Upadesha sahasri(cont)

ken knight hilken_98 at YAHOO.COM
Sun Sep 22 14:25:13 CDT 2002

Namaste All,
Thank you to those who have entered into a discussion
on the prose section of Upadesha Sahasri.
Two very successful conferences have kept me away from
computers for most of the last few days but I have
managed to complete the first section which I post
I have read this section many times over the last few
days and have wanted to enter more into discussion
with you but essentially I am drawn ever more back to
the first two verses.
While it is inevitable that we try to 'place'
ourselves it does no harm to ask ourselves if we are
worthy of such a study. When we approach a teacher
with 'fuel in hand' we are acknowledging our
ignorance of our own true state with the
superimposition of ideas about ourselves as 'good' or
'bad' etc. The 'fuel' is this conglomeration of ideas.
The first verse requests that we deeply desire
liberation and while this may be easy when 'times are
hard' we are reminded that this deep desire does not
get forgotten when 'times are good'.  It is 'faith'
that will allow us to maintain the single pointed aim
of liberation. The means to knowledge will indeed have
to be taught over and over again as we can see in the
behaviour of the followers who gathered around
Shankara and they needed constant reminders of the
simplicity of the teaching....eg. meetings with the
hunter by the Ganges and the derision of Giri.
In order to become a pupil and to be able to hear the
teaching time and time again, it is necessary to
examine our ideas and attitudes...the ahaNkAra.....as
though cleaning up our house in order to receive a
very special guest. Every corner must have the light
shone in to it, revealing that which has been hidden
away for years. But then, when all is ready we must do
something strange: we must leave the cleaned house
ready for the special guest to enter and to fill it
with glory of presence; we cannot stay.

I now have to leave for a drive North over night and
will not be able to get to a computer for a few days:

Best wishes

Upadesha Sahasri   Part 1 cont.
18.     The teacher should say to the disciple who has
remembered the definition of the Self, “That which is
called akaSha (the self-effulgent one) which is
distinct from name and form, bodiless, and defined as
not gross etc., and as free from sins and so on, which
is untouched by all transmigratory conditions, ‘The
Brahman that is immediate and direct,’ (Br.U. 3.4.1)
‘The innermost Self,’ (Br.U.3.4.1)‘The unseen seer,
the unheard listener, the unthought thinker, the
unknown knower, which is of the nature of eternal
knowledge, without interior or exterior, consisting
only of knowledge, all-pervading like the ether and of
infinite power—that Self of all, devoid. of hunger
etc., as also of appearance and disappearance, is,. by
virtue of Its inscrutable power, the cause of the
manifestation of unmanifested name and form which
abide in the Self through Its very presence, but are
different from It, which are the seed of the universe,
are describable neither as identical with It nor
different from It, and are cognized by It alone.

