उपदेशसाहस्री (आदि शङ्कराचार्य - गद्य व पद्य भाग)

20-26] ' THOU ART THAT ' 225
23. This negation is not one of a reality, but of a
false superimposition only like the prohibition of the
placing of fire¹ on the highest region of the sky ;
for liberation would have surely been transitory if things
really existing were negated.
सम्भाव्यो गोचरे शब्दः प्रत्ययो वा न चान्यथा ।
न सम्भाव्यौ तदात्मत्वादहंकर्तुस्तथैव च ॥ २४ ॥
24. It is only to objects of knowledge and not to
non-objects that a word² or an idea² can be applied.
Brahman which is the Self of them and also of the
ego is not within the scope of a word or an idea.
अहंकर्त्रात्मनि न्यस्तं चैतन्ये कर्तृतादि यत् ।
नेति नेतीति तत्सर्वं साहंकर्त्रा निषिध्यते ॥ २५ ॥
25. Everything such as agency etc. superimposed³
by the ego on (the Self), Pure Consciousness is negated
together with the ego on the evidence of the Sruti, ‘Not
this, not this.’
उपलब्धिः स्वयंज्योतिर्दृशिः प्रत्यक्सदक्रियः ।
साक्षात्सर्वान्तरः साक्षी चेता नित्योऽगुणोऽद्वयः ॥ २६ ॥
26. (The Self is then known to be) Intelligence,
Self-effulgent, a Seer, the Innermost, Existence, free
from actions, directly cognised, the Self of all, the
¹ There is the scriptural statement that fire should be placed
neither in the highest nor in the middle region of the sky. The
placing of fire in those two regions is an impossibility ; still it is
forbidden like the real placing of fire on the earth.
² I.e., all the evidences.
³ Through the indiscrimination between the intellect and the Self.
15

226 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII
Witness, One imparting consciousness to others,
Eternal, devoid of qualities and without a second.
संनिधौ सर्वदा तस्य स्यात्तदाभोऽभिमानकृत् ।
आत्मात्मीयं द्वयं चातः स्यादहंममगोचरः ॥ २७ ॥
27. On account of the constant proximity of the
conscious Self the ego also appears to be conscious.¹
Hence the two things viz., oneself ² and things related
to oneself denoted by the words, 'I' and 'mine'
originate.
जातिकर्मादिमत्त्वाद्धि तस्मिञ्छब्दास्त्वहंकृति ।
न कश्चिद्वर्तते शब्दस्तदभावात्स्व आत्मनि ॥ २८ ॥
28. As the ego is possessed of species action, etc.
words are applicable to it. But no word can be used
with respect to the innermost Self owing to the absence ³
of these from it.
आभासो यत्र तत्रैव शब्दाः प्रत्यग्दृशि स्थिताः ।
लक्षयेयुर्न साक्षात्तमभिदध्युः कथंचन ॥ २९ ॥
नह्यजात्यादिमान्कश्चिदर्थः शब्दैर्निरूप्यते ॥ ३० ॥
29, 30. Words which denote the ego and the other
things which reflect the innermost Self express the
latter only indirectly but by no means describe It
directly. For nothing that has no species etc. can be
described by means of words.
¹ E.g., Proximate to a red flower a crystal appears to be red.
² The experiencer, the agent.
³ See verse 24 above.

27-33] ' THOU ART THAT ' 227
आत्माभासो यथाहंकृदात्मशब्दैस्तथोच्यते ।
उल्मुकादौ यथाग्न्यर्थाः परार्थत्वान्न चाञ्जसा ॥ ३१ ॥
31. Just as words denoting¹ the action of fire are
applied only indirectly and nor directly to torches etc.
(having fire in them) as they imply a thing² different
from torches etc. ; so, words³ implying the Self are
applied to the ego having the reflection of the Self (and
appearing like It).
मुखादन्यो मुखाभासो यथादर्शानुकारतः ।
आभासान्मुखमप्येवमादर्शाननुवर्तनात् ॥ ३२ ॥
अहंकृत्यात्मनिर्भासो मुखाभासवदिष्यते ।
मुखवत्स्मृत आत्मान्योऽविविक्तौ तौ तथैव च ॥ ३३ ॥
32, 33. As it imitates the mirror the reflection of a
face is different from the face. The face which does
not depend on the mirror (for its existence) is also
different⁴ from its reflection. Similarly, the reflection
of the Self in the ego is also regarded (as different from
the pure Self) like that of the face which is different
from the face. The pure Self is considered to be
different (from Its reflection) like the face (which is
different from its own). In fact, however, the Self and
¹ The word: 'burn' for example, is used with reference to a torch
when we say 'The torch burns a thing'. ² Fire.
³ E.g., the word, 'I' implying Existence, Knowledge, Bliss, etc.
⁴ As a matter of fact it is the real face reflected in a mirror and
acquiring, as it were, the quality of being in it and possessing its
properties that is called the reflection. The reflection cannot be
real, because it is not always in the mirror; nor can it be called
absolutely unreal, because it is sometimes seen there. Therefore,
the reflection is indescribable and the face is different from it.

