उपदेशसाहस्री (आदि शङ्कराचार्य - गद्य व पद्य भाग)

36 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS अनुभूयमानत्वात्; न अविद्यानिमित्तः, अविद्यायाः स्वात्म- विषयत्वानुपपत्तेः । अविद्या नाम अन्यस्मिन् अन्यधर्माध्यारो- पणा—यथा प्रसिद्धं रजतं प्रसिद्धायां शुक्तिकायां, यथा प्रसिद्धं पुरुषं स्थाणावध्यारोपयति, प्रसिद्धं वा स्थाणुं पुरुषे । नाऽप्र- सिद्धं प्रसिद्धे, प्रसिद्धं चाऽप्रसिद्धे । न चात्मन्यनात्मानमध्यारो- पयति, आत्मनः अप्रसिद्धत्वात् । तथा आत्मानं अनात्मनि, आत्मनोऽप्रसिद्धत्वादेव ॥ ५१ ॥ 51. The disciple said, "Though eternal I am not. the Supreme Self. My nature is one of transmigra- tory existence consisting of agency and experiencing of its results as it is known by evidences such as sense- perception etc. It is not due to Ignorance. For it cannot have the innermost Self for its object. Ignorance consists of the superimposition of the qualities of one thing on another e.g., well-known silver on well-known mother of pearl or a well known human being on a (well-known) trunk of a tree and vice versa. An un- known thing cannot be superimposed on a known one and vice versa. The non-Self cannot be superimposed on the Self which is not known. Similarly, the Self cannot be superimposed on the non-Self for the very same reason." तं गुरुरुवाच—न, व्यभिचारात् । नहि वत्स, प्रसिद्धं प्रसिद्ध एवाध्यारोपयतीति नियन्तुं शक्यम् । आत्मन्यध्यारोपणदर्शनात्। गौरोऽहं कृष्णोऽहमिति देहधर्मस्य अहंप्रत्ययविषये आत्मनि, अहंप्रत्ययविषयस्य च आत्मनः देहे अयमस्मीति ॥ ५२ ॥

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 37 52. The teacher said to him, “It is not so. There are exceptions. For, my child, there cannot be a rule that it is only well-known things ¹ that are superimposed on other well-known things, for we meet with the super- imposition of certain things on the Self. Fairness and blackness, the properties of the body, are superimposed ² on the Self which is the object of the consciousness ‘I,’ and the same Self is superimposed on the body.” ³ शिष्य आह—प्रसिद्ध एव तह्र्यात्मा अहंप्रत्ययविषयतया, देहश्च अयमिति। तत्रैवं सति प्रसिद्धयोरेव देहात्मनोरितरेतरा- ध्यारोपणात् स्थाणुपुरुषयोः शुक्तिकरजतयोरिव। तत्र कं विशेष- माश्रित्य भगवतोक्तं प्रसिद्धयोरितरेतराध्यारोपणेति नियन्तुं न शक्यते इति ॥ ५३ ॥ 53. The disciple said, “In that case the Self must be well-known owing to Its being the object of the consciousness ‘I’. The body also must be well-known, for it is spoken of as ‘this’ (body). When this is so, it is a case of mutual superimposition of the well-known body and the well-known Self, like that of a human being and the trunk of a tree or that of silver and mother of pearl. (There is, therefore, no exception here.) So what is the peculiarity with reference to which you said that there could not be a rule that mutual superimposition was possible of two well-known things only?” ¹ Objects of knowledge. ² When one says ‘I am fair’ or ‘I am black.’ ³ When one says ‘I am a man.’

