Transcription
Hey, oh, oh.
Oh.
In the 49th verse, the student had asked seven questions to the guru. And the guru, so far what we have seen, has answered two questions. First was, "Katham Vimoksha?" How to get liberated? That was first answered.
Then we saw the last section which was taken from verses 72 to 123. The entire section is that of "Kaha Asau Anatma?" What is not me? And in that, Bhagavan Sri Shankarachariji had explained to us the three main components that constitute not-self. See, earlier also we had seen the concept that the world of objects is not explained as not-self because we never have a feeling of it being me. So, what is anatma? Anatma is that which I consider to be myself, but I am not. Anatma is explained as sthula sharira, sukshma sharira, karana sharira – the gross, subtle, and causal bodies. What are these? These are the things which I consider to be me, but actually, I am not that. The watch, watch that we all are seeing, is it gross body? No, it is a gross object, but it is not gross body. It is not subtle body. It is not causal body. So, do you mean to say it is not anatma and therefore it is atma? No, no, no, no, that's not the point. Anatma is explained as what? Where I have a notion of "me," but actually that notion is wrong. Where I don't have a notion of "me" being that, that is not explained as anatma. Like the watch, house, car, I may say it is "my," but I don't say it is "me." Whereas the gross body, the subtle body, the causal body, these are the three things which are "my," but I also think that it is "me." So, the place where "me" and "my" so to say sit together, reside, that comes under anatma, which is actually "my," but I wrongly understand it to be "me." And therefore, first that topic was taken: "What you think you are, you are not that." So, you think that you are the body, you are not the body. You think you are the senses, you are not the senses. You think you are the pranas, you are not the pranas. You think you are the mind and intellect, you are not the mind and intellect. You think you are that ignorance, that causal body which creates everything, you are not that.
Now, obviously, when it is said, "You are not that, you are not that," etcetera, then the question comes, "Then who am I?" That is the next topic. You see, the thought flow: "Kaha so anatma?" Next question is "Paramatma." Then who is the supreme self? Who am I, actually? Who is the supreme self? Now, the moment it is said as "supreme self," don't think that it is somewhere sitting in the seventh cloud in the heaven, etcetera. That is me. That is actually me. So far, what we have seen in gross, subtle, and causal body is what I think myself to be. Now, what we are going to see is who I actually am. So, now the description of the self, my description, begins. Okay.
So, the next question that is taken for discussion is this "Paramatma," who is the supreme self? And the answer is given from verses 124 to 136, next 13 verses. The answer is given. Let us, let us see. Shankaracharya himself, or the guru himself, introduces the topic. Let us see verse number 124.
Please repeat.
A new topic is starting. Some topic was explained so far: "Who is what is not-self?" Anatma. Now, a different topic is beginning. Therefore, the guru says, "I shall explain to you well in detail." What shall I explain to you? "Paramatma swarupam," the nature of the supreme self. Carefully, each and every word of the verse is very, very important. Now, "now" means a new topic is starting. To you, to the student who had asked the seven questions, to that student, the teacher is saying, "I shall explain to you in detail of the Paramatma, of the supreme self." Why the word "supreme self"? Self, why not only self? Why not "Atmana swarupam?" Because "Atma" means "me." Now, I may have that notion of "I" in the wrong things, like the gross body, subtle body, causal body, etcetera. To distinguish that, here we are talking about your true nature, real you, and not what you think yourself to be. The word "param" is used. "Param" means supreme, highest. "Param" means that which cannot be compared with anything. It is the highest, not comparative degree, superlative degree. It is highest. There's nothing higher than that. So, "param" word is used to indicate that we are talking about the real "me." Otherwise, the word "Atma" also can be used, "Atma swarupam." But the word "param" indicates that we are actually going to talk about, we are actually going to discuss about that, that you, real you. And "interesting" is "paramatmana sampravaksyami." "I shall explain to you the nature of the self, not the qualities of the self." Please note, the self doesn't have qualities. The self doesn't have form. The self doesn't have any such kind of explanation. And therefore, the only thing that can be explained, or rather, that can be used to indicate the self, is the nature of the self. That is what the guru says, "I shall explain to you in detail." Okay.
