There is a practice in the south Indian temples that during the nights in the month of kArtIka (usually coinciding with the month of November), a lamp is hung up high on a lamp post, usually contained in a pot with several holes so as to allow sufficient air to the lamp. Flickering rays of light pass out through the holes, giving a pleasant ambience. This provided a good metaphor for Shankara to explain an important philosophical concept about the limitations of human knowledge.

We are familiar with our five senses, and we know that all living beings also have some of the faculties to different degrees. In some cases they have more acute sensory perception than humans and in some cases some senses are totally absent. When we say that there are five senses we are talking from a human standpoint. We can’t be sure about the total number of senses which all living beings have.

Whatever be the number of senses, the question is whether the ‘knowledge’ derived through different senses is different. Admittedly the taste of a dish is different from the sight of a beautiful object and different from the smell of a flower; they relate to different objects, but what we term as ‘knowledge’ is the same. When we light a lamp in a dark room, all the objects in the room are illuminated, but the same light which is illuminating the cot is illuminating the jug or any other object. The sun illuminates all objects in the world but the nature of sunlight is same. Similarly, according to advaita, it is the ‘consciousness’ reflected through the antaHkaraNa, or the mind in common parlance, is what illumines the objects. The consciousness which illumines the sense of sight is the same which illumines the sense of taste or the sense of touch and so on. The ‘ear behind the ear’, ‘the eye behind the eye’ ‘the mind behind the mind’ - as the kenopaniShad(1-2) says – is the eternal consciousness. It manifests as the ‘I’ in the individual, and the ‘I’ which sees is the same ‘I’ which hears, and the same ‘I’ which tastes. The senses are merely the doors of perception.

 It is also wrong to call it ‘perception’ because it involves a perceiver and an object independent of the perceiver. Advaita accepts one single consciousness and the apparent differences are due to different delimiting factors which are technically called upAdhi-s. Every individual or every object is limited by space and time which are the limiting factors. Just as vessels of different shapes are limiting factors for the same entity called space, similarly all the objects we ‘perceive’ are manifested in consciousness only. The consciousness associated with the mind is called vRRitti – or a mental modification or thought as a result of such modification. This is the means of knowledge and the link between the object and the subject, the person who perceives. As the consciousness is one and one alone, it follows that the so-called difference between the object, the subject and the means of knowledge should not exist, or even if exists, it is for the sake of vyavahAra – at a transactional level only. It is in this context that Shankara employs the metaphor of pot in the dakShiNAmUrti stotram:

nAnA-chChidra-ghaTodara-sthita-mahA-dIpa-prabhA-bhAswaram

j~nAnaM yasya tu chakShurAdi-karaNa-dwArA bahiH spandate.

jAnAmIti tameva bhAntam-anubhAtyetat-samastaM jagat

There is a pot with several holes, in which there is a bright lamp shining, and the rays of light pass through the holes illuminating the objects here and there. Similarly the eternal Consciousness is gleaming through the holes called senses and enveloping the objects around and giving a feeling – ‘I know’, ‘I know’, which we see in everyday life. There appears to be a sense of mockery in Shankara’s expression ‘jAnAmIti’ – ‘I know’. Man is identifying himself with his limited sensory knowledge by holding that ‘he knows this and that’. It is the consciousness associated with the mind – called pramAtRRi chaitanyam, which is flowing through the senses in the form of vRRitti chaitanyam, enveloping the object, otherwise called viShaya chaitanyam, and is giving a feeling of knowledge.

The tArkika-s (like the present day rationalists) hold that knowledge is ‘born’ – jAyate – in the mind because of the interface of sense with the object. Knowledge is a guNa – a characteristic or quality of the mind according to them. Vedanta disputes this. Knowledge is not a quality but consciousness itself, limited by certain limiting factors. When we say – ‘the pot exists’, the clock exists’ etc. we are referring to the permeating principle of ‘sat’ – ‘the existence’ – in all the objects. No object has an independent existence, it is only a manifestation of one ‘sat’.

Consciousness or Brahman is the material cause and efficient cause for everything and hence all knowledge consists in Brahman. It follows that there is no independent existence to objects apart from the existence of Brahman. In order to realize this, we may go back to the quote from the kenopaniShad which says that one should quit identifying with the sensory knowledge. atimuchya dhIrAH, it says, meaning that the sense of ownership in the sensory knowledge has to be given up and it is possible for people of resolute mind.

