COMMENTARY ON THE PANCHADASI by SWAMI KRISHNANANDA - 6

COMMENTARY ON THE

PANCHADASI

by

SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

Discourse 27

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 78-100

Aṇur mahān madhyamo veti evaṁ tatrāpi vādinaḥ, bhaudhā

vivadante hi śruti yukti samā śrayāt (78). There is a lot of

controversy in regard to the definition of the Atman. It does

not mean that every school of thought holds the same view.

Some think it is atomic in nature, some feel it is universal in

its nature, some feel that it is medium sized, etc. These are

the various opinions held by different systems of thinking.

The doctrine which considers the Atman to be of the size

of an atom is called the Antarala doctrine. Aṇuṁ vadan tyānta

rālāḥ sūkṣma nāḍī pracārataḥ, romṇaḥ sahasra bhāgena tulyāsu

praca ratyayam (79). Because of the fact that through the

immensely large number of nerve currents it moves in a

very, very subtle form, it should be considered as very subtle,

very atomic indeed – because in the Upanishads it is said that

the Atman pervades the whole body and penetrates through

all the nerve currents which are very subtle. It is impossible

to conceive the subtlety of these. The Universal Atman can

penetrate through a needle's eye, for instance. It is therefore

possible (according to these people) that the Atman's nature

is minute, especially as the Upanishads many times say it is

subtle like an atom.

Aṇoraṇīyā neṣo’ṇuḥ sūkṣmāt sūkṣma taraṁ tviti, aṇutva

māhuḥ śrutayaḥ śataśo’tha sahasraśaḥ (80). Smaller than the

atom, subtler than the minutest particle – such are the

scriptural statements of the Upanishads. These statements

make people feel that perhaps it is atomic or minute in size.

The scriptural statement is quoted here.

Many are the scriptures and statements which make out

that the Atman is subtler than the subtlest, more minute than

the smallest conceivable particle of atom; nothing can be as

subtle as that, and no atomic particle can be smaller than

that. This is corroborated by the srutis, the Upanishadic

statements.

314

One of the statements in the Upanishad is quoted here::

Bālāgra śata bhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya ca, bhāgo jīvaḥ sa

vijñeya iti cāhā’parā śrutiḥ (81). If you split a hair lengthwise a

hundred times, you can imagine how fine it will be, how

subtle it will be. Sometimes the definition goes even further

than this. The little hair is split lengthwise a hundred times

into a hundred lengthwise pieces and each of these one

hundred is again split into one thousand pieces; and through

that the Atman passes. Such is the jiva consciousness,

impossible to conceive in gross terms. This is the quotation

from the Upanishad.

Digambarā madhya matvam āhurā pāda mastakam,

caitanya vyāpti saṁdṛṣṭeḥ ānakhāgra śrute rapi (82). In the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad it is said that the Supreme Being

penetrates everything right from the head to the foot, up to

the nail ends; and also because of the pervasion of the

consciousness through the whole body, it is supposed to be

as big as the body itself. It is of medium size. This is one of

the schools of Buddhism, called Digambaras. Unless the

Atman is of the size of the body, it cannot envelop the body

and make the body get identified with Itself and also get

Itself identified with the body.

We feel that consciousness pervades the whole body, and

we cannot feel its presence outside; it is confined to the

encasement of the body. This is the reason why one is

enabled to feel that it is perhaps limited to the bodily

structure only, and it is of the size of the body.

Sūkṣma nāḍī pracārastu sūkṣmai ravayavair bhavet, sthūla

dehasya hastā bhyāṁ kañcuka pratimoka vat (83). Though

medium is the size of the Atman, as adumbrated by thinkers

of this kind, they also explain how it is possible for a

medium-size Atman to enter into the minutest subtle nadis.

The comparison or illustration that they give is that just as

we thrust our hands into the sleeve of a shirt, the Atman can

enter into the little tiny nadis, or nerve currents, in spite of

the fact that it is medium in size.

315

Nyūnādhika śarīreṣu praveśo’pi gamāgamaiḥ, ātmām śānāṁ

bhavettena madhya matvaṁ viniścitam (84). It is also believed

that the Atman takes the size of whatever body it identifies

itself with. In ants, it is only of the size of an ant. In other

creatures, it is of the size of that kind of creature. It can be as

big as an elephant when it identifies itself with an elephant,

and it is of the size of human bodies when it is identified with

the human body. Therefore, it has a shape, or a size, which is

not fixed in nature. It expands or contracts according to the

identification which it establishes with the particular body to

which it enters in various stages or processes of

transmigratory life.

Sāṁśasya ghaṭa vannāśo bhavatyeva tathā sati, kṛta

nāśā’kṛtā bhyāga mayoḥ ko vārako bhavet (85). There is a

defect in all these doctrines because whether the Atman is

conceived as atomic in size, or medium, or very small – as

small as the size of the nerve currents – what follows from

this definition is that consciousness becomes mortal; it will

perish. The Atman would be subject to destruction if it is

conceived as finite. Even if it is as large as an elephant, it is

finite nevertheless. It should not be limited to any particular

location. Finitude is the character of anything outside which

something exists. If the Atman has something outside it, it

would be finite, even if it is as large as space itself. The

consciousness of there being something outside it, will make

it finite.

Therefore, as a pot breaks, the Atman also will break, if –

according to these doctrines that have been adumbrated – it

is regarded as finite in its nature. Also, perishability of the

Atman is inconceivable. The jiva would be destroyed. There

would be no beginning or end for it. Suddenly the jiva has

assumed a body for no reason whatsoever, because we have

assumed no prior existence on account of the finitude of the

consciousness. Also, all the good deeds that we have done in

this world will not be rewarded. We will die together with

316

the body, and all our good deeds also will perish if the Atman

is not to continue after the death of the body.

There is an explanation for the assumption of certain

particular bodies by different individuals, and why

experiences of people differ from one another, and why there

is an impulsion to do good actions in this world. Because of

these reasons, it is necessary to assume the prior existence of

the Atman, and also the posterior existence of it. If prior

existence is not accepted, it would mean that we are

suffering unnecessarily or people are enjoying unnecessarily,

for no reason whatsoever. An effect will follow without a

cause. And if it does not exist after death, all our good deeds

are futile. Why should we work hard in this world if

tomorrow we are going to pass away, and if with our passing,

all our good deeds also pass? This predicament will follow on

the assumption of the finitude of the Atman; therefore, it has

to be considered as infinite in nature.

Tasamā dātmā mahā neva naivāṇur nāpi madhyamaḥ,

āsāśavat sarvagato niraṁśaḥ śruti saṁmataḥ (86). Therefore

we conclude, refuting all these doctrines mentioned earlier,

that the Atman is endless, infinite, unending and eternal in its

nature. It is not atomic in size, nor is it possible to say that it

is of medium size. It is not of the size of a body that it

assumes. Assumption of the size of the body is an apparent

predicament, as space may appear to assume a shape of the

pot in which it appears to be located. All-pervading, like

space, is this Atman, without parts. This is declared by the

srutis, Vedas and the Upanishads.

Ityuktvā tadviśeṣe tu bhaudhā kalahaṁ yayuḥ, acidrūpo’tha

cidrūpaḥ cidacidrūpa ityapi (87). Even if it is granted that the

Atman is infinite, what is its essential characteristic? Some

say it is consciousness in its essentiality. Some say

consciousness is only a quality of the Atman, thereby

concluding that the essential nature of the Atman is other

than consciousness. What is other than consciousness would

be unconsciousness. The Mimamsaka doctrine of ritualism

317

often holds this peculiar doctrine of the unconscious nature

of the Self and its assuming of consciousness only by coming

in contact with the mind, on account of karmas that it did in

the past. Some say that it is consciousness, some say it is

unconsciousness, some say it is a mixture of both. It has a

quality of consciousness as well as unconsciousness, as a

firefly may shine sometimes or not shine at all.

Prābhākarā stārkikāśca prāhu rasyā cidātmatām, ākāśavat

dravyam ātma śabda vat tad guṇa ścitiḥ (88). Prabhakara is a

doctrine of Mimamsa. The Vedic ritualistic doctrine is called

Mimamsa. One school of these Mimamsakas holds that

consciousness is a quality or an attribute. It is a spark of

illumination that arises from the contact of the Atman with

themind after it has taken birth through the body. By itself, it

is a universal unknowingness.

The Prabhakaras, or the Mimamsakas, consider the

Atman as also one of the substances, whereas the Vedanta

does not regard the Atman as a substance; it is not a thing at

all. As space has sound as its quality, these people consider

consciousness to be the quality of the Atman.

Icchā dveṣa prayatnāśca dharma dharmau sukhā sukhe, tat

saṁskā rāśca tasaite guṇā ściti vadī ritāḥ (89). Not only that,

these Mimamsakas and Naiyayikas, logicians of the ancient

times, have another doctrine of the nature of the Atman, that

it is practically the jiva or the individual consciousness that

they are speaking of, though they appear to be defining the

Atman as such.

Firstly, they think that the Atman is a substance.

Secondly, it is believed by them that it is characterised by

desires, love and hatred, effort, consciousness of

righteousness and unrighteousness, and it experiences

pleasure and pain. All the properties that follow from such

experience also are considered as qualities of the Atman.

Actually, the Mimamsakas are mistaking the individual

self for the Universal Self. This definition of the Atman having

318

qualities like desire, etc., cannot apply to the Universal Being.

So there is a confusion of definition in the case of the

Mimamsaka doctrine, which has to be rejected.

Ātmano manasā yoge svādṛṣṭa vaśato guṇāḥ, jāyante’tha

pralīyante suṣupte’dṛṣṭa saṁkṣayāt (90). The Mimamsaka

doctrine is continued now.When the Atman comes in contact

with the mind on account of certain potencies of the previous

actions of earlier births continuing, the Consciousness comes

in contact with the mind in different ways, so that sometimes

it is very intelligent and sometimes it is not intelligent. The

increase or decrease of the intelligence of people is

attributed to the increase or decrease in the virtuous deeds

that people performed in the earlier days; and it is

completely abolished, as it were, in the state of deep sleep.

Citimatvāt cetano’yaṁ icchādveṣa prayatnā vān, syāt

dharma dharmayoḥ kartā bhoktā duḥkhādi mattvataḥ (91).

Pure Consciousness, we have to repeat once again, is the

nature of the Atman. The Naiyayikas somehow add the word

that it has desire and also effort as part of its quality. There is

experience of joy and sorrow; therefore, they think that the

agency consciousness as well as the enjoyer consciousness is

to be attributed to the Atman only.

The Mimamsa doctrine is very much involved in the

concept of deeds – good and bad deeds. The whole of this

doctrine is nothing but an expatiation of what is goodness

and what is badness, what is dharma, what is adharma, etc.

So dharma, or righteous deed, produces a peculiar

transparent potency in a next birth, on account of which

consciousness comes in contact with the mind in the form of

a superior intelligence. It feels that “I am doing”. It also feels

that “I am enjoying”.

These doctrines also attribute kartritva, or agency in

action, and bhoktritva, or the feeling of enjoyership of the

fruits of action, to the Atman which is otherwise Universal in

its nature.

319

Yathā’tra karma vaśataḥ kādā citkaṁ sukhādikam, tathā

lokāntare dehe karmaṇe cchādi janyate (92). All the happiness

in this world, according to this doctrine, is like a flash. It is

momentary in its nature. Perpetual contact with the

Consciousness – that is to say, perpetual contact of the Atman

with the mind – is not possible because according to these

doctrines, the contact is brought about by the effect of

karmas of the past. Inasmuch as the uniform type of action is

not performed by anyone in any particular birth, it is not

possible to expect that a uniform experience can be had in

the life that follows afterwards.

We do not have the same kind of experience every day

throughout our life. The argument of these doctrines is that

the variety that we pass through in experience in this world

is due to the variety of deeds that we did in the past, in

earlier lives. Somehow or other, they do not want to leave

this doctrine of karma being the cause of our experiences of

every kind, identifying the whole experience with the pure

Atman itself.

Evaṁ ca sarvagasyāpi saṁbhavetāṁ gamāgamau, karma

kāṇḍaḥ samagro’tra pramāṇa miti te’vadan (93). They are

called Karmakandans. Purvamimamsa is called Mimamsa

proper, and the Uttaramimamsa is also a Mimamsa by itself,

but it is also called by the name of Vedanta doctrine. The

Purvamimamsa is the theme that is discussed here.

The idea of this kind of definition of the Atman is given

by the Mimamsakas, who involve in the conclusion that the

all-pervading Atman also has coming and going. Birth and

death cannot be attributed to that which is infinite in nature.

And if we say that it is not infinite, it will be perishable. The

consequences of the assumption of finitude of the Atman are

very serious. What is the seriousness? There would be

finitude, and we cannot explain how experiences originate at

all without causes behind them; and also, what it is that

impels us to feel that they will continue in the next birth

also?

320

Ānandamaya kośo yaḥ suṣuptau pari śiṣyate, aspaṣṭa cit sa

ātmaiṣāṁ pūrva kośo’sya te guṇāḥ (94). The Mimamsa is once

again taken up for discussion in some detail, where the

definition is that the anandamaya kosha is the Atman, and

not the physical body, not the vital, mental or intellectual

bodies. The Mimamsakas consider the causal body as the

Atman because it is more imperishable than the other bodies

which are perishable.

