Verse No 107 Mauna as Brahman True mauna is not muteness but abiding in Brahman, which transcends speech and thought. Mounam hi brahma-lakṣaṇam — silence is the very nature of Brahman. Beyond linguistic categories Words operate by universals (jāti), qualities, or actions. Brahman is beyond all such grounds; hence unspeakable (avācya). Knowable through identity Though inexpressible, Brahman is directly realized (pratyag-abhinna), because the Self and Brahman are non-different. Sādhanā: “Tad Aham Asmi” The culmination is continuous nididhyāsana: “That Brahman I am.” This is not conceptual repetition but steady abidance in one’s true nature. Practical insight A jñānī’s silence is not void but fullness: silence as unmediated awareness of Brahman. Verse No 108 & 109 No “fourteenth aṅga” problem Someone may mistakenly think that anusandhāna (constant contemplation) of Brahman is an extra limb of sādhana, apart from the traditional set (yama, niyama, tyāga, etc.). The teacher clarifies: it is not a new aṅga, but precisely mauna — the silence that is the recognition of Brahman. Why Brahman is vāg-atiita (“beyond speech”) Words operate by reference to class (jāti), quality (guṇa), or activity (kriyā). Brahman is nirviśeṣa (featureless), thus none of these apply. This repeats Śaṅkara’s insistence in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Bhāṣya that Brahman is avācyam (inexpressible), yet self-evident. Even prapañca (name-form manifold) ultimately escapes speech Though names and forms seem expressible, on deeper analysis they collapse into indefiniteness (neither fully real nor fully unreal). Thus both Brahman and the prapañca evade ultimate linguistic grasp — but in different ways: Brahman by being nirviśeṣa (beyond attributes), Prapañca by being mithyā (indefinable). Mauna is not mere muteness It is the abidance in Brahman where speech has no role, because Brahman is realized as tad aham asmi — “That I am.” This turns “silence” into the highest wisdom rather than physical stillness. Verse No 110 Deśa beyond spatiality Deśa here does not mean mere “place” in the physical sense. It points to the substratum where phenomena seem to arise. But Advaita stresses: origination (jan) is absent in all three times. Thus, Brahman is the “deśa” — the timeless locus without any event of birth, change, or destruction. Self-evident Awareness The non-origination of the Self is not inferred from external authority but known directly in one’s own awareness (sva-pratīti). This echoes Gauḍapāda’s ajātivāda: “no origination ever takes place.” Negation of empirical standpoints Worldly perception (laukika-pratīti) and even conventional scriptural descriptions (śāstrīya-pratīti) are insufficient, as they speak in dualistic terms. The non-origination of the Self must be grasped as immediate, experiential truth — aparokṣa-jñāna. Verse No 111 Time as kalana Time is not an independent reality but a conceptual division (kalana = calculation). It arises only when consciousness, through avidyā, divides the indivisible. Dependence on cosmic processes Time is seen in relation to cosmic functions — creation, sustenance, and dissolution. Thus, kāla is not absolute; it is a category of Māyā, tied to change. Not ultimately real In Advaita, time has vyāvahārika-sattā (empirical reality) but not pāramārthika-sattā (absolute reality). From the standpoint of Brahman, which is timeless and changeless, time collapses. Witness Consciousness vs. Kāla The Self, being kāla-ātīta (beyond time), is the very witness within which time appears as reckoning. This echoes Bhagavad Gītā (11.32): kālo’smi — time itself is nothing but Brahman’s appearance through Māyā. Verse No 112 Āsana redefined Unlike in Yoga, where āsana is physical posture, here in Advaita it is abidance in Brahman, the seat of bliss (ānanda-svarūpa). “Sukhenaiva” — the ease is not bodily comfort, but the natural ease of resting in one’s own Self. Beyond doership (kartavya–akartavya-vicāra) The anxiety of dharma–adharma, duty vs. non-duty, dissolves in Brahman-realization. True āsana is the effortless stillness of mind that no longer calculates. Timeless Seat The text highlights: Brahman is ajasa (without decay), kālatrayāvasthāyī (abiding across all times). This timeless, changeless Brahman is the only stable “seat.” All other postures are transient. Soteriological implication The shift is radical: instead of the Yogic pursuit of the body’s stillness, Advaita places the “seat” in the formless, timeless Self. Thus āsana becomes a synonym for Self-abidance (ātma-niṣṭhā). Verse No 113 Reinterpretation of Yogic Siddhāsana Traditionally in Haṭha Yoga, siddhāsana is a bodily posture. Here, Śaṅkara redefines it: the only “accomplished seat” is abiding in Brahman. Twofold grammatical reading Karmadhāraya: siddham āsanam → “that āsana which is accomplished.” Tatpuruṣa: siddhānām āsanam → “the āsana of the accomplished ones.” Both converge in meaning: Brahman is the seat, and the siddhas are those who rest in it. Brahman = the True Seat Thus, the “siddhāsana” is not about posture but about Self-realization. One who abides in Brahman sits in the only truly firm, unshakable seat. Advaitic turn This subtle play shows Śaṅkara’s genius: taking Yogic categories and turning them into Vedāntic abidance in Self (ātma-sthiti). What yogins strive to steady through body, Advaita steadies in pure awareness. Verse No 114 Shift from Physical to Mental Discipline Haṭhayoga takes mūlabandha as a contraction at the base of the body. Advaita redefines it as anchoring the mind in Brahman — the true root (mūla) of all existence. Ignorance as “false binding” The real bondage is not physical but mental — caused by mūlāvidyā (primordial ignorance). Even ignorance, however, is not independent — it depends on Brahman, being mithyā. Two meanings of “bandha” (a) Ignorance as bondage (avidyā binds the mind). (b) Restraint of the mind to Brahman (positive discipline). Both are traced back to Brahman as their substratum. Advaita–Rājayoga synthesis For yogins, mūlabandha = unbroken concentration (avikṣipta-cittatā). For Advaitins, the same steadiness = abidance in Self, culminating in aparokṣa-jñāna. Verse No 115 True “equipoise” is not physical Unlike Haṭhayoga where deha-sāmya means literal bodily balance/posture, here Śaṅkara explains it as seeing sameness through Brahman, the substratum. Superimposition (adhyāsa) Any perception of inequality of limbs in Brahman is mere adhyāhāra (superimposition). Brahman, the ground of all, is free from differences. Metaphor of “level water” Just as calm water represents perfect evenness, so too the body is to be seen as equalized when the mind abides in Brahman. Acknowledgment of empirical limitation Śaṅkara notes that the limbs, being naturally unequal, cannot literally become identical like the branches of a stiff dry tree. Thus, the teaching is symbolic: deha-sāmya is about vision (dṛṣṭi), not actual uniformity of limbs. Verse No 116 Brahman is not an object of attainment Unlike ritual results (phala) that arise after action, Brahman is self-established (siddha), not something newly produced. Role of vṛtti-jñāna Though Brahman is ever-present, ignorance (avidyā) obstructs its recognition. A knowledge-vṛtti (jñānamayī vṛtti) arises through Vedāntic inquiry, taking the form “I am Brahman.” Akhaṇḍa-brahmākāra-vṛtti The final mental modification is unique: unlike other vṛttis that grasp limited objects, this vṛtti removes ignorance and reveals the indivisible, infinite Brahman. Vision of the world The knower perceives the world not as a collection of independent objects, but as Brahman itself appearing as names and forms. Sthiti as abidance Here, “sthiti” (abidance) means the mind’s unwavering dwelling in this Brahma-dṛṣṭi: the ever-present recognition that all is Brahman. Verse No. 117 Brahman as beyond attributes Brahman lacks jāti, guṇa, kriyā (class, quality, action), so no ordinary sense-perception or conceptual vṛtti can grasp it. Therefore, the objection arises: how can Brahman be “seen”? Tripuṭī-nivṛtti (cessation of the triad) Advaita resolves: “vision” here does not mean perception but the dissolution of the triad of subject-object-instrument in Brahman. Dṛṣṭi as inner abidance The real dṛṣṭi is an inner vṛtti aligning with Brahman-consciousness, not a yogic exercise like gazing at the nose-tip. Svarūpa-anubhava (direct realization) This interpretation harmonizes with the Advaita doctrine that Brahman is not objectified but realized as the very Self when the triads collapse. Verse No 118 Primacy of Mind over Prāṇa In Advaita, prāṇa is considered subordinate (manodhīna). Mind is subtler and closer to Consciousness; prāṇa follows its lead. Reversal of Pātañjala Order Patañjali holds that restraining prāṇa helps restrain mind (prāṇāyāma → manonirodha). Śaṅkara reverses: restraining the mind (through viveka, vairāgya, nididhyāsana) brings about prāṇa’s control effortlessly. Why This Matters in Advaita Liberation is through jñāna (knowledge), not yogic prāṇāyāma. Breath-control may aid concentration, but true nirodha (stilling) of the mind comes only by knowledge of Brahman, not mechanical restraint of breath. Vedāntic Re-definition of Prāṇāyāma In this context, prāṇāyāma is not the yogic technique of inhalation–retention–exhalation, but the natural quietude of prāṇa that follows the stillness of mind in Brahman-abidance. Verse No 119 Re-interpretation of Yogic Terms In Yoga, recaka, pūraka, and kumbhaka are physical breath-controls. In Advaita, they are symbolic: Recaka (exhalation): Negating the non-Self (neti neti), casting out body-mind identification. Pūraka (inhalation): Absorbing the truth of the Self as Brahman. Kumbhaka (retention): Abidance in the Self, where no movement of prāṇa/mind remains. Nishedha (Negation) The key note here is niṣedhanam — prāṇāyāma is not about vital-breath manipulation, but about negating the superimpositions (body, senses, world) and allowing mind to dissolve into Brahman. Clarity of Advaitic Shift While Pātañjala yoga treats prāṇāyāma as physiological control, Vedānta internalizes it into a contemplative practice of Self-knowledge. Verse No 120 Redefinition of Prāṇāyāma Not breath control, but inner discipline: Recaka = rejection of the non-Self (neti neti). Pūraka = assimilation of Self-knowledge. Kumbhaka = steady abidance in Brahman. Scriptural Validity Though not physically detailed in the Upaniṣads, this reinterpretation is said to be “in line with the Vedas” (veda-traya-yuktaḥ), supported by Vedāntic insight. Adhikārī-bheda (Hierarchy of Students) Prabuddhas (enlightened): No need for such symbolic prāṇāyāma. Ajñānins (ignorant seekers): For them, this method is prescribed to discipline the mind and turn it towards Self-inquiry. Vedāntic Pedagogy The text shows how Vedānta absorbs yogic practices into jñāna-mārga by giving them a reinterpretive meaning aligned with non-dualism.

