COMMENTARY ON THE PANCHADASI by SWAMI KRISHNANANDA -8

COMMENTARY ON THE

PANCHADASI

by

SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

Discourse 37

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 285-290

Vairagya, bodha and uparati were considered as

important qualities that can be seen in a jivanmukta purusha.

Vairagya is detachment, bodha is knowledge, and uparati is

cessation from activities. Each one of them has a cause, a

nature, and a result. This we studied yesterday.

Brahmaloka tṛṇīkāro vairāgyasyā vadhir mataḥ, dehātmavat

parātmatva dārḍhye bodhaḥ samāpyate (285). What exactly do

we mean by vairagya? It is obviously known as a kind of not

getting attached to things. But here the author gives a

definition of non-attachment in a superior way: The joys not

only of this world but also of the other world should not

attract us.

According to Patanjali's Sutras, dṛṣṭa ānuśravika viṣaya

vitṛṣṇasya vaśīkārasaṁjñā vairāgyam (YS 1.15): Vairagya, or

non-attachment, is to be in respect of all those things which

are seen with our eyes and also which are only heard of

through the scriptures – like the joys of heaven. One should

not engage oneself in sacrifices, yajnas, etc., for the sake of

going to heaven, because anything which is reachable is also

perishable. That which is visible is destructible. Anything

that we can conceive in our mind also is a kind of object. The

joys of Brahmaloka are also not to be aspired for.

The joy of Brahmaloka is indescribable. No words can tell

us what the bliss of Brahmaloka is. It is what they call the

Kingdom of Heaven, usually speaking. We may call it the

Kingdom of God. The words ‘bliss’, ‘joy’, ‘satisfaction’, etc., are

poor apologies for the tremendous experience that

Brahmaloka is. Not to have attachment even to that, and to

concern oneself only with the pure, Universal existence is

supposed to be the height of vairagya, or detachment.

Brahmaloka tṛṇīkāro vairāgyasyā vadhir mataḥ, dehātmavat

parātmatva dārḍhye bodhaḥ samāpyate.

437

What is knowledge of Brahman? Do we know how

intensely we feel that we are the body? Let each one close

one’s eyes for a few minutes and think how intense is the

feeling that the body is myself. It is not merely the body is

myself; the body is I. The body has become me. Such is the

intensity of the identification of consciousness with the body,

and vice versa.

If such an attachment as is seen between consciousness

and this body can be there between consciousness and the

Absolute, then moksha is there in our hand, even if we don't

want it. This is the height of wisdom. The height of vairagya

is the rejection of even the joys of Brahmaloka. The height of

knowledge or bliss, perfection, the height of wisdom, is the

identity of consciousness with the Universal as intensely as

one feels identity with one's body.

Supti vad mismṛtiḥ sīmā bhavedupa ramasya hi, diśānayā

viniśceyaṁ tāratamya mavāntaram (286). The parakashtha, or

the end result of cessation from all activity, is complete

oblivion as to what is happening in the world. Let the world

be there or let the world not be there, it makes no difference.

Events are taking place in this world; events are not taking

place. Certain events are taking place; certain others are not

taking place. All these do not affect the person – just as a

person who is asleep is not concerned with what is

happening outside in the world. To be totally unconcerned

with the events in the world as if one is fast asleep is the

parakashtha, or the highest reach of the consciousness of

cessation from activity.

This is an indication, briefly given, in order that we may

be enabled to know where we stand in our spiritual life. Each

one has to check oneself.What is the stage of evolution which

one has reached? The attachments are the main touchstone.

Bodily attachment is so intense that the less said about it the

better. And the author says we should have such attachment

in our consciousness to the Absolute Brahman.

438

Such attachment to Brahman also may be practicable

provided we spend all our day in meditation on the Absolute

only and think not an external thing. The whole day,

throughout the conscious hours of the lifetime of a person,

whenever there is a respite from work, one should try to

keep at the back of one's thought the Brahman consciousness

upon which one rests. These indications are enough for a

good seeker.

Ārabdha karma nānātvāt buddhānā manyathā’nyathā,

vartanaṁ tena śāstrārthe bhramitavyaṁ na paṇḍitaiḥ (287).

Yesterday I mentioned that there are varieties of

jivanmuktas. All are not of the same type. They do not behave

in a uniform manner. We should not have a set rule that the

jivanmukta should behave in this way only and if we find

somebody behaving in that way, we can say he is a

jivanmukta. That is not the case.

Each individual is unique in character, and that

uniqueness is because of the fact of prārabdha karma

nānātvāt – due to the variety in the functioning of the

prarabdha karmas of the persons, whose body continues as

long as the prarabdha continues, even if they are

jivanmuktas. The difference in the function and the nature of

the prarabdha karmas of people make them appear or look

different from one another. Internally, they are one and the

same.

Therefore, ignorant people should not start judging great

people because no one who has not delved into themysteries

of this reality, the structure of the world and God and Ishvara

and jiva, can have the competency to make a judgement of

this kind.

Savasva karmā nusāreṇa vartantāṁ te yathā tathā, aviśiṣṭaḥ

sarvabodhaḥ samā mukti riti sthitiḥ (288). Let them behave in

any way they like. Let one behave like Lord Krishna or Shri

Rama or Jadabharata or Janakaraja or Vasishtha or Shuka or

Vyasa. Let anyone behave in any manner whatsoever; that is

439

immaterial to the consciousness which they are maintaining

in themselves.

Knowledge and power are equal in the case of all these

jivanmuktas. What one can do, others also can do. What one

feels inside, others also feel; and what one is experiencing

inside, another also experiences. But outwardly, they are

different because the bodily behaviour is conditioned by

differences in prarabdha karma.

Jagac-citraṁ sva-caitanye paṭe citra mivār pitam, māyayā

tadu pekṣaiva caitanyaṁ pari śeṣyatām (289). In this chapter,

which is called Citradipa – that is, illustration by the analogy

of a painted picture – the unreality of the world finally in

relation to the Supreme Brahman has been explained in all

detail. Having known this, let consciousness fix itself in

Brahman only, the background of all experience, and let not

the consciousness run after the varieties of movements of

shadows. And let not anyone be carried away by the

picturesque presentation of ink on the canvas, but habituate

oneself to the background of the presentation – the pure

cloth, in the case of the painted picture, and Brahman

Universal here in the case of the illustration.

Citra dīpa mimaṁ nityaṁ ye’nu sandadhate budhāḥ,

paśyanto’pi jagac-citraṁ te muhyanti na pūrva-vat (290). Here

the author gives us a great promise: Whoever daily studies

this sixth chapter and contemplates its meaning every day,

such people, even if they behold the world with their own

eyes, will not again be attached to the world as they were

earlier. The delusion that was earlier will not pursue them

again, provided deep contemplation is bestowed on the

meaning of this chapter, Citradipa, which has been explained

in great variety of detail.

Citradipa, the sixth chapter of Panchadasi, here

concludes.

440

CHAPTER 7: TRIPTIDIPA PRAKARANAM – LIGHT ON

SUPREME SATISFACTION, VERSES 1-15

Then comes the seventh chapter, which is called

Triptidipa, Light on Satisfaction. The sixth chapter was called

Light on the Analogy of a Painted Picture, Citradipa. Now it is

called Triptidipa - Light on Satisfaction. What actually is

satisfaction? In the beginning, a verse is quoted from the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Ātmānaṁ cet vijānīyāt ayam asmīti pūrusaḥ, kimicchan

kasya kāmāya śarīram anu sanjvaret (1). This is from the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. If one has realised one's own Self

and has convinced oneself as to the certainty of the Self being

everything, then for what purpose, desiring what, with what

intention will a person run after things in the world and why

should one take a birth into this body? This is the meaning of

this verse.

Brahmaivedam amṛtam purastād brahma paścad brahma,

dakṣinataś cottareṇa, adhaścordhvaṁ ca prasṛtam

brahmaivedaṁ viśvam idaṁ variṣṭham (Mundaka 2.2.11) is a

mantra from the Mundakopanishad. From above, from

below, from the right, left, top and bottom, Brahman is

flooding us from all sides. What is it that we want in this

world? In themiddle of the ocean, we are asking for water. So

is the case with a person desiring objects in the world. While

he is flooded with that original source of all things which is

the granter of all boons and blessings, when he is inundated

with that from all sides and directions, like a fish inside the

ocean asking for drinking water, will a person run after

things in the world?Will that have any meaning whatsoever?

Such a predicament will not arise in the case of one who has

attained the Self.

Asyāḥ śrute rabhi prāyaḥ samya gatra vicāryate, jīvan

muktasya yā tṛpiḥ sā tena viśadāyate (2). Now, the purpose of

this seventh chapter is to investigate into the meaning of this

great sentence of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. What does

441

this mantra mean, actually? If this purusha knows the Self as

identical with one's own self, for what purpose, and desiring

which item, will one enter into this body? This is a literal

translation of this great mantra of the Upanishad. It has

tremendous implications. These implications and

profundities are now being discussed throughout the

seventh chapter.

Māya bhāsena jīveśau karotīti śrutatvataḥ, kalpitā veva

jīveśau tābhyāṁ sarvaṁ prakalpitam (3). A verse meaning

almost the same as one that we studied in the sixth chapter is

now once again told to us. By the reflection in twofold ways

in the properties of maya that is sattva or rajas, there is the

manifestation of Ishvara and jiva. The creative principle and

the individual sufferer are projections of the same Brahman

consciousness, the jiva being the reflection of Brahman

consciousness through the rajasic and tamasic qualities of

prakriti, and Ishvara being the reflection of the same

Brahman consciousness through the pure sattva of prakriti.

And the whole world is flooded with only these two things:

the creative operative force of Ishvara working everywhere

and the desires and the sufferings of jivas which they

undergo everywhere. The entire world is nothing but a

scenery of the operation of Ishvara on the one hand and the

indulgences of the jiva on the other hand. This is the world,

briefly put.

Īkṣaṇādi prave śantā sṛṣṭir īśena kalpitā, jāgradādi

vimokṣantah saṁsāro jīva kalpitaḥ (4). We have also read this

verse in the previous chapter. Right from the will of Brahman

to concentrate on the future possibility of creation becoming

Ishvara thereby – hence starting with will, then becoming

Hiranyagarbha, then becoming Ishvara, then manifesting

itself as space and time, then sabda tanmatra, etc., and the

five elements, until the Brahman consciousness manifests

itself through all these degrees of evolution, and also until it

enters into each one of them by way of immanence – God's

creation is complete. This is called Ishvara-srishti.

442

But when the individual, which is also pervaded by the

same Brahman consciousness, begins to assert its

independence somehow or other for reasons unknown, it

gets severed from its relationship with the Universal

consciousness. It falls. There is a fall, as they call it. And the

fall is the headlong descent of a topsy-turvy awareness of jiva

consciousness which mistakes the external for the internal

and the internal for the external, the right for the left and the

left for the right, and becomes artificially conscious of a

world apparently outside it. This is called the waking state.

Up to the conclusion of Ishvara-srishti, there is no such thing

as waking consciousness. It is eternal consciousness. The

waking consciousness is characterised by externality of

perception, whereas in Ishvara tattva there is no externality.

Here is the difference.

So the jiva falls headlong, down into samsara. There is

waking consciousness of an external world, and it is again

seen in the dream world, and due to fatigue it becomes

exhausted and falls into sleep and wakes up from sleep and

again becomes entangled in the waking consciousness. This

cycle of samsara continues in the jiva. These are the two

kinds of creation, Ishvara-srishti and jiva-srishti – God's

creation and individual's creation.

Bhramā dhiṣṭhāna bhūtātmā kūṭasthā saṅga cidvapuḥ,

anyonyā dhyāsato’saṅga dhīstha jīvo’tra pūruṣaḥ (5). In the

mantra quoted from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the

word purusha is used – where this purusha is to know the

Atman as identical with one's own Self. Now, who is this

purusha? The purusha is nothing but the jiva. It is the jiva that

is aspiring for the knowledge of the Self. That consciousness

which is rooted in a substratum called Kutastha-chaitanya,

really unattached as the Kutastha Himself is, consciousness

which is detached from everything else – though this is the

essential nature of the jiva consciousness in terms of the

Kutastha which is its substratum, yet what happens is that

there is anyo'nyadhyasa, mutual superimposition of

443

characters. We need not go into the details of all this because

we have studied it already in the earlier chapter – how one

thing is superimposed on the other.

The Universality of consciousness, which is the Kutastha

nature, is superimposed on the jiva so that the jiva wrongly

begins to feel that it is not going to die. It will always be

there, perpetually living this world; and conversely, the

limitations, the finitude which is of the jiva is transferred to

the Kutastha-chaitanya and one beings to feel "I am small, I

am short, I am high, I am low," and so on are the descriptions

of oneself.

This dual, mutual superimposition is called

anyo'nyadhyasa, subject to which one becomes the individual

jiva. This jiva it is that is referred to by the word purusha in

this quoted verse from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Sādhiṣṭhāno vimokṣādau jīvo’dhikriyate na tu, kevalo

niradhiṣṭhāna vibhrānteḥ kvāpya siddhitaḥ (6). It is not the

Kutastha-chaitanya that is asking for moksha, because

Kutastha chaitanya is Universal consciousness appearing to

be limited within this pot-like limitation of our body. And

what is it then that actually aspires for moksha? It is not the

ether that is in the pot; it is the ether that is reflected in the

water that is poured into the pot that aspires for moksha. It is

a reflected consciousness that goes by the name of jiva which

aspires for freedom and liberation. The Pure Consciousness

that is the Kutastha itself need not aspire, because it is

unconnected with things. The sorrows of life are also

experienced by the jiva, and the aspiration for liberation also

is an exercise of the jiva consciousness only.

Adhiṣṭhānāṁśa saṁyuktaṁ bhramāṁśam avalambate, yadā

tadā’haṁ saṁsārīti evaṁ jīvo’bhimanyate (7). When this jiva

which is superimposed on the Kutastha begins to identify

itself with that limited personality, it begins to cry: "I am

involved. I am in samsara. I am in the ocean of suffering." And

then it wants freedom from suffering.

444

Bhramāṁ śasya tiraskārāt adhiṣṭhāna pradhānatā, yadā

tadā cidāmtmāham asaṅgo’smiti buddhyate (8). When by deep

meditation one is enabled to detach the consciousness from

this finitude of experience and convince oneself that we are

basically the Kutastha chaitanya, then one feels happy inside.

