COMMENTARY ON THE PANCHADASI by SWAMI KRISHNANANDA - 1

COMMENTARY ON THE

PANCHADASI

by

SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

The Divine Life Society

Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India

INTRODUCTION

The Panchadasi is a great masterpiece of Swami

Vidyaranya. Prior to his sannyasa, he was called Madhava;

and his brother was Saiyana. They were two brothers.

Saiyana wrote Sanskrit commentaries on all the Vedas – the

Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads. He cannot be

regarded as a human being, really speaking. Superhuman

work is Saiyana's Sanskrit commentary. The stupendous

scholarship that is behind these commentaries on the Vedas

would make anyone feel that Saiyana was not a human being.

He must have been a superhuman personality, to say the

least.

The other brother was Madhava. There is a story behind

Madhava. As Madhava before his sannyasa, he wrote many

books. It appears that financially they were very poor. All

great learned people are financially poor. It is a peculiar

irony of fate. They had so much difficulty in maintaining the

family. Madhava, it appears, did the Gayatri purascharana a

number of times to have a darshan of Devi so that he could be

freed from financial stress. After completing several

purascharanas, he heard a voice: "You shall not have darshan

of me in this birth." He became frustrated and gave up the

purascharana. He got initiated into sannyasa and went away.

Immediately the Devi appeared before him. "What was

that for which you were thinking of me?"

He replied, "How is it that you now give me darshan,

when you had said that you will not give me darshan in this

birth?"

She said, "This sannyas is another birth that you have

taken. That is why I have come."

"But anyhow, I don't want anything. I have taken to

sannyas and I want nothing. You can go."

"No, I will not go," Devi said, it seems, "When I come, I

must always give and go."

7

"But I cannot ask for anything as my needs are no more,"

said Vidyaranya who was Madhava before his sannyas.

The Devi said, "As you want nothing, you shall have

everything." And she vanished.

He became omniscient in his knowledge. There is no

subject on which Vidyaranya has not written. Every

conceivable subject: aesthetics, ethics, civics, morality,

dharmashastra, religion, medical science, anatomy,

physiology, metaphysics, epistemology; there is nothing on

which he has not written. And in every field, his book is the

best. In every field, his work is the standard. It shows the

mastery of both these brothers. And Vidyaranya is the person

responsible for founding the Vijaynagar empire. He acted as

the minister to the first kings of Vijaynagar, called Hakka and

Bukka. He actually initiated the founding of the Vijaynagar

empire, and he worked as a minister, as a spiritual guide, to

these kings.

One of Vidyaranya’s great works is the Panchadasi. It is a

masterpiece in Vedanta philosophy and spiritual practice. It

contains fifteen chapters, which is why it is called

Panchadasi. The book by itself has no name; it is named after

the number of chapters. Panchadasa is fifteen and

panchadasi is a work that contains fifteen chapters. These

fifteen chapters are classified into three sections of five

chapters each. It is said that the Bhagavadgita, which

contains eighteen chapters, is also classifiable into three

sections: the first six, the middle six, and the last six. The first

five chapters of Panchadasi deal with existence, or sat in

Sanskrit. The second five deal with consciousness, or chit.

The last five deal with ananda, or bliss. Therefore, the book

as a whole is an exposition of sat-chit-ananda – the nature of

the Absolute expounded in minute detail in his own novel

way.

I think this is the third time that I am taking up study and

discourse on the Panchadasi. In one course, when I was

speaking in the Bhajan Hall, some people were taking down

8

notes in shorthand. One of them gave me the typed

manuscript of these lectures that he had taken in shorthand. I

went through it, corrected it, and that book was published in

the name of the Philosophy of the Panchadasi.

[Publisher’s note: This series of discourses was given in

1989 after The Commentary of the Bhagavadgita, containing

51 discourses, was completed. This is a series of a verse-byverse

commentary on the Panchadasi which Swamiji

continued for 42 sessions and ended in the seventh chapter.]

Discourse 1

CHAPTER 1: TATTVA VIVEKA – DISCRIMINATION OF

REALITY, VERSES 1-5

The first two verses of the first chapter of the Panchadasi

constitute a prayer to Swami Vidyaranya’s Guru. In all

ancient texts, the Guru is offered prayer first. This is a

tradition which has been followed always, and the

Panchadasi author also followed this respected tradition.

Namaḥ śrī śaṅkarānanda guru pādāmbu janmane, savilāsa

mahā moha grāha grāsaika karmaṇe (1). Sankarananda was a

great sannyasin under whom Vidyaranya appears to have

studied. Sankarananda wrote, to our knowledge, two great

works, one which is called Atma Purana, an epic type of

description of the contents of the Upanishads. Actually, the

authorship goes to Sankarananda, the great master. The

other book by Sankarananda is “Commentary on the

Bhagavad Gita”. Very few people read that commentary; it is

very tough and technical. This Sankarananda, the great

master, is now offered obeisance. “Prostrations to the lotus

feet of the Guru Sri Sankarananda, who is engaged in the

great function of the destruction of that crocodile which

harasses people everywhere in the form of illusion, delusion

and ignorance, and dances in ecstasy in the form of this

created world.” This is a prayer to the Guru mentioning

thereby the power of the Guru in dispelling ignorance.

‘Sankara’ has also been interpreted by the commentator as

one who brings sam. Samkaroti-iti sankara. Sam is

blessedness, peace, auspiciousness. Kara is one who brings it.

It may be Lord Siva, or it may be the Supreme Being Himself

who brings us blessedness, auspiciousness and ultimate

peace. So it may be a prayer to the almighty God also. We

may take it in that sense, or take it as a prayer to the Guru

Sankarananda, whose power is here delineated as the

capacity to destroy the ignorance of disciples.

Tat pādāmbu ruha dvaṅdva sevā nimarla cetasām, sukha

bodhāya tattvasya vivedo’yaṁ vidhīyate (2). Now the author

10

says he is engaging himself, in the first five chapters, in the

description of an important subject, called viveka or

discrimination. The first five chapters are all designated

viveka, or discrimination of something from something else.

The middle five chapters are designated as dipa or

illumination consciousness. The last five are designated as

ananda or bliss. “I shall endeavour to write a textbook on the

discrimination of reality, as distinguished from unreality, for

the benefit of students who always wish to have easy

textbooks, not with technicalities galore and very hard to

understand. I shall free this text from unnecessary

technicality and make it easy to understand – sukha-bodhaya.

It is for students who are free from mala vikshepa avarana,

that is, their minds are cleansed from the usual dross of

attachments to things, desire and attachment – students who

are devoted to this Guru Sankarananda.” It may be, therefore,

a textbook that has been specially written for the edification

of other students who were also listening to the discourses of

the great master Sankarananda; or it may mean all devotes of

God.We can take it in either sense.

The viveka or the analysis, the discrimination that is

spoken of here, is actually the analysis of consciousness. The

very beginning verses go directly into the subject without

beating about the bush and giving us introductory passages

or telling stories, etc. It goes to the very heart of the matter.

The impossibility of denying the existence of consciousness

is the main subject in the initial verses. We may doubt

everything. We may even deny everything, but we cannot

deny consciousness – because it is consciousness that is

doubting and it is consciousness that is denying things.When

all things go because of the denial of all things, then what

remains? There remains the consciousness of having denied

everything and the consciousness of doubting all things.

Even if we feel that we do not exist – we are annihilated

or we are dead, for instance – even then, we will feel that at

the back of our imagination of the annihilation of our

11

personality there is a consciousness of the annihilation of

personality. Even if we say that there is only a vacuum, and

there is nil, and finally nothing exists in the world, there is a

consciousness that affirms that nothing exists. Hence, it is

impossible to obviate the predicament of a consciousness

interfering with all things.

The first verse is engaged in a very interesting analysis of

it being not possible to have duality, finally. If there are many

objects of perception, as we have in the waking condition,

there is a necessity for us to comprehend these multifarious

objects in a single act of consciousness – or, we may say,

conscious perception.

There are many trees in the forest, many stars in the

heavens. Who is it that is aware of the manifoldness of the

stars and the trees? How can we know that one thing is

different from another thing unless there is an awareness

that brings these two different objects together in a single

comprehension transcending both items of difference? If ‘A’

is different from ‘B’, it is not ‘A’ that is knowing that ‘A’ is

different from ‘B’, because ‘A’ is different from ‘B’ as it has

already been asserted; therefore, ‘A’ cannot know that there

is ‘B’. Nor can ‘B’ know that there is ‘A’ because it is not

possible for ‘B’ to know ‘A’, as ‘B’ is different from ‘A’. There

being no connection between ‘A’ and ‘B’, neither ‘A’ can know

‘B’, nor ‘B’ can know ‘A’. Who knows that ‘A’ is different from

‘B’? That knowing principle cannot be ‘A’, and it cannot be ‘B’.

So the differences in the world, the dualities of perception,

the multitudinous-ness and the variety of things is capable of

being known by a consciousness that is not involved in any of

the objects of perception. This is the aim of the first initial

philosophical verse, to place in perspective, the third aspect

ie the knowing principle.

Śabda sparśā dayo vedyā vaici tryāj jāgare pṛthak, tato

vibhaktā tat saṁvit aika rūpyānna bhidyate (3). Sabda sparsa –

there are five objects of cognition or perception: sound,

touch, form or colour, taste, and smell. The eyes cannot hear.

12

The ears cannot see. But there is someone who sees and

hears at the same time. We can sometimes see, hear, touch,

smell and taste at the same time, though the five functions

differ from one another. One sense organ cannot perform the

function of another sense organ. The ear cannot even know

that there is such a thing called eye, etc. How does it become

possible for someone to know that there are five kinds of

perception?

That ‘someone’ is none of these perceptions. The one

who knows that one perception is different from another is

none of these. It is not the eye, it is not the ear, it is not any of

these senses that proclaims, "I know, I see, I hear," etc. This

consciousness, which is essential for the perception of the

unity that is behind the variety of sense functions, has to be

different from the sense functions. Vibhakta means ‘different

from’; ‘variety’ means vaichitrya. In the waking condition

jagara, the variety of perception of objects, is made possible

on account of the variegated functions of the sense organs.

We know this very well. It does not require much of an

explanation. Yet, it does not require much time for us to

appreciate that the knower of the difference of these

functions cannot be any one of these functions. That knower

is awareness, pure and simple – consciousness, samvid. On

account of the transcendence and the unitary character of

consciousness above the diversity of the senses,

consciousness has to be established in the waking condition

as existing, transcending, ranging above the sense functions.

We will realise that this is the state of affairs in dream also -

tatha svapne in the next verse.

Tathā svapne’tra vedyaṁ tu na sthiraṁ jāgare sthiram, tad

behdo’tastayoḥ saṁvid ekarūpa na bhidyate (4). The difference

between waking and dreaming is that waking looks like a

longer experience, and dream is often considered to be

shorter in comparison with waking. But that is a different

matter. In the same way as we have diversity of perception in

waking, there is diversity of perception in dream also. In

13

dream we also have mountains and rivers and people, and all

kinds of things. How do we know them?We have got a dream

eye, dream ear, dream taste, dream touch, and so on. The

mind in dream manufactures a new set of senses which are

not the waking senses; and these sense organs specially

created by the mind in the dreaming condition become the

sources of the diversity of perception of dream objects. Even

here, in order to know that there is a variety and diversity of

objects in dream, there has to be a consciousness. Just as in

the case of waking, the consciousness in dream is different

from the variety we see in dream.

Also, the same person wakes and the same person

dreams. On the one hand, consciousness is different from the

variety of objects and the sensations thereof; and on the

other hand, consciousness is different from waking and

dreaming. It is not involved either in waking or in dreaming

because it knows the difference between waking and

dreaming. We know that we dreamt; we know that we are

awake. Who are we that make this statement that waking is

different from dream?

So consciousness does two things at the same time. It

distinguishes between objects and transcends the objects by

standing above them. Secondly, it distinguishes the states of

consciousness (waking, dream and sleep) and stands above

them as turiya – that is, the fourth state of consciousness.

The difference between waking and dream is only a

question of shorter or longer duration, though in dream also

we can have long durations of experience. But in comparison

with the waking, we find that we slept for a few minutes and

had a long dream; and a few minutes are very short in

comparison with the twenty-four hours of waking. So apart

from the fact of the difference in duration between waking

and dream, the consciousness operating behind the senses of

perception both in waking and dream is identical.

