TATTVA BODHA: KNOWLEDGE OF TRUTH

Commentary by Vishnudeva Sanders

Vedanta—also known as self-inquiry—is a means for gaining self-knowledge, the key to permanent freedom.
Since everyone values freedom, it pays to understand how self-inquiry works. The first step is to analyze your
goals in life which generally fall into four categories, the first three being artha, kama, and dharma.

Artha, wealth, is the pursuit of material security through the acquisition of money, food, shelter, clothing, family,
employment, status, fame or power. Kama, pleasure, is seeking to enjoy things, whether they be subtle like
relationships, art, music, and knowledge or gross like food, drugs and sex. Dharma, virtue, means acting
appropriately while avoiding wrongdoing. For some, this pursuit takes the form of religion. For others, it takes
the form of yoga or psychology, whereby they strive to remove unhelpful tendencies from their minds. And for
everyone else who doesn’t feel they personally lack virtue, they may set out to change the world by bringing
dharma to the rest of society.

But regardless of whether you chase security, pleasure or virtue—or anything else for that matter—you have to
ask yourself, “Why do I want these things in the first place? Is it for their own sake?” If you think about it, it’s
actually for the sake of freedom, freedom from the feeling that you are limited by your lack of security, pleasure
and virtue. Freedom translates to a feeling of happiness and limitation translates to a feeling of unhappiness.
And being unhappy isn’t acceptable to anyone. So since life often amounts to little more than the pursuit of
freedom/happiness through gaining security, pleasure and virtue, it makes sense to ask: Is what I’m doing really
working?

Say you feel financially insecure so you go out and get a good job. Once you’ve made some money you do feel
free from insecurity. But does this feeling last? What happens when you have to spend the money to pay for
your bills? The feeling of insecurity comes right back. Even if you make more money, desire itself doesn’t stop.
It just shows up in a different form—perhaps a desire for a bit of pleasure—and disturbs your sense of freedom
all over again. And to make matters worse, indulging that desire might even increase it. Food, drugs and sex are
good examples because having them once is usually not enough. For many they’re a compulsion, and compulsive
behavior robs you of your freedom like none other.

Generally speaking, when you get what you want it’s possible you’ll realize you didn’t really want it; then you have
a desire to get rid of it. Or maybe you like what you got but over time it changes and no longer makes you feel
happy. Or maybe it stays the same but your desires change.

No matter what the case may be, anything you chase for the sake of freedom/happiness doesn’t last. And
temporary freedom isn’t freedom at all. Since no one wants to be happy part-time it pays to recognize a simple
fact: If what you’ve been doing to get freedom was going to work, it would have worked by now. Continuing to
believe it will work is the cause of tremendous suffering.

Despite the fact that the freedom you experience—in the form of happiness—is only temporary, you do still
experience freedom. Taking experience at face value, it seems like the feeling of happiness is coming from your
interaction with objects. “Objects” means absolutely anything you can experience or know, from physical objects
like people, nature, possessions, situations, or your own body to internal objects like feelings, thoughts, memories

1
or dreams. Experience itself is an object. And although happiness seems to come from objects, it doesn’t. If it
did, then an object of happiness would give happiness to everyone, equally and at all times.

Peaceful devotional music is enjoyable for the quiet spiritual type but it’s terribly boring to his young neighbor.
Death metal is exciting to the young neighbor while it’s irritating to the quiet spiritual type. A big steak and cheese
burrito is attractive to a meat-eater but repulsive to a vegan. An organic sprouted chia and spirulina smoothie
might be ambrosia to a vegan but just a cup of green pond scum to a meat-eater. A husband might hate his wife
while their son loves her very much. Giving to charity is joyous for a philanthropist but dreadful for a miser. A
new video game is interesting to a child but disinteresting to the grandparent that gave it to them.

Perhaps this doesn’t matter. As long as something makes you happy, that’s what counts, right? But if there were
something that truly contained happiness, it would give you the same happiness all the time. Maybe chocolate
cake makes you happy. But does the fifth slice of chocolate cake make you just as happy as the first? And would
that cake make you happy if it was given to you right after you found out that one of your friends had been in a
terrible accident? Even something that initially makes you happy can later make you very unhappy. Any person
you’ve formerly had a relationship with is a good example. How could happiness be in Mr. or Mrs. Right if later
on they become Mr. or Mrs. Wrong?

Seeing that the same object can give different people different experiences or that the same object can give the
same person different experiences at different times, it becomes clear that happiness is not in the object. So the
next question is: If the happiness isn’t in the object, where is it coming from?

Since objects include any possible thing that you can experience or know, physically or mentally, then there is
only one other option: The happiness must be coming from you, the conscious subject, the one that knows the
objects. But why does it seem like it’s coming from the objects? The reason is that when you have a desire or
fear—which is just a desire to avoid something—it creates agitation in your mind that blocks the appreciation of
your true nature, which is freedom. You feel limited by what you don’t have or by the presence of something
you don’t want. But when you either get the object you want or avoid the object you don’t want, the desire or
fear goes away. Then the appreciation of your ever-free nature floods you mind as an experience of happiness.
So while it seems like objects are the source of happiness, they are just catalysts that remove desire and fear. If
you follow the logic here, ask yourself, “If what I’m seeking is freedom, and freedom is already my nature, do I
have the wrong idea about what I am?”

The answer is yes. By no fault of your own, you think you are limited, incomplete, bound and inadequate, forced
to seek happiness in the pursuit of objects. But in truth, you are limitless, complete and ever-free, never
dependent on any object of experience for your happiness. When you clearly see that only temporary happiness
is possible in the pursuit of objects, and that the happiness is not coming from the objects but from yourself, you
are ready for the fourth and final pursuit—moksha. Moksha doesn’t fall under the other three categories of
pursuits because it isn’t an object. Moksha is going for freedom directly, meaning it is an inquiry into your true
nature. You want the freedom that is your very self.

Action can definitely get you objects. But is there an action that can give you the freedom that is yourself, the
conscious subject? Common sense will tell you that you can’t do something to get what you already have or
become what you already are. Still, there are many who say a that a particular ‘spiritual’ experience is required

2
to become yourself or get in contact with yourself and that this experience will make you permanently happy.
But since experience itself is a temporary object, then the pursuit of spiritual experience for the sake of happiness
is the same thing as pursuing security, pleasure and virtue for happiness. It doesn’t work. Nor is it logically
possible. The one who does action to get a permanent experience of happiness is limited; they have limited
resources, power, knowledge and desire. How could a limited person, performing limited actions create a
limitless, permanent result?

The notion that a particular experience is required to get yourself—freedom—is based on the belief that
whatever you are experiencing right now is something other than yourself. This is called duality. However,
Vedanta says that reality is non-dual, that although it may seem otherwise, there is only you, the conscious
subject.

Let’s do an experiment to prove it. Ask yourself, “Where am I experiencing this article?” If you believe what your
senses are telling you, you’ll probably think you’re experiencing this article ‘out there’ on a computer screen or
piece of paper. But can you really find an article somewhere ‘out there’? No. You can only find the thought of it
in your mind, the idea of ‘out there’ being a thought itself. So how far is the thought of the article from your
mind? They are non-separate; you could say the thought is made out of the mind. But how do you know the
mind is there? Because you, the conscious subject, know it is there. And how far are you from your mind? Is
there a gap? No, your mind is non-separate from you. It is made out of yourself. This means that anything that
you ever experience, at any time in any place, is nothing but yourself. So the idea that action is required to gain
a particular experience of yourself is based on a misunderstanding: the non-recognition of the non-dual nature
of reality. Since success in the pursuit of freedom hinges on understanding this issue, here’s a traditional story
used by Vedanta to explain it.

Once, a band of travelers came to a raging river. There was no way around so they were forced to cross. After
they struggled mightily to make it to the other side, the leader of the expedition thought it would be a good idea
to take a head count and make sure everyone was there. He asked his fellow travelers to line up and he carefully
counted them. But to his dismay, he found there were only nine people. Someone was missing! In a panic he
recounted and once again he came up with nine. He and the other travelers fell to the ground, lamenting for
their lost friend.

Just then, a kindly old man approached. He asked what the trouble was and the leader of the group explained
the situation. The old man smiled slightly and said, “I know where the tenth person is, everyone please line up
again.” Overjoyed, the travelers eagerly complied. This time, the old man instructed the leader to also get in line.
Then, the old man counted slowly from one to ten. The leader, somewhat embarrassed, realized that he had
forgotten to count himself.

Now, in this story does the old man, through the action of counting, suddenly turn the leader of the group into
the tenth man or give the leader the tenth man that he was searching for? No. The old man only removes the
leader’s ignorance of the fact that he is, and always has been the tenth person he is seeking. Similarly, the
contention of Vedanta is that you are and always have been free, so there is nothing you can do to make yourself
free.

3
Knowing that you can’t do an action to get free, the situation may seem dire. If not for action, how can you get
what you want? Is there another way available? If what you want is yourself, yes. Since freedom is your nature,
all you need is knowledge. In other words, you need to understand that you are already free, similar to the way
the tenth man needed to understand he was already the tenth man. But in order to get this knowledge, a proper
means is required.

Typically, your means of knowledge is your mind and senses. You use perception and inference to gather
information and come to certain conclusions. Why won’t this work when you are interested in gaining knowledge
of yourself? It’s because you’re not available for objectification. You can’t be seen, heard, tasted, touched or
smelled. You can’t be thought of by the mind. You are formless and free of attributes so to remove ignorance of
your true nature, another means of knowledge is needed—Vedanta is that means. It doesn’t give you the self,
connect you with the self or prove that the self exists. It’s just a teaching methodology that uses words to ‘reveal’
the ever-present and self-evident self that you already are.

