"brahmavidyāṃ sarvavidyā pratiṣṭhām" – brahma vidya is the basis of all kinds of knowledge

 

Life experience of every individual can be classified into two precise parts – Self and non-Self.

The object in every act of cognition is non-Self or unātma. From one act of cognition to another, the object may change, but the subject or the Self is the same. 

The principle of awareness or consciousness, underlying every act of cognition, is the Self. In other words, Self is the consciousness which illumines one’s thoughts, feelings, body, the senses, object of senses, time, space, cause-effect, names and forms.  In other words, all those things revealed to Self, by virtue of Self being pure consciousness, are non-Self or unātma. So one’s thoughts, feelings, body, personality or personalities are unātma (non-Self). While the objects change - i.e. thoughts change, feelings change, body changes, personality changes - the witness of all of them the Self remains changeless consciousness. 

One’s senses or sense objects are unātma. This world of names and forms, cause and effect, all appears to one’s Self, hence this world of names and forms is unātma.

Our essential nature or Self is kevalānubhavānanda ~ kevala anubhava ānanda (pure awareness of the nature of bliss). Now what does this statement mean?

It simply states the obvious nature of the Self.

Self being pure consciousness is the basis of all experience or cognition. However, Self is always experienced in the here and now, as “I am”, without any qualifying adjuncts. But one identifies Self with the non-Self, as a qualifier. Simple examples would be “I am Eashwar” (Self qualified by name given to body), “I am body” (Self qualified by body, as the instrument which manifests consciousness), “my body hurts” (Self herewith identified with the changing physical process) etc. These simple phrases show how we normally qualify the Self with the non-Self (name, form, attributes etc.). Now qualifying the Self with non-Self (body, feelings etc.), is useful in so far as transacting in the world (e.g. our mundane transactions with each other and the world at large – like photo IDs, Biometrics, getting evaluated for leadership potential at work place, roles like parent, spouse, friend etc.).

But those transactions in no way contradicts one’s essential nature as kevalānubhavānanda – i.e. Self is pure awareness of the nature of bliss. The Self every remains as pure awareness, while non-Self seems to undergo transformations, subject to cause-effect paradigm. Said in another way,  it is because Self remains changeless that one individual can lay claim to varying life experiences as "those are my experiences". Hence to assert one’s essential nature as consciousness, does not involve any contradiction with one’s life experience involving non-Self (i.e. anything we cognize as apart from our essential nature as pure consciousness).

Now why is Self also called ānanda? The word ānanda means bliss or complete lack of suffering or limitation of any kind.

Self is bliss or ānanda, because : - 

(1)  Self as pure consciousness is illuminator of thoughts, feelings – both good and bad. So the cause-effect relations which seem to determine the mood of the individual, are themselves objects of cognition, illumined by the Self as pure consciousness. So Self is never touched by any feeling or mood. It simply illumines those moods or thoughts, like sunlight illumines dust particles. Thus, Self as it truly is, remains untainted by any loss or suffering (which is confined to domain of non-Self).

(2) Also Self being pure consciousness and illuminator of thoughts, is beyond thoughts - i.e. not limited by thoughts. Time, Space, Name, Form are all thought constructs, and Self is beyond it, thus unlimited by time, space, name and form. Hence, Self is infinite – beyond limitations or suffering.

In other words, our mood is affected only if we believe the Self (the real I) has a contact with the non-Self (and consequently affected by it). But Self by virtue of its essential nature being pure awareness, is not made of the same “stuff” as the non-Self (i.e. sattva, rajas, tamas). So the question of Self being tainted or coming into contact with non-Self, is not only logically inadmissible but it also contradicts our experience of Being – our experience of who we really area – the changeless Being-awareness, underlying all life experience. 

Thus Self’s essential nature is kevalānubhavānanda - pure awareness of the nature of bliss

Now how does this knowledge of Self help us ? Why does it matter ?

First and immediate benefit of this Self-knowledge or ātmavidya, is removing the ignorant view of the Self, which assumes Self can be tainted by proceedings or state of the non-Self (be it the body or thoughts or senses or sense objects or job or human relations or stock market). This “truth” about Self, consistent with “experience” and “reason”, enables the individual to overcome the old habit of superimposing the traits of non-Self on Self.

This however does not change the “facts” about accepting that non-Self (be it body, thoughts, people, money, job, climate etc.) may be in “good/happy/favorable state” or “bad/sad/unfavorable state”. One who recognizes one’s essential nature as the changeless Self/ātmā – pure consciousness, need not be a victim of identifying with non-Self (out of old habits, born out of the (erstwhile) ignorance of one's infinite nature).

“As Self  I am untainted by all the sorrow that non-Self (starting with body, feelings, this entire world) throws at me.”

Now onto the title of the blog....

Lets go back to the title of the (blog) reflection - brahmavidyāṃ sarvavidyā pratiṣṭhām, which is an extract from the mundaka upaniṣad mantram.

When the śruti says brahmavidyāṃ sarvavidyā pratiṣṭhām it means – knowledge of Brahman, is the basis or bedrock on which, other kinds of knowledge systems, abide....After all all other knowledge, rests on the knower, which in the ultimate sense is Self or Brahman. What it also implies, is that knowledge of Brahman must take precedence and prominence over knowing anything else in life.

Clearly two kinds of knowledge are being alluded to in the mantram – knowledge of Brahman and knowledge of everything else.  What is Brahman ? It is the changeless reality ever experienced in the here and now, as “I am”.

As śruti reveals in brihadāranyaka upaniśad – yatsākṣād aparokṣād brahma ya ātmā sarvāntarah – Brahman that is immediate and direct – the self that is within all.

Vedas do not say brahmavidya sarva vidya pratiśtitham,  as a hyperbole, but it’s a fundamental truth revealed to those in āstika samājam (those who have sraddhā in sruti prāmānam).

The primary teaching here is, unless you first know (or admit on the basis of śāstra pramāṇam) who you really are [i.e. the ātman/Self/Brahman/pure consciousness/changeless infinite reality] knowing anything else will be a liability, as in source of suffering. 

This suffering arises from the ignorant view (avidya) of the Self, as being affected by the non-Self, which it can never be. As Self is not in the same category as non-Self.

For Self to be of the same category as non-Self – Self must be prone to change and insentient in parts (if not in toto). But we know from our own experience – “I am” – the being-awareness experience of Self, is not dependent on anything, can never experience its absence (a contradiction in terms) and unchanged all through our life – so “I am neither insentient nor changeful nor have parts – but am the witness of all of non-Self – which can be described with words like insentient, changeful or having parts”.

This constant reflection on ātmānātma viveka (Self vs. non-Self discernment), drives the wedge of clarity between the two and thereby strongly immunizes us from the disease of ignorance of our essential nature, and thereby frees us from the symptom of the disease ~ namely suffering.

So unless we know who we are, what use is all the knowledge of non-Self (i.e. bread winning education, science, fine arts etc.) ? 

Why perpetuate the communicable disease called ignorance ? 

So let’s give first priority to brahmavidya or ātmavidya ahead of unātma vidya (or knowledge of non-Self). 

Then and then alone, can we have any hope of escaping suffering in toto, in the here and now.  

Those who think ātmavidya is not their cup of tea, are (knowingly or unknowingly) believers in avidya & unātma more than veda (brahmavidya= ātmavidya) and ātmā tattva.

Aum śāntih śāntih śāntih ||