Lights on Advaita: - 4

      

Lights on Advaita:

Selected Teachings of

 V. Subrahmanya Iyer

CHAPTER 24: LAST MESSAGE OF KRISHNA

(24.1) 248: GET RID OF: They are still slaves of complexes, the three gunas merely

being three progressive grades of classifying these complexes. There are the

Tamas-group of complexes, the Rajas-group and even the Sattva-group of complexes, all

of which must be got rid of.

(24.2) 249: END: The removal of these complexes reveals truth.

(24.3) 275. COVET: You must be born in this world if you want to attain Brahman; truth

is to be found here and now, not in the next world.

(24.4) 365. Verses 16 and 19 summarize the whole of practical Vedanta, to feel with all

other beings, to identify yourself with them.

CHAPTER 25: BUDDHISM

(25.1) Buddha was a Gnani, but his interpreters are not.

(25.2) Buddha did not enter into scriptural interpretation. So the Hindus threw him out of

their religion. Sankara however although he agreed in nearly all points with Buddha, was

a tactician and wanted to teach these truths within the Hindu fold. Hence he did in Rome

as Rome does! He made himself outwardly appear as an orthodox Hindu, and thus

secured his aim.

(25.3) Buddhism has failed through misunderstanding Gotama and believing that nothing

is left to exist after Nirvana. What is it that sees the illusory nature of the finite ego? This

is what the Buddhists need to answer and cannot on their theories. Only Advaita can

reply: it is the Drg, the Seer. The Buddhists are in error in regarding the finite ego as

illusory, and as having nothing more behind it: but they would have been perfectly

correct in such outlook had they added the notion of the Drg. How is it that Skandas

come together and compose the ego? Who sees them come and go? It is the Drg, the

Atman, and this lack Vedanta supplies in the Drg Drsya Viveka Analysis. When they say

that mind comes and goes they are forgetting that there must be another part of the mind

as consciousness which notices it and which tells them of this disappearance and

appearance. All their misunderstandings arise from the fact that Buddha refused to

discuss ultimate questions. When Buddhism degenerates into Nihilism we refute it (See

Mandukya). The truth of a single reality within or underlying the illusory ego is

all-important and without it Buddhism becomes fallacious.

(25.4) Buddha taught the illusoriness of ego, but did not go farther probably because he

thought the world could not understand the higher truth. Hence followers go with him to

that point of his, and then deny the Vedantic doctrine of one supreme reality when

Buddha himself neither denied nor advocated it. Anyway the refutation of his followers is

to ask them “What is it that is aware of the ego's illusoriness?" There must be something

that tells you that. That something is the Drg, and if you say this Drg itself may be

illusory, coming and going, still there must be something non-transient i.e. permanent, to

tell you this.

(25.5) We disagree with Buddhists (Vijnanavadin) only on the Ultimate question, but we

agree with their idealism fully.

(25.6) ZEN may get a flash of peace but that is not the same as Vedantin who realizes

that the whole world is yourself. Zen is mysticism.

(25.7) Ignorant commentators say Sankara and Gaudapada borrowed their ideas from

Buddhism. But in Mandukya these two declare they are not Buddhists, only a number of

their ideas agree with those of Buddhism, whilst they point out their difference of view

from Sunyavada Buddhists and Vijnanavadins. Thus Sankara and Gaudapada both agree

and disagree with Buddhists.

(25.8) Buddhism did not graduate its teaching to suit people of varying grades; hence its

failure to affect society in Asia.

(25.9) Buddha's teachings that all life is misery belongs to the relative standpoint only.

For you cannot form any idea of misery without contrasting it with its opposite,

happiness. The two will always go together. Buddha taught the goal of cessation of

misery, i.e. peace, but took care not to discuss the ultimate standpoint for then he would

have had to go above the heads of the people and tell them that misery itself was only an

idea, that peace even was an idea (for it contrasted with peacelessness). That the doctrine

he gave out was a limited one, is evident because he inculcated compassion. Why should

a Buddhist sage practice pity? There is no reason for it. Advaita is the next step higher

than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason, viz. unity, non-difference from

others, and because it explains that it used the concept of removing the sufferings of

others, of lifting them up to happiness, only as we use one thorn to pick out another,

afterwards throw both away. Similarly Advaita discards both concepts of misery and

happiness in the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable.

(25.10) Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists who say that there are many Buddhas living in

spirit bodies and helping our earth from the spiritual world are still in the sphere of

religious illusion, not ultimate truth. Their statements are wrong. Every sage realizes that

the only way to help mankind is to come down amongst them, for which he must

necessarily take on flesh-body. When people are suffering how can he relieve their

suffering unless he appears amongst them? When people are suffering how can he feed

them from an unseen world whether their struggle be for material bread or for spiritual

truth? No! He must be here actually in the flesh. It is impossible to help them in any other

way and all talk of Shiva living on Mount Kailas in spiritual body or Buddha in

Nirmanakaya, invisible body belongs to the realm of delusion or self-deception.

(25.11) Sunyavada Buddhism is nonsensical because every thought has its opposite,

every word is tied to its coordinate for all thought and speech can only operate under such

dualism. Hence, taking the most fundamental word, existence its implied opposite

non-existence is also there, and vice versa. So the Sunya "non-entity" is meaningless

without "entity". Both are there.

(25.12) Buddha kept silent, refusing to answer questions on the ultimate. Therefore he

was the wisest man in refusing to commit himself.

CHAPTER 26: A U M

(26.1) Everything is made of the same substance, whether it be inside--as in dreams--or

outside as in waking. Whatever is seen as object, heard as sound or name is of the same

substance. European Idealism has begun to suspect this truth. This is the great lesson to

be learnt. This is the meaning of Mandukya statement, "Aum is all this."

(26.2) The word AUM has been chosen because it is a short easily remembered syllable.

The separate sounds of the word are symbols, nothing more. The combination of these

three letter sounds in the one word symbolizes the world's unity. The three divisions of

time--past present and future--are also symbolized. Moreover AUM contains three letters

and Atman contains three states. Finally just as it requires four quarters to merge and

make up a whole unity, so A, U, and M are three of these quarters.

(26.3) AUM= Turiya: This is not a state, as the ignorant pseudo-Vedantins say. This

word includes all the three sounds, which have merged in it. So the waking merges in

dream, the latter in sleep and all the three in AUM. The latter is a unity, nevertheless it

contains a trinity. Thus when the word is made the subject of intelligent reflection, such

meditation becomes a great help to attainment, as Sankara says, for it thus becomes an

examination of the whole of life.

(26.4) Sounds imply names, names imply objects, objects imply whole world. "Au" is

beginning of all sounds, "uM" is the end of all sounds, even other sound is included

within them, i.e. within AUM.

Whatever may come in the future, whatever object existed in the past, whatever

thing you can think of in the present--all these are included in the single word AUM,

because all are named, hence are ideas, hence within the single mind.

The word is a mnemonic purposely invented to give men in one short syllable, in

the smallest compass, a handy reminder that everything--this table, your neck-tie, that

cow,--is of one and the same essential character. Every time any object is seen, you utter

Aum and thus remember that it, and all other things, are the self. Every object in the

external world is indicated by a name. Hence the phrase "the universe consists of names

and forms.” All names are but words. As soon as a word is uttered, what does your mind

do? A thought comes. Now all these words in every language, all these sounds, all these

thoughts, are compressed in the one word Aum; which also enables all objects to be

comprehended by the Mind as being ideas. Hence this word is unique. Nothing exists

which is outside the scope of referential meaning AUM.

(26.5) When we utter the word "sound" how can we understand the meaning of sound? It

is only by distinguishing it from soundlessness that we can understand sound. All sounds

are got from soundlessness. Similarly all the states are got from the Turiya,

corresponding to soundlessness. We have to merge waking into dreams, then merge

dream into deep sleep. And finally we have to merge even this into Turiya.

(26.6) Anything which is a thought, is an idea, and hence a superimposition. Aum is the

substratum of all the words. It is the word of Atman. Aum stands for the sound and not

the letter which is found in all languages. It sums up all the sounds in all the languages.

As upon the mind everything else is super-imposed, so upon the Aum everything else is

superimposed.

CHAPTER 27: SELECT WORKS OF SRI SANKARACHARYA

(27.1) How are you to know that the whole universe, hence Maya resides in Self?

Answer: By looking at dream. If you can realize that the mind is Atman, that there is

absolutely no difference between them, that very moment you know universe is within it.

Just as in dream universe appears to exist outside the body, but is inside mind. Why does

it appear to be outside? Owing to maya, avidya, ignorance. For just as when you wake up

after dream, all the people, towns and sea of dream are then known to be inside your

mind, it was only ignorance which placed them outside yourself. Gnan is this waking up

to the fact that whole universe is a creation of the mind. This is the meaning of Maya or

mithya. Just as a whole city can be seen reflected in a small mirror so the whole of

Madras can be seen i.e. thought of by the mind even though it is apparently confined to

be a little thing like your head. This also shows that space is illusory. This great secret

that world is an idea was not revealed by the Rishees to everybody because unprepared

people could never accept it.

(27.2) If you look into the mind of man, you do not seem to find the universe there. In

sleep it is quite blank. Similarly if you look into a seed, you do not see the tree there.

Nevertheless, both world and tree are developments from mind and seed. What the

magician does is to put ideas into your mind, i.e. he imagines something and makes you

see it as real. Similarly mind creates its own ideas and you see them as real. Ramajuna,

however says God creates the ideas and puts them in your head during dream or takes

them away during sleep. Berkeley says God puts them into your head during waking. But

we have never seen God doing this: it is supposition. We know only that the same mind

which was in sleep becomes the dreamer and the waker. Why did different scenes flow

by during dream? Why did all these people appear outside me? Answer: Because the

same mind which created them also created time and space. Such is the wonderful nature

of this mind.

(27.3) If you do not want to come back to Samsara (taking these things to be real) think

of waking after dream. What you then thought real is now found to be not real. Gnan is to

see that all things are the mind's own creations, that none are different from yourself, that

none are other than the mind itself, and that therefore there is no second thing. But this

you can get only by analyzing world during the waking state itself and finding it to be

like a dream. This is why truth must be understood when awake, not in blank trance,

when facing and seeing the world, not in negation of it.

(27.4) This verse deals with the objection that mentalism deals with solipsism. In a dream

you see a tiger which attacks you and eats you. What is it in the tiger which gives it the

satisfaction it feels in eating you? It is your own mind. One and the same mind appears as

tiger, yourself, eating, ground, trees. Similarly in waking the same mind appears as all

these different forms. You do not grasp this because you are thinking only of body, not

mind. To teach you that body is temporary and to force you to regard the permanent

mind, death is sent by Nature. Suppose I die and my friend dies. The bodies disappear but

That which thinks in both, the thinking entity, that which witnesses them, is the same in

both, indeed in all, and that does not die. To explain this Sankara gives the simile of a jar

with 100 holes and a lamp put inside. The light is really one but appears as a hundred

different lights. Individual holes may be stopped up, i.e. die, but the light itself remains

undiminished and unaffected. Europe sees that consciousness is ultimate but is unable to

see that it is also One alone. It is one mind that appears in a myriad persons.

CHAPTER 28: APAROKSHANUBHUTI or ‘DIRECT REALIZATION’

(28.1) 102. These steps to be practiced can be done either for yoga samadhi or to get

knowledge, gnan. The seeker after truth has to pass through the same steps as the yogis

but his goal being different, his application of the steps is different also. This special

application is given in verse 104: This gnana is the first practice. It consists in saying of

everything seen. "It is Brahman" or "It is Mind". Thus a beautiful woman is regarded as

mind.

(28.2) When you have no idea of being separated from the universe, then there is no idea

of space.

(28.3) Gazing at nose-tip is a practice for beginners. But when you want knowledge you

must look on everything as Mind, have only one thought--mind.

(28.4) All thoughts disappear back in mind. They are only names and forms. Where have

they gone? The Mind is also your Self. If you know whole world is dream, or is mental,

when all thoughts go, you become your self. Hence he who becomes a sage is able to

know himself as pure Mind. This is the meaning of non-causality. Mind seemed to be the

cause of thoughts, ideas, but their elimination shows clearly that they are non-different

from it.

(28.5) The guru cannot change you; he can direct you.

CHAPTER 29: SWATMANIRUPANA or Definition of One's own Self

(29.1) Those that want to prove existence of drg; it is only in its presence, for it is

awareness, that proof can be given. It is a pre-condition without which you cannot talk of

proof. How can you prove it then? The fact that they are proving, is proof of Drg!

(29.2) wonderful - The moment you think everything seen in dream is mind then the

whole experience is lit up in a flash.

(29.3) Sankara repeatedly pointed out that if you put your hand in fire it is the universal

experience that the fire is hot to the touch, and that even if a man says it is cold, the fact

of heat remains. Is this not the scientific method which seeks to base itself also on facts of

experience, not what men say?

CHAPTER 30: SRI SANKARA

(30.1) The question of the date of Sankara may be taken most correctly as that of the 9th

century. I know that claims are made in India that he lived two thousand years ago, but I

can show that there is absolutely no proof for this claim. I have carefully investigated the

Archives at Sringeri Mut and find that they do not go back farther than the 12th century

A.D. and that all so-called evidences for Sankara having lived two centuries before Christ

are either were conjectures or Pandit's fabrication.

Regarding the question of Sankara's death, you may dismiss the legend that he did

not die, at the age of 32 but disappeared into a cave. This is another Pandit's story which

is quite unfounded. He did really die in the Himalayas at that age.

Thirdly you ask how it was possible for him to have written so many books

during such a short term of existence. The truth is that he wrote very few books. Those

actually written by him were Commentaries on Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads and

on the Gita. All other books ascribed to him were not written down by his own hand.

They are merely collections of notes recorded by his disciples from his sayings, talks and

discussions.

Fourthly Sankara's own Guru was named Govinda and he lived near Indore.

When Sankara wrote his commentary on the Mandukya his guru was so pleased with it

that he took his chela37 to the Himalayas to visit his own Guru who was named

Goudapada. Only when the latter agreed that the commentary was perfect did Govinda

release his Chela to start his own mission of teaching.

37 personal student

(30.2) Sankara wrote his Mandukya commentary first, then as this revealed that he

thoroughly understood the subject, his gurus requested him to write the commentary on

Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, which was a popular theological work universally studied

throughout India. That is why his commentary is written from a lower dualistic point, for

those who cannot rise higher, save that here and there Sankara occasionally has strewn a

few truly Advaitic sentences.

(30.3) Sankara had only four fully trained disciples, although he advised some kings. His

doctrines spread AFTER his lifetime. His books were dictated to secretaries as he

traveled. So few therefore were capable of understanding his philosophy.

(30.4) Nearly all Bengal thinkers hold views of Maya which are entirely incorrect and

untenable. They do not know Sankara's Upanishad Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra

Bashya. Sankara wrote his Mandukya commentary on a beautifully situated island called

Omkaresvar, border of Indore State, where Cauvery and Narbadha rivers meet. On this

island there is also a tomb of Govinda, his guru.

(30.5) Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people

he was amongst. He never told them to give their particular religion or beliefs or

metaphysics completely; he only told them to give up the worst features of abuse: at the

same time he showed just one step forward towards the truth.

(30.6) SUNDARALAHARI: is a sexual poem which has been attributed to Sankara but

judging by the style and contents I do not believe this.

(30.7) In Brahma Sutras Sankara says that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in

Mandukya he denies it. This is because he says that at the lower stage of understanding,

the former teaching must be given, for people will get frightened as they cannot

understand how the world can be without a cause, but to those in a higher stage, the truth

of non-causality can be revealed.

CHAPTER 31: BRAHMA SUTRAS

(31.1) Brahma Sutras, i.e. "Vedanta Sutras" by Badarayana, are intended for those of

middling intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it is a semi-theological,

semi-philosophical work; it starts with the assumption that Brahman exists.

