Summary:

Nirvana Shatakam, Verse 1: All that exists falls under two words: aham (Self) and nāham (not-Self). Avidya is the mix-up of I-cognition with this-cognition, confusing the body-mind for “I.” Through viveka-vicāra, one discriminates: aham is self-evident, requiring no perception or inference, while everything else becomes evident to “I” through a means of knowledge. Consciousness (cit) is the invariable presence in every experience, unlimited by attribute, size, or location. Ānanda is not an experience but the very nature of consciousness – wholeness, which means nothing is outside consciousness, there's no second thing other then aham (consciousness). I am cit-ānanda-rūpa.

---

Nirvana Shatakam – Verse 1:

मनः बुद्धिः अहङ्कारः चित्तानि न अहम्
न च श्रोत्रं जिह्वा न च घ्राणं नेत्रे
न च व्योम भूमिः न तेजः न वायुः
चित्-आनन्द-रूपः शिवः अहम् शिवः अहम् ॥ १ ॥
manaḥ buddhiḥ ahaṅkāraḥ cittāni na aham (I am not the mind, intellect, ego, or memory.)
na ca śrotraṃ jihvā na ca ghrāṇaṃ netre (Nor am I the ear, tongue, nose, or eyes.)
na ca vyoma bhūmiḥ na tejaḥ na vāyuḥ (Nor am I space, earth, fire, or air.)
cit-ānanda-rūpaḥ śivaḥ aham śivaḥ aham ॥ 1 ॥

I am not the mind, intellect, ego or memory (the four aspects of what is known as Antahkarana). Nor am I (the five organs of perception) the ear, tongue, nose, eyes, (or skin), nor (the five elements) the space, earth, fire, air and water. I am pure Knowledge and Bliss, I am Siva, auspiciousness itself.

There's only two words you need to know

According to Nirvana Shatakam, we need to know only two words. Meaning these two words reveal the whole Reality in past, present and future, known and unknown, in two words.

Aham (“I”) or Atma. And Nāham or Anātma – what I am not.

Meaning there’s no third word whose meaning isn’t covered by these two words.

“Word” in Sanskrit is “padam”, which is described as “padyate jñāyate anena iti padam: That by which [a meaning] is reached or known”.

A word is the vehicle that delivers the meaning to “I”.  Meaning there is an object-subject relationship. Object (nāham) is delivered to the subject (aham).

For instance, your nearby book/desk/plant is either I or not I. It’s obviously not I. Else I would be a desk, or experience myself as a plant.

Therefore, anything that exists, that I know about right now – is not I. Put another way: All that is know, other then what I know as myself, is not I.

About Aham and Nāham

This cognition:

When you say “This flower/table/sun/etc”, there is a cognition or knowledge of “flower”.

When you say “this flower”, what you're saying is, “this flower cognition”, or “this cognition for which the object is a flower”. Then flower-cognition is substituted by “this table cognition”.

Who had cognition of this flower? I had. Meaning, I am having cognition of myself, in whose presence there is a cognition of this flower.  There is a self-cognition in whose presence there is flower-cognition. How can there be flower-cognition, unless there's also cognition of “I”, the one in whose presence this flower-cognition is taking place.

This cognition vs. I-cognition:

Meaning whatever can be referred to as this-cognition (whether it’s known right now or is unknown), is not I.

And that which need not be identified as this-cognition, is the I-cognition.

Meaning I-cognition is entirely different from this-cognition.

Analysis into Aham, the word “I”

Bullet showing ignorance of aham:

When bullet passes between two fingers, you say “Thank God, I was not hit”. Therefore my “I” ends at edge of skin. Beyond that I don’t exist. Where nose ends, I end, and the world begins.

Confusion creates a 3rd non-existent word – Avidya (ignorance):

Meaning, in the I-cognition, is also included this-cognition (such as finger).  Even though the verse states there’s only two words, which are distinct – we speak as though there’s a third word (where I-cognition is intimately mixed with this-cognition). An appropriate name for this third [non-existent] word is avidya — a mix-up owing to non-clarity of aham and nāham.

