COMMENTARY ON THE PANCHADASI by SWAMI KRISHNANANDA - 3

COMMENTARY ON THE

PANCHADASI

by

SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

Sadvas tvadhika vṛttitvāt dharma vyomnastu dharmatā,

dhiyā sataḥ pṛthakkāre: When we distinguish by penetrating

understanding between Existence and space (that is,

Existence and spatiality), we will find there is no Existence in

spatiality. If we separate Existence from spatiality (which is

the quality of space), there would be no existence of

spatiality. The so-called existence of space is an illusion

introduced into our mind by the wrong association of

emptiness (which is the quality of space) with Pure

Existence. But by intellectual analysis, if we can separate the

element of Pure Existence from spatiality, we will find that

spatiality is a non-entity. The space itself does not exist. The

Existence is something different from what appears to be

there in front of us. Dhiyā sataḥ pṛthakkāre: What is space?

Please tell me. If it is divested of Existence, it is nonexistence.

Avakāśā tmakaṁ tat cet asattaditi cintyatām, bhinnaṁ

sato’sacca neti vakṣi ced vyāhati stava (69). We may say space

exists as a dimension. It cannot exist; that is what I am

saying. Even dimension cannot exist without its association

with Pure Being. If Pure Being is separated from the

spatiality of space, then the dimension of space also falls

down. It does not exist any more.

Asattaditi cintyatām: Consider space as asat, nonexistence,

unreal when it is divested of Pure Being. Bhinnaṁ

sato’sacca: We cannot say that space is separate from

Existence and is existing by itself. These are contradictory

statements. Either it is associated with Existence, or it is not.

If it is associated with Existence, it is a wrong association,

because space which is particularly characterised by

qualities which are not of Existence cannot be associated

with Existence; but if we say that it need not be so associated,

it becomes unreal. So either way, space does not exist

independently by itself.

Bhinnaṁ sato’sacca: We may say, “Space is visible to my

eyes. How can I deny it?” Visibility is not the test of reality.

131

We can see a phantasmagoria. We can see castles in the

clouds. We can see a snake in the rope. We can see water in

the mirage. It does not mean that because we see something,

it is there. So we shouldn’t bring the argument that because I

am seeing space, it must exist. If we apply our understanding,

we will come to the conclusion that our seeing is defective.

Our understanding will rectify our erroneous perception of

the so-called existence of space, and will conclude that it

does not exist at all.

Bhātīti cet bhātu nāma bhūṣaṇaṁ māyiksya tat, yadasad

bhāsa mānaṁ tat mithyā svapna gajādi vat (70). As we see

elephants in dreams, so we see the world of space. Elephants

are moving about in the forest or jungles of the dream world.

Are we not seeing them? But do we believe that they really

exist there? So don't say that I am seeing space and,

therefore, it must exist. Perceptibility is not the criterion of

reality. The world is real in the same sense that elephants in

dream are real.

Jāti vyakti dehi denau guṇa dravye yathā pṛthak, viyat sato

stathai vāstu pārthakyaṁ ko’tra vismayaḥ (71). The species, or

genera, is different from its particular. The body is different

from its limbs. The substance is different from the quality. In

the similar way, Existence is different from space.

As we distinguish between quality and substance, we

have to distinguish between space and Absolute Existence.

As the substance is not the quality, Existence is not space,

and space is not Existence.

Buddho’pi bhedo no citte nirūḍhiṁ yati cetadā, anaikāgryāt

saṁśayād vā rūḍhya bhāvo’sya te vada (72). You may say, “I am

not able to understand what you are saying. After all, I am

seeing space. You are putting forth some arguments to prove

that logically space cannot exist. Maybe, but it does not enter

my brain.” Why does it not enter your brain? Is it because

you have doubts, or you have no strength to concentrate

132

your mind properly? If you cannot concentrate, please

develop the art of concentration.

Apramaṭo bhava dhyānāt ādye’nyāsmin vivecanam, kuru

pramāṇa yuktibhyāṁ tato rūḍha tamo bhavet (73). The

inability to distinguish between Pure Existence and the form

which it has taken as space is due to the inability to

concentrate the mind properly. We do not have sufficient

logical capacity to distinguish between things; the real and

the unreal get mixed up in our understanding, and we do not

have that perspicacity of understanding by which such

distinction can be arrived at. So the author says that we must

develop the power of concentration. We must be very strong

in our will, and we must be able to come to decisive

conclusions through logical apprehension, if our difficulty is

due to absence of concentration of mind.

Ādye’nyāsmin vivecanam: But if we have doubts, our

doubts cannot be removed unless thorough investigation is

made into our own psychic condition.Why do doubts arise in

themind? There is a muddle in our thinking. So psychological

analysis is necessary in the case of doubts in the mind. And if

it is absence of concentration of mind, meditation is

prescribed.

Kuru pramāṇa yuktibhyāṁ tato rūḍha tamo bhavet: If this

practice is resorted to, we will succeed in apprehending the

great fact that Pure Existence pervades all things, and space,

time, etc., are its apparent manifestations.

Dhyānāt mānāt yuktito’pi rūḍhe bhede viyat satoḥ, na

kadācit viyat satyaṁ sadvastu cchidra vanna ca (74). After a

deep investigation into the nature of fact, what do we

conclude? By meditation, by the proper application of the

right means of knowledge, by logical methods, we distinguish

very clearly between Existence and form, and we will never

again make the mistake of confounding Existence with space,

or vice versa – space with Existence. The idea is repeated

again and again to drive into our minds the Ultimate Reality

133

of something which we cannot see with our eyes, and the

unreality of that which we are seeing with our eyes.

Jñasya bhāti sadā vyoma nistattvo llekha pūrvavat,

sadvastvapi vibhā tyasya nicchidratva puraḥ saram (75). People

with wisdom and insight, who are called jnasya, can see right

in front of them the pervasion of Universal Existence behind

all things. Just as we can see light spread out everywhere

when the sun shines, the jivanmukta purusha, the great

realised soul, can actually, visibly, see God pervading all

things. There is no necessity to argue about the existence of

God. There is no necessity to go on investigating into the

nature of Existence as different from space. The knower,

jnani purusha, directly beholds Pure Existence as an

inundating Universality, and he will not see space at all. He

will see light and radiance flooding itself everywhere, and

never see dimension, distance, etc.

There is no distance between things. Millions and

millions of light years do not make any difference to Pure

Existence, which connects all things together. In one second

we can contact even the stars, though they may appear to be

so far away, physically speaking. Physical distance is only an

illusion created by the so-called dimension called space. So

wemust go deep into this matter and not get caught up in the

illusion of there being such things called dimension and

distance, which really are not there.

Vāsanāyaṁ pravṛddhāyāṁ viyat satyatva vādinam,

sanmātrā bodha yuktaṁ ca dṛṣṭvā vismayate budhaḥ (76). The

wise ones laugh at these people who go on arguing about the

existence of space and name and form of the world, etc.,

again and again. Just as mature persons smile at the ignorant

prattle of little babies, people endowed with the wisdom of

the world smile at the ignorant statements made by the

people of the world who see only the form and not the

substance.

134

The child sees an elephant made of sugar. It is the mature

mind that knows that it is only sugar; there is no elephant

there. We can have a railway train, a fish, a biscuit or an

elephant made of sugar. But the little child says, “I want

elephant, I want biscuit, I want toy,” not knowing that there

is no such thing as a toy, electric train, etc. It's substance is

just sugar. A mature father or mother pays no attention to

the prattle of the child who says, “I want elephant,” because

they know there is no such thing as elephant; there is only

sugar.

So too, the wise sage smiles at the prattle of ignorant

people in the world who say, “We want this, we want that,” in

the same way that children want toys made of sugar. Yet

sugar is the Pure Existence out of which all those things are

made; and whenever we ask for things, we are actually

asking for the shape that Pure Existence has taken, not

knowing that all the shapes are Existence only, and it is

immaterial whether we get this or that. All things are equal in

this world. Sanmātrā bodha yuktaṁ ca dṛṣṭvā vismayate

budhaḥ:Wise people laugh at ignorant persons.

Evamā kāśa mithyātve sat sat yatve ca vāsite, nyāye nānena

vāyvādeḥ sadvastu pravi vicyatām (77). Having finally

ascertained the non-existence of space by this yukti or logic

and investigating method, we have to apply this very same

investigation, this method of argument, to arguing the other

elements like vayu, air, fire, water, earth, etc. These solid

elements, which are before us and seem to be

threatening and frightening us every moment, really do not

exist, and are like a lion made of sugar which is terrifying us

with its long teeth and claws made of sugar. So is this terrific

world of earth, water, fire, air and ether appearing to be solid

and existing in front of us, contacting us. Really we are not

contacting any one of these things. We are contacting Pure

Existence even when we are contacting the earth.

When we worship the five elements or worship anything

whatsoever as a divinity, and prostrate ourselves before an

135

asvattha tree or a holy stone or a temple or anything

whatsoever which we regard as sacred, actually what is

intended behind this religious instruction is that we are

prostrating ourselves before the substance of that form

before which we actually offer our prostrations. We do not

worship idols, just as we do not take into consideration the

lion aspect of sugar. It is only the sugar aspect that we are

taking into consideration.

So the wisdom of the sage tells us that all the world is

worth adoring. Everything is divine. The whole world of

name and form is scintillating Pure Existence and we can

worship anything whatsoever, right from a pinhead to the

solar system. It is all the same thing, just as different items

made of one substance do not actually make a difference

because of the uniformity of substance.

When we see the form, we cannot see the substance.

When we see the substance, we cannot see the form. There is

an ancient philosopher called Tirumulan; in his great poem

he says, “Embrace the tree.” His instruction to students is,

“Embrace the tree.” What is meant by this statement? He

means to say, “Come in contact with the wood and not the

furnituremade by it.”

Another sage said, “When there is dog, there is no stone;

when there is stone, there is no dog.” This is an enigmatic

statement which is a spiritual instruction. The dog is actually

a dog made of stone. That is what the sage says. When the

stone is seen there, the dog is not there. When the dog is

seen, the stone is not there. That is the meaning of saying

that when there is dog, there is no stone and when there is

stone, there is no dog. Or, embrace the tree; see the wood and

not the furniture. See the gold and not the ornament. See the

substance and not the quality. See Pure Existence and not the

five elements. That is the analysis.

Discourse 12

CHAPTER 2: PANCHA MAHABHUTA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE ELEMENTS, VERSES 78-99

Sadvastu nyeka deśasthā māyā tatraika deśagam, viyat

tatrāpyeka deśa gato vāyuḥ prakalpitaḥ (78). The whole of

Brahman is not occupied by maya; that is what was stated

earlier. Only certain conditioned aspects of Brahman are

affected by maya. And space does not occupy the whole of

maya. A fraction of Brahman is the location of maya, a

fraction of maya is the location of space, and a fraction of

space is the location of air. It does not mean that air is

everywhere in space; it is only in certain locations.

Existence is everywhere. That is Pure Being, Brahman the

Absolute. An aspect of it is covered by maya. An aspect of

maya is covered by space; an aspect of space contains air.

Vāyuḥ prakalpitaḥ: So vayu occupies a very little space in

comparison with Existence, maya, and space. The quality of

air is described in the next verse.

Śoṣa sparśau gatir vegaḥ vāyu dharmā ime matāḥ, trayaḥ

svabhāvāḥ sanmāyā vyomnāṁ ye te’pi vāyugāh (79). The

character of absorbing moisture, drying of things, is one

quality of air. Tangibility, touch or the tactile sense is another

quality of air. Speed and motion – these are the qualities.

Drying, touching, speed and motion are the attributes of air,

which occupies some fraction of the area of space. It has the

quality of Existence because we feel that air exists; but

independently, it does not exist. Therefore, it is only a

manifestation of maya. It produces sound and, therefore, it

also has a quality of space. Existing (as it does), it is

characterised by the reality of Brahman; as a vacuum by

itself, independent of Brahman, it has a character of maya;

and as something that produces sound, it is an effect of space.

Vāyu rastīti sadbhāvaḥ sato vāyau pṛthak kṛte, nistatva

rūpatā māyā svbhāvo vyomago dhvaniḥ (80). We say, “Air

exists.” By a transferring of values from one to the other,

Existence (which is the substantive) is here wrongly

137

considered as a predicate when we say, “Air exists.” The

Existence of air is a mix-up of values which is created by a

wrong perception through the sense organs because

Existence actually is an attribute of the Absolute Brahman.