It’s important to mention that Vedanta was not invented by a particular person or a group of people. Nor is it
information that was channeled through a person or group of people. Vedanta is called apaurushayjnanam,
“knowledge not from people.” Instead of coming from people, Vedanta came to people. But this doesn’t mean
it’s some form of mystical revelation. The logic of Vedanta is simply knowledge that is inherent in the creation
itself, similar to knowledge of gravity. Like gravity and its ‘discoverer’, Sir Isaac Newton, the knowledge of Vedanta
was already present; it just required the right kind of person to ‘discover’ it.

Think of it like radio waves. There are radio waves passing through the air right now. But in order to be heard,
there must be a receiver that is properly tuned. When the radio waves become known, it can’t be said that they
come from the receiver or that the receiver created them. They simply came to the receiver.

Similarly, when the minds of the original rishis, seers, were properly tuned—meaning prepared—they discovered
the already present knowledge of the self. But because the rishis were people just like you or me, the knowledge
they discovered had to be investigated to make sure it was not tainted by their personal biases. And over time,
through this process of verification, a universal, impersonal methodology developed in order to communicate
the knowledge to others. This is an important feature of Vedanta that shows it is a time tested means of
knowledge free from the beliefs, opinions and ignorance of individual people.

If this still doesn’t make sense, then try thinking of the laws of physics. Scientists did not personally create them,
but with the right equipment, they investigated the laws of physics that were already present in nature. This
knowledge didn’t come from them or through them. It came to them. They saw what was already there and
then they put together what they found into a body of knowledge. In order to do this, the knowledge had to be
verified by others. During this process, if someone came to a different conclusion, contrary to proof, it was
thrown out. Why? Because truth is truth regardless of a person’s erroneous views about it.

This applies to Vedanta insofar as the truth that is discovered by one person is the same truth discovered by
another person. This is due to the fact that truth is of the nature of the self and the self never changes, regardless
of time, place, circumstance or your personal opinions and beliefs about it. In the case of self-knowledge there is
no ‘your truth and my truth.’ There is only truth—the singular, non-dual self—and the means of knowledge to
‘reveal’ it, Vedanta, is purified of the bias of subjective viewpoints.

4
Originally, Vedanta was an oral tradition. Only later was it written down as a group of scriptures known as the
Upanishads. Although the word “scripture” may conjure up ideas of authoritarianism or dogmatism, Vedanta
being a scriptural tradition is a good thing because it gives the student a third-party objective source to verify the
words of the teacher. So the scripture is your friend, protector and guide.

However, this doesn’t mean that you should read scripture with the idea that you are going to teach yourself, no
matter how intelligent you are. The subject matter is extremely subtle and contains many apparently contra-
dictory statements. So in order to ensure that you understand its meaning, it’s crucial that Vedanta be taught to
you by a competent teacher. But the intention isn’t to make you dependent on the teacher because once
Vedanta has been taught to you, you can use the means of knowledge on yourself, consulting the teacher only
when you can’t resolve your doubts on your own.

So how does it work? Self-inquiry, Vedanta, has three stages. The first is called shravana, listening. This is when
you take what you think you know about yourself, temporarily set it aside, and listen to what the teaching has to
say with an open mind. Only after you have truly listened without critique or judgment can you take what you
currently think and examine it in light of Vedanta—but not the other way around. If you evaluate Vedanta by
what you think or feel about it, it won’t work. Because if what you already think is totally in alignment with
Vedanta, you wouldn’t be seeking freedom through Vedanta in the first place. So it’s important to examine your
views according to the logic of Vedanta, keeping those that are in harmony with the truth of who you are, and
discarding the rest. This process is the second stage of self-inquiry called manana, reflection.

Once you’ve gotten rid of false ideas about yourself, owing to habit, the negative thought patterns you’ve
previously developed from them may continue to arise. When that happens you have to bring your mind back
to the knowledge of who you are again and again until the negative tendencies cease or are at least ameliorated.
This stage is called nididhyasana, assimilation, and it’s getting your thinking in line with who you really are.

And that’s all there is to it. Vedanta isn’t fancy or mystical. It’s just a practical, straight-forward means of
knowledge that helps you to reevaluate the unexamined assumptions that you make about your everyday
experience, namely, that you are a limited, inadequate mind living inside of a body, a person subject to death,
decay and suffering. Your everyday experience is actually telling you everything you need to know about your
true self. You simply need a means like Vedanta to examine and understand that information. Since it’s already
been mentioned that Vedanta is a means of knowledge based on scripture, the best way to learn more about it
is to study the scripture itself. For those unfamiliar with Vedanta and its scriptures, Tattva Bodha is the ideal
scripture to study first.

5
 A NOTE

This translation is based on the English translations and commentaries of Swami Dayananda, Swami
Paramarthananda, Swami Tejoymayananda and my own teacher, James Swartz. It isn’t scholarly or literal, nor
was that my intention. Instead, I’ve tried to impart the meaning of the text in easily accessible language, with as
little Sanskrit as possible. Some may object to the fact that in a few instances I have added material for the sake
of clarity and in others I’ve condensed or deleted material that isn’t absolutely necessary for self-inquiry, examples
being the sections on the grossification of the five elements (panchikarana) and the presiding deities of the sense
organs. However, I have in no way whatsoever deviated from spirit or truth of Vedanta. For those of you
interested in an all-inclusive, word-for-word Sanskrit to English translation of Tattvabodha, I highly recommend
Swami Dayananda’s version, published by Arsha Vidya.

Most Vedantic terms in this text have been translated into English. For their Sanskrit equivalents, see the
appended glossary.

-Vishnudeva Sanders

6
 KNOWLEDGE OF TRUTH
(TATTVA BODHA)

Bodha means knowledge. And in this context, tattva means truth. But what is truth? Truth is that which is eternal,
exists independently and does not change. Only the self fits this definition so knowledge of truth is self-knowledge.

INVOCATION

The teacher dispels the darkness of self-ignorance with the light of self-knowledge.
Salutations to the self in that form.

In a non-dual reality, everything is the self. So when you bow to the teacher, you are bowing to the self that they
represent. You are also acknowledging that the teaching comes to you by the grace of the teacher and it came to
them by the grace of their teacher etc. So with this prayer you express gratitude for the fact that the teaching
tradition has preserved and passed the teaching on, making it possible for you to study it now.

PURPOSE OF THE TEXT

Tattvabodha, the knowledge of truth, is presented here for those seeking freedom (moksha).
The direct means of attaining freedom is the discrimination between the self (atma) and the
not-self (anatma). The method of discrimination which will be unfolded in this text is for
those endowed with the four-fold qualifications.

Freedom is attained through knowledge alone, arrived at by discrimination. But discrimination is only possible for
those who are properly qualified, meaning mentally prepared. For this reason the qualifications are listed at the
beginning of the text. They’re essential prerequisites. Everyone possesses these qualities to some degree but in
order to gain self-knowledge, these qualities must be properly developed. If you are having difficulty
understanding the teaching, it’s helpful to refer to this list of qualifications to see where your spiritual practice
needs work. The methods for developing your qualifications—which are not discussed in this text—are karma
yoga, meditation, devotional practice and the strict observance of dharma.

7
 THE FOUR-FOLD QUALIFICATIONS

The four-fold qualifications are discrimination, dispassion, the six-fold accomplishments and
an all-consuming desire for freedom.

Discrimination

What is discrimination? It is the understanding that the self alone is eternal and unchanging.
Thus, only the self is real. All else (the not-self) is finite and ever changing; therefore it is
unreal. Distinguishing between the real (the self), and the unreal (the not-self) is
discrimination.

It’s important here to discuss the meaning of “real” and “unreal.” In Vedanta, the term for “real” is satya, a word
used to describe the nature of the self. Satya means “existence” or “that which exists independently.” The term
for “unreal” is mithya which means “that which depends on the self for its existence.” A clay pot is a common
example used to illustrate satya, mithya and the relationship between the two. The name and form that you refer
to as “clay pot” doesn’t exist independently. Instead, it depends on clay for its apparent existence because without
clay there is no clay pot. But, if you take away the name and form “clay pot,” the clay remains. It doesn’t depend
on the name and form “clay pot” to exist. Even if the clay is formed into a different pot, it continues to exist and
stays completely unchanged. So in this example, the clay is satya and the name and form called “clay pot” is
mithya.

Similarly, the self is satya. It exists independently before, during, and after all names and forms. The names and
forms appearing in the self are mithya (the not-self). Like the pot to the clay, they borrow their seeming existence
from the self. But also like the pot to the clay, you can take away all of the names and forms and the self remains
unchanged. This is an important fact to remember about the self because something can only be real, satya, if it
never changes. If something is one thing one moment, and something else the next, or if it comes into existence
and then stops existing, it can only be said to be mithya, unreal. Understanding the distinction and relationship
between satya and mithya is fundamental to discrimination.

To investigate further, think about this: When you experience a tree, your body, or a thought, there is
consciousness plus a tree, consciousness plus a body and consciousness plus a thought. In each of these
experiences the objects—the tree, body and thought—come into existence, stay a while and then goes out of
existence. And while the objects exist, they are subject to change. This means they are mithya.

But what about the consciousness present in each experience? It exists prior to, during, and after the presence
of the objects. And at each stage of the experience, consciousness remains unchanged. Do you have to get a
different kind of consciousness to experience a tree or your body or a particular thought? No. This means that
consciousness is satya. It is the self.

