Upadesa Sahasri (A Thousand Teachings) By Adi Sankaracharya, Translated by Swami Jagadananda- We shall now explain a method of teaching the means to liberation for the benefit of those aspirants after liberation who are desirous (of this teaching) and are possessed of faith (in it).
Upadesa Sahasri (A Thousand Teachings)
By Adi Sankaracharya, Translated by Swami Jagadananda
Published by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai
Part - I [Prose]
Chapter - I
A method of enlightening the disciple
1. We shall now explain a method of
teaching the means to liberation for the benefit of those aspirants
after liberation who are desirous (of this teaching) and are possessed
of faith (in it).
2. That means to liberation, viz., Knowledge, should be explained again
and again until it is firmly grasped, to a pure Brahmana disciple 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, 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 Sruti 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 there would be no attainment of knowledge. For the
Srutis say, “A man having a teacher can know Brahman”, “Knowledge
received from a teacher alone (becomes perfect)”, “The teacher is the
pilot”, “Right Knowledge is called in this world a raft”, etc. The
Smriti also says, “Knowledge will be imparted to you” etc.
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: past and present sins, laxity,
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 Srutis and Smritis, viz., avoidance of
anger etc., and the vows (Yama) consisting of non-injury etc., 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. 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 in the scriptures and unattached to
enjoyments both seen and unseen, who has renounced the means to all
kinds of actions, who is a knower of Brahman 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 Sruti 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”, “Where one
sees nothing else” “All this is but the Self”, “In the beginning all
this was but the one Self” and “All this is verily Brahman”.
7-8. After teaching these he should teach the definition of Brahman
through such Sruti texts as “The self, devoid of sins”, “The Brahman
that is immediate and direct”, “That which is beyond hunger and thirst”,
“Not-this, not-this”, “Neither gross nor subtle”, “This Self is
not-this”, “It is the Seer Itself unseen”, “Knowledge-Bliss”,
“Existence-Knowledge-Infinite”, “Imperceptible, bodiless”, “That great
unborn Self”, “Without the vital force and the mind”, “Unborn,
comprising the interior and exterior”, “Consisting of knowledge only”,
“Without interior or exterior”, “It is verily beyond what is known as
also what is unknown” and “Called Akasa (the self-effulgent One)”; and
also through such Smriti texts as the following: “It is neither born nor
dies”, “It is not affected by anybody’s sins”, “Just as air is always
in the ether”, “The individual Self should be regarded as the universal
one”, “It is called neither existent nor non-existent”, “As the Self is beginning less and devoid of qualities”, “The same in all beings” and
“The Supreme Being is different” – all these support the definition
given by the Srutis 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 Srutis and the Smritis and is eager to cross the ocean of trans migratory 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 trans migratory existence infested
with the terrible sharks of birth and death”, the teacher should say,
“My child, how do you desire to go beyond trans migratory 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 beginning less 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 and 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 purification 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 purification 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
this 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 Srutis such as ‘This was
existence, my child’ etc., as also the Smritis 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 Akasa (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 trans migratory conditions, ‘The Brahman that is immediate and direct’,
‘The innermost Self’, ‘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 purification
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 Sruti, ‘The mind, my child, consists of food’.
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 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 Sruti text, ‘(I know) who
creates names and forms and remains speaking.’ There are thousands of
Sruti texts conveying the same meaning, for instance, ‘He created and
entered into it’, ‘Entering into them He rules all creatures’. ‘He, the
Self, has entered into these bodies’, ‘This is your Self’. ‘Opening this
very suture of the skull He got in by that door’, ‘This Self is
concealed in all beings’, ‘That Divinity thought – let Me enter into
these three deities.’
24. “Smriti texts too elucidate the same truth; for example, ‘All gods
verily are the Self’, ‘The Self in the city of nine gates’, ‘Know the
individual Self to be Myself’, ‘The same in all beings’, ‘The witness
and app rover’, ‘The Supreme Being is different’, ‘Residing in all bodies
but Itself devoid of any’, 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) unhappy and am entirely different from
Him; He, the shining One, who is dissimilar in nature to me and is
beyond trans migratory 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 Sruti texts may be
cited: “He who knows ‘that Brahman is one and I am another’ does not
know (Brahman)”, “He who regards the Brahmanical caste as different from
himself is rejected by that caste.” “He who perceives diversity in
Brahman goes from death to death”, and so on.
27. These Srutis show that trans migratory 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 Srutis; 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”, and
after saying, “A man who has a teacher knows Brahman”, the Srutis 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’. That trans migratory 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.
29. “The Sruti text commencing with ‘Whatever these creatures are here,
whether a tiger or’ etc., and similar other texts, after asserting that
‘One becomes one’s own master (i.e., Brahman)’ by the knowledge of (the
reality of) non-difference, show that one continues to remain in the trans migratory 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’. 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 is due
only on account of the perception of difference.
31. “If Vedic rites were to be performed and not meant to be renounced,
the Sruti 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;’ 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’, ‘Untouched by
virtue, untouched by sin’, and ‘Here a thief is no thief’, etc.”
