उपदेशसाहस्री (आदि शङ्कराचार्य - गद्य व पद्य भाग)

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.

80-87] ' THOU ART THAT' 243 आभासस्तदभावश्च दृशेः सीम्नो न चान्यथा । लोकस्य युक्तितः स्यातां तद्ग्रहश्च तथासति ॥ ८४ ॥ 84. The knowledge on the part of the people of the appearance and disappearance of the mental modi- fications is reasonably possible only on account of (the existence of) the Witness, the limit¹ and not in the contrary case. And in that case (viz., if the reflection of the Self is accepted) the intellect² may know itself to be Brahman. नन्वेवं दृशिसंक्रान्तिरयःपिण्डेऽग्निवद्भवेत् । मुखाभासवदित्येतदादर्श तन्निराकृतम् ॥ ८५ ॥ 85. (Objection). Is it not a change on the part of the Self to pervade the intellect like fire pervading a mass of iron? (Reply). We have refuted³ this in the example of the face and its reflection in a mirror. कृष्णायोलोहिताभासमित्येतद्दृष्टमुच्यते । दृष्टदृष्टान्ततुल्यत्वं न तु सर्वात्मना क्वचित् ॥ ८६ ॥ 86. That black iron appears to be red is only an example (to illustrate the fact that the non-conscious intellect appears to be conscious). An illustration and its subject can nowhere be absolutely similar in all respects. तथैव चेतनाभासं चित्तं चैतन्यवद्भवेत् । मुखाभासो यथादर्शे आभासश्चोदितो मृषा ॥ ८७ ॥ ¹ For It is left over when everything else is negated. ² See verse 29. ³ See verses 33 and 43 above.

244 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII 87. Reflecting Consciousness, therefore, the intellect appears to be conscious like a mirror reflecting a face and appearing like it. It has already¹ been said that the reflection is not real. चित्तं चेतनमित्येतच्छास्त्रयुक्तिविवर्जितम् । देहस्यापि प्रसङ्गः स्याच्चक्षुरादेस्तथैव च ॥ ८८ ॥ 88. It is not supported by the scriptures or reasoning that the intellect is conscious. For in that case the body, the eye, etc. also would be so. तदप्यस्त्विति चेत्तन्न लोकायतिकसंगतेः । न च धीर्वृत्तिरस्मीति यद्याभासो न चेतसि ॥ ८९ ॥ 89. (Objection). Let them be so. (Reply). No. For (in that case) the position of the chârvâka philosophers comes in. Moreover the knowl- edge, 'I am Brahman' also will not be possible² if there be no reflection (of the Self) in the intellect. सदस्मीति धियोऽभावे व्यर्थं स्यात्तत्त्वमस्यपि । युष्मदस्मद्विभागज्ञे स्यादर्थवदिदं वचः ॥ ९० ॥ 90. The teaching 'Thou art That' will surely be useless in the absence of the knowledge, 'I am Brahman'. This teaching is of use to those only who are acquainted with the discrimination³ between the Self and the non-Self. ¹ See verse 43 above. ² For the Self is changeless and the intellect is non-conscious. See also verse 29. ³ See the four following verses, verses 96—98 and 181—183 of this chapter. See also Ch. 6.

87-94] 'THOU ART THAT' 245 ममेदंप्रत्ययौ ज्ञेयौ युष्मद्येव न संशयः । अहमित्यस्मदीष्टः स्यादयमस्मीति चोभयोः ॥ ९१ ॥ 91. 'Mine' and 'it' are ideas predicated of the non-Self and the idea 'I' of the ego.¹ The ideas such as, 'I am a man' are predicated of both the Self² and the non-Self. अन्योन्यापेक्षया तेषां प्रधानगुणतेष्यते । विशेषणविशेष्यत्वं तथा ग्राह्यं हि युक्तितः ॥ ९२ ॥ 92. They³ should be regarded as principal and subordinate with relation to one another and be taken as the qualified or qualifying according to reason. ममेदं द्वयमप्येतन्मध्यमस्य विशेषणम् । धनी गोमान्यथा तद्वद्देहोऽहंकर्तुरेव च ॥ ९३ ॥ 93. Both the ideas 'mine' and 'it' are qualifications⁴ of the ego,⁵ as for example, 'a man having wealth' and 'a man having a cow⁵'; similarly, the gross body is the qualification of the ego.⁶ बुद्ध्यारूढं सदा सर्वं साहंकर्त्रा च साक्षिणः । तस्मात्सर्वावभासो ज्ञः किंचिदप्यस्पृशन्सदा ॥ ९४ ॥ ¹ Which appears like the Self through the reflection. ² The empirical Self, the ego. ³ The ideas about the empirical Self and the non-Self. ⁴ In relation to the idea, 'I am a man'. Wealth or a cow des- cribed as 'it' is described as 'mine' in relation to One's gross body. ⁵ Spoken of in the middle of verse 91. ⁶ The empirical Self described as my Self. The ego again is the qualification of the innermost Self when one says 'I am the Witness.'