8
Another way to look at it is to ask yourself, “How can I say that an external object like a tree or an internal object
like a thought exists?” If you think about it, the conclusion you will come to is that an object can only be said to
exist when it is seen in the light of consciousness. The object can’t reveal itself without consciousness, so it
depends on consciousness for its existence. But, does consciousness depend on the object to exist? Not at all,
because consciousness is self-revealing. It is self-evident and independent of the objects it reveals. So
consciousness is satya, independently existent, and the objects are mithya—dependent on satya for their
apparent existence.

Note: When the word “consciousness” is used in this text, it isn’t referring to a part, property, product or function
of the body or mind or a combination of both. “Consciousness” is a word that refers to the nature of the self. And
the consciousness that is the self is that which reveals the parts, properties, products and functions of the body
and mind. The ever-changing body and mind—which depend on the self for their existence—are mithya.

Dispassion

What is dispassion? It is the understanding that the results of all actions are temporary
because they are conditioned by time. Thus, they cannot grant permanent freedom from the
sense of personal limitation and lack, which is what you are truly seeking, not the results
themselves. When this is understood, objectivity and indifference arise regarding the results
of your actions. While you may still perform action for the sake of certain results, you are
freed from excessive concern and longing for them. This is dispassion.

If you want permanent freedom you have to understand that you can’t get it with action because the results of
action are always temporary. It doesn’t make sense that a multitude of finite actions will add up to an infinite
result.

However, the way you approach action is very important for preparing your mind for freedom. How so? Usually,
your mind is preoccupied with getting what you want and avoiding what you don’t want. In other words, you are
always worried about the results your actions will bring. This causes considerable anxiety for the mind and an
anxious mind is unsuitable for seeking self-knowledge.

But is this anxiety warranted? Since temporary results will not give you the permanent freedom you are seeking,
then no. What’s the point of being upset by the fact that action can’t give you something it’s incapable of giving
you in the first place? Besides, if you look at action itself, you’ll see that the only part of the process that is under
your control is performing an action to the best of your ability. But once you’ve done that you have no idea what
is going to happen. You might get what you want, something you don’t want, something you neither want nor
don’t want, or something else completely unexpected. Knowing this, worrying about the results of your actions
seems unreasonable, doesn’t it?

9
So when you clearly comprehend that action cannot give you what you truly want and that the results of actions
aren’t up to you anyway, you can happily perform actions without being anxious about the results. This helps to
produce a mind suitable for gaining self-knowledge.

The Six-Fold Accomplishments

What are the six-fold accomplishments? The first accomplishment is a composed mind,
available for contemplation.

Discrimination—the key to permanent freedom—requires continuous contemplation. This isn’t possible in a

The first is that as the non-dual self, there is nothing other than you and you are unchanging. If there’s nothing
other than you, then there’s nothing to fear, unless you are afraid of yourself. And if you are unchanging—which
means you can’t be harmed or have anything taken from you—then there’s also no reason for fear. The second
is that since you are whole and complete—meaning you lack nothing—what is the need for desire? The third is
that the bottom line of being non-dual, limitless, whole, complete and unchanging is that you are always okay.
Since that is the case, what is the reason for holding on to negative emotions?

The second accomplishment is control of the senses.

If the senses aren’t properly controlled, the mind will be extroverted, preoccupied with experiencing objects.
With the mind’s attention tied up in objects, the continuous self-inquiry required for freedom isn’t possible. So
the senses need to be reined in. And for this to happen you need to reflect on the fact that happiness is not in
objects of the senses that you want to experience. If it were, each object would give happiness equally to
everyone; if it were, once you had the object of your desire, you wouldn’t need to seek happiness again. But
different people react differently to the same object. And an object that gives you happiness one moment can
give you sorrow the next. By contemplating this, the senses can gradually be withdrawn from compulsively
pursuing objects, freeing the mind to seek the true source of happiness: the freedom of your limitless nature.

The third accomplishment is the observance of one’s own duty, the ability to consistently do
what is to be done and to avoid what is not to be done, regardless of personal preference.

10
Life has given you absolutely everything: the entire world, as well as a body and mind to experience it. In return,
all you have to do is respond appropriately to the situations you encounter. This is called following dharma, which
is dictated by common sense or, if you lack common sense, scripture. If you base your choices purely on your likes
and dislikes alone, without taking dharma into account, your mind becomes disturbed. Why? Because you are
likely to act inappropriately to get what you want or neglect what needs to be done in order to avoid what you
don’t want. So doing what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, attenuates your likes and dislikes and
contributes to a calm mind, capable of inquiry.

This includes doing actions that are properly suited to your nature. It isn’t helpful to try to be someone or
something you’re not because it leads to inner conflict. Appreciate yourself for who you are and act accordingly,
always attending to your own affairs, in order to ensure proper growth and maturity.

The fourth accomplishment is the capacity to endure difficult and uncomfortable situations.

The fourth accomplishment could be described as a ‘stick-with-it’ attitude. With its constant ups and downs, life
is difficult enough on its own. Dealing with your life, while constantly discriminating, is even more difficult and
requires a lot of determination. But when your goal—freedom—is clear, you will gladly suffer life’s little
inconveniences in order to accomplish it.

The fifth accomplishment is an open-minded trust regarding the words of the teacher and
the teaching.

Essentially, all Vedanta is asking you to believe is that you are okay, until you have done enough inquiry to know
for a fact that it’s true. Thinking “I’m not okay” is just a belief, a false one at that. So why not trust the scripture
and adopt the new belief that, “I am okay. I’m whole and complete.” This makes inquiry a lot easier. Having
doubts is fine. Vedanta gladly gives you the tools to resolve them. But being in love with your doubts and
constantly second-guessing the teaching is unproductive. A skeptic remains a skeptic if they are unable to be-
come an earnest inquirer into the truth. In other words, a seeker of truth never becomes a finder of truth with-
out an open-minded willingness to examine—in the light of knowledge—the very beliefs and assumptions that
are keeping them in ignorance.

The sixth accomplishment is a single-pointed mind that is able to focus on a given topic.

Discrimination requires constant vigilance. So self-inquiry doesn’t work unless your mind is able to focus on it for
long periods of time.

11
 All Consuming Desire For Freedom

What is an all-consuming desire for freedom? It is when freedom is your primary desire and
foremost priority.

When you fully grasp that you can’t get permanent freedom from pursuing objects, you give up chasing them and
pursue freedom directly through self-knowledge. All of your desires, which were formerly directed towards
pursuing objects, are directed towards freedom.

It’s important to mention that this doesn’t mean you have to quit your job and run away from your family and
responsibilities; keep in mind that the third accomplishment is doing your own personal duty. So understanding
that you won’t get permanent freedom from your everyday activities doesn’t mean you stop doing them or even
enjoying them. You just perform the actions with the right attitude and in the correct manner, in order to prepare
your mind for self-knowledge. And it’s self-knowledge—not the giving up of your responsibilities—that leads to
permanent freedom.

These are the four-fold qualifications that are required for making the discrimination between
the self and the not-self. This discrimination is necessary owing to the fact that the self, which
is ever free, limitless, and unchanging is mistaken to be the not-self: the body, mind and all
forms of experience. Owing to this ignorance (avidya), the self is falsely believed to be subject
to bondage, limitation and change. Thus, suffering arises and a means is required to remove
it. That means is the knowledge of truth, arrived at by discrimination.

What is the knowledge of truth? It is the settled understanding that the self alone is real, all
else (the not-self) is unreal and, “I am that self, ever free of the body, mind and experience. I
am existence, consciousness and limitlessness.”

Reality is non-dual but experience seems to tell you otherwise. So, for the purpose of discrimination, Vedanta
conditionally posits two categories in existence: “I”, the self, the conscious subject and “that”, the not-self,
unconscious objects. Owing to ignorance, you take the “I”, the self, to be the “that”, the not-self, and you suffer.
Since there is a confusion between the two, you need to understand what you are and what you are not in order
to sort it out. So the next section of the text outlines what you are not—the not-self. Objectifying and
understanding the not-self is the first step in destroying your belief in its reality, and—more importantly—your
identification with it.

12
 THE NOT-SELF

Because reality is non-dual, there is no actual not-self. But despite this fact, you seem to experience a not-self. So
to simply deny your experience because it isn’t actually real is completely unproductive. Instead, the seeming
not-self needs to be properly understood, along with its ‘relationship’ to the self. For this reason the text
introduces the concepts of the three bodies, five sheaths and three states. The intention is not to prove their
actual existence. Instead, they are presented in order to give you several different ways to objectify your everyday
experience, and by doing so, understand how you are neither involved in it nor affected by it. By negating every
facet of your experience as being unreal—not-self—it’s possible through implication to understand yourself, the
self. Here is an established criteria for discrimination:

1. All forms of experience, both mental and physical, are objects known to you, the self. But the objects
don’t know you because they aren’t conscious. You, the self, are conscious, so you can’t be the
unconscious objects.
2. You, the self, are eternal, ever-present, and unchanging—you are real. All objects known to you are
temporary, constantly coming, going, and changing—they are unreal. You, the self, are real, so you can’t
be the unreal objects.
3. You, the self, exist independently. That you are existent and conscious is self-evident, requiring no
external means to be known. But objects depend on you, the self (consciousness), for their existence
because nothing can be shown without consciousness. Therefore, you, the independently existent self,
can’t be the dependently existent objects.

Summary: You are conscious, real and independently existent. So you can’t be the unconscious, unreal objects
that depend upon you for their seeming existence. You can apply this discrimination to each part of the not-self,
starting with the three bodies.