(31.2) The opening sentence is "All this is Brahman.” But nobody knows or has seen

Brahman. If we say "All this is wood" and show a piece of wood, the words are

understandable. Suppose you have never seen wood. Then what is the use of such a

sentence? It becomes meaningless when the object indicated is seen by none. Hence the

Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent to "All this is X". Both have no meaning so long as

they are not understood, if we take them as the data to start from. It is for this reason that

I say the book is intended for theological minds, because it begins with dogma although

its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.

(31.3) A man who describes Sankara's philosophy as negative (because of his Neti, Neti)

does not know that this is applied only to the world of the Seen, the critic ignorantly

believes that it is also applied to the Seer. Vedanta never negates the seer, only the seen.

CHAPTER 32: VIVECKACHUDAMANI

(32.1) Ideas are coming & going. Though similar ideas come we cannot say or prove that

one idea is identical with another idea because they cannot be identical in time. Ideas are

always changing, they are always going. This is drsyam. The similarities of ideas is also

another idea. It is not the same thing that comes and goes. The sun, moon, body etc. are

not the same thing at two consecutive points in time; they are changing every moment.

CHAPTER 33: SWAMI VIVEKANANDA & SRI RAMAKRISHNA

(33.1) RAMAKRISHNA practiced meditation with yogis, and he said that all these were

progressive steps and did not condemn them. Yet with Vivekananda he taught that

religion and yoga were not the end, for they can never directly lead to Brahma-gnana.

(33.2) Teachings other than Vedanta are for beginners only. There are stages in

comprehending truth. Hence Sri Ramakrishna taught Vedanta--the highest truth--only to

Vivekananda. All his other disciples were taught Yoga, mysticism or theology. He kept a

Vedanta treatise (Ashtavakra Gita) hidden under his pillow when others came to talk, but

when he was alone with Vivekananda he brought the book out and taught him from it.

(33.3) MAHABHARATA: “It is men having Buddhi for their eyes that succeed in

reaching Brahman." (Moksha Dharma Parva).

(33.4) Why should Patanjali say that thought is not Brahman? Everything is Brahman,

therefore all thoughts are it too. So why get rid of thoughts? This shows him not to have

attained Gnana.

(33.5) SURESVARACHARYA: the first disciple of Sankara says in his book,

"Naishkama Siddha" (not translated into English): There are a number of steps between

the ordinary man and the Gnani. First step for the ordinary man is to do his duty, to

distinguish between right and wrong and follow right. Second step is for him to purify

himself by following right even at the expense of self. Third step is to practice Sanyas

which may be internal alone or both internal and external. Only then will yoga practice

begin to have effect. Next he will have to inquire into the nature of the mind; then into

the nature of Atman. Then be will discover the meaning of Tat Twam Asi. Finally he gets

rid of all ignorance.

CHAPTER 34: V.S.I. PERSONAL

(34.1) When I went to Sringeri Swami at the age of 24 and asked to become his pupil. I

had a dream the previous night that the Swami's own Guru (then dead) appeared to me

and said: "Yes, you may start: you are now fit to read Vedanta." I told the dream to the

Swami and he smiled and said it was encouraging. But years later when I had "graduated"

as it were, my guru reminded me of the dream and said, "It was entirely originated in

your own mind. You had seen a photo of my own guru in the monastery and heard of

him, and then your self created the dream itself. But I could not tell you that truth before

because you could not grasp it. So I encouraged you to go on knowing that eventually I

could reveal the real truth." The numerous cases of disciples having gurus appear to them

in dream, of mystics having Jesus, Krishna and God appearing to them in vision, are all

entirely self-created and moreover, are in the region of mental phenomena only: not in

Brahman. All intuitions, all visions however advanced the mystics may be, are but mental

creations. They cannot be otherwise. The moment a form appears in the mind, it is a

thought. Where else can it come from except from the thinker's own self?

(34.2) Those who say I am teaching only Sankara's system are mistaken. We want only

truth, not authorities. My doctrine and position are not based on Sankara, but on inquiry

into truth.

(34.3) During our wanderings in the Baba Buban Hills, V.S.I. pointed out a small cave,

near a pond where a yogi he knew had spent all his life in practices: He was a chela and

the Guru (who lived in the large B.B.crypt) had been instructed to keep on practicing and

one day he would get the vision. The poor fellow died without seeing anything. This is

the trick of these Gurus. We say with the Upanishads, "I want Brahman, here and now."

(34.4) V.S.I. was a living Socrates. He was perpetually asking pointed questions which

seemingly innocent and simple on the surface, were really "depth-bombs" which

exploded beneath the other man's mind and shattered all his rationalizations, illusions,

complexes.

(34.5) The Monogram on my notepaper is a kind of family crest which has been in use

for many generations in my family. It is nothing new however, and you will find it

frequently on the popular lithographic pictures of Sri Sankara. It represents an Advaitic

Mudra: the text alone being personal. The text is in Sanskrit and is taken from Isa

Upanishad and means: "Where (or "How") can there be delusion or suffering when

oneness is realized?" The mudra, or hand and finger posture means that you cannot

understand truth unless you have avastatraya. In detail the three fingers represent the

three states of waking, dream and sleep. The forefinger is Turiya and the thumb is the

Atman. The bent forefinger touching the thumb means that when you separately stretch

out and examine the three states, there is a seer or drg which knows them; this is Turiya,

the 4th; the touching the thumb means that this 4th state is really none other than or one

with the Atman or self.

(34.6) V.S.I. would humorously remark that the advantage of living long and being an old

man over seventy years was that it presented you with the experience that waking life is

just a dream. "I forget so many things nowadays." He said, "I do not know where I have

put my fountain pen or money, I cannot remember the names of friends etc. Thus waking

life has become dream-like to me through old age; I need no other proof that waking and

dream are identical."

(34.7) When H.H. Maharaja of Mysore died, V.S.I. said to me; Why did I accept the

work of teaching him? It was not for personal gain. I have always refused to take money

from him. And even when there were a few hundred pounds left from the money he paid

for my European tour to the Philosophical Congress and individual scientists, I did not

keep it for myself but gave it to British Institute of Philosophy to establish a lectureship

on truth. No, I took on this post because I saw that through H.H. I might help others. So it

is working out: for the people of the State have benefited materially by his unselfish

devotion to their physical welfare, whilst the people of the world, including India and the

West will benefit mentally through the tuition class held in Mysore and through your

studies and writings done whilst H.H's guest.

(34.8) I want to make every point in philosophy thoroughly clear to you, hence to discuss

it at great length, because you are likely to publish my sayings and teachings one day.

(34.9) The Late Maharaja of Mysore was so anxious to spread the philosophy of Advaita

that he once said to me: Here is P.B. He has a great gift with his pen and an aptitude for

mysticism and philosophy. Let us keep him here in Mysore to study Advaita and then

make it known to the West.

CHAPTER 35: COUNSEL - GENERAL

(35.1) You had made your name famous as a yogi and an exponent of yoga. Do not throw

all that aside now. Do not break your reputation, now that it has been built up, by telling

the world that yoga is delusive. I advise you to tell them that what they have been

practicing is alright, but now they ought to go up higher, just as you yourself have gone

up higher. All those who are satisfied with meditation can be told to go on with their

practices but those who have become dissatisfied through lack of results can be initiated

into Gnana. In any case philosophy is also called Gnana yoga and therefore you can say

this is a higher form of yoga. In any case tell those who insist on the practice of

meditation to test all their experiences and ideas for truth, but never tell them the results

which will emerge after these analyses. It is for them to discover that the experiences of

yoga may be delusive. Simply show them how to make the test but do not reveal the

results.

(35.2) "Is this true?" is the beginning of philosophy. Doubt is the beginning of

knowledge.

(35.3) Karezza (or Vajroli in India) is practised by yogis to have intercourse without

losing seed. I have no objection to it. The chief point in this and the question of morality

to remember is that the seed gives brain power when retained, leads to concentration of

mind, so when it is dissipated the man cannot concentrate and study Vedanta. No moral

raison d’être exists really other than this.

CHAPTER 36: LITERARY COUNSEL

(36.1) Re: Maya: In your use of word "Maya" remember it is not the constant change of

the world but the illusion which arises as a result of the change.

CHAPTER 37: KANT

(37.1) Kant has shown excellently how we think always within the framework of times

space and cause, and that we cannot go away from it.

(37.2) Kant sought to show that Reality lay in what he called "things in themselves."

Hegel demolished this notion by showing that there could be only one "thing in itself,”

which was reality. In that sense, he has got further than Kant. Without the practice of and

success in meditation, however, both these philosophers could not come into contact with

that about which they reflected. This is where the East can help the West.

(37.3) If time, space and cause are in the mind, Kant says, it is nonsensical for him to say

that they do not belong to reality and that the unknowable real lies outside them. If it is

unknowable how does he know it exists? And how can he say there is something outside

mind, it is unprovable? And how is it possible to know anything in itself without using

the mind to know it, and thus knowing only something mental again? If Kant had said the

noumenon is the same as the Drg, then he would have been right: but instead he said it

was outside the mind.

CHAPTER 38: ANCIENT EUROPEANS

(38.1) ARISTOTLE could not get beyond causality, hence be never got at truth.

(38.2) Plato rose to the truth that the world is an idea but he did not go beyond that to the

ultimate, i.e. that the idea itself disappears in Brahman.

(38.3) SOCRATES: rose very high too but did not quite reach the ultimate. He is a

typical inquirer who is properly prepared for this quest because he kept on asking: "What

is truth." The one thing we have to do as "Viveka Chudamani" points out is to get rid of

ignorance or error.

(38.4) Socrates refused to be called a wise man and asked to be known as a

"philosopher", i.e. a lover or seeker of wisdom, not as one who knows wisdom. To

confess that you are striving after truth and not to claim it, is the mark of the superior

man.

(38.5) Socrates like most of the Greek philosophers, was partly a mystic, because he had

a daemon who gave him guidance. He and they began the course of inquiry but never

maintained it strictly on rational lines throughout. Moreover he dressed in simple coarse

robe like our Indian Yogis.

(38.6) Socrates made the tremendous point of getting men to discover their own

ignorance, of confessing that they did not really know but erroneously thought they did.

This is an essential preliminary in Vedanta.

(38.7) PLATO's doctrine of archetypes, ideas that are unchanging, is self-contradictory. It

is the very nature of ideas to be ever-changing. His archetypal world was an imagination.

He was a dualist, and like a child when compared with Indian philosophers.

(38.8) PROTAGORAS' saying "Man is the measure of all things" is really the same as

saying "the world is my idea" and the same as Einstein's relativity which makes things

partially depend on the observer.

CHAPTER 39: MODERN WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS

(39.1) MEINONG: It is to the credit of this great European that he saw the great need of

disregarding mere words and penetrating deeper into what my mind is doing when it says

it has got a meaning. This is the essence of Vedanta, to watch vigilantly how the mind

works when it assigns meaning, to catch as in a lightning flash what is happening then for

this is the key to the arisal of variety in the mind and the dissolving of the latter back into

unity. Thus we can see that the melting down of gold ornaments into block gold is

equivalent to knowing Atman; but this is only a stage whereby we get understanding.

Thence we have to rise higher to understand later that even when we see variety, it is

nevertheless unity, Brahman. Ultimately the two are the same. When we watch the mind's

activity we discover that all these varied thoughts disappear. Where do they go? They

must merge in the Mind again. Hence they are the Mind.

(39.2) G.E.MOORE: His criticism that Idealists confuse the object with its awareness is

answered by saying that it is awareness that comes first and tells you of the object. For

the first thing you get to know is the sensation of it, not the object itself. Take the case of

a sleeping man who is tickled by an insect. He wakes up and the first thing he knows is

the sensation of tickling, not the insect. Or cut the optic nerve and there is no sensation in

consequence. Hence no object is ever seen. The existence of the object is made after

experiencing a sensation and is made as an inference. But we must here apply some

semantics. What is an inference? It is only imagination, nothing more.

(39.3) HUME: is one of the greatest of Western philosophers. He refused to accept

dualism of soul and body because it was without basis in evidence. However he goes up

to the Aham, pointing out that it ceases to exist in sleep and therefore he knows of no

proved continuous self; analyzed the ego disappears. Unless people come first to Hume's

position, that the ego comes and goes, we cannot teach them the truth of the Drg. Hume

did not know our doctrine that there is something higher than ego, which itself knows the

ego. Ramanuja, however, foolishly holds that the I still persists in deep sleep; but he can't

prove it.

(39.4) Hume is a Western Philosopher I admire greatly. Kant acknowledged that "Hume

woke me from my slumber." Hume reached the point of indicating that the world is an

idea.

(39.5) LEIBNIZ: His philosophy is like Sankhya, offering morals as purushas. Moreover

he said that there is a number of morals giving a purely psychical (mental) nature to

them. But as mind has no dimensions how is it possible to number minds? Hence

Leibniz's system is pure imagination. Similarly there are many other philosophical

systems which are also merely imagined. It needs three years to study all of them.

Therefore people take the school which pleases them most, just as they eat cakes they like

best. It is poetry, not reason. However we cannot discourage these schools because they

are all efforts to understand. They lead to deeper thinking later on. The only thing we

condemn is when they show the vanity of imagining that they know everything. Now

they are being swept away as useless. The coming of science has altered things. Today

philosophy demands verification and a basis on scientific fact.

(39.6) Leibnitz and Spinoza have been refuted by Kant, who has shown that their time

and space are not there "outside."

(39.7) Hume and Sunyavadin Buddhists declared nonexistence of Entity, a Void. This is

just as much unwarranted finality, for it means you are viewing it from a particular

standpoint as to declare its existence. Silence alone is called for. Absence or presence of

objective world and even existence and non-existence is always referred to drsyam only;

it still leaves the Drg untouched.

(39.8) HUME's famous refutation of the existence of a self can be criticized Vedantically.

If he takes I as the mind, he is right in saying there is no independent substance, a self,

apart from it. Kant is right in agreeing with Hume that the self is not revealed as an

object, but Kant goes further and says like Descartes, you can never get rid of the self as

the thinking subject. The confusion in the mind of Hume etc. is first in not knowing the

meaning of word experience. They ought to have analyzed 'experience' into what is

changing and what is not. Next they should have realized that you cannot have any

experience unless there is a duality of the unchanging knower and the changing thing

known, that unless there is a changeless, the changing experience of objects could never

be known. Third the ego is such a changing object too, so what is meant by self must be

made clear. Thus three words need analysis: experience, knowledge, self or confusion

results. This analysis is the Drg Drsya Viveka task. Hence Hume was right it saying there

was no self if by self he meant only ego, and not mind, but he does not tell us. He was

wrong however in other points.

(39.9) EINSTEIN: You ask whether Drg-Drsya-Viveka is not Einstein's law of relativity

applied to the realm of psychology. This is true up to a certain point only, but not fully

true. Einstein has pointed out the relativity of all observations to the position of the

observers, that is the Ego. But he has not realized that the observer himself is also purely

relative and that the world which is being observed does not exist apart from the seer of

the ego. Einstein has not seen the truth about the Drg, about that which sees of the

relativities that nothing can be said which permits him to see the relativities and which

itself views the ego as one of those relativities. Two further steps await Einstein, first is to

grasp the theory of Idealism and after that to go on to the principle of Avastatraya.

(39.10) Eddington, Jeans etc. say the object is only an idea but they have not grasped that

the ego is also an idea: without grasping this point they miss the key to Vedanta. I am the

Witness of the I also. If you do not grasp this point, you cannot understand Vedanta.

When you see a table, your awareness must have been present even before, otherwise

how could you have been aware of it? This awareness is the real Atman, not the ego. The

awareness is there always, even when the table is not seen. Nothing could ever be thought

of if awareness, the capacity to think of it, were ever absent at any time. When are you

free from awareness? If you say that it is not at any moment, then somebody must have

been aware of this non-awareness.

