Translated by Swami Jagadananda
Published by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai
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 tranquility, 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 beginningless 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 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 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 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 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 transmigratory 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 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 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 approver", "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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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". 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 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 realise 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 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 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 colours 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 colours 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 colours 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 worshipped, "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 realisation 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 (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 realise 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 OF ENLIGHTENING THE DISCIPLE.
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS AND NON-DUAL SELF
45. A certain Brahmacharin, tired of the transmigratory 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 transmigratory 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 transmigratory 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-transmigratory 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 transmigratory 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 knowledge, 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 knowledge 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.
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.
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 adventurous (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.
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 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 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 forr 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.
94. Disciple: But it is transitory knowledge only that is the result of a proof and not eternal Knowledge.
95. 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.
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 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.
99. 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 regresses 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 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 regresses 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 regresses 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.
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 evidence does not differ in its essential nature whether one calls it eternal or transitory. Knowledge (though) produced by 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).
104. 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 regresses 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 regresses 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 regresses 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).
106. Disciple: But no one depends on any other evidence such as sense-perception etc., in knowing the body.
107. 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.
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 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.
109. 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).
110. Teacher: It is exactly so. It is Ignorance due to which the 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.
112. This method of repetition is described for those who aspire after supreme tranquility 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 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 brickbats, 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 quite of a different nature. For, connected with one another those sound and other objects are 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 practice repetition: I who am of the nature of Consciousness, not attached to anything, changeless, immovable, imperishable, free from fear, extreme 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 its special forms such as, the notes of the gamut, praise, etc. which are pleasant and desirable, and 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 and ignorant man on 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 its special form such as fever, colic pain and such other diseases and coldness, hotness, softness or roughness which is unpleasant. Again, pleasant touches connected with the body or brought into existence by external or adventitious causes can likewise produce no change in me as much 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 both pleasant, and 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 Sruti says that I am one who am 'eternally devoid of sound, thought, sight, taste and smell.'
116. Moreover, sound and the other external objects that are 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 foe, nor have I anyone indifferent to me. Anybody, therefore, who wishes to connect me with pleasure or 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 Sruti says, 'It is unmanifested and inscrutable'. Similarly, I am not changeable by the action of any of the five elements as I am not of an objective nature. Therefore the Sruti says, 'It cannot be cut or burnt'. 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 who are devotional or adverse to me will be theirs, but will not touch me who am devoid of old age, death and fear as the Sruti and Smriti say, 'It is not pained by omission and commission', "It is harmed or benefited by any action", 'Unborn, comprising the interior and exterior' and 'It is beyond the pain felt by the people and unattached'. 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 well-known Sankara.
1. I bow down to that all knowing One which is Pure Consciousness, all -pervading, all residing in the hearts of all beings and beyond all objects of knowledge.
2. Now then, the Vedas begin to describe the knowledge of Brahman after dealing with all actions preceded by marriage and the installation of sacred fire.
3-4. Action, (both enjoined and prohibited) bring about one's connection with the body; when the connection with the body has taken place, pleasure and pain most surely follow; thence come attraction and repulsion, from them actions follow again, as results of which merit and demerit appertain to an ignorant man, which again are similarly followed by the connection with the body. This transmigratory is thus going on continually for ever like a wheel.
5. The cessation of Ignorance is desirable, as it is the root of transmigratory existence. Hence, a delineation of knowledge of Brahman through which comes liberation (from Ignorance) is commenced.
6-7. Not being incompatible with Ignorance, actions do not destroy it; it is knowledge alone that does it. Ignorance not being destroyed, the destruction of desire and aversion is not possible. Actions caused by impurities are sure to follow in case desire and aversion are not removed. Knowledge alone, therefore, is taught here, so that liberation (from Ignorance) may be accomplished.
8. Obligatory duties should be performed (along with the practice of knowledge) as long as life lasts, because these duties co-operate with Knowledge in producing liberation.
9. As they are equally enjoined obligatory duties and knowledge (should be practiced together). They should be undertaken by those who aspire after liberation because Srutis speak of sins also (arising out of the omissions of those actions).
10-11. (first line) You may say followed by a sure result, Knowledge does not depend on anything else. But it is not so. Just as Agnishtoma, though followed by an unfailing result, depends on things other than itself; so, knowledge, though bringing about a sure result, must depend on obligatory duties.
11. (Last line). (Reply) Some people hold this view. We say: No. As it is incompatible with actions, Knowledge does not depend on them (in producing its result).
12. Accompanied by egoism, actions are incompatible with Knowledge. For it is well known here (in the Vedanta) that Knowledge is the consciousness that the Self is changeless.
13. Actions have their origin in the consciousness that one is a doer and has the desire of having the results of what one does. Knowledge depends on a thing (its own object and also on evidence), while action depends entirely on the performer.
14. The Knowledge (of one's own real nature) destroys the idea of doership etc. (on the part of oneself like the right Knowledge of the nature of the desert which destroys) the conviction of there being water in it. When this so, how can (a man of knowledge) accept them as true and perform actions?
15. It is, therefore, not possible on the par of a man of knowledge to have Knowledge and perform an action at the same time as they are incompatible with each other. So, one who aspires after liberation should renounce actions.
16. The natural conviction on the part of the people that the Self is not different from the body etc. arises through Ignorance. The Vedic injunctions (and prohibitions) are authoritative as long as it prevails.
17. The Self is left over by negating the body etc. by the Sruti, 'Not this, not this', so that one may have the Knowledge of the Self which is devoid of all attributes. Ignorance is brought to an end by this knowledge.
18. How can Ignorance, one negated (by Vedic evidence), arises again? For it is neither in the innermost Self which is only one without a second and without attributes nor in the non-Self.
19. How can there again be the idea that one is a doer of actions and experiencer of their results if Ignorance does not arise after there has grown the Knowledge 'I am Brahman'? Knowledge, therefore, is independent of actions (in producing liberation).
20-21. (first line) Therefore, it is said by the Sruti that the renunciation of actions including mental ones (catalogued in the Naryanopanishad), is superior to their performance. Again immorality is heard of in the Brihadaranyakopanishad which says, This alone. Hence, they should be renounced by those who aspire after liberation.
21. (last line) We give the following reply to the objector who quoted the example of Agnoshtoma.
22. Knowledge is quite opposite in nature to that of actions like Agnishtoma etc. for they are accomplished with the help of many materials and differ in the quality of the result of each individual performance. The example, therefore, is not parallel.
23. As it produces result (variable in quality) the Agnishtoma sacrifice, like agriculture etc., requires subsidiary actions other than itself. But what else will Knowledge depend on?
24. It is only one having egoism that may incur sin (by the omission of duties). A man who has got Self-knowledge has neither egoism nor a desire for the results of actions.
25. The Upanishads, are therefore, commenced in order to teach the Knowledge of Brahman so that Ignorance might be removed and transmigratory existence might for ever come to an end.
26. The word 'Upanishad' is derived from the root 'sad' prefixed by two particles, 'Upa and 'ni' and followed by the suffix 'Kwip'. Si, that which loosens the bondage of birth, old age, etc., enables a man to approach Brahman and destroys birth, death, etc., is called Upanishad.
1. Impossible 'to be negated', the Self is left over on the authority of Sruti 'Not this, not this'. So, the Self becomes clearly known on the reflection. 'I am not this, I am not this.'
2. The consciousness of egoism (i.e. the mistaken identity of the Self with the body etc.) has its origin in the intellect and has for its object what is based on words only. As its very nature and origin are both negated by the Sruti, 'Not this, not this', egoism can never again be regarded as founded on any evidence.
3. A following Knowledge does not arise without negating the previous one (e.g. the knowledge of the rope does not come without destroying that of the snake in a rope-snake). Pure Consciousness, the Self, only has an independent existence and is never negated as It is the result of evidence.
4. One attains one's own innermost Self by crossing the forest of this body infested with ferocious beasts of grief, delusion, etc., like the man of the country of Gandhara who crossed the forest and reached his own country.
1. The aspirant can not know that he is Brahman if It be different from the Self. (It then contradicts the Sruti). But if he has the conviction that he, the Self, is Brahman (there is no contradiction to the Sruti.) This is (right) Knowledge which destroys Ignorance.
2. What would be the use (of the description by the Sruti) of the qualities 'not large' etc., if they were the qualities of one other than the Self, it being not an object of search? But if Brahman (with these qualities) is the Self, the ideas such as largeness, smallness, etc. are negated from the latter.
3. Know, therefore, that the Sruti, 'not large' etc. is meant to negate the false superimposition (of largeness, smallness, etc. on the Self) as it would be description of a void if it were meant to negate those qualities from one other than the Self.
4. Moreover, the saying, 'devoid of the vital force, devoid of the mind and pure' would be unmeaning if these qualities were meant to be negated from one other than the individual Self, the aspirant.
THE NATURE OF RIGHT KNOWLEDGE
1. How can those actions of which the root is egoism and which are accumulated in the mind produce results when they are burnt by the fire of the right Knowledge that one is neither the doer of actions nor he experiencer of their results?
2. (The objector): Actions burnt by the fire of Knowledge may produce results like the seen ones of the actions of a man of Knowledge. (Reply): No. They are due to another cause. (The Objector): I ask you how there can be actions when egoism is destroyed. Please answer.
3. (Reply). Such actions produce their results by overpowering the Knowledge of Brahman in you, because they have the power of producing the body etc., Knowledge, however, becomes manifest when the results of these actions come to an end.
4. As Knowledge and the experiencing of pain and pleasure are both results of actions that have given rise to the present body and have begun to produce results it is reasonable that they are not incompatible with each other. But other kinds of actions are different in nature.
5. The Knowledge of one's identity with the pure Self that negated the wrong notion of the identity of the body and the Self sets a man free even against his will when it becomes as firm as the belief of the man that he is a human being.
All this, therefore, is established. And reasons have been already given by us.
ERROR IN UNDERSTANDING
1. People do not receive Self-knowledge on account of the fear that their duties (according to their castes and orders of life) would be destroyed like Udanks who did not accept genuine nectar which, he thought, was urine.
[That people do not like to receive Self-knowledge is due to their ignorance of the real nature of the Self and a wrong and false conception about It].
2. The Self seems to be moving when the intellect moves, and It seems to be at rest when it is at rest, on account of Its identification with the intellect, like trees appearing to move in the eyes of those who are in a moving boat. Similar is the misconception about transmigratory existence.
3. Just as trees are thought to be moving in a direction opposite to that of a moving boat by a man in it, so, transmigratory existence is (wrongly) thought to belong to the Self (by a man who has identified himself with the intellect). For, there is the passage in the Sruti, 'as if at rest'.
4. The modifications of the intellect are pervaded by the reflection of Consciousness when they come to exist. So the Self appears to be identified with sound etc. This is the reason why people are deluded.
5. As it is the object of Pure Consciousness and exists for It (the ego is not the Self). Pure Consciousness is the Universal Self when the object portion is rejected.
NEGATION OF ATTRIBUTES
1. The Self Itself is not qualified by an arm which has been cut off and thrown away. Similarly, It is not qualified by any of the remaining things by which It is (thought to be) qualified.
2. Therefore all the qualifications are similar to the arm cut of and thrown away as they are all non-Self. So the Self is free from all qualifications.
3. It is reasonable that like ornaments all these are qualifications (of the Self) owing to superimposition through Ignorance. When the Self is known they prove to be unreal.
4. After rejecting the object portion one should accept the Self as the knower free from all qualifications. The ego, the object portion, is also like the part of the body cut off.
5. The Self of which the whole of the object portion is the qualification is different from it. Bereft of all qualifications, It has an independent existence like that of a man possessing a variegated cow.
6. As it is not the Self the object portion in the consciousness 'I' should be renounced by the wise. As It was mixed with egoism previously the remaining (non-object) portion is implied by the word 'I' in the sentence 'I am Brahman'.
KNOWLEDGE THROUGH THE INTELLECT
1. I am the supreme Brahman all-knowing and all-pervading as pervaded by the intellect, all things in all conditions are always illumined by me.
2. Just as I am the witness of all the objects of my intellect, so am I that of the objects of other intellects. I am not capable of being rejected or accepted. Therefore I am the supreme Brahman.
3. As It is the witness of all intellects and their modifications, the Self, unlike the intellects, is not of limited knowledge and has no change, impurity or material nature in It.
4. Just as in the presence of sunlight colours such as red etc. (of flowers and other things) are manifested in a jewel, so all objects are seen in the intellect in My Presence. All things are, therefore, illumined by Me like sunlight.
5. Objects of knowledge exist in the intellect as long as it is there in waking and dream; but none exist in the opposite case (i.e. when it is merged during deep sleep). The knower is always the knower. Duality has, therefore, no existence.
6. The intellect knew the non-existence of the supreme Brahman before the discrimination between the Self and non-Self. But after the discrimination there is no individual. Self is different from neither Brahman nor the intellect itself.
MERGING OF THE MIND
1. The connection of enjoyment etc. with me, oh My mind who am by nature Consciousness Itself is due to the delusion created by you. As I am free from all attributes there is no utility according to me from your efforts.
2. Give up the false attempts and come to rest in Me from constant vain-efforts as I am always the supreme Brahman as if free from bondage, Unborn and devoid of duality.
3. The supreme Brahman, the same in all beings and free from all attributes, I am all-pervading like the ether, imperishable, auspicious, homogeneous, partless and actionless. I, therefore, have no benefit to be derived from your efforts.
4. No one different from Me can belong to me who am one only. Nor can I who am unattached belong to anybody. I have, therefore, no benefit to be derived from anything done by you. As you are not other than Myself you can have no effort nor its results.
5. Considering that people are attached to the ideas of cause and effect, I have composed this dialogue (between the mind and the Self) leading to the understanding of the real nature of the Self in order that they might get freed from this (bondage).
6. A man gets liberated from Ignorance, the cause of great fear, and roams (over the world) free from desires, free from grief, a Knower of the Self, the same in all beings and happy, if he ponders over this dialogue.
SUBTLENESS AND PERVASIVENESS
1. A succeeding one in the series of earth etc. ending with the innermost Self is found to be subtle and more pervasive when a preceding one is negated.
[When we negate a preceding one we get a subtler and more pervasive one till at last the innermost Self is reached which is of the nature of Existence and Consciousness and is the material Cause of everything, and therefore, absolutely all pervading and the subtlest].
2. External earth is the same as that pertaining to bodies, Water etc. the other categories also are, without exception, known to be the same according to evidences.
[When all the elements either or pertaining to bodies are ascertained to be pervaded by the Self, no distinction is known to exist between the external elements and those pertaining to bodies as the Self only then exists].
3. Always Pure Consciousness, I am one without a second, all and all-pervading like the ether before the creation of air and other elements.
4. It has been ascertained that all the beings from Brahma down to the immovable creation are my bodies. From what other source will blemishes like lust, anger etc come into me?
5. People look upon Me, the Lord residing in all beings and always untouched by their defects, as tainted (with those defects) like a boy who (erroneously) looks upon the sky as blue.
6. As the intellects of all beings are illumined by My Consciousness all beings are bodies belonging to Me, who am all-knowing and free from all sins and virtues.
7. Objects that come into being and are capable of being made the objects of Knowledge are as unreal as those known as dreams. As duality has no (real) existence Knowledge is external and objectless.
