COMMENTARY ON THE PANCHADASI by SWAMI KRISHNANANDA - 2

COMMENTARY ON THE

PANCHADASI

by

SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

Dhyātṛ dhyāne pari tyajya kramād dhyeyaika gocaram,

nivāta dīpa vaccittaṁ samādhi rabhi dhīyate (55). Deep

meditation, which is nididhyasana is, in the beginning,

involved in three processes – the meditating consciousness,

the object on which meditation is carried on, and the process

of meditation. Therefore, three things are involved – triputi.

There is someone who is meditating, there is something on

which meditation is being carried on, and some process of

knowledge is linking the subject with the object, connecting

the meditator with the object meditated upon. So when we

meditate, in the beginning we will have a consciousness of

three things. We will feel that we are there contemplating,

meditating. We will feel that there is something on which we

are concentrating. And we will also know that there is a

relation between us.

67

When by deep concentration – going further, deeper –

the consciousness of our being there and the consciousness

of a process going on also are dropped, our consciousness

merges into that object, and we become the very object itself.

The very artha, the very target, the very ideal, the very aim

becomes us. We are not contemplating something; we have

become that. That becoming of the identity of our

consciousness with the very object which we are

concentrating upon, losing the consciousness of an

individuality and the process of concentration – the identity

of the subject with the object, the merger of the

consciousness perceiving with the object concentrated upon

– is called samadhi.

Discourse 6

CHAPTER 1: TATTVA VIVEKA – DISCRIMINATION OF

REALITY, VERSES 54-65

Tābhyāṁ nirvicikitse’rthe cetasaḥ sthāpi tasya yat, eka

tānatva metaddhi nidi dhyāsana mucyate (54). When the ideas

that we have gathered through hearing and studying from a

preceptor are made to enter our feelings by deep reflection

on the same, and when these ideas – that have become

practically part of our nature by way of deep investigation,

concentration and reflection – become inseparable from us,

we become absorbed in them to such an extent that we think

only these ideas. Our very outlook changes in terms of these

ideas, and the whole world is envisioned by us in terms of

these noble ideas only. Nididhyasana is this condition where

knowledge acquired through study and hearing, and made

one-pointed by reflection and investigation, becomes part of

one's nature by delving into one's own heart and making the

knowledge a part of one’s being. This leads to deep

meditation.

In the meditation process, the consciousness of the

meditator absorbs itself wholly in the object of meditation.

Here in this case, Brahman, the Universal Reality, is the

object of meditation. The consciousness of the individual

extricates itself from its encasement in the body, moves in

the direction of the Universal Being, absorbs itself in It, and

endeavours to be conscious only of It and nothing else.

In this stage of initial practice, the factors of meditation

are threefold: the meditator, the object meditated upon, and

the process of meditation. There is also a fourth factor prior

to the direct act of meditation – namely, the elimination of

unnecessary thoughts from the mind. There are thoughts

that are not conducive to the meditation process, such as

internal impulses which are trying to gain access to the

objects outside, or the problems of life, or many other

entanglements in which one is involved. They are not

connected with meditation at all; they are extraneous

69

thoughts. Social situations, physical conditions and

psychological repressions may intrude into the process of

meditation. They have to be carefully brushed aside by a

whole-souled onslaught of the consciousness on the

Universal Being.

The love of the Universal Being will be a good panacea

for the ills of the sense organs wanting pleasure of sense

objects. “When you have a greater joy, why do you want a

lesser joy?When you have a permanent joy, why do you want

an impermanent joy? When you have a real joy, why do you

want a false joy?” If we thus instruct the senses and themind,

the extraneous thoughts will wither away and die out. Then

starts meditation with the threefold consciousness of the

meditator, the object of meditation, and the process of

meditation.

Dhyātṛ dhyāne pari tyajya kramād dhyeyaika gocaram,

nivāta dīpa vaccittaṁ samādhi rabhi dhīyate (55). When, like a

flame of a lamp placed in a windless place, consciousness

flickers not and deviates not from the point of concentration

on the Universal Reality – and transcends the triple

awareness of the meditation process, the object of

meditation, and the meditator – then the idea of oneself as

meditator and meditating as the process, is transcended. The

absorption is so intense that the consciousness is aware only

of the object, so that the aim has become part and parcel of

the consciousness meditating. The aim is realised. That is to

say, the Universal becomes our experience. Our aim is

Universality. When consciousness identifies itself with the

Universality, which is the object of meditation finally, we

exist as Universal experience. This is samadhi.

Vṛtta yastu tadānīm ajñātā apyā tmago carāḥ, smaraṇā

danu mīyante vyutthi tasya samut thitāt (56). Samadhi does not

necessarily mean a sudden, abrupt merger into the Absolute.

It takes place gradually, as we will find it described in the

sutras of Patanjali. There are five or six stages or degrees of

samadhi; and in the earlier stages of samadhi, one does not

70

actually merge with the Absolute. Due to the predominance

of the cosmic sattva guna in the mind of the meditator, there

is an experience of Universality. But, after all, the sattva guna

also is only a guna. It is a property of prakriti. So as long as

we are involved in the qualities of prakriti, we have not

totally merged with the Absolute.

It is like seeing the Absolute through a clean glass.We are

seeing the total Universal through a transparent medium.We

are seeing it, of course. It is as good as being it. Yet there is a

glass pane, as it were, preventing us from actually merging

with it. Therefore, after this kind of samadhi where the

experience is through the sattva guna of prakriti, there is a

rising up from samadhi – utthana it is called. We will not

always be merging. We will wake up due to the stirring of

sattva caused by rajas prakriti, which is also there,

submerged. In deep samadhi, the powerful Universal sattva

drives down the impulses of rajas and tamas. But how long

will they remain inside? They are in ambush; they are living

underground, and after some time they slowly create a

disturbance which causes the awakening of the person from

samadhi, and one remembers that one was in the state of

samadhi.

Smaraṇā danu mīyante: In the state of actual samadhi,

there is no thought process. There is no remembering that “I

am in the state of samadhi,” and so on. We do not go on

thinking that we are awake.We are awake now, but do we go

on remembering and thinking that we are awake? It is so

spontaneous that there is no need of thinking that we are

awake. It is a part of our nature, so we do not need to think it.

Similarly, thought is not there in samadhi. There is no

conscious operation of the psyche. But when we wake up

from samadhi, we will have a memory of it. The memory is

caused because of the presence of the mind in the state of

sattva. If the mind were not there at all, absolutely, there

would be no coming up. We would have attained absolute

liberation, videhamukti. But the sattva guna persists in the

71

lower kind of samadhi which is known as savikalpa or

samprajnata, as the case may be. The awakening is caused by

the rajas principle; and the memory of having had the

experience of samadhi is caused by the sattva quality of

prakriti, which was the means or the medium through which

the samadhi was experienced.We can remember that we had

a good experience, just as we have a memory that we slept

yesterday.

Vṛttī nāma nuvṛttistu prayat nāt pratha mādapi, adṛṣṭā

sakṛda bhyāsa saṁskāra sacivād bhavet (57). These memories

of samadhi persist on account of various factors, such as the

effort involved in the very practice itself and the association

of ideas caused by meritorious deeds that we performed in

the previous birth. Experience comes through two factors –

or three, wemay say. Sometimes we say four.

Firstly, there is the effect of the effort that we put forth.

We are so anxious, so eager and honest in this practice; this

practice produces an effect. Secondly, there is God's grace

itself. Thirdly, there is the blessing of the Guru. Fourthly,

there is the effect of the purvapunya, or the meritorious

deeds that we performed in the previous birth. All these

factors come together in causing our experience of samadhi

and also thememory thereafter of having experienced it.

Yathā dīpo nivāta stha ityādibhi ranekadhā, bhagavā nima

mevā rtham arjunāya nyarū payat (58). There is a quotation in

the sixth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita: yathā dīpo nivātastho

neṅgate sopamā smṛtā, yogino yata-cittasya yuñjato yogam

ātmanaḥ (Gita 6.19), and that verse is quoted here. As the

flame of a lamp placed in a windless place is fixed and never

oscillates, in the state of samadhi consciousness gets fixed in

identitywith Universality.

What happens in samadhi? All the karmas that we did in

the past – crores and crores of karmas that we did through all

the series of births that we have passed, endless migrations

and transmigrations – these actions get burnt up. They get

72

dissolved, just as every particle of darkness is dissolved

before the light of the sun and every particle of mist gets

dissolved when the sun rises. Every little karma that we did

gets pounded to dust and dissolved, even if these karmas

were accumulated stuff through centuries and eons of our

transmigratory life. In one second they are destroyed, as a

spark of light from a matchstick can reduce to ashes even a

mountain of straw. It may look like a mountain, and the

matchstick is so small; but the quality of the fire that is in the

matchstick is enough to reduce the entire heap to ashes. The

heap of karmas will be destroyed in one instant by the

experience of this identity of consciousness with the

Universal, though it is only a temporary experience and there

is a rising up from it afterwards.

Anādā viha saṁsāre sañcitāḥ karma koṭayaḥ, anena vilayaṁ

yānti śuddho dharmo vivar dhate (59). Dharma-megha samadhi

is the word used in Patanjali's Sutras. Dharma-megha

samadhi supervenes. Righteousness rains on our head, as it

were. Here righteousness does not mean merely good

behaviour and nice speech, polite conduct, etc. Here

righteousness which rains upon us like torrential clouds,

dharma-megha, is actually the identity of our consciousness

with cosmic order and law. In the Vedic language, we get

identified with cosmic satya and rita. That is, we don't have

to be instructed, "Do this, do that." We will know what is to

be done.

This state of affairs supervenes mostly in Krita Yuga

where, as they say, righteousness rules the world.

Righteousness is the nature of the cosmic order of things,

identified with which everyone knows his duty. And in Krita

Yuga – the Golden Age, as they call it – there was no

governmental system. There was no ruler and there was no

instructor. There was nobody to say, “This must be done, and

this is not to be done,” because all were identical in their

knowledge and capacity, and everyone was identified with

the Cosmic Truth. This kind of knowledge, this kind of power,

73

this kind of experience will be our blessing when dharmamegha

samadhi ensues. This is the earliest stage of samadhi,

where we have a sudden lifting up of our consciousness to a

Universal state of the perception of the integratedness of all

things, the interrelatedness of all things, and we are identical

with every little bit of matter, and all space and time – entire

galaxies. We will feel that everything, including the sun and

the moon and the stars, is hanging on our body. Such

Universality will be experienced: śuddho dharmo vivar dhate.

Dharma megha mimaṁ prāhus samādhiṁ yoga vittamāḥ,

varṣa tyeṣa yato dharmā mṛta dhārā ssaha sraśaḥ (60). This

experience in samadhi is called dharma-megha. Megha is a

cloud; a cloud that rains dharma is called dharma-megha. As

it happens in samadhi, that samadhi is called dharma-megha

samadhi.

Samādhiṁ yoga vittamāḥ: Knowers of yoga call this great,

wonderful experience as dharma-megha samadhi. Why is it

called like that? Varṣa tyeṣa yato dharmā mṛta dhārā ssaha

sraśaḥ: Millions of torrents fall on the consciousness of the

meditator in the form of a nectarine bath of the

consciousness of law and order, satya and rita. That is, we

begin to feel, to face, as it were, the very face of God, because

rita and satya, law and order – not to be identified with the

law and order of the national governments of the earth, but a

cosmical law and order – which, when it becomes the

experience of our consciousness, identifies us with

everything, even with a leaf. Even the leaf of the tree and

every little sand particle will start dancing before us. Nectar

falls like rain. It comes from all places. The Universal rain

drenches and inundates this consciousness of the meditator,

and we are bathed in this nectarine experience of cosmic

Universality.

Amunā vāsanā jale niśśeṣaṁ pravi lāpite, samūlon mūlite

puṇya pāpākhye karma sañcaye (61). Vākya maprati baddham

sat prāk parokṣā vabhāsite, karā malaka vad bodham

aparokṣaṁ prasūyate (62). In the earlier stages of knowledge,

74

knowledge is indirect. Now you know something about all

that has been talked about. You are hearing it, and havemade

a study of it. This knowledge is indirect knowledge because

the knowledge that you are gaining just now is not identical

with the object of knowledge. The object is still away from

you. That Supreme Brahman is not identical with the

knowledge that you have gained merely by hearing or even

by studying – even by deep reflection, ratiocination. With all

these, you will find you are still not very near the Supreme

Reality, because the mind keeps you cut off. The existence of

the mind, the operation of the mind with all its vrittis, keeps

you away from direct contact with the reality. But the

vasanas, or the impressions of the mind, are dissolved in this

state of samadhi.

A vasana is a kind of impression created by some action

that we perform; and that vasana creates a vritti, or a groove

in the mind like an impression created in a gramophone

plate. The vibrations of thought, like the vibrations of sound,

create an impression or a groove in a gramophone plate. The

vibrations are the vasanas, and the vrittis are the grooves;

and once the grooves are formed, we can go on playing the

record any number of times and hear the samemusic.

Likewise, once the grooves in the mind are formed by

certain impressions created by sense perception, they will

become causes of rebirth; and in the next birth also, the same

‘gramophone record’ will play out. That means to say, the old,

old ideas will persist and want expression in the next birth

also. And in that next birth, if we too continue the same

process of creating grooves in the mind, there will be an

endless heap of grooves, one over the other; then there will

be no remedy for it.

But once these grooves are dissolved – say we throw this

gramophone plate in boiling water – it melts altogether, and

all the grooves also go. Likewise, we throw this mind with all

its grooves in the heat of the knowledge of this Universal

experience. When this happens, samūlon mūlite puṇya

75

pāpākhye karma sañcaye: all the karmas that we have

accumulated in the form of good and bad deeds are uprooted.

