Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Establishment of Brahman 3.258

English (machine translation) 3.258

Language
English

3.258.1

If [it is said that liberation is] the destruction of the nature of the effect, liberation would entail annihilation. / In that case, there is a contradiction with [the scripture], 'Through knowledge one attains immortality,' because it would entail annihilation through knowledge itself. / And since the annihilation of the Self is not desired, it cannot be a human end. / Moreover, an actual relation of cause and effect has been rejected in the passage on 'the Imperishable,' because scripture demonstrates the unreality of modifications in: 'A modification is only a verbal handle, a name.' / Nor is the fourth [alternative possible], precisely because there is non-difference, and consciousness, which is the nature of Brahman, admits of no distinction. / If it is said that the distinction lies in the absence of grief, delusion, and so forth for the individual conscious selves: even so, if grief and the like are the nature of the individual conscious selves, they cannot be annihilated. / If they are qualities that are distinct entities, arriving and departing, and momentary, then since they are annihilated by their very momentariness, no means for their [annihilation] is to be sought. / And it has already been stated that [a means] is not sought to prevent the origination of future ones. / If [it is argued that] there is a particular sovereignty in Brahman, / and reaching that or transforming into that nature is liberation, according to the scriptural text: 'He becomes an autonomous ruler'— / this is incorrect, because multiple lords are impossible. / Would the sovereignty of the individual conscious selves be less than or equal to that of Brahman? / If it were less, attaining the nature of Brahman would not be autonomous rule. / For indeed: / The Supreme Lord, designated by the word 'Brahman', would be their sovereign. / And thus there would be rule by another. / And in that case, finitude is taught by scripture: / 'Now, those who know otherwise than this are subject to another ruler; they possess perishable worlds.' / And this is reasonable, for in ordinary experience we see that those of lesser sovereignty are deposed from sovereignty by the will of a supreme lord. / An equality [of sovereignty], however, is simply impossible simultaneously. / If one is the sovereign of all, the ruler of all, what would the other do to be a lord? And because there would be a contradiction. / Indeed, there is no reason for their agreement of mind. / In that situation, when two have conflicting intentions concerning a single object, if [matters] follow the intention of the one, the other would not be a lord. / Following the intention of both is impossible, because of the contradiction. / If neither [intention] is followed, both would not be lords.

3.258.2

If it is said that the failure of the purpose is the reason for agreement of mind, like an assembly, because otherwise it would fail—[we reply:] each one would lack lordship. / If sovereignty in turn is asserted in order to avoid contradiction, it would have finitude. / And because the creation of the world is impossible [for them], their sovereignty is not equal to that of Brahman. / For the Supreme [Lord] alone is taught by scripture in the creation of the world. / [Moreover,] through meditation upon Him, release occurs subsequent to creation. / Therefore, the attainment of Brahman is the manifestation of one's own nature through the removal of [accidental] color and so forth, like that of a crystal, because the individual conscious self has the nature of Brahman. / And thus it is said: 'Having approached the supreme light, he manifests in his own nature'; for if another nature were produced, the word 'own' would not be justifiable. / If it is said that it is justifiable because of non-difference or relation to that which is being produced— / No, because the qualifier would be meaningless, since everything that is being produced is its own. / In that regard, just as when dirt is removed, a garment that is already white is said to have 'become white,' so when the veil of delusion departs, upon the manifestation of one's own nature, it is said: 'He manifests in his own nature.' / Likewise: 'Being Brahman itself, he merges into Brahman.' / Thus, since delusion is characterized by remaining in one's own nature, it is not an effect, because one's own nature exists even prior [to release]. / For that which is adventitious is not one's own nature. / Nor is it an otherness, because liberation is nothing other than the cessation of nescience in the manner described. / Transmigratory existence is nescience. / And knowledge itself is the cessation of nescience if nescience is non-apprehension, because existence is itself the exclusion of absence. / If [nescience is] erroneous cognition, even then its cessation is nothing but the arising of the opposing knowledge of reality. / For the cessation of the cognition of silver is not distinct from the arising of the cognition of mother-of-pearl, nor is it to be accomplished by it or by another effort, because the two are simultaneous and because no other effort is required. / And similarly, simultaneity of knowledge and the attainment of Brahman is heard in scripture: / 'He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself'; likewise, 'Knowing the bliss of Brahman, he does not fear'; 'It knew itself alone: "I am Brahman."'

3.258.3

'Therefore, it became all'; 'What delusion, what grief can there be for him who sees oneness?'—because no sequence of before and after is taught between 'knows' and 'becomes', 'knowing' and 'does not fear', 'what delusion' and 'for him who sees'. / As for whatever sequence of before and after is [found] anywhere, it is as in: 'Opening his mouth, he sleeps.' / Objection: If there is oneness, even simultaneity is inadmissible. / Reply: No, because even a single entity is designated under the form of existence and non-existence, just as: / 'When the pot is destroyed, then the potsherds are born.' / How then are there scriptural texts on the path, non-division, creation, dissolution, and sovereignty? To this, [the teachers] say: / The scriptural texts on the path do not concern the knowledge of pure Brahman devoid of limiting adjuncts. / For where Brahman is to be meditated upon as devoid of all limiting adjuncts, not gross and so forth, there the non-movement of the individual conscious self itself is stated through the non-departure of the vital breaths: 'Being Brahman itself, he merges into Brahman'; 'His vital breaths do not depart; they are dissolved right here.' / For in the absence of that movement, that limiting adjunct has the nature of an individual conscious self through difference from Brahman. / But where Brahman is to be meditated upon with limiting adjuncts as 'consisting of mind, having vital breath as body, having light as form,' to that those texts apply. / Where this is heard in scripture: / 'Ara and Ṇya are two seas in the world of Brahman, in the third heaven from here; there is the lake Airammadīya, there the fig-tree Somasavana, there the unconquered stronghold of Brahman, the golden palace built by the Lord.' / And likewise, the journey thither is heard even of those who do not know Brahman: / 'And those who in the forest meditate upon faith, truth, and austerity.' / Attainment of the supreme Brahman, however, is not appropriate for those who do not know Brahman,

Other recensions (1)

Linked texts (1)