LAMP OF NON-DUAL KNOWLEDGE-12

[Guest guest]

ADVAITA BODHA DEEPIKA

[LAMP OF NON-DUAL KNOWLEDGE]

 

32-33. D.: But for the blissful sheath of deep sleep, what can the

witnessing Consciousness be?

M.: As the blissful sheath, it is ignorant; this ignorance is

recognised later. The recogniser must be different from recognition

and he must be the experiencer of the blissful sheath. Now that he

has fancied himself as the blissful sheath which is none other than

ignorance, he remains ignorant himself because ignorance cannot know

itself. Therefore it follows there must be the witness of this

ignorance who simply illuminates the blissful sheath which appears

as the idea " I do not know anything " , and remains apart from it.

This witness is the Self.

D.: What evidence is there to prove that in deep sleep all is

reduced to dormancy leaving the witness unaffected?

M.: The sruti says " The vision of the Witness can never be lost "

meaning that when all else remains dormant and unknown, the Seer

remains aware as ever.

34-35. D.: Well, in deep sleep which is itself ignorance, a cogniser

is rightly inferred; but in the waking and dream states the

intellectual sheath can be the cogniser and there is no place for a

witness apart.

M.: You cannot think so. Just as in deep sleep the Self is the

cogniser of the ignorance, so also in the other states it is the

witness of the intellect knowing all waking and dream notions such

as I dreamt — I woke up — I went — I came — I saw —

I heard — I know — which clearly indicate a knower. Just as the

witness is admitted to be aware of ignorance, so also it must be of

knowledge as well. Moreover being a knower at one time, and not

knower at another time, the intellectual sheath cannot be the

witness.

D.: If so, let the Self, the witness of the intellect be also the

experiencer.

M.: No, no! The witness of deep sleep and of its experiencer, cannot

be the experiencer of the waking and dream states. D.: If the Self

be the witness of deep sleep and of its experiencer, can It not be

the experiencer of the waking and dream states?

M.: No, he who sleeps must wake up or dream dreams. Never sleeping,

ever aware as the witness of the three states and of their

experiencer who thinks " I slept — I dreamt — I woke up " , the Self

cannot have the three states nor be their experiencer. This cannot

admit of any doubts.

36. D.: Why should not the Self be both witness and experiencer of

the three states?

M.: Just as the witness watching two men fighting with each other

does not fight himself, so also the witness cannot be the

experiencer. Again as the fighter does not simply watch the fight

but himself fights, so also the experiencer cannot be the witness.

Therefore the same Self cannot be both the experiencer and the

witness.

D.: Now what is the conclusion?

M.: The `false-I' is the experiencer and the other one who is

unconcernedly watching the states and their experiencer is the

witness.

37. D.: In that case, for the three states are there three different

witnesses or is there only one?

M.: The witness is only one whereas the states alternate one with

another; the witness does not change. The same continuous awareness

runs through the appearance, staying and disappearance of the three

states. Thus the witness of the three states is the Self. The

witness-hood of the Self has thus been described.

 

38. In this manner the tatastha lakshana of the Self has been

described. Now we shall consider Its swarupa lakshana. It is Being-

Knowledge-Bliss, single, all permeating, untainted, perfect,

unchanged and non-dual.

 

39-41. D.: What is meant by Its `Being'?

M.: Always It remains witnessing the appearance and disappearance of

all the states superimposed on It. Nay more — It was the Witness not

only of the waking, dream and deep sleep states but also of the

births, growths (childhood, youth, old age) and deaths of previous

bodies (just as It is of this body and will be of future bodies). It

is thus the one, continuous, ever existent witness of all these.

Its " Being " is thus obvious.

42. D.: What is meant by Its being `Knowledge'?

M.: Inasmuch as It always remains illumining and manifesting the

three states and their relative `false-I', Knowledge is self evident.

43-46. D.: What is meant by Its being `Bliss'?

M.: Always being the one object of supreme joy, rather supreme joy

itself, the Self is Bliss.

D.: Is not the non-self also pleasing?

M.: No.

D.: Why not?

M.: Not by itself but only as an object of enjoyment for the

individual self, the non-self is dear as husband, wife, child,

wealth, home, pleasing unguents, sweet scents etc.

D.: Why are they said to be not pleasing by themselves?

M.: Should they be so, they must always remain so. At one time, one

thing is pleasing and at other times, the same thing is nauseating.

