2.12

From Bhagavadgeeta

Sloka

Word-to-word meanings:

aham = me ( the Supreme Lord ), jAtu = ever before , na Asam iti na = not non - existent , tvam = you (jeevAtma or soul) , jAtu nAsI: iti na = not non-existent ever before , imE janAdhipA : = these kings ( the many jeevAtmAs or souls) , jAtu nAsan iti na = not non-existent ever before, sarvE vayam = Me , you and all these people( i.e all of us) , ata: param = in the future also, na bhaviSyAma: ca Eva iti = never be non-existent.

Translation:

" The ParamAtma that is me , the jeevatma that is you and several other jeevatmas that are souls were never non-existent at any point of time in the past , neither will we become non-existent at any time in the future .( This is established from the authority of the scriptures.)"

Purport:

In the last sloka it was established that the soul must be attained(upEya) . It was also explained that the way(upAya) to attain the soul is actions like war . It was stated that Lord kRuShNa would explain this nature of the body ,and the process was also justified . Of the three - upEya , upAya and nature of the body , this sloka deals with the first , that is the upEya .

The tatvam or the truth is the nature of the body from which the soul has to be distinguished. The hitam or means is action. The purushArtam or fruit is the soul. While practising , one must start from tatvam , proceed through hitam and attain purushArtam .But while teaching or instructing , purushArtam or fruit must be taught first . This is done so as to create in the listener an interest in the subject being taught , Even a layman or simpleton will not take up a practice that has no fruit or result. So the benefit is explained first . The benefit in this exercise is attaining the soul . The glory of this soul is being taught by the Lord in this sloka with the opinion that this exercise will create a meditation in arjuna about the pros and cons to attaining the soul. Such meditation might help a great deal as the audience will develop some views on his own to attain the fruit and further teaching of hitam and tatvam will become easier. Further as arjuna is not body and means have to be followed by the soul - which is none but arjuna , the Lord deems it fit to make the soul(arjuna himself) as the subject of the teaching first.

Concepts are best explained with an example that is best known by the listener. What example can be given to explain the eternity of the soul ? The Lord knows it is universal that He - the paramAtma is eternal. It is the most obvious thing that everyone knows the Lord to be eternal.So He makes Himself the example of eternity . So He says , " O arjuna ! You , the soul is eternal like Me (the super soul or paramAtma)."

Who is teaching ?

The actual geeta begins here . With this sloka , Lord pArtasArathy begins the exposition of the ultimate truth . The Lord speaks . Not just any ordinary person . Not even arjuna . The Lord Himself , the supreme truth , the supreme master talks of the truth . He is BhagavAn . The VishNu purAnam says , ' gnAnashaktibalaisca vIrya tEjAmsyashEShata: bhagavaccabda vAcyAni vinA hEyair guNAdhibhi:' [6-5-79]. It says that the Lord is BhagavAn as He is endowed with knowledge , power, valour , wealth , prowess and brilliance in infinitude and perfection . It hastens to add that He is also devoid of any inauspisciousness or undesirable traits . This Lord who is extremely auspiscious and the opposite of all evil now preaches to arjuna.The Lord SrimannArAyaNa appoints and controls everyone other than Him. The YajurvEda - kAtakam [1-6] says "tvamEva tvAm vEtatha yOsi sOsi " - 'Only You know who You are !' The greatness of the Lord is known only to Him . Such is the greatness of the Lord. There is no greater intellect than SrImannArAyaNa . There is no greater master in the science of spirituality being taught than SrImannArAyaNa. The Supreme master 'Himself' teaches His beloved disciple arjuna , the soul . Can there be a greater teaching than this!

During the course of teaching the Lord uses the words 'aham' ,'tvam' ,'imE janAdhipA:' and 'sarvEvayam'. What does this imply ? The Lord differentiates between Himself as belonging to some category . He singles out Himself and refers everyone else as belonging to another category . Therefore the soul and the Lord are naturally different from each other . While talking about the eternity of the soul , the Lord by singling Himself out of this class of souls implies that the soul and the Lord are eternally different from each other. It cannot be dismissed that such words as 'I' , 'You' or 'They' are casual terms . The Lord is teaching arjuna the supreme science. Three things are important here . The gravity of the situation of arjuna allows no place fro casual references . Its no bluffer , but the Lord Himself , the supreme authority who is speaking . There fore there is no room for giving passing statements . The topic being taught is also the great science of the soul . There can be no general remarks while pursuing a serious spiritual discussion.

