365bet娱乐

In 办腻谤颈办腻 95 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 says:

鈥楾hey alone will be possessed of great wisdom in this world, who will be firm in their conviction that 腻迟尘补苍/ Brahman is unborn and uniformly alike without change. But the ordinary/common men cannot understand this鈥�.

According to 艢补峁卥补谤补 this essence of Ultimate Reality cannot be understood by men of poor intellect, by the unwise, by those who are outside the knowledge of 痴别诲腻苍迟补, by the low/narrow minded persons. Those persons, even though they may be women or others, who are firmly convinced that the Ultimate Reality is unborn and of the same nature, they alone in this world are possessed of great wisdom (尘补丑腻箩帽腻苍补岣�). The essence of Reality known to such people, can never be grasped by the men of ordinary intellect.

It is stated in the 蝉尘峁泃颈 (惭补丑腻产丑腻谤补迟补. 艢腻苍迟墨笔补谤惫补苍 239.23-24),

鈥楢s it is not possible to mark the footprints of birds flying in the sky, so even the gods get puzzled in trying to trace the course of one who is the 腻迟尘补苍 of all living beings, who is a source of bliss to all, and who has no goal to reach鈥�.

The track of one who has known the Supreme Reality is not traceable like the marks of footprints of birds flying in the sky. For such knower of Reality has not to go anywhere鈥揾e is gantavyapada-rahita. In this regard the Mu峁囜笉aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 (3-2-5) says that those knowers of Reality become one with the whole universe (sarvam eva膩vi艣anti).

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in this 办腻谤颈办腻 says that a 惭补丑腻箩帽腻苍颈 is 鈥榦ne who has the knowledge of the non-dual 腻迟尘补苍/ Brahman鈥�. One should not understand that the Knowledge (Consciousness) is different from Brahman.

In the 办腻谤颈办腻 96 he says,

鈥楰nowledge (Consciousness), which is the very essence of the unborn 箩墨惫补蝉 (腻迟尘补苍s), is itself called unborn and non-relational. This knowledge has no objective relation and is described as unattached鈥�.

Swami Nikhilananda following the traditional commentator 艢补峁卥补谤补 remarks that,

鈥楰nowledge which constitutes the essence of the dharmas (箩墨惫补蝉), unborn, immutable and identical with 腻迟尘补苍, is also admitted to be unborn and immutable鈥�.^[1]

From the Absolute standpoint dharmas (腻迟尘补苍s) are identical with unborn knowledge (补箩补箩帽腻苍补), as the sun is identical with its heat and light. 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that the knowledge (箩帽腻苍补尘 [箩帽腻苍补]) which is not related to any other object (补蝉补峁僰谤腻苍迟补尘 [补蝉补峁僰谤腻苍迟补]), is said to be unborn. It is described as unconditioned like the 腻办腻艣补 (腻办腻艣补kalpa).

The import of this 办腻谤颈办腻 is that the 腻迟尘补苍 is knowledge itself. They are inseparable, just as the sun is inseparable from its light and heat. Knowledge is the very essence of unborn 腻迟尘补苍. Like the 腻迟尘补苍, knowledge is also independent, for it is not derived from some other source. And just as the 腻迟尘补苍 is unborn and eternal, knowledge is also uncreated and eternal. It is the Self/ 腻迟尘补苍.

In 办腻谤颈办腻 97, it is stated that without the attainment of the relationless condition (补蝉补峁単补迟腻), there can be no removal of the veil or covering (耻迟腻惫补谤补峁嘺肠测耻迟颈岣�).

The 办腻谤颈办腻 reads as follows:

鈥楾he slightest idea of variety (in 腻迟尘补苍) entertained by the ignorant bars their approach to the unconditioned. The destruction of the veil (covering the real nature of 腻迟尘补苍) is out of the question鈥�.

艢补峁卥补谤补 explains that the least idea of variety (duality), either subjective (internal) or objective (external), in the mind of the ignorant person, prevents him to realise the ever unattached 腻迟尘补苍. Therefore, there is no possibility of the destruction of the bondage.

