[Advaita-l] SSSS, On Prasamkhyana Vada.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Is Sri Swami Dayanandaji a PV? Does he teach Truth is to be grasped and
made firm?
*18. Direct Knowledge from the Mahāvākya*

(16-8-53)

Sentences that reveal the unity of Brahman are called *mahāvākyas*. As
previously discussed, it is incorrect to treat these statements as mere
mantras for *japa* or to regard the knowledge they impart as instrumental
in nature. The *prasaṃkhyānavādins* acknowledge that knowledge is the
direct means to *puruṣārtha* (ultimate fulfillment), yet they argue that
the initial knowledge derived from the *mahāvākya* is insufficient to
completely remove ignorance. According to them, the sentence may generate a
general understanding, but not the ultimate Self-knowldge.

For instance, if someone declares, "I have a stomach ache," another person
may generally comprehend the situation by observing facial expressions or
physical discomfort. However, the exact nature of the pain remains known
only to the one experiencing it. Similarly, they argue that *mahāvākyas*
provide only an indirect understanding (*parokṣajñāna*), whereas direct
knowledge (*aparokṣajñāna*) cannot arise solely from hearing a sentence.

They further illustrate their position by stating: "If someone tells us
that Mount Meru exists in the north, can we truly claim direct knowledge of
the mountain?" Therefore, they insist that Vedantic sentences and reasoning
must be revisited continually. Even if one grants that direct knowledge of
Brahman arises from *śruti*, they argue that the long-standing
identification with *saṃsāra*—reinforced by perception and habitual
cognition—can overpower this realization. Hence, they advocate for
repetition and reinforcement of knowledge to secure its permanence. They
cite the *śruti* statement: *Vijñāya prajñāṃ kurvita*—"Having understood,
one must cultivate wisdom"—as evidence that, after realization, a further
process of deep assimilation (*prasaṃkhyāna*) is necessary.

This is the argument put forth by those who promote *jñānābhyāsa* (the
repeated practice of knowledge).

*The Argument for Saṃsṛṣṭārtha and the Need for Contemplation:*

A further claim made by these and other scholars is that direct knowledge
of realization (*aparokṣajñāna*) does not arise immediately from the
*mahāvākya*. Their reasoning is based on the nature of sentence
comprehension. A sentence conveys knowledge by relating (*sambandha*)
different elements (*padārthas*). Consider the example: "The potter makes a
pot from clay using tools." Here, the potter is the agent (*kartā*), the
clay is the material (*kāraṇa*), the tools are the instruments (*karaka*),
and the pot is the resultant object (*kārya*). The sentence describes the
interrelation of these factors (*saṃsarga)*, forming what is known as
*saṃsṛṣṭārtha*—a meaning that arises from the combination or synthesis of
various relational elements.

Similarly, *mahāvākyas* like *Aham Brahmāsmi*—"I am Brahman"—express the
relationship between the words *aham* (I), *Brahman*, and *asmi* (am).
However, the identity of Brahman and the Self is not a relational truth (
*saṃsṛṣṭārtha*). It is not a synthesis of the meaning of distinct elements,
like links in a chain. Since what arises from sentences is typically
*saṃsṛṣṭārtha*, these thinkers claim that merely understanding the words
does not produce an indivisible realization (*akhaṇḍārtha*). Instead, they
argue that continuous practice of this sentence-knowledge eventually leads
to *aparokṣānubhava*—direct, non-relational experience of the Self.

Thus, common to all of them is that direct realization cannot be attributed
to the sentence alone.

*Śrī Śaṅkarācārya’s Refutation:*

Śaṅkarācārya addresses these objections across his works. In
*Upadeśasāhasrī*, he unequivocally states that the Self is the
ever-witnessing *ātman*, the knower of all cognitive modifications (
*buddhi-vṛttis*). The Vedantic declaration "That thou art" (*tat tvam asi*)
does not create a new experience—it simply reveals what is already true.
Any other supposed "experience" is false:

*"Vijñāteryastu vijñātā sa tvamityucyate yataḥ | sa evānubhavastasya
tato'nyo'nubhavo mṛṣā*" (Upadeśasāhasrī 12.8). ("The Self is the
ever-knowing knower. You are that. This alone is experience—any other
experience is false.")

