This ajnana rests on the pure _cit_ or intelligence. This cit or Brahman is of the nature of pure illumination, but yet it is not opposed to the ajnana or the indefinite. The cit becomes opposed to the ajnana and destroys it only when it is reflected through the mental states (_v@rtti_). The ajnana thus rests on the pure cit and not on the cit as associated with such illusory impositions as go to produce the notion of ego "_aham_" or the individual soul. Vacaspati Mis'ra however holds that the ajnana does not rest on the pure cit but on the jiva (individual soul). Madhava reconciles this view of Vacaspati with the above view, and says that the ajnana may be regarded as resting on the jiva or individual soul from this point of view that the obstruction of the pure cit is with reference to the jiva (_Cinmatras'ritam ajnanam jivapak@sapatitvat jivas'ritam ucyate_ Vivara@naprameya, p. 48). The feeling "I do not know" seems however to indicate that the ajnana is with reference to the perceiving self in association with its feeling as ego or "I"; but this is not so; such an appearance however is caused on account of the close association of ajnana with anta@hkara@na (mind) both of which are in essence the same (see Vivara@naprarneyasa@mgraha, p. 48).
The ajnana however does not only rest on the cit, but it has the cit as its visaya or object too, i.e. its manifestations are with reference to the self-luminous cit. The self-luminous cit is thus the entity on which the veiling action of the ajnana is noticed; the veiling action is manifested not by destroying the self-luminous character, nor by stopping a future course of luminous career on the part of the cit, nor by stopping its relations with the vi@saya, but by causing such an appearance that the self-luminous cit seems so to behave that we seem to think that it is not or it does not shine (_nasti na prakas'ate iti vyavahara@h_) or rather there is no appearance of its shining or luminosity. To say that Brahman is hidden by the ajnana means nothing more than this, that it is such {_tadyogyata_) that the ajnana can so relate itself with it that it appears to be hidden as in the state of deep sleep and other states of ajnana-consciousness in experience. Ajnana is thus considered to have both its locus and object in the pure cit. It is opposed to the states of consciousness, for these at once dispel it. The action of this ajn@ana is thus on the light of the reality which it obstructs for us, so long as the obstruction is not dissolved by the states of consciousness. This obstruction of the cit is not only with regard to its character as pure limitless consciousness but also with regard to its character as pure and infinite bliss; so it is that though we do not experience the indefinite in our pleasurable feelings, yet its presence as obstructing the pure cit is indicated by the fact that the full infinite bliss constituting the essence of Brahman is obstructed; and as a result of that there is only an incomplete manifestation of the bliss in our phenomenal experiences of pleasure. The ajnana is one, but it seems to obstruct the pure cit in various aspects or modes, with regard to which it may be said that the ajnana has many states as constituting the individual experiences of the indefinite with reference to the diverse individual objects of experience. These states of ajnana are technically called tulajnana or avasthajnana. Any state of consciousness (v@rttijnana) removes a manifestation of the ajnana as tulajnana and reveals itself as the knowledge of an object.
The most important action of this ajnana as obstructing the pure cit, and as creating an illusory phenomenon is demonstrated in the notion of the ego or aha@mkara. This notion of aha@mkara is a union of the true self, the pure consciousness and other associations, such as the body, the continued past experiences, etc.; it is the self-luminous characterless Brahman that is found obstructed in the notion of the ego as the repository of a thousand limitations, characters, and associations. This illusory creation of the notion of the ego runs on from beginningless time, each set of previous false impositions determining the succeeding set of impositions and so on. This blending of the unreal associations held up in the mind (_anta@hkara@na_) with the real, the false with the true, that is at the root of illusion. It is the anta@hkara@na taken as the self-luminous self that reflects itself in the cit as the notion of the ego. Just as when we say that the iron ball (red hot) burns, there are two entities of the ball and the fire fused into one, so, here also when I say "I perceive", there are two distinct elements of the self, as consciousness and the mind or antahkarana fused into one. The part or aspect associated with sorrow, materiality, and changefulness represents the anta@hkara@na, whereas that which appears as the unchangeable perceiving consciousness is the self. Thus the notion of ego contains two parts, one real and other unreal.
