उपदेशसाहस्री (आदि शङ्कराचार्य - गद्य व पद्य भाग)

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.

252 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII 112. If you are of opinion that the intellect proximate to the Witness¹ is the hearer it cannot be regarded as deriving any benefit from the Witness as from a piece of wood. बुद्धौ चेत्तत्कृतः कश्चिन्नन्वेवं परिणामिता । आभासेऽपि च को दोषः सति श्रुत्याद्यनुग्रहे ॥ ११३ ॥ 113. But the Witness must be admitted to be subject to change if there be any benefit rendered by It to the intellect. What harm is there if the reflection of the Self is accepted as it is supported by the Śrutis² and Smritis?³ आभासे परिणामश्चेन्न रज्ज्वादिनिभत्ववत् । सर्पादेश्च तथाऽवोचमादर्शे च मुखत्ववत् ॥ ११४ ॥ 114. If you say that there will be changes in the Self in case the reflection is accepted we say ‘No.’ For we have already said (that the reflection of Consci- ousness in the intellect is an unreality) like a snake appearing to be a rope and (like the reflection of a face) in a mirror appearing to be the face itself. नात्माभासत्वसिद्धिश्चेदात्मनो ग्रहणात्पृथक् । मुखादेश्च पृथक्सिद्धिर्हि त्वन्योन्यसंश्रयः ॥ ११५ ॥ अध्यक्षस्य पृथक्सिद्धावाभासस्य तदीयता । आभासस्य तदीयत्वे ह्यध्यक्षव्यतिरिक्तता ॥ ११६ ॥ ¹ Which only exists and is actionless. ² Br. U., 2. 5. 19. ³ Bh. Gîtâ, 15. 7.

112-119] ' THOU ART THAT ' 253 115, 116. (Objection). No. There will be the fallacy of reciprocal dependence here as the knowlege of the reflection depends on that of the Self (and the knowledge of the Self depends on that of the reflec- tion) ; (but it is not so in the case of the face etc. and their reflections) as the face etc. are always known independent of their reflections. The reflection may be said to belong to the Self if the latter be known to have an independent existence. Again, the Self may have an independent existence if the reflection belongs to It.¹ नैवं स्वप्ने पृथक्सिद्धेः प्रत्ययस्य दृशेस्तथा । रथादेस्तत्र शून्यत्वात्प्रत्ययस्यात्मना ग्रहः ॥ ११७ ॥ 117. (Reply). It is not² so. For the intellect and the Self are known to exist independent of each other in dream (like the face and its reflection), as the Self then illumines the modifications (of the intellect) in the forms of objects such as, chariots ³ etc. though they are not present in that state. अवगत्या हि संव्याप्तः प्रत्ययो विषयाकृतिः । जायते, स यदाकारः स बाह्यो विषयो मतः ॥ ११८ ॥ कर्मेप्सिततमत्वात्स तद्वान्कार्ये नियुज्यते । आकारो यत्र चार्प्येत करणं तदिहोच्यते ॥ ११९ ॥ ¹ The fallacy spoken of in verse 115 is explained here. ² The intellect is an object of the Self (Pure Consciousness) in dream. The Self must, therefore, be admitted to have an existence independent of that of Its reflection. ³ See Br. U., 4. 3. 9.

254 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII 118, 119. Pervaded by Consciousness mental modi- fications in the forms of objects come into existence. External objects are what impart their forms to these modifications. The most desirable of all things (on the part of the agent), these external objects are called objects of his action. One having such a desire is enjoined to perform actions. The mental modifications in which the forms of external objects are present are called the instruments of his knowledge of objects.¹ यदाभासेन संव्याप्तः संज्ञातेति निगद्यते । त्रयमेतद्विविच्यैवात्र यो जानाति स आत्मवित् ॥ १२० ॥ 120. The ego which is pervaded by the reflection of Consciousness is called the knower or the agent of the action of knowing. One who knows oneself, the witness to be distinct from all these three² is a (real) knower of the Self. सम्यक्संशयमिथ्योक्ताः प्रत्यया व्यभिचारिणः । एकैवावगतिस्तेषु भेदस्तु प्रत्ययार्पितः ॥ १२१ ॥ 121. The modifications of the intellect, called 'right knowledge,' 'doubtful knowledge' and 'false knowl- edge,' deviate from their existence. There is one and the same Consciousness³ in all of them. The diffe- rences are due to the modifications. ¹ In verses 118—122 the Self is shown in the waking state to be distinct from the intellect as It is shown to be so in dream in verse 117. ² The agent, the object and the instrument. ³ Pure Consciousness, the Self.

