COMMENTARY ON THE PANCHADASI by SWAMI KRISHNANANDA - 5

COMMENTARY ON THE

PANCHADASI

by

SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

That which is self-sufficient, svatah-purnah, the Supreme

Self, all-pervading in nature, which is called Brahman, is

identified with this Universal present in the individuals also –

the very same Universal present in the individual also. The

identity-consciousness of these two is called asmi, “I am.”

This verb, this copula as we call it, I-am-ness, is only a

conjunction, a link that is there between the Universality

appearing to be in us and the Universality that is everywhere.

The space in the pot is identical with the space that is

everywhere. Inasmuch as there is no such thing as space

inside the pot, there is also no personality of the individual.

So we should not say that “I am Brahman” means this person

is Brahman. It is Universal that is identified with Universal –

God being conscious of God. That is aham brahmasmi. Be

careful in knowing its true meaning. Otherwise, you will run

into trouble.

Ekemeva advitīyaṁ san nāma rūpa vivarjitam, sṛṣṭeḥ purādhunā’py

asya tādṛk tvaṁ tad itīryate (5). Tat tvam asi. Tat:

That – That which was there even prior to creation, One

alone without a second, as described in the Chhandogya

Upanishad as without name and form differentiation because

prior to creation, there were no names, no forms, no

diversity, no space, no time. In that precondition of creation,

that which was there as One alone without a second, and

exists even now through and in the midst of all things in the

world as immanency – that is called tat.

251

“That thou art.” What is ‘That’? That which is now as an

immanent principle, and which was also there before

creation as One alone without a second, That is not different

from us.

Śrotur-dehe indriyā-tītaṁ vastv atra tvaṁ pade ritam, ekatā

grāhyate’sīti tad aikya manu bhūyatām (6). Tvam: ‘thou’,

‘yourself’ – this word implies that consciousness, which is the

very thing that is behind the sense of ‘I’, that which is internal

to the organs such as hearing and the sheaths such as body,

etc., that which is the deepest ‘I’ consciousness as explained

earlier, is the tvam. Aham brahmasmi and tat tvam asi mean

the same thing. They are only two ways of expressing the

same truth. That Universal in us is identical with that

Universal which is everywhere. So both these, aham

brahmasmi and tat tvam asi, mean one and the same thing,

and are only two different words.

Tat tvam asi: Thou art – this ‘art’ is the verb which links

the consciousness immanent in us with the consciousness

that is everywhere. Tad aikya manu bhūyatām: Please

experience this identity in yourself.

Svaprakāśā parokṣa tvam ayami tyukti to matam, ahaṁ

kārā’di dehāntāt pratyag ātmeti gīyate (7). Ayamatma brahma:

I am This, the Self is that Brahman. What is ‘This’? This is

again the same question. This aham, this ‘I,’ this tvam, or

‘you’, is also the same as ‘This’. Svaprakāśā parokṣa tvam: The

self-identical immediacy of consciousness which is selfluminous

in us is the established Consciousness, which is

referred to as ‘This’. This consciousness in us here, which is

universally pervading everywhere, also appears to be within

us, free from egoism, free from the consciousness of the

body, internal to the five sheaths, internal to the body,

internal to consciousness of even personality like egoism –

that consciousness is Atman, ayamatma.

Dṛśya mānasya sarvasya jagatas tattva mīryate, brahma

śabdena tadbrahma svaprakāśā-tma-rūpakam (8). This Atman

252

is that Brahman. It is another way of saying this

consciousness which is ‘I’ is the same as that consciousness

which is Universal Brahman. Of all the visible universe, there

is an essence which is immanent. The pervading reality

behind all this visible world is called Brahman, as we already

know. Self-consciousness is its nature. Self-luminous is it.

That Brahman is identical with this Atman that we ourselves

are. Now we know the meaning of these four sentences.

Prajnanam brahma: Consciousness is Brahman. Aham

brahmasmi: I am Brahman (a very dangerous mantra – we

should not utter it too much). Tat tvam asi: Thou art That.

Ayamatma brahma: This Atman within us is the same as that

Universal Brahman.With this we conclude the fifth chapter.

Discourse 22

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 1-18

The sixth chapter is called Chitradipa. This is a very

important chapter of the Panchadasi, and very long, which

practically lays the foundation for the whole philosophy of

Vedanta. Philosophically, it is the most important of all the

chapters. It has to be studied with great concentration.

Yathā citra paṭe dṛṣṭam avasthānāṁ catuṣṭayam, para

mātmani vijñeyaṁ tathā’vasthā catuṣṭayam (1). The creation of

the world is a process, something like the process involved in

the painting of a picture. There are four stages in painting a

picture; similarly, there are four stages in creation. This is the

comparison between a painting and creation. What is the

comparison? It is illustrated here.

Yathā dhauto ghaṭṭi taśca lāñchito rañjitaḥ paṭaḥ, cidantar

yāmī sūtrātmā virāṭ cātmā tather yate (2). The first stage in

painting is to have a cloth, a canvas. The second stage is to

stiffen it with starch, because a piece of cloth with holes

between the interwoven threads would not be suitable for

the purpose of painting. The cloth has to become thick, and

impervious to the ink. For that purpose, the cloth is stiffened

with a smearing of suitable starch. This is the second stage in

painting.

In the third stage in painting, the artist draws on this

stiffened canvas, a pencil sketch or a light sketch in some

form, barely visible and indistinctly cognisable as to its real

features. We have some idea as to what is coming up when

we have a perception of this faint outline that he has drawn

on the canvas. This is the third stage in painting.

The fourth stage is the fair copy. The lines are filled with

ink in different forms. Different types of colour are touched

and filled as would be necessary to present the requisite

pictorial scene. The variety, the beauty and the attraction of

the picture is in the manner of the spreading of the ink in the

254

requisite proportion. This is the fourth stage in painting, and

then the painting is complete.

Likewise, there are four stages in the process of creation.

Just as a background of cloth is necessary for painting a

picture, an eternal unchangeable background is necessary for

even the appearance of such a thing called the world. Even

appearance cannot be there unless there is a reality behind it,

and even falsity is so defined on account of its relationship

with the truth, from which it is distinguished. There is an allpervading,

unchangeable background which, as we have

studied earlier, is Pure Consciousness. That is the first stage

in creation. It has to exist, as cloth has to exist.

The second stage in creation is the stiffening of the cloth,

as it were, here in this process of creation. The

Consciousness that is Universal gets stiffened, as it were, by a

concentrated will of the Cosmic Being. The featureless

transparency of the universality of consciousness gets

concentrated, as it were, with the stuff of the futurity of

creation. This is what we call the will of God.

In Pure Being, there is no question of will. It is just

existence as such. In the second stage, there is a

determination in consciousness as to the nature of the

creation that is to take place in the future. The third stage is

the drawing of the outlines. That is the faint picture of the

cosmos that can be seen in the state of Hiranyagarbha. The

stiffened form is Ishvara; the Pure Consciousness is

Brahman.

So Brahman manifests itself as Ishvara. Ishvara becomes

Hiranyagarbha, where the subtle cosmos can be faintly seen

as an outline drawn to present the actual shape of the visible

cosmos. The actual shape is not visible in the Sutratma,

Hiranyagarbha. Only a faint outline is seen. But the fourth

stage is the gross manifestation of the universe with all the

variety, the grandeur, the beauty and majesty, with all the

colours. The phantasm that we see in this cosmos is God

filling in the variety of ink, as it were, on this outline that was

255

drawn in the state of Hiranyagarbha – prior to which there

was a will to do, prior to which there was the background of

the Absolute. So here are the four stages of creation, almost

similar to the four stages of the painting of a picture.

Svataḥ śubhro-tra dhautaḥ syāt ghaṭṭito’nna vile panāt,

maṣyā kārair lāñchitaḥ syāt rañjito varṇa pūraṇāt (3). The cloth

is pure, uncontaminated by any kind of starch, etc. It

becomes a little different from what it is in itself by the

smearing of the starch, and it becomes a feature of an

indistinct nature when it is in the form of outlines. It

becomes a concrete presentable picture when colour is filled

into it.

Svataś cidantar yāmī tu māyāvī sūkṣma sṛṣṭitah, sūtrātmā

sthūla sṛṣṭyaiva virāḍi tyucyate paraḥ (4). By itself,

Consciousness is Pure Absolute, Pure Being. Pure Brahman

becomes the potential cosmos, as if the universe is sleeping.

Our potentiality is in the condition of deep sleep. The

manifested form is in the waking. The subtle outline is in the

dreaming condition. So we, too, pass through four stages

every day.

The eternal consciousness that we really are, on which

we fall, as it were, in the state of deep sleep, is Pure Being.

That darkness, that potential of future action which is the

sleeping condition, is the second stage. The outline of future

action in dream is the third stage. The actual perception of

the world in waking is the fourth stage. So cosmically, as well

as individually, there are four stages.

The four stages are designated in the Vedanta philosophy

as Brahman, Antaryami or Ishvara, Hiranyagarbha or

Sutratma, and Virat or Vaishvanara. These terms are well

known to us.

Brahmādyāḥ stamba paryantāḥ prāṇino’tra jaḍā api, uttamā

dhama bhāvena vartante paṭa citra vat (5). All kinds of things

can be seen in the picture. There are human beings, gods,

mountains, flowing rivers, sky, shining stars, the sun and the

256

moon. Actually, they are not there. There is only ink, yet we

can see a beautiful face, a beautiful landscape, how the rising

sun looks in the picture. We enjoy it. The rising sun is not

there. Only the ink is there, but it looks like the rising sun.

In a similar manner, all wonders in creation, right from

the creative principle of Brahma down to the lowest green

grass in the meadow and a particle of sand – right from that

supreme creative principle down to the littlest atom in the

world all beings, in all the variety of species and gradations

of reality in the categorisation of high and low, etc. – are

presented in this picture which Brahman has painted over

itself.

Citrārpita manuṣyāṇāṁ vastrā bhāsāḥ pṛthak pṛthak, citrā

dhāreṇa vastreṇa sadṛśā iva kalpitāḥ (6). People painted in a

picture wear different types of clothing.We can see someone

tying the cloth in one way, and another dressing himself or

herself in another way. Varieties of dress, presentations,

embellishments are seen on the people, who also are

variegated in the picture. Do we not see them? They look so

variegated, multifarious, that we actually believe in the

reality of these objects. We will not be able to take our eyes

away from a beautiful painted picture. It may be a Renoir, a

Michelangelo, as the casemay be.We go on gazing and gazing

and gazing, and never tire of gazing.

Are we gazing at the ink? Are we gazing at the cloth?

Wonderful is the creation! The beauty of the presentation is

what attracts the mind, but where does that beauty arise?

Where does it lie? What is it that attracts us in a painted

picture? Is it the cloth that attracts us? Is it the starch that

attracts us? Is it the outline of ink that attracts us, or the

colours?

Ink cannot attract us. We can have bottles of varieties of

ink; nobody bothers about them. Not the outline or the pencil

sketch, not the starch, not the cloth – who bothers about

257

them? But what else is there in the picture which attracts our

attention and stuns us, practically? It looks as if life is there.

So is the cinema in our own modern times. There is

nothing there except a canvas, a hanging cloth, and a shadow

of movement. But nobody believes that it is that. Really, these

persons are there. They speak to us; they stir our emotions,

they distress our mind. They can change the very life of a

person, such is the power of these illusions. Illusions can

change our life itself. Our real life changes by the perception

of unreal things. How is it possible?

Here is a great philosophy. Are we really perceiving an

unreal thing, a non-existent thing? In this case, we are fools

of the first water. How could we be affected so seriously by

seeing that which is not there? There are no mountains, no

people, no clothes, no sun, moon, or stars. Knowing that, why

are we looking at it? We are seeing something there which is

not the ink. How can we see something which is not there?

This is themystery of creation.

The attraction that we feel for things in the world is not

because Brahman is there in all things. We are not attracted

to Brahman. Brahman is not seen at all. We do not see Virat,

we do not see Hiranyagarbha, we do not see Ishvara; but

except these things, there is nothing in the world. The whole

of creation is Brahman, Ishvara, Hiranyagarbha, Virat, but

none of them attract us. There is nothing to attract us,

because we have not seen them. We see something else. We

see the colour, the dress, the variety, the contour, the

presentation, and something which is mysterious. That

mystery is themeaning of creation.

Pṛthak pṛthak cidā bhāsāḥ caitanyā dhyasta dehinām,

kalpyante jīva nāmāno bhaudhā saṁsa rantyamī (7). An

individual, or a jiva, is a peculiar formation arisen out of the

reflection of Pure Consciousness on the intellect of

individuality. The Pure Consciousness is the same in all cases,

but the medium of reflection differs from one person to

258

another person; and because of the media differing from

person to person, we see different people in the world who

think differently, look differently, behave differently, and

require things in a different manner.