Therefore the true purport of the words is thus : 'aham' refers to the Supreme Master - the Lord Himself . 'tvam', 'imE', 'vayam' are used to refer to jIvas or souls in various degrees of number.'tvam' refers to arjuna , the singular atma or soul in front of Him . 'imE' refers tto several such souls of the warriors who have gathered for the war (i.e. in plurality). 'sarvE vayam' shows that the souls are abundant and infinite in number and have identify the bodies they take.

Refutation of Adi sankarA's view:

Adi sankarA says , "dEhabhEdAbhiprAyENa bahuvacanam nAtmabhEdhAbhiprAyEna"[ the plurality in the sense of the several bodies and not several souls]. This view is inconsistent with views of advaita of Adi sankara. Adi sankara holds that the very bodies are mere appearances and unreal . It is fruitless to argue about the Lord talking about plurality of unreal , non-existent 'bodies' like an ordinary deluded person , especialy when He is in the process of teaching arjuna the supreme truth . Hence going by Sankara-advaita itself , its inappropriate to expect the Lord , who is teaching arjuna to remove his confusion to talk 'casually' about plurality of things that dont even exist as per Adi sankara.

It is loudly clear that Sri Sankara's view is unsound even to his own philosophy.

---

However bhAskarA accepts that the differences in body etc; are real . So he stresses that while the soul is singular, the real differences existing in the bodies are the cause of plurality . In contrast with Sankara who holds the deceptive mAya which is unreal to be cause of plural perception , bhAskara holds that real differences in matter etc; cause false perceptions of plurality. The moon . knife , river and ocean are real states to bhAskara. When space pervades a pot , it becomes pot's space . When it is associated with a knife , it is called knife's space. This association is called upAdhi. Thus the same 'space' becomes plural or appears different due to different upAdIs or associations.As the term ' space' is one , the soul is also one and appears through really different bodies.

---

Generality of sAnkara and bhAskara faiths:

The generality interwoven in the aforesaid philosophies is in the singularity of the soul. Due to a false mental domain , the singular soul is viewed differently , says Sankara. But bhAskara holds that the singular soul is viewed multitudinal due to the upAdhi taken up by the soul where the upAdhi or dimension is true .

How correct is the concept of singularity of soul?

The best test to such theories is metted through the holy scriptures. One faith of Sankara and bhAskara is that the soul and the Lord are not different . They are the same and hence singular . This soul alone exists , Perception of many souls or souls being different from the Lord is ignorance. But the above mentioned thesis of the two advaitins is put to severe test by the svEtASvatAra upanishad. In the 6th chapter , verse 13, the upanishad says, "nityO nityAnAm cEtana: cEtanAnAm EkO bahUnAm yO vidadhAtikAmAn." [The verse also occurs in katavalli 5-13]. The upanishad declares that the Lord is " One eternal who fulfils the aspirations of other eternals , that One soul who fulfils the needs of other souls." This is a direct assault on singularity of soul as "eternals" and "souls" are in plural sense . It is also against the view that the soul and the Lord are the same as held by the advaitins as there is difference between the fulfiller and aspirant in the above verse. The clear conclusion is this : The interpretations of Sankara and the hold of bhAskara are grossly inconsistent with even the fundamental nature of the soul as established by the upanishads and hence their views must be rejected in understanding the nature of the soul.

The erosion of fundamentals of non-vishishtAdvaitic faiths:

Let us take up the upanishad verse to analyse the futility of other faiths . The sAnkhyAs hold that the soul is perishable. "nithyOnithyAnAm" rejects this view by declaring that the souls are eternal. The advaitins hold that the differences in souls are temporary . This is rejected on ground that the Super eternal Lord fulfils the aspirations of many souls. So the souls are pluralistic and form a different section naturally from their Lord (who fulfils their needs). The vaishEshikAs say that the knowledge of the soul is transitory or temporary . But this is rejected by the words that the soul is "cEtana" - always associated with knowledge (by nature). "ya: 'Eka' nitya: cEtana:" dismisses the view of shaNmata vAdis and trimUrti vAdIs who claim there are many gods. "yO vidadhAti kAmAn " removes the view held by poorva mImAmsakAs who believe that the actions giving rise to 'apoorvam' fulfils aspirations. The Lord alone satisfies the wants of His devotees. None of the above mentioned groups other than advaitins(Adi Sankara)have commented on the geeta. We will analyse why the views held by Adi Sankara are void with respect to the geeta. Adi Sankara holds that the vision of many souls is purely due to ignorace. The only entity that ever exists is the cinmAtram or the "knowledge entity". This , according to Sankara is the reason for the teaching of the geeta and hence the solution for arjuna's confusion. This is an untenable view with respect to advaitic phiosophy . There is no place for teaching (geeta or any thing else) according to advaita.