19.     “That name and form though originally,
unmanifested, took the name and form of ether as they
were manifested from that Self. This element called
the ether thus arose out of the supreme Self, like the
dirt called foam coming out of transparent water. Foam
is neither water nor absolutely ‘different from it.
For it is never seen apart from water. But water is
clear, and different from the foam which is of the
nature of dirt. Similarly, the Supreme Self, which is
pure and transparent, is different from name and form,
which stand for foam. These—corresponding to the
foam—having originally been unmanifest, took the name
and form of the ether as they were manifested.
20.     “Name and form, as they became still grosser in
the course of manifestation, assumed the form of air.
>From that again they became fire, from that water, and
thence earth. In this order the preceding elements
penetrated the succeeding ones, and the five gross
elements ending ‘with earth came into existence.
Earth, therefore, possesses the qualities of all the
five gross elements. From earth, .compounded of all
five great elements, herbs such as paddy and barley
are produced. From these, after they are eaten, are
formed blood and the seed of women and men
respectively. These two ingredients drawn out, as by a
churning rod, by lust springing from ignorance, and
sanctified by mantras  are placed in the womb at the
proper time. Through the infiltration of the
sustaining fluids of the mother’s. body, it develops
into an embryo and is delivered at the ninth or tenth
21.     “It is born, or is possessed of a form and a name’
and is purified by means of mantras relating to natal
and other ceremonies. Sanctified again by the ceremony
of’ investiture with the holy thread, it gets the
appellation of’ a student. The same body is designated
a house-holder when it undergoes the sacrament of
being joined to a wife. That again is called a recluse
when it undergoes the ceremonies pertaining to
retirement into the forest. And it becomes known as a
wandering monk when it performs the ceremonies leading
to the renunciation of all activities. Thus the body
which has birth, lineage and purificatory ceremonies
different (from the Self) is different from you.
22.     “That the mind and the senses are also of the
nature of name and form is known from the Shruti,‘The
mind, my child, consists of food.’ (Chh.U.6.5.4,6)
23.     “You said, ‘How am I devoid of birth, lineage and
sanctifying ceremonies which are different (from the
Self)?’ Listen. The same one who is the cause of the
manifestation of name and form, whose nature is
different from that of name and form, and who is
devoid of all connection with sanctifying ceremonies,
evolved name and form, created this body and entered
into it (which is but name and form)— who is Himself
the unseen Seer, the unheard Listener, the unthought
Thinker, the unknown Knower as stated in the Shruti
text, ‘(I know) who creates names and forms and
remains speaking.’ (T.A. 3.12.7) There are thousands
of Shruti texts conveying the same meaning; for
instance, ‘He created and entered into it,’
(Tai.U.2.6) ‘Entering into them He rules all
creatures.’ (T.A. 3.11.1,2)  ‘He, the Self, has
entered into these bodies,’(Br.U.1.4.7) ‘This is your
Self.’ (Br.U. 3.4.1)‘ Opening this very suture of the
skull He got in by that door,’(Ai.U.1.3.12) ‘This Self
is concealed in all beings,’(Kath.U.3.12) ‘That
Divinity thought—let Me enter into these three
24.     “SR^iti texts too elucidate the same truth; for
example, ‘All gods verily are the Self.’
(Manu.XII.119) ‘The Self in the city of nine
gates,’(B.G.5.13) ‘Know the individual Self to be
Myself,’ (B.G.13.2)  ‘The same in all beings,’
(B.G.13.27) ‘The witness and approver,’ (B.G.13.22)
‘The Supreme Being is different,’ B.G.13.27) ‘
Residing in all bodies but Itself devoid of any,’
(Kath.U. 2.22 smR^iti source untraced) and so on.
Therefore it is established that you are without any
connection with birth, lineage and sanctifying
25.     If he says, “I am in bondage, liable to
transmigration, ignorant, (sometimes) happy,
(sometimes) mm happy, and am entirely different from
Him; He, the shining One, who is dissimilar in nature
to me, and is beyond transmigratory existence, is also
different from me; I want to worship Him through the
actions pertaining to my caste and order of life by
making presents and offerings to Him and also by
making salutations and the like. I am eager to cross
the ocean of the world in this way. So how am I He
25.     The teacher should say, “You ought not, my child,
regard it so; because a doctrine of difference is
forbidden.” In reply to the question, “ Why is it
forbidden,” the following other Shruti texts may be
cited: “He who knows ‘that Brahman is one and I am
another ‘ does not know (Brahman),” (1.4.10) “He who
regards the Brahmanical caste as different from
himself is rejected by that caste.” (Br.U. 2.4.6) “He
who perceives diversity in Brahman goes from death to
death,” (Br.U. 4.4.19) and so on.
27.     These Shruti show that transmigratory existence is
the sure result of the acceptance of (the reality of)
28. “That, on the other hand, liberation results from
the acceptance of (the reality of) non-difference is
borne out by thousands of Shruti; for example, after
teaching that the individual Self is not different
from the Supreme One, in the text, “That’ is the Self,
thou art That,” (Chh.U 6.13.3) and after saying, “A
man who has a teacher knows Brahman,”  (Chh.U.6.14.2)
the Shruti prove liberation to be the result of the
knowledge of (the reality of) non-difference only, by
saying, ‘A knower of Brahman has to wait only so long
as he is not merged in Brahman,’ (Chh.U. 6.14.2) That
transmigratory existence comes to an absolute
cessation, (in the case of one who speaks the truth
that difference has no real existence), is illustrated
by the example of one who was not a thief and did not
get burnt (by grasping a heated hatchet); and that
one, speaking what is not true (i.e. the reality of
difference,) continues to be in the mundane condition,
is illustrated by the example of a thief who got