By identifying the Existence of Brahman with air, we say, “Air

exists.” If we separate airness from Existence as such, we will

find that air is non-existence. By itself, it is not existing. It is a

vacuum. It is the quality of maya presenting a form and a

name and a picturisation, while actually there is no

background for it. It is a phantasm that is created by maya.

And the sound that the air makes when it moves is borrowed

from space, which is the cause of the reverberation of sound.

The Existence aspect is pervading all things.Wherever we go,

we will find something is existing; non-existent things we

cannot conceive.

Sato’nuvṛttiḥ sarvatra vyomno neti pure ritam, vyomānu

vṛtti radhunā kathaṁ na vyāhataṁ vacaḥ (81). It was said

earlier that space does not follow the other evolutes like air,

fire, etc. That is, the dimension which space has is not to be

found in the case of other elements. Space is spread out in all

directions; but vayu, air, fire, etc., are not spread out in that

manner. So it was said earlier in some other verse that space

does not get associated with any of the further evolutes. It

stands by itself, while Existence is associated with every

evolute. When it is said like this, what is intended is that,

extension, which is the character of space, is not to be found

in other subsequent evolutes like earth, etc.; but the other

aspect of space, which is reverberation of sound, can be seen

in other evolutes also.

Vyomānu vṛtti radhunā kathaṁ na vyāhataṁ vacaḥ. A

question is raised here: “Once you said that space does not

follow the evolutes. Now you say it follows.” The idea is that

one aspect of space does not follow; the other aspect of space

follows. The aspect of extension does not follow the other

elements, but the aspect of sound production follows every

other subsequent element.

138

Chidrā nuvṛttir netīti pūrvokti radhunā tviyam, śabdānu vṛtti

revoktā vacaso vyāhatiḥ kutaḥ (82). We have already

mentioned that the association of space with anything is

twofold: either as an extended something, or as a property

which produces sound. So when we say that the other

elements have the character of space, we have to take only

one quality – namely, sound production – and we should not

take the extension aspect of space.

Nanu sadvastu pārthakyāt asattvaṁ cettadā katham,

avyakta māyā vaiṣamyāt amāyā maya tā’pi no (83). Don't you

think that Existence dissociated from space or air reduces

space and air to non-existence? Some objector raises the

question: “Can you not conceive air as real by dissociating it

from maya – because only when you associate it with maya, a

kind of vacuous presentation, it appears to be unreal. Can

you not say that air exists independently by itself?”

We have already mentioned that air independently

cannot be regarded as real because it has no independent

existence except as motion, which is one of its properties

borrowed from space, and sound also borrowed from space,

and the independence aspect, is false – because nothing in

this world is totally independent. If we consider something

as independent, such as air, it is finite. And if it is finite, it is

perishable; therefore, it cannot be regarded as an eternal

substance. It is not real.

Nistattva rūpatai vātra māyātvasya prayojikā, sā śakti

kāryayo stulyā vyaktā vyaktatva bhedinoḥ (84). The nonentity

aspect of anything is the essential feature of maya. The

final non-entity character is the quality of maya, whatever be

that object in this world. And this unreality of the product of

maya is similar, both in the case of its immediate effects or

subsequent effects. The immediate effect is space;

subsequent effects are air, etc. So the unreality which is the

nature of maya is to be found not only in the cause which

precedes the effect, but also in the effects that follow the

cause. Here the word shakti is used. Shakti means maya.

139

The character of cause, which is the maya aspect of

things, is to be found in all the effects that it produces. There

is finally, therefore, the character of non-entity in all its

products, right from space onwards up to the earth. Whether

they are manifest or unmanifest, it makes no difference,

because a thing that is not real may be either manifest or

unmanifest – as the water seen in a mirage.We may perceive

it or we may not perceive it; nevertheless, it does not exist

there, finally.

The character of water in a mirage in the desert is

something that is not to be associated with Existence. It is so

even if we perceive it, and it is so even if we don't perceive it.

It will be the same thing. The water will be shining there

even if we don't perceive it. So perception and nonperception

do not make a difference to objects which are

ultimately not real.

Sadasatva vivekasya prastu tatvāt sa cintya tām,

asato’vāntara bheda āstāṁ tat cinta yātra kim (85). Anyhow,

here we are not concerned with the products of maya. We

are concerned with the way in which it actually acts and

creates an illusion of externality of things, substantiality of

things, and independence of things. Maya has three qualities.

Firstly, it externalises everything, while the Ultimate Reality

is universal. Secondly, it solidifies the non-entity into objects

of perception and causes them to be felt by the perceiver as

independent by themselves. Independence, externality, and

objectivity – these are the characters finally foisted upon a

non-entity by a peculiar action of the power of God, which we

call maya.

Sadvastu brahma śiṣṭoṁśo vāyur mithyā yathā viyat,

vāsayitvā ciraṁ vāyor mithyātvaṁ marutaṁ tyajet (86). We

have discussed enough about space. And we have also

understood something about the character of air. What is it

that we have understood? Existence is Brahman – sad-vastu

brahma. Everything else that follows from it, like space, air,

etc., is not real. Having driven into our mind the conviction

140

that properties which are outside Pure Existence cannot be

regarded as real, we have to finally reject the reality of space

and air.

Mithyātvaṁ marutaṁ tyajet: Abandon the concept of the

reality of air, as well as the reality of space. In the same way,

we have to consider fire as well. It also does not exist

independantly. We say, “Fire exists.” Unless Existence is

there, fire itself has no meaning. Minus Existence, there is no

fire. And Existence, which is the fire, is borrowed from the

Pure Existence of Brahman.

Cintayet vahni mapyevaṁ maruto nyūna vartinam,

brahmāṇḍā varaṇe ṣveṣā nyūnā dhika vicāraṇā (87). One tenth

of the area occupied by maya is said to be the area occupied

by space. One tenth of the area occupied by space is occupied

by air. One tenth of the space occupied by air is occupied by

fire. Air can be seen moving about everywhere, but we

cannot see fire moving about. So it is very fractional in

comparison with its precedents.

Brahmāṇḍā varaṇe ṣveṣā nyūnā dhika vicāraṇā. In the

structure of this Brahmanda, or cosmos, this is the

arrangement made among the elements: each succeeding one

is less by one tenth in comparison with the one preceding.

One tenth of the area of Brahman is perhaps occupied by

maya. Though we cannot actually measure Brahman,

logically we can conceive a fractional aspect of Brahman. So

is the case with everything. One tenth of Brahman is maya.

One tenth of maya is space. One tenth of space is air. One

tenth of air is fire. One tenth of fire is water. One tenth of

water is earth. And this earth which is so much reduced from

the original cause is the source of all the fourteen worlds. So

we can imagine how small this universe is in comparison

with the Pure Existence which is Brahman.

Vāyor daśāṁ śato nyūno vahnir vāyau prakalpitaḥ,

purāṇoktaṁ tāratamyaṁ daśāṁ śair bhūta pañcake (88). One

tenth of vayu (air) is fire. Friction, motion in air can create

141

heat, and that becomes fire. The Puranas are full of

descriptions of the difference that is there among the five

elements. In the Srimad Bhagavata Purana especially, it is

mentioned that the elements that follow are only one tenth of

the preceding ones.

Daśāṁ śair bhūta pañcake.We must read the third book of

the Bhagavata Purana to understand the details of these

things where we have a great, grand detail of the process of

creation.

Vahni ruṣṇaḥ prakāśātmā pūrvānu gati ratra ca, asti vasniḥ

sa nistātvaḥ śabdavān sparśa vānapi (89). The quality of fire is

heat and also it is radiance; it shines. Heat exists; fire exists –

and it exists in some place, which is the character of space. It

produces sound when it burns with flames. That is also

something that is borrowed from space. And it has the

character of air, which is motion. All the qualities of the

earlier elements can be found in fire, which is the subsequent

one, after air.

What do we say? Asti vasniḥ: We say, "Fire exists," by

which we identify fire with Brahman. Sa nistātvaḥ: By itself,

fire is nistattvah – non-entity. Subtract Pure Existence from

fire and we will find that it is a non-entity. Śabdavān sparśa:

We can touch fire, we can hear the sound produced by fire.

All these qualities are there no doubt, but all this is foisted on

Pure Existence, minus which, it is not there, as is the case

with space and air.

Sanmāyā vyoma vāyvaṁśair yukta syāgner nijo guṇaḥ,

rūpaṁ tatra sataḥ sarvam anyad buddhā vivicyatām (90).

Through the power of reason we may analyse the situation of

the elements in this manner. Existence, maya, space and air –

these condition fire. And fire has a special quality of its own

which we cannot see in the preceding elements – namely,

visibility. We cannot have visibility of space and air. We

cannot see either space or air as an object as clearly as we

can see fire. It has visibility and it has radiance; therefore, we

142

can see it. All other characters which are foisted upon it

should be separated from it, and finally it is to be regarded as

unreal.

Sato vivecite vahnau mithyātve sati vāsite, āpo daśāṁśato

nyūnāḥ kalpitā iti cintayet (91). Having understood the nonentity

aspect of fire independently by itself, minus existence,

we have to understand the same thing in the case of water.

One tenth of the space occupied by fire principle is the space

occupied by the water principle. Having understood clearly

the properties of space, air and fire, and rejecting the reality

aspect in them (minus Existence), now we consider what

water is – which is only one tenth of the area occupied by

fire.We say, "Water exists." The existence aspect of Brahman

is wrongly associated with water. As we have made the

mistake of substantive and predicate in the case of the earlier

elements, the same mistake we make here also. Existence is

an originality; it is not a product of an element, though

wrongly we utter sentences like, "Water exists."

Santyāpo'mūḥ śūnyatattvāh saśabda sparśa saṁyutāḥ,

rūpavatyo'nya dharma nuvṛttyā svīyo raso guṇaḥ (92). Nonentity

is the nature of water finally, minus Existence. The

quality of water is sound and also tangibility, and also it can

be seen and tasted. The special quality of water is that we can

taste it, but we cannot taste fire, we cannot taste air, we

cannot taste space. All the qualities of water come from the

earlier elements which preceded water; but it has its own

special quality, which is taste.

Sato vivecitāsvapsu tanmithyātve ca vāsite, bhūmir

daśāṁśato nyūnā kalpitā psviti cintayet (93). One tenth of

water is earth. And earth has all the qualities of the earlier

elements like extension. We can measure the earth by

distance, and we can touch it as we can touch air. We can see

it with our eyes, as we can see fire. We can taste substances

made out of earth, material objects. One special quality of all

things made of the earth principle is that we can also smell it.

143

We cannot smell water. There is no smell in it – no smell

in fire, no smell in air and no smell in space also. So while the

earlier elements had one, two, three, four qualities, the last

one, which is the fifth element earth, has five qualities. We

can visualise in this particular element, which is earth, all the

qualities of the earlier elements plus the character of smell or

odour, which is only available in the earth principle. As we

say, "Space exists," etc., we also say, "Earth exists." But minus

existence, earth also is not really there.

Asti bhūstattva-sūnyā'syāṁ śabda-sparśau sarūpakau,

rasaśca parato gandho naijaḥ sattā vivicyatām (94). Sound,

tangibility, form, taste and smell are the characteristics of

earth. Naijaḥ sattā vivicyatām. What is the essential nature of

earth? Remove all the preceding qualities; dissociate earth

from Existence itself. We will find there is no such thing as

the earth principle. All creation vanishes as mist before the

sun if we make this analysis of dissociating these wonderful

presentations of the five-elemental world from Existence

pure and simple, which is Absolute Brahman.

Pṛthakkṛtāyāṁ sattāyāṁ bhūmir mithyā'vaśiṣyate, bhūmer

daśāṁśato nyūnaṁ brahmāṇḍaṁ bhūmi madhyagam (95). The

whole cosmos of physical elements is constituted of the earth

principle. Fourteen worlds are mentioned in the Puranas. All

these are modifications of earth only by permutation and

combination.

Brahmāṇḍa loka deheṣu sadavastuni pṛthak kṛte,

asanto'ṇḍādayo bhāntu tadbhāne'pīha kā kṣatiḥ (97). In this

Brahmanda, which is the macrocosm, the entire realms of

beings, hang. As beads are strung on a thread to make a

garland, so too all the realms of being, the worlds fourteen in

number, are strung as beads, as it were, in this thread-like

connection of material principle, physicality, earth principle.