Many people exist in this world. This many-ness is due to

the many-ness in the variety of the structure of the reason or

the psyche of the individuals, through which one

consciousness reflects itself in many ways, as one uniform

ink spread over a single cloth can create a picture scheme of

a variety of things, while the variety is not there; it only

seems to be there. Endless variety can be seen in a picture,

though there is only one uniform thing – ink and cloth.

In a similar manner, the intellect and consciousness are

the reason for the differences among individuals, and this

law applies to every species of being, right from an ant up to

an elephant, or even to the gods in heaven. The subtlety,

grossness and structural pattern of the intellect – through

which consciousness manifests itself – differ, and then it is

that we feel that there are varieties of living beings.

The variety is an action of the structural peculiarity of the

medium through which consciousness passes in different

individuals. And because of this variety, the individuals get

stuck. Consciousness gets identified with the intellect, as it

were, and becomes egoism, ahamkara, I-consciousness,

body-consciousness, mind-consciousness, etc.; and then they

enter into the world of suffering. Samsara is the name of this

kind of entanglement.

Vastrā bhāsa sthitān varṇān yadvadā dhāra vastra gān,

vadantya jñāstathā jīva saṁsāraṁ cit gataṁ viduḥ (8). Ignorant

children, when they look at a picture, think that the people

are actually sticking to the cloth. The cloth itself has become

the people appearing to be there, painted on the cloth. In a

similar manner, ignorant people imagine that this world is

actually sticking to God, or Pure Consciousness.

259

The cloth does not even know that there is ink on it; and

it does not see the beauty. Perhaps if there was a mechanism

which would enable our mind to enter into the screen in the

cinema, we would not see the picture. We are outside it, at a

particular distance. We must be outside, and at a particular

distance. Both these conditions have to be fulfilled;

otherwise, we cannot see what is happening there.

Suppose we are inside the screen itself, by some means;

we will not see the dancing pictures. So is the futility of

attributing the activity of the world to God, as it is futile to

attribute the dancing pictures in a cinema to the screen

which is behind them, though without it they cannot dance.

Citrastha parvatā dīnāṁ vastrā bhāso na likhyate, sṛṣṭistha

mṛttikā dīnāṁ cidā bhāsas tathā na hi (9). In the picture,

mountains are not dressed with saris, clothes, etc.; clothes

are there only for human beings. In a similar manner,

chidabhasa, the reflection of consciousness mentioned in the

case of the jiva, is not to be seen manifest in inanimate things

like stone, earth, etc. Consciousness is not reflected in stone,

in inanimate objects. It is feebly felt as the breathing process

in plants, instinct in animals, and actual intellect only in the

human being; but the actual sattva guna is in the gods

residing in heaven.

Saṁsāraḥ parmārtho’yaṁ saṁlagnaḥ svātma vastuni, iti

bhrāntira vidyā syāt vidyayaiṣā nivar tate (10). This samsara is

real; this world is exactly as it is visible to the eyes – these

buildings, these colours, these phantasms, these varieties,

these pictures of this world that attract our sense organs

every day. The feeling that they are absolutely real is called

bondage. This is the outcome of avidya, or ignorance of the

nature of reality. This ignorance can be dispelled only by

vidya, or true knowledge. This chapter is dedicated to

elucidate the ways and means of acquiring the knowledge by

which we can dispel this ignorance through which it is that

we see the variety of creation, though really it is not there.

260

Ātmā bhāsasya jīvasya saṁsāro nātma vastunaḥ, iti bodho

bhavet vidyā labhyate’sau vicāraṇāt (11). The belief in the

variety of creation as it is presented to the sense organs is

called avidya, or ignorance. But what is knowledge? Vidya, or

knowledge, is the conviction that bondage is not attributable

to Pure Consciousness, as the five sheaths do not stick to

Pure Consciousness in the state of deep sleep. We exist

independently of the five sheaths. In a similar manner, God is

independent of the variety of creation and our soul, Atman,

also is free from bondage. This knowledge is called vidya.

Sadā vicārayet tasmāt jagat jīva parāt manaḥ, jīva bhāva

jagat bhāva bādhe svātmaiva śiṣyate (12). Every day we have

to spend a lot of time in thinking deeply over this important

matter that will enable us to know the distinction between

God and creation, and their proper relationship. Cosmically,

the relation between God and creation, and individually, the

relation between the Atman and the five sheaths, is to be

clear before our mind. The relation between consciousness

and the five sheaths has been explained in the third chapter.

Now, in this sixth chapter, we learn something about Ishvara.

Nāpratīti stayor bādhaḥ kintu mithyātva niścayaḥ, no cet

suṣupti mūrcchādau mucyetā yatnato janaḥ (13). Another point

driven into our mind again and again, as was done earlier, is

that the non-perception of the world is not freedom from

bondage. Freedom from bondage lies in the perception of the

unreality of creation. There is no harm in seeing the mirage

looking like water; but running after it as if it is water, is

ignorance. Even when we know that it is a mirage and we do

not run after it, it is still seen.

Even after we have seen that it is only a rope and not a

snake, it will nevertheless look like a snake. The only

difference will be that we have understood that it is not a

snake. The water in the mirage will still appear even to the

person who knows that it is not water.

261

Similarly, even for a wise person, the world may be

visible. Even a jivanmukta will see the world, but he will

know that it is not there; and, therefore, he will not be

attached. If mere non-perception of a thing is freedom, we

would be freed in deep sleep, in a coma, or in a swoon. We

could get liberation without any effort if the mere nonperception

of things could be regarded as freedom, as

happens every day in deep sleep. But this is not so. Nonperception

of the existent thing is not freedom. The

recognition of the unreality of an existent thing is freedom.

Let it be there; but we do not get attached to it on account of

knowing what it is made of, really speaking. Perception itself

is not bondage; the ignorance attached to the perception is

bondage.

Paramātmā vaśeṣo’pi tat satyatva viniścayaḥ, na jagat

vismṛtir no ceñ jīvan muktirna saṁbhavet (14). The unreality of

the world is, at the same time, an affirmation of the reality of

God. When the forms and names are brushed aside as finally

not valid in this process of creation, we will get awakened to

the consciousness of that background. When we do not see

the ink, we will then see the cloth. Even in a cinema we can

see the screen behind the film if we concentrate our mind

properly. We have to adjust our eyes in such a way that we

refuse to focus on the dancing of pictures. We can see the

cloth in spite of themovements.

In a similar manner, we can see the consciousness of the

Absolute pervading all things, notwithstanding the fact that

there is a variety of names and forms. This condition of

seeing the variety and yet being conscious of the Universal

Being at the same time is called jivanmukti.

Parokṣā cāparo kṣeti vidyā dvedhā vicārajā, tatra parokṣa

vidyāptau vicāro’yaṁ samāpyate (15). Indirect knowledge and

direct knowledge are two kinds of knowledge – two kinds of

vidya, as the Mundaka Upanishad has already told us. The

higher knowledge is called ‘direct knowledge’, or is

sometimes known as ‘immediate knowledge’. The lower

262

knowledge is called ‘indirect knowledge’ or ‘mediate

knowledge’.

When direct knowledge is attained, all our suffering

ceases, and our effort at investigation into the nature of

things also ceases. There is nothing for us to do afterwards,

once direct knowledge appears. Indirect knowledge is that

knowledge we obtain of things in the world through the

media of the instrument of perception. Eyes are necessary,

ears are necessary, light is necessary; so many things are

necessary to know that a thing is there outside. That is called

‘mediate knowledge’. There is a medium between the

perceiver and the perceived. This is lower knowledge.

But when we actually become the object itself by

entering into it, that is direct perception. Actually, it is not

perception; it is actual being of the object itself. There we are

really liberated.

Asti brahmeti ced veda parokṣa jñāna meva tat, ahaṁ

brahmeti ced veda sākṣātkāraḥ sa ucyate (16). God exists. This

is one kind of knowledge. But what does it matter to us if God

exists? In what way are we different? Merely knowing and

being convinced that God exists is one kind of knowledge, but

it is indirect knowledge through the understanding, through

the reason, through the intellect, through knowledge

acquired by study. Liberating knowledge is not merely the

conviction that Brahman exists, but that we are inseparable

from it. Direct realisation is necessary, and not merely

knowing that something exists there. Entry into the very

substance of Brahman is freedom. Merely knowing that it

exists is not sufficient, though the conviction that it exists is a

help in the gradual movement of our mind towards actual

realisation.

Tat sākṣāt kāra siddhyartham ātmatattvaṁ vivicyate,

yenāyaṁ sarva saṁsārāt sadya eva vimucyate (17). For the

purpose of the direct realisation of the Supreme Atman, we

now engage ourselves in a study of this great subject of

263

Ishvara, jiva and jagat – God, the individual and the world,

which is the theme of this sixth chapter.

Yenāyaṁ sarva saṁsārāt sadya eva vimucyate. By a deep

study of this subject, a profound contemplation on it and

making this knowledge part and parcel of our very existence

in life, we shall be liberated perhaps in this life itself.

Kūṭastho brahma jiveśau ityevaṁ cit catur vidhā, ghaṭākāśa

mahākāśau jalākāśā bhrakhe yathā (18). Consciousness

manifests itself as four different phases of experience. The

consciousness that is independent of the five sheaths as the

witness of the five sheaths – for instance, as we have it in the

state of deep sleep – is Kutastha. Independently existing,

immutable consciousness at the background of the five

sheaths is atma tattva, kutastha chetanya; that is one phase.

Brahman is the Universal Existence with no connection with

any part of creation. Jiva is that very same immutable

Kutastha consciousness getting identified with the five

sheaths. Ishvara is the Brahman Universal appearing through

the pure sattva guna property of prakriti.

As we have noted earlier, the pure sattva of prakriti is

ubiquitous, all pervading. It is like a clean mirror spread out

everywhere in space, and the whole sky is reflected there.

That becomes Cosmic-conscious. Ishvara, therefore, is the

Cosmic-conscious principle arising as a feature on account of

Brahman Universal getting reflected through the pure sattva

of prakriti. So there are four varieties of manifestation:

Brahman and Ishvara cosmically, Kutastha and jiva

individually.

Ghaṭākāśa mahākāśau jalākāśā bhrakhe yathā. The

illustration to make this point clear is given here. The pure

immutable Atman is like space in a pot. It looks limited, but it

is not really limited. The vast space outside is Brahman. If

there is water in a pot and space is reflected in that water, we

would call it individual consciousness, jiva – not pure space,

but reflected space in the water which we have filled in the

264

pot. And Ishvara is something like the whole sky reflected in

thin clouds that we see during rainy season.

The pure sky is Brahman. The sky inside the pot is

Atman. The pure sky reflected in an all-pervading screen of

thin cloud is Ishvara. And the Kutastha, the pot ether that is

reflected through water filled in the pot, is jiva. This is a

fourfold illustration to make clear as to what we mean by

saying that there are four phases of the manifestation of

consciousness as Brahman, Ishvara, Kutastha and jiva.

Discourse 23

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 19-35

Ghaṭā vacchinna khe nīraṁ yat tatra prati bimbhataḥ sābhra

nakṣatra ākāśo jalākāśa udīryate (19). In a pot or a vessel,

space appears to be limited to the area of the pot or the

vessel. If water is poured on it, that space inside the pot gets

reflected through the water. Also, the entire sky at the top –

the stars and the entire firmament – gets reflected. This

phase that is so reflected through the water in a pot is called

jalakasha, or water ether. And in the context of its being

reflected in water in a pot, it is an illustration of the nature of

the jiva, or the individual, which also is a limited reflection of

the all-pervading Kutastha Atman consciousness in the

limited pot of the intellect, being reflected through all the

impressions, vasanas, and potentials of desires and actions.

Thus, this jiva, this individual, is on the one hand limited

in quantity due to its getting circumscribed to the location of

this body and the intellect; and on the other hand, it is also a

reflection. It has a dual defect. Qualitatively it is inferior to

the original because it is a reflection; it is also quantitatively

inferior to the original because it is located in one place –

within the walls of the body – and it does not appear to be

outside at all. Such a condition is jiva consciousness,

jalakasha.

Mahākāśasya madhye yat megha maṇḍala mīkṣyate, prati

biṁba tayā tatra meghākāśo jale sthitaḥ (20). In that universal

space, the vast sky above, we see clouds. Through these

thinly spread clouds, we also see the sky reflected. The sky in

its purity is not seen, but it is seen as conditioned by the

description of the clouds, both in quantity and quality. That

space, that all-pervading sky, which is reflected through the

spread-out clouds, is known as meghakasha, comparable to

Ishvara, who is a reflection of Brahman consciousness

through the universal sattva quality of prakriti.

266

Meghāṁ śarūpa mudakaṁ tuṣārā kāra saṁsthitam, tatra

kha pratibiṁbo’yaṁ nīratvāt anumīyate (21). We can infer the

reflection of the sky in the water particles of the clouds

because of the fact that water particles in thinly spread-out

clouds act as a kind of reflecting medium, like a mirror.When

the clouds are very thick, the reflection is not there. They

must be a very thin, faintly visible sheet through which the

sky can be reflected. That is meghakasha, comparable to

Ishvara.