38 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS गुरुराह—शृणु। सत्यं प्रसिद्धौ देहात्मानौ, न तु स्थाणुपुरुषा- विव विविक्तप्रत्ययविषयतया सर्वलोकप्रसिद्धौ। कथं तर्हि? नित्यमेव निरन्तरा विविक्तप्रत्ययविषयतया। नहि अयं देहः, अयमात्मा, इति विविक्ताभ्यां प्रत्ययाभ्यां देहात्मानौ गृह्णाति यतः कश्चित्। अत एव हि मोमुह्यते लोकः आत्मानात्मविषये एव- मात्मा नैवमात्मा इति। इमं विशेषमाश्रित्यावोचं नैवं नियन्तुं शक्यमिति ॥ ५४ ॥ 54. The teacher said, “ Listen. It is true that the Self and the body are well-known, but they are not well-known to all people to be objects of different knowledges, like a human being and a trunk of a tree. (Question). How are they known then ? (Reply). (They are always known) to be the objects of an undifferenti- ated knowledge. For, no one knows them to be the objects of different knowledges saying, 'This is the body' and 'This is the Self'. It is for this reason that people are deluded about the nature of the Self and of the non-Self, and say, 'The Self is of this nature' and 'It is not of this nature'. It was this peculiarity with reference to which I said that there was no such rule (viz. only well-known things could he superimposed on each other).” ननु अविद्याध्यारोपितं यत्र यत्, तदसत् तत्र दृष्टं, यथा रजतं शुक्तिकायां, स्थाणौ पुरुषः, रज्ज्वां सर्पः, आकाशे तल- मलिनत्वमित्यादि तथा देहात्मनोरपि नित्यमेव निरन्तरा विविक्त- प्रत्ययतया इतरेतराध्यारोपणा कृता स्यात्, तदितरेतरयोः

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 39 नित्यमेव असत्त्वं स्यात् । यथा शुक्तिकादिषु अविद्ययाध्यारोपितानां रजतादीनां नित्यमेव अत्यन्तासत्त्वं, तद्विपरीतानां च विपरीतेषु, तद्वत् देहात्मनोरविद्ययैव इतरेतराध्यारोपणा कृता स्यात् । तत्रैवं सति देहात्मनोरसत्त्वं प्रसज्येत । तच्चानिष्टं, वैनाशिकपक्षत्वात् । अथ तद्विपर्ययेण देहः आत्मन्यविद्ययाऽध्यारोपितः, देहस्या- त्मनि सति असत्त्वं प्रसज्येत । तच्चानिष्टं, प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधात् । तस्माद्देहात्मानौ नाविद्यया इतरेतरस्मिन् अध्यारोपितौ । कथं तर्हि, वंशस्तम्भवन्नित्यसंयुक्तौ ॥ ५५ ॥ 55. Disciple.—“Whatever is superimposed through Ignorance on anything else is found to be non-existent in that thing, e.g., silver¹ in mother of pearl, a human being in the trunk of a tree, a snake in a rope, and the form of a frying pan and blueness in the sky. Similarly, both the body and the Self, always the objects of an undifferentiated knowledge, would be non-existent in each other if they were mutually superimposed. Just as silver etc., superimposed on mother of pearl and other things and vice versa are always absolutely non- existent. Likewise, the Self and the non-Self would both be non-existent if they were similarly superimposed on each other through Ignorance. But that is not desir- able as it is the position of the Nihilists. If, instead of a mutual superimposition, the body (alone) is superim- posed through Ignorance on the Self the body will be non-existent in the existing Self.² That is also not ¹ It is non-existent in mother of pearl on which it is super- imposed. ² The disciple means by the word ‘Self’ the consciousness, ‘I’.

40 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS desirable. For it contradicts sense-perception etc. Therefore the body and the Self are not mutually superimposed due to Ignorance. (If they are not superimposed) what then ? They are always in the relation of conjunction with each other like pillars and bamboos." ¹ न। अनित्यत्वपरार्थत्वप्रसङ्गात् । संहतत्वात् परार्थत्वं अनि- त्यत्वं च, वंशस्तम्भादिवदेव । किंच यस्तु परैर्देहेन संहतः कल्पित आत्मा स संहतत्वात् परार्थः । तेन असंहतः परोऽन्यो नित्यः सिद्धस्तावत् ॥ ५६ ॥ 56. Teacher.—"It is not so. For in that case there arises the possibility of the Self existing for the benefit of another ² and being non-eternal. The Self, if in con- tact with the body, would be existing for the benefit of another ² and be non-eternal like the combination of pillars and bamboos. Moreover, the Self, supposed by other philosophers to be conjoined with the body, must have an existence for the sake of another.² It is, there- fore, concluded that devoid of contact with the body the Self is eternal and characteristically different from it." तस्यासंहतस्य देहे देहमात्रतया अध्यारोपितत्वेन असत्त्वा- नित्यत्वादिदोषप्रसङ्गो भवति । तत्र निरात्मको देह इति वैना- शिकपक्षप्राप्तिदोषः स्यात् ॥ ५७ ॥ ¹ Just as a combination of pillars and bamboos is called a house, so the combination of the Self and the body is called a man. ² Another conscious Being.