Commentary on the Panchadasi

by Swami Krishnananda

Ayamitya parokṣatvam uktaṁ tad dvividhaṁ bhavet, viṣaya svaprakāśatvāt dhiyā pyevaṁ tadīkṣanāt (49). Ayam asmīti pūrusaḥ: The word ‘ayam’ is used in this verse of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. What is  “this purusha”? Who is “this”? The word ‘this’ here indicates the direct awareness of the jiva's experience, which is of a twofold character. The experience of the Atman in us is of a twofold nature – that is, it is indirect sometimes and direct at other times. It is impossible to gain its meaning through intellectual arguments. When the intellect tries to comprehend the nature of the Atman, the Atman looks like something paroksa – that is, an object of consciousness to be known in the future – and that is why we, who use our reason and argument and study, etc., for the purpose of knowing the truth, still have the feeling that it is a future experience that is going to take place. That is, God-realisation is something that is yet to take place, either tomorrow or the day after, or later.

The idea itself is unfounded because the idea of tomorrow or the day after cannot arise in Brahman, because it is eternity. Ideas of tomorrow, etc., are connected with the time process. Timeless eternity does not have ‘tomorrow’, etc.; therefore, the experience of Brahman is not a future experience that is yet to come. It is an indescribable at-one-ment now, here, and not somewhere else and not tomorrow. It is just now.

But also, at the same time, we feel it is identical with our own selves – sva-prakasa. We cannot alienate ourselves into something else. We always feel that we are what we are. The consciousness that I am is so very intensely felt by me that it cannot be an object of my intellectual argument or ratiocination. It is a direct, immediate experience.

So the Atman consciousness even here is partially a direct experience in the case of our own feeling of identity with ourselves and per se it is indirect also, when the intellect begins to feel that it has to be realised sometime in the future.

Parokṣa jñāna kāle’pi viṣaya svaprakāśatā, samā brahma svaprakāśam astī tyevaṁ vibodhanāt (50). Even when we receive instruction from a Guru or study a scripture, some kind of illumination takes place. It is not that study is entirely useless or satsanga is useless or instruction from the Guru is useless. That is not the case. They have the capacity to create in us an indirect apprehension of the nature of reality. Though it is indirect, it is an apprehension nevertheless. We believe that God exists. We have not contacted God, no doubt, but our belief is so firm that it has become a conviction in us and it is certainly a knowledge.

The indubitable conviction that is in our mind that God must exist and is certainly there – Brahman is there, and has to be there – is not, of course, direct experience, yet it is a kind of experience. It is of great utility in further progress because even in this indirect stage of knowledge, the light of Brahman illumines itself through the words of the Guru on the one hand, and manana – the intellectual investigative process – and nididhyasana conducted by the disciple.

Ahaṁ brahme tyanullikhya brahmā stītyeva mullikhet, parokṣa jñāna metanna bhrāntaṁ bādhānirūpaṇāt (51). "God exists. God is inseparable from me." These two statements have two different meanings. God may exist, and yet He may be separable from us. He may be very far away, so many light years distant from us that he may look like an unreachable Being; yet the belief that God exists, persists. But that God's existence is inseparable from our existence is a greater consolation to us than merely the knowledge that God exists. Asti Brahma means Brahman exists. Aham Brahma means I am verily that. After the assertion or the conviction that Brahman is, the other experience has to dawn in the person – namely, "I am that very thing. I am that."

This kind of experience which is for the time being designated as indirect knowledge is not to be shunned as of no utility, because this indirect knowledge itself gradually ripens into direct experience. The direct experience does not negate the indirect knowledge that we have already acquired. It only fructifies in a more mature manner. The earlier experience of the fact that Brahman exists will become more mature and get fructified in the subsequent experience, "I am verily that." Asti Brahma and Aham Brahma –"Brahman is" and "I am verily that" – are not two contradictory experiences. The one leads to the other.

