Final session on Aparokshanubhuti. Discussion with Venkat on Anubhuti and Anubhava is done.

Verse No 140

Objection: “Let it be that through direct knowledge born of inquiry a sage becomes Brahman — but how can one possessing only indirectknowledge do so?”

Reply: Even a knower with only indirect knowledge attains Brahmanhoodthrough intense contemplation, as indicated by the term“intensely meditated upon”.

Though indirect knowledge removes the ignorance on the side of the knower, it does not dispel the veiling on the side of the known.Nevertheless, when a person endowed with firm conviction contemplatesBrahman day and night with a mind shaped by the form of Brahman, then that Reality soon becomes directly realized, and the contemplator becomes Brahman Himself.

Through meditation on Brahman as non-different from the inner Self, a person becomes Brahman — as is well-known among the wise.

The seeker, through unbroken contemplation on Brahman, becomesBrahman.

Verse 141

If, as shown in the previous verse, even an entity distinct by nature (like the worm) becomes another (the wasp) by the power of contemplation alone, then what need is there to assert that the universe — which is only an appearance of Brahman and not different from It — becomes Brahman through contemplation of Brahman?

With this intention, the text now prescribes sarvātma-bhāvanā— the meditation seeing all as the Self — beginning with “adṛśyam.”

The entire universe — whether unseen or seen, subtle or gross, seer or seen, subject or object — the whole triad of knower, knowledge, and known, though appearing through illusion as distinct from the Self, is in truth pure Consciousness alone, of the nature ofundifferentiated illumination, which is one’s very Self.

Verse 142

The text further clarifies (by the phrase “dṛśyām iti”) how the seen world is to be contemplated:

The objects of perception — pots and the like — should be mentally withdrawn from their state of visibility and objecthood, and recognized as being nothing but their substratum — the pure Consciousness that underlies them.

Thus, in the manner established among the wise, having dissolved the imagined limitations of name and form, one should contemplate all as the Infinite, Unbounded Brahman, vast in essence and beyond confinement.

Then — what is the fruit of such contemplation?

The wise one, with an intellect filled with the very essence of Consciousness — for Consciousness itself is the nectar, the bliss, the essence — abides ever in the Eternal, Imperishable Bliss,established in that fullness (pūrṇatā).

Verse No 143

Now, the author concludes his exposition of the Yoga that accords with his own teaching (svābhimata-yoga) as follows:

For those aspirants whose mental impurities such as attachment andaversion have been to some extent ripened and subdued, this Vedānta-taught Yoga — when combined with the well-known eight-fold Yoga of Patañjali, that is, with haṭha-yoga disciplines — becomes the complete means to realization.

The remainder (i.e., its compatibility and purpose) is self-evident fromwhat has already been explained.

Verse No 144

Thus, anticipating the question, “Who is truly fit for this Rāja-Yoga?”,the author concludes the entire treatise as follows:

This Yoga is suited only for those whose minds have purifiedof attachment, aversion, and other impurities.For such purified souls, the Vedānta-taught Yoga alone bestows realization and liberation through the direct experience of Brahman, the inner Self.

It is not meant for those whose minds are unripe. Yet, since mental maturity itself is difficult to attain, the text prescribes an inner aid (antaraṅga-sādhana):devotion to the Guru and God.Through such devotion, realization dawns swiftly. This path applies to all human beings, regardless of caste or social status.Hence, worship of the Guru and God, in harmony with one’s duties, is the highest good — parama-maṅgalam.

Verse No 135

Thus, having taught the fifteenfold Rājayoga, the author now concludes the Vedāntic inquiry, which was earlier introduced as the counterpart toSāṅkhya, by means of five verses beginning with “kārya.”

The effect, such as pot or cloth, is but a modification whose reality is nothing but the substratum, clay. The effect is dependent upon the cause, but the ause does not inherently contain the effect. If one insists otherwise, the cause would lose its nature as cause.

The reply is: upon proper inquiry, the effect has no independent existence apart from the cause. Likewise, space and other elements exist only for empirical dealings, and their seeming cause is Brahman, which is of the nature of Existence and Consciousness.

However, in Brahman itself there is no trace of effect-ness such as space,etc. Therefore, in the ultimate truth, Brahman is not truly a causeeither.

Verse No 136

Then, what follows after this negation of cause and effect?
There arises the cessation of all notions of causality. What then remains is that pure, mind- and speech-transcending Reality — the Brahman, as described in the Upaniṣads: “From which words and mind turn back, not having reached it.”

An objection may be raised: since the intellect is momentary and unsteady, even after such reasoning, it again perceives diversity as though real.
To this, it is said: “It must be seen (recognized).” That is, this truth must be continually recognized by steadfast contemplation until the notion of duality loses its force.

Verse no 137

This inquiry (vicāra) is not only a means of knowledge but also a means of meditation.
By this very process, in those whose minds are pure, the cognition in the form of a mental modification (vṛtti-jñāna) arises. Thereafter, this becomes a brahmātmakā-vṛtti — a state of mind wholly of the nature of Brahman itself.
Thus, the meaning of the words are evident

Verse No 138

He (the teacher) further elucidates that very inquiry by two methods,beginning with “kāraṇam iti.”
At first, one should contemplate the Cause (Brahman) through vyatireka— realizing it as distinct from the effect, which is absent when negated.
Then, through anvaya, by observing its continuous presence, one should perceive that sameCause as ever abiding even in the effect.