Verse 107 Vartikam Now silence (mauna) is defined: because the grounds for verbal designation such as categorization and action are absent, true silence is that which is beyond the relam of both mind and speech. This is none other than Brahman, which cannot be spoken of. Yet it is knowable to yogins, attainable by knowledge-yogins through realization of its identity with the inner Self. Therefore, this silence, well-known as the very form of Brahman, is what the wise and discriminating should constantly abide in, reflecting: ‘That (Brahman) I am.’ Mauna as Brahman True mauna is not muteness but abiding in Brahman, which transcends speech and thought. Mounam hi brahma-lakṣaṇam — silence is the very nature of Brahman. Beyond linguistic categories Words operate by universals (jāti), qualities, or actions. Brahman is beyond all such grounds; hence unspeakable (avācya). Knowable through identity Though inexpressible, Brahman is directly realized (pratyag-abhinna), because the Self and Brahman are non-different. Sādhanā: “Tad Aham Asmi” The culmination is continuous nididhyāsana: “That Brahman I am.” This is not conceptual repetition but steady abidance in one’s true nature. Practical insight A jñānī’s silence is not void but fullness: silence as unmediated identity with awareness of Brahman.

Verses 104 to 106 of Vidhyaranya's Commentary Verse 104 Now, the teacher explains each of these auxiliaries in sequence, describing their nature in 21 verses. First, he defines yama. The verse begins with “sarvam,” teaching that the whole world, from space down to the body, is nothing but Brahman. This is understood through the method of bādha-sāmānādhikaraṇya (co-reference under sublation), just as a stump, mistaken for a man, is later recognized as only a stump. From this conviction arises self-mastery: the restraint (saṃyama) of the eleven senses (hearing, etc.), for one clearly sees the defects of their objects—sound and the rest—namely perishability, excess, and the tendency to cause suffering. Thus, yama is defined as withdrawal from sense-objects. It is not merely external morality such as non-violence, but an inner discipline grounded in knowledge of the unreality of the world. And this yama must be practiced constantly, again and again. Verse 105 Having defined yama, the teacher now defines niyama. Ni­yama means the continuous flow of Brahma-cognitions (sajātiya-pravāha). This is of two types: A stream of mental states with the same form as Brahman, the supreme reality non-different from the inner Self. Or, a flow of affirmations like “I am unattached, pure, changeless,” all centered on Brahman-Ātman. Simultaneously, it means the rejection of vijātiya-vṛttis (heterogeneous thoughts), namely world-based thoughts arising from past impressions. Their rejection comes through remembering their defects—treating them with neglect, disregard, and indifference. Thus, niyama is defined not as external observances such as purity, austerity, etc., but as an inner discipline of maintaining the continuity of Brahma-cognition while rejecting contrary thoughts. If one asks what is the fruit of yama and niyama in this Upaniṣadic sense, the reply is: parānanda, supreme bliss, is attained. Verse 106 Now the third discipline, tyāga, is defined. The world (prapañca) is nothing but name and form, expressed in statements such as “this is a pot, this is a cloth.” Through name and form, things are identified, transacted, and revealed. But this prapañca rests upon the substratum of the shining forth of objects (padārtha-sphuraṇa). By recognizing that this shining is of the nature of pure consciousness—self-luminous Brahman, not inert—one realizes that all is of the nature of the Self. Therefore, tyāga is the indifference (upekṣā) towards name and form, rooted in this recognition. This alone is the true meaning of tyāga, as declared in the Upaniṣads: “All this is pervaded by the Lord.” This is attested by the experience of the wise. If it be doubted whether such a tyāga is known, it is answered: it is indeed revered among the great. Why? Because at the very moment of such contemplation, this tyāga is itself liberation—the state of supreme bliss. Thus, this tyāga is highly valued by those who know the truth of the Self. Therefore, this alone is the tyāga for the seeker of liberation, not merely the giving up of prescribed works or the non-performance of rituals.

Verses 100 to 110 The Fifteen steps for Nidhidhyasana as per the Vedantic tradition contrary to the Yoga system is being explained.

Verse No 98 “An objection may be raised: ‘Does the scripture speak of karma for the sake of instructing the jñānī?’ The reply: No. The śruti itself declares — ‘When Brahman, the higher and the lower, is realized, then the knots of the heart are cut, all doubts are destroyed, and all karmas are destroyed’ (Muṇḍaka Up. 2.2.8). The plural word ‘karmāṇi’ (karmas) here is deliberate. It is used not merely to distinguish between two types (sañcita and kriyamāṇa), but to indicate that all three — including prārabdha — are destroyed. If the intent was only two, the śruti would have used the dual form ‘karmani.’ Therefore, it is taught that upon the direct realization of Brahman as the Self, with the breaking of the knot (the false union of consciousness with the inert body-mind), all three types of karma — sañcita, kriyamāṇa, and prārabdha — are annihilated. Thus, the scripture speaks in this way to reveal to the jñānī that the highest human goal (mokṣa) is indeed freedom from all karmic bondage.” Verse No 99 “It is refuted: The talk of ‘prārabdha’ continuing for the jñānī is asserted only by the ignorant, who are unacquainted with the true intent of the śruti and misinterpret it due to lack of discrimination. If prārabdha is held to be real, then the non-dual Self is not realized, and two great faults arise: Liberation becomes impossible (since duality is affirmed). In the absence of liberation, the entire tradition of Vedānta as a means to mokṣa collapses. Thus not only are these two defects incurred, but it would amount to abandoning Advaita Vedānta altogether, reducing it to dualism by affirming prārabdha as real. What then should be accepted? That śruti alone which produces true knowledge. Such as: ‘Knowing Him alone, the wise seeker should cultivate prajñā; one should not dwell on many ritualistic words, for that only weakens speech’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 4.4.21). The intent is this: The wise aspirant, desiring to be Brahman, must first know the Self taught in Vedānta through scripture and teacher, and then cultivate direct realization that concludes inquiry. He should not waste effort ruminating over many passages prescribing karma and upāsanā, for that is mere fatigue of speech (vāco-viglāpanam), universally experienced as fruitless.”

Verse No 95 “The status of being the cause of the world belongs solely to the conjunction of Brahman and ajñāna (mithunībhāva). This is explained with the example of the rope (appearing as a snake under ignorance).” Verse No 96 “Now, as was said: when that (ignorance) is destroyed, where could the world-appearance remain? Explaining this, he concludes the previously established non-existence of prārabdha with the supporting example of the rope (appearing as a snake). Thus, it is clear.” For Śaṅkara, the rope-snake analogy is not just a teaching device but the ultimate vision: The jñānī abides in Brahman alone, seeing the world as mithyā. The ajñānī sees the world as real, just as he sees the snake as real. Therefore, mokṣa is not “freedom from prārabdha” in time, but the direct recognition that prārabdha never truly existed. Verse No 97 “Further: An objection may be raised — ‘If for the liberated knower (jīvanmukta) there is no prārabdha at all, then why do the Upaniṣads speak of prārabdha, as in “atra brahma samaśnute” and similar statements?’ The answer: Such references to prārabdha are not meant for the jñānī, but for the ignorant (ajñānīs). The scripture speaks of prārabdha merely as a teaching device, in order to address the doubts of those who still perceive difference. When ignorance, which is the root-cause of all worldly activity, is destroyed by Self-knowledge, there is no prārabdha at all for the knower. But when the ignorant raise the question, ‘How does the jñānī still engage in worldly dealings if his ignorance is destroyed?’, the answer ‘because of prārabdha’ is given for their understanding. In truth, no prārabdha binds the jñānī.” Verse No 98 “An objection may be raised: ‘Does the scripture speak of karma for the sake of instructing the jñānī?’ The reply: No. The śruti itself declares — ‘When Brahman, the higher and the lower, is realized, then the knots of the heart are cut, all doubts are destroyed, and all karmas are destroyed’ (Muṇḍaka Up. 2.2.8). The plural word ‘karmāṇi’ (karmas) here is deliberate. It is used not merely to distinguish between two types (sañcita and kriyamāṇa), but to indicate that all three — including prārabdha — are destroyed. If the intent was only two, the śruti would have used the dual form ‘karmani.’ Therefore, it is taught that upon the direct realization of Brahman as the Self, with the breaking of the knot (the false union of consciousness with the inert body-mind), all three types of karma — sañcita, kriyamāṇa, and prārabdha — are annihilated. Thus, the scripture speaks in this way to reveal to the jñānī that the highest human goal (mokṣa) is indeed freedom from all karmic bondage.”

