Commentary on panchadasi chapter 7 verse 5

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram.

 

Please see the posting for a beautiful commentary by Swami

Dayananda Saraswathi.

 

Shyam Venkataraman

 

 

 

Panchadasi Chapter 7, Verse 51

 

Swami Dayananda Saraswati2

 

The book Panchadasi, literally “Fifteen Chapters,” [authored by Vidyaranya ] is

divided into three sections. The first five chapters are referred to as viveka

prakarana, a section on discriminative analysis of what is absolute reality

(sat); the second five chapters, dipa prakarana, are a section focusing on ‘the

light of consciousness’ (cit); and the third five, ananda prakarana section on

what is ultimate contentment, the fullness of one’s being (Ananda). . .

 

The 7th chapter, called Trpti DÌpa, “The Light of Satisfaction,” is a very

detailed discussion on a sentence from the fourth chapter of the Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad.3 Taking this one sentence, this chapter of nearly three hundred

verses, reveals what is contained in the entire teaching of Vedanta. The many

topics which one hears about in an initial exposure to the teaching often times

may not ring clear due to doubts and vagueness on the part of the student. Here

in a subsidiary text like this one, each topic is dilated and dealt with in a

simplified logical order. . .

 

[The following is an exemplary verse from this chapter.]

 

bhrama adhishhThaana bhuutaatmaa kuuTastha asa~Nga chit vapuH .

 

anyaH anyaat adhyaasataH asa~Nga dhii stha jiivaH atra puurushhaH

 

 

 

bhrama adhishhThaana bhuutaatmaa - the self being the basis, the substratum, for

the mistake, the confusion

 

kuuTastha asa~Nga chit vapuH - is in its nature, unchanging, uninvolved

consciousness

 

purusah atra jivah- the word person here is (means) the individual ( a notional

limited individual )

 

dhisthah - resting in, abiding in the mind

 

asangah - not connected, related ( to the substratum-self )

 

anyonya-adhyasatah - due to a mutual superimposition.

 

1 Published in the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam 13th Anniversary Souvenir, 1999

 

2 Excerpt from the forthcoming book edited by Swamini Saralananda Saraswati

(formerly Bri. Kalyani), a graduate of the first resident Vedanta course

conducted by Pujya Swami Dayanandaji in Bombay, India. Swamini Saralananda is

currently a resident teacher at the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam in Saylorsburg,

Pennsylvania.

 

3 Atmanam cet vijaniyat ayam asmiti purusah, kim icchan kasya kamaya sariram

anusanjvaret – If a person were to know himself as “I am this,” desiring what

and for whose sake would he suffer the body? Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.12.

This verse is cited in the first verse of Panchadasi Chapter 7, and again

chapter 14 verse 5.

 

 

 

The self, whose nature is unconditioned consciousness which is unchanging and

unrelated to the projected creation, is the very basis, the substratum for the

projection. It 'becomes,' (is called) the limited individual being, abiding

i.e., manifesting in the mind, due to a mutual superimposition of the self’s

attributes and individuals’ attributes one upon the other. This individual is

the person here (being talked about.)

 

This is a very big and somewhat complicated verse because it alludes to several

different, weighty topics. We will see each, one by one, then see the

connections between all of them. So first we are told that the real self is of

the nature of consciousness. What kind of consciousness?

 

Consciousness which is unrelated and uninvolved means from its own stand point

it is uninvolved in anything going on in the entire creation, like sunlight is

not involved when someone is digging a hole. It doesn't undergo any change, any

modification, any conditioning, no matter what changes go on in the

mind-body-complex of the individual. This is the essential nature of the self.

 

Then again further what is it? It just happens to be the basis, the locus, the

substratum for the ongoing confusion, the projection. The notion of

individual-ness, person-hood, the limited, defective self-identity, needs a

'place' to happen, to manifest, to appear. A projected snake needs the obscured

rope in order to happen. This delusional self is taken as “I am a physical body,

and I am my mind,” but it has a cause. That cause for this physical

body-mind-sense-complex identity is the real self, pure conscious being, but

taken wrongly. When the real one gets taken for an imaginary one, in this

analysis the real one is being referred to as the basis, the underlying hidden

truth, just as rope for the snake or clay for a pot.

