SIDDHA GITA FROM YOGA VASISHTHA
SIDDHA GITA FROM YOGA VASISHTHA
Humble salutations to the Great Masters of all Ages!
Sri: Salutations to that Reality which inheres as the Self in all, from which all the creations are projected, in which they have their
being and into which they are finally dissolved! Salutations to that Intelligence which inheres as the Self in all, from which the
knower, knowledge and the known, the seer, sight and the seen, the doer, cause and deed, are manifested! Salutations to that
Supreme Bliss which inheres as the Self in all, which constitutes the life of all and from whose unfathomable depths happiness is
sprayed as fine particles in Heaven or on Earth (where on the sum-total of happiness is not equal to a particle of that unalloyed,
natural Bliss). The Siddhas (invisible and immortal beings of the noblest order) proclaimed.
being and into which they are finally dissolved! Salutations to that Intelligence which inheres as the Self in all, from which the
knower, knowledge and the known, the seer, sight and the seen, the doer, cause and deed, are manifested! Salutations to that
Supreme Bliss which inheres as the Self in all, which constitutes the life of all and from whose unfathomable depths happiness is
sprayed as fine particles in Heaven or on Earth (where on the sum-total of happiness is not equal to a particle of that unalloyed,
natural Bliss). The Siddhas (invisible and immortal beings of the noblest order) proclaimed.
1. We adore that One which remains unfalteringly fixed, steady and eternal, which will not therefore admit of recurring births and
deaths nor undergo modifications as this and that, and which is by unerring contemplation realised as one’s own Self, from which
certainly proceeds the chain of links of successive particles of happiness, seemingly derived from and wrongly associated with
enjoyments, which are in their turn mere phenomena (viz., the ego and the world, or subject and object) reflected as images on the
non-dual, unique and abstract consciousness, because they are found on rightly discriminating investigation to merge into the
Absolute Self.
deaths nor undergo modifications as this and that, and which is by unerring contemplation realised as one’s own Self, from which
certainly proceeds the chain of links of successive particles of happiness, seemingly derived from and wrongly associated with
enjoyments, which are in their turn mere phenomena (viz., the ego and the world, or subject and object) reflected as images on the
non-dual, unique and abstract consciousness, because they are found on rightly discriminating investigation to merge into the
Absolute Self.
Some other Siddhas bring it nearer home as follows:
2. We adore That which is realised as the Self originating, and yet remaining as the untainted witness of the birth of the Ego, its
thoughts and the world around – by transcending the cogniser, cognition and the cognised objects pertaining to the wakeful and
dream states as well as the ignorance pertaining to dreamless slumber and made up of the latent tendencies of the mind.
thoughts and the world around – by transcending the cogniser, cognition and the cognised objects pertaining to the wakeful and
dream states as well as the ignorance pertaining to dreamless slumber and made up of the latent tendencies of the mind.
Some other Siddhas:
3. We adore That which is realised as the Light inhering as the Self and illumining all, abiding always as the Consciousness in the
believer and the non-believer alike, – before creation and after dissolution of the Cosmos and is between them too – and lying hidden
even in the successive links ceaselessly formulated as the original sources but rendered abortive by one conscious Self objectifying
another in itself.
believer and the non-believer alike, – before creation and after dissolution of the Cosmos and is between them too – and lying hidden
even in the successive links ceaselessly formulated as the original sources but rendered abortive by one conscious Self objectifying
another in itself.
Note. – Sloka 2 says the Reality is realised after eliminating all the triads. Some deny the same. There must be some conscious
self to deny it. Again, if the original cause of creation be imagined to be as transient as the present creation, the enduring reality
beyond the successive links cannot be denied. Or again, if a material cause be surmised, the efficient cause cannot be overlooked.
The latter is imagined by the Self. The Self must be the ultimate reality.
self to deny it. Again, if the original cause of creation be imagined to be as transient as the present creation, the enduring reality
beyond the successive links cannot be denied. Or again, if a material cause be surmised, the efficient cause cannot be overlooked.
The latter is imagined by the Self. The Self must be the ultimate reality.
4. We adore the Self as That in which all the worlds are fixed, of which they are, from which they emerge, for which they exist, by
which all these are projected and for which they are in their being.
which all these are projected and for which they are in their being.
5. We adore the Self which shines formless as unbroken ‘I-I’ consciousness which transcends the ego, yet comprising all the Egos
and entire knowledge. These after all make up the whole Cosmos.
and entire knowledge. These after all make up the whole Cosmos.
6. Those who, ignoring the Lord of the Heart, go about seeking other gods, are like the fool who throws away from his hand the
celestial gem (kaustubha) which fulfils all the desires of the possessor, and who then excavates the Earth in search of jewels.
celestial gem (kaustubha) which fulfils all the desires of the possessor, and who then excavates the Earth in search of jewels.
Some Siddhas counsel Dispassion as follows:
7. The Lord of the Heart, who roots out the vigorously growing creeper bearing poisonous fruits of desires is gained after discarding
everything as worthless.
everything as worthless.
8. That fool who, being aware of the evils of enjoyments, still runs after them, must not be deemed a man but be put down for an
ass. (The male ass runs after the female, even though kicked by her.)
ass. (The male ass runs after the female, even though kicked by her.)
9. The serpents under the cover of the senses must forcibly be laid, as often as they raise their hoods and hiss for prey, like
mountains mercilessly hit by the thunderbolt of Indra (the God of rain, thunder and lightning).
mountains mercilessly hit by the thunderbolt of Indra (the God of rain, thunder and lightning).
The other Siddhas hit on the cardinal points as follows:
10. Acquire the bliss of peace by reining in the senses and stilling the mind. The mind does not, in its womb, hold seeds of pain as
sensual pleasures do, but purges itself of impurities because it merges in its source as fire does when not fed with fuel. On the mind
becoming still and disappearing into the primal source of bliss, there arises the Supreme Peace which holds out till final
emancipation.
sensual pleasures do, but purges itself of impurities because it merges in its source as fire does when not fed with fuel. On the mind
becoming still and disappearing into the primal source of bliss, there arises the Supreme Peace which holds out till final
emancipation.
Chapter 1
O people, turn away from sensual enjoyments and betake yourselves to contemplating your own selves (rather the Self), because
sensual enjoyments end only in misery. What is meant by the Self? By Self is meant Consciousness as shown by the Mahaa
Vaakya, ‘Prajnaanam Brahma.’ The Prajnaanam (Consciousness) must be worshipped. Here worship does not mean external or
ritual worship. What is it then? To be unshakingly fixed in the intuition ‘I am Brahman’ in accordance with the Sutra, ‘the state
intuited as I’. Objection: It is in other words to annihilate the body and its associates. Answer: Rather it is, ‘Contemplate
Consciousness to the exclusion of objects illumined by it.’ Question: How? Answer: It means all objects being illumined by
Consciousness do not exist on their own merit. They are only fancied to be, like the horns of a hare. Question: If non-existent like
the hare’s horns, how do they appear to view at all? Answer: Only Consciousness shines forth and no other. Question: If there is
only Chit and nothing beside, how does it shine forth as body etc.? Answer: It is like images in a mirror. The real significance of the
Agamas (the tantric texts) is this:
sensual enjoyments end only in misery. What is meant by the Self? By Self is meant Consciousness as shown by the Mahaa
Vaakya, ‘Prajnaanam Brahma.’ The Prajnaanam (Consciousness) must be worshipped. Here worship does not mean external or
ritual worship. What is it then? To be unshakingly fixed in the intuition ‘I am Brahman’ in accordance with the Sutra, ‘the state
intuited as I’. Objection: It is in other words to annihilate the body and its associates. Answer: Rather it is, ‘Contemplate
Consciousness to the exclusion of objects illumined by it.’ Question: How? Answer: It means all objects being illumined by
Consciousness do not exist on their own merit. They are only fancied to be, like the horns of a hare. Question: If non-existent like
the hare’s horns, how do they appear to view at all? Answer: Only Consciousness shines forth and no other. Question: If there is
only Chit and nothing beside, how does it shine forth as body etc.? Answer: It is like images in a mirror. The real significance of the
Agamas (the tantric texts) is this:
Consciousness is truly the Self (Subjective Reality) because it cannot be referred to by the word ‘this’. The non-self alone can thus
be referred to. Only that can be Self (Subjective Reality) which itself being one, runs continuously through the realms of old
recollections and ever-new thoughts. Being pure Consciousness by nature it cannot admit of differentiation and is the same whether
in gods, asuras or men etc. There cannot be the least doubt that time and space are not different from it since they remain
immersed in it (that is, they cannot be conceived in the absence of Consciousness) and out of it they are non-existent like a hare’s
horn (that is, not existent).
be referred to. Only that can be Self (Subjective Reality) which itself being one, runs continuously through the realms of old
recollections and ever-new thoughts. Being pure Consciousness by nature it cannot admit of differentiation and is the same whether
in gods, asuras or men etc. There cannot be the least doubt that time and space are not different from it since they remain
immersed in it (that is, they cannot be conceived in the absence of Consciousness) and out of it they are non-existent like a hare’s
horn (that is, not existent).
Parama Siva spoken of in the Sastras is just this unbroken, uniform Consciousness, the Self. His own power known as Maya which
can make the impossible possible, hiding her real identity and manifesting her impurity as avidyaa (ignorance), produces duality. Of
this duality the perceptible (drisyam) has not its origin in Siva, like a sprout in its seed; nor is it a modification (parinaama) because
the material forming it is not continuous in its source, like clay in utensils of clay; nor is it a super-imposition (vivarta) like a snake
on a place of rope because the duality of the perceiver and the perceived (is not acceptable). What then? Just as a mirror remaining
unaffected presents within itself pictures owing to its clarity. so also Chit presents by its own power the objects illumined by itself
within itself. Nor should the doubt arise that just as a mirror requires corresponding external objects for reflection in itself, there must
be an external world to correspond to the reflection in Chit. For, the external object does not form the material for its reflection but
only effects it, like the wheel and the stick being the effective causes for producing a pot. The accessories are variable because the
wheel is rotated by hand. Similarly it is not improper to consider Maayaa, Chit’s own power, to be the effective cause for producing
the perceptible (jagat) in Chit. No other explanation but that of reflection fits in for appearance of the perceptible in Chit. There cannot
be an object external to Consciousness for it cannot be illumined (in order to be reflected). Nor does the world appear owing to its
relation to Chit because this will lead to regressus ad infinitium. Also even in the absence of Chit the world must always be evident
or not evident. All well-known objections have thus been refuted. For details consult Pratyabhijnaa etc. Therefore this doctrine of
reflection alone is valid.
can make the impossible possible, hiding her real identity and manifesting her impurity as avidyaa (ignorance), produces duality. Of
this duality the perceptible (drisyam) has not its origin in Siva, like a sprout in its seed; nor is it a modification (parinaama) because
the material forming it is not continuous in its source, like clay in utensils of clay; nor is it a super-imposition (vivarta) like a snake
on a place of rope because the duality of the perceiver and the perceived (is not acceptable). What then? Just as a mirror remaining
unaffected presents within itself pictures owing to its clarity. so also Chit presents by its own power the objects illumined by itself
within itself. Nor should the doubt arise that just as a mirror requires corresponding external objects for reflection in itself, there must
be an external world to correspond to the reflection in Chit. For, the external object does not form the material for its reflection but
only effects it, like the wheel and the stick being the effective causes for producing a pot. The accessories are variable because the
wheel is rotated by hand. Similarly it is not improper to consider Maayaa, Chit’s own power, to be the effective cause for producing
the perceptible (jagat) in Chit. No other explanation but that of reflection fits in for appearance of the perceptible in Chit. There cannot
be an object external to Consciousness for it cannot be illumined (in order to be reflected). Nor does the world appear owing to its
relation to Chit because this will lead to regressus ad infinitium. Also even in the absence of Chit the world must always be evident
or not evident. All well-known objections have thus been refuted. For details consult Pratyabhijnaa etc. Therefore this doctrine of
reflection alone is valid.
Chapter 2
Illusion can be overcome only by a sincere, earnest and constant devotion to God. But the atheists deny God and His creation of
the universe. Atheist: How does it follow that Iswara is the creator of jagat? Answer: Because the jagat is seen to be a kaarya. This
is an artifact. Q.: True, a pot etc., are seen to be the products of work but not the mountains, oceans etc. A.: Because they consist
of parts they must also have been made (created) by an unseen power. (Yat Saavayavam tat kaaryam iti tarkena). This is according
to the axiom: What is with parts must be kaarya. Therefore the world etc., are creations only. Q.: Paramaanu (the fundamental
subtle primary particle) and aakaasa (ether) have no parts. So the jagat exclusive of these two must be taken to be kaarya. A.: No
to both. They – that is, Paramaanu and aakaasa – are kaarya because they are perceptible (knowable). Their being kaarya cannot be
denied for the simple fact of their being impartible. They are known by inference. Many scriptural texts attest our position. They are
(1) One God created the sky and the earth. (2) From the Self aakaasa came forth, etc. Here aakaasa implies other elements also.