Verse 94 Objection: The scriptures (e.g. “From which all beings are born…”) declare that the world, including body and objects, is truly born of Brahman. If so, how can it be said to be mere appearance (prātibhāsika)? Answer: The notion of causality must be understood carefully. There are two kinds of cause: Nimitta (efficient cause): only the cause of origination. Upādāna (material cause): the cause of origination, continuance, and dissolution. Vedānta declares that the material cause of the world is ajñāna (ignorance, māyā) — “Know Māyā as Prakṛti” (Śvetāśvatara 4.10). And because the śruti also includes Brahman as cause (by the conjunctive “and”), both Brahman and ajñāna together must be considered. Brahman alone cannot be the cause, since it is changeless. Ajñāna alone cannot be the cause, since it is inert. Therefore, Brahman in association with ajñāna is spoken of as the cause of the world. As the Upaniṣad says: “He combines the real and the unreal” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 1.4.7). The example is clay and pots: Brahman is like water — the immutable substratum. Ajñāna is like clay — capable of forming shapes, covering the truth. Thus, when ajñāna is destroyed by Brahma-vidyā, the appearance of multiplicity (world, jīva, īśvara) vanishes. Brahman alone remains.

Verses No 91 to 93 Ignorance is the root of prārabdha Prārabdha (the supposed karma that has “already begun” and sustains the body of the jīvanmukta) is only valid under avidyā. Once knowledge dawns, avidyā (and with it, its products) are nullified. Vyavahāra depends on avidyā All worldly dealings (eating, speaking, even the notion “I am embodied”) rely on ignorance. With knowledge, these lose their ontological basis. No prārabdha for the jñānī Śaṅkara is affirming the ajātivāda standpoint: if avidyā is gone, there is no scope for karma — including prārabdha. This tallies with Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā (3.48): “na nirodho na cotpattiḥ…” (no origination, no cessation, no bondage, no liberation). Teaching vs. Reality Though texts sometimes say “prārabdha continues even for the knower until the body falls,” here the rahasya (secret teaching) is given: in ultimate truth, prārabdha never existed. This preserves the two-level doctrine: Vyāvahārika — prārabdha seems to continue for explanation. Pāramārthika — no prārabdha, no bondage, no body. Threefold Karma as a Teaching Device Śaṅkara acknowledges the traditional tripartite classification of karma. This helps explain why bodies arise and why experiences differ. Ultimate Negation of Karma Yet, the punchline: all karma belongs only to the level of avidyā (ignorance). From the Self’s standpoint (ātmanah svataḥ), there is no doership (akartṛtva). Prārabdha as Relational, Not Absolute For a given body, a portion of sañcita is labeled prārabdha. This is only a functional, relative distinction — not ultimately real. Non-origination (Ajātivāda) The conclusion directly aligns with Gauḍapāda: “nānyo dharmo’sti saṃsāre…” and “na nirodho na cotpattiḥ…” (GK 2.32; 3.48). Births are only imagined due to ignorance — the Self, free of doership, never undergoes birth. Teaching vs. Reality On the vyāvahārika plane, karma is explained in three categories to help seekers. On the pāramārthika plane, all three (sañcita, āgāmī, prārabdha) collapse into unreality, because Brahman has no doership or change. Dream as Analogy for Birth Just as in dream there appears a whole world with actions, experiences, and results — yet upon waking, no causal birth or karma truly existed — so too with waking life. The “births” we take as real are of the same order as dream appearances. Denial of Prārabdha in Truth If there is no real birth (janmābhāva), then the concept of prārabdha — karma already fructifying through the body — collapses. Prārabdha only makes sense under the empirical (vyāvahārika) view. Śaṅkara’s Two-Level Teaching For seekers (vyavahāra): karma is divided into sañcita, āgāmī, prārabdha to explain embodied experience. In reality (pāramārthika): no karma, no birth, no prārabdha exists — all is Brahman alone. Gaudapāda’s Ajātivāda Influence This is straight from Gauḍapāda’s Māṇḍūkya Kārikā 3.48: “na nirodho na cotpattiḥ na baddho na ca sādhakaḥ | na mumukṣur na vai muktaḥ ityeṣā paramārthatā ||” There is no birth, no bondage, no seeker, no liberation — all such distinctions vanish upon realization.

Verses 89 and 90

Verses 87 to 89

Verse no.87

Verses 75 to 86

Verses No 69 to 74

Verse No 68 An objection is raised: “If Brahman shines (self-luminous), then how can the phenomenal world also appear?” The reply: By difference of standpoint (state of knowledge vs ignorance), both (Brahman and the world) may appear. For the knower, the Self always shines as pure, free from the impurity of ignorance and its effect, the projection of the phenomenal world — hence it is non-dual and non-phenomenal. For the ignorant, however, the very same Self appears as if always impure, due to delusion. To illustrate this, a familiar example is given: Just as a rope appears in two ways — To the knower, free of the notion of snake, it is harmless and non-fearful. To the ignorant, seen in the contrary manner (as a snake), it becomes fearful. So too, Brahman, although ever self-luminous, becomes meaningful for the attainment of the highest human goal (puruṣārtha) only when apprehended through the right cognition (akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti). Otherwise, for the ignorant, it remains unrecognized. This is like the sun or a lamp: they shine equally, but only one with sight perceives their light, not the blind.

Verse No 66 Here, the reason (hetu), along with a supporting example, is given under the heading “kārya” (effect). The Śruti says: “Dear one, by knowing a lump of clay, all that is made of clay becomes known” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.4). The reasoning is as follows: If the effect (pot, jar, etc.) were truly different from the cause (clay), then knowledge of the cause would not yield knowledge of all its effects. Since it does (as per the Upaniṣad), the effect must be non-different from its cause. Verse No 67 The non-difference of effect and cause (kārya–kāraṇa-ananyatva) is further clarified by means of an illustration. The “grasped” (gṛhyamāṇa) object — here, the shining self (bhāsura) — is of the nature of illumination itself, self-luminous, requiring no external means of knowledge (pramāṇa-nirapekṣa).

