English
Therefore the visible result of eating ia to appease or remove the pangs of hunger, but so fat as the Sruff and Smriti ace concerned, the roles laid down there refer to an hereafter {after death) and not fora a destruction of,the pangs aitendant on hunger, ‘316. The difference between devotional “exercise and'~ PANCHADASI. 169 hunger is thus being declared :—There. are rules to be observed De€ause if left undone, sin or de-merit is produced, and if per- formed indifferently, z.¢., the sacred texts pronounced withont attending to the long and short accents, or incorrectly, they fail to produce the desired result; but on the other hand, prove injurious or harmful to the worshipper, as happened to Vretrasur from incorrect pronounciation. Thus then, the propriety of observing rules in the performance of worship or devotion is plainly established. 157. Antagonistic ideas are a source of perceptible grief, like the pangs of hunger, and it is proper, therefore, by some means or other, to conquer them. But for that conquest, there is no consecutive beginning. In other words, the grief brought about by antagonistic ideas ts easily experienced, there- fore self-evident, and meditation removes it, so that for the destruction of that visible grief—ite result is visible too— there is no necessity for any rules, bat it is proper that one should begin to meditate without them. 118. Now the means for the prevention of antagonistic \deas—to dwell on Brahma constantly, etc.—have already been mentioned. There are no such rales as are enjoined in worship to sit with the fece towards the east; but as in wor shipping the Saligram one dweils mentally on Vishnu, 80 one may apprehend the rule here is to produce an unswerving earnesiness of the mind and to fix iton Brahma, But on that concentrating of the mind on Brahma, like contemplation, there is no rule nor restraint. 119, Casting aside thoughts of other objecta, to dwell constantly with the mind on some particular form of Deva, with undivided attention is called Contemplation (Dhyzna). And there are injunctions for practising it, for it removes the fickleness or unstability of the mind and steadies it. 120, As for instance in the Gifa (Chapter vi., v. 34.) “Oh Krishna! I confess the mind to be naturally fickle, causing want of steadiness; strong, 8088 to be wnrestrainable; and 170 PANCHAD firm In being led away by good and bad objects as to be well nigh impracticable to control! it, yet like restraining the air, It is with some pain and inconvenience capable of being subjugated.” 122, Vashista says in regard to the difficulty with which It ig anhjected :—“Te is m ore difficult than draining away a sea, or uprooting the Golden Mountain (Sumeru), or eating fire, and such other feats of tradition.” 122. Like a body restrained from movement by a chain, there is no restraint for speaking ‘and thinking on Brahma; on the contrary, history and biography, recording, as they do, the lives of great men, create mental enjoyment just a8 the sight of a dance is enlivening. 123. But that study of history and biography, or hearing them read, does not do away with profound contemplation ; for self is intelligence only, and is neither the physical body nor the sensory organs, etc., which are like the objective world material and prone to destruction; and as the purport of historical works and biography go the same way, their literal signification, therefore, does not tell against ‘profound contem- plation.’” 124. Agriculture, commerce, service, etc., together with a study of poetical works, fiction, and the Wyaya Shastra pro- duce distraction of the intellect, inasmuch as it is impossible ; for them to bring in a recollection of the Real Brahma, 125—126, But it may be asked, eating is also alike in- capable of creating a remembrance of Reality, and it should be therefore abandoned? The reply is, there can be no ex- treme mental distraction from eating, and as after it is over, @ person comes to remember the Real Brahma, it ia therefore not to be abandoned. Thus then, since eating creates only for the time being, a break of the mental flow of recollection which can never be disastrous in its effects, and after it ia over, the Reality is all at once recollected, it creates no ante- s PANCHADASI. 191 gonistic ideas which alone are ruinous, hence not necessary to do away with it. 127. Proofs are now adduced in support of what has been Said against Poetry, Myaya Shastra, etc., and their inutility to produce a desire of enquiring after self or creating Self- Knowledge. A person engaged in studying Ayaya has no leisure to recollect the Supreme Self, But this does not hold exclusively true with regard to it alone ; for Poetry and Logic, inasmuch as they are opposed to self-knowledge, make those who study them, forget him altogether. 