THE THREE BODIES

THE GROSS BODY

What is the gross body? It is inert, insentient matter, a combination of the physically manifest
forms of the five elements (space, air, fire, water, earth). It is born due to good actions in the
past and is the instrument with which experience of the world is gathered. After it comes
into existence it is born, it grows, it undergoes changes, it degenerates and it dies.

The body is nothing but a combination of the five elements, matter, and matter is not conscious. Yet you, the self,
are conscious. The body is continuously subject to change but the self is unchanging. The self is ever-present but
the body isn’t because it disappears in dream and deep sleep. Furthermore, if the body were ever-present, then
your baby-body, childhood-body, or even your body from last week would still be here, but they aren’t. They’ve
all disappeared but you, the self, remain. Also, while the body previously did not exist, and will not exist in the

13
future, the self always has and always will exist. This existence is independent, unlike the body. The body depends
on matter for its seeming existence, and matter depends upon consciousness (the self) for its existence. For all of
these reasons you, the self, cannot be the gross body.

THE SUBTLE BODY

What is the subtle body? The subtle body is made of the five elements in their non-physical
forms. It is born due to good actions of the past and is the means for enjoyment of pleasure,
pain, etc. The subtle body is composed of the five organs of perception, the five organs of
action and the five physiological functions. In addition, it contains the inner instrument made
up of mind, intellect, ego and memory.

Owing to previous good actions, you have a human subtle body. This is only relevant to self-inquiry insofar as
discrimination requires the capabilities of a human intellect. A dog, for instance, can’t do self-inquiry because it
lacks the ability to self-reflect. So what is the subtle body made of? It is composed of energy, matter in its non-
physical form. Energy is not conscious and you, the self, are conscious. On this basis alone you can negate the
possibility of yourself being the subtle body. However, we can look at each part of the subtle body in more detail
in order to understand and objectify it better.

The Organs of Perception

The five organs of perception are: ear for the perception of sound; skin for the perception of
touch; eye for the perception of sight; tongue for the perception of taste; nose for the
perception of smell.

Each organ of perception corresponds to its physical counterpart in the gross body. For instance, the organ of ear
in the subtle body is what allows the physical ear of the gross body to hear. You can infer the existence of the
organ of ear because someone may have a physical ear but be unable to hear. The same is true for the organ of
eye etc.

Why are these organs of perception not-self? Because perception is an unconscious object known to you. Also,
perception is ever-changing. One moment the eye sees one thing, the next moment something else. Or one
moment the ear is hearing something, the next moment the skin is feeling something etc. If you were changing
with the perceptions, the you that was present a moment ago would be gone, and a new you would be present.
But the new you would be unable to report a different perception because it was previously absent, and therefore
unable to witness the change in perception. In order to say that perception is changing, you, the unchanging self,
have to be present to reveal it.

14
Furthermore, the objects of perception depend on you, the self, to exist. An object can’t be said to exist without
being revealed by the light of the self, consciousness. If you could take away the self—which isn’t actually
possible—there would be no objects. But if you take away the objects, there is still the self. For example, when
the perception of the eye is not present, you are still there. You exist prior to, during, and after all perceptions.
For all of these reasons, you cannot be the organs of perception.

The Organs of Action

The five organs of action—speech, hands, legs, excretion and procreation—animate their
physical counterparts in the gross body. The organ of speech enables the vocal chords to
speak; the organ of hands enables the functions of the physical hands and arms; the organ of
legs makes the movement of the physical legs possible; the organ of excretion allows the
anus to expel waste; the organ of procreation enlivens the genitals.

Again, we infer the presence of the organs of actions because someone can, for instance, have vocal cords, but
be unable to speak, have legs, but be unable to move them etc. The organs of action are unconscious matter, in
the form of energy so they can’t be you, the conscious self. The organs of action continuously change and even
disappear in deep sleep so they can’t be you, the unchanging, ever-present self. The organs of action depend
upon energy to exist. In turn, energy depends on you, the self, to be said to exist. For these reasons you can’t be
the organs of action.

The Inner Instruments

The inner instruments are mind, intellect, ego and memory. The mind receives information
from each individual sense organ and combines it into a unified experience. The mind is also
the seat of emotion. Doubt, the vacillation between two thoughts or ideas, is another
function of the mind. Discriminating between two thoughts or ideas, analyzing them, and
then making a determination, is intellect. Ego is notions in the intellect such as, “I am the
doer of actions, I am the enjoyer of the results of actions.” It is also the notion of ownership
such as, “This is my mind, this is my body etc.” In general, it is any notion one has about
themselves such as, “I am short, I am intelligent, I am generous, I am poor, I belong to a
particular group, party, family etc.” Recollection of previous experience is memory.

In everyday situations, the collection of inner instruments is generically referred to as “mind” and the mind is
thought to be the source of consciousness. But this isn’t true. From the standpoint of consciousness, the self, the
inner instruments and their functions are known objects and are therefore unconscious. It’s exceptionally
important to remember this when doing self-inquiry. The inner instruments are simply a collection of thoughts:

15
perceptions, doubts, determinations, ideas of ownership and doer-ship, notions about yourself, and memories.
These thoughts don’t constitute consciousness because they are revealed by consciousness. This means that the
inner instruments depend on consciousness for their seeming existence and can’t be you, the independently
existent self. And since the inner instruments are subject to change, they can’t be you, the unchanging self. Finally,
the inner instruments are not always present, such as in deep sleep, so they can’t be you, the ever-present self.

THE CAUSAL BODY

What is the causal body? It is indefinable, beginningless ignorance, free of forms and
divisions. It is the cause of the subtle body, the gross body and ignorance of one’s true
nature.

Why don’t you know that you are the self? Because of self-ignorance. Where does this ignorance come from?
The causal body, which is also the cause of the subtle body and the gross body. Now, the existence of the gross
and subtle body is obvious because you experience them. But how do you know there is a causal body? Through
inference.

For instance, it’s clear that you aren’t the creator of your physical body. And your mind—which is nothing but a
string of thoughts, feelings, emotions and memories—appears to you unbidden and unexpectedly, the proof
being that you never know what you are going to think next. So you can be certain you aren’t the creator of the
mind either.

Since you aren’t the creator, you have to infer that the body and mind have an unseen cause. But just in case you
think the self is the cause, the text introduces the causal body. Like a seed containing the unmanifest potential of
a tree, the causal body contains the unmanifest potential for the gross and subtle body. But unlike a seed, the
causal body is formless and can’t be experienced directly. Only its effects—the mind and body—can be
experienced.

The causal body is a complex topic, parts of which will be dealt with later in the text but for the time being, here
are some important things to know about the causal body.

“It is…ignorance…the cause of the subtle body etc...” The fundamental tenet of Vedanta is that reality is non-dual:
There is only the self and nothing else. So how can it appear to be a multiplicity of things like the subtle body etc.?
Ignorance. In other words, through misunderstanding you see innumerable different objects where there is only
non-dual formless consciousness.

For instance, say you walk into a jewelry store. In a glass case you believe you are seeing various kinds of gold
rings, bracelets, earrings and chains. But are you really? No, you are only seeing gold. If you are ignorant of what
gold is, you will take the appearance of individual pieces of jewelry to be real. But when the gold is known to you,
they are seen to be only gold.

16
It is a similar situation with the self. When you are ignorant of the self, you take the appearance of various objects
such as the body and mind to be real. But unlike the appearance of the jewelry, you identify with the body and
mind and think they are you! However, when the self is known, they are seen to be only the self. So ignorance
‘causes’ the objects insofar as it makes the non-dual self appear to be something other than what it really is. How
this happens will be discussed in the upcoming section of the text about maya.

But before moving on, here’s something to think about as you continue your study of this text: If ignorance, not
you, is the cause of the body and mind, is the sense of responsibility for what the body and mind is and what it
does—and the sorrow that results from that sense of responsibility—really warranted?

“It is…beginningless ignorance...” This can be looked at two ways. First, ignorance is synonymous with the causal
body and the causal body is the cause of the mind and body. Since the causal body is the cause of everything, it
itself doesn’t have a cause. So in that regard it is beginningless, or more precisely, causeless.

Second, to say that ignorance has a beginning means it had a prior non-existence. How can something that
doesn’t exist—like the son of a woman who cannot have children—ever come into existence? It isn’t possible, so
ignorance must have always existed. Besides, if ignorance had a prior non-existence, what would have to be there
in its place? Knowledge. And if knowledge was already present, ignorance couldn’t come to be. So for all of these
reasons, ignorance has to be beginningless.

In truth, it’s not important whether ignorance has a beginning or not. You do not need to know where it comes
from. You only need to know what it is so you can get rid of it.

“It is…indefinable…ignorance…” In this context, the word “indefinable” is synonymous with the word “mithya.”
Mithya is indefinable because it is neither truly real nor truly unreal, neither truly existent nor truly non-existence.
It defies categorization. You can’t say ignorance is truly real or existent, satya, because it depends on
consciousness, the self, to exist. You can’t be ignorant if you aren’t conscious. But you can’t say ignorance is truly
unreal or non-existent either because it can be experienced. Therefore ignorance is mithya. And this is good
news because anything that is mithya is impermanent. So even though ignorance has no beginning, it can
definitely have an end.

“It is…free of forms and divisions.” Whether you are ignorant of your true nature, the particulars of cellular biology
or even what’s happening in the next room, the object of ignorance may differ, but the ignorance itself is the
same. Ignorance is one, so it is “free of forms and divisions.”

Also, since the causal body contains the potential objects and this potential is undifferentiated and unmanifest,
the causal body is said to be “free of forms and divisions.”

