Chapter IV
ATTAINMENT
(Arudha)
1. What is the state of attainment of knowledge?
It is firm and effortless abidance in the Self in which the
mind which has become one with the Self does not
subsequently emerge again at any time. That is, just as
everyone usually and naturally has the idea, `I am not a goat
nor a cow nor any other animal but a human', when he thinks
of his body, so also when he has the idea `I am not the
principles (tattwas) beginning with the body and ending with
sound (nada), but the Self which is existence, consciousness
and bliss, the innate self-consciousness (atma prajna)', he is
said to have attained firm knowledge.
2. To which of the seven stages of knowledge (jnana
bhoomikas)1 does the sage (jnani) belong?
He belongs to the fourth stage.
Page 70
3. If that is so why have three more stages superior to it
been distinguished?
The marks of the stages four to seven are based upon the
experiences of the realized person (jivanmukta). They are not
states of knowledge and release. So far as knowledge and
release are concerned no distinction whatever is made in these
four stages.
4. As liberation is common to all, why is the varistha (lit.,
the most excellent) alone praised excessively?
So far as the varistha's common experience of bliss is
concerned, he is extolled only because of the special merit
acquired by him in his previous births, which is the cause of it.
5. As there is no one who does not desire to experience
constant bliss what is the reason why all sages (jnanis)
do not attain the state of varistha?
It is not to be attained by mere desire or effort. Karma [?]
(prarabdha) is its cause. As the ego dies along with its cause
even in the fourth stage (bhoomika), what agent is there beyond
that stage to desire anything or to make efforts? So long as
they make efforts they will not be sages (jnanis). Do the sacred
texts (srutis) which specially mention the varistha say that
the other three are unenlightened persons?
6. As some sacred texts say that the supreme state is that in
which the sense organs and the mind are completely
destroyed, how can that state be compatible with the
experience of the body and the senses?
If that were so there would not be any difference between
that state and the state of deep sleep. Further, how can it be
said to be the natural state when it exists at one time and not
at another? This happens, as stated before, to some persons
according to their karma (prarabdha) for some time or till
Page 71
death. It cannot properly be regarded as the final state. If it
could it would mean that all great souls and the Lord, who
were the authors of the Vedantic works (jnana granthas) and
the Vedas, were unenlightened persons. If the supreme state
is that in which neither the senses nor the mind exist and not
the state in which they exist, how can it be the perfect state
(paripurnam)? As karma [?] alone is responsible for the activity
or inactivity of the sages, great souls have declared the state
of sahaja nirvikalpa (the natural state without concepts) alone
to be the ultimate state.
7. What is the difference between ordinary sleep and waking
sleep (jagrat sushupti)?
In ordinary sleep there are not only no thoughts but also
no awareness. In waking sleep there is awareness alone. That
is why it is called awake while sleeping, that is, the sleep in
which there is awareness.
8. Why is the Self described both as the fourth state (turiya)
and beyond the fourth state (turiyatita)?
Turiya [?] means that which is the fourth. The experiencers
(jivas) of the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep,
known as visva, taijasa and prajna, who wander successively
in these three states, are not the Self. It is with the object of
making this clear, namely that the Self is that which is different
from them and which is the witness of these states, that it is
called the fourth (turiya). When this is known, the three
experiencers disappear and the idea that the Self is a witness,
that it is the fourth, also disappears. That is why the Self is
described as beyond the fourth (turiyatita).
9. What is the benefit derived by the sage from the sacred
books (srutis)?
The sage who is the embodiment of the truths mentioned
in the scriptures has no use for them.
Page 72
10.
supernatural powers (siddhis) and liberation (mukti)?
Enlightened enquiry alone leads to liberation. Supernatural
powers are all illusory appearances created by the power of
maya [?] (mayashakti). Self-realization which is permanent is
the only true accomplishment (siddhi [?]). Accomplishments
which appear and disappear, being the effect of maya [?], cannot
be real. They are accomplished with the object of enjoying
fame, pleasures, etc. They come unsought to some persons
through their karma [?]. Know that union with Brahman [?] is the
real aim of all accomplishments. This is also the state of
liberation (aikya mukti) known as union (sayujya).
11.
scriptures connect it with the body and say that the
individual soul can attain liberation only when it does
not leave the body?
It is only if bondage is real that liberation and the nature
of its experiences have to be considered. So far as the Self
(Purusha [?]) is concerned it has really no bondage in any of
the four states. As bondage is merely a verbal assumption
according to the emphatic proclamation of the Vedanta [?]
system, how can the question of liberation, which depends
upon the question of bondage, arise when there is no
bondage? Without knowing this truth, to enquire into the
nature of bondage and liberation, is like enquiring into the
nonexistent height, colour, etc., of a barren woman's son or
the horns of a hare.
12.
found in the scriptures become irrelevant and untrue?
No, they do not. On the contrary, the delusion of bondage
fabricated by ignorance from time immemorial can be
Page 73
removed only by knowledge, and for this purpose the term
`liberation' (mukti [?]) has been usually accepted. That is all. The
fact that the characteristics of liberation are described in
different ways proves that they are imaginary.
13.
reflection, etc., useless?
No, they are not. The firm conviction that there is neither
bondage nor liberation is the supreme purpose of all efforts.
As this purpose of seeing boldly, through direct experience,
that bondage and liberation do not exist, cannot be achieved
except with the aid of the aforesaid practices, these efforts
are useful.
14.
bondage nor liberation?
This is decided on the strength of experience and not merely
on the strength of the scriptures.
15.
`Bondage' and `liberation' are mere linguistic terms.
They have no reality of their own. Therefore they cannot
function of their own accord. It is necessary to accept the
existence of some basic thing of which they are the
modifications. If one enquires, `for whom is there bondage
and liberation?' it will be seen, `they are for me'. If one
enquires, `Who am I??', one will see that there is no such
thing as the `I'. It will then be as clear as an amalaka fruit
in one's hand that what remains is one's real being. As this
truth will be naturally and clearly experienced by those
who leave aside mere verbal discussions and enquire into
themselves inwardly, there is no doubt that all realized
persons uniformly see neither bondage nor liberation so
far as the true Self is concerned.
16.
the reason for the actual experience of joys and sorrows?
They appear to be real only when one turns aside from
one's real nature. They do not really exist.
17.
what exactly is one's true nature?
Undoubtedly it is possible.
18.
It is the experience of everyone that even in the states of
deep sleep, fainting, etc., when the entire universe, moving
and stationary, beginning with earth and ending with the
unmanifested (prakriti), disappear, he does not disappear.
Therefore the state of pure being which is common to all and
which is always experienced directly by everybody is one's
true nature. The conclusion is that all experiences in the
enlightened as well as the ignorant state, which may be
described by newer and newer words, are opposed to one's
real nature.