Advaita Bhoda Deepika # 24

[Guest guest]

CHAPTER VII

SAKSHATKARA (REALISATION )

 

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

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

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

dealt with.

 

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

knowledge by enquiry into the Self, you should proceed with

meditation.

 

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

enquiry and my task is finished why should I meditate further

and to what end?

 

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

Self has been gained, Brahman cannot be realised without

meditation. In order to experience 'I am Brahman' you must

practise meditation.

 

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

Brahman. I have already gained direct knowledge by enquiry

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

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

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

this enquiry must end in the realisation of Brahman.

 

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

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

consciousness witnessing the five sheaths of the individual, the

implied meaning of 'thou' with Brahman, the implied meaning

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

Brahman. By enquiry the identity of the witnessing

consciousness with Brahman has certainly been found. Of what

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

 

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

when one has realised that the witness is Brahman and vice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

later knew it. How does this newly acquired knowledge improve

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

 

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

knowledge is gained that the witness is Brahman. Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

teaches 'That thou art'. On enquiring into its significance I

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

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

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

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

with the result that I have realised Brahman.

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

the text 'I am Brahman' you understand yourself to be Brahman,

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

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

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

ego can never be identical with the changeless Brahman.

 

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

becomes plain that by non-enquiry the unchanging witness had

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

not the changing ego but remain its unchanging conscious

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

Brahman'. What can be discordant in this?

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

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

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

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

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

for he will himself be changing. Being unchanging the witness

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

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

for your contention that the witness says so.

 

D.: Then who knows 'I am Brahman'?

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

the individual soul, the jiva, or the 'false-I' must have

this knowledge.

 

D.: How does this follow?

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

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

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

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

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

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

the witnessing Self being the substratum on which knowledge

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

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

 

=============================

Taken from Advaita Bhoda Deepika

as published by Sri Ramanasramam

Tiruvannamalai 2002.

 

To be continued...

 

You can download at

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/downloads/downloads.htm

 

Read postings to date on

http://www.love-yoga.com/Ramana/Advaita_Bhoda/Index.htm