14

Supot thitasya sauṣpta tamo bodho bhavet smṛtiḥ, sā cāva

buddha viṣayā’vabuddhaṁ tattadā tamaḥ (5). In waking, we

have one kind of consciousness. In dream, we have another

kind of consciousness. In sleep, we do not have any kind of

consciousness. There is a darkness, a kind of ignorance in the

state of deep sleep. But it is surprising that we all know that

we were awake, we were dreaming, and we were sleeping.

Granted, there was a kind of consciousness in waking, as it

has been explained, and there was also the same

consciousness operating in dream. But there was no

consciousness in sleep. How did we know then, that we have

slept? Knowledge of having slept cannot be there unless

consciousness was there.

In waking, there are physical objects before

consciousness. In dream there are mental objects before

consciousness. The object before consciousness in sleep is

ignorance; a cloud-like covering over consciousness is the

object. The consciousness knows that it knew nothing. It is a

negative kind of consciousness. It is worthwhile analysing

into the circumstance of our being aware that we slept,

because sleeping is an absence of consciousness. And the fact

of our having slept coming to us as a memory thereafter is

something interesting.

We know what memory is. Memory, or remembrance, is

the aftermath of a conscious experience that we had earlier.

We remember a thing after having experienced a thing

before; and if we did not have any kind of experience at all,

the memory of it would not be there. So to assert that we

slept yesterday, we must have had an awareness of having

slept. But unfortunately, awareness of having slept is not

possible because during sleep the consciousness did not

actually ‘know’ the condition of sleep. We have to analyse by

a fact of inference that consciousness must have been there

because unconscious experience is unknown. All experience

capable of a remembrance or memory afterwards has to be

attached to consciousness.

15

By an act of inference, when we see muddy water in the

Ganga, we infer that it must be raining upstream. And so in a

similar manner we infer – not by direct experience, of course

- by inference we realise and affirm that consciousness must

have been there in deep sleep also – but for which fact,

memory of sleeping would not be there afterwards.

So what follows from this? Consciousness was in waking,

dream and sleep continuously. This is the reason why we feel

we are the person who was awake; we are the same person

that dreamt; we are the same person that slept. It does not

mean somebody is waking, somebody else is dreaming, and

yet somebody else is sleeping. It is not three different

persons doing that. One continuous identity of personality is

maintained by consciousness.

So what is the analysis now? Consciousness is

continuously present in all the three states and, therefore, it

constitutes a fourth state. It is not any one of the states. If

consciousness were completely absorbed and identified with

waking only, it would not be working in dream. And

similarly, if it had been exhausted in one of the other

conditions, dream or sleep, it would not have known other

conditions. Inasmuch as consciousness knows all three

conditions, it shows that it is none of the three conditions. It

is a fourth state of consciousness, a transcendent element in

us, or a transcendent element which we ourselves are. We

are that transcendent consciousness, basically. We are not

that which is involved in waking, dream and sleep. We are

consciousness. This is the analysis here by examining the

conditions of waking, dream and sleep.

Inasmuch as consciousness alone was there in sleep, we

have to know something about what kind of consciousness it

was. It could not be a consciousness that was in some place

only, in a particular location. The peculiar character of

consciousness is that it cannot be located in a particular

place. It cannot be only in one place. It has to be everywhere.

If consciousness is assumed to be present in one place only,

16

there must be somebody to know that it is not elsewhere.

Who is telling us that consciousness is only inside the body

and it is not elsewhere? Consciousness itself is telling that.

It is necessary for consciousness to overstep the limits of

its bodily encasement in order to know that it is only inside.

We cannot know that there is a limitation of something

within a fence unless and until we also know that there is

something beyond the fence. The consciousness of finitude

implies the consciousness of the Infinite. The impossibility of

dividing consciousness into parts, fragments, and locating it

in particular individuals makes it abundantly the Infinite that

it is.

So we are actually entering into the infinite

consciousness in the state of deep sleep; but because of the

potentials of our karmas, prarabdha, etc., which cover our

consciousness as darkness – the unfulfilled desires, the

unconscious layer, as it is called in psychoanalysis – because

of this covering, we do not know what is happening to us.We

are actually on the lap of Brahman in that state of deep sleep.

But blindfolded we go, and therefore it is as good as not

going.

Consciousness has been analysed in these three verses as

firstly, distinct from objects of perception; secondly, distinct

from the three states; thirdly, infinite in nature. Such is the

grandeur of our essential being. We are basically infinite

consciousness. This is the reason why we ask for endless

things. We want to possess the whole world. Even if we

become kings of the earth, we are not satisfied because the

Atman inside is infinite. It says, "Do you give me only the

earth? I want the skies." If you give the sky, it will say, "I want

further up." That is the asking for infinitude.

The Atman is also eternity. It is not bound by time.

Therefore, we do not want to die. That desire to be immortal,

the desire not to die, the desire to be existing for all time to

come, endlessly, is the eternity in us that is speaking.

Therefore, every one of us is basically infinite and eternal,

17

whose nature is consciousness; and it is Absolute because of

the infinitude of its nature.

Discourse 2

CHAPTER 1: TATTVA VIVEKA – DISCRIMINATION OF

REALITY, VERSES 6-13

Consciousness is the subject of analysis. This

consciousness is further being studied now in the coming

verses.

Sa bodho viṣayād bhinno na bodhāt svapna bodha vat,

evaṁ sthāna traye’pyekā saṁvid tatvad dinān tare (6). Māsābda

yuga kalpeṣu gatā gamye ṣvane kadhā, nodeti nāsta metyakā

saṁvi deṣā svayaṁ prabhā (7). This consciousness is Selfconscious,

svayam prabha. Objects in the world require

consciousness in order that they may be known, but

consciousness does not require another consciousness that it

may be known. That is the meaning of ‘Self-consciousness’.

Objects cannot know themselves. They are known by another

– the subject – which is endowed with consciousness; but the

subject, which is consciousness, does not require another

subject to know itself. That is the meaning of Selfconsciousness.

Consciousness is not different from consciousness. While

objects require a consciousness to know them, consciousness

does not require another consciousness to know it, because

consciousness is never an object. It ever remains a subject,

pure and simple.

If we say that consciousness requires another

consciousness behind it – because it is possible to extend this

logic beyond the effects to the causes, and behind that cause

to another cause – the problem will arise, namely, that ‘that’

which knows consciousness also should be consciousness as

there cannot be two consciousnesses, because we have

already seen that consciousness cannot be divided into two

parts. It cannot be split or fragmented, because the imagined

fragmentation of consciousness is also to be known by

consciousness only. The limitation of consciousness is known

by consciousness; therefore, consciousness is not limited.

That is to say, it is unlimited.

19

So, it is svayam prabha. It is Self-knowledge.

Consciousness is not different from other consciousness,

while consciousness is different from the objects. Bodho

viṣayād bhinno na bodhāt svapna bodha vat: As it is in the case

of dream, we have noted that consciousness itself appears as

an object outside, and it is not different from itself. It is to be

considered as a continuous link obtaining not only between

the diversity of objects on one hand, but also between the

variety of three states of waking, dreaming, and sleep.

Evaṁ sthāna traye’pyekā saṁvid tatvad. Sthana traye

means three states – waking, dreaming and sleep.

Objectively, it is the cohering principle of the unity that is

behind all diversity of perception; subjectively, it is a link

bringing together, in a state of single apprehension, the three

states of waking, dreaming and sleeping. Not only that – day

in and day out, this consciousness persists, dinan tare. So

many days we have lived in this world; from childhood to

this time, we remember all the days through which we have

passed. Don't we think there is one consciousness that is

linking us into a single personality? I lived fifty years back,

forty years back, thirty years back, twenty years back. I was a

child and I am an elderly man, and so on. Who is saying this?

Who is feeling this? Who is conscious of this? This is one

single consciousness maintaining itself as a self-identity

throughout the days and the months and the years that we

have passed.

Māsābda yuga kalpeṣu: Not merely through days and

months and years is it continuing as a single link; it has been

maintaining its continuity through ages and ages, through

cycles of creation, through the Krita, Treta, Dvapara, Kali

Ages. Through all creation, right from beginning, this one

consciousness has been maintaining itself as a self-identical

unitariness that we are. Here is a glorious message for all of

us.We are not the little crawling insects that we appear to be

on the surface of the earth. We are mighty in our inner

essence. The potential of unlimitedness is singing its own

20

celestial music within us, and wanting to reveal itself just

now. But it is not allowed to reveal itself or manifest itself on

account of a peculiar juxtaposition that has taken place

between consciousness and matter – which is to say, the

attachment to this body, and attachment to the ways of

prejudiced thinking in terms of space, time and externality.

What do we think day in and day out? Space, time,

objects. There is no fourth thing that we can think of. And all

this conditioning arises on account of this body through

which we start thinking. So the body-consciousness reads

through the affirmation of space-time consciousness and

object-consciousness. How would we have knowledge of the

eternity that we are, the infinity that our consciousness is?

Nevertheless, it is worth knowing that this consciousness

that we really are is a continuous link that is maintaining

itself as Self-consciousness through days and months and

years and cycles of creation. From eternity to eternity, it is

existing. We are deathless eternities, in essence. The coming

and going, the fluxation of the universe, the varieties of

creation in cycles do not affect this consciousness because it

is consciousness that knows that there is fluxation and a

coming and going of things.

How many times has God created the world? The

scriptures say many, many cycles have come and gone. But

who is saying this? Consciousness. Eternity is consciousness.

Gatā gamye ṣvane kadhā, nodeti nāsta metyakā: Neither

does consciousness arise at any time, because it has no

beginning, nor does consciousness end at any time. It has no

death. Beginningless and endless, immortal is this

consciousness which we, ourselves, essentially are.

Saṁvi deṣā svayaṁ prabhā: This svayam prabha, Selfconsciousness,

is self proof. It does not require any other

proof. We may require a proof to establish other things, but

we do not require a proof to establish consciousness,

21

because it is the presupposition of all other proofs. All proofs

proceed from consciousness. It is self-proved, indubitable.

Iya mātmā parā nandaḥ para premās padaṁ yataḥ, mā na

bhūvaṁ hi bhūyā sam iti premāt manī kṣyate (8).

Consciousness is Self-proof. It is Self-conscious. It is Selfconscious

and also self-love. Consciousness has two peculiar

aspects – intense affirmation of itself, and intense love of

itself. It cannot love anything else. Immense love is the

nature of the self. It is the source of the love of all other

things in the world. Nobody loves anything in the world for

its own sake. All love is for one's own self. If we will carefully

analyse our love, we will realise that we have loves for things

because we love ourselves. And when everything goes, we

would like to protect ourselves. When all things go – land,

property, money, relations, all are destroyed – we would like

to remain at least as beggars. We would not like to die. Love

of self is supreme love, and all other loves are conditioned by

this self-love.

Therefore, being the source of para premas padam,

supreme love being the essence of the Self, it is supreme bliss

itself in its nature. Consciousness cannot be limited, as it has

been shown. Because it is not limited, it is ultimately free. It

is limitation that puts a bar on our expression of freedom.

When consciousness which we really are has no bar or

limitation of any kind, it is absolutely free. And bliss and

happiness mean the same as freedom. The more we are free,

the more we are also happy. Inasmuch as the Self is totally

free, it is total bliss; because it is eternally free, it is eternal

bliss.

Iya mātmā parā nandaḥ: This Self is supreme bliss. Para

premās padaṁ yataḥ. It is also the source of the bliss that we

apparently see in outer objects. What does one feel always?

Mā na bhūvaṁ hi bhūyā sam: “Let me not, not be. Let me be.

Let me not annihilate myself, and let not conditions arise to

annihilateme. May I live always, and may I not, not live.” This

is the feeling, the longing, the main desire of the Self. It is

22

asserting its eternity. The eternity aspect of the Self always

affirms itself in the desire never not to be, and the desire

always to be. Iti premāt manī kṣyate: This kind of love is

always seen in the Self. When all things go, when the world

itself goes, it would be good if we are alive – so the Self

thinks. It is on the one hand Self-luminous, Self-conscious,

Self-affirmative, and also Self-bliss. Eternal unending bliss –

that is the Self.

