उपदेशसाहस्री (आदि शङ्कराचार्य - गद्य व पद्य भाग)

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.

56 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS self-existent. As Pure Consciousness, the Self, is self- existent no one can disprove Its independence of other things inasmuch as It never ceases to exist." ननु व्यभिचारो दर्शितो मया, सुषुप्ते न पश्यामीति ॥ ९२ ॥ 92. Disciple.—" But I have shown ¹ an exception,² namely, I have no consciousness in deep sleep." न । व्याहतत्वात् । कथं व्याघातः ? पश्यतस्तव न पश्यामि इति व्याहतं वचनम् । नहि कदाचित् भगवन्, सुषुप्ते मया चैतन्यं अन्यद्वा किंचित् दृष्टम् । पश्यन् तर्हि सुषुप्ते त्वम् । यस्मात् दृष्टमेव प्रतिषेधसि, न दृष्टिम् । या तव दृष्टिः तत् चैत- न्यमिति मयोक्तम् । यया त्वं विद्यमानया न किंचित् दृष्टमिति प्रतिषेधसि, सा दृष्टिः त्वच्चैतन्यम् । तर्हि सर्वत्र अव्यभिचारात् कूटस्थनित्यत्वं सिद्धं स्वत एव, न प्रमाणापेक्षम् । स्वतःसिद्धस्य हि प्रमातुः अन्यस्य प्रमेयस्य परिच्छित्तिं प्रति प्रमाणापेक्षा । या तु अन्या नित्या परिच्छित्तिः अपेक्ष्यते, अन्यस्य अपरि- च्छित्तिरूपस्य परिच्छेदाय, सा हि नित्यैव कूटस्था स्वयं- ज्योतिःस्वभावा । आत्मनि प्रमाणत्वे प्रमातृत्वे वा न तां प्रति प्रमाणापेक्षा, तत्स्वभावत्वात् । यथा प्रकाशनं उष्णत्वं वा लोहोदकादिषु परतः अपेक्ष्यते अग्न्यादित्यादिभ्यः, अतत्स्व- भावत्वात्, न अग्न्यादित्यादीनां तदपेक्षा, सर्वदा तत्स्वभाव- त्वात् ॥ ९३ ॥ 93. Teacher.—" No, you contradict yourself." Disciple—" How is it a contradiction ? " ¹ See para 90 above. ² To the persistence of Pure Consciousness .

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 57 Teacher.—“You contradict yourself by saying that you are not conscious when, as a matter of fact, you are so.” Disciple.—“But, Sir, I was never conscious of con- sciousness or anything else in deep sleep.” Teacher.—“You are then conscious in deep sleep. For you deny the existence of the objects of Knowledge (in that state), but not that of Knowledge. I have told you that what is your consciousness is nothing but absolute Knowledge. The Consciousness owing to whose presence you deny (the existence of things in deep sleep) by saying, ‘I was conscious of nothing’ is the Knowledge, the Consciousness which is your Self. As It never ceases to exist, Its eternal immutability is self-evident and does not depend on any evidence ; for an object of Knowledge different from the self-evident Knower depends on an evidence in order to be known. Other than the object the eternal Knowledge that is indispensable in proving non-conscious things different from Itself, is immutable ; for It is always of a self- evident nature. Just as iron, water, etc., which are not of the nature of light and heat, depend for them on the sun, fire and other things other than themselves, but the sun and fire themselves, always of the nature of light and heat, do not depend for them on anything else ; so, being of the nature of pure Knowledge It does not depend on an evidence to prove that It exists or that It is the Knower.” अनित्यत्वे एव प्रमा स्यात्, न नित्यत्वे इति चेत् ॥ ९४ ॥