Brahma nāstīti mānaṁ cet syāt bādhyet tata dhruvam, na caivaṁ prabalaṁ mānaṁ paśyāmo’to na bādhyate (52). The feeling that sometimes arises in people that Brahman does not exist is a feeling that is contradictable, but this feeling is not a real proof as to the non-existence of Brahman. We cannot deny Brahman merely because we have a feeling that it does not exist. The existence of Brahman is not denied or refuted by any kind of feeling that it may not exist at all. The feeling is refutable by the subsequent experience that is to follow – namely, that it does not merely exist, it is inseparable from the experiencer himself.

Vyaktya nullekha mātreṇa bramatve svarga dhīrapi, bhrānti syāt vyaktya nullekhāt sāmānyo lledha darśanāt (53). Indirect knowledge which only provides us information as to the existence of a thing is of great utility indeed. We cannot say it is useless. We hear from the scriptures that such a thing called swarga, or heaven, exists. This knowledge is not unreal merely because we have not reached heaven. Reaching heaven is a greater experience, no doubt, but the knowledge that such a thing as heaven exists is also useful.

Hence, the existence aspect of Brahman which becomes the content of indirect knowledge should not be considered as ignorance. Many people feel that intellectual knowledge, learning, are absolutely useless. It is not so because there is an organic connection between the lower knowledge and the higher knowledge. The genius that a person is when he grows into maturity may not reject the childhood in which he was once upon a time, though there is a world of difference between the babyhood that he was and the genius that he is today. That little baby grew into this genius.

Therefore, the great difference that is observable between the two states is no argument for the non-utility of the earlier stage. All knowledge which is rational, intellectual, scriptural and that which is obtained through the Guru is very useful. It will itself mature into direct experience later on. The lower knowledge becomes higher knowledge by growth in its dimension and in its quality.

Aparokṣatva yogyasya na parokṣa matir bhramaḥ, parokṣa mityanu llekhāt arthāt pārokṣya saṁbhavāt (54). The knowledge that God exists is a great solace even to the ignorant man. It gives us some comfort that there is a protecting force somewhere. Also, the conviction that God, wherever He be, is also omnipotent gives us a further comfort that He is capable of redressing our sorrows. The very existence of a protecting power and the existence in that power of the capacity to protect is a solace indeed. So the knowledge that is obtained through the Guru and the scripture is of great utility. It is not to be dubbed as indirect and paroksa. It is the pedestal on which we have to stand to rise above it, beyond its ken of experience. There is a higher knowledge which rises above it, no doubt, but does not contradict it. The higher rises above the lower, but the higher does not contradict or negate the lower.

Aṅśā gṛhīter bhrānti ścet ghaṭa jñānaṁ bhramo bhavet, niraṁśa syāpi sānśatvaṁ vyāvar tyāṁśa vibhedataḥ (55). One may feel that indirect knowledge is of not much use because it gives only partial knowledge; the entire knowledge is not available through indirect experience. This is also not true because if we have a partial perception of a pot that is placed in front of us, it does not mean that we are not seeing the pot. The partiality in perception does not negate the reality of the perception. And so, the argument that indirect knowledge will provide only a partial aspect of knowledge of Brahman is not an argument against its utility.

Even if Brahman has no parts, no phases, there are logical phases. Mathematically or geographically calculable phases are not there in Brahman. We cannot measure the length and breadth of Brahman, that is true. But we can conceive aspects of Brahman from the point of view of the degree in which we can comprehend the reality in accordance with our mental capacity.

Thus, the partial knowledge that the indirect knowledge provides us does not negate its utility. It is as good as the whole, just as the perception of a part of an object is not anything else than the perception of the object itself, though not of the entire object.

Asattvāṁśo nivarteta parokṣa jñānata stathā, abhānāṁśa nivṛttiḥ syāt aparokṣa dhiyā kṛta (56). Asattavarana and abhana avarana are the two kinds of veil, as I mentioned. The asatta aspect, or the non-existence aspect of Brahman, which is a part of the ignorance, is dispelled by indirect knowledge. But the unknowableness of Brahman, which is caused by the other aspect of ignorance – abhana avarana, is dispelled by direct knowledge. Asattavarana and abhana avarana are the two veils which are dispelled respectively by indirect knowledge and direct knowledge.