Keeping aside Vedanta for a minute, even a skeptical mind would admit that the knowledge received by the senses is highly limited. Human eye can only see light in a particular band-width, can hear up to some decibels, and likewise with other senses. During earthquakes or cyclones the donkeys and other animals are the first to detect and run for shelter. Bats and such other animals have ‘extra-sensory perception’ when compared to humans. In other words, they are more ‘intelligent’. It should follow that the senses are not final, and that there is something beyond. It is also true that a particular sense responds to a particular element (as per most Indian philosophers there are five elements – the space, air, fire, water and earth),  like the eye can see only light which is a modification of fire, nose can only smell a thing which is invariably a modification of earth and so on. Vedanta holds that the five senses are but modifications of the five elements.

The five elements, in turn, are the modifications of the Consciousness as we see in the Upanishads. It is clearly brought out in pa~nchadashI (2-59) by Vidyaranya while dealing with the ontological status of the five gross elements. He says: varNA bhittigatA bhittau chitraM nAnAvidhaM yathA – which means that the five elements and the variegated universe they create are but modifications – vikAra – on the Consciousness just as a painting on the wall creating several images by use of different colours. Vidyaranya devotes 290 stanzas in another chapter of the same book to explain it in different ways.

Teachers of Vedanta are fond of elaborating on the above image. They give the example of a painting of a mountain where trees, brooks and birds are painted, and on one of the trees there is a bird sitting perched on a small branch. If we ask the viewer as to where the bird is, he will say - ‘on the branch’. Where is the tree?  It is on the mountain. Where is the mountain? Now the wisdom dawns that the substratum for the entire drawing is the canvas on which they are all painted. Similarly Vedanta observes the substratum, which is the consciousness whose modifications are the five gross elements.

The holes in the pot are the indriya-s – the five senses and when the consciousness flows through them as do the rays of light, it gets transformed into an object and such process of transformation is called vRRitti, or mind’s modification. ‘Vedanta Paribhasha’ says that the means of knowledge, the knower and the known are consciousness only. Looking out through the holes and identification with them would mean identifying with the pot which is only an upAdhi, an incidental factor, which gives a limited view of reality. Giving up identification with them is the inward view or antarmukhatwam which leads to liberation. This is what we saw above in the kenopaniShad’s statement. This would mean removal of the pot (the veil of ignorance?) and be the luminous Self. Probably this is what the kArtIka lamp also indicates.

Long ago when I read a poem from the vairAgya shataka of BhartRRihari about vairAgya – dispassion or non-attachment -- little did I know that it was an important concept in Vedanta and that it was also an important preparatory stage for acquiring self-knowledge. BhartRRihari devoted about hundred stanzas on various facets of dispassion. A particular sloka is quite interesting, which, translated freely, runs as follows.

In sensual indulgence, there is the fear of disease; in noble birth there is fear of fall from status; in wealth, there is the fear of king snatching away (in the good old days of kings); in honour there is fear of losing it; in strength, there is fear of a stronger enemy; in beauty there is fear of old age; in erudition there is fear of a stronger scholar, in virtuousness there is fear of the villainous, in the human body there is the fear of Death and likewise in all things in life except in  non-attachment where alone there is fearlessness. (sloka 31).

All conceivable types of paranoia are visualized in the above poem by the philosopher king who knew all stages of life before becoming a recluse. The paranoia of strong nations with regard to others, the fierce competition of the multinationals, the vested interest of the elite in society, the anxiety of the beauty queen and all such are touched by the writer. Such fear does not appear to be a natural or necessary instinct for survival, but it seems to be a socially acquired trait arising out of the desire to excel and arising out of the idea of losing something that we have. In the language of Vedanta this behavior can be identified to be the by-product of rajo-guNa, the propelling characteristic for all human activity.

Taking a cue from this we cannot try to practice vairAgya – non-attachment. It could be a false vairAgya if we do so. vairAgya is the state of vi+rAga – one whose rAga or attachment has disappeared. Getting rid of attachment involves a lot of effort on one’s part because it is a natural law that our senses develop either rAga (attachment), or dweSha(dislike) for the sense objects(Gita 3-34).

Pundits have warned us about the false vairAgya which may be due to force of circumstances. They have given three interesting examples:

purANa vairAgya nyAya, the example of developing non-attachment immediately after listening to a pravachan (discourse) of a swamiji;

prasUti vairAgya nyAya, which a mother develops during  the pangs of child birth;

shmashAna vairAgya nyAya, which one develops when one visits the cemetery for the obsequies of a loved one.

