Advaita Bodha Deepika -3

Advaita Bodha Deepika

 

18. These three bodies are contrary to the nature of the Self.

D.: How?

M.: The gross body is insentient; the subtle is pain ridden;

the causal is unreal. These are the opposites of the Being-

Knowledge-Bliss nature of the Self. Therefore the Self must be

different from these.

19-25. D.: How is it so from the five sheaths also?

M.: The five sheaths are the material, the vital, the mental,

the intellectual and the blissful ones. Of these the material sheath

is born of food and grows with food; it is thus food modified.

Therefore it is material. Like a sheath to a sword, the body

covers the Self and obstructs its knowledge. Therefore it is the

material sheath. Moreover it has a beginning and an end.

Therefore it is not the Self who is eternal.

Together the vital, the mental and the intellectual sheaths

form the subtle body. Through the five passages in the body

functioning in five different ways according to its modes, the

vital air together with the five organs and limbs obstructs the

Self from being known; therefore this is the vital sheath. Being

insentient it cannot be the Self.

Joined with desire, anger etc., thinking this and that, the

“this” mode of mind manifests the latencies. Together with the

five senses this “this” mode forms the mental sheath. Being

insentient, it cannot be the Self.

Definitely to make out the “this” and “that” ideas of the

mind to be a pot, a cloth etc., to have the false notion of ‘I’ in

the body etc., and that of “mind”, in home, wealth, lands etc.,

is the nature of the ‘I’ mode. United with the five senses, this

I-mode forms the intellectual sheath. Arising in the waking and

dream states, joined with the body, permeating it from head to

foot, it is resolved in swoons or in the deep sleep state; therefore

it cannot be the eternal Self.

After waking from deep sleep every one feels, “I did not

know anything — I slept happily.” Here ignorance and bliss

are the experiences. This blissful ignorance is the blissful sheath.

Being ignorant, it must be insentient and non self.

So far all the five sheaths have been shown to be non self.

The experiencer in them must be different from them like the

seer of a pot remaining different from it. There can be no doubt

on this point.

26. D.: How is the Self said to be witnessing the three

states?

M.: The three states are the waking, dream and deep sleep

through which the Jiva or the ‘false-I’ or the ego passes,

identifying itself with the gross, subtle and causal bodies

respectively. The Self must therefore be the Consciousness

witnessing these three states; “It” is not identical with any or all

of them.

27. D.: If these three states are not of the Self, of whom

else can they be?

M.: They can be only of the ego which assumes them

whereas the Self is unconcerned. Affecting the waking state, the

ego in the guise of visva enjoys the gross sense experiences;

similarly in dream as taijasa he enjoys the subtle experiences;

and in deep sleep as prajna he experiences ignorance. Therefore

the ego must be the experiencer in these states and not the

witnessing Self.

28-29. D.: What makes you say that the ego and not the

Self is the experiencer of the three states?

M.: In deep sleep, the ego becoming dormant, no

experience or experiencer is seen; only on the rise of the ego

are they found. He must therefore be the experiencer. His are

the two states of waking and dream; they cannot be those of

the Self.

D.: Whose is deep sleep then?

M.: It is also of the ego, because just as it arrogates to itself

the waking and dream states saying “I woke up — I dreamt”, so

it does the deep sleep state also saying “I slept”. It cannot be of

the Self since It remains unconcerned as the witness of the three

states and of their experiencer who remains conceited with the

ideas “I woke up — I dreamt — I slept.” Therefore none of the

three states is of the Self.

30-31. D.: The ego cannot be the experiencer in deep sleep

also. It is not there and how can it be said to be the experiencer?

In the waking and dream states, the ego is rightly said to be the

experiencer; in deep sleep the Self must be the experiencer.

M.: You are not right. The Jiva i.e., the ego, who in the

waking and dream states appears as the intellectual sheath to

enjoy gross and subtle things, sinks in deep sleep to remain

dormant as the blissful sheath, experiencing ignorance and bliss

as “I did not know anything — I slept happily.” Had the ego

not been present in deep sleep, on waking there could not be

the recollection “I did not know anything — I slept happily.”

Only the experiencer can recollect his experiences and not

another. Even the recollection can only be of what was actually

experienced and not of what was not. On waking, it is the ego

which says “I did not know anything — I slept happily”. From

this it is clear that the experiencer in the deep sleep was the ego

and not the Self.

32-33. D.: But for the blissful sheath of deep sleep, what

can the witnessing Consciousness be?

M.: As the blissful sheath, it is ignorant; this ignorance is

recognised later. The recogniser must be different from

recognition and he must be the experiencer of the blissful sheath.

Now that he has fancied himself as the blissful sheath

which is none other than ignorance, he remains ignorant

himself because ignorance cannot know itself. Therefore it

follows there must be the witness of this ignorance who simply

illuminates the blissful sheath which appears as the idea “I do

not know anything”, and remains apart from it. This witness

is the Self.

D.: What evidence is there to prove that in deep sleep all is

reduced to dormancy leaving the witness unaffected?

M.: The sruti says “The vision of the Witness can never be

lost” meaning that when all else remains dormant and unknown,

the Seer remains aware as ever.