All living beings like us human beings, sub-human

creatures, plants – all these created elements are living in

this Brahmanda, in this cosmos. So we occupy a very little

144

part, a very little space of this entire creation. The real

creation is very big. Do we know how big this earth is? Even

the entire earth is not populated by people. A very small part

of the earth is occupied; the major part of the whole globe is

water. The entire ocean is occupying a larger part of the

globe than the earth element. And even the earth principle is

visible because the real solid matter is not occupied by living

beings entirely.

And what is this earth, after all? It is such a small speck,

as it were, in this astronomical universe; and we are living

here like small crawling creatures on the surface of a little

patch of earth principle, not knowing that the world is vaster

– vaster and vaster as we go higher and higher, until it

becomes incomprehensible and most deep, beyond the

concept of the mind with all its furthest stretches of

imagination.

Bhūta bhautika māyānām asattve'tyanta vāsite, sad vastva

dvaita mityeṣā dhīr viparyeti na kvacit (98). If we separate the

entire cosmos from Pure Existence, we will find that God has

created the world out of nothing. There is some point,

therefore, in the doctrine of certain religions that God

created the universe out of a vacuum, because we have now

reduced the whole cosmos into a vacuum. The cosmos, this

creation that we are thinking of is constituted of five

elements: space, air, fire, water, earth. By an analysis of their

inner constitution, we have found that minus Existence, they

do not exist. So like a magician, God has created this cosmos

out of nothing. There are magicians who simply open their

palm and some reptile will crop up, or a bird will fly, and so

on. Such is the way in which God seems to have conjured up

this creation.

He alone is. The world finally is not existing. To prove the

existence of God solely and totally, and to remove the wrong

idea that there is something outside God, this great analysis

of the five elements is being conducted by the great author of

145

Panchadasi. The great effort of analysis is only to prove God's

Ultimate Existence, and that nothing else can be there.

The world appears, we may say. Let it appear. After all, it

is an appearance. An appearance is not the same as reality.

Sadadvaitāt pṛthagbhūte dvaite bhūmyā dirūpiṇi,

tattadartha kriyā loke yathā dṛṣṭā tathaiva sā (99). After this

investigation into the nature of things, we come to the

conclusion that all elements and the products of these

elements are independently by themselves non-entities, and

the consciousness then fixes itself in the unitary existence of

itself. What finally exists is consciousness. Materiality,

externality cannot be there because consciousness, being

indivisible in its nature, has to be infinite.

Infinite is consciousness. As there cannot be two infinites

(there can be only one infinite), the world outside

consciousness cannot exist. The whole world is, therefore, a

dazzling form of consciousness itself. The so-called five

elements are only appearances of consciousness itself, both

inwardly as well as outwardly.

Sadadvaitāt pṛthagbhūte dvaite bhūmyā dirūpiṇi,

tattadartha kriyā loke yathā dṛṣṭā tathaiva sā (99). We have to

live in this world in the light of this knowledge. We should

not get involved in the appearances of things after having

conducted this difficult analysis of the separation of

Existence from the five elements. As is befitting the

conditions prevailing, so we should behave in this world. The

appearance of space, air, etc., should not create any kind of

muddle in the process of thinking, in terms of the belief in the

reality.

We may see a thing but not believe in its reality. It does

not mean that just because we see a thing we should get

involved in it. Do we get involved in the water that we see in

the mirage? Do we want to occupy a room in the building

that we see in the clouds? We see the clouds looking like

buildings, but we know that there is no building there.

146

So is the case with the jivanmukta purusha, the man of

wisdom who has awakened to the consciousness of Pure

Existence alone being there; yet he sees the world. As long as

the sense organs are operative, the mind thinks and the wise

man also may see the world. But he will see it like a dead

snake, and not like a living one. And he will see it like the

water that is in a mirage. He sees it but does not want to

drink it. He is never associated with what he sees. The

deluded people, those who are involved in it, run after it.

Deer in the desert, seeing apparent water, run in search of

that water. And they get exhausted running.Whatever be the

length of the distance that they run in the direction of that

mirage water, they will not find that water because as they

run in each direction, it recedes further and further. They get

exhausted and die there, but they will not find water. So is

the case with people in the world. They run after the

pleasures of senses; they will run and run until they perish,

but the pleasures of the world they will not find because the

world is amirage.

Discourse 13

CHAPTER 2: PANCHA MAHABHUTA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE ELEMENTS,

VERSES 100-109

Sāṅknya kāṇāda bauddhā dyair jagad bhedo yathā yathā,

utprekṣyate’nekayuktyā bhavatveṣa tathā tathā (100). By the

analysis of the five elements which constitute this cosmos,

we have come to the conclusion that there is an element of

Existence pervading all things, and this pervasive principle is

always associated with every kind of name and form. No

name, no form can exist without Existence. This Existence,

known as sat, is the nature of Brahman, the Supreme Being.

But there were other schools of thought, like the Nyaya,

Vaishesika, Samkhya and the schools of nihilism who

describe the nature of the world in different ways. The

logical school of Nyaya and the realistic pluralism of the

Vaishesika philosophy asserted that there are many realities

in the world, and Existence is not one uniform continuity.

Nine realities were posited by the Naiyayikas and the

Vaishesikas. Samkhya boiled down all these nine categories

of the Nyaya and the Vaishesika into only two principles:

purusha and prakriti – consciousness and matter. Though

there can be nine objects which may look like reality from

the point of view of our sense perception, they are all capable

of being grouped into a single category, called ‘object’; and all

object is material in its nature. This is the reason why the

Samkhya concludes that we can have only two ultimate

principles: matter and spirit, prakriti and purusha.

The duality of consciousness and matter is also a

questionable proposition because in the same way that the

multiplicity of the Nyaya and the Vaishesika does not stand

the test of scrutiny (because of there being the necessity for a

knowing consciousness behind the multiplicity so posited),

so too, it requires some third principle above the duality of

purusha and prakriti in order to know that prakriti and

purusha exist at all.

148

Who is it that is making the statement that there are two

realities? It is not prakriti, and it is not purusha, because it

has been already assumed that prakriti and purusha are two

different things. So neither the Nyaya, the Vaishesika, nor the

Samkhya stand the scrutiny of deep investigation.

So is the case of the nihilistic doctrine, which asserted

that nothing can exist finally, because the consciousness of

their being nothing is also a kind of existence. Nobody can

outright deny all things, because the denial of such a thing

assumes the consciousness of the denial of all things – which

must exist. So finally, consciousness exists. Sat is chit. This is

Verse 100.

Avajṅātaṁ sadadvaitaṁ niśśaṁkair anya vādibhiḥ, evaṁ kā

kṣati rasmākaṁ taddvaitam avajānatām (101). It may be

contended that there are people who argue only on the basis

of duality because the world is constituted of duality. The

knower and the known are two different entities. The world

outside and the knowing consciousness are not identical. It is

something well known to common sense. “Let it be there,”

says the author.

The assertion that there is a palpable, obvious reality

between the knowing consciousness and the object outside is

again a faulty assumption because there should be an umpire

between the knowing consciousness and the object outside –

neither belonging to the subjective side, nor the objective

side. Therefore, this umpire which will belong neither to the

subjective side nor the objective side, will be a third element

altogether. The third element includes both the subjective

and the objective sides.

So again the non-duality of Reality comes up. Any amount

of assertion of the final duality of things does not stand the

test of reason because all consciousness of duality requires a

previous consciousness, a preceding element of awareness

which beholds duality as an object and, therefore, it stands

independent of the duality of things, and even behind the

149

consciousness that asserts that there is duality. So we cannot

escape the unitariness of consciousness.

Dvaitā vajṅā susthitā ced advaite dhīḥ sthirā bhavet,

sthairye tasyāḥ pumāneṣa jīvanmukta itīryate (102). He is the

jivanmukta purusha, the liberated soul who beholds through

the sense organs the same variety, same duality and

multiplicity as the commonsense man sees, but he sees it as

bereft of vitality. It is like looking at a corpse, a body with no

life in it. The duality will be seen as long as the sense organs

operate. The jivanmukta purusha also sees it. He will see the

world as a burnt cloth, a dead snake or a devitalised object.

They have only appearance, but they do not exist

substantially.

The Existence which is the direct content of the

jivanmukta's consciousness is Brahmatattva. He practices

brahmabhyasa. Tat chintanaṁ tat kathanaṁ anyonyaṁ tat

prabodhanam, eta deka paratvaṁ ca brahmābhyāsaṁ vidur

budhāḥ. (7.106). Brahmabhyasa is the highest sadhana that

one can think of in this world. The practice of the presence of

Brahman is called brahmabhyasa. Brother Lawrence wrote a

small booklet called ‘The Practice of the Presence of God’,

and this amounts to the same thing – the practice of the

presence of the Absolute: brahmabhyasa.

It means thinking of that always – tat chintanaṁ – and no

other thought enters the mind – tat kathanaṁ. When we

speak to people, to our friends in discourse, we talk only on

this theme – anyonyaṁ tat prabodhanam. We awaken

ourselves mutually on this important theme, and do not talk

on anything else. Eta deka paratvaṁ: always depending on

this finally, as if a drowning man is depending on a single

breath, and he has no other desire. Having had enough of

things in this world, to surfeit, there is only one longing left –

namely, the unity of the soul with the Universal Soul. This is

total dependence on Ultimate Reality.

150

This kind of practice, continuously carried on day in and

day out as the only occupation in life, is brahmabhyasa. Such

is the practice of a jivanmukta purusha who sees, as it were,

the dualities, multiplicities, etc., of the world as ordinary

people do, but he does not believe in their existence.

As I mentioned the other day, varieties of objects made of

sugar do not attract the attention of people who are mature

in mind. Let it be an elephant, let it be a horse, let it be a dog.

What does it matter? It is sugar. But children do not

understand that. For them it is a dog, it is an elephant, and so

on. So children in this life of spirit behold the variety of

names and forms and cling to these forms as children cling to

forms of the same substance, not knowing that the whole

universe is constituted ultimately of one basic substance, satchit-

ananda swarupa. Such a person who knows this is called

a jivanmukta. Sthairye tasyāḥ pumāneṣa jīvanmukta itīryate.

The Bhagavad Gita, towards the conclusion of the second

chapter, says eṣā brāhmī sthitiḥ pārtha naināṁ prāpya

vimuhyati, sthitvā’syām antakāle’pi brahma nivārṇa mṛcchati

(103). Bhagavan Sri Krishna speaks to Arjuna and towards

the end of the second chapter of the Gita, having described

the essentials of Samkhya and Yoga, concludes his teaching

by saying, “Arjuna, this is the ultimate state. Eṣā brāhmī

sthitiḥ: This is the final resort of all created things. It is the

state of the Absolute. Therefore, it is called brāhmī sthitiḥ.”

Naināṁ prāpya vimuhyati: No delusion will overtake a

person after having attained the good state. Just as a person

who has woken up and sees the light of day will not once

again be deluded by the objects of dream which he saw

earlier, so too this awakened person who is established in

the Universality of Godhood will not any more be deluded by

the forms and names of the world.

Even if we cannot attain this state now – immediately,

today – if it could be possible that we should be established

in this state even at the time of passing, that also is good

151

enough. Sthitvā’syām antakāle’pi brahma nivārṇa mṛcchati:

Even if for a moment one is established in this state at the

time of the departure from this body, that is sufficient to

destroy the bundle of ignorance and the heap of all desires,

and one attains to Brahmanirvana – merger in Brahman.

This verse from the Bhagavad Gita is quoted by the

author of the Panchadasi here, and in the next two verses he

tries to explain what is the actual import of this verse.

Sadadvaite’nṛte dvaite yadanyo nyaikya vīkṣaṇam, tasyānta

kālas tadbheda buddhi reva na cetaraḥ (104). At the time of

passing, at the last moment – the word used in the verse of

the Bhagavad Gita means ‘having established oneself at the

last moment’. Now, what is this ‘last moment’? It has two

meanings.

It can be the moment when discrimination between the

real and the unreal has arisen, in which case it can be even

today itself. Once knowledge arises in the person, ignorance

is destroyed simultaneously, at the same time, and this

discrimination is what is called wisdom. The end of

ignorance is called ‘the last moment’. The last moment of the

prevailing of ignorance in this world, the last moment of

desires in this world, the last moment of clinging to the

objects of sense – this is the meaning of ‘the last moment’.