Furthermore, those who insist that Self should know first and then one
should strive for experience of the Self, must necessarily take the Self as
an object to be attained. However, Śaṅkara refutes this view, stating that
if one argues that the Self must be realized as an object of experience,
then the Self is mistakenly treated as an object (*viṣaya*) rather than as
the witnessing subject (*sākṣī*). Since the Self is pure consciousness (
*caitanyarūpa*), the knower of all experiences, it can never become an
object of experience.

In the same text, Śaṅkara refutes the idea that *mahāvākyas* merely provide
indirect knowledge. Revelation (*śruti*) is a means of knowledge (*pramāṇa*)
that dispels ignorance by revealing what is already established. If *śruti*
conveys a meaning that is not contradicted by perception or inference, how
can one dismiss its authority and demand an additional experience to verify
it? Śaṅkara firmly rejects the idea of an "experience beyond knowledge" by
invoking the *śruti* statement: *"Vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāt?" *("By
what can the knower be known?") If knowledge itself reveals the Self, what
other experience could be required?

He further asserts: “*ito'nyo'nubhavaḥ kaścidātmano nopapadyate ; avijñātaṃ
vijānatāṃ vijñātāramiti śruteḥ” *(Upadeśasāhasrī 18.210). ("There is no
experience of the Self beyond this knowledge; the *śruti* itself declares:
'It is not known by those who [say they] understand’ (Ke. U. 2.3); and ‘(By
what should one know) the knower?’ (Br.U. 2.4.14)")

All those who advocate for a separate "Self-experience" (*ātma-anubhava*)
distinct from knowledge must reconcile their position with this clear
assertion of Śaṅkara.

*On the Misunderstanding of Aparokṣajñāna and the True Nature of
Self-Experience:*

Even today, some Vedāntins persist in claiming that direct knowledge (
*aparokṣajñāna*) of the Self cannot arise from sentences alone. They assert
that disciplines like *yoga* and other spiritual practices are necessary
for such realization. In doing so, they imply that one must make the Self
an object of knowledge — as though the Self could be “grasped” in
experience. This is not unlike a tailless dog spinning endlessly in an
effort to bite its own tail — a futile and ill-conceived endeavor. The Self
can never be an object of knowledge or action; it is the very ground of all
knowing and doing. It is not *known*, but is the ever-present *knower*. It
does not *shine* by anything else, but is the light by which all shines.

So what then is Self-experience (*ātma-anubhava*)? Ācārya answers this in a
succinct verse:

*dvaśirevānubhūyeta svanaivānubhavātmanā |*
*tadābhāsatayā janma dhiyo’syānubhavaḥ smṛtaḥ ||* (U.S. 18.193)

The Self, self-established witness, is of the very nature of intuitive
experience (*anubhava svarūpa*), and therefore is experienced by none other
than itself. Still, from an empirical standpoint, in the reflection (
*cidābhāsa*) of the Self , there is a thought (*vrtti*) that forms upon
hearing the sentence (*mahāvākya*), which is called *Self-experience*
(*ātma-anubhava
in vyavahāra*). But even this so-called “experience” remains an object
illumined by the witnessing Self; it is not an experience *of* the Self in
the same way we experience objects. True *ātma-anubhava* is the
spontaneous, effortless intuition of the ever-luminous consciousness that
transcends all sorrow and division.

It is thus a serious error, when viewed from the standpoint of *paramārtha*
(absolute truth), to say that ignorance in the form of thoughts (vrtti-s)
is “eliminated” by knowledge in the form of thoughts. The Self has no
involvement in time or space, and so to speak of realization occurring at a
particular hour, on a specific day, in a specific year, is sheer absurdity.
One modern seeker even recorded in his diary: “On such-and-such a date, at
such-and-such a time, I had *brahmānubhava*.” A friend who read this
quipped wryly, “Ah, so he must be the *Brahman* of that year!” Can a cloud
ever truly cover the sun? Just as a profoundly deluded person may think
that the sun itself has been eclipsed and its light extinguished when a
cloud obstructs his view, so too do the ignorant imagine that the Self has
become “veiled” by ignorance, and must be “revealed” through knowledge.

