Summary:

Nirvana Shatakam, Verse 1, Part 2: Constant wanting to escape smallness – limited lifespan, intelligence, emotional wellbeing – proves you're already in touch with the boundless, since you can only desire what is somehow known to you. Discontent is always centered on “I,” making “I” both the problem and the solution. Whatever is “mine” is a this-cognition made known in the presence of I-cognition – the knower can never be the known. Even ignorance, doubt, and ego are objects made evident to Awareness. Consciousness is never a future event, nor confined to one mind, and remains invariable across all three states.

---

Nirvana Shatakam – Verse 1, Part 2:

Let's revisit why we're studying this text…

First acknowledge there's a problem

Living in general is one of constant want – a struggle to get rid of smallness and inadequacy. This wanting arises from self non-recognition, non-acceptance of your real Self, which is without any limitations.

Meaning, everything becomes a means to free myself from sense of limitation – such as limited lifespan, limited intelligence, limited emotional wellbeing, limited confidence, limited clarity, etc. You can stand being bound, because your nature is boundless. If you were not boundless, you would be be blissed out by what you already have right now.

So the fact that we're unsettled, always want more, don't like being bound, want freedom – shows you must be in touch with the boundless, the limitless, the infinite. You can only desire that which is in some ways known to you.

Additionally, the fact that every attempt for freedom or reaching the infinite is centered on “I” — shows this very “I” must be that very infinity. I don't seek suffering, because nature of I is not suffering. I don't seek 80-90 years of existence, I seek eternity, because nature of “I” is eternity. If nature of self was suffering and smallness, then I would surround myself with pain, ignorance, limitation, bondage and be completely fine with it.

A bothered, doubtful, suspicious, argumentative personality is born from ignorance that I am the whole, right now. It's never about the other or the object; it's always about your own discontent.

For example, a chess player isn't affected when they see a great soccer player, because “soccer” means nothing to them. But seeing a better chess player, jealously might come. Who is jealous? I am. So once again, discontent is centered on “I”.

So where is the root of the problem? I.

Therefore solution must also be in the “I”, and not in bettering one's chess skills, being taller, higher IQ, social status, etc.

Eventually it clicks for you, permanently…

Owning to your sincerity, trust in the teachings, and effort to think about what’s being said — the knowledge of reality clicks permanently and everything makes sense. Seeking for “more” at once is seen as unnecessary as it won't deliver more, higher, deeper or better anymore.

Meanwhile the world of “experts” is still hosting panels discussing consciousness, claiming how no philosopher or science has figured it out. And universities are charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for degrees in religion and philosophy. While academics are busy comparing six schools of Indian philosophy. The priests are speaking in riddles, offering future refuge.

While for you, all of it is like talking about “1 + 1”.

This is what the fourth line of each verse says — where you use to take yourself to be a small individual subject to pain and pleasure — in truth all that is here is One without a second, and thus I can't be away from the One.

You've realized your nature is “Nirvana” (freedom).

To discover it, we must first negate all the places where your “I” is mistakenly  put into. This is what the first three lines of each verse do.

So let's revise last session to create a firm foundation for future verses…

This-cognition becomes evident to I-cognition

In session 1, it was said that seeker constantly confuses the object of ‘this' cognition with the subject ‘I'.

When you say “I am old/young/smart/worried/intelligent/kind” – what’s being described is features of the body, emotional and intellectual makeup – called “my personality”.

They are all “this-cognition” known in presence of I-cognition.

When “this” goes away, I-cognition doesn’t go.

While “this” is mine, such as a thought belonging to your mind and not someone else's – it doesn’t mean that thought is Me. Whatever is “mine” — I am not.

“This” depends on “I”

Another way of saying it is “this” depends on presence of Awareness (which is another name for aham) – while Awareness doesn’t depend on “this” for Awareness to continue.

Even if you’re turning this word “Awareness or Consciousness” into some object that is to be obtained or grasped in the future — even that very experience of discomfort or unfamiliarity depends on “I”, the Awareful being in whose presence that experience is taking place. 

Another way of discerning this from I, or naham from aham is…

If it's known, there must be a knower.

The known shows there's a knower. Thus the knower can't be the known, else “this” wouldn't be known in the first place, as the knower would already be that. For example, a picture means there is a camera at time of that picture being taken.

The nature of the knower is Awareness/Consciousness. What makes a knower, a knower is presence of Awareness.

Meaning, even ignorance of “aham” is an object no different then a “tree” – made known to Aham.

Naham is made known to Aham.

You transcend ignorance

If you think about it, you (aham) transcend ignorance, but ignorance does not transcend you. Because in presence of you (the knower), there is ignorance (the known). So knower can never be covered.

Additionally the word “transcend” doesn’t mean away-ness. Meaning naham is never away from aham.

For instance, when you say “touch wood” – and you touch a table or chair that’s made of wood – in that moment, you’ve cognitively transcended the “table” or “chair”.  In that moment, you’ve recognized, the chair/table doesn’t hide the wood.

Now that we've discerned nāham (or anatma), and aham (or atma)…

What is the relationship between nāham and aham?