How avidya expresses:

Ignorance gets exposed when I look at your body-thoughts – they are all objects of this-cognition to Me. To Me, your body is  nāham – while my body-thoughts is aham.

But when you look at my body-thoughts (the very thing I consider aham) – it is an object of this-cognition (nāham) from your standpoint.

In other words, in state of avidya, in my world, my body is aham, and your body is nāham. While in your world, your body is aham, and my body is nāham. So then how can we both including our body as aham!

Special relationship with the body:

Although you have a special relationship with your body. Just like there’s many houses, but you say “This is my house”.

There are many bodies, and to one body, you say “This is my body”.  

If “my house” is under repair, I am not under repair. If my body has certain problems, it can be confined to the body. It becomes a problem when body-problems are centered on I, such as “I am ill”. 

Nirvana Satakam verses negate the mixup arising from avidya.

What’s Required to Solve the Mix-up Arising from Avidya?

When you need to understand a reality which is misconstrued/misunderstood, the process of inquiry to remove the confusion is called viveka-vicaraḥ.

Example of viveka-vicaraḥ Using a Crystal:

Crystal takes on orange color, so you take a clear crystal for a precious stone, and you smile. Then orange color is gone, replaced by something ugly, and you’re disguised.

Both the smile and disgust give away your understanding of the crystal.

Then you realize the crystal is always just crystal, free of color. After the realization, whatever color crystal takes on, you cognitively know it’s always pure. Your knowledge of crystal is crystal-clear. This is called knowledge, or viveka-jnanam. 

In some situations, even after you’ve corrected perception, such as the sun isn’t rising-setting — you still continue to perceive and enjoy the same phenomena. This too is example of Viveka-jnanam; knowledge born of discriminative enquiry.

Your knowledge (viveka-jnanam) is that the sun does not rise, though it appears to rise. That the stars don’t disappear, even though they appear to disappear. That the moon appears to wane and wax. That the sky seems to have a ceiling. That the star seems to shine, but it exploded millions of years ago.

You can still write poetry about them, but your Viveka-jnanam tells you everything I’m writing about is an appearance and not true.

Meaning all your eyes report is not true. They report a minute aspect, but never the whole.

For instance, look far to a tree, it appears small, even though it’s huge. You see the tree shining, but the shine is not property of the tree, it’s reflected light, borrowed from the sun.  Look at a small star, but it’s huge.

Conclusion:

1. 1. To see things truly as they are, your sense perception isn’t enough.
   2. Experience doesn't necessarily mean knowledge or fact. You may experience sun rising-setting, but knowledge says it’s not. When your knowledge is right, relationship to experience changes; it’s not denied. Meaning, experience continues, in spite of your knowledge there’s no sun-rise. Similarly, in spite of your knowledge that your “I” is free of nāham conditions (such as pain, memory loss, aging, cognitive decline, etc) – it doesn’t mean experience changes.

How to Resolve the Mixup Between Aham and Nāham?

Resolving the mixup mean you need to be clear there’s something distinct about you that remains in all conditions, meaning it’s evident all the time, and thus can’t be negated. Let’s do an inquiry…

Perception:

Is there a way to prove existence of this-object (eg: flower), unless your eyes or ears are open? No. Without objectifying the object through the 5 senses, there’s no way of saying this-is, flower-is. Thus flower is proven in presence of sight.

But sometimes, if your mind takes off, your ears don’t hear even though everyone else heard, and eyes don't capture even though everyone else saw. Meaning ears don’t hear on their own. They need to be blessed by the mind. Sight or hearing is proven by presence of the mind.

Meaning for perception to take place – I have to be present, mind has to be present, eye has to be present, and object has to be present.  Object depends on eye. Sight depends on mind. And mind depends on aham.

Inference:

Objectification of an object can also happen via inference. Suppose branch fell in a forest. You can infer it must’ve made a sound to fall. Weather forecast is inference. Where there’s a son, there must be a father – is inference.

In other words you can’t say an object was or is, or a fact was or is – without a means of knowledge (either perception or inference).