Verse No 139

Hence, one should contemplate in this way.
First, in the effect, contemplate only the Cause.
Then, relinquish the effect and do not gain turn toward it.
When the effect is thus set aside, thenotion of causality naturally ceases.
When both cause and effect are ranscended, what remains is pure Existence–Consciousness (sac-cid-mātra).
The contemplative sage, through this rocess of reflection, spontaneouslyabides as That.

Verse 135

Thus, having taught the fifteenfold Rājayoga, the author now concludes the Vedāntic inquiry, which was earlier introduced as the counterpart toSāṅkhya, by means of five verses beginning with “kārya.”

The effect, such as pot or cloth, is but a modification whose reality is nothing but the substratum, clay. The effect is dependent upon the cause, but the cause does not inherently contain the effect. If one insists otherwise, the cause would lose its nature as cause.

The reply is: upon proper inquiry, the effect has no independent existence apart from the cause. Likewise, space and other elements exist only for empirical dealings, and their seeming cause is Brahman, which is of the nature of Existence and Consciousness.

However, in Brahman itself there is no trace of effect-ness such as space, etc. Therefore, in the ultimate truth, Brahman is not truly a cause either.

Verse 136

Then, what follows after this negation of cause and effect?
There arises the cessation of all notions of causality. What then remains is that pure, mind- and speech-transcending Reality — the Brahman, as described in the Upaniṣads: “From which words and mind turn back, not having reached it.”

An objection may be raised: since the intellect is momentary and unsteady, even after such reasoning, it again perceives diversity as though real.
To this, it is said: “It must be seen(recognized).” That is, this truth must be continually recognized by steadfast contemplation until the notion of duality loses its force.

Verse 137

This inquiry (vicāra) is not only a means of knowledge but also a means of meditation.
By this very process, in those whose minds are pure, the cognition in the form of a mental modification (vṛtti-jñāna) arises. Thereafter, this becomes a brahmātmakā-vṛtti — a state of mind wholly of the nature of Brahman itself.
Thus, the meaning of the words is evident.

Verse 138

He (the teacher) further elucidates that very inquiry by two methods,beginning with “kāraṇam iti.”
At first, one should contemplate the Cause (Brahman) through vyatireka— realizing it as distinct from the effect, which is absent when negated.
Then, through anvaya, by observing its continuous presence, one should perceive that same Cause as ever abiding even in the effect.

Verse 139

Hence, one should contemplate in this way.
First, in the effect, contemplate only the Cause.
Then, relinquish the effect and donot again turn toward it.
When the effect is thus set aside, thenotion of causality naturally ceases.
When both cause and effect are transcended, what remains is pure Existence–Consciousness (sac-cid-mātra).
The contemplative sage, through this process of reflection, spontaneouslyabides as That.

Verse 140

Objection:“Let it be that through direct knowledge born of inquiry a sagebecomes Brahman — but how can one possessing only indirect knowledge do so?”

Reply:Even a knower with only indirect knowledge attains Brahmanhoodthrough intense contemplation (tīvra-bhāvanā), as indicated by the term bhāvitaṃ(“intensely meditated upon”).

Though indirect knowledge removes the ignorance on the side of the knower, it does not dispel the veiling on the side of the known.Nevertheless, when a person endowed with firm conviction contemplatesBrahman — Existence–Consciousness–Bliss — day and night with a mind shaped by the form of Brahman, then that Reality soon becomes directly realized, and the contemplator ecomes Brahman Himself.

Through meditation on Brahman as non-different from the inner Self, a person becomes Brahman — as is well-known among the wise.

Just as a worm, caught and placed in the nest by a wasp, through intensefear and constant meditation on the wasp becomes the wasp itself, sotoo the seeker, through unbroken contemplation on Brahman, becomesBrahman.

Verse No 127 & 128

This yoga, culminating in samādhi,yields liberation, which is marked by abidance in the undivided, homogeneous essence of Brahman (akhaṇḍa-eka-rasa-brahma-svarūpa).

For one endowed with the Guru’s grace, this path is indeed easy. Yet,precisely because it may appear “easy,” one should not become negligent, for numerous obstacles may arise.

Thus, the teaching regarding samādhiis made clear.

1. Samādhi as Culmination:

   • Here, samādhi is not a yogic trance in the Patañjali sense, but the effortless, natural abidance in Brahman-consciousness, where awareness is non-dual and uninterrupted (akhaṇḍa-eka-rasa).

2. Guru’s Grace:

   • Advaita emphasizes that while śravaṇa-manana-nididhyāsana are essential, the catalytic power of Guru-anugraha (the Guru’s grace) makes the realization accessible, often removing subtle egoic resistances.

3. Caution Against Complacency:

   • Even though realization is one’s very nature, seekers are warned: don’t trivialize or dismiss the discipline, because habitual tendencies (vāsanās), mental restlessness, and worldly distractions can create obstacles.

• Balance of Ease and Vigilance:

• Thus, the path is easy but not casual: effortless in its essence, yet requiring vigilance until stability in svarūpa is firm.

  True samādhi is not suppression or absorption into trance, but the effortless recognition of Brahman as ever-present consciousness, beyond laya, vikṣepa, kāśāya, and rasāsvāda.

  Śaṅkara stresses:

  “Samādhiḥ saṃvid-utpattiḥ para-jīv-ekatāṃ prati”
  (Samādhi is the arising of consciousness that reveals the oneness of the Supreme and the individual self.)