Verse No.65 Śaṅkara establishes the non-duality of Brahman and the illusoriness of the world using Upaniṣadic evidence, analogies, and reasoning. 1. Bhēdadṛṣṭi Doṣa (The Fault in Seeing Duality) 🔸 Sanskrit: “किंच भेददृष्टेर्दोषश्रवणादपि कारणादभिन्नमेव कार्यमित्याह दोष इति।” Segmented: किं च — moreover भेद-दृष्टेः दोष-श्रवणात् अपि — from the hearing of the fault in the view of difference कारणात् अभिन्नम् एव कार्यम् — the effect is indeed non-different from the cause इत्याह — thus it is said दोष इति — “fault”, so it is said 🔸 English: Moreover, since the scriptures mention the faults of dualistic perception, the effect (world) must be non-different from its cause (Brahman). 🔹 Key Insight: Seeing duality leads to fear and bondage. Hence, Śruti negates all difference to point toward non-duality. 2. Shruti Support – "मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति" ("He who sees difference goes from death to death") This Śruti from Kaṭha Upaniṣad is a powerful declaration against the validity of dualistic perception. 3. Causal Non-Difference of the World from Brahman 🔸 Sanskrit: “ब्रह्मण इति । बृहत्वादपरिच्छिन्नत्वाद्ब्रह्म तद्रूपात्परमात्मनः सर्वाणि भूतानि जायन्ते।” Segmented: ब्रह्मण इति — [the world arises] from Brahman बृहत्वात् अपरिच्छिन्नत्वात् — because of infinitude and indivisibility ब्रह्म — Brahman तद्रूपात् — of that very nature परमात्मनः — of the Supreme Self सर्वाणि भूतानि — all beings जायन्ते — are born 🔸 English: All beings arise from the infinite and indivisible Brahman. Hence, they are essentially non-different from it. 4. How can diverse things be Brahman? 🔸 Sanskrit: “ननु नानानामरूपकर्मभेदेन विचित्राणि भूतानि कथं ब्रह्मात्मकानीति आशङ्क्य आह ब्रह्मैव इति।” Segmented: ननु — but नाना-नाम-रूप-कर्म-भेदेन — with differences of name, form, and action विचित्राणि भूतानि — diverse beings कथं — how ब्रह्मात्मकानि — can be of the nature of Brahman? इति — thus आशङ्क्य — having this doubt आह — it is answered ब्रह्म एव — Brahman alone 🔸 English: Though beings appear diverse in name, form, and action, they are essentially Brahman, says Śruti. 🔹 Insight: Multiplicity is only apparent — it is due to nāma-rūpa (name and form), which are superimposed on the one reality. 5. Classic Shruti Support – "त्रयं वा इदं नाम रूपं कर्म" (“This world is just name, form, and action”) — Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6. Like Gold and Ornaments "सुवर्णाज्जायमानस्य सुवर्णत्वं च शाश्वतम्। ब्रह्मणो जायमानस्य ब्रह्मत्वं च तथा भवेत्॥" Just as ornaments made of gold never cease to be gold, all objects emerging from Brahman retain its Brahman-nature. 7. Even a Slight Notion of Duality Brings Fear 🔸 Sanskrit: “स्वल्पमप्यन्तरम् उपास्योपासकरूपं भेदं कृत्वा कल्पयित्वा यः तिष्ठति तस्य भयम्।” Segmented: स्वल्पम् अपि अन्तरम् — even the slightest distinction उपास्य-उपासक-रूपं भेदं — as between worshipper and worshipped कृत्वा — making कल्पयित्वा — imagining यः तिष्ठति — he who abides thus तस्य भयम् — for him, there is fear 🔸 English: Even imagining a slight difference between oneself and Brahman leads to fear. 8. How can contradictory things like duality and non-duality have the same locus? Śaṅkara resolves it through avastḥābheda (state-based distinctions): In ignorance, duality seems real. In knowledge, only non-duality shines forth. 9. “यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मैवाभूत्...” — Muṇḍaka / Īśa Upaniṣad When one sees everything as the Self, there is no delusion or sorrow. 10. Analogies Used to Explain Mithyātva Gandharva-nagara: A mirage-like city in the sky Dream: Entirely internal, yet mistaken for real Snake on a rope: Superimposition due to ignorance Silver in nacre: A classic Advaita analogy for false appearance 11. Shruti on Name & Form — "वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं..." All modifications are only in name, with clay (mṛttikā) being the real substance. So too, all names and forms are just Brahman. 12. Jīva too is Name Only "परे परब्रह्मणि जीवशब्दस्तथा..." The word Jīva is only a name in the realm of ignorance. Upon realization of Brahman, the notion of Jīva ceases. 13. Is only the Jīva mithyā? What about the world? “न केवलं जीव एव नाममात्रः किंतु सर्वं विश्वमपि ब्रह्मणि नाममात्रम्” Not just the individual self, but the entire universe is only a name in Brahman — name without substance. 14. Purpose of Emphasizing Mithyātva "नाममात्रप्रपंचस्य मिथ्यात्ववासनादार्ढ्याय..." By showing that the world is only name-based appearance, the conviction in its unreality is strengthened. 15. “ज्ञेयमिति...” — Know that only Brahman is real Because names are not real (name-abhaava), only Brahman — the substrate — is to be known as satya (truth). 16. Jīvanmukti is from removal of ignorance, not from death “अज्ञाननिवृत्तिरेव जीवन्मुक्तिः न तु द्वैत-अदर्शनम्” Liberation while living arises not from merely not seeing duality, but from the removal of ignorance. Conclusion All distinctions — Jīva, Jagat, duality, multiplicity — are mere superimpositions upon the non-dual Brahman. Through śruti, reason, and direct insight, Śaṅkara shows that the entire world is mithyā, and the one unchanging reality is Brahman, which is your very Self.