The anandamaya kosha does not die even when the body

dies. And also it has a dual function to perform:

consciousness and unconsciousness. Only in the state of deep

sleep are we aware that there is such a state as the causal

body, anandamaya kosha. It has the characteristic of

consciousness because we begin to realise that we slept. We

remember the fact of having slept the previous day. Unless

there was consciousness even in the state of deep sleep, a

memory of that experience would not have been possible. So

consciousness must have been there. On the other hand, it is

unconsciousness because if consciousness had been really

there, we would have been aware of the fact of sleeping. So

there is a dual function of consciousness in the Mimamsaka

doctrine – Bhatta Mimamsakas – that the anandamaya kosha

sometimes acts as consciousness, and sometimes as

unconsciousness.

Gūḍhaṁ caitanyam utprekṣya jaḍa bodha svarūpa tām,

ātmano bruvate bhāṭṭā ścit utprekṣo tthita smṛteḥ (95). Hidden

is this Atman in the anandamaya kosha. And its characteristic

or quality is both unconsciousness and consciousness, jada

and bodha. Jada means insentiency and bodha is sentiency.

Both these qualities can be found as illustrated in the causal

body,manifested in the state of deep sleep.

Bhattas are Purvamimamsakas of a different type. There

are two kinds of Mimamsa doctrines: Prabhakara and Bhatta.

We need not go into all these details. Anyway, the Bhatta

doctrine says that consciousness is a partial manifestation of

the Atman, the other aspect being unconsciousness.

321

Jaḍo bhūtva tadā’svāpsam iti jāḍya smṛtis tadā, vinā jāḍyānu

bhūtiṁ na kathañcid upapadyate (96). The consciousness of

the fact of having slept is not there at the time of sleeping.

Therefore, that aspect which prevents us from knowing the

fact of sleeping is unconsciousness. But the fact that we

remember having slept shows that there is consciousness –

double consciousness. The Atman has a double function. It

can act as consciousness, and it can also act as

unconsciousness, as it happens in sleep.

Draṣṭur dṛṣṭera lopaśca śrutaḥ suptau tasas tvayam,

aprakāśa prakāśa bhyām ātmā khadyota vat yutaḥ (97). There is

a total misconstruing by these doctrines of certain

statements of the Upanishad, such as the Brihadaranyaka

statement where the Yajnavalkya doctrine says it sees and it

does not see.

The idea behind this intriguing statement is that it is

Cosmic-consciousness; therefore, it sees everything. ‘It does

not see’ means that there is no object in front of it. When it

says that the Atman does not see, it does not mean that it is

unconscious, as the Mimamsakas hold. There is no question

of its capability to see, because it is there everywhere. It is

beholding itself. So while it sees, it sees not, says Yajnavalkya.

But the Mimamsakas misconstrue this statement, (like the

Virochana doctrine of the Chhandogya) and conclude that the

seeing and the not seeing definition of the Atman given by

Yajnavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is to be

construed in the sense of a double function of the Atman –

consciousness and unconsciousness – as was explained

earlier.

Niraṁ śasyo bhayāt matvaṁ na kathañcit ghaṭiṣyate, tena

cidrūpa evātmeti āhuḥ sāṇkhya vivekinaḥ (98). Now we cross

over all this muddle of Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Mimamsa, etc.,

empirical doctrines of philosophy, and come to the Samkhya,

where we have a little room to breathe.

322

The Samkhya doctrine rejects all these assumptions of

the Nyaya, Vaiseshika, and the Mimamsa. Because of the fact

of the partlessness or the impartite nature of consciousness,

the Samkhya avers that purusha is the nature of

consciousness. To the Samkhya doctrine, purusha is the name

of consciousness infinite; infinite consciousness is purusha.

Because of the infinitude, it is not possible to say that it has

two qualities. Infinite is infinite always. It cannot be infinite

sometimes and not infinite at other times. Therefore the

doctrine that the Atman is conscious sometimes and not

conscious at other times is erroneous. It is not correct.

Why we are not able to have consciousness in the state of

deep sleep is another subject altogether. From this we cannot

conclude that consciousness is absent or it is unconscious at

that time. That argument is not feasible here. The reason for

our not knowing that we are sleeping is another matter

altogether, to be discussed later on. The Samkhyas conclude

that the Atman being infinite, purusha being its nature,

divisibility of its substance cannot be accepted. Also, it

cannot be of two qualities at the same time – consciousness

and unconsciousness, simultaneously. What is the nature of

the Atman, purusha, then? Chidrupa: Pure consciousness is

the nature of the Atman. This has to be hammered into our

minds again and again, say the Samkhyavadins.

Jāḍyāṁśa prakṛte rūpaṁ vikāri triguṇaṁ cat tat, cito

bhogāpa vargārthaṁ prakṛtiḥ sā pravartate (99). The

unconsciousness that we sometimes experience is not to be

attributed to the consciousness of the purusha. The prakriti

which has the qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas, with which

the consciousness of the purusha gets identified in some

manner, is the reason why we often feel unconscious,

distracted, etc.When the purusha consciousness somehow or

the other is juxtaposed with the tamas or inert quality of

prakriti, it appears as if there is no consciousness of anything

– as we have in deep sleep. But when the purusha

consciousness gets identified with the rajas or distracting

323

medium of prakriti, we run about here and there and we are

very active, busy people. It is only when the consciousness is

reflected through the sattva of prakriti that it becomes

transparent and all-knowing in its nature, and in that

condition it is called mahat by Samkhya philosophy.

The modifications that we experience in our life, all the

sufferings, all the changes that we undergo, are not to be

attributed to the Universal Atman. What are these changes,

then? These changes are of prakriti – sattva, rajas, tamas. Our

body, all the five sheaths, are constituted only of the three

gunas of prakriti – sattva, rajas and tamas – in various

proportions. In a very concentrated proportion the three

gunas constitute the physical body. In another proportion,

these gunas constitute the other bodies; and all the five

sheaths, which are the determining factors of our

individuality, are prakriti's products.

In identifying itself with these five sheaths,

consciousness appears to be feeling, wrongly, that it cannot

know anything in sleep when it is identified with

anandamaya kosha; and it feels that it is self-conscious, or

individuality consciousness is there, when it identifies itself

with the ego or the intellect. It has doubts and difficulties

when it identifies itself with the mind. It feels that it has

vitality in the system when it is identified with the breathing

process. And when it is identified in the physical body, it feels

that it is this little tabernacle only. Hence, we have to explain

why such difficulty has arisen for us. But we should not come

to a sudden conclusion that consciousness has two qualities,

which is not a fact.

Cito bhogāpa vargārthaṁ prakṛtiḥ sā pravartate: Prakriti is

a field of experience of the purusha. We are born into this

world for working out our karmas; and this world is nothing

but the field of prakriti's three gunas in certain proportions,

in various permutations and combinations. The three gunas

of prakriti manifest themselves as this solid world of

experience, and this field of action has been presented before

324

us for the purpose of working out our karmas – else karmas

cannot be worked out, because working out of a karma is

nothing but passing through certain experiences. And

experience is possible only when there is an environment or

an atmosphere. And atmosphere is nothing but the field of

action, which is prakriti. So prakriti constitutes the field of

activity for the experiences of the jiva that has performed

various deeds in the past and has to work out their effects in

the present birth.

Asaṁgāyāḥ citer bandha mokṣau bhedā grahān matau,

bandha muktī vyavasthārthaṁ pūrveṣā miva cid bhidā (100).

Asanga is unattached. Consciousness is unattached. “This

infinite purusha is unattached,” says Yajnavalkya in the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Therefore, bondage and

liberation of that which is unattached is unthinkable. It is not

the Absolute Brahman that is being born and is dying. It is

not the infinite consciousness that is in bondage and seeks

liberation. That which is bound and which is seeking

liberation is entangled consciousness – the very same infinite

that seems to be involved in the five sheaths – due to which

fact, we appear to be individuals, and due to which

consciousness itself appears to be located in one part.

Discourse 28

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 99-125

Jāḍyāṁśa prakṛte rūpaṁ vikāri triguṇaṁ cat tat, cito

bhogāpa vargārthaṁ prakṛtiḥ sā pravartate (99). There is a

doctrine of the Samkhya which posits two realities, purusha

and prakriti – purusha being universally conscious, and

prakriti being objectively active. Purusha is inactive

consciousness, and prakriti is unconscious activity.

The inert character of experience, the unconsciousness

that we sometimes experience in our life, is due to the

interference of the gunas of prakriti, which are three in

number – sattva, rajas and tamas. For the purpose of

bringing about experience in consciousness or the purusha,

prakriti acts through its three gunas.

Asaṁgāyāḥ citer bandha mokṣau bhedā grahān matau,

bandha muktī vyavasthārthaṁ pūrveṣā miva cid bhidā (100).

Unattached is purusha-consciousness – asanga. It appears to

be bound on account of its association with prakriti.

Consciousness and matter cannot get united, being of

dissimilar character. When it is difficult for the experiencing

consciousness to distinguish between its own experience and

that which causes the experience, bondage is caused.

Bondage is caused by not distinguishing between purusha

and prakriti. That is the cause of bondage and liberation.

Bondage is the association of purusha with prakriti;

liberation is the dissociation of purusha with prakriti. Both

are eternal, both are universal, the difference being one is

conscious and the other is unconscious.

Mahataḥ paraṁ avyaktam iti prakṛti rucyate, śrutā

vasaṅgatā tad vad asaṅgo hītyataḥ sphuṭā (101). The Samkhyas

quote the Kathopanishad to prove that there is such a thing

called prakriti because the Kathopanishad says that beyond

mahat-tattva, the cosmic intelligence, there is another reality

called avyakta (unmanifest), and avyakta is identified with

326

prakriti-tattva, whose existence is thus proved in the light of

these passages of the Upanishad itself.

The the Upanishad establishes the existence of both

purusha and prakriti when it says that there is an avyaktatattva

– an unmanifest reality beyond the mahat-tattva – as

we have it in the Kathopanishad. It is proved that prakriti is

there. And when the other Upanishad says that

consciousness is unattached, asanga, the existence of

purusha is proved.

Cit sannidhau pravṛttāyāḥ prakṛter hi niyāmakaṁ, īśvaraṁ

bruvate yogāḥ sa jīve bhyaḥ paraḥ śrutaḥ (102). There is no

concept of Ishvara in the Samkhya philosophy. They have

only two realities – consciousness and matter. With the

manipulation of these two principles, everything is

explained. But the Yoga System of Patanjali brings in Ishvara

because it became difficult to find out how justice can be

dispensed to the individuals or jivas in regard to their good

deeds and bad deeds.Who will do it? Purusha itself cannot do

that because it is the doer of the deeds; and prakriti cannot

do it because it has no consciousness. There is, therefore, a

necessity of a third dispensing judicious principle, which was

established to be Ishvara by the Yoga System. And this

Ishvara is superior to the jiva. The Upanishad also establishes

this statement in some other way.

Pradhāna kṣetrajña patiḥ guṇeśa iti hi śrutiḥ,

āraṇyake’saṁbhrameṇa hyantar yāmyu papā ditaḥ (103). In the

Svetasvatara Upanishad it is mentioned that God is above

pradhana and chetanya. Ishvara is superior to both prakriti

and the experiencing consciousness. Chetanya is the

experiencing consciousness, and pradhana is the prakriti.

Beyond both and superior to both is Ishvara; thus the

Upanishad says. And in the Antaryami Brahmana of the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the glory of Ishvara is described

as the indwelling principle in all things.

327

Atrāpi kalahāyante vādinaḥ svasva yukti bhiḥ, vākyā nyapi

yathā prajñaṁ dārḍhyā yodā haranti hi (104). While the

existence of Ishvara is found to be unavoidable, and it is

necessary to accept the existence of Ishvara for reasons

which are obvious, the definition of Ishvara varies from one

school to another school.

The definition of Ishvara according to the Yoga System of

Patanjali is: kleśa karma vipākai stad āśayai rapya saṁyutaḥ,

puṁ viśeṣo bhavedīśo jīva vatso’pya saṅga cit (105). Patanjali’s

sutra is that Ishvara is a special state of consciousness which

is uncontaminated by actions or their residues. No action will

touch Ishvara, and also the consequences of action will not

have any impact upon Him. There is no residual impression

of karma to be experienced as in the case of the jiva for

Ishvara. Totally independent and unconcerned is Ishvara;

that is the definition of the Yoga System.

Tathāpi puṁ viśeṣatvāt ghaṭate’sya niyantṛtā, avyavasthau

bandha mokṣāu āpatetā mihānyathā (106). It is impossible to

get on without the concept of an Ishvara. We see differences,

varieties, and unconnected things in the world, and these

differences have to be harmonised in a state of symmetrical

action; otherwise, the universe will become a chaos in one

minute. Even our body is ruled by some central principle;

otherwise, the limbs of the body will not function

harmoniously. The whole universe will be in a state of

confusion in one second if there is no system and method of

working and anything can happen at any time, in any manner

whatsoever. That is not the case with the universe. And

because of the observation of method, symmetry and

precision in the working, and reliability in the function of

nature, we have to infer that there is some power that is

operating behind the natural functions.