  1. Laya (Torpor / Inertia):
     When the mind, instead of remaining alert in Brahman-abidance, sinks into sleep, dullness, or lack of discrimination. True viveka is to recognize the transient, unsatisfactory nature of sense-objects; failure to sustain this is laya.

     • Advaita insight: It looks like peace, but it is unconscious absorption, not Self-knowledge.

  2. Rasāsvāda (Taste of Bliss):
     When the meditator feels inner bliss and thinks, “I am blessed, I have attained something,” or clings to the joy of inner voidness. This is a mental defect because it treats bliss as an experience, not as the Self.

     • Advaita insight: Brahman is not an experienced bliss-object, but one’s very Self —the background of all experiences.

• Kāṣāya (Subtle Coloring / Vasana Residue):
  When latent tendencies of desire and aversion disturb the stillness of mind. The mind, instead of flowing naturally into Brahman, becomes stiff or agitated.

• Advaita insight: Deep-rooted impressions (vāsanās) subtly drag the mind back to duality unless burned by firm knowledge.

  Verse No 129

  1. Bondage through object-thought (bhāva-vṛtti):
     When the mind takes the form of an external object — pot, cloth, body, world — it assumes their limitation. This identification (tad-mayatva) is bondage.

  2. Void through absence-thought (abhāva-vṛtti): If the mind clings to a vṛtti of emptiness or nothingness (śūnya-vṛtti), the result is mere blankness or dull void. This is not liberation, but inertness (jaḍatā).

  3. Liberation through Brahman-thought (brahmākāra-vṛtti):
     When the mind takes the shape of Brahman — limitless Being-Consciousness-Bliss — it dissolves into pūrṇatva (fullness, wholeness). This alone is mokṣa, as recognized by the knowers of truth.

  • The mind is the instrument:

    • If it reflects objects → bondage.

    • If it reflects voidness → dullness.

    • If it reflects Brahman → liberation.

  • But crucially: even Brahmākāra-vṛtti is not the final Self — it is the last thought-wave (pramāṇa-vṛtti) which destroys ignorance, after which the mind itself becomes silent.

  • Then remains only Brahman-Self, ever-complete, without dependence on vṛtti.

  So, Advaita declares: “vṛtti alone binds, vṛtti alone liberates — but when the last vṛtti is Brahmākāra-vṛtti, it self-destructs, leaving the pure Selfshining.”

Verse 125

Thus, the purpose of prescribing nididhyāsana with all its auxiliary disciplines is explained:

It is for the manifestation of the innate, uncontrived bliss (akṛtrima-ānanda), which is none other than the very essence of the Self. Nididhyāsana does not produce bliss, but reveals the bliss that is already one’s own true nature.

Moreover, by the particle ca (“and”), the text indicates that one should also engage, according to one’s capacity, in Vedāntic inquiry (vicāra). Both—steady contemplation and reflective inquiry—work together in revealing the Self.

• Nididhyāsana is not a practice to “create” bliss; it is a means of removing the obstacles to the recognition of the Self’s ever-present blissful nature.
• The bliss realized here is akṛtrima (uncontrived, natural), unlike pleasures derived from external objects which are transient and dependent.
• Nididhyāsana serves as the experiential counterpart to śravaṇa (listening) and manana (reflection), grounding knowledge in direct assimilation.
• The inclusion of Vedānta-vicāra by “ca” shows that reasoned reflection and deep absorption are inseparable in Advaita’s methodology.

Verse No 126

Thus, the fruit of such constant practice is declared:

For the yogin who has engaged in this discipline, there comes a stage where he is freed from all practice and means—he no longer needs sādhana. He abides effortlessly in his true nature.

That true nature, as revealed and affirmed by Vedānta, is none other than Brahman itself.

• The culmination of nididhyāsana and allied practices is effortlessness—abidance in one’s nature without reliance on any external or internal discipline.
• At this point, sādhana (practice) drops away, since it had meaning only as long as ignorance persisted. Once ignorance is dispelled, practice has no role—just as one stops using a thorn once the embedded thorn is removed.
• The yogin realizes that he never was other than Brahman. This is the “Vedāntically established” (vedānta-prasiddha) truth.
• Thus, the fruit is not attainment of something new, but the recognition of what is already and always the case: Brahma-svarūpa.

Verse 123

Samādhi, the fifteenth auxiliary (aṅga), is here defined.

It is the state of changelessness (nirvikāratā), wherein the mind, freed from involvement with objects, immediately takes on the form of Brahman (brahmākāratā). In this state, there are no lingering impressions of the phenomenal world, and no distinctions of meditator (dhyātṛ), object of meditation (dhyeya), or mental modifications (vṛtti).

This is described as vṛtti-vismaraṇa—the forgetting of mental fluctuations—and dvaitān-anusandhāna—non-attention to duality.

Yet a doubt arises: does not mere forgetting of vṛttis amount to ignorance, rather than knowledge? The answer is that simple blankness without realization is indeed ignorance, but when suffused with Brahman-knowledge (ātma-brahma aikya-bodha) it becomes Samādhi.

Thus, Samādhi is jñāna-saṃjñaka—knowledgeful absorption, not unconscious void. It is the luminous shining (sphuraṇa) of consciousness in the form of Brahman. Hence it is said:

“Samādhi is the arising of pure awareness, culminating in the realization of the oneness of the individual and the Supreme.”