Tat premāt mārtham anyatra naiva manyārtha mātmanah,

atasat paramaṁ tena paramā nandata’tmanaḥ (9). Tat premāt

mārtham: All love is for its own sake. Anyatra naiva

manyārthani: Self-love is not for the sake of another. Self-love

is for its own sake. Therefore, we have to consider the Atman

as the supreme bliss. And so we conclude that the Atman is

basically bliss in its nature. Existence, Consciousness, Bliss

are supposed to be the nature of the Atman or the Self. In

certain things existence is manifest – for instance, stones and

inanimate matter manifest existence. They do exist. Stones

also exist, but they do not manifest intelligence. They do not

manifest self-consciousness.

In human beings, existence is manifest; intelligence is

also manifest. But bliss is not always manifest. The tamas

aspect of stone, etc. prevents all other manifestations except

existence. The rajasic aspect of man prevents the

manifestation of bliss but allows the manifestation of

existence and consciousness.

So we do exist and we are aware also that we are

existing, and we are aware that many things exist, but we are

not always happy. We do not feel free in this world. We are

bound by several limitations. On account of the distractions

caused by the manifestation of rajas, we have distracted

logical knowledge, sensory knowledge, objective knowledge,

academic knowledge, and so on, but no knowledge which can

be really called bliss in its nature. Learned people are not

always happy people. They have neither happiness nor

power in their hands.

23

Hence, all learning which is of an intellectual nature,

because it is rajasic in nature, cannot manifest bliss. Bliss is

revealed only in sattva, not in tamas and not in rajas. We

have existence and consciousness on account of the tamasic

and the rajasic qualities of prakriti manifesting themselves in

us.We are rarely sattvic in our nature because we are always

objectively conscious and rarely subjectively conscious. You

can yourself consider for a few minutes how many times you

think of yourself in a day. You always think of trains, buses,

cars, bicycles, tickets, going here and there, office work, going

to factories, and themany the engagements you have got. You

have got. But what are you?

We have no time to think of ourselves. In a way, man has

sold himself to objects. The subject has become the objects.

We are objects much more than subjects. This is the

predicament we have landed ourselves in. Would we like to

be objects? It is the worst condition in which we can land

ourselves. The intense consciousness of the external world

and the continuous engagement in external affairs of the

world is an indication that sattva is not always manifest in us.

There is no equilibration in thinking. There is externalisation

in thinking. Therefore, sattva is not manifest. Therefore, we

are not happy. This is the corollary that is drawn from this

nature of the Self being intensely bliss, and yet our being

deprived of it.

It is a great wonder. Our nature is essentially eternal

bliss, yet we are never happy even one day. We have always

something to disturb our minds. This has to be analysed

carefully: What is it that makes us so unhappy? How is it that

we always feel like becoming something other than

ourselves, and would not like to be our own selves?

Tat premāt mārtham anyatra naiva manyārtha mātmanah,

atasat paramaṁ tena paramā nandata’tmanaḥ. All joy that we

feel in respect of external things is actually a foisting of the

basic Atman bliss upon the objects outside – the bliss of our

own Self. The objects are not the cause of our happiness. We

24

are the cause of the happiness that we wrongly feel in

objects. So we conclude hereby that bliss supreme is the

nature of the Atman. Therefore, we also conclude that the

Atman is supreme bliss unparalleled, incomparable, nontemporal.

Eternity is the nature of this bliss of the Atman that

we are.

Itthaṁ saccitparānanda ātmā yuktyā tathāvidham, paraṁ

brahma tayoś caikyaṁ śrutyan teṣū padiśyate (10). Because of

the universality of the consciousness of the Atman in us, it is

Brahman also in essence. When we consider consciousness

as present in us individuals, we call it the Atman. When we

consider this consciousness present everywhere in the

universe, universally, we call it Brahman. This Atman being

the same in essence as the Universal Consciousness, the

Atman is identical with Brahman: ayam atma brahma.

Through analysis and logical investigation, it has now been

proved that sat-chit-ananda, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss,

is the nature of the Atman. It is also proved that it is basically

bliss in its nature. That is the nature of Brahman also.

Brahman is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss Absolute. So is the

Atman.

Satyaṁ jñānam anantam brahma (Tait. Up. II-1), says the

Upanishad. This Brahman, the Absolute, is Truth-Knowledge-

Infinity, and it appears to be locked up in this body and mind

complex. That is the source of this individual consciousness.

By sruti, or scriptural statement, and also by logical

argument, we come to the conclusion that bliss and self

consciousness constitute the essence of Atman.

All these verses that we have studied now, from the

beginning to the ninth, is a kind of logical analysis which

establishes the nature of the Self as independence, freedom,

eternity, and bliss.

The scriptures also proclaim this. The Ishavasya

Upanishad says, īśavāsyam idaṁ sarvam (Isa 1): All this

universe is pervaded by God. And the Kenopanishad says,

25

"Who is the thinker behind the thought?Who is the hearer of

the ear?" etc. It establishes consciousness behind sense

functions. The Kathopanishad and the Mundakopanishad

established the existence of a Universal Consciousness prior

to all concepts of space, time and objectivity. The

Chhandogya and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishads highlight

the greatness of Brahman as the only reality. So the scripture

corroborates this philosophical, logical analysis through

which we have arrived at the conclusion that Atman and

Brahman are inseparable and they constitute one reality,

namely, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

Now we have a peculiar quandary here. If this Self is not

known at all, it would not be a source of joy and self love.

How could we love ourselves unless the Self is manifest in

some way? If the Atman is totally obliterated from our

experience, we would be like stones, rocks, granite. We

would not even know that we are existing. Why do we love

ourselves so much? The love that we evince in regard to

ourselves shows that it has to be revealed in our life in some

form.

Abhāne na paraṁ prema bhāne na viṣaye spṛhā, ato

bhāne’pyabhātā’sau paramā nandatā tmanaḥ (11). Abhāne na

paraṁ prema: The supreme bliss that we evince in regard to

ourselves cannot be explained, cannot be accounted for if it is

totally obliterated and we are oblivious of its very existence.

But if we say that it is really manifest, why do we love objects

of sense? The love that we evince in regard to the objects

outside shows the Self is not manifest properly. But if it is not

manifest, then why do we love ourselves? Here is a quandary

before us. If it is manifest, the objects cannot attract us. If it is

manifest, the objects cannot be the sources of apparent joy. If

it is not manifest at all, we would be like inanimate objects.

We will not have any love for ourselves.We must explain this

situation.Why this dual situation in which we find ourselves?

On the one hand, it appears to be revealed; on the other

hand, it does not seem to be revealed at all.

26

Abhāne na paraṁ prema: If it is not revealed, no self-love

is possible. Bhāne na viṣaye spṛhā: If it is revealed, object-love

is not possible. Ato bhāne’pyabhātā’sau paramā nandatā

tmanaḥ: Therefore, the supreme bliss of the Atman is

indistinctly revealed; it is not distinctly revealed. If it is

distinctly revealed, we will never talk to anyone in the world

afterwards. We will never look at anything, and we will have

no dealings with anything in this world. It is not so distinctly

revealed, so our mind sometimes distracts us in the direction

of an object outside. After all, it is not clear whether the Self

is manifest or not. It is not clear whether it exists at all

because it is not felt in the form of happiness in life; so it runs

after objects.

But sometimes it appears that we are important persons.

We have got self-respect.We feel very hurt if we are insulted.

We love ourselves. How can we love ourselves if the Self is

not manifest? This peculiar dual character of the Self

requires a kind of explanation. The author of the Panchadasi

has an illustration to tell us how there is a mix-up of two

aspects in our self.

Adhyetṛ varga madhya stha putrā dhyayana śabda vat,

bhāne’pyabhānaṁ bhānasya prati bandhena yujyate (12). He

gives an illustration as an example. Suppose there is a large

group of Vedic scholars, students chanting Veda mantras

loudly: Sahasraśīrṣā puruṣaḥ sahasrākśaḥ sahasrapāt, sa

bhūmiṁ viśvato vṛtvā'tyatiṣṭaddaśāgulam (Purusha Sukta 1).

Some fifty or a hundred boys are loudly chanting Veda

mantras. There is a big chorus, and they are making a big

noise. The father of one of the students is standing outside

and listening to the chanting. In the crowd of the boys, he

cannot distinctly hear the voice of his son. Yet by a little bit of

concentration, he can indistinctly hear the voice of his son

also. He must be a little concentrated – closing his eyes and

listening to the loud chorus. In the big multitude of voices, he

can sometimes hear the voice of his own son. He can

27

indistinctly hear his son's voice because of his acquaintance

with that voice.

If twenty people are talking, I can hear the voice of some

people with whom I am acquainted, whom I have seen, in

spite of the big multitude of noises – but I cannot hear them

clearly, because there is an overwhelming sound coming

from others sources, due to which without proper

concentration, I cannot hear them clearly. Obviously, openly,

it is not audible. But with some concentration and attention

specifically paid, it is possible to hear it.

In the case of the father hearing his son chanting Veda

mantras in the midst of many other students in a large

classroom where the voice of a particular student can be

heard only indistinctly, and not distinctly, the voice is both

revealed and not revealed. From one point of view, the voice

of the son is not revealed. He cannot hear the voice of his son.

Yet, it is revealed. Revealed, and not revealed – both define

the character of the sound of one boy, in the case of the

father who is listening to it.

So is the case with the Self. There is a big multitude of

noise – a huge clarion call of sounds that the sense organs

and the mind, with all its desires, make. In this multitude of

noises made by the mind and the sense organs, we are not

able to distinctly locate the voice of the Self inside us. There

is some obstacle which prevents us from distinctly knowing

that there is a Self inside. The large noise of the senses and

the desires appears to drown the little voice of the Self, or the

soul inside.

Thus, there is a big obstacle before the Self which wants

to reveal itself. In spite of this difficulty faced in manifesting

itself – the large sounds made by the sense organs, etc. – it

sometimes tries to reveal itself in intense longing for endless

possessions, long life in this world, intense love of oneself,

and a pleasure one feels in being alone by oneself. These are

indistinct characters of the manifestation of the Self, but not

distinct characters.

28

Because of the fact of the indistinctness of the

manifestation of the Self in us, sometimes we feel entangled

in the objects outside, and sometimes we feel fed up with the

world. Every one of us has moments when we feel that we

have had enough of things. But we also have occasions when

we feel that it is not easily possible to withdraw ourselves

from the world. Sometimes we feel the world is too much for

us. We cannot be entirely free. Sometimes we feel we should

not think of anything in the world. These two characteristics

in our mind occasionally manifest themselves because of the

dual character of the manifestation of Self – sometimes

distinctly when we are totally Self conscious and introverted,

as in meditation, and very indistinctly when we are thinking

of the objects of sense, leading finally to a disgust with them.

Adhyetṛ varga madhya stha putrā dhyayana śabda vat,

bhāne’pyabhānaṁ bhānasya prati bandhena yujyate: This

obstacle that is preventing us from knowing ourselves is of

two kinds, known as the asti and bhati aspects of the Self

getting negatived. Does God exist? He does not seem to exist,

because there is nothing to show that a thing called God

exists. Do we know God in some way? There is nothing to

show that we have any knowledge of God at all. Thus, this

ignorance, this obstacle before the Self, manifests itself on

the one hand as the denial of the existence of the basic

Reality, and on the other hand the denial of the possible

knowledge of the basic Reality.

The obstacle manifests itself on the one hand by a thing

called avarana, and on the other hand by another thing called

vikshepa. Avarana means the screening off of the universality

of consciousness so that we can never have any occasion to

know that there is anything called Universal Existence.

Vikshepa is the compulsion that we feel that we individually

exist and are involved in the objects of sense.

We have received two punishments. We are prevented

from knowing that there is such a thing called the Universal,

and we are totally brainwashed negatively into the

29

compulsive feeling that we are individually existing. Well, let

us not be conscious of the existence of the Universal. But why

should we be further punished with this compulsion to know

that we are bodily encased?

Thus, there is a double punishment meted out to us by

something. No one knows how it happened. On the one hand,

we do not know the reality. On the other hand, we know the

unreality. It is enough for us. No further punishment is

conceivable. The highest punishment has been meted out to

us. Consciousness is obliterated by negativing its universality

on the one hand and, on the other hand, the externality

through space and time in terms of objects is impressed upon

us.

Prati bandho’sti bhātīti vyava hārārha vastuni, tanni rasya

viruddhasya tasyot pādanam ucyate (13). The creation of a

non-existent externality is the real bondage, though it is

caused by the actions of the consciousness of Universality.