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 41 57. Disciple.—“ The objections that the Self as the body only ¹ is non-existent, non-eternal and so on, hold good if the Self which is not ² conjoined with the body ³ were superimposed on it.⁴ The body would then be without a Self ⁵ and so the Nihilist position comes in.” न। स्वत एवात्मनः आकाशस्येव असं​हतत्वाभ्युपगमात्। सर्वेणासंहतः स च आत्मेति न निरात्मको देहादिः सर्वः स्यात्। यथा च आकाशं सर्वेणासंहतमिति सर्वं न निराकाशं भवति, एवम्। तस्मान्न वैनाशिकपक्षप्राप्तिदोषः स्यात् ॥ ५८ ॥ 58. Teacher.—“ No. (You are not right). For we admit that, like the ether, the Self is by nature free from contact with anything. Just as things are not bereft of the ether though it is not in contact with them, so, the body etc., are not devoid of the Self though It is not in contact with them. Therefore the objection of the Nihilist position coming in does not arise. यत्पुनरुक्तं, देहस्यात्यन्तासत्त्वे प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधः स्यादिति। तन्न। प्रत्यक्षादिभिः आत्मनि देहस्य सत्त्वानुपलब्धेः। नह्यात्मनि, कुण्डे बदरं, क्षीरे सर्पिः, तिले तैलं, भित्तौ चित्रमिव च, प्रत्य- क्षादिभिः देह उपलभ्यते। तस्मान्न प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधः ॥ ५९ ॥ ¹ For, being superimposed the Self is non-existent. ² The relation of conjunction between the Self and the body is not admitted by the teacher. ³ The relation of conjunction failing, that of false identity comes in. For we must explain the idea, ‘I am a man’. ⁴ The body again is superimposed on the Self according to the teacher. ⁵ And the Self would be without a body.

42 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS 59. "It is not a fact¹ that the absolute non-existence of the body contradicts sense-perception etc. inasmuch as the existence of the body in the Self is not known by these evidences. The body is not known to exist in the Self by perception etc. like a plum in a hole, ghee in milk, oil in sesame or a picture painted on a wall. There is, therefore, no² contradiction to sense-percep- tion etc." कथं तर्हि प्रत्यक्षाद्यप्रसिद्धात्मनि देहाध्यारोपणा, देहे च आत्मारोपणा ? ॥ ६० ॥ 60. Disciple.— "How can then there be the super- imposition of the body etc. on the Self which is not known by sense-perception etc. and that of the Self on the body?" नायं दोषः । स्वभावप्रसिद्धत्वादात्मनः । नहि कादाचि- त्कत्वसिद्धावेव अध्यारोपणा, न नित्यसिद्धौ, इति नियन्तुं शक्यं, आकाशे तलमलाद्यध्यारोपणदर्शनात् ॥ ६१ ॥ 61. Teacher.— "It is not a (valid) objection. For the Self is naturally well-known. As we see the form of a frying pan and blueness superimposed on the sky ¹ As stated by the disciple. See para 55 above. ² One, therefore, should not refuse to accept mutual superimposi- tion on the false ground that it contradicts sense-perception etc. As a matter of fact it is only the qualities like consciousness etc. of the Self and not the Self itself that is superimposed, though the non-Self itself and its qualities are superimposed. Hence Nihilism does not come in. See Padmapâda's gloss (Panchapâdikâ, Division 1) where it is explained how consciousness is a quality of the Self.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 43 there cannot be a rule that it is things known occasion- ally only on which superimposition is possible and not on things always known.” ¹ किं भगवन् , देहात्मनोः इतरेतराध्यारोपणा देहादिसंघातकृता अथवा आत्मकृतेति ॥ ६२ ॥ 62. Disciple.—“ Sir, is the mutual superimposition of the body and the Self made by the combination of the body etc. or by the Self ? ” गुरुरुवाच—यदि देहादिसंघातकृता, यदि वा आत्मकृता, किं तत्र स्यात् ॥ ६३ ॥ 63. The teacher said, “ Does it matter if it be made by the one or the other ? ” इत्युक्तः शिष्य आह—यद्यहं देहादिसंघातमात्रः, ततो ममा- चेतनत्वात् परार्थत्वमिति न मत्कृता देहात्मनोः इतरेतराध्यारो- पणा । अथाहमात्मा परोऽन्यः संघातात्, चितिमत्त्वात् स्वार्थ इति मयैव चितिमता आत्मनि अध्यारोपणा क्रियते सर्वानर्थ- बीजभूता ॥ ६४ ॥ 64. Questioned thus the disciple said, “ If I were only a combination of the body etc. I would be non- conscious and would exist for the sake of another only. Therefore the mutual superimposition of the body and the Self could not be made by me. If, on the other hand, I were the Self I would be characteristically different from the combination of the body etc., would ¹ e.g., the Self.