Adhiṣṭhāna tayā deha dvayā vacchinna cetanaḥ, kūṭa vannir

vikāreṇa sthitaḥ kūṭastha ucyate (22). That consciousness

which is at the root of our personality, our very being,

adhisthana, the very substratum of both the bodies, the gross

and the subtle, that consciousness that is at the root of both

the physical and subtle bodies – that is to say, the physical,

the vital, mental and intellectual bodies – that consciousness

which gives an appearance of intelligence and reality to these

bodies, is independent of them; and that independent

consciousness lying at the back of these two bodies is called

Kutastha, immutable consciousness.

Kūtasthe kalpitā buddhiḥ tatra cit prati biṁbakaḥ,

prāṇānāṁ dhāraṇāt jīvaḥ saṁsāreṇa sa yujyate (23). This

intellect, which is the reasoning faculty in the individual, is

the medium through which the Kutastha, the immutable

consciousness of the Atman, is reflected; and this reflected

consciousness gives life and vitality to the whole body. We

feel we are alive. We are living, moving, and are conscious.

This feeling arises in us on account of the vitality and the

intelligence of the immutable consciousness inside getting

reflected through the medium of our individuality, which is

the intellect or reason. This reflected consciousness goes by

the name of jiva, and it is this that entangles itself in samsara,

worldly entanglement.

Jala vyomnā ghaṭākāśo yathā sarvas tirohitaḥ, tathā jīvena

kūṭasthaḥ so’nyo nyādhyāsa ucyate (24). The pure ether that is

inside a pot is obscured by the presence of a medium, such as

267

water, that fills it. The water entirely covers the pure ether

that is inside the pot. In a similar manner, this jiva that is the

individuality, or the finitude of ours, obscures the innermost

consciousness that is all-pervading. The space that is allpervading

appears to be located inside a pot. That was

mentioned several times. Now it is said that even this little

space in the pot cannot be seen properly. It gets obscured on

account of the water in it, a material medium that prevents

our perception of the pure ether. We have this kind of

medium in our individuality – the intellect, the reasoning

faculty, the individual consciousness. It obscures the

awareness of the larger consciousness that is behind, as

water obscures the presence of ether.

Ayaṁ jīvo na kūṭasthaṁ vivinakti kadācana, anādira

viveko’yaṁ mūlā’vidyeti gamyatām (25). This jiva can never

know that there is a Kutastha. We are jivas; we are

psychophysical individuals, as it is called.We can never know

that we have an Atman inside us. A hundred times, a

thousand times it is being told to us that we have a Universal

Atman in the root of our being, but we can never apprehend

it.

In our daily life, there are no indications in us that the

Atman exists. The identity of this consciousness of the

Kutastha with the limiting adjuncts is so intense that the one

is mistaken for the other. This limitation is identified with

the consciousness, and we feel only the limitation

consciousness as identical with ourselves. The other

Universal Consciousness is obliterated completely from our

perception and experience. The Atman, for all practical

purposes, does not exist in our life. It is as good as not

existing because we are wholly occupied with the

identification of consciousness with the reason, the mind, the

functions of the inner organ with all its impressions of past

karmas, unfulfilled desires, and so on – umpteen things.

Thus, we are completely handicapped from knowing that

there is anything above us or beyond us.

268

Anādira viveko’yaṁ mūlā’vidyeti gamyatām. This inability

on our part to know that there is an Atman inside us is called

anadi avidya, the original ignorance. Mula avidya, the root

ignorance – the power of distraction by which we are pulled

in the direction of outside things – prevents the inwardness

of consciousness. We are always outwardly conscious –

conscious of this body and the world outside –and are never

for a moment conscious of anything that is inside us. This is

the work of avidya.

Vikṣepā vṛtti rūpābhyāṁ dividhā’vidyā vyavasthitā, na bhāti

nāsti kūṭastha ityā pādan māvṛtiḥ (26). Ignorance, or avidya,

works in two ways: obscuration and distraction. Avrtih, or

avarana, is the Sanskrit word for obscuration, veiling. A

curtain is hung, as it were, just on the face of this Universal

Consciousness. That is avarana, or the covering of

consciousness by a veil of ignorance. What happens is, we do

not feel that anything exists at all. It is a feeling that nothing

exists. That is avarana, or a veiling of consciousness.

But this ‘nothingness consciousness’ becomes an

objective consciousness when the Universal Consciousness

passes through the aperture of the manifestations of this

very avidya known as intellect, etc. Just as a potential disease

can become an actual disease and a passive person can

become a violent person, this nothingness consciousness

may become an active objective consciousness – which it

does. That is called vikshepa, or distraction, by which we are

given a double blow by avidya.

It is a blow on the one cheek by not allowing us to know

that anything exists at all; the reality is obscured. And there

is another blow on the other cheek which makes us feel that

what is not there is really there. The unconsciousness of

what is there is the veil; the consciousness of what is not

there is the distraction. So we can imagine our predicament,

where we stand.

269

Ajñānī viduṣā pṛṣṭaḥ kūṭasthaṁ na prabudhyate, na bhāti

nāsti kūṭastha iti buddhvā vadatyapi (27). The ignorant man

says, “Do you know the Atman?” He says, “I do not know

anything about the Atman. I have never seen the Atman. I do

not know the Kutastha. Neither is it known to me, nor can I

even recognise its existence.” The existence and

consciousness aspects of the Kutastha are obliterated by the

action of avidya, which functions dually as avarana and

vikshepa, veil and distraction.

Svaprakāśe kuto’vidyā tām vinā katha māvṛtiḥ, ityādi tarka

jālāni svānu bhūtir grasatya sau (28). This avidya is a very

peculiar and notorious principle whose nature cannot be

easily ascertained. If avidya or ignorance is self-conscious,

there cannot be a covering. The covering or veiling of the

reality by avidya is possible only when it is not selfconscious.

The veil itself is not conscious; it is not

intelligence. So we cannot attribute self-consciousness or

self-luminosity to avidya, which acts as a veil.

But without this avidya, there cannot be a veil. How do

we know that there is a veil? We say that there is a veil over

consciousness. The knowledge that there is a veil over

consciousness implies some connection of consciousness

with this veil. If it is a total aberration of consciousness, an

entire negation of it, just darkness per se, there cannot be an

idea that there is such a thing called darkness.

“I knew nothing in sleep.” Now, this statement implies

that avidya, which is the so-called darkness or nothingness

that covers the consciousness in sleep, can become the object

of some sort of awareness, on account of which it is that we

have a memory later on of having slept soundly earlier in the

day. It has a peculiar eluding, chameleon-like quality. It has

no consciousness of its own; therefore, it covers. It is not

totally disconnected from consciousness; therefore, it

enables us to have a memory of having slept, and enables us

to know that there is such a thing called ignorance. It enables

us to make a statement that we do not know anything. So

270

here again avidya is a peculiar trickster. It plays a trick and

will not allow us to catch it, just as we cannot know the true

colour of a chameleon. Only direct realisation can enable us

ascertain what this avidya is.

Svānu bhūtāva viśvāse tarkasyā pyana vasthiteḥ, kathaṁ vā

tārkikaṁ manyaḥ tattva niścaya māpnuyāt (29). If we say that

direct experience is not possible and logic is also futile, there

would be no way of knowing anything in this world. Either

we should have the power of proper reasoning of a positive

nature which will give us some kind of indirect knowledge of

what is happening, or we should have direct experience or

realisation. If we deny both aspects, then neither logic is

possible nor experience is practicable, and we will then be in

the same old condition of ignorance. Spiritual progress

would not be possible.

Logical arguments, ratiocination and intellectual study

are finally not of any utility in Self-experience. But it gives

this support to us in the sense that it can lead us to a higher

experience in the form of an indication of what is above it.

The limited consciousness indicates that there is something

that is beyond limitation. The finitude that we are

experiencing is suggestive of something that is not finite. In

that sense the reason is helpful, even if by itself it is not

ultimately valid.

Buddhyā rohāya tarkaścet apekṣeta tathā sati, svānu

bhūtyanu sāreṇa tarkyatām mā kutarkyatām (30). Arguments

of any kind should not go against scriptural ordinance. Every

kind of logical deduction should be in the direction of a

positive attainment of truth.We should not be led to nihilism,

regressus ad infinitum, circular reasoning, or vicious

arguments, etc. That is not proper argument. All logic should

be a proper deduction from premises that are accepted, and

they should be positive in the sense that they will lead us to

Truth; otherwise, what is the use of arguing? Where is the

need for logic and argumentation? Why should we apply our

reason at all, if that is not going to lead us to any conclusion?

271

Uncontrolled and unbridled reasoning will take us to no

conclusion. Well-conducted reasoning will lead us to a kind

of conclusion that will indicate the nature of Truth. All logic

has to be based on the veracity of self-experience or

scripture.

Svānu bhūtira vidyāyām āvṛtau ca pradarśitā, ataḥ kūṭastha

caitanyam avirodhīti tarkyatām (31). Taccet virōdhi keneyam

āviṛtir hyanu bhūyatām, vivekastu virodhasyāḥ tattva jñānini

dṛśyatām (32). There are two kinds of consciousness, defined

in two ways, namely, svarupa jnana and vikshepa jnana, vritti

jnana. The knowledge of the Atman that we have in the state

of deep sleep is not adequate to destroy the ignorance that is

there in sleep. It is Universality, and therefore it will not act.

Ignorance can be destroyed only by the action of

consciousness. Just as an ocean that does not have any kind

of contact with anything will not move in any particular

direction, the Universality of consciousness that is in the

state of deep sleep will not destroy the ignorance in sleep.

This ignorance can be destroyed only by vritti jnana, actual

meditative consciousness.

Consciousness that is other than Universal has to be

focussed as a direct action along the lines of concentration on

a single thought of the Universal. Only when there is activity

of consciousness is there a possibility of the dispelling of

ignorance. This distinction is made in Vedanta between

general consciousness and particularised consciousness.

General consciousness cannot destroy ignorance, because it

does not act. There is no rajas; nothing is possible there. The

destruction of ignorance is possible only when action is

associated with consciousness – that is,meditation.

Pure Universal consciousness is not opposed to

ignorance.What is opposed to ignorance is vritti jnana, or the

action of consciousness through the reason and the process

of meditation. Viveka - discrimination, direct meditation – is

the opposition of avidya.

272

Avidyā vṛta kūṭasthe deha dvaya yutā citiḥ, śuktau rūpya

vada dhyastā vikṣepā dhyāsa eva hi (33). This dual body, deyadvaya,

the gross and the subtle body – or rather, this body

complex, we may say – is superimposed on the Kutastha

Atman just as the quality of silver is superimposed on

mother-of-pearl. We know what mother-of-pearl is – a kind

of shell. It is also called nacre. When it is kept in sunlight, it

shines; and from a distance, it looks like a silver piece. As the

non-existent silver-ness is superimposed on the existent

shell which is themother-of-pearl, and the existent shell-ness

is superimposed on the non-existent silver-ness, there is a

mutual superimposition taking place – unreality getting

superimposed on reality, and reality getting superimposed

on unreality. It is the reality of the mother-of-pearl getting

superimposed on the silver-ness that is perceived is the

reason why we feel that the silver is real. If the nacre or the

shell was not there, the silver would also not be visible.

So the reality that we attribute to the perceived silverness

is due to the actual reality of its background – namely,

the mother-of-pearl. Conversely, the silver-ness is

superimposed on the mother-of-pearl and we seem to feel

that themother-of-pearl itself has become silver.

In a similar manner, superimposition takes place in our

own person. The bodies, the koshas, are superimposed on the

Kutastha Atman. “I am existing.” This statement that we

sometimes make is a confusion of two factors. What is really

existing, is not clear when this statement is made. It is like

saying, “I am seeing silver.” We are seeing the mother-ofpearl,

but not the silver; but the possibility of seeing the

silver could not be there if themother-of-pearl was not there.

So two factors are necessary; appearance and reality are

both essential to perceive real-like appearance.

This body complex, the five sheaths, are said to be real,

and we feel their existence. “I am tall, I am short, I am hungry,

I am tired, I am thinking, I am understanding, I am sleepy.”

These statements that we make are associated with the five

273

sheaths. The five sheaths have to exist first of all, in order

that we may make any statement in regard to them. They

appear to exist (sat) on account of the existence aspect of the

Kutastha Atman being superimposed onto them. The sheaths

themselves are really nothing. They are an accretion that has

grown on consciousness. They have no substance, but they

appear to have a substance in the same way as silver in the

nacre appears to have a substantiality.

So when I say, “I am existing,” it is a confused statement

where there is a mix-up of two qualities – the Pure Existence

aspect of the consciousness of the Kutastha getting mixed up

with the tentative physical or psychological I-consciousness,

over which it is superimposed.