Discourse 3

CHAPTER 1: TATTVA VIVEKA – DISCRIMINATION OF

REALITY, VERSES 14-27

Tasya hetuḥ samānābhi hāraḥ putra dhvaniśrutau, ihā

nādira vidyaiva vyāmo haika niban dhanam (14). In the case of

the father's indistinct hearing of the voice of his son chanting

the Veda, the obstacle to a clear and distinctive hearing of it

is the chorus of the voices of other students also mingling

with the voice of that particular student. That is the obstacle

in the case of the illustration cited.What is the obstacle in the

case of the Atman? It is indistinctly felt in us, partially making

us feel that we love our own selves, which is possible only if

the Self is revealed or manifest in some way. If it is not

manifest at all, in any way whatsoever, there would be no

love of Self. We would deny our Self, rather than affirm our

Self. That is to say that the Self is manifest in some form.

But if it is really manifest, we would not love objects of

sense. Why do we run after objects if the Self is really

distinctly felt inside as the source of all bliss? This shows that

there is some obstacle covering the consciousness of the Self,

causing an indistinct perception of it, sometimes making it

appear that it is revealed as the source of freedom and bliss

in us, and at other times making us feel that we do not have

any idea of it and are only thinking of the objects of sense.

The cause of the obstacle in this case is avidya, ignorance.

It is a word which is difficult to explain. It is something which

covers consciousness and is explained in many ways. Some

people say that the avidya consists of a predominance of

rajas and tamas over sattva; therefore, there is no

illumination possible when the cloud of this avidya or

ignorance covers the consciousness of the Atman. Others say

that avidya is the residue of the potentials of all the karmas

that one did in the past. In a way, we may say our avidya

covering the Atman is nothing but our unfulfilled desires,

whose impressions we have carried through several of our

previous births. It may be that avidya is the end result of our

31

unfulfilled desires which we could not fulfil through our

different incarnations in this body. Or it may be, to explain

the thing in a different way, rajas and tamas clouding sattva.

Sattva is indistinctly manifest in dream. So we have a

hazy perception of things. Sattva is distractedly yet distinctly

manifest in waking, so we can have a clear perception of

things in the world. But we don't have any perception in the

state of deep sleep. It is pure avidya covering – an abundance

of rajas and tamas activity,minus the appearance of sattva.

Cidānanda maya brahma prati bimba saman vitā, tamo rajas

satva guṇā prakṛtir divividhā ca sā (15). There is a thing called

prakriti. We have come across this term in the Samkhya

doctrine studies. In the Vedanta also, this prakriti is accepted,

with a little modification of its definition. Brahman is Pure

Existence, Consciousness – sat-chit-ananda. We have already

established this fact. When this Supreme Brahman, which is

sat-chit-ananda, is reflected in prakriti, which is constituted

of sattva, rajas and tamas gunas, the prakriti acts in two

ways.

In what way does this prakriti act in a dual fashion?

Yesterday we have heard that there is, on one hand, an

obliteration of the consciousness of the universality of the

Self. That is called the function of prakriti known as avarana,

covering. The other aspect of prakriti is vikshepa, which

causes the perception of an externality of the world. So it

does two things: covering consciousness, and then

distracting the consciousness in the direction of perception

of objects outside in space and time.

When the prakriti operates cosmically and reflects the

Universal Brahman consciousness in it, it is called maya.

Ishvara is the name given to Brahman revealed, or manifest,

or reflected through prakriti's gunas. When a predominance

of cosmic sattva, overwhelming rajas and tamas, reflects the

Universal Brahman in itself, that reflected consciousness in

the universal sattva is Ishvara. The universal sattva itself is

32

called maya. Maya is under the control of Ishvara, but avidya

is not under the control of the jiva or the individual. The

avidya controls the jiva, while Ishvara controls maya. That is

the difference between Ishvara and jiva, God and the

individual.

Satva śuddhya viśuddhi bhyāṁ māyā’vidye ca te mate, māyā

bimbo vaśī kṛtya tāṁ syāstarvajña īśvaraḥ (16). Omniscience is

the nature of God, or Ishvara, because Ishvara is a universally

spread-out reflection of the Absolute Brahman in the allpervading,

equilibrated condition of the sattva guna of

prakriti. As sattva is universally manifest, it has no divisions

like rajas and tamas. Therefore, the reflection through it of

Brahman consciousness, known as Ishvara, is the omniscient

knowing of all things at one stroke. For the same reason it is

also omnipresent and omnipotent. So God is all power, all

knowledge and all undivided presence: omnipresence,

omniscience, omnipotence. This is the nature of Ishvara –

God who creates this universe.

But the fate of the individual jiva is different. It is not

omniscient; it is not omnipotent; it is not omnipresent. The

jiva, the individual, is in one place only. While Ishvara is

everywhere, the jiva is in one place only – like every one of

us. We cannot be in two places at the same time. Our

knowledge is distorted, reflected and conditioned to objects;

and we have no power, because avidya controls us.

Therefore, the individual jiva is the opposite of Ishvara.

While bliss is the nature of Ishvara or God, unhappiness,

sorrow, grief, suffering is the nature of the individual jiva.

Avidyā vaśaga stvanya stad vaicitryāda nekadhā, sā kāraṇa

śarīraṁ syāt prājñas tatrā bhimāna vān (17). This avidya, or the

causal body, which is also known as the anandamaya kosha

in the individual, is of varieties and not of a uniform nature.

The avidya of the human being, the avidya of an animal, the

avidya of a plant or a tree, the avidya in stones and inanimate

objects are variegated in their manifestation. They cause the

33

variety of the species of individuals which are called 84 lakhs

in number.

Jivas are 84 lakhs in variety. A lakh means one hundred

thousand – so 84 one-hundred-thousands. So many

incarnations through the varieties of species of beings is

what each one takes! And then comes the end result of this

incarnating through the 84 lakhs of species, which is that we

attain the state of humanity. Human beings are the last

thread, knot, or the terminus of these 84 lakhs. Yet, evolution

is not complete with humanity. We have to become divine

beings. Merely being human beings is not sufficient, because

even in the human being there is the operation of rajas and

tamas. Pure sattva does not operate in the individual jiva.

Therefore, there is unhappiness and a sense of finitude and

limitation. Because of the subjection to avidya which, unlike

Ishvara, is predominantly rajasic and tamasic in nature, and

which is the varieties that are variegated in all the species of

beings, there comes the causal body of the jiva.

The consciousness that is ignorant behind this avidya in

the causal body is called prajna in the technical language of

Vedanta philosophy. Prajna is only a name which means ‘the

knower consciousness existing at the back of the totally

covering and obscuring avidya in the state of deep sleep as it

is manifest, and manifest in other states also, in different

ways’. Avidya is not manifest only in sleep. In sleep it acts as

complete obscuration, like an eclipse for the sun. But in the

dreaming and waking states it manifests through the subtle

body and the physical body, due to which we are conscious of

our subtle body in dream and conscious of the physical body

in waking. That also is an action of avidya because wherever

there is externality of perception, there is avidya operating.

And everything involved in this perception of outside things

in space and time is working through avidya. It is only in the

state of sleep that avidya completely covers the

consciousness.

34

This consciousness in the three states – sleeping,

dreaming and waking – is known by different names. The

consciousness that is behind the causal body, as manifest in

sleep, is called prajna. The same consciousness operating

behind the dream state is called taijasa. The same

consciousness operating behind the waking state is called

visva. Visva, taijasa, prajna are the names of the same Atman

consciousness operating behind the screen of the waking

condition, dreaming condition and sleep.

Tamaḥ pradhāna prakṛte stadbho gāye śrvarā jñayā, viyat

pavana tejo’mbu bhuvo bhūtāni jajñire (18). The jivas or

individuals – people like us, human beings – have been born

into this body due to our past karmas, the fulfilment of which

is to be worked out through this body and through any other

body which may be compelled upon us on account of our not

living a righteous and good life in this world at the present

moment. For the sake of the experience of the past karmas of

individuals, a field has to be created because experience is

not possible unless there is a field, an area of action. This

area of action for the working out of the karmas of the

individuals is this vast world which God has created. The

world of God, the creation of God, extends from the time of

the will of God to create until God enters immanently in

every created being. After this level, it is all bliss. It is Virat

operating by its immanence in all beings; and variety is not a

bondage there, because it is one Universal Consciousness

beholding the variety of its manifestation – right from the

will to create until the immanence and entry of this very

same Universal Consciousness in all individuals of every

species.

But tragedy starts when this individual, which is actually

an immanent form of Ishvara Himself, somehow or other, for

reasons nobody knows, asserts an independence of its own.

It is something like the Biblical story of the fall of Lucifer by

asserting an arrogant independence over God. Something

like that is also the story of the Upanishads and the Vedanta –

35

namely, that the individual somehow or other foolishly starts

asserting its independence and falls headlong into the mire

of sorrow, with head down and legs up, as it were, like

Trishanku falling from heaven.

Then what happens? The individual is completely

oblivious of the Universal Consciousness which is immanent

in it. And through the attacher or the distorted screen of this

sleeping condition in which it falls down, with it manifests a

faculty of individuality, called mind and intellect and sense

organs, for creating a heaven in its hell. It says, as the poet

tells us, "It is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."

It does not want to serve in heaven. It will reign as the

president in hell. The world is hell, and we are like

presidents, ruling the world. And we feel very happy. All is

well with this hell. This is what we think.

This wondrous creation of God is constituted of the

elements of earth, water, fire, air and ether, in their gross

form; and in their subtle form they are sabda, sparsa, rupa,

rasa, gandha, to which we made reference yesterday. This is

the area of action, the world which God has created for

providing individuals an opportunity to fulfil the residual

karmas, due to which they have been born into this body.

Prakriti, which is stability and fixity in its nature, is

brooded upon. God broods over the cosmic waters, says

Genesis in the Bible. It is the very same cosmic water which

is tapas, on which the Cosmic Consciousness broods and

manifests earth and heaven and all the worlds at one stroke

for the purpose of the bhoga of the individuals – the

individual's experience of the fruits of its actions, whether

good or bad. And what are these worlds? They are the five

elements – earth, water, fire, air and ether. Such is the

creation of God.

Satvā ṁśaiḥ pañcabhi steṣāṁ kramād dhīn driya pañcakam,

śrotra tvagakṣi rasana ghrāṇākhyam upajāyate (19). The sense

organs, the sensations of knowledge – hearing, touching,

36

seeing, tasting and smelling are the prominent activities of

our sense organs – are created out of the sattva portions of

the prakriti. Through tamas, the five elements are created.

Through the sattva gunas of prakriti, independently and

individually taken, the sense organs are created as

mentioned; and they are the reason for our perception of the

world by hearing, touching, seeing, tasting and smelling.

These are the only activities of ours in this world through the

sense organs. They are created out of the prakriti itself

through its sattva guna, while the cosmic physical world is

created out of the tamas quality of the same prakriti.

Tai rantaḥ karaṇaṁ sarvai vṛtti bhedena tad dvidhā, mano

vimarśa rūpaṁ syād buddhiḥ syān niśca yātmikā (20). The

internal organ called the mind or chitta is also constituted of

the total essence of the sattva gunas of prakriti. In an

individual, this prakriti sattva becomes the cause of the

manifestation of the five sense organs. Collectively taken, it

becomes the cause of the manifestation of the mind itself

which has four functions to perform – namely thinking, selfarrogation,

memory, and intellection – known as manas,

buddhi, chitta, and ahamkara.

Manas, or the mind, does only the act of indistinct and

indeterminate thinking. When we begin to feel that

something is there in front of us, but cannot clearly know

what it is that is there, it is called indeterminate thinking,

which is the work of the mind. But when it is clear to us that

it is aman that is standing there, or a tree is there, or a pole is

there, that distinct and clear perception is the work of

reason, or intellect, which is superior to the mind. Mano

vimarśa rūpaṁ syād buddhiḥ syān niśca yātmikā. Decision and

determination are the functions of the buddhi – intellect, or

reason.

Rajoṁ’saiḥ pañcabhi steṣāṁ kramāt karmen indrayāṇi tu,

vāk pāṇi pāda pāyupastha abhi dhānāni jajñire (21). We have

mentioned what happens with the tamas and the sattva of

prakriti. Now there is something else left, which is rajas. The

37

rajas of prakriti becomes the cause of the organs of action –

different from the senses of knowledge. The senses of

knowledge are hearing, touching, seeing, tasting and

smelling. The organs of action are five more – speaking,

grasping with hands, locomotion with the feet, the genitals,

and the anus – the organ of excretion. These are the five

organs of action, which are the operating locations of pranas.

