Ravi just informed me by email that the previous Open Thread, started last year, had reached 5,000 comments, and that it was refusing to take any more.
Please continue all your discussions here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sri Ramana Maharshi
Welcome
I propose to use this blog primarily to air my occasional musings on any matters relating to the life and teachings of Ramana Maharshi. There will also be occasional contributions about Arunachala, the sacred mountain where Sri Ramana spent all of his adult life.
Articles and interviews on these topics can also be found on my site: www.davidgodman.org.
Articles and interviews on these topics can also be found on my site: www.davidgodman.org.
2,142 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1401 – 1600 of 2142 Newer› Newest»Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 the 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.
contd
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 left unpervaded), is liable to transformation.
159. It is to the intellect and not to the Self which is immutable that 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 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri: Sri Sankara.
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 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.
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
167. Just as due to indiscrimination, touch and movement are felt to be in the Self which is devoid of them, so, mental pain is also felt to be in It,(owing to the same reason).
168, 169. The pain (due to identification with the subtle body, comes to an end when one has the discriminating knowledge (that one is the Innermost Self) like the movements 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.
contd.,
***
Thank you Murali. Best New Year's wishes to you and everyone else here.
I have a question for anyone reading this - what is your favorite of David's books, and what did you particularly enjoy about it?
I haven't read any of his books other than Be As Your Are plus some excerpts from others that he has posted here... Hence I am trying to figure out which one to begin with!
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
170. The saying, 'Thou art That'
implies an indivisible reality,
the words 'Thou' and 'That' expressing the same reality indirectly like (words, 'blue' and 'horse' in ) the sentence 'It is a blue horse.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 sentence, '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 (A Being indivisible and of the nature of Bliss only,
Self-Brahman).
174. 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. (See Vakya Vritti, Verse 38).
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 own Self, the Witness, though detached from the non-Self and self evident, on account of one's eyes being covered by the Ignorance and intellect captivated by desires.
176. One knows one's own Self, the witness of the intellect and all its modifications, from sentence such as 'Thou art That' like the boy who knew himself from the sentence 'You are the tenth.'
177, 178. The understanding of the sentence is possible (on the knowledge of the implied meanings of words) by the method of agreement and contrariety after it has been ascertained which words should be placed first and which next. For the orders in Vedas sentence follows the meaning of the sentences. The rule above remembering the meanings of words in accordance with their order in which the sentences are construed does not hold good in the Vedas.
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
179. The question is out of place when the meanings of words in a sentence 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.
contd.
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 for the purpose of 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 indivisible Pure Consciousness becomes manifest like an Agele marmelas fruit (amala kani) placed on one's palm.
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 hat knowledge be contradicted by these which are evidences only apparently?
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri: Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII -
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 contended 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.
contd.
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
189. There is no contradiction if by negating the idea that one is unhappy one knows oneself to be the Innermost Self 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 else 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 from 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 come to an end as soon as one wakes up.
contd.,
***
Hello, everyone. I am now translating below article into Japanese and I have some question about the meaning of some sentences.
"Mountain path" 1972,I,Jan,p25,'SIVALINGA AND VIBHUTI'
"According to the kalpa method one has to collect the dung of a cow kaplla, or red or white or black, before it touches the ground, on leaves of the lotus, of nenuphars or palasa, or by hands ; or even within the cowshed. One takes it in reciting the five Brahmamantras inverted, that means Sadyojata, forming balls of it with Vamadeva, dries it with Aghora, burns it with Tatpurusha and collects the ashes with Isana.
According to the anukalpa method, one collects dry dung in the woods, powders it, preparing a kind of dough by aid of cow urine, and then burns it.
According to the upakalpa method, one collects from a fire in the forests or from a fire which has been kindled in a cow-shed, and then burns it."
I can't understand "in reciting the five Brahmamantras inverted, that means Sadyojata" and upakalpa method, "collect from a fire". Wolud anyone expalain these portion for me?
thank you
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 meanings 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 from the (implied) meaning of the word 'Thou' is not known.
196. The word 'art' is used in order to show that the two 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 no unhappy and that Brahman is not other than the Self.
contd.,
***
Dear shiba,
The five Brahmamantras have to be recited/chanted inversely, i.e
Isanaya, Tatpurushaaya, Aghoraya,
Vamadevaya and Satyojaathaya. These represent the five faces of Sadasiva, four representing four directions and the fifth one, looking up.
As regards, taking it from the fire, the wet cow dung rolled into balls should be put into fire, and then the dried ones must be taken from the fire, with hands.
Subramanian. R
Dear, Subramanian. R
Thank you very much for your reply.
Then, when does one chant five brahmamantras inversely? From the article 'SIVALINGA AND VIBHUTI', one seem to chant the mantras not inversely but in order when one is making vibhuti...
And I can't still undertand upakalpa method clearly...
thank you
Upadesa SAhasri: Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
198. Thus both of them in conjunction express the same meaning as is implied by the sentence, 'Not this, not this.'
199. Why do you say that the sentence is not an 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 within the Vedas. Not only so, we have, in that case, to give up what is there in them. And that would be harmful.
contd.,
****
Dear Shiba,
I am not also sure why the Brahma
mantras are to be chanted in inverse order or what is meant by upakalpa method.
There is one S. Gooplakrishna Sastrigal, at, Bhagavata Tattva Prakasa, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024, India, Ph: 044-2484-2864. He is said to be an authority on Gomya Vibhuti making. You may contact him and he may, if he is willing, give a detailed write up to you or give the details over phone.
Subramanian. R
Dear. Subramanian.R
Thank you very much for your information. I hope Japanese come to know the real meaning of Sivalinga and Vibhuti by my translation. Most Japanese who know sivalinga have misunderstood the meaning of Sivalinga...
thank you
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
201. (Objection) The Bliss of liberation is not obtained by ascertaining the meaning of the sentence 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 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 case of tenth boy.
203. Therefore, accept the Self as self evident which means the same thing as self-knowable. The knowledge of the Innermost Self according to us thus becomes possible when the ego vanishes.
contd.,
***
Friends,
I wish to share the spirited speech by Swami Bodhamayananda on Swami Vivekananda:
"This was during the Seminar on "India's Growth Story - Challenges & Road Ahead" conducted on Nov 24 2013 at JNTU Auditorium, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. The Aashirvachan at the event were given by Swami Bodhamayananda (Director, Institute of Human Excellence, Ramakrishna Math, Hyderabad)".
The video link on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkplV3Yq568
Namaskar.
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 modifications of the intellect pervaded by the reflection of Consciousness that is what is known as the knowledge of the Self.
contd.,
***
I saw the live streaming video of Sri Nochur's speech on Aksharamanamalai today. Wonderful talk, as expected. Sri Ramanashram's new website is really good with lot of resources, audio downloads available of Nochur's speech,Bhagavan's works put to lovely tunes, etc. Greatful thanks to the organisers who are behind these efforts..
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 inconsistencies.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 both having recourse to both sides.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri: Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
211. (objection): If a reality is only pointed to (but no injunction
be given) when one is told 'Thou art eternally existing Liberation.' how can only 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, re-states 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.
contd.,
***
1) Translocation of SaiBaba to London after the Murders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNlNLR_dfvQ
2)Extraordinary tale of Love and Service:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeZLTEZHivM
3)Sri M meeting Naagraj from NaagaLoka
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6sWy-jS9X4
z,
Thanks for the video links-I watched part 1 and part 2 of Sri M(Madhukarnath).I like the way he speaks -so unassuming.understand that he has written his autobiography-'Apprenticed to a Himalayan Master'.
