Chapter 3 - What is Man?

We come to the problem of man, the most significant among these ‘effects’ known as the world. We must understand what man is for he is the subject matter of the science of medicine for whose sake it is promulgated (Sūtra 1.47). To understand him is to understand the world, for he is similar to the world in his construction (Śārīra V.3). He is the microcosm, the macrocosm in miniature.

In Caraka, one and the same thing, or a set of things, is defined and enumerated in various ways and from different standpoints. Similarly this world of six categories can also be defined as a world of six elements—the five proto-elements of earth, water, fire, air and ether and the sixth one the conscious element Man being a conscious individual is identical with the conscious element itself. Man, again, being au effect of these six is also the aggregate of these six elements (Śārīra 1.16) Looked at once again from the stand-point of a further elaboration of these principles, man is the aggregate of twenty-four elements (Śārīra 1-17) consisting of the mind, the ten organs of sense and action, the sense objects (five elements) and the eightfold Prakrti or subtle constituents of his Inner beings viz., the Atma (spirit), the Buddhi (intellect), the Ahankara (the ego) and the five subtle elements. Thus he is called the aggregate of twenty-four constituents. This aggregate-individual is to be treated for disease, for ignorance and for spiritual bondage Liberation from disease, ignorance and birth and death is the subject of this science. It is all-round and thorough in its treatment of man, not stopping till it has achieved his final emancipation from all suffering

Let us now see what these various constituents are that make up his being and what causes have brought them into being. What is his origin? If he has any, when and how his liberation can take place? These significant questions, exhaustive in their scope and nature addressed by his disciple to.

Atreya are thus:

“Into how many categories is man divided in view of the diversity of the elements (that compose him)? Wherefore is he said to be the cause? What is his origin? Is he ignorant or endowed with knowledge? Is he shown to be eternal or non-eternal? What is Prakriti (the primal matter)? What are the modifications? What is the mark of Purusa (the man)? The knowers of the self declare the spirit to be non-active, free, endowed with lordship all-pervading, infinite, the knower of the field and the witness likewise O, worshipful one! if the spirit is thus non-active, how, then, is activity predicated of him? And if it is free, how is it that it is born of undesirable wombs? If it is endowed with lordship, wherefore is it drawn perforce into suffering? And if it be all-pervading, why does it not experience the totality of sensations at once? And wherefore does the infinite one not perceive what is hidden behind a hill or a wall? There is also the doubt as to which is prior, the knower of the field or the field itself?”

In reply to this formidable list of questions Atreya propounds a philosophy in which are found the echoes of intermingled voices of the Sankhya and the Vedanta. After describing elaborately the nature and functions of the mind and the senses, there is a reaffirmation of man as the aggregate of twenty-four elements. “The supreme (spirit) combined with Buddhi, the ten organs of sense and of action, the mind and the five sense-objects is the aggregate of the twenty-four categories known as Man. The Buddhi here stands for the seven-fold Prakrti of man excepting the supreme the intellect, the ego and the five elements. This supreme is described again as the unmanifest (avyakta).

It is in connection with the function of the mind that Abhava (abhāva) or non-existence is mentioned as one of the objects of knowledge. Though it is not included among the six categories of substance etc it is stated that the mind can recognise non-existence as in the case of the absence of contact with the sense of touch:

“All these characteristics are perceived by the tactile sense; for the tangible together with its opposite is apprehended by the sense of touch”. (Sūtra 1-3).

Even in the Kanada-sutra (Kanāda-sūtra), though non existence is not included among the categories, it is introduced later on in the course of exposition. While in the Nyaya the categories are explicitly stated to be seven viz., those of the Vaisheshika and the seventh non-existence, at the very beginning (Nyāya-sūtra 1.2.)