128. For which, it is necessary that they should be aban- doned. To this end the Sru/@ says :—“Know that One-Self and leave other discussions [and studies] aside. He is the bridge gulfing over eternity and leading to emancipation.” And “ Leave off other words, for they are a source of error ;” but constantly abide in him. 129. If it be contended, since there is no interdiction for food, though there is a likelihood of its causing a person for- get the Supreme Self while in the act of eating, so to do away with the other Sasfras, Logic, Poetry, and the rest is not needed. The reply is, since no one can live without food, ‘consequently it is impossible to abandon it, though it may be opposed to the remembrance of self, very stightly; but no harm to life occurs to a person if he abandons studying the other Shastras, save and beyond the Tedunfz.” Why then show such eagerness for their study? Since without it, the mind is freed from the shackles of contending doctiines and it ‘comes to realise the perception of the secondless Reality. 130. If it be asked, how could Janak maintain his sovereignty, since the administration of state is against self- knowledge. ‘The reply is, the king had such a firm knowledge of self, that it could not be affected by the duties of his exalted position, though naturally they are conflicting and cpposed to © ane another; if your knowledge, be as firm as his, there is 23 cer ene | PANCHADASL. = + ‘no restriction for your study or following the occupation of av agriculturist, etc., as you may fix your choice upon. 331. Because, after the world bas once been known to be unteal and that knowledge has been confirmed, there is no more experience of misery ; a desire of consummation of frac- tescent works alone remains in a theosophist, and from the force of them springs his inclination for present actions. 332. But that does not necessarily imply a theosophist has any inclination for bad or sinful actions. Do not think his dependence or fructescent works leads him to sin, they simply lead him to perform other works; even assuming such harm- ful works being actually done by the overwhelming force of fructescemt works, there is no resisting them.* 133. Thus then so far as the consummation of fructescent works go, an Ignorant person as well as @ theosophist are * Two opposite doctrines prevail in regard to restraint or im= munity of restraint. There are texts in the Upanishad whi clearly maintain, a theosophist is mo longer bound by any consi- deration, he may act as best he likes without having anything to dread for their consequence. Because gnosis onee arisen destroys the seeds of future re-birth and he is freed in life, only waiting” for his emancipation to become an accomplished fact after he parts: with his body. Our author is against it, and he contends, in’ that case what is the difference between a theosophist and a dog that lives on impure food? Nrisinha Sarasawati says, in the face’ of the texts of Revelation and tradition it is impossible to deny the immunity of a theosophist from all restraints, but it is never intended that he should act thus. They are simply eulogistic of knowledge. In this conneetion it remains to be observed that there’ are three sorts of actions mentioned in the Systems, viz., Accumu- lated (Sanchiia), Fructescent (Prarabdhe), and Current (Kriya= mana). The first and last are destroyed by knowledge, leading unaffected the second which can only be exhausted by enjoying happiness or suffering misery according to the merit or de-merit of a prior birth. PANCHADASI. 173 equally circumstanced. If this be contended, their difference Is now being declared, to remove it. Though equally placed in that respect, yet a theosophist is patient in his suffering, while an ignorant person is impatient and always clamours for the grief he is subjected to suffer, asa retribution for past actions which have already commenced to bear fruit in the present life. 134. For example, two persons travelling on @ road miss their way, their destinations are different, but one of them who knows that he cannot be very far from the village he is bound for, with patience continues to walk, and arrives soon, while the other ignorant of how much distance, he has yet to cover sits by the road-side to rest. 135. One who has a tangible perception of self, and done fiway with the usual mistake of connecting him with this or that, (the physical body, organs of sense, etc.,) has no more desire left in him for enjoyment. He therefore feels no grief for whatever happens to his body. 136. After knowledge bas arisen, when the objective world and its contents are reduced to impermanence, and regarded unreal, a theosophist has no desire for anything left, and in the absence of 2 desired object, his desire is said to cease; consequently for him there can be no grief or misery [from unfulfilled gratifications].