Commentary on the Panchadasi: 29. Swami Krishnananda.

 

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

Sunday 12, July 2026, 04:30.
BOOKS
UPANISHAD 
Commentary on the Panchadasi: 29. 
Discourse 8
Chapter 2: Pancha Mahabhuta Viveka – Discrimination of the Elements
Mantras 19-34
SWAMI KRISHNANANDA
Post-29.

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

Mantram-22.

Sato nāva yavāś śaṅkyās tadaṁśasyā nirūpaṇāt, nāmarūpe na tasyāṁśau tayo radyā pyanud bhavāt (22). 

We should not even dream that there can be limbs inside Existence because then limbs must exist, and there cannot be a differentiation in Existence itself, as if there are parts of Existence. Tadaṁśasyā nirūpaṇāt: We cannot think that perhaps there are varieties or differentiations within Pure Existence because we cannot conceive fraction, divisibility, part, segmentation, in indivisibility.

Nāmarūpe na tasyāṁśau: Names and forms, the variety of creation, cannot be regarded as part of Existence because they did not exist prior to creation. Tayo radyā pyanud bhavāt: They have not started; they have not even originated to be. Therefore, names and forms, which constitute the substance of this world, cannot be associated with this Universal Existence in any manner whatsoever, and should not make us feel that perhaps the names and the forms and the variety of this creation may introduce a kind of difference. Such a thing is not possible.

Mantram-23.

Nāmarūpo dbhava syaiva sṛṣṭi tvāt sṛsṭitaḥ purā, na tayo rudbhavas tasmāt niraṁśaṁ sad yathā viyat (23). 

Creation is nothing but the manifestation of name and form. When designation, epithet and concretised presentations of forms arise, we begin to feel that creation has started. Creation is nothing but variety, which is essentially form and designation. But such a thing could not be there prior to creation. Hence, we should not associate the differentiating characters of name and form with Existence, which was there even prior to the commencement of creation. Na tayo rudbhavas: There was no origin of names and forms then. Therefore, what do we conclude? Niraṁśaṁ sad yathā viyat: As space is divisionless and it is homogeneously spread out, so Pure Existence is homogeneous and undivided in its nature. Niraṁśaṁ, without any kind of part within itself.

Mantram-24.

Sadantaraṁ sajātīyaṁ na vailakṣaṇya varjanāt, nāma rūpo pādhi bhedaṁ vinā naiva sato bhidā (24). 

If there is some Existence second to that Existence—another Existence different from the Existence we are considering—then we can say that there is variety in the same species. But such a thing is not possible, as we have already noted—na vailakṣaṇya varjanāt—because specification of Existence as constituting something other than itself is not possible. There cannot be any kind of difference of one Existence from another Existence since two Existences cannot be there, because even the difference imagined between two so-called Existences has to be existing. The imagined difference between two Existences should be existing; therefore, Existence is uniform.

Nāmarūpo pādhi bhedaṁ vinā naiva sato bhidā. The differentiations that we are thinking of in our mind are only in terms of name and form. We are repeating it again and again. Because of the fact that names and forms could not be there prior to creation, no difference of any kind can be imagined in Pure Existence.

Mantram-25.

Vijātīya masattattu no khalva stīti gamyate, nāsyātaḥ prati yogitvaṁ vijātīyāt bhidā kutaḥ (25). 

Anything that is other than Existence is non-existence; therefore, it is a non-entity. We cannot imagine that something can be there outside Existence, because that which is imagined to be outside Existence is other than Existence, equivalent to non-existence. So we should not bother about anything external to Existence as it is only affirming non-entity, which has no sense at all.

Nāsyātaḥ prati yogitvaṁ: There is no opposition to Pure Existence. Contrary to Existence, nothing can be; opposed to Existence, nothing can be; and second to Existence, nothing can be. Vijātīyāt bhidā kutaḥ: What to speak of the difference between Existence and something other than Existence. That is, three types of difference are denied here in respect of Pure Being.

Mantram-26.

