Jivanmuktiviveka 2.17_2

The Light even of lights, it is said to be beyond darkness; / it is knowledge, the object of knowledge, and that to be reached by knowledge, seated in the heart of all."

— (in the Bhagavadgītā, 13.12–17).

Here, in order to understand [it] through accidental characteristics and essential characteristics, the twofold nature—with limiting adjuncts and without limiting adjuncts—is presented. That which defines [an object] while being only occasionally related [to it] is an accidental characteristic, as in 'the house of Devadatta is the one with the crow.' Likewise, that which defines [an object] while being related [to it] through all three divisions of time is an essential characteristic, as in 'the moon is that which is intensely luminous.' / Now [an objection is raised]: the definition of a latent impression was stated to be the abandonment of prior and subsequent reflection; and the knowledge of the object of knowledge is produced by reflection; therefore, that definition does not apply to the pure [latent impression]. / It is not so, because it was said in the definition, 'through intense contemplation.' Just as, through intense contemplation over many births, impure latent impressions such as egotism, possessiveness, lust, and anger arise in this birth even without another's instruction, so too, even though initial comprehension is born of reflection, when reality is contemplated over a long time, continuously, and with devotion, later the reality suddenly flashes forth without any consideration of statements and reasoning, like a pot or the like placed right before oneself. Sensory activity accompanied by such a continuation of comprehension is a pure latent impression. And that serves only for the upkeep of the body, not for the production of demoniac qualities such as hypocrisy and arrogance, nor for the generation of virtue and vice that cause another birth. Just as roasted seeds of paddy or the like serve only to fill a granary, but not for delicious food nor for yielding a harvest, so it is. / And the impure latent impression is threefold: the latent impression of the world, the latent impression of scriptures, and the latent impression of the body. The obstinate conviction that 'I shall always act only in such a way that no people censure me, or rather that they praise me,' is the latent impression of the world. And its impurity consists in its being impossible to accomplish. For example: / 'Who indeed is virtuous and who is valiant in this world at present?' / — (in the Rāmāyaṇa, 1.1.2) —

With these and other [words], Vālmīki asked at length. / 'Born in the line of Ikṣvāku, known by people by the name of Rāma' / — (in the Rāmāyaṇa, 1.1.8) —

With these and other [words], Nārada gave the reply. / Even of such a Rāma, and of Sītā, the mother of the world and the crest-jewel of chaste wives, there arose public censure that was unbearable to hear; what need then to speak of others? For an abundance of mutual censure is observed according to different regions. By southern brāhmaṇas, northern brāhmaṇas who know the Vedas are censured because they eat meat. And by northerners, southerners who marry their maternal uncle's daughter and carry earthen vessels on journeys are censured. The Ṛgvedins consider the Āśvalāyana recension superior to the Kāṇva recension, but the Vājasaneyins [consider it] the reverse. In this way, praising one's own family, lineage, relatives, chosen deity, and so forth, and censuring those of others, is well known everywhere, from scholars down to women and cowherds. Having precisely this in mind, it is said: / 'A pure man is [called] a goblin, a clever man fickle, a patient man incapable, and a strong man wicked; / a tranquil man is [called] a thief, and a charming man lustful; who is capable of pleasing the world?'

And: / 'There is indeed no means whatsoever that produces satisfaction in all the world; / by all means, one should practice one's own welfare; what can talkative people do?'

And so on.
Therefore, having in mind the impurity of the latent impression of the world, scripture on liberation describes the lord of yogins as being equal in blame and praise. The latent impression of scripture is threefold: the obsession with recitation, the obsession with many scriptures, and the obsession with ritual performance. The obsession with recitation is known in the case of Bharadvāja. Having studied many Vedas through three human lifespans, and being enticed by Indra with a fourth lifespan, he undertook effort even then to study the remainder of the Vedas. Because of the impossibility of that recitation too, it is an impure latent impression. Making him aware of that impossibility and turning him away from recitation, Indra instructed him in the knowledge of qualified Brahman for an even higher aim of human existence. All this is to be seen in the Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa.
Similarly, the impurity of the obsession with many scriptures, because it lacks the ultimate aim of human existence, is found in the Kāvaṣeyagītā: a certain sage, Durvāsas, came to pay homage to Mahādeva along with loads of various books of scriptures; made comparable to a load-bearing donkey by the sage Nārada in that assembly, he discarded the books into the salty ocean in anger and was directed toward the knowledge of the Self by Mahādeva. And the knowledge of the Self does not arise merely from the Vedas and scriptures for one who is not turned inward and who is devoid of the teacher's compassion.
And likewise scripture says:
"This Self cannot be attained by instruction, nor by intellect, nor by much learning." (in the Kaṭhopaniṣad 1.2.23).
Elsewhere too it is said:
"What is the use of uselessly chewing the cud of the patchwork quilt of talk of many scriptures? / The inner light should be sought with effort by knowers of reality."

