This study series will examine the third chapter of ‘Pañcadaśi’ written by Swami Vidyāraṇya, a 14th century Vedāntin. The third chapter titled, ‘Pañcakośa Viveka’ (The Differentiation of the Five Sheaths), is based on the second chapter of the Taittīriyopaniṣad. The chapter aims to explain what the five sheaths are and how they are not Brahman which is satyam jñānaṁ anantam (existence, consciousness, infinite).
Śloka 1:
Swami Vidyāraṇya declares that Brahman which is lodged in the cave of the heart (guhā āhitam) is certainly knowable. If Brahman is knowable, then what is the method for uncovering Brahman? It is knowable through knowledge (boddhuṁ śakyam); this knowledge being the differentiation of the pañca-kośas (five sheaths). By utilizing the torch of knowledge, a sādhaka (practitioner/seeker) can illuminate the cave and see beyond the apparent five sheaths to ‘reveal’ Brahman.
Śloka 2:
What are these pañca-kośas? The pañca-kośas are sheaths that ‘obscure’ Brahman. This obscuration of Brahman occurs due to the sādhaka’s identification with each sheath. Here, Swami Vidyāraṇya explains that the pañca-kośas exist in succession of each other (paramparā), each subtler than the preceding kośa. Additionally, each kośa is in control of the previous, less subtle kośa. The pañca-kośas are in the following order of outermost/least subtle to innermost/subtlest:
- Annamaya–kośa: lit. ‘food sheath’ or the gross body
- Prāṇamaya–kośa: vital air sheath that governs all the physiological functions of the gross body
- Manomaya–kośa: mental sheath, the seat of the emotions
- Vijñānamaya–kośa: intellectual sheath, which gives the notion of ‘doership’
- Ānandamaya–kośa: bliss sheath
It is explained that this paramparā of the pañca-kośas constitute the ‘cave’ that Brahman resides in (guhā seyaṁ paramparā).
Ślokas 3-4:
Starting with the least subtle sheath, the annamaya–kośa, or the ‘food sheath’, Swami Vidyāraṇya discusses the well-accepted Vedic concept that an individual’s gross body is formed from the seed and blood of the parents. The parental seed and blood is formed by the food that was consumed by the parents, and subsequently the body of the individual is also formed and nourished with food. So why is the annamaya–kośa not Brahman, i.e., the Self? Unlike Brahman which exists in the past, present, and will continue to exist in the future, the body has a definite point of origin and will cease to exist at some point in the future.
Continuing the discussion regarding the annamaya–kośa in śloka 4, what is the cause of an individual’s current body that came into existence at a certain point in time? Given that the current body did not exist in the past, it certainly cannot be the cause of the current body a jīvātmā inhabits. Vedic dharma espouses that the karma (enjoying and/or suffering the results of one’s actions) dictates the type of body that arises. Therefore, the body is an effect of karma and cannot be its own cause.
Furthermore, given that the gross body is perishable, the results of karma that were accumulated in the current life would not be able to fructify without another body being inhabited by the jīvātmā in the future (i.e., the result of one’s actions are not necessarily enjoyed and/or suffered in one’s current life). Thus, karma causes another body to come into existence after a jīvātmā leaves the current body they are in.
By accepting that karma is the cause of the body, one avoids two doṣas (faults or defects) in reasoning: akṛta-abhyāgama doṣa and kṛta-vipranāśa doṣa. Akṛta-abhyāgama doṣa (defect of reaping results of actions which were never performed) is avoided as it would be unreasonable to believe, assuming the law of karma, that the body randomly came into existence devoid of any cause. Kṛta-vipranāśa doṣa (defect of destruction of results of actions which have not been experienced) is avoided by accepting that the actions an individual performed in the current life are the cause for the jīvātmā to inhabit another body and experience the results of those actions performed in previous lives.
Overall, because the annamaya–kośa, the gross body, is perishable and cannot be the cause of itself, it certainly cannot be Brahman.
Śloka 5:
Continuing on the discussion of the pañca-kośas, Swami Vidyāraṇya expounds on the prāṇamaya–kośa, or the vital air sheath. What are these prāṇas (vital airs)? There are five types of prāṇa, namely:
Prāṇa: that which facilitates the act of breathing, both inhalation and exhalation
Apāna: that which facilitates evacuation of waste products, i.e., urine, feces, etc.
