This world, particularly the present generation, is really blessed to have Śrī Candraśekharendra Sarasvatī, the sixty-eighth pontiff of Śrī Kāñcī Kamakoți Śańkara Matha in our midst till the recent past. The Upanishad proclaims that “one should adore the knower of the Self”. ¹ People in general are aware of the teachings of the scriptural texts, but not of the person who followed their teachings and lived accordingly. When such a person comes truly, he is an avatāra or incarnation of the Divine like that of the famous Rāma and Kṛṣṇa in India. The whole world was attracted by the Paramācārya’s simplicity, profound analysis, boundless mercy, and concern for the individual. This essay is a small garland of flowers made mostly from his views and sayings at different times and offered at the holy feet of the Paramācārya.

That there is one source for all the myriad objects is intuitively known to everybody. If it is accepted that there is creation of the universe, then there must be a cause for it. That cause or source is generally termed as the Divine in almost all the religions. Beings, animate and inanimate, are created by the Divine. After creation they must be sustained, lest there is no meaning for creation. Also, existing things should give way for things yet to come. If not, there can be no way for improvement. That takes us to destruction. Unless the old is destroyed, a new thing cannot come in its place. Thus, in all religions the Divine is said to be the creator, sustainer and annihilator leading to the birth of the universe and deluge at a certain period of time. The Vedas too have formulated the concept of the Divine which is called Brahman-Brahman from whom all the worlds emanate, on whom they sustain and unto whom all get merged². Now a doubt arises whether Brahman is one or many. What does it matter, one may ask, if the creator is not a single entity? What is wrong to accept a team or a well-knit unit looking after the execution of all these activities? These thoughts caught the attention of the ancient thinkers called Rșis, and they came out with a solution considering all the possibilities. In the Śvetāśvatara Upanishad, an inquiry was taken up about these questions: “What is the cause? Is it Brahman? Where from are we born? By what do we live? And on what are we established? O, ye who know Brahman, please tell us about how we manage to live our different conditions in pleasures and pains.”³ The Upanishad seers also considered the questions about time, nature, fate, chance, the five elements, the individual soul, etc.⁴

The very existence of Iśvara, the Creator was questioned and many inferences were formulated to prove the existence of God by Udayanācārya in his famous work, Nyāya-kusumāñjali. The Mīmāmsakas, however, had different views on this problem. Some thought that this world is permanent and does not undergo any change. However, they accepted the Godhead sans any physical form. Whatever it is, the creation of the world is also an act; for, the performance of an action requires a doer or an agent; that is to say, one should possess (i) the immediate knowledge of how to perform an act; (ii) the desire to perform it; and (iii) actual performance of the act. That the Divine (Brahman) has all these, is given by the scriptural texts.

The śruti text, “He who is all-knowing and all-wise, whose austerity consists of knowledge, from Him are born this Brahmā (Hiranya-garbha), name-shape, and food,”⁵ vouches the existence of immediate knowledge to the Creator. It is further stated that the Creator-God “desired: Let me become many, let me be born…⁶” Again, the scriptural text which says: “He produced the mind”⁷ is the proof for the existence of action in Brahman. Thus, on the authority of the scripture we have to say that Brahman is the cause of the universe. When we say “cause”, there arises a problem whether Brahman is the efficient cause or the material cause. In our day-to-day experience, every object has a material cause and also an efficient cause. For example, a pot has clay as its material cause, and a potter as the efficient cause. To take another example, a cloth has threads as its material cause and the weaver as efficient cause. In general, only inert substances are material causes, and sentient beings are the efficient causes. In the light of the examples mentioned above, one may argue that the efficient cause of the universe may be the sentient Brahman, but the material cause must be some inert substance. But the Upanishads and the Sūtrakāra hold that Brahman alone is both the efficient and the material cause of the universe⁸. This view made the Vaiśeşikas, the Naiyāyikas, and the Sankhyas search for a material cause for the universe.

