Commentary on the Panchadasi

by Swami Krishnananda

Aṇur mahān madhyamo veti evaṁ tatrāpi vādinaḥ, bhaudhā vivadante hi śruti yukti samā śrayāt (78). There is a lot of controversy in regard to the definition of the Atman. It does not mean that every school of thought holds the same view. Some think it is atomic in nature, some feel it is universal in its nature, some feel that it is medium sized, etc. These are the various opinions held by different systems of thinking.

The doctrine which considers the Atman to be of the size of an atom is called the Antarala doctrine. Aṇuṁ vadan tyānta rālāḥ sūkṣma nāḍī pracārataḥ, romṇaḥ sahasra bhāgena tulyāsu praca ratyayam (79). Because of the fact that through the immensely large number of nerve currents it moves in a very, very subtle form, it should be considered as very subtle, very atomic indeed – because in the Upanishads it is said that the Atman pervades the whole body and penetrates through all the nerve currents which are very subtle. It is impossible to conceive the subtlety of these. The Universal Atman can penetrate through a needle's eye, for instance. It is therefore possible (according to these people) that the Atman's nature is minute, especially as the Upanishads many times say it is subtle like an atom.

Aṇoraṇīyā neṣo’ṇuḥ sūkṣmāt sūkṣma taraṁ tviti, aṇutva māhuḥ śrutayaḥ śataśo’tha sahasraśaḥ (80). Smaller than the atom, subtler than the minutest particle – such are the scriptural statements of the Upanishads. These statements make people feel that perhaps it is atomic or minute in size. The scriptural statement is quoted here.

Many are the scriptures and statements which make out that the Atman is subtler than the subtlest, more minute than the smallest conceivable particle of atom; nothing can be as subtle as that, and no atomic particle can be smaller than that. This is corroborated by the srutis, the Upanishadic statements.

One of the statements in the Upanishad is quoted here:: Bālāgra śata bhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya ca, bhāgo jīvaḥ sa vijñeya iti cāhā’parā śrutiḥ (81). If you split a hair lengthwise a hundred times, you can imagine how fine it will be, how subtle it will be. Sometimes the definition goes even further than this. The little hair is split lengthwise a hundred times into a hundred lengthwise pieces and each of these one hundred is again split into one thousand pieces; and through that the Atman passes. Such is the jiva consciousness, impossible to conceive in gross terms. This is the quotation from the Upanishad.

Digambarā madhya matvam āhurā pāda mastakam, caitanya vyāpti saṁdṛṣṭeḥ ānakhāgra śrute rapi (82). In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad it is said that the Supreme Being penetrates everything right from the head to the foot, up to the nail ends; and also because of the pervasion of the consciousness through the whole body, it is supposed to be as big as the body itself. It is of medium size. This is one of the schools of Buddhism, called Digambaras. Unless the Atman is of the size of the body, it cannot envelop the body and make the body get identified with Itself and also get Itself identified with the body.

We feel that consciousness pervades the whole body, and we cannot feel its presence outside; it is confined to the encasement of the body. This is the reason why one is enabled to feel that it is perhaps limited to the bodily structure only, and it is of the size of the body.

Sūkṣma nāḍī pracārastu sūkṣmai ravayavair bhavet, sthūla dehasya hastā bhyāṁ kañcuka pratimoka vat (83). Though medium is the size of the Atman, as adumbrated by thinkers of this kind, they also explain how it is possible for a medium-size Atman to enter into the minutest subtle nadis. The comparison or illustration that they give is that just as we thrust our hands into the sleeve of a shirt, the Atman can enter into the little tiny nadis, or nerve currents, in spite of the fact that it is medium in size.

Nyūnādhika śarīreṣu praveśo’pi gamāgamaiḥ, ātmām śānāṁ bhavettena madhya matvaṁ viniścitam (84). It is also believed that the Atman takes the size of whatever body it identifies itself with. In ants, it is only of the size of an ant. In other creatures, it is of the size of that kind of creature. It can be as big as an elephant when it identifies itself with an elephant, and it is of the size of human bodies when it is identified with the human body. Therefore, it has a shape, or a size, which is not fixed in nature. It expands or contracts according to the identification which it establishes with the particular body to which it enters in various stages or processes of transmigratory life.

Sāṁśasya ghaṭa vannāśo bhavatyeva tathā sati, kṛta nāśā’kṛtā bhyāga mayoḥ ko vārako bhavet (85). There is a defect in all these doctrines because whether the Atman is conceived as atomic in size, or medium, or very small – as small as the size of the nerve currents – what follows from this definition is that consciousness becomes mortal; it will perish. The Atman would be subject to destruction if it is conceived as finite. Even if it is as large as an elephant, it is finite nevertheless. It should not be limited to any particular location. Finitude is the character of anything outside which something exists. If the Atman has something outside it, it would be finite, even if it is as large as space itself. The consciousness of there being something outside it, will make it finite.

Therefore, as a pot breaks, the Atman also will break, if – according to these doctrines that have been adumbrated – it is regarded as finite in its nature. Also, perishability of the Atman is inconceivable. The jiva would be destroyed. There would be no beginning or end for it. Suddenly the jiva has assumed a body for no reason whatsoever, because we have assumed no prior existence on account of the finitude of the consciousness. Also, all the good deeds that we have done in this world will not be rewarded. We will die together with the body, and all our good deeds also will perish if the Atman is not to continue after the death of the body.