44 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS be conscious and, therefore, would exist entirely for myself. So it is I, a conscious being, who make that superimposition, the root of all evils, on the Self." इत्युक्तो गुरुरुवाच—अनर्थबीजभूतां चेत् मिथ्याध्यारोपणां जानीषे, मा कार्षीस्तर्हि ॥ ६५ ॥ 65. Thus told the teacher said, “ Do not ¹ make any superimposition if you know it to be the root of all evils.” नैव भगवन्, शक्नोमि न कर्तुम् । अन्येन केनचित् प्रयुक्तोऽहं, न स्वतन्त्र इति ॥ ६६ ॥ 66. Disciple.—“ Sir, I cannot but make it, I am not independent. I am made to act by someone else.” न तर्हि अचितिमत्त्वात् स्वार्थः त्वम् । येन प्रयुक्तः अस्व- तन्त्रः प्रवर्तसे, स चितिमान् स्वार्थः, संघात एव त्वम् ॥ ६७ ॥ 67. Teacher.—“ Then you do not exist for yourself as you are non-conscious. That by which you are made to act like one dependent on another is conscious and exists for itself. You are only a combination (of the body and other things).” यद्यचेतनोऽहं, कथं सुखदुःखवेदनां भवदुक्तं च जानामि ॥६८॥ 68. Disciple.—“How am I conscious of pain and pleasure and also of what you say if I be non-con- scious ?” ¹ i.e., give it up. Know that you are Pure Consciousness and never really identified with the body etc.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 45 गुरुरुवाच—किं सुखदुःखवेदनाया मदुक्ताच्चान्यस्त्वं, किं वा अनन्य एवेति ॥ ६९ ॥ 69. Teacher.—" Are you different from the consci- ousness of pain and pleasure and from what I say, or not ? " शिष्य उवाच—नाहं तावदनन्यः । कस्मात् ? यस्मात्तदुभयं कर्मभूतं घटादिकमिव जानामि । यद्यनन्योऽहं, तेन तदुभयं न जानीयां ; किंतु जानामि, तस्मादन्यः । सुखदुःखवेदनाविक्रिया च स्वार्थैव प्राप्नोति, त्वदुक्तं च स्यात् अनन्यत्वे, न च तयोः स्वार्थता युक्ता । नहि चन्दनकण्टककृते सुखदुःखे चन्दनकण्ट- कार्थे, घटोपयोगो वा घटार्थः । तस्मात् तद्विज्ञातुर्मम चन्दनादि- कृतः अर्थः । अहं हि ततोऽन्यः समस्तमर्थं जानामि बुद्ध्या- रूढम् ॥ ७० ॥ 70. The disciple said, " It is not a fact that I am not different from them. For I know them to be objects of my knowledge like jars and other things. If I were not different I could not know them. But I know them ; so I am different. If I were not different the modifi- cations of the mind called pain and pleasure and the words spoken by you would exist for themselves. But that is not reasonable. For pleasure and pain produced by sandal paste and a thorn respectively and also the use of a jar are not for their own sake. Therefore the purposes served by sandle paste etc. are for the sake of me who am their knower. I am different from them as I know all things pervaded by the intellect."

