Commentary on the Panchadasi

by Swami Krishnananda

Ekamevā dvitīyaṁ sat siddha matra tu kecana, vihvalā asadevedaṁ purā sīdityā varṇayan (26). People cannot conceive of Pure Existence because the mind always objectifies whatever it thinks. Even after hearing a thousand times that Existence cannot be divided, that it has always to be divisionless, the conscious mind, which always imagines its contents as something standing outside, brings into force the argument that Existence is divided  between the subject and the object, between the perceiver and the perceived, or that it is a content of somebody's awareness.

Pure Existence is equal to non-existence. This is what the German philosopher Hegel said. To say that Existence alone is, is another way of saying that non-existence alone is, because his idea is that we cannot conceive Existence in the mind except as an object or a content of itself. Anything that we think, even when we assert existence, is a part of our thinking process. But if we say it is a part of the thinking process, it becomes divided between the subject and the object. Then it ceases to be universal. The moment we say it is not an object at all – it is not a content of mind – it becomes a featureless, meaningless, a non-entity, as it were, because of its not being a content of anybody's awareness. This is a peculiar argument that arises due to inexperience. Intellectual philosophy is not enough. We must have direct experience of this truth by intuition, which Hegel did not have.

So something like this is also the argument of the nihilist philosophers who say that the relativity of things, the factor of one thing hanging on another thing, denies the substance of anything. Everything in the world is conditioned by everything else; nothing is independent by itself. The existence of one thing is possible on account of the existence of something else. If that is the case, nothing is absolutely existing; therefore, there is no such thing as Absolute Existence. What finally exists? Zero, nil, vacuum – that is Ultimate Reality. This is one kind of argument.

Magnasy-ābdhau yathā-kṣāṇi vihvalāni tathāsya dhīḥ, akhaṇḍaika rasaṁ śrutvā niṣpracārā bibhetyataḥ (27). The author says that as a person drowned in deep waters cannot open his eyes and see anything, a person whose mind is expected to drown itself in the ocean of Existence closes his eyes and begins to see darkness in front of him, rather than Pure Existence. The waters in which we are drowned cannot be seen with our eyes because we have closed our eyes, because we are inside. So people who try to conceive Pure Existence with their understanding suddenly close the eyes of their consciousness and imagine that it is like darkness – as a closed eye inside the waters may think that there is nothing inside, while it is filled with water. Akhandaikarasa is the original nature of things – undivided essence. Akhanda is undivided; ikarasa is pure essence. Undivided pure essence is the nature of Ultimate Existence.

By hearing this, the mind is baffled. It is unable to contain this thought. How is it possible to expect the mind which is a located, cognising entity, to comprehend within itself that which is everywhere and inclusive of even itself? The mind is included even within the principle of Existence; therefore, the mind cannot conceive it. This is the reason why the baffling of the intellect takes place and we begin to feel that Existence is like non-existence.

Gaudapada Acharya in his Mandukyakarika says if we put children in an empty space and nobody is there in front of them, they will cry. They are afraid. If we place a child in the wilderness where there is nobody to be seen and there is nothing outside, it will start crying. It is crying not because it is afraid of something that is there. It is afraid because there is nothing there. It is the fear of non-entity, rather than the fear of entities.

Gaudapada Acharya, the great Guru of Sankaracharya, says gauddācāryā nirvikalpe samādhā vanya yoginām, sākāra brahma niṣṭhānām atyantaṁ bhaya mūcire (28). When we enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, or abstract meditation where the mind itself is dissolved in the equilibrium of pure awareness, it sees nothing in front of it, and gets frightened. There is agitation of the consciousness in the same way as the child is agitated because it can see nothing in front of it. The fear arises on account of there being no object in front, not because of the presence of something. Usually, fear arises on account of the presence of something outside. This is a peculiar kind of fear arising out of there being nothing at all. Such a kind of predicament of there being nothing outside Pure Existence is the reason why baffled minds imagine that non-existence is the origin of things, instead of Pure Existence: sākāra brahma niṣṭhānām atyantaṁ bhaya mūcire.

This yoga which Gaudapada Acharya mentions is called asparsa yoga. It is a yoga, or union, of no union. Yoga is contact; asparsa is non-contact. It is the contact of no contact – if we do not come in contact with Brahman and yet we come in contact with it in some way. Generally contact is of one thing with another thing; but here, consciousness which is contacting Brahman is not something outside Brahman; therefore, we cannot say consciousness is contacting Brahman. It is the Self contacting itself. It is, therefore, a non-contactual contact. Hence, it is called asparsa yoga – wherein placed, the mind is frightened. It cannot anymore conceive such a state, and it cannot stand there for more than a minute.