Bhīṣā’smādi tyeva mādau asaṅgasya parātmanaḥ, śrutaṁ

tadyukta mapyasya kleśa karmādya saṅgamāt (107). The

Kathopanishad also says that by fear of that Being,

everything is automatically working. Oceans do not overstep

328

their limits, the sun does not fall on our heads, and

everything happens in a methodical way. We can know, to

some extent, what will be the nature of things tomorrow;

otherwise, the moment of death will be uncertain. This

determining factor of past, present and future in the state of

harmony and equilibrium is Ishvara.

Jīvānā mapya saṅgatvāt kleśādir na hyathāpi ca, vivekā

grahataḥ kleśa karmādi prāgu dī ritam (108). The individuals

also are basically, essentially, consciousness. They are

asanga, unattached; but because of the karmas in which they

are involved, good and bad deeds, their intellect gets

muddled. Their discrimination fails, and they cannot

distinguish between the consciousness of purusha and the

materiality of prakriti. Thus, they get bound.

Nitya jñāna prayatnecchā guṇā nīśasya manvate, asaṅgasya

niyantṛtvam ayukta miti tārkikāh (109). Naiyayikas,

Vaiseshikas, etc., are called tarkikas or logicians. They say

God has eternal knowledge and He is engaged in eternal

effort in maintaining this cosmos. He has an eternal desire to

see that everything goes on in perfect order, and He has the

eternal quality of being fit to manage this universe. Such is

God. Though He is unattached and not connected to anything,

He is the controller of all beings.Without these qualities, God

would not be God.

A totally detached God, unconcerned with things as

Patanjali’s Yoga System would say (verse 105), would have

no arm to reach the world. An extra-cosmic God cannot have

cosmic relations. Therefore, a God who is only an

instrumental cause with no material relationship to creation

will not be a proper restrainer of things. The concept of

Ishvara as totally detached, as propounded by Patanjali,

cannot be regarded as a final definition because total

detachment of God from all that is in the form of the creation

would make Him unfit to govern the universe. So the

Naiyayikas, or the logicians, say that He has a connection, and

total detachment should not be attributed to Him.

329

Puṁ viśeṣa tvama pyasya guṇai reva na cānyathā, satya

kāmaḥ satya saṅkalpa ityādi śrutir jagau (110). Satya-kamah

and satya-sankalpa are the attributes of God, as we have it in

the Chhandogya Upanishad. On account of the qualities of

prakriti associating itself in a particular manner, Ishvara is

called purusha not because He is a male or a person like us,

but a pure person, pure individual; and the definition of this

pure individual, Absolute individual we may say, is in terms

of the three gunas.

He is satya-kamah. His wishes are unobstructed. If He

thinks and wills, it must happen immediately. That is called

satya-kamah. Satya-sankalpa is the will, volition, which also

has its immediate effect. If He wishes something, it

immediately happens. If He wills something, it materialises

itself all at once. Thus, the sruti (the Upanishad) says.

Nitya jñānā dimatve’sya sṛṣṭi reva sadā bhavet,

hiraṇyagarbha īśo’to liṅga dehena saṁuktaḥ (111). There are

other people who say Ishvara, in the sense of the definition

that we have given of Him, cannot be regarded as the creator

of the world because Ishvara is the latency of all future

possibilities. Nothing is manifest there in Ishvara. And hence,

if that condition of the unmanifest state of all things is to be

regarded as the cause of the world, there would be a sudden

emergence of every kind of thing in the form of creation,

while creation is not such an emergence.

A select particular variety from the total ocean of

potentials in Ishvara becomes the cause of this particular

universe. It does not mean that God can create only this kind

of universe and not any other kind. There are potentials for

an infinite number of varieties of universes in Ishvara’s

bosom. So if Ishvara suddenly, from out of Himself, becomes

the creator of the cosmos, we do not know what kind of thing

will come out.

So certain thinkers feel that Ishvara should not be

considered as the creator of the universe, and that

330

Hiranyagarbha should be considered as the creator of the

universe. Hiranyagarbha is the specified outline – the

determined portion of the large sea of potentials in Ishvara,

and therefore only a particular universe can be manifest, and

not anything and everything. So Hiranyagarbha worshippers

conclude that Ishvara by Himself in His essential universal

potential nature should not be regarded as the direct creator.

Hiranyagarbha as a specified director of the universe should

be regarded as creator. Hiraṇyagarbha īśo’to liṅga dehena

saṁuktaḥ: Cosmic linga-deha, or subtle body, is called

Hiranyagarbha.

Udgītha brāhmaṇe tasya māhātmyamati vistṛtam, liṅga

satve’pi jīvatvaṁ nāsya karmādya bhāvataḥ (112). Udgitha

Brahmana is a particular passage in the Brahmana portions

of the Vedas where Hiranyagarbha, maha-prana or Cosmic

prana, is glorified in abundant ways. It shows that

Hiranyagarbha does exist, and He should be considered as

the creator of all beings.

Even if there is a subtlety of the body of Hiranyagarbha,

He should not be identified with any particular individual. He

is not a jiva, because Hiranyagarbha has no karma. The

karma potentials do not act on Ishvara or Hiranyagarbha,

because Hiranyagarbha and Ishvara are Universal Beings.

Universality cannot work or act in any particular direction of

objects of senses. Hence, they are free from the botheration

of karmaphala, or the effects of actions.

Sthūla dehaṁ vinā liṅga deho na kvāpi dṛśyate, vairājo deha

īśo’taḥ sarvato masta kādi mān (113). There are others who

feel they have never seen the subtle body becoming the cause

of anything at all. Have we seen the subtle body of a

carpenter manufacturing furniture? It is the gross body; the

actual body of the carpenter manifests itself. Any action in

this world, whatever it be, is the outcome of the physical

body of somebody working. Have we seen merely a subtle

body working? Therefore, Hiranyagarbha as a subtle

potential of the cosmos should not be regarded as direct

331

creator of the universe. Virat is the creator because He is the

cosmic physical body.

Sahasraśīrṣā puruṣaḥ (Purusha Sukta 1.1). Everywhere are

the eyes, everywhere is the head, everywhere are the limbs

are the descriptions of Virat, the cosmic manifestation as we

have it described in the eleventh chapter of the Bhagavad

Gita.

This Virat, the cosmic body, should be regarded as the

real creator of the universe – not Hiranyagarbha – because

mere subtle body cannot directly act on the physical

universe. Virat, who is the physical universe animated by

consciousness, should be regarded as the cause of the

physical universe.

Sahasra śīrṣe tyevaṁ ca viśvata ścakṣu rityapi, śruti mityāhu

raniśaṁ viśva rūpasya cinta kāḥ (114). Sahasraśīrṣā puruṣaḥ,

says the Rig Veda, Yajur Veda. Such a great purusha, with all

eyes, with all ears everywhere, does exist; and also the Rig

Veda says that all hands, all feet, all eyes are spread out of

this Great Being. Such definitions apply to the Virat-purusha,

Vaishvanara, who should be considered as the creator of the

universe.

In the Rudradhaya of the Yajur Veda we also have a

variety of cosmically-oriented descriptions of God; and

Vishvarupa, therefore, becomes a fitting instrument for the

manifestation of this cosmic physicality.

Sarvataḥ pāṇi pādatve kṛmyāde rapi ceśatā, tataś catur

mukho deva eveśo netaraḥ pumān (115). The others say

neither Hiranyagarbha nor Virat is the creator of the

universe. What is the use of saying that He had many eyes,

many ears, etc.? That is not a great point because creativity

requires a particular attention on specific details. Virat is not

specific, but general consciousness, as is Hiranyagarbha.

General consciousness cannot create specific objects.

Particular things in the world with all the variety that they

have cannot be attributed to a general creative principle.

332

Therefore, even Virat should not be regarded as the real

creator – not Ishvara, not Hiranyagarbha, nor Virat, but

Brahma, the four-headed Being who has the specific

consciousness of what is going to be created. That Brahma,

one of the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, hailed in the

Puranas as the real creator of things, should be regarded as

the true creator. Tataś catur mukho deva eveśo netaraḥ

pumān: Four-headed Brahma is the real God.

Putrārthaṁ tamupāsīnā eva māhuḥ prajā patiḥ, prajā

asṛjatetyādi śrutiṁ codā harantyamī (116). Many scriptures

proclaim the greatness of Prajapati, Brahma, as the creator.

For the sake of prosperity, progeny, wealth and long life, etc.,

people offer prayers and perform tapas for darshan of this

great being, this Brahma. The Upanishads themselves, the

scripture itself, should be regarded as authority enough to

show that Brahma is the creator of the Universe – not

Ishvara, Hiranyagarbha, Virat, etc.

Viṣṇor nābheḥ samud bhūtaḥ vedhāḥ kamalaja stataḥ, viṣṇu

reveśa ityāhuḥ loke bhāga vatā janāḥ (117). But there are

others who think that Brahma cannot be regarded as the

final creator because Brahma came from the navel of Vishnu.

This is the description of the Puranas. Narayana, Vishnu, was

the original being. He was sleeping on the cosmic waters at

the end of the dissolution of the universe. And from his navel,

a cosmic lotus emerged. On the lotus Brahma was seated;

Brahma, therefore, is the manifestation from Narayana,

Vishnu. Vishnu is the cause of Brahma, so how could we say

that Brahma is the final creator? The Vaishnavas say Vishnu

is the creator; Narayana is the creator because He is the

source of Brahma also.

Śivasya pādā vanveṣṭuṁ śārṅgya śaktastataḥ śivaḥ, īśo na

viṣṇu rityāhuḥ śaivā āgama māninaḥ (118). Saivas, worshippers

of Lord Siva, say Vishnu cannot be regarded as the creator of

the universe. Siva is the creator because there is a story that

Lord Siva appeared as a column of light which ran from the

nether regions up to the heaven; Vishnu and Brahma tried to

333

locate the origin or the beginning of this column of light, and

Vishnu found that it was not possible to locate it. Inasmuch

as Vishnu himself could not locate the origin of this column

of light which was Lord Siva himself, we cannot regard

Vishnu as the creator of the universe. Siva is All-in-All.

Therefore, Saivas come into force here.

Puratrayaṁ sādayituṁ vighneśaṁ so’pya pūjayat,

vināyakaṁ prāhu rīśam gāṇapatya mate ratāḥ (119). Even Siva

is not the original creator. This is what the devotees of

Ganapati or Ganesha say, because when Lord Siva had to go

to war against the Tripura demons, he worshipped Ganesha

first. But for that worship, he would not have succeeded in

winning victory over the Tripuras. Ganesha is always

worshipped first, and all the other gods come afterwards.

Hence, Ganesha, and not any other being, should be regarded

as the Supreme Being – not Brahma, Vishnu, Siva. This is the

opinion of the Ganapati worshippers.

Eva manya sva sva prakṣābhi mānenā nyathā’nyathā,

mantrārtha vādakalpādī nāśritya pratipedire (120). Thus, there

are hundreds and hundreds of varieties of arguments and

definitions of what God could be. These definitions pertain to

the way in which people think in their minds, their

predilections, their limitations, their religious proclivities,

cultural background. All these things decide the concept of

God in the minds of people. Nobody can define God

impersonally without some prejudice. These prejudices arise

on account of various conditioning factors in which people

live, geographically, culturally, historically, etc. And one can

quote anything in support of one’s own opinion: this

scripture says this, that scripture says that, all the Vedas say

that, the Siva Purana says that, Bible says this, and Koran

says that. Well, they may all be saying different things and,

therefore, are we to conclude that there are varieties of gods,

many gods? How will we reconcile these various concepts?

Here is a quandary before the definition of Ishvara.

334

Antaryāmiṇa mārabhya sthā varānteśa vādinaḥ, santya

śvatthār kavaṁśādeḥ kuladaivata darśanāt (121). There are

people who worship anything and everything as an object of

their religious adoration. Right from the indwelling

Universality, right through Ishvara, Hiranyagarbha, Virat,

Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, Ganapati, there are people who also

worship even trees like asvattha or bamboo, or anything

whatsoever – even a little piece of stone – as a deity

determining the welfare of one’s family. There is nothing that

people do not worship and regard as final, a symbol of their

own God.

Tattva niścaya kāmena nyāyā gama vicāriṇāṁ, ekaiva

pratipattiḥ syāt sā’pyatra sphuṭa mucyate (122). But we have to

come to some conclusion. We cannot go on wading through

this tangle of definitions, and we shall try here to give a most

reasonable definition of Ishvara, or God, with no detriment to

the definitions given by different religions of the world.

Māyāṁ tu prakṛtiṁ vidyān māyinaṁ tu maheśvaram, asyā

vayava bhūtaistu vyāptaṁ sarva midaṁ jagat (123). The

Svetasvatara Upanishad is quoted here in this verse. Prakriti

should be considered as maya; maya should be considered as

prakriti, which is the objective power of God. And the wielder

of this prakriti or maya is mayi, that is Maheshvara, the

Supreme Lord. All this universe is studded in the cosmic

body of this Being as pearls are studded, beads are studded

or linked through a thread in a garland.