228 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII
Its reflection are free ¹ from (real) distinction (between
each other like the face and its reflection ²).
संसारी च स इत्येक आभासो यस्त्वहंकृति ।
वस्तुच्छाया स्मृतेरन्यान्माधुर्यादि च कारणम् ॥ ३४ ॥
34. (Objection). Some say that the reflection in
the ego (as distinct from the Self) is the individual
soul.³ (But if one asks how the reflection which is
not a reality can experience anything at all the objector
answers that) the reflection is a reality as the shadows
of things are known to be realities according to the
_Smriti._⁴ Not only so, there is another reason also (why
a shadow should be regarded as a reality). For a man
in a shadow feels refreshingly cool.
ज्ञैकदेशो विकारो वा तदाभासाश्रयः परे ।
अहंकर्तैव संसारी स्वतन्त्र इति केचन ॥ ३५ ॥
35. (Other objections). Some say that the indi-
vidual soul is a part of Pure Consciousness. Others
hold that it is a modification of the same. Still others
are of opinion that the ego together with the reflection
¹ Though there is an apparent distinction there is not a real one
between the Self and Its reflection nor between the Self and the
intellect. For as a matter of fact neither the reflection nor the in-
tellect has an existence independent of the Self. The conclusion is
that Pure Consciousness, reflected in Ignorance and the ego etc.,
its modifications, is regarded as the individual experiencing trans-
migratory existence owing to a nondiscrimination between Itself
and Its reflection. See verse 43 of this Chapter.
² Which has an existence dependent on that of the face.
³ The experiencer of this transmigratory existence.
⁴ 'One should not deliberately cross the shadows of one's teachers
and other superiors.' ⁵ Therefore a shadow must be a real
thing having the property of coolness.

34-38] 'THOU ART THAT' 229
of Pure Consciousness in it is the individual soul.
Others again think that it is the independent ego,
(neither a part nor a modification,) which is the
experiencer of this mundane existence.
अहंकारादिसंतानः संसारी, नान्वयी क्वचित् ।
इत्येवं सौगता आहुस्तत्र न्यायो विचार्यताम् ॥ ३६ ॥
36. The¹ Buddhists say that the series of the
momentary² consciousnesses, 'I' and so on, is the
individual soul. There is no witness³ (distinct from the
series to see the beginning and the end of these
momentary phenomena). Now examine which of these
doctrines⁴ is reasonable.
संसारिणां कथा त्वास्तां प्रकृतं त्वधुनोच्यते ।
मुखाभासो य आदर्शे धर्मो नान्यतरस्य सः ।
द्वयोरेकस्य चेद्धर्मो वियुक्तेऽन्यतरे भवेत् ॥ ३७ ॥
37. Let us now stop discussing the different
doctrines about the transmigratory soul. Let us go on
with the present subject.⁵ The reflection of the face
in the mirror is a property neither of the face nor of the
mirror. For if it were the property of either of the two,
it would continue even if the other were removed.
मुखेन व्यपदेशात्स मुखस्यैवेति चेन्मतम् ।
नादर्शानुविधानाच्च मुखे सत्यविभावतः ॥ ३८ ॥
¹ See verse 23, Chapter 16. ² Produced and destroyed every
moment. ³ See footnote 1, verse 14, Chapter 16. ⁴ Including
that of the author. See footnote 1, p. 228.
⁵ Viz., the reflection. Five alternatives are discussed. Verses
37, 38, 39 (first line), 39 (second line) to 42, and 43. The last one is
the conclusion according to this book.

