उपदेशसाहस्री (आदि शङ्कराचार्य - गद्य व पद्य भाग)

40 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
desirable. For it contradicts sense-perception etc.
Therefore the body and the Self are not mutually
superimposed due to Ignorance. (If they are not
superimposed) what then ? They are always in the
relation of conjunction with each other like pillars and
bamboos." ¹
न। अनित्यत्वपरार्थत्वप्रसङ्गात् । संहतत्वात् परार्थत्वं अनि-
त्यत्वं च, वंशस्तम्भादिवदेव । किंच यस्तु परैर्देहेन संहतः
कल्पित आत्मा स संहतत्वात् परार्थः । तेन असंहतः परोऽन्यो
नित्यः सिद्धस्तावत् ॥ ५६ ॥
56. Teacher.—"It is not so. For in that case there
arises the possibility of the Self existing for the benefit
of another ² and being non-eternal. The Self, if in con-
tact with the body, would be existing for the benefit of
another ² and be non-eternal like the combination of
pillars and bamboos. Moreover, the Self, supposed by
other philosophers to be conjoined with the body, must
have an existence for the sake of another.² It is, there-
fore, concluded that devoid of contact with the body
the Self is eternal and characteristically different
from it."
तस्यासंहतस्य देहे देहमात्रतया अध्यारोपितत्वेन असत्त्वा-
नित्यत्वादिदोषप्रसङ्गो भवति । तत्र निरात्मको देह इति वैना-
शिकपक्षप्राप्तिदोषः स्यात् ॥ ५७ ॥
¹ Just as a combination of pillars and bamboos is called a house,
so the combination of the Self and the body is called a man.
² Another conscious Being.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 41
57. Disciple.—“ The objections that the Self as the
body only ¹ is non-existent, non-eternal and so on, hold
good if the Self which is not ² conjoined with the
body ³ were superimposed on it.⁴ The body would
then be without a Self ⁵ and so the Nihilist position
comes in.”
न। स्वत एवात्मनः आकाशस्येव असं​हतत्वाभ्युपगमात्।
सर्वेणासंहतः स च आत्मेति न निरात्मको देहादिः सर्वः स्यात्।
यथा च आकाशं सर्वेणासंहतमिति सर्वं न निराकाशं भवति,
एवम्। तस्मान्न वैनाशिकपक्षप्राप्तिदोषः स्यात् ॥ ५८ ॥
58. Teacher.—“ No. (You are not right). For we
admit that, like the ether, the Self is by nature free
from contact with anything. Just as things are not
bereft of the ether though it is not in contact with them,
so, the body etc., are not devoid of the Self though It
is not in contact with them. Therefore the objection of
the Nihilist position coming in does not arise.
यत्पुनरुक्तं, देहस्यात्यन्तासत्त्वे प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधः स्यादिति।
तन्न। प्रत्यक्षादिभिः आत्मनि देहस्य सत्त्वानुपलब्धेः। नह्यात्मनि,
कुण्डे बदरं, क्षीरे सर्पिः, तिले तैलं, भित्तौ चित्रमिव च, प्रत्य-
क्षादिभिः देह उपलभ्यते। तस्मान्न प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधः ॥ ५९ ॥
¹ For, being superimposed the Self is non-existent.
² The relation of conjunction between the Self and the body is
not admitted by the teacher.
³ The relation of conjunction failing, that of false identity comes
in. For we must explain the idea, ‘I am a man’.
⁴ The body again is superimposed on the Self according to
the teacher.
⁵ And the Self would be without a body.

42 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
59. "It is not a fact¹ that the absolute non-existence
of the body contradicts sense-perception etc. inasmuch
as the existence of the body in the Self is not known
by these evidences. The body is not known to exist in
the Self by perception etc. like a plum in a hole, ghee
in milk, oil in sesame or a picture painted on a wall.
There is, therefore, no² contradiction to sense-percep-
tion etc."
कथं तर्हि प्रत्यक्षाद्यप्रसिद्धात्मनि देहाध्यारोपणा, देहे च
आत्मारोपणा ? ॥ ६० ॥
60. Disciple.— "How can then there be the super-
imposition of the body etc. on the Self which is not
known by sense-perception etc. and that of the Self on
the body?"
