Drg Drsya Viveka Lecture 03
Consciousness, Reflection, and the Nature of the Antaḥkaraṇa
Opening Invocation
ॐ सह नाववतु ।
सह नौ भुनक्तु ।
सह वीर्यं करवावहै ।
तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ।
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥ हरि ॐ
OM SAHANAVAVATO SAHANAV BHUNAKTO SAHAVIRYAM KARAVAVAHAI TEJASVINAVADHITAMASTUMA VIDVISHAVAHAI OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTIHI HARIHI OM
Recap: The Nature of Pure Consciousness
So, the last śloka we had discussed was this: consciousness — pure consciousness — doesn't rise, doesn't set, doesn't change, doesn't become big, doesn't become small. Why is it so?
Supposing you ask a question: "When was this baby born?" You are presuming there was something before the baby was born — there was some time. "This time he was born only two years back" means you know what was two years before. If you also say, "When did this person die?" or "When is this person going to die?" — either way, you are going to look forward, so after death there is also a time when it is going to be there.
Now, what is the point? The point is there must be a consciousness which was aware before the birth of something and the disappearance of things. Without consciousness, how will you know that this was not born before? If you are not conscious of that, then you will never know that there was a past. If there was no past, you will never ask the question "When was this born?" — "When did this come to be?" You can never ask, because you don't even know.
The Necessity of Awareness of the Past
So just imagine that somebody has an appointment. Supposing there is an appointment, and what happens is — I had that experience — somebody wanted to see me and I totally forgot about that. For example, at 4 o'clock I have to see somebody. I totally forgot. At about 4:30 I remember that I had an appointment.
I go down. Fortunately, the fellow who was supposed to come never arrived, so I will be sitting there. Five seconds after I was sitting there, he arrives. "Swāmījī, I am so apologetic. I am sorry I kept you waiting for half an hour." And I am glaring at him as though I am going to — the poor fellow doesn't know I totally forgot! He came only two seconds before, and I would not let him know that fact. So naughty, right?
So this is an example. If we are not aware of the past, we won't be asking the question "When?" We will not even know how to measure when a person is born. The whole concept of time will be gone.
Concept of time — consciousness of time — means we know the past, we know the present, we know... Now, this is a very superficial thought. It is an introduction. But really speaking, time itself is very temporal.
Consciousness as Beyond Time — The Eternal Witness
So, if you are asking about time, you must be aware of timelessness. So something that is aware of timelessness must be beyond time. That means: Is there a time when it was not there? Will there be a time when it will come to a stop? That means it is eternal.
For something which is eternal, how do you say, "When did consciousness arise?" So, when we ask such a question, what we are presuming is not consciousness, but the reflection of consciousness associated with something which is limited. That is called the reflection of consciousness.
The Reflecting Medium: Mirror, Reflection, and Original
So, what is a reflection? If we have to have a reflection, then we must be there, of course — without us, there would be no reflection of ours. But there must be a reflecting medium, in this case a mirror. So the reflection in the mirror and the mirror: they are constant factors.
You can't say the mirror is there but the reflection is not there, or the reflection is there and the mirror is not there. The moment you see the reflection, you have to presume that both the mirror and the reflection are born at the same time, and both also disappear exactly at the same time.
So, with that analysis, what do we have to understand? What is this reflection here? It is our awareness — called reflection. So: consciousness and awareness. What is the relationship? Consciousness is eternal. Awareness is something like a reflection.
So you are there, you are constant. You are in your house, and you are there, and the mirror is there. But the mirror has no reflection, because if you are moving that way, the mirror is practically useless. When you come and stand before the mirror, then the mirror and the reflection both become coeval. That reflection is like awareness.
So, you are aware now — you are sitting here and listening. That is your pure consciousness reflecting in the limited medium of your mind, making this observation.
So, what is my point? The reflecting medium and the reflection go together. So, the world — we are aware of the world only when there is a mind, an ahaṃkāra.
Introduction to Verse Six: Cit-Chāyā and the Birth of the Antaḥkaraṇa
These are the points in the next few verses until the thirteenth verse. What is being elaborated here? The birth of the mind, the subtle body or ego, and its function, and its destruction. The birth, the sṛṣṭi, sthiti and laya of the ahaṃkāra — these are our bondage. We are concerned with the bondage.
Why was he talking about those three seers and three scenes? It is only to bring this point: because this pure sākṣī is not in bondage, so that is no problem. And the world, being completely seen, has no problem. It doesn't even know I exist. It is you who say, "I see you exist."
And you go in front of the mirror and smile. "This mirror — what a beautiful mirror! It is smiling." Does the mirror know that it is smiling? Or is it you who know and who say, "You bad mirror, I am smiling and still you don't show me beautiful"? The poor mirror doesn't know.
So the world itself has no problem. Its existence, its birth and its death all depend upon our mind. When does it happen? When you are in suṣupti, the whole universe is completely dead. But the moment you wake up, then the world comes. "I am here." Does the world say, "I am here"? Or are you saying to the world, "Say, what do you say?"
Verse Six
Cit-chāyāveśato buddhau bhānam destu vidhāsthitā ekāhaṃ-kṛtir anyasyāt antaḥkaraṇarūpiṇe
So, here he introduces a new word: cit-chāyā. Chāyā means shadow. Cit-chāyā means the shadow of the cit. Cit — cit means consciousness. Citaḥ, citiḥ — citiḥ is the noun. Citaḥ means the ṣaṣṭhī-bhakti, "of the pure consciousness." Cetanā, citi — all these are synonymous words. Cit-chāyā means the reflection or the shadow of pure consciousness. This is always a very important word.