Verse No 60 The Jīva–Brahman Difference is Apparent, Not Real According to Advaita, any perceived duality — such as that between jīva and Brahman — arises only in ignorance (ajñāna-avasthā). This difference is not ontological (real), but only linguistic and conceptual — a “nāma-mātra”. 2. Silver-on-Shell Analogy (Rajatam in Śukti) Classic Vedāntic example: You see silver in a shining shell on the beach. The mind superimposes silver (rajas) on the shell due to ignorance, but when correct knowledge arises, you see it's just a shell. The silver was never there in reality; it was a projection. Likewise, the jīva is superimposed on Brahman through avidyā. Once Brahman is known as one's true Self, the idea of jīva evaporates. 3. Power of Names in Ignorance “Jīva” is a label applied to Brahman seen through the lens of individuality. It is like calling a mirage "water" — the word persists due to wrong perception, not because the object is real. 4. When Knowledge Dawned Upon Self-realization, when one knows “I am Brahman” (ahaṁ brahmāsmi), the false names and distinctions lose their grip. There is no more jīva, no more world, no more other. The jīva–Brahman distinction exists only as long as ignorance persists. It is a mere name, like the illusory silver seen on a shell. Upon realizing Brahman, the truth is known — there is no jīva, only the non-dual Self. Verse 61 1. Jīva is not a separate entity The idea that "I am a limited individual (jīva)" arises from ignorance (avidyā). In truth, the jīva is Brahman, and the distinction is only verbal — nāma-mātra. 2. The entire universe is also nāma-mātra Names and forms (nāma-rūpa) appear upon Brahman like waves on the ocean. They have no independent existence apart from Brahman. The manifold world is Brahman clothed in names — a projection due to Māyā. 3. Many Illustrative Analogies in Vedānta The Upaniṣads and Advaita tradition offer multiple dṛṣṭāntas (analogies) to clarify this 4. Brahman Alone Is Real In the final analysis, only Brahman is satyam (real). Everything else — jīva, jagat (world) — is mithyā (dependent reality), nāma-rūpa upon the non-dual substrate. This verse subtly but powerfully aligns with the famous declaration: "Brahma satyam, jagan mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ" Brahman is real, the world is mithyā, and the jīva is none other than Brahman. ✨ Summary Statement The jīva is not truly distinct from Brahman — it is only a name. Even the entire universe is merely named upon Brahman. Through countless analogies, Advaita Vedānta dissolves all duality, revealing One Reality alone. Verse No 62 1. Mithyātva-vāsanā (Conviction of Unreality) The purpose here is to strengthen one's understanding that the world is not ultimately real — it is nāma-mātra (merely names superimposed on Brahman). Just as illusions (like Gandharva cities or ghosts) appear without real substance, so too does the jagat (world). 2. Dṛṣṭānta as a Teaching Tool Vedānta repeatedly uses analogies to break our firm habitual sense of reality in duality. Here, three examples illustrate that what appears vividly can still be utterly false, because it lacks a true substratum. 3. Gandharva-nagara: A Central Metaphor Gandharva-nagara (illusory celestial city) is a key metaphor in Vedānta for something appearing real but resting on nothing. So too, the world of names and forms rests on Brahman, yet the forms are not real in themselves. 4. Only Brahman is the Ādhāra (Substratum) Appearances such as a phantom, mirage, or illusory city have no independent existence; likewise, the jagat has no reality apart from Brahman. This aligns with: “ब्रह्म सत्यम्, जगन्मिथ्या” Brahman is the real; the world is mithyā. Just as illusory entities (like ghosts or sky-cities) appear vividly yet falsely, the entire universe, though perceived clearly, is nāma-mātra, without real substance. Brahman alone is real; the world is mithyā, and this truth must be firmly grasped through reflection and teaching by example. Verse No 63 & 64 1. Names and Forms Are Only Speech-Based The pot, jar, or any object is merely a vikāra (modification) of clay. The name “pot” arises from speech (vāc), but does not indicate real transformation. 🔍 What is real is the unchanging substratum — here, clay. Similarly, Brahman is the unchanging satya, while all else is nāma-rūpa — names and forms, hence mithyā. 2. Negation Leads to Brahman The purpose of teaching mithyātva is not to negate the world nihilistically, but to strip off false superimpositions and point to the unchanging, ever-present Brahman. When name (nāma) is seen to be unreal, the object (which was only a named form) collapses, and what remains is Brahman — the truth behind all appearances. 3. Shruti as Pramāṇa The statement from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.1.4) is central to Advaita: “Vācārambhaṇaṁ vikāro nāmadheyaṁ, mṛttiketyeva satyam” “All modifications are in speech only; clay alone is real.” This shruti vākya serves as pramāṇa (valid means of knowledge) to assert that Brahman alone is real, and the perceived world is an apparent transformation only — not a real one. Conclusion:- When the name and form are recognized as unreal, what remains is Brahman, the truth. Just as only clay is real and pots are mere names, Brahman alone is satya, and the world is vācārambhaṇaṁ — just speech-based illusion.

