When the ultimate cause of a particular experience is discovered, it will be found that
the cause lies in the recognition of the Self in the not-Self. This was the definition of
avidya given by Patanjali. The atman is seen in the anatman, and then asmita
arises. Then there is love for things, and wild impulses arise. So, the rise of an
impulse in respect of a pleasurable experience in the world is rooted in an urge
towards it, which is raga—which again is rooted in the self-sense or asmita, which
again is rooted in the recognition or the vision of the Self in the not-Self. Now, is this
a great virtue to see the Self in the not-Self? Is this wisdom? Is this a course of
rightful action that has been taken by the mind? Can anyone say that to see the Self
in the not-Self is a correct course, a proper course? But unless the Self is seen in the
not-Self, we cannot have pleasurable impulses.
The satisfaction of the senses is possible only if the not-Self is outside the Self. If the
not-Self is not there, the pleasure also cannot be there because every contactual
pleasure, sensory or egoistic, is conditioned by the presence of an external object.
The perception of the reality of an external object is what is known as the recognition
of the Self in the not-Self. So, the extent to which we read reality into the location of
an object outside is also the magnitude of the satisfaction that we gain by coming in
contact with it. The more is the reality of an object, the greater is the satisfaction that
we get by coming in contact with it. The more we read the Selfhood in a not-Self, the
more is the intensity of the recognition of the Self in the not-Self, the greater is the
pleasure that we derive by contact with it. Hence, all the pleasures of the world are
ultimately rooted in this peculiar phenomenon—namely, the vision of the Self in the
not-Self.
Now we have been awakened to a very terrifying situation in which we have been
placed: we see the Self in the not-Self. Is it proper? If it is not proper, why is it not
proper? It is not proper because it is quite the opposite of what is. It is the contrary of
facts, and inasmuch as it is ultimately the Truth alone that can succeed, this effort of
the mind in the direction of coming in contact with the not-Self will not succeed. It
cannot succeed because it is contrary to Truth. Satyameva jayate nanritam: Truth
alone will succeed. This amrita of the perception of the Self in the not-Self is the
basis of the great joys that we have in this world—any kind of joy, whatever it be,
whether it is sensory or egoistic, social, personal, or whatever it is.
In this manner, if a diagnosis of the event of experience of pleasure is made, it will be
realised that there is a great stupidity behind it. A hideous error has been committed,
without which we cannot have happiness in this world. All our happiness is rooted in
utter ignorance, and unless this ignorance is present, there cannot be happiness. The
joys of the world are not a manifestation of understanding or intelligence. All the
pleasures of the world are manifestations of ignorance. They are darkness
masquerading as illuminating joys. This is the truth that is dug out when we bring
the facts to the surface. And so, in this investigative analysis that we are conducting
for the purpose of tracing the cause of an effect, we realise that we have been fooled
from the very beginning—a very hopeless situation, indeed.
Also, there is a reason why pleasure is seen in the contact of the senses with the not-
Self. The contact of the Self with the not-Self brings about a tension, and the tension
is caused by a false circumstance that has been created. The transference of the Self
to the not-Self is a false condition because the Self cannot be transferred to the not-
Self. It cannot be what it is not—but this is exactly what has happened. An impossible