नायं दोषः । स्वभावप्रसिद्धत्वादात्मनः । नहि कादाचि-
त्कत्वसिद्धावेव अध्यारोपणा, न नित्यसिद्धौ, इति नियन्तुं
शक्यं, आकाशे तलमलाद्यध्यारोपणदर्शनात् ॥ ६१ ॥
61. Teacher.— "It is not a (valid) objection. For
the Self is naturally well-known. As we see the form
of a frying pan and blueness superimposed on the sky
¹ As stated by the disciple. See para 55 above.
² One, therefore, should not refuse to accept mutual superimposi-
tion on the false ground that it contradicts sense-perception etc.
As a matter of fact it is only the qualities like consciousness etc.
of the Self and not the Self itself that is superimposed, though the
non-Self itself and its qualities are superimposed. Hence Nihilism
does not come in.
See Padmapâda's gloss (Panchapâdikâ, Division 1) where it is
explained how consciousness is a quality of the Self.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 43
there cannot be a rule that it is things known occasion-
ally only on which superimposition is possible and not
on things always known.” ¹
किं भगवन् , देहात्मनोः इतरेतराध्यारोपणा देहादिसंघातकृता
अथवा आत्मकृतेति ॥ ६२ ॥
62. Disciple.—“ Sir, is the mutual superimposition
of the body and the Self made by the combination of
the body etc. or by the Self ? ”
गुरुरुवाच—यदि देहादिसंघातकृता, यदि वा आत्मकृता, किं
तत्र स्यात् ॥ ६३ ॥
63. The teacher said, “ Does it matter if it be made
by the one or the other ? ”
इत्युक्तः शिष्य आह—यद्यहं देहादिसंघातमात्रः, ततो ममा-
चेतनत्वात् परार्थत्वमिति न मत्कृता देहात्मनोः इतरेतराध्यारो-
पणा । अथाहमात्मा परोऽन्यः संघातात्, चितिमत्त्वात् स्वार्थ
इति मयैव चितिमता आत्मनि अध्यारोपणा क्रियते सर्वानर्थ-
बीजभूता ॥ ६४ ॥
64. Questioned thus the disciple said, “ If I were
only a combination of the body etc. I would be non-
conscious and would exist for the sake of another only.
Therefore the mutual superimposition of the body and
the Self could not be made by me. If, on the other
hand, I were the Self I would be characteristically
different from the combination of the body etc., would
¹ e.g., the Self.

44 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
be conscious and, therefore, would exist entirely for
myself. So it is I, a conscious being, who make that
superimposition, the root of all evils, on the Self."
इत्युक्तो गुरुरुवाच—अनर्थबीजभूतां चेत् मिथ्याध्यारोपणां
जानीषे, मा कार्षीस्तर्हि ॥ ६५ ॥
65. Thus told the teacher said, “ Do not ¹ make any
superimposition if you know it to be the root of
all evils.”
नैव भगवन्, शक्नोमि न कर्तुम् । अन्येन केनचित् प्रयुक्तोऽहं,
न स्वतन्त्र इति ॥ ६६ ॥
66. Disciple.—“ Sir, I cannot but make it, I am not
independent. I am made to act by someone else.”
न तर्हि अचितिमत्त्वात् स्वार्थः त्वम् । येन प्रयुक्तः अस्व-
तन्त्रः प्रवर्तसे, स चितिमान् स्वार्थः, संघात एव त्वम् ॥ ६७ ॥
67. Teacher.—“ Then you do not exist for yourself
as you are non-conscious. That by which you are
made to act like one dependent on another is conscious
and exists for itself. You are only a combination (of
the body and other things).”
यद्यचेतनोऽहं, कथं सुखदुःखवेदनां भवदुक्तं च जानामि ॥६८॥
68. Disciple.—“How am I conscious of pain and
pleasure and also of what you say if I be non-con-
scious ?”
