AVG 3.2

Chapter 3 (Challenging The Seekers Understanding): Verse 2
आत्माज्ञानादहो प्रीतिर्विषयभ्रमगोचरे ।
शुक्तेरज्ञानतो लोभो यथा रजतविभ्रमे ॥ ३-२॥

PURPORT:
Alas, just as greed arises from the
illusion that mother-of-pearl
appears as silver to an inexperienced seeker;
so too arises the attachment to objects
of illusory perception from a
paucity of self-awareness.

TRANSLITERATION:
आत्माज्ञानात् अहो प्रीतिः विषय भ्रमगोचरे ।
ātmājñānāt aho prītiḥ viṣaya bhramagocare ।
शुक्तेः अज्ञानतः लोभः यथा रजतविभ्रमे ॥ ३-२॥
śukteḥ ajñānataḥ lobhaḥ yathā rajatavibhrame ॥ 3-2॥

MEANING:
ātmājñānāt (आत्माज्ञानात्) = from inexperience of self-awareness (compound of ātmā (आत्म) meaning self-awareness and ājñānāt (अज्ञानात्) meaning ignorance/inexperience)
aho (अहो) = Alas!
prītiḥ (प्रीतिः) = attachment/affinity
viṣaya (विषय) = theme/subject/domain
bhramagocare (भ्रमगोचरे) = perplexity and confusion in the objects of sense perception (compound of bhrama (भ्रम) meaning confusion/perplexity/hallucination and gocare (गोचरे) meaning object of sense perceptions)।
śukteḥ (शुक्तेः) = of the pearl oyster/of nacre (can be mistaken for silver - nacre is an organic-inorganic composite material produced by some mollusks as an inner shell layer)
ajñānataḥ (अज्ञानतः) = from inexperience and ignorance
lobhaḥ (लोभः) = avarice/greed
yathā (यथा) = as
rajatavibhrame (रजतविभ्रमे) = the illusion of silver compound of rajata (रजत) meaning silver and vibhrame (विभ्रमे) meaning perplexity arising out of an illusory phenomenon॥ 3-2॥

COMMENT:
Janaka (and by extension the seeker within all of us) ignores the truths offered up by our own inherently luminous self-awareness which on closer introspection will doubtless reveal that objects of desire lack any underlying fundamental essence. The emptiness of existent entities have various facets - an inner emptiness where objects lack any underlying fundamental essence; an outer emptiness as the form that objects assume is the form-name that we assign and designate; an emptiness of emptiness where we counteract the tendency of our minds to give the contingently designated term ‘emptiness’ any more importance than is needed and thus not mistakenly assign belief in that term to connote any overall ground-truth; emptiness of compounds and commixtures where we mistakenly tend to identify a fundamental essence either to the smallest parts that make up the whole or to the whole that is made up of smaller moieties; emptiness of concepts and phenomena supposedly having no beginning nor an end where we tend to mistakenly identify conceptual ideas like god, creator, ego, spirit, soul, universe, atoms, etc with an undying essence when all of such phenomena are manifestations of processes that are interdependent and are multifariously linked by trillions upon trillions of causal conditions.
Ashtavakra explains that once Janaka starts to understand phenomena around him as manifest in a perpetual dance of arising, enduring and ceasing based upon appropriate dependencies and conditions, then Janaka will start to see objects of his desire in a different light. A light that combines the impermanence associated with such entities with the dependently arisen aspects of the same entity.

AVG 3.1

Chapter 3 (Challenging The Seekers Understanding): Verse 1
अष्टावक्र उवाच ॥
अविनाशिनमात्मानं एकं विज्ञाय तत्त्वतः ।
तवात्मज्ञनस्य धीरस्य कथमर्थार्जने रतिः ॥ ३-१॥

PURPORT:
Ashtavakra said:
Having known your self-awareness
as akin to a non-differentiated state
of experience, how is that you,
that steadfast knower of being,
harbor this affinity towards
the accumulation of affluence?

TRANSLITERATION:
aṣṭāvakra uvāca ॥
अविनाशिनम् आत्मानम् एकम् विज्ञाय तत्त्वतः ।
avināśinam ātmānam ekam vijñāya tattvataḥ ।
तव आत्मज्ञस्य धीरस्य कथम् अर्थार्जने रतिः ॥ ३-१॥
tava ātmajñasya dhīrasya kathama arthārjane ratiḥ ॥ 3-1॥

MEANING:
avināśinam (अविनाशिनम्) = that which cannot be destroyed/indestructible
ātmānam (आत्मानम्) = that which is self-awareness/self-model
ekam (एकम्) = one/non-differentiated
vijñāya (विज्ञाय) = knowing/discerned/having recognized
tattvataḥ (तत्त्वतः) = of its true nature ।
tava (तव) = your
ātmajñasya (आत्मज्ञस्य) = of the self-aware knower
dhīrasya (धीरस्य) = of the one who is steadfast and resolute/of the unwavering one
katham (कथम्) = how
arthārjane (अर्थार्जने) = in the accumulation of affluence
ratiḥ (रतिः) = attachment/affinity॥ 3-1॥

COMMENT:
The chapter previous to this was a description and celebration of the joy that Janaka feels as he seems to understand the equanimity that comes with the awareness of an examined life without the cultural overlays of choice, doctrine or dogma. A life that seems to transcend the plane that Janaka existed up until then. However, Ashtavakra understands that while Janaka might be able to describe selflessness and the resultant freedom that comes from a deeper understanding of the illusory nature of the self (and in-turn the ego that is always for the rise), Ashtavakra is unsure how ingrained the understanding might be in Janaka’s mind. Therefore, in this chapter, the import is that of a teacher who seeks to challenge the seeker to look for inconsistencies within the seekers understanding of a particular concept and thus guide the seeker to a better overall understanding of the broader landscape of the lesson. The questions and the concerns that Ashtavakra has of Janaka range from mundane objects like the accumulation material wealth to immaterial aspects of attachment that include desire for objects, lust and a mindset that tends to hoarding of sense objects and forms. The concern that Ashtavakra brings to the fore is succinctly expressed when he mentions that even after Janaka realizes that the truth that shines within us all is to be found within oneself and takes the form of a mind that is rooted in an awareness without choices, and even after Janaka has identified with that essential mode of understanding through practice and introspection and have courageously come out to express the joy behind such a liberating mindset, why would Janaka still show any inclination towards the acquirement of worldly riches of any sort? This is how Ashtavakra begins this chapter. The question is a deep one - if one proclaims a deeper understanding of being and reality, does it make any sense in staying rooted to the routine motions that we have inculcated over our lives as it applies to hoarding and collecting and accumulation?

AVG 2.25

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 25
मय्यनन्तमहाम्भोधावाश्चर्यं जीववीचयः ।
उद्यन्ति घ्नन्ति खेलन्ति प्रविशन्ति स्वभावतः ॥ २-२५॥

PURPORT:
This revelation is astonishing!
Within me, a limitless ocean sans shore,
pulsations of disparate thoughts arise;
they pummel, cavort and collide
and then calmly dissipate to naught,
each according to its nature.

TRANSLITERATION:
मयि अनन्तमहाम्भोधौ आश्चर्यं जीववीचयः ।
mayi anantamahāmbhodhau āścaryaṃ jīvavīcayaḥ ।
उद्यन्ति घ्नन्ति खेलन्ति प्रविशन्ति स्वभावतः ॥ २-२५॥
udyanti ghnanti khelanti praviśanti svabhāvataḥ ॥ 2-25॥

MEANING:
mayi (मयि) = in me
anantamahāmbhodhau (अनन्तमहाम्भोधौ) = within the boundless ocean
āścaryaṃ (आश्चर्यं) = wonderful surprise/miracle/astonishment
jīvavīcayaḥ (जीववीचयः) = multiple waves that arise in the form of individual selves ।
udyanti (उद्यन्ति) = arise/surge/advance/progress
ghnanti (घ्नन्ति) = collide/clash/strike/pummel (with each other)
khelanti (खेलन्ति) = play/cavort/caper/frolic
praviśanti (प्रविशन्ति) = cadence/tempo/rhythm/pulse/pattern
svabhāvataḥ (स्वभावतः) = according to their own specific nature॥ 2-25॥

COMMENT:
In the final verse of this chapter, Janaka closes out by extending the allegory of the limitless ocean to inform that the multiple versions of names-and-forms that collide and cavort within him eventually dissipate to nothingness as his understanding of self and reality is clarified. In closing my neophyte commentary for the chapter, I have to say that I tend to see the plane of awareness described by Janaka in these lines to be akin to a non-differentiated state of experience, intuition and being.
Non-differentiated in terms of experience where one stops to discretize objects of enquiry into moieties of distinction and separateness and like dualities.
Non-differentiated in terms of intuition where one instinctively approaches phenomena with that innate non-dual sense where one understands that s(he) is part of the glorious whole and isolation of phenomena into names and forms does not allow for any peaceful synthesis.
Non-differentiated in terms of being where the entire physical and mental aspects of existence fold into a state of continuous amalgamation with the understanding that all phenomena are inherently essenceless and the arising of phenomena is due to appropriate causes and conditional artifacts working in co-dependent harmony. Entities arise, endure and fall away in accordance with the shifting landscape of causes and conditions.
In addition, the non-differentiated understanding that reality can be construed as having two levels of truth – firstly, a conventional level where things seem to appear as they are and align with our assigned names and forms and allows for a harmonious co-existence (this is the commonly encountered reality that allows us to interact culturally) and secondly, at a fundamental level where reality is a state of continuous origination, flux, accommodation and destruction that does not entail any fixed enduring essence.
Therefore, this also allows us to see the distinction between appearance and reality - where appearances belies the true nature of reality; while appearances might vary and be subjective to each one of us, the fundamental reality remains the same - one where the search for an undiluted essence will be fruitless – leading one to further appreciate the latent illusoriness of the world, the incommensurability of any fundamental truth and overarching indescribability of real itself.

