Commentary on the Panchadasi

by Swami Krishnananda

Idantva rūpyate bhinne svatvā hante tathe ṣyatām, sāmānyaṁ ca viśeṣaśca hyubhaya trāpi gamyate (38). In that mother-of-pearl which was shining like a silver piece, the real aspect is only of the mother-of-pearl, and the silver-ness is foisted upon it. The silver is quite different from the mother-of-pearl.

“This is silver.” When we make statements of this kind, the word ‘this’ demonstrates the reality that is there, which we are actually perceiving as a substratum which is the mother-of-pearl; but the silver-ness is not actually there. We have superimposed the shining character of the object on the substance of the object, and the substantiality of the object on the shining character. The shining thing is understood to be a silver piece. Actually, the luminosity is the cause of this misconception.

There is a generality and a particularity in this perception of silver. The generality is what is really there, and the particularity is what is not there. What is really there is the mother-of-pearl; and what is not there is the silver. We make a confusion of two issues and then utter a sentence, “This is silver.” The unreal and the real are brought together – appearance and reality are jumbled up – in all perceptions of this kind.
 
Even when we say, “This is the world; here is the world,” the same mistake is committed. “This is the world.” This-ness, the substantiality that we attribute to this world, is the Brahman consciousness that is at the back of all things. But the world-ness is like the silver seen in the piece of mother-of-pearl. Here the mother-of-pearl is Brahman; the silver is the world. We superimpose the externality and multiplicity characterising the world upon Brahman which is indivisible; and we superimpose the existence aspect of Brahman on the multiplicity and externality of the world and say, “The external world exists. Multiple objects exist.” This is a wrong statement because the multiple objects do not exist, in the same way as silver does not exist. What exists is something else; and what appears is another thing altogether. This is the difference between the general existence and the particular appearance.

Deva dattaḥ svayaṁ gacchet tvaṁ vikṣasva svayaṁ tathā, ahaṁ svayaṁ na śaknomīti evaṁ loke prayujyate (39). The word ‘Self,’ ‘Svayam’: When we refer to the Self, we use the Sanskrit word Svayam. “Devadatta will himself go. You yourself please look into this matter. I myself cannot do this work.” In all these statements we have used the word ‘self’ unconsciously. “He himself is responsible for all this. I myself am not in a position to do this work”; and, “You yourself please look into this matter.” Why do we go on saying ‘self, self, self’?

The idea is that we cannot escape the association of a peculiar thing called selfhood, either in referring to ourselves, to another person, or to someone else. Here, the selfhood of a thing comes into high relief whether or not we are aware that such a thing is happening. No one can make any statement without the association of a nominative, substantive selfhood in the sentence.

Idaṁ rūpyaṁ idaṁ vastram iti yad vad idaṁ tathā, asau tvamaha mityeṣu svaya mityabhi manyate (40). In the same way as we say, “I myself, you yourself, he himself,” etc., we are used to making statements of another kind. “This is silver, this is cloth, this is of this kind, this is of that kind.” Here in this second variety of statements, the word ‘self’ is not used. It is an externality that is emphasised. Only objectivity is taken into account when it is said, “This is silver, this is cloth, this is a pot, this is a building, this is this kind of thing, this is that kind of thing.”

Ahantvāt bhidyatāṁ svatvaṁ kūṭasthe tena kiṁ tava, svayaṁ śabdārtha evaiṣa kūṭastha iti me bhavet (41). Therefore, on the basis of the analogy of the mother-of-pearl and silver, the world and Brahman, etc., we should distinguish between the Self and I. Though the real Self is the I, and the real I is the Self, we mistake this physical body for the I and make statements of personality involved in action, speech, etc., when we say, “I shall do this work.”

The individuality which is characterising the ‘I’ here, is a false manifestation of the true Self, which is Svayam, through the intellect that represents the personality of the individual. What is Self? Svayam is itself Kutastha, the primary Atman of the individual.

Anyatva vārakaṁ svatvam iti ced anya vāraṇam, kūṭastha syātmantām vaktuḥ iṣṭa meva hi tad bhavet (42). When we say, “I myself,” etc., or use the word ‘self’ anywhere in a statement, we distinguish between self and anything other than the self. Idam, tat, etc., ‘this’ and ‘that’ – demonstrative pronouns of this kind – are distinguishable from selfhood. Anything that is external or far away, which is designated as this and that, is not connected with the word ‘self’; only self-identical individuals are referred to as ‘self,’ such as ‘I myself, you yourself, he himself’, etc.

The second-ness of anything is set aside by the word ‘Svayam’, or ‘Self.’ The word ‘self’ distinguishes itself from anything that is not self. All that is conceivable, perceivable or contactable is not Self. Anything that can be contacted through the sense organs, or thought by the mind as an external object, or even understood by the intellect as something outside is a not-self. The Self is that which is the light at the back of even these conceptions and perceptions. The externality of the world or the individuality of the person is created by the limitation of consciousness through the perceiving or cognising medium that is the intellect representing the five sheaths.

Kutastha chaitanya, Atman, and Self mean one and the same thing. Different words are used to designate one and the same reality. The purpose of Kutastha, Atman, Self, or Svayam is to abrogate any kind of external association with it. The concept of ‘I’ is so very intensely self-identical with itself that we cannot for a moment imagine that we are other than what we are.