Found this piece of information on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_M
Here is an excerpt:
"Sri M’s Padayatra from Kanyakumari to Kashmir will start on 12 January 2015. Under the banner of the Manav Ekta Mission, the Satsang Foundation plans to organize a Padayatra for peace and communal harmony from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. During this Padayatra, Sri M will walk around 6000 km to highlight the essential oneness of all faiths. The Padayatra is open to all persons in the country who wish to stand for peace. Wherever the group halts, it is proposed to have prayer meetings with local leaders of various religions and the public besides community meditation and dialogues. It is proposed to take up tree planting and cleaning of public places along the Padayatra route and at halting places by involving volunteers, interested organizations and the local community. The Padayatra will begin at Swami Vivekanand Ashram, Kanyakumari."
Namaskar.
Upadesa SAhasri -Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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, though 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 evidences 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.
contd.,
****
Ravi,
Kabir Panth tried to do this.Shirdi Sai tried to do this.So did Meher Baba and Sathya Sai and the rest.The result is none of them had any success at all.There were many mass murders and riots in the Indian Sub-continent after them and during them in which millions were killed and raped in the name of Religion.For eg: Bihar Riots, Calcutta Riots,East Bengal riots,Partition riots, Bangladesh Riots in case of each more than hundred thousand and upto one million were murdered and raped due to mis-interpretation of Scriptures.
The main problem is reduction of Religion to a few unquestionable practices passed on as tradition whose main aim is forgotton and thus have become mere superstitions for eg: Untouchability aka Pollution.On the other side denouncing Hinduism just becuae of Idol worship.These both issues are highlighted in the story of Sri M's suicide and rebirth.
Recently he was also attacked by a group of Muslim fundamentalists.Shirdi Sai was also attacked by his own Muslim devotees for allowing Hindu rituals in a Mosque.
In Sri M's previous life as a Brahmin he blindly believed and practised 'Untouchability/Pollution' against a Chisti Order Sufi Muslim.He did not see that all the essence of Religion is to see M for Maanavata(Hunmanity) in all or may be he did not see that the Sufi himself was an advanced devotee of God and so technically a Brahmin too going by the definition of Brahmin to be a sincere seeker of God/Truth.Instead like the young yogi in the story of Vyadha(the butcher) in Mahabharatha he thought Religion was excelling in austere yogic practices.On the other hand a lot of Muslims inlcuding Sri M's grandmother consider Hinduism as perverted soley on the basis that Hindus worship Idols somehow disregarding everything else about Hinduism including it's final Goal which is the same.
So one of the highlights of Sri M's rebirth into a Muslim family story is to send a strong message to not to reduce Religion to a few accepted beliefs passed on as Tradition **without questioning their applicability to the specific individual and Time and Place or knowing the main aim intended in that practise**For eg: Untoucability/Pollution.
I do not know how much Kanchi Mahaswami encouraged this belief in Pollution.On this u can enligthen us.
Sri Rama Krishna also observed this Pollution practise of not eating food cooked by a non-Brahmin but he also cleaned the latrines of untoucable caste during his younger days.I will ask about this in the local RK Mission and see what the swamiji says of the dynamics of it.
Zee,
Your post covers so many aspects -1.M's past lives and his present Life,etc
2.Limitations of Tradition leading to sects and factions
3.Untouchability and prejudices
4.Fanaticism leading to mass murders and so fort and son.
5.Kanchi Mahaswami and his orthodox ways.
6.Sri Ramakrishna not touching food cooked by nonBrahmins although he cleaned toilets of other caste people,etc.
I also find that you have tried to suggest the Rationale of M being born into a Muslim family and now teaching Hindu scriptures.
You have also mentioned how attempts have been made in the past to bring different communities together have not met with "sucess".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will only make one fundamental observation and this is from the life of Sri Ramakrishna:
"Toward the end of 1866 he began to practise the disciplines of Islam. Under the direction of
his Mussalman guru he abandoned himself to his new sadhana. He dressed as a Mussalman
and repeated the name of Allah.
His prayers took the form of the Islamic devotions. He forgot the Hindu gods and
goddesses - even Kali - and gave up visiting the temples. He took up his residence outside
the temple precincts. After three days he saw the vision of a radiant figure, perhaps
Mohammed. This figure gently approached him and finally lost himself in Sri
Ramakrishna. Thus he realized the Mussalman God. Thence he passed into communion
with Brahman. The mighty river of Islam also led him back to the Ocean of the Absolute".
One of the Great teachings from Sri Ramakrishna's life that is not emphasized enough is this-one may begin with any sort of a limitation,within the narrow confines of orthodoxy,and yet if one is truly sincere and puts his heart and soul ,spiritual growth is guaranteed and such a one will outgrow the narrow confines in a natural way.
As Vivekananda said-'It is good to be born in a church but bad to die in one'
Every Organized religion seeks to provide a 'mould' and imposes a certain Discipline in the form of 'observances' and 'Do's and Don'ts'.The basic idea is to reign in the dissipating tendencies of the animal in man-and attempts to give him a platform to evolve.As long as the nature of this 'mould' is properly understood and put to use it serves its purpose.
If not....you know it:-)
Namaskar.
That book 'Apprentice to a Himalayan
Master' is full of Spectacular incidents. Sri M, it can safely be said, has lived an interesting life.
Have you read the book, Raviji?
best wishes,
m,
No,I have not read the book-'Apprenticed to a Himalayan master'- came to know about sri M from our friend Zee's recent post the day before.
I watched that video and that is all there to it.
The fantastic things that happened to M are not unlike what Sri Paramahansa Yogananda has narrated in his autobiography.
I like the way M narrates them in a matter of fact way;although I am never attracted to the Mystic elements in the narration.
Namaskar.
Upadesa Sahasri - Sri Sankara:
CHAPTER XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
218. One should be told what one asks and wants to know; and the inquirer desires to know Liberation, (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 unhappiness might be removed altogether.
220. There can be no doubt about what the Srutis prove as they are independent source of knowledge. The words of Srutis, 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.
contd.,
***
Difference between Fundamentalist and Hypocrite:
One strong in Faith but weak in
Wisdom has uncritical and groundless confidence.
One strong in wisdom but weak in Faith errs on the side of cunning and is as hard to cure as one whose sickness is caused by a medicine.When the two are balanced, one has confidence only where there are grounds for it
-Buddha
Great Book, a life long companion, direct Quotes of the Buddha for Free:
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/words_of_buddha.pdf
Zee/Friends,
Belief is static while Faith is Dynamic;Belief aims to maintain status quo while Faith drives towards its objective;Belief insulates itself from Knowledge while Faith augments the knowledge and matures it into Realization;Belief is mental while Faith is Atmic.
Fundamentalist is one who has a strong belief but a weak faith.
Wisdom is Knowledge distilled into experience.A Knowledgeable man can be a Hypocrite but a wise man cannot be .
Faith is called Shraddha and this is what Sri Aurobindo says:
1.Faith is the soul's witness to something not yet manifested, achieved or realised, but which yet the Knower within us, even in the absence of all indications, feels to be true or supremely worth following or achieving.
2.Faith is a certitude in the soul which does not depend on reasoning, on this or that mental idea, on circumstances, on this or that passing condition of the mind or the vital or the body.
Namaskar.
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
221. The Knowledge of the Self different from 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? (Kena Up. 2.3; Br. Up. 2.4.14: Br. Up.
4.4.23.)
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'. (Br. Up. 4.4.23.)
contd.,
***
Ravi,
That quote is from VisuddhiMagga(Path of Purification) translated by Nanamoli available online for Free.
Topic: Balance of Five Faculties of Sraddha(Faith), Veerya(Energy), Prajna(Wisdom),Concentration and Mindfullness
******************************
45. 2. Maintaining balanced faculties is equalizing the [five] faculties of faith and
the rest. For if his faith faculty is strong and the others weak, then the energy
faculty cannot perform its function of exerting, the mindfulness faculty its
function of establishing, the concentration faculty its function of not distracting,
and the understanding faculty its function of seeing. So in that case the faith
faculty should be modified either by reviewing the individual essences of the
states [concerned, that is, the objects of attention] or by not giving [them] attention
in the way in which the faith faculty became too strong. And this is illustrated
by the story of the Elder Vakkali (S III 119).