34-35. D.: Well, in deep sleep which is itself ignorance, a

cogniser is rightly inferred; but in the waking and dream states

the intellectual sheath can be the cogniser and there is no place

for a witness apart.

M.: You cannot think so. Just as in deep sleep the Self is

the cogniser of the ignorance, so also in the other states it is the

witness of the intellect knowing all waking and dream notions

such as I dreamt — I woke up — I went — I came — I saw —

I heard — I know — which clearly indicate a knower. Just as

the witness is admitted to be aware of ignorance, so also it must

be of knowledge as well. Moreover being a knower at one time,

and not knower at another time, the intellectual sheath cannot

be the witness.

D.: If so, let the Self, the witness of the intellect be also the

experiencer.

M.: No, no! The witness of deep sleep and of its experiencer,

cannot be the experiencer of the waking and dream states.

D.: If the Self be the witness of deep sleep and of its

experiencer, can It not be the experiencer of the waking and

dream states?

M.: No, he who sleeps must wake up or dream dreams.

Never sleeping, ever aware as the witness of the three states and

of their experiencer who thinks “I slept — I dreamt — I woke

up”, the Self cannot have the three states nor be their

experiencer. This cannot admit of any doubts.

36. D.: Why should not the Self be both witness and

experiencer of the three states?

M.: Just as the witness watching two men fighting with

each other does not fight himself, so also the witness cannot be

the experiencer. Again as the fighter does not simply watch the

fight but himself fights, so also the experiencer cannot be the

witness. Therefore the same Self cannot be both the experiencer

and the witness.

D.: Now what is the conclusion?

M.: The ‘false-I’ is the experiencer and the other one who

is unconcernedly watching the states and their experiencer is

the witness.

37. D.: In that case, for the three states are there three

different witnesses or is there only one?

M.: The witness is only one whereas the states alternate one

with another; the witness does not change. The same continuous

awareness runs through the appearance, staying and disappearance

of the three states. Thus the witness of the three states is the Self.

The witness-hood of the Self has thus been described.

38. In this manner the tatastha lakshana of the Self has

been described. Now we shall consider Its swarupa lakshana. It

is Being-Knowledge-Bliss, single, all permeating, untainted,

perfect, unchanged and non-dual.

39-41. D.: What is meant by Its ‘Being’?

M.: Always It remains witnessing the appearance and

disappearance of all the states superimposed on It. Nay more —

It was the Witness not only of the waking, dream and deep sleep

states but also of the births, growths (childhood, youth, old age)

and deaths of previous bodies (just as It is of this body and will be

of future bodies). It is thus the one, continuous, ever existent

witness of all these. Its “Being” is thus obvious.

42. D.: What is meant by Its being ‘Knowledge’?

M.: Inasmuch as It always remains illumining and

manifesting the three states and their relative ‘false-I’, Knowledge

is self evident.

43-46. D.: What is meant by Its being ‘Bliss’?

M.: Always being the one object of supreme joy, rather

supreme joy itself, the Self is Bliss.

D.: Is not the non-self also pleasing?

M.: No.

D.: Why not?

M.: Not by itself but only as an object of enjoyment for

the individual self, the non-self is dear as husband, wife, child,

wealth, home, pleasing unguents, sweet scents etc.

D.: Why are they said to be not pleasing by themselves?

M.: Should they be so, they must always remain so. At one

time, one thing is pleasing and at other times, the same thing is

nauseating.

D.: How?

M.: Take a woman, for instance. When the man is lustful,

she is fancied to be pleasing; when he suffers from fever, she is

not wanted; for a man grown desireless, she is of no interest at

all. According to circumstances the same woman can be pleasing,

unwanted, or of no interest. The same applies to all other objects

of enjoyment. Thus the non-self cannot be pleasing.

47. D.: Is the Self always pleasing?

M.: Certainly; never do you know It to be otherwise.

48-49. D.: In cases of unbearable pain, the Self is given up

in disgust. How can it be said to be always pleasing?

M.: The Self can never be given up because he who in

disgust relinquishes the sufferings that are alien to him, does

not give up himself.

D.: It is the Self that is given up by himself.

M.: In that case, if the Self is given up, there must be

another who gives it up. On the other hand, he being the one

who gives up, gives up the painful body which is different from

himself, and not himself. Furthermore the very fact of occasional

disgust with the body etc., proves that the non-self is painful

and the Self joyful.

D.: How does it prove this?

M.: Should the Self be painful, pain could never be disliked.

Because one’s true nature is joy, one dislikes pain in the shape of

body etc. Not being natural but only adventitious, ailments are

not liked. Had they been natural, they could not be disliked.

Just as the dislike of illness etc., shows that they are not natural

but only adventitious, so also the dislike of the body etc., shows

that these are similarly not natural and that joy is one’s own

eternal true nature. Therefore a sudden and intense disgust with

the body etc., makes a man rid himself of them but not of the

Self. This very fact teaches that the body etc. are not the Self. It

must now be obvious how the Self can never be the object of

dislike to any one.

50-51. D.: Even if the Self cannot be detested, can It not

be an object of indifference?

