LAMP OF NON-DUAL KNOWLEDGE-9

[Guest guest]

ADVAITA BODHA DEEPIKA

[LAMP OF NON-DUAL KNOWLEDGE]

 

50-51. D.: How is it that even scholars in Vedanta have not

succeeded in the pursuit of enquiry?

M.: Though they always study Vedanta and give lessons to others yet

in the absence of desirelessness they do not practise what they have

learnt.

D.: And what do they do otherwise?

M.: Like a parrot they reproduce the Vedantic jargon but do not put

the teachings into practice.

D.: What does Vedanta teach?

M.: The Vedanta teaches a man to know that all but the non-dual

Brahman is laden with misery, therefore to leave off all desires for

enjoyment, to be free from love or hate, thoroughly to cut the knot

of the ego appearing as `I', you, he, this, that, mine and yours, to

rid himself of the notion of `I' and `mine', to live unconcerned

with the pairs of opposites as heat and cold, pain and pleasure,

etc., to remain fixed in the perfect knowledge of the equality of

all and making no distinction of any kind, never to be aware of

anything but Brahman, and always to be experiencing the Bliss of the

nondual Self.

Though Vedanta is read and well understood, if dispassion is not

practised, the desire for pleasures will not fade away. There is no

dislike for pleasing things and the desire for them cannot leave the

person. Because desire is not checked, love, anger, etc., the ego or

the `false-I' in the obnoxious body, the sense of possession

represented by `I' or `mine' of things agreeable to the body, the

pairs of opposites like pleasure and pain, and false values, will

not disappear. However well read one may be, unless the teachings

are put into practice, one is not really learned. Only like a

parrot the man will be repeating that Brahman alone is real and all

else is false.

D.: Why should he be so?

M.: The knowers say that like a dog delighting in offal, this man

also delights in external pleasures. Though always busy with

Vedanta, reading and teaching it, he is no better than a mean dog.

52. Having read all the shastras and well grounded in them, they

grow conceited that they are all knowing, accomplished and worthy of

respect; filled with love and hate they presume themselves

respectable; they are only packasses esteemed for carrying heavy

loads over long distances in difficult and tortuous ways. They need

not be considered as regards non-dual Truth. In the same strain

Vasishta has spoken much more to Rama.

53. D.: Have there been those who being well read in the shastras

have not practised their teachings?

M.: Oh, many. We have also read of them in the puranas. Once there

was a Brahmin, Brahma Sarma by name. He was well versed in the Vedas

and the Vedanta and otherwise an accomplished man too. He would not

practise what he had learnt but would give lessons in it to others.

Filled with love and hate, transgressing the code of conduct by

acting according to greed, and otherwise enjoying himself according

to his own sweet will, after death he passed to hell. For the same

reason, so many more also went the same way.

In the world we see so many learned pandits consumed by pride and

malice. No doubt a study of Vedanta makes one discerning. But if

this is not accompanied by dispassion etc., it is useless and does

not lead to enquiry.

54-56. D.: Will discernment together with dispassion meet the end?

M.: No. In the absence of cessation of activities, these two are not

enough for a successful pursuit of enquiry. In its absence there

will be no desire to enquire into the Self. How can we speak of

success in it?

D.: What will a man with dispassion do if he does not take to

enquiry into the Self?

M.: Activities not ceasing, there is no tranquillity; being

desireless he dislikes all enjoyments and cannot find pleasure in

home, wealth, arts, etc.; so he renounces them, retires into

solitary forests and engages in severe but fruitless austerities.

The case of King Sikhidhvaja is an example of this.

57-59. D.: Then will discernment together with desirelessness and

cessation of activities achieve the end?

M.: Not without the desire to be liberated. If this desire is

wanting, there will be no incentive to enquire into the Self. D.:

What will the man be doing then?

M.: Being desireless and peaceful, he will not make any effort but

remain indifferent.

D.: Have there been men with these three qualities who did not take

to enquiry into the Self?

M.: Yes. Dispassion is implied in all austerities; the mind too

remains one pointed for tapasvis; yet they cannot enquire into the

Self.

D.: What do they do then?

M.: Averse to external pursuits, with their minds concentrated, they

will always remain austere in animated suspense like that of deep

sleep, but not enquire into the Self. As an instance in point, the

Ramayana says of Sarabhanga rishi that after all his tapasya he went

to heaven.

D.: Does not heaven form part of the fruits of enquiry?

