In the doctrine of aggregation of particles before creation, other anomalies are also pointed out besides the above one. They are concerned with the imagined aggregation, e.g., existence and non-existence of the same thing. Again the primary particles cannot be impartite or indivisible; also their separateness from one another cannot be proved because they mix together to form binary, etc., particles. Opponent: Defects in our doctrine are shared by us along with all others in their own doctrines. A: Quite so. It is common to all kinds of dualism but to advaita they become ornaments like the arrows aimed by Bhâgadattâ at Vasudeva which clung to Him like ornaments.
to Chapter XIV
Process of Creation
Creation being an empty fancy and Chit always unchanging, how can creation be said to originate from Chit?
A: The answer to this question is based on srutis. Avidya (i.e., ignorance) being the root-cause of creation, its origin is first elucidated and it will be followed up by the thirty-six fundamentals. Chit is certainly changeless. A mirror is seen to reflect the sky in it; similarly Chit presents within itself something which (to us) signifies ‘exterior.’ But the external sky being merely an effective cause, its reflection is seen in the mirror, whereas the “exterior” in Chit is solely due to its inherent power. The difference lies in the intelligent nature of Chit and the inert nature of the mirror. Since the whole creation develops from this “exterior” it is said to be the first creation. This phenomenon is called avidya or tamas (ignorance or darkness). Q: Chit being impartite, how can this phenomenon arise as a part thereof? A: Quite so. Hence it is called a phenomenon. And it is not a part but it looks like it. When the unbroken WHOLE appears to be divided into parts, it is called a phenomenon (and not a fact). Parameswara is Pure Solid Intelligence altogether free from its counter-part; hence He is “independent.” An inert thing is dependent on external aid to make known itself or another object; whereas the Supreme Intelligence is independent of external aid to make ITSELF known or other things. This factor “independence” is also called its sakti, kriya (action), vimarsa (deliberation) etc., which manifesting as jagat at the time of creation and after, yet remains as pure Being only, because awareness of pure Being continues unbroken till the time of dissolution. Therefor such “independence” is the ever-inseparable characteristic of Siva. At the end of dissolution the same uniting with the adrshta now mature, presents the Self (svarupa) as fragmented, i.e., limited; this is otherwise said to be the manifestation of the “exterior.” The manifestation of limitation is obviously the manifestation of space (akâsa) distinct from the Self. When one’s arm is broken in two, the broken piece is no longer identified as ‘I’; similarly the ‘exterior’ is no longer identified as ‘ I ‘; it is distinct from ‘I’; it is no longer meant by ‘I.’ Such unfolding of the non-self is said to be that of space, of the seed, i.e., jagat in dormancy, or jadasakti (inert power). In this manner the perfect Chit by its own power presenting within Itself the phenomenon of avidyâ as distinct from Itself is called the first ‘step’ to creation. The Vedantists call this the root avidyâ —mula-avidyâ. What is here designated as “independence” is nothing but the power of Chit (freewill). This assumes three states. In dissolution, it remains purely as power (that is latent) because it is nirvikalpa (i.e., the state of no modification or manifestation); just before creation, i.e., before the objects take shape this power is said to be mâyâ; when shapes are manifest the same power is called jadasakti. All these names signify the same sakti. Sri Krishna has said, “Earth, air, fire, water, ether, mind, intellect and ego constitute my lower prakrti; distinct from it is my para prakrti which is of the form of jivas and preserves the jagat. ” The former eight-fold prakrti constitutes the jada aspect as kârya whereas the latter para prakrti is Chit Sakti forming the background for the jagat like a mirror to the images reflected in it. Hence the statement: “By whom the eight-fold prakrti is supported.” Nevertheless we have to admit that even before the appearance of the inert power the eight-fold prakrti, the Chit Sakti (“free will”) already co-exists with the adrshta of the individuals and the time matures the adrshta. Otherwise the charge of partiality and cruelty and other stigma will attach (to Iswara). But the admission of adrshta lands us in duality and time is yet another (thorn). Is time the nature of Iswara or is it distinct? In any case, since in dissolution there is no upadhi to distinguish one from another and the same principle remains uniform from the beginning of dissolution to the end of it, the adrshta of the individuals remaining merged in avidya may perhaps mature the very next instant of dissolution and creation start untimely. In answer to this the sadkarya vâdis say: Before creation all kâryas remain merged in mâyâ in a subtle form; now that time and adrshta are together in a subtle form in mâyâ, the subtle adrshta matures in subtle time; mâyâ being the sakti of the Self, i.e., Chit, it is not distinct and therefore the advaita doctrine becomes tenable. Others declare that creation resembles dream or day-dreaming or magic requiring no explanation like the mirage-water unfit for discussion. For the same reason the accounts of creation are bound to differ from one another in different srutis. They are meant to impress on the mind that the Self alone is and creation is not distinct from it. Hence the declaration in the Parameswara Agama: “No creation; no cycle of births; no preservation; or any krama (regulation). Only solid Intelligence-Bliss is. This is the Self.”