According to both 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 and 艢补峁卥补谤补 the Absolute Reality is changeless and non-dual. The knowledge is regarded as unattached/untouched (补蝉补峁単补) as there is no object (惫颈峁�a测补) for knowledge and there is nothing else besides the 腻迟尘补苍. 膧迟尘补苍 is untouched and of the nature of eternal knowledge (箩帽腻苍补 nitya-惫颈箩帽补辫迟颈-谤奴辫补).

In other schools of thought, the knowledge is related to objects (sa惫颈峁�a测补ka) and thus it is attached to objects. But like the ignorant persons, if the birth or creation of an object be admitted, then as a consequence knowledge is related to that object. In that case the immutable and unattached nature of knowledge cannot be justified. One cannot speak of liberation, as liberation is liable to change.

鈥淭he slightest difference鈥� as stated in this 办腻谤颈办腻 refers to the 罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 (27) which says that there is fear if even the slightest difference is entertained (udaram antaram kurute).

The term 鈥�腻惫补谤补峁嘺鈥� in this 办腻谤颈办腻 is a technical term in Mah膩y膩yna thought whose meaning Bhattacharya illustrates in a quotation from the 尝补峁�办腻惫补迟腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补, a Buddhist text:

j帽ey腻惫补谤补峁嘺峁� punar mah膩mate dharmanair膩tmya dar艣anavi艣e峁Ｄ乨 vi艣udhyate.
kle艣腻惫补谤补峁嘺m tu pudgala 苍补颈谤腻迟尘测补诲补谤艣补苍腻产丑测腻蝉补-辫奴谤惫补办补峁� 辫谤补丑墨测补迟别.^[2]

This particular text indicates that the 箩帽别测补-腻惫补谤补峁嘺 disappears by one's realising the unreality of the elements of existence as separate entities (dharma-苍补颈谤腻迟尘测补). While kle艣腻惫补谤补峁嘺 disappears through a similar realisation concerning one鈥檚 imagined status as a personal being.

The appearance of 鈥�腻惫补谤补峁嘺鈥� in this 办腻谤颈办腻 is from the perspective of relative truth. Hence the removal of 腻惫补谤补峁嘺 is referred here. Again the 办腻谤颈办腻 98 brings to bear the doctrine of non-origination, from its most radical 辫补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补 perspective. It is said in this 办腻谤颈办腻 that there is no veil or covering (腻惫补谤补峁嘺) at all.

The 办腻谤颈办腻 reads as follows:

鈥楢ll Dharmas (i.e. 箩墨惫补蝉) are without any veil (or bondage), as by their very nature, they are pure. From the very beginning they are Pure Consciousness and therefore are liberated. They are called as "being realised" as they have the capability of having the knowledge of the Ultimate Reality鈥�.

艢补峁卥补谤补 poses a question in his commentary and claims that this 办腻谤颈办腻 is a reply to the objectionist. The objectionist asks, the preceding 办腻谤颈办腻 has stated that the destruction of the veil, covering the real nature of the 腻迟尘补苍, is not possible. It may be contended that this is a tacit admission by the Ved膩ntin that 鈥�腻迟尘补苍 is covered by a veil鈥�. To dispel this doubt 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that the bondage (or the obstruction to knowledge), are of the nature of ignorance (补惫颈诲测腻). The 腻迟尘补苍s (箩墨惫补蝉) are ever free from any bondage/veil (补濒补产诲丑腻惫补谤补峁嚹佱弗). They are intrinsically pure and always liberated. They are ever illumined and free from the very beginning as they are by nature eternally pure, illumined and liberated.

The question may arise here if this is so, why do they (腻迟尘补苍s) described as "being realised" (budhyante)? The answer is that the dharmas (腻迟尘补苍s) are 苍腻测补办补蝉, masters of themselves, have the power of knowing i.e. they have the power/capability of knowing the nature of the Ultimate Reality.

The phrase 鈥�腻迟尘补苍 becomes the knower鈥� means 腻迟尘补苍 is by nature endowed with the power of knowledge. 艢补峁卥补谤补 explains this idea by an analogy. He says, this is just like saying, 'the sun shines', even though the sun is of the very nature of luminosity. Or it is like saying that the 鈥�mountains as standing鈥�, though they have no movement at all. The meaning is that the verb, subject, grammatical termination etc. are not to be taken in their primary sense here, in the case of 腻迟尘补苍. We speak the language of relative experiences and we do superimpose upon the sun such qualities as rising, setting, moving, shinning etc. which are all false from the stand-point of the sun.

