The presently evident fact of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara

We have the trinity, ishvaras, brahman, vishnu and maheshwara.

All the three sri brahma, sri vishnu and sri maheshwara, are one and the same parama ishvara, or bhagavan, but with different roles, forms and functions with respect to the jagat.

The jagat entails all knowledge, and consists of all knowledge manifest through 3 shaktis, iccha shakti, kriya shakti and gnana shakti.


Hence all the three , brahman , vishnu and maheshwara do not exist separately, but also have the respective shaktis referred to by the accompanying shakti.

Shakti are represented in female forms as -

1. Brahma has saraswati as his shakti
2. Vishnu has Mahalaxmi as his shakti
3. Shiva has PArvatI as his shakti

Now coming to the forms and functions of each of these lords.

Brahma and Saraswati -

Together brahma and saraswati are responsible for designing the creation, how the creation should be. Hence when the jagat is manifest, brahma with saraswati also manifests the vedas, or the knowledge that comes along with the manifestation.
So brahma has all knowledge saraswati and manifests the jagat in keeping with the knowledge, intelligently designs the universe as per the karmas of the jivas in the previous universe.

The same brahman ishvara, with shakti in the form of saraswati or knowledge, is able to perform the task of manifestation, intelligently at the time of manifestation ( when the cycle of manifestation begins).

Here the 3 shaktis are at play, iccha shakti, that may the manifestation occur, kriya shakti, the very act of manifesting the jagat and gnana shakti, the knowledge with which the jagat is manifest.

Vishnu and Mahalaxmi - 

As the jagat manifests, what is manifesst is to be maintained. It needs sustenance and nourishment. If a tree is born, the tree needs water and sunlight for nourishment and growth. It needs continous presence of life for its sustenance. Sustenance of a living tree is not a lifeless, actionless thing, it is an activity.

Even to preserve the home, the homemaker, husband or wife, needs to maintain the home.
Needs to make constant efforts to keep the home nourished and well sustained, helping it.

Every human child needs sustenance. Even grown adults need sustenance. They need an environment where they can grow and be nourished. An economy is needed, wealth is needed, health is needed and so on.

MahAvishnu, with the shakti of mahalaxmi, who is in the form of iccha shakti, kriya shakti and gnana shakti , perform the function of maintenance of this jagat. Its sustenance.

Maheshwara and PArvati -

As the jagat is created and sustained, there needs to be change, there is birth and there is death. Things manifest, and go to unmanifest.

Even at a home, old things need to be disposed off, and the new has to be brought in. For bringing in the new, the old has to be disposed off.

Shiva with the with the shakti of pArvatI , who is in the form of iccha shakti, kriya shakti and gnana shakti , perform the function of disposal or recycling of this jagat. Its dissolution.

Any moment all the three are active

At any instant, in fact at every instance, in fact all the time, in fact the very truth if time itself, the kAla devatA, is nothing but a samanvaya, a combination of all the three lords and their respective shaktis, being ceaselessly active.

The three lords and shaktis are ceaselessly enjoined in the activity of  manifestation, sustenance and dissolution.

This is not a theory. we can witness this fact in action

This is not a theory, we can see the fact of manifestation, preservation and dissolution being present now and here. We see our own body is being sustained as we speak. We understand new cells are being created as we speak, and old cells are dying as we speak.

There is ceaselessly infinite intelligence at work as we speak, and this intelligence is whom we worship.

We worship him and her, as

Brahma vishnu maheshwara and Saraswati, Laxmi and PAravati.
These are forms of worship, for the ishvara who performs these roles and functions.

HariH OM.

Clearly understanding what mithya means?

Mithya is a word with a meaning.

Mithya is not an object , that we know, nor any object that Is knowable,nor an object that cannot be known.

Some words are not words that give object knowledge, they simply are reality words.

Devadatta is here. Devayan is not here.

‘is’ and ‘is not’ are reality words. They indicate the presence or absence of an object. These words can be applied to any object, reveal the nature of its existence.

For example we say, the horn of a hare does not exist. It is false.

In case we see horn of a hare, a hare with a horn , made with some video trick, we call it as illusion, or a trick, and hence we say it is false.

In Sanskrit we call this tuccham. We call an object as tuccham in our understanding, knowing that it does not really exist.