Aham requires neither perception (senses) nor inference (mind) to prove its existence:

To know that “I am” doesn't require to be seen as some object, or heard as some special sound. Aham is independent of the five senses.

Additionally, “I am” doesn't require process of inference, because inference only comes alive upon a deliberate process of the mind, and only once its applied, a “this-cognition” arises. For instance, once smoke is seen by the eyes in the distance, a logic is applied to infer fire must be present.

However, “I-cognition” is effortless and continuous, whether mind (inference) is applied or not. 

Thus aham doesn't requires functioning of the mind nor senses for “I-cognition” to take place.

Therefore the only reality that's self-evident or self-proving is Aham:

This-cognition (such as flower-cognition) becomes evident to “I” (the subject) through a means of knowledge (ie: mind and ear/eye/skin/etc).

For example – body-is, evident to I. Hunger-is, evident to I. Thought-is, evident to I. Absence-of-thought-is, evident to I. God/heaven is, evident to I. Belief-that-I’ll-go-out-existence-after-this-body-dies, evident to I. Ignorance of I, evident to I.

But “I am”, or “I is” – is evident to whom? To I. So the only thing that is self-evident, is “I”. Everything else is not self-evident, it requires to be evidenced in presence of “I”.

The only reality that doesn’t require to become evident, is I. Thus “I” (atma) is unlike everything else (anatma). That’s why we started out the inquiry stating there’s only two “things”, even though atma is not a thing.

Presence and Absence of an Object is Evident to One That is Free of Both

Presence and absence, or existence and non-existence of an object – both become evident to Self, you.

EG: Presence of flower is evident because of a means of knowledge (senses + mind), and presence of mind (holding that flower-cognition), is evident to you.

Whether flower is present or absent, you exist.

Whether thought (mind) exists or not (ie: empty mind, not thinking) – you exist. In fact, sometimes we say “My mind dosed off”, meaning I must be different from the mind in order to notice it dosing off.

RULE – What Becomes Evident, Is Not Self

What is self-evident, is the self. 

What becomes evident to self, is not the self.

What becomes evident to self is “this”. Meaning self (aham) cannot be the not-self (nāham). For an object to become evident, you must be other then the object. The knower can never be the known.

If self is self-evident, it means self is never ignorant of itself. Rather, ignorance about a matter becomes evident to the self.

From standpoint of what mind knows or doesn't know, one can say “I am knowledgeable”, “I am ignorant”.

Put simply: I am knowledgeable in reference to what I know. I am ignorant in reference to what I don't know.

But you can’t ever say “I am ignorant of the self”, because that statement is evident to the self (you). You know you exist while making that statement. Thus “I am” neither knowledgeable nor ignorant.

You objectify both knowledge/ignorance. What is objectified is not you.

You transcend ignorance, but ignorance does not transcend you.

Transcend doesn’t mean there’s a spatial distance. For example, when you say “Touch wood”; but actually touch a wooden chair, table, plate – in that moment you “transcend” the chair/table/plate.

Object of Consciousness (cit ānanda)

When something becomes evident to you, it becomes an object of consciousness.

Your sleepiness, attention, non-attention, condition of mind – is an object of consciousness.

And in every evidenced object, what is always true? Consciousness. There is one common invariable consciousness, and that very consciousness is the Self (cit). So I am consciousness.

Suppose you say “But my consciousness is small, I want to expand it”. That statement too became evident in presence of consciousness, and is pervaded by consciousness. It was evident to you as doubt-consciousness. Then you look at window; now reality is window-consciousness. Then hunger-consciousness.

So, no experience or object is away from consciousness.

Meaning, there is an invariable presence of consciousness or awareness, and no experience/object sticks onto it.

Consciousness has no height, size, shape, time-duration:

If nothing sticks onto consciousness – it means it has never taken on any attribute such as height, width, size, time-duration, location. All attributes are objects of consciousness.  

For instance, if consciousness was “small”, then “big” would never become an object of consciousness, as consciousness would be too small to accommodate something “big”.

If consciousness was a future event, then there would be no consciousness right now.

Consciousness is not confined to any one object:

How far away from consciousness is your hand? No distance.

