LAMP OF NON-DUAL KNOWLEDGE-15

[Guest guest]

ADVAITA BODHA DEEPIKA

[LAMP OF NON-DUAL KNOWLEDGE]

 

SAKSHATKARA CHAPTER VII: 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. 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 rope-snake 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.

D.: Not different from nor identical with the waking experiencer,

who is this dream-experiencer?

M.: Being a creation of the illusory power of sleep the dream-

experiencer is only an illusion like the snake on a rope. With the

finish of the illusory power of dream, the dreamer vanishes only to

wake up as the real substratum, the original individual self of the

waking state. Similarly the empirical self, the jiva is neither the

unchanging Brahman nor other than It. In the internal faculty, the

mind, fancied by ignorance, the Self is reflected and the reflection

presents itself as the empirical, changing and individual self. This

is a superimposed false appearance. Since the superimposition cannot

remain apart from its substratum, this empirical self cannot be

other than the absolute Self.

D.: Who is this?

M.: Successively appearing in the ignorance-created mind and

disappearing in deep sleep, swoon etc., this empirical self is

inferred to be only a phantom. Simultaneously with the disappearance

of the medium or the limiting adjunct (upadhi), the mind, the jiva

becomes the substratum, the True Being or Brahman. Destroying the

mind, the jiva can know himself as Brahman.

24. D.: With the destruction of the limiting adjunct, the jiva being

lost, how can he say `I am Brahman'?

M.: When the limiting ignorance of dream vanishes, the dreamer is

not lost, but emerges as the waking experiencer. So also when the

mind is lost, the jiva emerges as his true Being — Brahman.

Therefore as soon as the mind is annihilated leaving no trace

behind, the jiva will surely realise `I am the Being-Knowledge-

Bliss, non-dual Brahman; Brahman is I, the Self '.

D.: In that case the state must be without any mode like that of

deep sleep. How can there be the experience `I am Brahman'?

M.: Just as at the end of a dream, the dreamer rising up as the

waking experiencer says `All along I was dreaming that I wandered in

strange places, etc., but I am only lying down on the bed,' or a

madman cured of his madness remains pleased with himself, or a

patient cured of his illness wonders at his past sufferings, or a

poor man on becoming a king, forgets or laughs at his past penurious

state, or a man on becoming a celestial being enjoys the new bliss,

or a devotee on uniting with the Lord of his devotion remains

blissful, so also the jiva on emerging as Brahman wonders how all

along being only Brahman he was moving about as a helpless being

imagining a world, god and individuals, asks himself what became of

all those fancies and how he now remaining all alone as Being-

Knowledge-Bliss free from any differentiation, internal or external,

certainly experiences the Supreme Bliss of Brahman. Thus realisation

is possible for the jiva only on the complete destruction of the

mind and not otherwise.

25. D.: Experience can be of the mind only. When it is destroyed,

who can have the experience `I am Brahman'?

M.: You are right. The destruction of the mind is of two kinds:

(rupa and arupa) i.e., in its form-aspect and in its formless

aspect. All this while I have been speaking of destroying the former

mind. Only when it ceases to be in its formless aspect, experience

will be impossible, as you say.

D.: Please explain those two forms of the mind and their destruction.

M.: The latent impressions (vasanas) manifesting as modes (vrittis)

constitute the form-aspect of the mind. Their effacement is the

destruction of this aspect of mind. On the other hand, on the

latencies perishing, the supervening state of samadhi in which there

is no stupor of sleep, no vision of the world, but only the Being-

Knowledge-Bliss is the formless aspect of mind. The loss of this

amounts to the loss of the formless aspect of mind. Should this also

be lost, there can be no experience — not even of the realisation of

Supreme Bliss.

D.: When does this destruction take place?

M.: In the disembodiment of the liberated being. It cannot happen so

long as he is alive in the body. The mind is lost in its form-aspect

but not in its formless one of Brahman. Hence the experience of

Bliss for the sage, liberated while alive.

26-27. D.: In brief what is Realisation?

M.: To destroy the mind in its form-aspect functioning as the

limiting adjunct to the individual, to recover the pure mind in its

formless aspect whose nature is only Being-Knowledge-Bliss and to

experience `I am Brahman' is Realisation.