If we are day in and day out concerned only with this identity

of ours, with this jiva consciousness, then sorrow is the only

thing that we can reap in this world. There cannot be a

moment's rest and peace or respite here. But there are

occasions when, due to spiritual education, we are reminded

of the fact of our not being so very identical with the body as

it is made to appear – that our essence is something else.

So even if we die, actually nothing is lost. This

consciousness, this conviction, keeps us alive and gives us a

little peace of mind for some time. Otherwise, if the jiva

consciousness is a hundred percent our heritage, we will not

enjoy peace here, even for threeminutes.

Nāsaṅge’hankṛtir yuktā kathām asmīti cet śrṇu, edo mukhyo

dvāva mukhāv ityartha strividho’hamaḥ (9). How is it possible

for the unattached Kutastha chaitanya to get identified with

ahamkara, or egoism? How does the infinite become the

finite? How does ahamkara enter into this Universal

Kutastha-chaitanya? For this we must understand what this

ahamkara is.

What is egoism? The egoism is of three kinds. According

to Yoga Vasishtha, the three kinds of ahamkara are as

follows. "I am this body." This is one kind of ahamkara. "I am

nothing." This is another kind of ahamkara. "I am

everything." This is a third kind of ahamkara. The teacher of

the Yoga Vasishtha tells us there is no harm if we feel that we

are nothing. There is also no harm if we feel that we are

everything. But if we feel that we are only something, then

we are caught.

Sankaracharya was inside, and his disciple came and

knocked at the door. Sankaracharya said, "Who is that?"

445

"I," replied the disciple.

"Let it either expand to infinity or let it annihilate itself."

This is what the Guru spoke from inside. "I – Let it either

expand itself to infinity, or let it annihilate itself. But let it not

identify itself only with something. Either you are nothing or

everything, but not something." These are the three kinds of

ahamkara according to the Yoga Vasishtha.

Anyonyā dhyāsa rūpeṇa kūṭasthā bhāsa yorvapuḥ, ekī

bhūya bhaven mukhyas tatra mūḍhaiḥ prayujyate (10). One

kind of ahamkara is the obvious one that we are

experiencing every day. That is caused by the mutual

superimposition of qualities, anyo'nyadhyasa. That is, the

chidabhasa chaitanya is identified with the Kutastha and

Kutastha is identified with the chidabhasa chaitanya. This

word chidabhasa occurs several times in the Panchadasi. We

must know what this word means. Chidabhasa means

reflection of consciousness. Chid means consciousness;

abhasa is reflection.

The Kutastha Universal Atman getting reflected through

the buddhi, or the intellect, is called chidabhasa. The reflected

consciousness through the buddhi is called chidabhasa. This

chidabhasa is many a time identified with the personality. It

assumes an egoism. The moment the consciousness of

Kutastha reflects itself through the buddhi, egoism comes in.

Chidabhasa and ahamkara are juxtaposed. They cannot be

separated. When the one is, the other also is there. We

cannot have ahamkara, or ego consciousness, unless there is

a reflection which is chidabhasa. The moment chidabhasa

takes place, the ego also crops up. This is one kind of

ahamkara which has to be known.

Pṛthagā bhāsa kūṭasthau amukhau tatra taṭva vit, paryāyeṇa

prayuṅkte’haṁ śabdaṁ loke ca vaidike (11). The other

ahamkara is the feeling, consciousness that "I am Kutasthachaitanya

and I am not associated with the reflection." That

is also a kind of ahamkara because there is a feeling "I am

446

something". The feeling or the conviction that the reflected

consciousness is not in any way connected with the original

Kutastha consciousness and the one is different from the

other – the awareness of the distinction between these two

types of awareness – that is the second variety of ahamkara

variety.

The jivanmukta purushas generally are in this condition

where they have a consciousness of their existence; they

know that they are living in this body, but they know that

they are not identified with the body. As we noted earlier, the

karmaja adhyasa is operative even in the case of a

jivanmukta, but the bhramaja and the sahaja adhyasas are

not operative in the jivanmukta purusha. These terms should

be kept in mind always since they occur many a time.

Laukika vayvahāre’haṁ gacchāmī tyādike bhudaḥ, vivicaiva

cidā bhāsaṁ kūṭasthāt taṁ vivikṣati (12)."I am coming in a few

minutes." When we say this, whom are we referring to? ‘I’. It

is a complete mix-up of chidabhasa and ahamkara with this

body consciousness. This is the third kind of ahamkara,

which is entirely lodged in the body.

Asaṅgo’haṁ cidātmāham iti śāstrīya dṛṣṭitaḥ, ahaṁ śabdaṁ

prayuṅktte’yaṁ kūtasthe kevale budhaḥ (13). The

knowledgeable person, the enlightened one, knows that he is

the totally unattached Pure Consciousness. This Knowledge

that has arisen by deep study of scriptures and by learning

from the Guru and by sravana, manana, nididhyasana – this

ahamkara of the jivanmukta is pure shuddha ahamkara,

which is the feeling of "I am Pure Consciousness". The feeling

"I am Pure Consciousness" also is a kind of ahamkara. This is

another variety altogether.

Jñānitājñānite tvātmā bhāsasyaiva na cāt manaḥ, tathā ca

kathamā bhāsaḥ kūṭastho’smīti buḍhyatām (14). Knowing and

not knowing the truth as it is, is a character of the reflection

of consciousness. Kutastha does not have these qualities. The

immortal Atman that we are, Kutastha as it is called, neither

447

has a desire to know, nor is it in a state of ignorance at any

time. Who is it that is in ignorance then? It is this chidabhasa

– consciousness getting reflected through the intellect and

becoming an individual personality. So only in that condition

of reflection there is a possibility of not knowing truth and

then aspiring for truth.

Nāyaṁ doṣaś cidā bhāsaḥ kūṭasthaika svabhāva vān,

ābhāsatvā sya mithyā tvāt kūṭasthatvā avaśeṣaṇāt (15). Let the

seeker go on, therefore, dwelling upon this great truth that

Kutastha is unattached, though without its existence even the

chidabhasa cannot exist. Without its existence, without the

light of the Kutastha chaitanya on chidabhasa, ahamkara or

ego also cannot exist. And the body also cannot move without

the light of that Kutastha. Though this is the fact, Kutastha is

totally detached, as the sun in the sky is totally detached in

spite of the fact that all movements in the world are

attributable to his existence.

The abhasa, the reflection, chidabhasa, is an apparent

illumination, like a light falling on a mirror. The reflection,

the conditioning, the characterisation or the limitation of the

reflection is caused by the medium through which the

reflection takes place – in a mirror, for instance, or here in

the case of the individual, the intellect. The intellect varies

from person to person because the intellect is the residuum

of the whole prarabdha of jivas – and so as is the difference in

the working of the prarabdha karma of jivas, so is also the

feeling of ahamkara different from one another for the same

reason.

Discourse 38

CHAPTER 7: TRIPTIDIPA PRAKARANAM – LIGHT ON

SUPREME SATISFACTION, VERSES 16-22

Kūṭastho’smīti bodho’pi mithyā cenneti ko vadet, na hi

satyatayā bhīṣṭaṁ rajju sarpa visarpaṇam (16). A question is

generally raised: "How does knowledge arise in a person?" It

cannot be due to the effort of the person, because effort in

the right direction is not possible unless there is some

knowledge. We cannot say that human effort is the cause of

the rise of knowledge in a person, because that effort itself

requires some knowledge at the back of it. How does

knowledge arise? This question was also raised by Acharya

Sankara in his Brahma Sutra commentary. There is no

answer to this question.

How does evolution take place? We are told that there is

a movement of life from the rudimentary stages up to the

higher levels – from mineral to plant, plant to animal, animal

to human being. Who causes the push of this evolutionary

process? Does the plant one day start thinking, "Tomorrow I

shall become an animal?" No. The plant has no consciousness

of that futurity. Does the animal think that it should become a

human being after some time? Is it the animal's effort that

transforms it into a human being? No.

Whose effort is it then? If there is no cause at all to end its

operation, it would mean that effects can follow without

causes. Anything can happen at any time with no meaning at

all. But the world does not seem to be working in a chaotic

manner. Nothing irrational or meaningless takes place in the

world. On a careful investigation, logically and scientifically,

we realise that the world is perfect in every sense. In that

perfect world, how can there be irrational elements such as

something coming from nothing? Therefore, how can a

human being evolve from the lower species unless there is an

impulse caused by something which is responsible for the

push of consciousness from the lower to the higher level?

Nobody can answer this question. Even great rationalists like

449

Acharya Sankara had nothing more to say than that perhaps

it is the grace of God.

The ultra-monistic type of thinking, which is the

characteristic of philosophies like Acharya Sankara's, also

brings in the grace of God. All the while it has been told us

that God, this creative principle Ishvara, is only a tentative

manifestation of the Absolute Brahman through the

mulaprakriti's sattva guna quality. That means to say, no

special importance has been given to this reflected

consciousness known as Ishvara. All the importance has gone

to Brahman. Yet, when we feel confronted with the terrible

question like this, we resort to God. “Bhagavan ki iccha.” We

always say that.

This verse that we read just now has some relevance to a

question of this kind. Who is it that attains salvation? The

Kutastha chaitanya, the pure Atman inside which is Universal

in its nature, need not have to strive for liberation. The

physical body does not attain liberation, and not even the

mind which gets dissolved in liberation. The five sheaths are

also cast off. After the five sheaths we have only the Atman,

pure and simple. There is nothing in between.

If the moksha that is spoken of in such glorious terms is

not what is attained by the Kutastha Universal consciousness

and not by the five sheaths, who attains it? Is there anything

called attainment? "It is the jiva that attains it" is a tentative

answer; but what do we mean by the jiva? It is a makeshift

arrangement between the five sheaths on one side and the

Atman consciousness, Kutastha, on the other side. There is

no such thing as jiva independently by itself. It is apparently

there as a kind of reflection of the Kutastha Atman in the

intellect, which is the purified form of the five sheaths.

Sri Swami Sivanandaji Maharaj used to tell a story in

connection with this peculiar jiva which neither belongs to

the five sheaths nor belongs to the Kutastha, yet wreaks

havoc. There was a marriage feast. Hundreds of people were

running hither and thither, and there was dinner on the

450

table. Hundreds were sitting, and nobody knew who was

sitting and eating. In this crowd, how can one know who is

eating, because each one was thinking that a person there

sitting at the table must be belonging to either of the two

parties – the girl’s side party or the boy’s side party. There

were only two parties at the wedding and if someone was not

recognisable by one party, they thought that perhaps he

belonged to the other party, so why should they

unnecessarily talk to him? Also, it is not polite to ask, "Who

are you?" And the other party also thought that they should

not talk like that, as he may be a person from the other side

and they should not be impolite by asking him, "Who are

you?" on that auspicious occasion.

When the wedding was over all the people departed, one

by one, but there was one person who would not go. He

remained in the in-laws' house. They did not say anything;

they were embarrassed. They thought perhaps he is one of

the members of the other party that had left. They could not

enquire if he belonged to the other party, because politeness

is important. So he went on eating and living there, and

having all the enjoyments. This went on for days together. He

wouldn't budge. They were very much upset as it was very

difficult situation. One day they could not bear it any more.

They said, "Please let us know from where you have come."

The next day he ran away from that place. He did not belong

either to that party or this party; he made a good bargain of

this chaos of the wedding feast and enjoyed life very well for

days together, creating a false impression that he belongs to

some party. So is this jiva.

There are some people, very simple, ordinary persons,

who come to know somehow or other that a VIP is coming at

such and such a time, on such and such a railway train. He

knows that when they arrive there will be big garlanding and

photographing and so on, so suddenly he will put a garland

on himself and stand nearby and get photographed with

everybody. Afterwards he will show the photograph and say,

451

"I was also a VIP and my photograph was taken." If many

photographs are taken, he is a very big man because he has

been photographed with so many VIPs. He himself purchased

the garland, put it on and then stood there to be in the

photographs.

This is how the jiva works here – belonging neither to

Brahman, the Absolute, nor to this physical world. How does

moksha take place? Is it a real attainment, or is the

attainment itself an unreal process? This has been illustrated

by an analogy. Suppose we are fast asleep and we are

dreaming that a tiger is pouncing on us. It roars so loudly

that we yell and get up from sleep. That tiger did not really

exist. The roar of the tiger was also not really there. But our

waking up was real.

An unreal cause can produce a real effect. Is it possible?

Sometimes we feel like we are falling from a tree. Such a

thud! We feel that we have fallen from a tall tree; after

waking up we start rubbing our knee to see whether it is

alright – such pain we feel. How could an unreal tiger's roar

create a real waking? Is this not a contradiction of the

relation between cause and effect? Can an unreal cause

produce a real effect? But here is an example of such a case.

An unreal tiger produces a real waking. Otherwise we would

have simply kept quiet, listening to the roar.

They say the Guru is like the tiger; his teaching is like a

roar. And we are living in this dream world. The Guru is also

inside the dream world; he is not outside. He is like the tiger.

That is the only difference. We are like an ordinary person;

the Guru is like a tiger. His teaching is like a roar. It is enough

to shake us up from our slumber and create an experience

that is transcendental. Though the jiva that is aspiring for

moksha is itself not a real entity, it can attain real salvation in

just the same way as the fright created by the roaring of a

tiger in dream was not a real fright, but that unreal fright

created a real waking.

452

The world is unreal, finally. Neither our scriptures, nor

the Guru or the teaching can be regarded as finally valid in

the light of the Absolute Brahman. There is a homeopathic

saying in Latin, "similia similibus curentur". Like cures like.

Our ignorance is not a real state of affairs. It is a kind of

obscuration caused by certain factors which cannot be

regarded as ultimately real. To remove that obscuration, we

do not require a real cause.

There was a boy who was having his lunch – a little kid.

He saw a lizard moving on the wall. He was taking his meal

and going on looking at the lizard. It was moving this way

and that way. After a few minutes, he found it was not there.

He looked from all sides. The lizard was missing. He thought

it had gone inside him. He felt that the lizard had gone inside

his stomach. He vomited, yelled, cried, and beat his breast at

what had happened. The parents came. "Oh, the lizard has

gone inside me!" he cried. They called the doctor, who gave

some emetic. The boy vomited, but no lizard came out. So

bad and so sick he became, that they thought there was no

cure for him because the lizard was inside the stomach. After

a few minutes, suddenly the boy saw the lizard on the wall.

"Oh it is there, it is there!" And in a minute he was

alright. The doctors had to go away, as there was no need for

a doctor at all. An unreal sickness does not require a real

treatment. But the sickness was so realistic that he was

vomiting. How could vomiting, which was so real, be

regarded as an unreal phenomenon?