D.: How?

M.: Take a woman, for instance. When the man is lustful, she is

fancied to be pleasing; when he suffers from fever, she is not

wanted; for a man grown desireless, she is of no interest at all.

According to circumstances the same woman can be pleasing, unwanted,

or of no interest. The same applies to all other objects of

enjoyment. Thus the non-self cannot be pleasing.

47. D.: Is the Self always pleasing?

M.: Certainly; never do you know It to be otherwise.

48-49. D.: In cases of unbearable pain, the Self is given up in

disgust. How can it be said to be always pleasing?

M.: The Self can never be given up because he who in disgust

relinquishes the sufferings that are alien to him, does not give up

himself.

D.: It is the Self that is given up by himself.

M.: In that case, if the Self is given up, there must be another who

gives it up. On the other hand, he being the one who gives up, gives

up the painful body which is different from himself, and not

himself. Furthermore the very fact of occasional disgust with the

body etc., proves that the non-self is painful and the Self joyful.

D.: How does it prove this?

M.: Should the Self be painful, pain could never be disliked.

Because one's true nature is joy, one dislikes pain in the shape of

body etc. Not being natural but only adventitious, ailments are not

liked. Had they been natural, they could not be disliked. Just as

the dislike of illness etc., shows that they are not natural but

only adventitious, so also the dislike of the body etc., shows that

these are similarly not natural and that joy is one's own eternal

true nature. Therefore a sudden and intense disgust with the body

etc., makes a man rid himself of them but not of the Self. This very

fact teaches that the body etc. are not the Self. It must now be

obvious how the Self can never be the object of dislike to any one.

50-51. D.: Even if the Self cannot be detested, can It not be an

object of indifference?

M.: No. Being oneself the one who is indifferent, one can be

indifferent to the non-self e.g. a pebble or a blade of grass but

not to oneself. Therefore the Self is not an object of occasional

dislike like the body, woman etc. nor of indifference like a blade

of grass or a pebble. Always It is Joy Itself.

52-53. D.: If the Self is always pleasing and so are sense objects

at the time of enjoyment, let them also be regarded as pleasing.

M.: The delight in any object is not lasting but what is now

delightful soon yields its place to another more so. There are

degrees of pleasure and succession of the objects liked. The

pleasure in objects is only wanton and not steady. This is possible

only if the pleasure is born of one's own delusion and not of the

intrinsic value of the object. For example, see how a dog chews a

dry, marrowless bone until blood comes out of the wounds in its

mouth, fancies the taste of its own blood to be that of the marrow

of the bone and will not part with it. Should it find another

similar bone, it drops down the one in its mouth and takes the

other. In the same way, superimposing his own joyful nature on the

detestable objects of fancy, the man delights in them by mistake,

for joy is not their nature. Owing to the ignorance of man the

objects which are really painful by nature seem to be pleasing. This

seeming pleasure does not remain steady in one object but often

shifts to other objects; it is wanton, graded, and not absolute,

whereas the Joy of the Self is not captious. Even when the body

etc., are cast off, this joy endures in the Self for ever; it is

also absolute. Therefore the Self is Supreme Bliss. So far the Being-

Knowledge-Bliss nature of the Self has been established.

54. D.: Do these three — Being, Knowledge and Bliss form the

qualities or the nature of the Self?

M.: These are not qualities but the very Self. Just as heat, light,

and redness form the nature of fire and are not its qualities, so

also Being, Knowledge and Bliss are the nature of the Self.

55. D.: If the Self has three forms as Being, Knowledge and Bliss,

are there then three selves?

M.: No. It is only one. Just as the fire showing forth as heat,

light and redness, is not three but only one, or water appearing as

coldness, fluidity and taste is only one, so also the Self shining

forth as Being-Knowledge-Bliss is not three but only one.

56-58. D.: If the Self is only one, how can It be said to be `all

permeating'?

M.: It is correct to say that the Self, being only One, is all

permeating, because It is all knowing, It, as Knowledge, can

permeate all.

D.: Being the inmost Self aware of the five sheaths of the body, can

It be all knowing?

M.: Yes. It can. The whole universe made up of the five elements,

their combinations and mutations is seen by Itself and by no other.

Being insentient, the others cannot know. Otherwise the insentient

like a pot etc., should be knowing. But it is not so. Only It knows

all of them but they do not know It. It is the All knower.

