In the dualistic world we live in, change is the only constant. Everything is always in flux, and nothing stays the same forever. As soon as I get what I want, the object of my desire often changes. If the object doesn’t change, I might. My interests and desires shift. So, even after getting what I thought would bring me fulfillment, I often end up feeling the same old discontent.

Even if we could somehow permanently secure the objects of our fancy and solidify our passion for them, there remains a deeper existential issue. The tantalizing happiness we seem to derive from our coveted objects does not actually originate from them at all. In truth, those objects are not the source of the joy we believe they provide. Most find this incredibly difficult to accept, for it certainly appears self-evident that my happiness comes from acquiring and experiencing what I want. However, a clear analysis of our own lived experience exposes the fallacy of this notion.

This realization gives rise to the fourth pursuit—freedom or liberation (moksha)—which now takes center stage in my life. At this point, achieving freedom from limitations becomes my top priority, the guiding goal that infuses purpose into all my actions.

However, since immortal perfection is my true nature, it’s not something I can acquire or gain like the objects I chase in the apparent reality. My true nature is not an external object, nor is it separate from me. In other words, I already possess what I am seeking. The only issue is that I don’t realize it—I am simply ignorant of my true nature.

So, what’s the solution? What will dispel my ignorance and reveal my true identity?

Once again, reason rather than faith provides the answer. Logical inquiry inevitably leads to the conclusion that only one thing can reveal what I already have: knowledge.

Only knowledge can free me from my mistaken notions of limitation and thus “give” me the freedom that is inherently mine. Therefore, according to Vedanta, the purpose of life and the point of gaining knowledge are ultimately the same: Liberation.

Inquiry 2: What is the Purpose of Ignorance

Question: If, as stated in Advaita, we are actually in a state of sat-cit-ānanda and are already this ‘Self,’ why do we experience illusions and ignorance?

Before exploring the reason for ignorance, we must first correct the notion that limitless awareness is a state.

Self is not a state of being, for all states are time-bound and therefore transient. The limitless self, however, is inherently beyond all limitations, standing eternally untouched by the vagaries of time and space. It is the changeless substratum upon which the three fundamental states – waking, dream and deep sleep – and all phenomena within them appear.

Self is not a particular experience, epiphany or way of being to be attained or preserved – it is the formless, ever-free reality of our own being. It cannot be acquired because it is already who we are.

In fact who else are you ever experiencing then your Self, as “I am, I am, I am”.

Vedanta describes our true nature as sat-cit-ananda. Rather than denoting three separate attributes, these words are synonyms pointing to a single, indivisible truth.

Sat

Sat means “being” or “what is.”

When we say “The bird is,” “The book is,” or “The girl is,” — the common thread is the “is-ness,” the fact of their existence.

Cit

How do we know they exist? Cit – consciousness. We are aware of them.

Objects can only be said to exist because they appear in consciousness. Just as images require a screen on which to be projected — objects require the “space” of awareness in order to be.

And since reality is One, objects don't just appear in consciousness but are made of consciousness.

The universe is like a painting — the objects in it seem to be distinct entities but are in fact made of nothing but paint. In the same way, the myriad objects arising in awareness are formed of awareness itself. Thus, sat (being) and cit (consciousness) are one and the same.

Ananta

Although objects perpetually arise and subside, their essential “is-ness,” consciousness itself, remains forever unchanged and untainted. It is ananta – without end, infinite.

In fact, even terms like “eternal” and “infinite” are inadequate, as they imply the existence of time and space.

Pure consciousness exists beyond these limited constructs – indeed, time and space themselves are simply objects appearing within the limitless expanse of awareness.

My own experience confirms this truth – although innumerable sensations, feelings and thoughts have come and gone, the conscious being that I am remains unaffected.

Ananda

The term ānanda in sat-cit-ānanda is often misinterpreted as “bliss.”

To resolve this, we must understand the two kinds of ananda referred to in the scriptures: bimbānanda and pratibimbānanda.

Bimbānanda (also called ātmānanda), is the inherent joy of self. It is ever-present but cannot be objectified or experienced as a particular state. It is simply our natural condition, to be recognized and claimed.

Pratibimbānanda is the reflection of that joy experienced in a purified (sattvic) mind. Translating ānanda as “bliss” reduces it to this experiential joy, a common mistake found in yoga and mystical traditions.

However, self cannot be defined in terms of any experience, as all experiences occur within the finite limits of time and space while the self is beyond all such boundaries. 

While ānanda is better translated as “limitlessness” than “bliss,” the common interpretation has some validity if properly understood…

The “bliss” referred to is not a state of giddy elation but rather an unshakable peace and contentment, a wholeness beyond the agitations of the mind.