The mind is not the cause here. The mind is directly

connected with the senses of knowledge, whereas the prana

is directly connected with the organs of action. Individually

taken, this fivefold rajas guna becomes the organs of action

that I mentioned.

Taiḥ sarvaiḥ sahitaiḥ prāṇo vṛtti bhedāt sa pañcadhā,

prāṇo’pānaḥ samā naśco dāna vyānau ca te punaḥ (22). But

collectively taken, this rajas becomes prana or vital energy in

us with its fivefold functions of prana, apana, vyana, udana

and samana. Prana works when we breathe out. Apana

works when we breathe in. Samana works in the stomach, in

the navel area, and causes digestion of food. Vyana causes

circulation of blood; and udana takes us to deep sleep and

also causes deglutition of food when we eat, also causing

separation of the jiva consciousness from the body at the

time of death. This fivefold function of the prana, known as

prana in general, is the total cumulative effect of the rajas

guna aspect of prakriti.

So we are now fully in possession of the knowledge as to

how the tamas, sattva and rajas prakriti work under the

control of Ishvara, the God who created the world.

Buddhi karmendriyaprāṇa pañcakair manasā dhiyā, śarīraṁ

sapta daśabhiḥ sūkṣmaṁ talliṅga mucyate (23). The subtle

body is inside us. It is the astral body, or sukshmasarira, and

consists of the five senses of knowledge, the five senses of

action, the five pranas, together with mind and intellect –

totalling seventeen. These seventeen constituents are the

substance of the sukshma sarira; that is the subtle body.

38

Seventeen components go to form the subtle body within the

physical body.

Prājña statrā bhimānena taijasatvaṁ prapadyate, hiraṇya

garbhatā mīśas tayor vyaṣṭi samaṣṭitā (24). When

consciousness manifests itself as a background of the

sleeping condition of the causal body, it is called prajna, as

we said. When it is there at the back of the dreaming

condition, it is called taijasa. Cosmically, this dreaming

condition is animated by the Universal Consciousness, called

Hiranyagarbha-tattva. Individually Hiranyagarbha is the

dreaming consciousness, and cosmically he is called by such

names as universal prana, sutratma, thread consciousness,

Hiranyagarbha. Ishvara is the cosmical counterpart of the

sleeping condition, while Hiranyagarbha is the cosmical

counterpart of the dreaming condition. Virat is the cosmical

counterpart of the waking condition. This is something

important for us to remember, even for our meditation.

In meditation, what will we do? We merge the waking

consciousness into the Virat Universal Consciousness, in the

total waking condition of the cosmos. We merge the

dreaming consciousness in the total causal dreaming

condition of the cosmos in Hiranyagarbha. And in sleep we

merge this causal condition into the universal causal

condition of Ishvara. But in all the three states of sleep,

dream and waking, we are conditioned, and we remain

helpless; forcibly we are driven into these conditions by

some factor of which we have no knowledge.Whereas that is

the case with each one of us, a different state of affairs

obtains in Virat, Hiranyagarbha and Ishvara. They have no

compulsion. That is all freedom; it is all universality. It is all

omniscience. It is all omnipotence. God dancing in his own

glory, as it were, is Virat, Hiranyagarbha, Ishvara; but

suffering jiva in a concentration camp, as it were, which is

this world, is the fate of every one of us.

Hiraṇya garbhatā mīśas tayor vyaṣṭi samaṣṭitā. Vyasti is

individual; samasti is total. Individually, we are prajna,

39

taijasa and visva. Cosmically, the same thing is known as

Virat, Hiranyagarbha and Ishvara.

Samaṣṭi rīśaḥ sarveṣāṁ svātma tādātmya vedanāt, tada

bhāvāt tato’nye tu kathyante vyaṣṭi saṁ jñayā (25). Because

Ishvara has an identity of His own Self with everything that

He has created, He is called Total Consciousness, or samasti

in Sanskrit. Because of the absence of this identity of

consciousness with all things at the same time in the case of

the jiva, it is called shakti or a segregated individual. Identity

with all things at one stroke is the nature of Ishvara,

Hiranyagarbha and Virat. Identity only with this particular

body, and not with anybody else, is the fate of the jiva, the

individual. The great tragedy, a great travesty, a great sorrow

has manifest before us is this individuality of ours.

Tad bhogāya puna bhogya bhogā yatana janmane,

pañcīkaroti bhaga vān prayekaṁ viyadā dikam (26); dvidhā

vidhāya caikaikaṁ caturdhā prathamaṁ punaḥ, svasve tara

dvitīyāṁ śaiḥ yojanāt pañca pañca te (27). It was mentioned

that there are five potentials of the five elements – sound,

touch, etc. These electrical energies, we may call it, that are at

the back as the causative factors of the five elements and are

mixed up by God Himself in some proportion – called

panchikarana, or the process of quintuplication – due to

which, the physical world of earth, water, fire, air and ether

are manifest. Half of the sabda, or the hearing tanmatra, is

mixed with one eighth of each of the other four remaining

and, therefore, becomes half in its composition as sabda

tanmatra; and one eighth of it consists of a little portion of

the other, namely touch, colour, taste, and smell. In a similar

manner are the other elements also. When we take up the

touch principle, half of it is touch principle. One eighth of the

other four are taken into consideration and mixed with this

half of the touch principle. It becomes vayu, or wind. Sabda

becomes space by this quintuplication process, or sky as we

call it, and the touch principle in its quintuplication process

becomes wind, or air. Then the colour principle in the same

40

process becomes fire, or light. The taste principle in the same

process becomes water. The smell principle undergoing the

same process of quintuplication becomes physical earth.

So the five gross elements – ether, air, fire, water, and

earth – are constituted of some other elements also, and they

are not entirely the original potentials wholly manifest in

them due to a peculiar combination and permutation that

became necessary for the chemical type of combination, as it

were, causing the manifestation of five gross elements. Thus

the whole physical universe has been cosmically created on

one side, and individually created on the other side.

Discourse 4

CHAPTER 1: TATTVA VIVEKA – DISCRIMINATION OF

REALITY, VERSES 28-43

Tairaṇḍa statra bhuvanaṁ bhogya bhogā śrayod bhavaḥ,

hiraṇyagarbhaḥ sthūle’smin dehe vaiśvā naro bhavet (28). The

five elements have been constituted by means of a process

known as quintuplication, as we noted yesterday. Half of the

particular tanmatra – sound, touch, etc. – is mixed with one

eighth of each of the other elements so that every physical

element – sky, wind, etc. – contains half of its own original

tanmatra, and the other half consists of one eighth of the

other elements. This process of mixing up the tanmatras is

called panchikarana or quintuplication, by which the physical

elements are formed.

The whole universe of physical substance is the body of

Virat. The subtle cosmic universe is ruled by Hiranyagarbha.

Now these fourteen realms of creation – all the levels of

reality, all the worlds – were created by the Supreme Being

for the purpose of finding a location for individuals in a

particular atmosphere where alone is it possible for them to

work out their past karmas.

So the world in which we are living is a proper

atmosphere created by God in which every one of us

inhabitants in this world will have ways and means of

working out our karmas. Just as each individual has his own

or her own karma, there is also a karma of species. All human

beings are grouped together in one particular world only. It

is not that some human beings are living here and some

human beings are on Mars, etc. All human beings – men,

women and children – though they have individually their

own karmas due to which they are born in a particular body,

in a particular circumstance, in a family, etc., have also a

collective karma due to which they are born in one world

only.

So for the fulfilment of particular karma in potencies of

individuals of a specific type of species, the world which is

42

correspondingly suitable to act as an environment and field

of action has been very intelligently and wisely created by

God: bhogya bhogā śrayod bhavaḥ.

Here in this world of physical substance, Hiranyagarbha,

the ruler of the subtle cosmos, becomes Virat, the ruler of the

physical cosmos. Virat is also called Vaishvanara. This great

Vaishvanara, this Virat, is the subject of the eleventh chapter

of the Bhagavad Gita, of the Vaishvanara Vidya of the

Upanishad, and of the Purusha Sukta of the Veda.

Taijasā viśvatāṁ yātā deva tiryaṅ narā dayaḥ, te parāg darṣi

naḥ pratyak tattva bodha vivar jitāḥ (29). As Hiranyagarbha

becomes Virat cosmically, the taijasa, the ruler of the dream

world in the individual becomes Visva, the ruler of the

waking condition of the individual. And this happens in the

case of all created beings, right from the gods in heaven,

human beings in the world, and animals, birds, etc.: deva

tiryaṅ narā dayaḥ.

The world of the gods which is called heaven, and the

world which is this earth – the location of human beings and

of other subhuman creatures, all come under this category of

Visva or waking consciousness. All the living beings in the

world that are conscious of a world outside are in a waking

state. And all those who are feeling a world inside them are

in a dream state. And those who know nothing and sleep are

in the causal body.

These individuals, jivas, whatever be their nature,

whether they are gods in heaven or human beings or animals

and birds, irrespective of the category into which they are

born, they have one common character: they will only see

things outside. They cannot see what is inside them. All

created beings look outside. They are conditioned by space

and time and objectivity, and bereft of the capacity to see

what is inside them.

Parāg darṣi naḥ pratyak tattva bodha vivar jitāḥ. No one can

know what is inside oneself. No one can know one's mind or

43

Self; but one tries to know everything that is outside in the

world by observation through the sense organs. This is the

common factor in all created beings – that they will never

know what is inside them. They will only try to know

through the senses what is outside them. This is the difficulty

in which every created being finds himself or herself.

Kurvate karma bhogāya karma kartuṁ ca bhuñjate, nadyāṁ

kīṭā ivāvartād āvartāṁ tara māśu te, vrajanto janmano janma

labhante naiva nirvṛtim (30). These jivas, these individuals,

these born, created beings engage themselves incessantly in

some action. They have to feed their stomach. They have to

survive by eating food. Birds and insects are also seen

struggling to find their grub. Even an earthworm is wriggling

and writhing through its slimy body inside the earth to

maintain itself by the absorption of the elements of the earth

into its body through the skin. Insects, reptiles, animals and

human beings are busy for feeding their stomach to survive

somehow or other, to protect themselves either by

hibernation or running into some far corner of the world – or

in the case of human beings, building a house, etc., for

protecting themselves against the onslaught of nature and

any other difficulty that may be expected from outside.

Such is the business of life – intense activity for survival,

for enjoyment in this world, through this body. Survival

means finding ways and means of continuing the joyous life

of this earthly existence. They eat for the sake of being able

to do work. And they work for the sake of eating. If we do not

work, we cannot eat; and if we do not eat, we cannot work.

So this is a vicious circle. And like insects caught in a whirl of

a flooded river, viciously circling and unable to get out of the

whirl on account of the force of themovement of water, these

jivas who are caught up in this vicious circle of working and

survival, and survival and working, find no peace of mind.

From birth to death, from one birth to another birth, they

move helplessly on account of this involvement in the desire

to maintain their physical existence and work hard for the

44

sake of the maintenance of their physical life. They will never

have peace of mind. And all the transmigratory lives through

which they have passed will be only a continuation of the

problems and the difficulties which one faces in life.

It does not mean that the next birth will be a better birth,

unless, of course, we live today a newly oriented kind of life.

If the same drudgery continues throughout our existence in

this world, it will be carried forward to the next world. The

next world will be a better world for us; and our life in the

next world may be far better than this one, provided that the

present life of ours is qualitatively transmuted through the

perception of the higher values of life and by detachment of

the senses and the emotions from involvement in the objects

outside. If we cannot achieve this much of spiritual discipline,

of sense control and mental stability and emotional peace

inside, there will be only the animalistic instinct in man to

continue the same routine of eat for work and work for eat.

Sometimes a good man with a compassionate heart sees

some insect caught in a whirl and, taking pity on it, he lifts it

and keeps it on dry ground. Then it somehow or other starts

breathing and continues to live; otherwise, it will go into the

whirl of water and nobody knows what will happen to it. In a

similar manner, some good man comes in this world as a

Guru, a teacher, a master, a preceptor, a guide and a

philosopher. Taking pity on the suffering people, somehow

he injects into them some knowledge of the ways and means

of freeing themselves from this involvement in the world of

samsara, earthly existence.