46 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS तं गुरुरुवाच—एवं तर्हि स्वार्थस्त्वं, चितिमत्त्वान्न परेण प्रयुज्यसे । नहि चितिमान् परतन्त्रः परेण प्रयुज्यते, चितिमत्- श्चितिमदर्थत्वानुपपत्तेः, समत्वात्, प्रदीपप्रकाशयोरिव । नापि अचितिमदर्थत्वं चितिमतो भवति, अचितिमतोऽचितिमत्त्वादेव स्वार्थसंबन्धानुपपत्तेः । नापि अचितिमतोः अन्योन्यार्थत्वं दृष्टम् । नहि काष्ठकुड्ये अन्योन्यार्थं कुर्वाते ॥ ७१ ॥ 71. The teacher said to him, "As you are possessed of consciousness, you exist for yourself and are not made to act by anyone else. For an independent con- scious being is not made to act by another as it is not reasonable that one possessed of consciousness exists for the sake of another possessing consciousness, both being of the same nature like the lights of two lamps. Nor does one possessed of consciousness exist for the sake of another having no consciousness ; for it is not possible that a thing exists for itself for the very fact that it is non-conscious. Nor again is it seen that two non-conscious things exist for each other, as wood and a wall do not serve each other's purpose." ननु चितिमत्त्वे समेऽपि भृत्यस्वामिनोः अन्योन्यार्थत्वं दृष्टम् ॥ ७२ ॥ 72. Disciple.—"But it may be said that the servant and the master are seen to serve each other's purpose though they are equally possessed of consciousness." नैवम्, अग्नेरुष्णप्रकाशवत् तव चितिमत्त्वस्य विवक्षितत्वात् । प्रदर्शितश्च दृष्टान्तः प्रदीपप्रकाशयोरिति । तत्रैवं सति

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 47 स्वबुद्ध्यारूढमेव सर्वमुपलभसे अग्न्युष्णप्रकाशतुल्येन कूटस्थनित्य- चैतन्यस्वरूपेण । यदि चैवम्, आत्मनः सर्वदा निर्विशेषत्वमुप- गच्छसि । किमित्यूचिवान्, सुषुप्ते विश्रम्य विश्रम्य जाग्रत्स्व- प्रयोः दुःखमनुभवामि इति । किं अयमेव मम स्वभावः, किं वा नैमित्तिकः इति च । किमसो व्यामोहोऽपगतः, किं वा नेति ॥७३॥ 73. Teacher.—" It is not¹ so. For I speak of con- sciousness belonging to you like heat and light to fire. It is for this reason that I cited the example of the lights of two lamps. Therefore, as changeless and eternal consciousness, like the heat and light of fire, you know everything ² presented to your intellect. Thus when you always know the Self to be without any attribute why did you say,³ ' I experience pain and pleasure again and again during the states of waking and dream after intervals of rest in deep sleep ?' And why did you say, ' Is it my own nature or causal ?' Has this delusion vanished or not ? " इत्युक्तः शिष्य आह—भगवन्, अपगतः त्वत्प्रसादात् व्या- मोहः, किं तु मम कूटस्थतायां संशयः । कथम् ? शब्दादीनां स्वतःसिद्धिर्नास्ति, अचेतनत्वात् । शब्दाद्याकारप्रत्ययोत्पत्तेस्तु तेषां ; प्रत्ययानामितरेतरव्यावृत्तविशेषणानां नीलपीताद्याकारवतां स्वतःसिद्धयसंभवात् । तस्माद्वाह्याकारनिमित्तत्वं गम्यते, इति बाह्याकारवत् शब्दाद्याकारत्वसिद्धिः । तथा प्रत्ययानामपि अहं- ¹ For the non-conscious portion in each is of service to the conscious portion in the other. ² Superimposed on you, changeless, pure Consciousness. ³ See para 45 above.

