उपदेशसाहस्री (आदि शङ्कराचार्य - गद्य व पद्य भाग)

14-19] 'THOU ART THAT' 223 सदसीति फलं चोक्त्वा विधेयं साधनं यतः । न तदन्यत्प्रसंख्यानात्प्रसिद्धार्थमिहेष्यते ॥ १७ ॥ 17. (Just as everywhere in the Vedas) the means to an end is enjoined after stating the result¹ to be achieved, so, here² (the result, 'Thou art That' is stated and) the means can be nothing but this repetition which only³ is regarded as being capable of revealing an eternally existing thing.⁴ तस्मादनुभवायैव प्रसंचक्षीत यत्नतः । त्यजन्साधनतत्साध्यविरुद्धं शमनादिमान् ॥ १८ ॥ 18. Therefore, practising self-control etc. and re- nouncing everything⁵ incompatible with this end⁶ and the means⁷ to it one should carefully practise the said reiteration in order directly to know the Self. नैतदेवं रहस्यानां नेतिनेत्यवसानतः । क्रियासाध्यं पुरा श्राव्यं न मोक्षो नित्यसिद्धतः ॥ १९ ॥ 19. (Reply). This is not so; for the Upanishats end⁸ with 'Not this, not this' (and deal with nothing⁹ else). Results to be achieved by means of actions are heard of in the previous¹⁰ part of the Vedas but ¹ For example, 'desirous of attaining heaven a man should per- form sacrifices.' Similarly, desirous of attaining Brahman one should practise the said repetition. ² In the Vedântas. ³ And not sacrifices etc. ⁴ Brahman. ⁵ All actions. ⁶ The direct Knowledge of Brahman. ⁷ The said repetition. ⁸ I.e., with Brahman having duality negated from It. ⁹ I.e., they do not enjoin actions. ¹⁰ In the work portion.

224 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII not liberation which has an eternal existence (and is not achievable by means of any action). पुत्रदुःखं यथाऽध्यस्तं पित्राऽदुःखे स्व आत्मनि । अहंकर्ता तथाऽध्यस्तो नित्यादुःखे स्व आत्मनि ॥ २० ॥ 20. Just as the distress experienced by one's son is superimposed by the father on himself who has no dis- tress at all, so, the ego is superimposed on the Self which is eternally free from any pain whatsoever. सोऽध्यासो नेतिनेतीति प्राप्तवत्प्रतिषिध्यते । भूयोऽध्यासविधिः कश्चित्कुतश्चिन्नोपपद्यते ॥ २१ ॥ 21. This superimposition (of the ego on the Self) is negated on the evidence of the Sruti ‘ Not this, not this ’, as if ¹ it were a reality. And hence no injunctions ² which are all due to superimposition can by any means be reasonable (after such a negation has taken place). आत्मनीह तथाध्यासः प्रतिषेधस्तथैव च । मलाध्यासनिषेधौ खे क्रियेते च यथाऽबुधैः ॥ २२ ॥ 22. Just as colour is superimposed on and negated from the sky by ignorant people, so, there are the superimposition (of the ego) on the Self and its negation from It. प्राप्तश्चेत्प्रतिषिध्येत मोक्षोऽनित्यो भवेद्ध्रुवम् । अतोऽप्राप्तनिषेधोऽयं दिव्यग्निचयनादिवत् ॥ २३ ॥ ¹ For it is only things superimposed that are negated. ² Such as, the repetition of the sentence.