246 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII 94. Everything¹ pervaded by the intellect together with the ego² is the qualification of the Witness. With- out being connected with anything and pervading every- thing by means of Its reflection the Self is, therefore, always of the nature of Knowledge Itself.³ प्रतिलोममिदं सर्वं यथोक्तं लोकबुद्धितः । अविवेकधियामस्ति नास्ति सर्वं विवेकिनाम् ॥ ९५ ॥ 95. All this, described according to popular ideas is the reverse (of what is true) and exists for the undiscriminating ; it⁴ does not exist at all for men of Knowledge. अन्वयव्यतिरेकौ हि पदार्थस्य पदस्य च । स्यादेतदहमित्यत्र युक्तिरेवावधारणे ॥ ९६ ॥ 96. Agreement⁵ and contrariety⁵ with regard to words and with regard to their meanings are the only ¹ The gross body and things connected with it. ² Including the whole of the subtle body. ³ This (verses 91—94) is how the Self is discriminated from the non-Self. See verse 90 above. ⁴ Everything described as qualification in the two previous verses. ⁵ The Self is always the witness and never ceases to exist. It is self-existent and never a qualification. (See verse 94 above), It is, therefore, real. The ego etc. that are witnessed by the Self and depend for their existence on It are always of the nature of qualifications. (See verse 94 above). They are, therefore, unreal. These are what are called agreement and contrariety with regard to the meanings of the words. The words such as Self, Existence, Knowledge, Bliss, etc. imply Pure Consciousness. They are neither qualifications nor denote anything qualified. The words agent, experiencer, knower, thin, fat and so on do not denote Pure Consciousness. They are applied to the Self when the body, the senses, etc. qualify It. These are what are called agreement and contrariety with regard to words.

94-100] 'THOU ART THAT' 247 means by which the meaning implied by the word 'I' may be ascertained.¹ नाद्राक्षमहमित्यस्मिन्सुषुप्तेऽन्यन्मनागपि । न वारयति दृष्टिं स्वां प्रत्ययं तु निषेधति ॥ ९७ ॥ 97. (Waking up from deep sleep one says) 'I did not see anything at all in that state.' (From this it is clear that) one denies the existence of the mental modifications, (the knower, knowing and the known) in deep sleep but not that of Knowledge Itself. स्वयंज्योतिर्न हि द्रष्टुरित्येवं संविदोऽस्तिताम् । स्वयमेवाब्रवीच्छास्त्रं प्रत्ययावगती पृथक् ॥ ९८ ॥ 98. The scriptures themselves discriminate between Knowledge Itself on the one hand, and the mental modifications, (the knower, knowing and the known) on the other and prove that the former is changeless and really existing and that the latter deviate from existence, as they say 'It is self-luminous ²' and 'The Know- ledge ³ of the knower does not (cease to exist).' एवं विज्ञातवाक्यार्थे श्रुतिलोकप्रसिद्धितः । श्रुतिस्तत्त्वमसीत्याह श्रोतुर्मोहापनुत्तये ॥ ९९ ॥ ब्रह्मा दाशरथेर्यद्वदुक्त्यैवापानुदत्तमः । तस्य विष्णुत्वसंबोधे न यत्नान्तरमूचिवान् ॥ १०० ॥ ¹ But not the absolute oneness of the meanings of the word, 'thou' and 'that'. See verse 99 of this chapter. ² Br. U., 4. 3. 9. ³ Br. U., 4. 3. 23.

248 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII 99, 100. Just as Brahmâ removed the Ignorance$^1$ of the son of Dasaratha by means of words$^2$ only, but did not teach him any action in order that he might know that he was Vishnu; so, in order that one's Igno- rance may be removed the Sruti, teaches one ‘Thou art That’ when one has learnt the meanings of the subordinate sentences$^3$ according to the Srutis$^4$ and popular grammar. अहंशब्दस्य निष्ठा या ज्योतिषि प्रत्यगात्मनि । सैवोक्ता सदसीत्येवं फलं तत्र विमुक्तता ॥ १०१ ॥ 101. It is the indirectly expressed meaning of the word ‘I’ viz., the innermost and self-luminous Self which is expressed in the teaching, ‘Thou art That.’ And the result is liberation.$^5$ श्रुतमात्रेण चेन्न स्यात्कार्यं तत्र भवेद्ध्रुवम् व्यवहारात्पुरापीष्टः सद्भावः स्वयमात्मनः ॥ १०२ ॥ 102. It would surely be necessary to admit an injunc- tion$^6$ if right knowledge were not produced immediately when one was taught (that one was Brahman). The $^1$ It was assumed by him out of his own accord in order to veil his Powers for some time. $^2$ The words are :—you are Vishnu and not the son of Dasaratha. $^3$ E.g., Existence, Knowledge, Unlimited Brahman. See Tai. U., 2. 1. $^4$ And thus has learnt the meaning implied by the word ‘I’. $^5$ When the knowledge, ‘I am Brahman’ arises on being taught ‘Thou art That.’ $^6$ E.g., an injunction regarding the mental repetition of the idea. ‘I am Brahman’. See verses 9—18 of this chapter to which this is a reply.

