UPADESHA SAHASRI
Part 1 (Prose)
tr. by Ken Knight
Back Home.
-
CHAPTER I
A METHOD OF ENLIGHTENING (Teaching) THE DISCIPLE
1. We shall now explain a method of teaching the means
to liberation for the benefit of those aspirants who
deeply desire liberation, who have asked for this
teaching and are possessed of faith (in it).
2. That means to liberation, Knowledge, should be
explained again and again until it is firmly grasped,
to a pure Brahmana disciple, ( Alston notes:this
should not be interpreted in a purely caste sense. At
BS comm.. 3.4.38 Sankara quotes Manu SmR^iti 2.87
'Whoever practices universal benelovence and
friendliness is a brahmana ), who is indifferent to
everything that is transitory and achievable through
certain means, who has given up the desire for a son,
for wealth, and for this world' and the next, (Br.U.
1.5.16) who has adopted the life of a wandering monk
and is endowed with control over the mind and senses,
with compassion etc., as well as with the qualities of
a disciple well-known in the scriptures, and who has
approached the teacher in the prescribed manner, and
has been examined in respect of his caste, profession,
conduct, learning and parentage.
3. The Shruti (Mu.U 1.2.12,13) also says, "A Brahmana
after examining those worlds which are the result of
Vedic actions should be indifferent to them seeing
that nothing eternal can be achieved by means of those
actions. Then, with fuel in his hands he should
approach a teacher versed in the Vedas and established
in Brahman in order to know the Eternal. The learned
teacher should correctly explain to that disciple who
has self-control and a tranquil mind, and has
approached him in the prescribed manner, the knowledge
of Brahman revealing the imperishable and the eternal
Being." For only when knowledge is firmly grasped, it
conduces to one's own good and is capable of
transmission. This transmission of knowledge is
helpful to people, like a boat to one who wants to
cross a river. The scriptures too say, "Although one
may give to the teacher this world surrounded by
oceans and full of riches, this knowledge is even
greater than that." Otherwise (if it were not taught
by a teacher) there would be no attainment of
knowledge. For the srutis say, "A man (Chh.U. 6.14.2)
having a teacher can know Brahman," "Knowledge
(ChhU.4.9.3) received from a teacher alone (becomes
perfect)," "The teacher is the pilot," "Right
Knowledge is called in this world a raft,"
(Mahabharata 12.313.23)etc. The smR^iti (Bh.G. 4.34)
also says, "Know this through long prostration,
through enquiry and through service, those men of
wisdom who have realized the truth," will be impart it
to you.
4. When the teacher finds from signs that knowledge
has not been grasped (or has been wrongly grasped) by
the disciple he should remove the causes of
non-comprehension which are: failure to observe the
spiritual law, (dharma), carelessness with regard to
worldly activities, want of previous firm knowledge of
what constitutes the subjects of discrimination
between the eternal and the non-eternal, courting
popular esteem, vanity of caste etc., and so on,
through means contrary to those causes, enjoined by
the Shruti and smR^iti, viz., avoidance of anger etc.,
and the vows (yama: harmlessness, truthfulness,
non-stealing, continence and non-acceptance of gifts)
also the rules of conduct that are not inconsistent
with knowledge.
5. He should also thoroughly impress upon the
disciple qualities like humility, which are the means
to knowledge.
6. What is the nature of the teacher. The teacher
is one who is endowed with the power of furnishing
arguments pro and con, of understanding questions and
remembering them, who possesses tranquillity,
self-control, compassion and a desire to help others,
who is versed (through the tradition handed down) in
the scriptures and unattached to enjoyments both seen
and unseen,who has renounced the means to all kinds of
actions (ritualistic etc.), who is a knower of Brahman
(brahmavit) and is established in it, who is never a
transgressor of the rules of conduct, and who is
devoid of shortcomings such as ostentation, pride,
deceit, cunning, jugglery, jealousy, falsehood,
egotism and attachment. He has the sole aim of helping
others and a desire to impart the knowledge of Brahman
only. He should first of all teach the Shruti texts
establishing the oneness of the self with Brahman such
as, "My child, in the beginning it (the universe) was
Existence only, one alone without a second,"ChhU
6.2.1) "Where one sees nothing else" ChhU 7.24.1. "
All this is but the Self," (ChhU 7.25.2) " In the
beginning all this was but the one Self"(ChhU
Ai.U.1.1.1) and "All this is verily Brahman." (ChhU.
3.14.1)
7, 8. After teaching these he should teach the
definition of Brahman through such Shruti texts as
"The self, devoid of sins," (ChhU 8.7.1) "The Brahman
that is immediate and direct,"(BrU 3.4.1) "That which
is beyond hunger and thirst," (BrU3.5.1) "Not-this,
not-this," BrU 2.3.6) " Neither gross nor subtle,"
(BrU 3.8.8) " This Self is not- this," (BrU3.9.26) "
It is the Seer Itself unseen,"( BrU 3.8.11) "
Knowledge-Bliss,"(BrU 3.9.27ff)
"Existence-Knowledge-Infinite," (Tai.U. 2.1)
"Imperceptible, bodiless,"(Tai.U. 2.7) "That great
unborn Self," (BrU 4.4.22) " Without the vital force
and the mind," (Mu.U 2.1.2) "Unborn, comprising the
interior and exterior," ((MuU2.1.2) " Consisting of
knowledge only," (BrU 2.4.12) " Without interior or
exterior,"(BrU2.5.19) "It is verily beyond what is
known as also what is unknown" (Ke.U. 1.3) and "Called
AkASha (the self-effulgent One) " (ChhU 8.14.1) and
also through such smR^iti texts. as the following: "It
is neither born nor dies," (BhG 2.20) " It is not
affected by anybody's sins,," (BhG 5.15) "Just as air
is always in. the ether," (BhG. 9.6) "The individual
Self should be regarded as the universal one," (BhG
13.2) "It is called neither existent nor nonexistent,"
(BhG BhG 13.12) "As the Self is beginningless and
devoid of qualities,"(BhG 13.31) "The same in all
beings" (BhG 13.27) and "The Supreme Being is
different" (BhG 15.17)-all these support the
definition given by the Shruti and prove that the
innermost Self is beyond transmigratory existence and
that it is not different from Brahman, the
all-comprehensive principle.
9. The disciple who has thus learnt the definition
of the inner Self from the Shruti and the smR^iti and
is eager to cross the ocean of transmigratory
existence is asked, "Who are you, my child?"
10, 11. If he says, "I am the son of a Brahmana
belonging to such and such a lineage; I was a student
or a householder, and am now a wandering monk anxious
to cross the ocean of transmigratory existence
infested with the terrible sharks of birth and death,"
the teacher should say, "My child, how do you desire
to go beyond transmigratory existence as your body
will be eaten up by birds or will turn into earth even
here when you die? For, burnt to ashes on this side of
the river, you cannot cross to the other side."
