SECTION FIFTY-ONE 

            "What is the nature of this Absolute Reality?" Süta Gosvämé replied (SB.1.2.11):

            The knowers of the Absolute Reality call it non-dual consciousness, or that which is second to none."

            The word jïänam in this verse means that whose nature is pure consciousness. This pure consciousness is called non-dual because it exists by itself and there is no other self-existent reality besides it, whether similar or dissimilar in nature. This non-dual consciousness is supported by its own potencies, and these potencies can have no existence without this consciousness as their basis.

            The term tattva indicates the supreme goal. From this it is understood that this tattva has the nature of supreme bliss, thus it is eternal in nature. 

ÇRÉ JÉVA TOÑAËÉ COMMENTARY

       In the last section it was stated that the Absolute Reality is to be known from the Çrémad Bhägavatam. This naturally raises the question, "What is the essential nature of this Absolute Reality?"  In reply Jéva Gosvämé quotes Çrémad Bhägavatam, that Absolute Reality is non-dual, or that which is second to none (advayam). There cannot be more than one Absolute Reality for they will then cease to be Absolute. Non-dual, however, does not mean that nothing else exists besides it, rather non-dual implies two things. First, that this Reality is self-existent: it is grounded in itself and depends on no external support. Second, nothing else can exist independently, without the support of this non-dual reality.

            In logic an object is considered non-dual if it is free of three kinds of differences--difference between objects of the same class; difference between objects of a different class; and difference between an object and its parts. The difference between objects of the same class is called sajätiya-bheda. Two chairs, although they look the same and function in the same manner and belong to the class "chair" are still different from each other. Any change whatsoever in the state of one chair has no effect on the other, because the two chairs are different from and independent of each other. The difference between objects of a different class is called vijätiya-bheda. A chair is different from a table in its appearance and function.

            Finally, the difference between an object and its parts is called svagata-bheda. The various parts of a chair can be removed and replaced without changing its identity as chair. This shows that the parts are independent from each other and from the object, chair. If all the parts are dismantled then there will be no such object as a chair. Hence the chair is not self-existent.

            These three kinds of differences are observed throughout material nature and give rise to duality. On the Absolute plane, however, they do not exist. Therefore Süta Gosvämé calls this Absolute Reality advaya-jïäna, non-dual consciousness. The Lord and His bodily limbs are fully conscious and potent and they cannot be seperated from the body of the Lord. Further, His limbs are all interchangeable. Any one limb or organ can perform the functions of any other limb or organ. For this reason, no difference of the svagata-bheda type exists between Lord Kåñëa and His bodily parts.

            Although the Supreme Personality of Godhead expands into forms such as Räma and Balaräma, these expansions are non-different from the Lord Himself. At the same time, He is not dependent on Them, but They are dependent on Him. Since the Lord and His expansions belong to the same class, no difference of the type called sajätiya-bheda is found in Him.

            Material nature, being inert, belongs to a different class than the transcendental Personality of Godhead. Nevertheless, no difference of vijätiya-bheda exists in Him, because material nature has no seperate existence from Him.

            The living entities belong to the marginal potency of the Lord. On account of this, they may be viewed in two ways, either as belonging to the same class as the Lord, owing to their similar conscious nature, or as belonging to a different class, owing to the atomic size of the jévas. In either case, the jévas are fully dependent on the Supreme Lord and so none of the three types of differences can apply between them and to the Lord. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé concludes, therefore, that although the Lord's energies help Him, they have no seperate existence from Him (taà vinä tasäm asiddhatvät).

            Just as a spider weaves a web using its own saliva and then resides in it, similarly Çré Kåñëa, the non-dual Absolute Reality personified, has His own energies with which He manifests the spiritual realm and then He subsists in it. These energies are part of His own internal nature. They have no independent existence apart from Him. 

            The word jïänam means consciousness. The significance is that this non-dual Reality is essentially conscious and it has consciousness as its attribute, just as sugar is sweet and sweetness is its attribute. Jïänam also implies that it must have an existence (sat) feature. Because the word tattvam implies the Supreme object of life, it follows that this non-dual Reality must have a bliss (änanda) feature as well, because all living beings,  knowingly or unknowingly, are pleasure seeking.

           Tattvam also means essence. By analysis as well as from the scriptures it is understood that the motivating element in all actions is bliss. The reason underlying relationships, creation, destruction, and all else is the pursuit of happiness. Hence the statement in the Båhadäraëyaka Upaniñad (2.4.5), na vä are patyuù kämäya patiù, priyobhavati, atmanastu kämäya patiù priyo bhavati, "It is not for the sake of the husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for the sake of the self".

            Here the word "self" refers to either the jévas or the Supreme Lord. In the conditioned state, self refers to the jévas. We are attached to someone or something because we derive happiness from loving that person or thing. This sensation of happiness comes from our attachment or feelings of "myness", not from the person or the object itself, because if our attachment weakens our happiness diminishes. 

            In the liberated state, self refers to the Supreme Lord. Here the devotees of the Lord render service only for His pleasure and they desire nothing in return. If the Lord treats them roughly, they are still happy, for they have abandoned all fears and cares in their loving relationship with the all-attractive Lord. This standard is shown in the Çikñäñöakam wherein  Lord Caitanya prays:

"I know no one but Kåñëa as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly by His embrace or makes me broken-hearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord, unconditionally."

            In conditioned existence we do not know that the supreme object of love and the source of all bliss is Kåñëa. We mistake ourselves as the source of bliss. To enlighten us Kåñëa gives instruction in the Bhagavad-gétä (10.8,9):

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

"The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me."

            Thus there is an innate relation of jïäna with sat and änanda. This relationship is clearly indicated in the sruti statement:  satyam jïänaà änandam brahma, "The Absolute Reality, Brahman, is truth, knowledge, and bliss. And, vijïänaà änandaà Brahma,  "Brahman is consciousness and bliss  [Båhad A. 3.18]. So the nature of this non-dual consciousness is sat-cit-änanda -- existence, knowledge, and bliss.

            This annucheda is the declaration of Jéva Gosvämé's thesis. In the next section the antithesis, that jïäna is momentary, is explained.