Why, why are you explaining this to me? "Why" means what you asked, and therefore I am answering. "What will I get?" Yet, that by realizing which, you see, not just "nyaya," not just knowing, but "visheshya," you see. "Nyana" means knowledge. "Visheshya" means experiential knowledge, realization. So, I am not going to explain to you something which you should understand and stop there. No. That by realizing which, a human being becomes free from bondage. When "vidya," having realized, having realized one's own true nature, the nature of one's own true self, having realized, realized means what? Not just intellectually understanding, but experiencing that, "Yes, I am of this nature. I am this." Knowing this, realizing this, "naraha," a human being, "bandha" is to be understood, being free from the, being freed from the bondage, "bandha." They, realizing this self, one attains the supreme liberation, being freed from all kinds of bondage. So, that knowledge I am about to give you. And you have to not just understand it intellectually, yes, that is the first step, understand it intellectually, but next, go on to realize it as your own self, personalize that knowledge to become your experience. Then what will happen? Then one will get liberation. You see, "vidya," having realized, one attains liberation. So, there is no again intermediary step in between the self-knowledge and liberation. Self-knowledge here means realization, not just understanding who I am, but experiencing who I am. The moment I experience, I get liberation. I am free from all kinds of bondage. Okay.
Four questions were asked about bondage. Out of that, one only is answered. Remaining three are not answered. But he answers the sixth question, "Paramatma," and says that realizing this self, you will be liberated from the bondage. If you remember, in "Katham Vimoksha," the steps were given. At that time, we had seen what do we mean by "bahiranga sadhana," "antaranga sadhana," and "sakshat sadhana." Remember, Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, or the path of knowledge, and sorry, path of action, dedicated action, and devotion, which gives "grata," attaining the three, three-step process. And "sakshat sadhana" was explained as "atmadyana," the self-realization, the experience of one's own true nature, isn't it? That is the step that we are at now. The guru is explaining to us the nature of the self, which we need to realize, so that we immediately will be liberated, right? So, this verse is called as "pratidnyavakya." "Pratidnyavakya" means statement of promise. Why? Because guru says, "I shall explain to you." So, he is making a promise to us. And then he will continue. These are these are some kind of, um, what we say, to understand scriptures, we should know all these things. If you remember, we have seen "pratidnyavakya" has come earlier also. For each section, there will be something. We also have seen "vastu sangravaka." If you remember, the entire topic is summarized in short. The second verse is the "vastu sangraha" for the entire text, etcetera, etcetera, right? So, here also is this statement of promise, "prativakya," where the guru promises first that "I shall explain to you." "I shall explain to you," right? Okay.
Explain. I am waiting. Immediately, the guru starts to explain the nature of the supreme self. What is that? Let us see verse number 125.
The guru starts with "Asti Kashchit." "There is someone." Means, question. "Someone asti." "There is something." "There is someone" like this. "Swayam," which itself. "Swayam" means itself. Itself means what? That which is itself means which doesn't require anything else for its existence, for its illumination. There is someone like this. "Swayam" also indicates that it is self-luminous. It doesn't require any other light. It itself is of the nature of consciousness, "chit." "Nityam," eternal. Eternal, that which is same, constant, changeless in all the three periods of time. "Nityam." Generally, in Vedanta, we will have two types of "nitya." Means permanent, eternal. Something is called as "changing permanent" or "changing eternal." Means what? It changes, but somehow the concept is constant. Example: river. Say, river, we say is eternal, is always there. But you see, the water of the river is continuously changing. Suppose you are on the river side, you put your hand in the water, you take your hand out, and you again immediately put your hand again. Remember, the two times that water that you touched is different. Though it is within a second, you are taking your hand out and again putting it inside, but both the times, what you touched, the water is different. But the river is same. So, such things which are changing, but they give semblance of being eternal, are called as "pravahi nitya," means that which is changing continuously, but it is "nitya," it is eternal. Whereas, another kind of eternal is called as "kutasthanitya." "Anvil." Ah, what do you say? Iron piece or iron ball, whatever you want to say, which the iron smith uses as a base. You must have seen iron smith. What it does is, you know, whichever, uh, iron piece it wants to bend or put it into some kind of shape, it will hold that in a kind of, what we say, kind of instrument, will put it in the fire, and hold it on top of this iron piece, strong iron piece, and then will beat it. And when that iron smith beats the iron piece which is just heated, will get into a shape, but the base remains constant. That which stays like the anvil means what? Which does not change. It remains constant. So, it is not "pravahi nitya." It is not changing eternal. It is unchanging eternal. Actually speaking, that which changes is not truly eternal. But that which is changeless is truly eternal. And the self is of that nature, that it is unchanging eternal. It is changeless.