And if this moment is to be attained, it can be the source of

one's liberation – not necessarily at the departure of the

body; it can be even earlier. This is the meaning, the import

of this verse, says the author of the Panchadasi.

Or, it can be the usual meaning: When the prana departs

from this body, may we be established in this Great Being.

Then we shall not be reborn. We attain to Brahmanirvana,

Universal Existence.

Yadvāntakālaḥ prāṇasya viyogo’stu prasiddhitaḥ, tasmin

kāle’pi no bhrānter gatāyāḥ punarā gamaḥ (105). The esoteric

meaning has been explained that it can be even today,

provided that ignorance ends just now. But otherwise, we

152

take it in the literal sense of the last moment of the body.

Even at that time, if we are established, it is good for us and

there will be no rebirth. Whatever be the physical condition

of a person, that is immaterial to the consciousness that is

attained to this Universality of experience.

Nīroga upaviṣṭo vā rugṇo vā viluṭhan bhuvi, mūrchito vā

tyajatveṣa prāṇān bhrāntirna sarvathā (106). A great question

which sometimes arises in our minds is answered here. Is it

necessary to be aware of the Supreme Being only at that

particular moment when the prana is cut off from the body?

Suppose we are unconscious at that time and for two or three

days we are not thinking. What will be the last thought from

the point of view of this instruction?

The verse that follows makes out that the consciousness

that was maintained by the person prior to becoming

unconscious is to be considered as the real state of

consciousness. And what was that state of consciousness? If

the person is totally unaware of things, one cannot be held

responsible for anything that takes place to that person. It is

consciousness that is the cause of any kind of effect or

product that may be produced in terms of that particular

individual. So the kind of consciousness that one maintains

(or one has been maintaining) prior to the comatose

condition (that may sometimes intervene in certain cases)

will determine the future of the person.

A person may be very healthy, or he may not be healthy

physically. He may have some kind of illness. He may be

standing, he may be sitting, or he may be lying down on the

ground. He may not be even conscious. It does not matter. If

he casts off the body in any of these conditions, not knowing

that actually the body is cast off – because of his not being

aware of what is happening – it does not matter, because the

determining factor is the consciousness that he was

maintaining, even if it be days before. Therefore, it is

important to know what was the last thought that a person

maintained when he was conscious. And if that is identical

153

with Brahman Consciousness, he is freed forever, though

subsequently hemight not be aware of it.

Dine dine svapna suptyo radhīte vismṛte’pyayam, para dyur

nāna dhītaḥ syāt tadvad vidyā no naśyati (107). Even if there is

a momentary unconsciousness or even if it be for some days

together, it cannot destroy the knowledge that one has

acquired earlier, in the same way as the long sleep of

unconsciousness into which we enter every night does not

obliterate the learning of the previous day. All our knowledge

is intact the next morning, in spite of our total unawareness

and unconsciousness for hours together in the state of deep

sleep. So the unconscious condition is not in any way a

deterring factor to the fructification of the nature of the

consciousness that one was maintaining prior to the

occurrence of unconsciousness, as in the case of waking and

deep sleep. Knowledge cannot be destroyed once it is

attained.

Pramāṇo tpāditā vidyā pramāṇaṁ prabalaṁ vinā, na naśyati

na vedāntāt prabalaṁ māna mīkṣyate (108). By the deep study

of the Vedanta doctrine, the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad

Gita, when the conviction has been driven into the mind and

it has been planted in the heart by sravana, manana,

nididhyasana, and this knowledge or conviction has become

part and parcel of one's own life, one lives that knowledge, as

it were. One becomes an embodiment of this knowledge; it is

a moving wisdom that we can see in the form of a person. If

this is the case, no other experience can refute this

knowledge. All illusions that may present themselves for

different reasons subsequent to the acquirement of this great

wisdom will not affect the conviction that has once been

driven into the mind by right knowledge, pramana; and no

pramana, or right knowledge, can equal the Vedanta Shastra.

Tasmād vedānta saṁsiddhiṁ sada dvaitaṁ na bādhyate,

antakāle’pyato bhūta vivekān nirvṛtiḥ sthitāh (109). There is

nothing that can refute the consciousness of non-duality once

attained by the study of scriptures or by the analysis that we

154

have conducted in the manner of the study of the second

chapter; and the future state of a person is decided even long

before the actual departure from the body. Tasmād vedānta

saṁsiddhiṁ sada dvaitaṁ na bādhyate: The consciousness of

non-duality is not refuted under any circumstance.

Antakāle’pyato bhūta vivekān nirvṛtiḥ sthitāh: Moksha is

certain; Brahmanirvana is assured. There is no need of

having any doubt in the mind, provided that this knowledge

has become our direct experience. This is the last moment. So

if our ignorance has not been destroyed entirely – ie, the

mind is still operating in terms of objects outside – it does

not matter. We may hope that a day may come at the time of

the departure of this soul from this body, and one may be

established in that.

Whatever we hope for, sincerely and intensely, we will

certainly get. Therefore, may there be a deep aspiration, as

students who are well up always aspire to be first in an exam

and never go there with the idea that they will be second or

third. They may be second, but the expectation is to be first.

So let there be the expectation of certain liberation in this

birth: “There is nothing wrong with me; I have been very

diligently practicing the Yoga Vedanta sadhana, and my mind

is clear. The perception of the world is perspicacious and

even now, in a way, my consciousness is established in the

conviction of God being the only Reality.” If this conviction is

there in us, we are freed forever.

Discourse 14

CHAPTER 3: PANCHA KOSHA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE FIVE SHEATHS,

VERSES 1-10

Guhāhitaṁ brahma yat tat pañcakośa vivekataḥ, boddhuṁ

śakyaṁ tataḥ kośa pañcakaṁ pravi vicyate (1). In the second

chapter we had conducted an objective analysis of the

Universal Consciousness as being different from the five

elements of earth, water, fire, air and ether. In a similar

manner, here in this third chapter an analysis is being

conducted which distinguishes the Pure Consciousness in the

individual from the body of the individual which is

constituted of five sheaths, known as annamaya, pranamaya,

manomaya, vijnanamaya and anandamaya – the physical,

vital, mental, intellectual and causal sheaths. The

investigation into the real nature of these five sheaths will

enable one to know that Pure Consciousness, which is the

essential nature of all things, is independent of the five

sheaths, and the human individual actually is not a bundle of

these sheaths.

Inasmuch as it is possible to know the deepest Atman

hidden in the cave of the heart by distinguishing it from the

five sheaths, we now undertake the task of knowing what

these five sheaths are. They are: dehād abhyan taraḥ prāṇaḥ

prāṇā abhyan taraṁ manaḥ, tataḥ kartā tato bhoktā guhā

seyaṁ paramparā (2). We have heard the phrase ‘cave of the

heart’. The cave is nothing but a five-corridored holy of

holies, the names of these corridors being the names of the

five sheaths. The outermost sheath is the physical body that

is visible to the eyes. Internal to the physical body is the vital

body, which is made up of prana – the breath, the vital

energy. Internal to the vital sheath is the mental sheath,

which contains themind and the senses of knowledge.

Internal to the mind is the intellect, which has the

consciousness of the doership in actions. We begin to feel

that we are doing something – we are going, we are sitting,

156

we are such and such. This appropriation of individuality and

doership in actions is the function of the intellect, which is

inseparable from the ego.

Internal to the intellect is the causal body. It is also

known as the anandamaya kosha. Karta and bhokta are the

words used here to designate the intellectual sheath and the

causal sheath. It is on account of the operation of the causal

sheath that we feel happy. We had occasion to know

something about the working of these internal sheaths when

we studied the first chapter.

In the causal sheath, there is a balancing of the properties

of prakriti – sattva, rajas and tamas, whereas in the other

sheaths there is an imbalance of the properties. Some one or

the other of the properties of prakriti gets accentuated or

emphasised in the outer sheaths, whereas in the innermost

level, the causal sheath, they are in an almost equilibrated

condition. That is why we feel happy when the causal sheath

works, especially in deep sleep. The doer is the intellect with

the ego; the enjoyer is the causal sheath. That is why the two

sheaths are called karta and bhokta, the doer and the

enjoyer.

Pitṛ bhuktā nnajād vīryā jjāto’nnenaiva vardhate, dehaḥ

so’nnamayo nātmā prāk cordhvām tada bhāvataḥ (3). The

physical body is the product of the essence of the food

consumed by our parents, and it is also sustained by the

intake of food every day. It is purely material in its nature. It

is constituted of a material force, and it is subsequently

sustained also by a material force. The physical body is pure

matter; it has no consciousness.

Inasmuch as it is material, it cannot be identified with the

Atman, which is consciousness. This physical sheath is called

annamaya kosha – that is, the physical encasement. Dehaḥ

so’nnamayo nātmā: This is not the Atman, because the body

was not there before it was born, and it will not be there also

when it is cast away. It has a beginning and it has an end.

157

Therefore, it cannot be the Atman, which is infinite, eternal.

The body is perishable. It was caused by certain

circumstances, and it will be destroyed by certain other

circumstances. Hence, none of the qualities which we

perceive in a physical body can be considered as qualities of

the Atman. It is perishable, and it is inert. Therefore, this

body is not the Atman. Our essential nature is not the

physical body and, therefore, a description of a person in

terms of physical relation is not a correct way of evaluating

him.

Pūrva janma nyasann etaj janma saṁpādayet katham, bhāvi

janman yasan karma na bhuñjī teha sañcitam (4). There must

have been some cause for the production of this body. How

did it suddenly rise up, and why does it perish? What is the

reason? Some forces are at the back of this event. We cannot

say that the physical body has suddenly risen into action

without any kind of cause whatsoever. The joys and sorrows

of life which are also experienced through this body cannot

be regarded as effects of nothing. Nothing produces nothing.

Do we sometimes experience happiness and grief through

this body? How is it that we sometimes feel very comfortable

physically and at other times are irking and very griefstricken

physically?

The body has not brought anything when it came, yet it

feel the pinch of the troubles of life; and sometimes it also

feel comfortable. So how could there be this effect of feeling

through the body unless there is a cause behind it? That is

one aspect of thematter.

Secondly, through this body we do so many actions. Some

are good actions, some are bad actions. Do we mean to say

that these actions will not produce any result? Good actions

are rewarded; bad actions are punished. Now, where comes

the field? Where is the field for the reward of the good

actions done through this body or the field for the suffering

of the consequences of the bad actions, if the body is to cease

immediately after death?

158

There is, therefore, something which is the true

individuality of a person, the operation of which alone can

explain how it is that we have various kinds of experiences in

this world, and also why we do good actions, etc. Why do we

do good actions if the end of the body is also our own end?

The end of the body may occur even tomorrow or the day

after. But people do large philanthropic deeds; they

contemplate large projects for the welfare of humanity, and

various other things. After all, what is the purpose of these

welfare projects if the reward for these actions is not to be

experienced because of the possible death of the body the

next day itself?

If the body is to be considered as the true identity of the

human individual, we cannot explain how the joys and

sorrows of life have come up on a particular individual in a

particular way, or account for the results of their good and

bad deeds. There is some continuity of personality from

before the coming of the body. Because of the continuity of

the person prior to the manufacture of this body, we can

explain how we can have experiences of various types the

other through this body.

One person's experience is different from another’s.

Though physically all the bodies are made of the same stuff,

the experiences are different. The experiences, therefore,

should not be identified with the physical body. The

experiencer is not the body. Also, the nature of the

experience has to be accounted for. Theremust be a cause for

an effect. The effect is the experience, and the cause is not

visible.

So by argument of inference, we conclude that there is

something prior to the coming of the body; and because of

the necessity to reward actions, we have to also conclude

that there is something that persists even after the death of

the body. All this shows that the body is not the Atman.

Akritabhyagama and kritanasa are the two terms used to

describe the incongruity that may follow if the body is to be

159

identified with the Atman – because the body has a beginning

and an end. Therefore, the experiences of the body will be

identical with the time of the rise of the body.

How does it follow that a person should suddenly have

undeserved sufferings and joys, as we may say, in this life, if

there is no cause prior to it? That is called akritabhyagama,

the coming of that which is not deserved, and the going of

that which is actually deserved. So, if there is no prior cause

and posterior existence for a person, then the result of good

actions also will go unrewarded, and the results of actions

which he has not done too will come upon his head. The

person is, therefore, different from the body.