But why this aggregation of elements? Who or what has brought them together to form this man? Rajas and Tamas i.e. the qualities of passion and ignorance are responsible for this endless aggregation. Only by their elimination and by the increase of the Sattvic quality of knowledge and goodness will this aggregate be dissolved. Consciousness or knowledge is affirmed as the inalienable quality of the Atma or the self. But to what do these three qualities pertain? In the Sankhya view, these are the triple nature of Prakriti known as Avyakta or Pradhana. But here in Caraka, as it will be later discovered, the Atma itself is known as the Avyakta. To whom then do these qualities belong and how does the Atma suffer from these qualities is a question to which we find no answer in Caraka. As we have already found, minds are said to be of these three types judging from their preponderant tendencies. A quality is that which is in coexistent relation to the substance and cannot be changed or separated. In which case it would be vain to suggest that by controlling the characteristics of Rajas and Tamas one could increase the Sattva quality in order to gain liberation. It is evident that the Atma does not possess these qualities, for in the liberated state it is not under the influence of these.

Both in the exposition of Anumana by means of its illustration in judging the fruit from the seed as well as the description of the fetal, conception, and development where it is said that out of the seed of man only the human form comes out just as animals from animals. There,is an obvious faith in Satkarya-vada concept of the Sankhya. Hence, to view the evolution of the later categories from Avyakta and to identify it with Atma, the self, beyond the three qualities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, the self that is said to be free from undergoing change or modification, is a glaring inconsistency

The exposition of the metaphysics of man begins with the assertion that this aggregate being is the foundation of action, fruit of action, knowledge, delusion, happiness and grief, and life and death. He who thus understands the truth knows the beginning and the end, the succession of his incarnations and the remedy for this mortal ailment. At this stage the teacher is confronted with the Buddhistic doctrine of the momentariness of knowledge and the transient succession of a series of individuals and he feels compelled to refute it and establish the permanence of the individual soul who passes from the past through the present into the future, thus retaining his individual identity through time. For in the absence of such an identical individual through all the varied experiences, the fruit of one’s actions will have to be felt by another and there would be no meaning in bondage or release, grief or happiness.

In the words of AtreyaL

[Śārīrasthāna 1.39-42]

“In the absence of a continued doing and knowing individual, their would be neither light nor darkness, neither truth nor falsehood, no Vedas, and good and bad actions would cease to be. There would be no substratum of experience, no happiness, no grief, no exit and no entry, no speech, no science, no scriptures, neither birth nor death, and neither bondage nor release. Therefore it is that the knowers of the cause declare the self of the individual to be the cause. If the causative self were not there, light etc., would be meaningless and without purpose Without the self there would be no knowledge of light etc., produced and without the experiencing self these would be purposeless”.

Only he can say that the body is made of transient materials gathered together and contains nothing higher, who asserts that the pot is made by the potter’s wheel and the turning stick and without the potter, or that the house is brought into being by the earth, straw and wood alone without the aid of the mason.

It is therefore out of ignorance that a man who is bereft of reason and the authority of revelation, regards life as devoid of an author and doer. (Śārīra I. 43-44)

If life be but a succession of similar individuals who are every moment new and are regarded as the same owing to their similarity and that they are momentary groups of elements possessing no self and there is no doer of action nor reaper of their results, it leads you into the fallacy of one enjoying the results of another’s doings.

[Śārīrasthāna 1.4]

“The instruments of the doer are many and varied but the agent is always the sime. The agent with his instruments is the cause of all activity”.

The physical body is being consumed every moment, quicker than the winking of an eye, and those elements do not return. And the result of an action cannot affect any other than its author. Hence it is the view of the knowers of truth that there is an everlasting element known as the self which is the cause of actions and the enjoyment of the results of actions in all individuals. (Śārīra I 50-51)

Having thus established the existence of the eternal self, it remains to be known what its nature is and how it functions and expresses itself in this aggregate-being, called man. The Atma is the principle of knowledge. It is known as the knower. That is the one inseparable characteristic of the self which manifests itself only if the rest of the constituents of the aggregate-being fulfil their peculiar functions. If those other constituents which are the means through which the knowing self expresses itself are not in proper condition or fitness, to that degree is its knowledge obscured.