230 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII
38. If it is argued that it¹ is a property of the face
because it¹ is called after it, that cannot be so. For it
imitates² the mirror and is not seen even when the face
is there (but the mirror is removed).
द्वयोरेवेति चेत्तन्न द्वयोरेवाप्यदर्शनात् ।
अदृश्यस्य सतो दृष्टिः स्याद्राहोश्चन्द्रसूर्ययोः ॥ ३९ ॥
39. (First line). If you say that it is the property
of both, we say 'No'; because it is not seen even
when both are present (but improperly placed).
(Second line). (Objection). It may be said
that Râhu, a real thing, though invisible, is (sometimes)
seen³ in the sun and moon; (so the reflection of the
face, a reality, though invisible, is sometimes⁴ seen in
the mirror).
राहोः प्रागेव वस्तुत्वं सिद्धं शास्त्रप्रमाणतः ।
छायापक्षे त्ववस्तुत्वं तस्य स्यात्पूर्वयुक्तिः ॥ ४० ॥
40. (Reply). That Râhu is a real⁵ thing is known
from the scriptures⁶ before one sees it in the sun or
moon. But according to those who hold that it is
the shadow of the earth it cannot be a real thing and
the unreality of the reflection has been proved by
arguments before.⁷
¹ That is, the reflection of the face.
² I.e., undergoes changes that the mirror is subject to.
³ During eclipses. See footnote 4, verse 34, Ch. 17.
⁴ When a mirror is properly placed.
⁵ See footnote 4, verse 34, Ch. 17.
⁶ But there is no such evidence with regard to the existence of
the reflection. ⁷ Verses 37-39 above.

38-44] 'THOU ART THAT' 231
छायाक्रान्तेर्निषेधोऽयं नतु वस्तुत्वसाधकः ।
नह्यर्थान्तरनिष्ठं सद्वाक्यमर्थान्तरं वदेत् ॥ ४१ ॥
41. This is a prohibition¹ regarding the crossing of
the shadows (of one's teachers and other superiors) ; but
it does not prove the reality of a shadow as a sentence
expressing one meaning cannot express another at the
same time.
माधुर्यादि च यत्कार्यमुष्णद्रव्याद्यसेवनात् ।
छायाया न त्वदृष्टत्वाद्पामेव च दर्शनात् ॥ ४२ ॥
42. That one feels cool while sitting in a shadow²
is not the effect of the shadow on one. It is due to
one's refraining from using warm things. Coolness is
found to belong to water but not to a shadow.³
आत्माभासाश्रयाश्चैवं मुखाभासाश्रया यथा ।
गम्यन्ते शास्त्रयुक्तिभ्यामाभासासत्त्वमेव च ॥ ४३ ॥
43. The Self, Its reflection and the seat of the
reflection, (i.e., the intellect) are comparable to the face,
its reflection and the mirror. The unreality of the
reflection is known from the scriptures and reasoning.
न दृशेरविकारित्वादाभासस्याप्यवस्तुतः ।
नाचित्त्वाद्हंकर्तुः कस्य संसारिता भवेत् ॥ ४४ ॥
44. (Objection). Who is the experiencer of trans-
migratory existence as it cannot belong to the Self
¹ See footnote 4, verse 34. ² See verse 34 above.
³ For, sitting in the shadow of a hot piece of stone, one does not
feel cool at all.

