After listening to Swami Prabuddhānandaji’s Pravacana on “Vedānta Prakriyā Pratyabhijñā”
Abstract
This paper presents a reflective analysis (manana) of the Vedāntic teaching process as elucidated by Swami Prabuddhānandaji in his discourse on Vedānta Prakriyā Pratyabhijñā. Without direct citations from the Upaniṣads or Bhāṣyas, the discussion explores the epistemic significance of sākṣyānubhava (the intuitive recognition of the witnessing consciousness) and its place within the pedagogical framework of adhyāropa–apavāda nyāya (the method of superimposition and negation). The paper argues that this methodological progression—culminating in the realization of ajātā brahman—reveals how the apparent relational dualities of experience are systematically dissolved into the non-dual Self.
1. Introduction: The Context of Sākṣyānubhava
The recognition of the sākṣī or witnessing consciousness (sākṣyānubhava) represents a critical epistemic stance in Advaita Vedānta. It serves as the necessary standpoint (paramārthadṛṣṭi) for the final analysis of reality. However, this standpoint itself belongs within the realm of relational cognition and thus falls under adhyāropa-dṛṣṭi, the provisional standpoint that the Śāstra employs to remove previous misconceptions (adhyāsa-dṛṣṭi).
The Śāstra adopts adhyāropa as a pedagogical strategy to annul prior misapprehensions of the Self. Consequently, the recognition of the sākṣī constitutes the final relational stand available to experiential consciousness. The sākṣī is none other than the ātman itself, though seemingly related to anātman owing to the innate identification of consciousness with the body and mind (dehādhyāsa). Ultimately, the Śāstra declares the non-dual identity of ātman and brahman through the mahāvākya Tat Tvam Asi—“That Thou Art.”
2. The Hermeneutical Challenge of Tat Tvam Asi
From the standpoint of adhyāsa, the seeker finds statements such as Tat Tvam Asi difficult to comprehend. The identification of the individual self with the unconditioned (nirviśeṣa) brahman appears paradoxical. The teacher clarifies that this confusion arises because the seeker does not grasp the meaning of the words used in the statement.
In the sentence, Tat (That) is fixed in meaning as nirviśeṣa brahman, the unqualified, non-dual reality (ekam advitīyam). The real difficulty lies in understanding Tvam (Thou)—the “I.” The verb Asi (“art”) equates Tvam and Tat. Hence, the pedagogical movement required is an inquiry into the meaning of Tvam-pada—“Who am I?”
3. The Pedagogical Structure: Adhyāropa–Apavāda Nyāya
Within the traditional sampradāya, the teaching unfolds according to the principle of adhyāropa–apavāda nyāya—a twofold method of superimposition and negation. The teacher does not explicitly announce this technique; rather, the entire process of Vedāntic instruction embodies it.
The teacher observes that the student’s confusion arises from avidyā (ignorance). From the student’s standpoint, ignorance is experienced as an existential fact; from the teacher’s or Śāstra’s standpoint, avidyā has no ontological status. It functions merely as a methodological assumption to initiate inquiry in the individual who takes himself to be a kartā (agent), bhoktā (enjoyer), and jñātā (knower).
As the subject of ignorance is the Self itself, the student’s ignorance consists in misapprehending the Self as something other than itself. This is the essence of adhyāsa. Since ignorance can only be dispelled by knowledge, the seeker must investigate his own nature within the field of his own experience (dharma-kṣetra).
4. The Non-Agency of the Self and the Nature of Knowledge
Because the true Self is akartā (non-agent), no action (kriyā) can bring about Self-knowledge. Knowledge does not depend upon the volition of the knower but upon the disclosure of the object. Hence, all that the seeker can meaningfully do is to observe and investigate the reality of his experience as it truly is.
However, the Self can never be objectified, as it is eternally the subject of all cognition. Therefore, no external instrument of knowledge (pramāṇa) can reveal it directly. The Self can only be indicated indirectly, through implication (lakṣaṇā). It is here that the Vedāntic prakriyās—the structured methodologies of traditional teaching—serve as indispensable tools. Among these, the avasthā-traya prakriyā (analysis of the three states) is central.