Owing to its knowability, the jagat must be a kaarya; being a kaarya there must be its kartaa (creator), and he must be now
ascertained to be the creator of the universe. Q.: This applies to a pot and the potter because both are seen. Not so in the other
case. A.: He is totally different from all other agents. For, the scripture says: “There was then (that is, before creation) neither Sat
nor asat (anything nor nothing). There is no material with which to create this jagat; yet He did it; therefore He differs from all others.
The Creator has now been established. Q.: Should the reasoning based on the aagamic texts that the jagat is a kaarya be upheld
as impregnable, this should hold good for the reasoning based on Baarhaspatya Aagama also which declares that the loka has no
creator but appears solely according to nature. A.: It is only a semblance of an aagama. Here are some extracts from it:
the universe. Atheist: How does it follow that Iswara is the creator of jagat? Answer: Because the jagat is seen to be a kaarya. This
is an artifact. Q.: True, a pot etc., are seen to be the products of work but not the mountains, oceans etc. A.: Because they consist
of parts they must also have been made (created) by an unseen power. (Yat Saavayavam tat kaaryam iti tarkena). This is according
to the axiom: What is with parts must be kaarya. Therefore the world etc., are creations only. Q.: Paramaanu (the fundamental
subtle primary particle) and aakaasa (ether) have no parts. So the jagat exclusive of these two must be taken to be kaarya. A.: No
to both. They – that is, Paramaanu and aakaasa – are kaarya because they are perceptible (knowable). Their being kaarya cannot be
denied for the simple fact of their being impartible. They are known by inference. Many scriptural texts attest our position. They are
(1) One God created the sky and the earth. (2) From the Self aakaasa came forth, etc. Here aakaasa implies other elements also.
Owing to its knowability, the jagat must be a kaarya; being a kaarya there must be its kartaa (creator), and he must be now
ascertained to be the creator of the universe. Q.: This applies to a pot and the potter because both are seen. Not so in the other
case. A.: He is totally different from all other agents. For, the scripture says: “There was then (that is, before creation) neither Sat
nor asat (anything nor nothing). There is no material with which to create this jagat; yet He did it; therefore He differs from all others.
The Creator has now been established. Q.: Should the reasoning based on the aagamic texts that the jagat is a kaarya be upheld
as impregnable, this should hold good for the reasoning based on Baarhaspatya Aagama also which declares that the loka has no
creator but appears solely according to nature. A.: It is only a semblance of an aagama. Here are some extracts from it:
Earth, water, fire and air are the four elements perceived (by the senses) and no fifth element is so perceived. The loka is composed
of varying combinations of these four elements and is also changing every moment, so that each successive modification of this
assemblage is similar to the previous one. The loka is only of the nature of these combinations and it rests in itself. Just as a
solution of sugar acquires intoxicating power so also the mixture of ova and semen in the womb acquires intellectual power capable
of action and cognition. Just as the intoxicating liquor is called wine, so also the intellect-united body is called a purusha (man).
Pleasure is the goal of man and it forms heaven whereas pain is called hell; they are both natural. Mixtures of these two form the
routine of life (samsara). Just as the intoxication disappears after a time so also does the intellect; its total extinction is called
moksha (liberation) by the wise. There is no heaven or hell to go to after death.
of varying combinations of these four elements and is also changing every moment, so that each successive modification of this
assemblage is similar to the previous one. The loka is only of the nature of these combinations and it rests in itself. Just as a
solution of sugar acquires intoxicating power so also the mixture of ova and semen in the womb acquires intellectual power capable
of action and cognition. Just as the intoxicating liquor is called wine, so also the intellect-united body is called a purusha (man).
Pleasure is the goal of man and it forms heaven whereas pain is called hell; they are both natural. Mixtures of these two form the
routine of life (samsara). Just as the intoxication disappears after a time so also does the intellect; its total extinction is called
moksha (liberation) by the wise. There is no heaven or hell to go to after death.
Such is the Chaarvaaka doctrine which has already been refuted by all other schools of thought. It has been said to be a semblance
of aagama because it is opposed to all other aagamas. Now it will be shown to be opposed to everyone’s experience also.
Samsaara being an uninterrupted series of births, deaths, etc., is full of pain. Its root cause must be found and scotched. Samsaara
thus ending. Supreme Bliss ensues and this is the supreme goal of man. Such is the belief of the seekers of liberation; this is
supported by holy texts and logic. Such being the case, to admit direct perception as the only valid proof and to assert on its basis
that death is the only goal, show the sastra to be a so-called sastra only. Therefore that aagama has not been admitted by wise
men of discrimination to be helpful for gaining the supreme goal of man.
of aagama because it is opposed to all other aagamas. Now it will be shown to be opposed to everyone’s experience also.
Samsaara being an uninterrupted series of births, deaths, etc., is full of pain. Its root cause must be found and scotched. Samsaara
thus ending. Supreme Bliss ensues and this is the supreme goal of man. Such is the belief of the seekers of liberation; this is
supported by holy texts and logic. Such being the case, to admit direct perception as the only valid proof and to assert on its basis
that death is the only goal, show the sastra to be a so-called sastra only. Therefore that aagama has not been admitted by wise
men of discrimination to be helpful for gaining the supreme goal of man.
The Chaarvaaka asserting only svaatmanaasa to the goal of man should be asked, “what is meant by svaatamanaasa which you
say is the goal? Is it the momentary loss or the loss of the series or the ordinary loss as understood by all? “It cannot be the first
since according to you the intellect that is the Self is momentary; the goal is attained every moment and no effort is needed to attain
it. The other two are impossible (consistently with your views). For, at the time of the dissolution of one’s own self (svaatmanaasa)
there would remain nothing to say one’s own (svasya); therefore the loss of one’s own self is unattainable and this ends in no
purushaartha. If you say this very unattainability is itself the purushaartha, then it may even result in the loss of another self
(because there is no syasya)!
say is the goal? Is it the momentary loss or the loss of the series or the ordinary loss as understood by all? “It cannot be the first
since according to you the intellect that is the Self is momentary; the goal is attained every moment and no effort is needed to attain
it. The other two are impossible (consistently with your views). For, at the time of the dissolution of one’s own self (svaatmanaasa)
there would remain nothing to say one’s own (svasya); therefore the loss of one’s own self is unattainable and this ends in no
purushaartha. If you say this very unattainability is itself the purushaartha, then it may even result in the loss of another self
(because there is no syasya)!
Again, about the purushaartha of the loss of one’s self (svaatmanaasa) is it established on any pramaana or is it not? If you say
“not”, it is non-existent like a hare’s horn. If you say it is, – on what pramaana? You admit only direct perception as proof. For this
the object must be present here now. The past or the future cannot be proved according to you. You who admit only direct
perception as proof, to say that the intellect is an effect similar to the intoxicating power of a solution of sugar is like saying “I have
no tongue”. Your sastra was not given out by any all-knowing saint; it is dry and devoid of any reasoning. Having thus dealt with
atheism, the Sankhya school of thought is next examined.
“not”, it is non-existent like a hare’s horn. If you say it is, – on what pramaana? You admit only direct perception as proof. For this
the object must be present here now. The past or the future cannot be proved according to you. You who admit only direct
perception as proof, to say that the intellect is an effect similar to the intoxicating power of a solution of sugar is like saying “I have
no tongue”. Your sastra was not given out by any all-knowing saint; it is dry and devoid of any reasoning. Having thus dealt with
atheism, the Sankhya school of thought is next examined.
They are parinaama vaadis, i.e., they assert that the jagat was originally contained in its source in a subtle manner; therefore it was
before, it is now and it will be hereafter (this is sad vaada). They say that the jagat was not created by an intelligent being; its source
is the unintelligent principle, prakrti, in which its three constituent qualities – satva, rajas and tamas were in equipoise. It is itself
devoid of intelligence, and cannot therefore do anything intelligently; it is inert (jada). However, it does not require an extraneous
agent to modify itself into the jagat unlike clay requiring a potter to change it into a pot. By itself it is modified into jagat and thus it
forms the source of the jagat. This is in brief the godless Sankhya doctrine.
before, it is now and it will be hereafter (this is sad vaada). They say that the jagat was not created by an intelligent being; its source
is the unintelligent principle, prakrti, in which its three constituent qualities – satva, rajas and tamas were in equipoise. It is itself
devoid of intelligence, and cannot therefore do anything intelligently; it is inert (jada). However, it does not require an extraneous
agent to modify itself into the jagat unlike clay requiring a potter to change it into a pot. By itself it is modified into jagat and thus it
forms the source of the jagat. This is in brief the godless Sankhya doctrine.
Further on, in prakrti’s satva (bright aspect) it is dear like a mirror; so it can take in reflections of purusha, the intelligent principle
and the reflection of the universe, the inert nature of its tamasic aspect. Owing to this union of the reflected seer and the seen, the
purusha becomes associated with aviveka (the undiscriminating quality) of prakrti; so he feels ‘I know the pot’ (i.e., any object); this
forms his wrong identity and this is just his samsaara. If however, by vichaara (investigation) he knows himself to be different from
prakrti, prakrti abandons him at once like a thief who has been discovered; this is the end of his wrong identification and constitutes
mukti. This is their belief.
and the reflection of the universe, the inert nature of its tamasic aspect. Owing to this union of the reflected seer and the seen, the
purusha becomes associated with aviveka (the undiscriminating quality) of prakrti; so he feels ‘I know the pot’ (i.e., any object); this
forms his wrong identity and this is just his samsaara. If however, by vichaara (investigation) he knows himself to be different from
prakrti, prakrti abandons him at once like a thief who has been discovered; this is the end of his wrong identification and constitutes
mukti. This is their belief.
According to their view the universe gets illumined by its relation to the Chit (purusha) reflected in prakrti. Regarding this reflected
Chit, is it void of intelligence like its base prakrti, or is it intelligent by its own nature? In the former case, illumining the universe is
impossible. If contended that even though inert it can still illumine, then the satva aspect of prakrti can serve the purpose and the
reflected Chit is redundant. In the latter case there is no need for the reflected Chit, since direct relation with Chit itself will do. Nor
can it be said that just as a mirror is unable by itself to illumine an object yet when sunlight is reflected on it, it illumines the object,
so also the reflected Chit is needed; for, the sunlight does not require any medium as the mirror does for illumining objects. Nor can
it be said that the reflected Chit partakes of the qualities of both prakrti and Chit, or is altogether different from either or from both of
them. In the former case, it is impossible (like darkness and light being together) and in the latter case it is inconsistent with your
doctrine (apasiddhaanta). Furthermore, prakrti naturally active in the presence of purusha cannot cease to be so after the accession
of discrimination (viveka jnanottaram) for one’s own nature cannot change. Therefore bondage cannot be overcome (by adopting your
system).
Chit, is it void of intelligence like its base prakrti, or is it intelligent by its own nature? In the former case, illumining the universe is
impossible. If contended that even though inert it can still illumine, then the satva aspect of prakrti can serve the purpose and the
reflected Chit is redundant. In the latter case there is no need for the reflected Chit, since direct relation with Chit itself will do. Nor
can it be said that just as a mirror is unable by itself to illumine an object yet when sunlight is reflected on it, it illumines the object,
so also the reflected Chit is needed; for, the sunlight does not require any medium as the mirror does for illumining objects. Nor can
it be said that the reflected Chit partakes of the qualities of both prakrti and Chit, or is altogether different from either or from both of
them. In the former case, it is impossible (like darkness and light being together) and in the latter case it is inconsistent with your
doctrine (apasiddhaanta). Furthermore, prakrti naturally active in the presence of purusha cannot cease to be so after the accession
of discrimination (viveka jnanottaram) for one’s own nature cannot change. Therefore bondage cannot be overcome (by adopting your
system).
