Sunday, December 31, 2017
Sri Dasbodh (3.6/7/8) (ताप-त्रय, त्रिताप)
Sri Dasbodh (3.6) The Nuisances (ताप-त्रय, त्रिताप)
While concluding the previous chapter Sri Samartha emphatically states that human birth itself is cause for entire pains, sorrows, travails and repeated cycles of birth-death-births. And therefore he stresses need for quick emancipation and ultimate welfare. There is no emancipation and welfare without intense devotion unto the Lord.
He now proceeds to describe three forms of nuisances humans endure.
No one would deny presence of pain, sorrow and travails during human life. It was “Samkhya Philosophy” that postulated the nuisances as Physical, Spiritual and Fate related, which the Vedantins too endorse.
Nuisances accruing out of relation between worldly things and human senses causing sorrows are known as Physical or ‘Adhi-Bhoutik’ nuisances. Those resulting from none of the worldly ones are called Spiritual or ‘Adhyatmik’ nuisances, while those resulting out of fate or ‘curse’ from God are Fate related or ‘Adhi-Daivik’ nuisances.
Very crux of the matter is that life hangs on action-interaction between beings and circumstances. The ‘being’ must endure various circumstances right from his inception into mother’s womb and persists until his death. Saints name various forms of troubles borne out of tug-of-war between the ‘being’ and circumstances as ‘Tapa’ or Nuisances. Humans suffer out of their own body, their mind and outer worldly matters including other beings, animals, air, water, fire, thunder and so on. These are ‘Tapa-Traya’ or three-fold nuisances. No one ever escapes from clutches of those three. Humans require enduring those out of compulsion. Sri Samartha describes those during next three chapters.
When a person is persecuted (harassed) by circumstances, he begins to search and understand true purpose and meaning of ‘life’ as such. That search accelerates in the company of the noble and Godly, that is, Saints. Moreover, he feels contented and at peace in their company.
Sri Samartha emphasises need to undertake only the noble, benevolent actions during entire life time. The dictum must be – “Help Ever – Hurt Never” !
While concluding the previous chapter Sri Samartha emphatically states that human birth itself is cause for entire pains, sorrows, travails and repeated cycles of birth-death-births. And therefore he stresses need for quick emancipation and ultimate welfare. There is no emancipation and welfare without intense devotion unto the Lord.
He now proceeds to describe three forms of nuisances humans endure.
No one would deny presence of pain, sorrow and travails during human life. It was “Samkhya Philosophy” that postulated the nuisances as Physical, Spiritual and Fate related, which the Vedantins too endorse.
Nuisances accruing out of relation between worldly things and human senses causing sorrows are known as Physical or ‘Adhi-Bhoutik’ nuisances. Those resulting from none of the worldly ones are called Spiritual or ‘Adhyatmik’ nuisances, while those resulting out of fate or ‘curse’ from God are Fate related or ‘Adhi-Daivik’ nuisances.
Very crux of the matter is that life hangs on action-interaction between beings and circumstances. The ‘being’ must endure various circumstances right from his inception into mother’s womb and persists until his death. Saints name various forms of troubles borne out of tug-of-war between the ‘being’ and circumstances as ‘Tapa’ or Nuisances. Humans suffer out of their own body, their mind and outer worldly matters including other beings, animals, air, water, fire, thunder and so on. These are ‘Tapa-Traya’ or three-fold nuisances. No one ever escapes from clutches of those three. Humans require enduring those out of compulsion. Sri Samartha describes those during next three chapters.
When a person is persecuted (harassed) by circumstances, he begins to search and understand true purpose and meaning of ‘life’ as such. That search accelerates in the company of the noble and Godly, that is, Saints. Moreover, he feels contented and at peace in their company.
Sri Samartha emphasises need to undertake only the noble, benevolent actions during entire life time. The dictum must be – “Help Ever – Hurt Never” !
Saturday, December 30, 2017
Amrutanubhav
Fivefold Verses of Veneration
यदक्षरमनाख्येयमान्दमजमव्ययम ।
श्रीमन् निवृत्तिनाथेति ख्यातं दैवतमाश्रये ।।१।।
I begin with adoration unto this scripture under aegis of The Indestructible, Indescribable,, My very Deity Sri Nivruttinath, who is Bliss personified and having neither births or deaths. (1)
गुरूरित्यारव्यया लोके साक्षाद्विद्याहि शांकरी ।
जयत्याज्ञा नमस्तस्यै दयार्द्रायै निरंतरम् ।।२।।
This world verily recognises ‘ Shaankari Brahma Vidya’ ( Divine Knowledge propounded by Adi Shankaracharya) by the name Sri Guru. That Knowledge is ever victorious. I make repeated obeisance unto commands of that compassionate Sri Guru.
सार्धं केन च कस्यार्धं शिवयो: समरूपिणो: ।
ज्ञातुं न शक्यते लग्न मिति द्वैतच्छलान्मुहु: ।।३।।
Shiva and Shakti are so much in unison that which portion belongs to Shiva and which to Shakti is well nigh impossible to judge in spite of repeated search, since both halves of Shiva Shakti mingle into each other.
अद्वैमात्मनस्तत्वं दर्शयन्तौ मिथस्तराम् ।
तौ वन्दे जगतमाद्यौ तयोस्तत्वाभिपत्तये। ।।४।।
Shiva and Shakti are thus a non-dual entity, which deludes being dual in vain. Both are eternal cause for the Universe; therefore, in order to fulfil my desire of cognising their innate Divinity I make repeated obeisance unto them.
मूलयाग्राय मध्याय मूलध्याग्रमूर्तये ।
क्षीणाग्रमूलमध्याय नम: पूर्णांय शंभवे ।।५।।
Such completely perfect Shambhoo, under whose aegis the universe appears to form, sustains and dissolutes ; in fact He has none of those three (namely formation, sustenance and dissolution), I bow down unto that comprehensive Shambhoo !
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
CHAPTER – 1
SHIVA-SHAKTI. SAMAVESHAN
( Confluence of Shiva Shakti)
ऐसीं इयें निरूपाधिकें । जगाची जियें जनकें ।
तियें वंदिलीं मियां मूळिकें । देवो देवी। ।।१।।
I venerate the attribute less God and Goddess Shiva Shakti , that are the very cause for this universe as described above.
जो प्रीयुचि प्राणेश्वरी । उलथे आवडीचे सरोभरी ।
चारूस्थळीं एका हारी । एकांगाची। ।।२।।
That Shiva is as though a Lover that creates the non-dual Loving Concert from His Own Being, which virtually engulfs each other enticed by her beauty par excellence as if both possessing a single form. That is how Shakti is the very Inspiration of Shiva !
आवडीचेनि वेगें । एकाएकातें गिळिती आंगे ।
कीं द्वैताचेनि पांगें । उगळितें आहाति ।।३।।
We generally name the Inspiration of Shakti as Prakriti and the One under whose aegis Inspiration occurs as Purusha in general. Both cohabit under influence of the selfsame Chaitanya (vitality, spirit) and apparently keep engulfing each other lovingly all the time. While looking at Shiva Shakti through illusory duality the universe appears as real. On that occasion the Prakriti appears static and separate from Chaitanya or ‘life’; however, it is Chaitanya alone that inhabits as Shiva Shakti all the way. There is no duality between them whatever although Shiva alone is sovereign.
जे एकचि नव्हे एकसरें । दोघां दोनपण नाही पुरें ।
काई नेणों साकारें । स्वरूपें जियें ।।४।।
Shiva and Shakti are only One; however, Inspiration of Shakti deludes as being two. Therefore virtually there is neither oneness nor twosome ness ! Which is why their exact form is unpredictable.
कैसी स्वसुखाची आळुकी । जे दोनीपण मिळुनि येकीं ।
नेदितीचि कवतिकीं । एकपण फुटो ।।५।।
Shiva and Shakti like to immerse in Bliss of the Self to such an extent that they never abandon being non-dual. Nevertheless, very bliss of that Inspirational sport creates illusion of duality; otherwise their unison is inseparable.
हा ठाववरी वियोगभेडे । जें बाळ जगायोवढें ।
वियाली परि न मोडे । दोघुलेपण ।।६।।
These two conceived a baby as the universe (from worldly perspective), fearing separation for ever. However, was there any breakdown in their mutual love ? No, not at all ! Neither their unison nor apparent two-ness ever caused any form of break in their mutual love on account of this baby as universe. Moreover, the universe is visible only when the illusion of their two-ness is accepted as ‘duality’.
आपुलिये आंगी संसारा । देखिलिया चराचरा ।
परि नेदितीचि तिसरा । झोंक लागों ।।७।।
It appears as though entire gamut of universe was created under delusion of format as name and form while immersed in their blissful state of inspiration; however, they are absolutely unawares of there being any third entity as the universe apart from them .
जयां येकें सत्तेचें बैसणें । दोघां येका प्रकाशाचे लेणें ।
जे अनादिपणें येकपणें । नांदती दोघे ।।८।।
Very basis of Shiva and Shakti is Self-Rule (Atma Satta, Dominion of the Self , Brahmam ); moreover, they are adorned by ornaments made of Self-effulgence (intrinsic radiance or brilliance). Thus, both are eternally staying together in unison, although masquerading as two !
भेदु लाजोनि आवडी । येकरसी देत बुडी ।
जो भोगणया ठाव काढी । द्वैताचा जेथे ।।९।।
Even while trying to search duality in Shiva and Shakti deep down using tool of discrimination, ‘two-ness’ in them could not be discerned with frantic effort; on the contrary, even discretion itself vanished into unison of Shiva Shakti !
जेणें देवें संपूर्ण देवी । जियेविण कांहीं ना तो गोसावी ।
किंबहुना येकोपजीवी । येकयेकाची ।।१०।।
Shakti attains completeness under aegis of Shiva alone. But the marvel is that Shakti is root cause for greatness of Shiva being the Master ! That is how Shiva Shakti inhabit in mutual coexistence .
कैसा मेळू आला गोडिये । दोघे न माती जगीं इयें ।
की परमाणुहीमाजी उवाये । मांडली आहातीं ।।११।।
How to describe their mutual love ? Entire three worlds would fall short for their expanse ; nevertheless , they co-habit gleefully even in subtlest atoms !
जिहीं येकयेकावीण । न कीजे तृणाचेही निर्माण ।
जियें दोघें जीउप्राण । जियां दोघां ।।१२।।
They cannot create even a blade of grass without helping each other. Both are intimate darlings of each other.
घरवातें मोटकी दोघें । जैं गोसावी सेजे रिघे ।
तैं दंपत्यपणे जागे । स्वामिणी जे ।।१३।।
These two alone pervade entire cosmos; however, when the husband Shiva sleeps, or in other words is inactive, the wife (Devi) while remaining awake looks after entire worldly and heavenly expanse, thus fulfilling her conjugal obligation.
जिया दोघांमाजीं येकादें । विपायें उपजले होय निदें ।
तरी घरवात गिळुनि नुसधें । कांही ना कीं ।।१४।।
If ever one of these tenets happen to wake up from sleep, the world just vanishes and only the pristine original Self prevails. The purport or inference is , while the Sacchidananda (Truth, Conscience, Bliss) manifests through Self-experience, the notions of Purusha and Prakriti or God and Goddess within Atma or Chaitanya vanish altogether and what remains is Self-experience alone.
दोन्ही आंगांची आटणी । गिंवसित आहाती एकपणी ।
जाली भेदाचिया वाहणी । आधाधी जिये ।।१५।।
‘Asti’, ‘Bhaati’, ‘Priya’ (Existence, Conscience, Bliss) are hallmarks of Shiva, whereas Name and Form attributes of Shakti or Prakriti. While both merge into Atma-Tatva, (true nature of soul or Atma), neither remain as remainder. However, in order to exhibit illusive or apparent world they divide themselves in two halves and delude being separate in spite of being just One !
विषो एकमेकांची जिये । एकमेकांची विषयी इये ।
जिहीं दोघी सुखिये । जियें दोघें ।।१६।।
Shiva and Shakti are mutual objects of pleasure as well as pleasurable for each other, which means that Shiva is enjoyable to Shakti and Shakti to Shiva. Thus Both co-habit as bliss personified through mutual enjoyment.
स्त्री-पुरुष नामभेदें । शिवगण एकलें नांदें ।
जग सकळ आधाधे- । पणें जिहीं ।।१७।।
Even while this world is rampant with distinction between man and woman, only Shiva principle entirely pervades therein. All three worlds are pervaded by the two halves of Shiva and Shakti, which are illusive since the two-ness is just nominal!
दो दांडी एक श्रुति । दोहों फुलीं एक दृति ।
दोहों दिवी दीप्ति । येकीचि जेवीं ।।१८।।
Beating two drumsticks make a single sound; or else, two flowers from the same tree spread a single fragrance. Moreover, two lamps emit same effulgence.
दो ओठीं येकी गोठी । दो डोळां येकी दिठी ।
तेवीं दोघीं जिहीं सृष्टी । येकीचि जेवीं ।।१९।।
Two lips manifest a single word and the two eyes see one view; likewise, Shiva and Shakti pervade entire nature but truly speaking Shiva alone inhabits.
दाऊनि दोनीपण । येकरसाचे आरोगण ।
करीत आहे मेहूण । अनादि जें ।।२०।।
This couple representing Shiva-Shakti is itself experiencing its true nature while deluding duality in their eternal unison.
जे स्वामीचिया सत्ता- । वीण असों नेणे पतिव्रता ।
जियेवीण सर्वकर्ता । कांही ना जो ।।२१।।
The marvel is that the chaste Shakti has no existence without Shiva; however, capability of Shiva does not manifest without her !
जे कीं भाताराचे दिसणें । भातारूचि जियेचें असणें ।
नेणिजती दोघेंजणे । निवडूं जियें ।।२२।।
The husband Shiva and wife Shakti being absolutely blended, it is well nigh impossible to distinguish between the man and wife.
गोडी आणि गुळु । कापरू आणि परिमळु ।
निवडुं जातां पांगुळु । निवाडु होय ।।२३।।
Jaggery and its sweetness or camphor and its fragrance can never be separated ; likewise, it is impossible to single out Shiva or Shakti.
समग्र दीप्ति घेतां । जेविं दीपुचि ये हाता ।
तेवि जियेचिया तत्त्वतां । शिवूचि लाभे ।।२४।।
One must hold a lamp in order to gather entire effulgence; likewise, one experiences form of Shiva alone, while trying to understand true nature of Shakti. He is not discernible separately without Shakti.
जैसी सूर्य मिरवे प्रभा । प्रभे सूर्यत्वचि गाभा ।
तैसी भेद गिळीत शोभा । येकचि जे ।।२५।।
Brilliance prances / parades itself with the Sun but the Sun is verily basis for brilliance; likewise, Shakti highlights Shiva principle while Shiva is the very foundation.
कां बिंब प्रतिबींबा द्योतक । प्रतिबिंब बिंबा अनुमापक ।
तैसें द्वैतमिसें येक । बरवत असे ।।२६।।
A mirror image is illumined by a disc (Sun or Moon); whereas, the image is a measure of the source. Similarly, even while Shiva Shakti appear as two-some the very foundation for both is Shiva alone !
सर्व शून्याचा निष्कर्षु । जिया बाइला केला पुरूषु ।
जेणें दादुलेन सत्ताविशेषु । शक्ति जाली ।।२७।।
The Lord, who while destroying entire illusions persists without form and attributes as void, remains the unique powerhouse for Shakti becoming feminine and at her behests alone He became man, the husband !
जिये प्राणेश्वरीवीण । शिवींही शिवपण ।
थारों न शके ते आपण । शिवें घडली ।।२८।।
Shiva does not attain Shiva-ness without the beloved lady; such an inspiration personified form of Shakti is created in the very being of Shiva Himself .
ऐश्वर्येंसी ईश्वरा । जियेचें अंग संसारा ।
आपण होऊन उभारा । आपणचि जे ।।२९।।
Shakti created entire worldly nature utilising grandeur of the Lord in the form of the fivefold mega elements (earth, water, fire, air and sky) that delude being separate (from the Lord ) and manifested herself on her own, while presenting the Lord as Master through her own capability.
पतीचेनि अरूपपणें । लाजोनि अंगाचे मिरवणें ।
केलें जगायोवढें लेणें । नामरूपाचें ।।३०।।
Shiva basically happens to be devoid of Name and Form. Therefore, being bashful out of inferiority complex, Shakti created a huge ornament utilising power of the Lord’s wealth itself, in the form of the worldly universe with Name and Form.
ऐक्याचाही दुष्काळ । बहुपणाचा सोहळा ।
जिथे सदैवेचिया लिळा । दाखविला ।।३१।।
It is not possible to say that Lord Shiva is all alone, since Shakti created innumerable types of nature under illusive duality and exhibited grandeur of her husband Shiva.
आंगाचिया आटणिया । कांतु उवाया आणिला जियां ।
स्वसंकोचे प्रिया । रूझविली जेणें ।।३२।।
Shakti boiled down her own form and greatly prospered her husband; however, he too set aside his machismo out of diffidence unto her and extolled her greatness alone in the mundane world.
जियेतें पहावयाचिया लोभा । चढे द्रष्टत्वाचिया क्षोभा ।
जियेतें न देखतुचि उभा । आंगचि सांडी ।।३३।।
That Shiva becomes the visionary or onlooker in order to see her and he just discards himself outright if she is not seen so that visuality too vanishes altogether.
कांतेचिया भिडा । अवला होये जगायेवढा ।
आंगविला उघडा । जियेवीण ।।३४।।
The husband Shiva takes up form of entire mundane world just to favour his wife Shakti; however, he remains as mere providence bereft of nature if she is not there.
जे हा ठावो मंदरूपें । उवालियेपणेचि हारपे ।
तो जाला जियेचेनि पडपे । विश्वरूप ।।३५।।
The Lord who is extremely subtle and all-pervasive all alone is inspired by Shakti to become manifold from worldly sense and takes up form of the universe; however, truly speaking it is just his cosmic sport ( “Chid-Vilas”)!
जिया चेवविला शिवू । वेद्याचे बोणे बहु ।
वाढितेणेंसि जेऊं । घाला जो ।।३६।।
The illusory dual inspiration from Shakti and the symbolic word of Omkar awakened the dead asleep ‘Man’; moreover, it served Him food as Veda and Shruti. However, immediately on awakening He gulped down entire duality including describable nature as well as illusory Prakruti; thus satiated, He truly remained as His Own Pristine Self !
निदैलेनि भातारें । जें विये चराचरें ।
जियेचा विसावला नुरे । आंबुलेंपणही ।।३७।।
While Shiva sleeps the Prakruti settles down and gives birth to the mundane world; however when that static worldly Prakruti dissolutes, ‘husband-ness’ of Shiva too vanishes!
जंव कांतु लपों बैसे । तंव नेणिजे जिवोद्देशे ।
जिये दोघें आरिसे । जियां दोघां ।।३८।।
While that Shiva takes up form of the universe as desired by Prakruti, He does not disclose His Presence. Truly speaking, both are like two clean mirrors juxtaposed against each other; the power of Shiva can be ascertained through Shakti and hers is cognised due to Him alone.
जियेचेनि आंगलगे । आनंद आपणा आरोगूं लागे ।
सर्व भोक्तृत्वही नेघे । जियेवीण कांही ।।३९।।
Shiva enjoys conjugal bliss while making advances unto Prakruti ; however, He does not crave for that sensual bliss in her absence.
जया प्रियाचें जें अंग । जो प्रियुचि जियेचें चांग ।
कालउनी दोन्ही भाग । जेविते आहाती ।।४०।।
Shiva is verily the being of Shakti and Shakti that of Shiva. Prakruti beseems by virtue of Shiva’s existence whereas the impassive, inert Shiva beseems due to Shakti. Thus both mutually enjoy each other while being together.
जैसी कां समीरेसकट गती । कां सोनियासकट कांती ।
तैसी शिवेंसि शक्ति । अवघीचि जे ।।४१।।
Wind and velocity are inseparable; gold and its lustre is indivisible; likewise, Shiva and Shakti are integral.
कां कस्तूरीसकट परिमळु । का उष्मेसकट अनळु ।
तैसा शक्तीसी केवळु । श्रीशिवूचि जो ।।४२।।
Musk and its fragrance are inalienable ; fire and heat are intrinsic; similarly, Shiva and Shakti are two only for namesakes. In fact both are just One !
राती आणि दिवो । पातली सूर्याचा ठावो ।
तैसा आपुला साची वावो । दोघेंही जियें ।।४३।।
Abode of the Sun never experiences day or night. Likewise, both Shiva and Shakti vanish altogether at the level of the Self-existent Parabrahma (Providence).
किंबहुना तियें । प्रणवाक्षरीं विरूढतियें ।
दशेचींही वैरियें । शिवशक्ति ॥४४॥
This mundane world apparently creates from Pranava or Omkar; however, the unified Shiva Shakti are just unaware about it !
हें असो नामरूपाचा भेद शिरा । गिळीत एकार्थचा उजिर ।
नमो तयां शिववोहरा । ज्ञानदेवो म्हणे ॥४५॥
Let this world that is known through duality of Name and Form go by; but I (Dnyanadev) venerate this couple Shiva Shakti, which even while being in unison delude as two
.
जया दोघांचा आलिंगनीं । विरोनी गेलीं दोन्ही ।
आवघियाचि रजनी । दिठीच जे ॥४६॥
This couple is so unique that both vanish altogether when they embrace each other and what remains is Parabrahma alone, just as only twilight remains while day and night embrace each other.
जयांच्या स्वरूपनिर्धारीं । गेली परेसी वैखरी ।
सिंधूसीं प्रलयनीरीं । गंगा जैसी ॥४७॥
O Lord ! O Lord ! How to describe unison of Shiva Shakti that deludes as being two ! They cannot be described through spoken words; both unspoken and spoken words prefer being mute. Just as both ocean as well as the Ganges vanish completely during total deluge, Shiva Shakti merge into ‘Brahma-Chaitanya’ (Providence).
वायु चळवळेंसीं । जिराला व्योमाचिये कुसी ।
आटला प्रळयप्रकाशीं । सप्रभ भानु ॥४८॥
Wind loses identity along with its velocity into the sky; the Sunlight too merges into ‘Atma-Prakash’ (Radiance of the Self) during total deluge.
तेविं न्याहाळितां ययांतें । गेलें पाहणेनसीं पाहातें ।
पुढती घरवरौतें । वंदिलीं तियें ॥४९॥
In the same manner, both view and viewer become obsolete while considering unison of Shiva Shakti. I offer obeisance unto such Shiva Shakti that dwell in absolute unison inside out.
जयांचिया वाहणी । वेदक वेद्याचें पाणी ।
न पिये परि सांडणी । आंगाचीही करी ॥५०॥
While trying to judge convention or lifestyle of Shiva Shakti, the inquisitive one just merges in their form.
.
तेथ मी नमस्कारा । लागिं उरों दुसरा ।
तरी लिंगभेद पर्हा । जोडूं जावों ॥५१॥
Even if I consider venerating Shiva Shakti on that occasion, do I ever remain distinct from them ? It may indeed result into the blunder of eschewing duality through that veneration.
परि सोनेंनसीं दुजें । नहोनि लेणें सोना भजे ।
हें नमन करणें माझें । तैसें आहे ॥५२॥
Can a golden ornament be distinct from gold ? Likewise, my veneration ensues out of unison with Shiva Shakti. My ‘me-ness’ does not exist on that occasion.
सांगता वाचेतें वाचा । ठाव वाच्य वाचकाचा ।
पडतां काय भेदाचा । विटाळ आहे ॥५३॥
Is there any distinction of two-ness between speech and the speaker ? Certainly there is no desecration of duality.
सिंधु आणि गंगेचि मिळणी । स्त्रीपुरुष नामाची मिरवणी ।
दिसतसे तरी पाणी । काय द्वैत होईल ॥५४॥
It is just a casual illusion that the feminine Ganges meets masculine ocean while the Ganges merges into the ocean. After all, it is water that meets water; where is room for distinction therein ?
पाहे पां भास्य भासकता । आपुला ठाई दावितां ।
एकपणा काय सविता । मोडित असे ॥५५॥
We look at the Sun through Sunlight alone. Do we treat the Sun and Sunlight as two ?
चांदाचिया दोंदवरी । होत चांदणियाची विखुरी ।
काय उणें दीप्तीवरी । गिंवसों पां दीप ॥५६॥
Expanse of Moonlight depends upon disc of the Moon alone; however, do we regard Moon and Moonlight as distinct ? Is it ever possible to obtain light without a lamp? Lamp and its effulgence are inseparable .
मोतियाची कीळ । होय मोतियावरी पांगुळ ।
आगळें निर्मळ । रूपा ये कीं ॥५७॥
Pearl and its lustre are inseparable. Therefore venerating the pearl is as good as venerating its lustre. Likewise, my veneration is unto the inseparable form of Shiva Shakti.
मांत्राचिया त्रिपुटिया । प्रणव काय केला चिरटिया ।
कींणकार त्रिरेघटिया । भेदावला काई ॥५८॥
Pranava or Omkar has three syllables ‘a’, ‘u’ and ‘ma’ and Omkar forms through these syllables alone. However, those are not three pieces of Omkar; those are inseparable from Omkar. Similarly Devanaagari Script uses the letter ‘ण’ by inter posing a bar to ‘ए’. Now, does it result into any distinction in ‘ण’ ?
अहो ! ऐक्याचें मुदल न ढळे । आणि साजरेपणाचा लाभ मिळे ।
तरी स्वतरंगाचीं मुकुळें । तुरंबु कां पाणी ॥५९॥
If water beseems by virtue of waves without causing break in their union, what stops water from enjoying fragrance of its waves ? Likewise, what is so unique in not enjoying luxury of sport without break in unison !
म्हणौनि भूतेशु भवानी । वंदिलीं न करूनि सिनानी ।
मी निघालों नमनीं । तें हें ऐसें ॥६०॥
Therefore, I venerate both, presuming Shiva Shakti as inseparable. Thus, that is the festival of my veneration.
दर्पणाचेनि त्यागें । प्रतिबिंब बिंबीं रिघे ।
कां बुडी दीजे तरंगे । वायूचा ठेला ॥६१॥
A mirror exhibits image of the face, while removing the mirror makes image merging back into its original source, the face. Wind causes ripples over water; however, while the wind stops blowing the ripples merge back into water, their original state.
नातरी नीद जातखेंवो । पावे आपुला ठावो ।
तैसीं बुद्धित्यागें देवीदेवो । वंदिलीं मियां ॥६२॥
We remain our own selves while sleep is overcome. Likewise, I get rid of the intellect that creates imaginary attributes for the being and venerate Shiva Shakti regarding me as their inseparable constituent.
सांडुनी मीपणाचा लोभु । मिठें सिंधुत्वाचा घेतला लाभु ।
तेविं अहं देउनि मी शंभु- । शांभवी जालों ॥६३॥
Like salt abandoning greed of being distinct gains
benefit of oneness with the ocean, jettisoning my ego sense I merged into form of Shiva Shakti !
शिवशक्तिसमावेशें । नमन केलें म्यां ऐसें ।
रंभागर्भ आकाशें । रिघाला जैसा ॥६४॥
There is nothing in the belly of a plantain tree except vacant space. Likewise, peeling off skins of my ‘me’ and ‘my-ness’ I merged into the very core of Shiva Shakti, thus venerating them!
॥ पहिलें प्रकरण समाप्त ॥
अनुभवामृत (Anubhavamrut )
प्रकरण दुसरें (Chapter Two)
श्रीगुरुस्तवन (Praise unto Sadguru)
आतां उपायवनवसंतु । जो आज्ञेचा आहेवतंतु ।
अमूर्तचि परि मूर्तु । कारुण्याचा ॥ २-१ ॥
I now bow down unto Sadguru. Indeed, Sadguru is the very auspicious ornament of Brahma-Vidya, the Supreme Knowledge that makes entire gardens of austerities beseem like those during spring. In spite of being formless himself, he is the very embodiment of compassion for beings caught in shackles of mundane world.
अविद्येचे आडवे । भुंजीत जीवपणाचे भवे ।
तया चैतन्याचे धांवे । कारुण्यें जो कीं ॥ २-२ ॥
He rushes down to extricate beings caught in shackles of ignorance that keep revolving in whirlpools of birth-deaths as mortal beings from this imaginary, man made forest, out of sheer compassion unto them.
मोडोनि मायाकुंजरु । मुक्तमोतियाचा वोगरु ।जेवविता सद्गुरु । निवृत्ति वंदूं ॥ २-३ ॥
I bow down unto my Sadguru Nivruttinath, who annihilates Maya as if an elephant and offers deliverance unto his disciples as fodder of pearls picked from the elephant’s temple, as sweetmeats !
जयाचेनि अपांगपातें । बंध मोक्षपणीं आते ।
भेटे जाणतया जाणतें । जयापाशीं ॥ २-४ ॥
The loving and compassionate looks of the Sadguru convert even bondage into deliverance itself and his proximity grants revelation of Self-Knowledge without one being aware of it !
कैवल्यकनकाचिया दाना । जो न कडसी थोर साना ।
द्रष्ट्याचिया दर्शना । पाढाऊ जो ॥ २-५ ॥
(The Sadguru) while distributing gold in the form of deliverance does not discriminate between big or small and freely grant experience of enlightenment to everyone. His grace destroys worldly duality of view and viewer exhibiting the visionary alone all the way.
सामर्थ्याचेनि बिकें । जो शिवाचेंही गुरुत्व जिंके ।
आत्मा आत्मसुख देखे । आरिसा जिये ॥ २-६ ॥
His power of compassion is so profound that even Shiva is not fortunate enough in that context. Sadguru in the form of a mirror demonstrates Self-Bliss to the onlooker; indeed, the Self meets his own Self !
बोधचंद्रचिया कळा । विखुरलिया येकवळा ।
कृपापुनीवलीळा । करी जयाची ॥ २-७ ॥
We identify various phases of the moon because of duality. If we were the moon ourselves, would it not be full moon night (Pournima) all the way ? The Sadguru makes such graceful Pournima for ever and there is revelation of the singular, unique Brahmam everywhere.
जो भेटलियाचि सवे । पुरति उपायांचे धांवे ।
प्रवृत्ति-गंगा स्थिरावे । सागरीं जिये ॥ २-८ ॥
Meeting the Sadguru halts travails of entire paraphernalia of austerities and the action-prone Maya as the Ganges merges into its original pristine, stable state, the ocean of Chaitanya (Brahmam).
जयाचेनि अनवसरें । दृष्टाले दृश्याचें मोहिरें ।
जो भेटतखेंव सरे । बहुरुपचि हें ॥ २-९ ॥
In spite of being the Visionary we are deluded into variety of Views as long as we do not meet the Sadguru. However, immediately on meeting Sadguru the visionary becomes form of the view itself and illusion of multiplicity disappears altogether.
अविद्येचें काळवखें । कीं स्वबोध सुदिनें फांके ।
सीतलें प्रसादार्कें । जयाचेंनि ॥ २-१० ॥
The pitch dark ignorance vanishes and there is wonderful daybreak of Self-Enlightenment by virtue of blest Sun as the Guru. However the worldly Sun is very hot while the benevolent effulgence of the Guru is pleasantly cool.
जयाचेनि कृपासलिलें । जीउ हा ठाववरी पाखाळे ।
जें शिवपणहि वोंविळें । अंगी न लवी ॥ २-११ ॥
The being gets immensely purified inside-out by virtue of sacred waters representing grace from the Sadguru to such an extent that even Shiva-ness appears impure to him; what is more, he does not allow Shiva-ness near him since unison of Shiva and Shakti alone confers purity.
राखों जातां शिष्यातें । गुरुपणहि धाडिलें थितें ।
तही गुरुगौरव जयातें । सांडीचिना ॥ २-१२ ॥
Sadguru accepts inferiority in order to protect disciple ness of his disciples; nevertheless , his wealth of being great persists eternally.
एकपण नव्हे सुसास । म्हणोन गुरु-शिष्यांचें करोनि मिस ।
पाहणेंचि आपली वास । पाहतसे ॥ २-१३ ॥
Indeed, the Sadguru and his disciple are just one and the same from a spiritual perspective. However, they exhibit duality in order to enjoy their mutual relationship while maintaining two-ness for namesakes and experience unity.
जयाचेनि कृपातुषारें । परतलें अविद्येचें मोहिरें ।
परिणमे अपारें । बोधामृतें ॥ २-१४ ॥
Ignorance disappears altogether by virtue of cool showers representing grace from the Sadguru and is replaced by manifestation of nectar as Enlightenment.
वेद्या देतां मिठी । वेदकुहि सुये पोटीं ।
तही नव्हेचि उशिटी । दिठी जयाची ॥ २-१५ ॥
Sadguru is a subject and object to cognise; therefore, even while the disciple makes an effort to ‘know’ the Sadguru, divine vision of the Sadguru does not see the disciple being separate and so it is never impure. Separateness is necessary for vision becoming impure, which the Sadguru doesn’t possess !
जयाचेनि सावायें । जीवु ब्रह्म उपर लाहे ।
ब्रह्म तृणातळीं जाये । उदासे जेणें ॥ २-१६ ॥
The disciple loses even his knowledge of being Brahmam himself by virtue of Upadesha or initiation from the Sadguru. Conversely, if Sadguru is apathetic or indifferent, the disciple irrespective of being very form of Brahmam is lowly, despicable !
उपस्तिवरी राबतिया । उपाय फळीं येती मोडोनियां ।
वरिवंडले जयाचिया । अनुज्ञा कां ॥ २-१७ ॥
Only those disciples that surrender their entire being while worshipping the Guru attain fruit as Liberation itself through their penance of serving ( The Guru).
जयाचा दिठिवावसंतु । जंव न रिघे निगमवनाआंतु ।
तंव आपुलिये फळीं हातु । न घेपतिही ॥ २-१८ ॥
As long as one does not acquire very pleasant ambience of Spring (meaning Grace from Sadguru); in addition, even if gardens representing Vedas are fully blossomed, the disciple does not attain fruit therein.
पुढें दृष्टीचेनि आलगें । खोंचि कीं निवटी मागें ।
येव्हडिया जैता नेघे । आपणपें जो ॥ २-१९ ॥
Even while a disciple acquires fraction of Sadguru’s benevolent glance, he gets rid of entire attributes and epithets. However, Sadguru is just indifferent to have bestowed such magnanimous reward unto the disciple.
लघुत्वाचेनि मुद्दलें । बैसला गुरुत्वाचे शेले ।
नासूनि नाथिलें । सदैव जो ॥ २-२० ॥
Truly speaking, greatness of Sadguru never depends upon smallness of the disciple. In fact, vain duality of small or great does not inhabit the Guru anyway!
नाहीं जे जळीं बुडिले । तै घनवटें जेणें तरिजे ।
जेणें तरलियाहि नुरिजे । कवणिये ठाईं ॥ २-२१ ॥
Basically, Maya does not exist at all; however, the being is drowned in waters of non-existent mirage. He survives by virtue of dense grace from the Sadguru to such an extent that he becomes extinct like non-existent waters of mirage; he merges into Brahma-Consciousness.
आकाश हे सावेव । न बंधे आकाशाची हांव ।
ऐसें कोण्ही येक भरीव । आकाश जो ॥ २-२२ ॥
The sky that pervades entire space and which is the object for eyes to see cannot compare with Chidakash that represents Sadguru, since that Chidakash merges into formless Chaitanya.
चंद्रादि सुसीतळें । घडलीं जयाचेनि मेळें ।
सूर्य जयाचेनि उजाळें । कडवसोनि ॥ २-२३ ॥
The Moon begets cool effulgence, so also the Sun receives radiance on account of Grace from the Sadguru alone .
जीवपणाचेनि त्रासें । यावया आपुलिये दशे ।
मुहूर्त पुसे । जया जोशियातें ॥ २-२४ ॥
Although Shiva is endowed with entire attributes, he remains distinct from Brahmam due to body-consciousness. This ‘being-ness’ makes Him keen to merge into Brahmam. Therefore, The ‘being’ representing Shiva is required to ask for appropriate day (Muhoorta) from fortune-teller (astrologer), representing Sadguru !
चांदिणें स्वप्रकाशाचें । लेइला द्वैतदुणीचें ।
तरीही उघडेपण न वचे । चांदाचें जया ॥ २-२५ ॥
The Moon does not get two-ness just because it envelops itself with its own effulgence; likewise, even while Sadguru taking up body form does not hide him being Brahmam; in fact it becomes all the more evident.
जो उघड किं न दिसे । प्रकाश कीं न प्रकाशे ।
असतेपणेंचि नसे । कव्हणीकडे ॥ २-२६ ॥
Even though Form of Sadguru is Self-evident, that cannot be a visual object and even while Self-Effulgent it is not cognisable. He cannot be known through senses; he is all pervasive; even then his true form cannot be seen anywhere.
आतां जो तो इहीं शब्दीं । कें मेळऊं अनुमानाची मांदी ।
हा प्रमाणाहि वो नेदी । कोण्हाहि मा ॥ २-२७ ॥
While Sadguru cannot be demonstrated by words such as “This is Sadguru” , how can he be shown through mere logic ? He does not respond when called out under any pretexts, since he is very originator of entire criteria. Indeed, entire criteria emerge from him alone!
जेथें शब्दाची लिही पुसे । तेणेंसिं चावळों बैसे ।
दुजयाचा रागीं रुसे । येकपणा जो ॥ २-२८ ॥
Sadguru cannot be described through words. How can speech ever take place during the unique status of Self-Consciousness?
प्रमाणाची परी सरे । तैं प्रमेयचि आविष्करे ।
नवल, मेचु ये धुरे । नाहींपणाची ॥ २-२९ ॥
Guru-Tatva manifests only when entire criteria fail. It is indeed a marvel that absent-ness of the Sadguru exhibits his presence !
कांहींबाहीं अळुमाळु । देखिजे येखादे वेळु ।
तरी ‘देखे’ तेहि विटाळु । जया गांवीं ॥ २-३० ॥
If one says that he will have a little view of the Sadguru, there is no room for even a thought of ‘viewing’!
तेथें नमनें का बोलें। केउतीं सुयें पाउलें ।
आंगीं लाउनि नाडिलें । नांवचि येणें ॥ २-३१ ॥
How can one enter abode of the Sadguru through obeisance or veneration that has neither Name or Form anyway ? Sadguru does not allow even the illusory tenet of Name and Form come near and touch him.
नव्हे आत्मया आत्मप्रवृत्ति । वाढवितां कें निवृत्ति ? ।
तरी या नामाचि वायबुंथी । सांडीचिना ॥ २-३२ ॥
While there is none of ‘action-proneness’ (Pravrutti) in Atma, what can the relative term ‘inaction’ (Nivrutti) demonstrate ? As it is, the term ‘inaction’ is mere illusion of a cloth !
निवर्त्य तंव नाहीं । मा निवर्तवी हा काई ? ।
तरि कैसा बैसे ठाईं । निवृत्ति-नामाच्या ? ॥ २-३३ ॥
Self-Consciousness in the form of Sadguru has nothing else to expiate ; in that case, what will he expiate ? It is indeed intriguing as to how he got the name ‘Nivrutti’ !
सूर्यासि अंधकारु । कैं झाला होता गोचरु ? ।
तही तमारि हा डगरु । आलाचि कीं ॥ २-३४ ॥
Has the Sun ever witnessed darkness ? Even then he is described as remover of darkness ! Likewise, in spite of there being nothing to expiate my Sadguru is named ‘Nivrutti’!
लटिकें येणें रूढे । जड येणें उजिवडे ।
न घडे तेंहि घडे । याचिया मावा ॥ २-३५ ॥
Therefore his established name Nivrutti is phoney. However, even that gets illumined through His Self-Effulgence. Indeed, marvel of the Guru is such that whatever has never happened earlier or whatever never happens now, just happens through his sport.
हां गा मायावशें दाविसी । तें मायिक म्हणोन वाळिसी ।
अमायिक तंव नव्हसी । कवणाहि विषो ॥ २-३६ ॥
O Sadguru ! You advise to abandon everything exhibited under influence of Maya as being trash; however, you being transcendental are not cognisable to anyone in this mundane world through senses ! (In that case, what should we do ?)
शिवशिवा ! हे सद्गुरु । तुजला गूढा काय करूं ? ।
येकाहि निर्धारा धरूं । देतासि कां ? ॥ २-३७ ॥
O Sadguru ! You are verily Shiva and Shivaa (Shakti) combined ! We are unable to discern this mysterious form of yours.
नामें रूपें बहूवसें । उभारूनि पाडिलीं ओसें ।
सत्तेचेनि आवेशें । तोषलासि ना ? ॥ २-३८ ॥
Innumerable Names and Forms create under your behests and you yourself make those vain being illusory. Do you not enjoy bliss of your cosmic sport of name and form created through your inspiration and under your aegis alone ?
जिउ घेतलियाविणें । चालों नेदिसी साजणें ।
भृत्यु उरे स्वामीपणें । तेंहि नव्हे ॥ २-३९ ॥
You do not make your disciple eligible (for enlightenment) until his entire being-ness is destroyed. He is your servant and therefore you are his master. However, you do not attach notion of being his master unto yourself.
विशेषाचेनी नांवें । आत्मत्वही न साहावे ।
किंबहुना न व्हावें । कोण्हीच या ॥ २-४० ॥
If one were to identify Guru as ‘Atma’, the word ‘Atma’ too becomes irrelevant on that occasion. It simply means that notion of being ‘something’ or ‘somebody’ never manifest in you. Indeed, you so very dispassionate and changeless !
राति नुरेचि सूर्या । नातरी लवण पाणिया ।
नुरेचि जेवी चेइलिया । नीद जैसी ॥ २-४१ ॥
Night vanishes in front of the Sun; salt vanishes while put into water; or else, sleep disappears on awakening.
कापुराचे थळीव । नुरेचि आगीची बरव ।
नुरेचि रूप नांव । तैसें यया ॥ २-४२ ॥
Ornaments made of camphor do not last in fire; likewise, name and form do not persist in front of Guru.
याच्या हातांपायां पडे । तरी वंद्यत्वें पुढें न मंडे ।
न पडेचि हा भिडे । भेदाचिये ॥ २-४३ ॥
Even if one pays obeisance with folded arms, (The Guru) does not possess thought of being venerable by virtue of absence of duality in any form with him. Therefore, he never accepts anything that may encourage duality.
आपणाप्रति रवी । उदो न करी जेवीं ।
हा वंद्य नव्हे तेवीं । वंदनासी ॥ २-४४ ॥
The Sun is ever stable from his viewpoint ; he does not undergo arising or setting. His rising or setting exhibit relative duality. Likewise, Sadguru does not endorse duality between the venerable and the one venerating.
कां समोरपण आपलें । न लाहिजे कांहीं केलें ।
तैसें वंद्यत्व घातलें । हारौनि येणें ॥ २-४५ ॥
Can we ever stand in front of our own self ? Likewise, the one venerating and recipient of veneration being one single tenet, the Sadguru is never venerable.
आकाशाचाआरिसा । नुठे प्रतिबिंबाचा ठसा ।
हा वंद्य नव्हे तैसा । नमस्कारासी ॥ २-४६ ॥
If ever sky is reckoned as mirror, does it reflect other objects ? It is because it is All-pervasive. Similarly, Sadguru being all pervasive, he cannot be singled out even for obeisance.
परी नव्हे तरी नव्हो । हें वेखासें कां घेवो ।
परी वंदीतयाहि ठावो । उरों नेदी ॥ २-४७ ॥
If he (Sadguru) doesn’t accept being venerable, let it be so ! Why should we make such negative statement ? But the marvel is that the one venerating doesn’t exist distinct from the venerable Sadguru !
आंगौनि येकुणा झोळु । फेडितांचि तो तरी बाहिरिळू ।
कडु फिटे आंतुलु । न फेडितांचि ॥ २-४८ ॥
While unfolding outer folds and creases of loincloth the inner ones automatically loosen ( there being a single cloth all the way )!
नाना बिंबपणासरिसें । घेऊनि प्रतिबिंब नासे ।
नेलें वंद्यत्व येणें तैसें । वंदितेंनसीं ॥ २-४९ ॥
There is illusion of two-ness between object and image as long as mirror is interposed; the image merges into object itself, the moment mirror is removed. Likewise, sense of venerable and one venerating disappears altogether since Sadguru has no sense of duality at all!
नाहीं रूपाचि जेथें सोये । तेथें दृष्टीचें कांहींचि नव्हे ।
आम्हां फळले हे पाये । ऐसिया दशा ॥ २-५० ॥
Whatever can be seen if there is no form at all ? Dnyandev says, I came to this pass because of my veneration unto lotus feet of Sadguru in a unique state of transcending Name and Form.
गुणा तेलाचिया सोयरिका । निर्वाहिली दीपकळिका ।
ते का होईल पुळिका । कापुराचिया ॥ २-५१ ॥
Can a lamp that thrives on account of oil and wick ever compare with flame of camphor ?
तया दोहों परस्परें । होय ना जंव मैल्हेरे ।
तंव दोहीचेंही सरे । सरिसेंचि ॥ २-५२ ॥
Wick still persist even while lamp extinguishes; however, when camphor and fire come together, both disappear !
तेविं देखेना मी ययातें । तंव गेलें वंद्य वंदितें ।
चेइलिया कांतें । स्वप्नींचि जेवीं ॥ २-५३ ॥
While awakening from sleep the dream of husband and wife disappears and we remain all alone. Similarly, immediately on viewing the Sadguru, sense of Master-Disciple-ness vanishes and Self-Consciousness alone remains.
किंबहुना इया भाखा । द्वैताचा जेथें उपखा ।
फेडोनियां स्वसखा । श्रीगुरु वंदिला ॥ २-५४ ॥
What more can be said ! I prostrated unto My Sadguru, verily my own form, pushing aside the words that created duality in vain.
याच्या सख्याची नवाई । आंगीं एकपण रूप नाहीं ।
आणि गुरु-शिष्य दुबाळीही । पवाडु केला ॥ २-५५ ॥
Very Self of the Sadguru is such, which has no room for words such as ‘one’ or ‘two’. Nevertheless, he ( The Sadguru) has epitomised entire grandeur of Master-Disciple relationship.
कैसा आपणया आपण । दोंविण सोइरेपण ।
हा याहून विलक्षण । नाहीं, ना नोहे ॥ २-५६ ॥
What a phenomenal Master-Disciple relationship this, that does not entertain intimate relation of duality ! This form has neither ‘yes-ness’ nor ‘no-ness’; it is simply ‘being-ness’!
जग आघवें पोटीं माये । गगनायेव्हढे होऊनि ठाये ।
तेचि निसी साहे । नाहींपणाची ॥ २-५७ ॥
If ever expanse of the Sadguru were to be described, his only belly accommodates entire sky, which in turn accommodates entire universe ! Nevertheless, He nurtures state of ‘nothingness’ with Him !!
कां पूर्णते तरि आधारु । सिंधु जैसा दुर्भरु ।
तैसा विरुद्धेयां पाहुणेरु । याच्या घरीं ॥ २-५८ ॥
Ocean may be spoken of as ever full; however, its penchant for more waters never abates ! Therefore it is difficult to ‘fill’ it all the more anyway ! Similarly, like antagonistic traits of the ocean the Sadguru possesses both ‘is-ness’ as well as ‘nothing-ness’.
तेजा तमातें कांहीं । परस्परें निकें नाहीं ।
परि सूर्याच्या ठायीं । सूर्यचि असे ॥ २-५९ ॥
Effulgence and darkness never co-habit ; and the Sun is ever unawares of both darkness or effulgence. He stay puts with himself as the Sun alone !
येक म्हणतां भेदें । तें कीं नानात्वें नांदे ? ।
विरुद्धें आपणया विरुद्धें । होती काइ ? ॥ २-६० ॥
While uttering the word ‘one’, we become aware of ‘many-ness’. How can such relative words ever apply in context to the Sadguru ? Can we be ever different from ourselves?
म्हणौनि शिष्य आणि गुरुनाथु । या दोहों शब्दांचा अर्थु ।
श्रीगुरुचि परी होतु । दोहों ठायीं ॥ २-६१ ॥
Therefore the two words Master and Disciple mean only one entity, which is the Self-same Sadguru; he alone inhabits with two notions as Master and Disciple.
कां सुवर्ण आणि लेणें । वसतें येकें सुवर्णें ।
वसतें चंद्र चांदणें । चंद्रींचि जेवीं ॥ २-६२ ॥
Gold and its ornaments are gold alone; or else, Moon and Moonlight inhabit the Moon only.
नाना कापुरु आणि परिमळु । कापुरचि केवळु ।
गोडी आणि गुळु । गुळुचि जेवीं ॥ २-६३ ॥
Just as camphor and its fragrance are inseparable or else, jaggery and its sweetness are indistinguishable.
तैसा गुरुशिष्यमिसें । हाचि येकु उल्हासे ।
जरी कांहीं दिसे । दोन्ही-पणें ॥ २-६४ ॥
Likewise, even if one imagines distinctness between Sadguru and Disciple as being twosome, it is Divine Sadguru that sports non-dually as Master and Disciple .
आरिसा आणि मुखीं । मी दिसे हे उखी ।
हे आपुलिये ओळखी । जाणे मुख ॥ २-६५ ॥
The face remains as it is; but one needs a mirror to see its image and experience two-ness therein. Otherwise the image is just phoney !
पहा पां निरंजनीं निदेला । तो निर्विवाद येकला ।
परि चेता चेवविता जाहला । दोन्ही तोचि ॥ २-६६ ॥
Someone sleeping all alone in the solitude of dense forest awakens on his own. Now, the one that awakened him and the one that woke up is the same person . Thus he takes up both the roles himself !
जे तोचि चेता तोचि चेववी । तेवीं हाचि बुझे बुझावी ।
गुरुशिष्यत्व नांदवी । ऐसेनि हा ॥ २-६७ ॥
The one awakening is verily the awakener; which means that both processes happen with the same person. Similarly, the disciple that receives enlightenment and the Sadguru that enlightens, together constitute Sadguru alone that inhabits !
दर्पणेवीण डोळा । आपुले भेटीचा सोहळा ।
भोगितो तरि लीळा । सांगतों हें ॥ २-६८ ॥
If ever one’s eye could see oneself without a mirror, such person with extraordinary talent can understand integral state of disciple and master.
एवं द्वैतासी उमसो । नेदि ऐक्यासी विसकुसों ।
सोईरिकीचा अतिसो । पोखितसे ॥ २-६९ ॥
In this manner, the Sadguru teaches integration of guru-disciple without disturbing their two-ness and easily amalgamates bondage between the two.
निवृत्ति जया नांव । निवृत्ति जया बरव ।
जया निवृत्तीची राणीव । निवृत्तिचि ॥ २-७० ॥
Nivrutti is verily the name of this Sadguru; Nivrutti alone is his splendour and Nivrutti indeed his affluence; such is my Sadguru.
वांचोनि प्रवृत्तिविरोधें । कां निवृत्तीचेंनि बोधें ।
आणिजे तैसा वादें । निवृत्ति नव्हे ॥ २-७१ ॥
However, this Nivrutti (detachment) is not antagonistic to Pravrutti (action-proneness), neither is His affluence or because of enlightenment ; He is verily Self-Existent ‘Sri Nivrutti’!
आपणा देऊनि राती । दिवसा आणी उन्नति ।
प्रवृत्ति वारी निवृत्ति । नव्हे तैसा ॥ २-७२ ॥
Sun brings in prosperity for the day while gulping down the night; however, Sadguru Nivrutti is not like that; he need not gulp action proneness to reach detachment. “Nivrutti” is his non-committal, purposeless nature !
वोपसरयाचें बळ । घेउनि मिरवे कीळ ।
तैसें रत्न नव्हे निखळ । चक्रवर्ती हा ॥ २-७३ ॥
Bright glowing metal is interspersed behind a jewel in order to enhance its lustre, which exhibits the Jewel predominantly against its backdrop. However, radiance of Sri Nivruttinath is not borrowed like that; He is Self-illumined Sovereign !!
गगनही सूनि पोटीं । जैं चंद्राची पघळे पुष्टी ।
तैं चांदिणें तेणेंसि उठी । आंग जयाचें ॥ २-७४ ॥
Entire sky is pervaded by Moonlight; however, is the Moon required to be as big as the sky ? Indeed, Moon and Moonlight are one, that pervades entire sky.
तैसें निवृत्तिपणासी कारण । हाचि आपणया आपण ।
घेयावया फूलचि झालें घ्राण । आपुली दृती ॥ २-७५ ॥
Similarly, Sadguru is very naturally Nivrutta (detached) on his own. His Self-Knowledge is like a flower that would become nose itself, in order to smell its fragrance.
दिठी मुखाचिये बरवे । पाठीकडोनि जैं पावे ।
तैं आरिसे धांडोळावे । लागती काई ? ॥ २-७६ ॥
If ever our eyes turn back and view our face, would it be necessary to search a mirror ? No, not at all !
कीं राती हन गेलिया । दिवस हन पातलिया ।
काय सूर्यपण सूर्या । होआवें लागें ? ॥ २-७७ ॥
It is never necessary for the Sun to acquire Sun-ness for night to be driven out first and usher in daybreak. In fact his Sun-ness persists irrespective of these two !
म्हणोनि बोध्य बोधोनि । घेपे प्रमाणें साधोनि ।
ऐसा नव्हे भरंवसेनि । गोसावी हा ॥ २-७८ ॥
Therefore my Swami Nivruttinath is such who cannot be cognised through words or criterion; He is Self-Evident !
ऐसें करणियावीण । स्वयंभचि जें निवृत्तिपण ।
तयाचे श्रीचरण । वंदिले ऐसे ॥ २-७९ ॥
In this manner I dispassionately prostrate unto the lotus feet of Sadguru Sri Nivruttinath, who does not nurture notions of cause and effect.
आतां ज्ञानदेवो म्हणे । श्रीगुरु प्रणामें येणें ।
फेडिली वाचाऋणें । चौही वाचांचीं ॥ २-८० ॥
Therefore Sri Dnyanadev says that through these wordy praise unto Sadguru that created duality, he paid off debts of the four types of speech (Para, Pashyanti, Madhyama, Vaikhari) depicting duality by quietly venerating His Feet.
॥ इति द्वितीय प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥
( Here, the second chapter comes to close)
प्रकरण तिसरें (Chapter Three )
वाचाऋण परिहार (Redressing Debts of Speech)
ययांचेनि बोभाटे । आत्मयाची झोंप लोटे ।
पूर्ण तही ऋण न फिटे । जें चेणोंचि नीद कीं ॥ ३-१ ॥
Ignorance about Atma (spirit, Chaitanya, life force etc) is the sleep the being undergoes as far as his true self is concerned. It is true that this sleep is overcome by the four forms of speech, namely Para, Pashyanti, Madhyama and Vaikhari. However, that ignorance does not disappear completely since the knowledge of his being Brahmam ( Aham Brahma Asmi – I Am Brahmam) is akin to sleep or ignorance. His ego or awareness of “I” still persists !
येहवीं परादिका चौघी । जीवमोक्षाच्या उपेगीं ।
अविद्येसवें आंगीं । वेंचती कीर ॥ ३-२ ॥
Otherwise, if those four forms of speech destroy themselves along with ignorance, it would be useful for the being liberate from bondage of ignorance and attain Liberation.
देहासवे हातपाये । जाती , मनासवें इंद्रियें ।
कां सूर्यासवें जाये । किरणजाळ ॥ ३-३ ॥
While the body falls movements of hands and feet stalls. Entire senses of action, perception and the mind too disappear, like Sun rays vanish at Sunset.
ना तरी निद्रेचिये अवधी । स्वप्नें मरती आधीं ।
तेवीं अविद्येचे संबंधी । आटती इया ॥ ३-४ ॥
Dreams too destroy while sleep is over; likewise, annihilation of ignorance destroys all four forms of speech related to it (ignorance).
मृतें लोहें होती । ते रसरूपें जिती ।
जळोनि इंधनें येती । वन्हीदशे ॥ ३-५ ॥
Destroying iron by melting nevertheless leaves behind its ash; or else, burning off wood first creates embers and later ash alone is left behind.
लवण अंगें विरे । परी स्वादें जळीं उरे ।
नीद मरोनि जागरें । जिइजे निदें ॥ ३-६ ॥
Salt on dissolving in water remains around as saltiness; sleep on getting over persists as wakefulness because only the wakeful can sleep after all !
तेवीं अविद्येसवें । चौघीं वेंचती जीवें ।
तत्त्वज्ञानाचेनि नांवे । उठतीचि या ॥ ३-७ ॥
Similarly, even while these four types of speech destroy along with ignorance in a broad sense, those persist as philosophy when the being says, ‘I Am Brahmam’, due to the subtle awareness of “I” in the statement.
हा तत्त्वज्ञान दिवा । मरोनि इहीं लावावा ।
तरी हाही शीण लेवा । बोधरूपेंची ॥ ३-८ ॥
It is true that while these four types of speech perish, ignorance in the form of perverted knowledge also dies down. However, those lit the lamp of exact knowledge or philosophy while perishing. That in itself is ignorance indeed, since subtle ego persists in the awareness of ‘Aham’ in ‘Aham Brahma Asmi’!
येऊनि स्वप्न मेळवी । गेलिया आपणपां दावी ।
दोन्ही दिठी नांदवी । नीद जैशी ॥ ३-९ ॥
Sleep brings in dream-vision, while awakening exhibits waking-vision; which means that sleep alone makes both forms of vision possible.
जिती अविद्या ऐसी । अन्यथा बोधातें गिंवसी ।
तेचि यथा बोधेंसी । निमाली उठी ॥ ३-१० ॥
Ignorance (Avidya) breeds perverted knowledge such as ‘I am separate from God’ and when that perverted knowledge disappears, exact knowledge as ‘I Am Brahmam’ takes root. Nevertheless, it is ‘Avidya’ that is responsible for both ignorant notions prevailing !
परि जीती ना मेली । अविद्या हे जाकळी ।
बन्धमोक्षीं घाली । बांधोनियां ॥ ३-११ ॥
It means that while Avidya persists, it inhabits notion of ‘I am in bondage’; however, when it disappears, it breeds the notion ‘I am now free from bondage’. In fact, the ‘I’ (ego) persists at both levels, which is true bondage!
मोक्षुचि बंधु होये । तरी मोक्ष शब्द कां साहे ? ।
अज्ञान-घरीं त्राये । वाउगी यांची ॥ ३-१२ ॥
If Liberation itself is considered as bondage, what is use of the word ‘Liberation’? Indeed, the house of ignorance parades false notions of bondage and liberation!
बागुलाचेनि मरणें । तोषावें कीं बाळपणें ।
येरा तो नाहीं मा कोणें । मृत्यु मानावा ? ॥ ३-१३ ॥
Disappearance of scarecrow delights a child; do others feel alike? The wise do not believe in disappearance of non-existent scarecrow. Indeed, Avidya established words such as bondage and liberation; but Avidya too never exists, it is only imagination! Therefore, whether present or absent, where is meaning to the words ‘bondage’ and ‘liberation’? Basically there was no bondage at all; in that case, what is the propriety of the word liberation anyway !
घटाचें नाहींपण । फुटलियाची नागवण ।
मानीत असे ते जाण । म्हणो ये की ॥ ३-१४ ॥
Can a person called wise who laments over breaking of a pot that was never created at all ? Nevertheless, those who subscribe to that, may as well accept bondage and liberation as true !!
म्हणोनि बंधुचि तंव वावो । मा मोक्षा कें प्रसवो ? ।
मरोनि केला ठावो । अविद्या तया ॥ ३-१५ ॥
Basically if bondage itself were phoney, how could the relative liberation be labelled as true? However, the Avidya while disappearing deludes form of liberation. Therefore liberation is also an illusion.
आणि ज्ञान बंधु ऐसें । शिवसूत्राचेनि मिसें ।
म्हणितलें असे । सदाशिवें ॥ ३-१६ ।।
The scripture named “Shiva-sutra” mentions ‘Dnyana’ (Knowledge) as bondage. (Chaitanyam Atma, Dnyanam Bandhah etc.)
आणि वैकुंठींचेहि सुजाणें । ज्ञानापाशीं सत्त्वगुणें ।
बांधिजे हें बोलणें । बहू केलें ॥ ३-१७ ॥
Similarly, Lord of Heaven Sri Vishnu or Srikrishna has also said in detail that knowledge creates bondage.
(Tatra Satvam Nirmaltvatprakashakamanamayam / Sukhasangena Badnati Dnyanasangena Chanagha )
(Geeta ch. 14/6).
परि शिवें कां श्रीवल्लभें । बोलिलें येणेंचि लाभें ।
मानूं तेंहि लाभे । न बोलतांही ॥ ३-१८ ॥
(Dnyanadev says) I certainly appreciate those authentic statements, not just because He ( The Lord) has said so; my own personal experience too is likewise.
जें आत्मज्ञान निखळ । तेंहि घे ज्ञानाचें बळ ।
तैं सूर्य चिंती सबळ । तैसे नोव्हे ? ॥ ३-१९ ॥
Pristine pure Knowledge of the Self (Atma-Dnyana) is certainly devoid of worldly knowledge (Vrutti Jnyana ). If ever Knowledge of the Self requires support of worldly knowledge, it would seem like saying that the Sun requires someone’s support for arising !
ज्ञानें श्लाघ्यतु आले । तैं ज्ञानपण धाडिलें वांये ।
दीपवांचून दिवा न लाहे । तैं आंग भुललाचि कीं ॥ ३-२० ॥
If ever experience of attaining Brahmam could be extolled through worldly knowledge, supremely pristine Knowledge of the Self (‘Dnyana-Matra’) would be futile. If a lamp expects some other source of light in order to see some object, wouldn’t its ‘lamp-ness’ be futile ?
आपणचि आपणापाशीं । नेणतां देशोदेशीं ।
आपणपें गिंवशी । हें कीरु होय ? ॥ ३-२१ ॥
Would anyone delude of his getting lost in wilderness ? Moreover, would he roam around places to search for himself ? In that case will that deluded person ever find himself ?
परि बहुतां कां दिया । आपणपें आठवलिया ।
म्हणे मी यया । कैसा रिझों ? ॥ ३-२२ ॥
And after spending many days in search of himself suppose he re-gains memory and says, ‘O, it's good that I found myself’; in that case, will his joy be real or illusion?
तैसा ज्ञानरूप आत्मा । ज्ञानेंचि आपली प्रमा ।
करितसे सोSहं मा । ऐसा बंधू ॥ ३-२३ ॥
Likewise, it is bondage if awareness of having attained Brahmam persists in spite of the Atma being basically Knowledge alone.
हें ज्ञान स्वयें बुडे । म्हणोनि भारी नावडे ।
ज्ञानें मोक्षु घडे । तें निमालेनि ॥ ३-२४ ॥
Worldly knowledge disappears into knowledge of the Self, while the Atma transcends knowledge as well as ignorance. What is the use of worldly knowledge for the Atma that never forgets its true nature anyway? That is why liberation in the true sense is impossible without disappearance of worldly knowledge.
म्हणोनि परादिका वाचा । तो शृंगारु चौ अंगांचा ।
एवं अविद्या जीवाचा । जीवत्व त्यागी ॥ ३-२५ ॥
Therefore, Avidya(ignorance) adorns the foursome namely the physical body, subtle body, causal and super causal body. It is true that while the four forms of speech namely Para, Pashyanti, Madhyama and Vaikhari dissolute, ‘being ness’ borne out of Avidya is discarded; however, that Avidya (ignorance) still persists as knowledge even after its dissolution.
आंगाचेनि इंधनें उदासु । उठोनि ज्ञानाग्नि प्रवेशु ।
करी, तेथें भस्मलेशु । बोधाचा उरे ॥ ३-२६ ॥
Firewood representing those four types of body (physical, subtle, causal and super causal) are inert as fuel; however, even while burning themselves off in fires of Knowledge (Dnyana), their ash persists. Likewise, disappearance of ignorance leaves enlightenment behind ! Indeed, the notion of being ignorant is replaced by awareness of being Knowledgeable, which in itself is worldly enlightenment !
जळीं जळावेगळु । कापूर न दिसे अवडळु ।
परि होऊनि परिमळु । उरे जेवीं ॥ ३-२७ ॥
Camphor dissolves physically while put in water; however, it persists in subtle form as fragrance !
अंगीं लाविलिया विभूती । तैं परमाणुही झडती ।
परि पांडुरत्वें कांती । राहे जैसी ॥ ३-२८ ॥
Ash smeared on to body falls off after a while; however, whitish tinge as ash persists where it was smeared.
ना वोहळला आंगीं जैसे । पाणी पाणीपणें नसे ।
तहीं वोल्हासाचेनि मिसें । आथीच तें ॥ ३-२९ ॥
Even while waters in a brook are washed off, water as such may not be seen; however, it persists as wetness !
ना तरी माध्यान्हकाळीं । छाया न दिसे वेगळी ।
असे पायातळीं । रिगोनियां ॥ ३-३० ॥
Or else, even if we are unable to see our own shadow at mid-noon, it is still present under our feet !