 

Then again, what kind of basis? It is hidden by the confusion. The confusion is

due to ignorance, the afore mentioned two-fold nonapprehension-misapprehension

phenomenon. It is often asked, "When and why does this ignorance begin?” The

answer has to be, "It doesn't begin, it has no beginning." If someone glances in

the direction of a rope and imagines that he sees a snake, but we know exactly

what has happened, can it be asked, "When did the rope ignorance begin and then

the snake come?" You might be tempted to play with words here and say, "It came

at the time when he glanced at the rope." But the ontological truth is it would

have to mean that prior to that glance there was knowledge of the rope. The

ignorance and the false appearance are due to a helpless, hapless state of being

which is said to have no reason, it is inexplicable, incomprehensible and

beginningless.

 

 

 

Still, any mistake happens because there is an opportunity for it, i.e. it will

have an underlying cause, a 'location’. We don't sensibly project a snake in

thin air. There is some kind of logic even in an error; one doesn't project an

elephant when glancing at a rope. Whenever there is error there also must be a

basis. When I see the rope, I don't see the rope as a basis for rope. I see only

the rope, one thing alone is. Then it is not a “basis.” Only if there is a

misapprehension do we need to talk about basis. With reference to the

individual, 'what I am' becomes the basis for my delusion, 'what I think I am'.

I think I am the body-mind-sense complex, while the 'I am' which is the simple,

unconditioned consciousness is the basis. 'I am-ness' allows, lends, a seeming

reality to the conditioned 'I'. This means what? The conditioned 'I' becomes

conscious; the individual lives in a conscious body and has a conscious mind.

Therefore this conscious-entity, a body-mind individual, exists

because of the essence which inheres in it and gives it sentiency. But

unfortunately because the basis, the essence is not seen, is hidden as it were,

the individual suffers the apparent loss of his true self, which is infinitely

more interesting than his own pathetic notion of a self.

 

A misunderstanding of what has just been discussed here is possible and often

seen. Some say that the erroneous self is something we have to get free of by

removing or transcending the body-mind complex layer by layer. This is a bit of

a good joke, it is not much different than saying, "In order to be free of the

snake and realize the rope we should dissect the snake part by part to remove

it." This is talked about under the topic of 'five sheaths', the five layers of

the individuality. The five sheaths have also been discussed in an earlier

section of this text: gross body, vital functions, mind, intellect and bliss

sheath. And many people think that one has to transcend, get free of these

sheaths which are covering the self. What they fail to see and teach clearly

here, is that the sheaths are not ontologically something other than the real I

but rather they are the real I being taken wrongly. Like a famous actor on stage

is Hamlet, but never gives up being Richard Burton the

actor. The two are one and the same, it is just that there are two different

points of view about the one entity; one view has the 'better' reality.

 

Still, it is commonly heard that one has to go a long way to get free from the

physical and mental entrapments; one must go deep into the innermost core of his

being until finally the self, the real self [is] reached. It is taken that five

sheaths are covering layers of the individual and are all realities sitting upon

one final reality. That final reality is the true self and the five sheaths are

the not-self, and the poor self is burdened by all these a-little-less-real

layers. And we all know how the un-self layers are very heavy, emotions are

heavy and the physical body is always too heavy. Thus the self is buried and one

has to dive deep and in the white heat of meditation the pure self will be

experienced as the ultimate, ever shining true self. Otherwise it remains

inaccessibly hidden in the cave of the heart. These kinds of things are heard

and read too often.

 

 

One main point of this verse is to make it understood that wherever there is a

superimposed mistake such as the snake on the rope, there itself the basis is

very much present as its content. When you touch your body it is the unchanging,

uninvolved consciousness which is there. When somebody asks a guru, "How to

realize the self?" he should say, "Pinch yourself." It will become very clear.

Consciousness is present all the way in each and every layer of your being.

Whatever you see, know, experience, it is all the essential reality alone. The

snake is not on the rope; the snake is the rope. Therefore the self which is

unconditioned consciousness is there as the substrate reality, the content

inhering in everything and it need not, cannot be, separated out in any actual

way. The 'separation' to see which facet is real and which facet has only an

appearance of reality is in terms of understanding, in terms of analysis leading

to knowledge.