The self is the knower. Its knowledge proceeds from its contact with the instruments of knowledge viz., the senses, mind and the understanding. But in absence of the contact of the organs or in case -they are defective, there is no cognition. (Śārīra 1.45).

Just as one cannot perceive one’s reflection in a dust-covered mirror or in the muddy water, similarly is the self’s nature not manifested through the impaired senses (Śārīra 1.55).

The self does not initiate action by itself nor does it suffer the fruit of action. All action and enjoyment of action results from this aggregation of the constituents and there is nothing in the absence of such aggregation. (Śārīra 1.57) Action, consciousness and discrimination emanate from and are the products of the aggregation of the senses, mind, intellect and the organs of action. The manifested being, known also as the aggregate-being, is never a single constituent, nor does it exist without associate causes, nor does it escape dissolution resulting from its speedy career and its inherent nature. The self is beginningless and endless but the one brought about by such associate causes is otherwise. The self which is never caused is eternal but the being that is brought about by causes is the contrary of it, that is non-eternal. (Śārīra I. 50,) Hence it is clear that the aggregate being known as man who is the subject of our study is brought into being by an association of factors and must necessarily suffer dissolution, while the self by virtue of its being not a result of a cause, is eternal. Atreya propounds the theory of being at the very outset of his thesis saying that things are brought into being by causes but require no cause for their dissolution (Sūtra. XVI-28). Disintegration or dissolution is the very essence of their nature and need no other aids or factors. Hence man that is brought into being by an aggregation must necessarily dissolve and vanish without the aid of an extraneous cause. Dissolution is, of the very essence of his being. Let us therefore see and analyse this aggregate being which is bound to dissolve and differentiate the self that is causeless and eternal from that part of him which results from a cause and is noneternal.

This is an interesting classification current in the Upanisads, the Gita and the Sankhya concepts of life and is found in a slightly modified form in the Caraka Samhita. The aggregate-man is divided into two parts, the knower and the known. The known is also called the field (Ksetra—kṣetra) in Upanisads as well as in later literature. The self which is the knowing principle surveys the field before it. All being results from this coming together of the field and the knower of it.

The Gita says:

[Bhagavadgītā 13.25]

“Whatever is brought into being mobile or immobile, should be known to be produced by the combination of the field and the knower of the field”.

The supreme self is referred to as the creator of the world, the knower of everything, the self-source, the knower, the essence of time, possessor of attribute, the all-knower, the lord of Pradhana. i.e (Prakrti or the source of nature) and of the knower of field, the lord of the Gunas (namely Sattva, Rajas and Tamas which constitute Prakriti) and the cause of the world, of existence, bondage and liberation.

In the Gita, Krishna declared,

[Bhagavadgītā 13.2]

“This body is called the field and he who knows it is called the knower of the field by the wise. Know me also to be the knower in all the fields and knowledge concerning me is the knowledge of both the field and its knower”.

The field along with its modifications consists of the five proto-elements, the ego, the intellect and the unmanifest, the eleven organs of sense and action (including the mind) and the five sense objects as well as like and dislike, happiness and grief, the comprehensive understanding, consciousness and concentration. (Gītā 13, 5-6).

In Caraka there is at first a definition of the two categories the unmanifest and the manifest. That which is unknowable and unrecognisable by the characteristics of being is the unmanifest, while the manifest is of the opposite nature. The self is unmanifest, knower of the field, permanent all-pervasive and indestructible. That which is different from this is the manifest. Here again is another way of stating the two categories. The manifest is the object of sense preception when the senses are in contact with them. The unmanifest is different beyond, the senses and is recognised by its signs and characteristics (Sārīra 1.60-62).