46. Then if the energy faculty is too strong, the faith faculty cannot perform its
function of resolving, nor can the rest of the faculties perform their several
functions. So in that case the energy faculty should be modified by developing
tranquillity, and so on. And this should be illustrated by the story of the Elder
Soóa (Vin I 179–85; A III 374–76). So too with the rest; for it should be understood
that when anyone of them is too strong the others cannot perform their several
functions.
47. However, what is particularly recommended is balancing faith with
understanding, and concentration with energy. For one strong in faith and
weak in understanding has confidence uncritically and groundlessly. One
strong in understanding and weak in faith errs on the side of cunning and is as
hard to cure as one sick of a disease caused by medicine. With the balancing of
the two a man has confidence only when there are grounds for it.
Then idleness overpowers one strong in concentration and weak in energy, since
concentration favours idleness. [130] Agitation overpowers one strong in energy
and weak in concentration, since energy favours agitation. But concentration
coupled with energy cannot lapse into idleness, and energy coupled with
concentration cannot lapse into agitation. So these two should be balanced; for
absorption comes with the balancing of the two.
[contd..]
[contd..]
48. Again, [concentration and faith should be balanced]. One working on
concentration needs strong faith, since it is with such faith and confidence that
he reaches absorption. Then there is [balancing of] concentration and
understanding. One working on concentration needs strong unification, since
that is how he reaches absorption; and one working on insight needs strong
understanding, since that is how he reaches penetration of characteristics; but
with the balancing of the two he reaches absorption as well.
49. Strong mindfulness, however, is needed in all instances; for mindfulness
protects the mind from lapsing into agitation through faith, energy and
understanding, which favour agitation, and from lapsing into idleness through
concentration, which favours idleness. So it is as desirable in all instances as a
seasoning of salt in all sauces, as a prime minister in all the king’s business.
Hence it is said [in the commentaries (D-a 788, M-a I 292, etc)]: “And mindfulness
has been called universal by the Blessed One. For what reason? Because the
mind has mindfulness as its refuge, and mindfulness is manifested as protection,
and there is no exertion and restraint of the mind without mindfulness.”
Zee,
Thanks for the excerpts.All classifications and analysis are for our convenience only.The terms Shraddha,veerya,Prajna are all related and not separate.Shraddha includes the other two.As I have said,Shraddha is Dynamic in nature-It is not just Conviction;It is conviction+indomitable spirit(Veerya)+Attention(Prajna-Awareness).
I do not know if in pali these words have a different connotation or if it is the inadequacy of the translator,for the explanations that he gives ( Example:One
strong in understanding and weak in faith errs on the side of cunning)do not seem to stand scrutiny-for If the understanding is Really Strong how can the faith be weak and how the person so endowed fall a prey to cunning?
Just to add to the distinction between Belief and Faith:
Belief seeks security in numbers by multiplying horizontally whereas Faith has the courage to walk it alone to effect a vertical shift.
Namaskar.
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
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 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 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter XVIII:
Thou art That - tat tvam asi
228. A man who tries to be free from 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 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 Vedantas like a bee collecting the best honey from flowers.
Chapter XVIII - concluded.
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - (Prose)
Chapter I -
A Method of Enlightening the disciple:
1. We shall now explain a method of teaching the means to liberation for the benefit of those aspirants after liberation who are desirous of this teaching and are possessed of faith in it.
2. That means to liberation, viz., knowledge should be explained
again and again until it is firmly grasped, to a pure Brahmana disciple who is indifferent to everything that is transitory and achievable through certain means, who has given up the desire for a son, for wealth, and for this world and the next, who has adopted the life of a wandering monk and is endowed with control over the mind and senses, with compassion etc., as well as with the qualities of a disciple well known in the scriptures, and who has approached the teacher in the prescribed manner, and been examined in respect of his caste, profession, conduct, learning and parentage.
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - (Prose)
Chapter I -
A Method of Enlightening the disciple:
1. We shall now explain a method of teaching the means to liberation for the benefit of those aspirants after liberation who are desirous of this teaching and are possessed of faith in it.
2. That means to liberation, viz., knowledge should be explained
again and again until it is firmly grasped, to a pure Brahmana disciple who is indifferent to everything that is transitory and achievable through certain means, who has given up the desire for a son, for wealth, and for this world and the next, who has adopted the life of a wandering monk and is endowed with control over the mind and senses, with compassion etc., as well as with the qualities of a disciple well known in the scriptures, and who has approached the teacher in the prescribed manner, and been examined in respect of his caste, profession, conduct, learning and parentage.
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter I:
3. The Sruti (Mu.Up.1.2.12,13) also
says, 'A Brahmana after examining those worlds which are the result of Vedic actions should be indifferent to them seeing that nothing eternal can be achieved by means of those actions. Then, with fuel in his hands he should approach only 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 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 he no attainment of knowledge. For the Srutis (Ch.Up. 6.14.2.) say,
'A man having a teacher can know Brahman.' Knowledge received from a teacher alone becomes perfect.' 'This teacher is the pilot.' Right knowledge is called in this world a raft', etc., The Smrti (B.G. 4.34) also says, 'knowledge will be imparted to you' etc.,
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter I - Prose.
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, or 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., and 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter I - Prose:
6. The teacher is one who is endowed with the power of furnishing arguments pro and con, of understanding questions and remembering them, who possess tranqullity, 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, is a knower of Brahman, and established in It, is never a transgressor of the rules of conduct, and who is devoid of shortcomings such as ostentation, pride, deceit, cunning, jugglery, falsehood, egoism, and attachments. He has the sole aim of helping others and a desire to impart the knowledge of Brahman only. He should first 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 one Self' and 'All this is verily Brahman.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter I - Prose.
7,8: After teaching these he should teach the definition of Brahman, trough such Sruti texts as 'The Self devoid of sins',(Ch.Up. 8.7.1), 'The Brahman that is immediate and direct.' That which is (Br.Up.3.4.1.), beyond hunger and thirst', 'Not this, not this', (Br.Up. 2.3.6), 'Neither gross nor subtle', (Br.Up. 3.8.8.), 'This Self is not this' (Br.Up. 3.9.26)' 'It (Br.Up. 3.8.11), is the Seer Itself unseen', (Br.Up. 3.8.11), 'Knowledge Bliss' (Br.Up.3.9.27), 'Existence Knowledge Infinite' (Taitt. Up. 2.1.), 'Imperceptible bodiless', (Taitt. Up. 2.7.), 'That great unborn Self' (Br.Up. 4.4.22), 'Without the vital force and the mind' 'Unborn', comprising the interior and exterior, 'Consisting of Knowledge only', 'Without interior or exterior, 'It verily is beyond what is known as also what is unknown' and 'called Akasa', 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter I - Prose.
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 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 births and deaths.' the teacher would say, 'My child, how do you desire to go beyond transmigratory existence as your body was eaten up by birds or will turn into earth even here when you die? For, burnt ashes on this side of the river, you cannot cross to the other side.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Chapter I - Prose.
12,13,: If he says, 'I am different from the body. The body is born and dies, 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 and as a result of merits and demerits when the present body is gone. Thus in the beginning-less world on account of my own actions I have been giving up successive bodies assumed among gods, men, animals and the denizens of hell and assuming ever new ones. I have in this way been made to 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 of 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?"
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
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 possessed of birth, lineage and sanctifying ceremonies and how you are free from these'.
