9:33 PM | Posted in

















Self- Atma

Self- Atma
The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi
Edited by David Godman
Question: What is Reality?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Reality must be always real. It is not with forms and names. That which underlies these is the Reality. It underlies limitations, being itself limitless. It is not bound. It underlies unrealities, itself being real. Reality is that which is. It is as it is. It transcends speech. It is beyond the expressions ‘existence, non-existence’, etc.
The reality which is the mere consciousness that remains when ignorance is destroyed along with knowledge of objects, alone is the Self (Atma). In that Brahma-swarupa (real form of Brahman), which is abundant Self-awareness, there is not the least ignorance.
The reality which shines fully, without misery and without a body, not only when the world is known but also when the world is not known, is your real form (nija-swarupa).
The radiance of consciousness-bliss, in the form of one awareness shining equally within and without, is the supreme and blissful primal reality. Its form is silence and it is declared by Jnanis (Self-realised) to be the final and unobstructable state of true knowledge (jnana).
Know that jnana alone is non-attachment; jnana alone is purity; jnana is the attainment of God; jnana which is devoid of forgetfulness of Self alone is immortality; jnana alone is everything.
Question: What is this awareness and how can one obtain and cultivate it?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you. Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it. All that you have to do is to give up being aware of other things, that is of the not-self. If one gives up being aware of them then pure awareness alone remains, and that is the Self.
Question: If the Self is itself aware, why am I not aware of it even now?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is no duality. Your present knowledge is due to the ego and is only relative. Relative knowledge requires a subject and an object, whereas the awareness of the Self is absolute and requires no object.
Remembrance also is similarly relative, requiring an object to be remembered and a subject to remember. When there is no duality, who is to remember whom?
The Self is ever present. Each one wants to know the Self. What kind of help does one require to know oneself? People want to see the Self as something new. But it is eternal and remains the same all along. They desire to see it as a blazing light etc. How can it be so? It is not light, not darkness. It is only as it is. It cannot be defined. The best definition is ‘I am that I am’. The Srutis (scriptures) speak of the Self as being the size of one’s thumb, the tip of the hair, an electric spark, vast, subtler than the subtlest, etc. These descriptions have no foundation in fact. It is only being, but different from the real and the unreal; it is knowledge, but different from knowledge and ignorance. How can it be defined at all? It is simply being.
Question: When a man realises the Self, what will he see?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is no seeing. Seeing is only being. The state of Self-realisation, as we call it, is not attaining something new or reaching some goal which is far away, but simply being that which you always are and which you always have been. All that is needed is that you give up your realisation of the not-true as true. All of us are regarding as real that which is not real. We have only to give up this practice on our part. Then we shall realise the Self as the Self, in other words, ‘Be the Self.’ At one stage you will laugh at yourself for trying to discover the Self which is not self-evident. So, what can we say to this question?
That stage transcends the seer and the seen. There is no seer there to see anything. The seer who is seeing all this now ceases to exist and the Self alone remains.
Question: How to know this by direct experience?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: If we talk of knowing the Self, there must be two selves, one a knowing self, another the self which is known, and the process of knowing. The state we call realisation is simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realised, one is that which alone is and which alone has always been. One cannot describe that state. One can only be that. Of course, we loosely talk of Self-realisation, for want of a better term. How to ‘real-ise’ or make the real that which alone is real?
Part Two
Question: You some times say the Self is silence. Why is this?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: For those who live in Self as the beauty devoid of thought, there is nothing, which should be thought of. That which should be adhered to is only the experience of silence, because in that supreme state nothing exists to be attained other than oneself.
Question: What is Mouna (silence)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: That state which transcends speech and thought is mouna. That which is, is mouna. How can mouna be explained in words?
Sages say that the state in which the thought "I" (the ego) does not rise even in the least, alone is Self (swarupa) which is silence (mouna). That silent Self alone is God; Self alone is the jiva (individual soul). Self alone is this ancient world.
All other kinds of knowledge are only petty and trivial knowledge; the experience of silence alone is the real and perfect knowledge. Know that the many objective differences are not real but are mere superimpositions on Self, which is the form of true knowledge.
Question: As the bodies and the selves animating them are everywhere actually observed to be innumerable how can it be said that the Self is only one?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: If the idea ‘I am the body’ is accepted, the selves are multiple. The state in which this idea vanishes is the Self since in that state there are no other objects. It is for this reason that the Self is regarded as one only.
Since the body itself does not exist in the natural outlook of the real Self, but only in the extroverted outlook of the mind which is deluded by the power of illusion, to call Self, the space of consciousness, Dehi (the possessor of the body) is wrong.
The world does not exist without the body, the body never exists without the mind, the mind never exists without consciousness, and consciousness never exists without the Reality.
For the wise one who has known Self by diving within himself, there is nothing other than Self to be known. Why? Because since the ego, which identifies the form of a body as "I" has perished, he (the wise one) is the formless existence– consciousness.
The jnani (one who has realised the Self) knows he is the Self and that nothing, neither his body nor anything else, exists but the Self. To such a one what difference could the presence or absence of a body make?
It is false to speak of realisation. What is there to realise? The Real is as it always is. We are not creating anything new, or achieving something, which we did not have before.
The illustration given in books is this. We dig a well and create a huge pit. The space in the pit or the well has not been created by us. We have just removed the earth, which was filling the space there. The space was there then and is also there now. Similarly we have simply to throw out all the age-long Samskaras (innate tendencies) which are inside us. When all of them have been given up, the Self will shine alone.
Question: But how to do this and attain liberation?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Liberation is our very nature. We are that. The very fact that we wish for liberation shows that freedom from all bondage is our real nature. It is not to be freshly acquired. All that is necessary is to get rid of the false notion that we are bound. When we achieve that, there will be no desire or thought of any sort. So long as one desires liberation, so long, you may take it, one is in bondage.
Question: For one who has realised his Self, it is said that he will not have the three states of wakefulness, dream and deep sleep. Is that a fact?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: What makes you say that they do not have the three states? In saying, ‘I had a dream; I was in deep sleep; I am awake’, you must admit that you were there in all three states. That makes it clear that you were there all the time. If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state; this becomes hidden in the dream state; and the dream state disappears when you are in deep sleep. You were there then, you are there now, and you are there at all times. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
It is like a cinema. The screen is always there but several types of pictures appear on the screen and then disappear. Nothing sticks to the screen, it remains a screen. Similarly, you remain your own Self in all the three states. If you know that, the three states will not trouble you, just as the pictures which appear on the screen do not stick to it. On the screen, you sometimes see a huge ocean with endless waves; that disappears. Another time, you see fire spreading all around; that too disappears. The screen is there on both occasions. Did the screen get wet with the water or was it burnt by fire? Nothing affected the screen. In the same way, the things that happen during the wakeful, dream and sleep states do not affect you at all; you remain your own Self.
Question: Brahman (the Supreme Reality) is said to be sat-chit-ananda. What does that mean?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes. That is so. That which is, in only Sat. That is called Brahman. The lustre of Sat is Chit and its nature is Ananda. These are not different from Sat. All the three together are known as Sat-Chit-Ananda.
Question: As the Self is existence (Sat) and consciousness (Chit) what is the reason for describing it as different from the existent and the non-existent, the sentient and the insentient?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Although the Self is real, as it comprises everything, it does not give room for questions involving duality about its reality or unreality. Therefore it is said to be different from the real and the unreal. Similarly, even though it is consciousness, since there is nothing for it to know or to make itself known to, it is said to be different from the sentient and the insentient.
Sat-Chit-Ananda is said to indicate that the Supreme is not asat (different from being), not achit (different from consciousness) and not an ananda (different from bliss). Because we are in the phenomenal world we speak of the Self as Sat-Chit-Ananda.
Part Three
Question: In what sense is happiness or bliss (ananda) our real nature?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Perfect bliss is Brahman. Perfect peace is the Self. That alone exists and is consciousness. That which is called happiness is only the nature of Self; Self is not other than perfect happiness. That which is called happiness alone exists. Knowing that fact and abiding in the state of Self, enjoy bliss eternally.
If a man thinks that his happiness is due to external cause and his possessions, it is reasonable to conclude that his happiness must increase with the increase of possessions and diminish in proportion to their diminution. Therefore if he is devoid of possessions, his happiness should be nil. What is the real experience of man? Does it conform to this view?
In deep sleep man is devoid of possessions, including his own body. Instead of being unhappy he is quite happy. Everyone desires to sleep soundly. The conclusion is that happiness is inherent in man and is not due to external causes. One must realise the Self in order to open the store of unalloyed happiness.
Question: Sri Bhagavan speaks of the Heart as the seat of consciousness and as identical with the Self. What does the Heart exactly signify?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Call it by any name, God, Self, the Heart or the seat of consciousness, it is all the same. The point to be grasped is this that ‘Heart’ means the very core of one’s being, the centre, without which there is nothing whatever
The Heart is not physical, it is spiritual. Hridayam (the Sanskrit word) equals Hrit plus Ayam; it means ‘this is the centre’. It is that from which thoughts arise, on which they subsist and where they are resolved. The thoughts are the content of the mind and they shape the universe. The Heart is the centre of all. That from which beings come into existence is said to be Brahman in the Upanishads. That is the Heart. Brahman is the Heart.
Question: How to realise the Heart?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is no one who even for a moment fails to experience the Self. For no one admits that he ever stands apart from the self. He is the Self. The Self is the Heart.
The Heart is the centre from which everything springs. Because you see the world, the body and so on, it is said that there is a centre for these, which is called the Heart. When you are in the Heart, the Heart is known to be neither the centre nor the circumference. There is nothing else apart from it.
The consciousness which is the real existence and which does not go out to know those things which are other than Self, alone is the Heart. Since the truth of Self is known only to that consciousness, which is devoid of activity, that consciousness which always remains attending to Self alone is the shining of clear knowledge.
Question: How can I attain Self-realisation?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Realisation is nothing to be gained afresh; it is already there. All that is necessary is to get rid of the thought ‘I have not realised’.
Stillness or peace is realisation. There is no moment when the Self is not. So long as there is doubt or the feeling of non-realisation, the attempt should be made to rid oneself of these thoughts. They are due to the identification of the Self with the not-self. When the not-self disappears, the Self alone remains. To make room, it is enough that objects be removed. Room is not brought in from elsewhere.
Question: Since realisation is not possible without Vasana-kshaya (destruction of mental tendencies), how am I to realise that state in which the tendencies are effectively destroyed?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: You are in that state now.
