This Pravachan was delivered on 8 Feb 1977
Pravachan Audio link – Soundcloud –
https://on.soundcloud.com/3QoYH
https://oshoworld.com/maha-geeta-89/
(There is some problem with the
Soundcloud audio link. Please invoke the second one for audio.)
Pravachan Transcript link –
https://oshostsang.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/अष्%e2%80%8dटावक्र-महागीता-प्रव-89/
(Pravachan No 88 is a Question and Answer
session. All even numbered pravachans are Q&A sessions. Therefore, these
have been left out, for the time being – these will be taken up, on completion
of all expositions of Ashtavakra Gita.)
janaka uvAca |
kva bhUtAni kva dEhO vA
kvEndriyANi kva vA manaH |
kva SUnyaM kva ca nairASyaM
matsvarUpE niranjanE || 20 : 1 || 285 ||
kva SAstraM kvAtmavijnAnaM
kva vA nirvishayaM manaH |
kva tRptiH kva vitRshNatvaM
gatadvandvasya mE sadA || 20 : 2 || 286 ||
kva vidyA kva ca vAvidyA
kvAhaM kvEdaM mama kva vA |
kva bandhaH kva ca vA mOkshaH
svarUpasya kva rUpitA || 20 : 3 || 287 ||
kva prArabdhAni karmANi jIvanmuktirapi
kva vA |
kva tadvidEhakaivalyaM
nirviSEshasya sarvadA || 20 : 4 || 288 ||
kva kartA kva ca vA bhOktA
nishkriyaM sphuraNaM kva vA |
kvAparOkshaM phalaM vA kva
niHsvabhAvasya mE sadA || 20 : 5 || 289 ||
kva lOkaH kva mumukshurvA kva
yOgI jnAnavAn kva vA |
kva baddhaH kva ca vA muktaH
svasvarUpE(a)hamadvayE || 20 : 6 || 290 ||
kva sRshTiH kva ca saMhAraH
kva sAdhyaM kva ca sAdhanam |
kva sAdhakaH kva siddhirvA
svasvarUpE(a)hamadvayE || 20 : 7 || 291 ||
जनक उवाच ।
क्व भूतानि क्व देहो
वा क्वेन्द्रियाणि क्व वा मनः ।
क्व शून्यं क्व च
नैराश्यं मत्स्वरूपे निरञ्जने ।। 20 : 1
।। 285 ||
क्व शास्त्रं क्वात्मविज्ञानं
क्व वा निर्विषयं मनः ।
क्व तृप्तिः क्व
वितृष्णत्वं गतद्वन्द्वस्य मे सदा ।। 20 : 2
।। 286 ||
क्व विद्या क्व च
वाविद्या क्वाहं क्वेदं मम क्व वा ।
क्व बन्धः क्व च
वा मोक्षः स्वरूपस्य क्व रूपिता ।। 20 : 3
।। 287 ||
क्व प्रारब्धानि
कर्माणि जीवन्मुक्तिरपि क्व वा ।
क्व तद्विदेहकैवल्यं
निर्विशेषस्य सर्वदा ।। 20 : 4
।। 288 ||
क्व कर्ता क्व च
वा भोक्ता निष्क्रियं स्फुरणं क्व वा ।
क्वापरोक्षं फलं
वा क्व निःस्वभावस्य मे सदा ।। 20 : 5
।। 289 ||
क्व लोकः क्व मुमुक्षुर्वा
क्व योगी ज्ञानवान् क्व वा ।
क्व बद्धः क्व च
वा मुक्तः स्वस्वरूपेऽहमद्वये ।। 20 : 6
।। 290 ||
क्व सृष्टिः क्व
च संहारः क्व साध्यं क्व च साधनम् ।
क्व साधकः क्व सिद्धिर्वा
स्वस्वरूपेऽहमद्वये ।। 20 : 7
।। 291 ||
(In the book ‘Ashtavakra Samhita’ by Swami
Nityaswarupananda, these 7 Slokas are given as Chapter 20 (1 - 7); but, according to
the transcript of the Pravachan, all these are
given sequentially (285 – 291) without any chapters. Accordingly, both the
systems of numbering have been adopted here.)
Pravachan
Poem of Acharya –
उम्र भर एहसान भूलूंगा
नहीं मैं
अश्रु से मेरी नहीं
पहचान थी कुछ
दर्द से परिचय तुम्हीं
ने तो कराया
छू दिया तुमने हृदय
की धड़कनों को
गीत का अंकुर तुम्हीं
ने तो उगाया
मूक मन को स्वर दिये
हैं बस तुम्हीं ने (उम्र
भर)
मैं न पाता सीख यह
भाषा नयन की
तुम न मिलते उम्र
मेरी व्यर्थ होती
सांस ढोती शव विवश
अपना स्वयं ही
और मेरी जिंदगी किस
अर्थ होती
प्राण को विश्वास
सौंपा बस तुम्हीं ने (उम्र
भर)
तुम मिले हो क्या
मुझे साथी सफर में
राह से कुछ मोह जैसा
हो गया है
एक सूनापन कि जो
मन को डसे था
राह में गिरकर कहीं
वह खो गया है
शोक को उत्सव किया
है बस तुम्हीं ने (उम्र
भर)
यह हृदय पाहन बना
रहता सदा ही
सच कहूं यदि जिंदगी
में तुम न मिलते
यूं न फिर मधुमास
मेरा मित्र होता
और अधरों पर न यह
फिर फूल खिलते
भग्न मंदिर फिर बनाया
बस तुम्हीं ने (उम्र भर)
तीर्थ सा मन कर दिया
है बस तुम्हीं ने
उम्र भर एहसान भूलूंगा
नहीं मैं
Rough Translation –
I shall not forget your favour throughout my
life.
I had no familiarity with tears; you
familiarised me with pain; you touched my heart’s throb; you raised the sprout
of song; you gave voice to my dumb mind. (I shall not)
Had you not come, I could not have learnt the
language of eyes, and my whole life would have become waste; this dead-body
would have remained constrained to keep breathing; of what purpose, my life
would have been? You infused confidence to my vitality. (I shall not)
Having got a companion like you, in my journey,
I have become enamoured with the path; a void, which was pinching my mind, has
dropped off on the wayside; it is you who turned my grief into celebration. (I
shall not)
In fact, but for you, my heart would have always
remained just a stone, and spring would not have been my companion, and flowers
would not have been blossoming like this, on my lips; you only restored this
dilapidated temple. (I shall not)
You have made my mind like a holy place. (I
shall not)
The disciple feels incapable of expressing
gratitude; what kind of vocabulary (Sabda) should he use for expressing
gratitude? It is so, because, the words (vocabulary) are handed down by preceptor
himself; it (gratitude) could, probably, be like the submission of a dumb. Even
then, the disciple feels like telling something; he could not remain without
expressing also. There is only one option – be an echo of the preceptor;
whatever the preceptor said, that should be humming in his (disciple’s)
vitality (prANa); whatever the preceptor played (sang), that should be played
on the vitality-lute of the disciple; only that could be expression of
gratitude (AbhAr). It is not possible to redeem the debt of preceptor. A
disciple asked Buddha – ‘you gave so much; how can we redeem that debt? How to
express my gratitude?’ Buddha said – ‘there is only one possibility; whatever I
gave, partake it with others.’ There is only one method – to spread the
fragrance obtained from the preceptor.
In these final Sutras, Janaka is expressing that
state of mind. Through that expression, the entire conversation has come out in
a condensed form, in the form of substance. It would make no difference, even
if the whole Mahagita gets lost, but the final portion remains; Janaka has
actually condensed it (Mahagita) – like a tree that sprouts from a seed, and
then (further) seeds come out from the tree. Janaka expressed his
inquisitiveness (jijnAsA) in a few words – like a seed. Ashtavakra made that
seed into a tree. Now Janaka has again making it into a seed – by making it
brief (condensed). One could understand his problem, his impatience, because,
there is no method of expressing gratitude.