Vyāna: that which facilitates the circulation of blood and nutrients to the body
Udāna: that which facilitates ‘reverse processes’ in the body such as coughing, sneezing, burping, vomiting, etc. Additionally, the subtle body leaving the gross body at the time of death is facilitated by udāna
Samāna: that which facilitates the act of digestion
These five types of prāṇa pervade the body and provide power and motion to the senses that are essential to the sustenance of life. These five types of prāṇa are both voluntary and involuntary and continue to function even while an individual is asleep. Defects in any of these prāṇas can lead to deterioration in one’s body in the form of generally weakness/lethargy all the way to an appearance of diseases and disorders. This demonstrates how the prāṇamaya–kośa is more subtle than the gross body, the annamaya–kośa.
Given the above information on the vital role that the prāṇamaya–kośa plays in sustaining one’s life, why is it not considered Brahman? Swami Vidyāraṇya declares plainly that it is not Brahman given that it is devoid of consciousness (caitanya varjanāt). A sādhaka experiences the Self by perceiving that he or she is a conscious being capable of thought, feeling, and knowing. Despite the crucial role the vital airs play in the sustenance of the body, they are incapable of conscious thought, feeling, and knowing. Furthermore, breath, for example, can be controlled by the mind which is more subtle (discussed in śloka 6); the prāṇas can even be stopped in the state of samādhi. Thus, that which can be controlled cannot be the Self.
Śloka 6:
Next, Swami Vidyāraṇya details the manomaya–kośa, or the mental sheath, i.e., the mind. The mind is the instrument in which the ideas of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ arise in regards to one’s own body, home, possessions, etc. One may object that how can one’s body not be one’s own or how can one’s material possessions not truly be their own? An individual cannot lay claim to someone else’s body, nor in most moral societies lay claim to someone else’s home and material goods. Can anyone claim that they created their own body or created the constituent materials that make up the construction of one’s home and possessions? Furthermore, can anyone claim that the sustenance of the body through the various involuntary natural functions is solely through one’s own efforts? Certainly not.
Furthermore, Swami Vidyāraṇya explains why the manomaya–kośa, though more subtle than the annamaya-kośa and prāṇamaya-kośa, is also not Brahman. The mind experiences various desires, goes through variegated states of pleasure and pain, is capable of being deluded, and is unstable in nature. Any honest sādhaka is well aware that various waves of desires manifest in the mind and subsequent bouts of pleasurable or displeasurable feelings arise based on whether these desires are fulfilled. These bouts of emotions manifest with varying intensity and negate each other constantly. For example, an individual may accomplish a goal and ascend to a high mental peak of happiness due to this achievement. However, as most individuals have experienced, one’s happiness will eventually subside and other emotions such as sadness, anger, fear, apathy, etc., may manifest in the mind. Overall, the mind is unstable and temperamental in contradistinction to Brahman.
Śloka 7:
More subtle than the manomaya–kośa is the vijñānamaya–kośa, or the intellectual sheath. The vijñānamaya–kośa is endowed with the reflection of Pure Consciousness. This reflection of pure consciousness is what gives rise to the primal ‘I thought’ (which is then manifested via the mind as the instrument). Furthermore, the vijñānamaya–kośa pervades the entire body till the tips of the nails (or extremities of the body).
However, as the author explains, this pervasion of the intellectual sheath only exists in the waking state and disappears once an individual enters into deep sleep. The ‘I thought’ is prevalent during the waking state, but exists only in a dormant state during deep sleep. Therefore, since the vijñānamaya–kośa also exhibits different properties during the waking and deep sleep states and is not constant like Brahman, it cannot be considered Brahman.
Śloka 8:
Swami Vidyāraṇya details in the previous two ślokas the manomaya–kośa (mind sheath) and the vijñānamaya–kośa (intellectual sheath). Here in śloka 8, the author now provides more clarity on the function of these two kośas and the reason for their treatment as two different kośas. Overall, the antara-indriya, or inner instrument/organ (i.e., the mind-intellect complex), has the function of both karaṇatva (instrument-ship) and kartṛtva (agency, or doership). The relationship between the two can also be characterized as the intellect, buddhi, being the employer and the mind, manas, being the employee.
The manas functions as an instrument in the outer world by intaking the perceptions derived from the sense objects and ‘presenting’ them to the buddhi. The buddhi is niscayātma, or that which determines. The buddhi receives the information presented by the mind and makes decisions on which action to take in relation to the information it has received. Thus, due to this hierarchical relationship between the manas and the buddhi (though while the manas and buddhi are part of one complex overall), the manas is considered ‘outer’ while the buddhi is considered ‘inner’.