Okay. So, first, what is the guru saying? "There is something." What do you mean, "there is something?" So, there are different schools of philosophy, um, and one of the very interesting school of philosophy, "darshana," is called as "Shunyavada." Have you heard "Shunyavada?" One of the, both the school of philosophy which says, "There is nothing." So, what is the supreme reality? Nothing is the supreme reality. Who am I? I am nothing. What is the word "nothing?" How can you say "nothing?" So, they say, you see, when you sleep, when you are in deep sleep, when you don't have your mind, you don't have your body, you don't have the world, what do you experience? Nothing. That is what you are. See, so far, what we said, "I am not the gross body, I am not the subtle body, I am not even the causal body." So, who are you? You are nothing. Vedanta says, "Wrong, wrong." Why? You see, because who knows that there is nothing? Even to experience "nothing," there has to be someone. Think about it. Even if you say that in the waking state, there are many, many objects, there are many, many people, there are many experiences happening. In the dream, the complete dream is projected by the mind, and you are experiencing it. In the deep sleep, you are neither experiencing the waking world, nor experiencing the dream world. So, there is nothing. But I am not that "nothing." I am the one who is seeing that there is nothing. So, I am there. Think, suppose I tell you, "Go and check in that hall, is there anyone?" So, you go and see that there is nobody. And what do you say? "Veggie, there is no one." But my dear, you are there. Who is seeing that there is no one? Even to experience "nothing," there has to be a positive entity. Without that, how can the experience of "nothingness" happen? Who knows that there is not "nothing?" There has to be someone. That you are. That I am not the "nothing" that you are experiencing, but the one who is experiencing that "nothingness," the one who knows that there is "nothing," one who is the substratum of "nothing," that you are. So, the philosophy which says that "I am nothing," first refuted by saying, "First of all, understand that there is something which is different from the three bodies, agreed, but which you actually are. There is something. It is not nothing. It is not absence. It is a presence." As the question, and what kind of presence it is? "Swayam." It is self-luminous presence. Means what? You don't need something else to know that "I exist." Do I need anything else to know that I exist? I don't need anything. Take the same example. If I send you to some room, and you say that "There is nobody." Then I ask you next question, "Please see if there is a table in that room." And you reply, "I don't know." Why? Because there is darkness. "Is there a chair in the room?" "I don't know." Because there is darkness. But if I ask you question, "Are you there?" Can you say, "I don't know?" Because there is darkness? No. Why? Because to know whether a table is there or not, light is required. Chair is there or not, light is required. Everything else, I need something else to know whether it exists or not. But to know that "I exist," I don't need any other faculty to tell me that I exist. Why? Because I am of the nature of consciousness. Means, "chit." It is self-luminous. It doesn't require anything else for its existence or for its consciousness. And "nityam." "Nityam" represents that such aspect, the existence aspect, which is constant in all the three periods of time. So, there is something. It is of the nature of "satchit nityam" and "swayam."
Okay. Already we have seen one point about the self. That it, what, what is that point? Who I am not? That point is already seen. Gross body, subtle body, causal body. And in every discussion, he kept telling, "You are not this. You are not this. You are not this. You are not even the functions that they are performing. You are not even touched by those functions." Remember? So, those points you have to keep in mind. So, when it is said now here that "There is someone," "There is something" which is self-luminous, "swayam," and which is eternal, "nityam," of the nature of consciousness, existence. Don't think that they are talking about the gross, subtle, and causal body. No. There is something apart from these three bodies, which is my true nature, which is of the nature of consciousness, existence. Okay. But please, give little more, little more clarity on who is this "kashchit?" You said, no? Okay. So, I am "nityam." Fine. Tell me little more about it. He says, "It is the substratum of the 'i' thought." It is the substratum of the 'i' thought. What is this ego? Remember "ahamriti." We have seen at that time that "antakarana" is classified as two. Of course, it can be classified as four, as "mana," "buddhi," but then we saw another kind of classification where we said there are only two kinds of thoughts: the "i" thought and "this" thought. We also saw that for all this thought, the substratum is the "i" thought. Now, the self is the substratum of the "i" thought. So, the entire "idhambrati," all the thoughts pertaining to the world, pertaining to everything other than me, are supported by "i" thought, "ahamriti," which keeps providing "i, i, i," ego, "i" thought to to all the kinds of thoughts. Now, the substratum of that "i" thought is the real self. Substratum of the "i" thought is the real self. Okay.