M.: No. Being oneself the one who is indifferent, one can

be indifferent to the non-self e.g. a pebble or a blade of grass but

not to oneself. Therefore the Self is not an object of occasional

dislike like the body, woman etc. nor of indifference like a blade

of grass or a pebble. Always It is Joy Itself.

52-53. D.: If the Self is always pleasing and so are senseobjects

at the time of enjoyment, let them also be regarded as

pleasing.

M.: The delight in any object is not lasting but what is now

delightful soon yields its place to another more so. There are

degrees of pleasure and succession of the objects liked. The pleasure

in objects is only wanton and not steady. This is possible only if

the pleasure is born of one’s own delusion and not of the intrinsic

value of the object. For example, see how a dog chews a dry,

marrowless bone until blood comes out of the wounds in its

mouth, fancies the taste of its own blood to be that of the marrow

of the bone and will not part with it. Should it find another

similar bone, it drops down the one in its mouth and takes the

other. In the same way, superimposing his own joyful nature on

the detestable objects of fancy, the man delights in them by

mistake, for joy is not their nature. Owing to the ignorance of

man the objects which are really painful by nature seem to be

pleasing. This seeming pleasure does not remain steady in one

object but often shifts to other objects; it is wanton, graded, and

not absolute, whereas the Joy of the Self is not captious. Even

when the body etc., are cast off, this joy endures in the Self for

ever; it is also absolute. Therefore the Self is Supreme Bliss. So far

the Being-Knowledge-Bliss nature of the Self has been established.

54. D.: Do these three — Being, Knowledge and Bliss

form the qualities or the nature of the Self?

M.: These are not qualities but the very Self. Just as heat,

light, and redness form the nature of fire and are not its qualities,

so also Being, Knowledge and Bliss are the nature of the Self.

55. D.: If the Self has three forms as Being, Knowledge

and Bliss, are there then three selves?

M.: No. It is only one. Just as the fire showing forth as heat,

light and redness, is not three but only one, or water appearing as

coldness, fluidity and taste is only one, so also the Self shining

forth as Being-Knowledge-Bliss is not three but only one.

56-58. D.: If the Self is only one, how can It be said to be

‘all permeating’?

M.: It is correct to say that the Self, being only One, is all

permeating, because It is all knowing, It, as Knowledge, can

permeate all.

D.: Being the inmost Self aware of the five sheaths of the

body, can It be all knowing?

M.: Yes. It can. The whole universe made up of the five

elements, their combinations and mutations is seen by Itself

and by no other. Being insentient, the others cannot know.

Otherwise the insentient like a pot etc., should be knowing.

But it is not so. Only It knows all of them but they do not

know It. It is the All knower.

D.: The Self perceives only such things as are within the

ken of the senses and not those beyond. Where does It perceive

Mt. Meru or Heaven?

M.: It knows all. In the Self which is but the Ether of

Knowledge, all that is non-self i.e., insentient, appears in both

manners, as perceived or unperceived. Just as in the Ether of

Knowledge and not elsewhere, the home, lands, village, town and

country seem perceived by the senses, so also things beyond the

senses such as Mt. Meru or heaven appear as unperceived by them.

D.: Can anything unperceived by the senses appear at all?

M.: Yes, it can. Though non-existent like the son of a barren

woman, yet in the Ether of Knowledge, the home etc., appear

as objects of perception, because the latencies of the mind present

themselves so. In the same manner, though unreal and

unperceived, Meru etc., are fancied by the mind and appear in

the Ether of Knowledge.

D.: How?

M.: Before the witnessing consciousness in dreams the

mental phenomena present themselves as objects of perception

such as the home etc., and also others beyond perception like

heaven etc. In the same way they do so in the waking state too.

Otherwise one cannot say “I do not know heaven, Meru etc.”

However one says “I do not know heaven, Meru etc.” This

means that heaven, Meru etc., appear as objects unperceived by

the senses. Thus the Self which knows all the insentient nonself,

like Mt. Meru etc., is this Self only.

If not found in all (everywhere) but seen only within, as

the inner Self witnessing the five sheaths, how can It know all?

Certainly It cannot do so. In itself the mind fancies things far

and near, perceptible and imperceptible, known and unknown.

As their substratum the Self runs through and knows them all.

The Self is thus all-pervading. Therefore the same Self only is

in all and there can be no doubt of this.

59. D.: Should the Self be all-pervading, It must be

associated with all and therefore tainted.

M.: No. Like the all-permeating ether, It is impartite and

therefore unassociated. Not only untainted like the ether, but

also surpassing it, the Self remains as the Ether of Consciousness.

Therefore the srutis say “This Purusha is certainly untainted.”

60. D.: Being unassociated and thus untainted, beyond

all, separate and indifferent, the Self must be imperfect.

M.: No. There exists nothing different nor similar to It;

there are no parts in It. It remains undifferentiated externally

and internally. It is Perfection. Though all-filling yet It remains

unassociated like the ether.

D.: How can It be all-permeating and yet impartite?

M.: Not here nor there, but all-pervading, It is undivided

in space. Not now, nor then, but ever-present, It is undivided

in time. There is nothing beside the Self, It is the All-Self or the

very being of everything; therefore It is undivided by anything.