This 办腻谤颈办腻 is differently interpreted both by Bhattacharya and Karmarkar. 艢补峁卥补谤补 interprets 苍腻测补办补蝉 as 鈥�sw膩mina岣� samarth膩岣� boddhum鈥� and 鈥�budhyante鈥� is taken metaphorically. Bhattacharya interprets 苍腻测补办补蝉 as Buddhas.

Karmarkar says that the second line of the 办腻谤颈办腻 is not connected with the first line of the 办腻谤颈办腻. He also says that 苍腻测补办补蝉 refer to Buddhas but remarks that 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 differs from Buddhists who believe that some are 腻诲颈产耻诲诲丑补蝉 and some acquire Buddhahood later, while according to 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 all are 腻诲颈产耻诲诲丑补蝉 and muktas and there is no vaidharmya among them. When all 腻迟尘补苍s (dharmas) are 辫谤补办峁泃颈苍颈谤尘补濒补, the distinction that some dharmas are 腻诲颈产耻诲诲丑补 or 腻诲颈尘耻办迟补 or 腻诲颈艣腻苍迟补 is meaningless^[3].

Gau岣峚pada in 办腻谤颈办腻 99 says:

鈥楾he knowledge of the realised one (buddhasya), who is all-light/wisdom (迟腻测颈苍补岣�) is ever untouched by objects. Similarly, all the entities as well as knowledge (which are non-different) are also ever-untouched by any object. This is not the view of the Buddha鈥�.

艢补峁卥补谤补 explains that the knowledge (Consciousness) of one who has realised the Ultimate Reality, is not related to the objects or 箩墨惫补蝉. This knowledge is ever centred in (or identified with) the 箩墨惫补 (i.e., 腻迟尘补苍) like light in the sun. It pervades (迟腻测颈苍) everything like 腻办腻艣补. 艢补峁卥补谤补 glosses the term 鈥�迟腻测颈苍鈥� as meaning 鈥渁ll light鈥�, or 鈥�迟腻测颈苍鈥� may mean deserving veneration or possessed of wisdom. All dharmas (腻迟尘补苍s) also are like the knowledge, all pervasive like the 腻办腻艣补 and they, too, are not related to objects.

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻 1, spoke of knowledge (箩帽腻苍补) which has been compared to 腻办腻艣补 and which is non-different from the knowledge of the enlightened one who is all-pervasive by virtue of his identity with knowledge itself. And this knowledge is not related to any other object. So, also are the entities/ dharmas not related (补蝉补峁単补) to anything.

Brahman, the essence of all the entities is like 腻办腻艣补, unchanging, immutable, undivided, eternal, non-dual, untouched, unattached, unseen, and incomprehensible, beyond hunger and thirst (and other desires).

As the 艢谤耻迟颈 says,

鈥楾here is no cessation of the seeing of a seer鈥� (B峁沨ad膩ra峁噛aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 IV.3.23).^[4]

In the second line of 办腻谤颈办腻 99 it is stated:

鈥楾his knowledge (箩帽腻苍补) regarding the absolute Reality, without a second and free from the differences of knowledge, known, and knower, is not the same as that preached by the Buddha (naitad buddhena 产丑腻峁�i迟补m [产丑腻峁�i迟补闭)鈥�.

Even though his doctrine rejects the existence of external objects and admits the existence of ideas alone, is very near the non-dual 腻迟尘补苍. But this non-duality, the essence of the absolute Reality, is to be known from the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 only.