These are examples of false vairAgya where it is not non-attachment but a sense of disgust. Fleeting sense of detachment due to disgust or frustration is not non-attachment. Perhaps we do injustice to Buddha when we say that he developed vairAgya after seeing the sick man or a corpse being carried, as some of the biographies say. His detachment must have taken place after a more serious speculation.

Vedanta expects us to understand this mind-set. It does not dictate to us to develop vairAgya, but asks us to inquire into what is ephemeral and what is permanent, what is unreal and what is real and so on. This is what we find in nityAnitya viveka – the discrimination to be made by a seeker. Such winnowing of chaff from the grain gradually leads to non-attachment where there is no fear of losing anything.

In the poem quoted above, we noted the relationship between fear and vairAgya. Like real detachment and false detachment, there are two types of fears, one a benevolent and positive fear and the other due to ignorance. Positive fear is as in the taittirIya Upanishad (2-8) bhIShAsmAd vAtaH pavati, bhIShodeti sUryaH, (due to fear of this Brahman the wind blows, due to fear the sun rises) and so on referring to the governing forces of the universe which follow a cosmic order. Such statements appear in other Upanishads also. Perhaps the English poet Wordsworth was expressing this idea in the lines:

Fair seed-time had my soul, and I grew up

Foster’d alike by beauty and by fear.

This fear is not a sense of cowardice but understanding of a universal order.

The second type is fear due to ignorance which has to be avoided. Rather, it will automatically disappear as a result of self-knowledge. This is again mentioned in the Upanishads. As the taittirIya says – atha so.abhayam gato bhavati.(2-7) The discussion is first on freedom from fear and later on fear. There is freedom from fear when the seeker realizes the Brahman which is adRRishyaM – the changeless, anAtmyam – formless, aniruktaM – indefinable, anilayanaM - without any support, that is, one which is devoid of any attributes. The seeker is supposed to posit himself in such an immutable entity where he attains pratiShThA or stability in Self and also abhayaM gato bhavati – attains fearlessness.

Shankara explains this further. The seeker attains AtmabhAvam – true nature of Self, and the cause of fear, i.e. ignorance, is absent. He no longer sees anything other than the Self. Perception of duality is only in the avidyA or state of ignorance only. Somebody is generally afraid of someone else, but not of himself.

How does he develop fear? The same passage of taittirIya continues: yadA hyevaiSha etasminnudaramantaraM kurute atha tasya bhayaM bhavati. tattveva bhayaM viduSho.amanvAnasya.(2-7)

The slightest deviation from the Self causes distortion in view. Shankara gives the example of a person having an eye disease who sees two moons. Bhedadarshanam or seeing duality, according to him, is a disease to be avoided. The words ‘ut aram’ in the above quote means ‘a little bit’. Even a little bit of distraction from Self causes fear. Such deviation suddenly diminishes his stature, making him a finite and delimited person and draws a line between himself and the God who suddenly gets created. He moves from I-am-Brahman mode into worshipper-worshipped mode. Such a person, even if he is learned, should be considered unwise.

bRRihadAraNyaka tells the same; dwitIyAd vai bhayaM bhavati – fear is due to perception of the second, i.e. one other than himself(1-4-2). A free rendering of the mantra is like this:

In the beginning, the creator prajApati (not the absolute Brahman) noticed that he was alone and he became afraid. He then contemplated as to the reason for fear and realized that there is nothing else than the Self. By that realization he became free from fear; indeed, fear is due to the perception of the second.

prajApati is the first jIva and he is responsible for the creation, according to Vedanta. He is a manifestation from the absolute Brahman with the power of mAyA. The ‘I’ feeling in him was the cause for trouble. His notion that he was a finite and delimited person was the cause for his fear. His initial understanding was that he, an embodied person with limbs, was vulnerable and mortal. Contemplation, that is, self-enquiry made him realize that he was nothing else than Brahman, and this was the reason for his freedom from fear.

Similar references can be seen in other places in the Upanishads. But the crux of the issue is realization of the Self, or in other words, becoming Brahman; for, the texts say – brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati – the knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. We get stuck here because the human mind is very comfortable with duality. In duality a person can commit any action including a prohibited action and seek forgiveness of god. On the other hand a j~nAnI has to go through a lot many spiritual exercises, a lot of self-restraint, lose his attributes (as the Supreme is without attributes) and identities. What is an identity crisis for others is the desired goal to the seeker and this is a difficult task. We are scared, as pa~Nchadashi (2-27) says:

The concept of the Brahman without parts and attributes is frightening, and a person is bewildered like a person drowning in the sea, his senses perplexed.

Or, we feel like TS Eliot – humankind cannot bear very much reality.