365bet娱乐

The mantra 7 of the 惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 describes the Fourth (Caturtha), the 罢耻谤墨测补, as the source, support and resolution of wakeful, dream and deep sleep states. The Upanisad uses the method of negation to expound the nature of 罢耻谤墨测补 which is explained in the following pages.

The 惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 refers the absolute Self 鈥�Caturtha鈥� which is the same as 罢耻谤墨测补 in order to distinguish it from the other three changing states namely wakeful, dream and deep sleep. The word 鈥�罢耻谤墨测补鈥�, like the word 鈥�Caturtha鈥�, means the 鈥楩ourth鈥� is highly significant, as it serves to distinguish the Self from 痴颈艣惫补, Taijasa and 笔谤腻箩帽补. The 惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 uses the word 鈥�Caturtha鈥� and not 鈥�罢耻谤墨测补鈥�. But since both words mean the same they are used as synonyms. The term 鈥�Caturtha鈥� (罢耻谤墨测补) is used only in relation to three states of wakeful, dream and deep sleep. On the discussion of 罢耻谤墨测补 in the 惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 it appears that the three states of wakeful, dream and deep sleep are only contextually called a 鈥榮tate鈥�. Similarly, the number 鈥榝ourth鈥� has also to be understood contextually. It is incorrect to think that the 鈥榝ourth鈥� is yet another state of experience that is entirely separate from the three states. The 鈥榝ourth鈥� is the invariable substrate of the three states. In the strict sense, 罢耻谤墨测补 is neither a 鈥榮tate鈥� nor the 鈥楩ourth鈥�.

艢补峁卥补谤补 as a prelude to the mantra 7 of the 惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 begins by saying the fourth quarter which follows in order has to be stated. This is presented in the words of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 as 鈥榥ot conscious of the internal object鈥� (苍腻苍迟补岣�-辫谤补箩帽补峁�) etc. He says that 罢耻谤墨测补 cannot be indicated by words. It is indescribable (anabhidheya) because 罢耻谤墨测补 is devoid of every characteristic that can make the use of words possible. Therefore, the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 seeks to describe/indicate 罢耻谤墨测补 merely through the negation of all attributes.

Negation of all attributes does not mean that 罢耻谤墨测补 is 艣耻苍测补, viz. a mere void, as claimed by some opponents. According to 艢补峁卥补谤补 all illusory appearances have a real substratum. For example, even in the empirical world, there could be no false appearance of silver without a piece of shell as its substratum. The same is true of other illusory appearances like snake, man and the mirage which have for their substrate, rope, stump and desert respectively. 罢耻谤墨测补 is the substratum for all appearances including the body and phenomenal world.

To this explanation of 艢补峁卥补谤补, the opponents raises an objection by saying that: if 罢耻谤墨测补 is the ground or the substratum for all appearances like vital breath (辫谤腻峁嘺) etc. then it can be described in affirmation and not by the negation of all attributes, as a jar which is the substratum of water is described in affirmation.

To this objection, 艢补峁卥补谤补 replies that 辫谤腻峁嘺 and other phenomenon are illusory appearances like the illusory appearance of silver on a shell. The relation between the real (the substratum) and the unreal (appearance) cannot be described by words, because such relation is, itself, non-existent. 罢耻谤墨测补, by its intrinsic nature, cannot be the object of any other means of knowledge like the perception etc. 罢耻谤墨测补 transcends the subject-object duality. 罢耻谤墨测补 is not an object of knowledge, because it is free from all conditioning adjuncts (耻辫腻诲丑颈蝉). An object which is empirical can be described as belonging to a class possessing class feature (箩腻迟颈), or quality (驳耻峁嘺), or action (办谤颈测腻), or relation (蝉补峁僢补苍诲丑补); sometimes, it may be signified by a conventional word (谤耻岣峢颈) used only with reference to it. For example, an object which possesses the class feature, viz., cowness, is signified by the word cow (gau). An object which possesses the quality, viz, blue colour is called 苍墨濒补岣�. Similarly, we call the cook a 鈥�辫腻肠补办补岣�鈥� as he performs the act of cooking. So, there are reasons such as the class feature, quality, action, relation and conventional usage for the application of words to objects. Since none of these features are present in 罢耻谤墨测补, it cannot be directly signified by a word. It has neither generic nor specific characteristics because it is one without a second. 罢耻谤墨测补 possessing no activity is not known by any activity, but is the eternal and all pervasive ground from which all activities seem to emerge. It has no qualities, like blueness etc. For all these reasons 罢耻谤墨测补 cannot be indicated by words or names. The 艢谤耻迟颈 also validates this view by saying that the Self is 鈥榯hat from which speech returns鈥� (Tai U. 2,4.1).