The entire cosmos is hanging, organically related to God.

He is not extra-cosmic or outside the world, uncontaminated

or unconnected. The very cosmos is His body. The very

intelligence that pervades the cosmos is God, Ishvara. There

is no God outside the universe, transcendentally, unless of

course we also accept the immanence of God at the same

time. Because God is not exhausted in the creation of the

world, we call Him transcendent; but because He is

immanently present in all little things also, we call Him

immanent. He is everywhere in the universe, and yet beyond

335

the universe. He is, therefore, immanent and transcendent

both at the same time.

Iti śrutyanu sāreṇa nyāyyo nirṇaya īśvare, tathā satya

virodhaḥ syāt sthāvarānteśa vādinām (124). Inasmuch as

everything in the universe is pervaded by God, there is no

harm in people taking up any particular item in the universe

as their object. We can reach the Absolute through any item

in the world because when we touch anything in the world,

we are actually touching a part of God – whatever that object

be. It may be inanimate or animate, as the case may be; it

does not matter. Even inanimate objects cannot exist unless

the existence of Ishvara is there at the back.

So there is no objection to people worshipping God in

various ways according to their own predilections, provided

that they believe honestly that this is the final God and they

do not have any distractions in their mind carrying them

away in some other direction. The defect in meditation is not

the choice of the object, because any object is very good. The

defect is in the movement of the mind in another direction

altogether than towards the object of meditation.

Māyā ceyaṁ tamo rūpā tāpanīye tadīraṇāt, anubhūtiṁ tatra

mānaṁ prati jajñe śrutiḥ svayam (125). Prakriti and maya –

which is the power of God which He wields in His

omnipotence; it was said, this maya is essentially tamo-rupa,

darkness in nature, because when the gunas of prakriti or

maya are not disturbed in the process of creation, they

remain in a state of harmony. In this state of harmony, sattva

does not specifically manifest itself; therefore, there is no

illumination at all. The cosmic condition of dissolution of the

universe, where nothing is specifically visible, is one of

darkness because tamas predominates there. So maya can be

regarded as essentially inert, dark, and obstructive to light.

Where does it exist? We can know it in our own

experience in the state of deep sleep. Why do we not know

anything in the state of deep sleep? What is the obstacle?

336

That obstacle is the darkness characteristic of this maya

tattva operating in our own individual case also, in the state

of deep sleep.

Discourse 29

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 125-153

Māyā ceyaṁ tamo rūpā tāpanīye tadīraṇāt, anubhūtiṁ tatra

mānaṁ prati jajñe śrutiḥ svayam (125). There is a power of

Ishvara which is known as maya, which manifests itself as

avidya in the human individual. It cannot be described in

ordinary language. It cannot be established by logic or

argument. It cannot be proved or disproved. Such a peculiar

phenomenon is this shakti, and the only proof of its existence

is one’s own experience. For instance, in the state of deep

sleep we have an experience of there being such a thing as

darkness, an enveloping power which prevents the

consciousness from knowing itself and knowing anything

else. By any other proof, we cannot establish its existence.

Everyone knows that such a thing is there, for what reason

no one can understand. There is inability of one’s knowing

one’s own self even in the state of deep sleep. Let alone

knowing other things, we cannot know even our own

self. Such an obscuring of consciousness in the individual is

the work of avidya, and cosmically it is known as maya.

The definition of maya is given in Tapaniya and other

Upanishads as: jaḍaṁ mohātmakaṁ tat ca ityanubhāvayati

śrutiḥ, ābāla gopaṁ spaṣṭatvāt ānyantyaṁ tasya sā’bravīt (126).

It is inert in its nature. It covers consciousness in a tamasic

way, and therefore it is defined as jada or unconscious and

deluding in its character. It is not merely inert in the sense of

an obscuration of consciousness; it is also confusing in the

presentation of illusions in front of us, such as the varieties of

forms and distinctions of things in the world – one differing

from the other in every way, causing distraction of

consciousness in respect of this variety of things and making

one believe that there is something outside.

This is the work of maya. It doesn’t allow us to be

conscious of the universality of God. It compels us to know

what un-God is – the anti-Christ, as they call it – which is the

338

consciousness of objects rather than the consciousness of a

universal subject. Everyone knows that it exists by direct

experience. Even children know it.

Acidātma ghaṭādīnāṁ yat svarūpaṁ jaḍaṁ hi tat, yatra

kuṇṭhi, bhaved buddhiḥ sa moha iti laukikāḥ (127). People say

that inertness is that peculiar feature where consciousness is

never manifest in any way whatsoever – as, for instance, we

will not see consciousness manifest in a clay pot. Where the

intellect fails to understand the actual position and we face a

dark wall, as it were, in front of us in understanding anything

whatsoever – logic fails, understanding doesn’t work

anymore – that state is a kind of manifestation of maya.

There are things in the world which cannot be properly

understood. Any amount of argument will not bring us to any

conclusion. Cause and effect relationship, the origin of things,

the reason for bondage and liberation – all these are

questions which are beyond the human intellect. Reason is

not to be applied here, where the subject of discussion is

something that is prior to the manifestation of reason itself.

The question ‘why’ arises on account of an affirmation of

duality of cause and effect and seer and seen. Having already

run into the duality of the seer and the seen which is really

not there, we raise a question as to why it originated. That

will be like begging the question; hence this noumenon

cannot be explained except by direct experience.

Itthaṁ laukika dṛṣṭyaitat sarvai rapyanu bhūyate, yukti

dṛṣṭyā tvanir vācyaṁ nāsadā sīditi śruteḥ (128). Ordinary

people with their worldly understanding can say only this

much about maya – that we cannot understand what it is. Yet

we experience that something is there. Everybody has some

occasion when they can say, “I cannot understand this. This is

beyond me.” Everyone has to say this some time or the other.

That thing which prevents us from knowing features

correctly and compels us to say, “Oh, it is beyond me. I cannot

understand,” that moha shakti, deluding factor, is the maya

shakti of God.

339

It is indescribable if we try to understand it by logic, like

darkness. We cannot say whether darkness is existing there

as a substance or it is not there. We cannot say darkness is

something like an object; we cannot touch it. But it is so very

deeply and concretely present in front of us that we seem to

be seeing it.

We are seeing darkness. Actually, we are seeing absence

of light. It is a negative perception that is taking place.We are

not seeing anything particularly specifically there. Darkness

is not seen, just as blueness in the sky is not seen. There is no

blueness in the sky. It is a peculiar phenomenon of light

action that causes us to perceive a colour of the sky. So is the

case with the definition of super-intellectual phenomena.

Nāsadā sīt vibhā tatvāt no sadā sīcca bādhanāt, vidyā dṛṣṭyā

śrutaṁ tucchaṁ tasya nitya nirvṛttitaḥ (129). There is a great

mantra of the Rig Veda, called Nasadiya Sukta, where the

Veda says a non-existence was not there. Now, for instance,

in deep sleep, we cannot say that ignorance was nonexistent,

because we can experience ignorance there. As it is

a factor that is a content of actual experience by someone, we

cannot call it non-existent because it is experienced. Nor can

we say it really exists, because it is refuted on awakening.

When consciousness manifests itself properly, this

ignorance is dispelled. We cannot say that it is existing there.

As it is subject to sublation, it cannot be said to be existing.

But as it is daily experienced by people, it also cannot be said

to be non-existing. Vidyā dṛṣṭyā śrutaṁ tucchaṁ tasya nitya

nirvṛttitaḥ: Only in the light of great knowledge, spiritual

illumination, it flees completely, as darkness before the rising

sun.

Tucchā’nirvacanīyā ca vāstavī cetyasau tridhā, jñeyā māyā

tribhir bodhaiḥ śrauta yauktika laukikaiḥ (130). There are three

definitions of maya: tuccha, nirvachaniya, and vastavi. For

some people, maya is non-existent. For some people, it is

indescribable. For some people, it is very real. For people like

340

us who are totally ignorant mortals, it is very real indeed.

This world is very real. Attachments to things also are very

real. Desire for things is very real. Entanglement is very real;

freedom from entanglement is also a real aspiration in us. All

things look real. The creation of the world also is very real.

This is the definition of maya by an ignorant person.

But for a logician, philosopher, it is an intellectual full

stop. He cannot say anything as to what it is. It is an

indescribable thing; neither is it existing, nor is it nonexisting.

It cannot be said to be non-existing because it is

experienced in the form of ignorance of things. It cannot also

be called existing because it vanishes in Self-realisation. This

is the philosopher’s definition. But for the person who has

actually entered into the nature of Brahman, it does not exist,

tuccha. Futile, meaningless, is its existence.

Jñeyā māyā tribhir bodhaiḥ śrauta yauktika laukikaiḥ: To the

person who is endowed with the wisdom of the Veda

(indirect realisation), it is tuccha; for the logician, it is

‘nirvachaniya; for the laukika, or the worldly man it is vastavi,

or very real.

Asya sattvama sattvaṁ ca jagato darśaya tyasau, prasāra

ṇācca saṅkocāt yathā citra paṭa stathā (131). It can manifest

the world and also withdraw the world. It unfolds the world

and also enfolds the world. As a painted picture drawn on a

canvas can be made visible or invisible by opening or folding

the canvas, so does maya play with this creation. It can fold it

up and then not allow it to be seen by anyone, or it can unfold

it and we will see all the variety here.

Asvantantrā hi māyā syāt apratīter vinā citim, svatantrā’pi

tathaiva syāt asaṅgasyā nyathā kṛteḥ (132). Independently, it

does not exist, because if it exists totally independent, it will

be a contender to Brahman. It cannot be experienced unless

there is a consciousness that experiences it. Inasmuch as it is

dependent on consciousness, it cannot enjoy an independent

existence.

341

It appears to be sometimes independent because it has

the capacity to twist consciousness into the belief of things

which are not really there; unattached consciousness,

asangatata, is made to believe that it is attached.

Consciousness cannot be attached to anything because it is

not of the nature of any substance or object. Attachment is

possible only if there is something in the object of

attachment, a character which is similar to consciousness.

But that consciousness which is of the nature of pure

subjectivity cannot be expected to become an object of itself.

It is like one thing becoming another thing – consciousness

becoming an object, or thought becoming matter.

It is therefore, from one point of view, totally dependent

on consciousness. On the other hand, it sometimes appears

to be very independent, causing the mischief of the

externalisation of consciousness.

Kūṭasthā saṅga mātmānāṁ jagattvena karoti sā, cidābhāsa

svarūpeṇa jiveśā vapi nirmame (133). Kutastha chaitanya,

which is the deepest Atman in us, is bewildered by the

perception of the world caused by this action of maya. It

causes a distinction between Ishvara and jiva. Cosmically, it

veils Brahman, and that reflected Brahman-consciousness in

the veil is called Ishvara. It is also the cause behind the jiva

consciousness in us, which is the product of its being a

medium through rajas and tamas for the reflection of the

very same Brahman. False distinction is created by the

external and the internal, between the macrocosmic and the

microcosmic, Ishvara and jiva.

Kūṭastha manupa drutya karoti jagadā dikam, durghaṭaika

vidhā yinyām māyāyāṁ kā camat kṛtiḥ (134). Kutasthachaitanya

creates the world without affecting consciousness,

really speaking. It may appear that consciousness is affected

by the perception of things, but actually it is not so affected. If

there has been a real change in consciousness, in the

perception of an object, that change would be permanent.

Bondage also would be there forever and there would be no

342

hope of salvation. The fact that freedom of consciousness in

its Universal state can be experienced one day or the other,

shows consciousness was never non-Universal. It was always

Universal, and it appeared falsely to be limited to certain

particular conditions.

Durghaṭaika vidhā yinyām māyāyāṁ kā camat kṛtiḥ: What is

the name of maya? Mystery. Actually, maya does not exist as

an object. It is only a word that we use to describe a peculiar

difficulty. Maya is a difficulty that we are facing, and difficulty

is not an object. It is a situation. It is a consciousness, an

apprehension of a condition taking place, an inability on our

part to know the relation between appearance and reality.

That inability is itself maya.

We are unable to distinguish between appearance and

reality, or ascertain the relation between appearance and

reality. This difficulty, this inability, this is maya. But it does

not exist as a thing hanging on a tree. It is not an external

object.

Dravatvam udake vahnāu auṣṇyaṁ kāṭhinyaṁ aśmani,

māyāyāṁ durghaṭatvaṁ ca svataḥ siddhyati nānyataḥ (135).

The liquidity that we see in water, the heat that we see in fire,

and various characters that we see attached to things, these

are the manifestations of maya itself, because when we

reduce the effects to their original causes, these characters or

things vanish. We can reduce water to its original cause, and

we will find that it is not liquid; and fire is only a friction that

is created by the movement of intensely moving particles in

high velocity.

Solidity can be converted into energy by transference of

property; yet when we perceive a thing with our own eyes,

the thing appears to be quite different from what it is

essentially in its basic substantiality. As long as people do not

know what this mystery is, so long people are entangled in

this world. Hence nobody can know what this maya is.

