उपदेशसाहस्री (आदि शङ्कराचार्य - गद्य व पद्य भाग)

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.

60 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
च्छावद्विषयत्वेऽपि हि उभयोः अनवस्था पूर्ववदपरिहार्या
स्यात् ॥ ९९ ॥
99. " Whom will the desire (to know a thing)
belong to if the Knower depends on an evidence in
order to be known? It is admitted that one who is
desirous of knowing a thing is the Knower. His desire
of knowing a thing has for its object the thing to be
known and not the Knower. For, in the latter case,
there arises a regressus ad infinitum with regard to the
Knower and also with regard to the desire to know the
Knower inasmuch as the knower of the knower and so
on (are to be known) ; and such is the case with regard
to the desire of knowing the knower. Moreover, there
being nothing intervening, the Knower, the Self cannot
fall into the category of the known. For a thing to be
known¹ becomes known when it is distanced from the
knower by the birth of an intervening desire, memory,
effort or an evidence on the part of the knower. There
cannot be the knowledge of an object in any other way.
Again it cannot be imagined that the knower himself is
distanced from himself by anyone of his own desire etc.
For memory has for its object the thing to be remember-
ed and not one who remembers it ; so has desire for its
object the thing to be desired and not one who desires it.
There arises, as before, an inevitable regressus ad infinitum
¹ i.e., a thing to be known is distanced by the birth of an
evidence before it is known ; a thing to be desired is distanced by
the birth of a desire before it is desired ; a thing to be remembered
is distanced by the birth of a memory before it is remembered ;
and a thing to be accomplished is distanced by an effort before it
is accomplished.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 61
if memory and desire have their own agents for their
objects.
ननु प्रमातृविषयावगत्यनुत्पत्तौ अनवगत एव प्रमाता स्या-
दिति चेत् ॥ १०० ॥
100. Disciple.—“But the Knower remains unknown
if there is no knowledge which has for its object the
Knower.”
न, अवगन्तुः अवगतेः अवगन्तव्यविषयत्वात् । अवगन्तृ-
विषयत्वे च अनवस्था पूर्ववत् स्यात् । अवगतिश्च आत्मनि
कूटस्थनित्यात्मज्योतिः अन्यतः अनपेक्षैव सिद्धा, अग्न्यादि-
त्याद्युष्णप्रकाशवत्, इति पूर्वमेव प्रसाधितम् । अवगतेः चैत-
न्यात्मज्योतिषः स्वात्मनि अनित्यत्वे आत्मनः स्वार्थतानुपपत्तिः,
कार्यकारणसंघातवत् संहतत्वात् परार्थ्यं दोषवत्त्वं च अवोचाम ।
कथम् ? चैतन्यात्मज्योतिषः स्वात्मनि अनित्यत्वे स्मृत्यादि-
व्यवधानात् सान्तर्गतत्वम् । ततश्च तस्य चैतन्यज्योतिषः प्रागु-
त्पत्तेः प्रध्वंसाच्चोर्ध्वं आत्मन्येव अभावात्, चक्षुरादीनामिव संह-
तत्वान्, परार्थ्यं स्यात् । यदा च तत् उत्पन्नं आत्मनि विद्यते,
न तदा आत्मनः स्वार्थत्वम् । तद्भावाभावापेक्षा हि आत्माना-
त्मनोः स्वार्थत्वपरार्थत्वसिद्धिः । तस्मात् आत्मनः अन्यनिर-
पेक्षमेव नित्यचैतन्यज्योतिष्ट्वं सिद्धम् ॥ १०१ ॥
101. Teacher.—“No. The knowledge of the knower
has for its object the thing to be known. If it have for
its object the knower there arises a regressus ad infinitum