It not only because of bad deeds that we get reborn. Even

good deeds will take us to rebirth. It is the deed that causes

birth, good or bad. It may be that bad deeds cause

inconvenience, pain, suffering, sorrow, and so on, and good

deeds produce such effects as joy, satisfaction, security,

happiness, etc. That is true. Notwithstanding the difference

between the products of good deeds and bad deeds, the

character of causing rebirth will be there equally in either

case. Just because we have done good deeds, it does not

mean that we will not be reborn. Only, we will be born as a

better person. But that also has to go. It is not enough if rajas

and tamas are destroyed. Sattva also has to go.

As I mentioned, the screen in front of us, even if it is

transparent, has to be lifted. Otherwise, there cannot be

identity with the object. So when even the punya and papa

karma phala get dissolved by this experience – they are

totally uprooted – this knowledge which is indirect at

present, acquired through hearing from the preceptor or

teacher, will become direct knowledge. We will see this

whole universe as if it is sitting on the palm of our hand. Karā

malaka vad: Suppose we keep a fruit on our palm; we can see

it so clearly that it does not require any proof for its

existence. Such kind of clarity of vision of the existence of the

Universal will be our blessing and glory when all the karmas

are destroyed – the products of good and bad deeds – and

indirect knowledge that we have gained through study and

investigation enters into the very source of our being.

Knowledge becomes our existence, and our existence

becomes our knowledge. In other words, unfettered becomes

our being. Free we are totally. Consciousness is our nature,

and our existence becomes Universal Existence. That is to say

in short, we become sat-chit-ananda, Absolute Existence-

Consciousness-Bliss.

76

Parokṣaṁ brahma vijñānaṁ śābdaṁ deśika pūrvakam,

buddhi pūrva kṛtaṁ pāpaṁ kṛtsnaṁ dahati vahnivat (63). Even

this little knowledge that we have gained through hearing

has a great effect. It purifies the mind. It does not mean that

indirect knowledge is useless. That knowledge which was

gained through the teacher or the preceptor, though indirect,

will be able to destroy all the karmas, at least in some

measure. The total uprooting will take place afterwards. The

harassment caused by the karmas will cease.

Don't we feel that we go away happy after hearing a

spiritual discourse? We have a good sleep, we have good

thoughts, and we wake up with noble thoughts. Don’t we

think that some karmas have been simply driven away?

Otherwise, we will worry, scratch our head, think all sorts of

things, and take a sleeping pill to go to bed. This will not be

necessary after hearing all of this. We will be calm, quiet,

happy, and composed, and never get angry with anybody.We

will be satisfied with all things. That is, even this indirect

knowledge has such an effect. It will destroy the worrying

habit of the mind and the unnecessary interference of these

negative karmas.

But when the knowledge becomes direct, it is a

wonderful thing. What will happen? It will destroy the night

of ignorance totally. Just as there is no night in the midday

sun, there will be no night of this ignorance before us. We

will not see the world. This night of ignorance which is

causing the perception of an externality of the world, the

desire for objects, and the running after them in action, will

dissolve immediately.

Aparo kṣātma vijñānaṁ śābdaṁ deśika pūrva kam, saṁsāra

kāraṇa jñāna tamasaś caṇḍa bhāskaraḥ (64). Aparoksatma

vijnana is not indirect knowledge that is attained merely by

study, but direct experience – as the experience of the

waking condition just now.

77

Śābdaṁ deśika pūrva kam. This knowledge that has

fructified into a maturity of direct experience after having

been received though this teacher – what does it do now?

Saṁsāra kāraṇa jñāna tamasaś caṇḍa bhāskaraḥ. It becomes

the blazing midday sun to destroy the Universal ignorance

which has caused this perception of samsara, or earthly

turmoil. The world will vanish just as dreams vanish when

we wake.

Itthaṁ tattva vivekaṁ vidhāya vidhi vanmanas samādhāya

vigalita saṁsṛt bandhaḥ prāpnoti paraṁ padaṁ naro no cirāt

(65). This chapter is now concluding – the first chapter.

Having deeply considered the nature of reality as has been

described up to this time – properly hearing it, carefully

thinking it deeply and making it a part of our routine of the

day – and by a disciplined process, we have made this

knowledge a part of our thinking process itself. That is to say,

when we think anything, we will think only from this point of

view – like a businessman thinking only from the point of

view of profit and loss, like a shopkeeper thinking only in

terms of the weight of gold, an official thinking only in terms

of promotion and salary. There is no other way of thinking.

Here we will start thinking only from this point of view.

Whether we are working, taking our meals, going for a walk,

or taking a bath – whatever we may be doing, we will see it

from the point of view of this great knowledge that we have

acquired.

We will have a new perception of things; our vision will

change. Such a person is called a philosopher. A philosopher

is one who views the whole world from the point of view of

eternity. That will be our experience after having listened to

this wisdom, this knowledge, and having made it a part and

parcel of our very outlook of life. Vigalita saṁsṛt bandhaḥ. All

the shackles of bondage will fall down. All the chains that

were binding us to this earth will break in one instant.

Prāpnoti paraṁ padaṁ naro no cirāt. Sankara says we may get

78

this experience very early – not after many, many years –

provided our eagerness is very intense.

Here we have to remember a sutra from Patanjali’s Yoga

Sutras: Tīvra saṁvegānām āsannaḥ (1.21): This experience is

very near us, provided our ardour for having it is very

intense. Ardour means anguish, impossibility to exist without

it, breathlessness because it is not there, crying because we

have lost it, and as if we are being drowned in water and

wanting a little air to be provided to us. It is such an anguish

of having separated ourselves from God, such an ardour for

wanting it. This word ‘samvega’ that is used in Patanjali’s

sutra cannot be easily translated into the English language.

The best translation is ‘ardour’. Intense zealousness and the

heart jumping out of our body, as it were, to catch it – that is

called ardour.

If this is possible for you – and if you convince yourself

that there is no other goal for you except this – when you

drown yourself in this feeling and thought, everything will

come to you automatically. You need not go and beg for

things, like a beggar. Everything will be at your feet. If this

conviction is in your mind, quickly will this experience come.

And what happens? Prāpnoti paraṁ padaṁ: You attain the

supreme state of eternal beatitude.

The first chapter is concluded.

Discourse 7

CHAPTER 2: PANCHA MAHABHUTA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE ELEMENTS, VERSES 1-18

Sad-advaitaṁ śrutaṁ yat-tat-pañca-bhūta vivekataḥ,

boddhuṁ śakyaṁ tato bhūta-pañcakaṁ pravi vicyate (1). In the

Chhandogya Upanishad's sixth chapter, Uddalaka instructs

his disciple and son Svetaketu and pronounces a great

statement, Sad eva, saumya, idam agra āsīd (Chhandogya

6.2.1): “Being alone was.” To understand the meaning of this

statement, “Being alone was” (before the creation of this

world), we have to conduct an analysis of the involvement of

Being in creation through the study of the five elements

which are the stuff of this world, the panchbhutas, the five

elements – earth, water, fire, air and ether. A study of the

inner constitution of these five elements will also enable us

to know what kind of involvement there is of this Pure Being

in these five elements. Therefore, for the sake of

understanding the true meaning of this proclamation

“Existence alone was”, we try now to go into an investigation

of the nature of the five elements. This is the subject matter

of the second chapter.

What are the five elements? The gross elements are

space or sky (akasha), air, fire, water, earth; and the inner

constituents are sabda, sparsa, rupa, rasa, gandha. These

words must be remembered because they will be coming

again and again.

Śabda-sparśau rūpa-rasau gandho bhūta-guṇā ime, eka-dvitri-

catuḥ pañca guṇāḥ vyomādiṣu kramāt (2). The qualities of

these elements are, in respective order: sound, which is the

quality of space; touch, which is the quality of air; form,

which is the quality of fire; taste, which is the quality of

water; and smell, which is the quality of earth. These are the

qualities of the five elements.

Only one quality can be seen in space: it can reverberate

sound, but we cannot touch it, taste it, smell it, etc. Space can

only cause an atmosphere for creating a vibration of sound

80

so, as nothing else is possible there, sound alone is the

quality of space. But of air, there are two qualities: air can

make sound, and also it can be felt. It can be touched. Sound

is the quality of space; sound and touch are the qualities of

air. But fire has sound, touch and has form, as we can also see

it. And water: we can hear its sound, we can touch it, we can

see it, we can taste it. But we cannot taste fire, taste air, taste

space, etc. Earth has five qualities: it can create sound, it can

be touched, it can be seen, it can be tasted, and it can be

smelled. Smelling is the quality of only earth, so that earth

has five qualities. Water has four, fire has three, air has two,

and space has only one quality. This is the meaning of the

second half of the verse: eka-dvi-tri-catuḥ pañca guṇāḥ

vyomādiṣu kramāt. Now it is said that certain of these

elements make sound, etc.What kind of sound do they make?

Prati-dhvanir viyacchabdo vāyau bīsīti śabdanam, anuṣṇā-śīta

saṁsparśaḥ vahnau bhugu-bhugu-dhvaniḥ (3).

Uṣṇa-sparśaḥ prabhā-rūpaṁ jale bulu-bulu dhaniḥ, śīta-sparśaḥ

śukla-rūpaṁ raso mādhūryam īritaḥ (4).

Bhūmau kaḍakaḍā-śabdaḥ kāṭhinyaṁ sparśa iṣyate, nīlādikaṁ

citra-rūpaṁ madhurāmlādiko rasaḥ (5).

Prati-dhvanir viyacchabdo. Space does not make sound by

itself. It causes refraction and reverberation of sound – an

echo. Echo is the sound that is produced by space. And what

kind of sound is made by air? It goes whoosh. He has put

‘veees’ here: bīsīti śabdanam. And what is the touch? It is

neither hot nor cold. Air has no quality of this kind. It is hot

when it is charged with heat; it is cold when it is charged

with cold: anuṣṇā-śīta saṁsparśaḥ. And fire can also make

sound. When it flames forth, it makes a sound like bhugubhugu:

vahnau bhugu-bhugu-dhvaniḥ.

And what is the quality of fire? Heat: uṣṇa-sparśaḥ. The

touch of fire is heat, and its form is radiance: prabhā-rūpaṁ.

And what is the sound that water makes? Bulu-bulu: jale bulubulu

dhaniḥ. Its quality is cold when we touch it; and its

81

quality is also white. White is the colour of water; and its

taste is very sweet. That is why we drink water. What is the

sound that earth makes? Kada-kada is the sound it will make

if something breaks, something falls. Bhūmau kaḍakaḍāśabdaḥ:

this is the earth sound. And hardness is its touch, and

its colour is green, blue, yellow, etc. Varieties are the colours

of objects made of earth: citra-rūpaṁ. And its taste –

sweetness, bitterness and other things are all qualities of

objects, things made of earthly substance. It has also got a

smell – a good smell, a bad smell, a fragrance or a very bad

odour. These are the qualities of earth, five in number.

There are five qualities in earth, four in water, three in

fire, two in air, one in space. This is how we have to

understand the manner of the functioning of these elements.

Only earth has all the qualities of the original causes from

where it has come.

This group of five elements can be perceived only

through the sense organs which are correspondingly

connected with these elements. And the sense organs

connected with these elements respectively are: surabhī tara

gaṇdhau dvau guṇāḥ samyag vivecitāḥ, śrotraṁ tvak cakṣuṣi

jihvā ghrāṇaṁ cendriya pañcakam (6). Sound can be heard only

by the ear, touch can be felt by the skin, form can be seen by

the eyes, taste can be felt by the tongue, and fragrance or

smell can be received by the nose, through the nostrils. These

are the five sense organs.

There is a connection of the sense organs with the five

elements. In the Bhagavad Gita there is a statement,

beautifully made: guṇā guṇeṣu vartante (Gita 3.28). Qualities

or properties of prakriti move among properties of prakriti

when any perception takes place. The sabda tanmatra, the

potential of sound that is outside in space, comes in contact

with the very same tanmatra in the eardrum, and then there

is a correspondence between the two and we hear the

reverberation of sound.

82

So is the case with the other sense organs. The

corresponding object of sensory perception in each case is

respectively the connection between the quality of one

particular element in relation to one particular sense organ

which is also made up of the same element. So it is as if

waves are dashing on waves in the body of the ocean. The

element inside in the form of sense organs dashes against, or

comes in contact with, the same element outside in objects.

So prakriti is perceiving prakriti. Sense organs come in

contact with the objects. We generally say, “I am seeing the

objects.” It is a confusion of statement. It is not ‘I’. Don't bring

that sentence. It is the sense organs that come in contact, as

the Bhagavadgita says. The principles of matter constituting

outside objects as well as internal sense organs bring about

the feeling of these sensations of heat, cold, sound, touch, etc.

Karṇādi golakasthaṁ tacchabdādi grāhakaṁ kramāt,

sauksmyat kārayānumeyaṁ tat prāyo dhāved-bahir-mukham

(7). These senses are located in certain organs which are

physical in their nature. The sense of sight is in the eyeballs.

The sense of hearing is in the eardrums, etc. All the senses

are subtle forces that are operating through physical media

which are called the sense organs. The eardrum does not

hear. The eyes don't see. They are only the medium of

expression of a force which causes the perception of colour,

sound, and the like. These senses cannot be seen with the

eyes. As we have studied in the first chapter, these senses of

knowledge are constituted of subtle potentials of the sattva

guna of prakriti; therefore, sattva not being an object of

perception, the senses cannot be seen. They are the

perceivers and, therefore, who will perceive them? The eye

cannot see itself and the ear cannot hear itself on account of

the intense subtlety of these senses, because of their being

made of sukshma tattvas – that is, tanmatras.

