Commentary on the Panchadasi

by Swami Krishnananda

Tasmāt mumukṣu bhirnaiva matir-jīveśa vādayoḥ, kāryā kintu brahma tattvaṁ vicāryaṁ budhyatāṁ cat tat (219). Too much haranguing, questioning and running about in trying to know what is this, what is that, is of no utility finally. “I cannot understand what is God, I cannot understand what I am, I cannot understand what is spiritual practice.” If we go on questioning, and go on receiving umpteen answers, finally we will reach no place. We have to stick to one particular ideal, and that ideal has to become a conviction. Afterwards there should be no doubt as to the veracity of that conviction that has been achieved.

It does not matter what is our concept of God. We should not compare our concept with another's concept. It has already been mentioned that any concept is very good. All are equally good or equally bad and, therefore, comparison is not of much utility here. So we should stick to any concept. Whatever notion we have about ourselves, that is the stand on which we have to take the beginning of practice.

We know where we stand, what are our problems, what are our difficulties. That stand is the real stand for us, and we should not compare ourselves with another person or compare our concept of God with another’s concept. Our concept of liberation is good enough for us, and through that we can attain moksha. After all, spiritual progress is an individual affair; each one has to tread one’s own path, and there is no question of comparison. No two persons will go to moksha together. Therefore, we should stick to one reality and utilise our time profitably in meditation on Brahman as such, without too much of arguments.

Pūrva pakṣa tayā tau cet tattva niścaya hetu tām, prāpnuto’stu nimajjasva tayor naitā vatā’vaśaḥ (220). These tentative definitions of God and jiva may look like steps leading to higher concepts and, therefore, we may be under the impression that they are of some use. We may consider them as of some utility to us, provided they enable us to rise from the lower concept to the higher concept. But if we get sunk in that lower concept itself, then that concept is not going to liberate us. The degrees of reality are also good enough, provided we consider them as steps in the ladder of higher evolution. If the evolutionary process is not progressing onward or upward, our concept of this deity, or the prima facie utility of the different concepts of God, would not help us much. The test of spiritual progress is the freedom that one feels inside oneself and the betterment that one feels in body and mind.

Asannga cid vibhur jīvaḥ sāṅkhokta stādṛgīśvaraḥ, yogoktas tatvamor arthau śuddhau tāviti cet śṛṇu (221). The Samkhyas say that consciousness is purusha; purusha is consciousness, and it is unattached. It is universal. Universal is purusha consciousness and it is unattached, says the Samkhya philosophy, and our definition of Ishvara appears to be practically of the same nature – universal, and consciousness.

Na tattvamo rubhā varthau asmat siddhāntatāṁ gatau, advaita bodhanā yaiva sā kakṣā kācidi syate (222). There is a difference between our definition of Ishvara here and the apparent similarity between the notion of Ishvara and the purusha of the Samkhya philosophy. God is only one; Ishvara cannot be two. But the Samkhya purushas are many in number. This is the difference between the Vedanta concept of God and the Samkhya concept of purusha. Both are universal, both are unattached – perfectly true. But one is absolutely alone; the other is one among the many. Therefore, the Samkhya purusha cannot be identified with the Brahman or the Ishvara of the Vedanta.

Anādi māyayā bhrāntā jiveśau suvilakṣaṇau, manyante tad vyudāsāya kevalaṁ śodhanaṁ tayoḥ (223). All this study is intended to cleanse our mind of erroneous notions regarding the aim of life, the ultimate goal that we have to reach – that is, the relationship between tat and tvam, the relation between us and the universe. That relation obtaining between us and God has to be clarified first. And the clarification should not lead finally to a further confusion as to the nature of ourselves or Ishvara as we have the difficulties in Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaishesika, etc. What should be the conclusion? Our study should lead us to the conclusion of the unitariness of consciousness and the aloneness of it. One alone, without a second.

Ata evātra dṛṣṭāntaḥ yogyaḥ prāk samyagīritaḥ, ghaṭākāśa mahākāśa jalākāśābhra khātmakaḥ (224). Again and again the illustration of the relation between jiva and Ishvara is brought out here by the analogy mentioned for the clarification of the concept. We may forget it, so it has to be repeated again and again.

The innermost Atman in us, called Kutastha, is comparable to the space in a pot appearing to be limited to the walls of the pot. That is the Pure Consciousness, the Kutastha in us. The vast space outside, unlimited in any manner, is Brahman. What is the difference between our deepest consciousness and Brahman? Nothing; the difference is notional. The same space that is inside the pot is also outside. The largeness of space does not in any way get diminished by its apparent location inside a pot. The space is not inside the pot. It is only our imagination. If the pot walls are broken, nothing happens to the space which was apparently inside. It merges with the universal ether.

If this individual consciousness caused by the sheaths is to be transcended by the breaking through all the sheaths, the pot of this body will break and the space-consciousness, which is the Kutastha inside us, will merge with Universal consciousness. That is the difference between Kutastha and Brahman, the difference between pot ether and universal ether.

But suppose there is a pot filled with water and space is reflected through that water; that is jiva. It is not pure ether, but reflected ether – not Kutastha consciousness pure and simple by itself, but the same consciousness reflected through the intellect which acts as a water medium, as it were, in this pot of the body. And Ishvara is the universal reflection of the same space through the sheet of clouds. So we have now some understanding as to what difference there is among these principles of Brahman, Kutastha, Ishvara and jiva.