Question: Does it mean that by holding on to the Self, the vasanas (mental tendencies) should be destroyed as and when they emerge?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: They will themselves be destroyed if you remain as you are.
Question: How shall I reach the Self?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is no reaching the Self. If the Self were to be reached, it would mean that the Self is not here and now and that it is yet to be obtained. What is got afresh will also be lost. So it will be impermanent. What is not permanent is not worth striving for. So I say the Self is not reached. You are the Self, you are already that.
The fact is, you are ignorant of your blissful state. Ignorance supervenes and draws a veil over the pure Self, which is bliss. Attempts are directed only to remove this veil of ignorance, which is merely wrong knowledge. The wrong knowledge is the false identification of the Self with the body and the mind. This false identification must go, and then the Self alone remains.
Therefore realisation is for everyone; realisation makes no difference between the aspirants. This very doubt whether you can realise, and the notion ‘I have not realised’ are themselves the obstacles. Be free from these obstacles also.
Question: How long does it take to reach Mukti (liberation)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Mukti is not to be gained in the future. It is there forever, here and now.
Questioner: I agree, but I do not experience it.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The experience is here and now. One cannot deny one’s own Self.
Questioner: That means existence and not happiness.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Existence is the same as happiness and happiness is the same as being. The word Mukti is so provoking. Why should one seek it? One believes that there is bondage and therefore seeks liberation. But the fact is that there is no bondage but only liberation. Why call it by a name and seek it?
Questioner: True, but we are ignorant.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Only remove ignorance,. That is all there is to be done.
All questions relating to Mukti are inadmissible. Mukti means release from bondage, which implies the present existence of bondage. There is no bondage and therefore no Mukti either.
Part Four
Question: Of what nature is the realisation of Westerners who relate that they have had flashes of cosmic consciousness?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: It came as a flash and disappeared as such. That which has a beginning must also end. Only when the ever-present consciousness is realised will it be permanent. Consciousness is indeed always with us. Everybody knows ‘I am’. No one can deny his own being. The man in deep sleep is not aware; while awake he seems to be aware. But it is the same person. There is no change in the one who slept and the one who is now awake. In deep sleep he was not aware of his body and so there was no body-consciousness. In the wakeful state he is aware of his body and so there is body-consciousness. Therefore the difference lies in the emergence of body-consciousness and not in any change in the real consciousness.
The body and body-consciousness arise together and sink together. All this amounts to saying that there are no limitations in deep sleep, whereas there are limitations in the waking state. These limitations are the bondage. The feeling ‘the body is ‘I’ is the error. This false sense of ‘I’ must go. The real ‘I’ is always there. It is here and now. It never appears anew and disappears again. That which is must also persist forever. That which appears anew will also be lost. Compare deep sleep and waking. The body appears in one state but not in the other. Therefore the body will be lost The consciousness was pre-existent and will survive the body.
There is no one who does not say ‘I am’. The wrong knowledge of ‘I am the body’ is the cause of all the mischief. This wrong knowledge must go. That is realisation. Realisation is not acquisition of anything new nor is it a new faculty. It is only removal of all camouflage.
The ultimate truth is so simple. It is nothing more than being in the pristine state. This is all that need be said.
Question: Is not the realisation of one’s absolute being, that is, Brahma-jnana, something quite unattainable for a layman like me?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Brahma-jnana is not knowledge to be acquired, so that acquiring it one may obtain happiness. It is one’s ignorant outlook that one should give up. The Self you seek to know is truly yourself. Your supposed ignorance causes you needless grief like that of the ten foolish men who grieved at the loss of the tenth man who was never lost.
The ten foolish men in the parable forded a stream and on reaching the other shore wanted to make sure that all of them had in fact safely crossed the stream. One of the ten began to count, but while counting the others left himself out. ‘I see only nine; sure enough, we have lost one. Who can it be?’ he said. ‘Did you count correctly?’ asked another, and did the counting himself. But he too counted only nine. One after the other each of the ten counted only nine, missing himself. ‘We are only nine’, they all agreed, ‘but who is the missing one?’ they asked themselves. Every effort they made to discover the ‘missing’ individual failed. ’Whoever he is that is drowned,’ said the most sentimental of the ten fools, ‘we have lost him.’ So saying he burst into tears, and the others followed suit.
Seeing them weeping on the riverbank, a sympathetic wayfarer enquired about the cause. They related what had happened and said that even after counting themselves several times they could find no more than nine. On hearing the story, but seeing all the ten before him, the wayfarer guessed what had happened. In order to make them know for themselves they were really ten, that all of them had survived the crossing, he told them, ‘Let each of you count for himself but one after the other serially, one, two, three and so on, while I shall give you each a blow so that all of you may be sure of having been included in the count, and included only once. The tenth missing man will then be found.’ Hearing this they rejoiced at the prospect of finding their ‘lost’ comrade and accepted the method suggested by the wayfarer.
While the kind wayfarer gave a blow to each of the ten in turn, he that got the blow counted himself aloud. ‘Ten,’ said the last man as he got the last blow in his turn. Bewildered, they looked at one another, ‘We are ten,’ they said with one voice and thanked the wayfarer for having removed their grief.
That is the parable. From where was the tenth man brought in? Was he ever lost? By knowing that he had been there all the while, did they learn anything new? The cause of their grief was not the real loss of anyone, it was their own ignorance, or rather, their mere supposition that one of them was lost.
Such is the case with you. Truly there is no cause for you to be miserable and unhappy. You yourself impose limitations on your true nature of infinite being, and then weep that you are but a finite creature. Then you take up this or that spiritual practice to transcend the non-existent limitations. But if your spiritual practice itself assumes the existence of the limitations, how can it help you to transcend them?
Hence I say know that you are really the infinite pure being, the Self. You are always that Self and nothing but that Self. Therefore, you can never be really ignorant of the Self. Your ignorance is merely an imaginary ignorance, like the ignorance of the ten fools about the lost tenth man. It is this ignorance that caused them grief.
Know then that true knowledge does not create a new being for you, it only removes your ignorant ignorance. Bliss is not added to your nature, it is merely revealed as your true natural state, eternal and imperishable. The only way to be rid of your grief is to know and be the Self. How can this be unattainable?
Questioner: However often Bhagavan teaches us, we are not able to understand.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: People say that they are not able to know the Self that is all pervading. What can I do? Even the smallest child says, ‘I exist; I do; this is mine.’ So, everyone understands that the thing ‘I’ is always existent. It is only when that ‘I’ is there that there is the feeling that you are the body, he is Venkanna, this is Ramanna and so on. To know that the one that is always visible is one’s own Self, is it necessary to search with a candle? To say that we do not know the atma swarupa (the real nature of the Self) which is not different but which is in one’s own Self is like saying, ‘I do not know myself.’
Question: But how is one to reach this state?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is no goal to be reached. There is nothing to be attained. You are the self. You exist always. Nothing more can be predicated of the Self than that it exists. Seeing God or the Self is only being the Self or yourself. Seeing is being. You, being the Self, want to know how to attain the Self. It is something like a man being at Ramanasramam asking how many ways there are to reach Ramanasramam and which is the best way for him. All that is required of you is to give up the thought that you are this body and to give up all thoughts of the external things or the not-self
Part Five
Question: What is the ego-self? How is it related to the real Self?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The ego-self appears and disappears and is transitory, whereas the real Self is permanent. Though you are actually the true Self you wrongly identify the real Self with the ego-self.
Question: How does the mistake come about?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: See if it has come about.
Questioner: One has to sublimate the ego-self into the true-Self.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The ego-self does not exist at all.
Question: Why does it give us trouble?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: To whom is the trouble? The trouble also is imagined. Trouble and pleasure are only for the ego.
Question: Why is the world so wrapped up in ignorance?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Take care of yourself. Let the world take care of itself. See your Self. If you are the body there is the gross world also. If you are spirit all is spirit alone.
Question: It will hold good for the individual, but of the rest?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Do it first and then see if the question arises afterwards.
Question: Is there avidya (ignorance)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: For whom is it?
Questioner: For the ego-self.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes, for the ego. Remove the ego and avidya is gone. Look for it, the ego vanishes and the real Self alone remains. The ego professing avidya is not to be seen. There is no avidya in reality. All Sastras (scriptures) are meant to disprove the existence of avidya.
Question: How did the ego arise?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Ego is not. Otherwise do you admit of two selves? How can there be avidya in the absence of the ego? If you begin to enquire, the avidya, which is already non-existent, will be found not to be, or you will say it has fled away.
Ignorance pertains to the ego. Why do you think of the ego and also suffer? What is ignorance again? It is that which is non-existent. However, the worldly life requires the hypothesis of avidya. Avidya is only our ignorance and nothing more. It is ignorance or forgetfulness of the Self. Can there be darkness before the sun? Similarly, can there be ignorance before the self-evident and self-luminous Self? If you know the Self there will be no darkness, no ignorance and no misery.
It is the mind, which feels the trouble and the misery. Darkness never comes nor goes. See the sun and there is no darkness. Similarly, see the Self and avidya will be found not to exist.
Question: How has the unreal come? Can the unreal spring from the Real?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: See if it has sprung. There is no such thing as the unreal, from another standpoint. The Self alone exists. When you try to trace the ego, which is the basis of the perception of the world and everything else, you find the ego does not exist at all and neither does all this creation that you see.
Questioner: It is cruel of God’s leela (play) to make the knowledge of the Self so hard.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Knowing the Self is being the Self, and being means existence, one’s own existence. No one denies one’s own existence any more than one denies one’s eyes, although one cannot see them. The trouble lies with your desire to objectify the Self, in the same way as you objectify your eyes when you place a mirror before them. You have been so accustomed to objectivity that you have lost the knowledge of yourself, simply because the Self cannot be objectified. Who is to know the Self? Can the insentient body know it? All the time you speak and think of your ‘I’, yet when questioned you deny knowledge of it. You are the Self, yet you ask how to know the Self. Where then is God’s leela and where is its cruelty? Because of this denial of the Self by people the Sastras (scriptures) speak of Maya, leela etc.
Question: Does my realisation help others?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes, certainly. It is the best help possible. But there are no others to be helped. For the realised being sees only the Self, just like a goldsmith estimating the gold in various items of jewelry sees only gold. When you identify yourself with the body then only the forms and shapes are there. But when you transcend your body the others disappear along with your body-consciousness.
Question: Is it so with plants, trees, etc.?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Do they exist at all apart from the Self? Find it out. You think that you see them. The thought is projected out from the Self. Find out from where it rises. Thoughts will cease to rise and the Self alone will remain.