 

But then how can it happen that the very content of myself, which alone is real,

is missed? Just because there is an appearance of an erroneous self, how can it

hide the real one? Vidyaranya says it is due specifically to mutual

superimposition. The problem is because there is 'mutuality' of superimpositions

one upon each other. Superimposition here specifically means [that] one thing is

taken for another, not that one contributes to the other. It means that the

attributes and qualities of the body, mind, senses, all of them, get transferred

onto the self. Therefore "I am the body, I am a priest, I am a mortal, etc."

Such and all attributes that actually belong to the body-mind 'costuming' are

presumed to be the self. And at the same time, "I am a self-evident, conscious

being in a sentient, awareful body," is an undeniable fact for the same person

who will say, "I am fat." So two points of view are fused and confused as though

they are one.

 

The problem actually lies herein, in this transference of attributes; no one

goes about actually saying, "I am the body." But what we hear is: "I am fat, or

ugly or mortal or weak, etc." These are all attributes of the body. It is

paradoxical that even when I will not say that I am the body, I do say: "I am

fat, etc." This is as good as saying, "I am the body," because what I have done

then is relegated to the 'I' all the characteristics that make 'my' body a body.

So what's the difference? None, except that semantically at least, we are able

to sense something [is] not correct and we do not like to be silly enough to

say, "I am a body." But still, experientially I have a deep-rooted sense that "I

am this body," and daily live out that identity. Luckily this curious semantic

quirk does provide an opening for an inquiry to begin on the topic of a self

other than just the mistaken one.

 

 

Then we can apply this same analysis with regard to the mind. Any attribute I

can pin on 'my mind', even if I don't say, "I am my mind." I wind up saying it

like this: "I am smart, I am dumb, I am angry, I am an engineer, etc." Then I do

feel and take it as though [it is] real, that those attributes are ‘me’, and

therefore that I am the mind. So this mistaken identity is due to ignorance. I

take it that this much alone is what I am, a limited and ever changing body-mind

entity, never suspecting the possibility of an infinitely ‘better’ self.

 

There is no loss greater than this, not only because the self is so much more,

but also because it is a loss due to mere misunderstanding. While the self lends

its existence and 'fills-up' all the appearances of the attributes of the

individual, i.e. a conditional unreal self, it doesn't protest whatever way it

is taken. The rope doesn't protest when you take it as a snake. It is

unconcernedly available for whatever you want; you can see a snake on it and run

or you can reach to pick it up, this nice stick. So the self is not going to

care to pop up and say, "Mistake!” Being a basis it simply makes itself

available all the time for whatever projection is put upon it. The presence of

the self, which is consciousness, is in any and every thought, in any and every

conclusion, in any and every experience. Thereby what is not actually conscious,

those definitive, apparent configurations become, as it were, conscious. So the

self seems to become a mortal individual and the mortal

individual gains the status of conscious being. Thus is the mutual

superimposition.

 

Because of this superimposition there seems to be one entity, a limited,

separate individual and he obtains in the mind. And what kind of mind is it? A

mind which is not in any way tangibly connected to the self. There is no

connection or relation, because the self is unconditioned, formless

consciousness and the mind is nothing but a flow of thought forms. Therefore one

being formless and the other ‘formful,’ where is the connection between them?

There can never be a tangible, conventional connection. One is absolutely real

and the other is an ephemeral appearance. It is exactly like there being no

[possibility of] marriage between a groom in the waking realm and a bride in his

dream. There is no connection between a rope and a snake, between a wave and

water. No connection because the rope is the snake, they are one, wave is water.

Therefore the mind never has a relation to the consciousness self, the 'I' which

is uninvolved, unconditioned consciousness. Yet obtaining in the mind

while having no actual connection with this walking notion of an individual,

that is the one here called the person (purusah) in the verse.

 

>From this, what we understand is that it is a paradox; the person standing in

and as the mind is the self whose true nature is unchanging consciousness. If

this person knows, comes to know the self—how?—in its essential nature, as that

uninvolved consciousness, he gains what is real. If his real nature is not

understood, missed, he is lost to himself, and the fullness of his being

'serves' only as the basis, the locus for the whole tragic-comedy appearance of

the shadow-play person. He is a, “Woe is me” character not knowing it is a

cosmic joke.