29.     “The Shruti text commencing with ‘Whatever these
creatures are here, whether a tiger or..’(Chh.U.6.9.3)
etc. and similar other texts, after asserting that
‘One becomes one’s own master (i.e.
Brahman)’(Chh.U.6.25.2) by the knowledge of (the
reality of) non-difference, show that one continues to
remain in, the transmigratory condition in the
opposite case as the result of the acceptance of (the
reality of) difference, saying, ‘Knowing differently
from this they get other beings for their masters and
reside in perishable regions.’ (Chh.7.25.2) Such
statements are found in every branch of the Veda. It
was, therefore, certainly wrong on your part to say
that you were the son of a Brahmana, that you belonged
to such and such a lineage, that you were subject to
transmigration, and that you were different from the
Supreme Self.”
30.Therefore, on account of the rebuttal of the
perception of duality, it should be understood that,
on the knowledge of one’s identity with the Supreme
Self, the undertaking of religious rites which have
the notion of duality for their province, and the
assumption of yajnopavita etc., which are the means to
their performance, are forbidden. For these rites and
yajnopavita etc., which are their means, are
inconsistent with the knowledge of one’s identity with
the Supreme Self. It is only on those people that
refer classes and orders of life etc., to the Self
that vedic actions and yajnopavita etc., which are
their means, are enjoined, and not on those who have
acquired the knowledge of their identity with the
Supreme Self. That one is other than Brahman due only
on account of the perception of difference.

31.     “If Vedic rites were to be performed and not meant
to be renounced, the Shruti would neither have
declared the identity of oneself with the Supreme Self
unrelated to those rites, their means, castes, orders
of life, etc., which are the conditions of Vedic
actions, in unambiguous sentences like ‘That is the
Self, thou art That;’ (Chh.U.6.8.7) nor would it have
condemned the acceptance of (the reality of)
difference in clauses such as ‘It is the eternal glory
of the knower of Brahman,’ (BrU. 4.4.23) ‘Untouched by
virtue, untouched by sin,’ (BrU.4.3.22) and ‘Here a
thief is no thief’ etc (BrU 4.3.22)
32.     “The Shruti would not have stated that the
essential nature of the Self was in no way connected
with Vedic rites and conditions required by them such
as a particular class, and the rest, if they did not
intend that those rites and yajnopavita etc., their
means, should be given up. Therefore, Vedic actions
which are incompatible with the knowledge of the
identity of oneself with the Supreme Self, should be
renounced together with their means by one who aspires
after liberation; and it should be known that the Self
is no other than Brahman as defined in the Shruti.”