Speaking thus he will remind the disciple saying, You should remember, my child, you have been told about the innermost Self which is the Self of all with its characteristics as described by the Srutis such as 'This was existence, my child' etc., (Ch.Up. 6.2.1.) as also the Smritis and you should remember these characteristics also.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
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 possessed of birth, lineage and sanctifying ceremonies and how you are free from these'.
Speaking thus he will remind the disciple saying, You should remember, my child, you have been told about the innermost Self which is the Self of all with its characteristics as described by the Srutis such as 'This was existence, my child' etc., (Ch.Up. 6.2.1.) as also the Smritis and you should remember these characteristics also.
contd.,
***
Hi,
I have a favor to ask -- can anyone please translate to English for me the lyrics to the song beginning at 2:15 in this video (a song about the relationship between Bhagavan and Muruganar)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRnlv6KeZ8Y
Thanks for any help you can give me!
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
18. The teacher should say to the disciple who has remembered the definition of the Self, 'That which is called Akasa (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 eternal knowledge, without interior and exterior, consisting only of knowledge, all pervading like ether and of the infinite power - that Self of all devoid of hunger etc., as also the 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.
(Br. Up. 3.4.1; Br.Up. 3.7.23)
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
19. "That name and form originally unmanifested took the nature of name and form of the 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 came 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 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 unmanifested, took the name and form of the ether as they were manifested.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose:
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 householder 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.'
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
23. 'You said, 'How am I, devoid of birth, lineage, and sanctifying ceremonies, different from Self?'
Listen. The same one who is the cause of the unfoldment of name and form, who is devoid of all connection with the sanctifying ceremonies, evolved name and form, created this body and entered into it (which is but name and form) - who is Himself he unseen seer, the unheard listener, the unthought thinker, the unknown knower, as stated in the Sruti text, 'I who creates names and form remains speaking'. There are thousands of Sruti texts conveying the same meaning: for instance, 'He created and entered into it.' (Taitt. Up. 2.6), 'Entering into them He rules all creatures. (T.Atsnyaka. 2.11.1,2). 'He, the Self, has entered into these bodies.' (Br.Up. 1.4.7). 'This is your Self' (Br. Up. 3.4.1). 'Opening this very suture of the skull He got in by that door.' (Ai.Up. 1.3.12). 'This Self is concealed in all beings.' (Kath. Up. 3.12). 'That divinity thought - let me enter into these three deities.'
(Ch.Up. 6.3.2.).
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
24. 'Smriti texts too elucidate the same truth; for example, 'All gods verily are the Self' (Manu. XII.119). 'The Self in the city of nine gates' (B.G. 5.13). 'Know he individual Self to be Myself. (B.G. 13.2).' The same in all beings.' (B.G.13.27) 'The witness and approver ', (B.G. 13.22), 'The Supreme Being is different.' (B.G.
15.17), 'Residing in all bodies but Itself devoid of any' (Katha. Up. 2.22), and so on. Therefore it is established that you are without any connection with birth, lineage, and sanctifying ceremonies.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
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 beyond transmigratory existence is also different from me. I want to worship Him through 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 he is another does not know (Brahman).' 'He who regards the Brahminical caste as different from himself is rejected by that caste;, 'One who views Brahman as if having diversity in It 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.
(Br. Up. 1.4.10; 2.4.6; 4.4.19.)
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
28. 'That, on the other hand, liberation results from the acceptance of the reality of non difference is borne out by thousands of Srutis; from example, after teaching that the individual Self is not different from the Supreme One in the text, 'That* is the Self, thou art That', (Ch.Up. 6.13.3;), and after saying 'A man who has a teacher knows Brahman' (Ch.Up. 6.14.2);) 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',(Ch.Up. 6.14.2). That transmigratory existence comes to an absolute cessation in the case of one who speaks of 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, that one who, one the other hand speaks 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. (Ch.Up. 6.16. 1-3).
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
29. 'The Sruti text commencing with 'Whatever these creatures are here, whether tiger or' (Ch.Up. 6.9.3.), and similar other texts, after asserting that 'One becomes one's own master i.e, Brahman,' (Ch.Up. 6.25.2.), by the knowledge of the reality of non difference, show that one continues to remain in the transmigratory condition in the opposite case, as a 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', (Ch.Up. 7.25.2). Such statements are found in every branch of the
Vedas. 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 lineage, that you were subject to transmigration and that you were different from the Supreme Self.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
30. 'As the acceptance of the reality of difference is forbidden, it should be understood that, on the knowledge of one's identity with the Supreme Self, the undertaking of religious rites which have difference for their province and the assumption of Yajnopavita etc., which are the means to their performance, are forbidden. For these rites and Yajnopavita etc., their means are inconsistent with the knowledge of one's identity with the Supreme
Self. It is those people only that refer classes and orders of life etc., to the Self on whom Vedic actions and yagnopavita etc., 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 to the acceptance of the reality of difference. (Ch.Up. 6.8.7.).
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose:
31. "If Vedic rites were to be performed and not renounced, the Sruti would neither have declared the identity of oneself with the Supreme Self unrelated to those rites and their means, and castes, orders of life,etc., which are 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 differences of clauses such as 'It is the eternal glory of the knower of Brahman' (Br.Up. .4.4.23), untouched by virtue, untouched by sin' and 'Here a thief is no thief.' (Br.Up. 4.3.22);
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
32. 'The Srutis would not have stated that the essential nature of the Self was in no way connected with Vedic rites and conditions by them such as a particular class, and the rest, if they did not intend that, those rites and yajnopavita etc., and 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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
33. If he says, 'The pain due to burns or cuts in the body and the misery caused by hunger and 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, thrist 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 realize the supreme end in life, i.e. liberation, give up the actions producing those results and yajnopavita etc., their accessories?'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose:
34. The teacher should say to him, 'It was not right to say, 'I directly perceive the pain in me when my body gets cuts or burns.' Why? As the pain due to cuts or burns is 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 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 and cuts.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
35. 'Moreover, (if it were in the Self) the pain could not be perceived by the Self like the color of the eye by the same eye. Therefore, as it is perceived to have the same seat as burns, cuts and the like, pain must be an object of perception like them. Since it is an effect, it must have a receptacle like that in which rice is cooked. The impressions of pain mus have the same seat as pain itself. As they are perceived during the time, when the 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 colors. As they have for their seat the intellect, the knower, the Self is always pure and devoid of fear.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
35. 'Moreover, (if it were in the Self) the pain could not be perceived by the Self like the color of the eye by the same eye. Therefore, as it is perceived to have the same seat as burns, cuts and the like, pain must be an object of perception like them. Since it is an effect, it must have a receptacle like that in which rice is cooked. The impressions of pain mus have the same seat as pain itself. As they are perceived during the time, when the 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 colors. As they have for their seat the intellect, the knower, the Self is always pure and devoid of fear.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
36. 'What is then the locus of the impressions of colors and the rest?'
'The same as that of lust etc.,' 'Where again are lust etc.,?' They are in the intellect (and nowhere else) according to the Sruti - lust, deliberation and doubt. The impressions of the colors and so forth are also there (and nowhere else) according to the Sruti - what is the seat of oolors?' 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 the desires and from Smritis such as 'It is said to be changeless', and so on. Therefore (it is concluded that) impurity pertains to the object and not to the Self.
(All quotes from Br. Up. and the Smriti referred is Bhagavad Gita).
