|
|
Upadesa Sahasri by Adi Shankara -
Part 2
21. "It is born, or is
possessed of a form and a name' and is purified by means of mantras
relating to natal and other ceremonies. Sanctified again by the ceremony
of' investiture with the holy thread, it gets the appellation of' a
student. The same body is designated a house-holder when it undergoes
the sacrament of being joined to a wife. That again is called a recluse
when it undergoes the ceremonies pertaining to retirement into the
forest. And it becomes known as a wandering monk when it performs the
ceremonies leading to the renunciation of all activities. Thus the body
which has birth, lineage and purificatory ceremonies different (from the
Self) is different from you.
22. "That the mind and the senses are also of the nature of name and
form is known from the Shruti,'The mind, my child, consists of food.'
(Chh.U.6.5.4,6)
23. "You said, 'How am I devoid of birth, lineage and sanctifying
ceremonies which are different (from the Self)?' Listen. The same one
who is the cause of the manifestation of name and form, whose nature is
different from that of name and form, and who is devoid of all
connection with sanctifying ceremonies, evolved name and form, created
this body and entered into it (which is but name and form)- who is
Himself the unseen Seer, the unheard Listener, the unthought Thinker,
the unknown Knower as stated in the Shruti text, '(I know) who creates
names and forms and remains speaking.' (T.A. 3.12.7) There are thousands
of Shruti texts conveying the same meaning; for instance, 'He created
and entered into it,' (Tai.U.2.6) 'Entering into them He rules all
creatures.' (T.A. 3.11.1,2) 'He, the Self, has entered into these
bodies,'(Br.U.1.4.7) 'This is your Self.' (Br.U. 3.4.1)' Opening this
very suture of the skull He got in by that door,'(Ai.U.1.3.12) 'This
Self is concealed in all beings,'(Kath.U.3.12) 'That Divinity
thought-let Me enter into these three deities.'(Chh.U.6.3.2)
24. "SR^iti texts too elucidate the same truth; for example, 'All
gods verily are the Self.' (Manu.XII.119) 'The Self in the city of nine
gates,'(B.G.5.13) 'Know the individual Self to be Myself,' (B.G.13.2)
'The same in all beings,' (B.G.13.27) 'The witness and approver,'
(B.G.13.22) 'The Supreme Being is different,' B.G.13.27) ' Residing in
all bodies but Itself devoid of any,' (Kath.U. 2.22 smR^iti source
untraced) and so on. Therefore it is established that you are without
any connection with birth, lineage and sanctifying ceremonies."
25. If he says, "I am in bondage, liable to transmigration, ignorant,
(sometimes) happy, (sometimes) mm happy, and am entirely different from
Him; He, the shining One, who is dissimilar in nature to me, and is
beyond transmigratory existence, is also different from me; I want to
worship Him through the actions pertaining to my caste and order of life
by making presents and offerings to Him and also by making salutations
and the like. I am eager to cross the ocean of the world in this way. So
how am I He Himself?
26. The teacher should say, "You ought not, my child, regard it so;
because a doctrine of difference is forbidden." In reply to the
question, " Why is it forbidden," the following other Shruti texts may
be cited: "He who knows 'that Brahman is one and I am another ' does not
know (Brahman)," (1.4.10) "He who regards the Brahmanical caste as
different from himself is rejected by that caste." (Br.U. 2.4.6) "He who
perceives diversity in Brahman goes from death to death," (Br.U. 4.4.19)
and so on.
27. These Shruti show that transmigratory existence is the sure
result of the acceptance of (the reality of) difference.
28. "That, on the other hand, liberation results from the acceptance
of (the reality of) non-difference is borne out by thousands of Shruti;
for example, after teaching that the individual Self is not different
from the Supreme One, in the text, "That' is the Self, thou art That," (Chh.U
6.13.3) and after saying, "A man who has a teacher knows Brahman,"
(Chh.U.6.14.2) the Shruti prove liberation to be the result of the
knowledge of (the reality of) non-difference only, by saying, 'A knower
of Brahman has to wait only so long as he is not merged in Brahman,' (Chh.U.