तैसें ग्रासूनि दुसरें । स्वरूपीं स्वरूपाकारें ।
आपुलेपणें उरे । बोधु जो कां ॥ ३-३१ ॥
In the same manner, even while sense of duality vanishes, subtle awareness of one’s being Atma the Lord persists; that very awareness is the ‘debt’ unto the four forms of speech !
तें ऋणशेष वाचा इया । न फेडवेचि मरोनियां ।
तें पायां पडोनि मियां । सोडविलें ॥ ३-३२ ॥
Thus, while the foursome Vaikhari, Madhyama, Pashyanti and Para disappear, the cordial enlightenment accrued cannot be paid off even after death; however, I paid off that debt by venerating lotus feet of the Sadguru !
म्हणोनि परा पश्यंती । मध्यमा हन भारती ।
या निस्तरलिया लागती । ज्ञानीं अज्ञानींचि ॥ ३-३३ ॥
Which is why, the being must absolve himself from debt accrued through four forms of speech. Therefore, whether the being is ignorant (unaware of him being Brahmam) or Knowledgeable (him as verily Brahmam), he must extricate himself from both forms of worldly awarenesses and be pristine pure Knowledge personified (Dnyana-Matra) alone !!
॥ इति श्री वाचाऋणपरिहार नाम तृतीय प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥
प्रकरण चवथें
(Chapter four)
ज्ञान अभेदकथन
(Knowledge-Ignorance-Distinction Defined)
आतां अज्ञानाचेनि मारे । ज्ञान अभेदें वावरे ।
नीद साधोनि जागरें । नांदिजे जेवीं ॥ ४-१।।
We discussed during the previous chapter that instinctive or inspirational knowledge of being knowledgeable or otherwise amounts to ignorance alone. Now we need to see that Knowledge alone prevails distinctively, while destroying ignorance. It is like wakefulness prevailing all alone while sleep is overcome.
कां दर्पणाचा निघाला । ऐक्यबोधु पहिला ।
मुख भोगी आपुला । आपणचि ॥ ४-२ ॥
We understand nature of our face while looking into the mirror ; our image seen in the mirror demonstrates our true form and mirror is not required any more. Indeed, our one-ness is with us alone; all other tools are useless.
ज्ञान जिया तिया परी । जगीं आत्मैक्य करी ।
तैं सुरिया खोचे सुरी । तैसें जालें ॥ ४-३ ॥
If one says that knowledge establishes kinship with every single object in the world, it is as good as saying that a knife pierces itself ! Just as it is impossible to happen thus, developing kinship with the world through knowledge alone is impossible.
लावी आंत ठावूनि कोपट । तो साधी आपणया सकट ।
का बांधलया चोरट । मोटेमाजी ॥ ४-४ ॥
A silkworm weaves cocoon around and shuts itself in, eventually destroying itself thus ; or else, if a thief bundles up entire stolen articles and hides within that bundle itself, will he not be found by the owner easily and driven out ?
आगी पोतासाचेनि मिसें । आपणपें जाळिलें जैसें ।
ज्ञाना अज्ञाननाशें । तैसें जालें ॥ ४-५ ॥
Fire that boasts of burning off camphor destroys itself while burning it. Likewise, instinctive knowledge too destroys itself while destroying ignorance.
अज्ञानाचा टेका । नसतांही ज्ञान अधिका ।
फांके, तव उफखा । आपुला पडे ॥ ४-६ ॥
Instinctive knowledge expands tremendously without support of ignorance and destroys itself for want of ‘knowing’ any more !
वात दशाहि ते निमालिया । येणें जें उवावा ।
तें केवळ नाशावया । दीपाचे परि ॥ ४-७ ॥
Flame of a lamp becomes larger while wick and oil exhausts; it is only to extinguish the lamp.
उठणें कीं पडणें । कुचभाराचे कोण जाणे ।
फांकणें कीं सुकणें । जाउळाचें ॥ ४-८ ॥
Stiffening of breasts and their going back to original status occurs so quickly as if did not happen at all. Blossoming of jasmine flower heralds beginning of its withering !
तरंगाचें रूपा येणें । तयाचि नांव निमणें ।
कां विजूचें उदैजणें । तोचि अस्तु ॥ ४-९ ॥
Formation of wave is verily beginning of its disappearance and lightning itself means its destruction.
तैसें पिऊनि अज्ञान । तंववरी वाढे ज्ञान ।
जंव आपुलें निधन । निःशेष साधे ॥ ४-१० ॥
Similarly, knowledge expands only until ignorance is destroyed and when ignorance uproots, the instinctive knowledge also disappears. Instinctive knowledge does not exist as selfless and free entity even momentarily .
जैसें कल्पांतीचें भरितें । स्थळाजळा दोहींतें ।
बुडविलिया आरौतें । राहोंचि नेणें ॥ ४-११ ॥
During final deluge times waters keep accumulating to such extent that lakes, rivers, oceans and lands too exist as water alone.
कीं विश्वाहि वेगळ । वाढे जैं सूर्यमंडळ ।
तैं तेज तम निखळ । तेंचि होय ॥ ४-१२ ॥
Or else, if the Solar system envelops entire universe, all distinction of darkness and effulgence vanish altogether and entire status is brilliance alone.
नाना नीद मरोनि । आपणपें हिरौनि ।
जागणें ठाके होवोनि । जागणेंचि ॥ ४-१३ ॥
Or else, even the relative awareness of being awake on completion of sleep does not exist later ; what remains is awakening alone.
तैसे अज्ञान आटोनियां । ज्ञान येतें उवाया ।
ज्ञानाज्ञान गिळूनियां । ज्ञानचि होय ॥ ४-१४ ॥
Inspirational or instinctive knowledge flourishes in order to destroy ignorance and immediately on its destruction the instinctive knowledge also disappears. Thereafter, once the relative knowledge and ignorance are destroyed, what persists is pristine pure Knowledge of the Self ( Jnyana-Matra) .
ते वेळीं पुनिवां भरे । ना अवसां सरे ।
ते चंद्रींचि उरे । सतरावी जैशी ॥ ४-१५ ॥
The original basic status of the Moon on seventeenth night of every month never alters anytime. Accretion of its phase takes place till Pournima the full moon night, whereas its recession leads to Amavasya or first day of lunar phase. Nevertheless that subtle seventeenth phase never changes per se as accretion or recession; its true nature remains non-committal.
कां तेजांतरें नाटोपे । कोण्हे तमें न सिंपे ।
तें उपमेचें जाउपें । सूर्यचि होय ॥ ४-१६ ॥
The Sun is ever Sun alone, which inhabits in its own radiance. Its true form never changes due to some other source or even darkness.
म्हणोनि ज्ञानें उजळे । कां अज्ञानें रुळे ।
तैसें नव्हे निर्वाळें । ज्ञानमात्र जें ॥ ४-१७ ॥
Similarly, Knowledge of Brahmam is self-evident; that Brahma-Jnyana is not illumined by inspirational knowledge or maligned by ignorance. Which is why it needs to be described as Jnyana-Matra (pristine pure, transcendental knowledge) .
परी ज्ञानमात्रें निखळें । तेंचि कीं तया कळें ।
काई देखिजे बुबुळें । बुबुळा जेवीं ? ॥ ४-१८ ॥
However, if there be any doubt as to whether that knowledge understands itself , the answer would be whether the eyeball can see itself !
आकाश आपणया रिगे ? । कायी आगि आपणया लागे ? ।
आपला माथा वोळघे । आपण कोण्ही ? ॥ ४-१९ ॥
Can the sky enter its own recesses? Can fire burn itself? Can anyone climb and sit over one’s own head?
दिठि आपणया देखे ? । स्वादु आपणया चाखे ? ।
नादु आपलें आइकें ? । नादपण ॥ ४-२० ॥
Can vision view itself? Can taste ever taste itself? Can sound ever make its own noise hear?
सूर्य सूर्यासि विवळे ? । कां फळ आपणया फळे ? ।
परिमळु परिमळें । घेपतु असे ? ॥ ४-२१ ॥
Can the Sun illumine itself? Can fruit ever breed its fruit? Can fragrance inhale itself?
तैसें आपणया आपण । जाणतें नव्हे जाण ।
म्हणौनि ज्ञानपणेंवीण । ज्ञानमात्र जें ॥ ४-२२ ॥
Just as all these are impossible, Knowledge of the Self (Swaroopa Jnyana) does not know Itself. Now, what name could be ascribed to such state? If ever a name is given, our awareness tends to accept duality; which is why that state is Jnyana-Matra (pristine pure transcendental) .
आणि ज्ञान ऐसी सोये । ज्ञानपणेंचि जरी साहे ।
तरी अज्ञान हें नोहे ? । ज्ञानपणेंचि ॥ ४-२३ ॥
If Knowledge is essential to know form of the Lord, what is wrong in saying that the relative ignorance too was equally necessary ?
जैसें तेज जें आहे । तें अंधारें कीर नोहे ।
मा तेज तरी होये । तेजासी काईं ? ॥ ४-२४ ॥
You see, whatever is known as brilliance is certainly not darkness anyway; in that case, how can the brilliance recognise itself as brilliance ?
तैसें असणें आणि नसणें । हें नाहीं जया होणें ।
आतां मिथ्या ऐसें येणें । बोलें गमे ॥ ४-२५ ॥
(A doubt):-- if one says that Atma has neither existence or non-existence in the light of Jnyana ( knowledge) , why can it not be labelled as phoney ?
तरी कांहीं नाहीं सर्वथा । ऐसी जरी व्यवस्था ।
तरी नाहीं हे प्रथा । कवणासि पां ? ॥ ४-२६ ॥
If ever the status was of ‘nothingness’, whoever understood it thus ?
शून्य सिद्धांत बोधु । कोणे सत्ता होये सिद्धु ? ।
नसतां हा अपवादु । वस्तुसि जो ॥ ४-२७ ॥
The Buddha philosophy postulates ‘nothing-ness’ or Shoonya Vaad, which means that Nothing exists in principle. However, who is aware of that status? Under whose aegis? Indicting Atma with ‘nothing-ness’ is naturally in vain, since Atma is Self-Evident.
माल्हवितां दिवे । माल्हवितें जरी माल्हवे ।
तरी दीपु नाहीं हें फावे । कोणासि पां ॥ ४-२८ ॥
If a person who extinguished entire lamp suddenly dies after extinguishing those, whoever will know that? Who will experience absence of lamp? Is it ‘because of’ absence of lamp?
कीं निदेचेनि आलेंपणें । निदेलें तें जाय प्राणें ।
तरी नीद भली हें कोणें । जाणिजेल पां ? ॥ ४-२९ ॥
If a person sleeps and dies during sleep alone, whoever will know that he slept well !!!
घटु घटपणें भासे । तद्भंगें भंगू आभासे ।
सर्वथा नाहीं तैं नसे । कोणें म्हणावें ? ॥ ४-३० ॥
Existence of a pot makes one aware of its ‘pot-ness’ and when it breaks, its absence. However, if the pot is non-existent at all, who would vouchsafe its ‘absence’?
म्हणोनि कांहीं नाहींपण । देखतां नाहीं आपण ।
नोहूनि असणेंवीण । असणें जें ॥ ४-३१ ॥
Similarly, Atma that is very form of Knowledge does not recognise both ‘is-ness’ or ‘not-ness’; Knowledge of the Self (Atma Jnyan) exists without ‘is’ or ‘not’; there is no duality of presence or absence.
परी आणिका कां आपणया । न पुरे विषो होआवया ।
म्हणोनि न असावया । कारण कीं ॥ ४-३२ ॥
Nevertheless, pristine pure Lord does not make subject matter of knowledge for Himself or others; therefore there is room to say that He may be non-existent.
जो निरंजनीं निदेला । तो आणिकीं नाहीं देखिला ।
आपुलाहि निमाला । आठउ तया ॥ ४-३३ ।
There is no one to see a person asleep in lonely, desolate forest and he himself is unaware of him.
परी जिवें नाहीं नोहे । तैसें शुद्ध असणें आहे ।
हें बोलणें न साहे । असे-नाहींचें ॥ ४-३४ ॥
However, he is not alive is not so, which is a logical statement. Similar is the Lord’s state of existence; one cannot speak of is or is-not about His pristine form.
दिठी आपणया मुरडे । तैं दिठीपणहि मोडे ।
परी नाहीं नोहे फुडे । तें जाणेचि ते ॥ ४-३५ ॥
Likewise, if the vision were to turn back and view itself, it would lose its property of viewing; nevertheless, it (vision) is not lost. Its power to view persists; it continues to exist as vision.
कां काळा राहे काळवखा । तो आपणया ना आणिका ।
न चोजवे तरी आसिका । हा मी बाणे ॥ ४-३६ ॥
A dark complexioned person standing in pitch darkness cannot be seen by others. However, his ‘presence’ still exists with him.
तैसे असणें कां नसणें । हें कांहींच मानुसवाणें ।
नसोनि असणें । ठाये ठावो ॥ ४-३७ ॥
In the same manner the Lord transcends both notions as present or absent; He exists as Himself irrespective of onlooker’s view within His Own Self.
निर्मळपणीं आपुला । आकाशाचा संचु विराला ।
तो स्वयें असे, पुढिलां । कांहीं ना कीं ॥ ४-३८ ॥
The sky accommodates rest of the four elements (earth, water, fire and air) and continues to exist all alone in its pristine glory even after dissolution of the foursome. It is not subject matter for anyone; nevertheless, it does exist.
कां आंगींकी निर्मळपणीं । हारपलिया पोखरणीं ।
आणिकावांचूनि पाणी । सगळेंचि आहे ॥ ४-३९ ॥
If clean water of a brook dries up, it is not seen by onlooker; it persists within the soil as wetness nevertheless.
आपणा भागु तैसें । असणेंचि जें असे ।
आहे नाहीं ऐसें । सांडोनिया ॥ ४-४० ॥
Likewise, form of the Atma certainly exists as such, without definitions of ‘is ness’ or ‘not ness’!
निदेचें नाहींपण । निमालियाहि जागेंपण ।
असिजे कां नेण । कोणी न होऊनि जैसें ॥ ४-४१ ॥
One becomes aware of his waking state while sleep gets over. That awareness does not last long. Later, there is unique awareness of being awake that is quite distinct from sleep or wakefulness and which does not require constant awareness. If we ask someone whether he is awake, he will counter question saying, could he ever be in front of you if not awake !
There is a unique knowledge of ‘being there’, quite distinct from sleep or wakefulness, which does not require awareness; it is naturally self-evident.
कां भूमी कुंभ ठेविजे । तैं सकुंभता आपजे ।
तो नेलिया म्हणिजे । तेणेंवीण ॥ ४-४२ ॥
While a pot is put over the ground, it is with the pot; whereas, when pot is removed the ground is pot less.
परी दोन्ही हे भाग । न शिवति भूमीचें आंग ।
ते वेळीं भूमि तैसें चांग । चोख जें असणें ॥ ४-४३ ॥
Nevertheless, pot has nothing to do with existence of the earth; whether the pot exists or not, the earth exists with its existence anyway. Likewise, Atma too is Self-evident.
॥ इति ज्ञान अभेदकथव नाम चतुर्थ प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥
प्रकरण पांचवे
Chapter five
सच्चिदानंदपदत्रय विवरण
The Threesome Sat-Chid-Ananda Explained
सत्ता प्रकाश सुख । या तिहीं तिहींउणे लेख ।
जैसें विखपणेंचि विख । विखा नाहीं ॥ ५-१ ।।
Truth negates untruth; effulgence destroys darkness and inertia while the word happiness rebuts sorrow. Indeed, the One possessing none of such antagonistic traits is verily Sacchidananda Paramatma, the Supreme Lord. However, just as poison is unaware of its poisonous potential, the Supreme Lord Sacchidananda is indifferent to those traits since that is his innate nature.
कांति काठिण्य कनक । तिन्ही मिळोनि कनक एक ।
द्राव गोडी पीयुख । पीयुखचि जेवीं ॥ ५-२ ॥
Lustre, hardness and gold-ness constitute gold alone; or else, fluidity, sweetness and sparkling white colour make milk. None of those properties can be alienated from the original object.
उजाळ द्रुति मार्दव । या तिन्हीं तिहीं उणीव ।
हें देखिजे सावेव । कापुरीं एकीं ॥ ५-३ ॥
Whiteness, fragrance and softness of camphor refute their antagonistic traits of dirt, foul smell and hardness; however, that does not alter nature of camphor anyway.
आंगें कीर उजाळ । कीं उजाळ तोचि मवाळ ।
कीं दोन्ही ना परिमळ । मात्र जें ॥ ५-४ ॥
Immaculate ness, softness and fragrance cannot be differentiated.
ऐसें एके कापुरपणीं । तिन्ही इये उणी ।
इयापरी आटणी । सत्तादिकांची ॥ ५-५ ॥
In this manner the three properties namely immaculate ness, fragrance and softness that replace dirtiness, foul smell and hardness intrinsically inhabit camphor . Those are inseparable. Likewise, Sat, Chit and Anand exist inherently to Atma as one single unit.
येहवीं सच्चिदानंदभेदें । चालिलीं तिन्ही पदें ।
परि तिन्हीं उणीं आनंदें । केलीं येणें ॥ ५-६ ॥
Even though Sat, Chit, Anand appear as three entities, the Atma is verily bliss personified. One cannot differentiate between these traits. That three-ness is just apparent because of varying degrees of our sensual receptivity.
सत्ताचि कीं सुखप्रकाशु । प्रकाशुचि सत्ता उल्हासु ।
हें न निवडे, मिठांशु । अमृतीं जेवीं ॥ ५-७ ॥
Comprehensiveness of the Atma is verily bliss as well as enlightenment; enlightenment is comprehensiveness as well as bliss. Those always stay together in unison. Nectarine sweetness can never separate from nectar.
शुक्लपक्षींच्या सोळा । दिवसा वाढती कळा ।
परि चंद्र मात्र सगळा । चंद्रीं जेवीं ॥ ५-८ ॥
We consider phases of the Moon gradually keep enhancing during bright fortnight of lunar calendar. However, those sixteen phases do not constitute sixteen Moons; he ever remains perfect and complete.
थेंबीं पडतां उदक । थेंबीं धरूं ये लेख ।
परि पडिला ठायीं उदक । वांचूनि आहे ? ॥ ५-९ ॥
Raindrops falling over ground can at times be counted. However, what is it apart from water where those fall?
तैसें असताचिया व्यावृत्ती । सत् म्हणों आली श्रुति ।
जडाचिया समाप्ती । चिद्रूप ऐसें ॥ ५-१० ॥
Similarly, the Shruties suggest the word ‘Sat’ (Truth), in order to negate ‘A-Sat’ (Untruth). Moreover, in order to refute inertia (Jadatva) the word ‘Chit’ (Conscience) is planned.
दुःखाचेनि सर्वनाशें । उरलें तें सुख ऐसें ।
निगदिलें निश्वासें । प्रभूचेनि ॥ ५-११ ॥
Happiness is all that remains while sorrows abolish. Therefore Vedas, which emanate from very breath of the Lord proposed the word happiness just to refute sorrow.
ऐसीं सदादि प्रतियोगियें । असदादि तिन्ही इयें ।
लोटितां जाली त्राये । सत्तादिकां ॥ ५-१२ ॥
Thus, the words Sat, Chit and Ananda antagonised inert, destructible, sorrowfulness and there being no more need the contradictory words too were refuted.
एवं सच्चिदानंदु । आत्मा हा ऐसा शब्दु ।
अन्य व्याव्रृत्तिसिद्धु । वाचक नव्हे ॥ ५-१३ ॥
Thus, in order to refute inert, destructible and sorrowful world the word Sacchidananda came into existence. It certainly does not denote Atma as such.
सूर्याचेनि प्रकशें । जें कांहीं जड आभासें ।
तेणें तो गिंवसें । सूर्यु कायी ? ॥ ५-१४ ॥
Do inert objects that are Illumined by the Sun ever illumine Sun ?
तेवीं जेणें तेजें । वाचेसि वाच्य सुजें ।
ते वाचा प्रकाशिजे । हें कें आहे ? ॥ ५-१५ ॥
Likewise, can the speech demonstrate nature of Lord, which itself is illumined by the Lord’s effulgence ?
विषो नाहीं कोण्हाहि । जया प्रमेयत्वचि नाहीं ।
तया स्वप्रकाशा काई । प्रमाण होय ॥ ५-१६ ॥
That Lord cannot be a subject matter for anyone. He is self-evident and self-illumined; how can doctrines and evidences prove His credentials ?
प्रमेयपरिच्छेदें । प्रमाणत्व नांदे ।
तें कायि स्वतःसिद्धें । वस्तूच्या ठायीं ? ॥ ५-१७ ॥
A doctrine (Prameya) proves by virtue of evidence (Pramaan), which requires a knower (Pramatha). The Lord being Self-evident does not possess this variegated threesome namely the philosopher (knower) , evidence and doctrine . How can evidence prove Him ?
एवं वस्तूसि जाणों जातां । जाणणेंचि वस्तु तत्वता ।
मग जाणणें आणि जाणता । कैचें उरे ? ॥ १८ ॥
If ever Atma tried to know and understand the Self-same Brahmam or ‘Atma Vastu’, it is verily the knower, knowledge and knowable; therefore, how can there be any other knower and knowing ?
म्हणोनि सच्चित्सुख । हे बोल वस्तुवाचक ।
नव्हती, हे शेष । विचाराचे ॥ ५-१९ ॥
Therefore, the words Sat, Chit and Ananda do not demonstrate ‘Vastu’ or Brahmam. Quintessence of this exposition is that Atma cannot be verified by exhibiting anything other than Atma.
ऐसेनि इयें प्रसिद्धें । चालिलीं सच्चिदानंद पदें ।
मग द्रष्ट्या स्वसंवादें । भेटती जेव्हां ॥ ५-२० ॥
These three words Sat, Chi, Ananda are famous in this manner. Later while the Viewer is enlightened about his true self, --
ते वेळीं वरिषोनि मेघ । समुद्र होउनि वोघु ।
सरे, दाऊनि मागु । राहे जैसा ॥ ५-२१ ॥
Like cloud showers water and the stream meets river, which in turn merges into sea; at that point job of the stream is over. Alternatively, the road ends on reaching the destination.
फळ विऊनि फुल सुके । फळनाशे रस पाके ।
तोहि रस उपखें । तृप्तिदानीं ॥ ५-२२ ॥
Task of flower fulfils while it converts into fruit; use of ripe fruit is no more when its tjuice is extracted; moreover, even job of the juice is over while it renders satisfaction of tasting it !
कां आहुति अग्नीआंतु । घालूनि वोसरे हातु ।
सुख चेवऊनि गीतु । उगा राहे ॥ ५-२३ ॥
Job of the hands is accomplished when sacrificial offerings are made into fire; role of music overcomes while it imparts joy of listening.
नाना मुखा मुख दाऊनी । आरिसा जाय निगोनि ।
कां निदैलें चेववुनी । चेववितें जैसें ॥ ५-२४ ॥
Use of mirror comes to nought when it shows reflection of faces; alternatively, task of awakener finishes while sleeping person is awakened.
तैसा सच्चिदानंदा चोखटा । दाऊनि द्रष्ट्या द्रष्टा ।
तिन्हीं पदें लागतीं वाटा । मौनाचिया ॥ ५-२५ ॥
Likewise, role of words finishes when the visionary is enlightened to exact Form of Atma, which indeed is Sacchidananda and those words are rendered mute.
जें जें बोलिजे तें तें नव्हे । होय तें तंव न बोलवे ।
साउलीवरी न मववे । मवितें जैसें ॥ ५-२६ ॥
Why do words become mute? Word is like a shadow; whatever spoken does not constitute Atma. Form of Atma transcends words, like measurement of body cannot be ascertained by measuring its shadow.
मग आपलिया कडे । मावितया से पडे ।
तैं लाजविला जो आखुडे । मवितें जैसें ॥ ५-२७ ॥
While one measures his shadow it appears shorter and the one measuring becomes aware of the fact that mere shadow cannot be his true measure. Similarly, words such as Sat Chit Ananda cannot demonstrate Form of the Self (Atma-Swaroopa).
जैसी सत्ताचि स्वभावें । असत्ता तंव नव्हे ।
मा सत्तात्व संभवे । सत्तेसि कायि ? ॥ ५-२८ ॥
Omniscience is very nature of the Lord; His existence is all-pervasive. While saying His Omniscience exists, the one saying so appears different from Atma. Therefore the word Sat cannot describe Him; there is no duality at all. In that case, who is the one that declares His Omniscience?
आणि अचिदाचेनि नाशें । आलें जें चिन्मात्रदशे ।
आतां चिन्मात्रचि मा कैसें । चिन्मात्रीं इये ॥ ५-२९ ॥
The word Chid is also inappropriate, since word is inert while Atma is verily Knowledge (Jnyana). The antagonistic word Chit is used as symbolic that refutes inertness. Role of words stalls on that occasion. Atma being ‘Chinmatra’ (Full of Knowledge, repository of Knowledge or Jnyana), how can words ever describe it?
नीद प्रबोधाच्या ठायीं । नसे तैसें जागणेंहि ।
तेवीं चिन्मात्रचि मा काई । चिन्मात्रीं ये ? ॥ ५-३० ॥
Wakefulness following sleep is relative; wakefulness persisting all the time is not labelled as awakening. Atma is impartially Chit, which means it is Chinmatra (Knowledge alone). It need not be emphatically labelled as such !
ऐसें यया सुखपणें । नाहीं दुःख कीर होणें ।
मा सुख हें गणणें । सुखासि काई ? ॥ ५-३१ ॥
Likewise, bliss is the very form of Atma; it is not antagonistic to sorrow. While it doesn’t recognise sorrow at all, it is just impossible to label it as form of bliss (Sukha Swaroopa ) !
म्हणोनि सद् असदत्वें गेलें । चिद् अचिदत्वें मावळलें ।
सुख असुख जालें । कांहीं ना कीं ॥ ५-३२ ॥
Therefore words refute inert, destructible, sorrowful traits in Atma and destroy themselves on fulfilling their role.
आतां द्वंद्वाचे लवंचक । सांडूनि दुणीचे कंचुक ।
सुखमात्रचि एक । स्वयें आथी ॥ ५-३३ ॥
Now, while abandoning futile notions created by duality, one experiences existence of its uniquely blissful state.
वरी एकपणें गणिजे । तें गणितेनसीं ये दुजें ।
म्हणोनि हें न गणिजे । ऐसें एक ॥ ५-३४ ॥
While a digit is counted there is always someone else counting; that is how duality manifests. However, the Atma cannot be labelled even as One, since it is neutral to both duality or non-duality anyway.
तैसें सुखाआतोनि निघणे । तें सुखियें सुखी तेणें ।
हें सुखमात्रचि मा कोणें । अनुभवावें ? ॥ ५-३५ ॥
The one that gets away on enjoying is named enjoyer. We consider him happy by virtue of his enjoyment. However, if there is no enjoyer in the first place, who would name that happiness like ? The Atma is verily form of bliss as such !
जैं प्रकृति डंकु अनुकरे । तैं प्रकृति डंकें अवतरे ।
मां डंकूचि तैं भरे । कोण कोणा ? ॥ ५-३६ ॥
While there is companionship with Prakruti, enjoyer of that association is named Purusha (That association can as well be named ‘sting’ or ‘bite’!) , who endures it. However, if there was Prakruti alone without Purusha, who would endure what?
तैसें आपुलेनि सुखपणें । नाहीं जया सुखावणें ।
आणि नाहीं हेंही जेणें । नेणिजे सुखें ॥ ५-३७ ॥
Similarly, the Lord being indifferent to joy and enjoyment, He is not affected by either pleasure or related sorrow anyways.
आरिसा न पाहतां मुख । स्वयें सन्मुख ना विन्मुख ।
तेवीं नसोनी सुखासुख । सुखचि जें ॥ ५-३८ ॥
If a mirror is placed in front of the face, the latter can be described as anterior (front) or posterior (back); however, those are not the attributes of face but are apparent due to the mirror. The face remains as it is. Likewise, the Lord is verily bliss personified, being indifferent to joy or grief.
सर्व सिद्धांताचिया उजरिया । सांडोनिया निदसुरिया ।
आपुलिया हात चोरिया । आपणचि जो ॥ ५-३९ ॥
Entire doctrines are postulated through words and words fall in the domain of ignorance. It is because words have no say without duality. Nevertheless, Atma being absolutely non-dual, it remains aloof of entire doctrines.
न लाविता ऊंसु । तैं जैसेनि असे रसु ।
तेथिंचा मीठांशु । तोचि जाणे ॥ ५-४० ॥
If sugar-cane is not planted at all, its unmanifest sweetness therein is not known to itself. There can be none other to know its sweetness; indeed that sweetness may be known to that sweetness alone !
कां न सज्जितां वीणा । तो नादु जो अबोलपणा ।
तया तेणेंचि जाणा । होआवें लागे ॥ ५-४१ ॥
Unmanifest musical notes can be known only to those notes before Veena (a string instrument) is created. It means sound alone knows sound.
नाना पुष्पाचिया उदरा । न येतां पुष्पसारा ।
आपणचि भवरा । होआवे पडे ॥ ५-४२ ॥
Flower alone knows presence of nectar within even before it forms. Indeed, the flower itself will require to become a bee in order to enjoy its fragrance.
नाना न रांधितां रससोये । ते गोडी पां कैसी आहे ।
हें पाहणें तें नोहे । आणिकाजोगें ॥ ५-४३ ॥
Whoever can taste sweetness of sweet before it is created? May be sweetness itself might know its own sweetness !
तैसें सुखपणा येवो । लाजे आपुलें सुख पावों ।
तें आणिकां चाखों सुवों । येईल काईं ? ॥ ५-४४ ॥
Similarly, pure unsullied bliss of Atma is ashamed to separate from it. How can that bliss be ever understood unless being Atma itself?
दिहाचिया दुपारीं । चांदु जैसा अंबरीं ।
तें असणें चांदाचिवरी । जाणावें कीं ॥ ५-४५ ॥
The Moon exists in the sky even at mid noon ; however, it alone is aware of its cool moonlight ; how can anybody else know that ? It is only while being moon that moonlight can be enjoyed ! Similarly, experience of Atma is impossible without becoming Atma itself.
रूप नाहीं तैं लावण्य । अंग नुठी तैं तारुण्य ।
क्रिया न फुटे तैं पुण्य । कैसें असे ॥ ५-४६ ॥
How can beauty be described if there is no shape at all ? Where to search for youth if body itself is absent ? How do merit or sin matter if no action is performed at all ?
जैं मनाचा अंकूर नुपजे । तेथिलेनि मकरध्वजें ।
तोचि हन माजे । तरीचि घडे ॥ ५-४७ ॥
Passion creates from the mind. If the mind itself is not created, whoever can know passion ?
कां वाद्यविशेषाची सृष्टी । जन्म नेघे दृष्टी ।
तैं नादु ऐशी गोष्टी । नादाचिजोगी ॥ ५-४८ ॥
Unless a musical instrument is created, how can its sound experienced ? That sound itself will know on that occasion.
नाना काष्ठाचिया विटाळा । वोसरलिया अनळा ।
लागणे तैं केवळा । अंगासीचि ॥ ५-४९ ॥
Where does fire exist when its association with firewood ceases ? On that occasion it stays within itself as fire ness.
दर्पणाचेनि नियमें- । -विणचि मुख प्रमे ।
आणिती तेचि वर्में । वर्मती येणें ॥ ५-५० ॥
The one who knows existence of his face without a mirror, he alone can understand existence of Atma.
न पेरितां पीक जोडे । तें मुडांचि आहे रोकडें ।
ऐसिया सोई उघडें । बोलणें हें ॥ ५-५१ ॥
Expected harvest remains a secret with seeds stored in a vessel before sowing; however, it is not so with my speech, which is evident enough and not a secret.
एवं विशेष सामान्य । दोहीं नातळे चैतन्य ।
तें भोगिजे अनन्य । तेणेंसीं सदा ॥ ५-५२ ॥
After all, one needs to be a separate entity from Atma in order to use words such as special or common existence of the same. If one has to experience true nature of Atma, he must become very form of the Atma himself.
आतां यावरी जे बोलणें । तें येणेंचि बोलें शहाणें ।
जें मौनाचेंही निपटणें । पिऊनि गेलें ॥ ५-५३ ॥
If at all one needs to speak any further, he must accept absolute silence. In fact, even absolute silence is nonplussed against that Self-same Atma !
एवं प्रमाणें अप्रमाण- । पण केलें प्रमाण ।
दृष्टांतीं वाइली आण । दिसावयाची ॥ ५-५४ ॥
It is true that evidences prove a thing. However, evidences have emphatically requested to refer nothing pertaining to Atma unto them ! Moreover, they swear not to entertain thoughts of ‘understanding’ Atma through epiphany ( ‘Drishtanta ‘) !
अंगाचिया अनुपपत्ति । आटलिया उपपत्ती ।
येथें उठली पांती । लक्षणाची ॥ ५-५५ ॥
Logical arguments turned back admitting their inability; rows and rows of features walked away since none of them could explain nature of Atma.
उपाय मागील पाय । घेऊन झाले वाय ।
प्रतीति सांडिली सोय । प्रत्ययाची ॥ ५-५६ ॥
Here, entire paraphernalia of Yoga, Devotion, Recitations, Action, Knowledge etc retracted their steps back without his knowledge . Moreover, all hallmarks of experience prove useless here.
येथें निधरिंसी विचारु । निमोनि झाला साचारु ।
स्वामीच्या संकटी शूरु । सुभटु जैसा ॥ ५-५७ ॥
A valiant warrior offers his entire being to protect his master during dangerous occasion; likewise, resolute thoughts lost themselves in wilderness and then alone they discovered Form of the Self (Atma Swaroopa) .
नाना नाशु साधूनि आपुला । बोधु बोधें लाजिला ।
नुसुधेपणें थोंटावला । अनुभव जेथे ॥ ५-५८ ।।
Precept (knowledge) is useless here due to absence of duality, since duality is necessary for precept. Even experience was lame being left out all alone.
भिंगाचिया चडळा । पदरांचा पुंज वेगळा ।
करितां जैसा निफाळा । आंगाचा होय ॥ ५-५९ ॥
While separating layers of mica entire flakes blow off, leading to disappearance of mica itself. Likewise, there is no life left in those experiences.
कां गजबजला उबा । पांघुरणें केळीचा गाभा ।
सांडी तेव्हेळीं उभा । कैंचा कीजे ? ॥ ५-६० ॥
If a plantain tree strips off its entire skin just because it feels very hot, it would cease to exist altogether ! (Nucleus of plantain tree is vacant !)
तैसें अनुभाव्य अनुभाविक । इहीं दोही अनुभूतिक ।
तें गेलिया कैचें एक । एकासिचि ॥ ५-६१॥
Similarly, while the threesome namely Atma the very subject for experience, the one experiencing and experience itself are lacking, can the digit one be named as one ?
अनुभवो हा ठाववरी । आपुलीचि अनवसरी ।
तेथें अक्षरांची हारी । वाईल काई ? ॥ ५-६२ ॥
When experience pertaining the Lord suffers from such dismal fate, how can words ever describe Him ?
कां परेसी पडे मिठी । तेथें नादा सळु नुठी ।
मा वावरिजैल ओठीं । हें कें आहे ? ॥ ५-६३ ॥
How can ‘Vaikhari’ survive (the fourth type of speech arising from lips) where Form of the Self (Swaroopa) abolishes ‘Para’ altogether ? (the first form of speech arising at the level of umbilicus)
चेइलियाही पाठीं । चेवणयाच्या गोठी ।
कां धाला बैसें पाठीं । रंधनाच्या ? ॥ ५-६४ ॥
What is the use of discussing modes of awakening on being awake? Why will a person involve into cooking all over again after being fully satiated through sumptuous meal ?
उदैजलिया दिवसपती । तैं कीं दिवे सेजे येती ।
वांचुनि पिकला शेतीं । सुइजताती नांगर काई ? ॥ ५-६५ ॥
Lights are switched off after daybreak since those are not necessary anymore. Alternatively, fields are not ploughed again while crops are ready.
म्हणोनि बंधमोक्षाचें व्याज । नाहीं ; निमालें काज ।
आतां निरूपणाचें भोज । वोळगे जरी ॥ ५-६६ ॥
Therefore , there is no propriety of bondage or liberation anymore. However, admiring expositions ( pertaining Atma Swaroopa) continues unabated !
आणि पुढिला कां आपणापें । वस्तु विसराचेनि हातें हारपें ।
मग शब्देंचि घेपे । आठवूनियां ॥ ५-६७ ॥
It is true that words alone remind knowledge of the Self (Atma Swaroopa) if ever we and others have forgotten the same.
येतुलियाहि परौतें । चांगावें नाहीं शब्दातें ।
जरी स्मारकपणें कीर्तीतें । मिरवी हा जगीं ॥ ५-६८ ॥
However, even while word is extolled as being ‘reminder’, its value is limited to that extent alone; it cannot explain more about self-same Self (Atma Vastu, Brahmam) .
।।इति पंचमोध्याय: सम्पूर्णम् ।।
प्रकरण सहावें
Chapter six
शब्दखंडण
Refuting Words
बाप उपेगी वस्तु शब्दु । स्मरणदानीं प्रसिद्धु ।
अमूर्ताचा विशदु । आरिसा नव्हे ? ॥ ६-१ ॥
You see, word is something very useful. There is no better tool that makes any object remembered. Indeed, are words not verily mirrors that reflect the Formless God?
पाहतें आरिसा पाहे । तेथें कांहींचि नवल नव्हे ।
परि दर्पणें येणें होये । न पाहतें , पाहतें ॥ ६-२ ॥
Where is the wonder of sighted person seeing himself in a mirror? Nevertheless, even a blind one can peep into mirror in the form of words.
वडिला अव्यक्ताचिया वंशा । उद्योत्कारु सूर्य जैसा ।
येणें येके गुणें आकाशा । अंबरत्व ॥ ६-३ ॥
Like the Sun, Words illumine entire cosmos including all inert and subtle beings and things created out of the ‘unmanifest’ (Avyakta). Indeed word, a single attribute confers special status to sky principle as sky-ness (‘Ambaratva’ to ‘Akash tatva’).
आपण तंव खपुष्प । परि फळ ते जगद्रूप ।
शब्द मवी तें उमप । कोण आहे ? ॥ ६-४ ॥
Word itself is flower of the sky, which means it is only imaginary. However, is there anything in the world that cannot be described in words ?
विधिनिषेधांचिया वाटा । दाविता हाचि दिवटा ।
बंधमोक्ष कळिकटा । शिष्टु हाचि ॥ ६-५ ॥
Word is verily the lamp that demonstrates legitimate or illegitimate tenets; moreover, the word is indeed an “arbitrator” (Shishta!) that rakes up quarrel between two antagonistic notions of bondage and liberation .
हा अविद्येचा आंगीं पडे । तैं नाथिलें ऐसें विरूढे ।
न लाहिजे तीन कवडे । साचा वस्तु ॥ ६-६ ॥
When word enters the domain of ignorance, a futile pomp of illusory world is created; however, at the level of Atma Swaroopa it is not even three penny worth!
शुद्ध शिवाच्या शरीरीं । कुमारु हा जिउ भरी ।
जेवीं आंगें पंचाक्षरी । तेवींचि बोलु ॥ ६-७ ॥
This word enters Shiva principle in the garb of a child and renders it phoney notion of ‘being-ness! Just as an exorcist (Panchakshari, Mantrik) invites spirits and ghosts by throwing some rice grains, the word-child brings in being-ness to Shiva through its magic !
जिउ देहें बांधला । तो बोलें एके सुटला ।
आत्मा बोलें भेटला । आपणयां ॥ ६-८ ॥
While Paramatma Swaroopa (Brahmam) takes up body form the notion ‘I am the being’ takes root; however, exhortation of word from Vedas that “Thou Art That” (Tat Tvam Asi) makes the being say “I Am Brahmam” in vain !
दिवसातें उगो गेला । तंव रात्रीचा द्रोहो आला ।
म्हणोनि सूर्यो या बोला । उपमा नव्हे ॥ ६-९ ॥
The Sun causes daybreak and destroys night simultaneously; it does not nurture both together. Therefore the Sun cannot be a simile for word since the word entertains both ‘being-ness’ and ‘Brahma-ness’ simultaneously .
जे प्रवृत्ति आणि निवृत्ति । विरुद्धा इया हातु धरिती ।
मग शब्देंचि चालती । एकलेनि ॥ ६-१० ॥
The word entertains reciprocal tenets of Pravrutti (action proneness) and Nivrutti (detachment) simultaneously through its own prowess.
सहाय्य आत्मविद्येचें । करावया आपण वेंचे ।
गोमटे काय शब्दाचें । एकैक वानूं ॥ ६-११ ॥
Word destroys itself to acquire Knowledge of the Self, since Self-acquisition is ‘wordless’! How many qualities pertaining to ‘word’ should one extol ?
किंबहुना शब्दु । स्मरणदानीं प्रसिद्धु ।
परी ययाही संबंधु । नाहीं येथें ॥ ६-१२ ॥
What is more, even while word is famous as a ‘reminder’, it is clueless as far as Atma Swaroopa is concerned.
आत्मया बोलाचें । कांहींचि उपेगा न वचे ।
स्वसंवेद्या कोणाचें । ओझें आथी ? ॥ ६-१३ ॥
Words are useless as far as Atma Swaroopa is concerned. Atma is “Sva Samvedya”, which means it knows itself. Why would it need onus from others? It is all in all !!
आठवे कां विसरे । विषो होऊनि अवतरे ।
तरी वस्तूसी वस्तु दुसरें । असेना कीं ॥ ६-१४ ॥
Someone else is necessary in order to remember oneself or forget, or else to become subject matter for someone else; however, the Lord is uniquely singular, there is none ‘other’!
आपण आपणयातें । आठवी विसरे केउतें ? ।
काय जीभ जिभितें । चाखे न चाखे ? ॥ ६-१५ ॥
Can we ever remember or forget ourselves ? Would it be appropriate to say that the tongue tastes or does not taste itself ?
जागतेया नीद नाही । मा जागणें घडे काई ? ।
स्मरणास्मरण दोन्हीही । स्वरूपीं तैसीं ॥ ६-१६ ॥
The one awake is naturally not asleep. His wakefulness is non-relative to sleep. Likewise, the relative remembrance or forgetfulness do not inhabit Atma Swaroopa . He is transcendental in all respects.
सूर्यो रात्री पां नेणें । मा दिवो काय जाणें ? ।
तेवीं स्मरणास्मरणे वीण । आपण वस्तु ॥ ६-१७ ॥
Just as the Sun is unawares of night, he is equally so with daytime as well. He is verily Self-illumined himself. Likewise, Atma the very embodiment of Knowledge has nothing to do with the words remembrance or forgetfulness !
एवं स्मरणास्मरण नाहीं । तरि स्मारकें काज काई ? ।
म्हणौनि इये ठाईं । बोलु न सरे ॥ ६-१८ ॥
There is none other with Atma. In that case, what monument can be erected through words such as remembrance or forgetfulness ? Moreover, how can word ever enter therein that has remembrance as its duty ?
आणिक येक शब्दें । काज कीर भलें साधे ।
परि धिंवसा न बंधे । विचारु येथें ॥ ६-१९ ॥
There is more noble action the word undertakes; however, it is embarrassing to speak out, because-
कां जे बोलें अविद्या नासे । मग आत्मेनि आत्मा भासे ।
हें म्हणतखेवो पिसें । आलेंचि कीं ॥ ६-२० ॥
Because, would it not be foolish to say that Atma becomes evident after annihilating ignorance with the help of words? In fact, ignorance needs to exist in the first place for its destruction! It is indeed just an imagination; how can it destroy ? Moreover, there can never be illusion of Atma; it is nothing but Truth alone!
सूर्यो राति पां मारील । मा आपणया उदो करील ।
हे कुडे न सरती बोल । साचाच्या गांवीं ॥ ६-२१ ॥
Is it ever wise to say that the Sun will destroy the night first and then embark upon its rise? In fact, night is an imagination. Truly speaking, absence of light may be its description instead ! How can the Sun destroy such imaginary or non-existent entity ?
चेईलें निदे रुसे । ऐसी कें नीद असे ? ।
कीं चेईलें चेवो बैसें । ऐसें चेणें आहे ? ॥ ६-२२ ॥
Can sleep be something where one may say that a waking person is sulky with it or is destroying it ? Absence of wakefulness is sleep expressed in contrary word. Or else, what is the point in saying that an already waking person is now awake , since his waking state is not relative to sleep.
म्हणोनि नाशापुरती । अविद्या नाही निरुती ।
नाहीं आत्मा आत्मस्थिति । रिगे ऐसा ॥ ६-२३ ॥
Therefore, Avidya (ignorance) is not something available for destruction, since it has neither existence or being-ness. Moreover, it is meaningless to say that Atma will revert back to its original pristine status after destroying Avidya with the help of words or will be apparent.
अविद्या तंव स्वरूपें । वांझेचें कीर जाउपें ।
मा तर्काचें खुरपें । खांडे कोणा ? ॥ ६-२४ ॥
Avidya happens to appear as existing like son of a barren woman, which in reality is no-existent. In that case, how can a trowel or sickle representing words such as logic, doctrines and evidences uproot “that” non-existing grass?
इंद्रधनुष्या सितें । कवण धनवई न लाविजेतें ।
तें दिसें तैसें होतें । साच जरी ? ॥ ६-२५ ॥
If ever rainbow existed at all, would an archer not have picked that up and shot arrow ? However, a rainbow doesn’t exist; it is just illusion. Avidya by nature is such alone.
अगस्तीचिया कौतुका- । पुरती जरी मृगतृष्णिका ।
तरी मार देतो तर्का । अविद्येसी ॥ ६-२६ ॥
If the Sage Agasti was ever satiated of thirst by drinking mirage waters instead of ocean, we would have conceded to the argument that logical words can destroy Avidya !
साहे बोलाची बळघी । ऐसी अविद्या असे जगीं ।
तरी जाळुं ना कां आगी । गंधर्वनगरें ? ॥ ६-२७ ॥
Castles in sky are just imaginary; however, if ever those were burnt off through real fires, we would accept that Avidya can be destroyed through words!
नातरी दीपाचिये सोये । आंधारु कीर न साहे ।
तेथें कांहीं आहे । जावयाजोगें ? ॥ ६-२८ ॥
Darkness never manifests in front of a lamp ; in that case, how can one say that it was destroyed because of light ? Presence of light verily means absence of darkness. Darkness symbolises nothingness; it does not require actual destruction.
नातरी पाहावया दिवसु । वातीचा कीजे सोसु ।
तेव्हढाहि उद्वसु । उद्यमु पडे ॥ ६-२९ ॥
Is it not an exercise in futility to kindle lamps with oil and wick in order to see what ‘day’ is like ? Does day-light require a flame to make it visible ? Similarly, it is in vain to say that Atma is experienced through words.
जेथें साउली न पडे । तेथें नाही जेणें पाडें ।
मा पडे तेथें तेव्हडे । नाहींच की ॥ ६-३० ॥
Just think, if our shadow is not seen at a particular place, it is indeed not there. However, suppose it is seen , it’s just an illusion; in reality, can it be ever picked up ?
दिसतचि स्वप्न लटिकें । हें जागरीं होय ठाउकें ।
तेवीं अविद्याकाळीं सतुकें । अविद्या नाहीं ॥ ६-३१ ॥
Even while dream is seen it is phoney and its being false is evident on waking. Likewise, Avidya basically does not exist; it is only after enlightenment that one knows of Avidya being non-existent.
वोडंबरीचिया लेणिया । घरभरी आतुडलिया ।
नागवें नागविलिया । विशेषु काई ॥ ६-३२ ॥
What is the use of ornaments scattered all over the place created by magician’s tricks ? What is the sense in saying that a naked person was looted ? He has nothing on him to be looted anyway !
मनोरथाचें परियळ । आरोगिजतु कां लक्ष वेळ ।
परि उपवासावेगळ । आनु आथी ? ॥ ६-३३ ॥
Even if one consumes imaginary sweets a million times, would it ever appease his hunger ?
मृगजळ जेथ नुमंडे । तेथ असे पां कोरडें ।
मा उमंडे तेथें जोडे । वोल्हांसु काई ? ॥ ६-३४ ॥
Land remains dry where mirage is invisible ; however, is it ever wet where mirage is seen ?
हें दिसे तैसें असे । तरी चित्रीचेनि पाउसें ।
वोल्हावतु कां मानुसें । आगरा तळीं ॥ ६-३५ ॥
If ever Avidya truly engaged in action, would the people and fields not get wet by rain depicted in portraits ?
कालवूनि आंधारें । लिहों येती अक्षरें ।
तरी मसीचिया वोरधारें । कां सिणावें ? ॥ ६-३६ ॥
If ever it was possible to create ink by dissolving darkness in water and used to write letters, why bother oneself in preparing ink from soot ?
आकाश काय निळें । न देखतु हे डोळे ? ।
तेवीं अविद्येचि टवाळें । जाणोनि घेईं ॥ ६-३७ ॥
The eye sees sky as blue ; however, is there any blue coloured object ? Likewise , Avidya too is just an illusion.
अविद्या येणें नांवें । मी विद्यमानचि नव्हे ।
हे अविद्याची स्वभावें । सांगतसे ॥ ६-३८ ॥
Avidya declares through her very name that she does not exist. Being non-existent is her very nature.
आणि इये अनिर्वाच्यपण । तें दुजेंही देवांगण ।
आपुल्या अभावीं आपण । साधीतसे ॥ ६-३९ ॥
Avidya has proved her own non-existence through swearing its being unspeakable.
कांहीच जरी आहे । तरी निर्धारू कां न साहे ? ।
वरी घटाभावें भोये । अंकित दिसे ? ॥ ६-४० ॥
If Avidya truly exists at all, why does it not stand to reason and discretion ? For instance, what is the use of saying that land is not covered by a pot, which in itself was never present on the land ?
अविद्या नाशी आत्मा । ऐसी नव्हे प्रमा ।
सुर्या आंगीं तमा । जयापरी ॥ ६-४१ ॥
There is no proof to say that enlightenment occurs after Avidya is destroyed. Is it not an absurd and laughable statement that the Sun rises only on dispelling darkness first !!
हे अविद्या तरी मायावी । परि मायावीपणचि लपवी ।
साचा आली अभावी । आपुला हे ॥ ६-४२ ॥
Avidya is deceptive and illusory; she hides existent or non-existent existence through deception alone. If at all one needs to speak of her existence, it must be as absence only !
बहुतापरी ऐसी । अविद्या नाहीं आपैसीं ।
आतां बोलू हातवसी । कवणापरी ॥ ६-४३ ॥
In spite of thinking deep, existence of Maya does not prove. Now, which words to use that refute Maya ?
साउलियेतें साबळें । हालयां भोय आदळे ।
कीं हालेनि अंतराळें । थोंटावे हातु ॥ ६-४४ ॥
For example, suppose one whacks shadow with a crow-bar, the shadow does not come to harm; nevertheless, the land suffers from pot-hole! Or else, trying to slap the sky will not hurt it but the hand will !!
कां मृगजळाचा पानीं । गगनाच्या अलिंगनीं ।
नातरी चुंबनीं । प्रतिबिंबाचा ॥ ६-४५ ॥
What would one get while trying to gulp water from mirage ? If one wishes to embrace the sky, whom to embrace ? Will it not be an exercise in futility to kiss one’s own image ?
उठावया बोथरे तंवका । तो सुनाथा पडे असिका ।
अविद्या नाशीं तर्का । तैसें होय ॥ ६-४६ ॥
Just as strong desire is in vain without simultaneous action as well, whatever effort may be made through logic alone, Avidya does not uproot without self-experience. Logic alone cannot destroy Avidya.
ऐसी अविद्या नासावी । हे वाहेल जो जीवीं ।
तेणें साली काढावी । आकाशाची ॥ ६-४७ ॥
Whoever considers annihilating Avidya may as well try to remove flakes of sky one after another !!
तेणें शेळीगळां दुहावीं । गुडघां वास पाहावी ।
वाळवोनि काचरी करावी । सांजवेळेची ॥ ६-४८ ॥
He may milk udders on the neck of sheep ; find out the road with eyes over knees ; dry up and slice evening time!
जांभई वांटूनि रसु । तेणें काढावा बहुवसू ।
कालवूनि आळसू । मोदळा पाजावा । ६-४९ ॥
He may extract plenty of juice by grinding yawn and while mixing it with lethargy feed the mixture to lump of mud !
तो पाटा पाणी परतु । पडली साउली उलथु ।
वारयाचे तांथु । वळु सुखें ॥ ६-५० ॥
He may turn back water of stream ; look at shadow from its back; draw threads from wind !
तो बागुलातें मारू । प्रतिबिंब खोळे भरू ।
तळहातींचे विंचरू । केंस सुखें ॥ ६-५१ ॥
He may actually kill scarecrow ; roam around merrily while putting shadow in the bag ; leisurely comb hair over palms !!
घटाचें नाहींपण फोडू । गगनाची फुलें तोडू ।
सशाचें मोडू । शिंग सुखें ॥ ६-५२ ॥
He may break non-existent pot ; pluck sky-flowers ; break horn of rabbit !
तो कापुराची मसी करू । रत्नदीपीं काजळ धरू ।
वांजेचें लेंकरूं । परणूं सुखें ॥ ६-५३ ॥
He may burn camphor and collect soot, collect collirium from lustre of Jewel and happily marry daughter of barren woman !!
तो अंवसेनेचि सुधाकरें । पोसू पाताळीची चकोरें ।
मृगजळींचीं जळचरें । गाळूं सुखें ॥ ६-५४ ॥
He may offer feast unto Chakor birds during “moonlight” of Amavasya and happily catch fish in mirage water !!
अहो हें किती बोलावें । अविद्या रचिली अभावें ।
आतां काई नाशावें । शब्दें येणें ॥ ६-५५ ॥
See, how many examples may be cited ? Avidya exists in its absence alone. It is impossible to refute in words.
नाहीं तयाचे नाशें । शब्द न ये प्रमाणदशे ।
अंधारीं अंधारा जैसें । नव्हे रूप ॥ ६-५६ ॥
Words cannot be any criteria for ‘non-existing’ Avidya, just as darkness cannot be cognised in darkness. Words fall short on that occasion.
अविद्येची नाहीं जाती । तेथें नाहीं म्हणतया युक्ती ।
जेवी दुपारीं कां वाती । आंगणींचिया ॥ ६-५७ ॥
What is the use of igniting a lamp in the courtyard at mid noon ? Likewise, what is the propriety in saying Avidya as true, while it is never born ?
न पेरितां शेती । जे कीं सवगणिया जाती ।
तयां लाजेपरौति । जोडी आहे ? ॥ ६-५८ ॥
A farmer that sets out to collect harvest where nothing was sown would naturally hang his head in shame. Similar would be the predicament of the one trying to establish credentials of Avidya.
खवणियाच्या आंगा । जेणें केला वळघा ।
तो न करितांचि उगा । घरीं होता ॥ ६-५९ ॥
It must be said that the one quarrelling against sky remains pinned down to his place without doing anything.
पाणियावरी वरखु । होता कें असे विशेखु ।
अविद्यानाशी उन्मेखु । फांकावा तैसा ॥ ६-६० ॥
Even if there is heavy downpour over the sea, it goes waste. Likewise, it is futile to argue vehemently about existence of Avidya and its being true as well.
माप मापपणें श्लाघे । जंव आकाश मवूं न रिघे ।
तम पाहतां वाउगें । दीपाचें जन्म ॥ ६-६१ ॥
A yardstick is pompous only until it is not used to measure the sky ! Birth of a lamp would be futile if it witnesses darkness.
गगनाची रससोये । जीभ जैं आरोगु जाये ।
मग रसना हें होये । आडनांव कीं ॥ ६-६२ ॥
If ever tongue ventures into having taste of the sky, it cannot be named ‘Rasanaa’ (connoisseur ?).
नव्हतेनि वल्लभे । अहेवपण कां शोभे ।
खातां केळीचे गाभे । न खातां गेले ॥ ६-६३ ॥
Is it proper to name Mrs. (Soubhagyavati, Happily married lady) to a woman that has lost her husband ? It would be mere fasting if one were to eat core of a plantain !
स्थूळ सूक्ष्म कवण येकु । पदार्थ न प्रकाशी अर्कु ।
परि रात्रीविषयीं अप्रयोजकु । जाहलाचि कीं ॥ ६-६४ ॥
The Sun illumines entire objects including inert and subtle; however, it fails to do so during night !
दिठी पाहतां काय न फावे । परि निदेतें तंव न देखवे ।
चेताते न संभवे । म्हणोनियां ॥ ६-६५ ॥
Is there anything that the vision cannot see ? But she cannot see her sleep, because how could a waking person see sleep ?
चकोराचिया उद्यमा । लटिकेपणाची सीमा ।
जरि दिहाचि चंद्रमा । गिंवसूं बैसे ॥ ६-६६ ॥
If the Chakor bird (which supposedly thrives on moon rays) searches the moon during day time in order to absorb moon rays, entire effort would be in vain.
नुसुधियेचि साचा । मुका होय वाचरुकाचा ।
अंतराळीं पायांचा । पेंधा होय ॥ ६-६७ ॥
If someone is offered blank sheet to read, he will be mute; moreover, however adept a person may be in walking, he would be lame to walk in sky !
तैसीं अविद्येसन्मुखें । सिद्धचि प्रतिषेधकें ।
उठलींच निरर्थकें । जल्पें होतीं ॥ ६-६८ ॥
Therefore words are of no avail to establish Avidya; indeed, there have been differing arguments regarding Avidya that are in vain.
अंवसे आला सुधाकरु । न करीच काय अंधकारु ? ।
अविद्यानाशीं विचारु । तैसा होय ॥ ६-६९ ॥
Rising of moon on first day of lunar calendar (Amavasya) emits darkness alone ; likewise, whatever effort is made to enlighten about Avidya, it will only create darkness of ignorance anyway !
नाना न निफजतेनि अन्नें । जेवणें तेंचि लंघनें ।
निमालेनि नयनें । पाहणाचि अंधु ॥ ६-७० ॥
Dining at a place where no food is cooked at all verily means fasting ! Trying to see with damaged eyes is as good as being blind in spite of having eyes. Similarly, those extolling Avidya are virtually blind in spite of vision.
कैसेही वस्तु नसे । तेथे जैं शब्दाचा अर्थ हों बैसे ।
तैं निरर्थकपणें नासे । शब्दहि थिता ॥ ६-७१ ॥
If an object that doesn’t exist at all is tried to be described in words, the words themselves will be destroyed!
आतां अविद्याचि नाहीं । हें कीर म्हणो काई ।
परी ते नाशितां कांहीं । नुरेची शब्दाचें ॥ ६-७२ ॥
In spite of saying all this, is it absolutely necessary to say in words that ‘Avidya does not exist’ ? If ever words set out to destroy it, they will perish themselves !
यालागीं अविद्येचिया मोहरा । उठलियाहि विचारा ।
आंगाचाची संसारा । होऊनि ठेला ॥ ६-७३ ॥
Therefore, if words challenge Avidya of destruction, they will be destroyed themselves !
म्हणोनि अविद्येचेनि मरणें । प्रमाणा येईल बोलणें ।
हें अविद्याचि नाहींपणें । नेदी घडों ॥ ६-७४ ॥
Therefore evidences will prove wrong if those came forward to destroy Avidya with vengeance, there being none of Avidya at all and so evidences will not last.
आणि आत्मा हन आत्मया । दाऊनी बोलु महिमेया ।
येईल हें साविया । विरुद्धचि ॥ ६-७५ ॥
If words try to describe Atma through words in order to acquire acclaim for themselves, it will be an exercise in futility.
आपणया आपणपेंसी । लागलें लग्न कवणे देशीं ।
कीं सूर्य अंग ग्रासी । ऐसें ग्रहण आहे ? ॥ ६-७६ ॥
Is there any place where humans marry their own selves? Can the Sun ever suffer its own eclipse ?
गगन आपणया निघे ? । सिंधु आपणया रिघे ? ।
तळहात काय वळघे । आपणयां ? ॥ ६-७७ ॥
Will sky ever set out homeward ? Will the ocean ever enter its own belly for a bath ? Can the palm ever mount upon itself ?
सूर्य सूर्यासि विवळे ? । फळ आपणया फळें ? ।
परिमळु परिमळें । घेपता ये ? ॥ ६-७८ ॥
Will the Sun ever arise itself ? Will fruit fructify ? Moreover, can fragrance inhale itself ?
चराचरा पाणी पाजणी । करूं येईल येके क्षणीं ।
परि पाणियासि पाणि । पाजवे कायी ? ॥ ६-७९ ॥
It may be possible once in a while to water entire things and beings in the universe; however, can water be offered water to quench its thirst ?
साठीं तिसां दिवसा- । माजीं एखादा ऐसा ।
जे सूर्यासीच सूर्य जैसा । डोळा दावी ॥ ६-८० ॥
Is it possible for the Sun to see himself with his own eyes at least once in three sixty days ?
कृतांत जरी कोपेल । तरी त्रैलोक्य हें जाळील ।
वांचूनि आगी लावील । आगीसि काई ? ॥ ६-८१ ॥
When fire gets enraged during ultimate deluge, it can burn off entire three worlds; however, would it ever set fire to itself ?
आपणपें आपणया । दर्पणेवीण धात्रेया ।
समोर होआवया । ठाकी आहे ? ॥ ६-८२ ॥
Can Brahmadev ( having faces on all four sides) see his own form without mirror ?
दिठी दिठीतें रिघों पाहे ? । रुचि रुचीतें चाखों सुये ? ।
कीं चेतया चेतऊं ये ? । हें नाहींच कीं ॥ ६-८३ ॥
Can vision view itself ? Taste enjoy its own taste ? Can the already awake be awakened ? All these are just impossible.
चंदन चंदना लावी ? । रंगु रंगपणा रावी ।
मोतींपण मोतीं लेववी । ऐसें कैंचें ? ॥ ६-८४ ॥
Will Sandal daub its own paste ? Will colour paint itself ? Will pearl donn its own lustre ?
सोनेंपण सोनें कसी । दीपपण दीप प्रकाशी ।
रसपणा बुडी दे रसीं । हें कें जोडे ? ॥ ६-८५ ॥
Will gold ever test its own purity ? Lamp will see itself in light or juice drown in juice ? Such things never occur.
आपुलिये मुकुटीं समर्था । चंद्र बैसविला सर्वथा ।
परि चंद्र चंद्राचिये माथा । वाऊं ये काई ? ॥ ६-८६ ॥
Lord Shankar installed the moon over His Crown; however, will the moon sit over its own head ?
तैसा आत्मराजु तंव । ज्ञानमात्रचि भरींव ।
आतां ज्ञानें ज्ञानासि खेंव । कैसें दीजे ? ॥ ६-८७ ॥
Thus, all the above are impossible. Nevertheless , Atma is densely Form of Knowledge alone; how can it be illumined through wordy knowledge ?
आपुलेनि जाणपणें । आपणयातें जाणों नेणे ।
डोळ्या आपुलें पाहाणें । दुवाड जैसें ॥ ६-८८ ॥
The eye cannot see itself ( it sees other objects). Similarly, Atma the very embodiment of knowledge would not be able to see itself; being Knowledge personified it does not know itself.
आरसा आपुलिये । आंगीं आपण पाहे ।
तरी जाणणें जाणों लाहे । आपणयातें ॥ ६-८९ ॥
If ever mirror could see its own form, then alone Atma would ‘know’ itself !
दिगंतापैलीकडेचें । धांवोनि सुरिया खोंचे ।
मा तिये कां तियेचें । आंग फुटे ? ॥ ६-९० ॥
A knife can injure every other object in the world. But can it harm itself ?
रसवृत्तीसी उगाणें । घेऊनि जिव्हाग्र शाहाणें ।
परि कायी कीजे नेणे । आपणापें चाखों ॥ ६-९१ ॥
The tongue enjoys entire tastes alright; but alas ! It cannot taste itself .
जरी जिव्हे काई आपलें । चाखणें हन ठेलें ? ।
तैसे नव्हे संचलें । तेंचि ते कीं ॥ ६-९२ ॥
Even then, did the tongue lose its quality of tasting ? The tongue is indeed a connoisseur embodied !
तैसा आत्मा सच्चिदानंदु । आपणया आपण सिद्धु ।
आतां काय दे शब्दु । तयाचें तया ॥ ६-९३ ॥
Thus the Atma is very form of Sacchidananda ; what attributes can words add to its splendour ? It is verily self-evident.
कोणाही प्रमाणाचेनि हातें । वस्तु घे ना नेघे आपणयातें ।
जो स्वयेंचि आइतें । घेणें ना न घेणें ॥ ६-९४ ॥
Therefore, Atma cannot be ‘proved’ through evidence nor ‘disproved’ either; it is eternally Self-evident. It does not need to be proved or disproved.
म्हणोनि आत्मा आत्मलाभें । नांदऊनि शब्द शोभे ।
येईल ऐसा न लभे । उमसुं घेवों ॥ ६-९५ ॥
Thus, words cannot boast of having conferred status of Sacchidananda unto Atma.