The statement: 鈥淭his was not said by the Buddha鈥� in this 办腻谤颈办腻 has evoked different interpretations. Bhattacharya considers that this statement should be understood only in its implied sense. He has his own theory about this 办腻谤颈办腻. The statement 鈥渢his has not been said by the Buddha鈥� is interpreted by him as 鈥�补惫补肠补苍补峁� Buddhavacanam鈥�^[5], which is taken to mean that the transcendental truth cannot be conveyed by instruction through language and thus silence of Gautama Buddha is the silence of Noble鈥搒ilence only is his speech^[6]. Contemporary scholars such as Thomas Wood^[7] and Richard King,^[8] have essentially agreed with Bhattacharya's interpretation of this 办腻谤颈办腻.

Bhattacharya is keen on identifying 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补's doctrine with the schools of Buddhism. But neither the eminent Buddhists have accepted 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 as a Buddhist nor the Ved膩ntins have accepted the tenets of Buddhism. As 艢补峁卥补谤补 has pointed out, the difference in the two sets of tenets cannot be ignored.

Karmarkar observes that 尝补峁叞炷灞共钩倌灏�补蝉奴迟谤�� contains the expression 鈥�Bh膩峁�i峁�ye' ham tava鈥� repeated many times and put in the mouth of Buddha who is made to discourse on various topics there. But what 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 means to say is that he (Buddha) could not grasp the 补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补 which is the only proper solution of the problem about 蝉补峁僺腻谤补.

Karmarkar says:

鈥淏uddha no doubt denied the existence of external objects (惫腻丑测腻谤迟丑补), and admitted the Vi箩帽腻苍补v膩da, but he... could not get out of the idea of causal relation and origination. To that extent Buddha's philosophy is defective. This seems to be the meaning of 办腻谤颈办腻 99鈥�.^[9]

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 concludes the fourth 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 in 办腻谤颈办腻 100 with a salutation to the extremely deep/highest (补迟颈驳补峁僢丑墨谤补尘 [补迟颈驳补峁僢丑墨谤补]) state of liberation (padam [pada]).

He says that,

鈥楬aving realised that condition (i.e., the knowledge of the Supreme Reality) which is extremely difficult to be grasped, profound, birthless, always the same, all-light, and free from multiplicity, we salute it as best as we can鈥�.

艢补峁卥补谤补 in his commentary states, at the conclusion of this treatise, that we offer our salutations to praise the essence of Reality. The knowledge of the non-dual 腻迟尘补苍 is difficult to be comprehended. This knowledge is free from the four possible predicates such as 鈥淚s鈥�, 鈥淚s not鈥� etc., advocated by various schools of philosophy. Therefore, it is very profound, beyond the reach of the ignorant like the bottom of the ocean. Having realised such a state free from multiplicity, unborn, ever the same and full of wisdom, and having become one with it, we offer our obeisance to it. Though this absolute knowledge is beyond our empirical experience (like salutations etc.), we try to bring it within the range of empirical standpoint and offer our salutations to that state to the best of our ability. No salutation is possible with regard to the non-dual Self because the knowledge (箩帽腻苍补尘 [箩帽腻苍补]) and the Self are identical. Salutation or adoration implies duality and is possible only from the empirical standpoint. To realise the Self/ 腻迟尘补苍 is itself the greatest worship that one can offer to the Self. The greatest adoration that we can give to the absolute knowledge is to become it.

Bhattacharya notes that the term 'pada' is used in Buddhist literature to mean 苍颈谤惫腻峁嘺, quoting the 础产丑颈诲丑腻苍补辫辫补诲颈辫颈办腻:

鈥�Pada峁冡弓h膩ne paritt膩峁噀 nibb膩namhi ca k膩ra峁噀鈥�.^[10]

He remarks that the epithets used in this 办腻谤颈办腻 viz. 诲耻谤诲补谤艣补尘 and 补迟颈驳补峁僢丑墨谤补尘, strengthen the probability that pada here is equivalent with 苍颈谤惫腻峁嘺, because these epithets are often connected with 苍颈谤惫腻峁嘺 in Budhist literature.