343

Na vetti loko yāvattām sākṣāt tāvat camat kṛtim, dhatte

manasi paścat tu māyai ṣetyupa śāmyati (136). The Bhagavad

Gita says, “This maya is a mysterious power wielded by God

Himself and, therefore, it is as difficult to understand as God

Himself is difficult to understand.” As long as this

unintelligible, un-understandable mystery takes hold of a

person, he suffers. And one does not know what really is

there – na vetti. But once it is known by the flash of the light

of consciousness, it subsides. This arising and subsiding is

also a mystery by itself.

Prasaranti hi codyāni jagat vastutva vādiṣu, na codanīyaṁ

māyāmāṁ tasyā ścodyaika rūpataḥ (137). People put all kinds

of questions about maya. Does it reside in Brahman or does it

reside outside Brahman? Did it exist prior to Brahman or did

it exist posterior to Brahman? Does it exist far from Brahman

or near to Brahman? Is it identical with it or is it separate

from it? These questions should not be raised because it is

like asking about a problem before us: Is this problem a part

of us or is it outside us? We cannot say anything about it

because it is not actually there, perceived as some thing or an

object. It is a situation that is created in the consciousness

and, therefore, we cannot raise questions as to where it is

located. It is not located anywhere, yet it is experienced.

Codye’pi yadi codyaṁ syāt tvaccodye codyate mayā,

parihāryaṁ tataś codyaṁ na punaḥ prati codyatām (138). The

question cannot be questioned. Maya itself is a great question

mark, and we are putting a question about it. As the question

itself cannot be questioned, the reason for the appearance of

maya cannot be queried. Can I ask how this question arose?

Who raises the question, etc? Questions will not be answered

because there is a reason for raising a question. And there

also is a reason for making a statement.

Parihāryaṁ tataś codyaṁ na punaḥ prati codyatām. Don’t

raise the question again, because the very process of

questioning is involved in the untenable doctrine of cause

and effect relationship, which by themselves do not exist.

344

Visma yaika śarīrāyā māyāyā ścodya rūpataḥ, anveṣyaḥ

parihāro’syā buddhimat bhiḥ prayatnataḥ (139). In the Yoga

Vasishtha, Rama is supposed to have raised a question to

Vasishtha, the sage: How did maya come? “Maya, how did it

come, you are asking? Don’t ask me,” is Vasishtha’s reply.

“Don’t ask me how it came. ‘How can I get over it’ – ask this

question. I can give you suggestions which are of practical

utility to you in overcoming this problem, but you should not

ask how it arose.”

The same thing is quoted here. Wonder is this maya, and

its nature cannot be ascertained, but we can consider the

ways and means of overcoming it in our daily spiritual

meditations.

Māyātva meva niśceyam iti cet tarhi niścinu, loka prasiddha

māyāyā lakṣaṇaṁ yat tadī kṣyatām (140). If we say we have to

deeply consider the pros and cons of the arising of maya, we

can go on arguing like that. This kind of problem that we are

posing is intellectually also a part of maya itself. It presents a

situation which cannot be understood and then it also

compels us to raise a question as to how it arose, not

permitting us to get an answer to it. Such is the work of

maya. It compels the question to rise but will not allow us to

answer it.

Na nirūpayituṁ śakyā vispaṣṭaṁ bhāsate ca yā, sā

māyetīndra jālādau lokāḥ saṁprati pedire (141). Nobody can

clearly say as to what it is, though it is visible to the eyes, like

a magician’s performance. We can see the magician’s

performance. Very clearly we can see it in a solid form. But

how it arose? From nowhere something is presented by the

magician. How does he effect it? This we cannot understand.

‘Magic’ is the word that is used to describe what maya is. It is

a trick, as it were, of consciousness, and tricks cannot be

explained logically. It is a sleight of hand, as they say.

Spaṣṭaṁ bhātī jagaccedaṁ aśakyaṁ tannirūpaṇam, māyā

mayaṁ jagattasmāt īkṣasvā pakṣa pātataḥ (142). Very clearly

345

we can see the world but we cannot say how it came, from

where it arose and what is its real cause. There our intellect

ceases to function. We can only be contented by the

conviction that it is beyond us.

Nirūpayitu mārabdhe nikhilai rapi paṇḍitaiḥ, ajńānaṁ

purata steṣāṁ bhāti kakṣāsu kāsucit (143). We had many

learned people in ancient days who tried to understand what

this maya is. They wrote many books but came to no

conclusion finally, because all intellectual processes which

endeavour to understand this mystery arise on account of

the existence of this mystery itself. Maya cannot be

questioned, because the very process of questioning is

caused by maya itself. And when they try to understand it,

they face a thick curtain in front of them as ajnana, an

impossibility to understand. Everybody has failed in properly

explaining how this world came.

Dehendri yādayo bhāvā viṛyeṇot pāditāḥ katham, kathaṁ vā

tatra caitanyaṁ ityukte te kimuttaram (144). We see that a

little drop of liquid-like substance manifests itself into a

baby, and then we see that it walks with two legs and raises

its head and begins to appear to be a totally independent

important entity in this world, while its origin is so very

mysterious. How can we explain this great wonder?

Vīryasyaiva svabhāva ścet kathaṁ tadviditaṁ tvayā, anvaya

vyatirekau yau bhagnau tau vandhya vīryataḥ (145). We cannot

say how consciousness enters into this substance. Sometimes

it enters, and sometimes it does not enter and we find the

birth of the child does not take place as expected. We have

only to say that we don’t understand.

Na jānāmi kimapyetad ityante śaraṇaṁ tava, ata eva

mahānto’sya pravadantī ndra jālataṁ (146). Indrajala is the

magic of Indra. He can conjure up appearances. Brahman,

like Indra, conjures up this world. What do we say about it?

Na jānāmi kimapyetad: I don’t understand what is happening;

I am bewildered. How does the magician suddenly project a

346

solid substance in front of us? He throws up a rope and

climbs up to heaven. How is it possible, sir?We can see it, but

our seeing it is not a proof of its existence.What a wonder!

Etasmāt kimivendra jāla maparaṁ yad garbha vāsa sthitaṁ,

retaś cetati hasta mastaka pada prod bhūta nānāṅ kūram,

paryāyeṇa śiśutva yauvana jara veṣai ranekair vrtaṁ, paśya

tyatti śṛnnoti jighrati tathā gaccha tyathā gacchati (147). What a

wonder! What can be a greater wonder than this peculiar

phenomenon, for instance, that some mysterious thing that

appears to be inside the womb of the mother begins to

assume intelligence and starts moving. How does it move?

From where has the intelligence come? Nobody knows from

where the intelligence arose and started making it move

about. And then it manifests certain limbs – head, hands, feet.

Like tendrils of a plant manifesting shoots in different ways,

the limbs of the little would-be baby start projecting

themselves.

How does this happen? Who is the cause behind this?

What kind of intelligence is there to see that only a requisite

number of limbs and only in a particular manner should be

manifested? Afterwards what happens? It grows into a little

baby, and it becomes a young person; it becomes old, and it

passes through all sorts of experiences in this world. It eats,

it sees, it hears, it smells, it goes and comes. What is this that

is happening? From where has this little phenomenon

cropped up suddenly? From unknown sources it has come,

and to unknown sources it vanishes. Its peculiar

phenomenon-like existence in this world is only for a few

years, but it vainly puts on the contour of something great

and important. Such is human life. What can be a greater

wonder than this? Etasmāt kimivendra jāla maparaṁ: What

can be a greater magic or a wonder than this little

explanation of human life itself?

Dehavad vaṭa dhanādau suvicārya vilokyataṁ, kva dhānā

kurta vā vṛkṣaḥ tasmāt māyeti niścinu (148). Have you seen the

banyan tree? Have you seen the seed of a banyan tree, how

347

small it is? You cannot even see it with your eyes. In that

littlest of tiny particles – the seed of the banyan tree –is

hiddenly present that mighty giant that shakes up our

buildings with its roots. What a wonder! How can we explain

that a mighty giant rises up from this little invisible seed?

Where was it sitting inside? Where is the place for that tree

to sit inside that seed? Can we apply our reason and give a

satisfactory answer? A wonder indeed is this also; a great

miracle it is.

Nirūktā vabhimānaṁ ye dadhate tārkikā dayaḥ, harṣa miśrā

dibhi stet u khaṇḍandādau suśiksitāḥ (149). Logicians still

persist in arguing, and want to somehow or other satisfy

themselves that things can be explained by mere argument

only. That all logic is finally futile has been established by

great thinkers like Shri Harsha, who wrote a masterly logical

text called Khandana-Khanda-Khadyam. He refutes all the

validity of logical arguments presented by logicians, or the

Naiyayikas and the Vaiseshikas. You may say anything, but

there is a defect in your saying. You may try to prove

anything, but there is also some defect in that proof. And if

you say that your finding a defect in me also is full of defect,

he accepts that also, so that there is nothing that can be

clearly said in this world. Thus all logical arguments are set

aside, and what this two-volume book finally says is that we

can say nothing except that we know that nothing can be

known.

We can know that nothing can be known, that is the only

certainty; but any other thing cannot be known. Only

consciousness remains. Harsha Misra establishes the unitary

nature of consciousness by refuting every kind of argument

of the logicians. Khaṇḍandādau suśiksitāḥ: Khandana is the

name of the book. Khanda-khadyam means sweetmeat, and

khandana means refutation. It is the sweetmeat of refutation.

Such a difficult language it is that nobody can understand

what he is saying. And he mentions in one place,

“Deliberately I have made this book immensely difficult for

348

people to understand so that fools who think that they are

wisemay not touch it.”

Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁstarkeṣu yojayet, acintya

racanā rūpaṁ manasā’pi jagat khalu (150). Therefore, don’t be

proud in this world; don’t be so proud as to imagine that you

can answer every question. Even by the furthest stretch of

the imagination, you cannot know how this world appeared.

Why do you argue unnecessarily?

Acintya racanā śakti bījaṁ māyeti niścinu, māyā bījaṁ

tadevaikaṁ suṣuptā vanubhūyate (151). This indescribability,

as has been mentioned already, is maya. It is not existing

anywhere as something solid, like an object, but it is there as

a tremendous problem before us which we cannot face

easily.

The seed of this maya is experienced in the state of deep

sleep every day. We cannot see maya with our eyes, but we

can feel it in one condition at least, in deep sleep. We do not

know what is happening to us. We go to sleep every day

without bothering as to what is actually happening and why

it happens.Why is it necessary for us to sleep every day? It is

as important as life and death. We may have nothing else but

only a good sleep, and that is enough. But if we have

everything elseminus sleep, it is like hell or worse than hell.

What is the importance of sleep? This, logic cannot

explain.We enter into our deepest source in the state of deep

sleep, and in all other conditions of dream, waking, etc., we

come out of our real nature and become other than what we

are; we become a not-self, an artificial self, a false self, in

perceptions that we have in dream and waking. It is only in

sleep that we really become what we are. That is why we are

so happy. To be one’s own self is really a great thing, and to

be other than one’s self is the sorrow of life.

Jāgrat svapna jagat tatra līnaṁ bīja iva drumaḥ, tasmā

daśeṣa jagataḥ vāsanā starta saṁsthitāḥ (152). As the whole

banyan tree can be said to be inherently, potentially present

349

in the little seed, waking and dream experience is hidden in

deep sleep. All the causes that are responsible for our

dreaming and waking experience are potentially present in

sleep. Because every kind of cause is present there, we are

unable to locate that distinction between one and the other,

so it looks like a homogeneous darkness. Everything is

heaped up in a hodgepodge manner. Therefore, it is

impossible to decipher any particular vritti distinctly. The

distinctness of vrittis, or mental functions, arises only in

dream and waking; then this distinctness vanishes and

everything becomes indistinct in sleep. That is why the

intellect does not function there. And so, intellectual

consciousness not being there, and no other consciousness

being with us, we know nothing there. All the potentials for

creation cosmically can be found in maya, and all the

potentials for human experience can be found in the state of

deep sleep.

Yā buddhi vāsanā stāsu caitanyaṁ prati bimbati, meghākāśa

vada spaṣṭa cidābhāso’nu mīyatām (153). As particles of water

constitute a cloud, little particles of ideation constitute our

intellect; and through this screen of water particles of

intellectual ideation, consciousness reflects itself and then

presents the variety of this world, as we can have a kind of

false variety made visible if we put on glasses which are

broken or dented.

Sunlight is vaguely and indistinctly seen when clouds are

covering the sky, and sometimes we can see varieties of

colours and features falsely imputed or transferred to the

existence of the sun on account of the movement of clouds.

We have seen that when the cloud is moving, it looks as if the

moon is moving. If we go on looking at the moon on a bright

night when clouds also are there, we will see that themoon is

moving a little. The moon is not moving; the clouds are

moving.

This is what happens to us when we intellectually

perceive this world which is, after all, a water particle-like

350

screen through which the consciousness of Kutastha

manifests itself. We are muddled in our perception on

account of the identification of consciousness with the

intellect. The intellect also is not a solid substance. It is made

up of little bits.

Even thought is not a solid substance. It is made up of

little, little bits of thinking process. They are so many in

number and they are so consecutively arranged, with such

rapidity of movement, that it looks as if we have one solid

mind. Actually, it is chanchala; movement is its nature, fickle

is its essentiality. It is made up of little particles. As threads

constitute the cloth, little mental functions constitute what is

called the psyche. We are always restless on account of there

being no internal solidity in us. We feel very unhappy, as if

we aremoving but not really existing.