It is real from the point of view of the experience of the

person, but totally unreal from the point of view of its real

cause. When the real lizard was seen, immediately the illness

vanished. The doctors had to quit, and no fees had to be paid

because they did not have to treat the boy.

This question that is raised in Vedanta philosophy is very

crucial. The unreality of a thing or the reality of a thing is not

a glib question and a glib answer.We cannot simply raise this

question and expect one answer to it. There are great

453

authors on Vedanta and metaphysics, such as Madhusudana

Saraswati who wrote Advaitasiddhi, a large text that gives at

least nineteen definitions of what unreality can be.

Unreality is not just as we think. The unreality of horns

on the head of a human being is different in nature from the

unreality of the snake seen in a rope. Both are unreal, but

there is a difference between these two kinds of unrealities

because the horns of a human being are never seen at all.

They are atyanta abhava, meaning absolutely non-existent.

But the snake in the rope is not absolutely non-existent; it is

relatively non-existent. As long as it is perceived, it is there;

when it is not perceived, it is not there. So it has a relative

non-existence and also a relative existence. It is not like a tail

of a human being or horns of a hare.

Varieties of unrealities are there. What kind of unreality

do we attribute to this world? Is it like a horn on a human

being's head? It is not so, because horns cannot be seen. We

are seeing the world. The illustration is that it is something

like the snake in the rope. Misconception – wrong, erroneous

perception – is the cause of the appearance of something

outside us as the world.

As the appearance of bondage in the form of the

perception of the world outside is a relatively valid

experience and not an absolutely valid experience, we

require only a relatively valid treatment for it – like the

teaching of a scripture or the word of a Guru, or the thoughts

that we entertain in the meditation process, though all these

activities come within dream only. It does not mean that

dream is totally unreal because if we have hunger in dream,

we can have a dream lunch and we will be satisfied with that.

If we are thirsty in dream, we can have dream water; it will

quench our thirst. It does not mean that it is totally

meaningless, because corresponding causes are producing

corresponding effects. The verse that follows tells us: "As is

the god, so is the offering."

454

Kūṭastho’smīti bodho’pi mithyā cenneti ko vadet. The

consciousness that we are the Kutastha Atman also is a part

of the dream world. It is as unreal as the snake in the rope,

but it is very real as the snake in the rope. It is unreal

because the rope cannot become a snake. It is real because

we jumped over it in fear. An unreal, non-existent thing

cannot cause a real jumping in fright. It was there for the

time being. So there is an indescribable, inexplicable

phenomenon which is relatively real and relatively unreal. As

is the case of the relation between the rope and the snake,

that is the relation between the world and God.

Tādṛśenāpi bodhena saṁsāro hi nivartate, yaksā nurūpo hi

balir ityāhur laukikā janāḥ (17). We do not require an

absolutely real cause to remove an ignorance which is not

ultimately real. If our ignorance is also an eternal substance,

then nobody could remove that ignorance by any effort,

because eternity cannot be destroyed. Since it is not eternal,

it is subject to badha, or destruction. It is not to be

considered as real because that which is subject to

destruction, that which has an end, cannot be regarded as

real. Since it is not ultimately real, we do not have to bring in

a real treatment for it, and the comparatively unreal

treatments such as study of scriptures, Guru seva, etc., are

sufficient.

Yaksā nurūpo hi balir ityāhur laukikā janāḥ. If we worship a

demon, we have to offer that particular sacrament which is to

the liking of the demon. If we worship a goat, we have to give

only green leaves to it. If we worship a cow, we may give it

only grass. If we worship an elephant, we will give it tender

trees. And if we worship a human being, we give a good meal.

Now, what is the meaning of worship? It is the offering of

that which is necessary under a given condition in respect of

the nature of that thing which we are adoring. The offering is

to be in accordance with the nature of that which is going to

receive our offering. Here, the offering is made to the

ignorance that obscures our knowledge of the Supreme

455

Being – and it is like a demon sitting in front of us. Inasmuch

as it is not a god, its power is very little.

Therefore, relatively valid treatments of knowledge

through the scripture and Guru’s instruction may be valid.

We cannot make a sudden statement as to what kind of

world it is in which we are living. Nobody can say whether it

is real; nobody can say whether it is unreal. If it is true that

we are really bound, there is no hope of salvation or freedom.

If our bondage is real, how can it be removed, because

already we have accepted that it is real. Real things cannot be

destroyed. And an unreal thing need not be destroyed. What

are we destroying then? Here is an enigma before us.

Tasmā dābhāsa puruṣaḥ sakūṭastho vivicya tam,

kūṭastho’smīti vijñātum arhatī tyabhyadhāt śrutiḥ (18). It is the

abhasa purusha, chidabhasa, reflection of the Kutastha

chaitanya in the intellect, which pretends to be independent

by itself, notwithstanding the fact that it cannot exist for a

moment without the reflection being there from the

Kutastha. That jiva, which is an upstart that has suddenly

erupted between the five sheaths on the one hand and the

Kutastha on the other hand, is that which is aspiring for

liberation, and is that which has the feeling that it is bound.

Asandigdhā viparyasa bodho dehātamanī kṣyate, tadva

datreti nirṇetum ayamitya bhidhī yate (19). As is the intensity

of the feeling of identity of oneself with this body, so is it that

we are trying to achieve in the realisation of Brahman. This

point has been touched upon earlier. We have no doubt

whatsoever that we are this body.We do not require proof to

establish the truth of our identity with this body; it is so

obvious.

Our feeling and experience of our identity with Brahman

should be as obvious. One need not have to rack one’s head

and scratch one’s body again and again and try to find out

how to get identity with Brahman.We have to do meditation,

we have to do japa, we have to pray, we have to do so many

456

things to convince ourselves that there is such a thing called

the Absolute Brahman – and even more difficult is the

experience of identity. The nature of the identity that we feel

with our body will also explain the nature of the difficulty in

realising Brahman. How hard is this body consciousness! So

hard is this path to Brahman.

Dehātma jñāna vajjñānaṁ dehātma jñāna bādhakam,

ātmanyeva bhave dyasya sa necchaṇapi mucyate (20). If the

intensity that one feels in terms of identity of consciousness

with this body is also felt in relation to Brahman, mukti,

moksha is in our hand. It will be ours even if we do not want

it. When we wake up, the sunlight is on our face whether we

want it or not. Necchaṇapi mucyate: Even if we don't want it,

it will come to us.

Ayamitya parokṣa tvam ucyate cetta ducyatām, svayaṁ

prakāśa caitanyam aparokṣaṁ sadā yataḥ (21). This is a

commentary on the verse from the Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad that was quoted in the beginning; and that has to

be kept in mind always. "I am." When this Atman realises

itself as "I am", or this purusha realises this Atman as "I am",

why should anyone desire anything in this world, and why

should anyone wish to enter into this body once again, as if

one would like to have fever again and again?

This "I am" sabda, this purusha – the demonstrative

pronoun ‘this’ – indicates the Self-luminous Atman. It is a

directly experienced something. This Atman that is within us

is sometimes felt to be directly experienced, sometimes

indirectly felt. For all practical purposes, it is not directly felt

at all. We feel only the body directly – the world, and the

body, and all its relations. But if enquiry is conducted into the

nature of the consciousness, which is what is actually

operating through us in all the three states of waking,

dreaming and sleep, we will realise on an analysis of these

three states that consciousness could exist as a Self-luminous

independent something in the state of deep sleep, with no

457

relation whatsoever with the three states or relation with the

five koshas.

Parokṣa maparokṣaṁ ca jñāna majñāna mityadaḥ, nityā

parokṣa rūpe’pi davayaṁ syād daśame yathā (22). Knowledge

is direct and indirect, as the case may be. There can be

knowledge, and also absence of knowledge. Even if there is

something which is directly observable, one can be oblivious

of that fact. One can be oblivious of even a directly

observable something, as in the case of the tenth man –

daśame yathā.

The story of the tenth man is well known. Ten very wise

men crossed a river, wading through the waters with some

difficulty. Their wisdom was so much that after crossing they

began to doubt whether or not all of them had crossed or

whether some of them had gone into the water, so one of

them started counting. They stood in line while one began

counting. He counted the men before him: one, two, three,

four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Nine? Only nine. Again he

counted, several times. There was no tenth person; only nine

were there. Then another man said, “Let me count,” so this

gentleman went and stood in the line; and the other man also

found only nine.

They started crying, beating their breasts, thinking that

one of them must have gone into the water. Now here,

avarana and vikshepa acted on them. Avarana is the

unconsciousness of the fact of their being such a thing called

a tenth man. The tenth man was not visible because the tenth

man was not one of the objects being counted. The tenth

man was not the counted thing, but the counter himself and,

therefore, it was not possible for them to know that the tenth

man existed.

The unconsciousness of the existence of the tenth man is

called veil, or avarana. The crying and the weeping and the

hitting of the head against the wall and the bleeding caused

thereby is the vikshepa. This unreal unconsciousness of the

458

presence of the tenth man caused a real bleeding of the head.

Here again is an illustration of a peculiar situation where an

unreal cause produces a real effect. The point is that the

cause was relatively real, as is the case with the perception of

a snake in the rope; and the wound may continue for some

days, as the prarabdha karma may continue for some days.

Continuing our earlier story, another man, who was

walking past, saw them crying and beating their breasts.

Going up to them he said, "What is the matter with you all?

Why are you are crying?" "No, a very sorry state of affairs.

One of us has been drowned in the river."

"I see. How many were you?" "Ten." "Ten? But you are

ten now. I am seeing you." "No, we are only nine." "Ten. You

are ten." Then one of them said, "No, please see." They again

counted, and said there are only nine. "You foolish man! You

are the tenth man. You stand there. I will count." And all the

ten were there. Then the sorrow vanished immediately.

They had been so grief-stricken, and the sorrow was real;

the sorrow was not unreal. The real sorrow vanished in one

second by the admonition that they got from a good

Samaritan Guru. The Guru is the passer-by who sees the

crying of the people and then points out that the Atman is not

somewhere else, and we need not run from the Himalayas to

Rome or from San Francisco to Rishikesh to find this Atman.

It is right there where we are sitting. We are carrying it

wherever we go, and we are searching for ourself – like a

musk deer which is supposed to be running in all directions

to find the source of the fragrance of the musk, while actually

the musk is from its own body; or like a person searching for

the necklace which she is wearing, thinking it to be

lost. Many times I myself have searched for spectacles that

were on my eyes! Some kind of delusion took place because I

was wearing them yet I was searching for where I had put

them. It took some time to realise that I was wearing them.

Such is the dramatic experience we are passing through.

This world is a mystery indeed. These stories, these

459

analogies, these comparisons, these humorous stories that I

told you are all to point out that we need not be so much

worried about this world as we are wont to, because one day

or the other it is going to vanish. Nobody can be eternally

sick. One day the sickness has to go – and if God exists,

everything shall be well.

Discourse 39

CHAPTER 7: TRIPTIDIPA PRAKARANAM – LIGHT ON

SUPREME SATISFACTION, VERSES 23-40

Nava saṅkhyā hṛta jñāno daśamo vibhramāt tadā, na vetti

daśamo’smīti vīkṣya māṇo’pi tān nava (23). In the case of the

illustration of the ten persons crossing a river and wanting to

know if all are alive, one of them counted the rest of them

and found there were only nine. And every time the counting

showed only nine in number; one was missing.

The concentration of the mind on the nine persons was

so intense that the mind had lost its awareness of its abode

being in the counter himself. We never feel that we are

anything worth the while in this world in comparison with

the vast figure of this mighty world in front of us. The

number outweighs the quality of the counting individual.

Quantitatively the world is bigger than every individual;

it is perfectly true. The astronomical universe is so large that

it can pound to dust even the strongest of persons in the

world. But this person who is capable of being pounded by

the majesty and the power of the cosmos is aware that he is

being pounded, whereas the universe does not know that it is

pounding this person. If a stone falls on a person and crushes

him, it does not follow that the stone is superior to that

person. The stone does not know that it is crushing a person,

whereas the person is aware that he is being crushed. Here is

the difference between the two categories. Quantity is not

always the criterion of the judgement of value. Quality is

superior. The quality of consciousness in the human

individual surpasses all other quantitative numbers in other

species of beings.

Coming back to the story of the man who counted nine

men, the concentration of the mind was on the number nine

because he was seeing nine people – as his eyes were fixed

on the nine people – and whatever was seen with the eyes

was alone considered as rea,l and whatever was not visible

did not exist. The person who was counting the nine people

461

did not exist at all because existence is identified with

perceptibility. That which is seen is there; if it is not seen, it is

not there. Such is the illusion that is cast by the engagement

of consciousness on external quantity, forgetting completely

the qualitative importance of its otherwise so-called

individuality.

Na bhāti nāsti daśama iti svaṁ daśamaṁ tadā, matvā vakti

tadajñāna kṛtam āvaraṇaṁ viduḥ (24). The people who do not

find the tenth man, what do they say? They say that such a

person, the tenth one, does not exist. He is no more there, as

he is not seen. He is not seen and, therefore, he is not there.

This veil of ignorance that prevents the person who counts

from knowing (counting) himself is called avarana, or a veil

projected by the ignorance of the presence of that person.

First of all there is an abolition of the consciousness of

one's own existence on account of the intense consciousness

of only other people. The annihilation of self-consciousness

in respect of oneself covers the consciousness of one's own

self. That covering is called veil. The ignorance as such is

called ajnana. Ajnana and avarana are two aspects of not

knowing a thing which is really there.

Nadyāṁ mamāra daśama iti śocan praroditi, ajñān kṛta

vikṣepaṁ rodanādiṁ vidur buḍhāh (25). The tenth man has

been drowned in the water, and so all the people start crying

because one person has been drowned in the river. The

ignorance of the tenth person being there causes the

vikshepa or the distraction, the outward consciousness of

grief and crying, etc. There is, first of all, no knowledge at all

of that which is there. Now, secondly, there is knowledge of

the fact of grief caused by the absence of the person who is

not visible.

Firstly, there is an ignorance, then there is a veil, and

then there is an actual engagement in some action, which is

called vikshepa or distraction. In the case of this illustration,

the distraction or the vikshepa is the act of crying, hitting the

462

head against the wall, causing a bleeding wound, etc. These

are the outcome in the form of vikshepa, of the ignorance of

the fact of there being the tenth person.