58 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS 94. Disciple.—“But it is transitory knowledge only that is the result¹ of a proof and not eternal Know- ledge.”² न। अवगतेः नित्यत्वानित्यत्वयोः विशेषानुपपत्तेः। न हि अवगतेः प्रमात्वे अनित्या अवगतिः प्रमा, न नित्या इति विशेषः अवगम्यते ॥ ९५ ॥ 95. Teacher.—“No. There cannot reasonably be a distinction of perpetuity or otherwise in Knowledge. For it is not known that transitory Knowledge is the result of a proof and not eternal Knowledge, as Know- ledge³ Itself is such a result.” नित्यायां प्रमातुः अपेक्षाभावः। अनित्यायां तु यत्नान्तरित- त्वात् अवगतिः अपेक्ष्यत इति विशेषः स्यादिति चेत् ॥ ९६ ॥ 96. Disciple.—“But eternal Knowledge does not depend on a knower⁴ while transitory knowledge does so as it is produced by an intervening effort. This is the difference.”⁵ सिद्धा तर्हि आत्मनः प्रमातुः स्वतःसिद्धिः, प्रमाणनिरपेक्ष- तयैवेति ॥ ९७ ॥ 97. Teacher.—“The Knower⁶ which is the Self is then self-evident as It does not depend on any evidence (in order to be proved).” 1 True Knowledge is due to sense-perception, inference, testimony, etc., when we see a jar, for example, with our eyes, we have what is called the true Knowledge of the jar. It is produced and there- fore transitory. That is what the disciple thinks. ² Pure Knowledge which is the Self. ³ Pure Knowledge Itself. See paras 103 and 108 of this Chapter. ⁴ One who applies a proof. ⁵ Between Knowledge eternal and transitory. ⁶ Eternal Knowledge. See para 93 above.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 59 अभावेऽपि अपेक्षाभावः, नित्यत्वात् इति चेत् । न । अव- गतेरेव आत्मनि सद्भावादिति परिहृतमेतत् ॥ ९८ ॥ 98. Disciple.—"(If the Knowledge of the Self be independent of an evidence on the ground that It is eternal) why should the absence ¹ of the result ² of an evidence with regard to the Self be not so on the same ground ? " Teacher.—" No, it has been refuted on the ground that it is pure Knowledge that is in the Self." ³ प्रमातुश्चेत् प्रमाणापेक्षासिद्धिः, कस्य प्रमित्सा स्यात् ? यस्य प्रमित्सा स एव प्रमाता अभ्युपगम्यते । तदीया च प्रमित्सा प्रमेयविषयैव, न प्रमातृविषया । प्रमातृविषयत्वे अन- वस्थाप्रसङ्गात् प्रमातुः तदिच्छायाश्च, तस्याप्यन्यः प्रमाता, तस्याप्यन्य इति । एवमेव इच्छायाः प्रमातृविषयत्वे । प्रमातु- रात्मनः अव्यवहितत्वाच्च प्रमेयत्वानुपपत्तिः । लोके हि प्रमेयं नाम प्रमातुः इच्छा-स्मृति प्रयत्न-प्रमाणजन्मव्यवहितं सिद्ध्यति, नान्यथा अवगतिः प्रमेयविषया दृष्टा । नच प्रमातुः प्रमाता स्वस्य स्वयमेव केनचित् व्यवहितः कल्पयितुं शक्यः इच्छादी- नामन्यतमेनापि । स्मृतिश्च स्मर्तव्यविषया, न स्मर्तृविषया । तथा इच्छायाः इष्टविषयत्वमेव, न इच्छावद्विषयत्वम् । स्मर्त्रि- ¹ The disciple thinks that the Self does not exist as It is not known by an evidence. ² True Knowledge. See foot-note 1, para 94 above. ³ i.e., the Self is of the nature of pure Know- ledge and so It exists independent of every evidence. See paras 93 and 97 above.