Discourse 30

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 157-174

Māyā dhīna ścidābhāsaḥ śrutau māyī maheśvaraḥ,

antaryāmi ca sarvajño jaga dyoniḥ sa eva hi (157). Ishvara is the

origin of the universe; He is the source of all things. He works

through His maya shakti and He is glorified in the scriptures

as Maheshvara, the Lord of all beings. He is called Antaryami,

the Indweller of all, Knower of everything. Such is Ishvara, as

glorified in the Upanishads and all the scriptures.

Sauṣupta mānanda mayaṁ prakra myaivaṁ śrutir jagau, eṣa

sarveśvara iti so’yaṁ vedokta īśvaraḥ (158). In the Mandukya

Upanishad, the glory of this Great Being is sung in such

words as: Eṣa sarveśvara, eṣa sarvajñah, eṣo’ntāryami, eṣa

(Mundakya 6). Such are the words of the Mandukya

Upanishad. The bliss of the sleep experience is a fraction, as it

were, of the bliss of God. There is a tremendous difference

between the cosmical causal condition of Ishvara and the

individual causal condition of avidya experienced by

everyone in the state of deep sleep.

While maya is the medium through which Ishvara

manifests Himself as the omniscient and omnipotent ruler,

jiva, under the subjection of the rajasic and tamasic qualities

predominant in avidya, is subject to avidya. In that state of

deep sleep, which is the causal condition of individuality, we

know nothing, whereas Ishvara, through maya, which is the

causal condition of the universe, knows everything. There is

a topsy-turvy experience in the state of jiva, notwithstanding

the fact it was in a causal condition; and Ishvara is also in a

state of causal condition. The difference is that Ishvara's

causal condition is determined by sattva guna – the pure

sattva transparency quality or property of prakriti – whereas

in the case of the jiva, the individual, it rajas and tamas are

the medium. This is the difference between Ishvara and jiva.

Ishvara knows everything; jiva knows nothing.

352

Sarvajñatvādike tasya naiva viprati padyatām, śrautār

thasyā vitarkyatvāt māyāyāṁ sarva saṁbhavāt (159). Scripture

is the authority for the assuming of the existence of a Great

Being like Ishvara. Physically with the eyes, we cannot see

such a Being. Even intellectually, it is difficult to ascertain the

real character of Ishvara because the intellect, being a

medium of individual perception accustomed to reports

received through the sense organs, is not competent enough

to fathom the depths of that which is super-individual,

Universal. The individual intellect cannot think of

Universality. Whenever we try to think of the Universal, it

looks like an abstract something, whereas the objects of the

world look very concrete. But the reverse is the case, in fact.

The Universal is the real concrete existence which manifests

itself – or rather appears as – the visible objects of the world.

Ayaṁ yat sṛjate viśvaṁ tadanya thayituṁ pumān, na ko’pi

śaktas tenāyaṁ sarveśvara itīritaḥ (160). Why is He called

sarveshvara? Why is God called omnipotent? Because what

He has created, He has created forever, and nobody can

change it. We cannot change even a little leaf in a tree; it has

to be there in the manner it has been created by God. Even a

hair on our body cannot be changed. Our every wink is

counted by the Great Being. Whatever He has willed, He has

willed forever, and nobody can amend it and change the

constitution of God.

In the Ishavasya Upanishad there is a famous statement

in this regard. Yāthātathyato'rthān vyadadhāc chāśvatībhyas

samābhyah (Isa 8). When God willed this universe, He has

willed it in such perfection, going to such extreme details,

that for eternity there is no necessity to change the law that

He has established. All the future occurrences and events and

possibilities are already known to Him prior to the act of

creation, so something else cannot suddenly take place

tomorrow. The determining will of Ishvara is so powerful

that until the end of creation no amendment of its

constitution is essential and nobody can interfere in these

353

laws. Therefore, He is called all-knowing and also allpowerful

– sarveśvara itīritaḥ.

Aśeṣa prāṇi buddhīnāṁ vāsanā statrā saṁsthītāḥ, tābhiḥ

kroḍi krtaṁ sarvaṁ tena sarvajña īritaḥ (161). All knowing He

is. Every bit of process that is taking place in the universe is a

content of His immediate awareness. The littlest events, the

most insignificant occurrences in the world are known to

Him directly in immediate perception. The knowledge of

Ishvara, or the wisdom of God, is not attained by successive

inferences or arguments. It is a process of immediate

apprehension. Identity-consciousness is the nature of this

perception of Ishvara.

The evolution of the cosmos and the events in history are

immediate contents of Ishvara's consciousness. All the

impressions of the intellects of people – aśeṣa prāṇi

buddhīnāṁ vāsanā – all the impressions, or the vasanas as

they are called, the vague potentials of future action in the

individuals, deposited in their intellect and in their causal

body, are all included in the body of Ishvara. Everybody's

intellect is clubbed together into an integrated whole in the

supreme intellect of Ishvara Himself. And all the individuals

are strung on His body, as the cells of the body are strung in

the personality of individuals. As various minute particles of

self constitute the body and they cannot stand outside the

body of an individual, so nothing in this world can stand

outside Him. He is the Saririn, or the Universally-embodied.

And everything else is the sarira, or the body of Ishvara.

Therefore, on account of His being an inclusive factor of

all the events taking place even in the brains and the

intellects of people, there is nothing that He does not know.

Not only does He know what we are thinking, He also knows

what we are going to think tomorrow. Even the future is

known to Him in immediate presence. All the future for us is

an immediate presence for Him. There is no future or past for

God; it is an eternal present. That is the difference between

354

ordinary individuals, jivas, and Ishvara, the all-knowing

Being.

Vāsanānāṁ parokṣatvāt sarvajñatvaṁ na hī kṣyate, sarva

buddhiṣu tad dṛṣṭvā vāsanā svanu mīyatām (162). We may be

under the impression that the impressions created by the

actions of jivas and deposited in their intellects have their

potency for future action only, and that presently their

futurity cannot be known. That may be the case with people

like us. We cannot know what are the impressions imbedded

in our own intellects, and perhaps many of us cannot know

what we are going to think tomorrow. Suddenly thoughts

will arise on account of occurrences of events in the world,

and so on. But not so is the case of Ishvara.

There is no futurity and there is no potentiality; it is an

actuality for everything. For Ishvara, everything is an

actuality, and nothing is latent or potential in His case. For us

it may be a potential for future action; for Him it is a direct

experience of what is taking place just now, because what is

going to take place even millions of years afterwards is an act

of knowledge to Him just now. For Him, millions of years

afterwards are like just now. The future also becomes the

present in the case of Ishvara. That is why He is called Allknower.

Vijñāna maya mukhyeṣu kośeṣva nyatra caiva hi, antasti

ṣṭhan yamayati tenān taryā mitāṁ vrajet (163). In the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad there is a marvellous description

of Antaryami, or the indwelling spirit. We can read it by

heart, as a mantra japa – so purifying, so ennobling and

touching is the description of God's immanency in this great

section of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad called Antaryami

Brahmana.

Within everything is God – not only within the objects of

the world, but within even the sheaths of the body. Within

the physical body, vital body, mental body, intellectual body,

causal body, within our mind, within our intellect, within our

355

ego, He is present as an immanent controller. He regulates

the operation of even the intellects of people. And we cannot

think in any manner which is opposed to or contrary to the

Will that He has exercised at the beginning of creation.

Therefore, He is called the immanent principle, not only

controlling the world from outside as the creator, but also

restraining us from inside even in the act of our thinking and

reasoning. Nothing outside Him can be; and nobody can

interfere with His action and His will.

Buddhau tiṣṭha nnāntaro’syā dhiyā nīkṣyaśca dhī vapuḥ,

dhiya mantar yamayatīti evaṁ vedena ghoṣitam

(164). Vedahere represents the Upanishad, the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad particularly. Inside the buddhi, or

the intellect, God is sitting as the intelligence in the intellect.

The intellect is different from the intelligence that is inside it.

Intellect is the sheath or the body of psychic function through

which intelligence is manifest. That intelligence belongs to

Ishvara Himself, God Himself. It manifests itself through the

peculiar structure of human individuality, which is the

intellect, and within the intellect He seats Himself. Seated

inside the intellect of all beings, He controls their

movements. But the intellect cannot know Him. The intellect

can function only in the light of the reflection of that

intelligence through it, but it cannot go back to its cause.

We are intelligent, but we cannot know why we are

intelligent. Intelligence is a principle that is prior to the act of

intelligent understanding. As the effect cannot know the

cause, we as individuals working only through the intellect

cannot know from where we get the intelligence because we

cannot see our own backs. Ishvara is seated in the intellect

and the reason of all people, unknown to the intellect and

reason. The reason also must be reasonable. Why should it

be reasonable?

We say, "This does not stand to reason." But why should

anything stand to reason? That also must have a reason

behind it. Why should rationality be respected? Because

356

there is reason behind the respect that we have to give to

rationality. What is the reason? What is the reason behind

the goodness of reason and the applicability of reason? That

is beyond us, because the impelling force which compels us

to accept reason is something beyond reason itself. That is

the Universal consciousness operating, into which we cannot

probe properly for the same reason that the effect cannot

know the cause. He is the reason behind the rationality of

things.

Tantuḥ paṭe sthito yadvad upādāna tayā tathā, sarvo

pādāna rūpatvāt sarvatrā yama vasthitaḥ (165). Ishvara is also

the material cause of creation. His very substance is the

substance of this world. As threads are the very substance of

the cloth, Ishvara's existence is the very substance of

everything in creation. He is the material of the very

manifestation of this world, as threads are the material of

this cloth. As threads are immanent in the cloth – they

pervade the whole cloth and the cloth is not outside the

threads, the thread itself is the cloth – so is the case with

Ishvara. He permeates the world. He does not stand outside

the world. He is the material cause of the world. Verily, He

Himself is the world.

Paṭā dapyāntara stantuḥ tanto rapyaṁśu rāntaraḥ,

āntaratvasya viśrāntiḥ yatrā sāvanu mīyatām (166). Internal to

the cloth is the thread. Internal to the thread is the fibre.

What is there internal to the fibre? Minute particles of cotton.

What is there internal to the minute particles of cotton? Go

on investigating like this into the deeper constitution of this

cloth. Go on and on, investigating deeper and deeper into the

original cause of this cloth. Where the intellect fails to go

further and we have reached the last limit of our

understanding beyond which our mind cannot go into the

substance of the very cloth itself, there Ishvara arises.

Where intellect fails, religion commences, as they say.

Religion begins when intellect fails. As long as intellect is

active, religion is inactive; it won't work. So religion is

357

nothing but the acceptance of God's existence from the

bottom of one's heart. There ceases intellectual activity

completely. The cause of causes, the ultimate impossible

cause, behind which there cannot be any other cause – that is

Ishvara, the All-knowing Being.

Dvitrānta ratvaka kṣāṇāṁ darśane’pyaya māntaraḥ, na

vīkṣyate tato yukti śrutir bhyāmeva nirṇayaḥ (167). We will find

that we cannot apply our intellect to finding out the cause of

even the cloth itself. What is the substance out of which the

cloth is made? We will find our brain ceases to work when

we go on investigating into the ultimate cause of even the

particles of fibre, which is the cotton of which the cloth is

made.

What are these particles made of? We may say they are

from atoms. What are the atoms made of? Nobody knows.

They are certain energy constitutions. What is this energy

made of? Nobody knows. We are arguing from effect to

cause; but effect, however much it may try to touch the cause,

it cannot touch it as long as it remains as an effect. That is to

say, as long as we remain as individual observers and

thinkers, independent of the cosmic whole, we shall not

succeed in entering into the ultimate cause of things. Only

scripture and higher reason are our aid here.

Paṭa rūpeṇa saṁsthānāt paṭas tantor vapur yathā, sarva

rūpeṇa saṁsthānāt sarvam asya vapus tathā (168). Because of

the fact that threads constitute the cloth, we say cloth is the

body of the threads. Threads have assumed a form in the

form of the cloth. In the same way, we may say, as God

Ishvara constitutes the inner essence of all things, He exists

in every form. We can say that the world is His body. As the

cloth is the body of the threads, the universe is the body of

Ishvara. Such analogy is very near what we can make out in

regard to the relationship of effect and cause, world and

Ishvara. There is something more about Ishvara than what

we can make out from the illustration. Analogies are

358

analogies, after all. They cannot be the ultimate truth; they

give some symptom of what truth can be.

Tantoḥ saṅkoca vistāra calanadau paṭas tathā, avaśya meva

bhavati na svātantryaṁ paṭe manāk (169). Whatever happens

to the threads will happen to the cloth. The cloth has no

independent existence. If the threads shrink, the cloth

shrinks. If the threads expand for any reason, the cloth

expands; and if the threads start shaking, the whole cloth

also shakes.Whatever happens to the threads happens to the

cloth. There is no independence for the cloth, it being totally

dependent on its inner constituents.