48 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS प्रत्ययालम्बनवस्तुभेदानां संहतत्वात् अचैतन्योपपत्तेः स्वार्थ- त्वासंभवात् स्वरूपव्यतिरिक्तग्राहकग्राह्यत्वेन सिद्धिः ; शब्दादि- वदेव । असंहतत्वे सति चैतन्यात्मकत्वात् स्वार्थोऽपि अहंप्रत्य- यानां नीलपीताद्याकाराणामुपलब्धेति विक्रियावानेव, कूटस्थः इति संशयः ॥ ७४ ॥ 74. To this the disciple replied, “The delusion,¹ Sir, is gone by your grace; but I have doubts about the changeless nature which, you say, pertains to me.” Teacher.—“What doubts ?” Disciple.—“Sound etc.,² do not exist independently as they are non-conscious. But they come into existence when there arise in the mind modifications resembling sound and so on. It is impossible³ that these modifi- cations⁴ should have an independent existence⁵ as they are exclusive of one another as regards their special characteristics (of resembling sound etc.,) and appear to be blue, yellow, etc. (So sound etc., are not the same as mental modifications.) It is therefore inferred that these modifications are caused by external objects. So it is proved that modifications resemble sound etc., objects existing externally.³ Similarly,⁶ these different modifications of the mind also are combinations and therefore non-conscious. So, not existing for their own ¹ i.e., “I am liable to transmigration and misery and other than the Lord who is ever free.” ² Sound, touch, sight, taste and smell. ³ Refutation of the Idealists. ⁴ i.e., sound consciousness, touch consciousness, colour consci- ousness, etc. ⁵ It is only pure Consciousness that has an independent existence. ⁶ like sound etc.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 49 sake they, like sound etc., exist only when known by one ¹ different from them. Though the Self is not a combination, consists of Consciousness and exists for Its own sake, It is the knower ² of the mental modifi- cations appearing to be blue, yellow and so on. It must, therefore, be of a changeful nature. Hence is the doubt about the changeless nature of the Self." तं गुरुरुवाच—न युक्तस्तव संशयः । यतस्तेषां प्रत्ययानां नियमेन अशेषतः उपलब्धेरेव अपरिणामित्वात् कूटस्थत्वसिद्धौ, निश्चयहेतुमेव अशेषचित्तप्रचारोपलब्धिं संशयहेतुमात्थ । यदि हि तव परिणामित्वं स्यात्, अशेषस्वविषयचित्तप्रचारोपलब्धिर्न स्यात्, चित्तस्येव स्वविषये, यथा चेन्द्रियाणां स्वविषयेषु । न च तथाऽऽत्मनस्तव स्वविषयैकदेशोपलब्धिः । अतः कूटस्थतैव तवेति ॥ ७५ ॥ 75. The teacher said to him, "Your doubt is not justifiable. For you, the Self, are proved to be free from change, and therefore perpetually the same on the ground that all the modifications of the mind without a single exception are (simultaneously) known by you. You regard this knowledge of all the modifications which is the reason for the above inference as that for your doubt. If you were changeful like the mind or the senses (which pervade their objects one after another), you would not simultaneously know all the mental modifications, the objects of your knowledge. Nor are you aware of a portion only of the objects of your ¹ The Self. ² The disciple means the agent of the action of knowing the modifications. 4

50 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS knowledge (at a time). You are, therefore, absolutely changeless." ¹ तत्राह—उपलब्धिर्नाम धात्वर्थो विक्रियैव, उपलब्धुः कूट- स्थात्मता चेति विरुद्धम् ॥ ७६ ॥ 76. The disciple said, “knowledge is the meaning of a root ² and therefore surely consists of a change ; ³ and the knower, ⁴ (as you say) is of a changeless nature. This is a contradiction." न । धात्वर्थविक्रियायां उपलब्ध्द्युपचारात् । यो हि बौद्धः प्रत्ययः स धात्वर्थो विक्रियात्मकः आत्मनः उपलब्ध्याभासफला- वसान इति उपलब्धिशब्देन उपचर्यते । यथा छिदिक्रिया द्वैधी- भावफलावसानेति धात्वर्थत्वेन उपचर्यते, तद्वत् ॥ ७७ ॥ 77. Teacher.—“It is not so. For the word know- ledge is used only in a secondary sense to mean a change called an action, the meaning of a root. A modification of the intellect called an action ends in a result in itself which is the reflection of Knowledge, the Self. It is for this reason that this modification is called knowledge in a secondary ⁵ sense, just as the action of cutting (a thing), producing and including the ultimate result viz., its separation in two parts is secondarily called the mean- ing of the root (to cut). इत्युक्तः शिष्य आह—ननु भगवन्, मम कूटस्थत्वप्रतिपादनं प्रति असमर्थो दृष्टान्तः । कथम् ? छिदिः छेद्यविक्रियावसाना ¹ Verse 7. Chap. 14 and verses 156—158, Chap. 18. ² To know. ³ For every root means an action. ⁴ The disciple means the agent of the action of knowing. ⁵ See verses 53 and 54, Chap. 18.