Ślokas 9-10:
Deeper and more subtle than both the manomaya–kośa and the vijñānamaya–kośa is the last kośa: ānandamaya-kośa (bliss sheath). Swami Vidyāraṇya explains that there is a deeper, subtler thought, or vṛtti. What is this vṛtti that occurs in the ānandamaya-kośa? Swami Vidyāraṇya explains it as ānanda-pratibimba-bhāk; essentially, it is experienced as the pratibimba (reflection) of the Self which is of the nature of ānanda (bliss). When is this bliss experienced? This bliss is experienced at the time of enjoyment of our good actions/merits (puṇya-bhoge).
If the manomaya–kośa is the seat of the emotions, including moments of joy and happiness, what differentiates this kośa and the ānandamaya-kośa? The answer is as such: the joy that one experiences while fixating on the object, i.e., one feels joy seeing a sunset, but continues to be aware of the object as that joy is experienced is in the manomaya–kośa. However, if one experiences a degree of joy so deep that the object is dropped from awareness, that joy is derived from the ānandamaya-kośa. Within the ‘domain’ of the ānandamaya-kośa, there are three types of joy experienced: priya, moda, and pramoda. To illustrate an example, imagine a person has a deep relationship with a certain friend. If that person sees that friend and experiences a moment of bliss where even that friend as an object of thought is dropped, that is classified as priya. An increasing sense of bliss (moda) is experienced when that person goes up and meets the friend; in that moment, he or she forgets everything and simply revels in the bliss. Finally, if the person embraces their friend and in the moment does not distinguish between their own self and the friend, this enhanced moment of bliss is known as pramoda. Overall, the point is that the joy/bliss that is experienced in the ānandamaya-kośa is when the object of enjoyment is dropped from awareness and can be experienced in a manner of increasing intensity.
This bliss is experienced in the waking state, but is ultimately merges in deep sleep (nidra-rupeṇa). However, when a person experiences this bliss in deep sleep, they are also unaware that this bliss is coming from the Self.
If Brahman is sat–cit–ānanda (existence-consciousness-bliss), then why is the ānanda derived from the ānandamaya-kośa not Brahman? It cannot be Brahman because the bliss experienced is temporal and the degree of bliss is oftentimes variable. Furthermore, since this bliss is caused by puṇya, it cannot be Brahman. Brahman is ever present, uncaused, and there is no variable gradation of ānanda.
Śloka 11:
A purva-pakṣa, or opposing view, is raised by the student on the subject of pañca-kośa viveka (deliberation on the five sheaths) that was explained in the previous ten ślokas. The student states that if the five sheaths are taken to not be Brahman, the issue arises is that when they are negated, nothing is experienced past the ānandamaya-kośa.
Ślokas 12-13:
In response to the purva-pakṣa, Swami Vidyāraṇya agrees with the view that indeed that all the pañca-kośas (five sheaths) from the annamaya–kośa (food sheath) to the ānandamaya-kośa (bliss sheath) are experienced. Furthermore, he accepts that nothing beyond these sheaths is experienced. However, does this imply that nothing beyond the annamaya–kośa exists? No, this does not follow. To accept that experiences occur, but to deny there is an experiencer experiencing the experience is unreasonable.
Swami Vidyāraṇya continues in śloka 13 to explain that the Self cannot be perceived as an object of experience; rather, it is of the nature of experience Itself. In a sādhaka’s daily experience, he or she perceives a multitude of physical objects or phenomena via the senses. The object is perceived and becomes an object of knowledge in the sadhaka’s mind. However, this process of objectification cannot occur with regards to the Self.
Ślokas 14-15
Swami Vidyāraṇya further elucidates in śloka 14-15 this concept that the Self is the nature of experience by stating that objects/foods that taste sweet, bitter, etc., transmit their taste to other objects/foods. Those objects that have inherent sweetness, bitterness, etc., do not rely on other foods that they transmit their taste to, for their own inherent nature. For example, sugar is of the nature of sweetness. If a sādhaka opens a bag of sugar, takes a spoonful, and dissolves the sugar into a glass of plain water, then the water also takes on the taste of sweetness. What is the nature of the remaining sugar in the bag? Does the water now need to be used to transmit sweetness into the remaining sugar? No, as sugar is inherently of the nature of sweetness. Similarly, the Self is of the nature of consciousness in of Itself. The Self powers the body-mind-intellect complex of the individual jīva (individual self). The body-mind-intellect complex need not illuminate or power the Self because the Self is self-effulgent. It is of the nature of Consciousness.
Śloka 16:
Swami Vidyāraṇya, having briefly elucidated each of the five kośas (sheaths) and their respective functions, now provides pramāṇa (valid means of knowledge) from śāstra (scripture); namely, various sayings from the Upaniṣads. Śloka 16 begins by citing a statement from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad that the Ātman is svayaṁ–jyoti, or self-revealing. What does this mean exactly? An example to illustrate this self-revealing nature is to picture oneself in the state of deep sleep. In deep sleep, the senses, the mind, and the ego are ‘shut down’, and yet, one is still aware (i.e., one does not die in deep sleep). Despite this ‘shut down’ state of the body and mind, one still exists in deep sleep, thus this reveals that the illuminating principle is the Ātman.