118-125] ‘ THOU ART THAT ’ 255 आधिभेदाद्यथा भेदो मणेरवगतेस्तथा । अशुद्धिः परिणामश्च सर्वं प्रत्ययसंश्रयात् ॥ १२२ ॥ 122. Just as a jewel differs in colour owing to the proximity of (coloured) things, so, Consciousness differs (according to different modifications of the mind super- imposed on It). Impurities and changes in the Self are all due to Its connection with these modifications. प्रथनं ग्रहणं सिद्धिः प्रत्ययानामिहान्यतः । आपरोक्ष्यात्तदेवोक्तमनुमानं प्रदीपवत् ॥ १२३ ॥ 123. The modifications of the intellect are mani- fested, known and endowed with existence¹ by another, i.e. the Self which is immediately known and different from them. It is inferred with the help of the example of a lamp.² किमन्यद्ग्राहयेत्कश्चित्प्रमाणेने तु केनचित् । विनैव तु प्रमाणेन निवृत्त्यान्यस्य शेषतः ॥ १२४ ॥ 124. Does one make another accept the Self by means of a positive evidence or without one by merely negating the non-Self and leaving over the Self only ? ³ शब्देनैव प्रमाणेन निवृत्तिश्चेदिहोच्यते । अध्यक्षस्याप्रसिद्धत्वाच्छून्यतैव प्रसज्यते ॥ १२५ ॥ ¹ Kath. U. 5. 15. ² The discussion begun here ends in verse 140. ³ After stating that the Self is proved by positive evidence in verse 123 the author refutes in verses 124-140 the doctrine that It is proved by negative evidence only.

256 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII 125. The possibility of a void comes in owing to the witness being unknown ¹ if the non-Self be meant to be negated by means of the evidence of words.² चेतनस्त्वं कथं देह इति चेन्नाप्रसिद्धितः । चेतनस्यान्यतः सिद्धावेवं स्यादन्यहानतः ॥ १२६ ॥ 126. (Objection). ‘You are a conscious being, how³ can you be the body?’ (Reply). It cannot be so proved as the Self is not known (from any other evidence). It might be proved by negating the non-Self if Pure Conciousness were known to exist through an evidence. अध्यक्षः स्वयमस्त्येव चेतनस्यापरोक्षतः । तुल्य एवं प्रबोधः स्यादन्यस्यासत्त्ववादिना ॥ १२७ ॥ 127. (Objection). The Self is self-existent as Pure Consciousness is immediately known. (Reply). The knowledge of the Self (according to you) then becomes similar⁴ to that of the void assumed by the Nihilist. अहमज्ञासिषं चेदमिति लोकस्मृतेरिह । करणं कर्म कर्ता च सिद्धास्त्वेकक्षणे किल ॥ १२८ ॥ 128. (Objection). That the agent, the object and instrument are known to exist simultaneously is proved by memory, (e.g., when one says) ‘I⁵ knew it.’ ¹ By any other evidence. ² The Srutis. ³ The idea is that the Self and the non-Self being contradictory to each other, the former is left over when the latter is negated. ⁴ As regards the want of an evidence. ⁵ The objector tries to prove the independent existence of the Self by showing that there must be a Self-evident principle through which the three things are known simultaneously. And that is the Self.