8. As there is nothing other than the Self in dreamless sleep, it is said by the Sruti that the Consciousness of the Knower is eternal. (As Knowledge is really objectless) the knowledge of objects in the waking state must be due to ignorance. Accept then that its objects are unreal.
9. It is clearly understood that Brahman cannot be the object of knowledge just as it can not be the object of seeing etc. as it has no colour, form and the like.
RIGHT CONCEPTION OF THE NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
1. I am the supreme Brahman which is pure consciousness, always clearly manifest, unborn, one only, imperishable, unattached and all-pervading like the ether and non-dual. I am, therefore, ever free.
2. Pure and changeless consciousness I am by nature, devoid of objects (to illumine). Unborn and established in the Self, I am all-pervading Brahman in the front, oblique, upward, downward and all other directions.
3. I am unborn, deathless, devoid of old age, immortal, self effulgent, all pervading and non-dual. Perfectly pure, having neither causes nor effect and contented with the one Bliss, I am free. Yes.
4. No perception whatever in waking, dream or deep sleep belongs to Me but it is due to delusion. For these states have no independent existence or an existence depending on the Self. I am, therefore, the Fourth which is the Seer of all the three states and without a second.
5. As I am changeless the series producing pain viz. the body, the intellect and the senses are not myself nor mine. Moreover they are unreal like dream-objects, there being a reason for interference that hey are so.
6. But it is true that I have no change nor any cause of a change as I am without a second. As I do not possess a body I have neither sin nor virtue, neither bondage nor liberation, neither a caste nor an order of life.
7. Beginningless and devoid of attributes, I have neither actions nor their results. Therefore I am the supreme One without a second. Though in a body, I do not get attached on account of My subtleness like the ether which, though all-pervading, does not get tainted.
8. Though I am the Lord always the same in all beings, beyond the perishable and the imperishable, and therefore the Supreme, the Self of all, and without a second. I am considered to be of a contrary nature on account of Ignorance.
9. Not distanced by anything from Itself and untouched by Ignorance, false conceptions (of possessing a body etc.) and by actions, the Self is very pure. Without a second and established in My real nature like the immovable ether, I am (thought to be) connected with the powers of seeing and other perceptions.
10. There is the saying of the Sruti that one who has the sure conviction about oneself that one is Brahman is never born again. There being no delusion there is no birth. For, when the cause is not there, there cannot be any effect.
11. False conceptions of people such as mine, this, thus, this is so, I am so, another is not so, etc. are all due to delusion. They are never in Brahman which is auspicious, the same in all and without a second.
12. All grief and delusion are removed from those great souls when there arises the very pure knowledge of the non-dual Self. It is the conclusion of those who know the meaning of the Vedas that there cannot be any action or birth in the absence of the grief and delusion.
13. It is the conclusion here (in the Vedanta) that one who, though perceiving the world of duality in the waking state, does not, like a man in deep sleep, perceive it owing to duality being negated, and who is (really) actionless even when (apparently) acting as a man of Self-knowledge; but no one else is so.
14. This Right knowledge described by me is the highest because it is ascertained in the Vedantas. One becomes liberated and unattached (to actions) like the ether if one is perfectly convinced of this Truth.
NATURE OF THE WITNESS
1. All beings are by nature Pure Consciousness Itself. It is due to Ignorance that they appear to be different from It. Their difference from It is removed by the teaching "Thou art existence".
2. The scriptures negate Vedic actions with their accessories by saying, Knowledge alone is the cause of immorality, and that there is nothing else to cooperate with it (in producing liberation).
3-4. How can there be any special property in Me Who am changeless by nature and witness the modifications of the minds of all without any exception? (How can again there be any change in Me) Who witness the mind and its functions in the waking state as in dream? But as there is the absence of both the mind and its functions in deep sleep, I am Pure Consciousness, all pervading and changeless.
5. Just as dreams appear to be true as long as one does not wake up, so, the identification of oneself with the body etc. and the authenticity of sense-perception and the like in the waking state continue as long as there is no Self-knowledge.
6. I am Brahman, of the nature of Pure Consciousness, without qualities, free from Ignorance, free from the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. Living in all beings like the ether, I am the witness free from all their defects.
7. Ever free and different from names, forms and actions, I am the supreme Brahman, the Self, consisting of Pure Consciousness and always without a second.
8. Those who think themselves to be one with Brahman and at the same time to be doers and experiencers should be regarded as fallen from both Knowledge and duties. They are, no doubt, unbelievers in the Vedas.
9. It must be accepted on the strength of the scriptures that the Self is Brahman, and that liberation accrues from Right Knowledge only, like the connections with the Self of the results of sin and virtue, which, though unseen, is admitted on the same authority.
10. What are called in the Sruti clothes coloured with turmeric etc. are nothing but mental impressions received by people in dreams. (The Self, their illuminator, must, therefore, be different from them and from the subtle body in which they lie). So the Self, Pure Consciousness, (the perceiver of doership etc.) must be different from them (in the waking state also).
11. Just as a sword taken out of its sheath is seen as it is, so, the Knower, the Self, is seen in dream in Its real and self-effulgent nature free from cause and effect.
12. The real nature of the individual (Self) who was pushed and awakened has been described by the saying Not this, not this which negates all superimposition.
13. Just as objects of enjoyment like a great Kingship etc. are superimposed on Me in dream (and are unreal), so, the two forms, (the visible and the invisible) with the mental impressions, are also superimposed on Me (and are similarly unreal).
14. All actions are performed by the Self which has identified Itself with the gross and the subtle bodies and which has the nature of accumulating impressions. As I am of the nature indicated by the Sruti 'Not this, not this' actions are nowhere to be done by Me.
15. As actions have Ignorance for their cause, there is no hope from them of immorality. As liberation is caused by right Knowledge (alone), it does not depend on anything else.
16. But Immorality is free from fear and destruction. The individual Self (signified by the words) dear to one is Brahman (devoid of all attributes) according to the Sruti, Not this, not this. Whatever is thought to be different from It should, therefore, be renounced together with all actions.
1. Just as a man (erroneously) looks upon his body placed in the sun as having the property of light in it, so, he looks upon the intellect pervaded by the reflection of Pure Consciousness as the Self.
2. The Self gets identified with whatever is seen in the world. It is for this reason that and ignorant man does not know himself (to be Brahman).
[The reason why people mistake the combination of the subtle and the gross bodies for the Self is this identification caused by the reflection. On account of there being the reflection of Pure Consciousness in the body, the senses, the mind, the intellect and the vital force, they appear to be conscious and cannot therefore, be determined from the Self.]
3. An ignorant man gets identified with objects of knowledge and does not know the Self which is different from them like the tenth boy who got identified as it were with the other nine.
4. Say how there can reasonably be the two contrary ideas 'Yes do this' and 'You are Brahman' at the same time and in respect of the same person.
5. Pain belongs to one identifying oneself with it, as in deep sleep, is, therefore, by nature free from pain. The teaching "Thou Art That' is imparted in order that this identification might be removed from the Self.
6. An ignorant person mistakes the intellect with the reflection of Pure Consciousness in it for the Self, when there is the reflection of the Self in the intellect like that of a face in the mirror.
7. He who looks upon the ego, the indiscrimination that produces delusion and other mental modifications (or the reflection of the Self in them) as having no connection with the Self, is, without doubt, the dearest to the knower of Brahman. No one else is so.
8. It is the knower of knowledge that is referred to by word 'Thou' in the Sruti. The understanding of the term 'Thou' in this sense is correct. The other sense different from it is due to superimposition.
9. How can there be knowledge or ignorance in Me who am eternal and always of the nature of Pure Consciousness? No knowledge, therefore, other than the Self can be accepted.
10. Just as the heat fo the sun (in a part of the body )together with that part of the body is the object of the knower, so pain and pleasure together with the intellect in which they lie are in the object of the Self.
11. I am Brahman without attributes, ever pure, ever free, non-dual and homogeneous like the ether and of the nature of Consciousness from which the object portion has been negated.
12. I am always the free supreme Knower in all beings in as much as there cannot be a more comprehensive knower different from Me.
13. He who Knows that the Consciousness of the Self ceases to exist, and that It is never an agent and also gives up the egoism that he is a Knower of Brahman is a (real) knower of the Self. Others are not so.
14. Capable by no means of being known, I am the knower and am always free and pure as the discriminating knowledge which is in the intellect and is liable to be destroyed on account of its being an object of knowledge.
15. The Consciousness of the Self, on the other hand, never goes out of existence and is not capable of being produced by the action of agents etc. in as much as possibility is superimposed on It by another consciousness which is It and is different from It.
16. The doership of the Self is false as it depends on the misconception of the body being the Self. That I do not do anything is the true knowledge which arises from the right evidence (the Vedas).
17. Agency depends on doership instruments etc. but non-agency is natural. It has, therefore, been very well ascertained that the knowledge that one is a doer and experiencer is certainly false.
18. How can the idea that I am a person to be enjoined (by the Vedas to perform actions) be true, when the real nature of the Self is thus known from the scriptures and inference?
19. Just as the ether is in the interior of all, so am I in the interior of even the ether. Therefore I am without any change, without any motion, Pure, devoid of old age, ever free and without a second.
1. There is no vision in Me as I am without the organ of seeing. How can there be hearing in Me who have no auditive organ? Devoid of the organ of speech, I have no act of speaking in Me. How can there be thinking in Me who have no mind?
2-3. Devoid of the vital force, I have no action (in Me) and devoid of the intellect, I am not a knower. Ever free, ever Pure, changeless, immovable, immortal, imperishable and bodiless, I have no knowledge or ignorance in Me who am of the nature of the Light of Pure Consciousness only.
4. All-pervading like the ether, I have no hunger, thirst, grief, delusion, old age and death as I am without a body (mind and vital force).
5. Devoid of the organ of touch, I have no act of touching; and devoid of the tongue, I have no sensation of taste. I never have knowledge or ignorance as I am of the nature of eternal Consciousness.
6. It is well known that the mental modification which is produced through the instrumentality of the eye and is of the form of the object of vision is always witnessed by the eternal Consciousness of the Self.
7-8. Similarly, other mental modifications in the forms of objects of knowledge produced through the instrumentality of other organs and also those in the forms of memory, attachment etc., which are only within the mind, and those again in dream are witnessed by one different from all of them (i.e. by the Self). The Knowledge, therefore, of the Knower is eternal, pure, infinite and without a second.
9. It is through the indiscrimination between the Self and the modifications of the mind, false adjuncts to the Self, that the Knowledge of the Knower is wrongly conceived by the people to be impure and transitory, and the Self happy or miserable.
10. All men misconceive themselves to be ignorant or pure, accordingly, as they identify themselves with the mental modifications 'I am ignorant' or 'I am pure'. It is for this reason that they continue to be in transmigratory existence.
11. One should always remember the Self to be ever-free, unborn and comprising the interior and exterior as described in the Sruti in which the Self is spoken of as eyeless and so on, if one is an aspirant after liberation.
12. That organs never belong to me is known from the Sruti, 'eyeless' etc. There is again the saying of the Sruti belonging to the Atharva Veda that the Self is 'devoid' of the vital force, devoid of the mind and pure.
13. As I am always devoid of the vial force and the mind and heard of in the Kathopanishad as having no connection with sound etc. I am always changeless.
14. I, therefore, have neither un-restlessness nor a profound concentration which is subject to change.
15. How can I who am pure and mindless have those two? I am without any change and without a mind as I am all-pervading and devoid of a body.
16. So, I who am ever free, ever pure and ever awakened had duties to perform so long as there was Ignorance.
17. How can I have concentration, non-concentration or other actions in Me as all men feel that the acme of their lives is fulfilled when they meditate on me and know Me?
18. I am, therefore, Brahman, the all-comprehensive Principle, ever Pure, ever Awakened and ever Unborn devoid of old age, imperishable and immortal.
19. There is no knower among the beings of the world other than Myself. I am the distributor of the results of their actions and the witness. It is I to whom all beings owe their consciousness. Without qualities and without a second, I am eternal.
20. I am not the three visible elements or the two invisible ones, neither I am both (i.e. their combination, the body). I am devoid of all attributes and the three Gunas. In Me there is neither night nor day nor their picture as I am always of the nature of the light.
21. Just as the ether is subtle, without a second and devoid of all forms so am I the non-dual Brahman devoid even of the ehter.
22. The distinction between the Self in Itself and my Self is one due to superimposition (of different adjuncts on one and the same Self), just as difference (is wrongly conceived to) exist in one and the same ether owing to apertures (in various objects).
23. How can difference, absence of difference, oneness, many-ness, and the qualities of being known and being a knower, the results of actions and also agency and experiencing be attributed to Me who am one only?
24. I have nothing to reject or accept on as much as I am changeless. Always free, pure, awakened and without qualities, I am without a second.
25. One should, with great concentration of mind, always know the Self to be All. One certainly becomes all-knowing and free when one knows Me to be residing in one's own body.
26. He who thus knows the reality of the Self becomes successful in attaining the goal of his life and becomes perfect. He becomes a Knower of Brahman and one with It. One knowing the Self otherwise may be said to commit suicide.
27. This ascertained meaning of the Vedas described briefly by me should be imparted to those who have given up worldly action and have controlled their minds by one whose intellect has been trained (according to the scriptures under a teacher who has known Brahman).
DREAM AND MEMORY
1. As the resemblance of objects of knowledge like jars etc. is perceived in dream and memory, it is inferred that the intellect in those forms was surely seen before in the waking state.
2. Just as the body going from place to place for alms seen (e.g. by a wandering mendicant) in dream is not oneself, so witnessing the body in waking state the Seer must be different from it which is seen.
3. Pervading objects like forms, colours etc. the mind appears to be exactly like them, just as (molten) copper assumes the form of a mould when poured into it.
4. Or, just as light, the revealer assumes the forms of the objects revealed by it, so the intellect looks like all things in as much as it reveals them.
5. It was the intellect in the forms of objects of knowledge that was seen before by the seer; how can he see them in dream or remembers their forms, if that were not the case?
6. That intellect is seen in the forms of objects of knowledge is what is meant by saying that it reveals them. The Self is said to witness the modifications of the intellect as It pervades them whenever they arise.
7. I am the Self of all as the intellects of all beings are illumined by Me who am of the nature of the Light of Consciousness.
8. It is the intellect that becomes the instrument, the object, the agent, actions and their results in dream. It is known to be so in the waking state also. The Seer is, therefore, different from the intellect (and its objects).
9. As they are susceptible of appearance and disappearance, the intellect etc. are not the Self. The Self is the cause of their appearance and disappearance and can not be made to appear or disappear.
10. How can an interior, an exterior or any other thing be attributed to the Self which comprises the interior and exterior, is pure and of the nature of homogeneous Consciousness.
11. Why should a knower of Brahman make any more effort if the Self which is left over by negating the non-Self according to the Sruti, Not this, not this, is considered to be the Self?
12. One should rightly think thus: I am all-pervading Brahman beyond hunger etc. How can I have actions?
13. A knower of the Self will wish to perform actions if one who has reached the other bank of a river wishes to reach that bank while there.
14. A (so called) knower of the Self having the ideas of acceptance and rejection should be regarded as not for liberation, but must be considered to be certainly rejected by Brahman.