The philosophy of advaita holds that the soul is single. Teaching is possible only if there are atleast two people- teacher and disciple. With the SAnkaric view of singular existence of the soul , teaching is totally impossible. A single entity cannot indulge in the act of teaching. Let us understand this in detail. The idea of advaita is "nirvisEsha kUtasTanitya caitanya". The soul is knowledge entity and attributeless. None of the three differences are real.

What are the three differences?

====1.sajAtIya bhEdam :==== a pot being different from other pots. This Individualistic difference is the difference between individuals of the same category.

====2.vijAtIya bhEdam :==== a pot being different from a cloth or picture . This categorical difference is the difference existing between different categories .

====3. svagata bhEdam :==== the difference between the attributes of pot . This attribute difference is the difference between attributes of an entity like the difference between attributes like colour, form, shape, capacity, etc; where one attribute cannot substitute the other.

The advaitin argues that as there is only one soul there cannot be "difference between entities" or "difference between groups". There is only one group and there is one member of the group - the soul, according to advaita . As the soul is attributeless , there is no question of the "difference between attributes".

The above attributelessness state is called 'kUTastam'. Going by definitions , 'kUTayudhdha hi rAkShasA:" implies that the word denotes deception. Therefore the deceiving nature of advaitic mAya is referred as kUtam. As the soul becomes associated with mAya , it is called nitya caitanya kUtastham . Otherwise as the word also refers to the source of appearances of the world. As the soul , the only existent entity is responsible for the perception of appearance of the world , it is called kUtashta:. Further , this same word also denotes a furnace. As the furnace only melts other metals but remains unaffected itself, though the world undergoes various changes , the soul remains eternal and unchanging. Therefore the soul according to advaita is

1.changeless

2.eternal

3.singular

4.knowledge entity

5.source of perceptions(false)

6. attributeless

and

7.the only existence

The advaitins hold that it is essentially the above said nature of the soul that is being taught by the Lrod to arjuna. The following questions arisee with respect to the claims of advaitins.

1. Is the Lord teaches what He knows or what is unknown?

2. Even if He knows , has He perceived it directly or just heard about it?

3. Whatever be the nature of teaching , is the Lord kruShNa Himself free of ignorance ?

4. Is kruShNa free of the deceptions of mAya(with respect to false plurality) even after the removal of such ignorance ?

Given that advaitins have gone to extent of commenting on geeta, definitely they must be sure that the Lord is teaching what is well known to Him and it is not a meaningless exercise indulging in talking about unassured things. Also they have to accept that the Lord is free of ignorance , otherwise the entire geeta itself would become meaningless. On the face of it adavitins will have to accept only one of the four possible stances:

1. The Lord is teaching something that has been well realized by Him and hence He is free of the trouble of ignorance or the deception of plurality fo souls.

2. He is teaching something that has removed His ignorance but is still under the might of dualty .

3.He has only heard about what He is teaching without realization , but is free of ignorance and the conception of plurality.

4.As He has only heard without realization directly, He is still under ignorance and ideas of plurality /duality.

The stance 'number one' will not hold true to advaita . The Lord is the Supreme being . He cannot be subject to confusion , deluge or misconception of duality . Therefore the Supreme Lord can never be subject to the shambles of ignorance . Therefore He cannot teach as teaching involves knowledge of

1.subject of teaching ,

2. the words to express the teaching

3. presence of a disciple ,

4 . the preceptor

5. fruit of listening .

Unless one has the knowledge about the above five parameters , there is no use of teaching . No one will teach without feeling himself as a teacher and that he is teaching to a student . He also will be entirely aware of what he is teaching and its benefit.

But advaitins hold that true knowledge is disappearance of all knowledge of duality . Then it implies that there can be no knowledge of preceptor or student or any words related to subject as it will amount to plurality. It would arise several questions like 'how valid is it with respect to vedas', 'if the Lord is supreme self free from ignorance , how is that he is talking to arjuna under the conception of duality which is ignorance to an advatin?', ' how does the exercise of teaching strike an entity that is well aware that there is nothing but itself and its knowledge entity itself?', 'what does the entity expect of benefit of this discussion or teaching ?'etc; As the advaitins are very strict that knowledge will imply that there is "nothing but one", they cannot ascribe to the first stance.