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
37.38: 'Therefore you are not different from the Supreme Self in as much as you are devoid of impurities such as the connection with the impressions of colors and the like. As there is no contradiction to perceptional evidence etc., the Supreme Self should be accepted as oneself according to the Srutis. It knew the pure Self to be Brahman' (Br.Up. 1.2.10; Br.Up. 4.4.20). 'It should be regarded as homogeneous' (Br. Up. 4.4.20). 'It is I that am below', (Ch.Up. 7.25.2). 'It is the Self that is below', (Ch.Up.7.25.2). 'He knows everything to be the Self' (Br.Up. 4.4.23). 'When everything becomes the Self', (Br. Up. 2.4.14). 'All this verily is the Self,' (Br. Up. 2.4.6).'He is without parts', (Pra.Up. 6.5.) 'Without the interior and exterior', (Br.Up. 2.5.19). 'Unborn, compromising the interior and exterior', 'Unborn,
comprising the interior and exterior', (Mu.2.1.2). 'All this verily is Brahman', (M.U.2.2.11). 'It entered through this door', (Ai.Up. 1.3.12). 'The names of pure knowledge', (Ai.Up. 3.1.2.). 'The names of pure knowledge', (Ai.Up.3.1.2), 'Existence, Knowledge. Infinite Brahman', 'From It', 'It created and entered it.' (Tai. Up. 2.1.1), 'The shining One without a second concealed in all being and all pervading', (Sv. Up. 6.11), 'In all bodies Itself bodiless' (Kath.Up. 2.22), 'It is not born and does not die', (Kath.Up. 2.18), 'Knowing dream and waking, (Kath.Up. 2.1.14), 'He is my Self, thus one should know', (Kaushitak Up. III.8). 'Who knows all beings', (Ish.Up.6).
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
37.3 (continues). 'It moves and moves not', (Ish.Up. 5), 'knowing It, one becomes worthy of being worshipped', (M.N.U. 2,3). 'It and nothing but It is fire.' (T.A. 10.1.), 'I became Manu and the Sun' (Br.Up. 1.4.10), 'Entering into them He rules all creatures', (T.A. 3.11.1.2), 'Existence only my child', ((Ch.Up. 6.2.1), 'That is real, That is the Self, That thou art', (Ch.Up. 6.8.7.).
'It is established that you, the Self are the Supreme Brahman, the One and the only and devoid of every phenomenal attribute, from the Smrits also such as 'all being are the body of One who resides in the hearts of all', (Apastamba Dharma), 'Gods are verily the Self', (Manu XII.119), 'In the city of nine gates', (B.G. 5.13), 'The same in all beings', (B.G. 13.27), 'In a Brahmana wise and courteous', (B.G.5.18), 'Undivided in things divided, (B.G. 13.16), and 'All this verily is Vasudeva (the Self)' (B.G. 7.19).
contd,.
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose:
(Read the previous post as 37,38 instead of 37.3).
39. If he says, 'If Sir, the Self is without interior and 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 ether, what is it that is observed in ordinary usage and revealed in Srutis and Smrits as what is to be accomplished, its appropriate means and its accomplishments and is made the subject-matter of contention among the hundreds of rival disputations holding different views?'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose:
40. The teacher would say, 'Whatever is observed in this world, or learnt from the Srutis (regarding the the next world), are products of Ignorance. But in reality there is only One, the Self which appears to be many to deluded vision, like the moon appearing more than 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', (Br.Up. 4.3.31), 'When there is duality as it were, one sees another', (Br.Up. 2.4.14), 'He goes from death to death,' (Br. Up, 4.4.19), 'And where one sees something else, or hears something else, cognizes something
else, that is finite, and that which is finite is mortal,' 'Modifications i.e effects e.g. earthen jar) being only names, have for their support words only, it is earth alone i.e. the cause that is real,' (Chh.Up. 7.24.1), and 'He is one, I am another', (Chh.Up. 6.1.4), The same thing follows from the Srutis teaching
unity, for example, 'One only without a second,' (Chh.Up. 6.2.1.), 'When a knower of Brahman' (Br.Up. 4.5.16) and 'What delusion or grief is there?' (Is.Up.7.).
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose:
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?'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
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 that 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 he realization of what is really desirable for him and the means to the avoidance of what is undesirable. It is the gradual removal of this ignorance that is the aim of the scriptures; but not the enunciation of the reality of the difference of the end, means and so on. For it is this very difference that constitutes this undesirable transmigratory existence. The scriptures, therefore, root out the ignorance constituting this 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose.
45. '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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II.
The Knowledge of the changeless and non dual Self.
45. A certain Brahmacharin tired of of the transmigratory existence consisting of birth and death and aspiring for 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 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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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? The cause being brought to an end, there will be the absence
of effect, and I shall come by my own nature, just like a patient who gets back to the normal condition, of his health, when the cause of his disease is removed.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 dreams.'
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 become my own nature?'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose. Chapter II:
50. The teacher said, 'You are the non transmigratory Supreme Self. But you wrongly think that you are one liable to trasmigration. Similarly, not being an agent or an experiencer you wrongly consider yourself to be non eternal. This is Ignorance.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose. - Chapter II.
51. The disciple said, 'Though eternal, I am not the Supreme Self.
My nature is one of transmigratory
existence consisting of agency and experiencing of its results, as it is known by evidence such as sense-perception etc., It is not due to Ignorance. For it cannot have the innermost Self for its object. Ignorance consists of the superimposition of the qualities of one thing on another e.g. well known silver on the 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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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?'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
54. The teacher said, 'Listen. It is true that the Self and the body are well known, but they are not well known to all people to be objects of different knowledges, like a human being and a trunk of 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 objects of different knowledges, saying, 'This is the body and this is the Self'. It is for this reason that people are so deluded about the nature of the Self and 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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 frying pan and blueness in the sky. Similarly, , both the body and the Self, always be 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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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, 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 another. It is, therefore, concluded that devoid of contact with the body, the Self is eternal and characteristically different from it.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
50. 'It is not a fact that the absolute non existence of the body contradicts sense perception etc., in as much 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 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 be a rule that it is things known occasionally only on which the 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?'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Part II:
64. Questioned thus, the disciple said, 'If I were only a combination of the body etc., I would be non conscious and would exist only 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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Part II:
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 modiifcations 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 the sandal paste etc., are for the sake of me who am the knower. I am different from them as I know all things pervaded by the intellect.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 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.'
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Part II:
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 to 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 lights of two lamps. Therefore, as changeless and eternal consciousness, like the heat and light of the fire, you know everything presented to your intellect. Thus when we you always know the Self to be without any attribute, why did you say, 'I experience pain and pleasure again and again during the states of waking and dream after intervals of rest in deep sleep?' And why did you say, 'It is my nature or causal?' Has this delusion vanished or not?'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Part II:
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, s 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 these modifications resemble sound of 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.'
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri: Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 modifications of the mind without a single exception are simultaneously known by you. You regard this knowledge of all 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.
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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. The Teacher said: '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 the 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
78. Being told thus, the disciple said, 'Sir, the example cited by you cannot prove that I am changeless/'
Teacher - 'How?'
Disciple: 'For just as the ultimate separation into two is used secondarily for the action of cutting which is the meaning of a root, so the word knowledge is used secondarily for the mental modification which is the meaning of a root and which ends in the result that is a change in Knowledge. The example cited by you, is 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.'
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankrara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 hear it? I did not say that a change was produced in the Self as a result of the modification of the mind.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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. The Teacher - 'It is true that you are not to be blamed. Ignorance, as I told you before is the only fault.'
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
86. Disciple - 'Sir, why are these 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 in as much 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 in as much as adventitious things, never the properties of one's own nature, are found to possess these characteristics: for example, he destruction of money, clothes etc., and the negation of things acquired in dream or delusion are seen.'