Ātman Is Never Bound — Only the Reflection Appears Bound
You say, "Why is ātman bound?" Ātman is never bound. What is it that appears to be bound? Again, that is very important — that appears to be bound. You know — chāyā-grāhī — ātman: "He caught it." So, like that — it is only we are all, you know, like that chāyā. We are all chāyās.
And so that is why we are caught. Somebody catches us. Cit-chāyā — what is that? Your cosmetic companies catch us. Your dress companies catch us. The whole businesses — all businesses — catch you. What do they catch? They never catch the real you. They only catch the chāyā. They judge you by the chāyā. They never judge you by your personality, what you are inside. They only judge you by your dress.
Now, imagine the sun is reflecting in a small pot of water — as if that sun is caught. "I caught." So what did you catch really? Reflection. Did you really catch? Can you catch? You go on beating somebody's shadow — what is happening to this other person? Nothing is happening.
So, nothing happens either to the reflection, and nothing happens to the original thing also. The whole thing is a show. How difficult it is to understand!
That is why the dream — very often we refer to the dream — because in the dream you can go on beating your boss. So he is happy, you are happy, everybody is happy.
Buddhi as the Reflecting Medium: The Birth of Ahaṃkāra and Antaḥkaraṇa
Chāyāveśatā buddhi — buddhi is the reflecting medium. There is a material called buddhi. And when this chāyā — the reflection of the cit, meaning the reflection of consciousness — falls, when cit is reflected in that buddhi, then two things happen. That buddhi transforms itself into two. One is called ahaṃkāra, because that ahaṃkāra belongs to the cit. What is cit? "I am so and so." I am — but as far as I am is concerned, there is no bondage. But the moment you say, "I am so and so," that "so and so" becomes the reflection and bondage.
So he is telling: when this cit reflects in that ghaṭa or reflecting medium called buddhi, two things happen. One is called ahaṃkāra. The other is called antaḥkaraṇa — what we call mind: manas, buddhi, citta, ahaṃkāra.
Now, these four are divided into two. Ahaṃkāra is one, and the other three are there. Why is this division? Why is this division? Because even to say "my mind," there must be ahaṃkāra. To say, "I remember" or "I do not remember" — ahaṃkāra should be there. "I know" and "I do not know" — ahaṃkāra is needed. That is why this antaḥkaraṇa is divided into two parts: ahaṃkāra is one part, and the rest is another part.
A Clarification on the Division of Antaḥkaraṇa
Mahārāj, quick question: Is this any different from how antaḥkaraṇa is usually defined — as manas, buddhi, citta and ahaṃkāra?
No, no. What he is trying to tell — and from your point of view also — is that ahaṃkāra is common to all the three. Ahaṃkāra means there must be somebody to know that "this is my buddhi, this is my manas, and this is my citta." So even though the whole thing consists including the ahaṃkāra, that ahaṃkāra has a special function. What is the function? The citta doesn't know "I am a citta." The buddhi doesn't know "I am a buddhi." The manas doesn't know "I am a manas." So there must be this reflected consciousness which illumines and adds — to say, "I am the manas, I am the buddhi, and I am the citta." It's almost like the "I" is the ahaṃkāra, the truth, and these three are kṛṣṇa.
That is the point. That is the point really.
So the most important point is: here is the world, here is the sākṣī, and in between comes the so-called mind with the reflected consciousness. This is the first point we have to catch. The bondage and the liberation happen neither to the citti nor to the dṛśya, but to this fellow which is in between — and it identifies itself both with the citti and also with the dṛśya. The world itself has no consciousness. So I have to give and say, "This is a tree, this is a beautiful tree, this is an ugly tree, let me cut it off." All these things somebody else has to do.
The Reflecting Medium Is Not Pre-Existing but Created Simultaneously
Now, there is something wonderful, because we are trying to understand Advaita Vedānta. So all these are analogical procedures — examples. Here is the sun, here is the pot of water, and here is the reflection. Because we live in the dualistic world, we already presume these two: the reflecting pot. So the sun is there, and the sun falls into the water, and the reflecting medium comes.
But what we have to understand here is that the reflecting medium itself is a modification of the cit-chāyā. It is not that it is sitting there for the cit to be reflected. That itself is like an ice cream cup — a cone. Once I was travelling in an aeroplane. They gave me a cup of ice cream. "Why did they not supply me a spoon to eat this ice cream?" It took me some time to figure out: the cup itself is made up of the ice cream. But it is looking like a real cup! You have to eat the whole cup. If it is like a cone, immediately even I can understand — but it took me some time.
The Simultaneous Creation of World and Self Upon Waking
So, the reflection of citta itself creates simultaneously the reflecting medium and also the reflection. How do we know? This analogy: suppose it is dark. There is a pot of water — as though nothing existed. The moment the sun rises, what does it do? Not only does it reflect, but it also illumines the pot of the water. "Oh yes, here is a pot of water! Oh yes, there is a reflection in that pot of water!" Both are made possible only because of the reflection of the consciousness.