Now we will reject the second stance as also inconsistent to the view of advaitins. The advaitins argue that just like a cloth that is burnt retains the appearance of a cloth and the mirage continues to deceive with appearance of water even after it is understood to be a deception , the Lord also was relieved of ignorance but is still under the sway of duality . The cloth maybe burnt . But is it not still a cloth . A mirage may be clearly understood to be deceptive , but still appears a mirage to a person who has known it to be false. Similarly , the Lord sees duality even after being removed of ignorance .

We will show that this argument is hollow. There may be sense in the appearance of cloth or mirage after effects of being burnt or known to be false. But that will not enthuse any sane person to wear a burnt cloth as raiment . Though it looks like cloth , he knows its burnt and wont serve the purpose of cloth . A person having known the deceptiveness of the mirage sees the mirage . But it wont lead him to getc some water . get some water from the mirage. Simlarly the Lord delivered of ignorance , but still seeing the effects of ignorance as duality will not be lead to actions of teaching . Any one in his best senses knowing that something does not exist will never start discoursing to it or about it . So the second stance is also contradictory to a true advaitic philosophy. Teaching to arjuna after knowing none but the Lord Himself (the teacher) exists and there is none to be delivered as the soul is One that has been liberated , its ridiculous to think of the Lord teaching a false 'dual' called arjuna about something that has no purpose for arjuna as he does not exist and for the Lord as He is already free of ignorance. Enough of such doctrines that lack compatibility with advaita itself.

Having rejected as unsound the first 2 stances , we will now set out to explore the tenability of the third stance with the postulates of advaita. Having concluded that an entity free of ignorance and professed with the knowledge of duality cannot involve in teaching(stance 1) and an entity still possessed of notion of duality though freed from ignorance will not involve in the action of teaching as it is meaningless , we now set inquest into the confirmity of the third stance with the cannons of advaita.

The question arises on the possibility of the Lord having only learnt of the knowledge or state of truth suggested by advaita but not having truly realized it . Is this position agreeable? Let us consider this with an example . A person has known with satisfactory evidence that a particular fact is true . Another person has obtained the above facility to an extent but is yet to practically look into the fact . A third person has only learnt of the fact but has not seen any evidence about it. Whatever be the condition of the person , in all three cases the persons will not commit to some action amounting to contradict the fact known to them . Whether it is a scientist or analyst or layman , given the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun , he will not be inclined to say something against this. Similarly irrespective of whether the Lord is free of ignorance and cognition of duality , or only free of ignorance but still wary of some duality , or only heard of the non-duality principle, He would never teach arjuna . The reason being as usual as we have discussed in the previous cases. Teaching involves two entities. An entity that has realized , convinced or learnt of non-duality will not teach as the entity must be wary of the "advaitic fact" that there is none but one soul which the same as paramAtma. Knowledge of non –duality is sufficient in any form to prevent one from indulging in actions involving duality . As any knowledge learnt , convinced or recognized will remove the aspersions of the "five elements" discussed before. Hence the third stance is also unacceptable to advaita .

The fourth stance is also hollow as it is similar to stance 2 . Therefore going by the combined arguments regarding second and third stances , we establish that the Lord must have somehow in any of the four stances that non-duality is truth and hence must not involve in action of teaching .

Can ignorance capture the Lord at any instance?

The advaitins talk about the single Lord , paramAtma that is the soul and is the only existent being . They also say this soul is freed of the ignorance or illusion . Non-duality is supposed to be the liberating knowledge.

This implies that the soul which is the same as the Lord as per advaita is under the illusion of non-existent world and plurality at some instant and then is delivered of such mis-conception . Now we inquire if it is really possible in the first place for the Lord to be placed under the mis-directing ignorance.