20-26] ' THOU ART THAT ' 225 23. This negation is not one of a reality, but of a false superimposition only like the prohibition of the placing of fire¹ on the highest region of the sky ; for liberation would have surely been transitory if things really existing were negated. सम्भाव्यो गोचरे शब्दः प्रत्ययो वा न चान्यथा । न सम्भाव्यौ तदात्मत्वादहंकर्तुस्तथैव च ॥ २४ ॥ 24. It is only to objects of knowledge and not to non-objects that a word² or an idea² can be applied. Brahman which is the Self of them and also of the ego is not within the scope of a word or an idea. अहंकर्त्रात्मनि न्यस्तं चैतन्ये कर्तृतादि यत् । नेति नेतीति तत्सर्वं साहंकर्त्रा निषिध्यते ॥ २५ ॥ 25. Everything such as agency etc. superimposed³ by the ego on (the Self), Pure Consciousness is negated together with the ego on the evidence of the Sruti, ‘Not this, not this.’ उपलब्धिः स्वयंज्योतिर्दृशिः प्रत्यक्सदक्रियः । साक्षात्सर्वान्तरः साक्षी चेता नित्योऽगुणोऽद्वयः ॥ २६ ॥ 26. (The Self is then known to be) Intelligence, Self-effulgent, a Seer, the Innermost, Existence, free from actions, directly cognised, the Self of all, the ¹ There is the scriptural statement that fire should be placed neither in the highest nor in the middle region of the sky. The placing of fire in those two regions is an impossibility ; still it is forbidden like the real placing of fire on the earth. ² I.e., all the evidences. ³ Through the indiscrimination between the intellect and the Self. 15

226 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII Witness, One imparting consciousness to others, Eternal, devoid of qualities and without a second. संनिधौ सर्वदा तस्य स्यात्तदाभोऽभिमानकृत् । आत्मात्मीयं द्वयं चातः स्यादहंममगोचरः ॥ २७ ॥ 27. On account of the constant proximity of the conscious Self the ego also appears to be conscious.¹ Hence the two things viz., oneself ² and things related to oneself denoted by the words, 'I' and 'mine' originate. जातिकर्मादिमत्त्वाद्धि तस्मिञ्छब्दास्त्वहंकृति । न कश्चिद्वर्तते शब्दस्तदभावात्स्व आत्मनि ॥ २८ ॥ 28. As the ego is possessed of species action, etc. words are applicable to it. But no word can be used with respect to the innermost Self owing to the absence ³ of these from it. आभासो यत्र तत्रैव शब्दाः प्रत्यग्दृशि स्थिताः । लक्षयेयुर्न साक्षात्तमभिदध्युः कथंचन ॥ २९ ॥ नह्यजात्यादिमान्कश्चिदर्थः शब्दैर्निरूप्यते ॥ ३० ॥ 29, 30. Words which denote the ego and the other things which reflect the innermost Self express the latter only indirectly but by no means describe It directly. For nothing that has no species etc. can be described by means of words. ¹ E.g., Proximate to a red flower a crystal appears to be red. ² The experiencer, the agent. ³ See verse 24 above.

27-33] ' THOU ART THAT ' 227 आत्माभासो यथाहंकृदात्मशब्दैस्तथोच्यते । उल्मुकादौ यथाग्न्यर्थाः परार्थत्वान्न चाञ्जसा ॥ ३१ ॥ 31. Just as words denoting¹ the action of fire are applied only indirectly and nor directly to torches etc. (having fire in them) as they imply a thing² different from torches etc. ; so, words³ implying the Self are applied to the ego having the reflection of the Self (and appearing like It). मुखादन्यो मुखाभासो यथादर्शानुकारतः । आभासान्मुखमप्येवमादर्शाननुवर्तनात् ॥ ३२ ॥ अहंकृत्यात्मनिर्भासो मुखाभासवदिष्यते । मुखवत्स्मृत आत्मान्योऽविविक्तौ तौ तथैव च ॥ ३३ ॥ 32, 33. As it imitates the mirror the reflection of a face is different from the face. The face which does not depend on the mirror (for its existence) is also different⁴ from its reflection. Similarly, the reflection of the Self in the ego is also regarded (as different from the pure Self) like that of the face which is different from the face. The pure Self is considered to be different (from Its reflection) like the face (which is different from its own). In fact, however, the Self and ¹ The word: 'burn' for example, is used with reference to a torch when we say 'The torch burns a thing'. ² Fire. ³ E.g., the word, 'I' implying Existence, Knowledge, Bliss, etc. ⁴ As a matter of fact it is the real face reflected in a mirror and acquiring, as it were, the quality of being in it and possessing its properties that is called the reflection. The reflection cannot be real, because it is not always in the mirror; nor can it be called absolutely unreal, because it is sometimes seen there. Therefore, the reflection is indescribable and the face is different from it.

