual relating to the whole universe. The third is from the deluded perspective of someone totally lost in ignorance, like my dream self within my dream, thinking that consciousness itself is limited. The last perspective is the closest to the common person’s. We totally believe we are this limited body and mind, the name and form, rūpas, alone, and so we suffer the limitations of this body and mind. Occasionally, i.e., in deep sleep and in moments of joy, we forget this imagined limitation. Life becomes bearable because of these occasions.
This teaching here is meant to wake up the individual to reality. The reality of oneself is limitlessness, and the phenomenal reality of the universe cannot be an affliction to the real me. Without affliction, I can accept that the individual is me, that the mind and the reflection of consciousness therein is nothing but the witness-self, the sākṣin that is me. I can then live this life, I can play this role in life, without thinking that I am these limitations, this role. This is the practical perspective (vyāvahārika) that describes the life of a wise person living life without afflictions.
But to have this perspective, one must also have the absolute perspective. Without the absolute perspective, then the transactional world becomes absolute, becomes real, for me. Logically, this also should not be a problem, since, if limitation is real, then I should happily accept this nature of myself. But that is not acceptable, because it is inherently unacceptable, like the body inherently knows, without any cognitive process, that a foreign body has invaded it and then fights off the infection. We fight against limitations, such as sorrow, death, etc. because they are not, in fact, our nature. Once we cognitively know this fact, through this teaching, then our understanding of ourselves is pāramārthika. Because of this, our understanding of the role of our body and mind, with their reflection of consciousness therein, in keeping with the entire interconnected universe, is clear and acceptable.
When the limited body or mind encounters pain, it is understandable and acceptable. This truly practical understanding can then patiently nurse this body and mind through life without sorrow, like a good physician takes care of a patient without himself or herself undergoing the pain or suffering of the patient. Logic is now supported with clarity of reality, and this body, mind and I-notion (the “is-notion”) can live happily in this world without conflicts. Our prior life of ignorance will then be seen like a dream or a nightmare that is finally over. I am not trapped in a world, helplessly terrorized by its overwhelming powers. I, instead, am the power and reality of this world before me. I can then engage this body and mind in realistic and logical interrelationships with this total manifestation I call the Lord, brahman, who is myself.

avaccheda, kalpita, √as, avacchedya, tu, vāstava;
tad, jīvatva, āropa, brahmatva, tu, sva-bhāvatas.
अवच्छेदः [परिच्छिन्नत्वं] कल्पितः स्यात्, अवच्छेद्यं [यद् कल्पनेन अवच्छेत्तुं शक्यं] तु वास्तवं [पारम-अर्थिकं सत्यं ब्रह्म एव]। तस्मिन् [पारम-अर्थिके] जीवत्वं [अवच्छिन्नत्वं] आरोपात्, ब्रह्मत्वं [अ-द्वैतं] तु स्व-भावतस्॥

(In the pāramārthika jīva) limitation (avaccheda) should be understood as imagined (kalpita, due to ignorance), whereas what appears to be limited (avacchedya) is the real (self). In that reality there is individuality (jīvatva) only due to false imposition, whereas (the pāramārthika jīva) is but brahman (existence-knowledge-fullness) by its very nature.

avacchinna, jīva, pūrṇa, brahman, ekatā;
tad, yuṣmad, √as, ādi-vākya, √gai, na, itara-jīva.
“तद् त्वम् असि” [इति] आदि-वाक्यानि अवच्छिन्नस्य जीवस्य पूर्णेन ब्रह्मणा एकतां जगुः (प्रख्यातवन्ति), न इतर-जीवयोः [चित्-आभास-स्वप्न-कल्पित-जीवयोः – यस्मात् बिम्ब-प्रतिबिम्ब-एक-देशित्वं न शक्यं, यः च कल्पितः सः कल्पिनम् एव च]॥

The Upaniṣad scripture statements such as, “that (Lord) you are” (tat tvam asi) have declared the identity (ekatā) of the apparently limited (avacchinna) individual (jīva) with the full reality (pūrṇa brahman), but not of the other two (vyāvahārika and prātibhāsika perspectives of) jīvas.

