confusion between two types of character: the character that belongs to Pure
Consciousness, and the character that belongs to what is not the Self. The conviction
that one exists is due to the Being of Consciousness. The atman or the purusha that
is within is responsible for this affirmation.
The existence aspect of this affirmation belongs to the nature of True Being, which is
at the background of all these phenomena. But, this affirmation of Being in the
feeling ‘I am’ is not merely an affirmation of Being; there is some other element also
which infects this feeling of Being—namely, the isolatedness of a part of Being from
other parts. When we say ‘I am’, or feel ‘I am’, we imply thereby that ‘I am different
from others’, though we do not make that statement openly. The implication of the
affirmation of oneself as an individual is that one is cut off from other individuals;
otherwise, the feeling of ‘I am’ itself cannot be there. How do we know that we are
different from others? There is no reason behind this. We have a prejudiced notion
that we are different from others, and this irrational prejudice is the basis of all our
actions—even the so-called altruistic actions. Even the most philanthropic of deeds is
based upon this notion that we are different from others, which itself cannot be
justified rationally.
The peculiar differentiating character of space, time and cause interferes with the
character of Being which is in Consciousness, and then there is the rise of the
phenomenal individuality, which is asmita. The ‘I am-ness’ of an individual, the
feeling of the individuality of a person—the egoism, or the isolated existence of
anyone—is, therefore, the effect of two factors coming together into activity. A new
feature is made to rise due to the mix-up of these two peculiar characters. Space and
time act on one side, and Pure Consciousness acts on the other side. The spatial
character of the way in which the mind works goes hand in hand with the Being
character of Consciousness, and then there is the conviction ‘I am’. Well, this is an
effect of ignorance because space is nothing but the not-Self, and it was pointed out
that the not-Self is perceived on account of an action of ignorance.
Space, time, cause mean one and the same thing—they are three aspects of a single
phenomenon. It is the principle of externality, if one would like to call it so. The
principle of externality is what is called maya in Vedantic language—the
‘appearance’, as philosophers put it—a peculiar thing which nobody can understand.
Something is there, and no one can know how it is there, or why it is there. This is the
principle of externality which manifests itself as what we call space-time-causal
relationship, etc. This feature of externality gets mixed up with the being of
Consciousness, and then we have an externalised personality; that is the individuality
of ours. This is the ‘I am-ness’ we are speaking of.
Thus, our very existence is a false existence; this is what is made out by this sutra. If
our existence is itself illegal, untenable, unfounded and irrational, how can anything
that we do on the basis of this individuality be right? So it is no wonder that we are
suffering in this world. Ignorance has produced this peculiar sense of individuality,
asmita—this feeling of oneself being different from others. The subject is cut off from
the object; and each thing in this world has an asmita of its own. There is an
affirming principle working in every item of creation. Because of this confirmed
feeling of the sense of individual being, there is a further urge arising from this sense
of individual being—namely, a necessity felt to connect oneself with others. “If I am
different from you, what is my relationship with you?” This question arises.