AVG 2.24

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 24
मय्यनंतमहाम्भोधौ चित्तवाते प्रशाम्यति ।
अभाग्याज्जीववणिजो जगत्पोतो विनश्वरः ॥ २-२४॥

PURPORT:
With the calming of the winds of knowledge
blowing over the limitless expanse
of the thought-ocean within my mind,
that sailing ark of name-and-form
owned and retailed by the self,
unfortunately meets devastation.

TRANSLITERATION:
मयि अनंत महाम्भोधौ चित्तवाते प्रशाम्यति ।
mayi anaṃta mahāmbhodhau cittavāte praśāmyati ।
अभाग्यात् जीववणिजः जगत्पोतः विनश्वरः ॥ २-२४॥
abhāgyāt jīvavaṇijaḥ jagatpotaḥ vinaśvaraḥ ॥ 2-24॥

MEANING:
mayi (मयि) = in me/within me
anaṃta (अनंत) = eternal/limitless
mahāmbhodhau (महाम्भोधौ) = in the form of the large expanse of the ocean3
cittavāte (चित्तवाते) = the wind of thought and knowledge (compound of citta (चित्त) meaning mind/knowledge and vāte (वाते) meaning wind
praśāmyati (प्रशाम्यति) = become calm and tranquil/be allayed or extinguished/be pacified or soothed।
abhāgyāt (अभाग्यात्) = through unfortunate circumstances/through misfortune
jīvavaṇijaḥ (जीववणिजः) = of Jiva the merchant-trader where Jiva is the finite self/life (compound of jīva (जीव) the finite self/life and vaṇijaḥ (वणिजः) meaning trader/merchant/dealer/retailer)
jagatpotaḥ (जगत्पोतः) = the ark of the universe* (compound of jagat (जगत) meaning universe and potaḥ (पोत) meaning ark/boat/ship)
vinaśvaraḥ (विनश्वरः) = apt to be devastated/ravaged/destroyed॥ 2-24॥

COMMENT:
As we near the end of this fascinating chapter, these beautiful verses convey a sense of tranquility that gently descends over Janaka's mind. A state of serene understanding where the roiling fluctuations of thought does not have the latent power to occupy Janaka's waking hours. A state of peace where the limitless ocean of the mind is stilled not by the willful expulsion of the ever-arising automatic wellspring of thoughts, but by the realization that a mind that is free of thought and unencumbered by conditioning (offered by a panoply of names and forms that we are constantly subjected to) can be achieved. The visual imagery in these lines are indeed stunning and seamlessly follows the imagery introduced in the previous verse. Firstly, the mind is compared to a limitless ocean that has the infinite potential to accommodate for thought-constructions of various varieties; secondly, the knowledge that comes from interacting with the name-and-form based culture we are subjected to is compared to winds that disturb the smooth surface of such a mind-ocean and thus produces waves of thought over the ocean; and thirdly, the various thought manifestations that arise in our interactions with the phenomenal world takes the form of an ark that sails on such an ocean. Finally, the stilling that happens within Janaka's mind as a result of his ability to understand his mind within impartial, choiceless awareness allows for that ark of name-and-form to sink and dissipate within the waters of such an ocean.

NOTES:
The universe here is taken to be the phenomenal universe that we conventionally interact with; a universe that nominally consists of names, forms and sundry appellations.

AVG 2.23

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 23
अहो भुवनकल्लोलैर्विचित्रैर्द्राक् समुत्थितम् ।
मय्यनंतमहाम्भोधौ चित्तवाते समुद्यते ॥ २-२३॥

PURPORT:
Ah!, I am an immeasurable ocean; but,
when the winds of thought and knowledge
blow, disparate forms of tempestuous waves
of perceived world phenomena
arise forthright from within my being.

TRANSLITERATION:
अहो भुवनकल्लोलैः  विचित्रः द्राक् समुत्थितम् ।
aho bhuvanakallolaiḥ vicitraḥ drāk samutthitam ।
मयि अनंतमहाम्भोधौ चित्तवाते समुद्यते ॥ २-२३॥
mayi anaṃtamahāmbhodhau cittavāte samudyate ॥ 2-23॥

MEANING:
aho (अहो) = Ahhh! (as in a happy exclamation)
bhuvanakallolaiḥ (भुवनकल्लोलैः) = waves and gambols of the worlds (compound of bhuvana (भुवन) meaning place of being/world/earth/globe and kallolaiḥ (कल्लोलैः) meaning waves/surges/gambol)
vicitraḥ (विचित्रः) = diversified/entertaining/manifold/variegated
drāk (द्राक्) = speedily/immediately/speedily/forthwith
samutthitam (समुत्थितम्) = was produced/has originated/had arisen।
mayi (मयि) = in me/within me
anaṃtamahāmbhodhau (अनंतमहाम्भोधौ) = like the form of a limitless ocean (Ambu (अम्बु) is an ancient word of Sanskrit origin which literally means water and mahāmbho (महाम्भो) can literally translate to 'great water' as mahā (महा) means great or limitless)
cittavāte (चित्तवाते) = the wind of thought and knowledge (compound of citta (चित्त) meaning mind/knowledge and vāte (वाते) meaning wind
samudyate (समुद्यते) =  soaring/rising/arise ॥ 2-23॥

COMMENT:
These lines implicitly inform us about the world of names and forms arising within the mind of Janaka and the fact that his awareness (while originally conditioned around external sense stimuli that tends to sample, assign and objectify phenomena) is now on a path where it strives to overcome the complex web of names and forms that we have bestowed on the world around us. Janaka here mentions that the turbulent winds of knowledge that churns the endless ocean – that is his mind – is replete with waves of name and forms that he associates with perceived phenomenological states in the universe.
The words ‘name’ and ‘form’ have a lot of import and go deep into the sense of duality that we experience with the universe. The word ‘name’ itself allows us to define the entity (being named) and by the process of definition, allows for us to objectify the entity to make the entity discrete from other entities. The word ‘form’ is the way we perceive our sensory interactions with the shape and structure of the entity that, in turn, allows us to distinguish the entity from other entity-forms. By the very nature of these words, they signify separation and a sense of ‘otherness’. When we start to objectify entities by referring to them as 'here is this entity_1 and it has name_1 and has a shape called form_1 whereas here is this entity_2 referred to by name_2 and having form_2', we explicitly distinguish and separate one entity from another by the patterns, structure and sensory appropriations that emanate from that entity allowing us to confer a certain individuality or a sense of self upon that entity. This individuality or self conferred upon that entity implicitly allows for us to infer that the individuality assigned to the entity is different from the individuality appropriated for ourselves setting up the implicit biases and choices within and without. A duality is born forthwith. It is this sense of duality that Janaka aims to banish by understanding the true nature of names and forms.
Existent entities in and of themselves have no names. The names have been assigned by humans based upon convention, culture and patterns of regularity incident upon the entity using language and the semantic structures thereof. While useful as a conventional tool that allows us to function as normal interacting humans within society, disorientation arises when we try to assign a permanent and inherent essence to that entity (when we use the name that we have congenially and conventionally assigned to that entity). In the same token, the forms perceived by us and imparted to existent entities are again products of our shared culture and the conditioning that such a shared culture imparts. A so-called square in two-dimensional space is an entity whose co-equal sides intersect at right angles to form a closed two dimensional form only because we have conferred a square to be thus formed. There is no shape called a ‘square’ in the universe that has any undying inherent essence. This is the kind of conditioned knowledge that Janaka talks about when he mentions that the world of shapes and forms roils the waves of thoughts within his mind. The fact that shapes, names and forms that are conventionally assigned by cultural conditioning tends to take on a bigger and a more inherently enduring aspect within ourselves rather than serving it for what it is - conventional designations that allow to interact harmoniously – is the heart of the matter here. Once Janaka realizes the underlying truths behind names and forms, his mind starts to feel at ease.
All of this said, it is clear that at this point, amongst all of the sentients in the universe, the human is the only species capable of abstractly representing phenomena using  written and spoken language. Language is a mechanism that allows for us to 'identify and meet' thoughts as they automatically arise from our minds. The thoughts themselves allows us to abstract reality and plan for a future and discretize the past. Thoughts rooted within the framework of names and forms give rise to fear, trepidation, anxiousness and suffering because the thoughts are products of has-been pasta that are trying to extrapolate abstracted futures to distract us and produce suffering.