to Chapter XVI
The Ego
The Self is luminous owing to its self-shining nature. At the instant of perception of objects, such as a pot, the ego-sense of identity with the body vanishes. There is no experience of the complexion of the body (for instance) simultaneous with perception of objects. Otherwise one would be thinking, “I am fair or brown,” even while perceiving a pot. In other words, when an object is perceived it is as non-self, like the body known as ‘mine’ (my body).
It should not be said that the Self does not shine as ‘I’ simultaneously with the perception of objects. If so, the objects cannot be perceived. For when there are no lights to illumine objects they are not perceived. It should not also be said—yet there is no ‘ I’ sparkling (spurthi). For it implies some distinctive form of shining and not the sheen of pure light; this will also imply inertness. Therefore the Self shines as pure ‘I.’ On account of this, those who hold that knowledge is self-evident, admit the experience “I know the pot” (but not ‘I have the knowledge of the pot’). (Ghatam aham jânami but not Ghata jnâ- navan aham).
If the Self be not admitted to shine of itself even during our objective perceptions, it will not be proper to reject the doubt whether ‘I am or not.’ Nor should it be said that simultaneously with objective perception the ego shines (i.e., manifests) identical with body, etc. If in the perception of an object the form of the object does not manifest, the body cannot manifest itself at the time of sensing the body, etc. It does not follow that in the knowledge ‘He is Chaitra,’ the intelligence namely the Self of Chaitra is signified by the word ‘he’ and manifests transcending his body-ego; for, to him Chaitra’s ego remains unimpaired (i.e., he feels his ego-sense all the same).
In deep sleep and samâdhi the ‘I’ cannot be denied existence. All admit its continued existence in those states also because of the recollection of the experience (in those two states). True, the Self remains continuous in those states but it cannot be denoted by ‘I’ for the former is unmodified Consciousness and the latter is a mode of consciousness. The answer to such an objection is according to the sages well-versed in agamâs, as follows: ‘I’ is of two kinds, moded and unmoded intelligence. Mode means differentiation; therefore moded intelligence is differentiated intelligence. The other one is undifferentiated and is therefore unmoded. When objectified as bodies, etc., the ego is moded and differentiated. But in deep sleep and samâdhi. Consciousness remains unobjectified and undifferentiated; therefore it is unmoded. It does not follow from this that the admission of ‘I’ in samâdhi will amount to admission of the triads (e.g., cogniser, cognition and the
cognised). Since ‘I’ remains as the residue devoid of “non-I” there are no triads there. It is said in Pratyabhijna, “Although I shine as Pure Light yet it is word in a subtle form (parayak). ” This ego is not a mode. Such is the doctrine of advaita.
This (unmoded Intelligence) is just the knowledge of “I-I.” The agamas speak of it as Perfect EGO or Perfect Knowledge. Because this state later finds expression to describe it, it is said to be ‘word’ (vâk); but it does not mean audible word. It is ‘word’ in a subtle form, remaining unspoken.
Perfect Ego cannot be denied in the unmoded Consciousness for it will amount to inertness, Bhagavan Harina has said, “Should ‘word’ mean differentiation in the ever-Present Light, it would amount to saying the Sight does not shine (of itself).” On the other hand, ‘word’ signifies “profound contemplation.” Pratyabhijna says “Deliberation makes clear the Selfshining Light. Were it not so, i.e., if light should shine only in contact with an object, it would be inert like a crystal.” Bhagavan Sri Sankara also says that the Self, namely Chit, is always shining as ‘I.’ In Viveka Chudamani it is found, “That which constantly shines forth as ‘I’ throughout infancy, etc., waking state, etc., which are super-imposed on it. . . .”