If we take a substance and split it into smaller particles, we will finally arrive at the smallest particles called the atoms, which are not divisible at all. The Vaiśeşikas and the Naiyāyikas thought that the Creator-God, by his volition, combined two atoms to form a molecule, and then combined three molecules to produce a triad, and so on. It is through this process of combining the atoms and the molecules, the entire universe consisting of various kinds of objects was produced. These philosophers applied the same logic with regard to the elements such as water, fire, and air. They thought that ether (ākāśa) was eternal, and so it has no atoms.

The Sänkhyas were not satisfied with this theory. They undertook the inquiry from another perspective. Any object in the world has three roles to play with reference to human beings. A human being sometimes gets happiness by seeing an object; sometimes the same may be a source of misery to him. At some other time, he may just be indifferent to it. The same object giving happiness to one at a period of time may be a source of sorrow for another. Some other person may not be bothered by it at all. Consider the following case: one and the same body of a woman generates happiness, misery, and delusion to her husband, to co- wives, and a lover, respectively⁹. It means that every object is made of three guņas, which are the causes of these three emotions. As every object in this world has these three guņas, its material cause too must contain all these three constituents. So, from this experience, the Sankhyas draw the inference that prakṛti, the primordial cause, is the source from which the world is generated. They also thought that prakṛti, by its innate nature, spontaneously transforms itself into various objects of the world in a particular order. Just as a cow spontaneously generates milk for feeding the calf, just as water flows from a higher level to a lower level, even so prakṛti undergoes change and evolves into various objects in order to generate the experience of pleasure and pain to the jīvas. ¹⁰

Though these arguments appear to be sound, they cannot stand examination. Śankara has brought out the untenability of the arguments of these philosophers in the second chapter of his commentary on the Brahma-sūtra. He has given arguments to show that Brahman alone is both the material and the efficient cause of the entire universe. One may argue that, if Brahman is the material cause of the universe, then it must be subject to transformation in the same way as clay undergoes transformation to produce a pot; stated differently, Brahman which is subject to transformation is not immutable. Such a view is not acceptable to Śańkara; for, anything that is subject to change is ultimately perishable. In order to establish the eternality of Brahman, it is necessary to accept the Upanishad view that Brahman is immutable and that it creates the universe through the power of mayā. When Brahman/Atman, the pure consciousness, is reflected in māyā, it is called Iśvara, the Creator-God. According to Advaita, Iśvara with the association of māyā becomes omnipotent and omniscient. That is why the Upanishads call Him as sarvajña and

sarvavit.” Iśvara who has this power (śakti) called māyā has absolute control over it. Though māyā is in Īśvara, it is not different from Iśvara, because it is only his power. We have the power of vision in our eyes, the auditory power in our ears, etc. But this power inherent in the sense organs is non-different from them. The same is the case with māyā. The presence of māyā in Īśvara will not make the latter a composite entity. Vidyāranya in his Pañcadaśī says: “Iśvara is not counted as a second in addition to māyā. No one writes another biography for the power of the individual apart from His. Isn’t it?”¹² Māyā is endowed with so much power that it makes the immutable Brahman itself appear as though it has transformed itself into the universe. The great Sureśvara in his Brhadāraṇyaka-vārtika asks: “Why are you restless about māyā which makes the consciousness appear as jīva, the seeker? Don’t you find that the whole transmigratory world is shown in Brahman itself by this māyā?”¹³ Māyā brings out the power of Brahman to the forefront with the result that Brahman, the pure consciousness, though immutable, becomes the creator, suśtainer, and destroyer of the whole universe. Left to itself, Brahman/Ātman remains still and calm in its natural state, but becomes the many because of māyā. Śańkara in his Saundaryalaharī says: “Śiva attached with śakti (the power of māyā) becomes fit to create the whole universe. Otherwise, the Lord is incapable of even a stir.”¹⁴ From this, one should not conclude that māyā is more powerful than Brahman itself and exists independent of it.