D.: The Self perceives only such things as are within the ken of the

senses and not those beyond. Where does It perceive Mt. Meru or

Heaven?

M.: It knows all. In the Self which is but the Ether of Knowledge,

all that is non-self i.e., insentient, appears in both manners, as

perceived or unperceived. Just as in the Ether of Knowledge and not

elsewhere, the home, lands, village, town and country seem perceived

by the senses, so also things beyond the senses such as Mt. Meru or

heaven appear as unperceived by them.

D.: Can anything unperceived by the senses appear at all?

M.: Yes, it can. Though non-existent like the son of a barren woman,

yet in the Ether of Knowledge, the home etc., appear as objects of

perception, because the latencies of the mind present themselves so.

In the same manner, though unreal and unperceived, Meru etc., are

fancied by the mind and appear in the Ether of Knowledge.

D.: How?

M.: Before the witnessing consciousness in dreams the mental

phenomena present themselves as objects of perception such as the

home etc., and also others beyond perception like heaven etc. In the

same way they do so in the waking state too. Otherwise one cannot

say " I do not know heaven, Meru etc. " However one says " I do not

know heaven, Meru etc. " This means that heaven, Meru etc., appear as

objects unperceived by the senses. Thus the Self which knows all the

insentient nonself, like Mt. Meru etc., is this Self only.

If not found in all (everywhere) but seen only within, as the inner

Self witnessing the five sheaths, how can It know all? Certainly It

cannot do so. In itself the mind fancies things far and near,

perceptible and imperceptible, known and unknown. As their

substratum the Self runs through and knows them all. The Self is

thus all-pervading. Therefore the same Self only is in all and there

can be no doubt of this.

59. D.: Should the Self be all-pervading, It must be associated with

all and therefore tainted.

M.: No. Like the all-permeating ether, It is impartite and therefore

unassociated. Not only untainted like the ether, but also surpassing

it, the Self remains as the Ether of Consciousness. Therefore the

srutis say " This Purusha is certainly untainted. "

60. D.: Being unassociated and thus untainted, beyond all, separate

and indifferent, the Self must be imperfect.

M.: No. There exists nothing different nor similar to It; there are

no parts in It. It remains undifferentiated externally and

internally. It is Perfection. Though all-filling yet It remains

unassociated like the ether.

D.: How can It be all-permeating and yet impartite?

M.: Not here nor there, but all-pervading, It is undivided in space.

Not now, nor then, but ever-present, It is undivided in time. There

is nothing beside the Self, It is the All-Self or the very being of

everything; therefore It is undivided by anything. It remains thus

undivided by any or all these three, all-filling and perfect. Thus

Its Perfection is proved.

61. D.: Because, all-pervading like the ether, the Self fills all,

It must be changeful.

M.: No. Being the witness of all created elements, ether etc., that

undergo changes, such as existence, birth, growth, transformation,

decay and death, the Self cannot Itself be changeful. Otherwise like

the other things It would be changing; then It must be born, grow

and die away. Thus It must fall into the category of insentient

things. If insentient, It cannot at all be aware. On the contrary,

It is known always to remain as the witness of the birth, growth and

decay of all the universe. It is also impartite. Therefore It must

be free from changes.

62-63. D.: To say that the Self is free from changes implies the

existence of non-self which is changing. Then the Self cannot

be `non-dual' and duality must result.

M.: No. There exists nothing besides the Self. It is `nondual'. If

the non-self is not different from the Self, there cannot be duality.

D.: How can the non-self be the Self and not separate from the Self?

M.: The Self is the origin of all. The effect cannot be different

from its cause. We do not see them totally different from each

other. Being the cause of all, the Self is identical with all. There

can be nothing different from It. 64-66. D.: How can the Self be

the origin of all?

M.: Being the seer of all, It is the origin of all.

D.: How can the seer be the origin?

M.: In all cases of illusion, only the seer is found to be the cause

of all of them. When nacre is seen to be silver, the material cause

is no other than the seer; the same is the case with all dream-

visions for they have their origin in the dreamer only. Similarly

with the illusion of the world of the waking state, the seer must be

the cause.

D.: Should the universe be a myth, your conclusion will follow. Is

this universe only a myth?

M.: First there is the authority of the srutis which say that in

dissolution there remains only the non-dual Self and in creation the

names and forms are by Maya superimposed on It like the name and

form of a snake on a dimly visible rope. Secondly, reasoning shows

the illusory nature of this universe because it is seen to appear

and disappear like the unreal visions in dreams.