125-131] ‘ THOU ART THAT ’ 257 प्रामाण्येऽपि स्मृतेः शैघ्र्याद्यौगपद्यं विभाव्यते । क्रमेण ग्रहणं पूर्वं स्मृतेः पश्चात्तथैव च ॥ १२९ ॥ 129. (Reply).¹ Though memory is a right evidence simultaneity is a misconception due to quick perception. So they were perceived before one after another and afterwards remembered in the same way. अज्ञासिषमिदं मां चेत्यपेक्षा जायते ध्रुवम् । विशेषोऽपेक्ष्यते यत्र तत्र नैवैककालता ॥ १३० ॥ 130. Relative to, and characteristically different from, each other the things denoted by the words ‘it’ and ‘myself’ in the sentence, ‘I knew it and myself’, cannot be the objects of simultaneous perception. आत्मनो ग्रहणे चापि त्रयाणामिह संभवात् । आत्मन्यासक्तकर्तृत्वं न स्यात्करणकर्मणोः ॥ १३१ ॥ 131. Three things (namely, an agent, an instrument and an object) are necessary in the perception of each ² one of the knower, knowledge and the known. (And in order to avoid a regressus ad infinitum it cannot be said that each of these three things will prove its own existence, because) the agency of the agent exhausted in proving its own existence will not be available to prove that of the instrument and the object (at the same time). ¹ Verses 129—132. ² And also in the perception of each one of the agent, the instru- ment and the object. Hence there arises a regressus ad infinitum with respect to each of them. 17

258 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII व्याप्तुमिष्टं च यत्कर्तुः क्रियया कर्म तत्स्मृतम् । अतो हि कर्तृतन्त्रत्वं तस्येष्टं नान्यतन्त्रता ॥ १३२ ॥ 132. What is desired to be governed by the action of an agent is an object of that action. The object, therefore, depends on the agent and not on the Self which is other than it. शब्दाद्वानुमितेर्वापि प्रमाणाद्वा ततोऽन्यतः । सिद्धिः सर्वपदार्थानां स्यादज्ञं प्रति नान्यथा ॥ १३३ ॥ 133. It is only through evidences such as, words,¹ inference, etc.² and in no other way that all things become known to those who do not know them. अध्यक्षस्यापि सिद्धिः स्यात्प्रमाणेन् विनैव वा । विना स्वस्य सिद्धिस्तु ज्ञानं प्रत्युपयुज्यते ॥ १३४ ॥ 134. Is the Self also³ substantiated by means of an evidence or not ? Though the Self Itself is independent of evidence, evidence is necessary in order to know It. तस्यैवाज्ञत्वमिष्टं चेज्ज्ञानत्वेऽन्या मतिर्भवेत् । अन्यस्यैवाज्ञतायां च तद्विज्ञाने ध्रुवा भवेत् ॥ १३५ ॥ 135. If the conscious Self Itself is taken to be ignorant an evidence is necessary,¹ in order that It may know Itself to be so. It is surely necessary⁴ in knowing the Self if one⁴ (i.e. the ego) other than It be regarded as ignorant. ¹ The Sruti. ² E.g., sense-perception. ³ Like the non-Self. ⁴ In both the cases, therefore, a positive evidence is necessary.

[132-139] ' THOU ART THAT ' 259 ज्ञातता स्वात्मलाभो वा सिद्धिः स्यादन्यदेव वा । ज्ञानत्वेऽनन्तरोक्तौ त्वं पक्षौ संस्मर्तुमर्हसि ॥ १३६ ॥ सिद्धिः स्यात्स्वात्मलाभश्चेद्यत्नस्तत्र निरर्थकः । सर्वलोकप्रसिद्धत्वात्स्वहेतुभ्यस्तु वस्तुनः ॥ १३७ ॥ 136, 137. Does substantiation¹ mean being known, being endowed with existence or anything else² ? You should remember the two alternatives spoken of in the previous verse if it means 'being known'. As it is well-known that all things come to existence from their causes no effort (by way of the application of an evidence³) is necessary for substantiation. ज्ञानज्ञेयादिवादेऽतः सिद्धिर्ज्ञातत्वमुच्यते । अध्यक्ष्याध्यक्षयोः सिद्धिर्ज्ञेयत्वं नात्मलाभता ॥ १३८ ॥ 138. Substantiation, therefore, means 'being known' according to the doctrine in which the knower, knowing and the known are admitted. In the case of both the witness and the witnessed it denotes 'being known' and not 'endowed with existence.' स्पष्टत्वं कर्मकर्त्रादेः सिद्धिता यदि कल्प्यते । स्पष्टताऽस्पष्टते स्यातामन्यस्यैव न चात्मनः ॥ १३९ ॥ 139. If it be assumed⁴ that the distinctness of the agent, the object, etc. is what is substantiation (We ¹ See verse 134 above. ² See verse 139. ³ Even a negative evidence upheld by the objector is not neces- sary. So this alternative is refuted. ⁴ By the Bhâttas.