12, 13. If he says, "I am different from the body. The
body is born and it dies; it is eaten up by birds, is
destroyed by weapons, fire etc., and suffers from
diseases and the like. I have entered it, like a bird
its nest, on account of merit and demerit accruing
from acts done by myself, and like a bird going to
another nest when the previous one is destroyed I
shall enter into different bodies again and again as a
result of merits and demerits when the present body is
gone. Thus in this beginningless world on account of
my own actions I have been giving up successive bodies
assumed among gods, men, animals and the denizens of
hell and assuming ever new ones. I have in this way
been made to go round and round in the cycle of
endless births and deaths, as in a Persian wheel by my
past actions, and having in the course of time
obtained the present body I have got tired of this
going round and round in the wheel of transmigration,
I have come to you, Sir, to put an end to this
rotation. I am, therefore, always different from the
body. It is bodies that come and go, like clothes on a
person." The teacher would reply,"You have spoken
well, you see aright. Why then did you wrongly say,' I
am the son of a Brahmana belonging to such and such a
lineage; I was a student or a householder, and am now
a wandering monk'?"
14, 15. If the disciple says, "How did I speak
wrongly, Sir?," the teacher would reply, "Because by
your statement, 'I am the son of a Brahmana belonging
to such and such a lineage etc.' you identified with
the Self devoid of birth, lineage and purificatory
ceremonies, the body possessed of them that are
different' (from the Self)."
16, 17. If he asks, "How is the body possessed of the
diversities of birth, lineage and purificatory
ceremonies. (different from the Self) and how am I
devoid of them?" The teacher would say, "Listen, my
child, how this body is. different from you and is
possessed of birth, lineage and sanctifying ceremonies
and how you are free from these." Speaking thus he
will remind the disciple saying, "You. should
remember, my child, you have been told about the
innermost Self which is the Self of all, with its
characteristics. as described by the Shruti such as
'This was existence, my child' (ChhU. 6.2.1) etc., as
also the smR^iti, and you should remember these
characteristics also."
18. The teacher should say to the disciple who has
remembered the definition of the Self, "That which is
called akaSha (the self-effulgent one) which is
distinct from name and form, bodiless, and defined as
not gross etc., and as free from sins and so on, which
is untouched by all transmigratory conditions, 'The
Brahman that is immediate and direct,' (Br.U. 3.4.1)
'The innermost Self,' (Br.U.3.4.1)'The unseen seer,
the unheard listener, the unthought thinker, the
unknown knower, which is of the nature of eternal
knowledge, without interior or exterior, consisting
only of knowledge, all-pervading like the ether and of
infinite power-that Self of all, devoid. of hunger
etc., as also of appearance and disappearance, is,. by
virtue of Its inscrutable power, the cause of the
manifestation of unmanifested name and form which
abide in the Self through Its very presence, but are
different from It, which are the seed of the universe,
are describable neither as identical with It nor
different from It, and are cognized by It alone.
19. "That name and form though originally,
unmanifested, took the name and form of ether as they
were manifested from that Self. This element called
the ether thus arose out of the supreme Self, like the
dirt called foam coming out of transparent water. Foam
is neither water nor absolutely 'different from it.
For it is never seen apart from water. But water is
clear, and different from the foam which is of the
nature of dirt. Similarly, the Supreme Self, which is
pure and transparent, is different from name and form,
which stand for foam. These-corresponding to the
foam-having originally been unmanifest, took the name
and form of the ether as they were manifested.
20. "Name and form, as they became still grosser in
the course of manifestation, assumed the form of air.
From that again they became fire, from that water, and
thence earth. In this order the preceding elements
penetrated the succeeding ones, and the five gross
elements ending 'with earth came into existence.
Earth, therefore, possesses the qualities of all the
five gross elements. From earth, .compounded of all
five great elements, herbs such as paddy and barley
are produced. From these, after they are eaten, are
formed blood and the seed of women and men
respectively. These two ingredients drawn out, as by a
churning rod, by lust springing from ignorance, and
sanctified by mantras are placed in the womb at the
proper time. Through the infiltration of the
sustaining fluids of the mother's. body, it develops
into an embryo and is delivered at the ninth or tenth
month.
21. "It is born, or is possessed of a form and a name'
and is purified by means of mantras relating to natal
and other ceremonies. Sanctified again by the ceremony
of' investiture with the holy thread, it gets the
appellation of' a student. The same body is designated
a house-holder when it undergoes the sacrament of
being joined to a wife. That again is called a recluse
when it undergoes the ceremonies pertaining to
retirement into the forest. And it becomes known as a
wandering monk when it performs the ceremonies leading
to the renunciation of all activities. Thus the body
which has birth, lineage and purificatory ceremonies
different (from the Self) is different from you.
22. "That the mind and the senses are also of the
nature of name and form is known from the Shruti,'The
mind, my child, consists of food.' (Chh.U.6.5.4,6)
23. "You said, 'How am I devoid of birth, lineage and
sanctifying ceremonies which are different (from the
Self)?' Listen. The same one who is the cause of the
manifestation of name and form, whose nature is
different from that of name and form, and who is
devoid of all connection with sanctifying ceremonies,
evolved name and form, created this body and entered
into it (which is but name and form)- who is Himself
the unseen Seer, the unheard Listener, the unthought
Thinker, the unknown Knower as stated in the Shruti
text, '(I know) who creates names and forms and
remains speaking.' (T.A. 3.12.7) There are thousands
of Shruti texts conveying the same meaning; for
instance, 'He created and entered into it,'
(Tai.U.2.6) 'Entering into them He rules all
creatures.' (T.A. 3.11.1,2) 'He, the Self, has
entered into these bodies,'(Br.U.1.4.7) 'This is your
Self.' (Br.U. 3.4.1)' Opening this very suture of the
skull He got in by that door,'(Ai.U.1.3.12) 'This Self
is concealed in all beings,'(Kath.U.3.12) 'That
Divinity thought-let Me enter into these three
deities.'(Chh.U.6.3.2)
24. "SR^iti texts too elucidate the same truth; for
example, 'All gods verily are the Self.'
(Manu.XII.119) 'The Self in the city of nine
gates,'(B.G.5.13) 'Know the individual Self to be
Myself,' (B.G.13.2) 'The same in all beings,'
(B.G.13.27) 'The witness and approver,' (B.G.13.22)
'The Supreme Being is different,' B.G.13.27) '
Residing in all bodies but Itself devoid of any,'
(Kath.U. 2.22 smR^iti source untraced) and so on.
Therefore it is established that you are without any
connection with birth, lineage and sanctifying
ceremonies."
25. If he says, "I am in bondage, liable to
transmigration, ignorant, (sometimes) happy,
(sometimes) mm happy, and am entirely different from
Him; He, the shining One, who is dissimilar in nature
to me, and is beyond transmigratory existence, is also
different from me; I want to worship Him through the
actions pertaining to my caste and order of life by
making presents and offerings to Him and also by
making salutations and the like. I am eager to cross
the ocean of the world in this way. So how am I He
Himself?
26. The teacher should say, "You ought not, my child,
regard it so; because a doctrine of difference is
forbidden." In reply to the question, " Why is it
forbidden," the following other Shruti texts may be
cited: "He who knows 'that Brahman is one and I am
another ' does not know (Brahman)," (1.4.10) "He who
regards the Brahmanical caste as different from
himself is rejected by that caste." (Br.U. 2.4.6) "He
who perceives diversity in Brahman goes from death to
death," (Br.U. 4.4.19) and so on.