So here he is not telling it is created, but as though it is there. But who is creating it? It is the reflection only that is creating it. Don't you see? When you go to sleep — deep sleep — the whole world disappears. When you wake up, two things happen: there is a world, and there is you who recognises the world. Both simultaneously come into being as soon as you wake up. When you go to sleep, simultaneously both of them disappear.
So in a sense you can say: who creates this world? I create the world — and I also create myself. I also create myself to recognise, "Yes, there is this world." So within us there are two, all the time.
The Three Factors: Origin, Reflection, and Reflecting Medium
Mother, is it like this ego — taku says ripe ego and unripe ego?
No, no, no. Ripe ego and unripe ego both belong to the mind. And there is somebody else sitting there who knows: "I know both of you." Don't you know — you say, "Oh, I was a fool." When you make that statement, you are actually cognising two things: "Before, I was a fool; now I am a wise person." And then: "I am aware of your past, I am also aware of your present." Like this, that means there is the reflection, the original, and at the same time the reflection, and how that reflection is reacting — illuminating the whole mind — the whole thing as it were simultaneously going.
Here is the sun, here is the pot of water, and here is the reflection. How many things are there now? Three. That is why Ṭhākur's example is most wonderful. Ten pots are there — you break one — when the last pot is there, how many suns are there? One, two? No! When the last pot is there, three things are there. What are those three things? One pot, and two suns — reflected sun and original sun.
So, always within us we are like this — that is the pot. Within us, this is the pot and there is a reflection, and someone who also knows that here is both the pot and the reflection. So we have all three within us: the one who is the "I", then the reflection, and also the reflecting medium. All three are there. But at different levels.
No, no — there are only two levels. There are only two types of beings. One being says, "I am the original sun; here is the pot and reflection." The other one says, "I am the pot, reflecting, and there is original sun." So those who think "I am the pot" — they go to pot! Those realised souls say, "I am the Self; here is a body and mind." We say, "I am the body and mind, and there is a Self."
Verse Six: Summary
Buddhi appears to possess luminosity on account of the reflection of consciousness in it. That is the reflection. As if this reflection is divided by this author into two — actually what is called the buddhi is the antaḥkaraṇa. And that antaḥkaraṇa has got four parts: ahaṃkāra, manas, buddhi, citta. But ahaṃkāra is very special, because without that, everything else is there.
When you are sleeping, your mind is there, your buddhi is there, your citta is there. But what happens without ahaṃkāra? As if they were non-functional. That is the idea here.
Now, why is he describing this? In these few ślokas, until we come to number thirteen, the birth of the antaḥkaraṇa, the function and sustenance of the antaḥkaraṇa, and how this antaḥkaraṇa can be brought to an end — because that is our goal. Sādhana is meant only to bring this antaḥkaraṇa to an end. And with the help of the antaḥkaraṇa, so antaḥkaraṇa has to destroy itself. Then the problem of reflection — everything — will go away.
Next Verse: The Body Becomes Conscious Through Borrowing
Tādātmya dehas cetanām agat Tādātmya dehas cetanām agat Tādātmya dehas cetanām agat
So, matam means the teaching or the opinion of whom? As they say matam, it means somebody who knew about it. This is the teaching of somebody who knew the truth about this. So, what happens? This chāyā — here chāyā means cit-chāyā, the reflection of consciousness — and ahaṃkāra: these two become one. Not really one, but appear to be completely one, as if it becomes. The example is tapta āya piṇḍavat. Āyaḥ means an iron ball. Tapta means, if it is put in the fire, it becomes — it glows red. Now it appears as though the iron ball has acquired the power of burning. Actually you don't see the fire separately; it has become one. This has become red, and it has all the characteristics of the fire. So it is so mixed up — one appears to be the iron ball appearing to be fire, fire appearing to be iron ball.
Light and Its Reflecting Medium — A Scientific Observation
It is an interesting fact. Have you seen fire without any medium? Have you seen light without a medium? This fact is so common and so interesting — and yet we miss it. See, there is so much of sunlight here. We just go above the stratosphere — pitch black. Was there no sunlight? What happened? There was no obstruction between the sun and that place. So, why is it pitch black? Because there is no reflecting medium there. Here, there are lots of dust particles and other things. Anything is enough to reflect. Since there is no object there, you don't see the light at all.
What a wonderful fact it is. That means, what is the conclusion? The conclusion is: you can never see light — you can only infer light through the medium. But you say, "What are you talking about? We see light all over." You are not seeing light. You see only on the car. What is this light you see? It is the reflection of invisible particles there.
Digression: Colour and the Brain's Concoction
I told you there is a wonderful programme a few days back on the BBC — BBC is producing lots of marvellous programmes.
Mahārāj, is it accessible here?
Yes, you can — this is what is called one country's broadcast. Unless they themselves franchise, others cannot watch it. But there is a way to overcome that. I think it is a VPN system or something like that. As far as I tried, but we couldn't get it to work. Once the iPlayer opens up, you can watch them — or the other way is through videos or YouTube; many things they are putting. So I will mention just two things.
One beautiful programme is about seeing the stars. The other one is: "Do You See What I See?" — that means colours. There is no such thing called colour. Colour is a complete, complete misnomer.
First of all, colour is a production of the brain — a concoction of the brain. And they have shown one experiment. So they have shown four squares. The upper two squares: one is complete green, another is complete red. And in between these two, they are completely like a window — two separate windows. In between these two windows there is a small circle — very small — for you to glare at. Down below there is one picture on both these panels: a desert. Sandy colour — both sides, both panels. In between also there is a small circle where you have to glare.