On the contrary, it is dependent on Brahman. When the jīva who is in the empirical existence gets the immediate and direct knowledge of Brahman, maya cease to exist so far so that jiva who is enlightened, is concerned. This has been clearly enunciated by Lord Krsna in the Bhagavad-gītā when he says that “this divine māyā of mine, consisting of the gunas, is hard to overcome. But those who take refuge in me alone cross over it”.¹⁵ Not only the objects in the world have been created by Brahman with the association of māyā, but even the various deities propitiated by different sects are the products of the same. The Paramācārya in his inimitable style explains the same as follows:

“One mantra in the Upaniṣad says: ‘Brahman is infinite; the world is infinite. From the infinite Brahman, the infinite universe is born. Even when the infinite world is taken out from the infinite Brahman, Brahman continues to be infinite.’ By ‘infinite’ is meant that it is everything. How can two objects be infinite at the same time? When infinity is subtracted from infinity, how can there be infinity? What is the real purport of this mantra? The world is not really an object different and separate from Brahman. Brahman alone appears as the universe. Brahman did not create this universe by using another object. Also, Brahman did not transform itself into the universe, but Brahman itself appears as the universe. That is it. We think that there exists a serpent by seeing a garland in twilight. Now, the garland itself appears as a snake. The garland did not transform itself as a snake, nor the garland created the snake. When considered as a snake, the whole (full) garland appeared as a snake only. While seeing it as a garland, the whole object appears as a garland only. Just like a snake (which is whole) arising from a garland (which is also a whole), the universe (which is infinite) also appears from Brahman (which is also infinite). That is to say, at one state the garland itself is full, and at another state the snake is full. Hence there are no two infinite substances at any point of time. One and the same infinite object appears to be infinite in two different ways at two periods of time.

When a snake is cognized as rope, does the weight of the rope increase? When we arrive at the correct knowledge that there exists no snake, the garland alone remains; does its weight  decrease? No. In the same way, when the universe is added to Brahman, or removed from it, it remains full devoid of any change. Kambar says that the world is like the illusory snake appearing in the rope. Even after the snake is removed from the garland, it continues to be a full garland. This is what the Upanishad conveys when it says that, even if the infinite is taken away from the infinite, only the infinite remains.

“Why does the garland appear as a snake? It appears so due to darkness. Brahman appears as the universe due to the darkness (ignorance), māyā. By māyā we mean that which does not exist. A non-existent object, i.e. māyā, alone shows the single object (Brahman) as many worlds by multiplication of various forms. You may ask whether it is possible (for the one Brahman to appear as many). I will answer the same by means of mathematics… I will now tell you a problem of multiplication and division.

“We divide one number by another number. As the divider becomes smaller and smaller, the quotients will become bigger and bigger. The quotient is one when sixteen is divided by sixteen. If divided by eight, the quotient is two. When divided by four, it is four. If divided by one, the quotient is sixteen. If the divider becomes small, quotient becomes very big. If the divider goes on becoming smaller and smaller and finally becomes zero, the quotient becomes very big. It transcends all the numbers and becomes infinite. When you divide any number by zero (an infinitesimal number), then the quotient obtained is infinite. 1/0 = Infinite; 2/0 = infinite; 3/0 = infinite. Even if one crore is divided by 0, the quotient is the same infinite. If the quotient is multiplied by the divider, the number which is divided should be got. This is the mathematical truth. Now 16 divided by 2 = 8. That is, 8 x 2 = 16. By the same formulae, infinite × 0 = 1; infinite x 0 = 2; infinite x 0 = 3. In this way, one will go on with- out an end. The same infinity gets multiples of itself with one, two, three, one crore, and ten crores. This infinite alone in Brahman. The zero is māyā, not existing in real terms. We call zero a non-existent object. Is it not? The word “māyā” means an object that does not exist. Hence, māyā alone is zero or cipher. As infinity multiplies itself with this mayā and expresses itself as many integers, Brahman too with the power of māyā projects itself as the universe with myriad objects. One can give any number for the universe that is being multiplied. Whatever be the number you assign to it, it will not alter as the multiplier is the māyā which is zero. The universe too in this way may get any integer, and so it too becomes infinite. How many kinds of objects do exist in this creation? How many directions into which does the mind run? There is no end to these. Surely, the world itself is infinite. In the Upanishad text, the word ‘purna’ coming at the beginning may be construed as Infinite which does not alter, and the second word ‘pūrṇam’ coming next could be taken as Infinite which undergoes continuous change.