Questioner: I understand theoretically. But they are still there.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes. It is like a cinema show. There is the light on the screen and the shadows fleeting across it impress the audience as the enactment of some piece. If in the same play an audience also is shown on the screen as part of the performance, the seer and the seen will then both be on the screen. Apply it to yourself. You are the screen, the Self has created the ego, the ego has its accretions of thoughts, which are displayed as the world, the trees and the plants of which you are asking. In reality, all these are nothing but the self. If you see the Self, the same will be found to be all, everywhere and always. Nothing but the Self exists.
Questioner: Yes, I still understand only theoretically. Yet the answers are simple, beautiful and convincing.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Even the thought ‘I do not realise’ is a hindrance. In fact, the Self alone is.
Our real nature is Mukti (liberation). But we are imagining we are bound and are making various, strenuous attempts to become free, while we are all the while free. This will be understood only when we reach that stage. We will be surprised that we were frantically trying to attain something, which we have always been and are. An illustration will make this clear. A man goes to sleep in this hall. He dreams he has gone on a world tour, is roaming over hill and dale, forest and country, desert and sea, across various continents and after many years of weary and strenuous travel, returns to this country, reaches Tiruvannamalai, enters the ashram and walks into the hall. Just at that moment he wakes up and finds he has not moved an inch but was sleeping where he lay down. He has not returned after great effort to this hall, but is and always has been in the hall. It is exactly like that. If it is asked, ‘Why being free do we imagine that we are bound?’ I answer, ‘Why being in the hall did you imagine you were on a world adventure, crossing hill and dale, desert and sea? It is all mind or Maya (illusion)’.
Question: How then does ignorance of this one and only reality unhappily arise in the case of the ajnani (one who has not realised the Self)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The ajnani sees only the mind, which is a mere reflection of the light of pure consciousness arising from the Heart. Of the Heart itself he is ignorant. Why? Because his mind is extroverted and he never sought its source.
Part Six
Question: What prevents the infinite, undifferentiated light of consciousness arising from the Heart from revealing itself to the ajnani?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Just as water in a pot reflects the enormous sun within the narrow limits of the pot, even so the Vasanas or latent tendencies of the mind of the individual, acting as the reflecting medium, catch the all-pervading infinite light of consciousness arising from the Heart. The form of this reflection is the phenomenon called the mind. Seeing only this reflection, the ajnani is deluded into the belief that he is a finite being, the jiva, the individual self.
Question: What are the obstacles, which hinder realisation of the Self?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: They are habits of mind (vasanas).
Question: How to overcome the mental habits (vasanas)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: By realising the Self.
Questioner: This is a vicious circle.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: It is the ego, which raises such difficulties, creating obstacles and then suffering from the perplexity of apparent paradoxes. Find out who makes the enquiries and the Self will be found.
Question: Why is this mental bondage so persistent?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The nature of bondage is merely the rising, ruinous thought ‘I am different from the reality’. Since one surely cannot remain separate from the reality, reject that thought whenever it rises.
Question: Why do I never remember that I am the Self?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: People speak of memory and oblivion of the fullness of the Self. Oblivion and memory are only thought-forms. They will alternate so long as there are thoughts. But reality lies beyond these. Memory and oblivion must be dependent on something. That something must be foreign to the Self as well, otherwise there would not be oblivion. That upon which memory and oblivion depend is the idea of the individual self. When one looks for it, this individual ‘I’ is not found because it is not real.
Hence this 'I'‘ is synonymous with illusion or ignorance (Maya, Avidya or Ajnana). To know that there never was ignorance is the goal of all the spiritual teachings. Ignorance must be of one who is aware. Awareness is jnana (knowledge). Jnana is eternal and natural, ajnana is unnatural and unreal.
Question: having heard this truth, why does not one remain content?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Because Samskaras (innate mental tendencies) have not been destroyed. Unless the samskaras cease to exist, there will always be doubt and confusion. All efforts are directed to destroying doubt and confusion. To do so their roots must be cut. Their roots are the samskaras. These are rendered ineffective by practice as prescribed by the Guru. The Guru leaves it to the seeker to do this much so that he might himself find out that there is no ignorance. Hearing the truth (Sravana) is the first stage. If the understanding is not firm one has to practise reflection (Manana) and uninterrupted contemplation (Nididhyasana) on it. These two processes scorch the seeds of samskaras so that they are rendered ineffective.
Some extraordinary people get unshakable jnana after hearing the truth only once. These are the advanced seekers. Beginners take longer to gain it.
Question: How did ignorance (avidya) arise at all?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Ignorance never arose. It has no real being. That which is, is only vidya (knowledge).
Question: Why then do I not realise it?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Because of the samskaras. However, find out who does not realise and what he does not realise. Then it will be clear that there is no avidya.
Question: So, it is wrong to begin with a goal, is it?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: If there is a goal to be reached it cannot be permanent. The goal must already be there. We seek to reach the goal with the ego, but the goal exists before the ego. What is in the goal is even prior to our birth, that is, to the birth of the ego. Because we exist the ego appears to exist too.
If we look on the Self as the ego then we become the ego, if as the mind we become the mind, if as the body we become the body.
It is thought which builds up sheaths in so many ways. The shadow on the water is found to be shaking. Can anyone stop the shaking of the shadow? If it would cease to shake you would not notice the water but only the light. Similarly, take no notice of the ego and its activities, but see only the light behind. The ego is the thought ‘I’. The true ‘I’ is the Self.
Questioner: If it is just a question of giving up ideas then it is only one step to realisation.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Realisation is already there. The state free from thoughts is the only real state. There is no such action as realisation. Is there anyone who is not realising the Self? Does anyone deny his own existence? Speaking of realisation, it implies two selves- the one to realise, the other to be realised. What is not already realised is sought to be realised. Once we admit our existence, how is it that we do not know our Self?
Questioner: Because of the thoughts, the mind.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Quite so. It is the mind that veils our happiness. How do we know that we exist? If you say because of the world around us, then how do you know that you existed in deep sleep?
Question: How to get rid of the mind?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Is it the mind that wants to kill itself? The mind cannot kill itself. So your business is to find the real nature of the mind. Then you will know that there is no mind. When the Self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Abiding in the self, one need not worry about the mind.
Part Seven
Question: Is Mukti the same as realisation?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Mukti or liberation is our nature. It is another name for us. Our wanting mukti is a very funny thing. It is like a man who is in the shade, voluntarily leaving the shade, going into the sun, feeling the severity of the heat there, making great efforts to get back into the shade and then rejoicing, ‘How sweet is the shade! I have reached the shade at last!’ We are all doing exactly the same. We are not different from the reality. We imagine we are different, that is we create the bheda bhava (the feeling of difference) and then undergo great sadhana (spiritual practices) to get rid of the bhed bhava and realise the oneness. Why imagine or create bheda bhava and then destroy it?
Questioner: This can be realised only by the grace of the master. I was reading Sri Bhagavata (Purana). It says that bliss can be had only by the dust of the master’s feet. I pray for grace.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: What is bliss but your own being? You are not apart from being which is the same as bliss. You are now thinking that you are the mind or the body which are both changing and trnsient. But you are unchanging and eternal. That is what you should know.
Questioner: It is darkness and I am ignorant.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: This ignorance must go. Again, who says, ‘I am ignorant’? he must be the witness of ignorance. That is what you are. Socrates said, ‘I know that I do not know.’ Can it be ignorance? It is wisdom.
Questioner: Why then do I feel unhappy when I am in Vallore and feel peace in your presence?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Can the feeling in this place be bliss? When you leave this place you say you are unhappy. Therefore, this peace is not permanent, it is mixed with unhappiness which is felt in another place. Therefore you cannot find bliss in places and in periods of time. It must be permanent in order that it may be useful. It is your own being which is permanent. Be the Self and that is bliss. You are always that.
The Self is always realised. It is not necessary to seek to realise what is already and always realised. For you cannot deny your own existence. That existence is consciousness, the Self.
Unless you exist, you cannot ask questions. So you must admit your own existence. That existence is the Self. It is already realised. Therefore the effort to realise results only in your realising your present mistake- that you have not realised your Self. There is no fresh realisation. The Self becomes revealed.
Questioner: That will take some years.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Why years? The idea of time is only in your mind. It is not in the Self. There is no time for the Self. Time arises as an idea after the ego arises. But you are the Self beyond time and space. You exist even in the absence of time and space.
Were it true that you realise it later it means that you are not realised now. Absence of realisation in the present moment may be repeated at any moment in the future, for time is infinite. So too, such realisation is impermanent. It is the true eternal state, which cannot change.
Questioner: Yes, I shall understand it in course of time.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: You are already that. Time and space cannot affect the Self. They are in you. So also all that you see around you is in you. There is a story to illustrate this point.
A lady had a precious necklace around her neck. Once in her excitement she forgot it and thought that the necklace was lost. She became anxious and looked for it in her home but could not find it. She asked her friends and neighbours if they knew anything about the necklace. They did not. At last a kind friend told her to feel the necklace round her neck. She found that it had all along been round her neck and she was happy. When others asked her later if she had found the necklace which was lost, she said, ‘Yes, I have found it.’ She still felt that she had recovered a lost jewel.
Now did she lose it at all? It was all along round her neck. But judge her feelings. She was as happy as if she had recovered a lost jewel. Similarly with us, we imagine that we will realise that Self some time, whereas we are never anything but the Self.
Questioner: there must be something that I can do to reach this state.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The conception that there is a goal and a path to it is wrong. We are the goal or peace always. To get rid of the notion that we are not peace is all that is required.
Questioner: All books say that the guidance of a Guru is necessary.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The Guru will say only what I am saying now. He will not give you anything you have not already got. It is impossible for anyone to get what he has not got already. Even if he gets any such thing, it will go as it came. What comes will also go. What always is will alone remain. The Guru cannot give you anything new, which you don’t have already. Removal of the notion that we have not realised the Self is all that is required. We are always the Self, only we don’t realise it.
We go round and round in search of Atma (Self) saying, ‘Where is Atma? Where is it?’ till at last the dawn of jnana drishti (vision of knowledge) is reached, and we say, ‘This is Atma, this is me.’ We should acquire that vision. When once that vision is reached, there will be no attachments even if one mixes with the world and moves about in it. When once you put on shoes your feet do not feel the pain of walking on any number of stones or thorns on the way. You walk about without fear or care, even if there are mountains on the way. In the same way, everything will be natural to those who have attained jnana drishti. What is there apart from one’s own Self?
Question: The natural state can be known only after all this worldly vision subsides. But how is it to subside?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: If the mind subsides, the whole world subsides. Mind is the cause of all this. If that subsides, the natural state presents itself. The self proclaims itself at all times as ‘I, I’. It is self-luminous. It is here. All this is that. We are in that only. Being in it, why search for it? The ancients say: ‘Making the vision absorbed in jnana one sees the world as Brahman.’