Na mṛto daśamo’stīti śrutvāpta vacanaṁ tadā, parokṣa

tvena daśamaṁ vetti svargādi lokavat (26). Suppose some

passerby says that all the ten are alive, and he shows by an

actual demonstration of counting that the ten are there. He

tells the man who counted to also stand in the line, and then

he says, "See, you are ten." This is called indirect knowledge.

The tenth man is existing. Here the knowledge is indirectly

gained by hearing the words of a reliable person who came

that way.

The tenth man is not dead; the tenth man is alive. This is

the good word that they heard, as a word that comes from

the Guru. This kind of knowledge is indirect knowledge.

Direct experience is not there, but at least there is a

conviction born of the words heard from a reliable person

that the tenth man does exist. "The Atman does exist," says

the Guru. Nobody has seen the Atman, but even this good

word is sufficiently comforting and a solace.

Seeing the Atman separately, independently by

experience, is a different matter. That is called direct

knowledge. But indirect knowledge is also good enough

because it gives some kind of satisfaction: After all, it is there;

it is not that it is not there. This kind of knowledge, obtained

secondarily from someone, is called indirect knowledge –

paroksa jnana.

Tvameva daśamo’sīti gaṇayitvā pradarśitaḥ, aparokṣa tayā

jñātvā hṛṣyatyeva na roditi (27). Then that gentleman who

counted the ten says, "You are the tenth." First it was said

that the tenth person does exist. Now he says, "You, yourself,

who was counting, are the tenth." That person has now

become conscious of his own self as the tenth person. The

missing one is one's own self. Therefore, the knowledge

arises here directly, apart from the indirect knowledge

463

obtained earlier by merely listening to the truth that the

tenth man existed.

We are searching for the Atman in this world. We go to

Brindavan, Mathura, Kashi, etc., in order to search for the

Atman. We may run about anywhere, but we will not find it.

“Ayodhya dhoondha, Mathura dhoondha,” says Kabir in his

poem, "and I found not anything there. I found it in the same

place where I was sitting." So we are in search of our own

selves in our large pilgrimages, large tours. We are searching

for our own selves sitting where we are. We have lost our

own selves. The tenth man cannot be found by any amount of

travelling and moving about in pilgrimage, etc., because it is

an awareness that is necessary for the purpose of dispelling

that ignorance of the tenth man not being there.

Ajñānā vṛti vikṣepa dvividha jñāna tṛptayaḥ, śokāpagama

ityete yojanīyā ścidātmani (28). This jiva consciousness passes

through seven stages of experience. The whole of the seventh

chapter of the Panchadasi is an exposition of these seven

stages. The first stage is total ignorance of there being such a

thing called the Atman. The second stage is a veiling of the

consciousness and making one feel that it is not existing

because it is not seen. The third stage is the distraction or the

activity that is generated by the ignorance of one's own self.

The fourth stage is the indirect knowledge that we receive

from a Guru or a good, reliable person. The fifth stage is

direct knowledge, actual experience. The sixth stage is the

vanishing of all sorrow. The seventh is immense satisfaction.

Ajnana is first. Avriti is second. Vikshepa is third. Paroksa

jnana is fourth. Aparoksa jnana is fifth. Tripti is sixth.

Shokapagama, the abolition of all sorrow and the coming of

happiness, is the seventh stage. These seven stages are the

processes which the jiva consciousness passes through in its

transmigratory life in search of truth.

Saṁsārā sakta cittaḥ sanś cidā bhāsaḥ kadācana, svayaṁ

prakāśa kūṭasthaṁ svatattvaṁ naiva vettyayam (29). The jiva

464

consciousness, notwithstanding the fact that it is existing

only on account of a reflection that it receives from the

Kutastha, knows not the Kutastha. As we cannot see our own

back, the jiva consciousness cannot know the Kutastha. The

Kutastha is at the back of the jiva consciousness. It is the real

light that is shed on the jiva medium. And what does the jiva

feel? It identifies itself with the reflection only and cannot

know wherefrom this reflection has come. It concludes, "I do

not know the Kutastha."

Na bhāti nāsti kūṭasthaḥ iti vakti prasaṅgataḥ, kartā bhoktā

hamasmīti vikṣepaṁ prati padyate (30). Neither do I see the

Kutastha Atman, nor do I feel that it exists at all. This is one

side of the matter. The other side of the matter is the jiva

begins to feel, "I am the doer of all deeds. I am the enjoyer of

all experiences. I am the enjoyer and I am the doer.” This is

the feeling, wrongly, which the jiva associates with itself. On

the one hand, it denies the existence of the Atman or the

Kutastha because it is not known. On the other hand, it

assumes a false notion of itself being an individual doer and

an enjoyer of things. It is like a mirror crying "I am very

bright." The mirror is not bright because it cannot shine in

darkness. It shines because of the light that is falling on it. So

this boast of the jiva that it is the doer and the enjoyer of

things is totally unfounded.

Asti kūṭastha ityādau parokṣaṁ vetti vārtayā, paścāt

kūṭastha evāsmī tyevaṁ vetti vicārataḥ (31). By a gradual

process of spiritual education, this jiva begins to realise

through instructions received from the Guru or the master

and the scripture that the Kutastha does exist. The Atman is.

God is. For all practical purposes, we are deniers of God and

the Atman. Nothing is seen about God; nothing is there about

the Atman. How can we know that it exists? By certain

methods of argument, proof and scriptural evidence, the

Guru manages to convince the student that God does exist

and the Atman is. This is indirect knowledge. Direct

knowledge is the actual sinking of oneself into the Kutastha

465

Atman and attaining God-consciousness by itself. That is

direct knowledge, aparoksa jnana.

Kartā bhokte tyeva mādi śokajātaṁ pramuñcati, kṛtaṁ

kṛtyaṁ prāpaṇīyaṁ prāpta mityeva tuṣyati (32). After having

attained this direct knowledge, the illusory feeling "I am the

doer, I am the enjoyer" is cast aside.An illumined person will

no more feel that he is the doer of things or the enjoyer of

things. The whole universe is acting, and there is only one

action taking place in the whole cosmos. Many activities are

not taking place, and all enjoyments are also the enjoyments

of the central will of the cosmos. Neither you, nor I, nor

anybody else has any prerogative either to do a thing or to

enjoy a thing.

"I have done what is to be done, I have enjoyed what is to

be enjoyed, and I have obtained what is to be obtained." This

kind of threefold satisfaction arises after direct experience of

the Atman. Kratakritya, praptaprapya, jnatajneya – these are

the three qualities of an enlightened person. Kratakritya is

one who has done whatever is to be done; nothing is left

now. Praptaprapya is one who has obtained whatever is to be

obtained and nothing more remains in the world to be

obtained. Jnatajneya is to have known everything that is to be

known; there is nothing further to be known. Such

illumination arises after deep experience.

Ajñāna māvṛtis tadvad vikṣepaśca parokṣa dhīḥ, aparokṣa

mātiḥ śoka mokṣa stṛptir niraṅkuśā. (33). Saptā vasthā imāh

santi cidā bhāsasya tāsvimau, bandha mokṣau sthitau tatra

tistro bandha kṛtaḥ smṛtāh (34). These seven stages are

repeated here once again: ajnana or ignorance, avarana or

veiling, vikshepa or distraction, paroksa jnana or indirect

knowledge, aparoksa jnana or direct experience, shokamoksha

or freedom from sorrow, and tripti or immense

eternal bliss.

These stages are to be associated only with the

chidabhasa, and not with Brahman. Brahman does not

466

undergo these seven stages. The reflected consciousness

which we call chidabhasa – or jiva, as we may call it – is what

passes through these seven stages. All the seven stages which

are mentioned are conditions of the jiva only. They are not to

be attributed to Brahman in any manner.

The bondage and the freedom of the jiva are included

within this sevenfold process. The first three refer to

bondage; the other ones refer to liberation. Ajnana, avriti and

vikshepa are the three stages of bondage, and the remaining

four are the stages of gradual liberation. Of the seven stages,

the first three stages are processes, stages, of bondage. The

remaining four are the gradual movement towards freedom.

They all belong to chidabhasa, jiva chaitanya.

Na jānāmī tyudāsīna vyavahārasya kāraṇam, vicāra prāga

bhāvena yukta majñāna mīritam (35). Ajnana (ignorance) – "I

do not know. It does not exist." This kind of prating of the jiva

is possible only before the rising of pure discrimination. No

such statement of ignorance can be made after

discrimination rises.

Amārgeṇa vicāryātha nāsti nobhāti cetyasau, viparīta

vyavahṛtir āvṛteḥ kārya miṣyate (36). By wrong discussion,

erroneously conducting the sense organs along the wrong

path, one begins to feel that this is not there, and this is not

known.What is the proof that God exists?Who has seen God?

These are the stock arguments of atheists, agnostics, etc.

Their arguments are based on a wrong foundation of logic.

The very hypothesis of their logic is wrong and, therefore,

such questions arise – questions which are themselves

untenable.

The wrong actions one engages oneself in – such as in the

case of the tenth man, ten people hitting their heads against a

wall and causing them to bleed – in the case of all people, it is

intense activity in the world. Outward movement in the

direction of objects – this is the vikshepa that is caused by the

467

avarana that is veiling prior to the arising of discriminative

knowledge.

Deha dvaya cidābhāsa rūpo vikṣepa īritaḥ, kartṛ tvādya

khilaḥ śokaḥ saṁsāra khyo’sya bandhakaḥ (37). In the case of

we individuals, vikshepa is nothing but the physical and

subtle body. We are suffering due to the operation of these

two bodies. The subtle body contains the mind and the sense

organs. The physical body – of course we know very well

what it is. The physical body has its own problems,

sufferings, sorrows, illnesses; and the mind is, of course,

worse than that. All the problems are created by the mind

and the sense organs. The identification of the chidabhasa or

consciousness with the two bodies (deha-dvaya), namely, the

subtle and the physical – this identification is called vikshepa

or distraction. Chidabhasa, reflected consciousness which is

jiva consciousness, identifies itself with the subtle body and

the physical body. It moves outward in the direction of

something other than its own self. Therefore, it is vikshepa,

distraction. All the bondages, thousands of sufferings that we

are facing in this world arising out of agency in action and

enjoyership of fruits of actions – all this grief is attributable

to this chidabhasa entering into relationship with the two

bodies, namely, the subtle body and the gross body.

Ajñānam āvṛtiś caite vikṣepāt prāk prasiddhyataḥ, yadda

pyathā pyavasthe te vikṣepa syaiva nātmanaḥ (38). A very

important question is raised here. Ignorance and veiling have

caused the vikshepa, or the distraction. You have to listen to

me carefully. This is a very moot question. Ignorance or

ajnana, and avarana or veiling, are the causes of the third

stage, which is vikshepa or distraction. Now, what is this

distraction?

It has been explained in the previous verse, the thirtyseventh

verse, that the identification of chidabhasa

consciousness with the subtle body and the gross body is

called vikshepa. Now, who is it that is experiencing the

ignorance and veil? Is it this distracted consciousness? The

468

distracted consciousness is actually the jiva consciousness. It

has arisen as the third entity here, in the process of the seven

stages. So how can the third entity become associated or

become the cause of the earlier two stages, ajnana and

avarana? It is not Brahman's ignorance, and it is not

Brahman's veiling. It must be somebody else's. That

somebody is not to be found here.Who is this somebody?

The child that is not yet born cannot be the cause of our

sorrow; only after it is born some difficulties may arise. Why

should we attribute anything at all to it when it is not even

born? The birth of the vikshepa takes place as the third

process, the third link in the chain of these seven categories.

Now, the question is raised here: Who is it that is

experiencing the ignorance and the veil? Not Brahman, not

even the vikshepa, and not jiva because jiva has not yet been

born. Who is the ignorance or the covering veil? To this the

answer is given in this verse.

We have to conclude that these earlier two stages of

ignorance and avarana, or veil, are stages of the vikshepa or

the jiva only. They are not stages of anybody else, because

who is the ‘anybody else’? The only other one is Brahman. So

we cannot attribute these stages to Brahman. We have to

attribute it only to jiva, notwithstanding the fact that it is a

posterior eruption in the seven stages. How do we explain

this quandary? How are we attributing a prior thing to a

posterior thing?

For this, the answer of the verse is though the vikshepa,

the jiva consciousness, has manifested itself in a conscious

form as a third stage, in a rudimentary form it existed in the

earlier stages also. Even before we actually feel the sickness

in our body, we are sick inside without our knowing it. There

is an illness which arises from the deepest recesses of the

koshas. The avarana, which is the anandamaya kosha, itself

creates some disturbance. We cannot know it because there

is no direct consciousness. Merely because we are not

conscious that we are ill, it need not mean that we are not ill.

469

The consciousness that we are ill arises afterwards when the

illness projects itself outwardly into the conscious levels of

the subtle and the gross bodies.

When the fruit ripens, we find that the peel becomes

reddish. It does not suddenly become red just like that. It has

been growing gradually from inside. Ripening was taking

place from the very root itself, but we could not see it. When

it was greenish outside, we concluded that the fruit was

unripe. The ripening process started gradually from inside

until it became manifest outside on the peel. Then we say it

has ripened. Similarly, when we actually feel pain in the

physical body, we say we are sick. But even without feeling

pain we might be sick inside for other reasons of which we

may not be conscious because the illness has not become an

object of our consciousness.

So the answer to this peculiar question is that ajnana or

avarana – ignorance and the veiling – should be considered

as part and parcel of the jiva only as prior conditions of its

manifestation. Even before the child becomes conscious, it

exists in the mother's womb in a rudimentary form.

Unconscious states cannot be regarded as somebody else's

states. They are also states of the jiva. It becomes conscious

later on; that is a different matter. The unconscious

conditions are also its states, though they are not direct

objects of perception. So the first three stages, which are the

causes of bondage, belong to the jiva only – not to Brahman.

Vikṣepot pattitaḥ pūrvam api vikṣepa sanskṛtiḥ, astyeva

tada vasthātavam aviruddhaṁ tatas tayoḥ (39). Even before

the vikshepa manifests itself, the samskara or the vasana or

the potency, the latency of the vikshepa, existed earlier in the

form of this ignorance and avarana. So the individuality

consciousness of bondage has two phases – the conscious

phase and the unconscious phase. The unconscious phase is

prior to the conscious phase; and that is there without one

being aware of it.When we become aware of it, it has already

manifested itself in active form.