AVG 2.22

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 22
नाहं देहो न मे देहो जीवो नाहमहं हि चित् ।
अयमेव हि मे बन्ध आसीद्या जीविते स्पृहा ॥ २-२२॥

PURPORT:
Neither am I a physical body,
nor am I embodied in my mind,
nor am I the finite self that
identifies with ego. I am awareness.
My appetite for amassing knowledge
had indeed enslaved me upto now.

TRANSLITERATION:
न अहम् देहः न मे देहः जीवः न अहम् अहम् हि चित् ।
na aham dehaḥ na me dehaḥ jīvaḥ na aham aham hi cit ।
अयम् एव हि मे बन्धः आसीत् या जीविते स्पृहा ॥ २-२२॥
ayam eva hi me bandhaḥ āsīt yā jīvite spṛhā ॥ 2-22॥

MEANING:
na (न) = not
aham (अहम्) = I
dehaḥ (देहः) = corporeal body/physical body
na (न) = not
me (मे) = my
dehaḥ (देहः) = body (as in my body or embodied)
jīvaḥ (जीवः) = finite self/life (the self-model that identifies itself with the ego is jīvaḥ)
na (न) = not
aham (अहम्) = I
aham (अहम्) = I
hi (हि) = surely
cit (चित्) = awareness ।
ayam (अयम्) = this
eva (एव) = alone
hi (हि) = surely
me (मे) = my
bandhaḥ (बन्धः) = bondage/enslavement
āsīt (आसीत्) = was (used as in she/he/it was)
yā (या) = that
jīvite (जीविते) = for life
spṛhā (स्पृहा) = wish/longing for/aspiration ॥ 2-22॥

COMMENT:
Some fascinating lines here as Janaka makes it clear that he now has inferred his awareness as a force that allows him to transcend corporeal physicality as well as mental constructs of self. The reference to the body here is a direct reference to his deeper appreciation for the truth behind conventional reality and dualities (as explained in the verse previous to this). The attribution to the word embodiment* refers to the mental fabrications in connection with the self that over time gets itself so ingrained within our psyche that the fabricated entity that we refer to as the ‘self’ starts to feel like a physical appendage that has an embedded separate existence over and apart from all else. After discounting the embodied self, Janaka also discounts the fact that he does not identify with that part of the self-model that establishes itself purely with the ego. At this point, all Janaka identifies with is the awareness that permeates him - an awareness that allows him to understand the illusory nature of the self, the slow evaporation of that part of the self that identifies with ego and a deeper understanding of conventional reality (as evidenced by the manifestation presented by his material body).
Janaka also discerns a paradoxical fact - that the amassing of more knowledge, concepts, ideas and doctrines itself is detrimental to awareness and being. He strives to attain a form of conscious alertness that is free of thought-movements, not aligned to any prevailing mores of wisdom, knowledge, rituals or practices. An alert awareness that arises from a place where he has managed to quell the ever-rising and falling waves of thought fluctuations that manifest within his mind and obtain within himself a place that is radiant without the paraphernalia of culture nor conditioning. It is this aspect that he  alludes to in his last line here when he understands that his appetite for amassing the trappings that come with life (with its attendant cultural overlays) has indeed enslaved him up until now.

NOTE:
*A short and a useful note on embodiment from the article "Reply to Gallagher: Different conceptions of embodiment" by Thomas Metzinger (Philosophisches Seminar Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz D-55099 Mainz) © Thomas Metzinger

“Embodiment,” unfortunately, has long become a trendy buzzword. Probably precisely because of its implicit Cartesian connotations in an explicitly anti-Cartesian approach, its semantic vagueness, and the spatial-mental imagery it evokes, it is now used by many different authors in many different ways. For some, “embodiment” is something that has to do with robotics, for others, it is something that has to do with “existing under the gaze of the other”. .. Let me try to quickly develop a minimal conceptual platform. We need at least some conceptual clarification. Therefore, before we go on, let me introduce three new working concepts: “first-order embodiment,” “second-order embodiment,” and “third-order embodiment.” 
“First-order embodiment” is aimed at and can be found, for instance, in biorobotics and in all “bottom-up approaches” to artificial intelligence. The basic idea is to investigate how intelligent behavior and other complex system properties, termed “mental,” can naturally evolve out of the dynamical, self-organizing interactions between the environment and a purely physical, reactive system that does not possess anything like a central processor or “software” and no explicit computation. For researchers, the relevant questions are: How could the very first forms of prerational intelligence emerge in a physical universe? How could we acquire a flexible, evolvable, and coherent behavioral profile in the course of natural evolution? How is it possible to generate intelligent behavior without explicit computation?
“Second-order embodiment” can develop in a system that satisfies the following three conditions: (a) we can successfully understand the intelligence of its behavior and other “mental” properties by describing it as a representational system, (b) this system has a single, explicit and coherent self-representation of itself as being an embodied agent, and (c) the way in which this system uses this explicit internal model of itself as an entity possessing and controlling a body helps us understand its intelligence and its psychology in functional terms. Some advanced robots, many primitive animals on our planet, and possibly sleepwalking human beings or patients during certain epileptic absence seizures could be examples of Second-order embodiment.
“Third-order embodiment” is the special case (indeed the very special case) in which a physical system not only explicitly models itself as an embodied being, but also maps some of the representational content generated in this process directly onto conscious experience. That is, Third-order embodiment means that in addition, you consciously experience yourself as embodied, that you possess a specific type of what, I call a “phenomenal self-model”. Human beings in ordinary wake states, but also orangutans swinging from branch to branch at great height, could be examples of this: they have an online model of their own body as a whole that has been elevated to the level of global availability and integrated within a virtual window of presence. They are consciously present as bodily selves.  Example: Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) are clearly cases of Third-order embodiment, because, at least in a majority of cases, they include some sort of ethereal double, a conscious self-model of a spatially extended and perceiving agent.
The general framework emerging from this threefold distinction is that human beings permanently possess First-order embodiment and Second-order embodiment: a considerable part of our own behavioral intelligence is achieved without explicit computation and results directly from physical properties of our bodies, such as the genetically determined elasticity of muscles and tendons, or the degrees of freedom realized by the special shape of our joints. Moreover, certain parts of our unconscious self-model, such as the immune system and the elementary bioregulatory processes in the upper brain stem and the hypothalamus, are continuously active. Another candidate for an important aspect of the unconscious selfmodel, a representation of global properties of the body, is the body schema. Having an unconscious body schema is clearly a new, biological form of intelligence: having a body schema means having Second-order embodiment. Only episodically, during wakefulness and in the dream state, do human beings realize Third-order embodiment.

AVG 2.21

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 21
अहो जनसमूहेऽपि न द्वैतं पश्यतो मम ।
अरण्यमिव संवृत्तं क्व रतिं करवाण्यहम् ॥ २-२१॥

PURPORT:
Oh!, even in the assemblage of multitudes,
I see not any conspicuous duality or dichotomy.
This is comparable to being unconditionally
alone, amidst pristine primeval woods.
What yearning can I have for anything at all?

TRANSLITERATION:
अहो जनसमूहे अपि न द्वैतम् पश्यतः मम ।
aho janasamūhe api na dvaitam paśyataḥ mama ।
अरण्यम् इव संवृत्तम् क्व रतिम् करवाणि अहम् ॥ २-२१॥
araṇyam iva saṃvṛttam kva ratim karavāṇi aham ॥ 2-21॥

MEANING:
aho (अहो) = Ahhh! (as in a happy exclamation)
janasamūhe (जनसमूहे) = within the throngs of people (compound of jana (जन) meaning people/public/tribe and samūhe (समूहे) assemblage/throng/horde/multitude)
api (अपि) = even
na (न) = not
dvaitam (द्वैतम्) = duality/dichotomy
paśyataḥ (पश्यतः) = visible/see/conspicuous
mama (मम) = my ।
araṇyam (अरण्यम्) = being in or relating to a forest/primeval wilderness/woods
iva (इव) = as if/just like
saṃvṛttam (संवृत्तम्) = having become
kva (क्व) = where/what (as in ‘to what do I attach myself’)
ratim (रतिम्) = desires/passion/craving/yearning
karavāṇi (करवाणि) = should do
aham (अहम्) = I ॥ 2-21॥

