Commentary on the Panchadasi

by Swami Krishnananda

Śrautī kartuṁ svapakṣaṁ te kośa manna mayaṁ tathā, virocanasya siddhāntaṁ pramāṇaṁ prati jajñire (61). Annamaya kosha, or the physical sheath, is regarded by them as all-in-all. Eat, drink and be merry. This is a statement that is readily attributed to the lokayatas, or the materialists.

Jīvātma nirgame deha maraṇa syātra darśanāt, dehāti rikta evātmeti āhur lokāyatāh pare (62). There are certain polished materialists who do not believe that this body is really the Self, because they feel that the body perishes. That would mean that the Atman also perishes. Such a self is useless, undesirable. There must be something which persists after the destruction of the body. That something which is a subtle potential – a subtle element, which is supposed to be there after the passing of the body – should be considered as the Self; this is something that is opined by certain well-educated materialists.

Pratyakṣatva nābhimatā haṁdhīr dehāti rekiṇam, gamaye dindri yātmānaṁ vacmī tyādi prayogataḥ (63). There are others who feel that the body cannot be the Self because the body is moved by the sense organs. Visibly we can see that the consciousness of I-ness is associated with some activity that is not entirely capable of identification with a physical body. Sensations, the perceptions, are the functions of certain principles in us which cannot be identified with the body.

Indriya, or the self which is constituted of the sensations, should be considered as reality. This doctrine that holds sensations to be the Ultimate Reality is called sensationalism. Materialism is the doctrine of the reality of matter only. Sensationalism is the doctrine that suggests that the senses constitute the criterion of judgement of any kind of value in the world.

Vāgādīnā mindriyāṇāṁ kalahaḥ śrutiṣu śrutaḥ, tena caitanya meteṣām ātmatvaṁ tata eva hi (64). In the Upanishads there are anecdotes where the sense organs such as the eye, the ear, etc. supposedly contended among themselves which is superior, because the prana started saying, "Who among us is superior? He, by the exit of whom others cannot exist, may be regarded as superior. Let somebody quit; after that, if the reat of us  become miserable, then we may say that person (sense) is superior."

So the eye left; he went away. But even if the eyes were not there, there was no problem. The ears could hear, nose could smell, the tongue could taste, etc. Then the ear said, "I am very important. Let me quit, and let us see what happens." The ears left, but nothing happened. If the ears were not there they could not hear, of course, but they could see, and many other things could be done.

So it was found that none of the organs could be regarded as more superior than the others. But when the prana said, "I am superior, and I shall quit," then all the senses started shaking. It looked as if the whole building was cracking because when the prana goes, the senses break down immediately. So all the senses said, "Don't go, don't go! Please, we accept you as superior." Then they all worshipped him.

This kind of contention among the sense organs is a story that is recorded for us in the Upanishads, on account of which we may say that there is some reality in the sense organs; and so a kind of selfhood may be attributed to the senses, but not necessarily to the body.

But there are others who say, "Prana is the real Self, not merely the sense organs, because it has been illustrated and proven in this analogy, the story of contention among the senses, that prana is superior. The senses are not superior, so we cannot consider the senses as the Self. It is the prana that is the real Self, the vital Self. The physical self, the sensational self, all have gone. Now the vital self presents itself. It is a manifestation of the cosmic prana, Hiranyagarbha. Those who worship Hiranyagarbha say, "Prana is the supreme Self."

Hairaṇya garbhāḥ prāṇātma vādina stveva mūcire, cakṣurādya kṣalope’pi prāṇa sattve tu jīvati (65). Even if all the senses are not there, even if we are blind, deaf and dumb, but if the prana is there, we are alive. So the prana should be considered as the true Self, because prana is alive even when we are asleep. Even when the senses are stifled, as it were, as in the state of sleep, and are not conscious, the prana is awake like a watchman; and so we must consider the prana as superior to all the senses.

Prāṇo jāgarti supte’pi prāṇa śraiṣṭhyā dikaṁ śrutam, kośaḥ prāṇamayaḥ samyak vistareṇa prapañcitaḥ (66). Even in sleep, the prana is awake. The pranamaya kosha should be considered as the Self. The vital sheath is the reality; vitality is the Self. This is one doctrine of the vitalists. In the West also there are certain philosophers called vitalists who hold that there is a kind of protoplasmic energy which is present in all living beings, and it is the final reality in the individual. Those who hold that vitality is the ultimate value, call their doctrine vitalism – not materialism, not sensationalism, but vitalism. Bergson comes under this category.

Mana ātmeti manyanta upāsana parā janāḥ, prāṇasyā bhoktṛtā spaṣṭā bhoktṛtvam manasas tataḥ (67). There are idealists who say that prana cannot be the Self. What is the prana? It has no consciousness of its own. You are saying it is awake during sleep; let it be awake. But it is not aware that it is awake. It has no consciousness; it cannot think. It is a kind of action, minus thought. So thought is more important; minus thought, what is the good of life? You may be breathing, that is all right, but you don't think. Is it a proper life? The mind is the real Self, not the prana, say the idealists who consider the mind as the supreme function in the human individual.