We see that a pot etc., are formed by a potter etc., endowed with intelligence, for it is done according to a plan – ‘I will make such a
pot in this manner.’ Since intelligence is required to make a pot, the jagat cannot be the production of an unintelligent principle –
prakrti. The word ‘unintelligent’ is used deliberately to indicate that an image of a potter for instance – cannot make a pot. The srutis
declare, “He (God) thought: I shall create the world”; “I shall manifest names and forms etc.” The Original Being thought and
manifested the worlds with no constituent material at all, like a magician conjuring illusory objects. Hence the anumaana (inference)
is perfectly valid; jagat buddhimat kartrukam kaaryatvat ghataadivat iti – meaning the jagat has an intelligent maker because it is
kaarya, as pot etc. This means that only an intelligent being can be the creator of the jagat and not the unintelligent principle prakrti.
pot in this manner.’ Since intelligence is required to make a pot, the jagat cannot be the production of an unintelligent principle –
prakrti. The word ‘unintelligent’ is used deliberately to indicate that an image of a potter for instance – cannot make a pot. The srutis
declare, “He (God) thought: I shall create the world”; “I shall manifest names and forms etc.” The Original Being thought and
manifested the worlds with no constituent material at all, like a magician conjuring illusory objects. Hence the anumaana (inference)
is perfectly valid; jagat buddhimat kartrukam kaaryatvat ghataadivat iti – meaning the jagat has an intelligent maker because it is
kaarya, as pot etc. This means that only an intelligent being can be the creator of the jagat and not the unintelligent principle prakrti.
Still more, in order to establish the inert prakrti as the creator of the jagat the Sankhya cannot show any illustration as a valid proof.
Well, I admit the jagat has an intelligent being for its creator. Sure, a potter is necessary to make a pot; similarly the jagat must
have a creator but he need not be Paramesvara, the Lord of All. A.: He must be Paramesvara because of the surpassing wonder that
the earth stands amidst the water and these repose in empty space etc. To accomplish such wonders the creator must have
surpassingly wonderful powers. These powers must also be immeasurable and his capacity infinite. Therefore He must be different
from any common artisan. We find each special work requires a specialist to do it. For the same reason the infinite universe should
have one of infinite powers for its maker. Thus far, the existence of Iswara is established.
have a creator but he need not be Paramesvara, the Lord of All. A.: He must be Paramesvara because of the surpassing wonder that
the earth stands amidst the water and these repose in empty space etc. To accomplish such wonders the creator must have
surpassingly wonderful powers. These powers must also be immeasurable and his capacity infinite. Therefore He must be different
from any common artisan. We find each special work requires a specialist to do it. For the same reason the infinite universe should
have one of infinite powers for its maker. Thus far, the existence of Iswara is established.
That He is the sole Refuge of all, will now be established. Surrender to Him whole-heartedly (without any other object but that of
entrusting yourself to his care). If on the other hand there be any other desire, only half of your heart is with God and the other half
with your desire. So it will be only half or part surrender which is not effective. Only surrender to Him body, heart and soul will lead to
eternal Bliss. Iswara grants everything to His devotee.
entrusting yourself to his care). If on the other hand there be any other desire, only half of your heart is with God and the other half
with your desire. So it will be only half or part surrender which is not effective. Only surrender to Him body, heart and soul will lead to
eternal Bliss. Iswara grants everything to His devotee.
Q.: It is alright that persons in position being pleased with others’ service, satisfy their wants to a limited extent. But Iswara being
self-contained has no wants. And so He cannot be pleased with others’ services. How then do you say that He is pleased and fulfils
all the wants of devotees? A.: Because of His love of others’ devotion, that is to say, others’ devotion results in the reaction of God’s
love for them and the automatic fulfilment of all their desires. Moreover there is no certainty with worldly men in power whereas it is
certain with God. Therefore the devotee is sure of his goal. Q.: How is this assumption of certainty warranted? A.: Otherwise God
will be open to censure. Uncertainty in God’s reaction or response means uncertainty in the results of everyday transactions of ours
and untimely end of the samsaara projected by Him. You who desire the Supreme Goal need not engage in it nor seek it. But
surrender yourself completely to God and He will establish you in the Supreme State.
self-contained has no wants. And so He cannot be pleased with others’ services. How then do you say that He is pleased and fulfils
all the wants of devotees? A.: Because of His love of others’ devotion, that is to say, others’ devotion results in the reaction of God’s
love for them and the automatic fulfilment of all their desires. Moreover there is no certainty with worldly men in power whereas it is
certain with God. Therefore the devotee is sure of his goal. Q.: How is this assumption of certainty warranted? A.: Otherwise God
will be open to censure. Uncertainty in God’s reaction or response means uncertainty in the results of everyday transactions of ours
and untimely end of the samsaara projected by Him. You who desire the Supreme Goal need not engage in it nor seek it. But
surrender yourself completely to God and He will establish you in the Supreme State.
Differences of opinion regarding the means of liberation and consequent doubts as to the means are thus resolved. Q.: Which is
God? Some say Siva, others Vishnu, or Indra or Ganesa etc. Who is supreme among them? A.: No name and form attach to Him.
He is none of them singly or He is all of them. He is not personal. He is pure Chit only.
God? Some say Siva, others Vishnu, or Indra or Ganesa etc. Who is supreme among them? A.: No name and form attach to Him.
He is none of them singly or He is all of them. He is not personal. He is pure Chit only.
Q.: But creation, preservation and dissolution are functions requiring the use of limbs and material? A.: It is so with workers of
limited powers and objectives. This holds good for gross bodies; but in dreams the gross bodies do not act and there are no means
nor objectives, yet worlds are created, transactions go on, battles are fought, and empires won and lost; it is Chit that causes it all.
If there had been material before creation with which to create the jagat, such material should be eternal and exempt from being
created. Then Iswara must be accepted to be the creator of a part of the jagat; this contradicts His being the all-creator. Also being
only the effective cause and not the material cause of the jagat, He can no more be Iswara (than a magnified artisan).
Kshemarajacharya says: “Those who admit Iswara to be the effective cause only place Him on a par with a profligate enmeshed in
the lures of a wanton woman other than his wife.” Those who imagine a starling-point for the creation (the aarambha vaadis) assert
that Iswara is only the effective cause and the effect (jagat) cannot come into being afresh. Before creation, paramaanus
(fundamental, indivisible, subtle particles) were present. By Iswara’s will they united with each other and creation took place.
limited powers and objectives. This holds good for gross bodies; but in dreams the gross bodies do not act and there are no means
nor objectives, yet worlds are created, transactions go on, battles are fought, and empires won and lost; it is Chit that causes it all.
If there had been material before creation with which to create the jagat, such material should be eternal and exempt from being
created. Then Iswara must be accepted to be the creator of a part of the jagat; this contradicts His being the all-creator. Also being
only the effective cause and not the material cause of the jagat, He can no more be Iswara (than a magnified artisan).
Kshemarajacharya says: “Those who admit Iswara to be the effective cause only place Him on a par with a profligate enmeshed in
the lures of a wanton woman other than his wife.” Those who imagine a starling-point for the creation (the aarambha vaadis) assert
that Iswara is only the effective cause and the effect (jagat) cannot come into being afresh. Before creation, paramaanus
(fundamental, indivisible, subtle particles) were present. By Iswara’s will they united with each other and creation took place.
But this cannot be. It is seen that only a sentient being responds to the wishes of another, but not an inert object. The paramaanus
being insentient cannot react to Iswara’s will. Objection: Such is the wonderful power of Iswara as to make even the inert
paramaanus obedient to His will. A.: True, that Iswara’s powers are immeasurable and infinite. It is because of His extraordinary
powers that He creates the jagat even in total absence of material for it. If in spite of this, paramaanus be said to be the material
cause it is thanks to duality-minded obstinacy! Hereby is refuted the theistic (Saankhya) school i.e., Paatanjala or Yoga School.
being insentient cannot react to Iswara’s will. Objection: Such is the wonderful power of Iswara as to make even the inert
paramaanus obedient to His will. A.: True, that Iswara’s powers are immeasurable and infinite. It is because of His extraordinary
powers that He creates the jagat even in total absence of material for it. If in spite of this, paramaanus be said to be the material
cause it is thanks to duality-minded obstinacy! Hereby is refuted the theistic (Saankhya) school i.e., Paatanjala or Yoga School.
There is not the least incongruity in our system based solely on the aagamas declaring the all-powerful Supreme Being fully capable
of conducting the totality of actions, transactions etc. Objection: In order to explain the different grades of beings etc., and also
obviate the charges of partiality and cruelty to Iswara, every school of thought admits karma to be the cause of differences. This
admission by you vitiates your position, for, there is karma needed for creation in addition to Iswara. So He is not all-powerful. A.:
True, that this contention remains insuperable to the dualists. As for the non-dualists the jagat is contained in Chit like images in a
mirror; so also karma; it is not external to the infinite Supreme Intelligence (Parameswara) and there is not the slightest discrepancy
in our contention. Objection: Even then, it is seen that a pot is made by a potter; he is the maker of the pot; and therefore Iswara is
not the all-creator. A.: The potter is not external to Iswara. Again just as the king remains the sole administrator, even though his
servants act on the spot, so also Iswara acts through His agents. Conclusion: The Supreme Being is only One Solid Intelligence,
nameless, formless, bodiless, infinite, non-dual, and Blissful. This being incomprehensible to impure minds is apprehended in
various forms according to the capacities of individuals. Nevertheless devotion to any form or name of God purifies the mind so that
the individual is ultimately resolved into the Supreme Being.
of conducting the totality of actions, transactions etc. Objection: In order to explain the different grades of beings etc., and also
obviate the charges of partiality and cruelty to Iswara, every school of thought admits karma to be the cause of differences. This
admission by you vitiates your position, for, there is karma needed for creation in addition to Iswara. So He is not all-powerful. A.:
True, that this contention remains insuperable to the dualists. As for the non-dualists the jagat is contained in Chit like images in a
mirror; so also karma; it is not external to the infinite Supreme Intelligence (Parameswara) and there is not the slightest discrepancy
in our contention. Objection: Even then, it is seen that a pot is made by a potter; he is the maker of the pot; and therefore Iswara is
not the all-creator. A.: The potter is not external to Iswara. Again just as the king remains the sole administrator, even though his
servants act on the spot, so also Iswara acts through His agents. Conclusion: The Supreme Being is only One Solid Intelligence,
nameless, formless, bodiless, infinite, non-dual, and Blissful. This being incomprehensible to impure minds is apprehended in
various forms according to the capacities of individuals. Nevertheless devotion to any form or name of God purifies the mind so that
the individual is ultimately resolved into the Supreme Being.
CHAPTER 3
NATURE OF PURE KNOWLEDGE
Even after much effort the Self remains unrealised because the sadhak is not acquainted with it and so does not recognise it even in
Its presence. Now listen, the mind when checked remains inert for some time. At the end of it darkness is perceived. Before
darkness supervenes there is an interval of pure knowledge which is quite unaware of the body or environment; only this pure
Knowledge shines along with objects when the mind is active; when the mind is checked it shines of Itself. This state of pure
Knowledge is called the residual state (sesha bhaava). This can by no means be eliminated because being self-resplendent, it
shines of Itself, as is experienced by one just risen from sleep who says “For long I remained unaware of anything.” This residual
state is the one of pure Knowledge void of objects. Always contemplate ‘I am.’ That is the state of Bliss beyond the ken of great
pandits, yogis or even sadhakas of a sort.
Its presence. Now listen, the mind when checked remains inert for some time. At the end of it darkness is perceived. Before
darkness supervenes there is an interval of pure knowledge which is quite unaware of the body or environment; only this pure
Knowledge shines along with objects when the mind is active; when the mind is checked it shines of Itself. This state of pure
Knowledge is called the residual state (sesha bhaava). This can by no means be eliminated because being self-resplendent, it
shines of Itself, as is experienced by one just risen from sleep who says “For long I remained unaware of anything.” This residual
state is the one of pure Knowledge void of objects. Always contemplate ‘I am.’ That is the state of Bliss beyond the ken of great
pandits, yogis or even sadhakas of a sort.