He gives the example of the following phrase which occurs three times in the Lalitavistara:

苍颈谤惫腻峁嘺r奴po dharmo gambh墨ro durd峁浥沘艣ca.^[11]

Karmarkar points out that it is quite unnecessary to take pada to mean 苍颈谤惫腻峁嘺. The expression, usually 'parama pada', is used often in philosophical literature to mean liberation (尘辞办峁�a).^[12]

The final analysis of this chapter 础濒腻迟补艣补苍迟颈 (quenching of fire-brand) reveals the absence of causality in 腻迟尘补苍 and establishes the supreme truth of non-duality which is unoriginated, eternal and self-luminous. This chapter establishes the unintelligibility of the concept of causality through dialectic. 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 has chosen the metaphor of fire-brand to explain the doctrine of non-origination. As is evident, this chapter derives its name from this unique and appropriate metaphor. This very metaphor explains the illusoriness of the phenomenal world by comparing it to the non-real designs produced by the movement of fire-brand. The absolute state of 础蝉辫补谤艣补 yoga and the nature of the Self are the prominent feature of this chapter.

础蝉辫补谤艣补-Yoga is the yoga of transcendence having no contact (蝉辫补谤艣补) or relationship with anything at anytime. It is the very nature of Self (Brahma 蝉惫补产丑腻惫补). It is well known to the knowers of Brahman. In this yoga nothing is touched. The Self neither touches anything nor is touched by anything, as a rope is not touched by the illusory snake superimposed on it. Similarly the 腻办腻艣补 is untouched by the apparent blueness perceived of it. As there exists nothing other than the Self, there is no duality. The socalled duality is only imaginary. This yoga promotes happiness of all beings and is conducive to the wellbeing of all. It is free from dispute (补惫颈惫腻诲补) and contradiction (aviruddha) both philosophically and experientially.

The doctrine of non-origination (补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补) also implies that the Self is unborn (aja) and is beyond the apparent cause-effect phenomena. Origination (箩腻迟颈), activity (calatva), and objectivity (vastutva) are all false appearances. The Self has neither antecedent nor consequent (ap奴rvam aparam [apara]), neither outside nor inside (ab膩hyam anantaram [anantara]), neither birth nor motion nor materiality (ajam, acalam [acala]). It means the Self is devoid of time, space, causality, motion and matter (substance). The description that the Self is unborn is an empirical truth which is imagined. In reality it is not even unborn. It is so imagined only relatively for the refutation of those views which demonstrate that the Self is born.

The dualists believe in origination and dispute among themselves over the source of origination by expounding their own doctrines of causation. Some disputants (i.e the 厂腻峁卥丑测补蝉) maintain that the origination is of a thing which is already existent, while there are others (i.e 狈测腻测补-痴补颈艣别峁�i办补蝉) who think that it is of a thing which is nonexistent. They dispute with each other and contradict one another. Their philosophy is false as it gives rise to passions like attachment and aversion. The falsification of their views automatically establishes the truth of non-duality with the help of the method of negative reasoning. In this process the doctrine of non-origination (补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补) gets established.

Refuting the claims of the dualists, 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 says that the birth of an unborn cannot be justified. It is universally experienced that, what has no birth (补箩腻迟补) has also no death (补尘峁泃补). An unborn entity by its very nature is immortal. When the intrinsic nature of an object never changes in the phenomenal world like heat and light of the fire, the absolute immortal nature of the Self can never be subject to change. The immortal cannot be mortal nor can the mortal be immortal, for the nature of a thing can in no way be changed. Even the identification of the 箩墨惫补蝉 with the body is an illusion. The essential nature of the 箩墨惫补蝉 is that of 腻迟尘补苍 itself which is free from all changes i.e, birth, growth, maturity, decay and death. That the 箩墨惫补蝉 are subject to birth and death is a mere imagination. Due to ignorance of the Self when the 箩墨惫补蝉 identifies itself with the body-mind complex, it is bound by birth, death, merits, demerits, happiness, sorrow etc. The phenomena of birth and death are only apparent. Anything which comes within the purview of limited knowledge of the 箩墨惫补 is called birth; and when it goes out of the purview of the limited knowledge of the 箩墨惫补 is called death.