62 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
as before.¹ It has already ² been shown that, like the heat
and light of the sun, fire and other things, the Knowledge
which is changeless, eternal and self-effulgent ³ has an
existence in the Self entirely independent of everything
else. I have already ⁴ said that, if the self-effulgent
Knowledge which is there in the Self were transitory,⁵
it would become unreasonable that the Self existed for
Itself, and, being a combination, It would get impuri-
ties and have an existence for the sake of another like the
combination of the body and the senses. How ? (Reply)
If the self-effulgent Knowledge in the Self were tran-
sitory It would have a distance ⁶ by the intervention of
memory etc. It would then be non-existent in the Self
before being produced and after being destroyed, and
the Self, then a combination, would have an existence
for the sake of another like that of the eye etc. produced
by the combination of certain things. The Self would
have no independent existence if this Knowledge were
produced before it was in It. For it is only on account
of the absence or presence of the state of being com-
bined that the Self is known to exist for Itself and the
non-Self for another. It is, therefore, established that
the Self is of the nature of eternal and self-effulgent
Knowledge not dependent on anything else."
ननु एवं सति, असति प्रमाश्रयत्वे कथं प्रमातुः प्रमातृ-
त्वम् ॥ १०२ ॥
¹ See para 99 above. ² See para 93 above.
³ Br. U., 4. 3. 9. ⁴ See paras 64 to 73.
⁵ And therefore producible. ⁶ See para 99.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 63
102. Disciple.—“ How can the Knower be a Knower
if he is not the seat of the knowledge produced by
evidences ?”
उच्यते—प्रमायाः नित्यत्वे अनित्यत्वे च रूपविशेषाभावात् ।
अवगतिर्हि प्रमा । तस्याः स्मृतीच्छादिपूर्विकायाः अनित्यायाः,
कूटस्थनित्याया वा, न स्वरूपविशेषो विद्यते । यथा धात्वर्थस्य
तिष्ठत्यादेः फलस्य गत्यादिपूर्वकस्य अनित्यस्य अपूर्वस्य नित्यस्य
वा, रूपविशेषो नास्तीति तुल्यो व्यपदेशो दृष्टः—तिष्ठन्ति
मनुष्याः, तिष्ठन्ति पर्वताः इत्यादि, तथा नित्यावगतिस्व-
रूपेऽपि प्रमातरि प्रमातृत्वव्यपदेशो न विरुध्यते, फलसामान्या-
दिति ॥ १०३ ॥
103. The teacher said, “ The knowledge ¹ produced
by an evidence does not differ in its essential nature
whether one calls it eternal or transitory. Knowledge
(though) produced by an evidence is nothing but know-
ledge. The knowledge preceded ² by memory, desire,
etc. and supposed to be transitory, and that which is
eternal and immutable do not differ in their essential
nature. Just as the result of the transitory actions of
standing etc., the meanings of roots, preceded by
motion etc. and that of the permanent ones not so
preceded do not differ in their essential nature, and
there are, therefore, the identical predicates in the state-
ments, ‘ People stand ’, ‘ Mountains stand ’, etc. ; so,
the Knower, though of the nature of eternal Knowledge,
¹ True knowledge as opposed to delusion, See note 1, para
94 above. ² See para 99 above.

64 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
is called a Knower without contradiction inasmuch as
eternal Knowledge is the same ¹ as one produced by
an evidence (as regards Its essential nature).”
अत्राह शिष्यः—नित्यावगतिस्वरूपस्य आत्मनः अविक्रिय-
त्वात् कार्यकरणैः असंहत्य, तक्षादीनामिव वास्यादिभिः, कर्तृत्वं
नोपपद्यते, असंहतस्वभावस्य च कार्यकरणोपादाने अनवस्था
प्रसज्येत । तक्षादीनां तु कार्यकरणैः नित्यमेव संहतत्वमिति
वास्याद्युपादाने नानवस्था स्यादिति ॥ १०४ ॥
104. Here the disciple starts an objection : “ It is
not reasonable that the Self which is changeless and
of the nature of eternal Knowledge and not in contact
with the body and the senses should be the agent ² of
an action like a carpenter in contact with an adze and
other instruments. A regressus ad infinitum arises if the
Self unconnected with the body, the senses, etc. were
to use them as Its instruments. As carpenters and
others are always connected with bodies and senses
there is no regressus ad infinitum when they use adzes
and other instruments.”
इह तु असंहतस्वभावस्य करणानुपादाने कर्तृत्वं नोपपद्यत
इति करणं उपादेयम्, तदुपादानमपि विक्रियैवेति तत्कर्तृत्वे
करणान्तरमुपादेयम्, तदुपादानेऽपि अन्यदिति प्रमातुः स्वात-
न्त्र्ये अनवस्था अपरिहार्या स्यात् इति । न च क्रियैव आत्मानं
कारयति, अनिर्वर्तितायाः स्वरूपाभावात् । अथ अन्यत् आत्मानं
उपेत्य क्रियां कारयतीति चेत् । न । अन्यस्य स्वतःसिद्धत्वा-
¹ See para 108. ² Br. Sû., 2. 3. 33, 40.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 65
विषयत्वाद्यनुपपत्तेः । न हि आत्मनः अन्यत् अचेतनं वस्तु स्वप्र-
माणकं दृष्टम् । शब्दादिसर्वमेव अवगतिफलावसानप्रत्ययप्रमितं
सिद्धं स्यात् । अवगतिश्चेदात्मनोऽन्यस्य स्यात्, सोऽपि
आत्मैव असंहतः स्वार्थः स्यात्, न परार्थः । न च देहेन्द्रिय-
विषयाणां स्वार्थतां अवगन्तुं शक्नुमः, अवगत्यवसानप्रत्ययापेक्ष-
सिद्धिदर्शनात् ॥ १०५ ॥
105. Teacher.—(Reply) "Agency is not possible
without the use of instruments. Instruments, therefore,
have to be assumed. The assumption of instruments
is, of course, an action. In order to be the agent of this
action, other instruments have to be assumed. In
assuming these instruments still others have to be
assumed. A regressus ad infinitum is, therefore, inevit-
able if the Self which is not joined with anything were
to be the agent.¹
"Nor can it be said that it is an action ² that makes
the Self act. For an action, not performed, has no
existence. It is also not possible that something
(previously existing) makes the Self act as nothing
(except the Self) can have an independent existence
and be a non-object. For things other than the Self
must be non-conscious and, therefore, are not seen to
be Self-existent. All things including sound ³ etc. come
to exist when they are proved by mental functions
resulting in the reflection of the Self.
¹ Br. Sû., 2. 3. 33, 40. The Self is not really an agent but only
apparently so. ² As the Mîmâmsakas hold. ³ Sound, touch, sight,
taste and smell.
5