COMMENTS:
In these verses, full of vigor at his newfound understanding of his own awareness, Janaka ponders on the liberating aspects of freeing himself from a mindset that was perceptively dichotomous and his happiness in achieving a state of non-dual choiceless awareness. It occurs to Janaka that if duality is to be conceived as the designation of a self-nature to any existent entity that one encounters, then non-duality (or the absence of any dichotomy thereof) as a corollary is really the lack of any inhering essence or self underpinning that same existent entity. To better understand the underlying concepts, it might be useful to analyze the nature of an entity from three distinct standpoints of perceiving that entity – the first is from a standpoint that deals with the fabricated nature of the entity or the “how-it-appears-to-the-onlooker” aspect – where the definition and explanation of the entity happens within a linguistic and an ontological framework that is supported by our conventional understanding of such a framework derived over countless depositions of culture, mores, tradition, protocols, rites and formalities – with the added stipulation that such an understanding is only conventional and is fabricated; the second nature is from the standpoint of the entities dependent nature or the “what-arises-and-appears-to-the-onlooker-as-a-result-of-latent-preconditions”  aspect – that aspect of the underlying-contingently-linked causal and conditional narrative that brings about the entities conceptual construction; the third nature is from the standpoint of non-duality, something more fundamental, something more deeper or the “eternal non-existence-of-the-appearance-as-the-entity-appears-to-the-onlooker” aspect – that non-dual aspect that deals with the emptiness of all apparent entities that we conceptually encounter.
In summary, the first nature is the apparent appearance of the entity, the second nature is the conditionally causal process by which that entity makes that apparent appearance and the third nature is the lack of any inhering substrate or essence underlying that apparent entity. In this sense, anything fabricated is said to have a dual-self, whereas, the nature of reality itself is non-dual.
Janaka here also appears to be free of the two kinds of dualities that bedevil the best of us – conceptual duality and perceptual duality. The duality of the conceptual kind is that where we instinctively assign conceptual labels, forms and names upon an object as soon as we interact with any object by using our stored subset of conditioned categories that learning and knowledge has imparted to us. The corollary of the process of assigning a name to any entity automatically means that there is something else that is not-that-name. A quick example of conceptual dualism by using the example of a wooden chair: As soon as we see  a three dimensional spatial assemblage that consists of a wooden seat with four wooden legs and a back-board, we are apt to name it ‘chair’ and all other three-dimensional wooden assemblages that do not fall into this pre-defined category become ‘not-a-chair’. A duality is immediately created within our minds and our actions, reactions and our perceptions align themselves within this established conceptual duality the instant we categorize and name. We assign a ‘self’ to that object. We assign some sort of a permanence that is attached to that object (a ‘chairness’ for lack of a better word). This process continues to be the same for any other entity, be it a heap of diamonds or a pile of bird-poop. Given that the world and the larger universe is in a constant state of causal fluctuations and the world does not obtain via measurements nor determinations via conceptual constructs like chair, diamonds or bird-poop, every time we impose a version of our conditioning (and thereby duality upon this world), we automatically impose a fabricated construct upon the world.
Closely related to the idea of conceptual duality is the idea of perceptual duality – where we perceive an otherness between the ‘perceived object’ and our selves. Let us say that I open the door on a cold snowy morning, reach out and feel the snowflakes that softly fall from the sky. My skin feels the sudden onset of a cold sensation as the tiny bit of snow melts against the skin of my fingers. The instantaneous consequence of such an event is that I tend to see a separation and a distinction between my skin that ‘feels the snowflake’ and the snowflake itself that I see as sovereign from the skin (which clearly is a ‘part of me’). Therefore there is an instinctual duality built into this process at the time of perception itself – the ‘otherness’ imputed to the snowflake and the sense of oneness that is intuited when it comes to my skin (a sense of ‘mine’ verses the ‘other’). This applies to all our sense organs – smell, sight, sound and taste. The essence of the constructed sense of duality lies between the perceptual and the conceptual senses of duality where one strengthens the other and our sense of being separate and dissociated from the world around us thus accumulates.
Janaka compares his state of non-dual identity thus obtained by stating that he no longer has a yearning for things and even amongst the multitudes, he feels as serene as if he is within pristine primeval woods.

NOTES:
Nisargadatta Maharaj: "The mind ceased producing events. The ancient and ceaseless search stopped—I wanted nothing, expected nothing, accepted nothing as my own. There was no "me" left to strive for. Even the bare "I am" faded away. The other thing I noticed was I lost all my habitual certainties. Earlier I was sure of so many things, now I am sure of nothing. But I feel I have lost nothing by not knowing, because all my knowledge was false. My not knowing was in itself knowledge of the fact that all knowledge is ignorance, that "I do not know" is the only true statement the mind can make.
By looking tirelessly, I became quite empty, and with that emptiness all came back to me except the mind. I find I have lost the mind irretrievably. I am neither conscious nor unconscious, I am beyond the mind and its various states and conditions. Distinctions are created by the mind and apply to the mind only. I am pure Consciousness itself, unbroken awareness of all that is.
I am in a more real state than yours. I am undistracted by the distinctions and separations which constitute a person. As long as the body lasts, it has its needs like any other, but my mental process has come to an end. My thinking, like my digestion, is unconscious and purposeful.
I am not a person in your sense of the word, though I may appear a person to you. I am that infinite ocean of consciousness in which all happens. I am also beyond all existence and cognition, pure bliss of being. There is nothing I feel separate from, hence I am all. No thing is me, so I am nothing. Life will escape, the body will die, but it will not affect me in the least. Beyond space and time I am, uncaused, uncausing, yet the very matrix of existence.
Having realized that I am with, and yet beyond the world, I became free from all desire and fear. I did not reason out that I should be free, I found myself free, unexpectedly, without the least effort. This freedom from desire and fear remained with me since then. Another thing I noticed was that I do not need to make an effort; the deed follows the thought, without delay and friction. I have also found that thoughts become self-fulfilling; things would fall in place smoothly and rightly. The main change was in the mind; it became motionless and silent, responding quickly, but not perpetuating the response. Spontaneity became a way of life, the real became natural and the natural became real. And above all, infinite affection, love, dark and quiet, radiating in all directions, embracing all, making all interesting and beautiful, significant and auspicious.
The person is what I appear to be to other persons. To myself, I am the infinite expanse of consciousness in which innumerable persons emerge and disappear in endless succession.
The person, the "I am this body, this mind, this chain of memories, this bundle of desires and fears" disappears, but something you may call identity remains. It enables me to become a person when required.
Nothing troubles me. I offer no resistance to trouble—therefore it does not stay with me. On your side there is so much trouble. On mine there is no trouble at all. Come to my side.
What is added to memory cannot be erased easily. But it can surely be done, and in fact I am doing it all the time. Like a bird on its wings, I leave no footprints.
The world is like a sheet of paper on which something is typed. The reading and the meaning will vary with the reader, but the paper is the common factor, always present, rarely perceived. When the ribbon is removed, typing leaves no trace on the paper. So is my mind—the impressions keep on coming, but no trace is left.
Your world is transient, changeful. My world is perfect, changeless. You can tell me what you like about your world—I shall listen carefully, even with interest, yet not for a moment shall I forget that your world is not, that you are dreaming. In mine, the words and their contents have no being. In your world nothing stays, in mine nothing changes. My world is real, while yours is made of dreams. My world has no characteristics by which it can be identified. You can say nothing about it. My silence sings, my emptiness is full, I lack nothing. In your world I appear to have a name and shape, displaying consciousness and activity. In mine I have being only. Nothing else. I am my world. My world is myself. It is complete and perfect. I need nothing, not even myself, for myself I cannot lose. In your world I would be most miserable. To wake up, to eat, to talk, to sleep again—what a bother!
To me nothing ever happens. There is something changeless, motionless, immovable, rock-like, unassailable; a solid mass of pure being-consciousness-bliss. I am never out of it. Nothing can take me out of it, no torture, no calamity.
My condition is absolutely steady. Whatever I may do, it stays like a rock—motionless. Once you have awakened into reality, you stay in it. It is self-evident and yet beyond description.
All the three states (waking, sleeping, dreaming) are sleep to me. My waking state is beyond them. As I look at you, you all seem asleep, dreaming up worlds of your own. I am aware, for I imagine nothing. It is not samadhi, which is but a kind of sleep. It is just a state unaffected by the mind, free from the past and future. In your case it is distorted by desire and fear, by memories and hopes; in mine it is as it is—normal. To be a person is to be asleep.
The world of mind and matter, of names and shapes, continues, but it does not matter to me at all. It is like having a shadow. It is there, following me wherever I go, but not hindering me in any way. It remains a world of experiences, but not of names and forms related to me by desires and fears. The experiences are quality-less, pure experiences, if I may say so. I call them experiences for the lack of a better word. They are like the waves on the surface of the ocean, the ever-present, but not affecting its peaceful power.
I can see with the utmost clarity that you have never been, nor are, nor will be estranged from reality, that you are the fullness of perfection here and now, and that nothing can deprive you of your heritage, of what you are. You are in no way different from me, only you do not know it. Be fully aware of your own being, and you will be in bliss consciously. Because you take your mind off yourself and make it dwell on what you are not, you lose your sense of well-being, of being well.
You people do not know how much you miss by not knowing your own true self.
The moment you know your real being, you are afraid of nothing. Death gives freedom and power. To be free in the world, you must die to the world. Then the universe is your own, it becomes your body, an expression and a tool. The happiness of being absolutely free is beyond description.
The ordinary man is personally concerned, he counts his risks and chances, while the Jnaane remains aloof, sure that all will happen as it must; and it does not matter much what happens, for ultimately the return to balance and harmony is inevitable. The heart of things is at peace.
The particular is born and reborn, changing name and shape, the Jnaane is the Changeless Reality, which makes the changeful possible. The entire universe is his body, all life is his life. As in a city of lights, when one bulb burns out, it does not affect the network, so the death of a body does not affect the whole. With me, all is one, all is equal.
The Guru is basically without desire. He sees what happens, but feels no urge to interfere. He makes no choices, takes no decisions. As pure witness, he watches what is going on and remains unaffected. Victory is always his, in the end. He knows that if the disciples do not learn from his words, they will learn from their own mistakes. Inwardly he remains quiet and silent. He has no sense of being a separate person. The entire universe is his own, including his disciples with their petty plans.
Nothing in particular affects him, or, which comes to the same, the entire universe affects him in equal measure. In reality, the disciple is not different from the Guru. He is the same dimensionless centre of perception and love in action. It is only his imagination that encloses him and converts him into a person.
He is alone, but he is all. He is not even a being. He is the being-ness of beings. Not even that. No words apply. He is what he is, the ground from which all grows.
A Jnaane commands a mode of spontaneous, non-sensory perception, which makes him know things directly, without intermediary of the senses.
He is beyond the perceptual and the conceptual, beyond the categories of time and space, name and shape. He is neither the perceived nor the perceiver, but the simple and the universal factor that makes perceiving possible.
His state tastes of the pure, uncaused, undiluted bliss. He is happy and fully aware that happiness is his very nature and that he need not do anything, nor strive for anything to secure it. It follows him, more real than the body, nearer than the mind itself. To me, dependence on anything for happiness is utter misery. Pleasure and pain have causes, while my state is my own, totally uncaused, independent, unassailable.
As he gets older, he grows more and more happy and peaceful. After all, he is going home. Like a traveler nearing his destination and collecting his luggage, he leaves the train without regret. The reel of destiny is coming to its end—the mind is happy. The mist of bodily existence is lifting—the burden of the body is growing less from day to day."

