COMMENTARY ON THE PANCHADASI by SWAMI KRISHNANANDA - 7

COMMENTARY ON THE

PANCHADASI

by

SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

Discourse 32

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 187-209

Acetanānāṁ hetuḥ syāt jāḍyāṁśene śvara stathā,

cidābhāsāṁ śata steveṣa jīvānāṁ kāraṇaṁ bhavet (187).

Ishvara is the cause, both of the universe and the individual

jivas. By adopting the tamasic quality of prakriti as the

material for the manifestation of the universe, He becomes

the creator thereof. By reflecting Himself through the

intellects of individuals, He becomes the cause of the

individuals themselves.

The physical universe has no self-consciousness. That is

why it is supposed to be caused by the tamasic aspect of

prakriti, whereas jivas (individuals) have self-consciousness.

That is due to the fact that Ishvara's consciousness is

reflected through the intellect – that reflected consciousness

being called chidabhasa. So He is the cause of both the

universe externally and the jiva subjectively.

Tamaḥ pradhānaḥ kṣetrāṇāṁ cit pradhānaś cidātmanām,

paraḥ kāraṇatā meti bhāvanā jñāna karmabhiḥ (188). The

Supreme Being, Brahman, becomes verily the cause of the

objective universe rooted in the tamasic aspect of prakriti,

tama-pradhana, and is also the cause of the individual jivas

who are self-conscious on account of intelligence being

reflected through them. They differ from one another on

account of their feelings, by their ideation, by their action.

The attitudes, the ideas and the actions of people cause

the difference of one person from another person. Though

the same consciousness is reflected everywhere – the same

prakriti, in its tamasic aspect, becomes the cause of the

physical universe – yet we will find the earth is not the same

everywhere. Different kinds of material can be found in

different parts of the earth and in this physical cosmos which

is so vast. It is not that one uniform element is present

everywhere.

376

Even in inanimate material, there is internal difference.

Somewhere we will find gold ore, somewhere we will find

iron, somewhere we will find something else. Somewhere we

will find marble and somewhere some jewel or gem; and the

earth too is of a different nature – somewhere arid,

somewhere fertile, etc.

In the case of conscious individuals, they differ on

account of their psychological attitudes. Their outlook in

general varies. Though we all do see the same world with our

eyes, our idea of the world differs from person to person. It is

not a uniform notion that we have about things. Our

understanding of the world also differs from one another;

and our actions in respect of things in the world naturally is

determined by our idea about things and our feelings for

them.

Iti vārtika kāreṇa jaḍa cetana hetutā, paramātmana evoktā

neśvarasyeti cecchṛṇu (189). Vartikakara Sureshvara Acharya

is one of the disciples of Acharya Sankara. He is one of the

most voluminous of writers, and has written a huge

commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya of Sankara and

many other very important works such as Naishkarmyasiddhi,

Pranava Vartika, Manasollasa, etc. ‘Vartika’ is a huge

commentary and the one who writes such a Vartika is

endowed with the title ‘Vartikakara’.

In one place in this Vartikakara, Sureshvara Acharya, the

disciple of Sankara, appears to make out vaguely that

Brahman is directly the cause of the universe. As he does not

use the word ‘Ishvara’, some doubt may arise in the mind

whether there is a principle called Ishvara creating the

cosmos or whether it is Brahman itself – the Absolute itself –

directly becoming the world, congealing itself into things. Is

it so?

To this, the author of the Panchadasi says that we have to

understand Sureshvara properly. It cannot be that Brahman

directly becomes the cause. Causation cannot be applied to

377

Brahman directly. Brahman is neither the cause of anything

nor the effect of anything, because to attribute causality to

Brahman would be to attribute some character to it,

specifically in relation to that which is going to be manifested

afterwards. In that case, Brahman would be tainted with the

touch of modification.

So the Panchadasi's author, Vidyaranya Swami, says that

when the great author Sureshvara apparently made mention

of Brahman as the cause of the universe, it appears that there

was already in his mind this adhyasa, or the internal

superimposition of characters as regards to the causality of

the world. That is to say, he had in his mind what we call

Ishvara, though the word used by him is Brahman, because

for all practical purposes, Ishvara and Brahman are not

capable of differentiation – the reason being, there are

certain qualities in Ishvara which are to be found in Brahman

only. The universality of Ishvara is a character of Brahman.

Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence are also

characteristics of Brahman only, and they are to be found in

Ishvara.

We have to read between the lines of Sureshvara's

statement when he says Brahman is the cause of the

universe. The Upanishads also say that Brahman is the cause,

but they qualify it subsequently by saying that He willed. The

God we call Ishvara is nothing but this willed Brahman.

Brahman, associated with the will, is Ishvara; and if we free

Ishvara from willing, he becomes Brahman directly.

Anyonyā dhyāsa matrāpi jīva kūṭastha yoriva, īśvara

brahmaṇoḥ siddhaṁ kṛtvā brūte sureśvaraḥ (190). So

Sureshvaracharya has not directly made any such statement

that Brahman is directly the cause. The idea behind his

statement is that the will of Brahman is the cause. And this

will it is that we designate as Ishvara.

Satyaṁ jñānaṁ anantaṁ yat brahma tasmāt samutthitāḥ,

khaṁ vāyvagni jalor vyoṣaddhi annadehā iti śrutiḥ (191). This is

378

the definition of Brahman in the Taittiriya Upanishad: Truth,

Knowledge, Infinity is Brahman. From that Brahman, all the

elements arose – space, air, fire, water, earth and all the

plantations, all the vegetables, all foodstuff, by eating which

organic beings come into life. This is what the Taittiriya

Upanishad says, making it appear that Brahman is the direct

cause. It does not use the word ‘Ishvara’ here.

Āpāta dṛṣṭitas tatra brahmaṇo bhāti hetutā, hetośca satyatā

tasmāt anyonyā dhyāsa iṣyate (192). Here also we have to

understand when we read the lines of the Taittiriya

Upanishad, Brahman is actually defined in terms of Ishvara

only, though the word ‘Ishvara’ is not used. Whether the

word is used or not, the definition, the characterisation, is of

Ishvara only. Here again the mutual superimposition is to be

applied. The causality of the universe requires a kind of

thought, will, volition, or some such concentration on the

part of the cause. Our point is that Ishvara is only a name that

we give to the very same Brahman associated with that

tapas, that concentration, that will or determination to

create.

Anyonyā dhyāsa rūpo’sau anna lipta paṭo yathā, ghaṭṭi

tenaikatā meti tadvat bhrāntyai katāṁ gataḥ (193). As we

create a confusion between the cloth and the starch and then

call it a canvas, we confuse Brahman and the will thereof and

call that mutually superimposed principle as Ishvara. Just as

when we speak of canvas we do not clearly think of the

distinction between the starch and the cloth, so also when we

speak of Ishvara we do not make a distinction between

Brahman and will. Either way, this is only a matter of putting

things in proper style or language. The idea behind the

statements of the Upanishads that Brahman is the direct

cause or our statement here that Ishvara is the cause

practically amounts to the same thing. The differences

appear to be purely linguistic.

Meghākāśa mahā kāśau viviceyete na pāmaraiḥ, tadvat

brahme śayo raikyaṁ paśyantyā pāta darśinaḥ (194). Just as

379

children cannot make a distinction between the clear sky and

the sky that is reflected through a thin layer of clouds, and

say it is sky though actually it is a reflected sky that they are

seeing through the clouds, in the same way, spiritually

illiterate persons not well qualified do not know the

distinction between Brahman and Ishvara. They identify one

with the other. The difference is just simple.

Brahman reflected through this thin cloud-like layer of

shuddha sattva, pure sattva of prakriti, is Ishvara. Otherwise,

we would not be able to attribute creatorship to Brahman. If

we attribute creatorship to Brahman, we would have to

attribute all kinds of spatiality, temporality, etc., which are

not to be associated with Brahman in any way. We say that

God is all-pervading, Ishvara is all-pervading. The allpervadingness

is a definition that has meaning only if there is

space. If there is no space, there is no question of allpervading.

Similarly, we say He is eternal. This also is a

thought that is connected with time. All-powerful – He can do

many things. The question of doing many things does not

arise as He Himself is the All. This is how we have to

distinguish between Ishvara and Brahman.

Upakramādibhir liṅgaiḥ tātparyasya vicāraṇāt, asaṅgaṁ

brahma māyāvī sṛjatyeṣa maheśvaraḥ (195). The conclusion,

therefore, of all this analysis is that by reading between the

lines of all these great texts and authors like the Upanishads,

Sureshvaracharya, etc., we have only one conclusion to draw:

Brahman is totally unattached. It is not affected by the

changes taking place in the world, whereas it is Ishvara that

is directly responsible for the modifications of things in the

world. They are two different things in principle.

Satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ ceta upakra myopa saṁhṛtam,

yato vāco nivartanta itya saṅgatva nirṇayaḥ (196). The same

Upanishad, Taittiriya, defines Brahman as truth, knowledge,

infinity, commencing its statement from this definition of

Brahman as ‘satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ’, ends with saying

nobody can contact Brahman. Speech and mind return

380

baffled when they contemplate Brahman or try to describe

Brahman. Speech is baffled when it tries to describe

Brahman; mind is baffled when it tries to think Brahman. So

either way, right from the beginning to the end, the same

Upanishad seems to be emphasising the unattached

character of Brahman, which is not to be associated with the

will to create.

Māyī sṛjati viśvaṁ san niruddhas tatra māyayā, anya

ityaparā brute śruti stene śvaraḥ sṛjet (197). Ishvara is the

cause. The eternal Absolute is not the cause because the

Srutis, namely the Svetasvatara Upanishad, is referred to

here: asmān māyī sṛjate viśvam etat tasmiṁs cānyo māyayā

saṁniruddhaḥ (Svet 4.9). This statement is quoted here in

brief by this verse. The Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the

one who wields maya as His instrument or power creates

this cosmos, and the other one who is controlled by maya is

the jiva or the individual. This is, therefore, in confirmation of

our definition of the creative principle as Ishvara – and not as

Brahman, the Absolute.

Ānanda maya īśo’yaṁ bahu syāmi tyavai kṣata,

hiraṇyagarbha rūpo’bhūt suptiḥ svapno yathā bhavet (198).

Ishvara willed, “Let Me become many.” This is how the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in its first chapter, describes the

process of the creation of the universe. “May I become many”

– this is the will of Ishvara. The moment He willed in this

manner, He became Hiranyagarbha, or the cosmic subtle

body, in the same way as sleep may manifest itself slowly

into dream consciousness.

Krameṇa yuga padvaiṣā sṛṣṭir jñeyā yathā śruti, dvividha

śruti sadbhāvāt dvividha svapna darśanāt (199). Did God create

the world abruptly: “Let there be light and there was light” –

like that? Or was it a gradual evolution? There are two

theories or doctrines of creation. Most of these statements

that we have heard from the scriptures are in terms of

gradual manifestation. He willed, He became Ishvara, He

became Hiranyagarbha, He became Virat, He created space,

381

from space came air, from air came fire, from fire came

water, from water came earth, from earth came all living

beings. Now, is this not a gradual process of evolution of the

universe? Or is it just one thought: “Let all things manifest

themselves” and they are there in oneminute?

The Upanishads are not very clear as to how creation

took place. Most of the scriptures rely upon this gradual

manifestation of things. Only very rarely we hear it said that

God suddenly manifested Himself as all the variety. Now the

author of the Panchadasi says there is no objection to both

these doctrines.

We have dream, for instance. Sometimes we dream

things gradually, stage by stage. Sometimes suddenly we find

a mountain, rivers, elephants, people – everything in dream.

In one stroke we will find the entire world of people and all

things in dream. That is also one way of creation by themind.

But sometimes it is not so. We gradually begin to visualise

indistinct things first, and distinct things afterwards, and

details much afterwards.

In the same way as dream can be gradually a

manifestation of things in a systematic manner or it may be a

sudden eruption, God's creation can also be a sudden will.

Let there be this, and it is there. God can create like that; He

has such a power. He does not have to depend upon gradual

evolution, etc. He is not a scientist waiting for the gradual

manifestation of effect from cause. He is much more than

that. Yet His sudden will may take into consideration the

necessity of the evolution of the effect from the cause, as in

the case of dreams of people which can be suddenly

manifesting themselves or gradually taking place from

indistinct things to distinct things. This is some way of

digression. It does not matter to us in what way God has

created the world. The point is, there is a creation, and

whether it is sudden or gradual is immaterial for practical

purposes.