Now, having shown this, the first thing they say is: "Now go on glaring at that small circle in the upper one, where the left side is green and the right side is red, for a minute or so." Before doing that, you see: this is green, this is red, and both of the lower panels are completely the same sandy colour. Now you go on glaring at it for one minute. Having glared at it, you start glaring at this lower circle. Now what happens is: that sandy picture — the left side becomes greenish and the right side becomes reddish.
And then the question — which is the original colour? That is one.
Then the second experiment: they have kept a lot of pictures — eggs, books of different colours — and a plate full of bananas. Now the experimenter goes on changing the lights. As that light changes colour, all the objects are changing their colours. Excepting the banana. The banana colour is not changing. What does that show? Because the brain thinks the banana colour must be like this only. In spite of all the changing colours, it still sees the banana as it wants to see.
I think it is the priming effect — something called the priming effect.
The point they wanted to make is: colour is purely a production of the brain — not something objectively there. It is the brain which is dictating what colour is there. And to prove this one, you can look at artists. If an artist is looking at this, he or she will look in a totally different way. Not only will red not change into green — he will see much subtler types of things. Yes, by practising.
The Sun, Moon, and Mirror: Levels of Borrowed Consciousness
So, the buddhi gets what is called the nature of consciousness to say "I am buddhi." Actually, that "I am" belongs to whom? Consciousness. So it is — the sat and the cit and the ānanda, all these three belong to the sākṣī — the pure consciousness.
So the pure consciousness, when its reflection falls, the first thing the buddhi says is "I am buddhi." I am means "I exist as buddhi" — sat. "I know I am buddhi" — cit. "I am happy, I am unhappy" — ānanda.
So in this context also, asti, the whole experience of life is divided into five: asti, bhāti, priyam, nāma and rūpa. The first three belong to pure consciousness. The last two belong to the world. That is all. Added, so asti — bhāti — priyam plus nāma-rūpa is our life.
Asti means sat. Bhāti means cit. Priyam — everything is priyam. So everything is priyam to God because it is only God. So everything is priyam for God.
So how do you explain that we don't like everything — we only like something, we dislike something?
No, the idea is: everything is dear to something. See, everything in this world is dear to something. You know there are toads — ugly toads. Who loves ugly toads? Miss Ugly Toad, when she comes out parading, Mr. Ugly Toad will be all gaga. How does he address her? "My beautiful! Honey, darlings!" So, everything is dear to something in this world because we are jīvas. But everything is dear to God because he is none other than God — meaning everything is nothing but God. That is the understanding of priyam.
How the Body Becomes Conscious: From Cit to Mind to Body
So now you see: the ahaṃkāra has become one with the reflection of the pure consciousness and then became the representative, agent of consciousness. "I am conscious." Now this deha goes and identifies itself with this — the vicāra in the form of ahaṃkāra. Just as that tapta-āyaḥ happened — this is glowing. Supposing another piece of wood, or another piece of metal, goes and embraces it — then what happens? That also starts to glow. Or one magnet — a piece attached to the magnet — then that piece becomes magnetised. Then another piece which goes and attaches to itself: that also becomes magnetised.
In that way, here the mind — the antaḥkaraṇa or the ahaṃkāra — is getting that: the ahaṃkāra itself, "I am," is a reflection of the pure consciousness in the antaḥkaraṇa. And this body or the antaḥkaraṇa goes and embraces the body. As soon as it embraces the body, the body comes to life and says, "Ah, I am smiling." This is how: from the pure consciousness to the mind, from the mind to the body.
Now, this is what explains how the body really becomes a kartā. "Body" means in this case your body is nothing but five jñānendriyas. So these five jñānendriyas become kartā — dṛk. That is the meaning of the body becoming conscious.
Mahārāj, Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāj used to give that example that if the pen had consciousness, it would have thought that I wrote that novel, not knowing the author.
Yes. That is the point. The body thinks "I am conscious," not knowing it has borrowed this consciousness from the mind.
The Hierarchy of Borrowed Consciousness: A Wholesale Analogy
Why do we say — why can't we say — it borrowed its consciousness directly from the original? You see, that lending — Lehman Brothers or whatever — they lend to other banks and the other banks lend to other banks or customers or whatever. So, why can't the customers go directly to Lehman Brothers? No. Because they only deal with wholesale.
So the mind is the wholesaler. It borrows the consciousness from the pure consciousness, and that borrowed consciousness — it freely distributes, lends itself — because it lends with conditions and all those things. "You must serve my purpose." This is the process in your office. Your shareholders, they employ this fellow as though "you represent us." He is called Executive Director, and the Executive Director appoints somebody to assist him, and those assistants — subcontracting, subcontracting, subcontracting. So that is how this whole saṃsāra grows: subcontracting.
I think we are ready to get to how to break that link. Are you? Do you think?
Listen. Not so easy. We are ready to borrow some more.
The Sun-Moon-Mirror Analogy: Three Levels of Reflection
So this is the process described. The indriyas borrow from the mind. The mind borrows from the cit-chāyā — not from the original. You see, the mirror — it borrows its power of illuminating the room from where? You see, the moment that sun goes down or the original light goes off — it is like a moon. You see, here is sunlight, here is the moon, and here is a mirror. So at night, the moonlight is falling on the mirror, and the mirror is illuminating the room and says, "Oh mirror, what a great thing you are!"