Poem of Acharya –
जीव भर का सुबरन;
देकर
भी करता मन
दे दूं कुछ और अभी
तन अंगीकार करो;
मन—धन
स्वीकार करो
लोभ—मोह—भ्रम
लेकर;
प्राण
निर्विकार करो
प्रति पल प्रति याम
दूं;
सवेरे
दूं शाम दूं
जब तक पूजा—प्रसमन;
देकर
भी करता मन (दे दूं कुछ)
भक्ति—भाव
अर्जन लो;
शक्ति
साध सर्जन लो
अर्पित है अंतर्तम;
अहं
का विसर्जन लो
जन्म लो मरण ले लो;
स्वप्न—जागरण
ले लो
चिर संचित श्रम साधन;
देकर
भी करता मन (दे दूं कुछ)
यह नाम तुम्हारा
हो;
धन—
धाम
तुम्हारा हो
मात्र कर्म मेरे
हों;
परिणाम
तुम्हारा हो
उंगलियां सुमरनी
हों;
सांसें
अनुसरणी हों
शाश्वत स्वर आत्म—सुमन;
देकर
भी करता मन (दे दूं कुछ)
Only if the pain (of the disciple) could be
understood, it would be possible to enter into these Sutras. Do not consider
these Sutras to be mere repetition; it seems like repetition, because, in one
sense, Janaka is saying whatever Ashtavakra said; but, it is not repetition. If
Janaka repeats whatever Ashtavakra said, as it is – like a parrot – then, it is
repetition. But, the words of Ashtavakra have become inner-illumination
(prakASa) of the life of Janaka. Now, Janaka is speaking his heart out. When
disciple speaks the language (voice) of preceptor, after making them his inmost
experience, it is not simple repetition. Even though the vocabulary might be
same, it is not simple repetition. Now, these words have come alive again; a
new life has been infused into these words. The words are same, yet, they are
not same.
There is a mention in the life of a Zen Fakir.
Once, when his preceptor gave him a problem for meditation – he gave a Koan (a
Zen paradox). The paradox was about – how to clap with one hand? He (disciple)
pondered about it. Whatever sounds we are aware of, come only when two things
clash; sound is always produced only by clash of two things. The sound which is
produced through clash, is itself a clash, violent; such a sound cannot be
eternal (SASvata); it is born and it dies also.
This formula of Zen Fakir’s search for ‘clap
with one hand’ means, search for such a sound, which is always present,
eternally – birth-less, death-less. This sound is called ‘anAhata’ by mystiques
of Bharat. Anahata means ‘unstruck’ – without clash. Therefore, the disciple
kept searching, kept meditating. Even after such meditation for a long time, he
failed to get an answer. Therefore, he asked another experienced practitioner
(sAdhak). That person said – ‘my preceptor also gave me the same problem;
whenever I went back with solution (answer), it was found to be wrong. Then,
one day, I experienced that the question could not be answered. I realised that
I should, myself, become a clap of single hand; that would be proper response.
Then, I went to my preceptor, with total calmness, having become void (Sunya),
without any thoughts (vicAr). There was no sound (voice), no wave inside me. I
fell at the feet of my preceptor. He accepted that to be the correct answer.
Thus, my practice (meditation) (sAdhana) came to conclusion.’
Next day, that disciple, having taken bath,
after meditating, went to his preceptor, and bowed at his feet. But, seeing
him, the preceptor laughed; he said – ‘such borrowal will not work.’ The
disciple said – ‘but, I am bowing at your feet with the same kind of calmness –
totally silent.’ The preceptor said – ‘when that person went to his preceptor,
it was not borrowed (knowledge); he was totally void. But, you have come with
semblance (AbhAs) of void; you have come by making effort (cEshTA); though you
are calm on the surface, inside you, there are thousands and thousands of
thoughts – thought waves. Even now, when you are bowing, you are wondering
whether it would be accepted or not.’ Then, that disciple took leave, and came
back only when he had become a total void. There was no difference between
inside and outside him. He bowed before the preceptor. The preceptor saw the
difference now. When the preceptor accepted his answer, he (disciple) asked him
(preceptor) – ‘last time, when I came, then also, I was similarly calm; but,
you said that it is borrowed. But, now you say that this is the right answer. I
am not feeling any difference.’ Therefore, the preceptor said – ‘the difference
is not outside, but inside.’ Zen Koan - Talk of Osho
People might understand that whatever Janaka is
telling, is just a repetition of what Ashtavakra said, and that there is no
need for such repetition. But, if one sees inside (Janaka), you would find that
whatever Ashtavakra said has come back live again; Janaka has infused his soul
(Self) (Atma) into it. Now, this is the voice – true voice - of Janaka. In
these Sutras he (Janaka) brings out the substance of his understanding of what
Ashtavakra said.
First Sutra –
janaka uvAca |
kva bhUtAni kva dEhO vA
kvEndriyANi kva vA manaH |
kva SUnyaM kva ca nairASyaM
matsvarUpE niranjanE || 20 : 1 || 285 ||
‘In my natural form (svarUpa)
which is taintless (niranjana), where are (five) elements (bhUtAni) or body
(dEha) or organs (of sense and action) (indriya) or mind (mana) or even where
is void (SUnya) or even absence of space (nirASya)?’ (Translator’s note – The
word ‘nairASya’ means ‘despair’. However, meaning given by Acharya (space) has
been taken here.)
The words of Ashtavakra have
struck Janaka so profoundly, that he is in a state of shock – as if someone is awakened
from deep sleep suddenly, as if someone struck by lightning, as if a blind got
his eyesight suddenly, as if a deaf is able to hear suddenly, as if a dead
person has come back alive. It was all so sudden, that he is bewildered,
stunned. All these words (of Janaka) are full of such bewilderment.
matsvarUpE niranjanE – my
natural form which is taintless. The word ‘niranjan’ is very valuable. It means
one on whom there could be no blot (anjan), no coating (lEp). A lotus leaf is
stated to be taintless, because, even though it is in the water, not even a
drop of water can stay on that leaf; the droplet remains separate from the
leaf; it does not touch the leaf; therefore, it is taintless. Janaka says –
‘similarly, though I am near the body, I have not become the body; though I am
near – so near – the mind, and yet, I am standing adjacent to it – I have not
become the mind. I perform actions, but I never become the doer (actor) (kartA)
– I am standing aside. I am in the midst of enjoyments (bhOga), but I am
standing aloof – I never become enjoyer (bhOktA); not even a shadow of
enjoyment touches me – like the reflection in the mirror, which never touches
the mirror; when the object moves away, the reflection is also gone.
This is the difference between
a mirror and a camera plate. When a picture forms in the camera plate, it is a
(kind of) layer (lEpan). Even after the object is gone, the picture remains
there. But, it is not the case with a mirror – reflection is formed and it also
goes off. State of witness, is like a mirror – not like camera plate. An
ignorant is like the camera plate – whatever is seen, gets captured. No matter
how long ago it happened, it keeps resounding in your mind even now; even now,
you keep repeating it; you keep experiencing the pain, by scratching it (the
wound). One is not able to forget incidents happened even fifty years earlier.
It has become a layer. Your entire past (atIta) has become layered; it has
become a scar. You have become layered on all sides.
Janaka says – matsvarUpE
niranjanE - ‘....where are the five elements in my taintless natural form?’
This grand (virAT) play, of five elements, that is happening, is outside me; it
is separate from me; it does not enter into me; my form is such that, it (play)
cannot enter inside me. If water is mixed with water, it remains same; but, if
you mix water with oil, it does not mix; they (water and oil) remain close by,
but they do not mix; they remain separate. Similarly, consciousness (caitanya)
remains totally separate from material substance (matter) (padArtha); no layer
is formed on it (consciousness).
Janaka says – ‘....where is
body and where are organs of perception (indriya)?’ I am standing behind my
eyes; but I am not the eyes. Eyes do not perceive; they are just openings
(windows) (jharOkhA), ventilators (vAtAyan), through which someone is seeing
(perceiving). Ears are not the perceiver; it is just a window, standing by
which, someone is hearing. When I touch you with my hands, it is not the hands
which actually touch you; otherwise, even a dead person’s hands could touch
you, even dead person’s eyes could see towards you. Yet it is not possible for
it (dead person) to do so, because the one who stands behind (the perceiver)
has taken leave; the real energy has left. That real energy is the blotless
(taintless).
