The Philosophy of the Panchadasi: Chapter - 6-7: Swami Krishnananda.

 

====================================================================================================

Tuesday 19, May 2026, 05:30.
Books
Upanishad
The Philosophy of the Panchadasi: 6-7.
Chapter 6: Light on the Analogy of a Painted Picture-7.
4.Isvara or the Universal God: 4.

=====================================================================================================

The liberation of the Jiva is possible only in the realisation of Brahman, not even when the least difference is felt, such as that between Jiva and Isvara. As dream does not end until waking, Samsara does not end until Brahman is realised. Dream and waking are similar in so far as there is in both a mistaking of the Absolute for the relative and the particular. From the point of view of Brahman, the whole universe is a dream, inclusive of the differences between Isvara and Jiva, the sentient and non-sentient, etc. Isvara and Jiva, being included within the realm of Maya, become the cause of the twofold creation as described in the Upanishads. From the beginning of the original ideation of Isvara to become the many, up to His entry into the manifold as the enlivening force in all individuals, it is Isvara-Srishti (metaphysical existence). From the time when individuals begin to feel the usual waking consciousness involved in externality of perception, and consequently desire, dream, sleep, etc., up to the freedom of the individual from the Samsara, it is Jiva-Srishti (psychological reaction). Not knowing that Brahman is One, and there is no second to it, people unnecessarily enter into argumentation in regard to the nature of Isvara, Jiva and Jagat. Everyone, right from those who worship with faith trees, plants, stones, etc., up to the worshippers of Isvara according to Patanjali's school, has a confusion in regard to the nature of Reality, and everyone, from the materialist Charvaka onwards, up to the Sankhya, is confused about the nature of the Self. There may be difference in the degree of truth revealed in these various systems of thought, but it is definite that there is some error in each of them, even as a person is, after all, in a state of dream, whether he is dreaming that he is a king or beggar. Therefore one should not argue too much on the nature of creation, Isvara and Jiva, but concentrate one's mind on Brahman alone, that is non-dual. It may be true that one should study well the nature of experience and its relativity by an understanding of the nature of Isvara, Jiva and Jagat, but the study should not end there, and the investigation not concluded with such knowledge. The finale of philosophy is Brahma-Jnana, not merely a study of the categories of phenomenal experience.

The Sankhya thinks that the Atman is manifold and universal, the world is real, and the Yoga feels that Isvara is distinct from both. Though this difference may be tentatively accepted in the course of our observations and studies, we should not regard it as an ultimate fact. It is to make this point clear that we have introduced the analogy of Ghatakasa, Mahakasa, Jalakasa and Meghakasa. The reflection of ether through water or the clouds is not an independent reality, for its basis is the reflecting medium, and the original ether alone is real. So is Brahman ultimately real, and not the reflections as Jiva and Isvara. The Vedanta accepts the element of truth in every system of thought, even the Charvaka or the materialist, as a necessary stage of development, but steps above every such stage as an inadequacy in the higher reaches of reality.

The Sankhya, Yoga and Vedanta will come together when the Sankhya and the Yoga abandon their notions that the Atman is manifold, the world is real and Isvara is a distinct personality separate from both. The mere understanding that the Atman is unattached will not be enough for the purpose of the liberation of the soul. The realisation of its Absoluteness is essential. But so long as Isvara is there, controlling all from above, and the world is there outside, limiting all in every way, the Atman cannot be free. Isvara and Jiva would circumscribe Brahman. It is only on the transcendence of these differences that the Atman is experienced as Brahman. It is not necessary that, for the purpose of philosophical explanations, we should accept a plurality of Atmans, or the reality of the world. They may have an empirical utility, but they are transcendentally unreal. The scripture affirms that from the standpoint of Brahman there is neither creation nor destruction, neither bondage nor liberation, neither a seeker after liberation nor the liberated. This is the ultimate truth, though in practical, worldly experience, these processes are seen and accepted. They come under Vyavaharika-satta or relative reality. The Paramarthika-satta or Absolute Reality is Akhanda or indivisible existence.