THE FIVE SHEATHS

What are the five sheaths? They are another way of viewing the three bodies. They are the
food sheath, the vital air sheath, the mind sheath, the intellect sheath, and the bliss sheath.

17
This section of the text offers an alternate way to look at the three bodies: the five sheaths. The food sheath is
the gross body. The vital air, mind, and intellect sheaths are the subtle body. The bliss sheath is the causal body.
They are referred to as sheaths because they seem to ‘cover’ the self. But since the self can’t actually be covered,
it’s more appropriate to think of the sheaths as ‘universal errors.’ In other words, each sheath is a way that
everyone mistakes the self to be the not-self. For instance, when you think “I am the body,” you are mistaking the
“I”, the self, to be the food sheath, the not-self.

Each time these mistaken thoughts occur, the sheath can be discriminated from the self in the same way as the
three bodies. First, the sheaths are unconscious, ever-changing objects so they can’t be the conscious, unchanging
self. Second, the sheaths depend on matter for their existence. Matter, in turn, depends upon you, consciousness,
for its existence. Since this is the case, the five sheaths cannot be you, the independently existent self.

The point isn’t to stop these mistaken thoughts from happening because that would be impossible. But when
they do happen, they need to be recognized for what they are: errors where the self is being identified with the
not-self. And then they need to be negated with discrimination. Through continuous discrimination, the
identification with the not-self can be broken and identification with your true nature—the self—can be
established.

THE FOOD SHEATH

What is the food sheath? The gross body is composed solely of what you have eaten in the
past. Therefore it is called the food sheath.

When you see an apple sitting on the table, you don’t mistake it to be yourself. But as soon as you eat the apple,
you start referring to it as ‘me’ because the body is nothing but what you have previously eaten. So if you find
yourself identifying with the body, aside from applying the discriminations that have already been mentioned,
contemplate the fact that it’s nothing more than a moving collection of reprocessed fruits, vegetables, grains,
meats and dairy. So you can’t be the food sheath unless you think you’re the contents of your refrigerator and
pantry.

Identification with the food sheath is indicated by thoughts pertaining to the body such as, “I am tall, I am fat, I am
male, I am female, I am black, I am white, etc.”

18
 THE VITAL AIR SHEATH

What is the vital air sheath? It is the five physiological functions of which the first four are:
respiration, evacuation (excretion), circulation and assimilation. The fifth physiological
function is a power that reverses other vital air functions: it is the cause of vomiting, sneezing,
belching etc. It also ejects the subtle body from the gross body at the time of death.
Additionally, the vital air sheath includes the five organs of action.

The vital air sheath is responsible for the health and proper functioning of the food sheath. It animates and
enlivens the physical body. Identification with the vital air sheath is indicated by such thoughts as, “I am sick, I am
breathing, I sneezed, I am digesting my food, I have to urinate, etc.”

THE MIND SHEATH

What is the mind sheath? It is the mind together with the five organs of perception.

The mind sheath is where perception, emotion and doubt occur. Identification with the mind sheath can be
indicated by such thoughts as, “I see, hear, taste, etc. I am happy, sad, etc. I don’t know what to do, what is going
on, etc.”

THE INTELLECT SHEATH

What is the intellect sheath? It is the intellect together with the five organs of perception.

The intellect is the faculty of reason and the instrument used to come to conclusions. It is the seat of the ego, the
notion of your apparent self and the idea of doership. The organs of perception are included in this sheath as well
because perception is often required in making determinations. Identification with the intellect sheath can be
indicated by thoughts such as, “I am thinking, I know such and such, I am the doer of actions and the enjoyer of
the results. I am a good person, bad person, father, daughter, husband, aunt. I am a fireman, a postal worker, a
political conservative or a liberal etc.”

THE BLISS SHEATH

What is the bliss sheath? It is self-ignorance and the experience of limitlessness. It is the
source of the various degrees of pleasure.

19
Since the bliss sheath is the causal body, the cause of experience itself, it can’t be experienced directly, only its
effects. Pleasure is one such effect. But why mention pleasure specifically and not another experience, like
sorrow, which also must come from the causal body?

Because when you analyze sorrow, what do you find? There is you, the subject, experiencing an object that you
don’t like and there is a desire for that object to go away or change into an object that you do like. In other words,
there is a division between the ‘wanter’ and the wanted and there is desire, which is inherently uncomfortable
because being separate from something you want is unpleasant. But what about pleasure?

In an experience of pleasure, you get what you want and the division of the ‘wanter’ and the wanted disappears,
along with the uncomfortable desire that caused it. When there is no division in the mind, it has essentially
resolved into the divisionless causal body. And without any agitating desire present, the undivided mind is able to
accurately ‘reflect’ or ‘appreciate’ the nature of the self—which is limitless and whole—and this translates into an
experience of pleasure or bliss. This is why the experience of pleasure is mentioned and not sorrow.

Another experience that is an effect of the bliss sheath is ignorance, because it is the cause of ignorance itself.
Identification with the bliss sheath is indicated by such statements as, “I feel good, I feel whole, etc. I do not know,
I did not know, etc.”

CONCLUSION: THE SELF IS NONE OF THESE

Although you refer to your possessions as ‘mine’ in statements such as, “My clothes, my
house, my family etc.” they are different from yourself. Similarly, although you refer to the
three bodies or the five sheaths as ‘mine,’ in such statements as, “My body, my physiological
functions, my mind, my intellect, and my ignorance,” they are different from yourself. They
are not-self. You are the self, ever untouched or unaffected by the three bodies and five
sheaths, just as a seer is untouched by what is seen or just as a sword is unaffected by its
scabbard.

You don’t take your possessions to be yourself, even though you refer to them as ‘mine.’ If you don’t confuse
yourself with your house, for example, then why would you do it with your body and mind? Your body and mind
are unconscious objects that are known to you the same way you know your home, your car, and your family
members.

Discriminating between yourself and the body and mind requires you to continuously monitor your thoughts.
When you find yourself saying “I”, stop yourself and ask: What “I” am I referring to? For example, say you think “I
am angry.” At that point you can stop and see that the “I” you are identifying with is the mind sheath and you can
dismiss it as not-self. But if recognizing the identification alone isn’t enough to negate it, walk through the
supporting logic. After all, we’re after understanding here, not denial.

20
First, the emotion is an unconscious object known to you, the conscious subject. Second, the emotion was not
previously present and will eventually go away but you are there before, during and after the emotion. You are
ever-present. Third, the emotion depends on matter to exist, which in turn depends on consciousness to exist
but you are independently existent consciousness itself. For all these reasons you can’t be the mind sheath.

This line of inquiry can and must be applied to every instance of identification with the five sheaths or three bodies.
And once the identification with the not-self has been recognized and negated through understanding, it’s
important to assert your identity as the conscious subject, the self, which is unaffected by the sheaths and bodies.
In fact, that’s the whole point of discrimination: to re-establish your true identity, which you seem to have
forgotten. At first, it may seem disingenuous to say, “I am limitless, non-dual consciousness,” but it’s actually the
truth. Over time, by negating the not-self and asserting yourself as the self, the back of ignorance is broken and
who you really are becomes perfectly clear. This is moksha, freedom or enlightenment.

THE THREE STATES OF EXPERIENCE

What are the three states of experience? They are the waking, dream and deep sleep states.

The final way to objectify the not-self is to think of it as experience in general, which is divided into waking, dream,
and deep sleep. The discrimination between yourself and experience is, “I cannot be what I experience because
experience itself is an ever-changing, unconscious object known to me. Every experience requires consciousness
so it depends on me, the self, to exist. I am the witness of the experience, not the experience itself.”

THE WAKING STATE

What is the waking state? The state of experience when the gross body is present and the
sense organs are perceiving sense objects such as sight, sound, etc. When the self seems to
identify with the gross body it is called the waker.

Unless you know that you’re the self, the waking state seems real and the person in the waking state is who you
think you are. This is a universal mistake. But can this be true? Aside from the previously mentioned reasons that
you can’t be what you experience—the waking state being nothing but an experience—let’s take the analysis of
the waking state a little further.

In the waking state, the external world is present. And while you would never mistake yourself to be certain parts
of the external world like a tree, you do think you are the body. But is there a real difference between the two?
Ask yourself: How are the body and the tree known? The answer is that they’re both known by the sense organ
of the eye. You know a tree because the eye sees it and you know your body because the eye sees it. It’s the

21
same situation for the other sense organs too. You feel the leaves of the tree with the same organ of skin (touch)
that you feel the hair on your head. So by looking at your experience in this way you can see that your body and
a tree share the same level of existence. They are both just thoughts, objects of perception.

And what knows the perceptions of the sense organs? It has to be the mind because sensory perception is only
possible when the mind is functioning. If for some reason you don’t think you’re the body, you almost certainly
think you are the mind. But you have to ask yourself: How is the mind known? The answer is that it’s known by
you, consciousness, the self. If the mind wasn’t something known to you, you wouldn’t be able to say that it was
there. This means that both the mind and its thoughts/perceptions are objects known to you and therefore can’t
be you. If you can follow the logic here, you can negate your identification with the entire waking state.

But there may still be a doubt. You might wonder: What knows the self? The answer is that there is no knower
of the self because it is self-revealing. It doesn’t require anything else to be known because it is self-evident pure
consciousness, knowing-ness itself. Look at your own experience. Do you need anything to know that you are
conscious other than the fact that you are conscious? No. So consciousness doesn’t need another consciousness
to be conscious of itself.