एवं माध्यान्हींची दिवी । तम धाडी ना दिवो दावी ।
तैसी उभयतां पदवी । शब्दा जाली ॥ ६-९६ ॥
If lamp is lit at mid noon in broad sunlight it neither dispels darkness nor spreads effulgence. Likewise, words cannot dispel ignorance about form of Atma or enlighten it; Self-illumined Atma doesn’t need help of words anyway.
आतां अविद्या नाहींपणें । नाहीं तयेतें नासणें ।
आत्मा सिद्धुचि मा कोणें । काय साधावें ? ॥ ६-९७ ॥
Avidya (ignorance) being non-existent in the first place, its destruction is impossible. Thus being self-evident it cannot be emphatically established through words. Who is to establish what under such circumstances ?
ऐसा उभयपक्षीं । बोला न लाहोनि नखी ।
हारपला प्रळयोदकीं । वोघु जैसा ॥ ६-९८ ॥
Thus, words are absolutely useless to establish both Avidya as well as Atma. Words just vanish on both fronts like streams disappear during total deluge.
आतां बोला भागु कांहीं । असणें जयाच्या ठाईं ।
अर्थता तरि नाहीं । निपटुनियां ॥ ६-९९ ॥
While considering deep, words prove meaningless with form of Atma.
बागुल आला म्हणितें । बोलणें जैसें रितें ।
कां आकाश वोळंबतें । तळहातीं ॥ ६-१०० ॥
It is futile to say a scarecrow approaching since it is basically non-existent. Similarly it is in vain to hold sky over palm.
तैसीं निरर्थकें जल्पें । होउनियां सपडपें ।
शोभती जैसें लेपे । रंगावरी ॥ ६-१०१ ॥
Various objects are apparent over colours of a portrait; however those are not real. Likewise words and their paraphernalia are just futile blabber with Atma and Avidya.
एवं शब्दैकजीवनें । बापुडीं ज्ञानें अज्ञानें ।
साचपणें वनें । चित्रींचीं जैसीं ॥ ६-१०२ ॥
Therefore knowledge or ignorance thriving at the expense of words is futile like garden in a painting.
या शब्दाचा निमाला । महाप्रळयो हो सरला ।
अभ्रासवें गेला । दुर्दिनु जैसा ॥ ६-१०३ ॥
A boring day suddenly vanishes while clouds disappear and bright light becomes evident. Likewise, knowledge or ignorance thriving through words destroy and Self-effulgent Atma is experienced.
॥ इति श्रीमद्अमृतानुभवे शब्दखंडनं नाम षष्ठम प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥
प्रकरण सातवें
Chapter Seven
अज्ञानखंडण
Refuting Ignorance
(PART ONE)
Prologue –
Knowledge of the Self that exists with Form of the Self is the only Truth, that is, with attributes . It possesses both existence and being- ness . It is naturally selfless. Both Knowledge with attributes and ignorance are illusory; that is, lacking and relative. Duality always accompanies relativity. Since there is none other than the Lord (Paramatma), both knowledge and ignorance are untrue. However, knowledge with attributes entertains knowledge and ignorance as if twins. Entire worldly activities occur under aegis of duality alone. This worldly knowledge requires ignorance and ignorance needs accompanying knowledge. Therefore various forms of knowledge and ignorance are in the form of lack or are imaginary. However, in spite of being imaginary entire worldly activities take place under aegis of Knowledge of the Self ( Swaroopa Jnyana) .
Therefore, Knowledge of the Self is with attributes, whereas worldly knowledge and ignorance are in the form of lack (Abhava) .
Sri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj has established in this chapter the so-called existence of ignorance in its absence using allegory as a tool. Once ignorance is refuted, worldly knowledge also gets refuted. That description appears in the eighth chapter.
Many scriptures have publicised association of ignorance with Atma; therefore in order to refute it Sri Dnyanadev wrote 295 verses through his own experience, erudition and unique inspiration. He took stock of various opinions and while putting forth doubts he simultaneously solved those befittingly. Moreover, while refuting ignorance he has candidly dealt with knowledge in the same vein.
The seventh chapter appears to be very breath of the discourse; therefore we are presenting it as question-answer format, the main doctrine being – ‘there is extreme lack or paucity of ignorance with ‘Swaroopa’.
येरव्हीं तरी अज्ञाना । जैं ज्ञानाची नसे क्षोभणा ।
तैं तरि काना । खालींच दडे ॥ ७-१ ॥
Shastras accept ‘Ignorance’ as eternal with attributes possessing both veracity ( authenticity ) and existence. In spite of that, how do you claim absence of both knowledge as well as ignorance with the Lord ?
Even a casual thought reveals that the word ‘ignorance’ remains unheard if It is not vindicated by Knowledge of the Self ( Swaroopa Jnyana ).
आडसूनि अंधारीं । खद्योत दीप्ति शिरी ।
तैसें लटिके वरी । अनादि होय ॥ ७-२ ॥
Just as glow-worm parades its effulgence taking advantage of darkness, Ajnyana or ignorance exhibits its eternal presence under aegis of paucity or lack (of Knowledge).
Authors of Shastras are required to frame ignorance charged with attributes for the welfare of entire beings. However, while advising unto an intelligent seeker extreme lack of ignorance needs to be expounded.
While explaining practical reasons for people considering the world as true and with attributes, the ignorant too need to know ignorance with attributes. It means that existence of the world in itself is ignorance that possesses attributes from worldly standpoint and absolute lack ( of attributes) in spiritual parlance .
जैसी स्वप्ना स्वप्नीं महिमा । तमीं मानु असे तमा ।
तेवीं अज्ञाना गरिमा । अज्ञानींचि ॥ ७-३ ॥
Just as dream has importance during dream state alone (not while awake) ; or else, darkness matters in the dark (not brilliance) , ignorance too is great only during ignorant stage (not the enlightened one) !
कोल्हेरीचे असिवारू । न येती धारकीं धरूं ।
नये लेणा श्रृंगारूं । वोडंबरीचा ॥ ७-४ ॥
Are the earthen horses created by potter ever used on battlefield ? Can one wear ornaments created by a magician ? Likewise, the thing you name as ‘ignorance’ does not exist at all. It is simply a play of words.
हें जाणणेयाच्या घरीं । खोंचिलेंहि आन न करी ।
काई चांदिणां उठे लहरी । मृगजळाची ? ॥ ७-५ ॥
However bright may be the moonlight, can one see mirage therein ? Likewise, ignorance is not seen distinctly with Brahmam.
आणि ज्ञान हें जें म्हणिजे । तें अज्ञानचि पां दुजें ।
येक लपऊनि दाविजे । येक नव्हे ॥ ७-६ ॥
Both Knowledge and Ignorance as named in day to day life are phoney ; one may be covered while the other is laid bare. Actually both are in unison.
असो आतां या प्रस्तावो । आधीं अज्ञानाचा धांडोळा घेवों ।
मग तयाच्या साचीं लाहो । ज्ञानचि लटिकें ॥ ७-७ ॥
Be it so. We are considering futility of ignorance from practical standpoint on this occasion.
या अज्ञान ज्ञानातें । आंगींचि आहे जितें ।
तरी जेथें असे तयातें । नेण कां न करी ? ॥ ७-८ ॥
The concept we recognise as ignorance is verily part and parcel of intrinsic Self-knowledge, which means that it is just glued linearly unto the Lord. Therefore, how come you name it as futile ? (8-A)
If at all we accept your view for a while, how is it that ignorance supposedly intrinsic to the Lord does not destroy form of the Lord Himself ? (8-B) .
अज्ञाने जेथे असावें । तेणें सर्वनेण होआवें ।
ऐसी जाती स्वभावें । अज्ञानाची ॥ ७-९ ॥
Why should we accept your view that wherever there is ignorance, it must destroy knowledge? (9-A)
You see, very nature of ignorance wherever it may be, is to destroy knowledge altogether. (9-B)
तरी शास्त्रमत ऐसें । जे आत्माचि अज्ञान असे ।
तेणेचि तो गिंवसे । आश्रो जरी ॥ ७-१० ॥
The Shastras proclaim that Maya (ignorance) is intrinsic to the Lord, verily enveloping Him ( “Swashriya” and “Swa-Vishaya”). Therefore we say that even Shastra is favouring us, since ignorance envelops Form of the Self that entangles Atma too.
तरी नुठिता दुजें । जैं अज्ञान आहे बीजें ।
तैं तेचि आथी हे बुझे । कोण येथें ? ॥ ७-११ ॥
When you refer to injunctions of Shastras that ignorance inhabits Form of the Self (Atma Swaroopa ), those very Shastras explicitly say that Atma alone pervades everything everywhere and there is absolutely nothing other than Atma. This doctrine is expounded by many Vedas as well and is still intact.
Now, keeping that in mind, we would like to ask as to exactly when duality in the form of attributes took place with the Lord? If that duality appeared earlier, it may be surmised that ignorance existed as seed. In that case, who recognised ignorance before duality appeared on the scene?
अज्ञान तंव आपणयातें । जडपणें नेणे निरुतें ।
आणि प्रमाण प्रमाणातें । होत आहे ? ॥ ७-१२ ॥
There is nothing like doctrine or evidence with Form of the Self. That activity is limited to notions of ignorant attitudes.
Now, while that ignorant notion is non-existent at all, how would the Lord ever recognise ignorance? If you say that ignorance itself recognised it, ignorance happens to be inert and inert objects cannot know themselves or others ! Therefore, it is unable to recognise itself.
Moreover, if you say that the Lord Himself recognised ignorance, how can He be an evidence to prove ignorance being self-evident and realised one Himself ?
यालागीं जरी अज्ञान । करील आपुलें ज्ञान ।
हें म्हणत खेंव घेववी मौन । विरोधचि ॥ ७-१३ ॥
If you say that ignorance itself recognises itself, it is in itself a contradictory statement !
आणि जाणती वस्तु येक । ते येणें अज्ञानें कीजे मूर्ख ।
तैं अज्ञान हे लेख । कवण धरीं ? ॥ ७-१४ ॥
We would say that our ignorance has converted your Knowledge personified Lord into virtual ignorant one (zero with Knowledge) ! What is your opinion ?
While such situation arises, who would say that ignorance exists ? After all, ignorance is just ignorance ; however, that ignorance converted knowledge embodied Atma into knowledge lacking one ! In that case, who knows that as ignorance and says so too?
अहो आपणयाहि पुरता । नेणू न करवे जाणता ।
तयातें अज्ञान म्हणतां । लाजिजे कीं ॥ ७-१५ ॥
Are you not ashamed to declare Lord as ignorant, while we verily exist under His very aegis alone and whom you cannot make ignorant anyway ?
आभाळें भानु ग्रासे । तैं आभाळ कोणें प्रकाशे ? ।
सुषुप्ती सुषुप्तया रुसे । तैं तेचि कोणा ? ॥ ७-१६ ॥
While clouds shroud the Sun, under whose light those would be recognised as clouds ? If sleep overwhelms a sleeping person, who experiences the sleeping state ?
तैसें अज्ञान असे जेथें । तेंचि जरी अज्ञान आतें ।
तरी अज्ञान अज्ञानातें । नेणतां गेलें ॥ ७-१७ ॥
The Knowledge that harbours ignorance becomes ignorance itself. In that case, ignorance disappeared altogether without knowing ignorance. Who knew everything as ignorance on that occasion ? Does it mean that there is none as ‘knower’?
ना तरी अज्ञान येक घडे । हें जयास्तव निवडे ।
तें अज्ञान नव्हे फुडे । कोणे काळीं ॥ ७-१८ ॥
It means that the knowledge, which recognises existence of ignorance can never become ignorance. In fact, the one you name as ignorance is verily knowledge alone and therefore it is meaningless to say that ignorance is apparent.
पडळही आथी डोळा । आणि डोळा नव्हे आंधळा ।
तरी आथी या पोकळा । बोलिया कीं ॥ ७-१९ ॥
If you say that the eye is not blind in spite of vision lost due to cataract, it is phoney to say cataract developing.
इंधनाच्या आंगीं । खवळलेन आगी ।
तें न जळे तैं वाउगी । शक्तिचि ते ॥ ७-२० ॥
Fire cannot be named as fire if it is unable to burn wood put into intense fire.
आंधारु कोंडुनि घरीं । घरा पडसायी न करी ।
तैं आंधार इहीं अक्षरीं । न म्हणावा कीं ? ॥ ७-२१ ॥
If darkness trapped into house does not lead to darkness, who would ever call it darkness ?
वोजावों नेदी जागणें । तये निदेतें नीद कोण म्हणे ।
दिवसा नाणी उणें । तैं रात्रिचि कैंची ॥ ७-२२ ॥
Sleep has settled in ; however, if one responds to a call, how can sleep be named as sleep ?
तैसें आत्मा अज्ञान असकें । असतां तो न मुके ।
तैं अज्ञान शब्दा लटिकें । आलेंच कीं ॥ ७-२३ ॥
Likewise, if Atma were fully enveloped by ignorance, its Knowledge never wanes; therefore, the very word ignorance becomes futile !
येरव्हीं तरी आत्मया । माजीं अज्ञान असावया ।
कारण म्हणतां न्याया । चुकी येईल कीं ॥ ७-२४ ॥
Even a cursory observation does not convince presence of ignorance with Atma.
अज्ञान तम मेळणी । आत्मा प्रकाशाची खाणी ।
आतां दोहीं मिळणी । येकी कैसी ? ॥ ७-२५ ॥
If ignorance is pitch dark, the Atma is verily a mine of brilliance. In that case how the two can ever co-exist ?
स्वप्न आणि जागरु । आठउ आणि विसरु ।
इयें युग्में येका हारु । चालती जरी ॥ ७-२६ ॥
Can dream and wakefulness or remembrance and forgetfulness ever stay together ?
शीता तापा एकवट । वाहे वस्तीची वाट ।
कां तमें बांधिजे मोट । सूर्यरश्मींची ॥ ७-२७ ॥
Will hot and cold or Sun and darkness ever co-habit ?
नाना राती आणि दिवो । येती येके ठाईं राहों ।
तैं आत्मा जिवें जिवो । अज्ञानाचेनि ॥ ७-२८ ॥
Will day and night exist simultaneously ?
If ever you could prove all the above, one may say that Atma thrives at the behests of ignorance !
हें असो मृत्यु आणि जिणें । इयें शोभती जरी मेहुणे ।
तरी आत्मेनि असणें । अज्ञानेंसि ॥ ७-२९ ॥
Let all that be ! If ever life and death beseem as a couple, one may say that Atma and ignorance are together.
अहो आत्मेन जे बाधे । तेंचि आत्मेनसि नांदे ? ।
ऐसीं काईसीं विरुद्धें । बोलणीं इयें ॥ ७-३० ॥
You alone can see the dichotomy of saying that ignorance co-habits the Atma !
अहो अंधारपणाची पैज । सांडूनी अंधार तेज ।
जाला तैं सहज । सूर्यचि निभ्र्रांतचि । ७-३१ ॥
Taking clue from Samkhya Philosophy we can say that ignorance establishes independent of Atma while citing epiphany or examples thus-
If darkness abandons its darkness, it is undoubtedly effulgent Sun alone !
दुलांकूडपण सांडलें । आणि आगीपण मांडिलें ।
तैं तेंचि आगी जालें । इंधन कीं ॥ ७-३२ ॥
If wood jettisons its wood-ness, it verily turns into fuel.
का गंगा पावत खेंवो । ज्ञानपणाचा ठावो ।
सांडी, तैं गंगा हों । लाहे पाणी ॥ ७-३३ ॥
A stream while merging into the Ganges becomes Ganges itself.
Likewise, while ignorance and Atma happen to meet each other, ignorance converts into complete knowledge alone.
तैसें अज्ञान हें अज्ञान नोहे । तरी आत्मा असकें असों लाहे
येरव्हीं अज्ञान होये । लागलेंचि ॥ ७-३४ ॥
Therefore, darkness remains as distinct entity before coming in contact with radiance; wood-ness of wood persists until engaging with fire; stream and Ganges remain distinct and independent as long as those do not meet.
Likewise, why should one not say that ignorance persists as ignorance until coming face to face with knowledge ?
आत्मेनसी विरोधी । म्हणोनि नुरेचि इये संबंधीं ।
वेगळी तरी सिद्धि । जायेचिना ॥ ७-३५ ॥
We have already emphasised that those cannot be together due to opposition of both Atma and ignorance. Now, we shall also prove that ignorance cannot exist independently.
Even if a fish made of salt is brought to life, the salty fish cannot thrive within or outside water. Moreover, that salty fish while coming in contact with water will be destroyed being miscible with water and cannot thrive without water as fish ! (7-36)
लवणाची मासोळी । जरी जाली निवाळी ।
तरी जळीं ना जळावेगळी । न जिये जेवीं ॥ ७-३६ ॥
जें अज्ञान येथें नसे । तरीच आत्मा असे ।
म्हणोनि बोलणीं वाइसें । नायकावीं कीं ॥ ७-३७ ॥
Similarly, ignorance does not exist either with Atma or even independently; Atma alone exists. Therefore it is futile to say that ignorance and Atma are inter-related or that ignorance exists independently. Ignorance does not exist as such, Atma alone exists as all-pervasive forever.
We shall establish the same through examples : -
दोरीं सर्पाभास होये । तो तेणें दोरें बांधों ये ? ।
ना दवडणें न साहे । जयापरी ॥ ७-३८ ॥
Illusive snake seen over a rope cannot exist independently without rope as its basis. Can snake seen over rope be tied down with that rope ? Or else, can that (elusive) snake be separated from rope ? Both of these are unlikely.
नाना पुनिवेचे आंधारें । दिहा भेणें रात्रीं महुरें ।
कीं येतांचि सुधाकरें । गिळिजे जेवीं ॥ ७-३९ ॥
Scared of daylight, darkness turned unto full moon for succour; however, it was engulfed by the moon instantly!
तियापरी उभयतां । अज्ञान शब्द गेला वृथा ।
हा तर्कावांचूनि हाता । स्वरूपें नये ॥ ७-४० ॥
Likewise, the word ignorance is futile on both fronts. Ignorance is just a play of words; it does not exist as such. Presence of ignorance is just conjectural.
तरी अज्ञान स्वरूपें कैसें । काय कार्यानुमेय असे ।
कीं प्रत्यक्षचि दिसे । धांडोळूं आतां ॥ ७-४१ ॥
Can we not say that ignorance is deduced through its activity or is self established?
अहो प्रत्यक्षादि प्रमाणीं । कीजे जयाची घेणी ।
ते अज्ञानाची करणी । अज्ञान नव्हे ॥ ७-४२ ॥
You see, the interactions taking place to establish a doctrine with the help of direct or some such evidences is an ‘activity of ignorance’ by the triplet constituting doctrine, evidence and establisher and ‘not ignorance per se’.
जैसी अंकुरेंसी सरळ । वेली दिसे वेल्हाळ ।
तें बीज नव्हे केवळ । बीजकार्य होय ॥ ७-४३ ॥
A creeper sprouts from seed and spreads out, which is extension of the seed , not seed itself !
कां शुभाशुभ रूपें । स्वप्नदृष्टी आरोपें ।
तें नीद नव्हे जाउपें । निदेचें कीं ॥ ७-४४ ॥
Or else, whatever good or bad seen in a dream is not sleep but activity of sleep.
नाना चांदु एकू असे । तो व्योमीं दुणावला दिसे ।
तें तिमिरकार्य जैसें । तिमिर नव्हे पैं ॥ ७-४५ ॥
A single moon deludes as two; however, it results from darkness and not darkness as such.
तैसें प्रमाता प्रमेय । प्रमाण जें त्रय ।
तें अज्ञानाचें कार्य । अज्ञान नव्हे ॥ ७-४६ ॥
Likewise, the threesome doctrine, evidence and knower are activity of ignorance and not ignorance.
म्हणोनि प्रत्यक्षादिकीं । अज्ञान कार्यविशेखीं ।
न घे असे ये विखीं । आनु नाहीं ॥ ७-४७ ॥
The six evidences such as direct evidence etc are the unique qualities of ignorance. Even if those do not establish presence of ignorance, those do help in accepting its presence through inference. There is no other way out is what we would say.
Note:- ( The six types of evidences are – 1. Direct, 2. Inferential , 3. ‘Apta Vakya (advice from enlightened being) or Aagam’, 4. Arthapatti 5. Upamiti, and 6. Anupalabdhi.
अज्ञान कार्यपणें । घेइजे, तें अज्ञान म्हणे ।
तरी घेतांहि करणें । तयाचेंची ॥ ७-४८ ॥
You say that activity performed by ignorance proves its existence. However, the tools used namely evidences such as direct evidence etc too are ignorance only, since apart from Chaitanya (Atma) every other object will be ignorant activity. For instance,
स्वप्नीं दिसे तें स्वप्न । मा देखता काय आन ।
तैसें कार्यचि अज्ञान । केवळ जरी ॥ ७-४९ ॥
If everything seen in dream is similar, is the one watching any different? If you say so, then-
तरी चाखिला गुळ गुळें । माखिलें काजळ काजळें ।
कां घेपे देपे शुळें । हालया सुळु ॥ ७-५० ॥
Then it will mean jaggery tasting its own sweetness or collirium daubs itself with collirium, or else the impaling stake impaling itself.
तैसें कारण अभिन्नपणें । कार्यही अज्ञान होणें ।
तें अज्ञानचि मा काय कोणें । घेपे देपे ॥ ७-५१ ॥
Similarly, if ignorance is inseparable from cause and activity, everything being ignorance alone whoever will interact ?
आतां घेतें घेइजेतें ऐसा । विचारु नये मानसा ।
तरी प्रमाण जाला मासा । मृगजळींचा ना ? ॥ ७-५२ ॥
Therefore, it does not stand to reason that interaction takes place due to ignorance all around since there is no distinction between the doctrine and its knower. Such a statement from you is akin to describing fish in mirage waters !
तंव प्रमाणाचिया मापा । न संपडेचि जे बापा ।
तया आणि खपुष्पा । विशेषु काई ? ॥ ७-५३ ॥
Therefore, where is the distinction between sky-flower and something that cannot be proved through evidence ?
मा हे प्रमाणचि नुरवी । आतां आथी हें कोण प्रस्तावी ।
येणें बोलें ही जाणावी । अज्ञानउखी ॥ ७-५४ ॥
If ignorance would not entertain evidence at all, whoever decides existence of ignorance ? Therefore your statement itself refutes concept of ignorance.
एवं प्रत्यक्ष अनुमान । प्रमाणां भाजन ।
नहोनि जालें अज्ञान । अप्रमाण ॥ ७-५५ ।।
Therefore, direct or inferential evidences etc do not make ignorance eligible to establish, which makes it phoney.
ना स्वकार्यातें विये । जें कारणपणा नये ।
मी अज्ञान ऐसें बिहे । मानूं साचें ॥ ७-५६ ॥
Moreover, should we accept ignorance that is unable to create activity and also cannot be cause for it either or the one afraid to accept it being ignorance ? Is it not knowledge alone that declares it being ignorance ?
आत्मया स्वप्न दाऊं । न शके कीर बहू ।
परि ठायें ठाउ । निदेजों नेणें ॥ ७-५७ ॥
Ignorance certainly cannot exhibit dream to Atma, which means it cannot induce contrary consciousness . However, if we admit your statement of ignorance endowed with attributes, it does not even envelop the Atma where it supposedly exists. Now, what would it mean ?
हें असो जिये वेळे । आत्मपणेंचि निखिळें ।
आत्मा अज्ञानमेळें । असे तेणें ॥ ७-५८ ॥
Ok, let it be so ! But while your Atma exists in its pristine form, our ignorance too exists on that occasion.
जैसें न करितां मंथन । काष्ठीं अवस्थान ।
जैसें कां हुताशन । सामर्थ्यांचें ॥ ७-५९ ॥
Just as fire exists in wood even before it is rubbed against wood, why can it not be said that ignorance co-exists Atma ?
तैसें आत्मा ऐसें नांव । न साहे आत्मयाची बरव ।
तैं कांहीं अज्ञान हांव । बांधतें कां ? ॥ ७-६० ॥
The Atma that does not tolerate even the name Atma, how can your ignorance exist with it on that occasion ? It is simply impossible.
काइ दीप जैं न लाविजे । तैंचि काजळी फेडिजे ।
कां नुगवत्या वाळिजे । रुखाची छाया ॥ ६१ ॥
For example :-
Should soot over the lamp wiped even before it is lit ? Or else, should one abandon shadow of a tree that has not sprouted at all ?
नाना नुठितां देहदशा । कालऊनि लाविजे चिकसा ।
न घडितां आरिसा । उटिजे काई ॥ ६२।।
Or else, should one daub paste to an unborn body, or clean a mirror that is not created at all ?
कां वोहाच्या दुधीं । सायचि असावी आधीं ।
मग ते फेडूं इये बुद्धी । पवाडु कीजे ॥ ७-६३ ॥
Can one collect cream before breasts are milked?
तैसें आत्म्याच्या ठाई । जैं आत्मपणा ठाऊक नाहीं ।
तैं अज्ञान कांहीं । सारिखें कैसें ॥ ७-६४ ॥
Similarly, can ignorance be discovered in Atma Swaroopa where even the word Atma is unknown?
म्हणोनि तेव्हांही अज्ञान नसे । हें जालेंचि आहे आपैसें ।
आतां रिकामेंचि काइसें । नाहीं म्हणो ॥ ७-६५ ॥
Which verily means that ignorance is absent on that occasion.
ऐसाहि आत्मा जेव्हां । जैं नातळे भावाभावा ।
अज्ञान असे तेव्हां । तरी तें ऐसें ॥ ७-६६ ॥
However, if you still insist presence of ignorance with regard to Atma that transcends entire attributes, shall I comment on your observation thus ? –
जैसें घटाचें नाहींपण । फुटोनि होय शतचूर्ण ।
कीं सर्वांपरी मरण । मालवलें कीं ॥ ७-६७ ॥
As if non-existent pot was shattered to pieces or death itself died !
नाना निदे नीद आली । कीं मूर्छां मूर्छें गेली ।
कीं आंधारी पडली । अंधकूपीं ॥ ७-६८ ॥
Or else, sleep went to sleep, unconsciousness became unconscious, or darkness fell down into dark pit !
का अभाव अवघडला । का केळीचा गाभा मोडला ।
चोखळा आसुडला । आकाशाचा ॥ ७-६९ ॥
Or, paucity was endangered, hollow space of plantain got fractured, or sky abandoned its clarity !
कां निवटलिया सूदलें विख । मुकियाचें बांधलें मुख ।
नाना नुठितां लेख । पुसिलें जैसें ॥ ७-७० ॥
Alternatively, poison fed to dead person, dumb man’s mouth forcibly shut, or unwritten erased !
तैसें अज्ञान आपुली वेळ । भोगी हेचि टवाळ ।
आतां तरी केवळ । वस्तु होऊनि नसे ॥ ७-७१ ॥
Likewise, it is futile to say that ignorance inhabits or co-habits Atma Swaroopa.
देखा वांझ कैसी विये ? । विरूढती भाजली बियें ? ।
कीं सूर्य कोण्हा लाहे । अंधारातें ? ॥ ७-७२ ॥
Just imagine, can a sterile woman ever deliver baby ? Roasted seed ever sprout ? Or darkness reach the Sun ?
तैसा चिन्मात्रे चोखडा । भलतैसा अज्ञानाचा झाडा ।
घेतला तरी पवाडा । येईल काई ? ॥ ७-७३ ॥
Similarly, however intensely ignorance is searched in pristine pure Atma Swaroopa , it will be futile (being non-existent anyway ).
And if it is still unconvincing, few more examples : -
जे सायेचिये चाडे । डहुळिजे दुधाचें भांडें।
ते दिसे कीं विघडे । तैसें हें पां ॥ ७-७४ ॥
Can one get creamy layer of milk if it is stirred continuously?
नाना नीद धरावया हातीं । चेउनी उठिला झडती ।
ते लाभे कीं थिती । नासिली होय ॥ ७-७५ ॥
If one suddenly awakes from sleep and tries to capture it again, will he be able to get it or lose whatever was left?
तेवीं पाहावया अज्ञान ऐसें । हें आंगीं पिसें काइसें ।
न पाहतां आपैसें । न पाहणेंचि कीं ॥ ७-७६ ॥
Looking at ignorance in this manner is sheer foolishness, because ignorance is non-existent while one thinks about it; moreover, it is naturally absent while not thinking ! That means ignorance is non-existent all the time.
एवं कोण्हेहि परी । अज्ञानभावाची उजरी ।
न पडेचि नगरीं । विचाराचिये ॥ ७-७७ ॥
Thus, the thing called ignorance never reaches realms of logic; that is, logic cannot demonstrate ignorance.
अहो कोण्हेही वेळे । आत्मा अथवा वेगळें ।
विचाराचे डोळे । देखते का ? ॥ ७-७८ ॥
Can one see ignorance with Atma anytime or even otherwise ?
ना निर्धाराचें तोंड न माखे । प्रमाण स्वप्नींही नायके ।
कीं निरुती हन मुके । अनसाईपणा ॥ ७-७९ ॥
Ignorance cannot undermine conviction; which means that ignorance doesn’t exist even for conviction. Evidence does not cater to ignorance even in dream ! Ignorance certainly does not exist distinctly.
इतुलियाही भागु । अज्ञानाचा तरी तो मागु ।
निगे ऐसा बागु । पडतां कां देवा ॥ ७-८० ॥
It would have been good to discover ignorance somehow; however, it doesn’t look like !
अंवसेचेनि चंद्रबिंबें । निर्वाळिलिये शोभे ।
कां मांडलें जैसे खांबे । शशविषाणाचे ॥ ७-८१॥
This ignorance is like bright moonlight during ‘Amavasya’, or like erecting trellis with poles made of rabbit horns !
नाना गगनौलाचिया माळा । वांजेच्या जालया गळा ।
घापती तो सोहळा । पाविजत असे ॥ ७-८२ ॥
Or else, like celebrating festivities by putting garlands made of sky-flowers around neck of barren woman’s son; or, weighing ghee made from tortoise milk with sky as the balance.
Now, if ever all that were possible, ignorance could be discovered as per your view! (82-83)
आणून कांसवीचें तुप । भरू आकाशाचें माप ।
तरी साचा येती संकल्प । ऐसे ऐसे ॥ ७-८३ ॥
आम्हीं येऊनि जाऊनि पुढती । अज्ञान आणावें निरुती ।
तें नाहीं तरी किती । वतवतूं पां ॥ ७-८४ ॥
We tried to establish ignorance from various angles but it is just missing. What’s the use of blabbering in vain ?
म्हणोनि अज्ञान अक्षरें । नुमसूं आतां निदसुरें ।
परी आन येक स्फुरे । इयेविषयीं ॥ ७-८५ ॥
Therefore there is no more enthusiasm to utter even the words ‘phoney ignorance’! However, do you wish to speak more about ignorance ?
आपणया ना आणिकातें । देखोनि होय देखतें ।
वस्तु ऐसिया पुरतें । नव्हेचि आंगें ॥ ७-८६ ॥
We have another view regarding ignorance.
Your Atma is neither the one that views itself or can see other by making him visible. It is transcendental to view or vision by virtue of its own pristine nature.
तरी ते आपणयापुढें । दृश्य पघळे येव्हडें ।
आपण करी फुडें । द्रष्टेपणें ॥ ७-८७ ॥
In that context, how is it that we view such evident attribute ourselves as visionary ?
जेथ आत्मत्वाचें सांकडे । तेथ उठे हें येव्हडें ।
उठिलें तरी रोकडें । देखतसों ॥ ७-८८ ॥
While even speaking about Self-ness (Atmatva) is taboo, there is expanse of view, which is experienced as well.
न दिसे जरी अज्ञान । तरी आहे हें नव्हे आन ।
यया दृश्यानुमान । प्रमाण जालें ॥ ७-८९ ॥
Therefore, even while ignorance is not visible, its presence is certain, which has view as the evidence.
Therefore the inference is, even while ignorance is not directly visible as such its presence cannot be denied. If you ask as to how it is so, ignorance is established inferentially through view, since Atma never nurtures notion of view and viewer anyway. It is dispassionate as per Vedas. The world comprising view, viewer etc must be handiwork of someone but the Atma being impassive, it cannot be by Atma. Therefore one must consider reason for this view-viewer etc activity and that cause is ignorance. Thus our concept of ignorance is evident !
I shall furnish yet more evidences to substantiate.
ना तरी चंद्रु येक असे । तो व्योमीं दुणावला दिसे ।
तरी डोळां तिमिर ऐसें । मानूं ये कीं ॥ ७-९० ॥
If a single moon appears double in the sky, one must admit presence of impaired vision.
भूमीवेगळीं झाडें । पाणी घेती कवणीकडे ।
न दिसती आणि अपाडें । साजीं असती॥ ७-९१ ॥
Trees do not appear to draw water apart from Earth and look glowing fresh.
तरी भरंवसेनि मुळें । पाणी घेती हें न टळें ।
तैसें अज्ञान कळें । दृष्यास्तव ॥ ७-९२ ॥
One cannot certainly deny that their roots absorb water; likewise, the view establishes ignorance.
चेइलिया नीद जाये । निद्रिता तंव ठाउवी नोहे ।
परी स्वप्न दाऊनि आहे । म्हणों ये कीं ॥ ७-९३ ॥
An awakened person has no sleep whereas the sleeping one is unaware of sleep; nevertheless, one must accept presence of sleep since dream occurs .
म्हणोन वस्तुमात्रें चोखें । दृश्य जरी येव्हडें फांके ।
तेव्हां अज्ञान आथी सुखें । म्हणों ये कीं ॥ ७-९४ ॥
Therefore, if pristine pure Brahmam personified Atma evinces such huge expanse of view, what harm is there to accept presence of ignorance too ?
अगा ऐसिया ज्ञानातें । अज्ञान म्हणणें केउतें ।
काय दिवो करी तयातें । अंधारु म्हणिपे ? ॥ ७-९५ ॥
Oh, whatever you say is Knowledge (Jnyana) alone ! How do you call that very knowledge as ignorance ?
Why name the light (view) as darkness (ignorance)? Has anyone called the Sun that illumines the world as darkness? Whatever seen as a view, that symbolic object is pervaded by the very basis through and through. Therefore the knowledge embodied Lord being all-pervasive in entire activity, how can all that activity be ignorance ?
We will prove this statement through more examples.
अगा चंद्रापासून उजळ । जेणें राविले वस्तु धवळ ।
तयातें काजळ । म्हणिजेत ॥ ७-९६ ॥
If something is cleaned brighter than the moon, can it be named as soot ?
आगीचें काज पाणी । निफजा जरी आणी ।
अज्ञान इया वहणी । मानूं तरी तें ॥ ७-९७ ॥
If ever water could act as fire, your view may be accepted that view is an expanse of ignorance.
कळीं पूर्ण चंद्रमा । आणून मेळवी अमा ।
तरी ज्ञान हें अज्ञान नामा । पात्र होईजे ॥ ७-९८ ॥
If ever fully illumined moon could demonstrate dark phase of night (Amavasya), the word Jnyana could be named Ajnyana.
वोरसोनि लोभें । विष कां अमृतें दुभे ।
ना दुभे तरी लाभे । विषचि म्हणणें ॥ ७-९९ ॥
Even if poison releases with immense affection, will it milch nectar ? Only poison will emerge.
तैसा जाणणेयाचा वेव्हारू । जेथें माखला समोरु ।
तेथें आणिजे पुरू । अज्ञानाचा ॥ ७-१०० ॥
Similarly, while there is direct evidence of visible activity suffused with overwhelming Jnyana, can one say that there is flood of Ajnyana as well ?
तया नांव अज्ञान ऐसें । तरी ज्ञान होआवें तें कैसें ? ।
येहवीं कांहींचि असे । आत्मा काई ? ॥ ७-१०१ ॥
Therefore, if you name that entire play of Jnyana as Ajnyana, what exactly would be status of Jnyana ? In fact, whatever exists is nothing except knowledge embodied Atma alone.
कांहींच जया न होणें । होय तें स्वतां नेणे ।
तरी शून्याचीं देवांगणें । प्रमाणासी ॥ ७-१०२ ॥
Atma that has nothing to ‘become’ being just impassive has no sense of ‘I Am’ as being ness; moreover, the one that cannot be labelled as ‘nothing’ in any contexts , has been the very conviction of evidences.
असे म्हणावयाजोगें । नाचरे कीर आंगें ।
परी नाहीं हें न लागे । जोडावेंचि ॥ ७-१०३ ॥
True nature of the Atma certainly does not possess notion of ‘being ness’ and therefore its ‘non-being ness’ too is irrelevant. That means the Atma ‘exists’ without epithets of ‘being’ or ‘non-being’ !
कोणाचे असणेंनवीण असे । कोणी न देखतांचि दिसे ।
हें आथी तरी काईसें । हरतलेपण ॥ ७-१०४ ॥
The Atma quietly tolerates allegation of ‘non-being ness’ and remains cool while extolled with epithet of Sacchidananda .
मिथ्यावादाची कुटी आली । ते निवांतचि साहिली ।
विशेषाही दिधली । पाठी जेणें ॥ ७-१०५ ॥
Some dull-witted individuals are convinced that the knowledge-personified Atma is not distinct from the body, whereas some enlightened ones adept in Shastra establish existence of Sacchidananda format of the Atma. However, both these notions are borne out of ignorance; besides, from spiritual angle the Atma being dispassionate and distinct from both, it does not entangle anywhere anytime anyways !
जो निमालीही नीद देखे । तो सर्वज्ञ येवढें काय चुके ? ।
परी दृश्याचिये न टेके । सोईं जो ॥ ७-१०६ ॥
The one that is witness to entire dissolution, is that all-knowing one incapable to see entire view ? However, while viewing it through divine vision, there is nothing like view at all and therefore Atma does not reach even fringe of view for that matter. Just as there is no view for Atma, the Atma too cannot be view for anyone. It is because the thing we regard as view in practice, its very basis is Atma alone. Therefore it is impossible to see it.
Now, just have a look at whatever the elite have experienced.
वेद काय काय न बोले । परी नांवचि नाहीं घेतलें ।
ऐसें कांहीं जोडिलें । नाहीं जेणें ॥ ७-१०७ ॥
Vedas professed everything but never uttered even the name Atma; that is, those did not establish Atma being so and so. It means that the all-knowing Vedas expounded everything but could not enlighten on Atma. It is because Atma cannot be subject for word, namely Vedas.
सूर्यो कोणा न पाहे ? । परि आत्मा दाविला आहे ? ।
गगनें व्यापिता ठाये । ऐसी वस्तु ॥ ७-१०८ ॥
Whatever the Sun does not illumine? It illumines entire objects; however, has it illumined Atma ? How can it illumine Atma? On the contrary, Atma illumines the Sun. Likewise, the sky envelops entire objects but while trying to envelop Atma it disappears within ‘Chidakash’ of the Atma !
देह हाडांची मोळी । मी म्हणोनि पोटाळी ।
तो अहंकारु गाळी । पदार्थु हा ॥ ७-१०९ ॥
Ego calls the body, which is just a bundle of bones as ‘I’. That is, it governs the body while discarding Atma Swaroopa; it is because ego disappears completely with Atma.
बुद्धि बोद्ध्या सोके । ते येव्हडी वस्तु चुके ।
मना संकल्प निके । याहीहुनि ॥ ७-११० ॥
Intellect knows everything except Atma . Mind too hovers over everything except Atma Swaroopa .
विषयाची बरडी । अखंड घासती तोंडीं ।
तियें इंद्रियें गोडी । न घेपती हे ॥ ७-१११ ॥
The senses that indulge into barren lands of sensuality are unable to taste sweetness of Atma.
परी नाहींपणासगट । खाऊनि भरिलें पोट ।
ते कोणाही सगट । कां फावेल ? ॥ ७-११२ ॥
Whoever can know the complete Atma, which has engulfed even ‘nothingness’, meaning the one that destroys entire lack of view as well ?
जो आपणासी नव्हे विखो । तो कोणा लाहे देखो ।
जे वाणी न सके चाखों । आपणापें ॥ ७-११३ ॥
What more can be said ! Who is eligible to know the Atma that is not subject matter for even itself ? The tongue can neither taste itself nor be tasted by others .
“Do you mean to say that Atma is inert and invisible ?” (This query is made while considering misrepresented meaning of the above verse.)
Even while it is true that tongue cannot taste itself and cannot be tasted by others, it exists with attribute of ‘tasting’, which is the experience of all. Likewise, Atma does not know itself or can be known by others. It does NOT mean that it is invisible or inert; it is verily embodiment of Jnyana. However, even this statement is superfluous; Atma Swaroopa transcends words, which can only be self-experienced.
For instance : -
Lord Sri Rama asked his Guru Vasishtha thus, ‘ Sir, what is your nature ?’. Vasishtha kept quiet over that query. Sri Ramchandra thought that he had somehow insulted the Guru by asking him the question and so he asked reason for his silence. Vasishtha said, ‘not to speak’ is verily the answer to your query!’
Likewise, nature of Atma cannot be described in words; it must be known through ‘silence’ alone ! Indeed, it is the domain of experience only.
हें असो नामें रूपें । पुढसूनि अमूपें ।
जेथें आलीच वासिपे । अविद्या हे ॥ ७-११४॥
Be it so ! Ignorance vanishes out of fear while coming face to face with form of the Lord, in spite of having exhibited many names and forms.
म्हणोनि आपलेंचि मुख । पाहावयाची भूक ।
न वाणे, मा आणिक । कें रिघेल ? ॥ ७-११५ ॥
Therefore, while there is not even the urge to view one’s own form (Swa-Swaroopa ), how can any other be entertained?
नाडिले जें वादीकोडें । आंतुचि बाहेर सवडे ।
तैसा निर्णो सुनाथा पडे । केला जेथें ॥ ७-११६ ॥
For exampLe –
Gamblers play tricks with rope and the hidden link drops down ; likewise, the notion ‘I Am so and so’ becomes futile with Atma Swaroopa.
कां मस्तकान्त निर्धारिली । जो छाया उडों पाहे आपुली ।
तयाची फांवली । बुद्धि जैसी ॥ ७-११७ ॥
Or else, just as intellect of a person is deluded that tries to jump across his own full length shadow,
तैसें टणकोनि सर्वथा । हे ते ऐसी व्यवस्था ।
करी तो चुके हाता । वस्तूचा जिये ॥ ७-११८ ॥
-the one who after lot of logical thinking reaches conclusion about Atma being such and such does not gain anything.
आतां सांगिजे तें केउतें । शब्दाचा संसारा नाहीं जेथें ।
दर्शना बीजें तेथे । जाणीव आणी ? ॥ ७-११९ ॥
Entire purport of saying the above is that, can the Atma where words fall short ever entertain distinction between view, vision and viewer ? Moreover, how can Atma possess divergent knowledge exhibiting duality of view, viewer etc, where play of words are in vain ?
जयाचेनि बळें । अचक्षुपण आंधळें ।
फिटोनि वस्तु मिळे । देखणी दशा ॥ ७-१२० ॥
Inability to see anything with Atma Swaroopa by virtue of Shastras or as a result of ignorance is replaced by visibility due to Shastras alone; that is our opinion.
Epilogue –
It establishes the fact that while there is no urge to ‘know’ oneself, there is definite lack of vision too. Therefore who is to see whom ? How will ‘vision’ create ? Because even ‘oneness’ merges on that occasion ! (121-122)
आपुलेंचि दृश्यपण । उमसो न लाहे आपण ।
द्रष्टत्वा कीर आण । पडली असतां ॥ ७-१२१ ॥
कोणा कोण भेटे ? । दिठी कैंची फुटे ? ।
ऐक्यासकट पोटें । आटोनि गेलीं ॥ ७-१२२ ॥
(121 and 122 discussed as above)
CHAPTER SEVEN. (PART TWO)
Sri Dnyaneshwar now begins this section while asking as to whatever can fall short for the One who is all-in-all, there being nothing else other than Him. He uses very ornate words for us the beings that hold on to ignorance tooth and nail.
Such pristine pure Knowledge-embodied Atma is inspired as per its very nature and opens entire gates of effulgence (enlightenment) ajar. Its inspiration sans motive or cause being just its nature. It enters ambit of duality for namesakes while Shiva-Shakti inspiration takes place. This exactly is its sport, the luxurious knowledge-sport (Jnyana Vilas). During that arousal the threesome namely Viewer, View and Vision are in unison and effulgent. However, since the being firmly holds on to notions of ignorance he sees those three as distinct and so experiences the world as inert, destructible and tragic. Otherwise in practice there is continuos play of radiance, comprehensiveness and bliss.
Sri Shankaracharya says that a person who has nothing to acquire from the world does not hanker for fruits (of action) either and naturally remains perpetually immersed in his own blissful state. Or else, our breathing continues uninterrupted without any external cause; likewise, blissful sport of the Lord is without reason or season. Neither Shruti (Veda) or cleverness can demonstrate ‘cause’ for that sport with the Lord. Shruties declare the Lord as being ‘Aaptakaam’, the One that fulfils every desire; likewise, the Lord’s divine play is not for self-gratification at all but that is His very Nature, the state of perpetual Bliss.
Indeed, world is a special manifest form of Divine effulgence from Brahmam. Entire universe happens to be under the aegis of Jnyana and is also illumined by Jnyana alone. Just as dream state thrives upon the intrinsic witness Chaitanya (Atma) and is also illumined by the same, entire inert or subtle illusory tenets of material world thrive under aegis of Divine Will and also illumined by it. That sport of the Lord takes place at such tremendous velocity that the being does not see the same view ever again. The Viewer keeps viewing himself in ever new forms and logical conclusion for all that would be to accept it as Divine Sport alone !
This very concept is discussed in detail during this seventh chapter.
जगद्रूप चिद्विलास (ज्ञानविलास)
THE DIVNE COSMIC SPORT
येवढेंही सांकडें । जेणें सारोनि येकीकडे ।
उघडिलीं कवाडें । प्रकाशाची ।।१२३।।
Sri Dnyanadev now proceeds to discuss sport of Jnyana after having refuted ignorance altogether . The One that created huge wealth of His own non-committal Status and which cannot be tarnished by any means is that unspeakable state. He pushed aside that state and opened all doors to admit light for His Divine Play, while all forms of ‘triplets’ (Triputi) became Him, the Atma alone. Triplets such as knowledge, knower and knowing are verily sport of the basis, the Atma ; however, beings regard it as the world being deluded.
दृश्याचिया सृष्टी । दिठीवरी दिठी ।
उठलिया तळवटीं । चिन्मात्रची ॥ ७-१२४ ॥
Many views became evident while all those doors were opened; moreover, many forms of knowledge were evident. In spite of all that, the basis remains Brahmam alone.
दर्शनऋद्धि बहुवसा । चिच्छेषु मातला ऐसा ।
जे शिळा न पाहे आरिसा । वेद्यरत्नाचा ॥ ७-१२५ ॥
Affluence of that view made the being so very confused that he forgot to peep into the old mirror representing ‘knowing’. (Original text uses the word “Vedya Ratna” , which means a jewel emitting enlightenment as radiance).
क्षणीं क्षणीं नीच नवी । दृश्याची चोख मदवी ।
दिठीकरवीं वेढवी । उदार जे ॥ ७-१२६ ॥
If you ask as to why ‘old’ mirror, the explanation is that the magnanimous Visionary puts new beautiful clothes every moment over is wife representing ‘View’. (‘View’ is ever changing).
मागिलिये क्षणीचीं अंगें । पारुसी म्हणोनियां वेगें ।
सांडूनि दृष्टि रिगे । नवेया रूपा ॥ ७-१२७ ॥
He (the visionary) dons newer forms every moment while discarding older moments.
तैसीच प्रतिक्षणीं । जाणिवेचीं लेणीं ।
लेऊनि आणी । जाणतेपण ॥ ७-१२८ ॥
(Verse 124 discussed as to how the Knowledge personified Lord is considered as very basis and the way innumerable activities take place every moment. However, the ignorant considers the view, wife, riches, son and the world etc as true. Fifteenth chapter of the Dnyaneshwari describes at length ‘Ashvattha Tree’, which discusses the way an ignorant person regards the world. An ignorant child sees golden ornament as ornament alone (not gold therein). Likewise, the ever-changing ‘triplet’ knower, knowing and knowledge has ‘Chaitanya’ alone as basis. However, being unaware of Chaitanya, this Ashvattha tree (world) makes and breaks. In fact Chaitanya is ever existent and therefore its sport too is forever. Nevertheless, Atma deluding as world is phoney like rope deluding as snake. (124 extended ).
Similarly, the Lord embellishes us with ornaments of Knowledge and makes us ‘Knower’.
Now, if you ask as to why the Lord began this ‘sport of Knowledge’, the answer is as follows.
तया परमात्मपदीचें शेष । ना काहीं तया सुसास ।
आणि होय येव्हडी कास । घातली जेणें ॥ ७-१२९ ॥
Shruties have concluded that the Lord was fed up with loneliness and therefore He created entire cosmos for His sport. The Lord is Jnyana Swaroopa and therefore His sport too is Jnyana alone. Shruties speak while in duality; Atma is in fact impassive.
सर्वज्ञतेची परी । चिन्मात्राचे तोंड वरी ।
परी तें आन घरीं । जाणिजेना ॥ ७-१३० ॥
There is no distinction with Lord Divine even if variety of knowledge is available. Brahmam alone must be all-knowing but that Knowledge is never distinct from Brahmam. Even while innumerable forms of knowledge are present in the world, those can never create apart from Brahmam personified Lord Divine.
एवं ज्ञानाज्ञान मिठी । तेंही फांकतसे दिठी ।
दृश्यपणें ये भेटी । आपणपयां ॥ ७-१३१ ॥
Thus, whether one recognises it as an activity of knowledge or else as ignorance, it is we that make that activity visible and view ourselves becoming that view.
तें दृश्य मोटकें देखें । आपण स्वयें दृष्टत्वें तोखे ।
तेंचि दिठीचेनि मुखें । माजीं दाटे ॥ ७-१३२ ॥
(A)
If you ask as to how this activity of play of knowledge takes place, the explanation is that we are contented the moment we see the view becoming visionary ourselves and that very view-visionary ness merges into the original eternal Knowledge, the Lord Divine.
तेव्हां घेणें देणें घटे । परी ऐक्याचें सूत न तुटे ।
जेवीं मुखीं मुख वाटे । दर्पणें केलें ७-१३३ ॥
There is apparent activity in that sport (of knowledge) but fundamental unison never disturbs, just as original face does not change while looking at one’s image in a mirror.
अंगें अंगवरी पहुडे । चेइला वेगळा न पडे ।
तया वारुवाचेनि पाडें । घेणें देणें ॥ ७-१३४ ॥
(B)
Sri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj further elaborates as to how that activity takes place without disturbing unison-
Just as it is impossible to know as to when an elegant horse sleeps or awakes while standing, it is not known how that activity (sport) takes place.
पाणी कल्लोळाचेनि मिसें । आपणपें वेल्हावे जैसें ।
वस्तु वस्तुत्वें खेळों ये तैसें । सुखें लाहे ॥ ७-१३५ ॥
Or else, just as water sports with itself as wave, Brahmam plays with Itself merrily as Brahmam-ness, that is, as Knowledge.
गुंफिवा ज्वाळांचिया माळा । लेइलियाही अनळा ।
भेदाचिया आहाळां । काय पडणें आहे ? ॥ ७-१३६ ॥
Even while fire wears wreaths of flames, are those distinct from fire ?
किं रश्मीचेनि परिवारें । वेढुनि घेतला थोरें ।
तरी सूर्यासि दुसरें । बोलों येईल ? ॥ ७-१३७ ॥
Alternatively , even while the Sun is enveloped by infinite Sun rays, can those be said as distinct from Sun ?
चांदणियाचा गिंवसु । चांदावरी पडिलिया बहुवसु ।
काय केवळपणीं त्रासु । देखिजेल ? ॥ ७-१३८ ॥
Will the moon feel jittery because of vast moonlight falling over it ?
दळाचिया सहस्रवरी । फांको आपुलिया परी ।
परी नाहीं दुसरी । भास कमळीं ॥ ७-१३९ ॥
Even while lotus blossoms through a thousand petals its unison persists.
सहस्रवरी बाहिया । आहाती सहस्रर्जुना राया ।
तरी तो काय तिया । येकोत्तरावा ? ॥ ७-१४० ॥
King Sahasrarjun possesses thousand arms; however, can there be thousand and one if one Arjun and thousand arms are added ?
सौकटाचिया वोजा । पसरो कां बहू पुंजा ।
परी ताथुवीं दुजा । भाव आहे ? ॥ ७-१४१ ॥
Even while many bundles of yarn are spread over weaver’s wheel, is there anything apart from thread ?
कोडीवरी शब्दांचा । मेळावा घरीं वाचेचा ।
मीनला तही वाचा । मात्र कीं ते ॥ ७-१४२ ॥
Even if millions of words are spoken, the speech is only one !
तैसे दृश्याचे डाखळे । नाना दृष्टीचे उमाळे ।
उठती लेखावेगळे । द्रष्टत्वेंचि ॥ ७-१४३ ॥
Therefore, infinite visible objects, infinite views and their innumerable viewers have Lord Divine as the only basis and therefore all are forms of the Divine alone. There is no trace of distinction whatever.
गुळाचा बांधा । फुटलिया मोडीचा धांदा ।
जाला तरी नुसधा । गूळचि कीं तो ॥ ७-१४४ ॥
While a lump of jaggery breaks into innumerable pieces there appears distinction between each piece; however, there is no distinction with jaggery as such. It remains as jaggery ness alone.
तैसें हें दृश्य देखो । कीं बहू होऊनि फांको ।
परी भेदाचा नव्हे विखो । तेचि म्हणोनि ॥ ७-१४५ ॥
Likewise, whether the Lord views Himself as Viewer or become view Himself and expand manifold, He embellishes Himself in all those forms. There is none other.
Few more examples to substantiate this tenet -
तया आत्मयाच्या भाखा । न पडेचि दुसरी रेखा ।
जही विश्वा अशेखा । भरला आहे ॥ ७-१४६ ॥
Even while entire universe full of infinite duality is form of the Lord alone, there is nothing like duality with the Lord.
दुबंधा क्षिरोदकीं । बाणें परी अनेकीं ।
दिसती तरी तितुकीं । सुतें आथी ? ॥ ७-१४७ ॥
Even if many colours can be identified in multicoloured cloth, are threads therein multifarious ?
पातयाचि मिठी । नुकलितां दिठी ।
अवघियाची सृष्टी । पाविजे जरी ॥ ७-१४८ ॥
If ever eye could see entire nature with closed lids,
न फुटतां बीजकणिका । माजीं विस्तारे वटु असिका ।
तरी अद्वैतफांका । उपमा आथी ॥ ७-१४९ ॥
Or else, if entire baniyan tree grows without its seed sprouting, then alone this expanse of non-duality could get simile.
(C)
Now we will see status of the Lord when this expanse (of non-duality) is unwelcome .
(D)
मग मातें म्यां न देखावें । ऐसेही भरे हावें ।
तरी आंगाचिये विसवे । सेजेवरी ॥ ७-१५० ॥
Then, while He (the Lord) does not wish to see Himself, He rests over bed of His own being, which means He becomes the very Basis.
पातयाचि मिठी । पडलिया कीजे दिठी ।
आपुलेचि पोटीं । रिगोनि असणें ॥ ७-१५१ ॥
Just as vision rests with itself while lids are closed,
कां नुदेलिया सुधाकरु । आपणपें भरे सागरु ।
ना कूर्मी गिली विस्तारु । आपेंआप ॥ ७-१५२ ॥
Or else, just as the ocean remains ever full in spite of moon not rising; alternatively, as tortoise voluntarily merges its limbs within it at ease,
अवसेचिये दिवसीं । सतराविये अंशीं ।
स्वयें जैसें शशी । रिगणें होय ॥ ७-१५३ ॥
Or, just as the moon enters seventeenth phase, that is, within its own self during Amavasya night,
तैसें दृश्य जिणतां द्रष्टे । पडले जैताचिये कुटे ।
तया नांव वावटे । आपणपयां ॥ ७-१५४ ॥
Likewise, Visionary is accused of winningness for winning over view. That allegation of winning is called ebbing in itself. That is, original status of Atma persists as it is.
(E)
All these are only blabber; nothing really happens from spiritual viewpoint.
सहजें आघवेंचि आहे । तरी कोणा कोण पाहे ? ।
तें न देखणेंचि आहे । स्वरूप निद्रा ॥ ७-१५५ ॥
This entire universe is basically form of Brahmam alone; therefore, who is to view whom ? Moreover, viewing or not viewing sans basis of view. Such Self-ness is named “Yoga Nidra”!
If that is so, how does sensuality creep in while there is desire to become many, as discussed earlier ?
नाना न देखणें नको । म्हणे मीचि मातें देखो ।
तरी आपेंआप विखो । अपैसें असे ॥ ७-१५६ ॥
The explanation for this is that the thing we call as Swaroopa Nidra or in practice the notion of not viewing the view unwanted and rather viewing oneself alone and let activity of Jnyana continue taking place. However, it is Atma alone that easily indulges into that activity .
जें अनादिच दृश्यपणें । अनादिच देखणें ।
हें आतां कायी कोणें । रचूं जावें ? ॥ ७-१५७ ॥
Because Brahmam is eternally embellished as view-vision form; in that case, does anyone requires to create new format of view-visionary now ?
We will consider the same through examples –
अवकाशेशीं गगना । गतीसीं पवना ।
कीं दीप्तीसीं तपना । संबंधु कीजे ? ॥ ७-१५८ ॥
Does anybody needs to establish relation between space and sky, velocity with wind or radiance with fire ? Both are basically one only !
विश्वपणें उजिवडे । तरी विश्व देखे फुडें ।
ना तें नाहीं तेव्हढें । नाहींची देखे ॥ ७-१५९ ॥
Likewise, even while Atma is effulgence for the universe it sees the universe and even if the universe is absent, it sees through its absence.
विश्वाचें असे नाहीं । विपायें बुडालियाही ।
तही दशा ऐसिही । देखतचि असे ॥ ७-१६० ॥
At the most it may be said that in spite of illusion as to existence or non-existence of the universe, that state or position is seen by it (Atma) alone.
Some more examples to elucidate more –
कापुराहि आथी चांदिणें । कीं तोचि न माखे तेणें ।
तैसें केवळ देखणें । ठायें ठावो ॥ ७-१६१ ॥
Whiteness accompanying camphor is not the result of daubing moonlight ( camphor is intrinsically white by nature ) . Likewise, Brahmam is evident through its visibility, that is, only as Knowledge (Jnyana).
किंबहुना ऐसें । वस्तु भलतिये दशे ।
देखतचि असे । आपणपयातें ॥ ७-१६२ ॥
Not only that, Brahmam is cognizable at grotesque places and times as being self-evident.
मनोरथांचीं देशांतरें । मनीं प्रकाशून नरें ।
मग तेथें आदरें । हिंडे जैसा ॥ ७-१६३ ॥
Just as a person creates wonderful nature while day-dreaming and moves around gleefully at will,
कां दाटला डोळा डोळ्यां । डोळा चितारा होऊनियां ।
स्फुरे चोख म्हणौनियां । विस्मो नाहीं ॥ ७-१६४ ॥
Or else, just as the eye condenses within itself and views weird forms, where is wonder in Atma embellishing itself with entire ‘triplets’, being pristine pure naturally ?
यालागीं एकें चिद्रूपें । देखिजे कां आरोपे ।
आपणयां आपणपें । काय काज ? ॥ ७-१६५ ॥
Therefore, what’s the point in alleging that the self-same Self (Atma) views itself ?
Many examples can elucidate this-
किळेचें पांघरुन । आपजवी रत्न कोण ? ।
कीं सोने ले सोनें पण । जोड जोडूं ? ॥ ७-१६६ ॥
Does anyone cover a jewel with lustre? Or else, does gold wear goldenness borrowed from others ?
चंदन सौरभ वेढी ? । कीं सुधा आपणया वाढी ? ।
कीं गूळ चाखे गोडी ? । ऐसें आथी हें ? ॥ ७-१६७ ॥
Does sandalwood wrap itself with fragrance? Or, does nectar ask anyone one else to taste itself? Or else, does jaggery tastes its own sweetness ?
कीं उजाळाचे किळे । कापुरा पुटीं दिधलें ? ।
कीं ताऊन ऊन केलें । आगीतें काई ? ॥ ७-१६८
Has camphor been polished with whiteness, or fire made hot by heating ?
नाना ते लता । आपुले वेली गुंडाळितां ।
घर करी न करितां । जयापरी ॥ ७-१६९ ॥
Or else, just as creeper by virtue of its curling shoots creates a nest inadvertently,
कां प्रभेचा उभला । दीपप्रकाश संचला ।
तैसा चैतन्यें गिंवसला । चिद्रूप स्फुरे ॥ ७-१७० ॥
Or, just as lamp becomes radiant by virtue of effulgence, expansion of Chaitanya inspires Atma.
ऐसें आपणया आपण । आपुलें निरीक्षण ।
करावें येणेंवीण । करितुचि असे ॥ ७-१७१ ॥
Thus, one should watch oneself. As it is, Atma is ever watchful without reason.
ऐसें हें देखणें न देखणें । हें आंधरें चांदिणें ।
मा चंद्रासि उणें । स्फुरतें का ? ॥ ७-१७२ ॥
Therefore, there is nothing like viewing or not viewing with Atma. Does moon ever possess contrary notions of dark and bright?
म्हणोनि हें न व्हावे । ऐसेंही करूं पावे ।
तरी तैसाचि स्वभावें । आयिता असे ॥ ७-१७३ ॥
Therefore If he refrains from being the ‘threesome’ (Triputi), he is the ‘realised’ one (Siddha) by nature.
द्रष्टा दृश्य ऐसें । अळुमाळु दोनी दिसे ।
तेंही परस्परानुप्रवेशें । कांहीं ना कीं ॥ ७-१७४ ॥
Even while two notions of view and viewer are faintly cognisable, both disappear while merging into each other.
तेथें दृश्य द्रष्टां भरे । । द्रष्टेपण दृश्यीं न सरे ।
मा दोन्ही न होनि उरे । दोहींचें साच ॥ ७-१७५ ॥
On that occasion, the viewer and view disappear into each other and while both enter into oblivion, what remains is their basis alone.
मग भलतेथ भलतेव्हां । माझारीले दृश्य-द्रष्टाभावा ।
आटणी करीत खेंवा । येती दोन्ही ॥ ७-१७६ ॥
And then, notions of view and viewer condense themselves at grotesque place and time while uniting at the midpoint of vision.
कापुरीं अग्निप्रवेशु । कीं अग्नि घातला पोतासु ।
ऐसें नव्हे संसरिसु । वेंचु जाला ॥ ७-१७७ ॥
There is no point in saying that camphor entered fire or fire entered camphor, since both are destroyed simultaneously !
येका येकु वेंचला । शून्य बिंदु शून्यें पुसिला ।
द्रष्टा दृश्याचा निमाला । तैसें होय ॥ ७-१७८ ॥
One deducted from one makes zero as remainder; likewise, condensing view and viewer leaves Atma alone as natural consequence.
किंबहुना आपुलिया । प्रतिबिंबा झोंबिनलिया ।
झोंबीसकट आटोनियां । जाईजे जेवीं ॥ ७-१७९ ॥
What is more, if a person were to embrace his own image, both him, his image along with the embrace just condense.
तैसें रुसता दृष्टी । द्रष्टा दृश्य भेटी ।
येती तेथें मिठी । दोहींची पडे ॥ ७-१८० ॥
Likewise, while vision disappears, the viewer meets view and both unite.
सिंधु पूर्वापर । न मिळती तंवचि सागर ।
मग येकवट नीर । जैसें होय ॥ ७-१८१ ॥
Eastern ocean and western ocean are named so until those do not meet each other; once merged, all is water all the way ! Likewise, Atma persists as its pristine, attribute less self.
बहुये हें त्रिपुटी । सहजें होतया राहटी ।
प्रतिक्षणीं काय ठी । करीतसे ? ॥ ७-१८२ ॥
While those infinite ‘triplets’ are engaged in their natural activities, it is not necessary to monitor those every moment.
दोनी विशेषें गिळी । ना निर्विशिष्टातें उगळी ।
उघडीझांपी येकेंच डोळीं । वस्तुचि हे ॥ ७-१८३ ॥
Atma neither accepts special notions of view and viewer, or discards ‘not special’ notions outright; nevertheless, notions of ‘hide and seek’ are displayed by Brahmam over itself.
पातया पातें मिळे । कीं दृष्ट्ट्त्वें सैंघ पघळे ।
तिये उन्मळितां मावळे । नवलावो हा ॥ ७-१८४ ॥
The wonder over here is that the moment lids join, entire visible world expands and while those slightly open up entire view vanishes !
(Joining the lids means while vision is closed, that is while it is introvert !)