In "Keno Upanishad," this will be explained as "pratibodhaviditam." "Pratibhadhavidhitam." That which is known through every single thought. Through every thought, "bodha" means thought. There, "prati" means through every. In every thought, you can know the self. Through every thought, you can know the self. How? Because it is the substratum of every thought. Why? Because all kinds of thoughts have substratum called "i" thought, "ahamriti." Substratum of that "i" thought is this real self, "aham." What do we mean by substratum of the "i" thought? See, mind is inert. Because of the reflection of consciousness, it appears to be sentient. Because of the reflection of consciousness, it gets capacity to know. Correct? So, what is a thought? Thought is an attempt of mind at knowing, isn't it? That is called thought. Now, that thought appears to be sentient, how? By taking the consciousness from the self. So, the moment there exists a thought, that thought is kind of a window to the self. Kind of a window. Through the thought, you can know the self. Why? Because the thought is associated with reflection of consciousness, borrowed sentiency. So, through that thought, you can reach its root, its substratum, the self, "aham." The support of the "i" thought is the self. So, how can I know this "sachit swarupa atma?" How can I know the self which is of the nature of existence and consciousness? I can know it by, what can we say, through each thought, every single moment. The thought comes to our mind, catch that thought and go to its root, go to its substratum, find out what it is standing on. That substratum is me, actually. Is the real me, not the apparent me called as ego. In Gurudev's words, not the small "i," but the big "I," capital "I." Who, who am I? The substratum of the small "i," the substratum of the ego, the substratum of "ahamriti," which itself is substratum for all other thoughts, which thoughts are substratum for the entire world. That substratum of "ahmadi" is. So, through the thought, reach the substratum of the thought. That's what you are. From now onwards, the topic which will be taken is very subtle because we are not talking about something that comes under the grasp of mind and intellect. Remember this. The self is beyond the mind and intellect. So, more and more you try to catch, more and more it will slip away because it cannot be understood by mind, intellect. So, what we have to do? We have to stop seeing it as an object which can be known through mind and intellect. We have to start seeing as the subject who illumines mind and intellect. Okay? Otherwise, there will be trouble. But we must understand each and every point. Shankaracharya is trying to tell. "Asti kashchit." "There is something." "Swayam." Of the nature of consciousness, self-luminous. "Nityam." Eternal. Of the nature of existence. The substratum of the "i" thought. Substratum of the ego. That from which ego borrows the sentiency. That is the self. From whom he borrows. "Avasthatra ya sakshi." Sun. It being the witness of the three states. Witness of what? "Avastha," the three states of experience which we have studied earlier: waking state, dream state, "sushupti," deep sleep state. So, when we were studying the three shariras, Shankaracharya pointed out "vibhakti avastha" of each sharira, special state of each body. Remember? Waking state is the special state for gross body. Why? Because in that state, the gross body is fully functional. In other two states, gross body is not there. It is sleeping. For subtle body, dream is the special state. That doesn't mean subtle body is not there in the waking. That's not the point. But it is in full function, full illumination, where? In the dream. Same way, for the causal body, for the "karana sharira," "sushupti avastha," the deep sleep state is the main state, "vibhakti avastha." Okay.