Though the jagat is variegated the whole of it can be classified under the two heads. Knowledge and the knowable. Of these the
knowable is established by direct perception, inference, etc. and it is always the non-self. Being non-self, it is not worthwhile
investigating; therefore knowledge alone will be examined here. Being self-evident, it requires no external evidence. In its absence
nothing else can exist. Being the background of all, like a mirror of the images reflected in it, nothing can shine without it; so it
cannot in any way be obviated. Objection: Unreasonable to say that nothing else can exist without it, because the proven is proved
by proofs. A.: If the proof be valid the proven is established by it. The validity of the proof is known by the proven. To say so is
absurd, being interdependent. But without the knower the proof does not gain authority, i.e., the knowable cannot be said to be. A
proof only proves a fact but is not the fact. If you object saying that the knower (knower is the same as knowledge) also can be
known only by a proof, I reply there must be equally a knower to deny the knower as to know him. Therefore, we say that the
knower is self-proven and does not require extraneous proof to establish its Being. Being conscious, being always self-shining it
requires no proof like the self-shining sun requiring no candle light to illumine it. Were one to deny pure Knowledge itself – the
knowable is dependent on knowledge and it cannot be in the absence of knowledge; therefore he cannot raise the question nor
expect an answer i.e., to say, he is out of consideration.
knowable is established by direct perception, inference, etc. and it is always the non-self. Being non-self, it is not worthwhile
investigating; therefore knowledge alone will be examined here. Being self-evident, it requires no external evidence. In its absence
nothing else can exist. Being the background of all, like a mirror of the images reflected in it, nothing can shine without it; so it
cannot in any way be obviated. Objection: Unreasonable to say that nothing else can exist without it, because the proven is proved
by proofs. A.: If the proof be valid the proven is established by it. The validity of the proof is known by the proven. To say so is
absurd, being interdependent. But without the knower the proof does not gain authority, i.e., the knowable cannot be said to be. A
proof only proves a fact but is not the fact. If you object saying that the knower (knower is the same as knowledge) also can be
known only by a proof, I reply there must be equally a knower to deny the knower as to know him. Therefore, we say that the
knower is self-proven and does not require extraneous proof to establish its Being. Being conscious, being always self-shining it
requires no proof like the self-shining sun requiring no candle light to illumine it. Were one to deny pure Knowledge itself – the
knowable is dependent on knowledge and it cannot be in the absence of knowledge; therefore he cannot raise the question nor
expect an answer i.e., to say, he is out of consideration.
Pure knowledge means the state of awareness free from objective knowledge; it is knowledge remaining unmoded. This state forms
the interval between deep sleep and waking state; it must be distinguished from the other two. Deep sleep means the dormant state
of mind; waking consists of a series of broken knowledge; in it objects are perceived by the senses external to the mind whereas in
dream the mind is at one with the senses and its latencies are objectified and perceived within itself like particles of dust in water. In
deep sleep supervening after dream the mind together with the senses merges into its source – prakriti; then the tamasic or dull
aspect of prakri remains predominant on overwhelming the satvic and rajasic aspects. In this state the Self shines only very
indistinct like the sun behind very heavy clouds. In the interval between deep sleep and waking the mind continues to be inward
turned and cannot reflect objects external to it; at the same time the tamas of prakrti has lost its solidity and does not hide the Self.
In this manner the Self that is Chit shines unobjectified i.e., as unbroken knowledge.
the interval between deep sleep and waking state; it must be distinguished from the other two. Deep sleep means the dormant state
of mind; waking consists of a series of broken knowledge; in it objects are perceived by the senses external to the mind whereas in
dream the mind is at one with the senses and its latencies are objectified and perceived within itself like particles of dust in water. In
deep sleep supervening after dream the mind together with the senses merges into its source – prakriti; then the tamasic or dull
aspect of prakri remains predominant on overwhelming the satvic and rajasic aspects. In this state the Self shines only very
indistinct like the sun behind very heavy clouds. In the interval between deep sleep and waking the mind continues to be inward
turned and cannot reflect objects external to it; at the same time the tamas of prakrti has lost its solidity and does not hide the Self.
In this manner the Self that is Chit shines unobjectified i.e., as unbroken knowledge.
In the same manner with the intervals of broken knowledge: the background namely pure knowledge remains unbroken in the interval
of Knowledge of a pot, does not itself continue to subsist as that of a piece of cloth; the difference between the two is obvious. In the
interval between the two kinds of knowledge, pure Knowledge persists devoid of the two forms : this cannot be denied. This is samvit
(Knowledge) shining in its own merit.
of Knowledge of a pot, does not itself continue to subsist as that of a piece of cloth; the difference between the two is obvious. In the
interval between the two kinds of knowledge, pure Knowledge persists devoid of the two forms : this cannot be denied. This is samvit
(Knowledge) shining in its own merit.
Samvit is the seer or the ego. Just as the water in a tank passes through an outlet into a channel to irrigate a field and mixes with
the water already in the field, so also at the instant of perception, the samvit of the seer passes through the senses to unite with the
samvit of the object. In this case Chit remains as the body, mind etc., of the seer; in the sky it remains as the sun; in the
intervening space covered by it samvit is formless and this is its real state. All this indicates these intervals to be the seats of
realisation of the Self. The Self is no more than this. Pure Chit devoid of objective knowledge is the true Self. If this is realised as the
Self the universe will appear to be just an image reflected in the mirror of Chit and so results the state of fearlessness, for to see a
tiger reflected in a mirror does not cause fright.
the water already in the field, so also at the instant of perception, the samvit of the seer passes through the senses to unite with the
samvit of the object. In this case Chit remains as the body, mind etc., of the seer; in the sky it remains as the sun; in the
intervening space covered by it samvit is formless and this is its real state. All this indicates these intervals to be the seats of
realisation of the Self. The Self is no more than this. Pure Chit devoid of objective knowledge is the true Self. If this is realised as the
Self the universe will appear to be just an image reflected in the mirror of Chit and so results the state of fearlessness, for to see a
tiger reflected in a mirror does not cause fright.
CHAPTER 4
Some say that the jagat is the product of invisible fundamental particles. Though remaining different from its source, it vanishes
altogether in the end. That the unitary, primary particles give rise to the binary particles is inferred from the partibility of the latter.
According to them the process of creation is as follows: The mature adrshta (results of previous karma persisting in a subtle form) of
the individuals together with the will of Iswara causes the inert primary particles to be active; then binary, tertiary etc. particles are
successively formed resulting in the objects of the universe. The products are totally different from the original cause. At the time of
dissolution the universe vanishes like the horns of a hare (i.e., ceases to be).
altogether in the end. That the unitary, primary particles give rise to the binary particles is inferred from the partibility of the latter.
According to them the process of creation is as follows: The mature adrshta (results of previous karma persisting in a subtle form) of
the individuals together with the will of Iswara causes the inert primary particles to be active; then binary, tertiary etc. particles are
successively formed resulting in the objects of the universe. The products are totally different from the original cause. At the time of
dissolution the universe vanishes like the horns of a hare (i.e., ceases to be).
Its refutation: It is not proper to say that a pot is non-existent before creation; it is existent sometime; later it becomes non-existent
at dissolution because of the contrary existence and non-existence of the same thing. The Opponent: Not so. Though there is a
contradiction in terms of being and non-being of the same thing, there is no contradiction in terms of relationship (samyoga) (e.g., a
monkey is on the tree or a monkey is not on the tree). A.: No. “Being” pervades the object in entirety whereas in relationship there
is no such pervasiveness. This is certainly opposed to non-being. The same object cannot be yellow and not yellow at the same
time. Opponent: the nature of an object must be determined only from experience. Pervasiveness is found applicable to the
inseparable union of the material cause of the object in space but it is not applicable to the existence or the non-existence of the
object in time; e.g., a pot is or is not. A.: The same object cannot be both shining and non-shining at the same time. On the other
hand, (if you are thinking) of the contrary experiences at the same time such as a blue tamas is moving, it is so because the same
object by its satvic nature reflects light and by its tamasic nature remains dark, thus making it appear that light and darkness
coexist. This is not on all fours with my statement that the same object cannot both be yellow and not yellow at the same time.
Therefore it is obvious that being and non-being certainly contradict each other both in time and space. Opponent: How can this rule
apply to ascertain darkness to be, by seeing it with the light of the eye? It cannot. A.: You are not right. To explain the facts of
experience, different methods are adopted because the same rule may not apply in all cases.
at dissolution because of the contrary existence and non-existence of the same thing. The Opponent: Not so. Though there is a
contradiction in terms of being and non-being of the same thing, there is no contradiction in terms of relationship (samyoga) (e.g., a
monkey is on the tree or a monkey is not on the tree). A.: No. “Being” pervades the object in entirety whereas in relationship there
is no such pervasiveness. This is certainly opposed to non-being. The same object cannot be yellow and not yellow at the same
time. Opponent: the nature of an object must be determined only from experience. Pervasiveness is found applicable to the
inseparable union of the material cause of the object in space but it is not applicable to the existence or the non-existence of the
object in time; e.g., a pot is or is not. A.: The same object cannot be both shining and non-shining at the same time. On the other
hand, (if you are thinking) of the contrary experiences at the same time such as a blue tamas is moving, it is so because the same
object by its satvic nature reflects light and by its tamasic nature remains dark, thus making it appear that light and darkness
coexist. This is not on all fours with my statement that the same object cannot both be yellow and not yellow at the same time.
Therefore it is obvious that being and non-being certainly contradict each other both in time and space. Opponent: How can this rule
apply to ascertain darkness to be, by seeing it with the light of the eye? It cannot. A.: You are not right. To explain the facts of
experience, different methods are adopted because the same rule may not apply in all cases.
In the doctrine of aggregation of particles before creation, other anomalies are also pointed out besides the above one. They are
concerned with the imagined aggregation, e.g., existence and non-existence of the same thing. Again the primary particles cannot
be impartite or indivisible; also their separateness from one another cannot be proved because they mix together to form binary etc.
particles. Opponent: Defects in our doctrine are shared by us along with all others in their own doctrines. A.: Quite so. It is common
to all kinds of dualism but to advaita they become ornaments like the arrows aimed by Bhagadatta at Vasudeva which clung to Him
like ornaments.
concerned with the imagined aggregation, e.g., existence and non-existence of the same thing. Again the primary particles cannot
be impartite or indivisible; also their separateness from one another cannot be proved because they mix together to form binary etc.
particles. Opponent: Defects in our doctrine are shared by us along with all others in their own doctrines. A.: Quite so. It is common
to all kinds of dualism but to advaita they become ornaments like the arrows aimed by Bhagadatta at Vasudeva which clung to Him
like ornaments.
CHAPTER XIV
PROCESS OF CREATION
Creation being an empty fancy and Chit always unchanging, how can creation be said to originate from Chit? A.: The answer to this
question is based on srutis. Avidya (i.e., ignorance) being the root-cause of creation, its origin is first elucidated and it will be
followed up by the thirty-six fundamentals. Chit is certainly changeless. A mirror is seen to reflect the sky in it; similarly Chit
presents within itself something which (to us) signifies ‘exterior’. But the external sky being merely an effective cause, its reflection
is seen in the mirror, whereas the “exterior” in Chit is solely due to its inherent power. The difference lies in the intelligent nature of
Chit and the inert nature of the mirror. Since the whole creation develops from this “exterior” it is said to be the first creation. This
phenomenon is called avidya or tamas (ignorance or darkness). Q.: Chit being impartite, how can this phenomenon arise as a part
thereof? A.: Quite so. Hence it is called a phenomenon. And it is not a part but it looks like it. When the unbroken WHOLE appears
to be divided into parts, it is called a phenomenon (and not a fact). Parameswara is Pure Solid Intelligence altogether free from its
counter-part; hence He is “independent.” An inert thing is dependent on external aid to make known itself or another object; whereas
the Supreme Intelligence is independent of external aid to make ITSELF known or other things. This factor “independence” is also
called its sakti, kriya (action), vimarsa (deliberation) etc., which manifesting as jagat at the time of creation and after, yet remains as
pure Being only, because awareness of pure Being continues unbroken till the time of dissolution. Therefor such “independence” is
the ever-inseparable characteristic of Siva. At the end of dissolution the same uniting with the adrshta now mature, presents the Self
(svarupa) as fragmented, i.e., limited; this is otherwise said to be the manifestation of the “exterior.” The manifestation of limitation
is obviously the manifestation of space (aakaasa) distinct from the Self. When one’s arm is broken in two, the broken piece is no
longer identified as ‘I’; similarly the ‘exterior’ is no longer identified as ‘I’; it is distinct from ‘I’; it is no longer meant by ‘I’. Such
unfolding of the non-self is said to be that of space, of the seed i.e., jagat in dormancy, or jadasakti (inert power). In this manner the
perfect Chit by its own power presenting within Itself the phenomenon of avidya as distinct from Itself is called the first ‘step’ to
creation. The Vedantists call this the root avidya – mula-avidya. What is here designated as “independence” is nothing but the power
of Chit (freewill).
question is based on srutis. Avidya (i.e., ignorance) being the root-cause of creation, its origin is first elucidated and it will be
followed up by the thirty-six fundamentals. Chit is certainly changeless. A mirror is seen to reflect the sky in it; similarly Chit
presents within itself something which (to us) signifies ‘exterior’. But the external sky being merely an effective cause, its reflection
is seen in the mirror, whereas the “exterior” in Chit is solely due to its inherent power. The difference lies in the intelligent nature of
Chit and the inert nature of the mirror. Since the whole creation develops from this “exterior” it is said to be the first creation. This
phenomenon is called avidya or tamas (ignorance or darkness). Q.: Chit being impartite, how can this phenomenon arise as a part
thereof? A.: Quite so. Hence it is called a phenomenon. And it is not a part but it looks like it. When the unbroken WHOLE appears
to be divided into parts, it is called a phenomenon (and not a fact). Parameswara is Pure Solid Intelligence altogether free from its
counter-part; hence He is “independent.” An inert thing is dependent on external aid to make known itself or another object; whereas
the Supreme Intelligence is independent of external aid to make ITSELF known or other things. This factor “independence” is also
called its sakti, kriya (action), vimarsa (deliberation) etc., which manifesting as jagat at the time of creation and after, yet remains as
pure Being only, because awareness of pure Being continues unbroken till the time of dissolution. Therefor such “independence” is
the ever-inseparable characteristic of Siva. At the end of dissolution the same uniting with the adrshta now mature, presents the Self
(svarupa) as fragmented, i.e., limited; this is otherwise said to be the manifestation of the “exterior.” The manifestation of limitation
is obviously the manifestation of space (aakaasa) distinct from the Self. When one’s arm is broken in two, the broken piece is no
longer identified as ‘I’; similarly the ‘exterior’ is no longer identified as ‘I’; it is distinct from ‘I’; it is no longer meant by ‘I’. Such
unfolding of the non-self is said to be that of space, of the seed i.e., jagat in dormancy, or jadasakti (inert power). In this manner the
perfect Chit by its own power presenting within Itself the phenomenon of avidya as distinct from Itself is called the first ‘step’ to
creation. The Vedantists call this the root avidya – mula-avidya. What is here designated as “independence” is nothing but the power
of Chit (freewill).