470

Brahmaṇyā ropita tvena brahmā vasthe ime iti, na śaṅka

nīyaṁ sarvaṣāṁ brahmaṇye vādhi ropaṇāt (40). We should not

raise a question, "Why should we not regard it as a part of

Brahman's experience?" Everything is rooted in Brahman;

that is true.When the snake is superimposed on the rope, the

snake may also appear to be moving. We can see it moving

because we have superimposed all the qualities of a snake on

it. Otherwise, it cannot be a snake. And we may even feel the

bite of it if we have concluded that it is really a snake and we

trod on it. But actually, the rope never bit us. It did not move.

It was our imagination. Therefore, these characteristics of the

seven stages, attributable to the jiva, should not be

superimposed on Brahman. It is a different subject

altogether. Brahman is unattached, and the stages belong

only to the jiva.

Discourse 40

CHAPTER 7: TRIPTIDIPA PRAKARANAM – LIGHT ON

SUPREME SATISFACTION, VERSES 40-56

Brahmaṇyā ropita tvena brahmā vasthe ime iti, na śaṅka

nīyaṁ sarvaṣāṁ brahmaṇye vādhi ropaṇāt (40). The seven

stages – namely, ignorance, veil, vikshepa or distraction,

indirect knowledge, direct knowledge, freedom from sorrow,

and attainment of bliss – these seven stages are the stages

through which the jiva has to pass. They are superimposed

on the jiva, and there is tadatmya adhyasa – mutual

superimposition – between the condition of the jiva and the

stages mentioned.

It should not be supposed that Brahman, the Absolute,

has anything to do with these stages. We may not argue that

the stages are superimposed on the imperishable Brahman.

That would be to argue that clouds are obstructing the sun.

The clouds are not obstructing the sun at all. They are

obstructing our vision of the sun. The clouds are not

superimposed on the sun so that the sun may be affected by

the clouds. Hence, in spite of the fact that there is a complete

darkness, as it were, as sometimes when there are thick

monsoon clouds during the day, we cannot say that these

clouds have affected the sun in any way whatsoever. The sun

may not even be aware of what is happening in the world.

Thus, these processes, these seven stages – ignorance

onwards until liberation – are conditioning factors of the jiva

only and are not to be imagined as being superimposed on

Brahman because in that case the whole universe is

superimposed on Brahman. There is nothing special about it.

Saṁsārya haṁ vibuddho’haṁ niḥśoka stuṣṭa ityapi, jīvagā

uttarā vasthā bhānti na brahmagā yadi. (41). Tarhyajño’haṁ

brahma sattva bhāne maddṛṣṭito na hi, iti pūrve avasthe ca

bhāsete jīvage khalu (42). All these stages, such as the feeling,

"I am samsari, I am bound to earthly existence" and "I am

liberated, I am free, I am endowed with knowledge, I am now

free from sorrow and I am enjoying bliss or happiness" – are

472

subsequent stages of the jiva only. They are subsequent to

the preceding stages, namely, ajnana and avarana, ignorance

and veiling. They may appear to be superimposed on

Brahman, yet they should not be considered as really

connected with Brahman in any way whatsoever because the

feelings "I am ignorant" and "I am free" cannot arise in

Brahman. Even if there is an eclipse of the sun, the sun is not

affected by it. The eclipse is only for us who perceive it.

It is a very difficult situation before us when we have to

face this quandary of finding a location for these seven

stages. All these arguments of the verses arise on account of

this peculiar difficulty, namely, where do these seven stages

find their location? They must be existing somewhere. Even a

process should have some background in order that the

process may have some meaning. If the river is flowing, there

must be a riverbed that is not flowing.

Now, these seven stages are like processes. They cannot

be considered to be moving as processes on Brahman as the

base – though, in a way, we may say Brahman is the

substratum for all things. To bring the analogy of the sun and

the clouds, etc., we may say that everything is caused by the

sun. Even the movement of the clouds and the darkening that

is caused by the movement of the clouds are all to be

attributed only to the sun, of course. Yet nothing is to be

attributed to the sun.

Though nothing can exist here in this world – neither

bondage nor freedom can exist without Brahman's existence

– yet Brahman is uncontaminated with these processes. They

are connected only with the jiva. As there are only two

principles before us, Brahman and jiva, the processes should

belong to one of them. As it is not possible to attribute these

stages to Brahman, they have to be attributed only to the jiva.

There is no other alternative for us.

Ajñāna syāśrayo brahmeti adhiṣṭhān tayā jaguḥ, jīvā

vasthātvam ajñānā bhimā nitvā davā diṣam (43). Is not

473

ignorance rooted in Brahman? Is Brahman not the source of

avidya? Where is avidya located? Where is its support? We

accept that even ignorance has to find a support; and the

ultimate support being Brahman itself for all things, we may

in a way concede that Brahman is the support even of

ignorance. Yet, it is only a theoretical concession given to

Brahman being the substratum of ignorance. Direct organic

connection between ignorance and Brahman cannot be there

because if a real connection is to be established between

ignorance and Brahman, Brahman would be ignorant. It

wouldn't be conscious of anything whatsoever.

In order to consider Brahman as the ultimate source of

all things, including the jiva and its seven stages, we have

said that Brahman is the source of all; but when we say that

Brahman is the source of all, we do not actually mean that it

is contaminated by the seven stages. Neither is Brahman

bound, nor does it aspire for liberation. It only has a relation

with jiva. Inasmuch as ultimately everything has to be based

on Brahman, we said everything, including the jiva and its

ignorance, are also rooted in Brahman. But this is a

theoretical concession. Practically, they are not related.

It is something like saying that the sun is the cause of

theft taking place in a house. Because there was sunlight, the

thief had free access into someone's house. If it was pitch

darkness, midnight, it would have been difficult. The sun has

contributed to the theft that took place in the house because

without its light, the thief would not have succeeded. Can we

say the thief has collaborated with the sun? Can we say that

some part of the offense goes to the sun because he gave the

light? Such is the argument here when we impose the

qualities of jiva, such as the seven stages, on Brahman,

though without Brahman the stages cannot be there.

Jñāna dvayen naṣṭe’sminn ajñāne tat kṛtāvṛtiḥ, na bhāti

nāsti cetyeṣā dvividhāpi vinaṣyati (44). When the two types of

knowledge arise in a person, namely indirect knowledge and

direct knowledge – that is to say, knowledge derived through

474

study of scriptures and knowledge derived from instruction

through a Guru, which is called indirect knowledge, which is

to be succeeded by direct knowledge or actual experience –

when these two types of knowledge properly take effect,

ajnana and all its effects, such as avarana, are destroyed.

Then that original ignorance which caused the feeling that

Brahman does not exist or Brahman is not known at all –

these two types of erroneous feelings also go away, together

with the ignorance which was their cause. The two types of

knowledge, indirect and direct, dispel ignorance and all the

effects of ignorance, such as the wrong notion that God does

not exist or that there is no proof for the existence of God

because God is not visible. This kind of erroneous argument

based on ignorance also gets dispelled when knowledge

dawns in a person in both indirect and direct forms.

Parokṣa jñānato naśyet asattvā vṛti hetutā, aparokṣa

jñāna nāśyā hyabhāna vṛti hetutā (45). There are two kinds

of ignorance, two phases of ignorance, rather: asattavarana

and abhana avarana. Due to the avarana of maya, known as

asattavarana, one has no consciousness of even the existence

of Brahman. Even the remote idea of their being such a thing

as Brahman cannot arise in the mind due to this avarana

called asattavarana. Avarana, or veil, instils the wrong notion

into the mind so that one is made to feel it does not exist. The

indirect knowledge which is obtained through study as well

as instruction from a Guru is capable of destroying that

secondary ignorance which makes us feel that God does not

exist, Brahman does not exist, etc. The proper instruction

received from the Guru will dispel this peculiar secondary

ignorance which is the cause of the feeling that God does not

exist or Brahman is not there.

The other one is abhana avarana, the veil that covers the

consciousness of there being such a thing at all called

Brahman. Direct knowledge or actual experience of Brahman

dispels the other kind of ignorance which covers the

consciousness of Brahman. That is to say, direct knowledge

475

or experience makes one immediately conscious of Brahman

as identical with one's own self.

Abhānā varaṇe naṣṭe jīvatvā ropa saṁkṣayāt, kartṛtvā

dyakhilaḥ śokaḥ saṁsārākhyo nivartate (46). This great

problem of life, which is called samsara with all its

concomitants like the feeling of agency in action, kartritva,

and bhoktritva or enjoyment of fruits of action – all these

appurtenances connected with the very existence of people

in the world, samsara, all vanish in one minute when abhana

avarana, the veil that covers the consciousness in respect of

Brahman's existence, is dispelled by direct experience.

Nivṛtte sarva saṁsāre nitya muktatva bhāsanāt, niraṅkuśā

bhavet tṛptiḥ punaḥ śokā samudbhavāt (47). When the

entanglement of the jiva in the world and the feeling that one

is entangled in samsara vanishes on account of the other

feeling that one is now free from all these entanglements,

unlimited bliss arises inside because no sorrow can once

again inflict the person. Once ignorance has vanished, it

cannot come again. Then the happiness that we experience at

that time, the bliss of experience, is indescribable,

unthinkable, passing understanding.

Aparokṣa jñāna śoka nivṛttyākhya ubhe ime, avasthe jīvage

brute ātmānaṁ cediti śrutiḥ (48). If the verse that was quoted

in the beginning of this chapter from the Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad: ātmānaṁ cet vijānīyāt ayam asmīti pūrusaḥ,

kimicchan kasya kāmāya śarīram anu sanjvaret is understood

and appreciated in its true meaning, the meaning that comes

out is this: The Atman that is referred to in this verse of the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, indicated by the word purusha,

is the same jiva about which we have been talking about and

describing in the earlier verses, whose ignorance is to be

dispelled by indirect knowledge derived from scripture,

Guru’s instruction, and direct experience. The conditions of

sorrow which are supposed to be dispelled by the indirect

knowledge derived from scripture and the grace of the Guru

are associates of the jiva consciousness only.

476

Ayamitya parokṣatvam uktaṁ tad dvividhaṁ bhavet, viṣaya

svaprakāśatvāt dhiyā pyevaṁ tadīkṣanāt (49). Ayam asmīti

pūrusaḥ: The word ‘ayam’ is used in this verse of the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. What is “this purusha”? Who is

“this”? The word ‘this’ here indicates the direct awareness of

the jiva's experience, which is of a twofold character. The

experience of the Atman in us is of a twofold nature – that is,

it is indirect sometimes and direct at other times. It is

impossible to gain its meaning through intellectual

arguments. When the intellect tries to comprehend the

nature of the Atman, the Atman looks like something paroksa

– that is, an object of consciousness to be known in the future

– and that is why we, who use our reason and argument and

study, etc., for the purpose of knowing the truth, still have the

feeling that it is a future experience that is going to take

place. That is, God-realisation is something that is yet to take

place, either tomorrow or the day after, or later.

The idea itself is unfounded because the idea of

tomorrow or the day after cannot arise in Brahman, because

it is eternity. Ideas of tomorrow, etc., are connected with the

time process. Timeless eternity does not have ‘tomorrow’,

etc.; therefore, the experience of Brahman is not a future

experience that is yet to come. It is an indescribable at-onement

now, here, and not somewhere else and not tomorrow.

It is just now.

But also, at the same time, we feel it is identical with our

own selves – sva-prakasa. We cannot alienate ourselves into

something else. We always feel that we are what we are. The

consciousness that I am is so very intensely felt by me that it

cannot be an object of my intellectual argument or

ratiocination. It is a direct, immediate experience.

So the Atman consciousness even here is partially a

direct experience in the case of our own feeling of identity

with ourselves and per se it is indirect also, when the intellect

begins to feel that it has to be realised sometime in the

future.

477

Parokṣa jñāna kāle’pi viṣaya svaprakāśatā, samā brahma

svaprakāśam astī tyevaṁ vibodhanāt (50). Even when we

receive instruction from a Guru or study a scripture, some

kind of illumination takes place. It is not that study is entirely

useless or satsanga is useless or instruction from the Guru is

useless. That is not the case. They have the capacity to create

in us an indirect apprehension of the nature of reality.

Though it is indirect, it is an apprehension nevertheless. We

believe that God exists.We have not contacted God, no doubt,

but our belief is so firm that it has become a conviction in us

and it is certainly a knowledge.

The indubitable conviction that is in our mind that God

must exist and is certainly there – Brahman is there, and has

to be there – is not, of course, direct experience, yet it is a

kind of experience. It is of great utility in further progress

because even in this indirect stage of knowledge, the light of

Brahman illumines itself through the words of the Guru on

the one hand, and manana – the intellectual investigative

process – and nididhyasana conducted by the disciple.

Ahaṁ brahme tyanullikhya brahmā stītyeva mullikhet,

parokṣa jñāna metanna bhrāntaṁ bādhānirūpaṇāt (51). "God

exists. God is inseparable from me." These two statements

have two different meanings. God may exist, and yet He may

be separable from us. He may be very far away, so many light

years distant from us that he may look like an unreachable

Being; yet the belief that God exists, persists. But that God's

existence is inseparable from our existence is a greater

consolation to us than merely the knowledge that God exists.

Asti Brahma means Brahman exists. Aham Brahma means I

am verily that. After the assertion or the conviction that

Brahman is, the other experience has to dawn in the person –

namely, "I am that very thing. I am that."

This kind of experience which is for the time being

designated as indirect knowledge is not to be shunned as of

no utility, because this indirect knowledge itself gradually

ripens into direct experience. The direct experience does not

478

negate the indirect knowledge that we have already

acquired. It only fructifies in a more mature manner. The

earlier experience of the fact that Brahman exists will

become more mature and get fructified in the subsequent

experience, "I am verily that." Asti Brahma and Aham Brahma

–"Brahman is" and "I am verily that" – are not two

contradictory experiences. The one leads to the other.

Brahma nāstīti mānaṁ cet syāt bādhyet tata dhruvam, na

caivaṁ prabalaṁ mānaṁ paśyāmo’to na bādhyate (52). The

feeling that sometimes arises in people that Brahman does

not exist is a feeling that is contradictable, but this feeling is

not a real proof as to the non-existence of Brahman. We

cannot deny Brahman merely because we have a feeling that

it does not exist. The existence of Brahman is not denied or

refuted by any kind of feeling that it may not exist at all. The

feeling is refutable by the subsequent experience that is to

follow – namely, that it does not merely exist, it is

inseparable from the experiencer himself.

Vyaktya nullekha mātreṇa bramatve svarga dhīrapi, bhrānti

syāt vyaktya nullekhāt sāmānyo lledha darśanāt (53). Indirect

knowledge which only provides us information as to the

existence of a thing is of great utility indeed.We cannot say it

is useless. We hear from the scriptures that such a thing

called swarga, or heaven, exists. This knowledge is not unreal

merely because we have not reached heaven. Reaching

heaven is a greater experience, no doubt, but the knowledge

that such a thing as heaven exists is also useful.