Similarly, when we say, “I am existing,” there is a

converse superimposition. The finitude of this physical

complex is superimposed on the consciousness. On the one

hand, the existence aspect of consciousness is superimposed

on the sheaths, which is why we feel that the sheaths are

existing and alive, they are kicking, and everything is well

with them. But the other side is that we feel we are finite and

limited and sitting in one place only. That is the finitude of

the body getting superimposed on the Universal

consciousness. This is called mutual superimposition.

The Universal consciousness is superimposed on the

finite body. Then the finite body appears to be existing. On

the other hand, the finitude of the body is superimposed on

consciousness. Then the consciousness appears to be finite.

So then we make a statement, “I am existing; I am Mr. Soand-

so.” This Mr. So-and-so does not exist, really speaking. It

is a hallucination, a mix-up that has been conjured up by a

superimposition of two factors; and if we separate the two,

we will find that this Mr. So-and-So personality vanishes into

thin air. We will cease to exist in one moment if

discrimination arises in us.

274

Idamaṁ śaśca satyatvaṁ śuktigaṁ rūpya īkṣyate, svayaṁ

tvaṁ vastutā caivaṁ vikṣepe vīkṣyate’nyagam (34). “This is

silver,” we say, when we see some shining piece in front of

us. The this-ness does not appear to be silver. This-ness is

actually an indication of that which is really there. So when

we say, “This is silver,” the demonstrative pronoun ‘this’

appears to be connected to the mother-of-pearl, rather than

to the silver.

Idamaṁ śaśca satyatvaṁ. The reality of the silver consists

in the this-ness or the real existence of the mother-of-pearl,

and it is seen shining, as it were, in the imagined silver.

Svayaṁ tvaṁ vastutā caivaṁ vikṣepe vīkṣyate’nyagam. In a

similar manner, the real I-consciousness, which is

attributable only to the Universal Being, is transferred to the

finitude of the body-mind complex, similar to the

transference of the mother-of-pearl’s existence to the

imagined silver.

The Universal Consciousness is the real ‘I’; the body is

not the ‘I’, the mind is not the ‘I’, this visible person is not the

‘I’. The real ‘I’ is that which says, “I am what I am. I am that I

am, indescribable Universality.” That is the real ‘I’ which

says, “I am coming.” Who are they? Who are you? ‘I’. Who is

that inside? ‘I’. This ‘I’ is actually the retort coming from the

Universal that is inside us. But when we open the door, it is

not the Universal that is opening it; it is the finitude over

which it has been superimposed.

Nīlapṛṣtha triko ṇatvaṁ yathā śuktau tirohitam, asaṅgā

nandatā dyevaṁ kūṭasthe’pi tirohitam (35). The concave or

triangular shape and the green-ness, etc., of the shell is

transferred to the imagined silver, and the silver appears to

have that concave or triangular shape. Like that, the

immutable blissful Atman inside, this Kutastha Atman, is

superimposed on the body and gets obscured by the

consciousness of the body. The silver consciousness obscures

the mother-of-pearl consciousness. Similarly, this body-mind

275

complex consciousness obscures the real Universality that is

within us. That is what has happened to us.

Discourse 24

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 38-54

Idantva rūpyate bhinne svatvā hante tathe ṣyatām,

sāmānyaṁ ca viśeṣaśca hyubhaya trāpi gamyate (38). In that

mother-of-pearl which was shining like a silver piece, the

real aspect is only of the mother-of-pearl, and the silver-ness

is foisted upon it. The silver is quite different from the

mother-of-pearl.

“This is silver.” When we make statements of this kind,

the word ‘this’ demonstrates the reality that is there, which

we are actually perceiving as a substratum which is the

mother-of-pearl; but the silver-ness is not actually there. We

have superimposed the shining character of the object on the

substance of the object, and the substantiality of the object

on the shining character. The shining thing is understood to

be a silver piece. Actually, the luminosity is the cause of this

misconception.

There is a generality and a particularity in this

perception of silver. The generality is what is really there,

and the particularity is what is not there.What is really there

is the mother-of-pearl; and what is not there is the silver.We

make a confusion of two issues and then utter a sentence,

“This is silver.” The unreal and the real are brought together

– appearance and reality are jumbled up – in all perceptions

of this kind.

Even when we say, “This is the world; here is the world,”

the same mistake is committed. “This is the world.” Thisness,

the substantiality that we attribute to this world, is the

Brahman consciousness that is at the back of all things. But

the world-ness is like the silver seen in the piece of motherof-

pearl. Here the mother-of-pearl is Brahman; the silver is

the world. We superimpose the externality and multiplicity

characterising the world upon Brahman which is indivisible;

and we superimpose the existence aspect of Brahman on the

multiplicity and externality of the world and say, “The

277

external world exists. Multiple objects exist.” This is a wrong

statement because the multiple objects do not exist, in the

same way as silver does not exist. What exists is something

else; and what appears is another thing altogether. This is the

difference between the general existence and the particular

appearance.

Deva dattaḥ svayaṁ gacchet tvaṁ vikṣasva svayaṁ tathā,

ahaṁ svayaṁ na śaknomīti evaṁ loke prayujyate (39). The

word ‘Self,’ ‘Svayam’: When we refer to the Self, we use the

Sanskrit word Svayam. “Devadatta will himself go. You

yourself please look into this matter. I myself cannot do this

work.” In all these statements we have used the word ‘self’

unconsciously. “He himself is responsible for all this. I myself

am not in a position to do this work”; and, “You yourself

please look into this matter.” Why do we go on saying ‘self,

self, self’?

The idea is that we cannot escape the association of a

peculiar thing called selfhood, either in referring to

ourselves, to another person, or to someone else. Here, the

selfhood of a thing comes into high relief whether or not we

are aware that such a thing is happening. No one can make

any statement without the association of a nominative,

substantive selfhood in the sentence.

Idaṁ rūpyaṁ idaṁ vastram iti yad vad idaṁ tathā, asau

tvamaha mityeṣu svaya mityabhi manyate (40). In the same

way as we say, “I myself, you yourself, he himself,” etc., we

are used to making statements of another kind. “This is

silver, this is cloth, this is of this kind, this is of that kind.”

Here in this second variety of statements, the word ‘self’ is

not used. It is an externality that is emphasised. Only

objectivity is taken into account when it is said, “This is

silver, this is cloth, this is a pot, this is a building, this is this

kind of thing, this is that kind of thing.”

Ahantvāt bhidyatāṁ svatvaṁ kūṭasthe tena kiṁ tava,

svayaṁ śabdārtha evaiṣa kūṭastha iti me bhavet (41).

278

Therefore, on the basis of the analogy of the mother-of-pearl

and silver, the world and Brahman, etc., we should

distinguish between the Self and I. Though the real Self is the

I, and the real I is the Self, we mistake this physical body for

the I and make statements of personality involved in action,

speech, etc., when we say, “I shall do this work.”

The individuality which is characterising the ‘I’ here, is a

false manifestation of the true Self, which is Svayam, through

the intellect that represents the personality of the individual.

What is Self? Svayam is itself Kutastha, the primary Atman of

the individual.

Anyatva vārakaṁ svatvam iti ced anya vāraṇam, kūṭastha

syātmantām vaktuḥ iṣṭa meva hi tad bhavet (42). When we say,

“I myself,” etc., or use the word ‘self’ anywhere in a

statement, we distinguish between self and anything other

than the self. Idam, tat, etc., ‘this’ and ‘that’ – demonstrative

pronouns of this kind – are distinguishable from selfhood.

Anything that is external or far away, which is designated as

this and that, is not connected with the word ‘self’; only selfidentical

individuals are referred to as ‘self,’ such as ‘I myself,

you yourself, he himself’, etc.

The second-ness of anything is set aside by the word

‘Svayam’, or ‘Self.’ The word ‘self’ distinguishes itself from

anything that is not self. All that is conceivable, perceivable

or contactable is not Self. Anything that can be contacted

through the sense organs, or thought by the mind as an

external object, or even understood by the intellect as

something outside is a not-self. The Self is that which is the

light at the back of even these conceptions and perceptions.

The externality of the world or the individuality of the

person is created by the limitation of consciousness through

the perceiving or cognising medium that is the intellect

representing the five sheaths.

Kutastha chaitanya, Atman, and Self mean one and the

same thing. Different words are used to designate one and

279

the same reality. The purpose of Kutastha, Atman, Self, or

Svayam is to abrogate any kind of external association with

it. The concept of ‘I’ is so very intensely self-identical with

itself that we cannot for a moment imagine that we are other

than what we are.

We may have large properties or belongings, but we will

never say that the belonging is myself.We always say, “I have

this property; I own this thing; it is mine.” We say, “This book

is mine,” not, “This book is I.” Even in ordinary parlance, we

make a distinction between our true self-identity and that

which we are attached to – objects, property, etc. We never

say, “This building is I; this property is I; this land is I; this

money is I.” Nobody says that. They say, “It is mine.”

So even when we make a mistake, we somehow or the

other introduce a distinction between the I-ness and the non-

I-ness, or the Self and the not-self; and the I can be attributed

only to the self-identical consciousness, and not to anything

that it appears to possess or is related to it.

Svaya mātmeti paryāyau tena loke tayoḥ saha, prayogo

nāstyathaḥ svatvaṁ ātmatvaṁ cānya vārakam (43). The words

‘Atman’ and ‘Svayam’ mean one and the same thing. We do

not use Atman and Self at the same time. ‘Atman’ is a Sanskrit

word; ‘Self’ is an English word. They mean one and the same

thing. The non-externalisable Self-identical existence, pure

perceiver, incapable of externalisation and incapable of

becoming an object in any way – that is Atman, that is

Svayam, that is Self.

Therefore, there is no possibility of connecting anything

in the world with the Self. Otherwise, we would be feeling

that the whole world is hanging on our body because it is our

Self. The Self distinguishes itself from anything that is not

itself; consciousness is distinguishable from matter, and all

that is known by consciousness is of amaterial nature.

Ghaṭaḥ svayaṁ na jānātīti evaṁ svatvaṁ ghaṭādiṣu,

acetaneṣu dṛṣṭaṁ cet dṛśyatā mātma sattvataḥ (44). Sometimes

280

we say, “The pot itself has no consciousness.” The pot has no

consciousness, but we sometimes use the word ‘self’ there

also. The idea is that even inanimate objects have a selfhood

in them in a potential form.

Inanimate things are Pure Consciousness itself in a

sleeping condition, in a state of tamas. Where rajas and

sattva are not manifest even a little, even in a smallest

measure – there is only fixity, stability, and immovability of

the tamoguna – consciousness also appears to be stable,

fixed, immovable, lifeless. What we call life is only a

manifestation of consciousness through the medium of the

subtle body. The stone has no subtle body, it is entirely

physical and, therefore, consciousness cannot reveal itself

through anything that is subtler than the physicality which is

its body.

Therefore it is that the stone, pot, etc., cannot have selfconsciousness;

yet consciousness is there at the back in the

form of existence. Pure existence is there, but consciousness

is not there; freedom is also not there. Stones exist, but

stones do not know that they exist, whereas we exist, and we

know that we exist. That is the difference between inanimate

matter and an animate being which is conscious of itself.

Yet we cannot completely ignore the fact that

consciousness, being universal, is present even at the back of

all inanimate things; otherwise, if it is to be considered as

absent in inanimate things, there would be division in

consciousness and some part of the world would be divested

of connection with consciousness. Consciousness would

become finite. That is not the case. Whether it is manifest or

not, Consciousness is present in all things, and therefore we

unwittingly use the word ‘self.’ We use the word ‘self’ even in

respect of pot, etc.: “The pot itself does not know.”

Cetanā cetana bhidā kūṭasthātma kṛtā na hi, kintu buddhi

kṛtā’bhāsa kṛtai vetyava gamyatām (45). This difference

between animate and inanimate things is not created by

281

consciousness or Kutastha itself. It is the distinction drawn

between the reflection of the Atman in the intellect and the

absence of it in certain things.

Chetana, or living entity, is that where, in its subtle body

in the minute manifestation of thought or mind,

consciousness gets reflected. If the reflection is not there and

it is zero, there would be no feeling of sensitivity, instinct, or

even the sense of life. The distinction between life and nonlife

is not due to the presence or absence of consciousness. It

is present everywhere unanimously. The distinction is

because of the fact that Universal consciousness in certain

places or objects cannot manifest itself via the subtle body, as

the subtle body itself is absent there; only the gross body is

there, as in stone. But it manifests itself where there is a

subtle body – as in living beings, like animals, human beings,

etc.

So the distinction between animate and inanimate is not

brought about by consciousness as such. It is caused by the

reflection of consciousness in the medium of the subtle body,

whatever be the degree in which it is manifest in living

beings.

