Gita Guide

Gita Guide

The Avadhuta Gita (a.k.a. Song of the Free) was composed at an unknown time, ascribed to Dattatreya, of whom nothing is known. An English translation, from Sanskrit, by Swami Ashokananda (d. 1969) dates back to 1946. One virtue is that it is devoid of many of the Hindu terms which are so often difficult to translate from the original. The word avadhuta refers to someone who has realized their identity with the Absolute; that is, whose perspective is nondual, known as Self-realized; enlightened. This particular gita was often quoted by Swami Vivekananda. Like other gitas, it might have been written by a teacher of nonduality, for study by a follower. However, it reads like a collection of contemplative observations or notes, inscribed over a period of time. A typical line or two might touch on, say, three important precepts (which might take the rishi several hours to verbally explain). Even at best, statements might seem to be contradictory; certainly paradoxical: in other words, best understood by someone who no longer needs to read it. Contextually, these teachings are as marrow in the bones of advaita (which means “not two”), called ajata (which could be said to be “not even one”). The point here is that ultimate reality is emptiness, nothingness: nothing from the start (a-jata translates as “no creation”). The teachings are along the line of what’s known as “neti, neti”: the ultimate reality is “not this, nor this.” It is possible to spontaneously end spiritual seeking simply by contemplating and adhering to—giving full attention to— ajata’s absolute perspective, with unequivocal consistency.

The excerpts which follow, taken from Ashokananda’s rendering, are commented on now to give meaning to some of the subtler precepts. (For the sake of discursive clarity, the gita quotes used here do not appear in their order, and are connected together for topical continuity.) One must first grasp the nature—emptiness—of ultimate reality: no-thing. From the standpoint of duality, we could say there is something and there is nothing. From this point of view, before there is anything, there must be something which is not anything: nothing. We’ve long intuited that before we have one, two and three, etc, we have zero. In this context, we cannot speak of nothing as having a beginning or an ending. This nothing is boundless, without borders. As such, it cannot be moved from where it is, to where it isn’t. As nothing, it isn’t any where. In fact, as nothing, it could as well be said that no where is it not. Also, as nothing, it is not divisible; one can’t say that it is here, but not there. While we can’t say that it is in something, we cannot say that it is not in something; it does not present in “parts.” It defies, or transcends, such descriptions as being or not being, therefore as acting or not acting. Nothingness precedes all (dualistic) eventualities. As such, it is said that the somethingness is superimposed on the nothingness. The empty boundlessness is also referred to as the All (as in All-encompassing). It also is called Oneness, or even Truth.

But the word all is sometimes also used to speak of the “many,” in distinction to the One. Somethingness is, of course, in the All. So, this is how the ancient enlightenment teachers tried to characterize the nothingness which is at the base of ultimate reality. But the summation, in terms of ultimate reality, is that emptiness is the fundamental condition of reality; ultimate reality is empty of every thing. The gita says:

Here is only the absolute Truth, indivisible, and the All. The Self [i.e, One] transcends all, is indivisible and all–pervading. Space is pervaded by It, but It is not pervaded by anything. It is existing within and without. It is undivided and continuous. It has neither come, nor gone. It is without beginning, middle and end. Know all this ‘universe’ [the ‘many’] to be of the nature of the Absolute. The whole universe shines undivided and unbroken.

While nothingness is not something, in order to say anything about it, one has to talk about some thing. So, if we say that nothingness is formless—without boundaries, and thereby everywhere present whether inward or outward— that implies that it is present inside and outside all forms: “One is in all (the many); all is in One.” Then, while there can be no distinctions within the unbroken Absolute, dualistic distinctions must be employed in order for us to say anything about the (nondual) nothingness. The formless does not “come and go”; without beginning or end, it admits of no such limitation as finite time: the word eternal actually means ‘beyond time,’ or time-less. Forms come and go, are impermanent, are within the limiting confines of time. Thus, the precedent formlessness is said

to be real, in the sense of everlasting; that which is not everlasting (all forms, e.g. the world) are thereby “unreal.” But from the standpoint of (nondual) ajata, neither “real” nor “unreal” can be applied to nothingness. Such a denial (of even the explanatory comparisons in advaita) is what makes comprehending a gita’s statements so paradoxical, unavoidably: relative terms are utilized to discuss the non-relative; though the fundamental principle is that relative/nonrelative is a non-sequitur, in nothingness. Consider the following from the standpoint of “not two”: to speak of “relative” and “transcendental” (Absolute), or of “union” and “separation,” is to posit (despite its useful purpose) that there are such (dual and separative) “states.”

How shall I speak of the transcendental and relative states? How shall I speak of union and separation? Know that which has form to be false, that which is formless to be eternal. (The Self), devoid of life and lifelessness, shines forever.

Even a reference to “I” suggests that there’s some thing(s) which are “not-I.”

This is my certain perception: I neither perform nor enjoy past action, future action, or present action. I was not born, nor have I death. I have no action, good or evil.

So, the substantive statements of the Avadhuta Gita are from the (ajata) standpoint of “not even one”.

It is ignorance to see difference in the Undifferentiated. If God pervades all, if God is immovable, undivided, then I see no division. The Self is that in which the

distinction of teacher and disciple disappears, and in which the consideration of instruction also disappears. There is no distinction of the different and nondifferent. If there is only one indivisible, all-comprehensive Absolute, how can there be the comparable, and the comparison? There are never any ‘you’ and ‘I’.