M.: No. Enquiry must end in Liberation, and this is freedom from

repeated births and deaths which does not admit of transit from one

region to another. Sarabhanga's case indicates that he could not and

did not enquire into the Self. Therefore all the four qualifications

are essential for enquiry.

60-61. A simple desire to be liberated unaccompanied by the other

three qualities will not be enough. By an intense desire for

liberation a man may take to enquiry but if otherwise unqualified,

he must fail in his attempt. His case will be like that of a lame

man wistfully yearning for honey in a honey comb high up on a tree;

he cannot reach it and must remain unhappy. Or, the seeker may

approach a master, surrender to him and profit by his guidance.

D.: What authority is there for saying that a man not otherwise

qualified but intensely desirous of liberation remains ever unhappy?

62. M.: In the Suta Samhita it is said that those desirous of

enjoyments and yet yearning for liberation are surely bitten by the

deadly serpent of samsara and therefore dazed by its poison. This

is the authority.

In the view that all the four qualities must be together and in

full, there is complete agreement between the srutis, reason and

experience. Otherwise even if one of them is wanting, enquiry cannot

be pursued to success, but after death regions of merit will be

gained. When all the four qualities are perfect and together

present, enquiry is fruitful.

63-69. D.: In conclusion who are fit for enquiry into the Self?

M.: Only those who have all the four requisite qualities in full,

are fit, and not others, whether versed in Vedas and shastras or

otherwise highly accomplished, nor practisers of severe austerities,

nor those strictly observing the religious rites or vows or reciting

mantras, nor worshippers of any kind, nor those giving away large

gifts, nor wandering pilgrims etc. Just as the Vedic rites are not

for the non-regenerate so also enquiry is not for the unqualified.

D.: Can want of requisite qualities disqualify even a very learned

scholar?

M.: Be he learned in all the sacred lore or ignorant of all of it,

only the four fold requisites can qualify a man for enquiry. The

sruti says: " The one whose mind is in equipoise, senses controlled,

whose activities have ceased and who possesses fortitude " is fit for

this. From this it follows that others are not competent but only

those who are possessing the four fold virtues.

70. D.: Is any distinction made amongst seekers who are competent?

M.: For enquiry into the Self there is absolutely no distinction

bearing on caste, stage of life or other similar matters. Be the

seeker the foremost scholar, pandit, illiterate man, child, youth,

old man, bachelor, householder, tapasvi, sanyasi, brahmin,

kshatriya, vaisya, sudra, a chandala or a woman, only these four

qualifications make up the seeker. This is the undisputed view of

the vedas and shastras.

71. D.: This cannot be. How can illiterate men, women and chandalas

be qualified to the exclusion of a pandit learned in the shastras?

He must certainly be more qualified than others. You say that a

knowledge of the shastras is no qualification but practice of their

teachings is. No one can practise what he has not known. How can an

illiterate person qualify himself in the requisite manner?

M.: In reply I ask you and you tell me — how does the learned man

qualify himself?

D.: Because he has known the teachings of the shastras that he

should not do karma for selfish ends but dedicate it to God, he will

do so; his mind will be purified; gradually he will acquire the

dispassion etc., needed for enquiry. Now tell me how an illiterate

man can qualify himself.

M.: He also can. Though not learned now, he might have learnt the

teachings in preceding births, done actions dedicated to God; his

mind being already pure enough, he can now readily acquire the

qualities needed for enquiry into the Self.

72. D.: In the illiterate man, should the sadhanas acquired in

preceding births and later lying as latencies, now manifest

themselves, why should not his learning acquired in those births

similarly manifest itself now?

M.: Some of his past karma may obstruct only the learning from re-

manifesting itself.

D.: If the learning is obstructed, how is not the sadhana also

obstructed from manifestation?

M.: Though the learning is obstructed, the fruits of his valuable

labour cannot be lost; he cannot lose his competence for enquiry.

73. D.: What would happen if his four fold sadhanas were obstructed

as well as his learning?

M.: The result would be that for want of the requisite qualities

neither the scholar nor the other would be fit for enquiry. Both

would be equal.

74-76. D.: No. This cannot be. Though not already qualified, the

scholar having known the teachings can put them into practice and

gradually qualify himself, whereas the other with all his studies

had not already succeeded in his preceding births, and what hope can

there be now that he has forgotten what he had learnt and his

sadhanas are obstructed? Obviously he cannot be successful in

enquiry.

