English
[Hence it is said} if for an absence of bringing In particular knowledge, the ‘visible’ be regatded to be a form of error, then since no particular keowledge cam be produced Of Swargs, but only its: existence can ordinarily be mide “150 - PANCHADASI. - known, that shoald also be erroneous. That !s to say, It can- not be pointed out definitely ag “This is the Heaven,” but there _ ia’a perception ofits existence as “ Heaven is,” therefore this ordinary knowledge or perception of the existence of Heaven will alike be fallacious. 54. A third form of error takes this shape. “ Brabma is properly to be known by the invisible knowledge, hence the ‘pplication of visible knowledge is fallacious.” But that is mot the case, That is to say, the subject of Brabma and Its non-difference with each individual self which is fit to form the subject of visible knowledge, stands not in the least chance of error like the ‘invisible.’ And why is visible knowledge of Brahma free from error or mistake? Because “ Brabma is invisible.” In this way, for a want of Its adequacy for being visible, the invisible knowledge of Brahma is free from fallacy. But why is that knowledge invisible? Because there is a want of that definite perception as “This is Brahms.” 55. A fourth form of error may arise, and one may say, “From a want of accepting a part of the visible is fallacious, Ia other words, notwithstanding the accepting of the parts of Brahma, the non-accepting of each witnessing: part, from the visible knowledge is erroneous. It amounts to this then, that the presence of ignorance in any part of knowledge con- ceraing an object isa source of error. If this were to bold true, knowledge of a jar, a piece of cloth, [formed bodies,} etc,, must alike be erroneous, inasmuch as that knowledge ‘gannot occupy all the parts of the jar, etc., [its interior for Instance]. Thus then bodies with form are necessarily revealed partly, while another part remains unknown; but in the case of Brahma qwhich is formless, how can it be said that ts ports are not discovered? [The reply is] to impute parts to Brahma and reduce it to a presonality is not fit for considera- tion. From distinction or difference in the parts which are Mt for being interdicted and are unfit'for being entertained, BANCHADASL- a5r Brahma thoogh formless qill-be reduced to the condition of one with parts. 56. What ate the two parts fit for interdiction? * They are non-existence and want of manifestibility [imperceptibility]. Tho first is removed by the invisible and the last by visible knowledge. 57. That the invisible knowledge of a subject that is fit to be known visibly is not erroneous [the third form of error] is established from the following example. Aa in the Instance of the “tenth person.” “ Tenth is,” can be called clear invisible knowledge. Similarly “ Brahma fa,” an instance of clear invisible knowledge, and In both, the envelopment of tgnorance is alike. (It need hardly be said that as in the case of the missing ‘tenth person’ the assertion of a trastworthy person who comes to the spot and says the tenth is [living] produces invisible knowledge to his comrades (invisible, because he has not pointed out the person yet, and sald “ This is the tenth,” or “ here is your tenth,”) and as that is clear or free from error—similarly the knowledge produced by the expression {Brahma is [existent’} is clear and free from error; because the envelopment of non-being removed by ignorance is equal in both of them. 58. If words bring forth invisible knowledge what pro- duces the visible? From the same source with proper discri- mination; as “ Self is Brahma.” A person who full well understands the signification of the phrase has a visible percep- tion of Brahma. Just as in the case of the tenth person “ you are the tenth” brings him the visible perception of the tenth.* ® According to the deductions of works treating on Non- duality ‘means’ for the acquisition ef the knowledge differ accord. ing to the statws of the qualified individual; that is to say, if he has advanced a good way and belongs to the fret class of qualified persons, hearing, consideration and profound contemplation are, the means of his knowledge. . In the case of a.person tolarably. PANGHADASL: $9 Or anin reply to the question who is the tenth person? if you say“ you are the tenth,” and subsequently comnting. over the number and reckoning yourself you come to recollect it, similarly by analysing the phrave, “Self is Brahme,” Para-, brahma becomes visibly perceptible to the mind. ae, 60, Knowledge produced from due analysis and argument’ Is sabject nelther to inconsistent idea nor doubts. This is now being shewn. In regard to the “tenth person” the: knowledge that “I am the tenth” is to be admitted as free. trom