Since consciousness is everything, it is pūrṇam – complete, full, lacking nothing. And having no wants or needs, it is naturally free of agitation, utterly content and eternally at peace.

An analysis of our own experience irrefutably confirms that the deepest motivation behind all our actions is the desire for more happiness and peace.

Every choice we make – from the most mundane to the most consequential – is impelled by the promise of greater joy or lesser sorrow. And when we do experience happiness, we never consciously seek to adulterate it with even a modicum of misery. Because joy is our very essence, we are content simply being content.

Given that limitless joy is our inherent nature, the apparent condition of ignorance and its seeming obscuration of our innate happiness is profoundly ironic. If we were limited by an inability to experience ignorance, we would not be truly limitless. Only that which is infinite has the “capacity” to apparently ignore itself.

Such paradoxes are common when trying to reflect on the limitless and attributeless nature of the self. Concepts like how Brahman (self) can be both with and without qualities (nirguṇa and saguṇa), how self can be beyond the mind yet perceived by it (manasā paśyati), how multiplicity exists in a non-dual reality, and how we can attain what we have never been apart from — illustrate the complexity.

Vedanta should be seen as a “both/and” proposition rather than “either/or.” To fully assimilate self-knowledge, one must see from both the individual's and the limitless self's perspectives.

Nature of Ignorance

Moreover, it’s important to understand that the self does not “have” illusions and ignorance. Ignorance is simply a power within the self, called avarana-shakti. As such, it is not something that came into being or began. Ignorance, like the self, is beginningless. Unlike the self, however, it does have an end.

Ultimately, ignorance has no purpose. There is no reason for its existence, no aim it is intended to fulfill. It is simply the primordial condition of not seeing clearly, a state of delusion that dissolves like mist in the light of self-knowledge. When ignorance is recognized for what it is, it evaporates in the limitless sky of pure awareness, leaving only the non-dual self shining in its eternal effulgence.

Inquiry 3: For What Purpose Would Self Want to Play?

Question: How can we believe in līlā? What could be its purpose? There is no convincing answer – I am sure you will concur.

Creation is not something we need to believe in. Just as we don't need to believe in the mind to experience the arising of thoughts, we don't need to believe in the world to find ourselves surrounded by myriad objects.

Like the self, creation is self-evident, requiring no belief to be apparent. But unlike the self, creation is not self-dependent.

To understand the relationship between creation and the self, we must grasp Vedānta's three ontological categories: sat (real), asat (unreal), and mithyā (apparently real).

Sat

According to Vedanta, only that which is unchanging, eternal, all-pervasive and ever-present is considered sat, or real. The self alone fits this definition.

Asat

That which cannot exist, like a dog's wings, is asat, or unreal.

Mithya

Anything that can be experienced and serves a function, but depends on something else for its existence, is mithyā, or apparently real.

Common analogies illustrate this: a clay pot, a wave, a shirt, and a gold ornament are all mithyā, being dependent on clay, the ocean, cotton, and gold respectively for their existence.

Similarly, Vedanta asserts that all objects, gross and subtle, rely on awareness to exist. The entire universe is thus only apparently real.

Two theories of creation…

Given the non-dual nature of reality, nothing new is actually created. However, Vedanta offers two theories on how the apparent creation came into being: māyā (apparent ignorance) and līlā (playful desire).

The māyā theory is similar to the Big Bang and evolution. Unlike the materialist view that consciousness evolved from matter, Vedanta posits that consciousness first appeared as insentient subtle elements, which then grossified into physical matter and lent sentience to the universe through its association with forms like plants, animals, and humans.

The līlā theory is a mythological narrative where anthropomorphized consciousness, feeling existential boredom, expresses and enjoys its attributes through an elaborate “dance,” which is the interplay of all objects and actions in the universe.

Crucially, neither theory is presented as a factual account of creation's origin or an empirically verifiable description of its mechanics. Vedanta is not concerned with cosmological speculation. As a means of self-knowledge leading to liberation, its focus is on resolving our mistaken notions of who we are and realizing our true nature as the limitless self.

Moreover, the “why” and “how” of creation lie forever beyond the reach of human knowing. The finite instruments of scientific investigation and the intellect that interprets their data can never fully account for the infinite “space” of awareness in which they appear and of which they are made.

With this in mind, let us return to the question of life's purpose, this time from the standpoint of the self…

Purpose of life from standpoint of Self

What reason could self (Brahman) have for manifesting as the universe and playing out a ceaseless cycle of joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, birth and death?

As far as the self is concerned, there is no purpose whatsoever.

In Vedanta, great care is taken to precisely define Sanskrit terms to arrive at their true meaning. In this case, it's worth examining the English word “purpose” to shed light on the matter.