Verses 56 1. The Apparent World Does Not Refute Non-Duality The objection arises from a misconception: “We see the world, so duality is real, and so sorrow must be real too.” Advaita’s response is: The world may appear, but that appearance does not falsify the truth of non-duality — just as a dream appears, but vanishes upon waking. 2. Experience Itself Contains the Solution The word "anubhūta" — “this is experienced” — refers to analogies like: The rope-snake: fear arises due to misperception; knowledge ends the fear. The dream-world: while dreaming, duality and sorrow seem real; upon waking, one sees it was unreal. Thus, even in this world, we have experiential parallels that show: Sorrow is not real in itself; it's the product of misapprehension (avidyā). 3. Brahman as Cause Doesn’t Imply Sorrow is Real Just because Brahman is the substratum (kāraṇa) of the world, it does not mean everything superimposed upon it (including sorrow) is ultimately real. Like gold being the cause of various ornaments, yet names and forms (bangles, earrings) don’t alter the essential nature. This passage skillfully anticipates a common doubt — that the perceived world and the existence of sorrow contradict non-duality. But through the pointer “anubhūtaḥ” (this is experienced), it appeals to lived illustrations where apparent reality doesn’t prove ultimate reality — and sorrow dissolves with true knowledge. In short: Experience confirms, it doesn’t contradict, non-duality. Verse No. 57 1. Duality Is Illusory in All States Whether it is waking (jāgrat), dream (svapna), or deep sleep (suṣupti) — the duality (of knower-known, subject-object, world-self) is ultimately mithyā (neither real nor absolutely unreal). Just as the dream-world vanishes upon waking, the waking world too is sublated in the vision of Brahman. 2. The Dream Analogy Powerfully Illustrates Māyā Dream is used as an illustration (dṛṣṭānta) for the waking world: Both arise from ignorance (avidyā). Both present a dualistic appearance. Both are negated by right knowledge (pramā). 3. The Same Principle Applies Universally The rule (nyāmaḥ) previously mentioned — likely about the falsity of duality, or the illusoriness of the world — is not limited to one example (like the rope-snake) but is universally applicable. Hence, it's now extended (atidishati) even to dream, showing consistency in illusion across all states. 4. Advaita’s Definition of Reality That which is not sublated at any time (trikāla-abādhita) is real. Dream and waking states are sublated (negated) — either in deep sleep or in knowledge of Brahman. Thus, they are mithyā, not satya. Just as the dream-world is illusory and vanishes upon waking, so too is the waking world — illusory from the standpoint of Brahma-jñāna (Self-realization). The apparent duality, present in any state, is only due to ignorance — and dissolves upon realization of non-dual Brahman. This insight is not limited to one case, but is consistently valid across all states of experience. Verse No 58 1. Mutual Exclusivity as a Sign of Illusoriness Waking, dream, and deep sleep do not co-exist; each negates the other. This mutual cancellation is a hallmark of mithyā — like the snake and the rope in illusion. 2. Guṇa-Traya as the Mechanism of Māyā The three states arise due to combinations of sattva (clarity), rajas (activity), and tamas (inertia). These are the modes of prakṛti, and the mind functions differently in each state due to the dominance of one guṇa. Hence, these are not ultimately real, but māyā-kalpita — imagined by māyā. 3. Underlying Reality: The Sākṣin or Brahman The question "What is real then?" prepares the seeker for the central Vedāntic answer: It is not the states themselves, but that which underlies them all — the witness consciousness (sākṣī) or pure awareness (Brahman). This unchanging substratum is what remains the same in all three states. 4. Self-Evident Continuation The "rest is clear" (शेषं स्पष्टम्) points to a direct intuitive grasp of the teaching for a sincere student — that Brahman is the sole non-dual reality, and everything else, including waking and dreaming, is māyā. The three states of experience — waking, dream, and deep sleep — are mutually exclusive and thus illusory, being mere products of māyā shaped by the three guṇas. What is real is the changeless substratum underlying them — the Self (Ātman), identical with Brahman. Recognizing this, the wise see through the illusion of experience and rest in the One without a second. Verse No 59 1. The Objection: Jīva Is Real? A subtle doubt is raised by the intellect: “Even if all experiences (in the three states) are illusory, the one who experiences — the jīva — must be real.” This is a common mistaken assumption — that there is a permanent experiencing entity (jīva) who persists through illusion. 2. The Refutation: Jīva Is Also Illusory The Upaniṣadic reply is that even the jīva is not ultimately real. He appears only as long as Brahman is not known. Like a snake seen on a rope, the jīva is merely a superimposition on Brahman due to avidyā (ignorance). 3. Sākṣātkāra (Direct Realization) When Brahman is directly realized as one's own Self — not as an object of knowledge, but as one’s true being — then: All dualistic notions vanish. The idea of being an individual dissolves. The seer, the seen, and the seeing merge into one undivided Awareness. 4. Key Implication The jīva is not a permanent entity but a conceptual construct arising due to identification with body–mind. When this false identification ceases, the truth of non-dual Brahman is self-evident. Even the jīva, like the three states, is a product of māyā. When Brahman is realized as the true Self, the idea of individual existence collapses. There is no jīva, no bondage, and no liberation — only Brahman, the non-dual reality.