And:
"Having studied the four Vedas and the scriptures on dharma many times, / one does not know the truth of Brahman, just as a ladle does not know the taste of the cooked food."

And so on. (in the Muktikopaniṣad 2.63, 65)

The Chāndogyas study that Nārada, though skilled in the sixty-four arts, approached Sanatkumāra, repentant because he was not a knower of the Self. The obsession with ritual performance is found in the Viṣṇupurāṇa in the case of Nidāgha, and in the Vāsiṣṭharāmāyaṇa in the case of Dāśūra. For Nidāgha, even though repeatedly awakened by Ṛbhu, did not abandon the dullness of faith in rites for a long time. And Dāśūra, through extreme dullness of faith, found nowhere on earth a pure spot for ritual performance. And this latent impression of ritual action is impure because it is the cause of rebirth.
And so the followers of the Atharvaveda study:
"Frail indeed are these rafts in the form of sacrifices, eighteen in number, in which the lower ritual action is declared; / the fools who welcome this as the highest good go again to old age and death."

"Remaining in the midst of ignorance, wise in their own conceit, considering themselves learned, / the fools wander about, being battered, like the blind led by the blind alone."

"Remaining in various ways in ignorance, the childish fancy, 'We have achieved our goals!' / Because the performers of rites do not understand due to passion, therefore, afflicted, they fall down when their worlds are exhausted."

"Considering sacrifice and charitable works to be supreme, the utterly deluded know no other good; / having experienced their good deeds on the back of heaven, they enter this world or one even lower."

(in the Muṇḍakopaniṣad 1.2.7–10)

It has also been stated by the Lord:
"That flowery speech which the unwise utter, / delighting in the words of the Veda, O son of Pṛthā, declaring that there is nothing else,

full of desire, intent on heaven, yielding birth as the fruit of action, / abounding in specific rites directed toward the attainment of pleasure and power,

for those clinging to pleasure and power, whose minds are carried away by that [speech], / the resolute intellect is not fixed in absorption.

The Vedas have the three guṇas as their domain; be free of the three guṇas, O Arjuna, / free of the pairs of opposites, eternally abiding in sattva, free of acquisition and preservation, possessed of the Self.

As much use as there is in a well when water is flooding everywhere, / that much [use] there is in all the Vedas for a brāhmaṇa who knows."

(in the Bhagavadgītā 2.42–46).

And because it is a cause of arrogance, the latent impression of sacred texts is impure. The Chāndogyas read in the sixth chapter that Śvetaketu, having studied all the Vedas in just a short time, through arrogance did not even show humility before his father. Likewise, the Kauṣītakins and Vājasaneyins study that Bālāki, having understood certain forms of meditation, became arrogant, and having conquered all directions in many countries such as Uśīnara and treated many Brahmins with contempt, had the audacity to instruct Ajātaśatru in Kāśī, who was the crest-jewel among knowers of Brahman.

The latent impression of the body is also threefold, through the division of errors regarding selfhood, attributing virtues, and removing defects. Among these, the commentator cited selfhood: "Ordinary people and materialists (Cārvākas) understand that the mere body qualified by consciousness is the Self" (Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 1.1.1). Beginning with "Verily, this person consists of the essence of food" up to "therefore it is called food" (Taittirīyopaniṣad 2.1.2), the Taittirīyas clarify that very same vulgar misconception. In the eighth chapter, the Chāndogyas recite that Virocana, although instructed by Prajāpati, reinforced the notion that the body is the Self through a defect of his own mind and instructed all the demons accordingly.

Attributing virtues is twofold: worldly and scriptural. Securing a pleasant voice and so on is worldly. People make efforts by drinking oil, consuming black pepper, and the like in order to sing or recite with a tender tone. For softness of touch, people make use of nourishing medicines and diets. For gracefulness, they resort to massage, ointments, silk garments, and ornaments. For fragrance, they wear garlands and perfumes. To attribute scriptural virtue, they carry out bathing in the Gaṅgā, the water of a śālagrāma stone, and so forth.

And removing defects is twofold: worldly, through medicines prescribed by physicians and through washing the face and so on; and Vedic, through purification, sipping water, and so forth. And the impurity of this latent impression of the body will be stated. As for regarding the body as the Self, it is impure first of all because it lacks valid proof and because it is the cause of boundless suffering. And on this point, all the earlier teachers have exerted their efforts. Furthermore, we generally do not see the attribution of virtues [succeeding]. Even though many well-known singers and reciters make great efforts, they do not obtain beauty of tone. Softness of touch and bodily nourishment are not guaranteed. Gracefulness and fragrance also reside in silks, garlands, and the like, not in the body. Therefore it is said in the Viṣṇupurāṇa:
"If a fool feels love for the body, an aggregation of flesh, blood, pus, feces, urine, sinews, marrow, and bones, / he will feel love even in hell."

— (Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.17.63)

"What other cause of dispassion can be taught to that person / who does not become dispassionate through the foul smell of his own body?"

— (Muktikopaniṣad 2.66)