PANCHADASI--- part 60

madan_gautam's picture

Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

E text source- 6.Such a knower through his knowledge takes himself beyond good and evil and is ever engaged in meditation on the Self. He looks upon good and bad actions done as the manifestations of his Self.
7. ‘When a man has seen the Highest the knots of his heart are sundered; all his doubts are dispelled and all his actions perish’.
8. ‘Knowing Him, one crosses death; there is no other path than this’. ‘When a man has known the effulgent Self, all his bonds are cut asunder, his afflictions cease; there is no further birth for him.’
9. ‘The man of steady wisdom, having known the effulgent Self, leaves behind, even in this life, all joys and sorrows’. ‘He is not scorched by thoughts of the good or bad deeds which he may have done or omitted to do’.
10. Thus many texts in the Shruti, Smritis and Puranas declare that the knowledge of Brahman destroys all sorrows and leads to bliss.
11. Bliss is of three kinds: The bliss of Brahman, the bliss which is born of knowledge and the bliss which is produced by contact with outer objects. First the bliss of Brahman is being described.
12. Bhrigu learnt the definition of Brahman from his father Varuna and negating the food-sheath, the vital-sheath, the mind-sheath and the intellect-sheath as not being Brahman, he realised Brahman reflected in the bliss-sheath.
13. All beings are born of bliss and live by It, pass on to It and are finally reabsorbed in it; there is therefore no doubt that Brahman is bliss.
14. Before the creation of beings there was only the infinite and no triad of knower, known and knowing; therefore in dissolution the triad again ceases to exist.
15. When created, the intellect-sheath is the knower; the mind-sheath is the field of knowledge; sound etc., are the objects known. Before creation they did not exist.
16. In the absence of this triad, the secondless, indivisible Self alone exists. The Self alone existed before the projection of the world. Similarly It exists in the states of Samadhi, deep sleep and swoon.
17. The infinite Self alone is bliss; there is no bliss in the finite realm of the triad. This Sanatkumara told the grieving Narada.
18. Even though Narada was versed in the Vedas, the Puranas and the various studies, he was full of grief because of not knowing the Self.
19. Before he began the study of the Vedas he was subject to the three usual kinds of misery, but afterwards he was more grieved because of the added afflictions of the practices of the study, the fear of forgetting and slips or defeat and conceit.
20. ‘O Sage’, said Narada to Sanatkumara, ‘learned as I am in the studies, I am subject to grief. Please take me beyond this ocean of misery’. The Rishi told Narada in reply that the farther shore of the ocean of misery is the bliss of Brahman.
21. As the happiness derived from sense-objects is covered by thousands of afflictions, it is misery only. There is therefore no happiness in the limited.
22. (Objection): Granting there is no happiness in duality, there is no happiness in non-duality either. If you maintain that there is, then it must be experienced and then there will be the triad.
23. (Reply): ‘Let there be no experience of happiness in the state of non-duality. But non-duality itself is bliss.’ ‘What is the proof ?’ ‘The self-revealing requires no other proof’.
24. Your objection itself is evidence of the self-revealing nature of the existence of self-conscious non-duality; for you admit the existence of the secondless and merely contend that it is not bliss.
25. (Objection): I do not admit non-duality but only accept it as a hypothesis to be refuted. (Reply): Then tell us what existed before duality emerged.
26. Was it non-duality or duality or something different from both ? It cannot have been the last because it is impossible to conceive so. It cannot have been duality because it had not yet emerged. Hence non-duality alone remains.
27. (Objection): The truth of non-duality is established by argument only and not by experience, it cannot be experienced. (Reply): Then tell whether your argument can or cannot be supported by illustration; it must be the one or the other.
28. You deny (the possibility of) the non-dual experience. (At the same time if you say) there is no illustration (in support of the argument that establishes non-duality) it would be a wonderful logic ! (You cannot say there is no illustration in its favour, for an argument must be supported by an illustration). In case there are examples please give us an acceptable one.
29. (Objection): (Here is the argument with illustration). In dissolution there is non-duality, since duality is not experienced there, as in deep sleep. (Reply): Please give an illustration to support your affirmation of the absence of duality in deep sleep.
30. (Objection): The sleeping state of some other person may be an illustration. (Reply): You are indeed a clever man; you have no knowledge of your own experience in deep sleep, which you are going to prove by giving the illustration of another’s deep sleep and yet you profess to know that of another.
31. (Objection): The other person is in deep sleep since he is inactive as in my case. (Reply): Then from the force of your illustration you admit the self-revealing nature of the non-dual truth in your own sleep.
32. (How ?) There are no sense-organs (for you say you are inactive); there is no illustration (for the illustration adduced by you is inadmissible) and yet there is the non-dual (which you admit); this is what is known as the self-revealing nature of the non-dual. So you are forced to admit it.
33. (Objection)): Admitted that there is the non-dual in deep sleep and that it is self-revealing, what about the bliss you spoke of ? (Reply): When all misery is absent, that which remains is bliss.
34. In deep sleep the blind are not blind, the wounded not wounded and the ill no longer ill, say the scriptures. All people too know this.