260 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII say that) there can be distinctness¹ and indistinctness with respect to the other (i.e., the witness) only, but not the agent.² अदृष्टुनैव चान्धस्य स्पष्टीभावो घटस्य तु । कर्त्रादेः स्पष्टतेष्टा चेद्दृष्टनाऽध्यक्षकर्तृता ॥ १४० ॥ 140. There is no distinctness of a jar to a blind man having no power of vision. (It is nothing more than the jar being known.³) If, however, they⁴ want to predicate distinctness about the agent etc., they must admit that Knowingness belongs to the Self.⁵ अनुभूतेः किमन्यस्मिन्स्यात्तवापेक्षया वद । अनुभवितरीष्टा स्यात्सोऽप्यनुभूतिरेव नः ॥ १४१ ॥ 141. Please tell us⁶ what benefit you derive by holding that knowledge depends on other things. If it is contended that dependence (of knowledge) on the knower is desirable (we reply that) the knower also, according to us, is nothing but Knowledge. अभिन्नोऽपि हि बुद्ध्यात्मा विपर्यासितदर्शनैः । ग्राह्यग्राहकसंवित्तिभेदवानिव लक्ष्यते ॥ १४२ ॥ 142. The intellect itself, though indivisible, is looked upon by deluded people as consisting of the divisions of the knower, knowing and the known. ¹ When the Self is reflected in the intellect etc. ² Because the agent, the object, etc. are non-conscious by nature. ³ Therefore substantiation does not mean distinctness. ⁴ The Bhāṭṭas. ⁵ Different from the agent. Here ends the discussion begun in verse 123 of this chapter. ⁶ The Idealists.

140-145] 'THOU ART THAT' 261 भूतिर्येषां क्रिया सैव कारकं सैव चोच्यते । सत्त्वं नाशित्वमस्याश्चेत्सकर्तृत्वं तथेष्यताम् ॥ १४३ ॥ 143. Actions, agents etc. consist, according to us, (Idealists), of knowledge only. (Reply). You must accept an agent of this know- ledge if you admit its existence and destruction (every moment).¹ न कश्चिच्चेष्यते धर्म इति चेत्पक्षहानता । नन्वस्तित्वादयो धर्मा नास्तित्वादिनिवृत्तयः । न भूतेस्तर्हि नाशित्वं स्वालक्षण्यं मतं हि ते ॥ १४४ ॥ 144. Your own conclusion is given up if you do not admit any quality² (belonging to knowledge). (Objection). The qualities of existence etc. are nothing but the nega- tion of their non-existence and so on. (Reply). Even then knowledge cannot be liable to destruction (every moment) as it is self-existent (and known by itself ³) according to you. स्वलक्षणावधिर्नाशो नाशोऽनाशनिवृत्तिता । अगोरसत्त्वं गोत्वं ते न तु तद्गोत्वलक्षणम् ॥ १४५ ॥ 145. Destruction has for its ultimate limit something which is self-existent.⁴ (You say that) destruction ⁵ is ¹ See verse 23, Chap. 16. ² Such as, existence and destruction every moment. ³ In being born and known by itself it requires more than one moment. It cannot, therefore, be called momentary. ⁴ The appearance and disappearance of things are impossible on account of the absence of a permanent entity (according to you) which must be their ultimate limit. Existence and destruction are, therefore, not possible in your philosophy. ⁵ Destruction being impossible, non-destruction also is so.