“A changing object cannot be real. Whatever number you may assign to the universe-one, two, three, one crore, ten crores, etc., it is non-existent in reality, or it is zero alone. Whatever be the number, it gives an answer of zero when multiplied with zero. By this principle of mathematics, infinity (Brahman) × māyā (0) =1, 2, 3, etc. This has been told by us in the secondary sense. But in real terms, when the Infinity (Brahman) is multiplied by māyā, we may say that the universe, a product of māyā, is zero or illusory. This Brahman which is infinite alone is real. This is the teaching of Advaita. “¹⁶

The universe is a product of Brahman with the power of maya. Māyā has it locus in Brahman, and Brahman with māyā takes the name of Iśvara. The connection of mayā with Brahman is a moot point to discuss. Brahman is non-relational according to the śruti text, “This Brahman is devoid of any relation.” But it gets connected with maya somehow so that creation can take place. Many theories had been propounded by different schools of philosophy regarding the relation between māyā and Brahman. One śruti text says that “the jīva has the ‘effect’ as its adjunct, whereas the adjunct of Iśvara is the cause (māyā).” This means that the jīva is conditioned by mind, whereas Iśvara is conditioned by māyā. This conditioning may be by reflection of Brahman in māyā, and mind too. It may be argued that Brahman, which is devoid of colour¹⁷ cannot have reflection, as only objects with colour are seen to have reflection. This objection is untenable. If closely observed, we find that colours like red, green, etc. have reflections even though there exists no other colour residing in any colour. It may be argued that Brahman which is devoid of four kinds of dimensions-long, short, big, and small-is not a substance at all; and if it is not a substance, how can it be reflected in any medium? This argument also is untenable, for there are scriptural texts which speak about the reflection of Brahman. There are, for example, the texts: “It is seen as one and manifold, like the moon reflected in water, “¹⁸ and “Just as this luminous mass, the Sun, although one, becomes manifold by being reflected in different sheets of water, the shining birthless Self is made to appear as multiple in different bodies by limiting adjuncts.”

As seen earlier, māyā is an illusory substance without any onto-logical status other than that of Brahman, the universal Self. Thus, its connection with Brahman too is not real. When this connection took place, no one knows. That is the reason why it is said to be beginningless (anādi). The six entities which are said to be anādi are: (1) Brahman, the pure consciousness, (2) jīva, (3) Īśvara, (4) the difference between jīva and Iśvara, (5) nescience, and (6) the relation between nescience and Brahman. In reality, Brahman alone is without a beginning. The others are said to be beginningless as they elude an explanation for their beginning in logical terms. Also, all the rest will get annihilated the moment a jīva gets Brahman-knowledge. Even the jīva, the conditioned soul, loses its jīvahood by the knowledge of Brahman. Not only the jīva, but also Iśvara loses his Iśvara-nature, for Īśvara also is conditioned by mayā. Thus, the panacea for all the ills of transmigration is the knowledge of Brahman.