See, careful. The "jiva," individual, through the gross body, experiences the waking state. Yes. That guy is called as "Vishwa." Remember? We had seen. We had seen this concept. The same "jiva," through the subtle body, experiences the dream state, and at that time, it is called "Taijasa." The same "jiva," individual, through the causal body, experiences deep sleep state and is called as the deep sleeper. So, the "jiva" is going through these three states, experiencing the three states through the three bodies. Okay. Okay. Who am I? I am not the "jiva" who is going through the three states. I am "avasthatra sakshi." I am the witness of the three states. There is a difference. The one who is going through and one who is the witness. There is a difference. What do you mean, "there is a difference?" One who is going through is experiencing and therefore modifying with each experience. Whereas the witness is uninvolved, untouched. See, even in our common parlance, witness, we say, no? In law, in the court, etcetera, they will say, "witness." Who can be called as witness? One who is not involved in the action. For example, suppose I was slapped by someone. So, if I am the victim, who is slapped by someone, I cannot be the witness. No. But I saw. "You are involved in the action. Your testimony is not considered as a witness. You are part of the whole transaction." At the same time, the person who slapped me also cannot be the witness. Witness has to be someone unrelated to us, who is there, who is witnessing the action happening, who is not involved in the action. No, no, Vedji, you know what happened? I did not slap, but I made somebody slap. Then even you cannot become witness. Why? Because you are involved in the action. The one who got slapped, the one who slapped, the one who made the second person slap the first person, all three cannot be witness. Witness has to be someone who has seen, but is not involved. "Sakshi." The word is "sakshi." That which sees, "sakshat," directly, "sadhanamvina," without any other means, that which sees, that is called as witness. Means what? You can't even say that "I was not present at that moment when this action happened." But I heard that person A slapped person B. If you have heard and not seen yourself, you again cannot become witness. Are you getting? Who am I? Who is the self? I am not the "jiva" who is experiencing the three states, is going through the three states. I am the witness consciousness, "sakshi chaitanya," who is illumining the three states. So, so far, when it was said that "I am not the gross body, I am not the subtle body, I am not the causal body," then am I the one who possesses this gross, subtle, and causal body to experience waking, dream, and deep sleep state? No. I am not the "jiva." I am the witness of the three states. And of course, I am what? "Pancha kosha vilakshana." Different, distinct, distinct from what? "Pancha kosha." The five sheaths. Has this concept of five sheaths come before? In "Viveka Chudamani," only might have been mentioned. It might not have been explained. See, "pancha kosha." Those who have studied other texts of Vedanta know this very well. The same three bodies, the gross, subtle, and causal bodies, can be reclassified into five "koshas," five sheaths. Anna Maya Kosha, Prana Maya Kosha. They are like covering on the self. Earlier, this topic had come. I had mentioned at that time also. So, covering means what? They appear to be the self, but they are not the self. They take the shape of the self, but they are not the self. Just like the sword case looks like sword, covers the sword, but is not the sword. Sword case, you must have seen, it has the same shape, it covers the sword, but it is not the sword. In the same way, these five "koshas," these five coverings, these five sheaths, appear to be me. They cover my real nature, but they are not me. What are they? Number one, "Anna Maya Kosha." The food sheath. Food sheath is actually nothing but gross body, "sthula sharira," which we have seen, which can be perceived. Right? You want more explanation of these "koshas," etcetera? Please go to the basic texts. Takes like "Kena Upanishad," "Self Unfoldment." There will be elaboration on these topics. "Pancha Kosha." First is "Anna Maya Kosha." Means the gross body. Why gross body is called as "annmaya?" Because it is born from food. It stays in food. It goes back to become food. From where is this gross body born? From the brinjals and the carrots eaten by your parents. From that food only, the body is formed. Now, how is it sustaining? How is it growing? By food. And when it dies, when it perishes, it becomes food for other living beings. It is born from food, it grows by food, it becomes food for others. So, the gross body is "Anna Maya Kosha." Now, the subtle body is divided into three "koshas." "Prana Maya Kosha," "Mano Maya Kosha." We have seen the components of subtle body, isn't it? The five organs of perception, the five organs of action, the five "pranas," and "antakaranam" for "mana," "buddhi," "ankara." Correct? Now, reorganize these into three. So, first