We are compared to insects, caught in a whirl of water,

and we have no way of escape if that happens to us. But if

some kind person helps the insect, its life is saved. So in the

case of a spiritual seeker who is ardently searching for God

and has had enough of this world, wants nothing more from

this earth, and sees enlightenment in the art of living a higher

life. In the case of such people, the Guru comes to that

disciple automatically. The belief is that disciples do not go to

45

the Guru. The Guru comes to the disciples somehow or other,

by somemiracle of God's working.

Sat karma pari pākātte karuṇā nidhinod dhṛtāḥ, prāpya tīra

taru cchāyāṁ viśrā myanti yatha sukham (31). As insects placed

under the shade of a tree on dry ground are somehow or

other able to survive, so by the fructification of good karmas

that we did in the previous life, we come in contact with a

great spiritual master. We find peace there under the shade

of that vast tree who is the Guru, and who frees us from this

world, from the flood of earthly existence by proper

instruction – upadesam.

Upadeśa mavā pyaivam ācāryāt tattva darśinaḥ, pañca kośa

vivekea labhante nir vṛtiṁ parām (32). By acquiring such

knowledge from the Guru, from the master, one attains to a

new kind of vision of life. The student begins to see the

realities of life, and not merely the appearances, through the

instructions that come from the Guru as light that is flashed

on darkness.

Pañca kośa vivekea labhante nir vṛtiṁ parām. The Guru

generally starts instruction from the lower stages of

understanding, gradually, to the higher forms of it. The

instruction commences mostly with an analysis of the

composition of the personality – a study of the inner

constituents of the individual.

“My dear disciple, do you know what you are, what kind

of person you are? What is the stuff out of which you are

made? What is the substance which constitutes your body,

mind, etc.? Let us analyse this.” The initial instruction

commences with an analysis of the human personality and

individuality.

Annaṁ prāṇo mano buddhir ānanaśceti pañca te, kośā

stairā vṛtaḥ svātmā vismṛtyā saṁsṛtiṁ vrajet (33). The

individual is constituted of subtle sheaths. The outermost

sheath is annamaya kosha, or the physical body that is

sustained by the food that we eat. Internal to the physical

46

body is the pranamaya kosha, or the vital body that is

sustained by the water that we drink. There is again a further

internal body inside the pranamaya kosha, or vital body; that

is manomaya kosha, or the mental body, which is also

sustained by the subtle elements of the diet that we take –

food and drink, etc. Internal to the mind is the buddhi or

understanding, which is the highly purified form of thought.

Inside the intellect is the last kosha or sheath,, which is called

the causal body – the ignorance, avidya as we call it, through

which we experience a kind of bliss when we are fast sleep.

So annam prano mano buddhir ananda are the five

sheaths. That is to say, the physical, vital, mental, intellectual,

and causal are the sheaths. There are several corridors in a

temple, as can be seen mostly in temples in southern India.

We cross from corridor to corridor and after five, six or

seven corridors we go into the innermost holy of holies

where the deity of the temple is. Likewise, the deity of the

Atman is located inside as the holy of holies within the

darkness of the ignorance of the causal body.

In temples, the holy of holies is not lit with bright light.

The lights are only outside in the corridors. As we go further

inside, the light becomes less and less, so that in the holy of

holies only one or two small lamps are there. The holy of

holies is not flooded with bright electric lights; that is not the

tradition.

These temples are constructed in the fashion of the

physical body itself. This is called vastu shastra, the great

science of temple construction, which is an outer symbol of

the human body, or the cosmic Viratsvarupa. The science of it

is that from the feet we gradually move inward, and then

through the koshas, one after the other, just as we enter the

corridors of a castle. Inward and inward we go until we find

that there is very little light. A twinkling of the Atman is seen

there as a ray penetrating through the otherwise-dark holy of

holies, which is the causal body.

47

These koshas are covering the Atman, and on account of

identification of the consciousness with these koshas –

causal, etc. – the Self consciousness of the Atman is

obliterated. Instead of the Atman knowing that it is

Universal, it begins to feel that it is sleeping, or it is

understanding through the intellect, thinking through the

mind, breathing through the breath, or working and eating

through the body. This is what the Atman begins to feel when

it is by some mistake or other identified with these five

sheaths. Then the samsara starts.

The samsara, worldly existence of suffering and sorrow,

is the effect of the Atman getting identified with these five

koshas. If we are identified with the body, we feel heat and

cold. If we are identified with the prana, we feel hunger and

thirst. If we are identified with the mind, we have doubt and

disbelief and indecision. If we are identified with the

intellect, we are logical, philosophical and decisive. And if we

are identified with the anandamaya kosha only, we go to

sleep, and we know nothing. These are the experiences that

we pass through by consecutive or successive identification

of consciousness with these five sheaths, due to which we

suffer in this world as mortals, jivas.

The identification takes place by a process called

adhyasa, mutual superimposition. The character of the iron

rod is superimposed on the fire which heats the rod; and the

character of the fire which heats the rod is identified with the

rod, so that the fire looks long when the rod is long. And the

rod looks hot while actually the fire is hot. The heat of the fire

is identified with the rod and we say the iron rod is very hot.

It is not the iron rod that is hot; it is the fire that is hot. And

conversely, we see a long beam of fire. The long beam is not

actually a fire. It is the rod. This is called mutual

superimposition of factors. The character of the

consciousness is superimposed on the sheaths. The character

of the sheaths is superimposed on the consciousness.We feel

that we are existing because of the consciousness that is true

48

existence. We feel that we are finite because of the

consciousness getting identified with the finite sheaths. We

are hungry and thirsty; we feel heat and cold. We have many

other problems, of which we are conscious. Here is an

important point for us to remember: The hunger and thirst,

heat and cold problems in life, etc., are objects of our

awareness.

The awareness does not actually become the object, as

the rod does not become the fire. But in the same way as the

rod is identified with the fire, consciousness is identified with

the conditions of the sheaths. Then the consciousness feels, "I

am sleeping"; the consciousness feels, "I am studying and

logically understanding things"; the consciousness feels, "I

am thinking and doubting"; the consciousness feels, "I am

hungry and thirsty." Consciousness feels, "I am feeling heat

and cold"; consciousness feels, "One day I will die." Because

the body is going to die, consciousness also feels that it is

dying, so we all feel one day that we will die. This happens

due to themutual superimposition of qualities.

The fragility and the finitude and the problems of the

sheaths are superimposed on the Atman. Then we say that

we are hungry, we are thirsty, we are sorry, we are short; we

are this, we are that; we are from the East, we are from the

West, and so on. But conversely, we are conscious in all these

levels. This mutual superimposition of characters between

consciousness and the sheaths is called tadatmya adhyasa, or

the visualisation of the character of one in the existence of

the other.

Syāt pañcī kṛta bhūtottho dehaḥ sthūlo’nnasaṁ jñākaḥ,

liṅge tu rājasai prāṅaiḥ prāṅaḥ karmen indriyaiḥ saha (34). In

the beginning of the commentary on the Brahma Sutra,

Acharya Sankara makes a statement. In the first sentence of

his commentary on the Brahma Sutra he uses the words

tadatmya adhyasa, mutual superimposition, in the context of

the explanation of there being no possibility of consciousness

becoming matter or matter becoming consciousness. The

49

knower cannot become the known, and the known cannot

become the knower; but somehow or other we mix up these

two aspects.

The known appears to be somehow or other moving in a

direction of something in space and time and locating it

outside, so that consciousness appears to be object

consciousness, while it cannot become an object. And

conversely, we become attached to the object, as if we are the

object itself. The more we are attached to an object, the more

we become the object. The consciousness has lost its Self

consciousness. It has moved into the object and become the

object, so more is the attachment, more is the objectivity of

ours, and more is the Self consciousness lost.

This physical body, which is made of the quintuplicated

physical elements known as annamaya kosha, physical

sheath, gross in its nature, is the outermost sheath. In the

internal sheath, which is subtler, constituted of the rajasic

principles of prana together with the karmendriyas

enumerated yesterday, we have another body altogether.

Pure physicality is in the outermost body.

The rajasic element is predominating in the subtle body

which consists of the five senses of knowledge, the five

senses or organs of action, together with the mind and the

intellect. This is called lingasarira. It is called linga because it

indicates what kind of person we are. The sense organs, ten

in number, the mind and the intellect will indicate what kind

of person we are. They are mostly shining through our face.

The face is the index of personality. This is the subtle body,

linga.

Sātvi kair dhīr indriyaiḥ sākaṁ vimar śātmā mano mayaḥ,

taireva sākaṁ vijñāna mayo dhīr niścayā tmikā (35). The mental

body is inside the physical and the vital bodies, and it

consists of the mind and the five senses of knowledge. The

five senses of knowledge and the mind constitute the mental

body. The intellectual body also is constituted of the five

50

senses of knowledge, plus the mind; and whatever is in the

mind is also in the intellect, together with the five senses of

knowledge. That is, there is an intimate connection between

the mental sheath and the intellectual sheath. They are like

elder brother and younger brother. Internal to the subtle

body is the causal body, as we have noted already.

Kāraṇe sattvamānanda mayo modādi vṛttibhiḥ, tattat

kośaistu tādāt myād ātmā tat tanmayo bhavet (36). It is called

anandamaya kosha because we feel bliss there when we

enter into it. We have seen the joy of sleep. The bliss of sleep

is superior to the bliss of a meal that we take, or a position

that we occupy in society, or wealth that we may possess, etc.

No joy of the world, food, land and property, money or social

position can equal the happiness of sleep. If we do not sleep

for days, we will see what happens. All our lunch and all the

wealth, etc.. will vanish, and we would like to sleep rather

than have anything else. The reason is that it is only in the

state of deep sleep that the consciousness is totally

dissociated from the sheaths. That is why we are so happy. In

all other conditions, we are associated with the sheaths.

Therefore, we cannot have so much happiness either in

dream or waking.

In this karana-sarira we experience joy when we are fast

asleep. This ananda, or the bliss of the Atman, manifests itself

faintly in the outer sheaths also when we feel happiness in

the presence of a desirable object. When that desired object

is seen with the eyes we feel a happiness, called priya. When

the object that is desired is coming near us, we feel a more

intense happiness – more intense than the earlier happiness

– which is called moda. And when the object is completely in

our possession, we have the most intense form of happiness,

and that is called pramoda. These are the three degrees of

happiness that we experience in this world – priya, moda,

pramoda – when the desired object is seen, or moving near,

or is under possession. This is how the anandamaya kosha

works even in dream and waking. But otherwise, in deep

51

sleep, it is total dissociation of consciousness. Therefore, the

fastest sleep is the greatest happiness.

When the consciousness of the Atman is identified with

the causal body, it looks like it is asleep. When it is identified

with the intellect, it looks as if it is arguing, understanding,

studying, etc. When it is identified with the mind, it is

thinking. When it is identified with the vital body, it is

breathing and living. When it is identified with the physical

body, it is having all the problems of the outer world.

Anvaya vyati rekā bhyāṁ pañcakośa vivekatah, svāt mānaṁ

tata uddhṛtya paraṁ brahma prapa dyate (37). We have to

carefully analyse this state of affairs in order to know that

the Atman consciousness is not any of these bodies. None of

these five sheaths is to be identified with Pure

Consciousness, which is Universal.

Consciousness is everywhere.We have studied it already.

It cannot be located in one place. It has no divisions or

fractions. It is infinite by itself. But each of the five bodies is

limited and is the opposite or the contrary of the

consciousness, which is all-pervading.

We have to lift this Atman out, free this Atman from

involvement in the five sheaths, and attain to that infinity of

ourselves which is the same as attainment of Brahman.

Brahman sakshatkara takes place. We have to argue within

our own self: “How is it possible for me that I should be the

body?” This analysis is called anvaya and vyatireka, positive

and negative analysis of a particular situation.

When something is there, something else is also there.

When something is not there, something else is also not

there. This kind of argument is called anvaya and vyatireka.

Here is an example of how such kind of positive and negative

analysis can be carried on for the purpose of separating the

consciousness from material involvements in the form of this

body.

52

Abhāne sthūla dehasya svapne yadbhāna mātmanaḥ,

so’nvayo vyatirekas tad bhāne’nyā nava bhāsanam (38). Even

when the physical body is not there in dream, there is

consciousness in dream. That means to say, consciousness

exists even independent of the physical body. This is anvaya.

Because the physical body is not necessary for being

conscious, because we are conscious in dream even without

the physical body being there, it is now clear that

consciousness is not the physical body. This is one argument.