The opponents point out that if 罢耻谤墨测补 cannot be described or signified by language, then it would be non-existent like the 鈥榟orns of a hare鈥�; and any effort to pursue the knowledge of 罢耻谤墨测补 will be futile.

To this objection 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that the effort is not futile. When the 罢耻谤墨测补, the fourth, is known as one鈥檚 鈥楽elf鈥� (腻迟尘补苍), all craving for the non-self (an腻迟尘补苍) comes to an end as the craving for silver ceases the moment it is realized to be a shell. Indeed, there can be no possibility of such defects as ignorance, desire and the like, after the realization of 罢耻谤墨测补 as one鈥檚 own Self. There is no reason why 罢耻谤墨测补 should not be realised as identical with one鈥檚 own Self, since it is the intended purport of all 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲s such as: 鈥楾hou art that鈥� (Ch膩ndogya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 6.8-16); 鈥楾his Brahman is the Self鈥� (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. 2.5.19); 鈥楾hat is true, that is the Self鈥� (Ch膩ndogya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 6.8.7); 鈥楤rahman is realised directly and immediately鈥� (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. 3.4.1);鈥橳hat which is within and without and unborn鈥� (Mu峁囜笉 U 2.1.2); 鈥楢ll this is indeed the Self鈥� (Ch膩ndogya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 7.25.2)鈥搕hese and other texts declare the 罢耻谤墨测补 to be 腻迟尘补苍, the Self^[1].

This very Self, the Supreme Reality in its real and unreal aspects is described as having four quarters. It鈥檚 unreal aspect which is due to ignorance, having the characteristics of three quarters, is like the superimposition of a snake on a rope and that of the nature of the seed and the sprout i.e., establishing the relationship of cause and effect. By its very nature 罢耻谤墨测补, the Fourth that is free from causality, and is like the substratum of rope is described by negating the three quarters which are like the superimposed/illusory snake on a rope.

The 尘腻苍迟谤补 7 of the 惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 describes 罢耻谤墨测补, as follows:

The 罢耻谤墨测补 is not Taijasa which is conscious of the internal world (苍腻苍迟补岣�-辫谤补箩帽补m); it is not 痴补颈艣惫腻苍补谤补 which is conscious of external world (na-bahi峁１璋�补箩帽补峁� [产补丑颈峁�p谤补箩帽补]); it is not a form of self which is aware of a state between wakeful and dream (nobhayata岣ケ璋�补箩帽补峁� [苍补-耻产丑补测补迟补岣�p谤补箩帽补]); it is not the massed consciousness of the state of sleep (na 辫谤补箩帽腻苍补驳丑补苍补峁� [辫谤补箩帽腻苍补驳丑补苍补]); it is not the cognizer of all things at the same time (na 辫谤补箩帽补峁� [辫谤补箩帽补]); nor non-cognitive as what is inert (n膩辫谤补箩帽补峁� [a辫谤补箩帽补峁�]). It is unseen (补-诲峁涐梗峁璦尘 [补诲峁涐梗峁璦]), not related to anything (补-惫测补惫补丑腻谤测补尘 [补惫测补惫补丑腻谤测补]), it is ungraspable (补-驳谤腻丑测补尘 [补驳谤腻丑测补]) by senses and uninferable by 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉 (补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘 [补濒补办峁�a峁嘺]). It is beyond the reach of thought and word (acintyam [acintya]). It cannot be designated by words (补-惫测补辫补诲别艣测补尘 [补惫测补辫补诲别艣测补]). It is the essence of the knowledge of one鈥檚 Self (别办腻迟尘补辫谤补迟测补蝉腻谤补峁� [别办腻迟尘补辫谤补迟测补蝉腻谤补]); that into which the world gets resolved (辫谤补辫补帽肠辞辫补艣补尘补峁� [辫谤补辫补帽肠辞辫补艣补尘补]). It is peaceful (艣补苍迟补峁� [艣补苍迟补]), the auspicious (艣颈惫补峁� [艣颈惫补]), and the non-dual (补诲惫补颈迟补峁� [advaita]) that is the Fourth, the Self, which is to be known (sa 惫颈箩帽别测补岣�).^[2]