If this soul is deluded by ignorance , then it is not possible to equate this soul with the Supreme Brahmam described by the Holy Upanishads. If the Supreme Brahmam is itself ignorant , then there is no way it can interpret the scriptures and be guided out of illusion of duality. This is because , if an entity is not free of misconception , then an extra – agent is necessary to act so as to remove the conception of duality or plurality . However advaita states that there is none but one Being ruling out any chance of existence of a second agent or entity who can possibly teach or remove the ignorance of this soul. Further even the scriptures cannot remove such ignorance . Why ? Going by the word of the scriptures that "de:va e:ko: na:ra:yaNaha" , "e:ko: de:vaha" etc; which define that is only one Lord who is na:ra:yaNa, and statements like "nithyo: na:rayaNaha" defines that this Lord is eternal . Now invoking advaita , this one Lord is the only existent soul and hence it alone is eternal . Therefore there cannot be many forms of one Lord in different states involving illusion and knowledge at the same time. Due to problems arising in the previous case of requirement of extra entity, advaitins argue that the Lord Himself created scriptures and later got removed from the ignorance from the veda:s given by Himself earlier. This would mean that scriptures are not eternal as they seem have to be composed at some period of time . Further the scriptures are apaurushe:ya ( not written by anybody) . So the argument that the scriptures were composed by the Lord is against the spirit of the scriptures. It is also very confusing to understand how the Lord who gave ignorance-liberating scriptures first with His knowledge , Himself became subject of ignorance later. It is like saying that a scholarly mathematician suddenly forgot numbers !! If it is argued that the soul was earlier contained with advaita knowledge but later fell into illusion and then "remembered" the truth after some time . This also is incorrect. This is because if the soul was composed of the knowledge of advaita earlier , why did it become subject to illusion later? What made that knowledge disappear . Does this mean the scriptures are incompetent to remove ignorance completely at all times? Or does it reflect a defect in the soul itself ? Several such questions arise to the postulates of advaita which give mutually contradicting and useless answers.

Having exposed the faults in advaita , we will categorically reject this view with the power of the Holy scriptures. Mundako:panishad says "yah sarvagnyah sarvavit" [that brahmam that knows all and all its nature ]. Svet. Upanishad says "para:sya shaktir vividhaiva sruyathe: svabha:vike: gna:na bala kriya:cha"[ It is being stated that the power, strength , knowledge and actions of the Brahmam are great and uniquely the nature of the Lord.] In the Gi:ta itself the Lord says in the 7th Chapter , "ve:da:ham samati:ta:ni varttama:na:ni sa:rjuna bhavishya:mi cha bhu:ta:ni ma:m tu ve:da na kacchana" .[ No one knows me . But I know the past , the present and the future.]

All these scriptures show that the very assumptions taken by advaita are faulty , let alone their conclusions based on such assumptions.

As knowledge is instrinsically nature of the Lord , it is impossible that He can come under any misconception at any point of time by any agent for that matter . No one can change the nature of any object . No one can change the pot . One may make different pots of varying appearances and uses. But the basic nature is the same. It is a pot. Similarly as knowledge is inherently nature of the Lord , it is impossible to tamper with it . Further as the Lord says , He knows past , present and future , it is totally wrong to say He was ignorant at some point of time . Most importantly the verses that imply that the Lord knows all but no one knows Him destroy the advaitic concept of non-duality . The scriptures establish that there are many inanimate and animate things (called souls) that don't seem to grasp the Lord but the Lord knows everything . Therefore every thing about the advaitic concept of the soul from assumption to conclusion has been proved to be contrary to the very scriptures that it claims to be based on and thus openly untenable in every sense.

Sustainability of Advaita – the question of self compatibility :

Questions addressed:

Is advaita self compatible?

Can advaita sustain itself ?

Will it validate its position in this world by itself ?

The most fundamental hindrance to the validation of advaita is the decision of the "common sense" behind teaching advaita. There are certain schools of advaita where advaita is taught by followers of Adi Sankara . The teachers of advaita school have for long been teaching several people on advaita and urging people to learn from them . They set to rescue the people of this world by their teachings of veda:nta . We now set out to prove that if advaita is true , then there is no place for teaching or learning advaita.

Such a teacher cannot be ,

1. ignorant that soul is singular (as per advaita)

2. doubtful about the canons of advaita

3. exponents of something false

4.cheats

5.propitiators of some text

6.people of little mental assurance

That is , we assert that the teachers of advaita teach with the full understanding of what they are doing and the for the purpose of educating their disciples.

Given that these teachers teach advaita as"teachers" for "expounding" veda:nta, the question arises as who is the subject of this teaching . Though these teachers may be under the conception of duality , they are supposedly sure with the knowledge of advaita.

These teachers will have to face these questions :

1. Are you teaching yourself or "somebody else"?

2. If the answer is that the exercise is self-teaching , then is the recipient of teaching the "you" separate in conception from you , or the "you" known as yourself?

3. If of these first question is asserted , then is that differently viewed "you" , 'truly' different or only an illusory vision?