Meaning consciousness is not away from anything. It's not confined to some place, locked away, waiting to be unleashed in the future. 

Consciousness or awareness isn't only in one particular thought. It's present in ordinary and extraordinary thoughts.

Consciousness isn't localized to some special event like in deep meditation. If it was, then, when meditation ends, consciousness would end.

Therefore, consciousness is not limited to any one thing.  Put another way: nothing is outside consciousness.

Therefore consciousness (cit) is ananta (without limitation). It's not limited or confined to any particular this-cognition. Rather it's evident in every this-cognition.

Meaning of Ānanda

Absence of limitation, which is nature of you (consciousness) is what's experienced in moments of happiness.

When there's happiness, for the time being – sense of inadequacy, the small/wanting entity is resolved. Both the subject and object, the desirer and object of desire are fused in consciousness during moment of happiness.

Thus you enjoy your own wholeness – ananda. Everyone is only ever seeking ananda. That's why the verse speaks to humanity, saying, who are you? I am…

cit ānanda rūpa, shiva aham, shiva aham

We’ll discuss “shiva” in future session, but for now we’ve covered “cit ananda”. Cit is consciousness, and Ananda is wholeness.

Let’s Look at Remaining Lines in the Verse…

mano-buddhyahaṅkāra-cittāni nāhaṃ:

Let's look at each word…

1. 1. 1. Manaḥ: I am not the emotional, doubting, desiring mind. Don’t say “the mind is not I”, because the mind IS “I am” (consciousness). Mind is not separate from consciousness. EG: Emotion-consciousness. Doubt-consciousness, etc. However, I am not the mind. Consciousness is free of the mind. I am there to report the presence and absence of thoughts. When thought or doubt goes away, aham remains.
      2. Buddhi: That which creates “aha!” moments. Conclusion, discovery, decision. Any conclusion about “I”, such as “I am small, I am unenlightened” – I am not. 
      3. Cittam / Smṛti: Recollection or recall. NOTE: When this word is used on its own, just like “manaḥ & buddhi” – then they can mean anything in reference to mind (emotion, recall, intellect). But when using them together, then they gain individual meaning.
      4. Ahankara: The one who owns all this. Ahamkara is the the subject / ego / the hearer / the seer / the taster / the feeler. The one who owns the conclusions, emotions, etc.

Conclusion: All these are “I am”. Because when there’s a doubt, then doubt-consciousness. When there’s a conclusion, then conclusion-consciousness. Ego-consciousness, etc. Who are you? I am consciousness. I am not the mind, buddhi, recollection, nor the changing ego.

na ca śrotra-jihve na ca ghrāṇa-netre:

I am not the sense of hearing, taste, smell, sight. I am not the senses. Else when sense stops hearing/tasting, I would go out of existence. The senses are also I. For instance, taste-consciousness.

Knowing this, it releases sense of smallness related to the idea that I should see better sights, sounds, smells, etc.

na ca vyoma bhūmir-na tejo na vāyuḥ

I am not the 5 elements, including vyoma (space-time), vayu (air), teja (fire), water, bhumi (earth).

Healthy Way of Speaking to Oneself

Knowing that I am not the mind, etc – no need to start saying “Mind is restless”, as it might start to create disassociation.

It's ok to say, “I am restless”, as that at least gives motivation to do something about it.   

About Nirvana Shatakam

These verses are meant to remove the mistake you commit in reference to “I”, and reveal certain facts.

Because you attribute many mistakes onto “I”, that makes 3/4 of lines about what you are NOT. And what you are is one line and repetitive.

Nirvana means freedom from all blemish, deficiencies. Freedom can be talked in 100 verses, 5 verses, etc – but here it’s talked in 6 verses.

Composed by Adi Shankara, Nirvana Shatakam speaks about something true and available right now which you can prove directly, and not a future promise or a belief.

 

NEXT SESSION: So far, our analysis has created two realities, aham & nāham. However Nirvana Shatakam says, “There is no second. Cit alone is”. Thus we need to collapse nāham into aham. We'll also show what word “shiva” means in the last line.

—

Recorded 21 Feb, 2026