This assumes three states. In dissolution, it remains purely as power (that is latent) because it is nirvikalpa (i.e.,
the state of no modification or manifestation); just before creation i.e., before the objects take shape this power is said to be
maayaa; when shapes are manifest the same power is called jadasakti. All these names signify the same sakti. Sri Krishna has
said, “Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect and ego constitute my lower prakrti; distinct from it is my paraa prakrti which is of
the form of jivas and preserves the jagat.” The former eight-fold prakrti constitutes the jada aspect as kaarya whereas the latter
paraa prakrti is Chit Sakti forming the background for the jagat like a mirror to the images reflected in it. Hence the statement: “By
whom the eight-fold prakrti is supported.” Nevertheless we have to admit that even before the appearance of the inert power the
eight-fold prakrti, the Chit Sakti (“free will”) already co-exists with the adrshta of the individuals and the time matures the adrshta.
Otherwise the charge of partiality and cruelty and other stigma will attach (to Iswara). But the admission of adrshta lands us in
duality and time is yet another (thorn). Is time the nature of Iswara or is it distinct? In any case, since in dissolution there is no
upaadhi to distinguish one from another and the same principle remains uniform from the beginning of dissolution to the end of it, the
adrshta of the individuals remaining merged in avidya may perhaps mature the very next instant of dissolution and creation start
untimely. In answer to this the sadkaarya vadis say: Before creation all kaaryas remain merged in maayaa in a subtle form; now that
time and adrshta are together in a subtle form in maayaa, the subtle adrshta matures in subtle time; maayaa being the sakti of the
Self i.e., Chit, it is not distinct and therefore the advaita doctrine becomes tenable. Others declare that creation resembles dream or
day-dreaming or magic requiring no explanation like the mirage-water unfit for discussion.
the state of no modification or manifestation); just before creation i.e., before the objects take shape this power is said to be
maayaa; when shapes are manifest the same power is called jadasakti. All these names signify the same sakti. Sri Krishna has
said, “Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect and ego constitute my lower prakrti; distinct from it is my paraa prakrti which is of
the form of jivas and preserves the jagat.” The former eight-fold prakrti constitutes the jada aspect as kaarya whereas the latter
paraa prakrti is Chit Sakti forming the background for the jagat like a mirror to the images reflected in it. Hence the statement: “By
whom the eight-fold prakrti is supported.” Nevertheless we have to admit that even before the appearance of the inert power the
eight-fold prakrti, the Chit Sakti (“free will”) already co-exists with the adrshta of the individuals and the time matures the adrshta.
Otherwise the charge of partiality and cruelty and other stigma will attach (to Iswara). But the admission of adrshta lands us in
duality and time is yet another (thorn). Is time the nature of Iswara or is it distinct? In any case, since in dissolution there is no
upaadhi to distinguish one from another and the same principle remains uniform from the beginning of dissolution to the end of it, the
adrshta of the individuals remaining merged in avidya may perhaps mature the very next instant of dissolution and creation start
untimely. In answer to this the sadkaarya vadis say: Before creation all kaaryas remain merged in maayaa in a subtle form; now that
time and adrshta are together in a subtle form in maayaa, the subtle adrshta matures in subtle time; maayaa being the sakti of the
Self i.e., Chit, it is not distinct and therefore the advaita doctrine becomes tenable. Others declare that creation resembles dream or
day-dreaming or magic requiring no explanation like the mirage-water unfit for discussion.
For the same reason the accounts of
creation are bound to differ from one another in different srutis. They are meant to impress on the mind that the Self alone is and
creation is not distinct from it. Hence the declaration in the Parameswara Agama: “No creation; no cycle of births; no preservation;
or any krama (regulation). Only solid Intelligence-Bliss is. This is the Self.”
creation are bound to differ from one another in different srutis. They are meant to impress on the mind that the Self alone is and
creation is not distinct from it. Hence the declaration in the Parameswara Agama: “No creation; no cycle of births; no preservation;
or any krama (regulation). Only solid Intelligence-Bliss is. This is the Self.”
CHAPTER 5
THE EGO
The Self is luminous owing to its self-shining nature. At the instant of perception of objects, such as a pot, the ego-sense of identity
with the body vanishes. There is no experience of the complexion of the body (for instance) simultaneous with perception of objects.
Otherwise one would be thinking, “I am fair or brown,” even while perceiving a pot. In other words, when an object is perceived it is
as non-self, like the body known as ‘mine’ (my body).
with the body vanishes. There is no experience of the complexion of the body (for instance) simultaneous with perception of objects.
Otherwise one would be thinking, “I am fair or brown,” even while perceiving a pot. In other words, when an object is perceived it is
as non-self, like the body known as ‘mine’ (my body).
It should not be said that the Self does not shine as ‘I’ simultaneously with the perception of objects. If so, the objects cannot be
perceived. For when there are no lights to illumine objects they are not perceived. It should not also be said – yet there is no ‘I’
sparkling (spurthi). For it implies some distinctive form of shining and not the sheen of pure light; this will also imply inertness.
Therefore the Self shines as pure ‘I’. On account of this those who hold that knowledge is self-evident, admit the experience “I know
the pot” (but not ‘I have the knowledge of the pot’). (Ghatam aham jaanaami but not Ghata jnaana-vaan aham).
perceived. For when there are no lights to illumine objects they are not perceived. It should not also be said – yet there is no ‘I’
sparkling (spurthi). For it implies some distinctive form of shining and not the sheen of pure light; this will also imply inertness.
Therefore the Self shines as pure ‘I’. On account of this those who hold that knowledge is self-evident, admit the experience “I know
the pot” (but not ‘I have the knowledge of the pot’). (Ghatam aham jaanaami but not Ghata jnaana-vaan aham).
If the Self be not admitted to shine of itself even during our objective perceptions, it will not be proper to reject the doubt whether ‘I
am or not.’ Nor should it be said that simultaneously with objective perception the ego shines (i.e., manifests) identical with body
etc. If in the perception of an object the form of the object does not manifest, the body cannot manifest itself at the time of sensing
the body etc. It does not follow that in the knowledge ‘He is Chaitra’, the intelligence namely the Self of Chaitra is signified by the
word ‘he’ and manifests transcending his body-ego; for, to him Chaitra’s ego remains unimpaired (i.e., he feels his ego-sense all the
same).
am or not.’ Nor should it be said that simultaneously with objective perception the ego shines (i.e., manifests) identical with body
etc. If in the perception of an object the form of the object does not manifest, the body cannot manifest itself at the time of sensing
the body etc. It does not follow that in the knowledge ‘He is Chaitra’, the intelligence namely the Self of Chaitra is signified by the
word ‘he’ and manifests transcending his body-ego; for, to him Chaitra’s ego remains unimpaired (i.e., he feels his ego-sense all the
same).
In deep sleep and samadhi the ‘I’ cannot be denied existence. All admit its continued existence in those states also because of the
recollection of the experience (in those two states). True, the Self remains continuous in those states but it cannot be denoted by ‘I’
for the former is unmodified Consciousness and the latter is a mode of consciousness. The answer to such an objection is
according to the sages well-versed in aagamas, as follows: – ‘I’ is of two kinds, moded and unmoded intelligence. Mode means
differentiation; therefore moded intelligence is differentiated intelligence. The other one is undifferentiated and is therefore unmoded.
When objectified as bodies etc., the ego is moded and differentiated. But in deep sleep and samaadhi, Consciousness remains
unobjectified and undifferentiated; therefore it is unmoded. It does not follow from this that the admission of ‘I’ in samadhi will amount
to admission of the triads (e.g., cogniser, cognition and the cognised). Since ‘I’ remains as the residue devoid of “non-I” there are no
triads there. It is said in Pratyabhijna, “Although I shine as Pure Light yet it is word in a subtle form (paraavak).” This ego is not a
mode. Such is the doctrine of advaita.
recollection of the experience (in those two states). True, the Self remains continuous in those states but it cannot be denoted by ‘I’
for the former is unmodified Consciousness and the latter is a mode of consciousness. The answer to such an objection is
according to the sages well-versed in aagamas, as follows: – ‘I’ is of two kinds, moded and unmoded intelligence. Mode means
differentiation; therefore moded intelligence is differentiated intelligence. The other one is undifferentiated and is therefore unmoded.
When objectified as bodies etc., the ego is moded and differentiated. But in deep sleep and samaadhi, Consciousness remains
unobjectified and undifferentiated; therefore it is unmoded. It does not follow from this that the admission of ‘I’ in samadhi will amount
to admission of the triads (e.g., cogniser, cognition and the cognised). Since ‘I’ remains as the residue devoid of “non-I” there are no
triads there. It is said in Pratyabhijna, “Although I shine as Pure Light yet it is word in a subtle form (paraavak).” This ego is not a
mode. Such is the doctrine of advaita.
This (unmoded Intelligence) is just the knowledge of “I-I”. The aagamas speak of it as Perfect EGO or Perfect Knowledge. Because
this state later finds expression to describe it, it is said to be ‘word’ (vaak); but it does not mean audible word. It is ‘word’ in a subtle
form, remaining unspoken.
this state later finds expression to describe it, it is said to be ‘word’ (vaak); but it does not mean audible word. It is ‘word’ in a subtle
form, remaining unspoken.
Perfect Ego cannot be denied in the unmoded Consciousness for it will amount to inertness, Bhagavan Hariina has said, “Should
‘word’ mean differentiation in the ever-Present Light, it would amount to saying the Sight does not shine (of itself)”. On the other
hand, ‘word’ signifies “profound contemplation.” Pratyabhijna says “Deliberation makes clear the Self-shining Light. Were it not so,
i.e., if light should shine only in contact with an object, it would be inert like a crystal.” Bhagavan Sri Sankara also says that the
Self, namely Chit, is always shining as ‘I’. In Viveka Chuudaamani it is found, “That which constantly shines forth as ‘I’ throughout
infancy etc., waking state etc., which are super-imposed on it…”
‘word’ mean differentiation in the ever-Present Light, it would amount to saying the Sight does not shine (of itself)”. On the other
hand, ‘word’ signifies “profound contemplation.” Pratyabhijna says “Deliberation makes clear the Self-shining Light. Were it not so,
i.e., if light should shine only in contact with an object, it would be inert like a crystal.” Bhagavan Sri Sankara also says that the
Self, namely Chit, is always shining as ‘I’. In Viveka Chuudaamani it is found, “That which constantly shines forth as ‘I’ throughout
infancy etc., waking state etc., which are super-imposed on it…”
DULLNESS OF DEEP SLEEP
Though the Self that is Chit is Pure Solid Intelligence, it is not like a solid rock for that would amount to inertness. It is pure,
scintillating awareness. Its shining nature is distinct from that of bright objects such as a flame. This awareness is also called
intelligence, deliberation, light of consciousness, activity, vibration, the supreme Ego etc. Because of this nature the Supreme Being
is capable of creation and this also finds mention in Soundarya Lahari Sloka 1.
scintillating awareness. Its shining nature is distinct from that of bright objects such as a flame. This awareness is also called
intelligence, deliberation, light of consciousness, activity, vibration, the supreme Ego etc. Because of this nature the Supreme Being
is capable of creation and this also finds mention in Soundarya Lahari Sloka 1.