Om Tat Sat
                                                        
(Continued...)       




 (My humble salutations to  Sree Ramana Maharshi and  Sree David Godman   for the collection)

Category:
��
4:02 AM | Posted in











श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः
श्रीमद्भगवद्गीतागत-प्रपञ्चमिथ्यात्वलक्षणप्रदर्शनम्
Presentation of the teaching of MithyAtva in the Bhagavadgita
(mithyAtva = unreality)
In the sequel is a translation of the Sanskrit essay on the above topic.  The Sanskrit and the English portions appear sequentially and help a reader conversant with Sanskrit to read those portions and also appreciate the translation.  Those not conversant with Sanskrit could skip those portions and read just the English version.  The translation is also an elaborate explanation of the Sanskrit essay. 
अत्र द्वितीयाध्याये षोडशतमश्लोक  एवं पठ्यते –
Here, in the Second Chapter,  is the verse - 
नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः ।
उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोः तत्त्वदर्शिभि: ॥ इति । 
[2.16 Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. But the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth.]
 श्लोकेऽस्मिन् नाभावो विद्यते सतः’ इत्यंशे ब्रह्मणस्सत्यत्वमभिहितं भगवता, तैत्तिरीयश्रुत्युक्त सत्यं ज्ञानं अनन्तं ब्रह्म’ इति ब्रह्मस्वरूपलक्षणानुरोधेन ।  ‘त्रिकालाबाध्यत्वं सत्यत्वलक्षणं’ इति परिष्कृतलक्षणं भगवत्पादैः तैत्तिरीयभाष्ये अति गहनार्थबोधकतया एवमुक्तम् – यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत् सत्यम् ।  यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तत् तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम्, ’वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’, एवं सदेव सत्यम् इत्यवधारणात् ।इति। गीतागतब्रह्मलक्षणस्य व्याख्यानतया विराजते भाष्यवाक्यमिदं भगवत्पादीयम् ।
In this verse, in the portion ‘the real has no nonexistence’ the Absolute Reality of Brahman is stated by the Lord.  This is in accordance with the Taittiriya Upanishad definition of the intrinsic nature of Brahman in the terms: ‘Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam Brahma’ [Brahman is Existence, Consciousness and Infinite]. The nature of Brahman concisely stated as ‘that which is not sublatable in all the three periods of time’ has been elucidated in a very deeply insightful statement in the commentary to the Taittiriya Upanishad :
//As for satyam, a thing is said to be satyam, true, when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own.  Hence a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, ‘All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only. Clay as such is the reality.’ (Chandogya Up. 6.1.4), it has been emphasized that, that alone is true that Exists (Ch.Up. 6.2.1)//
ब्रह्म सत्यम्’ इत्यंशस्य प्रतिपादनं पूर्वं दृष्टम्, इदानीं ‘जगन्मिथ्या’ इत्यस्य निरूपणं नासतो विद्यते भावः’ इत्यनेन क्रियते ।  ननु असतः कथं मिथ्याशब्दार्थकत्वं, सदसद्विलक्षणस्यैव तथात्वात् । ननु च असच्छब्दस्य अत्यन्तासद्द्योतकत्वमेव लोके दृष्टं, शशविषाणगगनकुसुमप्रभृतिषु,  तेन च कथं मिथ्यार्थकत्वसिद्धिः? इति चेत्, शृणु तत्र समाधानम् ।
In the foregoing, the aspect ‘Brahman is the Reality’ (Brahma Satyam) has been established.  In the sequel the aspect ‘the world is unreal’ (Jagan mithyaa) is taken up by analyzing the portion ‘Of the unreal there is no being’ of the verse 2.16. 
Objection: How do you say that the word ‘asat’ (non-existent) connotes the sense of being ‘unreal’, ‘mithyA’, since only that which is ‘sad-asad-vilakShaNam’, distinct from both existent and non-existent, can qualify to be termed unreal, mithyA?  Further, the word ‘non-existent’ denotes only that which is absolutely non-existent such as the hare’s horn and a sky-flower.  Hence how does the idea of unreality, mithyAtvam, become conveyed by the term ‘asat’ of the verse?
Reply: For such an objection, the reply is stated as follows:      
श्लोकस्य उत्तरार्धे तत्त्वदर्शिनां ज्ञानं पूर्वार्धोक्तसदसतोरुभयोरपि निर्णयरूपमुक्तम् । यदि ‘असत्’ इत्यस्य शशविषाणादिकं गृह्येत, तत् पामरैरपि असत्त्वेन निष्प्रत्यूहं गृह्यमाणत्वात्, तत्त्वदर्शिविषयकत्वं तस्य अति पेशलं स्यात् । प्रत्युत पण्डितपामरसामान्येन सर्वैरपि स्वाभाविक्या अविद्यया संसारित्वं प्रपञ्चं च पारमार्थिकतया गृह्यमाणे सति, तन्निवारकतया शास्त्रप्रवृत्तिरिति सिद्धे, भगवता ब्रह्म सत्यं, जगन्मिथ्या’ इत्युपदेशः सार्थकत्वं सामञ्जस्यं च  प्राप्नुयात् । 
In the second  half of the verse, the knowledge/realization of the Knowers-of-Truth is being stated as that which constitutes the accurate understanding of the nature of both the ‘sat and asat’, real and the unreal.  If ‘asat’, unreal, is to be taken to mean ‘non-existent’, like the hare’s horn, it would be very trivial to mention it as the realization of the Knower-of-Truth, for even those who are most ill-informed of the higher things of the world would deem the hare’s horn and the like as something absolutely non-existent; they do not have to be taught about this.  On the contrary, if we admit that the Scriptural teaching is aimed at removing the ignorance-caused nature-driven notion held by all learned and the lay that the samsara, bondage, is absolutely real, then we can appreciate that the Lord’s teaching of ‘Brahman is the Real and the world is unreal’ is purposeful and quite in order.      
यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’ (बृहदारण्यक २.४.१४, ४.५.१५), ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (बृहदारण्यक ४.४.१९), ‘मृत्योस्स मृत्युं गच्छति य इह नानेव पश्यति’ (कठ २.१.११) इत्यादिबह्व्यः श्रुतयः इवशब्दप्रयोगेण द्वैतस्य मिथ्यात्वं प्रतिपादयन्ति, आमनन्ति, बोधयन्ति च । ‘भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च’ (१३.३४) इति भगवतापि सकारणस्य जगतः मिथ्यात्वं ज्ञापितम् । त्रयोदशाध्यायगतश्लोकेऽस्मिन् तत्त्वदर्शिनो लक्षणमेवमुक्तम् – क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोरेवमन्तरं ज्ञानचक्षुषा । भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च ये विदुर्यान्ति ते परम् ॥ १३.३४ ॥ इति ।
Numerous Upanishadic passages such as - ‘where there is dvaita as it were’ (Brihadaranyaka Up. 2.4.24, 4.5.15), ‘there is no diversity here whatsoever’ (Br.Up. 4.4.19), ‘whoever has the wrong vision of diversity goes from death to death’ (Kathopanishad 2.1.11) – by the use of the particle ‘iva’ (‘as though’) establish, proclaim and teach the unreality of dvaita, duality.  The Lord too, through the words ‘bhUta-prakRti-moksham cha’ (Bhagavad Gita 13.34), teaches the unreality, mithyAtva, of the world.  In this verse the marks that signify knowledge of the Truth are specified – 1. The discriminatory knowledge that differentiates the kshetra, prakriti, the inert principle and the kshetrajna, the Conscious Being and 2. The knowledge of the unreality/nonexistence of the causal and manifested universe.   