Hence, the existence aspect of Brahman which becomes

the content of indirect knowledge should not be considered

as ignorance. Many people feel that intellectual knowledge,

learning, are absolutely useless. It is not so because there is

an organic connection between the lower knowledge and the

higher knowledge. The genius that a person is when he

grows into maturity may not reject the childhood in which he

was once upon a time, though there is a world of difference

479

between the babyhood that he was and the genius that he is

today. That little baby grew into this genius.

Therefore, the great difference that is observable

between the two states is no argument for the non-utility of

the earlier stage. All knowledge which is rational, intellectual,

scriptural and that which is obtained through the Guru is

very useful. It will itself mature into direct experience later

on. The lower knowledge becomes higher knowledge by

growth in its dimension and in its quality.

Aparokṣatva yogyasya na parokṣa matir bhramaḥ, parokṣa

mityanu llekhāt arthāt pārokṣya saṁbhavāt (54). The

knowledge that God exists is a great solace even to the

ignorant man. It gives us some comfort that there is a

protecting force somewhere. Also, the conviction that God,

wherever He be, is also omnipotent gives us a further

comfort that He is capable of redressing our sorrows. The

very existence of a protecting power and the existence in that

power of the capacity to protect is a solace indeed. So the

knowledge that is obtained through the Guru and the

scripture is of great utility. It is not to be dubbed as indirect

and paroksa. It is the pedestal on which we have to stand to

rise above it, beyond its ken of experience. There is a higher

knowledge which rises above it, no doubt, but does not

contradict it. The higher rises above the lower, but the higher

does not contradict or negate the lower.

Aṅśā gṛhīter bhrānti ścet ghaṭa jñānaṁ bhramo bhavet,

niraṁśa syāpi sānśatvaṁ vyāvar tyāṁśa vibhedataḥ (55). One

may feel that indirect knowledge is of not much use because

it gives only partial knowledge; the entire knowledge is not

available through indirect experience. This is also not true

because if we have a partial perception of a pot that is placed

in front of us, it does not mean that we are not seeing the pot.

The partiality in perception does not negate the reality of the

perception. And so, the argument that indirect knowledge

will provide only a partial aspect of knowledge of Brahman is

not an argument against its utility.

480

Even if Brahman has no parts, no phases, there are logical

phases. Mathematically or geographically calculable phases

are not there in Brahman.We cannot measure the length and

breadth of Brahman, that is true. But we can conceive aspects

of Brahman from the point of view of the degree in which we

can comprehend the reality in accordance with our mental

capacity.

Thus, the partial knowledge that the indirect knowledge

provides us does not negate its utility. It is as good as the

whole, just as the perception of a part of an object is not

anything else than the perception of the object itself, though

not of the entire object.

Asattvāṁśo nivarteta parokṣa jñānata stathā, abhānāṁśa

nivṛttiḥ syāt aparokṣa dhiyā kṛta (56). Asattavarana and

abhana avarana are the two kinds of veil, as I mentioned. The

asatta aspect, or the non-existence aspect of Brahman, which

is a part of the ignorance, is dispelled by indirect knowledge.

But the unknowableness of Brahman, which is caused by the

other aspect of ignorance – abhana avarana, is dispelled by

direct knowledge. Asattavarana and abhana avarana are the

two veils which are dispelled respectively by indirect

knowledge and direct knowledge.

Discourse 41

CHAPTER 7: TRIPTIDIPA PRAKARANAM – LIGHT ON

SUPREME SATISFACTION, VERSES 57-67

Daśamo’stīti vibhrāntaṁ parokśa jñāna mīkṣyate, brahmā

stītyapi tadvat syād ajñānā varaṇaṁ samam (57). When a

person who has been under the impression that one of the

ten people is missing is told that the tenth person is also

there, the knowledge that the tenth person is there is called

indirect knowledge. The tenth person has not been seen yet.

There is no direct knowledge. But it has been told that the

person is still alive, existing. This indirect knowledge leads

further on to direct knowledge subsequently.

In the same way, when we are told by a Guru that God

exists, our ignorance about the existence of God vanishes

because the word comes from a reliable person. Many people

might not have seen a far-off country, for instance. But when

a person who has visited that country says that the country

exists because he has actually experienced it, the person who

has heard this and yet not gone there personally takes it to

be a fact. “Oh, I see. That country exists, because this

knowledge has come to me through a person who is reliable,

who is not going to mislead me, and who has had a direct

experience of it.”

In a similar manner, when we are told God exists, the

statement comes from a person who is reliable, who is not

likely to mislead us into wrong notions. Brahman exists. This

knowledge removes the avarana, or the veil, which is known

as the obscuration of the consciousness of there being such a

thing called Brahman.

Ātmā brahmeti vākyārthe niḥśesaṇa vicariate, vyakti rulli

khyate yadvad daśama stvama sītyataḥ (58). Direct knowledge

is, “You are the tenth man, sir. I am not telling you that the

tenth man simply exists; I am telling you that you are the

tenth person. You have been counting nine people, forgetting

yourself as already there. Now I am telling you, you are the

tenth one.”

482

“Oh, I am the tenth one.” The knowledge ‘I am the tenth

one’ is direct experience. In a similar manner, when it was

told that Atman is, Brahman is, we have only an indirect

knowledge by way of reliable sources of information. But

when it is applied to one's own direct experience – the

Atman that exists is our own self, the Brahman that exists is

the largest dimension of our own consciousness – it becomes

an experience. Then it becomes direct, an efflorescence of the

indirect knowledge obtained earlier.

Daśamaḥ ka iti praśne tvame veti nirākṛte, gaṇayitvā svena

saha svameva daśamaṁ smaret (59). Where is the tenth man?

Suppose the tenth man, who has not counted himself, puts

this question to the passerby. He is told, “You are yourself

that. Count yourself first, and then count others. Don't start

counting only those people whom you are seeing with your

eyes. Why have you not counted yourself first? Are you not

alive? Count yourself first: one. Then the other nine may be

counted, and so you will have ten people.”

The value of the whole world consists in the value that is

recognised in the Atman first. A soul-less world, a soul-less

society, a soul-less object does not exist, because anything

that has no soul is virtually not existing. And if we consider

that the soul is only within us, and it is not anywhere else,

and that we can utilise everything other than our own selves

as an instrument for our own purpose, what are we actually

employing as our instrument? Do you know? It is that which

is not a soul, because if we think that the instrument that we

are employing for our own purpose is also a soul, it would be

a self-contradiction because a soul cannot employ another

soul for its own purpose, as they stand on par. They are on

equal status.

The soul cannot be a servant of another soul. It is a nonsoul

that becomes the servant of a soul. The master always

thinks that he is the soul and the servant has no soul. He can

be sold as a commodity, like a bag of rice, and he will fetch

interest. This is how we treat other people, how we treat

483

things in the world, how we treat the world itself as a tool, as

a non-self, a soul-less existence, as if we are the only soul.

Now, this is what has happened to the poor man who

forgot himself and counted all the non-selves, being nine; and

even if nine were there, the sorrow of the tenth man missing

was so intense that they could not survive without beating

their heads. The soul is the meaning that gives value to

everything else in the world which looks like a soul-less

existence. Who is the tenth man? You yourself are that.

Where is the Atman? Inside you. What are the other things

then? They also have a soul like you.

The world is a kingdom of ends; it is not a kingdom of

means. This is something that we have to remember always.

Nothing in the world, no person, is a means to somebody

else. Every person is an end in itself. Everybody has selfrespect

and would not like to be denied the prerogative of

having a respect for one's own self – because the soul asks

for respect. Only a soul-less thing has no respect; and if we

think that another person has no soul, so much the credit to

our wisdom.

Daśamo’smīti vākyotthā na dhīrasya vihanyate, ādi madhyā

vasāneṣu na navatvasya saṁśayaḥ (60). Once the

consciousness “I am the tenth man” arises, it cannot be

obliterated afterwards. He will never forget that he is the

tenth person. He can count from the beginning, from the

middle or from the end, in serial order or reverse order; he

will always find that it is ten. Whether the world is the

subject and you are the object or whether you are the subject

or the world is the subject, whatever be the case – consider

yourself as the subject and the world as the object or

consider the world as the subject which looks at you as the

object – it makes no difference provided that there is a soul

in all things.

A soul-less thing cannot exist. And anything that exists

has a soul. Therefore, our attitude towards the world, as it

484

has been obviously and well said, should be the same as our

attitude towards our own selves. How do we treat our own

selves? That is how we have to treat even a leaf on the tree,

what to talk of people in the world. We have no business

even to pluck a leaf from the tree.We have no such authority.

It has a self-existence of its own.Why are we interfering with

it? Otherwise somebody can pluck our ear, and we would not

like it.

Sadeve tyādi vākyena brahma sattvaṁ parokṣataḥ, gṛhītvā

tattva masyādi vākyāt vyaktiṁ samullikhet (61). In the

Upanishads there are two types of description of reality. One

definition is called avantara vakya and another is called

mahavakya. Avantara vakya is the statement which merely

tells us that something exists. It will not tell us where it is.

Brahman exists: asti brahma. This is avantara vakya, an

intermediary introductory statement made by the Guru in

front of the disciple before actual initiation is done. We

studied mahavakya in the fifth chapter of this book.

In an avantara vakya of the Chhandogya Upanishad, the

Guru speaks to the disciple. Uddalaka Aruni speaks to his

disciple, his own son, Svetaketu. Existence alone was prior to

the act of creation – One alone, without a second. This is

avantara vakya. And the identity of that existed prior to

creation, with our own self is the mahavakya. Its existence

merely as such, as an object of our knowledge, is indirect

knowledge born of avantara vakya, intermediary,

introductory definition. When it is said that we are

inseparable from it, right from eternity, the mahavakya – the

great statement of instruction – has been communicated.

Ādi madhyā vasāneṣu svasya brahmatva dhīriyam, naiva

vyabhi caret tasmāt āparokṣyaṁ prati ṣṭhitam (62). One alone

without a second did exist. Therefore, we cannot exist

outside it. It is not necessary to add another sentence that we

are identical with that. We have a little common sense to

understand that it must be the fact. One alone, without a

second, was there. And inasmuch as we stand as a second to

485

it, we will be a redundant existence in the presence of that

“all-pervading, all-inclusive, One alone, without a second”.

Therefore, it is understood, it is implied, that we are

inseparable from that. This is aparoksa experience, direct

knowledge.

Janmādi kāraṇa tvākhya lakṣaṇena bhṛugḥ, purā pārokṣyeṇa

gṛhītvātha vicārāt vyakti maikṣata (63). There was a Guru

called Varuna. He had a son called Bhrigu, who was also a

disciple. This is an illustration taken from the Taittiriya

Upanishad. “Teach me Brahman,” said the disciple to the

Guru. “That from which everything comes, that in which

everything subsists, that to which everything returns is

Brahman. Meditate on this,” was the instruction. After

meditating, the disciple went to the Guru again, “Teach me

Brahman.” “Contemplate this physical sheath as Brahman.”

He meditated, and went again, “Please teach me Brahman.”

“Contemplate the vital sheath as Brahman.” He meditated on

that, and went again and said, “Please teach me Brahman.”

“Contemplate the mental sheath as Brahman.” He meditated

thus, and went again to the Guru and said, “Please teach me

Brahman.”

Why did he go again and again? What was the matter?

There was some defect in the instruction and also in the

experience thereby – that is to say, in considering physical,

vital, or mental sheaths as Brahman. Again the disciple went,

“Please teach me Brahman.” “Meditate on the intellectual

sheath as Brahman.” He again meditated on that, and went

again to the Guru and said, “Teach me Brahman.” “Meditate

on the bliss of Brahman.” After that he did not go again.

When bliss has been experienced, why should we go to the

Guru afterwards? The Guru is rejected because bliss is a

greater Guru than the Guru who brought us the bliss. What

do you say?

In the beginning, it was only a definition by way of an

indirect instruction. Brahman is that which is the cause,

sustenance and the end of all things, and it is that which is

486

pervading the physical body, that which pervades the vital,

mental, intellectual sheaths, that which is the ultimate bliss

that we experience in the state of deep sleep. Having

consciously entered into that sleep, if we can be conscious

that we are sleeping, we are in direct contact with Brahman.

As we cannot be conscious that we are sleeping, that contact

is not possible. We come back in the same way as we went

into it. The fool went in, and a greater fool came back.

Yadyapi tvamasītyatra vākyaṁ noce bhṛgoḥ pitā, tathā

pyannaṁ prāṇamiti, vicārya sthala muktavān (64). The Guru

Varuna did not directly tell Bhrigu what Brahman was. He

wanted the disciple to work his own way, by his personal

effort, and so he only lead him gradationally, stage by stage,

through the levels of experience, right from the conceptual

idealisation of God (Brahman) as that which exists as the

volition, the sustenance, and the end of all things, that which

is in the physical and other sheaths, that which is the

ultimate bliss. This is how a graduated instruction was

imparted to the disciple by the Guru as we have it recorded

in the Taittiriya Upanishad.

Anna prāṇādi kośeṣu suvicārya punaḥ punaḥ, ānanda

vyaktim īksitvā brahma lakṣmāpya yūjujat (65). Bliss in an

indication of Brahman; it is not Brahman itself. The word

used here by the author of the Panchadasi is that the bliss of

the causal sheath which the disciple experienced is an

indication of Brahman's bliss. It is not Brahman itself. That is

to say, when we enter the state of deep sleep, we are not

experiencing Brahman, though maybe, theoretically, it may

be equal to our landing ourselves in Brahman.

If our plane suddenly requires fuel it lands somewhere,

at some airport, and we do not even know which country it

is, whose airport it is. We are not very much bothered about

that detail because we are in the crucial condition of fuel

exhaustion. Under an international charitable feeling this

kind of landing is evidently permitted, as far as I am given to

understand. When the pilot cries from the plane over a

487

wireless that fuel is exhausted, they do not ask him to quit

from that place because there is a human feeling, a humanity

and understanding, a United Nations dictum or whatever it

is, and he is allowed to land.

If we do not even know where we have landed, and

simply know that we have landed, that is something like an

indirect jumping into the Brahman state. But actually,

landing in sleep – that blissful experience of the condition of

sleep – is not Brahman experience because we wake up from

sleep into the mortal experience of the physical existence. If

we had really gone to Brahman, we would not have woken

up.