Tanmatras cannot be seen. They are subtle. They are

made of the sattva portion of the cosmic prakriti. Sattva is an

equilibrium of force; therefore, it cannot be seen. Equilibrium

83

cannot be seen. Only distraction, objectivity, can be seen with

the eyes. Therefore, on account of the subtlety of the senses

involved, due to their being constituted of the sattva guna of

prakriti, they cannot be seen as we see objects. What is the

actual function of the senses? Running outside: prāyo

dhāved-bahir-mukham.

They have only one work and, like dogs running here and

there, they will never keep quiet. The senses run

continuously from morning to night. Right from the time we

wake up till we go to sleep, the senses run out and compel

our consciousness to lodge itself in things which are other

than its own Self. The Atman becomes the anatman, as it

were, due to the force of the senses that drag the mind and

the consciousness outside in space and time. They are

extroverted totally.

Kadācit-pihite karṇe śrūyate śabda āntaraḥ, prāṇa vāyau

jāṭharāgnau jalapāne’nna-bhakṣaṇe (8). Sometimes when we

close the nostrils and both ears we can hear the internal

sound. This is a kind of mudra in yoga, and if we go on doing

this for a long time we will hear a kind of subtle vibrationlike

sound from inside the body; anahata sabda it is called. It

is not a sound created by contact of one thing with another

thing. It is a sound automatically created by the movement of

prana inside. We can hear this by closing the nostrils and the

eyes and ears for someminutes.

When the pranas move inside, when the gastric juice is

operating, when we drink water or eat food, we can feel

some sound. There is an internal sound. We can feel it when

we eat or drink, or when the gastric juice is acting or the

pranas aremoving.

Vyajyante hyāntarā sparśā mīlane cāntaraṁ tamaḥ, udgāre

rasa gandhau ca ityakṣaṇā māntara grahaḥ (9). We can see

darkness when we close our eyes and press our eyeballs.

There is a kind of perception – a perception of not colour, but

84

of absence of colour, just as in sleep there is perception not of

anything, but of nothing.

Udgāre rasa gandhau: We can also have taste inside, by

belching or hiccough. When we belch, sometimes there is

some taste coming up from the stomach. There is also smell –

so, taste and gandha both. Ityakṣaṇā māntara grahaḥ. These

are the descriptions of the manner in which we can also see

the operation of senses inside, apart from their operation

outside.

Pañcokty ādāna-gamana visarg-ānandakāḥ kriyāḥ, kṛṣivāṇijya-

sevādyaḥ pañcasvantar bhavanti hi (10). Whatever we

have spoken of just now refers to the senses of knowledge.

But there are senses of action also, namely: grasping with the

hands, moving with the legs, excretion through the aperture,

etc. All the actions such as agriculture, industry, office work

also come under these categories of five active organs.

Speaking, walking or locomotion, grasping, excretion and

generation – these are the external actions. And every other

work that we do is included within these five. Even when we

do office work, we are only grasping something or moving,

etc. So nothing in the world can be outside the purview of

these five activities of the five karmendriyas, or active organs,

apart from the five senses of knowledge.

The five senses of knowledge give us knowledge of things

outside; they cognise things or see things. The five organs of

action create movement of varieties, as mentioned; and so

we have ten organs – five of knowledge and five of action.

Every other activity comes under these. The whole world is

nothing but a huge conglomeration, permutation and

combination of the activities of these sense organs. They are

ten in number. The whole world is this much only – entirely

sensory.

Vāk-pāṇi-pāda-pāyūpasthair akṣais tat kriyājaniḥ, mukhādigolakeṣv

āste tat karmendriya pañcakam (11). The organs of

action are located, as in the case of the senses of knowledge,

85

in certain parts of the body. Grasping is of the hands,

locomotion of the feet, speech of the tongue, and excretion

and generation of the lower organs. They are forces in the

same way as the senses of knowledge are forces, but lodged

in certain parts of the body; that is the physiological system.

The physiological system is the location for the action of both

the senses of knowledge and the organs of action. They are

all situated in the face, eye, etc., as it has been already

described.

The mind is something very strange. It is different from

the sense organs which give us knowledge and which also

act. It is the king. It is Indra. Allegorically explained, the gods

are actually the senses. Indra, the ruler of the gods, is the

mind.

Mano daśendriyā dhyakṣaṁ hṛt-padme golake sthitam,

taccāntaḥ karaṇaṁ bāhyeṣa svātantryāt vinen-driyaiḥ (12). The

mind is the ruler of the ten senses. The senses of knowledge

and the organs of action are ruled, controlled, directed by the

mind: mano daśendriyā dhyakṣaṁ. And where is the mind

situated, mostly? In the heart. It is actually pervading the

whole body, as a light pervades the entire room here. Yet it

has a location, as the light is the bulb. Though the bulb is the

location of the light, it nevertheless pervades the entire

room. So is the mind having a temporary location in the

heart, but it actually pervades the entire body, as light does.

Hṛt-padme golake sthitam, taccāntaḥ karaṇaṁ: It is called

‘internal organ’. Bāhyeṣa svātantryāt vinen-driyaiḥ: As it

cannot operate without the assistance of the senses in

respect of objects outside – it cannot act directly in respect of

objects without the help of the senses – it is called an internal

organ. The senses are external organs; the mind is the

internal organ. That is why it is called antahkarana.

Antahkarana, internal organ, generally known as mind or

the psyche, has mostly four functions to perform, and it is

called manas-buddhi-ahamkara-chitta. Thinking is a mental

86

process. Intellection is the buddhi's. Arrogation, selfaffirmation

is the work of the ego, ahamkara. Chitta is doing

the work of memory. Manas-buddhi-ahamkara-chitta:

thinking, understanding, affirmation or arrogation, and

remembering are the functions of these four aspects of the

internal organ known as manas-buddhi-ahamkara-chitta.

Akṣeṣvarthār pite ṣvetad guṇa doṣa vicārakam, sattvaṁ

rajas tamaś cāsya guṇā vikriyate hi taiḥ (13). When the mind is

lodged in the sense organs and it operates through any

particular sense at a particular time, it begins to judge the

pros and cons of objects outside. “This is something; this is

not something. This object is like this; this is not like this.

This is the quality of this object; this is the quality of that

object.” It begins to argue, ascertain and differentiate values

associated with the various things in the world when it

operates through the sense organs.

Internally the mind has the properties of sattva, rajas and

tamas. Therefore, it modifies itself continuously. The mind is

chanchala, as they say. It is very fickle. It is fickle because it is

constituted of the gunas of prakriti – sattva, rajas and tamas.

Sattva is very rarely experienced by the mind because if the

sattva is really revealed, we will be happy. But how many

times in the day are we happy? If we count the minutes of

real happiness, we will find that it is so fragmentary, so

negligible. Our moments of joy in this life on a particular day

are so small that we may say that sattva is practically not

operating at all in the mind. We are always distracted,

worried, and thinking of something. That is the reason why it

is said that mostly only rajas and tamas are operating in the

mind, though sattva is also there. Sometimes when we are

calm and quiet, we are philosophically-minded and very

charitable, very good natured and dispassionate, and at that

time we will feel happiness inside. So it is not that sattva is

not there. But rarely is it manifest; mostly it is rajas and

tamas. These qualities are sattva, rajas and tamas; with these

87

it changes its condition moment to moment. It is fickle due to

this reason.

Vairāgyaṁ kṣāntir-audāryam ityādyās-sattva-sambhavāḥ,

kāma-krodhau lobha-yatnau vityādyāh rajaso-tthitāḥ (14).

What are the characteristics of the sattva guna? Suppose we

are endowed with sattva; how do we behave? Our behaviour

under sattva is explained here: dispassion. The more are we

sattvic in our mind, the less is the desire for things.

Dispassion is vairagya. This is one quality that we will see as

sattva predominates. And forbearance, tolerance and

absence of a sudden reaction to things outside is the quality

of sattva. There is large-heartedness, charitableness,

compassion, and a feeling of goodness towards people. Many

other qualities are also there. Ityādyās-sattva-sambhavāḥ:

They are the qualities manifest in us on account of the

preponderance of the sattva guna.

But if rajas is predominant, what happens to us? Kāmakrodhau:

Suddenly some desire inside us erupts: “I want

this.” And if we cannot get it, we are angry, krodha. First

there is desire, and anger follows when there is no chance for

the fulfilment of desire. Anger, desire and greed, lobha, are

characteristics of rajas. Desire of a passionate nature is called

kama. Irascibility, anger, is called krodha. Greed for material

wealth, money, land, house, etc., is called lobha. Kama,

krodha, lobha – these are the qualities that we reveal in

ourselves when rajas predominates. Apart from this, we

become very active. Vityādyāh rajaso-tthitāḥ: Very agitated,

distracted – we cannot keep quiet even for one minute and

are always running about here and there, and are

tremendously excited. That is our nature when rajas is

predominant.

Ālasyaṁ bhrānti tandrādyā vikārās tamasot thitāḥ,

sāttvikaiḥ puṇya niṣpattiḥ pāpot pattiś ca rājasaiḥ (15). When

tamas is there, alasyam, we think like this: “Meditating

doesn't matter. Let us see tomorrow. What is the urgency

about it? The day after tomorrow is all right. Why worry? Go

88

slow, go slow.” We will be simply brooding. That is alasya,

lethargy; and bhranti is not perceiving things properly,

wrongly calculating things, misplacing facts, misjudgement.

All these are qualities of tamas, in addition to actual sleep.

So here it is. He says how we will behave in this world

when we are under the subjection of one or the other of

these gunas, properties of prakriti – sattva, raja and tamas

respectively. If we are sattvicly endowed, we will be a

virtuous and righteous person: sāttvikaiḥ puṇya niṣpattiḥ.

Good deeds are not possible when we are rajasic in nature.

We will always do wrong things. When we are in the state of

sattva, we have an inclination to do virtuous deeds; we

become righteous in our behaviour. But if we are rajasic, we

do sinful actions, erroneous deeds: pāpot pattiś ca rājasaiḥ.

Tāmasair-nobhayaṁ kintu vṛthāyuḥ kṣapaṇaṁ bhavet,

atrāhaṁ pratyayī karteti evaṁ loke vyavasthitiḥ (16). But in

tamas, we do no action. It is a waste of time: vṛthāyuḥ

kṣapaṇaṁ bhavet. In rajas, we do something; in sattva, we do

something greater. But in tamas, we do nothing, so the

author says in the tamas condition we are really wasting our

life.

Atrāhaṁ pratyayī karteti. In these characteristics

mentioned, through the manifestation of sattva, rajas or

tamas, there is a principle inside which says, “I am like this. I

am happy. I am unhappy. I am full of desire. I am angry. I am

torpid in my mind. I am righteous. I do this action. I do that

action.” This principle of consciousness that is asserting

these movements through the three qualities of sattva, rajas

and tamas is called karta, or the doer of things, the agent of

action, ahamkara, ego, intellect, reason, whatever we call it.

Intellect, reason, ego all go together. And it is the knower, the

doer, the assumer of everything into itself. The agency in

action is attributable to this particular principle of egoism

and its associated intellect. This is how we have to explain

the nature of the sense functions, the organs of action, the

properties of prakriti, sattva-rajas-tamas, how they act upon

89

us and how they are all appropriated into our own

personality by a principle in us called ego: kartritva bhavana.

Spaṣṭa śabdādi yukteṣu bhauti katva mati sphuṭam, akṣā

dāvapi tat sāstra yukibhyām avadhāryatām (17). We know all

the objects of the world are actually physical in their nature.

There is no need to argue on this matter. How do we know

that objects are material?We can touch them, see them, taste

them, smell them, and the like. They are solid substances.

That the world is made up of physical matter is something

obvious. But how do we know that the sense organs are also

made up of the same category of materiality?

As it was mentioned, we cannot actually perceive the

materiality of the sense organs because here, in the case of

the senses of knowledge at least, the materiality is of a sattvic

nature – rarefied matter. Rarefied matter is sattva, distracted

matter is rajas, and stable, fixed matter is tamas. Because of

their internality and the constituency being totally inside, we

are unable to know that they exist at all. But by inference, we

can know that they do exist because if there is no

correspondence between the sense of perception (sense of

seeing) with colour or light, light would not be seen.

Inasmuch as there is a possibility of coming in contact with

the light, it is necessary to infer that there is something in us

which is corresponding in frequency to the principle of light

in our own selves.

So is the case with hearing.We cannot hear every kind of

sound. Only a particular frequency of sound can be heard by

the eardrums. Similarly, taste – our tongue cannot feel every

kind of taste. We are placed in a particular frequency level of

the world. High frequency actions cannot be contacted, and

lower frequency actions also cannot be contacted. Neither

can we see heaven, nor can we see hell. We can see only the

earth, because heaven is a high-frequency existence. It is

beyond the level of the frequency of our mind and intellect.

And we don’t see hell, because we are superior to it. We see

only the middle portion, which is corresponding to the

90

frequency of the objects of the world, the world as a whole.

By inference we can conclude that the senses of knowledge

and the mind also are constituted of a similar material

substance, because similars attract similars; dissimilars

repel. The fact of there being such a thing called sensory

perception should prove that the senses are also made up of

the same categories as the objects themselves. By inference

we can know it.