“Purpose” comes from the Anglo-Norman word “porposer,” with roots in Latin “pro” (forth) and “poser” (to put). Thus, “purpose” means “to put forth.”

The self, being all-pervasive, is inherently actionless. It does not “put” or project anything, nor does it have any location outside of itself toward which it could “put forth.”

Furthermore, the self is pure impersonal awareness, without will or volition.

Lastly, the self is whole, complete, and perfect unto itself, and therefore without desire or want.

Despite the poetic appeal of the līlā theory, it is untenable to posit that impersonal consciousness creates the world because it is bored and wants to play.

Nor does consciousness require objects to know itself. The three states of waking, dream and deep sleep reveal that whether objects appear or not — I, awareness, remain ever-present.

In dreamless sleep, devoid of objects, I still know that I am, else I could not later report having slept peacefully.

The self is self-evident, self-luminous, and self-complete, entirely independent of objects. It is “beyond,” untouched and eternally free. It is not concerned with gain, loss, improvement, or experiencing oneness. It is already whole and the whole.

Due to the power of māyā, the self appears as the manifold universe — much as gold appears as various ornaments. But just as gold remains gold even when appearing as a bracelet, the self never loses its essential nature of pure awareness despite appearing as the world.

From the self's perspective then, nothing ever happens, much less happens for any purpose. The universe is not a cosmic playground projected by consciousness for its own amusement. It is simply an appearance, a play of light and shadow upon the unchanging screen of the self.

Inquiry 4: Is There Any Proof That The Self Exists?

Question: What is the proof that the ‘Self' exists, given all that has been written about it?

I know the self exists by virtue of my own existence. Simply put, I am, therefore the self is. My very being is self-evident proof of the self. I know that the self exists because I exist.

You might wonder, however, how I can be certain that my individual self is the universal self. Could there not be many selves?

This doubt can be resolved through a careful examination of our experience.

Observe the flow of sensations, emotions and thoughts that constitute your inner world. Notice how each of these phenomena arises within awareness, lingers for a time, and then disappears back into awareness.

We habitually identify with these phenomena, claiming them as “mine.” But while they appear in you — you are not confined to them. The awareness in which they are witnessed remains untainted and unchanged by their presence or absence.

Look closely: Does your fundamental being flicker in and out of existence with the coming and going of thoughts and feelings? Is your essential awareness altered even slightly by the ceaseless flux of mental activity? Has your existence ever been enhanced, diminished, or otherwise changed by their appearance and disappearance?

At the level of the limited individual you take yourself to be — you may indeed feel impacted by the ever-shifting tides of the mind. You may be elated by a particular thought or dejected by an emotion. But the simple, boundless awareness in which that individual appears is utterly unaffected.

Similarly, consider your experience of the outer world. Whether you meet with success or failure, gain or loss, praise or blame — the awareness in which that drama unfolds remains a changeless constant, illuminating each scene with perfect equanimity.

Now, try to locate an edge or boundary to this awareness. Can you pinpoint a place where it begins or ends?

Undoubtedly, the individual mind with which awareness is identifying has limits. Our knowledge and perception as individuals is constrained by the capacities of the mind-body mechanism. But the pure awareness that illumines the mind has no such constraints.

Your infinite nature is clearly revealed each night in the state of deep sleep. While the individual is absent in that state, awareness remains. Were you not present as that awareness, you would have no way of knowing you had slept at all, let alone slept soundly. Upon waking, in inferring you slept well, you affirm the continuity of your true self during the temporary dissolution of the body-mind.

By definition, that which is limitless precludes (rules out) the existence of anything outside of it. If awareness is truly boundless – and our inquiry has shown it to be precisely that – then it necessarily follows that there can be no second awareness standing apart from it, no “other” to its infinite inclusivity.

The self, therefore, being limitless, is singular. In reality, there are not many selves, but only the one, non-dual self.

And what is the nature of this self? Nothing more or less than pure, unqualified existence. The self simply is, shining self-effulgent in each moment, needing no proof apart from its own immediate presence.

You, awareness, are that self – the one without a second, the irreducible ground of all that is. Know this deeply, and be free.

Inquiry 5: What Validity Has Vedanta?

The core issue is that in the final analysis, even Advaitic teachings rely on ‘blind faith' to make their case. Faith itself is not problematic – all religions require unquestioning belief in a higher power to attain salvation. But Advaitins insist that their approach is different, that they arrive at truth through reason and analysis rather than pure faith.

Gaudapāda states in his Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad Kārikā, “That which is stated in the scriptures and is supported by reason, is true and nothing else”. However, I contend that this ‘reason/analysis' argument made by Advaitins is specious. Instead of faith in a deity, it demands blind belief in an inscrutable ‘Self'.