But if you still think there is something that knows the self, you run into the problem of infinite regression. In other
words, if you say there is something that knows the self, it can then be asked what knows the something that
knows the self. And then it can be asked what knows what knows the something that knows the self, ad infinitum.
The point is that it’s an unresolvable inquiry with no logical answer. So knowing stops with consciousness because
it is knowing itself.

Besides, if there were something that knew the self, the self would become an object known to it and cease being
the conscious subject. This isn’t possible because the self doesn’t change. Furthermore, there’s no way for
something to have two contradictory natures. In the same way that the sun can’t be both light and dark, hot and
cold, the self can’t be both subject and object, conscious and unconscious. So it is always the conscious subject
and never an unconscious object.

But getting back to our analysis of the waking state, if the fact that the waker and its experience is an inert, ever-
changing object known to you doesn’t rid you of your identification with it, ask yourself: How can I be the waker
if I disappear every time I go to sleep?

THE DREAM STATE

What is the dream state? It is the state of experience when the gross body is not present and
the sense organs are not perceiving external objects. Impressions left on the causal body
from previous experiences in the waking state are projected into the subtle body, creating the
dream world. When the self seems to identify with this experience in the subtle body, it is
called the dreamer.

22
The waker doesn’t exist in the dream state because neither the body nor the perceptions of the external world
are present. In the dream state, only the subtle body (mind) and causal body are active. The causal body projects
thoughts—based on previous experience in the waking state—into the mind, creating the dream. Similar to the
way you think the waking state is real when you are awake, you think the dream state is real when you are
dreaming. And in this case the “I”, the self, is mistaken to be the dreamer. Just like the waking state, no aspect of
the dream state can be you because it is ever-changing and known to you.

But leaving that aside, consider this: If you were previously the waker, how could you now be the dreamer? Has
the one transformed into the other? Even if this is the case, neither one can be you because you are the self and
the self doesn’t change. The proof is that you are aware of the coming and going of both the waker and the
dreamer. You have to be present before the waker shows up in order to say that it showed up. And then you have
to still be present to say that it disappears and that the dreamer appears. If you actually were the waker, you
would disappear when the dreamer showed up and you wouldn’t be able to say that the dreamer was there and
vice versa. So you are there before, during and after the waker and dreamer as the consciousness that reveals
them.

THE DEEP SLEEP STATE

What is the deep sleep state? It is the state when both the gross and subtle bodies are not
present and only the causal body remains. Since there is no subtle body available to facilitate
thought or perception then all objects—including time and space—are absent. Therefore, no
problems exist in deep sleep. Hence, upon waking you say, “I remember that I did not
perceive anything. I experienced limitlessness.” When the self seems to identify with the
causal body it is called the sleeper.

The discussion of deep sleep is tricky because almost everyone thinks that they are non-existent in deep sleep.
Before going into any fancy logical arguments that prove otherwise, ask yourself: Do I fear death? The answer is
probably yes. Even if you don’t fear death, you definitely don’t welcome it. The proof is that you are sitting here
reading this commentary and not plotting your own demise.

Why do you fear death or hope that it stays away for as long as possible? Because death is the non-existence of
the body and mind—the person you think you are. So if you truly don’t exist in sleep, then it’s essentially the
same as death—they don’t call it the ‘cousin of death’ for nothing. Since your non-existence is not desirable, as
evidenced by your aversion to death, then why would you willingly seek sleep each and every night?

The answer is because you do exist in deep sleep. If you didn’t, you couldn’t wake up feeling rested because a
non-existent entity can’t be changed by a non-existent experience. So not only do you exist in sleep, you also
experience. We’ll discuss that in more detail shortly.

23
But let’s go back to the existence issue. The main reason for people thinking they do not exist in sleep is the
absence of the body, mind and world—objects. You might say, “I don’t remember anything. Since nothing was
there, I wasn’t there.” This line of reasoning is understandable but inherently flawed. It implies that your existence
depends on the presence of objects. If this were true, it would apply equally to the waking state as well. But does
the presence of objects in the waking state make you exist? Does your existence depend on you seeing a tree,
tasting food, smelling a flower, hearing music, or feeling your own body? Not at all. You exist before, during and
after the experience of the tree, food, flower etc. This means the appearance of an object does not bring you into
existence. And its disappearance does not render you non-existent. Since this is the case, how does the
disappearance of all objects in sleep prove that you are non-existent?

If this doesn’t remove your doubt, remember that the word “existence”, satya, is synonymous with consciousness
and consciousness exists independently of objects. This is self-evident, but all you have to do is look at your
experience for confirmation. Objects come, go and change but consciousness is always there. And instead of
consciousness depending on objects to exist, objects depend on consciousness to exist because you can’t have
an object without consciousness. However, in a state like deep sleep, you can have consciousness without objects.

Now, you might say, “Wait a minute, I don’t see how I am conscious in deep sleep.” If you exist in deep sleep—
which you do—then you are conscious because they are the very same thing. But it may not seem like it because
you are not conscious of anything. Even though we’ve already seen that consciousness does not depend on the
perception of objects, let’s analyze the situation a little further.

Earlier it was mentioned that sleep is an experience. But what kind of experience? It’s the experience of the
absence of objects. Because how can you say there are no objects in deep sleep if you aren’t there to experience
their absence? For instance, say someone asks you, “Was the President of the United States at your house
yesterday?” If you definitively say, “No,” how is that possible? Because you were there. If you weren’t home you
couldn’t say you experienced the absence of the President. It’s the same with deep sleep. For you to say there
were no objects present, you had to be present to know there was an experience of their absence. And since
there is an experience in deep sleep, there is consciousness, because you can’t have experience without
consciousness. Without the presence of any limiting objects, deep sleep is the experience of limitless.

It’s true that the normal instrument of experience, the body and mind—the person you think you are—is not
there in deep sleep. But there is a very subtle thought present, called the nidra vritti or avidya vritti, that registers
the experience. And since a thought is unconscious, this means the conscious self, the real you, has to be there
making the experience possible.

CONCLUSION: THE SELF IS PRESENT AND UNCHANGED IN EACH STATE

As man is called a brother in relation to his sister, a son in relation to his mother and a father
in relation to his daughter. But the man himself remains the same. Similarly, the self is called
the waker, dreamer and sleeper in relation to each state of experience. The self, that which is
present in all three states, remains unchanged.

24
The self is referred to as the waker, dreamer, or sleeper depending on which state of experience is appearing in it.
But this is a mistake because the self is present and unchanged as the states of experience come, go and change.
To say that the states change is only possible because of the presence of the unchanging self.

If this doesn’t make sense, consider this scenario: You are going to a party to meet a friend. When you arrive, he
is already there. After talking with him for a while you have to go outside to take a phone call from your boss who
is working late trying to finish a project for an important client. She asks you to come back to the office and help
out, so you go back inside, say goodbye to your friend and leave.

When you get to the office, your boss wants to know when your friend arrived at the party, how long he stayed
and when he left. You start to reply but you realize you can’t tell her when he arrived because you weren’t there
yet. And because you went out to take her call, you can’t be certain that your friend was still at the party while
you were outside. And since you had to return to work, you can’t say when your friend left the party. To know
those things you would have had to been at the party before his arrival, during his stay and after his departure.

It’s the same with the three states of experience. The only way you can report the arrival, presence or absence
of a particular state of experience is because you—consciousness—are there prior to, during, and after the
presence of each state of experience. If you went away when the waking state went away, you wouldn’t be there
to say that the dream or deep sleep state had arrived and vice versa.

THE SELF

What is the self? It is non-dual consciousness, the unchanging, indivisible, independently

After thoroughly describing what you aren’t, the text gives a description of what you are. While it’s true that
limitless consciousness can’t ultimately be described or contained by limited, unconscious words, they are all we
have to work with because the self isn’t an object of thought or perception. But thankfully, the proper use of
words can remove erroneous notions about the self and show that you are it. That’s all that’s needed because
the self doesn’t have to be demonstrated as an object. It’s self-evident because your existence and consciousness
are obvious. But since what the self is not and what it means to be the self isn’t entirely clear, a teaching in the
form of words is necessary.

For this teaching to work, the words have to be exact because a definition of something that is imprecise or that
applies to more than one thing leads to confusion. For instance, if you’re trying to describe something and you
say that it’s “big”, you’d have a problem because the word “big” can refer to more than one thing and its meaning
changes depending on what it refers to. You can have both a big mouse and a big mountain. So words like this
aren’t suitable for teaching about the self.

25
The translation of the verse above uses many precise words to give an exclusive definition of the self but the
original Sanskrit text only uses three: sat-chit-ananda. Sat, chit and ananda aren’t three different functions or
qualities that belong to the self. They are literally what the self is, it’s very nature.

The meaning of sat (or satya) was discussed earlier in this commentary. It is that which is beginningless, endless,
unchanging and independently existent. Chit means consciousness. Not to be redundant but the self—
consciousness—is conscious. It’s not what the self does, it’s what self is. And because this consciousness is satya,
it’s not a part, product, property or function of the body or mind or a combination of both. Some say the brain is
the source of consciousness but does that makes sense? Brain tissue and electrical current—which are both just
matter—are unconscious. If they have no consciousness to give, then putting them together can’t create
consciousness. The brain, like a computer, does perform certain functions but also like a computer, it is
unconscious. So similar to the way a conscious person observes the unconscious functions of a computer, the
conscious self witnesses the unconscious functions of the brain. Besides, brain function is described in two ways:
as electrical activity—which we’ve already established is unconscious—and the flow of thoughts. Are thoughts
conscious? No, because they are revealed by consciousness. So consciousness can’t be the flow of thoughts
because it is independent of the flow of thoughts or even its absence, like in deep sleep. If you exist in deep sleep
then you are conscious because existence, satya, and consciousness, chit, are the same thing.

