COMMENTARY ON THE PANCHADASI by SWAMI KRISHNANANDA -4

COMMENTARY ON THE

PANCHADASI

by

SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

Discourse 17

CHAPTER 3: PANCHA KOSHA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE FIVE SHEATHS,

VERSES 37-43

Satyaṁ jñānam-anantaṁ yad-brahma tad-vastu tasya tat,

īśvaratvaṁ ca jīvatvam-upādhi-dvaya-kalpitam (37). The

Supreme Brahman, the Absolute – this Universal Existence

which has neither anything inside nor outside – such a Being

is regarded by us as the creator of the world on the one hand,

and as having become all the individuals in creation on the

other hand.

When this Supreme Brahman is visualised as the cause of

this universe, Brahman is known as Ishvara, the creative

principle.When the same Brahman is viewed as the principle

immanent in every living being in the world, in all

individualities, it goes by the name of jiva. Ishvara is the

cosmic manifestation of Brahman; jiva is the individualised

manifestation of Brahman. Only our viewpoints differ; and on

account of the differences in viewpoint caused by the

extension and all-pervading nature of Ishvara and the limited

location of the jiva, or the individual, we make such a

distinction.

Really, there is no such distinction in Brahman. The

difference between Ishvara and jiva – God and the individual

– is, according to one analogy, something like the distinction

we draw between cosmic space and the space that is

imagined to be contained within a vessel. The vessel ether is

very limited within the walls of the vessel; the cosmic ether is

not so limited. The consciousness of Brahman is limited

within the five sheaths – about which we have made some

study earlier.When this Universal consciousness of Brahman

appears to be contained within the five sheaths, as it were, it

goes by the name of individual consciousness, jiva

consciousness, isolated consciousness.

When the very same Brahman, the Absolute

consciousness, is cast in the mould of the creative will that is

191

at the back of all manifestation, we call that consciousness

God, the creator, Ishvara. Therefore, the distinction between

Ishvara and jiva is created by a kind of upadhi, or adjunct –

cosmic adjunct and individual adjunct, differing one from the

other.

When we view Brahman as pervading the whole cosmos

and determining its activities – creating it, preserving it, and

destroying it – we call it Ishvara. When the same Brahman is

reflected through the physical individuality of the five

sheaths, we call the same Brahman as jiva.This is, therefore, a

tentative distinction that is drawn between Ishvara and jiva,

by the situation of the jiva himself.

Īśvaratvaṁ ca jīvatvam-upādhi-dvaya-kalpitam: Maya and

avidya are the two upadhis, on account of whose operation,

distinction is drawn between Ishvara and jiva. The cosmic

determining factor is maya; the individual determining factor

is avidya.

We have to remember everything that we have studied

earlier because the subject here is so intricate and

concentrated that what has been told earlier will not be

repeated afterwards. So people who come casually to listen

to these lectures and go away the day after tomorrow will

not know at all what it is that is being said. And there is a

disadvantage in easily listening to these things piecemeal –

because half knowledge is a dangerous thing, as they say.

Either we study it thoroughly, or we do not listen to it.

As it has already been explained earlier, maya is the

shuddha sattva pradhan of prakriti, the cosmic determining

factor through which the Universal Brahman is reflected and

becomes the jiva or the Ishvara – the creative principle of

God, and is the very same thing reflected through avidya,

which is predominantly rajasic and tamasic. Malina sattva is

submerged and becomes the jiva, or the individual. This is

the distinction between maya and avidya, determining

Ishvara on the one side and jiva on the other side.

192

Śaktir-asty-aiśvarī kācit-sarva-vastu-niyāmikā, ānandamayam-

ārbhya gūḍhā sarveṣu vastuṣu (38). There is a

tremendous power called shakti in this cosmos, right from

the causal body down to the individual physical body. And

right from Ishvara down to Virat there is a deciding principle

operating everywhere in the whole of creation, in all nature –

due to which, everything happens in the manner it has to

happen. Nothing happens in the way it should not happen.

Everything in the world happens exactly in the way it ought

to happen.

Human individuals that we are cannot understand that

this is the truth. We, many a time, feel that things that ought

not to have happened have taken place. We complain against

God and nature. Many times we feel that things which did not

take place ought to have happened. “This man ought to have

been promoted. He has been demoted. Great injustice is

being caused. This man ought to have been punished, and he

is promoted.” This also exists. “The world does not seem to

be kind to people. God has not created a good world. Either

God has no eyes, or He is not God at all.” All kinds of

difficulties arise in the human individual, sunk in ignorance

of the universal power that is operating ubiquitously and

impartially everywhere.

Such a power exists in nature, due to which plants grow,

oceans have tidal waves, rivers flow, mountains rise up, and

the sun and the moon shine and rise and set in the proper

way. Everything is precise and mathematically correct. The

best of things and the worst of things are all destined by the

requirement of the operation of the universal nature, into

whose mysteries man has no way to enter. That is why we

are complaining.

Such a power does exist, says the author. Śaktir-astyaiśvarī

kācit-sarva-vastu-niyāmikā: The determining factor of

all things is the shakti, or the power of God; and it is

operating through all the sheaths, right from the causal

193

onwards, and is operating even in the cosmos, right from

Ishvara downwards.

Vastu-dharmā niyamyeran śaktyā naiva yadā tadā, anyonyadharma-

sāṅkaryād-viplaveta jagat-khalu (39). If this shakti

were not to operate in a systematic, precise manner, chaos

would take place. Someone said, “If this world has a creator

at all, he must be a devil. Such a wretched world is this that

its creator, if at all there is a creator, must be a demon of the

first water.” Another philosopher gave a reply to it. “This

world is not created by a demon. It is created by God. If a

demon had created the world, do you know what would

happen to you?” The philosopher gave a humorous answer as

a retort to the feeling of the man who said that a demon must

have created the world because of the sufferings and

wretchedness that we see here. “But if a devil had created the

world, do you know what would have happened? With every

step that you take, the ground would split into pieces. It does

not happen. Therefore, a devil has not created it. If you

touched any leaf in the tree, it would cut you like a knife. It

does not happen. Therefore, a devil has not created the

world. If you drank water, it would burn you like molten

metal. That does not happen. Therefore, God has created the

world.”

Some such answer is very humorous, and draws a

distinction between a devil and God. The idea of devil, evil,

and the necessity and the non-necessity of things – the great

comments that we pass on the creation of this world – are

actually unwarranted on the part of people who have no

knowledge of anything. We should say nothing unless we are

cosmically aware. Only Cosmic consciousness has the right to

make statements; and as no human being is cosmically

conscious, nobody should pass judgements on anything in

this world. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

There would be tremendous confusion if this universal

shakti were not to work systematically. There is, after all, a

cosmic justice operating in the minutest of things, though we

194

may not be able to understand what it is that is working. We

are unilateral in our thinking, partial in our outlook, and

incapable of thinking in a universal manner. Therefore, these

secrets are not accessible to us.

Cicchāyā-veśataḥ śaktiśr-cetaneva vibhāti sā, tac-chaktayu

pādhi-saṁyogāt-brahmaive śvaratāṁ vrajet (40). Brahman is

apparently considered as Ishvara, or the creative principle,

when the Brahman consciousness reflects itself through the

cosmic property of prakriti – which is sattva, as has already

been mentioned. On account of the upadhi, or adjunct, which

is cosmic sattva, Brahman appears as Creator, Preserver,

Destroyer – Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, Ishvara.

Kośo-pādhi-vivakṣāyāṁ yāti brahmaiva jīvatām, pitā

pitāmahaś-caikaḥ putra-pautrau yathā pratī (41). If the cosmic

maya, which is shuddha sattva, becomes the cause of God –

Brahman appearing as Ishvara – the very same policy is

followed here in the creation of the jiva, or the individual.

That is, when Brahman is reflected through the five sheaths –

the physical, vital, mental, intellectual, and causal – the

Universal Brahman appears like aman walking on the street.

In the Svetasvatara Upanishad there is a mantra which

says, tvaṁ strī tvam pumān asi, tvaṁ kumāra uta vā kumārī;

tvaṁ jīrno daṇḍena vañcasi, tvaṁ jato bhavasi viśvato-mukhaḥ

(Svet 4.5.3): “Lord, you are the boy; you are the girl; you are

the old man tottering on the road with a stick in hand. Thus

Thou deceivest everybody.” A devotee cries, “God, You

deceive us by appearing like a school boy, as a girl walking on

the road, and as a man with a bent back leaning on a stick,

crawling with weakness. With these appearances You are

trying to deceive us; but we know that it is You appearing as

these things. You look like the little boy and girl, and the man

with the bent back. Deceivest Thou everyone here, by putting

on the appearance of an old hunchback with a stick, while

Thou art really Universal, all pervading.”

195

Somebody is called a father, and the same person is

called a grandfather in relation to his grandson. The

designations of the human being are relative to

circumstances in connection with things outside. A person is

an official, a person is rich, a person is poor, a person is a

father, a person is a mother. These are relative descriptions

of a single individual who, by himself or herself is

independent – unrelated, basically.

Putrā-dera-vivakṣāyām na pitā na pitāmahaḥ, tad-van-neśo

nāpi jīvaḥ śakti-kośā’vivakṣaṇe (42). If the son is not there, we

cannot call a person a father. If the grandson is not there, we

cannot call the person a grandfather. So there is no such

thing as father and grandfather. They are only names that we

employ to describe the social situation of a person in relation

to something relevant.

Tad-van-neśo nāpi jīvaḥ śakti-kośā’vivakṣaṇe. In the same

way, Ishvara and jiva do not exist. Does a father exist? If the

son is there, the father must be there. If the grandson is

there, the grandfather also is there. If maya (sattva guna of

prakriti) does exist, and Brahman is cast in the mould of that

sattva, Ishvara does exist. But if that maya sattva guna does

not exist, Ishvara does not exist. If the five sheaths exist,

individual being exists; if the five sheaths do not exist, the

individual also does not exist. So the existence of the creative

principle of God and the individuality of persons is

conditioned by the upadhis, or limiting adjuncts, without

which they do not exist at all, just as father and grandfather

do not exist unless there are children and grandchildren.

Ya evaṁ brahmā vedaiṣa brahmaiva bhavati svayam,

brahmaṇo nāsti janmātaḥ punareṣa na jāyate (43). Whoever

knows Brahman in the manner described in these verses

becomes Brahman itself. We will not become Brahman

merely by hearing it. We have to hear, we have to

contemplate deeply after hearing it, then sink these ideas

into our feeling, merge these ideas into our experience, and

we veritably become an experience of this knowledge.

196

Knowledge that we have gained by study becomes part of our

very nature. We become Brahman because our thought is

fixed in Brahman.What we think we are, that we really are. If

our thought is always of Brahman, we cannot be anything

else.

Brahmaṇo nāsti janmātaḥ: Brahman has no birth;

therefore, one who knows Brahman also will not be reborn.

Punareṣa na jāyate: Only those who are identified in their

consciousness with Brahman will not be reborn. Otherwise,

we will have the same transmigratory sorrow which we are

experiencing now and which we have been experiencing

since many ages past. If we want to put an end to this griefstricken

earthly involvement, may our consciousness get

rooted in Brahman.With this, we conclude the third chapter.

The fourth chapter is called Dvaita Viveka, the

discrimination between the nature of the world as created by

Ishvara, or God, and the world of bondage that is deliberately

created by the individual – that is to say, the objective world

and the subjective world. Realistic and idealistic,

metaphysical and psychological are the distinctions we may

make, if we wish to.

The world of Ishvara is a metaphysical existence in the

sense that it is really there even if we do not think of it. But

there is a world which we are creating by our mental

reaction in regard to the world of Ishvara. That is our

bondage, called ‘jiva srishti’. Ishvara srishti is God’s creation;

jiva srishti is man’s creation. The distinction between these

two is drawn in this chapter, the fourth, known as Dvaita

Viveka: Duality of Creation. Ishvara’s creation and jiva’s

creation – this duality is distinguishable, and its nature is

studied.

Īśvareṇ-āpi jīvena sṛṣṭaṁ dvaitaṁ vivicyate, viveke sati

jīvena heyo bandhaḥ sphuṭī-bhavet (1). There seems to be a

distinction between man’s creation and God’s creation. We

must now study what this distinction is. How does man’s

197

creation differ from God’s creation? If this distinction can

become clear to our consciousness, we may perhaps be able

to free ourselves from the bondage of life.

The muddle that we have created in our own minds by

confusing between our creation and God’s creation is the

source of sorrow. Let us distinguish between the two and see

if we can be free from the sorrow of life.