32. “The Srutis 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
Srutis”.
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 Srutis and the Smritis
to be ‘free from sin, old age, death, grief, hunger, thirst, etc., and
devoid of smell and taste’. How can I who am different from Him and
possess so many phenomenal attributes, possibly accept the Supreme Self
as myself, and myself, a trans migratory being, as the Supreme Self ? I
may then very well admit that fire is coll ! 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 for 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 burns 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 color 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 itself. 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, burns and the like, the causes
of pain, must also have the same seat 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 colors and the rest
?’ ‘The same as that of lust etc.,’ ‘Where again are lust etc., ?’ ‘They
are in the intellect (and no where else) according to the Sruti – lust,
deliberation, doubt’. ‘The impressions of colors and so forth are also
there (and nowhere else) according to the Sruti – what is the seat of
colours ? The intellect’. That desire, aversion and the like are the
attributes of the embodiment, the object and not the Self, is known from
the Srutis ‘Desires that are in the intellect’, ‘For he is then beyond
all the woes of his heart (intellect)’. ‘Because It is unattached’, ‘Its
form untouched by desires’ and from Smritis such as ‘It is said to be
changeless’, ‘Because It is beginningless and without attributes’ 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 in as much
as you are devoid of impurities such as the connection with the
impressions of colors and the like. As there is no contradiction to
perceptional evidence etc., the supreme Self should be accepted as
oneself according to the Srutis. ‘It knew the pure Self to be Brahman’,
‘It should be regarded as homogeneous’, ‘It is I that am below’, It is
the Self that is below’, ‘He knows everything to be the Self’, ‘When
everything becomes the Self’, ‘All this verily is the Self’, ‘He is
without parts’, ‘Without the interior and exterior’, ‘Unborn, comprising
the interior and exterior’, ‘All this verily is Brahman’, ‘It entered
through this door’, ‘The names of pure knowledge’, ‘Existence,
Knowledge, Infinite Brahman’, ‘From It’, ‘It created and entered it’,
‘The shining One without a second concealed in all beings and
all-pervading’, ‘In all bodies Itself bodiless’, ‘It is not born and
does not die’, ‘(Knowing) dream and waking, He is my Self, thus one
should know’, ‘Who (knows) all beings,’ ‘It moves and moves not’,
knowing It, one becomes worthy of being worshiped, ‘It and nothing but
It is fire’, ‘I became Manu and the sun’, ‘Entering into them He rules
all creatures’, ‘Existence only, my child,’ ‘That is real, That is the
Self, thou art That’.
“It is established that you, the Self, are the supreme Brahman, the One
only and devoid of every phenomenal attribute, from the Smritis also
such as ‘All beings are the body of One who resides in the hearts of
all,’ ‘Gods are verily the Self’, ‘In the city of nine gates’, ‘The same
in all beings’, ‘In a Brahmana wise and courteous’, ‘Undivided in
things divided and ‘All this verily is Vasudeva (the Self).’”
39. If he says, “If, Sir, the Self is ‘Without interior or exterior’,
‘Comprising interior and exterior, unborn’, ‘Whole’, ‘Pure consciousness
only’ like a lump of salt, devoid of all the various forms, and of a
homogeneous nature like the ether, what is it that is observed in
ordinary usage and revealed in Srutis and Smritis 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 Srutis (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 more than one to eyes
affected by amaurosis. That duality is the product of Ignorance follows
from the reasonableness of the condemnation by the Srutis of the
acceptance of (the reality of) difference such as ‘When there is
something else as it were’, ‘When there is duality as it were, one sees
another’, ‘He goes from death to death’, ‘And where one sees something
else, hears something else, cognizes something else, that is finite and
that which is finite is mortal’, ‘Modifications (i.e., effects e.g., an
earthen jar) being only names, have for their support words only, it is
earth alone (i.e., the cause) that is real’ and ‘He is one, I am
another’. The same thing follows from the Srutis teaching unity, for
example, ‘One only without a second’, ‘When the knower of Brahman’ and
‘What delusion or grief is there ?’”
41. “If it be so, Sir, why do the Srutis 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 (having
identified himself with) the various things such as the body and the
rest, 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 trans migratory existence. The scriptures, therefore, root
out the ignorance constituting this (false) 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 Sruti, Smriti and
reasoning, the one-pointed intellect of the seer of the supreme Truth
becomes established in the one Self which is of the nature of pure
Consciousness like a (homogeneous) lump of salt, all-pervading like the
ether, which is without the interior and exterior, unborn and is within
and without. Even the slightest taint of impurity due to the diversity
of ends, means, evolution, dissolution and the rest is, therefore, not
reasonable.
44. “One who is eager to realize this right knowledge spoken of in the
Sruti should rise above the desire for a son, wealth and this world and
the next which are described in a five-fold 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 regarding the prohibition of the
acceptance of (the reality of) difference. For when the knowledge that
the one non-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 a method if enlightening the disciple
Chapter - II
The knowledge of the
changeless and non-dual self
45. A certain Brahmacharin, tired of the trans migratory existence
consisting of birth and death and aspiring after liberation, approached
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 trans migratory existence ? Conscious of the body, the senses and their
objects, I feel pain in the state of waking and also in the state of
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, it is not your nature but causal”.