Pūrṅo dehe balaṁ yacchan akṣaṇāṁ yaḥ pravartakaḥ, vāyuḥ

prāṅamayo nāsou ātmā caitanya varjanāt (5). Internal to the

physical body is the vital sheath, known as pranamaya sarira.

This vitality it is that gives strength to the system. The energy

that we feel in ourselves is due to the prana moving through

the body. The strength of the prana is also the strength of the

body. If the prana is weak, the body will also be weak. And, it

energises the sense organs as well; therefore, clarity of

vision, clarity of audition, and clarity and ability of the other

sense organs are also caused by the energy quantum of the

prana, the vitality in us.

The extent of vitality that we have in our system will

determine the extent of health that we enjoy, the ability that

we have, the strength that we have, and the like. This vital

sheath is the subtle aspect of the air principle. But this vital

sheath – the prana, which is inside the physical body – also

cannot be identified with the Atman, because prana has no

consciousness. It is like electric energy; it works, but it does

not know that it is working.

Even in the state of dream and sleep, the prana is

working, but we are not conscious that the prana is working.

As we are not conscious of the physical body, so also we are

not conscious of the breathing process. Therefore, neither

160

the physical body nor the vital sheath can be regarded as

identical with the Atman.

What is our essential nature? It is not this body, not even

the breath. There is something else in us. What is inside the

vital sheath then?

Ahantām mamatām dehe gehādau ca karoti yaḥ, kāmādya

vasthayā bhrānto nāsā vātmā manomayaḥ (6). Mind is internal

to the vital sheath. What does the mind do? Full of desires is

the mind; fickle is the mind. It is never stable at any time.

And the mind will not rest in a single condition continuously

even for a moment. It is deluded, mostly. The mind of a

person does not perceive things correctly. It requires a lot of

deliberation to understand our perceptions, whether they

are valid or not.

Attachment is the nature of the mind. It clings to

properties, like house, wealth, family, etc. I-ness and my-ness

are the essential features of the mental body. It always feels

“I am. I am coming, I am doing, I am this and I am that.” It also

feels, “This is mine. This is not mine.” The sense of ‘I’, which

is egoism, and the sense of ‘mine’ in respect of things which it

considers as its property, are the features of the mental body.

But the mind is unconscious in the state of deep sleep;

therefore, it cannot be identified with consciousness.

There are conditions when the mind is not working at all.

In utter delusion, in coma, in swoon, in sleep, even in death

itself, the mind does not function – but the person continues.

Therefore, even as the physical body and the vital sheath are

not to be identified with Pure Consciousness, the mind also

has to be distinguished from our essential nature, which is

Pure Consciousness. Consciousness is not the body, not the

vital breath, also not themind.

Līnā suptau vapurbodhe vyāpnuyād ānakhā gragā, cicchāyo

peta dhīr-nātmā vijñāna maya śabda bhāk (7). There is a sheath

internal to the mind, which is called the intellectual sheath.

While the mind just thinks, the intellect can understand,

161

decide and judge. It is the ratiocinating faculty in us. This also

is not the Atman, because it has a beginning and an end. It is

not perpetually operating in us.

In deep sleep, the intellect also is dissolved, as is the case

with the mind. Only in the waking condition do the mind and

the intellect pervade the whole body. We seem to be feeling

that this body is me; right from head to foot, we identify

ourselves with this visible sheath on account of the pervasion

of the mind and the intellect continuously in the waking

condition. But in deep sleep, the intellect also does not work.

It ceases, but we do not cease.

If in the deep sleep state we cease, we would not wake up

the next morning. So even when the body ceases, the vital

sheath ceases, the mind ceases and the intellect ceases to

operate and ceases to be a content of our consciousness, we

exist nevertheless in the state of deep sleep. Therefore, the

intellectual sheath also is not the Atman; it is not

consciousness. So we have eliminated four sheaths – the

physical, the vital, the mental, and the intellectual. All these

sheaths, these enclosures of the body which we hug as very

dear and consider as identical with our own true nature –

really speaking, they are not identical with us. They are

external coverings like a shirt or a coat that we put on, which

cannot be identified with our own selves.

Kartṛtva-karaṇatvā-ghyāṁ vikriye-tāntarin driyam, vijñānamanasī

antar-bahiś-caite parasparam (8). The mind and the

intellect have the similar characteristic of fickleness. We do

not always go on thinking anything definitely; nor are we

always judging things rationally. There is torpidity of

thought. There is mostly absence of the function of the mind

and the intellect when we are woolgathering and thinking of

nothing particular. That is to show that we are existing even

without the active operation of these mental and intellectual

sheaths.

162

Instrumental is the mind; and the agent of action is the

intellect. The mind is external to the intellect; the intellect is

internal to the mind. They act as internal operator and

external instrument. that is the only difference between the

intellect and the mind. But actually, as far as the nonconscious

nature is concerned, they are identical. They are,

finally, a product of matter only.

Kāci-dantar-mukhā vṛttir-ānanda-prati-bimba-bhāk, puṇyabhoge

bhoga-śantau nidrā-rūpeṇa līyate (9). Now comes the

last one, the causal sheath. In this condition, where the causal

sheath predominantly operates, as in the case of deep sleep,

the vrittis or the psychosis – that is, the operations of the

psyche – get internalised completely, and externalisation of

these mental operations ceases. In the waking and the

dreaming conditions, the mind operates in an external

fashion through the sense organs. But in the state of deep

sleep, there is an inwardising activity of the mind and the

intellect taking place. That is, these activities of the mind and

the intellect cease completely. They get dissolved, as it were,

into their cause, and the rajas and the sattva aspects also are

buried in a complete oblivion of everything – tamas – a

darkness and absence of any kind of awareness, which is

what we experience in the state of deep sleep. We feel very

happy.

The reason why we are so happy in the state of deep

sleep has been a very intriguing question in psychology

because any amount of empirical answer will not suffice in

accounting for the reason why we feel so energised, fresh

and relieved when we wake up in the morning. Even a sick

person feels a little better early in the morning. A tired

person wakes up with energy which was not there earlier.

We would like to sleep and would not like to wake up so

easily.

The reason for the happiness is the internalisation of the

psyche – the inwardness of our activity in the direction of the

Atman that is our real nature. Our faculties are nearer to our

163

true nature than they are in the waking and the dreaming

states. We are pulled out of our own Self, as it were, in a

wrong direction of externality, mostly in the waking state;

and we lose our Self-identity in the waking condition, when

we are object-conscious. The more are we object-conscious,

the less are we Self-conscious. Therefore, we are very much

distracted in the waking condition. We run about here and

there in search of a little relief and peace, which we cannot

find on account of it being not possible to see happiness

outside. It is a condition of the Self.

There is a temporary cessation of externalised activity of

the senses, the mind and the intellect in the state of deep

sleep. The psychosis, or the mental vrittis, seem to be licking

the taste of the bliss of the Atman in the state of deep sleep –

though unconsciously, as it were. They are dumbfounded. It

is as if somebody has given them a blow on the cheek and

they have lost their consciousness. Nevertheless, they have

fallen on the lap of that Pure Existence, which is the Selfhood

of all persons.

This is the reason why we feel happy when we are in a

state of sleep. Happiness is the nature of the Self. It cannot be

found in anything that is not the Self. All joy is in us; it is not

in anything else. So all the activity of the world, externally

projected, is to be considered as futile, finally, in the

acquisition of happiness in this world. It is just a pursuing of

the will-o'-the-wisp as they call it, water in the mirage. The

more we run after the world, the more we will be

disappointed; and we will get nothing, not even a husk,

finally.

The internal settlement of the mind and the intellect in

the state of deep sleep identifies our personality, for the time

being, with the true Self of ours. We enjoy a bliss that we

cannot expect in anything else in this world. This happiness

is to be attributed partly to the good deeds that we

performed in the previous birth. If we had been a completely

bad person, we would not have even one minute's happiness

164

in this world. We would be tearing our hair, but get nothing.

But if we feel convinced that there is some happiness in this

world – sometimes we feel relieved and there is some

internal joy caused by certain things in the world – we

should conclude that we have done some good deeds in the

previous birth. That is why we come to the Himalayas, to the

Ganga and to ashrams and listen to glorious thoughts instead

of going to distracting places where we become worse and

worse in our psychic functions.

When there is satiety or surfeit of experience – when we

have had enough of things – the senses are exhausted and we

collapse, as it were, mentally. In that condition also,

negatively we go into our own Self. We want nothing at that

time; the mind is collapsing due to the fatigue of the activity

of the sense organs. That is another aspect of the reason why

we feel a little relieved when we go nearer to our own Self,

either by force or by some deliberate effect taking place.

Kādācit-katvato na-ātmā syād ānanda mayo’pyayam,

bimba-bhūto ya ānanda ātmā’sau sarvadā sthiteḥ (10). But

unfortunately, even this causal sheath that we experience in

the state of deep sleep is not the true Self because the true

Self is directly conscious. It is not merely indirectly happy, as

we have it in the state of deep sleep. This happiness of sleep

is negative. We are not conscious of it positively, and also we

are not always in that condition. The causal sheath does not

operate always. There is a fraction of the day when we seem

to be falling into that particular state of causality; and it has a

beginning and an end. There is a beginning for the event of

our entering into that causal body and also there is and end

of it when we wake up in the morning. As it has a beginning

and an end, it cannot be regarded as eternal; therefore, it is

not Atman. It is non-eternal in its nature.

So, what remains afterwards? If not the physical body,

not the vital body, not the mental body, not the intellectual

body, not the causal body – what remains? Is there anything

in us other than these? Practically, we will find that nothing

165

remains. We will feel that when we go on peeling an onion,

peels after peels will come out, and inside there is nothing –

no pith. It will look as if we have no pith at all; only sheaths

are being removed by the analysis of non-identity of

consciousness and their externality. If we peel out the causal

sheath and the other sheaths, we will find that we do not

know what is happening to us.We will be in utter darkness.

“All things have gone. I have found nothing.” This kind of

feeling may sometimes temporarily arise in our mind when

everything has gone: the body has gone, property has gone,

money has gone, house has gone, relatives have died, and

nobody wants to look at us. “All things have gone. Then I am

nothing.” People sometimes make the statement: “I am

nothing; all things have gone. I am nothing. Only the breath is

remaining, and that also is about to go.”

Sometimes we begin to wrongly feel that when our

possessions are taken away, we become a zero – as if we are

the possessions. But we are the possessor; we are not the

possessions. So why do we say that we are nothing when the

possessions are taken away? It is because of the intense

attachment to the possessions that we begin to wrongly feel

that we are ourselves the possessions; and when they are

taken away, we wrongly feel that we are not there at all, that

all things have gone. “All things have gone. I have gone. I am

no more.”

But it is not so. We will still remain if everything in the

world goes. Even if the entire solar system goes and all the

worlds vanish, we will still be there. Let us see what remains.

Discourse 15

CHAPTER 3: PANCHA KOSHA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE FIVE SHEATHS,

VERSES 11-23

All that we appear to be in our own selves, such as the

body, the vital breath, the mind, the intellect and the causal

body, have been proved to be outside consciousness. These

apparent sheaths of personality are not our essential nature.

They are contents of consciousness, but they are not

consciousness itself. They stand outside consciousness;

therefore, they are known by consciousness as existing.

Consciousness knows that there is a body and that there are

other similar sheaths, but there is no one who can know

consciousness. It stands by itself, unrelated to anything else –

pure subjectivity, totally independent, and immortal in its

nature.

When we gradually isolate the association of

consciousness with the five sheaths, we may feel that there is

nothing left afterwards. If we analyse the detached state of

consciousness as isolated from the five sheaths, we will not

be able to know that there is a consciousness at all. When all

things have gone, nothing remains. We will feel that nothing

in us remains, because everything that we considered

ourselves to be has gone. We have been under the

impression throughout our lives that we are this body, and if

it has gone, we have also gone; so, we cannot come to any

other conclusion other than, that when we eliminate from

consciousness all contact with the five sheaths, we will arrive

at some kind of self-annihilation, as it were.

The feeling of nothingness, or a kind of vacuum within

ourselves, arises on account of our habit of being conscious

only of something, and never being adequately selfconsciousness.

All our consciousness is ‘of’ something. There

is a word ‘of’. “I am aware of something.” But who are ‘we’?