Ekamevā dvitīyaṁ sat siddha matra tu kecana, vihvalā asadevedaṁ purā sīdityā varṇayan (26). 

People cannot conceive of Pure Existence because the mind always objectifies whatever it thinks. Even after hearing a thousand times that Existence cannot be divided, that it has always to be divisionless, the conscious mind, which always imagines its contents as something standing outside, brings into force the argument that Existence is divided as between the subject and the object, between the perceiver and the perceived, or that it is a content of somebody's awareness.

The German philosopher Hegel said that Pure Existence is equal to non-existence. To say that Existence alone is, is another way of saying that non-existence alone is, because his idea is that we cannot conceive Existence in the mind except as an object or a content of itself. Anything that we think, even when we assert Existence, is a part of our thinking process. But if we say it is a part of the thinking process, it becomes divided between the subject and the object, and then it ceases to be universal. The moment we say it is not an object at all—it is not a content of the mind—it becomes a featureless, meaningless non-entity, as it were, because of its not being a content of anybody's awareness. This is a peculiar argument that arises due to inexperience. Intellectual philosophy is not enough. We must have direct experience of this truth by intuition, which Hegel did not have.

Something like this is also the argument of the nihilist philosophers who say that the relativity of things, the factor of one thing hanging on another thing, denies the substance of anything. Everything in the world is conditioned by everything else; nothing is independent by itself. The existence of one thing is possible on account of the existence of something else. If that is the case, nothing is absolutely existing; therefore, there is no such thing as Absolute Existence. What finally exists? Zero, nil, vacuum—that is Ultimate Reality. This is one kind of argument.

Mantram-27.

Magnasy-ābdhau yathā-kṣāṇi vihvalāni tathāsya dhīḥ, akhaṇḍaika rasaṁ śrutvā niṣpracārā bibhetyataḥ (27). 

The author says that as a person drowned in deep waters cannot open his eyes and see anything, a person whose mind is expected to drown itself in the ocean of Existence closes his eyes and begins to see darkness in front of him, rather than Pure Existence. The waters in which we are drowned cannot be seen with our eyes because we have closed our eyes, because we are inside. Similarly, people who try to conceive Pure Existence with their understanding suddenly close the eyes of their consciousness and imagine that it is like darkness—as a person with closed eyes inside the water may think that there is nothing inside, while it is all water. Akhandaikarasa, undivided essence, is the original nature of things. Akhanda is undivided; ikarasa is pure essence. Undivided pure essence is the nature of Ultimate Existence.

By hearing this, the mind is baffled. It is unable to contain this thought. How is it possible to expect the mind, which is a located, cognising entity, to comprehend within itself that which is everywhere and inclusive of even itself? The mind is included even within the principle of Existence; therefore, the mind cannot conceive it. This is the reason why the intellect becomes baffled and we begin to feel that Existence is like non-existence.

Gaudapada Acharya in his Mandukya Karika says that if we put children in an empty space and nobody is there in front of them, they will cry because they are afraid. If we place a child in the wilderness where there is nobody to be seen and there is nothing outside, it will start crying. The child is crying not because it is afraid of something that is there. It is afraid because there is nothing there. It is crying because of the fear of non-entity, rather than the fear of entities.

Gauḍācāryā nirvikalpe samādhā vanya yoginām, sākāra brahma niṣṭhānām atyantaṁ bhaya mūcire (28). Gaudapada Acharya, the great Guru of Sankaracharya, says that when we enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, or abstract meditation where the mind itself is dissolved in the equilibrium of pure awareness, it sees nothing in front of it, and gets frightened. There is agitation of the consciousness in the same way as the child is agitated because it can see nothing in front of it. The fear arises on account of there being no object in front, not because of the presence of something. Usually, fear arises on account of the presence of something outside. This is a peculiar kind of fear arising out of there being nothing at all. Such a kind of predicament of there being nothing outside Pure Existence is the reason why baffled minds imagine that non-existence is the origin of things, instead of Pure Existence: 

****

Continue

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