382

Sūtrātmā sūkṣma dehākhyaḥ sarva jīva ghanāt makaḥ,

sarvāhaṁ māna dhāritvāt kriyā jñānādi śaktimān (200). From

this supreme Ishvara who created by will, we say, by sudden

will, this very same Ishvara is called Hiranyagarbha,

Sutratma as we have already mentioned it in earlier verses,

in whom all the jivas are studded together as beads or pearls

in a garland, or cells, as it were, in an organism. Sutratma is

the cosmic prana, same as Hiranyagarbha who is the cosmic

subtle body in which we have brief outlines of the whole

physical universe to be manifested; and He feels “I am”:

sarvāhaṁ māna dhāritvāt kriyā jñānādi śaktimān.

When Hiranyagarbha feels “I am”, everything feels “I am”

at once. All the atoms, all the sand particles, all the leaves, all

the trees, all living beings, Gods and demons and human

beings, everything suddenly begin to feel “I am”. This I amness

in me and in you and in everybody, even an ant, is in fact

the I am-ness of Ishvara – Hiranyagarbha's I am-ness. He

feels “I am”, and immediately everybody starts feeling “I am”.

When He breathes, we breathe. When He manifests, we

manifest ourselves. When He withdraws, we are withdrawn.

He has the power to create the universe, modify it as it is

necessary, and has a clear concept as to what kind of

universe is to bemanifested for a given purpose.

Pratyūṣe vā pradoṣe vā magno mande tamasyayam, loko

bhāti yathā tadvad aspaṣṭaṁ jaga dīkṣyate (201). In this

condition of Hiranyagarbha, the world is indistinctly seen. In

dust or early in themorning when there is very little light, we

do not see things properly; we see objects indistinctly. In a

similar manner, the forms of the cosmos are indistinctly

visible as outlines, as it were, in the body of Hiranyagarbha.

Aspaṣṭaṁ jaga dīkṣyate: Indistinctly, not clearly, is the world

seen in Hiranyagarbha.

Sarvato lāñchito maṣyā yathā syāt ghaṭṭitaḥ paṭaḥ, sūkṣmā

kārai stathe śasya vapuḥ sarvatra lāñchitam (202).

Hiranyagarbha becomes Virat, the visible multi-formed

cosmos. As the stiffened cloth becomes canvas, on the canvas

383

outlines are drawn and the outlines become a visible colored

painting, in like manner, this subtle Hiranyagarbha manifests

Himself as a solid, visible, concrete, universe. Animated by

the same consciousness, this animating consciousness of the

physical universe is called Virat.

Sasyaṁ vā śākajātaṁ vā sarvato’ṅkuritaṁ yathā, komalaṁ

tadvade vaiṣa pelavo jagadaṅ kuraḥ (203). Hiranyagarbha is

very subtle, like a tendril or a tiny plant that is very tender,

very soft to touch; such is the form of the universe. Like a soft

tendril, Hiranyagarbha's condition is. When sunlight falls on

things everything becomes clear, and such clarity is in the

Virat-consciousness, as if strong sunlight is shed on objects.

Ātapā bhāta loko vā paṭo vā varṇa pūritaḥ, sasyaṁ vā

phalitaṁ yadvat tathā spaṣṭa vapur virāṭ (204). When plants

become trees and start yielding fruits, they become

completely mature. The universe, completely mature in itself,

in all its forms, in all its fructifications, is Virat-consciousness.

As bright sunlight is, as colored painting is, as a plant

becomes a tree and is there with all its fruits, so is this

majestic manifestation of Virat in the form of this universe

that we behold with our own eyes. Actually, when we open

our eyes and see, we are seeing Virat only. Wrongly we think

it is a world outside.

Viśvarūpā dhyāya eṣa uktaḥ sūkte’pi pauruṣe, dhātrādi

stamba paryantān etasyā vayavān viduḥ (205). In the

Visvarupadhyaya of the Veda, in the Purusha Sukta of the

Veda, the glory of the Virat has been described as

constituting everything right from the creative Brahma up to

the blade of grass. All things are studded in that Viratsvarupa.

This is described for us in the eleventh chapter of

the Bhagavad Gita in a more poetic grandiose manner.

Brahma, Rudra, all the Gods, all the denizens, even hell and

heaven, and even little grass – everything we will find there

in the body of Virat: dhātrādi stamba paryantān etasyā vayavān

viduḥ.

384

Now Ishvara, Hiranyagarbha and Virat have been

described. All things, whatever is in this world, is

indistinguishable, finally, from the body of Ishvara,

Hiranyagarbha or Virat. All is God: sarvam khalvidam brahma.

This is the truth that we arrive at by this analysis.

Īśa sutra virāḍ vedhaḥ viṣṇu rudendra vahnayaḥ, vighna

bhairava mairāla mārikā yakṣa rākṣasāḥ (206). Vipra kṣatriya viṭ

śūdrā gavāśva mṛga pakṣiṇaḥ, aśvattha vaṭ cūtādyā yava vrīhi

tṛṇādayaḥ (207). Jala pāṣaṇa mṛt kāṣṭha vāsyā kuddā lakā

dayaḥ, īśvaraḥ sarva evaite pūjitāḥ phala dāyinaḥ (208). We

may worship God as Ishvara or Hiranyagarbha or Virat, or

Brahma the Creator, or Vishnu or Siva, Rudra, or as fire, agni,

or as Vighneshvara or Bhairava, or some demigods like

Mairala, Marika, etc., or other demigods like Yakshas and

Rakshasas, as Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Sudras, as cows,

as horses, as deer, as birds, as trees like the asvattha, pipal,

banyan or mango tree, or grains, the harvest of grains like

paddy or rice, or grass or stone or water or wood, or chisel or

axe or shovel – anything is God, and provided we have the

faith that this is God, they will start speaking to us. A little

stone will start speaking to us. Why should it not, because it

is one little piece of the existence of this Supreme Ishvaraconsciousness

only.

Hiranyagarbha, Ishvara, Virat are present in all these

things. The Puranas tell us that from a brick wall, Narasimha

came out. Such a mighty being, coming out roaring, from

brick! Can we imagine? God exists in the stone, so why not in

other things? Īśvaraḥ sarva evaite: All these things that we

have listed here, right from the top to the bottom, excluding

nothing whatsoever, they are God only, Ishvara only. And if

we really worship them with feeling and our devotion is

sincere, they may respond to our devotion, and our expected

fruit will follow.

Yathā yatho pāsate taṁ phala mīyu stathā tathā, phalot

karṣāpa karṣau tu pūjya pūjānu sārataḥ (209). As our feeling is,

so is the response from God. In what manner we adore God,

385

in that manner only He will respond to us. It depends upon

our mind, finally. The quickness of the response from God or

the slowness thereof, the nature of the fruit that will be

granted to us by God and various other factors in respect of

the grace that may come from God, all depend upon our

attitude towards God – what we feel about a thing – and that

will be paid back to us in a similar manner. Thus, there is no

place in this world, no location, no point in space, where God

cannot be worshipped, and where our prayers will not be

answered.

Discourse 33

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 209-230

Yathā yatho pāsate taṁ phala mīyu stathā tathā, phalot

karṣāpa karṣau tu pūjya pūjānu sārataḥ (209). As is our attitude

towards Ishvara, so is the way in which we will have

response from Him. The quickness or the slowness of the

response from God depends upon the intensity of the feeling

of devotion to God. If it is a very intense feeling, the response

is very quick. If the feeling is comparatively mild, the

response will also be mild and it will take a longer period of

time to act.

But muktistu brahma tattvasya jñānādeva na cānyathā,

svapnabodhaṁ vinā naiva svasvapno hīyate yathā (210). We

may worship any god and we may receive the fruits of our

devotion in some way, but liberation is a different matter

altogether. It is not a worship; it is not an attainment of any

particular thing. It is not the fruit of our action. It is Being as

such. To enter into Pure Being is moksha, or liberation. But

this is not easy, because the nature of Pure Being excludes all

that is outside or external. Neither myself, nor yourself, nor

the world, nor anything this kind will be there – because the

perception of duality, multiplicity and externality contravene

the nature of Pure Being.

All perception that is natural to us, what we consider as

normal, is unnatural to the state of Pure Being. The best of

our actions cannot touch it. All our deeds pale into

insignificance in its abundance, in its radiance, in its purity.

Our very existence is an obstacle to the realisation of that

Pure Being. Let alone our desire for objects, our desire to

even exist as this person – to continue in this personality, this

love for our own self – is also an obstacle. Perhaps, it is the

greatest obstacle.

Wemay be free, to some extent, from desire for the world

of objects outside, but our desire to live as a person does not

go with the other desires. So as long as this personal desire to

387

maintain itself continues, it will act as a great hindrance in

the entry of consciousness to Pure Being. Until this state is

achieved, moksha is impossible.

Unless we wake up into the consciousness of our own

person, we will have no freedom from the turmoil of dream

perception. To rise from the difficulties we face in the dream

world, we do not have to perform any action there. Many

sorrows may be there confronting us in the dream world.

How will we get out of them? Any effort will not help us. Any

work, any effort, any deed, anything in any direction done in

the dream world would be a part of the dream world itself. It

cannot contradict the dream world.

So anything that we do in this world with the means

available in this world would be a worldly action only and it

cannot help us in rising above the world. A modus operandi

which is non-earthly, non-externalised, non-personal and

non-individual has to be employed. Here is the difficulty in

realising the Absolute. Ordinarily it is not possible because

there are no means of approach to it and all our means are

worldly, including this body.

Advitīya brahma tattve svapno’yam akhilaṁ jagat, īśa jīvādi

rūpeṇa cetanā cetanāt makam (211). This whole world is

something like a dream in the light of the Absolute. And to

rise from this world-consciousness to the Absoluteconsciousness

or Brahman-consciousness would be

something like waking from dream. Nothing that we do in the

dream world will be a help to us in the act of waking. An

internalmodification of consciousness itself is themeans, not

any external object. Any amount of worship in the dream

world will be, after all, a dream worship. It will not be real.

And, therefore, is this world not a help to us in the realisation

of the supreme Brahman, because to that Brahman, this

world is like a dream; and all that we do in this world is a

dream activity. It cannot cut ice with that eternal state.

388

The distinction that we draw between Ishvara and jiva, a

distinction between animate and inanimate beings, gets

wiped out in one moment in the act of waking from dream.

All the good things and bad things, all the delectable things,

all the painful things, even birth and death in the dream

experience, are washed out in one minute because of our

having woken up from dream. There is nothing like

awakening. All other things come afterwards; they are

secondary. The act of awakening from world-consciousness

to God-consciousness is the principle spiritual practice. It

does not consist in employing any means of the world. The

world cannot help us in getting out of the world. How would

we expect the world to be of any assistance to us in rising

above the world – because the means would be part of that

which we want to overcome. Hence, this world, including this

very body itself, is no more a help; it is an obstacle.

Ānandamaya vijñāna mayā vīśvara jīvakau, māyayā kalpitā

vetau tābhyāṁ sarvaṁ prakalpitam (212). The causal and the

intellectual sheaths, cosmically as well as individually, are

the causes of the appearance of such principles and beings as

Ishvara, Hiranyagarbha and Virat, or internally as jiva,

consisting of the consciousness of prajna, taijasa and visva.

They are created by maya only. Distinctions do not obtain

finally, as they do not obtain in the dream world in

comparison with the waking one.

Īkṣaṇādi praveśāntā sṛṣṭi rīśena kalpitā, jāgradādi

vimokṣāntaḥ saṁsāro jīva kalpitaḥ (213). Ishvara willed to

become many. This is said to be the beginning of creation.

Then there is the manifestation of this will in the form of

Hiranyagarbha, Virat. Then there is space-time

consciousness. Then there are the tanmatras – sabda, sparsa,

rupa, rasa, gandha. Then there are the five elements – earth,

water, fire, air, ether. Then the individuals manifest

themselves.

From the time Ishvara willed to create up to His entry

into the individuals who are off-shoots of this final act of

389

creation – from the will of Ishvara down to the entry of

Ishvara to the lowest possible limits of individuality – we can

say it is God's creation. None of these are created by the jiva,

or the individual. Neither Ishvara is our creation, nor

Hiranyagarbha nor Virat, nor space, nor time, nor tanmatras,

nor the physical world of the five elements, nor is our own

body, which we cannot manufacture according to our will. Up

to this level, it is God's creation.

From the time of the will up to the entry into particulars,

God's creation is complete. But individuals, jiva creation,

commences afterwards. Suddenly there is an externalised

waking consciousness emanating from the created

individual. The created individual, as far as it forms part of

the Virat consciousness, would not be a bondage. As long as it

is part of the Universal existence, there is no bondage

consciousness. But when it asserts itself, each one begins to

feel "I am this and you are that." Immediately there is a

consciousness different from Universal consciousness, and

that is called waking consciousness.