(अ)                        नासतो विद्यते’ इतयत्र भाष्यम् – नासतो=अविद्यमानस्य शीतोष्णादेः सकारणस्य न विद्यते नास्ति भावो भवनम् अस्तिता ।  (अत्र शीतोष्णादेः इति प्रकरणात् – २.१४ गृहीतम्, सकारणस्य इति शीतोष्णादेः कारणं यत्किञ्चिदपि वस्तु अग्निसूर्यादिहिमवातादिकं गृह्यते ।) न हि शीतोष्णादि सकारणं प्रमाणैर्निरूप्यमाणं वस्तु सद्भवति ।  विकारो हि सः, विकारश्च व्यभिचरति । यथा घटादिसंस्थानं चक्षुषा निरूप्यमाणं मृद्व्यतिरेकेण अनुपलब्धेरसत्, तथा सर्वो विकारः कारणव्यतिरेकेण अनुपलब्धेः असन् । जन्मप्रधवंसाभ्यां प्रागूर्ध्वं चानुपलब्धेः कार्यस्य घटादेः मृदादिकारणस्य च तत्कारणव्यतिरेकेण अनुपलब्धेः असत्त्वम् । तदसत्त्वे सर्वाभावप्रसङ्ग इति चेन्न, सर्वत्र बुद्धिद्वयोपलब्धेः सद्बुद्धिरसद्बुद्धिरिति । यद्विषया बुद्धिर्न व्यभिचरति तत्सत्, यद्विषया व्यभिचरति तदसत् इति सदसद्विभागे बुद्धितन्त्रे स्थिते सर्वत्र द्वे बुद्धी सर्वैरुपलभ्येते समानाधिकरणे । ...सन्घटः सन्पटः सन्हस्तीति । एवं सर्वत्र । तयोर्बुध्योर्घटादिबुद्धिर्व्यभिचरति । तथा च दर्शितम् । न तु सद्बुद्धिः । तस्मात् घटादिबुद्धिविषयोऽसन् व्यभिचारात्, न तु सद्बुद्धिविषयोऽव्यभिचारात् । (पूर्वप्रदर्शिततैत्तिरीयकभाष्यपङ्क्तयोऽत्र स्मर्तव्याः) ........एवमात्मानात्मनोः सदसतोरुभयोरपि दृष्ट उपलब्धोऽन्तो निर्णयः सत्सदेव, असदसदेवेति त्वनयोर्यथोक्तयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः । तदिति सर्वनाम सर्वं च ब्रह्म तस्य नाम तदिति तद्भावस्तत्त्वं ब्रह्मणो याथात्म्यं तत् द्रष्टुं शीलं येषां ते तत्त्वदर्शिनः । इति ।
Reproduced hereunder is a portion from Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Bhagavadgita verse 2.16 - 
// Asatah, of the unreal, of cold, heat, etc. together with their causes; na vidyate, there is no; bhaavah, being, existence, reality; because heat, cold, etc. together with their causes are not substantially real as they are perceived/grasped by means of instruments. For they are changeful, and whatever is changeful is inconstant. As configurations like pot etc. are unreal since they are not perceived to be different from earth when perceived by the eyes, so also are all changeful things unreal because they are not perceived to be different from their (material) causes, and also because they are not perceived before (their) origination and after destruction.//
(आ)                       क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोरेवमन्तरं ज्ञानचक्षुषा ।
                      भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च ये विदुर्यान्ति ते परम् ॥ १३.३४ ॥ इत्यत्र्स्थभाष्यमेवं वर्तते –
क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोरन्तरं इतरेतरवैलक्षण्यविशेषं ज्ञानचक्षुषा शास्त्राचार्योपदेशजनितमात्मप्रत्ययिकं ज्ञानं चक्षुः तेन ज्ञानचक्षुषा,  भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च भूतानां प्रकृतिः अविद्यालक्षणा अव्यक्ताख्या तस्या भूतप्रकृतेर्मोक्षणं अभावगमनं च ये विदुः विजानन्ति, यान्ति गच्छन्ति ते परं परमार्थतत्त्वं ब्रह्म, न पुनर्देहमादत्ते इत्यर्थः । इति ।
Given here is a part of Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Bhagavadgita verse 13.34:
//They who in this manner perceive the exact distinction, now pointed out, between Kshetra and Kshetrajna, by the eye of wisdom, by means of that knowledge of the Self which has been generated by the teachings of the shAstra and the Acharya, and who also perceive the non-existence of PrakRti, avidyA, avyaktA, the material cause of beings,  - they reach Brahman, the Real, the Supreme Self, and assume no more bodies.//
 इदानीं श्लोकद्वयभाष्यगतविशेषांशाः प्रदर्श्यन्ते ।
The special points that occur in the comparative study of the verses 2.16 and 13.34 along with the Bhashyam:
१.  तत्रादौ नासतो विद्यते भावः इत्यत्र असतोऽभावो यदुक्तं व्यतिरेकमुखेन तदेव भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च इत्यत्र अन्वयमुखेन बोधितं भगवता । द्वितीयश्लोकभाष्ये भूतप्रकृतेर्मोक्षणं अभावगमनं इत्युक्तिः आद्यश्लोकोक्त-असतोऽभावं परामर्शन्निव द्योतते । एवं च भगवत्पादीयं भाष्यं भगवद्विवक्षां सम्यक् स्फुटीकुर्वद् वर्तते ।
In the portion ‘Of the unreal there is no being’ (2.16) that which has been stated in a contrary manner is indeed stated in the concordant manner in the portion ‘the non-existence of the Prakriti’ (13.34).  The word ‘(knowing that Prakriti is) non-existent’ of the Bhashya (13.34) is as if it is referring to the word ‘a-bhAvaH’ of the verse 2.16.  In this manner the Bhashya brings to the fore the intent of the Lord with respect to both the verses. 
२.   असत् तथा भूतप्रकृति: इति शब्दद्वयं समानार्थकम् । तथैव अभावः एवं मोक्षणं इति पदौ समानार्थकौ मन्तव्यौ । द्वितीयश्लोकभाष्यगत परमार्थतत्त्वं इति पदं पूर्वश्लोकगत-तत्त्वदर्शिभि: इत्यनेन निकटं सम्बध्यते ।
The words ‘asat’, non-existent, unreal, and ‘bhUtaprakRti’, the Causal Energy principle, mean the same.  So also, the words ‘abhAvaH’ and ‘mokShaNam’ are to be seen to mean ‘non-existent’.
३.  अत्रास्मिन् द्वितीयश्लोके मोक्षोपयोगिज्ञानस्य लक्षणद्वयं स्फुटं प्रतीयते – १. प्रकृत्यपरपर्यायक्षेत्रं, दृश्यं, जडं, विषयं, क्षेत्रज्ञात् द्रष्टुः, चैतन्यात्, विषयिणो, विलक्षणतया गुरुशास्त्रोपदेशमनु विविच्य द्रष्टव्यम् तथा २. एतन्मात्रविवेकेन पारमार्थिकाद्वैतसिद्धिर्न स्यादिति भगवान् प्रकृत्याख्यक्षेत्रस्यापि कार्यकारणरूपेण संपूर्णतया अभावत्वमविद्यमानत्वज्ञानमपि क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञविवेकज्ञानस्य पूरकतया उपादिशत् । एतेन नासतो विद्यते इत्यत्रोक्तांशद्वयं श्लोकेऽस्मिन्नपि अवधारितं स्पष्टमुपलभामहे । पूर्वत्रांशद्वयं – सतः ब्रह्मात्मनोऽप्रतिहततया सत्यत्वम्, असतः देहादिप्रपञ्चस्य सर्वथापि अविद्यमानत्वम् च इति । एवञ्च प्रपञ्चमिथात्वसाधने भगवतो तात्पर्यसद्भावे संशयलेशोऽपि नास्तीति स्फुटम्। 
In this second verse (13.34) the two-fold aspect of the liberating Knowledge is clearly spelt out -  1. The PrakRti, also known as kshetram, dRshyam (perceived), inert, objectified being,  is quite distinct from the Conscious Seer, the Kshetrajna, the Apprehender as is known from the teaching of the Guru and the Scripture and 2. Since by this much discrimination the pAramaarthika Non-dual Truth does not get established,  the Lord teaches the non-existence of the Prakriti as another indispensable aspect of the liberating Knowledge.  Thus, the two-aspect knowledge characterising the realization of Truth taught in 2.16 is found mentioned, specified, in this 13.34 as well.  The two aspects seen in 2.16 are: 1. the absolute Reality of the Brahman and 2. the absolute unreality, non-existence, of the world characterized by the body, etc.  By such reiteration by the Lord we conclude that the Lord’s intention is in teaching ‘Brahma Satyam, jagan mithya’.      
४.  असत्ब्दस्य व्याख्यानतया वर्तते भूतप्रकृतिशब्दः । असदिति सकारणद्वैतस्य परामर्शः ।  भूतानां प्रकृतिः अविद्यालक्षणा अव्यक्ताख्या इति व्याख्यानं कार्यकारणात्मकसमस्तद्वैतस्य द्योतकम् । (अविद्यमानस्य शीतोष्णादेः सकारणस्य न विद्यते नास्ति भावो भवनम् अस्तिता’ । इति २.१६ भाष्ये ।) कार्यमात्रस्य अभावस्तु सुषुप्त्यादावपि सिद्धत्वात्, कारणस्य प्रकृतेः अभावः तत्त्वज्ञानादेव संभवति इति स्पष्टीकर्तुं भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षणं शब्दत उक्तं श्लोके, तथाविधं व्याख्यातं च भाष्ये । कारणोक्तेः कार्यस्याप्युक्तप्राय एव ।  
The word ‘bhUtaprakRti’ of 13.34 looks like a commentary of the word ‘asat’ of 2.16.  The word ‘asat’ is indicative of the dvaita along with its cause (parakRti).  The elucidation of the Bhashyam for the word ‘bhUtaprakRti-mokSham’ in 13.34 as ‘the cause of the beings, characterized by avidyA, ignorance, termed ‘un-manifest’, ‘avyakta’ ‘ is indicative of the entire cause-effect universal duality.      