M.: Not so. Though illiterate a man anxious for liberation will

approach a master, learn from him the essence of the scriptures,

earnestly practise the teachings and succeed in the end. Just as a

worldly man ignorant of scriptures yet desirous of heaven, seeks

guidance from a master and by observance, worship and discipline,

gains his end, so also by a master's teachings even an illiterate

man can certainly benefit as much as the scholar with his knowledge.

77-78. D.: Religious rites bear fruits only according to the

earnestness of the man. Only if the seeker of Truth is earnest can a

master's guidance act in the same manner. Otherwise how can it be?

M.: Just as earnestness is the essential factor for reaping fruits

from karma, so it is with the practice of sadhanas by the learned

scholar or the master's disciple. Karma or sadhana cannot succeed if

interest is wanting in them. A scholar or an illiterate man reaps

the fruits of karma according to the interest he takes in its

performance. One who is not earnest need not be considered in any

matter concerning the Vedas or a master.

79. A scholar or an illiterate man, if he has not already qualified

himself as aforesaid, but is now desirous of liberation, should in

right earnest practise the sadhanas so that he may qualify himself

now at least. He will later be fit for enquiry. So no distinction

can be made between a scholar and an illiterate man.

80. D.: If so, regarding fitness for enquiry into the Self, how does

a scholar differ from an illiterate man? M.: The difference lies

only in the learning and not in the practice of sadhana or enquiry.

81-82. D.: No. This cannot be. Though learning does not make any

difference in sadhana, it must certainly weigh in favour of the

scholar in the pursuit of enquiry.

M.: Not so. Shastra is not the means for enquiry. The means consist

of desirelessness etc. Only these can qualify a man for enquiry and

a learning of the shastras does not make any difference. Therefore a

scholar has no advantage over an illiterate man in the field of

enquiry.

83-85. D.: Granted that dispassion etc. form the means for success

in enquiry, even with the necessary sadhanas the enquiry into the

Self must be pursued only in the light of the shastras. Therefore

the study of the shastras should be indispensable for the successful

pursuit of enquiry.

M.: Nonsense! No Shastra is required to know the Self. Does any one

look into the Shastra for the Self? Surely not.

D.: Only if the Self is already known, Shastra will not be required

for enquiry into the Self. But the seeker being deluded has not

known his true nature. How can an illiterate man realise the Self

without studying the shastras which deal with the nature of the

Self? He cannot. Therefore the shastras must be learnt as a

preliminary to realisation.

M.: In that case the knowledge of the Self got from the shastras

will be like that of heaven mentioned in the Vedas, i.e., indirect

and not directly experienced. This knowledge corresponds to hearsay

and cannot be direct perception. Just as the knowledge of the form

of Vishnu always remains indirect and there is no direct perception

of the four armed being or again the knowledge of heaven can only be

indirect in this world, so also the knowledge of the Self contained

in the shastras can only be indirect. This leaves the man where he

was, just as ignorant as before. Only the knowledge of direct

experience can be true and useful; the Self is to be realised and

not to be talked about.

86-88. D.: Has any one said so before?

M.: Sri Vidyaranyaswami has said in Dhyana Deepika:

The Knowledge of the figure of Vishnu gained from shastras that He

has four arms, holding a disc, a conch, etc., is only indirect and

cannot be direct. The description is intended to serve as a mental

picture for worship and no one can see it face to face. Similarly to

know from the shastras that the Self is Being-Knowledge-Bliss

amounts to indirect knowledge and cannot be the same as experience.

For the Self is the inmost being of the individual or the

consciousness witnessing the five sheaths; it is Brahman. This not

being realised, a superficial knowledge is all that is gained by

reading the shastras. It is only indirect knowledge.

D.: Vishnu or heaven being different from the Self can only be

objective whereas the Self is subjective and its knowledge, however

gained, must be only direct and cannot be indirect.

M.: Although spontaneously and directly the Vedanta teaches the

Supreme Truth, " That thou art " meaning that the inmost being of the

individual is Brahman, yet enquiry is the only sure means of Self

realisation. Sastric knowledge is not enough, for it can only be

indirect. Only the experience resulting from the enquiry of the Self

can be direct knowledge.

89-90. Vasishta also has said to the same effect. Shastra, Guru and

upadesa are all traditional and do not straightway make the seeker

directly realise the Self. The purity of the seeker's mind is the

sole means for realisation and not shastra nor the guru. The self

can be realised by one's own acute discernment and by no other

means. All shastras agree on this point.

91. From this it is clear that except by enquiry the Self can never

be realised, not even by learning Vedanta.