228 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII Its reflection are free ¹ from (real) distinction (between each other like the face and its reflection ²). संसारी च स इत्येक आभासो यस्त्वहंकृति । वस्तुच्छाया स्मृतेरन्यान्माधुर्यादि च कारणम् ॥ ३४ ॥ 34. (Objection). Some say that the reflection in the ego (as distinct from the Self) is the individual soul.³ (But if one asks how the reflection which is not a reality can experience anything at all the objector answers that) the reflection is a reality as the shadows of things are known to be realities according to the _Smriti._⁴ Not only so, there is another reason also (why a shadow should be regarded as a reality). For a man in a shadow feels refreshingly cool. ज्ञैकदेशो विकारो वा तदाभासाश्रयः परे । अहंकर्तैव संसारी स्वतन्त्र इति केचन ॥ ३५ ॥ 35. (Other objections). Some say that the indi- vidual soul is a part of Pure Consciousness. Others hold that it is a modification of the same. Still others are of opinion that the ego together with the reflection ¹ Though there is an apparent distinction there is not a real one between the Self and Its reflection nor between the Self and the intellect. For as a matter of fact neither the reflection nor the in- tellect has an existence independent of the Self. The conclusion is that Pure Consciousness, reflected in Ignorance and the ego etc., its modifications, is regarded as the individual experiencing trans- migratory existence owing to a nondiscrimination between Itself and Its reflection. See verse 43 of this Chapter. ² Which has an existence dependent on that of the face. ³ The experiencer of this transmigratory existence. ⁴ 'One should not deliberately cross the shadows of one's teachers and other superiors.' ⁵ Therefore a shadow must be a real thing having the property of coolness.

34-38] 'THOU ART THAT' 229 of Pure Consciousness in it is the individual soul. Others again think that it is the independent ego, (neither a part nor a modification,) which is the experiencer of this mundane existence. अहंकारादिसंतानः संसारी, नान्वयी क्वचित् । इत्येवं सौगता आहुस्तत्र न्यायो विचार्यताम् ॥ ३६ ॥ 36. The¹ Buddhists say that the series of the momentary² consciousnesses, 'I' and so on, is the individual soul. There is no witness³ (distinct from the series to see the beginning and the end of these momentary phenomena). Now examine which of these doctrines⁴ is reasonable. संसारिणां कथा त्वास्तां प्रकृतं त्वधुनोच्यते । मुखाभासो य आदर्शे धर्मो नान्यतरस्य सः । द्वयोरेकस्य चेद्धर्मो वियुक्तेऽन्यतरे भवेत् ॥ ३७ ॥ 37. Let us now stop discussing the different doctrines about the transmigratory soul. Let us go on with the present subject.⁵ The reflection of the face in the mirror is a property neither of the face nor of the mirror. For if it were the property of either of the two, it would continue even if the other were removed. मुखेन व्यपदेशात्स मुखस्यैवेति चेन्मतम् । नादर्शानुविधानाच्च मुखे सत्यविभावतः ॥ ३८ ॥ ¹ See verse 23, Chapter 16. ² Produced and destroyed every moment. ³ See footnote 1, verse 14, Chapter 16. ⁴ Including that of the author. See footnote 1, p. 228. ⁵ Viz., the reflection. Five alternatives are discussed. Verses 37, 38, 39 (first line), 39 (second line) to 42, and 43. The last one is the conclusion according to this book.