Ekādaśen driyair yuktyā śāstreṇā pyava gamyate, yāvat

kiṁcit bhave detat idaṁ śabdo ditaṁ jagat (18). It was

mentioned that Sage Uddalaka declared that all this was Pure

Being alone. Idam – all this; what do we mean by all this? The

word ‘this’ is explained in this eighteenth verse. Whatever is

cognisable by the senses of knowledge, whatever is

contactable through the five organs of action, whatever is

conceivable by the mind, whatever can be known through

scripture or instruction from a teacher – all this put together,

this whole universe of perception and knowledge is called

idam – this. The entire universe of cognition, perception and

action – nama, rupa, kriya, prapancha – name, form, action,

world, everything, whatever is conceivable, contactable,

measurable or worth dealing with in any way whatsoever, is

included within this vast inclusiveness, the whole world of

jagat; and the term used to demonstrate this vast universe is

idam. This wonderful thing, this whole thing that we see and

we can conceive is Pure Existence. This is the instruction of

Uddalaka to Svetaketu, the meaning of which is being studied

further in the following verses.

Discourse 8

CHAPTER 2: PANCHA MAHABHUTA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE ELEMENTS, VERSES 19-34

This second chapter and also the following one, the third,

have two different purposes. The second chapter analyses

the nature of universal intelligence as distinguishable from

the five elements which constitute the whole universe –

earth, water, fire, air, ether. Towards that end, we aremoving

through this long introduction commencing with the

definition of Ultimate Existence as Pure Being: One alone,

without a second – Being, and not non-being. From this,

certain controversial ideas arise which the author also takes

into consideration, especially in relation to those doctrines

which consider non-existence as the beginning of things, and

not Existence as the beginning of things.

Nothingness is the original condition of all things.

Shunyata is the Sanskrit word for it. Nil, zero, vacuum,

nothingness is the original state of things. All the world will

be reduced to a vacuum when dissolution takes place, or

when the effects are resolved into their causes. The idea

behind this is that the world is as much a vacuum as its cause

is. The Madhyamika doctrine, which is a section of Buddhist

philosophy, emphasises this aspect of the original

nothingness of all things and, incidentally, also the

nothingness of everything that is apparently visible to the

eyes. This question is taken up by the author of the

Panchadasi, with which we proceed.

Itaṁ sarvaṁ purā sṛṣṭer-edam-evā-dvitīyakam, sad-ev-āsīnnāma-

rūpe, nāstām-ity-āruṇer-vacaḥ (19). Aruni, which is the

name of Uddalaka, the teacher of Svetaketu in the sixth

chapter of the Chhandogya Upanishad, says that in the

beginning, all this was Existence, pure and simple: One alone,

without a second. Sad-ev-āsīn: Existence alone was. Nāmarūpe,

nāstām: The names and the forms of the world did not

exist. The whole world of perception is constituted of name,

form and action. Inasmuch as names and forms could not be

92

there in the origin of things because names and forms were

created later on in terms of the manifestation of space and

time – names and forms cannot be there unless there is space

and time; and in Pure Existence, space-time cannot be there –

therefore, it is concluded that there were no names and no

forms whatsoever, no categorisation into particulars in the

original state of Being, which was One alone, without a

second. It has no internal differentiation, external variety or

any kind of contact with anything.

There are different kinds of variety or separateness

which all will be denied in the nature of the Ultimate Being.

We know there are things called difference in this world. A

branch of a tree is different from another branch of a tree.

Within the tree itself, there is internal difference. One branch

is not like another branch; one twig is not like another twig.

Even one leaf is not like another leaf. There is also internal

difference in our body. The hand is different from the legs.

The legs are different from the nose, and so on. This

difference that is observed within the body of a single entity

is called svagata bheda. Svagata means internal variety, as is

the case with the differences we see among the branches of a

tree.

Vṛkṣasya svagato bhedaḥ patra puṣpa phalādi-bhiḥ, vṛkṣān

tarāt sajātīyo vijātīyaś-śilāditaḥ (20). A leaf is different from a

flower. A flower is different from a fruit, etc., in the tree. This

is a difference that is internal to the organism of the tree. But

one tree is different from another tree. This is not internal

difference, but external difference. Hands may be different

from the feet of the same person, but one person is different

from another person. This is called vijatiya bheda, external

differentiation. Svagata bheda is internal differentiation, as

among the limbs of a body; vijatiya bheda is differentiation

between contraries, totally different things, as between one

tree and another tree, though of the same species. One

person is different from another person, notwithstanding the

fact that all persons are of the same species.

93

But there can be difference of variety in species also. A

tree is different from a stone. Here, difference is among the

species itself. Firstly it was svagata bheda, internal

differentiation within oneself. Secondly it is external

differentiation among the same species. Thirdly, it is

differentiation among different species, like tree and stone.

So there are three kinds of difference which we can imagine

in our minds.

But none of these differences can apply to Pure Existence.

Pure Being is indivisible in its nature. The indivisibility of its

character prevents any kind of internal differentiation within

itself. It has no limbs. We cannot say that one part of

Existence is different from another part of Existence as one

limb is different from another limb of the body. So internal

differentiation is not possible in Existence.

External differentiation also is not possible, such as itself

being different from another of its own species, because

there is no species equal to Existence. It is unique by itself.

Hence, the external type of differentiation also does not

apply. The third variety, which is the difference of variety in

species, also does not apply to Pure Being because while

there can be a stone outside the tree, there cannot be

anything outside the Pure Being – externality not there being.

The three kinds of difference are denied in Pure Being; thus

the three kinds of difference are negatived in Pure Being.

Tathā sad-vastuno bheda trayaṁ prāptaṁ nivāryate, aikyā

vadhāraṇa dvaita prati ṣedhai stribhiḥ kramāt (21). We have

refuted the possibility of there being any kind of difference

within or without Pure Existence. Why? Aikyā vadhāraṇa

dvaita prati ṣedhai stribhiḥ kramāt: One, alone, without a

second. These three terms, ekam, eva, advaita, deny three

kinds of difference. ‘One alone’, ekam, refutes the possibility

of internal variety. ‘Alone’ refutes the possibility of external

differentiation. Advaita, ‘secondless’, refutes the third

possibility, which is difference from another species. The one

sentence refutes three kinds of difference. Aikyā vadhāraṇa

94

dvaita: “One alone without a second.” Thus is the instruction

of the great Sage Uddalaka to his disciple Svetaketu, as we

have it elaborately described in the sixth chapter of the

Chhandogya Upanishad.

Sato nāva yavāś śaṅkyās tadaṁśasyā nirūpaṇāt, nāmarūe na

tasyāṁśau tayo radyā pyanud bhavāt (22).We should not even

dream that there can be limbs inside Existence because even

limbs must exist and, therefore, there cannot be a

differentiation in Existence itself, as if there are parts of

Existence. We cannot doubt that perhaps there are varieties

or differentiations within Pure Existence – tadaṁśasyā

nirūpaṇāt – because we cannot conceive fraction, divisibility,

part, segmentation, in indivisibility.

Nāmarūe na tasyāṁśau: Name and form, the variety of

creation, cannot be regarded as part of Existence because

they did not exist prior to creation. Tayo radyā pyanud bhavāt:

They have not started; they have not even originated to be.

Therefore, names and forms which constitute the substance

of this world cannot be associated with this Universal

Existence in any manner whatsoever and should not make us

feel that perhaps the names and the forms and the variety of

this creation may introduce a kind of difference. Such a thing

is not possible.

Nāmarūpo dvhava syaiva sṛṣṭi tvāt sṛsṭitaḥ purā, na tayo

rudbhavas tasmāt niraṁśaṁ sad yathā viyat (23). Creation is

nothing but the manifestation of name and form. When

designation, epithet, and concretised presentations of forms

arise, we begin to feel that creation has started. And creation

is nothing but variety, which is essentially form and

designation. But such a thing could not be there prior to

creation. Hence, we should not associate the differentiating

characters of name and form with Existence, which was there

even prior to the commencement of creation. Na tayo

rudbhavas: There was no origin of names and forms then.

Therefore, what do we conclude?

95

Niraṁśaṁ sad yathā viyat: As space is divisionless and it is

homogeneously spread out, so Pure Existence is

homogeneous and undivided in its nature – niraṁśaṁ:

without any kind of part within itself.

Sadantaraṁ sajātīyaṁ na vailakṣaṇya varjanāt, nāma rūpo

pādhi bhedaṁ vinā naiva sato bhidā (24). If there is some

Existence second to that Existence – another Existence

different from the Existence we are considering – then we

can say that there is variety in the same species. But such a

thing is not possible, as we have already noted – na

vailakṣaṇya varjanāt – because specification of Existence as

constituting something other than itself is not possible. There

cannot be any kind of difference of one Existence from

another Existence since two Existences cannot be there,

because even the difference imagined between two

Existences so-called has to be existing. The imagined

difference between two Existences should be existing;

therefore, Existence is uniform.

Nāma rūpo pādhi bhedaṁ vinā naiva sato bhidā. The

differentiations that we are thinking of in our mind are only

in terms of name and form. We are repeating it again and

again. Because of the fact that names and forms could not be

there prior to creation, no difference of any kind can be

imagined in Pure Existence.

Vijātīya masattattu no khalva stīti gamyate, nāsyātaḥ prati

yogitvaṁ vijātīyāt bhidā kutaḥ (25). Anything that is other than

Existence is non-existence; therefore, it is a non-entity. We

cannot imagine that something can be there outside

Existence, because that which is imagined to be outside

Existence is other than Existence, equivalent to nonexistence.

So we should not bother about anything external

to Existence as it is only affirming non-entity, which has no

sense at all.

Nāsyātaḥ prati yogitvaṁ: There is no opposition to Pure

Existence. Contrary to Existence, nothing can be; opposed to

96

Existence, nothing can be; and second to Existence, nothing

can be. Vijātīyāt bhidā kutaḥ: What to talk of the difference

between Existence and something other than Existence? That

is, three types of difference are denied here in respect of Pure

Being.

Ekamevā dvitīyaṁ sat siddha matra tu kecana, vihvalā

asadevedaṁ purā sīdityā varṇayan (26). People cannot

conceive of Pure Existence because the mind always

objectifies whatever it thinks. Even after hearing a thousand

times that Existence cannot be divided, that it has always to

be divisionless, the conscious mind, which always imagines

its contents as something standing outside, brings into force

the argument that Existence is divided between the subject

and the object, between the perceiver and the perceived, or

that it is a content of somebody's awareness.

Pure Existence is equal to non-existence. This is what the

German philosopher Hegel said. To say that Existence alone

is, is another way of saying that non-existence alone is,

because his idea is that we cannot conceive Existence in the

mind except as an object or a content of itself. Anything that

we think, even when we assert existence, is a part of our

thinking process. But if we say it is a part of the thinking

process, it becomes divided between the subject and the

object. Then it ceases to be universal. The moment we say it

is not an object at all – it is not a content of mind – it becomes

a featureless, meaningless, a non-entity, as it were, because

of its not being a content of anybody's awareness. This is a

peculiar argument that arises due to inexperience.

Intellectual philosophy is not enough. We must have direct

experience of this truth by intuition, which Hegel did not

have.

So something like this is also the argument of the nihilist

philosophers who say that the relativity of things, the factor

of one thing hanging on another thing, denies the substance

of anything. Everything in the world is conditioned by

everything else; nothing is independent by itself. The

97

existence of one thing is possible on account of the existence

of something else. If that is the case, nothing is absolutely

existing; therefore, there is no such thing as Absolute

Existence. What finally exists? Zero, nil, vacuum – that is

Ultimate Reality. This is one kind of argument.

Magnasy-ābdhau yathā-kṣāṇi vihvalāni tathāsya dhīḥ,

akhaṇḍaika rasaṁ śrutvā niṣpracārā bibhetyataḥ (27). The

author says that as a person drowned in deep waters cannot

open his eyes and see anything, a person whose mind is

expected to drown itself in the ocean of Existence closes his

eyes and begins to see darkness in front of him, rather than

Pure Existence. The waters in which we are drowned cannot

be seen with our eyes because we have closed our eyes,

because we are inside. So people who try to conceive Pure

Existence with their understanding suddenly close the eyes

of their consciousness and imagine that it is like darkness –

as a closed eye inside the waters may think that there is

nothing inside, while it is filled with water. Akhandaikarasa is

the original nature of things – undivided essence. Akhanda is

undivided; ikarasa is pure essence. Undivided pure essence

is the nature of Ultimate Existence.

By hearing this, the mind is baffled. It is unable to contain

this thought. How is it possible to expect the mind which is a

located, cognising entity, to comprehend within itself that

which is everywhere and inclusive of even itself? The mind is

included even within the principle of Existence; therefore,

the mind cannot conceive it. This is the reason why the

baffling of the intellect takes place and we begin to feel that

Existence is like non-existence.

Gaudapada Acharya in his Mandukyakarika says if we put

children in an empty space and nobody is there in front of

them, they will cry. They are afraid. If we place a child in the

wilderness where there is nobody to be seen and there is

nothing outside, it will start crying. It is crying not because it

is afraid of something that is there. It is afraid because there

98

is nothing there. It is the fear of non-entity, rather than the

fear of entities.

Gaudapada Acharya, the great Guru of Sankaracharya,

says gauddācāryā nirvikalpe samādhā vanya yoginām, sākāra

brahma niṣṭhānām atyantaṁ bhaya mūcire (28). When we

enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, or abstract meditation where

the mind itself is dissolved in the equilibrium of pure

awareness, it sees nothing in front of it, and gets frightened.

There is agitation of the consciousness in the same way as

the child is agitated because it can see nothing in front of it.