Coming to Iśvara, it is seen that He is conditioned by māyā the cause of the universe. Consciousness gets reflected in the maya for making the appearance of Iśvara. This māyā does not have any specific form. It can take up many forms according to the situation. Hence Iśvara too can have different forms. It all depends upon the composition of māyā at that time. Māyā is made up of three gunas-sattva, rajas, and tamas. The compositions of these guņas will be changing continuously. When consciousness reflects in māyā with the predominance of sattva-guna, the reflection is termed as Vişņu, the protector of the universe. If rajas is predominant in māyā at the time of reflection, then it is Brahmā, the four-faced creator of the universe; and when tamas is predominant, it is Rudra, the destroyer of the universe. In the same way, many forms of God could be formed through the functioning of māyā. But all of them are only the reflections of consciousness in māyā. Hence all these gods will have the power of omniscience and omnipotence according to the nature of māyā at the time of reflection. That these gods can take different names and forms due to māyā is accepted by Śańkara himself in the Brahma-sūtra- bhāṣya when he says: “Even for God there may be forms created at his will out of māyā for the sake of favouring the aspirants, as is declared in the smrti text, ‘O! Nārada, it is māyā created by Me, that you see Me in this form possessed of all the substances and qualities. You must note this.'” Vidyāranya in his Pañcadaśī says that many persons have accepted different forms of gods taking into account the words of mantras in the Vedas, eulogistic sentences, Kalpa-sūtras, etc. The indwelling Spirit and trees are propitiated as gods. We thus see trees like peepal, sun-plant (arka), and bamboo as family deities. The Lord in the Bhagavad-gītā says that “whatever form any devotee with faith wishes to worship, I make that faith of his steady”¹⁹. Thus, many forms of gods emanate from one universal Consciousness-Brahman. A doubt may be raised about the need for the many forms of God. Will it not be sufficient to have one Godhead either with a form or without form? The answer given in the scriptural texts is that each individual will have preference to a particular form according to the state of the mind and previous impressions (samskāras). The mind of an ordinary individual, which has all along been going outward and experiencing only gross objects, cannot think of subtle, formless God. ²⁰ Hence some form has to be given so that the mind can stick to it. The various forms were assigned to the Godhead by our ancient Rsis and given to the spiritual aspirants. These forms do not actually matter, since consciousness with manifold forms superimposed on it is the same. But they matter for an ordinary individual, because only some forms are in accordance with the earlier impressions in the mind. Even though an individual prays, meditates, and does service to any form of the deity, he indirectly propitiates only Conscious- ness-Brahman, ²¹ which gives the fruits of the same. ²² Also, when the individual does concentrate on his personal God, his mind gets attuned to single-pointedness, and he becomes fit for the enquiry into Brahman. Further, various rituals performed to these gods as given in the Vedas without any desire for the fruit and devoid of ego cleanse his mind so that he progresses in his path. Thus, many forms of the Godhead are in fact a boon and not a bane for the society. This has been well brought out by Amalānanda in his Kalpataru when he says: “Those ignorant people who cannot try for the immediate, direct knowledge of Brahman go for the service of gods with many forms. By the service of those gods with forms, when their minds get controlled, the pure Brahman automatically becomes known to them. “²³

The jīva, Iśvara, and the universe form a triad in the philosophical discussions. The jīva, the conditioned soul, is defined as consciousness either conditioned or reflected in the mind which is a product of māyā/avidyā. If avidyā is viewed as one, then the jīva is one, but when the adjunct for the jīva is mind, then these jīvas are many, because the mind is different for each body. But who is this jīva? The Upanishads declare that the jīva is no other than Brahman, the supreme principle, after its entrance into the body created by it.²⁴ Thus, consciousness is the core of the jīva. Generally, the physical body, the mind, the senses, the vital airs, and consciousness (Atman) are all mixed together, and the term that is used for this complex of entities is the jīva. Vedānta actually tries to distinguish consciousness from what-is-other- than-consciousness through proper training, which involves the analysis of the three states-waking, dream, and deep sleep-of the jīva. The jīva is ignorant of Brahman in all the three states. But apart from being ignorant of Brahman, he misapprehends and experiences many things in the outside world. This is due to his identification with the mind, the sense organs, and the gross body. He takes as his real form what was shown by the thoughts of his mind. By proper training, the jīva will be able to appreciate that the core of himself is nothing but Brahman-Consciousness. All the Upanishad teachings and the various deeds performed by the jīva as directed by the scriptural texts aim at this end. It will be appropriate in this context to quote from the Paramācārya:

“The jīva’s mind does not work when he is asleep, under sedation, or in samādhi due to yoga-nistha. There are no thoughts in his mind then. He then knows not anything special about himself. All beings are equal at this state. A king and a pauper are both equal. A king, when asleep or in coma, does not know anything about the glory of his kingdom. Even a pauper is not aware about his misery then. A good wrestler or a meek weakling, a learned person with degrees A to Z behind his name, or an illiterate all of them are ignorant of their nature and continue to be in the same state of mindlessness. Can a person sleeping without a working mind know his name, place of residence, friends, foes, etc.? He even will not be aware of whether he is a male or a female, old or young. All beings that are aware of their individual peculiarities differing in many ways are reduced to this undifferentiated state at the time of mindless sleep-state. Still, they continue to exist at that time. They exist in their real unconditioned state (devoid of samsāra). This is the important point. One does not die in sleep, coma, or samādhi states. He continues to live. That which exists in him in that state is the pure Atman. It has no death. It has no modification. Modification is also a kind of death. One can know it by deeply analyzing the same. By death, we mean only disappearance, or becoming unreal. Is it not? Flower becomes a raw fruit. Then it becomes a ripe fruit. An insect becomes a pupa. When we see all these flower, raw fruit or ripe fruit, insect-all of them disappear, and in its place we get raw fruit, ripe fruit, and pupa. That is, in the transformation called growth, there exists death. Only when a form dies (goes away), another form results in its place. Our body also undergoes change. The gross body we had in our childhood is different. When we were in youth, it was different, having undergone many changes, having grown; the body of a child becomes the body of a youth. Then old age sets in. So far, the body that has undergone growth now starts undergoing decay. Wrinkles appear over the skin. The hair over the head turns grey. Even though we do not apprehend continuous change in our body, doctors and physiologists vouchsafe for it. Even though we consider the gross body as the Self, it is undergoing change, moment by moment, or it is continuously dying. If it is so, how do we cognize the body as ‘I’ which had undergone death at the previous moment? Leave the change that has occurred in the previous moment. We consider all the bodies right from our childhood till date, each having undergone change, or being dead, and bringing out new bodies as having a single I-ness (when we say that all of those bodies as mine). How is it?

This is the same case with our mind. It continues to oscillate. That is, it continues to move or die (i.e. when each new thought emanates, old thought dies). The mind, let us say, was miserable in the previous moment. It is happy at this moment. It may be angry in the next second. After how many changes has the growth of the mind and the intellect right from childhood resulted in this state? They decay and get tired at the old age. That is to say, in state of transformation, that speed never decreases. Any modification is known as vikara. In Tamil the word “vikāra” has the connotation as bad and ugly. The reason is that after the modification the new form is generally ugly and in bad shape. When an object has decayed, its form will not be pleasing to us. Isn’t it? But in the examples taken up, the forms do not end in modification alone. It gives rise to another form. A flower does not stop in decaying, but also becomes a raw fruit. The raw fruit becomes a ripe fruit. The insect transforms into a pupa. There is some life principle which is behind all the changes and which makes the flower change into a raw fruit and then into a ripe fruit. Since the flower is still attached to the tree having a life, all these happen. However, if we pluck the flower from the tree, the flower fades and dies out. Modification to it ends with that. Then the flower does not transform into a raw fruit. The life principle existing in the insect continues in the pupa, even though the insect form has gone away, and pupa has taken its place. Similarly, if the insect is killed or eaten by a bird, it never becomes a pupa, but dies once and for all.