Waking consciousness is caused by the projection of the

internal Atman through the intellect of the individual and

working through the sense organs of the individual

personality. Being exhausted by this activity of the individual

personality through the sense organs, the individual falls into

dream and sleeping states, and after the sleep is over, it again

wakes up. Through great effort, liberation is attained.

Right from the waking consciousness down to dream and

sleeping and then the final act of liberation, are all working of

the jiva only. There is neither bondage nor liberation for God

Himself. The consciousness of having entered into bondage

and the necessity to liberate oneself – all these come within

the area of individual effort. Thus, in a single verse the

distinction between God's creation and individual creation

has been described.

390

Advitīyaṁ brahma tattvam asaṅgaṁ tanna jānate, jiveśayor

māyikayor vṛthaiva kalahaṁ yayuḥ (214). Not knowing that

non-dual existence, which is the truth of Brahman, is

unattached and detached from all things in every way, people

quarrel over what kind of God it is, who God is, what kind of

Ishvara it is that created the world, who is Ishvara, what is

jiva. These questions and answers thereon are all

unnecessary difficulties, problems created by logistic minds

that are not able to probe into the real truth of Brahman that

is Universally unattached. Once the consciousness identifies

itself with Universal existence, questions like who is God,

who is Ishvara, who is jiva will not arise. These questions

themselves are part of the ignorance of the true nature of

Brahman.

Jñātvā sadā tattva niṣṭhān anumodā mahe vayam,

anuśocāma evā nyān na bhrāntair vivadāmahe (215). It is a

great joy to come in contact with persons who have this

knowledge of Brahman. Others who are apparently not

fortunate enough to have attained this state are really objects

of mercy and pity. But there is a third category, who do not

even deserve pity; they are totally ignorant people who live

like animals, and we shall not have any dealings with them.

Tṛṇārcakādi yogāntā īśvare bhrānti māśritāḥ, lokāyatādi

sāṅkhyāntā jive vibhrānti māśritāḥ (216). There is confusion in

the mind of everyone in regard to the nature of Ishvara when

they start worshipping varieties of things as God. Stone is

worshipped, grass is worshipped, trees are worshipped,

animals are worshipped, human beings are worshipped,

celestials are worshipped. Varieties of formations

conceptualised by the human mind as superior to itself are

taken as gods. All these varieties of conceptualisations of God

arise on account of non-awareness of the true nature of God.

People who are accustomed to deny the other world, like

the atheists, materialists, agnostics, etc., up to the Nyaya,

Vaiseshika, Samkhya, Mimamsa, etc., may be said to be

confused in the nature of the individual. Some are confused

391

by the definition of jiva-hood; some are confused by the

definition of Ishvara-hood. The complete concept, free from

every defect, is difficult to have as long as concepts arise

from the intellect, which is a limited, finite, faculty.

Advitīya brahma tattvaṁ na jānanti yadā tadā, bhrāntā

evākhilā steṣāṁ kva muktiḥ kveha vā sukyam (217). Where is

the question of mukti? Where is moksha, as long as we go on

quibbling, arguing, and wander about from place to place in

search of what we call a god for our freedom? With stability

of the mind, a settled state of emotion and feeling, and a

conviction that Ishvara can be realised at any spot in this

world, there is no desire to move about. When this state of

affairs is reached, when the mind is completely controlled in

all its anguishes, desires and pursuits, it realises the non-dual

Brahman just at the very spot where it is sitting.We need not

move one inch from this place. Else, there will be confusion,

confounded-ness, and mukti or moksha will be far, far away.

We may say these categories of philosophy are not

actually falsehoods. They are degrees of reality. One thought

is a lesser reality than the other one, which is the higher. But

this argument also does not hold water much.

Uttamā dhama bhāva ścet teṣāṁ syādastu tena kim,

svapnastha rājya bhikṣābhyāṁ na buddhaḥ spṛśyate khalu

(218). The degrees of reality is also only a kind of confusion of

thought. For instance, in dream there is a degree of reality

between a beggar and a king; a king is certainly superior to a

beggar. Inasmuch as either of them is only mind-stuff, dreamstuff,

we will find that there is no distinction between a

beggar and a king – though they may appear as beggar in one

case and king in another case – because both are dream-stuff.

There is no difference between them.

Therefore, the degrees of reality are also not a great

consolation for us, though it is better to be a Badshah in

dream than a beggar in dream. It is a good idea no doubt, but

when we wake up the Badshah also goes, along with the

392

beggar. He will not be there for a long time just because he is

a Badshah or an emperor. So the idea of degrees of reality

goes together with the non-reality of dream world.

Tasmāt mumukṣu bhirnaiva matir-jīveśa vādayoḥ, kāryā

kintu brahma tattvaṁ vicāryaṁ budhyatāṁ cat tat (219). Too

much haranguing, questioning and running about in trying to

know what is this, what is that, is of no utility finally. “I

cannot understand what is God, I cannot understand what I

am, I cannot understand what is spiritual practice.” If we go

on questioning, and go on receiving umpteen answers, finally

we will reach no place. We have to stick to one particular

ideal, and that ideal has to become a conviction. Afterwards

there should be no doubt as to the veracity of that conviction

that has been achieved.

It does not matter what is our concept of God. We should

not compare our concept with another's concept. It has

already been mentioned that any concept is very good. All

are equally good or equally bad and, therefore, comparison is

not of much utility here. So we should stick to any concept.

Whatever notion we have about ourselves, that is the stand

on which we have to take the beginning of practice.

We know where we stand, what are our problems, what

are our difficulties. That stand is the real stand for us, and we

should not compare ourselves with another person or

compare our concept of God with another’s concept. Our

concept of liberation is good enough for us, and through that

we can attain moksha. After all, spiritual progress is an

individual affair; each one has to tread one’s own path, and

there is no question of comparison. No two persons will go to

moksha together. Therefore, we should stick to one reality

and utilise our time profitably in meditation on Brahman as

such, without too much of arguments.

Pūrva pakṣa tayā tau cet tattva niścaya hetu tām,

prāpnuto’stu nimajjasva tayor naitā vatā’vaśaḥ (220). These

tentative definitions of God and jiva may look like steps

393

leading to higher concepts and, therefore, we may be under

the impression that they are of some use. We may consider

them as of some utility to us, provided they enable us to rise

from the lower concept to the higher concept. But if we get

sunk in that lower concept itself, then that concept is not

going to liberate us. The degrees of reality are also good

enough, provided we consider them as steps in the ladder of

higher evolution. If the evolutionary process is not

progressing onward or upward, our concept of this deity, or

the prima facie utility of the different concepts of God, would

not help us much. The test of spiritual progress is the

freedom that one feels inside oneself and the betterment that

one feels in body and mind.

Asannga cid vibhur jīvaḥ sāṅkhokta stādṛgīśvaraḥ, yogoktas

tatvamor arthau śuddhau tāviti cet śṛṇu (221). The Samkhyas

say that consciousness is purusha; purusha is consciousness,

and it is unattached. It is universal. Universal is purusha

consciousness and it is unattached, says the Samkhya

philosophy, and our definition of Ishvara appears to be

practically of the same nature – universal, and consciousness.

Na tattvamo rubhā varthau asmat siddhāntatāṁ gatau,

advaita bodhanā yaiva sā kakṣā kācidi syate (222). There is a

difference between our definition of Ishvara here and the

apparent similarity between the notion of Ishvara and the

purusha of the Samkhya philosophy. God is only one; Ishvara

cannot be two. But the Samkhya purushas are many in

number. This is the difference between the Vedanta concept

of God and the Samkhya concept of purusha. Both are

universal, both are unattached – perfectly true. But one is

absolutely alone; the other is one among the many.

Therefore, the Samkhya purusha cannot be identified with

the Brahman or the Ishvara of the Vedanta.

Anādi māyayā bhrāntā jiveśau suvilakṣaṇau, manyante tad

vyudāsāya kevalaṁ śodhanaṁ tayoḥ (223). All this study is

intended to cleanse our mind of erroneous notions regarding

the aim of life, the ultimate goal that we have to reach – that

394

is, the relationship between tat and tvam, the relation

between us and the universe. That relation obtaining

between us and God has to be clarified first. And the

clarification should not lead finally to a further confusion as

to the nature of ourselves or Ishvara as we have the

difficulties in Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaishesika, etc. What should

be the conclusion? Our study should lead us to the conclusion

of the unitariness of consciousness and the aloneness of it.

One alone, without a second.

Ata evātra dṛṣṭāntaḥ yogyaḥ prāk samyagīritaḥ,

ghaṭākāśa mahākāśa jalākāśābhra khātmakaḥ (224). Again

and again the illustration of the relation between jiva and

Ishvara is brought out here by the analogy mentioned for the

clarification of the concept. We may forget it, so it has to be

repeated again and again.

The innermost Atman in us, called Kutastha, is

comparable to the space in a pot appearing to be limited to

the walls of the pot. That is the Pure Consciousness, the

Kutastha in us. The vast space outside, unlimited in any

manner, is Brahman. What is the difference between our

deepest consciousness and Brahman? Nothing; the difference

is notional. The same space that is inside the pot is also

outside. The largeness of space does not in any way get

diminished by its apparent location inside a pot. The space is

not inside the pot. It is only our imagination. If the pot walls

are broken, nothing happens to the space which was

apparently inside. It merges with the universal ether.

If this individual consciousness caused by the sheaths is

to be transcended by the breaking through all the sheaths,

the pot of this body will break and the space-consciousness,

which is the Kutastha inside us, will merge with Universal

consciousness. That is the difference between Kutastha and

Brahman, the difference between pot ether and universal

ether.

But suppose there is a pot filled with water and space is

reflected through that water; that is jiva. It is not pure ether,

395

but reflected ether – not Kutastha consciousness pure and

simple by itself, but the same consciousness reflected

through the intellect which acts as a water medium, as it

were, in this pot of the body. And Ishvara is the universal

reflection of the same space through the sheet of clouds. So

we have now some understanding as to what difference

there is among these principles of Brahman, Kutastha,

Ishvara and jiva.

Jalābhro pādhya dhīne te jalākāśābhra khe tayoḥ, ādhārau

tu ghaṭākāśa mahākāśau sunirmalau (225). Though there is an

apparent reflection of space in the pot filled with water and

through the clouds in the sky, really the sky is not capable of

reflection like that, nor is the space in the pot reflected

through the water. The space remains space; the clouds do

not in any way contaminate the universal space. The water in

the pot also does not in any way affect the space there. Space

cannot be affected by any kind of movement or

contamination of things in space. Space is unattached.

That ether in the pot is the source, the origin, of even the

reflection thereof through the water. Similarly, the vast ether

is the source of even the reflection of the very same thing

through the clouds in the sky. There are, therefore, really no

permanent reflections. They depend upon the cloud on the

one hand and the water on the other hand. If the media are

lifted up, Ishvara and jiva merge into the unity of Kutastha

and Brahman. The One alone remains at once.

Evamānanda vijñāna mayau māyādhiyor vaśau, tada

dhiṣṭhāna kūṭastha brahmaṇī tu sunirmale (226). In the same

way, this consciousness in us which is inside the

anandamaya kosha and is reflected through the intellectual

sheath – both these aspects of our consciousness are based

finally on the ultimate substratum of Kutastha consciousness

and Brahman consciousness.

Etat kakṣopa yogena sāṅkhaya yogau matau yadi, deho’nna

maya kakṣatvāt ātmatvenā bhyu peyatām (227). If you begin to

396

feel that this definition of the distinction between Ishvara

and jiva or Brahman and Kutastha is similar to the definition

of the same through Samkhya, we say it is not so. There is a

great difference because the Samkhya sticks to its original

concept of the multiplicity of individuals, and multiplicity can

be conceived only in terms of body consciousness, finite

consciousness, like this physical body-consciousness.

Inasmuch as we are likely to enter into greater and greater

muddles by accepting the finitude and the divisibility of

consciousness according to Samkhya, we cannot compare

this conclusion of ours drawn through these analogies to

anything that Samkhya has said. Otherwise, we will enter

into body-consciousness afterwards.

Ātma bhedo jagat satyam īśo’nya iti cet trayam, tyajyate

tasitadā sāṅkhya yoga vedānta sammatiḥ (228). In order for

Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta to shake hands and have a single

roundtable conference, something has to be done. Samkhya

should get over the idea that the purushas are many in

number, and it should also get over the idea that the world is

an external reality; and the Yoga of Patanjali should get over

the idea that Ishvara is simply transcendentally sitting

somewhere beyond the created world. If these three notions

– the multiplicity of purushas, the reality of an externalised

world, and a transcendent Ishvara – were abandoned by

Samkhya and Yoga, Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta would

merge into a single doctrine. There would be no difference

among them. There would be no Samkhya, no Yoga, no

Vedanta. There would be one unitary philosophy, a single

religion of the world, provided these finitising notions are

got over. The transcendental, extra-cosmic character of

Ishvara, the externality of the world of perception, and the

multiplicity of individuals – these three are the obstacles

before us to realise the Ultimate Being.