¹ i.e., give it up. Know that you are Pure Consciousness and
never really identified with the body etc.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 45
गुरुरुवाच—किं सुखदुःखवेदनाया मदुक्ताच्चान्यस्त्वं, किं वा
अनन्य एवेति ॥ ६९ ॥
69. Teacher.—" Are you different from the consci-
ousness of pain and pleasure and from what I say,
or not ? "
शिष्य उवाच—नाहं तावदनन्यः । कस्मात् ? यस्मात्तदुभयं
कर्मभूतं घटादिकमिव जानामि । यद्यनन्योऽहं, तेन तदुभयं न
जानीयां ; किंतु जानामि, तस्मादन्यः । सुखदुःखवेदनाविक्रिया
च स्वार्थैव प्राप्नोति, त्वदुक्तं च स्यात् अनन्यत्वे, न च तयोः
स्वार्थता युक्ता । नहि चन्दनकण्टककृते सुखदुःखे चन्दनकण्ट-
कार्थे, घटोपयोगो वा घटार्थः । तस्मात् तद्विज्ञातुर्मम चन्दनादि-
कृतः अर्थः । अहं हि ततोऽन्यः समस्तमर्थं जानामि बुद्ध्या-
रूढम् ॥ ७० ॥
70. The disciple said, " It is not a fact that I am not
different from them. For I know them to be objects of
my knowledge like jars and other things. If I were not
different I could not know them. But I know them ;
so I am different. If I were not different the modifi-
cations of the mind called pain and pleasure and the
words spoken by you would exist for themselves. But
that is not reasonable. For pleasure and pain produced
by sandal paste and a thorn respectively and also the
use of a jar are not for their own sake. Therefore the
purposes served by sandle paste etc. are for the sake
of me who am their knower. I am different from them
as I know all things pervaded by the intellect."

46 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
तं गुरुरुवाच—एवं तर्हि स्वार्थस्त्वं, चितिमत्त्वान्न परेण
प्रयुज्यसे । नहि चितिमान् परतन्त्रः परेण प्रयुज्यते, चितिमत्-
श्चितिमदर्थत्वानुपपत्तेः, समत्वात्, प्रदीपप्रकाशयोरिव । नापि
अचितिमदर्थत्वं चितिमतो भवति, अचितिमतोऽचितिमत्त्वादेव
स्वार्थसंबन्धानुपपत्तेः । नापि अचितिमतोः अन्योन्यार्थत्वं
दृष्टम् । नहि काष्ठकुड्ये अन्योन्यार्थं कुर्वाते ॥ ७१ ॥
71. The teacher said to him, "As you are possessed
of consciousness, you exist for yourself and are not
made to act by anyone else. For an independent con-
scious being is not made to act by another as it is not
reasonable that one possessed of consciousness exists
for the sake of another possessing consciousness, both
being of the same nature like the lights of two lamps.
Nor does one possessed of consciousness exist for the
sake of another having no consciousness ; for it is not
possible that a thing exists for itself for the very fact
that it is non-conscious. Nor again is it seen that two
non-conscious things exist for each other, as wood and
a wall do not serve each other's purpose."
ननु चितिमत्त्वे समेऽपि भृत्यस्वामिनोः अन्योन्यार्थत्वं
दृष्टम् ॥ ७२ ॥
72. Disciple.—"But it may be said that the servant
and the master are seen to serve each other's purpose
though they are equally possessed of consciousness."
नैवम्, अग्नेरुष्णप्रकाशवत् तव चितिमत्त्वस्य विवक्षितत्वात् ।
प्रदर्शितश्च दृष्टान्तः प्रदीपप्रकाशयोरिति । तत्रैवं सति

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 47
स्वबुद्ध्यारूढमेव सर्वमुपलभसे अग्न्युष्णप्रकाशतुल्येन कूटस्थनित्य-
चैतन्यस्वरूपेण । यदि चैवम्, आत्मनः सर्वदा निर्विशेषत्वमुप-
गच्छसि । किमित्यूचिवान्, सुषुप्ते विश्रम्य विश्रम्य जाग्रत्स्व-
प्रयोः दुःखमनुभवामि इति । किं अयमेव मम स्वभावः, किं वा
नैमित्तिकः इति च । किमसो व्यामोहोऽपगतः, किं वा नेति ॥७३॥
73. Teacher.—" It is not¹ so. For I speak of con-
sciousness belonging to you like heat and light to fire.
It is for this reason that I cited the example of the lights
of two lamps. Therefore, as changeless and eternal
consciousness, like the heat and light of fire, you know
everything ² presented to your intellect. Thus when you
always know the Self to be without any attribute why
did you say,³ ' I experience pain and pleasure again
and again during the states of waking and dream after
intervals of rest in deep sleep ?' And why did you
say, ' Is it my own nature or causal ?' Has this delusion
vanished or not ? "
इत्युक्तः शिष्य आह—भगवन्, अपगतः त्वत्प्रसादात् व्या-
मोहः, किं तु मम कूटस्थतायां संशयः । कथम् ? शब्दादीनां
स्वतःसिद्धिर्नास्ति, अचेतनत्वात् । शब्दाद्याकारप्रत्ययोत्पत्तेस्तु
तेषां ; प्रत्ययानामितरेतरव्यावृत्तविशेषणानां नीलपीताद्याकारवतां
स्वतःसिद्धयसंभवात् । तस्माद्वाह्याकारनिमित्तत्वं गम्यते, इति
बाह्याकारवत् शब्दाद्याकारत्वसिद्धिः । तथा प्रत्ययानामपि अहं-
¹ For the non-conscious portion in each is of service to the
conscious portion in the other.