This is called anvaya, or the positive statement that we make,

the understanding that we arrive at to conclude that

consciousness can exist even when the body does not exist.

Vyatirekas tad bhāne’nyā nava bhāsanam. Vyatireka is the

negating of the physical body – the absence of it, when the

consciousness exists. The existence of consciousness when

the body does not exist is anvaya. The non-existence of the

body when the consciousness exists is called vyatireka. These

are two ways of arguing the same position. By both ways we

conclude that consciousness is different from the body. There

is another argument to prove that consciousness is not the

body. It is herementioned in the thirty-ninth verse.

Liṅga bhāne suṣuptau syād ātmano bhāna manvayaḥ, vyati

rekastu tadbhāne liṅgasyā bhāna mucyate (39). In the deep

sleep state, consciousness exists, but the dream world does

not exist. That is to say, as the physical body was not

necessary in dream, the subtle body is not necessary in sleep.

So we can exist not only without the physical body, but we

can also exist without the subtle body. This is seen in our

sleep condition. The consciousness in the state of sleep has

no consciousness of the subtle body or the physical body.

What do we prove by this? That we can exist minus the

physical body and minus the subtle body also. So the

consciousness existing independent of the subtle body is the

anvaya aspect. The non-existence of the subtle body when

the consciousness exists in sleep is called vyatireka. These

53

are two ways of arguing the same position. Now comes

further argument.

Tad vivekād viviktā syuḥ kośāḥ prāṇa mano dhiyah, te hi

tatra guṇā vasthā bheda mātrāt pṛthak kṛtāḥ (40). When we

have separated consciousness from the physical and the

subtle bodies, we have automatically separated

consciousness from the pranamaya kosha, the manomaya

kosha, and the vijnanamaya kosha also, because they are

included in the subtle body. The elimination of the physical

and the subtle bodies is also automatically an elimination of

the vital, mental, and intellectual bodies, which differ only in

their functioning, location and specific characteristics. So we

have now proof that consciousness, which is our real nature,

can exist minus the physical body and minus the subtle body

also. Now there is something more.

Suṣuptya bhāne bhānantu samādhā vātmāno’nvayaḥ, vyati

rekas tvātma bhāne suṣuptya nava bhāsanam (41). In the state

of samadhi, consciousness exists, but the causal body does

not exist. So we have gotten rid of even the causal body now.

Consciousness is there in samadhi, but the causal body is not

there. This is anvaya. The abolition of the causal body, the

negation of the causal body while the consciousness persists

in samadhi, is vyatireka.

So what has happened now? We have proven that

consciousness, which is our real nature, can exist

independently of the physical body, independently of the

subtle body, and independently of the causal body also. So

what is our real nature? It is not the physical body, not the

vital body, not the mental body, not the intellectual body, not

the causal body.

Foolishly we identify ourselves with all these, and cry

every day, "This is like this, this is like that."We are not really

connected with any of these bodies. It is a foolishness, a kind

of internal adhyasa, a superimposition that has taken place

by some internal error. This nature of error has also to be

54

analysed. How have we got into this muddle, while we have

now actually come to the conclusion that we are Pure

Consciousness and can exist independent of all the sheaths?

So consciousness existing in samadhi, and the causal body

not existing there, is anvaya. And the abolition of the causal

body in the state of samadhi while consciousness is there is

the vyatireka aspect.

Hence, all the koshas are revelated now, as the pith of a

blade of munja grass is taken out from the stalk in which it is

embedded. The stalk of the munja grass has a sheath, and

inside there is a pith. The grass is used to tie the waistband

during the Upanayana (sacred thread) ceremony of boys, and

is also used during fasting, especially long fasts. The pinch of

hunger is eliminated by eating this pith. Anyway, this is an

illustration: The pith of the munja grass is separated

gradually by the elimination of the covering; so too by the

method adopted through anvaya and vyatireka we have

noted just now, the Atman consciousness has to be gradually

eliminated from involvement in the koshas, as the pith of the

grass is removed completely from its involvement in the

outer covering.

Yathā muñjā diṣī kaivam ātmā yuktyā samud dhṛtaḥ, śarīra

tritayād dhīraiḥ paraṁ brahmaiva jāyate (42). Parā parāt mano

revaṁ yuktyā saṁbhā vitai katā, tattva masyā divākyais sā

bhāga tyāgena lakṣyate (43). The moment this is achieved –

when we are successful in the elimination of consciousness

by dissociating it from all the five koshas – we will realise

that our consciousness inside is Universal Existence,

Brahman Itself. This will lead us to the realisation of the

Absolute Brahman.

Discourse 5

CHAPTER 1: TATTVA VIVEKA – DISCRIMINATION OF

REALITY, VERSES 44-55

Jagato yadu pādānaṁ māyā mādāya tāmasīm, nimittaṁ

śuddha sasattvāṁ tāmucyate brahma tadgirā (44). This is the

introduction to a system of analysis known as jahad ajaha

lakshana. When we make statements, sometimes they are

involved in certain associations which are not part of the

conclusion that we have to arrive at. In Sanskrit, this method

of elimination of unnecessary factors in a sentence and only

taking the essentials is called jahad ajaha lakshana. Lakshana

is a definition of a sentence, or a proposition that is made,

where the literal connotation is abandoned or the spirit of

the sentence, the jahad ajaha lakshana, is employed. The

literal meaning is abandoned, and that is called jahad; jahad

means ‘abandoned’. Ajaha means‘not abandoned’, or ‘taken’.

We take the spirit of the statement made, and not only the

letter.

The general illustration in Vedanta philosophy is:

Suppose there is a person called Devadatta, and he has a

friend called Yajnadatta. Devadatta is living in Bombay, and

Yajnadatta saw him in Bombay. After some years, Yajnadatta

sees Devadatta in another place. The place has changed; the

time has also changed. Firstly, instead of being in Bombay, he

is now seen in Rishikesh. And instead of having seen him ten

years back, he sees him now, after ten years. When

Yajnadatta sees Devadatta in an audience, he makes a

statement, "This is that Devadatta whom I saw in Bombay ten

years back."

Now, two places cannot be identical, and two times also

cannot be identical. Bombay is not Rishikesh; and ten years

back is not now, after ten years. The identity of the person is

what is connotated here. The aspect of space and time are

abandoned. The distance of space between Bombay and

Rishikesh is ignored, and also the distance of duration, a gap

of ten years, is abandoned. Therefore, the epithets that are

56

used in the sentence, "This is the same Devadatta whom I

saw ten years back" are unnecessary because ‘ten years back’

is unnecessary to define a person, and ‘this’ and ‘that’ are

also unnecessary. It is the same person that is before us

whether he was there in some other place, or whether he is

here, and whether he was at that time, or whether it is this

time.

In a similar manner, the doctrine says that we have to

eliminate certain unnecessary descriptive factors associated

with God as Creator and the individual as the isolated part.

How can an isolated part become one with the Universal

Being? It will be possible only in the same sense as a person

seen in some other place is the same as the person seen in

this place, if only we eliminate unnecessary factors. Now,

what are these factors that condition God and make us feel

that He is totally different from the individual? These factors

are described here in the verses following.

Ishvara is the name of the creative principle. God is not

only the instrumental cause of the world, but also the

material cause. We must know the difference between an

instrumental cause – or efficient cause, as it is called – and a

material cause. The carpenter is the instrumental cause, or

the efficient cause, of a piece of furniture because he causes

the furniture to manifest by his effort. In a similar manner,

God causes the world to manifest by the force of His will, as

the carpenter by the force of his will creates a shape or a

structure of the furniture. But there is a difference between

the carpenter and God in the sense that the wood that is the

material of the furniture does not come from the body of the

carpenter. He is not the material cause of the product –

namely, the furniture. He is only the efficient cause, and not

the material cause. Here in the case of a carpenter and the

table, the material comes from somewhere else, outside the

location or the personality of the carpenter. But in the case of

God, there is no external material. There is no furniture,

wood, steel, brick and cement, etc. that God can have outside

57

Himself. He cannot have an exterior or totally outside

material for the creation of the world. He is also the

substance out of which the world is made. The

Mundakopanishad gives the illustration of a spider spinning

its web: The web is made out of the very substance that

comes out of its own being.

Therefore, God is not only the instrumental cause, He is

also the material cause. He becomes the material of the

universe when He associates Himself as consciousness with

the tamasic aspect of prakriti which becomes the five

tanmatras – sabda, sparsa, rupa, rasa, gandha – and by the

process of quintuplication, becomes the five gross elements

of earth, water, fire, air and ether.

God is the creator of the material of the universe in the

form of the five tanmatras and the five gross elements, by

associating Himself with tamasic prakriti. By associating

Himself with the sattvic prakriti, which is the sattva guna

manifest in a universal way, He becomes the instrumental

cause. That is, the intelligence of Brahman is reflected

through the universal sattva of prakriti, and that universally

manifest intelligence is the causative factor, the instrumental

or efficient cause, the intelligent cause of the universe. But

the material is the very same Brahman associating itself with

the tamasic prakriti. This is the meaning of this particular

verse: Jagato yadu pādānaṁ māyā mādāya tāmasīm, nimittaṁ

śuddha sasattvāṁ tāmucyate brahma tadgirā. He becomes the

upadana or material cause by associating Himself with

tamasic prakriti. But He becomes nimitta, or the instrumental

cause, by associating with shuddha sattva pradhan prakriti.

So the manner of the reflection of Brahman in the

properties of prakriti (sattva and tamas differently) becomes

the cause of God Himself appearing as the instrumental cause

and the material cause together. Therefore, God is called

abhina nimitta upadana karana. Abhina means nondifferentiated.

Nimitta is instrumental. Upadana is material.

Karana is cause. God is the undifferentiated material and

58

instrumental cause of the universe. This is how God appears

as the creative principle of the cosmos; but He may appear as

an individual also, by associating Himself with another thing.

Yadā malina sattvāṁ tāṁ kāma karmādi dūṣitām, ādatte

tatparaṁ brahma tvaṁ padena tadocyate (45). Here is the

description of the statement of the Upanishad, tat twam asi.

Tat is that Brahman Himself appearing as Ishvara creating

the universe, both as an instrumental cause and a material

cause. The word tat in that statement of the Upanishad refers

to Brahman appearing as Ishvara, causing the universe to

appear as an instrument as well as material.

Tvam means ‘you’. It refers to an individual. The

individual is constituted of the very same Brahman

consciousness reflected through malina sattva. Shuddha

sattva is pure, universal sattva. Because of the purity of that

sattva in the original cosmic prakriti, it is universal and it is

not limited to any particular place. So the reflection of

Brahman through that is also universal. Thus, Brahman

manifesting in that way – becoming Ishvara – is omniscient,

and knows all things.

But here, in the case of the individual, the sattva guna is

contaminated by the overpowering influence of rajas and

tamas. We individuals are more rajasic and tamasic than

sattvic and, therefore, the universal character of sattva does

not manifest in us. Only the discriminative, segregating,

individualising character of rajas manifests. This is why we

always feel that we are separate persons with no connection

to the universality of existence. There is no connection

between you and me, or anything whatsoever. That apparent

dissociation and disconnectedness of one thing from another,

one person from another person, etc., is a very faulty

consciousness that has entered into us on account of

Brahman consciousness working through rajas.

It is like sunlight, which is an indivisible whole,

manifesting itself in split parts of water so that it looks like

59

little, little pieces. Such is the case with this reflection of

Brahman in the distracted rajas guna of prakriti which

conditions the individual jiva, and so we do not feel that we

are universal. We feel that we are particulars only. Brahman

knows that He is universal because He reflects Himself in

cosmic universal sattva, whereas He feels that He is

individual because He now reflects Himself through rajas,

which is distracting, separating one thing from the other. And

this rajas and tamas in the jiva is infected with desire and

impulse for action, etc. Avidya, which is the obliteration of the

universality of consciousness – causing distraction and

individuality consciousness – is also the cause of desire and

action.

So we can imagine what are the troubles befalling us.

Avidya, kama and karma are the terms used to indicate our

present predicament: firstly, avidya – the total ignorance of

the universality of our nature; secondly, kama – desire for

things external; and karma – the intense effort that we put

forth to fulfil our desires in the direction of objects. This is

the fate of individual jivas; yet, we are vitalised by Brahman

consciousness only – unfortunately through rajas and tamas,

and not through sattva. Ādatte tatparaṁ brahma tvaṁ padena

tadocyate: This kind of individuality is the second

manifestation of Brahman as any one of us. Now, what has to

be done?