230 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII 38. If it is argued that it¹ is a property of the face because it¹ is called after it, that cannot be so. For it imitates² the mirror and is not seen even when the face is there (but the mirror is removed). द्वयोरेवेति चेत्तन्न द्वयोरेवाप्यदर्शनात् । अदृश्यस्य सतो दृष्टिः स्याद्राहोश्चन्द्रसूर्ययोः ॥ ३९ ॥ 39. (First line). If you say that it is the property of both, we say 'No'; because it is not seen even when both are present (but improperly placed). (Second line). (Objection). It may be said that Râhu, a real thing, though invisible, is (sometimes) seen³ in the sun and moon; (so the reflection of the face, a reality, though invisible, is sometimes⁴ seen in the mirror). राहोः प्रागेव वस्तुत्वं सिद्धं शास्त्रप्रमाणतः । छायापक्षे त्ववस्तुत्वं तस्य स्यात्पूर्वयुक्तिः ॥ ४० ॥ 40. (Reply). That Râhu is a real⁵ thing is known from the scriptures⁶ before one sees it in the sun or moon. But according to those who hold that it is the shadow of the earth it cannot be a real thing and the unreality of the reflection has been proved by arguments before.⁷ ¹ That is, the reflection of the face. ² I.e., undergoes changes that the mirror is subject to. ³ During eclipses. See footnote 4, verse 34, Ch. 17. ⁴ When a mirror is properly placed. ⁵ See footnote 4, verse 34, Ch. 17. ⁶ But there is no such evidence with regard to the existence of the reflection. ⁷ Verses 37-39 above.

38-44] 'THOU ART THAT' 231 छायाक्रान्तेर्निषेधोऽयं नतु वस्तुत्वसाधकः । नह्यर्थान्तरनिष्ठं सद्वाक्यमर्थान्तरं वदेत् ॥ ४१ ॥ 41. This is a prohibition¹ regarding the crossing of the shadows (of one's teachers and other superiors) ; but it does not prove the reality of a shadow as a sentence expressing one meaning cannot express another at the same time. माधुर्यादि च यत्कार्यमुष्णद्रव्याद्यसेवनात् । छायाया न त्वदृष्टत्वाद्पामेव च दर्शनात् ॥ ४२ ॥ 42. That one feels cool while sitting in a shadow² is not the effect of the shadow on one. It is due to one's refraining from using warm things. Coolness is found to belong to water but not to a shadow.³ आत्माभासाश्रयाश्चैवं मुखाभासाश्रया यथा । गम्यन्ते शास्त्रयुक्तिभ्यामाभासासत्त्वमेव च ॥ ४३ ॥ 43. The Self, Its reflection and the seat of the reflection, (i.e., the intellect) are comparable to the face, its reflection and the mirror. The unreality of the reflection is known from the scriptures and reasoning. न दृशेरविकारित्वादाभासस्याप्यवस्तुतः । नाचित्त्वाद्हंकर्तुः कस्य संसारिता भवेत् ॥ ४४ ॥ 44. (Objection). Who is the experiencer of trans- migratory existence as it cannot belong to the Self ¹ See footnote 4, verse 34. ² See verse 34 above. ³ For, sitting in the shadow of a hot piece of stone, one does not feel cool at all.

232 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII which is changeless, neither to the reflection which is not real nor to the ego which is not a conscious entity ? अविद्यामात्र एवातः संसारोऽस्त्वविवेकतः । कूटस्थेनात्मना नित्यमात्मवानात्मनीव सः ॥ ४५ ॥ 45. (Reply). Let the transmigratory condition then be only a delusion due to the indiscrimination (between the Self and the non-Self). It always has an (apparent) existence due to the real existence of the changeless Self and, therefore, appears to be pertaining to It. रज्जुसर्पो यथा रज्ज्वा सात्मकः प्राग्विवेकतः । अवस्तु सन्नपि ह्येष कूटस्थेनात्मना तथा ॥ ४६ ॥ 46. Just as a rope-snake (a rope mistaken for a snake), though unreal, has an existence due to that of the rope before the discrimination between the rope and the snake takes place; so, the transmigratory condition, though unreal, is possessed of an existence¹ due to that² of the changeless Self. आत्माभासाश्रयश्चात्मा प्रत्ययैः स्वैर्विकारवान् । सुखी दुःखी च संसारी नित्य एवेति केचन ॥ ४७ ॥ 47. Some say that the Self, to which the reflection belongs, though changeful on account of the modifica- tions of the mind pertaining to Itself such as, ‘I am happy’, ‘I am miserable’ and, though an experiencer of the transmigratory condition, is eternal. ¹ Empirical or phenomenal existence. ² Real existence.