27. These Shruti show that transmigratory existence is
the sure result of the acceptance of (the reality of)
difference.
28. "That, on the other hand, liberation results from
the acceptance of (the reality of) non-difference is
borne out by thousands of Shruti; for example, after
teaching that the individual Self is not different
from the Supreme One, in the text, "That' is the Self,
thou art That," (Chh.U 6.13.3) and after saying, "A
man who has a teacher knows Brahman," (Chh.U.6.14.2)
the Shruti prove liberation to be the result of the
knowledge of (the reality of) non-difference only, by
saying, 'A knower of Brahman has to wait only so long
as he is not merged in Brahman,' (Chh.U. 6.14.2) That
transmigratory existence comes to an absolute
cessation, (in the case of one who speaks the truth
that difference has no real existence), is illustrated
by the example of one who was not a thief and did not
get burnt (by grasping a heated hatchet); and that
one, speaking what is not true (i.e. the reality of
difference,) continues to be in the mundane condition,
is illustrated by the example of a thief who got
burnt.(Chh.U.6.16.1-3)
29. "The Shruti text commencing with 'Whatever these
creatures are here, whether a tiger or..'(Chh.U.6.9.3)
etc. and similar other texts, after asserting that
'One becomes one's own master (i.e.
Brahman)'(Chh.U.6.25.2) by the knowledge of (the
reality of) non-difference, show that one continues to
remain in, the transmigratory condition in the
opposite case as the result of the acceptance of (the
reality of) difference, saying, 'Knowing differently
from this they get other beings for their masters and
reside in perishable regions.' (Chh.7.25.2) Such
statements are found in every branch of the Veda. It
was, therefore, certainly wrong on your part to say
that you were the son of a Brahmana, that you belonged
to such and such a lineage, that you were subject to
transmigration, and that you were different from the
Supreme Self."
30.Therefore, on account of the rebuttal of the
perception of duality, it should be understood that,
on the knowledge of one's identity with the Supreme
Self, the undertaking of religious rites which have
the notion of duality for their province, and the
assumption of yajnopavita etc., which are the means to
their performance, are forbidden. For these rites and
yajnopavita etc., which are their means, are
inconsistent with the knowledge of one's identity with
the Supreme Self. It is only on those people that
refer classes and orders of life etc., to the Self
that vedic actions and yajnopavita etc., which are
their means, are enjoined, and not on those who have
acquired the knowledge of their identity with the
Supreme Self. That one is other than Brahman due only
on account of the perception of difference.
31. "If Vedic rites were to be performed and not meant
to be renounced, the Shruti would neither have
declared the identity of oneself with the Supreme Self
unrelated to those rites, their means, castes, orders
of life, etc., which are the conditions of Vedic
actions, in unambiguous sentences like 'That is the
Self, thou art That;' (Chh.U.6.8.7) nor would it have
condemned the acceptance of (the reality of)
difference in clauses such as 'It is the eternal glory
of the knower of Brahman,' (BrU. 4.4.23) 'Untouched by
virtue, untouched by sin,' (BrU.4.3.22) and 'Here a
thief is no thief' etc (BrU 4.3.22)
32. "The Shruti would not have stated that the
essential nature of the Self was in no way connected
with Vedic rites and conditions required by them such
as a particular class, and the rest, if they did not
intend that those rites and yajnopavita etc., their
means, should be given up. Therefore, Vedic actions
which are incompatible with the knowledge of the
identity of oneself with the Supreme Self, should be
renounced together with their means by one who aspires
after liberation; and it should be known that the Self
is no other than Brahman as defined in the Shruti."
33. If he says, "The pain on account of burns or cuts
in the body and the misery caused by hunger and the
like, Sir, are 'distinctly perceived to be in me. The
Supreme Self is known in all the Shruti and the
smR^iti to be 'free' from sin, old age, death, grief,
hunger, thirst, etc., and devoid of smell and taste.'
(Chh.U. 8.7.1) How can I who am different from Him and
possess so many phenomenal attributes, possibly accept
the Supreme Self as myself, and myself, a
transmigratory being, as the Supreme Self? I may then
very well admit that fire is cool! Why should I, a man
of the world entitled to accomplish all prosperity in
this world and in the next, and realize the supreme
end of life, i.e, liberation, give up the actions
producing those results. and yajnopavita etc., their
accessories?
34. The teacher should say to him, 'It was not right
hr you to say, 'I directly perceive the pain in me
when my body gets cuts or burns.' Why? Because the
pain due to cuts or burns, perceived in the body, the
object of the perception of the perceiver like a tree
burnt or cut, must have the same location as the bums
etc. People point out pain caused by burns and the
like to be in that place where they occur but not in
the perceiver. How? For, on being asked where one's
pain lies, one says, 'I have pain in the head, in the
chest or in the stomach.' Thus one points out pain in
that place where burns or cuts occur, but never in the
perceiver. If pain or its causes viz, burns or cuts,
were in the perceiver, then one would have pointed out
the perceiver to be the seat of the pain, like the
parts of the body, the seats of the burns or cuts.
35. "Moreover, (if it were in the Self) the pain could
not be perceived by the Self like the colour of the
eye by the same eye. Therefore, as it is perceived to
have the same seat as burns, cuts and the like, pain
must be an object of perception like them. Since it is
an effect, it must have a receptacle like that in
which rice is cooked. The impressions of pain must
have the same seat as pain. As they are perceived
during the time when memory is possible (i.e., in
waking and dream, and not in deep sleep), these
impressions must have the same location as pain. The
aversion to cuts, bums and the like, the causes of
pain, must also have the same seat (non-Self) as the
impressions (of pain). It is therefore said, 'Desire,
aversion and fear have a seat common with that of the
impressions of colours. As they have for their seat
the intellect, the knower, the Self, is always pure
and devoid of fear.'
36. 'What is then the locus of the impressions of
colours and the rest?' 'The same as that of lust etc.'
'Where again are lust etc.?' They are in the intellect
(and nowhere else) according to the Shruti, 'lust,
deliberation, doubt.'(Br.U.1.5.3) The impressions of
colours and so forth are also there (and nowhere else)
according to the Sruti, 'what is the seat of colours?
The intellect.' Br.U. 3.9.20) That desire, aversion
and the like are the attributes of the embodiment, the
object and not of the Self is known from the Shruti,
'Desires that are in the intellect,' (BrU.4.4.7) ' For
he is then beyond all the woes of his heart
(intellect),' (BrU.4.3.22) 'Because It is
unattached,' (BrU. 4.3.16) and 'Its' form is untouched
by desires' (BrU. 4.3.21) and also from smR^iti such
as' It is said to be changeless,' B.G. 2.25) 'Because
It is beginning-less and without attributes' (B.G.
13.31) and so on. Therefore, (it is concluded that)
impurity pertains to the object and not to the Self.