232 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII
which is changeless, neither to the reflection which is
not real nor to the ego which is not a conscious entity ?
अविद्यामात्र एवातः संसारोऽस्त्वविवेकतः ।
कूटस्थेनात्मना नित्यमात्मवानात्मनीव सः ॥ ४५ ॥
45. (Reply). Let the transmigratory condition then
be only a delusion due to the indiscrimination (between
the Self and the non-Self). It always has an
(apparent) existence due to the real existence of the
changeless Self and, therefore, appears to be pertaining
to It.
रज्जुसर्पो यथा रज्ज्वा सात्मकः प्राग्विवेकतः ।
अवस्तु सन्नपि ह्येष कूटस्थेनात्मना तथा ॥ ४६ ॥
46. Just as a rope-snake (a rope mistaken for a
snake), though unreal, has an existence due to that
of the rope before the discrimination between the rope
and the snake takes place; so, the transmigratory
condition, though unreal, is possessed of an existence¹
due to that² of the changeless Self.
आत्माभासाश्रयश्चात्मा प्रत्ययैः स्वैर्विकारवान् ।
सुखी दुःखी च संसारी नित्य एवेति केचन ॥ ४७ ॥
47. Some say that the Self, to which the reflection
belongs, though changeful on account of the modifica-
tions of the mind pertaining to Itself such as, ‘I am
happy’, ‘I am miserable’ and, though an experiencer
of the transmigratory condition, is eternal.
¹ Empirical or phenomenal existence. ² Real existence.

45-52] 'THOU ART THAT' 233
आत्माभासापरिज्ञानाद्याथात्म्येन विमोहिताः ।
अहंकर्तारमात्मेति मन्यन्ते ते निरागमाः ॥ ४८ ॥
48. Having no knowledge of the Vedas and deluded
on account of the lack of the real knowledge of the Self
and Its reflection they consider the ego to be the Self.
संसारो वस्तुसंस्तेषां कर्तृभोक्तृत्वलक्षणः ।
आत्माभासाश्रयाज्ञानात्संसरन्त्यविवेकतः ॥ ४९ ॥
49. The transmigratory existence consisting of
agency and the experiencing (of pain and pleasure) is,
according to them, a reality. They, therefore, continue
to be born again and again on account of the ignorance
of the nature of the Self, its reflection and the Seat of
the reflection, (the intellect) between which they cannot
discriminate.
चैतन्याभासता बुद्धेरात्मनस्तत्स्वरूपता ।
स्याच्चेत्तं ज्ञानशब्दैश्च वेदः शास्तीति युज्यते ॥ ५० ॥
50. That the Vedas imply the Self by means of
words such as, 'Knowledge' etc.¹ becomes reasonable
if it is true² that the Self is of the nature of Pure
Consciousness and the intellect has Its reflection in it.
प्रकृतिप्रत्ययार्थौ यौ भिन्नावेकाश्रयौ यथा ।
करोति गच्छतीत्यादौ दृष्टौ लोकप्रसिद्धितः ॥ ५१ ॥
नानयोर्द्व्यर्थाश्रयत्वं च लोके दृष्टं स्मृतौ तथा ।
जानात्यर्थेषु को हेतुर्द्व्यर्थाश्रयत्वे निगद्यताम् ॥ ५२ ॥
¹ Words such as, Existence, Bliss and so on.
² These words will then be applied directly to the intellect with
the reflection of the Self in it and indirectly to the Self. See verse 29.

234 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII
51, 52. (Objection).¹ It is well known among the
people that the meaning² of the root and that³ of the
verbal suffix, though different from each other in each
of the words such as, 'does', 'goes', etc., are seen to
belong to the same subject.⁴
They are not seen to belong to two different subjects
either according to ordinary people or grammarians.
Now, please tell me the reason why the meanings of
the root and the suffix should belong to two different
subjects in the case of the words such as, 'knows' etc.
आत्माभासस्तु तिङ्वाच्यो धात्वर्थश्च धियः क्रिया ।
उभयं चाविवेकेन जानातीत्युच्यते मृषा ॥ ५३ ॥
53. (Reply). The meaning of the suffix is the
reflection of the Self (in the intellect) and the root
denotes an action i.e., a modification of the intellect.
As the intellect and the reflection are not discriminated
from the Self the word 'knows'⁵ is predicated falsely
about It.
न बुद्धेरवबोधोऽस्ति नात्मनो विद्यते क्रिया ।
अतो नान्यतरस्यापि जानातीति च युज्यते ॥ ५४ ॥
54. The intellect has no consciousness and the Self
no action. The word 'knows' can, therefore, reason-
ably be applied to neither of them.
नाप्यतो भावशब्देन ज्ञप्तिरित्यपि युज्यते ।
न ह्यात्मा विक्रियामात्रो नित्य आत्मेति शासनात् ॥ ५५ ॥
¹ The discussion begun here ends in verse 69.
² The meaning of a root is an action. ³ The meaning of a
verbal suffix is agency. ⁴ E.g., Devadatta.
⁵ Meaning wrongly that the Self is the agent of the action of
knowing.