It is not correct to say that Paramasiva remains united with the power of maayaa which is indescribable (anirvachaneeya) and
illusory. Should the jagat be false (non-existent) like a hare’s horn, its creation must also be declared to be so. It is not proper to
say that the Lord’s nature is wasteful because it will end in a blank i.e., sunya. If the jagat is said to be non-existent like a hare’s
horn, sruti declarations such as “Form whom all these elements, all these creatures have come forth etc.” would amount to a mad
man’s ravings. Nor is it proper to contend that acceptance of Supreme Intelligent Being followed by the denial of the reality of the
jagat is sunya vaada, because false jagat inclusive of the Supreme Reality is self-contradictory. (The correct position is: the
Supreme Being appears as or seems to be the jagat.) If you argue that this results in duality whereas the srutis declare, “There are
not many here but only the Self”, I say you do not understand the advaita saastra; nowhere do the saastras declare the jagat to be
unreal. But yet they proclaim advaita to be certain. Srutis such as “He became all”, “Only the non-dual Supreme Being shines as
the universe”, declare the jagat to be real and thereby non-duality is not impaired. Though the town reflected in a mirror seems
distinct yet it cannot exist without the mirror and so is no other than the mirror; in the same manner the jagat though seeming
distinct is no other than the Supreme Self. So non-duality is unimpaired.
illusory. Should the jagat be false (non-existent) like a hare’s horn, its creation must also be declared to be so. It is not proper to
say that the Lord’s nature is wasteful because it will end in a blank i.e., sunya. If the jagat is said to be non-existent like a hare’s
horn, sruti declarations such as “Form whom all these elements, all these creatures have come forth etc.” would amount to a mad
man’s ravings. Nor is it proper to contend that acceptance of Supreme Intelligent Being followed by the denial of the reality of the
jagat is sunya vaada, because false jagat inclusive of the Supreme Reality is self-contradictory. (The correct position is: the
Supreme Being appears as or seems to be the jagat.) If you argue that this results in duality whereas the srutis declare, “There are
not many here but only the Self”, I say you do not understand the advaita saastra; nowhere do the saastras declare the jagat to be
unreal. But yet they proclaim advaita to be certain. Srutis such as “He became all”, “Only the non-dual Supreme Being shines as
the universe”, declare the jagat to be real and thereby non-duality is not impaired. Though the town reflected in a mirror seems
distinct yet it cannot exist without the mirror and so is no other than the mirror; in the same manner the jagat though seeming
distinct is no other than the Supreme Self. So non-duality is unimpaired.
As in the sruti cited by you, “there are not many here”, the denial relates to duality only and nothing else. Therefore it is a sign of
ignorance to declare the jagat to be unreal. The sages know that true knowledge consists in realising that “all is Siva.” Suta
Samhita says, “to say pot etc., are unreal, is ignorance. Correctly to say pot etc., is real, is true knowledge.”
ignorance to declare the jagat to be unreal. The sages know that true knowledge consists in realising that “all is Siva.” Suta
Samhita says, “to say pot etc., are unreal, is ignorance. Correctly to say pot etc., is real, is true knowledge.”
Thus the supreme Intelligent Being by its own supreme power of maayaa manifests Itself as this wonderful universe. In the universe
thus manifested to see the jiva distinct from the Supreme is duality and constitutes the bondage of the individual. Knowledge of
non-duality constitutes liberation. His “independence” (svatantra, free will), reflection of the universe, reflection of the individual
selves, reflection of the bondage, reflection of liberation are all presented within Himself by His own independent power. Like a
day-dream, all these depend upon His power of manifestation which however is not distinct from the Supreme Intelligence. So our
system is free from any stigma. Power of deliberation always remains constant with the Supreme Being.
thus manifested to see the jiva distinct from the Supreme is duality and constitutes the bondage of the individual. Knowledge of
non-duality constitutes liberation. His “independence” (svatantra, free will), reflection of the universe, reflection of the individual
selves, reflection of the bondage, reflection of liberation are all presented within Himself by His own independent power. Like a
day-dream, all these depend upon His power of manifestation which however is not distinct from the Supreme Intelligence. So our
system is free from any stigma. Power of deliberation always remains constant with the Supreme Being.
However in deep sleep the reflection of inertness (jada sakti) veils it and renders it weak; though the Supreme Being or Chit is then shining in full, the sages have proclaimed the state to be one of inertness or dullness.
CHAPTER 6
THE NATURE OF VIJNAANA
The knowledge gained by hearing is only indirect. Then reasoning in conformity with the sruti texts, it must be ascertained whether
indirect knowledge concerns one’s own self or not. By reflection all doubts will vanish. After thus ascertaining by reflection that the
Self remains non-dual, contemplate the Self, that .is to say, keep the mind one-pointedly on the Self. If the mind becomes restless,
train it even forcibly. Be not effortless in this direction. Yoga Vasishta says: “Even with hands clenched and teeth ground, pressing
the limbs and forcibly withdrawing the senses, the mind must first be brought under control.” So the utmost effort must be made.
Also the breath must forcibly be controlled, if necessary by means of praanaayaamaa (regulation of breath). One-pointedness must
be gained at all costs. How long is effort necessary? Until direct experience is gained. Thus by contemplation the inmost Self is
realised. Then contemplate ‘I am Brahman.’ This is known as Recognition of the Self as Brahman (Pratyabhijnaa Jnaana). Although
this amounts to unmoded samaadhi (nirvikalpa) because it is unbroken uniform knowledge, yet owing to the difference in the
methods and results, it must be recognised that these two states are distinct. Such knowledge of the non-dual Self annihilates
ignorance.
indirect knowledge concerns one’s own self or not. By reflection all doubts will vanish. After thus ascertaining by reflection that the
Self remains non-dual, contemplate the Self, that .is to say, keep the mind one-pointedly on the Self. If the mind becomes restless,
train it even forcibly. Be not effortless in this direction. Yoga Vasishta says: “Even with hands clenched and teeth ground, pressing
the limbs and forcibly withdrawing the senses, the mind must first be brought under control.” So the utmost effort must be made.
Also the breath must forcibly be controlled, if necessary by means of praanaayaamaa (regulation of breath). One-pointedness must
be gained at all costs. How long is effort necessary? Until direct experience is gained. Thus by contemplation the inmost Self is
realised. Then contemplate ‘I am Brahman.’ This is known as Recognition of the Self as Brahman (Pratyabhijnaa Jnaana). Although
this amounts to unmoded samaadhi (nirvikalpa) because it is unbroken uniform knowledge, yet owing to the difference in the
methods and results, it must be recognised that these two states are distinct. Such knowledge of the non-dual Self annihilates
ignorance.
The same is further explained. First ascertain the Self to be real by means of sravana and manana (hearing and reflection); then
contemplate; realisation results and it is nirvikalpa samaadhi. This is the idea: Dhyaana is only one; it goes by the name of
savikalpa samaadhi and of nirvikalpa samaadhi according to its stages of development. On resolving to keep the mind still for a
particular duration of time and continuing on the trail of the resolve without forgetting it, the period during which the contemplated
object remains uninterrupted, is said to be the duration of dhyana. If by long practice the contemplated object remains steady for the
intended period it is savikalpa samadhi (moded samaadhi). If again by repeated practice of the same the mind remains in unbroken
contemplation even without the initial resolve and its continued memory, it is said to be nirvikalpa or unmoded samaadhi. The
following explanation is found in a book Paramaananda: “Contemplation with series of breaks is dhyana; the same without break is
savikalpa samaadhi; stillness of mind without contemplation and break is nirvikalpa samadhi. Dhyana maturing and ending in
nirvikalpa samadhi, the inmost Self is realised. On breaking away from it, to remember the experience of the inmost Self, to recall to
mind the description of the Supreme Being in the holy texts and to identify the one with the other, forms recognition (Prathyabhijnaa
Jnaana).”
contemplate; realisation results and it is nirvikalpa samaadhi. This is the idea: Dhyaana is only one; it goes by the name of
savikalpa samaadhi and of nirvikalpa samaadhi according to its stages of development. On resolving to keep the mind still for a
particular duration of time and continuing on the trail of the resolve without forgetting it, the period during which the contemplated
object remains uninterrupted, is said to be the duration of dhyana. If by long practice the contemplated object remains steady for the
intended period it is savikalpa samadhi (moded samaadhi). If again by repeated practice of the same the mind remains in unbroken
contemplation even without the initial resolve and its continued memory, it is said to be nirvikalpa or unmoded samaadhi. The
following explanation is found in a book Paramaananda: “Contemplation with series of breaks is dhyana; the same without break is
savikalpa samaadhi; stillness of mind without contemplation and break is nirvikalpa samadhi. Dhyana maturing and ending in
nirvikalpa samadhi, the inmost Self is realised. On breaking away from it, to remember the experience of the inmost Self, to recall to
mind the description of the Supreme Being in the holy texts and to identify the one with the other, forms recognition (Prathyabhijnaa
Jnaana).”
Q.: For such recognition, recollection is a necessary ingredient; recollection is of the mental impression already formed; impression
can be produced only in moded knowledge and not in the unmoded state of nirvikalpa samaadhi of one uniform unmoded Light of
Consciousness. A.: You are right. Unmoded light simply illumines objects like a pot etc.; it cannot produce any impression on the
mind to be reproduced later on. Otherwise a way-farer will be able to remember all that he saw on the way; but it is not so. Only the
moded knowledge such as “this is a pot, this is a piece of cloth” is later recollected. Hence, whatever subtle modes appeared in the
unmoded state (e.g., here is a man; here is Devadatta) are alone later recollected. By way of explanation some say that the end of
the nirvikalpa state is followed by a moment of savikalpa and this helps formation of impressions to be recollected later.
can be produced only in moded knowledge and not in the unmoded state of nirvikalpa samaadhi of one uniform unmoded Light of
Consciousness. A.: You are right. Unmoded light simply illumines objects like a pot etc.; it cannot produce any impression on the
mind to be reproduced later on. Otherwise a way-farer will be able to remember all that he saw on the way; but it is not so. Only the
moded knowledge such as “this is a pot, this is a piece of cloth” is later recollected. Hence, whatever subtle modes appeared in the
unmoded state (e.g., here is a man; here is Devadatta) are alone later recollected. By way of explanation some say that the end of
the nirvikalpa state is followed by a moment of savikalpa and this helps formation of impressions to be recollected later.
Others: Since the pure inmost Self cannot form the object of experience even in savikalpa samaadhi, they say that recollection is of
the experience of the samaadhi itself. (Because the savikalpa samaadhi of the nature of a resolve and cannot have the Pure Self for
its object) it cannot be maintained that in savikalpa samaadhi the Pure Self forms the object of experience. But how can the
recollection arise directly from nirvikalpa samaadhi? There is no rule that savikalpa alone should give rise to later recollection.
Vikalpa means appearance of differentiation. A wayfarer takes in very subtle impressions of things seen on the way and recollects
some of them. This alone can explain the recollection of deep sleep after waking from it. To the objection that recollection cannot
arise from nirvikalpa samadhi, the reply is: In any knowledge whichever factor is clearly seen, the same will later be recollected
along with that knowledge. In recollecting a panorama all objects in it are not clearly seen. But as it is said in Pratyabhijnaa
Saastra, “According to taste and according to desire” the recollection is limited to them. In this way all differentiation is solely a
mental mode. Yet pandits think in different ways. Therefore some say that there cannot be a recollection of nirvikalpa samaadhi. For
details refer to Pratyabhijnaa Saastra and its commentaries.
the experience of the samaadhi itself. (Because the savikalpa samaadhi of the nature of a resolve and cannot have the Pure Self for
its object) it cannot be maintained that in savikalpa samaadhi the Pure Self forms the object of experience. But how can the
recollection arise directly from nirvikalpa samaadhi? There is no rule that savikalpa alone should give rise to later recollection.
Vikalpa means appearance of differentiation. A wayfarer takes in very subtle impressions of things seen on the way and recollects
some of them. This alone can explain the recollection of deep sleep after waking from it. To the objection that recollection cannot
arise from nirvikalpa samadhi, the reply is: In any knowledge whichever factor is clearly seen, the same will later be recollected
along with that knowledge. In recollecting a panorama all objects in it are not clearly seen. But as it is said in Pratyabhijnaa
Saastra, “According to taste and according to desire” the recollection is limited to them. In this way all differentiation is solely a
mental mode. Yet pandits think in different ways. Therefore some say that there cannot be a recollection of nirvikalpa samaadhi. For
details refer to Pratyabhijnaa Saastra and its commentaries.