66 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
“One,¹ (apparently) different from the Self, and
possessed of consciousness, must be no other than the
Self that is free from combination with other things and
existing for Itself only.
“Nor² can we admit that the body, the senses and
their objects exist for themselves inasmuch as they are
seen to depend for their existence on mental modifica-
tions resulting in the reflection of the Self.”
ननु देहस्यावगतौ न कश्चित् प्रत्यक्षादिप्रत्ययान्तरं अपे-
क्षते ॥ १०६ ॥
106. Disciple.—“But no one depends on any other
evidence such as sense-perception etc. in knowing
the body.”
बाढं, जाग्रति एवं स्यात् । मृतिसुषुप्त्योस्तु देहस्यापि
प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणापेक्षैव सिद्धिः । तथैव इन्द्रियाणाम् । बाह्या एव
हि शब्दादयो देहेन्द्रियाकारपरिणता इति प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणा-
पेक्षैव हि सिद्धिः । सिद्धिरिति च प्रमाणफलं अवगतिं अवो-
चाम, सा च अवगतिः कूटस्था स्वयंसिद्धात्मज्योतिःस्वरू-
पेति च ॥ १०७ ॥
107. Teacher.—“Yes, it is so in the waking state.
But at death and in deep sleep the body also depends
on evidences such as sense-perception etc. in order to
be known. Similar is the case with the senses. It is the
external sound and other objects that are transformed
into the body and the senses ; the latter, therefore,
¹ The Naiyâyikas hold that Isvara is different from the individual
soul. This view is refuted here. ² It is the position of the
Chârvâkas.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 67
also depend on evidences like sense-perception etc.
in order to be known. I have said that Knowledge,¹
the result produced by evidences, is the same ² as the
self-evident, self-effulgent and changeless Self. That is
which I mean by knowledge."
अत्राह चोदकः—अवगतिः प्रमाणानां फलं, कूटस्थनित्या-
त्मज्योतिःस्वरूपेति च विप्रतिषिद्धम् । इत्युक्तवन्तमाह—न
विप्रतिषिद्धम् । कथं तर्हि अवगतेः फलत्वम् ? कूटस्था नित्यापि
सती प्रत्यक्षादिप्रत्ययान्ते लक्ष्यते, तादर्थ्यात् । प्रत्यक्षादिप्रत्ययस्य
अनित्यत्वे अनित्येव भवति । तेन प्रमाणानां फलं इति उपचर्यते
॥ १०८ ॥
108. The objector (the disciple) says, “It is contra-
dictory to state that Knowledge is the result of evidences
and (at the same time) it is the self-effulgent Self which
is changeless and eternal.”
The reply given to him is this : “It is not a con-
tradication.”
“How then is knowledge a result ?”
“(It is a result in a secondary sense :) though change-
less and eternal, It is noticed in the presence of mental
modifications called sense-perception etc. as they are
instrumental in making It manifest. It appears to be
transitory as mental modifications called sense-percep-
tion etc. are so. It is for this reason that It is called
the result ³ of proofs in a secondary ⁴ sense.”
¹ Knowledge, according to the Chârvâkas, is an effect produced
in the body, a combination of the elements, like the effect of a
chemical combination. ² See paras 103 and 108. ³ See para 103
above. ⁴ The same pure Consciousness is thus called, in a
secondary sense, a knower, an agent, or the result of proofs. This
is the gist of the paragraphs from 94 onwards.