There is an explanation for the assumption of certain particular bodies by different individuals, and why experiences of people differ from one another, and why there is an impulsion to do good actions in this world. Because of these reasons, it is necessary to assume the prior existence of the Atman, and also the posterior existence of it. If prior existence is not accepted, it would mean that we are suffering unnecessarily or people are enjoying unnecessarily, for no reason whatsoever. An effect will follow without a cause. And if it does not exist after death, all our good deeds are futile. Why should we work hard in this world if tomorrow we are going to pass away, and if with our passing, all our good deeds also pass? This predicament will follow on the assumption of the finitude of the Atman; therefore, it has to be considered as infinite in nature.

Tasamā dātmā mahā neva naivāṇur nāpi madhyamaḥ, āsāśavat sarvagato niraṁśaḥ śruti saṁmataḥ (86). Therefore we conclude, refuting all these doctrines mentioned earlier, that the Atman is endless, infinite, unending and eternal in its nature. It is not atomic in size, nor is it possible to say that it is of medium size. It is not of the size of a body that it assumes. Assumption of the size of the body is an apparent predicament, as space may appear to assume a shape of the pot in which it appears to be located. All-pervading, like space, is this Atman, without parts. This is declared by the srutis, Vedas and the Upanishads.

Ityuktvā tadviśeṣe tu bhaudhā kalahaṁ yayuḥ, acidrūpo’tha cidrūpaḥ cidacidrūpa ityapi (87). Even if it is granted that the Atman is infinite, what is its essential characteristic? Some say it is consciousness in its essentiality. Some say consciousness is only a quality of the Atman, thereby concluding that the essential nature of the Atman is other than consciousness. What is other than consciousness would be unconsciousness. The Mimamsaka doctrine of ritualism often holds this peculiar doctrine of the unconscious nature of the Self and its assuming of consciousness only by coming in contact with the mind, on account of karmas that it did in the past. Some say that it is consciousness, some say it is unconsciousness, some say it is a mixture of both. It has a quality of consciousness as well as unconsciousness, as a firefly may shine sometimes or not shine at all.

Prābhākarā stārkikāśca prāhu rasyā cidātmatām, ākāśavat dravyam ātma śabda vat tad guṇa ścitiḥ (88). Prabhakara is a doctrine of Mimamsa. The Vedic ritualistic doctrine is called Mimamsa. One school of these Mimamsakas holds that consciousness is a quality or an attribute. It is a spark of illumination that arises from the contact of the Atman with the mind after it has taken birth through the body. By itself, it is a universal unknowingness.

The Prabhakaras, or the Mimamsakas, consider the Atman as also one of the substances, whereas the Vedanta does not regard the Atman as a substance; it is not a thing at all. As space has sound as its quality, these people consider consciousness to be the quality of the Atman.

Icchā dveṣa prayatnāśca dharma dharmau sukhā sukhe, tat saṁskā rāśca tasaite guṇā ściti vadī ritāḥ (89). Not only that, these Mimamsakas and Naiyayikas, logicians of the ancient times, have another doctrine of the nature of the Atman, that it is practically the jiva or the individual consciousness that they are speaking of, though they appear to be defining the Atman as such.

Firstly, they think that the Atman is a substance. Secondly, it is believed by them that it is characterised by desires, love and hatred, effort, consciousness of righteousness and unrighteousness, and it experiences pleasure and pain. All the properties that follow from such experience also are considered as qualities of the Atman.

Actually, the Mimamsakas are mistaking the individual self for the Universal Self. This definition of the Atman having qualities like desire, etc., cannot apply to the Universal Being. So there is a confusion of definition in the case of the Mimamsaka doctrine, which has to be rejected.

Ātmano manasā yoge svādṛṣṭa vaśato guṇāḥ, jāyante’tha pralīyante suṣupte’dṛṣṭa saṁkṣayāt (90). The Mimamsaka doctrine is continued now. When the Atman comes in contact with the mind on account of certain potencies of the previous actions of earlier births continuing, the Consciousness comes in contact with the mind in different ways, so that sometimes it is very intelligent and sometimes it is not intelligent. The increase or decrease of the intelligence of people is attributed to the increase or decrease in the virtuous deeds that people performed in the earlier days; and it is completely abolished, as it were, in the state of deep sleep.

Citimatvāt cetano’yaṁ icchādveṣa prayatnā vān, syāt dharma dharmayoḥ kartā bhoktā duḥkhādi mattvataḥ (91). Pure Consciousness, we have to repeat once again, is the nature of the Atman. The Naiyayikas somehow add the word that it has desire and also effort as part of its quality. There is experience of joy and sorrow; therefore, they think that the agency consciousness as well as the enjoyer consciousness is to be attributed to the Atman only.

The Mimamsa doctrine is very much involved in the concept of deeds – good and bad deeds. The whole of this doctrine is nothing but an expatiation of what is goodness and what is badness, what is dharma, what is adharma, etc. So dharma, or righteous deed, produces a peculiar transparent potency in a next birth, on account of which consciousness comes in contact with the mind in the form of a superior intelligence. It feels that “I am doing”. It also feels that “I am enjoying”.

These doctrines also attribute kartritva, or agency in action, and bhoktritva, or the feeling of enjoyership of the fruits of action, to the Atman which is otherwise Universal in its nature.