It verily means that while looking outwards, our extrovert nature is unawares of overt vision of Atma. Therefore that extrovert vision sees not only the viewer but entire gamut of view-viewer too. Whereas, while ‘introvert’ it sees eternal view of Atma alone, making the vision aware of viewing only. There is no distinction between viewer and view any more. This exactly is “Chid-Vilas”!
However, that experience remains only as long as lids have joined making the vision introvert; whereas, once vision is extrovert or awareness of view-viewer notion appears, that experience of ‘Chid-Vilas’ vanishes and view-viewer experience begins again.
Our usual experience is that vision disappears while lids join and reappears on opening lids. However, experience of ‘Chid-Vilas’ is indeed unique, since closing the lids makes vision introvert and Nitya or Brahma Drishti is apparent that gives experience of Chid-Vilas and disappears on opening or being extrovert.
द्रष्टा दृश्याचा ग्रासी । मध्यें लेखु विकासी ।
योगभूमिका ऐसी । अंगीं वाजे ॥ ७-१८५ ॥
The intermediate status following disappearance of view-viewer state of the Self is verily ‘Yoga Bhoomika’ (Basis or foundation for yoga).
उठिला तरंगु बैसे । पुढें आनुही नुमसे ।
ऐसा ठाईं जैसे । पाणी होय ॥ ७-१८६ ॥
Implied meaning – The interval between a thought surfacing and the one just vanished is the moment when Chaitanya is clearly apparent. Just as the state of water while one wave disappears and another yet to form.
कां नीद सरोनि गेली । जागृती नाहीं चेयिली ।
तेव्हां होय आपुली । जैसी स्थिति ॥ ७-१८७ ॥
Or else, the twilight state where sleep is over but awakening is yet to occur,
नाना येका ठाऊनि उठी । अन्यत्र नव्हे पैठी ।
हे गमे तैशिया दृष्टी । दिठी सुतां ॥ ७-१८८ ॥
Alternatively, only the one that views the intermediate state between viewing an object before viewing another, can understand this Yoga Bhoomika.
कां मावळो सरला दिवो । रात्रीचा न करी प्रसवो ।
तेणें गगनें हा भावो । वाखाणिला ॥ ७-१८९ ॥
Indeed, the twilight state of the sky where day time is finished but night has not set in, is the very state that describes this tenet of divinity.
घेतला स्वासु बुडाला । घापता नाहीं उठिला ।
तैसा दोहींसि सिवतला । नव्हे जो अर्थु ॥ ७-१९० ॥
This state is similar to that of Prana (life force) that is in between breath inhaled and that yet to be exhaled.
कीं अवघांचि करणीं । विषयांची घेणी ।
करितांचि येके क्षणीं । जें कीं आहे ॥ ७-१९१ ॥
That fraction of moment where entire activities of senses continue, that interval between activities is verily the state of Yoga Bhoomika.
तयासारिखा ठावो । हा निकराचा आत्मभावो ।
येणें कां पाहों । न पाहों लाभे ? ॥ ७-१९२ ॥
Form of the Atma is akin to the state described through above mentioned examples. In view of such status, can Atma be ascribed being viewer or non-viewer ?
Now, from this verse up to verse 202, the words ‘viewing’ and ‘non-viewing’ will be frequently used. The word ‘viewing’ would mean Jnyana and non-viewing as Ajnyana; whereas, viewer is ‘Jnyani’ and non-viewer is ‘Ajnyani’.
कायी आपुलिये भूमिके । आरिसा आपुलें निकें ।
पाहों न पाहों शके । हें कें आहे ? ॥ ७-१९३ ॥
Is it not meaningless to say that mirror can view it being clean or cannot view being so ?
कां समोर पाठिमोरिया । मुखें होऊं ये आरिसिया ।
वांचूनि तयाप्रति तया । होआवें कां ? ॥ ७-१९४ ॥
Mirror grants notion of front or back of face. Is it possible to speak of front or back of face without mirror? The face remains as it is, without front or back for that matter.
सर्वांगें देखणा रवी । परी ऐसें घडे कवीं ।
जे उदोअस्तूंचीं चवी । स्वयें घेपे ? ॥ ७-१९५ ॥
It is true that the Sun is radiant all over; however, is it ever possible for it to view its own rise or setting ?
कीं रसु आपणिया पिये ? । कीं तोंड लपऊनि ठाये ? ।
हें रसपणें नव्हे । तया जैसें ॥ ७-१९६ ॥
However clever a person may be, he cannot see his own birth or death either. Or else, can juice drink itself? Or, does it hide its face and sit aside since it does not drink? That juice being its own juicy form, both the above are impossible.
तैसें पाहणें न पाहणें । पाहणेंपणेंचि हा नेणे ।
आणि दोन्ही हें येणें । स्वयेंचि असिजे ॥ ७-१९७ ॥
As per your view, he is not aware of viewing or not viewing, being verily viewing ness embodied, that is, being Jnyana Swaroopa. It means that this activity of viewing ness or non-viewing ness does not take place with him; however, both these activities cannot take place without his own aegis.
जें पाहणेंचि म्हणौनियां । पाहणें नव्हे आपणयां ।
तैं न पाहणें आपसया । हाचि आहे ॥ ७-१९८ ॥
Brahmam being very form of viewing ness it does not view itself, which means that there is no chance of viewing. Therefore, does it not establish the fact that he is non-viewer, that is, does not view himself ?
आणि न पाहणें मा कैसें । आपणपें पाहों बैसे ? ।
तरी पाहणें हें ऐसें । हाचि पुढती ॥ ७-१९९ ॥
If ‘not viewing’ due to absence of duality is his very nature, how is it that he views himself ? If that be the doubt, as elaborated in previous verse he does not view himself for sure, because he is eternally very form of viewing ness that is Jnyana personified !
हीं दोन्ही परस्परें । नांदती एका हारें ।
बांधोनि येरयेरें । नाहीं केलें ॥ ७-२०० ॥
Both attributes of Viewing and not viewing cohabit in parallel. Both destroy themselves being bound to each other.
पाहाणया पाहणें आहे । तरी न पाहणें हेंचि नोहे ।
म्हणौनि याची सोये । नेणती दोन्ही ॥ ७-२०१ ॥
If viewer is verily form of viewing ness, the question of not viewing does not arise at all. Therefore both are not entertained by this form.
एवं पाहणें न पाहणें । चोरूनियां असणें ।
ना पाहे तरी कोणें । काय पाहिलें ? ॥ ७-२०२ ॥
Thus the Self hides itself from both attributes of viewing and not viewing. Alternatively, if at all it is said as ‘viewed’, who exactly viewed and what ?
दिसत्यानें दृश्य भासे । म्हणावें ना देखिलें ऐसें ।
तरी दृश्यास्तव दिसे । ऐसें नाहीं ॥ ७-२०३ ॥
(Pre-verse) – If view is seen by viewer, can it be said that he viewed the view ?
(Post-verse) – The answer is ‘no’, because view does not have distinct existence from viewer.
दृश्य कीर दृष्टीसी दिसे । परी साच कीं द्रष्टा असे ।
आतां नाहीं तें कैसें । देखिलें होये ? ॥ ७-२०४ ॥
Truly speaking, apparently vision certainly sees the view; however, viewer is verily that view. In that case, how can one see view that doesn’t exist ?
मुख दिसो कां दर्पणीं । परी असणें कीं तये मुखपणीं ।
तरी जाली ते वायाणी । प्रतीति कीं ॥ ७-२०५ ॥
If face is seen in mirror, let it be so ; however, it (face) is stay put with itself. In that case, the experience of face in mirror proves false !
देखतांची आपणयातें । आलिये निदेचेनि हातें ।
तया स्वप्ना ऐसा येथें । निहाळितां ॥ २०६ ॥
‘Viewing’ here is like viewing ourselves in dream due to influence of sleep.
निद्रिस्तु सुखासनीं । वाहिजे आनु वाहणीं ।
तो साच काय तेसणी । दशा पावे ? ॥ ७-२०७ ॥
A person sleeping comfortably over his bed is carried away elsewhere in dream. In that case, does he actually reach that state ?
कीं सिसेंवीण येक येकें । दाविलीं राज्य करिती रंकें ।
तैसींचि तियें सतुकें । आथी काई ? ॥ २०८ ॥
If a headless couple is seen reigning the kingdom in dream, can it be true ?
ते निद्रा जेव्हां नाहीं । तेव्हां जो जैसा जिये ठाई ।
तैसाची स्वप्नी कांहीं । न पविजेचि कीं ॥ ७-२०९ ॥
While sleep gets over, he is verily as ever and over the same comfortable bed even though experiencing illusive dream .
तान्हेलया मृगतृष्णा । न भेटलेया शिणु जेसणा ।
मा भेटलेया कोणा । काय भेटलें ॥ ७-२१० ॥
The thirsty one was distressed for not getting mirage waters; however, what did he get who acquired it ?
कीं साउलीचेनि व्याजें । मेळविलें जेणें दुजे ।
तयाचें करणें वांझें । जालें जैसें ॥ ७-२११ ॥
Or else, the one that took his own shadow as companion, is that accompaniment not futile ?
तैसें दृश्य करूनियां । द्रष्ट्यातें द्रष्ट्या ।
दाऊनि धाडिलें वाया । दाविलेपणही ॥ ७-२१२ ॥
Likewise, viewing ness of exhibiting view to the viewer is also futile.
जें दृश्य द्रष्टाचि आहे । मा दावणें कां साहे ? ।
न दाविजे तरी नोहे । तया तो काई ? ॥ ७-२१३ ॥
If the view is verily viewer alone, will he tolerate exhibiting the view ? Moreover, even if not exhibited does his basic nature (viewing) disappear ?
आरिसा पां न पाहे । तरी मुखचि वाया जाये ? ।
तेणेंवीण आहे । आपणपें कीं ॥ ७-२१४ ॥
If we do not see in the mirror, does our face go waste ? It remains as it is even without mirror !
तैसें आत्मयातें आत्मया । न दाविजे पैं माया ।
तरी आत्मा वावो कीं वायां । तेचि कीं ना ? ॥ ७-२१५ ॥
Similarly, Maya cannot demonstrate Atma to Atma; in that case, is Maya false or Atma ?
म्हणोनि आपणापें द्रष्टा । न करितां असें पैठां ।
आतां जालाचि दिठा । कां न करावा ॥ ७-२१६ ॥
Therefore, Atma is Self-evident without being Viewer itself. Now, when it is Self-evident as viewer by nature where is need to become viewer all over again ?
नाना मागुतें दाविलें । तरी पुनरुक्त जालें ।
येणेंहि बोलें गेलें । दावणें वृथा ॥ ७-२१७ ॥
Moreover, if tried to prove that is already established, there is blame of repetitiveness. Therefore it is futile to establish viewer ness with Atma from this viewpoint.
दोरासर्पाभासा । साचपणें दोरु कां जैसा ।
द्रष्टा दृश्या तैसा । द्रष्टा साचु ॥ ७-२१८ ॥
Original rope is verily true between rope and illusory snake over it; likewise, between view and viewer it is the viewer alone that is true.
दर्पणें आणि मुखें । मुख दिसे हें न चुके ।
परी मुखीं मुख सतुकें । दर्पणीं नाहीं ॥ ७-२१९ ॥
It is true that mirror exhibits image of the face as well as apparent quality of relative reflective state with the face; however, in reality entire face is with the face alone and not with mirror.
तैसे द्रष्टा दृश्या दोहों । साच कीं देखता ठावो ।
म्हणौनि दृश्य तें वावो । देखिलें जही ॥ ७-२२० ॥
Similarly, original viewer is the basis for both view and viewer tenets; therefore, even while view is visible, it is phoney.
वावो कीर होये । तरी दिसत तंव आहे ।
येणें बोलें होये । आथी ऐसें ॥ ७-२२१ ॥
You say that view is phoney; however it is visible nevertheless. Then why not admit that view exists ?
तरी आन आनातें । देखोन होय देखतें ।
तरी मानूं येतें । देखिलें ऐसें ॥ ७-२२२ ॥
Between two phoney objects if one of them happens to see another, the one viewing earlier would be viewer; moreover, view was reason for its being viewer. Therefore it means that view was originally absent !
येथें देखोनि कां न देखोनि । ऐक्य कां नाना होऊनि ।
परि हा येणेंवाचूनि । देखणें असे ? ॥ ७-२२३ ॥
In such situation, whether viewing or not viewing, united or distinct; in spiritual parlance only One exists and there being none else, can viewing take place ? That is, can there be viewer ness ?
आरिशानें हो कां दाविलें । तरी मुखचि मुखें देखिलें ।
तो न दावी तरी संचलें । मुखचि मुखीं ॥ ७-२२४ ॥
Even if mirror showed the face, it is the face that viewed the face; moreover, even if mirror did not show the face, it is face alone that is one with the face!
तैसें दाविलें नाहीं । तरी हाचि ययाचा ठाईं ।
ना दाविला तरीही । हाचि यया ॥ ७-२२५ ॥
Likewise , Atma remains as it is, in spite of having no relation to view. Moreover, even if demonstrated by view it remains so.
जागृती दाविला । कां निदा हारविला ।
परी जैसा येकला । पुरुषपुरुषीं ॥ ७-२२६ ॥
Whether shown through wakefulness or hidden by sleep, the being remains with itself anyway .
कां रायातें तूं रावो । ऐसा दाविजे प्रत्ययो ।
तही ठायें ठावो । राजाचि असे ॥ ७-२२७ ॥
Or else, whether a King is made aware of his being King through words or not made aware thus, the King remains as King alone.
ना तरी रायपण राया । नाणिजे कीं प्रत्यया ।
तही कांहीं उणें तया । माजी असे ? ॥ ७-२२८ ॥
Alternatively, even if the King is not made aware of his being King, does it bring meanness to his being King ?
तैसें दावितां न दावितां । हा ययापरौता ।
चढे न तुटे आईता । असतचि असे ॥ ७-२२९ ॥
Similarly, whether it (Atma) is shown through Jnyana or not shown through Ajnyana, it neither expands or diminishes being transcendental (to both).
तरी कां निमित्य पिसें । हा यया दाऊं बैसें ।
देखतें नाहीं तैं आरिसे । देखावे कोणें ? ॥ ७-२३० ॥
(Pre-verse)- In that case, is there reason for the madness of exhibiting itself ?
(Post-verse)- You see, who sees in the mirror if there is none to see?
दीपु दावी तयातें रची । कीं तेणेंची सिद्धि दीपाची ।
तैसी सत्ता निमित्ताची । येणें साच ॥ ७-२३१ ॥
Whether it is the one who kindled lamp was established by the lamp, or the lamp was established by kindler of the lamp ? Indeed, the kindler establishes the lamp, since kindler is already established. Likewise, already established power is verily cause for any activity taking place. Indeed, that power grants apparent validity to entire activity.
The foregoing example is cited as duality between lamp and its kindler; now, let us consider it in non-dual fashion.
वन्हीतें वन्हीशिखा । प्रकाशी कीर देखा ।
परी वन्ही न होनि लेखा । येईल काई ? ॥ ७-२३२ ॥
It is certainly apparent that flame of fire illumines the fire; however, can it be said as distinct from fire ?
आणि निमित्त जें बोलावें । तें येणें दिसोनि दावावें ।
देखिलें तरी स्वभावें । दृश्यही हा ॥ ७-२३३ ॥
Moreover, since Atma demonstrates itself through view, it must be said that it is the cause; nevertheless , while trying to know the view, Atma is verily the view as well!
म्हणौनि स्वयंप्रकाशा यया । आपणापें देखावया ।
निमित्त हा वांचुनियां । नाहींच मा ॥ ७-२३४ ॥
Therefore, this self-effulgent Paramatma has none other cause to view Him.
भलतेन विन्यासें । दिसत तेणेंची दिसे ।
हा वांचून नसे । येथें कांहीं ॥ ७-२३५ ॥
Entire expanse of view takes place under His aegis alone. There is nothing other than Him.
लेणें आणि भांगारें । भांगारचि येक स्फुरे ।
कां जे येथें दुसरें । नाहींचि म्हणोनि ॥ ७-२३६ ॥
Ornament and gold contain gold alone ; because there is nothing else.
जळ तरंगीं दोहीं । जळावांचूनि नाहीं ।
म्हणौनि आन कांहीं । नाहीं ना नोहे ॥ ७-२३७ ॥
There is water alone in wave or water and therefore even while two words for self-same water are used, there is nothing else except water and will not be either.
हो कां घ्राणानुमेवो । येवो कां हातीं घेवो ।
लाहो कां दिठी पाहों । भलतैसा ॥ ७-२३८ ॥
परी कापुराच्या ठाईं । कापुरावांचूनि नाहीं ।
तैशा रीती भलतयाही । हाचि यया ॥ ७-२३९ ॥
There is nothing other than camphor whether it is known through fragrance, soft touch or whiteness; likewise, whatever form it may manifest , there is nothing apart from Atma.
आतां दृश्यपणें दिसो । कीं द्रष्टा होऊनि असो ।
परी हां वांचूनि अतिसो । नाहीं येथें ॥ ७-२४० ॥
Therefore, whether Atma manifests as view or viewer in practice, there is nothing except Atma in this phenomenon of view-viewership.
गंगा गंगापणें वाहो । कीं सिंधु होऊनि राहो ।
परी पाणीपणा नवलाहो । हें न देखो कीं ॥ ७-२४१ ॥
Whether the Ganges flows as Ganges or flows along with river Sindhu, there is no distinction while seen as water.
थिजावें कीं विघरावें । हें अप्रयोजक आघवें ।
घृतपण नव्हे । अनारिसें ॥ ७-२४२ ॥
It is futile to say whether Ghee is thick or fluid, since there is distinction as far as Ghee-ness is concerned.
ज्वाळा आणि वन्हि । न लेखिजती दोन्ही ।
वन्हिमात्र म्हणोनि । आन नव्हेचि कीं ॥ ७-२४३ ॥
Fire and flame cannot be considered distinct, since both are form of fire alone.
तैसें द्रश्य कां द्रष्टा । या दोन्ही दशा वांझटा ।
पाहतां येकी काष्ठा । स्फूर्तिमात्र तो ॥ ७-२४४ ॥
Likewise, both notions of view and viewer are false; logically speaking their original status is ‘inspirational’ Atma and that status is dispassionate.
इये स्फूर्तीकडुनी । नाहीं स्फुर्तिमात्रवांचुनि ।
तरी काय देखोनि । देखतु असे ? ॥ ७-२४५ ॥
While looking at it from ‘inspiration’ point of view, there is nothing other than ‘inspiration’; therefore it is natural query as to what makes it the ‘viewer’.
पुढें फरकेंना दिसतें । ना मागें डोकावी देखतें ।
पाहतां येणें ययातें । स्फुरद्रुपेंचि ॥ ७-२४६ ॥
View does not flutter ahead or viewer does not peep behind; very viewing itself is inspirational.
For example -
कल्लोळें जळीं घातलें । सोनेंनि सोनें पांघुरलें ।
दिठीचे पाय गुंतले । दिठीसीचि ॥ ७-२४७ ॥
Waves merged into water; gold enveloped itself by gold or vision got entangled in itself.
श्रुतीसि मेळविली श्रुती । दृतीसि मेळविली दृती ।
कां जे तृप्तीसीचि तृप्ति । वेगारिली ॥ ७-२४८ ॥
Word added to word, fragrance daubed with fragrance or contentment served with contentment.
गुळें गुळ परवडिला । मेरु सुवर्णें मढिला ।कां ज्वाळा गुंडाळिला । अनळु जैसा ॥ ७-२४९ ॥
Jaggery smeared with jaggery; mountain Meru coated with gold; fire enveloped by flames.
हें बहु काय बोलिजे । कीं नभ नभाचिया रिगे सेजे ।
मग कोणें निदिजे । मग जागे तें कोणें ॥ ७-२५० ॥
What more can be said ! If sky goes to sleep over bed of sky, who exactly sleeps ?
हा येणें पाहिला ऐसा । कांहीं न पाहिला जैसा ।
आणि न पाहतांहि अपैसा । पाहणेंचि हा ॥ ७-२५१ ॥
Thus, its manner of viewing is like non-viewing; moreover, Atma is natural viewer-like.
येथें बोलणें न साहे । जाणणें न समाये ।
अनुभव न लाहे । अंगी मिरौ ॥ ७-२५२ ॥
Here speech is incomprehensible , knowing is out of reach and no dignity to experience ( parading experience).
म्हणोन ययातें येणें । ये परीचें पाहणें ।
पाहतां कांहीं कोणे । पाहिलें नाहीं ॥ ७-२५३ ॥
Such is its viewing. In fact nobody has seen anything.
किंबहुना ऐसें । आत्मेनि आत्मा प्रकाशे ।
न चेतुचि चेऊं बैसे । जयासि तो ॥ ७-२५४ ॥
What more can be said ! That is the way Atma dwells; it is inherently awake without awakening.
स्वयें दर्शनाचिया सवा । अवघियाची जात फावां ।
परी निजात्मभावा । न मोडिताही ॥ ७-२५५ ॥
It is true that Illusion of view, viewer and vision with Atma is experienced because of very nature of vision; however, basic Selfsame ness of Atma does not destroy.
न पाहतां आरिसा असो पाहे । तरी तेंचि पाहणें होये ।
आणि पाहणेन तरी जाये । न पाहणें पाहणें ॥ ७-२५६ ॥
Face remains as face without seeing in mirror and deliberately seeing face in mirror is verily face alone; moreover, viewing from original perspective removes notions of both viewing and not viewing.
भलतैसा फांके । परी येकपणा न मुके ।
नाना संकोचे तरी असकें । हाचि आथी ॥ ७-२५७ ॥
Oneness of Atma does not destroy in spite of its colossal expanse; moreover, even when it shrinks it remains complete.
सूर्याचिया हाता । अंधकारू नये सर्वथा ।
मा प्रकाशाची कथा । आईकता का ? ॥ ७-२५८ ॥
The Sun never experiences darkness; then, why will it listen to story of effulgence either ?
अंधारु कां उजिवडु । हा एकला येकवडु ।
जैसा कां मार्तंडु । भलतेथें ॥ ७-२५९ ॥
Whether light or darkness, the Sun ever remains in its glorious effulgence as its very nature.
तैसा आवडतिये भूमिके । आरूढलियाही कौतुकें ।
परि ययातें हा न चुके । हाचि ऐसा ॥ ७-२६० ॥
Thus, whatever form the Atma might take with penchant, it remains as it is without change in its original form.
सिंधूची सींव न मोडे । पाणीपणा सळु न पडे ।
जरी मोडुतु का गाडे । तरंगांचे ॥ ७-२६१ ॥
Even while innumerable waves form and break, the ocean does not lose fullness, neither does it suffer break in its water-ness.
रश्मि सूर्यींच आथी । परी बिंबाबहेरी जाती ।
म्हणौनि बोधसंपत्ती । उपमा नोहे ॥ ७-२६२ ॥
No other simile befits Atma. It is incomparable. Sun rays exist with the Sun but they spread out away from it; therefore, simile of Sun does not beseem Atma.
आणि पल्हेचा दोडा । न पडतां तढा ।
जग तंव कापडा । न भरेचि कीं ॥ ७-२६३ ॥
If the world does not fill with cloth before breaking of cotton bud, simile of cotton in its bud does not befit Atma Swaroopa .
सोनयाचा रवा । रवेपणाचा ठेवा ।
अवघेयाचि अवयवा । लेणें नोहे ॥ ७-२६४ ॥
It is not possible to adorn entire body with gold ornaments before melting bullion.
न फेडितां आडवावो । दिगंतौनि दिगंता जावो ।
न ये मा पावों । उपमा काई ? ॥ ७-२६५ ॥
Travel in two directions cannot accomplish without getting rid of obstacles; then, can direction be a simile to Swaroopa ?
म्हणौनि इये आत्मलीळे । नाहीं आन कांटाळें ।
आतां ययाचिये तुळे । हाचि यया ॥ ७-२६६ ॥
Therefore, there is no balance to weigh the sport of Atma Swaroopa; it can be weighed by itself.
स्वप्रकाशाचा घांसीं । जेवितां बहु वेगेंसी ।
वेंचेना परी कुसीं । वाखही न पडे ॥ ७-२६७ ॥
Atma swallows morsels of self-effulgence rapidly enough; however the marvel is , neither food exhausts nor its appetite satiated !
ऐसा निरुपमापरी । आपुलिये विलासवरी ।
आत्मा राणीव करी । आपुला ठाईं ॥ ७-२६८ ॥
Thus Atma reigns supreme under its incomparable effulgence in its sport.
CHAPTER SEVEN
(Section Three)
Prologue : -
After describing incomparable sport of Knowledge with Atma, Sri Dnyaneshwar maharaj once again takes up the original topic, namely ‘Refuting Ignorance’ (Ajnyana Khandan) . Sri Dnyanadev furnishes queries as prologue and proceeds to quench those in the form of epilogue in this chapter. In spite of allegation by some as to ignorance inhabiting Atma, Sri Dnyanadev does not ridicule the view but answers humbly entire doubts with appropriate illustrations.
Nevertheless, the being is unable to get rid of his ignorance however hard he tries. Therefore during this third section Sri Dnyanadev sets out to refute obstinate viewpoints of protagonists having allegiance to ignorance doctrine, using the unique “ Vyajokti “ technique ( ironical praise), which again he alone could indulge in !!
In spite of this, we believe that ignorance exists with Atma !
तयातें म्हणिपें अज्ञान । तरी न्याया भरलें रान ।
आतां म्हणे तयाचें वचन । उपसावों आम्ही ॥ ७-२६९ ॥
If you dub this entire sport of Atma as ignorance, it must be said that justice has gone into wilderness ( meaning Atma is denied justice )! However if you insist that ignorance inhabits Atma, it would be better to keep mum and listen to you quietly !
प्रकाशितें अज्ञान । ऐसें म्हणणें हन ।
तरी निधि दावितें अंजन । न म्हणिजे काई ? ॥ ७-२७० ॥
If you name the one spreading brilliance as ignorance, it is like naming collirium that demonstrates hidden wealth as soot !
सुवर्णगौर अंबिका । न म्हणिजे कय काळिका ? ।
तैसा आत्मप्रकाशका । अज्ञानवादु ॥ ७-२७१ ॥
Don’t we name shining bright golden image of female deity as “Kaalika”? Likewise it is paradoxical to call the self-effulgent Atma as ignorance.
येरव्हीं शिवोनि पृथ्वीवरि । तत्त्वांच्या वाणेपरी ।
जयाचा रश्मिकरीं । उजाळा येती ॥ ७-२७२ ॥
In fact, the ‘thing’ that creates and illumines everything right from Shiva principle down to smallest fractions of earth atoms;
जेणें ज्ञान सज्ञान होये । दृङ्मात्र दृष्टीतें विये ।
प्रकाशाचा दिवो पाहे । प्रकाशासी ॥ ७-२७३ ॥
The one, that grants knowledge-ness to worldly Knowledge, entire ‘triplets’ convert into Jnyana alone, effulgence becomes effulgent;
तें कोणें निकृष्टें । दाविलें अज्ञानाचेनि बोटें ।
ना तमें सूर्य मोटे । बांधतां निकें ॥ ७-२७४ ॥
If that knowledge-personified Atma is ridiculed as ignorance, such statement would be as absurd as saying the Sun bundled tight in darkness !
`अ` पूर्वी ज्ञानाक्षरी । वसतां ज्ञानाची थोरी ।
शब्दार्थाची उजरी । अपूर्व नव्हे कीं ? ॥ ७-२७५ ॥
Indeed, your wordy cleverness must be applauded when you add ‘A’ as prefix to the word Jnyana possessing immense greatness, claiming ‘A’ as very Vibhuti of the Lord !!
लाखेचे मांदुसे । आगीचें ठेवणें कायिसें ? ।
आंतु बाहेरी सरिसें । करून घाली ॥ ७-२७६ ॥
What else can be surmised except wordy cleverness when one says, ‘preserving fire in box of sealing wax’?!! Because fire will burn off entire box of wax anyway!
म्हणोनि जग ज्ञानें स्फितें । बोलतां अज्ञानवादातें ।
विखुरली होती आतें । वाचेचिये ॥ ७-२७७ ॥
Therefore naming the world brimming with Jnyana as Ajnyana is like meaningless blabber.
आखरीं तंव गोवधु । पुढारा अनृत बाधु ।
मा कैसा अज्ञानवादु । कीजे ज्ञानीं ? ॥ ७-२७८ ॥
Or else, uttering the word ‘Govadha’ (cow slaughter) entails single fault and saying ‘ cow killed without cow slaughter’ becomes double fault of speaking untruth. Likewise, Ajnyana is non-existent in the first place but saying it exists is fault number one and saying Ajnyana exists with Atma is another fault; therefore how can it stand to reason ?
आणि अज्ञान म्हणणें । स्फुरतसे अर्थपणें ।
आतां हेंचि ज्ञान कोणे । मानिजेना ? ॥ ७-२७९ ॥
Practically speaking, the word Ajnyana verily denotes Jnyana. How can one say Ajnyana without the prop of Jnyana ? In that case, would everybody not admit Atma as verily Jnyana ?
असो हें आत्मराजें । आपणापें जेणें तेजें ।
आपणचि देखिजे । बहुये परी ॥ ७-२८० ॥
Be it so ! Sovereign Atma verily pervades everywhere through its own brilliance.
निर्वचितां जें झावळे । तेंचि कीं लाहे डोळे ? ।
डोळ्यापुढें मिळे । तेंचि तया ॥ ७-२८१ ॥
The one that cannot stand to reason, will it be ever seen by the eye ? The eye can only see that, which exists.
ऐसें जगद्ज्ञान जें आहे । तें अज्ञान म्हणें मी वियें ।
येणें अनुमानें हों पाहे । आथी ऐसें ॥ ७-२८२ ॥
Ajnyana means, ‘ Jnyana of existence of world being true’, which creates from me, that is, out of my ignorance. Is this logic not sufficient to say that Ajnyana exists ?
तंव अज्ञान त्रिशुद्धि नाहीं । हें जगेंचि ठेविलें ठाई ।
जे धर्मधर्मित्वें कंहीं । ज्ञानाज्ञान असे ? ॥ ७-२८३ ॥
Ajnyana certainly does not exist, because entire world is pervaded by Jnyana alone. In that case, how can righteous-unrighteous attribute creep into Jnyana and Ajnyana ?
कां जळां मोतीं वियें ? । राखोंडिया दीपु जिये ? ।
तरी ज्ञानधर्मु होये । अज्ञानाचा ॥ ७-२८४ ॥
Can pearl create water ? Or, can ash kindle lamp ? If you could make that happen, then alone Jnyana can be an attribute of Ajnyana !
चंद्रमा निगती ज्वळा ? । आकाश आते शिळा ? ।
तरी अज्ञान उजळा । ज्ञानातें वमी ॥ ७-२८५ ॥
Do flames emanate from moon ? Do stones shower from sky ? If ever such things happen, pristine pure Jnyana may be named Ajnyana , or that pure Knowledge breeds ignorance !
क्षीराब्धीं काळकूट । हे एकी परीचे विकट ।
परी काळकूटीं चोखट । सुधा कैंची ? ॥ ७-२८६ ॥
It is indeed paradoxical that Nectar as well as deadly poison was churned out of ‘Ksheer-Sagar’; however, can poison ever produce pure nectar ?
A query – just as deadly poison came out of Ksheer-sagar, even if ignorance came out of knowledge will it not be proof of existence of ignorance ? ( irrational query against above verse !)
Solution – even while momentarily accepting that ignorance came from knowledge, it was destroyed by knowledge immediately on its creation !
ना ज्ञानी अज्ञान जालें । तें होतांचि अज्ञान गेलें ।
पुढती ज्ञान येकलें । अज्ञान नाहीं ॥ ७-२८७ ॥
Or else, admitted that Jnyana created Ajnyana ; however, immediately after its creation Jnyana destroyed Ajnyana, therefore there is no Ajnyana , Jnyana alone prevails !
म्हणौनि सूर्य सूर्याचि येवढा । चंद्र चंद्राचि सांगडा ।
ना दिपाचिया पडिपाडा । ऐसा दीपु ॥ ७-२८८ ॥
Simile for Sun is Sun alone, moon is like moon and lamp alone compares with lamp.
प्रकाश तो प्रकाश कीं । यासि न वचे घेईं चुकी ।
म्हणौनि जग असकी । वस्तुप्रभा ॥ ७-२८९ ॥
Is there doubt about radiance being radiant ? Therefore entire world is nothing but radiance embodied.
विभाति यस्य भासा । सर्वमिदं हा ऐसा ।
श्रुति काय वायसा । ढेंकरू देती ॥ ७-२९० ॥
Shruti declares that entire world is radiant by virtue of Atma thus, “ Yasya Bhaasaa Sarvam Idam Vibhaati “. Is that statement of Shruti false ?
यालागीं वस्तुप्रभा । वस्तुचि पावे शोभा ।
जात असे लाभा । वस्तुचिया ॥ ७-२९१ ॥
Therefore, radiance of Brahmam is with Brahmam and grandeur of radiance is for Brahmam alone; so also benefit of radiance accrues to Brahmam only.
वांचून वस्तु यया । आपणपें प्रकाशावया ।
अज्ञान हेतु वांया । अवघेंचि ॥ ७-२९२ ॥
Without considering opinion of realised souls, it is futile to say that ignorance is cause for radiance of Brahmam.
म्हणोनि अज्ञान सद्भावो । कोण्हे परी न लाहों ।
अज्ञान कीर वावो । पाहों ठेलियाही ॥ ७-२९३ ॥
Therefore ignorance cannot be established by any means and discovering ignorance with entire frantic efforts becomes an exercise in futility.
परी तमाचा विसुरा । न जोडेचि दिनकरा ।
रात्रीचिया घरा । गेलियाही ॥ ७-२९४ ॥
Even while visiting residence of night, the Sun does not experience darkness.
कां नीद खोळे भरिता । जागणें ही न ये हाता ।
येकलिया टळटळिता । ठाकिजे जेवीं ॥ ७-२९५ ॥
While trying to fill sleep in a cover , its relative waking is also lost and one remains stark awake all alone ! Likewise, in spite of search for ignorance through whatever means, nothing except Knowledge comes to hand.
प्रकरण आठवे
Chapter Eight
ज्ञानखण्डन
Refuting Jnyana
तैसें आमुचेनि नांवें । अज्ञानाचें ज्ञानही नव्हे ।
आम्हांलागीं गुरुदेवें । आम्हीच केलों ॥ ८-१ ॥
My revered Sadguru has brought me to such unique state where I do not experience even knowledge of ignorance.
परी आम्हा आम्ही आहों । तें कैसें पाहो जावों ।
तंव काय कीजे ठावो । लाजिजे ऐसा ॥ ८-२ ॥
However, I am ashamed to speak while trying to understand my true nature; how can it be expressed in words ?
हा ठावोवरी गुरुरायें । नांदविलों उवायें ।
जे आम्ही न समाये । आम्हांमाजीं ॥ ८-३ ॥
It is not possible to describe in words the blissful state my Sadguru has put me into. I am unable to accommodate myself in me !
अहो आत्मेपणीं न संटो । स्वसंविति न घसवटो ।
आंगीं लागलिया न फुटों । कैवल्यही ॥ ८-४ ॥
This state is such, where the notion of our own Self is intolerable; knowledge of knowing oneself remains enigmatic and in spite of being a state of Moksha, there is no chance to ‘name’ it as Moksha !
आमुची करवे गोठी । ते जालीचि नाहीं वाक्सृष्टी ।
आमुतें देखे दिठी । ते दिठीचि नव्हे ॥ ८-५ ॥
Word-power is just non-existent that may describe my unique status (Bliss); moreover, there is no vision, which can view my exact nature.
आमुतें करूनि विखो । भोगूं शके पारखो ।
तैं आमुतें न देखों । आम्हीपण ॥ ८-६ ॥
I am absolute unaware of the one that may enjoy my true nature as matter of enjoyment or even judge! Such has been my status that does not know the ‘real me’ as of now.
प्रगटो लपो न लाहो । येथें नाहीं नवलावो ।
परी कैसेनिही विपावो । असणयाचा ॥ ८-७ ॥
This state being beyond the ken of words, it is not possible to decide whether it is secret or manifest.
किंबहुना श्रीनिवृत्तीं । ठेविलों असों जया स्थितीं ।
ते काय देऊं हाती । वाचेचिया ? ॥ ८-८ ॥
The state bestowed upon me by Sadguru Nivruttiraya cannot be described in words; it is the state of self-experience.
तेथ समोर होआवया । अज्ञानाचा पाडू कासया ।
केउते मेलिया माया । होऊं पाहिजे ॥ ८-९ ॥
Ajnyana cannot face this status of mine; then, how can the ‘dead’ Maya come back to life ?
अज्ञानचा प्रवर्तु । नाहीं जया गांवाआंतु ।
तेथें ज्ञानाची तरी मातु । कोण जाणे ? ॥ ८-१० ॥
You see, where ignorance is absolutely unreachable, how can the relative worldly knowledge be extolled with Atma Swaroopa ?
राती म्हणोनि दिवे । पडती कीं लावावे ।
वाचून सूर्यासवें । शिणणें होय ॥ ८-११ ॥
Lamps need to be lit during night; however, it is wasteful bother to do so at daybreak .
म्हणोन अज्ञान नाहीं । तेथेंचि गेलें ज्ञानही ।
आतां निमिषोन्मेषा दोहीं । ठेली वाट ॥ ८-१२ ॥
Now, there neither Ajnyana nor its relative Jnyana anymore ; therefore, road of their hide and seek game is closed !
येरव्हीं तही ज्ञान अज्ञाने । दोहींचि अभिधानें ।
अर्थाचेनि आनानें । विप्लावलीं ॥ ८-१३ ॥
Truly speaking, Jnyana and Ajnyana are mutually relative words; therefore those are useful in worldly sense.
जैसीं दंपत्यें परस्परे । तोडोनि पालटिलीं शिरें ।
तेथें पालटु ना पण सरे । दोहींचें जिणें ॥ ८-१४ ॥
If husband and wife decide to cut off their heads in order to exchange mutual traits, let aside exchange both will lose life !
कां पाठी लाविला होये । तो दीपुचि वायां जाये ।
दिठी अंधारें पाहे । तैं तेचि वृथा ॥ ८-१५ ॥
Similarly a lamp lit behind our back is useless to see things in front of us; there will be darkness alone and therefore lamp at the back is in vain.
तैसें निपटून जें नेणिजे । तें अज्ञान शब्दें बोलिजे ।
आतां सर्वही जेणें सुजे । तें अज्ञान कैसें ? ॥ ८-१६ ॥
The word Ajnyana is used to mean not knowing anything; however, who would call it Ajnyana that makes known everything?
ऐसें ज्ञान अज्ञानीं आलें । अज्ञान ज्ञानें गेलें ।
ये दोहीं वांझौलें । दोन्ही जाली ॥ ८-१७ ॥
Ajnyana certainly disappears while Jnyana manifests; moreover, Jnyana too proves in vain.
आणि जाणे तोचि नेणें । नेणे तोचि जाणे ।
आतां कें असे जिणें । ज्ञानाज्ञाना ? ॥ ८-१८ ॥
It is sheer ignorance that says him as ‘Knower’ and the one without ‘knowing or not knowing’ is indeed Jnyani ( Knowledgeable ). Therefore where does worldly knowledge or ignorance exist ?
एवं ज्ञानाज्ञानें दोन्ही । पोटीं सूनि अहनी ।
उदैला चिद्गगनीं । चिदादित्यु हा ॥ ८-१९ ॥
In this manner, once ‘Chit Surya’ dawns within ‘Chid-Akash’, daybreak in the form of Jnyana and night representing Ajnyana disappear altogether. (Enlightenment takes place !)
॥ इति ज्ञानखंडन नाम अष्टम प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥
प्रकरण नववें
Chapter Nine
जीवन्मुक्तदशाकथन
Status of The Liberated
आतां आमोद सुनास जालें । श्रुतीसि श्रवण रिघाले ।
आरिसे उठले । लोचनेसी ॥ ९-१ ॥
On acquiring the one and only, unique state of Self (Atma Swaroopa ) duality of enjoyer , enjoyment disappears. Sri Dnyanadev furnishes corroborative examples in support of this doctrine.
Now fragrance is verily the nose, words became ears and mirrors the eye !
आपुलेनि समीरपणें । वेल्हावती विंजणें ।
कीं माथेचि चांफेपणें । बहकताती ॥ ९-२ ॥
Wind became the fan and began fanning itself and head verily became flower, beseeming itself as flower !
जिव्हा लोधली रसें । कमळ सूर्यपणें विकाशे ।
चकोरचि जैसे । चंद्रमा झाले ॥ ९-३ ॥
Tongue became taste, lotus blossomed becoming the Sun and Chakor bird the moon.
फुलेंचि जालीं भ्रमर । तरुणीची झाली नर ।
जालें आपुलें शेजार । निद्राळुचि ॥ ९-४ ॥
Flowers became bees, young girl became young man and the desiring sleep became bed itself !
दिठीवियाचा रवा । नागरु इया ठेवा ।
घडिला कां कोरिवां । परी जैसा ॥ ९-५ ॥
Beautiful gold bullion representing Viewer became as if an immaculate ornament representing view.
चूतांकूर झाले कोकिळ । आंगच झाले मलयानीळ ।
रस झाले सकळ । रसनावंत ॥ ९-६ ॥
Mango leaves verily became Kokeel birds, body became sandal paste or juices became juicy.
After this epiphany He now proceeds to Doctrines. -
तैसे भोग्य आणि भोक्ता । दिसे आणि देखता ।
हें सरलें अद्वैता । अफुटामाजीं ॥ ९-७ ॥
Similarly, enjoyer and enjoyable objects, viewer and view together became the complete, infinite and dense Brahmam; all of those were united into Brahmam.
सेवंतेपणा बाहेरी । न निगताचि परी ।
पाती सहस्रवरी । उपलविजे ते ॥ ९-८ ॥
Even while Shevanti flower has thousand petals, those never abandon it.
तैसें नव नवा अनुभवीं । वाजतां वाधावी ।
अक्रियेच्या गांवीं । नेणिजे तें ॥ ९-९ ॥
Similarly, even while the enjoyer and enjoyable undergo various experiences, there is none of view-viewer element with them.
म्हणोनि विषयांचेनि नांवें । सूनि इंद्रियांचे थवे ।
सैंघ घेती धांवे । समोरही ॥ ९-१० ॥
A doubt arises here that in practice entire sense organs rush towards sensuality. Reply to this doubt would be that even while groups of senses rush towards sensuality-
परी आरिसा शिवे शिवे । तंव दिठीसी दिठी फावे ।
तैसे झाले धांवे । वृत्तीचे या ॥ ९-११ ॥
Just as immediately on meeting mirror the vision turns back and views itself, interaction between senses and sensuality takes place likewise.
नाग मुदी कंकण । त्रिलिंगीं भेदली खूण ।
घेतां तरी सुवर्ण । घेईजे कीं ॥ ९-१२ ॥
Nag, Mudi, Kankan etc are names of various ornaments and those names denote male, female and neuter genders respectively. Now, even if this distinction is for namesakes , the ornament in hand is gold only !
वेंचूनि आणूं कल्लोळ । म्हणोन घापे करतळ ।
तेथें तरी निखळ । पाणीच फावे ॥ ९-१३ ॥
While trying to hold waves over the palm, it is water all the way !
हातापाशीं स्पर्शु । डोळ्यापाशीं रूपसु ।
जिव्हेपाशीं मिठांशु । कोण्ही एकू ॥ ९-१४ ॥
Hand recognises soft touch, beauty to eye and special taste to tongue.
तही परिमळापरौतें । मिरवणें नाहीं कापुरातें ।
तेवीं बहुतांपरी स्फुरतें । तेंचि स्फुरे ॥ ९-१५ ॥
However, camphor is camphor alone and fragrance springs up there-from. Likewise, even while various objects are cognised, it is Atma alone that pervades everything as inspiration.
म्हणोनि शब्दादि पदार्थ । श्रोत्रादिकांचे हात ।
घ्यावया जेथ । उजू होती ॥ ९-१६ ॥
And therefore, in order to enjoy speech, taste etc the ears and tongue equip themselves.
तेथे संबंधु होये न होये । तव इंद्रियांचें तें नोहे ।
मग असतेंचि आहे । संबंधु ना ॥ ९-१७ ॥
It is the Atma alone that exists as awareness of interplay of senses with their respective attributes.
जिये पेरीं दिसती उशीं । तिये लाभती कीं रसीं ।
कांति जेवीं शशीं । पुनिवेचिया ॥ ९-१८ ॥
Even while pieces sugarcane are many, those ooze out juice alone; or else, full moon envisages its entire phases.
पडिलें चांदावरी चांदिणें । समुद्रीं झालें वरिषणें ।
विषयां करणें । भेटती तैशीं ॥ ९-१९ ॥
Even while moonlight falls on moon or rains shower over ocean, there is nothing like two-ness on that occasion. Likewise, while there is interaction of senses and their objects from practical point of view, there is no ‘triplet’ with Atma.
म्हणोन तोंडाआड पडे । तेंहि वाचा वावडे ।
परी समाधी न मोडे । मौनमुद्रेची ॥ ९-२० ॥
Therefore if ever the one immersed in Self-ness (Atma Sthiti) speaks about sensuality, his tranquility in silence does not disturb.
व्यापाराचे गाडे । मोडतांहि अपाडे ।
अक्रियेचें न मोडे । पाऊल केंही ॥ ९-२१ ॥
Even while engaged in ceaseless activity from worldly perspective, his non-doer-ship prevails as per his Self-ness.
पसरूनि वृत्तीचे वावे । दिठी रूपातें दे खेवें ।
परी साचाचेनि नांवे । कांहींचि न लभे ॥ ९-२२ ॥
If thoughts along with speech move out to assess an object, indeed no activity takes place.
तमातें घ्यावया । उचलूनी सहस्र बाहिया ।
शेवटीं रवी इया । हाचि जैसा ॥ ९-२३ ॥
Even while the Sun spreads out its thousand rays to get hold of darkness, it alone is what remains !
स्वप्नींचिया विलासा । भेटईन या आशा ।
उठिला तंव जैसा । तोचि मा तो ॥ ९-२४ ॥
If someone gets up to embrace a woman seen in dream, he alone remains awake .
तैसा उदैलया निर्विषयें । ज्ञानी विषयी हों लाहे ? ।
तंव दोन्ही न होनी, होये । काय नेणों ॥ ९-२५ ॥
Can a person engage in sensuality, who is immersed in Self-ness and devoid of sensuality? On that occasion, duality does not manifest at all, the duality of ‘sensual’ (means the one enjoying sensual pleasures) and ‘sensuality’ (the pleasurable’ ). It is not possible to assess state of that Jnyani person.
चंद्र वेचूं गेला चांदिणें । तंव वेंचिलें काय कोणें ।
विऊनि वांझें स्मरणें । होतीं जैसी ॥ ९-२६ ॥
If moon sets out to collect moonlight, who collects what ? He is verily the moon as well as moonlight. Or else, thoughts appear in the mind and disappear too. Nothing concrete happens on that occasion.
प्रत्याहारादि अंगीं । योगें आंग टेंकिलें योगीं ।
तो जाला इये मार्गी । दिहाचा चांदु ॥ ९-२७ ॥
‘Pratyahar’ and such eight-fold austerities surrender unto Sahaja state of Brahma-Jnyana and those eight some become lacklustre by all means, like moon during daytime.
येथ प्रवृत्ति बहुडे जिणें । अप्रवृत्तीसी वाधावणें ।
आतां प्रत्यङ्मुखपणें । प्रचारु दिसे ॥ ९-२८ ॥
On acquiring this Self-ness the ‘action proneness‘ (Pravrutti) disappears and non-action-proneness (Nivrutti) indeed beseems. Entire activities of such Jnyani person occur with introvert vision.
द्वैतदशेचें आंगण । अद्वैत वोळगे आपण ।
भेद तंव तंव दुण । अभेदासी ॥ ९-२९ ॥
Non-dual state does not disturb even while engaged in ‘dual’ activity. It is as though non-duality sports in the backyard of duality. As much the expanse in discrepancy of duality, more is that of non-discrepancy.
कैवल्याही चढावा । करीत विषयसेवा ।
झाला भृत्य भज्य कालोवा । भक्तीच्या घरीं ॥ ९-३० ॥
During such non-dual state the Lord becomes devotee and devotee the Lord. Moreover, even if activities of devotee appear taking place in duality, that status is superior to even Liberation !
घरामाजीं पायें । चालतां मार्गुही तोचि होये ।
ना बैसे तरी आहे । पावणेंचि ॥ ९-३१ ॥
While a person walks within his house, he is verily the path too and while sitting in the house, destination as well!
तैसें भलतें करितां । येथें पाविजे कांहीं आतां ।
ऐसें कांही न करितां । ठाकिजेना ॥ ९-३२ ॥
A Jnyani has nothing to acquire while doing anything and even if he does not do anything, he has nothing left to acquire.
आठवु आणि विसरु । तयातेंही घेऊं नेदी पसरु ।
दशेचा वेव्हारु । असाधारणु ॥ ९-३३ ॥
His practical state is so unique that he neither remembers nor forget his Self-ness.
झाला स्वेच्छाचि विधि । स्वैर झाला समाधि ।
दशे ये मोक्षऋद्धि । बैसों घापे ॥ ९-३४ ॥
Whatever he does voluntarily is verily his Shastra and rules-regulations ; wealth of Liberation is his throne and whatever his behaviour indeed his Samadhi .
झाला देवोचि भक्तु । ठावोचि झाला पंथु ।
होऊनि ठेला एकांतु । विश्वचि हें ॥ ९-३५ ॥
The Lord became devotee during this state of unison, destination as well as road and entire universe as one single whole.
भलतेउनि देवें । भलते नि भक्त होआवें ।
बैसला तेथें राणिवें । अकर्मु हा ॥ ९-३६
It doesn’t matter who becomes the Lord and who devotee; the one acquiring such non-doer-ship is seated over throne of affluence.
देवाचिया दाटणी । देऊळा झाली आटणी ।
देशकाळादि वाहाणीं । येईच ना ॥ ९-३७ ॥
Omniscience of the Lord is so vast that temple doesn’t remain distinct from Him. Indeed, omnipresence of Chaitanya can never be limited by time and space.
देवीं देवोचि न माये / मा देवी कें अन्वयो आहे ? ।
येथ परिवारु बहूये । अघडता कीं ॥ ९-३८ ॥
The Lord cannot contain His own expanse, then where is scope for duality ? In that case how can the Lord, Prakriti and entire universe accommodate ? It means that the illusion of Maya that requires action, place and limitations do not take place there at all .
ऐसियाहि स्वामीभृत्यसंबंधा । लागीं उठलीं श्रद्धा ।
तैं देवोचि नुसधा । कामविजे ॥ ९-३९ ॥
In spite of such situation if the Lord desires Him being the Guru and His devotee as disciple, He divides Himself into Guru and Disciple as one single entity.
Verse numbers 186 and 187 in Chapter 12 also pertain the above .
अवघिया उपचारा । जपध्यान निर्धारा ।
नाहीं आन संसारा । देवोवांचुनी ॥ ९-४० ॥
During that state entire paraphernalia of recitation, worship, contemplation, meditation etc are not different from the Lord.
आतां देवातेंचि देवें । देववरी भजावें ।
अर्पणाचेनि नांवें । भलतिया ॥ ९-४१ ॥
Now let the Lord worship Lord with whatever offerings.
पाहें पां आघवया । रुखा रुखचि यया ।
परी दुसरा नाहीं तया । विस्तार जेवीं ॥ ९-४२ ॥
You see, a tree includes its entire expanse of flora, fauna, roots and fruits.
देव देऊळ परिवारु । कीजे कोरुनि डोंगरु ।
तैसा भक्तीचा व्यवहारु । कां न व्हावा ? ॥ ९-४३ ॥
Image of the Lord is carved from stone over a mountain by devotees; in addition other images, temple, and other items of the family. In that case why should devotion not exercised in similar fashion? In fact, the mountain verily represents God and therefore entire family is God alone.
अहो मुगीं मुग जैसें । घेतां न घेतां नवल नसे ।
केलें देवपण तैसें । दोहीं परी ॥ ९-४४ ॥
It is immaterial whether a mute person keeps quiet or does not, since there is no change in his muteness. Similar is the status of Jnyani ; whether he worships or not, his Self-ness is unchanged.
अखतांचि देवता । अखतींचि असे न पूजितां ।
मा अखतीं काय आतां । पुजो जावी ॥ ९-४५ ॥
If image made of sacred rice is worshipped or not worshipped by sacred rice , ultimately it is sacred rice alone ! Why offer sacred rice once again ?
दीप्तीचीं लुगडीं । दीपकळिके तूं वेढी ।
हें न म्हणतां ते उघडी । ठाके काई ? ॥ ९-४६ ॥
Even if flame of lamp is not asked to wear loincloth of effulgence, will it remain naked ? It is indeed futile to ask it so !
कां चंद्रातें चंद्रिका । न म्हणिजे तूं लेकां ।
तही तो असिका । तियाचि कीं ना ॥ ९-४७ ॥
Even if moon is not asked to envelope with moonlight , moonlight happens to be integral with moon.
आगीपण आगी । असतचि असे अंगीं ।
मा कासयालागीं । देणें न देणें ? ॥ ९-४८ ॥
Fire is inherently hot; where is need to offer heat to it ?
म्हणोनि भजतां भजावें । मा न भजतां काय नव्हे ? ।
ऐसें नाहीं, स्वभावें । श्रीशिवुचि असे ॥ ९-४९ ॥
Therefore the Jnyani who is intrinsically Form of Shiva alone, whether he worships or not his devotion does not disturb.
आतां भक्ति अभक्ति । झालें ताट एके पातीं ।
कर्माकर्माचिया वाती । माल्हावूनिया ॥ ९-५० ॥
Now flames in the form of action-inaction are blown off and devotion and non-devotion dine together in single platter. Therefore there is no separate entity as devotion and non-devotion. Similar is the state with Jnyani with regard to action-inaction.
म्हणोनि उपनिषदें । दशे येति निंदे ।
निंदाचि विशदें । स्तोत्रें होती ॥ ९-५१ ॥
Upanishads speak language of duality; their experience does not accommodate one-ness of God and devotee. Therefore their description of truly enlightened (‘Atma Jnyani ‘) turns out as ridicule; however, the words those use for blasphemy are also Form of God and therefore that slander too must be taken as Hymns !
ना तरी निंदास्तुति । दोन्हीं मौनासाठीं जाती ।
मौनीं मौन आथी । न बोलतां बोली ॥ ९-५२ ॥
Calumny or praise ultimately ends in silence alone. Indeed, speaking nothing is silence only. Entire praise and calumny ends into silence.
घालिता अव्हासव्हा पाय । शिवयात्राचि होतु जाय ।
शिवा गेलियाही नोहे । केंही जाणें ॥ ९-५३ ॥
Since everything is pervaded by Lord Shiva alone, whatever path a Jnyani walks upon is verily pilgrimage unto Shiva. In that case, what special does he get by visiting Shiva Temple ?
चालणें आणि बैसक । दोन्ही मिळोनि एक ।
नोहे ऐसें कौतुक । इये ठायीं ॥ ९-५४ ॥
Walking and sitting are two distinct states no doubt; however for the Jnyani devotee both states are same. He experiences pilgrimage unto Shiva while sitting or walking as well.
येहवीं आडोळलिया डोळा । शिवदर्शनाचा सोहळा ।
भोगिजे भलते वेळां । भलतेणें ॥ ९-५५ ॥
While such Enlightened one sees anything anywhere, his ‘seeing’ is indeed a festive occasion of Shiva-Darshan.
ना समोर दिसे शिवुही । परि देखिलें कांहीं नाहीं ।
देवभक्ता दोही । एकुचि पाडू ॥ ९-५६ ॥
Moreover, even while he has Shiva-Darshan he did not see anything, being Form of Shiva as well as devotee himself !
आपणचि चेंडू सुटे । मग आपणया उपटे ।
तेणें उदळतां दाटे । आपणपांचि ॥ ९-५७ ॥
A ball on releasing bumps on the ground and rises up to bump down again. During all these activities the ball remains with itself.
ऐसी जरी चेंडूफळी । देखिजे कां केव्हेळीं ।
तरी बोलिजे हे सरळी । प्रबुद्धाची ॥ ९-५८ ॥
If someone has seen this game of bat-ball, he alone would be able to understand status of that enlightened Jnyani devotee.
कर्माचा हातु नलगे । ज्ञानाचेंही कांहीं न रिगे ।
ऐसीचि होतसे आंगें । उपास्ति हे ॥ ९-५९ ॥
This Sadhana of a Jnyani is indeed unique. There is no sense of Karma or Jnyana either.
निफजे ना निमे । आंगें आंग घुमे ।
सुखा सुख उपमे । देववेल यया ॥ ९-६० ॥
This Sadhana neither begins nor ends. It is like possessing body within body. What simile could be furnished for this joy ? Body is ever immersed in Self-effulgence alone.
कोण्ही एक अकृत्रीम । भक्तीचें हें वर्म ।
योगज्ञानादिविश्राम । भूमिके हे ॥ ९-६१ ॥
Secret of this devotion is extreme simplicity and its being just natural. Here, practice of Yoga and acquisition of Jnyana through dual intellect halts altogether.
आंगें कीर एक झालें । परी नामरूपाचे मासले ।
होते, तेही आटले । हरिहर येथें ॥ ९-६२ ॥
Hari and Hara are Self-same; however, both appear distinct in name and form from Sadhak’s point of view. Here body itself is Hari Hara; their two-ness disappeared while becoming single image.
अहो अर्धनारीनटेश्वरें । गिळित गिळित परस्परें ।
ग्रहण झालें एकसरें । सर्वग्रासें ॥ ९-६३ ॥
While swallowing each other in themselves, Shiva Shakti mutually became one single image and their two-ness vanished.
वाच्यजात खाऊनी । वाचकत्वहि पिऊनी ।
टाकली निदैजोनी । परा येथें ॥ ९-६४ ॥
Shiva, whom to describe and duality that describes Shiva became one while ‘Para’ the fourth type of speech went to sleep !
शिवाशिवा ! समर्था स्वामी । येवढीये आनंदभूमि ।
घेपे दीजे एकें आम्हीं । ऐसें केलें ॥ ९-६५ ॥
O Lord ! O Lord !! O Master, You have brought me to Blissful state of Liberation over this Blissful turf while engaging in Blissful activity !
चेतचि मा चेवविलें । निदैलेंचि मा निदविलें ।
आम्हीचि आम्हा आणिलें । नवल जी तुझें ॥ ९-६६ ॥
It is indeed a marvel that You awakened me, the intrinsically awakened and set aside my sleep while still sleeping, demonstrating my true Self to me !
आम्ही निखळ मा तुझे । वरी लोभें म्हणसी माझें ।
हें पुनरुक्त साजे । तूंचि म्हणोनी ॥ ९-६७ ॥
I am utterly One with You, which You are aware. However, You lovingly call me as Your own. This repetitiveness beseems You alone !
कोणाचें कांहीं न घेसी । आपुलेंही तैसेंचि न देसी ।
कोण जाणे भोगिसी । गौरव कैसें ॥ ९-६८ ॥
You do not accept anything from anybody; You do not give away anything of Your own. It is really a wonder as to how You enjoy this affluence of Yours !
गुरुत्वें जेवढा चांगु । तेवढाचि तारूनि लघु ।
गुरु लघु जाणे जो पांगु । तुझा करी ॥ ९-६९ ॥
You are great in size and weight as Guru but You are lighter while extricating people; nevertheless , only those who do not Know Your True Self distinguish as ‘small’ Guru !
शिष्यां देतां वाटे । अद्वैताचा समो फुटे ।
तरी काह्या होती भाटें । शास्त्रें तुझीं ॥ ९-७० ॥
Even while You incorporated disciple into your non-duality, your equipoise of non-duality does not suffer. Had it ever suffered, why would Veda and Shastras praised You ? Your non-dual state never disturbs on any grounds and therefore Vedas and Shastras praise You !
किंबहुना ये दातारा । मी तूं याचा संसारा ।
वेंचोनि होसी सोयरा । तेणेंचि तोषें ॥ ९-७१ ॥
What more to say ? O Gururaya ! You have destroyed distinction of ‘me’ and ‘you’ sense. And that blissful state makes you my kith and kin .
इति श्रीमद्अमृतानुभवे जीवन्मुक्तदशाकथनं नाम नवमं प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥
प्रकरण दहावें
Chapter Ten
ग्रंथपरिहार
Epilogue
परी गा श्रीनिवृत्तिराया । हातातळीं सुखविलें तूं या ।
तरी निवांतचि मियां । भोगावें कीं तें ॥ १०-१ ॥
O Master Sri Nivruttiraya ! While blessing me thus You made me ecstatic. Therefore it it not appropriate to enjoy it comprehensively ?
परी महेशें सूर्याहातीं । दिधली तेजाची सुती ।
तया भासा अंतर्वर्ती । जगचि केलें ॥ १०-२ ॥
The Lord assigned reigns of radiance unto Sun ; brilliance of that effulgence spread in entire universe.
चंद्रासि अमृत घातलें । तें तयाचि कायि येतुलें ।
की सिंधु मेघा दिधले । मेघाचि भागु ॥ १०-३ ॥
Is Nectar provided by the Lord unto moon meant for moon alone ? Or else, ocean offered water to the cloud; now, is it for the sake of cloud ?
दिवा जो उजेडु । तो घराचाची सुरवाडू ।
गगनीं आथी पवाडु । तो जगाचाची कीं ॥ १०-४ ॥
Radiance of lamp is not limited to it; it is for entire house. Likewise, expanse of sky is not for sky alone, it is for entire world.
अगाधेंहि उचंबळती । ते चंद्रीचि ना शक्ती ? ।
वसंतु करी तैं होती । झाडांचें दानीं ॥ १०-५ ॥
Is it not power of the moon for high tide of ocean ? It is grace of Spring season that makes trees charitable in offering flower and fruit.
म्हणोनि हें असंवर्य । दैविकीचें औदार्य ।
वांचोनि स्वातंतर्य । माझें नाहीं ॥ १०-६ ॥
Therefore, O Gururaya ! I am unable to contain Your Magnanimity; it is limitless . I am expounding by virtue of that grace alone. It is certainly not my own prowess.
आणि हा येवढा ऐसा । परिहारु देवू कायसा ।
प्रभुप्रभावविन्यासा । आड ठावूनी ॥ १०-७ ॥
However, why should I indulge in such prologues ? Because this very statement lowers power of the Guru.
आम्ही बोलिलों जें कांहीं । तें प्रगटची असे ठायीं ।
मा स्वयंप्रकाशा काई । प्रकाशावें बोलें ? ॥ १०-८ ॥
The Atma that I propounded is verily Self-evident. How can I illumine that Self-effulgent one through my words ?
नाना विपायें आम्हीं हन । कीजे तें पां मौन ।
तरी काय जनीं जन । दिसते ना ? ॥ १०-९ ॥
If at all I had kept quiet, would people not see each other ? Would worldly activities had got stalled ?
जनातें जनीं देखतां । द्रष्टेंचि दृश्य तत्वतां ।
कोण्ही नहोनि आइता । सिद्धांत हा ॥ १०-१० ॥
While people see each other and speak, they use the word ‘I’ to introduce themselves. That exactly is the Form of Atma. Atma alone becomes view without being any other. Indeed, this is a readymade doctrine.
ययापरौतें कांहीं । संविद्रहस्य नाहीं ।
आणि हें तया आधींही । असतचि असे ॥ १०-११ ॥
There is none other secret regarding Atma being verily form of Jnyana; moreover, it existed thus even before my exposition; therefore my exposition does not establish anything different.
तही ग्रंथप्रस्तावो । न घडे हें म्हणों पावो ।
तही सिद्धानुवाद लाहों । आवडी करूं ॥ १०-१२ ॥
Someone might question propriety of beginning this scripture in the first place on this occasion. Only answer to that is, I translated an established truth for the sake of my pleasure, inspired by love for it.
पढियंतें सदा तेंचि । परी भोगीं नवी नवी रुची ।
म्हणोनि हा उचितुचि । अनुवाद सिद्ध ॥ १०-१३ ॥
A pleasurable thing remains the same; however, it gives varying forms of joy every time while relishing it. That is why I ventured into this exposition of describing the Self-established Lord.
या कारणें मियां । गौप्य दाविलें बोलूनियां ।
ऐसें नाहीं आपसया । प्रकाशुचि ॥ १०-१४ ॥
Therefore, I have not established some mystic spiritual tenet, which is already self-illumined.
आणि पूर्णअहंता वेठलों । सैंघ आम्हीच दाटलों ।
मा लोपलों ना प्रगटलों । कोणा होऊनी । १०-१५ ॥
Similarly, I became full and complete (comprehensively); I pervade everything thick; I neither vanished or manifested at someone’s behests; I Am what I Am !!