REFERENCES:
Madhyamaka and Yogacara: Allies or Rivals? by Jay L. Garfield (Editor), Jan Westerhoff (Editor)

AVG 2.20

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 20

शरीरं स्वर्गनरकौ बन्धमोक्षौ भयं तथा ।

कल्पनामात्रमेवैतत्किंमे कार्यं चिदात्मनः ॥ २-२०॥

PURPORT:

The corporeal body, immortality, purgatory

enslavement and emancipation, as also trepidation;

all of these, are mere reveries. What do I have to do 

with all of these? I, whose essence is pure awareness.

TRANSLITERATION:

शरीरम् स्वर्गनरकौ बन्धमोक्षौ भयम् तथा ।

śarīram svarganarakau bandhamokṣau bhayam tathā ।

कल्पनामात्रम् एव एतत् किम् मे कार्यम् चिदात्मनः ॥ २-२०॥

kalpanāmātram eva etat kim me kāryam cidātmanaḥ ॥ 2-20॥

MEANING:

śarīram (शरीरम्) = corporeal body/physical person

svarganarakau (स्वर्गनरकौ) = immortality and purgatory/also translated informally as heaven and hell (compound of svarga (स्वर्ग) meaning heaven and narakau (नरकौ) meaning hell)

bandhamokṣau (बन्धमोक्षौ) = enslavement and emancipation/also translated as bondage and freedom (compound of bandha (बन्ध) meaning bondage and mokṣau (मोक्षौ) meaning freedom/absolution/deliverance)

bhayam (भयम्) = trepidation/alarm/fear 

tathā (तथा) = as also ।
kalpanāmātram (कल्पनामात्रम्)  = sheer fantasy/mere illusion/just a reverie (compound of kalpanā (कल्पना) meaning imagination/illusion and mātram (मात्रम्) meaning merely)

eva (एव) = assuredly/surely

etat (एतत्) = all this (‘this’ as in all of body, heaven, hell, bondage, freedom and fear)

kim (किम्) = what

me (मे) = my

kāryam (कार्यम्) = to be done/deserving to be done

cidātmanaḥ (चिदात्मनः) = whose nature is intrinsic awareness (compound of cit (चित्) meaning awareness or consciousness and ātmanaḥ (आत्मनः) meaning essence/nature/character/soul) ॥ 2-20॥

COMMENT:

In these verses, Janaka is primarily focussed on explicit physical entities like his corporeal body and implicit mental constructions like immortality, purgatory, bondage, freedom and fear and comes to understand these concepts for what they merely are - conceptual creations within ones mind whose imprints ossify over time (as recurring thought-movements that align with such mental constructions). The thought-movements themselves are a self-perpetuating cycle that bounces around the triad of experience, memory and knowledge. The individuals past experiences (colored by conditioning via external stimuli) is stored within the mind as memories and the sum of such memories inter-linked to experience is the knowledge possessed by the individual. Thought-movements can be envisaged as a resiliently elastic bouncing ball that constantly knocks, bumps and jounces within this triad. The triad of experience, memory and knowledge itself is constantly measured, equilibrated and modulated via the perception of what-is-all-around-us. Such perceptions themselves arise as a result of phenomena interacting with our sense organs resulting in contact and leading to the representational sensation of what-is-all-around-us. One should understand that even if all of the above is described in a relational manner and can mistakenly be construed as a cause and effect, the relational alliances between perception, contact and sensation and its subsequent feeding of such perceptional output to the triad of experience, memory and knowledge is co-dependent upon an ultimately indefinite range of causes and conditions and is accordingly a function neither of the subject (like an experiencer of perceptions like Janaka) nor of the world alone. Thus, Janaka sees that his self, his conceptual worlds like heaven, hell, enslavement, emancipation and his resultant thought-movements can be understood profoundly if he starts to see them not as autonomous entities that exist and prevail apart from each other (and only subsequently come together), but, in a certain degree, as expressions of intermittent arrangements of interaction that contemporaneously arise. He joyously proclaims thus within these beautiful verses.

AVG 2.19

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 19 

सशरीरमिदं विश्वं न किंचिदिति निश्चितम् ।

शुद्धचिन्मात्र आत्मा च तत्कस्मिन् कल्पनाधुना ॥ २-१९॥

PURPORT:

I have known, for certain, that this universe,

along with this body, is unalloyed emptiness.

I am that unconditioned, non-dual essence of awareness;

now therefore, why would I hypothesize the presence

of something, when it is really nothing?

TRANSLITERATION:

सशरीरम् इदम् विश्वम् न किञ्चित् इति निश्चितम् ।

saśarīram idam viśvam na kiñcit iti niścitam ।

शुद्धचिन्मात्रः आत्मा च तत् कस्मिन् कल्पना अधुना ॥ २-१९॥

śuddhacinmātraḥ ātmā ca tat kasmin kalpanā adhunā ॥ 2-19॥

MEANING:

saśarīram (सशरीरम्) = along with the body

idam (इदम्) = this

viśvam (विश्वम्) = universe

na (न) = not

kiñcit (किञ्चित्) = something/some bit/a little bit

iti (इति) = this (as in ‘this’ understood by me)

niścitam (निश्चितम्) = determined/ascertained/known for certain ।

śuddhacinmātraḥ (शुद्धचिन्मात्रः) = pure and unconditional non-dual essence of awareness (compound of śuddha (शुद्ध) meaning unqualified/absolute/pure and cinmātraḥ (चिन्मात्रः) meaning just that specific indivisible non-dual essence; can also be taken to mean just that indivisible moiety of pure awareness)

ātmā (आत्मा) = innate nature/self

ca (च) = and

tat (तत्) = therefore/so

kasmin (कस्मिन्) = upon which/in what

kalpanā (कल्पना) = idea/concept/hypothesis/imagination

adhunā (अधुना) = at present/at this time/now ॥ 2-19॥

COMMENTS:

From my reading and understanding of these lines, the critical message that Janaka passes on to us here is the concept of the original mind. A state of mind as if it were empty of concepts and devoid of conceptual clutter as one would envisage a clean stretch of a sandy beach before the summer crowds arrive. Let me explain a tiny bit more to expand this idea using the metaphor of the beach itself. The original mind is always in equilibrium with the body - taking care of the primary functions in an unsullied manner; firstly homeostasis - ensuring the continued survival of the sentient being moment to moment and secondly, transmission of genetic material to ensure generational persistence of the sentient being itself. This is accomplished in relative equilibrium with the rest of the beings with whom we share this universe. The waves that wash upon such a beach as this is akin to the slow gradual changes that are temporally perpetuated and punctuated by the natural adjustments and transitions inherent in the shifting dynamics towards various equilibria within the universe.