Yathā cetana ābhāsaḥ kūṭasthe bhrānti kalpitah, acetano

ghaṭādiśca tathā tatraiva kalpitaḥ (46). Just as ‘individuality

consciousness’ is falsely imputed to the Universal

consciousness, in a similar manner the pot-ness, stone-ness

and pure objectivity are also falsely superimposed on

Universal consciousness. This body is like a stone, really

speaking. It is as inanimate as any object without sense or

sensation. Therefore, this superimposition of materiality and

externality on the Universal consciousness is common in

both cases – in the case of one's own Self, where the body is

superimposed on the Self, or in the other case where

inanimate objects, like stone, etc., are superimposed on the

Self and then we say the stone exists.

282

The stone cannot exist unless the existence aspect of

Brahman manifest there is in a tamasic form. Else, the stone

will not exist. One aspect of Brahman is manifest in existence,

and another aspect is manifest in existence-consciousness.

Only in the devatas, the gods, can we find all three manifest –

existence-consciousness-bliss. In inanimate objects, only

existence is there. In human beings like us, there is only

existence-consciousness. We do not have bliss. We are very

unhappy people. It is only in the divinities, the gods in

heaven, that the bliss aspect is supposed to be manifest.

Sattva guna is only in heaven, not in themortal world.

Tatte dante api svatvam iva tvama hamā diṣu, sarvatrā

nugate tena tayo rapyātma teti cet (47). Te ātmatva’pyanugate

tattedante tatastayoḥ, ātmatvaṁ naiva saṁbhāvyaṁ samyak

tvāder yathā tathā (48). Wherever the word ‘Self’ gets

associated in a statement made in regard to any object, we

may say Selfhood is present there either manifestly or

unmanifestly. But the Selfhood is not present in the case of

such statements that we make using ‘this’ or ‘that’ because

the demonstrative pronouns ‘this’ and ‘that’ refer not to the

Self, but to something that is other than the Self.

When we say, “This is something,” we refer to some

object that is near; and when we say, “That is something,” we

refer to an object that is far off. Nevertheless, both the terms

‘this’ and ‘that’ refer to something other than the Self,

whether it is near or far. Therefore, in these cases, in the

employing of such terms as ‘this’ and ‘that’, the word ‘Self’ is

not used, indicating thereby that anything that is outside the

Self is non-self, and therefore it is unconscious. Not-self is

unconscious; therefore, it becomes the object of

consciousness. The Self which is consciousness knows the

not-self; but the not-self itself cannot know itself. It is

divested of consciousness.

Ātmatvaṁ naiva saṁbhāvyaṁ: The idam-ta, or this-ness

and that-ness, are something like quality or attribute that is

associated with consciousness such as propriety or

283

impropriety, etc. Samyat means propriety; asamyat,

impropriety. These qualities are attached to substances and

things and persons, etc. – not identifying it with persons, but

existing as something external to them. Atmatva or Selfhood,

therefore, cannot be associated with anything which is

designated as ‘this’ and ‘that’ because it is definitely outside

the Self.

Tatte dante svatā nyatve tvantā hante paras param, prati

dvandva tayā loke prasiddhe nāsti saṁśayaḥ (49). That and this,

Self and not-self, you and I, are opposed factors in

experience. The remoteness of a thing is indicated by the

term ‘that’. The nearness is indicated by the word ‘this’.

Selfhood is indicated by the word ‘self’, and externality is

indicated by the two demonstrative pronouns ‘this’ and

‘that’. ‘You’ and ‘I’ also mean the same thing. The word ‘you’

implies a not-self. ‘I’ refers to the self.

The term ‘you’, even if it is applied to a human being,

does not carry the conviction of selfhood being there because

‘you’ is distinguished from ‘I’. The statement “I wish to see

you” implies the thing indicated by the term ‘you’ as being

different from the ‘I’; and the whole point made out here is

that consciousness cannot get identified with anything which

is outside. Hence, two people cannot be real friends, because

‘I’ and ‘you’ are involved there. Whatever be the thickness of

intimacy or friendship, as long as one is I and the other is

you, both cannot be I. Both cannot be you, either. No two

persons can think alike, and no two persons can be eternal

friends. You is outside, and I is inside.

Anyatāyāḥ prati dvandvī svayaṁ kūṭastha iṣyatām,

tvantāyāh pratiyo gyeṣo’hami tyātmani kalpitaḥ (50). We have

been mentioning again and again that Kutastha-chaitanya is

the opposite of the externality of anything whatsoever. Know

this very well. The you-ness in a thing is different from the Iness

in a thing. As externality is different from the Kutastha

Atman, ‘you’ is different from ‘I’, and so you should not use

284

the word ‘you’ in future unless you want to distinguish that

person from yourself.

Ahantā svatvayor bhede rūpya tedanta yoriva, spaṣṭe’pi

moha māpannā ekatvaṁ prati pedire (51). That the I

associated with the body-consciousness is different from the

true Self that is Universal is something that has been clarified

now by this analysis. In spite of that, ignorant people confuse

the truth; they attribute the permanency of Universal

consciousness to the I, and imagine that they are not going to

die. Nobody believes that he will die one day or the other.

After all, the time has not come. Why it has not come?

Because consciousness proper, Universality as such, cannot

perish, and that imperishable Atman somehow or other gets

reflected through this false I-hood attached to this body and

compels this false I to also feel that it is perhaps deathless.

There is a dual consciousness in the physical I-ness. On

the one hand, there is the feeling that nobody will die

tomorrow – there is still some time, it is not immediate –

though there is no guarantee that it is so. On the other hand,

one knows that any day one can go. So we always believe two

things at the same time. Themortality of the body with which

the I is connected compels us to convince ourselves that one

day we will go, and it can be even tomorrow. But at the same

time, the Universal consciousness which is imperishable tells

us that we will not die tomorrow, that it will be after a long

time,maybe a hundred years.

So we have two kinds of feeling always: the fear that we

may die any moment, and the feeling that we will not die like

that so easily.We live in a state of conflict between the fear of

death and the hope of not dying immediately. Ignorant

people make a mistake of identifying the mortal ‘I’ with the

infinite consciousness.

Tādātmyā dhyāsa evātra pūrvoktā vidyayā kṛtaḥ, avidyāyāṁ

nivṛttāyāṁ tat kāryaṁ vini vartate (52). Mutual

superimposition as has been described between the Self and

285

the not-self is called tadatmyadhyasa in Sanskrit.

Tadatmyadhyasa means the imposition of a character of one

thing on another thing to which it really does not belong.

Selfhood cannot belong to objects, yet we love objects as if

they are our own self. We hug objects and love them as our

own self because there is tadatmyadhyasa, or identity

between the true Self and the object that is outside, through

themedium of mental cognition and sensory perception.

On the other hand, there is a reverse order taking place.

The objectivity is identified with the Universality of

consciousness and we begin to feel that the movements in

the world, the historical process and anything that changes

here, is also a change in consciousness. That is why we say, “I

am moving.” The body is moving; the Universal

consciousness in us does not move. All the statements that

we make in regard to ourselves are wrong because they are

applicable only to the body; but we somehow apply them to

the true Self to give them some meaning. Similarly, the

deathless nature of Universal consciousness is wrongly

transposed to the perishable body and objects in the world

and they are imputed a sort of unreliable permanence,

though we cannot say that anything in the world is

permanent even for two days.

Avidyā’vṛti tādātmye vidya yaiva vinaśyataḥ, vikṣe pasya

svarūpaṁ tu prārabdha kṣaya mīkṣate (53). The veiling aspect

of the avidya and the vikshepa, or the distracting aspect of

avidya, both can be destroyed by vidya or knowledge. The

veiling aspect and the distracting aspect were studied in the

previous discourse.

Avidya has two functions: It prevents us from knowing

what is there – we do not see anything at all as real – and

then it compels us to see what is not there. Brahman which is

there is not seen; the world which is not there is seen. This is

avarana and vikshepa, veiling and distraction, that avidya

does. This action of avidya can be destroyed only by vidya,

true knowledge – insight into the nature of reality.

286

Vikṣe pasya svarūpaṁ tu prārabdha kṣaya mīkṣate. This

body, which is also a part of vikshepa or distraction,

continues for some time like any object in the world. The

objects in the world also appear to be continuing for some

time, but not for all time. This body persists and appears to

be continuing for as long as prarabdha karma continues. This

body is a hardened form of the potencies of actions that we

performed in the previous births, out of which a portion has

been allotted for experience in this world. That portion has

concretised itself into this solid body, and this body will

continue to exist and live here in this world as long as that

karma's potency or momentum is not consumed, exhausted.

When the momentum is over, or when the potter

releases his hand from the wheel, it stops movement.

Similarly, the potter should not go on pushing the wheel

again and again, otherwise there will be no cessation of

movement. We are the potter, and the karma is, of course,

what we do. If any momentum that is created by the pushing

of the wheel – by a potter that we were in the previous birth

– continues, the body will also continue. And when the potter

does not interfere with it anymore and keeps quiet, the

movement will cease one day, and the body will perish.

But if we push it again by adding further karmas, called

agami karma, the wheel will go on moving again and again;

there will be no cessation at all. Again rebirth will take place.

So do not add further karmas; do not be like a potter, pushing

the wheel again. Let the momentum that was there be there

and let it cease by itself, just as fire subsides when fuel is not

anymore added to it.

Upādāne vinaṣṭe’pi kṣaṇaṁ kāryaṁ pratīkṣate, ityāhus

tārkikā stadvad asmākaṁ kim na saṁbhavet (54). Naiyayika

and Vaiseshika philosophers, and some other philosophers

also, are likely to feel that even if the cause ceases, the effect

may continue for some time. They are called Tarkikas. For a

moment we will find the effect there. If we keep an onion in a

pot, the whole pot smells of onion; and if we remove the

287

onion and throw it away, even then the smell will not go. For

three days the smell of onions will remain. So the cause has

gone, but the effect continues.

In a similar manner, Tarkikas (the Naiyayikas) say the

continuance of the body should be explained as something

practicable or possible even if the causes cease to exist. The

Vedanta doctrine says that the prarabdha karma does not

actually obstruct the realisation of God. It does not persist as

the Naiyayikas say, obstructing the Consciousness itself. We

have an idea that prarabdha is always undesirable,

obstructive, and a nuisance, but it is not like that.

Prarabdha is only a name for the residuum of karma; and

karma need not necessarily be a bad karma. We must have

done some good karma also; otherwise, how would it be

possible for us to have knowledge in this birth, if the

prarabdha was only obstructive – tamasic and rajasic? We

have a body caused by prarabdha, but are we not also

illumined? Somehow or other, we have consciousness of a

higher life and are aspiring for God, in spite of the prarabdha

being there.

This shows that all prarabdha is not bad. Sattvic

prarabdha will permit the manifestation of a consciousness

of a higher life, even aspiration for God. Only the rajasic and

tamasic aspects obstruct. And in most of us, by God's grace

we should say, the aspiration for God has arisen. That means

our prarabdhas, notwithstanding the fact that they are there

in the form of this body, are not always obstructive. If they

were totally obstructive, we would not have thought of God.

The idea of religion and spirituality would not arise. We

would only be muddled in the world and get sunk in samsara.

That this has not happened to many of us means sattvic

prarabdha is working. The Vedanta doctrine says that it does

not mean that prarabdha is always obstructive. It is

sometimes very helpful also, as in the case of when the

sattvic aspect of it manifests, it permits the manifestation of

knowledge.

Discourse 25

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 54-72

Upādāne vinaṣṭe’pi kṣaṇaṁ kāryaṁ pratīkṣate, ityāhus

tārkikā stadvad asmākaṁ kim na saṁbhavet (54). Tantūnāṁ

dina saṅkhyānāṁ taistādṛk kṣaṇa īritaḥ, bhramasyā saṅkhya

kalpasya yogyaḥ kṣaṇa iheṣyatām (55). The prarabdha karma,

which is the cause of this present body, permits the

continuance of this body for some time, as long as the force

of this prarabdha has not exhausted itself. The Naiyayikas, or

logicians, also hold the view that when the effect is produced

from a cause, the nature of the cause persists in the effect for

some time, even if it be only for a moment. In a similar

manner, the continuance of this body, though it be for some

years, should really be considered as only a continuance for a

moment in the light of eternity and the long duration of the

astronomical cosmos.

If we are able to live in this world for fifteen years, it

cannot be regarded as a great achievement because what are

fifteen years, twenty years or even thirty years in this vast

universe where the sun has been shining for millions of years

and the stars have been there for millions of years? Even this

mountain in front of us has been there – for how many years,

nobody knows. So many people have come and gone; this

mountain has seen them in this place.

Therefore, there is no need for any kind of extra

exultation on the body’s being there and continuing for some

time. The continuance of the body is no advantage to the

soul. It is only the lingering of an illness. Even after a person

has been declared fit and is discharged from the hospital,

something lingers.

Anyway, the Upanishads proclaim that ‘such’ a person

will not have rebirth. The description here is in regard to a

jivanmukta purusha who has no sanchita karma or agami

karma left in him, but prarabdha continues. What causes

rebirth is not prarabdha, because prarabdha is that

289

particular allotted portion of karma which is to be worked

out only through this body. It is not to be carried forward to

the next body. What causes the birth of the new body is the

fresh allotment of karma that is made out of the storehouse

of sanchita karmas – the accumulated potencies of past

actions lying in the deep unconscious level of our personality

in the anandamaya kosha. This has been burnt up in the case

of the jivanmukta purusha.