37, 38. "Therefore you are not different from the
Supreme Self inasmuch as you are devoid of impurities
such as the connection with the impressions of colours
and the like. As there is no contradiction to
perceptional evidence etc., the Supreme Self should be
accepted as oneself according to the Shruti, 'It knew
the pure Self to be Brahman' (Br.U.1.4.10) 'It should
be regarded as homogeneous,'(Br.U.4.4.20) 'It is I
that am below.' (Chh.U.7.25.1) ' It is the Self that
is below,' (Chh.U.7.25.2) 'He knows everything to be
the Self,' (Br.U.4.4.23) 'When everything becomes the
Self,' (Br.U.2.4.14) 'All this verily is the Self,'
(Br.U.2.4.6) 'He is without parts,' (Pra.U. (6.5) '
Without interior and exterior.' (Br.U.2.5.19) 'Unborn,
comprising the interior and exterior,' (Mu.U.2.1.2)
'All this is verily Brahman,' (Mu.U.2.2.11) 'It
entered though this door,'(Ai.U. 1.3.12) 'The names of
pure knowledge,' (Ai.U..3.1.2) ' Existence,
Knowledge, infinite Brahman,'(Tai.U.2.1.1) 'From It,'
(Tai.U.2.1.1) 'It created and entered it,'
(Tai.U.2.1.6) 'The shining One without a second,
concealed in all beings and all-pervading,'(Sw.U.6.11)
'In all bodies Itself bodiless,' (Kath.U.2.22) ' It is
not born and does not die,' (Kath.U.2.18)' (Knowing,)
dream and waking,' (Kath.U.2.14) 'He is my Self, thus
one should know,' (Kaushitak.U. III.8) 'Who (knows)
all beings.' (Ish.U.6) 'It moves and moves not,'
(Ish.U.5) 'knowin It, one becomes worthy of being
worshipped,' (M.N.U. 2.3) 'It and nothing but It is
fire,' (T.A.10.1) 'I became Manu and the sun,'
((Br.U.1.4.10) 'Entering into them, He rules all
creatures,' (T.A.3.11.1.2) 'Existence only, my child'
((Chh.U.6.2.1)) and 'That is real, That is the Self,
thou art That." (Chh.U.6.8.7))
"It is established that you, the Self, are the Supreme
Brahman, the One only and devoid of every phenomenal
attribute from the smR^iti also such as, 'All beings
are the body of One who resides in the hearts of
all,'(Apastamba Dharma Sutra 1.8.22) 'Gods are verily
the Self,' (Manu.XII. 119) ' In the city of nine
gates.'(B.G.5.13) 'The same in all beings.'
(B.G.13.27) 'In a Brahmana wise and courteous,'
(B.G.5.18)'Undivided in things divided' (B.G.13.16)
and 'All this verily is Vasudeva (the self)'
(B.G.7.19)
39. If he says "If, Sir, the Self is 'Without interior
or exterior,' (Br.U.2.5.19) 'Comprising the interior
and exterior, unborn'(Mu.U.2.1.2) 'Whole,' 'Pure
consciousness only' like a lump of salt,. devoid of
all the various forms, and of a homogeneous nature
like ether, what is it that is observed in ordinary
usage and revealed in Shruti and smR^iti as what is to
be accomplished, its (appropriate) means and its
accomplishers, and is made the subject-matter of
contention among hundreds of rival disputants holding
different views?"
40. The teacher should say, "Whatever is observed (in
this world) or learnt from the Shruti (regarding the
next world) are products of ignorance. But in reality
there is only One, the Self who appears to be many to
deluded vision, like the moon appearing to be more
than one to eyes affected by amaurosis. That duality
is the product of ignorance follows from the
reasonableness of the condemnation by Shruti of the
acceptance of (the reality of) difference such as
'When there is something else as it were,'
(Br.U.4.3.31) 'When
there is duality as it were, one sees another,' 'He
goes from death to death,' (Br.U.4.4.19) 'And where
one sees something else, hears something else,
cognizes something else, that is finite, and that
which is finite is mortal,' (Chh.U.7.24.1) '
Modifications (i.e., effects. e.g., earthen jars)
being only names, have for their support words only,
it is earth alone (i.e. the cause) that is real'
(Chh.U.6.1.4) and 'He is one, I am another.'
(Br.U.1.4.10) The same thing follows from the Shruti
teaching unity, for example, 'One, only without a
second,' (Chh.U.6.2.1) 'When to the knower of Brahman'
(Br.U.4.5.15) and 'What delusion or grief is there?'
41. "If it be so, Sir, why do the Shruti speak of
diverse ends to be attained, their means, and so
forth, as also the evolution and the dissolution of
the universe?"
42. "The answer to your question is this: Having
acquired (i.e., having identified himself with) the
various things such as the body etc. and considering
the Self to be connected with what is desirable and
what is undesirable and so on, though eager to attain
the desirable and avoid the undesirable by appropriate
means-for without certain means nothing can be
accomplished-an ignorant man cannot discriminate
between the means to the realization of what is
(really) desirable for him and the means to the
avoidance of what is undesirable. It is the gradual
removal of this ignorance that is the aim of the
scriptures; but not the enunciation of (the reality
of) the difference of the end, means and so on. For it
is this very difference that constitutes this
undesirable transmigratory existence. The scriptures,
therefore, root out the ignorance constituting this
(like) conception of difference which is the cause of
phenomenal existence by giving reasons for the oneness
of the evolution, dissolution, etc. of the universe.'
43. "When ignorance is uprooted with the aid of the
Shruti, smR^iti and reasoning, the one-pointed
(B.G.2.41) intellect of the seer of the supreme Truth
becomes established (B.G.2.55) in the one Self
consisting of pure Consciousness like a (homogeneous)
lump of salt and all-pervading like the ether, which
is within and without, without the interior or
exterior, and unborn. Even the slightest taint of
impurity due to the diversity of ends, means,
evolution, dissolution and the rest is, therefore not
reasonable.
44. "One, eager to realize this right Knowledge
spoken of in the Shruti, should rise above the desire
for a son, wealth and this world and the next which
are described in a five-fold (Br.U.1.4.17) manner and
are the outcome of a false reference to the Self of
castes, orders of life and so on. As this reference is
contradictory to right Knowledge it is intelligible
why reasons are given by the Shruti regarding the
prohibition of the acceptance of (the reality of)
difference. For, when the Knowledge that the one-dual
Self is beyond phenomenal existence is generated by
the scriptures and reasoning, there cannot exist (side
by side with it) a knowledge contrary to it. None can
think of chillness in fire or immortality and freedom
from old age in regard to the (perishable) body. One
therefore, who is eager to be established in the
Knowledge of the Reality should give up all actions
with yajnopavita and the rest, their accessories,
which are the effects of ignorance."
Here ends the enlightening (teaching) of the pupil.
CHAPTER II
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS AND NON-DUAL SELF
45. A certain Brahmacarin, tired of the transmigratory
existence consisting of birth and death, and aspiring
after liberation, approached (Bh. Gita 4.34) in the
prescribed manner a Knower of Brahman established in
It and sitting at ease and said, "How can I, Sir, be
liberated from this transmigratory existence?
Conscious of the body, the senses and their objects I
feel pain in the state of waking and also in dream
again and again after intervals of rest in deep sleep
experienced by me. Is this my own nature or is it
causal, I being of a different nature? If it be my own
nature I can have no hope of liberation as one's own
nature cannot be got rid of. But if it be causal,
liberation from it may be possible by removing the
cause."