15. Even for a knower of Prana the world with the sun is Prana and therefore, there is no day or night for him; how then can they be for a knower of Brahman in which there is no duality?
16. The Self whose Consciousness never ceases to exist neither remembers nor forgets Itself. That the mind remembers the Self is also a Knowledge caused by Ignorance.
17. If the supreme Self be an object of the knowledge of the knower, it must be a superimposition due to ignorance. It is only the Self without a second when that superimposition is negated by the right knowledge, like a snake in a rope.
18. Who (and for what reason) will attribute the ideas of me and mine to the Self as It is inborn and comprises the interior and exterior on account of the fact that the agent, action and their results do not exist?
19. For the ideas me and mine are superimposed on the Self due to ignorance. They do not exist when the Self is known to be one only. How can there be an effect without a cause?
20. It is the individual Self known to be the seer, the hearer, the thinker and the knower that is Brahman, the imperishable One. As the individual Self is not different from It, I am the imperishable Principle.
21. As all beings, moving and non-moving, are endowed with actions such as, seeing etc., they are Brahman, the imperishable One. Therefore I am the Self of all, the indestructible One.
22. He has the truest knowledge who looks upon the Self as a non-agent having no connection with actions and their results and free from the ideas of me and mine.
23. Be in peace. What is the use of efforts if the Self has been known to be naturally free from the ideas me and mine and from efforts and desire?
24. One who looks upon the Self as an agent of actions and a knower of objects is not a knower of the Self. One who knows otherwise is a real knower of It.
25. Just as the Self is identified with the body etc., though different from them, so, It is looked upon as the agent of actions and the experiencer of their results owing to the fact that It is not known to be a non-agent.
26. Seeing, hearing, thinking and knowing are always known by people in dream. Moreover, as they are essentially the Self It is directly known.
[The meaning is this: The mind merges in the Self as Primeval Ignorance during deep sleep, but the Self then, as always, exists in its nature of Pure Consciousness. Therefore it is clear that the Self is different from the mind and exists as the witness of this phenomenon; that is what is meant by saying in the verse that the Self is directly known.]
27. Even powerful beings including Brahma and Indra are objects of pity to that knower of the Self who has no fear about the next world nor is afraid of death.
28. What is the use of his becoming a powerful one or becoming Brahma or Indra if all inauspicious desires the cause of misery, are entirely uprooted?
29. He is a Knower of the Self to whom the ideas me and mine have become quite meaningless.
30. How can there be any action in one who finds no difference in the Self both when the intellect etc., Its adjuncts exist and when they do not?
31. Say what action might be desired to be done by one who has known himself to be without a second, who is of the nature of homogeneous consciousness and who is devoid of impurities, both natural and adventitious like the ether.
32. He who sees the Self in all beings and at the same time feels that he has enemies, desires surely to make fire cold.
33. The Self which has for Its adjuncts the intellect and the vital force is reflected in the modifications of the intellect and in the senses, like the sun reflected in water (for example). The Self is free and pure by nature (even in that condition) as it is said in the Sruti, It is at rest as it were.
[The real sun in the sky never moves with the movement of the water in which it is reflected, though the reflection does so. So, the Self does not change with the changes in the intellect in which it is reflected. The meaning of the Sruti quoted is that the Self, in no condition, has either rest or motion; It is always pure. Rest and motion are in the intellect.]
34. How can I have actions who am Pure Consciousness devoid of the vital force and the mind, unattached and all-pervading like the ether?
35-36. As I am Brahman, always changeless and pure, I never see the absence of concentration in Me; and free from sin and virtue. I find nothing in Me to be purified. As I am without parts, without qualities, without emotion and all-pervading, I do not find, on my part the action of going or a place to go to; nor do I find an upward, a downward or an oblique direction.
37. How can any action be left for Me who am ever free; for the Self is always of the nature of the Light of Pure Consciousness and hence devoid of ignorance.
38. How can there be any thought in one who has no mind and actions in one who has no senses? The Sruti truly says, the Self is pure devoid of the vital force and the mind.
39. Always meditating on the Self, one has nothing to do with time etc., as the Self is in no way connected with time, space, directions and causation.
40. The mind is the place of pilgrimage where devas, Vedas and all other purifying agencies become one. A bath in that place of pilgrimage makes one immortal.
41. (Non-conscious objects of Knowledge like) sound etc. cannot illumine themselves or one another. Therefore tastes etc. are illumined by one other than themselves. So are tastes etc. pertaining to the body as they are also objects of knowledge.
42. The objects of knowledge, the ego and other changes described as mine, such as, desires, efforts, pleasure etc., cannot similarly illumine themselves. They cannot illumine one another for the same reason. You, the Self, are, therefore, different from them.
43. All the changes such as, egoism etc., have an agent and are connected with the results of actions. They are illumined completely by Pure Consciousness like the sun. The Self, therefore, is free from bondage.
44. As the minds of all embodied beings are pervaded by the Self as Consciousness which is Its nature like the ether, there is neither a lower nor a higher knower than Itself. So, there is one non-dual universal Self only.
45. The doctrine that there is no Self has been well refuted by me as the gross and the subtle bodies are illumined by one different from them. It must be unalloyed with actions that cause impurity and beyond them. It is very pure, all-pervading, free from bondage and without a second.
46. If, according to you, the mind which assumes various forms like those of jars and other things through its modifications be not illumined (by the Self), the defects in It, in the forms of impurity, non-consciousness and change cannot be prevented like those in the mind.
[If one does not accept that the Self is the witness of the mind and therefore, unattached to it, it is inevitable that the defects of the mind will tarnish the Self. Liberation becomes impossible in that case.]
47. Just as the pure and limitless ether does not get attached nor tainted, so, the Self is always the same in all beings and free from old age, death and fear.
48.The elements with and without forms and the seat of desires, superimposed through delusion by ignorant people on the Self, are thrown out of It which consists of Consciousness only, on the authority of the Vedic evidence 'Not this, not this'. The Self alone is then left over.
[In this verse the whole of the gross and the subtle universes are negated from the Self].
49. The impressions of the objects known in the waking sate, owing to the contact of the mind with them, are perceived like real objects in memory and dream. So the body, the mind and their impressions are different from the Self as they are objects of perception.
50. Just as impurities like clouds etc. do not produce any alteration in the naturally pure ether by their appearance or disappearance; so, there is never any alteration in the ether-like Consciousness free from duality negated by the Sruti.
IMPOSSIBILITY OF ONE BEING ANOTHER
1. As one cannot become another one should not consider Brahman to be different from oneself. For if one becomes another one is sure to be destroyed.
[The idea is this: The individual Self, if considered to be really different from Brahman, cannot become Brahman as long as it exists; and if it were destroyed who would then become Brahman? Therefore one should know that one is not different from It and It is not different from one.]
2. Things seen (in the waking state) are seen like a picture painted on a canvas when one remembers them. Those by and in which they are so seen are respectively known to be the individual Self and the intellect.
3. What is perceived to be connected with karakas and entailing results is found to be in the (category of) objects when it is remembered. The seat, therefore, in which it was perceived before was an object of Consciousness).
4. The seen (e.g. the intellect) is always different from the seer as it is an object of knowledge like a jar. The seer is of a mature different from that of the seen. Otherwise the seer would be devoid of the nature of being the witness like the intellect.
5. When they are considered to be one's own caste etc. becomes the cause of injunctions like a dead body. They do not, therefore, belong to the Self. The Self would otherwise become the non-Self.
6. As it is said in the Sruti, pleasure and pain (do not touch one who is bodiless). Bodilessness is not the result of actions. The cause of our connection with a body is action. Therefore an aspirant after knowledge should renounce actions.
7. If the Self is considered to be independent with regard to the performance of actions. It must be so with regard to their renunciation also. Why should, therefore, one perform actions when the result is known to be Bodilessness which cannot be produced by actions?
8. After giving up caste etc., which are the causes of duties, a wise man should (constantly) remember, from the scriptures, his own real nature which is incompatible with causes of duties.
9. The one and the same Self is in all beings and they are in It just as all beings are in ether. As by the ether, every thing is pervaded by the Self which is considered to be pure and consisting of the Light of Pure Consciousness.
10. By negating wounds and sinews the Sruti negates the gross body (from the Self). Being pure and free from sin and virtue, the Self is free from all the impressions of pain and pleasure. The Sruti again discards the subtle body by calling the Self bodiless.
11. He who knows the Self to be the same everywhere like Vasudeva, who speaks of the same Self residing in a pipal tree and in his own body, is the best of the knower of Brahman.
12. Just as the ideas of me and mine are not thought to exist in either body, so, also they do not exist in one's own. For the Self is the common witness of all intellects.
13. 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.
14. The meditator assumes the form of the object meditated upon; for the latter is different from the former; there can be no such actions in the Self in order that It may be established in Itself, as It is independent of actions (owing to the fact that It is the Self). For It would not be the Self if it is depended on actions.
15. Pure Consciousness is of one homogeneous nature like the ether, undivided, without old age and impurity. it is conceived to be of a contrary nature on account of adjuncts such as, the eye etc.
16. What is called the ego is not the property of the Self as it is an object of perception like jars and other things. So are to be known the other functions and the impurities of the mind. The Self, therefore, is without any impurity.
17. The Self is changeless and all-pervading, on account of Its being the witness of all the functions of the mind. It would be of limited knowledge like the intellect etc., if it were subject to change.
18. Unlike the knowledge gained through the eyes etc. the knowledge of the Knower does not cease to exist. it is said in the Sruti, knowledge of the Knower does not go out of existence. The knower, therefore, is always of the homogeneous nature of knowledge.
19. One should discriminate thus: Who am I? Am I a combination of the elements or the senses, or am I any one of them separately?
20. I am not any one off the elements separately nor their aggregate; similarly, I am not any one of the senses nor their aggregate; for they are objects (like jars etc.) and instruments (like axes etc.) of knowledge respectively. The knower is different from all these.
21. Placed like fuel in the fire of the Self, burning brightly by Ignorance, desire and action, the intellect always shines forth through the door-like apertures like ears etc.
22. The fore of the Self is the experiencer of gross objects (in the waking state) when the intellect, ignited by the objects which are in the place of oblations, functions among the senses of which the right eye is the chief.
23. One does not get attached to the impurities of the waking stae if, at the time of perceiving colours etc., one remembers that oblations are being offered to the fire of the Self, and remains free from desire and aversion.
24. Manifested in the abode of the modifications of the mind (in dream), and witnessing the impressions produced by actions due to Ignorance, the Self is called Taijasa. It is then the self-effulgent witness.
25. (In deep sleep) when neither objects nor their impressions are produced in the intellect by actions, the Self, cognizant neither of objects nor of their impressions, is known to be Prajna.
26. The condition of the mind, the intellect and the senses, produced by actions are illumined by Pure Consciousness like jars and other things by the sun.
27. As it is so, illumining by the Light the functions of the mind which exist for It i.e. Pure Consciousness, the Self is regarded by the ignorant only as an agent of those functions.
28. Therefore also, illumining everything by Its own Light, the Self is considered to be all-knowing. Similarly, It is regarded as the Accomplisher of everything as It is the Cause of all actions.
29-30. The Self with adjuncts is thus described. (But) It is without adjuncts, indescribable, without parts, without qualities and pure, which the mind and speech do not reach. (For philosophers differ in their conceptions about the Self. Different conceptions are; the Self is (1) conscious, (2) non-conscious, (3) an agent, (4) a non-agent,(5)all pervading, (6) not all-pervading, (7) bound, (8) free, (9) one, (10) many, (11) pure, (12) not pure, and so on.
31. Words with the mind turn back without reaching It as It is without qualities, without actions and without attributes.
32. One should know the Self comparable to the other which is all-pervading and free from all objects having forms, to be the pure and supreme Goal in the Vedanta.
33. One should give up the waking state, its impressions (i.e. dream) and deep sleep which causes everything to merge in itself. The Self, the witness of them all, is then in the nature of Pure Consciousness like the sun which has dispelled the darkness of the night.
34. Illumining the modifications which have for their objects waking, dream and deep sleep, the all pervading Self is the same in all beings, and is the witness of them all.
35. Caused by Ignorance the diverse functions of the intellect (called knowledge) come to exist when the body, the intellect, the mind, the eye, objects and light happen to co-exist (with the Self).
36-37. One should discriminate from these the Self which is the witness, free from all fear, from all adjuncts, free from impurity, firm like the ether, without parts and without actions and know It to be the pure, supreme Brahman, the same in all beings, the all pervading whole, the all comprehensive Principle which is eternally free fro all duality.
38. One should ascertain whether Pure Consciousness which is the witness of all the mental modifications, is knowable or not, and all knowable, whether It is an object of knowledge or not.
39. The supreme Brahman is never capable of being known by me or others, according to the teaching s of the Sruti, 'unseen seer', unknown, (knower) and 'finite' (if thought to be known), and so on.
40. Independent of every other knowledge, of the nature of the light of Pure Consciousness and not distanced by anything, Brahman, my own nature, is always known by me.
41. The sun does not require any other light in order to illumine itself; so, Knowledge does not require any other knowledge except which is its own nature in order to be known.
42. Just as one light does not depend on another in order to be revealed, so, what is one's own nature does not depend on anything else (i.e. being of the nature of Knowledge). The Self does not require another knowledge in order to be known.
43. A thing naturally lacking luminosity gets revealed (i.e. has only its surrounding darkness removed) when in contact with something which by nature is luminous. The saying, therefore, that luminosity is an effect produced on other things by the sun is false.
44. Some thing non-existent coming into existence fro something else is called its effect. But light which is the sun's own nature does not come into existence from previous non-existence.
45. Just as when jars and other things get revealed the sun and other luminous bodies are called the agents of revealing those things on account of their proximate existence only (but are not really the agents); so the Self which is Pure Consciousness only is called a knower (on account of Its existence proximate to things known, but is not really an agent).
46. Just as the sun though devoid of effort on its part, is called the revealer of a snake coming out of its hole, so, the Self, though of the nature of Pure Consciousness only is called a knower (without agency on Its part ).
47. Just as fire which is naturally hot is called a burner on account of its existence (proximate to things burnt), so is the Self a knower (on account of Its existence proximate to objects of knowledge). For the Self is called a Knower when adjuncts are known like the sun which is called a revealer when the snake is seen coming out of its hole.
48. Just as the Self, though devoid of effort, is called a knower, so, It is called an agent (though devoid of effort) like the loadstone. In its own nature, therefore, It is neither capable of being known or unknown.
49. As it is taught in the Sruti that the Self is different from both the known and the unknown, (It is other than the manifested and the un-manifested). The ideas such as, bondage, liberation, etc. are likewise superimposed on the Self.
50. Just as there is no day or night in the sun as it is of nature of light only, so, is there no knowledge or ignorance in the Self which is of the nature of Pure Consciousness only.
51. Knowing Brahman described 'mine' in all respects and gets the perfect conviction in the ether like goal devoid of (the gross and the subtle) bodies, describes as having no connection with acceptance or rejection, according to the method delineated, one is certainly never born again.
52. One who has fallen into the stream of births and deaths cannot save oneself by anything else except Knowledge.
53. The sruti says that the knots of the heart are torn asunder, all doubts disappear and one's actions come to an end when the Self is seen.