According to the above description of the mantra 7, 罢耻谤墨测补 is distinct from 痴颈艣惫补, Taijasa, and 笔谤腻箩帽补 because it remains independent of adjuncts (奴辫补诲丑颈蝉). 罢耻谤墨测补 can be described only negatively as non-perceivable, non-inferable, unthinkable and unspeakable, etc. The reason for this is that 罢耻谤墨测补 is trans-empirical, trans-relational and beyond the speech. When the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 says that (罢耻谤墨测补) is to be known, knowing in this case is not only discovering the Self, but also remaining as the silent immutable Self, remaining in one鈥檚 own nature (svarupa-sthiti) and losing sight of the objective world. By stating that 罢耻谤墨测补 is na 辫谤补箩帽补m, there is a total denial of 罢耻谤墨测补 as belonging to the category of cognizer (辫谤补尘腻迟腻) of objects. Again by saying that it is neither 鈥�a辫谤补箩帽补鈥� it is meant that 罢耻谤墨测补 is not 鈥�acetana鈥� (insentient). The single positive statement that the three states change, but the Self as a witness remains unchanging as the one essence of knowledge is brought out in the phrase (别办腻迟尘补辫谤补迟测补测蝉腻谤补). This phrase is amidst a series of negation.

The 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲ic mantra states that the Self has four quarters. However, it may be contended that if the fourth quarter is established as other than the first three quarters characterised by 鈥榗onscious of the internal world鈥� etc., then negation of their attributes for the purpose of indicating 罢耻谤墨测补, the Fourth as 鈥榥ot conscious of the internal world鈥� etc., is futile. 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that this contention is not valid. He asserts that as the nature of the rope can be realized only by negating the illusory appearances of the snake etc., similarly, the 腻迟尘补苍, the Self, residing in the three states will be revealed when the three states superimposed (补诲丑测腻谤辞辫补) on it have been negated. So what is called 罢耻谤墨测补, the Fourth state, is really nothing other than the 腻迟尘补苍, the Self present in all the three states. The 惭腻摩 岣嵟玨ya Upani鈥�ad resorts to this method of negation (补辫补惫腻诲补) to reveal the Self that resides as the substratum of the three states. This method is also adopted in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲ic (Ch膩ndogya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 6, 8-16) 惭补丑腻惫腻办测补 鈥楾hat thou art鈥� (tat tvam asi). In this 惭补丑腻惫腻办测补, even though the statement is made in an affirmative manner one has to take both the words 鈥榯hat鈥� and 鈥榯hou鈥� in the secondary sense (濒补办峁�y腻谤迟丑补). The real significance of 鈥榯hat thou art鈥�, is 罢耻谤墨测补, and it is realized when the adjuncts (耻辫腻诲丑颈蝉) indicated by the words 鈥榯hat鈥� and 鈥榯hou鈥� are eliminated.

The description of the Reality using the negative method in the mantra 7 is to establish that this very 腻迟尘补苍 in the three states is none but 罢耻谤墨测补 itself. If the 罢耻谤墨测补 had been really different from the Self which is present in the three states and had possessed characteristics other than those possessed by the Self, then the negative method adopted by the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 would have failed to reveal it. The teachings of the scripture then would have no meaning on account of the absence of any instrument of knowledge regarding 罢耻谤墨测补. If 罢耻谤墨测补 cannot be established through the negation of the three states superimposed upon the Self the other alternative thus remains to declare absolute nihilism as the ultimate truth.