46. The teacher said to him, "Listen, my child, this
is not your true nature, but causal."
47. Told thus the disciple said, "What is the cause,
what will bring it to an end and what is my true
nature? When the cause is brought to an end, there
will be the absence of the effect, and I shall attain
my own true nature, just like a patient who gets back
to normal condition (of his health) when the cause of
his disease is removed."
48. The teacher said, "The cause is Ignorance.
Knowledge brings it to an end. When Ignorance, the
cause, is. removed, you will be liberated from the
transmigratory existence consisting of birth and
death, and you will never again feel pain in the
states of waking and dream."
49. The disciple said, "What is that Ignorance ? (What
is its seat) and what is its object? What is Knowledge
by means of which I can realise my own nature?"
50. The teacher said, "You are the non-transmigratory
Supreme Self, but you wrongly think that you are one
liable to transmigration. (Similarly), not being an
agent or an experienccr you wrongly consider yourself
to be so. Again, you are eternal but mistake yourself
to be non-eternal. This is Ignorance."
51. The disciple said, "Though eternal I am not the
Supreme Self. My nature is one of transmigratory
existence consisting of agency and experiencing of its
results as it is known by evidence such as
sense-perception etc. It is not due to Ignorance. For
it cannot have the innermost Self for its object.
Ignorance consists of the superimposition of the
qualities of one thing on another, e.g., well-known
silver on well-known mother of pearl or a well-known
human being on a (well-known) trunk of a tree and vice
versa. An unknown thing cannot be superimposed on a
known one and vice versa. The non-Self cannot be
superimposed on the Self which is not known.
Similarly, the Self cannot be superimposed on the
non-Self for the very same reason.
52. The teacher said to him, "It is not so. There are
exceptions. For, my child, there cannot be a rule that
it is only well-known things' that are superimposed on
other well-known things, for we meet with the
super-imposition of certain things on the Self.
Fairness and blackness, the properties of the body,
are superimposed on the Self which is the object of
the consciousness ' I,' and the same Self is
superimposed on the body."
53. The disciple said, "In that case the Self must be
well-known owing to Its being the object of the
consciousness 'I.' The body also must be well-known,
for it is spoken of as ' this ' (body). When this is
so, it is a case of mutual superimposition of the
well-known body and the well-known Self, like that of
a human being and the trunk of a tree or that of
silver and mother of pearl. (There is, therefore, no
exception here.) So what is the peculiarity with
reference to which you said that there could not be a
rule that mutual superimposition was possible of two
well-known things only?"
54. The teacher said, "Listen. It is true that the
Self and the body are well-known, but, they are not
well-known to all people to be objects of different
knowledges, like a human being and a trunk of a tree.
(Question). How are they known then?
(Reply). (They are always known) to be the objects of
an undifferentiated knowledge. For, no one knows them
to be the objects of different knowledges saying,
'This is the body' and 'This is the Self.' It is for
this reason that people are deluded about the nature
of the Self and of the non-Self, and say, 'The Self is
of this nature' and 'It is not of this nature.' It was
this peculiarity with reference to which I said that
there was no such rule (viz. only well-known things
could be superimposed on each other)."
55. Disciple.-" Whatever is superimposed through
Ignorance on anything else is found to be non-existent
in that thing, e.g., silver in a mother of pearl, a
human being in the trunk of a tree, a snake in a rope,
and the form of a frying pan and blueness in the sky.
Similarly, both the body and the Self, always the
objects of an undifferentiated knowledge, would be
non-existent in each other if they were mutually
superimposed, just as silver etc., superimposed on
mother of pearl and other things and vice versa are
always absolutely non-existent. Likewise, the Self and
the non-Self would both be non-existent if they were
similarly superimposed on each other through
Ignorance. But that is not desirable as it is the
position of the Nihilists. If, instead of a mutual
superimposition, the body (atone) is superimposed
through Ignorance on the Self the body will he
non-existent in the existing Self. That is also not
desirable. For it contradicts sense-perception etc.
Therefore the body and the Self are not mutually
superimposed due to Ignorance. (If they are not
superimposed) what then? They are always in the
relation of conjunction with each other like pillars
and bamboos."
56. Teacher-" It is not so. For in that case there
arises the possibility of the Self existing for the
benefit of another and being non-eternal. The Self, if
in contact with the body, would be existing for the
benefit of another and be non-eternal like the
combination of pillars and bamboos. Moreover, the
Self, supposed by other philosophers to be conjoined
with the body must have an existence for the sake of
another. It is, therefore, concluded that devoid of
contact with the body the Self is eternal and
characteristically different from it."
57. Disciple-" The objections that the Self as the
body only is non-existent, non-eternal and so on, hold
good if the Self which is not conjoined with the body
were superimposed on it. The body would then be
without a Self and so the Nihilist position comes in."
58 Teacher.-" No. (You are not right) - For, we admit
that, like the ether, the Self is by nature free from
contact with anything. Just as things are not bereft
of the ether though it is not in contact with them, so
the body etc., are not devoid of the Self though It is
not in contact with them. Therefore the objection of
the Nihilist position coming in does not arise.
59. "It is not a fact' that the absolute non-existence
of the body contradicts sense-perception etc, inasmuch
as the existence of the body in the Self is not known
by these evidences. The body is not known to exist in
the Self by perception etc., like a plum in a hole,
ghee in milk, oil in sesame or a picture painted on a
wall. There is, therefore, no contradiction to
sense-perception etc."
60. Disciple.-" How can then there be the
superimposition of the body etc., on the Self which is
not known by sense-perception etc., and that of the
Self on the body?"
61. Teacher.-" It is not a (valid) objection. For the
Self is naturally well-known. As we see the form of a
frying pan and blueness superimposed on the sky there
cannot be a rule that it is things known occasionally
only on which superimposition is possible and not on
things alwqys known."'
62. Disciple.-"Sir, is the mutual superimposition of
the body and the Self made by the combination of the
body etc., or by the Self?"
63. The teacher said, "Does it matter if it be made
the one or the other?"
64. Questioned thus, the disciple said, "If I were
only a combination of the body etc., I would be
non-conscious and would exist for the sake of another
only. Therefore the mutual superimposition of the body
and the Self could not he made by me. If, on the other
hand, I were the Self I would be characteristically
different from the combination of the body etc., would
be conscious and, therefore, would exist entirely for
myself. So it is I, a conscious being, who makes that
superimposition, the root of all evils, on the Self."
65. Thus told, the teacher said, "Do not make any
superimposition if you know it to be the root of all
evils."
66. Disciple.-" Sir, I cannot but make it, I am not
independent. I am made to act by someone else."
67. Teacher.-" Then you do not exist for yourself as
you are non-conscious. That by which you are made to
act like one dependent on another is conscious and
exists for itself. You are only a combination (of the
body and other things)."
68. Disciple.-" If I be non-conscious then how do I
cognise pain and pleasure and also of what you say?"
69. The teacher replied: "Are you different from the
cognition of pain and pleasure and from what I say, or
not?"
