Advaita Bodha Deepika -4

Advaita Bodha Deepika

 

THE ANNIHILATION OF LATENCIES

1. This chapter succeeds the five earlier ones on

superimposition, its withdrawal, the requisites of the seeker,

hearing, and reflection. To the disciple who after reflecting on

the Self has gained direct knowledge, the master further says as

follows.

2. Wise son, the shastras have nothing more to teach you;

you have finished them. Henceforth you must meditate on the

Self. The scriptures say: ‘Dear! the Self must be heard of,

reflected and meditated upon’. Having finished reflection, you

must proceed with meditation. Now give up the shastras.

3-6. D.: Is it proper to give them up?

M.: Yes, it is proper. Now that by enquiry you have known

what need be known, you can unhesitatingly give them up.

D.: But the shastras say that to the last moment of death,

one should not give them up.

M.: Their purpose is to teach the truth. After it is gained,

of what further use can they be? A further study will be so much

waste of time and labour. Therefore leave them aside. Take to

unbroken meditation.

D.: Is this statement supported by scriptures?

M.: Yes.

D.: How?

M.: They say: After repeatedly hearing from the master about

the Self, reflecting on It and directly knowing It, the seeker should

give up the shastras even as the pole used to stir up the corpse in the

burning ground is finally consigned to the burning fire of the

CHAPTER VI

VASANAKSHAYA

corpse. From a study of the shastras let the seeker of Liberation

gather an indirect knowledge of the Self and put it into practice by

reflecting on It until by experiencing It a direct knowledge is gained;

later like a gatherer of grains who takes the grain and rejects the

chaff, let him leave the shastras aside. The man desirous of liberation

should make use of shastras only to gain knowledge of the Self and

then proceed to reflect on It; he should not be simply talking

vedanta, nor even be thinking of it. For talk results only in so

much strain on speech, similarly thinking on the mind, no useful

purpose can be served by either. Therefore only know just what

need be known and give up tiresome study. Controlling his speech

and mind a sensible seeker should always engage in meditation.

This is the teaching of the shastras.

7. Wise son, now that you have known what need be known

from them, you should efface the impressions left by your studies.

D.: What constitutes these impressions?

M.: It is the inclination of the mind always to study vedantic

literature, to understand the meaning of the texts, to commit

them to memory and constantly be thinking of them. Since

this inclination obstructs meditation, a wise man must overcome

it with every effort. Next the latencies connected with the world

(lokavasana) must be eliminated.

8. D.: What are these latencies?

M.: To think, this is my country, this is my family pedigree

and this is the tradition. Should any one praise or censure any

of these, the reactions of the mind denote the latencies connected

with the world. Give them up. Later on, give up the latencies

connected with the body also (dehavasana).

9-13. D.: What are they?

M.: To think oneself to be of such and such age, young or

old and desire the full span of life with health, strength and

good looks. Generally thoughts pertaining to the body indicate

these latencies. Ambition in the world and love for body distract

the mind and prevent meditation on Brahman. Since all objects

are ephemeral, they must be eschewed. Then the latencies

connected with enjoyments (bhogavasana) must be given up.

D.: What are these?

M.: These are made up of thoughts like: this is good and I

must have it; this is not so and let it leave me; now I have

gained so much and let me gain more, and so on.

D.: How can this be overcome?

M.: By looking with disgust upon all enjoyments as on

vomit or excreta and developing dispassion for them, this can

be overcome. Dispassion is the only remedy for this mad craving.

After this, the mind must be cleared of the six passions, namely,

lust, anger, greed, delusion, pride and jealousy.

D.: How can this be done?

M.: By (maitri, karuna, mudita and upeksha) friendship

with the holy, compassion for the afflicted, rejoicing in the joy

of the virtuous and being indifferent to the shortcomings of

the sinful.

Next must be effaced the latencies connected with the

objects of the senses (vishayavasana) such as sound etc. These

latencies are the running of the senses such as hearing etc., after

their objects.