54. A man gets liberated if he discards the ideas 'me' and 'mine' in all respects and gets the perfect conviction in the ether like goal devoid of ( the gross and the subtle) bodies, described here according to right inference and the scriptures well-studied.
CONSISTING OF EARTH
1. The hard material in the body is known to be a transformation of earth; the liquid part consists of water; and heat, vibration and apertures in the body are due to fire, air and ether respectively.
2. Smell etc., (i.e., the senses) and their objects are produced from earth etc. respectively as the senses have for their objects things of their own kind e.g. colour and light (the latter being of the same nature as the former, its object).
3. These are called the organs of knowledge; the larynx and the hand etc. are called the organs of action; and the mind, the eleventh which is within the body, is for the purpose of knowing different objects one after another (as they tend to present themselves at the same time).
4. The intellect is for determining objects. Always illumining the all-pervasive intellect by Its light, which is Its own nature, the Self is called the Knower.
[The purport of the above four verses is that the Self is different from the body, the senses, the mind and the intellect.]
5. Just as light assumes the forms of objects revealed by it, but is really different from, though apparently mixed up with them, so, the Self is different from the mental modifications (whose forms It assumes while revealing them).
6. The Self illumines, without effort, the intellect in the forms of sound etc. present before It; like a stationary lamp devoid of any effort which illumined everything within its reach.
7. Pleasure etc. qualify the intellect identifying Itself with the combination of the body and the senses and illumined by the eternal Light of the Self.
8. For one considers oneself to be distressed by pain in the head etc., the Seer is different from the seen i.e. that which feels pain. The Self is free from pain as It is the Seer (of the pain).
9. One becomes unhappy when one identifies oneself with the intellect which has assumed the form of unhappiness but not by merely seeing it. The Witness is the pain in the body, which is combination of the limbs and the senses, does not feel pain.
10. May it not be that the Self is both object and subject like the eye? No; the eye consists of several parts and is a combination. But the Self does not become an object as It is the Seer.
11. One may argue that the Self also has many qualities such as knowledge, effort and so on (and, therefore, like the eye It may be both subject and object). No, it is not so; It can never be an object because like light It has only one quality viz. Knowledge.
12. Just as light ,though an illuminator, does not illumine itself, so, even assuming that there is a dividing line (dividing It into two categories viz. subject and object) in the Self. It can not illumine Itself. For it is of a homogeneous conscious nature.
13. Nothing can be an object of its own quality. For fire does not burn or illumine itself.
14. The doctrine of the Buddhists that the intellect is perceived by itself is refuted by this. Similarly, the assumption of parts in the Self is also unreasonable. For It is of a homogeneous nature without having a dividing line in It.
15. The doctrine of the void (Nihilism) is also not reasonable as it must be accepted that the intellect is witnessed like a jar by another i.e. the Self. For the Self exists even before. the intellect comes into existence..
16. Whatever is pervaded by anything is an effect of that thing, the cause. The cause has an existence invariably anterior to that of the effects. Itself uncaused the cause producing effects (such as, the intellect etc.) must, therefore, exist before them.
17. Discarding Ignorance - the root of all superimposition and the controller of transmigratory existence - one should know the Self to be the Supreme Brahman which is always free and devoid of fear.
18. Transmigratory existence consists of waking and dream. Their root is deep sleep consisting of Ignorance. No one of these three states has a real existence because each goes out of existence when another remains in it. One should, therefore, give up all these three states.
19-20. Just as the closing and opening of the eyelids, connected with the vital force, are mistaken for the properties of the eye which is of the nature of light, and just as motion is wrongly attributed to the mind and the intellect which are also of the same nature; so, the Self, though really not an agent, is mistaken for one because actions arise when the body, the intellect, the mind, the eye, light, objects, etc. coexist with it.
21. The peculiar characteristic of the mind is reflection and that of the intellect is determination, and not vice versa. Everything is, therefore, superimposed on the Self.
22. Organs are (thought to be not all-pervading but) limited by their particular appendages (which are in the body). The intellect gets identified with the organs (and hence in the body). Illumining the intellect, therefore, the Self appears to be of the same size as the body.
23. (Objection) Both knowledge and its objects are extremely momentary i.e. perishable by nature every moment. They are appearances only without any reality whatever and are continually being produced. Just as a lamp of the preceding moment appears to be the same in the succeeding moment on account of similarity, so, both the objects and the subjects of the preceding and succeeding moments wrongly appears to be identical on account of similarity. The goal of human life is the removal of this idea of the continuity in knowledge and its objects (and the removal of the indiscrimination to which it is due).
24. (Reply) According to one school of these philosophers external things are objects of knowledge which is different from them. According to another school external objects other than knowledge do not exist. The unreasonableness of the former school is now going to be described.
25-26. (According to this school) knowledge has to be admitted to be identical with external things; and everything being momentary and the intellect, the receptacle, in which the impressions of memory are to be retained, being non-existent (at the time of receiving the impressions), there will always be the absence of memory. Being momentary, (according to them) the intellect never retains the impressions of memory. (Again recognition is said to be due to a misconception of similarity but) there is no cause of similarity (between the preceding and the succeeding moments). (If, on the other hand, a witness perceiving both the moments be admitted,) the doctrine of momentariness is abandoned. But that is not desirable.
27. The teaching of a means to the attainment of the end (viz., the bringing to an end of the idea of continuity in knowledge and its objects) becomes useless. For, it requires no effort to be accomplished as all phenomena exist only for a moment. The coming to an end of the said continuity does not, therefore, depend on anything else.
28. If according to you, the effect depends on the cause though unconnected with it, you have to accept dependence on a series which is quite foreign. If you say, Though all things i.e. causes and effects, are momentary, some effects depend on some fixed causes still nothing can depend on anything else (according to your doctrine of momentariness).
29. The particular one of two things existing at the same time and connected with each other is fit to depend on the other owing to whose connection it is benefited.
30. Our doctrine is that there is false superimposition on the Self and its negation in the same Self. Please tell me who will attain liberation, the result of Knowledge, according to you who hold that all, i.e. both the superimposed and the substratum, are annihilated.
31. That oneself exists is undoubted. You may call it Knowledge, Self or whatever you like. But Its non-existence cannot be admitted as It is the witness of all things existing and non-existing.
32. That by which the non-existence of things is witnessed must be real. All would be ignorant of the existence and non-existence of things if that were not the case. Therefore yours is a position which cannot be accepted.
33. That which must be admitted to exist before the deliberation about existence, non-existence or both is One without a second as there cannot be a cause of diversity before there is any superimposition on It. It must be eternal and different from what is superimposed.
34. Accept duality as unreal. For it comes to exist by way of superimposition like dream objects and does not exist before the deliberation about its existence, non-existence etc.
35. All the modifications of the Primeval Cause are known to be unreal according to the scriptures which say that they have 'words' only fit their support and that 'he' dies again and again and so on. The Smriti also says, 'My' Maya (is difficult to be got rid of').
36. The Self is, therefore, pure and is of a nature contrary to that of what is superimposed. Hence It can neither be accepted nor rejected. It is not superimposed on anything else.
37. Just as there is no darkness in the sun as it is of the nature of light only, so, there is no Ignorance in the Self as It is of the nature of eternal Knowledge.
38. Similarly, the Self has no change of states as It is of changeless nature. It would, no doubt, be destructible if It underwent any change.
39-41. Liberation becomes artificial and therefore transitory according to the philosopher who holds that it is a change of one state into another on the part of the Self. Again it is not reasonable that it is a union (with Brahman) or a separation (from nature). As both union and separation are transitory, Liberation cannot consist of the individual Self going to Brahman or of Brahman coming to it. But the Self, one's own real nature, is never destroyed. For, it is uncaused and cannot be accepted or rejected by oneself (or by others), while other things (e.g. states etc.) are caused.
42. As it is the Self of every thing, not different from anything and not an object like a thing separate from Itself. It cannot be accepted or rejected. It is, therefore, eternal.
43. Everything transitory is for the experience of the Self which is eternal and free from all adjuncts. (Liberation is, therefore, nothing but being established in one's own Self.) As it is so, one aspiring after liberation should renounce all (Vedic) actions with their accessories.
44. To know the real Self to be one's own is the greatest attainment according to the scriptures and reasoning. To know wrongly the non-Self such as the ego etc., to be the Self is no attainment at all. One, therefore, should renounce this misconception (By knowing that one is Brahman).
45.The deviation of the Gunas from the state of equilibrium (which they have during the dissolution of the universe with their consequent evolution) is not reasonable. For no causes of this transformation are admitted in as much as (according to these philosophers) ignorance is then merged. (Individual souls, Purushas as they are called, are always spectators only and Ishwara is not admitted.)
46. If the Gunas be the cause of their mutual change there will always be change or none at all. (If one argues that there cannot be a continuous transformation in the Gunas as creation, maintenance and dissolution are known to come one after another, still) there will be no regulating cause of the modifications of the Gunas acting either on the Purushas or on the Gunas; (and no other categories are admitted in the Sankhya philosophy).
47. If, as admitted, the Prakriti or Pradhana work for (the bondage and the liberation of) the Purushas there will be no distinction between the bound and the liberated. Moreover, there is no relation between what is desired (i.e. liberation) and one who desires it as the Purusha has no desire at all, neither the other, i.e. the Prakriti.
48. As the Purusha is changeless it is not reasonable to the Sankhya philosophy also that the Prakriti can work for it. Even admitting change in the Purusha, it is unreasonable (that the Prakriti is of any service or disservice to it.
49. As there can reasonably be no mutual relation between the Prakriti and the Purusha and as the Prakriti is non-conscious it is unreasonable that the Prakriti can render any service to the Purusha.
50. If any action is admitted in the Purusha, it must be perishable. If (it is argued that) the action in the Purusha is in the nature of Knowledge only, we meet with the difficulty spoken of before. If un-cause action in the Prakriti be admitted, it becomes unreasonable that there can be liberation.
51. Pleasure etc. cannot be the objects of knowledge; for they are the properties of the same substance, just as heat, (a property of fire) cannot be revealed by light.
52. Pleasure and knowledge cannot come together as each of them is (separately) cause by the contact of the mind with the self. Therefore pleasure cannot be the object (of knowledge).
53. As other qualities also are different from one another (like knowledge and pleasure) they cannot be produced at the same time. If it be considered that the knowledge of the qualities is nothing but their coming in contact with one and the same self, we say No; for, they are qualified by knowledge.
54. Pleasure etc. are surely objects of knowledge, because they are qualified by it and also on account of the memory, 'pleasure was known by me'. (Moreover, they cannot be known by being connected only with the self and not with knowledge). For, the self is non-conscious as it is different from knowledge according to you.
55. Pleasure etc. cannot be the qualities of the soul as it is changeless according to you. Moreover why should pleasure etc. of one soul not be there in other souls and also in the mind as difference is common?
56. If knowledge be the object of a second knowledge a regresses ad infinitum is inevitable. If, however, a simultaneous production (of the two knowledge from one single contact of the mind with the self) be admitted, you must accept (the simultaneous production of colour, taste, smell, etc. from the same contact).
57. There is no bondage in the Self as there is no change of condition in It. There is no impurity in the Self in as much as It is 'unattached', as the Sruti says.
58. (The Self is eternally pure) as it is beyond the mind and speech, one only and without any attributes, as the Sruti says: It does not get attached.
59. (Objection) If this be so, in the absence of bondage there cannot be any liberation and the scriptures are, therefore, useless.
(Reply) No. Bondage is nothing but a delusion of the intellect; the removal of this delusion is liberation. Bondage is nothing but what has been described..
60. Illumined by the light of the Self which is Pure Consciousness, the intellect (falsely) believes that it is itself conscious and that there is none else which is on. This is delusion. It is in the intellect.
61. Consciousness which is of the nature of the eternal Self is superimposed on the intellect. This indiscrimination is also beginningless (like the ignorance to which it is due). This indiscrimination, and nothing else, is what is called transmigratory existence.
62. The removal of this indiscrimination and nothing else is what is called liberation, as all other conceptions of it are unreasonable. It is the destruction of the Self according to those who consider liberation to be the change of the individual Self in to a different Being.
63. Similarly it is also not reasonable that liberation is a change of condition (on the path of the Self) as it is changeless, If, however, any change be assumed to exist in It, it must be admitted to consist of parts and so to be destructible like jars and other things.
64-67. Therefore the conception of bondage and liberation different from this is wrong. The conception of the Sankhyas, the Kanadas and the Buddhists about them are not tenable according to reason. They should not be accepted. For, they are not supported by reason and the scriptures. Hundreds and thousand of errors on their part may be mentioned. As the scriptures other than the Vedas have been condemned in the ancient sacred tradition, scriptures other than these (they should not be accepted). A wise man should give up the teachings of such scriptures and all crookedness, and with faith and devotion should have a firm understanding of the true import of the Vedanta accepted by Vyasa.
68. False doctrines of dualism and those according to which the Self is not admitted have thus been refuted by reasoning, so that those who aspire after liberation may be steady in the path of Knowledge (described in the Vedanta) and be free from doubts arising from other's doctrines.
69. Having attained the extremely pure, non-dual Knowledge which is Its own, Witness and contrary to what is superimposed, a man perfectly convinced (of the Truth of the Self) becomes free from ignorance and gets eternal peace.
70. Those who are free from defects and vanity should always fix their mind on Brahman which is always the same, after having a firm grasp of the Knowledge which arises only through the teacher and the Vedas and is the Supreme Goal. For, no man who knows Brahman to be different from himself is a knower of truth.
71. When he acquires this Knowledge, the supreme purifier, a man becomes free from all merit and demerit produced by ignorance and accumulated in many other past lives. He, like the ether, does not get attached to actions in this world.
72. This Knowledge should be imparted only to him whose mind has been pacified, who has controlled his senses and is freed from all defects, who has practiced the duties enjoined by the scriptures and is possessed of good qualities, who is always obedient to the teacher and aspires only after liberation and nothing else.
73. Just as one is free from the ideas of 'me' and 'mine' in respect of others' bodies, so, one becomes free from those ideas in respect of one's own body when one knows the Supreme Truth. One becomes immediately liberated in all respects on attaining this very pure Knowledge.
74. There is no attainment higher than of Self-knowledge in the worlds of men and gods. It arises from nothing but the Vedanta. This Knowledge, superior even to the kingdom of Indra, should, therefore, not be imparted to any person without examining him carefully.
1. The Self is to be known. It is beyond everything knowable as there exists nothing else except It. I bow down to that pure, all knowing and omniscient One which is to be known.
2. I always bow down to those teachers who are conversant with words, sentences and sources of Knowledge and who, like lamps, have shown clearly to us Brahman, the secret of the Vedas.
3. I bow down to my teacher whose words fell (in to my ears) and destroyed ignorance (in me) like the sun's rays falling on darkness and destroying it. I shall now state the reasoning leading to the right conclusion about the Knowledge of Brahman.
4. There is no other attainment higher than that of the Self. For that is the purpose for which the teachings of the Vedas, the Smriti and the actions (described in the work portion of the Vedas) are there.
5. The acquisition on the part of oneself considered to be a source of happiness produces the opposite result also. It is for this reason that the Knowers of Brahman say that the greatest acquisition is that of the Self as it is eternal.