If it is a bound soul, it says, "Yes, yes, don't forget me — I am giving you light." If it is an enlightened one, it says, "No, no, I am sorry. I am only a reflective medium. I don't know anything. You ask the moon." Again, if the moon is a baddha-jīva, it says, "Yes, I am lending you." But if it is an enlightened soul, it says, "No, I am also borrowing from somebody else." Then you go to the sun, and you don't need to ask — because you know it is self-revealing.
So the sun lends to the moon, the moon lends to the mirror. What is the analogy here? The sun is the pure consciousness; the moon is the mind; the moonlight reflects in the mirror; this body is comparable to that mirror. It appears as though the mirror is giving its own light. So it illuminates the room. The room is the prapañca. The reflected reflection in the moon is the deha. It is borrowing from the mind. The moon is the mind, and the mind is borrowing from the pure consciousness.
You mean the cit-chāyā was the mind?
Cit-chāyā is in the mind. Mind is not cit. Mind is because — why is this necessary? If the original consciousness is never bound, it is only the limitedness of the mind which makes the consciousness seem to be limited. Reflecting means seem to be limited. So when we are longing for liberation, it is the mind which gets the liberation. What is it that gets liberation? The cit-chāyā is released from the mind by the breaking up of the mind — because the pure consciousness is never ever bound. When it is not bound, how do you say it is liberated? So all the liberation and bondage belong only to the reflection and never to the original thing. Otherwise your whole Advaita Vedānta will burst like a dam.
The Analogy of Pots in the Lake
You see the point. So this is a beautiful analogy — the sun. If the moon's moonlight is small, moonlight is big — that means sunlight is small, sunlight is big? The light is never small or big. It is only the mind grows small, the mind grows big, and accordingly it reflects more or less of light.
So the original thing — there is no question. It is only the cit-chāyā which, because the reflecting medium is broken, it appears as though that which is bound is gone.
These are given in so many ways. In a lake you immerse five or six pots — imagine they are different coloured pots. We want water from the third tumbler, number fourth tumbler. But what is inside is exactly the same. It appears as though the water inside and the water outside — this inside and outside is because of what? Because of the limiting agent, we are forced to classify the water also into two types: inside water and outside water. The moment you break the pot, it appears as though the inside water has rushed out and merged in the outside water. Yet, what rushed out? What rushed in? What rushed in was the tumbler. What rushed out is the tumbler. But because we don't see the water, it appears as though water is rushing in and water is rushing out. So what is rushing in and rushing out is only the tumbler.
Verse Eight: The Three Relationships of Ahaṃkāra
Ahaṃkārasya tādātmye picchayādehaSākṣibhiḥ Sahajaṃ karmajaṃ bhrānti-janyaṃ ca trividhaṃ kramāt
This is the most interesting verse so far. What is it? The original consciousness is there, then this antaḥkaraṇa is there, then the body is there. The original consciousness is also consciousness — light. The ahaṃkāra also is the reflected light, and the body also appears to be light. In between — original one here and body here — the antaḥkaraṇa is there. All these three are, we become conscious of, because of that cit-chāyā. And that cit-chāyā manifests in the form of ahaṃkāra.
Now that ahaṃkāra has got these three things. What are those three things? One is the original consciousness, another is the cit-chāyā, and another is the body. So what is the relationship of ahaṃkāra with the body? What is its relationship with the antaḥkaraṇa — which is cit-chāyā? What is the relationship between the reflection and the reflecting medium? What is the relationship between the reflection and the original? And: the reflection itself is a body — what is its relationship with its own body nature?
In other words, ahaṃkāra has to deal with these three. Ahaṃkāra with body, ahaṃkāra with the mind, and ahaṃkāra with the pure consciousness. What a beautiful analysis he is bringing! You don't hear of this anywhere.
It is necessary to find out what is the relationship — because if you don't know what connects you, you will not know how to disconnect.
The Three Types of Relationships: Sahajam, Karmajam, Bhrānti-janyam
Ahaṃkārasya tādātmya — tādātmya means tapta-āyaḥ-piṇḍavat — with the body. That is why the body says, "I am the body." That means there are two: the body is there, the ahaṃkāra is there — then only "I am the body."
1. Karmajam — the relationship with the body
The ahaṃkāra with this body is purely karmajam. Meaning what? The karma shapes the body, and the ahaṃkāra reflects itself. "I am small, I am big, I am intelligent, I passed, I failed. I am old, I am young, I am enlightened." All those things — it is totally dependent upon karma. Why is it? Because the karma alters this relationship all the time.
You see: "I am a baby." Then the baby grows up: "Oh, I am a grown-up." Suppose a person failed: "I failed." The person works hard — karma — and then he passes: "I passed." See, everything depends upon karma. How to get rid of it? Karma Yoga. A karma yogi is one who has no relationship with karma. The moment there is no relationship with karma, the relationship with the body is also totally destroyed. Okay, that is why it is called karmajam.
2. Sahajam — the natural relationship with Cit-Chāyā
Sahajam means: its origin itself is dependent upon the antaḥkaraṇa. Therefore, until the antaḥkaraṇa is destroyed, this natural relationship you can't alter by work or any such thing. It is not possible. Because without cit-chāyā, the ahaṃkāra itself will not be there. Ahaṃkāra itself is the result of cit-chāyā. The reflecting medium and the reflection — they go together. Their relationship is natural and eternal.