D.: How can these latencies be effaced?

M.: By a practice of the six-fold discipline consisting of

sama, dama, uparati, titiksha, samadhana and sraddha,

withdrawing the mind from going outwards, controlling the

senses, not thinking of the objects of the senses, forbearance,

fixing the mind on the Reality and faith.

Next all latencies connected with mutual attachments must

be overcome.

14-15. D.: What are they?

M.: Though the senses are restrained, yet the mind always

thinks of objects: ‘there is that; there is this; it is such and such; it

is this-wise or otherwise’ and so on. Because of brooding over

objects, the mind gets attached to them, this constant brooding is

called the latency connected with mental attachment.

D.: How can this be checked?

M.: By practising uparati which means desisting from all

thoughts after concluding by proper reasoning that they are

only fruitless daydreams.

16. When in the right manner, all this has been accomplished,

the greatest evil-doer, namely the latency connected

with wrong identity must be put an end to, even with great effort.

17. D.: What is this latency connected with wrong identity?

(viparita vasana)

M.: Owing to beginningless Ignorance the non-Self is

mistaken for the Self as ‘I am the body’ from time immemorial,

this Ignorance is hardy and can be ended only by the practice

of Brahman.

18-20. D.: What is this practice?

M.: It consists in discarding the body, senses etc., as being

non-Self and always remembering that ‘I am Brahman’,

remaining as consciousness witnessing the insentient sheaths.

Meditating on Brahman in solitude, speaking of or teaching

only Brahman in the company of others, not to speak or think

of anything but It, but always one-pointedly to think of

Brahman, is the practice.

Yoga Vasishta: Utpathi Prakaranam

Leelopakhyanam.

So say the wise. By this transcend the ego and then proceed

to eliminate the idea of ‘mine’.

21-22. D.: What is the nature of this idea?

M.: It consists in the single concept of ‘mine’ in relation

to the body or whatever pertains to it, such as name, form,

clothing, caste, conduct or professions of life.

D.: How does this go away?

M.: By a steadfast meditation on the Reality.

D.: How?

M.: Always to be aware that the body etc., its interests and

effects, enjoyments, activities etc., are only figments of ignorance

on pure knowledge i.e., the Self, that like the appearance of silver

on nacre, ornaments in gold, water in mirage, blueness in the

sky or waves in water, all but the Self are only false presentations

or illusory modes of the Self. In reality there is nothing but our

‘Self ’. Next the sense of differentiation (bheda vasana) must go.

23-25. D.: What is this sense of differentiation?

M.: It consists in ideas like: “I am the witness of this; all

that is seen is only insentient and illusory; here is the world;

these are the individuals; this one is the disciple and the other,

the master; this is Isvara, and so on.” This must go by a practice

of non-duality.

This practice is to remain non-dual, solid Being-

Knowledge-Bliss, untainted and free from thoughts of reality

or unreality, ignorance or its illusory effects, and internal or

external differentiation. This is accomplished by a constant

practice of modeless (nirvikalpa) samadhi. Here remains the

experience of Brahman only.

After leaving the sense of differentiation far behind, the

attachment to non-duality must later be given up.

26-27. D.: How is this to be done?

M.: Even this state must finally pass into untellable and

unthinkable Reality absolutely free from modes and even

non-duality. The Bliss of Liberation is only this and nothing

more. When the mind is cleared of all latent impurities, it

remains untainted, crystal-clear so that it cannot be said to

exist or not to exist and it becomes one with Reality,

transcending speech and thought. This unmoded, untainted

fixity of the mind is known as Realisation or Liberation while

alive.

28. Though direct knowledge of the Self has been gained,

yet until this Realisation ensues, to be liberated while alive one

should always meditate on Brahman with proper control of

mind and senses.

Thus ends this chapter.

REALISATION

1. In the foregoing chapter it was said that direct knowledge

must first be gained and then the latent tendencies of the mind

wiped out so that Brahman may be realised. Now Realisation is

dealt with.