45-52] 'THOU ART THAT' 233 आत्माभासापरिज्ञानाद्याथात्म्येन विमोहिताः । अहंकर्तारमात्मेति मन्यन्ते ते निरागमाः ॥ ४८ ॥ 48. Having no knowledge of the Vedas and deluded on account of the lack of the real knowledge of the Self and Its reflection they consider the ego to be the Self. संसारो वस्तुसंस्तेषां कर्तृभोक्तृत्वलक्षणः । आत्माभासाश्रयाज्ञानात्संसरन्त्यविवेकतः ॥ ४९ ॥ 49. The transmigratory existence consisting of agency and the experiencing (of pain and pleasure) is, according to them, a reality. They, therefore, continue to be born again and again on account of the ignorance of the nature of the Self, its reflection and the Seat of the reflection, (the intellect) between which they cannot discriminate. चैतन्याभासता बुद्धेरात्मनस्तत्स्वरूपता । स्याच्चेत्तं ज्ञानशब्दैश्च वेदः शास्तीति युज्यते ॥ ५० ॥ 50. That the Vedas imply the Self by means of words such as, 'Knowledge' etc.¹ becomes reasonable if it is true² that the Self is of the nature of Pure Consciousness and the intellect has Its reflection in it. प्रकृतिप्रत्ययार्थौ यौ भिन्नावेकाश्रयौ यथा । करोति गच्छतीत्यादौ दृष्टौ लोकप्रसिद्धितः ॥ ५१ ॥ नानयोर्द्व्यर्थाश्रयत्वं च लोके दृष्टं स्मृतौ तथा । जानात्यर्थेषु को हेतुर्द्व्यर्थाश्रयत्वे निगद्यताम् ॥ ५२ ॥ ¹ Words such as, Existence, Bliss and so on. ² These words will then be applied directly to the intellect with the reflection of the Self in it and indirectly to the Self. See verse 29.

234 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII 51, 52. (Objection).¹ It is well known among the people that the meaning² of the root and that³ of the verbal suffix, though different from each other in each of the words such as, 'does', 'goes', etc., are seen to belong to the same subject.⁴ They are not seen to belong to two different subjects either according to ordinary people or grammarians. Now, please tell me the reason why the meanings of the root and the suffix should belong to two different subjects in the case of the words such as, 'knows' etc. आत्माभासस्तु तिङ्वाच्यो धात्वर्थश्च धियः क्रिया । उभयं चाविवेकेन जानातीत्युच्यते मृषा ॥ ५३ ॥ 53. (Reply). The meaning of the suffix is the reflection of the Self (in the intellect) and the root denotes an action i.e., a modification of the intellect. As the intellect and the reflection are not discriminated from the Self the word 'knows'⁵ is predicated falsely about It. न बुद्धेरवबोधोऽस्ति नात्मनो विद्यते क्रिया । अतो नान्यतरस्यापि जानातीति च युज्यते ॥ ५४ ॥ 54. The intellect has no consciousness and the Self no action. The word 'knows' can, therefore, reason- ably be applied to neither of them. नाप्यतो भावशब्देन ज्ञप्तिरित्यपि युज्यते । न ह्यात्मा विक्रियामात्रो नित्य आत्मेति शासनात् ॥ ५५ ॥ ¹ The discussion begun here ends in verse 69. ² The meaning of a root is an action. ³ The meaning of a verbal suffix is agency. ⁴ E.g., Devadatta. ⁵ Meaning wrongly that the Self is the agent of the action of knowing.