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 51 उपचर्यते यथा धात्वर्थत्वेन, तथा उपलब्धिशब्दोपचरितोऽपि धात्वर्थो बौद्धप्रत्ययः आत्मनः उपलब्धिविक्रियावसानश्चेत्, ना- त्मनः कूटस्थतां प्रतिपादयितुं समर्थः ॥ ७८ ॥ 78. Told thus the disciple said, "Sir, the example cited by you cannot prove that I am changeless." Teacher.— "How?" Disciple.—"For, just as the action of cutting, produc- ing and including the ultimate change in the thing to be cut, is secondarily called the meaning of the root (to cut), so, the word knowledge is used secondarily for the mental modification which is the meaning of the root (to know) and which ends in the result that is a change in know- ledge, the Self. The example cited by you cannot, therefore, establish the changeless nature of the Self." गुरुरुवाच—सत्यमेवं स्यात्, यदि उपलब्ध्युपलब्ध्रोः विशेषः। नित्योपलब्धिमात्र एव हि उपलब्ध्रा, न तु तार्किकसमय इव अन्या उपलब्धिः, अन्य उपलब्ध्रा च ॥ ७९ ॥ 79. The teacher said, "What you say would be true if there were a distinction existing between the Knower and Knowledge. For, the Knower is eternal Knowledge only.¹ The Knower and Knowledge are not different as they are in the argumentative² philosophy." ननु उपलब्धिफलावसानो धात्वर्थः कथमिति ॥ ८० ॥ 80. Disciple.—"How is it then that an action ends in a result which is Knowledge?"³ ¹ Pure Knowledge. ² The philosophy of the Naiyâyikas. ³ For Knowledge is spoken of as eternal in the previous para- graph. A result cannot, of course, be eternal.

52 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS उच्यते—शृणु, उपलब्ध्याभासफलावसान इत्युक्तं, किं न श्रुतं तत् त्वया ? न तु आत्मा विक्रियोत्पादनावसान इति मयोक्तम् ॥ ८१ ॥ 81. The teacher said, " Listen. It was said (that the mental modification, called an action) ended in a result which was the reflection¹ of Knowledge. Did you not hear it ? I did not say² that a change was produced in the Self as a result (of the modification of the mind)." शिष्य उवाच—कथं तर्हि कूटस्थे मयि अशेषस्वविषयचित्त- प्रचारोपलब्धृत्वमित्यात्थ ॥ ८२ ॥ 82. The disciple said, "How then am I, who am changeless, the knower, as you say,³ of all the mental modifications, the objects of my knowledge ? " तं गुरुरुवाच—सत्यमवोचं, तेनैव कूटस्थतामब्रुवं तव ॥८३॥ 83. The teacher said to him, " I told you the right thing. The very fact (that you know simultaneously all the mental modifications) was adduced by me as the reason why you are eternally immutable." यद्येवं भगवन्, कूटस्थनित्योपलब्धिस्वरूपे मयि शब्दाद्या- कारबौद्धप्रत्ययेषु च मत्स्वरूपोपलब्ध्याभासफलावसानवत्सु उत्प- द्यमानेषु, कस्त्वपराधो मम ॥ ८४ ॥ 84. Disciple.—" If this is so, Sir, what is my fault when the mental changes resembling sound etc. and ¹ Para 77 above. ² I did not say that a modification ended in a result that was Knowledge (the Self). ³ See Para 75 above.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 53 resulting in the reflection ¹ of knowledge,² My own nature, are produced in Me who am of the nature of changeless and eternal Consciousness ? " सत्यम्, नास्त्यपराधः, किंतु अविद्यामात्रस्तु अपराध इति प्रागेवावोचम् ॥ ८५ ॥ 85. Teacher.—" It is true that you are not to be blamed. Ignorance, as I told you before,³ is the only fault.' " यदि भगवन्, सुपुप्त इव मम विक्रिया नास्ति, कथं स्वप्न- जागरिते ॥ ८६ ॥ 86. Disciple.—" Sir, why are there the states of dream and waking (in me) if I am absolutely changeless like one in deep sleep ? " तं गुरुरुवाच—किंतु अनुभूयेते त्वया सततम् ॥ ८७ ॥ 87. The teacher said to him, " But you always experience them (whenever they arise)." बाढम् अनुभवामि, किंतु विच्छिद्यविच्छिद्य, न तु सन्ततम् ॥ ८८ ॥ 88. Disciple.—" Yes, I experience them, at intervals but not continuously." तं गुरुरुवाच—तर्हि आगन्तुके ह्येते, न तवात्मभूते । यदि तवात्मभूते चैतन्यस्वरूपवत् स्वतःसिद्धे, सन्तते एव स्याताम् । किंच स्वप्नजागरिते न तव आत्मभूते, व्यभिचारित्वात्, ¹ Para 77 above. ² Pure Consciousness. ³ Paras 48—50 above.