• Samādhi is not mere stillness or blankness (which is just tamas/ignorance), but knowledge-suffused stillness.
• It is the culmination of nididhyāsana—where duality is no longer even an “object” of non-attention.
• Samādhi is not about suppressing thoughts but about dissolving the subject-object split into Brahman-awareness.
• This is why Śaṅkara emphasizes it as nirvikāratā and jñāna-saṃjñaka—changeless and knowledge-marked, unlike yogic absorption defined by suppression of mental modes.

Verse No 122

“Dhāraṇā is now described: Wherever the mind may go, into whichever object, there itself — by seeing and contemplating it as nothing but Brahman, as pure Existence (and the like), while disregarding its name, form, and transience — the fixing of the mind in Brahman alone is called dhāraṇā.

An objection may be raised: ‘But ordinarily dhāraṇā is defined as holding the mind on one point within the five supports (navel, heart, throat, etc.).’ To this it is said: the dhāraṇā defined here (by the scripture) is regarded as superior by the knowers of Truth.

The other dhāraṇā, taught in the Yoga system of Patañjali, is considered secondary, like prāṇāyāma and the rest. The emphatic expression ‘ca eva’ (indeed and alone) highlights that this Advaitic dhāraṇā is what is established in the experience of Vedānta-knowers.”

Verse No 123

“Now, meditation on the Self (ātma-dhyāna) is defined. It is the cognition ‘Brahman alone am I,’ a true mental mode (sat-vṛtti) which cannot be invalidated by any other means of knowledge. By that vṛtti arises freedom from dependence on any external support. It consists in abiding without identification with body and the rest, established in one’s own true nature.

Verse No 121

“Now, pratyāhāra (withdrawal) is indicated as follows:

In relation to objects — whether external things like pots, or sensory qualities like sound and the rest — by applying the method of agreement and difference (anvaya-vyatireka), one discerns that their true nature is nothing but Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss (sattā–sphurattā–priyatā).

Contemplating thus, the mind (antahkaraṇa) is made to submerge into Pure Awareness, free from the associations of name, form, and activity. Abidance in one’s own essential nature as Consciousness alone — this is called pratyāhāra.

Then, what follows? The text says: it must be steadily practiced (abhyasanīya).”

Verse No 107

1. Mauna as Brahman

• True mauna is not muteness but abiding in Brahman, which transcends speech and thought.
• Mounam hi brahma-lakṣaṇam — silence is the very nature of Brahman.

1. Beyond linguistic categories

• Words operate by universals (jāti), qualities, or actions.
• Brahman is beyond all such grounds; hence unspeakable (avācya).

1. Knowable through identity

• Though inexpressible, Brahman is directly realized (pratyag-abhinna), because the Self and Brahman are non-different.

1. Sādhanā: “Tad Aham Asmi”

• The culmination is continuous nididhyāsana: “That Brahman I am.”
• This is not conceptual repetition but steady abidance in one’s true nature.

1. Practical insight

• A jñānī’s silence is not void but fullness: silence as unmediated awareness of Brahman.

Verse No 108 & 109

1. No “fourteenth aṅga” problem

• Someone may mistakenly think that anusandhāna (constant contemplation) of Brahman is an extra limb of sādhana, apart from the traditional set (yama, niyama, tyāga, etc.).
• The teacher clarifies: it is not a new aṅga, but precisely mauna — the silence that is the recognition of Brahman.

1. Why Brahman is vāg-atiita (“beyond speech”)

• Words operate by reference to class (jāti), quality (guṇa), or activity (kriyā).
• Brahman is nirviśeṣa (featureless), thus none of these apply.
• This repeats Śaṅkara’s insistence in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Bhāṣya that Brahman is avācyam (inexpressible), yet self-evident.

1. Even prapañca (name-form manifold) ultimately escapes speech

• Though names and forms seem expressible, on deeper analysis they collapse into indefiniteness (neither fully real nor fully unreal).
• Thus both Brahman and the prapañca evade ultimate linguistic grasp — but in different ways:
• Brahman by being nirviśeṣa (beyond attributes),
• Prapañca by being mithyā (indefinable).

1. Mauna is not mere muteness

• It is the abidance in Brahman where speech has no role, because Brahman is realized as tad aham asmi — “That I am.”
• This turns “silence” into the highest wisdom rather than physical stillness.

Verse No 110

1. Deśa beyond spatiality

• Deśa here does not mean mere “place” in the physical sense.
• It points to the substratum where phenomena seem to arise. But Advaita stresses: origination (jan) is absent in all three times.
• Thus, Brahman is the “deśa” — the timeless locus without any event of birth, change, or destruction.

1. Self-evident Awareness

• The non-origination of the Self is not inferred from external authority but known directly in one’s own awareness (sva-pratīti).
• This echoes Gauḍapāda’s ajātivāda: “no origination ever takes place.”

1. Negation of empirical standpoints

• Worldly perception (laukika-pratīti) and even conventional scriptural descriptions (śāstrīya-pratīti) are insufficient, as they speak in dualistic terms.
• The non-origination of the Self must be grasped as immediate, experiential truth — aparokṣa-jñāna.

Verse No 111

1. Time as kalana

• Time is not an independent reality but a conceptual division (kalana = calculation).
• It arises only when consciousness, through avidyā, divides the indivisible.

1. Dependence on cosmic processes

• Time is seen in relation to cosmic functions — creation, sustenance, and dissolution.
• Thus, kāla is not absolute; it is a category of Māyā, tied to change.