The fact is that the three states, wakeful (痴颈艣惫补), dream (Taijasa) deep sleep (笔谤腻箩帽补) are all adjuncts (耻辫腻诲丑颈蝉) falsely superimposed upon the same Self as a snake, garland, streak of water etc. on the same rope. When these illusory appearances are removed by means of right knowledge, the knowledge of 罢耻谤墨测补 gets accessed. For this reason, no further instrument/means of knowledge such as yogic meditation etc. is to be sought for the realization of 罢耻谤墨测补.

The negation of the illusory appearances and the revelation of 罢耻谤墨测补 are simultaneous. Like the moment one distinguishes between the snake and the rope, the snake perception is corrected and the ever existing rope gets revealed. The knowledge of rope does not require any further proof or any activity. In other words, no additional means (辫谤补尘腻峁嘺) is sought for knowing the rope.

The realization of 罢耻谤墨测补 is not the result of the operation of 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺. The methodology of 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺 in empirical knowledge requires the three, namely knower, known and knowledge. According to 艢补峁卥补谤补, the falsification of the three states is the only valid means of the knowledge of 罢耻谤墨测补 and he calls it 鈥�prati艣edha vij帽anar奴pa 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺鈥�. This falsification alone can reveal the 罢耻谤墨测补. The revelation of the 罢耻谤墨测补 and the falsification of the three states are simultaneous and not successive in time. After the falsification of the conditioned adjuncts, nothing new emerges known as 罢耻谤墨测补. The 罢耻谤墨测补 is ever present. So there is no possibility of considering 罢耻谤墨测补 as a new emerging result (phala) due to the falsification of the three states. No means of empirical knowledge can establish 罢耻谤墨测补 because of its non-dual and non-relational nature.

According to 艢补峁卥补谤补, a jar to be cognized in darkness requires light and nothing else. It is absurd to believe that something other than light is required to illumine the jar. To be able to perceive the jar enveloped in darkness all that is required is the light for dispelling the darkness. The means one adopts to dispel the darkness would amount to the means of knowing it. The means are effective in removing the darkness enveloping the jar in question; though they are ineffective in bringing about the existence of the jar. Knowledge of the jar immediately happens on its own, as the darkness enveloping the jar gets dispelled. In other words, knowledge of the jar is therefore not the result (phala) of the means of knowledge (辫谤补尘腻峁嘺), the jar already exists even when it was enveloped in darkness. One does not create jar but only the perception of it.

Likewise, the very negation of the attributes viz. the three states superimposed on the Self reveals 罢耻谤墨测补, the Self, though the knowledge of 罢耻谤墨测补 is not the direct result of the negation of these attributes. Because this knowledge of 罢耻谤墨测补 ever being present is not something that is attained, reached, achieved after some purificatory rituals. No instrument of knowledge can act upon or create 罢耻谤墨测补, as 罢耻谤墨测补 is knowledge itself. When 罢耻谤墨测补 is realized, the distinction between the knower, knowledge and known ceases. Therefore, the purpose of the scriptures is only to accomplish the falsification of attributes of three states. This is stated categorically by 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 鈥渨hen the Highest Truth is realized duality ceases to exist鈥� (骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补办腻谤颈办腻. I.18). The knowledge of subject鈥搊bject duality cannot survive upon the falsification of duality. If the knowledge of duality continues to persist, then one requires 鈥榢nowledge鈥� to replace this knowledge and the process thus will lead to infinite regress rendering the falsification of duality impossible. Therefore, it is established that with the falsification of the three states namely wakeful, dream and deep sleep; the knowledge of 罢耻谤墨测补 gets revealed.