It remains thus undivided by any or all these three, all-filling

and perfect. Thus Its Perfection is proved.

61. D.: Because, all-pervading like the ether, the Self fills

all, It must be changeful.

M.: No. Being the witness of all created elements, ether

etc., that undergo changes, such as existence, birth, growth,

transformation, decay and death, the Self cannot Itself be

changeful. Otherwise like the other things It would be

changing; then It must be born, grow and die away. Thus It

must fall into the category of insentient things. If insentient,

It cannot at all be aware. On the contrary, It is known always

to remain as the witness of the birth, growth and decay of all

the universe. It is also impartite. Therefore It must be free

from changes.

62-63. D.: To say that the Self is free from changes implies

the existence of non-self which is changing. Then the Self cannot

be ‘non-dual’ and duality must result.

M.: No. There exists nothing besides the Self. It is ‘nondual’.

If the non-self is not different from the Self, there cannot

be duality.

D.: How can the non-self be the Self and not separate

from the Self?

M.: The Self is the origin of all. The effect cannot be

different from its cause. We do not see them totally different

from each other. Being the cause of all, the Self is identical with

all. There can be nothing different from It.

64-66. D.: How can the Self be the origin of all?

M.: Being the seer of all, It is the origin of all.

D.: How can the seer be the origin?

M.: In all cases of illusion, only the seer is found to be the

cause of all of them. When nacre is seen to be silver, the material

cause is no other than the seer; the same is the case with all

dream-visions for they have their origin in the dreamer only.

Similarly with the illusion of the world of the waking state, the

seer must be the cause.

D.: Should the universe be a myth, your conclusion will

follow. Is this universe only a myth?

M.: First there is the authority of the srutis which say that

in dissolution there remains only the non-dual Self and in

creation the names and forms are by Maya superimposed on It

like the name and form of a snake on a dimly visible rope.

Secondly, reasoning shows the illusory nature of this

universe because it is seen to appear and disappear like the unreal

visions in dreams.

Thirdly, the sages have proclaimed their realisation that all

this is but illusory and that only Brahman is real.

Therefore all this universe is really false. Now it is but right to

say that being the witness, the Self is the sole cause of all this universe

which is but an illusory appearance on the Self. The illusory effect

cannot be separate from the basis. Just as the foam, bubbles and

waves are not different from their origin, the sea, so also the

phenomena of the Universe are but the Self falsely presented.

Therefore the Self is ‘non-dual’ and there can be no duality.

67. In the presence of the master always attentively to

study the Vedanta shastra which treats of the non-dual Being

and retain its meaning forms the “nature” of sravana or hearing.

This must always be attended to.

68. D.: What is the “effect” of this sravana?

M.: It destroys that veiling part of ignorance which hitherto

made one think “Where is this non-dual Self? Nowhere”. To

destroy this ignorant conclusion of the non-existence of the

non-dual Self is its “effect”.

69-70. D.: How long should one continue sravana?

M.: Until the doubt of the non-existence of the non-dual

Being does not rear its head again. The non-recurrence of this

doubt is said to be the “limit” of the process of sravana.

D.: Can the doubt once set at rest, recur?

M.: Yes, it can.

D.: How?

M.: In many passages in the srutis, duality is dealt with

and can easily be mistaken to be proved. For instance, one

studies the shastras dealing with Vishnu and becomes devoted

to Him; later on, finding other gods similarly dealt with, one’s

devotion to Vishnu is likely to suffer. In the same manner, a

study of the Advaita shastras removes the doubt regarding nondual

Being, yet the dvaita shastras may lead to a different

conclusion and the student may lose faith in the non-duality of

Being. Therefore one must continue sravana till the different

texts do not shake one’s reasoned faith in non-dual Being.

D.: What is the “fruit” of sravana?

M.: When once for all the non-belief in the non-duality

of Being is destroyed, no sacred text or tricky argument can

make the seeker deviate from his faith. All obstructions to his

faith thus removed, he remains steady in his indirect knowledge

of non-dual Being. This is the “fruit” of sravana.

71. D.: What is this indirect knowledge?

M.: To know the true nature of the inmost Self, not by

direct experience but by a study of the shastras, is called indirect

Knowledge. Although one does not see Vishnu face to face yet

through the evidence of the shastras one believes in His existence;

this forms only common (samanya) knowledge. Similarly a

common knowledge of non-duality of Brahman gained through

the advaita shastras is indirect knowledge.

72-76. D.: Why should the knowledge arising from sravana

be said to be indirect? Can it not be direct?

M.: No. So long as the Inner Self cannot shine forth owing

to the other veiling aspect of Ignorance (abhanavarana) mere

knowledge of Its existence cannot be called direct.

D.: Is this confirmed by others also?

M.: Yes. Sri Vidyaranyaswamy says in Dhyana Deepika:

“Though by sravana, Brahman can be understood to be Being-

Knowledge-Bliss, yet It cannot thus be directly experienced as

the sole-Being witnessing the five sheaths. Although from the

shastras, Vishnu is understood to be four-armed, holding a disc,

a conch and a mace in His hands, and even a mental picture of

Him can manifest in one-pointed meditation, yet He is not

seen directly with these eyes; therefore the knowledge of Him

remains only indirect.” The knowledge gained from the shastras

is thus only indirect and not directly experienced. Similarly the

knowledge gained by sravana can remain only indirect and is

not directly experienced.