1. Not ultimately real

• In Advaita, time has vyāvahārika-sattā (empirical reality) but not pāramārthika-sattā (absolute reality).
• From the standpoint of Brahman, which is timeless and changeless, time collapses.

1. Witness Consciousness vs. Kāla

• The Self, being kāla-ātīta (beyond time), is the very witness within which time appears as reckoning.
• This echoes Bhagavad Gītā (11.32): kālo’smi — time itself is nothing but Brahman’s appearance through Māyā.

Verse No 112

1. Āsana redefined

• Unlike in Yoga, where āsana is physical posture, here in Advaita it is abidance in Brahman, the seat of bliss (ānanda-svarūpa).
• “Sukhenaiva” — the ease is not bodily comfort, but the natural ease of resting in one’s own Self.

1. Beyond doership (kartavya–akartavya-vicāra)

• The anxiety of dharma–adharma, duty vs. non-duty, dissolves in Brahman-realization.
• True āsana is the effortless stillness of mind that no longer calculates.

1. Timeless Seat

• The text highlights: Brahman is ajasa (without decay), kālatrayāvasthāyī (abiding across all times).
• This timeless, changeless Brahman is the only stable “seat.” All other postures are transient.

1. Soteriological implication

• The shift is radical: instead of the Yogic pursuit of the body’s stillness, Advaita places the “seat” in the formless, timeless Self.
• Thus āsana becomes a synonym for Self-abidance (ātma-niṣṭhā).

Verse No 113

1. Reinterpretation of Yogic Siddhāsana

• Traditionally in Haṭha Yoga, siddhāsana is a bodily posture.
• Here, Śaṅkara redefines it: the only “accomplished seat” is abiding in Brahman.

1. Twofold grammatical reading

• Karmadhāraya: siddham āsanam → “that āsana which is accomplished.”
• Tatpuruṣa: siddhānām āsanam → “the āsana of the accomplished ones.”
• Both converge in meaning: Brahman is the seat, and the siddhas are those who rest in it.

1. Brahman = the True Seat

• Thus, the “siddhāsana” is not about posture but about Self-realization.
• One who abides in Brahman sits in the only truly firm, unshakable seat.

1. Advaitic turn

• This subtle play shows Śaṅkara’s genius: taking Yogic categories and turning them into Vedāntic abidance in Self (ātma-sthiti).
• What yogins strive to steady through body, Advaita steadies in pure awareness.

Verse No 114

1. Shift from Physical to Mental Discipline

• Haṭhayoga takes mūlabandha as a contraction at the base of the body.
• Advaita redefines it as anchoring the mind in Brahman — the true root (mūla) of all existence.

1. Ignorance as “false binding”

• The real bondage is not physical but mental — caused by mūlāvidyā (primordial ignorance).
• Even ignorance, however, is not independent — it depends on Brahman, being mithyā.

1. Two meanings of “bandha”

• (a) Ignorance as bondage (avidyā binds the mind).
• (b) Restraint of the mind to Brahman (positive discipline).
• Both are traced back to Brahman as their substratum.

1. Advaita–Rājayoga synthesis

• For yogins, mūlabandha = unbroken concentration (avikṣipta-cittatā).
• For Advaitins, the same steadiness = abidance in Self, culminating in aparokṣa-jñāna.

Verse No 115

1. True “equipoise” is not physical

• Unlike Haṭhayoga where deha-sāmya means literal bodily balance/posture, here Śaṅkara explains it as seeing sameness through Brahman, the substratum.

1. Superimposition (adhyāsa)

• Any perception of inequality of limbs in Brahman is mere adhyāhāra (superimposition). Brahman, the ground of all, is free from differences.

1. Metaphor of “level water”

• Just as calm water represents perfect evenness, so too the body is to be seen as equalized when the mind abides in Brahman.

1. Acknowledgment of empirical limitation

• Śaṅkara notes that the limbs, being naturally unequal, cannot literally become identical like the branches of a stiff dry tree.
• Thus, the teaching is symbolic: deha-sāmya is about vision (dṛṣṭi), not actual uniformity of limbs.

Verse No 116

1. Brahman is not an object of attainment

• Unlike ritual results (phala) that arise after action, Brahman is self-established (siddha), not something newly produced.

1. Role of vṛtti-jñāna

• Though Brahman is ever-present, ignorance (avidyā) obstructs its recognition.
• A knowledge-vṛtti (jñānamayī vṛtti) arises through Vedāntic inquiry, taking the form “I am Brahman.”

1. Akhaṇḍa-brahmākāra-vṛtti

• The final mental modification is unique: unlike other vṛttis that grasp limited objects, this vṛtti removes ignorance and reveals the indivisible, infinite Brahman.

1. Vision of the world

• The knower perceives the world not as a collection of independent objects, but as Brahman itself appearing as names and forms.

1. Sthiti as abidance

• Here, “sthiti” (abidance) means the mind’s unwavering dwelling in this Brahma-dṛṣṭi: the ever-present recognition that all is Brahman.

Verse No. 117

1. Brahman as beyond attributes

• Brahman lacks jāti, guṇa, kriyā (class, quality, action), so no ordinary sense-perception or conceptual vṛtti can grasp it.
• Therefore, the objection arises: how can Brahman be “seen”?

1. Tripuṭī-nivṛtti (cessation of the triad)

• Advaita resolves: “vision” here does not mean perception but the dissolution of the triad of subject-object-instrument in Brahman.

1. Dṛṣṭi as inner abidance

• The real dṛṣṭi is an inner vṛtti aligning with Brahman-consciousness, not a yogic exercise like gazing at the nose-tip.

