Tripura Rahasya

by Sri Ramanananda

  Both these classes of sadhakas experience Bliss like that of deep sleep in their own time.

  As for the jnâna yogis who have realized the unmoded knowledge—Self by sravana, etc.—even before attaining samâdhi the veil of ignorance is removed and unmoded Knowledge-Self is found always scintillating as the various objects like reflections in a mirror. Not only this but also before samâdhi, the modes of mind vanish leaving the residual mind as the witness of the disappearance of the objects and he remains as unmoded knowledge only. The hatha yogis’ experience is not this. Only to the jnâna-yogis does ajnâna (ignorance) vanish altogether in samâdhi along with its veiling and projecting or confusing powers, whereas for the hatha yogi, although the projecting power vanishes, the other power continues to veil the Self. To the jnâna yogi the veiling aspect is done away with in the process of contemplation of itself, leaving nothing of it in the culminating state of samâdhi.

  Q: What is then the difference between deep sleep and samâdhi of a hatha yogi? A: In his deep sleep the Self remains hidden by the massive ignorance of darkness like the sun behind very heavy dark clouds; in the samâdhi state, the Self, though revealed by the satvic mind, will not yet be clear but be like the sun behind thin white clouds.

  In the case of the Jnâni, his mind becomes satvic in toto, and thus dispels the veiling of ignorance, so that the Self shines perfectly clear like the sun in a clear sky. The Self-Realized know this to be the right Realization of the Self. Jnâna samâdhi is thus the true samâdhi (it means that in spite of the sâtvic mind developed by the hatha yogis, their âvarna (i.e., veiling) remains without being dispelled).

  to Chapter XXII

  The Prarabdha of the Jnanis

  The pleasures and pains of the individual are inferred to be the results of an invisible cause, i.e., the past karma. Since it is noticed that jnânis also live like others, it is said that the prârabdha is not undone by one’s jnana. This holds good for the lowest order of jnânis only, for they are seen to react to environment; it does not apply to the higher orders. The feeling of happiness affecting the mind of the individual can be the effect of karma. The middle and the highest classes of jnânis are not subject to fluctuations of mind. You cannot dispute this point because such fluctuations are completely absent in samâdhi. On arising from samâdhi all the non-self (i.e., the jagat) shines only as Pure Knowledge (i.e., the Self) just as the images are not distinct from the mirror reflecting them; happiness, etc., thus becoming one with the Self cannot then be felt as ‘my happiness,’ etc.; it follows that the Self itself cannot be said to be ‘effects’ and no corresponding karma can be postulated.

  Q: Though his personal pleasures and pains are not there, yet he sees others enjoy pleasures and suffer pains; his reaction must be due to prârabdha. A: No. Others’ pleasures and pains are not identified as ‘mine.’ But they are perceived as one perceives a pot; they cannot be the effects of prârabdha. Since there is no pleasure or pain to be called ‘effects’ for him, the jnâni cannot be said to have residual karma.

  As for the lowest order of jnânis, when he engages himself in the daily routine of life, he is likely to forget that all is Self and takes himself to be the enjoyer; since pleasure and pain seem to be ‘effects’ to him, he is certainly having the fruits of his past karma. Some say that such knowledge as cannot stand the stress of daily life cannot have a lasting value. Others say otherwise. Simultaneously with the rise of Supreme Knowledge, the veiling power of ignorance is at an end. Only the projecting power is operative for some time, owing to prârabdha. It will quickly exhaust itself and no more karma will be left to cling to new bodies (by rebirth); ignorance being at an end there, no fresh karma will accumulate; for the same reason there will not be any mode of mind, for it vanishes like fire which has burnt up its fuel; hence no fresh bodies will attach to him. Therefore the Pure Being is left over and thus liberation is inevitable. It is only too true that lapses from Knowledge do not constitute Knowledge in perfection. Hence the Sâstras distinguish the jnâni from a jivanmukta, i.e., one liberated while alive.