The master says: Wise son, now that you have gained direct

knowledge by enquiry into the Self, you should proceed with

meditation.

2. D.: Master, now that I have gained direct knowledge by

enquiry and my task is finished why should I meditate further

and to what end?

3-4. M.: Though by reflection, direct knowledge of the

Self has been gained, Brahman cannot be realised without

meditation. In order to experience ‘I am Brahman’ you must

practise meditation.

5-6.: D.: You ask me to pursue meditation for realising

Brahman. I have already gained direct knowledge by enquiry

into the sacred text. Why should I now practise meditation?

M.: If you mean to say that enquiry into the sacred text

results in realising Brahman, who can deny it? No one. Truly

this enquiry must end in the realisation of Brahman.

Let us now enquire into the meaning of the text. Whose

identity with whom is implied in it? It must be of the

consciousness witnessing the five sheaths of the individual, the

implied meaning of ‘thou’ with Brahman, the implied meaning

of ‘That’; it cannot be of the Jiva, i.e., the personal soul with

Brahman. By enquiry the identity of the witnessing

CHAPTER VII

SAKSHATKARA

consciousness with Brahman has certainly been found. Of what

use can this identity of the witness with Brahman be to you?

7. D.: On enquiry into the meaning of the sacred text,

when one has realised that the witness is Brahman and vice

versa, how can you raise the question ‘Of what use can it be to

the person?’ Its use is evident. Formerly the seeker was ignorant

of the identity and now by enquiry he is aware of it.

M.: By enquiry you have certainly known that the witness

is Brahman and that the unbroken, all-perfect Brahman is the

witness. Still this knowledge is not the end and cannot serve

your purpose. Suppose a poor beggar who was ignorant of the

fact that a king residing in a fort was the emperor of the world,

later knew it. How does this newly acquired knowledge improve

his position? It cannot serve any useful purpose for him.

8. D.: Before enquiry, ignorance prevails. After enquiry,

knowledge is gained that the witness is Brahman. Now

knowledge has taken the place of ignorance. This is the use.

M.: How does this affect the fact? Whether you have known

it or not, the witness ever remains Brahman. Your knowledge of

the fact has not made Brahman, the witness. Whether the poor

beggar knew it or not, the king in the fort was the emperor. His

knowledge did not make an emperor of the king in the fort.

Now that you have known the witness to be Brahman, what has

happened to you? Tell me. There can be no change in you.

9. D.: Why not? There is a difference. The sacred text

teaches ‘That thou art’. On enquiring into its significance I

have found that the witness of the five sheaths in me is the same

as Brahman. From this I have known that I am Brahman, which

forms another sacred text. To me who was ignorant of the

witness being the same as Brahman, this knowledge has dawned,

with the result that I have realised Brahman.

M.: How can you claim to have realised Brahman? If by

the text ‘I am Brahman’ you understand yourself to be Brahman,

who is this ‘I’ but the Jiva, the individual soul or the ego? How

can the ego be Brahman? Just as even with his knowledge of the

king, the beggar cannot himself be the king, so also the changeful

ego can never be identical with the changeless Brahman.

10-14. D.: Certainly so. But on enquiring ‘Who am I?’ it

becomes plain that by non-enquiry the unchanging witness had

mistaken the changing ego for himself. Now he knows ‘I am

not the changing ego but remain its unchanging conscious

witness’. Now it is but right that the witness should say, ‘I am

Brahman’. What can be discordant in this?

M.: How can you hold that the witness says ‘I am Brahman?’

Does the unchanging witness or the changing ego say so? If you

say that it is the witness, you are wrong. For the witness remains

unchanging as the witness of the ‘false-I’. He is not the conceit

itself. Otherwise he cannot have the quality of being the witness

for he will himself be changing. Being unchanging the witness

is free from the least trace of any notion such as ‘I’ or Brahman

and cannot therefore know ‘I am Brahman’. There is no ground

for your contention that the witness says so.

D.: Then who knows ‘I am Brahman’?