Therefore, the causal experience of Brahman is only an

indication and not a direct experience, says the author here.

This experience has been undergone gradually through the

physical, vital, and other sheaths. It is a final indicator of

Brahman's existence. It is a signpost which tells us that

Brahman is appearing, but Brahman has not yet appeared.

Satyam jñānam anantaṁ ceti evaṁ brahma svalakṣaṇam,

uktvā guhāhitvena, kośe ṣvetat pradarśitam (66). The Taittiriya

Upanishad says satyam jñānam anantaṁ brahma: Truth,

Knowledge, Infinity is Brahman. This is another way of

saying sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma: God is Brahman. If all is

Brahman, what does it matter to us? It matters very much

because we are not outside it. After having being told that

Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, Infinity, we are instructed into

a further reality of the fact of our being non-separate from

that Brahman which is Truth, Knowledge, Infinity. This is

how gradual instruction is imparted by the Guru to the

disciple in the process of what is known as initiation.

Pārokṣeṇa vibudhyendro ya ātmetyādi lakṣaṇāt, aparoksī

kartum icchan ścantur vāraṁ guruṁ yayau (67). Indra went to

Prajapati four times to learn what the Atman is. Prajapati did

not give the answer immediately.

488

There was a great yogi in Tibet, called Milarepa – a very

poor boy. His father died early and left a little land, but his

uncle surreptitiously swallowed the entire property and he

and his mother were living in utter poverty. The little child

that Milarepa was did not know that they had been duped by

his uncle. He was playing with children outside, and laughing.

His mother gave a blow to the child. “What makes you happy

when we are really miserable?” He did not understand what

the misery was. He was happy with the other children. “What

is the misery, Mother?” he asked. “I will tell you what the

misery is! Come. Sit. Your father had so much property.When

he passed away, your uncle took away the whole thing. Until

you destroy him, I cannot have peace.”

“How will I destroy him?” “Go and learn black magic.”

Milarepa went to a teacher of black magic and stayed for

some years. Many disciples were learning black magic under

this Guru. After three years, he disposed of all the children.

“Now you can go. The instruction is over.” But this boy did

not go. He was persisting because he did not feel that he had

understood anything. He had to apply it by destroying the

uncle, and that he could not do. He did not know what the

matter was. “Why are you sitting? Go. All have gone. Why

have you not gone?”

“For three years I have been serving you, but what is it

that you have taught me?” “What do you want to learn? All

the other students have learned. All have learned and have

gone. You have also learned.” “No. I have a problem. I must

get rid of that problem. This is the story.” “Oh, I will not teach

you such things. You want to destroy people. No, no, nothing

of the kind,” the Guru said. “I am not here to destroy people,

so will I teach you that kind of thing? No. Go, go, go. I have

taught people something good. I will not teach this kind of

thing.” But Milarepa persisted, and cried and sat; and finally

the Guru taught him. Then he went.

What Milarepa generally did was to create a hail storm

and destroy the crops and bury the houses of people in ice. In

489

this way his uncle and family and all their property went.

After that, the locality came to know that this boy knows this

magic. Whenever they had some enemy, they would call him.

“Please destroy that man. I will give you so much.” Milarepa

went on doing this, and destroyed enemies of people.

Afterwards, when Milarepa grew up, he felt so bad. “What

have I done? How can I now be happy that I have got the

property back? I have destroyed property, destroyed people,

uncle, everybody. Mother was crying, and we are still crying.

I must have wisdom of the Great Reality. What is the good of

this black magic?” And he found out that great Marpa teacher

was the knower. He went and sat on the veranda of this great

master. The master would not come out.

He was an omniscient man. He knew the black magician;

he would not impart wisdom to him. After some time he

came out, and kicked him with his boot. “Get out from this

place.” “I have come for this purpose.” “Go.” The persistence

of the disciple Milarepa is really wonderful to hear. He would

not go like that. He persisted. “You kick me, cut me, do

anything. I have surrendered myself to you. You may even

remove my head; I have no objection. But once I have

surrendered myself to you, the great master, I am your

property. You have kicked me, and my head may also go, but

I am sitting here at your door. I am not going.”

Many days passed like this. Milarepa had not eaten

anything. Wounds started developing on his back; worms,

maggots were growing. “Go. Go from here and build a house

for me on the top of a hill. Carry up the material yourself.” It

was very difficult. He had not eaten for days together, and

had wounds on his body. Anyhow, the order of the Guru is

really to be obeyed. He carried the stones. When the other

disciples saw this torture, they thought that it was an awful

thing. How could this boy carry stones like that? So they

helped him. They all helped him, and somehow or other, after

one or two months, the house was built with the help of

many other disciples of Marpa – which was done without his

490

knowledge because if he knew, he would not have permitted

it.

Then the disciple came, “Master, the house is ready.” “Is it

ready? Let me see it. Oh. Who helped you in building it? You

could not have done it yourself.” “It was done with the help of

other disciples.” “Did I tell you? Break it, and take all the

stones back down, and again build it, with your own effort.”

Anyway, I will make the long story short because the

whole story of Milarepa is a big volume by itself. It is a

Tibetan text translated into English by a great Oxford scholar

called Dr. Evans Wentz. He was a great Tibetologist, an

Oxford man. The biography of Milarepa written by Dr. Evans

Wentz is worth reading by every disciple.

Marpa would not give initiation to Milarepa even after

this torture of building the house a second time. His mother

felt pity. When the Guru went away on a tour without

uttering a word, Milarepa’s mother stealthily called him to

the back door and gave him some buttermilk so that he

would not perish, because only torture was going on and no

initiation was taking place.

The mother felt that the Guru would not teach and the

boy would die, so she forged a letter with the signature of the

husband to carry in a shawl which was worn by the master,

and addressed that letter to the nephew of this master who

was also a competent Guru who could initiate people into the

wisdom. The letter said: This is my right hand disciple. I am

sending him to you for the purpose of initiation because I am

very busy with other work. You please initiate him. As a

token of my letter, I am also sending my upper cloth. She put

the signature of the husband. Now the boy thought the work

is done. He ran from that place.

Milarepa saw the nephew master giving a discourse.

When he showed the letter, the nephew was very surprised

that he could not initiate him. “But I heard that you are a

black magician.” “No,” he said, “Don't say that about me. I

491

have come for initiation.” “But no, I want to see how you kill

people with your black magic. Kill all these birds. There are

so many birds and sparrows sitting on the tree. Kill all of

them with your mantra.” “No, I will not do it. It is a sin.”

“Sin! No sin.” And that Guru said “Shuk!” Instantly, all the

sparrows fell dead in one minute. Again he said, “Shuk!” and

they rose and flew again. “So where is the sin?” he said. “Why

did you say so? It is a sin only if you can only destroy and

cannot create. Only destroy? That is sinful. But if you can also

create, where is the sin? See, I have killed them, and I revived

them once again and they flew. Anyway, come.”

When he was about to make arrangements for the

initiation, the the real Guru came to know what was

happening. “Where is the dog?” he told this mataji. “Where is

the dog?” he said, referring to Milarepa. “You have insulted

him, you have penalised him, you have tortured him, poor

boy, how long can he live? He has run away from this place.”

He closed his eyes and found out by his intuition what the

mother has done. He scolded her, “Some mischief you have

played.”

The nephew Guru actually initiated Milarepa. The other

Guru had already initiated him. “On the third day you will

have this experience, on the fifth day you will have another

experience, on the seventh day a third experience. I will

personally come to you and verify the experience.” The third

day was over, but no experience came. The nephew Guru

came. “What experience have you had? No, I cannot believe

it. I gave you initiation properly. Let us see.” He came on the

fifth day. “What is the experience?” Nothing. “There is

something wrong,” he said. “My initiation is correct.” On the

seventh day also there was no experience, and he said, “Now

I suspect something. You are not a genuine boy. There is

some mischief behind this. Perhaps the permission from the

real Guru has not come. Some hanky-panky is there behind

this.”

492

While he was saying this, a letter came from the real

Guru, “Please send the dog back.” The nephew Guru realised

something was amiss. “Hey! He is calling you a dog. What is

the matter? Tell me the truth.” Milarepa trembled, and told

him the truth. “Go from here. Don't look at my face again. Go.”

He went.

Milarepa went and sat outside on the veranda, and when

the Guru came, he would not look at him. He simply went

away – gave one blow to him and went. It is a very long story.

The graduated technique adopted by Gurus in teaching

disciples varies from person to person, from individual to

individual, and from one state of evolution to another state of

evolution. And this case of Varuna teaching Bhrigu to pass

through all these stages of Brahman being immanent in the

five sheaths, and experiencing the final bliss of Brahman as it

is manifest in the state of sleep, is one category of graduated

instruction by the Guru to the disciple.

Discourse 42

CHAPTER 7: TRIPTIDIPA PRAKARANAM – LIGHT ON

SUPREME SATISFACTION, VERSES 67-81

Pārokṣeṇa vibudhyendro ya ātmetyādi lakṣaṇāt, aparoksī

kartum icchan ścantur vāraṁ guruṁ yayau (67). Indra went to

Prajapati four times to know the Atman. Once Prajapati made

a declaration in his hall: This Atman is immortal. Whoever

knows it shall have everything that he wants. Indra, the ruler

of the gods, and Virochana, the ruler of the demons, both

heard this and wanted to obtain everything they desired, so

they went to Prajapati to get initiation into the nature of this

Atman.

As mentioned earlier, Virochana was satisfied with just

one instruction. Indra was also given the same instruction:

“For thirty-two years you must stay here, observing selfrestraint.”

He stayed with Brahma for thirty-two years,

observing self-restraint. After that, the initiation that was

given was strange: “The Atman is that which you see when

you look at yourself in water.” This was the instruction.

Virochana, the demon king, took this instruction as

relating to the physical body, and thought that the physical

body is the Atman. He never had any doubt afterward. He

proclaimed to all his associates, “Now I know the Atman. The

physical body is the Atman. Eat well, be happy, and keep this

body secure.”

Indra also got this instruction, but when he was halfway

home, he had a difficulty. How could the physical body be the

Atman? This question never arose in the case of Virochana,

the demon king. Indra had a doubt. “The Atman is said to be

immortal. If this body is to be identified with the Atman, the

Atman also would be perishable, like the body. The body has

illnesses; the Atman will also have illness. The body has

many defects; those defects will be in the Atman also. The

body dies; the Atman also will die. No, I do not think this

instruction is all right. I will go back.”

494

So again he went to Brahma, and Brahma said, “How do

you come again, sir, after receiving instruction on the Atman?

What is the matter?” “Great master, this instruction does not

seem to be all right, because this physical body cannot be the

Atman. If that is the case, the Atman will die with the body.”

“Alright, stay here another thirty-two years, with restraint.”

After the second thirty-two years, Brahma said, “What you

see in dream, that is the Atman. Now go....”

Indra left, and he went on brooding over this matter.

“What is the good of this Atman that I see in dream? It is all

chaos, confusion, mutilation, transmutation, change. Even

death can take place in dream. I don't think this instruction is

all right.” So he went back to Brahma.

Brahma said, “Why have you come again?” “This

instruction does not seem to be all right, master, because

even in dream, one can die. If that is the case, the Atman

dies.” “Ok,” said Brahma, and for a third time he said, “Stay

here for thirty-two years more, with self-restraint.” And what

was the instruction? “That which you see in deep sleep is the

Atman.” Indra left, feeling happy. On the way, he had a doubt:

“What kind of Atman is this that knows nothing about itself

or others? In sleep one neither knows oneself nor anybody

else. What is the good of this Atman? It is as if it is dead. We

feel as if we are dead in the state of deep sleep. This kind of

Atman is no good.”

He went back to Prajapati. Prajapati said, “Again you

have come?” He said, “Sir, this instruction too seems to have

some defect because in sleep we seem to be nothing, so the

Atman would be nothing.” “Oh. Stay here another five years.”

Prajapati reduced the punishment from thirty-two years to

five. Indra had to stay for a hundred and one years for this

final instruction. “Now I shall tell you what the Atman is.”

This story appears in the Chhandogya Upanishad. It is not

the physical body, not the dream world, and not the sleep. It

is a transcendent radiance from which one attains everything

that one wants and which rises above the three bodies –

495

physical, vital, subtle and causal. Immortal is this essence,

and it cannot be identified with either the waking, the

dreaming or the sleep states. Several times Indra went to

Prajapati and got this direct experience of the Atman, as we

have it in the Chhandogya Upanishad.

Ātma vā idam ityādau parokṣam brahma lakṣitam, adhyā

ropāpa vādābhyāṁ prajñānaṁ brahma darśitam (68). “The

Atman alone was in the beginning,” is the statement made in

the Aitareya Upanishad. This statement is paroksa jnana

because what is said is that Atman exists and it has been

there for ever and ever, and prior to creation, nothing was

except the Atman. This kind of knowledge that we have about

the Atman in regard to its existence is indirect knowledge.

We have only a faith that it exists, but we do not have direct

knowledge – experience – of it.

After having made this statement, the Aitareya

Upanishad goes deeper and deeper. We have to read the

Aitareya Upanishad to understand the implication of this

statement. By the description of an entire process of the

creation of the world, and pointing out how the Universal, or

Virat, enters into every detail of creation as the immanent

principle therein, it finally proclaims that consciousness is

Brahman. The pervading consciousness in everything, in the

whole cosmos, is Brahman, the Absolute. This is the final

instruction of the Aitareya Upanishad after a long, long story

of the creative process described therein, subsequent to the

original statement, “The Atman alone was, and nothing else

was, prior to the creation of the cosmos.”

Avānareṇa vākyena parokṣā brahma dhīr bhavet,

sarvatraiva manāvākya vicāra daparokṣa dhīḥ (69). Avantara

vakya is the introductory statement, like sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ

brahma: All indeed is Brahman. Satyaṁ jñānam anantam

brahma: Truth-Knowledge-Infinity is Brahman. In the

beginning, prior to creation, the Atman alone was. These

statements are avantara vakyas, definitive statements

introducing the mind of the student to the main subject of

496

discussion. Afterwards, through the mahavakyas which we

have studied in the fifth chapter of this book, direct

experience is entered into.

Brahmā parokṣya sidhdyarthyaṁ mahā vākya mitī ritam,

vākya vṛttā vato brahmā parokṣye vimatir na hi (70). Vakyavritti

is one of the small treatises attributed to the authorship

of Adi Sankaracharya. In that work, the author says the

mahavakyas of the Upanishads intend to create in the mind

of the student a direct experience of Brahman. A school of

thought in the Vedanta holds that mere repetition of this

mantra aham brahmasmi, tat tvam asi will lead to actual

realisation, provided the meaning of it is clear to the mind of

the student – as has been explained in the fifth chapter of the

Panchadasi. It should not be a mere parrot-like repetition,

but a heartfelt, feeling-filled concentration.