Whereas, we know that hare itself exists. So the hare we call it as satyam.

What we can know through sense perception, or inference and is determined to be true we call as satyam or true. We say it is true, it is a reality word, there Is no object called ‘true’.

Now in vedanta, we have to communicate something, what we call as brahma vastu, so in order to communicate that vastu, which is not available as an object of experience, the word satyam is given a new meaning. We call satyam, only as that, which is kAla trayepi tistathi, is evident in all 3 periods of time, which means does not undergo any change with respect to time.

Then what will we call the tree, the human body etc. all these things, we used to call as satyam.

Shastra has to account for these object which are time bound.

Before accounting for, shastra constructs a word called mithya, for which it also has to provide an appropriate meaning.

And the meaning for mithya is ‘mithya is a reality word, where the reality being conveyed is that, the thing exists, but its existence is not an independent existence, whereas, its existence is dependant on another thing. We call that thing as adhistAnam. The adhistAnam does not undergo any change to become this thing. Such a thing is mithya.’

ShAstra further gives examples, a chain made of gold, chain while it is gold, gold is not chain.

So chain, the thing, chain, is mithya chain, in terms of its reality.

Please note the chain is not negated, chain very much exists, and its existence is understood to be gold.

Similarly rope and snake.In darkness we think the rope is a snake. The snake does exist, but if you try to grab snake, a rope will come in your hand.

With this understanding of the word mithya, we can now look at the brahma vastu.

Brahman is said to be sAkshi chaitanyam. Which is simply, ‘I’ understood thoroughly.

‘I’ am self evident. In waking state I am the knower/doer, in sleeping state I am the sleeper, in deep sleep, I sleep well.

I am the gross body, I am the subtle body, I am the causal body.

Being all these, at the same time, I am independent of all these.

I am not subject to time, since I am aware of time. I am not subject to acquiring the attributes of the body, since I am aware of the body , and being independent. I am aware of being the waker, dreamer and sleeper. Hence intrinsically, I am simply , conscious being, who is self evident.

Conscious being means, not always conscious of something, rather means, the one who is conscious of anything in waking state, the one who is aware I slept well, the one who is aware I dreamt, the very person, who is all the three. Hence I am not subject to time, not time bound.

I, hence, am ‘satyam’ , I qualify for shAstras definition of satyam.

Now anything that I am aware of, such as body, mind, waking state , dreaming state, deep sleep, all these, depend on I, do not exist independent of I.

The waker I, is not independent of I.

The dreamer I, is not independent of I.

So the dreamer and the waker is also ‘I’, and, in terms of reality, dreamer waker, body I, etc. is mithya.

So any mithya is non separate from satyam, and satyam is unchanging, and has no relationship with what we call as mithya.

Like a pot is always clay, clay never accepts that it became pot, from its own standpoint it is always clay.

Now we may argue, this is not true for ‘I’. ‘I’ which we call with the name brahman, we say is subject to becoming the knower of a thing, the doer etc. If that were the case, there will be no continuity, I will always remain knower of flower if I see a flower, but flower goes, tree comes, tree goes light comes, then sleep comes, then no knower, then wake up, world knower, then day dreaming  dream knower and so on.

So I am not subject to change at all.

Hence the knower I, is a certain understanding of I, which is non separate from the changeless I.

Hence we call it as mithya in terms of its reality.

Then satyam we call what, we call only brahman, what we understood to be sAkshi chaitanya as satyam.

Does it mean the waker I ,is not I. No , like we said, mithya means it has its being in satyam, and satyam undergoes no change.

This is what shastra communicates.  In this we may have doubt.

We may say, how it is possible that the achetana body, has chetana I, as its adhistAnam?

Answer is , why not, what you mean by chetana.Chetana, means the content of the knower, this I IS. And everything else is, including waker, dreamer, sleeper, and body mind etc. It is clear these have no independent existence, and only since the sAkshi IS, that is why waker is and so on.

So it is known in your experience this is possible.

Now what about other than my body mind etc. what about objects, space time etc.

Well these are all upadhis. Even body mind is an upadhi, it is not you. From standpoint of body mind upadhi, you call I as waker I.

Now who is the maker of this upadhi.

We say there is no maker, the upadhi is there all the time. It is timeless. It only becomes manifest and then goes back into seed form.

Oh, then that which is in seed form, where does it exists?