51-58] ‘ THOU ART THAT ’ 235
55. The word ‘knowledge’, in the sense of the
action of knowing, cannot, similarly, be applied to the
Self. For the Self is not a change only (as is indicated
by an action) inasmuch as it is taught (in the Srutis)
that It is eternal.
न बुद्धेर्बुद्धिवाच्यत्वं करणं न ह्यकर्तृकम् ।
नापि ज्ञायत इत्येवं कर्मशब्दैर्निरूप्यते ॥ ५६ ॥
56. The word, ‘knowledge’, in the sense of the
instrument of the action of knowing, is applied to the
intellect and not to the Self as an instrument cannot
exist without an agent.¹ Neither can the word, in the
sense of that which is the object of the action of know-
ing, be applied to the Self.
न येषामेक एवात्मा निर्दुःखोऽविक्रियः सदा ।
तेषां स्याच्छब्दवाच्यत्वं ज्ञेयत्वं चात्मनः सदा ॥ ५७ ॥
57. The Self is never knowable and is not directly
denoted by any word according to those who hold²
that It is eternally changeless, free from pain and
one only.
यदाहंकर्तृगात्मत्वं तदा शब्दार्थमुख्यता ।
नाशनायादिमत्त्वात्तु श्रुतौ तस्यात्मतेष्यते ॥ ५८ ॥
58. If the ego were the Self a word might be applied
to it in its primary sense.³ But it is not the Self
according to the Sruti as it is possessed of hunger etc.
¹ If the Self becomes an instrument there will be no agent left.
² It is the doctrine of the author. ³ See verse 29 above.

236 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII]
हन्त तर्हि न मुख्यार्थो नापि गौणः कथंचन ।
जानातीत्यादिशब्दस्य गतिर्वाच्या तथापि तु ॥ ५९ ॥
शब्दानामयथार्थत्वे वेदस्याप्यप्रमाणता ।
सा च नेष्टा, ततो ग्राह्या गतिरस्य प्रसिद्धितः ॥ ६० ॥
प्रसिद्धिर्मूढलोकस्य यदि ग्राह्या निरात्मता ।
लोकायतिकसिद्धान्तः सा चानिष्टा प्रसज्यते ॥ ६१ ॥
अभियुक्तप्रसिद्धिश्चेत्पूर्ववद्दुर्विवेकता ।
गतिशून्यं न वेदोऽयं प्रमाणं संवदत्युत ॥ ६२ ॥
59—62. (Objection). Well, words that have no
primary meanings can have no secondary ones also.
Therefore, you are to explain the application of the
words ‘knows’ etc.
The Vedas would lose their authority as an evidence
if words were false.¹ But that is not desirable.² (Reply).
Should one, therefore, have to accept the application of
words according to popular usage ?
(Objection). If you accept the usage of ignorant
people you will have to arrive at the conclusion of
the Chârvâkas who hold that there is no Self (other
than the body). But that is undesirable.
If, on the other hand, you accept the usage of the
learned you will arrive at the same dilemma as before.³
The Vedas which are an authority do not use meaning-
less words.
आदर्शे मुखसामान्यं मुखस्येष्टं हि मानवैः ।
मुखस्य प्रतिबिम्बो हि मुखाकारेण दृश्यते ॥ ६३ ॥
¹ Have no meanings. ² For the Vedas are the only evidence
regarding the Self. ³ See verse 54 above.