Māyāṁ tu prakṛtiṁ vidyāt-māyinaṁ tu maheśvaram, sa

māyī sṛjatī-tyāhuḥ śvetāśvatara-śākhinaḥ (2). The Svetasvatara

Upanishad says, “God creates the world like a magician; and

prakriti – the so-called prakriti about which we have hearing

so much through the Sankhya and other philosophies – is the

medium of the expression of that magical power of God. The

Vedanta doctrine considers prakriti as a magical power of

God, and not a totally independent existence as the Sankhya

classical doctrine would hold. Therefore, the Svetasvatara

Upanishad says, “Prakriti is maya; maya is prakriti.” Maya is

another name for prakriti. Maya is another name that

Vedanta uses for the very substance that is called prakriti of

three gunas. Maya has three gunas, and prakriti has three

gunas: sattva, rajas and tamas.

Māyinaṁ tu maheśvaram: The magic of maya is wielded

by the magician, Ishvara. Ishvara is the magician. Sa māyī

sṛjatī-tyāhuḥ śvetāśvatara-śākhinaḥ: The Svetasvatara

doctrines tell us that God, the magician, performed this

magical trick of creation, and He can withdraw it if He wants,

just as amagician can withdraw his tricks anytime.

The various doctrines and stories of creation adumbrated

in the various Upanishads are now mentioned briefly in the

following verses. How is this world created? Different

Upanishads say different things. What do they say? These

views held by the different Upanishads regarding creation

are stated here.

Ātmā vā idam agre’bhūt sa īkṣata sṛjā iti, saṁkalpenā

sṛjallokān sa etāniti bahvṛcāḥ (3). The Aitareya Upanishad says

198

that the universal Atman alone was there. It willed, “Let me

create this world.” In the beginning of creation, there was

nothing except the Atman. It willed, as it were, “Let me

become many.” It willed. That is important to note. And by

the way of mere will, it manifested all these worlds of five

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

statement made by the Aitareya Upanishad of the Rig Veda.

Khaṁ-vāyvagni-jalorvyoṣadhi-annadehāḥ kramādamī,

saṁbhūtā brahmaṇas-tasmād-etasmādātmano’khilāḥ (4).

Bahusyāham-evātaḥ prajāyey-eti kāmataḥ, tapas-taptvā’sṛjatsarvaṁ

jagad-ity-āha tittiriḥ (5). The Taittiriya Upanishad has

another doctrine altogether. It says satyaṁ jñānam anantam

brahma (Tait 2.1.1): Truth, knowledge, infinity is the

Absolute. It was alone there. Suddenly it willed; it became

space. It became emptiness, the repository of further

creation. Space became air, air became fire, fire became

water, water became earth. Earth produced all the

vegetables, plants, trees, etc. – the articles of diet for living

beings; and the food that we eat becomes the substance of

this physical body, which is verily constituted of the very

food that we eat. This is the kind of creation that the

Taittiriya Upanishad describes gradually.

This physical body of our individuality is constituted of

the stuff of the diet that we take, which is mainly that which

is drawn from the vegetable and plant kingdom which grow

on the earth – which is the condensed form of water, which is

the condensed form of fire, which is the friction created by

air, which is the movement in space, which is the will of God.

This is the series, the linkage of the creational process.

Thus, the Atman has become all these things. “May I

become the many.” The Atman willed in this manner. But the

Taittiriya Upanishad describes it in a different manner. It

willed, and that will is called tapas. The universal

concentration of Brahman consciousness is the original

tapas, whose heat manifested this world of five elements;

thus the Taittiriya Upanishad tells us.

199

Idam-agre sad-evāsīd-bahutvāya tad-aikṣata, tejo’bannāṇḍa

jādīni sasarjeti ca sāmagāh (6). The Chhandogya Upanishad

has another story altogether. “Pure Being alone was,” the

Upanishad says. Pure Being agitated, as it were. It set up a

vibration within itself, and the vibration condensed itself into

the formative principles called sabda, sparsa, rupa, rasa and

gandha, which concretised into the five gross elements of

earth, water, fire, air and ether. This is briefly what a section

of the Sama Veda – namely, the Chhandogya Upanishad –

tells us about creation.

Visphuliṅgā yathā vahner jāyante’kṣaratastathā,

vividhāścijjaḍā bhāvā ityāthar vaṇikī śrutiḥ (7). The Mundaka

Upanishad, which is a part of the Atharva Veda, says:

“Creation is something like sparks emanating from a large

conflagration of fire. For instance, millions and millions of

sparks jet forth when there is a huge forest fire. In a similar

manner, the cosmic fire of God’s will ejects millions of sparks

– scintillating, having in their essence the same quality of

God, but individually scattered in different directions as

parts of a whole. As sparks emanate from fire, individuals

emanate from God. This is the Mundaka Upanishad doctrine.

Even the inanimate objects are manifestations of

consciousness only. The Upanishad here reconciles the socalled

contradictory doctrines of materialism and idealism,

realism and idealism, pragmatism and philosophy, etc. The

so-called unconscious things in the world are not really

bereft of consciousness. Consciousness is said to sleep in

unconscious matter such as stone. It is sleeping; but it is still

there. This very consciousness which is sleeping in inanimate

things like stone breathes in plants and vegetables. It starts

dreaming in animals. It starts thinking clearly in the human

individual. The same consciousness is there in everything,

whether it is animate or inanimate.

Jagad-avyākṛtaṁ pūrvam-āsīḍ-vyākriyatādhunā,

dṛśyābhyām nāma-rūpābhyāṁ virāḍādiṣu te sphuṭe (8). Virāṇ-

manur-naro gāvaḥ kharā-śvā jāvayas tathā, pipīlikā vadhi

200

dvandvam iti vājasa neyinaḥ (9). The Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad tells us that creation took place in this manner.

Originally, it was an undifferentiated mass. Scientists call it

nebular dust. Nebular dust has no shape; it is a pervasive

potential. It is disturbed. Nobody can say why it is disturbed.

The sattva-rajas doctrine is not known to scientists. There is

something taking place. The heat of all the galaxies, the stars,

the sun, and the black holes or the white holes, as they say,

are all condensation of this original nebular dust. Such a

condition is unmanifest.

The Manu Smriti tells us: In the beginning, what was

there? Darkness only prevailed. No light was there, because

light is condensation of energy. Unless there is a disturbance

in the distribution of heat, there will be no energy available

for action. This is the entropy theory of modern physics. If

there is equal distribution of heat, the whole universe will

become cold in one instant. There is concentration of heat in

some places, and that becomes the stars, that becomes the

sun, that becomes fire. But if we distribute the entire

available heat in the whole cosmos equally, it will be cold,

and there will be the end of creation.

Similarly, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad tells us about

the creation of the universe as having been totally

unmanifest, once upon a time. Then it became manifest by

gradual condensation into name and form, specification into

individuality, visible or even invisible. This Cosmic

Unmanifest becomes the well-known principles of Ishvara,

Hiranyagarbha and Virat, whose natures we will be studying

in the sixth chapter of the Panchadasi, which will come later.

Such is the way in which this original Unmanifest gets

revealed in detail, that not only does it become Ishvara,

Hiranyagarbha and Virat cosmically, it becomes the denizens

in heaven. It becomes the angels and the fairies and the gods

in the higher regions. It becomes the demons and devils or

evil persons, as we think. It becomes human beings. It

becomes plants and animals. It becomes even the ants that

201

are crawling. The consciousness of Brahman goes even to

that level in creation. This is what the Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad tells us. There are varieties of theories of creation.

Discourse 18

CHAPTER 4: DVAITA VIVEKA – DISCRIMINATION OF

DUALITY, VERSES 10-26

We have, in earlier verses of this chapter, seen how the

different Upanishads describe the process of creation in

different ways. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that the

world came from God in one way. The Taittiriya Upanishad

says something different; and so do the other Upanishads,

such as the Mundaka and Chhandogya. Anyway, whatever be

the difference in the minor details, whatever be the speciality

that can be seen in the wordings of the different Upanishads,

the program of creation in its general perspective has been

stated to be the same. This whole universe, this

manifestation, this creation, is an appearance of God Himself.

This is the conclusion.

Kṛtvā rūpāntaraṁ jaivaṁ dehe prāviśad-īśvaraḥ, iti tāḥ

śrutayaḥ prāhur jīvatvaṁ prāṇadhāraṇāt (10). Particularly the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that after having cosmically

entered the whole of creation in His immanence, the

Supreme Being entered each individual person also. Every

little particle, every small creation, every human individual

has the element of this Supreme Universality in it, in some

modicum, in some degree, in some way.

The only difference is – a tremendous difference indeed

which has to be taken note of – when God has entered the

cosmos, nothing drastically different has taken place, in the

same way as a face reflected in a clean mirror gives a fairly

good picture of the original without being distorted in any

way. So too in the cosmic setup of things, where everything is

universally construed, the reflection of Brahman

Consciousness therein also presents a universal appearance,

so that Ishvara is Cosmic-conscious. The jiva is not Cosmicconscious,

in spite of the fact that the very same Brahman is

manifesting itself as the individual. The very same Brahman

is reflected in the cosmic substance and becomes Ishvara.

203

The very same thing enters the jiva, and yet tremendously

marks a difference between Ishvara and jiva.

The difference is that rajas and tamas do not dominate in

Ishvara. There is no duality, no multiplicity-consciousness

because the distracting, dividing factor (rajas) is absent in

Ishvara. Nor is it ignorant, like the jiva, because tamas is

absent in Ishvara. There is only shuddha sattva pradhana,

pure sattva of prakriti. So there is transparency in the whole

of creation, as far as Ishvara is concerned. But there is a mixup

and muddle in the case of the jiva, because the sattva guna

is buried deep down by the action of rajas and tamas in the

jiva individual.

Caitanyaṁ yada-dhiṣṭhānaṁ liṅga-dehaś-ca yaḥ punaḥ,

cicchāyā liñga-dehasthā tatsaṁgho jīva ucyate (11). What is the

jiva, we may ask? How does it differ from Ishvara? The

definition of jiva is given here in this Verse 11. Pure

Consciousness of Brahman at the back; its reflection through

the intellect, and the reflection of the same through the

subtle body consisting of the mind and the sense organs, put

together constitute what we call individuality.

Individuality is a very intriguing term. It is a mix-up of

different elements. The individual – ourselves, myself, and

everybody – are not simple substances. They are complexes,

constituting different elements. Firstly, the individual has to

be conscious. That is the distinction between a human being

and other inanimate creatures. The consciousness aspect of

the human individual comes from the very same Brahman

consciousness that illumines Ishvara cosmically. But there is

something else in the individual which is not just

consciousness. There is a limiting, finitising faculty which is

the intellect, a product of rajas and tamas. So the universal

consciousness of Brahman passes through a little aperture of

the limited intellect, as it were, and we have only a small

consciousness of our being an individual totally isolated from

others.

204

The light of the sun in the vast clear sky is an indivisible

mass radiating throughout space. But suppose we have a

curtain with a hundred little holes. The vast light of the sun

which is indivisibly spread in all space will be seen to be

peeping through a little hole, and each peek of the streak of

light will be different from another, according to the size or

even according to the medium that may be there in this little

hole. One single universal light of the sun may look like

different little streaks of light, different in quantity as well as

quality – different in quantity because of the many holes, and

in quality because of the difference in the media through

which it passes.

So we are different from one another not only in

quantity, but also in quality. This great tragedy has befallen

the jiva, distinguishing it from the great, grand cosmic

Ishvara. This is the definition of individuality or jiva.

Māheśvarītu māyā yā tasyā nimārṇa śaktivat, vidyate

mohā śaktiś-ca taṁ jīvaṁ mohayaty-asau (12). As maya

cosmically becomes the instrument of universal activity of

Ishvara, its distorted individualised form which is avidya

becomes the confounding medium in the jiva. Avidya is

confounding, while maya is cosmically reflecting universal

consciousness. Here is again another aspect of the difference

between Ishvara and jiva.

Mohād-anīśatāṁ prāpya magno vapuṣi śocati, īśa-sṛṣṭamidaṁ

dvaitaṁ sarvam-uktaṁ samāsataḥ (13). Due to delusion,

immersion in this distorting medium of avidya, the individual

weeps in sorrow, helplessly lodged in this body, finite in

every way, and with no strength of its own to change this

world on account of the predomination of rajas and tamas

and the absence of sattva guna. Human beings that we are,

we rarely think in clear terms. There is always confused

thinking. There is no proper consideration of the pros and

cons of issues. We suddenly jump to conclusions on account

of the action of rajas and tamas. Pure impersonal judgment is

205

rarely made by people on account of the fact that the sattva

guna very rarely manifests itself.

Up to this time, whatever we have said is the description

of God’s creation. There is another creation called individual

creation. God’s creation does not cause trouble to anybody.

