Advaita Bhoda Deepika # 25

[Guest guest]

End of post #24

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

the witnessing Self being the substratum on which knowledge

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

ignorance of the 'false-I' is obvious.

 

On hearing the vedanta that there is an inner witness to

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

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

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

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

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

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

now admit that the jiva has the knowledge that 'I am Brahman'.

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

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

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

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

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

experience 'I am Brahman' is impossible.

 

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

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

as the substratum or the witnessing consciousness, the Jiva moves

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

true nature he knows the witness and identifies himself as the

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

Brahman. Thus the experience, 'I am Brahman', is real.

 

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

himself as the witness. The witness is undoubtedly Brahman.

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

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

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

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

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

the jiva, remaining changeful and without becoming the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cannot know 'I am Brahman'.

 

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

ending (samanadhikarana) - 'I' and 'Brahman' - are placed

in apposition in the sacred text 'I am Brahman'? According to

grammatical rules the sruti clearly proclaims the same rank to

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

 

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

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

unconditional and conditional. Here the sruti does not convey

the unconditional meaning.

 

D.: What is this unconditional meaning?

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

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

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

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

that in another and the witnessing consciousness in one being

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

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

the conditional meaning.

D.: What is it?

M.: Discarding all appearances, the sameness of the

substratum in all.

D.: Please explain this.

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

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

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

discarding but retaining the individuality, the jiva, on seeing

Brahman but not becoming Brahman, can know himself as

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

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

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

body, becomes himself a celestial being; by his extraordinary

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

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

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

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

their former individualities and also identify themselves as the

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

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

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

completely losing one's individuality one cannot be Brahman.

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

sine qua non.

 

D.: The changeful individual soul cannot be Brahman.

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

become Brahman?

 

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

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

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

always remains in dread of its tormentor. The constant thought

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

constantly meditating on Brahman, the seeker loses his original

nature and becomes himself Brahman. This is the realisation of

Brahman.

 

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

changing and falsely presented on the pure Being, Brahman,

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

the jiva superimposed on the Reality, Brahman.

D.: These are illusions which are not conditioned

(nirupadhika bhrama) whereas the appearance of the jiva is

conditioned (sopadhika bhrama) and appears as a

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

How can this individuality be done away with?

M.: Undoubtedly individuality lasts as long as the mind

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

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

the mind by meditation.

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

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

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

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

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

a dream-person.

 

22-23. D.: How?

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

his dreams. The dreamer is neither identical with nor separate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

himself with the experiencer of the dream. Moreover no other

experiencer can be seen.

 

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

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