‘...where are organs of
perception, where is mind, and where is even void (SUnya)?’ Janaka is telling
something unique. He says – ‘I am not at all the mind; I am not even the void
that is experienced in total absorption (samAdhi), because, I am not any
experience.’ This needs to be understood; it is a little subtle. You become
separate from whatever comes within the purview of your experience. Understand
this to be the arithmetic (gaNit) of inner-life (antar-jIvan). You are not
anything that comes within the purview of your experience. You are separate
from whatever is seen. One who becomes the seen (object of perception) (dRSya)
is not the seer (drashTA). If you find great illumination inside, you become
separate even from that (illumination) – you are the seer. If you notice a
great stream of nectar (amRta) flowing inside, you become separate even from
that (nectar) – you are the seer. If you see that everything inside has become
empty (void) – no thoughts, no waves, no feelings (bhAva), but only an endless
(infinite) (ananta) tranquility (peace) (SAnti) prevails – then, you become
separate even from that peace – you are the knower of that peace. Therefore,
one is neither mind nor even the void. One becomes separate from all the
‘things’ that are ‘known’. I am the ‘taintless’ - matsvarUpE niranjanE – ‘I am
not even space (AkASa), and not even the absence (abhAva) of space
(space-less-ness).’
kva SAstraM kvAtmavijnAnaM
kva vA nirvishayaM manaH |
kva tRptiH kva vitRshNatvaM
gatadvandvasya mE sadA || 20 : 2 || 286 ||
‘For me who is bereft of
duality (dvandva-rahita), where are scriptures (SAstra), where is
Self-knowledge (Atma-vijnAna), where is even the unattached (desire-less) (nirvishayam)
mind, where is contentment (tRpti), or where is even absence of thirst (for
objects) (vitRshNAtvam)?’
‘I have gone beyond all
dualities (dvandva). Wherever there is duality (two) (pairs of opposites), I am
not there. Understand this. All that we experience in life, belong to the
‘twos’ (duality). Therefore, wherever there is duality, ‘you’ are not there,
because that (duality) is not your real nature (svarUpa) – mat-svarUpE
niranjanE. Wherever there is grief, there is happiness also; where there is
day, there is night also; where there is life, there is death also; where there
is man, there is woman also; where there is woman, there is man also; where
there is peace, there is disquiet also; where there is childhood, there is old
age also; wherever things are made, there is destruction also; wherever there
is creation, there is dissolution (vidhvamSa) also. Wherever there are two –
pairs of opposites – your taintless (niranjan) real nature (svarUpa) is not
there. People always choose one of the pairs; someone says – ‘I am a man’; he
has chosen one; someone says – ‘I am a woman’; she has also made a choice.
Someone asked Buddha – ‘after
attaining Buddha-hood, are you a man or woman?’ Buddha replied – ‘I do not make
any choice now; I am beyond choices – I am neither a man nor a woman; just ‘I
am’; all those (choices) were identifications (tAdAtmya); such choices used to
result in coating (layering) (lEp).’
‘Are you young or old?’ – if
you make a choice, you fall; be steady in choice-less-ness (acunAv). Just think
of it – this is very close (immediate) to you, yet, you miss it. Close your
eyes, and think, whether you are young or old. When you were a child or when
you are young or even when you are old, there is no difference in your inner
experience; as a child, young or old, your inner experience remains same at all
stages. All transformations take place outside; the body keeps changing, but
there is formless-ness (arUp) inside – it is eternal (SASvata), everlasting
(nitya). Externally, you might think about yourself as a man or woman. But,
have you ever looked inside? The difference of man and woman is only external –
in the body, it is physical (SArIrik). Awareness (consciousness) (caitanya)
cannot be man or woman; there cannot be any characteristic of difference as man
or woman at the level of consciousness. It remains just a witness – neither a
woman nor a man.
An aged Jain asked me – ‘Jains
believe that a woman cannot attain liberation (mOksha); she cannot liberation
through stages (paryAya); she has to become a man. What is your opinion? Can a
woman attain liberation or not?’ (The question arises because) all scriptures
have been written by men; men had kept women suppressed; men could not have
courage to keep women as equal or above them. I replied – ‘as far as liberation
is concerned, there is no (concept of) (difference of) man or woman. Till one
is a man or a woman, one cannot attain liberation. What you say is wrong;
according to you, only men can attain liberation; but, liberation is choice-less;
liberation happens in the state of witness (sAkshI-bhAva).
Where are any scriptures in
me - matsvarUpE niranjanE – who is taintless – in whom no blot, no coating
remains, who has recognised the inner object (antar-vastu), in whom there is no
duality whatsoever – neither a woman nor man, neither young nor old, neither
fair nor dark, neither Hindu nor Muslim? All scriptures are in the mind, in the
intellect (buddhi); there are no scriptures in ‘me’. Whether one believes in
Quran or Puranas or Vedas or Bible, all are play of mind only. Mind is there up
to where Word (Sabda) can reach; ‘you’ begin(s) where words cannot reach, where
there is only silence (niSSabda). There is coating up to that point where there
are words; beyond that ‘you’ become taintless. How words have got hold of you!
Ask anyone – ‘who are you?’
He says – ‘I am a Muslim’ or ‘I am a Hindu’ or ‘I am a Jain’ or ‘I am a
Buddhist’ or ‘I am a Christian’. How words have got hold of you! Who is a
Christian or Hindu or Muslim? When child is born, it is neither a Hindu nor a
Muslim nor a Christian. We teach the child; we ordain (samskArit) the child; we
make the child consume all these gulp by gulp. From the day the child comes out
(of the womb), we begin to make it a Muslim or Hindu. Because of that constant
ordination (samskAr), the child starts believing that it is a Muslim or Hindu.
The child is made parochial (narrow) (sankIrNa). The soul (Self) (Atma) is
neither a Hindu nor a Muslim. Temple or Mosque – all are limitations; the soul
is infinite (limitless) (asIm). There is no scripture for the soul; it (soul)
has no word; it is word-less (niSSabda), thought-less (nirvicAr), immutable
(nirvikAr).
matsvarUpE niranjanE gata
dvandvasya mE sadA – there is duality (dvandva) up to the point where words can
reach. It is not possible to find any such word which has no antonym (opposite
word); words are replete with duality (opposites) (dvandva). If you call
someone beautiful, you have to call someone else as not beautiful (asundar).
You cannot say that everything (everyone) looks beautiful. If everything is
beautiful, then the word ‘beautiful’ has no meaning. Only when you see
ugliness, you can perceive beauty. There can be no knowledge (bOdha) of beauty
without conceding ugliness (kurUp). Calling someone ‘mahAtmA’ means that there
is someone who is mean-minded (hIn-AtmA); it means that someone is eminent
(SrEshTa) and someone else is just ordinary (not-eminent) (aSrEshTa); therefore,
difference (bhEda) arises. If you say ‘good’, then, ‘bad’ also is there; good
comprises of bad also. These (duality) are two sides of the same coin. All words
are dualistic. Within the words, there is no method of getting beyond duality.
You cannot say – ‘I see God everywhere’; if so, there is no need to say so;
only when you see ‘devil’ somewhere, it is possible to perceive ‘God’ somewhere
else. Otherwise (if God is seen everywhere), it is futile to say so. Only when
you had become miserable some time, you say ‘I am happy’ some time else.
gata dvandvasya mE sadA –
Janaka says ‘I am beyond duality’. ‘I am’ not up to where there is duality; ‘I
am’ where there is no duality. Neither
scriptures (SAstra) nor Self-knowledge (Atma-vijnAna) is there; nor there is
mind, which is attached to sense-objects (vishaya); not even ‘contentment’
(tRpti) is there, because there is no thirst either; till there is thirst,
there can be satisfaction (satiation) (contentment). If someone says – ‘I am very
contented (santushTa) – there is no unhappiness in my mind’, then, understand
that somewhere or other, there is unhappiness (ansantOsha) in him; otherwise,
how can there be any feeling of contentment? If there is no thirst, there can
be no experience of satiation (tRpti) also. If there is no hunger, there can be
no satiation also. All experiences bring along with them their opposites. That
is why, yesterday, I told you – ‘bear in mind that, if ever you experience the
peak of happiness, then the valleys of unhappiness also are there nearby; you
would fall into them, and would not be able escape.’