Dullness of Deep Sleep
Though the Self that is Chit is Pure Solid Intelligence, it is not like a solid rock for that would amount to inertness. It is pure, scintillating awareness. Its shining nature is distinct from that of bright objects such as a flame. This awareness is also called intelligence, deliberation, light of consciousness, activity, vibration, the supreme Ego, etc. Because of this nature the Supreme Being is capable of creation and this also finds mention in Soundarya Lahari Sloka 1.
It is not correct to say that Paramasiva remains united with the power of mâyâ which is indescribable (anirvâchaneeya) and illusory. Should the jagat be false (non-existent) like a hare’s horn, its creation must also be declared to be so. It is not proper to say that the Lord’s nature is wasteful because it will end in a blank, i.e., sunya. If the jagat is said to be non-existent like a hare’s horn, sruti declarations such as “Form whom all these elements, all these creatures have come forth, etc.” would amount to a mad man’s ravings. Nor is it proper to contend that acceptance of Supreme Intelligent Being followed by the denial of the reality of the jagat is sunya vâda, because false jagat inclusive of the Supreme Reality is self-contradictory. (The correct position is: the Supreme Being appears as or seems to be the jagat.) If you argue that this results in duality whereas the srutis declare, “There are not many here but only the Self,” I say you do not understand the advaita sastra; nowhere do the sastras declare the jagat to be unreal. But yet they proclaim advaita to be certain. Srutis such as “He became all,” “Only the non-dual Supreme Being shines as the universe,” declare the jagat to be real and thereby non-duality is not impaired. Though the town reflected in a mirror seems distinct yet it cannot exist without the mirror and so is no other than the mirror; in the same manner the jagat though seeming distinct is no other than the Supreme Self. So non-duality is unimpaired.
As in the sruti cited by you, “there are not many here,” the denial relates to duality only and nothing else. Therefore it is a sign of ignorance to declare the jagat to be unreal. The sages know that true knowledge consists in realizing that “all is Siva.” Suta Samhita says, “to say pot, etc., are unreal, is ignorance. Correctly to say pot, etc., is real, is true knowledge.”
Thus the supreme Intelligent Being by its own supreme power of mâyâ manifests Itself as this wonderful universe. In the universe thus manifested to see the jiva distinct from the Supreme is duality and constitutes the bondage of the individual. Knowledge of non-duality constitutes liberation. His “independence” (svatantra, free will), reflection of the universe, reflection of the individual selves, reflection of the bondage, reflection of liberation are all presented within Himself by His own independent power. Like a day-dream, all these depend upon His power of manifestation which however is not distinct from the Supreme Intelligence. So our system is free from any stigma. Power of deliberation always remains constant with the Supreme Being. However in deep sleep the reflection of inertness (jada sakti) veils it and renders it weak; though the Supreme Being or Chit is then shining in full, the sages have proclaimed the state to be one of inertness or dullness.
to Chapter XVII
The Nature of Vijnana
The knowledge gained by hearing is only indirect. Then reasoning in conformity with the sruti texts, it must be ascertained whether indirect knowledge concerns one’s own self or not. By reflection all doubts will vanish. After thus ascertaining by reflection that the Self remains non-dual, contemplate the Self, that is to say, keep the mind one-pointedly on the Self. If the mind becomes restless, train it even forcibly. Be not effortless in this direction. Yoga Vasishta says: “Even with hands clenched and teeth ground, pressing the limbs and forcibly withdrawing the senses, the mind must first be brought under control.” So the utmost effort must be made. Also the breath must forcibly be controlled, if necessary by means of prânâyâma (regulation of breath). One-pointedness must be gained at all costs. How long is effort necessary? Until direct experience is gained. Thus by contemplation the inmost Self is realized. Then contemplate ‘I am Brahman.’ This is known as Recognition of the Self as Brahman (Pratyabhijna Jnâna). Although this amounts to unmoded samâdhi (nirvikalpa) because it is unbroken uniform knowledge, yet owing to the difference in the methods and results, it must be recognised that these two states are distinct. Such knowledge of the non-dual Self annihilates ignorance.