² Superimposed on you, changeless, pure Consciousness.
³ See para 45 above.

48 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
प्रत्ययालम्बनवस्तुभेदानां संहतत्वात् अचैतन्योपपत्तेः स्वार्थ-
त्वासंभवात् स्वरूपव्यतिरिक्तग्राहकग्राह्यत्वेन सिद्धिः ; शब्दादि-
वदेव । असंहतत्वे सति चैतन्यात्मकत्वात् स्वार्थोऽपि अहंप्रत्य-
यानां नीलपीताद्याकाराणामुपलब्धेति विक्रियावानेव, कूटस्थः
इति संशयः ॥ ७४ ॥
74. To this the disciple replied, “The delusion,¹
Sir, is gone by your grace; but I have doubts about the
changeless nature which, you say, pertains to me.”
Teacher.—“What doubts ?”
Disciple.—“Sound etc.,² do not exist independently
as they are non-conscious. But they come into existence
when there arise in the mind modifications resembling
sound and so on. It is impossible³ that these modifi-
cations⁴ should have an independent existence⁵ as they
are exclusive of one another as regards their special
characteristics (of resembling sound etc.,) and appear to
be blue, yellow, etc. (So sound etc., are not the same
as mental modifications.) It is therefore inferred that
these modifications are caused by external objects. So
it is proved that modifications resemble sound etc.,
objects existing externally.³ Similarly,⁶ these different
modifications of the mind also are combinations and
therefore non-conscious. So, not existing for their own
¹ i.e., “I am liable to transmigration and misery and other than
the Lord who is ever free.”
² Sound, touch, sight, taste and smell.
³ Refutation of the Idealists.
⁴ i.e., sound consciousness, touch consciousness, colour consci-
ousness, etc.
⁵ It is only pure Consciousness that has an independent existence.
⁶ like sound etc.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 49
sake they, like sound etc., exist only when known by
one ¹ different from them. Though the Self is not a
combination, consists of Consciousness and exists for
Its own sake, It is the knower ² of the mental modifi-
cations appearing to be blue, yellow and so on. It must,
therefore, be of a changeful nature. Hence is the doubt
about the changeless nature of the Self."
तं गुरुरुवाच—न युक्तस्तव संशयः । यतस्तेषां प्रत्ययानां
नियमेन अशेषतः उपलब्धेरेव अपरिणामित्वात् कूटस्थत्वसिद्धौ,
निश्चयहेतुमेव अशेषचित्तप्रचारोपलब्धिं संशयहेतुमात्थ । यदि
हि तव परिणामित्वं स्यात्, अशेषस्वविषयचित्तप्रचारोपलब्धिर्न
स्यात्, चित्तस्येव स्वविषये, यथा चेन्द्रियाणां स्वविषयेषु ।
न च तथाऽऽत्मनस्तव स्वविषयैकदेशोपलब्धिः । अतः कूटस्थतैव
तवेति ॥ ७५ ॥
75. The teacher said to him, "Your doubt is not
justifiable. For you, the Self, are proved to be free
from change, and therefore perpetually the same on the
ground that all the modifications of the mind without a
single exception are (simultaneously) known by you.
You regard this knowledge of all the modifications
which is the reason for the above inference as that for
your doubt. If you were changeful like the mind or the
senses (which pervade their objects one after another),
you would not simultaneously know all the mental
modifications, the objects of your knowledge. Nor are
you aware of a portion only of the objects of your
¹ The Self. ² The disciple means the agent of the action of
knowing the modifications.
4

50 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
knowledge (at a time). You are, therefore, absolutely
changeless." ¹
तत्राह—उपलब्धिर्नाम धात्वर्थो विक्रियैव, उपलब्धुः कूट-
स्थात्मता चेति विरुद्धम् ॥ ७६ ॥
76. The disciple said, “knowledge is the meaning
of a root ² and therefore surely consists of a change ; ³
and the knower, ⁴ (as you say) is of a changeless
nature. This is a contradiction."