1. Svarūpa-anubhava (direct realization)

• This interpretation harmonizes with the Advaita doctrine that Brahman is not objectified but realized as the very Self when the triads collapse.

Verse No 118

1. Primacy of Mind over Prāṇa

• In Advaita, prāṇa is considered subordinate (manodhīna).
• Mind is subtler and closer to Consciousness; prāṇa follows its lead.

1. Reversal of Pātañjala Order

• Patañjali holds that restraining prāṇa helps restrain mind (prāṇāyāma → manonirodha).
• Śaṅkara reverses: restraining the mind (through viveka, vairāgya, nididhyāsana) brings about prāṇa’s control effortlessly.

1. Why This Matters in Advaita

• Liberation is through jñāna (knowledge), not yogic prāṇāyāma.
• Breath-control may aid concentration, but true nirodha (stilling) of the mind comes only by knowledge of Brahman, not mechanical restraint of breath.

1. Vedāntic Re-definition of Prāṇāyāma

• In this context, prāṇāyāma is not the yogic technique of inhalation–retention–exhalation, but the natural quietude of prāṇa that follows the stillness of mind in Brahman-abidance.

Verse No 119

1. Re-interpretation of Yogic Terms

• In Yoga, recaka, pūraka, and kumbhaka are physical breath-controls.
• In Advaita, they are symbolic:
• Recaka (exhalation): Negating the non-Self (neti neti), casting out body-mind identification.
• Pūraka (inhalation): Absorbing the truth of the Self as Brahman.
• Kumbhaka (retention): Abidance in the Self, where no movement of prāṇa/mind remains.

1. Nishedha (Negation)

• The key note here is niṣedhanam — prāṇāyāma is not about vital-breath manipulation, but about negating the superimpositions (body, senses, world) and allowing mind to dissolve into Brahman.

1. Clarity of Advaitic Shift

• While Pātañjala yoga treats prāṇāyāma as physiological control, Vedānta internalizes it into a contemplative practice of Self-knowledge.

Verse No 120

1. Redefinition of Prāṇāyāma

• Not breath control, but inner discipline:
• Recaka = rejection of the non-Self (neti neti).
• Pūraka = assimilation of Self-knowledge.
• Kumbhaka = steady abidance in Brahman.

1. Scriptural Validity

• Though not physically detailed in the Upaniṣads, this reinterpretation is said to be “in line with the Vedas” (veda-traya-yuktaḥ), supported by Vedāntic insight.

1. Adhikārī-bheda (Hierarchy of Students)

• Prabuddhas (enlightened): No need for such symbolic prāṇāyāma.
• Ajñānins (ignorant seekers): For them, this method is prescribed to discipline the mind and turn it towards Self-inquiry.

1. Vedāntic Pedagogy

• The text shows how Vedānta absorbs yogic practices into jñāna-mārga by giving them a reinterpretive meaning aligned with non-dualism.

Verse 107 Vartikam

Now silence (mauna) is defined: because the grounds for verbal designation such as categorization and action are absent, true silence is that which is beyond the relam of both mind and speech. This is none other than Brahman, which cannot be spoken of. Yet it is knowable to yogins, attainable by knowledge-yogins through realization of its identity with the inner Self. Therefore, this silence, well-known as the very form of Brahman, is what the wise and discriminating should constantly abide in, reflecting: ‘That (Brahman) I am.’

1. Mauna as Brahman

• True mauna is not muteness but abiding in Brahman, which transcends speech and thought.
• Mounam hi brahma-lakṣaṇam — silence is the very nature of Brahman.

1. Beyond linguistic categories

• Words operate by universals (jāti), qualities, or actions.
• Brahman is beyond all such grounds; hence unspeakable (avācya).

1. Knowable through identity

• Though inexpressible, Brahman is directly realized (pratyag-abhinna), because the Self and Brahman are non-different.

1. Sādhanā: “Tad Aham Asmi”

• The culmination is continuous nididhyāsana: “That Brahman I am.”
• This is not conceptual repetition but steady abidance in one’s true nature.

1. Practical insight

• A jñānī’s silence is not void but fullness: silence as unmediated identity with awareness of Brahman.

Verses 104 to 106 of Vidhyaranya's Commentary

Verse 104

Now, the teacher explains each of these auxiliaries in sequence, describing their nature in 21 verses. First, he defines yama.

The verse begins with “sarvam,” teaching that the whole world, from space down to the body, is nothing but Brahman. This is understood through the method of bādha-sāmānādhikaraṇya (co-reference under sublation), just as a stump, mistaken for a man, is later recognized as only a stump.

From this conviction arises self-mastery: the restraint (saṃyama) of the eleven senses (hearing, etc.), for one clearly sees the defects of their objects—sound and the rest—namely perishability, excess, and the tendency to cause suffering.

Thus, yama is defined as withdrawal from sense-objects. It is not merely external morality such as non-violence, but an inner discipline grounded in knowledge of the unreality of the world.

And this yama must be practiced constantly, again and again.

Verse 105

Having defined yama, the teacher now defines niyama.

Ni­yama means the continuous flow of Brahma-cognitions (sajātiya-pravāha). This is of two types:

1. A stream of mental states with the same form as Brahman, the supreme reality non-different from the inner Self.
2. Or, a flow of affirmations like “I am unattached, pure, changeless,” all centered on Brahman-Ātman.