(39.11) Pragmatism deals only with one aspect of philosophy--what man can do; it

forgets to take the world as it is. The world is changing. These changes are partly due to

Nature and partly due to man. When you study these two aspects together, you have

materials for philosophy. In ignoring the natural aspect, pragmatism renders itself onesided

and imperfect philosophically. In ancient Greece the mystics did not care for the

changes going on in the world. They thought this static contemplation was philosophy.

But the world consists of two aspects--the changes, and that which changes. Both have to

be studied if philosophy is to be arrived at. Vedanta does not disagree with pragmatism,

but says, “Do not confine yourself to some of the facts of life, the material ones, but study

also the mental and higher ones.”

(39.12) Berkeley had not the courage to go to the very end for he would have to reflect

that the very God he posits as having created the idea which man sees as objects--this

very God is Berkeley's own mental creation, hence an idea in his mind.

(39.13) BERKELEY's "esse est percipi" means to be is to be mentally perceived; his

"perceived things" means "mentally perceived things."

(39.14) HUME. It is the essential principle of idealism that ideas keep on coming; we do

not know anything more. We do not know why they keep on coming. This continuous

appearance is called Phenomenalism and was correctly explained by Hume. We cannot

find any law to explain why the idea of a shelf and not the idea of a wall arises. It is in the

nature of Mind to be giving birth to these different ideas. One idea goes and another idea

comes; we cannot say more. If you, ask why one idea rather than another appears, we say

the question must not be asked. For "why" implies that you are seeking for a cause, and

cause itself is only an idea. Even if you find a cause it will give, Ashtavakra says, all

thinking will give only another thought again.

(39.15) HUME's failure to find a self is answered by Drg Drsya Viveka. All his criticisms

are sound but apply only to the drsyam. For what is it that tells him that there is no self?

It to the mind, itself, i.e. the Atman.

(39.16) BRADLEY says that philosophic thinking can yet get at truth but owing to its

very limitation cannot get at reality. We in India refute him and show that it can go

farther, it can go to the very end.

CHAPTER 40: MANDUKYA UPANISHAD

(40.1) The Notes are expansions freely made by Swami Nikhilananda on the basis of

V.S.I.'s commentaries. One point should be noted: The earlier portions of Mandukya may

deceive you if you take them as final positions for they will be developed higher in the

latter part of the book. Thus the opposition and separation between reality and illusion,

between Drg and Drsyam of the earlier third of the book disappears as illusory later and

you learn that there is non-duality, all is Brahman, the Drsyam is also the Drg, the Maya

is the Brahman without distinction. The phrase "He who sees not and hears not, knows

Brahman" does not mean abstracting the mind from the world, as yogis say, but that

whatever you do see in the world it is all Brahman to you. We teach Vedanta's goal as the

seeker becoming the all, the One without a second, not the One.

(40.2) AUM - Where did the sound go after utterance, whence did it come? That we call

soundless Aum. We can only say that the sound Aum comes out of the soundless Aum,

and since all sounds come out of me I can only use the term Self for it. Similarly all the

world comes out of myself as it needs me to recognize it. Just as all spoken sounds come

out of me and go back, I can only say a soundless state in me was their source. You can

say it is non-entity because the sounds come out again. Similarly in sleep you can't say

that you don't exist in deep sleep because you reemerge. The big self existed then.

Buddha meant when he said the self did not exist, that the little self alone did not exist.

(40.3) The "three states" is the totality of man's experience, which gives you the whole

world. Waking state is converted into a world of ideas. There the European stops. But

what is an idea? Where has the ego sleep gone? It disappears in Brahman. The whole

disappears in Brahman. That is the point. That Brahman is what we have to get at.

(40.4) What is desire? It implies a second thing, i.e. duality. Unless we rise to a unity, we

have no happiness. Why does man have wants, desires etc? Because he has duality sense.

Absence of desire when all duality is converted into feeling of non-duality. When you

know the entire world is merged into you, what is there for you to desire?

(40.5) (Verse 28) "Ishvara" means That which creates and in which the creator is

dissolved. "Prajna" is Ishvara. The whole world dissolved in Him in deep sleep. The

world is an idea, all ideas get merged in yourself in sleep hence the whole world is

merged in you in sleep. Then you get the same position as Ishvara.

What is grief due to? To not being able to get what is wanted or to lose what is

had. But if you know that the world is an idea, and that all the wealth you had, and which

was lost has gone back in me as Ishvara, therefore how can I feel sorry. If I grieve it is

because I wrongly felt it has gone into somebody else. The idea of loss, the object or

person lost, all go back into the mind. Hence a Gnani does not grieve. This is foolishly

applied to practical life, when people have an idea, that I am a separate being from others;

only for a Gnani is loss not real loss. Unless one has realized, one should be practical in

viewing loss. When you forget everything, you don’t grieve over it. When you know that

memory is an idea, then the misery it may bring you is nullified. All unhappiness brought

by the memory of the past, is found in the mind; Gnani evacuates it as idea and is not

moved. When you know mind to be all-pervading it may be called Aum, but until you

know this, it must be called mind. Aumkara--Sound of Aum.

So long as you have a mind thinking, you must have transmigration. Think always

of the fact that everything in past, present and future is Aumkara (as universe).

Imagination of past and future appears as real to unenlightened until they awaken. Then

they see it is all imagination. To ignorant world seems real, to gnani the world is seen to

be as much an idea as my own body, my own personal self.

(40.5) How to think the world ceases to exist when asleep? This problem exists only for

those who think external world already exists as real and who think their body also exists

as real. When one sees their unreality the problem collapses.

(40.6) Ever-peaceful - means, you do not want anything, not even God or Heaven,

because you know that even Heaven and God are in you.

(40.7) Unreality has two meanings, that which does not exist and that which is mistaken

for something else. Here the meaning is with those things--objects which appear before

you, which are seen to exist. Hence the first work of philosophy is to learn the meaning

of the world in front of you. After analyzing the dream of Chamundi hill, you know that

it could not have been inside the small space of your body during sleep, hence it must

have been a dream. The body would not have contained the hill, hence the dream is

unreal, because of its inconsistency. Hence on further analyses and examination you

realize it is only an idea. It is the fact of inconsistency which is emphasized here.

(40.8) I am not an atheist in any sense, for I stick to God as Truth (vide Gita definition)

and not to God as imagined by others. I do not accept an unreal God. When you are

dreaming you do not regard the objects as unreal; only after awakening. Many yogis are

under the delusion that if world disappears in meditation they are having Brahman

knowledge. They shut their eyes.

(40.9) That the mind is within the brain skull is a fallacy. Who has measured the mind?

Therefore who knows that it is confined to the brain skull?

You can see both a pin-point or a mountain within our own mind and hence it is

as small as the point or as large as the mountain.

(40.10) Mandukya says there is no evidence to prove a causal relation. Therefore how are

you going to prove God created (i.e. caused) the world? Moreover sorrow and misery in

the world is hardly compatible with the idea of a beneficent creator. The wise course is to

suspend judgment and not to admit or deny creation.

(40.11) The sloka will be interpreted in the directly opposite way by the West. They say

only children or idiots make no distinction between waking and dreaming. The point is

we do not say dream objects are real, but the reverse of it, that the waking is unreal.

Waking is like dream. Shakespeare, Plato, and Longfellow have said so, i.e. they had

flashes at moments of the truth. Now I am old, I find my childhood and youth are like

shadows. The ball and the bat that I used sixty years ago are unreal. I cannot touch them.

What has become of them? It looks like a dream to me now. Thus even experience

teaches a man that many things that he looks upon as real are mere ideas.

(40.12) "Illustration" here means that having seen so many objects in dreams then all

having proved unreal, I draw the general conclusion that they are all unreal. You cannot

have referred to the dream if you had not seen the objects. (Do not think of objects of

waking state now, or you will get confused). Thinking only of dream experiences, the

number of objects seen by you in dreams does not exhaust all the multitude which you

could have seen, yet even though you have only seen some instances of dream objects yet

you draw the general conclusion that they are unreal and that all possible dream objects

will for ever be unreal. This is logic. From this you may draw the conclusions that all

objects seen are unreal.

Now we begin with the waking state. Here again we find a thousand instances of

something like, 'all men are mortal' because so many of the men I know die. We have

seen a number of objects in dream and they have become unreal. Now waking objects are

also seen. Objects seen are unreal. These waking objects are also seen. Hence they too are

unreal. Note: It is the being perceived, which constitutes the unreality.

Many objects are seen, whether in waking or in dream. The men I saw have died.

I conclude humans die. What will happen to these living men. They will also die.

Similarly I have condemned dream objects which I have seen. They are all unreal. I see

the waking objects. They too must be unreal. This is the logical part of truth. It is not the

only way, but it is a help like yoga. Philosophy is not more logic, but in this instance the

two come together.

(40.13) There is illusory existence and real existence. The highest intellectual inquiry is

regarding the external world, the world which is seen in the waking state. "What is the

nature of the world which I see?" is the first question with which you must start. We can

show that the same principle that seen objects are unreal applies to the waking, no less

than to the dream state.

Houses and friends you have seen are real. You go to Ooty and see the roads and

buildings, and say they are real. What right have you to say that? How did you get the

sense of reality about them? What did my mind do in giving me this idea and feeling of

the reality of these houses? Answer: You assume that whatever is seen is real. Why did

you make such an assumption? Answer: In past experience I have seen other houses and

they seemed real, and so drew the conclusion that all houses are real, and so

automatically assume that every newly seen house is real. The mind has logically worked

for some particulars (objects) to a generalized conclusion that all objects are real. In this

conclusion correct? I see a mirage in a desert, yet there is no water really there. The point

is that mere sense impression cannot give you the reality of a thing, and you cannot be

sure that it is really so. Hence the stick which appeared bent was not bent at the beginning

and end, could not have been bent in the middle. Hence our sloka points out the same

regarding all objects and appearances.

Europe has not gone into the meaning of the word real. We, Indians say that the

word can only be applied to that which is changeless,(i.e. never changes).

Science now says no objects remain the same for even a second. Hence you can't

say any particular form is real. Everything constantly changes. Which particular form is

permanent? I do not see any change, you object? Look back five yours, ten years, 20

years, and you admit you have changed body and appearance. The change was gradual.

What does gradual mean? It was going on all the time whether you were aware of it or

not.

(40.14) Did you then suspect your dreams were mere fancy? No. Do you now suspect this

was is a mere idea? No. The point is that it is unfair to judge dream by waking as illusory

and when at the time it seemed so real, unless you are prepared to judge, waking by

dream and draw the same conclusion i.e. it is idea. In dream you have a mental universe

outside you and thoughts inside, the whole thing is only imagination, just the same as in

waking you have these two.

(40.15) The man who runs after women shows thereby that he regards the woman's body

as real. How then can he get at Vedantic truth? But our practical view is that if the

woman is there already in your life let her remain but regard her as an idea. This will be

alright. Similarly with wealth, position and household life. They can remain provided you

regard them as idea provided you know what their value is. Otherwise you are so

addicted to regarding them as real that you cannot get at the truth.

We don’t call ourselves realists. We are unrealists, not Idealists. We simply say

that you have to analyze the world into an idea. There is a difference between both. In

dream you see a mountain appearing as real, but it is only an idea. No European

philosopher has seen this difference. They confuse both.

(40.16) It is nonsense for Europeans to say ideas exist only inside, and to accuse Idealists

of saying there is nothing external. Idealism admits that ideas can exist externally for

which the example is the dream, wherein you see a universe outside you. Yet it is only an

idea. Opponents think wrongly that we deny an existence outside us. We are not so

foolish. We do not oppose such common experience but accept it. Only it is idea.

(40.17) Illusory- that which is constantly changing but appears permanent.

(40.18) I do not know of any one having produced the world. This sloka refutes Berkeley,

Kant and most European philosophers who posit God as creation. Fichte: "We cannot

believe it is idea, created by external creator; it must be our own mind which created the

world. 1st step: The external world is an idea. 2nd step: Ideas exist in my own mind

alone. 3rd step: The world exists as my own mental creation.

Who else but the self could have imagined the objective world? Ramanuja and

Madwa see God as the imaginer, but where is the proof. Nobody has seen God creating.

You have seen no other creator, whether God or angel. The only self is left. Therefore

self is the creator because imagining means creating. The Dvaita and Religionists talk

nonsense. Has God a meaning to you? Yes. It is an idea. What is an idea? An

imagination. So God has no proved existence beyond that of idea.

Where people cannot and do not think, they follow others. A Gnani will see the

world and get to know it is only appearance. He is not blind; he sees everything or object

as it is, but he knows it is only an idea. Just as you see a mirage, the Gnani sees the

mirage of this world too; but he is not deceived by it. So long as you are ignorant or a

child, you will have the idea that God has created this world because the causal notion

will be there. Nobody wants suffering, and while the notion that suffering can be got rid

of by appealing to God these wishes will sway the mind to believe in God. For them

religion will arise, but for the man who wants truth, religion offers no consolation.

Yoga is a discipline through which one has to pass "to make the mind clear" in the

old Sanskrit phrase. If the mind is not strong enough to pursue truth, then yoga is

prescribed to clarify and purify it. As a step, yoga or religion is welcome; but when

advocated as being the highest, then it is a mistake.

(40.19) It may be perfectly correct that we cannot dream of nor imagine a mountain if we

never have seen one before, but the essential point is that even then it is an idea. It is the

mind that created all the external objects. Do you see anything which is not created by the

mind? No, because it is the mind that has to give you everything; outside of the mind you

can see nothing. Hence we know nothing but mind. When the mind is not working what

knowledge can you get? We are entirely at the mercy of the mind. You can see nothing

except what your mind tells you, what it manufactures. Even those who object that mind

is different from 'facts' have to be told this by the mind, hence know it only as idea.

(40.20) That is the mistake of the yogis, the fallacy of yoga. It says in Nirvikalpa

Samadhi, when waking stopped, you can get knowledge. But how can mind know

anything when it is not working. It can know nothing then.

"to be attached" only means to regard the world as real. Yoga is only to sever this

attachment. You must so train yourself as to see, to feel there is nothing real. Nirvikalpa

Samadhi is equivalent to deep sleep, nothing more. For when mind has no ideas, it knows

nothing. How can it know itself? For it is subject, to know it must have an object. Subject

can’t know itself. Impossible. Mind which stops ideas, must stop knowing them or things,

hence lose knowing-consciousness and how does this differ from sleep? It is the same.

Yoga will give peace. Yes. But to find truth intellectual effort is necessary. The

yogis who try to stop the mind will arrive at peace but are doing the opposite of finding

truth.

(40.21) Why do I like music? Because it pleases the ‘I’. Hence the mind has created it.

Then the memory of this music remains. Then you want it again and imagine it once

more. The reason of hunger or desire lies in the memory of the past satisfaction of the

hunger or desire. This is repeated continuously. This is the process of the Vasanas. There

is no new creation really. The Vasanas cause you to repeat the desires. Repeated

imagination makes you a slave of the desire which has been re-echoed from the past; the

desire is only imagination deeply rooted. Thus karma is created. When a man realizes at

last that his desires are only ideas, he is able to get rid of them. Until then they will go on

repeating themselves.

(40.22) Know first the nature of the world. It is idea. Why should you imagine at all. This

will be answered in the next chapter. It is absurd to say it is God's Leela. Why should

God make all men to suffer all kinds of miseries and then call it his play? What right has

he to create me? Until you know that all the world and myself is an idea explanations

must be sought but they are all unsatisfactory. For the idealist the question does not arise,

as the questioner no longer exists for him. He is now in the world of truth, not in the

world of assumptions where God belongs to his creation. In Gita it says (Chap.13) you

can’t speak of either Sat or Asat (Existence or non-existent) in Truth. For those who start

with the presumption that the creation of the world is a fact the objection of evil and

suffering is unanswerable. Mandukya however explains there is no real creation. The

notion of creation is untenable and given up.