M.: From what has been said before, it must follow that

the individual soul, the jiva, or the ‘false-I’ must have

this knowledge.

D.: How does this follow?

M.: In order to be free from the repeated cycle of births

and deaths, the ignorant man is obliged to practise the knowledge

‘I am Brahman’. There is no ignorance for the witness. When

there is no ignorance, there can be no knowledge either. Only

the ignorant must seek knowledge. Who but the ‘false-I’ can be

the subject of ignorance or of knowledge? It is self-evident that

the witnessing Self being the substratum on which knowledge

or ignorance appears, must itself be free from them. On the

contrary the ‘false-I’ is known to possess knowledge or ignorance.

If you ask him ‘Do you know the Self witnessing you?’ And he

will answer ‘Who is that witness? I do not know him’. Here the

ignorance of the ‘false-I’ is obvious.

On hearing the vedanta that there is an inner witness to

him, indirectly he knows that the Self is his witness. Then

enquiring into the Self, the veil of Ignorance that It does not

shine forth, is drawn off and directly he knows the witnessing

Self. Here again the knowledge of the ‘false-I’ is also clear.

It is only the jiva and not the witness who has the knowledge

or ignorance that there is, or is not, the inner witness. You must

now admit that the jiva has the knowledge that ‘I am Brahman’.

Now for the reason that the changing Jiva has become aware of

the unchanging witness, he cannot be the same as the witness.

Because he had seen him, the poor beggar cannot be the king. So

also the changing Jiva cannot be the witness. Without being the

witnessing Self, the changing entity cannot be Brahman. So this

experience ‘I am Brahman’ is impossible.

15. D.: How can you say that merely seeing the witness, I

cannot know that I am the witness? Ignorant of his true being

as the substratum or the witnessing consciousness, the Jiva moves

about as the ‘false-I’. However on a careful enquiry into his

true nature he knows the witness and identifies himself as the

witness who is well-known to be the unbroken, all perfect

Brahman. Thus the experience, ‘I am Brahman’, is real.

M.: What you say is true provided that the jiva can identify

himself as the witness. The witness is undoubtedly Brahman.

But how can the mere sight of the witness help the jiva merge

himself into the witness? Unless the jiva remains the witness, he

cannot know himself as the witness. Merely by seeing the king,

a poor beggar cannot know himself to be the king. But when

he becomes the king, he can know himself as the king. Similarly

the jiva, remaining changeful and without becoming the

unchanging witness, cannot know himself as the witness. If he

cannot be the witness, how can he be the unbroken, all-perfect

Brahman? He cannot be. Just as at the sight of the king in a

fort, a poor beggar cannot become king and much less sovereign

of the universe, so also only at the sight of the witness who is

much finer than ether and free from traffic with triads, such as

the knower, knowledge and the known, eternal, pure, aware,

free, real, supreme and blissful, the jiva cannot become the

witness, much less the unbroken, all-perfect Brahman, and

cannot know ‘I am Brahman’.

16. D.: If so, how is it that the two words of the same case

ending (samanadhikarana) — ‘I’ and ‘Brahman’ — are placed

in apposition in the sacred text ‘I am Brahman’? According to

grammatical rules the sruti clearly proclaims the same rank to

the jiva and Brahman. How is this to be explained?

17-18. M.: The common agreement between two words

in apposition is of two kinds: mukhya and badha i.e.,

unconditional and conditional. Here the sruti does not convey

the unconditional meaning.

D.: What is this unconditional meaning?

M.: The ether in a jar has the same characteristics as that in

another jar, or in a room, or in the open. Therefore the one

ether is the same as the other. Similarly with air, fire, water,

earth, sunlight etc. Again the god in one image is the same as

that in another and the witnessing consciousness in one being

is the same as that in another. The sruti does not mean this kind

of identity between the jiva and Brahman, but means the other,

the conditional meaning.

D.: What is it?

M.: Discarding all appearances, the sameness of the

substratum in all.

D.: Please explain this.