न । धात्वर्थविक्रियायां उपलब्ध्द्युपचारात् । यो हि बौद्धः
प्रत्ययः स धात्वर्थो विक्रियात्मकः आत्मनः उपलब्ध्याभासफला-
वसान इति उपलब्धिशब्देन उपचर्यते । यथा छिदिक्रिया द्वैधी-
भावफलावसानेति धात्वर्थत्वेन उपचर्यते, तद्वत् ॥ ७७ ॥
77. Teacher.—“It is not so. For the word know-
ledge is used only in a secondary sense to mean a change
called an action, the meaning of a root. A modification of
the intellect called an action ends in a result in itself which
is the reflection of Knowledge, the Self. It is for this
reason that this modification is called knowledge in a
secondary ⁵ sense, just as the action of cutting (a thing),
producing and including the ultimate result viz., its
separation in two parts is secondarily called the mean-
ing of the root (to cut).
इत्युक्तः शिष्य आह—ननु भगवन्, मम कूटस्थत्वप्रतिपादनं
प्रति असमर्थो दृष्टान्तः । कथम् ? छिदिः छेद्यविक्रियावसाना
¹ Verse 7. Chap. 14 and verses 156—158, Chap. 18.
² To know. ³ For every root means an action.
⁴ The disciple means the agent of the action of knowing.
⁵ See verses 53 and 54, Chap. 18.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 51
उपचर्यते यथा धात्वर्थत्वेन, तथा उपलब्धिशब्दोपचरितोऽपि
धात्वर्थो बौद्धप्रत्ययः आत्मनः उपलब्धिविक्रियावसानश्चेत्, ना-
त्मनः कूटस्थतां प्रतिपादयितुं समर्थः ॥ ७८ ॥
78. Told thus the disciple said, "Sir, the example
cited by you cannot prove that I am changeless."
Teacher.— "How?"
Disciple.—"For, just as the action of cutting, produc-
ing and including the ultimate change in the thing to be
cut, is secondarily called the meaning of the root (to cut),
so, the word knowledge is used secondarily for the mental
modification which is the meaning of the root (to know)
and which ends in the result that is a change in know-
ledge, the Self. The example cited by you cannot,
therefore, establish the changeless nature of the Self."
गुरुरुवाच—सत्यमेवं स्यात्, यदि उपलब्ध्युपलब्ध्रोः विशेषः।
नित्योपलब्धिमात्र एव हि उपलब्ध्रा, न तु तार्किकसमय इव अन्या
उपलब्धिः, अन्य उपलब्ध्रा च ॥ ७९ ॥
79. The teacher said, "What you say would be true
if there were a distinction existing between the Knower
and Knowledge. For, the Knower is eternal Knowledge
only.¹ The Knower and Knowledge are not different
as they are in the argumentative² philosophy."
ननु उपलब्धिफलावसानो धात्वर्थः कथमिति ॥ ८० ॥
80. Disciple.—"How is it then that an action ends
in a result which is Knowledge?"³
¹ Pure Knowledge. ² The philosophy of the Naiyâyikas.
³ For Knowledge is spoken of as eternal in the previous para-
graph. A result cannot, of course, be eternal.

52 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
उच्यते—शृणु, उपलब्ध्याभासफलावसान इत्युक्तं, किं न
श्रुतं तत् त्वया ? न तु आत्मा विक्रियोत्पादनावसान इति
मयोक्तम् ॥ ८१ ॥
81. The teacher said, " Listen. It was said (that the
mental modification, called an action) ended in a result
which was the reflection¹ of Knowledge. Did you not
hear it ? I did not say² that a change was produced in
the Self as a result (of the modification of the mind)."
शिष्य उवाच—कथं तर्हि कूटस्थे मयि अशेषस्वविषयचित्त-
प्रचारोपलब्धृत्वमित्यात्थ ॥ ८२ ॥
82. The disciple said, "How then am I, who am
changeless, the knower, as you say,³ of all the mental
modifications, the objects of my knowledge ? "
तं गुरुरुवाच—सत्यमवोचं, तेनैव कूटस्थतामब्रुवं तव ॥८३॥
83. The teacher said to him, " I told you the right
thing. The very fact (that you know simultaneously all
the mental modifications) was adduced by me as the
reason why you are eternally immutable."