CHAPTER 7
CHARACTERISTIC OF SAMAADHI
After realising the Self as unmoded Consciousness in nirvikalpa samaadhi, self-realised beings keep on recollecting it deliberately;
this results in withdrawal by them in perfect repose; this by the wise is said to be their samaadhi. This is the secret of vijnaana: The
hatha yogis who have not realised the Self by sravana etc., fall into two groups; one of them is accomplished in the eight-fold yoga
of Patanjali; the other after gradually finishing the stage of pranayama (control of breath), practises it more and more so that the
kundalini is aroused to go up and open out the sushumnaa naadi. The former, before entering samadhi, resolves to avoid all thought
of the non-self, succeeds gradually in avoiding extraneous thoughts, then contemplates the absence of all thoughts and then,
released from contemplation as well, he is left as a residual being.
this results in withdrawal by them in perfect repose; this by the wise is said to be their samaadhi. This is the secret of vijnaana: The
hatha yogis who have not realised the Self by sravana etc., fall into two groups; one of them is accomplished in the eight-fold yoga
of Patanjali; the other after gradually finishing the stage of pranayama (control of breath), practises it more and more so that the
kundalini is aroused to go up and open out the sushumnaa naadi. The former, before entering samadhi, resolves to avoid all thought
of the non-self, succeeds gradually in avoiding extraneous thoughts, then contemplates the absence of all thoughts and then,
released from contemplation as well, he is left as a residual being.
The other, with great effort makes the vital air enter the
sushumnaa; owing to the effort there is fatigue; however having entered the sushumnaa the fatigue vanishes; he feels refreshed like
a man relieved of a heavy burden. Then his mind remains as if stupefied.
sushumnaa; owing to the effort there is fatigue; however having entered the sushumnaa the fatigue vanishes; he feels refreshed like
a man relieved of a heavy burden. Then his mind remains as if stupefied.
Both these classes of sadhakas experience Bliss like that of deep sleep in their own time.
As for the jnaana yogis who have realised the unmoded knowledge – Self by sravana etc., – even before attaining samaadhi the veil of
ignorance is removed and unmoded Knowledge-Self is found always scintillating as the various objects like reflections in a mirror.
Not only this but also before samadhi, the modes of mind vanish leaving the residual mind as the witness of the disappearance of
the objects and he remains as unmoded knowledge only. The hatha yogis’ experience is not this.
ignorance is removed and unmoded Knowledge-Self is found always scintillating as the various objects like reflections in a mirror.
Not only this but also before samadhi, the modes of mind vanish leaving the residual mind as the witness of the disappearance of
the objects and he remains as unmoded knowledge only. The hatha yogis’ experience is not this.
Only to the jnaana-yogis does
ajnaana (ignorance) vanish altogether in samaadhi along with its veiling and projecting or confusing powers, whereas for the hatha
yogi, although the projecting power vanishes, the other power continues to veil the Self. To the jnana yogi the veiling aspect is done
away with in the process of contemplation of itself, leaving nothing of it in the culminating state of samaadhi.
ajnaana (ignorance) vanish altogether in samaadhi along with its veiling and projecting or confusing powers, whereas for the hatha
yogi, although the projecting power vanishes, the other power continues to veil the Self. To the jnana yogi the veiling aspect is done
away with in the process of contemplation of itself, leaving nothing of it in the culminating state of samaadhi.
Q.: What is then the difference between deep sleep and samadhi of a hatha yogi? A.: In his deep sleep the Self remains hidden by
the massive ignorance of darkness like the sun behind very heavy dark clouds; in the samadhi state, the Self, though revealed by
the satvic mind, will not yet be dear but be like the sun behind thin white clouds.
the massive ignorance of darkness like the sun behind very heavy dark clouds; in the samadhi state, the Self, though revealed by
the satvic mind, will not yet be dear but be like the sun behind thin white clouds.
In the case of the Jnaani, his mind becomes satvic in toto, and thus dispels the veiling of ignorance, so that the Self shines perfectly
clear like the sun in a clear sky. The Self-realised know this to be the right Realisation of the Self. Jnaana Samaadhi is thus the true
samadhi (it means that in spite of the satvic mind developed by the hatha yogis, their aavarana i.e., veiling remains without being
dispelled).
clear like the sun in a clear sky. The Self-realised know this to be the right Realisation of the Self. Jnaana Samaadhi is thus the true
samadhi (it means that in spite of the satvic mind developed by the hatha yogis, their aavarana i.e., veiling remains without being
dispelled).
CHAPTER 8
THE PRAARABDHA OF THE JNAANIS
The pleasures and pains of the individual are inferred to be the results of an invisible cause i.e., the past karma. Since it is noticed
that jnaanis also live like others, it is said that the praarabdha is not undone by one’s jnaana. This holds good for the lowest order of
jnaanis only, for they are seen to react to environment; it does not apply to the higher orders. The feeling of happiness affecting the
mind of the individual can be the effect of karma. The middle and the highest classes of jnaanis are not subject to fluctuations of
mind. You cannot dispute this point because such fluctuations are completely absent in samadhi. On arising from samadhi all the
non-self (i.e., the jagat) shines only as Pure Knowledge (i.e., the Self) just as the images are not distinct from the mirror reflecting
them; happiness etc., thus becoming one with the Self cannot then be felt as ‘my happiness’ etc.; it follows that the Self itself
cannot be said to be ‘effects’ and no corresponding karma can be postulated. Q.: Though his personal pleasures and pains are not
there, yet he sees others enjoy pleasures and suffer pains; his reaction must be due to praarabdha. A.: No. Others’ pleasures and
pains are not identified as ‘mine.’ But they are perceived as one perceives a pot; they cannot be the effects of praarabdha. Since
there is no pleasure or pain to be called ‘effects’ for him, the jnaani cannot be said to have residual karma.
that jnaanis also live like others, it is said that the praarabdha is not undone by one’s jnaana. This holds good for the lowest order of
jnaanis only, for they are seen to react to environment; it does not apply to the higher orders. The feeling of happiness affecting the
mind of the individual can be the effect of karma. The middle and the highest classes of jnaanis are not subject to fluctuations of
mind. You cannot dispute this point because such fluctuations are completely absent in samadhi. On arising from samadhi all the
non-self (i.e., the jagat) shines only as Pure Knowledge (i.e., the Self) just as the images are not distinct from the mirror reflecting
them; happiness etc., thus becoming one with the Self cannot then be felt as ‘my happiness’ etc.; it follows that the Self itself
cannot be said to be ‘effects’ and no corresponding karma can be postulated. Q.: Though his personal pleasures and pains are not
there, yet he sees others enjoy pleasures and suffer pains; his reaction must be due to praarabdha. A.: No. Others’ pleasures and
pains are not identified as ‘mine.’ But they are perceived as one perceives a pot; they cannot be the effects of praarabdha. Since
there is no pleasure or pain to be called ‘effects’ for him, the jnaani cannot be said to have residual karma.
As for the lowest order of jnaanis, when he engages himself in the daily routine of life, he is likely to forget that all is Self and takes
himself to be the enjoyer; since pleasure and pain seem to be ‘effects’ to him, he is certainly having the fruits of his past karma.
Some say that such knowledge as cannot stand the stress of daily life cannot have a lasting value. Others say otherwise.
Simultaneously with the rise of Supreme Knowledge, the veiling power of ignorance is at an end. Only the projecting power is
operative for some time, owing to praarabdha. It will quickly exhaust itself and no more karma will be left to cling to new bodies (by
rebirth); ignorance being at an end there, no fresh karma will accumulate; for the same reason there will not be any mode of mind,
for it vanishes like fire which has burnt up its fuel; hence no fresh bodies will attach to him. Therefore the Pure Being is left over and
thus liberation is inevitable. It is only too true that lapses from Knowledge do not constitute Knowledge in perfection. Hence the
sastras distinguish the jnaani from a jivanmukta i.e., one liberated while alive. Q.: According to the dictum that a man will be reborn
according to his last thought, that the jnaani of the lowest order will also be reborn because his praarabdha is not completely ended,
recollection of the non-self (by viparita smarana) must lead to rebirth. A.: No. Recollection of the non-self is unavoidable to the higher
order of jivanmukta also. The dictum you cited does not apply to jnaani of any sort. Simultaneous with the rise of Knowledge there is
complete loss of ignorance; therefore pleasures and pains no longer constitute ‘effects’ of karma; they are only transitory
phenomena; praarabdha is conjectured simply to explain this phenomenon; but praarabdha no longer remains for a jnaani of any
order and no recollection of non-self will arise in the last moment of his life.
himself to be the enjoyer; since pleasure and pain seem to be ‘effects’ to him, he is certainly having the fruits of his past karma.
Some say that such knowledge as cannot stand the stress of daily life cannot have a lasting value. Others say otherwise.
Simultaneously with the rise of Supreme Knowledge, the veiling power of ignorance is at an end. Only the projecting power is
operative for some time, owing to praarabdha. It will quickly exhaust itself and no more karma will be left to cling to new bodies (by
rebirth); ignorance being at an end there, no fresh karma will accumulate; for the same reason there will not be any mode of mind,
for it vanishes like fire which has burnt up its fuel; hence no fresh bodies will attach to him. Therefore the Pure Being is left over and
thus liberation is inevitable. It is only too true that lapses from Knowledge do not constitute Knowledge in perfection. Hence the
sastras distinguish the jnaani from a jivanmukta i.e., one liberated while alive. Q.: According to the dictum that a man will be reborn
according to his last thought, that the jnaani of the lowest order will also be reborn because his praarabdha is not completely ended,
recollection of the non-self (by viparita smarana) must lead to rebirth. A.: No. Recollection of the non-self is unavoidable to the higher
order of jivanmukta also. The dictum you cited does not apply to jnaani of any sort. Simultaneous with the rise of Knowledge there is
complete loss of ignorance; therefore pleasures and pains no longer constitute ‘effects’ of karma; they are only transitory
phenomena; praarabdha is conjectured simply to explain this phenomenon; but praarabdha no longer remains for a jnaani of any
order and no recollection of non-self will arise in the last moment of his life.
Therefore the difference between a mere jnaani and a jivanmukta lies in their reaction to the pains and pleasures of life. It is said that
since liberation is simultaneous with the rise of Knowledge, it is immaterial when and how the jnaani dies, either near holy places or
in strange homes or other places, or taken unaware by death. If he knows perfectly even once the supreme state of Siva by means
of reflection or by sastras or by Guru’s grace, he is a self-realised man. And nothing more remains for him to do.
since liberation is simultaneous with the rise of Knowledge, it is immaterial when and how the jnaani dies, either near holy places or
in strange homes or other places, or taken unaware by death. If he knows perfectly even once the supreme state of Siva by means
of reflection or by sastras or by Guru’s grace, he is a self-realised man. And nothing more remains for him to do.
BLISS OF SELF
Cease thinking of the non-self; then blank prevails; the knower or the witness of this is pure knowledge without any modes; such is
the Supreme Knowledge (Paraa Samvit). This is full of Bliss and therefore the highest goal (purushaartha). This state is one of solid
Bliss. The reason is: Misery is the result of upaadhi which is totally absent in the Self. This samvit is the condensation of the sum
total of bliss, consequent on all the forms of enjoyment by all living beings put together. For samvit is desired by one and all living
beings. Q.: Is it not pleasure from objects that is thus desired? How can it take the form of the enjoyer? A.: Since it is desired by
all, the Self must be of the nature of Bliss. Otherwise it will not be desired by all equally. Q.: If it be the Self alone that is desired by
all, how can the desires be various e.g., for the body, wealth, woman, etc.? A.: The desire is not really for objects since it is for
one’s own sake. Hence those desirous of heaven etc., undergo fasts etc., and willingly leave their bodies etc. So the Self is never
that which is not desired. Therefore it must be Bliss itself. Q.: Pleasure is obvious in the enjoyment of objects, whereas the other
bliss cannot be proved to be; therefore the Self cannot be admitted to be Bliss. A.: The aagamas (holy texts) declare that all
sensual pleasures are but fractions of the Bliss of the Self. This means: Just as ether though not itself visible is yet known to yield
room for a pot etc., and thus seems divisible by other adjuncts such as actions etc., so also Chit though not visible yet appears
divided by objects seeming to be the source of sensual pleasure (which in reality are only fractions of the Bliss of the Self). Q.: Your
statements prove only the desire for pleasure by the self, and not itself being bliss. A.: Only the natural bliss of the Self prevails at
the instant of relief of one’s burden and in deep sleep. This means: As soon as one is relieved of one’s heavy load, one surely feels
refreshed; this cannot be denied: but here are no objects to give pleasure and how could it be felt unless it is from within, i.e., from
the Self? Q.: It is due to the strain of load being removed. A.: Removal is negative; how can a negation yield a positive result such
as pleasure? It must therefore be admitted to be of the Self. Q.: Relief from strain amounts to relief from pain. And this seems to be
pleasure to him. A.: But in deep sleep there is no strain to be removed and yet there is the bliss of sleep. This cannot be denied
because there is the recollection of the bliss of sleep after waking from it. This bliss cannot but of the Self. Q.: There is no such
bliss of deep sleep. A.: Why then do all beings desire to sleep and also prepare for it? Q.: If the Self be bliss, why is it not always
apparent? A.: Although there is noise constantly produced within the body, it is not usually heard; but if you plug your ears to
prevent the intrusion of external noises, the noise is distinctly heard from within. Similarly with the bliss of Self. It is at present
obstructed by the pains generated by the fire of desires and other latencies. These latencies lie dormant in their sources at the time
of deep sleep and then the bliss of the Self becomes apparent like the internal sound on plugging the ears. While bearing the load
the pain caused by it over-powers the common misery of current vasanas and thus predominates for the time being. As soon as the
load is thrown down, the pain relating to it disappears and in the short interval before the rise of the current vasanas, the bliss of Self
is felt. Similarly with the other sensual pleasures. Innumerable vasanas always remain in the heart pricking like thorns all the while.