There are three kinds of karmas. All the potentials of past

deeds are stored up as in a granary, and a little of these items

in the storeroom are brought forward to the shop front for

retail selling. The shopkeeper does not bring the entire stock

to the forefront. When the commodities kept for retail sale

are exhausted or are about to be exhausted, he brings fresh

stock from the storeroom.

Sanchita karma is like this storeroom which contains all

the potencies of our deeds performed in thousands of births

that we have taken earlier. Inasmuch as one single body

cannot experience the fruits of all these actions, it has been

arranged that many, many bodies have to be taken in order

that different kinds of karmas may be experienced. Else, if all

the karmas have to be worked out through one body only,

the karmas will crush this body to such an extent that it will

not be there even for a moment. The body will crumble

immediately due to the weight of these karmas.

Hence, the arrangement of cosmic law is so very careful.

Wishing that all karmas have to be worked out, and yet it is

not possible for any person to individually work out all

karmas through one body, the arrangement is that we will

have many, many bodies. One particular body will be able to

undergo the fruit of one kind of karma; another body will be

necessary to work out the fruit of another kind of karma. And

so, a systematic arrangement has been made in thismanner.

When a particular body is born due to the working of the

‘retail’ or shopfront karma that has been taken out from the

storehouse of sanchita, the consciousness of the person gets

290

identified with the body very intensely; and due to the

attachment to this body, further karmas are done. More and

more deeds are performed. That is, we have been born into

this world with this body due to some karma of the past. But

are we keeping quiet now? We are busy doing something

even in this birth, even through this body. This ‘being busy’ is

also a cause for adding further karmas to the storeroom.

Thus, the store of karmas will never be exhausted.

Now in the case of the jivanmukta – the person who has

been illumined with the nature of God, Brahman – the old

store of karmas has been burnt up and, therefore, there is no

chance of another body being born for him. The agami

karma, or the karma created by fresh actions, will also not be

there because he is wise enough not to entangle himself in

any fresh action. So neither will he do any fresh action to add

to the old store, nor is the old store there; it is burnt up. The

only thing that remains is this prarabdha. When that is

exhausted, he will attain videhamukti, Universal salvation.

Vinā kṣoda kṣamaṁ mānam tair vṛthā parikalpyate, śruti

yuktyanu bhūtibhyaḥ vadatāṁ kiṁ nu duḥ śakam (56). Āstāṁ

dustār kikaiḥ sākaṁ vivādaḥ prakṛtaṁ bruve, svā’hamoḥ siddha

mekatvaṁ kūṭastha pariṇāminoḥ (57). This verse deals with

some quibble that the author has brought in the middle,

which is not connected with the actual subject of discussion –

the difference between the Naiyayikas and the Vedantins

with regard to the effect that is produced by the cause, and

the cause persisting in the effect for some time, etc. It is a

diversion from the main subject. Now we come to the main

subject.

The main theme is: The Self and the I-consciousness

attached to this body have been identified one with the other,

and then we begin to feel that we are an individual

personality. Kutastha is the innermost Universal Atman;

parinami is the ego-consciousness, the transient personality.

These two have been mixed up together; and then what

happens? The permanency of the Kutastha chaitanya makes

291

us feel that we are here to live for a long time, but the

brittleness of the body makes us sometimes suspect that long

life is not possible. Yet, the point is, the Self is different from

the body-consciousness or from the ‘I’ that is attached to the

body.

Bhrāmyante paṇḍitaṁ manyāḥ sarve laukika tairthikāḥ,

anādṛtyā śrutiṁ maurkhyāt kevalāṁ yukti māśritāḥ (58). Here

mere logic does not work. People who are accustomed to rely

only on logical arguments, not basing the logic on the

conclusions of the sruti or the Upanishads, do not come to

any conclusion in regard to the relationship between the true

Self and the false self.

There are three kinds of self, known as mukhyatman,

mithyatma and gaunatman. The mithyatman is the false

encumbrance that has grown over the Primary Self, the

Kutastha or the mukhyatman, in the form of the five sheaths –

annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, vijnanamaya,

anandamaya. These five sheaths are false superimpositions

and, therefore, they are called mithyatman, unreal self.

The Kutastha, or the real Atman inside, is called

mukhyatman or the primary Self. There is a third Atman

called the gaunatman, the object that is attractive and is

loveable. One hugs an object of affection by pouring selfhood

on that object. People say, "Oh my dear, this is my very self!"

The mother tells the child, "You are my very self." How could

the child become the self of the mother? She has transferred

her selfhood into the object, which is the child. Gold and

silver are the self of the money-minded businessman. There

are so many things in this world over which we pour our

selfhood.

Unless we pour our selfhood on something, we cannot

love that thing. Love is nothing but the movement of the self

in respect of an object outside; and to the extent that the self

is lost inside and it is poured more and more outside, to that

extent we seem to be less significant and the object seems to

292

be more significant. This is a travesty of affairs where the

object seems to become the subject, and the subject has been

completely annihilated. This is called gaunatman, or the

secondary self, the object that is affectionate. The false self is

the five sheaths. Mukhyatman is the primary Self, which is

the Kutastha Atman, the Universal Being within us.

Pūrvā para parāmarśa vikalā statra kecana, vākyā bhāsān

sva sva pakṣe yojayantya pyalajjayā (59). Kūṭasthādi śarīrānta

saṅghāta syātma tāṁ jaguḥ, lokāyatāḥ pāmarāśca pratyakṣā

bhāsa māśritāḥ (60). Foolish people have no proper

understanding of the distinction that is really there between

the Kutastha Atman and the false self, which is the five

sheaths, and not knowing the distinction between these two,

they consider this personality as the real being. "My friend is

coming. Here is my father. This is so-and-so." These

statements are a mix-up of ideas because when we say, "This

is my father," we do not know what actually it is that we are

demonstrating by pointing to some personality. The

Universal Atman cannot be regarded as a father. The five

sheaths are also not the father, because they have no

consciousness. Actually, we cremate the body of the father

when he is dead.

Now, the sheaths are not the father; and the Atman is

also not the father. Who is it that we call the father? It is an

imaginary concoction of ideas in the brain by mixing up two

issues: the foisted superimposed false self of the five sheaths

over the real Universality on the one hand, and the

transferring of the character of permanency or Universality

to the individuality of the five sheaths.

Human beings are, therefore, not existent entities. They

are only a complex of two issues – the phenomenal and the

noumenal. The phenomenal is not the real, and the noumenal

cannot become the particular. So actually, no individual can

be regarded as real by itself. It is a false appearance –

yourself, myself, and everything in the world. They become

appearances because they have no substance by themselves

293

except by a mix-up of two issues: partly the noumenal, and

partly the phenomenal.

Ignorant people, unlettered individuals, atheists and

materialists consider the body itself as the reality. They think

the physical body consisting of the five elements is the only

thing that is visible to the eyes, and that which is not seen is

not real. If it is not seen, it cannot be real. This is the pure

materialist point of view; it is based on observation and

experiment. And all observation, experiment and

investigation scientifically conducted are based on the

visibility of the object. Invisible things cannot be made the

object of scrutiny in this manner.

The material concept has gone so deep into the minds of

people that we sometimes call them materialists or

lokayatas, worldly people who, following the example of the

great leader called Virochana, consider the body as the final

reality.

It appears that once upon a time Prajapati, the great

creator, made a statement: "This Atman is to be contacted,

realised and experienced. Then everything that one wishes

becomes one's own." This was heard by Indra and the gods,

and the demons led by Virochana. "Oh there is something

called the Atman, by knowing which we can have everything

that we want. Let us have it!" So Indra and Virochana both

went to Brahma. Said Prajapati, "How have you come, sir?"

Indra/Virochana: "We have heard that the Atman must

be known; and if it is known, whatever we want, we will get.

Please teach us."

Prajapati: "Stay here for thirty-two years, observing selfrestraint.

I shall tell you what it is."

They stayed there with Brahma for thirty-two years.

After that, they said, "Please teach us the Atman. Please

teach."

294

Prajapati: "Go and look at yourself in the water, and what

you see there is the Atman." Indra and Virochana went, and

they saw themselves reflected in the water. What did they

see? The physical body – this is the Atman. Very surprising!

Virochana said, "This is the Atman! Wonderful! This is the

Atman. This is the body." He returned and proclaimed to the

demons, "I have known the Atman. This very thing that you

are seeing with your eyes is the Atman."

But Indra did not feel satisfied. A big story it is! He went

several times to Brahma and then got initiated into the true

Atman. Anyway, Virochana is the one who was misguided by

the first instruction of Brahma and thought that the physical

body is the Atman. His followers are called lokayatas,

materialists who do not believe in anything except the

physical elements.

Śrautī kartuṁ svapakṣaṁ te kośa manna mayaṁ tathā,

virocanasya siddhāntaṁ pramāṇaṁ prati jajñire (61).

Annamaya kosha, or the physical sheath, is regarded by them

as all-in-all. Eat, drink and be merry. This is a statement that

is readily attributed to the lokayatas, or thematerialists.

Jīvātma nirgame deha maraṇa syātra darśanāt, dehāti rikta

evātmeti āhur lokāyatāh pare (62). There are certain polished

materialists who do not believe that this body is really the

Self, because they feel that the body perishes. That would

mean that the Atman also perishes. Such a self is useless,

undesirable. There must be something which persists after

the destruction of the body. That something which is a subtle

potential – a subtle element, which is supposed to be there

after the passing of the body – should be considered as the

Self; this is something that is opined by certain well-educated

materialists.

Pratyakṣatva nābhimatā haṁdhīr dehāti rekiṇam, gamaye

dindri yātmānaṁ vacmī tyādi prayogataḥ (63). There are others

who feel that the body cannot be the Self because the body is

moved by the sense organs. Visibly we can see that the

295

consciousness of I-ness is associated with some activity that

is not entirely capable of identification with a physical body.

Sensations, the perceptions, are the functions of certain

principles in us which cannot be identified with the body.

Indriya, or the self which is constituted of the sensations,

should be considered as reality. This doctrine that holds

sensations to be the Ultimate Reality is called sensationalism.

Materialism is the doctrine of the reality of matter only.

Sensationalism is the doctrine that suggests that the senses

constitute the criterion of judgement of any kind of value in

the world.

Vāgādīnā mindriyāṇāṁ kalahaḥ śrutiṣu śrutaḥ, tena caitanya

meteṣām ātmatvaṁ tata eva hi (64). In the Upanishads there

are anecdotes where the sense organs such as the eye, the

ear, etc. supposedly contended among themselves which is

superior, because the prana started saying, "Who among us is

superior? He, by the exit of whom others cannot exist, may be

regarded as superior. Let somebody quit; after that, if the

reat of us become miserable, then we may say that person

(sense) is superior."

So the eye left; he went away. But even if the eyes were

not there, there was no problem. The ears could hear, nose

could smell, the tongue could taste, etc. Then the ear said, "I

am very important. Let me quit, and let us see what

happens." The ears left, but nothing happened. If the ears

were not there they could not hear, of course, but they could

see, and many other things could be done.

So it was found that none of the organs could be regarded

as more superior than the others. But when the prana said, "I

am superior, and I shall quit," then all the senses started

shaking. It looked as if the whole building was cracking

because when the prana goes, the senses break down

immediately. So all the senses said, "Don't go, don't go!

Please, we accept you as superior." Then they all worshipped

him.

296

This kind of contention among the sense organs is a story

that is recorded for us in the Upanishads, on account of

which we may say that there is some reality in the sense

organs; and so a kind of selfhood may be attributed to the

senses, but not necessarily to the body.

But there are others who say, "Prana is the real Self, not

merely the sense organs, because it has been illustrated and

proven in this analogy, the story of contention among the

senses, that prana is superior. The senses are not superior, so

we cannot consider the senses as the Self. It is the prana that

is the real Self, the vital Self. The physical self, the sensational

self, all have gone. Now the vital self presents itself. It is a

manifestation of the cosmic prana, Hiranyagarbha. Those

who worship Hiranyagarbha say, "Prana is the supreme Self."

Hairaṇya garbhāḥ prāṇātma vādina stveva mūcire,

cakṣurādya kṣalope’pi prāṇa sattve tu jīvati (65). Even if all the

senses are not there, even if we are blind, deaf and dumb, but

if the prana is there, we are alive. So the prana should be

considered as the true Self, because prana is alive even when

we are asleep. Even when the senses are stifled, as it were, as

in the state of sleep, and are not conscious, the prana is

awake like a watchman; and so we must consider the prana

as superior to all the senses.