 नासतो..’ इत्यस्य भाष्यगतप्रपञ्चमिथ्यात्वप्रतिपादकहेतुचतुष्टयप्रदर्शनम् - 

Presenting the four-fold reason that establishes the unreality, mithyAtvam, of the world, as stated in the Bhashyam for the verse 2.16 -  

१.    न हि शीतोष्णादि सकारणं प्रमाणैर्निरूप्यमाणं वस्तु सद्भवति ।’  इत्यस्मिन् वाक्ये वस्तुनोऽसत्त्वे तन्निरूपणे प्रमाणापेक्षता हेतूक्रियते । अत्रेयं व्याप्तिः – यद्यद्वस्तु स्वात्मगोचरे, स्वात्मलाभाय,   स्वभिन्नप्रमातृगतप्रमाणमपेक्षते तत्तन्मिथ्या । अन्याधीनत्वात्, स्वाप्नप्रमाणगृहीतस्वाप्नवस्तुवत् । प्रमाणानां तथा तद्विषयाणां प्रकृत्यपरपर्यायक्षेत्रान्तर्गतत्वं भगवतैवोक्तत्वात् – इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः इति क्षेत्रविवरणावसरे (१३.५) । भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च’ (१३.३४) इति क्षेत्रज्ञयाथात्म्यज्ञानबाध्यमानक्षेत्रकुक्षिपतितेन्द्रियैः ग्राह्यमाणविषयाः कथं वस्तुभूततां अर्हन्ति? अन्याधीनत्वेऽपरोऽयं दृष्टान्तः – रज्ज्वामारोपितसर्पवत् इति । यथा आरोपितसर्पस्य अधिष्ठानरज्जुं विना न स्वतन्त्रसत्त्वं तथा । अथ वा यद्यद्वस्तु परप्रकाश्यं सत् स्वप्रकाशहीनं तत्तत् मिथ्या भवितुमर्हति, व्यतिरेकेण ब्रह्मवत्।हेतुरयं माण्दूक्यकारिकाभाष्योक्त (२.५) दृश्यत्वात्’ इति प्रसिद्ध इत्यपि बोध्यम् । हेतोरस्य बलवत्त्वं भाष्ये द्विवारं ’ प्रमाणैर्निरूप्यमाणं, चक्षुषा निरूप्यमाणं’ इति प्रयोगदर्शनादवगम्यते ।
1.     // indeed …heat, cold, etc. together with their causes are not substantially real as they are perceived/grasped by means of instruments.//

This is the first reason. In this sentence, the unreality of the objects is determined by the reason that the objects are perceived (by instruments, sense organs).  The general rule is: that object which depends upon an external instrument operated by an external knowing agent, for its being known/validation, is deemed to be unreal. Because it is dependent on something/someone else.  Just like the dream objects that are known/validated by the dream instruments.  The instruments and the objects that are perceived by them are categorized as ‘kShetram’ or prakRti by the Lord Himself (13.5) while detailing in brief the ‘kShetram’. How can the objects belonging to the kshetram that are validated by the organs that are also kshetram be real?  In the perceived objects being dependent on something else, there is another example: the superimposed, paratantra, serpent has no independent, svatantra, existence apart from that of the rope. Whatever is paratantra, dependent, for its existence, on any swatantra, independent entity, has to be necessarily mithyA.  PrakRti, being paratantra, is dependent for its very being, reality, on Brahman, the Swatantra.  The Lord has specified PrakRiti/mAya as ‘His’ power which He resorts to for the creation and managing of the created universe and the jivas (Bh.Gita verses 7.4,5 , 8. 18,19, 9.7,8 Etc.)  Hence PrakRti is mithyA.   Also, whichever object being devoid of its own sentience is dependent on an external entity for its being illuminated, is mithyA. The contrary example, vyatireka dRShTAnta, is Brahman.  Brahman has its intrinsic shine or rather Brahman IS Shine, and is not in need of any other entity for being illumined. But any other entity, object, prakRti, has to depend on Brahman/sentient entity for being illumined and hence mithyA.   This reason specified by Shankara is akin to the one He has stated in the Mandukya kArikA BhaaShya 2.5.  This is ‘dRShyatvAt’ mithyA, ..unreal because of its being a perceivable entity.  Any entity that is perceivable is mithyA, just as in a dream.  This reason assumes importance in view of the Acharya stating it twice in this very exposition that we are considering now.    
     