God is not a troublemaker, because Universality does not

create problems. Problems arise on account of individual

consciousness. So whatever we have said up to this time is

the work of Universal Ishvara, down to His entry into every

little individuality. Īśa-sṛṣṭam-idaṁ dvaitaṁ sarvam-uktaṁ

samāsataḥ: The author says, “Up to this time I have briefly

told you how God has created the world and in what way He

has entered every little particle.”

Now comes the other story – namely, the story of the jiva,

or the individual, which also creates a world of its own.

There is a world under every hat, as people generally say.

Everybody has his own view of the world. No two persons

will completely think alike, on account of the difference in

the structure of the mind itself. Various karmas are the

causes behind it.

The same thing evokes different emotions in different

persons – the same thing, which will be described in the

further verses. Different reactions are produced from the

mind of different people in respect of one single object only,

on account of the varieties of the structural pattern of their

emotions and their intellects.

Saptānna brāhmaṇe dvaitaṁ jīvasṛṣṭaṁ prapañc itam,

annāni sapta jñānena karmaṇā’janayat pita (14). In the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, a statement has been made that

there are seven kinds of diet, called saptanna. Anna is a food.

Ishvara does not require food, but jivas require food. The

limitation, the finitude of individuality cries for the means to

make good this lacuna that is felt by its finite individuality.

We cannot rest with finitude even for a moment.We struggle

206

hard from moment to moment to overcome the barrier of

this finitude in various ways.

The ways that we adopt are generally contacts with

certain things in the world, which act like plastering the

falling citadel of this finitude of personality, as we try to

support an old wall by plastering it again and again. So every

day we have to plaster this body by diet of some kind or

other; otherwise, it will croak and fall down. Now, what are

the diets?

God has created seven kinds of diet, says the Upanishad.

Martyānna mekaṁ devānne dve paśvannaṁ caturthakam,

anyat tritayam ātmārtham-annānāṁ viniyojanam (15).

Martyānna mekaṁ: For the mortals, there is one food.

Devānne dve: For the gods, there are two kinds of food.

Paśvannaṁ caturthakam: There is another food for animals.

Anyat tritayam ātmārtham: There are three other kinds of

food intended for the jiva’s sustenance. Annānāṁ viniyojanam:

These are the seven classified forms of food for mortals,

generally speaking – for gods, for animals, and for the jiva

consciousness.

Vrīhy-ādikaṁ darśa-pūrṇa māsau kṣīraṁ tathā manaḥ, vāk

prāṇāśceti spatatvam annānām avagamyatām (16). Vrīhyādikaṁ:

The ordinary mortal food is grain – corn, etc. Rice,

wheat, pulses are the usual mortal food necessary for this

frail mortal body. Darśa-pūrṇa māsau: The offerings made in

the sacrifices called darsha and purna-masau – that is, special

worships and sacrifices conducted on the new moon and full

moon – are supposed to be the diet of the gods. This is a very

difficult subject, which cannot be entered into now – how our

offerings reach the gods, and how it is necessary for us to

repay our debts to the divinities that sustain even our sense

organs. If this kind of obligation is not extended by us to the

various divinities that are supporting us, we would be

thieves, according to the Bhagavad Gita. So these offerings

made during the sacrifices of darsha and purna-masau, the

new moon and the full moon, become the diet or the food of

207

the gods in heaven. Milk is the food of animals – cattle,

actually. Here, by ‘animal’ he means cattle. Cattle live on their

own milk.

Then the jiva has another threefold food; mind, speech

and prana are the sustaining factors of the individual.

Actually, ‘food’ means anything that sustains, without which

we cannot survive. We cannot live merely on grains or milk.

There is something else necessary for us to survive – namely,

more important than grains, etc., is the breathing process. If

we have all the grains in the world but we cannot breathe,

what will happen to us? We can drink milk, but our mind is

not working and our speech has stopped.

By the operation of speech, we come in contact with

things outside, especially human beings. By prana, we sustain

this body. And the mind is a link that consciously establishes

a contact between us and things in the world outside. If these

media are absent, there would be no chance of the survival of

individuality in this world. So mainly, here we are concerned

not with grains and milk, etc., which are a different matter

altogether, but with the way in which mind, speech and

prana act upon us and control us in such a manner that

without them we would not be able to even exist.

Īśena yadyapy-etāni nirmitāni svarūpataḥ, tathāpi

jñānakarmābhyāṁ jīvo’kārṣāttadannatām (17). Actually, the

trouble does not arise from Ishvara who created these things.

Grains, etc., are not manufactured by us; they are the action

of God.We only throw the seed on the ground, but we cannot

produce the grain. That is done by the will of God, and the

offerings reach the divinities due to some operation of the

will of God Himself. Even the milk production from cattle is

not our action, and the cows do not deliberately think the

process. Some natural process takes place, which is also to be

attributed to God.

The mind, the process of speech and the breath are all

phases, aspects of the five elements sabda, sparsa, rupa, rasa,

208

gandha – prithivi, apah, tejas, vayu, akasha – about which we

have already studied in the earlier chapters. All these are

God-made. How is it that they cause trouble to us? The

reason is that in spite of the fact that things, including even

the mind, the speech and the prana, are products of God’s

will, what happens is that we appropriate these to our own

selves. “This is my field, this is my cow, this is my house, and

this is my body.” This ‘my’ business has started, which is not

to be attributed to Ishvara.

There is no ‘my’ consciousness in Ishvara because there

is no outside object and, therefore, nothing can be called

‘mine’ in Ishvara.We see things outside and isolate ourselves

from other individuals, and create a situation where we

begin to feel that something belongs to us, something does

not belong to us. We like certain things because they appear

to belong to us, and we dislike certain things because we

think that they are not ours.

Tathāpi jñānakarmābhyāṁ jīvo’kārṣāttadannatām: The very

thing that God has created becomes the source of sorrow for

the human individual on account of the creation of ‘my-ness’

in things – attachment, in simple terms. God has no

attachment, but individuals are nothing but bundles of

attachments.

Īśakāryaṁ jīvabhogyaṁ jagad dvābhyām samanvitam,

pitṛjanyā bhartṛbhogyā yathā yoṣit tathe ṣyatām (18). The

world is created by God, but it is enjoyed by the individual.

God does not enjoy this world. The question of enjoyment

does not arise, because God is Pure Being. And this Pure

Being beholds; God simply beholds, and that is His

satisfaction. But we will not be happy merely by beholding a

thing. It has to become our personal property. It has to

become part and parcel of our personality. Our ego has to be

satisfied. Here is the difference between jiva consciousness

struggling in the mire of ignorance, and Ishvara

consciousness which is just looking, unconcerned – like the

bird which is described in the Mundaka Upanishad.

209

For instance, a woman is born as a daughter to her father,

but she becomes the wife of somebody else. The very same

person is viewed in two different ways and it appears as if

the woman has two personalities, when viewed by the

husband and by the father. And such a difference is created

by these two persons (father and husband) that she looks

like two individuals, while really she is one independent

person and cannot be viewed in two different ways.

So is the case with this world. Though it is one universal

substance, it is viewed in one way by the Father, the Supreme

Being, who wants nothing from the daughter or the son. And

here, the jiva is in the sense of possession of property,

making a distinction between itself and Ishvara.

Māyā vṛttyā tmako hiśa kaṁkalpaḥ sādhanaṁ janau, mano

vṛttyātmako jīv asaṁkalpo bhoga sādhanam (19). Creation of

the universe is the act of God through the instrumentality of

maya which is shuddha sattva pradhana. Mano vṛttyātmako jīv

asaṁkalpo bhoga sādhanam: The idea of enjoyment and

possession arises on account of there being no shuddha

sattva pradhana in the jiva. There is only the mind, which is

characterised by rajas and tamas; therefore, it wills in terms

of longing – like and dislike. The jiva wants to enjoy. It cannot

be happy merely by being. We cannot be happy by merely

existing in the world, whereas God is happy merely existing.

This is the difference between us and God Almighty. We can

never be happy merely existing. Here is the point.

Īśanirmita maṇyādau vastu nyekavidhe sthite, bhoktṛ

dhīvṛtti nānātvāt tadbhogo bahu deṣayate (20). For instance,

there is a gem, a jewel dug from the earth – a precious stone.

It is created by God; we cannot manufacture a gem like that.

It is identical to everybody’s perception. A monkey can see it,

a dog can see it, a man can see it, and even an insect can

crawl over it. It is self-identical, unconcerned, existing by

itself as what we call the gem. But it is viewed in different

ways by different perceivers – those who think that they can

possess it, and those for whom it has no meaning at all.

210

Hṛṣya ty eko maṇiṁ labdhvā drudhya ty ano hyalā bhataḥ,

paśyaty-eva virakto’tra na hṛṣyati na kupyati (21). A person

who possesses the gem is happy. But the one who loses it is

very angry. See how it is that the very same object can cause

happiness in one person and anger in another? Paśyaty-eva

virakto’tra: But a sage is indifferent to the existence of the

gem. The very same gem causes joy in one person, anger in

another, and indifference in a third person. How can we

explain this?

The explanation does not lie in the gem. The gem itsel is

unconcerned with the feelings of these people. But the

trouble has arisen on account of the reaction produced by the

minds of the three different categories of people. The sage

simply sees, beholds. Na hṛṣyati na kupyati: Neither is he

happy if it is in his hand, nor is he unhappy if it is lost.

Priyo’priya upekṣya sceti ākārā maṇigās trayaḥ, sṛṣṭā jīvairīśa-

sṛṣṭaṁ rūpaṁ sādhāraṇaṁ triṣu (22). The quality of a gem,

therefore, is threefold: desirable, not desirable, or an object

of complete neglect. If the jewel is ours, it is desirable. If the

jewel has gone into somebody’s hand, it is not desirable. And

in the case of a sage, it is an object of total unconcern.

Sṛṣṭā jīvair-īśa-sṛṣṭaṁ rūpaṁ sādhāraṇaṁ triṣu: The world

of God, this creation which is the manifestation of God, is

viewed in a similar manner in various ways by the

individuals on account of the difference in their mental

structure – though the object, the world as such, is the same

for everybody. Right from creation until dissolution, it will

not change its substance. It is the same. But this human

history has demonstrated the turmoil through which people

can pass in regard to the very same thing that has been

existing throughout eternity.

Bhāryā snuṣā nanāndā ca yātā māte tyanekadhā, pratiyogi

dhiyā yoṣid bhidyate na svarūpataḥ (23). A person says, “This is

my wife.” Another says, “This is my sister-in-law.” Another

says, “It is my daughter-in-law.” Another says, “It is my

211

niece.” And someone else says, “It is my mother.” Now, what

is this woman by herself? We mostly define ourselves in this

manner.

Who are we, sir? We cannot say anything about

ourselves, truly speaking. All our definitions are meaningless

definitions because they are in connection with what we are

not. “I am the son of Mr. So-and-so.” Otherwise, what are we,

if we are not the son of So-and-so? Are we also something?

Why should we say that we are the son of So-and-so? “I am

an officer in the government.” “I am a shopkeeper.” “I own a

tea shop.” “I am a labourer.”

We have no way of describing what we are except in

terms of what we own or what we do. Independent of what

we do and what we own, are we also something? Suppose we

own nothing and do nothing. Do we become non-existent?

See how confusedly we define ourselves: we say this person

is something to us though for another person, the same

individual is another thing altogether.

Pratiyogi dhiyā yoṣid bhidyate na svarūpataḥ: On account of

the perceivers’ difference in mentality, on account of

ownership and changes in doership, the same individual

looks different. Now, does the individual really become

different?

There is a judge in the Supreme Court, and he looks thus

to the lawyers and the clients. He is another thing when he

comes home and has a little child to take care of. Has he

become a different person? He is really a different person, in

one way. The way he thinks in the court is different from the

way he thinks in the home. And he thinks about himself in a

third way altogether when he is totally alone in a bathroom,

for instance. He has some peculiar view of himself there. Now

what kind of person is he individually? We can have

hundreds of definitions for the same person on account of

external relationships and changes of circumstance.

212

Nanu jñānāni bhidyantām ākarastu na bhidyate, yoṣid

vapuṣya tiśayo na dṛṣṭo jīva nirmitaḥ (24). Our idea of a thing

may change, but the thing itself cannot change. Therefore, do

not unnecessarily create problems in life. This is an

instruction for us. Pratiyogi dhiyā yoṣid bhidyate na

svarūpataḥ: As in the case with a woman or a father or a

mother, etc., individually they are the same individuals. They

never become different on account of the relationship. Yet on

account of the perception of only the relation, minus the

individuality of the person, we create problems in life.

There is a daughter who is very happy with her father.

After marriage she goes to her in-laws, and hell descends on

her immediately. Why should it be like that? This is what

happens every day in this world.