So what about ananda? Ananda means bliss but bliss doesn’t apply to the self in a literal sense. Why? Because
bliss is experiential, and as you have seen, experience is the not-self. But ananda is used here because analyzing
the experience of bliss, which is familiar to everyone, is useful for describing the nature of the self through
implication. How so? When you are blissful, there is no separation between you and what you want. You are
happy because you are temporarily free from the constraints of limitation. So the implied meaning of bliss
(ananda) is limitlessness (ananta) and the word “limitless” applies to the self because it is unaffected by time,
space and all other objects that appear in it. It is also limitless because it is non-dual and all-pervasive; there is
nowhere it isn’t and there is nothing that it lacks.

Existence-consciousness-limitlessness is a precise definition of the self because it’s unambiguous and it only
applies to the self. For example, what object of your experience is sat? There are none to be found because all
objects are time-bound, coming into being, staying a while and then disappearing. They are also not sat because
they depend on consciousness to exist. What in your experience is chit? Nothing, because all objects are known
to you and therefore unconscious. And what in your experience is ananta? Again, there is nothing because all
objects are bound by time and space.

You can start to see how Vedanta’s proper usage of words is a valid means to know the self. The words themselves
aren’t the self but by contemplating their implied meanings, the nature of the self is made clear. How? At first,
the definition sat-chit-ananta negates the possibility of the self being any kind of object. Since it’s not an object,
it has to be chit, consciousness, the knower of objects. And because it’s the knower of objects, it isn’t affected by
then. So the self is known to be ananta, limitless.

Through these words, it becomes clear what you are not: an object, the experiencing entity or any form of
experience. And by thinking about the implied meaning of these words it becomes clear what you are: the
limitless consciousness by which all objects are known. When you come to this conclusion it’s not as if you
become the self. You just understand what the self is and how you already are the self. It’s only a matter of

26
knowledge (understanding) not becoming (action). And this is why words work. Words can yield knowledge but
actions can’t because action and ignorance aren’t opposed to one another. A person under the influence of self-
ignorance can perform all kinds of action to get, change or get rid of objects. But since the self is not an object,
they can’t get it through an action. They can only ‘get’ the self through the knowledge that they already ‘have’
the self because they are the self.

THE CREATOR AND THE CREATION

How can there be a creation—a not-self—if the self is non-dual, unchanging and actionless?

This is a logical question because once you’ve used discrimination to break the belief that objects are real—and
that you are somehow associated with them—you’re still left with the fundamental duality of self and not-self.
Since reality is non-dual, ultimately the two have to be reconciled.

In order to do this, the text categorizes the not-self a little differently than before: as the individual, the creation
and the creator. First it explains the nature of the creator and how the creation and the individual come into being.
Then the individual is shown to be non-different from the creation as matter and after that, the individual and the
creator are shown to be non-different as the self, thus facilitating the knowledge of non-duality.

It is owing to maya, a power that depends on the self for its apparent existence.

Maya makes the impossible possible: it makes the non-dual self seem like it’s a multitude of different objects. The
text makes a point of saying that maya depends on the self, which is satya, for its apparent existence. This means
that maya, along with its effects, is mithya. Even though satya and mithya seem like a duality they aren’t because
there can’t be a real duality between the self and something that doesn’t actually exist.

But since the appearance of duality can’t simply be dismissed, the relationship between satya and mithya needs
to be explained: while mithya (maya) is always satya (the self), satya is never mithya. What is called mithya is
only the self appearing as, but never actually becoming, mithya.

It’s like the aforementioned example of the clay pot. While the name “pot” and the form it refers to are always
clay, the clay is never the name and form. The clay doesn’t become a substance called pot because the pot is only
an appearance with no actual existence. And before, during and after the appearance of the pot, the clay remains
the same.

You might say there is a clay pot because you experience one. But when you try to demonstrate one you can’t,
because the appearance of the clay pot resolves into its basis, the clay. Similarly, although mithya can be
experienced, upon investigation it resolves into satya, the self.

27
For example, in any experience there are two factors: objects, mithya, and consciousness, satya. The word
“factor” is being used here because even though consciousness is inherent in every experience, it isn’t an object
of experience. Now, if both consciousness and objects were real then neither would be capable of change. If this
was so, there would be two independent realities that couldn’t affect each other and you would be stuck with
duality.

But this can’t be the case because objects are transient and ever-changing; they aren’t real. And since objects
aren’t self-revealing—meaning independently existent—they have to depend on something else for their
apparent existence, like the name and form “clay pot” depends on clay. The only other factor besides objects is
consciousness, so what appears to be objects must really be consciousness. Let’s examine an object such as a
chair to see how this is true. The logic of this example can be applied not only to physical objects but subtle objects
such as thoughts as well because both are matter.

So what are you referring to when you say there is a chair? If look closely, you see there is no chair, only wood. Is
wood a reality? No, wood is only atoms. Are atoms a reality? No, because they are made of protons, neutrons
and electrons, which in turn are made of quarks and various other subatomic particles that periodically appear
out of and disappear into, space. So at the end of the chair investigation, all that is found is space. But is space a
reality? If it were, it would exist independently. But it doesn’t because space can only be said to exist in the
presence of consciousness. Since space isn’t conscious, it’s not logical to conclude that consciousness comes from
space. So space comes from consciousness and ultimately is nothing but consciousness.

In this way all objects, mithya, resolve into consciousness, satya, the self. The experience of mithya is just an
appearance that is actually the self. It’s similar to thinking you are experiencing a wave where there is only water,
a ring where there is only gold or a shirt where there is only cotton.

Before proceeding, it’s a good idea to reiterate these two facts:

1. Maya is mithya—it is unreal. Therefore, any of its effects are equally unreal.
2. Mithya depends upon satya, the self, for its apparent existence. Therefore, mithya resolves into, and is
nothing but, satya—but satya is never mithya.

Now, the text will explain how maya evolves into the creation.

Maya is composed of the three gunas (qualities): sattva, rajas, and tamas. From these three
qualities evolve the five elements (space, air, fire, water, earth) in their subtle, non-physical
forms. In turn, from these subtle elements the subtle body develops. When the five
elements divide and recombine, the gross forms of the elements are created. From the gross
elements the gross body develops. Consequently, there is an identity between the individual
and the entire universe. They are both composed of the five elements (matter) and are
therefore essentially non-different.

28
As previously mentioned, the causal body is the unmanifest potential for the individual mind and body. But it is
only part of the total causal body, maya, the unmanifest potential of all bodies, all minds and the entire creation.
In this regard maya is the creator and it is composed of the three factors required to create: knowledge (sattva),
power (rajas) and substance (tamas).
Think of what is needed to build a house. First you have to have the knowledge to draw a blueprint and skill in
construction. This is sattva. But knowledge and skill aren’t any good if you don’t have the power or energy to
implement the construction itself. This is rajas. But knowledge of how to do the job and the power to do it isn’t
of any use if there aren’t any materials to build with. This is tamas.
Initially, these three gunas manifest as the five elements, the five elements being a way of describing matter.
Initially, they are in their subtle forms, which could be thought of as energy, matter in its non-physical form. From
the subtle elements, the subtle bodies are formed. Then, when the subtle elements divide and recombine they
become the gross elements—physical matter—from which the body and the cosmos are formed.
This complex process is laid out in detail in the original text but I have simplified it here because the whole point
is this: the creation and the individual, in both their subtle and gross aspects, are just matter, the five elements.
Why is this important? Because normally you draw a boundary between yourself and the world and see it as
different from yourself. But in truth, there isn’t a distinction between the matter that makes up your body and
mind and the matter that comprises the world. From the point of view of matter, the creation and the individual
are one and the same; they are essentially non-different and this fact resolves the one into the other.
Now, since matter is inert and unconscious, it doesn’t make sense that it arranged itself into a creation. Thus, the
existence of a conscious, intelligent creator is inferred. So right after determining the oneness of the creation and
the individual, you arrive at another duality: the creator and the creation. To reconcile the two, the text explains
the nature of the creator, Isvara, and the creation/individual, the jiva.

ISVARA
The self in association with maya is called Isvara.

Although maya contains all of the knowledge and power needed to create, that knowledge and power is useless
without consciousness. This is why it is said that the creator, Isvara, is maya associated with the self. So the non-
dual actionless self can’t create without maya and maya can’t create without the conscious self.

Most of the time, maya and Isvara are used synonymously. But sometimes Isvara is referred to as the self in
association with sattva alone, the idea being that Isvara is the total knowledge and skill required to create and
rajas and tamas are two powers it wields, similar to the way an artist wields his abilities. And like an artist is non-
separate from, but unaffected by his abilities, Isvara is non-separate from, but unaffected by rajas and tamas.
Why make this distinction? Because rajas projects and tamas conceals. They are responsible for self-ignorance
and all its effects. And since self-ignorance holds sway over jivas and not Isvara, this distinction needs to be made
to show that Isvara is neither self-ignorant nor responsible for the negative behavior that stems from self-
ignorance.

29
But this is a technical issue. In general, Isvara can be thought of as the intelligence that creates and sustains the
creation as well as the creation itself. A common example is a spider because a spider is both the intelligence that
creates its web as well as the substance of the web itself. However, unlike the spider that can detach itself from
its web, Isvara is never separate from its creation because it is the creation. So an even broader way to think of
Isvara is as the external and internal world that you find yourself in. In this way, Isvara is just whatever you are
experiencing at any given time, as well as the creator and sustainer of that experience. And because this Isvara is
maya, it is mithya.