When understanding the scriptural statements declaring the identity of oneself with limitless reality, only the absolute perspective of oneself is meant therein. Only the first perspective is one, non-dual. In the other two there is imagined duality, and many separate jīvas. The other two perspectives are only applicable when the teaching is talking about the wise person after this knowledge or how a person thinks one is prior to gaining knowledge, respectively. From the perspective of the wise person, there is only the absolute understanding.
From the teaching’s third-person perspective, the wise person living his or her life is described from the transactional perspective, and his or her prior life is said to be like an unreal dream. The words of this teaching when it is revealing the truth of oneself, on the other hand, can only be understood to apply to oneself in the first person, never in the third person. This is why this teaching can never be correctly understood as a philosophy “about” the self. Before exposure to this teaching and understanding that there is a previously unknown pāramārthika reality, the only perspective of the common person is what he or she thinks is vyāvahārika, is practical, but is more a prātibhāsika, an imagination, at least in regard to who they think they really are (compare Bhagavad-gītā 2:69).

brahman, avasthitā, māyā, vikṣepa-āvṛti-rūpin;
āvṛtya, a-khaṇḍatā, tad, jagat-jīva, pra-√kḷp.
विक्षेप-आवृति-रूपिणी माया ब्रह्मणि अवस्थिता [न पृथक्-स्थिता]। अ-खण्डतां आवृत्य, [अन्-आदिः माया] तस्मिन् [ब्रह्मणि] जगत्-जीवौ प्रकल्पयेत् [सृजेत् इव]॥

The manifesting power (māyā), having the form of projecting (vikṣepa) and covering (āvṛti), abides in reality (brahman). Covering the non-duality (the nature of reality), māyā appears to project a world (jagat) and the individual (jīva) upon that reality.

jīva, dhī-stha, cit-ābhāsa, √bhū, bhoktṛ, hi, karma-kṛt;
bhogya-rūpa, idam, sarva, jagat, √as, bhūta-bhautika.
चित्-आभासः धी-स्थः, भोक्ता कर्म-कृत् [च] हि (यस्मात्), [प्रसिद्धः व्यावहारिकः] ‘जीवः’ भवेत्। इदं सर्वं भूत-भौतिकं भोग्य-रूपं ‘जगत्’ स्तात्॥

(In regard to the transactional world) the reflection of consciousness (cit-ābhāsa) present in the mind is the individual (jīva), who (out of ignorance) becomes the enjoyer (bhoktṛ) and the performer of action (karma-kṛt). This entire universe of five elements (bhūtas) and elementals (bhautikas, what are made from those five elements) is in the form of what is to be enjoyed by this jīva.

an-ādi-kālam, ārabhya, mokṣa, pūrvam, idam, dvayam;
vyavahāra, sthita, tasmāt, ubhaya, vyāvahārika.
मोक्षात् पूर्वं, इदं द्वयं [जीव-जगत्] अन्-आदि-कालं आरभ्य व्यवहारे स्थितं। तस्मात् उभयं व्यावहारिकं॥

Before liberation (mokṣa, from further embodiments, before videha-mokṣa, before the death of the wise person’s body), this pair (the individual and the universe) exist from beginningless time in transactional reality (vyavahāra). Therefore, both are only transactional (vyāvahārika).

cit-ābhāsa-sthitā, nidrā, vikṣepa-āvṛti-rūpin;
āvṛtya, jīva-jagat, pūrva, nūtna, tu, √kḷp.
[यथा माया ब्रह्मणि] निद्रा चित्-आभास-स्थिता विक्षेप-आवृति-रूपिनी। पूर्वे व्यावहारिके जीव-जगती आवृत्य, [निद्रा] नूत्ने तु [प्रति-नवे स्वप्ने जीव-जगती] कल्पयेत्॥

(Like māyā) individual sleep (nidrā), having the form of projecting (vikṣepa) and covering (āvṛti), abides in the individual reflection of consciousness (cit-ābhāsa). Covering the prior two (the waking) individual (jīva) and world (jagat), it then projects two new (the dream individual and world).