Maivaṁ māṁsa-mayī yoṣit kācid anyā mano mayī, māṁsa

mayyā abhede’pi bhidyate he mano mayī (25). Though the

mother and the wife are identical individuals, they differ

totally on account of the experience, as in the case of the

daughter. She will cry because of the suffering she has in her

in-laws’ house; and she will become very happy when she

goes to her mother. What has happened to her? She is the

same person, the same mind, same intellect, same body.

External relationship has transformed her individuality into

a false definition of herself, which is also the false definition

imputed to her by other people. Mental creation is different

from the physical creation of God.

To a tiger, every human being is only food. It does not

think that it is a king, a child, a man, woman; no such idea is

there. It is food. That is the viewpoint of a tiger.

Bhrānti svapna manorājya smṛtiṣ vastu mano mayam,

jāgran manena meyasya na mano maya teti cet (26). A great

difficulty arises now. Does the mind really change the object?

Really speaking, the mind cannot change the object. It cannot

change a tree into something else. And yet, themind seems to

be determining the object to such an extent that all our

213

sorrows are due to the mental reaction produced in respect

of things outside. Life would be meaningless if mental

reactions were not there. These things are to be there, and

are to be viewed exactly in the way they exist independently

by themselves. In spite of the fact that objects are just what

they are by themselves, they appear to be totally different –

without which factor, life would not be the sorrow that it is.

Discourse 19

CHAPTER 4: DVAITA VIVEKA – DISCRIMINATION OF

DUALITY, VERSES 26-37

. . .the creation of God (Ishvara srishti) and the creation of

the individual (jiva srishti). God’s creation is impersonal. It

makes no distinction between one and another. But we, with

an individual’s perception, make distinctions. One person’s

perception is not the same as another person’s perception of

an identical object or situation. But God’s (Ishvara’s) creation

is universally impartial.

The problems of life are not created by God. This is the

great answer that this text gives us. There is no problem for

God because there is no duality there, and no tension

between aspects. There is no contradiction of phases, and

there is no perception of the world at all, inasmuch as the

world becomes a content of Universal Consciousness. In the

case of the jiva, the world is not a content of its

consciousness. It stands outside. Here is a basic metaphysical

difference between God’s thought and human thought. The

whole universe is inside the consciousness of God; but in the

case of the individual jiva, the world is outside the

consciousness of the perceiver.

The question has been raised again and again: Does the

world exist independent of human thought, or does human

thought modify the object to some extent?We have seen that

there is a lot of difference created by the perceiving process,

due to which an object appears to be desirable or otherwise.

It becomes an object of like, dislike or neutrality on the part

of people. If a person likes it, it is good. If he doesn’t like it, it

is bad. In the case of a jivanmukta purusha, a realised soul,

the thing is neither good nor bad. It has no value at all

because he maintains a neutral position in respect of all

things perceived on the background of universality of

perspective.

Bhrānti svapna manorājya smṛtiṣ vastu mano mayam,

jāgran manena meyasya na mano maya teti cet (26). It may be

215

felt that, in the state of dream, the world of perception is

entirely mental. We see it when we wake up. Is it the case

with waking life also? Is the world that we see in front of us –

these buildings, these hills and mountains, these things that

we perceive with our eyes – also mental, or do they exist in

themselves?

We have already tentatively answered this question. The

substantiality and the basic neutrality of objects is God’s

creation. The mountains do exist. They are not created by the

mind of any person. The solar system exists. The rivers flow.

People exist there, outside us. These are creations of God. But

the attachments and emotional relationships which

condition the perception of such impersonal objects of God’s

creation are the jiva’s creation. The manner in which we look

at a thing is not God’s creation. The thing itself is God’s

creation, but the way in which we look at it is our creation.

And therefore, here comes the distinction between an

individual’s world and God’s world.

Does the world exist independently? Yes, it does exist,

because it is Ishvara’s creation. But it has also another aspect,

which is galvanised by the thought processes of the

individuals when emotions and perceptual processes

condition the object being perceived.

Bāḍhaṁ mane tu meyena yogāt syād viṣayā kṛtiḥ, bhaṣya

vārtika kārābhyaṁ ayam artha udīritaḥ (27). Acharya Sankara

is Bhasyakara and Vartikakara is Sureshvara Acharya. Both

these people have held identical opinions in regard to this

question of how the object is determined by mental

processes.

When the objects are perceived by the mind, they

produce an impression on the mind. As the impressions are

created, the mind cognises the object in terms of the shape

that it has taken, on account of the impression created on it

by the object. There is, therefore, a secondary kind of

216

perception that the mind is having in respect of object. It is

held that we do not directly see anything as it is in itself.

All the objects of the world are seen by us coloured by

our mental vrittis, just as the nature of the lenses in a pair of

spectacles will determine the way in which we see the object.

If it is coloured, then we will see objects coloured; or it can be

concave or convex. It can be broken or dented, or some sort

of distortion can be there in the lens, and we will also see the

object with ups and downs, on level ground, etc., though

these distortions are not accountable in terms of the objects

by themselves. The determining factor of the mind by the

objects is in terms of the impression created by them. As in a

photographic camera, an impression is created by the object

outside, and a picture of it is then made visible.

So we are supposed to see a picture of the world as a

secondary perception of the object, and not a primary

perception. We can never know the object as it is in itself,

independent of our mental cognition.We cannot stand totally

outside the object and see it. We are somehow or other,

consciously or unconsciously, connected with the object

through psychic processes and they whitewash, as it were

(or colour wash or some kind of wash is done by the mind

over the object), and then we pass judgements on things. Our

judgement on any matter, or on any object whatsoever, is in

the light of how we receive the objects into our mental

process in a given condition. Our mental moods will tell us

what kind of thing the world in front of us is. This has been

explained by Acharya Sankara (Bhasyakara), and Vartikakara

(Sureshvara Acharya, his own disciple) by an illustration.

Mūṣā siktaṁ yathā tāmraṁ tannibhaṁ jāyate tathā, rūpādīn

vyāpnuva ccittaṁ tannibhaṁ dṛśyate dhruvam (28). When

molten metal is cast into a crucible, the metal takes the shape

of that crucible. The metal by itself has no shape. The world

of objects, which is the creation of Ishvara by itself, does not

present any differentiatedness in form. But it appears to be

differentiated when it is cast in the mould of the vritti, or the

217

psychosis of the mind of the cogniser, and that mould is the

reason why we see things in a particular manner.

The mould is the mental makeup, and it differs from one

person to another person. It differs even in the same person

under different psychological conditions. A child sees the

world in one way; an adult sees it in another way. An

enthusiast sees it in one way, a drooping spirit sees it in a

third way, a dying man sees it in a fourth way, though the

world is the same.

Vyañjako vā yathā’’loko vyaṁgyasy-ākāratā-miyāt,

sarvārtha-vya-ñjakatvād-dhīḥ arthākārā pradṛśyate (29). When

sunlight falls on an object, we say the object shines. It falls on

a pot, and the pot shines. Actually, the pot does not shine. It is

the light that shines. The light of the sun, which has by itself

no shape or form, appears to take the shape of that pot, and

we see the illumination also taking the shape of that pot.

There is a rotundity of light on the neck and mouth, etc., on

which the light falls. And if we can closely observe the

manner in which the object or the pot shines, we will find

that there is an apparent taking of a similar form of as object,

by the light that falls on it, on account of the pot having a

shape, although the light itself has no shape.

In a similar manner, the world by itself has no shape or

form. It is universally spread out in an equal fashion, but it

takes a form as light takes a form when it falls on a particular

object. Even in this case, the mind is the producer of the

form; the world by itself is formless – it is ubiquitous, allpervading.

But the mind has a form. The desires of the mind

cause the forms which the mind puts on under given

conditions. Actually, this body of ours is also one form that

our mind has taken. That is why bodies differ; it is because

minds differ. And therefore, everything differs from one

person to another person, from one thing to another thing.

Mātur manābhi niṣpattiḥ niṣpannaṁ meyam-eti tat,

meyābhi saṅgataṁ tac-ca meyābhatvaṁ prapadyate (30). The

218

process of the mind in the act of perception moves out of

itself and envelops the object outside. The enveloping of the

mind in terms of the object outside is called vritti vyakti – the

enveloping of the vritti. The mind itself cannot cognise a

thing because it is not conscious. The consciousness has to be

borrowed by it from the Atman inside. Just as a copper wire

itself cannot be regarded as the flow of electricity – though

the copper wire is necessary for the flow of electricity – the

mind too is not the consciousness. Even if we connect the

wire from one place to another place, the electricity need not

flow through it unless another element is there to make that

possible.

The consciousness of an object is a dual process. On the

one hand, the mind has to take the shape of the object. The

object has to be cast in the mould of the mind. But that does

not mean that we are conscious. The consciousness is an

element which is drawn from the soul inside, the Atman,

which automatically moves together with the movement of

the mind in terms of the object outside. And therefore, when

we perceive an object it does not merely mean that the mind

moves.We ourselves seem to bemoving towards it.

The consciousness is our own self. And so when the

perception takes place, we appear to feel very much affected

by the perception of the object.We are affected, which means

to say that the consciousness is affected. Our very self is

moulded.We get disturbed or we feel happy, as the case may

be – a state of experience which is attended with

consciousness. And there is a dual action taking place: vritti

vyakti, which is the modification of the mind enveloping the

object outside, and phala vyakti, which is consciousness

following the movement of the mind in terms of the object.

Vritti vyakti and phala vyakti are two terms used to designate

the mental envelopment of the object outside and the

consciousness illuminating that process of mental

envelopment. Vritti vyakti, phala vyakti – thus, the object

219

becomes illumined and we begin to perceive and cognise the

nature of the object.

Themovement of themind in respect of an object outside

is something very significant. It shows that the mind is not

only inside the body; it moves outside. The perception of a

mountain in a distant place has to be accounted for. How do

we see a distant star? The stars do not enter our eyes; they

are very far away. The hill also is not inside the eyeball. How

do we see the object when it is so far away? There is some

connection between the perceiving eye and the perceived

object, though there is a spatial distance between one and the

other. How come? How do we explain it? The consciousness

of that distant object, while it has no physical contact, is the

perception of the senses.

What happens is that the mind moves with regard to the

object. The mind can move even up to the skies; it can reach

heaven. There is no distance for the mind. It is all-pervading.

In this way, we may know that our mind is connected with

the Cosmic Mind. If the Cosmic Mind is not acting, we cannot

perceive a thing even if it is one foot away from us. We

cannot see anything because that ‘one foot away’ is a

distance creating a gulf between the knower and the known.

And that gulf has to be bridged by something. As that

something can be neither us nor the object (they cannot

connect the two), there is a third element there which is

neither the object nor the subject. That third element is the

Cosmic Mind, whose presence is not known to us.

The Cosmic Mind is an invisible, superintending principle

that causes all perception. The mind connects itself with the

Cosmic Mind and only then the distance of the object is

obviated. Even if the object is very far away, the mind can

know because it sees through the operation of the Cosmic

Mind. The mind moves towards the object. Thus, the

enveloping process has been explained as vritti vyakti and

phala vyakti.

220

Saty evaṁ viṣayau dvau sto ghaṭau mṛṇmaya dhīmayau,

mṛnnmayo mānameyaḥ syāt sākṣi bhāsyas tu dhīmayaḥ (31).

There are two kinds of objects in the world: physical objects

and psychological objects. A physical object is that which is

there independently by itself, like a building; but it is also a

psychological object for a person who owns the building. It is

a psychological object for the person who wants to auction

that building. It is the owner’s attachment to the building that

makes that building a psychological object to him. It is no

more a physical object. “It is my building.” And if we have

borrowed money from the bank and we do not pay it back, it

will become the object of auction by the bank. There also, it

becomes psychological.Whether we want it or do not want it,

either way it is a psychological object.

But the building itself does not know what is happening.

It does not know that somebody owns it. It does not know

that somebody is auctioning it. It may not even know that it

is being broken, because the building is made up of little

bricks and mortar and steel and other things. These parts of

the building may not be conscious that the building exists at

all.

The building exists in the mind of a man, as the land

exists in the mind of a person. Somebody says, “This is my

land. I purchased the land yesterday.” What do we mean by

“purchased the land”? The land was there even before we

purchased it. How did it become ours now? What is that

consciousness of ‘myness’ that we have suddenly developed?

Did it become ours yesterday? Now it has become ours and

we are happy that so much land is there, as if it was not there

yesterday. It was there yesterday also.Why did we say it was

not there? It is because we felt in our mind that the land

belonged to another.

