Commentary on the Panchadasi

by Swami Krishnananda

Tatte dante api svatvam iva tvama hamā diṣu, sarvatrā nugate tena tayo rapyātma teti cet (47). Te ātmatva’pyanugate tattedante tatastayoḥ, ātmatvaṁ naiva saṁbhāvyaṁ samyak tvāder yathā tathā (48). Wherever the word ‘Self’ gets associated in a statement made in regard to any object, we may say Selfhood is present there either manifestly or unmanifestly. But the Selfhood is not present in the case of such statements that we make using ‘this’ or ‘that’ because the demonstrative pronouns ‘this’ and ‘that’ refer not to the Self, but to something that is other than the Self.
When we say, “This is something,” we refer to some object that is near; and when we say, “That is something,” we refer to an object that is far off. Nevertheless, both the terms ‘this’ and ‘that’ refer to something other than the Self, whether it is near or far. Therefore, in these cases, in the employing of such terms as ‘this’ and ‘that’, the word ‘Self’ is not used, indicating thereby that anything that is outside the Self is non-self, and therefore it is unconscious. Not-self is unconscious; therefore, it becomes the object of consciousness. The Self which is consciousness knows the not-self; but the not-self itself cannot know itself. It is divested of consciousness.

Ātmatvaṁ naiva saṁbhāvyaṁ: The idam-ta, or this-ness and that-ness, are something like quality or attribute that is associated with consciousness such as propriety or impropriety, etc. Samyat means propriety; asamyat, impropriety. These qualities are attached to substances and things and persons, etc. – not identifying it with persons, but existing as something external to them. Atmatva or Selfhood, therefore, cannot be associated with anything which is designated as ‘this’ and ‘that’ because it is definitely outside the Self.

Tatte dante svatā nyatve tvantā hante paras param, prati dvandva tayā loke prasiddhe nāsti saṁśayaḥ (49). That and this, Self and not-self, you and I, are opposed factors in experience. The remoteness of a thing is indicated by the term ‘that’. The nearness is indicated by the word ‘this’. Selfhood is indicated by the word ‘self’, and externality is indicated by the two demonstrative pronouns ‘this’ and ‘that’. ‘You’ and ‘I’ also mean the same thing. The word ‘you’ implies a not-self. ‘I’ refers to the self.

The term ‘you’, even if it is applied to a human being, does not carry the conviction of selfhood being there because ‘you’ is distinguished from ‘I’. The statement “I wish to see you” implies the thing indicated by the term ‘you’ as being different from the ‘I’; and the whole point made out here is that consciousness cannot get identified with anything which is outside. Hence, two people cannot be real friends, because ‘I’ and ‘you’ are involved there. Whatever be the thickness of intimacy or friendship, as long as one is I and the other is you, both cannot be I. Both cannot be you, either. No two persons can think alike, and no two persons can be eternal friends. You is outside, and I is inside.

Anyatāyāḥ prati dvandvī svayaṁ kūṭastha iṣyatām, tvantāyāh pratiyo gyeṣo’hami tyātmani kalpitaḥ (50). We have been mentioning again and again that Kutastha-chaitanya is the opposite of the externality of anything whatsoever. Know this very well. The you-ness in a thing is different from the I-ness in a thing. As externality is different from the Kutastha Atman, ‘you’ is different from ‘I’, and so you should not use the word ‘you’ in future unless you want to distinguish that person from yourself.

Ahantā svatvayor bhede rūpya tedanta yoriva, spaṣṭe’pi moha māpannā ekatvaṁ prati pedire (51). That the I associated with the body-consciousness is different from the true Self that is Universal is something that has been clarified now by this analysis. In spite of that, ignorant people confuse the truth; they attribute the permanency of Universal consciousness to the I, and imagine that they are not going to die. Nobody believes that he will die one day or the other. After all, the time has not come. Why it has not come? Because consciousness proper, Universality as such, cannot perish, and that imperishable Atman somehow or other gets reflected through this false I-hood attached to this body and compels this false I to also feel that it is perhaps deathless.

There is a dual consciousness in the physical I-ness. On the one hand, there is the feeling that nobody will die tomorrow – there is still some time, it is not immediate – though there is no guarantee that it is so. On the other hand, one knows that any day one can go. So we always believe two things at the same time. The mortality of the body with which the I is connected compels us to convince ourselves that one day we will go, and it can be even tomorrow. But at the same time, the Universal consciousness which is imperishable tells us that we will not die tomorrow, that it will be after a long time, maybe a hundred years.

So we have two kinds of feeling always: the fear that we may die any moment, and the feeling that we will not die like that so easily. We live in a state of conflict between the fear of death and the hope of not dying immediately. Ignorant people make a mistake of identifying the mortal ‘I’ with the infinite consciousness.