60 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS च्छावद्विषयत्वेऽपि हि उभयोः अनवस्था पूर्ववदपरिहार्या स्यात् ॥ ९९ ॥ 99. " Whom will the desire (to know a thing) belong to if the Knower depends on an evidence in order to be known? It is admitted that one who is desirous of knowing a thing is the Knower. His desire of knowing a thing has for its object the thing to be known and not the Knower. For, in the latter case, there arises a regressus ad infinitum with regard to the Knower and also with regard to the desire to know the Knower inasmuch as the knower of the knower and so on (are to be known) ; and such is the case with regard to the desire of knowing the knower. Moreover, there being nothing intervening, the Knower, the Self cannot fall into the category of the known. For a thing to be known¹ becomes known when it is distanced from the knower by the birth of an intervening desire, memory, effort or an evidence on the part of the knower. There cannot be the knowledge of an object in any other way. Again it cannot be imagined that the knower himself is distanced from himself by anyone of his own desire etc. For memory has for its object the thing to be remember- ed and not one who remembers it ; so has desire for its object the thing to be desired and not one who desires it. There arises, as before, an inevitable regressus ad infinitum ¹ i.e., a thing to be known is distanced by the birth of an evidence before it is known ; a thing to be desired is distanced by the birth of a desire before it is desired ; a thing to be remembered is distanced by the birth of a memory before it is remembered ; and a thing to be accomplished is distanced by an effort before it is accomplished.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 61 if memory and desire have their own agents for their objects. ननु प्रमातृविषयावगत्यनुत्पत्तौ अनवगत एव प्रमाता स्या- दिति चेत् ॥ १०० ॥ 100. Disciple.—“But the Knower remains unknown if there is no knowledge which has for its object the Knower.” न, अवगन्तुः अवगतेः अवगन्तव्यविषयत्वात् । अवगन्तृ- विषयत्वे च अनवस्था पूर्ववत् स्यात् । अवगतिश्च आत्मनि कूटस्थनित्यात्मज्योतिः अन्यतः अनपेक्षैव सिद्धा, अग्न्यादि- त्याद्युष्णप्रकाशवत्, इति पूर्वमेव प्रसाधितम् । अवगतेः चैत- न्यात्मज्योतिषः स्वात्मनि अनित्यत्वे आत्मनः स्वार्थतानुपपत्तिः, कार्यकारणसंघातवत् संहतत्वात् परार्थ्यं दोषवत्त्वं च अवोचाम । कथम् ? चैतन्यात्मज्योतिषः स्वात्मनि अनित्यत्वे स्मृत्यादि- व्यवधानात् सान्तर्गतत्वम् । ततश्च तस्य चैतन्यज्योतिषः प्रागु- त्पत्तेः प्रध्वंसाच्चोर्ध्वं आत्मन्येव अभावात्, चक्षुरादीनामिव संह- तत्वान्, परार्थ्यं स्यात् । यदा च तत् उत्पन्नं आत्मनि विद्यते, न तदा आत्मनः स्वार्थत्वम् । तद्भावाभावापेक्षा हि आत्माना- त्मनोः स्वार्थत्वपरार्थत्वसिद्धिः । तस्मात् आत्मनः अन्यनिर- पेक्षमेव नित्यचैतन्यज्योतिष्ट्वं सिद्धम् ॥ १०१ ॥ 101. Teacher.—“No. The knowledge of the knower has for its object the thing to be known. If it have for its object the knower there arises a regressus ad infinitum

62 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS as before.¹ It has already ² been shown that, like the heat and light of the sun, fire and other things, the Knowledge which is changeless, eternal and self-effulgent ³ has an existence in the Self entirely independent of everything else. I have already ⁴ said that, if the self-effulgent Knowledge which is there in the Self were transitory,⁵ it would become unreasonable that the Self existed for Itself, and, being a combination, It would get impuri- ties and have an existence for the sake of another like the combination of the body and the senses. How ? (Reply) If the self-effulgent Knowledge in the Self were tran- sitory It would have a distance ⁶ by the intervention of memory etc. It would then be non-existent in the Self before being produced and after being destroyed, and the Self, then a combination, would have an existence for the sake of another like that of the eye etc. produced by the combination of certain things. The Self would have no independent existence if this Knowledge were produced before it was in It. For it is only on account of the absence or presence of the state of being com- bined that the Self is known to exist for Itself and the non-Self for another. It is, therefore, established that the Self is of the nature of eternal and self-effulgent Knowledge not dependent on anything else." ननु एवं सति, असति प्रमाश्रयत्वे कथं प्रमातुः प्रमातृ- त्वम् ॥ १०२ ॥ ¹ See para 99 above. ² See para 93 above. ³ Br. U., 4. 3. 9. ⁴ See paras 64 to 73. ⁵ And therefore producible. ⁶ See para 99.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 63 102. Disciple.—“ How can the Knower be a Knower if he is not the seat of the knowledge produced by evidences ?” उच्यते—प्रमायाः नित्यत्वे अनित्यत्वे च रूपविशेषाभावात् । अवगतिर्हि प्रमा । तस्याः स्मृतीच्छादिपूर्विकायाः अनित्यायाः, कूटस्थनित्याया वा, न स्वरूपविशेषो विद्यते । यथा धात्वर्थस्य तिष्ठत्यादेः फलस्य गत्यादिपूर्वकस्य अनित्यस्य अपूर्वस्य नित्यस्य वा, रूपविशेषो नास्तीति तुल्यो व्यपदेशो दृष्टः—तिष्ठन्ति मनुष्याः, तिष्ठन्ति पर्वताः इत्यादि, तथा नित्यावगतिस्व- रूपेऽपि प्रमातरि प्रमातृत्वव्यपदेशो न विरुध्यते, फलसामान्या- दिति ॥ १०३ ॥ 103. The teacher said, “ The knowledge ¹ produced by an evidence does not differ in its essential nature whether one calls it eternal or transitory. Knowledge (though) produced by an evidence is nothing but know- ledge. The knowledge preceded ² by memory, desire, etc. and supposed to be transitory, and that which is eternal and immutable do not differ in their essential nature. Just as the result of the transitory actions of standing etc., the meanings of roots, preceded by motion etc. and that of the permanent ones not so preceded do not differ in their essential nature, and there are, therefore, the identical predicates in the state- ments, ‘ People stand ’, ‘ Mountains stand ’, etc. ; so, the Knower, though of the nature of eternal Knowledge, ¹ True knowledge as opposed to delusion, See note 1, para 94 above. ² See para 99 above.