२.  विकारो हि सः, विकारश्च व्यभिचरति ।’ सत्यं वस्तु अव्यभिचारितया सत्यत्वलक्षणभाग्भवति । तदन्यद्वस्तु तु जन्मविपरिणामनाशादिविकारं प्राप्य सदैव व्यभिचरद् मिथ्यात्वलक्षणतामेति । ननु विकारवद्वस्तु अनित्यं भवति इत्येव सर्वैरभ्युपगतं, तत्कथं मिथ्यात्वनिर्णयः क्रियते? इति चेदुच्यते – पूर्वं बीजत्वेन निश्चितं यत् तत् इदानीं अङ्कुरत्वेन गृह्यते, पश्चात्सस्यत्वेन, अनन्तरं वृक्षत्वेन इति प्रत्येककक्षायामपि पूर्वदृष्टवस्तु अगोचरतामेत्य सर्वत्र नाममात्रतावसानमेति । तथा बीजादिसर्वावस्थासु किमपि वस्तु न सिद्ध्यति, केवलं नामरूपद्वयमेव वस्तुभ्रान्त्या व्यवह्रियते । हेतुरयं उत्तरद्वयहेत्वोः नातिव्याप्यते । समनन्तरहेतौ कारणव्यतिरेकेण कार्यस्यानुपलब्धित्वं तथा तदनन्तरहेतौ जन्मप्रधवंसाभ्यां प्रागूर्ध्वं चानुपलब्धित्वमिति नातिव्याप्तिप्रसङ्गः । 

2.     This is the second reason: // For they are changeful and whatever is changeful is inconstant. // The ‘Real’ entity, being free from any changes, qualifies to be called ‘Satyam’, Real.  That which is other than this, however, being invariably subject to changes like birth/origin, decay and death/destruction, deserves to be called ‘unreal’, mithyaa.  Objection:  The changeful/changing entity, being ephemeral, is regarded by all as only anitya, short-lived.  Hence, how is it that you label it as ‘mithyA’, unreal? Reply: What was earlier admitted as a seed,  for example, is now  comprehended as a sprout, later a plant and a tree and so on.  In each of these stages of transformations, the earlier admitted object is no longer available for our experience; it vanishes.  It has to be recalled only as a ‘name’ with a ‘form’; the substance being unavailable.  Take the case of ‘this morning’.  I woke up this morning, recognized it as morning, did all things pertaining to the morning.  Now I am in the noon time.  At this time, where is the ‘morning’?  I did experience it no doubt, yet where is it now?  Let me apply the rule Bhagavan specifies in 2.16: ‘The Real has no nonexistence’.  When I apply this rule to test ‘morning’, if it was real, it should have been available to me now, existing.  It should not have become non-existent.  So, how can I consider the ‘morning’ real?  But why can’t I take the ‘morning’ as anitya, ephemeral?  Krishna says in the same verse: ‘The unreal has no being/existence’. To explain, if something has no being, existence, it is unreal. This leaves us with the only choice of concluding that the ‘morning’, even when it was experienced, did not have ‘being’, ‘existence’; it was just an appearance.  And that is called ‘mithyA’. Therefore even during the various states of a seed-sprout-tree, etc. and morning-noon-evening-night, etc. there was nothing substantial existing; only some names and forms were handled in the delusion that they are substantial entities.
This second reason, stated by Bhagavatpada, does not overpervade, ativyApti, to the subsequent two reasons mentioned below.  For, in the next reason, the non-availability of the effect in the absence of its cause is cited and in the final reason the non-availability of the effect prior to its creation and after its destruction is taken up. 
   
३.  यथा घटादिसंस्थानं चक्षुषा निरूप्यमाणं मृद्व्यतिरेकेण अनुपलब्धेरसत्, तथा सर्वो विकारः कारणव्यतिरेकेण अनुपलब्धेः असन् ।’ इति भाष्यवाक्यम् ।
अत्र विकारत्वं (विकार्यत्वं) मिथ्यात्वे हेतूक्रियते । दृष्टान्तः वाक्य एव दत्तः । (छान्दोग्ये) वाचारम्भणश्रुतौ एवमेव व्याख्यातम् । तैत्तिरीयभाष्येऽपि विकारोऽनृतम्’ इत्युक्तम् । कारणमेव पश्यन् इदं कार्यं सत्यम्’ इति मत्वा सर्वो जनः मुह्यति । मृदेव पश्यन् घटबुद्ध्याल्म्ब्य मुह्यति । मृद्वयतिरेकेण घट इति वस्तु नास्तीति बोधानन्तरमेव घटसत्यत्वबुद्धिं त्यजति । नामरूपमात्रात्मकं विकारजातं मिथ्या तथा तदुपादानभूतकारणवस्तुमात्रं सत्यम् । कारणमेव कार्याकारेण नूतननाम्ना च व्यवह्रियते ।
3.     The third reason given by Shankara is: // all changeful things, such as pots, are unreal because they are not perceived to be different from their (material) causes//
Here, transformation, vikAratvam, is held out as a reason for their unreality.  The example is given in the sentence itself. While commenting on the VaachArambhaNa shruti in the Chandogya Upanishad VI Chapter too, this same observation is made.  Even in the Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashyam, the Acharya has said: ‘anything that is subject to transformation is unreal’.  All people erroneously hold the cause itself as ‘a real effect’. Even while perceiving the clay, people are deluded into thinking/concluding that it is a pot.  Only when the realization dawns that ‘there is no pot as apart from clay’ does one give up the reality wrongly attributed to the pot.  Names and forms that are what is ‘produced’ are unreal, mithya, and the material cause alone is real.  The Chandogya Shruti there says: mRttikA iti yeva satyam. This means: The effect, pot, etc. is real only as clay.  This is the meaning of the word ‘iti’ in the passage. The cause alone is transacted in the form of an effect and with a new name. 

४.  जन्मप्रधवंसाभ्यां प्रागूर्ध्वं चानुपलब्धेः कार्यस्य घटादेः मृदादिकारणस्य च तत्कारणव्यतिरेकेण अनुपलब्धेः असत्त्वम् ।’ अत्रापि माण्डूक्यकारिकोक्त आदावन्ते च यन्नस्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा । विथतैः सदृशा एव अवितथा इव लक्षिताः ’ (२.६) इति न्याय एव भाष्ये प्रदर्शितः । भगवतापि द्वितीयाध्याये (२.२८) एव अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि व्यक्तमध्यानि भारत । अव्यक्तनिधनान्येव तत्र का परिदेवना’ इति अयमेवार्थः बोधितः ।  अत्र भाष्ये अदर्शनादापतितः पुनश्चादर्शनं गतः । नासौ तव न तस्य त्वं वृथा का परिदेवना ॥’ इति महाभारतश्लोक (स्त्रीपर्व.२.१३) उदाहृतः । यत्पूर्वं पश्चादप्यदृष्टं, मध्य एव दृष्टं, तन्मध्येऽपि नास्तीत्येव मन्तवयः; मध्ये तदुपलब्धिराभासमात्रमित्यर्थः । 

4.      The fourth reason stated by Shankara is: // and also because they are not perceived before (their) origination and after destruction.// 
Here too, the famous maxim given out in the Mandukya Karika 2.6 namely: //If a thing is non-existent both in the beginning and in the end, it is necessarily non-existent in the present. The objects that we see are really like illusions; still they are regarded as real. // is alone presented by Shankara.  The Lord too has expressed this very idea in the verse Bh.Gita 2.28: // O descendant of Bharata, all beings remain unmanifest in the beginning; they become manifest in the middle. After death they certainly become unmanifest. What lamentation can there be with regard to them? // Here, while commenting, Shankara has cited a Mahabharata (Stree parva 2.13) verse: //They emerged from invisibility, and have gone back to invisibility. They are not yours, nor are you theirs. What is this fruitless lamentation! //The idea is this: Any object/person is perceived to be so only during the manifested state.  Only in this state it is possible to have any emotions like joy or grief.  In the unmanifest state no object or person can be loved, hated, lamented upon, etc.  When the Lord and Bhagavan Veda VyAsa are stating that persons/objects do not qualify for lamentation, etc., what they mean is that apart from the manifest state, there is no entity called a person/object.  In the unmanifest state, all persons/objects become one with the avyakta, prakRti.  The full import of this verse can be appreciated by looking into the Bhagavadgita verse 2.11: अशोच्यानन्वशोचस्त्वं प्रज्ञावादांश्च भाषसे । गतासूनगतासूंश्च नानुशोचन्ति पण्डिताः ॥ [You grieve for those who are not to be grieved for; and you speak words of wisdom! The learned do not grieve for the departed and those who have not departed.]  Here Shankara remarks: //Because, panditah, the learned, the knowers of the Self -- panda means wisdom about the Self; those indeed who have this are panditaah, one the authority of the Upanisadic text, '....the knowers of Brahman, having known all about scholarship,....' (Br. 3.5.1)…. The idea is, 'You are sorrowing for those who are eternal in the real sense, and who are not to be grieved for. Hence you are a fool!.'.// Now, juxtaposing this verse and the Acharya’s commentary with the verse 2.16 and its commentary where the definition of Satya and Mithya are stated, one gets the complete picture:  What is visible, perceivable to the senses is not real; it is not just anitya, it is mithya. Knowers of Brahman are endowed with the certitude pertaining to 1. The Real, sat, and 2. The unreal, asat.       
     
ननु व्यभिचारित्वं कथं मिथ्यात्वे हेतुः स्यात्, तस्य अनित्यत्वार्थकमेव सिद्धत्वात् इति पुर्नराशङ्का जायते। तत्र समाधानम् -  भगवता श्लोके सदसद्द्वयविभाग एव कृतः। तत्र सच्छब्दः सत्यब्रह्मबोधक इत्यत्र नास्ति संशयः, तस्य अभावप्रसङ्गो नास्त्येव ।  तदपर-अस्त्-शब्दस्य अनित्यार्थकत्वं नैव संभवति । अतो सद्भिन्नमसत् ब्रह्मभिन्न(विलक्षण)मिथ्याभूतजगत एव सूचक इति नात्र सिद्धान्ते दोषः ।

Objection: How can changefulness be cited as a ground for unreality since it conveys only the sense of ephemerality, anityatvam?
When such an objection is re-stated, the reply is: The Lord, in 2.16 has shown only two classes: sat and asat.  Here, Sat undoubtedly refers to Brahman as its going out of existence is out of the question.  The other entity ‘asat’ can never be held to mean ‘anitya’, ephemeral. This is because the Lord denies existence, bhAva, to asat.  Surely, everyone ‘experiences’ bhAva, existence, with respect to things anitya, ephemeral.  Putting these together we conclude, per force, that the Lord is saying that the ‘asat’ is mithya’; there is no such category called anitya, ephemeral, other than Sat and asat.  Therefore the asat that is other than Sat, Brahman, has to mean only the universe that is mithyaa.  Hence there is no defect of any manner in the elucidation provided in the Bhashyam.    