The five proto-elements of ether etc., the intellect, the unmanifest and the ego which is the eighth are known as the Bhuta-prakriti the cause of being as well as the sixteen evolutes. These latter are the five organs of knowledge and the five organs of action, the mind and the five sense-objects. Thus among the aforesaid, all except the unmanifest is known by the wise as the knower of this field. (Śārīra I. 63-65).

The unmanifest is the self, the knower and is the Cetana-Dhatu (cetanādhātu) i.e., the element of consciousness in the universe. Throughout, so far, it has been propounded that the sense-organs, the mind, the ego and the intellect are insentient and are regarded as sentient only when in conjunction with the self who illuminates them with consciousness.

[Śārīrasthāna 1.75-76]

“The mind is insentient and is regarded as acting only when in conjunction with that other principle of consciousness which imparts the sentiency to it. Hence it is the self that is possessed of consciousness and is called the doer Since the mind is insentient it is not regarded as doer?”

The field therefore derives its sentiency and character as a doer by its being charged with consciousness flowing from the self. Its every action, thought and word is derived from the self. These actions should therefore belong to the self and should be known as its attributes when in conjunction with the field.

Atreya declares:

[Śārīrasthāna 1.70-74]

“The two vital breaths of Prana and Apana, the winking of the eye, living, the movements of the mind, such as fancy, perception of the sense-organs, impelling, meditation, going to distant lands in dream, the understanding of death, recognition with the left eye' of what the right eye has seen, likes and dislikes, happiness and grief, effort, feeling, concentration, intellection, memory, and egohood are the characteristics or signs of the supreme self”.

“These signs therefore are found in a living man, declare the great sages, and in the dead these characteristics of the self are not seen. For the body is like an empty house when the self has deserted it. As only the five proto-elements are left in it, the man is said to have been ‘reduced to five’, (pañcatvaṃ gataḥ[?]) which is the synonym for death”.

This self is the sixth element of the universe, the element of consciousness. This is called the unmanifest, the knower of the field which is the body and the self as well as the supreme self. This self is regarded as the author of the world, the knower, the witness and the cause. (Śārīra. III-25).

The question naturally is whether the self is a knower even in the absence of the field, when it is not in conjunction with the mind, Senses etc. Just as the body is insentient without the self, similarly the self might be deprived of knowledge without the aid of the body, mind etc.

But Atreya answers emphatically in the negative and says,

[Śārīrasthāna 3.18-19½]

“The self is knower not only when given the senses, but also when the senses are absent, for he is never without the conscious quality at any time. There is knowledge manifested only if it is already there. The lack of the senses cannot remove the knower’s power of knowing. The particular perceptions of things only are not there but the capacity to perceive is always there, just as the knowledge of jar-making is in the potter but does not find its expression in the absence of earth etc.”.

Even when the self is bereft of the sense-perceptions, speech and action in the sleeping state, yet in dreams he has knowledge of happiness and grief. He is therefore known as never being without knowledge. He is ever the knower. Without the quality of knowledge in the self no other type of knowledge can ever manifest itself. Therefore all knowledge in life cannot come by itself or uncaused by the knowledge belonging to the self. (Śārīra 3.23-24.)

The element of consciousness known as the self is regarded variously as the cause, region, the instrument, the imperishable, the agent, the thinking one, the knower, the understanding one, the seer, the dispenser, the great one, the architect of the world, the omniform, the supreme person, the creative source, the unchanging, the eternal, the substratum of qualities, the seizer, the chief, the uumanifest, the individual soul, the knower, the ego, the conscious one, the infinite, the soul of creatures, the soul of the senses, and the inner soul. (Śārīra 4.8)