D.: Here Vishnu is not the Self but is different. It is but

right that knowledge of Him gained from the shastras remains

indirect. But Brahman is not different from the Self. To the

seeker who is ignorant of this identity, the srutis reveal the fact

saying, “That thou art”. On learning its true significance he

should be said to have directly realised the Truth. This knowledge

cannot remain indirect like that of heaven etc. Sravana must

therefore end in directly experienced knowledge.

M.: Not so. It is true that the sacred text reveals the Truth,

“That thou art”. Still direct knowledge does not result merely

by hearing it. In the absence of enquiry into the Self, knowledge

cannot become direct. In order to have this indirect knowledge

directly experienced, it is necessary to reflect on it.

77. Here ends the chapter on sravana. The student who

reads this carefully will gain indirect knowledge. In order to

experience directly, he will seek to know the nature of manana

or reflection.

REFLECTION

1. D.: Master, on hearing it from you, the nature of the

Self is now clear to me, but the knowledge remains only indirect.

Kindly instruct me in reflection, by practising which the

darkness of Ignorance now hiding the Self may vanish and direct

experience result.

2. M.: Always to direct the thought with subtle reasoning

upon the non-dual Self that is now known indirectly, is called

reflection.

3-4. D.: Please tell me its ‘cause’, ‘nature’, ‘effect’, ‘limit’

and ‘fruit’.

M.: Discernment of the real from the unreal is its ‘cause’;

enquiry into the Truth of the non-dual Self is its ‘nature’; to

tear off that veiling aspect of Ignorance which makes one say

“It does not shine forth” is its ‘effect’; the non recrudescence of

this veiling is its ‘limit’; and direct experience is its ‘fruit’. So say

the sages.

5. D.: Why is discernment said to be its ‘cause’?

M.: Only he who, by discernment of the real from the

unreal has acquired indirect knowledge, is fit to seek by enquiry

the direct knowledge of experience. No other can succeed in

the search for it.

6. D.: Why should not the Desire for Liberation be the

‘cause’ of reflection?

M.: A mere desire to be Liberated cannot make a man fit

for enquiry into the Self. Without sravana one cannot have even

an indirect knowledge. How can one succeed in one’s enquiry?

CHAPTER V

MANANA

Only after knowing the nature of the Self, should one proceed

to seek It. Ignorant of Its true nature, how can one investigate

the Self? Simple desire to be liberated will not suffice.

7. D.: Should not this desire lead to enquiry? With the rise

of this desire the man will begin to hear about the nature of the

Self and gain indirect knowledge which must enable him to

undertake the enquiry.

M.: This amounts to saying that the seeker possesses

discernment. He is not only desirous of Liberation but also

discerning in intellect. With sravana comes this faculty of

intellectual discernment of the real from the unreal, or the Self

from the non-self. This is called indirect knowledge. The shastras

say that only he who possesses indirect knowledge can discern

the real or the Self from the unreal or the non-self, and is fit for

enquiry into the Self. Therefore discernment is the sine qua non

for enquiry.

8-12. D.: Even if the desire for Liberation be not the

particular (visesha) cause of Reflection, could not either

desirelessness or tranquillity be the cause of it?

M.: All these are only general aids for reflection but not

its particular causes. A desireless and tranquil man need not

necessarily have the indirect knowledge of the Self and is

therefore unfit for enquiry into the Self. There are men of

austerities who are desireless and tranquil but not anxious for

Liberation. Having no desire for Liberation they have not

heard at all about the Self.

D.: How can they be said not to be desirous of Liberation?

M.: Inasmuch as they engage in austerities without taking

to sravana etc., which is the only gateway to Liberation, the

absence of desire for Liberation is inferred.

D.: No. They too can be desirous of being Liberated.

M.: If so, they must give up their austerities, always remain

with a master and engage themselves in hearing of the Self. If it

be said that they have already done sravana also, then since they

have gained indirect knowledge, they should be engaged in

reflection. Not having done sravana, though endowed with

desirelessness and tranquillity, they are incapable of discerning

the real from the unreal and therefore unfit for enquiry into

the Self. Desirelessness etc. can only be aids to this enquiry but

not its chief causes. Discernment of the real from the unreal is

the only chief cause.

13-14. D.: Can the Self not be realised by austerities

accompanied by desirelessness and tranquillity, without enquiry?

M.: No. By non-enquiry the Self has been lost sight of; to

regain It enquiry is needed. In its absence how can even crores

of austerities restore the sight? Always to enquire into the Self is

the only remedy for the blindness of the ignorant whose mental

eye has been bedimmed by the darkness of non-enquiry

spreading its veil. Unless by the eye of knowledge gained

through enquiry, the Self cannot be realised.

15-16. D.: What is this enquiry into the Self?