68 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
यद्येवं भगवन्, कूटस्थनित्यावगतिः आत्मज्योतिःस्वरूपैव
स्वयंसिद्धा, आत्मनि प्रमाणनिरपेक्षत्वात्, ततोऽन्यत् अचेतनं
संहत्यकारित्वात् परार्थम् । येन च सुखदुःखमोहप्रत्ययावगतिरूपेण
पारार्थ्यं, तेनैव स्वरूपेण अनात्मनः अस्तित्त्वं, नान्येन रूपा-
न्तरेण, अतो नास्तित्वमेव परमार्थतः । यथा हि लोके रज्जुसर्प-
मरीच्युदकादीनां तदवगतिव्यतिरेकेण अभावो दृष्टः, एवं जाग्र-
त्स्वप्नद्वैतभावस्यापि तदवगतिव्यतिरेकेण अभावो युक्तः । एवमेव
परमार्थतः भगवन्, अवगतेः आत्मज्योतिषः नैरन्तर्यभावात् कूट-
स्थनित्यता, अद्वैतभावश्च सर्वप्रत्ययभेदेषु अव्यभिचारात् ।
प्रत्ययभेदास्तु अवगतिं व्यभिचरन्ति । यथा स्वप्ने नीलपीताद्या-
कारभेदरूपाः प्रत्ययाः तदवगतिं व्यभिचरन्तः परमार्थतो न
सन्तीत्युच्यन्ते, एवं जाग्रत्यपि नीलपीतादिप्रत्ययभेदाः तामेवाव-
गतिं व्यभिचरन्तः असत्यरूपा भवितुमर्हन्ति । तस्याश्चावगतेः
अन्यः अवगन्ता नास्तीति न स्वेन स्वरूपेण स्वयं उपादातुं
हातुं वा शक्यते, अन्यस्य च अभावात् ॥ १०९ ॥
109. Disciple.—“Sir, if this is so, independent of
evidences regarding Itself eternal and changeless Know-
ledge, the Consciousness of the Self, is surely self-
evident, and, all things, different from It and there-
fore non-conscious, have an existence only for the sake
of the Self as they combine to act for one another (in
order that the events of the universe may continue
uninterruptedly). It is only as the Knowledge ¹ of the
¹ The substratum of the mental modifications by which they are
known (illumined).

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS 69
mental modifications giving rise to pleasure, pain and
delusion that the non-Self serves the purpose of
another.¹ And it is as the same Knowledge and noth-
ing else that it has an existence.² So it does not really
exist at all. Just as a rope-snake, the water in a mirage
and such other things are found to be non-existent
except only as the Knowledge by which they are
known ; so, the duality experienced during waking and
dream has reasonably no existence except as the Know-
ledge by which it is known. So, having a continuous ³
existence pure Consciousness, the Self, is eternal and
immutable, and, never ceasing ³ to exist in any mental
modification. It is one without a second. The modifica-
tions themselves cease to exist, the Self continuing to
do so. Just as in dream the mental modifications
appearing to be blue, yellow, etc. are said to be really
non-existent as they cease to exist while the Knowledge
by which they are known has an uninterrupted con-
tinuous existence ; so, in the waking state also they are
reasonably really non-existent as they cease to exist
while the very same Knowledge continues to do so. As
that Knowledge ⁴ has no ⁵ other knower it cannot be
accepted or rejected by Itself. As there is nothing else
(except Myself the aim of my life is fulfilled by
your grace).”