The whole process is the question of belonging. The very

land that was not ours has become ours. How did it become

ours? Does that land stick to our skin? Are we carrying it on

our head? The land is there as it was. What is the difference

221

now? We have signed before some person whom we call an

authority, on a paper on which some words are written, and

suddenly he says, “This land is yours.” The whole thing is a

psychological process: someone saying, “It is not mine from

today,” and another saying, “It is mine from today,” and a

third person confirming, “Yes, it is yours.” The third person is

the registrar; the other person who says “It is not mine” is

the seller, and the third person who says “It is mine” is the

purchaser.

So, what is this? Nothing has happened. Three people are

speak three words, and those words have created a world of

difference; and we sleep well today with a large body of land

in our mind, while the land does not know that any

registration has taken place, that somebody has sold it or

somebody has purchased it. This is how the world goes on.

There are two kinds of objects, physical and

psychological, as the pot is physically made of clay but is

mentally made of the mental reaction of the owner of that

pot. Mṛnnmayo mānameyaḥ syāt sākṣi bhāsyas tu dhīmayaḥ: By

actual sensory perception, we can know the physical object;

but the mental aspect behind the activity of the sense organs

is what makes it a psychological object, in spite of it being a

physical object as known by these senses.

Anvaya vyatirekā bhyāṁ dhīmayo jīva bandhakṛt, satya smin

sukha duḥkhestaḥ tasmin nasati na dvayaṁ (32). By anvaya

and vyatireka, positive and negative analysis, we can know

that our mind is the cause of our troubles. The land has not

caused us any trouble. Our mind has caused the trouble

because when we feel that something is ours, or when we

feel that something is not ours, we have a disturbance in the

mind. Our feeling is the cause of the disturbance. Either it is

ours, or it is not ours. In any case, it is a disturbance to our

mind. If it is ours, it becomes a problem to maintain it and

see that it is not taken away from us. If it is not ours, the

problem is that it is not ours. So either way it is a problem,

whether it is ours or it is not ours.

222

Satya smin sukha duḥkhe: When this mind persists, we

have joy and sorrow; otherwise, we have neither joy nor

sorrow, if things are not connected with us either sensorially

or through themind.

Asaṭ-yapi ca bāhyārthe svapn-ādau baddhyate naraḥ,

samādhi-supti-mūrcchāsu satyapya smin-na baddhyate (33).

The objects do not bind us. This is something very clearly

observable by certain illustrations like dream, etc. In dream,

objects do not exist. These non-existent objects in dream can

cause sorrow and joy to us. We can jump in fright if a tiger

pounces on us. We can yell out if a burglar enters our mental

world. We can feel happy if we are crowned a king in dream.

We have joy and sorrow in dream even if the dream objects

do not exist. So our joys and sorrows can be there, even if the

objects do not exist. But in the state of deep sleep, in the state

of samadhi, or even in the state of swoon, the objects may be

existing but they will not trouble us and we will not have any

sense of joy or sorrow.

In deep sleep, for instance, the world does exist in the

same way as it existed in waking. But we neither feel

happiness nor unhappiness in sleep.Why does the object not

harass us in the state of deep sleep if it caused joy and

sorrow in waking? If it was really the source of joy and

sorrow, it must be perpetually causing this state in all

conditions of ours. But in one condition (deep sleep) it does

not affect us either in the sense of joy or in the sense of

sorrow.

So objects may not exist, as in the dream state, and yet

they may be sources of joy and sorrow. But objects may exist

and yet they may not cause us any trouble, as in the case of

samadhi, God-realisation, sleep, swoon, etc. So objects are not

the cause of joy and sorrow. They may be existent or not; it is

immaterial. Our mental reaction is the cause.

Dūra deśaṁ gate putre jīvatye vātra tat pita, vipra laṁ

bhaka vākyena mṛtaṁ matvā praroditi (34). Suppose there is a

223

father whose son has gone to a foreign country. He receives

false news that the son had died in a plane crash. The father

will have a heart attack. Actually, nothing has happened; the

news was false. The son is getting on well. So, even if nothing

has happened to the son, the father can have such sorrow

that he may break down. The breaking down of the father’s

mind is not caused by anything that is happening to the

object (son), because nothing has happened. On the other

hand, if the son has really died but for ten years the father

has not received the news, he will be happy. How is it that

the death of the son does not cause sorrow to the father? And

why did sorrow come to the father while the son did not

really die?

So do we say that the object is the cause of joy and

sorrow? It is not. Merely because our mind has reacted in a

particular manner, it looks like either this or that condition. If

the son is alive but the father receives the wrong information

that he is dead, the father’s doom is near. But even if the son

is really dead and the news has not reached, the father will

not weep; he will be as happy as he was.

Mṛte’pi tasmin vārtāyam aśrutāyāṁ na roditi, ataḥ sarvasya

jīvasya bandha kṛn mānasaṁ jigat (35). What is the conclusion,

therefore? All bondage of every kind in this world is caused

by the mind only. The mind is bound when it is attached to

an object; the mind is free when it is not attached to the

object. The dirty mind is that which has attachment to things;

the pure mind is that which has no attachment to things. The

world is mental in a very, very important sense indeed.

Mṛte’pi tasmin vārtāyam aśrutāyāṁ na roditi, ataḥ sarvasya

jīvasya bandha kṛn mānasaṁ jigat: For everyone in this world,

the source of sorrow is the internal mental modification. Do

wemean to say that the world is inside our mind?

Vijñāna vādo bāhyā rthavaiyarthyāt-syād iheti-cet, na hṛdyākāra-

mādhātuṁ bāhyasy-āpekṣit-tvataḥ (36). When we see a

snake in the rope, do we really see the snake or do we see the

224

rope? What are we seeing there? We cannot see two things.

Either we are seeing the rope or we are seeing the snake.

Now, what is it that we are actually seeing? We cannot easily

give an answer offhand. We cannot say, “I am seeing the

rope.” If that were the case, we would not have cried in fear

and jumped over it. But if we had really seen the snake, it

would have been there even after the light was brought and

the clear perception was there.

In this sense, this answer is given to the question

whether the objective world is conditioned by the mind in a

specific manner or entirely. The doctrine is very clear:

Ishvara srishti is independent of the mind. The world of

perception, which consists of solid objects – the five elements

earth, water, fire, air, ether – is not created by the mind of

any individual. But the meaning or the value that we attach

to the objects is the creation of the individual mind. There

cannot be appearance without reality. There cannot be a

snake without a rope. There cannot be perception unless

there is something outside. Though we may not perceive that

something in a proper manner because of a peculiar defect in

our mental process, it does not follow that nothing is outside.

Vijnanavada is a subjectivist position maintained in

certain schools of Buddhism which holds that the world does

not exist even physically. They do not believe in Ishvara

srishti, or God’s creation.What they say is that even the brick

that we see is not really a solid brick. It is only a conditioned

concretised form of the mental operation in connection with

a larger mental operation called alayavijnana. Alayavijnana is

a word in Buddhist psychology which corresponds to what

we call Cosmic Mind.

The world is ultimately mental. Even in the sense of it

being there objectively, it is to be considered as mental. It is

not physical. But in the sense of actual perception by the

individual, it is secondarily mental. Primarily also it is

mental. Now here the subject has been dealt with in a

different way. The author of the Panchadasi says that while it

225

is established that the world of perception is basically a

creation of God’s mind, we cannot consider it as a product of

individual psychology. The world exists independent of the

mental operations of the individual, but we can say that the

whole world is mental in the sense that it is God’s mind

appearing as the universe.

So, finally it is mental. But as the philosophers say, it is

metaphysically mental, not psychologically mental. If God’s

mind can be regarded as a mind at all, then we may say that

the whole world is mental because it is the will of God. But it

is not mental in the sense of our thinking.We cannot produce

a tree by merely thinking that there is a tree. So there is a

distinction between the pure subjectivism of the Vijnanavada

of the Buddhists and the metaphysical idealism of the

Vedanta philosophy, which accepts that the world exists as a

creation of Ishvara (the Cosmic Mind), yet it is conditioned

by the perception of the individualmind.

Vaiyarthya mastu vā bāhyaṁ na vārayitu mīśmahe,

prayojana mapekṣante na mānānīti hi sthitiḥ (37). We cannot

do the world, or undo the world. There is a common

perception of all people in respect of certain things. A general

perception of the world in a uniform manner by all people

shows that the world is there independently of individual

perception. The world is not there merely because of our

whim and fancy. We cannot say, “Let it be there,” and it

would be there; and if we say, “It should not be there,” it is

not there. It cannot be like that. So a very careful distinction

has to be drawn between what is called the psychological

world and the physical world.

The Vedanta doctrine is not subjectivism. It is not

Mayavada in the sense of a silly understanding of the nature

of the world as total non-existence. Acharya Sankara does

not say that, and no Vedanta doctrine says that. But they

accept that this is finally the will of God that appears as this

cosmos. In that sense, it is Pure Consciousness. The Vedanta

is a peculiar doctrine which accepts the existence of the

226

objective world in one way, as the product of the will of God,

and on the other hand it also accepts that it is only the nature

of consciousness.

In spite of its existence as an outside something, it does

not cease to be consciousness. From our point of view, from

the individual point of view, it is a solid, physical thing. We

can hit our head against a wall, and say that it is not mental.

But from the point of view of the substance out of which the

whole world is made, it is Universal Consciousness.

Therefore, it is not physical. The physicality vanishes in the

eye of Ishvara. It manifests itself only when there is space

and time and externality from the point of view of the

perceiver or the subjectivemind.

This is a very difficult subject.We are likely to mix up two

issues and either say the world does not exist, or like a

materialist say only the world exists. Both arguments are not

correct. Neither is it true that the world exists independent of

the mind, nor is it true that it is created by the mind. There is

a relativity of action and reaction between the mind which is

cognising and the object that is perceived. A very important

distinction is drawn between God’s creation (Ishvara srishti)

and individual creation (jiva srishti), which is the subject of

this chapter.

Discourse 20

CHAPTER 4: DVAITA VIVEKA – DISCRIMINATION OF

DUALITY, VERSES 38-56

Bandha ścen mānasam dvaitaṁ tanni rodhena śāmyati

abhya sed yoga mevāto brahma jñānena kiṁ vada (38). It has

been stated earlier that the mental vrittis, psychic operations,

have caused the bondage of the jiva; they foist certain

qualities on Ishvara srishti , qualities which are really not

there in Ishvara srishti. The individual’s interpretation of the

world created by God is a personal affair arising from likes

and dislikes and imperfect perception.

If the mind is the cause of the sufferings of people, a

question is raised here: “We can suppress the mind by a kind

of yoga where the will is applied in an act of powerful

concentration, and we can see that the mind does not

function.What is the purpose of knowing God, Brahma jnana,

and such relevant matters about which we discussed?”

This is a question that arises from an ignorant mind.

Suppression of the vrittis does not mean yoga. The word

‘yoga’ should not be applied to such a process at all.

Suppression is a negative activity. Yoga is a positive union,

and it is not enough if the mind does not function. It has also

to function in relation to God’s existence.

The difference between mental restraint and Godconsciousness

is this: while the vrittis or the functions of the

mind are inhibited, the mental qualities that describe the

objects outside may appear to be not there. Not seeing

something is not knowledge. There is also a necessity to see

what is really there. When the mind is withdrawn, it will not

see what it was earlier seeing as imposed upon the objects of

the world, the creation of God. But it cannot see the creation

of God. Brahma jnana is the vision of God’s creation, God

Himself. Therefore, a negative activity in the form of the

suppression of the vrittis in any manner whatsoever,

voluntarily, will not suffice.

228

Not seeing the world is not yoga. Yoga is seeing the world

in the proper perspective. It is the vision of the creation of

God as it is in itself, and not merely a negative withdrawal of

the mind from perceiving it. Thus arises the necessity for

Brahma jnana, God-consciousness, and not merely a negative

activity of mental restraint.

Tātkā lika dvaita śāntau apyāgāmi jani kṣayaḥ, brahma

jñānaṁ vinā na syād iti vedānta ḍiṇḍimaḥ (39). The Vedanta

proclaims loudly that there is a temporary cessation of the

functions of the mind when they are restrained by the will or

an act of concentration on some particular given object. But

this cessation of the faculties or the functions of the mind so

arrived at will be a temporary achievement, and it does not

mean that the mind will keep quiet like that for eternity

without functioning.

The mere absence of the functioning of the mind is

different from the withdrawal of the activity of the mind. We

can wind up our action and adjourn it for tomorrow. It does

not mean that we have ceased to think of what is to be done.

There is a potential, a possibility of our continuing that action

tomorrow, though we are not doing it just now.

A moving snake and a coiled-up snake mean one and the

same thing. They are identical. We do not say that only when

it moves it is a snake, and when it is lying down it is not a

snake. A thief is a thief, whether he is active or sleeping.