With the rise of a desire for an object the force of it overpowers the other vaasanas which await their turn. When the desired object is
attained, the immediate pain of its desire is at an end; in the short interval before the other vasanas manifest, the bliss of Self
prevails. Hence it is said what always all desire is only the Bliss of the Self. Q.: How then do all not understand that the sought-for
pleasures are really only the Self? A.: Owing to their ignorance of the fact that only the bliss of the Self manifests as the pleasure of
sensual enjoyments, their attention being on the objects which are transitory; they believe that as the enjoyments are transitory,
their bliss also is co-eval with them.
the Supreme Knowledge (Paraa Samvit). This is full of Bliss and therefore the highest goal (purushaartha). This state is one of solid
Bliss. The reason is: Misery is the result of upaadhi which is totally absent in the Self. This samvit is the condensation of the sum
total of bliss, consequent on all the forms of enjoyment by all living beings put together. For samvit is desired by one and all living
beings. Q.: Is it not pleasure from objects that is thus desired? How can it take the form of the enjoyer? A.: Since it is desired by
all, the Self must be of the nature of Bliss. Otherwise it will not be desired by all equally. Q.: If it be the Self alone that is desired by
all, how can the desires be various e.g., for the body, wealth, woman, etc.? A.: The desire is not really for objects since it is for
one’s own sake. Hence those desirous of heaven etc., undergo fasts etc., and willingly leave their bodies etc. So the Self is never
that which is not desired. Therefore it must be Bliss itself. Q.: Pleasure is obvious in the enjoyment of objects, whereas the other
bliss cannot be proved to be; therefore the Self cannot be admitted to be Bliss. A.: The aagamas (holy texts) declare that all
sensual pleasures are but fractions of the Bliss of the Self. This means: Just as ether though not itself visible is yet known to yield
room for a pot etc., and thus seems divisible by other adjuncts such as actions etc., so also Chit though not visible yet appears
divided by objects seeming to be the source of sensual pleasure (which in reality are only fractions of the Bliss of the Self). Q.: Your
statements prove only the desire for pleasure by the self, and not itself being bliss. A.: Only the natural bliss of the Self prevails at
the instant of relief of one’s burden and in deep sleep. This means: As soon as one is relieved of one’s heavy load, one surely feels
refreshed; this cannot be denied: but here are no objects to give pleasure and how could it be felt unless it is from within, i.e., from
the Self? Q.: It is due to the strain of load being removed. A.: Removal is negative; how can a negation yield a positive result such
as pleasure? It must therefore be admitted to be of the Self. Q.: Relief from strain amounts to relief from pain. And this seems to be
pleasure to him. A.: But in deep sleep there is no strain to be removed and yet there is the bliss of sleep. This cannot be denied
because there is the recollection of the bliss of sleep after waking from it. This bliss cannot but of the Self. Q.: There is no such
bliss of deep sleep. A.: Why then do all beings desire to sleep and also prepare for it? Q.: If the Self be bliss, why is it not always
apparent? A.: Although there is noise constantly produced within the body, it is not usually heard; but if you plug your ears to
prevent the intrusion of external noises, the noise is distinctly heard from within. Similarly with the bliss of Self. It is at present
obstructed by the pains generated by the fire of desires and other latencies. These latencies lie dormant in their sources at the time
of deep sleep and then the bliss of the Self becomes apparent like the internal sound on plugging the ears. While bearing the load
the pain caused by it over-powers the common misery of current vasanas and thus predominates for the time being. As soon as the
load is thrown down, the pain relating to it disappears and in the short interval before the rise of the current vasanas, the bliss of Self
is felt. Similarly with the other sensual pleasures. Innumerable vasanas always remain in the heart pricking like thorns all the while.
With the rise of a desire for an object the force of it overpowers the other vaasanas which await their turn. When the desired object is
attained, the immediate pain of its desire is at an end; in the short interval before the other vasanas manifest, the bliss of Self
prevails. Hence it is said what always all desire is only the Bliss of the Self. Q.: How then do all not understand that the sought-for
pleasures are really only the Self? A.: Owing to their ignorance of the fact that only the bliss of the Self manifests as the pleasure of
sensual enjoyments, their attention being on the objects which are transitory; they believe that as the enjoyments are transitory,
their bliss also is co-eval with them.
REFUTATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF VOID
The followers of this school of thought declare that illusion can and does arise even in the absence of any background
(niradhishtaana). In the case of a piece of shell appearing as silver, they say that the knowledge of silver is groundless (i.e., void);
similarly with the knowledge of the Self. Their position is briefly put as follows: On the firm conviction that the jagat is non-existent,
by a prolonged contemplation on the void, the thought of jagat completely vanishing, void prevails and this is liberation.
(niradhishtaana). In the case of a piece of shell appearing as silver, they say that the knowledge of silver is groundless (i.e., void);
similarly with the knowledge of the Self. Their position is briefly put as follows: On the firm conviction that the jagat is non-existent,
by a prolonged contemplation on the void, the thought of jagat completely vanishing, void prevails and this is liberation.
Now to refute it – denial of the jagat is imperfect knowledge. Just as a pot is not altogether false but is real as clay, so also is jagat
not altogether false but is real as intelligence. Therefore to deny the jagat as being nonexistent is only illusory knowledge. Its
non-existence cannot be established by any proofs. Because the jagat shines as knowledge from which the individual who proves
the jagat to be real or unreal, is not distinct; also the jagat though denied yet persists. Though a pot may be denied, its material
clay cannot be so denied. Similarly though the jagat may be denied, its existence as knowledge cannot be denied. The same
relationship holds between the jagat and consciousness as between a pot and clay. However the adherents of the school of void
stick to void and deny all the perceptible as being void. But he is also contained in the jagat which is denied by him. Then what is
left of him beyond denial is knowledge; this cannot be denied. They mean to say that the moded consciousness constitutes
samsara whereas unmoded consciousness void of all else including the pramaanas to prove it, constitutes liberation. But our
objection is that the one who denies the jagat cannot deny himself and the jagat does not cease to exist simply because one
curses it. Our objection is valid because consciousness subsists unimpaired in the unmoded state after denying all else to exist.
Q.: (Granting your view point) what is there to be eliminated and how is non-duality established? A.: The Vedantists say that the
Supreme Sat-Chit seems to be the asat (false) jagat like the false reflection in a mirror; this is anirvachaniya, i.e., inexpressible;
non-duality consists in removing this confusion and so this jagat is eliminated. But we say – the jagat appears like the images in a
mirror. Just as these images are no other than the mirror, the jagat is no other than the Sat-Chit. Q.: If so, what remains to be
eliminated? A.: The sense of duality. Q.: Is this duality included in jagat? Or is it exclusive of it? If the former, it is real as jagat and
cannot be negated; if the latter, it leads to anirvachaniya. A.: It is included in jagat. Q.: How then is it eliminated? A.: Listen! Duality
is to believe that the illuminant and the illumined are different from each other. Since duality is nothing but illusion, denial of it puts
an end to the illusion and thus to itself. Hence it was said, “As a matter of fact unity is not different from diversity. One reality alone
shines forth as both.”
not altogether false but is real as intelligence. Therefore to deny the jagat as being nonexistent is only illusory knowledge. Its
non-existence cannot be established by any proofs. Because the jagat shines as knowledge from which the individual who proves
the jagat to be real or unreal, is not distinct; also the jagat though denied yet persists. Though a pot may be denied, its material
clay cannot be so denied. Similarly though the jagat may be denied, its existence as knowledge cannot be denied. The same
relationship holds between the jagat and consciousness as between a pot and clay. However the adherents of the school of void
stick to void and deny all the perceptible as being void. But he is also contained in the jagat which is denied by him. Then what is
left of him beyond denial is knowledge; this cannot be denied. They mean to say that the moded consciousness constitutes
samsara whereas unmoded consciousness void of all else including the pramaanas to prove it, constitutes liberation. But our
objection is that the one who denies the jagat cannot deny himself and the jagat does not cease to exist simply because one
curses it. Our objection is valid because consciousness subsists unimpaired in the unmoded state after denying all else to exist.
Q.: (Granting your view point) what is there to be eliminated and how is non-duality established? A.: The Vedantists say that the
Supreme Sat-Chit seems to be the asat (false) jagat like the false reflection in a mirror; this is anirvachaniya, i.e., inexpressible;
non-duality consists in removing this confusion and so this jagat is eliminated. But we say – the jagat appears like the images in a
mirror. Just as these images are no other than the mirror, the jagat is no other than the Sat-Chit. Q.: If so, what remains to be
eliminated? A.: The sense of duality. Q.: Is this duality included in jagat? Or is it exclusive of it? If the former, it is real as jagat and
cannot be negated; if the latter, it leads to anirvachaniya. A.: It is included in jagat. Q.: How then is it eliminated? A.: Listen! Duality
is to believe that the illuminant and the illumined are different from each other. Since duality is nothing but illusion, denial of it puts
an end to the illusion and thus to itself. Hence it was said, “As a matter of fact unity is not different from diversity. One reality alone
shines forth as both.”
Now let me turn round and question the Vedantists – Q.: Is negation indescribable or real? If the former, jagat cannot be negated; if
the latter, duality results. Nor can you maintain that negation of the phenomenon resolves itself as the substratum so that the
negation of Jagat results in its substratum, Brahman. Of course to admit the non-self-looking negation is simply included in the Self
and the whole jagat is nothing but the Self, is not opposed to our view. But negation is negative in character and it cannot be said to
resolve itself into its substratum – the Reality. The jagat can be established to exist according to the dictum – the non-self is also the
Self. The point is only to gain purushaartha by whatever means – negation or any other. It is useless to engage in disputes. ‘The
mumukshu’ and the ‘sadhakas’ are warned not to enter into controversies with other systems or religions.
the latter, duality results. Nor can you maintain that negation of the phenomenon resolves itself as the substratum so that the
negation of Jagat results in its substratum, Brahman. Of course to admit the non-self-looking negation is simply included in the Self
and the whole jagat is nothing but the Self, is not opposed to our view. But negation is negative in character and it cannot be said to
resolve itself into its substratum – the Reality. The jagat can be established to exist according to the dictum – the non-self is also the
Self. The point is only to gain purushaartha by whatever means – negation or any other. It is useless to engage in disputes. ‘The
mumukshu’ and the ‘sadhakas’ are warned not to enter into controversies with other systems or religions.
The jagat being of consciousness, like the images in a mirror not being different from a mirror, it is real. Simply because jagat is
declared to be of the nature of consciousness, it should not be taken that jagat is consciousness itself. Such assumption will be
equivalent to saying that avidya is, because it is said to be inexpressible. Just as you cannot raise the question if avidya is in order
to be inexpressible, so also the question cannot arise if jagat is in order to be indistinct from Consciousness. In this manner to know
that all is sattaamaatra is perfect Vijnaana.
declared to be of the nature of consciousness, it should not be taken that jagat is consciousness itself. Such assumption will be
equivalent to saying that avidya is, because it is said to be inexpressible. Just as you cannot raise the question if avidya is in order
to be inexpressible, so also the question cannot arise if jagat is in order to be indistinct from Consciousness. In this manner to know
that all is sattaamaatra is perfect Vijnaana.
Sri Ramanarpanamastu
End of SIDDHA GITA FROM YOGA VASISHTHA
Post a Comment