It is mithya, which means it has its being in adhistAnam brahman.

We call this seed form as ishvara.Since its brahman with all power, all knowledge and all material.

Ishvara is brahman, you are also brahman.

So all that is here is brahman.

KArya kArana Prakriya

Om.

Claim : ShAstra presents brahman as the cause of all that is here.

The effect is called kAryA and the cause is called kAranA.

The cause brahman is the vastu (thing) to be known.

The effect is already known.

Expansion of ‘effect’

The effect is what YOU know and what you don’t know. All that is known + all that is unknown by the person, by you, is what is , the effect. Hence the present waking state experience, is, the effect. The experience of deep sleep and experience of dream is the effect.

It is known by you , that , there are so many things that are not known.
All that is not known can be put in one bag called ‘unknown’.

So effect implies:  'all that is known'. plus, 'all that is unknown'.

Understanding of ‘cause’

Now what is the cause then?
 If all that is known and all that is unkown is gone under the heading effect, then what is it that remains , that can be ever be attributed to be the cause?

The only one that remains is the 'knower'.
The knower of the known things and the knower of the unknown things.

The knower is sAkshi chaitanyam.
The pratyagatman, the witness consciousness. The self aham. I.

Through viveka by means of avasthA traya prakriya, and panchakosha prakriya and deha traya prakriyA, it is  to be clearly understood ( through anvaya vyatireka logic) that the pratyagatman, the witness consciousness is :
- other than the three bodies and the 3 states of deep sleep, waking state and dream state, and
- other than the 5 layers ,
- is the knower of each of these. The witness consciousness.

While the the 3 sharirAs, and the three states of sleep etc., are the witness, ‘I’, the witness ‘I’ itself is not intrinsically either of these.

Intrinsically, the atman , I , the witness consciousness is to be understood as being self-evident and self-existent, and;
 limitless in the sense it is not limited as in ‘being’ any particular form.
Not limited by time, timewise, chaitanyam does not undergo any change, spacewise 'I' undergoes no change. Hence it is changless satyam, also it is chit- which means a conscious entity.

Establishing relationship between effect and cause

What shAstra does, is , lets now go back to our original claim,

“ShAstra presents brahman as the cause of all that is here.”

So here that cause we said is the pratyagatman, the self, I, the chaitanyam, witness consciousness or sAkshi chaitanyam, which is who is ‘I’.

This ‘I’ is indeed brahman, who is the cause of the effect (effect which as we saw is known+unknown).

Now since I am the cause of all that is here, next step is to understand that, the effect is non separate from the cause as well as non different from the cause.

Which means essentially, ‘I’ witness consciousness, is satchitAnanda brahman, and the effect is also a kArya, hence being a kArya, it is ALSO, satchitAnanda brahman.
( example of kAranA and kArya is gold and bangles, chain ring etc. The kAranA cause here is unchanging gold, and the kArya effect is bangles, earrings, chain etc.)

Understanding ISHVARATVAM and vyavaharicam( relative plane of reality)

Now we have to see our life, in the light of this vision that shAstra has unfolded for us.

In this vision,the kAryam, jagat,is an intelligently put together, and is non separate from brahman.
 So we say now that ,this material of this jagat, MUST have a material cause.
For this ShAstra says, the same brahman, is the material cause (upAdAna kAranA).

To put together the material in intelligent fashion needs a intelligent ‘maker’ or ‘nimitta KAranA’. This intelligent maker is also brahman.

So, hence, from the standpoint of the total jagat ( which includes ones own body mind), brahman is seen as the abhinna, nimitta-upAdAna kAranam (non different material AND intelligent cause).

Same brahman, the pratyagAtman, the sAkshi chaitanyam, when seen from the standpoint of totality is abhinna nimitta upAdana kAranA.

Same brahman, seen from point of view of the of this sukshmA sharIra, which is identified with a particular body, including a human beings personality, is known as a unique individual a jiva.

Ishvara or brahman from its own standpoint

Same brahman , seen from the point of view of itself, which means simply by itself, is simply satchitananda brahman, the pure consciousness, which from its own standpoint has not undergone ANY change, and does not admit to ever ever having the status of either being the cause or the status of being the effect.

This is how shAstra expands and makes us understand the vision, that all that is here is brahman, and I am that brahman.