M.: With one-pointed intellect to seek within the five

sheaths the Self which is shining forth as “I” in the body, senses

etc., considering “who is this Self?, where is It? and how is It?”,

is the nature of the enquiry into the Self. With subtle intellect

the enquiry into the Reality, namely the Self within the unreal

sheaths must always be pursued.

17. D.: Earlier it was said that the Self is all-permeating.

How can the all-permeating Self be looked for only in the

sheaths? Moreover the sheaths are said to be unreal. How can

an enquiry into unreal things lead to the recognition of Reality?

18-19. M.: Truly the Self is all-permeating. Still Its

knowledge is obscured by the covering of the five sheaths. The

Self which lies hidden in them must be looked for only there

and not elsewhere. A thing is sought in the place where it was

lost. Something lost at home is not looked for in a forest. In

the same manner the Self hidden in five sheaths and remaining

unrecognised by wrong identification with them must be found

only by sifting the unwanted elements, here the five sheaths.

D.: How can an investigation into unreal things lead to

the recognition of the Reality?

M.: The unreal coverings must be removed to disclose the

Reality hidden in them. They are superimposed on the Real Self.

They must be examined and ascertained to be unreal so that their

substratum which is the sole Reality can be known. Unless the

external trappings that are superimposed are looked into, their

substratum, that is the Reality, cannot be found. Has any one in

the world been able to find the rope without looking and enquiring

into the nature of the seeming snake, though this is superimposed

on it and unreal? Or can there be any one, who having enquired

into the superimposed snake, did not discover its substratum to be

the rope? No one. In the same manner an indirect knowledge

should be gained by sravana that the five sheaths are superimposed

and unreal; but by a keen intellect the seeker must probe deep into

this superficial knowledge and experience the truth of it; just as the

directly experienced gross body is clearly known to be built up by

food and recognised to be only the food-sheath covering the Self,

so also the other four subtler sheaths remaining unknown to the

common people but taught by the scriptures and the master must

be known by their characteristics; they must be enquired into and

directly experienced; at the same time they must be recognised to

be only sheaths and successively dismissed in order to seek their

witness, Consciousness-Being or the subtle Self.

20. D.: If the Self is enquired into, after investigation and

dismissing these sheaths, how can It be realised?

M.: This enquiry is but reflecting on the Self i.e., manana,

its effect is to destroy the veil of Ignorance. A constant reflection

on the Self lying behind the sheaths must burn away that aspect

of veiling which makes one say ‘It does not shine forth’.

D.: How can this be?

M.: Just as an enquiry into the rope-snake that obstructs

the rope from view, destroys the ignorance of the rope, so also a

keen quest of the Self that remains as the witness of the five

sheaths, destroys the ignorance which supposes that the Self is

not seen and that It does not shine forth. On the clouds being

scattered away as the sun shines forth in its full glory, so also the

darkness of veiling being destroyed the witnessing Self will shine

forth in all Its splendour. Therefore enquiry is necessary.

21. D.: How long should one continue to enquire into

the Self?

M.: Non-recrudescence of the darkness of Ignorance is

said to be the “limit” of reflection. Therefore one should continue

the practice until this darkness of Ignorance does not recur.

22-24. D.: Can the veiling once removed, return again?

M.: Yes. So long as doubts arise, this Ignorance must be

inferred to exist.

D.: How can there be any doubt left after the Self has

been realised?

M.: On enquiring into the sheaths and dismissing them as

unreal, the Self, their witnessing consciousness is realised to be

unique, finer than ether, even like void. Now that the sheaths

have been dismissed as unreal and there is nothing but the voidlike

subtle Self, a fear may arise that one is left as nothing or void.

D.: How can it be?

M.: Transcending all, the Self has nothing in common

with worldly things or activities; It transcends the void also;

hence the experience is unique and unearthly. A fear may then

arise “Can this be the Self? It cannot be — Should this be the

Self, how can I be such a void?” Even after realising the impartite

Self, there is no confidence in one’s own experience; it is

regarded as impossible and a great doubt arises. The sense of

impossibility gives rise to doubt. But repeated reflection removes

this sense of impossibility. So it is said by Vyasa in the Brahma

  On account of the repeated instruction

(by the scriptures), (it is) necessary repeatedly (to hear of, reflect

and meditate on the Self ).

25. D.: What is the “fruit” of such reflection?

M.: By continued practice, the veiling is destroyed; with

its destruction, the sense of impossibility of the Self shining

forth all alone disappears; with its disappearance all obstacles

are at an end and then direct experience results as clearly and

surely as an apple in the palm of your hand. This is the “fruit”.

26. D.: What is this direct experience?

M.: Just as one can clearly distinguish the sun from the

cloud hiding it, so also when one can distinguish the Self from

the ego, it is direct experience. This is the ‘fruit’ of reflection.

27. My son! wise boy! Reflection has now been taught in

detail. It is for you to enquire into the five sheaths, dismiss

them as unreal, then with keen intellect turn inwards to find

the very subtle Self and recognise it distinctively.

28. D.: O Master! even on a keen enquiry I am unable to

say “These are the five sheaths; this is the inmost Self as

distinguished from them”. I cannot directly realise the Self. Why

is it so?

M.: This is owing to beginningless Ignorance.