5. The Avasthā-Traya Prakriyā and the Progressive Negation of Misidentification
The teacher begins by addressing the student’s basic identification with the body and mind: “You are not the body but the knower of the body.” Here, jñātṛtva (knowerhood) is superimposed upon the ātman (adhyāropa) to draw the student’s attention to the impossibility of being the limited body-mind complex. Realizing that the body, being an object of experience, cannot be the subject, the student begins to discern that the “seer” (dṛk) must be distinct from the seen (dṛśya).
When the student accepts this but still perceives separation between himself and brahman, the teacher introduces the sākṣī—the witnessing consciousness. The sākṣī-anubhava negates the notion of individuality (pramātṛtva) by revealing that all experiential states—waking, dream, and deep sleep—appear and disappear in the light of the unchanging witness. The seeker recognizes himself as kūṭastha-caitanya, the immutable consciousness.
Yet this is not the culmination. Since brahman is nirviśeṣa and asaṅga (without relation), the sākṣī standpoint too is ultimately relational and provisional. It is introduced only to negate the previous identification with the pramātṛ.
6. Deep Sleep (Suṣupti) and the Revelation of Pure Consciousness
From the standpoint of the sākṣī, inquiry extends to suṣupti (deep sleep). Unlike waking and dream, suṣupti is not a state characterized by subject-object relations. In deep sleep, sākṣitva itself is absent; only pure consciousness remains. Thus, suṣupti reveals the Self as nirvikalpa-caitanya—non-dual awareness, devoid of distinctions.
Śruti, for pedagogical purposes, superimposes causality upon this Self, describing suṣupti as the causal state from which waking and dream emerge. However, the Self, as the cause, remains unaffected by the appearance or dissolution of its effects. It is both the source and the substratum (adhiṣṭhāna) of all experience, unchanging amidst the flux of phenomena.
7. The Unchanging Nature of the Self
This analysis reveals that the so-called three states are not ontologically distinct. There is only the Self, upon which the appearances of states arise and subside. When the states appear, does the Self undergo change? Empirically it may seem so, but logically and ontologically, it does not. The Self never becomes the witness; it simply is.
All such relational designations—witness, cause, knower—arise only through adhyāsa. From the standpoint of the Self, there is no causation, witnessing, or relationality at all. The Self is beyond all categories of jāti (class), guṇa (qualities), kriyā (action), and sambandha (relation). What remains after all negations (neti, neti) is the non-dual, self-luminous reality that can neither be negated nor substantiated.
8. The Sublation of Duality and the Dissolution of Ignorance
The negated entities are kalpitam—mere imaginations. The accomplished reality (siddha-vastu) cannot be made accomplished again. The Self alone is. All dualities and distinctions, including ajñāna (ignorance), are products of superimposition. The very notion “I do not know the Self” is itself a projection of ignorance. Liberation (mokṣa) is nothing other than freedom from this imaginative projection (kalpanā).
The world, as independently existing anātman, is likewise imagined. There is no anātman apart from ātman. The world’s apparent separateness arises only through avidyā. Hence, the true nature of the phenomenal world is brahmātman—non-dual reality appearing as multiplicity.
9. The Culmination: Ajāta-Brahman
The final realization is expressed in the traditional formulation: Brahman alone is real; the world is illusory; the world is non-different from Brahman. Though the world, as world, is māyā—an appearance born of misconception—its underlying reality is brahman. Just as the illusory snake presupposes the reality of the rope, the illusory world presupposes the reality of consciousness.
Thus, the world as Brahman is real; the world as world is an error of perception. Upon correction, everything is known to be Brahman, and that Brahman is oneself. Without demonstrating the Self directly, the Śruti imparts Brahmavidyā through the negation of all conceptual constructs (vikalpas). The successive provisional standpoints are all ultimately sublated, leaving the one reality that neither requires affirmation nor admits of denial.
The perceived relation between ātman and anātman is the essence of adhyāsa. There is no anātman independent of this superimposed relation. Even the understanding of anātman requires inquiry into the Self, for in ātman there is no anātman. The anātman is merely a notion that is sublated in the knowledge of the Self.
10. Conclusion
Vedānta does not advocate illusionism in any ontological sense. The apparent illusion (māyā) is not a doctrine but a pedagogical means—a methodological prakriyā within the framework of adhyāropa–apavāda. Through progressive negation, the seeker is led beyond all conceptual dualities to the direct recognition of the ever-free, self-luminous, non-dual Self. In the cessation of all relationality, the one undivided consciousness alone remains—immutable, self-evident, and without a second.