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 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 (Para 74) 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 in as much as It never ceases to exist.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 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 objects of Knowledge in that state, but not that of Knowledge. I have told you that which 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 than Itself, is immutable. For It is always self evident in nature. Just as iron, water, etc., which are not the nature of light and heat, depend on them on the sun and fire and other things other than themselves, but the sun and fire themselves, always of the nature of light and heat, do not depend for them or 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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 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).'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 refuted 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 regressus ad infintum with regard to the knower and also with regard to the desire to know the knower, in as much 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 birth of an intervening desire, memory, effort or an evidence on the part of the knower. There cannot be the knowledge of an object in any other way. Again, it cannot be imagined that the knower himself is distanced by anyone of his own desire etc., For memory has for its object the thing to be remembered and not one who remembers it; so has desire for its object the thing to be desired and not one who desires it. There arises, as before, an inevitable regressus ad infintum if memory and desire have their own agents for their objects.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri: Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Part II:
100. Disciple - 'But the knower remains unknown if there is no knowledge which has for its object the knower.'
101. Teacher - 'No. The knowledge of the knower has for its object the thing to be known. If it has for its object the knower, there arises a regressus ad infinitum as before. It has already been shown that, like the heat and light of the sun, fire and other things, the Knowledge which is changeless, eternal, and self effulgent, has an existence in the Self entirely independent of everything else. I have already said that if the self effulgent Knowledge which is there in the Self were transitory, it would become unreasonable that the Self existed for Itself, and 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 of certain things. The Self would have no independent existence if this knowledge were produced 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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri: Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
102. Disciple - 'How can the knower be a knower if he is not the seat of knowledge produced by evidences?'
103. The Teacher said, 'The knowledge produced by an evidence does not differ in its essential nature whether one calls it eternal or transitory. Knowledge (though) produced by an evidence is nothing but knowledge. The knowledge preceded by memory, desire, etc., and supposed to be transitory, and 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 in as much as eternal knowledge is the same as one produced by an evidence as regards their essential nature.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 regressus ad infinitum arises if the Self unconnected with the body, the senses, etc., were to use them as Its instruments. As carpenter and others are always connected with the bodies and senses, there is no regressus ad infinitum when they use adze and other instruments.'
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
105. Teacher - (Reply). 'Agency is not possible without the use of instruments. Instruments, therefore, have to be assumed. The assumption of instruments is of course an action. In order to be the agent of this action, other instruments have to be assumed. In assuming these instruments, still others have to be assumed. A regressus ad infinitum, is therefore, inevitable if the Self which is not joined with anything were to be the agent. (Br. Sutra. 2.3.33,40).
'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 to be 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 in as much as they are seen to depend for their existence on mental modifications resulting in the reflection of the Self in them.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 evidence is the same, as the self evident, self effulgent and changeless Self.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 Self as they combine to act for one moment to act 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 the 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 the 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 modifications. It is one without a second. The modifications themselves cease to exist, the Self continuing to do so. Just as in dream the mental modificatons 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 while the 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 file is fulfilled by your grace.)'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter II:
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 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."
Part I - Prose - Chapter II - concluded.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter III:
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 and mixed results. This method is described here so that there may be a cessation of all these.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter III:
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 and death, contact, separation, appearance, disappearance, cause, effect and sex. All of them produce various effects like pleasure, pain and so on. The knower of the sound and the like is of a nature different from theirs as It is the knower.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter III:
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, extremely subtle, and not an object, cannot for the very fact of my being not attached, be made an object and touched by sound in general, or its special forms such as, the notes of the gamut, praises, 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, unpleasant sound regarded as belonging to the Self glorifies or injures an ignorant man on account of indiscrimination. But it cannot even do 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 forms such as fever, colic pain, and such other diseases and coldness, hotness, softness, or roughness which are unpleasant. Again, pleasant touches connected with the body or brought into existence by external and adventitious causes can likewise produce no change in me in as much as, I am beyond touch, like the ether which, when struck with one's fist, does not meet any 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 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, touch, sight, taste and smell.' (Kath.Up.
3.15.)
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part I - Prose - Chapter III:
116. 'Moreover, sound and 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 a 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.' (B.G. 2.25). Similarly I am not changeable by the action 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.' (B.G.2.24) The merit or demerit arising out of good or evil done in 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 Smritis say, 'It is not pained by omission and commission,' (Br. Up. 4.4.22) 'It is not harmed or benefited by any action.' (Br. Up. 4.4.23). 'Unborn, comprising the interior and exterior' (Br. Up. (Mu.Up. 2.1.2.) and 'It is beyond the pain felt by the people and unattached is that nothing really exists except the Self.' (Kath. Up. 5.11).
As duality does not exist the portions of Upanishads regarding the oneness of the Self should be studied to a great extent.'
Here ends the prose portion of Upadesa SAhasri, written by all knowing Sankara.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical:
Chapter I:
1. I bow don 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Chapter I - Metrical:
3,4: Actions (both enjoined and prohibited), bring about one's connection with the body; when the connection with the body takes place, pleasure and pain must surely follow. Thence comes attraction and repulsion, from the 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 existence is thus going on continually for ever like a wheel.
5. The cessation of Ignorance is desirable, as it is the root of this transmigratory existence. Hence, a delineation of the knowledge of Brahman through which comes liberation (from Ignorance) is commenced.
contd.,
***
Hello,
could someone please inform me as to the origins of Self-inquiry as taught by Ramana Maharshi.
1] did Ramana Maharshi invent the method?
2] if no, where and when did the method originate?
thank you
Upadesa SAhasri: Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical:
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 of desire, and aversion, are not removed. Knowledge alone, therefore, is taught here, so that liberation from Ignorance may be accomplished.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical:
8. Obligatory duties should be performed (along with the practice of knowledge) as long as life lasts. Because these duties cooperate 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 omission of those actions.
contd.,
****
Subramanian
The Open Thread that was started a couple of years ago still seems to be working. I am just posting this comment to double-check.
I have not yet returned to India, but I should be back in two weeks' time.
And it's not the blog I am upgrading, it's my old site. The new site I linked to in the recent post is just a platform to disseminate information about my books on Bhagavan.
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical -
10,11: 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.
(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 Vedantas, 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 actions depend entirely on the performer.
14. The Knowledge (of one's own real nature) destroys the ideas 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 is so, how can a man of knowledge accept them as true and perform actions?
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical:
15. It is, therefore, not possible on the part 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, once negated by Vedic evidence arise again? For it is neither in the innermost Self which is the only one without a second and without attributes nor in the non-Self.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical:
15. It is, therefore, not possible on the part 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, once negated by Vedic evidence arise again? For it is neither in the innermost Self which is the only one without a second and without attributes nor in the non-Self.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical:
15. It is, therefore, not possible on the part 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, once negated by Vedic evidence arise again? For it is neither in the innermost Self which is the only one without a second and without attributes nor in the non-Self.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical:
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: Therefore, it is said by the Sruti that the renunciation of actions including mental ones (catalogued in the Narayana Upanishad)* is superior to their performance. Again immortality is heard of in the Br. Up.** which says, 'This alone.' Hence they should be renounced by those who aspire after liberation.
*78 ** 4.5.15.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical -
21. We give below the following reply to the objector who quoted the example of Agnishtoma.
22. Knowledge is quite opposite in nature to that of actions like Agnishtoma etc., fir they are accomplished with the help of many materials and differ in the quality of the result of each individual performance. The example is therefore, not parallel.
23. As it produces a result variable in quality, the Agnishotma 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 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 by the suffix Kwip. So, that which loosens the bondage of birth, old age, etc., enables a man to approach Brahman and destroys birth, death, etc., is called Upanishad.
Part II - Metrical - Chapter I
is concluded.
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter II:
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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter II:
3. A following knowledge does not arise without negating the previous knowledge e.g. 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter III:
1. The aspirant cannot 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter III:
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 a description of a void if it were meant to negate those qualities from one other than the Self.
4. Moreover, the saying, (Mu.Up. 2.1.2), '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.
Part II - Metrical - Chapter III
concluded.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter IV::
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 right Knowledge that one is neither the doer of actions nor the 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter IV:
4. As the 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 the other kinds of actions are different in nature.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter IV:
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 already been given by us.
