Yajnavalkya Kanda. Adhyaya 4, Brahmana 3. The self-luminous Self: waking, dream, and the light of man
New to these pages?
Each mantra is given four ways: the Sanskrit in its Devanagari script, the same sounds in Roman letters, an English translation set in our own voice, and then the line once more in plain words, for a first and unhurried reading.
Not every passage is opened to the same depth. A few central mantras carry the full cross-school commentary, where the schools are set side by side. The rest are kept here whole and faithful, set in their place but not expounded, so the book stays entire and nothing is dropped for being thought minor.
Where the schools read a line differently, the difference is kept open. None is crowned and none is corrected. Each is met on its own terms, and where they contradict, the contradiction is left standing for you to sit with.
The seer who is never seen
That he does not see in that state, that is because, though seeing then, he does not see; for the seer's seeing can never be lost, since he is imperishable. But there is no second thing apart from him, set off from him, that he might see.
When we say that in deep sleep he does not see, it is not that the power of seeing is gone. Even then he is seeing, for the seer's seeing can never fail, since the seer is imperishable (avinasin). What is absent is only a second thing, separate from him, for him to see. Where there is no object distinct from the seer, seeing has nothing to land on, though the seer's nature as consciousness remains intact.
Where the schools meet, and where they part
The cessation of seeing in deep sleep is not the death of the seer; consciousness is not extinguished when its objects withdraw.
What is absent in that state is the object, the second thing set off from the seer, and not the conscious self as such.
Sankara reads the mantra at full strength: though seeing even then, the sleeper sees nothing, for the seer's seeing can never be lost, the seer being imperishable, as fire's heat never fails while fire lasts. Seeing here is not an act that starts and stops but the very nature of the witness, eternal and changeless. Nothing is seen only because there is no second thing apart from the seer to be seen. The whole series, not smelling, not tasting, not knowing, says the same: the faculties never lapse, the objects simply are not there when duality subsides.
Madhva agrees the seer does not vanish, but he locates the continuity in the Saksi, the self's own witnessing faculty, which in dreamless sleep directly intuits the self, the passing of time, and the felicity enjoyed, and grounds the morning recollection. The self is consciousness by nature and self-revealed (svaprakasa), so no further awareness is needed to light it up. Still, this enduring witness is the finite soul, not a sole undifferentiated Seer; its native luminosity remains veiled by Maya even here, and its very seeing is sustained in dependence on the Lord. So the seeing that does not lapse belongs to a distinct, dependent knower, not to one Self without a second.
On Ramanuja's doctrine, applied here, the seer's seeing does not lapse because the jiva's attributive consciousness (dharma-bhuta-jnana), though it contracts almost to inertness in deep sleep, is never destroyed; it has only no object to flow toward. The substantive self remains self-luminous and aware of itself as I throughout. This persisting awareness is the individual soul, eternally distinct, held within and illumined by the antaryamin. What the mantra denies is the second object, not the duality of soul and supporting Lord, which abides.
Is the seeing that never lapses the one imperishable Seer that there is nothing other than, or is it the abiding awareness of a distinct finite soul, still held and still dependent even when there is nothing left to see?
On Sankara's reading, why does the sleeper see nothing although his seeing is never lost?
- Because the seer's seeing is its eternal nature and only the second thing, the object, is absent
- Because the self has left the body and gone elsewhere
- Because deep sleep is a gap in which nothing whatever exists
- Because the power of sight has been temporarily destroyed
Show the answer
Seeing with nothing to see
The mantra makes a strange and beautiful claim. In deep sleep the sleeper does not see, and yet, it says, seeing even then he does not see, for the seer's seeing can never be lost. The light is not switched off. It simply falls on nothing.
Sankara takes this as the heart of the matter. Seeing is not something the Self does and then stops doing; it is what the Self is, the way heat is what fire is. So when every object is gone, the seeing remains, lacking only a second thing to land upon. There is nothing else there to be seen, because, for him, there is finally nothing else.
The other schools hold the seeing open but keep the seer plural and dependent. For Madhva the witness that endures is the soul's own Saksi, quietly registering the self and its rest, which is why we remember the sleep at all; yet it is a finite knower, still veiled, still leaning on the Lord. For Ramanuja's school the awareness has drawn inward, contracted nearly to stillness but never destroyed, the soul lit from within by the inner ruler it can never merge with.
Each reading honours the verse: the seer does not perish, the seeing does not fail. They differ on who is left seeing when there is nothing to see. One says the lone Self, beside which there was never a second. The others say a distinct soul, held in the dark, awaiting the dawn. We leave the seer unnamed and the question with the reader.
That the seer's seeing never lapses is agreed; whether that seer is the One alone or a distinct dependent soul is not, and we keep it unresolved.
If something in you keeps seeing even when there is nothing to see, is it the One that has no other, or you yourself, held and waiting?
In the commentaries
This mantra carries the weight of Sankara's argument against any charge that the Self is unconscious in deep sleep. That the sleeper does not see, he insists, is not because the seeing has stopped, but because, though seeing even then, he sees no object: the seer's seeing can never be lost, for the seer is imperishable, as a fire's heat never fails while the fire lasts. What is absent is only the second thing, the object set off from the seer that could be seen. Sankara reads the whole series that follows, on not smelling, not tasting, not knowing, in the same key: the faculties never lapse, only their objects are withdrawn when duality subsides.