Verse No 50 Unity Behind Diversity: All distinctions — nāma, rūpa, karma — are superficial. Their substratum is Brahman alone. Vivarta (Superimposition): The world is not a real transformation of Brahman but an illusory appearance — just like a snake seen on a rope. Role of Ignorance (Avidyā): The perception of multiplicity arises only due to ignorance of the substratum (adhisthāna), i.e., Brahman. Upaniṣadic Authority: The teaching is not speculative but grounded in śruti, particularly in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. Implication of All Sense Objects and Actions: By mentioning names, forms, and actions, the text implicitly includes all perceptual and functional diversity — but only as appearances in Brahman. Verse No 51 1. Vivarta (Superimposed Appearance) Doctrine: The ornament (like a bracelet or ring) may have a different name and form, but its substance is only gold. Similarly, all objects and beings in the world have different names and forms, but their underlying reality is Brahman. 2. No Real Transformation (Aprakṛta Pariṇāma): In Advaita, Brahman does not really transform into the world. The world is a superimposition (vivarta) on Brahman, just like a bracelet is a form superimposed on gold. 3. Unchanging Reality: Gold remains gold in all forms. Brahman remains Brahman, even as the world appears to be full of multiplicity. 4. Identity of Cause and Effect: The effect (ornament or world) is not separate from its cause (gold or Brahman). This reinforces the non-dual (advaita) view — there is no second reality apart from Brahman. 5. Spiritual Insight: One who sees the ornament as gold is not deluded by its shape or name. Likewise, the wise see Brahman in all beings, not being deluded by superficial differences. Verse No 52 1. Non-duality of Experience (Advaita): The world of experience appears to be populated by agent, action, object, and so on — but all are only appearances (vivarta) upon the one non-dual Brahman. There is only one substratum — all else is name and form (nāma-rūpa). 2. Illusion of Difference Breeds Fear: Fear (bhaya) arises only when there is a perception of otherness. Where there is duality, there is vulnerability, desire, aversion, and ultimately suffering. Hence, difference is the root of existential anxiety. 3. Even Subtle Duality is Binding: Even a slight conceptual gap, such as imagining “I am the devotee and Brahman is the object of devotion”, perpetuates duality, and thus fear. 4. Upaniṣadic Authority: The quote — "Yadā hyevaiṣa etasmin udaraṁ antaraṁ kurute, atha tasya bhayaṁ bhavati" (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.2) — is often cited to illustrate that: True fearlessness is only possible in the absolute non-dual state. Once there is a perceived “other,” fear naturally arises. 5. Vedāntic Sādhana: The goal is not just to negate gross difference, but also the subtlest sense of duality — even that involved in the most refined devotion or worship. Ultimately, upāsya (worshipped), upāsaka (worshipper), and upāsanā (worship) are all brahma-svarūpa. Verse No 53 1. Different Loci Through Different States (Avasthā-bheda): Duality and non-duality don’t coexist simultaneously in one experience. They appear in different epistemic states: Dvaita = state of ignorance Advaita = state of knowledge 2. Illusory Nature of Duality (Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda): Duality seems real only as long as ignorance persists. Once ignorance is dispelled, the entire appearance of duality collapses — not through destruction, but by dawning of truth. 3. Śruti Pramāṇa as Authority: Passages from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad show a clear transition: From "seeing the other" in duality, To "there is no other to see" in non-dual realization. 4. No ‘Other’ Remains in Realization: The idea of 'other' is itself a product of ignorance. When one realizes the Self as all, the very notions of seer, seen, and seeing dissolve. 5. Advaita’s Practical Import: This is not just metaphysics. As long as one clings to duality, one remains in fear, limitation, and bondage. Realization of non-duality brings fearlessness, freedom, and finality (mokṣa). Verse No 54 1. No Duality, No Delusion Moha and śoka are born of mistaken duality. When duality is removed via Self-knowledge, their basis collapses. 2. State of Realization is a State of Freedom The "state" (avasthā-viśeṣa) here is not a mental mood or mystical trance, but a stable knowledge that there is only the Self. In this, the purified and prepared mind abides effortlessly in oneness (ekatva). 3. Adhikārī: The Qualified One The Upaniṣad is speaking not of theory, but of the direct experience (sākṣātkāra) of one who is prepared (adhikārī). This means one who has cultivated viveka, vairāgya, śamādi ṣaṭka-sampatti, and mumukṣutva. 4. Ekatvam as Vision, Not Imagination The phrase "ekatvam anupaśyataḥ" means: “for one who sees oneness.” This is not a belief or intellectual conviction — it is a clear vision (anupaśyana = direct seeing again and again). 5. Why There’s No Loss of Purpose The original objection presumes that dualistic striving gives purpose. But Advaita reveals that freedom itself is the purpose — and in non-duality, perfect fulfillment arises naturally. 6. Śruti as Ultimate Pramāṇa (Means of Knowledge) The quoted mantra from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is central: “yasmin sarvāṇi bhūtāni ātmaiva abhūt, vijānataḥ…” This is not to be symbolically interpreted, but literally realized as the true vision of the liberated person. Verse No 55 1. Śoka (Grief) Has a Cause: Dvaita (Duality) In Advaita, sorrow is not an existential inevitability, but a product of misperceived duality — the sense of “I am separate,” “this is other,” “that is lost,” etc. 2. The Remedy is Jñāna — Not Action or Emotion The Upaniṣadic mahāvākya: "sa vā ayam ātmā brahma vijñānamayaḥ" asserts the identity of the individual self (ātmā) with Brahman, the one, undivided consciousness. This eliminates duality at its root, thereby removing the cause of sorrow. 3. Pramāṇa (Means of Knowledge) is Śruti Śruti is not speculative but revelatory — it reveals what cannot be known otherwise (apratyakṣa, alaukika jñāna). Hence, this passage serves as decisive authority (pramāṇa) for the non-dual nature of reality. 4. Vijñānamayaḥ ≠ Modificatory "Sheath" Here Though “vijñānamaya” can sometimes refer to the intellect sheath (vijñānamaya kośa), here it clearly means: Brahman is of the nature of pure consciousness — not inert, not partial, but fully self-revealing awareness. 5. "Ayam" Emphasizes Immediate Presence The use of “ayam” (“this very one”) indicates the immediacy and availability of the Self as Brahman. Brahman is not remote, but your very Self, right here and now. ✨ Final Summary The cause of sorrow is duality. Its absence is proven by śruti, which declares: "This very Self is Brahman, composed of consciousness." This realization — when directly known — is liberation from sorrow. The rest, as the bhāṣyakāra says, is clear to the prepared mind.