THE JIVA

This reflection of the self (in the subtle body) which ignorantly identifies with the gross body
is called the jiva. The jiva, without proper inquiry, thinks itself to be different from Isvara.

Essentially, the jiva is a conscious embodied being. But since the body and mind are unconscious matter, how can
this be? It’s because the subtle body can ‘reflect’ consciousness from the self, similar to the way the moon—
which has no light of its own—reflects the light of the sun. The reflection of consciousness makes it possible for
the ego, an unconscious thought of individuality and ownership, to claim the body and mind as itself, creating the
apparent individual. The reflection of the self, the ego, the mind and body—the jiva—are mithya.

Isvara is the self in association with maya. The jiva is the self in association with ignorance.
Owing to the difference in their limiting adjuncts (maya and ignorance respectively), it is
falsely concluded that there is an actual difference between Isvara and the jiva.

A limiting adjunct (upadhi) is something that superimposes its attributes onto the self which has no attributes. A
good illustration is water in a green glass, water being the self and the glass being the limiting adjunct. When the
water is associated with the glass, it takes on the appearance of being green and cylindrical when it’s actually
formless and colorless.

In the same way, when the self is associated with the limiting adjuncts of maya and ignorance it appears to be
Isvara and jiva respectively, even though it is really formless consciousness. Now, in the example of the water and
the glass, the water and the glass are separate objects that exist independently of each other. But this doesn’t
apply in the case of Isvara, jiva and the self. Both Isvara and jiva are mithya, which is non-separate from and
dependent on satya, the self. And since Isvara and jiva are mithya, their ‘association’ with the self is also mithya.
There is no actual association, only the appearance of one.

30
 Samsara, the continuous suffering caused by identification with the body and mind, persists
as long as this incorrect conclusion remains. Therefore, the conclusion of difference between
the jiva and Isvara is not to be accepted.

Suffering persists until the non-difference of jiva and Isvara is comprehended, or in other words, until the truth of
non-duality is clear. Understanding what the self is, why you are the self, and why the individual, creator, and
creation are you—but you are free of them—is freedom. But how can this be done? The concluding argument
is now given.

HOW CAN THEIR BE NON-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JIVA AND ISVARA?

The great statement “You are that” reveals the identity between the jiva and Isvara. This
identity is not obvious because the jiva has limited knowledge and power and is possessed of
an ego, while Isvara has all knowledge and power and is devoid of ego. So how can there be
non-difference between the two when they have different qualities?

This is how the statement “You are that” is to be understood: The literal meaning of the word
“you” is the jiva, who owing to ignorance is identified with the gross and subtle bodies. The
implied meaning of the word “you” is the self, the one who is free from the limiting adjunct of
ignorance. Similarly, the literal meaning of the word “that” is Isvara, the one who is endowed
with all knowledge and power. The implied meaning of the word “that” is the self that is free
from the limiting adjunct of maya.

Thus, the jiva and Isvara are non-different as the self.

The conclusion is simple: both the jiva and Isvara—or ignorance and maya—are mithya, which isn’t real. And
there can’t be a real difference between two unreal objects. Another way to look at it is this: If both jiva and
Isvara are mithya, and mithya depends on the self to apparently exist, mithya can only be satya, the self, similar
to the way a clay pot can only be clay. As a single clay pot and the totality of all clay pots are completely non-
different as clay, jiva and Isvara are completely non-different as the self.

Since you are the self, the jiva and Isvara are you. But just as clay is always unaffected by and free from the clay
pots it appears to be, you are always unaffected by and free from the jiva and Isvara that you appear to be. They
are mithya and can only ever be you, but you can never be them because you are satya: non-dual, independently
existent, unchanging, eternal, limitless consciousness. When this knowledge is clear and doubt-free, it is moksha.

31
 LIBERATED WHILE LIVING

Those who, through the teachings of Vedanta and the instruction of the teacher, understand
that they are the self are set free, here and now, from the cycle of samsara.

Before self-knowledge there is the firm conclusion that, “I am merely the body and mind. I
am inadequate, limited, subject to suffering and death.” But after self-knowledge the one
who is liberated while living has the firm, abiding, immediate understanding (not dependent
on sensory perception) that, “I am not the body and mind. Rather, my nature is existence,
consciousness and limitlessness. I am eternal, unchanging, whole and complete. I am non-
dual, so while there appears to be a world, in reality there is only me.”

Self-knowledge is a permanent solution, available in this very life, to the problem of suffering. By showing you
that you are free of the body, mind and all of its experiences, you are freed from all of the problems of the body
and mind, such as change, suffering and death.

By saying that self-knowledge is immediate, the text is pointing out that it doesn’t depend on perception or
thought. In other words, you don’t have to see, taste, touch, smell, hear or think about the self to know that it
exists and that you are it. The nature of the self is consciousness and consciousness is self-evident, not requiring
any external media to be known. If self-knowledge did depend on perception, thought or even the maintenance
of a particular action, it would be temporary, and thus not freedom.

THREE TYPES OF KARMA

By the immediate understanding, “I am the self,” one is totally freed from the three types of
karma: agami, sanchita and prarabdha. Thus, the one with self-knowledge crosses the
ocean of samsara and appreciates the limitlessness of their own nature in this very life.

Karma is any action, mental or physical, as well as the results of those actions. It can be positive or negative.
Karma performed with the mistaken notion, “I am the doer” is called agami and it contributes to sancita karma,
your total karmic account. Sancita karma remains unmanifest until the appropriate time comes for it to fructify.
The karma which has been withdrawn from this account in order to create your current body, circumstances and
life, is called prarabdha karma.

The firm understanding, “I am the self” negates the false notion that you are the doer of karma or the one who
reaps its results. With no notion of doership to claim the performance of karma and no notion of enjoyership to
receive the results, your sancita and agami karma is destroyed. Because when there is no longer an owner of the
karmic account—meaning you no longer identify with it—there is no way to make deposits (agami) or receive

32
withdrawals (prarabdha).

However, the prarabhda karma, which has already been set in motion, still has to play out until the body dies. But
this isn’t a problem for those with self-knowledge because they understand that they are the ever-free, unaffected
self, not the body and mind. Therefore, the details of the life of the body and mind and the circumstances of its
death no longer have any particular significance. In this way, those with self-knowledge cross the ocean of
samsara.

Thus ends Tattvabodha, the knowledge of truth.

OM TAT SAT

33
 ENGLISH TO SANSKRIT GLOSSARY

Ability to focus on a given topic – samadhana

All-consuming desire for freedom (moksha) – mumukshutwa

Assimilation of the teachings of Vedanta - nididhyasana

Bliss – ananda

Beginningless self-ignorance – avidya

Bliss sheath – anandamaya kosha

Capacity to endure difficult situations – titiksha

Causal body – karana sharira

Composure of mind – shama

Consciousness – chit

Contemplation on the teachings of Vedanta – manana

Control of the senses – dama

Deep sleep state – sushupti avastha

Dependently existent; neither truly existent nor non-existent – mithya

Discrimination – viveka

Dispassion – vairagya; viraga

Dream state – swapna avastha

Dreamer; Dream state entity – taijasa

Ego – ahamkara

Eternal – nitya

Evolution of the elements from their subtle to gross forms – panchikarana

34
Existence–Consciousness–Bliss (the nature of the self) – sat-chit-ananda

Five elements – pancha mahabhutas

Five sheaths – pancha kosha

Food sheath – annamaya kosha

Four-Fold qualifications – sadhana chatushtayam

Freedom/Liberation – moksha

Gross body – sthula sharira

Gross elements - mahabhutas

Identity of jiva and Isvara – isvara-jiva-aikyam

Independently existent in the past, present and future – sat; satya

Inner instrument – antahkarana

Intellect – buddhi

Intellect sheath – vijnanamaya kosha

Individual; embodied being – jiva

Karma – action and its results

Karma (done in this life) – agami karma

Karma (that fructifies to create current birth) – prarabdha karma

Karma (total account) – sanchita karma

Knowledge – jnanam; vidya; bodha

Knowledge; skill – sattva, one of the three gunas

Knowledge not from people – aparaushayjnanam

Liberated while living – jivanmukti

35
Limitlessness – Ananta

Listening to the teachings of Vedanta – shravana

Material; substance; veiling power – tamas, one of the three gunas

Memory – chitta

Mind – manas

Mind sheath – manomaya kosha

Not-self – anatma

Observance of one’s own duty – uparama

Open minded trust in the teacher and teaching – shraddha

Organs of action – karma indriyas

Organs of knowledge – jnana indriyas

Pleasure – kama

Power; energy; power of projection – rajas, one of the three gunas

Power that makes the non-dual self appear as a duality – maya

Quality; rope - guna

Self – atma; atman; brahman

Self in association with maya ; the creator- Isvara

Self-inquiry – atma vichara

Self-knowledge – atma bodha; atma jnanam; atma vidya; tattva bodha; tattva jnanam

Six-fold accomplishments – shamadi-shatka-sampatih

Sleeper; Sleep state entity – prajna

Subtle body – sukshma sharira

36
Subtle elements - tanmatras

Three bodies – sharira traya

Three states – avastha traya

Vital air; breath; physiological function – prana

Vital air sheath – pranamaya kosha

Virtue; moral conduct – dharma

Waker; Waking state entity – vishwa

Waking state – jagrat avastha

Wealth; security – artha

Witness (referring to the self as the witness of objects) – sakshin

37