Having shown the absolute importance of the negative description of 罢耻谤墨测补 in mantra 7, we now proceed to elaborate 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 commentary on the meaning of the terms like 苍腻苍迟补岣�-辫谤补箩帽补m etc. The word 鈥榥ot conscious of the internal world鈥� 苍腻苍迟补岣�-辫谤补箩帽补m is that 罢耻谤墨测补 is not Taijasa or its limitations. By the phrase na产补丑颈峁�p谤补箩帽补m [na产补丑颈峁�p谤补箩帽补] not 鈥渃onscious of the external world is meant that it is not 痴颈艣惫补鈥�. By stating that 罢耻谤墨测补 is nobhayata岣ケ璋�补箩帽补m [苍补-耻产丑补测补迟补岣�p谤补箩帽补] 鈥渘ot both internal and external consciousness鈥�, it negates any intermediate state between the wakeful and the dream. When it says, 鈥渋t is not a mass of consciousness (na 辫谤补箩帽腻苍补驳丑补苍补峁�)鈥�, it negates the state of deep sleep which is a state of non-discrimination as well the cause of both wakeful and dream states. Further in the deep sleep state one cannot distinguish the truth from error.

And when the text says, 鈥渋t is not conscious (na 辫谤补箩帽补m)鈥�, it negates all agency in any act of knowledge of an object. There is an altogether denial of 罢耻谤墨测补 belonging to the category of (辫谤补尘腻迟峁�) knower of all objects. When it says, 鈥渋t is not nonconscious (n膩辫谤补箩帽补峁�)鈥� it negates non-consciousness (acaitanyam [acaitanya]). This implies that 罢耻谤墨测补 is not insentient (acetana) or of the nature of matter.

It may be objected that the attributes as 鈥榗onscious of the internal world鈥� (补苍迟补岣ケ璋�补箩帽补m [补苍迟补岣ケ璋�补箩帽��]) etc., cannot be held to be non-existent on the analogy of the rope and the snake. In the case of rope -snake analogy the illusory snake gets falsified with the knowledge of the rope. The opponents argue that the attributes of being conscious of 鈥榠nternal world鈥� (补苍迟补岣�-辫谤补箩帽补峁�) etc., which are directly apprehended as belonging to the Self, cannot be compared to the falsification of illusory snake on the rope. With the knowledge of rope, the snake perception not only ceases to exist but also becomes non-existent. However, in the case of the three states, they may be negated but cannot become non-existent like the falsified snake on the rope.

艢补峁卥补谤补 thus replies to this objection saying that the attributes viz. the three states of wakeful, dream and deep sleep, being subject to change, can be proved to be nonexistent by the act of negation. Here, he emphasizes that the analogy of the snake and the rope is appropriate. The illusory appearances of the rope as the snake, the water line, garland etc. are non-existent because such appearances are subject to change.

Similarly, the three states are subject to change as one state sublates the other states. The states come and go and exclude one another mutually. However, the Self persists through them being unchanged. It thus follows that the successive states are mere illusions and their substratum, the Self, is real. One cannot object that the Self or Consciousness appears to change in deep sleep, for deep sleep is something one actually experiences. One rising from deep sleep says, 鈥業 slept happily, and I did not know anything鈥� this memory would not have been possible unless the state was witnessed with the help of Consciousness so as to produce the necessary impressions. The 艣谤耻迟颈 also confirms this in the text 鈥渒nowledge of the knower is never absent鈥� (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. 4.3.30)^[3].

We now proceed to unravel the meaning of the other terms used for describing 罢耻谤墨测补. It is described as 鈥渦nseen鈥� (补-诲峁涐梗峁璦尘 [补诲峁涐梗峁璦]) which means that it is not an object of sensory perception. Senses like eyes, ears etc. cannot know It, because It is the very source of all sensory perceptions. It never becomes an object of the act of knowing. It is because 罢耻谤墨测补 is the negation of all the attributes. Being invisible (unseen), it is not within the sphere of empirical dealings (补-惫测补惫补丑腻谤测补尘 [补惫测补惫补丑腻谤测补]). One cannot transact with it as one would with an empirical object. It is also not accessible to the organs of action. The text says 罢耻谤墨测补 has no defining characteristic (濒补办峁�a峁嘺) or inferential mark (濒颈峁単补) that could enable one to infer its existence, as one could infer the existence of the invisible fire from the visible mark of smoke. An inference has a common feature which always presupposes more than one cognitive element. Being one without a second, 罢耻谤墨测补 is not inferable. 罢耻谤墨测补 is unthinkable (acintya), and also not subject to direct communication through words because that which one thinks in mind is expressed by words.