Not losing sight of the 'STANDPOINTS'

We saw earlier that from the standpoint of the total jagat, brahman is seen as intelligent and material cause. This standpoint is not to be taken lightly. This standpoint is what is shakti.
This shakti is non separate from brahman, in fact shakti IS brahman.
It is not something ELSE other than brahman. So the standpoint is not for 'throwaway', but only thing, is it is to be understood to be a 'standpoint', that is all, and the standpoint is what governs our day to day living. Living , in itself, as an activity, is a standpoint. Knowledge is a standpoint, ignorance is a standpoint, walking talking, doing, seeing, hearing, objects, people all are 'standpoints' , of the same brahman. Hence we enjoy the various standpoints, as the various leelas, the various vibhutis, the various glories of brahman, of ishvara.Seeing oneself, as an invdividual person, I am also a standpoint , and I am also ishvara ( not total parameshvara, but the same purusa, person, who is also paramashwara). Hence I can call myself jiveshvara.

"Looking for brahman", confusion

Another habit is to look for brahman. To look for where is brahman.

Sarvam khalvidam brahma, then why look for brahman?

The truth is that, one does not know brahman, so looks for brahman, but one need not look for brahman for two reasons.

1.       All that is here is brahman ( knower, known and knowledge all the three, subject object both)

2.       Brahman vastu is available for knowledge as oneself the atma.

In the example of clay and pot, if we take a few jugs and mugs, the entire world of jugs and mugs can be resolved into one reality clay, it if it pointed out that the pot form is only mithya and clay is the satyam.

In the case of atma gnanam, the brahman is not available as an object, like clay is available. I can show you a pot, then I can ask you to look at clay. You look at clay and then you understand that pot is clay. Hence you are now able to gather the understanding of pot and clay, and understand clay as satyam and pot as mithya, and henceforth resolve all that is made of clay into one clay in your understanding, so you continue to see pots and jugs, but you know there is only clay.

But brahman is not available as an object like clay, so when I show you a tree and say, tree is brahman, sky is brahman , wall is brahman, that it is brahman, is not available for your knowledge. I can only point out that tree is wood, and if you look further, wood is some cellulose, you keep going ad infinitum, any object has its existence in an object which is not that object. Tree, has its existence depending on non-tree. Table, on non-table ( wood). Wood on non-wood ( celloluse).. and so on. That is the nature of jagat. Applies to our own body also.

That search for satyam, is since the means of knowledge is not recognized to be the shabda pramana of the shastra.

The shastra offers this knowledge, says tat tvam asi. You are that brahman. The Drk Chaitanya, the conscious being who is the witness, oneself the atma, the knower of all that is objectified, this person that you are, is that brahman. You need not know yourself like to how you came to know clay. Clay was not already evident, it had to be pointed out that the pot is indeed clay, you had to look,in your mind, you had to understand that all the while, while looking at a pot, you saw clay.

But atma is not an object of sight, but atma is yourself, you who are evident in every sight.

So pratibodha viditam matam. In every sight you are. And in fact who you are, is not limited to the upadhi of being  ,seer consciousness. This again is a pramana vakya, known only through shastra pramana. And it is an assimilable gnanam (knowledge), since this is not contradicted by your own experience.

If you see, you are the waker, dreamer and sleeper, but the ‘I’, has ONLY anvaya ( invariable co-presence), but NO vyatireka (co-variable absence) w.r.t to the waker, dreamer and sleeper.

When waker is, I am, but when I am waker always not IS, since when dreamer is I am, but I am not the waker, rather I am the dreamer.

So while ‘I’ atma has invariable co-presence with ‘waker’, when waker is absent, ‘I’ still IS as dreamer or sleeper. So being a waker, or a seer, is not intrinsic to ‘I’. Just goes a long way in making it clear that ‘I’ is indeed brahman. Helps us assimilate the shastra provided gnanam, by removing any obstructing doubts generated by other means of knowledge. Its not just assimilation, in fact every experience proves that atma is sat , it is satyam. Which means unchanging, as the waker, dreamer, sleeper, undergoes no change. In all thoughts ‘ I’ am. And that I is unchanging. So nature of ‘I’ is anantam, it is satyam and obviously it is ‘chit’ as one Is a conscious being. So our experience not ‘NOT contradicts’ shastra pramana, in fact it validates pramana. And the guru himself/herself uses these prakriyas to help us assimilate the gnanam that is conveyed, the fact that one is purnam brahman. Upanishad itself does that, through statements like pratibodha viditam matam.