4. If the answer is that someone else is receiving the knowledge , then is that other person "really" different or only an illusory existence?

5. If of these , the second answer is asserted , then does the teacher know that he is only illusion or teaching thinking that he is real?

Let us consider these questions and find out what can be the answers.

If the answers assert that the disciple is really different from the teacher , then advaita is destroyed because there is only one entity . If a real different entity exists then the teaching is fruitless because as there is clearly more than an entity , where is the use of wasting time on learning advaita as the truth !

If the answers assert that the teaching is done to "oneself" who is separately cognized only in the illusory form , then is it possible to extend this illusory teaching and cognizance to the parent of an orphan? That is , as the "self" is only different in illusion and illusion being a quantity of non-existence is beyond definition , can the teachers teach all non-existent things in the imagination that the self is different only in that domain (of illusion)? In this case , imagination may amount to anything as advaita believes in that all but the soul is non-existent dragging the entire purpose of teaching to the "hilary" of imaginative talking .

If the answers assert the disciple is the same as the teacher , then there is no use of teaching at all . Infact it is meaningless to imagine a person teachng himself to remove "his" ignorance with "his won" knowledge. It is like the proverbial "fire curing burns".

Ignorance and knowledge are opposites and if a person claims to have both and yet knows at one time and does not know at other times , then it can be asserted that he must have some trouble with his mind as per anyone's experience.

In all the answers that involve reality , the concept of advaita is attacked . Hence the teacher has to agree that the disciple is not real but only differently cognized from Oneself. How much sense this makes is open to anyone . If the soul is free of ignorance then every dimension of the soul must be free of ignorance . If the soul is free of ignorance which implies duality , then it must give up acts as teaching rather than follow them because a person after knowing that earth goes about the sun cannot go shouting otherwise. By knowledge of duality , the teacher must give up all acts including teaching because teaching is a 2 factor (teacher-student) action .

Therefore teaching will deviate or enstrangle the soul out of the knowledge of advaita as the teacher is busily involved in actions of duality of teaching.

A rocket scientist because of defective vision may see two moons. But he knows there is only one moon . Still due to his vision , he wont involve in actions like sending two space carriers to the 'moons'. His knowledge will prevail over his vision . Similarly for an advaitin , his knowledge must prevail over the illusion of duality and restrain him from actions of teaching that are useless to him.

So whatever be the stance taken by the advaitin , whether it is a factor of reality or illusion the advaitin is at looger heads with his own philosophy. Therefore the acts of the advaitin run counter to his philosophy thereby causing it to be subject to the problem of self – incompatibility . Echoing on similar lines as the words of advaita philosopher and former president of India , Dr.Radhakrishnan , advaita appears glorious on intellectual thinking but lacks feasibility in the practical sense.

[ Certain devaitions have been made from the main commentary to explain the concepts in simpler fashion with the aid of debating approach and illustrations.]

Illusion is one of the ways through which advaita tries to explain many things . It was proved in the above discussions about the uselessness of illusion in solving their problems . Now it will be shown that the concept of illusion does not apply to advaita at all. According to advaita , the soul alone is true and due to the effects of ma:ya , it is subjected to illusion about the world and the conception of duality . All but the soul are objects of illusion as per advaita. This perception of illusion and hence difference is also referred as ignorance . The destruction of illusion is supposed to be the liberation from the ocean of samsa:ra or materialistic bondages .

Considering that the knowledge manifest soul is liberated from illusion , the knowledge of the brahmam being infinite and completely manifest should never allow any further association of the soul in illusion. If it is assumed that the illusion never leaves the soul , then in that case never will the knowledge of advaita liberate it as the illusion will always be capable of overpowering the knowledge soul at some point of time . This would suggest that the soul is always condemned to be over powered by illusion . This destroys the very need for advaitins to learn the knowledge of advaita as they are bound to become subject of the power of illusion invariably , whatever be their level of state in approaching advaita gna:na.

A cure is accepted only if the disease is removed for good . If the disease keeps retuning then the cure is obviously ineffective . If the Brahmam is still under the siege of illusion and its knowledge of advaita announced at several points has not provided any escape for eternity from the illusion , then the knowledge of advaita is inadequate and ineffective. Therefore , advaita is incompetent to handle illusion and hence cannot remove illusion at all .

What is conveyed by this section is that illusion is not a means to ward off problems in advaita . It endangers the position of advaita as a medium of liberation.