64 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS is called a Knower without contradiction inasmuch as eternal Knowledge is the same ¹ as one produced by an evidence (as regards Its essential nature).” अत्राह शिष्यः—नित्यावगतिस्वरूपस्य आत्मनः अविक्रिय- त्वात् कार्यकरणैः असंहत्य, तक्षादीनामिव वास्यादिभिः, कर्तृत्वं नोपपद्यते, असंहतस्वभावस्य च कार्यकरणोपादाने अनवस्था प्रसज्येत । तक्षादीनां तु कार्यकरणैः नित्यमेव संहतत्वमिति वास्याद्युपादाने नानवस्था स्यादिति ॥ १०४ ॥ 104. Here the disciple starts an objection : “ It is not reasonable that the Self which is changeless and of the nature of eternal Knowledge and not in contact with the body and the senses should be the agent ² of an action like a carpenter in contact with an adze and other instruments. A regressus ad infinitum arises if the Self unconnected with the body, the senses, etc. were to use them as Its instruments. As carpenters and others are always connected with bodies and senses there is no regressus ad infinitum when they use adzes and other instruments.” इह तु असंहतस्वभावस्य करणानुपादाने कर्तृत्वं नोपपद्यत इति करणं उपादेयम्, तदुपादानमपि विक्रियैवेति तत्कर्तृत्वे करणान्तरमुपादेयम्, तदुपादानेऽपि अन्यदिति प्रमातुः स्वात- न्त्र्ये अनवस्था अपरिहार्या स्यात् इति । न च क्रियैव आत्मानं कारयति, अनिर्वर्तितायाः स्वरूपाभावात् । अथ अन्यत् आत्मानं उपेत्य क्रियां कारयतीति चेत् । न । अन्यस्य स्वतःसिद्धत्वा- ¹ See para 108. ² Br. Sû., 2. 3. 33, 40.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 65 विषयत्वाद्यनुपपत्तेः । न हि आत्मनः अन्यत् अचेतनं वस्तु स्वप्र- माणकं दृष्टम् । शब्दादिसर्वमेव अवगतिफलावसानप्रत्ययप्रमितं सिद्धं स्यात् । अवगतिश्चेदात्मनोऽन्यस्य स्यात्, सोऽपि आत्मैव असंहतः स्वार्थः स्यात्, न परार्थः । न च देहेन्द्रिय- विषयाणां स्वार्थतां अवगन्तुं शक्नुमः, अवगत्यवसानप्रत्ययापेक्ष- सिद्धिदर्शनात् ॥ १०५ ॥ 105. Teacher.—(Reply) "Agency is not possible without the use of instruments. Instruments, therefore, have to be assumed. The assumption of instruments is, of course, an action. In order to be the agent of this action, other instruments have to be assumed. In assuming these instruments still others have to be assumed. A regressus ad infinitum is, therefore, inevit- able if the Self which is not joined with anything were to be the agent.¹ "Nor can it be said that it is an action ² that makes the Self act. For an action, not performed, has no existence. It is also not possible that something (previously existing) makes the Self act as nothing (except the Self) can have an independent existence and be a non-object. For things other than the Self must be non-conscious and, therefore, are not seen to be Self-existent. All things including sound ³ etc. come to exist when they are proved by mental functions resulting in the reflection of the Self. ¹ Br. Sû., 2. 3. 33, 40. The Self is not really an agent but only apparently so. ² As the Mîmâmsakas hold. ³ Sound, touch, sight, taste and smell. 5