We may have large properties or belongings, but we will never say that the belonging is myself. We always say, “I have this property; I own this thing; it is mine.” We say, “This book is mine,” not, “This book is I.” Even in ordinary parlance, we make a distinction between our true self-identity and that which we are attached to – objects, property, etc. We never say, “This building is I; this property is I; this land is I; this money is I.” Nobody says that. They say, “It is mine.”

So even when we make a mistake, we somehow or the other introduce a distinction between the I-ness and the non-I-ness, or the Self and the not-self; and the I can be attributed only to the self-identical consciousness, and not to anything that it appears to possess or is related to it.

Svaya mātmeti paryāyau tena loke tayoḥ saha, prayogo nāstyathaḥ svatvaṁ ātmatvaṁ cānya vārakam (43). The words ‘Atman’ and ‘Svayam’ mean one and the same thing. We do not use Atman and Self at the same time. ‘Atman’ is a Sanskrit word; ‘Self’ is an English word. They mean one and the same thing. The non-externalisable Self-identical existence, pure perceiver, incapable of externalisation and incapable of becoming an object in any way – that is Atman, that is Svayam, that is Self.

Therefore, there is no possibility of connecting anything in the world with the Self. Otherwise, we would be feeling that the whole world is hanging on our body because it is our Self. The Self distinguishes itself from anything that is not itself; consciousness is distinguishable from matter, and all that is known by consciousness is of a material nature.

Ghaṭaḥ svayaṁ na jānātīti evaṁ svatvaṁ ghaṭādiṣu, acetaneṣu dṛṣṭaṁ cet dṛśyatā mātma sattvataḥ (44). Sometimes we say, “The pot itself has no consciousness.” The pot has no consciousness, but we sometimes use the word ‘self’ there also. The idea is that even inanimate objects have a selfhood in them in a potential form.

Inanimate things are Pure Consciousness itself in a sleeping condition, in a state of tamas. Where rajas and sattva are not manifest even a little, even in a smallest measure – there is only fixity, stability, and immovability of the tamoguna – consciousness also appears to be stable, fixed, immovable, lifeless. What we call life is only a manifestation of consciousness through the medium of the subtle body. The stone has no subtle body, it is entirely physical and, therefore, consciousness cannot reveal itself through anything that is subtler than the physicality which is its body.

Therefore it is that the stone, pot, etc., cannot have self-consciousness; yet consciousness is there at the back in the form of existence. Pure existence is there, but consciousness is not there; freedom is also not there. Stones exist, but stones do not know that they exist, whereas we exist, and we know that we exist. That is the difference between inanimate matter and an animate being which is conscious of itself.

Yet we cannot completely ignore the fact that consciousness, being universal, is present even at the back of all inanimate things; otherwise, if it is to be considered as absent in inanimate things, there would be division in consciousness and some part of the world would be divested of connection with consciousness. Consciousness would become finite. That is not the case. Whether it is manifest or not, Consciousness is present in all things, and therefore we unwittingly use the word ‘self.’ We use the word ‘self’ even in respect of pot, etc.: “The pot itself does not know.”

Cetanā cetana bhidā kūṭasthātma kṛtā na hi, kintu buddhi kṛtā’bhāsa kṛtai vetyava gamyatām (45). This difference between animate and inanimate things is not created by consciousness or Kutastha itself. It is the distinction drawn between the reflection of the Atman in the intellect and the absence of it in certain things.

Chetana, or living entity, is that where, in its subtle body in the minute manifestation of thought or mind, consciousness gets reflected. If the reflection is not there and it is zero, there would be no feeling of sensitivity, instinct, or even the sense of life. The distinction between life and non-life is not due to the presence or absence of consciousness. It is present everywhere unanimously. The distinction is because of the fact that Universal consciousness in certain places or objects cannot manifest itself via the subtle body, as the subtle body itself is absent there; only the gross body is there, as in stone. But it manifests itself where there is a subtle body – as in living beings, like animals, human beings, etc.

So the distinction between animate and inanimate is not brought about by consciousness as such. It is caused by the reflection of consciousness in the medium of the subtle body, whatever be the degree in which it is manifest in living beings.

Yathā cetana ābhāsaḥ kūṭasthe bhrānti kalpitah, acetano ghaṭādiśca tathā tatraiva kalpitaḥ (46). Just as ‘individuality consciousness’ is falsely imputed to the Universal consciousness, in a similar manner the pot-ness, stone-ness and pure objectivity are also falsely superimposed on Universal consciousness. This body is like a stone, really speaking. It is as inanimate as any object without sense or sensation. Therefore, this superimposition of materiality and externality on the Universal consciousness is common in both cases – in the case of one's own Self, where the body is superimposed on the Self, or in the other case where inanimate objects, like stone, etc., are superimposed on the Self and then we say the stone exists.

The stone cannot exist unless the existence aspect of Brahman manifest there is in a tamasic form. Else, the stone will not exist. One aspect of Brahman is manifest in existence, and another aspect is manifest in existence-consciousness. Only in the devatas, the gods, can we find all three manifest – existence-consciousness-bliss. In inanimate objects, only existence is there. In human beings like us, there is only existence-consciousness. We do not have bliss. We are very unhappy people. It is only in the divinities, the gods in heaven, that the bliss aspect is supposed to be manifest. Sattva guna is only in heaven, not in the mortal world.