यद्येवं भगवन्, कूटस्थनित्योपलब्धिस्वरूपे मयि शब्दाद्या-
कारबौद्धप्रत्ययेषु च मत्स्वरूपोपलब्ध्याभासफलावसानवत्सु उत्प-
द्यमानेषु, कस्त्वपराधो मम ॥ ८४ ॥
84. Disciple.—" If this is so, Sir, what is my fault
when the mental changes resembling sound etc. and
¹ Para 77 above. ² I did not say that a modification ended
in a result that was Knowledge (the Self). ³ See Para 75 above.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 53
resulting in the reflection ¹ of knowledge,² My own
nature, are produced in Me who am of the nature of
changeless and eternal Consciousness ? "
सत्यम्, नास्त्यपराधः, किंतु अविद्यामात्रस्तु अपराध इति
प्रागेवावोचम् ॥ ८५ ॥
85. Teacher.—" It is true that you are not to be
blamed. Ignorance, as I told you before,³ is the only fault.' "
यदि भगवन्, सुपुप्त इव मम विक्रिया नास्ति, कथं स्वप्न-
जागरिते ॥ ८६ ॥
86. Disciple.—" Sir, why are there the states of
dream and waking (in me) if I am absolutely changeless
like one in deep sleep ? "
तं गुरुरुवाच—किंतु अनुभूयेते त्वया सततम् ॥ ८७ ॥
87. The teacher said to him, " But you always
experience them (whenever they arise)."
बाढम् अनुभवामि, किंतु विच्छिद्यविच्छिद्य, न तु
सन्ततम् ॥ ८८ ॥
88. Disciple.—" Yes, I experience them, at intervals
but not continuously."
तं गुरुरुवाच—तर्हि आगन्तुके ह्येते, न तवात्मभूते । यदि
तवात्मभूते चैतन्यस्वरूपवत् स्वतःसिद्धे, सन्तते एव स्याताम् ।
किंच स्वप्नजागरिते न तव आत्मभूते, व्यभिचारित्वात्,
¹ Para 77 above. ² Pure Consciousness. ³ Paras 48—50 above.

54 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
वस्त्रादिवत् । नहि यस्य यत्स्वरूपं तत् तद्व्यभिचारि दृष्टम् ।
स्वप्नजागरिते तु चैतन्यमात्रत्वात् व्यभिचरतः । सुषुप्ते चेत्
स्वरूपं व्यभिचरेत्, तन्नष्टं नास्तीति वा बाध्यमेव स्यात्,
आगन्तुकानां अतद्धर्माणां उभयात्मकत्वदर्शनात्, यथा धन-
वस्त्रादीनां नाशो दृष्टः, स्वप्नभ्रान्तिलब्धानां तु अभावो
दृष्टः ॥ ८९ ॥
89. The teacher said, "They are then adventitious
only and are not your own nature. They would surely
be continuous ¹ if they were self-existent like Pure Con-
sciousness which is your own nature. Moreover, they
are not your own nature inasmuch as they are non-
persistent like clothes and other things. For what is
one's own nature is never seen to cease to persist while
one is persisting. But waking and dream cease to
persist while Pure Consciousness continues to do so.
Pure Consciousness, the Self, persisting in deep sleep,
whatever is non-persistent (at that time) is either
destroyed ² or negated ² inasmuch as adventitious things,
never the properties of one's own nature, are found to
possess these characteristics ; for example, the destruc-
tion of money, clothes, etc. and the negation of things
acquired in dream or delusion are seen.
नन्वेवं भगवन्, चैतन्यस्वरूपमपि आगन्तुकं प्राप्तम् , स्वप्न-
जागरितयोरिव, सुषुप्ते अनुपलब्धेः । अचैतन्यस्वरूपो वा
स्यामहम् ॥ ९० ॥
¹ And hence would always be experienced by you. ² In both
these cases they cannot be regarded as really belonging to the Self.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 55
90. Disciple.—“But, Sir, when this is so, Pure Con-
sciousness Itself has to be admitted ¹ to be adventitious
like waking and dream. For it is not known in deep
sleep. Or, (it may be that I have adventitious con-
sciousness or) am non-conscious by nature.”