Similar is the tentative comfort that we may seemingly

obtain by the cessation of the activity of the mind through

vigorous concentration on an object. That is a negative

achievement that we are thinking of here.

But God-consciousness is different from that. It is an

entry into the very substance of the universe in the manner

in which it is, or as it appears through God’s eyes. If we

behold the world as God beholds it, if we work in the world

as God works, if we love things as God loves, that would be

God-consciousness. But merely withdrawing the mind, not

229

thinking anything and being in a state of negativity cannot be

regarded as yoga. So do not make a mistake in thinking that

attaining mental cessation is the aim of life. Godconsciousness

is the aim. That the Vedanta proclaims.

Anivṛtte’pīśa sṛṣṭe dvaite tasya mṛṣā tmantām, buddhvā

brahmā dvayaṁ śakyaṁ vastvaikya vādinaḥ (40). It is not the

visible object that is the cause of bondage. The vision is not

the source of our suffering; the sorrows arise on account of

the way in which our mind takes these objects. Illustrations

have already been given earlier that a particular object

evokes different kinds of emotions and feelings in different

persons, actively or otherwise. A person who desires an

object has one kind of feeling towards it. He interprets it in

one way and also values it in one way. A person who has lost

it is grieving because he has lost it, and his thought is of a

different nature altogether. And the person who has no need

for it is neutral, and no reaction arises from his mind in

respect of that object which evokes other emotions in the

case of other people.

The objects of the world are there for every living being

to see. From ant to elephant, from man to God, everybody has

the same perception of things. But we do not perceive the

thing as it is in itself. It is coloured by the concepts of the

mind. The conceptualisation of the object is different from

the actual perception of the object. Here is the difference

between Ishvara srishti and jiva srishti, as has already been

adumbrated.

God has become the objects. He does not see the objects.

The body of the universe is the body of God, we may say. We

need not have to go on looking at our body in order to know

that it is there. It has become part of our consciousness. We

have to go on searching for the property that we have, but we

need not search for our own body. We will not lose it, as is

not an object in the sense of some property. But for us,

objects in the world are properties that we would like to

possess or reject.

230

In the case of God, the universe is His body and,

therefore, there is no reaction mentally from God in respect

of what He creates. If we can visualise the world as God

visualises it, let the world be there; it cannot bind us. The

binding character of things is because of their externality and

the capacity in them to evoke possessiveness, inklings of

love, hatred, etc. That is the cause of sorrow. God’s creation

does not cause bondage. It is our attitude towards it that

causes bondage.

So let the world be there. Why are we cursing it? But we

should see it as God sees it. He must also know everything. In

His omniscience in all detail, He will know what is happening

in the cosmos. Is God in grief? No.We are in grief.

The conception of the two birds on a tree, mentioned in

the Upanishads, is an illustration that can be taken here as

something very relevant. We are eating the fruit of samsara,

what they usually call ‘the fruit of the forbidden tree’. It is not

the tree that is forbidden, but it is actually the fruit. The fruit

is forbidden. We should not eat the fruit. We must be able to

enjoy the world without possessing it. We can enjoy a flower

without plucking it.We can enjoy gold without owning it.We

can enjoy everything without being a part and parcel of its

relation externally.

Mere existence of things should give us joy. The sun is

shining merely as an existence. The activity of the sun and

the existence of the sun are the same. It does not have to

move with hands and feet. So is the work of God. The work of

God is without hands and feet.

A-pāṇi-pādo javano gṛhītā paśyaty acakṣuḥsa śṛṇoty

akarṇaḥ (Svet 3.19). The Svetasvatara Upanishad tells us that

God grasps things without hands. He need not have fingers

like us. He can run faster than us, without feet. He can see

things without eyes. He can hear without ears and He can act

without a body or a limb. Vṛkṣa iva stabdho divi tiṣṭhaty ekas

tene’dam pūrṇaṁ puruṣeṇa sarvam (Svet 3.9). That Being fills

231

all this cosmos, and the very Being of that Almighty is the

activity of that Almighty. If we also can be like that – if we can

be happy merely with the perception of the world and the

knowledge of things as they are, and our involvement in the

world is not one of possession or rejection but of identity – if

we can identify our consciousness with the things and enter

into their substance in a state of what yoga calls samadhi, the

object will be our consciousness. The consciousness will be

our object. There will be no sense of possession or rejection.

Then what happens to the object? It no more causes sorrow.

The idea is that the world does not cause sorrow by itself.

It is our mental operation – placing the object outside

somewhere in space and time – that is the source of our

difficulty. Thus, we should reorient our way of thinking and

not make complaints about the creation of God. It is perfectly

in order; there is nothing wrong with it.What is wrong is the

way of our perception. There is a distorted vision with which

the mind of the human being envisages things in the world.

Let there be the integral vision that God has in respect of

things. We will see the world as heaven itself, while for the

mind that has placed the world outside, it looks like hell.

Pralaye tan nivṛttau tu guru śāstrady abhāvataḥ, virodhi

dvaitā bhāv’pi na śkyaṁ boddhum advayam (41). Merely nonperception

of duality is not the same as freedom from it. We

may not be conscious of a problem, but does not mean the

problem is not there. It is there, but we are not aware of it. It

should not be there. The point is not that we are not aware of

it; the point is that the problem should not be there at all.

Likewise, if we merely say, “Unconsciousness of the

existence of the objects outside, which is achieved by the

restraint of the mind, is the aim of life,” that can be seen in

the state of deep sleep also. In a way, the mind is restrained

there automatically. Do we mean to say that we are free

because the mind is not perceiving the world outside? The

mind will again jump on the objects when we wake up.

232

Even in pralaya, or the dissolution of the cosmos,

salvation is not attained. The cosmic dissolution at the end of

things is like a cosmic sleep, where all individuals are in a

state of slumber; and slumber is not freedom.We go to sleep.

We seem to have no problems when we are asleep, but we

create the problems the moment we wake up in themorning,

as if nothing has happened to us in sleep. So unconsciousness

is not freedom. Freedom is consciousness of the absence of

every kind of limitation, which we cannot have merely by the

unconsciousness of the presence of things.

Jīva dvaitaṁ tu śāstrīyam-aśāstrīyam-iti dvidhā, upādadīta

śāstriyam ātattvasyā vabodhanāt (43). Here the author tells us

that the duality that is created by the individual’s mental

perception also is of two kinds. It does not mean that

everything that we see is a source of trouble. There are

certain things which may help us in advancing on the path of

the spirit – though certain things which we think in our mind

are deleterious for our spiritual advancement.

In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, two kinds of vrittis have

been distinguished: functions of the mind that cause sorrow,

and functions of the mind which do not cause sorrow. We

have to make a distinction between these two things. So it

does not mean that every kind of mental perception is only

sorrow-giving.

For instance, when we see the world as an independent

existence consisting of the solar system, the sky and the

heaven, the stars, the hills and the dales, and the rivers and

the oceans – when we perceive the world that is in front of us

in this manner, we are not necessarily disturbed. Rather, we

will feel elated by the perception of this vast expanse of the

sky and the scintillating stars. This is one kind of perception

which is not necessarily disturbing. But there are disturbing

perceptions which are caused by emotional attitudes –

namely, the perception of things linked to the feeling that it is

ours or it is not ours. The world as a whole is not of that

233

nature. We do not want to possess the hill or the solar

system, but yet we perceive it.

So there are non-pain-giving vrittis or faculties called

aklishta vrittis, and pain-giving vrittis called klishta vrittis.

The aklishta or the non-pain-giving functions of the mind are

the processes of general perception, as has been mentioned.

But those which are causing pain to us are those functions of

the mind which are charged with emotions of love and

hatred, the sense of I-ness and my-ness.

We may take advantage of the perception that is of utility

to us, but that kind of perception which is totally useless and

is harmful should be abandoned.What are these two kinds of

vrittis? They are explained here.

Ātma-brahma-vicārākhyāṁ śāstrīyaṁ mānasaṁ jagat,

buddhe tattve tacca heyam iti śrutyanu śāsanam (44). When we

meditate on the relationship between ourselves and God, a

function takes place in the mind. The thought of God also is a

mental function, but it is a helpful function. It will not bind

us. This particular salubrious ennobling function of the mind

which is God-thought, though it is also a function of the

psyche, is not binding. It is liberating.

Buddhe tattve tacca heyam iti śrutyanu śāsanam. But when

we actually enter into God, the thought of God also ceases. So

the particular mental function, though it was a function like

any other function, has helped us in freeing ourselves from

the bondage of life and enabled us to enter into Godconsciousness.

All meditation in the beginning is a mental function. But

the aim of meditation is to not continue the mental activity.

The aim is to merge the subjective consciousness in the

object. The mental function continues so long as the object is

outside the perceiving subject. Even if we think of God as

something outside us, the mind will be thinking as if God is

some kind of object. But when identity takes place, in a state

of samadhi or union of consciousness with the object (it may

234

be any object or with God Himself), the mental functions

cease. Until that time, these good vrittis or helpful functions

may continue.

Śāstrāṇya dhītya medhāvī abhyasya ca punaḥ punaḥ,

paramaṁ brahma vijñāya ulkāvat tānya thot sṛjet (45). Grantha

mabhyasya medhāvī jñāna vijñāna tatparaḥ, palālam iva

dhānyārthī tyajed grantham aśeṣataḥ (46). Tam-eva dhīro

vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta brāhmaṇaḥ, nānu dhyāyād bhaūn

chabdān vāco viglāpanaṁ hi tat (47). With these quotations,

the author tells us how certain functions of the mind are

helpful to us, like the learning of the Veda, the study of the

Upanishads, the absorption of knowledge in the Bhagavad

Gita or of any religious scripture which will lift our soul to

the higher values of human life, and any kind of knowledge

which illumines us, enlightens us, gives us intellectual

strength and broadens our vision. These are all only mental

operations, but they are very helpful ones. Study, education,

and culture are all mental operations, but they are positive –

very, very necessary for the progress of the individual soul.

But when the object is attained, the identity of

consciousness with the final object is complete. There is no

necessity for further study of scripture. We need not be in a

school or a college for a lifetime. If the education is already

over, then put it into practice. After the study is over, the

books must be thrown away. They are not of any utility to us.

They are only helpful for gaining knowledge in the beginning;

afterwards, they become a burden, and we give all the books

to the library.

As a person who takes the pith of a grain then throws

away the husk and does not run after the husk, in the same

way all study, learning, academic qualification, etc., should be

finally abandoned as husk after we have entered into the

very substance of that knowledge – where consciousness

becomes the very aim or purpose of all education and study.

Otherwise, endless study is a waste of energy. Vāco

viglāpanaṁ: a waste of time and energy.

235

The Upanishad says, tam evaikaṁ vijānītha hyanyā vāco

vimuñatha, yacced vāṅ manasī prājña ityādhāḥ śrutayaḥ

sphuṭāḥ (48): Know that alone, and do not go on talking too

much about it. Close your mouth for some time and be

concerned with that great goal of life. On that let your mind

rest, and speak not very much because energy is wasted by

too much talking.

Yacced vāṅ manasī prājña ityādhāḥ śrutayaḥ sphuṭāḥ. The

Kathopanishad tells us that the sense organs which are

perceiving the world and are entangled in this perception

have to be slowly withdrawn and settled in the mind. The

mind is to be settled into the intellect; the intellect should

merge in the cosmic intellect; the cosmic intellect should

finally settle in Brahman, the Absolute.

Aśāstrīya mapi dvaitaṁ tīvraṁ mandamiti dividhā, kāma

krodhā dikaṁ tīvraṁ mano rājyaṁ tathe tarat (49). Up to this

time, we have been describing certain faculties or functions

of themind which are non-obstructive. They are helpful. Now

we are being told there are certain obstructive faculties –

functions of the mind which are deliberately harmful. They

have to be abandoned.What are they?

These harmful functions also are of two kinds, intense

and mild: tivram mandam. Very intense, harmful functions of

the mind are desire, anger, greed, etc.; and the mild obstacles

are building castles in the air, imagining something

unnecessarily, moving in the skies with no purpose

whatsoever. Both of these are obstacles. Neither should we

be angry, nor full of passionate desire, nor have greed, nor

should we build castles in the air. Even if the mind is not

actively doing any destructive work by building castles, it is

actually paving the ground for such activity later on.

Just because a person keeps quiet and does nothing, says

nothing and thinks nothing, it does not mean he is a wise

person. He is like an idiot from where the seed of harmful

activities may emanate. People who keep quiet and do not do

236

anything at all are dangerous persons. They must do some

work.