59-67] ' THOU ART THAT ' 237
यत्र यस्यावभासस्तु तयोरेवाविवेकतः ।
जानातीति क्रियां सर्वो लोको वक्ति स्वभावतः ॥ ६४ ॥
63, 64. (Reply). As the reflection appears like the
face people accept its oneness with its reflection in
a mirror.
All people, therefore, naturally use the verbs 'knows'
etc. owing to the indiscrimination between that¹ in
which there is the reflection and that² which is reflected.
बुद्धेः कर्तृत्वमध्यास्य जानातीति ज्ञ उच्यते ।
तथा चैतन्यमध्यास्य ज्ञातृत्वं बुद्धेरिहोच्यते ॥ ६५ ॥
65. The Self is said to be knowing³ things on
account of the superimposition of the agency of the
intellect on It. Similarly the intellect is called a knower
owing to the superimposition of Consciousness on it.⁴
स्वरूपं चात्मनो ज्ञानं नित्यं ज्योतिःश्रुतेर्यतः ।
न बुद्ध्या क्रियते तस्मान्नात्मनान्येन वा सदा ॥ ६६ ॥
66. Being Eternal, Knowledge which is the nature
of the Self described by the Srutis⁵ as the Light (of
Consciousness) is never created by the intellect, by
Itself or by anything⁶ else.
देहेऽहंप्रत्ययो यद्वज्जानातीति च लौकिकाः ।
वदन्ति, ज्ञानकर्तृत्वं तद्वद्बुद्धेस्तथात्मनः ॥ ६७ ॥
¹ The intellect. ² The Self.
³ To be the agent of knowing. ⁴ See verse 54.
⁵ Mu. U., 2. 2. 9 and Br. U., 4. 3. 6. ⁶ By the eye etc.

238 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII
67. Just as people regard their bodies as themselves
and say that they (bodies) know things, so, they speak
of the intellect having the agency in producing know-
ledge, and of the Self (as being its seat).
बौद्धैस्तु प्रत्ययैरेवं क्रियमाणैश्च चिन्निभैः ।
मोहिताः क्रियते ज्ञानमित्याहुस्तार्किका जनाः ॥ ६८ ॥
68. Deluded thus by the modifications of the intel-
lect which appear¹ to be conscious and are created the
argumentative philosophers say that knowledge is
produced.
तस्माज्ज्ञाभासबुद्धीनामविवेकात्प्रवर्तिताः ।
जानातीत्यादि शब्दश्च प्रत्ययो या च तत्स्मृतिः ॥ ६९ ॥
69. Therefore the words 'knows' etc., the corres-
ponding modifications of the mind and their memory
are possible on account of the indiscrimination regard-
ing the Self, the intellect and the reflection of the
Self in it.
आदर्शनुविधायित्वं छायाया अस्यते मुखम् ।
बुद्धिधर्मानुकारित्वं ज्ञभासस्य तथेष्यते ॥ ७० ॥
70. Just as the properties² of a mirror assumed
by the reflection of the face in it are attributed to the
face, so, the properties³ of the intellect assumed by the
reflection of the Self are superimposed on the Self.
¹ Owing to the mutual superimposition of the Self and the
intellect.
² Dark spots etc. ³ Agency etc.

67-74] ' THOU ART THAT ' 239
बुद्धेस्तु प्रत्ययास्तस्मादात्माभासेन दीपिताः ।
ग्राहिका इव भासन्ते दहन्तीवोल्मुकादयः ॥ ७१ ॥
71. Therefore, just as torches and other things
appear to be possessed of the power of burning (on
account of there being fire in them), so, the modifica-
tions of the intellect, illumined by the reflection of the
Self, appear to be endowed with the power of perception.
स्वयमेवावभास्यन्ते ग्राहकाः स्वयमेव च ।
इत्येवं ग्राहकास्तित्वं प्रतिषिद्ध्यन्ति सौगताः ॥ ७२ ॥
72. The Buddhist philosophers deny the existence
of a Witness by saying that the modifications of the
intellect are themselves perceivers and are also per-
ceived (by themselves).
यद्येवं नान्यदृश्यास्ते किं तद्धारणमुच्यताम् ।
भावाभावौ हि तेषां यौ नान्यग्राह्यौ सता यदि ॥ ७३ ॥
अन्वयी ग्राहकस्तेषामित्येतदपि तत्समम् ।
अचितित्वस्य तुल्यत्वादन्ग्यस्मिन्ग्राहके सति ॥ ७४ ॥
73, 74. Say¹ how to refute (the Buddhists who hold)
that the modifications of the intellect are not illumined
by a Witness different from them. (In refuting the
Buddhists it may be said² that) though a persistent³
Knower, different from the modifications, revealing their
¹ Addressed to the Vedântins who do not accept a reflection of
the Self.
² By the said Vedântins.
³ Known to be so on the evidence of recognition: the knower is
the same in respect of all the modifications.