We have thus seen that this self is identified with the source of all things, the creator of the universe and the supreme self pervading everywhere Brahma is among its synonyms. This is both the human self as well as the universal self and there is nothing beyond this. This is in accordance with the description of the Purusa of the Vedas and the Brahma or Atma of the Upanishads which is the source and the end and essence of all things Out of it evolve the universe, the ether, air, water, fire and earth and all living beings. The great Mahavakyas such as (sarvaṃ khalvidaṃ-brahma...)—“all this is Brahma” proclaim the same concept of all things being of the essence of supreme. This is the key-note of the pantheistic view of life that has a significant place in the Upanishads. But how and when this self was caught up in the aggregate man and what the origin of the aggregate itself is, have yet to be explained How has this aggregate being come about and what is the purpose and the end of it Life must have a direction and fulfilment. This aggregate being is subject to disease and death. But death does not dissolve it as the self according to Atreya goes out into new lives and makes its entry Into fresh wombs carrying with it the subtle elements that evidently form its vehicle.

We shall therefore have to search for the causes for his origin before we think of the origin and unfoldment of the universe itself.

The supreme self being beginningless has no origin, but the aggregate-being is born of acts, delusion, desire and aversion. (Śārīra 1.53).

This only explains the causes that lead to the formation of aggregate-being but when and why it took place first cannot be answered for it is said by Atreya:

[Śārīrasthāna 1.82]

“There is no beginning for the self and the succession of the fields is also beginningless Hence, since both are beginningless, neither can be antecedent to the other”

We are indeed on the horns of dilemma. The self is beginningless and so is the succession of bodies known as the field and yet the elements of this aggregate-being are all evolved from the self. The causes for the formation of this aggregate are known, but when they first came into operation is not to be asked, for this process of aggregation has gone on from beginningless time.

The evolution of man is thus: From the unmanifest is born the Buddhi, the principle of intelligence, and from the intellect the ego-sense is derived, from the ego the ether and other proto-elements are born in their successive order. Then the whole man possessed of all the faculties springs into view and is said to be born, and at the end of an age when the world dissolves, this being merges back into those constituent proto-elements in the reverse order (Śārīra 1.66-67). Thus it emerges into the manifest from the unmanifest and gets back again into the unmanifest from the manifest. Passion and delusion having taken possession of him, man revolves from brith to death like a wheel (Śārīra VIII-68).

In bis account of evolution of the individual and his involution Caraka is in perfect accordance with the Sankhya view except for the identification of the unmanifest with the supreme self. According to the Sankhya view, the unmanifest is the Pradhana, the original form of nature out of which all other forms are evolved. The self is of a separate category altogether and undergoes no change or modification. It is just a perceiver, knower and witness. The Buddhi and other evolutes are non-conscious and have Prakriti, known also as Avyakta, as their source. It is the nature of Prakriti to undergo change and give birth to things. It is called Prasavadharmini i.e. that gives birth to other forms whereas the soul known as Purusha is the principle of consciousness and is eternally the same and is the witness and enjoyer. Nothing is derived from him nor gets back into him; he is eternally the same and unchanging (Aprasavadharmī).

Atreya calls the self “Nirvikara”, the changeless, even as it is spoken of in the Upanisads as a changeless principle and also as the source of the universe (Śankara in his commentary on the Brahma-Sūtra points out that the Vedānta has held “Avyakta” to mean Self. B. Sūtra 3-2-23) And despite the whole context built up in the Caraka Samhita in keeping with the Sankhya doctrine of evolution, this final declaration, anomolous though in its nature, definitely represents the Upanisadic tendency to derive all things from one supreme Self (Ātmā).