Ubhayaṁ tattva bodhāt prāk nivāryaṁ bodhā siddhaye,

śamaḥ samāhitatvaṁ ca sādhaneṣu śrutaṁ yataḥ (50). Both

these vrittis have to be abandoned for the sake of knowledge

of God. What are they? They are building castles in the air,

and actual active manifestation of desire, anger, etc. Shama,

dama, uparati, titiksha, sraddha, samadhana are certain

virtues that have been adumbrated in the Vedanta

philosophy, similar to the yamas and niyamas in the Yoga

Sutras of Patanjali, as necessary methods that can be

employed for restraining the mind both in its active harmful

aspect as well as the mild harmful aspect. When by actual

habituation to the process of deep meditation the knowledge

arises, these faculties also will cease. Thereafter there will be

nothing left in the world, in themind.

Bodhād ūrdhvaṁ ca tadheyaṁ jīvan mukti prasiddhaye,

kāmādi kleśa bandhena yuktasya na hi muktatā (51). Whatever

be the remnant of the mind, even if it is very subtle and mild,

it will cause some trouble one day, as a seed lying on barren

ground may not be visible at all to our eyes; but when rain

falls that barren ground becomes wet and fertile and the seed

which was not visible to anybody’s eyes shoots up into a little

plant and becomes a tree afterwards. A thing that is mild and

is keeping quiet, not doing anything, is a tamasic condition of

themind. It is not sattva; it is not positive. Therefore, absence

of mental activity should not be considered as wisdom.

Jīvan mukti riyaṁ ma bhūt janmā bhāve tvahaṁ kṛtī, tarhai

janmāpi te’stveva svarga-mātrāt-kṛtī bhavān (52). Someone

may say, “All these qualities that you are mentioning here –

of absence of the mental vrittis which cause harm, etc. – are

applicable to a jivanmukta purusha. What is the harm if they

are there as long as I am alive, provided that I am assured of

liberation after death?” This question, this point, is also

meaningless, because nobody who has the least remnant of

237

desire of any kind, even in a sleeping condition, will attain

God.

It does not mean that we can live a free and abandoned

life in this world and then attain God-realisation after death.

It will not come because the kind of life that we live in this

world is an indication of the kind of life that we will be living

after death. It is not that another kind of tree will grow there,

when one kind of seed is sown here. Whatever the seed is,

that is the tree. This is the life we are living in this world,

which is like a seed that we are sowing for a large plantation

that will shoot up in the next birth. And whatever fruit will be

attained and eaten in the next birth will be of the same

nature as the seed that we have sown here.

Thus, our attitudes, our thoughts, our feelings, our

actions, our outlook in this world will tell us what kind of

person we will be in the next birth. So we must be cautious

and live in this world in the same way as we would like to be

received in the next world.

Kṣayā tiśaya doṣeṇa svargo heyo yadā tadā, svayaṁ

doṣataym ātmāyaṁ kāmādiḥ kiṁ na hiyate (53). There are

people who think that going to the heavenly world is also a

kind of attainment, that it is good enough. The attainment of

heaven is defective because it is like a bank balance which

will not be eternally there and will get exhausted as long as

we do not positively contribute something further to it.

The circle of heaven that we speak of is a realm of

experience where we enjoy the desirable, happy fruits of the

good deeds that we performed in this world. But all deeds

have an end in themselves. Every work is perishable;

therefore, the fruit that will be yielded by that particular

action that we have done, even if it be good, will have an end

one day. And then what happens? When the momentum of

the good deeds that we have performed in this world ceases

to produce its effect in heaven, we will fall back to this world

again and be reborn here. So the idea of going to a heavenly

238

world in the sense of an enjoyable field of comfortable

existence should be given up. What we require is Godconsciousness,

God-realisation, and not merely joys, even in

higher worlds.

Tattvaṁ buddhvāpi kāmādīn niḥśeṣaṁ na jahāsi cet,

yatheṣṭā caraṇaṁ te syāt karma-śāstrā tilaṅghinaḥ (54). Desires

persist even in a subtle form, even at the last moment of life.

Sometimes we cannot even know that there are desires. Very

subtle propensities continue, and sometimes they create

impressions in the mind which are not necessarily

compatible with the existence of God.

It is difficult for the mind to entertain the thought of God

always, because God is not a heaven. He is not a realm. He is

not a stage of life. He is not any kind of region which we have

to reach. These ideas of reaching God, going to God, have to

be first of all purified in the beginning itself because even

when we think of God, sometimes we think like children, as if

He is somebody sitting somewhere in a corner and there is a

long distance between us spatially. The existence of God is

nothing but the existence of what we call the Universal

Principle. Inasmuch as it is everywhere – not only in some

places – the reaching of it is a process of inward

transformation, and not amovement in some direction.

When we reach the waking state from dream, though

there is some sort of a distance between dream and waking

consciousness, we do not have to travel by a vehicle. It is an

inward transmutation of consciousness that is taking place,

and suddenly we are in a different world. So is Godconsciousness.

It is an inner transmutation of consciousness

from the lesser dimension to the highest dimension possible.

This distinction should be drawn between actual Godthought

and the imagined God-thoughts of most people.

Buddhā dvaita sva tattvasya yatheṣṭ ācaraṇaṁ yadi, śunāṁ

tattva dṛśāṁ caiva ko bhedo’śuci-bhakṣaṇe (55). Bodhāt purā

mano doṣa mātrāt kliśnā syathā dhunā, aśeṣa loka nindā ceti

239

aho te bodha vaibhavam (56). The author here criticises the

imaginary ideas of certain untutored minds, who are not

properly educated in this line, who believe that the last

thought may be enough to lift them to the state of God after

death, and so in this life they may live in any manner

whatsoever. The author says this is not possible because our

thoughts are what we call life. Our life in this world is

nothing but the way in which our mind operates. Basically,

moving about is not life. Themental vrittis are the actual life.

What we think in our mind is the kind of life that we live

and, therefore, if we believe that we can have freedom of

choice in this world – which is completely unrestrained – and

we can expect a fruit of complete discipline after death, this

will be not possible. Otherwise, we will be like animals living

in the world and expecting God-realisation after death. The

mind which is completely unrestrained and given to

abandon, and goes for things in the manner of an animal

going for his grub or food – if that is the case with themind of

an ordinary human being, his fate will be the same as the fate

of an animal. We do not expect a buffalo to reach God.

Sudden change will not take place at the time of death.

Sudden changes never take place. Nature always moves in a

progressive way. It is evolution. Revolution does not take

place in nature. It is a gradual, step-by-step movement.

So in the next birth we cannot be something totally

different, entirely different from what we are. Just as

tomorrow we will not be totally different from what we are

today, in the next birth we will not be angels. How can we

become angels in the next birth when we are animals in this

birth? An animal does not become God. A gradual process of

evolution takes place from animal to man, from man to good

man, from good man to unselfish man, saintly man, God-man,

and finally God Himself. These are the stages of development

and, therefore, we have to undergo this spiritual education in

themanner prescribed.

Discourse 21

CHAPTER 4: DVAITA VIVEKA – DISCRIMINATION OF

DUALITY, VERSES 58-69

Kāmyādi-doṣa-dṛṣṭayā dhāḥ kāmādi tyāga hetavaḥ,

prasiddho mokṣa śāstreṣu tān anviṣya sukhī bhave (58). If we

have to be free from desires, we have to first of all investigate

into the basic defects of the object of desire. Desires arise in

respect of things, on account of not properly recognising the

nature of the things themselves. The world is not as it

appears to be; things are not what they seem. The mind’s

longing for a particular object or a group of objects is based

entirely on a misconstruing of the nature of things, like a

moth which sees beauty in a flame and runs after this beauty;

and we know what happens to that moth.

There are no desirable objects in this world. Objects are

neither desirable nor undesirable from their own point of

view. They are Ishvara srishti, God’s creation. An impartial

God has not created partial objects, where some of them are

desirable and some are not desirable. God does not create

unnecessary things, useless things, etc., which means there is

nothing that we need not desire. Everything has to be desired

at one stroke. The whole creation has to be desired, if that is

the case. But desire is not generally directed to the whole of

creation. It is a partial attitude of the mind in regard to

certain chosen things only, which happens on account of a

wrong notion the mind has in regard to those chosen things,

which present a false picture before the mind on account of a

tentative relationship established between the prevailing

condition of the object and the prevailing mood of the mind.

No object can attract unless the present condition of the

object, the structure of the object, fits in properly with the

condition of the mind at that particular moment. If the mood

of the mind changes tomorrow, that very same object will be

an object of disgust.

Today we want it, and tomorrow we want to throw it

away. What has happened? The same thing is there, but only

241

our mood has changed; our needs have differed. Not only do

our moods determine whether we want a thing or not, the

object itself also determines our reaction to it in different

conditions.

A presentable form of the object is required in order that

the mind may create the idea that it is a desirable thing.

Unpresentable, distorted, totally misplaced things will not

attract the mind. All this shows that desire is a relative

activity of the mind in respect of relative conditions of the

world. Therefore, whatever pleasure we hope to have from

such a kind of relative contact will be as fleeting as the

lightning in the sky.

Desires can be subdued only by detecting the defects of

the objects of the senses. Kāmyādi-doṣa-dṛṣṭayā dhāḥ kāmādi

tyāga hetavaḥ. This is the moksha shastra. Scriptures on

moksha tell us this.

Tyajyatām-eva kāmādiḥ-maronorājye tu kā kṣatiḥ, aśeṣadoṣa-

bījatvāt kṣatir bhagavate ritā (59). I understand that

desire, anger, greed must be abandoned because they are

active manifestations of the mind which are deliberately

harmful. But what about building castles in the air,

woolgathering? Is it bad? Woolgathering is a torpid state of

the mind, a tamasic condition, which will one day burst into

rajasic activity; and the harmful desires will reveal

themselves one day.

An unconscious condition of the desires is not an absence

of desires. If we are unable to think properly and we are in a

stasis, the mind is unable to think and it has withdrawn all its

activity and adjourned its processes. When this happens to

the mind, it does not follow that the desires also have gone.

The potential of the desires to manifest themselves in active

operation has been postponed for a future suitable condition.

Therefore, manorajya, what is called building castles in the

air, is also to be considered as equally harmful. It is

potentially harmful.

242

Bhagavan Sri Krishna mentions this fact in the second

chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. What does he say? That is

quoted here in the following verses of the Panchadasi.

Dhyātyato viṣayān-puṁsaḥ saṁgas-teṣūpa-jāyate, saṁgāṭ-

saṁjāyate kāmaḥ kāmāṭ-krodho’bhijāyate (60). When we think

of some object, there is a desire to go near it. Saṁgāṭ-

saṁjāyate kāmaḥ: Nearness creates desire. Kāmāṭ-

krodho’bhijāyate: Anger follows every kind of desire.

Śākyaṁ jetuṁ manorājyaṁ nirvaikalpa-samādhitaḥ,

susaṁpādaḥ kramāt-so’pi savikalpa samādhinā (61). The

potential of the desires in the mind can be totally eradicated

only in nirvikalpa samadhi. Nirvikalpa samadhi is the highest

state of samadhi that one can reach, where the mind ceases

to exist, getting dissolved in Pure Consciousness. But one

cannot easily reach that state. Therefore, we have to attain

that nirvikalpa state through the penultimate condition,

which is known as savikalpa samadhi.

Susaṁpādaḥ kramāt-so’pi savikalpa samādhinā. Through

the graduated steps of meditational practice as prescribed by

Sage Patanjali in his sutras by means of the samadhis –

savitarka, nirvitarka, savichara, nirvichara, ananda, asmita,

savikalpa, nirvikalpa are the stages of samadhi mentioned in

Patanjali’s sutras – we have to rise gradually from the lower

samadhi to the higher. Thereby, we will be able to overcome

the impulsion of desires. The desires will be totally destroyed

by attaining a state of samadhi.

Buddha-tattvena dhī-doṣa śūnye naikānta vāsinā, dīrhaṁ

praṇava muccārya manorājyaṁ vijīyate (62). If we want to get

rid of all these tamasic conditions of the mind into which it

gets sunk many a time, what should we do? First of all, we

must segregate ourselves a little from conditions,

atmospheres which are disturbing in nature. A little bit of

ekantavasa is necessary – living in a sequestered place, a

place where disturbances are less and the mind does not

have occasion to contemplate too much on objects of desire,

243

and there is also a chance for our intellect to operate in a

clarified manner. In that condition, where we are alone in an

isolated place, we should chant Om several times. Om, Om,

Om, with deep inhalation, with deep breath, we take this

elongated Pranava as our guide to dispel the darkness which

causes the fixity of the mind in a state of tamas and may

engender the movement of the very same condition into an

active rajasic state. Thus we can overcome this torpid state

called manorajya, building castles.