54 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS वस्त्रादिवत् । नहि यस्य यत्स्वरूपं तत् तद्व्यभिचारि दृष्टम् । स्वप्नजागरिते तु चैतन्यमात्रत्वात् व्यभिचरतः । सुषुप्ते चेत् स्वरूपं व्यभिचरेत्, तन्नष्टं नास्तीति वा बाध्यमेव स्यात्, आगन्तुकानां अतद्धर्माणां उभयात्मकत्वदर्शनात्, यथा धन- वस्त्रादीनां नाशो दृष्टः, स्वप्नभ्रान्तिलब्धानां तु अभावो दृष्टः ॥ ८९ ॥ 89. The teacher said, "They are then adventitious only and are not your own nature. They would surely be continuous ¹ if they were self-existent like Pure Con- sciousness which is your own nature. Moreover, they are not your own nature inasmuch as they are non- persistent like clothes and other things. For what is one's own nature is never seen to cease to persist while one is persisting. But waking and dream cease to persist while Pure Consciousness continues to do so. Pure Consciousness, the Self, persisting in deep sleep, whatever is non-persistent (at that time) is either destroyed ² or negated ² inasmuch as adventitious things, never the properties of one's own nature, are found to possess these characteristics ; for example, the destruc- tion of money, clothes, etc. and the negation of things acquired in dream or delusion are seen. नन्वेवं भगवन्, चैतन्यस्वरूपमपि आगन्तुकं प्राप्तम् , स्वप्न- जागरितयोरिव, सुषुप्ते अनुपलब्धेः । अचैतन्यस्वरूपो वा स्यामहम् ॥ ९० ॥ ¹ And hence would always be experienced by you. ² In both these cases they cannot be regarded as really belonging to the Self.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 55 90. Disciple.—“But, Sir, when this is so, Pure Con- sciousness Itself has to be admitted ¹ to be adventitious like waking and dream. For it is not known in deep sleep. Or, (it may be that I have adventitious con- sciousness or) am non-conscious by nature.” न, पश्य, तदनुपपत्तेः। चैतन्यस्वरूपं चेत् आगन्तुकं पश्यसि, पश्य। नैतद्वर्षशतेनापि उपपत्त्या कल्पयितुं शक्नुमो वयम्, अन्यो वाऽचैतन्योऽपि। संहतत्वात् पारार्थ्यं अनेकत्वं नाशित्वं च न केनचित् उपपत्त्या वारयितुं शक्यम्। अस्वार्थस्य स्वतःसिद्धयभावादित्यवोचाम। चैतन्यस्वरूपस्य तु आत्मनः स्वतःसिद्धेः अन्यानपेक्षत्वं न केनचित् वारयितुं शक्यम्, अव्यभिचारात्॥ ९१ ॥ 91. Teacher.—“No. (What you say is not right.) Think over it. It is not reasonable (to say so). You may look upon Pure Consciousness as adventitious (if you are wise enough); but we cannot prove It to be so by reasoning even in a hundred years, nor (can It be proved to be so) even by a dull ² man. As the con- sciousness (that has for its adjuncts mental modifications) is a combination no one can disprove its existence for the sake of another, its manyness and destructibility by any reasoning whatever; for we have already ³ said that whatsoever does not exist for itself is not ¹ The ideas, ‘I am a seer,’ ‘I am a hearer,’ etc. showing con- sciousness in one in dream and waking are absent in deep sleep together with the two states. The disciple’s idea is : ‘When the two states are not there in deep sleep, my consciousness is also not there.’ ² i.e., no one can be so dull as to prove It to be so. ³ See para 74 above.