(40.23) Vedanta is not a theory assuming that Atman exists. It says rather that if you will

inquire, the conviction will automatically arise that Atman alone is because you will see

and verify this.

(40.24) Akasa - means Space. It is not the nihilistic Void, but the Unlimited,

Uncharacterisable,

(40.25) Illusory: individuals are seen but they are nothing else than Mind; what is seen is

your imagination, idea of them; what is really there is the nondual Mind. Nothing has

been produced or caused in reality, only we infer it.

(40.26) You are identical with all that you see. This is knowledge--highest point in

Vedanta. The snake was only in the mind (in appearance). It is only in the mind (in

disappearance).

(40.27) Everything that exists is mental and it appears and disappears--this is shown by

Mandukya, first three chapters. Mind is like space--everywhere, unindividuated but

appearing to be so.

(40.28) Objective world superimposed on the mind, means not from outside but from

inside the mind. "Mind is not in touch with any object" means "any object other than the

mind." Where does mind touch matter: where does it touch this wall? Nobody can show

the point of contact; all wrongly assume matter is outside mind, that the wall is outside it.

(40.29) Mandukya, the highest of all Upanishads declares that deep sleep and yogic

samadhi are one and the same.

(40.30) Atman is the highest Reality and its opposite: Note the word "and". Reality and

illusion together make Brahman: nothing can be left out.

(40.31) Brahman must be realized in the waking state when all objects are present to

consciousness, otherwise it is nonsense.

(40.32) "Soundless and of infinite sounds"; means both waking and sleep world must be

known, both objects and non-objects must be understood before truth of Brahman is

realized.

(40.33) In deep sleep and anesthesia you have non-duality but no gnan. Therefore there

must be discrimination along with non-duality. Otherwise sleeping dogs would be gnanis.

(40.34) Verse 32 is the most important sloka in the entire book. Its most important words

are: "On account of a knowledge of truth" is it possible for you to be away from mind at

any time? Whenever you have a thought the mind is there, and the Atman is there. But

when you think of duality, it is called Maya. When you think without any difference

between the two, then the mind itself becomes the Atman. So long as you think the dream

mountain is different from mind, and you feel happy or miserable in consequence, you

will be like children or deluded yogis. But when you inquire, "What are these things I

have seen in dream?" you find they are same as mind and then you get Self. In the same

way, in waking state, if you make the same inquiry you get Atman. Western Scientists are

getting quite near this truth, but they need to go a little further, to drop their superiority

(complex) over Indian philosophy. "Want of objects to be cognized" means when you do

not see anything different from you then you realize Truth. It does not mean deep sleep,

every animal has that. It means knowing the truth.

(40.35) So long as you consider the waking to be a different state from dreaming, it is

impossible to reply to the criticism why can’t you pay with waking loan in dream money?

Gaudapada points out that these are not two states and that waking and dream are one

state. When this is grasped, the criticism cannot arise.

(40.36) All those who think philosophy is for theorizing, discussing meditating, writing

and studying only, have not understood it. Philosophy is to show men to live: it is the

most practical of things; it is primarily intended as a guide to action, for its final summing

up, as stated on page 352 of Mandukya, and Gita 3:25 and 12:30 is to be always working

for the welfare of all existence, not dreaming in a cave or ashram or poring over

metaphysical books. The only test of a philosopher is this: Is he able to sympathize with

every other man who is suffering? Is he always trying to better the mental and material

conditions of others? Such a test is clearly an implication of practical activity.

(40.37) The fire-brand illustration is used to show the possibility that consciousness can

appear as this or that form without actually being different from itself. You see the figure

of 8 made by the fire brand but yet there is no such figure there. Similarly the mountain is

not in my dream but it appears to be there. Hence we say the appearance of the world is

due to mind only. There is no such thing as a place which is beyond mind.

(40.38) Real means permanent, unchanging. If the one world-stuff changes its varied

forms constantly, there is really only a presentation, a seeing of things, the mind does not

actually become a mountain, in dream: hence there are no real changes in the world-stuff

but only apparent ones.

(40.39) The opening invocation gives the substance of the whole book: If you see all

things in yourself, then it is Truth. If you see all in God, it is not truth; you see the whole

world in dream in yourself--that is the nearest illustration. This identity--oneness--is the

whole truth. This yoga was lost. I must see everything in me and I must see everything in

you too. Then it is truth.

(40.40) This books teaches how everything that man wants may be got and that

everything has to be studied in the world, so it does not mention any particular object.

There is nothing which is not to be found here. The moment you remove Maya, identify

yourself with your real nature, "that you are Brahman" then you attain everything. If

everything is Brahman, how can you then desire anything? Everything is contained in

you. There is nothing else. It includes all blessings. Nothing more is required. How

should one know another. If you do not understand Mandukya, read Dasopanishad, if you

fail to understand that read "100 Minor Upanishads." For Mandukya Upanishad is the

highest point reached by human thought and reason.

(40.41) Atman has got four quarters; in the first quarter you find only material objects; in

the second, ideas and feelings, in the third, there will be nothing at all. In the fourth

where all merge the Atman is the same as Brahman. This is a summary of the opening

lessons.

(40.42) If you say Brahman exists or does not exist, or is both existent and non-existent,

then somebody else can get up and demolish your position. Therefore Advaitins must

keep silent about it and predicate nothing about It. Both the seen and the unseen are

Brahman. It is not only that which is within but also that which is without. Hence

Mandukya in sloka 2 says Atman has got four quarters, which must be all put together to

form the whole: if any quarter is omitted you have not got Brahman. If only the within is

taken, then you get only a fraction, not true Brahman.

CHAPTER 41: VIVEKACHUDAMANI OF SANKARACHARYA

(41.1) The body is constantly being fed by particles of food, air or water brought into it

from outside. This is a continuous lifelong process. Hence always in state of change.

Hence you can never say you have a permanent body of your own. If you examine it, it is

wearing out every second, renewing with new particles, hence we say you are not the

body. You have no body; it is scientifically part of the universe. You merely think you

have permanent body. That is merely an idea. The body is a cinema picture. It is

constantly changing. When you inquire into the truth of it, you find it is something which

is constantly going away, in the form of gases etc, it is an illusion. But so strong is our

attachment to it that in spite of intellectual perception of body's unreality we persist in

desires.

(41.2) First we ask "What is this world?" Second we ask "What am I?" Our mistake is to

take our own body as real, and regard all others as unreal; when science shows all as

unreal. A further mistake is to take the 'I' as real when it is only the body, which is unreal.

When these are understood, the question is no longer a legitimate one. Going into the

truth of the matter shows that we do not say one is a non-entity but not what they appear

to be.

(41.3) We disagree with Buddhists who say, there is nothing - nonentity. We believe

there is some reality, even though things are not what they appear to be. If you know the

truth, you will know what to do to find inspiration for action. Our subject is to know what

is it that is Real.

(41.4) The first stage is to know all things in the world as impermanent. The second stage

is Virag that is indifference to results--means don’t expect things. If you do what you

think ought to be done, do it disheartened, otherwise you will not be able to attend to this

study of Vedanta. Keep the mind balanced.

(41.5) You must not lose yourself in the thoughts of world attractions. As soon as you get

the temptation, put yourself the counter-notion "This also will go! It is short-lived" The

mind must be kept balanced.

(41.6) If enjoyments come, keep your mind cool and controlled, level. Similarly with

sorrows, for both will disappear in course of time. This means that you will still

experience the joy or sorrow, but you won't get carried away by it. So long as you have a

body, you must feel them. Yogis who sit for a hundred years to 'not feel', are wasting

their time. We are not stones. What is needed is the philosophical discrimination of their

value, the mental analysis.

CHAPTER 42: DRG DRSYA VIVIKA

(42.1) Perceiver of the changes of the mind must be a unity higher than the mind. Change

involves the nonexistence of that thing before. And you have never seen the

non-existence of your self or consciousness. And therefore it is always existent. What is it

that is changing in me? What is it that is constant and unchanging which sees all the

changes? You can say nothing about it, the seer. What are the things seen in the internal

seer? None. Everything that comes and goes is drsyam. The consciousness which

perceives all these changes unites that which is changing. If consciousness itself changes

it becomes an object and it is no more the seer.

(42.2) Strictly speaking, as the subtle body is not an organized astral body during life, it

is nothing but the idea of the physical body existing in the mind. Egoism is also an idea

like subtle body.

(42.3) The world comes out of the Universal Self and relapses back into it. The Scotch

metaphysician Hume declared that nothing exists—nothing material or mental existed.

However, he was wrong because nothing really disappears totally, because it is refunded

back, into something else. Hence the word entity in this sloka, which means "that which

exists." Existence, Reality, Bliss are the only three characteristics by means of which we

can think of the Universal Self. Otherwise, it has to be described by means of

negatives--not this, not this.

(42.4) The food that you eat produces hair and teeth on you. Yet you do not eat hair and

teeth in food, even for flesh-eaters. Hence the same substance appears to change entirely,

but that cannot really be; your hair is really what you ate, your teeth are rice. The change

is therefore not one of substance, but of form and name. This is what is meant by saying

the universe consists of a single substance manifesting under myriad names and forms.

(42.5) Maya-tendency has two aspects. One to prevent you seeing the truth of things as

they are--the veiling aspect; the other to create constant changes--the projecting or

creating aspect.

(42.6) (a)In every visible object there is existence bliss and consciousness. As soon as

you think of the pleasure you derive from seeing a tree, you are participating in the

universal bliss. So, it is good to begin Yoga by concentrating on objects which are

pleasing. Reflect upon them as sources not only of bliss, but also of consciousness and

existence. The phrase "within the heart" simply means abstract ideas or abstract qualities.

(b) After you are convinced that Drg is different from Drsyam that the seen is ever

changing and unreal whereas the Atman is untouched and unaffected, you should then

practice as constantly and as often as you can this line of thinking and reflection. Do not

think of the body as a permanent entity. Do not allow the mind to wander away from this

line; when you grasp the idea that Brahman alone is, make it the continuous subject of

your meditation at every moment of the day if possible. By such practice, which is called

'yoga' here but which is infinitely superior to what is generally known as yoga, you will

get rid of the attachment to the body, and moreover you get true samadhi, not Patanjali's

samadhi where you see nothing and realize nothing. This is described on page X of the

introduction, and also in verse 30. In this superior samadhi, wherever you look, whatever

object you see, will appear as Brahman. You will face and move in the world, but will

automatically inquire into it and reduce it all to the oneness of Brahman. This is the

Vedantic samadhi, where all the multiplicity is converted into unity, not the unity of

yogic trance, which is mere emptiness and useless, but the perception of one Being,

Brahman, in every object and creature.

Wherever the mind goes, whatever object you see, whatever thought you hold,

you will know that in essence it is all one and the same thing. You will go to the very root

of the matter and discover it to be mind, and mind to be Brahman. The body may remain

as an object, whose continuously changing nature you know and remember whereas the

Atman will be for you the ever-stable; therefore there is nothing to be given up. You will

see Brahman without a second thing. You will understand that as in dream your own

mind appears as the various scenes you behold. So your own nature, Brahman, is appearing

before you as all this world. This is the superior meaning of Samadhi, a meaning

which is unknown to the yogis.

(42.7) When you are convinced that the Universal Reality is in everything, then each time

the mind is directed towards any object you can have Samadhi, that is, perfect steadiness

of mind. To whatever object mind is directed, there is always Brahmagnana, unbrokenly.

(42.8) The witness identifies itself with the waking 'I' who regards dream world as unreal:

then with the dream ego, who regards it as real. In deep sleep only is the Witness alone

with no ego. Control of latent desire equals discipline. Both means of mental training lead

to the control of mind; and after that control is reached Gnana dawns. There is control by

brute force; control by gradual process, by degrees, or by the application of Gnan. Only

by Gnan is it possible to control the mind permanently. First study nature of the body

(object). Science teaches everything outside is illusory, changing. Inside: Thoughts come

and go, so change again. Thus mind finding no interest in objects, perceives the

inscrutableness of the one substance called the Drg. If there is a permanent God, it must

be the Self. Hence Upanishad says, "Atman is Brahman." If the mind cannot think, how

can you have any drsyam? If you want to make the mind inactive think what becomes of

form, color and smell of the faded flower. Illusion equals Maya, equals it existed, it

ceased to exist. What (where?) did it go---We do not know.

(42.9) The Witness does not see the other individual even if he does see the body and

mind functioning.

(42.10) The word "bliss" here and in all other Hindu scriptures does not mean emotional

ecstasy. It means exalted peace. Emotional ecstasy disappears in Nirvikalpa. It could not

possibly continue into that state. The bliss is held before novices like a bait, like other

fruits of Yoga, but it is only to get them away from worldly attractions and to emphasize

that the world is but an idea.

(42.11) Just as dream persons disappear back into the mind whence they originated so

even the Sat Chit Ananda qualities disappear back into their witness when the final stage

of inquiry is reached. Therefore you are asked to think of the substratum by getting rid of

the form which is obstructing your vision at the moment, which is obsessing your mind

so that you cannot see that thing which is remaining the same in spite of all its changes of

form. The characteristic of drsyam is to change; of the drg, not to change. This distinction

must be firmly kept in view.

SUMMARY OF VERSES: 1. to 30: DRG DRSYA VIVEKA

(42.12) Vedantic inquiry: 1st stage. Inquire into nature of physical body. Find its

separateness as false idea. 2nd stage: Inquire into universe and find whole world,

including body as an idea, then analyses of seer and seen, ask what is meant by "I am

conscious,” and ask what is aware? All this is constant thought of that 'I'. What is this 'I’.

When you concentrate on it, you will find that this 'I' is also a drsyam, a seen, a thought.

The ego is only an idea. You cannot ask the question who is aware of the ‘I’-thought

because that will reintroduce a second ‘I’ thought. That which knows the ego is an idea is

called Atman. That which is aware of all thinking is called Atman.

(42.13) You will exist even when you realize the Formless, but your existence will be

that of the Witness. You will be detached, not non-existent.

CHAPTER 43: ASHTAVAKRA SAMHITA.

PREFACE

(43.1) You must be desirous of knowing the Truth, consider the truth as nectar. Truth is

the most distasteful, bitter and unpleasant thing; but there cannot be any question of "satisfactions"

in Truth.

"Is it truth" does it occur to anyone? Imagination is rubbish. To imagine truth is

not enough, knowing things as they are. "Know Me in Truth" (Tattva). The doers, the

body, Ego, the attributes have nothing to do with Me--the Truth. Let bitterness be treated

as Nectar.

Gnan is only for the man who wants truth, whatever it may be, satisfaction or

dissatisaction. What you do not like may contain the truth. (the urine you hate, but

reflection tells you that it contributed to the sweetness of the mango), What is meant by

"likes and dislikes" except with reference to your ego and body? You hate the thing you

love the next moment! ‘Contentment’ because if you have a desire for anything, (it will

be a second thing) and you cannot be contented. Unless you have “kindness” you will not

overlook the faults of others, you will not be able to look at another, as not separate from

you.

(43.2) The moment you know that the whole world is Atman, there is no snake. If you

know the self, everything is only Atman. The world is Atman but you have mistaken it

for something else. You think you are imprisoned within this body; but really the self,

mind, atman, awareness is within and without the body. Hence widen your heart, mind,

your self.

(43.3) Enjoyment: If pleasant things come to him, he accepts them and enjoys them but

all the same he sees through their unreality. He does not run after them like the deluded

who take them to be real and hence strongly want them.

(43.4) Contact - as pure mind, as drg, you have no relation with drsyam, you are

non-dual.

(43.5) Dissolution: When you know universe to be an idea, you are dissolving it into your

mind; it is not the blankness of samadhi, not-seeing the world, not sleep. World is

Brahman and must be seen as such.