240 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII
presence and absence must be accepted, it is not
necessary to assume a reflection of the Self).
(Reply).¹ This persistent Knower also is no better
than the modifications themselves as the said Knower,
different from the modifications, will be equally non-
Conscious.²
अध्यक्षस्य समीपे तु सिद्धिः स्यादिति चेन्मतम् ।
नाध्यक्षेऽनुपकारित्वादन्यत्रापि प्रसङ्गतः ॥ ७५ ॥
75. If you³ are of opinion that the presence and
absence of the modifications will be known owing to
the proximity of the permanent Knower we say "No."
For the (changeless) Knower will be of no utility.
(Even admitting that It will reveal them by Its proximity
only) everything⁴ will have mental modifications.
अर्थी दुःखी च यः श्रोता स त्वध्यक्षोऽथवेतरः ।
अध्यक्षस्य च दुःखित्वमर्थित्वं च न ते मतम् ॥ ७६ ॥
कर्ताध्यक्षः सदस्मीति नैव सद्ग्रहमर्हति ।
सदेवासीति मिथ्योक्तिः श्रुतेरपि न युज्यते ॥ ७७ ॥
अविविच्योभयं वक्ति श्रुतिश्चेत्स्याद्ग्रहस्तथा ।
अस्मद्वस्तु विविच्यैव त्वमेवेति वदेद्यदि ।
प्रत्ययान्वयिनिष्ठत्वमुक्तदोषः प्रसज्यते ॥ ७८ ॥
¹ To the Vedântins who do not accept the reflection of the Self.
² For being a knower (an agent of knowing) it will fall into the
category of the non-Self and so will be non-conscious.
³ Those Vedântins who do not accept the reflection of the Self.
⁴ Including non-conscious objects, inasmuch as the knower is all-
pervading.

75-80] ' THOU ART THAT ' 241
76—77. Is the hearer (i.e. the aspirant) who is
suffering from the misery due to transmigratory exist-
ence and seeking liberation the Witness Itself or other
than It ? That the Witness is subject to misery and
desirous of liberation is not your view.¹
If, on the other hand, he be (other than the Witness)
he then an agent, cannot accept the idea, ' I am
Brahman, the Witness.' And, (in that case) the teach-
ing of the Sruti, ' Thou art That ' would be false, which
is not reasonable.
78. (First line). But this teaching may be accepted
if the Sruti teaches it without discriminating the two,
(the Self and the ego).
78. (Last two lines). But if the Sruti discriminates ²
the ego from the innermost Self and then says to
the ego ' Thou art That ' the defects spoken of (in the
previous verse) will creep in.
त्वमित्यध्यक्षनिष्ठश्चेदहमध्यक्षयोः कथम् ।
संबन्धो वाच्य एवात्र येन त्वमिति लक्ष्येत् ॥ ७९ ॥
79. If you ³ say that the word ' thou ' means finally
the witness you must explain how there can be a
relation ⁴ between It and the ego so that the word
' thou ' may express the Witness indirectly.
द्रष्टृदृश्यत्वसंबन्धो यद्यध्यक्षेऽक्रिये कथम् ॥ ८० ॥
¹ For in the absence of a reflection, the Witness, untouched by
Ignorance and its effects, cannot become an aspirant.
² The refutation of the Sânkhyas who do not accept the reflection
of the Self in the intellect.
³ The Sânkhyas. ⁴ As the reflection is not accepted the
relation cannot be ascertained.
16