*“ghanacchannadṛṣṭir ghanacchannam arkaṃ yathā manyate niṣprabhaṃ
cātimūḍhaḥ”*

As Sureśvarācārya declares in *Naiṣkarmyasiddhi*, when rightly seen, there
is neither real ignorance to be removed nor new knowledge to be attained —
for the Self was never not known. That which is always shining cannot be
unveiled; only the false perception must be corrected.

*On Abiding in the Self-Knowledge: The Gītā Bhāṣya on the Nature of
Brahmavidyā:*

But how then should one gain this right knowledge (*samyak* *jñāna*?
In the *Bhagavad
Gītā Bhāṣya*, Śaṅkarācārya gives a penetrating answer:

*“avidyādhyāropaṇanirākaraṇamātraṃ brahmaṇi kartavyam, na tu brahmavijñāne
yatnaḥ | atyanaprasiddhatvāt...” *(Gītā Bhāṣya 18.50)

Only the removal of false attribution (*adhyāropa*) is required in Brahman;
no *effort* is needed to “know” Brahman anew — for Brahman is not unknown.
It is, in fact, the most self-evident of realities. But for those whose
intellect has been hijacked by the names and forms, conjured by
ignorance (*avidyā
kalpita namarupa)*, even the most intimate and self-evident reality appears
distant, obscure, and alien. What is the Self — the innermost, most
familiar reality — appears to them as the farthest, most unknowable truth.
For such people, Śaṅkara says, the Self appears: extremely unfamiliar (
*atyanaprasiddha*), difficult to discern (*durvijñeya*), farther than far (
*atidūram*), and as though it were something else (*anyadiva*).

But for those whose minds have been withdrawn from external diversions, and
who are blessed by the grace of the Guru and Paramātman, there is nothing
more evident, nothing more clear, and nothing more intimate than the Self.

This passage from the *Gītā Bhāṣya* powerfully affirms the self-revealing
nature of *ātmatattva*. No external confirmation is needed. The Self is
*svataḥsiddha* — established by itself.

*The Mind: The Unruly Horse:*

Yet what is the nature of the mind, which seeks knowledge of the Self?

It is like a restless and undisciplined horse. Like a spoiled child full of
conceit, it claims everything as “mine” and “me.” It becomes absorbed in
the external and forgets its source. It turns outward and chases shadows,
unable to recognize the very light by which it sees.

One might recall here the story of the ten dull-witted people who crossed a
river. Did they all reach the other side safely? In their confusion, they
began to doubt: “Is he not here?” Each one of the group, counting the
others and excluding himself, found only nine. “Did the tenth drown in the
river? Has one among us perished?”—they began to cry in despair.

A passerby, hearing their lament, was amused. He approached and said to one
of them, “Hey, my friend, *you* are the tenth!” With these simple words,
the confusion vanished. “I am the tenth!”—this knowledge arose in the
listener instantly, directly, and without any further need for inquiry or
verification.

This well-known parable has long served as an illustration of the immediacy
of *aparokṣa jñāna* (direct knowledge). Śaṅkarācārya himself invokes this
analogy to explain how direct Self-knowledge arises from the *mahāvākya*
(great Vedic statement):

*sadevetivadīkhyebhyaḥ pramā sphuṭatarā bhavet |daśamo'sītyasmād yathā,
evam pratyagātmani || *(*Gītā Bhāṣya, Upadeśa Sāhasrī Prose 18.184*)

"Just as from the statement ‘You are the tenth,’ the knowledge ‘I am the
tenth’ arises vividly and unmistakably, so too, from declarations such as
‘That Thou Art,’ clear and direct Self-knowledge arises."

In the same way that the tenth man realized his own overlooked presence,
the qualified seeker—upon hearing the *mahāvākya*—realizes: *I am Brahman,
non-dual, ever-pure, ever-luminous; the seeming reality of worldly
transactions (vyavahāra) has no truth in Me.* This insight is not a
construction of the intellect, nor a distant conclusion reached through
reasoning, nor an object to be obtained through practice. It is a
revelation of one’s own nature.

With this understanding firmly established, no further “experience” is
necessary. Nothing remains to be confirmed. Just as the tenth man had no
need for a vision, miracle, or further verification after hearing the
truth, so too the seeker, having heard and understood the *mahāvākya*,
stands in the direct knowledge of the Self

-from SSSS, Universally Accepted Teaching of Shankara, draft tr, Sri Kumarji