Part II - Metrical - Chapter IV -
concluded.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter V:
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 like Udanka*
who did not accept the genuine nectar, which, he thought was urine.
* Vishnu was pleased with Udanka's austerity and he sent a pot of nectar through Indra, to give it to Udanka. Indra wanted to deceive him and in the guise of a Chandala, he hung the pot containing nectar from his waist. The pot was hanging in such a way that urine would fall into it if Indra were to make water. When he appeared before Udanka in that fashion and offered him the nectar, the latter thought the pot contained urine and refused to accept the nectar.
That people do not like to receive Self Knowldge is due to their ignorance of the real nature of the Self and a wrong and false conception about It.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter V:
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 the tree appearing to move in the eyes of those who are in moving boat. Similar is the misconception about the transmigratory existence.
3. Just as trees are thought to be moving in a direction to that of a moving boat by 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 no passage in the Sruti, 'as if at rest.' (Br. Up. 4.3.7.)
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter V:
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 same object of Pure Consciousness and exists for It (the ego is not the Self), Pure Consciousness is the universal Self when the objection portion is rejected.
Part II - Metrical - Chapter V concluded.,
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter VI:
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 (gross and subtle bodies and their attributes) by which It is thought to be qualified.
2. Therefore, all the qualifications are similar to the arm cut off and thrown away as they are all non-Self. So the Self is free from all qualifications.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter VI:
3. It is reasonable that like ornaments all these 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter VI:
5. The Self of which the whole of the object portion is the qualification is different from It.
Bereft 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 in the sentence 'I am Brahman'.
Chapter VI ends here.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter VII:
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 'other' intellects.
I am not capable of being rejected or accepted. Therefore I am the Supreme Brahman.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter VII:
3. As It is the Witness of all intellects and their modifications, the Self, unlike the intellect, is not of a limited knowledge and has no change, impurity, or material nature in It.
4. Just as in the presence of sunlight, colors such as red etc.,
of flowers and other things, are manifested in a jewel, so all objects are seen in the intellect in Its Presence. All things are, therefore, illumined by It like sunlight.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter VII:
5. Objects of knowledge exist in the intellect as long as it is there in waking and dream. But none exists 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 the non Self. But after the discrimination there is no individual Self different from Brahman, nor the intellect itself.
End of Chapter VII -
contd.,
***
Jim McCarthy talking about his near death experience. And inadvertently (?) describing a number of Advaita themes: Pure Being, seperate self, illusion of seperation etc.
Very interesting!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15OmPZKh8tI&feature=youtu.be
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter VIII:
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, accruing to me from your efforts.
2. Give up 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.
contd.,
***
James, thank you for posting that video.
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter VIII:
3. The Supreme Brahman, the same in
all beings and free from all attributes, I am all pervading like ether, imperishable, auspicious, homogeneous, partless and actionless. I therefore, have no benefits 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 from anything done by you. As you are not other than Myself you can have no effort nor its results.
contd.,
***
Friends,
This is apropos David's comment on February 26,2014 on Bhagavan's response to the question of amritanatha yati-'Who are you Ramana?'(In the Guru vachaka Kovai-Telugu Translation comments thread).
I was trying to dig out what Sri Bhagavan wrote in Tamizh in verse form.I do not remember the complete verse but it does start like this:
'Ariyadi Idara Jeevaradhu Aga VArisa Guhaiyil,aRivAi Rami Paramatman Arunachala Ramanan'-meaning:
'Arunachala Ramanan is the paramatman that revels as pure awareness in the heart cavern of Hari and all beings'
'AriyAdi'-Means 'Hari et al'.
Interestingly ,Sri Bhagavan in his response is almost verbatim repeating what Lord Sri Krishna tells Arjuna in Chapter 10 of the wonderful Bhagavad Gita.Arjuna also asks Lord Sri Krishna(like amritanAta here):"You are the Transcendent Eternal,The Supreme Abode and the Greatest purifier;all the seers speak of You as the Eternal Divine Purusha,the Primal Deity,unborn and all-pervading.Likewise speak the celestial sage Narada,the sages asita and Devala and the great Sage vyAsa;and yourself too proclaim this to me.Krishna,I believe as true all that you tell me.Lord,neither demons nor gods are aware of your manifestations.O creator of beings,O ruler of creatures,god of gods,the Lord of the universe,O supreme purusha,You alone know what you are by yourself.Therefore ,you alone can describe in full your divine glories,whereby you pervade all these worlds.O master of Yoga,through what process of continuous meditation shall i know you?And in what particular forms,O lord,are you to be meditated upon by me?'
(We may understand the spirit of amritanata yati's question!Unfortunately ,this has not been clarified by whatever I have read-mostly it is surmised that Amritanata was only trying to eulogize Bhagavan as this or that-and that Bhagavan ended up answering his question like he did!And there the matter ends!If on the other hand,if we go through Bhagavan's answer in verse form,we find that Sri Bhagavan is repeating what Lord Sri Krishna has told Arjuna in this marvellous Vibhuti Yoga.
Lord Sri Krishna tells arjuna:
'aham atma gudakesha sarva bhutasaya sthitah
aham adis ca madhyam ca bhutanam anta eva ca'
I am the Atma, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all living entities. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings.
Interestingly Sri Bhagavan in his response to Yati is talking about the 'Mind melting in love' and not of self-enquiry as a means towards realizing this supreme Truth of his being!This is also quite like what Lord Sri Krishna advocates to Arjuna.
In short,it is an encore of 'Song Celestial'
Namaskar
Friends,
In the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna ,Chapter 5,we have Keshab chandra sen asking a very similiar question to Sri Ramakrishna:
KESHAB (with a smile): "Describe to us, sir, in how many ways Kali, the Divine Mother,
sports in this world."
MASTER (with a smile): "Oh, She plays in different ways. It is She alone who is known as
Maha-Kali, Nitya-Kali, Smasana-Kali, Raksha-Kali, and Syama-Kali. Maha-Kali and
Nitya-Kali are mentioned in the Tantra philosophy. When there were neither the creation,
nor the sun, the moon, the planets, and the earth and when darkness was enveloped in
darkness, then the Mother, the Formless One, Maha-Kali, the Great Power, was one with
Maha-Kala, the Absolute.
"Syama-Kali has a somewhat tender aspect and is worshipped in the Hindu households. She
is the Dispenser of boons and the Dispeller of fear. People worship Raksha-Kali, the
Protectress, in times of epidemic, famine, earthquake, drought, and flood. Smasana-Kali is
the embodiment of the power of destruction. She resides in the cremation ground,
surrounded by corpses, jackals, and terrible female spirits. From Her mouth flows a stream
of blood, from Her neck hangs a garland of human heads, and around Her waist is a girdle
made of human hands.
Beginning of a cycle
"After the destruction of the universe, at the end of a great cycle, the Divine Mother garners
the seeds for the next creation. She is like the elderly mistress of the house, who has a
hotchpotch-pot in which she keeps different articles for household use. (All laugh.)
"Oh, yes! Housewives have pots like that, where they keep 'sea-foam', blue pills, small
bundles of seeds of cucumber, pumpkin, and gourd, and so on. They take them out when
they want them. In the same way, after the destruction of the universe, my Divine Mother,
the Embodiment of Brahman, gathers together the seeds for the next creation. After the
creation the Primal Power dwells in the universe itself. She brings forth this phenomenal
world and then pervades it. In the Vedas creation is likened to the spider and its web. The
spider brings the web out of itself and then remains in it. God is the container of the
universe and also what is contained in it.
Namaskar.
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter VIII:
5. Considering that people are attached to the idea of cause and effect. I have composed this dialogue between the mind and the Self, leading to understanding of the real nature of the Self in order that they might get freed from this bondage. (Gaupapada Karika, 4.24-28)
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.