Now, think of the summer crowds arriving at such a beach and covering the beach with billboards, letters, numbers, signs and other paraphernalia derived from common parlance – jargon and lingo that we have advanced as a culture over millennia. Such is the nature of intellect and learning upon the original mind. Intellect and conditioned learning as a tumbling mélange of clutter and chaos upon the minds blank slate ensuring the steady and incessant supply of emergent thoughts to keep us occupied, distracted and engrossed – the same way that graffiti, doodles, scribbles and associated signage work at the beach. The beach thus is no longer that clean, sandy stretch, but, is now defined, appropriated and cordoned off using the subjective specifications that idiosyncratic summer crowds instinctively impose using a group-herd mentality.

Now imagine that the same set of people visiting the stretch of beach overlay their subjective interactions mentioned above with their own partisan opinions, biased judgements, tendentious fears, partial prejudices and irrational choices. Add to this the tendency within our species to impose these subjective ethics and morals by the majority-in-numbers upon the beach and people at the beach. I would compare the set of opinions, judgements, fears, prejudices and choices brought into the beach as analogous to the garbage and trash that is leftover daily at the beach at the end of a summer day if the beach is left uncleaned.

If left untended, the rubbish piles will grow into evermore greater quantities as the summer season progresses. Our culturally defined identities are similar to a neglected beach at the end of the summer season, piled sky high with the detritus of culture that includes names, shapes, forms, practices, religions, cults, gods, goddesses and other similar cultural rubble cluttering the otherwise empty and pristine nature of our minds.

Janaka, on understanding the truer nature of being as well as reality remarks that he starts to see and understand that his true unconditioned, non-dual essence of awareness is similar to the pristine beach. On seeing thus, Janaka asks “now therefore, why would I hypothesize the presence of something, when it is really nothing”?

AVG 2.18

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 18
न मे बन्धोऽस्ति मोक्षो वा भ्रान्तिः शान्तानिराश्रया  ।
अहो मयि स्थितं विश्वं वस्तुतो न मयि स्थितम् ॥ २-१८॥

PURPORT:
I am neither emancipated nor bound.
Illusions such as being fettered thus
are unsupported in my calm tranquility.
Aha, the universe abides within me,
or, as a matter of fact, it does not
abide within me at all.

TRANSLITERATION:
न मे बन्धः अस्ति मोक्षः वा भ्रान्तिः शान्ता निराश्रया ।
na me bandhaḥ asti mokṣaḥ vā bhrāntiḥ śāntā nirāśrayā ।
अहो मयि स्थितम् विश्वम् वस्तुतः न मयि स्थितम् ॥ २-१८॥
aho mayi sthitam viśvam vastutaḥ na mayi sthitam ॥ 2-18॥

MEANING:
na (न) = not
me (मे) = mine/my
bandhaḥ (बन्धः) = bondage/fettered
asti (अस्ति) = is
mokṣaḥ (मोक्षः) = liberation/deliverance/emancipation
vā (वा) = or (as nor)
bhrāntiḥ (भ्रान्तिः) = false opinion/perplexity/confusion
śāntā (शान्ता) = has achieved tranquility/has ceased/abated
nirāśrayā (निराश्रया) =  having or offering no prop or stay/unsupported।
aho (अहो)  = astonished! [as an exclamation of being pleasantly surprised at himself]
mayi (मयि) = in me/within me
sthitam (स्थितम्) = being/existing/abiding in
viśvam (विश्वम्) = universe
vastutaḥ (वस्तुतः) = de facto/in reality/as a matter of fact/essentially/verily
na (न) = not
mayi (मयि) = in me
sthitam (स्थितम्) = being/existing/abiding in ॥ 2-18॥

COMMENT:
This is another beautiful verse, albeit, a bit of a repetition in terms of the insights offered. Janaka's refrain remains the same and the theme is that of a seeker understanding and cognizing a deeper aspect of reality and in-turn their own selves. The import of this verse boils down into four key insights: firstly, Janaka's understanding that his own self is a constructed model within his mind that, if  left unchecked, morphs into an all-encompassing ego and thus stultifies the underlying clarity of being; secondly, his clearer understanding concerning the nature of conventional reality allows for Janaka to participate, partake and accomplish actions, duties and responsibilities pertinent to his being while simultaneously understanding that conventional reality is bereft of any fundamental inherent permanence, thirdly, understanding that the demeanor we bring to bear on the world via our interactions (both inwardly focused as well as externally directed) are purely a reflection of our societal conditioning and such conditioning in most cases masks ones natural being and finally, the fact that Janaka understands that the causal conditions for confusion, illusion, fears and other ills that ails our minds are a result of the autonomous thought generation that constantly churns within our minds - he who learns to harness, control and volitionally suppress such mind fluctuations is the one who achieves a more harmonious clarity of being.

AVG 2.17

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 17
बोधमात्रोऽहमज्ञानाद् उपाधिः कल्पितो मया ।
एवं विमृशतो नित्यं निर्विकल्पे स्थितिर्मम ॥ २-१७॥

PURPORT:
I am amaranthine awareness.
The impediments imposed on myself
emanate from incomprehension
and are of my imagination.
Perpetually deliberating on this,
within knowledge free of differences,
I abide in disciplined steadiness.

TRANSLITERATION:
बोधमात्रः अहम् अज्ञानात् उपाधिः कल्पितः मया ।
bodhamātraḥ aham ajñānāt upādhiḥ kalpitaḥ mayā ।
एवम् विमृशतः नित्यम् निर्विकल्पे स्थितिः मम ॥ २-१७॥
evam vimṛśataḥ nityam nirvikalpe sthitiḥ mama ॥ 2-17॥

MEANING:
bodhamātraḥ (बोधमात्रः) = possessing as much as and no more knowledge/just intelligence
aham (अहम्) = I
ajñānāt (अज्ञानात्) = from incomprehension/from ignorance
upādhiḥ (उपाधिः) = constraint/limitation/impediment
kalpitaḥ (कल्पितः) = fabricated/conceptual/imagined
mayā (मया) = by me ।
evam (एवम्) = in this way
vimṛśataḥ (विमृशतः) =  deliberate/cogitate/meditate/reflect
nityam (नित्यम्) = constantly dwelling in/perpetually involved with
nirvikalpe (निर्विकल्पे) = within knowledge not depending upon or not derived from the senses/within the undifferentiated/in a place free from differences
sthitiḥ (स्थितिः) = sojourn in/steadiness/maintenance of discipline
mama (मम) = my ॥ 2-17॥

COMMENT:
The impediments that emanate from incomprehension that Janaka is talking about in these verses refer to the virtual worlds of experience that are made manifest and updated on a moment-by-moment basis within our consciousnesses. This happens whether we are dreaming (while sleeping) or when we are awake and alert. The only difference being that in the dream state, there are no constraints within the modes of our thoughts – which means that thoughts arising automatically within the mind are also unconstrained in and of themselves and play out in unrestrained flights of fancy that compose our dreams. On the same token, the awake and alert state allows for the incorporation of sensory stimuli that constrict and inhibit our modes of expressions and behavior. While the dream state as well as the waking state are truly two sides of the same coin, we remain unsophisticated realists about the virtual worlds that our minds create not recognizing that the psychic and cerebral constructs created are just that – constructs of the mind.
Evolution over generations and experience garnered during ones formative years have created and refined various mental representations that are integrated harmoniously into our everyday conscious experience that gives us a seamless flow of reality. The integrated model of the world thus constructed allows for the process of perception to see a representation of the world that is stitched together continually via multiple interconnected cognitive processes. The fact that the constructed world is a representation is itself transparent to the very cognitive systems that creates the representation and makes use of the representation. Thus, experiential phenomena can be considered to be fabricated in the sense that we participate in a reality of mentally constructed objects within a virtual world of experience that seem to be logically independent of their cause (the cause being the continuous world-model building and updating that goes on within our minds). Direct objects of experience are mental constructs that repeatedly and continuously materialize from intrinsic causal processes within our minds that we are not even aware of. Janaka closes these beautiful verses by remarking that he aims to reach a place wherein he can abide within disciplined steadiness with knowledge free of differences by continuously reflecting on these truths.