That is the question.We are aware of something. Are we that

thing of which we are aware? Are we the object which is the

167

content of our awareness? Can we say that we are the object?

If not, what are we?

The thing that is aware is different from that of which

one is aware. The body, the vital breath, the mind, intellect

and the causal body are known by consciousness; therefore,

they stand external to consciousness. How could we be

outside our own self? We cannot be anything other than

what we really are. And yet, because of the habit of

consciousness getting identified with what it knows, and

there being nothing here, in this case, of which it can be

aware, there is a temporary lull and the negation of all

existence, as it were; and we feel deprived of the very

support even to think.

It is not that there is nothing. There is everything there. It

is only the inability of the mind to think its own source. We

are unable to assert that there is something other than the

five sheaths – because there is no means of knowledge

adequate enough to be aware of what there is, that is

independent of the five sheaths. How can we know – by what

means can we know – whether there is something or not,

independent of the five sheaths? The faculty of knowledge –

which is the reason, the mind and the intellect – comes under

the sheaths, which have been eliminated.

So the highest faculty of knowledge is also gone.

Therefore, there is a feeling of nothingness. When the faculty

of knowledge itself has gone, knowledge of everything has

also gone. So it is that we feel a kind of darkness, a kind of

emptiness, as if we have ceased to be, while really we are

very, very much there – only, as they say, due to the excess of

light, everything looks dark. If the light frequency rises

beyond a certain limit, we will see only pitch darkness, and

light will not be there. Only a low frequency light can be

caught by the retina of our eyes.

Nanu deham upakramya nidrā nandānta vastuṣu, mā

bhūdā-tmatvam-anyastu na kaścid-anubhūyate (11). The

168

disciple is telling the Guru, “I am not seeing anything, if

everything has gone. If the five sheaths have gone, I don’t see

anything there.”

Bāḍhaṁ nidrādayaḥ sarve’nubhūyante na cetaraḥ,

tathā’pyete’nubhūyante yena taṁ ko nivārayet (12). The Guru

says, “My dear boy, you are saying that you know nothing,

but do you know that you know nothing? Or do you not know

even that? Are you aware that you are not aware of anything?

Do you know the contradiction involved in your statement?

You said, ‘In deep sleep I did not know anything’; but are you

making a statement that you did not know anything? Who is

making this statement? You are aware of the fact that you are

not aware of anything. This is what you are not able to catch.

So even in the deep sleep state, where abolition of

consciousness apparently takes place, there is something

remaining which makes you subsequently feel that you did

sleep.” Even the negation of consciousness requires a

consciousness to negate it and, therefore, nobody can negate

consciousness. It is an untenability.

Svaya-mevā-nubhūti-tvād-vidyate nānu-bhāvyatā, jñātṛ-

jñānān-tarā bhāvāḍ-ajñeyo na tva-sattayā (13). We are unable

to locate the existence of something independent of the five

sheaths on account of there being no process of knowing.

This is a mass of knowledge, but not a process of knowledge.

In our normal waking condition, there is a process of

knowledge. Somebody is there, knowing that there is

something which is to be known. And also, there is a process

which is the intellect operating in connection with the

subject of knowledge and also the object outside. But where

the knower alone is, as the very essence of consciousness,

how would that knower know anything other than itself?

Therefore, the apparent fear that nothing seems to be there

upon the elimination of contact with the five sheaths arises

because the knowledge process has been shut out, together

with all the faculties that caused this process of knowledge.

169

There is no knowledge of anything there; it is only a sea of

knowledge.

On account of there being no distinction between the

knower and the known, between the seer and the seen, it is

impossible for anyone to know that anything is existing there

at all. The apparent non-existence of things is a consequence

that follows from the absence of the usual empirical

processes of knowledge, and not that knowledge is not there.

Mādhuryādi-svabhāvānām-anyatra sva-guṇār piṇām,

svasmin-stad-arpaṇā-pekṣā no na cā-stya nyadar pakam (14).

Sugar, which is very sweet, can make other things sweet. But

it does not require any other substance to make itself sweet.

In a similar way, consciousness can render consciousness to

other things which have no consciousness, but nobody can

give consciousness to consciousness. Nobody can know

consciousness. Consciousness can know everything, but the

things which consciousness knows cannot render any

assistance to consciousness. It is independent, as sugar does

not require the assistance of something else in order to make

it sweet.                     

Arpakāntara-rāhityepi astyeṣāṁ tat svabhāvatā, mā

bhūttathā’nubhāvyatvaṁ bodhātmā tu na hītyate (15). Even if

there is no element which can increase the sweetness of

sugar, the sweetness of sugar continues. Even if there is no

object of which consciousness may be aware of, still

consciousness remains, independent of objects.

The usual identification of consciousness with objects

and the wrong notion that knowledge is always of something

other than consciousness is the reason why we feel helpless

when we eliminate the object from pure subjective

awareness. After eliminating all things, even going to the

extent of accepting that there is nothing whatsoever after the

elimination of the five sheaths, there remains the

consciousness that makes this statement. So there is an

undeniable reality at the back of all things, even if we

170

suppose for a moment that we ourselves do not exist. If we

can stretch our imagination to that extent and strongly

imagine that we do not exist, we will feel that there is a

consciousness which is affirming that we do not exist. So

nobody can go behind consciousness. It is the last, ultimate

residuum of reality.

Svayaṁ jyotir-bhavateṣa puro’smād bhāsate’khilāt, tameva

bhāntam-anveti taḍ-bhāsā bhāsyate jagat (16). Self-luminous is

consciousness, like the sun. The sun is self-luminous. It does

not require another candle to illumine it. No oil lamp is

necessary to increase or reveal the light of the sun. Selfconscious

and self-luminous is consciousness. It knows not

only others, but it knows itself also. It is self-conscious, and

also other-conscious. It is aware that it is there, and it is

aware that other things also are there.

This is a quotation from the Katha Upanishad and the

Mundaka Upanishad. Na tatra sūrya bhāti, na candra-tārakam

(Katha 2.3.15, Mundaka 2.2.11): In that state of absolute

luminosity, the sun and the moon and the stars do not shine.

All the greatest radiance that we can think of in this world is

like darkness before that supernal light. All the light that we

can imagine in our mind is borrowed light – borrowed from

that eternal light. The eternity itself does not require any

light from the world. All light comes from that Supreme

Being, and by Itself It is self-luminous. The whole world is

illuminated by Its existence.

Yenedaṁ jānate sarvaṁ tatkenānyena jānatam, vijñātāraṁ

kena vidyāt-śaktaṁ vedye tu sādhanam (17). Yajnavalkya, the

great seer of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, is quoted here

in this verse. He declares that, “Where there is another, other

than oneself, one can see the other.Where there is something

other than oneself, one can hear the other, touch the other,

taste the other, smell the other, and so on. Where there is

nothing outside one’s own consciousness, what will be seen

there in front of oneself? Who will see what? Who will hear

what? Who will touch what? The universality of

171

consciousness precludes any possibility of knowing that

something is there outside.

While all things can be known by the knower, who can

know the knower? If we say that the knower is known by

another knower behind – the consciousness that knows the

world is perhaps having another consciousness behind it –

then who will be aware of that second consciousness? So we

can go on arguing indefinitely by way of an infinite regress,

where we will come to no conclusion. There is a

consciousness behind consciousness; ultimately there is only

consciousness, and nothing else.

Who can know That, with the help of which everything

else is known here? Who can know the knower? Vijñātāraṁ

kena vidyāt-śaktaṁ vedye tu sādhanam: Knowledge is possible

only when there is something other than the principle of

knowledge.When the principle of knowledge has flooded the

whole cosmos, who will know what? There is just pure

Eternal Subjectivity, the nature of consciousness.

Sa vetti vedyaṁ tat sarvaṁ nānyas tasy-āsti veditā, viditāviditābhyāṁ

tat pṛthag-bodha-svarūpakam (18). All that is to be

known is known by it. That which cannot ordinarily be

known by available means of knowledge also is known by it.

Even the apparently unknowable is known by It. Vidita and

avidita are the terms used in the Kenopanishad. Vidita is that

which is known; avidita is not yet known. The not-yet-known

may also be that which cannot be known.

The fact that we are asserting that something is incapable

of being known implies our having known it in some way.

The negation of the knowledge of something is indirectly an

acceptance of the possibility of knowing something, because

no one can deny a non-existent thing. It must be there in

some form; else, nobody willmake a denial of it.

It is a universality that is covering the entire existence,

part of which is the object of our empirical knowledge and

the larger part of it is left unknown to empirical means of

172

knowing – unknown because of the fact that our faculties

(intellect, mind, etc.) have a limited area of action. Their

jurisdiction is limited. They cannot go beyond the horizon of

knowledge. That is the reason why we seem to know very

little, and even that little that we know seems to be faulty

knowledge. It is not a genuine and ultimately reliable thing.

But here is one principle behind us that is enveloping all

things, outside as well as inside. By enveloping things

outside, it becomes the source of the knowledge of objects

externally there; and being inside everything, it becomes the

source of knowledge itself. It connects the object with the

subject because of its all-pervasiveness. It knows all things

because it exists as the knower in each individual. It is the

pure subjectivity in us and, therefore, it is the knower of all

things.

On account of its universality, it also becomes the

connecting link between the knower and the known. For the

same reason, it also becomes the object itself, even as one

single mass of water (which is the ocean) is at the back of the

rising of one wave and another wave, wherein one collides

with the other and also acts as the medium of the connection

of one with the other. The one wave is the ocean; the other

wave is also the ocean. The action of colliding is also the

ocean because of the ocean being there at the back, at the

bottom of the two waves.

So is the case with this collision of consciousness, if we

can put it in that way. The subjectivity aspect of it becomes

the knowing principle, the objectivity aspect of it becomes

the object of knowledge, and the link that is there as

necessary for the purpose of knowing anything at all is also

itself, as the ocean is between the two waves.

Bodhe’pya-nubhavo yasya na kathañcana jāyate, taṁ

kathaṁ bodhaye-cchāstraṁ losṭaṁ nara-samā-kṛtim (19). After

having said so much, if we say, “I cannot understand what

consciousness is,” it is impossible to instruct us. The author

173

says if a person is more like a stone rather than an intelligent

individual, what kind of instruction can be imparted to that

person? Despite there being a direct perception of

consciousness in daily life – which is obvious because of the

very fact of knowing things – yet we put a question, “Where

is consciousness?”

How could we put a question, “Where is consciousness?”

unless we are already conscious of the question that we are

raising? So the question becomes redundant. We cannot

instruct a person who is unable to argue properly in a

syllogistic manner, and who is like a person who has a

tongue putting a question whether there is a tongue or not –

because if there were no tongue, the question itself would

not have arisen; he would not have spoken a word. So is the

person who puts a question, “Is there consciousness?” If

consciousness had not been there, he would not have even

spoken. Even the question would not have arisen.

Jivhā me’sti na vetyuktiḥ-lajjāyai kevalaṁ yathā, na

budhyate mayā bodho boddhavya iti tādṛśī (20). It is a

meaningless, absurd question to ask whether the tongue

exists or not because if the tongue is not there, how would

we speak? Similar is this absurdity behind the question of

whether consciousness can be known or not. It is directly

known, and is at the background of even the question

whether it can be known or not. It is at the background of

even the doubt whether it exists or not. Therefore, any

attempt at refuting the ultimate existence of consciousness is

impossible.

This consciousness is the Atman. This is the pure Self.

And inasmuch as it is not in one place only, it is not your

Atman, my Atman and somebody else’s Atman. It is the

Atman of every little atom in the cosmos. Therefore, it is the

universal Atman. Because of the universality of the Atman,

we call it Brahman, the Absolute. When Brahman is

conceived as the subjective principle of individuals, it is

called Atman. When the Atman is known as an all-pervading

174

Universal Principle, we call it Brahman. Therefore, Atman is

Brahman.

Yasmin-yasminn-asti loke bodhas-tat-tad-upekṣaṇe, yadbodha-

mātraṁ tad-brahmeti-evaṁ dhīr-brahma-niścayaḥ (21).

Here the author gives a practical suggestion for daily routine.

We can eliminate the involvement of consciousness in

objects by a little bit of concentration in daily life.

If you are aware that there is a tree in front of you, try to

put a question to your own self: “Who is it that is aware that

there is a tree in front?” Eliminate the objective aspect of the

tree being there as something outside in space and time.