Your own body mind, undergoes change, but you are not changing with it, you are aware of the changes to body mind. So it is an assimilable gnanam, that you can indeed be the changeless adhistanam. Adhishtanam does not mean layer underneath as clarified in this post http://vedareflections.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-upadhi-and-adhistana-brahman-is-the.html

, but rather means all pervading brahman.

So, you are that brahman which is all pervading (all pervading is a lakshana, from brahmans standpoint brahman alone is).

This is understanding. You can settle in this understanding, that knower, known , knowledge all the 3 are brahman. By having name and form, brhaman undergoes no change whatsoever, so this problem of pure and impure consciousness is not really there.

Shastra stands vindicated when it says sarvam khalvidam brahma.

Om Namah Shivaya.

The upadhi and the adhistana – brahman is an the underneath layer confusion

I am a person, with a body and a mind. This is to be understood as an upadhi.

One has to clearly understand the nature of an upadhi as well as the nature of the adhistAnam atma.

We have to be clear, when examples are used. Usually example of a pot and clay, or a jewel and gold are used.

Here sometimes people confuse thinking that the adhistanam of an upadhi is like a substance, like a substance of a pot is clay. Clay is not an underneath layer of pot. Someone did not take the clay and changed the shape of the clay to make it a pot. The clay was in the form of a lump and was shaped to a pot.

From point of view of clay, clay is alone there. Clay does not acknowledge, name or form or function. As far as clay is concerned there is no change in form etc.

Clay as a lump is clay. Clay as a pot is clay. Pot is broken, clay becomes clay fragments, it still remains clay. As far as clay is concerned it is never subject to any change at all.

This is a pramana vakya that clarifies the meaning which is attributed to be the nature of the adhistAnam atma. We take the required meaning from the clay pot example.

Atma has never undergone any change, nor is it even subject to change. Even to call atma ‘changeless’ is talking from the standpoint of change alone.

That atma is oneself.

If that atma is oneself, then how do you place the upAdhi.

What is the relationship of the upadhi, the body mind upadhi w.r.t the adhistAnam.

The relationship is satyam and mithya. Satyam is independent of mithya.

Mithya depends on satyam for its existence. All the way  it depends on satyam.  In fact knowing satyam, satyam alone exists.

Hence mithya cannot be said to be non-existent, and cannot be said to have any existence of its own as its existence is brahman.

So this individual , aham, I , while is looked upon as a person, with a body mind, if the truth is known cannot be looked upon as anything but atma. In fact whatever you look upon is the atma, the looker is atma, what is looked upon is atma, this knower known duality is mithya and atma is satyam. So atma transcends duality , is non dual, it is both imminent in duality as well as at the same time, transcends the duality, as the atma never underwent any change, neither it can change, in fact the word change doesn’t exist in its dictionary, the word changeless itself it is said to be is only a lakshanam, a lakshyArtha, a definition used to point to the nature of the vastu. That vastu is yourself. You are self evident, so you are not subject to anything.

How do we know all these, how these are figured out? Its not figured out by human mind, it is known through shastra pramana, and independent means of knowledge.

In fact there is a question all of us may have, what is the use of all this Vedanta. The answer is very simple, we all want to be something, to become someone, to be something that we want to be. You have a problem, centered around yourself, or centered around someone you value, something you value, you have a problem about it, which makes you unhappy, so you seek a solution, ultimately to make you happy about that.

What vedanta offers it says, whatever that is , that you want to be, a fulfilled person, in all respects, in all situations, that you are already, without doing anything, no matter what happens, or doesn’t happen, whether you do anything or don’t do anything, whatever may be the case, “ you are what you want to be” . This is not known, but those who want to know can know, a means of knowledge is available, it can be made use of.

So even those looking for a practical benefit, this knowledge gives you the freedom to act freely and do what must be done with no hesitation.

Nature of pramana - part 2

In the previous post we established that the prama may not take place in a doubt free manner, when there are certain inadequacies on the part of the pramata or the pramana.

In the case of atma gnanam, we rely on vedanta as a pramana. vedanta is a pramana ONLY when it is taught by a shrotriya brahmanishta guru, in fact minimum should be a shrotriya ( provided he doesnt add his own flavor or misunderstanding in the soup).