Simultaneously, it means the rejection of vijātiya-vṛttis (heterogeneous thoughts), namely world-based thoughts arising from past impressions. Their rejection comes through remembering their defects—treating them with neglect, disregard, and indifference.

Thus, niyama is defined not as external observances such as purity, austerity, etc., but as an inner discipline of maintaining the continuity of Brahma-cognition while rejecting contrary thoughts.

If one asks what is the fruit of yama and niyama in this Upaniṣadic sense, the reply is: parānanda, supreme bliss, is attained.

Verse 106

Now the third discipline, tyāga, is defined.

The world (prapañca) is nothing but name and form, expressed in statements such as “this is a pot, this is a cloth.” Through name and form, things are identified, transacted, and revealed.

But this prapañca rests upon the substratum of the shining forth of objects (padārtha-sphuraṇa). By recognizing that this shining is of the nature of pure consciousness—self-luminous Brahman, not inert—one realizes that all is of the nature of the Self.

Therefore, tyāga is the indifference (upekṣā) towards name and form, rooted in this recognition. This alone is the true meaning of tyāga, as declared in the Upaniṣads: “All this is pervaded by the Lord.” This is attested by the experience of the wise.

If it be doubted whether such a tyāga is known, it is answered: it is indeed revered among the great.

Why? Because at the very moment of such contemplation, this tyāga is itself liberation—the state of supreme bliss. Thus, this tyāga is highly valued by those who know the truth of the Self.

Therefore, this alone is the tyāga for the seeker of liberation, not merely the giving up of prescribed works or the non-performance of rituals.

Verses 100 to 110

The Fifteen steps for Nidhidhyasana as per the Vedantic tradition contrary to the Yoga system is being explained.

Verse No 98

“An objection may be raised: ‘Does the scripture speak of karma for the sake of instructing the jñānī?’

The reply: No. The śruti itself declares — ‘When Brahman, the higher and the lower, is realized, then the knots of the heart are cut, all doubts are destroyed, and all karmas are destroyed’ (Muṇḍaka Up. 2.2.8).

The plural word ‘karmāṇi’ (karmas) here is deliberate. It is used not merely to distinguish between two types (sañcita and kriyamāṇa), but to indicate that all three — including prārabdha — are destroyed. If the intent was only two, the śruti would have used the dual form ‘karmani.’

Therefore, it is taught that upon the direct realization of Brahman as the Self, with the breaking of the knot (the false union of consciousness with the inert body-mind), all three types of karma — sañcita, kriyamāṇa, and prārabdha — are annihilated.

Thus, the scripture speaks in this way to reveal to the jñānī that the highest human goal (mokṣa) is indeed freedom from all karmic bondage.”

Verse No 99

“It is refuted: The talk of ‘prārabdha’ continuing for the jñānī is asserted only by the ignorant, who are unacquainted with the true intent of the śruti and misinterpret it due to lack of discrimination. If prārabdha is held to be real, then the non-dual Self is not realized, and two great faults arise:

1. Liberation becomes impossible (since duality is affirmed).
2. In the absence of liberation, the entire tradition of Vedānta as a means to mokṣa collapses.

Thus not only are these two defects incurred, but it would amount to abandoning Advaita Vedānta altogether, reducing it to dualism by affirming prārabdha as real.

What then should be accepted? That śruti alone which produces true knowledge. Such as: ‘Knowing Him alone, the wise seeker should cultivate prajñā; one should not dwell on many ritualistic words, for that only weakens speech’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 4.4.21).

The intent is this: The wise aspirant, desiring to be Brahman, must first know the Self taught in Vedānta through scripture and teacher, and then cultivate direct realization that concludes inquiry. He should not waste effort ruminating over many passages prescribing karma and upāsanā, for that is mere fatigue of speech (vāco-viglāpanam), universally experienced as fruitless.”

Verse No 95

“The status of being the cause of the world belongs solely to the conjunction of Brahman and ajñāna (mithunībhāva). This is explained with the example of the rope (appearing as a snake under ignorance).”

Verse No 96

“Now, as was said: when that (ignorance) is destroyed, where could the world-appearance remain? Explaining this, he concludes the previously established non-existence of prārabdha with the supporting example of the rope (appearing as a snake). Thus, it is clear.”

For Śaṅkara, the rope-snake analogy is not just a teaching device but the ultimate vision:

• The jñānī abides in Brahman alone, seeing the world as mithyā.
• The ajñānī sees the world as real, just as he sees the snake as real.
• Therefore, mokṣa is not “freedom from prārabdha” in time, but the direct recognition that prārabdha never truly existed.

Verse No 97

“Further: An objection may be raised — ‘If for the liberated knower (jīvanmukta) there is no prārabdha at all, then why do the Upaniṣads speak of prārabdha, as in “atra brahma samaśnute” and similar statements?’

The answer: Such references to prārabdha are not meant for the jñānī, but for the ignorant (ajñānīs). The scripture speaks of prārabdha merely as a teaching device, in order to address the doubts of those who still perceive difference.

When ignorance, which is the root-cause of all worldly activity, is destroyed by Self-knowledge, there is no prārabdha at all for the knower. But when the ignorant raise the question, ‘How does the jñānī still engage in worldly dealings if his ignorance is destroyed?’, the answer ‘because of prārabdha’ is given for their understanding. In truth, no prārabdha binds the jñānī.”

Verse No 98

“An objection may be raised: ‘Does the scripture speak of karma for the sake of instructing the jñānī?’