The distinction between Isvara, Jiva and Jagat being relative, it is conclusively proved that Kutastha and Brahman are one, and Brahman exists as non-dual in the three periods of time, whether there is creation or not. In the bondage and liberation of the Jiva, Brahman remains the same, as unaffected Being. The experiences of the Jiva have nothing to do with Brahman's undividedness. Even those who have an insight into the spiritual nature of things feel the reality of the world, but they are not bound by it as they were before the rise of such knowledge. Bondage is not in the perception of the world, but in the nature of the reaction that is set up from within the mind. There may be, on the other hand, no external perception, but there may be feelings of internal attachment and aversion. The difference between the bound and the liberated soul is that the former considers all its experiences in the present and the future worlds as real in themselves; but the latter knows with certainty that the world-experience is relative, and not ultimate. The realisation of non-duality is not merely a negative state of the abolition of an existent duality. It is the original, real state, of existence prior even to the manifestation of duality. The world of duality is relative because here one thing is observed to hang on the other for its subsistence, and nothing can rest independently in itself. The world is a relative mass of interconnected forces where everything determines everything else, and nothing by itself can be considered as real. Let this be known, and the mind be fixed on Brahman alone, as that which remains after everything is set aside as “not it”. If, in meditation, the feeling of duality persists due to force of past mental impressions, self-analysis is to be carried on again, and the notion of duality avoided. Meditation should be continued until the goal is realised, without any anxiety or impatience on one's part. Forces like hunger, and thirst will attempt to hamper the progress in one's meditations, but let it be remembered, again and again, that these are forces of Prakriti impinging on its own manifestations in the body of the Jiva, and the real Witness behind all these varieties is unaffected. The feelings of pleasure and pain and body-consciousness will appear persistently, and the only way of overcoming them is in dwelling constantly on the absolute nature of Brahman in which pleasures and pains cannot abide, and there cannot be confinement of consciousness to any particular body. The innermost consciousness of the Jiva is Brahman, which is the unattached witness of all duality, such as the objective and subjective worlds, and it is never involved in them. This truth is to be instilled into the mind for a protracted period with intense vigilance and tenacity. The success achieved in meditation is in proportion to the extent of the honest feeling within ourselves that Brahman is the only reality, and is the one aim of life. The world, being of a presented character, and so necessarily relativistic and transient, its negation in spiritual experience involves also the transcendence of personality and individuality.

Consciousness precedes the rise of dualistic perception, because consciousness is necessary even to think that there is duality. The fact that duality cannot be imagined in consciousness, proves that consciousness is indivisible, and the fact that it cannot be known as an object outside oneself shows that it is known in immediate realisation and not in sensory or mental perception. There are people who are capable of understanding things by their rational powers but cannot arrive at truth, because of their attachment to reasoning process alone, which works on the basis of duality, and not resting their arguments on scriptures and intuition. It is necessary that all the desires of the heart should be liberated once and for all, if the highest insight is to be obtained.

It is stated in the Upanishads that the mortal becomes immortal when all the desires of the heart are cast off, and the knots of the heart are rent asunder. Verily, it is the desires that are referred to here as the knots to be broken. Avidya, Kama and Karma are the knots of the heart. The feeling, 'let me have this, and that,' is the essence of desire, which arises on account of one's confusing between the Atman and Ahamkara, mistaking the ego for the Atman. If the primary misconception of the identity of the Atman with the ego is gone for good, there would be nothing left to bind the soul to rebirth, though the natural desires common to a human being and consciousness of the body may persist in such a person for some time, due to operation of Prarabdha. However, one who has attained such a wisdom will be unconcerned with what the Prarabdha Karma does, with passing wishes or diseases, as, for example, one is unconcerned with things unconnected with oneself, such as cutting of a tree in a forest.

*****

Continue

=============================================================================================================