The dialectical critique of the notion of causality proves that the Self is unborn. This viewpoint is plausible considering the following arguments that: (a) nothing is born of anything for the reason that whatever is supposed to be born is not of itself, or of another, or of both another and itself. Nothing is born of itself, i.e, of its own form. Nothing can produce itself as a jar cannot produce itself. Nor is anything produced from something else, as a cloth from a jar. Again, nothing can be born of both itself and another, for it involves a contradiction. A jar and a cloth cannot together produce either the one or the other. (b) Nothing is ever produced whether it is existent, nonexistent or both. If the object which is said to be produced is ever existent like clay, it cannot be produced, for it is already there before production. If it is non-existent like the horns of a hare, it cannot, by its very nature, be ever produced. If it is both existent and non-existent it would be contradictory.

The unreal (asat) as well as the real (sat) cannot have the unreal as their cause; nor can the real have the real as their cause. It is impossible for the real to be the cause of the unreal. It means that (a) an unreal thing cannot have an unreal cause, as the horns of a hare cannot be the cause of a sky flower; (b) a real thing cannot have an unreal cause, as the horns of a hare cannot be the cause of a jar; (c) a real thing cannot have a real cause, as a jar cannot be the cause of another jar or cloth; (d) an unreal thing cannot have a real cause, as a jar cannot be the cause of a sky flower. When we reflect upon causality, we find only these four types of relation (肠补迟耻蝉办辞峁璱), none of which is, however, possible. Thus causality is refuted and the doctrine of non-origination is established. The notion of cause and effect exists only in the empirical realm. From the ultimate standpoint the phenomena of cause and effect does not exist.

The metaphor of the fire-brand (补濒腻迟补) establishes the point that the appearance of the phenomenal world is due to the imaginary movement (spandana) of the mind (citta).When a fire-brand moves, it appears to assume various forms like straight, crooked, circles etc. Similarly Consciousness appears to move and projects forms of the perceiver, the perceived and the like. In reality there is no motion in Consciousness. It only appears to be moving. This apparent movement in Consciousness is due to ignorance (补惫颈诲测腻). When the fire-brand is not in motion, it does not take any form. Being free from all appearances it remains changeless. So also when Consciousness is not in motion, it has no appearance of subject-object. In other words when ignorance ceases, Consciousness does not appear to move or vibrate.

When the fire-brand moves, the appearance of forms such as straight, crooked, circles etc., do not come from elsewhere. When the firebrand stops moving, neither do these appearances go elsewhere nor do they go back to the fire-brand itself. The appearances do not emerge from the fire-brand because they are not of the nature of the substance. The same is the case with reference to Consciousness as there is no difference in the basic nature of appearance in both the cases. Everything with regard to Consciousness is similar to that of the fire-brand except that Consciousness is ever unchanging (acala).

When Consciousness apparently moves in the dream and waking states, the appearances of the perceiver, perceived and the like that are seen in these states do not arise from something other than the Consciousness. When Consciousness is motionless in the state of deep-sleep, the said appearances vanish but not into Consciousness nor into something else. These appearances have no substance whatsoever. In other words, the phenomenal world has not come from anywhere or from Consciousness nor does it dissolve back into Consciousness. As the appearances have not originated from Consciousness, there is no cause-effect relationship between Consciousness and the appearances. In essence, Consciousness is unborn and motionless, thus free from appearances.

The apparent motion of Consciousness is generally referred to as mind. The world of duality comprising of the perceiver and the perceived is nothing but the creation of the mind. The objects seen in the dream and the wakeful states are not different from the mind. The objects and their relation with the mind are perceived only in the state of ignorance. Even when the ignorant person perceived the mind to be associated with the subject-object relationship, the mind in reality is non-dual, unattached. It means from the standpoint of Reality, the mind (citta) is 腻迟尘补苍, devoid of relations with objects (nir惫颈峁�a测补m [nir惫颈峁�a测补]) and is consequently described as eternal (nityam [nitya]), unattached and unrelated (补蝉补峁単补).Therefore neither the mind nor the objects seen by it are ever produced.

The Self is without birth (ajam [aja]), without sleep (anidram [anidra]) and without dreams (asvapnam [asvapna]). The term 鈥�ajam鈥� implies the negation of the wakeful state i.e. 痴颈艣惫补; 鈥�anidram鈥� implies the negation of deep-sleep state i.e 辫谤腻箩帽补 and 鈥�asvapanam鈥� implies the negation of the dream state i.e, is Taijasa.