  Q: According to the dictum that a man will be reborn according to his last thought, that the jnani of the lowest order will also be reborn because his prârabdha is not completely ended, recollection of the non-self (by viparita smarana) must lead to rebirth. A: No. Recollection of the non-self is unavoidable to the higher order of jivanmukta also. The dictum you cited does not apply to jnani of any sort. Simultaneous with the rise of Knowledge there is complete loss of ignorance; therefore pleasures and pains no longer constitute ‘effects’ of karma; they are only transitory phenomena; prârabdha is conjectured simply to explain this phenomenon; but prârabdha no longer remains for a jnâni of any order and no recollection of non-self will arise in the last moment of his life.

  Therefore the difference between a mere jnani and a jivan- mukta lies in their reaction to the pains and pleasures of life. It is said that since liberation is simultaneous with the rise of Knowledge, it is immaterial when and how the jnani dies, either near holy places or in strange homes or other places, or taken unaware by death. If he knows perfectly even once the supreme state of Siva by means of reflection or by sastras or by Guru’s grace, he is a Self-Realized man. And nothing more remains for him to do.

  Bliss of Self

  Cease thinking of the non-self; then blank prevails; the knower or the witness of this is pure knowledge without any modes; such is the Supreme Knowledge (Para Samvit). This is full of Bliss and therefore the highest goal (purushârtha). This state is one of solid Bliss. The reason is: Misery is the result of upâdhi which is totally absent in the Self. This samvit is the condensation of the sum total of bliss, consequent on all the forms of enjoyment by all living beings put together. For samvit is desired by one and all living beings.

  Q: Is it not pleasure from objects that is thus desired? How can it take the form of the enjoyer? A: Since it is desired by all, the Self must be of the nature of Bliss. Otherwise it will not be desired by all equally.

  Q: If it be the Self alone that is desired by all, how can the desires be various, e.g., for the body, wealth, woman, etc.? A: The desire is not really for objects since it is for one’s own sake. Hence those desirous of heaven, etc., undergo fasts, etc., and willingly leave their bodies, etc. So the Self is never that which is not desired. Therefore it must be Bliss itself.

  Q: Pleasure is obvious in the enjoyment of objects, whereas the other bliss cannot be proved to be; therefore the Self cannot be admitted to be Bliss. A: The agamâs (holy texts) declare that all sensual pleasures are but fractions of the Bliss of the Self. This means: Just as ether though not itself visible is yet known to yield room for a pot, etc., and thus seems divisible by other adjuncts such as actions, etc., so also Chit though not visible yet appears divided by objects seeming to be the source of sensual pleasure (which in reality are only fractions of the Bliss of the Self).

  Q: Your statements prove only the desire for pleasure by the self, and not itself being bliss. A: Only the natural bliss of the Self prevails at the instant of relief of one’s burden and in deep sleep. This means: As soon as one is relieved of one’s heavy load, one surely feels refreshed; this cannot be denied; but here are no objects to give pleasure and how could it be felt unless it is from within, i.e., from the Self?

  Q: It is due to the strain of load being removed. A: Removal is negative; how can a negation yield a positive result such as pleasure? It must therefore be admitted to be of the Self.

  Q: Relief from strain amounts to relief from pain. And this seems to be pleasure to him. A: But in deep sleep there is no strain to be removed and yet there is the bliss of sleep. This cannot be denied because there is the recollection of the bliss of sleep after waking from it. This bliss cannot but of the Self.

  Q: There is no such bliss of deep sleep. A: Why then do all beings desire to sleep and also prepare for it?

  Q: If the Self be bliss, why is it not always apparent? A: Although there is noise constantly produce
d within the body, it is not usually heard; but if you plug your ears to prevent the intrusion of external noises; the noise is distinctly heard from within. Similarly with the bliss of Self. It is at present obstructed by the pains generated by the fire of desires and other latencies. These latencies lie dormant in their sources at the time of deep sleep and then the bliss of the Self becomes apparent like the internal sound on plugging the ears. While bearing the load the pain caused by it over-powers the common misery of current vasanas and thus predominates for the time being. As soon as the load is thrown down, the pain relating to it disappears and in the short interval before the rise of the current vasanas, the bliss of Self is felt. Similarly with the other sensual pleasures. Innumerable vasanas always remain in the heart pricking like thorns all the while. With the rise of a desire for an object the force of it overpowers the other vasanas which await their turn. When the desired object is attained, the immediate pain of its desire is at an end; in the short interval before the other vasanas manifest, the bliss of Self prevails. Hence it is said what always all desire is only the Bliss of the Self.