Prāṇo jāgarti supte’pi prāṇa śraiṣṭhyā dikaṁ śrutam, kośaḥ

prāṇamayaḥ samyak vistareṇa prapañcitaḥ (66). Even in sleep,

the prana is awake. The pranamaya kosha should be

considered as the Self. The vital sheath is the reality; vitality

is the Self. This is one doctrine of the vitalists. In the West

also there are certain philosophers called vitalists who hold

that there is a kind of protoplasmic energy which is present

in all living beings, and it is the final reality in the individual.

Those who hold that vitality is the ultimate value, call their

doctrine vitalism – not materialism, not sensationalism, but

vitalism. Bergson comes under this category.

297

Mana ātmeti manyanta upāsana parā janāḥ, prāṇasyā

bhoktṛtā spaṣṭā bhoktṛtvam manasas tataḥ (67). There are

idealists who say that prana cannot be the Self. What is the

prana? It has no consciousness of its own. You are saying it is

awake during sleep; let it be awake. But it is not aware that it

is awake. It has no consciousness; it cannot think. It is a kind

of action, minus thought. So thought is more important;

minus thought, what is the good of life? You may be

breathing, that is all right, but you don't think. Is it a proper

life? The mind is the real Self, not the prana, say the idealists

who consider themind as the supreme function in the human

individual.

Mana eva manuṣyāṇām kāraṇaṁ bandha mokṣayoḥ, śruto

manomayaḥ kośas tenātmetī ritaṁ manaḥ (68). In the

Upanishad also, it is said that mind is the cause of the

bondage and the liberation of a person. If the mind is filled

with the desire for objects, it is for our bondage; if the mind

is free from desire for objects, it is for our liberation. So the

mind is superior, and it is the source of our joys and sorrows.

It is the true Self, is what the idealists say – not the prana or

the vital substance.

There are others who think that this is not a final solution

of things. Mind is, of course, there; it is very essential, and it

is superior to the prana, but mind is there even in animals.

There is a kind of instinctive mind working there; there is an

indeterminate process of thinking. Indistinct thought is the

work of the mind. Decisive, determined, logical conclusions

cannot be arrived at by the mind. The reason, intellect, is

necessary.

We consider the intellect as superior to the mind. The

Vijnanavadins are Buddhist idealists who consider reason as

the final reality; all the objects of the world are considered as

manifestations or concretisations of certain processes of the

intellect itself. This philosophy is called subjectivism, which

considers the internal processes of the intellect or the reason

as determining factors of even objects outside in theworld.

298

Vijñāna mātmeti para āhuḥ kṣaṇika vādinaḥ, yato vijñāna

mūlatvaṁ manaso gamyate sphuṭam (69). The world is

transient; it is momentary because the little bits of process

that is the intellectual function are also transient. So the

world, looking like a solid substance, is really not solid. It is

like a piece of cloth which is made up of little threads, and so

the appearance of solidity in the cloth is an illusion. Actually,

it is a complex of little inner components which are the

threads.

The world is not a solid object. Nothing, not even this

body and the objects outside, are solid objects. They are

temporary complexes constituted of certain bits of

intellectual process called vijnana dhara; thus the Buddhist

idealists hold. Intellectual process is the Ultimate Reality.

There is nothing beyond. No Self exists for them; only

process exists.

Ahaṁ vṛtti ridaṁ vṛttiḥ ityantaḥ karaṇaṁ dividhā, vijñānaṁ

syādahaṁ vṛttiḥ idaṁ vṛttir mano bhavet (70). I and mine, I and

this, are certain processes of the psyche. The affirmation of

the I is to be attributed to the ego, which is a part of the

intellectual function, and the this-ness that is attributed in

perception is to be attributed to the mind. The mind is a kind

of instrument of the reason. There are two functions of the

psyche – the determining, and the pure thinking. The

indeterminate thinking process is attributed to the mind; the

deciding and determining function is attributed to the

intellect. The intellect is interior to the mind; the mind is

exterior to the intellect.

The mind is a kind of crude intellection, and the intellect

is the purified form of the mind. Vijnana is the intellect which

is the cause of the feeling of I-ness in us, and the sense of

this-ness, mine-ness, etc., are attributed to the mental

function. The mind and the intellect are primary in our

nature psychologically.

299

Ahaṁ pratyaya bījatvam idaṁ vṛtte riti sphuṭam, aviditvā

svamā tmānaṁ bāhyaṁ vetti na tu kvacit (71). The

consciousness of this-ness, mine-ness, etc., is actually

traceable to the consciousness of I-ness, which is a

characteristic of the ego. If ‘I’ is not there, ‘mine’ will not be

there. In order that we may possess something and feel a

sense of mine-ness, ownership in respect of anything, we

must exist first of all. Not only should we exist, we must also

know that we are existing. Self-consciousness, which is the

consciousness of one's own existence, is prior to the

consciousness of anything outside as belonging to oneself,

etc.

So the I-consciousness is the root of the other types of

consciousness, such as mine-ness, this-ness, etc. Unless we

know that we are existing, we cannot know that others are

existing. Self-consciousness is primary; other consciousness

is secondary. This is also a great instruction to us that,

knowingly or unknowingly, we consider ourselves as

superior to all other people. And all our welfare or activities

outside are only a kind of camouflage of our egoistic action.

Finally, when everything is drowning, we will try to save

ourselves.

Kṣaṇe kṣaṇe janma nāśau ahaṁ vṛtter mitau yataḥ,

vijñānaṁ kṣaṇikaṁ tena svaprakāśaṁ svato miteḥ (72). It is a

doctrine that there is a momentary function of the

intellectual process, as has been already indicated; and if we

are going to agree with the doctrine that the intellectual

process is constituted of a kind of process or movement

made up of little bits, there can be a continuity of little bits

also, just as a chain is made up of little links. A chain is a

continuity, but the links are separate. One link is separate

from another link. So in spite of there being continuity, there

can be a gap or breakup of parts in themiddle.

So if we consider that the world, or the perception of the

world, is a transitory process of intellectual function, as the

idealists of Buddhism hold, then there would be no self300

consciousness. Self-consciousness is not made up of little

parts. If the intellect is the final reality, as these people hold,

and reason is everything and yet it is fractional – made up of

little bits, as threads constitute the cloth – then every

moment we would be feeling that we are little-little pieces

put together. But we never feel like that.

We would feel that we are jumbles of little pieces of

matter, little bits of intellectual process, little parts of

ideation, and that we are never a single whole. I cannot say,

"I am coming” or “We are coming"; I have to say, "The

bundles are coming." We never feel that we are bundles of

little-little pieces of idea or material substance. We feel that

we are one indivisible thing – indivisible and impossible of

fraction. We never feel that we are transitory. We do not feel

that we are a movement.We feel that we are solid existences.

That is a phenomenon that has to be explained, and it cannot

be explained by the doctrine that there is only process in the

world, and there is nothing prior to the process.

Discourse 26

CHAPTER 6: CHITRADIPA – LIGHT ON THE ANALOGY

OF A PAINTED PICTURE, VERSES 70-77

There is a gradual development of thought in the

chapters of the Panchadasi, as you would have noticed

during our studies. It is not that any specific order is

indicated anywhere in different chapters. It is important to

connect the thoughts into a systematic whole in order that

the entire presentation may become a guideline for our

whole life. People who listen to these discourses may not

have been able to notice the inner coherence of these

teachings. The coherence aspect of the teachings is based on

the coherence of the structure of life itself. It is not that we do

anything we like, right from morning to evening. There is a

system in our activity, in our mode of thinking, in our general

outlook of life.

The nature of the world determines the behaviour of

people in respect of the world. It is a cosmological system, if

we can put it so – the methodology of the gradual descent of

reality, stage by stage, until it reaches the lowest category of

earth consciousness.We are now bound to the world of earth

consciousness in the sense that we are perpetually aware of a

material world outside us. In such an intensity do we become

conscious of the world outside; and the world seems to be

flooding us with its variety and compulsion to such an extent

that many a time we forget that we exist at all. Our existence

is drowned in the existence of the world. We are concerned

with the world very much, not paying sufficient attention to

the fact that this concern for the world would not have any

meaning if we ourselves do not exist.

This is the reason why the very first chapter starts with

the fundamental question of our existence itself. Let the

world be there or not; that is a different question. Are you

existing? If you are sure that you exist in a convincing

manner, on the basis of that conviction, you can develop

further relations with things outside – the world, etc. The

302

first chapter was, therefore, devoted to the establishment of

a fundamental reality behind the human individual

independent of the three states of waking, dreaming and

sleeping. This is the subject of the first chapter, if you can

recollect what you have heard.

Consciousness is externalised in the state of waking,

internalised in the state of dream, totally stifled, as it were, in

the state of sleep; nevertheless, it persists as a continuity in

all the three states of waking, dream and sleep. Because of its

continuity in the three states, we are able to recollect our

identity the next morning when we wake up from sleep. If

this consciousness were not continuously present in the

three states, there would be no awareness of our identity as a

person who slept yesterday. We would be aware of

somebody else.

Essentially, the first chapter dealt with the nature of the

fundamental consciousness which is our essential nature,

into which we enter in the state of deep sleep, where our

consciousness is not connected to any of the sheaths –

neither to the causal, nor the intellectual, mental, sensory,

vital or physical. It appears to be existing there as an

unadulterated, pure, featureless Universality. Our essential

nature is Universal Consciousness – not body consciousness

or world consciousness or object consciousness. This is the

quintessence of the first chapter. The establishment of the

existence of a reality behind the individual is the primary

theme of the first chapter.

In the second chapter, the objective analysis of the world

was taken up: the world of five elements. Though we are to

some extent conscious that our essential nature cannot be a

physical embodiment in the form of this body, mind etc., and

that we are basically a consciousness that is imperishable,

the world is too much for us, many a time. The world is

constituted of five elements: earth, water, fire, air and ether.

The second chapter engaged itself in the distinguishing of the

303

form taken by these elements and the reality that is behind

them.

The point that was essentially made out there was: When

we say, “Ether exists, fire exists, water exists, earth exists,”

etc., we are likely to consider existence as a kind of predicate

or an adjunct to space, air, etc. Existence is not a quality of

space. It is space that is a quality of existence. In our

statements like, “The building exists, this exists, that exists,”

we wrongly attribute a qualitative character to Pure

Existence that is at the back of all things, and give

substantiality to that which is really a quality.

The existence aspect of anything is primary. The form of

that thing is secondary. Space, air, fire, water, earth are forms

taken by Pure Existence in an objective fashion. Existence

has to be separated from the forms taken by existence in the

shape of these five elements. Pure Existence is universal, as

distinguishable from the five elements. Objectively also,

universality of consciousness is established, as subjectively it

was established in the first chapter.

In the third chapter, the analysis was practically in the

direction of what we call, “Who am I?” Are we the body or

anything that we consider as this psychophysical complex?

With analysis of this situation, it was proven that we are not

the physical body because it has no consciousness. In the

dream state, we are not even aware that the physical body is

existing. That is to say, we can exist even minus

consciousness of the physical body.

In the state of deep sleep, even the consciousness of mind

being there is not there. In dream, the mind is operating; the

body is not there. But in deep sleep, even the mind is not

there. When the body and the mind both are not there, what

is there in the state of deep sleep? Something is there. Do you

exist in sleep? Yes, I exist. In what form do you exist? Not as

the body, not as the mind. But we always consider ourselves

as a complex of body and mind. Psychophysicality is

regarded as the true nature of our personality, while really

304

we are neither of these. This has been established in this

analysis of the third chapter, or the enquiry into the nature of

the individual, who is none of the five sheaths – not the

physical, not the vital, not the sensory or the mental, not the

intellectual, not the causal – Pure Universality.

So in all the three chapters, we have this one single

theme driven into us, that Universality, which is the pure

Brahman Consciousness, is at the back of the three states on

the one side, and at the back of the five elements on another

side, and at the back of the five sheaths on the third side.

In the fourth chapter, a very important one, we were

introduced into the concept of Ishvara and jiva – creation of

the world by God, and the creation of the individual

psychologically. The world of five elements, this entire

cosmos, is created by God. It is an objective reality. The

presentation of these objects in our perception through the

sense organs is what we call actually consciousness of an

object. The object is there independently by itself,

unconcerned with what we are thinking about it.

The mountain is there, the river is there, the sun is there,

the moon is there, stars are there. They are not bothered

about what we are thinking about them. That is one aspect of

the matter. Objective reality is the creation of God Almighty –

Ishvara-srishti it is called. Ishvara-srishti is God’s creation,

impersonal in its nature, and it is not concerned with the

viewpoints or whims and fancies or emotions of people

individually. This is the objective character of creation,

known as Ishvara-srishti.

But there is also the subjective side, which is the world

created by our own selves. Our sorrows are not caused by

God. He does not create anything specially for certain

persons. The experience of joy and sorrow is a personal

matter. It is engendered by the reaction of the mind of the

individual in respect to the objects outside, which are all

God’s creation, Ishvara-srishti.

305

Loves and hatreds are the cause of sorrow. Certain things

in the world are regarded by the individual mind as its own,

and it segregates everything else as not its own. What it

considers as its own, it clings to; and what it considers as not

its own, it rejects.