आपणया आपणपें । निरूपण काय ओपे ? ।
मा उगेपणे हरपे । ऐसे आहे ? ॥ १०-१६ ॥
Whom are we to offer our exposition of our own form ? Therefore what harm is there in just keeping quiet ?
म्हणोनि माझी वैखरी । मौनाचेंहि मौन करी ।
हे पाणियावरी मकरी । रेखिली पां ॥ १०-१७ ॥
Therefore my speech has taken up silence silently; I spoke without speaking and did not speak while not speaking ! This exposition is akin to drawing lines over water, done without doing !
एवं दशोपनिषदें । पुढारी न ढळती पदें ।
देखोनि बुडी बोधें । येथेंचि दिधली ॥ १०-१८ ॥
However, this discourse has been such that it could acquire Self-Knowledge alone and while it realised that there is nothing more of exposition in Upanishads, that Self-Knowledge returned back to its Omni-Self.
ज्ञानदेवो म्हणे श्रीमंत । हें अनुभवामृत ।
सेंवोनि जीवन्मुक्त । हेंचि होतु ॥ १०-१९ ॥
Sri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj says, “ My only prayer is, Let relishing of this Anubhavamrut suffused with Divine Wealth confer Nectar itself unto the Liberated Ones !”
मुक्ति कीर वेल्हाळ । अनुभवामृत निखळ ।
परी अमृताही उठी लाळ । अमृतें येणें ॥ १०-२० ॥
It is true that Liberation is bewitching, charming and blissful; however, this Anubhavamrut will induce Liberation as well as Nectar to taste its sweetness !
नित्य चांदु होये । परी पुनवे आनु आहे ।
हें कां मी म्हणों लाहें । सूर्यदृष्टी ? ॥ १०-२१ ॥
Moon is ever charming; however, full moon night makes it all the more beseeming. This is alright from worldly perspective. Why should I find distinction therein while viewing through vision of the Sun ? I do not possess fractured intellect anyway !
प्रिया सावायिली होये । तै अंगीचे अंगीं न समाये ।
येहवीं तेथेंचि आहे । तारुण्य कीं ॥ १०-२२ ॥
Youth of a young woman always exists in her youth ; however, it is overwhelming in company of the lover.
वसंताचा आला । फळीं फुलीं आपला ।
गगनाचिया डाळा । पेलती झाडें ॥ १०-२३ ॥
As it is trees are beautiful; however, during spring they appear to support the sky through flowers and fruits.
ययालागीं हें बोलणें । अनुभामृतपणें ।
स्वानुभूति परगुणें । वोगरिलें ॥ १०-२४ ॥
Therefore, I am offering very sweetmeats of my nectarine experiences in the form this discourse unto Saints .
आणि मुक्त मुमुक्षु बद्ध । हें तंववरी योग्यता भेद ।
अनुभामृतस्वाद । विरुद्ध जंव ॥ १०-२५ ॥
It is only until the Sadhaks do not taste sweetness of these nectarine experiences that distinction of ‘bound’, ‘seeker’ or ‘enlightened’ states are discernible. However, once tasted, entire Sadhaks convert into Self-Realised Ones !
गंगावगाहना आली । पाणीयें गंगा झालीं ।
कां तिमिरें भेटलीं । सूर्या जैशीं ॥ १०-२६ ॥
Entire waters merging into the Ganges become Ganges itself ; darkness meeting the Sun converts into brilliance all the way .
नाहीं परिसाची कसवटी । तंववरीच वानियाच्या गोठी ।
मग पंधरावयाच्या पटीं । बैसावें कीं ॥ १०-२७ ॥
How to discern purity of gold without touch of Parees ? Nevertheless, once touched it is pure gold all along !
तैसें जे या अखरा । भेटती गाभारां ।
ते वोघ जैसे सागरा । आंतु आले ॥ १०-२८ ॥
Similarly, while acquiring experiences described through words in this scripture by virtue of grace from Sadguru, life of Sadhak becomes nectarine just as entire rivers merging into ocean convert into ocean itself.
जैशा अकारादि अक्षरा । भेटती पन्नासही मात्रा ।
तैसें या चराचरा । दुसरें नाहीं ॥ १०-२९ ॥
Just as three vowels of Omkar namely ‘a’, ‘u’ and ‘ma’ constitute entire fifty words, there is nothing other than Omkar in this cosmos.
तैसी तये ईश्वरीं । अंगुळी नव्हेचि दुसरी ।
किंबहुना सरोभरीं शिवेसीचि ॥ १०-३० ॥
Likewise, there is absolutely nothing other with the Lord; what is more, everything is pervaded by the Lord alone .
म्हणोनि ज्ञानदेवो म्हणे । अनुभवामृतें येणें ।
सणु भोगिजे सणें विश्वाचेनि ॥ १०-३१ ॥
Therefore, Sri Dnyanadev prays thus, ‘ Let entire universe enjoy this discourse over nectarine experiences!’
Haraye Namaha / Haraye Namaha / Haraye Namaha /
॥ इति अनुभवामृते ग्रंथपरिहारकथनं नाम दशमं प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥
Best wishes,
Dr. Rahalkar
Visit my blog-site - http://prabhurahalkar.blogspot.com/
यदक्षरमनाख्येयमान्दमजमव्ययम ।श्रीमन् निवृत्तिनाथेति ख्यातं दैवतमाश्रये ।।१।।I begin with adoration unto this scripture under aegis of The Indestructible, Indescribable,, My very Deity Sri Nivruttinath, who is Bliss personified and having neither births or deaths. (1)गुरूरित्यारव्यया लोके साक्षाद्विद्याहि शांकरी ।जयत्याज्ञा नमस्तस्यै दयार्द्रायै निरंतरम् ।।२।।This world verily recognises ‘ Shaankari Brahma Vidya’ ( Divine Knowledge propounded by Adi Shankaracharya) by the name Sri Guru. That Knowledge is ever victorious. I make repeated obeisance unto commands of that compassionate Sri Guru.सार्धं केन च कस्यार्धं शिवयो: समरूपिणो: ।ज्ञातुं न शक्यते लग्न मिति द्वैतच्छलान्मुहु: ।।३।।Shiva and Shakti are so much in unison that which portion belongs to Shiva and which to Shakti is well nigh impossible to judge in spite of repeated search, since both halves of Shiva Shakti mingle into each other.अद्वैमात्मनस्तत्वं दर्शयन्तौ मिथस्तराम् ।तौ वन्दे जगतमाद्यौ तयोस्तत्वाभिपत्तये। ।।४।।Shiva and Shakti are thus a non-dual entity, which deludes being dual in vain. Both are eternal cause for the Universe; therefore, in order to fulfil my desire of cognising their innate Divinity I make repeated obeisance unto them.मूलयाग्राय मध्याय मूलध्याग्रमूर्तये ।क्षीणाग्रमूलमध्याय नम: पूर्णांय शंभवे ।।५।।Such completely perfect Shambhoo, under whose aegis the universe appears to form, sustains and dissolutes ; in fact He has none of those three (namely formation, sustenance and dissolution), I bow down unto that comprehensive Shambhoo !“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””CHAPTER – 1SHIVA-SHAKTI. SAMAVESHAN( Confluence of Shiva Shakti)ऐसीं इयें निरूपाधिकें । जगाची जियें जनकें ।तियें वंदिलीं मियां मूळिकें । देवो देवी। ।।१।।I venerate the attribute less God and Goddess Shiva Shakti , that are the very cause for this universe as described above.जो प्रीयुचि प्राणेश्वरी । उलथे आवडीचे सरोभरी ।चारूस्थळीं एका हारी । एकांगाची। ।।२।।That Shiva is as though a Lover that creates the non-dual Loving Concert from His Own Being, which virtually engulfs each other enticed by her beauty par excellence as if both possessing a single form. That is how Shakti is the very Inspiration of Shiva !आवडीचेनि वेगें । एकाएकातें गिळिती आंगे ।कीं द्वैताचेनि पांगें । उगळितें आहाति ।।३।।We generally name the Inspiration of Shakti as Prakriti and the One under whose aegis Inspiration occurs as Purusha in general. Both cohabit under influence of the selfsame Chaitanya (vitality, spirit) and apparently keep engulfing each other lovingly all the time. While looking at Shiva Shakti through illusory duality the universe appears as real. On that occasion the Prakriti appears static and separate from Chaitanya or ‘life’; however, it is Chaitanya alone that inhabits as Shiva Shakti all the way. There is no duality between them whatever although Shiva alone is sovereign.जे एकचि नव्हे एकसरें । दोघां दोनपण नाही पुरें ।काई नेणों साकारें । स्वरूपें जियें ।।४।।Shiva and Shakti are only One; however, Inspiration of Shakti deludes as being two. Therefore virtually there is neither oneness nor twosome ness ! Which is why their exact form is unpredictable.कैसी स्वसुखाची आळुकी । जे दोनीपण मिळुनि येकीं ।नेदितीचि कवतिकीं । एकपण फुटो ।।५।।Shiva and Shakti like to immerse in Bliss of the Self to such an extent that they never abandon being non-dual. Nevertheless, very bliss of that Inspirational sport creates illusion of duality; otherwise their unison is inseparable.हा ठाववरी वियोगभेडे । जें बाळ जगायोवढें ।वियाली परि न मोडे । दोघुलेपण ।।६।।These two conceived a baby as the universe (from worldly perspective), fearing separation for ever. However, was there any breakdown in their mutual love ? No, not at all ! Neither their unison nor apparent two-ness ever caused any form of break in their mutual love on account of this baby as universe. Moreover, the universe is visible only when the illusion of their two-ness is accepted as ‘duality’.आपुलिये आंगी संसारा । देखिलिया चराचरा ।परि नेदितीचि तिसरा । झोंक लागों ।।७।।It appears as though entire gamut of universe was created under delusion of format as name and form while immersed in their blissful state of inspiration; however, they are absolutely unawares of there being any third entity as the universe apart from them .जयां येकें सत्तेचें बैसणें । दोघां येका प्रकाशाचे लेणें ।जे अनादिपणें येकपणें । नांदती दोघे ।।८।।Very basis of Shiva and Shakti is Self-Rule (Atma Satta, Dominion of the Self , Brahmam ); moreover, they are adorned by ornaments made of Self-effulgence (intrinsic radiance or brilliance). Thus, both are eternally staying together in unison, although masquerading as two !भेदु लाजोनि आवडी । येकरसी देत बुडी ।जो भोगणया ठाव काढी । द्वैताचा जेथे ।।९।।Even while trying to search duality in Shiva and Shakti deep down using tool of discrimination, ‘two-ness’ in them could not be discerned with frantic effort; on the contrary, even discretion itself vanished into unison of Shiva Shakti !जेणें देवें संपूर्ण देवी । जियेविण कांहीं ना तो गोसावी ।किंबहुना येकोपजीवी । येकयेकाची ।।१०।।Shakti attains completeness under aegis of Shiva alone. But the marvel is that Shakti is root cause for greatness of Shiva being the Master ! That is how Shiva Shakti inhabit in mutual coexistence .कैसा मेळू आला गोडिये । दोघे न माती जगीं इयें ।की परमाणुहीमाजी उवाये । मांडली आहातीं ।।११।।How to describe their mutual love ? Entire three worlds would fall short for their expanse ; nevertheless , they co-habit gleefully even in subtlest atoms !जिहीं येकयेकावीण । न कीजे तृणाचेही निर्माण ।जियें दोघें जीउप्राण । जियां दोघां ।।१२।।They cannot create even a blade of grass without helping each other. Both are intimate darlings of each other.घरवातें मोटकी दोघें । जैं गोसावी सेजे रिघे ।तैं दंपत्यपणे जागे । स्वामिणी जे ।।१३।।These two alone pervade entire cosmos; however, when the husband Shiva sleeps, or in other words is inactive, the wife (Devi) while remaining awake looks after entire worldly and heavenly expanse, thus fulfilling her conjugal obligation.जिया दोघांमाजीं येकादें । विपायें उपजले होय निदें ।तरी घरवात गिळुनि नुसधें । कांही ना कीं ।।१४।।If ever one of these tenets happen to wake up from sleep, the world just vanishes and only the pristine original Self prevails. The purport or inference is , while the Sacchidananda (Truth, Conscience, Bliss) manifests through Self-experience, the notions of Purusha and Prakriti or God and Goddess within Atma or Chaitanya vanish altogether and what remains is Self-experience alone.दोन्ही आंगांची आटणी । गिंवसित आहाती एकपणी ।जाली भेदाचिया वाहणी । आधाधी जिये ।।१५।।‘Asti’, ‘Bhaati’, ‘Priya’ (Existence, Conscience, Bliss) are hallmarks of Shiva, whereas Name and Form attributes of Shakti or Prakriti. While both merge into Atma-Tatva, (true nature of soul or Atma), neither remain as remainder. However, in order to exhibit illusive or apparent world they divide themselves in two halves and delude being separate in spite of being just One !विषो एकमेकांची जिये । एकमेकांची विषयी इये ।जिहीं दोघी सुखिये । जियें दोघें ।।१६।।Shiva and Shakti are mutual objects of pleasure as well as pleasurable for each other, which means that Shiva is enjoyable to Shakti and Shakti to Shiva. Thus Both co-habit as bliss personified through mutual enjoyment.स्त्री-पुरुष नामभेदें । शिवगण एकलें नांदें ।जग सकळ आधाधे- । पणें जिहीं ।।१७।।Even while this world is rampant with distinction between man and woman, only Shiva principle entirely pervades therein. All three worlds are pervaded by the two halves of Shiva and Shakti, which are illusive since the two-ness is just nominal!दो दांडी एक श्रुति । दोहों फुलीं एक दृति ।दोहों दिवी दीप्ति । येकीचि जेवीं ।।१८।।Beating two drumsticks make a single sound; or else, two flowers from the same tree spread a single fragrance. Moreover, two lamps emit same effulgence.दो ओठीं येकी गोठी । दो डोळां येकी दिठी ।तेवीं दोघीं जिहीं सृष्टी । येकीचि जेवीं ।।१९।।Two lips manifest a single word and the two eyes see one view; likewise, Shiva and Shakti pervade entire nature but truly speaking Shiva alone inhabits.दाऊनि दोनीपण । येकरसाचे आरोगण ।करीत आहे मेहूण । अनादि जें ।।२०।।This couple representing Shiva-Shakti is itself experiencing its true nature while deluding duality in their eternal unison.जे स्वामीचिया सत्ता- । वीण असों नेणे पतिव्रता ।जियेवीण सर्वकर्ता । कांही ना जो ।।२१।।The marvel is that the chaste Shakti has no existence without Shiva; however, capability of Shiva does not manifest without her !जे कीं भाताराचे दिसणें । भातारूचि जियेचें असणें ।नेणिजती दोघेंजणे । निवडूं जियें ।।२२।।The husband Shiva and wife Shakti being absolutely blended, it is well nigh impossible to distinguish between the man and wife.गोडी आणि गुळु । कापरू आणि परिमळु ।निवडुं जातां पांगुळु । निवाडु होय ।।२३।।Jaggery and its sweetness or camphor and its fragrance can never be separated ; likewise, it is impossible to single out Shiva or Shakti.समग्र दीप्ति घेतां । जेविं दीपुचि ये हाता ।तेवि जियेचिया तत्त्वतां । शिवूचि लाभे ।।२४।।One must hold a lamp in order to gather entire effulgence; likewise, one experiences form of Shiva alone, while trying to understand true nature of Shakti. He is not discernible separately without Shakti.जैसी सूर्य मिरवे प्रभा । प्रभे सूर्यत्वचि गाभा ।तैसी भेद गिळीत शोभा । येकचि जे ।।२५।।Brilliance prances / parades itself with the Sun but the Sun is verily basis for brilliance; likewise, Shakti highlights Shiva principle while Shiva is the very foundation.कां बिंब प्रतिबींबा द्योतक । प्रतिबिंब बिंबा अनुमापक ।तैसें द्वैतमिसें येक । बरवत असे ।।२६।।A mirror image is illumined by a disc (Sun or Moon); whereas, the image is a measure of the source. Similarly, even while Shiva Shakti appear as two-some the very foundation for both is Shiva alone !सर्व शून्याचा निष्कर्षु । जिया बाइला केला पुरूषु ।जेणें दादुलेन सत्ताविशेषु । शक्ति जाली ।।२७।।The Lord, who while destroying entire illusions persists without form and attributes as void, remains the unique powerhouse for Shakti becoming feminine and at her behests alone He became man, the husband !जिये प्राणेश्वरीवीण । शिवींही शिवपण ।थारों न शके ते आपण । शिवें घडली ।।२८।।Shiva does not attain Shiva-ness without the beloved lady; such an inspiration personified form of Shakti is created in the very being of Shiva Himself .ऐश्वर्येंसी ईश्वरा । जियेचें अंग संसारा ।आपण होऊन उभारा । आपणचि जे ।।२९।।Shakti created entire worldly nature utilising grandeur of the Lord in the form of the fivefold mega elements (earth, water, fire, air and sky) that delude being separate (from the Lord ) and manifested herself on her own, while presenting the Lord as Master through her own capability.पतीचेनि अरूपपणें । लाजोनि अंगाचे मिरवणें ।केलें जगायोवढें लेणें । नामरूपाचें ।।३०।।Shiva basically happens to be devoid of Name and Form. Therefore, being bashful out of inferiority complex, Shakti created a huge ornament utilising power of the Lord’s wealth itself, in the form of the worldly universe with Name and Form.ऐक्याचाही दुष्काळ । बहुपणाचा सोहळा ।जिथे सदैवेचिया लिळा । दाखविला ।।३१।।It is not possible to say that Lord Shiva is all alone, since Shakti created innumerable types of nature under illusive duality and exhibited grandeur of her husband Shiva.आंगाचिया आटणिया । कांतु उवाया आणिला जियां ।स्वसंकोचे प्रिया । रूझविली जेणें ।।३२।।Shakti boiled down her own form and greatly prospered her husband; however, he too set aside his machismo out of diffidence unto her and extolled her greatness alone in the mundane world.जियेतें पहावयाचिया लोभा । चढे द्रष्टत्वाचिया क्षोभा ।जियेतें न देखतुचि उभा । आंगचि सांडी ।।३३।।That Shiva becomes the visionary or onlooker in order to see her and he just discards himself outright if she is not seen so that visuality too vanishes altogether.कांतेचिया भिडा । अवला होये जगायेवढा ।आंगविला उघडा । जियेवीण ।।३४।।The husband Shiva takes up form of entire mundane world just to favour his wife Shakti; however, he remains as mere providence bereft of nature if she is not there.जे हा ठावो मंदरूपें । उवालियेपणेचि हारपे ।तो जाला जियेचेनि पडपे । विश्वरूप ।।३५।।The Lord who is extremely subtle and all-pervasive all alone is inspired by Shakti to become manifold from worldly sense and takes up form of the universe; however, truly speaking it is just his cosmic sport ( “Chid-Vilas”)!जिया चेवविला शिवू । वेद्याचे बोणे बहु ।वाढितेणेंसि जेऊं । घाला जो ।।३६।।The illusory dual inspiration from Shakti and the symbolic word of Omkar awakened the dead asleep ‘Man’; moreover, it served Him food as Veda and Shruti. However, immediately on awakening He gulped down entire duality including describable nature as well as illusory Prakruti; thus satiated, He truly remained as His Own Pristine Self !निदैलेनि भातारें । जें विये चराचरें ।जियेचा विसावला नुरे । आंबुलेंपणही ।।३७।।While Shiva sleeps the Prakruti settles down and gives birth to the mundane world; however when that static worldly Prakruti dissolutes, ‘husband-ness’ of Shiva too vanishes!जंव कांतु लपों बैसे । तंव नेणिजे जिवोद्देशे ।जिये दोघें आरिसे । जियां दोघां ।।३८।।While that Shiva takes up form of the universe as desired by Prakruti, He does not disclose His Presence. Truly speaking, both are like two clean mirrors juxtaposed against each other; the power of Shiva can be ascertained through Shakti and hers is cognised due to Him alone.जियेचेनि आंगलगे । आनंद आपणा आरोगूं लागे ।सर्व भोक्तृत्वही नेघे । जियेवीण कांही ।।३९।।Shiva enjoys conjugal bliss while making advances unto Prakruti ; however, He does not crave for that sensual bliss in her absence.जया प्रियाचें जें अंग । जो प्रियुचि जियेचें चांग ।कालउनी दोन्ही भाग । जेविते आहाती ।।४०।।Shiva is verily the being of Shakti and Shakti that of Shiva. Prakruti beseems by virtue of Shiva’s existence whereas the impassive, inert Shiva beseems due to Shakti. Thus both mutually enjoy each other while being together.जैसी कां समीरेसकट गती । कां सोनियासकट कांती ।तैसी शिवेंसि शक्ति । अवघीचि जे ।।४१।।Wind and velocity are inseparable; gold and its lustre is indivisible; likewise, Shiva and Shakti are integral.कां कस्तूरीसकट परिमळु । का उष्मेसकट अनळु ।तैसा शक्तीसी केवळु । श्रीशिवूचि जो ।।४२।।Musk and its fragrance are inalienable ; fire and heat are intrinsic; similarly, Shiva and Shakti are two only for namesakes. In fact both are just One !राती आणि दिवो । पातली सूर्याचा ठावो ।तैसा आपुला साची वावो । दोघेंही जियें ।।४३।।Abode of the Sun never experiences day or night. Likewise, both Shiva and Shakti vanish altogether at the level of the Self-existent Parabrahma (Providence).किंबहुना तियें । प्रणवाक्षरीं विरूढतियें ।दशेचींही वैरियें । शिवशक्ति ॥४४॥This mundane world apparently creates from Pranava or Omkar; however, the unified Shiva Shakti are just unaware about it !हें असो नामरूपाचा भेद शिरा । गिळीत एकार्थचा उजिर ।नमो तयां शिववोहरा । ज्ञानदेवो म्हणे ॥४५॥Let this world that is known through duality of Name and Form go by; but I (Dnyanadev) venerate this couple Shiva Shakti, which even while being in unison delude as two.जया दोघांचा आलिंगनीं । विरोनी गेलीं दोन्ही ।आवघियाचि रजनी । दिठीच जे ॥४६॥This couple is so unique that both vanish altogether when they embrace each other and what remains is Parabrahma alone, just as only twilight remains while day and night embrace each other.जयांच्या स्वरूपनिर्धारीं । गेली परेसी वैखरी ।सिंधूसीं प्रलयनीरीं । गंगा जैसी ॥४७॥O Lord ! O Lord ! How to describe unison of Shiva Shakti that deludes as being two ! They cannot be described through spoken words; both unspoken and spoken words prefer being mute. Just as both ocean as well as the Ganges vanish completely during total deluge, Shiva Shakti merge into ‘Brahma-Chaitanya’ (Providence).वायु चळवळेंसीं । जिराला व्योमाचिये कुसी ।आटला प्रळयप्रकाशीं । सप्रभ भानु ॥४८॥Wind loses identity along with its velocity into the sky; the Sunlight too merges into ‘Atma-Prakash’ (Radiance of the Self) during total deluge.तेविं न्याहाळितां ययांतें । गेलें पाहणेनसीं पाहातें ।पुढती घरवरौतें । वंदिलीं तियें ॥४९॥In the same manner, both view and viewer become obsolete while considering unison of Shiva Shakti. I offer obeisance unto such Shiva Shakti that dwell in absolute unison inside out.जयांचिया वाहणी । वेदक वेद्याचें पाणी ।न पिये परि सांडणी । आंगाचीही करी ॥५०॥While trying to judge convention or lifestyle of Shiva Shakti, the inquisitive one just merges in their form..तेथ मी नमस्कारा । लागिं उरों दुसरा ।तरी लिंगभेद पर्हा । जोडूं जावों ॥५१॥Even if I consider venerating Shiva Shakti on that occasion, do I ever remain distinct from them ? It may indeed result into the blunder of eschewing duality through that veneration.परि सोनेंनसीं दुजें । नहोनि लेणें सोना भजे ।हें नमन करणें माझें । तैसें आहे ॥५२॥Can a golden ornament be distinct from gold ? Likewise, my veneration ensues out of unison with Shiva Shakti. My ‘me-ness’ does not exist on that occasion.सांगता वाचेतें वाचा । ठाव वाच्य वाचकाचा ।पडतां काय भेदाचा । विटाळ आहे ॥५३॥Is there any distinction of two-ness between speech and the speaker ? Certainly there is no desecration of duality.सिंधु आणि गंगेचि मिळणी । स्त्रीपुरुष नामाची मिरवणी ।दिसतसे तरी पाणी । काय द्वैत होईल ॥५४॥It is just a casual illusion that the feminine Ganges meets masculine ocean while the Ganges merges into the ocean. After all, it is water that meets water; where is room for distinction therein ?पाहे पां भास्य भासकता । आपुला ठाई दावितां ।एकपणा काय सविता । मोडित असे ॥५५॥We look at the Sun through Sunlight alone. Do we treat the Sun and Sunlight as two ?चांदाचिया दोंदवरी । होत चांदणियाची विखुरी ।काय उणें दीप्तीवरी । गिंवसों पां दीप ॥५६॥Expanse of Moonlight depends upon disc of the Moon alone; however, do we regard Moon and Moonlight as distinct ? Is it ever possible to obtain light without a lamp? Lamp and its effulgence are inseparable .मोतियाची कीळ । होय मोतियावरी पांगुळ ।आगळें निर्मळ । रूपा ये कीं ॥५७॥Pearl and its lustre are inseparable. Therefore venerating the pearl is as good as venerating its lustre. Likewise, my veneration is unto the inseparable form of Shiva Shakti.मांत्राचिया त्रिपुटिया । प्रणव काय केला चिरटिया ।कींणकार त्रिरेघटिया । भेदावला काई ॥५८॥Pranava or Omkar has three syllables ‘a’, ‘u’ and ‘ma’ and Omkar forms through these syllables alone. However, those are not three pieces of Omkar; those are inseparable from Omkar. Similarly Devanaagari Script uses the letter ‘ण’ by inter posing a bar to ‘ए’. Now, does it result into any distinction in ‘ण’ ?अहो ! ऐक्याचें मुदल न ढळे । आणि साजरेपणाचा लाभ मिळे ।तरी स्वतरंगाचीं मुकुळें । तुरंबु कां पाणी ॥५९॥If water beseems by virtue of waves without causing break in their union, what stops water from enjoying fragrance of its waves ? Likewise, what is so unique in not enjoying luxury of sport without break in unison !म्हणौनि भूतेशु भवानी । वंदिलीं न करूनि सिनानी ।मी निघालों नमनीं । तें हें ऐसें ॥६०॥Therefore, I venerate both, presuming Shiva Shakti as inseparable. Thus, that is the festival of my veneration.दर्पणाचेनि त्यागें । प्रतिबिंब बिंबीं रिघे ।कां बुडी दीजे तरंगे । वायूचा ठेला ॥६१॥A mirror exhibits image of the face, while removing the mirror makes image merging back into its original source, the face. Wind causes ripples over water; however, while the wind stops blowing the ripples merge back into water, their original state.नातरी नीद जातखेंवो । पावे आपुला ठावो ।तैसीं बुद्धित्यागें देवीदेवो । वंदिलीं मियां ॥६२॥We remain our own selves while sleep is overcome. Likewise, I get rid of the intellect that creates imaginary attributes for the being and venerate Shiva Shakti regarding me as their inseparable constituent.सांडुनी मीपणाचा लोभु । मिठें सिंधुत्वाचा घेतला लाभु ।तेविं अहं देउनि मी शंभु- । शांभवी जालों ॥६३॥Like salt abandoning greed of being distinct gainsbenefit of oneness with the ocean, jettisoning my ego sense I merged into form of Shiva Shakti !शिवशक्तिसमावेशें । नमन केलें म्यां ऐसें ।रंभागर्भ आकाशें । रिघाला जैसा ॥६४॥There is nothing in the belly of a plantain tree except vacant space. Likewise, peeling off skins of my ‘me’ and ‘my-ness’ I merged into the very core of Shiva Shakti, thus venerating them!॥ पहिलें प्रकरण समाप्त ॥अनुभवामृत (Anubhavamrut )प्रकरण दुसरें (Chapter Two)श्रीगुरुस्तवन (Praise unto Sadguru)आतां उपायवनवसंतु । जो आज्ञेचा आहेवतंतु ।अमूर्तचि परि मूर्तु । कारुण्याचा ॥ २-१ ॥I now bow down unto Sadguru. Indeed, Sadguru is the very auspicious ornament of Brahma-Vidya, the Supreme Knowledge that makes entire gardens of austerities beseem like those during spring. In spite of being formless himself, he is the very embodiment of compassion for beings caught in shackles of mundane world.अविद्येचे आडवे । भुंजीत जीवपणाचे भवे ।तया चैतन्याचे धांवे । कारुण्यें जो कीं ॥ २-२ ॥He rushes down to extricate beings caught in shackles of ignorance that keep revolving in whirlpools of birth-deaths as mortal beings from this imaginary, man made forest, out of sheer compassion unto them.मोडोनि मायाकुंजरु । मुक्तमोतियाचा वोगरु ।जेवविता सद्गुरु । निवृत्ति वंदूं ॥ २-३ ॥I bow down unto my Sadguru Nivruttinath, who annihilates Maya as if an elephant and offers deliverance unto his disciples as fodder of pearls picked from the elephant’s temple, as sweetmeats !जयाचेनि अपांगपातें । बंध मोक्षपणीं आते ।भेटे जाणतया जाणतें । जयापाशीं ॥ २-४ ॥The loving and compassionate looks of the Sadguru convert even bondage into deliverance itself and his proximity grants revelation of Self-Knowledge without one being aware of it !कैवल्यकनकाचिया दाना । जो न कडसी थोर साना ।द्रष्ट्याचिया दर्शना । पाढाऊ जो ॥ २-५ ॥(The Sadguru) while distributing gold in the form of deliverance does not discriminate between big or small and freely grant experience of enlightenment to everyone. His grace destroys worldly duality of view and viewer exhibiting the visionary alone all the way.सामर्थ्याचेनि बिकें । जो शिवाचेंही गुरुत्व जिंके ।आत्मा आत्मसुख देखे । आरिसा जिये ॥ २-६ ॥His power of compassion is so profound that even Shiva is not fortunate enough in that context. Sadguru in the form of a mirror demonstrates Self-Bliss to the onlooker; indeed, the Self meets his own Self !बोधचंद्रचिया कळा । विखुरलिया येकवळा ।कृपापुनीवलीळा । करी जयाची ॥ २-७ ॥We identify various phases of the moon because of duality. If we were the moon ourselves, would it not be full moon night (Pournima) all the way ? The Sadguru makes such graceful Pournima for ever and there is revelation of the singular, unique Brahmam everywhere.जो भेटलियाचि सवे । पुरति उपायांचे धांवे ।प्रवृत्ति-गंगा स्थिरावे । सागरीं जिये ॥ २-८ ॥Meeting the Sadguru halts travails of entire paraphernalia of austerities and the action-prone Maya as the Ganges merges into its original pristine, stable state, the ocean of Chaitanya (Brahmam).जयाचेनि अनवसरें । दृष्टाले दृश्याचें मोहिरें ।जो भेटतखेंव सरे । बहुरुपचि हें ॥ २-९ ॥In spite of being the Visionary we are deluded into variety of Views as long as we do not meet the Sadguru. However, immediately on meeting Sadguru the visionary becomes form of the view itself and illusion of multiplicity disappears altogether.अविद्येचें काळवखें । कीं स्वबोध सुदिनें फांके ।सीतलें प्रसादार्कें । जयाचेंनि ॥ २-१० ॥The pitch dark ignorance vanishes and there is wonderful daybreak of Self-Enlightenment by virtue of blest Sun as the Guru. However the worldly Sun is very hot while the benevolent effulgence of the Guru is pleasantly cool.जयाचेनि कृपासलिलें । जीउ हा ठाववरी पाखाळे ।जें शिवपणहि वोंविळें । अंगी न लवी ॥ २-११ ॥The being gets immensely purified inside-out by virtue of sacred waters representing grace from the Sadguru to such an extent that even Shiva-ness appears impure to him; what is more, he does not allow Shiva-ness near him since unison of Shiva and Shakti alone confers purity.राखों जातां शिष्यातें । गुरुपणहि धाडिलें थितें ।तही गुरुगौरव जयातें । सांडीचिना ॥ २-१२ ॥Sadguru accepts inferiority in order to protect disciple ness of his disciples; nevertheless , his wealth of being great persists eternally.एकपण नव्हे सुसास । म्हणोन गुरु-शिष्यांचें करोनि मिस ।पाहणेंचि आपली वास । पाहतसे ॥ २-१३ ॥Indeed, the Sadguru and his disciple are just one and the same from a spiritual perspective. However, they exhibit duality in order to enjoy their mutual relationship while maintaining two-ness for namesakes and experience unity.जयाचेनि कृपातुषारें । परतलें अविद्येचें मोहिरें ।परिणमे अपारें । बोधामृतें ॥ २-१४ ॥Ignorance disappears altogether by virtue of cool showers representing grace from the Sadguru and is replaced by manifestation of nectar as Enlightenment.वेद्या देतां मिठी । वेदकुहि सुये पोटीं ।तही नव्हेचि उशिटी । दिठी जयाची ॥ २-१५ ॥Sadguru is a subject and object to cognise; therefore, even while the disciple makes an effort to ‘know’ the Sadguru, divine vision of the Sadguru does not see the disciple being separate and so it is never impure. Separateness is necessary for vision becoming impure, which the Sadguru doesn’t possess !जयाचेनि सावायें । जीवु ब्रह्म उपर लाहे ।ब्रह्म तृणातळीं जाये । उदासे जेणें ॥ २-१६ ॥The disciple loses even his knowledge of being Brahmam himself by virtue of Upadesha or initiation from the Sadguru. Conversely, if Sadguru is apathetic or indifferent, the disciple irrespective of being very form of Brahmam is lowly, despicable !उपस्तिवरी राबतिया । उपाय फळीं येती मोडोनियां ।वरिवंडले जयाचिया । अनुज्ञा कां ॥ २-१७ ॥Only those disciples that surrender their entire being while worshipping the Guru attain fruit as Liberation itself through their penance of serving ( The Guru).जयाचा दिठिवावसंतु । जंव न रिघे निगमवनाआंतु ।तंव आपुलिये फळीं हातु । न घेपतिही ॥ २-१८ ॥As long as one does not acquire very pleasant ambience of Spring (meaning Grace from Sadguru); in addition, even if gardens representing Vedas are fully blossomed, the disciple does not attain fruit therein.पुढें दृष्टीचेनि आलगें । खोंचि कीं निवटी मागें ।येव्हडिया जैता नेघे । आपणपें जो ॥ २-१९ ॥Even while a disciple acquires fraction of Sadguru’s benevolent glance, he gets rid of entire attributes and epithets. However, Sadguru is just indifferent to have bestowed such magnanimous reward unto the disciple.लघुत्वाचेनि मुद्दलें । बैसला गुरुत्वाचे शेले ।नासूनि नाथिलें । सदैव जो ॥ २-२० ॥Truly speaking, greatness of Sadguru never depends upon smallness of the disciple. In fact, vain duality of small or great does not inhabit the Guru anyway!नाहीं जे जळीं बुडिले । तै घनवटें जेणें तरिजे ।जेणें तरलियाहि नुरिजे । कवणिये ठाईं ॥ २-२१ ॥Basically, Maya does not exist at all; however, the being is drowned in waters of non-existent mirage. He survives by virtue of dense grace from the Sadguru to such an extent that he becomes extinct like non-existent waters of mirage; he merges into Brahma-Consciousness.आकाश हे सावेव । न बंधे आकाशाची हांव ।ऐसें कोण्ही येक भरीव । आकाश जो ॥ २-२२ ॥The sky that pervades entire space and which is the object for eyes to see cannot compare with Chidakash that represents Sadguru, since that Chidakash merges into formless Chaitanya.चंद्रादि सुसीतळें । घडलीं जयाचेनि मेळें ।सूर्य जयाचेनि उजाळें । कडवसोनि ॥ २-२३ ॥The Moon begets cool effulgence, so also the Sun receives radiance on account of Grace from the Sadguru alone .जीवपणाचेनि त्रासें । यावया आपुलिये दशे ।मुहूर्त पुसे । जया जोशियातें ॥ २-२४ ॥Although Shiva is endowed with entire attributes, he remains distinct from Brahmam due to body-consciousness. This ‘being-ness’ makes Him keen to merge into Brahmam. Therefore, The ‘being’ representing Shiva is required to ask for appropriate day (Muhoorta) from fortune-teller (astrologer), representing Sadguru !चांदिणें स्वप्रकाशाचें । लेइला द्वैतदुणीचें ।तरीही उघडेपण न वचे । चांदाचें जया ॥ २-२५ ॥The Moon does not get two-ness just because it envelops itself with its own effulgence; likewise, even while Sadguru taking up body form does not hide him being Brahmam; in fact it becomes all the more evident.जो उघड किं न दिसे । प्रकाश कीं न प्रकाशे ।असतेपणेंचि नसे । कव्हणीकडे ॥ २-२६ ॥Even though Form of Sadguru is Self-evident, that cannot be a visual object and even while Self-Effulgent it is not cognisable. He cannot be known through senses; he is all pervasive; even then his true form cannot be seen anywhere.आतां जो तो इहीं शब्दीं । कें मेळऊं अनुमानाची मांदी ।हा प्रमाणाहि वो नेदी । कोण्हाहि मा ॥ २-२७ ॥While Sadguru cannot be demonstrated by words such as “This is Sadguru” , how can he be shown through mere logic ? He does not respond when called out under any pretexts, since he is very originator of entire criteria. Indeed, entire criteria emerge from him alone!जेथें शब्दाची लिही पुसे । तेणेंसिं चावळों बैसे ।दुजयाचा रागीं रुसे । येकपणा जो ॥ २-२८ ॥Sadguru cannot be described through words. How can speech ever take place during the unique status of Self-Consciousness?प्रमाणाची परी सरे । तैं प्रमेयचि आविष्करे ।नवल, मेचु ये धुरे । नाहींपणाची ॥ २-२९ ॥Guru-Tatva manifests only when entire criteria fail. It is indeed a marvel that absent-ness of the Sadguru exhibits his presence !कांहींबाहीं अळुमाळु । देखिजे येखादे वेळु ।तरी ‘देखे’ तेहि विटाळु । जया गांवीं ॥ २-३० ॥If one says that he will have a little view of the Sadguru, there is no room for even a thought of ‘viewing’!तेथें नमनें का बोलें। केउतीं सुयें पाउलें ।आंगीं लाउनि नाडिलें । नांवचि येणें ॥ २-३१ ॥How can one enter abode of the Sadguru through obeisance or veneration that has neither Name or Form anyway ? Sadguru does not allow even the illusory tenet of Name and Form come near and touch him.नव्हे आत्मया आत्मप्रवृत्ति । वाढवितां कें निवृत्ति ? ।तरी या नामाचि वायबुंथी । सांडीचिना ॥ २-३२ ॥While there is none of ‘action-proneness’ (Pravrutti) in Atma, what can the relative term ‘inaction’ (Nivrutti) demonstrate ? As it is, the term ‘inaction’ is mere illusion of a cloth !निवर्त्य तंव नाहीं । मा निवर्तवी हा काई ? ।तरि कैसा बैसे ठाईं । निवृत्ति-नामाच्या ? ॥ २-३३ ॥Self-Consciousness in the form of Sadguru has nothing else to expiate ; in that case, what will he expiate ? It is indeed intriguing as to how he got the name ‘Nivrutti’ !सूर्यासि अंधकारु । कैं झाला होता गोचरु ? ।तही तमारि हा डगरु । आलाचि कीं ॥ २-३४ ॥Has the Sun ever witnessed darkness ? Even then he is described as remover of darkness ! Likewise, in spite of there being nothing to expiate my Sadguru is named ‘Nivrutti’!लटिकें येणें रूढे । जड येणें उजिवडे ।न घडे तेंहि घडे । याचिया मावा ॥ २-३५ ॥Therefore his established name Nivrutti is phoney. However, even that gets illumined through His Self-Effulgence. Indeed, marvel of the Guru is such that whatever has never happened earlier or whatever never happens now, just happens through his sport.हां गा मायावशें दाविसी । तें मायिक म्हणोन वाळिसी ।अमायिक तंव नव्हसी । कवणाहि विषो ॥ २-३६ ॥O Sadguru ! You advise to abandon everything exhibited under influence of Maya as being trash; however, you being transcendental are not cognisable to anyone in this mundane world through senses ! (In that case, what should we do ?)शिवशिवा ! हे सद्गुरु । तुजला गूढा काय करूं ? ।येकाहि निर्धारा धरूं । देतासि कां ? ॥ २-३७ ॥O Sadguru ! You are verily Shiva and Shivaa (Shakti) combined ! We are unable to discern this mysterious form of yours.नामें रूपें बहूवसें । उभारूनि पाडिलीं ओसें ।सत्तेचेनि आवेशें । तोषलासि ना ? ॥ २-३८ ॥Innumerable Names and Forms create under your behests and you yourself make those vain being illusory. Do you not enjoy bliss of your cosmic sport of name and form created through your inspiration and under your aegis alone ?जिउ घेतलियाविणें । चालों नेदिसी साजणें ।भृत्यु उरे स्वामीपणें । तेंहि नव्हे ॥ २-३९ ॥You do not make your disciple eligible (for enlightenment) until his entire being-ness is destroyed. He is your servant and therefore you are his master. However, you do not attach notion of being his master unto yourself.विशेषाचेनी नांवें । आत्मत्वही न साहावे ।किंबहुना न व्हावें । कोण्हीच या ॥ २-४० ॥If one were to identify Guru as ‘Atma’, the word ‘Atma’ too becomes irrelevant on that occasion. It simply means that notion of being ‘something’ or ‘somebody’ never manifest in you. Indeed, you so very dispassionate and changeless !राति नुरेचि सूर्या । नातरी लवण पाणिया ।नुरेचि जेवी चेइलिया । नीद जैसी ॥ २-४१ ॥Night vanishes in front of the Sun; salt vanishes while put into water; or else, sleep disappears on awakening.कापुराचे थळीव । नुरेचि आगीची बरव ।नुरेचि रूप नांव । तैसें यया ॥ २-४२ ॥Ornaments made of camphor do not last in fire; likewise, name and form do not persist in front of Guru.याच्या हातांपायां पडे । तरी वंद्यत्वें पुढें न मंडे ।न पडेचि हा भिडे । भेदाचिये ॥ २-४३ ॥Even if one pays obeisance with folded arms, (The Guru) does not possess thought of being venerable by virtue of absence of duality in any form with him. Therefore, he never accepts anything that may encourage duality.आपणाप्रति रवी । उदो न करी जेवीं ।हा वंद्य नव्हे तेवीं । वंदनासी ॥ २-४४ ॥The Sun is ever stable from his viewpoint ; he does not undergo arising or setting. His rising or setting exhibit relative duality. Likewise, Sadguru does not endorse duality between the venerable and the one venerating.कां समोरपण आपलें । न लाहिजे कांहीं केलें ।तैसें वंद्यत्व घातलें । हारौनि येणें ॥ २-४५ ॥Can we ever stand in front of our own self ? Likewise, the one venerating and recipient of veneration being one single tenet, the Sadguru is never venerable.आकाशाचाआरिसा । नुठे प्रतिबिंबाचा ठसा ।हा वंद्य नव्हे तैसा । नमस्कारासी ॥ २-४६ ॥If ever sky is reckoned as mirror, does it reflect other objects ? It is because it is All-pervasive. Similarly, Sadguru being all pervasive, he cannot be singled out even for obeisance.परी नव्हे तरी नव्हो । हें वेखासें कां घेवो ।परी वंदीतयाहि ठावो । उरों नेदी ॥ २-४७ ॥If he (Sadguru) doesn’t accept being venerable, let it be so ! Why should we make such negative statement ? But the marvel is that the one venerating doesn’t exist distinct from the venerable Sadguru !आंगौनि येकुणा झोळु । फेडितांचि तो तरी बाहिरिळू ।कडु फिटे आंतुलु । न फेडितांचि ॥ २-४८ ॥While unfolding outer folds and creases of loincloth the inner ones automatically loosen ( there being a single cloth all the way )!नाना बिंबपणासरिसें । घेऊनि प्रतिबिंब नासे ।नेलें वंद्यत्व येणें तैसें । वंदितेंनसीं ॥ २-४९ ॥There is illusion of two-ness between object and image as long as mirror is interposed; the image merges into object itself, the moment mirror is removed. Likewise, sense of venerable and one venerating disappears altogether since Sadguru has no sense of duality at all!नाहीं रूपाचि जेथें सोये । तेथें दृष्टीचें कांहींचि नव्हे ।आम्हां फळले हे पाये । ऐसिया दशा ॥ २-५० ॥Whatever can be seen if there is no form at all ? Dnyandev says, I came to this pass because of my veneration unto lotus feet of Sadguru in a unique state of transcending Name and Form.गुणा तेलाचिया सोयरिका । निर्वाहिली दीपकळिका ।ते का होईल पुळिका । कापुराचिया ॥ २-५१ ॥Can a lamp that thrives on account of oil and wick ever compare with flame of camphor ?तया दोहों परस्परें । होय ना जंव मैल्हेरे ।तंव दोहीचेंही सरे । सरिसेंचि ॥ २-५२ ॥Wick still persist even while lamp extinguishes; however, when camphor and fire come together, both disappear !तेविं देखेना मी ययातें । तंव गेलें वंद्य वंदितें ।चेइलिया कांतें । स्वप्नींचि जेवीं ॥ २-५३ ॥While awakening from sleep the dream of husband and wife disappears and we remain all alone. Similarly, immediately on viewing the Sadguru, sense of Master-Disciple-ness vanishes and Self-Consciousness alone remains.किंबहुना इया भाखा । द्वैताचा जेथें उपखा ।फेडोनियां स्वसखा । श्रीगुरु वंदिला ॥ २-५४ ॥What more can be said ! I prostrated unto My Sadguru, verily my own form, pushing aside the words that created duality in vain.याच्या सख्याची नवाई । आंगीं एकपण रूप नाहीं ।आणि गुरु-शिष्य दुबाळीही । पवाडु केला ॥ २-५५ ॥Very Self of the Sadguru is such, which has no room for words such as ‘one’ or ‘two’. Nevertheless, he ( The Sadguru) has epitomised entire grandeur of Master-Disciple relationship.कैसा आपणया आपण । दोंविण सोइरेपण ।हा याहून विलक्षण । नाहीं, ना नोहे ॥ २-५६ ॥What a phenomenal Master-Disciple relationship this, that does not entertain intimate relation of duality ! This form has neither ‘yes-ness’ nor ‘no-ness’; it is simply ‘being-ness’!जग आघवें पोटीं माये । गगनायेव्हढे होऊनि ठाये ।तेचि निसी साहे । नाहींपणाची ॥ २-५७ ॥If ever expanse of the Sadguru were to be described, his only belly accommodates entire sky, which in turn accommodates entire universe ! Nevertheless, He nurtures state of ‘nothingness’ with Him !!कां पूर्णते तरि आधारु । सिंधु जैसा दुर्भरु ।तैसा विरुद्धेयां पाहुणेरु । याच्या घरीं ॥ २-५८ ॥Ocean may be spoken of as ever full; however, its penchant for more waters never abates ! Therefore it is difficult to ‘fill’ it all the more anyway ! Similarly, like antagonistic traits of the ocean the Sadguru possesses both ‘is-ness’ as well as ‘nothing-ness’.तेजा तमातें कांहीं । परस्परें निकें नाहीं ।परि सूर्याच्या ठायीं । सूर्यचि असे ॥ २-५९ ॥Effulgence and darkness never co-habit ; and the Sun is ever unawares of both darkness or effulgence. He stay puts with himself as the Sun alone !येक म्हणतां भेदें । तें कीं नानात्वें नांदे ? ।विरुद्धें आपणया विरुद्धें । होती काइ ? ॥ २-६० ॥While uttering the word ‘one’, we become aware of ‘many-ness’. How can such relative words ever apply in context to the Sadguru ? Can we be ever different from ourselves?म्हणौनि शिष्य आणि गुरुनाथु । या दोहों शब्दांचा अर्थु ।श्रीगुरुचि परी होतु । दोहों ठायीं ॥ २-६१ ॥Therefore the two words Master and Disciple mean only one entity, which is the Self-same Sadguru; he alone inhabits with two notions as Master and Disciple.कां सुवर्ण आणि लेणें । वसतें येकें सुवर्णें ।वसतें चंद्र चांदणें । चंद्रींचि जेवीं ॥ २-६२ ॥Gold and its ornaments are gold alone; or else, Moon and Moonlight inhabit the Moon only.नाना कापुरु आणि परिमळु । कापुरचि केवळु ।गोडी आणि गुळु । गुळुचि जेवीं ॥ २-६३ ॥Just as camphor and its fragrance are inseparable or else, jaggery and its sweetness are indistinguishable.तैसा गुरुशिष्यमिसें । हाचि येकु उल्हासे ।जरी कांहीं दिसे । दोन्ही-पणें ॥ २-६४ ॥Likewise, even if one imagines distinctness between Sadguru and Disciple as being twosome, it is Divine Sadguru that sports non-dually as Master and Disciple .आरिसा आणि मुखीं । मी दिसे हे उखी ।हे आपुलिये ओळखी । जाणे मुख ॥ २-६५ ॥The face remains as it is; but one needs a mirror to see its image and experience two-ness therein. Otherwise the image is just phoney !पहा पां निरंजनीं निदेला । तो निर्विवाद येकला ।परि चेता चेवविता जाहला । दोन्ही तोचि ॥ २-६६ ॥Someone sleeping all alone in the solitude of dense forest awakens on his own. Now, the one that awakened him and the one that woke up is the same person . Thus he takes up both the roles himself !जे तोचि चेता तोचि चेववी । तेवीं हाचि बुझे बुझावी ।गुरुशिष्यत्व नांदवी । ऐसेनि हा ॥ २-६७ ॥The one awakening is verily the awakener; which means that both processes happen with the same person. Similarly, the disciple that receives enlightenment and the Sadguru that enlightens, together constitute Sadguru alone that inhabits !दर्पणेवीण डोळा । आपुले भेटीचा सोहळा ।भोगितो तरि लीळा । सांगतों हें ॥ २-६८ ॥If ever one’s eye could see oneself without a mirror, such person with extraordinary talent can understand integral state of disciple and master.एवं द्वैतासी उमसो । नेदि ऐक्यासी विसकुसों ।सोईरिकीचा अतिसो । पोखितसे ॥ २-६९ ॥In this manner, the Sadguru teaches integration of guru-disciple without disturbing their two-ness and easily amalgamates bondage between the two.निवृत्ति जया नांव । निवृत्ति जया बरव ।जया निवृत्तीची राणीव । निवृत्तिचि ॥ २-७० ॥Nivrutti is verily the name of this Sadguru; Nivrutti alone is his splendour and Nivrutti indeed his affluence; such is my Sadguru.वांचोनि प्रवृत्तिविरोधें । कां निवृत्तीचेंनि बोधें ।आणिजे तैसा वादें । निवृत्ति नव्हे ॥ २-७१ ॥However, this Nivrutti (detachment) is not antagonistic to Pravrutti (action-proneness), neither is His affluence or because of enlightenment ; He is verily Self-Existent ‘Sri Nivrutti’!आपणा देऊनि राती । दिवसा आणी उन्नति ।प्रवृत्ति वारी निवृत्ति । नव्हे तैसा ॥ २-७२ ॥Sun brings in prosperity for the day while gulping down the night; however, Sadguru Nivrutti is not like that; he need not gulp action proneness to reach detachment. “Nivrutti” is his non-committal, purposeless nature !वोपसरयाचें बळ । घेउनि मिरवे कीळ ।तैसें रत्न नव्हे निखळ । चक्रवर्ती हा ॥ २-७३ ॥Bright glowing metal is interspersed behind a jewel in order to enhance its lustre, which exhibits the Jewel predominantly against its backdrop. However, radiance of Sri Nivruttinath is not borrowed like that; He is Self-illumined Sovereign !!गगनही सूनि पोटीं । जैं चंद्राची पघळे पुष्टी ।तैं चांदिणें तेणेंसि उठी । आंग जयाचें ॥ २-७४ ॥Entire sky is pervaded by Moonlight; however, is the Moon required to be as big as the sky ? Indeed, Moon and Moonlight are one, that pervades entire sky.तैसें निवृत्तिपणासी कारण । हाचि आपणया आपण ।घेयावया फूलचि झालें घ्राण । आपुली दृती ॥ २-७५ ॥Similarly, Sadguru is very naturally Nivrutta (detached) on his own. His Self-Knowledge is like a flower that would become nose itself, in order to smell its fragrance.दिठी मुखाचिये बरवे । पाठीकडोनि जैं पावे ।तैं आरिसे धांडोळावे । लागती काई ? ॥ २-७६ ॥If ever our eyes turn back and view our face, would it be necessary to search a mirror ? No, not at all !कीं राती हन गेलिया । दिवस हन पातलिया ।काय सूर्यपण सूर्या । होआवें लागें ? ॥ २-७७ ॥It is never necessary for the Sun to acquire Sun-ness for night to be driven out first and usher in daybreak. In fact his Sun-ness persists irrespective of these two !म्हणोनि बोध्य बोधोनि । घेपे प्रमाणें साधोनि ।ऐसा नव्हे भरंवसेनि । गोसावी हा ॥ २-७८ ॥Therefore my Swami Nivruttinath is such who cannot be cognised through words or criterion; He is Self-Evident !ऐसें करणियावीण । स्वयंभचि जें निवृत्तिपण ।तयाचे श्रीचरण । वंदिले ऐसे ॥ २-७९ ॥In this manner I dispassionately prostrate unto the lotus feet of Sadguru Sri Nivruttinath, who does not nurture notions of cause and effect.आतां ज्ञानदेवो म्हणे । श्रीगुरु प्रणामें येणें ।फेडिली वाचाऋणें । चौही वाचांचीं ॥ २-८० ॥Therefore Sri Dnyanadev says that through these wordy praise unto Sadguru that created duality, he paid off debts of the four types of speech (Para, Pashyanti, Madhyama, Vaikhari) depicting duality by quietly venerating His Feet.॥ इति द्वितीय प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥( Here, the second chapter comes to close)प्रकरण तिसरें (Chapter Three )वाचाऋण परिहार (Redressing Debts of Speech)ययांचेनि बोभाटे । आत्मयाची झोंप लोटे ।पूर्ण तही ऋण न फिटे । जें चेणोंचि नीद कीं ॥ ३-१ ॥Ignorance about Atma (spirit, Chaitanya, life force etc) is the sleep the being undergoes as far as his true self is concerned. It is true that this sleep is overcome by the four forms of speech, namely Para, Pashyanti, Madhyama and Vaikhari. However, that ignorance does not disappear completely since the knowledge of his being Brahmam ( Aham Brahma Asmi – I Am Brahmam) is akin to sleep or ignorance. His ego or awareness of “I” still persists !येहवीं परादिका चौघी । जीवमोक्षाच्या उपेगीं ।अविद्येसवें आंगीं । वेंचती कीर ॥ ३-२ ॥Otherwise, if those four forms of speech destroy themselves along with ignorance, it would be useful for the being liberate from bondage of ignorance and attain Liberation.देहासवे हातपाये । जाती , मनासवें इंद्रियें ।कां सूर्यासवें जाये । किरणजाळ ॥ ३-३ ॥While the body falls movements of hands and feet stalls. Entire senses of action, perception and the mind too disappear, like Sun rays vanish at Sunset.ना तरी निद्रेचिये अवधी । स्वप्नें मरती आधीं ।तेवीं अविद्येचे संबंधी । आटती इया ॥ ३-४ ॥Dreams too destroy while sleep is over; likewise, annihilation of ignorance destroys all four forms of speech related to it (ignorance).मृतें लोहें होती । ते रसरूपें जिती ।जळोनि इंधनें येती । वन्हीदशे ॥ ३-५ ॥Destroying iron by melting nevertheless leaves behind its ash; or else, burning off wood first creates embers and later ash alone is left behind.लवण अंगें विरे । परी स्वादें जळीं उरे ।नीद मरोनि जागरें । जिइजे निदें ॥ ३-६ ॥Salt on dissolving in water remains around as saltiness; sleep on getting over persists as wakefulness because only the wakeful can sleep after all !तेवीं अविद्येसवें । चौघीं वेंचती जीवें ।तत्त्वज्ञानाचेनि नांवे । उठतीचि या ॥ ३-७ ॥Similarly, even while these four types of speech destroy along with ignorance in a broad sense, those persist as philosophy when the being says, ‘I Am Brahmam’, due to the subtle awareness of “I” in the statement.हा तत्त्वज्ञान दिवा । मरोनि इहीं लावावा ।तरी हाही शीण लेवा । बोधरूपेंची ॥ ३-८ ॥It is true that while these four types of speech perish, ignorance in the form of perverted knowledge also dies down. However, those lit the lamp of exact knowledge or philosophy while perishing. That in itself is ignorance indeed, since subtle ego persists in the awareness of ‘Aham’ in ‘Aham Brahma Asmi’!येऊनि स्वप्न मेळवी । गेलिया आपणपां दावी ।दोन्ही दिठी नांदवी । नीद जैशी ॥ ३-९ ॥Sleep brings in dream-vision, while awakening exhibits waking-vision; which means that sleep alone makes both forms of vision possible.जिती अविद्या ऐसी । अन्यथा बोधातें गिंवसी ।तेचि यथा बोधेंसी । निमाली उठी ॥ ३-१० ॥Ignorance (Avidya) breeds perverted knowledge such as ‘I am separate from God’ and when that perverted knowledge disappears, exact knowledge as ‘I Am Brahmam’ takes root. Nevertheless, it is ‘Avidya’ that is responsible for both ignorant notions prevailing !परि जीती ना मेली । अविद्या हे जाकळी ।बन्धमोक्षीं घाली । बांधोनियां ॥ ३-११ ॥It means that while Avidya persists, it inhabits notion of ‘I am in bondage’; however, when it disappears, it breeds the notion ‘I am now free from bondage’. In fact, the ‘I’ (ego) persists at both levels, which is true bondage!मोक्षुचि बंधु होये । तरी मोक्ष शब्द कां साहे ? ।अज्ञान-घरीं त्राये । वाउगी यांची ॥ ३-१२ ॥If Liberation itself is considered as bondage, what is use of the word ‘Liberation’? Indeed, the house of ignorance parades false notions of bondage and liberation!बागुलाचेनि मरणें । तोषावें कीं बाळपणें ।येरा तो नाहीं मा कोणें । मृत्यु मानावा ? ॥ ३-१३ ॥Disappearance of scarecrow delights a child; do others feel alike? The wise do not believe in disappearance of non-existent scarecrow. Indeed, Avidya established words such as bondage and liberation; but Avidya too never exists, it is only imagination! Therefore, whether present or absent, where is meaning to the words ‘bondage’ and ‘liberation’? Basically there was no bondage at all; in that case, what is the propriety of the word liberation anyway !घटाचें नाहींपण । फुटलियाची नागवण ।मानीत असे ते जाण । म्हणो ये की ॥ ३-१४ ॥Can a person called wise who laments over breaking of a pot that was never created at all ? Nevertheless, those who subscribe to that, may as well accept bondage and liberation as true !!म्हणोनि बंधुचि तंव वावो । मा मोक्षा कें प्रसवो ? ।मरोनि केला ठावो । अविद्या तया ॥ ३-१५ ॥Basically if bondage itself were phoney, how could the relative liberation be labelled as true? However, the Avidya while disappearing deludes form of liberation. Therefore liberation is also an illusion.आणि ज्ञान बंधु ऐसें । शिवसूत्राचेनि मिसें ।म्हणितलें असे । सदाशिवें ॥ ३-१६ ।।The scripture named “Shiva-sutra” mentions ‘Dnyana’ (Knowledge) as bondage. (Chaitanyam Atma, Dnyanam Bandhah etc.)आणि वैकुंठींचेहि सुजाणें । ज्ञानापाशीं सत्त्वगुणें ।बांधिजे हें बोलणें । बहू केलें ॥ ३-१७ ॥Similarly, Lord of Heaven Sri Vishnu or Srikrishna has also said in detail that knowledge creates bondage.(Tatra Satvam Nirmaltvatprakashakamanamayam / Sukhasangena Badnati Dnyanasangena Chanagha )(Geeta ch. 14/6).परि शिवें कां श्रीवल्लभें । बोलिलें येणेंचि लाभें ।मानूं तेंहि लाभे । न बोलतांही ॥ ३-१८ ॥(Dnyanadev says) I certainly appreciate those authentic statements, not just because He ( The Lord) has said so; my own personal experience too is likewise.जें आत्मज्ञान निखळ । तेंहि घे ज्ञानाचें बळ ।तैं सूर्य चिंती सबळ । तैसे नोव्हे ? ॥ ३-१९ ॥Pristine pure Knowledge of the Self (Atma-Dnyana) is certainly devoid of worldly knowledge (Vrutti Jnyana ). If ever Knowledge of the Self requires support of worldly knowledge, it would seem like saying that the Sun requires someone’s support for arising !ज्ञानें श्लाघ्यतु आले । तैं ज्ञानपण धाडिलें वांये ।दीपवांचून दिवा न लाहे । तैं आंग भुललाचि कीं ॥ ३-२० ॥If ever experience of attaining Brahmam could be extolled through worldly knowledge, supremely pristine Knowledge of the Self (‘Dnyana-Matra’) would be futile. If a lamp expects some other source of light in order to see some object, wouldn’t its ‘lamp-ness’ be futile ?आपणचि आपणापाशीं । नेणतां देशोदेशीं ।आपणपें गिंवशी । हें कीरु होय ? ॥ ३-२१ ॥Would anyone delude of his getting lost in wilderness ? Moreover, would he roam around places to search for himself ? In that case will that deluded person ever find himself ?परि बहुतां कां दिया । आपणपें आठवलिया ।म्हणे मी यया । कैसा रिझों ? ॥ ३-२२ ॥And after spending many days in search of himself suppose he re-gains memory and says, ‘O, it's good that I found myself’; in that case, will his joy be real or illusion?तैसा ज्ञानरूप आत्मा । ज्ञानेंचि आपली प्रमा ।करितसे सोSहं मा । ऐसा बंधू ॥ ३-२३ ॥Likewise, it is bondage if awareness of having attained Brahmam persists in spite of the Atma being basically Knowledge alone.हें ज्ञान स्वयें बुडे । म्हणोनि भारी नावडे ।ज्ञानें मोक्षु घडे । तें निमालेनि ॥ ३-२४ ॥Worldly knowledge disappears into knowledge of the Self, while the Atma transcends knowledge as well as ignorance. What is the use of worldly knowledge for the Atma that never forgets its true nature anyway? That is why liberation in the true sense is impossible without disappearance of worldly knowledge.म्हणोनि परादिका वाचा । तो शृंगारु चौ अंगांचा ।एवं अविद्या जीवाचा । जीवत्व त्यागी ॥ ३-२५ ॥Therefore, Avidya(ignorance) adorns the foursome namely the physical body, subtle body, causal and super causal body. It is true that while the four forms of speech namely Para, Pashyanti, Madhyama and Vaikhari dissolute, ‘being ness’ borne out of Avidya is discarded; however, that Avidya (ignorance) still persists as knowledge even after its dissolution.आंगाचेनि इंधनें उदासु । उठोनि ज्ञानाग्नि प्रवेशु ।करी, तेथें भस्मलेशु । बोधाचा उरे ॥ ३-२६ ॥Firewood representing those four types of body (physical, subtle, causal and super causal) are inert as fuel; however, even while burning themselves off in fires of Knowledge (Dnyana), their ash persists. Likewise, disappearance of ignorance leaves enlightenment behind ! Indeed, the notion of being ignorant is replaced by awareness of being Knowledgeable, which in itself is worldly enlightenment !