Ālambanatyā bhāti yo’smat pratyaya śabda yoḥ, antaḥ

karaṇa saṁbhinna bodhaḥ sa tvaṁ padābhidhaḥ (71). Tat tvam

asi : Thou art That. In this statement of the Chhandogya

Upanishad, the word ‘tvam’ – or ‘thou’, ‘yourself’ – means

that individualised consciousness which stands in between,

as it were, the consciousness of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ and is defined

by the qualities of the internal organ, antahkarana – which

means to say, the indication of the term ‘I’ or ‘you’ is that it is

a state of consciousness which is defined by the

circumference of the mental activity of the person. ‘Thou’,

‘you’, ‘I’ imply an individual. The individuality is nothing but

the assumed finitude of consciousness on account of its being

limited to the mental functions. The mental functions are

limited. They are not all-pervading and, therefore, the

reflection of the consciousness through the mental functions

also appears to be limited to that extent. This limited

consciousness operating through the internal organ or the

psyche is the indication of the terms ‘I’ or ‘you’.

Māyopādhir jagadyonih sarva jñātvādi lakṣaṇaḥ, parokṣya

śabalaḥ satyādya ātmakas tat padābhidhaḥ (72). Tat means

That. ‘That’ means Ishvara, the god of creation who wields

497

maya as his instrument of action through the sattva guna of

maya, shuddha sattva pradhan of prakriti. By this, Brahman

reflected through the pure sattva of prakriti becomes the

creation, sustenance and the dissolution of the universe in

Himself. God becomes the creator, destroyer, the preserver,

and everything connected with the world by His

transcendence on the one hand and immanence in the world

on the other hand. As God is not exhausted in this world, He

is transcendent. But as He is present in every atom of

creation, He is also immanent. He is omniscient.

Sarvajnatvadi means ‘omniscience, omnipotence and

omnipresence’. God is all-pervading, so we call Him

omnipresent. He is all-knowing, so we call Him omniscient.

He is all-powerful, so we call Him omnipotent.

To the jiva, Ishvara appears as a remote object,

impossible of accession – impossible even to conceive in the

mind. The remoteness of Ishvara is the result that follows

from the consciousness in the jiva operating through its own

finitude. Because of the location of the individual in that

structure of finitude, consciousness operating through that

finitude makes it a single entity located somewhere, and

Ishvara is made to appear as a universal, remote existence

beyond space and time. So the Ishvara of this character as

described here is the indicative meaning of the word ‘tat’ in

that statement tat tvam asi, Thou art That.

Pratyak parokṣatai kasya sadvitīyata pūrṇatā, virudhyete

yatas tasmā llakṣaṇā saṁpra vartate (73). The identity of

Ishvara and jiva is difficult to explain because of the

dissimilar characters of Ishvara and jiva. Remote is Ishvara;

immediately experienceable is the jiva. There is a second to

the individual finitude. There is no second to Ishvara. These

are the dissimilarities observable in Ishvara and jiva. How

could one be the same as the other? The identity of these two

can be explained only by analogies, illustrations. And one of

the illustrations is called bhagatyaga-lakshana.

498

The definition of an object is metaphorically possible in

three ways. Let us see them. “There is a village in the

Ganges.” Sometimes we make statements of this kind. We

know that a village cannot be in the Ganges, because the

Ganges is water. What we actually mean is that the village is

on the bank of the Ganges. Here we reject some word and

add another word in coming to a correct apprehension of the

meaning of that statement. This way of understanding the

meaning of a sentence where we reject something and add

something else is called jahat-lakshana. In Sanskrit, the word

‘jahat’ means abandoning something. The word ‘Ganges’ has

to be abandoned because the village cannot be on the Ganges.

It has to be implied that the village is on the bank, jahat.

There is another way of speaking where we do not

abandon some word, but simply add something non-existent,

such as when we say “umbrellas are going”. When we say

“umbrellas are going”, we actually mean that people holding

umbrellas are going. But we make statements, “The caps are

going; the umbrellas are going; the red is running.” It means

the red horse is running. We add one word which was

absent. This is ajahat, which means non-abandoning but

actually taking in some other word. These are the two ways

of describing two different types of expression – jahatlakshana

and ajahat-lakshana.

The third way is jahat-ajahat-lakshana, where we

abandon something and, at the same time, take something

else – as is the well-known example of someone being the

same person who was seen a long time ago in some other

place and is now seen here at another place, with such a

difference of space and time. We abandon the limiting

characters of space and time, and then we say, “This is that

person.”

This cannot be that. The demonstrative pronouns ‘this’

and ‘that’ mean different things. ‘That’ is a remote thing and

‘this’ is an immediate thing. How could this be that? It is like

saying ‘A’ is ‘B’. ‘A’ can be ‘B’, provided the limiting characters

499

of the two terms are lifted up and their essentiality is taken

up. This is done in the case of the understanding of the true

meaning of the great mahavakya sentence, tat tvam asi: thou

art that.

The remoteness of Ishvara is caused by our assumption

that Ishvara is involved in space and time. The fact is that

Ishvara is not involved in space and time because space

creates distance and time creates the idea of duration.

Ishvara controls space and time. And because of the same

operation, the jiva also looks finite. The all-pervadingness of

Ishvara is due to the spatial character of Ishvara, and the

omniscience of Ishvara is due to His non-temporality,

eternity.

But the opposite is the case with the jiva, or the

individual. The individual has no such powers. It is located

only in one place in space, and it can exist only for some time

and not for all times. The rejection of the spatio-temporal

limitations and the taking in of only the essential

consciousness is called bhagatyaga-lakshana or jahat-ajahatlakshana,

dividing and abandoning – abandoning and taking

in.We abandon spatio-temporal distinctions and take in only

Pure Consciousness. Then, in the light of Pure Consciousness,

which is the substance of both Ishvara and jiva, we find that

they are non-separate.

Tattva masyādi vākyeṣu lakṣaṇā bhāga lakṣaṇā, so’ya

mityādi vākyastha padayoriva nāparā (74). So this Devadatta is

the very same Devadatta that I saw in some other place,

which illustration we have explained earlier when we

studied the first chapter.We need not go into it once again.

Saṁsargo vā viśiṣṭo vā vākyārtho nātra sammataḥ,

akhaṇḍaika rasatvena vākyārtho viduṣāṁ mataḥ (75). The

relationship between Ishvara and jiva is neither contact nor

quality. Neither Ishvara nor jiva can be regarded as objects

capable of coming in contact with something else. They are

unique substances by themselves. The identity of Ishvara and

500

jiva in their essentiality as consciousness cannot be regarded

as a contact. It does not mean that the consciousness in the

individual contacts the consciousness in Ishvara. There is no

such thing. It is a merger of the similar substance which is

the substratum of both the jiva and Ishvara. Therefore,

contact is not the way in which to describe the union of

Ishvara and jiva, jiva with Ishvara.

Also, jiva is not a quality of Ishvara. He is not an attribute.

They are identical. Samsarga and vishesha mentioned here in

this verse imply contact and quality. There are certain

schools of thought which hold that this world is a quality of

God's existence, as the body of the human individual –

something like a quality or attribute of the soul inside. The

body is not identical with the soul. The world is not identical

with God. This kind of concept is called qualified monism,

wherein what is held is that there is an identity of Ishvara

and the whole world of individuals, but with the distinction

that they are not identical.

As the body is not separable from the soul, yet it is not

the soul, this kind of attributive unity of the two is called

visishtadvaita. In the case of the identity of the substance of

the two, consciousness merging in consciousness, this

attribute and contact aspect should be completely

abandoned because consciousness cannot be a quality of

another consciousness, nor can consciousness contact

another consciousness, inasmuch as consciousness has no

second.

Akhaṇḍaika rasatvena vākyārtho viduṣāṁ mataḥ. It is like a

river entering the ocean or one arm of the ocean touching

another arm of the ocean. Here contact is not the word; nor

can we say they are qualities. It is one thing becoming one

thing. That is all we can say when we use the word

akhandaika-rasa, undivided essence of consciousness.

Pratyag bodho ya ābhāti so’dvayā nanda lakṣaṇaḥ, advayā

nanda rūpaśca pratyag bodhaika lakṣaṇaḥ (76). The

501

internalised consciousness of ours, the innermost Atman of

ours, we may say, is actually non-separate from anything.

Our own Atman, our own consciousness also is indivisible in

its nature. Consciousness cannot be divided into parts. There

cannot be a fraction of consciousness because we know very

well the simple argument that the assumption that there can

be a part in consciousness is unfounded on account of the

fact that the partite quality of consciousness also has to be

known only by consciousness. Therefore, it is non-partite.

Such non-partite consciousness, which is the nature of the

Atman in the jiva, is identical with the blissful state of

Ishvara, who is also eternal Atman basically, inseparable

from the Atman of the jivas, as one part of the ocean cannot

be different from another part of the ocean.

Ittha manyonya tādāmya prati pattir yadā bhavet,

abrahmatvaṁ tvamarthasya vyāvartena tadaiva hi (77).

Tadarthasya ca pārokṣyaṁ yadyevaṁ kiṁ tataḥ śṛṇu, pūrṇānan

daika rūpeṇa pratyag bodho’vatiṣthate (78). In this way, by an

analysis of the characteristics of both jiva and Ishvara by the

abandoning of the limiting characteristics of both, we come

to the conclusion of the identity of the macrocosmic

substance and themicrocosmic substance.

That which is inside the atom is also in the whole cosmos.

This realisation will accrue after we come to a conclusion of

the identity of everything with everything else through this

definition, or lakshana, known as bhagatyaga-lakshana – the

rejection of the redundant characters superimposed on the

essence and the taking in of the pure substance only, which is

Pure Consciousness.

Evaṁ sati mahā vākyāt parokṣa jñāna mīryate, yaisteṣāṁ

śāstra siddhānta vijñānaṁ śobhate tarām (79). Having come to

this conclusion of the non-separate character of

consciousness in the jiva, or the individual, it is futile for

anyone to argue again and again that consciousness is not

immediately experienced. “Consciousness is an object of

indirect knowledge” – this is not true. Every day we

502

experience this as a direct immediacy when we feel a selfidentitywith

our own selves.

If consciousness was a non-mediate something, we would

feel that we are not self-identical individuals. Instead of

feeling “I am here”, I might feel that I am somewhere else. If

consciousness is something that is remote from my own self

– it is not immediately experienced but is mediately

communicable, as any object in the world is – then the nonimmediate

character of consciousness will immediately make

us feel that we are not in ourselves; we are somewhere else.

We will begin to see ourselves somewhere else, as if there is

an illusion. Since this does not happen, it is very clear that

consciousness is immediate and everybody is experiencing it

in one's own consciousness. When we know that we are selfidentical,

it is clear that consciousness cannot be outside us.

It is not mediate, but immediate.

Āstāṁ śāstrasya siddhānto yuktyā vākyāt parokṣa dhīḥ,

svargādi vākya vannaivaṁ daśame vyabhi cārataḥ (80). When

we say “God exists” or “Brahman is”, we do not make

statements like “heaven is there”. Heaven is a place which is

to be reached by effort. We have to reach heaven because of

the distance between our present location and the location of

heaven, which is not in this physical world. God's existence is

not like the existence of heaven. Inasmuch as God is allpervading,

the question of reaching God does not arise.

Nobody reaches God. One can reach Delhi, one can reach

some other place, because of the spatial distance between

two locations; but we cannot reach God. What do we do then

when we speak of God? It is a kind of attainment, a kind of atone-

ment, we may say. Here, in the absence of distance

between God and His creation, nothing in creation has to

traverse a long distance in order to attain God. Godexperience

is an inner illumination, something like the

waking into consciousness of the world after having risen

from dream.

503

In one way, there is a long distance indeed between the

dream world and the waking world. When we are in the

dream world, we cannot even be conscious that there is such

a thing called waking.We do not even imagine that waking is

possible. Such is the distance that we seem to be feeling

between the dream world and the waking world. Such is the

distance between man and God also. As there is really no

distance between the dream world and the waking world,

there is no measuring rod to find out the distance between

waking consciousness and dream consciousness. It is a

vertical illumination of the same consciousness, an expansion

of the dimension of the same consciousness. There is no

distance between dream and waking. Therefore, one in

dream does not reach waking. It is immediately awakening,

as we call it.

So God-realisation is an awakening from within. It is not

a travelling by distance, and it does not require a vehicle to

reach God, though sometimes God appears as very far away.

As I mentioned, waking consciousness may look very far

away from dream. Not only does it look far, it may even look

as not existing at all. We sometimes feel that God does not

exist at all, as the dreamer does not have any consciousness

of the waking condition. Such is the difference and such is the

similarity between God consciousness and ordinary human

consciousness.

Svato’parokṣa jīvasya brahmatva mabhi vāñ chataḥ, naśyet

siddhā parokṣa tvam iti yuktir mahatyaho (81). “The

consciousness that is in us, is an immediate fact of

experience”; it is something that has to be reiterated again

and again. On account of our identity with this physical body

extensively, we do not always find time to appreciate the fact

that our consciousness – which is what is called the nature of

the Atman in us – cannot be something other than our own

selves. Do not say “my Atman” or “my Self”. The Self is not

your object of possession. You do not possess the Self; you are

504

the Self. And, therefore, “my Self” is not a proper description

of the Self that you yourself are.

The selfhood is the description of your very existence.

Your existence is the existence of the Self. It is not ‘your’. Do

not use the possessive case here. “My Atman is inside.” Such

statements are untenable and redundant because it is not

your Atman that is inside. It is you yourself which is there as

neither inside nor outside. You are neither inside yourself

nor outside yourself. You are just what you are. This is what

is perhaps the meaning of that great dictum, “I am what I

am.” I am not insidemyself; I am not outsidemyself.

So the Atman in you, the Self in you, is not inside you. It is

you. If this fact cannot be appreciated even after so much of

discussion and eliminative analogies, metaphors, etc., it is

really a wonder and a discredit to the intelligence of human

beings. The non-mediacy and the direct immediacy of your

own Self as consciousness is proof of its being the Absolute

Self. The Absoluteness of the Self that you yourself are, is also

at once the proof of the existence of God, who is Absolute.__

End

Om Tat Sat 

(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 collectio