|Page 38||Home | First | Previous | Next|
Who is this Jivi calling himself 'I'? Reflecting on this problem, he will see that the 'I' is the immutable permanent-witness, the Atma, which forgetful of its real nature considers itself affected by change, through sheer ignorance. When he deliberately spends thought on his identity, he will know, "I am not a Vikari, I am the witness of the ego," the ego that suffers continuous modification; then, from this step, he will proceed to identify the immutable See-er or Witness (or Sakshi) with himself. After this stage, there is no difficulty in realising "Aham Brahmaasmi".
How can it be said that it is the Sakshi who realises Aham Brahmaasmi? Who is it really that realises it? Is it the Sakshi? Or the Jivi, who calls himself I and undergoes modification? If we say that the Sakshi so understands, the difficulty is that it is the witness of the 'I' and it has no egoism, or Aham idea. If it is said that it is the Aham, then how can it be the Witness also? It will have to be subject to modifications if it is Aham. The Sakshi too then becomes a Vikari! It can have no idea like, "I am Brahmam"; so it can never understand, "I have become Brahmam". Therefore, there is no meaning in saying that the Sakshi realises, "Aham Brahmaasmi".
Then, who is it that so realises this Truth? It becomes necessary to say that it is the Jivi, the 'I' that does so. For the practice of the meditation on identity with Brahmam is done by the Ajnani for his liberation from the shackles of that illusion. The Sakshi has no Ajnana and so has no need to get rid of it! The ignorant alone need take steps to remove it. Qualities like ignorance or knowledge attach themselves only to the Jivi, not to the Sakshi. This is proven by actual experience. Because the Sakshi who is the apparent basis for Jnana and Ajnana, is devoid of both, while the Jivi is actively bound to these two.
Some may doubt, how this distinction came to be. "Does the Sakshi know
the Jivi, the I, which changes and gets modified and agitated? And who
is this witness? We are not aware of it", they may ask. But undergoing
the sorrows of Ajnana and seeking solace in the study of Vedantha, one
infers that there must be a Witness, unaffected by the passing
clouds. Later, the Sakshi or Atma, which one knew by reasonings, is realised
in actual experience, when the superimposition of the illusion of the
world is removed by Sadhana.