Tritayī mapi tāṁ muktvā paras paraviro dhinīm, akhaṇḍaṁ

saccidā nandaṁ mahā vākyena lakṣyate (46). Three kinds of

factors are mentioned here. One is that God becomes the

material cause of the universe by association with the five

tanmatras and five gross elements. That is the first

statement. The other statement is that He becomes the

instrumental cause by associating Himself with sattva that is

cosmic in nature. He becomes the individual also, by

associating Himself with the rajas and tamas properties.

Now, ignore these association factors. Don't consider this

tamasic pradhan, vishuddha sattva pradhan, or malina sattva

60

pradhan prakriti. Don't consider the reflection aspect at all.

Take Brahman as unreflected – not reflected in these three

ways as mentioned. Tritayī mapi tāṁ muktvā: All the three

factors may be abandoned for the sake of the direct

knowledge of what Brahman is by itself. Paras paraviro dhi:

This is because tamas and rajas and sattva cannot have any

association, one with the other. They are totally different.

The function of the one is different from the function of the

other. Therefore, the self-contradictory factors of prakriti,

namely sattva, rajas and tamas, should be abandoned while

we are considering the nature of Brahman supreme. And

when we eliminate the association aspect of Brahman in

terms of sattva, rajas, tamas, we will find Brahman is

akhanda, eka rasa, sat-chit-ananda – it is undivided.

Therefore, it is called akhanda, not khanda. Khanda means

divided. Akhanda is undivided. Sat-chit-ananda – pure

Existence-Consciousness-Bliss is Brahman.

This is what is taught to us by the great statement tat

tvam asi – Thou art That. ‘Thou art That’ means this

individual which has taken the shape of a particular ‘I’

located in some place due to the rajas aspect of prakriti

preponderating, is the same as that cosmic Brahman

manifesting through, reflected through, sattva guna prakriti

and tamas guna prakriti. If we dissociate rajas from the

individual, and free Brahman's reflection from sattva and

tamas, we will find the essence of the jiva is identical with the

essence of the supreme Absolute.

If we break a pot, the space inside the pot merges into the

universal ether. Otherwise, the space inside the pot looks

very little. In a little tumbler, there is a small space inside.

This is something like the jiva of the individual. And there is

wider space outside there. Now do we say that the individual

space inside the pot is the same as the universal space, or

different? We can say it is different because that space

outside is so wide, and this space contained in the pot or

tumbler is so small. This smallness is an appearance caused

61

by the pot. If we break the pot, we will find there is the same

Brahman universal space that appears as this little pot space.

So our consciousness, which is the Atman, is like the pot

space. We seem to be small individuals because our

consciousness is tied up within the walls of this body, just as

space may look very little when it is inside the pot. We

remove this association obtained through physical, vital,

mental, intellectual and causal pots. These are the fivefold

pots into which we have cast the consciousness of Brahman,

as if in amould.

In the previous session we realised how it is possible for

us to dissociate this consciousness from the three states,

from the five koshas, and ascertain the true indivisibility of

our essential Self. Tvam which is individuality, or ‘thou’, is

the basic consciousness appearing to be limited in one place

on account of the action of segregating rajas, from which we

have to dissociate consciousness carefully, as we tried to do

yesterday. Then we will find that it is the same as the

universal Brahman. Therefore, if we avoid association with

sattva, rajas, tamas, we will find that we are identical with

the cosmic existence.

So’ya mityā divākyeṣu virodhāt tadi dantayoḥ, tyāgena

bhāgayo reka āśrayo lakṣyate yathā (47) means that Devadatta

of Bombay is this Devadatta in Rishikesh. We have avoided

the association of Bombay and Rishikesh and identified the

person as one single individual. In a similar manner, the

identity of Brahman in the individuality of the jiva should be

affirmed by the dissociation of factors which are secondary

and not essential.

Māyā’vidye vihā yaivam upādhī para jīvayoḥ, akhaṇḍaṁ

saccidā nandaṁ para brahmaiva lakṣyate (48): As mentioned,

by dissociating consciousness from its apparent connection

with maya in the cosmic sense and avidya in the individual

sense, we will feel that, freed from these adjuncts or upadhis

62

of cosmicality and individuality, what remains would be

indivisible Sat-Chit-Ananda Parabrahma only.

We must free the consciousness from the association of

the definitions of omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence,

etc. These definitions have meaning only so long as there is

space and time and externality. Due to space, time and the

objectivity visible to our eyes, we associate Brahman with

such factors as omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence,

etc. God by Himself is more than omnipotence, and also more

than omniscience and omnipresence. Also, He is not a

particular individual.

Thus, the particularity of the individuality of a person

and the universality of omnipresence, etc., of God are only

factors arisen on account of perception through space and

time. If these screens of space, time and objectivity are lifted,

the individualmerges into Brahman in one instant.

Savi kalpasya lakṣyavte lakṣyasya syāda vastutā, nirvi

kalpasya kalṣyatvaṁ na dṛṣṭaṁ na ca sambhavi (49). The

Supreme Brahman – this is a kind of logical cliché that the

author introduces here by saying that Brahman is either

savikalpa or nirvikalpa. Savikalpa is associated with name

and form, conceivable through the mind. And if we say that

Brahman is associated with nama-rupa – that is, name and

form – we will also be associating Brahman with space and

time. In that case, this lakshya, or the supreme target of our

concentration, will become a finite individual. Brahman also

will become a personality like ourselves – maybe a large

personality, yet nevertheless a personality only – because we

have limited this concept of Brahman to perceptibility,

cognisability, in terms of finitude created by space, time and

objectivity.

Therefore, Brahman should not be considered as

cognisable through the mind, and also not definable in terms

of name and form. Else, He will become non-existent, avastu,

a non-entity, because He has become a finite entity like any

63

other finite individual. But – nirvi kalpasya kalṣyatvaṁ na

dṛṣṭaṁ na ca sambhavi – can we say that He has no qualities at

all? We cannot conceive of anything that has no attributes at

all. All things that we can conceive in the mind have some

character. So a quandary is being raised here, that we cannot

conceive Brahman either with attributes or without

attributes. If it is with attributes, it becomes finite. If it is

without attributes, it becomes inconceivable. Here is the

difficulty in conceiving Brahman through human intellect or

understanding.

Vikalpo nirvi kalpasya savilpkasya vā bhavet, ādye vyāhati

ranyatrā navasthā’tmā śrayā dayaḥ (50). Concept is possible

either of the finite or of the infinite. But, the infinite cannot

be conceived; and if we start conceiving the finite, we will

enter into some peculiar logical quandaries in argument.

That is, a finite thing is that which is associated with certain

conceptual categories. That is to say, there cannot be a finite

object or anything that is finite unless it has already been

cast into the mould of conceptual categories. Now, to

conceive a finite object which is already cast into the mould

of a conceptualisation would be to argue in a regressus ad

infinitum, as they call it; and many other logical fallacies will

follow, such as circular reasoning, called chakraka, or

anavastha dosha, regressus ad infinitum, or atmashraya which

means begging the question. We start assuming something

which is yet to be proved – and so on are the difficulties that

will arise if we start conceiving a thing that is already

conceived to be finite. So God cannot be conceived as finite.

Nor is it possible to conceive the infinite. This is a peculiar

diversion that he has introduced here to make us feel how

difficult it is for us to contact Brahman, in any way

whatsoever, with our finite faculties. No contact with

Brahman is possible, ordinarily.

Idaṁ guṇakriyā jāti dravya sambandha vastuṣu, samaṁ tena

svarūpasya sarva meta ditīṣyatām (51). These problems that

we raised just now of vikalpatva or nirvikalpatva, that is

64

finitude or infinitude as associated with Brahman, may also

be considered as futile arguments in the case of anything

whatsoever, such as quality, action, species, genus,

objectivity, relation, and anything whatsoever. Guna is

quality, kriya is action, jati is species, dravya is object,

sambandha is relation, vastu is anything whatsoever. Hence,

in any one of these categories that we find in this world, the

same difficulty will arise if we start envisaging these things

either as finite or as infinite.

Nothing finally can be looked upon as either finite or

infinite. So what is the position of the thing at all? If we think

that it is neither finite nor infinite, it is inconceivable. Such is

the nature of this world. It is a relative world which is

impossible to conceive in any manner whatsoever. Anything

that is relative cannot be conceived. The modern science of

relativity also takes us to the same conclusion that it is not as

it appears to us. It is an unthinkable, peculiar mystery. That is

why it is called maya – a jugglery-like thing that is appearing

before us. If we try to probe into it, we will find it is not there

at all, as night vanishes when the sun rises or darkness

vanishes when the flash of a torch is thrown on it. It is

because our knowledge is not operating that the whole thing

looks very solid, so three-dimensional, so real. If we throw

the flashlight on our understanding, we will find it vanishes.

It cannot be conceived at all as either existent in this manner

or existent in that manner – neither finite, not infinite, which

means to say that it is not there at all. Such is this world.

Vikalpa tada bhāvā bhyām asaṁ spṛṣṭāt ma vastuni, vikalpi

tatva lakṣyatva sambandhā dyāstu kalpitāḥ (52). In this case

where it is a question of ascertaining the nature of a reality

which is uncontaminated either with the concept of finitude

or infinitude, all these categories that we have been

discussing are only foisted upon it. We say so many things

about God. He does this, He does that, He did this, He is like

this, He is like that. None of these statements that we make

can apply to Him. Neither He did this, nor did He do that. He

65

neither looks like this, nor does He look like that. All our

intellectual categories are foisted upon God.

The category of finitude and the category of infinitude,

and the category of relation of one thing with the other are

all imagined by the conditioning factors of the mind.

Brahman is above all that we can imagine in our mind. This

kind of study that we have made is called sravana. We have

heard a lot about the nature of the world, the nature of the

individual, the nature of Brahman. We have studied Ishvara,

jagat and jiva in some measure. What is the nature of these

great principles God, world and individual?

Itthaṁ vākyais tadar thānu sandhā naṁ śravaṇaṁ bhaveta,

yuktyā sambhā vita tvānu saṅdhānaṁ mana nantu tat (53). This

kind of thing that you have heard and studied now is equal to

hearing. You have studied by actual hearing. But mere

hearing is not sufficient. When you return home, you must

ponder over this deeply. The ideas that have been made to

enter into your mind through the medium of your hearing

should enter your heart. They should become objects of deep

investigation, Self-investigation. The mind withdraws into

itself all the ideas that it has collected by hearing and deeply

bestows these considerations. That is called manana.

Sravana is hearing, learning, studying. Manana is deep

thinking. If you merely hear and go away and again hear

tomorrow, it will be what is humorously called ‘Eustachian

philosophy’, which means that what you hear through one

ear goes out though the other ear. Swami Sivanandaji

Maharaj used to say there are Eustachian philosophers. They

understand nothing. It does not go inside.

It has to go inside. Unless we bestow deep thought on

what we have heard, that knowledge which we have gained

by hearing will not be part of our nature. We will be sitting

independently as we were earlier, and knowledge will be

outside in space, or it will sit on top of the tree. So it has to be

brought into the depths of our understanding by deep

66

reflection. That process is called manana. Even that is not

sufficient.We have to become that knowledge itself.

Tābhyāṁ nirvicikitse’rthe cetasaḥ sthāpi tasya yat, eka

tānatva metaddhi nidi dhyāsana mucyate (54). The deep

association of ourselves with this knowledge is nididhyasana.

Firstly, we hear and study. Secondly, we bestow deep

thought and investigate into the substance and essentiality of

what we have heard and studied, and make it a part and

parcel of our daily thought and understanding. But when this

process goes on continuously day in and day out, it becomes

the very spirit of our nature. We do not merely know, we

actually become the existence of it. Knowledge is not merely

a property that we have gained by hearing or studying. It is

not a quality of our intellect, as an academic qualification. It

is our very substance. Knowledge is Being. Chit is Sat. So

when knowledge that we have gained by sravana and

manana becomes our very substance itself, we move like God

Himself in the world. That is jivanmukta lakshana. That

condition is nididhyasana tattva, a continuous flow of

knowledge without break, which becomes the essence of our

person. This is called nididhyasana.

Om Tat Sat

(Continued ....)

(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Sree Swamy Krishnananda
 and Sree Swamy Sivananda of The Divine Life Society  and also grateful
to other Swamyjis   for the collection)