The reply: No. The śruti itself declares — ‘When Brahman, the higher and the lower, is realized, then the knots of the heart are cut, all doubts are destroyed, and all karmas are destroyed’ (Muṇḍaka Up. 2.2.8).

The plural word ‘karmāṇi’ (karmas) here is deliberate. It is used not merely to distinguish between two types (sañcita and kriyamāṇa), but to indicate that all three — including prārabdha — are destroyed. If the intent was only two, the śruti would have used the dual form ‘karmani.’

Therefore, it is taught that upon the direct realization of Brahman as the Self, with the breaking of the knot (the false union of consciousness with the inert body-mind), all three types of karma — sañcita, kriyamāṇa, and prārabdha — are annihilated.

Thus, the scripture speaks in this way to reveal to the jñānī that the highest human goal (mokṣa) is indeed freedom from all karmic bondage.”

Verse 94

Objection: The scriptures (e.g. “From which all beings are born…”) declare that the world, including body and objects, is truly born of Brahman. If so, how can it be said to be mere appearance (prātibhāsika)?

Answer: The notion of causality must be understood carefully. There are two kinds of cause:

1. Nimitta (efficient cause): only the cause of origination.
2. Upādāna (material cause): the cause of origination, continuance, and dissolution.

Vedānta declares that the material cause of the world is ajñāna (ignorance, māyā) — “Know Māyā as Prakṛti” (Śvetāśvatara 4.10). And because the śruti also includes Brahman as cause (by the conjunctive “and”), both Brahman and ajñāna together must be considered.

• Brahman alone cannot be the cause, since it is changeless.
• Ajñāna alone cannot be the cause, since it is inert.
• Therefore, Brahman in association with ajñāna is spoken of as the cause of the world.
• As the Upaniṣad says: “He combines the real and the unreal” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 1.4.7).

The example is clay and pots:

• Brahman is like water — the immutable substratum.
• Ajñāna is like clay — capable of forming shapes, covering the truth.

Thus, when ajñāna is destroyed by Brahma-vidyā, the appearance of multiplicity (world, jīva, īśvara) vanishes. Brahman alone remains.

Verses No 91 to 93

• Ignorance is the root of prārabdha
• Prārabdha (the supposed karma that has “already begun” and sustains the body of the jīvanmukta) is only valid under avidyā.
• Once knowledge dawns, avidyā (and with it, its products) are nullified.
• Vyavahāra depends on avidyā
• All worldly dealings (eating, speaking, even the notion “I am embodied”) rely on ignorance.
• With knowledge, these lose their ontological basis.
• No prārabdha for the jñānī
• Śaṅkara is affirming the ajātivāda standpoint: if avidyā is gone, there is no scope for karma — including prārabdha.
• This tallies with Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā (3.48): “na nirodho na cotpattiḥ…” (no origination, no cessation, no bondage, no liberation).
• Teaching vs. Reality
• Though texts sometimes say “prārabdha continues even for the knower until the body falls,” here the rahasya (secret teaching) is given: in ultimate truth, prārabdha never existed.
• This preserves the two-level doctrine:
• Vyāvahārika — prārabdha seems to continue for explanation.
• Pāramārthika — no prārabdha, no bondage, no body.

• Threefold Karma as a Teaching Device
• Śaṅkara acknowledges the traditional tripartite classification of karma.
• This helps explain why bodies arise and why experiences differ.
• Ultimate Negation of Karma
• Yet, the punchline: all karma belongs only to the level of avidyā (ignorance).
• From the Self’s standpoint (ātmanah svataḥ), there is no doership (akartṛtva).
• Prārabdha as Relational, Not Absolute
• For a given body, a portion of sañcita is labeled prārabdha.
• This is only a functional, relative distinction — not ultimately real.
• Non-origination (Ajātivāda)
• The conclusion directly aligns with Gauḍapāda:
• “nānyo dharmo’sti saṃsāre…” and
• “na nirodho na cotpattiḥ…” (GK 2.32; 3.48).
• Births are only imagined due to ignorance — the Self, free of doership, never undergoes birth.
• Teaching vs. Reality
• On the vyāvahārika plane, karma is explained in three categories to help seekers.
• On the pāramārthika plane, all three (sañcita, āgāmī, prārabdha) collapse into unreality, because Brahman has no doership or change.
• 
  
• Dream as Analogy for Birth
• Just as in dream there appears a whole world with actions, experiences, and results — yet upon waking, no causal birth or karma truly existed — so too with waking life.
• The “births” we take as real are of the same order as dream appearances.
• Denial of Prārabdha in Truth
• If there is no real birth (janmābhāva), then the concept of prārabdha — karma already fructifying through the body — collapses.
• Prārabdha only makes sense under the empirical (vyāvahārika) view.
• Śaṅkara’s Two-Level Teaching
• For seekers (vyavahāra): karma is divided into sañcita, āgāmī, prārabdha to explain embodied experience.
• In reality (pāramārthika): no karma, no birth, no prārabdha exists — all is Brahman alone.
• Gaudapāda’s Ajātivāda Influence
• This is straight from Gauḍapāda’s Māṇḍūkya Kārikā 3.48:
• “na nirodho na cotpattiḥ na baddho na ca sādhakaḥ |
• na mumukṣur na vai muktaḥ ityeṣā paramārthatā ||”
• There is no birth, no bondage, no seeker, no liberation — all such distinctions vanish upon realization.

Verses 89 and 90

Verse no 87 to 89

Verse no.87