This criticism implies that the concept of the self is a mere theoretical abstraction, a philosophical fiction invented to alleviate our existential anxiety. It suggests that the self must be either accepted on faith or validated through argument alone.

But Vedanta is neither a faith-based religion nor a speculative philosophy. While its methodology of self-inquiry does initially require a degree of faith, as the student's understanding is still obscured by ignorance — the truth it reveals can be directly verified through a diligent examination of one's own experience. This is not to say that self-knowledge is a particular experience to be had, but rather that the one common self inherent in all experience can be discerned through careful reasoning and inquiry.

In fact, Vedanta asserts that the search for a unique experience of the self is entirely misguided. The reality is that we are always experiencing self, in every moment of our lives. If reality is truly non-dual, as Vedanta claims, then there can be nothing other than self to be experienced, now or ever.

Of course, this raises the crucial question: How do we know that reality is in fact non-dual?

As with all Vedantic conclusions, the infallible proof of non-duality is found through a penetrating analysis of the unexamined logic of our own experience. A fresh look at our relationship with the objects of our experience, exposes the erroneous assumptions we have made about the nature of reality.

Our experience of the world is defined by our perception of and interaction with objects.

Let us examine where these objects are actually located…

If I see a boy holding an ice cream cone across the street, where is that cone? We typically assume, based on our cultural conditioning, that the cone is in the boy's hand some distance away. But is this true?

To answer this, we must consider the mechanism of perception, specifically vision.

Visual perception occurs when light bounces off an object and is received by our eyes, creating an image in the mind.

We realize that what we see is not the object itself but an image or idea of it within our mind.

Next, consider the mind itself. How far is my mind from awareness? The answer is that there is no gap between my mind and me. Therefore, there is no separation between the objective world and me, the subjective perceiver, or the pure awareness in which all objective phenomena appear.

If I recognize that my body is merely an object appearing within me, no different to any other object, I realize the true non-dual nature of reality.

Objection

One might object that this analysis doesn't disprove the independent reality of the object that initially reflected light into our eyes. But further inquiry dissolves this doubt.

Before proceeding, let us clarify what we mean by “real.” The common materialist view of reality, which equates reality with independent physical existence, crumbles under rational scrutiny.

By this definition, a given object is assumed to be a self-contained entity distinct from all other objects. But this criterion fails to account for mental and emotional phenomena.

What is ‘real'…

In Vedanta, what is considered “real” is that which is immutable and eternal, the unchanging substratum upon which the time-space continuum depends.

According to Vedanta, what is “real” is that which cannot be negated, is always true, and serves as the substratum of the time-space continuum that defines apparent reality. Reality is that upon which all objects depend but which is self-dependent and self-luminous, remaining ever-free of all phenomena appearing within it.

Contrary to some interpretations of Buddhism and Neo-Advaita — Vedanta does not say that the realm of dependent objects doesn’t exist. Our direct experience attests to the existence of objects. The issue is not their existence but their reality.

If objects did not exist, we would not perceive them. The question is not whether objects exist, but whether they are real. 

To determine whether objects are real, Vedanta points out three ontological categories… 

According to Vedanta, there are three ontological categories: real (satya), not-real (asat), and apparent (mithyā).

Sat refers to what cannot be negated and doesn’t change. It cannot be enhanced or diminished. The only reality that is ultimately real is the self, pure awareness, me.

Asat is that which cannot exist, like the horns of a rabbit or the son of a barren woman.

Mithyā is the ontological status of the entire objective universe. Physical objects, thoughts and emotions all fall under this category. Although we experience them, they are impermanent, ever in flux. We cannot say they are absolutely real, as they are always changing. But nor can we say they are utterly non-existent, as we do perceive them. 

The crux of Vedanta is discernment between the real (satya) and the apparent (mithya), what is called ātma-anātma-viveka, distinguishing the self from the not-self.

Furthermore, it's not like satya and mithya are different. They just enjoy a different ontological reality.

For example, gold always remains gold, no matter what state it's in. So it's metaphorically satyam. While the ring, bangle and millions of different ornaments, are metaphorically mithya, because they all depend on gold for their IS-ness.

A Vedanta teacher will further show how this universe of multiplicity arises out of one Awareness. 

Four world-shattering insights that deconstruct our commonly held notions about the nature of objects and our relationship to them…

Additionally, experience of seemingly independent objects reveals that sensory qualities and perceptions occur in awareness and have no verifiable existence outside of awareness. All objects, both gross and subtle, are only verifiable through sense perception and/or inference, both of which occur in awareness.

This mode of analysis can be applied to all objects, for even subtle objects like thoughts and emotions have a sensory component, as they are invariably accompanied by mental images. A thorough inquiry along these lines shatters our assumptions about the nature of objects and our relationship with them.