The reason for clinging to objects is a peculiar

juxtaposition of values between the mind and the object

concerned; and this juxtaposition does not continue for all

times. The relationship between our mind and the object is

not a permanent one. As the mood changes, as evolution

progresses onward, as age grows, our wisdom increases, and

we will find that our ideas about the world go on changing

and what we wanted yesterday may not be the thing that we

want today.

So it is very funny that one should cling to some things

under the impression that they are the source of happiness,

while actually they are fickle in their location. Not only our

mind is fickle, but even the situation of the object is fickle.

The object will not be there for all eternity for us to be

attracted to. As the mind changes and progresses in the

evolutionary process, the objects of the world also change.

We won’t always have the same thing to cling to. So

subjectively and objectively, there is a mistake in the

attachment of the mind to objects of sense. This attachment

is the source of sorrow. That world of psychology created by

the individual is called jiva-srishti, individual creation. This

distinction was drawn in the fourth chapter.

The fifth chapter concentrated on the elucidation of the

four great sentences of the Upanishads: prajnanam brahma,

aham brahmasmi, tat tvam asi, ayamatma brahma. Prajnana

brahma: Consciousness is Brahman; the ultimate nature of

reality is Pure Consciousness. This is the definition of

Brahman as we have it in the Aitareya Upanishad of the Rig

Veda.

And aham brahmasmi: The fundamental consciousness in

us is identical with the Universal Consciousness. This is a

306

statement that occurs in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad of

the Yajur Veda. Tat tvam asi: Thou art that. This individual is

basically identical with the Absolute. This is a statement that

comes in the Chhandogya Upanishad of the Sama Veda.

Ayamatma brahma: This Self is Brahman verily, basically,

fundamentally. This statement comes in the Mandukya

Upanishad of the Atharva Veda. This is the substance of the

fifth chapter.

It is when we enter the sixth chapter that we actually

wallow through a large body of thoughts right from the

subject of creation, which was compared to the process of the

painting of a picture. That is how the sixth chapter started.

We have a canvas, first of all, for the purpose of painting, and

then the canvas is stiffened with starch; that is the second

stage. And then on the stiffened cloth, outlines are drawn for

painting. That is the third stage. And lastly, ink is filled in at

the fourth stage.

So is creation. In the beginning, there was no creation.

The Absolute Being alone was. That background of

everything which is uncontaminated with the creative

process is Brahman, the Absolute Being that wills to create,

as it were. That willing process is something like the

stiffening of the Universality of consciousness, as by starch

the cloth is stiffened. That condition of the concentration of

the will of Brahman towards the future creation is the state

of Ishvara.

And then the drawing of the outline of the future creation

is in the state of the Hiranyagarbha-tattva, where as in a

dream, we see the objects of the world faintly, but not clearly.

The outline of the future creation is seen in Hiranyagarbhatattva.

In Virat, the final form of creation, the entire world

occurs and variety is seen.

Now the details in regard to this are the theme of the

sixth chapter. God, the world and the individual – Ishvara,

jagat and jiva – are the subject of this chapter. Ishvara

creates this world through His maya shakti, which is another

307

name for the pure sattva guna, the property of equilibrium of

prakriti. Inasmuch as pure sattva is universal in its nature,

Brahman reflected in that sattva is also universal. Therefore,

Ishvara is universal; therefore, He is also omniscient;

therefore, He is omnipotent also. But when the sattva of

prakriti is submerged by the activity of rajas and tamas,

individuality crops up. Rajas is the distracting power of

prakriti. It divides things, one from the other. So we are all

divided. Each person is different from every other person.

Every atom is different from every other atom. Segregation is

the action of rajas.

This has been done; and so each one, each entity, each

item, thinks that it is different from the other. On account of

this division of consciousness, and the feeling of individuality

or isolation in each one, there is a difficulty that arises

spontaneously – namely, the impossibility to exist in a finite

condition. The separation causes the consciousness of

finitude. Each one thinks, “I am limited.” Now who would like

to be limited? It is a sorrow to be in a state of limitation of

freedom. In order that this limitation can be made good, the

individual that is finite engages itself in certain actions by

which it comes in contact with the objects of the world, and

creates a relative atmosphere of inclusiveness of the objects

with itself.

When we associate ourselves with people outside or

things in general in a social form, there is a false appearance

of our finitude getting expanded. We feel more comfortable

in a society, in a body of an organisation, as a citizen of a

nation, than when we are totally individual. It does not mean

that the nation or the organisation has expanded our

finitude. There is a false feeling of security on account of an

externalised or foisted increase in the dimension of

personality. Life is a falsehood ultimately because of the false

assurance given to us that we are secure in this world by

associations with external objects and persons and things,

308

while we are totally insecure finally. We are basically finite.

The finitude does not go.

It cannot go by any kind of external contact. It can go only

by the internalisation of consciousness. The infinity that we

are asking for, the infinity that is the opposite of finitude that

we are, is not outside. It is inside. It is in Selfhood and,

therefore, any kind of external contact does not bring this

security that we seek in this world.

The explanation of the nature of God’s creation is over

and the nature of the jiva individual is taken up; and

tentatively it is mentioned that the mistake of the individual

or jiva is to identify itself with its personality, individuality.

This is the subject which we were discussing till yesterday.

This individuality of ours (this is sloka number 70) is

constituted of an involvement of consciousness in the five

sheaths already mentioned – causal, intellectual, mental, vital

and physical. The intellectual body is also the source of the

ego-consciousness, the consciousness of personality that we

entertain.

Ahaṁ vṛtti ridaṁ vṛttiḥ ityantaḥ karaṇaṁ dividhā, vijñānaṁ

syādahaṁ vṛttiḥ idaṁ vṛttir mano bhavet (70). “I am, and this

is mine.” These are the two statements generally that we

make in respect of our life. “This is me, and this is mine.” The

statement “This is me” is made by the ego-consciousness,

which is operating through the intellect. The statement “This

is mine” is made by the mind, which is a secondary

instrument of the intellect. The mind is objective to the

intellect or reason. The intellect is subjective, internal, to the

mind. In the same way as our property – the ownership that

we have in respect of things – is external to our true being, Iness

comes first; my-ness comes afterwards.

Ahaṁ pratyaya bījatvam idaṁ vṛtte riti sphuṭam, aviditvā

svamā tmānaṁ bāhyaṁ vetti na tu kvacit (71). I-consciousness

comes first; all other consciousness of the world comes

afterwards. If we are not aware that we are existing, how

309

would we know that other things are existing? When we

wake up from deep sleep, sometimes we do not know where

we are. It takes some few minutes for us to be aware that we

have woken up and we are self-conscious. When a person is

in deep sleep and he wakes up, he takes a few minutes to

know that he is existing at all. He is dozing, very giddy,

rubbing his eyes, and does not know at all that even the body

exists. Slowly, he becomes conscious that his body is there.

Afterwards, slowly he begins to perceive that something is

there outside. What is there outside is not very clear. Then it

becomes clear; it is a door that is in front.

Sometimes people who are in very deep sleep cannot

suddenly know the direction of a door or a window, when

they wake up in the middle of the night. If they want to go to

the bathroom, for example, they hit their head against the

wall because they think it is a door. Such is the effect of

consciousness that is not there at all in respect of the body.

So gradually, from I-consciousness, body-consciousness,

personality-consciousness, there is consciousness of

externality, something being there, indistinctly at first; and

afterwards, distinctly we begin to perceive that it is so-andso.

This is the action of these two principles inside – the

intellect and the mind. After we know ourselves, we begin to

know that something is there outside.

Kṣaṇe kṣaṇe janma nāśau ahaṁ vṛtter mitau yataḥ,

vijñānaṁ kṣaṇikaṁ tena svaprakāśaṁ svato miteḥ (72). The

intellect is a process, as Buddhist psychology will tell us. It is

not a continuity, as the flow of oil from a pot; it is an

apparent continuity. Even the flame of a lamp is not

supposedly a solid mass. It is, as modern science tells us,

constituted of little particles, packets of waves or particles, as

they call it in our so-called quantum theories. We will not

find continuity, in the sense of a solidity, in anything in this

world.

310

Even the intellectual process is such a movement of little

bits of thought, ideations, moving in the direction of a

particular object or the world outside, and giving the

impression that there is a flow. Every minute there is

cessation of the earlier bit of ideation, and a new bit starts

manifesting itself, giving an impression of its connection with

the earlier bit, so that a continuity, or a chain of thoughts, is

maintained though the chain is made up of different links,

one link being different from the other.

The sub-consciousness of the intellect is not actually the

consciousness of the intellect by itself, because anything that

is made up of little bits cannot be conscious of itself as

indivisibility. Something else, which is self-luminous, is at the

back of it and gives it the impression that it is self-conscious.

Vijñāna maya kośo’yaṁ jīva ityāgamā jaguḥ, sarva saṁsāra

etasya janma nāśa sukhā dikaḥ (73). Scriptures and certain

philosophical thoughts affirm that this vijnanamaya kosha,

intellectual sheath, is the real jiva. What we call individuality,

personality, jiva-hood, is the name of this intellectuality, this

egoism, going together in a single action. All samsara, world

entanglement, is caused by this.

Birth and death also are caused by this consciousness of

body, which is created by the intellectual identification of ego

with the body. The whole entanglement is to be attributed to

this personality-consciousness.

Vijñānaṁ kṣaṇikaṁ nātmā vidyu dabhra nimeṣa vat,

anyasyā nupa labdhatvāt śunyaṁ mādhyamikā jaguḥ (74). As it

was already mentioned, this intellectual consciousness is

momentary. It is made up of bits of thought. Therefore, it

cannot be identified with the Atman, which is indivisible. It

flashes forth like a lightening in the sky. But it does not stay

there for a long time.

There are some people who feel that finally we enter into

a nothingness. If we go on abrogating all the sheaths,

including the causal sheath, including the intellectual sheath,

311

what remains? If we disentangle ourselves from our reason

and understanding, what remains? We will find that

practically nothing will remain there. We will feel like nil, a

zero, a darkness, a thoughtless vacuum. This is what people

say is nil, or shunya.

There is one school of thought that holds that a vacuum is

the Ultimate Reality: Everything is nothingness, finally. The

whole solid universe can be reduced to nothingness

ultimately by reduction of the effects into causes. This is one

thought and one school of belief.

Asadevda mityāda vidameva śrutaṁ tataḥ, jñāna jñeyā

tmakaṁ sarvaṁ jagad bhrānti prakalpitam (75). This

philosophy which holds that ultimately everything is nil

quotes a peculiar scripture from the Upanishad which says,

“Nothingness was there ultimately.” The Upanishad, when it

says, “Nothingness was there,” does not mean that really

there was nothingness. It means that the world was not

there.

The manifestation of names and forms was not there at

the beginning of creation. Non-existence of the variety of

creation in the form of names and forms is called asat, or

non-existence. What was there in the beginning? Nonexistence

was there. Non-existence does not really mean

non-existence of everything. It is only the non-existence of

variety, creation, solidity, externality, name, form. The

vacuous philosophers mistakenly conclude this statement

means that nothing really exists, finally. But it cannot be.

Mere vacuum is inconceivable. How can we know that

nothing is there unless there is somebody who says that

nothing is there? There must be an awareness that nothing is

there; therefore, we cannot say consciousness also is not

there. The statement that nothing is there finally is a

statement made by consciousness, and that itself cannot be

nothing. So the vacuous philosophy does not hold water.

312

There is something behind even the concept of nil, or zero,

and that is the ‘That which is’.

Niradhi ṣṭhāna vibhrānteḥ abhāvā dātmano’stitā,

śūnyasyāpi sasākṣitvāt anyathā noktirasya te (76). There must

be a witnessing consciousness of even the nothing that is

there. If everything has gone, let it go. But somebody should

know that everything has gone. Or, if there is nobody to

know that everything has gone, how would we say that

everything has gone? The statement is irrelevant. There is a

witness consciousness necessary to observe the

phenomenon of non-entity, even taking for granted that the

whole entire world can be reduced to nothingness one day in

the state of pralaya or dissolution.

Anyo vijñāna mayata ānandmaya āntaraḥ, astī tyevo

palabdhavya iti vaidika darśanam (77). The Mimamsa doctrine

is another school of thought which holds that intellect is not

the final reality, and there is no use of going on haranguing

on the nature of the intellect or even the concept of

shunyatva or nil, which is untenable. There is the causal

sheath or anandamaya kosha, which is the fundamental

criterion of the individuality of a person. That individuality is

permanent. We need not identify individuality with the

intellect, the mind, the senses, the prana and the body, taken

for granted; but there is something which is behind them that

is the primary individuality called anandamaya kosha. This is

the doctrine of the Mimamsakas, which we will take up

afterwards.                   

         

Om Tat Sat

(Continued ....)

(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Sree Swamy Krishnananda
 and Sree Swamy Sivananda of The Divine Life Society  and also grateful
to other Swamyjis   for the collection)