M.: ‘I am Brahman’ means that, after discarding the

‘false-I’, only the residual being or the pure consciousness that

is left over can be Brahman — It is absurd to say that, without

discarding but retaining the individuality, the jiva, on seeing

Brahman but not becoming Brahman, can know himself as

Brahman. A poor beggar must first cease to be beggar and rule

over a state in order to know himself as king; a man desirous of

god-hood first drowns himself in the Ganges and leaving this

body, becomes himself a celestial being; by his extraordinary

one-pointed devotion a devotee leaves off his body and merges

into god, before he can know himself to be god. In all these

cases when the beggar knows himself to be king, or the man to

be celestial being, or the devotee to be god, they cannot retain

their former individualities and also identify themselves as the

superior beings. In the same way, the seeker of Liberation must

first cease to be an individual before he can rightly say ‘I am

Brahman’. This is the significance of the sacred text. Without

completely losing one’s individuality one cannot be Brahman.

Therefore to realise Brahman, the loss of the individuality is a

sine qua non.

D.: The changeful individual soul cannot be Brahman.

Even though he rids himself of the individuality, how can he

become Brahman?

19. M.: Just as a maggot losing its nature, becomes a wasp.

A maggot is brought by a wasp and kept in its hive. From time

to time the wasp visits the hive and stings the maggot so that it

always remains in dread of its tormentor. The constant thought

of the wasp transforms the maggot into a wasp. Similarly,

constantly meditating on Brahman, the seeker loses his original

nature and becomes himself Brahman. This is the realisation of

Brahman.

20. D.: This cannot illustrate the point, for the jiva is

changing and falsely presented on the pure Being, Brahman,

which is the Reality. When a false thing has lost its falsity, the

whole entity is gone; how can it become the Reality?

21. M.: Your doubt, how a superimposed falsity turns out

to be its substratum, the Reality, is easily cleared. See how the

nacre-silver ceases to be silver and remains as nacre, or a ropesnake

ceasing to be snake remains ever as rope. Similarly, with

the jiva superimposed on the Reality, Brahman.

D.: These are illusions which are not conditioned

(nirupadhika bhrama) whereas the appearance of the jiva is

conditioned (sopadhika bhrama) and appears as a

superimposition only on the internal faculty, the mind. So long

as there is the mind, there will also be the jiva or the individual,

and the mind is the result of past karma. As long as this remains

unexhausted, the jiva must also be present. Just as the reflection

of one’s face is contingent upon the mirror or water in front, so

is individuality, on the mind, the effect of one’s past karma.

How can this individuality be done away with?

M.: Undoubtedly individuality lasts as long as the mind

exists. Just as the reflected image disappears with the removal of

the mirror in front, so also individuality can be effaced by stilling

the mind by meditation.

D.: The individuality being thus lost, the jiva becomes

void. Having become void, how can he become Brahman?

M.: The jiva is only a false appearance not apart from its

substratum. It is conditional on ignorance, or the mind, on

whose removal the jiva is left as the substratum as in the case of

a dream-person.

22-23. D.: How?

M.: The waking man functions as the dreamer (taijasa) in

his dreams. The dreamer is neither identical with nor separate

from the waking man (visva). For the man sleeping happy on

his bed has not moved out whereas as the dreamer he had

wandered about in other places, busy with many things. The

wanderer of the dream cannot be the man resting in his bed.

Can he then be different? Not so either. For on waking from

sleep, he says ‘In my dream I went to so many places, did so

many things and was happy or otherwise’. Clearly he identifies

himself with the experiencer of the dream. Moreover no other

experiencer can be seen.

D.: Not different from nor identical with the waking

experiencer, who is this dream-experiencer?

M.: Being a creation of the illusory power of sleep the

dream-experiencer is only an illusion like the snake on a rope.

With the finish of the illusory power of dream, the dreamer

vanishes only to wake up as the real substratum, the original

individual self of the waking state. Similarly the empirical self,

the jiva is neither the unchanging Brahman nor other than It.