In the same way, our body and mind go on taking forms anew; the life principle behind all these changes is the Atman. The life principle mentioned above is not the breath. Even though the breathing is stopped, the Atman never dies. The principle which is the prana for prāna is the Atman. It makes the body grow with the help of prana (vital airs or prāna). This Ātman is our real nature. How can the body and the mind, which existed in the last moment and go away in this moment, be the real form of ours. They are becoming false, moment by moment. Is it not? This Atman which is not undergoing any change, which is immutable and which continues to be in the same state is the real ‘I’. Even though the body and the mind are ever changing in all the states, the notion ‘I’ continues to be the same without any change. Hence by removing those changes, when one sees this ‘I’ as different from them, we come to know that this alone is our real state. Without being conscious of our body and the travails of the mind, in sleep, or in coma state, or in trance, one realizes that the Atman alone exists. That is the only unchanging object. Is there any change in the ‘I’-notion from the state of infancy till now? Absolutely no! This ‘I’-notion continues to be changeless and the same even when we were ignorant of the objects, or when we are aware of the objects, when we were poor or when we became rich. The Atman is the basis or substratum for all these changes; as the Bhagavān has said in the Bhagavad-gītā, the Self remains ‘like a thread in the beads’, ²⁵ protecting these bodies and minds from withering away by those changes, giving a continuity to them.”

The Real “I” and the Pseudo-mind

By the word ‘real’ we get the connotation of that which is true. The real meaning of the word “real” is its innate nature. The Atman is real in both these meanings. Being ignorant of the same, we are not aware of our Atman due to the false roles of the mind. The mind is playing such a magnificent role and deceiving is so that we start believing the mind as ‘I’. It takes not one role, but many roles that change continuously. In Palani one abhiseka after another abhiseka is performed, curtains are drawn, the deity is decorated, and curtains are opened quickly. The deity will stand like a mendicant in one alańkāra and after some time when another abhiseka and decoration take place, the deity will appear to us as a king, once the curtain is open. After some time, the deity will give darśan as a hunter. Our form is also changing continuously as above. If from birth (when we were in the form of a sperm, or still going back from many births) our bodies and the mind are continuously undergoing change, it means that each change is like a role (of an actor). Isn’t it? The child was playing without any clothes, passing urine and nightsoil at the same place, keeping rubbish in its mouth, and biting with sounds; it is the child that is now the adult. This ‘I’-notion continues from that day to this day continuously without any change. The life principle which is behind this ‘I’-notion is the Atman. The fact that we and also others cognize as the same individual, appearing in the role of a child and in the present role of a civilized individual is due to the life principle, viz. Ātman, which is the basis for all these roles and itself devoid of any change.

One actor takes different roles in a cinema or a drama. He may act as Rāma on one day and as Rāvaņa on another day. He may take the role of a rich man or a pauper. Those roles differ, but the person who plays these myriad roles is the same. In the same way, the one who takes all these different roles and not any single unique role in our life-drama in which we take many roles, is our real Self or Atman. The individual soul remains calm only in the state of sleep without any work, or thought, or their effects, or the war between the good and the bad. Only in this state the Atman alone exists without the wavering mind, without the desires and consequent problems. This great calm state is called the “Praśānta “state.²⁶ This Atman is what the śrutis say as “Thou” in the mahāvākya, “Thou art That”.²⁷ Thus the individual Self is the basis for the various minds and the bodies. Only the minds and the bodies change, but the consciousness behind all the bodies and the minds is the same. Some consider this principle as a reflection in the mind and some others as a limitation like the vast skies which are limited by pot, etc. However, it should be noted that consciousness by its very nature never gets attached to anything including the mind. But the mind in its presence acts and makes the sense-organs and motor organs do their respective actions. But the Self is ever pure, unattached, and unrelated. As there is no possibility of reckoning any difference between an individual self and another without the reference to the mind or the body, all individual selves converge into one Self. Thus, we find that the multifarious appearances of the individual selves as jīvas are only in the empirical state. Once one knows the true nature of consciousness as a Witness of all the mind-sense-body complex and their effects, the unitary nature of the same becomes evident.

All the philosophical discussions in the world center around the three principles, viz. the universe, the individual self and God. We notice that all these three entities have numerous subdivisions in each of them. But by close analysis all of them could be reduced to one Brahman. As a result of the analysis, we arrive at the following conclusions.