(43.6) Mind creates the form of the world, the senses see it, the I sees it, yet it is only

idea. Hence world-existence needs no explanation when it is unreal, uncreated, uncaused.

Hence futility of seeking cause.

(43.7) Indifference - The yogis misinterpret this to be running away, but philosophic

interpretation is keeping the idea of the I out of life.

(43.8) Those who cannot concentrate perfectly do well in going to Ashrams or Kailas to

learn and practice yoga, as a stage for here they will be free from distractions. But the

few who are so gifted as to have the natural capacity to concentrate, do not need to do

this and need not go through a yoga course.

(43.9) Sahaja means coming of its own accord, the world being just as it is and yet he is

in samadhi; everything becomes one.

(43.10) Thus the book finishes with non-causality, the most important principle to be

grasped in all Vedanta. The notion of emanation implies something separate from myself;

hence incorrect. The world does not emanate from mind: it is in mind.

(43.11) You cannot say how a gnani dresses or moves or works. He is trackless like a fish

in water. Common people revere nude yogis because they cannot look into a man’s mind,

only at his body. So they worship any yogi who looks extraordinary or poses

dramatically. The Gnani on the contrary will be clothed amongst people just as they are,

so as not to appear different but principally because he has no “I” and does not identify

himself with the body. He considers others as himself. (See also Mandukya).

CHAPTER 44: UPANISHADS

(44.1) The Brihad Upanishad teaches this important lesson: If you talk of things we are

not conscious of, then we take the stand that they do not exist as fit subjects for

discussion or examination. When asked whether there is a God, we keep quiet because no

proof is available of his existence, and therefore all such discussion with believers, not

thinkers, is useless. Not that we are atheists: we start with agnosticism, and we come to

believe in a God not concocted by men, but as He is in truth.

(44.2) The teacher of Brahman dismisses everything as "not this, not Brahman" all forms

he mentions being "superimposed on it." i.e. being “mere words only, imaginations

about it.” The teacher means that if you think dualistically that Brahman is one and I am

another or that I (Brahman) is soul and that (body) is, another, you will never understand

it. The teacher's business is to show the seeker's foolishness in looking for Brahman as

other than himself: more he cannot teach: the pupil must think rest for himself.

CHAPTER 45: BHAGAVAD GITA

(45.1) CH.2 v.16 where Krishna tells Arjuna to fight is misrepresented by half-Vedantins

as an order to kill other human beings, because they are mere Ideas, Illusory, whereas

whole Vedanta says these ideas too are Brahman, and yourself and hence no killing really

occurs. Only when you see all individuals, especially yourself as imagined ideas, can you

rise to see them later as Brahman. Thus there are two stages. You must first see yourself

as illusory before you see others as illusory.

(45.2) "Sanyasin" is defined in the Gita as one who knows the world to be an idea. Other

types of renunciation are mere preparation for this, the true stage of Sanyas.

(45.3) Krishna points out, "the foolish regard Me as the unmanifested coming into

manifestation." Here the word "foolish" means people of small intelligence. Such people

follow orthodox religion and believe that the world was created by God. But how do they

know that He did so? When a pot is created you can see both pot and its maker, but not in

the case of the world. Then there is the question which nobody has answered till now,

viz. Why did He create all these evils, these sufferings? Even a father would never do

that. If He did so, assuming that God did create, then what sort of an evil God is He! All

religions which begin with "God created the world," are fit only for children. It is a lie, it

is inconsistent and fit only for foolish people. In the Gita it says, "Though you see Me in

various forms, when you know the truth you know that I am the ALL." A child learns to

count, by seeing and counting material objects. When the child is mature it says directly

"one plus one equals two" without having to count tangible objects.

(45.4) "Whose actions have been burnt out by the fire of wisdom" means taking the world

as Mind, you know all the individual ideas are lost or burnt in Mind, i.e. each is only

Mind. Thus separateness is burnt. In dream you see mind in action. In sleep you see Mind

at rest and all objects are then offered in its fire. Waking is just the same when you

understand the world is idea. The ideas of objects disappear as separate when their are

known as the One Mind. The "fire" in this phrase refers to sacrificial fire. All objects, as

ideas, are sacrificed to Brahman (Mind) by sleep or by Gnan. The term "Actions" refers

to both mental and physical actions. Hence merely sitting still like Yogis is not genuine

inaction but self-deception. For inaction is only an idea just as much as action is idea.

(45.5) In Chap.IV where Krishna says "This yoga has been lost for ages" the word yoga

refers to Gnana yoga, not other yogas: the force of the word this is to point this out.

Krishna describes some of the other yogas, but devotes this chapter separately to Gnana

yoga. So you see even in those ancient days people did not care for Advaita; they wanted

religion; hence Gnana got lost. That is why Krishna calls it "the supreme secret." Krishna

points out that the yoga must see "Brahman in action."

(45.6) Chap.VII. Verse 4: "Earth etc" Thus he begins his analysis with the world, with

solid earth, not with remote Atman. In all these things earth, water etc. I am the finality."

"Vasudeva sees the All." But to know this they must be examined and studied. There is a

wide gulf between the yogi's "I do not care to know about the world" and the gnani's

"Nothing remains to be known for him."

(45.7) Gita teaches that you know the truth only when you see the whole universe in the

mind. Then as an illustration of how this is possible, the case of dream is given (when the

world appears within mind).

(45.8) There is no difference between a Gnani and an avatar other than that the latter

reincarnates for a special purpose or work, whereas the former comes for the general

purpose of helping the world. Also Krishna says in Gita that he, the Avatara, incarnates

when wickedness becomes intolerable.

(45.9) When you go to the root of the matter you will find that only one thing is taught in

Gita under different veils of yogas. It all amounts to "Give up the Ego."

CHAPTER 47: ART

(46.1) In composing any work of art, you first form internal idea, thoughts, and then

express them, i.e. project them into the world outside.

(46.2) An artist until he forgets his ego will not be perfect. For it is only by perfect

concentration on his work or in his imagination that he works perfectly, i.e. he transforms

his ego into that of his subject.

(46.3) There is no philosophy in all this art-theory. Why does man want pleasure through

art, drama? Why should they desire? "Because they desire"-- is no philosophical

explanation. Vitality, urge, inclination, emergence--what is all this? What is beauty, and

why are men attracted to it? What is it that attracts as its beauty? These are philosophical

questions.

(46.4) Beauty is a coordination of the two--the internal and the external.

(46.5) After all, the greatest beauty is within your own self. Even the most beautiful

woman is your Atman, yourself, only an idea appearing to you, so why should you run

after her? Then you remember she is only your mind, yourself, you will lose the urge to

lust. Only by this non-duality can the highest morality be obtained. Religion cannot

achieve this ethic because it is based on duality; on God and I.

(46.6) When you inquire profoundly into the nature of Beauty you will find it to be no

different from that of Truth.

(46.7) Human emotions are not killed by philosophy but brought under check and

control, by reason. Thus if you see a beautiful woman there will automatically rise a

passion of sex for her. The philosopher immediately after feeling the first touch of this

passion will bring his reason to play and consider that the body of this woman is only an

idea in the mind after all; considering it as such it is then relatively easy for him to remain

unmoved by her beauty which he can henceforth see, acknowledge and even appreciate

without feeling any sexual passion for her.

(46.8) Vedanta teaches that emotion and art are inseparable from life, that philosophy

does not, cannot and should not take them away from us. What philosophy does is merely

to evaluate both emotion and art and then remove the incorrect values we have placed

upon them, substituting proper values in their place. It is thus not the Vedantic teaching

that philosopher should become unemotional, inartistic or incapable of enjoying beauty.

He may be so, but he should know their value and place.

(46.9) When you admire the painting of a beautiful landscape you are unconsciously

assimilating the external world into your mind, i.e. turning it into idea.

(46.10) The singer who feels an emotion may communicate it to numerous other persons.

Yet only a sound vibration is heard, a sense-effect. Why is a mental effect produced?

Because all men have got the same Mind.

(46.11) Another explanation of art is to evoke in the enjoyer the same feeling which artist

had. Thus for the time being he puts himself in the position of the other person, i.e, he

seeks non-difference, oneness, with other men, Hence the existence of art in life and its

philosophical justification. The greatest artist is he who realizes himself as the All, who

identifies himself with all things.

CHAPTER 47: SAGEHOOD AS AN IDEAL

(47.1) Krishna was a charioteer, or car driver, Janaka a ruler, Tulalhara a shopkeeper,

Vyadha was a hunter--yet all these were gnanis but lived and worked in the world.

(47.2) Why did not Krishna stop the Mahabharata war by his yogic power? From the

lower theological standpoint he did not want to interfere, as each man must do his duty,

and he knows himself as Brahman and similarly all these people, on both sides. Yogis

have not the power to do such things, let alone incarnations. It has never been done in

history, as the first yogi who had realized himself and obtained this mythical power

would have put a stop to all human suffering. Besides, Krishna saw all the world in the

one Universal Mind, all the fighters on both sides as being in it, himself as the self of all

beings, not identified with any particular individual or group of individuals, so why

should he interfere? In the suffering he sees only a form of himself, nothing separate.

Objection: then how can a gnani be always acting? Answer: The gnani from his own

view point is always in the same mood, but the outside observer sees that a gnani can

only be one who works constantly for the common weal, as water must find its own level

so the gnani must find himself in all people.

(47.3) He who has no feeling of sympathy with the suffering that he observes, is no sage.

He identifies himself with everything, even a suffering ant or an injured snake. Poets like

Wordsworth have felt or imagined their oneness with the whole universe, but they have

not realized the truth of it as a sage.

(47.4) The infallible test of a false gnani, were there is no other way of testing him is

whether he is actively engaged in removing the suffering of others and serving humanity.

(47.5) The gnani is not opposed to any position, religious or philosophical, for he sees all

is One; but the others who are in those positions, will be opposed to him.

(47.6) You may have the best guru but if your karma, your ripeness is not favourable,

then it will not avail you.

(47.7) Because the Gnani feels for others who are suffering, he has from our limited

standpoint neither peace nor happiness but he desires to be born again and again to help

the world. The descriptions of such peace and happiness are merely baits to lure people

on the path to truth, whose dazzling light they are not able to bear. But since the gnani

looks on both misery and happiness alike as Brahman, we must not judge his inner

feeling, for we cannot. To think that the gnani is inwardly suffering because he feels for

others, is to think of an imagined gnani, hence a false one.

(47.8) It is utterly impossible according to Brihadaranyaka, Vivekachudamani, for

anyone to detect who is a gnani. No outward sign will reveal it. The nearest but partial

possible test given in Gita, Ashtavakra and Mandukya is: Is he doing good to others

without thought of gaining benefit for himself? It is however possible to detect a yogi

because he is on a lower plane.

(47.9) The notion that a sage has no emotion, never cries, never laughs, is wrong. He has

it, only he knows its value, has weighed it, and keeps it subordinate to higher things. Only

the insane ascetic who has gone to extremes may betray no emotion.

(47.10) It is impossible to attain the highest unless one has a Guru to guide.

(47.11) When Faraday says that a philosopher should have no masters it is not meant that

be should not seek instructions from a guru. It means that he should not commit the

fallacy of authoritarianism by quoting his teacher's word as constituting sufficient proof

of their truth. His duty is to be thoroughly convinced of their truth by his own reasoning.

Also it does not mean that he can escape from his responsibility to acknowledge publicly

his indebtedness to his teachers otherwise he will be cheating the world and acting

dishonestly.

(47.12) To prostrate before an alleged guru or gnani is for uninquiring but the seeker will

refuse to prejudge the issue but will detachedly examine the holy man and study his

characteristics scientifically, with a view to as certain the truth about him. Because he sits

in trance, many seekers are swept away by emotions, ignorant of the fact that lunatics do

the same.

(47.13) The Gnani is ever-active but it is not for his own benefit. It is for the benefit of

others.

(47.14) If the pupil is to grasp truth as it is realized by guru, he will have to perceive the

ultimate state, that there is no duality, hence no guru!

(47.15) The aspirant should first test the man who he wants as guru and only after that

follow him.

(47.16) It is illusion that the gnani attains the magical capacity to do whatever he likes as

though he were a God or to be miraculously free of laws of nature. It is childish error to

think that a Gnani should be able to reconstruct the world or change mankind overnight.

The only freedom he attains is from the ignorance of ego's reality, for seeing the noncausality

of the world he sees everything as non-dual, he sees himself as everywhere

present and therefore as not limited to the ego. He sees his real self as not being

individual ego.

(47.17) How to reconcile the antinomies that a Gnani does outwardly become one with

those in his environment, even to their faults whilst he must also set them example to rise

up to? Reply: if he happens to be born amongst thieves he will steal with them but, as his

gnan does not go away all the time, at some point he will pause and suggest to the others

that they adopt a slightly better course of action. Thus he will uplift them because they

will think he is a simple ignorant man like themselves and will be more agreeable to

follow his advice.

(47.18) The sage does not regard himself as having attained perfection, because he still

identifies himself with others and thus shares their sense of imperfection.

(47.19) The sage serves mankind to the extent which his circumstances permit.

(47.20) Sankara knew no science. Nor did the other old philosophers. Therefore they

were not omniscient. He does not know all the sciences; but he knows the truth.

(47.21) The peace of mind, the inner satisfaction which the yogi and mystic obtain, are

also possessed by the Gnani, but in addition he possesses ultimate Truth, he will have

neither the emotional excesses of the mystic nor the visionary delusions of yogi, but he

will have the inner peace they have won and have gone beyond to Truth.

(47.22) If the gnani is able to eat, work and attend to practical duties without losing his

gnan, why should he not be able to sleep and dream like other men without losing his

gnan? And this is the case.

(47.23) The sage will not do immoral things, that is impossible.

(47.24) If an enlightened man happens to be among the ignorant, he must do according to

them--but always he does something which would elevate them.

(47.25) The gnani works no miracle, does not dismiss the wall which confronts him

because he knows it as an idea. He understands the true character of the wall. The only

difference between him and the ordinary man is like the difference between the scientist

and the ordinary man. The scientist knows that the water he drinks is really hydrogen and

oxygen, whereas the ordinary man does not know. Yet both drink the water. Similarly

gnani knows the external world is Atma, whereas ordinary man does not know, yet both

live and work in the world in the same way. There is no outside difference to be detected

between Gnani and the ordinary man. The difference is entirely inside the mind.

(47.26) A Gnani is not one who does not worship; he will pray, if he is living among the

religious. Yoga-Vasishta points out that he may be stealing in the company of rogues,

killing in the company of butchers, but always he will be amongst them to elevate them;

to lift them up gradually to a higher ethic. But by not separating himself from them, by

being like them and among them for a time, he can improve them and make them better.

(47.27) Guru is one who removes "darkness," means "ignorance." In dream you may see

a teacher, pupil and instructions be given, but they are all ultimately in the mind.

(47.28) People misunderstand "omniscient." This is a misleading translation from

Sanskrit. It really means "Everything is only Brahman, only of the nature of Mind."

When you ask a Gnani what is table, he will say it is Brahman. That is Brahman. Hence it

means that he knows everything as Brahman. It does not mean that he is like an

astrologer and knows what will happen in future or what has happened in past.

(47.29) Gnanis are not opposed to any doctrine, although the adherents of all doctrines

may consider (i.e. imagine) us as their enemies.

(47.30) Just as you do not shoot now whilst awake at the tigers you saw in dream, so the

Gnani does not dispute about truth with those who are still beclouded by duality.

(47.31) The Gnani makes no voluntary effort, but does what has to be done; therefore he

will practice both activity and abstention at different times.

(47.32) The gnani will feel that millions are suffering in the world, but simultaneously he

will also know that they identify themselves wrongly with their finite selves. He will

understand his limitation through being in the body and know that he cannot help them

all, so he will do whatever it is possible for him to do. He will make use of his body to

whatever extent it is possible in helping others, but admittedly he can relieve only a tiny

fraction of humanity. He will therefore seek, like Ramakrishna to be reborn again and

again in order to continue giving such help.

