|
|
Upadesa Sahasri by Adi Shankara -
Part 3
CHAPTER II - THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS AND NON-DUAL SELF
45. A certain Brahmacarin, tired of the
transmigratory existence consisting of birth and death, and aspiring
after liberation, approached (Bh. Gita 4.34) in the prescribed manner a
Knower of Brahman established in It and sitting at ease and said, "How
can I, Sir, be liberated from this transmigratory existence? Conscious
of the body, the senses and their objects I feel pain in the state of
waking and also in dream again and again after intervals of rest in deep
sleep experienced by me. Is this my own nature or is it causal, I being
of a different nature? If it be my own nature I can have no hope of
liberation as one's own nature cannot be got rid of. But if it be
causal, liberation from it may be possible by removing the cause."
46. The teacher said to him, "Listen, my child, this is not your true
nature, but causal."
47. Told thus the disciple said, "What is the cause, what will bring
it to an end and what is my true nature? When the cause is brought to an
end, there will be the absence of the effect, and I shall attain my own
true nature, just like a patient who gets back to normal condition (of
his health) when the cause of his disease is removed."
48. The teacher said, "The cause is Ignorance. Knowledge brings it to
an end. When Ignorance, the cause, is. removed, you will be liberated
from the transmigratory existence consisting of birth and death, and you
will never again feel pain in the states of waking and dream."
49. The disciple said, "What is that Ignorance ? (What is its seat)
and what is its object? What is Knowledge by means of which I can
realise my own nature?"
50. The teacher said, "You are the non-transmigratory Supreme Self,
but you wrongly think that you are one liable to transmigration.
(Similarly), not being an agent or an experienccr you wrongly consider
yourself to be so. Again, you are eternal but mistake yourself to be
non-eternal. This is Ignorance."
51. The disciple said, "Though eternal I am not the Supreme Self. My
nature is one of transmigratory existence consisting of agency and
experiencing of its results as it is known by evidence 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 unknown 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.
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'
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 on the Self which is the
object of the consciousness ' I,' and the same Self is superimposed on
the body."
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?"
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 undifferentiated 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 be superimposed on each other)."
55. Disciple.-" Whatever is superimposed through Ignorance on
anything else is found to be non-existent in that thing, e.g., silver in
a 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 desirable as it is the position of the Nihilists. If, instead of a
mutual superimposition, the body (atone) is superimposed through
Ignorance on the Self the body will he non-existent in the existing
Self. That is also not 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."
56. Teacher-" It is not so. For in that case there arises the
possibility of the Self existing for the benefit of another and being
non-eternal. The Self, if in contact with the body, would be existing
for the benefit of another 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. It is, therefore, concluded that devoid of contact with the
body the Self is eternal and characteristically different from it."
57. Disciple-" The objections that the Self as the body only is
non-existent, non-eternal and so on, hold good if the Self which is not
conjoined with the body were superimposed on it. The body would then be
without a Self and so the Nihilist position comes in."
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.
59. "It is not a fact' 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,
no contradiction to sense-perception etc."
60. Disciple.-" How can then there be the superimposition of the body
etc., on the Self which is not known by sense-perception etc., and that
of the Self on the body?"
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 there cannot be a rule that it is things known
occasionally only on which superimposition is possible and not on things
alwqys known."'
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?"
63. The teacher said, "Does it matter if it be made the one or the
other?"
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 he 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 be conscious and, therefore, would exist entirely for
myself. So it is I, a conscious being, who makes that superimposition,
the root of all evils, on the Self."
65. Thus told, the teacher said, "Do not make any superimposition if
you know it to be the root of all evils."
Adi Shankara
Upadesa Sahasri
- 1
| 2
| 4
| 5
| 6
|
7
|
|