6. Of the nature of being always attained, the Self does not depend on anything else in order to be acquired. The acquisition that depends on other things (e.g. effort etc.) is due to ignorance (and so vanishes when the means to which it is due vanish.)
7. The conception (of the existence) of the non-Self is what is called ignorance, the destruction of which is known to be liberation. This destruction is possible by means of Knowledge only, which is incompatible with ignorance. (Compatible with ignorance), actions cannot destroy it.
8.That actions produced by desires caused by ignorance gives rise to results which are perishable, and that Knowledge produces an imperishable result are known on the evidence of the Vedas.
9. The learned know the Vedas to be one continuous whole the only purpose to which is to demonstrate one thing viz., Knowledge in as much as the oneness of the Self is to be known by the understanding of the Vedic sentences.
10. (One may object that Brahman and the individual Self are different from each other as they are the meanings of two words which are not synonymous. The object is not reasonable) in as much as one has to know the difference between the words from that between their meanings and the difference between their meanings from that between the words. (Therefore the objector is led to the fallacy of reciprocal dependence. So no difference between them can be accepted, there being no Vedic evidence.) (Objection): As the Sruti states three things besides the Self viz. names, forms and actions (it evidently supports the existence of things other than the Self).
11-12. (Reply): As they are interdependent like a painting and a description of it, they are unreal. So the whole of the universe is really non-existent but exists only for a deluded intellect.
13. It is, therefore, reasonable that this universe is unreal. Existence-Knowledge only is real. Existing prior to everything, it is both the knower and the known. It is the form only that is unread.
14-15. Existence-Knowledge through which all things in dream are known is the knower. It is the same entity that is known in dream by Maya. It is the same Consciousness through which one sees, hears, speaks, smells, tastes, touches and thinks in that state is respectively called the eye, ear, the larynx, the auditive organ, the tongue, the organ of touch and the mind. Similarly, it is the same Consciousness that becomes in dream the other organs also functioning variously.
16. Just as the same jewel assumes different colours owing to its proximity to different (coloured) things, so, Pure Consciousness assumes different forms on account various adjuncts which are superimposed on It (in dream).
17. As in dream so in the waking state different forms are superimposed on this Consciousness. It manifests the objects of the intellect when It performs actions produced by desires due to delusion.
18. The events in the waking state are similar to those in dream. The ideas of the interior and exterior in the former state are as unreal as in the latter like reading and writing depending on each other.
19. When the Self manifests different objects, It desires to have them; and accordingly there arises in it a determination (to acquire those objects). It then meets with those particular results of actions done according to particular desires followed by particular determination.
20. Unperceived in deep sleep but perceived (in waking and dream) by those only who are ignorant, the whole of this universe is an outcome of Ignorance and therefore unreal.
21. It is said that in the Sruti that the consciousness of the oneness of the individual Self and Brahman) is Knowledge, and that of a difference (between them) is Ignorance. Knowledge is, therefore demonstrated in the scriptures with great care.
22. When the mind becomes purified like a mirror, Knowledge is revealed in it. Care should, therefore, be taken to purify the mind by Yama, Niyama sacrifices and religious austerities.
23. The best austerities regarding the body, the mind and speech should be practiced in order to purify the mind. The controlling of the mind and emaciating of the body in different seasons should be undertaken.
24. The attainment of the one pointed ness of the mind and the senses is the best of austerities. It is superior to all religious duties and all other austerities.
25. Sensuous perceptions are to be regarded as the waking state. Those very perceptions revealed in sleep as impressions constitute the dream state. The absence of perception and their impressions is known as to be deep sleep. (The witness of three states) one's own Self should be regarded as the supreme Goal to be realised.
26. What is called deep sleep, darkness or ignorance is the seed of the waking and dream states. It gets perfectly burnt by the fire of Self-Knowledge and it no more produces effects, like a burnt seed that does not germinate.
27. That one seed called Maya is evolved into the three states which come one after another again and again. The Self, the Substratum of Maya though only one and immutable, appears to be many, like reflection of the sun in water.
28. Just a the one seed, called Maya, is regarded as different according to different states such as, the undifferentiated dream etc. so, the Self appears to be different in waking and dream bodies, (both individual and aggregate) like reflection of the moon in water.
29. Just as a magician comes and goes on an elephant (created by his own magic), so, the Self, though devoid of all motion, appears to be undergoing conditions such as, the undifferentiated, dreams etc.
30. Just as (in the above example) there is no elephant or its driver, but there stands the magician different from them, so, there are no undifferentiated etc. nor their knower. The Witness which is always of the nature of Pure Consciousness is different from them.
31. There is no magic for the people of right vision or for the magician himself. It is only for the people of clouded vision that magic exists. Hence one, not really a magician, wrongly appears to be so.
[So it is the ignorant only that wrongly believes that Brahman is the wielder of Maya which is equally non-existent both for men of Knowledge and for Brahman.]
32. The Self should be regarded as Brahman in accordance with the Srutis, The Self is immediate; All knots of the heart are torn asunder, If not and so on.
33. (Objection): It is not perceived by the senses as It is devoid of sound etc. Again how can It be perceived by the intellect as It is different from pleasure and so on?
34. (Reply): Just as Rahu, though invisible, is seen in the moon (during an eclipse) and the reflections (of the moon etc.) are seen in the water, so, the Self, though omnipresent, is perceived in the intellect.
35. Just as the reflection and the heat of the sun, found in the water, do not belong to it, so, Consciousness, though perceived in the intellect, is not its quality; for It is of a nature opposite to that of the intellect.
36-37. The Self whose Consciousness never goes out of existence is called the Seer of seeing when it illumines that modification of the intellect which is connected with the eye, and similarly t is called the Hearer of hearing (and so on). The Unborn One called the thinker for thought when It illumines that modification of the mind which is independent of external objects. It is called the knower as Its power of Consciousness never fails; so the Sruti says, the Seeing of the Seen is not destroyed.
38. That the Self is immutable is known from the Srutis, as if It were at rest and It moves as it were. That It is pure is known from other Srutis: The thief in this state and Unattached.
39. The Self is conscious even in deep sleep as well as in the waking and dream as Its power of Consciousness never ceases to exist and as It is changeless. It is only in the objects of knowledge that there is a difference (in dreamless sleep) as the Sruti says, when there is.
40. The consciousness of objects (which arises out of the functioning of the eye etc.) is immediately known; for it depends on an intervening reflection of the Self (in order to be known). As it is the Self of (phenomenal) consciousness Brahman is immediately known.
41. Just as a second lamp is not necessary in order to illumine a lamp, so, a second consciousness is not necessary to make known Pure Consciousness which is of the nature of the Self.
42. The Self is not an object (of knowledge). There is no change or many-ness in It. It is, therefore, capable of neither being accepted nor rejected by Itself or by anyone else.
43. Why should a man have even the lesser fear who knows that he is the Self comprising the interior and exterior, beyond birth, death, decay and old age?
44. It is only before the negation of the idea of caste etc. on the evidence of the Sruti Not large, the ascertainment of the nature of the Self, on the authority of the sentences "Thou Art That', and before the demonstration of the Self (to one), on the part of (the knowledge portion of) the Vedas, that Vedic actions are to be performed (and not afterwards).
45. Caste etc. given up with the giving up of the previous body do belong to the body only and not to the Self. For the very same reason of being perishable the body is also not the Self.
46. The conceptions of 'me' and 'mine' with regard to the non-Self, the body etc. are due to Ignorance and should be renounced by means of Self-knowledge as there is the Sruti of the Asuras.
47. Just as the duty of observing defilement for ten days (following child birth or the death of a kinsman) is refrained from when one becomes a wandering religious mendicant; so, the duties belonging to particular castes etc. comes to an end when right Knowledge is achieved.
48. A man of Ignorance reaps the results of those actions done according to particular desires followed by particular determinations. But when the desires of a man of self-knowledge vanish he becomes immortal.
49. The outcome of the ascertainment of the real nature of the Self is cessation of actions etc. The Self is neither an end nor means. It is, according to the Smriti, eternally extended.
50. Four things are only the results of actions viz., the production, acquisition, transformation and purification of something. They produce no other results. All actions with their accessories should, therefore, be given up.
51-52. One desirous of attaining Truth withdraw in to the Self the love that he has for external persons or things. For, this love, secondary to that for the Self, is evanescent and entails pain. He then should take refuge in a Teacher, a knower of Brahman, who is tranquil, free, bereft of actions and established in Brahman as the Sruti and Smriti say, one having a Teacher knows and Know that.
53. That Teacher should immediately take the disciple in the boat of Knowledge of Brahman across the great ocean of darkness which is within him - the disciple who is of a one-pointed mind and endowed with the qualities of a (true) disciple.
54. The powers of seeing, touching, hearing, smelling, thinking, knowing and so on, though of the nature of Pure Consciousness, differ on account of adjuncts.
55. Just as the sun illumines the world with it rays which are from growth and decay, so, the Self always knows all things in general and all particular things and is pure.
56. Appearing to be in the body owing to Ignorance and, therefore, appearing to be of the same size as the body, the Self is regarded as different from things other than the body (and possessed of its qualities) like the moon etc. reflected in water and appearing to be possessed of tits qualities.
57. One who merges the gross external objects experienced in the waking state in the subtle objects experienced in dreams, and these again in ignorance and then comes to know the Consciousness of the Self attains Brahman and has to follow any path northern or southern.
58. Having thus renounced the three states of the undifferentiated etc. one gets across the great ocean of ignorance, for one is by nature established in the Self without qualities, pure, awakened and free.
59. One is not born again when one knows that one is unborn, deathless, devoid of old age, free from fear, pure and knowing all particular things and things in general.
60. How can one be born again who has known the oneness of the Self and Brahman and is sure of the non-existence of the seed called ignorance stated before?
61. When the Witness is discriminated from the intellect etc. which are unreal, It does not identify Itself again with the gross or the subtle body as before, just as butter raised from milk and thrown into it does not get mixed with it again.
62. One becomes free from fear when one knows that one is Brahman which is Existence, Knowledge and Infinite, beyond the five sheaths consisting of food etc. and which is described in Sruti as not perceivable and so on.
63. That knower of the Truth of the Bliss of the Self has no cause of fear whatsoever. For, afraid of him, the organ of speech, the mind, fire and so on act regularly.
64. Whom should the knower of the Self salute if he is established in his own Glory which is infinite, non-dual and beyond name etc? Actions then have no utility from him.
65-66. The externally conscious individual which is one with the aggregate of the Gross bodies and the individual which is conscious internally only and on with the aggregate of the subtle bodies are both merged in the individual experiencing deep sleep which is one with the undifferentiated.
As the three states viz. deep sleep etc. has words only for their support they are unreal. The truthful man, therefore, who knows that he is Existence-Brahman, gets liberated.
67. I have no knowledge or ignorance in Me as I am of the nature of homogeneous Consciousness only, just as there is no day or night in the sun which is of the nature of light only.
68. As the truth of the scriptures may never be doubted one should always remember one identified with Brahman has nothing to accept or reject.
69. A man is never born again who knows that he is one only in all beings like the ether and that all beings are in him.
70. The Self is pure and self-effulgent having by nature no interior, exterior, middle or anything else anywhere, according to the Sruti, devoid of the interior or exterior.
71. The Self is a non-dual (and left over) by the negation of the universe according to the Sruti, 'Not this, not this'. It should be known as described in the Sruti, 'Unknown knower' and never otherwise.
72. If one knows that one is the supreme Brahman, the Self of all, one should be regarded as the Self of all beings according to the Sruti, 'their Self'.
73. The individual becomes adorable by gods and free from being under their control (unlike beasts under men), if he clearly knows the supreme Self, the shining One to be himself.
74. The Truthful man who has renounced everything unreal does not get bound again when he knows that he is always Consciousness, the eternally existing Self devoid of everything like the ether.
75. Those are to be pitied who know the supreme Brahman to be otherwise. Those, on the other hand, who know It to be not different from themselves are established in the Self and are their own masters. They have all the gods under their control.
76-77. Give up all connection with caste etc. all actions and all talk regarding the non-Self. Always meditate on the pure Self, the all-comprehensive Principle, as Aum. The Self, which like a causeway protects everything established (such as, castes, order of life etc.) and which, untouched by day and night, is in all directions, horizontal, upward and downward, and free from unhappiness, is of the nature of eternal consciousness.
78. One should know oneself to be the Supreme Brahman free from all bondage, merit and demerit, past and future, and also from cause and effect.
79. The self is regarded as the doer of everything though It is a non-doer. It is pure. It runs ahead of those that run, though it does not move at all. It appears to be many though unborn. For It possesses all power by Maya.
80. Without action, a non-agent and one without a second, I, the universal Self, make the world go round like a king who is only a witness or like the loadstone which moves iron by its proximity only.
81. One should have the conception that one is Brahman which is without qualities, without actions, Eternal, free from duality, free from unhappiness, pure, awakened and free.
82. Having gained a perfect knowledge of bondage and liberation with their causes (viz. Ignorance and Knowledge respectively) having acquired a complete understanding of causes and effects which are objects of knowledge and are (therefore) to be negated and having properly known the one supreme and pure Truth (to be the Self) which is beyond all objects of knowledge, known in the Vedanta and taught by the Sruti and the teacher, a knower of Brahman stands freed from the fear of being born again, becomes all and all-knowing, goes beyond grief and delusion and has the acme of his life fulfilled.
83. The Self cannot be accepted or rejected by Itself or others, nor does It accept or reject anyone else. This is right Knowledge.
84. For this Knowledge which is the subject of all the Vedantas, produces the conviction that the Self is Brahman. One becomes perfectly free from the bondage of this transmigratory existence when one achieves it.
85. This Knowledge which is the supreme purifier and the greatest secret of all the Vedas and gods is revealed here (in this chapter).
86. This supreme and secret Knowledge should not be imparted to one who has not controlled oneself, but should be given to a disciple who is obedient and dispassionate.
87. As there is no equivalent which a disciple may offer to the teacher for imparting to him Self-knowledge one should always possess the qualities of a disciple, achieve Knowledge and thus get across the ocean of transmigratory existence.
88. I bow down to that All-knowing and Al-powerful One who is of the nature of consciousness and besides whom there is nothing else viz. a knower, knowledge or an object of knowledge.
89. I bow down to my most adorable Teacher who is all-knowing and has, by imparting Knowledge to me, saved me from the great ocean of births and deaths, filled with Ignorance.
THOU ART THAT
1. I bow down to that Eternal consciousness, the Self of the modification of the intellect, in which they merge and from which they spring.
2. I bow down to the great mendicant, the Teacher of my Teacher who, of great intellect, routed hundred of enemies of the Sruti by means of words comparable to swords made impenetrable through thunder-like reasoning and protected the treasure of the real import of the Vedas.
3. If the conviction, 'I am nothing but Existence and am ever free' were impossible to be attained, why should the Sruti teach us that so affectionately like a mother?
4. Just as the idea of a snake is negated from a rope (in a rope-snake), so, everything of the nature of the non-Self is negated from the eternally existing Self implied by the word 'I', on the evidence of the Srutis 'Thou art That' etc., in which the implied meanings of the words have been ascertained by reasoning (and the scriptures).