Eliminate even the process of knowing, which also is in space

and time. Also eliminate all the five sheaths through whose

medium the consciousness seems to be aware that there is a

tree outside. Go inside gradually, stage by stage: from the

tree, withdraw into the process; from the process, withdraw

into the perceptive organs; from the organs, go inside into

the mind; from the mind, go into the intellect, and finally to

that which is causing the intellect to shine.

The intellect and the mind are like mirrors. A mirror has

no light of its own. A mirror does not shine by itself; it shines

only when light falls on it. Similar is the case with the

intellectuality, or the rationality, or the intelligence of the

intellect. The intelligence in the intellect is the light that is

shed on it, as on a mirror, by the Atman that is within, but

because of the confusion that has taken place between the

Atman and the medium which is the intellect, we begin to

feel that we know things.

By a careful analysis of the objectivity involved in

knowledge, we can go into the deeper subjectivity of it. This

is the practice that we have to carry on every day in order

that we may not get involved unnecessarily in the world of

objects. This is called Brahma-niscayah, the ascertainment of

the existence of Brahman. Every minute we have to be

conscious that Brahman exists. It is another way of saying

175

consciousness exists – not merely consciousness of mine or

yours, but consciousness as such.

All knowledge, whether it is of a positive nature or a

negative nature – by affirmation or negation, whatever it be –

all knowledge is a manifestation of a principle that defies

definition in any type of language. It is Brahma-niscayah.

Pañca-kośa parityāge sākṣi-bodhā-vaśeṣataḥ, sva-svarūpaṁ

sa eva syāt-śhūnyatvaṁ tasya durghaṭam (22). If we go deeper

and deeper, from the physical body inwardly until we reach

the causal body, and then eliminate contact even with the

causal body itself, with great power of discrimination we will

realise that we are there as an uncontaminated awareness.

The condition of deep sleep is a great instance here on

the point. Ordinarily this kind of elimination of objectivity

from consciousness is difficult. It is like peeling one’s skin.

We cannot do that. It is part of our body. How will we do it?

So objects have become so much a part of our consciousness

that this talk of eliminating objectivity from consciousness is

impractical for all ordinary persons, unless there is assiduity

behind the practice; and the success will be there only after

years and years of such a practice.

It is only in deep sleep that we can have some inkling of

the possibility of our being totally independent of connection

with objects. Here is a practical illustration before us that we

were there, isolated from objects of every kind in the world.

Even if we were an emperor, a ruler of the whole world, with

all the wealth of the continent – what does it matter? We

have been isolated from it in deep sleep. All the glory of

which people are generally proud vanishes in one second

when they go to sleep because all this external glory is a

foisted association. It is not the true nature of oneself. In

spite of there being no food to eat, nothing to drink, no

money to touch, no friends to talk to, nothing that we can call

our own – in that condition we are so happy, while we are

miserable when we have so many things in the waking world.

176

With all the appurtenances of life, people are grief-stricken,

while with nothing available in sleep, we are very happy.

Therefore, the possession of objects is not the source of

happiness. The non-possession is the source of joy – so that

when we possess nothing, not even the body, we remain as

isolated, uncontaminated bliss. We have been in that state in

deep sleep, but we never go into the mystery of what is

happening to us. We get up in the morning, and what do we

do? We plunge into the daily activity which was left

unfinished the previous day. So the earliest activity of ours is

work only, and then there is no thought of what actually

happened to us in deep sleep.

In the early morning it is necessary for us to sit quiet for

a few minutes and put a question to our own self, “Where

was I for so many hours when I was not aware of myself?

Was I aware? No. Was I existing? Yes.” In what condition

were we existing?

We did not exist in sleep as an emperor of the world. We

did not exist as a rich person or a poor person, neither as a

healthy person nor as a sick person, neither this nor that.

What was it that we were existing as? That is our essential

nature. If contemplation of this kind can be carried on for a

long time, we will really be detached from the world and we

will want nothing afterwards. Everything will come to us

spontaneously.

Asti tāvat-svayaṁ nāma vivādā-viṣaya-tvataḥ, svasminn-api

vivādas-cet prativādy-atra ko bhavet (23). The conclusion,

therefore, is: There is such a thing as the Self. All this study

has led us to the conclusion that there is such a thing called

the Self. It has to be there, and it is there. It must be there; it

is very clear that it is there. It is not the object of argument,

doubt or any kind of disputation because argument, doubt

and disputation are conducted by the very consciousness

about which we are carrying on this disputation. Therefore,

indubitable, indisputable, and firmly established certainty is

this Self which is not in possession of consciousness, but is

177

itself consciousness. The Self is not conscious; the Self is

consciousness. The very substance of the Self is

consciousness. If we can doubt our own Self, then who can

instruct us?Who can teach us?

No one doubts one’s own Self. No one thinks, “Do I really

exist?” Nobody feels like that. The certainty that is there at

the back of one’s feeling of one’s own existence is the proof of

the Self being there. And the possibility of existing even

independent of the five sheaths in deep sleep is proof enough

of it being consciousness. So what is established now is that

there is the Self – and it is Pure Consciousness.

Discourse 16

CHAPTER 3: PANCHA KOSHA VIVEKA –

DISCRIMINATION OF THE FIVE SHEATHS,

VERSES 21-37

Yasmin-yasminn-asti loke bodhas-tat-tad-upekṣaṇe, yadbodha-

mātraṁ tad-brahmeti-evaṁ dhīr-brahma-niścayaḥ (21).

Whatever be the object of consciousness in the process of

perception, it should be incumbent upon the seeker of Truth

to eliminate the consciousness aspect in perception from

involvement in the object aspect of perception. There is an

element which is the seen aspect; and there is another which

is the seer aspect. Since the seen cannot become the seer, and

the seer cannot become the seen, the conjunction of the two

in the act of perception should naturally be considered as a

sort of confusion taking place between the characteristics of

the seeing consciousness and the seen object. The element of

externality should be dissociated from consciousness, and

the element of consciousness should be dissociated from the

object. This is a difficult technique, but it is a very useful

method: the dissociation of consciousness from objects.

Pañca-kośa parityāge sākṣi-bodhā-vaśeṣataḥ, sva-svarūpaṁ

sa eva syāt-śhūnyatvaṁ tasya durghaṭam (22). The dissociation

of the five sheaths – the physical, vital, mental, intellectual

and causal – from one’s own conscious experience will land

one in a state of pure featureless transparency of

consciousness. And it should not be imagined that if the

sheaths are eliminated from perception or experience, there

would be nothing left, because the consciousness of nothing

is an impossibility. Consciousness must exist nevertheless.

Asti tāvat-svayaṁ nāma vivādā-viṣaya-tvataḥ, svasminn-api

vivādas-cet prativādy-atra ko bhavet (23). There is such a thing

called self. Every thing, every person, every living being in

the world asserts its selfhood. There is a self-identity upheld

by everyone. Nothing would like to become another thing.

Even vegetation like a plant or a tree would not like to be

interfered with in its desire to maintain itself as that

179

particular thing, whatever it is. The crawling insect would

like to be a crawling insect only. If we tell it, “I will convert

you into an elephant,” it will not want it; an insect is an

insect. The self-identity that a little creature, even a crawling

ant, maintains is as vehement and as important to it as a

mountainous mammoth would affirm in regard to its own

self.

Nobody would like to become another person.What I am,

I am; and what you are, you are. Neither can I be you, nor can

you be me. One element cannot be another element. Every

atom distinguishes itself from every other atom. This is the

character of self-identity, or what we call selfhood. The self

never wishes to become a not-self. This is the whole thing. A

is A; A cannot be B. Such a thing called the self must exist, and

it does exist.

Asti tāvat-svayaṁ nāma vivādā-viṣaya-tvataḥ: There cannot

be any argument in regard to that, because any argument for

or against will be an affirmation of the self once again –

because whoever argues will be the self. And there is nothing

beyond that. Svasminn-api vivādas-cet prativādy-atra ko

bhavet: Who can doubt one’s own self? The doubter must

exist, and that existence is the self.

Svāsattvaṁ tu na kasmai-cid-rocate vibhramaṁ vinā, ata

eva śrutir-bādhaṁ brūte cā-sattva-vādinaḥ (24). Except in a

state of delusion and complete chaos of thought, nobody

would like to annihilate oneself. One cannot even imagine the

non-existence of one’s own self. The possibility of selfannihilation

is the worst of things that one can imagine

because it is contrary to the deepest root of our being.

Neither would one wish self-annihilation, nor one would be

able to imagine such a possibility. Ata eva śrutir-bādhaṁ brūte

cā-sattva-vādinaḥ. The sruti of the Upanishad, therefore,

contradicts any such possibility of the assertion of a nonentity,

or vacuum, as the Ultimate Reality.

180

The Upanishad quoted here is the Taittiriya Upanishad,

which says asaḍ-brahmeti ced-veda svayam-eva bhaved-asat,

ato’sya mā bhūḍ-vedyatvaṁ sva-sattvaṁ tvabhyu peyatām

(25). Whoever affirms the non-existence of Brahman would

himself become non-existent, because that is the affirmation

of the non-existence of one’s own self. So we cannot deny

God and then exist safely here. When God goes, we also go

together with it. The denier of God will also go with the

object that is denied.

The character of ‘being known’ cannot be found in the

Self. It is never the known thing. It is a pure Knower. Let all

things be known; but that which is the Knower of all things

cannot itself be known. What kind of thing is the Self then?

Neither is it of this kind, nor is it of that kind. What sort of

definition can apply to the Pure Self?

Kīdṛk-tarhīti-cet-pṛccheḍ-īdṛktā nāsti tatra hi, yad-anī-dṛgatādṛk-

ca tat-svarūpaṁ viniś-cinu (26). The Self is neither this

nor that, because any kind of characterisation as ‘this’ or

‘that’ would be to attribute some quality to the Self which

does not belong to it. Any definition of a thing is in terms of

qualities that actually do not belong to that thing. The

distinction of one thing from another thing in a definition is

carried on by the association of certain qualities with that

object – qualities which do not inhere in it, that belong to

something else.

When we say some object is blue, the knowledge that

something is blue can arise only when there are objects in

the world which are not blue. If the whole universe is blue,

there will be no perception of blueness. Therefore, the

definition of an object in terms of quality has relevance by

excluding characteristics which do not belong to itself –

neither this, nor that. No such definition is possible in the

case of the Atman.

Yad-anī-dṛg-atādṛk-ca tat-svarūpaṁ viniś-cinu: Know that

which is neither of this character nor that character. How

181

would we know that? The methods will be described in the

forthcoming chapters.

Akṣāṇāṁ viṣaya-stvī-dṛk-parokṣas-tādṛg-ucyate, viṣayi

nākṣaviṣayaḥ svatvān-nāsya parokṣatā (27). When we say,

“This is something,” we are referring to something which is

visible to the eyes. When we say, “That is something,” we are

referring to something which is not visible to the eyes.

Nearness and remoteness of objects are indicated by the

demonstrative pronouns ‘this’ and ‘that.’ But the Self cannot

be regarded either as something remote or as something

near. It is not remote because it is very near. But because of

its universality, it looks like something remote.

Viṣayi nākṣaviṣayaḥ: That which is the seer of things

cannot become the object of perception. Svatvān-nāsya

parokṣatā: As it is the Self, it cannot be a remote object; and

inasmuch as it is the Self, for the very same reason, it also

cannot be an object of sensory perception. Neither is it a faroff

thing, because of it being the soul of all beings, nor is it the

perceptible object, because it is the perceiver itself. This is an

intriguing character of the pure Selfhood.

Avedyo’pya-parokṣo’taḥ sva-prakāśo bhava-tyayam, satyaṁ

jñānam-anantaṁ ceta-astīha brahmā-lakṣaṇam (28). Even if the

Self is unknowable for reasons mentioned, it is capable of

direct experience. Mediately, it cannot be known;

immediately, it can be known. Mediate knowledge is that

knowledge we acquire through the instrumentality of the

sense organs. Immediate knowledge is that which we acquire

independent of the operation of the sense organs. That is

called insight. ‘Intuition’, ‘anubhava’ are the terms used for

this kind of non-mediate direct apprehension.

Avedyo’pya-parokṣo’taḥ sva-prakāśo bhava-tyayam.