Jīvo’saṅgatva mātreṇa kṛtārtha iti cet tadā, srak candanādi

nityatva mātreṇāpi kṛtārthatā (229). Yathā sragādi nityatvaṁ

duḥ saṁpādyaṁ tathātmanaḥ, asaṅgatvaṁ na saṁbhāvyaṁ

397

jīvator jagadīśayoḥ (230). The Samkhya doctrine has come

forward and said, "What does it matter if the purusha is

multiple, provided it is unattached? Unattached is purusha;

the detached character of purusha itself is sufficient to bring

it liberation. If there aremany, in what way is the harm?"

This is like arguing that the ordinary material objects in

the world, such as sandalwood, flower garland, etc., are

manifold in number, and it does not matter if they are

manifold provided the one is different from the other. This

argument will not hold good because the unattached

character of the purusha is not possible as long as there is a

world outside and there is a God above. The above-ness of

God will control the purusha to such an extent that there

would be no detachment of the purusha. It will be completely

controlled by the ordinances of Ishvara on the one hand, and

on the other hand, the externality of the world will impinge

upon it so vehemently that there cannot be detachment.

Therefore, there is no use merely saying detachment is

good enough. Universality is important, not merely

detachment, because as long as there is finitude, detachment

is not possible; and the purusha of the Samkhya is finite.

Merely because we say that they are universal, it does not

amount to anything because universal beings cannot be

multiple in number. Their multiplicity defies their

universality. As long as the jiva is there, subject to the

externality of the world and the controlling power of God or

Ishvara above, there would be no freedom for anyone. So

subjection to God and subjection to the world outside follow

as a concomitant feature of the acceptance of the Samkhya

doctrine of the reality of the world and the Yoga doctrine of

the transcendental nature of an Ishvara unconnected with

the world.

Even if liberation is attained according to the Samkhya,

the purusha will get into bondage again as long as prakriti is

there, because prakriti is eternal, so what good is this

liberation?What is liberation according to the Samkhya? It is

398

the detachment consciousness of purusha from prakriti.

What is the use of this detachment consciousness if it cannot

be omniscient?

It is said that purusha is omniscient because it is

universal. How could it be omniscient when prakriti is

contending in front of it? If the prakriti exists as an eternal

substance, as real as the purusha consciousness itself, there

can be no universal consciousness. And therefore, the

prakriti which is eternally there, as eternal as the purusha,

will contend with the purusha eternally, and the bondage of

the purusha will also continue. There will be no salvation for

the purusha as long as prakriti exists.

Thus, the doctrine of the eternity of prakriti and the

eternity of purusha simultaneously cancel each other, and the

doctrine of the Samkhya falls because it cannot take us to the

true concept of liberation.

Discourse 34

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 231-248

Avaśayaṁ prakṛtiḥ saṅgaṁ pure vāpādayet tathā, niyaccha

tyeta mīśo’pi ko’sya mokṣas tathā sati (231). The doctrine of

the Samkhya is taken up for consideration once again, here

especially in regard to its concept of moksha or liberation.

The Samkhya doctrine holds that bondage is the union of

purusha with prakriti – consciousness and matter; and

freedom or moksha, liberation, is the separation of

consciousness from matter – the withdrawal of the purusha

consciousness from prakriti. Here the Panchadasi takes up

this issue as to whether this is a feasible definition of moksha,

because freedom is either complete or it is worth nothing. A

little freedom is more annoying than having no freedom at

all.

Complete freedom is called moksha, liberation. How

would we expect the purusha consciousness to be absolutely

free and be in a state of liberation when prakriti is there,

contending with its own existence? The infinite prakriti will

stand opposed to the infinite purusha always. Secondly,

omniscience would be impossible unless the purusha

consciousness knows prakriti also. If prakriti is something

that the consciousness of purusha does not know, there

would be no omniscience because there would be something

which the purusha does not know. But if purusha knows

prakriti, it will come in contact with prakriti once again as it

did earlier, so bondage would be there – no freedom.

Thus, the very definition of moksha according to the

Samkhya is defective because prakriti will certainly restrain

the purusha as it did earlier and cause it to have contact with

prakriti in order that it may be an object of its awareness. If

prakriti is known, it causes bondage. If it is not known,

purusha is not omniscient. So either way, there is a problem.

And Ishvara, who is considered by the Yoga doctrine as

something transcendent, extra-cosmic, will also control the

400

purusha as He was controlling it earlier, because unrelated

objects are the sources of fear. If there is some relation, we

can adjust ourselves harmoniously in terms of that relation.

If there is no relation whatsoever, it is difficult to make out

what sense is there between one thing and another thing.

What kind of moksha is this, then? Ko’sya mokṣas tathā sati.

Aviveka kṛtaḥ saṅgaḥ niyama śceti cettadā, balādā patito

māyā vādaḥ sāṅkhyasya durmateḥ (232). The Samkhya

doctrine may retort by saying that the contact of purusha

with prakriti a second time is not permissible because it has

already had an experience of the suffering caused by such a

contact; and actually, the contact itself is inexplicable, since

two dissimilar entities cannot come in contact with each

other. And a contact so-called, between purusha and prakriti,

is only a matter of non-discrimination. If this is accepted by

the Samkhyas, it is actually landing itself on the maya

doctrine of the Vedanta philosophy. Somehow or other, the

Universal Brahman cannot be totally avoided from any

concept of philosophical doctrine, and Samkhya is refuted

here hereby.

Bandha mokṣa vyavasthārthaṁ ātma nānātva miṣyatām, iti

cenna yato māyā vayavasthā payituṁ kṣamā (233). For the sake

of the freedom that one has to attain in order to reach

moksha, the distinction between Atman and anatman has to

be entered into, because the multiplicity of the purushas as

adumbrated by the Samkhya stands as a great obstacle in

knowing the true difference between purusha and prakriti,

consciousness and matter.

The distinction between the knower and the known is

not very clear when consciousness comes in contact with

matter. As the illustration of the Samkhya goes, when a red

flower is brought very near in juxtaposition with a clear

crystal, the crystal assumes the color of the flower; it

becomes red in its nature. The whole crystal becomes red.

Now, crystal can never become red, inasmuch as the redness

that is perceived is only due to an apparent contact of the

401

color of the flower brought near it – apparent contact. Really

the flower has not entered into the crystal.

In a similar manner, it is to be understood how bondage

has taken place. Consciousness cannot enter the object

because of the dissimilar characters between the two. The

object is that which is not consciousness. If the object also is

regarded as a face of consciousness, that should not be

regarded as an object any more. The definition of

consciousness is non-objectivity and, therefore, when we

perceive an object and get attached to it, we should not be

under the impression that we are beholding consciousness

itself. Consciousness differentiates itself from everything that

is external to it, and the objects are nothing but the

externality of consciousness.

Durghaṭaṁ ghaṭayāmīti viruddhaṁ kim na paśyasi, vāstavau

bandha mokṣau tu śrutir na sahate tarām (234). This is again a

refutation of the Samkhya doctrine. An impossible thing

cannot be made possible. The coming in contact of purusha

with prakriti is actually an impossible occurrence –

impossible because of the two being totally different in

nature, one being pure subjective awareness and the other

being pure objective unconsciousness. It is a contradiction.

Don't you realise that in your attempt to make feasible what

is otherwise impossible, you are bringing about a

contradiction? Viruddhaṁ kim na paśyasi.

Vāstavau bandha mokṣau. Actually speaking, even

bondage and liberation are not to be regarded as spatiotemporal

occurrences. Bondage is not a spatial or a temporal

reality. It is something above space and time. That is why the

bound soul also becomes conscious of there being such a

thing called space and time. Even moksha is not something

that is achieved in the future.

Moksha is liberation, attainment of eternity –

timelessness in eternity. As eternity cannot be amatter of the

future as eternity has no past, present and future, the

402

attainment of eternity, which is really moksha or liberation,

cannot be a matter of tomorrow. It is an eternity just now at

this very moment – here and now. This has been confirmed

by certain scriptures like the Karikas or the commentary

written by Gaudapada Acharya on the Mandukya Upanishad,

where he has quoted a very important verse.

Na nirodho na cotpattir na baddho na ca sādhakaḥ, na

mumukṣur na vai muktaḥ ityeṣā paramārthatā (235). The

Ultimate Reality being Brahman, all processes, whatever they

be, that applicable to this world of experience cannot be

applied to Brahman. There is no dissolution of the cosmos

ultimately, nor is there a creation of the universe, in the same

way as a rope which is indistinctly seen in twilight looks like

a snake, but really it has not become a snake. The snake is

not created by the rope; there is no creation of the snake at

any time, though it appears in the rope. So appearance of

something can be possible, even if it is not really there. Also,

there is no withdrawal of the snake into the rope. That never

took place; therefore, withdrawal also is out of point.

So is the nature of this world. It is not an actual

manifestation in concrete substantial form. It is an

appearance, as subtle forces which constitute this cosmos in

a large continuum of spacelessness and timelessness may

look like objects like the five elements – earth, water, fire, air,

ether – little atomic particles which are inwardly forces and

are continuous in their nature. Therefore, defying even the

concept of space and time they become the causes of solid

spatio-temporal objects like the five elements of earth, water,

fire, air and ether. Basically, originally, neither is there

creation nor withdrawal of the universe.

Therefore, nobody can be considered as ultimately bound

and ultimately attempting for freedom from bondage.

Nobody aspires for moksha and nobody is attaining moksha if

it is understood in a spatio-temporal sense, because moksha

is not a movement in space. It is also not an occurrence in

time. So when the thing is neither in space nor in time, where

403

is it then? It cannot be regarded as anything comparable to

that in the world or conceivable to our mind.

Originally, when we wake up from the state of dream, for

instance, we will find the objects that we saw in dream were

never created and were never withdrawn. The experiences

caused in dream did not actually take place, though they

appear to be taking place very, very, solidly. A very solid and

real experience may not actually be there at all. This is what

is happening in creation, finally. God alone is, and outside

Him nothing can be.

Māyākhyāyāḥ kāma dhenor vatsau jiveśvarāvubhau,

yathecchaṁ pibatāṁ divaitaṁ tattvaṁ tvadvaita meva hi (236).

If maya can be regarded as a cow, Ishvara and jiva are the

products, the two babies born to this maya shakti. Because of

the fact Ishvara is a reflection of Brahman through the sattva

guna of prakriti, and jiva is the very same Brahman reflected

through the rajas and tamas qualities of prakriti, prakriti is

maya from the Vedantic point of view.

Hence, both the Ishvara concept and the jiva concept are

possible only when there is a reflection of Brahman

consciousness through the qualities of prakriti. That is why it

is said that prakriti, which is maya, is the mother, as it were,

of these two babies that were born to it, Ishvara and jiva.

Yathecchaṁ pibatāṁ divaitaṁ tattvaṁ tvadvaita meva: Let

these children, these calves born to this cow, drink of the

milk of duality as much as they can. Yet non-duality reigns

supreme. The very concept of duality implies a precedence of

a consciousness that itself is not dual, but non-dual.

Kūṭastha brahmaṇor bhedaḥ nāma mātrāt ṛte na hi,

ghaṭākāśa mahākāśau viyujyete nahi kvacit (237). We have

already mentioned earlier that the Kutastha consciousness,

or the deepest Atman in us, and the supreme Brahman are

not separable in any way whatsoever, as the pot ether cannot

be separated from the large ether.

404

Moksha will be the merging of the pot ether in the

Universal ether. But the pot ether never exists and, therefore,

neither can its creation be regarded as real, nor can its

merger be regarded as an event that is taking place. In the

same way as the creation of a pot ether or the merger of it in

the Universal ether cannot be regarded as events taking

place, so is the nature of this world coming from Brahman or

the return of this world to Brahman. They appear to be going

on as events in space and time, but really no such event takes

place – because if events take place, God's unitary existence

would be foiled.

Yada dvaitaṁ śrutaṁ sṛṣṭeḥ prāk tadevādya copari, muktā

vapi vṛthā māyā bhrāmayatya khilān janān (238). That unitary

Being – Absolute Brahman, which was there prior to the

apparent creation – is even now in the same condition. After

the creation, Brahman has not become something else. It is

existing in the same eternal state even after the apparent

creation of the world as it was prior to the act of creation.

Even in the state of moksha it will remain the same eternity

that it was.

Delusion, maya, somehow or other confuses people and

makes them run about hither and thither in search of things,

as if they are the causes of bondage or they are the sources of

their liberation. Nothing of the kind is finally true, because

we have emphasised again and again that the existence of

Brahman does not permit the existence of any event taking

place outside it. Nor can any event take place within it.