罢耻谤墨测补 is 鈥榚ssentially of the nature of Consciousness consisting of Self鈥� (别办腻迟尘补辫谤补迟测补测补蝉腻谤补). The meaning is that it has to be accepted as real because we have the constant and unfailing conviction 鈥渢his Self is one鈥� persisting as the changeless and constant factor through the successive mutually exclusive states of wakeful,dream and deep sleep. This phrase is intended to show that 罢耻谤墨测补 though described in a negative way, is not 艣耻苍测补 or non-existent.

艢补峁卥补谤补 gives an alternative explanation of the phrase 鈥�别办腻-atma-pratyaya-蝉腻谤补鈥�. He says that this phrase should be interpreted to mean that upon realisation of the 罢耻谤墨测补, one becomes aware of the unchanging /constant presence of one鈥檚 Self. In the first explanation 罢耻谤墨测补 is described indirectly as the unchanging Self in the three states. The second explanation is to show that 罢耻谤墨测补 can be directly cognized as the Self. 鈥業t should be meditated upon as 腻迟尘补苍, as the Self, declares a 艢谤耻迟颈 text (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. 1.4.7)^[4].

So far the text has made a negation of attributes like 鈥榗onscious of the internal world鈥� (补苍迟补岣ケ璋�补箩帽��) etc., which are the attributes of the experience of the three states (蝉迟丑腻苍颈-dharma). The 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 now mentions the negation of the attributes of the three states (蝉迟丑腻苍补-dharma) altogether by saying that there is a cessation of the phenomenal universe (辫谤补辫补帽肠辞辫补苍艣补尘补尘 [辫谤补辫补帽肠辞辫补苍艣补尘补]). Hence, 罢耻谤墨测补 is ever peaceful, all bliss and non-dual. The phrase 鈥榩eaceful鈥� means that It is without attachment or hatred etc; and it is also unchanging (办奴迟补蝉迟丑补). The phrase 鈥榓ll bliss鈥� means pure and embodiment of highest bliss. 罢耻谤墨测补 is called Fourth with reference to other three quarters (辫腻诲补蝉) which are mere illusory appearances.

鈥楾his, indeed, is the 腻迟尘补苍 and it should be known鈥�, as communicated by the 惭补丑腻惫腻办测补 鈥渢hat thou art鈥� and is like knowing the rope as distinct from the illusory appearances of a snake, a line on the ground, a stick etc. This Self which has been described by such 艢谤耻迟颈 text as 鈥榯he unseen seer鈥� (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. 3.7.23), 鈥榯he seer whose power of seeing never comes to be lost鈥� (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. 4.3.3.23-30) etc., is to be known^[5]. The phrase 鈥榯o be known鈥� is used from the standpoint of the earlier condition of ignorance, for once the Self is realized, all duality cease to exist. When 罢耻谤墨测补 is realized, there no longer remains any distinction between the knower, knowledge and the known.

Before proceeding with his commentary 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 sums up the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲ic mantra 7 in a single 办腻谤颈办腻. While referring to the one unstated aspect of 罢耻谤墨测补 in the above mentioned mantra, which was implicitly conceded by the word 鈥減eaceful鈥� (艣腻苍迟补峁�), he says that 罢耻谤墨测补 is free from all sorrow. The only specific word from the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 that he mentions here is the word 鈥渘on-dual鈥� (advaita). 艢补峁卥补谤补 in his commentary on this 办腻谤颈办腻 says that the 罢耻谤墨测补腻迟尘补苍, the Self is capable of ordaining the cessation of miseries/sufferings in the nature of 笔谤腻箩帽补, Taijas and 痴颈艣惫补. It is only the knowledge of 罢耻谤墨测补 that can destroy misery. The 罢耻谤墨测补腻迟尘补苍 is unchanging (avyayah) which means that It does not become anything different from its own nature. This is so because there is nothing other than the 罢耻谤墨测补, the non-dual Self. The other objects are mere superimpositions on 腻迟尘补苍 alike a snake seen in a rope. Such a resplendent Being (Deva), known as 罢耻谤墨测补 or the Fourth is all pervading (Vibhu).