 

Elsewhere in the text Vidyaranya uses the term "reflection of consciousness"

(cidhabhasa) for this person. It is a term which helps us understand this

paradoxical phenomenon of how the person exists in and as the mind even though

his true nature is something totally unconnected to that mind. "Reflection of

consciouness" can be easily understood like this: Think of sunlight reflecting

in a mirror; it is the best analogy for this. The pure, unfettered, uninvolved

sunlight can 'come down', 'transfer itself', 'be caught', onto the surface of a

mirror where it is brightly reflected. And the ensuing reflection, shall we say

it is or is not sunlight? At one and the same time it is and it is not, it

depends upon from which standpoint we are talking. As a matter for analysis it

is a paradox to be understood with no need for argument that it is only one way

or the other, if we say both are sunlight but one is a temporary conditioned

form of sunlight and the other is the original unconditioned

formless sunlight. A problem of error arises only when half of the phenomenon

is seen and known; there is only the temporary reflected form and it exists

separately from its source. Then definitely that single particular reflection is

highly inconsequential to say the least, i.e. it is maximally vulnerable,

fleeting.

 

Now applying this to understand the person, the reflected consciousness,

consciousness reflecting in the mind, does not undergo any real change. It has

not 'fallen down' and gotten caught up in and become involved with the mind. (A

misunderstanding that gets bandied about is that this person is who he is, the

suffering individual, because he has fallen down and away from his original

source and therefore he must raise himself up out of the mire of his miserable

existence and return to the source.) If it is said that the sunlight 'comes down

onto' or 'falls upon' or is 'caught in the mirror', it is all figuratively

speaking, by way of example for pedagogical purpose; there is no actual 'fall'.

There is no fall and rise of man, there is only a lack of understanding [of]

what is the source because of which the reflection can exist.

 

 

 

To reiterate, another analogy: The pot thinks, "I am a small pot, a useless pot,

I sit in a dark place most of the time on a bottom shelf; occasionally I see the

light of day; for what I was made, I don't understand. I have no job

satisfaction, I make no contribution in this universe, why did God create me to

be a pathetic nobody?" This is the pot’s complex, the problem of his life. Then

somebody told him, “What you suffer from is 'the fall of pot, the fall of all

pots'." A fall from what? From the clay, your source! So then it has to do what?

Get back to clay! Shouldn't he be confused? He was told, "You have fallen, you

have to rise." Out of desperation he swallows this and now he wants to become

clay. As long as the attempt is for 'becoming', it is not going to achieve

anything, because the clay pot already is clay. It is like this: Will you

attempt to get a head over your shoulders? It is another special, spiritual life

of suffering within the generic life of suffering.

 

In life one tries to become something better all the time; this 'becoming' is a

miserable life 'trip'. It is in our efforts to become something other than what

we are that we are caught in a maze and never see the truth of the problem. We

can never see the light at the end of the tunnel; we have to be so busy

becoming—because it’s an endless job—that there’s never time to inquire into the

real problem. Everything and anything I want to become, I already am. I need

not, in fact cannot, become a 'full-er' self, without recognizing what is the

real, fundamental problem. Like the clay pot trying to become clay only because

he doesn't see that he is clay in the first place, and he got some poor advice.

 

Therefore one needs to be told: "Come on, stop trying to become something else,

forget about this ‘becoming’ business, see what you already are! It's great . .

.. it’s everything and more than you could ever hope for!"

 

But this unique 'telling' means it requires a means of knowledge, a teaching. To

a pot, “There is something called clay, and you are that clay from out of which

all pots have come, to which all pots go back, because of which all pots exist.

It is your true nature, this reality, your real and essential content.” This is

the kind of teaching that is found in the Upanisads. There is something called a

mahavakya, meaning "great sentence." And this is what the 'great sentence' is

all about; it says, "That thou art." The Upanisad uses the example of the clay

and exploits it all the way. So the example [would be]: “Oh pot, that (clay)

thou (already) art.” Now to the person, what does the same sentence convey? The

Self alone is, like the clay alone is for all pots etc. There is no fall or

rise.