Verse No 46 Illusoriness of Distinctions: The apparent differences between subject and object, pervader and pervaded, are not ultimately real — they are superimpositions upon Brahman, like the apparent separation between the space inside and outside a pot. World as Brahman: Since these distinctions are imagined, the entire world (prapañca) is nothing but Brahman — non-dual and indivisible. Role of Scripture (Śruti): The ultimate authority of Vedānta lies in śruti — which commands (like Īśvara) and reveals the non-dual identity of all things with Ātman/Brahman. Cognitive Liberation: Once this truth is known, there is nothing else left to be known — as everything is known through knowing the Self (Atman = Brahman). Advaita's Epistemic Revolution: Instead of relying on empirical distinctions, Advaita teaches a radical shift: The many are not real. The One alone is real. Verse No 47 Perception is not Final Authority: While direct perception appears compelling, it is not absolute. It is corrected by śruti, the revealed truth. Śruti Declares Non-Duality: The foundational Upaniṣadic teaching is ekam eva advitīyam — Brahman is one without a second. Hence, plurality is falsified. No Real Second Entity: Brahman is both cause and effect, yet the effect (world) is not truly distinct from its cause — just as a pot is not truly distinct from clay. Superimposition (Adhyāsa) Explains Illusion: All distinctions (inside-outside, subject-object) are pratibhāsika — they appear due to ignorance, not because they are real. Only Brahman is Real (Satya), World is Mithyā: Since the world cannot exist apart from Brahman, it is not absolutely real. It is mithyā — dependent, ephemeral, and ultimately unreal in itself. Verse No 48 Bhēda-dṛṣṭi (Seeing Difference) Is a Fundamental Error: The perception of multiplicity is not harmless; it is the root of bondage — perpetuating saṁsāra. Śruti Declares Duality as Dangerous: The Upaniṣads repeatedly warn that one who sees plurality "goes from death to death" — i.e., continues in ignorance and rebirth. The World (Kārya) Is Non-Different from Brahman (Kāraṇa): The so-called "world" is just a vivarta (apparent transformation) of Brahman. It is not a separate reality. Mithyā and Adhyāsa Are the Key Concepts: All perceived duality is mithyā — neither absolutely real nor absolutely unreal — but dependent on Brahman, and falsely superimposed upon it. Liberation Comes from Knowing Non-Duality: Only when one sees no second thing — no bhēda — does one attain mokṣa. Non-duality alone is freedom. Verse No 49 Brahman as the Sole Cause (Abhinna Upādāna Kāraṇa) Brahman is not merely the efficient cause, but also the material cause — the universe is non-different from Brahman, just as a pot is non-different from clay. Creation, Sustenance, and Dissolution are Apparent (Vivarta) These are appearances in Brahman, not real transformations. Brahman remains unchanged, while the names and forms (nāma-rūpa) appear and disappear. Satyam: Brahman; Mithyā: Universe Though the world appears, it is not ultimately real. What truly is, is pure Being — sat-mātra, which is Brahman. Right Knowledge (Jnana) is Liberation (Mokṣa) The prescribed action here is not karma, but viveka and niścaya — discriminative understanding and firm realization that “All this is Brahman”.