The fear arises on account of there being no object in front,

not because of the presence of something. Usually, fear arises

on account of the presence of something outside. This is a

peculiar kind of fear arising out of there being nothing at all.

Such a kind of predicament of there being nothing outside

Pure Existence is the reason why baffled minds imagine that

non-existence is the origin of things, instead of Pure

Existence: sākāra brahma niṣṭhānām atyantaṁ bhaya mūcire.

This yoga which Gaudapada Acharya mentions is called

asparsa yoga. It is a yoga, or union, of no union. Yoga is

contact; asparsa is non-contact. It is the contact of no contact

– if we do not come in contact with Brahman and yet we

come in contact with it in some way. Generally contact is of

one thing with another thing; but here, consciousness which

is contacting Brahman is not something outside Brahman;

therefore, we cannot say consciousness is contacting

Brahman. It is the Self contacting itself. It is, therefore, a noncontactual

contact. Hence, it is called asparsa yoga – wherein

placed, the mind is frightened. It cannot anymore conceive

such a state, and it cannot stand there for more than a

minute.

Asparśa yogo nāmaiṣa durdarśas-sarva-yogibhiḥ, yogino

bibhyati hy-asmād-abhaye bhata darśinaḥ (29). This is very

difficult to attain. Ordinary so-called yogis cannot attain that

state of total immersion in utter Universality where the mind

also gets dissolved. Ordinary yogis cannot attain to that state:

99

durdarśas-sarva-yogibhiḥ. Yogino bibhyati hy-asmād: Even

yogis are frightened even to hear of this transcendent state.

Abhaye bhata darśinaḥ: because they see fear where there is

really no cause for fear.

Bhagavat pūjya pādāśca śuṣka tarka paṭūnamūn, āhur

mādhyamikān bhrāntān acintye’smin sadātmani (30).

Bhagavadpada Acharya is Acharya Sankara. He, in his

commentaries, in his writings, refers to these arguments

which are bereft of substance – empty quibbling of the

Madhyamikas and the relativists who begin to affirm the

existence of non-existence. They do not know what they are

speaking about; and this happens to them because of the

incomprehensibility of the Absolute, the unthinkability of

Universality.

Anādṛtya śrutiṁ maurkhyād-ime bauddhā tamasvinaḥ,

āpedire nirāt matvam anumānaika cakṣuṣaḥ (31). One of the

nihilist arguments is that the Self does not exist; there is no

such thing as Self-consciousness. This assertion is totally

contrary to scriptural arguments such as in the Vedas, the

Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. They imagine that they

know everything. By pure argument and the force of logical

analysis of the relativity of things, they come to an

unfounded conclusion that ultimately not only is there

nothing in the universe, there is not even the thinker – not

even the person who affirms that there is nothing.

The feasibility of this argument is very clear: the doubter

denies and doubts himself. The negation of a thing is also

negated. First of all, it is negated. Existence is negated. It is

converted into non-existence: only non-existence was. Now

inasmuch as non-existence was, the person who makes that

statement also is non-existent, which means to say that the

argument fails. So there is a self-contradiction in the very

statement that non-existence was, instead of Pure Existence

was. This is the fate of people who rely purely on dry logic

without having internal experience.

100

Śūnyam-āsīd iti brūṣe sadyogaṁ vā sadātamatām, śūnyasya

na tu tadyuktam ubhayaṁ vyāha-tatvataḥ (32). When you say

that nothingness is, do you mean to say that nothingness is

associated with Existence, or nothingness is independently

existing? There are only two possibilities. The so-called

nothingness that you are affirming has either to be

associated with Existence, or it is by itself Existence. Now you

cannot associate non-existence with Existence, because they

are contraries. As light and darkness cannot be brought

together, Existence and non-existence cannot come together.

Therefore, the possibility of the association of non-existence

with Existence is ruled out.

Now you may say that non-existence exists. If that is the

case, what is your great argument? You were just saying that

non-existence exists. And we are telling you the same thing:

there was Existence, and you may call it by any name you

like. But you cannot define it as some particular thing like

non-existence, because Existence is a generality of

foundation for anything that you can talk of, think of or

imagine in the mind and, therefore, to say that non-existence

exists is not to introduce a duality between non-existence

and Existence; actually you are refuting your own argument

and denying the meaning of non-existence. Virtually you are

falling on Pure Existence only.

Na yuktas tamasā sūrya nāpi cāsau tamomayaḥ, sacchūnyayor-

virodhi tvāt śūnyam āsīt-kathaṁ vada (33). As

sunlight cannot be associated with the darkness of night, you

cannot associate Existence with non-existence. The sun is not

either associated with darkness, nor is he himself darkness.

In a similar manner, there is such a contradiction between

light and darkness. The same is the case with the

contradiction between non-existence and Existence. How on

earth could you imagine the association of non-existence

with Existence, or assert the existence of non-existence as

different from Existence? It is virtually affirming the very

same position that we have been maintaining, that Existence

101

alone was, which the great Uddalaka proclaimed many, many

years back.

Viyadāder nāmarūpe māyayā suvikalpite, śūnyasya

nāmarūpe ca tathā cet jīvyatāṁ ciram (34). The nihilists may

say that universally spread-out objects like space appear to

be visible and perceptible on account of the illusion of there

being name and form for them. We see space, for instance;

we can know there is space there. It has not really got name

and form, but we assume some sort of name and form in it as

extendedness, depth, infinity, and so on. It is pure illusion

that has been foisted upon an otherwise non-existent infinity

or extension which is space. And if you say the siddhantin

speaks to the opponent, if you say that even the

categorisation of non-existence as something different from

Existence is due to the association of descriptive characters

of non-existence, then we are agreeable to your argument.

We will remove the descriptive characters of name and form

from non-existence and we will have only Existence

afterwards.

So any way, in any circumstance, with any argument

whatsoever, wherever you go, you are cornered into the

acceptance of the fact that Ultimate Reality is Pure Being, and

the great statement of Uddalaka stands valid forever and

ever. Pure Being is the only reality.

Discourse 9

CHAPTER 2: PANCHA MAHABHUTA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE ELEMENTS, VERSES 33-52

The relationship between Existence and non-existence

was held to be impossible. Na yuktas tamasā sūrya nāpi cāsau

tamomayaḥ, sac-chūnyayor-virodhi tvāt śūnyam āsīt-kathaṁ

vada (33). The sun is neither associated with darkness, nor is

he himself an embodiment of darkness. In such a case, how

would it be possible for anyone to say that there was such a

thing called non-existence? How could it be meaningful to

assert that, once upon a time, there was non-existence? Nonexistence

cannot be conceived. The moment it becomes

conceived, it becomes existence. If it cannot be conceived, it

is not there. So the affirmation of a thing which is contrary to

common sense and the principles of logic should not be

admitted into the field of a reasonable way of understanding

the great statement of the Upanishad: One alone, without a

second, was.

Viyadāder nāmarūpe māyayā suvikalpite, śūnyasya

nāmarūpe ca tathā cet jīvyatāṁ ciram (34). It may be argued

that things like space appear to be perceptible on account of

association with names and forms falsely foisted upon space

– such as dimension, colour, depth, etc. There is no

measurable dimension of space; also, no depth is

conceivable, and it has no colour. In spite of its being of this

nature, commonsense perception seems to hold the view that

there are these characteristics in space. They are falsely

assumed. If non-existence also is conceived in a similar

manner and its untenability is due to association of negative

characters, then we ask you to remove those negative

characters; what remains is the positive character of nonexistence.

Minus ‘non’, only ‘existence’ remains.

Sao’pi nāma rūpe dve kalpite cet tadā vada, kutreti niradhiṣ

ṭhāno na bhramaḥ kvatcit īkṣyate (35). Even the concept of

existence is sometimes objectified. For instance, when we

say, “The world exists,” we forget that we are also a part of

103

the world and, therefore, we cannot make a statement like

that. Yet, we assume a sort of subjectivity of consciousness in

our own selves. We feel that we are the perceivers of

something which is not our own selves, and which we call the

world. This is, again, an instance of foisting characteristics of

externality onto a thing which is not really external. The

world is not an external object. It is not outside us. It is not

outside us, and yet we see it outside. This is a mistake that

we commit. It is an error in the very structure of perception.

In a similar manner, if we say that non-existence has

been conceived properly, we ask the question again, “Where

does non-existence exist?” Which is the adishthana or the

substratum of non-existence? It must exist somewhere. Even

non-existence, in order that it may have any significance,

must exist. If it exists , it is no more non-existence. So the

argument of the nihilist is refuted.

Sadāsī diti śabdārtha bhede vai guṇya māpatet, abhede

punarukti syāt maivaṁ loke tathekṣaṇāt (36). The statement of

Uddalaka in the Upanishad is, “Existence alone was”: sad eva

asi. Now the objector raises a question. “Why do you say,

‘Existence was’, as if it is not, now?” What is the purpose of

the teacher making this statement in this manner, as if it was

there once upon a time?

To this, the answer is: It is only a metaphorical way of

expressing a fact which requires to be properly understood

by the mind of an ordinary human being. The objection is

that ‘existence’ and the verb following it, asi, or ‘was’, are to

be separated as two different connotations; then there would

be duality. And if we say that the verb is identical with

existence, it would be tautological. It is like saying, “What is,

is ‘is’”; or “What was, was ‘was’.” What was, was; what is, is.

This is called a tautological argument. So we are involved in a

repetitious way of describing a thing in a way which the

word ‘sentence’ seems to connote – namely, sat asi. Asi is a

Sanskrit word. It is the past tense of asti, ‘exists’. Existence

existed. It seems to be the meaning. We should not make

104

statements like that because nobody says, “Existence

existed.” That is a repetitious way of making a statement.

That is called tautological. So either it is a tautology or it is

characterised by duality. The word ‘asi’, or ‘existed’, should

not be there.

The answer is that every sentence requires a verb. We

cannot merely make a statement with one word: existence.

The teacher cannot convey any sense to the student by

saying, “My dear boy, existence.” A sentence has to be

uttered, and whenever a sentence is formed, there is a

subject and a predicate. There is a noun and a verb;

otherwise, the sentence does not convey any sense. So to

create meaning in the statement that the Guru makes, the

verb is used. It is not intended to create a duality, nor is it

intended to be tautological, but it is only a metaphorical way

of expressing a sentence which cannot be grammatically

expressed in any other manner.

For instance, when we say, “The deed is done; the speech

is spoken; the burden is borne,” statements like this are not

to be considered as tautological. “The deed is done.” Do we

not say that? It has a meaning of its own. “The deed is done,”

means the deed has been executed. “The speech is spoken,”

and “The burden is borne.” The great teacher Uddalaka has

employed that same means of expression when he said

“Existence alone was” as is employed in these common

expressions such as “The deed is done”, etc.,

The idea of ‘was’, or past tense, is to take into

consideration the standpoint of the student because students

like us are likely to feel that the world has been created, and

it is filled with names and forms that have an origin. And

before the origin of names and forms in the form of this

world, there were no names and forms. What was there

then? Pure Existence was. It does not follow that Existence is

not now. It is even now, but from our standpoint of an

acceptance of there being such a thing called creation in

terms of name and form, it is to satisfy our curiosity and

105

sentiment that statements of this kind are made: “Existence

was.” Existence was, in the sense that there was only

existence, minus association with name and form as they

appear to be now in the form of the world of perception. So

for our elucidation and instruction such statements are

made; but they are not to be taken literally. Any illustration

should not be stretched beyond limits.

The superimposition of the world over Brahman has

taken place. It is said that as the snake is superimposed on

the rope, the world is superimposed on Brahman. This

analogy is only intended to convey the act of

superimposition, but it does not mean that the world is long

like a snake or curved like a rope, and so on. That is called an

extension of illustration beyond the permissible limit.

In a similar manner, we have to understand the intention

of the author when he says that Existence was. The spirit of

the argument is more important than the letter. We should

not linguistically, grammatically construe themeaning of that

sentence and say it is tautological, or it implies duality, and

also Existence could not be a past tense, it should be

universal, and so on. It is correct, but the student cannot

understand it. The student's point of view is more important

than the teacher's point of view in educational policy.

Kartavyaṁ kurute vākyaṁ brute dhāryasya dhāraṇam, ityādi

vāsana viṣṭaṁ pratyā sītsadi tīraṇam (37). As we say “the deed

is done,” etc., so it was said by Uddalaka, “Existence was, and

Existence alone was” because there was no time at that time.

During creation, there was no time. Time is an evolute. Time

is something that proceeded later on as an effect. In Pure

Existence, prior to the manifestation of name and form, there

was no time. The idea that pura, once upon a time, in ancient

days, God alone was, Existence alone was – statements of this

kind imply the timelessness of God, the non-temporality of

Existence.

106

Kālābhāve pure tyuktiḥ kāla vāsanayā yutam, śiṣyaṁ

pratyeva tenātra divitīyaṁ nahi śaṁkyate (38). When we say,

“Originally, God only was,” the term ‘originally’ means

beyond time. For the elucidation of the student who is not

able to understand anything except in terms of visible

objects, creation, name and form, etc., such statements are

made; so please understand the spirit in which it is said and

do not take it literally.

All argument, all questioning is on a dualistic basis. We

cannot have a non-dualistic question or a non-dualistic

answer. Codyaṁ vā parihāro vā kriyatām dvaita bhāṣayā,

advaita bhāṣayā codyaṁ nāsti nāpi taduttaram (39). Chodyam is

the question. Parihara is the answer. We raise questions in

the language of duality because questions are raised in the

form of sentences. Sentences are divided into subject and

predicate. So the very question implies duality in a

grammatical proposition, and the answer also has to be given

in a sentence, in a similar manner. So any kind of question,

whether philosophical, metaphysical or religious, is based on

the concept of duality on account of the fact that expression

is not possible unless consciousness is rooted in duality. So is

the case with the answer. But in pure indivisibility, no

question arises and no answer is necessary.

