Commentary on the Panchadasi

by Swami Krishnananda

Yathā’tra karma vaśataḥ kādā citkaṁ sukhādikam, tathā lokāntare dehe karmaṇe cchādi janyate (92). All the happiness in this world, according to this doctrine, is like a flash. It is momentary in its nature. Perpetual contact with the Consciousness – that is to say, perpetual contact of the Atman with the mind – is not possible because according to these doctrines, the contact is brought about by the effect of karmas of the past. Inasmuch as the uniform type of action is not performed by anyone in any particular birth, it is not possible to expect that a uniform experience can be had in the life that follows afterwards.

We do not have the same kind of experience every day throughout our life. The argument of these doctrines is that the variety that we pass through in experience in this world is due to the variety of deeds that we did in the past, in earlier lives. Somehow or other, they do not want to leave this doctrine of karma being the cause of our experiences of every kind, identifying the whole experience with the pure Atman itself.

Evaṁ ca sarvagasyāpi saṁbhavetāṁ gamāgamau, karma kāṇḍaḥ samagro’tra pramāṇa miti te’vadan (93). They are called Karmakandans. Purvamimamsa is called Mimamsa proper, and the Uttaramimamsa is also a Mimamsa by itself, but it is also called by the name of Vedanta doctrine. The Purvamimamsa is the theme that is discussed here.

The idea of this kind of definition of the Atman is given by the Mimamsakas, who involve in the conclusion that the all-pervading Atman also has coming and going. Birth and death cannot be attributed to that which is infinite in nature. And if we say that it is not infinite, it will be perishable. The consequences of the assumption of finitude of the Atman are very serious. What is the seriousness? There would be finitude, and we cannot explain how experiences originate at all without causes behind them; and also, what it is that impels us to feel that they will continue in the next birth also?

Ānandamaya kośo yaḥ suṣuptau pari śiṣyate, aspaṣṭa cit sa ātmaiṣāṁ pūrva kośo’sya te guṇāḥ (94). The Mimamsa is once again taken up for discussion in some detail, where the definition is that the anandamaya kosha is the Atman, and not the physical body, not the vital, mental or intellectual bodies. The Mimamsakas consider the causal body as the Atman because it is more imperishable than the other bodies which are perishable.

The anandamaya kosha does not die even when the body dies. And also it has a dual function to perform: consciousness and unconsciousness. Only in the state of deep sleep are we aware that there is such a state as the causal body, anandamaya kosha. It has the characteristic of consciousness because we begin to realise that we slept. We remember the fact of having slept the previous day. Unless there was consciousness even in the state of deep sleep, a memory of that experience would not have been possible. So consciousness must have been there. On the other hand, it is unconsciousness because if consciousness had been really there, we would have been aware of the fact of sleeping. So there is a dual function of consciousness in the Mimamsaka doctrine – Bhatta Mimamsakas – that the anandamaya kosha sometimes acts as consciousness, and sometimes as unconsciousness.

Gūḍhaṁ caitanyam utprekṣya jaḍa bodha svarūpa tām, ātmano bruvate bhāṭṭā ścit utprekṣo tthita smṛteḥ (95). Hidden is this Atman in the anandamaya kosha. And its characteristic or quality is both unconsciousness and consciousness, jada and bodha. Jada means insentiency and bodha is sentiency. Both these qualities can be found as illustrated in the causal body, manifested in the state of deep sleep.

Bhattas are Purvamimamsakas of a different type. There are two kinds of Mimamsa doctrines: Prabhakara and Bhatta. We need not go into all these details. Anyway, the Bhatta doctrine says that consciousness is a partial manifestation of the Atman, the other aspect being unconsciousness.

Jaḍo bhūtva tadā’svāpsam iti jāḍya smṛtis tadā, vinā jāḍyānu bhūtiṁ na kathañcid upapadyate (96). The consciousness of the fact of having slept is not there at the time of sleeping. Therefore, that aspect which prevents us from knowing the fact of sleeping is unconsciousness. But the fact that we remember having slept shows that there is consciousness – double consciousness. The Atman has a double function. It can act as consciousness, and it can also act as unconsciousness, as it happens in sleep.

Draṣṭur dṛṣṭera lopaśca śrutaḥ suptau tasas tvayam, aprakāśa prakāśa bhyām ātmā khadyota vat yutaḥ (97). There is a total misconstruing by these doctrines of certain statements of the Upanishad, such as the Brihadaranyaka statement where the Yajnavalkya doctrine says it sees and it does not see.

The idea behind this intriguing statement is that it is Cosmic-consciousness; therefore, it sees everything. ‘It does not see’ means that there is no object in front of it. When it says that the Atman does not see, it does not mean that it is unconscious, as the Mimamsakas hold. There is no question of its capability to see, because it is there everywhere. It is beholding itself. So while it sees, it sees not, says Yajnavalkya. But the Mimamsakas misconstrue this statement, (like the Virochana doctrine of the Chhandogya) and conclude that the seeing and the not seeing definition of the Atman given by Yajnavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is to be construed in the sense of a double function of the Atman – consciousness and unconsciousness – as was explained earlier.