In the internal faculty, the mind, fancied by ignorance, the Self

is reflected and the reflection presents itself as the empirical,

changing and individual self. This is a superimposed false

appearance. Since the superimposition cannot remain apart

from its substratum, this empirical self cannot be other than

the absolute Self.

D.: Who is this?

M.: Successively appearing in the ignorance-created mind and

disappearing in deep sleep, swoon etc., this empirical self is inferred

to be only a phantom. Simultaneously with the disappearance of

the medium or the limiting adjunct (upadhi), the mind, the jiva

becomes the substratum, the True Being or Brahman. Destroying

the mind, the jiva can know himself as Brahman.

24. D.: With the destruction of the limiting adjunct, the

jiva being lost, how can he say ‘I am Brahman’?

M.: When the limiting ignorance of dream vanishes, the

dreamer is not lost, but emerges as the waking experiencer. So

also when the mind is lost, the jiva emerges as his true Being —

Brahman. Therefore as soon as the mind is annihilated leaving

no trace behind, the jiva will surely realise ‘I am the Being-

Knowledge-Bliss, non-dual Brahman; Brahman is I, the Self ’.

D.: In that case the state must be without any mode like

that of deep sleep. How can there be the experience ‘I am

Brahman’?

M.: Just as at the end of a dream, the dreamer rising up as

the waking experiencer says ‘All along I was dreaming that I

wandered in strange places, etc., but I am only lying down on

the bed,’ or a madman cured of his madness remains pleased

with himself, or a patient cured of his illness wonders at his past

sufferings, or a poor man on becoming a king, forgets or laughs

at his past penurious state, or a man on becoming a celestial

being enjoys the new bliss, or a devotee on uniting with the

Lord of his devotion remains blissful, so also the jiva on emerging

as Brahman wonders how all along being only Brahman he was

moving about as a helpless being imagining a world, god and

individuals, asks himself what became of all those fancies and

how he now remaining all alone as Being-Knowledge-Bliss free

from any differentiation, internal or external, certainly experiences

the Supreme Bliss of Brahman. Thus realisation is possible

for the jiva only on the complete destruction of the mind and

not otherwise.

25. D.: Experience can be of the mind only. When it is

destroyed, who can have the experience ‘I am Brahman’?

M.: You are right. The destruction of the mind is of two

kinds: (rupa and arupa) i.e., in its form-aspect and in its formless

aspect. All this while I have been speaking of destroying the

former mind. Only when it ceases to be in its formless aspect,

experience will be impossible, as you say.

D.: Please explain those two forms of the mind and their

destruction.

M.: The latent impressions (vasanas) manifesting as modes

(vrittis) constitute the form-aspect of the mind. Their effacement

is the destruction of this aspect of mind. On the other hand, on

the latencies perishing, the supervening state of samadhi in which

there is no stupor of sleep, no vision of the world, but only the

Being-Knowledge-Bliss is the formless aspect of mind. The loss

of this amounts to the loss of the formless aspect of mind. Should

this also be lost, there can be no experience — not even of the

realisation of Supreme Bliss.

D.: When does this destruction take place?

M.: In the disembodiment of the liberated being. It cannot

happen so long as he is alive in the body. The mind is lost in its

form-aspect but not in its formless one of Brahman. Hence the

experience of Bliss for the sage, liberated while alive.

26-27. D.: In brief what is Realisation?

M.: To destroy the mind in its form-aspect functioning as

the limiting adjunct to the individual, to recover the pure mind

in its formless aspect whose nature is only Being-Knowledge-

Bliss and to experience ‘I am Brahman’ is Realisation.

D.: Is this view supported by others as well?

M.: Yes. Sri Sankaracharya has said: ‘Just as in the ignorant

state, unmindful of the identity of the Self with Brahman, one

truly believes oneself to be the body, so also after knowing to be

free from the illusion of the body being the Self, and becoming

unaware of the body, undoubtingly and unmistakably always

to experience the Self as the Being-Knowledge-Bliss identical

with Brahman is called Realisation’. ‘To be fixed as the Real

Self is Realisation’, say the sages.