जळीं जळावेगळु । कापूर न दिसे अवडळु ।परि होऊनि परिमळु । उरे जेवीं ॥ ३-२७ ॥Camphor dissolves physically while put in water; however, it persists in subtle form as fragrance !अंगीं लाविलिया विभूती । तैं परमाणुही झडती ।परि पांडुरत्वें कांती । राहे जैसी ॥ ३-२८ ॥Ash smeared on to body falls off after a while; however, whitish tinge as ash persists where it was smeared.ना वोहळला आंगीं जैसे । पाणी पाणीपणें नसे ।तहीं वोल्हासाचेनि मिसें । आथीच तें ॥ ३-२९ ॥Even while waters in a brook are washed off, water as such may not be seen; however, it persists as wetness !ना तरी माध्यान्हकाळीं । छाया न दिसे वेगळी ।असे पायातळीं । रिगोनियां ॥ ३-३० ॥Or else, even if we are unable to see our own shadow at mid-noon, it is still present under our feet !तैसें ग्रासूनि दुसरें । स्वरूपीं स्वरूपाकारें ।आपुलेपणें उरे । बोधु जो कां ॥ ३-३१ ॥In the same manner, even while sense of duality vanishes, subtle awareness of one’s being Atma the Lord persists; that very awareness is the ‘debt’ unto the four forms of speech !तें ऋणशेष वाचा इया । न फेडवेचि मरोनियां ।तें पायां पडोनि मियां । सोडविलें ॥ ३-३२ ॥Thus, while the foursome Vaikhari, Madhyama, Pashyanti and Para disappear, the cordial enlightenment accrued cannot be paid off even after death; however, I paid off that debt by venerating lotus feet of the Sadguru !म्हणोनि परा पश्यंती । मध्यमा हन भारती ।या निस्तरलिया लागती । ज्ञानीं अज्ञानींचि ॥ ३-३३ ॥Which is why, the being must absolve himself from debt accrued through four forms of speech. Therefore, whether the being is ignorant (unaware of him being Brahmam) or Knowledgeable (him as verily Brahmam), he must extricate himself from both forms of worldly awarenesses and be pristine pure Knowledge personified (Dnyana-Matra) alone !!॥ इति श्री वाचाऋणपरिहार नाम तृतीय प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥प्रकरण चवथें(Chapter four)ज्ञान अभेदकथन(Knowledge-Ignorance-Distinction Defined)आतां अज्ञानाचेनि मारे । ज्ञान अभेदें वावरे ।नीद साधोनि जागरें । नांदिजे जेवीं ॥ ४-१।।We discussed during the previous chapter that instinctive or inspirational knowledge of being knowledgeable or otherwise amounts to ignorance alone. Now we need to see that Knowledge alone prevails distinctively, while destroying ignorance. It is like wakefulness prevailing all alone while sleep is overcome.कां दर्पणाचा निघाला । ऐक्यबोधु पहिला ।मुख भोगी आपुला । आपणचि ॥ ४-२ ॥We understand nature of our face while looking into the mirror ; our image seen in the mirror demonstrates our true form and mirror is not required any more. Indeed, our one-ness is with us alone; all other tools are useless.ज्ञान जिया तिया परी । जगीं आत्मैक्य करी ।तैं सुरिया खोचे सुरी । तैसें जालें ॥ ४-३ ॥If one says that knowledge establishes kinship with every single object in the world, it is as good as saying that a knife pierces itself ! Just as it is impossible to happen thus, developing kinship with the world through knowledge alone is impossible.लावी आंत ठावूनि कोपट । तो साधी आपणया सकट ।का बांधलया चोरट । मोटेमाजी ॥ ४-४ ॥A silkworm weaves cocoon around and shuts itself in, eventually destroying itself thus ; or else, if a thief bundles up entire stolen articles and hides within that bundle itself, will he not be found by the owner easily and driven out ?आगी पोतासाचेनि मिसें । आपणपें जाळिलें जैसें ।ज्ञाना अज्ञाननाशें । तैसें जालें ॥ ४-५ ॥Fire that boasts of burning off camphor destroys itself while burning it. Likewise, instinctive knowledge too destroys itself while destroying ignorance.अज्ञानाचा टेका । नसतांही ज्ञान अधिका ।फांके, तव उफखा । आपुला पडे ॥ ४-६ ॥Instinctive knowledge expands tremendously without support of ignorance and destroys itself for want of ‘knowing’ any more !वात दशाहि ते निमालिया । येणें जें उवावा ।तें केवळ नाशावया । दीपाचे परि ॥ ४-७ ॥Flame of a lamp becomes larger while wick and oil exhausts; it is only to extinguish the lamp.उठणें कीं पडणें । कुचभाराचे कोण जाणे ।फांकणें कीं सुकणें । जाउळाचें ॥ ४-८ ॥Stiffening of breasts and their going back to original status occurs so quickly as if did not happen at all. Blossoming of jasmine flower heralds beginning of its withering !तरंगाचें रूपा येणें । तयाचि नांव निमणें ।कां विजूचें उदैजणें । तोचि अस्तु ॥ ४-९ ॥Formation of wave is verily beginning of its disappearance and lightning itself means its destruction.तैसें पिऊनि अज्ञान । तंववरी वाढे ज्ञान ।जंव आपुलें निधन । निःशेष साधे ॥ ४-१० ॥Similarly, knowledge expands only until ignorance is destroyed and when ignorance uproots, the instinctive knowledge also disappears. Instinctive knowledge does not exist as selfless and free entity even momentarily .जैसें कल्पांतीचें भरितें । स्थळाजळा दोहींतें ।बुडविलिया आरौतें । राहोंचि नेणें ॥ ४-११ ॥During final deluge times waters keep accumulating to such extent that lakes, rivers, oceans and lands too exist as water alone.कीं विश्वाहि वेगळ । वाढे जैं सूर्यमंडळ ।तैं तेज तम निखळ । तेंचि होय ॥ ४-१२ ॥Or else, if the Solar system envelops entire universe, all distinction of darkness and effulgence vanish altogether and entire status is brilliance alone.नाना नीद मरोनि । आपणपें हिरौनि ।जागणें ठाके होवोनि । जागणेंचि ॥ ४-१३ ॥Or else, even the relative awareness of being awake on completion of sleep does not exist later ; what remains is awakening alone.तैसे अज्ञान आटोनियां । ज्ञान येतें उवाया ।ज्ञानाज्ञान गिळूनियां । ज्ञानचि होय ॥ ४-१४ ॥Inspirational or instinctive knowledge flourishes in order to destroy ignorance and immediately on its destruction the instinctive knowledge also disappears. Thereafter, once the relative knowledge and ignorance are destroyed, what persists is pristine pure Knowledge of the Self ( Jnyana-Matra) .ते वेळीं पुनिवां भरे । ना अवसां सरे ।ते चंद्रींचि उरे । सतरावी जैशी ॥ ४-१५ ॥The original basic status of the Moon on seventeenth night of every month never alters anytime. Accretion of its phase takes place till Pournima the full moon night, whereas its recession leads to Amavasya or first day of lunar phase. Nevertheless that subtle seventeenth phase never changes per se as accretion or recession; its true nature remains non-committal.कां तेजांतरें नाटोपे । कोण्हे तमें न सिंपे ।तें उपमेचें जाउपें । सूर्यचि होय ॥ ४-१६ ॥The Sun is ever Sun alone, which inhabits in its own radiance. Its true form never changes due to some other source or even darkness.म्हणोनि ज्ञानें उजळे । कां अज्ञानें रुळे ।तैसें नव्हे निर्वाळें । ज्ञानमात्र जें ॥ ४-१७ ॥Similarly, Knowledge of Brahmam is self-evident; that Brahma-Jnyana is not illumined by inspirational knowledge or maligned by ignorance. Which is why it needs to be described as Jnyana-Matra (pristine pure, transcendental knowledge) .परी ज्ञानमात्रें निखळें । तेंचि कीं तया कळें ।काई देखिजे बुबुळें । बुबुळा जेवीं ? ॥ ४-१८ ॥However, if there be any doubt as to whether that knowledge understands itself , the answer would be whether the eyeball can see itself !आकाश आपणया रिगे ? । कायी आगि आपणया लागे ? ।आपला माथा वोळघे । आपण कोण्ही ? ॥ ४-१९ ॥Can the sky enter its own recesses? Can fire burn itself? Can anyone climb and sit over one’s own head?दिठि आपणया देखे ? । स्वादु आपणया चाखे ? ।नादु आपलें आइकें ? । नादपण ॥ ४-२० ॥Can vision view itself? Can taste ever taste itself? Can sound ever make its own noise hear?सूर्य सूर्यासि विवळे ? । कां फळ आपणया फळे ? ।परिमळु परिमळें । घेपतु असे ? ॥ ४-२१ ॥Can the Sun illumine itself? Can fruit ever breed its fruit? Can fragrance inhale itself?तैसें आपणया आपण । जाणतें नव्हे जाण ।म्हणौनि ज्ञानपणेंवीण । ज्ञानमात्र जें ॥ ४-२२ ॥Just as all these are impossible, Knowledge of the Self (Swaroopa Jnyana) does not know Itself. Now, what name could be ascribed to such state? If ever a name is given, our awareness tends to accept duality; which is why that state is Jnyana-Matra (pristine pure transcendental) .आणि ज्ञान ऐसी सोये । ज्ञानपणेंचि जरी साहे ।तरी अज्ञान हें नोहे ? । ज्ञानपणेंचि ॥ ४-२३ ॥If Knowledge is essential to know form of the Lord, what is wrong in saying that the relative ignorance too was equally necessary ?जैसें तेज जें आहे । तें अंधारें कीर नोहे ।मा तेज तरी होये । तेजासी काईं ? ॥ ४-२४ ॥You see, whatever is known as brilliance is certainly not darkness anyway; in that case, how can the brilliance recognise itself as brilliance ?तैसें असणें आणि नसणें । हें नाहीं जया होणें ।आतां मिथ्या ऐसें येणें । बोलें गमे ॥ ४-२५ ॥(A doubt):-- if one says that Atma has neither existence or non-existence in the light of Jnyana ( knowledge) , why can it not be labelled as phoney ?तरी कांहीं नाहीं सर्वथा । ऐसी जरी व्यवस्था ।तरी नाहीं हे प्रथा । कवणासि पां ? ॥ ४-२६ ॥If ever the status was of ‘nothingness’, whoever understood it thus ?शून्य सिद्धांत बोधु । कोणे सत्ता होये सिद्धु ? ।नसतां हा अपवादु । वस्तुसि जो ॥ ४-२७ ॥The Buddha philosophy postulates ‘nothing-ness’ or Shoonya Vaad, which means that Nothing exists in principle. However, who is aware of that status? Under whose aegis? Indicting Atma with ‘nothing-ness’ is naturally in vain, since Atma is Self-Evident.माल्हवितां दिवे । माल्हवितें जरी माल्हवे ।तरी दीपु नाहीं हें फावे । कोणासि पां ॥ ४-२८ ॥If a person who extinguished entire lamp suddenly dies after extinguishing those, whoever will know that? Who will experience absence of lamp? Is it ‘because of’ absence of lamp?कीं निदेचेनि आलेंपणें । निदेलें तें जाय प्राणें ।तरी नीद भली हें कोणें । जाणिजेल पां ? ॥ ४-२९ ॥If a person sleeps and dies during sleep alone, whoever will know that he slept well !!!घटु घटपणें भासे । तद्भंगें भंगू आभासे ।सर्वथा नाहीं तैं नसे । कोणें म्हणावें ? ॥ ४-३० ॥Existence of a pot makes one aware of its ‘pot-ness’ and when it breaks, its absence. However, if the pot is non-existent at all, who would vouchsafe its ‘absence’?म्हणोनि कांहीं नाहींपण । देखतां नाहीं आपण ।नोहूनि असणेंवीण । असणें जें ॥ ४-३१ ॥Similarly, Atma that is very form of Knowledge does not recognise both ‘is-ness’ or ‘not-ness’; Knowledge of the Self (Atma Jnyan) exists without ‘is’ or ‘not’; there is no duality of presence or absence.परी आणिका कां आपणया । न पुरे विषो होआवया ।म्हणोनि न असावया । कारण कीं ॥ ४-३२ ॥Nevertheless, pristine pure Lord does not make subject matter of knowledge for Himself or others; therefore there is room to say that He may be non-existent.जो निरंजनीं निदेला । तो आणिकीं नाहीं देखिला ।आपुलाहि निमाला । आठउ तया ॥ ४-३३ ।There is no one to see a person asleep in lonely, desolate forest and he himself is unaware of him.परी जिवें नाहीं नोहे । तैसें शुद्ध असणें आहे ।हें बोलणें न साहे । असे-नाहींचें ॥ ४-३४ ॥However, he is not alive is not so, which is a logical statement. Similar is the Lord’s state of existence; one cannot speak of is or is-not about His pristine form.दिठी आपणया मुरडे । तैं दिठीपणहि मोडे ।परी नाहीं नोहे फुडे । तें जाणेचि ते ॥ ४-३५ ॥Likewise, if the vision were to turn back and view itself, it would lose its property of viewing; nevertheless, it (vision) is not lost. Its power to view persists; it continues to exist as vision.कां काळा राहे काळवखा । तो आपणया ना आणिका ।न चोजवे तरी आसिका । हा मी बाणे ॥ ४-३६ ॥A dark complexioned person standing in pitch darkness cannot be seen by others. However, his ‘presence’ still exists with him.तैसे असणें कां नसणें । हें कांहींच मानुसवाणें ।नसोनि असणें । ठाये ठावो ॥ ४-३७ ॥In the same manner the Lord transcends both notions as present or absent; He exists as Himself irrespective of onlooker’s view within His Own Self.निर्मळपणीं आपुला । आकाशाचा संचु विराला ।तो स्वयें असे, पुढिलां । कांहीं ना कीं ॥ ४-३८ ॥The sky accommodates rest of the four elements (earth, water, fire and air) and continues to exist all alone in its pristine glory even after dissolution of the foursome. It is not subject matter for anyone; nevertheless, it does exist.कां आंगींकी निर्मळपणीं । हारपलिया पोखरणीं ।आणिकावांचूनि पाणी । सगळेंचि आहे ॥ ४-३९ ॥If clean water of a brook dries up, it is not seen by onlooker; it persists within the soil as wetness nevertheless.आपणा भागु तैसें । असणेंचि जें असे ।आहे नाहीं ऐसें । सांडोनिया ॥ ४-४० ॥Likewise, form of the Atma certainly exists as such, without definitions of ‘is ness’ or ‘not ness’!निदेचें नाहींपण । निमालियाहि जागेंपण ।असिजे कां नेण । कोणी न होऊनि जैसें ॥ ४-४१ ॥One becomes aware of his waking state while sleep gets over. That awareness does not last long. Later, there is unique awareness of being awake that is quite distinct from sleep or wakefulness and which does not require constant awareness. If we ask someone whether he is awake, he will counter question saying, could he ever be in front of you if not awake !There is a unique knowledge of ‘being there’, quite distinct from sleep or wakefulness, which does not require awareness; it is naturally self-evident.कां भूमी कुंभ ठेविजे । तैं सकुंभता आपजे ।तो नेलिया म्हणिजे । तेणेंवीण ॥ ४-४२ ॥While a pot is put over the ground, it is with the pot; whereas, when pot is removed the ground is pot less.परी दोन्ही हे भाग । न शिवति भूमीचें आंग ।ते वेळीं भूमि तैसें चांग । चोख जें असणें ॥ ४-४३ ॥Nevertheless, pot has nothing to do with existence of the earth; whether the pot exists or not, the earth exists with its existence anyway. Likewise, Atma too is Self-evident.॥ इति ज्ञान अभेदकथव नाम चतुर्थ प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥प्रकरण पांचवेChapter fiveसच्चिदानंदपदत्रय विवरणThe Threesome Sat-Chid-Ananda Explainedसत्ता प्रकाश सुख । या तिहीं तिहींउणे लेख ।जैसें विखपणेंचि विख । विखा नाहीं ॥ ५-१ ।।Truth negates untruth; effulgence destroys darkness and inertia while the word happiness rebuts sorrow. Indeed, the One possessing none of such antagonistic traits is verily Sacchidananda Paramatma, the Supreme Lord. However, just as poison is unaware of its poisonous potential, the Supreme Lord Sacchidananda is indifferent to those traits since that is his innate nature.कांति काठिण्य कनक । तिन्ही मिळोनि कनक एक ।द्राव गोडी पीयुख । पीयुखचि जेवीं ॥ ५-२ ॥Lustre, hardness and gold-ness constitute gold alone; or else, fluidity, sweetness and sparkling white colour make milk. None of those properties can be alienated from the original object.उजाळ द्रुति मार्दव । या तिन्हीं तिहीं उणीव ।हें देखिजे सावेव । कापुरीं एकीं ॥ ५-३ ॥Whiteness, fragrance and softness of camphor refute their antagonistic traits of dirt, foul smell and hardness; however, that does not alter nature of camphor anyway.आंगें कीर उजाळ । कीं उजाळ तोचि मवाळ ।कीं दोन्ही ना परिमळ । मात्र जें ॥ ५-४ ॥Immaculate ness, softness and fragrance cannot be differentiated.ऐसें एके कापुरपणीं । तिन्ही इये उणी ।इयापरी आटणी । सत्तादिकांची ॥ ५-५ ॥In this manner the three properties namely immaculate ness, fragrance and softness that replace dirtiness, foul smell and hardness intrinsically inhabit camphor . Those are inseparable. Likewise, Sat, Chit and Anand exist inherently to Atma as one single unit.येहवीं सच्चिदानंदभेदें । चालिलीं तिन्ही पदें ।परि तिन्हीं उणीं आनंदें । केलीं येणें ॥ ५-६ ॥Even though Sat, Chit, Anand appear as three entities, the Atma is verily bliss personified. One cannot differentiate between these traits. That three-ness is just apparent because of varying degrees of our sensual receptivity.सत्ताचि कीं सुखप्रकाशु । प्रकाशुचि सत्ता उल्हासु ।हें न निवडे, मिठांशु । अमृतीं जेवीं ॥ ५-७ ॥Comprehensiveness of the Atma is verily bliss as well as enlightenment; enlightenment is comprehensiveness as well as bliss. Those always stay together in unison. Nectarine sweetness can never separate from nectar.शुक्लपक्षींच्या सोळा । दिवसा वाढती कळा ।परि चंद्र मात्र सगळा । चंद्रीं जेवीं ॥ ५-८ ॥We consider phases of the Moon gradually keep enhancing during bright fortnight of lunar calendar. However, those sixteen phases do not constitute sixteen Moons; he ever remains perfect and complete.थेंबीं पडतां उदक । थेंबीं धरूं ये लेख ।परि पडिला ठायीं उदक । वांचूनि आहे ? ॥ ५-९ ॥Raindrops falling over ground can at times be counted. However, what is it apart from water where those fall?तैसें असताचिया व्यावृत्ती । सत् म्हणों आली श्रुति ।जडाचिया समाप्ती । चिद्रूप ऐसें ॥ ५-१० ॥Similarly, the Shruties suggest the word ‘Sat’ (Truth), in order to negate ‘A-Sat’ (Untruth). Moreover, in order to refute inertia (Jadatva) the word ‘Chit’ (Conscience) is planned.दुःखाचेनि सर्वनाशें । उरलें तें सुख ऐसें ।निगदिलें निश्वासें । प्रभूचेनि ॥ ५-११ ॥Happiness is all that remains while sorrows abolish. Therefore Vedas, which emanate from very breath of the Lord proposed the word happiness just to refute sorrow.ऐसीं सदादि प्रतियोगियें । असदादि तिन्ही इयें ।लोटितां जाली त्राये । सत्तादिकां ॥ ५-१२ ॥Thus, the words Sat, Chit and Ananda antagonised inert, destructible, sorrowfulness and there being no more need the contradictory words too were refuted.एवं सच्चिदानंदु । आत्मा हा ऐसा शब्दु ।अन्य व्याव्रृत्तिसिद्धु । वाचक नव्हे ॥ ५-१३ ॥Thus, in order to refute inert, destructible and sorrowful world the word Sacchidananda came into existence. It certainly does not denote Atma as such.सूर्याचेनि प्रकशें । जें कांहीं जड आभासें ।तेणें तो गिंवसें । सूर्यु कायी ? ॥ ५-१४ ॥Do inert objects that are Illumined by the Sun ever illumine Sun ?तेवीं जेणें तेजें । वाचेसि वाच्य सुजें ।ते वाचा प्रकाशिजे । हें कें आहे ? ॥ ५-१५ ॥Likewise, can the speech demonstrate nature of Lord, which itself is illumined by the Lord’s effulgence ?विषो नाहीं कोण्हाहि । जया प्रमेयत्वचि नाहीं ।तया स्वप्रकाशा काई । प्रमाण होय ॥ ५-१६ ॥That Lord cannot be a subject matter for anyone. He is self-evident and self-illumined; how can doctrines and evidences prove His credentials ?प्रमेयपरिच्छेदें । प्रमाणत्व नांदे ।तें कायि स्वतःसिद्धें । वस्तूच्या ठायीं ? ॥ ५-१७ ॥A doctrine (Prameya) proves by virtue of evidence (Pramaan), which requires a knower (Pramatha). The Lord being Self-evident does not possess this variegated threesome namely the philosopher (knower) , evidence and doctrine . How can evidence prove Him ?एवं वस्तूसि जाणों जातां । जाणणेंचि वस्तु तत्वता ।मग जाणणें आणि जाणता । कैचें उरे ? ॥ १८ ॥If ever Atma tried to know and understand the Self-same Brahmam or ‘Atma Vastu’, it is verily the knower, knowledge and knowable; therefore, how can there be any other knower and knowing ?म्हणोनि सच्चित्सुख । हे बोल वस्तुवाचक ।नव्हती, हे शेष । विचाराचे ॥ ५-१९ ॥Therefore, the words Sat, Chit and Ananda do not demonstrate ‘Vastu’ or Brahmam. Quintessence of this exposition is that Atma cannot be verified by exhibiting anything other than Atma.ऐसेनि इयें प्रसिद्धें । चालिलीं सच्चिदानंद पदें ।मग द्रष्ट्या स्वसंवादें । भेटती जेव्हां ॥ ५-२० ॥These three words Sat, Chi, Ananda are famous in this manner. Later while the Viewer is enlightened about his true self, --ते वेळीं वरिषोनि मेघ । समुद्र होउनि वोघु ।सरे, दाऊनि मागु । राहे जैसा ॥ ५-२१ ॥Like cloud showers water and the stream meets river, which in turn merges into sea; at that point job of the stream is over. Alternatively, the road ends on reaching the destination.फळ विऊनि फुल सुके । फळनाशे रस पाके ।तोहि रस उपखें । तृप्तिदानीं ॥ ५-२२ ॥Task of flower fulfils while it converts into fruit; use of ripe fruit is no more when its tjuice is extracted; moreover, even job of the juice is over while it renders satisfaction of tasting it !कां आहुति अग्नीआंतु । घालूनि वोसरे हातु ।सुख चेवऊनि गीतु । उगा राहे ॥ ५-२३ ॥Job of the hands is accomplished when sacrificial offerings are made into fire; role of music overcomes while it imparts joy of listening.नाना मुखा मुख दाऊनी । आरिसा जाय निगोनि ।कां निदैलें चेववुनी । चेववितें जैसें ॥ ५-२४ ॥Use of mirror comes to nought when it shows reflection of faces; alternatively, task of awakener finishes while sleeping person is awakened.तैसा सच्चिदानंदा चोखटा । दाऊनि द्रष्ट्या द्रष्टा ।तिन्हीं पदें लागतीं वाटा । मौनाचिया ॥ ५-२५ ॥Likewise, role of words finishes when the visionary is enlightened to exact Form of Atma, which indeed is Sacchidananda and those words are rendered mute.जें जें बोलिजे तें तें नव्हे । होय तें तंव न बोलवे ।साउलीवरी न मववे । मवितें जैसें ॥ ५-२६ ॥Why do words become mute? Word is like a shadow; whatever spoken does not constitute Atma. Form of Atma transcends words, like measurement of body cannot be ascertained by measuring its shadow.मग आपलिया कडे । मावितया से पडे ।तैं लाजविला जो आखुडे । मवितें जैसें ॥ ५-२७ ॥While one measures his shadow it appears shorter and the one measuring becomes aware of the fact that mere shadow cannot be his true measure. Similarly, words such as Sat Chit Ananda cannot demonstrate Form of the Self (Atma-Swaroopa).जैसी सत्ताचि स्वभावें । असत्ता तंव नव्हे ।मा सत्तात्व संभवे । सत्तेसि कायि ? ॥ ५-२८ ॥Omniscience is very nature of the Lord; His existence is all-pervasive. While saying His Omniscience exists, the one saying so appears different from Atma. Therefore the word Sat cannot describe Him; there is no duality at all. In that case, who is the one that declares His Omniscience?आणि अचिदाचेनि नाशें । आलें जें चिन्मात्रदशे ।आतां चिन्मात्रचि मा कैसें । चिन्मात्रीं इये ॥ ५-२९ ॥The word Chid is also inappropriate, since word is inert while Atma is verily Knowledge (Jnyana). The antagonistic word Chit is used as symbolic that refutes inertness. Role of words stalls on that occasion. Atma being ‘Chinmatra’ (Full of Knowledge, repository of Knowledge or Jnyana), how can words ever describe it?नीद प्रबोधाच्या ठायीं । नसे तैसें जागणेंहि ।तेवीं चिन्मात्रचि मा काई । चिन्मात्रीं ये ? ॥ ५-३० ॥Wakefulness following sleep is relative; wakefulness persisting all the time is not labelled as awakening. Atma is impartially Chit, which means it is Chinmatra (Knowledge alone). It need not be emphatically labelled as such !ऐसें यया सुखपणें । नाहीं दुःख कीर होणें ।मा सुख हें गणणें । सुखासि काई ? ॥ ५-३१ ॥Likewise, bliss is the very form of Atma; it is not antagonistic to sorrow. While it doesn’t recognise sorrow at all, it is just impossible to label it as form of bliss (Sukha Swaroopa ) !म्हणोनि सद् असदत्वें गेलें । चिद् अचिदत्वें मावळलें ।सुख असुख जालें । कांहीं ना कीं ॥ ५-३२ ॥Therefore words refute inert, destructible, sorrowful traits in Atma and destroy themselves on fulfilling their role.आतां द्वंद्वाचे लवंचक । सांडूनि दुणीचे कंचुक ।सुखमात्रचि एक । स्वयें आथी ॥ ५-३३ ॥Now, while abandoning futile notions created by duality, one experiences existence of its uniquely blissful state.वरी एकपणें गणिजे । तें गणितेनसीं ये दुजें ।म्हणोनि हें न गणिजे । ऐसें एक ॥ ५-३४ ॥While a digit is counted there is always someone else counting; that is how duality manifests. However, the Atma cannot be labelled even as One, since it is neutral to both duality or non-duality anyway.तैसें सुखाआतोनि निघणे । तें सुखियें सुखी तेणें ।हें सुखमात्रचि मा कोणें । अनुभवावें ? ॥ ५-३५ ॥The one that gets away on enjoying is named enjoyer. We consider him happy by virtue of his enjoyment. However, if there is no enjoyer in the first place, who would name that happiness like ? The Atma is verily form of bliss as such !जैं प्रकृति डंकु अनुकरे । तैं प्रकृति डंकें अवतरे ।मां डंकूचि तैं भरे । कोण कोणा ? ॥ ५-३६ ॥While there is companionship with Prakruti, enjoyer of that association is named Purusha (That association can as well be named ‘sting’ or ‘bite’!) , who endures it. However, if there was Prakruti alone without Purusha, who would endure what?तैसें आपुलेनि सुखपणें । नाहीं जया सुखावणें ।आणि नाहीं हेंही जेणें । नेणिजे सुखें ॥ ५-३७ ॥Similarly, the Lord being indifferent to joy and enjoyment, He is not affected by either pleasure or related sorrow anyways.आरिसा न पाहतां मुख । स्वयें सन्मुख ना विन्मुख ।तेवीं नसोनी सुखासुख । सुखचि जें ॥ ५-३८ ॥If a mirror is placed in front of the face, the latter can be described as anterior (front) or posterior (back); however, those are not the attributes of face but are apparent due to the mirror. The face remains as it is. Likewise, the Lord is verily bliss personified, being indifferent to joy or grief.सर्व सिद्धांताचिया उजरिया । सांडोनिया निदसुरिया ।आपुलिया हात चोरिया । आपणचि जो ॥ ५-३९ ॥Entire doctrines are postulated through words and words fall in the domain of ignorance. It is because words have no say without duality. Nevertheless, Atma being absolutely non-dual, it remains aloof of entire doctrines.न लाविता ऊंसु । तैं जैसेनि असे रसु ।तेथिंचा मीठांशु । तोचि जाणे ॥ ५-४० ॥If sugar-cane is not planted at all, its unmanifest sweetness therein is not known to itself. There can be none other to know its sweetness; indeed that sweetness may be known to that sweetness alone !कां न सज्जितां वीणा । तो नादु जो अबोलपणा ।तया तेणेंचि जाणा । होआवें लागे ॥ ५-४१ ॥Unmanifest musical notes can be known only to those notes before Veena (a string instrument) is created. It means sound alone knows sound.नाना पुष्पाचिया उदरा । न येतां पुष्पसारा ।आपणचि भवरा । होआवे पडे ॥ ५-४२ ॥Flower alone knows presence of nectar within even before it forms. Indeed, the flower itself will require to become a bee in order to enjoy its fragrance.नाना न रांधितां रससोये । ते गोडी पां कैसी आहे ।हें पाहणें तें नोहे । आणिकाजोगें ॥ ५-४३ ॥Whoever can taste sweetness of sweet before it is created? May be sweetness itself might know its own sweetness !तैसें सुखपणा येवो । लाजे आपुलें सुख पावों ।तें आणिकां चाखों सुवों । येईल काईं ? ॥ ५-४४ ॥Similarly, pure unsullied bliss of Atma is ashamed to separate from it. How can that bliss be ever understood unless being Atma itself?दिहाचिया दुपारीं । चांदु जैसा अंबरीं ।तें असणें चांदाचिवरी । जाणावें कीं ॥ ५-४५ ॥The Moon exists in the sky even at mid noon ; however, it alone is aware of its cool moonlight ; how can anybody else know that ? It is only while being moon that moonlight can be enjoyed ! Similarly, experience of Atma is impossible without becoming Atma itself.रूप नाहीं तैं लावण्य । अंग नुठी तैं तारुण्य ।क्रिया न फुटे तैं पुण्य । कैसें असे ॥ ५-४६ ॥How can beauty be described if there is no shape at all ? Where to search for youth if body itself is absent ? How do merit or sin matter if no action is performed at all ?जैं मनाचा अंकूर नुपजे । तेथिलेनि मकरध्वजें ।तोचि हन माजे । तरीचि घडे ॥ ५-४७ ॥Passion creates from the mind. If the mind itself is not created, whoever can know passion ?कां वाद्यविशेषाची सृष्टी । जन्म नेघे दृष्टी ।तैं नादु ऐशी गोष्टी । नादाचिजोगी ॥ ५-४८ ॥Unless a musical instrument is created, how can its sound experienced ? That sound itself will know on that occasion.नाना काष्ठाचिया विटाळा । वोसरलिया अनळा ।लागणे तैं केवळा । अंगासीचि ॥ ५-४९ ॥Where does fire exist when its association with firewood ceases ? On that occasion it stays within itself as fire ness.दर्पणाचेनि नियमें- । -विणचि मुख प्रमे ।आणिती तेचि वर्में । वर्मती येणें ॥ ५-५० ॥The one who knows existence of his face without a mirror, he alone can understand existence of Atma.न पेरितां पीक जोडे । तें मुडांचि आहे रोकडें ।ऐसिया सोई उघडें । बोलणें हें ॥ ५-५१ ॥Expected harvest remains a secret with seeds stored in a vessel before sowing; however, it is not so with my speech, which is evident enough and not a secret.एवं विशेष सामान्य । दोहीं नातळे चैतन्य ।तें भोगिजे अनन्य । तेणेंसीं सदा ॥ ५-५२ ॥After all, one needs to be a separate entity from Atma in order to use words such as special or common existence of the same. If one has to experience true nature of Atma, he must become very form of the Atma himself.आतां यावरी जे बोलणें । तें येणेंचि बोलें शहाणें ।जें मौनाचेंही निपटणें । पिऊनि गेलें ॥ ५-५३ ॥If at all one needs to speak any further, he must accept absolute silence. In fact, even absolute silence is nonplussed against that Self-same Atma !एवं प्रमाणें अप्रमाण- । पण केलें प्रमाण ।दृष्टांतीं वाइली आण । दिसावयाची ॥ ५-५४ ॥It is true that evidences prove a thing. However, evidences have emphatically requested to refer nothing pertaining to Atma unto them ! Moreover, they swear not to entertain thoughts of ‘understanding’ Atma through epiphany ( ‘Drishtanta ‘) !अंगाचिया अनुपपत्ति । आटलिया उपपत्ती ।येथें उठली पांती । लक्षणाची ॥ ५-५५ ॥Logical arguments turned back admitting their inability; rows and rows of features walked away since none of them could explain nature of Atma.उपाय मागील पाय । घेऊन झाले वाय ।प्रतीति सांडिली सोय । प्रत्ययाची ॥ ५-५६ ॥Here, entire paraphernalia of Yoga, Devotion, Recitations, Action, Knowledge etc retracted their steps back without his knowledge . Moreover, all hallmarks of experience prove useless here.येथें निधरिंसी विचारु । निमोनि झाला साचारु ।स्वामीच्या संकटी शूरु । सुभटु जैसा ॥ ५-५७ ॥A valiant warrior offers his entire being to protect his master during dangerous occasion; likewise, resolute thoughts lost themselves in wilderness and then alone they discovered Form of the Self (Atma Swaroopa) .नाना नाशु साधूनि आपुला । बोधु बोधें लाजिला ।नुसुधेपणें थोंटावला । अनुभव जेथे ॥ ५-५८ ।।Precept (knowledge) is useless here due to absence of duality, since duality is necessary for precept. Even experience was lame being left out all alone.भिंगाचिया चडळा । पदरांचा पुंज वेगळा ।करितां जैसा निफाळा । आंगाचा होय ॥ ५-५९ ॥While separating layers of mica entire flakes blow off, leading to disappearance of mica itself. Likewise, there is no life left in those experiences.कां गजबजला उबा । पांघुरणें केळीचा गाभा ।सांडी तेव्हेळीं उभा । कैंचा कीजे ? ॥ ५-६० ॥If a plantain tree strips off its entire skin just because it feels very hot, it would cease to exist altogether ! (Nucleus of plantain tree is vacant !)तैसें अनुभाव्य अनुभाविक । इहीं दोही अनुभूतिक ।तें गेलिया कैचें एक । एकासिचि ॥ ५-६१॥Similarly, while the threesome namely Atma the very subject for experience, the one experiencing and experience itself are lacking, can the digit one be named as one ?अनुभवो हा ठाववरी । आपुलीचि अनवसरी ।तेथें अक्षरांची हारी । वाईल काई ? ॥ ५-६२ ॥When experience pertaining the Lord suffers from such dismal fate, how can words ever describe Him ?कां परेसी पडे मिठी । तेथें नादा सळु नुठी ।मा वावरिजैल ओठीं । हें कें आहे ? ॥ ५-६३ ॥How can ‘Vaikhari’ survive (the fourth type of speech arising from lips) where Form of the Self (Swaroopa) abolishes ‘Para’ altogether ? (the first form of speech arising at the level of umbilicus)चेइलियाही पाठीं । चेवणयाच्या गोठी ।कां धाला बैसें पाठीं । रंधनाच्या ? ॥ ५-६४ ॥What is the use of discussing modes of awakening on being awake? Why will a person involve into cooking all over again after being fully satiated through sumptuous meal ?उदैजलिया दिवसपती । तैं कीं दिवे सेजे येती ।वांचुनि पिकला शेतीं । सुइजताती नांगर काई ? ॥ ५-६५ ॥Lights are switched off after daybreak since those are not necessary anymore. Alternatively, fields are not ploughed again while crops are ready.म्हणोनि बंधमोक्षाचें व्याज । नाहीं ; निमालें काज ।आतां निरूपणाचें भोज । वोळगे जरी ॥ ५-६६ ॥Therefore , there is no propriety of bondage or liberation anymore. However, admiring expositions ( pertaining Atma Swaroopa) continues unabated !आणि पुढिला कां आपणापें । वस्तु विसराचेनि हातें हारपें ।मग शब्देंचि घेपे । आठवूनियां ॥ ५-६७ ॥It is true that words alone remind knowledge of the Self (Atma Swaroopa) if ever we and others have forgotten the same.येतुलियाहि परौतें । चांगावें नाहीं शब्दातें ।जरी स्मारकपणें कीर्तीतें । मिरवी हा जगीं ॥ ५-६८ ॥However, even while word is extolled as being ‘reminder’, its value is limited to that extent alone; it cannot explain more about self-same Self (Atma Vastu, Brahmam) .।।इति पंचमोध्याय: सम्पूर्णम् ।।प्रकरण सहावेंChapter sixशब्दखंडणRefuting Wordsबाप उपेगी वस्तु शब्दु । स्मरणदानीं प्रसिद्धु ।अमूर्ताचा विशदु । आरिसा नव्हे ? ॥ ६-१ ॥You see, word is something very useful. There is no better tool that makes any object remembered. Indeed, are words not verily mirrors that reflect the Formless God?पाहतें आरिसा पाहे । तेथें कांहींचि नवल नव्हे ।परि दर्पणें येणें होये । न पाहतें , पाहतें ॥ ६-२ ॥Where is the wonder of sighted person seeing himself in a mirror? Nevertheless, even a blind one can peep into mirror in the form of words.वडिला अव्यक्ताचिया वंशा । उद्योत्कारु सूर्य जैसा ।येणें येके गुणें आकाशा । अंबरत्व ॥ ६-३ ॥Like the Sun, Words illumine entire cosmos including all inert and subtle beings and things created out of the ‘unmanifest’ (Avyakta). Indeed word, a single attribute confers special status to sky principle as sky-ness (‘Ambaratva’ to ‘Akash tatva’).आपण तंव खपुष्प । परि फळ ते जगद्रूप ।शब्द मवी तें उमप । कोण आहे ? ॥ ६-४ ॥Word itself is flower of the sky, which means it is only imaginary. However, is there anything in the world that cannot be described in words ?विधिनिषेधांचिया वाटा । दाविता हाचि दिवटा ।बंधमोक्ष कळिकटा । शिष्टु हाचि ॥ ६-५ ॥Word is verily the lamp that demonstrates legitimate or illegitimate tenets; moreover, the word is indeed an “arbitrator” (Shishta!) that rakes up quarrel between two antagonistic notions of bondage and liberation .हा अविद्येचा आंगीं पडे । तैं नाथिलें ऐसें विरूढे ।न लाहिजे तीन कवडे । साचा वस्तु ॥ ६-६ ॥When word enters the domain of ignorance, a futile pomp of illusory world is created; however, at the level of Atma Swaroopa it is not even three penny worth!शुद्ध शिवाच्या शरीरीं । कुमारु हा जिउ भरी ।जेवीं आंगें पंचाक्षरी । तेवींचि बोलु ॥ ६-७ ॥This word enters Shiva principle in the garb of a child and renders it phoney notion of ‘being-ness! Just as an exorcist (Panchakshari, Mantrik) invites spirits and ghosts by throwing some rice grains, the word-child brings in being-ness to Shiva through its magic !जिउ देहें बांधला । तो बोलें एके सुटला ।आत्मा बोलें भेटला । आपणयां ॥ ६-८ ॥While Paramatma Swaroopa (Brahmam) takes up body form the notion ‘I am the being’ takes root; however, exhortation of word from Vedas that “Thou Art That” (Tat Tvam Asi) makes the being say “I Am Brahmam” in vain !दिवसातें उगो गेला । तंव रात्रीचा द्रोहो आला ।म्हणोनि सूर्यो या बोला । उपमा नव्हे ॥ ६-९ ॥The Sun causes daybreak and destroys night simultaneously; it does not nurture both together. Therefore the Sun cannot be a simile for word since the word entertains both ‘being-ness’ and ‘Brahma-ness’ simultaneously .जे प्रवृत्ति आणि निवृत्ति । विरुद्धा इया हातु धरिती ।मग शब्देंचि चालती । एकलेनि ॥ ६-१० ॥The word entertains reciprocal tenets of Pravrutti (action proneness) and Nivrutti (detachment) simultaneously through its own prowess.सहाय्य आत्मविद्येचें । करावया आपण वेंचे ।गोमटे काय शब्दाचें । एकैक वानूं ॥ ६-११ ॥Word destroys itself to acquire Knowledge of the Self, since Self-acquisition is ‘wordless’! How many qualities pertaining to ‘word’ should one extol ?किंबहुना शब्दु । स्मरणदानीं प्रसिद्धु ।परी ययाही संबंधु । नाहीं येथें ॥ ६-१२ ॥What is more, even while word is famous as a ‘reminder’, it is clueless as far as Atma Swaroopa is concerned.आत्मया बोलाचें । कांहींचि उपेगा न वचे ।स्वसंवेद्या कोणाचें । ओझें आथी ? ॥ ६-१३ ॥Words are useless as far as Atma Swaroopa is concerned. Atma is “Sva Samvedya”, which means it knows itself. Why would it need onus from others? It is all in all !!आठवे कां विसरे । विषो होऊनि अवतरे ।तरी वस्तूसी वस्तु दुसरें । असेना कीं ॥ ६-१४ ॥Someone else is necessary in order to remember oneself or forget, or else to become subject matter for someone else; however, the Lord is uniquely singular, there is none ‘other’!आपण आपणयातें । आठवी विसरे केउतें ? ।काय जीभ जिभितें । चाखे न चाखे ? ॥ ६-१५ ॥Can we ever remember or forget ourselves ? Would it be appropriate to say that the tongue tastes or does not taste itself ?जागतेया नीद नाही । मा जागणें घडे काई ? ।स्मरणास्मरण दोन्हीही । स्वरूपीं तैसीं ॥ ६-१६ ॥The one awake is naturally not asleep. His wakefulness is non-relative to sleep. Likewise, the relative remembrance or forgetfulness do not inhabit Atma Swaroopa . He is transcendental in all respects.सूर्यो रात्री पां नेणें । मा दिवो काय जाणें ? ।तेवीं स्मरणास्मरणे वीण । आपण वस्तु ॥ ६-१७ ॥Just as the Sun is unawares of night, he is equally so with daytime as well. He is verily Self-illumined himself. Likewise, Atma the very embodiment of Knowledge has nothing to do with the words remembrance or forgetfulness !एवं स्मरणास्मरण नाहीं । तरि स्मारकें काज काई ? ।म्हणौनि इये ठाईं । बोलु न सरे ॥ ६-१८ ॥There is none other with Atma. In that case, what monument can be erected through words such as remembrance or forgetfulness ? Moreover, how can word ever enter therein that has remembrance as its duty ?आणिक येक शब्दें । काज कीर भलें साधे ।परि धिंवसा न बंधे । विचारु येथें ॥ ६-१९ ॥There is more noble action the word undertakes; however, it is embarrassing to speak out, because-कां जे बोलें अविद्या नासे । मग आत्मेनि आत्मा भासे ।हें म्हणतखेवो पिसें । आलेंचि कीं ॥ ६-२० ॥Because, would it not be foolish to say that Atma becomes evident after annihilating ignorance with the help of words? In fact, ignorance needs to exist in the first place for its destruction! It is indeed just an imagination; how can it destroy ? Moreover, there can never be illusion of Atma; it is nothing but Truth alone!सूर्यो राति पां मारील । मा आपणया उदो करील ।हे कुडे न सरती बोल । साचाच्या गांवीं ॥ ६-२१ ॥Is it ever wise to say that the Sun will destroy the night first and then embark upon its rise? In fact, night is an imagination. Truly speaking, absence of light may be its description instead ! How can the Sun destroy such imaginary or non-existent entity ?चेईलें निदे रुसे । ऐसी कें नीद असे ? ।कीं चेईलें चेवो बैसें । ऐसें चेणें आहे ? ॥ ६-२२ ॥Can sleep be something where one may say that a waking person is sulky with it or is destroying it ? Absence of wakefulness is sleep expressed in contrary word. Or else, what is the point in saying that an already waking person is now awake , since his waking state is not relative to sleep.म्हणोनि नाशापुरती । अविद्या नाही निरुती ।नाहीं आत्मा आत्मस्थिति । रिगे ऐसा ॥ ६-२३ ॥Therefore, Avidya (ignorance) is not something available for destruction, since it has neither existence or being-ness. Moreover, it is meaningless to say that Atma will revert back to its original pristine status after destroying Avidya with the help of words or will be apparent.अविद्या तंव स्वरूपें । वांझेचें कीर जाउपें ।मा तर्काचें खुरपें । खांडे कोणा ? ॥ ६-२४ ॥Avidya happens to appear as existing like son of a barren woman, which in reality is no-existent. In that case, how can a trowel or sickle representing words such as logic, doctrines and evidences uproot “that” non-existing grass?इंद्रधनुष्या सितें । कवण धनवई न लाविजेतें ।तें दिसें तैसें होतें । साच जरी ? ॥ ६-२५ ॥If ever rainbow existed at all, would an archer not have picked that up and shot arrow ? However, a rainbow doesn’t exist; it is just illusion. Avidya by nature is such alone.अगस्तीचिया कौतुका- । पुरती जरी मृगतृष्णिका ।तरी मार देतो तर्का । अविद्येसी ॥ ६-२६ ॥If the Sage Agasti was ever satiated of thirst by drinking mirage waters instead of ocean, we would have conceded to the argument that logical words can destroy Avidya !साहे बोलाची बळघी । ऐसी अविद्या असे जगीं ।तरी जाळुं ना कां आगी । गंधर्वनगरें ? ॥ ६-२७ ॥Castles in sky are just imaginary; however, if ever those were burnt off through real fires, we would accept that Avidya can be destroyed through words!नातरी दीपाचिये सोये । आंधारु कीर न साहे ।तेथें कांहीं आहे । जावयाजोगें ? ॥ ६-२८ ॥Darkness never manifests in front of a lamp ; in that case, how can one say that it was destroyed because of light ? Presence of light verily means absence of darkness. Darkness symbolises nothingness; it does not require actual destruction.नातरी पाहावया दिवसु । वातीचा कीजे सोसु ।तेव्हढाहि उद्वसु । उद्यमु पडे ॥ ६-२९ ॥Is it not an exercise in futility to kindle lamps with oil and wick in order to see what ‘day’ is like ? Does day-light require a flame to make it visible ? Similarly, it is in vain to say that Atma is experienced through words.जेथें साउली न पडे । तेथें नाही जेणें पाडें ।मा पडे तेथें तेव्हडे । नाहींच की ॥ ६-३० ॥Just think, if our shadow is not seen at a particular place, it is indeed not there. However, suppose it is seen , it’s just an illusion; in reality, can it be ever picked up ?दिसतचि स्वप्न लटिकें । हें जागरीं होय ठाउकें ।तेवीं अविद्याकाळीं सतुकें । अविद्या नाहीं ॥ ६-३१ ॥Even while dream is seen it is phoney and its being false is evident on waking. Likewise, Avidya basically does not exist; it is only after enlightenment that one knows of Avidya being non-existent.वोडंबरीचिया लेणिया । घरभरी आतुडलिया ।नागवें नागविलिया । विशेषु काई ॥ ६-३२ ॥What is the use of ornaments scattered all over the place created by magician’s tricks ? What is the sense in saying that a naked person was looted ? He has nothing on him to be looted anyway !मनोरथाचें परियळ । आरोगिजतु कां लक्ष वेळ ।परि उपवासावेगळ । आनु आथी ? ॥ ६-३३ ॥Even if one consumes imaginary sweets a million times, would it ever appease his hunger ?मृगजळ जेथ नुमंडे । तेथ असे पां कोरडें ।मा उमंडे तेथें जोडे । वोल्हांसु काई ? ॥ ६-३४ ॥Land remains dry where mirage is invisible ; however, is it ever wet where mirage is seen ?हें दिसे तैसें असे । तरी चित्रीचेनि पाउसें ।वोल्हावतु कां मानुसें । आगरा तळीं ॥ ६-३५ ॥If ever Avidya truly engaged in action, would the people and fields not get wet by rain depicted in portraits ?कालवूनि आंधारें । लिहों येती अक्षरें ।तरी मसीचिया वोरधारें । कां सिणावें ? ॥ ६-३६ ॥If ever it was possible to create ink by dissolving darkness in water and used to write letters, why bother oneself in preparing ink from soot ?आकाश काय निळें । न देखतु हे डोळे ? ।तेवीं अविद्येचि टवाळें । जाणोनि घेईं ॥ ६-३७ ॥The eye sees sky as blue ; however, is there any blue coloured object ? Likewise , Avidya too is just an illusion.अविद्या येणें नांवें । मी विद्यमानचि नव्हे ।हे अविद्याची स्वभावें । सांगतसे ॥ ६-३८ ॥Avidya declares through her very name that she does not exist. Being non-existent is her very nature.आणि इये अनिर्वाच्यपण । तें दुजेंही देवांगण ।आपुल्या अभावीं आपण । साधीतसे ॥ ६-३९ ॥Avidya has proved her own non-existence through swearing its being unspeakable.कांहीच जरी आहे । तरी निर्धारू कां न साहे ? ।वरी घटाभावें भोये । अंकित दिसे ? ॥ ६-४० ॥If Avidya truly exists at all, why does it not stand to reason and discretion ? For instance, what is the use of saying that land is not covered by a pot, which in itself was never present on the land ?अविद्या नाशी आत्मा । ऐसी नव्हे प्रमा ।सुर्या आंगीं तमा । जयापरी ॥ ६-४१ ॥There is no proof to say that enlightenment occurs after Avidya is destroyed. Is it not an absurd and laughable statement that the Sun rises only on dispelling darkness first !!हे अविद्या तरी मायावी । परि मायावीपणचि लपवी ।साचा आली अभावी । आपुला हे ॥ ६-४२ ॥Avidya is deceptive and illusory; she hides existent or non-existent existence through deception alone. If at all one needs to speak of her existence, it must be as absence only !बहुतापरी ऐसी । अविद्या नाहीं आपैसीं ।आतां बोलू हातवसी । कवणापरी ॥ ६-४३ ॥In spite of thinking deep, existence of Maya does not prove. Now, which words to use that refute Maya ?साउलियेतें साबळें । हालयां भोय आदळे ।कीं हालेनि अंतराळें । थोंटावे हातु ॥ ६-४४ ॥For example, suppose one whacks shadow with a crow-bar, the shadow does not come to harm; nevertheless, the land suffers from pot-hole! Or else, trying to slap the sky will not hurt it but the hand will !!कां मृगजळाचा पानीं । गगनाच्या अलिंगनीं ।नातरी चुंबनीं । प्रतिबिंबाचा ॥ ६-४५ ॥What would one get while trying to gulp water from mirage ? If one wishes to embrace the sky, whom to embrace ? Will it not be an exercise in futility to kiss one’s own image ?उठावया बोथरे तंवका । तो सुनाथा पडे असिका ।अविद्या नाशीं तर्का । तैसें होय ॥ ६-४६ ॥Just as strong desire is in vain without simultaneous action as well, whatever effort may be made through logic alone, Avidya does not uproot without self-experience. Logic alone cannot destroy Avidya.ऐसी अविद्या नासावी । हे वाहेल जो जीवीं ।तेणें साली काढावी । आकाशाची ॥ ६-४७ ॥Whoever considers annihilating Avidya may as well try to remove flakes of sky one after another !!तेणें शेळीगळां दुहावीं । गुडघां वास पाहावी ।वाळवोनि काचरी करावी । सांजवेळेची ॥ ६-४८ ॥He may milk udders on the neck of sheep ; find out the road with eyes over knees ; dry up and slice evening time!जांभई वांटूनि रसु । तेणें काढावा बहुवसू ।कालवूनि आळसू । मोदळा पाजावा । ६-४९ ॥He may extract plenty of juice by grinding yawn and while mixing it with lethargy feed the mixture to lump of mud !तो पाटा पाणी परतु । पडली साउली उलथु ।वारयाचे तांथु । वळु सुखें ॥ ६-५० ॥He may turn back water of stream ; look at shadow from its back; draw threads from wind !तो बागुलातें मारू । प्रतिबिंब खोळे भरू ।तळहातींचे विंचरू । केंस सुखें ॥ ६-५१ ॥He may actually kill scarecrow ; roam around merrily while putting shadow in the bag ; leisurely comb hair over palms !!घटाचें नाहींपण फोडू । गगनाची फुलें तोडू ।सशाचें मोडू । शिंग सुखें ॥ ६-५२ ॥He may break non-existent pot ; pluck sky-flowers ; break horn of rabbit !तो कापुराची मसी करू । रत्नदीपीं काजळ धरू ।वांजेचें लेंकरूं । परणूं सुखें ॥ ६-५३ ॥He may burn camphor and collect soot, collect collirium from lustre of Jewel and happily marry daughter of barren woman !!तो अंवसेनेचि सुधाकरें । पोसू पाताळीची चकोरें ।मृगजळींचीं जळचरें । गाळूं सुखें ॥ ६-५४ ॥He may offer feast unto Chakor birds during “moonlight” of Amavasya and happily catch fish in mirage water !!अहो हें किती बोलावें । अविद्या रचिली अभावें ।आतां काई नाशावें । शब्दें येणें ॥ ६-५५ ॥See, how many examples may be cited ? Avidya exists in its absence alone. It is impossible to refute in words.नाहीं तयाचे नाशें । शब्द न ये प्रमाणदशे ।अंधारीं अंधारा जैसें । नव्हे रूप ॥ ६-५६ ॥Words cannot be any criteria for ‘non-existing’ Avidya, just as darkness cannot be cognised in darkness. Words fall short on that occasion.अविद्येची नाहीं जाती । तेथें नाहीं म्हणतया युक्ती ।जेवी दुपारीं कां वाती । आंगणींचिया ॥ ६-५७ ॥What is the use of igniting a lamp in the courtyard at mid noon ? Likewise, what is the propriety in saying Avidya as true, while it is never born ?न पेरितां शेती । जे कीं सवगणिया जाती ।तयां लाजेपरौति । जोडी आहे ? ॥ ६-५८ ॥A farmer that sets out to collect harvest where nothing was sown would naturally hang his head in shame. Similar would be the predicament of the one trying to establish credentials of Avidya.खवणियाच्या आंगा । जेणें केला वळघा ।तो न करितांचि उगा । घरीं होता ॥ ६-५९ ॥It must be said that the one quarrelling against sky remains pinned down to his place without doing anything.पाणियावरी वरखु । होता कें असे विशेखु ।अविद्यानाशी उन्मेखु । फांकावा तैसा ॥ ६-६० ॥Even if there is heavy downpour over the sea, it goes waste. Likewise, it is futile to argue vehemently about existence of Avidya and its being true as well.माप मापपणें श्लाघे । जंव आकाश मवूं न रिघे ।तम पाहतां वाउगें । दीपाचें जन्म ॥ ६-६१ ॥A yardstick is pompous only until it is not used to measure the sky ! Birth of a lamp would be futile if it witnesses darkness.गगनाची रससोये । जीभ जैं आरोगु जाये ।मग रसना हें होये । आडनांव कीं ॥ ६-६२ ॥If ever tongue ventures into having taste of the sky, it cannot be named ‘Rasanaa’ (connoisseur ?).नव्हतेनि वल्लभे । अहेवपण कां शोभे ।खातां केळीचे गाभे । न खातां गेले ॥ ६-६३ ॥Is it proper to name Mrs. (Soubhagyavati, Happily married lady) to a woman that has lost her husband ? It would be mere fasting if one were to eat core of a plantain !स्थूळ सूक्ष्म कवण येकु । पदार्थ न प्रकाशी अर्कु ।परि रात्रीविषयीं अप्रयोजकु । जाहलाचि कीं ॥ ६-६४ ॥The Sun illumines entire objects including inert and subtle; however, it fails to do so during night !दिठी पाहतां काय न फावे । परि निदेतें तंव न देखवे ।चेताते न संभवे । म्हणोनियां ॥ ६-६५ ॥Is there anything that the vision cannot see ? But she cannot see her sleep, because how could a waking person see sleep ?चकोराचिया उद्यमा । लटिकेपणाची सीमा ।जरि दिहाचि चंद्रमा । गिंवसूं बैसे ॥ ६-६६ ॥If the Chakor bird (which supposedly thrives on moon rays) searches the moon during day time in order to absorb moon rays, entire effort would be in vain.नुसुधियेचि साचा । मुका होय वाचरुकाचा ।अंतराळीं पायांचा । पेंधा होय ॥ ६-६७ ॥If someone is offered blank sheet to read, he will be mute; moreover, however adept a person may be in walking, he would be lame to walk in sky !तैसीं अविद्येसन्मुखें । सिद्धचि प्रतिषेधकें ।उठलींच निरर्थकें । जल्पें होतीं ॥ ६-६८ ॥Therefore words are of no avail to establish Avidya; indeed, there have been differing arguments regarding Avidya that are in vain.अंवसे आला सुधाकरु । न करीच काय अंधकारु ? ।अविद्यानाशीं विचारु । तैसा होय ॥ ६-६९ ॥Rising of moon on first day of lunar calendar (Amavasya) emits darkness alone ; likewise, whatever effort is made to enlighten about Avidya, it will only create darkness of ignorance anyway !नाना न निफजतेनि अन्नें । जेवणें तेंचि लंघनें ।निमालेनि नयनें । पाहणाचि अंधु ॥ ६-७० ॥Dining at a place where no food is cooked at all verily means fasting ! Trying to see with damaged eyes is as good as being blind in spite of having eyes. Similarly, those extolling Avidya are virtually blind in spite of vision.कैसेही वस्तु नसे । तेथे जैं शब्दाचा अर्थ हों बैसे ।तैं निरर्थकपणें नासे । शब्दहि थिता ॥ ६-७१ ॥If an object that doesn’t exist at all is tried to be described in words, the words themselves will be destroyed!आतां अविद्याचि नाहीं । हें कीर म्हणो काई ।परी ते नाशितां कांहीं । नुरेची शब्दाचें ॥ ६-७२ ॥In spite of saying all this, is it absolutely necessary to say in words that ‘Avidya does not exist’ ? If ever words set out to destroy it, they will perish themselves !यालागीं अविद्येचिया मोहरा । उठलियाहि विचारा ।आंगाचाची संसारा । होऊनि ठेला ॥ ६-७३ ॥Therefore, if words challenge Avidya of destruction, they will be destroyed themselves !म्हणोनि अविद्येचेनि मरणें । प्रमाणा येईल बोलणें ।हें अविद्याचि नाहींपणें । नेदी घडों ॥ ६-७४ ॥Therefore evidences will prove wrong if those came forward to destroy Avidya with vengeance, there being none of Avidya at all and so evidences will not last.आणि आत्मा हन आत्मया । दाऊनी बोलु महिमेया ।येईल हें साविया । विरुद्धचि ॥ ६-७५ ॥If words try to describe Atma through words in order to acquire acclaim for themselves, it will be an exercise in futility.आपणया आपणपेंसी । लागलें लग्न कवणे देशीं ।कीं सूर्य अंग ग्रासी । ऐसें ग्रहण आहे ? ॥ ६-७६ ॥Is there any place where humans marry their own selves? Can the Sun ever suffer its own eclipse ?गगन आपणया निघे ? । सिंधु आपणया रिघे ? ।तळहात काय वळघे । आपणयां ? ॥ ६-७७ ॥Will sky ever set out homeward ? Will the ocean ever enter its own belly for a bath ? Can the palm ever mount upon itself ?सूर्य सूर्यासि विवळे ? । फळ आपणया फळें ? ।परिमळु परिमळें । घेपता ये ? ॥ ६-७८ ॥Will the Sun ever arise itself ? Will fruit fructify ? Moreover, can fragrance inhale itself ?चराचरा पाणी पाजणी । करूं येईल येके क्षणीं ।परि पाणियासि पाणि । पाजवे कायी ? ॥ ६-७९ ॥It may be possible once in a while to water entire things and beings in the universe; however, can water be offered water to quench its thirst ?साठीं तिसां दिवसा- । माजीं एखादा ऐसा ।जे सूर्यासीच सूर्य जैसा । डोळा दावी ॥ ६-८० ॥Is it possible for the Sun to see himself with his own eyes at least once in three sixty days ?कृतांत जरी कोपेल । तरी त्रैलोक्य हें जाळील ।वांचूनि आगी लावील । आगीसि काई ? ॥ ६-८१ ॥When fire gets enraged during ultimate deluge, it can burn off entire three worlds; however, would it ever set fire to itself ?आपणपें आपणया । दर्पणेवीण धात्रेया ।समोर होआवया । ठाकी आहे ? ॥ ६-८२ ॥Can Brahmadev ( having faces on all four sides) see his own form without mirror ?दिठी दिठीतें रिघों पाहे ? । रुचि रुचीतें चाखों सुये ? ।कीं चेतया चेतऊं ये ? । हें नाहींच कीं ॥ ६-८३ ॥Can vision view itself ? Taste enjoy its own taste ? Can the already awake be awakened ? All these are just impossible.चंदन चंदना लावी ? । रंगु रंगपणा रावी ।मोतींपण मोतीं लेववी । ऐसें कैंचें ? ॥ ६-८४ ॥Will Sandal daub its own paste ? Will colour paint itself ? Will pearl donn its own lustre ?सोनेंपण सोनें कसी । दीपपण दीप प्रकाशी ।रसपणा बुडी दे रसीं । हें कें जोडे ? ॥ ६-८५ ॥Will gold ever test its own purity ? Lamp will see itself in light or juice drown in juice ? Such things never occur.आपुलिये मुकुटीं समर्था । चंद्र बैसविला सर्वथा ।परि चंद्र चंद्राचिये माथा । वाऊं ये काई ? ॥ ६-८६ ॥Lord Shankar installed the moon over His Crown; however, will the moon sit over its own head ?तैसा आत्मराजु तंव । ज्ञानमात्रचि भरींव ।आतां ज्ञानें ज्ञानासि खेंव । कैसें दीजे ? ॥ ६-८७ ॥Thus, all the above are impossible. Nevertheless , Atma is densely Form of Knowledge alone; how can it be illumined through wordy knowledge ?आपुलेनि जाणपणें । आपणयातें जाणों नेणे ।डोळ्या आपुलें पाहाणें । दुवाड जैसें ॥ ६-८८ ॥The eye cannot see itself ( it sees other objects). Similarly, Atma the very embodiment of knowledge would not be able to see itself; being Knowledge personified it does not know itself.आरसा आपुलिये । आंगीं आपण पाहे ।तरी जाणणें जाणों लाहे । आपणयातें ॥ ६-८९ ॥If ever mirror could see its own form, then alone Atma would ‘know’ itself !दिगंतापैलीकडेचें । धांवोनि सुरिया खोंचे ।मा तिये कां तियेचें । आंग फुटे ? ॥ ६-९० ॥A knife can injure every other object in the world. But can it harm itself ?रसवृत्तीसी उगाणें । घेऊनि जिव्हाग्र शाहाणें ।परि कायी कीजे नेणे । आपणापें चाखों ॥ ६-९१ ॥The tongue enjoys entire tastes alright; but alas ! It cannot taste itself .जरी जिव्हे काई आपलें । चाखणें हन ठेलें ? ।तैसे नव्हे संचलें । तेंचि ते कीं ॥ ६-९२ ॥Even then, did the tongue lose its quality of tasting ? The tongue is indeed a connoisseur embodied !तैसा आत्मा सच्चिदानंदु । आपणया आपण सिद्धु ।आतां काय दे शब्दु । तयाचें तया ॥ ६-९३ ॥Thus the Atma is very form of Sacchidananda ; what attributes can words add to its splendour ? It is verily self-evident.कोणाही प्रमाणाचेनि हातें । वस्तु घे ना नेघे आपणयातें ।जो स्वयेंचि आइतें । घेणें ना न घेणें ॥ ६-९४ ॥Therefore, Atma cannot be ‘proved’ through evidence nor ‘disproved’ either; it is eternally Self-evident. It does not need to be proved or disproved.म्हणोनि आत्मा आत्मलाभें । नांदऊनि शब्द शोभे ।येईल ऐसा न लभे । उमसुं घेवों ॥ ६-९५ ॥Thus, words cannot boast of having conferred status of Sacchidananda unto Atma.एवं माध्यान्हींची दिवी । तम धाडी ना दिवो दावी ।तैसी उभयतां पदवी । शब्दा जाली ॥ ६-९६ ॥If lamp is lit at mid noon in broad sunlight it neither dispels darkness nor spreads effulgence. Likewise, words cannot dispel ignorance about form of Atma or enlighten it; Self-illumined Atma doesn’t need help of words anyway.आतां अविद्या नाहींपणें । नाहीं तयेतें नासणें ।आत्मा सिद्धुचि मा कोणें । काय साधावें ? ॥ ६-९७ ॥Avidya (ignorance) being non-existent in the first place, its destruction is impossible. Thus being self-evident it cannot be emphatically established through words. Who is to establish what under such circumstances ?ऐसा उभयपक्षीं । बोला न लाहोनि नखी ।हारपला प्रळयोदकीं । वोघु जैसा ॥ ६-९८ ॥Thus, words are absolutely useless to establish both Avidya as well as Atma. Words just vanish on both fronts like streams disappear during total deluge.आतां बोला भागु कांहीं । असणें जयाच्या ठाईं ।अर्थता तरि नाहीं । निपटुनियां ॥ ६-९९ ॥While considering deep, words prove meaningless with form of Atma.