Jalābhro pādhya dhīne te jalākāśābhra khe tayoḥ, ādhārau tu ghaṭākāśa mahākāśau sunirmalau (225). Though there is an apparent reflection of space in the pot filled with water and through the clouds in the sky, really the sky is not capable of reflection like that, nor is the space in the pot reflected through the water. The space remains space; the clouds do not in any way contaminate the universal space. The water in the pot also does not in any way affect the space there. Space cannot be affected by any kind of movement or contamination of things in space. Space is unattached.

That ether in the pot is the source, the origin, of even the reflection thereof through the water. Similarly, the vast ether is the source of even the reflection of the very same thing through the clouds in the sky. There are, therefore, really no permanent reflections. They depend upon the cloud on the one hand and the water on the other hand. If the media are lifted up, Ishvara and jiva merge into the unity of Kutastha and Brahman. The One alone remains at once.

Evamānanda vijñāna mayau māyādhiyor vaśau, tada dhiṣṭhāna kūṭastha brahmaṇī tu sunirmale (226). In the same way, this consciousness in us which is inside the anandamaya kosha and is reflected through the intellectual sheath – both these aspects of our consciousness are based finally on the ultimate substratum of Kutastha consciousness and Brahman consciousness.

Etat kakṣopa yogena sāṅkhaya yogau matau yadi, deho’nna maya kakṣatvāt ātmatvenā bhyu peyatām (227). If you begin to feel that this definition of the distinction between Ishvara and jiva or Brahman and Kutastha is similar to the definition of the same through Samkhya, we say it is not so. There is a great difference because the Samkhya sticks to its original concept of the multiplicity of individuals, and multiplicity can be conceived only in terms of body consciousness, finite consciousness, like this physical body-consciousness. Inasmuch as we are likely to enter into greater and greater muddles by accepting the finitude and the divisibility of consciousness according to Samkhya, we cannot compare this conclusion of ours drawn through these analogies to anything that Samkhya has said. Otherwise, we will enter into body-consciousness afterwards.

Ātma bhedo jagat satyam īśo’nya iti cet trayam, tyajyate tasitadā sāṅkhya yoga vedānta sammatiḥ (228). In order for Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta to shake hands and have a single roundtable conference, something has to be done. Samkhya should get over the idea that the purushas are many in number, and it should also get over the idea that the world is an external reality; and the Yoga of Patanjali should get over the idea that Ishvara is simply transcendentally sitting somewhere beyond the created world. If these three notions – the multiplicity of purushas, the reality of an externalised world, and a transcendent Ishvara – were abandoned by Samkhya and Yoga, Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta would merge into a single doctrine. There would be no difference among them. There would be no Samkhya, no Yoga, no Vedanta. There would be one unitary philosophy, a single religion of the world, provided these finitising notions are got over. The transcendental, extra-cosmic character of Ishvara, the externality of the world of perception, and the multiplicity of individuals – these three are the obstacles before us to realise the Ultimate Being.

Jīvo’saṅgatva mātreṇa kṛtārtha iti cet tadā, srak candanādi nityatva mātreṇāpi kṛtārthatā (229). Yathā sragādi nityatvaṁ duḥ saṁpādyaṁ tathātmanaḥ, asaṅgatvaṁ na saṁbhāvyaṁ jīvator jagadīśayoḥ (230). The Samkhya doctrine has come forward and said, "What does it matter if the purusha is multiple, provided it is unattached? Unattached is purusha; the detached character of purusha itself is sufficient to bring it liberation. If there are many, in what way is the harm?"

This is like arguing that the ordinary material objects in the world, such as sandalwood, flower garland, etc., are manifold in number, and it does not matter if they are manifold provided the one is different from the other. This argument will not hold good because the unattached character of the purusha is not possible as long as there is a world outside and there is a God above. The above-ness of God will control the purusha to such an extent that there would be no detachment of the purusha. It will be completely controlled by the ordinances of Ishvara on the one hand, and on the other hand, the externality of the world will impinge upon it so vehemently that there cannot be detachment.

Therefore, there is no use merely saying detachment is good enough. Universality is important, not merely detachment, because as long as there is finitude, detachment is not possible; and the purusha of the Samkhya is finite. Merely because we say that they are universal, it does not amount to anything because universal beings cannot be multiple in number. Their multiplicity defies their universality. As long as the jiva is there, subject to the externality of the world and the controlling power of God or Ishvara above, there would be no freedom for anyone. So subjection to God and subjection to the world outside follow as a concomitant feature of the acceptance of the Samkhya doctrine of the reality of the world and the Yoga doctrine of the transcendental nature of an Ishvara unconnected with the world.

Even if liberation is attained according to the Samkhya, the purusha will get into bondage again as long as prakriti is there, because prakriti is eternal, so what good is this liberation? What is liberation according to the Samkhya? It is the detachment consciousness of purusha from prakriti. What is the use of this detachment consciousness if it cannot be omniscient?

It is said that purusha is omniscient because it is universal. How could it be omniscient when prakriti is contending in front of it? If the prakriti exists as an eternal substance, as real as the purusha consciousness itself, there can be no universal consciousness. And therefore, the prakriti which is eternally there, as eternal as the purusha, will contend with the purusha eternally, and the bondage of the purusha will also continue. There will be no salvation for the purusha as long as prakriti exists.

Thus, the doctrine of the eternity of prakriti and the eternity of purusha simultaneously cancel each other, and the doctrine of the Samkhya falls because it cannot take us to the true concept of liberation.