Words from a shrotriya brahmanishta guru serve as a pramana.

The question of inadequacy of pramana arises, only if the guru is not a shrotriya.

Here since we are in the AVG parampara, and have exposure to greats such as Swami Paramarthananda and Pujya Swamiji, we need not explore the inadequacy of pramana.

Therefore what we need to examine is the inadequacy of the pramata, or oneself, which comes in the way of nischaya gnanam.

Here I am attempting to first list then discuss the possible inadequacies. In the subsequent posts I will try and expand each of these inadequacies.

1. Absence of systematic exposure,leading to incomplete shravanam ( clarity about tvam pada, tat pada and aikya gnanam)

2. Absence of medha shakti ( memory power)

3. Understanding the wrong meaning of the usage of a word. ( Not understanding the meaning of words in the manner in which it is suppossed to be understood)

4. Perceived opposite experiences/knowledge, that appear to contradict the knowledge

5. Opposing emotional states that contradict the knowledge

6. Lifestyle and living mode leading to attitudes the contradict the knowledge

7. Strong beliefs , not based on experiences/knowledge, that contradict the knowledge

8. Influence/advise/opinions of other people that contradicts the knowledge

Nature of Pramana- Part 1

I am seeking with the grace of lord dakshinamurti to understand and explore the nature of any pramana or means of knowledge.

What I seek to do, is not to enter any vedantic enquiry, or vedantic context of pramana, rather simply look at the nature of pramana, in ordinary human experience and gain certain understanding of how a pramana works, and later based on that understanding, extend the understanding to the vedantic context.

As we already know, a pramana implies both the presence of pramata (knower) and prameya (known). The knowledge that takes place in the buddhi of the pramata is what we call in sankrit the word for 'knowledge' is prama. So prama is the root word.

When the pramata, prameya and pramana come together, in ideal conditions, prama takes place in the pramatas buddhi. Over here the pramata does not have a choice.

For instance If Ram is standing on the banks of a river, and a boat appears in front. Ram has no choice or control as to the appearance of the boat. Ram was not looking for a boat on the river. But Ram was available with his eyes open, available to 'see' through his 'eyes'. So Ram, is the pramata, the pramana is his eyes, and the prameya is the boat. The prama is that , ' I see a boat'.

Let us examine this simple situation further.

What is it that we would call nischaya gnanam (doubtless knowledge) of the boat?

If the conditions were dark in the evening, it is possible that Ram has mistaken a log of wood for a boat.

On the other hand if Ram were having a cataract in his eyes , in that case also, it is possible that he mistook a log of wood for a boat.

Therefore Ram might have a conviction, that I indeed saw a boat. If this boat was somehow involved in a court case, a murder case near the river, on the exact same time Ram was standing by the river, Ram in that case gets called to the court. The advocate questions him " Mr Ram , it was late in the evening, it was dark, remember you cannot lie in a court of law. Are you sure that you saw a boat?".
Now while Ram would all this while have been 'sure' that he saw a boat, now he can be doubtful. He might think , "Yes, The advocate is right. It was the late evening, there was some darkness. It is indeed possible that it was a log of wood. Although I am almost sure it was a boat, I cant be completely sure."

So here, Ram suffers from the inadequacies surrounding the pramana, the conditions that rule the pramana. The pramana, the 'eye' itself is in good condition, but there are other obstructing factors, that prevent the pramana from operating in such a manner as to create doubt free knowledge. Or nischaya gnanam.

In general there can be absence of nischaya gnanam due to following inadequacies -

> Inadequacy of pramana

Example would be a cataract in the eye.

> Inadequacy surrounding pramata
LAte evening darkness or perhaps even Ram might be feeling sleepy and is not paying attention

> Inadequacy of prameya
This has to be examined. The prameya is the way it is. If it is a log of wood covered in smoke, and you arent sure of it is a boat, then even then, the best knowledge you can get is that it is 'either a log of wood , or a boat'. So really speaking we do not judge how the prameya should be, so this is not appplicable.

So prama may not take place if there is inadequacy on part of the pramata or the pramana.

In the next post we can see, how this translates into the vedantic context, and what are the types of inadequacies that may obstruct atma gnanam.