5. Brahman should be regarded as the Self on the evidence of the scriptures just as religious duties are known from the same source. Ignorance vanishes (immediately on the attainment of right Knowledge) like the effect of poison coming to an end when mantras are remembered.
6-7. It is reasonable that of the two ideas, 'I am Existence-Brahman' and 'I am an agent' both of which have the Self for their witness, the one owing its origin to Ignorance should be given up. Springing from evidences which are apparently so viz., sense-perception etc. it gets negated like a mistaken notion of a direction by the other one which has its source in the right evidence of the Vedas.
8. When they say 'Do this' and 'You are experiencers' the scriptures restate popular conceptions. The Knowledge, 'I am Existence' arises from the Sruti. The other (arising from injunctive scriptures) is negated by it.
9. (Objection): Absolute liberation does not arise when one is told, 'Thou art That'. One should, therefore, have recourse to the repetition (of the idea, 'I am Brahman') and support it with reasoning.
10. Even acquainted with the literal meaning of the sentence one, once told, cannot know its true import but requires other things which, as we have said, are two.
11. Just as an injunction regarding Vedic actions is necessary, so it is not in compatible in the case of one so long as one has not directly Known the Self and the Knowledge has not been firmly grasped.
12. All one's efforts (viz. self-control etc.) become useless if one can know Brahman without being enjoined. One should, therefore, go on with the repetition so long as the self is not known.
13. Firm impressions originating from sense-perception do surely negate the Knowledge, 'I am Brahman' arising from the Sruti. Moreover an aspirant is attracted towards external objects through impurities (such as, attachment and so on).
14. Perceptional Knowledge which has for its objects particular properties of things does surely contradict that which arises from hearsay and inferences and which is related only to generic properties of things.
15-16. No one is seen freed from the distress of this transmigratory existence simply by understanding the meaning of the sentence. If, however, a rare man is seen to be freed from such distress on the mere hearing of it, he must be inferred to have practiced repetition in previous lives. Moreover our conduct will have to be regarded as non-scriptural (if you do not admit the existence of an injunction) in this case. But that is not desirable.
17. Just as everywhere in the Vedas the means to an end is enjoined after stating the result to be achieved, so here the result, Thou art That' is stated and the means can be nothing but this repetition which only is extended as being capable of revealing an eternally existing thing.
18. Therefore, practicing self-control etc. and renouncing everything incompatible with this end and the means to it, one should carefully practice the said repetition in order directly to know the Self.
19. (Reply): This is not so; for the Upanishads end with 'Not this, not this' (and deal with nothing else). Results to be achieved by means of actions are heard of in the previous part of the Vedas but not liberation which has an eternal existence (and is not achievable by means of any action).
20. Just as the distress experienced by one's son is superimposed by the father on himself who has no distress at all, so, the ego is superimposed on the Self which is eternally free from any pain whatsoever.
21. The superimposition (of the ego on the Self) is negated on the evidence of the Sruti, 'Not this, not this' as if it were a reality. And hence no injunctions which are all due to superimposition can by any means be reasonable (after such a negation has taken place).
22. Just as colour is superimposed on and negated from the sky by ignorant people so, there are the superimposition (of the ego) on the Self and its negation from it.
23. This negation is not one of a reality, but is of a false superimposition only like the prohibition of the placing of fire on the highest region of the sky; for liberation would have surely been transitory if things really existing were negated.
24. It is only to objects of knowledge and not to non-objects that a word or an idea can be applied. Brahman which is the Self of them and also of the ego is not within the scope of a word or an idea.
25. Everything such as agency etc. superimposed by the ego on the Self which is Pure Consciousness is negated together with the ego on the evidence of the Sruti, Not this, not this.
26. (The Self is then known to be) Intelligence, Self-effulgent, a Seer, the Innermost, Existence, free from actions, directly cognised, the Self of all, the Witness, One imparting consciousness to others External, devoid of qualities and without a second.
27. On account of the constant proximity of the conscious Self, the ego also appears to be conscious. Hence the two things viz., oneself and things related to oneself that are denoted by the words 'I' and 'mine', originate.
28. As the ego is possessed of species, action, etc. words are applicable to it. But no word can be used with respect to the innermost Self owing to the absence of these from it.
29-30. Words which denote the ego and the other things which reflect the innermost Self express the latter only indirectly, and by no means describe It directly. For, nothing that has no species etc. can be described by means of words.
31. Just as words denoting the actions of fire are applied only indirectly to torches etc (having fire in them) and not directly as they imply a thing different from them; so words implying the Self are applied to the ego having the reflection of he Self and appearing like It.
32-33. As it imitates the mirror the reflection of a face is different from the face. The face which does not depend on the mirror (for its existence) is also different from its reflection. Similarly, the reflection of the Self in the ego is also regarded (as different from the pure Self) like that of the face which is different from the face. The pure Self is considered to be different from Its reflection like the face (which is different from its own). In fact, however, the Self and Its reflection are free from real distinction between each other like the face and its reflection.
34. (Objection): Some say that the reflection in the ego (as distinct from the Self) is the individual soul. (But if one asks how the reflection which is not a reality can experience anything at all, the objects answer that) the reflection is a reality as the shadows of things are known to be realistic according to the Smriti. Not only so, there is another reason also (why a shadow should be regarded as a reality). For a man in shadow feels refreshingly cool.
35. (Other objections): Some say that the individual soul is a part of Pure Consciousness. Others hold that it is a modification of the same. Still others are of opinion that the ego together with the reflection of Pure Consciousness in it is the individual soul. Others again think that it is the independent ego, (neither a part nor a modification), which is the experience of this mundane existence.
36. The Buddhists say that the individual soul is the momentary consciousness, 'I'. There is no witness (distinct from the series to see the beginning and the end of these momentary phenomena). Now examine which of these doctrines is reasonable.
37. Let us now stop discussing the different doctrines about transmigratory soul. Let us go on with the present subject. The reflection of the face in the mirror is a property neither of the face nor of the mirror. For, if it were the property of either of the two, it would continue even if the other were removed.
38. If it is argued that it is the property of the face because it is called after, it cannot be so. For, it imitates the mirror and is not seen even when the face is there (but the mirror is removed).
39. (First line) If you say that it is the property of both, we say, 'No' because it is not seen even when both are present (but improperly placed).
(Second line) (Objection): It may be said that Rahu, a real thing, though invisible, is sometime seen in the sun and moon; (so the reflection of the face, a reality, though invisible, is sometimes seen in the mirror).
40. (Reply): That Rahu is a real thing is known from the scriptures before one sees it in the sun or moon. But according to those who hold that it is the shadow of the earth, it cannot be a real thing and the unreality of the reflection has been proved by arguments before.
41. There is a prohibition regarding the crossing of the shadows (of one's teachers and other superiors); but it does not prove the reality of a shadow as a sentence expressing one meaning cannot express another at the same time.
42. That one feels cool while sitting in a shadow is not the effect of the shadow on one. It is due to one's refraining from using warm things. Coolness is found to belong to water; but not to shadow.
43. The Self, Its reflection and the intellect are comparable to the face, its reflection and the mirror. The unreality of the reflection is known from the scriptures and reasoning.
44. (Objection): Who is the experiencer of transmigratory existence as it cannot belong to the Self which is changeless, neither to the reflection, which is not real nor to the ego which is not a conscious entity?
45. (Reply) Let the transmigratory condition then is only a delusion due to the indiscrimination (between the Self and the non-Self). It always has an (apparent) existence due to the real existence of the changeless Self and, therefore, appears to be pertaining to it.
46. Just as a rope-snake (a rope mistaken for a snake), though unreal, has an existence due to that of the rope before the discrimination between the rope and the snake takes place; so, the transmigratory condition, though unreal, is possessed of an existence due to that of the changeless Self.
47. Some say that the Self to which the reflection belongs, though changeful on account of the modifications of the mind pertaining to Itself such as, 'I am happy', 'I am miserable' and though an experiencer of the transmigratory condition, is eternal.
48. Having no knowledge of the Vedas and deluded on account of the lack of the real knowledge of the Self and Its reflection, they consider the ego to be the Self.
49. The transmigratory existence consisting of agency and the experiencing of pain and pleasure is, according to them, a reality. They, therefore, continue to be born again and again on account of the ignorance of the nature of the Self, its reflection and the intellect between which they cannot discriminate.
50. That the Vedas imply the Self by means of words such as 'Knowledge' etc. becomes reasonable if it is true that the Self is of the nature of Pure Consciousness and the intellect reflects It.
51-52. (Objection) It is well known among the people that the meaning of the root and that of the verbal suffix, though different from each other, in each of the words such as 'does', 'goes' etc. are seen to belong to the same subject. They are not seen to belong to two different subjects either according to ordinary people or grammarians. Now please tell me the reason why the meanings of the root and the suffix should belong to two different subjects in the case of the words such as, 'knows' etc.
53. (Reply): The meaning of the suffix is the reflection of the Self in the intellect and the root denotes an action i.e. a modification of the intellect. As the intellect and the reflection are not discriminated from the Self, the word 'knows' is applied falsely to It.
54. The intellect has no consciousness and the Self no action. The word 'knows' can, therefore, reasonably be applied to neither of them.
55. The word 'knowledge' in the sense of action of knowing, cannot similarly be applied to the Self. For the Self is not a change only (which is indicated by an action as it is taught in the Srutis that It is eternal).
56. The word 'knowledge', in the sense of the instrument of the action of knowing, is applied to the intellect and not to the Self as an instrument cannot exist without an agent. Neither is the word, in the sense of that which is the object of the same action, can be applied to the Self.
57. The Self is never knowable and is not directly denoted by any word according to those who hold that It is eternally changeless, free form pain and one only.
58. If the ego were the Self, a word might be applied to it in the primary sense. But it is not the Self according to the Sruti as it is possessed of hunger etc.
59-62. (Objection): Well, words that have no primary meanings can have no secondary ones also. Therefore you are to explain the application of the words 'knows' etc.
The Vedas would lose their authority as an evidence if words were false, which is not desirable. (Reply) Should one, therefore, have to accept the application of words according to popular usage?
(Objection) If you accept the usage of ignorant people, you will have to arrive at the conclusion of the Charvakas who hold that there is no Self (other than the body). But that is undesirable.
If, on the other hand, you accept the usage of the learned, you will arrive at the same dilemma as before. The Vedas which are an authority do not use meaningless words.
63-64. (Reply) As the reflection appears like the face people accept its oneness with the reflection in a mirror.
All people, therefore, naturally use the verbs 'knows' etc. owing to the indiscrimination between that in which there is the reflection and that which is reflected.
65. The Self is said to know things on account of the superimposition of the agency of the intellect on it. Similarly the intellect is called a knower owing to the superimposition of Consciousness on it.
66. Eternal Knowledge which is the nature of the Self described by the Srutis as the Light of Consciousness is never created by the intellect, by Itself or by anything else.
67. Just as people regard their bodies as themselves and say that they (bodies) know things, so, they speak of the intellect having the agency in producing knowledge and of the Self (as being its seat).
68. Deluded by the modifications of the intellect which appear to be conscious and are created, the argumentative philosophers say that knowledge is produced.
69. Therefore the word "knows' etc. the corresponding modifications of the mind and their memory are possible on account of the indiscrimination regarding the Self, the intellect and the reflection of the Self in it.
70. Just as the properties of a mirror assumed to be reflection of the face in it are attributed to the face, so are the properties of the intellect assumed by the reflection of the Self are superimposed on It.
71. Just as the torches and other things appear to be possessed of the power of burning (on account of there being fire in them) so, the modifications of the intellect, illumined by the reflection of the Self appears to be endowed with the power of perception.
72. The Buddhist philosophers forbid the existence of a Witness by saying that the modifications of the intellect are themselves perceivers and are also perceived (by themselves).
73-74. Say how to refute (the Buddhists who hold) that the modifications of the intellect are not illumined by a witness different from them. (In refuting the Buddhists it may be said that) though a persistent knower must be accepted on account of reality different from the modifications revealing their presence and absence, It is not necessary to assume a reflection of the Self.
(Reply) The persistent knower also is no better than the modifications themselves as the said knower, different from the modifications, will be equally non-Conscious.
75. If you are of opinion that the presence and absence of the modifications will be known owing to the proximity of the permanent knower, we say, No. For, the changeless knower will be of no utility in that respect. (Even admitting that it will reveal them by its proximity only) everything will have mental modifications.
76-77. (First line) It is the disciple, who is suffering from the misery due to transmigratory existence and seeking liberation, the Witness Itself on other than It, that the Witness is miserable and desirous of liberation is not your view.
If, on the other hand, he be an agent other than the Witness, he cannot accept the idea. 'I am Brahman, the Witness'. (In that case) also the teaching of the Sruti, "Thou Art That' would be false, which is not reasonable.
78. (First line) But this teaching may be accepted if the Sruti teaches it without discriminating the two, the Self and the ego.
78. (Last two lines) But if the Sruti discriminates the ego from the innermost Self and then says to the ego, 'Thou Art That', the defects spoken of (in the previous verse) will creep in.
79. If you say that the word 'thou' finally means the witness, you must explain how there can be a relation between It and the ego so that the word 'thou' may express the Witness indirectly.
80. (Objection): Suppose the relation is one of the seer and the seen. (Reply): How can it be with regard to the Witness which is devoid of activity?
81. If it be contented that there will be the identity of the ego and the Witness, though the latter is devoid of activity, (we say it cannot be so; for) the knowledge of the said identity will not be there in the absence of the knowledge of the relation that my Self, the Witness, exists.
82. If you think that the relation will be known from the scriptures, it cannot be so. For (in that case) all the three defects spoken of before will arise. (And if there be a knowledge of the relation at all), it will be one of 'mine' (but not of identity.)
83. When it is accepted that the non-conscious intellect appears to be conscious, its modifications also appear to be so like sparks of red-hot iron.
84. The knowledge on the part of the people of the appearance and disappearance of the mental modifications is possible only on account of the Witness which is the limit and in no other way. And if the reflection of the Self is accepted, the intellect may know itself to be Brahman.
85. (Objection): Is it not a change on the part of the Self to pervade the intellect like fire pervading a mass of iron? (Reply): We have refuted this in the example of the face and it reflection in a mirror.
86. That black iron appears to be red is only an example (to illustrate the fact that the non-conscious intellect appears to be conscious). An illustration and its subject can nowhere be absolutely similar in all respects.
87. Reflecting Consciousness, therefore, the intellect appears to be conscious like a mirror reflecting a face and appearing like it. It has already been said that the reflection is not real.
88. It is not supported by the scriptures or reasoning that the intellect is conscious. For in that case the body, the eye, etc. also would be so.
89. (Objection): Let them be so.
(Reply): No. For (in that case) the position of the Charvaka philosophers comes in. Moreover the knowledge, 'I am Brahman' also will not be possible if there be no reflection of the Self in the intellect.
90. The teaching, 'Thou art That' will surely be useless in the absence of the knowledge 'I am Brahman'. This teaching is of use to those only who are acquainted with the discrimination between the Self and the non-Self.
91. 'Mine' and 'it' are ideas predicated of the non-Self and the idea 'I' of the ego. The ideas such as, 'I am a man' are predicated of both the Self and the non-Self.