Therefore, no event takes place anywhere.

This is something like the modern theory of relativity

coming to the staggering conclusion that events do not take

place in space or time. If they do not take place in space or

time, where on earth are they taking place? They do not take

place – a very great consoling truth for us.

Ye vadantīt thamete’pi bhrāmyante vidyayātra kim, na

yathā pūrva meteṣām atra bhrāntera darśanāt (239). Even after

405

we hear all these discourses on the great truth of Brahman,

we will find that we are still in the same bondage of suffering.

But, the author says there is a difference. There is a

difference between us – people who have listened to this for

a long time and people who have never heard of it at all, even

once. Though we also have hunger, thirst, suffering, sorrow,

anxiety and many other difficulties as other people have,

there is some strength in us which will stand us in good stead

on account of the knowledge that has been impregnated into

our mind and the deep contemplation that we have practiced

on this truth for a long time, which will be of great utility to

us even in the worst of suffering.

Thus, it does not mean that merely because there is an

apparent suffering caused by body consciousness, the

knowledge that we have acquired is useless. It will stand us

in good stead one day or the other because knowledge is

different from ignorance, and one who knows nothing about

things is certainly not the same as one who knows these

things – notwithstanding the fact that, physically speaking,

they look alike.

Aihikā muṣmikaḥ sarvaḥ saṁsāro vāstavas tataḥ, na bhāti

nāsti cādvaitam itya jñāni viniścayaḥ (240). Ignorant people do

not even know that there is a world other than this world.

And even if they are told there is something like that, they

believe in the reality of an earthly existence and the solid

reality of a heavenly world. The samsara, this bondage, this

suffering of life, is considered as permanently valid by

ignorant people. Neither do they know what is above the

world, nor do they have any idea of the non-dual character of

the Ultimate Reality. This is the essence of ignorance, ajnana.

But the jnanin, or the knower, is of a different character.

He knows that this world and also the other realms such as

heaven, etc., are degrees of reality – apparently there but

really not there, for reasons already mentioned in earlier

verses.

406

Jñānino viparīto’smāt niśayaḥ samyagī kṣyate, svasva

niścayato baddho mukto’haṁ ceti manyate (241). Ultimately,

nothing affects the jnanin. If he gains something, it is all right

for him. If he loses something, that is also all right for him

because he feels that any material gain is not going to make a

person really happy. And inasmuch as nothing that comes

can make him happy, nothing that goes can make him

unhappy. This is what the jnanin really feels.

On account of a lack of clarity in understanding, one feels

that he is bound; the other feels he is free. The freedom and

the bondage of the soul are actually caused by the variety of

thinking processes taking place in the mind. The mind

thinking in terms of objects is what is bound. The mind

thinking in terms of soul consciousness, independent of the

objects, is what is free.

Nādvaitam aparokṣaṁ cet na cidrūpeṇa bhāsanāt, aśeṣeṇa

na bhātaṁ cet dvaitaṁ kiṁ bhāsate’khilam (242). It may be

held that this unitary consciousness that is non-dual is not

visible to the eyes. Why not? The very nature of

consciousness is of the character of non-duality. We cannot

say that non-duality is not visible. Our consciousness itself is

a demonstration of this unreality. Do we feel that we are two

persons because we have got two hands or two ears or two

legs? Do we feel that we are a multiple complex individual

because our body is made up of many, many little parts,

fractions, or cells? Do we not feel that we are one indivisible

consciousness?

When we go into deep sleep, all the associations of the

consciousness with the five sheaths are obliterated

completely. Do we not feel at that time that there is one

single bliss-like experience?We had a wholeness of feeling in

the state of deep sleep. That wholeness is nothing but

indivisibility. Indivisibility is nothing but non-duality of

consciousness. So the non-duality of consciousness is

actually demonstrated before our very eyes every day in our

day-to-day experience.

407

Aśeṣeṇa na bhātaṁ cet dvaitaṁ kiṁ bhāsate’khilam: The

only thing is, it is not entirely clear to us. That is the case with

the dual world also. Do we see the dual world entirely with

our eyes? The astronomical universe is so large that even the

most powerful telescope cannot fathom it. But have we seen

the entire dual world? If that is the case, why complain that

the non-dual consciousness is only partially being felt? It is

partially felt because of the encumbrance of the karma

potencies that are heaped up in the layer called the causal

body, which obscures the consciousness in the state of deep

sleep. But for that, we would have seen the entirety of the

unitary consciousness. This is the reason why we have the

experience only in fraction and not in wholeness.

Diṅmātreṇa vibhānaṁ tu dvayorapi samaṁ khalu, dvaita

siddhi vada dvaita siddhiste tāvatā na kim (243). Fraction is the

nature of our experience. Neither the dual world nor the nondual

consciousness can be experienced by us completely and,

therefore, they stand on an equal footing. There is the dual

perception of the world of astronomy or the non-dual

perception of consciousness. Therefore, there is no

comparison of superior or inferior in respect of our

awareness of the dual world or the non-dual consciousness.

Both of them are known only in fraction, for reasons already

mentioned.

Dvaitena hīna madvaitaṁ dvaita jñāne kathaṁ tvidam, cid

bhānaṁ tva virodhyasya dvaita syāto’same ubhe (244).

Actually, we in our ignorance may imagine the non-duality is

an abstraction, that it is an absence of duality. This is not so.

The origin of duality presupposes the existence of a non-dual

consciousness. In order that we may know that two people

are sitting, our consciousness should rise above the concept

of these two people. Otherwise, our consciousness will be

also divided into two persons, one on this side and one on

the other side. How do we, in a single grasp of our awareness,

know that two persons are sitting in front of us? As the one is

totally different from the other, it is not possible for anyone

408

to know that both are simultaneously sitting. The

simultaneity of the awareness of two people sitting together

or many things being there is because of there being

consciousness in us which clubs them together; and the

multiplicity of the world can also be seen in one stroke. With

one stretch we can see the whole thing because our

consciousness, which is Kutastha-chetanya, is basically

Brahma-chetanya. It pervades the entire cosmos.

Unknowingly, it does the work of providing us with the

knowledge of the totality of the world, though they are

multifarious in their nature. Very difficult is this notion. We

have to go deep into the subject for understanding its true

meaning.

Dual consciousness is totally impossible because when

things are actually two, it is not possible to know that there

are two things. The consciousness of two things is possible

only if there is a consciousness which is not two. If there are

only dualities or multiplicities, as the dualists contend, there

would be nobody to know that these dualities exist at all. So

even in our contention that the dual world exists or that

many things in the world do exist, we are unwittingly

accepting the existence of an awareness of all these dualities.

We are falling into non-duality, whether we want it or not.

Evaṁ tarhi śṛṇu dvaitam asan māyā mayatvataḥ, tena

vāstava madvaitaṁ pariśeṣāt vibhāsate (245). Now what is the

conclusion, sir? After hearing all this, the non-dual

consciousness is the Ultimate Reality. Brahman is the

supreme truth, and it is in our own heart scintillating,

radiating as Atman. Advaita, the non-dual character of

consciousness, is the final reality, and all that is dual hangs

on it because the very knowledge of duality would be

impossible without a transcendent consciousness which is

not dual.

Acintya racanā rūpaṁ māyaiva sakalaṁ jagat, iti niścitya

vastutvam advaite pari śeṣyatām (246). Impossible it is for

409

anyone to understand how this world is made. Any amount

of intellectual jugglery, argumentation or scientific

observation will not lead us anywhere. The mystery of the

world remains always a mystery. Having realised that there

is a fantastic mystery that is operating behind this so-called

apparent world, we should withdraw our consciousness from

it and be non-attached to it. May we be established in the

consciousness of that unitary existence by disconnecting our

consciousness from all that is contrary to it, knowing well

that this wonderful world is a magical performance and its

variety is no proof of its real existence.

Punar dvaitasya vastutvaṁ bhāti cettvaṁ tathā punaḥ,

pariśīlaya ko vātra prayāsa stena te vada (247). Even if we go

on meditating on the unitariness of the Absolute, when we

open our eyes we will see many things in front of us. The

dual consciousness cannot leave us or give us rest. Again and

again we will see many things in the world, causing love and

hatred, attraction-repulsion, etc. Though we are meditating

for one hour, two hours, three hours, we will see the world is

too much for us in spite of our meditation. Then what should

be done?

Our time for meditation should increase. If we are

meditating only for one hour, we should increase it to two

hours; if it is two hours, we should make it three hours, four

hours or five hours. At least five hours of meditation is

necessary. Ordinary people will find it difficult to find time,

but the attempt has to be made, at least in bits of process of

meditation. Again and again we must habituate ourselves to

this contemplation on sarvam kalvidam brahama – the All is

the Absolute. And then, gradually, we will find the harassing

duality-consciousness will leave us one day or the other.

Kiyantaṁ kāla miti cet khedo’yaṁ dvaita iṣyatām, advaite tu

na yukto’yaṁ sarvā nartha nivāraṇāt (248). How long should I

meditate? In the Brahma Sutra a question of this kind is

raised.We may go on meditating either till Self-realisation or

till death, whichever is earlier.Why should we put a question

410

like that, "How long should I meditate," as if it is a job for

which we are paid? We have to spend the whole life in

meditation. We have no other duty. So don't put a question –

kiyantaṁ kāla: How long?

Would we ask a question: How long should we go on

looking at the world? We are never tired of seeing the

beauties and the distractions of life. Why did we not put a

question "How long will I see them?" And now when we are

asked to meditate, we say "how long?" as if it is something

thrust upon us. Our duty is contemplation. The Atman is

made of contemplation in substance, and action is not its

essential nature. Action, work, bondage of any kind born of

that is the character of the physical sheath, the subtle body,

the causal body, etc. The Atman by itself is unattached and,

therefore, it works not. Its very existence is its activity.

Therefore, we should go on meditating until we attain

Self-realisation. Even if death snatches us up before Selfrealisation

takes place – because in most cases Selfrealisation

may not take place in one life, and death may

overtake a person – it does not matter. This question was

raised by Arjuna in the sixth chapter of the Bhagavadgita

when Bhagavan Sri Krishna gave the answer, "There is no

loss of any good work." Even if we have meditated sincerely

for only three days, it will be a great asset for us which will

be carried forward in our positive balance sheet of action in

the next birth. Because of the continuous meditation that we

have practiced in this life, in the next birth we will find it very

easy.

Have we not seen people in this world, even little

children, suddenly appearing to be very precocious, quickly

understanding things? Many young boys and girls suddenly

take to spiritual life without any kind of practice earlier in

their lives. What could be the reason? They have been

practicing it in previous births. That great yogis suddenly

became masters within a few years after their birth can be

411

explained only in terms of the great sadhana that they did in

their previous lives.

So is the case with people who may not attain Selfrealisation

in this life; and therefore, we should not be afraid.

There is no need for despondency, melancholy, etc. We

should let the meditation go on, and be sure that our primary

duty in life is this only. There is nothing else.

Discourse 35

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 248-262

Kiyantaṁ kāla miti cet khedo’yaṁ dvaita iṣyatām, advaite tu

na yukto’yaṁ sarvā nartha nivāraṇāt (248); kṣut pipāsā dayo

dṛṣṭā yathā pūrvaṁ mayīti cet, macchabdā vācye’haṅkāre

dṛśyatāṁ neti ko vadet (249). Such afflictions like hunger and

thirst will continue as long as there is this body, in spite of

the fact that one has acquired a kind of knowledge of the

difference between the Atman and the body. The associations

are of three kinds, and these associations are known in

Sanskrit as adhyasa. The first one is known as bhramaja

adhyasa – superimposition caused by sheer ignorance. The

second one is sahaja adhyasa – superimposition which is

natural to existing conditions. The third is karmaja adhyasa –

superimposition that is the outcome of the existence of the

body itself.

The first one, known as bhramaja adhyasa –

superimposition brought about by sheer ignorance – is the

transference of values between the intellect and the Atman,

pure and simple. The universality of the Atman, which is

eternity in its essential nature, is wrongly transferred to the

individual principle known as the intellect, and then there is

a false feeling that the individual is longstanding – eternity

itself.

We do not feel that we are going to die tomorrow. That

feeling never enters our mind because of the transference of

the perpetual or eternal character of the Atman to the

individuality principle that is our intellect. If this

transference of values were not to be there, every moment

we would be in fear of death and there would be no incentive

to work; even for amoment we would not lift even a finger.

On the other hand, there is the transference of the

qualities of the individuality principle (intellect) upon the

Atman, pure and simple, on account of which we begin to feel

that we are limited in location. We are in one place only; we

413

are not in different places. We are ignorant; we are not

omniscient. We are very helpless, not omnipotent, and we

are located in one place only. That is finitude.