  Q: How then do all not understand that the sought-for pleasures are really only the Self? A: Owing to their ignorance of the fact that only the bliss of the Self manifests as the pleasure of sensual enjoyments, their attention being on the objects which are transitory; they believe that as the enjoyments are transitory, their bliss also is co-eval with them.

  Refutation of the Doctrine of Void

  The followers of this school of thought declare that illusion can and does arise even in the absence of any background (niradhishtâna). In the case of a piece of shell appearing as silver, they say that the knowledge of silver is groundless (i.e., void); similarly with the knowledge of the Self. Their position is briefly put as follows: On the firm conviction that the jagat is non-existent, by a prolonged contemplation on the void, the thought of jagat completely vanishing, void prevails and this is liberation.

  Now to refute it—denial of the jagat is imperfect knowledge. Just as a pot is not altogether false but is real as clay, so also is jagat not altogether false but is real as intelligence. Therefore to deny the jagat as being non-existent is only illusory knowledge. Its non-existence cannot be established by any proofs. Because the jagat shines as knowledge from which the individual who proves the jagat to be real or unreal, is not distinct; also the jagat though denied yet persists. Though a pot may be denied, its material clay cannot be so denied. Similarly though the jagat may be denied, its existence as knowledge cannot be denied. The same relationship holds between the jagat and consciousness as between a pot and clay. However the adherents of the school of void stick to void and deny all the perceptible as being void. But he is also contained in the jagat which is denied by him. Then what is left of him beyond denial is knowledge; this cannot be denied. They mean to say that the moded consciousness constitutes samsara whereas unmoded consciousness void of all else including the pramanas to prove it, constitutes liberation. But our objection is that the one who denies the jagat cannot deny himself and the jagat does not cease to exist simply because one curses it. Our objection is valid because consciousness subsists unimpaired in the unmoded state after denying all else to exist.

  Q: (Granting your view point) what is there to be eliminated and how is non-duality established? A: The Vedantists say that the Supreme Sat-Chit seems to be the asat (false) jagat like the false reflection in a mirror; this is anirvâchaniya, i.e., inexpressible; non-duality consists in removing this confusion and so this jagat is eliminated. But we say—the jagat appears like the images in a mirror. Just as these images are no other than the mirror, the jagat is no other than the Sat-Chit.

  Q: If so, what remains to be eliminated? A: The sense of duality. Q: Is this duality included in jagat? Or is it exclusive of it? If the former, it is real as jagat and cannot be negated; if the latter, it leads to anirvâchaniya. A: It is included in jagat.

  Q: How then is it eliminated? A: Listen! Duality is to believe that the illuminant and the illumined are different from each other. Since duality is nothing but illusion, denial of it puts an end to the illusion and thus to itself. Hence it was said, “As a matter of fact unity is not different from diversity. One reality alone shines forth as both.”

  Now let me turn round and question the Vedantists:

  Q: Is negation indescribable or real? If the former, jagat cannot be negated; if the latter, duality results. Nor can you maintain that negation of the phenomenon resolves itself as the substratum so that the negation of Jagat results in its substratum, Brahman. Of course to admit the non-self-looking negation is simply included in the Self and the whole jagat is nothing but the Self, is not opposed to our view. But negation is negative in character and it cannot be said to resolve itself into its substratum—the Reality. The jagat can be established to exist according to the dictum— the non-self is also the Self. The point is only to gain purushartha by whatever means—negation or any other. It is useless to engage in disputes. ‘The mumukshu’ and the ‘sâd- hakas’ are warned not to enter into controversies with other systems or religions.

  The jagat being of consciousness, like the images in a mirror not being different from a mirror, it is real. Simply because jagat is declared to be of the nature of consciousness, it should not be taken that jagat is consciousness itself. Such assumption will be equivalent to saying that avidyâ is, because it is said to be inexpressible. Just as you cannot raise the question if avidyâ is in order to be inexpressible, so also the question cannot arise if jagat is in order to be indistinct from Consciousness. In this manner to know that all is sattamâtra is perfect Vinjana.

  Sri Ramanarpanâmastu

  OM

  Footnote

  Knower is the same as Knowledge.