Dŗg-Dŗśya-Viveka Quotes

“Contrariwise it is expressly stated that neither religion, theology, nor mystic practice is in itself of value in the absence of buddhi”
― Nikhilananda, Drig-Drisya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’

“अवच्छिन्नश्चिदाभासस्तृतीय: स्वप्नकल्पित: । विज्ञेयस्त्रिविधो जीवस्तत्राद्य: पारमाथिर्क: ॥३२॥”
― Nikhilananda, Drig-Drisya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’

“भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशया: । क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन् दृष्टे परावरे ॥३१॥”
― Nikhilananda, Drig-Drisya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’

“We distinguish one object from another only by their names and forms. Names and forms are characteristics of the individual and hence relative. Even after the negation of names and forms, there exists the common substratum whose nature is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss (Absolute).”
― Nikhilananda, Drig-Drisya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’

“अस्ति भाति प्रियं रूपं नाम चेत्यंशपञ्चकम् । आद्यत्रयं ब्रह्मरूपं जगद्रूपं ततो द्वयम् ॥२०॥”
― Nikhilananda, Drig-Drisya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’

“The character of an embodied self appears through false superimposition (1) in the Sākṣin (2) also (3). With the disappearance of the veiling power, the distinction (4) (between the seer and the object) becomes clear and with it the jīva character of the Sākṣin (Witness) disappears.”
― Nikhilananda, Drig-Drisya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’

“Ignorance of the distinction between the subject and the object is the cause of one’s sufferings in the world.”
― Nikhilananda, Drig-Drisya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’

“Brahman — Brahman is said to be of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. But through the veiling power of māyā It seems to have identified Itself with names and forms and thus appears as objects of enjoyment.”
― Nikhilananda, Drig-Drisya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’

“The Sākṣin, or witness, is distinct from the perceived objects. But the veiling power of māyā does not enable us to see the distinction and therefore the Sākṣin appears to have identified itself with the empirical ego, mind, sense-organs, etc.”
― Nikhilananda, Drig-Drisya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’

“Man’s knowledge of science having been in its infancy, in the past, it was treated not as a separate subject but as a part of philosophy, which is a rational enquiry regarding all that is known to exist.”
― Nikhilananda, Drig-Drisya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’