बागुल आला म्हणितें । बोलणें जैसें रितें ।कां आकाश वोळंबतें । तळहातीं ॥ ६-१०० ॥It is futile to say a scarecrow approaching since it is basically non-existent. Similarly it is in vain to hold sky over palm.तैसीं निरर्थकें जल्पें । होउनियां सपडपें ।शोभती जैसें लेपे । रंगावरी ॥ ६-१०१ ॥Various objects are apparent over colours of a portrait; however those are not real. Likewise words and their paraphernalia are just futile blabber with Atma and Avidya.एवं शब्दैकजीवनें । बापुडीं ज्ञानें अज्ञानें ।साचपणें वनें । चित्रींचीं जैसीं ॥ ६-१०२ ॥Therefore knowledge or ignorance thriving at the expense of words is futile like garden in a painting.या शब्दाचा निमाला । महाप्रळयो हो सरला ।अभ्रासवें गेला । दुर्दिनु जैसा ॥ ६-१०३ ॥A boring day suddenly vanishes while clouds disappear and bright light becomes evident. Likewise, knowledge or ignorance thriving through words destroy and Self-effulgent Atma is experienced.॥ इति श्रीमद्अमृतानुभवे शब्दखंडनं नाम षष्ठम प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥प्रकरण सातवेंChapter Sevenअज्ञानखंडणRefuting Ignorance(PART ONE)Prologue –Knowledge of the Self that exists with Form of the Self is the only Truth, that is, with attributes . It possesses both existence and being- ness . It is naturally selfless. Both Knowledge with attributes and ignorance are illusory; that is, lacking and relative. Duality always accompanies relativity. Since there is none other than the Lord (Paramatma), both knowledge and ignorance are untrue. However, knowledge with attributes entertains knowledge and ignorance as if twins. Entire worldly activities occur under aegis of duality alone. This worldly knowledge requires ignorance and ignorance needs accompanying knowledge. Therefore various forms of knowledge and ignorance are in the form of lack or are imaginary. However, in spite of being imaginary entire worldly activities take place under aegis of Knowledge of the Self ( Swaroopa Jnyana) .Therefore, Knowledge of the Self is with attributes, whereas worldly knowledge and ignorance are in the form of lack (Abhava) .Sri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj has established in this chapter the so-called existence of ignorance in its absence using allegory as a tool. Once ignorance is refuted, worldly knowledge also gets refuted. That description appears in the eighth chapter.Many scriptures have publicised association of ignorance with Atma; therefore in order to refute it Sri Dnyanadev wrote 295 verses through his own experience, erudition and unique inspiration. He took stock of various opinions and while putting forth doubts he simultaneously solved those befittingly. Moreover, while refuting ignorance he has candidly dealt with knowledge in the same vein.The seventh chapter appears to be very breath of the discourse; therefore we are presenting it as question-answer format, the main doctrine being – ‘there is extreme lack or paucity of ignorance with ‘Swaroopa’.येरव्हीं तरी अज्ञाना । जैं ज्ञानाची नसे क्षोभणा ।तैं तरि काना । खालींच दडे ॥ ७-१ ॥Shastras accept ‘Ignorance’ as eternal with attributes possessing both veracity ( authenticity ) and existence. In spite of that, how do you claim absence of both knowledge as well as ignorance with the Lord ?Even a casual thought reveals that the word ‘ignorance’ remains unheard if It is not vindicated by Knowledge of the Self ( Swaroopa Jnyana ).आडसूनि अंधारीं । खद्योत दीप्ति शिरी ।तैसें लटिके वरी । अनादि होय ॥ ७-२ ॥Just as glow-worm parades its effulgence taking advantage of darkness, Ajnyana or ignorance exhibits its eternal presence under aegis of paucity or lack (of Knowledge).Authors of Shastras are required to frame ignorance charged with attributes for the welfare of entire beings. However, while advising unto an intelligent seeker extreme lack of ignorance needs to be expounded.While explaining practical reasons for people considering the world as true and with attributes, the ignorant too need to know ignorance with attributes. It means that existence of the world in itself is ignorance that possesses attributes from worldly standpoint and absolute lack ( of attributes) in spiritual parlance .जैसी स्वप्ना स्वप्नीं महिमा । तमीं मानु असे तमा ।तेवीं अज्ञाना गरिमा । अज्ञानींचि ॥ ७-३ ॥Just as dream has importance during dream state alone (not while awake) ; or else, darkness matters in the dark (not brilliance) , ignorance too is great only during ignorant stage (not the enlightened one) !कोल्हेरीचे असिवारू । न येती धारकीं धरूं ।नये लेणा श्रृंगारूं । वोडंबरीचा ॥ ७-४ ॥Are the earthen horses created by potter ever used on battlefield ? Can one wear ornaments created by a magician ? Likewise, the thing you name as ‘ignorance’ does not exist at all. It is simply a play of words.हें जाणणेयाच्या घरीं । खोंचिलेंहि आन न करी ।काई चांदिणां उठे लहरी । मृगजळाची ? ॥ ७-५ ॥However bright may be the moonlight, can one see mirage therein ? Likewise, ignorance is not seen distinctly with Brahmam.आणि ज्ञान हें जें म्हणिजे । तें अज्ञानचि पां दुजें ।येक लपऊनि दाविजे । येक नव्हे ॥ ७-६ ॥Both Knowledge and Ignorance as named in day to day life are phoney ; one may be covered while the other is laid bare. Actually both are in unison.असो आतां या प्रस्तावो । आधीं अज्ञानाचा धांडोळा घेवों ।मग तयाच्या साचीं लाहो । ज्ञानचि लटिकें ॥ ७-७ ॥Be it so. We are considering futility of ignorance from practical standpoint on this occasion.या अज्ञान ज्ञानातें । आंगींचि आहे जितें ।तरी जेथें असे तयातें । नेण कां न करी ? ॥ ७-८ ॥The concept we recognise as ignorance is verily part and parcel of intrinsic Self-knowledge, which means that it is just glued linearly unto the Lord. Therefore, how come you name it as futile ? (8-A)If at all we accept your view for a while, how is it that ignorance supposedly intrinsic to the Lord does not destroy form of the Lord Himself ? (8-B) .अज्ञाने जेथे असावें । तेणें सर्वनेण होआवें ।ऐसी जाती स्वभावें । अज्ञानाची ॥ ७-९ ॥Why should we accept your view that wherever there is ignorance, it must destroy knowledge? (9-A)You see, very nature of ignorance wherever it may be, is to destroy knowledge altogether. (9-B)तरी शास्त्रमत ऐसें । जे आत्माचि अज्ञान असे ।तेणेचि तो गिंवसे । आश्रो जरी ॥ ७-१० ॥The Shastras proclaim that Maya (ignorance) is intrinsic to the Lord, verily enveloping Him ( “Swashriya” and “Swa-Vishaya”). Therefore we say that even Shastra is favouring us, since ignorance envelops Form of the Self that entangles Atma too.तरी नुठिता दुजें । जैं अज्ञान आहे बीजें ।तैं तेचि आथी हे बुझे । कोण येथें ? ॥ ७-११ ॥When you refer to injunctions of Shastras that ignorance inhabits Form of the Self (Atma Swaroopa ), those very Shastras explicitly say that Atma alone pervades everything everywhere and there is absolutely nothing other than Atma. This doctrine is expounded by many Vedas as well and is still intact.Now, keeping that in mind, we would like to ask as to exactly when duality in the form of attributes took place with the Lord? If that duality appeared earlier, it may be surmised that ignorance existed as seed. In that case, who recognised ignorance before duality appeared on the scene?अज्ञान तंव आपणयातें । जडपणें नेणे निरुतें ।आणि प्रमाण प्रमाणातें । होत आहे ? ॥ ७-१२ ॥There is nothing like doctrine or evidence with Form of the Self. That activity is limited to notions of ignorant attitudes.Now, while that ignorant notion is non-existent at all, how would the Lord ever recognise ignorance? If you say that ignorance itself recognised it, ignorance happens to be inert and inert objects cannot know themselves or others ! Therefore, it is unable to recognise itself.Moreover, if you say that the Lord Himself recognised ignorance, how can He be an evidence to prove ignorance being self-evident and realised one Himself ?यालागीं जरी अज्ञान । करील आपुलें ज्ञान ।हें म्हणत खेंव घेववी मौन । विरोधचि ॥ ७-१३ ॥If you say that ignorance itself recognises itself, it is in itself a contradictory statement !आणि जाणती वस्तु येक । ते येणें अज्ञानें कीजे मूर्ख ।तैं अज्ञान हे लेख । कवण धरीं ? ॥ ७-१४ ॥We would say that our ignorance has converted your Knowledge personified Lord into virtual ignorant one (zero with Knowledge) ! What is your opinion ?While such situation arises, who would say that ignorance exists ? After all, ignorance is just ignorance ; however, that ignorance converted knowledge embodied Atma into knowledge lacking one ! In that case, who knows that as ignorance and says so too?अहो आपणयाहि पुरता । नेणू न करवे जाणता ।तयातें अज्ञान म्हणतां । लाजिजे कीं ॥ ७-१५ ॥Are you not ashamed to declare Lord as ignorant, while we verily exist under His very aegis alone and whom you cannot make ignorant anyway ?आभाळें भानु ग्रासे । तैं आभाळ कोणें प्रकाशे ? ।सुषुप्ती सुषुप्तया रुसे । तैं तेचि कोणा ? ॥ ७-१६ ॥While clouds shroud the Sun, under whose light those would be recognised as clouds ? If sleep overwhelms a sleeping person, who experiences the sleeping state ?तैसें अज्ञान असे जेथें । तेंचि जरी अज्ञान आतें ।तरी अज्ञान अज्ञानातें । नेणतां गेलें ॥ ७-१७ ॥The Knowledge that harbours ignorance becomes ignorance itself. In that case, ignorance disappeared altogether without knowing ignorance. Who knew everything as ignorance on that occasion ? Does it mean that there is none as ‘knower’?ना तरी अज्ञान येक घडे । हें जयास्तव निवडे ।तें अज्ञान नव्हे फुडे । कोणे काळीं ॥ ७-१८ ॥It means that the knowledge, which recognises existence of ignorance can never become ignorance. In fact, the one you name as ignorance is verily knowledge alone and therefore it is meaningless to say that ignorance is apparent.पडळही आथी डोळा । आणि डोळा नव्हे आंधळा ।तरी आथी या पोकळा । बोलिया कीं ॥ ७-१९ ॥If you say that the eye is not blind in spite of vision lost due to cataract, it is phoney to say cataract developing.इंधनाच्या आंगीं । खवळलेन आगी ।तें न जळे तैं वाउगी । शक्तिचि ते ॥ ७-२० ॥Fire cannot be named as fire if it is unable to burn wood put into intense fire.आंधारु कोंडुनि घरीं । घरा पडसायी न करी ।तैं आंधार इहीं अक्षरीं । न म्हणावा कीं ? ॥ ७-२१ ॥If darkness trapped into house does not lead to darkness, who would ever call it darkness ?वोजावों नेदी जागणें । तये निदेतें नीद कोण म्हणे ।दिवसा नाणी उणें । तैं रात्रिचि कैंची ॥ ७-२२ ॥Sleep has settled in ; however, if one responds to a call, how can sleep be named as sleep ?तैसें आत्मा अज्ञान असकें । असतां तो न मुके ।तैं अज्ञान शब्दा लटिकें । आलेंच कीं ॥ ७-२३ ॥Likewise, if Atma were fully enveloped by ignorance, its Knowledge never wanes; therefore, the very word ignorance becomes futile !येरव्हीं तरी आत्मया । माजीं अज्ञान असावया ।कारण म्हणतां न्याया । चुकी येईल कीं ॥ ७-२४ ॥Even a cursory observation does not convince presence of ignorance with Atma.अज्ञान तम मेळणी । आत्मा प्रकाशाची खाणी ।आतां दोहीं मिळणी । येकी कैसी ? ॥ ७-२५ ॥If ignorance is pitch dark, the Atma is verily a mine of brilliance. In that case how the two can ever co-exist ?स्वप्न आणि जागरु । आठउ आणि विसरु ।इयें युग्में येका हारु । चालती जरी ॥ ७-२६ ॥Can dream and wakefulness or remembrance and forgetfulness ever stay together ?शीता तापा एकवट । वाहे वस्तीची वाट ।कां तमें बांधिजे मोट । सूर्यरश्मींची ॥ ७-२७ ॥Will hot and cold or Sun and darkness ever co-habit ?नाना राती आणि दिवो । येती येके ठाईं राहों ।तैं आत्मा जिवें जिवो । अज्ञानाचेनि ॥ ७-२८ ॥Will day and night exist simultaneously ?If ever you could prove all the above, one may say that Atma thrives at the behests of ignorance !हें असो मृत्यु आणि जिणें । इयें शोभती जरी मेहुणे ।तरी आत्मेनि असणें । अज्ञानेंसि ॥ ७-२९ ॥Let all that be ! If ever life and death beseem as a couple, one may say that Atma and ignorance are together.अहो आत्मेन जे बाधे । तेंचि आत्मेनसि नांदे ? ।ऐसीं काईसीं विरुद्धें । बोलणीं इयें ॥ ७-३० ॥You alone can see the dichotomy of saying that ignorance co-habits the Atma !अहो अंधारपणाची पैज । सांडूनी अंधार तेज ।जाला तैं सहज । सूर्यचि निभ्र्रांतचि । ७-३१ ॥Taking clue from Samkhya Philosophy we can say that ignorance establishes independent of Atma while citing epiphany or examples thus-If darkness abandons its darkness, it is undoubtedly effulgent Sun alone !दुलांकूडपण सांडलें । आणि आगीपण मांडिलें ।तैं तेंचि आगी जालें । इंधन कीं ॥ ७-३२ ॥If wood jettisons its wood-ness, it verily turns into fuel.का गंगा पावत खेंवो । ज्ञानपणाचा ठावो ।सांडी, तैं गंगा हों । लाहे पाणी ॥ ७-३३ ॥A stream while merging into the Ganges becomes Ganges itself.Likewise, while ignorance and Atma happen to meet each other, ignorance converts into complete knowledge alone.तैसें अज्ञान हें अज्ञान नोहे । तरी आत्मा असकें असों लाहेयेरव्हीं अज्ञान होये । लागलेंचि ॥ ७-३४ ॥Therefore, darkness remains as distinct entity before coming in contact with radiance; wood-ness of wood persists until engaging with fire; stream and Ganges remain distinct and independent as long as those do not meet.Likewise, why should one not say that ignorance persists as ignorance until coming face to face with knowledge ?आत्मेनसी विरोधी । म्हणोनि नुरेचि इये संबंधीं ।वेगळी तरी सिद्धि । जायेचिना ॥ ७-३५ ॥We have already emphasised that those cannot be together due to opposition of both Atma and ignorance. Now, we shall also prove that ignorance cannot exist independently.Even if a fish made of salt is brought to life, the salty fish cannot thrive within or outside water. Moreover, that salty fish while coming in contact with water will be destroyed being miscible with water and cannot thrive without water as fish ! (7-36)लवणाची मासोळी । जरी जाली निवाळी ।तरी जळीं ना जळावेगळी । न जिये जेवीं ॥ ७-३६ ॥जें अज्ञान येथें नसे । तरीच आत्मा असे ।म्हणोनि बोलणीं वाइसें । नायकावीं कीं ॥ ७-३७ ॥Similarly, ignorance does not exist either with Atma or even independently; Atma alone exists. Therefore it is futile to say that ignorance and Atma are inter-related or that ignorance exists independently. Ignorance does not exist as such, Atma alone exists as all-pervasive forever.We shall establish the same through examples : -दोरीं सर्पाभास होये । तो तेणें दोरें बांधों ये ? ।ना दवडणें न साहे । जयापरी ॥ ७-३८ ॥Illusive snake seen over a rope cannot exist independently without rope as its basis. Can snake seen over rope be tied down with that rope ? Or else, can that (elusive) snake be separated from rope ? Both of these are unlikely.नाना पुनिवेचे आंधारें । दिहा भेणें रात्रीं महुरें ।कीं येतांचि सुधाकरें । गिळिजे जेवीं ॥ ७-३९ ॥Scared of daylight, darkness turned unto full moon for succour; however, it was engulfed by the moon instantly!तियापरी उभयतां । अज्ञान शब्द गेला वृथा ।हा तर्कावांचूनि हाता । स्वरूपें नये ॥ ७-४० ॥Likewise, the word ignorance is futile on both fronts. Ignorance is just a play of words; it does not exist as such. Presence of ignorance is just conjectural.तरी अज्ञान स्वरूपें कैसें । काय कार्यानुमेय असे ।कीं प्रत्यक्षचि दिसे । धांडोळूं आतां ॥ ७-४१ ॥Can we not say that ignorance is deduced through its activity or is self established?अहो प्रत्यक्षादि प्रमाणीं । कीजे जयाची घेणी ।ते अज्ञानाची करणी । अज्ञान नव्हे ॥ ७-४२ ॥You see, the interactions taking place to establish a doctrine with the help of direct or some such evidences is an ‘activity of ignorance’ by the triplet constituting doctrine, evidence and establisher and ‘not ignorance per se’.जैसी अंकुरेंसी सरळ । वेली दिसे वेल्हाळ ।तें बीज नव्हे केवळ । बीजकार्य होय ॥ ७-४३ ॥A creeper sprouts from seed and spreads out, which is extension of the seed , not seed itself !कां शुभाशुभ रूपें । स्वप्नदृष्टी आरोपें ।तें नीद नव्हे जाउपें । निदेचें कीं ॥ ७-४४ ॥Or else, whatever good or bad seen in a dream is not sleep but activity of sleep.नाना चांदु एकू असे । तो व्योमीं दुणावला दिसे ।तें तिमिरकार्य जैसें । तिमिर नव्हे पैं ॥ ७-४५ ॥A single moon deludes as two; however, it results from darkness and not darkness as such.तैसें प्रमाता प्रमेय । प्रमाण जें त्रय ।तें अज्ञानाचें कार्य । अज्ञान नव्हे ॥ ७-४६ ॥Likewise, the threesome doctrine, evidence and knower are activity of ignorance and not ignorance.म्हणोनि प्रत्यक्षादिकीं । अज्ञान कार्यविशेखीं ।न घे असे ये विखीं । आनु नाहीं ॥ ७-४७ ॥The six evidences such as direct evidence etc are the unique qualities of ignorance. Even if those do not establish presence of ignorance, those do help in accepting its presence through inference. There is no other way out is what we would say.Note:- ( The six types of evidences are – 1. Direct, 2. Inferential , 3. ‘Apta Vakya (advice from enlightened being) or Aagam’, 4. Arthapatti 5. Upamiti, and 6. Anupalabdhi.अज्ञान कार्यपणें । घेइजे, तें अज्ञान म्हणे ।तरी घेतांहि करणें । तयाचेंची ॥ ७-४८ ॥You say that activity performed by ignorance proves its existence. However, the tools used namely evidences such as direct evidence etc too are ignorance only, since apart from Chaitanya (Atma) every other object will be ignorant activity. For instance,स्वप्नीं दिसे तें स्वप्न । मा देखता काय आन ।तैसें कार्यचि अज्ञान । केवळ जरी ॥ ७-४९ ॥If everything seen in dream is similar, is the one watching any different? If you say so, then-तरी चाखिला गुळ गुळें । माखिलें काजळ काजळें ।कां घेपे देपे शुळें । हालया सुळु ॥ ७-५० ॥Then it will mean jaggery tasting its own sweetness or collirium daubs itself with collirium, or else the impaling stake impaling itself.तैसें कारण अभिन्नपणें । कार्यही अज्ञान होणें ।तें अज्ञानचि मा काय कोणें । घेपे देपे ॥ ७-५१ ॥Similarly, if ignorance is inseparable from cause and activity, everything being ignorance alone whoever will interact ?आतां घेतें घेइजेतें ऐसा । विचारु नये मानसा ।तरी प्रमाण जाला मासा । मृगजळींचा ना ? ॥ ७-५२ ॥Therefore, it does not stand to reason that interaction takes place due to ignorance all around since there is no distinction between the doctrine and its knower. Such a statement from you is akin to describing fish in mirage waters !तंव प्रमाणाचिया मापा । न संपडेचि जे बापा ।तया आणि खपुष्पा । विशेषु काई ? ॥ ७-५३ ॥Therefore, where is the distinction between sky-flower and something that cannot be proved through evidence ?मा हे प्रमाणचि नुरवी । आतां आथी हें कोण प्रस्तावी ।येणें बोलें ही जाणावी । अज्ञानउखी ॥ ७-५४ ॥If ignorance would not entertain evidence at all, whoever decides existence of ignorance ? Therefore your statement itself refutes concept of ignorance.एवं प्रत्यक्ष अनुमान । प्रमाणां भाजन ।नहोनि जालें अज्ञान । अप्रमाण ॥ ७-५५ ।।Therefore, direct or inferential evidences etc do not make ignorance eligible to establish, which makes it phoney.ना स्वकार्यातें विये । जें कारणपणा नये ।मी अज्ञान ऐसें बिहे । मानूं साचें ॥ ७-५६ ॥Moreover, should we accept ignorance that is unable to create activity and also cannot be cause for it either or the one afraid to accept it being ignorance ? Is it not knowledge alone that declares it being ignorance ?आत्मया स्वप्न दाऊं । न शके कीर बहू ।परि ठायें ठाउ । निदेजों नेणें ॥ ७-५७ ॥Ignorance certainly cannot exhibit dream to Atma, which means it cannot induce contrary consciousness . However, if we admit your statement of ignorance endowed with attributes, it does not even envelop the Atma where it supposedly exists. Now, what would it mean ?हें असो जिये वेळे । आत्मपणेंचि निखिळें ।आत्मा अज्ञानमेळें । असे तेणें ॥ ७-५८ ॥Ok, let it be so ! But while your Atma exists in its pristine form, our ignorance too exists on that occasion.जैसें न करितां मंथन । काष्ठीं अवस्थान ।जैसें कां हुताशन । सामर्थ्यांचें ॥ ७-५९ ॥Just as fire exists in wood even before it is rubbed against wood, why can it not be said that ignorance co-exists Atma ?तैसें आत्मा ऐसें नांव । न साहे आत्मयाची बरव ।तैं कांहीं अज्ञान हांव । बांधतें कां ? ॥ ७-६० ॥The Atma that does not tolerate even the name Atma, how can your ignorance exist with it on that occasion ? It is simply impossible.काइ दीप जैं न लाविजे । तैंचि काजळी फेडिजे ।कां नुगवत्या वाळिजे । रुखाची छाया ॥ ६१ ॥For example :-Should soot over the lamp wiped even before it is lit ? Or else, should one abandon shadow of a tree that has not sprouted at all ?नाना नुठितां देहदशा । कालऊनि लाविजे चिकसा ।न घडितां आरिसा । उटिजे काई ॥ ६२।।Or else, should one daub paste to an unborn body, or clean a mirror that is not created at all ?कां वोहाच्या दुधीं । सायचि असावी आधीं ।मग ते फेडूं इये बुद्धी । पवाडु कीजे ॥ ७-६३ ॥Can one collect cream before breasts are milked?तैसें आत्म्याच्या ठाई । जैं आत्मपणा ठाऊक नाहीं ।तैं अज्ञान कांहीं । सारिखें कैसें ॥ ७-६४ ॥Similarly, can ignorance be discovered in Atma Swaroopa where even the word Atma is unknown?म्हणोनि तेव्हांही अज्ञान नसे । हें जालेंचि आहे आपैसें ।आतां रिकामेंचि काइसें । नाहीं म्हणो ॥ ७-६५ ॥Which verily means that ignorance is absent on that occasion.ऐसाहि आत्मा जेव्हां । जैं नातळे भावाभावा ।अज्ञान असे तेव्हां । तरी तें ऐसें ॥ ७-६६ ॥However, if you still insist presence of ignorance with regard to Atma that transcends entire attributes, shall I comment on your observation thus ? –जैसें घटाचें नाहींपण । फुटोनि होय शतचूर्ण ।कीं सर्वांपरी मरण । मालवलें कीं ॥ ७-६७ ॥As if non-existent pot was shattered to pieces or death itself died !नाना निदे नीद आली । कीं मूर्छां मूर्छें गेली ।कीं आंधारी पडली । अंधकूपीं ॥ ७-६८ ॥Or else, sleep went to sleep, unconsciousness became unconscious, or darkness fell down into dark pit !का अभाव अवघडला । का केळीचा गाभा मोडला ।चोखळा आसुडला । आकाशाचा ॥ ७-६९ ॥Or, paucity was endangered, hollow space of plantain got fractured, or sky abandoned its clarity !कां निवटलिया सूदलें विख । मुकियाचें बांधलें मुख ।नाना नुठितां लेख । पुसिलें जैसें ॥ ७-७० ॥Alternatively, poison fed to dead person, dumb man’s mouth forcibly shut, or unwritten erased !तैसें अज्ञान आपुली वेळ । भोगी हेचि टवाळ ।आतां तरी केवळ । वस्तु होऊनि नसे ॥ ७-७१ ॥Likewise, it is futile to say that ignorance inhabits or co-habits Atma Swaroopa.देखा वांझ कैसी विये ? । विरूढती भाजली बियें ? ।कीं सूर्य कोण्हा लाहे । अंधारातें ? ॥ ७-७२ ॥Just imagine, can a sterile woman ever deliver baby ? Roasted seed ever sprout ? Or darkness reach the Sun ?तैसा चिन्मात्रे चोखडा । भलतैसा अज्ञानाचा झाडा ।घेतला तरी पवाडा । येईल काई ? ॥ ७-७३ ॥Similarly, however intensely ignorance is searched in pristine pure Atma Swaroopa , it will be futile (being non-existent anyway ).And if it is still unconvincing, few more examples : -जे सायेचिये चाडे । डहुळिजे दुधाचें भांडें।ते दिसे कीं विघडे । तैसें हें पां ॥ ७-७४ ॥Can one get creamy layer of milk if it is stirred continuously?नाना नीद धरावया हातीं । चेउनी उठिला झडती ।ते लाभे कीं थिती । नासिली होय ॥ ७-७५ ॥If one suddenly awakes from sleep and tries to capture it again, will he be able to get it or lose whatever was left?तेवीं पाहावया अज्ञान ऐसें । हें आंगीं पिसें काइसें ।न पाहतां आपैसें । न पाहणेंचि कीं ॥ ७-७६ ॥Looking at ignorance in this manner is sheer foolishness, because ignorance is non-existent while one thinks about it; moreover, it is naturally absent while not thinking ! That means ignorance is non-existent all the time.एवं कोण्हेहि परी । अज्ञानभावाची उजरी ।न पडेचि नगरीं । विचाराचिये ॥ ७-७७ ॥Thus, the thing called ignorance never reaches realms of logic; that is, logic cannot demonstrate ignorance.अहो कोण्हेही वेळे । आत्मा अथवा वेगळें ।विचाराचे डोळे । देखते का ? ॥ ७-७८ ॥Can one see ignorance with Atma anytime or even otherwise ?ना निर्धाराचें तोंड न माखे । प्रमाण स्वप्नींही नायके ।कीं निरुती हन मुके । अनसाईपणा ॥ ७-७९ ॥Ignorance cannot undermine conviction; which means that ignorance doesn’t exist even for conviction. Evidence does not cater to ignorance even in dream ! Ignorance certainly does not exist distinctly.इतुलियाही भागु । अज्ञानाचा तरी तो मागु ।निगे ऐसा बागु । पडतां कां देवा ॥ ७-८० ॥It would have been good to discover ignorance somehow; however, it doesn’t look like !अंवसेचेनि चंद्रबिंबें । निर्वाळिलिये शोभे ।कां मांडलें जैसे खांबे । शशविषाणाचे ॥ ७-८१॥This ignorance is like bright moonlight during ‘Amavasya’, or like erecting trellis with poles made of rabbit horns !नाना गगनौलाचिया माळा । वांजेच्या जालया गळा ।घापती तो सोहळा । पाविजत असे ॥ ७-८२ ॥Or else, like celebrating festivities by putting garlands made of sky-flowers around neck of barren woman’s son; or, weighing ghee made from tortoise milk with sky as the balance.Now, if ever all that were possible, ignorance could be discovered as per your view! (82-83)आणून कांसवीचें तुप । भरू आकाशाचें माप ।तरी साचा येती संकल्प । ऐसे ऐसे ॥ ७-८३ ॥आम्हीं येऊनि जाऊनि पुढती । अज्ञान आणावें निरुती ।तें नाहीं तरी किती । वतवतूं पां ॥ ७-८४ ॥We tried to establish ignorance from various angles but it is just missing. What’s the use of blabbering in vain ?म्हणोनि अज्ञान अक्षरें । नुमसूं आतां निदसुरें ।परी आन येक स्फुरे । इयेविषयीं ॥ ७-८५ ॥Therefore there is no more enthusiasm to utter even the words ‘phoney ignorance’! However, do you wish to speak more about ignorance ?आपणया ना आणिकातें । देखोनि होय देखतें ।वस्तु ऐसिया पुरतें । नव्हेचि आंगें ॥ ७-८६ ॥We have another view regarding ignorance.Your Atma is neither the one that views itself or can see other by making him visible. It is transcendental to view or vision by virtue of its own pristine nature.तरी ते आपणयापुढें । दृश्य पघळे येव्हडें ।आपण करी फुडें । द्रष्टेपणें ॥ ७-८७ ॥In that context, how is it that we view such evident attribute ourselves as visionary ?जेथ आत्मत्वाचें सांकडे । तेथ उठे हें येव्हडें ।उठिलें तरी रोकडें । देखतसों ॥ ७-८८ ॥While even speaking about Self-ness (Atmatva) is taboo, there is expanse of view, which is experienced as well.न दिसे जरी अज्ञान । तरी आहे हें नव्हे आन ।यया दृश्यानुमान । प्रमाण जालें ॥ ७-८९ ॥Therefore, even while ignorance is not visible, its presence is certain, which has view as the evidence.Therefore the inference is, even while ignorance is not directly visible as such its presence cannot be denied. If you ask as to how it is so, ignorance is established inferentially through view, since Atma never nurtures notion of view and viewer anyway. It is dispassionate as per Vedas. The world comprising view, viewer etc must be handiwork of someone but the Atma being impassive, it cannot be by Atma. Therefore one must consider reason for this view-viewer etc activity and that cause is ignorance. Thus our concept of ignorance is evident !I shall furnish yet more evidences to substantiate.ना तरी चंद्रु येक असे । तो व्योमीं दुणावला दिसे ।तरी डोळां तिमिर ऐसें । मानूं ये कीं ॥ ७-९० ॥If a single moon appears double in the sky, one must admit presence of impaired vision.भूमीवेगळीं झाडें । पाणी घेती कवणीकडे ।न दिसती आणि अपाडें । साजीं असती॥ ७-९१ ॥Trees do not appear to draw water apart from Earth and look glowing fresh.तरी भरंवसेनि मुळें । पाणी घेती हें न टळें ।तैसें अज्ञान कळें । दृष्यास्तव ॥ ७-९२ ॥One cannot certainly deny that their roots absorb water; likewise, the view establishes ignorance.चेइलिया नीद जाये । निद्रिता तंव ठाउवी नोहे ।परी स्वप्न दाऊनि आहे । म्हणों ये कीं ॥ ७-९३ ॥An awakened person has no sleep whereas the sleeping one is unaware of sleep; nevertheless, one must accept presence of sleep since dream occurs .म्हणोन वस्तुमात्रें चोखें । दृश्य जरी येव्हडें फांके ।तेव्हां अज्ञान आथी सुखें । म्हणों ये कीं ॥ ७-९४ ॥Therefore, if pristine pure Brahmam personified Atma evinces such huge expanse of view, what harm is there to accept presence of ignorance too ?अगा ऐसिया ज्ञानातें । अज्ञान म्हणणें केउतें ।काय दिवो करी तयातें । अंधारु म्हणिपे ? ॥ ७-९५ ॥Oh, whatever you say is Knowledge (Jnyana) alone ! How do you call that very knowledge as ignorance ?Why name the light (view) as darkness (ignorance)? Has anyone called the Sun that illumines the world as darkness? Whatever seen as a view, that symbolic object is pervaded by the very basis through and through. Therefore the knowledge embodied Lord being all-pervasive in entire activity, how can all that activity be ignorance ?We will prove this statement through more examples.अगा चंद्रापासून उजळ । जेणें राविले वस्तु धवळ ।तयातें काजळ । म्हणिजेत ॥ ७-९६ ॥If something is cleaned brighter than the moon, can it be named as soot ?आगीचें काज पाणी । निफजा जरी आणी ।अज्ञान इया वहणी । मानूं तरी तें ॥ ७-९७ ॥If ever water could act as fire, your view may be accepted that view is an expanse of ignorance.कळीं पूर्ण चंद्रमा । आणून मेळवी अमा ।तरी ज्ञान हें अज्ञान नामा । पात्र होईजे ॥ ७-९८ ॥If ever fully illumined moon could demonstrate dark phase of night (Amavasya), the word Jnyana could be named Ajnyana.वोरसोनि लोभें । विष कां अमृतें दुभे ।ना दुभे तरी लाभे । विषचि म्हणणें ॥ ७-९९ ॥Even if poison releases with immense affection, will it milch nectar ? Only poison will emerge.तैसा जाणणेयाचा वेव्हारू । जेथें माखला समोरु ।तेथें आणिजे पुरू । अज्ञानाचा ॥ ७-१०० ॥Similarly, while there is direct evidence of visible activity suffused with overwhelming Jnyana, can one say that there is flood of Ajnyana as well ?तया नांव अज्ञान ऐसें । तरी ज्ञान होआवें तें कैसें ? ।येहवीं कांहींचि असे । आत्मा काई ? ॥ ७-१०१ ॥Therefore, if you name that entire play of Jnyana as Ajnyana, what exactly would be status of Jnyana ? In fact, whatever exists is nothing except knowledge embodied Atma alone.कांहींच जया न होणें । होय तें स्वतां नेणे ।तरी शून्याचीं देवांगणें । प्रमाणासी ॥ ७-१०२ ॥Atma that has nothing to ‘become’ being just impassive has no sense of ‘I Am’ as being ness; moreover, the one that cannot be labelled as ‘nothing’ in any contexts , has been the very conviction of evidences.असे म्हणावयाजोगें । नाचरे कीर आंगें ।परी नाहीं हें न लागे । जोडावेंचि ॥ ७-१०३ ॥True nature of the Atma certainly does not possess notion of ‘being ness’ and therefore its ‘non-being ness’ too is irrelevant. That means the Atma ‘exists’ without epithets of ‘being’ or ‘non-being’ !कोणाचे असणेंनवीण असे । कोणी न देखतांचि दिसे ।हें आथी तरी काईसें । हरतलेपण ॥ ७-१०४ ॥The Atma quietly tolerates allegation of ‘non-being ness’ and remains cool while extolled with epithet of Sacchidananda .मिथ्यावादाची कुटी आली । ते निवांतचि साहिली ।विशेषाही दिधली । पाठी जेणें ॥ ७-१०५ ॥Some dull-witted individuals are convinced that the knowledge-personified Atma is not distinct from the body, whereas some enlightened ones adept in Shastra establish existence of Sacchidananda format of the Atma. However, both these notions are borne out of ignorance; besides, from spiritual angle the Atma being dispassionate and distinct from both, it does not entangle anywhere anytime anyways !जो निमालीही नीद देखे । तो सर्वज्ञ येवढें काय चुके ? ।परी दृश्याचिये न टेके । सोईं जो ॥ ७-१०६ ॥The one that is witness to entire dissolution, is that all-knowing one incapable to see entire view ? However, while viewing it through divine vision, there is nothing like view at all and therefore Atma does not reach even fringe of view for that matter. Just as there is no view for Atma, the Atma too cannot be view for anyone. It is because the thing we regard as view in practice, its very basis is Atma alone. Therefore it is impossible to see it.Now, just have a look at whatever the elite have experienced.वेद काय काय न बोले । परी नांवचि नाहीं घेतलें ।ऐसें कांहीं जोडिलें । नाहीं जेणें ॥ ७-१०७ ॥Vedas professed everything but never uttered even the name Atma; that is, those did not establish Atma being so and so. It means that the all-knowing Vedas expounded everything but could not enlighten on Atma. It is because Atma cannot be subject for word, namely Vedas.सूर्यो कोणा न पाहे ? । परि आत्मा दाविला आहे ? ।गगनें व्यापिता ठाये । ऐसी वस्तु ॥ ७-१०८ ॥Whatever the Sun does not illumine? It illumines entire objects; however, has it illumined Atma ? How can it illumine Atma? On the contrary, Atma illumines the Sun. Likewise, the sky envelops entire objects but while trying to envelop Atma it disappears within ‘Chidakash’ of the Atma !देह हाडांची मोळी । मी म्हणोनि पोटाळी ।तो अहंकारु गाळी । पदार्थु हा ॥ ७-१०९ ॥Ego calls the body, which is just a bundle of bones as ‘I’. That is, it governs the body while discarding Atma Swaroopa; it is because ego disappears completely with Atma.बुद्धि बोद्ध्या सोके । ते येव्हडी वस्तु चुके ।मना संकल्प निके । याहीहुनि ॥ ७-११० ॥Intellect knows everything except Atma . Mind too hovers over everything except Atma Swaroopa .विषयाची बरडी । अखंड घासती तोंडीं ।तियें इंद्रियें गोडी । न घेपती हे ॥ ७-१११ ॥The senses that indulge into barren lands of sensuality are unable to taste sweetness of Atma.परी नाहींपणासगट । खाऊनि भरिलें पोट ।ते कोणाही सगट । कां फावेल ? ॥ ७-११२ ॥Whoever can know the complete Atma, which has engulfed even ‘nothingness’, meaning the one that destroys entire lack of view as well ?जो आपणासी नव्हे विखो । तो कोणा लाहे देखो ।जे वाणी न सके चाखों । आपणापें ॥ ७-११३ ॥What more can be said ! Who is eligible to know the Atma that is not subject matter for even itself ? The tongue can neither taste itself nor be tasted by others .“Do you mean to say that Atma is inert and invisible ?” (This query is made while considering misrepresented meaning of the above verse.)Even while it is true that tongue cannot taste itself and cannot be tasted by others, it exists with attribute of ‘tasting’, which is the experience of all. Likewise, Atma does not know itself or can be known by others. It does NOT mean that it is invisible or inert; it is verily embodiment of Jnyana. However, even this statement is superfluous; Atma Swaroopa transcends words, which can only be self-experienced.For instance : -Lord Sri Rama asked his Guru Vasishtha thus, ‘ Sir, what is your nature ?’. Vasishtha kept quiet over that query. Sri Ramchandra thought that he had somehow insulted the Guru by asking him the question and so he asked reason for his silence. Vasishtha said, ‘not to speak’ is verily the answer to your query!’Likewise, nature of Atma cannot be described in words; it must be known through ‘silence’ alone ! Indeed, it is the domain of experience only.हें असो नामें रूपें । पुढसूनि अमूपें ।जेथें आलीच वासिपे । अविद्या हे ॥ ७-११४॥Be it so ! Ignorance vanishes out of fear while coming face to face with form of the Lord, in spite of having exhibited many names and forms.म्हणोनि आपलेंचि मुख । पाहावयाची भूक ।न वाणे, मा आणिक । कें रिघेल ? ॥ ७-११५ ॥Therefore, while there is not even the urge to view one’s own form (Swa-Swaroopa ), how can any other be entertained?नाडिले जें वादीकोडें । आंतुचि बाहेर सवडे ।तैसा निर्णो सुनाथा पडे । केला जेथें ॥ ७-११६ ॥For exampLe –Gamblers play tricks with rope and the hidden link drops down ; likewise, the notion ‘I Am so and so’ becomes futile with Atma Swaroopa.कां मस्तकान्त निर्धारिली । जो छाया उडों पाहे आपुली ।तयाची फांवली । बुद्धि जैसी ॥ ७-११७ ॥Or else, just as intellect of a person is deluded that tries to jump across his own full length shadow,तैसें टणकोनि सर्वथा । हे ते ऐसी व्यवस्था ।करी तो चुके हाता । वस्तूचा जिये ॥ ७-११८ ॥-the one who after lot of logical thinking reaches conclusion about Atma being such and such does not gain anything.आतां सांगिजे तें केउतें । शब्दाचा संसारा नाहीं जेथें ।दर्शना बीजें तेथे । जाणीव आणी ? ॥ ७-११९ ॥Entire purport of saying the above is that, can the Atma where words fall short ever entertain distinction between view, vision and viewer ? Moreover, how can Atma possess divergent knowledge exhibiting duality of view, viewer etc, where play of words are in vain ?जयाचेनि बळें । अचक्षुपण आंधळें ।फिटोनि वस्तु मिळे । देखणी दशा ॥ ७-१२० ॥Inability to see anything with Atma Swaroopa by virtue of Shastras or as a result of ignorance is replaced by visibility due to Shastras alone; that is our opinion.Epilogue –It establishes the fact that while there is no urge to ‘know’ oneself, there is definite lack of vision too. Therefore who is to see whom ? How will ‘vision’ create ? Because even ‘oneness’ merges on that occasion ! (121-122)आपुलेंचि दृश्यपण । उमसो न लाहे आपण ।द्रष्टत्वा कीर आण । पडली असतां ॥ ७-१२१ ॥कोणा कोण भेटे ? । दिठी कैंची फुटे ? ।ऐक्यासकट पोटें । आटोनि गेलीं ॥ ७-१२२ ॥(121 and 122 discussed as above)CHAPTER SEVEN. (PART TWO)Sri Dnyaneshwar now begins this section while asking as to whatever can fall short for the One who is all-in-all, there being nothing else other than Him. He uses very ornate words for us the beings that hold on to ignorance tooth and nail.Such pristine pure Knowledge-embodied Atma is inspired as per its very nature and opens entire gates of effulgence (enlightenment) ajar. Its inspiration sans motive or cause being just its nature. It enters ambit of duality for namesakes while Shiva-Shakti inspiration takes place. This exactly is its sport, the luxurious knowledge-sport (Jnyana Vilas). During that arousal the threesome namely Viewer, View and Vision are in unison and effulgent. However, since the being firmly holds on to notions of ignorance he sees those three as distinct and so experiences the world as inert, destructible and tragic. Otherwise in practice there is continuos play of radiance, comprehensiveness and bliss.Sri Shankaracharya says that a person who has nothing to acquire from the world does not hanker for fruits (of action) either and naturally remains perpetually immersed in his own blissful state. Or else, our breathing continues uninterrupted without any external cause; likewise, blissful sport of the Lord is without reason or season. Neither Shruti (Veda) or cleverness can demonstrate ‘cause’ for that sport with the Lord. Shruties declare the Lord as being ‘Aaptakaam’, the One that fulfils every desire; likewise, the Lord’s divine play is not for self-gratification at all but that is His very Nature, the state of perpetual Bliss.Indeed, world is a special manifest form of Divine effulgence from Brahmam. Entire universe happens to be under the aegis of Jnyana and is also illumined by Jnyana alone. Just as dream state thrives upon the intrinsic witness Chaitanya (Atma) and is also illumined by the same, entire inert or subtle illusory tenets of material world thrive under aegis of Divine Will and also illumined by it. That sport of the Lord takes place at such tremendous velocity that the being does not see the same view ever again. The Viewer keeps viewing himself in ever new forms and logical conclusion for all that would be to accept it as Divine Sport alone !This very concept is discussed in detail during this seventh chapter.जगद्रूप चिद्विलास (ज्ञानविलास)THE DIVNE COSMIC SPORTयेवढेंही सांकडें । जेणें सारोनि येकीकडे ।उघडिलीं कवाडें । प्रकाशाची ।।१२३।।Sri Dnyanadev now proceeds to discuss sport of Jnyana after having refuted ignorance altogether . The One that created huge wealth of His own non-committal Status and which cannot be tarnished by any means is that unspeakable state. He pushed aside that state and opened all doors to admit light for His Divine Play, while all forms of ‘triplets’ (Triputi) became Him, the Atma alone. Triplets such as knowledge, knower and knowing are verily sport of the basis, the Atma ; however, beings regard it as the world being deluded.दृश्याचिया सृष्टी । दिठीवरी दिठी ।उठलिया तळवटीं । चिन्मात्रची ॥ ७-१२४ ॥Many views became evident while all those doors were opened; moreover, many forms of knowledge were evident. In spite of all that, the basis remains Brahmam alone.दर्शनऋद्धि बहुवसा । चिच्छेषु मातला ऐसा ।जे शिळा न पाहे आरिसा । वेद्यरत्नाचा ॥ ७-१२५ ॥Affluence of that view made the being so very confused that he forgot to peep into the old mirror representing ‘knowing’. (Original text uses the word “Vedya Ratna” , which means a jewel emitting enlightenment as radiance).क्षणीं क्षणीं नीच नवी । दृश्याची चोख मदवी ।दिठीकरवीं वेढवी । उदार जे ॥ ७-१२६ ॥If you ask as to why ‘old’ mirror, the explanation is that the magnanimous Visionary puts new beautiful clothes every moment over is wife representing ‘View’. (‘View’ is ever changing).मागिलिये क्षणीचीं अंगें । पारुसी म्हणोनियां वेगें ।सांडूनि दृष्टि रिगे । नवेया रूपा ॥ ७-१२७ ॥He (the visionary) dons newer forms every moment while discarding older moments.तैसीच प्रतिक्षणीं । जाणिवेचीं लेणीं ।लेऊनि आणी । जाणतेपण ॥ ७-१२८ ॥(Verse 124 discussed as to how the Knowledge personified Lord is considered as very basis and the way innumerable activities take place every moment. However, the ignorant considers the view, wife, riches, son and the world etc as true. Fifteenth chapter of the Dnyaneshwari describes at length ‘Ashvattha Tree’, which discusses the way an ignorant person regards the world. An ignorant child sees golden ornament as ornament alone (not gold therein). Likewise, the ever-changing ‘triplet’ knower, knowing and knowledge has ‘Chaitanya’ alone as basis. However, being unaware of Chaitanya, this Ashvattha tree (world) makes and breaks. In fact Chaitanya is ever existent and therefore its sport too is forever. Nevertheless, Atma deluding as world is phoney like rope deluding as snake. (124 extended ).Similarly, the Lord embellishes us with ornaments of Knowledge and makes us ‘Knower’.Now, if you ask as to why the Lord began this ‘sport of Knowledge’, the answer is as follows.तया परमात्मपदीचें शेष । ना काहीं तया सुसास ।आणि होय येव्हडी कास । घातली जेणें ॥ ७-१२९ ॥Shruties have concluded that the Lord was fed up with loneliness and therefore He created entire cosmos for His sport. The Lord is Jnyana Swaroopa and therefore His sport too is Jnyana alone. Shruties speak while in duality; Atma is in fact impassive.सर्वज्ञतेची परी । चिन्मात्राचे तोंड वरी ।परी तें आन घरीं । जाणिजेना ॥ ७-१३० ॥There is no distinction with Lord Divine even if variety of knowledge is available. Brahmam alone must be all-knowing but that Knowledge is never distinct from Brahmam. Even while innumerable forms of knowledge are present in the world, those can never create apart from Brahmam personified Lord Divine.एवं ज्ञानाज्ञान मिठी । तेंही फांकतसे दिठी ।दृश्यपणें ये भेटी । आपणपयां ॥ ७-१३१ ॥Thus, whether one recognises it as an activity of knowledge or else as ignorance, it is we that make that activity visible and view ourselves becoming that view.तें दृश्य मोटकें देखें । आपण स्वयें दृष्टत्वें तोखे ।तेंचि दिठीचेनि मुखें । माजीं दाटे ॥ ७-१३२ ॥(A) If you ask as to how this activity of play of knowledge takes place, the explanation is that we are contented the moment we see the view becoming visionary ourselves and that very view-visionary ness merges into the original eternal Knowledge, the Lord Divine.तेव्हां घेणें देणें घटे । परी ऐक्याचें सूत न तुटे ।जेवीं मुखीं मुख वाटे । दर्पणें केलें ७-१३३ ॥There is apparent activity in that sport (of knowledge) but fundamental unison never disturbs, just as original face does not change while looking at one’s image in a mirror.अंगें अंगवरी पहुडे । चेइला वेगळा न पडे ।तया वारुवाचेनि पाडें । घेणें देणें ॥ ७-१३४ ॥(B) Sri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj further elaborates as to how that activity takes place without disturbing unison-Just as it is impossible to know as to when an elegant horse sleeps or awakes while standing, it is not known how that activity (sport) takes place.पाणी कल्लोळाचेनि मिसें । आपणपें वेल्हावे जैसें ।वस्तु वस्तुत्वें खेळों ये तैसें । सुखें लाहे ॥ ७-१३५ ॥Or else, just as water sports with itself as wave, Brahmam plays with Itself merrily as Brahmam-ness, that is, as Knowledge.गुंफिवा ज्वाळांचिया माळा । लेइलियाही अनळा ।भेदाचिया आहाळां । काय पडणें आहे ? ॥ ७-१३६ ॥Even while fire wears wreaths of flames, are those distinct from fire ?किं रश्मीचेनि परिवारें । वेढुनि घेतला थोरें ।तरी सूर्यासि दुसरें । बोलों येईल ? ॥ ७-१३७ ॥Alternatively , even while the Sun is enveloped by infinite Sun rays, can those be said as distinct from Sun ?चांदणियाचा गिंवसु । चांदावरी पडिलिया बहुवसु ।काय केवळपणीं त्रासु । देखिजेल ? ॥ ७-१३८ ॥Will the moon feel jittery because of vast moonlight falling over it ?दळाचिया सहस्रवरी । फांको आपुलिया परी ।परी नाहीं दुसरी । भास कमळीं ॥ ७-१३९ ॥Even while lotus blossoms through a thousand petals its unison persists.सहस्रवरी बाहिया । आहाती सहस्रर्जुना राया ।तरी तो काय तिया । येकोत्तरावा ? ॥ ७-१४० ॥King Sahasrarjun possesses thousand arms; however, can there be thousand and one if one Arjun and thousand arms are added ?सौकटाचिया वोजा । पसरो कां बहू पुंजा ।परी ताथुवीं दुजा । भाव आहे ? ॥ ७-१४१ ॥Even while many bundles of yarn are spread over weaver’s wheel, is there anything apart from thread ?कोडीवरी शब्दांचा । मेळावा घरीं वाचेचा ।मीनला तही वाचा । मात्र कीं ते ॥ ७-१४२ ॥Even if millions of words are spoken, the speech is only one !तैसे दृश्याचे डाखळे । नाना दृष्टीचे उमाळे ।उठती लेखावेगळे । द्रष्टत्वेंचि ॥ ७-१४३ ॥Therefore, infinite visible objects, infinite views and their innumerable viewers have Lord Divine as the only basis and therefore all are forms of the Divine alone. There is no trace of distinction whatever.गुळाचा बांधा । फुटलिया मोडीचा धांदा ।जाला तरी नुसधा । गूळचि कीं तो ॥ ७-१४४ ॥While a lump of jaggery breaks into innumerable pieces there appears distinction between each piece; however, there is no distinction with jaggery as such. It remains as jaggery ness alone.तैसें हें दृश्य देखो । कीं बहू होऊनि फांको ।परी भेदाचा नव्हे विखो । तेचि म्हणोनि ॥ ७-१४५ ॥Likewise, whether the Lord views Himself as Viewer or become view Himself and expand manifold, He embellishes Himself in all those forms. There is none other.Few more examples to substantiate this tenet -तया आत्मयाच्या भाखा । न पडेचि दुसरी रेखा ।जही विश्वा अशेखा । भरला आहे ॥ ७-१४६ ॥Even while entire universe full of infinite duality is form of the Lord alone, there is nothing like duality with the Lord.दुबंधा क्षिरोदकीं । बाणें परी अनेकीं ।दिसती तरी तितुकीं । सुतें आथी ? ॥ ७-१४७ ॥Even if many colours can be identified in multicoloured cloth, are threads therein multifarious ?पातयाचि मिठी । नुकलितां दिठी ।अवघियाची सृष्टी । पाविजे जरी ॥ ७-१४८ ॥If ever eye could see entire nature with closed lids,न फुटतां बीजकणिका । माजीं विस्तारे वटु असिका ।तरी अद्वैतफांका । उपमा आथी ॥ ७-१४९ ॥Or else, if entire baniyan tree grows without its seed sprouting, then alone this expanse of non-duality could get simile.(C) Now we will see status of the Lord when this expanse (of non-duality) is unwelcome .(D)मग मातें म्यां न देखावें । ऐसेही भरे हावें ।तरी आंगाचिये विसवे । सेजेवरी ॥ ७-१५० ॥Then, while He (the Lord) does not wish to see Himself, He rests over bed of His own being, which means He becomes the very Basis.पातयाचि मिठी । पडलिया कीजे दिठी ।आपुलेचि पोटीं । रिगोनि असणें ॥ ७-१५१ ॥Just as vision rests with itself while lids are closed,कां नुदेलिया सुधाकरु । आपणपें भरे सागरु ।ना कूर्मी गिली विस्तारु । आपेंआप ॥ ७-१५२ ॥Or else, just as the ocean remains ever full in spite of moon not rising; alternatively, as tortoise voluntarily merges its limbs within it at ease,अवसेचिये दिवसीं । सतराविये अंशीं ।स्वयें जैसें शशी । रिगणें होय ॥ ७-१५३ ॥Or, just as the moon enters seventeenth phase, that is, within its own self during Amavasya night,तैसें दृश्य जिणतां द्रष्टे । पडले जैताचिये कुटे ।तया नांव वावटे । आपणपयां ॥ ७-१५४ ॥Likewise, Visionary is accused of winningness for winning over view. That allegation of winning is called ebbing in itself. That is, original status of Atma persists as it is.(E) All these are only blabber; nothing really happens from spiritual viewpoint.सहजें आघवेंचि आहे । तरी कोणा कोण पाहे ? ।तें न देखणेंचि आहे । स्वरूप निद्रा ॥ ७-१५५ ॥This entire universe is basically form of Brahmam alone; therefore, who is to view whom ? Moreover, viewing or not viewing sans basis of view. Such Self-ness is named “Yoga Nidra”!If that is so, how does sensuality creep in while there is desire to become many, as discussed earlier ?नाना न देखणें नको । म्हणे मीचि मातें देखो ।तरी आपेंआप विखो । अपैसें असे ॥ ७-१५६ ॥The explanation for this is that the thing we call as Swaroopa Nidra or in practice the notion of not viewing the view unwanted and rather viewing oneself alone and let activity of Jnyana continue taking place. However, it is Atma alone that easily indulges into that activity .जें अनादिच दृश्यपणें । अनादिच देखणें ।हें आतां कायी कोणें । रचूं जावें ? ॥ ७-१५७ ॥Because Brahmam is eternally embellished as view-vision form; in that case, does anyone requires to create new format of view-visionary now ?We will consider the same through examples –अवकाशेशीं गगना । गतीसीं पवना ।कीं दीप्तीसीं तपना । संबंधु कीजे ? ॥ ७-१५८ ॥Does anybody needs to establish relation between space and sky, velocity with wind or radiance with fire ? Both are basically one only !विश्वपणें उजिवडे । तरी विश्व देखे फुडें ।ना तें नाहीं तेव्हढें । नाहींची देखे ॥ ७-१५९ ॥Likewise, even while Atma is effulgence for the universe it sees the universe and even if the universe is absent, it sees through its absence.विश्वाचें असे नाहीं । विपायें बुडालियाही ।तही दशा ऐसिही । देखतचि असे ॥ ७-१६० ॥At the most it may be said that in spite of illusion as to existence or non-existence of the universe, that state or position is seen by it (Atma) alone.Some more examples to elucidate more –कापुराहि आथी चांदिणें । कीं तोचि न माखे तेणें ।तैसें केवळ देखणें । ठायें ठावो ॥ ७-१६१ ॥Whiteness accompanying camphor is not the result of daubing moonlight ( camphor is intrinsically white by nature ) . Likewise, Brahmam is evident through its visibility, that is, only as Knowledge (Jnyana).किंबहुना ऐसें । वस्तु भलतिये दशे ।देखतचि असे । आपणपयातें ॥ ७-१६२ ॥Not only that, Brahmam is cognizable at grotesque places and times as being self-evident.मनोरथांचीं देशांतरें । मनीं प्रकाशून नरें ।मग तेथें आदरें । हिंडे जैसा ॥ ७-१६३ ॥Just as a person creates wonderful nature while day-dreaming and moves around gleefully at will,कां दाटला डोळा डोळ्यां । डोळा चितारा होऊनियां ।स्फुरे चोख म्हणौनियां । विस्मो नाहीं ॥ ७-१६४ ॥Or else, just as the eye condenses within itself and views weird forms, where is wonder in Atma embellishing itself with entire ‘triplets’, being pristine pure naturally ?यालागीं एकें चिद्रूपें । देखिजे कां आरोपे ।आपणयां आपणपें । काय काज ? ॥ ७-१६५ ॥Therefore, what’s the point in alleging that the self-same Self (Atma) views itself ?Many examples can elucidate this-किळेचें पांघरुन । आपजवी रत्न कोण ? ।कीं सोने ले सोनें पण । जोड जोडूं ? ॥ ७-१६६ ॥Does anyone cover a jewel with lustre? Or else, does gold wear goldenness borrowed from others ?चंदन सौरभ वेढी ? । कीं सुधा आपणया वाढी ? ।कीं गूळ चाखे गोडी ? । ऐसें आथी हें ? ॥ ७-१६७ ॥Does sandalwood wrap itself with fragrance? Or, does nectar ask anyone one else to taste itself? Or else, does jaggery tastes its own sweetness ?कीं उजाळाचे किळे । कापुरा पुटीं दिधलें ? ।कीं ताऊन ऊन केलें । आगीतें काई ? ॥ ७-१६८Has camphor been polished with whiteness, or fire made hot by heating ?नाना ते लता । आपुले वेली गुंडाळितां ।घर करी न करितां । जयापरी ॥ ७-१६९ ॥Or else, just as creeper by virtue of its curling shoots creates a nest inadvertently,कां प्रभेचा उभला । दीपप्रकाश संचला ।तैसा चैतन्यें गिंवसला । चिद्रूप स्फुरे ॥ ७-१७० ॥Or, just as lamp becomes radiant by virtue of effulgence, expansion of Chaitanya inspires Atma.ऐसें आपणया आपण । आपुलें निरीक्षण ।करावें येणेंवीण । करितुचि असे ॥ ७-१७१ ॥Thus, one should watch oneself. As it is, Atma is ever watchful without reason.ऐसें हें देखणें न देखणें । हें आंधरें चांदिणें ।मा चंद्रासि उणें । स्फुरतें का ? ॥ ७-१७२ ॥Therefore, there is nothing like viewing or not viewing with Atma. Does moon ever possess contrary notions of dark and bright?म्हणोनि हें न व्हावे । ऐसेंही करूं पावे ।तरी तैसाचि स्वभावें । आयिता असे ॥ ७-१७३ ॥Therefore If he refrains from being the ‘threesome’ (Triputi), he is the ‘realised’ one (Siddha) by nature.द्रष्टा दृश्य ऐसें । अळुमाळु दोनी दिसे ।तेंही परस्परानुप्रवेशें । कांहीं ना कीं ॥ ७-१७४ ॥Even while two notions of view and viewer are faintly cognisable, both disappear while merging into each other.तेथें दृश्य द्रष्टां भरे । । द्रष्टेपण दृश्यीं न सरे ।मा दोन्ही न होनि उरे । दोहींचें साच ॥ ७-१७५ ॥On that occasion, the viewer and view disappear into each other and while both enter into oblivion, what remains is their basis alone.मग भलतेथ भलतेव्हां । माझारीले दृश्य-द्रष्टाभावा ।आटणी करीत खेंवा । येती दोन्ही ॥ ७-१७६ ॥And then, notions of view and viewer condense themselves at grotesque place and time while uniting at the midpoint of vision.कापुरीं अग्निप्रवेशु । कीं अग्नि घातला पोतासु ।ऐसें नव्हे संसरिसु । वेंचु जाला ॥ ७-१७७ ॥There is no point in saying that camphor entered fire or fire entered camphor, since both are destroyed simultaneously !येका येकु वेंचला । शून्य बिंदु शून्यें पुसिला ।द्रष्टा दृश्याचा निमाला । तैसें होय ॥ ७-१७८ ॥One deducted from one makes zero as remainder; likewise, condensing view and viewer leaves Atma alone as natural consequence.किंबहुना आपुलिया । प्रतिबिंबा झोंबिनलिया ।झोंबीसकट आटोनियां । जाईजे जेवीं ॥ ७-१७९ ॥What is more, if a person were to embrace his own image, both him, his image along with the embrace just condense.तैसें रुसता दृष्टी । द्रष्टा दृश्य भेटी ।येती तेथें मिठी । दोहींची पडे ॥ ७-१८० ॥Likewise, while vision disappears, the viewer meets view and both unite.सिंधु पूर्वापर । न मिळती तंवचि सागर ।मग येकवट नीर । जैसें होय ॥ ७-१८१ ॥Eastern ocean and western ocean are named so until those do not meet each other; once merged, all is water all the way ! Likewise, Atma persists as its pristine, attribute less self.बहुये हें त्रिपुटी । सहजें होतया राहटी ।प्रतिक्षणीं काय ठी । करीतसे ? ॥ ७-१८२ ॥While those infinite ‘triplets’ are engaged in their natural activities, it is not necessary to monitor those every moment.दोनी विशेषें गिळी । ना निर्विशिष्टातें उगळी ।उघडीझांपी येकेंच डोळीं । वस्तुचि हे ॥ ७-१८३ ॥Atma neither accepts special notions of view and viewer, or discards ‘not special’ notions outright; nevertheless, notions of ‘hide and seek’ are displayed by Brahmam over itself.पातया पातें मिळे । कीं दृष्ट्ट्त्वें सैंघ पघळे ।तिये उन्मळितां मावळे । नवलावो हा ॥ ७-१८४ ॥The wonder over here is that the moment lids join, entire visible world expands and while those slightly open up entire view vanishes !(Joining the lids means while vision is closed, that is while it is introvert !)It verily means that while looking outwards, our extrovert nature is unawares of overt vision of Atma. Therefore that extrovert vision sees not only the viewer but entire gamut of view-viewer too. Whereas, while ‘introvert’ it sees eternal view of Atma alone, making the vision aware of viewing only. There is no distinction between viewer and view any more. This exactly is “Chid-Vilas”!However, that experience remains only as long as lids have joined making the vision introvert; whereas, once vision is extrovert or awareness of view-viewer notion appears, that experience of ‘Chid-Vilas’ vanishes and view-viewer experience begins again.Our usual experience is that vision disappears while lids join and reappears on opening lids. However, experience of ‘Chid-Vilas’ is indeed unique, since closing the lids makes vision introvert and Nitya or Brahma Drishti is apparent that gives experience of Chid-Vilas and disappears on opening or being extrovert.