(47.33) Both Gnani and ignorant see the multiplicity, but Gnani does not take the

differences which he sees as being real. That is the difference between them. The Gnani

sees the unity behind the differences and considers the welfare of all others as his own.

(47.34) A true Gnani can never renounce anything. It is impossible. He has only

renounced the idea of a separate universe.

(47.35) Gnanis are one in millions for they have ignored the opinions of whole peoples in

their independent search of truth, and questioned all beliefs, all scriptures, all authorities,

until they could be proved to be true. Even the arguments that religions have been

followed since time immemorial makes no difference to them, because if people have

believed a false thing over thousands of years, the length of time does not prove it true.

(47.36) The gnani’s position is that if enjoyment comes, he accepts it; if it does not, he

keeps quiet. Even when he is taking pleasures, however, he is not deluded by them and he

regards them as a game he is playing for he knows their unreality: he does not take them

seriously. Clouds do not affect the sky, although they appear to; so the pleasures do not

change the Gnani.

(47.37) The gnani will follow whatever occupation he wishes according to circumstances.

There are no prohibitions for him. He may be a coachman or a king.

(47.38) Why do not gnanis perform miracles to attract attention to truth? To whom are

they to perform when there are none different from them?

(47.39) The Guru will teach you but it is absolutely necessary for the pupil to think

constantly over the teachings and master them by his own use of reason.

(47.40) Those who imagine a sage must be ever absorbed in thinking only of Brahman,

hence rapt in meditation or indifferent to what is going on around him, are wrong. If he is

thinking only of Brahman, are not the sufferings of those around him also Brahman?

Why ignore them?

(47.41) The Gnani sees unity in multiplicity--it is a sensible, rational, practical view. viz.

Sarva Bhutah Hithe Ratah. His happiness consists in being identified with the whole

universe. So long as there is misery in this world he, the gnani is always inevitably

miserable. So he always tries to remove the misery of others.

(47.42) How can one know the true gnani? Reply: It is impossible unless you have

sharpened brains. He does not want any external marks to identify, i.e. separate him from

others. The word “mark” means sitting in ashrams, wearing sanyasi robes, sitting in

samadhi, etc. He lives a normal sense-life, (but does nothing to set bad example to

others.)

(47.43) The difference between the worldly enjoyments of the gnani and ordinary man is

latter is unhappy if his desire or habitual wants are denied satisfaction, whereas gnani

does not become miserable when pleasures to which he is habituated do not come. For

Atman, in which he knowingly believes is the only thing that does not change, whereas

the ordinary man lives in the ever-changing.

(47.44) The Gnani who enters deep sleep will not feel be is entering anything different or

new. He knows the whole world is idea and sleep is merely the disappearance of those

ideas. Where have they gone? Only back into the mind, i.e. himself. Nothing is lost. Thus

using the dream illustration, the mountains and rivers of his dream, when they disappear,

are still not other than Mind and so the latter is unchanged by such disappearance.

Similarly the Gnani does not lose his Gnana because he loses consciousness of the world

(i.e. ideas) in sleep. If you think he ought to retain gnanic consciousness in deep sleep

then you are in error, for who is to be conscious? Reply--the Ego! Hence you want him to

believe in duality, which is the real loss of Gnana! Upanishad's say "He who thinks he

knows, does not know." This means that to know anything implies a second, an object of

knowledge, hence duality, i.e. no gnana. Therefore the gnani will lose consciousness in

deep sleep like others, but he is still a gnani.

(47.45) To objection who is to teach whom when one has realized, the reply is "The

world does not disappear for sage, he sees other men as before, and he knows they need

instruction: world with people is seen but its real nature is understood.

(47.46) I went to visit a yogi in a cave in Baba Budan hills. He once asked his guru who

said, “Be patient, one day you will realize." The yogi continued "I have been here 25

years and now I am so weak as nearly dying. Please help me to return to North India and

give up this quest. I have waited and waited and no illumination has come." The Rishees

emphasize that the guru must show the pupil now what he has to give him.

(47.47) When a man says that he has seen his internal self, he is still a yogi, but when he

says that he has seen the Universe in himself, he has become a knower of Truth--a

sage--a gnani.

(47.48) This waking world is also real if you know it is Brahman. A Gnani who cannot

see the material world as Brahman (and therefore real) is no gnani.

(47.50) The removal of the I is not enough to realize Brahman. It happens in sleep, for

instance. There must also be the knowledge that everything is your self. The mystic may

make some claim. So a test is to be applied. Test is, is he doing anything for others?

(47.51) The gnani rejects nothing, for it would mean to him giving up part of Brahman,

which in meaningless. The absence of anything, even the world, is not Gnanam. Hence

Gnani does not have to give up anything in the worlds within or without, neither objects

or ideas.

(47.52) When the guru utters vocally the doctrines of gnani the ripe chela receives

definite illumination and may instantly perceive truth in a flash. Such speech in truly

creative in its workings in the chela's soul. Similarly the visual sight of the guru

powerfully affects the mind of the sensitive chela.

(47.53) The minds of those who judge a gnani, act on the consistency theory. Hence they

judge him incorrectly.

(47.54) The guru may, and should accept enough money to live on, but after that he ought

not. He should take as much as is necessary to keep himself in the best condition. The

guru should not starve, his body is needed to find and give out truths and for that he may

accept money from those that can afford. He should ask only if he has not got enough to

live on. He may take money only from those he knows to virtuous. Otherwise, he should

not ask anyone, especially the poor. Every student owes a duty to beg for and maintain

the Guru. But if the Guru has enough, he may in his turn feed students. Guru must see

that the money which comes to him does not cause pain by its loss to the one who gives

him. Asking should be only from those that have.

(47.55) After realization the Sanyasi should go back to serve the world. He will see that

everything in the world is his own mind. He lives in the world and knows it for what it is

worth. He knows everybody to be mind or rising higher, to be Atman.

(47.56) Test the Guru before you choose him. If he promises you something wonderful in

future, that is no passing of test. He must show his worth here and now.

(47.57) The mind must be first trained in the Vedantic way for a long time: then only

when it reads such books as Brihad and Mandukya Upanishads does the true meaning of

the texts become apparent. Hence we cannot give a sudden revelation of Advaita in one

or two letters, or in an interview or two: a course of personal mental training must be

undergone. Hence we say both the philosophical books and a living guru are necessary to

the seeker.

(47.58) You yourself must do the work of seeing Truth by using your own judgment and

reason. Nobody else, no guru can do it for you.

(47.59) All men have not got the capacity to know Truth, as Gita points out very few

have: but some among these few are so intelligent that they have only to hear it explained

by a Guru when they grasp it at once. Henceforth they have only to stabilize their

illumination.

(47.60) The Vedantic method is discussion between teacher and pupils not dogmatic

laying down by his authority.

(47.61) We cannot look into the mind of a man to determine whether he be a sage or fool,

scoundrel or good character; therefore we can only draw inferences from his actions as to

what status and character his mind has attained.

(47.62) Whoever fails to see the universe in Samadhi, has fallen to yoga and is not a

gnani. The sage always sees the universe and does not lapse into unconsciousness.

(47.63) PANCHADASI. "In the performance of actions or in the abstention from them

there is not the slightest difference, as regards body, senses, mind and intellect between

an ignorant man and the wise man…the difference between them lies in the existence of

doubt in the former (ignorant) and the destruction of it in the latter (the wise.)"

(47.64) When the time of death approaches for a gnani he expresses the will to return to

earth again and be reborn. Now he has achieved liberation from all his Karma. Why then

should he take on the old bondage of the human body again. Answer: Because he realizes

his unity with all mankind, he considers their welfare as his own. Therefore when that

further incarnation comes to a close he will again express his determination to be reborn a

second time. This process will go on ad infinitum, with the result that the gnani is born

again and dying again just like all other human beings. So from the external viewpoint he

is to share the same joys and sorrows as all unenlightened men for countless number of

incarnations despite the fact that he has achieved Nirvana. The definition usually given

by Pundits and yogis in India of the word Moksha as meaning liberation from the cycle of

transmigration pertains to the lower or purely religious sphere. This doctrine is on the

lower level because it is based on the reality of the ego. The Vedantic interpretation of

the word is "liberation from ignorance." Similarly the word Nirvana is interpreted in

Buddhist countries as meaning release from the cycle of births and deaths. This too is the

popular interpretation, not philosophical which is precisely the same as the Vedantic. It is

quite true that Buddha constantly taught that man should seek release from

transmigratory existence but we must remember however that what the sage knows is

known only to himself in its fullness and that he gives out to the public only so much as

they could grasp and no more.

Of course, the gnani will have a different attitude towards his pleasures and pains

from that of the ordinary man by reason of his refusal to identify himself with the body.

Thus Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda expressed the desire to be born again and

again for the salvation of the humanity. Buddha too has told of numerous previous births

wherein he descended to help mankind. Thus the startling fact must now emerge that all

the sages in the history of mankind who had ever attained Truth, Moksha or Nirvana by

virtue of such attainment have identified themselves with the whole of mankind and its

sufferings and have therefore, all without a single exception willed to return to earth in

constantly repeated births and deaths. This they have done without any necessity or

compulsion upon their part, but solely in order to serve others because of their feeling of

unity with them and pity for their sufferings. This does not mean that all the sages of

history are at the present moment living on this earth because they need not necessarily

be reborn immediately after each death. They may need a period of rest and recuperation

after each incarnation and therefore some may be on earth, and others not, but the latter

will surely be reborn later.

(47.65) The gnani is not attached to any particular state because he realizes the Brahman

everywhere, but only his mind is sharp enough to perceive it.

(47.66) Man who realizes his own Atman, as in deep sleep, is indifferent to pleasure or

pain, whereas man who realizes Brahman i.e. whole world, feels the pleasure and pain

but they are transient. This Vedantic truth is presented for common people by stories of

avatar incarnating to take world misery on himself.

(47.67) The ego will not go unless you render service to mankind, try to make others

happy, without any thought of recompense. If you think of getting reward for your

service or teaching, you cannot have truth or teach it, you are only thinking of the ‘I’. For

teaching Brahman nothing should ever be taken. But for other purposes he may take

money. Such purposes may include the foundation of an Ashram, wherein to maintain

students, i.e. others, not himself. The true Gnani will always refuse to accept money for

his teaching, but he way take it for helping others which is a different matter. However,

he will see within his heart whether it is for the benefit of the world, or for his own I, he

will then accept or reject money accordingly. The test is inside himself. The gnani may

accept money for teaching subjects other than Brahman, such as mathematics etc. but

never for teaching the highest truth. However note that teaching Brahman is only such

when it is personal and addressed to individuals. To write books and articles on it is

general and not teachings. Hence you may accept payment for writings. It is the duty of

his chelas to properly feed and maintain the guru voluntarily, without being asked.

(47.68) The sage takes into consideration the predispositions and mind of his hearers.

Buddha did the same thing. The right teaching given to the wrong people leads to its

being misunderstood and misapplied.

(47.69) The Gnani's mind is paradoxically more active and less active than the ordinary

man's. More active because he uses his brains, less active because whatever happens he

remains unworried and unaffected; he knows the past is gone and won’t worry over it: If

present losses occur he knows that all is still Brahman and hence nothing is really lost.

(47.70) The gnani should keep his gnani-hood a secret. He should not advertise it to the

world. For the ignorant will misunderstand it.

(47.71) Where did you get your knowledge of Advaita from? It came from your guru.

Where did he get it from? He was taught by his own guru in turn. Thus the line stretches

back for thousands of years to antiquity. What does this mean? That the knowledge is not

really yours, it was always given to you. You have no personal claim on it, as your

achievement. Therefore the correct ethic would be to efface your ego and acknowledge

this fact. Hence Advaitic authors, always without exception make due acknowledgements

in the preface to their guru and confess that the knowledge was his, not theirs; even

Sankara was not too proud to do this in every book. Nobody can claim title to this

knowledge; it is like space, undifferentiated; without form, non-dual. Hence there is no

room for ego here. Hence the gnani never claims such knowledge as his own. It is not

honest. Hence to get rid of the ego-vanity, an advaitic author must say openly that his

knowledge is derived from his teacher. This is most important. Such written

acknowledgements on the part of a chela is equivalent to prostrating or bowing before

your guru, and simply means that you efface the ego in his presence. But on the part of a

Gnani, it means that he regards himself--and therefore his knowledge--to be like space,

not personal, not limited. This acknowledgement is made by the gnani to efface the egos

of his readers or chelas, not for his own which was effaced long ago.

(47.72) Do not be a slave to me says the true teacher to his disciples, but if you must be a

slave prostrate before Intelligence (Buddhi). It is the religious or mystic gurus who

demand personal slavishness. We are not respecters of persons, not even of Gods, only of

Truth. We value a teacher only when he helps us to get truth.

(47.73) Gnanis have lived in the company of butchers, shop-keepers, hunters, even

robbers, behaving as they did, not claiming to be different from them but occasionally

dropping some word, giving some hint or advice which will ever so slightly give higher

ideals to his companions. Thus he will instill hope into seeker's hearts that it is really

possible to attain higher levels.

(47.74) This realization in its fullness brings absolute harmony between thought and

action and makes the Gnani.

(47.75) The Gnani sees the sameness in all; this means he sees them all without exception

as ideas.

(47.76) A gnani works for humanity. The idea of beggarhood is the opposite of the gnani

ideal. Let every man earn his living, only those who teach mankind may refrain. The

gnani does not want to sit while others feed him. He performs action for human welfare.

If he is weak or ill or too old he is excused.

(47.77) Ethically we should not ask for money for spiritual teaching, nor accept it if we

have means for support otherwise. Nevertheless the guru has the right to ask or money

from the pupil if (a) he is needing it to support himself and family and is starving (b) if he

wishes to undertake a useful work, such as printing a book or traveling on a journey to

learn or teach Truth.

(47.78) Avatars and adepts are only men of superior and supreme intelligence or reason,

but we ignorantly attribute to their greatness ‘super-consciousness’ and other fancies.

(47.79) The gnani does not try to eliminate thoughts but he accepts or knows them as

Brahman or Atman. He knows that mind, self, soul are all one and the same.

(47.80) The Gnani uses sense-objects because he sees they are Brahman. It would be

foolish to run away from himself: all these objects are ideas in his own self.

(47.81) It is said in Mandukya that even the Gods cannot find out who is a gnani, because

he bears no external mark. Neither nudity nor the yellow robe has anything to do with

him.

(47.82) Whatever the mind does, whatever thoughts arise--even of sensual

enjoyment--the gnani does not need to practice mind-control because he knows these

ideas to be Brahman or Atman. Because of the knowledge, sensual thoughts do not stir

him to action. Thus he will not run after a woman, even though he thinks or sees her,

because he knows her to be Brahman which he already enjoys.

(47.83) The Gnani, on attaining realization, will not give up his vocation in life but will

continue it as before. If he was a king, he continues so, if a palanquin bearer, he will

remain one. In short he still does his duty, but now it is done with the motive for the good

of others.

(47.84) The notion that the gnani sees only good everywhere and never evil, is incorrect.

He is fully aware of the evil character of others, he knows then he is being cheated, but he

remains unperturbed though acting as required. If that notion were correct then place a

pot of dung before the gnani and see if he eats it: No, for he recognizes what is bad and

what is good; he is not insane even though he understands everything to be Brahman.

(47.85) Suppose a gnani is in a house on fire. He will appear to be excited in making

arrangements to put it out, but inwardly he will be undisturbed.

(47.86) Gnani does not even lament death as depriving him of opportunity to serve

mankind, because he knows nothing is ever lost, that the dream mountain which

disappears on waking is still in the mind that made it, that there is no separate ego-mind

or ego-body existent to die or be born, for Brahman is ever existent.