Among the teachings of (J)
Krishnamurthy, there is a very valuable word – ‘choice-less-ness’ – beyond
choices. Do no choose. If you do even this much, that you just keep watching,
and not choose – not say ‘beautiful’ or ‘not beautiful’, not say ‘mine’ or
‘another’, not say ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’, no desire to keep it with you or
get rid of it – then, in that choice-less-ness, you become liberated (mukta).
kva vidyA kva ca vAvidyA
kvAhaM kvEdaM mama kva vA |
kva bandhaH kva ca vA mOkshaH
svarUpasya kva rUpitA || 20 : 3 || 287 ||
‘Where is any attribute
(rUpitA) to the (my) natural Self (form) (svarUpa), where is knowledge (vidyA)
or ignorance (absence of knowledge) (avidyA), where is even ‘this’ or ‘mine’,
where is ‘bondage’ or even ‘liberation’?’
svarUpasya kva rUpitA – ...where
is any attribute to the natural Self (form)? Even to talk about silence
(word-less-ness) (niHSabda), words have to be used. Therefore, keep in mind, the
limit of words. The more invaluable a statement (vacan) is, the more
paradoxical (virOdhAbhAsi) it would be. For example – ‘where is any attribute
to the natural Self (form)?’ He says ‘natural form’ (sva-rUpa), and also says
‘attribute’ (rUpitA). In the word ‘natural form’ (svarUpa) itself, ‘form’
(rUpa) is there. But, that is the constraint (majbUrI). All the words are replete
with duality. Therefore, for going beyond duality, there is only one option,
for making it apparent (pragaT) – to use an opposite word (paradox) (viparIta).
Upanishads say – ‘paramAtmA is farther than far, and nearer than near’. It does
not appear to be correct; it is not logical (tarka-yukta). If It (paramAtmA) is
far, then ‘far’; otherwise, if near, then ‘near’. What is this – ‘farther than
far, and nearer than near’? But, that is the constraint. The constraint is
that, if it is said that (He) is ‘far’, then it is a mistake; if it is said
‘near’, then also, it is mistake. It is so because, even by saying ‘near’, It
(paramAtmA) has been distanced; distance is hidden in ‘near’. What you call
‘near’ is also away (distant) – it is a question of measurement. Someone might
be sitting near me – four feet away, or six feet away, or ten feet away, or ten
miles away, or ten light years away. All these are distances. Even the one who
is sitting at four feet, is away by four feet. Therefore, whether you call it
‘four feet near’ or ‘four feet away’, what difference would it make? Both words
mean the same. There is distance in every nearness; there is nearness in every
distance. There is great difficulty in (usage of) language. Language is
relative (sApEksha). You say – water is either cold or hot. This is not the
fact (tathya), because, which one you call ‘cold’, and which one as ‘hot’?
I was reading the life
(story) of a traveller. He was travelling in Siberia. One day, it so happened
that he wandered away from the path (route). In all directions, it was only
white – ice. Therefore he could not find any path to reach his camp (DErA). It
was late evening, and getting dark; it was biting cold; blood was almost
freezing. He became frightened, that he could not reach his camp for the night.
He started running here and there; he reached a village where there were a few
igloos – house of Eskimos of Siberia. The igloo is made of ice (snow); ice is
frozen and made into house – igloo. He was trembling with cold; he was afraid
that he might die. He went inside the igloo. The master of igloo comforted him,
and asked him to take rest. He (master) was sitting bare-bodied; he was not
feeling any cold. The visitor was trembling; his teeth were chattering. The
master (of igloo) gave him a light blanket, and asked him to use it in case it
becomes very cold in the night.
Therefore, cold and hot are
relative. What seems as hot to you, might be felt as cold by someone else. What
seems cold to you, might seem to be hot for someone else. (Do this experiment.)
Fill up a bucket of water; place one hand in an ice slab, and another hand in
the heat of the stove; then place both hands into the bucket water. In one
hand, you would feel cold, and in another hot. The hand which you placed on ice
slab would feel hot; the hand which you placed on the stove, would feel cold.
You would have the experience of hot and cold simultaneously. Both your hands
are placed in the same water, but one hand feels hot, and another cold. It is
all relative. Therefore, what is ‘near’ and what is ‘far’? The words (of
language) should be used carefully. That is why all scriptures (dharma SAstra) and
theologians (masters of scriptures) (dharma SAstA) used opposite words
(paradoxes) simultaneously. By that, it is meant to convey that you should not
get deluded by dualities. We should pitch one against the other; when both of
them fall out, whatever remains is the Truth (reality) (sac).
‘...where are any attributes
(rUpitA) in natural form (Self) (svarUpa)?’ This seems to be a senseless
(bEbhUjh) statement – a paradox. ‘svarUpa’ means one’s (svayam) form (rUpa);
along with this, something else has been associated – ‘where are any attributes
(rUpitA)?’ What (other) kind of form (rUpa) could exist in one’s form? What
Janaka tells is – ‘in my inmost (antartam), there is no form, no shape (AkAr,
AkRti)’. In fact, to state ‘inmost’ is also not correct, because, in your
inmost, neither there is any inside nor outside. Whatever is your real nature,
is the real nature of everything (everyone) else also. There, everything
(everyone) is same; none is separate.
svarUpasya kva rUpitA – In
that supreme state, where is any knowledge (vidyA) or absence of knowledge
(ignorance) (avidyA)? Knowledge means that which is learnt; all the learnings (sikhAvan)
remain in the mind only; they do not get out. Therefore, if your mind (brain)
(man) is injured, one forgets all that is learnt. (Translator’s note – Here,
Acharya describes about his physician-friend, whom he knew from his childhood,
losing all memories by falling down from a train. In order to avoid repetition,
this has been condensed.) Whatever we call ‘knowledge’, are all learnt; it can
be snatched away anytime. Now, there are a lot of methods for brain-washing
also. In Russia, if anyone is against Communism, he is not killed - killing is
an ancient method. But, now, electrical current is passed through the person’s
brain, such that all his memories are wiped out; after that neither there is
Communism nor opposition to it. That person becomes totally blank – his memory
slate has been wiped out. Now, he can be taught afresh; Communism can be taught
to him. Now, most dangerous instruments have fallen into the hands of man; governments
have very dangerous powers; there is no need to kill opponents; it is worse
than killing. If such a person is killed, at least he will die honourably; but
his memory is wiped out.
Only he who has reached (the
state of) meditation, can escape brain-washing; even if his whole memory is
wiped out, it would make no difference, because, he has already come to know
that there is no brain (in the state of meditation). If you wipe out the brain
of Ashtavakra, he would not bother; it would make no difference to him; his dignity
(garimA) would not be affected. That is why I say that the formula for (of)
meditation should be spread throughout the World, as soon as possible, because,
governments have got hold of dangerous weapons. Man’s independence was never
more in danger, than it is now. Man’s brain can easily be wiped out. But, if
you have the formula for meditation, if you could become witness, then, no
government can cause damage to you. But, there are very few witnesses – people
are mostly doers (actors) (kartA) and enjoyers (bhOktA); people have considered
that their mind is everything.
‘....where are any attributes
(rUpitA) for one’s self (svarUpa), where is any knowledge?’ Find in your
inside, such a level, which is beyond, above, and larger than all your knowledge
(information) (jAnkArI), where there is no information, and you remain just a
knower. If someone asks you – ‘who are you?’, people respond – ‘I am an
engineer or doctor and so on.’ But, this is not your being (existence) (hOnA);
this is your education (vidyA), this is your learning. Being an engineer or a
doctor is not your existence (astitva); you have established identity with your
education; you have made a very wrong association; this knot (gANTh) is very
strong, and it will cost you dearly. Be a witness.
‘......what kind of knowledge
(vidyA) or absence of knowledge (ignorance) (avidyA)?’ Remember one thing – in
order to be (become) a witness, it is not necessary to be learned (vidvAn) or
scholar (paNDit); you can become a witness, wherever you are. People ask me – ‘how
can one reach (attain) meditation, without understanding the scriptures
(SAstra), without being a master in learning? It is a very difficult task.’