33.     If he says, “The pain on account of burns or cuts
in the body and the misery caused by hunger and the
like, Sir, are ‘distinctly perceived to be in me. The
Supreme Self is known in all the Shruti and the
smR^iti to be ‘free’ from sin, old age, death, grief,
hunger, thirst, etc., and devoid of smell and taste.’
(Chh.U. 8.7.1) How can I who am different from Him and
possess so many phenomenal attributes, possibly accept
the Supreme Self as myself, and myself, a
transmigratory being, as the Supreme Self? I may then
very well admit that fire is cool! Why should I, a man
of the world entitled to accomplish all prosperity in
this world and in the next, and realize the supreme
end of life, i.e, liberation, give up the actions
producing those results. and yajnopavita etc., their
34.     The teacher should say to him, ‘It was not right
hr you to say, ‘I directly perceive the pain in me
when my body gets cuts or burns.’ Why? Because the
pain due to cuts or burns, perceived in the body, the
object of the perception of the perceiver like a tree
burnt or cut, must have the same location as the bums
etc. People point out pain caused by burns and the
like to be in that place where they occur but not in
the perceiver. How? For, on being asked where one’s
pain lies, one says, ‘I have pain in the head, in the
chest or in the stomach.’ Thus one points out pain in
that place where burns or cuts occur, but never in the
perceiver. If pain or its causes viz, burns or cuts,
were in the perceiver, then one would have pointed out
the perceiver to be the seat of the pain, like the
parts of the body, the seats of the burns or cuts.
35.     “Moreover, (if it were in the Self) the pain could
not be perceived by the Self like the colour of the
eye by the same eye. Therefore, as it is perceived to
have the same seat as burns, cuts and the like, pain
must be an object of perception like them. Since it is
an effect, it must have a receptacle like that in
which rice is cooked. The impressions of pain must
have the same seat as pain. As they are perceived
during the time when memory is possible (i.e., in
waking and dream, and not in deep sleep), these
impressions must have the same location as pain. The
aversion to cuts, bums and the like, the causes of
pain, must also have the same seat (non-Self) as the
impressions (of pain). It is therefore said, ‘Desire,
aversion and fear have a seat common with that of the
impressions of colours. As they have for their seat
the intellect, the knower, the Self, is always pure
and devoid of fear.’
36.     ‘What is then the locus of the impressions of
colours and the rest?’ ‘The same as that of lust etc.’
‘Where again are lust etc.?’ They are in the intellect
(and nowhere else) according to the Shruti, ‘lust,
deliberation, doubt.’(Br.U.1.5.3) The impressions of
colours and so forth are also there (and nowhere else)
according to the Sruti, ‘what is the seat of colours?
The intellect.’ Br.U. 3.9.20) That desire, aversion
and the like are the attributes of the embodiment, the
object and not of the Self is known from the Shruti,
‘Desires that are in the intellect,’ (BrU.4.4.7) ‘ For
he is then beyond all the woes of his heart
(intellect),’ (BrU.4.3.22) ‘Because  It is
unattached,’ (BrU. 4.3.16) and ‘Its’ form is untouched
by desires’ (BrU. 4.3.21) and also from smR^iti such
as’ It is said to be changeless,’ B.G. 2.25)  ‘Because
It is beginning-less and without attributes’ (B.G.
13.31) and so on. Therefore, (it is concluded that)
impurity pertains to the object and not to the Self.
37, 38. “Therefore you are not different from the
Supreme Self inasmuch as you are devoid of impurities
such as the connection with the impressions of colours
and the like. As there is no contradiction to
perceptional evidence etc., the Supreme Self should be
accepted as oneself according to the Shruti, ‘It knew
the pure Self to be Brahman’ (Br.U.1.4.10) ‘It should
be regarded as homogeneous,’(Br.U.4.4.20) ‘It is I
that am below.’ (Chh.U.7.25.1) ‘ It is the Self that
is below,’ (Chh.U.7.25.2) ‘He knows everything to be
the Self,’ (Br.U.4.4.23) ‘When everything becomes the
Self,’ (Br.U.2.4.14) ‘All this verily is the Self,’
(Br.U.2.4.6) ‘He is without parts,’ (Pra.U. (6.5) ‘
Without interior and exterior.’ (Br.U.2.5.19) ‘Unborn,
comprising the interior and exterior,’ (Mu.U.2.1.2)
‘All this is verily Brahman,’ (Mu.U.2.2.11) ‘It
entered though this door,’(Ai.U. 1.3.12) ‘The names of
pure knowledge,’ (Ai.U..3.1.2)  ‘ Existence,
Knowledge, infinite Brahman,’(Tai.U.2.1.1) ‘From It,’
(Tai.U.2.1.1) ‘It created and entered it,’
(Tai.U.2.1.6) ‘The  shining One without a second,
concealed in all beings and all-pervading,’(Sw.U.6.11)
‘In all bodies Itself bodiless,’ (Kath.U.2.22) ‘ It is
not born and does not die,’ (Kath.U.2.18)‘ (Knowing,)
dream and waking,’ (Kath.U.2.14) ‘He is my Self, thus
one should know,’ (Kaushitak.U. III.8) ‘Who (knows)
all beings.’ (Ish.U.6) ‘It  moves and moves not,’
(Ish.U.5) ‘knowin It, one becomes worthy of being
worshipped,’ (M.N.U. 2.3) ‘It and nothing but It is
fire,’ (T.A.10.1) ‘I became Manu and the sun,’
((Br.U.1.4.10) ‘Entering into them, He rules all
creatures,’ (T.A.  ‘Existence only, my child’
((Chh.U.6.2.1)) and ‘That is real, That is the Self,
thou art That.” (Chh.U.6.8.7))
“It is established that you, the Self, are the Supreme
Brahman, the One only and devoid of every phenomenal
attribute from the smR^iti also such as, ‘All beings
are the body of One who resides in the hearts of
all,’(Apastamba Dharma Sutra 1.8.22) ‘Gods are verily
the Self,’ (Manu.XII. 119) ‘ In the city of nine
gates.’(B.G.5.13) ‘The same in all beings.’
(B.G.13.27) ‘In a Brahmana wise and courteous,’
(B.G.5.18)‘Undivided in things divided’ (B.G.13.16)
and ‘All this verily is Vasudeva (the self)’