In the beginning, there was a total equilibrium of forces.

This is what the Nasadiya Sukta of the Veda tells us, which is

quoted here in the fortieth verse. Tadā stimita gambhīraṁ na

tejo na tamastatam, anākhya manabhi vyaktaṁ sat kiñcit

avaśiṣyate (40). Originally, what was there? It was pure

stability, profundity, stillness, absence of any kind of

movement, no light, no darkness. We cannot know what was

there. It is impossible to describe, impossible to conceive.

There was Pure Being as the potential of future creation.

The Nasadiya Sukta of the Vedas says:

nāsa̍dāsī`nnosadāsītta`dānī (N.S. 1). There was neither

existence nor non-existence, because there was nobody to

conceive the factor of existence or non-existence. Nobody

107

was there to say that existence was. Nobody was there to say

that nothing was. Therefore, in the absence of any kind of

awareness of there being either this or that, it could not have

been described in any other manner except as neither

existence nor non-existence. Pure Being, as such, was.

Nanu bhūmyā dikaṁ mā bhūt paramāṇ vanta nāśataḥ,

kathaṁ te viyato’sattvaṁ buddhimā rohatīti cet (41). The

question is, we can imagine the subtlety to which all physical

objects like elements can be reduced. They can be reduced to

such subtlety that they may be not there at all, for all

practical purposes. They get reduced to powder, dust, atoms,

forces, so that the gross elements are not there. So we can

conceive such a state of affairs where the visible physical

objects, such as the five elements, become invisible to the

senses.

Can it be said that space is also of the same nature? How

could we say that space is an inconceivable object? How do

we conceive space? Does space exist, or does it not exist? The

existence of space has been accepted on account of its being

visible to the eyes and our experiencing spatiality, or room,

around us. There is a consciousness of room around us,

accommodation; therefore, we feel that there is space. Or

because of the fact that we can see also some greater

distance apart from us, we feel that there is space. It is

actually bereft of any kind of concreteness or solidity.

Atyantaṁ nirjagad vyoma yathā te buddhi māśritam,

tathaiva sannirākāśaṁ kuto nāśrayate matim (42). The question

was raised as to how Pure Existence could be conceived in

the mind. It is conceived in the same way as space is

conceived. Though space is not an object of perception and

yet it is considered as an object of perception by the senses,

Pure Existence is not an object of perception and yet it can be

conceived in such a manner as to include the perceiving

consciousness also, and yet remain as a temporally

conceivable object – as space is in front of the sense organs.

108

Nirjagad vyoma dṛṣttaṁ cet prakāśa tamasī vinā, kva dṛstaṁ

kinca te pakṣe na pratyakṣaṁ viyat khalu (43). All these

arguments are connected with the nihilists. We are going on

arguing over the same point again and again. They all

pinpoint the question of the nihilist asserting that there is

such a thing called non-existence, and Advaitins want to

refute the position because the question of non-existence

does not arise. So in connection with that, a further argument

is raised.

The empty space which is supposed to be a perceptible

object is really not a perceptible object. It appears to be

perceptible on account of light and darkness. If there is no

association of space with light and darkness, there would

also be no perceptibility of space. So the concept that space

can be conceived or perceived is not true. In a similar

manner, we can say that non-existence is also not a

conceivable or perceivable concept. It is impossible to have

any notion of non-existence, either as a perceptible object or

as a conceivable one. Pure Existence is uncontaminated by

the notions of space, time and object.

Sadvastu śuddhan tvasamābhiḥ niścittair anubhūyate,

tūṣṇīṁ stitau na śūnyatvaṁ śūnya buddheśca varjanāt (44).

When we are calm and quiet in our own selves, withdrawn

inward, without any kind of distraction or disturbance in our

mind, we are fully contented and perfectly happy. When we

are seated in that calm and quiet mood in our own room,

without any disturbance from outside, we feel a sense of

purity of existence in us. If we sit calm and quiet in a

particular posture for a long time – seated in an asana or a

meditation pose for some time, half an hour, one hour

without moving the body, with the spine, neck and head erect

in one column – we will feel that we are slowly beginning to

expand our dimension into largeness greater than, wider

than the body. We will even feel that we are something like a

big mountain sitting there – a heavy weight, stable,

unshakable – and we are pure being, uncontaminated with

109

externality. Even in our own psychological state we can have

some sense of Pure Existence, provided that we can purge

our mind of desires and be able to sit alone for some time,

free from anxieties of any kind, which are the characteristic

of the mind. Tūṣṇīṁ stitau na śūnyatvaṁ śūnya buddheśca

varjanāt: Pure non-existence cannot be conceived. Again we

say the same thing.

Sad buddhi rapi cennāsti māstvasya sva prabhat vataḥ,

nirmanaskatva sākṣi tvāt san mātraṁ sugamaṁ nṛṇām (45).

Consciousness of Existence should not be construed in the

sense of some intelligence or intellect conceiving the object

outside. It is not buddhi or our understanding that is

asserting the existence of Existence, because Existence is

Self-conscious: sva prabhat. All objects in the world require

the intelligence of the perceiver or the understander in order

that they may be known; but in the case of Existence, the

perceiver is not necessary.

As a matter of fact, no perceiver can perceive Pure

Existence. Who can perceive Existence? Not any individual,

inasmuch as Existence includes all individuals. Then who is

conscious of Existence? Existence itself is conscious of

Existence. It is Pure Existence being conscious of itself. Sat

becomes chit: sva prabhat. This is an experience that we too

have, when we are free from anxieties, distractions of rajas,

and we remain as pure witnesses in our deepest

consciousness.

Mano jṛmbhaṇa rāhite yathā sākṣī nirākulaḥ, māyā

jṛumbhaṇataḥ pūrvaṁ sattathaiva nirākulam (46). The pure

witness consciousness in us is seen to be stable, calm and

contented within itself, provided that the mind does not

expand itself into the region of its desires and anxieties. Free

from desires and all the psychological impurities of the mind,

the pure witnessing Consciousness will be in the state of

contentment and never get disturbed by anything else.

110

In a similar manner, Pure Existence was uncontaminated

by names and forms before the origin of maya shakti. Maya is

the power of Ishvara. It is the cosmic sattva of prakriti which

becomes the body, as it were, of Ishvara consciousness; and

before the manifestation of maya took place – that is to say,

before Brahman consciousness got reflected through the

pure sattva of prakriti – there was Existence, pure and

simple, in the same way that before consciousness in the

individual got reflected or identified with the avidya, it was

very happy. We also can have a little inkling of Pure

Existence if we exert a little bit to free our mind from

thoughts of every kind and be true to our own selves. “To

thine own self be true.”

Nistatvā kārya gamyāsya śaktir māyā’gni śaktivat, na hi

śaktiḥ kvacit kaiścit budhyate kāryataḥ purā (47). There is a

power of God called maya, a shakti. It is difficult to

understand what this shakti is. When we say that God has a

power, a maya shakti, we are likely to imagine that shakti is

different from the owner of that shakti. “God wields maya.”

When we make statements of this kind, we are likely to

wrongly assume that God is wielding something externally,

like an instrument, like a fountain pen, like a weapon, etc.

None of the illustrations hold good. Shakti, or the power of

something, is inseparable from the thing in which shakti

inheres. Na hi śaktiḥ kvacit kaiścit budhyate kāryataḥ purā.

We cannot know the power of a thing unless the power is

manifest. For instance, there is a strong person. We cannot

know the extent of the power of that person unless that

power is manifest in action. So is the case with the maya

shakti, or the great universal power of God, whose operations

cannot be known unless they are actually revealed. By

themselves, they are identical. Siva and Shakti are supposed

to be androgynous, as it were – an inseparable, bipolar

existence which is very much adumbrated in Tantra

philosophy especially.

111

Na sadvastu sataḥ śaktiḥ na hi vahneḥ svaśaktitā,

sadvilakṣaṇa tāyāṁ tu śaketeḥ kiṁ tattva mucyatām (48). The

power of Existence is not Existence itself, just as the power of

a person is not the person itself; nor is it that the power is

standing outside the person.We cannot keep the person here

and the power of the person somewhere else; nor can we say

that the power is the same as the person.When a strong man

comes, we do not say that the strength is coming.We say the

person is coming. The strength can come only when the

person is there. The power, or strength, or shakti, is such an

inscrutable association that it cannot be considered either as

different from the owner of it or as identical with it. It is not

the same as Existence: na sadvastu sataḥ śaktiḥ na hi vahneḥ

svaśaktitā.

The heat of fire is not the same as fire, yet the heat of fire

cannot be separated from fire. The heat of fire is not fire, and

yet it is not separable from fire. Such is the case with the

maya of Ishvara. It is not identical with Ishvara, and yet it is

not separable from Ishvara. Sadvilakṣaṇa tāyāṁ tu śaketeḥ kiṁ

tattva mucyatām. In this inscrutable position in which we find

ourselves in the definition of maya, or shakti, what are we

supposed to do?

Śūnyatva miti cet śūnyaṁ māyā kārya mitīritam, na śūnyaṁ

nāpi sadyādṛk tādṛktva miheṣyatām (49). We may say that it is

a non-existence. Power independent of the owner of the

power is like shunya – non-existence. It cannot be said to be

non-existent because it manifests itself. It acts. Its

manifestations can be seen, as the power of a bulldozer can

be seen when it moves. It can crush, it can break, and so on.

When it is not moving, its shakti, or power, is absorbed into

itself.

Therefore, the power of a thing is not non-existent. It is

not shunya. It is a kind of manifestation which can be best

described as inherence. The colour of a flower is inherent in

the flower. It is a characteristic of the flower which cannot be

separated from the flower, and yet the flower is different

112

from the colour. The flower is a substance in which the

quality of colour inheres; and inherence being such a thing

that it cannot be isolated from the thing in which it inheres,

the inscrutability of inherence arises. Maya is, therefore,

inscrutable power; it is neither existence nor non-existence,

nor a combination of existence and non-existence: sad-asadvilakshana.

It is quite different from the concepts of both

existence and non-existence.

Nāsadā sīnno sadāsīt tadānīṁ kiṁ tvabhūttamaḥ, sadyogā

ttatmasaḥ sattvaṁ na svatasta nniṣe dhanāt (50). Again he is

quoting that ancient text of the Rig Veda, the Nasadiya Sukta.

“Neither existence was, nor non-existence was,” says the

great mantra of the Veda – which is to say, indescribable was

that state where the power of God remained unmanifest.

Creation did not yet take place.

Nāsadā sīnno sadāsīt tadānīṁ kiṁ tvabhūttamaḥ: Darkness

prevails. It is a kind of darkness which could not be perceived

by anybody. In absence of any kind of distinguishability, we

call it darkness. Sadyogā ttatmasaḥ sattvaṁ na svatasta nniṣe

dhanāt: Even darkness must be existing. It is a condition

which is neither existence nor non-existence. As light was not

there to illuminate anything, we could not have defined that

condition either as existence or as non-existence, neither

light nor darkness. This is the Nasadiya Sukta of the Veda.

The power of a thing, therefore, does not create duality.

The strength of a person does not make a distinction

between a person and the strength. The maya shakti of God

does not create duality between Ishvara and maya. So many

critics hold that maya is a dual principle, that the moment we

introduce a system called maya, we are unnecessarily

interfering with God's indivisibility, and it looks as if there is

something outside God. There is no such thing. We are not

introducing divisibility or duality in God when we say that

there is such a thing called maya shakti in Ishvara. It is like

saying that there is power in that man. When we say that

there is power in that man, we are not introducing duality in

113

the concept of the individuality of that person. It is a

description of the power or the potentiality of that person,

indistinguishable from the person himself.

Ata eva dvitīyataṁ śūnya vanna hi gaṇyate, na loke caitra

tat shaktyor jīvitaṁ likhyate pṛthak (51).When we want to pay

salary to a person, we do not pay salary to the person and

separately to his ability: so much for your ability, and so

much for you. They are identical. The ability of a person

manifest in work is what draws salary. Therefore, there is

obvious identity of the ability of a person (or power of a

person) with the person himself as is seen in drawing salary,

etc.

Śaktyā dhikye jīvitaṁ cet vardhate tatra vṛddhi kṛt, na śaktiḥ

kiṅ tu tat kāryaṁ yuddha kṛṣyā dikaṁ tathā (52). We may say

salary increases by the increase in ability.When the power of

a person to execute work increases, salary also increases. It

does not mean that the power has increased. He has

manifested the power in a larger degree when certain

conditions arise. That is the reason why he draws more

salary. His power is still there. He has not increased the

power. One cannot increase the power of one's own self. It is

a quantum that is equilibrated; but it is manifest fully or

partially, as the casemay be. So when wemanifest it a little, it

is capable of drawing very little income. When we fully

manifest our power, we draw more salary.

Thus, power is not capable of division within itself, nor is

it capable of division between itself and the person owning it.

It is identical, notwithstanding the fact that we feel that

power is a quality inherent in the substance in which it

inheres. In the same way, we have to understand the relation

between Ishvara and maya. Maya is not something that

exists. Maya is a word that we use to explain the

inscrutability of themanner in which God creates the world.