End of Chapter VIII:
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter IX:
1. A succeeding one in the series of earth etc., ending with the innermost Self is found to be subtler and more pervasive when a preceding one is negated. (When we negate a preceding one we get a subtler and more pervasive one til 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 external 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. (See Brahma Sutra, 2.1.14).
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter IX:
3. Always Pure Consciousness, I am one without a second, all and all pervading like ether before the creation of air and other elements.
4. It has been ascertained that all the beings from Brahma (Creator), down to the immovable creation are my bodies. From what other source, will blemishes like lust, anger, etc., come into me?
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II- Metrical - Chapter IX:
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 the blue.
6. As the intellect 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 in a dream. As duality has no real existence Knowledge is eternal and object-less.
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter IX:
8. As there is nothing other than the Self in dreamless sleep, it is said by the Sruti, that Consciousness of the Knower is eternal. (Br. Up. 4.3.23-30). As Knowledge is really object-less, the knowledge of objects in the waking state must be due to Ignorance. Accept then that its objects are also unreal.
9. It is clearly understood that Brahman cannot be the object of knowledge just as It cannot be the object of seeing etc., as It has no color, form and the like.
End of Chapter IX:
contd.,
****
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter X:
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.
contd.
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter X:
3. I am unborn, deathless, devoid of old age, immortal, self effulgent, all pervading and non dual. Perfectly pure, having neither cause 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 of others. For these states have no independent existence nor an existence depending on the Self. I am, therefore, the Fourth (Turiya, because the Self is beyond waking, dreaming and deep sleep), 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 inference that they are so.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter X:
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 action nor their results. Therefore i am the Supreme One without a second. Though in a body, I do not get attached on account of Mu subtleness like the ether which, though all pervading, does not get tainted.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter X:
8. Though I am the Lord always the same in all beings, beyond the perishable and 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 distressed 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.
contd.,
***
All,
Today is Guru Purnima. Time to re-dedicate ourselves to our Guru.
Regards Murali
"The only purpose of life to realize the Self and all other activities is a waste of time" - Bhagavan
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter X:
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. (Kath.Up. 1.3.8.). There being no delusion, there is no birth. For, when the cause is not there, there cannot be any effect.
11. False conception 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter X:
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 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 to duality being negated, and who is really action-less even when apparently acting, is a man of Self Knowledge; but no one else is so.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter X:
14. This Right Knowledge described by me is the highest because it is ascertained in the Vedanatas. One becomes liberated and unattached (to actions) like the ether if one is perfectly convinced of this Truth.
Chapter X - concluded.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XI:
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 immortality.' and that there is nothing else to cooperate with it in producing liberation.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XI:
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 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara -
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XI:
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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XI:
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 connection with the Self of the results of sin and virtue, which though unseen, is admitted on the same authority.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XI:
10. What are called in Sruti clothes
colored with turmeric etc., are nothing but mental impressions perceived by people in dream. 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.
contd.,
***
Friends,
Just came across this article -In Memoriam on the passing away of Dr pvssn Raju.I recall David mentioning his name somewhere.I have come across Dr Raju's commentary on Sri Bhagavan's Upadesa saram.
Here is the link to the article-In Memoriam:
http://luthar.com/2014/06/30/in-memoriam-dr-suryanarayana-raju/
Namaskar.
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XI:
12. The real nature of he 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).
contd.,
****
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XI:
14. All actions are performed by the Self which has identified Itself with the gross and 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 immortality. As the liberation is caused by the right Knowledge alone, it does not depend on anything else.
16. But Immortality is free from fear and destruction. The individual Self identified by he 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.
Chapter XI - concluded.
contd.
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XII:
1. Just as a man erroneously looks
upon his body placed in the sun as having 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 an ignorant man does not know himself to be Brahman. The reason why people mistake the combination of the subtle and gross bodies for the Self is this identification caused by Its 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 discriminated from the Self.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri: Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XII:
3. An ignorant man gets identified with objects of knowledge and does not know the Self which is different from the tenth man who got identified as it were the other nine.
4. Say how there can reasonably be the two contrary ideas 'You do this', and 'You are Brahman', at the same time and in respect of the same person.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XII:
5. Pain belongs to one identifying oneself with the body. One not 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 a mirror.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XII:
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 knowers of Brahman. No one else is so.
8. It is the knower of knowledge that is referred to as '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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II Metrical - Chapter XII:
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 of 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 the objects of the Self.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II Metrical - Chapter XII:
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 of 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 the objects of the Self.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri: Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XII:
11. I am Brahman without attributes, ever pure, ever free, non dual, homogeneous like the ether and of the nature of Consciousness from which the object portion has been
negated.
12. I am always free supreme Knower in all beings in as much as
there cannot be a more comprehensive knower different from me.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XII:
13. He who Knows that the Consciousness of the Self never ceases to exist, and that It is never an agent and also gives up the egoism that he is 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.
contd.
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XII:
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, producibility is superimposed on It by another consciousness which is Its object 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).
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XII:
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 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 am 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIII:
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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIII:
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; devoid of the tongue, I have no sensation of taste. I never have knowledge or ignorance as I am of the natural 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIII:
7.8: Similarly, other mental modifications in the form of objects of knowledge produced through the instrumentality of other organs and also those in the forms of memory, attachments, 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.
contd.,
***
Prasanna VenkataCharya on degradation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1-S5E1nxiA
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIII:
10. All men misconceive themselves to be ignorant or pure, according as they identify themselves with the mental modification, 'I am ignorant' or 'I am pure'. It is for this reason that they continue to be in transmigratory existence.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIII:
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 'eye-less' (Mu. Up. 2.1.2) and so on, if one is an aspirant after liberation.
12. The organs never belong to me is known from the Sruti, 'eye-less' etc.. (Br. Up. 3.8.8.) 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.'
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIII:
13. As I am always devoid of the vital force and the mind and heard of in the Kathopanishad as having no connection with the sound etc. (Kath. Up. 1.3.15.). I am always changeless.
14. I have therefore neither usefulness nor a profound concentration. Both them belong to the mind which is subject to change,.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIII:
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 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.
contd.,
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Metrical - Part II - CHAPTER XIII:
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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIII:
20. I am not the three visible elements (Earth, Water and Fire) nor the two invisible elements (Air, Ether). Neither am I both (their combination, the body). I am devoid of all attributes and three Gunas. In Me there is neither night nor day, nor their juncture (sandhya) as I am always of the nature of Light.
21. Just as the ether is subtle, without a second and devoid of all forms, so am I the non dual Brahman devoid of even the ether.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIII:
22. The distinction between the Self in Itself and my Self is due to the superimposition (of different adjuncts on one and the same Self), just as difference (in wrongly conceived to ) exist in one and the same ether owing to apertures (in various objects).
23. How can difference, absence of difference, oneness, manyness, 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 in as much as I am changeless. Always free, pure, awakened and without qualities, I am without a second.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - CHAPTER XIII:
25. One should, with great concentration of mind always knows 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.
Chapter XIII - concluded.
contd,,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIV:
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 forma were surely seen before in the waking state.
2. Just as the body going from place to place for alms-seeking seen (e.g., by a wandering mendicant) in dream is not oneself, so witnessing the body in the waking state the Seer must be different from it which is seen.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIV:
3. Pervading objects like forms, colors etc., the mind appears to be exactly like them, just as molten copper assumes the form of a mold when poured into it.
4. Or, just as the 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
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 remember 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.
contd.,
***
Upadesa SAhasri - Sri Sankara:
Part II - Metrical - Chapter XIV:
7. I am the Self of all the intellects of all beings illumined by Me who am of the nature of the
Light of Consciousness only.,
8. It is the intellect that becomes the instruments, 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).
Post a Comment