We remember that this is distinctly that which Prabhakara sought to repudiate. Prabhakara did not consider the self to be self-luminous, and held that such is the threefold nature of thought (_tripu@ti_), that it at once reveals the knowledge, the object of knowledge, and the self. He further said, that the analogy of the red-hot iron ball did not hold, for the iron ball and the fire are separately experienced, but the self and the anta@hkara@na are never separately experienced, and we can never say that these two are really different, and only have an illusory appearance of a seeming unity. Perception (_anubhava_) is like a light which illuminates both the object and the self, and like it does not require the assistance of anything else for the fulfilment of its purpose. But the Vedanta objects to this saying that according to Prabhakara's supposition, it is impossible to discover any relation between the self and the knowledge. If knowledge can be regarded as revealing itself, the self may as well be held to be self-luminous; the self and the knowledge are indeed one and the same. Kumarila thinks this thought (_anubhava_), to be a movement, Nyaya and Prabhakara as a quality of the self [Footnote ref 584]. But if it was a movement like other movements, it could not affect itself as illumination. If it were a substance and atomic in size, it would only manifest a small portion of a thing, if all pervasive, then it would illuminate everything, if of medium size, it would depend on its parts for its ownconstitution and not on the self. If it is regarded as a quality of the self as the light is of the lamp, then also it has necessarily to be supposed that it was produced by the self, for from what else could it be produced? Thus it is to be admitted that the self, the atman, is the self-luminous entity. No one doubts any of his knowledge, whether it is he who sees or anybody else. The self is thus the same as vijnana, the pure consciousness, which is always of itself self-luminous [Footnote ref 585].
Again, though consciousness is continuous in all stages, waking or sleeping, yet aha@mkara is absent during deep sleep. It is true that on waking from deep sleep one feels "I slept happily and did not know anything"; yet what happens is this, that during deep sleep the anta@hkara@na and the aha@mkara are altogether submerged in the ajnana, and there are only the ajnana and the self; on waking, this aha@mkara as a state of anta@hkar@na is again generated, and then it associates the perception of the ajnana in the sleep and originates the perception "I did not know anything." This aha@mkara which is a mode (_v@rtti_) of the anta@hkara@na is thus constituted by avidya, and is manifested as jnanas'akti (power of knowledge) and kriyas'akti (power of work). This kriyas'akti of the aha@mkara is illusorily imposed upon the self, and as a result of that the self appears to be an active agent in knowing and willing. The aha@mkara itself is regarded, as we have already seen, as a mode or v@rtti of the anta@hkara@na, and as such the aha@mkara of a past period can now be associated; but even then the v@rtti of anta@hkara@na, aha@mkara, may be regarded as only the active side or aspect of the anta@hkara@na. The same anta@hkara@na is called manas in its capacity as doubt buddhi in its capacity as achieving certainty of knowledge, and citta in its capacity as remembering [Footnote ref 586]. When the pure cit shines forth in association with this anta@hkara@na, it is called a jiva. It is clear from the above account that the ajnana is not a mere nothing, but is the principle of the phenomena. But it cannot stand alone, without the principle of the real to support it (_as'raya_); its own nature as the ajnana or indefinite is perceived directly by the pure consciousness; its movements as originating the phenomena remain indefinite in themselves, the real as underlyingthese phenomenal movements can only manifest itself through these which hide it, when corresponding states arise in the anta@hkara@na, and the light of the real shines forth through these states. The anta@hkara@na of which aha@mkara is a moment, is itself a beginningless system of ajnana-phenomena containing within it the associations and impressions of past phenomena as merit, demerit, instincts, etc. from a beginningless time when the jiva or individual soul began his career.