There is no difficulty in it. It makes no difference, whether you are learned
in scriptures or you do not have any scriptural knowledge, or you do not even have
any knowledge in any language at all. Being witness means – not associating
oneself with whatever is done. Suppose, there is a farmer; even while farming,
he can be a witness; all that he should keep in mind is, that the one who is
ploughing or seedling (planting) (hal-bakkhar) is not me, and that I am just a
witness (seer) (dEkhnEwAlA) – it is the body which is ploughing or seedling
(planting), and the mind is planning how to do it; I am just watching.
It is one and same, whether
you are learning Vedas or you are cobbler (camAr) or a sculptor – it makes no
difference. What you do (undertake) is not of any concern. Whatever you do,
become aware of that, as a witness; then you would enter into the supreme World
of witness. That is why, Gora Kumbhar attained knowledge, even though the
scholars of Kashi did not agree with that; they (scholars of Kashi) said – ‘how
is it possible for a potter to attain knowledge? How Kabir could attain
knowledge even while being a weaver? How Raidas Chamar could attain knowledge
even while being a cobbler? This does not appeal.’ The scholars of Kashi think
that one cannot attain knowledge without scholarship – degree. (Translator’s
note – Gora Kumbhar is a potter from Maharashtra (13th century).
Ravidas Chamar (probably 13th century) belonged to Varanasi.)
Swami Ramthirtha returned to
India from America; he became very famous there. From that point of view,
America is very simple. America is, probably, the only country in the history
of mankind, where scholars (paNDit) are not over-valued – they have the value
of an ordinary person. In America, you might find such professors, who do not
have even a degree, and they are teaching in the Universities. In India, you
won’t be able to find any such professor, who does not have a degree, and who
teaches in the University. Even if a donkey is a degree holder, it could become
a professor in the University. You might be surprised (to know) that professors
teach about Kabirdas. But, if Kabirdas himself comes back now, he could not become
a professor. Kabirdas is being taught about in the Universities; thesis about
him (and his works) are written. If someone could write thesis about Kabirdas,
he could become a University professor. But, if Kabirdas himself comes back, he
would not be able to get professor-ship. Whereas in America, things are very
practical. There, you might find such poet-professors, who do not have any
degree. There, you might find such engineers who do not have any degree – they
have practical experience. From that stand-point, America is unique, because it
is a professional (vyavasAyI) country. The hold of a professional is very practical;
his outlook is towards results.
When (Swami) Ramthirtha was
in America, he was greatly regarded there, because what he said was so direct
(pratyaksha). It is no use to ask him, as to how many scriptures (SAstra) have
been read by him, and how much he knows about Vedas. His very presence was Vedas;
his voice was that of Vedas; an ocean was undulating in his eyes; that
exultation (mastI) was proof enough. But, this will not work at Kashi. When
Ramthirtha came back, he went to Kashi, and a great surprise was awaiting him.
When he started talking, somebody – a scholar (paNDit) – stood up; he said –
‘please hold on. Do you know Sanskrit?’ Ramthirtha was not knowledgeable in
Sanskrit; he was a scholar (vidvAn) in Parsi. He was born near Lahore; he studied
at Lahore; he knew Urdu and Parsi; he was a professor of Mathematics; he was
not familiar with Sanskrit. Therefore, Ramthirtha was astonished by the
question. That person said – ‘Sir, first learn Sanskrit; learn Vedas, if you
want to attain knowledge of Brahman. The kind of knowledge of Brahman, which
you are exuding, is of no value, if it is not supported by scriptures.’ During
the past hundred years, no person like Ramthirtha was born in this country;
there was no one else who had such a mysticism (sUFiAnA), who was so
substantive, who had seen the Supreme Lord (paramAtmA) from such proximity. But
the people in the assembly got up and left, because Ramthirtha did not know
Sanskrit. The scholars of Kashi were blinded by their scholarship in Sanskrit.
There is no use of learning
Sanskrit. It is not necessary to learn Arabic to become a Muslim; it is not
necessary to learn Sanskrit to be a Hindu; nor is it essential to know Hebrew
to be a Jew. In order to know the Truth lying inside, it is just essential to
become awakened; one has to open ‘eyes’ and look inwards, to know That which is
lying inside.
kva vidyA kva ca vAvidyA
kvAhaM kvEdaM mama kva vA |
kva bandhaH kva ca vA mOkshaH
svarUpasya kva rUpitA ||
‘Where is knowledge or
absence of knowledge (ignorance)? Where is ‘I’ or this (yah) or mine (mErA)?
Where is bondage or even liberation?’ Bondage and liberation belong to the
World of duality. svarUpasya kva rUpitA – here, there is neither bondage nor
liberation, nor any form or shape (AkRti) is made here. A liberated person
cannot even say that he is liberated, because there remains neither ‘I’ (me)
nor even liberation. Suppose a person is released after being a prisoner for
twenty long years; he was till then shackled and kept within the confines of
prison bars. He is now unshackled, and left in the open. Till then, he was in
the darkness of prison cell. When he comes out and feels the fresh air, he
would, naturally be elated seeing the outside world. He would be experiencing a
great liberation. But, suppose you are passing by; you would not be feeling any
such elation, because, you cannot understand his state of mind. (Translator’s
note – Acharya has described, the elation of the person released from prison,
in great details. This has been condensed in order to avoid repetition.)
The meaning of ‘experience of
liberation’ is simply that, till then, he had the experience of shackles
(bondage). Only he, who had remained under shackles, could experience freedom
(liberation). Therefore, in the initial stages of freedom, he might experience
freedom, momentarily. After that, he realises that there was neither bondage
nor freedom; both are gone. Along with bondage, freedom also goes, obviously.
Happiness also goes along with unhappiness (grief); peace (SAnti) also goes
along with disquiet. Now, duality does not remain; only That which is beyond
duality remains.
kva prArabdhAni karmANi
jIvanmuktirapi kva vA |
kva tadvidEhakaivalyaM
nirviSEshasya sarvadA || 20 : 4 || 288 ||
‘For me who is has no
righteousness (dharma) or unrighteousness (adharma), there are no actions which
have begun to bear fruit (prArabdha karma); neither there is liberation while
alive (jIvan-mukti) nor liberation at death (vidEha kaivalya).’ (Translator’s
note – this is how Acharya has given the meaning of this Sutra. The literal
meaning of the Sutra as given in the book ‘Ashtavakra Samhita’ by Swami
Nityaswarupananda is as under –
‘Where are prArabdha karmas,
where is liberation-in-life, and where is even liberation-at-death for me, the
ever undifferentiated?’)
‘....I am undifferentiated
(nirviSEsha).... (nirviSEshasya sarvadA). Janaka says – ‘there are no
adjectives (viSEshaNa) on me’. Neither I am a Hindu nor Muslim, nor Christian,
nor Brahmin, nor Sudra, nor woman, nor man, nor knowledgeable (jnAnI), nor
ignorant (ajnAnI), nor bound, nor liberated. There are no adjectives on me –
just ‘I am’. Being is pure, beyond any limits; it is beyond any definition
(paribhAshA). Now, no definition can be applied to me.
nirviSEshasya sarvadA –
understand the meaning of nirviSEsha. There are two meanings for this – one -
without adjectives (viSEshaNa) – that no adjective is meaningful. Janaka says –
‘just enough to say that no adjective applies to me – small or big, wealthy or
poor, renouncer (tyAgI) or enjoyer (bhOgI), doer (kartA) or non-doer (akartA) –
no adjective can be applied. nirviSEsha has another meaning – ‘I am not special
(viSishTa) in any way; I am not a special person’.
To be special (viSishTa) is
the fascination (delusion) (mOha) of ego. There is a desire (wish) (icchA) in
the minds of all of us – that I should be someone special. We are making
effort, throughout our lives, to prove (siddha) that ‘I am someone special – I
am not an ordinary person, I am abnormal (above normal) (asAdhAraNa)’. Someone
proves himself to be special, by earning wealth – (like) Rockefeller or (JP)
Morgan or (Andrew) Carnegie. Someone proves so, by becoming a scholar, learned
in all the Vedas; some other, by becoming a great renouncer (tyAgI). We are all
chasing the dream of being special. (Translator’s note – Acharya has given a
detailed description of this chase for being special. This has been condensed
in order to avoid repetition.) All such activities (efforts) (cEshTA) come to
end when one who has known (become aware of) himself. He comes to know that the
entire existence (astitva) is special, and the chase for being special is,
indeed, insanity. Here, everything is abnormal (above normal) (asamAnya)
because everything is replete (paripUrit) with the Lord.