Cakrapani, the commentator of Caraka, has taken throughout the Sankhya view for granted, and has interpeted Avyakta as the unmanifest primary form of Nature. If it is also called the self and the creator etc., it is according to him₅ due to the close contiguity in nature and position between the two viz., the self and the primal nature. They both come under the category of the unmanifest and the primal nature Pradhana is for all practical purposes the self, as it closely resembles the self by its immediate proximity to it and its subtle nature. There is a certain amount of ambiguity in Caraka’s exposition of the subject including the description of the final liberation of the individual. One does not find the mention of the positive ecstacy that characterises the “Brahma” state in the Upanisads. It is purely negative in its content. Nevertheless the ‘Avyakta’ is the self which attains the Brahma-state and which is the origin and the end of all beings

According to Dasgupta (History of Indian philosophy Vol. I) this is an old form of Sankhya propounded by Pancashikha, the disciple of Asuri while the Ishvarakrisna system of Sankhya is the one propounded by Asuri, Kapila’s direct disciple. The Mahabharata mentions both these varieties of Sankhya i.e., of the twenty-four as well as the twenty-five categories and condemns them as unworthy of acceptance. The third variety of the twenty-six categories, the twenty-sixth being god is recommended as the one worthy of acceptance

Shri Durgashankara Shastri writing in Gujarati and Jyotishcandra Sarasvati writing in Sanskrit are both of the opinion that the nature of the Atma as expounded in Caraka indentifying it with the unmanifest ‘Ayvakta’ is undoubtedly Upanisadic in its significance. It is also of interest to note the absolute similarity in terms as well as in outline between the metaphysical expositions found in Yajnavalkya Samhita and in Caraka. They are almost replicas of each other. It is for the historian of religion and philosophy to refer to either as the source of the other or to an altogether different common source from which they both might have drawn.

The next question now is, why is it that the self being Universal and all-pervading does not yet experience the feelings and sensations of all the bodies, but knows only the sensations of and through the sense-organs of one body only. In answer to this question, Atreya asserts that the self is all-pervading, but owing to the finite nature of the mind, a limitation of experience is imposed on it. When the mind is stilled and brought to quiescence, the self perceives all things beyond its usual ken. (Sārīra 1.80-81).

This is in accordance with the view of Patanjali who expounds in his yoga philosophy that this quiescence of mind, known as Samadhi, enables the self to attain extra-ordinary powers of perception and action, though these attainments are to be disregarded in the interests of final liberation. This Samadhi is the last of the eight steps of yoga. By constant practice of this, the self attains its liberation from mind and matter. There are eight supernatural powers attained incidentally from this practice of Samadhi.

They are the eight Siddhis known as (aṣṭasiddhi) contraction to atomic size, expansion, becoming light seeing distant objects, extraordinary powers such as even touching the moon, attainment of all desires, control over the elements and lordship (Yoga sūtra III-45).

The power attained by Siddhi are slightly modified in Caraka. They are eight viz., gaining entrance into other bodies, telepathy, the doing of things according to one’s own will, clairvoyance, clairaudience, omniscience, effulgence and vanishing from sight at will.

The Shvetashvatara Upanisad has a similar list of the powers attained by the practicer of Yoga:

[Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad chapter 2.12-13]

“The person engaged in Yoga suffers neither disease nor old age nor death, his body being filled with the fire of yoga. He attains lightness, good health, stability, lustre, strength of voice, bodily fragrance and scantiness of excretions. These are regarded as the first effects of Yoga-practice”.

The real purpose and end of yoga is the attainment of this absolute quiescence. This Samadhi if it becomes everlasting is liberation. Atreya declares that in both states of yoga meaning thereby in Samadhi as well as in final liberation there is a cessation of all experience. In liberation there is no residue of it left even to drag one back to life. This yoga or Samadhi leads to liberation.

Before we come to know the nature of that final stage of liberation which is the supreme consummation of man, the aggregate-being, we shall understand the great analogy that subsists between this aggregate-man and the universe in which he dwells i e, the analogy between the microcosm and the macrocosm.

Punarvasu Atreya declares in significant words that this man resembles the universe. Whatever principles are in the universe are also in him. The universe consists of innumerable constituent parts and even so is man.