6.14.2) That transmigratory existence comes to an absolute cessation,
(in the case of one who speaks the truth that difference has no real
existence), is illustrated by the example of one who was not a thief and
did not get burnt (by grasping a heated hatchet); and that one, speaking
what is not true (i.e. the reality of difference,) continues to be in
the mundane condition, is illustrated by the example of a thief who got
burnt.(Chh.U.6.16.1-3)
29. "The Shruti text commencing with 'Whatever these creatures are
here, whether a tiger or..'(Chh.U.6.9.3) etc. and similar other texts,
after asserting that 'One becomes one's own master (i.e.
Brahman)'(Chh.U.6.25.2) by the knowledge of (the reality of)
non-difference, show that one continues to remain in, the transmigratory
condition in the opposite case as the result of the acceptance of (the
reality of) difference, saying, 'Knowing differently from this they get
other beings for their masters and reside in perishable regions.'
(Chh.7.25.2) Such statements are found in every branch of the Veda. It
was, therefore, certainly wrong on your part to say that you were the
son of a Brahmana, that you belonged to such and such a lineage, that
you were subject to transmigration, and that you were different from the
Supreme Self."
30.Therefore, on account of the rebuttal of the perception of
duality, it should be understood that, on the knowledge of one's
identity with the Supreme Self, the undertaking of religious rites which
have the notion of duality for their province, and the assumption of
yajnopavita etc., which are the means to their performance, are
forbidden. For these rites and yajnopavita etc., which are their means,
are inconsistent with the knowledge of one's identity with the Supreme
Self. It is only on those people that refer classes and orders of life
etc., to the Self that vedic actions and yajnopavita etc., which are
their means, are enjoined, and not on those who have acquired the
knowledge of their identity with the Supreme Self. That one is other
than Brahman due only on account of the perception of difference.
31. "If Vedic rites were to be performed and not meant to be
renounced, the Shruti would neither have declared the identity of
oneself with the Supreme Self unrelated to those rites, their means,
castes, orders of life, etc., which are the conditions of Vedic actions,
in unambiguous sentences like 'That is the Self, thou art That;'
(Chh.U.6.8.7) nor would it have condemned the acceptance of (the reality
of) difference in clauses such as 'It is the eternal glory of the knower
of Brahman,' (BrU. 4.4.23) 'Untouched by virtue, untouched by sin,'
(BrU.4.3.22) and 'Here a thief is no thief' etc (BrU 4.3.22)
32. "The Shruti would not have stated that the essential nature of
the Self was in no way connected with Vedic rites and conditions
required by them such as a particular class, and the rest, if they did
not intend that those rites and yajnopavita etc., their means, should be
given up. Therefore, Vedic actions which are incompatible with the
knowledge of the identity of oneself with the Supreme Self, should be
renounced together with their means by one who aspires after liberation;
and it should be known that the Self is no other than Brahman as defined
in the Shruti."
33. If he says, "The pain on account of burns or cuts in the body and
the misery caused by hunger and the like, Sir, are 'distinctly perceived
to be in me. The Supreme Self is known in all the Shruti and the smR^iti
to be 'free' from sin, old age, death, grief, hunger, thirst, etc., and
devoid of smell and taste.' (Chh.U. 8.7.1) How can I who am different
from Him and possess so many phenomenal attributes, possibly accept the
Supreme Self as myself, and myself, a transmigratory being, as the
Supreme Self? I may then very well admit that fire is cool! Why should
I, a man of the world entitled to accomplish all prosperity in this
world and in the next, and realize the supreme end of life, i.e,
liberation, give up the actions producing those results. and yajnopavita
etc., their accessories?
34. The teacher should say to him, 'It was not right hr you to say,
'I directly perceive the pain in me when my body gets cuts or burns.'
Why? Because the pain due to cuts or burns, perceived in the body, the
object of the perception of the perceiver like a tree burnt or cut, must
have the same location as the bums etc. People point out pain caused by
burns and the like to be in that place where they occur but not in the
perceiver. How? For, on being asked where one's pain lies, one says, 'I
have pain in the head, in the chest or in the stomach.' Thus one points
out pain in that place where burns or cuts occur, but never in the
perceiver. If pain or its causes viz, burns or cuts, were in the
perceiver, then one would have pointed out the perceiver to be the seat
of the pain, like the parts of the body, the seats of the burns or cuts.
35. "Moreover, (if it were in the Self) the pain could not be
perceived by the Self like the colour of the eye by the same eye.