is called as "Prana Maya Kosha." The vital layer sheath, which is having "pranas" and the organs of action. So, the physiological functions, "pranas," "pranas," physiological functions, respiration, digestion, circulation, reverse reaction, excretion, etcetera, etcetera. But they are combined with what? With the organs of action. So, "pancha prana" plus "pancha karmendriya" together form "Prana Maya Kosha." "Manomaya Kosha" means what? Mind. When you say mind, "chitta" is also included. And organs of perception. So, organs of action were covered in "Pranamaya." Organs of perception come in "Manomaya." Mind, "chitta," "mana," and "chitta," mind and memory. And five organs of perception. "Vidyadhamaya Kosha" is intellect along with ego. And again, the five organs of perception. They are part of both because for both they are required. That is called as "Vidyana Maya Kosha," intellectual sheath. So, the mental sheath, intellectual sheath. And the last one is called as "Bliss Sheath," "Ananda Maya Kosha." What is this "Ananda Maya Kosha?" "Karana Sharira," "avidya," "vasana," all that we have seen. That itself is called as "Anandamaya Kosha." So, if you can see, "sthula sharira" is "Anna Maya Kosha." "Sukshma sharira" is reclassified as "Prana Maya Kosha," "Mano Maya Kosha," and "Vidyanyan Maya Kosha" is called as "Anandamaya Kosha." Roughly. Earlier, we have seen that "I am neither the gross body, nor the subtle body, nor causal body." Now, Shankaracharya says, "Pancha kosha vilakshana." "I am that self which is distinct from these five sheaths." Means what? "I am not the five sheaths." Okay. So, there is something, "swayam," of the nature of consciousness, self-luminous. "Nityam," eternal, of the nature of existence. The substratum of the "i" thought. Substratum of the ego. That from which ego borrows the sentiency. That is the self. From whom he borrows. "Avasthatra ya sakshi." Witness of the three states. Witness, uninvolved, witness. "Pancha kosha vilakshana." It is different from the five sheaths. Okay. This is the nature of the self. So, to say, the self is being defined here. So, to say, definition. Why? Because it cannot be defined actually. It can only be pointed out. But so to say, it is defined.
Now, let us understand one more concept. What is a definition? "Lakshanam" in Sanskrit. Definition is called as "lakshanam." What is a definition? What do you mean by definition? A definition is that which separates the defined object from all other objects. A definition is a combination of words. Obviously, what does it do? It separates out the object that we want to define from all other objects. "Vyavartakam lakshanam." In "shastra," we have definition of definition. What do you mean by definition? That which separates out. Separates out what? What it is not. So, that what it is becomes clear. That is called as "lakshanam." Our definition is that which separates out the object from all other objects that it is not. That is called as def. That is what is called as definition. Now, this definition is of three types. One is called as "swarupalakshana." Swarupa. Second is called as "tatastha lakshana." Tatastha. And third one is called as "atadvyavrati." Let us see one by one. What do they mean? "Swarupa lakshana" means definition by nature. Definition by nature means what? Definition which doesn't say anything other than its nature. So, when you read the definition, it should just tell me what it is. That's it. Nothing else. That is called as "swarupalakshana." "Tatastha lakshana" means "tata tata" means bank of the river. Means staying through one thing, something else is pointed out. So, I want to define object A, but I am defining object A through object B. Not by defining what object A is, but I am defining it through B, through something else. That is called as "tatastha lakshana." Careful. "Swarupalakshana" explains the nature of the object. That's it. Points out to the object via something. Through something. Means you are neither giving the nature, nor pointing it through something, but you are just saying what it is not. Means what it is not. That means not that. You are removing that. Not this. Not this. Not this. Not this. Okay. That is called as "atadvyavrati." So, three types of definition. Let us see the example, then you will get more. "Sugar is sweet." See, sweetness is nature of sugar. It never leaves the sugar. Remember that. Sugar may be in a cubical form, or in a powder form, in a liquid form, in whichever form it is, the form may change. Sweetness doesn't change. So, sweetness is the nature of sugar. So, when I define it by giving its nature, I am explaining it as "swarupalakshana." This is the nature of that thing. Light is the nature of sun. Coolness is the nature of water. Heat is the nature of fire. So, when I am defining that object by explaining its nature, it is called as "swarupa." The verse says, "tata." In the same way, "subhava." "Atmana subhava." What is the nature of the self? "Satchidananda." Ever pure and eternal. This is the nature of the self. So, when I am explaining the self by giving these words, I am