न, पश्य, तदनुपपत्तेः। चैतन्यस्वरूपं चेत् आगन्तुकं
पश्यसि, पश्य। नैतद्वर्षशतेनापि उपपत्त्या कल्पयितुं शक्नुमो
वयम्, अन्यो वाऽचैतन्योऽपि। संहतत्वात् पारार्थ्यं अनेकत्वं
नाशित्वं च न केनचित् उपपत्त्या वारयितुं शक्यम्। अस्वार्थस्य
स्वतःसिद्धयभावादित्यवोचाम। चैतन्यस्वरूपस्य तु आत्मनः
स्वतःसिद्धेः अन्यानपेक्षत्वं न केनचित् वारयितुं शक्यम्,
अव्यभिचारात्॥ ९१ ॥
91. Teacher.—“No. (What you say is not right.)
Think over it. It is not reasonable (to say so). You
may look upon Pure Consciousness as adventitious (if
you are wise enough); but we cannot prove It to be so
by reasoning even in a hundred years, nor (can It be
proved to be so) even by a dull ² man. As the con-
sciousness (that has for its adjuncts mental modifications)
is a combination no one can disprove its existence for
the sake of another, its manyness and destructibility by
any reasoning whatever; for we have already ³ said
that whatsoever does not exist for itself is not
¹ The ideas, ‘I am a seer,’ ‘I am a hearer,’ etc. showing con-
sciousness in one in dream and waking are absent in deep sleep
together with the two states. The disciple’s idea is : ‘When the
two states are not there in deep sleep, my consciousness is also
not there.’ ² i.e., no one can be so dull as to prove It to be so.
³ See para 74 above.

56
A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
self-existent. As Pure Consciousness, the Self, is self-
existent no one can disprove Its independence of other
things inasmuch as It never ceases to exist."
ननु व्यभिचारो दर्शितो मया, सुषुप्ते न पश्यामीति ॥ ९२ ॥
92. Disciple.—" But I have shown ¹ an exception,²
namely, I have no consciousness in deep sleep."
न । व्याहतत्वात् । कथं व्याघातः ? पश्यतस्तव न पश्यामि
इति व्याहतं वचनम् । नहि कदाचित् भगवन्, सुषुप्ते मया
चैतन्यं अन्यद्वा किंचित् दृष्टम् । पश्यन् तर्हि सुषुप्ते त्वम् ।
यस्मात् दृष्टमेव प्रतिषेधसि, न दृष्टिम् । या तव दृष्टिः तत् चैत-
न्यमिति मयोक्तम् । यया त्वं विद्यमानया न किंचित् दृष्टमिति
प्रतिषेधसि, सा दृष्टिः त्वच्चैतन्यम् । तर्हि सर्वत्र अव्यभिचारात्
कूटस्थनित्यत्वं सिद्धं स्वत एव, न प्रमाणापेक्षम् । स्वतःसिद्धस्य
हि प्रमातुः अन्यस्य प्रमेयस्य परिच्छित्तिं प्रति प्रमाणापेक्षा ।
या तु अन्या नित्या परिच्छित्तिः अपेक्ष्यते, अन्यस्य अपरि-
च्छित्तिरूपस्य परिच्छेदाय, सा हि नित्यैव कूटस्था स्वयं-
ज्योतिःस्वभावा । आत्मनि प्रमाणत्वे प्रमातृत्वे वा न तां प्रति
प्रमाणापेक्षा, तत्स्वभावत्वात् । यथा प्रकाशनं उष्णत्वं वा
लोहोदकादिषु परतः अपेक्ष्यते अग्न्यादित्यादिभ्यः, अतत्स्व-
भावत्वात्, न अग्न्यादित्यादीनां तदपेक्षा, सर्वदा तत्स्वभाव-
त्वात् ॥ ९३ ॥
93. Teacher.—" No, you contradict yourself."
Disciple—" How is it a contradiction ? "
¹ See para 90 above. ² To the persistence of Pure Consciousness .

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 57
Teacher.—“You contradict yourself by saying that
you are not conscious when, as a matter of fact, you
are so.”
Disciple.—“But, Sir, I was never conscious of con-
sciousness or anything else in deep sleep.”
Teacher.—“You are then conscious in deep sleep.
For you deny the existence of the objects of Knowledge
(in that state), but not that of Knowledge. I have told
you that what is your consciousness is nothing but
absolute Knowledge. The Consciousness owing to
whose presence you deny (the existence of things in
deep sleep) by saying, ‘I was conscious of nothing’ is
the Knowledge, the Consciousness which is your Self.
As It never ceases to exist, Its eternal immutability is
self-evident and does not depend on any evidence ; for
an object of Knowledge different from the self-evident
Knower depends on an evidence in order to be known.