70. The disciple said, "It is not a fact that I am not
different from them. For, I know them to be objects of
my knowledge like jars and other things. If I were not
different I could not cognise them. But I know them;
so I am different. If I were not different the
modifications of the mind called pain and pleasure and
the words spoken by you would exist for themselves.
But that is not reasonable. For pleasure and pain
produced by sandal paste and a thorn respectively, and
also the use of a jar are not for their own sake.
Therefore the purposes served by sandal paste etc.,
are for the sake of me who am their cogniser. I am
different from them as I know all things pervaded by
the intellect."
71. The teacher said to him. "As you are possessed of
consciousness, you exist for yourself and are not made
to act by anyone else. For an independent conscious
being is not made to act by another as it is not
reasonable that one possessed of consciousness exists
for the sake of another possessing consciousness, both
being of the same nature like the lights of two lamps.
Nor does one possessed of consciousness exist for the
sake of another having no consciousness; for it is not
possible that a thing exists for itself for the very
fact that it is non-conscious. Nor again is it seen
that two non-conscious things exist for each other's
purpose."
72. Disciple: " But it may be said that the servant.
and the master are seen to serve each other's purpose
though they are equally possessed of consciousness."
73. Teacher.-"It is not so. For I speak of
consciousness belonging to you like heat and light to
fire. It is for this reason that I cited the example
of the lights of the two lamps. Therefore, as
changeless and eternal consciousness, like the heat
and light of fire, you know everything presented to
your intellect. Thus when you always know the Self to
be without any attribute why did you say, "I
experience pain and pleasure again and again during
the states of waking and dream after intervals of rest
in deep sleep?" And why did you say, "It is my own
nature or causal?" Has this delusion vanished or
not?"
74. To this the disciple replied, "The delusion, Sir,
is gone by your grace; but I have doubts about the
changeless nature which, you say pertains to me."
Teacher, "What doubts?"
75. Disciple, "Sound etc., do not exist independently
as they are non-conscious. But they come into
existence when there arise in the mind modifications
resembling sound and so on. It is impossible that
these modifications should have an independent
existence as they are exclusive of one another as
regards their special characteristics ( of resembling
sound etc.,) and appear to be blue, yellow etc. (So
sound etc. are not the same as mental modifications. (
It is therefore inferred that these modifications are
caused by external objects. So, it is proved that
modifications of the mind also are combinations and
therefore non-conscious. So, not existing for their
own sake, they, like sound etc., exist only when known
by one different from them. Though the Self is not a
combination, it consists of consciousness and though
it exists for Its own sake, It is the knower of the
mental modifications appearing to be blue, yellow and
so on. It must therefore be of a changeful nature.
Hence is the doubt about the changeless nature of the
Self."
The teacher said to him, "Your doubt is not
justifiable, for you, the Self, are proved to be free
from change, and therefore perpetually the same on the
ground that all the modifications of the mind without
a single exception are (simultaneously) known by you.
You regard this knowledge of all the modifications
which is the reason for the above inference as that
for your doubt. If you were changeful like the mind or
the senses (which pervade their objects one after
another), you would not simultaneously know all the
mental modifications, the objects of your knowledge.
Nor are you aware of a portion only of the objects of
your knowledge (at a time). You are, therefore,
absolutely changeless."
76.The disciple said, "Knowledge is the meaning of a
root and therefore surely consists of change, and that
knower ( as you say) is of a changeless character.
This is a contradiction."
77. Teacher: "It is not so. For the word knowledge is
used only in a secondary sense to mean a change called
an action, the meaning of a root. A modification of
the intellect called an action ends in a result in
itself, which is the reflection of Knowledge, the
Self. It is for this reason that this modification is
called knowledge in a secondary sense, just as cutting
(a thing) in two parts is secondarily called the
meaning of the root (to cut).
78. Told thus, the disciple said, "Sir, the example
cited by you cannot prove that I am changeless."
Teacher, "How?"
Disciple, "For, just as the action of cutting,
producing and including the ultimate change in to be
cut, is secondarily called the meaning of the root (to
cut), so the word knowledge is used secondarily for
the mental modification which is the meaning of the
root (to know) and which ends in the result that is a
change in knowledge, the Self. The example cited by
you cannot, therefore, establish the changeless nature
of the Self."
79. The teacher said, "What you say would be true if
there were a distinction existing between the Knower
and Knowledge. For, the Knower is eternal Knowledge
only. The Knower and Knowledge are not different as
they are in the argumentative philosophy."
80. Disciple.-" How is it then that an action ends in
a result which is Knowledge?"
81. The teacher said, "Listen. It was said (that the
mental modification, called an action) ended in a
result which was the reflection of Knowledge. Did
you not hear it? I did not say that a change was
produced in the Self as a result (of the modification
of the mind)."
82. The disciple said, "How then am 1, who am
changeless, the knower, as you say, of all the mental
modifications of endless objects of my knowledge?"
83. The teacher said to him, "I told you the right
thing. The very fact (that you know simultaneously all
the mental modifications) was adduced by me as the
reason why you are eternally immutable."
84. Disciple.-" If this is so, Sir, what is my fault
when the mental changes resembling sound etc. and
resulting in reflection of knowledge of My own nature,
are produced in Me who am of the nature of changeless
and eternal Consciousness?"
85. Teacher.-" It is true that you are not to be
blamed. Ignorance, as I told you before, is the only
fault."
86. Disciple.-" Sir, why are there the states of dream
and waking (in me) if I am absolutely changeless like
one in deep sleep?"
87. The teacher said to him, "But you always
experience them (whenever they arise)."
88. Disciple.-" Yes, I experience them at intervals
but not continuously."
89. The teacher said, "They are then adventitious only
and are not your own nature. They would surely be
continuous' if they were self-existent like Pure
consciousness which is your own nature. Moreover, they
are not your own nature inasmuch as they are
non-persistent like clothes and other things. For what
is one's own nature is never seen to cease to persist
while one is persisting. But waking and dream cease to
persist while Pure Consciousness continues to do so.
Pure Consciousness, the Self, persists in deep sleep;
and whatever is non-persistent (at that time) is
either destroyed or negated inasmuch as adventitious
things, never the properties of one's own nature, are
found to possess these characteristics; for example,
the destruction of money, clothes, etc. and the
negation of things acquired in dream or delusion, are
seen.
90. Disciple.-" But, Sir, when this is so, Pure
Consciousness Itself has to be admitted to be
adventitious like waking and dream. For it is not
known in deep sleep. Or, (it may be that I have
adventitious consciousness or) am non-conscious by
nature."
91. Teacher.----" No. (What you say is not right ).
Think over it. It is not reasonable (to say so). You
may look upon Pure Consciousness as adventitious (if
you are wise enough); but we cannot prove It to be so
by reasoning even in a hundred years, nor (can It be
proved to be so) even by a dull man. As the
consciousness (that has for its adjuncts mental
modifications) is a combination, no one can disprove
its existence for the sake of another, its manyness,
and its destructibility by any reasoning whatever; for
we have already said that whatsoever does not exist
for itself is not self-existent. As Pure
Consciousness, the Self is self-existent; no one can
disprove Its independence of other things inasmuch as
It never ceases to exist."
