English
‘Who is discovered in the form of each individusl intelligence, in seoondless and blissful; and who is secondles and blissful, and discovered in the form of individusted intellect. In other words the intellectual sou) present in each individual and manifested in the form of Witnessing Intelligence is the Secondiess Supreme Self and full of bliss. And that Supreme.* Self is non.different from, but one with, the individuated ool, Intelligence, Intellect, or Perception (Bodha). 77. When the identity or oneness of Brahma and Indivi. duated Self is thoroughly ascertained [without any lingering trace of doubt], then only the meaning of the word ‘Thou’ referring to individuated Self ceases to impart the idea that it does not signify Brahma. 78. And there Is likewise a similar cessation of invisibility. fn the signification of ‘That.’ That ia to say, mistake lands the Individual Into the disbelief of his oneness with Brahma, and Brahma is the subject of invisible knowledge. Both of, them cease when non-duality has been firmly established as a result of ascertaining the meaning of Impartite. And if it be asked of what use ere they? To make the individuated Self occupied in the fullness of bliss. 79. Thus then, the visibility of the Supreme Brehma follows as 4 result of knowledge of ‘That art Thou’ and this has been clearly established In the aforesaid mannet; if any Ohe were to say it is otherwise, and no visible knowledge follows, be surely is ignorant of the purport of the infetences’ | derived from the Shasfres. Bo. If it te said, let the Shasfras draw their conclusions and build upon them the visible knowledge from the indica _ tion of ‘That art Thou,’ but the fact is’ otherwise and it is possible for obtaining invisible knowledge in the same way ts one kiiows the blissful abode of heaven, but to say 90. “PANCHADASE, wajust, as already mentioned in the case. of the “tenth pereon.” ne * 81. If you attribute invisible knowledge to result from ‘That art Thou,’ it will do away with your visibility and you who are engaged In ascertaining the nature of Brahma will be invisible. What a fallacy, and how very unnatural your inferences are. 82. As in ordinary usage, it is said, “For increasing it *gne loses his capital,” that exactly applies In your case, and we have an instance of its truth exemplified in your reasoning, 83. If you say, intelligence of Jiva for its associate of the internal organ may properly be regarded as visible, but as Brahma is unassociated It cannot be so regarded (visible) : " 84. But Brahma is not 20 unassociated, because withont the associated condition, it is impossible to form a conception of Its principle or nature, and so fong as @ person does not therge into the Non-dual after death, the associated cannot be done away with. 85. But this need not necessarily indicate there is difference in the associates of Jiva and Brahma. The presence or absence of the internal organ constitutes that difference in associate.* 86. Just as the presence of the interna! organ, [its con- ditional relationship] forms the associate why is the absence or want of that organ to prevent a similar associate? Now here we have an ‘admission’ and ‘exclusion.’ The first associated existence [the conditional relationship of the internal organ] comes under admission, while its want is* exclusion; and though both of them are associates, yet thera is a difference between them of being and not being, existence and non-existence, and for this difference they are fit to be * Says Madhusudan Swami. So long as actions continue the ‘aeayciate creates the difference in the condition of [Jiva and Brahma] and this is said to be the indication of an associate. PANCHADASI, Utregarded ;-In the eame way, as a chain niade of gold or: fron though different so far as the metals are concerned but’ tn the matter of inflicting punishment and confining @ person's motion, they have no difference whatever and therefore no attention paid to it. 87. Professors of Self-knowledge have ascertained both ‘admission’ and ‘exclusion’ as means to that end. For instance, by the exclusion of phenomena [material Universe , which is non-real and non-existent except in our senses<- Mlusion) and admission of noumena, [Brahma which alone ts real hence ‘being,’} the Vedanta seeks to expound Brahma with @ view of obtaining self-knowledge.* 88, But objection may be taken to this view, for it may be asked since the Vedanéa seeks to expound ‘That’ (Brahma) by the exclusion of ‘Not-That’ [phenomena]; similarly for & community of reference between the words ‘aham’ in- dicating the Uniform Intelligence, and Brahma, introduction of the Indication of abandoning a part, will fail to establish the perception “Iam Brahma.” And the reply is,—The indi- cation of abandoning In regard to individuality applies only to the part marked by insentiency, as for instance the physical © ‘That’ refers to Brahma. ‘Not-That’ signifies the objective world. Therefore ‘That’ is not ‘Not-that,’ and ‘Not-that’ is not ‘That.’ This is the method used in expounding the Reality of Brahma, and Its eternity, knowledge, and infinity. In other words, what is not Brahma, is this vast material expanse, there~ fore this vast expanse is not Brahma. And this is noa-existent, it exists relatively to our senses, which is illusion, For in sleep, we have no more relation with it, and it apparently ceases to exist; so in pralaya it exists not, hence it naturally follows, that as it does not exist in all time, it is impermanent, but this does not apply to Brahma, for it is ‘Not-That’ and the properties * of ‘Not-that’ cannot be attributed to ‘That’ which is its extreme reverse. Hence Brahma is eternal, etc. In this manner, the Vedantin secks to expound Brahma, i ~ jHbody, ett. and-not to the Uniform Intelligence: pie ”,"ta aay, IE the gross body,-organs, aensory and actipe, vital sins, anid, and thinking, be excluded from ‘I em J’ the remalning Intelligence ig one with Brahma, hence the perception ‘I am Brahma’ is a natural result, 89. By abandoning the internal organ from the significa. tion of the word (Asam) egoism or individuality, the remats- - lag Witness Intelligence is rendered visible by the expreasion “Tam Brahma.” 90. Though this witness Intelligence is self-illamined, yet It Isa subject of pervasion by intellect like other inpenr tient subjects, 2 jar, etc., but the authors of the Shastras have (nterdicted the employmont of the pervasion of result to deter~ mine it. [For, the result refers to the reflected shadow of {ntelligence, and that cannot be required in the case of petr ceiving what is self-ilumined). gt. In the case of an insentient object, both the intellect and reflected shadow of intelligence situated there, pervade that ‘jar’; and the necessity consists in this, that ignorance which envelops a jar is removed by intellect, and reflaction Of intelligence renders its visible. ga. With regard to Brahma the pervasion of intellect— funotion of the internal organ—is admitted for the destruction of ignorance which rests there, and as It Is self-illumined, it aanifesta without the pervasion of the reflected shadow of intelligence, a resulting product of intellect. 93 As for finding out a jar in a dark room, the eyes and Hight of a lamp ere both needed, and for that lamp, eyes simply re enough ; similarly for the destruction of ignorance which envelops it, and for rendering tt vistble, both the pervae tion of fanctian and its reflection of intelligence ato requisite; but for the cognition or discovery of Brahma, the porvasion of fonction is alone.neceasary. g4. “Though this ‘refiex’ is situated in fanction, yet it Ono with Brahma, and docs not produce apy increated scsulié a ce ig Wa it, Uke what happens in the case of afar, etc. To be more; explicit :—If, as in function moulded after the shape of a far,‘ there Js a reflection of intelligence too in the fanction moulded ; alter Brahma, yet that reflex is not manifested as distinct from | Brahma, but like the light of lamp overpowered by the mide’ day sun, it is one with It, hence not @ source of increasing | Tete manifestibitity.* 95. In support of the pervasion of function and absence of pervasion of the resul,t the evidence of the Vedas is now” being adduced. “ Undemonstrable and unborn.” “Brabma ia only to be perceived by the mind.” “An Intelligent person, | knows Brahma to be changeless, infinite, uncaused, and an- demonstrable (i. ¢., not capable of being cognised by the fensory organs), unexampled, and unborn, is freed from re-births.” (Srufi). Regarding it, the Amritabindu Upanishad says the word undemonstrable Is meant to convey the exclu- elon of the pervasion of result.t © Subsequent to knowledge, the individual Intelligence merges into the Supreme Brahma and becomes one, but that does not produce any increase of results like what follows in the case of an insentient object after ignorance has been removed from it by. that function, and we come to view its several parts both in and out, by the reflex intelligence, br a ¥ + “Brahma is only to be perceived by the mind.” And “Which the mind cannot conceive’ imply no contradiction. Because the mental function can only destroy the Ignorance con~ catning the Brahma, it cannot discover the absolute; [thus ful- filling the first condition] and because the reflected Intelligence is powerless to discover It (this has already been exptained).: [necessarily, therefore, the mind in such = case cannot concelve™; ‘of it], On this subject the authors of the Shastras “have ine} terdicted the use of the reflected Intelligence, but have advised... to dispel the ignorance which rests on It, by the agency of they! _@ental function, for discovering the Supreme Brahma,’ Because.