Tādātmyā dhyāsa evātra pūrvoktā vidyayā kṛtaḥ, avidyāyāṁ nivṛttāyāṁ tat kāryaṁ vini vartate (52). Mutual superimposition as has been described between the Self and the not-self is called tadatmyadhyasa in Sanskrit. Tadatmyadhyasa means the imposition of a character of one thing on another thing to which it really does not belong. Selfhood cannot belong to objects, yet we love objects as if they are our own self. We hug objects and love them as our own self because there is tadatmyadhyasa, or identity between the true Self and the object that is outside, through the medium of mental cognition and sensory perception.

On the other hand, there is a reverse order taking place. The objectivity is identified with the Universality of consciousness and we begin to feel that the movements in the world, the historical process and anything that changes here, is also a change in consciousness. That is why we say, “I am moving.” The body is moving; the Universal consciousness in us does not move. All the statements that we make in regard to ourselves are wrong because they are applicable only to the body; but we somehow apply them to the true Self to give them some meaning. Similarly, the deathless nature of Universal consciousness is wrongly transposed to the perishable body and objects in the world and they are imputed a sort of unreliable permanence, though we cannot say that anything in the world is permanent even for two days.

Avidyā’vṛti tādātmye vidya yaiva vinaśyataḥ, vikṣe pasya svarūpaṁ tu prārabdha kṣaya mīkṣate (53). The veiling aspect of the avidya and the vikshepa, or the distracting aspect of avidya, both can be destroyed by vidya or knowledge. The veiling aspect and the distracting aspect were studied in the previous discourse.

Avidya has two functions: It prevents us from knowing what is there – we do not see anything at all as real – and then it compels us to see what is not there. Brahman which is there is not seen; the world which is not there is seen. This is avarana and vikshepa, veiling and distraction, that avidya does. This action of avidya can be destroyed only by vidya, true knowledge – insight into the nature of reality.

Vikṣe pasya svarūpaṁ tu prārabdha kṣaya mīkṣate. This body, which is also a part of vikshepa or distraction, continues for some time like any object in the world. The objects in the world also appear to be continuing for some time, but not for all time. This body persists and appears to be continuing for as long as prarabdha karma continues. This body is a hardened form of the potencies of actions that we performed in the previous births, out of which a portion has been allotted for experience in this world. That portion has concretised itself into this solid body, and this body will continue to exist and live here in this world as long as that karma's potency or momentum is not consumed, exhausted.  

When the momentum is over, or when the potter releases his hand from the wheel, it stops movement. Similarly, the potter should not go on pushing the wheel again and again, otherwise there will be no cessation of movement. We are the potter, and the karma is, of course, what we do. If any momentum that is created by the pushing of the wheel – by a potter that we were in the previous birth – continues, the body will also continue. And when the potter does not interfere with it anymore and keeps quiet, the movement will cease one day, and the body will perish.

But if we push it again by adding further karmas, called agami karma, the wheel will go on moving again and again; there will be no cessation at all. Again rebirth will take place. So do not add further karmas; do not be like a potter, pushing the wheel again. Let the momentum that was there be there and let it cease by itself, just as fire subsides when fuel is not anymore added to it.

Upādāne vinaṣṭe’pi kṣaṇaṁ kāryaṁ pratīkṣate, ityāhus tārkikā stadvad asmākaṁ kim na saṁbhavet (54). Naiyayika and Vaiseshika philosophers, and some other philosophers also, are likely to feel that even if the cause ceases, the effect may continue for some time. They are called Tarkikas. For a moment we will find the effect there. If we keep an onion in a pot, the whole pot smells of onion; and if we remove the onion and throw it away, even then the smell will not go. For three days the smell of onions will remain. So the cause has gone, but the effect continues.

In a similar manner, Tarkikas (the Naiyayikas) say the continuance of the body should be explained as something practicable or possible even if the causes cease to exist. The Vedanta doctrine says that the prarabdha karma does not actually obstruct the realisation of God. It does not persist as the Naiyayikas say, obstructing the Consciousness itself. We have an idea that prarabdha is always undesirable, obstructive, and a nuisance, but it is not like that.

Prarabdha is only a name for the residuum of karma; and karma need not necessarily be a bad karma. We must have done some good karma also; otherwise, how would it be possible for us to have knowledge in this birth, if the prarabdha was only obstructive – tamasic and rajasic? We have a body caused by prarabdha, but are we not also illumined? Somehow or other, we have consciousness of a higher life and are aspiring for God, in spite of the prarabdha being there.

This shows that all prarabdha is not bad. Sattvic prarabdha will permit the manifestation of a consciousness of a higher life, even aspiration for God. Only the rajasic and tamasic aspects obstruct. And in most of us, by God's grace we should say, the aspiration for God has arisen. That means our prarabdhas, notwithstanding the fact that they are there in the form of this body, are not always obstructive. If they were totally obstructive, we would not have thought of God. The idea of religion and spirituality would not arise. We would only be muddled in the world and get sunk in samsara. That this has not happened to many of us means sattvic prarabdha is working. The Vedanta doctrine says that it does not mean that prarabdha is always obstructive. It is sometimes very helpful also, as in the case of when the sattvic aspect of it manifests, it permits the manifestation of knowledge.