Objection:  The changefulness of the material world is not a sufficient ground to hold that it is mithyA.  All transformation ends in destruction and lapses into its cause, the mUla prakRti.  Hence, as a routine sriShTi-sthiti-laya (creation-sustenance-resolution), the material world inheres, upon destruction, in the causal state, avyakta or simply put, the Shakti.  Thus it would be incorrect to say that the material world is mithyA, unreal.
Reply:  There is no error in holding the material world mithyA on the said grounds.  Even in the pralaya state, the unmanifest or Shakti, is an inert principle, having to depend upon the Consciousness Principle, Brahman/Iswara.  No dependent principle, paratantra, can exist, be real, on its own; its dependence on Consciousness, Swatantra, Brahman, for its very reality, makes it an independently-non-existing entity, asat.  The Lord has categorically stated in the verse 2.16 that ‘asat’ has no existence.  The Lord has said in the most explicit terms that PrakRti has no existence from the Jnani’s realized standpoint in the verse 13.34 as already stated earlier  -
// The Lord too, through the words ‘bhUta-prakRti-moksham cha’ (Bhagavad Gita 13.34), teaches the unreality, mithyAtva, of the world.  In this verse the marks that signify knowledge of the Truth are specified – 1. The discriminatory knowledge that differentiates the kshetra, prakriti, the inert principle and the kshetrajna, the Conscious Being and 2. The unreality/non-existence of the causal and manifested universe. // 
Thus, the paratantra prakRti, whether in manifest, variegated or unmanifest Shakti/energy form has no existence independent of Brahman, the Swatantra, Consciousness, Observer.  Consciousness is required to validate energy.  Energy is concomitant upon Consciousness only when Consciousness ‘wills’ to take its ‘services’ in the jagad-vyApAra of creation, etc.  The Mandukya Upanishad after describing the realm of PrakRti in the first three pAda-s categorically negates PrakRti in the Turiya, Brahman, by the word: prapanchopashamam.  The Absolute Swatantratva of Brahman cannot be established unless It is shown to be completely free of the paratantra prakRti.  Any kind of reality attributed to prakRti will entail a compromise on the Absolute Independent nature of Brahman.  That is the reason for the Lord to make that statement in 13.34 of the Bhagavadgita.  It is pertinent to note the word विदुः’ , ‘viduH’, which means ‘know’ in the plural, transitive.  The non-existence, mithyAtva, of prakRiti is a matter of knowledge, in the manner of a correction of an ignorance that persisted earlier.  In the state of bondage, the world has to be sustained.  The jiva has to be provided a material world for his experiencing the samsara born of ignorance.  In such a state it is essential that the creation-sustenance-destruction cycle is maintained and an ‘Energy’ state admitted in order to account for the material world.  However, when knowledge dawns about the true nature of the jiva that it is in truth Pure Consciousness, the kShetrajna, the conscious observer and not the inert observed kshetram, prakRti, the knowledge of the non-existence of prakRiti becomes inevitable.  That is precisely the reason why the Lord makes the verse 13.34 so perfectly fitting: In the first half of the verse He states that the Jnaani is the one who has the clear discriminatory knowledge that separates the observer from the observed.  Since this much would not constitute complete knowledge, the explicit mention of the non-existence, mithyAtva, of the prakRti, the observed, is also made.  The Jnani not only realizes his distinctness from prakrti (The Lord had stated that the cause of bondage is the erroneous identification of consciousness with prakRti in verse:13.26) but also that there is no real  prakRti as apart from the observer.  It is this knowledge alone that will render him free from samsara.   
It is like knowing that there is no real sun-rise and sun-set although such an illusion persists. For those who do not know that it is only the earth’s revolution that causes the sun’s appearance and disappearance cyclically there is a ‘sun-rise-and-set’ phenomenon.  On the other hand, those who know the truth are no longer under the delusion.  An unreal sun-set-and-rise is happily spoken of in all circles, of the lay and the learned, as an event to be watched, looked forward to, enjoyed, etc. Nobody says ‘the sun appears to rise at 6.05 AM’.  Newspapers publish the timings for sun/moon rise and set every day.  People, knowing full well that the sun does not really rise or set, flock to celebrated spots like Kanyakumari  and stay overnight to watch the glorious event.  They do not report ‘I watched and photographed the appearance of the sun setting/rising’. That it is actually unreal does not prevent people from making it an event for all kinds of transactions, both scriptural and worldly.  The Tattiriya Upanishad says: भीषास्माद्वातः पवते, भीषोदेति सूर्यः [‘Out of fear for the Lord, Brahman, Vayu, air, blows, fearing Brahman rises Surya’]  It is to be noted that the Upanishad does not say ‘the Sun appears to rise’.   In the same vein the Bhagavadgita too talks about PrakRti as if it is a real entity, without using expressions like ‘appears/seems to/ apparently’.  But when the Paramarthika state has to be taught, the Gita does not make any concessions and says in the most unambiguous terms: the ‘asat’ (prakRti) has no existence’ (2.16) and ‘the Jnani ‘knows’ the non-existence of PrakRti’ (13.34).   
The importance of the word ‘विदुः’ can be appreciated when we recognize that in the world all acquisition of knowledge is aimed at dispelling the corresponding ignorance.  Knowledge-gaining or knowledge-giving presupposes ignorance on the part of the recipient.  When the Lord says the person fit for Moksha ‘knows’ the non-existence of PrakRti, the implication is that hitherto such a knowledge was not there and, on the other hand, there was the erroneous conception that prakRti really exists.  The word ‘विदुः’ shows us that the knowledge of the Kshetrajna, the Observer, as free and distinct from the kshetram, prakRti and that the prakRti is non-existent is what is conducive for Moksha.  The conjunction ‘च’ confirms this.  The term ‘ज्ञानचक्षुषा’ ‘through/by the eye of wisdom’ is most significant in this verse.  It is only when one has mistaken a rope for a snake there is a need for gaining the right knowledge of the rope there with the ‘eye of widom’.  Here Bhagavan uses this term to signify that the samsara is caused by ignorance, adhyAsa, of a mix-up of prakRti and puruSha, intert energy/matter and the conscious observer.    
Incidentally, this verse, 13.34 of the Gita, could be seen as Bhagavan Veda Vyasa’s authentication of Shankara’s adhyAsa bhAshya.  The AdhyAsa BhAshya is positioned just before even the first Brahma sutra: ‘अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा’ ‘Thereafter, hence, a deliberation on Brahman’ commences.  ’जिज्ञासा’ means ’ज्ञातुं इच्छा” or ‘desire to know’.  There arises a desire to know  Brahman only where there is a recognition that Brahman is not already known.  And Brahman-knowledge is sought with the aim of eradicating samsara, bondage.  If Brahman-knowledge  is the panacea for bondage, it is evident that such a samsara is ignorance-caused;  ignorance of one’s Brahman-nature.  For, only where there is ignorance, the remedy is knowledge.  In the Bhagavadgita analysis that was undertaken in the foregoing we appreciate the aptness of Shankara’s positioning the AdhyAsa BhAShya and how the entire Brahma Sutra has come to eradicate this adhyAsa which has caused samsara.  Bhagavan Vyasa confirms this in the Bhagavadgita verse 13.21 and 13.26 as well.  In 13.23 too the ‘knowledge’ is emphasized by the word वेत्ति (knows) – of the jiva’s true nature and the state/status of prakRti along with its guNa-s.  Everywhere knowledge is shown as the means of liberation thereby highlighting and confirming that it is ignorance that is at the root of samsara.  And anything based on ignorance has to be unreal.  For, it ceases to be once knowledge of the truth arises.  The 13th Chapter verse 33 is also a confirmation of the ViShaya-viShayI concept of the adhyAsa BhAShya.  In this verse the Lord says:
यथा प्रकाशयत्येकः कृत्स्नं लोकमिमं रविः ।
क्षेत्रं क्षेत्री तथा कृत्स्नं प्रकाशयति भारत ॥
[As the one sun illumines all this world, so does the Paramatman, O bharata, illumine all the bodies.] 
In this way it could be seen as Veda Vyasa’s ‘commentary’ on the AdhyAsa BhAShya.     
एवं श्रीमद्भगवद्गीतागतश्लोकद्वये जगन्मिथ्यात्वलक्षणं स्पष्टमुपलभ्यते ।
In this manner,  one can clearly comprehend the characteristic of unreality, mithyAtva, of the universe by studying the two verses of the Bhagavadgita (2.16 and 13.35).
(अस्य लेखनस्य आङ्ग्लभाषारूपं अत्रैव प्रकाशितम्)
श्रीसद्गुरुचरणारविन्दार्पणमस्तु









Om Tat Sat



(My humble salutations  great Devotees , Philosophic Scholars, Advaita Vedanta dot org    for the collection)
��