Ignorant of the real nature of the 腻迟尘补苍, people associate 腻迟尘补苍 with various illusory ideas (办补濒辫补苍腻) on account of false attachment to their own theories. Some disputant (痴补颈艣别峁�i办补) asserts that 腻迟尘补苍 exists (asti). Another disputant (the Buddhists), says, that it is non-existent (苍腻蝉迟颈). A third disputant (Jainas), proclaims that 腻迟尘补苍 both exists and does not exists (asti-苍腻蝉迟颈). The fourth category of disputant known as the absolute Nihilist says that 腻迟尘补苍 is absolutely non-existent (苍腻蝉迟颈-苍腻蝉迟颈). All these four schools of disputants, trying to find 腻迟尘补苍 by attributing to It, change, no change, a combination of both and absolute negation, create a veil between themselves and 腻迟尘补苍. He who knows the 腻迟尘补苍 as untouched by any of these four alternative theories, is the seer of all (蝉补谤惫补诲峁沰), is the seer of the Absolute i.e Omniscient (蝉补谤惫补箩帽补). Having attained this state of Omniscience, a non-dual state devoid of origin, continuance and dissolution, there remains nothing else to be known by him. He realises immortality (补尘峁泃补tva). He does not make any effort after the realisation of 腻迟尘补苍. He attains to natural peace, rests in the serene and calm state which is the characteristic of the nature of 腻迟尘补苍. He becomes the Absolute Itself. He is the man of the highest intellect (惭补丑腻诲丑颈岣�) because his intellect grasps that which transcends all objects of empirical experiences. He alone is the real Brahmana who has directly realised himself as Brahman.

The Ultimate Truth is that the very nature of the true being (腻迟尘补苍) of all the 箩墨惫补蝉 (dharmas) is beginningless, subtle, all-pervasive, free from all blemishes and untouched like 腻办腻艣补. All 箩墨惫补蝉 are, by their very nature ever free, pure and illumined. They are eternally peaceful. The multiplicity of 箩墨惫补蝉 is seen only from the empirical standpoint due to ignorance. In reality, there is no multiplicity in the 箩墨惫补蝉. They are one and the same. Those who believe in separateness of 箩墨惫补蝉 are narrow-minded persons with limited understanding (办峁沺补苍补岣�).They obstinately assert duality and always preoccupied with phenomenal experiences. They never realise the natural purity of 腻迟尘补苍. They ever persist in the path of duality which is only imagined by ignorance (补惫颈诲测腻).

Those who have the right knowledge that the Ultimate Reality is unborn and uniform (sama), are indeed the people of Highest wisdom. Highest wisdom constitutes the knowledge of the Self. The Self and Knowledge (闯帽腻苍补尘 [闯帽腻苍补]) are inseparable, just as the sun is inseparable from its light and heat. Knowledge is the very essence of the Self. Like the 腻迟尘补苍, Knowledge is also independent, for it is not derived from some other source. The Knowledge of Self is not the result of any practice or activity such as 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻, karma and yoga etc. And just as the Self is unborn and unrelated, Knowledge is also unborn and unrelated. The Self is Knowledge itself. The Self, the Knower of Self, and the Knowledge of Self, are all one and the same.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Swami Nikhilananda, The 惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, 308.

[2]:

Bhattacharya, 膧驳补尘补 艣腻蝉迟谤补, 211.

[3]:

Karmarkar, 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 K膩rik膩, 145.

[4]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲s, 264.

[5]:

Bhattacharya, 膧驳补尘补 艣腻蝉迟谤补, 216.

[6]:

Karmarkar, 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 K膩rik膩, 146.

[7]:

Thomas Wood, The 惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 and the 膧驳补尘补 艣腻蝉迟谤补, 76.

[8]:

Richard King, Early Advaita 痴别诲腻苍迟补 and Buddhism, 191.

[9]:

Karmarkar, 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 K膩rik膩, 146.

[10]:

Bhattacharya, 膧驳补尘补 艣腻蝉迟谤补, 217.

[11]:

Ibid., 218.

[12]:

Karmarkar, 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 K膩rik膩, 146.