242 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII
80. (Objection). Suppose the relation is one of the
seer and the seen. (Reply). How can it be with regard
to the Witness which is devoid of activity ?
अक्रियत्वेऽपि तादात्म्यमध्यक्षस्य भवेद्यदि ।
आत्माध्यक्षो ममास्तीति संबन्धाग्रहणे न धीः ॥ ८१ ॥
81. If it be contended that there will be the identity
of the ego and the Witness though the latter is devoid
of activity (we say it cannot be so ; for) the knowledge
of the said identity will not be there in the absence
of the knowledge of the relation that my Self, the
Witness exists.
संबन्धग्रहणं शास्त्रादिति चेन्मन्यसे नहि ।
पूर्वोक्ताः स्युस्त्रिधा दोषा ग्रहो वा स्यान्ममेति च ॥ ८२ ॥
82. If you think that the relation will be known
from the scriptures ¹ it cannot be so. For (in that case)
all the three ² defects spoken of before will arise. (And
if there be a knowledge of the relation at all) it will be
one of 'mine' (but not of identity).
अदृशिर्दशिरूपेण भाति बुद्धिर्यदा तदा ।
प्रत्यया अपि तस्याः स्युस्तप्तायोविस्फुलिङ्गवत् ॥ ८३ ॥
83. When it is accepted that the non-conscious
intellect appears to be conscious its modifications also
appear to be so like sparks of red-hot iron.³
¹ Chh. U., 3. 14. 3.
² (1) The ego cannot know the relation as it is non-conscious,
(2) the same is the case with the Witness as it is changeless and
(3) the non-conscious ego cannot be taught by the Sruti.
³ It is the conclusion.

80-87] ' THOU ART THAT' 243
आभासस्तदभावश्च दृशेः सीम्नो न चान्यथा ।
लोकस्य युक्तितः स्यातां तद्ग्रहश्च तथासति ॥ ८४ ॥
84. The knowledge on the part of the people of
the appearance and disappearance of the mental modi-
fications is reasonably possible only on account of (the
existence of) the Witness, the limit¹ and not in the
contrary case. And in that case (viz., if the reflection
of the Self is accepted) the intellect² may know itself
to be Brahman.
नन्वेवं दृशिसंक्रान्तिरयःपिण्डेऽग्निवद्भवेत् ।
मुखाभासवदित्येतदादर्श तन्निराकृतम् ॥ ८५ ॥
85. (Objection). Is it not a change on the part of
the Self to pervade the intellect like fire pervading a
mass of iron? (Reply). We have refuted³ this in the
example of the face and its reflection in a mirror.
कृष्णायोलोहिताभासमित्येतद्दृष्टमुच्यते ।
दृष्टदृष्टान्ततुल्यत्वं न तु सर्वात्मना क्वचित् ॥ ८६ ॥
86. That black iron appears to be red is only an
example (to illustrate the fact that the non-conscious
intellect appears to be conscious). An illustration and
its subject can nowhere be absolutely similar in all
respects.
तथैव चेतनाभासं चित्तं चैतन्यवद्भवेत् ।
मुखाभासो यथादर्शे आभासश्चोदितो मृषा ॥ ८७ ॥
¹ For It is left over when everything else is negated.
² See verse 29. ³ See verses 33 and 43 above.

244 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII
87. Reflecting Consciousness, therefore, the intellect
appears to be conscious like a mirror reflecting a face
and appearing like it. It has already¹ been said that
the reflection is not real.
चित्तं चेतनमित्येतच्छास्त्रयुक्तिविवर्जितम् ।
देहस्यापि प्रसङ्गः स्याच्चक्षुरादेस्तथैव च ॥ ८८ ॥
88. It is not supported by the scriptures or
reasoning that the intellect is conscious. For in that
case the body, the eye, etc. also would be so.
तदप्यस्त्विति चेत्तन्न लोकायतिकसंगतेः ।
न च धीर्वृत्तिरस्मीति यद्याभासो न चेतसि ॥ ८९ ॥
89. (Objection). Let them be so.
(Reply). No. For (in that case) the position of the
chârvâka philosophers comes in. Moreover the knowl-
edge, 'I am Brahman' also will not be possible² if
there be no reflection (of the Self) in the intellect.
सदस्मीति धियोऽभावे व्यर्थं स्यात्तत्त्वमस्यपि ।
युष्मदस्मद्विभागज्ञे स्यादर्थवदिदं वचः ॥ ९० ॥
90. The teaching 'Thou art That' will surely be
useless in the absence of the knowledge, 'I am
Brahman'. This teaching is of use to those only who
are acquainted with the discrimination³ between the
Self and the non-Self.
¹ See verse 43 above.
² For the Self is changeless and the intellect is non-conscious.
See also verse 29.
³ See the four following verses, verses 96—98 and 181—183 of
this chapter. See also Ch. 6.