D.: Is this view supported by others as well?

M.: Yes. Sri Sankaracharya has said: `Just as in the ignorant state,

unmindful of the identity of the Self with Brahman, one truly

believes oneself to be the body, so also after knowing to be free

from the illusion of the body being the Self, and becoming unaware

of the body, undoubtingly and unmistakably always to experience the

Self as the Being-Knowledge-Bliss identical with Brahman is called

Realisation'. `To be fixed as the Real Self is Realisation', say the

sages.

28. D.: Who says it and where?

 

29. M.: Vasishta has said in Yoga Vasishta: `Just as the mind in a

stone remains quiet and without any mode, so also like the interior

of the stone to remain without any mode and thought free, but not in

slumber nor aware of duality, is to be fixed as the Real Self '.

 

30-31. Therefore without effacing the form-aspect of the mind and

remaining fixed as the true Self, how can anyone realise `I am

Brahman'? It cannot be. Briefly put, one should still the mind to

destroy one's individuality and thus remain fixed as the Real Self

of Being-Knowledge-Bliss, so that in accordance with the text `I am

Brahman' one can realise Brahman. On the other hand, on the strength

of the direct knowledge of Brahman to say `I am Brahman' is as silly

as a poor beggar on seeing the king declaring himself to be the

king. Not to claim by words but to be fixed as the Real Self and

know `I am Brahman' is Realisation of Brahman.

32. D.: How will the sage be, who has undoubtingly, unmistakably and

steadily realised Brahman?

M.: Always remaining as the Being-Knowledge-Bliss, nondual, all-

perfect, all-alone, unitary Brahman, he will be unshaken even while

experiencing the results of the past karma now in fruition.

(prarabdha).

33-35. D.: Being only Brahman, how can he be subject to the

experiences and activities resulting from past karma?

M.: For the sage undoubtingly and unmistakably fixed as the real

Self, there can remain no past karma. In its absence there can be no

fruition, consequently no experience nor any activity. Being only

without mode Brahman, there can be no experiencer, no experiences

and no objects of experience. Therefore no past karma can be said

to remain for him.

D.: Why should we not say that his past karma is now working itself

out?

M.: Who is the questioner? He must be a deluded being and not a sage.

D.: Why?

M.: Experience implies delusion; without the one, the other cannot

be. Unless there is an object, no experience is possible. All

objective knowledge is delusion. There is no duality in Brahman.

Certainly all names and forms are by ignorance superimposed on

Brahman. Therefore the experiencer must be ignorant only and not a

sage. Having already enquired into the nature of things and known

them to be illusory names and forms born of ignorance, the sage

remains fixed as Brahman and knows all to be only Brahman. Who is to

enjoy what? No one and nothing. Therefore there is no past karma

left nor present enjoyments nor any activity for the wise one.

36-37. D.: However we do not see him free from the experience of

past karma; on the other hand he goes through them like an ordinary

ignorant man. How is this to be explained?

M.: In his view there is nothing like past karma, enjoyments or

activities.

D.: What is his view?

M.: For him there is nothing but the pure, untainted Ether of

Absolute Knowledge.

D.: But how is he seen to pass through experiences?

M.: Only the others see him so. He is not aware of it.

 

38-39. D.: Is this view confirmed by other authorities?

M.: In Viveka Chudamani, Sri Acharya has said `Simultaneous with the

dawn of knowledge, ignorance with all its effects flees away from

the sage and so he cannot be an enjoyer. However, the ignorant

wonder how the sage continues to live in the body and act like

others. From the ignorant point of view, the scriptures have

admitted the momentum of past karma, but not from the point of view

of the sage himself '.

40. D.: If truly he is no enjoyer, why should he appear to others to

be so?

M.: Owing to their ignorance, the others regard him as an enjoyer.

41-43. D.: Can this be so?