Therefore, as it is perceived to have the same seat as burns, cuts and
the like, pain must be an object of perception like them. Since it is an
effect, it must have a receptacle like that in which rice is cooked. The
impressions of pain must have the same seat as pain. As they are
perceived during the time when memory is possible (i.e., in waking and
dream, and not in deep sleep), these impressions must have the same
location as pain. The aversion to cuts, bums and the like, the causes of
pain, must also have the same seat (non-Self) as the impressions (of
pain). It is therefore said, 'Desire, aversion and fear have a seat
common with that of the impressions of colours. As they have for their
seat the intellect, the knower, the Self, is always pure and devoid of
fear.'
36. 'What is then the locus of the impressions of colours and the
rest?' 'The same as that of lust etc.' 'Where again are lust etc.?' They
are in the intellect (and nowhere else) according to the Shruti, 'lust,
deliberation, doubt.'(Br.U.1.5.3) The impressions of colours and so
forth are also there (and nowhere else) according to the Sruti, 'what is
the seat of colours? The intellect.' Br.U. 3.9.20) That desire, aversion
and the like are the attributes of the embodiment, the object and not of
the Self is known from the Shruti, 'Desires that are in the intellect,'
(BrU.4.4.7) ' For he is then beyond all the woes of his heart
(intellect),' (BrU.4.3.22) 'Because It is unattached,' (BrU. 4.3.16) and
'Its' form is untouched by desires' (BrU. 4.3.21) and also from smR^iti
such as' It is said to be changeless,' B.G. 2.25) 'Because It is
beginning-less and without attributes' (B.G. 13.31) and so on.
Therefore, (it is concluded that) impurity pertains to the object and
not to the Self.
37, 38. "Therefore you are not different from the Supreme Self
inasmuch as you are devoid of impurities such as the connection with the
impressions of colours and the like. As there is no contradiction to
perceptional evidence etc., the Supreme Self should be accepted as
oneself according to the Shruti, 'It knew the pure Self to be Brahman'
(Br.U.1.4.10) 'It should be regarded as homogeneous,'(Br.U.4.4.20) 'It
is I that am below.' (Chh.U.7.25.1) ' It is the Self that is below,'
(Chh.U.7.25.2) 'He knows everything to be the Self,' (Br.U.4.4.23) 'When
everything becomes the Self,' (Br.U.2.4.14) 'All this verily is the
Self,' (Br.U.2.4.6) 'He is without parts,' (Pra.U. (6.5) ' Without
interior and exterior.' (Br.U.2.5.19) 'Unborn, comprising the interior
and exterior,' (Mu.U.2.1.2) 'All this is verily Brahman,' (Mu.U.2.2.11)
'It entered though this door,'(Ai.U. 1.3.12) 'The names of pure
knowledge,' (Ai.U..3.1.2) ' Existence, Knowledge, infinite
Brahman,'(Tai.U.2.1.1) 'From It,' (Tai.U.2.1.1) 'It created and entered
it,' (Tai.U.2.1.6) 'The shining One without a second, concealed in all
beings and all-pervading,'(Sw.U.6.11) 'In all bodies Itself bodiless,'
(Kath.U.2.22) ' It is not born and does not die,' (Kath.U.2.18)'
(Knowing,) dream and waking,' (Kath.U.2.14) 'He is my Self, thus one
should know,' (Kaushitak.U. III.8) 'Who (knows) all beings.' (Ish.U.6)
'It moves and moves not,' (Ish.U.5) 'knowin It, one becomes worthy of
being worshipped,' (M.N.U. 2.3) 'It and nothing but It is fire,'
(T.A.10.1) 'I became Manu and the sun,' ((Br.U.1.4.10) 'Entering into
them, He rules all creatures,' (T.A.3.11.1.2) 'Existence only, my child'
((Chh.U.6.2.1)) and 'That is real, That is the Self, thou art That."
(Chh.U.6.8.7))
"It is established that you, the Self, are the Supreme Brahman, the
One only and devoid of every phenomenal attribute from the smR^iti also
such as, 'All beings are the body of One who resides in the hearts of
all,'(Apastamba Dharma Sutra 1.8.22) 'Gods are verily the Self,' (Manu.XII.
119) ' In the city of nine gates.'(B.G.5.13) 'The same in all beings.'