Finitude in space, finitude in knowledge, and finitude in

power – all these three kinds of finitude are imposed upon us

by the transference of the individuality character of the

intellect onto the Atman. Because of the Atman's character

getting reflected or transferred to the individuality principle,

we feel that we are going to live for endless years. There is a

sense of permanency to our existence on account of this

other kind of transference, the transference of the Atman's

character upon the intellect. This kind of mutual transference

of values from Atman to intellect and intellect to Atman is

called bhramaja adhyasa – superimposition of characters

caused by sheer ignorance, bereft of proper understanding.

The second one is called sahaja adhyasa, or the natural

superimposition taking place between the consciousness

reflected through the intellect and the ego principle. When

the Atman consciousness gets reflected through the intellect,

it assumes the awareness of individuality. We feel “I am” in

our personal character, and the consciousness of personality,

or I am-ness, is simultaneous with the consciousness of

egoism – intense attachment to the personality itself. The

consciousness of personality is identical with attachment to

personality. This is natural superimposition, or sahaja

adhyasa.

Karmaja is the third superimposition, the transference of

the characters of finitude upon the physical body, and the

transference of characters such hunger-thirst, heat-cold, etc.,

which are felt by the body, upon the intellect.

Now in the case of the jivanmukta, or the person who has

realised the Self, the first adhyasa is checked off. He will not

feel that this personality is transferrable to the Atman or the

Atman is transferrable to the individuality principle. On

account of this severance of the original adhyasa, which is

based on ignorance, he will not take rebirth. But he will

414

continue to be in this world with this personal body as long

as the other two karmas persist. The reflection of

consciousness of the Atman through the intellect will

continue in the case of the jivanmukta purusha also – that is,

he will know that he is existing as a person. And he will also

feel the pinches of hunger and thirst, heat and cold, as long as

the prarabdha karma continues – that is, the third kind of

adhyasa – karmaja, persists.

This is with reference to this particular verse which says

hunger and thirst, etc., will be seen to be present even in the

case of those who are enlightened; but this feeling of hunger

and thirst, etc., is to be attributed to the ego consciousness

rather than to the original Atman itself.

Cidrūpe’pi prasa jyeraṅ tādātmyā dhyāsato yadi,

mā’dhyāsaṁ kuru kintu tvaṁ vivekaṁ kuru sarvadā (250). We

have to be constantly in a state of meditation to convince

ourselves that our experiences, which are either joyful or

miserable as the case may be, are attributable to the physical

sheaths. Bodily existence actually does not belong to the

Atman, pure and simple. All the processes of analysis to

which we have been introduced in these chapters, right from

the beginning itself, will be helpful in convincing ourselves

and establishing ourselves in the consciousness that basically

we are unconcerned with the affections which the finite body

feels.

Jhaṭitya dhyāsa āyāti dṛḍha vāsana yeti cet, āvartayet

vivekaṁ ca dṛḍhaṁ vāsayituṁ sadā (251). In spite of our daily

meditation, suddenly the prarabdha will rise up into action

and we will begin to feel that we are the body only.

Sometimes this also happens in the case of very great people;

their prarabdha works, though at other moments they are

universally conscious. No one can be universally conscious

twenty-four hours of the day, not even the greatest of saints,

because their prarabdha gives a pinch now and then to make

them feel that there is a body.

415

There is a story about a king, Sage Vasishtha. He was a

great mastermind. The world could not stand before him,

such was his power. He had a son called Shakti who was

killed by a demon, a Rakshasa. Prarabdha started working in

a peculiar way and Vasishtha, the omniscient man, wanted to

commit suicide. Immediately he jumped into a flaming fire;

the fire became cool, like cold water. He jumped into a river;

the river dried up immediately. He hung a rope around his

neck; it became a garland of flowers. Brahma immediately

came down and said, “You cannot commit suicide, because all

the five elements are under your control. That is why the

water dried up, fire became cold, and the rope became a

flower garland.” He had such a power that all the five

elements were under his control and even if he wanted to

commit suicide it was not possible to do it – yet the

prarabdha worked and he was grief-stricken because his son

died.

Shakti was a Brahmana. He was passing through a

narrow passage, a little footpath where only one person

could walk, and from the front the king of the country was

coming. As two persons could not walk on that little

precipice, the king thought he must be given way by this

Brahmin because he is a king. The Brahmin thought the king

must give way because he is a Brahmin. Neither would give

way, and the king got angry and whipped this Brahmin –

Shakti, the son of Vasishtha. The Brahmin said, “You behave

like a Rakshasa. I curse you to become a Rakshasa just now.

Immediately the king turned into a demon, and he ate this

boy Shakti. That is how Vasishtha’s son died, over which he

tried to commit suicide.

After some time, the daughter of Vasishtha was strolling

on the rear garden of the cottage, and the same demon

started pursuing her. She yelled out. Then Vasishtha came

and saw the demon, the very same demon who ate his son.

He took a little water from his water pot, sprinkled it and

threw it on the face of the demon. That demon immediately

416

returned to his form as the old king. This is the power of

Vasishtha. Nothing could stand before him – not all the three

worlds. Yet, prarabdha sometimes gives a prick even to such

great people, though it does not always work like that. That

they sometimes begin to feel hunger, thirst, sleep, fatigue,

and so on, is demonstrated in this interesting story.

Viveke dvaita mithyātvaṁ yuktyai veti na bhaṇyatām,

acintya racanātvasya anubhūtir hi sva sākṣikī (252). When we

habituate ourselves to discrimination, constant brooding

over the universality of the Atman, day in and day out

thinking only this aspect and thinking nothing else in our

mind, for some time it may remain a kind of intellectual

activity, a mental operation. It may not actually delve deep

into the feeling. The practice should go deeper than

intellectual cogitation. Meditation is not merely thinking

through the mind. It is a transmutation of the very being

itself.

In meditation, the whole personality gets transmuted –

the will, the understanding, the feeling. The most important

part of the operation is feeling. It is not enough if we think

that there is a Universal Being; we must also feel that it is like

that. When the understanding or the conviction that “the

Universal is existent, and is the only existence” becomes a

part of our feeling also, life gets transformed into the very

experience of the Universal. A great mystery is the working

of prarabdha karma and the effect produced by meditations.

Cidapya cintya racanā yadi tarhyastu no vayam, citiṁ

sucintya racanāṁ brūmo nityatva kāraṇāt (253). A wonder is

the working of this prarabdha and a wonder is also the

working of this Pure Consciousness. How it sometimes

manifests itself in great consolation to us, and how it

sometimes withdraws itself, is difficult to explain. However,

on account of the permanency of the consciousness that is

our essential nature, it will overcome the limitations of

prarabdha. In the earlier days there will be a tussle for some

time between the meditating consciousness and the suffering

417

caused by prarabdha. Sometimes the balance will tilt on one

side and other times the balance will tilt on the other. Often

we will feel that this meditation is not working well, and we

will be very much grieved because of the body

consciousness. At other times, the other aspect will come up

and we will feel elated, enthused, and we will feel as if God is

very near us. This is the power of consciousness. It is also a

great mystery.

Prāgabhāvo nānubhūtaḥ citer nityā tataś citiḥ, dvaitasya

prāga bhāvastu caitanyenānubhūyate (254). The prior nonexistence

of consciousness cannot be experienced by us. We

cannot feel that once upon a time consciousness was not

existing. That feeling cannot arise in us because the

consciousness of the ‘imagined non-existence of

consciousness’ sometime earlier is also a postulation of the

existence of consciousness even prior to that apparent nonexistence.

We cannot conceive the non-existence of

consciousness because that conception is attributable to

consciousness itself. It is consciousness itself assuming that it

did not exist sometime. Therefore, the prior non-existence of

consciousness – sometime in the early days, long, long ago in

the past – is inconceivable.

But the non-existence of duality can be conceived. Duality

is the manifest form of creation. When creation did not take

place, consciousness – which was prior to the awareness of

duality – did exist. Yesterday, as we noted, the consciousness

of duality implies the consciousness of unity. The awareness

that there are two things or many things is impossible unless

there is that awareness which is above the duality or the

multiplicity of the objects. If everything is different from

everything else, nobody would know that such is the state of

affairs, because differentiated things cannot know each

other. And nobody will know that another person is sitting

near if the difference is compete. But actually, there is no

such difference finally. It is an apparent duality; and because

of its apparent-ness, and not a permanency of its character,

418

there is a consciousness of there being many people, many

things, two things, etc. One consciousness can comprehend a

hundred things at a time. This shows it is basically

transcendent to the otherwise multiple or dual character of

the objects. There is a beginning for duality, but there is no

beginning for consciousness as such.

Prāg-abhāva yutaṁ dvaitaṁ racyate hi ghaṭādivat, tathāpi

racanā’cintyā mithyā tenendra jālavat (255). Objects can have

prior non-existence – like a pot. Before the pot was

manufactured, it was non-existent. That is called prior nonexistence.

The non-existence of a pot before it was

manufactured is called prior non-existence. When the pot is

broken, afterwards it becomes non-existent. This is called

posterior non-existence. Prior to creation, it is one kind of

non-existence. After destruction, it is another kind of nonexistence.

The non-existence of the pot prior to its

manufacture has no beginning, but it has an end. When the

pot comes into being, the non-existence of the pot prior to its

manufacture comes to a cessation. Here is an illustration of

non-existence without a beginning, but with an end.

But the posterior non-existence has a beginning, but no

end – the other way around. When the pot is broken it

becomes non-existent, but this kind of non-existence has no

end; for ever and ever it will be non-existent. So this is an

instance of non-existence with a beginning but no end.

There is another kind of non-existence, called mutual

non-existence. The tree is not in the stone; the stone is not in

the tree. The tree is non-existent in the stone; the stone is

non-existent in the tree. This mutual non-existence is called

anyonya abhava.

A fourth kind of non-existence is called atyanta – like the

horns of a human being. A human being does not have horns;

they are absolutely non-existent.

Therefore, four kinds of non-existence can be attributed

to all perceptible objects. Consciousness cannot be attributed

419

to any such character. It is consciousness alone that cannot

cease to be at any time, under any given conditions. All other

things involved in duality and multiplicity are involved in

these kinds of non-existences defined.

Cit pratyakṣā tato’nysya mithyātvaṁ cānu bhūyate,

nā’dvaita maparokṣaṁ ceti etanna vyahataṁ katham (256).

Consciousness is a matter of direct experience, and the world

of transiency is also a matter of direct experience. We daily

experience the futility of things if only we are to bestow

some thought upon what happens in the world. By

experience through age, we come to realise finally that the

world cannot fulfil its promises. It promises all kinds of

pleasures, delights, and even permanency of existence. It

uses a false promise that we will live here in this world for a

long time; but the next moment the life is cut off. The world is

a false promise-giver. This we come to realise when our hairs

become grey and we become old. In earlier days when we are

warm-blooded youths, we felt that the earth is permanent,

we are permanent, and our achievements are also going to be

permanent. This transiency, which is at the back of all things

in the world, is not visible to the eyes of a young man. They

become faded by the experience of age. And consciousness is

at the back of this experience.

During our babyhood, our adolescence, our adult age, old

age – through all these stages of our life – we will find one

consciousness continuing. Every day that we have is an

experience of the continuity of consciousness and the noncontinuity

of experiences in the world. In a way, daily we

have this experience of the unity of consciousness and the

disunity character of that which is not consciousness –

namely, the objects in the world of space and time.

Itthaṁ jñātvā’pya santuṣṭāḥ kecit kuta itīryatām,

cārvākādeḥ prabuddhasyāpi ātmā dehaḥ kuto vada (257). In

spite of these expositions of the nature of consciousness,

many a time doubts arise in the mind, as in the case of

Charvakas or materialists. What do they say? “Satisfaction

420

does not arise by a mere thought of this kind of analysis that

we have conducted, that the world is transient.” The

transiency of the world is not a direct object of perception

every day as long as the senses are very active and they

manage to pull the consciousness in the direction of their

activity towards objects.

The permanency of things, the false notion that joys and

sorrows in life from objects are also permanent in their

nature, arises on account of consciousness following the

activity of the mind and the sense organs.We have noted this

feature sometime earlier when it was observed that in the

object perception – the consciousness of an object – two

processes are involved, namely, the mind enveloping the

object and taking the shape of the object, and consciousness

following the mind together with the sense organs and

illumining that consciousness. Not only is there a perception

of the form of the object on account of the enveloping of the

object by the mind, there is also a consciousness that it is so.

We begin to feel the location of the object.