Thirdly, the sages have proclaimed their realisation that all this

is but illusory and that only Brahman is real. Therefore all this

universe is really false. Now it is but right to say that being the

witness, the Self is the sole cause of all this universe which is

but an illusory appearance on the Self. The illusory effect cannot

be separate from the basis. Just as the foam, bubbles and waves are

not different from their origin, the sea, so also the phenomena of

the Universe are but the Self falsely presented. Therefore the Self

is `non-dual' and there can be no duality.

67. In the presence of the master always attentively to study the

Vedanta shastra which treats of the non-dual Being and retain its

meaning forms the " nature " of sravana or hearing. This must always

be attended to.

 

68. D.: What is the " effect " of this sravana?

M.: It destroys that veiling part of ignorance which hitherto made

one think " Where is this non-dual Self? Nowhere " . To destroy this

ignorant conclusion of the non-existence of the non-dual Self is

its " effect " .

69-70. D.: How long should one continue sravana?

M.: Until the doubt of the non-existence of the non-dual Being does

not rear its head again. The non-recurrence of this doubt is said to

be the " limit " of the process of sravana.

D.: Can the doubt once set at rest, recur?

M.: Yes, it can.

D.: How?

M.: In many passages in the srutis, duality is dealt with and can

easily be mistaken to be proved. For instance, one studies the

shastras dealing with Vishnu and becomes devoted to Him; later on,

finding other gods similarly dealt with, one's devotion to Vishnu is

likely to suffer. In the same manner, a study of the Advaita

shastras removes the doubt regarding nondual Being, yet the dvaita

shastras may lead to a different conclusion and the student may lose

faith in the non-duality of Being. Therefore one must continue

sravana till the different texts do not shake one's reasoned faith

in non-dual Being.

D.: What is the " fruit " of sravana?

M.: When once for all the non-belief in the non-duality of Being is

destroyed, no sacred text or tricky argument can make the seeker

deviate from his faith. All obstructions to his faith thus removed,

he remains steady in his indirect knowledge of non-dual Being. This

is the " fruit " of sravana.

71. D.: What is this indirect knowledge?

M.: To know the true nature of the inmost Self, not by direct

experience but by a study of the shastras, is called indirect

Knowledge. Although one does not see Vishnu face to face yet through

the evidence of the shastras one believes in His existence; this

forms only common (samanya) knowledge. Similarly a common knowledge

of non-duality of Brahman gained through the advaita shastras is

indirect knowledge.

72-76. D.: Why should the knowledge arising from sravana be said to

be indirect? Can it not be direct?

M.: No. So long as the Inner Self cannot shine forth owing to the

other veiling aspect of Ignorance (abhanavarana) mere knowledge of

Its existence cannot be called direct.

D.: Is this confirmed by others also?

M.: Yes. Sri Vidyaranyaswamy says in Dhyana Deepika:

" Though by sravana, Brahman can be understood to be Being-Knowledge-

Bliss, yet It cannot thus be directly experienced as the sole-Being

witnessing the five sheaths. Although from the shastras, Vishnu is

understood to be four-armed, holding a disc, a conch and a mace in

His hands, and even a mental picture of Him can manifest in one-

pointed meditation, yet He is not seen directly with these eyes;

therefore the knowledge of Him remains only indirect. " The knowledge

gained from the shastras is thus only indirect and not directly

experienced. Similarly the knowledge gained by sravana can remain

only indirect and is not directly experienced.

D.: Here Vishnu is not the Self but is different. It is but right

that knowledge of Him gained from the shastras remains indirect. But

Brahman is not different from the Self. To the seeker who is

ignorant of this identity, the srutis reveal the fact saying, " That

thou art " . On learning its true significance he should be said to

have directly realised the Truth. This knowledge cannot remain

indirect like that of heaven etc. Sravana must therefore end in

directly experienced knowledge.

M.: Not so. It is true that the sacred text reveals the Truth, " That

thou art " . Still direct knowledge does not result merely by hearing

it. In the absence of enquiry into the Self, knowledge cannot become

direct. In order to have this indirect knowledge directly

experienced, it is necessary to reflect on it.

77. Here ends the chapter on sravana. The student who reads this

carefully will gain indirect knowledge. In order to experience

directly, he will seek to know the nature of manana or reflection.