(47.87) Sri Krishna himself says that he can do nothing to make a man intelligent straight

away. The adepts give prasad, blessing, initiations, mantrams, etc. only to confer

temporary peace of mind, to help you to get rid of worries, but not to confer Gnana. The

capacity to receive it, must first be inborn in man by evolutionary degree.

(47.88) Sahaja-samadhi is for the gnani, yoga-samadhi is for the mystic.

CHAPTER 48: THE MIND

(48.1) Hiranyagarbha is God when he is creating the world, God in a creative mood. The

thoughts in God's mind is the entire cosmos. Therefore there is nothing in the whole

world outside God's mind. God thus takes the form of mind, the ultimate existence.

Garbha means womb, hence mental womb.

(48.2) Whilst awake you can think of a large distant city, say Melbourne. Can you say in

which part of Melbourne your mind is not present when you think of it? No. Hence we

say mind is omnipresent, pervades the whole world.

(48.3) The critic who said "The world is an idea; why don't you think a chair and then go

and sit down on it" is making two errors: first he thinks the idealist takes his own body as

real and only the rest of the world as an idea: second he does not know that it is not the

individual mind which creates the universe and its objects but that mind which itself sees

the individual, in short the common mind. The individual has no powers to make the

universe, that which makes the universe makes the individual also. This point is very

difficult to grasp. Berkeley saw it, but owing to his theological predilection he brought in

the conception of God to account for the creation of the ideas of the Universe. That which

sees these external objects as ideas is therefore able to see the individual body as an idea

because it is purely a universal viewpoint.

(48.4) The critic who objects that if the Gnani has realized that universal common mind

he should be able to create objects mentally overlooks the following:-- The gnani has no

desire to demonstrate anything for the satisfaction of others, whilst for himself there is

also no desire to create simply because he is desireless, and finally because he regards all

as himself. He knows that if he is creating through the All; for him such a question never

arises as that raised by the critic. Secondly he does not have to answer it.

(48.5) Those who speak of Idealism as teaching that the body is an externalization of the

mind, are wrong. They are too much attached to the body to be able to give it up in order

to understand truth. For where does the mind stop? Can you measure its ultimate limit?

What is outside and what is inside the mind? Neither body nor this wall can possibly be

external to the mind.

(48.6) What is mind? It is that which can assume any form.

(48.7) Nirvikalpa Samadhi is only a preparatory stage which gives the discipline for

rising higher.

(48.8) The difference between a yogi emerging from Nirvikalpa samadhi and ordinary

man emerging from sleep is that the yogi knows that by controlling the mind he can get

rid of the contents of the mind, get rid of all this world voluntarily, but nevertheless

temporarily. It does not explain to him what the world is, so he is yet in ignorance, albeit

not so gross as others.

(48.9) Patanjali is mere ABC. His goal is deep sleep. The occult powers (siddhis) which

yogi develops are powers belonging to a state equivalent to dream state: hence they have

the value of dream faculties. To the Gnani they are but mental creations as much as other

ideas and not Brahman. He looks upon them as he looks upon ordinary powers.

(48.10) To talk of God's Ideas, Divine Ideation, means that you not only know God exists

but you know what was in his mind. Therefore this doctrine is only your imagination.

(48.11) How do you reconcile the duality of experience with the non-duality of Truth?

This problem seems insoluble to weak minds, and so they turn aside from it and take to

religion or Yoga. But Vedanta can explain and solve it; so far as books can do so for

books are explanations, not realizations: they are helps to the latter. So Mandukya gives

here the illustration of the whirling firebrand which when set in motion appears in various

figures such as 8, made by you, straight or crooked. Similarly, Mind undergoes no change

in itself because it became a tiger or a mountain in your dream. The appearance of these

things makes no change in the substance of the mind. In the waking state Mind still

retains one and the same essence, but takes all these forms, just as it does in dream. In the

cinema show you see people move and talk as though they were living, but in reality

there is only a strip of celluloid, no people at all. This self-deception of the human mind

which takes things as they appear, is called Avidya. Hence we must correct the errors of

the mind, which is done by getting knowledge.

Nobody has seen mind move from one place to another: all we can say is that the

mind is thinking. But when mind is thinking it is not really changing its own nature.

Duality can be explained without bringing anything from outside. If you see a snake,

where is it? You see it with your mind. Is it outside the body, then where is the body?

Inside your mind? Everything in the world is within the mind, but you see it as outside.

All movements of consciousness are only apparent. Is the dream body really running?

Consciousness is immovable, for space itself is an idea within it. You can imagine an

object moving from place to place, but the consciousness itself does not move. Kant

could not go so far: could not see that there is no unknown reality outside the mind; his

noumena are outside, but that is impossible because there is no space outside mind. The

whole world's mind-consciousness, both actions and inaction are therein. But without

Avastatraya this cannot be understood. All thoughts of the world are within mind; when

there are no thoughts of world it is not seen: This shows that the world is in mind and is

mind. Hence there is no real duality of a real World and a real observer. Even Himalayas

are only notion of consciousness, are only imagination. We take world as real and

separate because of our previous attachment to it for the sake of satisfying our desires.

The ignorant here take the idea to be real. Nothing has gone out elsewhere, nothing has

come into the mind from elsewhere, wherein everything happens. Nothing is produced,

caused; there is no second outside Atman. Where is the space outside Atman to contain

any second thing? The best illustration is dream. People have wrong idea that mind is

confined to the skull. Greatest Western thinkers are prejudiced against Avastatraya

because they wrongly believe dream is unreal, waking is real, and therefore dream proof

not worth inquiry into.

(48.12) If you think that mind is always there, that mind, objectified as Drsyam alone is

what is coming or going, that there is no causal relation, then the Drg is seen to be

consistent, and the world is seen to be really unborn. The Drg was never lost, Moksha is

never attained; you are always in liberation. You can never die, never change.

(48.13) “Ever-luminous" means whatever is presented to the Atman, it knows: It knows

everything is mental, is only mind, it hence knows only itself. (Mand.331). When objects

are not presented, its capacity to know is still there. Its capacity is not less, even in sleep.

Hence it is ever-knowing.

(48.14) The word "effulgent" Atman is the light, the knowledge, the awareness by which

things become known: hence it is the one thing in Vedanta which is not negated. It is the

thorn which is used to negate all other thorns of wrong ideas; when these are all removed,

then the word effulgent, the thought of any attribute even immortality, even Ajati

belonging to Atman, is thrown away as the instrumental thorn itself is discarded when it

has served its purpose. Hence we use the idea of being to refute the idea of non-being and

finally reject both. Thus all words, all ideas are ultimately cast off as not being the Drg.

Silence alone falls here.

(48.15) You have seen the birth of a man's body, but you have never seen the birth of his

consciousness. Hence we call latter "unborn.'' From Advaita standpoint the word

"substratum" has no meaning. You speak of substratum only when you think of

something other than it also, a quality etc. This means a second--hence duality. The mind

is not really ever changed; all thoughts and imaginations appear to be changes but the

mind itself remains what it was, unchanged, and as mind is not born either, it must also

be free from death. One man's body may go to North India, and my body to Mysore,

apparently there is separation and difference; but ask the meaning, is it separate? How far

does my mind extend and how far does his? There is only one consciousness and we can't

limit it to two individuals or speak of them as different: for we are obsessed by the ideas

of body alone. Duality is with the body; in the consciousness, the unseen Atman, it

disappears. If you are always thinking of variety alone you see duality! If you think of

unity, you perceive that. Hence realization depends upon your state of mind. When

Vivekananda asked Sri Ramakrishna to get his ulcerated throat cured, by asking the

Mother, so that he could eat again, i.e. Brahman, Ramakrishna did so: She replied: "Why

are you thinking of eating in this body alone? Ramakrishna is already eating through

millions of mouths." This means that when realizing one mind is in all these bodies, we

free ourselves from the separate body limitation.

(48.16) Statements can only truthfully be made about known objects. The Brahman can

never be such. Hence it is inexpressible verbally.

(48.17) Although the world-appearance is constantly changing, it is of the same

mind-essence as the Atman.

(48.18) You cannot say that ideas are separate from the mind, because they could not

exist apart from the mind-substance. Yet you cannot say the opposite that ideas are not

separate from Mind because then there would be complete identity and you would see

nothing. This position is the same with Brahman and the world of objects. The world is

not independent of Brahman nor the same as it. Nothing therefore can be predicted truly

of Brahman's relation to world other than to say that it is a non-dual.

(48.19) Turiya = Drg = Sakshin = Seer = Knower. The knower is that which is not any of

these states. Hence when you are thinking of Turiya you are negating the states as Turiya

cannot be made an object. Thus you arrive at the reality only through negating the

illusory.

(48.20) We use the words Brahman or Turiya for the wordless truth only by explaining

that it means that which cannot be reached by names or words. Hence these names are

unique among all others, corresponding to no known thing. Silence is the most

appropriate way of speaking of it, but to help students we use these words in their studies,

pointing out their unique character and peculiar use however.

(48.21) If one denies the existence of Brahman or Atman, what is it that is happening?

You are only thinking of Brahman as an object. But our idea of Atman is that of Witness.

When you deny, the denier is there. That of which I am always conscious is Atman or

Brahman.

(48.22) When the mind sees that which is common to all material things, it sees their

essence-stuff by dropping their forms: this is the real meaning of samadhi (sama- the

same)--not the yogic sleep or imagination.

(48.23) The mind has never been separated from the objects and creatures seen in your

dream. Therefore at no time has the mind itself been separate from them. Even in the

waking state, no object is ever separated from the mind. Ideas must stand somewhere, be

created of something, and this is mind. We use the word mind here instead of Brahman,

for it is easier to see that all things being ideas, are made of one stuff--Mind.

(48.24) Vedanta says all these thoughts and ideas will again go back into you. They will

never be lost. Everything is only idea. All your ideas of the whole world goes back in

deep sleep into the same mind. Hence there is no real loss and you need not be unhappy

at the apparent (but net) real loss. The world has gone into you.

(48.25) The knowing entity or power is the same unity in all persons. It is Atman.

(48.26) Upanishads say the self is nearer and dearer than anything else: this means that

the Mind is nearer than anything we know.

(48.27) Realization is nothing else than to know, after analysis, that everything is Mind.

(48.28) The question of why those different ideas of multiplicity arises to the mind, is

unaskable by the Mind and unanswerable except by knowing truth. For where everything

is one, as in sleep, which is the truth, there is no duality, hence no duality of questioner

and question. Therefore when this is comprehended, the why does not arise: it only arises

in the state of ignorance.

(48.29) When we talk of the body-mind problem we necessarily refer to the individual

mind, but when we talk of the matter-mind problem we refer to the universal mind. Thus

we must be careful to understand the use of the terms mind correctly.

(48.30) We think of a horse, next we think of a table. What is the gap between both

thoughts? It must be the pure Mind wherein as there is then no thought of ego nor of an

objective thing, non-duality alone is.

(48.31) Thought reading is also explicable by the withdrawal of mind from ego

temporarily, so that the identification with universal mind is possible, hence with other

human minds. Both methods combined produce greatest results.

(48.32) If you ask why the idea of a thing should arise when no object is really there, we

reply: Mind itself is the cause of the idea: it has the desire to give birth to these ideas

perpetually. This is the elementary explanation. The more advanced view is that the

question should not be asked because why implies causality which is a fiction. By rising

to this higher level the Atman is seen to be that which cannot be divided; the Mind is

measureless; it remains a unity despite the appearances (illusions) of multiplicity.

Knowing the nature of Mind the question does not arise. The differences between things

are imagined: all is really one in truth.

(48.33) The gnani will possess the powers of thought-reading and thought-transference as

a natural consequence of having destroyed ego-illusion and realized one Mind in all.

(48.34) The first epistemological questions which are asked by Indian philosophy are:

"What is meant by thinking?" "How do thoughts arise?" Then it is found that each

thought has its inseparable correlative: that the thought of bliss arises by discriminating it

from the thought of misery: and that the way in which the mind works is to pose dualities

of ideas. You cannot understand a thing except by noting its differences from another

thing.

(48.35) All knowing functions come only from Awareness.

(48.36) Words will always give you only a picture in the mind, no picture can represent

Brahman; for this reason only we say that the Brahman is like a void; not for the reason

of the Sunyavadins who say there is no reality there. The Void is an illustrational term.

(48.37) When thought is transcended, that moment--it may be one-millionth of a

second--you have comprehended the Truth about Brahman transcending thoughts. For

then the idea becomes the Mind. At that moment the mind negates all thoughts. This is

called the "lightning flash" in Upanisads. You must watch vigilantly for it. When

between two thoughts you catch this brief flash, you have to understand that the thoughts

were still in your mind whether, they had appeared or vanished. Hence we are

transcending thoughts numerous times daily but unconsciously. In this sense you are right

in calling our doctrine "The Hidden Philosophy. The thought-gap is hidden. That gap is

the seer of the thoughts i.e. Drg, Mind, Brahman.

(48.38) When you know that everything is only Mind, why worry yourself with

anything? You are Mind yourself, it is permanent, and all ideas are impermanent.

(48.39) The words "static" and its correlative "dynamic" are inapplicable to Brahman.

(48.40) If there were no forms, would you get the idea of Mind? No; Therefore the forms

suggest the mind's existence to you. The forms alone enable you to know that Mind is

there. Otherwise you could not know it. If Maya did not exist, there would be no

incentive, no purpose in seeking for Reality, Brahman. Hence it may be taken as a

meaning of the world that all these forms exist to enable us to reflect on them and find the

Mind, the non-dual Reality of which they are mere appearances.

(48.41) "All these become one in the highest spirit, called Mind." says Prasnopanishad.

Again Brihad Up. says: "Through the mind alone It is to be realized." Hence Vedanta

says therefore let us go into the meaning of Mind and thus we can get at realization.

Again Srimad Bhagavatam says, "The gross universe is not different from the Mind,

which is Brahman." All these quotations prove that Advaita teaches that Mind is none

other than what India calls Self, Atman, Universe and Brahman.

(48.42) "Every word uttered is already a lie" said some Greek philosopher. This is the

same as our Indian teaching that words can only falsify Brahman.

(48.43) You need not run away from thoughts as yogis do; let them go on but merely

consider them as Brahman, Mind.

(48.44) Brahman is silence. Knowing that, you need not enter into discussion if you want

to get at truth, for words are only words, ideas; but to refute others we may use words. In

the verbal expression of every position that can be taken up including ours, there is

contradiction. Whatever is said by me, another man will say no, it is so and so. Thus as

soon as he begins to discuss, he falls into the world of duality. Nevertheless his dualistic

position will be superior to that of all others because he will try to keep the ego out of it

and because it is based on reason. When he has used his thinking to refute the thoughts of

others, as one thorn to pull out others, he will then have to give up his own position and

merge into non-duality, positionless. The line of thoughts (this thorn) used will then fall

away of themselves. In the final stage of argument gnan can only show that both he and

the opponent are limited by contradiction in every word and sentence. Give up the

misleading and impossible idea that you are going to establish Brahman by means of

books, writings, speech and other words. All you can do is to refute other people's

arguments about Brahman. He who has realized Brahman has nobody to argue with

because there is then only one, no second person than himself.

CHAPTER 50: THE ULTIMATE AS REALITY

(49.1) The snake-rope illusion doctrine is the first stage of inquiry: a novice's preliminary

step: but the higher stage reveals that the illusion itself is reality: only beginners talk of

world as illusory: the wise make no distinction and find reality in everything. You give

up name and form at an earlier stage only to discover later on that they too are Brahman.

However the first step of negating the world is necessary to help student. It is equivalent

to the melting process, of throwing many gold ornaments into one mass in order to learn

what gold is in itself, apart from its forms. Once known we may recast the mass back into

original shaped ornaments and ever after know then as gold alone. You eliminate

differences tentatively by taking away all forms in order to know eventually that

everything is Brahman.