¹ Consciousness, the Self. ² The non-Self has no existence in-
dependent of knowledge unlike that of Prakriti (the material
cause of the universe) spoken of in the Sânkhya philosophy.
³ In all experiences such as ‘ jar consciousness ’, ‘ cloth con-
sciousness ’, etc., consciousness persists and is therefore real
while jar, cloth, etc. do no persist and so are unreal. ⁴ The Self.
⁵ Because It is Self-evident.

70 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
तथैवेति । एषा अविद्या, यन्निमित्तः संसारो जाग्रत्स्वप्न-
लक्षणः । तस्या अविद्यायाः विद्या निवर्तिका । इत्येवं त्वं अभयं
प्राप्तोऽसि । नातःपरं जाग्रत्स्वप्नदुःखमनुभविष्यसि, संसारदुःखा-
न्मुक्तोऽसीति ॥ ११० ॥
110. Teacher.—“It is exactly so. It is Ignorance ¹
due to which the transmigratory existence consisting of
waking and dream is experienced. It is Knowledge
that brings this Ignorance to an end. You have thus
attained Fearlessness.² You will never again feel ³ pain
in waking or in dream. You are liberated from the
misery of this transmigratory existence.”
ओमिति ⁴ ॥ १११ ॥
111. Disciple.—“Yes, Sir.”
¹ See para 49 of this chapter. ² Brahman. Br. U., 4. 2. 4.
³ See para 48 above and foot-note.
⁴ This word, not translated, indicates that the chapter is at an
end.

परिसंख्यानप्रकरणम् ॥ ३ ॥
CHAPTER III
REITERATION AND REFLECTION¹
मुमुक्षूणां उपात्तपुण्यापुण्यक्षपणपराणां अपूर्वानुपचयार्थिनां
परिसंख्यानमिदमुच्यते । अविद्याहेतवो दोषाः वाङ्मनःकाय-
प्रवृत्तिहेतवः, प्रवृत्तेश्च इष्टानिष्टमिश्रफलानि कर्माणि उपचीयन्ते,
इति तन्मोक्षार्थम् ॥ ११२ ॥
112. This method of repetition is described for those
who aspire after supreme tranquillity of the mind by
destroying accumulatad sins and virtues and refraining
from accumulating new ones. Ignorance causes
defects.² Defects produce efforts of the body, mind and
speech. And through these efforts are accumulated
actions having desirable, undesirable and mixed results.
(This method is described here) so that there may be a
cessation of all these.
तत्र शब्दस्पर्शरूपरसगन्धानां विषयाणां श्रोत्रादिग्राह्यत्वात्
स्वात्मनि परेषु वा विज्ञानाभावः, तेषामेव परिणतानां यथा
¹ See Sankaracharya's Vâkyavritti 49.
² Desire and aversion.

72 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS
लोष्टादीनाम्। श्रोत्रादिद्वारैश्च ज्ञायन्ते। येन च ज्ञायन्ते सः ज्ञातृ-
त्वात् अतज्जातीयः। ते हि शब्दादयः अन्योन्यसंसर्गित्वात्
जन्मवृद्धिपरिणामापक्षयनाशसंयोगवियोगाविर्भावतिरोभाववि-
कारविकारिक्षेत्रबीजाद्यनेकधर्माणः, सामान्येन च सुखदुःखाद्य-
नेककर्माणः। तद्विज्ञातृत्वादेव तद्विज्ञाता सर्वशब्दादिधर्मवि-
लक्षणः ॥ ११३ ॥
113. As they are perceived by the ear and the other
senses the objects called sound, touch, sight, taste and
smell have no knowledge of themselves or of other
things. Transformed (into the body and other things)
they, like brickbats, are (known to lack in the said
knowledge). Moreover, they are known through the
ear etc. Being the knower that by which they are known
is quite of a different nature. For, connected with one
another those sound and other objects are possessed of
various properties such as, birth, growth, change of
condition, decline, death, contact, separation, appear-
ance, disappearance, cause, effect and sex. All of
them produce various effects like pleasure, pain
and so on. The knower¹ of sound and the like
is of a nature different from theirs as It is the
knower.
तत्र शब्दादिभिः उपलभ्यमानैः पीड्यमानो विद्वान् एवं परि-
संचक्षीत ॥ ११४ ॥
शब्दस्तु ध्वनिसामान्यमात्रेण, विशेषधर्मैर्वा षड्जादिभिः,
प्रियैः स्तुत्यादिभिः इष्टैः, अनिष्टैश्च असत्यबीभत्सपरिभवाक्रो-
¹ The Self.