द्रष्टा दृश्याचा ग्रासी । मध्यें लेखु विकासी ।योगभूमिका ऐसी । अंगीं वाजे ॥ ७-१८५ ॥The intermediate status following disappearance of view-viewer state of the Self is verily ‘Yoga Bhoomika’ (Basis or foundation for yoga).उठिला तरंगु बैसे । पुढें आनुही नुमसे ।ऐसा ठाईं जैसे । पाणी होय ॥ ७-१८६ ॥Implied meaning – The interval between a thought surfacing and the one just vanished is the moment when Chaitanya is clearly apparent. Just as the state of water while one wave disappears and another yet to form.कां नीद सरोनि गेली । जागृती नाहीं चेयिली ।तेव्हां होय आपुली । जैसी स्थिति ॥ ७-१८७ ॥Or else, the twilight state where sleep is over but awakening is yet to occur,नाना येका ठाऊनि उठी । अन्यत्र नव्हे पैठी ।हे गमे तैशिया दृष्टी । दिठी सुतां ॥ ७-१८८ ॥Alternatively, only the one that views the intermediate state between viewing an object before viewing another, can understand this Yoga Bhoomika.कां मावळो सरला दिवो । रात्रीचा न करी प्रसवो ।तेणें गगनें हा भावो । वाखाणिला ॥ ७-१८९ ॥Indeed, the twilight state of the sky where day time is finished but night has not set in, is the very state that describes this tenet of divinity.घेतला स्वासु बुडाला । घापता नाहीं उठिला ।तैसा दोहींसि सिवतला । नव्हे जो अर्थु ॥ ७-१९० ॥This state is similar to that of Prana (life force) that is in between breath inhaled and that yet to be exhaled.कीं अवघांचि करणीं । विषयांची घेणी ।करितांचि येके क्षणीं । जें कीं आहे ॥ ७-१९१ ॥That fraction of moment where entire activities of senses continue, that interval between activities is verily the state of Yoga Bhoomika.तयासारिखा ठावो । हा निकराचा आत्मभावो ।येणें कां पाहों । न पाहों लाभे ? ॥ ७-१९२ ॥Form of the Atma is akin to the state described through above mentioned examples. In view of such status, can Atma be ascribed being viewer or non-viewer ?Now, from this verse up to verse 202, the words ‘viewing’ and ‘non-viewing’ will be frequently used. The word ‘viewing’ would mean Jnyana and non-viewing as Ajnyana; whereas, viewer is ‘Jnyani’ and non-viewer is ‘Ajnyani’.कायी आपुलिये भूमिके । आरिसा आपुलें निकें ।पाहों न पाहों शके । हें कें आहे ? ॥ ७-१९३ ॥Is it not meaningless to say that mirror can view it being clean or cannot view being so ?कां समोर पाठिमोरिया । मुखें होऊं ये आरिसिया ।वांचूनि तयाप्रति तया । होआवें कां ? ॥ ७-१९४ ॥Mirror grants notion of front or back of face. Is it possible to speak of front or back of face without mirror? The face remains as it is, without front or back for that matter.सर्वांगें देखणा रवी । परी ऐसें घडे कवीं ।जे उदोअस्तूंचीं चवी । स्वयें घेपे ? ॥ ७-१९५ ॥It is true that the Sun is radiant all over; however, is it ever possible for it to view its own rise or setting ?कीं रसु आपणिया पिये ? । कीं तोंड लपऊनि ठाये ? ।हें रसपणें नव्हे । तया जैसें ॥ ७-१९६ ॥However clever a person may be, he cannot see his own birth or death either. Or else, can juice drink itself? Or, does it hide its face and sit aside since it does not drink? That juice being its own juicy form, both the above are impossible.तैसें पाहणें न पाहणें । पाहणेंपणेंचि हा नेणे ।आणि दोन्ही हें येणें । स्वयेंचि असिजे ॥ ७-१९७ ॥As per your view, he is not aware of viewing or not viewing, being verily viewing ness embodied, that is, being Jnyana Swaroopa. It means that this activity of viewing ness or non-viewing ness does not take place with him; however, both these activities cannot take place without his own aegis.जें पाहणेंचि म्हणौनियां । पाहणें नव्हे आपणयां ।तैं न पाहणें आपसया । हाचि आहे ॥ ७-१९८ ॥Brahmam being very form of viewing ness it does not view itself, which means that there is no chance of viewing. Therefore, does it not establish the fact that he is non-viewer, that is, does not view himself ?आणि न पाहणें मा कैसें । आपणपें पाहों बैसे ? ।तरी पाहणें हें ऐसें । हाचि पुढती ॥ ७-१९९ ॥If ‘not viewing’ due to absence of duality is his very nature, how is it that he views himself ? If that be the doubt, as elaborated in previous verse he does not view himself for sure, because he is eternally very form of viewing ness that is Jnyana personified !हीं दोन्ही परस्परें । नांदती एका हारें ।बांधोनि येरयेरें । नाहीं केलें ॥ ७-२०० ॥Both attributes of Viewing and not viewing cohabit in parallel. Both destroy themselves being bound to each other.पाहाणया पाहणें आहे । तरी न पाहणें हेंचि नोहे ।म्हणौनि याची सोये । नेणती दोन्ही ॥ ७-२०१ ॥If viewer is verily form of viewing ness, the question of not viewing does not arise at all. Therefore both are not entertained by this form.एवं पाहणें न पाहणें । चोरूनियां असणें ।ना पाहे तरी कोणें । काय पाहिलें ? ॥ ७-२०२ ॥Thus the Self hides itself from both attributes of viewing and not viewing. Alternatively, if at all it is said as ‘viewed’, who exactly viewed and what ?दिसत्यानें दृश्य भासे । म्हणावें ना देखिलें ऐसें ।तरी दृश्यास्तव दिसे । ऐसें नाहीं ॥ ७-२०३ ॥(Pre-verse) – If view is seen by viewer, can it be said that he viewed the view ?(Post-verse) – The answer is ‘no’, because view does not have distinct existence from viewer.दृश्य कीर दृष्टीसी दिसे । परी साच कीं द्रष्टा असे ।आतां नाहीं तें कैसें । देखिलें होये ? ॥ ७-२०४ ॥Truly speaking, apparently vision certainly sees the view; however, viewer is verily that view. In that case, how can one see view that doesn’t exist ?मुख दिसो कां दर्पणीं । परी असणें कीं तये मुखपणीं ।तरी जाली ते वायाणी । प्रतीति कीं ॥ ७-२०५ ॥If face is seen in mirror, let it be so ; however, it (face) is stay put with itself. In that case, the experience of face in mirror proves false !देखतांची आपणयातें । आलिये निदेचेनि हातें ।तया स्वप्ना ऐसा येथें । निहाळितां ॥ २०६ ॥‘Viewing’ here is like viewing ourselves in dream due to influence of sleep.निद्रिस्तु सुखासनीं । वाहिजे आनु वाहणीं ।तो साच काय तेसणी । दशा पावे ? ॥ ७-२०७ ॥A person sleeping comfortably over his bed is carried away elsewhere in dream. In that case, does he actually reach that state ?कीं सिसेंवीण येक येकें । दाविलीं राज्य करिती रंकें ।तैसींचि तियें सतुकें । आथी काई ? ॥ २०८ ॥If a headless couple is seen reigning the kingdom in dream, can it be true ?ते निद्रा जेव्हां नाहीं । तेव्हां जो जैसा जिये ठाई ।तैसाची स्वप्नी कांहीं । न पविजेचि कीं ॥ ७-२०९ ॥While sleep gets over, he is verily as ever and over the same comfortable bed even though experiencing illusive dream .तान्हेलया मृगतृष्णा । न भेटलेया शिणु जेसणा ।मा भेटलेया कोणा । काय भेटलें ॥ ७-२१० ॥The thirsty one was distressed for not getting mirage waters; however, what did he get who acquired it ?कीं साउलीचेनि व्याजें । मेळविलें जेणें दुजे ।तयाचें करणें वांझें । जालें जैसें ॥ ७-२११ ॥Or else, the one that took his own shadow as companion, is that accompaniment not futile ?तैसें दृश्य करूनियां । द्रष्ट्यातें द्रष्ट्या ।दाऊनि धाडिलें वाया । दाविलेपणही ॥ ७-२१२ ॥Likewise, viewing ness of exhibiting view to the viewer is also futile.जें दृश्य द्रष्टाचि आहे । मा दावणें कां साहे ? ।न दाविजे तरी नोहे । तया तो काई ? ॥ ७-२१३ ॥If the view is verily viewer alone, will he tolerate exhibiting the view ? Moreover, even if not exhibited does his basic nature (viewing) disappear ?आरिसा पां न पाहे । तरी मुखचि वाया जाये ? ।तेणेंवीण आहे । आपणपें कीं ॥ ७-२१४ ॥If we do not see in the mirror, does our face go waste ? It remains as it is even without mirror !तैसें आत्मयातें आत्मया । न दाविजे पैं माया ।तरी आत्मा वावो कीं वायां । तेचि कीं ना ? ॥ ७-२१५ ॥Similarly, Maya cannot demonstrate Atma to Atma; in that case, is Maya false or Atma ?म्हणोनि आपणापें द्रष्टा । न करितां असें पैठां ।आतां जालाचि दिठा । कां न करावा ॥ ७-२१६ ॥Therefore, Atma is Self-evident without being Viewer itself. Now, when it is Self-evident as viewer by nature where is need to become viewer all over again ?नाना मागुतें दाविलें । तरी पुनरुक्त जालें ।येणेंहि बोलें गेलें । दावणें वृथा ॥ ७-२१७ ॥Moreover, if tried to prove that is already established, there is blame of repetitiveness. Therefore it is futile to establish viewer ness with Atma from this viewpoint.दोरासर्पाभासा । साचपणें दोरु कां जैसा ।द्रष्टा दृश्या तैसा । द्रष्टा साचु ॥ ७-२१८ ॥Original rope is verily true between rope and illusory snake over it; likewise, between view and viewer it is the viewer alone that is true.दर्पणें आणि मुखें । मुख दिसे हें न चुके ।परी मुखीं मुख सतुकें । दर्पणीं नाहीं ॥ ७-२१९ ॥It is true that mirror exhibits image of the face as well as apparent quality of relative reflective state with the face; however, in reality entire face is with the face alone and not with mirror.तैसे द्रष्टा दृश्या दोहों । साच कीं देखता ठावो ।म्हणौनि दृश्य तें वावो । देखिलें जही ॥ ७-२२० ॥Similarly, original viewer is the basis for both view and viewer tenets; therefore, even while view is visible, it is phoney.वावो कीर होये । तरी दिसत तंव आहे ।येणें बोलें होये । आथी ऐसें ॥ ७-२२१ ॥You say that view is phoney; however it is visible nevertheless. Then why not admit that view exists ?तरी आन आनातें । देखोन होय देखतें ।तरी मानूं येतें । देखिलें ऐसें ॥ ७-२२२ ॥Between two phoney objects if one of them happens to see another, the one viewing earlier would be viewer; moreover, view was reason for its being viewer. Therefore it means that view was originally absent !येथें देखोनि कां न देखोनि । ऐक्य कां नाना होऊनि ।परि हा येणेंवाचूनि । देखणें असे ? ॥ ७-२२३ ॥In such situation, whether viewing or not viewing, united or distinct; in spiritual parlance only One exists and there being none else, can viewing take place ? That is, can there be viewer ness ?आरिशानें हो कां दाविलें । तरी मुखचि मुखें देखिलें ।तो न दावी तरी संचलें । मुखचि मुखीं ॥ ७-२२४ ॥Even if mirror showed the face, it is the face that viewed the face; moreover, even if mirror did not show the face, it is face alone that is one with the face!तैसें दाविलें नाहीं । तरी हाचि ययाचा ठाईं ।ना दाविला तरीही । हाचि यया ॥ ७-२२५ ॥Likewise , Atma remains as it is, in spite of having no relation to view. Moreover, even if demonstrated by view it remains so.जागृती दाविला । कां निदा हारविला ।परी जैसा येकला । पुरुषपुरुषीं ॥ ७-२२६ ॥Whether shown through wakefulness or hidden by sleep, the being remains with itself anyway .कां रायातें तूं रावो । ऐसा दाविजे प्रत्ययो ।तही ठायें ठावो । राजाचि असे ॥ ७-२२७ ॥Or else, whether a King is made aware of his being King through words or not made aware thus, the King remains as King alone.ना तरी रायपण राया । नाणिजे कीं प्रत्यया ।तही कांहीं उणें तया । माजी असे ? ॥ ७-२२८ ॥Alternatively, even if the King is not made aware of his being King, does it bring meanness to his being King ?तैसें दावितां न दावितां । हा ययापरौता ।चढे न तुटे आईता । असतचि असे ॥ ७-२२९ ॥Similarly, whether it (Atma) is shown through Jnyana or not shown through Ajnyana, it neither expands or diminishes being transcendental (to both).तरी कां निमित्य पिसें । हा यया दाऊं बैसें ।देखतें नाहीं तैं आरिसे । देखावे कोणें ? ॥ ७-२३० ॥(Pre-verse)- In that case, is there reason for the madness of exhibiting itself ?(Post-verse)- You see, who sees in the mirror if there is none to see?दीपु दावी तयातें रची । कीं तेणेंची सिद्धि दीपाची ।तैसी सत्ता निमित्ताची । येणें साच ॥ ७-२३१ ॥Whether it is the one who kindled lamp was established by the lamp, or the lamp was established by kindler of the lamp ? Indeed, the kindler establishes the lamp, since kindler is already established. Likewise, already established power is verily cause for any activity taking place. Indeed, that power grants apparent validity to entire activity.The foregoing example is cited as duality between lamp and its kindler; now, let us consider it in non-dual fashion.वन्हीतें वन्हीशिखा । प्रकाशी कीर देखा ।परी वन्ही न होनि लेखा । येईल काई ? ॥ ७-२३२ ॥It is certainly apparent that flame of fire illumines the fire; however, can it be said as distinct from fire ?आणि निमित्त जें बोलावें । तें येणें दिसोनि दावावें ।देखिलें तरी स्वभावें । दृश्यही हा ॥ ७-२३३ ॥Moreover, since Atma demonstrates itself through view, it must be said that it is the cause; nevertheless , while trying to know the view, Atma is verily the view as well!म्हणौनि स्वयंप्रकाशा यया । आपणापें देखावया ।निमित्त हा वांचुनियां । नाहींच मा ॥ ७-२३४ ॥Therefore, this self-effulgent Paramatma has none other cause to view Him.भलतेन विन्यासें । दिसत तेणेंची दिसे ।हा वांचून नसे । येथें कांहीं ॥ ७-२३५ ॥Entire expanse of view takes place under His aegis alone. There is nothing other than Him.लेणें आणि भांगारें । भांगारचि येक स्फुरे ।कां जे येथें दुसरें । नाहींचि म्हणोनि ॥ ७-२३६ ॥Ornament and gold contain gold alone ; because there is nothing else.जळ तरंगीं दोहीं । जळावांचूनि नाहीं ।म्हणौनि आन कांहीं । नाहीं ना नोहे ॥ ७-२३७ ॥There is water alone in wave or water and therefore even while two words for self-same water are used, there is nothing else except water and will not be either.हो कां घ्राणानुमेवो । येवो कां हातीं घेवो ।लाहो कां दिठी पाहों । भलतैसा ॥ ७-२३८ ॥परी कापुराच्या ठाईं । कापुरावांचूनि नाहीं ।तैशा रीती भलतयाही । हाचि यया ॥ ७-२३९ ॥There is nothing other than camphor whether it is known through fragrance, soft touch or whiteness; likewise, whatever form it may manifest , there is nothing apart from Atma.आतां दृश्यपणें दिसो । कीं द्रष्टा होऊनि असो ।परी हां वांचूनि अतिसो । नाहीं येथें ॥ ७-२४० ॥Therefore, whether Atma manifests as view or viewer in practice, there is nothing except Atma in this phenomenon of view-viewership.गंगा गंगापणें वाहो । कीं सिंधु होऊनि राहो ।परी पाणीपणा नवलाहो । हें न देखो कीं ॥ ७-२४१ ॥Whether the Ganges flows as Ganges or flows along with river Sindhu, there is no distinction while seen as water.थिजावें कीं विघरावें । हें अप्रयोजक आघवें ।घृतपण नव्हे । अनारिसें ॥ ७-२४२ ॥It is futile to say whether Ghee is thick or fluid, since there is distinction as far as Ghee-ness is concerned.ज्वाळा आणि वन्हि । न लेखिजती दोन्ही ।वन्हिमात्र म्हणोनि । आन नव्हेचि कीं ॥ ७-२४३ ॥Fire and flame cannot be considered distinct, since both are form of fire alone.तैसें द्रश्य कां द्रष्टा । या दोन्ही दशा वांझटा ।पाहतां येकी काष्ठा । स्फूर्तिमात्र तो ॥ ७-२४४ ॥Likewise, both notions of view and viewer are false; logically speaking their original status is ‘inspirational’ Atma and that status is dispassionate.इये स्फूर्तीकडुनी । नाहीं स्फुर्तिमात्रवांचुनि ।तरी काय देखोनि । देखतु असे ? ॥ ७-२४५ ॥While looking at it from ‘inspiration’ point of view, there is nothing other than ‘inspiration’; therefore it is natural query as to what makes it the ‘viewer’.पुढें फरकेंना दिसतें । ना मागें डोकावी देखतें ।पाहतां येणें ययातें । स्फुरद्रुपेंचि ॥ ७-२४६ ॥View does not flutter ahead or viewer does not peep behind; very viewing itself is inspirational.For example -कल्लोळें जळीं घातलें । सोनेंनि सोनें पांघुरलें ।दिठीचे पाय गुंतले । दिठीसीचि ॥ ७-२४७ ॥Waves merged into water; gold enveloped itself by gold or vision got entangled in itself.श्रुतीसि मेळविली श्रुती । दृतीसि मेळविली दृती ।कां जे तृप्तीसीचि तृप्ति । वेगारिली ॥ ७-२४८ ॥Word added to word, fragrance daubed with fragrance or contentment served with contentment.गुळें गुळ परवडिला । मेरु सुवर्णें मढिला ।कां ज्वाळा गुंडाळिला । अनळु जैसा ॥ ७-२४९ ॥Jaggery smeared with jaggery; mountain Meru coated with gold; fire enveloped by flames.हें बहु काय बोलिजे । कीं नभ नभाचिया रिगे सेजे ।मग कोणें निदिजे । मग जागे तें कोणें ॥ ७-२५० ॥What more can be said ! If sky goes to sleep over bed of sky, who exactly sleeps ?हा येणें पाहिला ऐसा । कांहीं न पाहिला जैसा ।आणि न पाहतांहि अपैसा । पाहणेंचि हा ॥ ७-२५१ ॥Thus, its manner of viewing is like non-viewing; moreover, Atma is natural viewer-like.येथें बोलणें न साहे । जाणणें न समाये ।अनुभव न लाहे । अंगी मिरौ ॥ ७-२५२ ॥Here speech is incomprehensible , knowing is out of reach and no dignity to experience ( parading experience).म्हणोन ययातें येणें । ये परीचें पाहणें ।पाहतां कांहीं कोणे । पाहिलें नाहीं ॥ ७-२५३ ॥Such is its viewing. In fact nobody has seen anything.किंबहुना ऐसें । आत्मेनि आत्मा प्रकाशे ।न चेतुचि चेऊं बैसे । जयासि तो ॥ ७-२५४ ॥What more can be said ! That is the way Atma dwells; it is inherently awake without awakening.स्वयें दर्शनाचिया सवा । अवघियाची जात फावां ।परी निजात्मभावा । न मोडिताही ॥ ७-२५५ ॥It is true that Illusion of view, viewer and vision with Atma is experienced because of very nature of vision; however, basic Selfsame ness of Atma does not destroy.न पाहतां आरिसा असो पाहे । तरी तेंचि पाहणें होये ।आणि पाहणेन तरी जाये । न पाहणें पाहणें ॥ ७-२५६ ॥Face remains as face without seeing in mirror and deliberately seeing face in mirror is verily face alone; moreover, viewing from original perspective removes notions of both viewing and not viewing.भलतैसा फांके । परी येकपणा न मुके ।नाना संकोचे तरी असकें । हाचि आथी ॥ ७-२५७ ॥Oneness of Atma does not destroy in spite of its colossal expanse; moreover, even when it shrinks it remains complete.सूर्याचिया हाता । अंधकारू नये सर्वथा ।मा प्रकाशाची कथा । आईकता का ? ॥ ७-२५८ ॥The Sun never experiences darkness; then, why will it listen to story of effulgence either ?अंधारु कां उजिवडु । हा एकला येकवडु ।जैसा कां मार्तंडु । भलतेथें ॥ ७-२५९ ॥Whether light or darkness, the Sun ever remains in its glorious effulgence as its very nature.तैसा आवडतिये भूमिके । आरूढलियाही कौतुकें ।परि ययातें हा न चुके । हाचि ऐसा ॥ ७-२६० ॥Thus, whatever form the Atma might take with penchant, it remains as it is without change in its original form.सिंधूची सींव न मोडे । पाणीपणा सळु न पडे ।जरी मोडुतु का गाडे । तरंगांचे ॥ ७-२६१ ॥Even while innumerable waves form and break, the ocean does not lose fullness, neither does it suffer break in its water-ness.रश्मि सूर्यींच आथी । परी बिंबाबहेरी जाती ।म्हणौनि बोधसंपत्ती । उपमा नोहे ॥ ७-२६२ ॥No other simile befits Atma. It is incomparable. Sun rays exist with the Sun but they spread out away from it; therefore, simile of Sun does not beseem Atma.आणि पल्हेचा दोडा । न पडतां तढा ।जग तंव कापडा । न भरेचि कीं ॥ ७-२६३ ॥If the world does not fill with cloth before breaking of cotton bud, simile of cotton in its bud does not befit Atma Swaroopa .सोनयाचा रवा । रवेपणाचा ठेवा ।अवघेयाचि अवयवा । लेणें नोहे ॥ ७-२६४ ॥It is not possible to adorn entire body with gold ornaments before melting bullion.न फेडितां आडवावो । दिगंतौनि दिगंता जावो ।न ये मा पावों । उपमा काई ? ॥ ७-२६५ ॥Travel in two directions cannot accomplish without getting rid of obstacles; then, can direction be a simile to Swaroopa ?म्हणौनि इये आत्मलीळे । नाहीं आन कांटाळें ।आतां ययाचिये तुळे । हाचि यया ॥ ७-२६६ ॥Therefore, there is no balance to weigh the sport of Atma Swaroopa; it can be weighed by itself.स्वप्रकाशाचा घांसीं । जेवितां बहु वेगेंसी ।वेंचेना परी कुसीं । वाखही न पडे ॥ ७-२६७ ॥Atma swallows morsels of self-effulgence rapidly enough; however the marvel is , neither food exhausts nor its appetite satiated !ऐसा निरुपमापरी । आपुलिये विलासवरी ।आत्मा राणीव करी । आपुला ठाईं ॥ ७-२६८ ॥Thus Atma reigns supreme under its incomparable effulgence in its sport.CHAPTER SEVEN(Section Three)Prologue : -After describing incomparable sport of Knowledge with Atma, Sri Dnyaneshwar maharaj once again takes up the original topic, namely ‘Refuting Ignorance’ (Ajnyana Khandan) . Sri Dnyanadev furnishes queries as prologue and proceeds to quench those in the form of epilogue in this chapter. In spite of allegation by some as to ignorance inhabiting Atma, Sri Dnyanadev does not ridicule the view but answers humbly entire doubts with appropriate illustrations.Nevertheless, the being is unable to get rid of his ignorance however hard he tries. Therefore during this third section Sri Dnyanadev sets out to refute obstinate viewpoints of protagonists having allegiance to ignorance doctrine, using the unique “ Vyajokti “ technique ( ironical praise), which again he alone could indulge in !!In spite of this, we believe that ignorance exists with Atma !तयातें म्हणिपें अज्ञान । तरी न्याया भरलें रान ।आतां म्हणे तयाचें वचन । उपसावों आम्ही ॥ ७-२६९ ॥If you dub this entire sport of Atma as ignorance, it must be said that justice has gone into wilderness ( meaning Atma is denied justice )! However if you insist that ignorance inhabits Atma, it would be better to keep mum and listen to you quietly !प्रकाशितें अज्ञान । ऐसें म्हणणें हन ।तरी निधि दावितें अंजन । न म्हणिजे काई ? ॥ ७-२७० ॥If you name the one spreading brilliance as ignorance, it is like naming collirium that demonstrates hidden wealth as soot !सुवर्णगौर अंबिका । न म्हणिजे कय काळिका ? ।तैसा आत्मप्रकाशका । अज्ञानवादु ॥ ७-२७१ ॥Don’t we name shining bright golden image of female deity as “Kaalika”? Likewise it is paradoxical to call the self-effulgent Atma as ignorance.येरव्हीं शिवोनि पृथ्वीवरि । तत्त्वांच्या वाणेपरी ।जयाचा रश्मिकरीं । उजाळा येती ॥ ७-२७२ ॥In fact, the ‘thing’ that creates and illumines everything right from Shiva principle down to smallest fractions of earth atoms;जेणें ज्ञान सज्ञान होये । दृङ्मात्र दृष्टीतें विये ।प्रकाशाचा दिवो पाहे । प्रकाशासी ॥ ७-२७३ ॥The one, that grants knowledge-ness to worldly Knowledge, entire ‘triplets’ convert into Jnyana alone, effulgence becomes effulgent;तें कोणें निकृष्टें । दाविलें अज्ञानाचेनि बोटें ।ना तमें सूर्य मोटे । बांधतां निकें ॥ ७-२७४ ॥If that knowledge-personified Atma is ridiculed as ignorance, such statement would be as absurd as saying the Sun bundled tight in darkness !`अ` पूर्वी ज्ञानाक्षरी । वसतां ज्ञानाची थोरी ।शब्दार्थाची उजरी । अपूर्व नव्हे कीं ? ॥ ७-२७५ ॥Indeed, your wordy cleverness must be applauded when you add ‘A’ as prefix to the word Jnyana possessing immense greatness, claiming ‘A’ as very Vibhuti of the Lord !!लाखेचे मांदुसे । आगीचें ठेवणें कायिसें ? ।आंतु बाहेरी सरिसें । करून घाली ॥ ७-२७६ ॥What else can be surmised except wordy cleverness when one says, ‘preserving fire in box of sealing wax’?!! Because fire will burn off entire box of wax anyway!म्हणोनि जग ज्ञानें स्फितें । बोलतां अज्ञानवादातें ।विखुरली होती आतें । वाचेचिये ॥ ७-२७७ ॥Therefore naming the world brimming with Jnyana as Ajnyana is like meaningless blabber.आखरीं तंव गोवधु । पुढारा अनृत बाधु ।मा कैसा अज्ञानवादु । कीजे ज्ञानीं ? ॥ ७-२७८ ॥Or else, uttering the word ‘Govadha’ (cow slaughter) entails single fault and saying ‘ cow killed without cow slaughter’ becomes double fault of speaking untruth. Likewise, Ajnyana is non-existent in the first place but saying it exists is fault number one and saying Ajnyana exists with Atma is another fault; therefore how can it stand to reason ?आणि अज्ञान म्हणणें । स्फुरतसे अर्थपणें ।आतां हेंचि ज्ञान कोणे । मानिजेना ? ॥ ७-२७९ ॥Practically speaking, the word Ajnyana verily denotes Jnyana. How can one say Ajnyana without the prop of Jnyana ? In that case, would everybody not admit Atma as verily Jnyana ?असो हें आत्मराजें । आपणापें जेणें तेजें ।आपणचि देखिजे । बहुये परी ॥ ७-२८० ॥Be it so ! Sovereign Atma verily pervades everywhere through its own brilliance.निर्वचितां जें झावळे । तेंचि कीं लाहे डोळे ? ।डोळ्यापुढें मिळे । तेंचि तया ॥ ७-२८१ ॥The one that cannot stand to reason, will it be ever seen by the eye ? The eye can only see that, which exists.ऐसें जगद्ज्ञान जें आहे । तें अज्ञान म्हणें मी वियें ।येणें अनुमानें हों पाहे । आथी ऐसें ॥ ७-२८२ ॥Ajnyana means, ‘ Jnyana of existence of world being true’, which creates from me, that is, out of my ignorance. Is this logic not sufficient to say that Ajnyana exists ?तंव अज्ञान त्रिशुद्धि नाहीं । हें जगेंचि ठेविलें ठाई ।जे धर्मधर्मित्वें कंहीं । ज्ञानाज्ञान असे ? ॥ ७-२८३ ॥Ajnyana certainly does not exist, because entire world is pervaded by Jnyana alone. In that case, how can righteous-unrighteous attribute creep into Jnyana and Ajnyana ?कां जळां मोतीं वियें ? । राखोंडिया दीपु जिये ? ।तरी ज्ञानधर्मु होये । अज्ञानाचा ॥ ७-२८४ ॥Can pearl create water ? Or, can ash kindle lamp ? If you could make that happen, then alone Jnyana can be an attribute of Ajnyana !चंद्रमा निगती ज्वळा ? । आकाश आते शिळा ? ।तरी अज्ञान उजळा । ज्ञानातें वमी ॥ ७-२८५ ॥Do flames emanate from moon ? Do stones shower from sky ? If ever such things happen, pristine pure Jnyana may be named Ajnyana , or that pure Knowledge breeds ignorance !क्षीराब्धीं काळकूट । हे एकी परीचे विकट ।परी काळकूटीं चोखट । सुधा कैंची ? ॥ ७-२८६ ॥It is indeed paradoxical that Nectar as well as deadly poison was churned out of ‘Ksheer-Sagar’; however, can poison ever produce pure nectar ?A query – just as deadly poison came out of Ksheer-sagar, even if ignorance came out of knowledge will it not be proof of existence of ignorance ? ( irrational query against above verse !)Solution – even while momentarily accepting that ignorance came from knowledge, it was destroyed by knowledge immediately on its creation !ना ज्ञानी अज्ञान जालें । तें होतांचि अज्ञान गेलें ।पुढती ज्ञान येकलें । अज्ञान नाहीं ॥ ७-२८७ ॥Or else, admitted that Jnyana created Ajnyana ; however, immediately after its creation Jnyana destroyed Ajnyana, therefore there is no Ajnyana , Jnyana alone prevails !म्हणौनि सूर्य सूर्याचि येवढा । चंद्र चंद्राचि सांगडा ।ना दिपाचिया पडिपाडा । ऐसा दीपु ॥ ७-२८८ ॥Simile for Sun is Sun alone, moon is like moon and lamp alone compares with lamp.प्रकाश तो प्रकाश कीं । यासि न वचे घेईं चुकी ।म्हणौनि जग असकी । वस्तुप्रभा ॥ ७-२८९ ॥Is there doubt about radiance being radiant ? Therefore entire world is nothing but radiance embodied.विभाति यस्य भासा । सर्वमिदं हा ऐसा ।श्रुति काय वायसा । ढेंकरू देती ॥ ७-२९० ॥Shruti declares that entire world is radiant by virtue of Atma thus, “ Yasya Bhaasaa Sarvam Idam Vibhaati “. Is that statement of Shruti false ?यालागीं वस्तुप्रभा । वस्तुचि पावे शोभा ।जात असे लाभा । वस्तुचिया ॥ ७-२९१ ॥Therefore, radiance of Brahmam is with Brahmam and grandeur of radiance is for Brahmam alone; so also benefit of radiance accrues to Brahmam only.वांचून वस्तु यया । आपणपें प्रकाशावया ।अज्ञान हेतु वांया । अवघेंचि ॥ ७-२९२ ॥Without considering opinion of realised souls, it is futile to say that ignorance is cause for radiance of Brahmam.म्हणोनि अज्ञान सद्भावो । कोण्हे परी न लाहों ।अज्ञान कीर वावो । पाहों ठेलियाही ॥ ७-२९३ ॥Therefore ignorance cannot be established by any means and discovering ignorance with entire frantic efforts becomes an exercise in futility.परी तमाचा विसुरा । न जोडेचि दिनकरा ।रात्रीचिया घरा । गेलियाही ॥ ७-२९४ ॥Even while visiting residence of night, the Sun does not experience darkness.कां नीद खोळे भरिता । जागणें ही न ये हाता ।येकलिया टळटळिता । ठाकिजे जेवीं ॥ ७-२९५ ॥While trying to fill sleep in a cover , its relative waking is also lost and one remains stark awake all alone ! Likewise, in spite of search for ignorance through whatever means, nothing except Knowledge comes to hand.प्रकरण आठवेChapter Eightज्ञानखण्डनRefuting Jnyanaतैसें आमुचेनि नांवें । अज्ञानाचें ज्ञानही नव्हे ।आम्हांलागीं गुरुदेवें । आम्हीच केलों ॥ ८-१ ॥My revered Sadguru has brought me to such unique state where I do not experience even knowledge of ignorance.परी आम्हा आम्ही आहों । तें कैसें पाहो जावों ।तंव काय कीजे ठावो । लाजिजे ऐसा ॥ ८-२ ॥However, I am ashamed to speak while trying to understand my true nature; how can it be expressed in words ?हा ठावोवरी गुरुरायें । नांदविलों उवायें ।जे आम्ही न समाये । आम्हांमाजीं ॥ ८-३ ॥It is not possible to describe in words the blissful state my Sadguru has put me into. I am unable to accommodate myself in me !अहो आत्मेपणीं न संटो । स्वसंविति न घसवटो ।आंगीं लागलिया न फुटों । कैवल्यही ॥ ८-४ ॥This state is such, where the notion of our own Self is intolerable; knowledge of knowing oneself remains enigmatic and in spite of being a state of Moksha, there is no chance to ‘name’ it as Moksha !आमुची करवे गोठी । ते जालीचि नाहीं वाक्सृष्टी ।आमुतें देखे दिठी । ते दिठीचि नव्हे ॥ ८-५ ॥Word-power is just non-existent that may describe my unique status (Bliss); moreover, there is no vision, which can view my exact nature.आमुतें करूनि विखो । भोगूं शके पारखो ।तैं आमुतें न देखों । आम्हीपण ॥ ८-६ ॥I am absolute unaware of the one that may enjoy my true nature as matter of enjoyment or even judge! Such has been my status that does not know the ‘real me’ as of now.प्रगटो लपो न लाहो । येथें नाहीं नवलावो ।परी कैसेनिही विपावो । असणयाचा ॥ ८-७ ॥This state being beyond the ken of words, it is not possible to decide whether it is secret or manifest.किंबहुना श्रीनिवृत्तीं । ठेविलों असों जया स्थितीं ।ते काय देऊं हाती । वाचेचिया ? ॥ ८-८ ॥The state bestowed upon me by Sadguru Nivruttiraya cannot be described in words; it is the state of self-experience.तेथ समोर होआवया । अज्ञानाचा पाडू कासया ।केउते मेलिया माया । होऊं पाहिजे ॥ ८-९ ॥Ajnyana cannot face this status of mine; then, how can the ‘dead’ Maya come back to life ?अज्ञानचा प्रवर्तु । नाहीं जया गांवाआंतु ।तेथें ज्ञानाची तरी मातु । कोण जाणे ? ॥ ८-१० ॥You see, where ignorance is absolutely unreachable, how can the relative worldly knowledge be extolled with Atma Swaroopa ?राती म्हणोनि दिवे । पडती कीं लावावे ।वाचून सूर्यासवें । शिणणें होय ॥ ८-११ ॥Lamps need to be lit during night; however, it is wasteful bother to do so at daybreak .म्हणोन अज्ञान नाहीं । तेथेंचि गेलें ज्ञानही ।आतां निमिषोन्मेषा दोहीं । ठेली वाट ॥ ८-१२ ॥Now, there neither Ajnyana nor its relative Jnyana anymore ; therefore, road of their hide and seek game is closed !येरव्हीं तही ज्ञान अज्ञाने । दोहींचि अभिधानें ।अर्थाचेनि आनानें । विप्लावलीं ॥ ८-१३ ॥Truly speaking, Jnyana and Ajnyana are mutually relative words; therefore those are useful in worldly sense.जैसीं दंपत्यें परस्परे । तोडोनि पालटिलीं शिरें ।तेथें पालटु ना पण सरे । दोहींचें जिणें ॥ ८-१४ ॥If husband and wife decide to cut off their heads in order to exchange mutual traits, let aside exchange both will lose life !कां पाठी लाविला होये । तो दीपुचि वायां जाये ।दिठी अंधारें पाहे । तैं तेचि वृथा ॥ ८-१५ ॥Similarly a lamp lit behind our back is useless to see things in front of us; there will be darkness alone and therefore lamp at the back is in vain.तैसें निपटून जें नेणिजे । तें अज्ञान शब्दें बोलिजे ।आतां सर्वही जेणें सुजे । तें अज्ञान कैसें ? ॥ ८-१६ ॥The word Ajnyana is used to mean not knowing anything; however, who would call it Ajnyana that makes known everything?ऐसें ज्ञान अज्ञानीं आलें । अज्ञान ज्ञानें गेलें ।ये दोहीं वांझौलें । दोन्ही जाली ॥ ८-१७ ॥Ajnyana certainly disappears while Jnyana manifests; moreover, Jnyana too proves in vain.आणि जाणे तोचि नेणें । नेणे तोचि जाणे ।आतां कें असे जिणें । ज्ञानाज्ञाना ? ॥ ८-१८ ॥It is sheer ignorance that says him as ‘Knower’ and the one without ‘knowing or not knowing’ is indeed Jnyani ( Knowledgeable ). Therefore where does worldly knowledge or ignorance exist ?एवं ज्ञानाज्ञानें दोन्ही । पोटीं सूनि अहनी ।उदैला चिद्गगनीं । चिदादित्यु हा ॥ ८-१९ ॥In this manner, once ‘Chit Surya’ dawns within ‘Chid-Akash’, daybreak in the form of Jnyana and night representing Ajnyana disappear altogether. (Enlightenment takes place !)॥ इति ज्ञानखंडन नाम अष्टम प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥प्रकरण नववेंChapter Nineजीवन्मुक्तदशाकथनStatus of The Liberatedआतां आमोद सुनास जालें । श्रुतीसि श्रवण रिघाले ।आरिसे उठले । लोचनेसी ॥ ९-१ ॥On acquiring the one and only, unique state of Self (Atma Swaroopa ) duality of enjoyer , enjoyment disappears. Sri Dnyanadev furnishes corroborative examples in support of this doctrine.Now fragrance is verily the nose, words became ears and mirrors the eye !आपुलेनि समीरपणें । वेल्हावती विंजणें ।कीं माथेचि चांफेपणें । बहकताती ॥ ९-२ ॥Wind became the fan and began fanning itself and head verily became flower, beseeming itself as flower !जिव्हा लोधली रसें । कमळ सूर्यपणें विकाशे ।चकोरचि जैसे । चंद्रमा झाले ॥ ९-३ ॥Tongue became taste, lotus blossomed becoming the Sun and Chakor bird the moon.फुलेंचि जालीं भ्रमर । तरुणीची झाली नर ।जालें आपुलें शेजार । निद्राळुचि ॥ ९-४ ॥Flowers became bees, young girl became young man and the desiring sleep became bed itself !दिठीवियाचा रवा । नागरु इया ठेवा ।घडिला कां कोरिवां । परी जैसा ॥ ९-५ ॥Beautiful gold bullion representing Viewer became as if an immaculate ornament representing view.चूतांकूर झाले कोकिळ । आंगच झाले मलयानीळ ।रस झाले सकळ । रसनावंत ॥ ९-६ ॥Mango leaves verily became Kokeel birds, body became sandal paste or juices became juicy.After this epiphany He now proceeds to Doctrines. -तैसे भोग्य आणि भोक्ता । दिसे आणि देखता ।हें सरलें अद्वैता । अफुटामाजीं ॥ ९-७ ॥Similarly, enjoyer and enjoyable objects, viewer and view together became the complete, infinite and dense Brahmam; all of those were united into Brahmam.सेवंतेपणा बाहेरी । न निगताचि परी ।पाती सहस्रवरी । उपलविजे ते ॥ ९-८ ॥Even while Shevanti flower has thousand petals, those never abandon it.तैसें नव नवा अनुभवीं । वाजतां वाधावी ।अक्रियेच्या गांवीं । नेणिजे तें ॥ ९-९ ॥Similarly, even while the enjoyer and enjoyable undergo various experiences, there is none of view-viewer element with them.म्हणोनि विषयांचेनि नांवें । सूनि इंद्रियांचे थवे ।सैंघ घेती धांवे । समोरही ॥ ९-१० ॥A doubt arises here that in practice entire sense organs rush towards sensuality. Reply to this doubt would be that even while groups of senses rush towards sensuality-परी आरिसा शिवे शिवे । तंव दिठीसी दिठी फावे ।तैसे झाले धांवे । वृत्तीचे या ॥ ९-११ ॥Just as immediately on meeting mirror the vision turns back and views itself, interaction between senses and sensuality takes place likewise.नाग मुदी कंकण । त्रिलिंगीं भेदली खूण ।घेतां तरी सुवर्ण । घेईजे कीं ॥ ९-१२ ॥Nag, Mudi, Kankan etc are names of various ornaments and those names denote male, female and neuter genders respectively. Now, even if this distinction is for namesakes , the ornament in hand is gold only !वेंचूनि आणूं कल्लोळ । म्हणोन घापे करतळ ।तेथें तरी निखळ । पाणीच फावे ॥ ९-१३ ॥While trying to hold waves over the palm, it is water all the way !हातापाशीं स्पर्शु । डोळ्यापाशीं रूपसु ।जिव्हेपाशीं मिठांशु । कोण्ही एकू ॥ ९-१४ ॥Hand recognises soft touch, beauty to eye and special taste to tongue.तही परिमळापरौतें । मिरवणें नाहीं कापुरातें ।तेवीं बहुतांपरी स्फुरतें । तेंचि स्फुरे ॥ ९-१५ ॥However, camphor is camphor alone and fragrance springs up there-from. Likewise, even while various objects are cognised, it is Atma alone that pervades everything as inspiration.म्हणोनि शब्दादि पदार्थ । श्रोत्रादिकांचे हात ।घ्यावया जेथ । उजू होती ॥ ९-१६ ॥And therefore, in order to enjoy speech, taste etc the ears and tongue equip themselves.तेथे संबंधु होये न होये । तव इंद्रियांचें तें नोहे ।मग असतेंचि आहे । संबंधु ना ॥ ९-१७ ॥It is the Atma alone that exists as awareness of interplay of senses with their respective attributes.जिये पेरीं दिसती उशीं । तिये लाभती कीं रसीं ।कांति जेवीं शशीं । पुनिवेचिया ॥ ९-१८ ॥Even while pieces sugarcane are many, those ooze out juice alone; or else, full moon envisages its entire phases.पडिलें चांदावरी चांदिणें । समुद्रीं झालें वरिषणें ।विषयां करणें । भेटती तैशीं ॥ ९-१९ ॥Even while moonlight falls on moon or rains shower over ocean, there is nothing like two-ness on that occasion. Likewise, while there is interaction of senses and their objects from practical point of view, there is no ‘triplet’ with Atma.म्हणोन तोंडाआड पडे । तेंहि वाचा वावडे ।परी समाधी न मोडे । मौनमुद्रेची ॥ ९-२० ॥Therefore if ever the one immersed in Self-ness (Atma Sthiti) speaks about sensuality, his tranquility in silence does not disturb.व्यापाराचे गाडे । मोडतांहि अपाडे ।अक्रियेचें न मोडे । पाऊल केंही ॥ ९-२१ ॥Even while engaged in ceaseless activity from worldly perspective, his non-doer-ship prevails as per his Self-ness.पसरूनि वृत्तीचे वावे । दिठी रूपातें दे खेवें ।परी साचाचेनि नांवे । कांहींचि न लभे ॥ ९-२२ ॥If thoughts along with speech move out to assess an object, indeed no activity takes place.तमातें घ्यावया । उचलूनी सहस्र बाहिया ।शेवटीं रवी इया । हाचि जैसा ॥ ९-२३ ॥Even while the Sun spreads out its thousand rays to get hold of darkness, it alone is what remains !स्वप्नींचिया विलासा । भेटईन या आशा ।उठिला तंव जैसा । तोचि मा तो ॥ ९-२४ ॥If someone gets up to embrace a woman seen in dream, he alone remains awake .तैसा उदैलया निर्विषयें । ज्ञानी विषयी हों लाहे ? ।तंव दोन्ही न होनी, होये । काय नेणों ॥ ९-२५ ॥Can a person engage in sensuality, who is immersed in Self-ness and devoid of sensuality? On that occasion, duality does not manifest at all, the duality of ‘sensual’ (means the one enjoying sensual pleasures) and ‘sensuality’ (the pleasurable’ ). It is not possible to assess state of that Jnyani person.चंद्र वेचूं गेला चांदिणें । तंव वेंचिलें काय कोणें ।विऊनि वांझें स्मरणें । होतीं जैसी ॥ ९-२६ ॥If moon sets out to collect moonlight, who collects what ? He is verily the moon as well as moonlight. Or else, thoughts appear in the mind and disappear too. Nothing concrete happens on that occasion.प्रत्याहारादि अंगीं । योगें आंग टेंकिलें योगीं ।तो जाला इये मार्गी । दिहाचा चांदु ॥ ९-२७ ॥‘Pratyahar’ and such eight-fold austerities surrender unto Sahaja state of Brahma-Jnyana and those eight some become lacklustre by all means, like moon during daytime.येथ प्रवृत्ति बहुडे जिणें । अप्रवृत्तीसी वाधावणें ।आतां प्रत्यङ्मुखपणें । प्रचारु दिसे ॥ ९-२८ ॥On acquiring this Self-ness the ‘action proneness‘ (Pravrutti) disappears and non-action-proneness (Nivrutti) indeed beseems. Entire activities of such Jnyani person occur with introvert vision.द्वैतदशेचें आंगण । अद्वैत वोळगे आपण ।भेद तंव तंव दुण । अभेदासी ॥ ९-२९ ॥Non-dual state does not disturb even while engaged in ‘dual’ activity. It is as though non-duality sports in the backyard of duality. As much the expanse in discrepancy of duality, more is that of non-discrepancy.कैवल्याही चढावा । करीत विषयसेवा ।झाला भृत्य भज्य कालोवा । भक्तीच्या घरीं ॥ ९-३० ॥During such non-dual state the Lord becomes devotee and devotee the Lord. Moreover, even if activities of devotee appear taking place in duality, that status is superior to even Liberation !घरामाजीं पायें । चालतां मार्गुही तोचि होये ।ना बैसे तरी आहे । पावणेंचि ॥ ९-३१ ॥While a person walks within his house, he is verily the path too and while sitting in the house, destination as well!तैसें भलतें करितां । येथें पाविजे कांहीं आतां ।ऐसें कांही न करितां । ठाकिजेना ॥ ९-३२ ॥A Jnyani has nothing to acquire while doing anything and even if he does not do anything, he has nothing left to acquire.आठवु आणि विसरु । तयातेंही घेऊं नेदी पसरु ।दशेचा वेव्हारु । असाधारणु ॥ ९-३३ ॥His practical state is so unique that he neither remembers nor forget his Self-ness.झाला स्वेच्छाचि विधि । स्वैर झाला समाधि ।दशे ये मोक्षऋद्धि । बैसों घापे ॥ ९-३४ ॥Whatever he does voluntarily is verily his Shastra and rules-regulations ; wealth of Liberation is his throne and whatever his behaviour indeed his Samadhi .झाला देवोचि भक्तु । ठावोचि झाला पंथु ।होऊनि ठेला एकांतु । विश्वचि हें ॥ ९-३५ ॥The Lord became devotee during this state of unison, destination as well as road and entire universe as one single whole.भलतेउनि देवें । भलते नि भक्त होआवें ।बैसला तेथें राणिवें । अकर्मु हा ॥ ९-३६It doesn’t matter who becomes the Lord and who devotee; the one acquiring such non-doer-ship is seated over throne of affluence.देवाचिया दाटणी । देऊळा झाली आटणी ।देशकाळादि वाहाणीं । येईच ना ॥ ९-३७ ॥Omniscience of the Lord is so vast that temple doesn’t remain distinct from Him. Indeed, omnipresence of Chaitanya can never be limited by time and space.देवीं देवोचि न माये / मा देवी कें अन्वयो आहे ? ।येथ परिवारु बहूये । अघडता कीं ॥ ९-३८ ॥The Lord cannot contain His own expanse, then where is scope for duality ? In that case how can the Lord, Prakriti and entire universe accommodate ? It means that the illusion of Maya that requires action, place and limitations do not take place there at all .ऐसियाहि स्वामीभृत्यसंबंधा । लागीं उठलीं श्रद्धा ।तैं देवोचि नुसधा । कामविजे ॥ ९-३९ ॥In spite of such situation if the Lord desires Him being the Guru and His devotee as disciple, He divides Himself into Guru and Disciple as one single entity.Verse numbers 186 and 187 in Chapter 12 also pertain the above .अवघिया उपचारा । जपध्यान निर्धारा ।नाहीं आन संसारा । देवोवांचुनी ॥ ९-४० ॥During that state entire paraphernalia of recitation, worship, contemplation, meditation etc are not different from the Lord.आतां देवातेंचि देवें । देववरी भजावें ।अर्पणाचेनि नांवें । भलतिया ॥ ९-४१ ॥Now let the Lord worship Lord with whatever offerings.पाहें पां आघवया । रुखा रुखचि यया ।परी दुसरा नाहीं तया । विस्तार जेवीं ॥ ९-४२ ॥You see, a tree includes its entire expanse of flora, fauna, roots and fruits.देव देऊळ परिवारु । कीजे कोरुनि डोंगरु ।तैसा भक्तीचा व्यवहारु । कां न व्हावा ? ॥ ९-४३ ॥Image of the Lord is carved from stone over a mountain by devotees; in addition other images, temple, and other items of the family. In that case why should devotion not exercised in similar fashion? In fact, the mountain verily represents God and therefore entire family is God alone.अहो मुगीं मुग जैसें । घेतां न घेतां नवल नसे ।केलें देवपण तैसें । दोहीं परी ॥ ९-४४ ॥It is immaterial whether a mute person keeps quiet or does not, since there is no change in his muteness. Similar is the status of Jnyani ; whether he worships or not, his Self-ness is unchanged.अखतांचि देवता । अखतींचि असे न पूजितां ।मा अखतीं काय आतां । पुजो जावी ॥ ९-४५ ॥If image made of sacred rice is worshipped or not worshipped by sacred rice , ultimately it is sacred rice alone ! Why offer sacred rice once again ?दीप्तीचीं लुगडीं । दीपकळिके तूं वेढी ।हें न म्हणतां ते उघडी । ठाके काई ? ॥ ९-४६ ॥Even if flame of lamp is not asked to wear loincloth of effulgence, will it remain naked ? It is indeed futile to ask it so !कां चंद्रातें चंद्रिका । न म्हणिजे तूं लेकां ।तही तो असिका । तियाचि कीं ना ॥ ९-४७ ॥Even if moon is not asked to envelope with moonlight , moonlight happens to be integral with moon.आगीपण आगी । असतचि असे अंगीं ।मा कासयालागीं । देणें न देणें ? ॥ ९-४८ ॥Fire is inherently hot; where is need to offer heat to it ?म्हणोनि भजतां भजावें । मा न भजतां काय नव्हे ? ।ऐसें नाहीं, स्वभावें । श्रीशिवुचि असे ॥ ९-४९ ॥Therefore the Jnyani who is intrinsically Form of Shiva alone, whether he worships or not his devotion does not disturb.आतां भक्ति अभक्ति । झालें ताट एके पातीं ।कर्माकर्माचिया वाती । माल्हावूनिया ॥ ९-५० ॥Now flames in the form of action-inaction are blown off and devotion and non-devotion dine together in single platter. Therefore there is no separate entity as devotion and non-devotion. Similar is the state with Jnyani with regard to action-inaction.म्हणोनि उपनिषदें । दशे येति निंदे ।निंदाचि विशदें । स्तोत्रें होती ॥ ९-५१ ॥Upanishads speak language of duality; their experience does not accommodate one-ness of God and devotee. Therefore their description of truly enlightened (‘Atma Jnyani ‘) turns out as ridicule; however, the words those use for blasphemy are also Form of God and therefore that slander too must be taken as Hymns !ना तरी निंदास्तुति । दोन्हीं मौनासाठीं जाती ।मौनीं मौन आथी । न बोलतां बोली ॥ ९-५२ ॥Calumny or praise ultimately ends in silence alone. Indeed, speaking nothing is silence only. Entire praise and calumny ends into silence.घालिता अव्हासव्हा पाय । शिवयात्राचि होतु जाय ।शिवा गेलियाही नोहे । केंही जाणें ॥ ९-५३ ॥Since everything is pervaded by Lord Shiva alone, whatever path a Jnyani walks upon is verily pilgrimage unto Shiva. In that case, what special does he get by visiting Shiva Temple ?चालणें आणि बैसक । दोन्ही मिळोनि एक ।नोहे ऐसें कौतुक । इये ठायीं ॥ ९-५४ ॥Walking and sitting are two distinct states no doubt; however for the Jnyani devotee both states are same. He experiences pilgrimage unto Shiva while sitting or walking as well.येहवीं आडोळलिया डोळा । शिवदर्शनाचा सोहळा ।भोगिजे भलते वेळां । भलतेणें ॥ ९-५५ ॥While such Enlightened one sees anything anywhere, his ‘seeing’ is indeed a festive occasion of Shiva-Darshan.ना समोर दिसे शिवुही । परि देखिलें कांहीं नाहीं ।देवभक्ता दोही । एकुचि पाडू ॥ ९-५६ ॥Moreover, even while he has Shiva-Darshan he did not see anything, being Form of Shiva as well as devotee himself !आपणचि चेंडू सुटे । मग आपणया उपटे ।तेणें उदळतां दाटे । आपणपांचि ॥ ९-५७ ॥A ball on releasing bumps on the ground and rises up to bump down again. During all these activities the ball remains with itself.ऐसी जरी चेंडूफळी । देखिजे कां केव्हेळीं ।तरी बोलिजे हे सरळी । प्रबुद्धाची ॥ ९-५८ ॥If someone has seen this game of bat-ball, he alone would be able to understand status of that enlightened Jnyani devotee.कर्माचा हातु नलगे । ज्ञानाचेंही कांहीं न रिगे ।ऐसीचि होतसे आंगें । उपास्ति हे ॥ ९-५९ ॥This Sadhana of a Jnyani is indeed unique. There is no sense of Karma or Jnyana either.निफजे ना निमे । आंगें आंग घुमे ।सुखा सुख उपमे । देववेल यया ॥ ९-६० ॥This Sadhana neither begins nor ends. It is like possessing body within body. What simile could be furnished for this joy ? Body is ever immersed in Self-effulgence alone.कोण्ही एक अकृत्रीम । भक्तीचें हें वर्म ।योगज्ञानादिविश्राम । भूमिके हे ॥ ९-६१ ॥Secret of this devotion is extreme simplicity and its being just natural. Here, practice of Yoga and acquisition of Jnyana through dual intellect halts altogether.आंगें कीर एक झालें । परी नामरूपाचे मासले ।होते, तेही आटले । हरिहर येथें ॥ ९-६२ ॥Hari and Hara are Self-same; however, both appear distinct in name and form from Sadhak’s point of view. Here body itself is Hari Hara; their two-ness disappeared while becoming single image.अहो अर्धनारीनटेश्वरें । गिळित गिळित परस्परें ।ग्रहण झालें एकसरें । सर्वग्रासें ॥ ९-६३ ॥While swallowing each other in themselves, Shiva Shakti mutually became one single image and their two-ness vanished.वाच्यजात खाऊनी । वाचकत्वहि पिऊनी ।टाकली निदैजोनी । परा येथें ॥ ९-६४ ॥Shiva, whom to describe and duality that describes Shiva became one while ‘Para’ the fourth type of speech went to sleep !शिवाशिवा ! समर्था स्वामी । येवढीये आनंदभूमि ।घेपे दीजे एकें आम्हीं । ऐसें केलें ॥ ९-६५ ॥O Lord ! O Lord !! O Master, You have brought me to Blissful state of Liberation over this Blissful turf while engaging in Blissful activity !चेतचि मा चेवविलें । निदैलेंचि मा निदविलें ।आम्हीचि आम्हा आणिलें । नवल जी तुझें ॥ ९-६६ ॥It is indeed a marvel that You awakened me, the intrinsically awakened and set aside my sleep while still sleeping, demonstrating my true Self to me !आम्ही निखळ मा तुझे । वरी लोभें म्हणसी माझें ।हें पुनरुक्त साजे । तूंचि म्हणोनी ॥ ९-६७ ॥I am utterly One with You, which You are aware. However, You lovingly call me as Your own. This repetitiveness beseems You alone !कोणाचें कांहीं न घेसी । आपुलेंही तैसेंचि न देसी ।कोण जाणे भोगिसी । गौरव कैसें ॥ ९-६८ ॥You do not accept anything from anybody; You do not give away anything of Your own. It is really a wonder as to how You enjoy this affluence of Yours !गुरुत्वें जेवढा चांगु । तेवढाचि तारूनि लघु ।गुरु लघु जाणे जो पांगु । तुझा करी ॥ ९-६९ ॥You are great in size and weight as Guru but You are lighter while extricating people; nevertheless , only those who do not Know Your True Self distinguish as ‘small’ Guru !शिष्यां देतां वाटे । अद्वैताचा समो फुटे ।तरी काह्या होती भाटें । शास्त्रें तुझीं ॥ ९-७० ॥Even while You incorporated disciple into your non-duality, your equipoise of non-duality does not suffer. Had it ever suffered, why would Veda and Shastras praised You ? Your non-dual state never disturbs on any grounds and therefore Vedas and Shastras praise You !किंबहुना ये दातारा । मी तूं याचा संसारा ।वेंचोनि होसी सोयरा । तेणेंचि तोषें ॥ ९-७१ ॥What more to say ? O Gururaya ! You have destroyed distinction of ‘me’ and ‘you’ sense. And that blissful state makes you my kith and kin .इति श्रीमद्अमृतानुभवे जीवन्मुक्तदशाकथनं नाम नवमं प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥प्रकरण दहावेंChapter Tenग्रंथपरिहारEpilogueपरी गा श्रीनिवृत्तिराया । हातातळीं सुखविलें तूं या ।तरी निवांतचि मियां । भोगावें कीं तें ॥ १०-१ ॥O Master Sri Nivruttiraya ! While blessing me thus You made me ecstatic. Therefore it it not appropriate to enjoy it comprehensively ?परी महेशें सूर्याहातीं । दिधली तेजाची सुती ।तया भासा अंतर्वर्ती । जगचि केलें ॥ १०-२ ॥The Lord assigned reigns of radiance unto Sun ; brilliance of that effulgence spread in entire universe.चंद्रासि अमृत घातलें । तें तयाचि कायि येतुलें ।की सिंधु मेघा दिधले । मेघाचि भागु ॥ १०-३ ॥Is Nectar provided by the Lord unto moon meant for moon alone ? Or else, ocean offered water to the cloud; now, is it for the sake of cloud ?दिवा जो उजेडु । तो घराचाची सुरवाडू ।गगनीं आथी पवाडु । तो जगाचाची कीं ॥ १०-४ ॥Radiance of lamp is not limited to it; it is for entire house. Likewise, expanse of sky is not for sky alone, it is for entire world.अगाधेंहि उचंबळती । ते चंद्रीचि ना शक्ती ? ।वसंतु करी तैं होती । झाडांचें दानीं ॥ १०-५ ॥Is it not power of the moon for high tide of ocean ? It is grace of Spring season that makes trees charitable in offering flower and fruit.म्हणोनि हें असंवर्य । दैविकीचें औदार्य ।वांचोनि स्वातंतर्य । माझें नाहीं ॥ १०-६ ॥Therefore, O Gururaya ! I am unable to contain Your Magnanimity; it is limitless . I am expounding by virtue of that grace alone. It is certainly not my own prowess.आणि हा येवढा ऐसा । परिहारु देवू कायसा ।प्रभुप्रभावविन्यासा । आड ठावूनी ॥ १०-७ ॥However, why should I indulge in such prologues ? Because this very statement lowers power of the Guru.आम्ही बोलिलों जें कांहीं । तें प्रगटची असे ठायीं ।मा स्वयंप्रकाशा काई । प्रकाशावें बोलें ? ॥ १०-८ ॥The Atma that I propounded is verily Self-evident. How can I illumine that Self-effulgent one through my words ?नाना विपायें आम्हीं हन । कीजे तें पां मौन ।तरी काय जनीं जन । दिसते ना ? ॥ १०-९ ॥If at all I had kept quiet, would people not see each other ? Would worldly activities had got stalled ?जनातें जनीं देखतां । द्रष्टेंचि दृश्य तत्वतां ।कोण्ही नहोनि आइता । सिद्धांत हा ॥ १०-१० ॥While people see each other and speak, they use the word ‘I’ to introduce themselves. That exactly is the Form of Atma. Atma alone becomes view without being any other. Indeed, this is a readymade doctrine.ययापरौतें कांहीं । संविद्रहस्य नाहीं ।आणि हें तया आधींही । असतचि असे ॥ १०-११ ॥There is none other secret regarding Atma being verily form of Jnyana; moreover, it existed thus even before my exposition; therefore my exposition does not establish anything different.तही ग्रंथप्रस्तावो । न घडे हें म्हणों पावो ।तही सिद्धानुवाद लाहों । आवडी करूं ॥ १०-१२ ॥Someone might question propriety of beginning this scripture in the first place on this occasion. Only answer to that is, I translated an established truth for the sake of my pleasure, inspired by love for it.पढियंतें सदा तेंचि । परी भोगीं नवी नवी रुची ।म्हणोनि हा उचितुचि । अनुवाद सिद्ध ॥ १०-१३ ॥A pleasurable thing remains the same; however, it gives varying forms of joy every time while relishing it. That is why I ventured into this exposition of describing the Self-established Lord.या कारणें मियां । गौप्य दाविलें बोलूनियां ।ऐसें नाहीं आपसया । प्रकाशुचि ॥ १०-१४ ॥Therefore, I have not established some mystic spiritual tenet, which is already self-illumined.आणि पूर्णअहंता वेठलों । सैंघ आम्हीच दाटलों ।मा लोपलों ना प्रगटलों । कोणा होऊनी । १०-१५ ॥Similarly, I became full and complete (comprehensively); I pervade everything thick; I neither vanished or manifested at someone’s behests; I Am what I Am !!आपणया आपणपें । निरूपण काय ओपे ? ।मा उगेपणे हरपे । ऐसे आहे ? ॥ १०-१६ ॥Whom are we to offer our exposition of our own form ? Therefore what harm is there in just keeping quiet ?म्हणोनि माझी वैखरी । मौनाचेंहि मौन करी ।हे पाणियावरी मकरी । रेखिली पां ॥ १०-१७ ॥Therefore my speech has taken up silence silently; I spoke without speaking and did not speak while not speaking ! This exposition is akin to drawing lines over water, done without doing !एवं दशोपनिषदें । पुढारी न ढळती पदें ।देखोनि बुडी बोधें । येथेंचि दिधली ॥ १०-१८ ॥However, this discourse has been such that it could acquire Self-Knowledge alone and while it realised that there is nothing more of exposition in Upanishads, that Self-Knowledge returned back to its Omni-Self.ज्ञानदेवो म्हणे श्रीमंत । हें अनुभवामृत ।सेंवोनि जीवन्मुक्त । हेंचि होतु ॥ १०-१९ ॥Sri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj says, “ My only prayer is, Let relishing of this Anubhavamrut suffused with Divine Wealth confer Nectar itself unto the Liberated Ones !”मुक्ति कीर वेल्हाळ । अनुभवामृत निखळ ।परी अमृताही उठी लाळ । अमृतें येणें ॥ १०-२० ॥It is true that Liberation is bewitching, charming and blissful; however, this Anubhavamrut will induce Liberation as well as Nectar to taste its sweetness !नित्य चांदु होये । परी पुनवे आनु आहे ।हें कां मी म्हणों लाहें । सूर्यदृष्टी ? ॥ १०-२१ ॥Moon is ever charming; however, full moon night makes it all the more beseeming. This is alright from worldly perspective. Why should I find distinction therein while viewing through vision of the Sun ? I do not possess fractured intellect anyway !प्रिया सावायिली होये । तै अंगीचे अंगीं न समाये ।येहवीं तेथेंचि आहे । तारुण्य कीं ॥ १०-२२ ॥Youth of a young woman always exists in her youth ; however, it is overwhelming in company of the lover.वसंताचा आला । फळीं फुलीं आपला ।गगनाचिया डाळा । पेलती झाडें ॥ १०-२३ ॥As it is trees are beautiful; however, during spring they appear to support the sky through flowers and fruits.ययालागीं हें बोलणें । अनुभामृतपणें ।स्वानुभूति परगुणें । वोगरिलें ॥ १०-२४ ॥Therefore, I am offering very sweetmeats of my nectarine experiences in the form this discourse unto Saints .आणि मुक्त मुमुक्षु बद्ध । हें तंववरी योग्यता भेद ।अनुभामृतस्वाद । विरुद्ध जंव ॥ १०-२५ ॥It is only until the Sadhaks do not taste sweetness of these nectarine experiences that distinction of ‘bound’, ‘seeker’ or ‘enlightened’ states are discernible. However, once tasted, entire Sadhaks convert into Self-Realised Ones !गंगावगाहना आली । पाणीयें गंगा झालीं ।कां तिमिरें भेटलीं । सूर्या जैशीं ॥ १०-२६ ॥Entire waters merging into the Ganges become Ganges itself ; darkness meeting the Sun converts into brilliance all the way .नाहीं परिसाची कसवटी । तंववरीच वानियाच्या गोठी ।मग पंधरावयाच्या पटीं । बैसावें कीं ॥ १०-२७ ॥How to discern purity of gold without touch of Parees ? Nevertheless, once touched it is pure gold all along !तैसें जे या अखरा । भेटती गाभारां ।ते वोघ जैसे सागरा । आंतु आले ॥ १०-२८ ॥Similarly, while acquiring experiences described through words in this scripture by virtue of grace from Sadguru, life of Sadhak becomes nectarine just as entire rivers merging into ocean convert into ocean itself.जैशा अकारादि अक्षरा । भेटती पन्नासही मात्रा ।तैसें या चराचरा । दुसरें नाहीं ॥ १०-२९ ॥Just as three vowels of Omkar namely ‘a’, ‘u’ and ‘ma’ constitute entire fifty words, there is nothing other than Omkar in this cosmos.तैसी तये ईश्वरीं । अंगुळी नव्हेचि दुसरी ।किंबहुना सरोभरीं शिवेसीचि ॥ १०-३० ॥Likewise, there is absolutely nothing other with the Lord; what is more, everything is pervaded by the Lord alone .म्हणोनि ज्ञानदेवो म्हणे । अनुभवामृतें येणें ।सणु भोगिजे सणें विश्वाचेनि ॥ १०-३१ ॥Therefore, Sri Dnyanadev prays thus, ‘ Let entire universe enjoy this discourse over nectarine experiences!’Haraye Namaha / Haraye Namaha / Haraye Namaha /॥ इति अनुभवामृते ग्रंथपरिहारकथनं नाम दशमं प्रकरणं संपूर्णम् ॥Best wishes,
Dr. Rahalkar
Visit my blog-site - http://prabhurahalkar.blogspot.com/