The consciousness aspect of perception is due to the

Atman consciousness through the intellect proceeding

through the mind in terms of the sense organs. But the shape

of the structure of the object that is perceived is due to the

enveloping of the mind in terms of the object. The mind

enveloping the object is called vritti vyakti, and the

consciousness following the mental operation is called phala

vyakti. The Charvakas, etc., arematerialists and they consider

the body alone as the real Self.

Samyak vicāro nāstyasya dhīdoṣā diti cettathā, asantuṣṭāstu

śāstrārthaṁ na tvaikṣanta viśeṣataḥ (258). Proper

discrimination is absent in the case of those who believe in

the permanency of things – the reality of this world. It is due

to a mistake or error in the working of the intellect itself.

Their genius is very muddled.

421

Those who are indulging in the sense and mental

operations in terms of objects will have no desire to study

scriptures. They will not have the mind to go to satsanga.

They will not have any kind of inclination towards the

existence of things above this world. Prarabdha can be very

rajasic and tamasic in many cases, where even the longing for

the realisation of God cannot be there. Even the thought of

God cannot arise in the minds of people whose prarabdha is

entirely rajasic and tamasic. It is only where prarabdha is a

little bit sattvic that awareness of a higher world arises and

we begin to see the lacuna or the insufficiency of things in

this world.

Yadā sarve pramu cyante kāmā ye’sya hṛdi śritāḥ, iti

śrautaṁ phalaṁ dṛṣṭaṁ neti cet dṛṣta meva tat (259). This is a

quotation from the Kathopanishad, which makes out that

when all the desires of the heart are entirely released, one

experiences Brahman consciousness at once. This is the

scripture statement in the Kathopanishad. At once, at this

very moment, the experience of Universal Brahman would be

possible – provided that all the longings of the heart are

pulled out and the desires cease entirely.

Desires must cease – not merely in their obvious

operative form, but also in the submerged, latent form. In the

operative form they are visible in the waking state and

dream state. In the submerged form they are there in the

state of deep sleep. The desires should not be there, either as

operative or non-operative, active or latent. They should be

totally thrown out by the awareness of all things being

pervaded by one consciousness. Because of the pervasion of

one consciousness through all things, desires for objects

should cease of their own accord.

Yadā sarve prabhidyante hṛdaya granthaya stviti, kāmā

granthi svarūpeṇa vyākhyātā vākya śeṣataḥ (260). This is also a

quotation from the Kathopanishad. When the knots of the

heart are broken, Brahman is experienced instantaneously.

422

What are these knots of the heart? Ignorance, desire and

action.

The non-perception of reality is called ignorance. This is

one kind of knot with which we are tied to this earthly

existence. When we are unconscious of the existence of a

Universal reality, we suddenly become conscious of the

existence of an unreality of the world. When the Universal is

not an object of our consciousness, the externality of the

world becomes at once the opposite experience. This is

desire.

Ignorance is the non-perception of the Universal; desire

is the perception of the particular. And the running after the

particular objects for fulfilment of those desires is action,

karma. Three knots are mentioned: avidya-kama-karma –

ignorance, desire, action. These three words are repeated

many times by Acharya Sankara in his commentaries as the

source of all problems in life: avidya-kama-karma – a

threefold knot of the heart, to which the consciousness is tied

in terms of empirical experience.

Ahaṅkāra cidātmā nāu ekī kṛtyā vivekataḥ, idaṁ me syād

idaṁ me syāt itīcchāḥ kāma śabditāḥ (261). What do we mean

by desire? It is defined here. By the identification of egoism –

personality consciousness – and not being able to distinguish

it from the Universal consciousness which is reflected

through it, one begins to feel that this is a very good thing; let

me have it. This is not at all a good thing; let me not have it.

The desire to have something and the desire not to have

something is the desire spoken of, and this kind of dual

desire – wanting some things in terms of what is desirable or

pleasurable, and not wanting some things which are not

pleasurable – is a twofold manifestation of desire.Wanting or

not wanting – both these are obverse and the reverse of the

same coin. They come under the same desire. This is called

kama, the outcome of avidya, and the cause of action directed

in terms of fulfilment of desires.

423

Apraveśya cidātmānaṁ pṛthak paśyanna haṅkṛtim,

icchaṁstu koṭi vastūni na bādho granthi bhedataḥ (262). Merely

experiencing bodily aches, such as the temporary feeling of

hunger and thirst, does not preclude Universal

consciousness. Jivanmuktas also eat food; they also feel

thirsty. When they feel fatigue, they go to sleep. These are

natural effects following from the karmaja adhyasa

mentioned, the superimposition of the ego consciousness,

personality consciousness with the body and the body with

the ego; but they do not have the other kind of consciousness

which mistakes the personality for the Universal and the

Universal for the personal.

Thus, there is a distinction drawn between ordinary

human experience, which is born of karmaja adhyasa, and

the real spiritual experience, which has no bhramaja

adhyasa, causing no rebirth in spite of a temporary feeling of

the body and its consequent appurtenances of feeling

hunger, thirst, etc.

Discourse 36

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 263-284

Granthi bhede’pi saṁbhāvyā icchāḥ prārabdha doṣataḥ,

buddhvāpi pāpa bāhulyāt asantoṣo yathā tava (263). Even if

one overcomes the impulses of these granthis, or the knots of

the heart – that is, avidya-kama-karma – their effect does not

completely leave a person on account of the impulse of

prarabdha itself.We have already noticed the extent to which

prarabdha can act upon even a jivanmukta purusha. The

sanchita karmas, the accumulated store of actions, are burnt

up by knowledge. Therefore, there is no future birth for a

jivanmukta. The cause for another birth, which is the

remnant of the storehouse of desire, is no more there, so the

jivanmukta will not be reborn into this world.

There is another kind of karma called agami karma –

fresh actions performed every day and added to the existing

storehouse of sanchita. The jivanmukta does not perform

fresh actions. He is a detached person and, therefore, there is

no action with a desire behind it, in his case. The only thing

that persists with him is prarabdha, which has given birth to

this body and so on. Account of the persistence of this

prarabdha, some kind of desires, peculiar impulses, longings,

etc.,may be seen even in a jivanmukta.

Varieties of jivanmuktas are there. They are all curious

persons. One does not behave in the same way as the other

behaves. Jadabharata was like an idiot. He would not talk to

anybody; he sat there like a stone. He was a jivanmukta.

Vasishtha was a jivanmukta, but was a great ritualist. Every

day he would perform yajnas, havanas, agnihotras in the

most traditional Mimamsa fashion, though he was also a

great jivanmukta. Shuka was a brahmanistha. He did not even

know that he had a body. Clothes used to slip away from his

body, and he would not know that the clothes had gone. He

would walk like a raving mad man, and children would pelt

425

stones at him, thinking that he was crazy. Such was the

condition of Shuka, a jivanmukta.

Vyasa was a jivanmukta. He was a poetic writer, great

litterateur, who wrote all the scriptures; he was another kind

altogether. Lord Krishna was a jivanmukta, and we know

what kind of person Krishna was – impossible to describe.

There are various causes behind the different behaviours of

these great men. The kind of personality that they assumed –

either the personality was assumed deliberately as an

incarnation, as in the case of Lord Krishna, or the personality

had been thrust upon them somehow or other by the

prarabdha karma – in either case, the propulsion from the

nature of the personality varied. That is why different great

men behave differently. They do not have uniformity of

thinking, and sometimes they look like contradictory.

We may say that Jadabharata and Lord Krishna were

opposites, and yet they were equal in knowledge and power.

The power of these people is unthinkable. Jadabharata was a

hefty, stout boy. He was sitting quiet, without talking to any

person, and one night some dacoits caught hold of him. They

wanted to offer him to Kali and behead him. He would not

say anything. They dragged him; he wouldn't speak one

word, though he was being dragged. They tied him with a

rope; he would not utter one word. Then Jadabharata was

tied to a pillar where he was to be offered, and the priest

sprinkled holy water on his body. Even then he would not

utter one word. He was just blinking as the sword was lifted

by the priest to behead him. Immediately that image of Kali

burst forth, and the real Kali came out. She pulled the sword

from the hand of the priest and beheaded all those dacoits,

and nobody was left alive except for this Jadabharata. She

untied him, and left.

What is this mystery? Can we imagine that such a thing is

possible? This story is in the Bhagavad Mahapurana. What

power these people have! What power! Yet, their prarabdha

is there, which goes on harassing them with this little body.

426

In the previous talk I told you the story of Vasishtha, and

today I told you the story of Jadabharata. They are peculiar

people, but wonderful people – Godmen, all equal.

Ahaṁkāra gate cchādyaiḥ deha vyādhyādibhi stathā, vṛkṣādi

janma naśairvā cidrūpāt mani kiṁ bhavet (264). Nothing

worries them. If somebody is cutting a tree in the forest, we

are not bothered. Let them cut it. Nothing is happening,

though the tree in the forest is being cut by somebody. So

many are collecting fuel; women are climbing trees and

chopping off branches for fuel. Are we worried about all

these things? We look at these events taking place as if they

are not taking place at all. Many events in the world which

are causes of great anxiety to people like us are no events at

all for these Godmen, to whom these events happen. They are

as if they do not take place. If the prarabdha which is

working through this body manifests itself in the form of

some experience – as Jadabharata had an experience, for

instance – it matters not to these Godmen. Whether they are

alive or dead, it makes no difference, because they cannot die

essentially. And even if they are alive, it is not a great virtue

for them because, after all, what is this life except through

this body born of prarabdha? Birth and death mean the same

thing.

Granthi bhedāt purā pyevam iti cettanna vismara, ayameva

granthi bhedaḥ tava tena kṛtī bhavān (265). The breaking of

the knots of the heart, the destruction of avidya, kama, and

karma, is an eternal event. Actually, avidya-kama-karma do

not exist at all, just as a limitation to vast ether does not exist,

even if it appears that the ether is thrust into the pot, as it

were. This knowledge that avidya-kama-karma did not even

exist right from the beginning itself, is itself the destruction

of avidya-kama-karma. When we know that the world was

never created, the world does not exist for us. Only when we

believe that it is there in front of us like a hard wall or a rock,

it harasses us. The destruction of the granthis – avidya-kama427

karma – is virtually the same as the realisation of the fact

that they never existed at all at any time.

Naivaṁ jānanti mūḍhāś cet so’yaṁ granthir na cāparaḥ,

granthi tad bheda mātreṇa vaiṣamyaṁ mūḍha buddhaoḥ (266).

But ordinary people are not aware of the fact that avidyakama-

karma have no substantiality. The not knowing this

fact itself is granthi. This is the bondage of these people who

have no proper illumination. For the illumined person, the

granthis did not exist at any time at all and, therefore, they do

not exist even now. But the ignorant person who cannot

believe that they did not exist at any time considers them as

solid realities.

The difference between an ignorant person and a learned

person is this: that a non-existent thing is considered to be

existing in the case of the ignorant person. And in the case of

the enlightened person, even that which appears to be

existing is known to be non-existing finally. This is the

difference between an illumined person and an ignorant one.

Pravṛttau vā nivṛttau vā dehendriya manodhiyām, na

kiñchidapi vaiṣamyam astya jñāni vibuddhayoḥ (267). But

outwardly they are all the same. When we see a person, we

cannot know whether he is a fool or a Godman. They look the

same. They – the Godmen – eat the same food as the fool

eats, they speak the same language, and they behave

practically in the same way – like children, like fools, like

wise men.With old men, they are like old men; with children,

they are like children; with youth, they are like youth; with

ignorant people, they behave like ignorant people; with wise

men, they behave like wise men; and with a person whose

back is bent, they will have a bent back. There is no

personality for them.

Swami Sivanandaji Maharaj was like that. He had no

personality of his own. He was just the same person who he

saw in front of him. Whatever we are, that he was at that

time, as he had no personality for himself. If we cried, he

428

would sympathise. If we laughed, he would say "wonderful".

Both were good, equally nice.

The pravritti and nivritti, the action-oriented behaviour

or the absence of action in the case of these people, makes no

difference to them. The coming and going of things, and the

evolution and involution of the universe are great matters for

us. They are matters of great consequence. These Godmen

see a thing there, of course, but they do not make any

difference between the jnani and the ajnani. The outward

behaviour cannot be regarded as the criterion for the inner

character of a person. This is the definition here. We cannot

know a person by merely looking at that person from

outside. Outwardly, they look the same.

There was a doctor, S. K. Krishnan. He was the director of

the National Physical Laboratory, a very famous facility. One

day he came here, wearing a turban. Swamiji said a special

seat must be arranged for him, and every arrangement was

made to give him a comfortable seat just behind Gurudev.

When Dr. Krishnan was about to sit on that seat, the boy who

was preparing the seat said, "Don't sit here. This is meant for

Dr. Krishnan." "Oh, I see, I see," he said, "Ok, Ok." He went

and sat on the other side, in the corner.