Just as our current medical studies have confirmed, we have to first go into deep sleep, i.e., we have to completely die to the waking life, before we can enter into a mental world and experience it as a dream. Then only can we become the separate dream person, upon half-waking to our memory projections.

pratīti-kāla, eva, etad, sthitatva, prātibhāsika;
na, hi, svapna-prabuddha, punar-svapna, sthiti, tad.
प्रतीति-काले (दृष्ट-काले) एव स्थितत्वात्, एते [नूत्ने जीव-जगती] प्रातिभासिके, स्वप्न-प्रबुद्धस्य हि (यस्मात्) [च] पुनर्-स्वप्ने (अपर-स्वप्ने) तयोः [पूर्व-जीव-जगतोः] न स्थितिः (अनुवृत्तिः), [तस्मात् एते न सा-तत्य-व्यावहारिके]॥

Because these two (the dream individual and world) only exist at the time of their appearance in this dream, and because, for the one who awakes from that dream into a following dream there is no presence of those prior two, they (the dream individual and world) are both imaginary (prātibhāsika).

Their sub-ration is more complete. They not only disappear upon waking up, even in their own reality, via moving into a second dream, the prior dream body and its dream world disappear. The belief that one exists only in this life and not before or after, and that I am this embodiment alone – this is the common belief of most people. That individual and the world he or she lives in is more akin to this imaginary (prātibhāsika) reality than a practical reality. It takes a little analysis to understand that the individual is more than this flash of life. That analysis is the start of this teaching. It gives one a broader, more objective perspective by which one can start to understand that I am more than this current body and mind. This teaching will bring one to transactional (vyāvahārika) reality, where there is continuation of the individual within the Lord’s manifestation, that is much less conflicted than one’s prior imaginary, isolated existence, but which is fully and correctly understood only when one knows the absolute (pāramārthika) reality. Until then, vyāvahārika will be taken for pāramārthika, so suffering from this continuing error will be less, but not avoided.

prātibhāsika-jīva, yad, tad, jagat, prātibhāsika;
vāstava, √man, anya, tu, mithyā, iti, vyāvahārika.
यः प्रातिभासिक-जीवः तद् प्रातभासिकं जगत् वास्तवं [सत्यं] मन्यते, अन्यः तु व्यावहारिकः [जीवः उभे प्रातिभासिके] मिथ्या [अ-सत्यतया] इति [मन्यते]॥

Though one imaginary individual (prātibhāsika-jīva) considers that imaginary (prātibhāsika) world (jagat) as real within the dream, the other transactional (vyāvahārika jīva) upon awaking considers them both as apparent (mithyā).

vyāvahārika-jīva, yad, tad, jagat, vyāvahārika;
satya, prati-√i, mithyā, iti, √man, pārama-arthika.
यः व्यावनारिक-जीवः तद् व्यावहारिकं जगत् सत्यं प्रत्येति [मन्यते]। पारमार्थिकः [जीवः एभे व्यावहारिके] मिथ्या इति मन्यते॥

Though one transactional individual (vyāvahārika-jīva) considers that transactional (vyāvahārika) world (jagat) as real (within the waking world, less afflicted, but still not enlightened), the absolute (pāramārthika jīva, the wise person whose identity is the absolute) considers both those as apparent (mithyā).

pārama-arthika-jīva, tu, brahma-aikya, pārama-arthika;
prati-√i, vi-√īkṣ, na, anya, vi-√īkṣ, tu, an-ṛta-ātman.
पारमार्थिक-जीवः तु [जीव-]ब्रह्म-ऐक्यं पारमार्थिकं प्रत्येति। [सः ज्ञानी] अन्यद् [भेद-वस्तु] न [सत्यतया] वीक्षते (मन्यते), अन्-ऋत-आत्मना [अ-सत्यतया] तु वीक्षते॥

Whereas the absolute person (pāramārthika-jīva) (the wise person who knows the absolute) considers his or her identity with limitless reality as absolutely real (pāramārthika), does not recognize any other reality, but instead sees any other as unreal (an-ṛta-ātman) (as not pāramārthika, not as real as oneself).