Other than the object the eternal Knowledge that is
indispensable in proving non-conscious things different
from Itself, is immutable ; for It is always of a self-
evident nature. Just as iron, water, etc., which are not
of the nature of light and heat, depend for them on the
sun, fire and other things other than themselves, but
the sun and fire themselves, always of the nature of
light and heat, do not depend for them on anything
else ; so, being of the nature of pure Knowledge It
does not depend on an evidence to prove that It exists
or that It is the Knower.”
अनित्यत्वे एव प्रमा स्यात्, न नित्यत्वे इति चेत् ॥ ९४ ॥

58 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
94. Disciple.—“But it is transitory knowledge only
that is the result¹ of a proof and not eternal Know-
ledge.”²
न। अवगतेः नित्यत्वानित्यत्वयोः विशेषानुपपत्तेः। न हि
अवगतेः प्रमात्वे अनित्या अवगतिः प्रमा, न नित्या इति
विशेषः अवगम्यते ॥ ९५ ॥
95. Teacher.—“No. There cannot reasonably be a
distinction of perpetuity or otherwise in Knowledge.
For it is not known that transitory Knowledge is the
result of a proof and not eternal Knowledge, as Know-
ledge³ Itself is such a result.”
नित्यायां प्रमातुः अपेक्षाभावः। अनित्यायां तु यत्नान्तरित-
त्वात् अवगतिः अपेक्ष्यत इति विशेषः स्यादिति चेत् ॥ ९६ ॥
96. Disciple.—“But eternal Knowledge does not
depend on a knower⁴ while transitory knowledge
does so as it is produced by an intervening effort. This
is the difference.”⁵
सिद्धा तर्हि आत्मनः प्रमातुः स्वतःसिद्धिः, प्रमाणनिरपेक्ष-
तयैवेति ॥ ९७ ॥
97. Teacher.—“The Knower⁶ which is the Self is
then self-evident as It does not depend on any
evidence (in order to be proved).”
1 True Knowledge is due to sense-perception, inference, testimony,
etc., when we see a jar, for example, with our eyes, we have what
is called the true Knowledge of the jar. It is produced and there-
fore transitory. That is what the disciple thinks.
² Pure Knowledge which is the Self.
³ Pure Knowledge Itself. See paras 103 and 108 of this Chapter.
⁴ One who applies a proof.
⁵ Between Knowledge eternal and transitory.
⁶ Eternal Knowledge. See para 93 above.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 59
अभावेऽपि अपेक्षाभावः, नित्यत्वात् इति चेत् । न । अव-
गतेरेव आत्मनि सद्भावादिति परिहृतमेतत् ॥ ९८ ॥
98. Disciple.—"(If the Knowledge of the Self be
independent of an evidence on the ground that It is
eternal) why should the absence ¹ of the result ² of an
evidence with regard to the Self be not so on the same
ground ? "
Teacher.—" No, it has been refuted on the ground
that it is pure Knowledge that is in the Self." ³
प्रमातुश्चेत् प्रमाणापेक्षासिद्धिः, कस्य प्रमित्सा स्यात् ?
यस्य प्रमित्सा स एव प्रमाता अभ्युपगम्यते । तदीया च
प्रमित्सा प्रमेयविषयैव, न प्रमातृविषया । प्रमातृविषयत्वे अन-
वस्थाप्रसङ्गात् प्रमातुः तदिच्छायाश्च, तस्याप्यन्यः प्रमाता,
तस्याप्यन्य इति । एवमेव इच्छायाः प्रमातृविषयत्वे । प्रमातु-
रात्मनः अव्यवहितत्वाच्च प्रमेयत्वानुपपत्तिः । लोके हि प्रमेयं
नाम प्रमातुः इच्छा-स्मृति प्रयत्न-प्रमाणजन्मव्यवहितं सिद्ध्यति,
नान्यथा अवगतिः प्रमेयविषया दृष्टा । नच प्रमातुः प्रमाता
स्वस्य स्वयमेव केनचित् व्यवहितः कल्पयितुं शक्यः इच्छादी-
नामन्यतमेनापि । स्मृतिश्च स्मर्तव्यविषया, न स्मर्तृविषया ।
तथा इच्छायाः इष्टविषयत्वमेव, न इच्छावद्विषयत्वम् । स्मर्त्रि-
¹ The disciple thinks that the Self does not exist as It is not
known by an evidence. ² True Knowledge. See foot-note 1,
para 94 above. ³ i.e., the Self is of the nature of pure Know-
ledge and so It exists independent of every evidence. See paras
93 and 97 above.