3. Bhrānti-janyam — the illusory relationship with Pure Consciousness
What is the relationship of reflection with the original? It is bhrānti. What is bhrānti? There is no relationship at all. This is living, this is dead. This is eternal, this is temporary.
What is this reflected ahaṃkāra saying now? "I am puny. I am born. I am growing. I am going to be dead." But the cit itself will never say, "I am born and I am going to be dead." Therefore, completely diametrically opposite characteristics. Therefore, bhrānti-janyam means: the ahaṃkāra is born out of bhrānti. How can there be a relationship? There is no relationship. So if there is no relationship, but there seems to be a relationship — which is called bhrānti — when does the bhrānti get out?
See, you are seeing a snake. Your relationship with the rope is purely bhrānti. You are seeing nothing but the rope, but you are imagining it is a snake. So it is creating a problem. What is the way out? Bring light. Then the snake disappears. So the opposite of bhrānti is jñānam. The opposite of ajñānam is jñānam. When jñānam comes, not only that will disappear — jñānam is the final destruction for all three types of relationships. That is what he wants to say.
Verse Nine: How to Destroy the Three Relationships
Sambandhe naṣṭayor nāsti nivṛtti sahajasyāto Karmakṣayāt praboddhāchya nivṛtte te kramādube Nivṛtte te kramādube
Now he is telling how we can get out of these three types of relationships. Mukti means getting out of relationship. Relationship is possible only when there is a duality — there must be a minimum of two. That is why it is called dvaita. So advaita — no relationship. Dvaita — always relationship will be there.
All relationships fall into three categories. So one important point for us to remember: all these three relationships are completely bhrānti-jñāna only. Why? Just as in your dream — when you go into your dream, how many of you are there in the dream? Two.
One is the witness — because when you wake up, "I saw myself as a small girl taking the school books and walking, and a dog came walking." An incident that happened 30 years back comes rushing into your mind. Three things. What are those three things? The first thing is the original you, witnessing the whole dream — that is how you remember. The character in your dream doesn't remember the dream. It is you, your original you, who remembers what happened in the dream. Then your creation of yourself in the dream. And then your creation of everything else in the dream.
So it is: your creation of yourself — "Oh, this person likes me, that person doesn't like me, this dog is barking at me" etc. — all is dependent upon that one. Even if you see a hundred people, that hundred totally depend upon that reflected you, created by you in the dream. And you, the created one, and how you are relating and reacting — that is being recorded simultaneously by the original you who created that dream.
Destroying the Karmaja Relationship: Karmakṣaya
So now, with that understanding, let us go. The second sentence — karmakṣayāt — the karmaja relationship is destroyed. Karmakṣayāt means by the destruction of karma. Destruction of karma can be done in two ways.
If you are a spiritual practitioner, through the practice of karma yoga, karmakṣaya is done. But if you are liberated, of course, the whole karma will come to an end — because when you have given up your identity with the body, there is no karma. There is no karma.
Let us give an example. Suppose you have a car, and imagine this car had some defects. You know the defects are there, but you didn't have enough money, so you just repaired one or two, and somehow it is running — but you know there are so many defects which will come up in the future which you have not rectified now. Imagine this kind of car.
Now, already there are some things you have repaired — to that extent the car runs alright — but some defects which you know are there but have not repaired: those defects, even when you are running the car, those defects are also running simultaneously. Start walking — kaṭ, kaṭ, kaṭ, khaṭ. All these things happen. So you see: the doors are creaking, and this one sometimes works, sometimes only half works. So that is prārabdha. So that prārabdha is there. And then, because you have not repaired, this will develop some more future karma. If you don't, then the ball bearing will wear out, and then one day something will fall off. All these things will happen.
Imagine you have this car — imagine one day you have a neighbour and you park the car in between both your houses. Imagine one night you sold the car to that neighbour. The car is still there. Before, if something happens to the car, you are affected. After you sell, you are sleeping — sound sleep — your neighbour is keeping himself awake. So a jīvan-mukta is like one who has sold his car. He has returned it to the original owner: "Now had enough of it, now you look after it." And he is happily enjoying it. Still the car is there. Imagine that your neighbour is good enough to say, "For a few days you use it." Now you are happily running fast — "I don't care, because whatever happens, it belongs to the other person who owns it."
So now, do you see what is the problem? Karmakṣaya — either you disassociate yourself with it, even if you have that body, or you get complete knowledge of who you are. In either case it doesn't affect you.
Destroying the Bhrānti-janya Relationship: Prabodha
Then prabodha — by awakening. Here prabodha means not getting up from sleep, but by illumination — through acquisition of jñāna, knowledge. The bhrānti-jñāna relationship comes to an end. How does the relationship — previously you say "I am small, you are big" — now there is no two. There is only one: "I am That." So there is no relationship at all.
So when we say "I am one," the smaller one becomes destroyed. The alone — that one alone remains. That is why: pūrṇaṃ pūrṇam udacyate, pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya, pūrṇam eva avaśiṣyate. You have attained knowledge. Therefore, bhrānti-jñāna goes through jñāna. Through karmakṣaya, it destroys the relationship with the body.
What is the third relationship remaining now?