51-58] ‘ THOU ART THAT ’ 235 55. The word ‘knowledge’, in the sense of the action of knowing, cannot, similarly, be applied to the Self. For the Self is not a change only (as is indicated by an action) inasmuch as it is taught (in the Srutis) that It is eternal. न बुद्धेर्बुद्धिवाच्यत्वं करणं न ह्यकर्तृकम् । नापि ज्ञायत इत्येवं कर्मशब्दैर्निरूप्यते ॥ ५६ ॥ 56. The word, ‘knowledge’, in the sense of the instrument of the action of knowing, is applied to the intellect and not to the Self as an instrument cannot exist without an agent.¹ Neither can the word, in the sense of that which is the object of the action of know- ing, be applied to the Self. न येषामेक एवात्मा निर्दुःखोऽविक्रियः सदा । तेषां स्याच्छब्दवाच्यत्वं ज्ञेयत्वं चात्मनः सदा ॥ ५७ ॥ 57. The Self is never knowable and is not directly denoted by any word according to those who hold² that It is eternally changeless, free from pain and one only. यदाहंकर्तृगात्मत्वं तदा शब्दार्थमुख्यता । नाशनायादिमत्त्वात्तु श्रुतौ तस्यात्मतेष्यते ॥ ५८ ॥ 58. If the ego were the Self a word might be applied to it in its primary sense.³ But it is not the Self according to the Sruti as it is possessed of hunger etc. ¹ If the Self becomes an instrument there will be no agent left. ² It is the doctrine of the author. ³ See verse 29 above.

236 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII] हन्त तर्हि न मुख्यार्थो नापि गौणः कथंचन । जानातीत्यादिशब्दस्य गतिर्वाच्या तथापि तु ॥ ५९ ॥ शब्दानामयथार्थत्वे वेदस्याप्यप्रमाणता । सा च नेष्टा, ततो ग्राह्या गतिरस्य प्रसिद्धितः ॥ ६० ॥ प्रसिद्धिर्मूढलोकस्य यदि ग्राह्या निरात्मता । लोकायतिकसिद्धान्तः सा चानिष्टा प्रसज्यते ॥ ६१ ॥ अभियुक्तप्रसिद्धिश्चेत्पूर्ववद्दुर्विवेकता । गतिशून्यं न वेदोऽयं प्रमाणं संवदत्युत ॥ ६२ ॥ 59—62. (Objection). Well, words that have no primary meanings can have no secondary ones also. Therefore, you are to explain the application of the words ‘knows’ etc. The Vedas would lose their authority as an evidence if words were false.¹ But that is not desirable.² (Reply). Should one, therefore, have to accept the application of words according to popular usage ? (Objection). If you accept the usage of ignorant people you will have to arrive at the conclusion of the Chârvâkas who hold that there is no Self (other than the body). But that is undesirable. If, on the other hand, you accept the usage of the learned you will arrive at the same dilemma as before.³ The Vedas which are an authority do not use meaning- less words. आदर्शे मुखसामान्यं मुखस्येष्टं हि मानवैः । मुखस्य प्रतिबिम्बो हि मुखाकारेण दृश्यते ॥ ६३ ॥ ¹ Have no meanings. ² For the Vedas are the only evidence regarding the Self. ³ See verse 54 above.

59-67] ' THOU ART THAT ' 237 यत्र यस्यावभासस्तु तयोरेवाविवेकतः । जानातीति क्रियां सर्वो लोको वक्ति स्वभावतः ॥ ६४ ॥ 63, 64. (Reply). As the reflection appears like the face people accept its oneness with its reflection in a mirror. All people, therefore, naturally use the verbs 'knows' etc. owing to the indiscrimination between that¹ in which there is the reflection and that² which is reflected. बुद्धेः कर्तृत्वमध्यास्य जानातीति ज्ञ उच्यते । तथा चैतन्यमध्यास्य ज्ञातृत्वं बुद्धेरिहोच्यते ॥ ६५ ॥ 65. The Self is said to be knowing³ things on account of the superimposition of the agency of the intellect on It. Similarly the intellect is called a knower owing to the superimposition of Consciousness on it.⁴ स्वरूपं चात्मनो ज्ञानं नित्यं ज्योतिःश्रुतेर्यतः । न बुद्ध्या क्रियते तस्मान्नात्मनान्येन वा सदा ॥ ६६ ॥ 66. Being Eternal, Knowledge which is the nature of the Self described by the Srutis⁵ as the Light (of Consciousness) is never created by the intellect, by Itself or by anything⁶ else. देहेऽहंप्रत्ययो यद्वज्जानातीति च लौकिकाः । वदन्ति, ज्ञानकर्तृत्वं तद्वद्बुद्धेस्तथात्मनः ॥ ६७ ॥ ¹ The intellect. ² The Self. ³ To be the agent of knowing. ⁴ See verse 54. ⁵ Mu. U., 2. 2. 9 and Br. U., 4. 3. 6. ⁶ By the eye etc.