M.: Yes. To the ignorant only the non-dual, pure Ether of Absolute

Knowledge manifests Itself as various beings, the world, God,

different names and forms, I, you, he, it, this and that. Like the

illusion of a man on a post, silver on nacre, snake on rope,

utensils in clay, or ornaments in gold, different names and forms on

the Ether of Knowledge delude the ignorant. The sage who, by

practice of knowledge, has destroyed ignorance and gained true

knowledge, will always remain only as the Ether of Absolute

Knowledge, unaware of enjoyments of fruits of actions or of worldly

activities. Being That, he can be aware as the Ether of Knowledge

only. Nevertheless, owing to their ignorance others see him

otherwise, i.e., as an embodied being acting like themselves. But he

remains only pure, untainted ether, without any activity.

44-46. D.: Can it be illustrated how the sage remaining himself

inactive, appears active to others?

M.: Two friends sleep side by side. One of them reposes in dreamless

sleep whereas the other dreams that he is wandering about with his

friend. Though in complete repose, this man appears active to the

dreamer. Similarly although the sage remains inactive as the

blissful Ether of Absolute Knowledge, he appears to be active to

those who in ignorance remain always caught up in names and forms.

It must now be clear that the realised sage being the pure Self is

not involved in action but only appears to be so.

47-48. D.: Not that there are no experiences whatever for the

realised sage, but they are only illusory. For Knowledge can destroy

the karma already stored and the future karma (sanchita and agamya)

but not the karma which having already begun to bear fruit

(prarabdha) must exhaust itself. As long as it is there, even from

his own point of view, activities will persist, though illusory.

M.: This cannot be. In which state do these three kinds of karma

exist — knowledge or ignorance? Owing to delusion; it must be

said `they are operative only in ignorance.' But in knowledge there

being no delusion, there is no prarabdha. Always remaining

undeluded as the transcendental Self, how can the delusion of the

fruition of karma occur to one? Can the delusion of dream-experience

return to him who has awakened from it? To the disillusioned sage

there can be no experience of karma. Always he remains unaware of

the world but aware of the Self as the non-dual, unbroken, unitary,

solid, without any mode Ether of Absolute Knowledge, and of nothing

besides.

49. D.: The Upanishad admits past karma in the Text `As long as his

past karma is not exhausted the sage cannot be disembodied, and

there will be illusory activities for him'.

M.: You are not right. The activities and experiences of the fruits

of action and the world seem illusory to the practiser of Knowledge

and they completely vanish to the accomplished sage. The practiser

practises as follows: `I am the witness; the objects and activities

are seen by and known to me. I remain conscious and these are

insentient. Only Brahman is real; all else is unreal.' The practice

ends with the realisation that all these are insentient consisting

of names and forms and cannot exist in the past, present or future,

therefore they vanish. There being nothing to witness, witnessing

ends by merging into Brahman. Only the Self is now left over as

Brahman. For the sage aware of the Self only, there can remain only

Brahman and no thought of karma, or worldly activities.

D.: Why then does the sruti mention past karma in this connection?

M.: It does not refer to the accomplished sage.

D.: Whom does it refer to?

M.: Only to the ignorant.

D.: Why?

M.: Although from his own point of view, the sage has no enjoyment

of the fruits of actions, yet the ignorant are deluded on seeing his

activities. Even if told there is no enjoyment for him, the ignorant

will not accept it but continue to doubt how the sage remains

active. To remove such doubt, the sruti says to the ignorant that

prarabdha still remains for the sage. But it does not say to the

sage `You have prarabdha'. Therefore the sruti which speaks of

residual prarabdha, for the sage, really does not speak of it from

his point of view.

 

50-51. D.: Realisation can result only after complete annihilation

of individuality. But who will agree to sacrifice his individuality?

M.: Being eager to cross over the ocean of the misery of repeated

births and deaths and realise the pure, eternal Brahman, one will

readily sacrifice one's individuality. Just as the man desirous of

becoming a celestial being, willingly consigns himself to the fire

or the Ganges in order to end this human life and emerge as a god,

so also the seeker of Liberation will by practice of sravana,

manana, and nidhidhyasana, (i.e., hearing, reflection and

meditation) sacrifice his individuality to become the Supreme

Brahman.

52. Here ends the Chapter on Realisation. Diligently studying and

understanding this, the seeker will kill the mind which is the

limiting adjunct that causes individuality to manifest and ever live

as Brahman only.