What is that sahajam? Until the antaḥkaraṇa is destroyed, its relationship will never come to an end. And that antaḥkaraṇa will be destroyed only with the jñāna: "I am no more an antaḥkaraṇa." So for that, sādhana has to be done.
Final Knowledge Destroys All Three
We talked about knowledge in two places — destroying bhrānti and destroying the sahaja relationship. Is this the same knowledge that destroys both?
The real knowledge destroys all three. All three. So karmakṣaya can be destroyed in two ways — that is why I said. One way: as a sādhaka, you still have the body, but you can say — if you are a bhakta, "This body belongs to God; in either case it doesn't belong to me." If you are a karma yogi, you say, "This body — I have no relationship with this body." Though you have not attained the final knowledge, this is called karma yoga. Some relationship is there, but it doesn't affect you that much. But karmakṣaya will come to an end the moment you become a yogī; your future karma comes to an end. But your sañcita and āgāmi, both come to an end. Prārabdha karma you just bear as a tapasyā.
So if you are bearing it, what is the difference now? The difference is: previously you were thinking, "I am the body." Now you are thinking: "There is a body in which I am trapped, but I will try to put up with it as much as possible." So that way, until karmakṣaya happens, you are out. Even though body is there, even though body is doing something, you don't feel you are doing it. So the effect becomes much, much reduced. But the final, complete separation will come only when the knowledge arrives.
So the word karmakṣaya means destruction of karma. But here in this context we can understand it in two ways. When knowledge comes, because you have no relationship with karma, your karmakṣaya is gone — like selling your car. In the other case also, because you are a yogī, the karmakṣaya is not gone, but your relationship — "I am suffering" or "I am doing this" — comes to an end. Either the effect comes to an end and your relationship is gone, or the relationship is gone.
You know, a crude example to give: suppose a person is married, and the marriage is not very happy. It can end in two ways. If one of the partners dies, then the relationship comes to an end. The other way: the person divorces and goes away — then the relationship, even though the partner is there, because the relationship is gone, the associated suffering becomes reduced to a great extent.
The Sahaja Relationship: Cannot End While Both Exist
So now one relationship is there — what is that relationship? Sahaja. Sahaja is never going to come to an end — both either die or both live. If both live, because they cannot die separately — they are born together, and they also die together. So that is why he says that is never going to happen.
Sambandhinoḥ stataḥ nāsti — because this is sambandhinoḥ, mutually related — the ego and the cit-chāyā — that is why he says nāsti: so long as they are, stataḥ means they are together. Nivṛtti sahajasyātu — so because the relationship is sahaja, nivṛtti nāsti — there is no destroying this relationship. That means the antaḥkaraṇa cannot stand aside from cit-chāyā. Otherwise, how does it know that "I am antaḥkaraṇa"? And if the cit-chāyā is not there, the antaḥkaraṇa doesn't know. If the antaḥkaraṇa is not there, where is cit-chāyā? If the reflecting medium is gone, the reflection also will go. If the reflection also goes away, the reflecting medium will not be called a reflecting medium at all. Either they both come together, or they both go together.
Why is it like that? If there is no student, the teacher will not be called a teacher. If there is no student, no person will be called a teacher. Even one student is enough — so far as that person is concerned, if that person goes to sleep, what happens to the teacher? There is no teacher. So far as that student is concerned, the others may think. So this is a beautiful relationship.
That means what? So long as there is a mind, you cannot destroy the mind — that is not possible. But you can try to destroy the other two. And if you destroy the other two, then this also will be destroyed, because the bhrānti itself goes away. All three will go away.
Verse Ten: The Three States — Jāgrat, Svapna, Suṣupti
Mahārāj, are there any examples where we can possibly guess that this person has probably done with his karma, but he still has this sahaja relationship?
There are so many examples. First example: each one of us are perfect examples of that for some hours every day. In suṣupti — when you are in suṣupti, you are still alive, your body is alive, and your cit-chāyā is alive. Your cit-chāyā is alive, because what is it that thinks it is going into deep sleep? It is not pure consciousness — it has nothing to do with that. It is the cit-chāyā which moves on, saying, "I am in the waking state." Who is it that says "I am in the waking state"? Cit-chāyā. Who is it that says "I am in the dream"? Cit-chāyā. And who is it that says "I am in deep sleep"? Cit-chāyā.
Actually, Mahārāj, only after coming out of deep sleep we say that I had a good sleep, but when I am there I don't say I am. I don't know.
You are talking foolishly! The moment you say "I had a nice dinner" — without eating dinner, could you ever say "I had a nice dinner"? No. Just answer me.
He presumes. Abhāva — there is no dvaita experience there, but you are there.
That is why you say "I did not know anything." To know "I did not know anything," somebody should be there. Because that is the memory you had — and that memory came back as "I had wonderful sleep." Who had that wonderful sleep? Cit is not telling. Cit doesn't even know that it is in either waking or dream or dreamless state. It is only cit-chāyā which is associated and tells — as contrasted.
The Logic of Negation and the Three States
Now let me put it this way, because this needs a little bit of logic and thinking. Now, whenever we say "I am so and so," simultaneously we are saying "I am not the other things." But if you have to go on saying "I am not this, I am not this," then you will never complete the sentence "I am this" — like the Thousand and One Arabian Nights story. So simply we say "I am this," but meaning "I am nothing else."