NOTES:
1. Thomas Metzinger in the book The Ego Tunnel writes: "Millions of years ago, nature’s virtual reality achieved what today’s software engineers still strive for: the phenomenal properties of “presence” and “full immersion.” From an engineering point of view, the problems involved in creating successful virtual environments are problems of advanced interface design. A virtual interface is a system of transducers, signal processors, hardware, and software. It creates an interactive medium that conveys information to the user’s senses while constantly monitoring the user’s behavior and employing it to update and manipulate the virtual environment. Conscious experience, too, is an interface, an invisible, perfect internal medium allowing an organism to interact flexibly with itself. It is a control device. It functions by creating an internal user interface—an “as\if” (that is, virtual) reality. It filters information, has a high bandwidth, is unambiguous and reliable, and generates a sense of presence. More important, it also generates a sense of self. The self-model is much like the mouse pointer on the virtual desktop of your PC—or the little red arrow on the subway map that advises “You are here.” It places you at the center of a behavioral space, of your consciously experienced world-model, your inner virtual reality. The Ego is a special part of this virtual reality. By generating an internal image of the organism as a whole, it allows the organism to appropriate its own hardware. It is evolution’s answer to the need for explaining one’s inner and outer actions to oneself, predicting one’s behavior, and monitoring critical system properties. Finally, it allows the system to depict internally the history of its actions as its own history. (Autobiographical memory, of course, is one of the most important layers of the human self-model, enabling us to appropriate our own history, inside-time and outside-time, the Now and the past.) Consciousness gives you flexibility, and global control gives you the Ego. On the level of conscious experience, this process of functionally appropriating one’s hardware—one’s body—in a holistic fashion is mirrored as the sense of global ownership, or minimal selfhood."

2. Matthew Mackenzie in the paper titled The Yogacara theory of three natures: Internalist and non-dualist interpretation (Comparative Philosophy Volume 9, No. 1 (2018): 18-31) writes:
"People who suffer from persistent musical hallucinations often report that the music is experienced as if it were like any other music playing in their environment. It can be experienced as loud or quiet, as nearby or far away, as clear or muffled, and so on. While some people quickly realize that they are experiencing hallucinations, others remain for extended periods under the impression that their auditory experience is veridical. ... the transition process follows three stages. In the ‘deceptive phase’, the music is experienced as externally produced, spatially located, and public. Here the auditory experience is constructed as an external sound event. Eventually, in the ‘transition phase’ the subject realizes that the auditory experience does not correspond to bodily movements in the right way (moving toward or away from the apparent location of the sound does not change its sensory character) or that others can’t hear it, etc. In the final ‘realization phase’, the subject has come to fully recognize the hallucination as a hallucination. What this involves, is a shift in the way the auditory phenomenon is automatically conceptualized. So, while the subject can still describe the various phenomenal features of the auditory phenomena (volume, pitch, timbre, etc.), she no longer takes it to be an objective sound event. It is important to see that, this is not a merely intellectual change. Rather, because our experience involves an integration of sensory and cognitive aspects, a change in how a sensory phenomenon is automatically conceptualized is a change in the overall phenomenal character of the experience. What was transparently experienced as an objective event is now experienced as an internal merely subjective event."

AVG 2.16

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 16

द्वैतमूलमहो दुःखं नान्यत्तस्याऽस्ति भेषजम् ।

दृश्यमेतन्मृषा सर्वं एकोऽहं चिद्रसोऽमलः ॥ २-१६॥

PURPORT:

Oh!, our sense of dichotomy is the root

of all suffering, and, there are no separate 

panaceas for this; other than the realization 

that all discernible phenomena are illusory.

Understanding this, I am now transformed  

into an essence of pure comprehension.

TRANSLITERATION:

द्वैतमूलम् अहो दुःखम् न अन्यतः तस्य अस्ति भेषजम् ।

dvaitamūlam aho duḥkham na anyataḥ tasya asti bheṣajam ।

दृश्यम् एतत्  मृषः सर्वम् एकः अहम् चिद्रसः अमलः ॥ २-१६॥

dṛśyam etat mṛṣaḥ sarvam ekaḥ aham cidrasaḥ amalaḥ ॥ 2-16॥

MEANING:

dvaitamūlam (द्वैतमूलम्) = having duality as the source of (compound of dvaita (द्वैत) meaning duality/dichotomy and mūlam (मूलम्) meaning root/source/basis)

aho (अहो) = astonished! [as an exclamation of being pleasantly surprised at himself]

duḥkham (दुःखम्) =  sorrow/distress/misery/suffering

na (न) = not

anyataḥ (अन्यतः) =  other/separate

tasya (तस्य) = of that (referring to duḥkham (दुःखम्) =  sorrow here)

asti (अस्ति) = is

bheṣajam (भेषजम्) = remedy/cure/antidote/panacea ।

dṛśyam (दृश्यम्) = visible object/palpable entity/discernable phenomena 

etat (एतत्) = this

mṛṣaḥ (मृषः) = false/unreal (as in everything other than awareness is false and unreal)

sarvam (सर्वम्) = all

ekaḥ (एकः) = one

aham (अहम्) = I

cidrasaḥ (चिद्रसः) = essence of awareness (compound of cit (चित्) meaning awareness/comprehension and rasaḥ (रसः) meaning essence/juice/essential basis)

amalaḥ (अमलः) = spotless/stainless/shining/pure ॥ 2-16॥

COMMENT:

The sense of dichotomy or duality referenced by Janaka and implicated as the cause for suffering and confusion stems from the mistaken notion that reality is fundamentally composed of two parts where the composition of the two parts can take various formalisms and formulations depending upon the school of thought that the person identifies with - formalisms of dualisms ranging from mind separate from matter to consciousness separate from corporeal entities to the separation of theistic essences between concepts like 'god' and the world etc. 

While we have strict dualism of this fashion on the one side, there is also the other side that consists of monism - where oneness or a over-arching unity is posited where all existing things go back to a source and strictly speaking there exists only a single thing, the Universe, which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things.

Janaka here is not talking about strict duality nor of strict monism, but, of a path that allows for complementarity - where reality - both material as well as immaterial are fundamentally inter-dependent systems that complement each other, where one part cannot be specified or stipulated without direct (or implicit) reference to the other portion to which the first part is inter-dependently linked. 

In this sense, the complementarity is seen between an existent entity and the causal conditions supporting the entity like a person observing and the object observed, or the emotion of desire and the desirous person or the arising of existent entities and the conditions for such arising or the actor and her action. 

Let us briefly examine the example of fire and fuel to make this a little more clear: Fire and fuel are not mutually separate as per strict dualism nor are they one as per strict monism; if fire and fuel were mutually separate and one can find them as separate entities in nature. But, fire never stands alone in and of itself. Fire exists due to a combustible entity being burned and the combustible entity is designated so as it has the potential to catch fire (or because the fuel is on fire). Fire and fuel are mutually and reciprocally interlinked. One cannot exist without the other and one cannot be designated as such without the presence of the other. One sees only complementarity within manifest reality. Reality boils down to an understanding for Janaka where existents cannot lay claim to having an own-being or independence. Fundamental reality does not consist of single, isolated corporeal or intangible moieties, instead, entities arise only in dependence to and in complement with other things. Understanding this, Janaka says that he is transformed into an essence of pure comprehension. 

NOTES:

From the book Figuring by Maria Popova: "All of it — the rings of Saturn and my father’s wedding band, the underbelly of the clouds pinked by the rising sun, Einstein’s brain bathing in a jar of formaldehyde, every grain of sand that made the glass that made the jar and each idea Einstein ever had, the shepherdess singing in the Rila mountains of my native Bulgaria and each one of her sheep, every hair on Chance’s velveteen dog ears and Marianne Moore’s red braid and the whiskers of Montaigne’s cat, every translucent fingernail on my friend Amanda’s newborn son, every stone with which Virginia Woolf filled her coat pockets before wading into the River Ouse to drown, every copper atom composing the disc that carried arias aboard the first human-made object to enter interstellar space and every oak splinter of the floor-boards onto which Beethoven collapsed in the fit of fury that cost him his hearing, the wetness of every tear that has ever been wept over a grave and the yellow of the beak of every raven that has ever watched the weepers, every cell in Galileo’s fleshy finger and every molecule of gas and dust that made the moons of Jupiter to which it pointed, the Dipper of freckles constellating the olive firmament of a certain forearm I love and every axonal flutter of the tenderness with which I love her, all the facts and figments by which we are perpetually figuring and reconfiguring reality — it all banged into being 13.8 billion years ago from a single source, no louder than the opening note of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, no larger than the dot levitating over the small i, the I lowered from the pedestal of ego.

How can we know this and still succumb to the illusion of separateness, of otherness? This veneer must have been what the confluence of accidents and atoms known as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., saw through when he spoke of our “inescapable network of mutuality,” what Walt Whitman punctured when he wrote that “every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”

One autumn morning, as I read a dead poet’s letters in my friend Wendy’s backyard in San Francisco, I glimpse a fragment of that atomic mutuality. Midsentence, my peripheral vision — that glory of instinct honed by millennia of evolution — pulls me toward a miraculous sight: a small, shimmering red leaf twirling in midair. It seems for a moment to be dancing its final descent. But no — it remains suspended there, six feet above ground, orbiting an invisible center by an invisible force. For an instant I can see how such imperceptible causalities could drive the human mind to superstition, could impel medieval villagers to seek explanation in magic and witchcraft. But then I step closer and notice a fine spider’s web glistening in the air above the leaf, conspiring with gravity in this spinning miracle.

Neither the spider has planned for the leaf nor the leaf for the spider — and yet there they are, an accidental pendulum propelled by the same forces that cradle the moons of Jupiter in orbit, animated into this ephemeral early-morning splendor by eternal cosmic laws impervious to beauty and indifferent to meaning, yet replete with both to the bewildered human consciousness beholding it.