D.: How did this Ignorance arise?

M.: From the aforesaid veiling.

D.: How?

M.: Although by nature the Self and the ego are quite

different from each other, the aforesaid veiling presents them as

if they were identical.

D.: Please explain this.

M.: See, how though rope and a snake are quite different

from each other, yet ignorance of the rope makes it appear a

snake, so also the Self being hidden by the darkness of veiling

does not shine forth and in its place only the functions of the

ego, doership etc., are seen.

29-31. Therefore enquire into the nature of the five sheaths,

find them, realise them, and then reject them as non-self. There

must be the unchanging witness of changes, originating and

destroying these phenomena. Find and realise Him as the Self.

D.: Distinct from all the phenomena, where can the

witness be?

M.: There is the triad composed of the knower, knowledge,

and the known. Of these, the knower is the subject; knowledge

is the intellect; and the known the objects. This triad arises and

flourishes in the waking and dream states and merges in the

insentience of the deep sleep state. That which, remaining as

the sole unchanging consciousness, illuminates and causes the

appearance of all these three states, is the witnessing Self. Discern

it and realise it.

32. D.: When according to your instructions, I enquire

into the five sheaths and reject them as being non-self, I do not

find anything left but simple void. Where then is the Self?

33-35. M.: To say that there is nothing left behind the five

sheaths, is like saying “I have no tongue to speak”.

D.: How so?

M.: Unless one has a tongue one cannot say that one has

no tongue to speak with. Similarly unless there is the seer of the

void one cannot say there was nothing left. Otherwise one can

not say anything. On the contrary since the speaker says that

nothing is seen, it is obvious that the Self remains there revealing

nothing besides Itself.

D.: If so, how can It remain unknown?

M.: The Self sees all but is seen by none else. Being

Self-shining It can without any aids know things but there is

nothing which can know It. It knows all; It knows that there

is nothing; It is the inmost core of all; It remains as the

pure, untainted, Ether of Consciousness unseen by anything.

It remains undivided. The knower of all, the Pure

Knowledge, is the Self.

36-43. D.: How does the Self remain unknown by

anything, yet knowing all?

M.: The sheaths appear as existing. When they are rejected,

their absence appears as a blank or nothing. The sheaths, the

blank and all else that appears are but insentient and cannot of

their own accord show themselves forth but must be seen by a

seer. In the absence of the seer, nothing can be seen.

D.: How so?

M.: Objects like a pot etc., manifest only to a seer; otherwise

they do not exist. In the same manner, the void beyond the five

sheaths manifests because there is the seer. Unless there is the

witness, how can the void appear as though nothing were seen?

Not being conscious but only insentient, it cannot show itself

forth unless the witness sees and recognises it.

D.: Though insentient it can manifest itself.

M.: In that case let objects like a pot etc., show themselves

forth, in the absence of their seer. This is impossible. The void

appearing as nothing is also insentient and therefore cannot

shine forth by itself. It must be illumined by a light beyond and

witnessed by it.

D.: How?

M.: Just as clouds etc. above or objects like a pot etc. below,

are not self-luminous but must be illumined by the sun which

lies millions of miles beyond and is self-effulgent, so also the

void etc. beyond the intellect and objects fancied by it, are

insentient and non-luminous but must be illumined by the

transcendent, self-shining Consciousness. Beyond the void and

distinct from it, there is the witness seeing the void and all else.

He is the Self unknown by anything, yet knowing all. By your

intellect made subtle, find and realise the Self.

44-45. On the nature of the Self being thus made clear by

the Master’s words, like an apple in one’s hand, the disciple was

able directly to realise the Self. He then expressed his joy thus:

“O Master, I have directly experienced the Self! I have now

known It well!”

M.: How do you find the Self to be?

D.: Witness of all objects, void etc., knowledge, aware of

all, very majestic, inestimable, unfathomable, beyond the senses,

mind, intellect etc., unassociated, untainted, formless, not gross,

not subtle, not atomic, not massive, not white nor black nor

otherwise coloured, not dark nor bright but finer and purer

than ether, is the Self. Not the least trace of any change is to be

found there. Owing to the light of Consciousness, all changing

objects and the void appear outside intellect and far from it; the

Self has no modification.

M.: How then do the notions “I am fat — I am lean”

appear in the Self?

D.: The veiling factor of Ignorance hides the true nature

of the Self from all; without seeing the Self, all mistake the

sheaths for the Self. This is owing to Ignorance only. In fact

there is no modification in the Self. Though pure and

colourless, the sky seems blue; similarly Ignorance makes the

Self look as if changing whereas It remains only unchanging

and untainted.

Here and now It is clearly known; It can never be absent.

O, is it not a wonder that though ever so immediate and real,

there should have been this great illusion that the Self is not

seen! It is like the owl seeing nothing but darkness round it in

the dazzling light of the Sun! O! the Self is effulgent and

manifest! Yet an illusion spread a darkness over us to make us

feel “The Self is not seen!” Really it is a wonder! Can there be

darkness in midday? Before the ever-bright, ever-manifest

Supreme Self, can there remain any veiling? Whence can it

arise? How can one even think of It? Surely veiling is itself an

illusion; it is a mere word; there is no sense in it!