It is like that of wood and chair/table. They’re not away. The chair needs the wood for its existence, while wood doesn’t need the chair.

For instance, suppose there is a doubt about whether consciousness really exists. That doubt too became evident to whom? To me. It was evident to me as doubt-CONSCIOUSNESS. Then you find yourself in a white room whose edges you can’t see; and a single object in it; a tree. Now, tree-CONSCIOUSNESS. Then “I don't follow your examples”-CONSCIOUSNESS. Etc

This shows nāham (or anything that is a “this-cognition”) is not a second thing in reference to aham. If they were two different things; away from each other — there would never be doubt-consciousness, etc. 

In short: This-cognition is coming and going, while aham is invariable. That which comes and goes is never Aham. Birth and death comes and goes. Mental sharpness and decline comes and goes.

While it's relatively easy to discern tangible nāham's from aham, such as “rock over there” and Me – the most difficult is cognitively discerning the self from your ego…

Aham isn’t referring to ahamkara (ego, or I-thought)

Aham isn’t referring to the ahamkara — the changing experiencer, hearer, feeler, doubter, inquirer.

For example, one moment, “I” feels confident that things are clicking, then next moment “I” feels doubtful when some concept goes over the head.

That “I” that changes throughout the waking state, and completely takes a new role in dream state, and disappears in deep sleep – is the ahamkara, which in English is called the I-sense, or I-though, or ego. Ahamkara is also nāham.

Aham or awareness doesn’t take on conditions of ahamkara. For instance, if aham was happiness, then concern/grief would never come because you’re stuck to being happiness. Thus for both happiness and grief to be distinctly known, shows there must be something that is neither of them. 

Another confusion is holding onto a pseudo-spiritual idea that while Awareness is here now for me, and I am that — however there is a more pure Awareness or Consciousness, and that pure Consciousness I must obtain in the future!

Cit (Consciousness) isn’t a future event…

It's incorrect to say Consciousness, or I, will be unlocked sometime in the future. If that was the cause, then there wouldn’t be Consciousness now. Therefore, Consciousness (cit) is never held hostage to one particular time-unit. It is ānanda — without limitations, not confined to any one particular mind (such as that of only Buddha or Ramana Maharshi, Chinmayananda, Vivekananda, etc).

You cannot confine Consciousness to space (within one mind over there, and not this mind over here), nor time. 

Krishna backs this up in BG 2:12, “Birth is an event in time; however, there was no time when you (cit) were non-existent and there will be no time when you will become non-existent”.

This statement can’t be referring to your body or brain as it's losing and gaining billions of cells each day. Nor mind is collection of desires, aversions, ideas, stories, emotions – and they're all changing over 60K times a day. Whereas you experience Self as one consistent existent conscious being.

Krishna is saying there will never be a time when you will become obscured, unmanifest, or has gone from 100% to 99.999% Awareness. How to prove this? Analyze the 3 states…

Cit isn't obscured by any event in the waking state, remains throughout the dream and deep sleep state…

Throughout the entire waking state, the ahamkara is changes countless times. One moment “I” (ahamkara) is confident. The next “I” (ahamkara) is feeling insecure. Then the waking-ahamkara is completely replaced by dream-ahamkara. 

In the waking, I was a business owner. In the dream state, I am a beggar and convinced of it. 

And in deep sleep, the ahamkara completely resolves. 

Whereas that which knows of the waker-I, dreamer-I and absence of I (ahamkara) in deep sleep – is the invariable I, the absolutely real.

Additionally if the true aham was good as the waker-ahamkara, you’d be scared to dream or sleep, as both displace the waker-ahamkara.

Line from Verse 1: mano-buddhyahaṅkāra-cittāni nāhaṃ

When there’s manas (doubting), then doubting-consciousness. The doubting is replaced by epiphany, thus epiphany-consciousness. So consciousness is independent of the manas, buddhi, memory, feeler-thinker-hearer – as it remains in all conditions. You (awareness) can’t be them, else when they go, your Awareness would go.

Additionally, the ahankara here is also called karta (or doer). For example, a desire to watch a YouTube clip arises. That desire (from a vāsanā; impression) compels your manas-buddhi and gross body to walk to the phone, swipe, etc.

The ahankara then claims, “I choose/decided to watch this.”

But the impulse came from a deeper, impersonal source.

Then 10 minutes later ahankara claims “I feel good having learned something new”. 

So ahamkara constantly fluctuates and changes roles from doer, enjoyer, doer, enjoyer, etc.

Additionally, you can’t be the doer, else you would have total control over every thought in the waking, dreams and sleep.

Line from Verse 1: na ca vyoma bhūmir-na tejo na vāyuḥ

You can’t be the 5 elements. For example, you don’t take water outside your body as “I”, nor fire, earth, space, air. Your body and thoughts are made of the exact same 5 elements which you point to and say naham.

Now let’s look into all the things you’ve mixed up your Aham with…

In next session, we'll discuss the 5 koshas.

Be began discussing Annamaya kosha (gross body) end of this session. 

—

Recorded 21 March, 2026