Jite tasmin-vṛtti-śūnyaṁ manastiṣ-ṭhati mūkavat, etatpadaṁ

vasiṣṭhena rāmāya bahudhe ritam (63). Like a dumb

person, the mind will keep quiet at the time when we chant

the mantra Om (Pranava) deeply, with intense feeling from

the bottom of our heart, right from the navel itself.

Etat-padaṁ vasiṣṭhena rāmāya bahudhe ritam: Rama, who

is the student in the Yoga Vasishtha, has been instructed by a

yoga teacher, the yoga master Vasishtha, in the following

manner. These are some verses that are quoted from the

Yoga Vasishtha.

Dṛśyaṁ nāstīti bodhena manaso dṛśya mārjanam,

saṁpannaṁ cet tadut pannā parā nivārṇa nivṛrtiḥ (64). We

cannot free ourselves from desire for objects as long as

objects do exist – as long as we feel that the objects are there

outside us, standing in front of us, to be received by us. There

are no objects in this world of God’s creation because the

creation of God is a universal vast extension, and it has no

externality. As God’s creation is universal, it has no

externality; therefore, there cannot be an object in the

creation of God. The object is nothing but a concoction of the

individualmind, which places the universally placed object in

an externalised condition. That which is universal is

considered as an external thing by the wrong activity of the

individualmind.

The objects that we desire are not outside us; they are

connected with us. They are internally connected to

244

everything in the world. The whole universe is an organic

oneness. That is how God would look at the universe. And

inasmuch as the universe is an organic completeness, there

cannot be externality anywhere. No part of the body can be

regarded as an object of some other part of the body. The leg

is not an object of the hand. The hand is not an object of some

other part. Notwithstanding the fact that we see an object, it

need not attract us. Do we feel attracted to our feet, to our

hands or fingers, to our nose? We do not feel attracted to

them because they are identical with our organic centre,

which is the body. The universe is one single organism.

Therefore, where comes the necessity for an object? Who

told us that there are objects in the world? They do not exist!

Then the desire ceases immediately.

This is the instruction of Vasishtha to Rama. Dṛśyaṁ

nāstīti: The objects do not exist. Bodhena: Thus having the

knowledge, manaso dṛśya mārjanam: the objectivity

consciousness of the mind is totally obliterated. Very great

instruction from Vasishtha to Rama. Wonderful is the Yoga

Vasishtha! Everybody should read it.

If this state can be attained by us, we have attained

moksha at that moment. The moment we feel that the objects

of the world are not there, the externality of space-time also

vanishes. Bondage ceases; in one instant we are in a state of

liberation. The bliss of moksha is attained then and there,

with no distance of time between now and afterwards.

Vicāritam alaṁ śāstraṁ ciram udgrā hitaṁ mithaḥ,

saṁtyakta vāsanān maunād ṛte nāstyu ttamaṁ padam (65).

Whatever I have to study, I have studied. Whatever I have to

consider deeply after the studies, I have considered deeply

and withdrawn myself into an inward consideration of all the

studies that I have made. The mind has been settled. My

education is now complete. The mind is calm and quiet. It

does not want to know anything further. Therefore, it is fixed

with a satisfaction of having known whatever is to be known.

Then there is no further desire. Whatever is to be known, is

245

known; whatever is to be obtained, is obtained; whatever is

to be done, has been done. All the vasanas vanish. Then the

mind becomes calm and quiet. Beyond that, there is no

higher state. The highest state is the cessation of the

activities of the mind. It acts because of the objects outside.

Really, objects do not exist. We are unnecessarily worried

over things which are not there.

Vikṣipyate kadācid-dhīḥ karmaṇā bhoga-dāyinā, punaḥ

samāhitā sā syāt tadaivā-bhyāsa-pāṭavāt (66). Sometimes, in

spite of all this practice, the mind gets disturbed because we

cannot be in a state of meditation throughout the day. There

are twenty-four hours in the day. Can we be meditating all

the twenty-four hours? So when we are not in the state of

meditation, suddenly the impulses from inside which were

there earlier, which insist on the enjoyment of objects, will

again crop up.What do we do?

Again close your eyes and sit for meditation at that time.

If themind is disturbed by certain thoughts which were there

earlier but should not be there now, sit quiet.Wash your face

with cold water, deeply chant Pranava Omkara, and sit for

meditation once again until the mind comes down to its

normal condition. And until that state is reached, until you

are satisfied that the mind has come down and the vikshepa

or the distraction has ceased, do not cease from meditation;

continue themeditation.

Ābhyāsa-pāṭavāt: By continuous practice in this manner,

you will find that the mind can be restrained; and by daily

meditation, by gradually prolonging the time of meditation,

you will find that the impact of such a meditation upon the

mind will be such that there will be very little occasion for

the impulses to rise once again. They will get burnt up

automatically.

Vikṣepo yasya nasty-asya brahma-vittvaṁ na manyate,

brahmai vāyam iti prāhuḥ munayaḥ pāra darśianaḥ (67). Such a

person who has no desires has not simply known Brahman;

246

he is Brahman Itself. The Godman is not simply seeing God as

some object outside, he is established in God. Total absence

of desires of every kind is virtually identity of oneself with

Ishvara Himself.

Darśanā darśane hitvā svayaṁ kelvala rūpataḥ, yas tiṣṭhati

sa tu brahman brahma na brahma vit svayaṁ (68). When a

person sees not anything in this world in front of him as an

object, or even space and time, when neither does he want to

see anything nor does he have any desire not to see anything,

the question of seeing does not arise. Objects are not there.

Then, what will he see? And then what happens? He remains

alone, himself.When objects do not exist, we alone remain in

a Universal state.We do not remain as a Mr., Mrs.; we are not

an individual existing at that time. The body-consciousness

also vanishes together with the object-consciousness. Then

kevala, the aloneness of Universality, alone remains in our

consciousness, having brushed aside all objectconsciousness.

Such a person is not merely a knower of

Brahman, he is verily Brahman Himself.

Jīvan-mukteḥ parā kāṣṭhā jīva-dvaita-vivarjanāt, labhyatesāvato’tre

dam īśadvaitād vivecitam (69). For the sake of

helping students, the author says that to enable us to become

a jivanmukta as early as possible, by the elimination of jiva

srishti, differentiating jiva srishti from Ishvara srishti – that is,

distinguishing between God’s creation from our own mental

creation – we will immediately become established in a state

of awareness which is more than personality consciousness.

The consciousness of personality is connected with the

consciousness of objects. And if the objects are not there, by

the deep consideration of the nature of God’s creation,

Ishvara srishti, as a universally spread-out something, and

having come to a conclusion that our body also is one of the

objects as any other object is, therefore neither the body can

be considered as ours, nor the object should be considered as

ours. Nothing belongs to anybody here. In this total setup of

God’s creation, nobody owns anything. Neither is there an

247

owner, nor is there an object that is owned. In this state of

Universal stability of consciousness, we have attained

jivanmukti. Here we conclude the fourth chapter.

The fifth chapter is very short. It describes the four

maha-vakyas: prajnanam brahma, aham brahmasmi, tat tvam

asi, ayamatma brahma. Prajnanam brahma: “Consciousness

is Brahman.” This is a statement that occurs in the Aitareya

Upanishad of the Rig Veda. Aham brahmasmi is the mantra “I

am Brahman, identical with Brahman”. It is a mantra, a

statement that occurs in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad of

the Yajur Veda. Tat tvam asi, “thou art That” is a statement

that occurs in the Chhandogya Upanishad of the Sama Veda.

Ayamatma brahma: “this Self is Brahman”, is a statement that

occurs in the Mandukya Upanishad of the Atharva Veda.

These four mahavakyas are culled from the Upanishads

belonging to the four great Vedas.

What is the meaning of these four statements –

prajnanam brahma; aham brahmasmi; tat tvam asi;

ayamatma brahma? The meaning of these mahavakyas is

elucidated briefly in the fifth chapter.

Yenekṣate śṛṇo-tīdaṁ jighrati vyākaroti ca, svādva svādū

vijānāti tat prajñānam udīritam (1). Consciousness is Brahman.

That is what the Upanishad says. What does it mean?

Consciousness is that through which we see things, hear

things, smell things, understand the variety of things, taste

things, and understand the very existence of things. That

which enables us to know that something is, is

consciousness.

We have, first of all, a consciousness that we are existing.

After that, we have a consciousness that the world is existing

outside, and that people are existing outside. And we have a

consciousness that we see, we hear, we touch, smell and

taste. We have a consciousness that we perceive the world.

This consciousness is what is meant by prajnana in this great

statement of the Upanishad when it says prajnanam brahma:

248

Consciousness is Brahman. Inasmuch as consciousness is

universal, it cannot be located in one particular place; it has

naturally to be identical with the Universal Absolute. So it is

simple enough to understand that consciousness is the same

as Absolute Brahman, which is of the nature of

consciousness.

Catur-mukhendra-deveṣu manuṣyā-śva-gavādiṣu, caitanya

mekaṁ brahmātaḥ prajñānaṁ brahma mayyapi (2). This

Brahman is consciousness and the consciousness is also in

me, through which it is that I become aware of all things

outside. Right from the creative principle of Brahma with

four heads, right from the gods in heaven such as Indra,

including all people, humans, animals, etc., among all these

there is one consciousness pervading. There is instinct, there

is impulsion, there is desire, there is understanding, there is

thinking, there is volition, there is ratiocination – all these

are various degrees of the manifestation of awareness in a

larger degree or lesser degree, a more intense degree or a

mild degree. That is, right from the creative Brahma onwards

to the lowest category of living beings, even to the ants, we

will see the Universal consciousness pervading in different

degrees of manifestation. One consciousness is there

everywhere. Caitanya mekaṁ: Because of the universality of

its being, it is Brahman the Absolute. Therefore, prajñānaṁ

brahma: consciousness is Brahman. It is everywhere, and it is

also in me. That is the meaning of this great statement

prajñānaṁ brahma: consciousness is Brahman. This

consciousness which is within me is also the consciousness

that is everywhere.

Paripūrṇaḥ parātmā-smin-dehe vidyā-dhikāriṇi, buddheḥ

sākṣi-tayā sthitvā sphuran-naha mitīr yate (3). Aham

brahmasmi. Who is this aham? The deepest consciousness in

us, which is more internal than any of the sheaths that we

have – consciousness which is aware of the five sheaths, the

nature of which we have studied in the first chapter of the

Panchadasi – verily is aham, ‘I’. “I am there.” “I am coming.” “I

249

am here.” “It is I.” When we make statements like this, to

what ‘I’ do we actually refer? Not this body; the first chapter

and the third chapter have clarified this subject very well.

The physical body, the vital body, the mental body, the

intellectual and the causal body cannot be consciousness;

therefore, they cannot be ‘I’. The body is not the ‘I’; the

breath, the mind, the sense organs, the intellect, and the

causal sheath are also not the ‘I’. The ‘I’ is that which is aware

of an absence of all things in the state of deep sleep. That

awareness which knows nothing external to itself in the state

of deep sleep, is our real nature.

Our real nature is not to be seen in the waking state, in

which we identify with the five sheaths. Our real nature is

seen only in deep sleep, in which we are dissociated from all

objects. That real consciousness which is uncontaminated by

association with the bodies, and therefore incapable of

division into parts, and therefore everywhere – that is aham.

“I am coming.” This ‘I’ is actually the Universal Being

asserting itself, not the Mr. Body.

Svataḥ pūrṇaḥ parātmā’tra brahma-śabdena varṇitaḥ, asmī

tyaikya parāmarśas tena brahma bhavā myaham (4). Aham

brahmasmi – the meaning of ‘I’, or Brahman, in the individual

has been explained. What is this ‘I’? What is aham? What is

Brahman – aham brahmasmi: I am Brahman? How can we be

Brahman unless Brahman itself is in us? Here is a great

danger in immature students chanting this mantra aham

brahmasmi. It should not be like an ant saying, “I am an

elephant.” Even if an ant always says “I am an elephant”, it

cannot become an elephant merely because it chants that.

“I am Rockefeller.” If we go on saying that, we do not

become rich.What is the good of chanting mantras?We must

be able to understand their meaning. This verse in the

Panchadasi takes pains to explain that this aham ‘I’ is not Mr.

So-and-so. It is not ‘I’ which is visible here. So do not say “I

250

am Brahman” means “I, this person sitting here, is Brahman”.

This is not themeaning of themantra.

We are not to be identified with the Universal Being as an

individual. The Universal alone can be identified with the

Universal. The Universal in us is identical with the Universal

that is everywhere. That is the meaning of aham brahmasmi.

It does not mean that one person is equal to Brahman. Such

mistakes should not be committed; it is an immaturity and

enthusiasm of thought. Otherwise, we will have suffering

afterwards.

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)