92. Disciple.-" But I have shown an exception, namely
I have no consciousness in deep sleep."
93. Teacher.-" No, you contradict yourself"
Disciple.-" How is it a contradiction?"
Teacher-" You contradict yourself by saying that
you are not conscious when, as a matter of fact, you
are so."
Disciple.-" But, Sir, I was never conscious of
consciousness or of anything else in deep sleep."
Teacher.-" You are then conscious in deep sleep. For
you deny the existence of the objects of knowledge (in
that state), but not that of Knowledge. I have told
you that what is your consciousness is nothing but
absolute Knowledge. The Consciousness owing to whose
presence you deny (the existence of things in deep
sleep) by saying, 'I was conscious of nothing' is the
Knowledge, the Consciousness which is your Self. As it
never ceases to exist, Its eternal immutability is
self-evident and does not depend on any evidence; for
an object of Knowledge different from the self-evident
Knower depends on an evidence in order to be known.
Other than the object, the eternal Knowledge that is
indispensable in proving non-conscious things
different from Itself, is immutable; for It is always
of a self-evident nature. Just as iron, water, etc.,
which are not of the nature of light and heat, depend
for them on the sun, fire, and other things other than
themselves, but the sun and fire, themselves always of
the nature of light and heat, do not depend for them
on anything else; so being of the nature of pure
Knowledge, It does not depend on any evidence to prove
that It exists or that it is the Knower."
94. Disciple.-" But it is transitory knowledge only
that is the result of a proof and not eternal
Knowledge."
95. Teacher.-" No, These cannot reasonably be a
distinction of perpetuity or otherwise in knowledge.
For it is not known that transitory knowledge is the
result of a proof and not, eternal Knowledge, as
Know1edge itself is such a result,"
96. Disciple.-"But eternal Knowledge does not depend
on a knower while transitory knowledge does so as it
is produced by an intervening effort. This is the
difference,"
97. Teacher.-" The Knower which is the Self is then
self-evident as It does not depend on any evidence (in
order to be proved)."
98. Disciple.-" (If the knowledge of the Self be
independent of an evidence on the ground that It is
eternal) why should the absence of the result of an
evidence with regard to the Se!f be not so on the
same ground?"
Teacher.-" No, it has been refuted on the ground that
it is pure Knowledge that is it the Self."
99. "To whom will the desire (to know a thing) belong
if the Knower depends on an evidence in order to be
known? It is admitted that one who is desirous of
knowing a thing is the Knower. His desire of knowing a
thing has for its object the thing to be known and not
the Knower. For in the latter case, there arises a
regressus ad infinitum with regard to the Knower and
also with regard to the desire to know the Knower
inasmuch as the knower of the knower and so on (are to
be known); and such is the case with regard to the
desires of knowing the knower. Moreover, there being
nothing intervening, the Knower, the Self, cannot fall
into the category of the known. For a thing to be
known becomes known when it is distanced from the
knower by the birth of an intervening desire, memory,
effort or an evidence on the part of the knower. There
cannot be the knowledge of an object in any other way.
Again it cannot be imagined that the knower himself is
distanced from himself by anyone of his own desires
etc. For memory has for its object the thing to be
remembered and not one who remembers it; so has desire
for its object the thing to be desired and not one who
desires it. There arises, as before, an inevitable
regressus ad infinitum if memory and desire have their
own agents for their objects.
100. Disciple.-. "But the Knower remains unknown if
there is no knowledge which has for its object the
Knower."
101. Teacher.- "No. The knowledge of the knower has
for its object the thing to be known. If it has for
its object the knower, there arises a regressus ad
infinitum as before. It has already been shown that
like the heat and light of the sun, fire, and other
things, the Knowledge which is changeless, eternal and
self-effulgent has an existence in the Self entirely
independent of everything else. I have already said
that if the self-effulgent Knowledge which is there in
the Self were transitory it would become unreasonable
that the Self existed for Itself, and, being a
combination, It would get impurities and have an
existence for the sake of another like the combination
of the body and the senses. How? (Reply). If the
self-effulgent Knowledge in the Self were transitory,
It would have a distance by the intervention of memory
etc. It would then be nonexistent in the Self before
being produced and after being destroyed, and the
Self, then a combination, would have an existence for
the sake of another like that of the eye etc. produced
by the combination of certain things. The Self would
have no independent existence if this Knowledge were
produced before it was in It. For it is only on
account of the absence or presence of the state of
being combined that the Self is known to exist for
Itself and the non-Self for another. It is, therefore,
established that the Self is of the nature of eternal
and self-effulgent Knowledge not dependent on anything
else."
102. Disciple.-" How can the Knower be a Knower if he
is not the seat of the knowledge produced by
evidences?"
103. The teacher said, "The knowledge produced by an
evidence does not differ in its essential nature
whether one calls it eternal or transitory. Knowledge
(though) produced by an evidence is nothing but
knowledge. The knowledge preceded by memory, desire,
etc. and supposed to be transitory, and those which
are eternal and immutable do not differ in their
essential nature. Just as the result of the transitory
actions of standing etc., the meanings of roots,
preceded by motion etc., and that of the permanent
ones not so preceded do not differ in their essential
nature, and there are, therefore, the identical
predicates in the statements, ' People stand,'
'Mountains stand,' etc., so the Knower, though of the
nature of eternal Knowledge, is called a Knower
without contradiction inasmuch as eternal Knowledge is
the same as one produced by an evidence (as regards
Its essential nature)."
104. Here the disciple raises an objection: "It is not
reasonable that the Self which is changeless and is of
the nature of eternal Knowledge and not in contact
with the body and the senses should be the agent of an
action like a carpenter in contact with an adze and
other instruments. A regressus ad infinitum arises if
the Self, unconnected with the body, the senses, etc.
were to use them as Its instruments. As carpenters and
others are always connected with bodies and senses
there is no regressus ad infinitum when they use adzes
and other instruments."
105. Teacher.-(Reply) "Agency is not possible without
the use of instruments. Instruments, therefore, have
to be assumed. The assumption of instruments is, of
course, an action. In order to be the agent of this
action, other instruments have to be assumed. In
assuming these instruments still others have to be
assumed. A regressus ad infinitum is, therefore,
inevitable if the self which is not joined with
anything, were to be the agent.'
"Nor can it be said that it is an action that makes
the Self act. For an action, not performed, has no
existence. It is also not possible that something
(previously existing) makes the Self act as nothing
(except the Self) can have an independent existence
and be a non-object. For things. other than the Self
must be non-conscious and, therefore, are not seen to
be self-existent. All things including sound etc. come
to exist when they are proved by mental functions
resulting in the reflection of the Self.
"One, (apparently) different from the Self, and
possessed of consciousness, must be no other than the
Self that is free from combination with other things
and existing for Itself only.
"Nor can we admit that the body, the senses and their
objects exist for themselves inasmuch as they are seen
to depend for their existence on mental modifications
resulting in the reflection of the Self."
106. Disciple.-" But no one depends on any other
evidence such as sense-perception etc. in knowing the
body."