“We have said generally that earth, water, light, air, ether and Brahma known as Avyakta are the six elements constituting man. The earth is represented in man by hardness, water by moisture, fire by heat, air by the vital breath, the ether by the interstices and the self by the indwelling spirit. Similar to the office of God in the world is the might of the individual soul in man. God’s greatness in the universe is seen as creator; in the body the souls greatness is seen as the mind. What Indra in in the universe the ego is in man; the Sun corresponds to the power of absorbing, Rudra to anger, the Moon to beneficence, the Vasus to pleasures, the two Ashvins [Ashvins] to lustre, the Maruts (winds) to enthusiasm, the Vishvedevah (universal Gods) to the sense organs and the sense-objects, darkness to delusion, light to knowledge, just as there is the act of creation in the universe, so also in man there is fertilization or the act of impregnation, corresponding to Kritayuga is the period of childhood; corresponding to Treta is youth; corresponding to Dvapara is old age; corresponding to Kali is infirmity and corresponding to the end of a world-cycle is death in man. In this manner by pursuing this analogy, O Agnivesha! you are to understand the unity of all those different members in the world and in man which we have left unmentioned here.”

And we may conclude that as the created elements return to their original essence in that hour of universal dissolution, so in his hour of final dissolution he returns to the original essence of the self and remains for ever in the Brahmic state known as liberation.

That liberation is a state from which there is no fall back into life. It is said that owing to the non existence of the forces of Rajas and Tamas and the complete wearing away of all fruits of action, there is elimination of all the factors of aggregation. Hence it is called the state of non-return. (Śārīra I. 142).

This state results from the continuous practice of certain factors known as virtues, discipline or regimen of conduct and thought. This discipline as described in Caraka has close resemblance to the

discipline of the Buddhistic and Sankhya views wherein the elimination of the evils or hindrances in the path to liberation alone are mentioned. In the yoga-system to some extent, and in the Vedanta emphatically, the positive dedication of the mind to goodness and love and adoration of or meditations on the nature of the Supreme or the glory of God and of the identity of the Self with the Supreme are the means of liberation.

[Śārīrasthāna 1.143-146]

“From the accession of the pure understanding, all these proceed the right geeking of the company of the good, the total avoidance of the wicked, continence and abstinence and various austerities, the study of the sacred scriptures, meditation, love of solitude, aversion to sense-pleasures, perseverance in the path of liberation, supreme determination the non-beginning of actions and the complete annihilation of those already done, the desire to quit the world, humility, dreading of attachment, the fixing of the mind and understanding in the self and the investigation of the true nature of things—all this proceeds from the recollection of the true nature of the Self”.

But if it be asked as to how this recollection of truth comes about, it is answered that the practices—“beginning with the company of the good and ending with supreme determination”—give birth to the recollection of ones true nature. And recollecting the self’s nature one is released from suffering. (Śārīra. 1-147).

[Śārīrasthāna 1.150-151]

“There are eight causes that lead to this recollection. They are the recognition of the nature of rhe cause of life, similarity and dissimilarity, concentration of mind, repeated practice, intellectual inquiry, repeated hearing and constant recollection of what has been heard and experienced. By these means arises that recollection, leading to liberation. This path to liberation which had been seen by the liberated yogis and knowers of knowledge (Sāṅkhyas) and by which they have reached that state from which they have not returned, is regarded as the only path”.

This state from which there is no return is known as the Brahma state. The individual becomes free and installed in his original status. He is called “Brahmabhuta” (Brahmabhūta) one that has become Brahma. He is there bereft of special characteristics that once earmarked- his individuality and; cannot be any longer recognised by any sign. He is lost in the Infinite.

In Atreya’s own words,

[Śārīrasthāna 1.154-155]

“In that final renunciation, all sensation together with their root-cause as also cogitation, contemplation and resolution come to an absolute termination Thereafter, the individual self having become one with the universal self is no longer seen as particularised being rid of all qualities. He has no longer any distinguishing mark. The knowers of Brahma alone have knowledge of this. The ignorant cannot understand it”.