66 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS “One,¹ (apparently) different from the Self, and possessed of consciousness, must be no other than the Self that is free from combination with other things and existing for Itself only. “Nor² can we admit that the body, the senses and their objects exist for themselves inasmuch as they are seen to depend for their existence on mental modifica- tions resulting in the reflection of the Self.” ननु देहस्यावगतौ न कश्चित् प्रत्यक्षादिप्रत्ययान्तरं अपे- क्षते ॥ १०६ ॥ 106. Disciple.—“But no one depends on any other evidence such as sense-perception etc. in knowing the body.” बाढं, जाग्रति एवं स्यात् । मृतिसुषुप्त्योस्तु देहस्यापि प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणापेक्षैव सिद्धिः । तथैव इन्द्रियाणाम् । बाह्या एव हि शब्दादयो देहेन्द्रियाकारपरिणता इति प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणा- पेक्षैव हि सिद्धिः । सिद्धिरिति च प्रमाणफलं अवगतिं अवो- चाम, सा च अवगतिः कूटस्था स्वयंसिद्धात्मज्योतिःस्वरू- पेति च ॥ १०७ ॥ 107. Teacher.—“Yes, it is so in the waking state. But at death and in deep sleep the body also depends on evidences such as sense-perception etc. in order to be known. Similar is the case with the senses. It is the external sound and other objects that are transformed into the body and the senses ; the latter, therefore, ¹ The Naiyâyikas hold that Isvara is different from the individual soul. This view is refuted here. ² It is the position of the Chârvâkas.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 67 also depend on evidences like sense-perception etc. in order to be known. I have said that Knowledge,¹ the result produced by evidences, is the same ² as the self-evident, self-effulgent and changeless Self. That is which I mean by knowledge." अत्राह चोदकः—अवगतिः प्रमाणानां फलं, कूटस्थनित्या- त्मज्योतिःस्वरूपेति च विप्रतिषिद्धम् । इत्युक्तवन्तमाह—न विप्रतिषिद्धम् । कथं तर्हि अवगतेः फलत्वम् ? कूटस्था नित्यापि सती प्रत्यक्षादिप्रत्ययान्ते लक्ष्यते, तादर्थ्यात् । प्रत्यक्षादिप्रत्ययस्य अनित्यत्वे अनित्येव भवति । तेन प्रमाणानां फलं इति उपचर्यते ॥ १०८ ॥ 108. The objector (the disciple) says, “It is contra- dictory to state that Knowledge is the result of evidences and (at the same time) it is the self-effulgent Self which is changeless and eternal.” The reply given to him is this : “It is not a con- tradication.” “How then is knowledge a result ?” “(It is a result in a secondary sense :) though change- less and eternal, It is noticed in the presence of mental modifications called sense-perception etc. as they are instrumental in making It manifest. It appears to be transitory as mental modifications called sense-percep- tion etc. are so. It is for this reason that It is called the result ³ of proofs in a secondary ⁴ sense.” ¹ Knowledge, according to the Chârvâkas, is an effect produced in the body, a combination of the elements, like the effect of a chemical combination. ² See paras 103 and 108. ³ See para 103 above. ⁴ The same pure Consciousness is thus called, in a secondary sense, a knower, an agent, or the result of proofs. This is the gist of the paragraphs from 94 onwards.

68 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS यद्येवं भगवन्, कूटस्थनित्यावगतिः आत्मज्योतिःस्वरूपैव स्वयंसिद्धा, आत्मनि प्रमाणनिरपेक्षत्वात्, ततोऽन्यत् अचेतनं संहत्यकारित्वात् परार्थम् । येन च सुखदुःखमोहप्रत्ययावगतिरूपेण पारार्थ्यं, तेनैव स्वरूपेण अनात्मनः अस्तित्त्वं, नान्येन रूपा- न्तरेण, अतो नास्तित्वमेव परमार्थतः । यथा हि लोके रज्जुसर्प- मरीच्युदकादीनां तदवगतिव्यतिरेकेण अभावो दृष्टः, एवं जाग्र- त्स्वप्नद्वैतभावस्यापि तदवगतिव्यतिरेकेण अभावो युक्तः । एवमेव परमार्थतः भगवन्, अवगतेः आत्मज्योतिषः नैरन्तर्यभावात् कूट- स्थनित्यता, अद्वैतभावश्च सर्वप्रत्ययभेदेषु अव्यभिचारात् । प्रत्ययभेदास्तु अवगतिं व्यभिचरन्ति । यथा स्वप्ने नीलपीताद्या- कारभेदरूपाः प्रत्ययाः तदवगतिं व्यभिचरन्तः परमार्थतो न सन्तीत्युच्यन्ते, एवं जाग्रत्यपि नीलपीतादिप्रत्ययभेदाः तामेवाव- गतिं व्यभिचरन्तः असत्यरूपा भवितुमर्हन्ति । तस्याश्चावगतेः अन्यः अवगन्ता नास्तीति न स्वेन स्वरूपेण स्वयं उपादातुं हातुं वा शक्यते, अन्यस्य च अभावात् ॥ १०९ ॥ 109. Disciple.—“Sir, if this is so, independent of evidences regarding Itself eternal and changeless Know- ledge, the Consciousness of the Self, is surely self- evident, and, all things, different from It and there- fore non-conscious, have an existence only for the sake of the Self as they combine to act for one another (in order that the events of the universe may continue uninterruptedly). It is only as the Knowledge ¹ of the ¹ The substratum of the mental modifications by which they are known (illumined).