|
Although
the world and knowledge thereof rise and set
together it is by knowledge alone that the world is
made apparent. That Perfection wherein the world
and knowledge thereof rise and set, and which
shines without rising and setting, is alone the
Reality.
Under whatever name and form one may worship the
Absolute Reality, it is only a means for realising
It without name and form. That alone is true
realisation, wherein one knows oneself in relation
to that Reality, attains peace and realises one's
identity with it.
The duality of subject and object and trinity of
seer, sight, and seen can exist only if supported
by the One. If one turns inward in search of that
One Reality they fall away. Those who see this are
those who see Wisdom. They are never in doubt.
Ordinary knowledge is always accompanied by
ignorance, and ignorance by knowledge; the only
true Knowledge is that by which one knows the Self
through enquiring whose is the knowledge and
ignorance.
Is it not, rather, ignorance to know all else
without knowing oneself, the knower? As soon as one
knows the Self, which is the substratum of
knowledge and ignorance, knowledge and ignorance
perish.
That alone is true knowledge which is neither
knowledge nor ignorance. What is known is not true
knowledge. Since the Self shines with nothing else
to know or to make known, It alone is knowledge. It
is not a void.
The Self, which is knowledge, is the only Reality.
Knowledge of multiplicity is false knowledge. This
false knowledge, which is really ignorance, cannot
exist apart from the Self, which is
knowledge-Reality. The variety of gold ornaments is
unreal, since none of them can exist without the
gold of which they are all made.
If the first person, I, exists, then the second and
third persons, you and he, will also exist. By
enquiring into the nature of the I, the I perishes.
With it "you" and "he" also perish. The resultant
state, which shines as Absolute Being, is one's own
natural state, the Self.
Only with reference to the present can the past and
the future exist. They too, while current, are the
present. To try to determine the nature of the past
and the future while ignoring the present is like
trying to count without the unit.
Apart, from us where is time and where is space? If
we are bodies, we are involved in time and space,
but are we? We are one and identical now, then, and
forever, here, and everywhere. Therefore we,
timeless, and spaceless Being, alone are.
To those who have not realised the Self, as well as
to those who have, the word "I" refers to the body,
but with this difference, that for those who have
not realised, the "I" is confined to the body
whereas for those who have realised the Self within
the body the "I" shines as the limitless Self.
To those who have not realised [the Self]
as well as to those who have the world is real. But
to those who have not realised, Truth is adapted to
the measure of the world, whereas to those that
have, Truth shines as the formless Perfection, and
as the substratum of the world. This is all the
difference between them.
Only those who have no knowledge of the source of
destiny and free-will dispute as to which of them
prevails. They that know the Self as the one source
of destiny and free-will are free from both. Will
they again get entangled in them?
He who sees God without seeing the Self sees only a
mental image. They say that he who sees the Self
sees God. He who, having completely lost the ego,
sees the Self, has found God, because the Self does
not exist apart from God.
What is the Truth of the scriptures which declare
that if one sees the Self one sees God? How can one
see one's Self? If, since one is a single being,
one cannot see one's Self, how can one see God?
Only by becoming a prey to Him.
The Divine gives light to the mind and shines
within it. Except by turning the mind inward and
fixing it in the Divine, there is no other way to
know Him through the mind.
The body does not say "I". No one will argue that
even in deep sleep the "I" ceases to exist. Once
the "I" emerges, all else emerges. With a keen mind
enquire whence this "I" emerges.
This inert body does not say "I".
Reality-consciousness does not emerge. Between the
two, and limited to the measure of the body,
something emerges as "I". It is this that is known
as chit-jada-granthi [the knot between the
conscious and the inert], and also as bondage,
soul, subtle-body, ego, samsara, mind, and so
forth.
It comes into being equipped with a form, and as
long as it retains a form it endures. Having a
form, it feeds and grows big. But if you
investigate it this evil spirit, which has no form
of its own, relinquishes its grip on form and takes
to flight.
If the ego is, everything else also is. If the ego
is not, nothing else is. Indeed, the ego is all.
Therefore the enquiry as to what this ego is, is
the only way of giving up everything.
The state of non-emergence of "I" is the state of
being That. Without questing for that State of the
non-emergence of "I" and attaining It, how can one
accomplish one's own extinction, from which the "I"
does not revive? Without that attainment how is it
possible to abide in one's true state, where one is
That?
Just as a man would dive in order to get something
that had fallen into the water, so one should dive
into oneself, with a keen one-pointed mind,
controlling speech and breath, and find the place
whence the "I" originates.
The only enquiry leading to Self-realisation is
seeking the source of the "I" with in-turned mind
and without uttering the word "I". Meditation on "I
am not this; I am That" may be an aid to the
enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry.
If one enquires "Who am I?" within the mind, the
individual "I" falls down abashed as soon as one
reaches the Heart and immediately Reality manifests
itself spontaneously as "I-I". Although it reveals
itself as "I", it is not the ego but the perfect
Being, the Absolute Self.
For Him who is immersed in the bliss of the Self,
arising from the extinction of the ego, what
remains to be accomplished? He is not aware of
anything other than the Self. Who can apprehend his
State?
Although the scriptures proclaim "Thou art That",
it is only a sign of weakness of mind to meditate
"I am That, not this", because you are eternally
That. What has to be done is to investigate what
one really is and remain That.
It is ridiculous to say either "I have not realised
the Self" or "I have realised the Self"; are there
two selves, for one to be the object of the other's
realisation? It is a truth within the experience of
everyone that there is only One Self.
It is due to illusion born of ignorance that men
fail to recognize That which is always and for
everybody the inherent Reality dwelling in its
natural Heart-centre and to abide in it, and that
instead they argue that it exists or does not
exist, that it has form or has not form, or is
non-dual or dual.
To seek and abide in the Reality that is always
attained, is the only Attainment. All other
attainments [siddhis] are such as are
acquired in dreams. Can they appear real to someone
who has woken up from sleep? Can they that are
established in the Reality and are free from maya,
be deluded by them?
Only if the thought "I am the body" occurs will the
meditation "I am not this, I am That", help one to
abide as That. Why should we forever be thinking,
"I am That"? Is it necessary for man to go on
thinking "I am a man"? Are we not always That?
The contention, "Dualism during practice,
non-dualism on Attainment", is also false. While
one is anxiously searching, as well as when one has
found one's Self, who else is one but the tenth
man?
[This refers to a traditional story of a
party of ten fools who were travelling together.
They had to cross a river and on reaching the other
shore wanted to check up whether all of them had
got safely across. Each one counted in turn, but
each one counted the nine others and forgot
himself. So they thought the tenth man had been
drowned and began to mourn him. Just then a
traveler came past and asked them what was the
matter. He at once saw the cause of their mistake
and in order to convince them he made them walk
past him one by one, giving each one a blow as he
passed and telling them to count the
strokes.]
As long as a man is the doer, he also reaps the
fruit of his deeds, but, as soon as he realises the
Self through enquiry as to who is the doer his
sense of being the doer falls away and the triple
karma [sanchita, agami and prarabdha] is
ended. This is the state of Eternal liberation.
Only so long as one considers oneself bound, do
thoughts of bondage and liberation continue. When
one enquires who is bound the Self is realised,
eternally attained, and eternally free. When
thought of bondage comes to an end, can thought of
liberation survive?
If it is said, that liberation is of three kinds,
with form or without form or with and without form,
then let me tell you that the extinction of three
forms of liberation is the only true
liberation.
|