M.: If there is no veiling how did the Self lie hidden so

long?

D.: Though unreal, this Ignorance flourished on the nonenquiry

of the individual. Just as one’s non-enquiry hides the

rope from view and presents it as a snake, so also non-enquiry

into the Self hides It from being seen and this is called the

veiling aspect of beginningless Ignorance. Now that the Self is

realised, the so-called veiling is nowhere to be seen. Lo, the Self

is here and now found to be the ever-shining witness! Wonder

of Wonders! Like an apple in my hand I have now clearly realised

the Self. Now Lord, Master, fortunately by your grace I am

blessed; my task is finished!

46-50. On hearing the happy words of the blessed disciple,

the master is pleased and speaks as follows: “Wise, worthy son,

by God’s Grace you have realised what one must realise! By His

Grace your ignorance has ended by which even the learned

unable to realise the Self, remain deluded. Happily you have

got what is denied even to great scholars! Jointly all the merits

of your past births have this day borne fruit! What can be the

excellence of your merits that they have borne this fruit? Blessed

are you! Ended is your task. You are an accomplished man.

How wonderful that you have gained that which must be gained

above all! In order to gain this, all the great works, vows,

austerities, worship, yoga and other laborious tasks are

undertaken; and only to know it all the trouble and worry of

these processes is gone through. All your travail is now over. All

the labour of your past births has this day borne fruit. Only in

ignorance of this Supreme Thing all people lie sunk in the

fathomless sea of repeated births and deaths. You have reached

the shore beyond this sea. In ignorance of this all men mistake

the body, senses etc., for the Self. You have found this Self.

Therefore you are really wise, truly intelligent. There can be no

doubt of this.

So far you have really quested and realised the significance

of “thou” in the text ‘That thou art’. On the same lines pursue

your enquiry and realise the significance of ‘That’ in the text.”

51-52. D.: Please tell me, Master, the direct and intended

meanings of ‘That’, just as for ‘thou’ they are the sheaths and

the witness respectively.

M.: The whole universe is composed of the five factors —

Being-shining-pleasing-name and form, the five sheaths and the

external objects like a pot etc.

D.: Please explain the five factors of the external objects.

M.: That a pot is, is its ‘being’ aspect; that it appears, is its

‘shining’ aspect; that is dear to us, is its ‘pleasing’ aspect; ‘pot’ is

its ‘name’ aspect; and its shape, its ‘form’ aspect. So it is with all

objects. Of the five factors, the first three are characteristic of

Brahman, and the remaining two, of the world.

The direct meaning of That is the world factors, i.e. names

and forms; the intended meaning is Brahman — the composite

of Being-shining-pleasing. Just as the beginningless Ignorance

veils the self-evident difference between the sheaths and their

witness, so also it veils the similar difference between the Beingshining-

pleasing and the ‘name and form’ factors. Again as

enquiry scatters away the veiling power, the Being-Knowledge-

Bliss can be seen distinct from the ‘name and form’ aspect.

53-54. D.: What is the ‘fruit’ of knowing the direct and

intended meanings of ‘That’ and ‘Thou’ in the text, ‘That

thou art.’

M.: The text speaks of the sameness of ‘thou’ the witness

of the five sheaths and of ‘That’ i.e., Brahman or Being-

Knowledge-Bliss lying beyond the names and forms in the

universe. These are the intended meanings of ‘thou’ and ‘That’.

There can be no identity between the five sheaths of the

individual, the direct meaning of ‘thou’ and the names and

forms in the universe, the direct meaning of ‘That’. Hence it

follows that the five sheaths and the names and forms are only

illusory. To know the witness and Brahman to be one is the

‘fruit’ of knowledge.

D.: How can these be one and the same?

M.: Being only Being-Knowledge-Bliss, both of them must

be the same. Just as the ether in a pot and that in the open have

the same characteristics and are therefore identical, so also the

witness and Brahman having the same characteristics, namely

Being-Knowledge and Bliss, are one and the same. The ether of

the pot is that of the open and vice versa; so also the witness is

Brahman, and Brahman is the witness.

55-56. Inasmuch as Brahman is impartite perfect

Wholeness, the witness being Brahman must also be impartite,

perfect Wholeness. Therefore it is established that the Self is

One unbroken Bliss.

D.: What is the ‘fruit’ of this knowledge?

M.: To reject the five sheaths and names and forms of

objects as something inexpressible, only superimposed on the

Reality, illusory to practise that the substratum, i.e., Brahman

of Being-Knowledge-Bliss is the Self and to realise It as ‘I am

Brahman’ with the resulting Supreme Bliss of being the

Brahman, is the ‘fruit’ of this knowledge. Here ends the chapter

on Reflection.

57. The wise student who carefully reads and practises it

can realise himself as Brahman i.e., Being-Knowledge-Bliss.

Om Tat Sat

                                                        

(Continued...) 

(My humble salutations to H H Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi  and  Hinduism online dot com for the collection)

(The Blog  is reverently for all the seekers of truth, lovers of wisdom and   to share

the Hindu Dharma with others on the spiritual path and also this is purely  a non-commercial)