Mana eva manuṣyāṇām kāraṇaṁ bandha mokṣayoḥ, śruto manomayaḥ kośas tenātmetī ritaṁ manaḥ (68). In the Upanishad also, it is said that mind is the cause of the bondage and the liberation of a person. If the mind is filled with the desire for objects, it is for our bondage; if the mind is free from desire for objects, it is for our liberation. So the mind is superior, and it is the source of our joys and sorrows. It is the true Self, is what the idealists say – not the prana or the vital substance.

There are others who think that this is not a final solution of things. Mind is, of course, there; it is very essential, and it is superior to the prana, but mind is there even in animals. There is a kind of instinctive mind working there; there is an indeterminate process of thinking. Indistinct thought is the work of the mind. Decisive, determined, logical conclusions cannot be arrived at by the mind. The reason, intellect, is necessary.

We consider the intellect as superior to the mind. The Vijnanavadins are Buddhist idealists who consider reason as the final reality; all the objects of the world are considered as manifestations or concretisations of certain processes of the intellect itself. This philosophy is called subjectivism, which considers the internal processes of the intellect or the reason as determining factors of even objects outside in the world.

Vijñāna mātmeti para āhuḥ kṣaṇika vādinaḥ, yato vijñāna mūlatvaṁ manaso gamyate sphuṭam (69). The world is transient; it is momentary because the little bits of process that is the intellectual function are also transient. So the world, looking like a solid substance, is really not solid. It is like a piece of cloth which is made up of little threads, and so the appearance of solidity in the cloth is an illusion. Actually, it is a complex of little inner components which are the threads.

The world is not a solid object. Nothing, not even this body and the objects outside, are solid objects. They are temporary complexes constituted of certain bits of intellectual process called vijnana dhara; thus the Buddhist idealists hold. Intellectual process is the Ultimate Reality. There is nothing beyond. No Self exists for them; only process exists.

Ahaṁ vṛtti ridaṁ vṛttiḥ ityantaḥ karaṇaṁ dividhā, vijñānaṁ syādahaṁ vṛttiḥ idaṁ vṛttir mano bhavet (70). I and mine, I and this, are certain processes of the psyche. The affirmation of the I is to be attributed to the ego, which is a part of the intellectual function, and the this-ness that is attributed in perception is to be attributed to the mind. The mind is a kind of instrument of the reason. There are two functions of the psyche – the determining, and the pure thinking. The indeterminate thinking process is attributed to the mind; the deciding and determining function is attributed to the intellect. The intellect is interior to the mind; the mind is exterior to the intellect.

The mind is a kind of crude intellection, and the intellect is the purified form of the mind. Vijnana is the intellect which is the cause of the feeling of I-ness in us, and the sense of this-ness, mine-ness, etc., are attributed to the mental function. The mind and the intellect are primary in our nature psychologically.

Ahaṁ pratyaya bījatvam idaṁ vṛtte riti sphuṭam, aviditvā svamā tmānaṁ bāhyaṁ vetti na tu kvacit (71). The consciousness of this-ness, mine-ness, etc., is actually traceable to the consciousness of I-ness, which is a characteristic of the ego. If ‘I’ is not there, ‘mine’ will not be there. In order that we may possess something and feel a sense of mine-ness, ownership in respect of anything, we must exist first of all. Not only should we exist, we must also know that we are existing. Self-consciousness, which is the consciousness of one's own existence, is prior to the consciousness of anything outside as belonging to oneself, etc.

So the I-consciousness is the root of the other types of consciousness, such as mine-ness, this-ness, etc. Unless we know that we are existing, we cannot know that others are existing. Self-consciousness is primary; other consciousness is secondary. This is also a great instruction to us that, knowingly or unknowingly, we consider ourselves as superior to all other people. And all our welfare or activities outside are only a kind of camouflage of our egoistic action. Finally, when everything is drowning, we will try to save ourselves.

Kṣaṇe kṣaṇe janma nāśau ahaṁ vṛtter mitau yataḥ, vijñānaṁ kṣaṇikaṁ tena svaprakāśaṁ svato miteḥ (72). It is a doctrine that there is a momentary function of the intellectual process, as has been already indicated; and if we are going to agree with the doctrine that the intellectual process is constituted of a kind of process or movement made up of little bits, there can be a continuity of little bits also, just as a chain is made up of little links. A chain is a continuity, but the links are separate. One link is separate from another link. So in spite of there being continuity, there can be a gap or breakup of parts in the middle.

So if we consider that the world, or the perception of the world, is a transitory process of intellectual function, as the idealists of Buddhism hold, then there would be no self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is not made up of little parts. If the intellect is the final reality, as these people hold, and reason is everything and yet it is fractional – made up of little bits, as threads constitute the cloth – then every moment we would be feeling that we are little-little pieces put together. But we never feel like that.

We would feel that we are jumbles of little pieces of matter, little bits of intellectual process, little parts of ideation, and that we are never a single whole. I cannot say, "I am coming” or “We are coming"; I have to say, "The bundles are coming." We never feel that we are bundles of little-little pieces of idea or material substance. We feel that we are one indivisible thing – indivisible and impossible of fraction. We never feel that we are transitory. We do not feel that we are a movement. We feel that we are solid existences. That is a phenomenon that has to be explained, and it cannot be explained by the doctrine that there is only process in the world, and there is nothing prior to the process.