Look at this. This is the greatness of a man. He did not

say, "I am Dr. Krishnan." "Oh, I see," he said. And when

Gurudev arrived for satsanga, he called Dr. Krishnan and

made him sit. All were stunned because this was the same

man who they had shut out. Great people are like simple

children.

Vrātya śrotiyayor veda pāṭhā pāṭha kṛtā bhidā, nāhārā

dāvasti bhedaḥ so’yaṁ nyān’tra yogyatām (268). In the case of

one who is learned in the Vedas and one who is not at all

proficient in the Vedas, the difference is in the knowledge –

the proficiency in the Vedic wisdom and the ignorance of it.

But in the matter of eating food, we are same. The person

who is enlightened in Vedic knowledge and the one who

429

knows nothing about the Vedas eat the same food and speak

the same language. Outwardly, they behave in the same

manner.

Great jivanmuktas, therefore, cannot be recognised.

Those whom we cannot understand, on them we should not

pass any comment. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says,

"Lest he be a great person and his curse may fall on you,

make no comments on people whom you cannot

understand."

Na dveṣṭi saṁpra vṛttāni na nivṛttāni kāṅkṣati, udāsīna

vadāsīna iti granthi bhido cyate (269). This is a verse from the

Bhagavad Gita. If something comes, he does not dislike it. He

does not ask why it has come. And if something goes, he does

not ask why it has gone. Neither he exults if something comes

to him, nor he grieves if something goes. Let it come, let it go,

because the coming is not a gain and the going is not a loss.

Udāsīna vadāsīna: Like an idle person concerned with

nothing, he sits quiet. Iti granthi bhido cyate: This is the

characteristic of people whose granthis have been broken.

Avidya-kama-karma have been destroyed.

Audāsīnyaṁ vidheyaṁ cet vacchabdā vyarthatā tadā, na

śaktā asya dehādyā iti cedroga eva saḥ (270). When it is said

that they look like idle people, it does not mean that they are

really idle. They ‘look like’; the word ‘vat’ is used here. They

look like, they appear to be like idle people; but they are very

active people. Somebody went and asked Ramanamarshi,

"Why don't you do some work for the world?" He said, "How

do you know that I am not working for the world?"

Great people work through their thoughts. The greater a

person is, the less he speaks and the more he thinks, and the

works that people do with their hands and feet are nothing

before this thought that emanates from these great men. One

thought is sufficient; it will vibrate until eternity. And that

service that the person does to humanity is greater than all

the politicians that the world has seen up to this time.

430

He is not sitting quiet like a sick man. He is very active,

very powerful he is, but looks almost like a nobody in this

world. He goes unwept, unhonoured and unsung, as it were;

but the gods will sing his glories.

Tattva bodhaṁ kṣayaṁ vyādhiṁ manyante ye mahādhiyaḥ,

teṣāṁ prajñā tiviśadā kiṁ teṣāṁ duḥśakaṁ vada (271). We

should not be under the impression that being a jivanmukta

necessarily means keeping quiet. It does not follow that the

moment a person becomes a jivanmukta he is obliged to keep

quiet without doing anything. That is only one aspect of the

behaviour of certain categories. There were immensely

active persons like Lord Krishna, for instance, or like Janaka.

Janaka was a king, and we know the activity of a king. They

cannot keep quiet like idle men. Janaka was a jivanmukta

purusha, but even then another, greater jivanmukta, a lady

called Sulabha, found fault with him.

The story is in the Shantiparva of the Mahabharata.

Sulabha was a dandi-sanyasini. For the first time we hear of a

dandi-sanyasini in the scriptures – an old lady who heard that

Janaka was a jivanmukta. She wanted to have a darshan of

this great man, so she came and did namaskars. He was

sitting on the throne, and could not actually recognise who

this lady was. He thought she was some beggar. So what she

did was, she immediately entered him through her subtle

body. But he was also a great man; he could understand that

something was entering him. He said, "You are a woman. You

have committed a sin by entering me, who is aman."

Sulabha replied, "Oh, I see. I came here to know only this

much – whether Janaka is a jivanmukta purusha or is he a

man. You are a man. I am going from this place. I do not want

to see you again. You have called me a woman and you call

yourself a man; but people said you are a jivanmukta. Thank

you very much. I will go from this place." Immediately King

Janaka came down from his throne knowing that this was not

an ordinary person, and prostrating himself before the lady,

said, "Please excuse me, I did not understand who you are."

431

Subsequently, there was a great conversation between

Sulabha and Janaka. The wisdom that she poured upon him

was such that it is worth studying in the Shantiparva of the

Mahabharata. These are all the interesting varieties of

jivanmuktas that we have got, looking like anything in this

world.

Bharatādera pravṛttiḥ purāṇokteti cettadā, jakṣan krīḍan

ratiṁ vindan nitya śrauṣīrna kiṁ śrutim (272). Jadabharata and

others sat like idle people. Why do not all jivanmuktas

behave like that? The Upanishad says there are jivanmuktas

who dance and sing, eat and make merry; that is also one

kind of jivanmukta. As a matter of fact, a jivanmukta is not

bound to any particular kind of behaviour. We cannot

constrain that person and say, "this must be your conduct". A

jivanmukta is a free person. The whole cosmos is his body,

and so any event that is taking place in the world anywhere

can be regarded as his own action. He may be dancing and

singing and making merry, or he may be keeping quiet like

an idle man. We cannot constrain him. A constrained person

cannot be regarded as a jivanmukta purusha.

Na hyāhārādi santyajya bharatādyaḥ sthitāḥ kvacit, kāṣṭha

pāṣāṇavat kintu saṅgabhītā udāsate (273). Jadabharata did not

keep quiet without eating anything. He was not starving. He

had some morsel of food, though he did not pay much

attention to it. It is only because of the earlier experience that

he had as a deer, he withdrew himself from contact with

everything. They say this deer, which was Jadabharata,

would not touch even a leaf in the forest because of

jatkesvara. It was jatkesvara; it had the memory of past lives.

To track the chain, there was a King Bharata, who due to

attachment to a little deer, became a deer; and this deer, who

was Bharata, being conscious of what happened to it, would

not touch even a leaf on a bush when it moved in the forest.

Then it left its body, and in the third birth he became this

great Jadabharata whom dacoits caught, etc. He was not

concerned with things because he had the feeling that

432

attachment is bad, and not because he felt that it was

necessary to sit like an idle person.

Saṅgī hi bādhyate loke niḥ-saṅgaḥ sukha maśnute, tena

saṅgaḥ parityājyaḥ sarvadā sukha micchatā (274). This is a

verse from the Yoga Vasishtha. All people who are attached

to things are bound forever. And those who are free from

attachments will have no bondage whatsoever. Therefore,

attachment should be given up if we want happiness in this

world.

Ajñātvā śāstra hṛdayaṁ mūḍho vaktya nyathā nyathā,

mūrkhāṇāṁ nirṇaya stvāstām asmat siddhānta ucyate (275). Let

people say whatever they want to say, and don't bother

about it. Now, let me conclude this discourse; listen to what it

is. The author of the Panchadasi, concluding this sixth

chapter, says, "Forget all this wrangling. Now listen to what I

am telling you in conclusion – a very important thing."

Vairāgya bodho paramāḥ sahāyāste parasparam, prāyeṇa

saha vartante viyujyante kvacit kvacit (276). The greatness of a

jivanmukta is seen by the abiding in him of three great

qualities: vairagya or detachment, bodha or wisdom,

uparama or cessation from activity. Three qualities will be

found in these great people. They will not engage themselves

in any work. They will not be attached to anything in this

world. Inwardly, they will be highly illumined. Vairagya,

bodha, uparama – these three qualities are found in great

jivanmuktas. All the three qualities are not found in every

jivanmukta. In some, one or two may be there, but only in the

greatest we will find all the three combined.

Hetu svarūpa kāryāṇi bhinnā nyeṣāma saṅkaraḥ, yathā vada

vagantavyaḥ śāstrārthaṁ pravivicyatā (277). Vairagya, bodha

and uparama – these words must be remembered always.

Vairagya is non-attachment; bodha is knowledge; uparama is

cessation from activity. All these three have a cause, a nature

and an effect. Vairagya has a cause, it has a nature, and it has

an effect. Knowledge also has a cause, it has a nature, and it

433

has an effect. Cessation from action also has a cause, it has a

nature, and it has an effect.

What is the character of non-attachment? What are its

causes? What is its nature? What is its result? Doṣa dṛṣṭir

jihāsā ca punar bhogeṣva dīnatā, asādhāraṇa hetvādyā

vairāgyasya trayo’pyamī (278). The cause of detachment is the

perception of defects in things. Everything in the world is full

of defects. There is not one perfect thing anywhere in the

world. Therefore, it is futile to get attached to anything in this

world. The source, or the cause of detachment from things, is

the perception of defect in the objects of sense. And the

nature of detachment is the absence of further desire in

respect of objects outside. The result is total distaste for

things. These are the three characteristics of vairagya.

Knowledge has a cause, it has a nature, and also has an

effect. Śravaṇādi trayaṁ tadvat tattva mithyā vivecanam, punar

granther anudayo bodhasyate trayo matāḥ (279). Śravaṇādi

trayaṁ: Sravana, manana, nididhyasana – listening from a

preceptor, deeply contemplating on what is heard, and

intense meditation on the great subject – this is the cause of

knowledge. Tattva mithyā vivecanam: The nature of

knowledge is the non-perception of the reality of an external

world and the perception of its total unreality. And the result

is that avidya-kama-karma never again rises. This is the

threefold character of knowledge.

Yamādir dhī nirodhaśca vyavahārasya saṅkṣayaḥ, syur

hetvādyā uparateḥ itya saṅkara īritaḥ (280). Now cessation

from activity has a cause – yama, niyama, asana, pranayama,

pratyahara, dharana, dhyana, samadhi. The practice of these

limbs of yoga is the cause of absence of indulgence in any

kind of activity. The restraint of the mind is the nature of the

cessation from all activity. And having no concern with

anything in this world, taking no initiative at all in respect of

anything, is the result of absence of activity. These are the

threefold characteristics of vairagya, bodha (knowledge) and

uparati or cessation from action.

434

Tattva bodhaḥ pradhānaṁ syāt sākṣāt mokṣa pradatvataḥ,

bodhopa kāriṇā vetau vairāgyo paramā vubhau (281). Of the

three qualities, knowledge is primary. Vairagya, knowledge

and cessation from action are all good. If we have vairagya,

we are detached and we are also free from action, but if

knowledge is absent, that is no good. Pradhana – the most

important of the three is knowledge because the direct cause

of moksha is knowledge. Other things are only accessories.

Vairagya and cessation from entanglement in action, etc., are

accessories to intensify the nature of knowledge, but they

themselves cannot bring moksha. Knowledge is the real

cause.

Trayo’pyatyanta pakvā ścet mahatas tapasaḥ phalam,

dūritena kvacit kiñcit kadācit prati badhyate (282). If all the

three are there in a great man, he is a Godman. It is very

difficult to find such people. Sometimes in the case of

prarabdhas which are touched with a little of rajas, etc., one

quality may be lessened. Knowledge may be there, he may be

living like a royal emperor or he may be having cessation

from all action, but the other two qualities may be absent.

Something may be there; something else may not be there.

We will not find in everyone all the three qualities; usually

one thing is missing. But the great point is that even if one or

two are missing, knowledge should not be missing, because

knowledge is the direct cause of moksha.

Vairāgyo paratī pūrṇe bodhastu prati badhyate, yasya tasya

na mokṣo’sti puṇya loka stapo balāt (283). Suppose vairagya is

there, great detachment is there. He is not concerned with

anything and he is not involved in action, but knowledge is

obstructed. For such a person, there is no moksha. Therefore,

mere austerity is no good. Keeping quiet without doing

anything is also of no utility. It is wisdom, illumination, that is

necessary. If we have the other two qualities but no

knowledge, we will not get moksha. We may go to heaven or

some higher region because of the great austerity that we

have performed, so it is not useless, but moksha is far off.

435

Pūrṇe bodhe tadanyau dvau pratibaddhau yadā tadā,

mokṣo viniścitaḥ kintu dṛṣṭa duḥkhaṁ na naśyati (284).

Suppose a person is completely illumined, but he is not

putting forth any special effort to detach himself from things

or from action which is the usual concomitant of the physical

existence. Very busy he is, doing work, and he is not bothered

about austerity, etc., but inwardly he is illumined. Such a

person will certainly have no rebirth. He will attain moksha,

no doubt. But because of his entanglement in things, he will

have some suffering in the world also. So we can choose

whichever one we like.

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)