47. Told thus the disciple said, ‘What is the cause, what will bring it
to an end and what is my nature ? That cause being brought to an end,
there will be the absence of the effect and I shall come by my own
nature, just like a patient who gets back the 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, will be removed, you will be liberated
from the trans migratory existence consisting of birth and death. 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 ? (What
is its object?) and what is Knowledge by means of which I may come by my
own nature?”
50. The teacher said, “You are the non-trans migratory Supreme Self, but
you wrongly think that you are one liable to transmigration.
(Similarly), not being an agent or an experiencer you wrongly consider
yourself to be so. Again, you are eternal but mistake yourself to be
non-eternal. That is Ignorance.”
51. The disciple said, “Though eternal, I am not the Supreme Self. My
Nature is one of trans migratory existence consisting of agency and
experiencing of its results, as it is known by evidences 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, for It 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
superimposition 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 know ledges, like a human being and a trunk of 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 know ledges 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
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 (alone) is superimposed through
Ignorance on the Self, the body will be 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 always
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 by 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 be 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 make 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: “How am I conscious of pain and pleasure and also of what you say, if I be non-conscious ?”
69. Teacher: “Are you different from the consciousness 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 know 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 knower. 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,
as wood and a wall do not serve 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 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, ‘Is it 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 ?”
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 resemble sound etc., objects existing externally.
Similarly, these different 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 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”.
75. 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 a change; and the Knower (as you say) is of a
changeless nature. 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 the action of cutting a thing in two is secondarily called its
separation in two which is the ultimate result of the action of cutting
the thing.
78. Being told thus, the disciple said, “Sir, the example cited by you cannot prove that I am changeless”.
Teacher: “How ?”
Disciple: “For, just as the ultimate separation (into two) is used
secondarily for the action of cutting which is the meaning of a root, so
the word knowledge is used secondarily for the mental modification
which is the meaning of a root and which ends in the result that is a
change in Knowledge. The example cited by you, therefore, cannot
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 I who am changeless, the knower, as
you say, of all the mental modifications, the 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 the reflection of
Knowledge, 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 will 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, persisting in deep sleep, 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”.
100. 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”.
101. 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 prevent its existence for
the sake of another, its manyness and 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 prevent Its independence of other things
inasmuch as It never ceases to exist”.
102. Disciple: “But I have shown an exception, namely, I have no consciousness in deep sleep.”
103. 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 anything else in deep sleep.”
Teacher: “You are then conscious in deep aleep. 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 other then 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 in 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 an evidence to prove that It exists or
that It is the Knower.”
104. Disciple: “But it is transitory knowledge only that is the result of a proof and not eternal Knowledge”.
105. Teacher: “No. There 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 Knowledge Itself is such a result”.
106. 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”.
107. Teacher: “The Knower which is the Self is then self-evident as It does not depend on any evidence (in order to be proved).”
108. 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 Self be not so on the same
ground ?”
Teacher: “No, it has been refused on the ground that it is pure Knowledge that is in the Self”.
109. “Whom will the desire (to know a thing) belong to, if the Knower
depend 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).
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 by
anyone of his own desire 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.
110. Disciple: “But the knower remains unknown if there is no knowledge which has for its object the knower”.
111. 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 that 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 non-existent 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”.
112. Disciple: “How can the knower be a knower if he is not the seat of the knowledge produced by evidences ?”
113. 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 that which is 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 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 their essential nature)”.
114. Here the disciple starts an objection: “It is not reasonable that
the Self which is changeless and 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”.
115. 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. Everything including sound etc., come to
exist when they are proved by mental functions resulting in the
reflection of the Self in them.
“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 (in them).”
116. Disciple: “But no one depends on any other evidence such as sense-perception etc., in knowing the body.”
117. Teacher: “Yes, 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 changeless Self”.
118. 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 mental modifications called
sense-perception etc., are so. It is for this reason that It is called
the result of proofs in a secondary sense.”
119. Disciple: “Sir, if this is so, independent of evidences regarding
Itself, eternal and changeless knowledge, which is the Consciousness of
the Self, is surely self-evident and all things different from It and
therefore non-conscious, have an existence only for 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
knowledge and as nothing else that it has an existence. Just as a
rope-snake, the water in a mirage and such other things are found to be
non-existent except only the knowledge by which they are known; so, the
duality experienced during waking and dream has reasonably no existence
except the knowledge by which it is known. So having a continuous
existence, Pure Consciousness, the Self, 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 reasonably
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. As there is nothing else
(except Myself, the aim of my life is fulfilled by your grace).”
120. Teacher: “It is exactly so. It is Ignorance due to which the trans migratory 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 trans migratory
existence”.
Disciple: “Yes, Sir”.
No comments:
Post a Comment