Though unknowable for the sense organs, the Self is

knowable for other reasons because it is self-luminous. It

does not require illumination from any other proof of

knowledge. The Self, which is light in its essential nature,

182

sheds its radiance to the sense organs; and with that

borrowed light, the senses become conscious of that which is

outside – the world, the objects, etc. But the Self is light itself.

It does not require the assistance of any other instrument to

know itself. Self-knowledge is knowledge of the Self, by the

Self. It needs no other assistance.

Satyaṁ jñānam-anantaṁ ceta-astīha brahmā-lakṣaṇam:

The Taittiriya Upanishad has defined Brahman, the Absolute,

as satyam jnanam anantam. Truth, knowledge, infinity is

Brahman. Ultimate Truth is Brahman because it is

unchangeable. Perishability is the character of untruth.

Relativity is the character of untruth. Externality and

objectivity is the character of untruth. Truth is all-pervading,

self-luminous, non-relative, absolute. And because of its

being the Universal Reality, it is also conscious. And because

it is conscious of the universality of its being, it is also

freedom.

Because of the freedom that is the nature of the true Self,

which is all-pervading, it is bliss, ananda. Only when we are

free will we be happy. And the greater is the freedom, the

greater also is the joy that we will feel. The ultimate freedom

is only in the experience of direct, Universal Selfhood. It is in

that state that we have the immensity of the experience of

eternal bliss. This is the characteristic of Brahman: astīha

brahmā-lakṣaṇam.

Satyatvaṁ bādha-rāhityaṁ jagad-bādhaika-sākṣiṇaḥ,

bādhaḥ kiṁ-sākṣiko brūhi na tva-sākṣika iṣyate (29). That which

cannot be contradicted in the three periods of time can be

regarded as Truth. Anything that passes away sometimes

cannot be regarded as Truth. Today something is; tomorrow

it is not there. That cannot be called Reality at all. In that

sense, we will not find anything that is true in this world.

Even the world has a beginning, and one day it will pass.

Therefore, nothing in this world can be regarded as finally

true. It has a past, it has a future, and it has only a temporary

present. The whole creation is of this nature. It is not the

183

Ultimate Being. What is Ultimate Being? That which is

uncontradicted in the three periods of time – past, present

and future – that is satya, Truth. Satyatvaṁ bādha-rāhityaṁ:

Non-contradiction is the test of Truth, according to logic.

Jagad-bādhaika-sākṣiṇaḥ, bādhaḥ kiṁ-sākṣika: that which

reigns supreme as the witness of all the changes taking place

in the cosmos. Who can be a witness of that greatness? This

eternity reigned supreme even before the origin of time.

Even before creation, God did exist. And who can define that

Being, since all definition is in terms of things seen by us –

things in this world?

Witness consciousness is the nature of the Self. It is the

consciousness that is behind all kinds of perceptions,

memories, feelings, etc. When all feelings, all apprehensions,

all volitions cease, that survives. That persists. Even an

imagination to the extent of the cessation of the whole of

creation will be witnessed by a consciousness which is

equally large.

The world is vast; creation is vast enough. To conceive

such a vastness as space and time, there must be a

consciousness which cannot be less vast than space and time.

A little finite spark of consciousness cannot apprehend the

vastness of space and time. We can imagine even infinitude.

How could we, with a little mind working inside our skull,

imagine what is endlessness unless there is a potentiality of

endlessness in our own self? Our mind is basically endless

because it is a medium through which endless consciousness

reflects itself.

Apanīteṣu mūrteṣu hyamūrtaṁ śiṣyate viyat, śakyeṣu

bādhite-ṣvante śiṣyate yattadeva tat (30). When we eliminate

earth, water, fire, air, etc., we will find only empty space

remains. We can stretch our imagination and feel the earth

has gone, water has gone, fire has gone, air has gone. We will

find space remains. We cannot feel that space also does not

exist, because all thought is conditioned by space and time.

184

In the same way as there is a residuum of space

consciousness when all the other elements are eliminated by

the rejection process, we will find that there is something

remaining cosmically operative when all perceptible objects,

including the five elements, are done away with. When the

whole cosmos is not there in front of us, there will be a

consciousness that knows the absence of cosmos. That

consciousness is cosmic consciousness, which is the nature of

the Self.

Sarva bādhe na kiṅcic-ceḍ-yanna kiṅcit-taḍeva tat, bhāṣā

evātra bhidyante nirbādhaṁ tāva-dasti hi (31). When

everything goes, the objector will again say that there does

not appear to be anything remaining at all; nothing remains.

But as we already mentioned, it appears that consciousness

of nothing is itself consciousness, so do not bring in that

point again and again.

Ata eva śrutirbādhyaṁ bādhitvā śeṣaya-tyadaḥ, sa eṣa neti

netyeātmeti-atad-vyāvṛtti rūpataḥ (32). The Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad says neti-neti. Brahman cannot be known by any

positive definition. We cannot say, “It is like this,” because it

is not like anything that we have seen in the world. Then how

can we define it? By eliminating everything that is possible of

conception – ‘not this’: It is not that which can be seen with

the eyes; it is not that which can be heard with the ears; it is

not that which can be tasted with the tongue; it is not that

which can be sensed in any manner whatsoever. It is not that

which we think in our mind; it is not that which our intellect

is arguing about. Thus we eliminate all the possible

objectivity and conceptualisation. Let something remain after

eliminating all thought, all feeling, all volition, and all objects.

Something will remain. Concentrate on that residual basic

Being.

Idaṁ-rūpaṁ tu yadyāvat-tat-tyaktuṁ śakyate’khilam,

aśakyo hyanidaṁ-rūpaḥ sa ātmā bādha-varjitaḥ (33). We can

eliminate all things that we can see with our eyes. “I don’t

want this, I don’t want that. I shall leave this, and I shall go

185

elsewhere. I shall have that thing.” We can go on eliminating,

relatively speaking, things in this world, and move to some

other thing. But here is a kind of elimination that is expected

of us, which is elimination of all things. It is not moving from

one place to another place. It is not rejecting something and

acquiring something else. It is an elimination of all possible

conceptualisation and objectification, including this bodyconsciousness.

Objectification does not mean only the consciousness of

that which is far away. Even this body is an object because

we can see it. We can sense it; we can feel it; we can touch it.

Inasmuch as sensation is the means of knowing the existence

of this body, the body also should be considered as an object.

So when the elimination process of objectivity is carried on,

it does not mean that we ignore the world and cling to our

body. When the world goes, our body also has to go with the

world, because the body is constituted of the same five

elements as the world. When the world has gone, this body

also has gone with it.

What remains is pure awareness of the fact of everything

having gone away. The consciousness of ‘everything having

gone’ remains.We will not be non-existent.We will be aware

that something is there, but not this body. We have already

studied in the earlier chapters that we are wrongly imagining

that we are this physical sheath and other sheaths by a

confusion of characters. It is only in the state of deep sleep

that we are having some inkling as to the fact that there is a

chance of our existing independent of the sheaths. Minus all

the sheath-consciousness, we are existing in the state of deep

sleep. It is only there that we are able to have some idea as to

what we are really; but in all other states we are confused

with identity of the physical sheaths and other sheaths.

Siddhaṁ brahmaṇi satyatvaṁ jñānatvaṁ tu pureritam,

svayam-evā-nubhū-titvā-dityādi-vacanaiḥ sphuṭam (34). What

do we conclude now? The establishment of the existence of

Brahman is certain. We have attained the certainty and an

186

incontrovertible truth of there being such a thing called nonrelative

Being. While everything is relative, there is

something non-relative in order to be aware that things are

relative. We say the whole world is relative. But that thing

which knows the relativity of things itself is not relative.

Change does not know itself. The knowledge of change arises

on account of there being something which does not change.

We cannot know motion unless we ourselves are not in a

state of motion. If everything was moving and everything

was relative, there would be no one to know that something

is moving and something is relative. The consciousness of the

transitoriness of things and the relativity of objects itself

cannot be relative. Else, there would be no one to say that

things are relative or something is transient. Such a certainty

has been established.

Siddhaṁ brahmaṇi satyatvaṁ jñānatvaṁ tu pureritam. We

have already concluded that our nature is Pure

Consciousness. Svayam-evā-nubhū-titvā-dityādi-vacanaiḥ

sphuṭam. In earlier sections we have repeated the same truth

that the Self is Consciousness. This has been the subject of

study right from the first chapter. Self Consciousness means

the Self being Consciousness itself in its essence. It does not

shine due to some other factor being associated with it. It is

not like a bulb shining. A bulb does not shine; it shines

because of some other thing moving through it. But the Self

does not require any other externalised association, for it is

that flame which requires no oil or wick. Eternity is the

radiance of the Self.

Na vyāpitvāt dyeśato’nto nityatvān-nāpi kālataḥ, na

vastuto’pi sārvātmyād-ānantyaṁ brahmaṅi tridhā (35). It is not

limited either by space, time, or object. There are things in

the world which can be found in one place, but they cannot

be found in other places. Such things which can be seen in

one place only and not in all places are said to be limited by

space. There are certain things which can be found in certain

conditions – in some season, for instance. We cannot see

187

them always; this is the limitation by time. And certain things

are totally different from certain other things; that is

limitation by objectivity. Things are limited in three ways: by

space, time, and object. That we are in one place and not in

another place is limitation by space. That we are at some

time but not always is limitation by time. That we are

somebody and not somebody else is limitation by

personality, individuality, objectivity.

These limitations do not obtain in Brahman. Brahman is

all-pervading; therefore, it is not limited by space. It is there

endlessly, timelessly; therefore, it is not limited by time. It is

pervading all things; therefore, it is not limited by any object.

Neither space, time, nor objectivity can limit Brahman.

Always it is unlimited, in every way.

So the infinity of Brahman is of three kinds –

spacelessness is one kind of infinity, timelessness is another

kind of infinity, and objectlessness is the third kind of infinity

– whereas we are limited in all the three ways. We human

beings, individuals, are the direct contradiction of this

Ultimate Reality because we are bound by space, time,

individuality, and the body.

Deśa-kālāyna-vastūnāṁ kalpita-tvācca māyayā, na deśādikṛto’ntosti

brahmā nantyaṁ sphuṭaṁ tataḥ (36). “Endless is

Brahman,” is what we have said because the problem has

arisen on account of there being something called space

outside; and as we know, time goes together with space.

When we think of space, time also comes there – as it

happens in dream, for instance.

How did space arise in dream?Where was the time factor

in dream? How did things appear to be outside us in dream?

There was no space, actually speaking. The distance that we

see between ourselves and an object outside in dream is a

false imagination of the mind. One can feel, in dream, that

one is caught in a forest and a tiger is pursuing; and the

person in dream runs and climbs a tree. The tiger is a

188

modification of the mind of the dreamer. The fright also is a

modification of the mind of the dreamer. The tree also is

manufactured by the very same mind. The tree is different

from the tiger and one’s own self, and that difference also is

created by the same mind. The action of climbing the tree

also is a mental activity. This is an illustration to show how

things are in this physical world also, though it is an

empirical reality, in contradistinction with the dream reality.

Even as the individual mind has wrongly projected a

space in dream and imagines a tree or a tiger, an elephant or

a mountain, and gets caught in the false joys and sorrows of

the dream life, so the scriptures say the Cosmic Mind is

dreaming, as it were, this whole world. And you and I are the

dream objects of this Cosmic Mind. We have friends and

enemies even in dream. We see many people, big societies in

dream. Do we not see people in dream? All those persons, all

the things, all the objects that we see in dream are

manufactured by our dreaming consciousness. The

externality, the totality, the integrality, the reality – all these

things in dream are actually the big drama that is played by

the waking consciousness.When we wake up, all these things

get merged into the waking mind, and we do not see any one

of them in the waking state.

So is the principle of Self-realisation. This Cosmic Mind

dreams, as it were, this vast world of difference – of space,

time and objects, including our own selves. When the

consciousness of objectivity is withdrawn, the individual

minds merge into the Cosmic Mind, and that is the real

waking from this dream of the world. There we will find no

world at all. All this great wonder, this dramatic performance

of this earthly life will vanish into thin air, just as all the

problems of the dream world vanished in a second when we

woke up into waking consciousness. So too, the entire earthconsciousness

will vanish when our individual mind merges

into the Cosmic Mind,which is called ‘the real waking’.

189

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

īśvaratvaṁ ca jīvatvam-upādhi-dvaya-kalpitam (37). We shall

take up this subject tomorrow.

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)