Discourse 10

CHAPTER 2: PANCHA MAHABHUTA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE ELEMENTS, VERSES 53-66

Sarvathā śakti mātrasya na pṛthak gaṇanā kvacit, śakti

kāryaṁ tu naivāṣti dvitīyaṁ śaṅkyate kaṭham (53). The

discussion was centring around the question of the relation

of a substance to its quality – such as fire and its heat, a

person and his ability, strength, etc. This verse tells us that

the quality cannot be considered as independent of the

substance, in the same way as the strength of a person

cannot be considered as separate from the person, because

strength or quality by itself does not effect any special

activity, consequence, etc. Minus substance, the quality

cannot produce any special effect.

If we separate the person from his ability, and the ability

is made to stand independently by itself, it will not do

anything. That ability is a vacuum; it is an abstraction. So

shakti, power, ability, minus the substance in which it

inheres, is a non-entity. It is also not a second principle. All

these arguments through which we have passed in the

previous discourse hinge upon the point that the quality of a

substance is neither separable from the substance nor can it

be identified with the substance. The strength of a person is

not the same as the person. They are not identical, and yet

they are not separable. Dvitīyaṁ śaṅkyate kaṭham: the duality

of the two – substance, and quality or property – cannot be

doubted.

Now, a question arises in the fifty-fourth verse: Does

maya work in the whole of Brahman, or only in a part of

Brahman? Brahman is universally present. Is maya also

universally present? Or is there some part of Brahman where

maya does not work?

Na kṛstna brahmā vṛttiḥ sā śaktiḥ kiṁ tveka deśa bhāk,

ghaṭa śaktir yathā bhūmau snigdha mṛdyeva vartate (54). The

author's view is that maya does not work in the whole of

Brahman; it is only in certain aspects of Brahman that we can

115

see maya operating. Eka deśa bhāk means ‘located in some

part, but not operable everywhere’, just as the capacity of the

earth to modify itself into a pot is not to be seen generally in

every part of the earth. The potential for the earth to get

transformed into a form called a pot is localised in the sense

that it requires the assistance of a maker of the pot. Certain

other factors are also necessary. The earth will not

automatically rise into the shape of a pot. That is to say, the

pot-ness of the earth is not a universal existence; otherwise,

everywhere, wherever there is earth, pots will come up.

There are certain locations, conditioning factors, where alone

the pot can come up out of the earth. And generally, we

cannot see the pot form coming up everywhere in physical

existence.

In a similar manner, under conditions, maya operates. It

does not mean that it is unconditionally operating

everywhere in the whole of Brahman, the entirety of the

Absolute. In the Purusha Sukta of the Veda it is mentioned

that one fourth of the Absolute, as it were, is manifest as this

creation. Pādo’sya sarvā bhūtāni tripādasti svayaṁ prabhaḥ,

ityeka deśa vṛttitvaṁ māyayā vadati śrutiḥ (55). Metaphorically

– not to be construed in a precise mathematical fashion – the

Veda mantra, the Purusha Sukta, says that a fraction, one

fourth as it were, of the supreme Absolute is all this creation,

and three-fourths is transcendent, untouched by maya, the

creative process. Pādo’sya sarvā bhūtāni tripādasti svayaṁ

prabhaḥ: Transcendent radiance is the uncontaminated

Brahman, the Absolute, ranging above all creative process;

and only one fourth is this whole cosmos.

If the whole of Brahman has become the world, assuming

that such a thing has taken place – supposing that the maya

shakti has pervaded the whole of Brahman, and the entirety

of Brahman has become this world – then there would be no

Brahman left beyond the world. If that is the case, there

would be no such thing as the liberation of the spirit in

Brahman, because there is no Brahman at all. It has all

116

become the world. As milk that has become curd cannot

become milk once again, the Brahman that has become the

world would cease to be Brahman on account of its

modification into the names and forms entirely, if we

suppose that the whole thing has become the universe.

That doctrine which holds that the entirety of God has

become the world is called pantheism. It is a defective

doctrine which merges God with the creative process and

does not accept another God, transcendent. There is no

transcendence of God. There is only immanence of God for

the pantheistic doctrine, which cannot be accepted on

account of the fact that transcendence is always there and

but for which, individuals involved in the creative process

will not have an aspiration for God. Our aspiration for the

Transcendent Reality is actually an indication of there being

such a thing as a Transcendent Being. If such a thing does not

exist – if it is all immanence only, and all the parts of God are

merged in the parts of creation, including our own selves –

we will be like locked-up persons inside a prison, and there

would be no consciousness of even freedom from the prison.

Pādo’sya sarvā bhūtāni tripādasti svayaṁ prabhaḥ, ityeka

deśa vṛttitvaṁ māyayā vadati śrutiḥ. Sruti is a Veda; it means

the Purusha Sukta, which affirms that only a fraction of

Brahman should be regarded as involved in creation, not the

entirety. In the Bhagavad Gita also, this is confirmed.

Viṣṭa bhyāham idaṁ kṛtsnam ekāṁśena sthito jagat, iti

kṛṣṇo’rju nāyāha jagata stveka deśatām (56). "I have

enveloped this entire creation," says the great Lord of the

Bhagavad Gita, "and I am sustaining this entire cosmos by a

fraction of Myself. I do not involve Myself entirely in the act

of creation." Even when we work, when we are very occupied

with certain works – office work, industrial work,

manufacturing work, etc. – we always remain something at

the back of this work. We don't completely merge ourselves

and then cease to be what we are, even if the work is very

heavy. There is a transcendent element in us, to which we

117

revert after the work is over. If we have merged ourselves in

the work, there would be no personality in us; we would be

only work. The entire personality would be nothing but the

manifestation of work. There is a transcendent background

to which we revert when the work is finished, though for the

time being it appears that we are immersed in the work. We

never get totally immersed in anything; we have a

transcendent element in us always. So is the case with God.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavan Sri Krishna says that by a

fraction of his power he is able to sustain the whole cosmos.

Then Lord Krishna describes to Arjuna the fractional

character of creation, even though it appears so large, so big.

Sa bhūmiṁ viśvato vṛtvā atyatiṣṭha daśāṅgulam, vikārāvarti

cātrāsti śruti sūtra kṛtor vacaḥ (57). Again the Purusha Sukta is

quoted here. Having enveloped the whole of creation, the

entire earth, the whole world, the Supreme Being transcends

creation by ten fingers' length. Even if it is by one inch, it is

nevertheless transcendence. It is only to indicate that God is

above the world and always maintains His Self-identity in

spite of His being immanent in all parts of creation.

The word dasangulam, or ‘ten fingers’, is interpreted in

many ways. The word ‘ten’ is a figure which exceeds

numerology. There are no ten numbers; numbers are only

nine. Ten is nothing but one and zero, so the number ten is

indicative of a numberless state of being; and a numberless

state of being is infinite being. So to say that God transcends

the world by ten fingers is to say that He transcends the

world infinitely and there is no end for His transcendence. Sa

bhūmiṁ viśvato vṛtvā atyatiṣṭha daśāṅgulam.

The Brahma Sutra also corroborates this view when it

says that there is something above all modifications. All these

quotations from the Veda, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma

Sutra are to suggest that the whole of Brahman is not

involved in creation. Maya does not pervade the entirety of

the Absolute. It is localised only in certain conditioned parts

118

of Brahman. The transcendence of Brahman is not affected.

God remains transcendent in spite of the vastness of creation

and the inscrutability of His power, maya.

Niraṁśe’pyaṁśa māropya kṛtsneṁśe veti pṛcchataḥ, tad

bhāṣayo ttaraṁ brūte śrutiḥ śrotṛ hitaiṣiṇī (58). You may ask

the question, "Can you divide God into two parts – threefourths

somewhere, one-fourth somewhere else –

transcendence and immanence being two different aspects of

God?" This difference is not a mathematical difference. It

does not follow that you can actually divide God into two

parts as the transcendent and the immanent. It is only an

answer befitting the question itself.

The question itself implies the possibility of maya shakti

being somewhere or not being somewhere. We have already

assumed in our question the location of maya, or the

fractional area that is supposed to be occupied by maya.

When we have already assumed this kind of fractional

consideration of the location of maya, we have also to give

the answer accordingly. So we say it is only fractional, and

not the whole of Brahman. Here, the question of the whole

and the part should not be taken in the sense of

measurement in geometry and arithmetic. Geometry and

arithmetic do not apply to God because measurements of

every kind and computations of every type refer to things

which are in space and in time. Timeless and spaceless

Existence cannot be geometrically measured or computed

arithmetically. So it does not follow that there is a physically

discernable part of God which is transcendent and some

physically discernable part which is involved in creation. Our

questions and answers are in terms of the manner in which

we express ourselves. It is ametaphorical way of speaking.

It is not factually true that there is division of God. It is

indivisible Existence – in the same sense as some part of our

mind is affected with a certain anxiety, etc., and yet we

remain unaffected in certain other aspects of the mind,

thereby indicating that we cannot split the mind into two

119

parts.We have an integrated personality.We feel that we are

one single whole, and yet many a time we feel that we are

little finite fractions in the world of society and engagement.

This is a logical distinction that we introduce into our mental

operation, and it is not a mathematical distinction.

Mathematical parts are different from logical parts. They are

conceptually construed for the purpose of the understanding

of the spirit involved in the situation. It is not to be

understood literally. The fraction that is supposed to be of

God manifested in the form of creation is a logical part, and

not amathematical part.

Sattattva māśritā śaktiḥ kalpayet sati vikriyāḥ, varṇā bhitti

gatā bhittau citraṁ nānā vidhaṁ tathā (59). This shakti, the

power of God, associating itself with Pure Existence, creates

the variety as names and forms of this world in the same way

as colours painted on a wall may present portrayals of

pictures which are different from one another. Varieties of

colours may look like varieties of forms on a canvas or a wall

when a painting is done in that manner. In a similar way, this

shakti, which acts like the colouring medium in terms of

names and forms, works this great variety of creation on a

base – a canvas or a wall or a background – which is Pure

Existence.

Maya also has to exist; otherwise, there would be no

presentation of variety in the form of this creation. On the

basis of Universal Existence which is Brahman, varieties in

the form of this colourful creation are created by the shakti

which is the power of God, which is neither to be identified

with God nor considered as separable from God.

Ādyo vikāra ākāśaḥ so’va kāśa svarū pavān, ākāśo’stīti

sattattvam ākāśe’pyanu gacchati (60).What does maya create?

In order that creation may be possible and conceivable, there

should first of all be space and time. If there is no space and

time, no creation is possible. Before conceiving the order of

creation in terms of names and forms or in terms of the

120

variety that is to be manifest, a background of the possibility

of themanifestation of name and form has to be thought first.

The world cannot exist unless there is space and time,

because what we call ‘world’, what we call ‘creation’, is

nothing but extension and duration. Extension is space;

duration is time. If there is no extension and there is no

duration, there would be no existence of anything. All objects

in the world, including our own bodies, are combinations of

spatiality and temporality together with externality,

characteristic of space itself. Hence, the origin of creation is

nothing but themanifestation of space first.

Many philosophies and religions hold the view that God

created the world out of nothing. It is another way of saying

that there was a necessity to project an emptiness in the

beginning of things. We may call it space if we like, because

space is something like emptiness. God could not manifest

Himself as the world either by modifying Himself into

creation or through the instrumentality of something other

than Himself. There was the difficulty.

What is the material out of which God creates the world?

There is no material external to Him. Nor could it be His own

body. Will He rip His body and then manufacture the world

out of it? We cannot conceive either of these possibilities.

Therefore, religions which would prefer to defend the

integrality of God even when accepting the possibility of

creation hold that God created everything out of nothing.

Again we come to the point of nihilism. A kind of vacuum

was there in the beginning. In the same sense as in dream, we

first of all create a vacuous spatial and temporal condition in

which we manifest names and forms by the projection of

thought. God created the world in the same way, perhaps, as

we createmental dreams.

The first creation, therefore, is spatiality. What is the

quality of space? Accommodation, room, extension, the

possibility of anything to exist – that is called avakasha. The

121

quality of akasha is avakasha. Accommodation, room is the

quality of space. This is the first evolute: akasha, space.

Ākāśo’stīti sattattvam ākāśe’pyanu gacchati.We say, "Space

exists." When we make a statement like "Space exists," we

understand that the spatiality of creation has also to be

rooted in Existence, which is Brahman. Even the vacuous

concept of space has to be rooted in Brahman, Pure

Existence. If Brahman, which is Existence, is not to be

associated with space, there would be no existence of space –

which is another way of saying that it is non-existence of

space. So even to imagine a vacuum, an emptiness or a sheer

extension like space, we have to associate that concept of

spatiality with Existence. That is why we say, "Space exists."

The quality of space is, therefore, dual. It exists, and it is

extended. Existence and extension are the two qualities of

space.

Eka svabhāvaṁ sattattvam ākāśo dvi svathāvakaḥ, nāva

kāśaḥ sati vyomni sa caiṣo’pi dadvayaṁ sthitam (61). Existence

has only one quality – namely, Existence itself. Existence

cannot have a quality other than existence. Therefore,

unitary-ness is the nature of Existence. It has only one

character: Eka svabhāvaṁ sattattvam. But space has two

qualities: existence and spatiality.

Nāva kāśaḥ sati: Spatiality is not to be found in Brahman.

Brahman is not extended like space, and is not measurable

like the distance that we can see in space. Immeasurable is

Brahman, whereas spatial extension is measurable by a foot

ruler or a chain. That is the difference between space and

Brahman Existence. Brahman is not measurable, while space

is measurable. Vyomni sa caiṣo’pi dadvayaṁ sthitam: Oneness

is the quality of Brahman; duality is the character of space –

that is, existence and spatiality.

Yadvā prati dhvanir vyomno guṇo nāsau satī kṣyate, vyomni

dvau sad dhvanī tena sadekaṁ dviguṇaṁ viyat (62).