conflicting ideas or doubts; for if a new person were to come and place himself in their middle he will never get confounded and fail to recognise himself as the tenth, leaving. aside the stranger. [Similarly in regard to self, knowledge produced by the phrase “ Self is Brahma” brings in the cloar perception that his A/ma is Brahma, and when this js firmly seated in his intellect, he is said to perceive it visibly. - 61. In the first place then the phrase “Brahma is” helps knowledge of Its existence, and that is ‘the invisible.” Subse- quently the expression “you are the Supreme Brahma,” the introduction of person® tends to produce the visible per- eeption of Brahma as non-distinct from him. 6z. In this manner, knowledge of Parabrama can never be confounded, when it ts once visibly perceived or seated in the intellect, either with the five sheaths, foodful and the rest,. or any thing else. 63. From the indication of birth, etc, the sage Vriga first obtained an insight of the invisible Brahma; and qualified, worship of the Impersonal Brahma without any attributes - is che means of knowledge. In both instances, keeping up a | continuous current of the mental function is an uqcommen cause. for knowledge. _ © ‘Wyalti? literally means a person ; isd ob isang aki “every one to be non-<distinct from Brahma, henca each son- ‘distinct. Brakes refers ¢e tha individual. , racine” ag subsequently by discrimination ‘and direct réfetehée, “ ‘8 tear perception, in the following manner. “ From Whom these elements have been derived, to whom all things owe their life, etc, 1s Brahma.” Now then, hearing brought forth invisible perception of Brahma as the cause of the origin and desiruc- of the universe; subsequently by analysis he discriminated It to be distinct from the foodful and the rest of the sacs, so’ tbat each individual self is Brahma, and accordingly came to’ Teatize it clearly. ; 64. He had received instruction from his father on the invisible knowledge of the Supreme Brahma only, and though Its visible perception in the form of “Thou art Brahma” was never given him, yet by the first method he had been taught to hold It to be distinct from the foodful sac, ete. 5 <c 65. So that, by ascertaining the unreslity of these sacs over and over, he was led to conclude self ta be non-distiact from Breahme by Its indications of bilssfulness, and realized It accordingly. 66. “Brahma is truth, knowledge and infinite.” In this manner, after having spoken of the indications, It is further Geactibed aa present in each individual (in the form of Self); for It is situate inside the five sacs (and he who knows thet, has no more duality in him). 67. The two last verses quoted from the Zaihirya Upa- sithad render it clear, how in the case of the sage Vrigu, knowledge marked by invisibility ultimately led to the visible perception of Brahms. It is further corroborated by the . evidence of the Chtandegya Upanithad “ Indra derived this © fmvisible knowledge by the indications of self, in the fallow. ing manner :—What fs unrelated to the body and action, undectying, eternal, and devoid of grief is Self. Actunted” with the desire of obtaisiing visible’perception, ‘or clear intight of the Supreme Brahma, be repaired to Gary four tiaies with 1S PANCHADASI, the usual bundle of fre-wood asa present.” (Chhandogys Upanishad, Chapter VIII). 68. The Aiariya Upanishad is also to the same purpose. “Tn the beginning, there was the secondless Parabrahma.” Now this is an indication of the invisible, for it simply estab- lishes the existence, and does not particularize It either with one thing or another. Hence the subsequent attribution of ilusion and its withdrawal helps to bring forth the visible perception by the indications of that visibility, ods., truth, knowledge and infinite. 6g. Other Sruéi utterances help the visible knowledge of Brahma, as the transcendental phrase does the ‘visible.’* * It is worth enquiring whether our sense, perception or the non- distinction of the inteHigence of a subject, and that of function of the internal organ is visible knowledge? Or whether the know- ledge of a subject having a present relation with one who gives evidence [pramata] is so called? Carrying the enquiry further ‘we may multiply instances :—it may be asked whether knowledge produced by proper proofs concerning an adequate subject having a present relation with the demonstration (pramata) or the un- caused knowledge of improper and worthless proofs of = proper subject with a present relation, of the demonstrating intelligence (pramana chaitenye) is ‘visible’? Or whether that visible knowledge has for its indication that which is conformable to the practise of self, non-different from the subject of uncovered in- telligence [wanting in envelopment]?