92. They should be regarded as principal and subordinate with relation to one another and should be taken as the qualified or qualifying according to reason.
93. Both the ideas 'mine' and 'it' are qualifications of the ego, as for example,' a man having wealth and a man 'having a cow'. Similarly, the gross body is the qualification of the ego.
94. Everything pervaded by the intellect together with the ego is the qualification of the Witness. Without being connected with anything and pervading everything by means of its reflection the Self is, therefore, always of the nature of Knowledge Itself.
95. All this non-Self exists only for those people who are undiscriminating, but it does not exist at all for men of Knowledge.
96. Agreement with contrary with regard to words and with regard to their meanings are the only means by which the meaning implied by the word 'I' may be ascertained.
97. (Waking up from deep sleep one says) 'I did not see anything at all in that state'. (From this it is clear that) one denies the existence of the knower, knowing and the known in deep sleep; but not that of Knowledge Itself.
98. The scriptures themselves discriminate between Knowledge Itself on the one hand and the knower, knowing and the known on the other, and prove that the former is changeless and really existing, and that the later deviate from existence as they say, It is self luminous and The Knowledge of the knower does not (cease to exist).
99-100. Just as Brahma removed the Ignorance of the son of Dasarata by means of words only, but did not teach him any action in order to remove it so that he might know that he was Vishnu; so, the Sruti teaches one 'Thou art That' in order that one's Ignorance may be removed when one has learnt the meanings of the subordinate sentences according to the Srutis and popular grammar.
101. It is the indirectly expressed meaning of the word 'I' viz., the innermost and self-luminous Self which is expressed in the teaching, 'Thou art That'. And the result is liberation.
102. It would surely be necessary to admit an injunction if right knowledge were not produced immediately when one was taught (that one was Brahman).The Self exists in Its own nature even before one is taught (the meaning of the sentence as, 'Thou Art That').
103. The listening to the teachings and the production of right knowledge are simultaneous, and the result is the cessation of (the transmigratory existence consisting of) hunger etc. There can be no doubt about the meaning of the sentences like 'Thou art That' in the past, present or future.
104. The right knowledge of the Self which is of the nature of Pure Consciousness is, no doubt, produced in one at the time of listening to the teachings as all obstacles are removed (beforehand).
105-106. Is the knowledge, 'I am Brahman Itself' or, 'I am something other than It', is produced (when one is taught, 'Thou art That?) If the meaning implied by the word 'I' is something which is Brahman Itself, you must accept the absolute identity of the innermost Self and Brahman. But if the word 'I' imply something other than the Brahman the knowledge, 'I am Brahman' certainly becomes false. The knowledge of their absolute identity cannot, therefore, be forbidden.
107. The intellect and its modifications having the reflection of the Self in them exist for It and are non-conscious. Liberation, the result, is, therefore, supposed to be in the conscious Self.
108. As neither the intellect (with the reflection of the Self) nor its modification in the form of the ego is of the nature of the result or its (material) cause, the result is capable of being attributed to the Self, though immutable, like victory to a King.
109. Just as the reflection of a face which makes a mirror appear like it is the face itself, so the reflection of the Self in the mirror of the ego making it appear like the Self (in the Self). So the meaning of the sentence, 'I am Brahman' is reasonable.
110. It is only in this way and in no other that one knows that one is Brahman (and that Brahman is oneself). Otherwise the teaching, 'Thou art That' also becomes useless in the absence of a medium.
111. Teaching becomes useful if it is meant for a listener, who will be the listener if the Witness is not?
112. If you are of opinion that the intellect proximate to the Witness is the listener, it cannot be regarded as deriving any benefit from the Witness as from a piece of wood.
113. But the Witness must be admitted to the subject to change if there be any benefit rendered by It to the intellect.
What harm is there if the reflection of the Self is accepted as it is supported by the Srutis and Smritis?
114. If you say that there will be changes in the Self in case the reflection is accepted, we say, 'No'. For, we have already said that the reflection of Consciousness in the intellect is an unreality like a snake appearing to be a rope and like the reflection of a face in a mirror appearing to be the face itself.
115-116. (Objection): No. There will be the fallacy of the reciprocal dependence here as the knowledge of the reflection depends on that of the Self (and the knowledge of the Self depends on that of the reflection); (but it is not so in the case of the face etc. and their reflections) as the face etc. are always known independent of their reflections. The reflection may be said to belong to the Self if the latter be known to have an independent existence. Again, the Self may have an independent existence if the reflection belongs to It.
117. (Reply): It is not so. For, the intellect and the Self are known to exist independent of each other to dream like the face and its reflection, as the Self then illumines the modifications of the intellect in the forms of objects such as, chariots etc. though they are not present in that state.
118-119. Pervaded by Consciousness, mental modifications in the forms of objects come into existence. External objects are what impart their forms to these modifications. The most desirable of all things (on the part of the agent), these external objects are called objects of action. One having such a desire is enjoined to perform actions. The mental modifications in which the forms of external objects are present are called the instruments of his knowledge of objects.
120. The ego which is pervaded by the reflection of the Consciousness is called the knower or the agent of the action of knowing. One who knows oneself (the witness) to be distinct from all these three is a real knower of the Self.
121. The modifications of the intellect called right 'knowledge,' 'doubtful knowledge' and 'false knowledge' deviate from their existence. There is one and the same Consciousness in all of them, but the differences are due to modifications.
122. Just as a jewel differs in color owing to the proximity of (colored) things, so, Consciousness differs (according to different modifications of the mind superimposed on It.) Impurities and changes in the Self are all due to Its connection with these modifications.
123. The modifications of the intellect are manifested, known and endowed with existence by the Self which is immediately known and different from them. It is inferred with the help of the example of a lamp.
124. Does one make another accept the Self by means of positive evidence or without one by merely negating the non-Self and leaving over the Self only?
125. The possibility of a void comes in owing to the witness being unknown, if the non-Self be meant to be negated by means of the evidence of words.
126. (Objection): You are a conscious being, how you can be the body?
(Reply): It cannot be so proved, as the Self is not known (from another evidence). It might be proved by negating the non-Self if Pure Consciousness were known to exist.
127. (Objection): The Self is self-existing as Pure Consciousness is immediately known. (Reply): The knowledge of the Self according to you then becomes similar to that of the void assumed by the Nihilist.
128. (Objection): That the agent, the object and instrument are known to exist simultaneously is proved by memory (e.g. when one says) 'I' knew it.
129. (Reply): Though memory is right evidence, simultaneity is a misconception due to quick perception. So they were perceived before one after another and afterwards remembered in the same way.
130. Relative to, and characteristically different from, each other, the things denoted by the words 'it' and 'myself' in the sentence 'I know it and myself', cannot be the objects of simultaneous perception.
131. Three things (namely, an agent, an instrument and an object) are unnecessary in the perception of each of the knower, knowledge and the known. (And in order to avoid a regresses ad infinitum it cannot be said that each of these three things will prove its own existence, because) the agency of the agent exhausted in proving its own existence will not be available to prove that of the instrument and the object at the same time.
132. What is desired to be governed by the action of an agent is an object of that action. The object, therefore, depends on the agent and not on the Self which is other than it.
133. It is only through evidence such as, words, inference, etc. and in no other way that all things become known to those who do not know them.
134. Is the Self also substantiated by means of evidence or not? Though the Self Itself is independent of evidence, evidence is necessary in order to know It.
135. If the conscious Self Itself is taken to be ignorant, evidence is necessary in order that It may know Itself. It is surely necessary in knowing the Self if one (i.e. the ego) other than It be regarded as ignorant.
136-137. Does substantiation means being known, being endowed with existence or anything else? You should remember the two alternatives spoken of in the previous verse if it means 'being known'. As it is well-known that all things come to existence from their causes, no effort (by way of the application of evidence) is necessary for substantiation.
138. Substantiation, therefore, means 'being known' according to the doctrine in which the knower, knowing and the known are admitted. In the case of both he witnesses and the witnessed it denotes 'being known' and not 'endowed with existence'.
139. If it be assumed that the distinctness of the agent, the object, etc. is what substantiation (we say that) there can be distinctness or indistinctness with respect to the other (i.e. the witness) only, but not the agent.
140. There is no distinctness of a jar to a blind man. (It is nothing more than the jar being known). If, however, they want to predicate distinctness of the agent etc. they must admit that knowingness belongs to the Self.
141. Please tell us what benefits you derive by holding that knowledge depends on other things. If it is contended that dependence (of knowledge) on the knower is desirable (we reply that) the knower also, according to us, is nothing but Knowledge.
142. The intellect itself, though indivisible, is looked upon by deluded people as consisting of the divisions of the knower, knowing and the known.
143. Actions, agents, etc. consist, according to us, (idealists), of knowledge only.
(Reply): You must accept an agent of this knowledge if you admit its existence and destruction (every moment).
144. Your own conclusion is given up if you do not admit any quality belonging to knowledge. (Objection): The qualities of existence etc. are nothing but the negation of their non-existence and so on. (Reply): Even then knowledge cannot be liable to destruction (every moment) as it is known by itself according to you.
145. Destruction has for its ultimate limit something which is self-existent. (You say that) destruction is the negation of non-destruction. A cow is defined according to you as the non-existent of a non-cow. It cannot be the definition of a cow.
146. Things denoted by the word 'momentary' are also, according to you, only the negation of things that are non-momentary.
147. (The Idealists). As there cannot be any difference in non-existence differences are due to names only. (Reply) Please, tell me how there can be many-ness in one indivisible non-existence due only to different names.
148. How can the negation (of a non-cow) denote a cow if by the word negation the negation of different things is meant? (Again) No negation distinguishes one thing from another, nor can special properties do it.
149. Just as names, species, etc do not qualify Knowledge according to you as it has no special properties, (so, the negation of a non-cow, homelessness etc. do not qualify a cow).
150. As you have to accept sense-perception and inference in everyday life, you have to admit difference; for they consist of actions, agents and so on.
151. Entities qualifying knowledge such as jars, blue, yellow, etc. and also the knower by which these are known must be accepted.
152. Just as the perceiver is different from colors etc. which are perceivable, so, the knower, the Self, is different from the modifications of the intellect which are knowable. (Again) just as a lamp which reveals things is different from them, so is the knower different from things known.
153-154. What other relation except that of the seer and the seen can there be between the Self, the Witness, and the modifications of the intellect witnessed by It?
(Question) Does the consciousness of the Self pervade the modifications (really or apparently)?
(Answer) If apparently, the eternal Self must be of some utility to the intellect.
155. It has been said before that the benefit derived from (the proximity of) the Self by the intellect is that it appears conscious like the former. Being a revealer the intellect, like light and so on, pervades objects such as jars etc.
156. Just as a jar placed in the sun may be said to be brought to light, so, an object in the intellect may be said to be brought under its cognizance. This bringing to cognizance is nothing but being pervaded by the intellect. Objects become pervaded by the intellect one after another.
157. The intellect pervades an object (and assumes its form) when the object is revealed through the help (i.e. the reflection) of the Self. Like time and space the all pervading Self can have no order or succession (in pervading objects).
158. A thing like the intellect that depends on the agent etc. in pervading its objects and does not pervade all objects at the same time, (some being always left un-pervaded), is liable to transformation.
159. It is to the intellect and not to the Self which is immutable that the knowledge 'I am Brahman' belongs. Moreover, the Self is changeless because It has no other witness.
160. If the agent, the ego, were to feel 'I am liberated' freedom from pain and pleasure would not be reasonable with respect to it.
161-162 The wrong knowledge that one is happy or unhappy due to one's identification with the body etc. like the pleasure or sorrow due to the possession or loss of an ear-ring, is surely negated by the right knowledge that one is Pure Consciousness. An evidence becoming non-evidence, everything will end in non-existence in the reverse case.
163. One feels pain when one's body gets burnt, cut or destroyed, (because one identifies oneself with it. Otherwise the Self (which is different from the body) is never pained. Owing to there being burns etc. in one man another is not pained.
164. As I am not touched by anything and do not possess a body I am never susceptible of being burnt. Pain arises from the wrong notion (due to a false identification with the body) like the wrong notion of one being dead at the death of one's son.
165. Just as the wrong notion 'I possess an ear-ring' is removed when the right knowledge regarding it arises, so, the false consciousness 'I am unhappy' is negated by the right knowledge, 'I am pure Brahman'.
166. The pure Self might be freely imagined to be susceptible to pain if It were proved to possess it at all. One's identification with the body etc. is the cause of the pain felt and is responsible for the idea that the Self is susceptible to pain.
167. Just as due to indiscrimination touch and movement are felt to be in the Self which is devoid of them, so, normal pain is also felt to be in It (owing to the same reason).
168-169. The pain (due to the identification with the subtle body) comes to an end when one has the discriminating knowledge (that one is the Innermost Self) like the movement etc. (belonging to the gross body) which are negated (when one knows that one is different from it). Unhappiness is seen in the Self when the mind roams against one's will on account of Ignorance. But it is not seen in it when the mind is at rest. It is, therefore, not reasonable that unhappiness is in the innermost Self.
170. The saying 'Thou art That' implies an invisible reality, the words 'Thou' and 'That' expressing the same reality indirectly like (the words 'blue' and 'horse' in) the sentence 'it is a blue horse'.
171. The word 'Thou' comes to mean one free from pain on account of its being used in the same predicament with the word 'That' which means One eternally devoid of pain. Similarly, used in the same connection with the word 'Thou', meaning the Innermost Self (which is directly known), the word 'That' also comes to mean a thing directly known.
172. The sentences, 'Thou art That' produces the immediate knowledge of Self-Brahman like the saying, 'You are the tenth'.
173. Without giving up their own meanings the words 'thou' and 'That' deliver (by implication) a special one resulting in the knowledge of Self-Brahman. They do not express any other meaning contrary to it.
174-175. Just as misled by the number nine the tenth boy did not know himself to be so and wanted to know who the tenth was, so, one does not see one's Self, the Witness, though detached from the non-Self, and self-evident, on account of one's eyes being covered by Ignorance and intellect captivated by desires..
176. One knows one's own Self, the witness of the intellect and all its modifications, from sentences such as, 'Thou art That' like the boy who knew himself from the sentence, 'You are the tenth'.
177-178. The understanding of sentences is possible (on the knowledge of the implied meanings of the words) by the method of agreement and contrariety after it has been ascertained which words should be placed first and which next. For the order of words in Vedic sentences follows the meaning of the sentences. The rule about remembering the meanings of words in accordance with their order in which sentences are construed does not hold good in the Vedas.
179. The question is out of place when the meanings of words in sentences having fixed meanings are made clear in order that the meanings of sentences may be comprehended.
180. The method of agreement and contrariety is spoken of in order that one may be acquainted with the (implied) meanings of words, for no one can know the meaning of a sentence without knowing (the meaning of the words in it).
181-183. The meaning of the sentences like 'Thou art That', i.e. one is Brahman ever free, does not become manifest on account of the non-discrimination of the (implied) meaning of the word 'Thou'. Therefore it is the purpose of the discriminating the meaning of that word and for no other purpose that the method of agreement and contrariety has been described. For when the meaning of the word 'thou' is discriminated) one becomes perfectly sure of the nature of the Innermost Self by the negation of the ego connected with unhappiness from the meaning of the word 'I' and then the meaning of the sentence viz. one invisible Pure Consciousness becomes manifest like an AEgle marmelos fruit placed on one's palm.