We spend our lives trying to discern where we end and the rest of the world begins. We snatch our freeze-frame of life from the simultaneity of existence by holding on to illusions of permanence, congruence, and linearity; of static selves and lives that unfold in sensical narratives. All the while, we mistake chance for choice, our labels and models of things for the things themselves, our records for our history. History is not what happened, but what survives the shipwrecks of judgment and chance.

Some truths, like beauty, are best illuminated by the sidewise gleam of figuring, of meaning-making. In the course of our figuring, orbits intersect, often unbeknownst to the bodies they carry — intersections mappable only from the distance of decades or centuries. Facts crosshatch with other facts to shade in the nuances of a larger truth — not relativism, no, but the mightiest realism we have. We slice through the simultaneity by being everything at once: our first names and our last names, our loneliness and our society, our bold ambition and our blind hope, our unrequited and part-requited loves. Lives are lived in parallel and perpendicular, fathomed nonlinearly, figured not in the straight graphs of “biography” but in many-sided, many-splendored diagrams. Lives interweave with other lives, and out of the tapestry arise hints at answers to questions that raze to the bone of life: What are the building blocks of character, of contentment, of lasting achievement? How does a person come into self-possession and sovereignty of mind against the tide of convention and unreasoning collectivism? Does genius suffice for happiness, does distinction, does love? Two Nobel Prizes don’t seem to recompense the melancholy radiating from every photograph of the woman in the black laboratory dress. Is success a guarantee of fulfillment, or merely a promise as precarious as a marital vow? How, in this blink of existence bookended by nothingness, do we attain completeness of being?

There are infinitely many kinds of beautiful lives.

So much of the beauty, so much of what propels our pursuit of truth, stems from the invisible connections — between ideas, between disciplines, between the denizens of a particular time and a particular place, between the interior world of each pioneer and the mark they leave on the cave walls of culture, between faint figures who pass each other in the nocturne before the torchlight of a revolution lights the new day, with little more than a half-nod of kinship and a match to change hands."

AVG 2.15

Chapter 2 (The Seekers Joy at Self-Cognizance): Verse 15
ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं तथा ज्ञाता त्रितयं नास्ति वास्तवम् ।
अज्ञानाद्भाति यत्रेदं सोऽहमस्मि निरञ्जनः ॥ २-१५॥

PURPORT:
Knowledge, the knower and the knowable,
this set of three, in reality, do not exist.
I am that unsullied being, in which this triad
manifests through distracted ignorance.

TRANSLITERATION:
ज्ञानम् ज्ञेयम् तथा ज्ञाता त्रितयम् न अस्ति वास्तवम् ।
jñānam jñeyam tathā jñātā tritayam na asti vāstavam ।
अज्ञानात् भाति यत्र इदम् सः अहम् अस्मि निरञ्जनः ॥ २-१५॥
ajñānāt bhāti yatra idam saḥ aham asmi nirañjanaḥ ॥ 2-15॥

MEANING:
jñānam (ज्ञानम्) = knowledge/intelligence/expertise
jñeyam (ज्ञेयम्) = knowable/intelligibleness/that which can be learned or ascertained or perceived
tathā (तथा) = as well as
jñātā (ज्ञाता) = knower/perceiver/the one who knows
tritayam (त्रितयम्) = triad/troika/set of three/triplet
na (न) = not
asti (अस्ति) = is
vāstavam (वास्तवम्) = in reality/in truth/genuine ।ajñānāt (अज्ञानात्) = from ignorance/from inexperience/through incomprehension
bhāti (भाति) = appears/to pass for/to manifest in a mistaken manner
yatra (यत्र) = where
idam (इदम्) = this ('this' as in the troika of knowledge, knowable and the knower)
saḥ (सः) = that
aham (अहम्) = I
asmi (अस्मि) = am
nirañjanaḥ (निरञ्जनः) = pure/spotless/unsullied/immaculate॥ 2-15॥

COMMENT:
From an epistemological* perspective, our perceived reality consists of three aspects, the knowledge itself (the object), the one know knows (the subject) and the realm of the knowable (the object arena perceived by the subject). In our conditioned reality handed down to us through education, stored memories, past experiences and societal interactions, we routinely recognize ourselves to be the knower (the subject or the one who knows). The accumulation of knowledge and our subjective understanding of such knowledge ultimately results in the formulation of a self-model always based upon this recognition as the knower (a self-model that considers itself alien and separate from our surroundings).
While on the subject of knowledge and the knower, a relevant little digression is helpful: it might be useful to quickly differentiate between the structure (the brain), the process (the mind) and consciousness (the emergent self-model within the structure as a result of the process). Brain is the physical structure. A dependent biological emergence from neurons, chemical complexes and electric potentials. Mind is the process - a dependent process emergent from the underlying structure - an amalgam of emotions, thoughts, experiences and memories modulated by emotions and other sensory stimuli. Consciousness is the emergent phenomena whose intimate and ultimate manifestation results in the development of a self-model in humans. Each of these three components are present in every sentient being, the degrees differ (while the structure itself might be there, the mind and the consciousness emerge in limited quantities within sentients other than humans).
One of the ways by which consciousness manifests itself is via the ever-constant and incessant, though automatic, arising of thoughts within our mind. As an example, let us consider the arising of a psychological sensation within our consciousness - say the feeling of hatred (the arising of the feeling of hatred itself is dependent upon multiple underlying inter-connected causal conditions that variously depend upon sensory stimuli, predispositions, conditioning, predilections and memories). In response to this psychological sensation, thoughts within us would autonomously assemble unremitting mental variations such as "This is hatred," or "I feel hatred," or "I am hatred." The very first thought variation announces a separation from the phenomenological sensation of hatred and produces a deluded feeling that there is an observer. Hatred as a separate sensation from the observer of the phenomenon of the sensation. The second thought variation alludes to the fact that there is a separate self endowed with appropriate qualities, characteristics and virtues; a self onto which the attribute of 'hatred' was just manifested and projected. The self thus is seen as experiencing the characteristic of hatred. If 'hatred' goes away, the self still remains - or so, it is inferred - leading to the separation of the self from the characteristic. The third thought variation identifies the self as one and the same with the attribute of 'hatred' at-that-moment. The separation and duality experienced in the third variation is subtle - as the self infers that at-this-moment, the self is synonymous with hatred, but there-are-other-moments where there are other attributes like love, hate or anger that the self can potentially be correlated with - leading to the feeling of separation of the self with those other attributes. All of the three variations of thought presented above inherently affirm their dualistic, albeit alienating nature where the self is separate - in the first case, the knower is separate from the knowledge; in the second case, the knower is separate from a property of knowledge and in the third, the knower is separate from any other attributes other than the one the knower is experiencing. In all of these three cases, there is a separation and the creation of a sense of self separate from the knowledge within the knowable. In these beautiful lines, Janaka makes clear that he understands that there is no separation between the knowledge, the realm of the knowable and the supposed self (the knower) perceiving the knowable. Janaka understands that the separation arises out of a sense of illusory immersion within the world of thoughts that spring up from the mental processes - mental processes that are hallucinatory at best and pernicious at worst. Janaka also realizes that the self only reinforces its sense of permanence within these thoughts created out of the notions, biases, impressions and perceptions propagating within the mental processes. Thus, he joyously proclaims that the triad; of knowledge, the knower and the knowable, in reality, does not exist and he is just a being onto which this triad manifests only through distracted ignorance.

*Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?" Example: In mathematics, it is known that 2 + 2 = 4, but there is also knowing how to add two numbers, and knowing a person (e.g., knowing other persons, or knowing oneself), place (e.g., one's hometown), thing (e.g., cars), or activity (e.g., addition). Some philosophers think there is an important distinction between "knowing that" (know a concept), "knowing how" (understand an operation), and "acquaintance-knowledge" (know by relation), with epistemology being primarily concerned with the first of these.
Via James, William, The Principles of Psychology: Volume One, Henry Holt and Company, (New York), 1890: "I am acquainted with many people and things, which I know very little about, except their presence in the places where I have met them. I know the color blue when I see it, and the flavor of a pear when I taste it; I know an inch when I move my finger through it; a second of time, when I feel it pass; an effort of attention when I make it; a difference between two things when I notice it; but about the inner nature of these facts or what makes them what they are, I can say nothing at all. I cannot impart acquaintance with them to any one who has not already made it himself I cannot describe them, make a blind man guess what blue is like, define to a child a syllogism, or tell a philosopher in just what respect distance is just what it is, and differs from other forms of relation. At most, I can say to my friends, Go to certain places and act in certain ways, and these objects will probably come."

NOTES:

"The three: subject / perceiver, action / perception, object / perceived world cannot exist independently of each other, inherently, and meet once in a while. They are inseparable / interdependent / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / non-dual ... <==> thus empty of inherent existence. Empty but still dependent on their causes and conditions and relatively functional." - Gilles Therrien