Niraṁ śasyo bhayāt matvaṁ na kathañcit ghaṭiṣyate, tena cidrūpa evātmeti āhuḥ sāṇkhya vivekinaḥ (98). Now we cross over all this muddle of Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Mimamsa, etc., empirical doctrines of philosophy, and come to the Samkhya, where we have a little room to breathe.

The Samkhya doctrine rejects all these assumptions of the Nyaya, Vaiseshika, and the Mimamsa. Because of the fact of the partlessness or the impartite nature of consciousness, the Samkhya avers that purusha is the nature of consciousness. To the Samkhya doctrine, purusha is the name of consciousness infinite; infinite consciousness is purusha. Because of the infinitude, it is not possible to say that it has two qualities. Infinite is infinite always. It cannot be infinite sometimes and not infinite at other times. Therefore the doctrine that the Atman is conscious sometimes and not conscious at other times is erroneous. It is not correct.

Why we are not able to have consciousness in the state of deep sleep is another subject altogether. From this we cannot conclude that consciousness is absent or it is unconscious at that time. That argument is not feasible here. The reason for our not knowing that we are sleeping is another matter altogether, to be discussed later on. The Samkhyas conclude that the Atman being infinite, purusha being its nature, divisibility of its substance cannot be accepted. Also, it cannot be of two qualities at the same time – consciousness and unconsciousness, simultaneously. What is the nature of the Atman, purusha, then? Chidrupa: Pure consciousness is the nature of the Atman. This has to be hammered into our minds again and again, say the Samkhyavadins.

Jāḍyāṁśa prakṛte rūpaṁ vikāri triguṇaṁ cat tat, cito bhogāpa vargārthaṁ prakṛtiḥ sā pravartate (99). The unconsciousness that we sometimes experience is not to be attributed to the consciousness of the purusha. The prakriti which has the qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas, with which the consciousness of the purusha gets identified in some manner, is the reason why we often feel unconscious, distracted, etc. When the purusha consciousness somehow or the other is juxtaposed with the tamas or inert quality of prakriti, it appears as if there is no consciousness of anything – as we have in deep sleep. But when the purusha consciousness gets identified with the rajas or distracting medium of prakriti, we run about here and there and we are very active, busy people. It is only when the consciousness is reflected through the sattva of prakriti that it becomes transparent and all-knowing in its nature, and in that condition it is called mahat by Samkhya philosophy.

The modifications that we experience in our life, all the sufferings, all the changes that we undergo, are not to be attributed to the Universal Atman. What are these changes, then? These changes are of prakriti – sattva, rajas, tamas. Our body, all the five sheaths, are constituted only of the three gunas of prakriti – sattva, rajas and tamas – in various proportions. In a very concentrated proportion the three gunas constitute the physical body. In another proportion, these gunas constitute the other bodies; and all the five sheaths, which are the determining factors of our individuality, are prakriti's products.

In identifying itself with these five sheaths, consciousness appears to be feeling, wrongly, that it cannot know anything in sleep when it is identified with anandamaya kosha; and it feels that it is self-conscious, or individuality consciousness is there, when it identifies itself with the ego or the intellect. It has doubts and difficulties when it identifies itself with the mind. It feels that it has vitality in the system when it is identified with the breathing process. And when it is identified in the physical body, it feels that it is this little tabernacle only. Hence, we have to explain why such difficulty has arisen for us. But we should not come to a sudden conclusion that consciousness has two qualities, which is not a fact.

Cito bhogāpa vargārthaṁ prakṛtiḥ sā pravartate: Prakriti is a field of experience of the purusha. We are born into this world for working out our karmas; and this world is nothing but the field of prakriti's three gunas in certain proportions, in various permutations and combinations. The three gunas of prakriti manifest themselves as this solid world of experience, and this field of action has been presented before us for the purpose of working out our karmas – else karmas cannot be worked out, because working out of a karma is nothing but passing through certain experiences. And experience is possible only when there is an environment or an atmosphere. And atmosphere is nothing but the field of action, which is prakriti. So prakriti constitutes the field of activity for the experiences of the jiva that has performed various deeds in the past and has to work out their effects in the present birth.

Asaṁgāyāḥ citer bandha mokṣau bhedā grahān matau, bandha muktī vyavasthārthaṁ pūrveṣā miva cid bhidā (100). Asanga is unattached. Consciousness is unattached. “This infinite purusha is unattached,” says Yajnavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Therefore, bondage and liberation of that which is unattached is unthinkable. It is not the Absolute Brahman that is being born and is dying. It is not the infinite consciousness that is in bondage and seeks liberation. That which is bound and which is seeking liberation is entangled consciousness – the very same infinite that seems to be involved in the five sheaths – due to which fact, we appear to be individuals, and due to which consciousness itself appears to be located in one part.