(B.G.13.27) 'In a Brahmana wise and courteous,' (B.G.5.18)'Undivided in
things divided' (B.G.13.16) and 'All this verily is Vasudeva (the self)'
(B.G.7.19)
39. If he says "If, Sir, the Self is 'Without interior or exterior,'
(Br.U.2.5.19) 'Comprising the interior and exterior, unborn'(Mu.U.2.1.2)
'Whole,' 'Pure consciousness only' like a lump of salt,. devoid of all
the various forms, and of a homogeneous nature like ether, what is it
that is observed in ordinary usage and revealed in Shruti and smR^iti as
what is to be accomplished, its (appropriate) means and its
accomplishers, and is made the subject-matter of contention among
hundreds of rival disputants holding different views?"
40. The teacher should say, "Whatever is observed (in this world) or
learnt from the Shruti (regarding the next world) are products of
ignorance. But in reality there is only One, the Self who appears to be
many to deluded vision, like the moon appearing to be more than one to
eyes affected by amaurosis. That duality is the product of ignorance
follows from the reasonableness of the condemnation by Shruti of the
acceptance of (the reality of) difference such as 'When there is
something else as it were,' (Br.U.4.3.31) 'When there is duality as it
were, one sees another,' 'He goes from death to death,' (Br.U.4.4.19)
'And where one sees something else, hears something else, cognizes
something else, that is finite, and that which is finite is mortal,'
(Chh.U.7.24.1) ' Modifications (i.e., effects. e.g., earthen jars) being
only names, have for their support words only, it is earth alone (i.e.
the cause) that is real' (Chh.U.6.1.4) and 'He is one, I am another.'
(Br.U.1.4.10) The same thing follows from the Shruti teaching unity, for
example, 'One, only without a second,' (Chh.U.6.2.1) 'When to the knower
of Brahman' (Br.U.4.5.15) and 'What delusion or grief is there?' 41.
"If it be so, Sir, why do the Shruti speak of diverse ends to be
attained, their means, and so forth, as also the evolution and the
dissolution of the universe?"
42. "The answer to your question is this: Having acquired (i.e.,
having identified himself with) the various things such as the body etc.
and considering the Self to be connected with what is desirable and what
is undesirable and so on, though eager to attain the desirable and avoid
the undesirable by appropriate means-for without certain means nothing
can be accomplished-an ignorant man cannot discriminate between the
means to the realization of what is (really) desirable for him and the
means to the avoidance of what is undesirable. It is the gradual removal
of this ignorance that is the aim of the scriptures; but not the
enunciation of (the reality of) the difference of the end, means and so
on. For it is this very difference that constitutes this undesirable
transmigratory existence. The scriptures, therefore, root out the
ignorance constituting this (like) conception of difference which is the
cause of phenomenal existence by giving reasons for the oneness of the
evolution, dissolution, etc. of the universe.'
43. "When ignorance is uprooted with the aid of the Shruti, smR^iti
and reasoning, the one-pointed (B.G.2.41) intellect of the seer of the
supreme Truth becomes established (B.G.2.55) in the one Self consisting
of pure Consciousness like a (homogeneous) lump of salt and
all-pervading like the ether, which is within and without, without the
interior or exterior, and unborn. Even the slightest taint of impurity
due to the diversity of ends, means, evolution, dissolution and the rest
is, therefore not reasonable.
44. "One, eager to realize this right Knowledge spoken of in the
Shruti, should rise above the desire for a son, wealth and this world
and the next which are described in a five-fold (Br.U.1.4.17) manner and
are the outcome of a false reference to the Self of castes, orders of
life and so on. As this reference is contradictory to right Knowledge it
is intelligible why reasons are given by the Shruti regarding the
prohibition of the acceptance of (the reality of) difference. For, when
the Knowledge that the one-dual Self is beyond phenomenal existence is
generated by the scriptures and reasoning, there cannot exist (side by
side with it) a knowledge contrary to it. None can think of chillness in
fire or immortality and freedom from old age in regard to the
(perishable) body. One therefore, who is eager to be established in the
Knowledge of the Reality should give up all actions with yajnopavita and
the rest, their accessories, which are the effects of ignorance."
Here ends the enlightening (teaching) of the
pupil.
Adi Shankara
Upadesa Sahasri
- 1
| 3
| 4
| 5
| 6
|
7
|
|