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻s 11-15 comments upon the teaching of the four quarters of the Self. He introduces distinct terminology and presents his own perspective of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲ic mantra. He says: 痴颈艣惫补 and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect. 笔谤腻箩帽补 is conditioned by cause alone but 罢耻谤墨测补 which transcends the three states is free from both cause and effect. 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that the generic and specific characteristics of the three states are described in order to ascertain the real nature of 罢耻谤墨测补. The common feature of 痴颈艣惫补 and Taijasa is that they are both characterized by non-apprehension of Reality (补驳谤补丑补峁嘺尘 [补驳谤补丑补峁嘺]) and mis-apprehension of Reality (补苍测补迟丑腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺尘 [补苍测补迟丑腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺]). Non-apprehension of Reality is the cause and mis-apprehension of Reality is the effect. In 笔谤腻箩帽补 there is only non-apprehension of Reality. The 罢耻谤墨测补 is free from both 补驳谤补丑补峁嘺尘 and 补苍测补迟丑腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺尘.

In the following 办腻谤颈办腻 12 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 points out the difference between 笔谤腻箩帽补 and 罢耻谤墨测补. He says that 笔谤腻箩帽补 does not know anything of the elf or the non-self, nor truth nor untruth, whereas, 罢耻谤墨测补 is ever existent. Being the witness of everything, 罢耻谤墨测补 is said to be all-seeing (厂补谤惫补诲峁沰). 艢补峁卥补谤补 in his commentary on this 办腻谤颈办腻 explains as to how 笔谤腻箩帽补 is conditioned by the cause (迟补迟迟惫腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺尘 [迟补迟迟惫腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺]) and 罢耻谤墨测补 is not subject to either a cause or an effect (补苍测补迟丑腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺尘 [补苍测补迟丑腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺]). 笔谤腻箩帽补, unlike 痴颈艣惫补 and Taijasa, does not apprehend the duality of the phenomenal world that is born of the seed of ignorance and is other than the Self. Hence, 笔谤腻箩帽补 is conditioned by ignorance being the non-apprehension of Reality, which is the cause (seed) of the misapprehension (补苍测补迟丑腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺尘 [补苍测补迟丑腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺]) of Reality. However, 罢耻谤墨测补 is not conditioned by non-apprehension of Reality. Since the cause (seed) is absent, mis-apprehension of Reality which is the sprout (the result) is also absent in 罢耻谤墨测补. Just as in the ever luminous sun, there is no possibility of darkness, so in the 罢耻谤墨测补 there is no possibility of ignorance. The 艢谤耻迟颈 says, 鈥淭he knowledge of the seer is never absent鈥� (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. 4.3.23), and also 鈥淭here is no seer other than this鈥� (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. 3.8.11)^[6].

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻 13 says that non-apprehension of duality is common to both 笔谤腻箩帽补 and 罢耻谤墨测补. But 笔谤腻箩苍补 is associated with sleep (ignorance) in the form of cause and 罢耻谤墨测补 is never associated with sleep. One may ask here that if nonapprehension of duality is common to both 笔谤腻箩帽补 and 罢耻谤墨测补, why should 笔谤腻箩帽补 alone be conditioned by 补惫颈诲测腻 and not 罢耻谤墨测补? 艢a帽kara also asserts that 笔谤腻箩帽补 is associated with sleep or 苍颈诲谤腻 where there is no apprehension of Reality. The 笔谤腻箩帽补 is called b墨ja苍颈诲谤腻. In 罢耻谤墨测补 such sleep in the form of non-apprehension of Reality does not exist. The 罢耻谤墨测补 is Self-Realization, the ever present Knowledge free from 补惫颈诲测腻, 办腻尘补 and karma. Thus the binding cause (补惫颈诲测腻) is never associated with 罢耻谤墨测补. In the 罢耻谤墨测补 there is no trace of ignorance.