Asparśa yogo nāmaiṣa durdarśas-sarva-yogibhiḥ, yogino bibhyati hy-asmād-abhaye bhata darśinaḥ (29). This is very difficult to attain. Ordinary so-called yogis cannot attain that state of total immersion in utter Universality where the mind also gets dissolved. Ordinary yogis cannot attain to that state: durdarśas-sarva-yogibhiḥ. Yogino bibhyati hy-asmād: Even yogis are frightened even to hear of this transcendent state. Abhaye bhata darśinaḥ: because they see fear where there is really no cause for fear.

Bhagavat pūjya pādāśca śuṣka tarka paṭūnamūn, āhur mādhyamikān bhrāntān acintye’smin sadātmani (30). Bhagavadpada Acharya is Acharya Sankara. He, in his commentaries, in his writings, refers to these arguments which are bereft of substance – empty quibbling of the Madhyamikas and the relativists who begin to affirm the existence of non-existence. They do not know what they are speaking about; and this happens to them because of the incomprehensibility of the Absolute, the unthinkability of Universality.

Anādṛtya śrutiṁ maurkhyād-ime bauddhā tamasvinaḥ, āpedire nirāt matvam anumānaika cakṣuṣaḥ (31). One of the nihilist arguments is that the Self does not exist; there is no such thing as Self-consciousness. This assertion is totally contrary to scriptural arguments such as in the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. They imagine that they know everything. By pure argument and the force of logical analysis of the relativity of things, they come to an unfounded conclusion that ultimately not only is there nothing in the universe, there is not even the thinker – not even the person who affirms that there is nothing.

The feasibility of this argument is very clear: the doubter denies and doubts himself. The negation of a thing is also negated. First of all, it is negated. Existence is negated. It is converted into non-existence: only non-existence was. Now inasmuch as non-existence was, the person who makes that statement also is non-existent, which means to say that the argument fails. So there is a self-contradiction in the very statement that non-existence was, instead of Pure Existence was. This is the fate of people who rely purely on dry logic without having internal experience.

Śūnyam-āsīd iti brūṣe sadyogaṁ vā sadātamatām, śūnyasya na tu tadyuktam ubhayaṁ vyāha-tatvataḥ (32). When you say that nothingness is, do you mean to say that nothingness is associated with Existence, or nothingness is independently existing? There are only two possibilities. The so-called nothingness that you are affirming has either to be associated with Existence, or it is by itself Existence. Now you cannot associate non-existence with Existence, because they are contraries. As light and darkness cannot be brought together, Existence and non-existence cannot come together. Therefore, the possibility of the association of non-existence with Existence is ruled out.

Now you may say that non-existence exists. If that is the case, what is your great argument? You were just saying that non-existence exists. And we are telling you the same thing: there was Existence, and you may call it by any name you like. But you cannot define it as some particular thing like non-existence, because Existence is a generality of foundation for anything that you can talk of, think of or imagine in the mind and, therefore, to say that non-existence exists is not to introduce a duality between non-existence and Existence; actually you are refuting your own argument and denying the meaning of non-existence. Virtually you are falling on Pure Existence only.

Na yuktas tamasā sūrya nāpi cāsau tamomayaḥ, sac-chūnyayor-virodhi tvāt śūnyam āsīt-kathaṁ vada (33). As sunlight cannot be associated with the darkness of night, you cannot associate Existence with non-existence. The sun is not either associated with darkness, nor is he himself darkness. In a similar manner, there is such a contradiction between light and darkness. The same is the case with the contradiction between non-existence and Existence. How on earth could you imagine the association of non-existence with Existence, or assert the existence of non-existence as different from Existence? It is virtually affirming the very same position that we have been maintaining, that Existence alone was, which the great Uddalaka proclaimed many, many years back.

Viyadāder nāmarūpe māyayā suvikalpite, śūnyasya nāmarūpe ca tathā cet jīvyatāṁ ciram (34). The nihilists may say that universally spread-out objects like space appear to be visible and perceptible on account of the illusion of there being name and form for them. We see space, for instance; we can know there is space there. It has not really got name and form, but we assume some sort of name and form in it as extendedness, depth, infinity, and so on. It is pure illusion that has been foisted upon an otherwise non-existent infinity or extension which is space. And if you say the siddhantin speaks to the opponent, if you say that even the categorisation of non-existence as something different from Existence is due to the association of descriptive characters of non-existence, then we are agreeable to your argument. We will remove the descriptive characters of name and form from non-existence and we will have only Existence afterwards.

So any way, in any circumstance, with any argument whatsoever, wherever you go, you are cornered into the acceptance of the fact that Ultimate Reality is Pure Being, and the great statement of Uddalaka stands valid forever and ever. Pure Being is the only reality.