39.     If he says “If, Sir, the Self is ‘Without interior
or exterior,’ (Br.U.2.5.19) ‘Comprising the interior
and exterior, unborn’(Mu.U.2.1.2) ‘Whole,’ ‘Pure
consciousness only’ like a lump of salt,. devoid of
all the various forms, and of a homogeneous nature
like ether, what is it that is observed in ordinary
usage and revealed in Shruti and smR^iti as what is to
be accomplished, its (appropriate) means and its
accomplishers, and is made the subject-matter of
contention among hundreds of rival disputants holding
different views?”
40.     The teacher should say, “Whatever is observed (in
this world) or learnt from the Shruti (regarding the
next world) are products of ignorance. But in reality
there is only One, the Self who appears to be many to
deluded vision, like the moon appearing to be more
than one to eyes affected by amaurosis. That duality
is the product of ignorance follows from the
reasonableness of the condemnation by Shruti of the
acceptance of (the reality of) difference such as
‘When there is something else as it were,’
(Br.U.4.3.31) ‘When
there is duality as it were, one sees another,’ ‘He
goes from death to death,’ (Br.U.4.4.19) ‘And where
one sees something else, hears something else,
cognizes something else, that is finite, and that
which is finite is mortal,’ (Chh.U.7.24.1) ‘
Modifications (i.e., effects. e.g., earthen jars)
being only names, have for their support words only,
it is earth alone (i.e. the cause) that is real’
(Chh.U.6.1.4) and ‘He is one, I am another.’
(Br.U.1.4.10) The same thing follows from the Shruti
teaching unity, for example, ‘One, only without a
second,’ (Chh.U.6.2.1) ‘When to the knower of Brahman’
(Br.U.4.5.15) and ‘What delusion or grief is there?’
41.     “If it be so, Sir, why do the Shruti speak of
diverse ends to be attained, their means, and so
forth, as also the evolution and the dissolution of
the universe?”

42.     “The answer to your question is this: Having
acquired (i.e., having identified himself with) the
various things such as the body etc. and considering
the Self to be connected with what is desirable and
what is undesirable and so on, though eager to attain
the desirable and avoid the undesirable by appropriate
means—for without certain means nothing can be
accomplished—an ignorant man cannot discriminate
between the means to the realization of what is
(really) desirable for him and the means to the
avoidance of what is undesirable.  It is the gradual
removal of this ignorance that is the aim of the
scriptures; but not the enunciation of (the reality
of) the difference of the end, means and so on. For it
is this very difference that constitutes this
undesirable transmigratory existence. The scriptures,
therefore, root out the ignorance constituting this
(like) conception of difference which is the cause of
phenomenal existence by giving reasons for the oneness
of the evolution, dissolution, etc. of the universe.’

43.     “When ignorance is uprooted with the aid of the
Shruti, smR^iti and reasoning, the one-pointed
(B.G.2.41) intellect of the seer of the supreme Truth
becomes established (B.G.2.55) in the one Self
consisting of pure Consciousness like a (homogeneous)
lump of salt and all-pervading like the ether, which
is within and without, without the interior or
exterior, and unborn. Even the slightest taint of
impurity due to the diversity of ends, means,
evolution, dissolution and the rest is, therefore not

44.     “One, eager to realize this right Knowledge spoken
of in the Shruti, should rise above the desire for a
son, wealth and this world and the next which are
described in a five-fold (Br.U.1.4.17) manner and are
the outcome of a false reference to the Self of
castes, orders of life and so on. As this reference is
contradictory to right Knowledge it is intelligible
why reasons are given by the Shruti  regarding the
prohibition of the acceptance of (the reality of)
difference. For, when the Knowledge that the one-dual
Self is beyond phenomenal existence is generated by
the scriptures and reasoning, there cannot exist (side
by side with it) a knowledge contrary to it. None can
think of chillness in fire or immortality and freedom
from old age in regard to the (perishable) body. One
therefore, who is eager to be established in the
Knowledge of the Reality should give up all actions
with yajnopavita and the rest, their accessories,
which are the effects of ignorance.”

Here ends the enlightening(teaching) of the pupil.

Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list