mādhurya-drava-śaitya, nīra-dharma, taram-gaka;
anugamya, atha, tad-niṣṭha, phena, api, anugata, yathā.
sa-akṣi-stha, sat-cit-ānanda, sambandha, vyāvahārika;
tad-dvāra, anu-√gam, tathā, eva, prāthibhāsika.
यथा माधुर्य-द्रव-शैत्यानि नीर-धर्माः (जल-धर्माः) तरम्-गके (तरम्-गे) अनुगम्य (अन्तर् स्थित्वा), अथ (इत्था च) तद्-निष्ठे [जल-निष्ठे] फेने अपि अनुगताः, तथा एव सत्-चित्-आनन्दाः [लक्षणानि] साक्षि-स्थाः सम्बन्धात् [स्व-अधिष्ठानेन नाम-रूप-दृश्यस्य मिथ्या-विवर्त-सम्बन्धात् नाम-धेयतया], [न सत्य-परिणाम-सम्बन्धात्] व्यावहारिके अनुगच्छन्ति, तद्-द्वारेण [व्यावहारिक-सम्बन्धेन च] प्रातिभासिके (अनुगच्छन्ति)॥

Like the refreshment, fluidity, and coolness characteristics of water inhering in a wave (taraṅgaka), thus adhere in the bubbles (phena) also within that wave, in the same way the existence-knowledge-fullness (sat-cit-ānanda) present in the witness-self (sākṣi-stha) inhere in the transactional (vyāvahārika) individual and world because of that same relation (as the wave to the water, as being a transformation without any loss in nature or any real gain, called vivarta, in other words, a change in name only), and through it (through the transactional individual and world) they inhere in the (subsequent) imaginary (prātibhāsika) individual and world.

As the nature of sentiency is passed to the I-notion (the “is-notion”) and through that to the body (DrDV.7), likewise, the existence-knowledge-fullness is passed to the waking universe and through that to the dream universe.

laya, phena, tad-dharma, drava-ādi, √as, taram-gaka;
tad, api, vilaya, nīra, √sthā, etad, yathā, purā.
यथा पुरा (पूर्वं) [विपर्यासेन], फेनस्य लये [प्रकृत्या ज्ञानेन वा सति], द्रव-आद्याः तद्-धर्माः [फेन-अधिष्ठान-धर्माः] तरम्-गके स्युः (तिष्ठेयुः)। तस्य [तरम्-गस्य] अपि विलये, एते [अधिष्ठान-धर्माः] नीरे (जले) तिष्ठन्ति॥

(In reverse order) upon the dissolution of the form of the bubbles (phena), their characteristics of fluidity, etc. remain in the wave (taraṅgaka), and upon the dissolution of the form of that wave those characteristics remain in the water as before.

prātibhāsika-jīva, laya, √as, vyāvahārika;
tad-laya, sat-cit-ānanda, pari-ava-√so, sa-akṣin.
[तथा] प्रातिभासिक-जीवस्य [तद्-जगतः च] लये [प्रबोधनेन सति], सत्-चित्-आनन्दाः [लक्षणानि] व्यावहारिके स्युः (तिष्ठेयुः)। तद्-लये [व्यावहारिक-लये ज्ञानेन सति], [सत्-चित्-आनन्दाः लक्षणानि] साक्षिणि पर्यवस्यन्ति (निष्ठां प्राप्नुवन्ति) [एषा ब्राह्मी स्थितिः] (BhG.2.72); [तदा द्रष्टुः स्व-रूपे अवस्थानम् (YS.1.3)]॥

Similarly, upon the dissolution (laya) of the form of the imaginary individual (prātibhāsika-jīva) and the imaginary world, the existence-knowledge-fullness (sat-cit-ānanda) remain in the transactional (vyāvahārika individual and world), and upon the dissolution of the form of that (transactional individual and world) they continue to stay in the witness-self (sākṣin) (which is reality itself).

This is liberation. It seems like a process, but, in fact, it is reality as it is. Existence-knowledge-fullness always was and is the nature of oneself, like fluidity, etc. always was the nature of the water. One always is liberated, but out of ignorance we believe ourselves bound. Liberation does not happen, it only seems that way because of the happening of the removal of ignorance. Because liberation does not come, then there can be no fear that it might go. In knowledge, liberation is permanent by its very nature. It is simple, factual and requires no beliefs, accept an initial trust in the scriptures as a means of knowledge that cannot be otherwise accessed. It is unshakeable and cannot be improved upon. It is perfection itself and it is oneself.