(49.2) If the universe exists in me, then when the idea of me also goes, then the universal

illusion goes with it. This is the most advanced position in Vedanta. In other words a

separate universe no longer exists for gnani. Even the super-imposition of the world on

my mind is then seen to be illusory: Gnani knows in this higher stage that

super-imposition is only the mind: that nothing else is.

(49.3) You can know the Brahman only by being it.

(49.4) Atman by itself is undifferentiated, has no characteristics and is the same in all,

just as the sun itself is unchanged amid all the changing colors of its reflected light.

(49.5) Mysticism may teach oneness; we go still further and teach that you are ALL.

(49.6) "All is Brahman" is not correct "All this is Brahman'' is correct.

(49.7) Even here in the midst of world-imagination, the Brahman is eternal and now; the

notion that the world must be shut out in order to see Brahman is therefore false.

(49.8) Nothing exists distinct from Atman. When you know truth, then the whole

universal existence is reality itself.

(49.9) Even the discipline and mental training you have to pass through to acquire truth

are after all imagination. You are still Brahman.

(49.10) It is insane to say the world of multiplicity is non-existent. It is correct to say it is

there, but unreal, like the snake/rope.

(49.11) "Becoming one with Brahman" means seeing the whole world in you, for on

seeing this you know your universal oneness.

(49.12) Those who say or think "in the course of time I shall gain knowledge, heaven

etc." cannot gain truth. For they are now the inhabitants of truth and have not to gain it.

They are ignorant for they expect change in that where there is and can be no change.

They think they are going to change because they are attached to body and personality,

this is their illusion.

(49.13) The nearest English equivalent to the word BRAHMAN is ULTIMATE

REALITY.

(49.14) Sat Chit Ananda is not the highest truth, but the step immediately below it. It is

Brahman with attributes whereas Brahman is attributeless.

(49.15) If Brahman is ever the same, how has it changed into the world? Reply: That is

the pantheistic position, not ours. Brahman never changes, only appears to as in dream.

(49.16) Even the changing world of ideas, the illusory phenomena of Maya are nothing

but Brahman in the end. Hence the changing is ultimately the unchanging, the illusion

proves to be the real on further inquiry. Brahman only appears to have undergone change,

just as mind appears to change in dream but it is really unaffected.

(49.17) Duality is only the appearance of mind. It is never found in sleep, when mind is

not functioning. When the mind is working we see the world. Hence the world is a mental

creation, is nothing but mind alone.

(49.18) Maya is also Brahman. Really speaking, there is no Maya; Brahman alone is.

(49.19) The word "monism" as used to translate "Advaita" is wrong. The correct word is

"non-duality." The reason is that "One" has a meaning only as distinguished from two,

three, etc. whereas there exists no "two"; there can be no "one-ism."

(49.20) The idea that Gnanam means the absence of everything, so as to make One

without second, is a false idea. That is mere sleep, Gnanam means that he sees all objects

and creatures and yet at the same time sees they are all One. Hence gnanam is not

absence of everything, but the presence of everything. When you see many things you

must also see Oneness. This is the paradox of Gnana. It is difficult. Every fool can see the

world, but he cannot see its Oneness. It is not Gnanam if you do not see it now and in the

waking state. There are then no doubts. Hence after perfection in Samadhi, the yogi must

begin inquiry. After a time he may finish his inquiry and reach Gnanam.

(49.21) Our philosophical teaching is not that unity exists in multiplicity but that unity

alone is. Multiplicity does not exist.

(49.22) You must see your body, all other bodies, everything as ideas which you know as

self. This is realization. It can come only after you know the Seen is not separate from the

Seer.

(49.23) Similarly the world now is Brahman, just as the waves are even now made of

water in the ocean--when things appear they are Brahman, when they disappear they are

Brahman. There is really nothing new, nothing born, everything ultimately is Brahman

and not different from it. Just as in dream, the persons, mountains, colors forms, actions

were all mind, and nothing else, so all that you see in this world, whether beautiful, or

ugly is Atman or Brahman.

(49.24) ''Illusion" means that it does not affect the reality. The snake illusion does not

affect or change the rope. You have not become a man, you are what you always were,

eternal Brahman.

(49.25) When you think or speak of a doubt there must be a second thing. In a unity no

doubt can arise. This is difficult to understand. So we use illustration of deep sleep. You

do not say you are dead then, yet you do not have any second things nor any doubt in that

state. Losing and gaining, fear and hope, depend on having a second thing. But unity

abolishes all these changes and gives you freedom: it takes you beyond all grief and

delusion because it takes you into a frame of mind where you are beyond all property,

relatives, wealth, desires etc. The real object of all scriptures is to take you beyond all

grief, therefore, by bringing you into unity. Worry and fear and delusion cannot exist in

unity, which is the Atman. Thus Vedanta is for the good of mankind not merely for

discussion or word-mongering.

(49.26) Sleeping, eating, water, rice, teaching, everything is Brahman. So how can you

say that philosophy has nothing to do with worldly existence?

(49.27) Nothing can be lost. There need be no fear or sorrow. All still exists in the

Atman. There is no second to be afraid of. Sorrow implies sorrowing for some thing or

someone i.e. a duality.

(49.28) The Gnani sees both variety and unity simultaneously. That is the test of Gnan.

Otherwise the world would have been full of sages. He is fully aware of the differences in

the world, yet is aware of the underlying unity. The gnani seeing a woman sees her

simultaneously as both woman and Atman; as he is already aware that he is really the

Atman, he has no impulse of lust towards her because she is already within his mind,

although he knows she is only an idea.

(49.29) There to no separate individual enjoyment of supreme Bliss. That is told only to

the common people. Ananda means the perpetual absence of grief.

(49.30) Highly important to students: 1st the witness stage. Separate yourself from the

world . 2nd. What is the nature of the seen? Inquire into the nature of the world and find

it to be idea. 3rd. Find all this to be the same as witness, i.e. stage of unity with the world;

all fused as One. There are the above three stages of progress in Vedantic inquiry. The

first belongs to the beginner and is Drg Drsya Viveka analysis. The second belongs to the

intermediate course; the third is the highest and the Witness is the same as the witnessed,

i.e. non-duality. The first and second stages are in the world of duality. Hence the idea of

Self as Witness is not the highest one. The third lifts you into non-duality.

(49.31) Vedanta shows that the lost is also Brahman, hence will come back to you; that

which you hold dearest in this world, you need not be afraid of losing. Only there will be

a change of appearance. In the Vedantic need for detachment there is no final or real lose

of world as with ascetic yoga, but a readjustment for the unreal world disappears into real

unity. When you know that the second thing is also yourself there is no fear of losing it.

When you are swayed by duality, this fear arises. Know that everything and everyone

disappears ultimately into Me and hence cannot be lost.

(49.32) The gnani knows that the reality is himself, that the world which is seen is only

an appearance.

(49.33) People think the gnani ought not to perceive the world. Truth is gnani may see it

and yet know it does not exist in reality. The illustration is audience which sees

magician’s illusion show and yet they know it is not real.

(49.34) The gnani never thinks any object to be real, but only mental whether it be of the

waking or dream states; and he knows that all ideas, objects are but his mental

construction's only. He is always sarva Drg sada!

(49.35) It is impossible for the mind to free itself from all seen objects. But even though

the Gnani must see them, it is as though they were seen in a dream. You are said to be in

waking state when you see a second thing, but he Gnani does not take what he sees for

reality.

(49.36) The Gnani knows he is untouched by Drsyam; the agnani feels just the opposite.

Duality may be perceived--the table may be seen; even when you consider the world real,

it cannot affect Atman. Gnana makes you fearless since it tells you appearances are only

imaginary, which is shown through Vichara or science.

(49.37) The gnani sees not only the name and form of objects, as others do, but he also

thinks of their essence, the substance of which they are made. To both of them the world

is still there.

(49.38) Anyone in sleep or anesthesia can be without duality, but it takes Gnan to be

awake, see the world, and yet be without sense of duality and feel oneness.

(49.39) To see the whole world in me implies duality, a second i.e. the world which is to

be seen. The gnani therefore sees the second but understands it, for he sees it as an idea in

his mind, i.e. himself.

(49.40) If you think of yourself as one and God as another, then there is duality, but if

both ego-thought and God-thought are absent, there is non-duality.

(49.41) Everything will not become one in realization. You will have everything still

there, but you will know all the objects to be only mind.

(49.42) When we rise to consider all things as Mind, Brahman, the hypothesis of

evolution disappears, becomes meaningless, for who is there to evolve, to question?

(49.43) If the world did not exist we could not talk of it. It has to be seen, just like a city

seen in a mirror and it has to be experienced, but it has to be known as being unreal. This

is a test of gnan. Similarly the aim of Vedanta is to show the nature of the world as

unreal.

(49.44) People are under the wrong impression that what changes is not Brahman. This is

only a lower stage, tentatively taken up in order to distinguish between drg and drsyam,

to show the world of objects is only a world of ideas. But at a higher stage even the

changing is known as Brahman, even the multitude of ideas is unified as Mind.

(49.45) You may put a stick in water a thousand times but it will always be seen as bent,

even though you know it to be straight. Similarly you may know that all the individual

forms are a unity, Brahman, and yet you will continue to see them as separate entities,

even though you are a gnani. This is the higher lesson of the study of illusions.

(49.46) All activity in this world is ultimately for the realization of Brahman. Such is the

Upanishadic teaching. Why do men work and eat? Because they want to keep their

bodies alive, and in good condition. Why this? Because the body is necessary to live and

fulfill life's ultimate object---they have to attain Brahman. Why do we meet here---

teacher and pupil? It is to attain Brahman.

(49.47) Atman is not a thing to be attained, it is always there nearer than your body. No

other effort is necessary than the knowledge of it.

(49.48) Only truth can give you the highest satisfaction: unless you realize that

everything is in you, there is no complete satisfaction.

(49.50) All have false notions regarding Iswara. As long as they know not Brahman, they

don't know Iswara.

(49.51) The Gnani sees and knows the table as a table, but at the same time he knows that

it is only Brahman.

(49.52) If we say that non-existence is truth, then you have got Gnan. It is only purposes

of elementary analysis that we take away the individual forms and the two states to get at

Brahman. But this is tentative. Nothing need disappear, the world can exist. Maya can

remain simultaneous with reality in the ultimate truth, for everything is Brahman.

Nothing can be rejected. "All this" (sarvam) is constantly repeated in the books.

(49.53) The talk of when snake disappears rope is seen, hence when Maya goes, reality is

seen, is merely an illustration of a particular point, illusion. Do not push it further. For

when the pundits say that Maya is not Brahman they are talking nonsense. Both

snake-idea and rope reality are Brahman: Nothing is to be destroyed or lost to gain

Brahman.

(49.54) There is an erroneous impression that a thought is not Brahman; that imagining

must be stopped to get at Atman, and thoughts banished or controlled out of existence.

But Brihad points out that when there is a thought present, you have got only Brahman:

and when there is no thinking, Brahman is there likewise. Whatever happens or does not

happen to the mind, you have only Brahman. Thus, anything or any event may come in

your dream, but all remains as Mind, your own self. Because a tiger is running in your

dream you cannot say it is not Mind. Similarly if thoughts come in waking, you cannot

say they are not yourself, Mind.

(49.55) Just as low intellects anthropomorphize their God, so even higher ones may make

an object (a duality) of their own non-dual Atman by forming their own conception of it,

for that is only a thought, i.e. an object. The way out is to know that thought is not

different from Yourself: the moment you think it to be different, you turn it into an

object.

(49.56) Our reply to those who say that if ignorance and illusion go, then Brahman

comes, is that both ignorance and illusion are also Brahman, hence there has never really

been any coming or going of them.

(49.57) If you think that the universe exists as a reality, as a second entity, other than

yourself that is ignorance. You may see a thousand things but if you know they exist as

ideas in the mind, i.e. in yourself, that is knowledge. Gnan does not mean things are not

to be seen; they will be seen, as the mirage is seen but known to be illusory, as the

awakened knows his dream-world to have existed only in his mind. In short, ignorance

means taking imaginations of multiplicity for reality. Seeing multiplicity is not wrong,

only seeing its contents as realities.

(49.58) All your Gods, Brahmas, Vishnus are your thoughts. You created your God, he

did not create you. When you know that all those Gods are only Mind, as you are, then

you know God as He really is. You should know that all the Gods are only the one single

fundamental "substance"--Mind.

(49.59) Atman is Brahman means that one's self is as big as the universe.

(49.60) You may see the mirage as water, you may see it a second time after realization

and know that it is not water but even as a gnani you will still see it as water but know it

as otherwise. The seeing is not altered, only the knowing. Similarly the world will still be

seen by the sage and, its appearance will be exactly like its appearance to ordinary men:

there will be no difference in the visual sensation: but the gnani will also evaluate it as

unreal.

(49.61) The desire for eating food is the unconscious desire for the happiness for unity for

making the food one with your body. If however you eat indigestible foods, i.e. foods

with which you cannot become one, you become unhappy.

(49.62) First Stage: (lower stage of path) That object gives me its experience. That

experience is an illusion.

Second Stage: Higher: The object, the experience of it and myself are all Mind, Brahman.

(49.63) There is no limitation in you as Brahman, you were always there as It and no

production by effort was ever needed. All that is needed is inquiry into what you are, not

creation. There is no becoming Brahman. Investigate--and this shows you It. Where dull

people say, No, I am imperfect, then to make it easier for them, we say, alright, then use

effort to become Brahman. But this is only a concession to illusion.

(49.64) Man thinks that the world is outside himself; hence his desires are for external

objects. When he learns the truth that the idea of the world is in mind, in himself, he no

longer seeks externals, gives up desires. He gets into the habit of realizing he is

everywhere, just as the dreamer who awakes understands that he was everywhere in his

dream; he was in every dream place and thing. Still more, he identifies himself with

everyone; practices goodwill.

(49.65) There is no distinction between unreal and real for the Gnani, only for the

student. Hence in seeing the table, he knows he sees Brahman. It is not a question of

seeing a table first, and then interpreting it as Brahman.

(49.66) If you think that the Gnani sees the table first and realizes it is Brahman next,

then you have got the idea of time. Time is only imaginary. The truth is that Gnani sees

table and knows it as Brahman in a single simultaneous operation. The eye which sees

Brahman and the eye which sees the table work stereoscopically just as the two physical

eyes see a single object.

CHAPTER 50: THE NEED OF ULTRA-MYSTICISM

(50.1) We are under the illusion that the knowledge of Brahman can be realized only

when the perceptual world disappears. But the perceptual world is appearing and

disappearing every moment!

(50.2) When I see the world am I not aware of it? The awareness is there. Awareness is

Brahman. When I am not seeing the world, my awareness is still there. So the Brahman is

not lost by becoming conscious of objective world, as yogis wrongly assert.

(50.3) Ascetics who want to give up the world, really want to give up Brahman. The

world is as much Brahman as anything. "Everything is Brahman" says the texts. Hence

their disdain for science, comforts, modern inventions, etc. is disdain for Brahman! What

they ought to give up is the false-knowledge of the world, the false belief in its reality,

the ignorance that it is idea. Maya also is Brahman. Get rid not of world but of the

ignorance which prevents you seeing the world as Maya.

(50.4) The fallacy of the yogis is to think because they do not see the world in samadhi,

they have realized Brahman. What about the world? Is it not Brahman too?

(50.5) Omniscient=knowing the all as Brahman. Yet mystics seek to know the Nothing!

(50.6) Brahman=that into which all things go.

(50.7) Meditation is useless to get Brahman, because that implies producing a second

thing; but it is useful to get rid of bad thoughts or wrong ones.

End

Om Tat Sat

(My humble salutations to Brahmasri Sreeman  V Subrahmanya Iyer  for the collection