Janaka says – ‘....(for me) where
is liberation after death (vidEha kaivalya)?’ (Translator’s note – As per
scriptures, vidEha kailvalya means ‘liberation (emancipation) on (after)
death’; vidEha means ‘body-less’. However, Acharya uses this term (vidEha) here,
to mean ‘liberated while alive – being beyond the body’; such a state is called
jIvan mukti. In this Sutra, jIvan mukti is also mentioned, but Acharya has not
elaborated that term. Therefore, the meaning derived by Acharya, for vidEha
mukti has been applied for the purpose of translation.) In respect of Janaka,
an adjective (appellation) is used – that he attained liberation, being beyond
the body (vidEha kaivalya). It is said that Janaka was ‘beyond his body’
(vidEha). vidEha kaivalya means – one who goes beyond (transcends) the body,
even while still alive, and attains knowledge of that, which is beyond the body
(transcendent knowledge); he attains liberation even while remaining in the
World (samsAra). But, Janaka says – ‘where is liberation even if one is beyond
the body?’ Even that, which people consider as ‘liberation being beyond the
body’ (vidEha kaivalya), is not there; there is nothing – just a great void
(mahA SUnya). When even void (SUnya) does not remain, it is called ‘great void’
(mahA SUnya).
kva kartA kva ca vA bhOktA
nishkriyaM sphuraNaM kva vA |
kvAparOkshaM phalaM vA kva
niHsvabhAvasya mE sadA || 20 : 5 || 289 ||
‘For me who is impersonal (niHsvabhAsya),
where is doer-ship (kartApan) or enjoyer-ship (bhOktApan)? Where is cessation
of action (nishkriya) or even rising of thought (sphuraNa)? Where is direct
knowledge (aparOksham) or even the result (fruit) (phalam) thereof’?
This needs to be understood.
There is a paradox (virOdhAbhAsa) here – one’s nature (oneself) (svabhAva) and
negation (nishEdha) of it – not-oneself (niHsvabhAva). When one realises
oneself (svayam), he comes to know something unique (anUThi) - that there is
nothing called one’s nature (oneself) (sva). Having known oneself, he realises
that there remains no Self – his nature (Self) (sva) has got united (juDA) with
other Selves (para); he remains all alone; in fact, it is not even loneliness,
because, loneliness is in comparison only with a crowd (bhID). Suppose, you are
in the market place (bAzAr), among the crowd. Then you went to Himalayas and
sat down on some peak (Sikhar), where you feel blissful, all alone; there is no
crowd. But the definition of loneliness comes with reference to a crowd.
I went to Kashmir with some
of my friends. The master of the barge (ferry) (boat) (bajrA), in which we
stayed, fell in love with me. When we were returning, he started weeping. I
asked him the reason. He said – ‘Sir, my whole life has been spent in the Dal
Lake. I want to see Bombay, at least once.’ That person considers spending life
in Dal Lake to be futile, and he wants to see Bombay. People getting frightened
with Bombay, go to Kashmir, but, the man spending life in Kashmir, being
frightened there, wants to come to Bombay. While people from Bombay find peace
in Kashmir, the person in Dal Lake finds it disquieting. The difference needs
to be understood. Your definition of peace comes with reference to the crowd of
Bombay; you feel elated at Kashmir Dal Lake. But, the boatman who is sitting
right there - Kashmir Dal Lake, who is rowing the boat, and catching fish, does
not feel any such elation; that is why, he wants to go elsewhere. But, he has
no chance of going to Bombay. Therefore, he feels that his life is futile.
When you run away from the
crowd, you experience loneliness. Loneliness is indeed perception (pratIti) of
a crowd. The day, you become truly alone, there will neither be crowd nor
loneliness – both crowd and loneliness are gone. They are the two sides of the
same coin. Then, the whole coin vanishes. The day you realise your Self, you
would not find even that Self – neither oneself (sva) nor other (selves)
(para). (Translator’s note – The interpretation of the statement of Acharya –
neither oneself nor other selves remain (na sva na para) – is not clearly
understood, because it is a matter of apprehension of Truth, which I do not
have. Therefore, viewers may use their discretion in interpreting the
statement.)
niHsvabhAvasya mE sadA – for
me who is always without nature (oneself) (svabhAva), where is doer-ship
(kartApan) or enjoyer-ship (bhOktApan); where is cessation of action
(nishkriyatA) or rising of thoughts (sphuraNa)? Some Sutras back, I said that
Ashtavakra has left out some points – he has left them out, so that Janaka
could complete them. Only if Janaka completes these (left out points), it would
mean that he has understood. One Sutra was about Turiya (the Fourth state).
Ashtavakra has not said anywhere, that one can go even beyond Turiya. But,
Janaka says that he has gone even beyond Turiya. Janaka does not simply repeat
what Ashtavakra said, but goes beyond. Ashtavakra has left out one step. Only
if Janaka has experience (anubhava) (of what Ashtavakra said), he could
perceive even that (step left out). This is another Sutra – sphuraNa,
svacchanda. (Translator’s note – by this word – sphuraNa – Acharya seems to
mean ‘impulse’ or ‘inspiration’. However, in the book referred, it has been
translated as ‘rising of thought’.) Ashtavakra’s Sutra was – only he who lives
by one’s impulse (inspiration), would be able to apprehend (perceive) the
Truth; only he who does not go by borrowed (knowledge) – who does not live by
directions (AdESa) of others, who does not blindly follows others, who goes by
one’s own impulse (inspiration) (sphUrti), one who lives spontaneously (would
be able to apprehend the Truth). Janaka says – where is even impulse (inspiration)
(sphuraNa)?
kva kartA kva ca vA bhOktA
nishkriyaM sphuraNaM kva vA | - What kind of impulse (inspiration) (sphuraNa)?
When the entire impressions (desires) (vAsanA), thirsts (tRshNA), ambitions
(AkAnkshA) have gone, then what kind of impulse (inspiration)? When all that
was done has gone, then what kind of impulse (inspiration)? When dependence on
others (para-tantra) is gone, then what kind of spontaneity (svacchandatA)?
Both (dependence and spontaneity) have gone together.
gata dvandvasya mE sadA – I
am established beyond dualities – this thought (sphuraNa) is also gone.
Ashtavakra would have become thrilled by the words of his disciple – that his impulse
(inspiration) (thoughts) (sphuraNa), spontaneity (svacchandatA) and even
independence (self-dependence) (svatantratA) have gone. All these are part of
the language of dependence on others (para-tantra).
‘...or, where is direct
knowledge?’ Ashtavakra had emphasised that one should have (attain) one’s own
knowledge – the knowledge of scriptures (SAstra) are indirect (parOksha).
Buddha attained (knowledge), but no one knows whether it was right or wrong. No
one knows whether he deceived or whether it was his imagination (kalpanA) or
whether it was self-deception. You have not attained it. I say that I attained.
How would you decide whether I attained or not? You may have to grope in
darkness. Unless you attain that direct (pratyaksha) knowledge, unless you
know, there is no meaning in ‘knowing’. So said Ashtavakra. So also say all the
true preceptors (sadguru) - to know directly, to see by one’s own ‘eyes’, to
experience by oneself. But, Janaka says – ‘where is (even) direct knowledge,
and where are results (phal) thereof’? Ashtavakra would have become very happy.
This, indeed, is true. When direct knowledge is gone, then even direct
perception (pratyaksha) is also gone – both these (direct knowledge and direct
perception) are not different.
kva lOkaH kva mumukshurvA kva
yOgI jnAnavAn kva vA |
kva baddhaH kva ca vA muktaH
svasvarUpE(a)hamadvayE || 20 : 6 || 290 ||
‘For me who is non-dual
(advaya) by nature (svarUpa), where is World (lOka) or where is the aspiration
for liberation (mumukshu) or contemplation (yOgi) or knowledge (jnAnavAn) or
bondage (baddha) or liberation (freedom) (mukta)?’
