|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
[it is an apprehension gained] by a pondering which begins with [actually] hearing the word 'that.' [Knowledge cannot be enjoined] because it is not possible for one to realize the 'that' as something to be done, when there is not yet any apprehension of the idea [of 'that'] differentiated by some further specification [e.g., by attention to the 'you'] of its referent; when the 'that' is apprehended, then the hearing has already come to be, and so is not something that can be done, or cannot be done, or be otherwise done. So too, understanding [is not subject to injunction,] because it is not something that can be done as long as it lacks apprehension [of its object] through rational scrutiny focused on some specific aspect of the object [of inquiry]. So too meditation: repeated reflection according to [prior] apprehending and understanding must be repeated two or three times for apprehension. So the intended object of injunction is not an object of injunction, when known. And it should be clear that seeing is not something that can be done." (Skt. 130) At UMS III.4.26, Amalananda summarizes succinctly the process of realization that begins in verbal knowledge: "Refinement (bhavana) is the result of verbal knowledge; this in turn results in complete manifestation (saksitkara),which in turn results in the achievement of salvation (apavarga).Ritual action is not required for any of these. Indeed, the notion of being a brahmin, etc., which is the reason for competence for ritual action, is cancelled by this verbal knowledge; for in the time after [verbal knowledge], there is no more ritual action." (Skt. 899) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Sankara takes up the question twice, in two versions of the adhikarana: first in general (in UMS IV.1.1-2) in regard to meditation on scriptural texts, and then more specifically (in UMS IV.1.2) in refutation of the view that since Brahman is extratextual and not subject to the differentiations of time and space, it can not be known by the repeated reading of texts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. Tr. 814. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. Tr.815. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. Tr. 816. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. Tr. 817. Sankara concludes by warning that repetition must not be allowed to become a goal in itself: " . . . to one to whom this realization does not come promptly, this very repetition is meant for bringing about the realization. Even there, however, the teacher should not distract him from the understanding of the sentence, 'you are that,' in order to direct him to mere repetition." (UMS IV.1.2; tr. 818) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14. Skt. 932. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15. Skt. 933-34. |
|
|
|
|
|