184. Those who are well-versed in the meanings of words and sentences should not, therefore, assume a meaning which is not in accordance with the Srutis and give up what is in them. For this explanation of the sentence is thus possible.
185. (Objection): The knowledge, 'I am Brahman' is contradicted by sense-perception etc. like the cooking of gold particles.
(Reply): How can that knowledge be contradicted by these which are evidences only apparently?
186. (Objection): The knowledge that one is devoid of unhappiness does not arise from the sentence as long as one feels that one is unhappy, though the feeling of unhappiness may be due to sense-perception etc. which are all fallacious.
(Reply): we say, 'No'. For, there are exceptions.
187-188. (Reply continued) I felt miserable on account of burns, cuts, etc. in dream and was freed from pain through the teaching (imparted to me by a man of knowledge) in that state. Even if it be a contented that the teaching in dream negates no pain, still pain etc. cannot be regarded as belonging to the Self. For the absence of pain is there both before and after it is experienced, a delusion or a pain being never unceasing.
189. There is no contradiction if by negating the idea that one is unhappy one knows oneself to be the Innermost Self (i.e. Brahman) like the boy who knew himself to be the tenth and not one of the other nine.
190-191. It is from the sentence only and from nothing that one knows oneself to be ever free. The meaning of the sentence is known from the knowledge of the (implied) meanings of the words; these meanings again are surely understood by the method of agreement and contrariety. Thus one knows oneself to be free from pain and action.
192-193. The right knowledge of Self-Brahman becomes manifest fro sentences such as 'Thou Art That', like the knowledge acquired from the sentence 'you are the tenth'. The (false) conception of pain with regard to the Self vanishes for ever when the right knowledge of Self-Brahman arises like all kinds of pain experienced in dream which comes to an end as soon as one wakes up.
194. The knowledge (that they have been cooked) does not arise in the case of gold particles etc. as they do not become soft. They are made hot by boiling them for the purpose of producing an unseen result (in connection with sacrifices). It is not a fact that right knowledge does not arise from sentences like 'Thou art That'. For, there is no such contradiction here.
195. The meaning of the two words 'That' and 'art' in the sentence 'Thou art That' are well known. It does not produce right knowledge for want of help when the (implied) meaning of the word 'Thou' is not known.
196. The world 'art' is used in order to show that the words 'Thou' and 'That' are in the same predicament.
197. Being in the same predicament with the word 'Thou', the word 'That' comes to mean the Innermost Self. (Similarly, being in the same relation with the word 'That') the word 'Thou' comes to mean the same thing as the word 'That'. (Thus in relation to each other) the two words show that the Innermost Self is not unhappy and that Brahman is not other than the Self.
198. Thus both of them in conjunction express the same meaning as is implied by the sentences, 'Not this, not this'.
199. Why do you say that the sentence is not evidence (regarding the knowledge of Brahman) and depends on an action (in order to produce the same knowledge) as the result produced by the sentence 'Thou art That' is the right knowledge regarding Self-Brahman?
200. We do not, therefore, admit (the injunction of an action) in the beginning, end or middle, for it is contradictory and not to be met with in the Vedas. Not only so, we have, in that case, to give up what is there in them. And that would be harmful.
201. (Objection): The Bliss of liberation is not obtained by ascertaining the meaning of the sentences unlike the satisfaction which is felt by eating. Just as boiled milk-rice cannot be prepared with cow dung, so, the direct knowledge of Brahman cannot be produced simply by ascertaining the meaning of the sentence.
202. (Reply): Indirect knowledge, it is true, is the result produced by the sentences regarding the non-Self, but it is not so in the case of those regarding the Innermost Self. It is, on the other hand, direct and certain knowledge like that in the case of the tenth boy.
203. Therefore accept the Self as self-evidence which means the same thing as self-knowledge. The knowledge of the Innermost Self according to us thus becomes possible when the ego vanishes.
204. Pain is a property belonging to the intellect How can it, therefore, belong to the innermost Self which is of the nature of Pure Consciousness and not connected with pain?
205. The Witness is known by Itself which is of the nature of knowledge only. It is the birth of the modification of the intellect pervaded by the reflection of Consciousness that is what is known to be the knowledge of the Self.
206. How can you speak of the hearing etc of the Self on your part which is a contradiction when you are the eternally existing Liberation free from hunger etc.?
207. Hearing etc. would be necessary if Liberation were to be brought about. But it would be transitory in that case. The sentence, therefore, can have no other meaning in the presence of inconsistency.
208. The repetition of the idea, 'I am Brahman' might be possible if there were a difference between the listener and what is listened to. The desired meaning would be wronged in that case. Therefore the sentence becomes unreasonable (i.e. loses authority according to that view).
209. Knowing that one is eternally existing Liberation, one who desires to perform actions is a man of clouded intellect and nullifies the scriptures.
210. For knowing oneself to be Brahman one has no duty to perform; nor can one be a knower of Brahman when one has duties to perform. One deceives oneself by having recourse to both sides.
211. (Objection): If a reality is only pointed to (but no injunction be given) when one is told 'Thou are eternally existing Liberation'. How can one apply oneself to know that one is so (without being enjoined)?
212. It is known by perpetual evidence that one is an agent and miserable. And then there is an effort so that one may not remain so.
213. The Sruti, therefore, restates the agency etc. on the part of the people, and enjoins duties such as reasoning etc. in order that they may know that they are eternally existing Brahman.
214. (Reply): How can one accept an inconsistent meaning after knowing that one is eternally existing Liberation which is free from unhappiness, activity and desires?
215. (Objection): You should say why I thought of an opposite nature, should feel that I have desires and activities and am not Brahman.
216. (Reply): A question on this subject is reasonable, but it is not reasonable to ask why one is free. It is only a thing contrary to evidence that should be questioned.
217. The knowledge that one is free arises from a different evidence viz. the evidence, 'Thou art That'. Arising from fallacious perceptual evidence, unhappiness deserves an explanation.
218. One should be told what one asks and wants to know; and the inquirer desires to know liberation, (the Self) which is free from unhappiness.
219. That which removes unhappiness should be told (by the teacher to the disciple) according to his question, inquiring how his happiness might be removed altogether.
220. There can be no doubt about what the Srutis prove as they are an independent source of knowledge. The words of Sruti, therefore, produce the conviction that one is free. So it should be said that such is the meaning of the Srutis as (it has been proved that) they do not contradict any other source of knowledge.
221. The Knowledge of the Self different fro what has been said before is unreasonable on the authority of the Srutis 'It' is unknown to those who know (It), and 'Who' will know the knower?
222. The renunciation of all actions in order to discriminate the (implied) meaning of the word 'thou' becomes the means (to Self-Knowledge) according to the teaching, 'controlling the internal and external senses'.
223. One should know the Self, the innermost One, and the implied meaning of the word 'thou' in the combination of the body and the senses. One then knows the pure Self to be Brahman, the all-comprehensive principle. And that is the meaning of the sentence, 'Thou art That'.
224. How can one be enjoined to perform a duty when the meaning of the sentence that one is Brahman is known by one according to the right source of knowledge, viz. the Srutis, as no other source of knowledge can then exist for one?
225. No action can, therefore, be enjoined on one when one has known the meaning of the sentence. For the two contradictory ideas, 'I am Brahman' and 'I am an agent' cannot exist together.
226-227. That one is Brahman is the right knowledge. It is not negated by the false conceptions that one is an agent, has desires and is bound, arising from fallacious evidences. This (false) knowledge (i.e. I am an agent) like the identification of the Self with the body, becomes unreasonable when the knowledge that one is Brahman and not other than It is firmly grasped according to the teaching of the scriptures.
228. A man who tries to be free of fear and goes to a place which is devoid of it, from one full of fear, does not, if independent, go to such a place again.
229. How can there be the possibility of wrong conduct on the part of one on whom renunciation etc. are enjoined and who is awakened, on knowing the implied meanings of the words and is aspiring after the comprehension of the meaning of the sentence?
230. Everything, therefore that we said before is substantiated.
231. One does not try to attain anything in which one has lost interest. Why will a man seeking liberation make any effort at all who has lost interest in all the three worlds?
232. No one likes to eat poison even if pressed by hunger. So, no one who is not an idiot will knowingly wish to eat it when his hunger has been appeased by eating sweetmeats.
233. I bow down to my Teacher, a knower of Brahman, who collected for us the nectar of knowledge from the Vedanta like a bee collecting the best honey from flowers.
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE MIND
1. One becomes free from the distress caused by a series of hundreds of bodies, which has its origin in a swoon due to the fever of desires, if one places oneself under the treatment, in which medicines are Knowledge and dispassion - the causes of the destruction of the fever of desires (mentioned before).
2. Oh my mind, you indulge in vain ideas like 'me' and 'mine'. Your efforts, according to others, are for one other than yourself. You have no consciousness of things and I have no desire of having anything. It is, therefore, proper for you to remain quiet.
3. As I am no other than the Supreme Eternal One I am always contented and have no desires. Always contented I desire no welfare for myself, but I wish your welfare. Try to make yourself quiet.
4. One who is by nature beyond the six continual waves is, according to the evidence of the Srutis, the Self of us all and of the universe. This is what I know from other sources of knowledge also. Your efforts are, therefore, all in vain.
5. There is no idea of difference left which deludes all people through wrong notions when you are merged, for the cause of all wrong notions is the perception of (the reality of) difference. These wrong notions vanish as soon as one is free from this perception.
6. I am not deluded by your efforts. For I have known the Truth and am free from all bondage and change. I have no difference in the conditions preceding the knowledge of Truth and succeeding it. Your efforts, oh mind, are, therefore, useless.
7. As I am eternal I am not otherwise. Transitoriness is due to the connection with changes. I am always self-effulgent and therefore without a second. It is ascertained that everything created by the mind is non-existent.
8. Scrutinised through the reasoning that reality is never destroyed and unreality never born, you have no (real) existence. You are, therefore, Oh my mind, non-existent in the self. Having both birth and death, you are accepted as non-existent.
9-10. As everything - the seer, seeing and the seen - is a false notion superimposed by you, and as no object of perception is known to have an existence independent of that of the Self, the Self is one only. When this is so, the Self in the state of deep sleep does not differ from Itself when in waking (or dream). Unreal like the circular form of a burning torch, superimposition also has no existence independent of that of the non-dual Self. The oneness of the Self is ascertained from the Srutis as the Self has no division within Itself on account different powers and as It is not different (in different bodies).
11. If, according to you, souls were mutually different and so limited (by one another) they would meet with destruction as all such things are seen to come to an end. Again, all being liberated, the whole world would meet with extinction.
12. There is no one who belongs to me nor is there anyone to whom I belong as I am without a second. The world which is superimposed does not exist, my existence being known to be anterior to superimposition. I am not superimposed
It is duality only that is so.
13. The unborn Self can never be regarded as non-existent because there cannot be the superimposition of existence or non-existence on It. What exists prior to you and on which you yourself are superimposed cannot Itself be superimposed.
14. The duality seen to be pervaded by you is unreal. That It is not seen is no reason that the Self does not exist That from which the wrong notions of existence and non-existence proceed must exist. And just as a deliberation ends in a conclusion, so, all things superimposed have a final substratum in the really existing and non-dual Self.
15. If the duality, created by you and assumed by us to be real so that an investigation of the Truth might be possible, were non-existent, truth would remain unascertained, owing to the investigation becoming impossible. The existence of a reality must be accepted as a matter of course if an unascertained nature of Truth is not desirable.
16. (Objection): What is called real is, as a matter of fact, unreal like a human horn as it does not serve any purpose. (Reply): That a thing serves no purpose is no reason why it should be unreal and that a thing serves some purpose is no reason (on the other hand) why it should be real.
17. Your inference is wrong because reality serves some purpose as It is the subject - matter of deliberation, and as It is also the source of all duality proceeding from It under the influence of Maya, according to the Srutis, the Smritis and reason. Thus it is reasonable (that the Self, though changeless, serves some purpose). Otherwise (i.e. as a matter of reality) it is not reasonable that a thing, either permanent or temporary, serves any purpose.
18. According to the Sruti It is of a nature contrary to that of superimposition. This One is without a second as It is also known to have an eternal existence even prior to all superimposition. Unlike everything superimposed on It, which is negated on the evidence of the Sruti, 'Not this, not this'. It is not negated and therefore It is left over.
19. Those who, owing to false notion in their own minds, superimpose the ideas of existence, non-existence etc. on the Self, which is not Itself superimposed and is birthless, imperishable and without a second, always meet with birth, old age and death as different kinds of beings.
20. Duality can have no reality if both its birth and absence of birth are denied (owing to the possibility of contradictions). Again it cannot owe its origin to another thing either real or unreal. For in that case, being the origin of duality, reality would become unreal and unreality real. Hence the nature of actions and their instruments also cannot be ascertained it is for these reasons that the Self is ascertained to be unborn.
21. If the instruments in connection with the birth of duality be considered to be devoid of any action whatever, there will be nothing which will not be an instrument. And if they are considered to have the power of action, they will not be instruments, (for they can be acting neither) in the state of reality nor of unreality. As both these states are without any particulars (and will always produce effects or never produce any). Neither can they become instruments at the time of their deviation from their original states (of reality or unreality). For in that case the description between the nature of the cause and that of the effect cannot be ascertained like the relation of cause and effect between the two ends (moving up and down) of the beam of a balance.
22. If the reversal of reality and unreality is not desirable how can anything owe its origin to them which are of a fixed nature? For, both of them stand without having any connection with each other. Nothing, therefore, Oh my mind, is born.
23. Even by assuming the birth of things, if you like so, I say, your effects serve me no purpose, for not existing in the Self gain or loss cannot be there either uncaused or due to any cause. Even assuming that they exit in the Self, it is a fact that your efforts are of no use to me.
24. Things either immutable or transitory cannot have any relation with other things or themselves. Therefore it is not reasonable that they should have any effects. So nothing belongs to anything else. The Self Itself is also not (directly) within the scope of words.
25. A wise man immediately meets with the complete extinction of bondage like the extinguishing of a lamp when he acquires through reasoning and the Sruti the knowledge of Self which is the same in all conditions, always of the nature of self-effulgent Consciousness and free from duality fancied to be existing or non-existing.
26. Knowing the One bereft of the Gunas which is unknowable according to those who know It to be not different from the Self and which is very well knowable according to those fallaciously argumentative people who wrongly know It to be an object of knowledge - a man thus freed from the Gunas - becomes liberated from the bondage of false notions and is never deluded.
27. False notion cannot be negated in anyway other than thus knowing the Self. It is these wrong notions that are the causes of delusion. These notions, bereft of their cause, come to end absolute end like fire bereft of fuel (when knowledge is achieved).
28. I bow down to the teachers, the great souls, who realised the Supreme Truth and gathered from the ocean of the Vedas this knowledge (described in the present book) like gods who churned the great ocean in ancient time and gathered nectar.
Here ends Thousand Teachings, the substance of all the Upanishads, written by the All-knowing Shankara, the Teacher and wandering Paramahamsa, the disciple of Govinda worthy of adoration.