‘....for me who is non-dual
by nature....’ Keep in mind – in this
country, all the perfected souls (siddha) and all the saints (sant) have always
used (the term) ‘non-dual’ (advaya) – not ‘one’ (Eka). When they want to say
‘one’, they used the term ‘non-dual’, thoughtfully. ‘Non-dual’ means – not two
(not a second). They could have said directly ‘one’. Then, why say in a round-about
way? They could have said – ‘I, the one’; but, saints of Bharat do not say so,
because, if ‘one’ is said, then the notion of ‘two’ also comes. ‘One’ is valid
only when there is a second. (Translator’s note – Acharya, here discusses about
the origin of number systems – decimal, octal and binary. He also makes
reference to the system based on ‘three’ – Trinity etc. These have been
condensed in order to avoid repetition.)
It is Einstein who considered
that binary (system) would be enough, because the whole Universe is full of
duality – light and darkness, morning and evening, birth and death, man and
woman etc. Mathematics cannot operate with just ‘one’; therefore, at least two
(binary) is unavoidable. Saints of Bharat have always considered that, wherever
one is used, another (second) also comes up. Therefore, they do not say – ‘one’
(Eka), but ‘not a second’ (advaya). This indication of ‘one’ as ‘not a second’
needs to be understood. By this, duality comes to end.
‘For me who is non-dual
(advaya) by nature (svarUpa), where is World (lOka) or where is the aspiration
for liberation (mumukshu) or contemplation (yOgi) or knowledge (jnAnavAn) or
bondage (baddha) or liberation (freedom) (mukta)?’ I am neither in bondage nor
liberated, neither ignorant (ajnAnI) nor knowledgeable. All adjectives
(appellations) (viSEshaNa) are gone. Janaka submits to his preceptor that, as a
result of his (preceptor’s) teachings, he has become awakened – just by
listening (SravaNa-mAtrENa); the disciple is opening up his heart. Janaka is a
matchless (apratima) person. It is hard to find any such person, who could
become awakened just by listening. He (Janaka) also feels that he has been able
to complete all that which has been left out – deliberately - by his preceptor.
(Translator’s note – Acharya here mentions, in detail, about an Artist of the
West, Derek and his method of teaching art to his students. He would leave out
something in the art, deliberately, and then, ask the student to complete the
art. There seem to be many artists by that name.) It seems to me that it is
Derek who found out the method of testing students; by that, he was able to
know whether the mental state of the student corresponds to his own. If so, the
student has become equal to the teacher. In the next Sutra, Janaka brings out
this aspect – that there is no preceptor or disciple.
kva sRshTiH kva ca saMhAraH
kva sAdhyaM kva ca sAdhanam |
kva sAdhakaH kva siddhirvA
svasvarUpE(a)hamadvayE || 20 : 7 || 291 ||
‘For me who is non-dual
(advaya) by nature (svarUpa), where is creation (SRshTi) or dissolution
(saMhAra), or where is any end (sAdhya) or means (sAdhana), or where is the
seeker (sAdhak) or where is even accomplishment (perfection) (realisation) (siddhi)?’
Janaka says – ‘Standing in my
non-dual nature, I submit (nivEdan) – in this non-dual state, I am not able to
perceive any creation or dissolution (pralaya); nothing has ever been made
(created) nor destroyed (dissolved). Whatever exists, exists; whatever does not
exist, does not exist. Neither there is any creator nor destroyer nor any
preserver. There is non-duality only – neither Brahma nor Vishnu nor Siva.
After awakening, I find all that I perceived, as a dream, seen during sleep.’
‘...where is any end or any
means or any seeker or any accomplishment (perfection) (realisation)?’ This
seems to be ultimate stage, wherein even accomplishments (perfection) (siddhi) become
futile. One who gets entangled (involved) (ulajh) in accomplishments, misses
out. Patanjali has written a whole chapter on accomplishments (attainments)
(siddhi) in his Yoga Sutra. In that, he explains about the possible happenings
(ghaTanA) and the need to remain vigilant (jAgarUk) and not getting entangled
(in such happenings - attainments). Otherwise, if one escapes from the World
(Earth) (samsAra), he might get entangled in Heaven; if one escapes from
external troubles, he might get entangled in internal troubles; if one escapes
from external illusion (magic) (jAdU), he might get entangled in internal
illusion. Accomplishment (realisation) (perfection) (siddhi) is that, wherein
even ‘accomplishment’ does not remain. That person becomes like whiff of air,
like a stream of water, like wave in the water. He becomes utterly simple
(saral); that simplicity (saraltA) is indeed ‘accomplishment’ (attainment)
(realisation) (perfection) (siddhi). Void (SUnyata) is accomplishment (realistion)
(perfection) – to go beyond even accomplishment (attainments) (perfection).
Yesterday, someone asked me –
‘who is realised (accomplished) (perfected) (siddha)?’
Poem of Acharya –
जो असंग - वह
अभंग
अपना - अपने
में बो
अंत: जग - बाहर
सो
नियति निरपेक्ष
है
भ्रम है
विरोधाभास
तम—विभा
द्वय से
मुक्त है महाकाश
नियति निरपेक्ष
है
One who is alone (akElA), so
alone, that even loneliness does not remain, is called ‘unattached’ (asanga);
one who is unattached is undifferentiated (abhang) – that which cannot be
divided, which cannot be sliced (TukDA) – ‘I’, you, this, that – all such
divisions come to end. Such an undifferentiated (abhang) state is called
‘realisation’ (perfection) (siddha).
In Maharashtra, many
statements of realised persons (siddha) are called ‘undifferentiated’ (abhang).
They are called so (undifferentiated), because they are in such a state of mind
where no divisions remain. There is a
word in English (for abhang) – indivisible – that which cannot be divided. That
which can be divided, is a crowd (bhID), not an individual (vyakti). The
supreme state of realisation is the state of indivisibility (abhang); it is
non-dual (advaya) – even a second is not there – what to talk of ‘many’.
अपना - अपने
में बो
अंत: जग - बाहर
सो
This the state of a realised
person (siddha). Now, there is no another (second) (dUsrA). He is himself the
seed, himself the field (khEt), himself the peasant (kisAn), himself the yield
(Fasal), he himself would reap (kATEgA) it. Only ‘self’ remains. That which is
inside, is outside also; that which is outside, is inside also.
(Differentiation of) internal and external are gone – just ‘indivisible’
(abhang). Now, neither there is outside nor inside.
नियति निरपेक्ष
है
भ्रम है
विरोधाभास
तम—विभा
द्वय से
मुक्त है महाकाश
नियति निरपेक्ष
है
जो दे व्यर्थ को
अर्थ
वही सिद्ध वही
समर्थ
दिन भर दौड़ी
मांगा मोती
लायी कौड़ी
लहर निगोड़ी
Till there is hot and cold,
happiness and sorrow, there is relativity (sApEksha). Whatever is happiness for
you, might seem as sorrow for another. Once, it so happened that I was a guest
in a palace; a friend of mine was also there as a guest. That friend was a
typical (phakkaD) Fakir, who never had opportunity of being in a palace. The
king, whose guests we were, had made all kinds of arrangements for us – a nice
chamber (kakshA) with a nice bed. During the night, my friend was restless in
the bed; he could not sleep well. I asked him the reason. He said – ‘I am not
accustomed to sleeping in the bed. If you do not mind, I would like to sleep on
the floor.’ He spent the night sleeping on the floor; he slept well, snoring.
Before dawn, he got up from floor and lied down on the bed, so that no one
would take note of his spending the night on the floor. In the morning, our
host enquired about the arrangements. I told him about my friend. (Translator’s
note – Acharya has described this incident in detail, which has been condensed
to avoid repetition.) Therefore, what is happiness for one, might be sorrow for
another; it is all relative (sApEksha). That which is cold for someone, might
be hot for someone else; that which is beautiful for someone, might be ugly for
someone else. That which looks beautiful to you, today, might look ugly tomorrow.
If you fall in love with a woman, she might look very beautiful. But, when the
fascination is over, she might look ugly; you might wonder as to why you ever
loved that woman. It is all relative.