Some seek nonduality, others duality. They do not know the Truth, which is the same at all times and everywhere, which is devoid of both duality and nonduality. All is verily the absolute Self. Distinction and nondistinction do not exist. There is no distinction of within, without, or a junction of the two. There is nothing here which pervades or is pervaded. There is no state of liberation, no state of bondage, no state of perfection and no state of destitution. No such change as “greed and freedom from greed” exists. How can I say, “It exists; it does not exist”?

As seen, there are relative statements concerning nothingness; and absolute statements, among which the disclaimers are: It is not this, and it is not this. Since most of the venerated teachings include “not two” pointers along with “not even one,” it is obvious that both emphases have their proper usage. The main point which every teaching intends to convey, to a seeker of ultimate reality, is that he or she does not exist—in the most fundamental, or real sense—as some thing: There’s nothing from the start. This point is that every—impermanent—thing which arose from nothingness, subsides in nothingness.

When our avadhuta says, “I am free of illusion,” it’s because he (or she) recognizes that the all-unifying common source is nothingness. All forms arise in nothingness and subside in nothingness, and are as illusions, not “real,” in between. In nothing, there are no illusions. Coming to realize that the “self,” all selves, and the worldly and cosmic background are unreal, in the most meaningful sense, is the essence of Self-realization.

I am free from illusion—my form has been extinguished. Know me, beyond all doubt, to be boundless. Know me, beyond all doubt, to be undivided. Know me to be that Self who is everything and everywhere at all times; who is eternal, the All, the nonexistent, and the Existent. Have no doubt.

When the pot is broken, the space within is absorbed in the infinite space, and becomes undifferentiated. As the space within a pot dissolves in the universal space, when the pot is broken, so a yogi….dissolves into the supreme Self, which is his true being. Where there is such a natural Being, how can there be “I”; how can there be even “you”; how can there be the world? There is no you, no me, nor is there this universe. All is verily the Self alone. Thus you are One. You are the auspicious One existing everywhere at all times. Thou hast no name and form, even to the extent of allusion; nor any substance, differentiated or undifferentiated. You need not be ashamed to say, “I am the Self, the supreme Truth.”

Where, in the ultimate sense, there are no individuals, there are no individual minds: no “self,” no “mind” of a

self. If there were a mind, where all is the one Being, it would be Being’s mind. The avadhuta therefore views thought; words leading from those thoughts; and actions leading from words and thoughts, all as expressions of the one Being. He does not regard the self as the “thinker of thoughts” or the “doer of deeds.” Where there is no independent self, there are not independent thoughts or independent deeds. “I am not the doer… How can I have a sense of ‘my-ness’?”

If there is only one indivisible, all-comprehensive Absolute, how can there be consciousness differentiated by exterior and interior? I do not perceive any difference between the mind and the supreme Being. The Self is here in the universal Consciousness which is the All, and undivided. It is here in the universal Consciousness which is absolute and immovable. The Mind is indeed the indivisible, all-comprehensive Absolute.

Where there is no individual self, there is no self to improve, perfect or change. Such a one does not progress from a “stained” or “defiled” state, to an “unstained” or “undefiled state.” Therefore, for this one, there are no practices, rituals, purifications, renunciations etc. One does not retain a hope of attaining any experience which the self receives as a result of “devotion,” “discipline,” “controlling the mind and senses,” and so forth. One’s uncontrived, natural condition is what the Selfrealized know as Beingness. We need make no effort to simply abide as Being. And we need not even be told “how” to do that.

I am not the worshipper, or of the form of the worshipped. I have neither instruction, nor practice. Even my natural self appears to me as non-distinct from the supreme Self; it appears to be one, and like space. How can there be meditator and meditation?.... How can there be any accomplishment through meditation…There is no meditator or meditation. The wise, my child, give up all meditations…knowing this, one never says that the yogis have any particular ‘path.’ For them it is the giving up of all duality. He attains the supreme, eternal Self whether he has perfect selfcontrol or not, whether he has withdrawn his senses or not, whether he has gone beyond activity or is active.

A major consequence of Self-realization is the dissolution of the fear of death: that of which there has been “nothing from the start” does not die; one merely subsides into one’s original, “unborn” condition.

The supreme Reality is the state of the highest serenity. For you, there is no birth or death. Neither is there an individual soul nor the form of an individual soul. The Self is the negation of death and deathlessness. It is the negation of action and inaction. If there is only one indivisible, all-comprehensive Absolute, how can one speak of coming and going? In whatever place yogis “die,” in whatever state, there they “dissolve” [becoming indistinguishable from the Self], as the space of a jar dissolves into the sky.

Thus is the essence of the teaching of the “Song of the Free,” a view of the perception of a being which is consciously aware of the nondual nature of ultimate reality.

He attains the supreme, eternal Self who is not mind, intelligence, body, senses, or egoism. The avadhuta, alone, pure in evenness of feeling, abides happy in an empty dwelling place. Having renounced all, he moves about naked. He perceives the Absolute, the All, within himself. Know me to be That. There is not the least doubt about it. The avadhuta, having realized the truths of the scriptures, has uttered this spontaneously from his own nature.