28. D.: Who says it and where?

29. M.: Vasishta has said in Yoga Vasishta: ‘Just as the mind

in a stone remains quiet and without any mode, so also like the

interior of the stone to remain without any mode and thought

free, but not in slumber nor aware of duality, is to be fixed as

the Real Self ’.

30-31. Therefore without effacing the form-aspect of the

mind and remaining fixed as the true Self, how can anyone

realise ‘I am Brahman’? It cannot be. Briefly put, one should

still the mind to destroy one’s individuality and thus remain

fixed as the Real Self of Being-Knowledge-Bliss, so that in

accordance with the text ‘I am Brahman’ one can realise

Brahman. On the other hand, on the strength of the direct

knowledge of Brahman to say ‘I am Brahman’ is as silly as a

poor beggar on seeing the king declaring himself to be the king.

Not to claim by words but to be fixed as the Real Self and

know ‘I am Brahman’ is Realisation of Brahman.

32. D.: How will the sage be, who has undoubtingly,

unmistakably and steadily realised Brahman?

M.: Always remaining as the Being-Knowledge-Bliss, nondual,

all-perfect, all-alone, unitary Brahman, he will be unshaken

even while experiencing the results of the past karma now in

fruition. (prarabdha).

33-35. D.: Being only Brahman, how can he be subject to

the experiences and activities resulting from past karma?

M.: For the sage undoubtingly and unmistakably fixed as

the real Self, there can remain no past karma. In its absence

there can be no fruition, consequently no experience nor any

activity. Being only without mode Brahman, there can be no

experiencer, no experiences and no objects of experience.

Therefore no past karma can be said to remain for him.

D.: Why should we not say that his past karma is now

working itself out?

M.: Who is the questioner? He must be a deluded being

and not a sage.

D.: Why?

M.: Experience implies delusion; without the one, the other

cannot be. Unless there is an object, no experience is possible.

All objective knowledge is delusion. There is no duality in

Brahman. Certainly all names and forms are by ignorance

superimposed on Brahman. Therefore the experiencer must be

ignorant only and not a sage. Having already enquired into the

nature of things and known them to be illusory names and

forms born of ignorance, the sage remains fixed as Brahman

and knows all to be only Brahman. Who is to enjoy what? No

one and nothing. Therefore there is no past karma left nor

present enjoyments nor any activity for the wise one.

36-37. D.: However we do not see him free from the

experience of past karma; on the other hand he goes through

them like an ordinary ignorant man. How is this to be explained?

M.: In his view there is nothing like past karma, enjoyments

or activities.

D.: What is his view?

M.: For him there is nothing but the pure, untainted Ether

of Absolute Knowledge.

D.: But how is he seen to pass through experiences?

M.: Only the others see him so. He is not aware of it.

38-39. D.: Is this view confirmed by other authorities?

M.: In Viveka Chudamani, Sri Acharya has said

‘Simultaneous with the dawn of knowledge, ignorance with all

its effects flees away from the sage and so he cannot be an enjoyer.

However, the ignorant wonder how the sage continues to live

in the body and act like others. From the ignorant point of

view, the scriptures have admitted the momentum of past karma,

but not from the point of view of the sage himself ’.

40. D.: If truly he is no enjoyer, why should he appear to

others to be so?

M.: Owing to their ignorance, the others regard him as an

enjoyer.

41-43. D.: Can this be so?

M.: Yes. To the ignorant only the non-dual, pure Ether of

Absolute Knowledge manifests Itself as various beings, the world,

God, different names and forms, I, you, he, it, this and that.

Like the illusion of a man on a post, silver on nacre, snake on

rope, utensils in clay, or ornaments in gold, different names

and forms on the Ether of Knowledge delude the ignorant.