Destiny (order) (fate)
(predestined) (niyati) is not relative (nirapEksha) – The Truth (Reality)
(satya) is absolute. That which is relative is not Reality. Till there is
relativity, there is no Reality. Till there are human opinions (mata), there is
no Reality; they are all just beliefs (mAnyatA), notions (dhAraNA).
Paradox (virOdhAbhAsa) is a
delusion (bhrama) – Wherever you find (pairs of) opposites (virOdha), know that
to be delusion, because, here, all the opposites are joined (tied) (juDE)
together; they are not separate (different). It might seem to you that
happiness and grief are opposites; no, it is not – both of them are partners,
associates; both of them are together; if one dies out, the other also dies
out. Life and death are paradoxes – not opposites. The reason (cause) (kAraNa)
for death is life; and death is the cause for life. Both are joined together.
Infinity (Great Void)
(mahAkASa) is free of both darkness (tama) and light (vibhA) – That Great Void
of the realised (perfected) persons (siddha) is free of dualities. svasvarUpE ahamadvayE
– non-dual by nature; therein, there is no ‘two’ (dual). That which is
meaningless for you, is meaningful (samartha) for the realised person. Now, you
are making that which is meaningful also, as meaningless (useless) (vyartha).
We have got such an invaluable life, but we are losing it out; we have got such
an invaluable jewel of life, but we are wasting it, as if it is worthless
(kauDi). Now we are making, even that which is meaningful, as meaningless
(anartha).
He indeed is a realised
(perfected) person (siddha), a competent person (samartha), who finds that
which is significant (meaningful) (sArthak), even in the midst of futility
(vyarthatA) of life, who is able to recognise the diamond, even in the midst of
trash (kUDE-karkaTa), who is able to dive into the ocean (sAgara) in the midst
of waves, who is able to get hold of the Truth (Reality) (satya), without
getting lost in dreams.
You run around throughout the
life; you pass every day running around; but, have you been able to achieve
anything? In the evening, when you come home, you bring pennies (kauDi); you
remain restless (udAs), tired (thakA), and tearful; other than these, there is
no end result (phala-Sruti). He indeed is a realised person (siddha), who is
able to bring the diamond, this very moment (kshaNa), who is able to dive this
very moment, and bring the pearl, who is able to declare his happiness
(comfort) (sukh) – the ultimate happiness. But, you get disturbed, you find it
hard even to listen about the bliss (Ananda). But, why? You are angry with
realised persons (siddha) and wise persons (buddha). You tell them again and
again -
Poem of Acharya –
मैं नियति के
व्यंग्य से घायल हुआ हूं
और तुमको गीत
गाने की लगी है!
इस तरह की चोट
कुछ मन पर हुई है
घाव गहरा, खून
पर बहता नहीं है
मन बहुत समझा
रहा,
आघात
सह जा
किंतु तन कमजोर
यह सहता नहीं है
बिजलियों ने वक्ष
मेरा छू लिया है
और तुमको
मुस्कुराने की लगी है!
कर्म की पूजा
अधूरी ही पड़ी है
और तुमको रस
बहाने की लगी है!
द्वार की सांकल
बजाए जा रहा दुख
और तुमको मधु
पिलाने की लगी है!
But, I want to tell you –
your suffering is imaginary (kalpita); it (suffering) is the creation of your
own mind. I hear about happiness and suffering of thousands of people, and I
wonder as to how deeply these people should be sleeping. They do not even
realise that their suffering is totally imaginary, totally false. Till date, I
haven’t met such a person whose suffering could be real, who really deserves
compassion (dayA). They all are worthy of being laughed at, and not worthy of
compassion. However, I do not laugh, because I do not want to hurt you more; I
listen to you very seriously (gambhIratA); I try to show that I also empathise
with you and have sympathy for you; I pat your back, because, you are not able
to understand, now. Now, you are so immersed in your suffering that you feel
that this is your reality. But, all your suffering is false. Therefore, it is
no wonder that you tend to become angry with wise persons – it is natural
(svabhAvik), because, you are not familiar with the kind of World, they talk
about.
Poem of Acharya –
दिवस उनींदे
उन्मन बीते
रात जागरण के
प्रण जीते
क्यों आगमन गमन
बन जाता
क्यों संहार
सृजन बन जाता
मरण जनम या जनम
मरण है
कहीं न कोई
निराकरण है
ज्ञान गुमान शेष
हो जाते
आदि अंत को सीते
—सीते
पल में धूप बनी
क्यों छाया
माया रूप रूपरत
माया
जल मैं उपल उपल
में जल है
जीव — जीव
में जगत समाया
सरि में लहर लहर
में धारा
धार — धार
में जीवन सारा
बूंद — बूंद
में भरने वाले
भरे — पुरे
सागर क्यों रीते
कुशल—क्षेम
ही कहते सुनते
चले गये सब
क्यूं सिर सुनते
ब्रह्म सत्य तो
जग मिथ्या क्यों
रविकर क्यों
स्वप्नाबर बुनते
तम में किरण
किरण तम कारा
जीत जीत क्यों
जीवन हारा
हीरा जनम गंवाया
यों ही
रोते — गाते, खाते
—
पीते
ज्ञान गुमान शेष
हो जाते
आदि अंत को सीते
—सीते
There seems to be no
resolution (nirAkaraNa); life is spent tying (sewing) up the beginning and end
of the sheet of life (jIvan kI cAdar kE Adi anta sItE sItE hI sAra jIvan bIt
jAtA hai). (Translator’s note – The statement of Acharya is not very clear. An
approximate translation has been done – ‘beginning and end of sheet of life’
might refer to birth and death.) Conceit of wealth, position, knowledge –
everything becomes futile. The jewel-like birth has been squandered just like
that. Therefore, you find it surprising when you hear songs of ambrosia
(amRta), non-duality (advaita), bliss (Ananda) and Truth-Consciousness-Bliss
(sat-cit-Ananda); you are not able to comprehend these, because while you are
beating the drum of sorrow, they (realised persons) talk of relishing the
juice, they talk of honey, they talk of music. Even then, I would tell you
about that invitation, which realised persons (siddha) have given, for the
grand festivity (mahOtsava) - if only you can listen, if only you can unload
your bundle of sorrow, you also can participate in it (festivity). Then, you
also would laugh; just by unloading the bundle, you would be able to perceive
the falsity which is your own making.
Poem of Acharya -
तुम भी आंचल
गीला कर लो
अब रूठे रहो न
फागुन में
चर्गो पर थाप
पड़ा गहरी,
सब
फड़क उठे ढप—ढप
ढोलक
खड़के मृदंग
झमकीं झांझें
पग थिरक उठे
नैना अपलक
लो होड़ लगी देखा
—देखो
घुंघरू पायल की
रुनझुन में
कुमकुम अबीर के
मेघ उड़े
खिलता पलाश
फागुन गाओ
ऐसे में मन मारे
न रहो
कुछ रस में ड़बो, उतर
आओ आओ, शामिल
हो जाओ
मौसम के पूजन — अर्चन
में
तुम भी आंचल
गीला कर लो
अब रूठे रहो न
फागुन में
I wanted to tell you, about this
conversation between Ashtavakra and Janaka, in the hope that you also would be able
to immerse yourself in tasting the flavour of spring (phAgun); if you can get
even a drop of it, then the ocean is not far away; if you can feel even a ray
of it, then the ‘Sun’ is not far off.
Taste this great ambrosia
(amRta) a little. Immediately, you would understand the meaning of their
(realised persons’) message. You ask – ‘who is a realised person?’ You cannot
understand it (definition) without becoming one (realised person). You could
become a realised person this very moment, because, there is no need for any
means (sAdhana) or end (sAdhya). Becoming a realised person is your nature
(svabhAva). By nature you are a Siddha; your liberation is inside you; you are
an Emperor. No one knows in which inauspicious (ominous) occasion (apaSagun)
you assumed yourself to be a beggar. No one knows as to what of insanity has
made you keep begging. Leave off this dream; wake up, and then you would
understand the meaning of Siddha. Siddha means such a state of consciousness
(caitanya) wherein there remains nothing more to achieve; whatever is possible
to be achieved, has been achieved; you have become whatever you could possibly
become. That is the supreme state of satiation (tRpti), where there remains no
thirst, and not even satiation.
Hari OM Tatsat.
This much for today.
No comments:
Post a Comment