238 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII 67. Just as people regard their bodies as themselves and say that they (bodies) know things, so, they speak of the intellect having the agency in producing know- ledge, and of the Self (as being its seat). बौद्धैस्तु प्रत्ययैरेवं क्रियमाणैश्च चिन्निभैः । मोहिताः क्रियते ज्ञानमित्याहुस्तार्किका जनाः ॥ ६८ ॥ 68. Deluded thus by the modifications of the intel- lect which appear¹ to be conscious and are created the argumentative philosophers say that knowledge is produced. तस्माज्ज्ञाभासबुद्धीनामविवेकात्प्रवर्तिताः । जानातीत्यादि शब्दश्च प्रत्ययो या च तत्स्मृतिः ॥ ६९ ॥ 69. Therefore the words 'knows' etc., the corres- ponding modifications of the mind and their memory are possible on account of the indiscrimination regard- ing the Self, the intellect and the reflection of the Self in it. आदर्शनुविधायित्वं छायाया अस्यते मुखम् । बुद्धिधर्मानुकारित्वं ज्ञभासस्य तथेष्यते ॥ ७० ॥ 70. Just as the properties² of a mirror assumed by the reflection of the face in it are attributed to the face, so, the properties³ of the intellect assumed by the reflection of the Self are superimposed on the Self. ¹ Owing to the mutual superimposition of the Self and the intellect. ² Dark spots etc. ³ Agency etc.

67-74] ' THOU ART THAT ' 239 बुद्धेस्तु प्रत्ययास्तस्मादात्माभासेन दीपिताः । ग्राहिका इव भासन्ते दहन्तीवोल्मुकादयः ॥ ७१ ॥ 71. Therefore, just as torches and other things appear to be possessed of the power of burning (on account of there being fire in them), so, the modifica- tions of the intellect, illumined by the reflection of the Self, appear to be endowed with the power of perception. स्वयमेवावभास्यन्ते ग्राहकाः स्वयमेव च । इत्येवं ग्राहकास्तित्वं प्रतिषिद्ध्यन्ति सौगताः ॥ ७२ ॥ 72. The Buddhist philosophers deny the existence of a Witness by saying that the modifications of the intellect are themselves perceivers and are also per- ceived (by themselves). यद्येवं नान्यदृश्यास्ते किं तद्धारणमुच्यताम् । भावाभावौ हि तेषां यौ नान्यग्राह्यौ सता यदि ॥ ७३ ॥ अन्वयी ग्राहकस्तेषामित्येतदपि तत्समम् । अचितित्वस्य तुल्यत्वादन्ग्यस्मिन्ग्राहके सति ॥ ७४ ॥ 73, 74. Say¹ how to refute (the Buddhists who hold) that the modifications of the intellect are not illumined by a Witness different from them. (In refuting the Buddhists it may be said² that) though a persistent³ Knower, different from the modifications, revealing their ¹ Addressed to the Vedântins who do not accept a reflection of the Self. ² By the said Vedântins. ³ Known to be so on the evidence of recognition: the knower is the same in respect of all the modifications.