mentioning it as "swarupalakshana." So, "swarupalakshana" is definition by nature. "Tatastha lakshana" means what? There is something that I want to define, but I am pointing it out through something else. Standard example that is given in the Vedanta is, suppose you want to point out to someone which is your house. You are on a terrace and you are seeing so many houses. And you want to show to your friend which is your house. So, you say, "You see that house where the crow is sitting? That is my house." Now, what are you doing? You are not explaining the nature of the house, but through the crow, you are pointing out the house. Why? Because there is a, there is a relationship between the house and crow at that time. Now, what the person also is doing? You see, the person wants to know your house. You are pointing it out through crow. So, first, the person perceives the crow. Through the crow, perceives the house. Once the knowledge happens, now the crow is not required. Next time, if some third person asks the second person, "Hey, where is that first person's house?" Will you search for the crow? No. Now, the crow is not required. At that time, through the crow only, you came to know the house. Why? Because there are so many houses. How to otherwise distinguish? They all look same. So, using the crow, it was pointed out. The house is understood through the crow. Now, the crow is not required. "Tatastha lakshana." So, sometimes the self will not be defined by giving its nature. Sometimes the nature will be given, and therefore it will come under "swarupalakshana." Sometimes the self will be pointed out by explaining something else, or via something else. Here, you see carefully. Here, you see "swayam nityam." This is "swarupalakshana." Why? Because the nature of the self is mentioned. "Swayam" self-luminous consciousness. "Nityam" eternal existence. Now, see the next two words. "Substratum of the ankara." Through the "ahamkara," the self is pointed out. Which is the substratum of? Can you see that? "Tatastha lakshana." Through the "ankara," the self is pointed out. Why? Because it is the substratum of that. Next word also, you see. "Avasthatra sakshi." Witness of the three states. So, again, what is done? Through the three states, the witness of the three states is pointed out. Through the three states, the witness of the three states is pointed out. "Sakshi." Again, is "tatastha lakshana." Then comes the third type of definition. "Atadvyavrati." Means it is neither defining by nature, nor via something else. It is just saying what it is not. And when you remove what it is not, what remains? It is the self. So, in the definition, it is not saying what it is. It is saying what it is not. Very well-known statement. "Neti neti." "Not this, not this." These kind of definitions are called as "atadvyavrati." Now, here you see, "pancha koshavilaksana." That which is distinct, different from the five "koshas." That which is not the five sheaths. What it is? That is not explained. That is explained in "swarupalakshana" and "tatastha lakshana." But in "pancha koshavilakshana," becomes the "atadvyavrati" type of definition. Or when it is said that "I am not the gross body, I am not the subtle body, I am not the causal body." This is called as "atadvyavrati." See, remember, in any kind of "lakshana," we are doing "vyavrati" only. We are removing what it is not. But is the definition of that nature? That is what is different. See, when I say that the self is of the nature of existence, what am I doing? I am removing all the things which are non-existent or apparently existent. When we say self is eternal, I am removing all the impermanent things. Yes, true. But what kind of definition it is? In all definitions, I am removing what it is not. But how is the definition? Is the definition giving the nature? Is the definition pointing it out through something else? Or is the definition just telling what it is not? In all three kinds of definitions, actually, what I am doing, I am removing what it is not. But what are the words saying? Based on that, definition is of three types. "Swarupalakshana," "tatastha lakshana," and "atadvyavrati." And in this one verse, self is pointed out through all three "lakshanas." "Swarupalakshana" is also given. "Tatastha lakshana" is also given. Remember the definition of "Atma Sharira?" "Sharira" means body. "Atma Sharira" means the body of the self. Same, same thing. Same author is same, isn't it? Shankaracharya is just putting it in a different way here. Saying "ours," right? So, here the self is pointed out through "swarupalakshana," through the "tatastha," and through "atadvayar tilakshana." Some more explanation will be continued in the next verses. Now, he will show the supreme nature of the self in next few three verses. That we will see in the next session. Okay. What is Shankaracharya talking about? Talking about us. Okay. Our discussion is happening. We are the hero. Now, this the central character of the entire text is me. Okay? Feel that and then try to understand. Sufficient for today. We will continue in the next session.