In the same way, tathā’ntar yāmyayaṁ yatra yayā vāsanayā

yathā, vikriyeta tathā’vaśyaṁ bhavateva na saṁśayaḥ (170).

This analogy also applies to this world and Ishvara. The

world changes only according to the change instituted by the

will of Ishvara in the inner constituent of the forms of the

world. The evolution of the cosmos, as we hear it said – the

processes of human history, occurrences in nature, the

coming and going of things, birth and death, joy and sorrow,

every blessed thing in this universe – is something that

happens to things in this world, just as something may

happen to the cloth on account of the occurrences in the

threads.

The will of Ishvara, which has the knowledge of past,

present and future, decides that something has to take place

in the interest of the total universe. Its interest is not only for

particular persons. God does not exist for somebody's

welfare and for the harm of somebody else. The interest of

God is universal, as the organism of the human personality

has the interest of the total well-being of the personality.

There is no partiality in respect of any limb of the body, or

the organism.

So tragedies and comedies, rises and falls of empires,

kings going to dust, emperors vanishing into a condition of

beggary tomorrow, unthinkable occurrences in the world,

359

mysteries and wonders, thunderstorms and cyclones and

droughts – nobody can imagine what kind of things these are,

how they appear and why they appear. We cannot

understand what is the cause behind all these things because

we think in terms of space-time, and sometimes we think in

such narrow limits of nation, community, village, family, etc.

The whole of the universe is not before our eyes.

But Ishvara has the whole universe before Him. And in

the interest of the stability of the cosmos, to maintain the

organism of the structure which He has willed in His original

concept of creation, He sees that the balance is maintained.

And sudden shake-ups can take place in history – natural

history as well as human history. There is no pleasure and

pain, good and bad, necessary and unnecessary, etc. as we

conceive them, in the mind of Ishvara because His thought is

a total thought and, therefore, any kind of partial

intervention from the social, economic or ethical side cannot

apply to Ishvara.

Ishvara is not a social individual, He is not an economic

unit, and He is not an ethical person. These laws apply only

to human beings. He is a universal integration, to which we

cannot apply any norm of human conduct. His will changes

the whole cosmos as the change in the threads will change of

the entire cloth.

In the Bhagavad Gita, the Lord says, Īśvaraḥ sarva

bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe’rjuna tiṣṭhati, bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni

yantra rūḍhāni māyayā (171). This verse is bodily lifted here.

Bhagavan Shri Krishna speaks in the Bhagavad Gita to

Arjuna. What does he say? “Hey Arjuna, Ishvara, the Lord, is

within the heart of all beings. Operating from within the

heart of everyone, He works the future and destiny of

everyone, forcing all individuals to move as if they are

mounted on a moving wheel. Compulsorily we are put under

subjection to certain experiences in the world, as that which

is caught up in the movement of a mechanical wheel has no

360

independence whatsoever; and we move together with the

movement of the wheel because we are stuck in the wheel.

Here the wheel is nothing but the will of Ishvara, and He

mounts every individual on that machine, as it were, which is

His will in such a powerful way that there seems to be no

personal choice for jivas. They are stuck in it. Like a fly who is

stuck in a moving wheel runs round and round with the

wheel and cannot go out because of the force of the wheel, so

we are stuck, as it were, in this wheel of movement of the

whole structure of things, which is decided by the will of

Ishvara. He does this work by being seated in the heart of

everybody. From within us He is working and compelling us

to think in a particular manner, and also forcing us to do

certain actions in the way that they are necessary for the

balance of the cosmos.

Sarva bhūtāni vijñāna mayāste hṛdaye sthitāḥ, tadupādāna

bhūteśaḥ tatra vikriyate khalu (172). Within the intellect is

Ishvara seated; and all individuals can be regarded as

modifications of the form of the intellect. Our actions and our

thoughts are the ways in which the intellect operates. Our life

is controlled by the way in which we think and act. And our

thoughts are decided by the intellectual illumination, the

degree of illumination that we are endowed with. As this

degree varies from individual to individual, the way in which

people manifest their personality also changes; and

everybody does not behave in the same way in the world, as

we know very well.

Even the variety of this behaviour of individuals through

their vijnana, or their intellect, is willed by Ishvara. If I

behave in one way and you behave in another way, it is also

willed by Him for a certain purpose. The purpose of God is

beyond human reason. We cannot question why. Sometimes

we do question why should this happen. "Why should the

waves rise up twenty feet high and then destroy large areas

of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa? This should not have

happened." We say that; but God says it should happen, for

361

some reason which is not our business to question. And He

knows what it is.

Dehādi pañjaraṁ yantraṁ tadāroho’bhimānitā, vihita prati

ṣiddheṣu pravṛttir bhramaṇaṁ bhavet (173). This wheel, this

machine, is this body itself, actually speaking. Dehādi

pañjaraṁ yantraṁ: He is working through this body of our

individuality and He is sitting on it as somebody is riding on a

horse; and as is the control exercised by the rider of the

horse, so is the movement of the horse. Thus on this horselike

machine which is this body, the Lord seems to be riding

and pressing forward the direction of the movement of this

machine. And wherever the stirrups hit the horse, in that

direction the horse moves. The reins are also controlled by

the rider of the horse. He pulls the reins in a particular

manner and the horse turns his neck and runs in that

particular direction. We are like that. We may be horses on

which God is riding, or we may call it a machine which is

operated by God. In either case, we seem to be helpless

finally.

Does God do bad actions and good actions? Nothing of

the kind is applicable to God because goodness and badness

are ethical concepts which are socially oriented to a large

extent, which way of thinking is not applicable to Ishvara.

Ishvara is a Unitary Being, and social laws cannot apply to

God. Our constitutions of political government, etc., should

not be applied there because these laws are valid only so

long as we live as individuals in a social body. God is not a

social body; He is an integrated existence. Indivisibility is the

nature of God, whereas separateness is the nature of human

organisations.

Therefore, don't apply any of our laws there. And it is

better to keep quiet and accept what is happening, because

our reason cannot plumb into the depths of the action of that

which is totally integrated and indivisible, while we are

accustomed to thinking only in terms of body and human

relations – even going to such crude concepts as economics

362

determining human values. There are philosophies in this

world who conclude that the destiny of man is in economic

conditions, which is the last step that wrong philosophy can

take.

Vijñāna maya rūpeṇa tat pravṛtti svarūpataḥ, svaśaktyeśo

vikriyat māyayā bhrāmaṇaṁ hi tat (174). The work of God

through the intellects of people is a very peculiar mode of His

operation. He does not contradict the potentials that are

already present in the form of karmas. He only adds like

sunlight, to give an example, which allows the actions in the

world according to the potencies of different individualities –

such as the growth of a plant from a seed, the movement of

an animal in the forest, the work of people in the world, and

any kind of activity in which we are engaged. Everything in

the world is controlled by the light of the sun to a large

extent, perhaps in every way, yet the sun does not directly

interfere in the operations carried on by individuals,

whatever be those operations.

In one way, without the sunlight, without any heat,

without an existence, life itself would be impossible. Yet the

modifications of individuals in the form of activity, etc.,

cannot be imputed to Ishvara – or to the sun, in the case of

the analogy. In the same way, everything is controlled by the

determining will of Ishvara operating through the intellect,

vijnanamaya; yet, He stands apart.We will be given justice in

the form of the desserts that we deserve.

Justice is the nature of God. He is not partial. He acts as an

impersonal justice. ‘Impersonal’ justice is the word that is to

be used in respect of God – no partiality whatsoever. He has

no friend and no enemy and, therefore, we should not apply

our human feelings of prejudice, like and dislike, etc., in the

case of judging what is happening in the world through the

will of God.

Discourse 31

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 175-194

Antaryamayatī tyuktyā’yame vārthaḥ śrutau śrutaḥ,

pṛthivyā diṣu sarvatra nyāyo’yaṁ yojyatām dhiyā (175). The

Internal Ruler is Ishvara, known as Antaryami. Internal to all

things is His seat. He is seated within the intellect of people

and regulates even the understanding of all jivas, individuals.

This is what was mentioned in the earlier verse.

Now it is said in the light of the Antaryami Brahmana

description of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that internal to

everything is Ishvara – not merely the intellect of people,

internal to all things conceivable – antaryamayatī. The

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that He who is within this

earth and regulates the movement of the earth, who the

earth does not know, but who regulates the earth and is the

soul of the very earth – that is the Antaryamin.

Similar is the statement in respect of many other things

also. He who is in the sun, but who the sun does not know,

who being within the sun, regulates the sun, He is the

Antaryamin, the Inner Controller of all beings. He who is

within wind, He who is within fire, He who is within water,

He who is within space, He who is within time, but whom no

one knows, that is the Inner Controller of all, the Antaryamin,

the Inner Regulator and the restrainer of all beings. This is

from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Jānāmi dharaṁ na ca me pravṛttiḥ jānāmya dharmaṁ na ca

me nivṛttiḥ, kenāpi devena hṛdi sthitena yathā niyukto’smi tathā

karomi (176). This verse is apparently quoted from the

Mahabharata and is generally attributed to Duryodhana.

Duryodhana said, it seems, "I know what is right, but I shall

not pursue it; and I know what is not right, but I pursue it.

Something inside me propels me to act in this particular

manner. That is why I behave in this way." This is what

Duryodhana is supposed to have said.

364

This something that propels a person to act in a

particular manner is the Antaryamin. Now, the propulsion of

the Antaryamin or Ishvara is neither in a good direction nor

in a bad direction. The engine of the car has no direction to

move; it is the wheels that determine which direction the car

is to take. So the engine is something like the Inner Controller

and regulates the movement of the vehicle, but the direction

in which it has to move depends upon the structure of the

wheels. In a similar manner, the Inner Controller, Ishvara,

works in an impersonal, regulative, orderly manner, but the

goodness or the badness of it, the direction in which the

movement takes place, depends upon the medium through

which the Lord operates.

The medium may be an individual human being; it may

be a saint; it may be a god. And according to the individuality,

the structure of the personality, the makeup of the thing

concerned, the action will manifest itself. Electricity is like

the inner controller of certain activities. It can burn, it can

move, and it can freeze. In a refrigerator, electricity freezes.

In a stove, electricity burns. In a railway train, it moves. Now,

electricity itself does not perform any such operation of

freezing, etc. The inner force that is necessary for these

functions to take place is provided by the electrical current,

but themanner in which the effect is produced depends upon

the medium through which it passes. So God may work

through Duryodhana or Arjuna, or it may be through

anybody else. The matter is entirely dependent upon the

medium of expression.

Nārthaḥ puruṣa kāreṇeti eva mā śaṅkyatāṁ yataḥ, īśaḥ

puruṣa kārasya rūpeṇāpi vivartate (177). Does it mean then

that human beings have no free will? All this that has been

said up to this time in so many verses appears to drive us to a

conclusion that everything is done by Ishvara and we have

no free will. Is it so?

We should not say that there is no free will, because it is

the will of Ishvara that works as free will in individuals.

365

When the universal will of Ishvara passes through the human

individuality, through the medium of the intellect of the

individual, it becomes effort. The manner in which Ishvara's

will works through you or me is called effort. So there is

effort, and yet that effort is propelled by Ishvara's will.

Unless He wills, even effort is not possible.

So effort is there, and yet it is not there. In two different

ways we can conceive this proposition. The consciousness of

agency in action is called effort, and this agency is

attributable to the intellect of human beings. Egoism is

associated with intellect. Wherever there is intellect there is

also ego, and when the cover of understanding, intelligence

which is really Ishvara's nature, passes through this intellect,

it assumes agency by itself. The work of Ishvara is

appropriated to itself by the ego and begins to feel that it is

doing the action.

Action is done by Ishvara, but the ego feels that it is doing

it. That feeling of the ego is the reason for there being such a

thing called effort. Now, whether there is effort or not, it is up

to anyone to decide. Ishvara Himself appears as human

effort.

Īdṛg bodhe neśvarasya pravṛttir maiva vāryatām, tathāpī

śasya bodhena svātmā saṅgatva dhījaniḥ (178). The effort of

human individuals does not in any way limit the

omnipotence of Ishvara. It does not mean that we have free

will and we can do whatever we like, contradicting the

original will of Ishvara. That is not possible. The original will

is the final determining factor, and our free will is a

concession given only to the extent of the ability exercised by

our reason; beyond that the free will also is absent. It is a

limited freedom.

The moment we realise the dependence of even human

effort on Ishvara's will, we find ourselves detached

completely from every kind of thing in the world. Our

attachment arises on account of assuming a wholesale

366

agency of action on our behalf and minding not there being

anything that is universally operative everywhere. Once it is

realised that even our agency, the spirit of agency or the

sense of agency in action (or kartritva bhavana, as it is called)

is only an appropriation by the ego of the personality of what

actually is done by Ishvara Himself, detachment takes place

immediately. When we know that whatever we are doing is

actually done by Ishvara Himself, our egoism ceases, and

attachment also goes with it.

The knowledge of this truth itself is freedom and

liberation of the jiva. Liberation takes place the moment we

realise that God does everything and there is no one doing

anything else. No one at all exists except as participants in

the cosmic body of Ishvara. The knowledge of this fact is the

liberation of the individual.