240 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII presence and absence must be accepted, it is not necessary to assume a reflection of the Self). (Reply).¹ This persistent Knower also is no better than the modifications themselves as the said Knower, different from the modifications, will be equally non- Conscious.² अध्यक्षस्य समीपे तु सिद्धिः स्यादिति चेन्मतम् । नाध्यक्षेऽनुपकारित्वादन्यत्रापि प्रसङ्गतः ॥ ७५ ॥ 75. If you³ are of opinion that the presence and absence of the modifications will be known owing to the proximity of the permanent Knower we say "No." For the (changeless) Knower will be of no utility. (Even admitting that It will reveal them by Its proximity only) everything⁴ will have mental modifications. अर्थी दुःखी च यः श्रोता स त्वध्यक्षोऽथवेतरः । अध्यक्षस्य च दुःखित्वमर्थित्वं च न ते मतम् ॥ ७६ ॥ कर्ताध्यक्षः सदस्मीति नैव सद्ग्रहमर्हति । सदेवासीति मिथ्योक्तिः श्रुतेरपि न युज्यते ॥ ७७ ॥ अविविच्योभयं वक्ति श्रुतिश्चेत्स्याद्ग्रहस्तथा । अस्मद्वस्तु विविच्यैव त्वमेवेति वदेद्यदि । प्रत्ययान्वयिनिष्ठत्वमुक्तदोषः प्रसज्यते ॥ ७८ ॥ ¹ To the Vedântins who do not accept the reflection of the Self. ² For being a knower (an agent of knowing) it will fall into the category of the non-Self and so will be non-conscious. ³ Those Vedântins who do not accept the reflection of the Self. ⁴ Including non-conscious objects, inasmuch as the knower is all- pervading.

75-80] ' THOU ART THAT ' 241 76—77. Is the hearer (i.e. the aspirant) who is suffering from the misery due to transmigratory exist- ence and seeking liberation the Witness Itself or other than It ? That the Witness is subject to misery and desirous of liberation is not your view.¹ If, on the other hand, he be (other than the Witness) he then an agent, cannot accept the idea, ' I am Brahman, the Witness.' And, (in that case) the teach- ing of the Sruti, ' Thou art That ' would be false, which is not reasonable. 78. (First line). But this teaching may be accepted if the Sruti teaches it without discriminating the two, (the Self and the ego). 78. (Last two lines). But if the Sruti discriminates ² the ego from the innermost Self and then says to the ego ' Thou art That ' the defects spoken of (in the previous verse) will creep in. त्वमित्यध्यक्षनिष्ठश्चेदहमध्यक्षयोः कथम् । संबन्धो वाच्य एवात्र येन त्वमिति लक्ष्येत् ॥ ७९ ॥ 79. If you ³ say that the word ' thou ' means finally the witness you must explain how there can be a relation ⁴ between It and the ego so that the word ' thou ' may express the Witness indirectly. द्रष्टृदृश्यत्वसंबन्धो यद्यध्यक्षेऽक्रिये कथम् ॥ ८० ॥ ¹ For in the absence of a reflection, the Witness, untouched by Ignorance and its effects, cannot become an aspirant. ² The refutation of the Sânkhyas who do not accept the reflection of the Self in the intellect. ³ The Sânkhyas. ⁴ As the reflection is not accepted the relation cannot be ascertained. 16

242 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII 80. (Objection). Suppose the relation is one of the seer and the seen. (Reply). How can it be with regard to the Witness which is devoid of activity ? अक्रियत्वेऽपि तादात्म्यमध्यक्षस्य भवेद्यदि । आत्माध्यक्षो ममास्तीति संबन्धाग्रहणे न धीः ॥ ८१ ॥ 81. If it be contended that there will be the identity of the ego and the Witness though the latter is devoid of activity (we say it cannot be so ; for) the knowledge of the said identity will not be there in the absence of the knowledge of the relation that my Self, the Witness exists. संबन्धग्रहणं शास्त्रादिति चेन्मन्यसे नहि । पूर्वोक्ताः स्युस्त्रिधा दोषा ग्रहो वा स्यान्ममेति च ॥ ८२ ॥ 82. If you think that the relation will be known from the scriptures ¹ it cannot be so. For (in that case) all the three ² defects spoken of before will arise. (And if there be a knowledge of the relation at all) it will be one of 'mine' (but not of identity). अदृशिर्दशिरूपेण भाति बुद्धिर्यदा तदा । प्रत्यया अपि तस्याः स्युस्तप्तायोविस्फुलिङ्गवत् ॥ ८३ ॥ 83. When it is accepted that the non-conscious intellect appears to be conscious its modifications also appear to be so like sparks of red-hot iron.³ ¹ Chh. U., 3. 14. 3. ² (1) The ego cannot know the relation as it is non-conscious, (2) the same is the case with the Witness as it is changeless and (3) the non-conscious ego cannot be taught by the Sruti. ³ It is the conclusion.