So when we say, "In which state are you?" — "Are you in the waking state? No. Are you in the dream state? No." Do you see — do you understand what I am pointing out? You are presuming: "I was not in the waking state, I was not in the dream state." That is why you are saying "I am in another state which is related to these states." Otherwise, what other state is there? You must be a jīvan-mukta. You are not in that state because you are coming to these two other states.
That is why when we say something — "I know this" — that always presumes "I do not know the other thing." That itself limits. "I do not know the other thing" means "I know something." I know something and I don't know the other thing. If you know everything of even one, you know everything of everything. Then you become free. Differentiation will vanish.
Deep Sleep: Suṣupti as an Illustration of the Sahaja Relationship
So, deep sleep — we are alive but we completely disassociate. But that dissociation doesn't come from our conscious effort. In fact it comes from our unconsciousness — because if you consciously want to go to sleep, it is never possible.
In fact, we are all jīvan-muktas in the sense that if I am suffering, you don't suffer. You are a jīvan-mukta so far as I am concerned, so far as the whole universe is concerned. 99.999999% — you are jīvan-mukta only. Only a little bit — "I am Kiran" — that is the only problem!
Verse Ten: The Body Becomes Achetana Without Ahaṃkāra
Ahaṃkāra-laye suṣuptau bhavet dehaḥ api acetanaḥ
So, ahaṃkāra-laye suṣuptau — when in deep sleep, this ahaṃkāra becomes merged. Then what happens? Dehaḥ api acetanaḥ — the deha becomes acetana. Acetana means what? It appears to be alive for others, but it itself is completely acetana. Acetana means: to feel "I am," "I can do this," "I want to do this" — all those functions cease. It just becomes a kind of machine.
You know, like a chicken: after you cut off its head, it still flaps. That has nothing to do. It is not suffering — it is dead. It is only the remaining motor, muscular reaction — automated reaction. It goes on for a long time. Even a snake — cut off its head — it goes on moving for a long time.
Anyway, the point is: in deep sleep, when ahaṃkāra is not functioning, the body itself appears to be acetana. That is a proof: without ahaṃkāra, the body cannot be conscious.
Ahaṃkāra in the Three States
Ahaṃkāra vikāsārtha svapnaḥ — when the ahaṃkāra is half functioning, that is called svapna avasthā. When ahaṃkāra is fully functional, then that is called jāgrat avasthā. So he is now describing how this ahaṃkāra functions in the three states of jāgrat, svapna, and suṣupti.
When it is in suṣupti, the whole body becomes acetana — and by extension, the whole jāgrat prapañca disappears. When the ahaṃkāra is half awake, two things happen: the external jāgrat avasthā is completely gone, but ahaṃkāra is half working. Then the vāsanās gathered in the waking state — with that material, you go on creating lots of imagery. That is called the state of svapna avasthā. And when the ahaṃkāra is 100% manifest, then it is called jāgrat avasthā.
That is why sādhana cannot be done either in svapna avasthā or in suṣupti avasthā. It can be done only in pūrṇa ahaṃkāra. Pūrṇa ahaṃtā here is not our jāgrat avasthā — pūrṇa ahaṃtā means Brahman's complete "I am" state. That was the state of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa.
The Mask Analogy: Degrees of Manifestation of Cit-Chāyā
Now your question is: what happens in suṣupti? It is there, but it is not manifest.
Now when we say "it is not functional," you have to understand again clearly — when you say "you are not working," you are not manifesting your power. Reflecting medium is not there.
You know, just imagine I am sitting here. Imagine you put on a mask — completely black — then what do I see? I don't see anything. Then you just put two slits: then I see a little bit. Then you take off the mask completely: then I see completely. So in this sense I am saying "I don't see anything," "I see a little," "I see everything."
It is not me who is not able to see — I am able to see completely — but it is this limitation imposed upon me which is making me feel "I don't see" or "I see a little." Even though I am using those words, I am capable of seeing everything, but not able to see because of this limitation. That is the point.
So the cit-chāyā is completely functional — because the light of consciousness can never become unconscious. But if you say it is completely unconscious, that means a mask is put over it. If it is able to function half, that means a smaller mask where half it can function, half it cannot. If it is able to function completely, that means there is no mask at all. That is the way we have to understand it. Pure consciousness can never be made unconscious.
That is why Ṭhākur chides Sivānāth Śāstrī. He says, "I am he who thinks of God who is full consciousness and I become unconscious, and you fellows who think of the world — you are fully conscious." There is a lot of meaning in what he says.
Conclusion: Knowledge Is the Destroyer of All Three Relationships
So, cit-chāyā — that is why the earlier connections we have to remember. What is the connection? Sahajam, karmajam and bhrānti-janyam. So until knowledge dawns, these relationships will never be destroyed.
So what does that mean? What is cit-chāyā? It is a reflection of the consciousness. The reflection is not — the cit is not becoming small. It is because of the reflecting medium. So remove the reflecting medium. Reflecting mediums are these two types: body and mind. Remove these mediums — then the cit-chāyā also goes away with that. Then the person is completely free.
Deep sleep is not removing the relationship, because there is a subtle vṛtti there. That subtle vṛtti is called kāraṇa-vṛtti. The mind is not absent in deep sleep. Mind is in a very, very subtle state. It is that which is carried to the waking state — and you remember it: "I had good sleep, I did not know anything."