Tāvatā mukti rityāhuḥ śrutayaḥ smṛtaya stathā, sruti smṛtī

mamai vājñe ityapi śvara bhāṣitam (179). Srutis and Smritis,

Vedas, Upanishads, and Dharma Shastras like Manu Smriti,

Yajnavalkya Smriti, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavata all

tell that Ishvara is All-in-All. And God has Himself stated that

the word of the scripture is actually His word.

Ājñāyā bhīti hetutvaṁ bhīṣā’smā diti hi śrutam, sarve

śvaratva metat syāt antaryāmitvataḥ pṛthak (180). The

Taittiriya Upanishad has said, as has the Kathopanishad, that

by the fear of this universal regulator, everything is

functioning in a systematic manner. There is no confusion in

the world. The work of nature is precise, mathematically

perfect. It is so because of the regulating order that is issued

from the internal substance of creation itself. Thus is the

conclusion that He is Sarveshvara, All-in-all.

He is internally controlling all and also externally

controlling everybody. Externally He controls the whole

creation as its creator; internally, He controls everything as

its Self, itself. Themaker of all things appears to be operating,

as it were, from outside the created object. But here, the

367

maker of the object, being also the very material and the

substance of the object, is also the soul and the very self of

the object. So the control of Ishvara is both from inside as

well as outside. It is a total control He is exercising on all

things.

Etasya vā akṣarasya praśāsana iti śrutiḥ, antaḥ praviṣṭaḥ

śāstā’yaṁ janānā miti ca śrutiḥ (181). In the Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad, Sage Yajnavalkya proclaims, "By the command of

this great Being, rivers flow in given directions. By the

command of this great Being, winds blow, the sun shines, and

all nature performs its function in an appropriate manner. If

this supreme order were not to be obeyed by nature as a

whole, the whole world would crumble in one second.

Ishvara's order is not issued through any assistant or

peon, or some official. There is no second to Ishvara. He does

not issue orders by any kind of external medium. His very

thought is enough to act directly upon every little thing in the

world. And it immediately, personally, without any

assistance from outside, determines the required functions.

Outside, He is the emulator, controller of all the cosmos.

Inside, He is the determining will of our very intellect, our

mind, our very breath itself.

Jagadyonir bhave deṣa prabha vāpyaya kṛttvataḥ, āvirbhāva

tirobhāvau utpatti pralayau matau (182). He is the source, the

very womb of all creation. This is what the Mandukya

Upanishad tells us. He is the source from which the universe

has proceeded and He is the end of all things, into which the

universe will one day return and merge.

The creation of the world and the dissolution of the

world are the work of Ishvara and they correspond to the

manifestation or the withdrawal of the form of any particular

thing. Creation means the manifestation of what was already

there. What was potentially there is revealed as objects of

perception; that is creation. When the whole thing is rolled

368

up as if a mat and nothing is visible, we call it involution, and

that is dissolution of the universe.

Āvir bhāvayati svasmin vilīnaṁ sakalaṁ jagat, prāṇi karma

vaśādeṣa paṭo yad vat prasāritaḥ (183). When the pralaya or

the cosmic dissolution takes place, everybody is dissolved, as

when a flood takes place everything is thrown hither and

thither by the violent waters. And seeds of different plants

and trees are also thrown in various ways. When the waters

subside, the things that were earlier disturbed by the moving

waters, settle in some place or the other, and gradually they

will emerge from the earth as little tendrils, plants,

vegetables, etc., according to the nature of the seed. This

earth provides the field for the action of the seeds. The act

itself does not produce vegetables. The seeds are the causes,

but the propulsion, the power, the vitality, the energy, the

sustenance that is necessary for the manifestation of the seed

into a plant, etc., is provided by the earth.

In a similar manner, when the cosmic dissolution takes

place, which is like a flood of the universe, everything is

dissolved into these cosmic waters. Then what happens? All

the seeds, or the potentials for future action of the jivas or

individuals, also get submerged.

When creation starts after a long, long time, Ishvara

becomes the cause of the manifestation of a universe which

is of such a nature that it will be just fitted for providing a

field of experience for the jivas who were unliberated at the

time of the dissolution of the universe and were lying like

seeds in that condition. Now they are to germinate into

action and a set of jivas, or individuals – a particular category

of individuals – is grouped together for the purpose of the

necessary experience in that given field; and so the kind of

world in which we live is fitted exactly to the kind of karmas

that we are supposed to work out in this world.

It is a very, very necessary world for people like us. It is

necessary for the kind of people that we are. If we were

369

different types of people, this world would not have been

suitable for us. We would have been born in some other

world – some other realm of being, higher or lower.

So Ishvara's creation is not actually a direct

manifestation of non-existent things. The existent potentials

of jivas existing unliberated at the time of previous

dissolution have to be given a chance to express their

karmas, and creation is nothing but the providing of the field

for the working out of the karmas of the individuals. And so

we may say Ishvara creates the world, or we may say these

seeds of individuals create the world, as the case may be. The

earth is the cause of the plant, or the seed of the plant is the

cause. Either way, wemay say this or that is the cause.

Punas tirobhāvayati svātmanye vākhilaṁ jagat, prāṇi karma

kṣaya vaśāt saṅkocita paṭo yathā (184). After the drama of

creation is over for many, many millions of years, He

withdraws the whole thing into Himself, though here also the

withdrawing is not done by Ishvara by His whim and fancy.

As creation is not a whim, just as it is determined by the

potential karmas of jivas who have to find a field for the

expression of their karmas, in a similar manner, dissolution

does not take place suddenly like that. It will take place only

when the karmas of all the jivas living in a particular world

are over and they cannot any more find a suitable

atmosphere for the fructification of their other karmas. They

want to have another world altogether. This world is

unsuitable. Just as the body is cast off when the karmas

cannot be worked out through the body, the world is also

cast off, withdrawn completely into the original source, and

again dissolution takes place.

So this is a cycle of creation and destruction eternally

going on, as it were; neither has it a beginning nor has it an

end. Such is the drama of endlessness in beginning and

endlessness in dissolution. From eternity to eternity is this

drama of creation and destruction.

370

Rātri ghasrau supti bodhau unmīlana nimīlane tūṣṇīṁ bhāva

manorājye iva sṛṣṭi layā vimau (185). As are night and day, as

are sleep and waking, as are closing the eyelids and opening

the eyelids, as are keeping quiet and then thinking

erratically, so are creation and dissolution. Creation is the

light of things; dissolution is the darkness of things. Creation

is the waking of things; dissolution is the sleeping of things.

Creation is the opening of the eyes of all things; dissolution is

the closing of the eyes. Creation is the activity of all things;

dissolution is the stillness of all things.

With every winking of the eye of Ishvara, millions of

Brahmandas or universes are created, they say. Millions of

Brahmandas or cosmoses are created and destroyed in the

time Ishvara winks His eyes.

Āvirbhāva tirobhāva śakti matvena hetunā, ārambha

pariṇāmādi codyānāṁ nātra saṁbhavaḥ (186). Naiyayikas or

logicians say that creation is absolutely a new coming of

something which is not already in the cause. They say cloth is

not just a bundle of threads. They have a peculiar view of the

causal relation of thread and cloth. We cannot say that cloth

is only just threads. Threads do not directly manifest

themselves as cloth. The character of cloth cannot be seen in

threads. This is the peculiar notion of the Naiyayikas.

We know the difference between threads and cloth. The

function that threads perform and the function that the cloth

performs are different. We can wear a cloth, but we cannot

wear threads. So the effect is totally different from the cause.

This is the Naiyayikas' argument.

The Samkhyas say the effect is not a new beginning. It is

something manifest already existing in the cause. That which

is not existing in the cause cannot manifest itself at all.

Otherwise, anybody would reap any fruit if the effect has no

connection with the cause. We may do some action and

somebody else will reap the fruit of it. This should not

happen. Everyone will have to bear the fruit or the dessert of

371

one's own actions. Therefore, the argument that effects are

totally new and unconnected with the cause is untenable.

The modification of the cause into the nature of the

effect, as the Samkhya also holds, is not correct because

when Ishvara creates the universe, neither does He manifest

something totally new and non-existent earlier, nor does He

modify Himself into the world – as milk turns into curd, for

instance. Ishvara does not become converted into the world.

Otherwise, there would be death of Ishvara. Milk dies when

curd is manufactured; curd cannot become milk once again.

But an effect can go back into the cause. Else, salvation would

not be possible. We cannot have God-realisation if God is no

more there, if He has already become the world. This does

not happen.

Actually, God has become the world as the rope has

become the snake. So the rope is still there and it is not

affected in any way by the manifestation of the snake of this

world. Doctrines do not apply here.

Satyaṁ jñānaṁ anantaṁ yat brahma tasmāt samutthitāḥ,

khaṁ vāyvagni jalor vyoṣaddhi annadehā iti śrutiḥ (191). In the

Taittiriya Upanishad, the Brahmanandavalli says that the

nature of the Absolute is satyaṁ jñānam anantam (Tait. 2.1.1):

truth, knowledge, infinity is Brahman. From that Supreme

Being, the knowledge of which will enable a person to have

immediate knowledge of all things in the world, was the

source and the creator of all the elements.

The Taittiriya Upanishad says, tasmād vā etasmād ātmana

ākāśas sambhūtaḥ (Tait. 2.1.1): From that Supreme Brahman-

Atman, space was created. Ākāśād vāyuh: From akasha, vayu

came. Vāyor agniḥ: From vayu, agni or fire came. Agner āpaḥ:

From fire, water came. Adbhyaḥ pṛthivī: From condensed

water, we have earth. Pṛthivyā oṣadhayaḥ: From earth we

have all the plantations, the vegetables, the trees, etc.

Oṣadhībhyo annam: From these plantations we have food.

Annāt puruṣaḥ: From the food that is eaten, man is born. This

372

is how creation is described in the Taittiriya Upanishad, as

arising from Brahman directly up to the body of the human

individual. It is one big chain of causation.

Āpāta dṛṣṭitas tatra brahmaṇo bhāti hetutā, hetośca satyatā

tasmāt anyonyā dhyāsa iṣyate (192). Brahman does not

directly create as a carpenter manufactures things, but His

presence is necessary for the manufacture of this world. His

existence itself is action. This is the difference between

activity of individuals and the activity of Ishvara. The very

being of God is His action. He just is, like the sun. His

existence is all the activity of His.

There is a superimposition of characteristics of creativity

and dual existence when we consider the Absolute itself

directly being the cause of things. This is why philosophers

have introduced a principle called Ishvara, which is a

description of that condition of Brahman where creativity

(which is otherwise not applicable to the Supreme Absolute)

becomes a necessary feature of that which will become the

cause of this world.

A principle called prakriti or maya has been introduced

only to explain how the unmanifest can manifest itself – how

the unattached Brahman can appear to be attached to the

world – how the featureless Absolute can become Ishvara or

the God of creation. This kind of transference of qualities

from one to another is called anyo 'nyadhyasa or the

superimposition of characters of one thing upon another –

the Brahman qualities on Ishvara and Ishvara's qualities on

Brahman.

The creativity of the world is attributable to Ishvara and

not Brahman; but the Universal consciousness that is there in

Ishvara is of Brahman and not of somebody else. So there is a

mix-up of two issues, two qualities joined together, as it

were, in a mutually superimposed manner. Anyonyā dhyāsa is

the name given to it. Thus, creation takes place. The creative

373

activity together with the omniscience of Brahman becomes

what we call the God who creates the world.

Anyonyā dhyāsa rūpo’sau anna lipta paṭo yathā, ghaṭṭi

tenaikatā meti tadvat bhrāntyai katāṁ gataḥ (193). As cloth is

superimposed on the starch in the painted canvas and the

starch is also superimposed on the cloth (this is anyonyā

dhyāsa again here), the background of the cloth is

superimposed on the stiffening starch and the starch is

superimposed on the cloth so that we do not make a

distinction between the starch and the cloth when we say,

"Here is a canvas."

The canvas is Ishvara, the cloth is Brahman, and the

stiffening is the creative activity. This is the illustration

through an analogy of a painted picture in respect of God's

creation.

Meghākāśa mahā kāśau viviceyete na pāmaraiḥ, tadvat

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

the naked eye the distinction between pure sky and the sky

reflected through the clouds is not discernable, the

distinction between Brahman and Ishvara is not easily

discernable to the naked perception. When we see the

canvas, we don't distinguish between the starch and the

cloth. We see both and we call it ‘canvas’, a new name

altogether. Neither do we call it starch, nor do we call it cloth;

we have a new name – canvas – for that particular

appearance. So is a new name given to that particular

appearance of creativity of Brahman, and that name is

Ishvara.

The canvas does not exist; what exists is cloth and starch.

Yet the canvas does exist; without it, painting cannot take

place. So too is Ishvara. He does not exist independent of

Brahman, but some sort of independence is there, as we

assume a sort of independence of the canvas to merely a

cloth and starch. This is an illustration again of

374

superimposition – Brahman-consciousness getting identified

with creativity or will, thus becoming Ishvara-consciousness.

Om Tat Sat

(Continued ....)

(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Sree Swamy Krishnananda
 and Sree Swamy Sivananda of The Divine Life Society  and also grateful
to other Swamyjis   for the collection)