The same is further explained. First ascertain the Self to be real by means of sravana and manana (hearing and reflection); then contemplate; realization results and it is nirvikalpa samâdhi. This is the idea: Dhyâna is only one; it goes by the name of savikalpa samâdhi and of nirvikalpa samâdhi according to its stages of development. On resolving to keep the mind still for a particular duration of time and continuing on the trail of the resolve without forgetting it, the period during which the contemplated object remains uninterrupted, is said to be the duration of dhyana. If by long practice the contemplated object remains steady for the intended period it is savikalpa samâdhi (moded samâdhi). If again by repeated practice of the same the mind remains in unbroken contemplation even without the initial resolve and its continued memory, it is said to be nirvikalpa or unmoded samâdhi. The following explanation is found in a book Paramânanda: “Contemplation with series of breaks is dhyana; the same without break is savikalpa samâdhi; stillness of mind without contemplation and break is nirvikalpa samâdhi. Dhyana maturing and ending in nirvikalpa samâdhi, the inmost Self is realized. On breaking away from it, to remember the experience of the inmost Self, to recall to mind the description of the Supreme Being in the holy texts and to identify the one with the other, forms recognition (Prathyabhijna Jnâna).”
Q: For such recognition, recollection is a necessary ingredient; recollection is of the mental impression already formed; impression can be produced only in moded knowledge and not in the unmoded state of nirvikalpa samâdhi of one uniform unmoded Light of Consciousness. A: You are right. Unmoded light simply illumines objects like a pot, etc.; it cannot produce any impression on the mind to be reproduced later on. Otherwise a wayfarer will be able to remember all that he saw on the way; but it is not so. Only the moded knowledge such as “this is a pot, this is a piece of cloth” is later recollected. Hence, whatever subtle modes appeared in the unmoded state (e.g., here is a man; here is Devadatta) are alone later recollected. By way of explanation some say that the end of the nirvikalpa state is followed by a moment of savikalpa and this helps formation of impressions to be recollected later.
Others: Since the pure inmost Self cannot form the object of experience even in savikalpa samâdhi, they say that recollection is of the experience of the samâdhi itself. (Because the savikalpa samâdhi of the nature of a resolve and cannot have the Pure Self for its object) it cannot be maint
ained that in savikalpa samâdhi the Pure Self forms the object of experience. But how can the recollection arise directly from nirvikalpa samâdhi? There is no rule that savikalpa alone should give rise to later recollection. Vikalpa means appearance of differentiation. A wayfarer takes in very subtle impressions of things seen on the way and recollects some of them. This alone can explain the recollection of deep sleep after waking from it. To the objection that recollection cannot arise from nirvikalpa samâdhi, the reply is: In any knowledge whichever factor is clearly seen, the same will later be recollected along with that knowledge. In recollecting a panorama all objects in it are not clearly seen. But as it is said in Pratyabhijna Sâstra, “According to taste and according to desire” the recollection is limited to them. In this way all differentiation is solely a mental mode. Yet pandits think in different ways. Therefore some say that there cannot be a recollection of nirvikalpa samâdhi. For details refer to Pratyabhijna Sâstra and its commentaries.
to Chapter XIX
Characteristic of Samâdhi
After realizing the Self as unmoded Consciousness in nirvikalpa samâdhi, Self-Realized beings keep on recollecting it deliberately; this results in withdrawal by them in perfect repose; this by the wise is said to be their samâdhi. This is the secret of vijnana: The hatha yogis who have not realized the Self by sravana, etc., fall into two groups; one of them is accomplished in the eight-fold yoga of Patanjali; the other after gradually finishing the stage of prânâyâma (control of breath), practises it more and more so that the kundalini is aroused to go up and open out the sushumna nâdi. The former, before entering samâdhi, resolves to avoid all thought of the non-self, succeeds gradually in avoiding extraneous thoughts, then contemplates the absence of all thoughts and then, released from contemplation as well, he is left as a residual being. The other, with great effort makes the vital air enter the sushumna; owing to the effort there is fatigue; however having entered the sushumna the fatigue vanishes; he feels refreshed like a man relieved of a heavy burden. Then his mind remains as if stupefied.
Tripura Rahasya Page 23