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 explains the term 鈥渄ream鈥� (svapna) and 鈥渟leep鈥� (苍颈诲谤腻) in 办腻谤颈办腻 14. He says that the first two (痴颈艣惫补 and Taijasa) are associated with dream and sleep. 笔谤腻箩帽补 is associated with sleep alone, sleep without dream. Those who are certain about the Truth see that there is neither sleep nor dream in 罢耻谤墨测补. Dream or svapna is the misapprehension of Reality (补苍测补迟丑腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺), a distorted perception. This is like seeing a snake in the rope. Sleep (苍颈诲谤腻) is the 鈥榥on-apprehension of reality (tattvaapratibodha). The Knower of Brahman, does not see dream and sleep in 罢耻谤墨测补, as it would be inconsistent like seeing darkness in the sun. Therefore, 罢耻谤墨测补 has been described as not associated with the conditions of cause and effect.

As explained above the words 鈥榮leep鈥� and 鈥榙ream鈥� do not refer to the states of sleep and dream, what they refer to is some condition that is associated with the three states. 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 clarifies that condition in 办腻谤颈办腻 15. He says, 鈥榙ream鈥� (svapna) belongs to the one who misapprehends Reality. 鈥楽leep鈥� (苍颈诲谤腻) belongs to one who does not know Reality. When both of these errors are removed, one attains the 罢耻谤墨测补.

艢补峁卥补谤补 in his commentary on the above 办腻谤颈办腻 explains as to when one becomes firmly rooted in 罢耻谤墨测补. Both in the wakeful and dream states there is a persistent error about the Reality. It is as though the 鈥渄ream鈥� continues in both the states. Reality is misapprehended as something else (补苍测补迟丑腻驳谤补丑补峁嘺). It is like the perception of the snake in the place of the rope. The sleep (苍颈诲谤腻), characterized by the ignorance of Reality, is the common feature of the three states viz. wakeful, dream and deep-sleep. As dream (svapna) and sleep (苍颈诲谤腻) are common to 痴颈艣惫补 and Taijasa they are categorized as one. In the wakeful and dream states, the misapprehension of Reality as something else is predominant. In the deep-sleep state, non-apprehension of Reality (Tattva-补驳谤补丑补峁嘺尘 [tattva-补驳谤补丑补峁嘺]) is the only error. In the two states of wakeful and dream there is non-apprehension followed by the misapprehension of the real in the form of cause and the effect. When this bondage of the nature of cause and effect is removed i.e. on the realisation of the Self, one attains the state of 罢耻谤墨测补 (the word 鈥渁ttains鈥� is metaphorical, for there can be no attainment of one鈥檚 own Self). It means that when these two types of bondage disappear, one is said to be resolutely established in 罢耻谤墨测补.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, 208.

[2]:

N膩ntah-prj帽a峁� na bahi峁�pr膩j帽a峁� nobhayata岣ケ璋�补箩帽补m. napraj帽膩a 驳丑补苍补峁� na 辫谤补箩帽补峁� n膩辫谤补箩帽补m ad峁涐梗tam 补惫测补惫补丑腻谤测补m 补驳谤腻丑测补m 补濒补办峁�a峁嘺m acintyam 补惫测补辫补诲别艣测补m ek膩tma-pratyaya蝉腻谤补峁� 辫谤补辫补帽肠辞辫补艣补尘补峁兣浤宀猿俨贯箖艣颈惫补m 补诲惫补颈迟补峁� catrutha峁� manyante sa膩tm膩sa 惫颈箩帽别测补岣�. (惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲.7)

[3]:

Nikhilananda Swami, The 惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, 51.

[4]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, 212.

[5]:

Ibid.

[6]:

Ibid., 230.