Reverberation of sound is also the quality of space. It can

122

echo sounds. But no such echo is possible in Brahman, the

Absolute, because extension in the form of spatiality is

unthinkable in Brahman. Echo, sound production,

reverberation, are not to be found in Existence, pure and

simple, while it can be seen in space. Existence and sound are

both to be seen in space; but in Existence, no sound is there.

Existence is one. Space is pure.

Yā śaktiḥ kalpayed vyoma sā sadvyomnora bhinnataṁ,

āpādya dharma dhamitvaṁ vyatya yenāva kalpayet (63). Maya

has a peculiar quality of distorting facts. It makes us feel that

Truth is untruth, and untruth is Truth. A total distortion of

fact is necessary in order that we may be forced to believe in

the reality of the world. It has to convert us into fools first

and brainwash us totally before we are forced to accept that

there is such a thing called the world outside. What does it

do?

That shakti, that power, that maya which has become

responsible for the creation of space as extension, somehow

or other creates in our mind an illusion that spatiality and

Existence are inseparable. Do we in our perceptual process

ever recognise that Existence is different from spatiality? We

see spatiality extendedness, of course, in front of us. But do

we believe that this cannot be the nature of Existence? We

confirm every day in our lives that Existence is the same as

space; space is the same as Existence. And what do we say?

Space exists.

Here we commit a great mistake even linguistically

speaking, because when we say, "Space exists," we consider

‘space’ as a noun, the subject of the sentence, and ‘existence’

as the predicate. We give a secondary importance to

Existence, and a primary importance to space. Space exists,

building exists, table exists, this exists, that exists. The form

which is actually a subsequent effect of Existence is given

primary importance, and the original cause which is

responsible for the manifestation of this form is given a

secondary importance.

123

This is what maya does. It prevents us from recognising

the fact that Existence is prior, and space is posterior. But

what do we say? We always feel that Existence is posterior

and the objects (space, etc.) are prior. So we give the

importance of a substantive, or a noun, in a sentence to

space, etc., and give the secondary importance of predicate to

the Existence. Actually, Existence is the noun; space is the

quality of Existence. But we make a confusion and reverse

the order of cause and effect when we say, "Space exists."

Space is not the noun; Existence is the noun. And Existence is

not a quality of space; it is space that is the quality of

Existence. So by reversing the order or precedence of cause

and effect, maya creates the confusion in our heads.

Yenāva kalpayet: Topsy-turvy perception is the nature of

human perception. That which is universal appears as an

external thing; that which is a product, like individuality,

looks like the subjective originality. We are late products;

man came very late in evolution, and yet he thinks that he is

primary, and he starts judging everything, even that which

existed prior to him. Dharma and dharmi are substance and

quality. The mix-up of issues in terms of substance and

quality is taking place due to the operation of maya.

Substance is Existence; quality is space. But in our

statements, we always consider wrongly that space is

substance and Existence is a quality. That is why we say that

space exists. The sentence itself is erroneous in its

construction. This is how maya works in us.

Sato vyomatva māpannaṁ vyomnaḥ sattāṁ tu laukikāḥ,

tārkikā ścāva gacchanti māyāyā ucitaṁ hi tat (64). What has

happened? After all, poor Existence has become space. It has

been reduced to the vacuous condition of extension – while

Brahman Consciousness, which is indivisible, cannot become

vacuous, and it cannot become an extension.

Logicians like the Nyaya and the Vaishesika philosophers,

thinking like ordinary children, caught up in this maya of the

confusion of issues between substance and quality, assert

124

that space is one of the ultimate categories of Existence.

According to Nyaya philosophy or Vaishesika philosophy,

there are nine realities: earth, water, fire, air, ether – the five

elements – then time (they consider time also as an

independent existence), extension (that is seven), mind

(which is eight), soul (which is nine). These are the nine

independent substances accepted to be ultimately

independently real by themselves, according to the Nyaya

and the Vaishesika philosophies.

Space also is considered as an Ultimate Reality. That is,

they have mixed up between two issues. The Naiyayikas and

the Vaishesikas, the logicians, wrongly think, like prattling

children, that Existence is the quality of space, while actually

Existence is not a quality of space. We should not say, "Space

exists." The sentence itself is wrongly construed. It is a work

of maya.

Yadyathā vartate tasya tathātvaṁ bhāti mānataḥ,

anyathātvaṁ bhrameṇeti nyāyo’yaṁ sārva laukikaḥ (65). Right

perception alone can give us a vision of Reality as it is in

itself. But maya will not permit us to have right perception.

The processes of sensory perception, inference, and all

logicality based on the duality of concepts – all these are

based on maya because they are based on certain

assumptions which are unfounded, basically.

The externality of the world is taken for granted, while

the world is not external, it is Universal Existence; and the

perceiving consciousness is also considered as totally

independent of the object that is perceived. This is the defect

of modern science. This also is the work of maya. Neither

does the consciousness perceive independently of the object

of perception, because by assuming such a thing, we will not

perceive anything outside at all, nor is it true that the world

is external. It is total inclusiveness. So, how does maya work?

Right perception is impossible under ordinary conditions

of sensory operation and intellectual activity. Only direct

125

intuition independent of the senses and mind will give us an

idea as to what truly exists. The senses, intellect, and

argumentation based on intellectually construed logic can

never give us an idea as to what truly exists. We are always

blindfolded and move from place to place, walking in

darkness, groping for a little grasp of Truth, and finding it

nowhere in the world. Blind men are led by blind men in

search of light. This is the analogy before us. All our search

for Truth in this world is like a blind man groping in

darkness for a little ray of light, which he will never find. This

is how the maya works. Anyathātvaṁ bhrameṇeti nyāyo’yaṁ

sārva laukikaḥ.

Thus, evaṁ śruti vicārāt prāg yathā yadvastu bhāsate,

vicāreṇa viparyeti tatas taccintyatāṁ viyat (66). We have to

thoroughly investigate into this situation, like a medical

diagnosis.What has actually happened to us? How could it be

that we make such a blunder in commonsense perception

where we say that this body exists, I exist, etc.? Existence is

considered as a predicate even in the case of our own

individuality. Therefore, both in the case of the objective

world of the five elements and in the case of the subjective

world of the five sheaths, a thoroughgoing analysis is to be

conducted in order to separate Pure Existence from the

imagined externality, temporality and objectivity – which

subject is taken up in the following verses.

Discourse 11

CHAPTER 2: PANCHA MAHABHUTA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE ELEMENTS, VERSES 60-77

The first manifestation of maya is space. Ādyo vikāra

ākāśaḥ so’va kāśa svarū pavān, ākāśo’stīti sattattvam

ākāśe’pyanu gacchati (60). He says, “Space exists, ether exists,”

by wrongly attributing to Existence the character of a quality

of ether. Instead of saying, “Ether exists,” it would be better

to say, “Existence ethers.” That is a better way: ”Existence

ethers,” not “Ether exists.”

Eka svabhāvaṁ sattattvam ākāśo dvi svathāvakaḥ, nāva

kāśaḥ sati vyomni sa caiṣo’pi dadvayaṁ sthitam (61). There is

only one quality in Existence, and that is existence only.

There is nothing in Existence except existence. But space has

the quality of existence plus spatiality. There is dimension.

There is no dimension in Pure Existence. Dimension is a

quality of space. So while Existence has only one character,

space has two characters – that is to say, existence and

dimension. Nāva kāśaḥ sati: There is no spatiality in

Existence. Vyomni sa caiṣo’pi dadvayaṁ sthitam: Both these

characters of existence and spatiality can be seen in sky,

ether.

Yadvā prati dhvanir vyomno guṇo nāsau satī kṣyate, vyomni

dvau sad dhvanī tena sadekaṁ dviguṇaṁ viyat (62). Apart from

dimension, which is a quality of space, there is also the

quality of reverberation of sound, which we can hear in

space; but reverberation of sound is not a quality of Pure

Existence. So, three qualities can be seen in space – existence,

dimension and reverberation of sound – whereas in Pure

Existence, there is no dimension and no sound. Sadekaṁ:

Existence is one only. Dviguṇaṁ viyat: Double-characterised

is space.

Yā śaktiḥ kalpayed vyoma sā sadvyomnora bhinnataṁ,

āpādya dharma dhamitvaṁ vyatya yenāva kalpayet (63). We

have studied this verse previously. Maya as a shakti of

127

Ishvara, having created this dimension called space and

having identified space with Existence, and making us feel

that space exists, also creates an additional erroneous notion

in our mind – namely, the attribution of quality to Existence

and the substantive nature to space. We consider space as a

substantive or a noun and Existence as a predicate or a

quality. This happens when we utter a sentence like, “Space

exists.” We should not say, “Space exists.” It is an error,

philosophically speaking, in the very construing of the

sentence, because Existence is not a predicate of space. It is

prior to space. Maya distorts facts.

Sato vyomatva māpannaṁ vyomnaḥ sattāṁ tu laukikāḥ,

tārkikā ścāva gacchanti māyāyā ucitaṁ hi tat (64). Great is the

wonder in which maya distorts facts. Now logicians like the

Naiyayikas and Vaishesikas consider space as an eternal

reality, considering that it is an existence by itself. They

regard space as Existence independently by itself by

committing the same mistake that is made in a common

sense by people when Existence is predicated to space,

whereas, space is the subsequent evolute of Existence. We

cannot give precedence to the effect and posterior

importance to the cause. This is what happens by the

working of maya.

Yadyathā vartate tasya tathātvaṁ bhāti mānataḥ,

anyathātvaṁ bhrameṇeti nyāyo’yaṁ sārva laukikaḥ (65). Right

perception is possible only by intuition, independent of

sensory and mental cognition. Whatever is there should be

known to be there as it is really there, not as it is not there.

This is called right knowledge. Yadyathā vartate tasya

tathātvaṁ bhāti: We must know a thing in the state in which

it is. It is necessary to know anything from the point of view

of its own existence and not from the point of view of our

mental activity. This is not possible in this world of sense

perception, inasmuch as we have no other faculty of

knowledge except the senses. We cannot enter into the

substance of things independently by themselves, and

128

knowledge of Reality is not possible as long as we think in

terms of mind and sense organs. We are befooled by the

distortion contrived by the sense organs.

Anyathātvaṁ bhrameṇeti nyāyo’yaṁ sārva laukikaḥ: An

illusion is presented before our eyes by the sense organs

which tell us firstly that things are outside us, and secondly

that Existence is a quality of name and form. We have to

bestow deep thought on the nature of this involvement of

Existence in name and form and carefully distinguish

Existence also from the involvement in all the five elements:

ether air, fire, water, earth.

Evaṁ śruti vicārāt prāg yathā yadvastu bhāsate, vicāreṇa

viparyeti tatas taccintyatāṁ viyat (66). Please bestow deep

thought on the nature of space with the help of scriptural

statements like the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras, and

by exercising your own reason. The nature of this analysis by

which we distinguish between Existence and its involvement

in the five elements is the subject of the following verses.

Bhinne viyatatī śabda bhedād buddheśca bhedataḥ, vāyvādi

ṣvanuvṛttaṁ sat na tu vyometi bhedadhīḥ (67). Existence and

space are two different things. They are different from each

other on account of the reasons already mentioned. Firstly,

there is the special definition of space as extension, or

spatiality, and the cause of the reverberation of sound, which

quality we cannot see in Existence. For this reason at least,

wemust distinguish between space and Pure Existence.

Buddheśca bhedataḥ: Our intelligence also says that

extension cannot be the quality of Pure Being because

divisibility is inseparable from extension. You can divide

space into little parts.Wemeasure our land, for instance, into

so many hectares, so many acres, and we say so many

kilometres long, etc. This kind of measurement is a division

that we introduce into space, but we cannot do this kind of

dividing of parts in Pure Existence. Anything that is divisible

is perishable because it is cut into parts and, therefore, it

129

ceases to be an indivisible whole by itself. Anything that is

not indivisible is destructible; hence space, which is

measurable in terms of distance, is to be considered as a

finite object and it is not infinite indivisible Existence.

The same is the case with the other elements, such as air.

Vāyvādi ṣvanuvṛttaṁ sat na tu vyometi bhedadhīḥ: For

instance, space is not in air, but Existence is in air. We will

not find the quality of extension and the production of sound

by reverberation, in the element of space which occupies a

lesser space than space proper. But Existence is there in air

also; air exists, as space exists. So Existence is an invariable

concomitant of all the elements like space and air, but space

and air by themselves have independent qualities. On

account of having independent qualities, they differ from

each other. But Existence, being invariably present in both,

does not differ between itself. It is uniformly present in all

the elements like space and air. Vāyvādi ṣvanuvṛttaṁ sat na tu

vyometi bhedadhīḥ: The extension that we see in space

cannot be seen in air. But the Existence that is in space can be

seen in air. By this method of anvaya and vyatireka we can

conclude that Existence is permanently present behind all

things, whereas the special characteristics of elements are

independent only for themselves.

Sadvas tvadhika vṛttitvāt dharma vyomnastu dharmatā,

dhiyā sataḥ pṛthakkāre brūhi vyoma kimātakaṁ (68). Inasmuch

as Existence is uniformly present behind everything, it

should be considered as something prior to the

manifestation of all other things. It is the dharmi or the

substance, and not the quality or dharma.

Vyomnastu dharmatā: Space and other elements should

be considered as dharma, or a quality of Existence – that is,

particular forms or manifestations of Existence. They are

posterior, subsequent to Existence. Therefore, we should

consider space and other elements as attributes. The Primary

Existence is prior to themanifestation of space and name and

form.

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)