107. Teacher.-" Yet it is so in the waking state. But
at death and in deep sleep the body also depends on
evidences such as sense-perception etc. in order to be
known. Similar is the case with the senses. It is the
external sound and other objects that are transformed
into the body and the senses; the latter, therefore,
also depend on evidences like sense-perception etc. in
order to be known. I have said that knowledge, the
result produced by evidences, is the same as the
self-evident, self-effulgent, and the changeless Self.
That is what I mean by knowledge."
108. The objector (the disciple) says, " It is
contradictory to state that Knowledge is the result of
evidences and (at the same time) it is the
self-effulgent Self which is changeless and eternal."
The reply given to him is this: " It is not a
contradiction."
"How then is knowledge a result?"
"(It is a result in a secondary sense:) though
changeless and eternal, It is noticed in the presence
of mental modifications called sense-perception etc.
as they are instrumental in making It manifest. It
appears to be transitory as the mental modifications
called sense-perception etc. are transitory. It is for
this reason that It is called the result of proofs in
a secondary sense."
109. Disciple.-" Sir, if this is so, the
Consciousness et the Self which is independent of
evidences regarding Itself, eternal, and changeless
Knowledge, is surely self-evident and, all things
different from It and therefore are non-conscious,
have an existence for only the sake of the Self as
they combine to act for one another (in order that the
events of the universe may continue uninterruptedly).
It is only as the Knowledge of the mental
modifications giving rise to pleasure, pain and
delusion that the non-self serves the purpose of
another. And it is as the same Know]edge and nothing
else that it has an existence? So it does not really
exist at all. Just as a rope-snake, the water in a
mirage and such other things are found to be
non-existent except only as the Knowledge by which
they are known; so the duality --experienced during
waking and dream has reasonably no existence except as
the Knowledge by which it is known. So, having a
continuous existence, the Sell; which is pure
Consciousness, is eternal, and immutable and, never
ceasing to exist in any mental modification, It is one
without -a second. The modifications themselves cease
to exist, the Self continuing to do so. Just as in
dream the mental modifications appearing to be blue,
yellow, etc. are said to be really non-existent as
they cease to exist while the Knowledge by which they
are known has an uninterrupted continuous existence;
so, in the waking state also they are really
non-existent as they cease to exist while the very
same Knowledge continues to do so. As that Knowledge
has no other knower it cannot be accepted or rejected
by Itself. For, there is nothing else (except
Myself)."
110. Teacher.-" It is exactly so. It is Ignorance due
to which transmigratory existence consisting of waking
and dream is experienced. It is Knowledge that brings
this ignorance to an end. You have thus attained
Fearlessness. You will never again feel pain in waking
or in dream. You are liberated from the misery of this
transmigratory existence)'
111. Disciple.-"Yes, Sir."
CHAPTER III
REITERATION AND REFLECTION
112. This method of repetition is described for those
who aspire after supreme tranquillity of the mind by
destroying accumulated sins and virtues and refraining
from accumulating new ones. Ignorance causes defects.
Defects produce efforts of the body, mind and speech.
And through these efforts are accumulated actions
having desirable, undesirable, and mixed results.
(This method is described here) so that there may be a
cessation of all these.
113. As they are perceived by the ear and the other
senses the objects called sound, touch, sight, taste
and smell have no knowledge of themselves or of other
things. Transformed (into the body and other things)
they, like brick-bats, are (known to lack in the said
knowledge). Moreover, they are known through the ear
etc. Being the knower, that by which they are known is
of a quite different nature. For, connected with one
another those sound and other objects aye possessed of
various properties such as birth, growth, change of
condition, decline, death, contact, separation,
appearance, disappearance, cause, effect and sex. All
of them produce various effects like pleasure, pain
and so on. The knower of sound and the like is of a
nature different from theirs as It is the knower.
114, 115. Distressed by sound and other things
experienced, the knower of Brahman will thus practise
repetition:
"I who am of the nature of Consciousness, not
attached. to anything, changeless, immovable,
imperishable, free from fear, extremely subtle and not
an object, cannot, for the very fact of my being not
attached, be made an object and touched by sound in
general or by its special forms such as the notes of
the gamut, praise, etc. which are pleasant and.
desirable, and also false, terrible, insulting and
abusive words which are undesirable. So there is no
loss or gain due to sound. Therefore what can sound,
pleasant or unpleasant, consisting of praise or blame
do to me?
Pleasant or unpleasant sound regarded as belonging to
the Self glorifies or injures the ignorant man of
account of indiscrimination. But it cannot do even the
slightest good or evil to me who am a man of
knowledge. (These ideas should thus be repeated.)
Similarly, no change consisting of gain or loss can be
produced in me by touch in general or by its special
forms such as fever, colic, pain etc, coldness,
hotness, softness or roughness which are unpleasant.
Again, pleasant touches connected with the body or
brought into existence by external and adventitious
causes can likewise produce no change in me inasmuch
as I am beyond touch like the ether which when struck
with one's fist, does not meet with any change
whatever.
Likewise, as I am entirely unconnected with sight no
good or harm is done to me by it either in its general
form or in its special forms pleasant or unpleasant,
such as ugly sights.
Similarly, independent of taste I am not harmed or
benefited by it either in its general form or in its
special forms such as sweetness, sourness, saltiness,
pungency, bitterness and astringency, though accepted
as pleasant or unpleasant by the ignorant.
Thus I who do not consist of smell cannot be harmed or
benefited by it either in its general form or in its
special forms such as flowers, fragrant pastes etc.
considered to be pleasant or unpleasant. For the
shruti says (Kath. Up. 3.15) that I am one who am
'eternally devoid of sound, touch, sight, taste and
smell."
116. "Moreover, sound and the other external objects
transformed into the forms of the body, the ear and
the other senses through which they are perceived, are
transformed into the forms of the two internal organs
( the intellect and the mind), and also into those of
their objects. For they are connected and combined
with one another in all actions. When this is so, I
who am a man of Knowledge have no one belonging to me
as a friend or a foe nor have I any one indifferent
belonging to me. Anybody, therefore, who wishes to
connect me with pleasure and pain, the results of his
action, through a false egoism, makes a vain effort.
For I am not within the reach of pain or pleasure as
the smriti says, 'It is unmanifested and inscrutable'.
(Bh.Gita 2.25) Similarly, I am not changeable by the
action of any of the five elements as I am not of an
objective nature. Therefore the smriti says, 'It
cannot be cut or burnt.' (Bh. Gita 2.24) The merit or
demerit arising out of good or evil done to this
combination of the body and the senses on the part of
those devotional or adverse to me will be theirs, but
will not touch me who am devoid of old age, fear and
death as the smritis and the shrutis say, ' It is not
pained by omission or commission',(Br.Up. 4.4.22) 'It
is not harmed or benefited by any action,'(Br.Up.
4.4.23) 'Unborn, comprising the interior and the
exterior,' ( Mu.Up. 2.1.2 ) ' It is beyond the pain
felt by people and unattached.' (Kath. Up. 5.11) The
supreme reason ( why I am unattached) is that nothing
really exists except the Self."
As duality does not exist, the portions of the
Upanishads regarding the oneness of the Self should be
studied to a great extent.
Here ends the prose portion of A Thousand Teachings
written by the all-knowing Shankara.