The sage who, by practice of knowledge, has destroyed

ignorance and gained true knowledge, will always remain only

as the Ether of Absolute Knowledge, unaware of enjoyments of

fruits of actions or of worldly activities. Being That, he can be

aware as the Ether of Knowledge only. Nevertheless, owing to

their ignorance others see him otherwise, i.e., as an embodied

being acting like themselves. But he remains only pure,

untainted ether, without any activity.

44-46. D.: Can it be illustrated how the sage remaining

himself inactive, appears active to others?

M.: Two friends sleep side by side. One of them reposes in

dreamless sleep whereas the other dreams that he is wandering

about with his friend. Though in complete repose, this man

appears active to the dreamer. Similarly although the sage

remains inactive as the blissful Ether of Absolute Knowledge,

he appears to be active to those who in ignorance remain always

caught up in names and forms. It must now be clear that the

realised sage being the pure Self is not involved in action but

only appears to be so.

47-48. D.: Not that there are no experiences whatever

for the realised sage, but they are only illusory. For Knowledge

can destroy the karma already stored and the future karma

(sanchita and agamya) but not the karma which having already

begun to bear fruit (prarabdha) must exhaust itself. As long as

it is there, even from his own point of view, activities will

persist, though illusory.

M.: This cannot be. In which state do these three kinds of

karma exist — knowledge or ignorance? Owing to delusion; it

must be said ‘they are operative only in ignorance.’ But in

knowledge there being no delusion, there is no prarabdha.

Always remaining undeluded as the transcendental Self, how

can the delusion of the fruition of karma occur to one? Can the

delusion of dream-experience return to him who has awakened

from it? To the disillusioned sage there can be no experience of

karma. Always he remains unaware of the world but aware of

the Self as the non-dual, unbroken, unitary, solid, without any

mode Ether of Absolute Knowledge, and of nothing besides.

49. D.: The Upanishad admits past karma in the Text ‘As

long as his past karma is not exhausted the sage cannot be

disembodied, and there will be illusory activities for him’.

M.: You are not right. The activities and experiences of the

fruits of action and the world seem illusory to the practiser of

Knowledge and they completely vanish to the accomplished

sage. The practiser practises as follows: ‘I am the witness; the

objects and activities are seen by and known to me. I remain

conscious and these are insentient. Only Brahman is real; all

else is unreal.’ The practice ends with the realisation that all

these are insentient consisting of names and forms and cannot

exist in the past, present or future, therefore they vanish. There

being nothing to witness, witnessing ends by merging into

Brahman. Only the Self is now left over as Brahman. For the

sage aware of the Self only, there can remain only Brahman

and no thought of karma, or worldly activities.

D.: Why then does the sruti mention past karma in this

connection?

M.: It does not refer to the accomplished sage.

D.: Whom does it refer to?

M.: Only to the ignorant.

D.: Why?

M.: Although from his own point of view, the sage has no

enjoyment of the fruits of actions, yet the ignorant are deluded

on seeing his activities. Even if told there is no enjoyment for

him, the ignorant will not accept it but continue to doubt how

the sage remains active. To remove such doubt, the sruti says to

the ignorant that prarabdha still remains for the sage. But it

does not say to the sage ‘You have prarabdha’. Therefore the

sruti which speaks of residual prarabdha, for the sage, really does

not speak of it from his point of view.

50-51. D.: Realisation can result only after complete

annihilation of individuality. But who will agree to sacrifice his

individuality?

M.: Being eager to cross over the ocean of the misery of

repeated births and deaths and realise the pure, eternal Brahman,

one will readily sacrifice one’s individuality. Just as the man

desirous of becoming a celestial being, willingly consigns himself

to the fire or the Ganges in order to end this human life and

emerge as a god, so also the seeker of Liberation will by practice

of sravana, manana, and nidhidhyasana, (i.e., hearing, reflection

and meditation) sacrifice his individuality to become the

Supreme Brahman.

52. Here ends the Chapter on Realisation.

Diligently studying and understanding this, the seeker will

kill the mind which is the limiting adjunct that causes

individuality to manifest and ever live as Brahman only.

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)