99-104] 'THOU ART THAT' 249 Self¹ exists in Its own nature even before² one is taught (the meaning of the sentence, 'Thou art That'). अशनायादिनिर्मुक्त्यै तत्काला जायते प्रमा । तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यार्थे त्रिषु कालेऽप्यसंशयः ॥ १०३ ॥ 103. The listening to the teaching and the production of right knowledge are simultaneous, and the result is the cessation³ of (the transmigratory existence consisting of) hunger etc. There can be no⁴ doubt about the meaning of the sentences like 'Thou art That' in the past, present or future. प्रतिबन्धविहीनत्वात्स्वयं चानुभवात्मनः । जायेतैव प्रमा तत्र स्वात्मन्येव न संशयः ॥ १०४ ॥ 104. The right knowledge of the Self which is of the nature of Pure Consciousness is, no doubt, produced in one at the time (of listening to the teaching) as all obstacles are removed⁵ (beforehand). ¹ The Sruti is the right evidence regarding the knowledge of the eternally existing Self. It cannot, therefore, be said that a wrong knowledge, a futile knowledge, a doubtful knowledge or no know- ledge is produced from the sentence. Verses 102—104 refute these objections. ² So the knowledge arising from the Sruti is not wrong. ³ Which is directly felt and therefore the knowledge is not futile. ⁴ It is felt that one is Brahman in the past, present and future. The knowledge is, therefore, not doubtful. ⁵ Through the method of agreement and contrariety. See verses 96 and 97 above. The ignorance of the implied meanings of the words, 'thou' and 'that' is the only obstacle to the right knowledge of Self- Brahman. It cannot, therefore, be said that no knowledge is produced.

250 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII] किं सदेवाहमस्मीति किंवाऽन्यत्प्रतिपद्यते । सदेव चेदहंशब्दः सता मुख्यार्थ इष्यताम् ॥ १०५ ॥ अन्यच्चेत्सदहंग्राहप्रतिपत्तिमृषैव सा । तस्मान्मुख्यग्रहे नास्ति वारणावगतेरिह ॥ १०६ ॥ 105, 106. Does one understand the word ‘I’ to mean Brahman, Itself or something other than It (when one is taught ‘Thou art Brahman’?) If it is understood to mean Brahman Itself you must accept the absolute identity¹ of the meaning of the word ‘I’ and that of the word Brahman. But if (the word ‘I’ imply something) other than Brahman the knowledge, ‘I am Brahman’ certainly becomes false. The arising of the knowledge of their absolute identity from this sentence cannot, therefore, be denied. प्रत्ययी प्रत्ययश्चैव यदाभासौ तदर्थता । तयोरचितिमत्त्वाच्च चैतन्ये कल्प्यते फलम् ॥ १०७ ॥ 107. Having the reflection of the Self in them the intellect and its modifications exist² for It and are non-conscious.² (Liberation,) the result is, therefore, supposed to be in the conscious Self. कूटस्थेऽपि फलं योग्यं राजनीव जयादिकम् । तदनात्मत्वहेतुभ्यां क्रियायाः प्रत्ययस्य च ॥ १०८ ॥ 108. As neither the intellect (with the reflection of the Self) nor its modification in the form of the ego is of the nature of the result³ or its (material) ¹ Directly expressed by the word ‘art’ the copula in the sentence ‘Thou art Brahman’. ² Therefore they cannot be connected with liberation, the result of right knowledge. ³ Liberation.

105-112] ' THOU ART THAT ' 251 cause the result is capable of being attributed to the Self though immutable, like victory to a King. आदर्शस्तु यदाभासो मुखाकारः स एव सः । यथैवं प्रत्ययादर्शो यदाभासस्तदा ह्यहम् ॥ १०९ ॥ 109. Just as the reflection of a face which makes a mirror appear like it, is the face itself,¹ so, the reflection of the Self in the mirror of the ego making it appear like the Self (is the Self).² So (the meaning of the sentence,) ‘I am Brahman’ (is reasonable). इत्येवं प्रतिपत्तिः स्यात्सदस्मीति च नान्यथा । तत्त्वमित्युपदेशोऽपि द्वाराभावादनर्थकः ॥ ११० ॥ 110. It is only in this way³ and in no other that one knows that one is Brahman (and that Brahman is oneself). Otherwise the teaching, ‘Thou art That’ also becomes useless in the absence of a medium.⁴ श्रोतुः स्यादुपदेशश्चेदर्थवत्त्वं तथा भवेत् अध्यक्षस्य न चेदिष्टं श्रोतृत्वं कस्य तद्भवेत् ॥ १११ ॥ 111. Teaching becomes useful if it is meant for a hearer (i.e. the aspirant). Who will be the hearer if the Witness is not ? अध्यक्षस्य समीपे स्याद्बुद्धेरेवेति चेन्मतम् । न तत्कृतोपकारोऽस्ति काष्ठाद्यद्वन्न कल्प्यते ॥ ११२ ॥ ¹ Not different from the face. ² Not different from the Self. ³ I.e., when the reflection of the Self is accepted. See verse 78 above. ⁴ The reflection of the Self.