Furthermore, the author then writes a saying from the Nṛsiṁha-Uttara-Tāpanīya Upaniṣad that the Ātman alone was shining prior to the manifestation of the created universe. This is followed by sayings from the Muṇḍaka, Kaṭha, and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣads that the shining Ātman is the reason why everything in the material universe shines, i.e., functions through the Ātman’s ‘nature’ of illumination. Without the Ātman, one cannot experience the world. Though the full moon appears brilliant in the night sky, its power to illuminate cannot occur without the brilliant light of the sun shining on it.
Śloka 17:
Swami Vidyāraṇya continues by asking how if the Ātman, Pure Awareness, allows everything in the universe to be known, then how can it be apprehended by anything but Pure Awareness itself? The material mind and senses have clear limitations and are limited to their own respective domains. For example, a sādhaka uses his or her eyes to see a field of flowers, but can those same eyes smell the fragrance of those flowers? No, as the eyes cannot carry out the function of the nose.
As established in earlier ślokas, the Ātman is beyond the senses, thus it cannot be apprehended via the senses. Furthermore, the Ātman is beyond the mind and intellect. Thus, one cannot ‘think’ about the Ātman directly. One may object that the Upanishads spend a great deal of time in explaining what the Ātman is. This is true, but it should be noted that these words simply indicate the Ātman. The Ātman cannot be apprehended via inferential arguments as inference (anumāna) depends on direct perception (pratyakṣa). Furthermore, the Ātman cannot be ‘realized’ via methods of postulation and comparison. Overall, the point is that the mind and senses are restricted to their specific functional domains, and thus, the sādhaka is instructed to go beyond the words and thoughts to realize the Ātman.
Śloka 18:
Swami Vidyāraṇya continues his exposition on the utter unknowability of Ātman as an object. Ātman is beyond both the known and also what is unknown. Ātman is not unknown because it is one’s own Self! All that is known is only knowable through the Ātman empowering the body-mind-intellect complex. A person may look at a bouquet of flowers present on a table. The person obviously perceives the flowers via their sense of sight and a duality between the subject (the seeing person) and the object is present.
Previously in śloka 17, it was established that Ātman is not perceived via the mind or the senses as the mind and senses are restricted to their specific functional domains. Furthermore, the senses and the mind devoid of Consciousness become inert and unable to function. Overall, nothing can dissociate from Ātman , thus any perceptual instrument or the mind cannot know Ātman, since Ātman cannot be an object of thought to ultimately realize it.
Ślokas 19-20:
Swami Vidyāraṇya bluntly questions the use of teaching scriptures to such a person who appears human, yet claims they do not know what Consciousness is or to have ever experienced it. Consciousness is ever-experienced and everyone is of the nature of Consciousness.
In śloka 20, a humorous but apt example is given. Swami Vidyāraṇya states that it is shameful for a man to question if they have a tongue or not, given that they have verbally expressed this question. Similarly, if Consciousness is ever-experienced and no experience cannot be said to be devoid of it, then how can anyone doubt Consciousness? The tongue is an instrument used to vocalize words, but Consciousness is fundamentally the root of all experience. Thus, it is illogical to state that one has not experienced Consciousness, just as it is illogical to question whether one has a tongue while they are speaking.
Śloka 21:
Supposing a person still insists on some sort of practice to experience Consciousness, Swami Vidyāraṇya describes a method that can be undertaken. One should shift their focus away from the objects that are perceived and what remains is Consciousness. This is the nature of the determination of Brahman or Ātman. While Consciousness is ever-experienced, this becomes more apparent when one sits and the thoughts become silenced. Thoughts are nothing but Consciousness plus an object. Thus, by the mind being silenced and merging into Ātman, nothing but Ātman remains.
Śloka 22:
Swami Vidyāraṇya, continuing from śloka 21, explains that by shifting the focus away from objects and the pañca-kośas, sākṣī, or the Pure Witness, remains. Dismissing the pañca-kośas is not a literal eradication of the body, vital airs, mind, etc., but simply non-identification with them. Any embodied being, either realized or ignorant, possesses the pañca-kośas, but the realized being does not identify with them. Earlier in Chapter 3, a series of seven ślokas (3.3-3.10) detail the function of the pañca-kośas and why they cannot be Brahman/Ātman. Overall, the theme is that all the pañca-kośas lack permanence, are unstable, and are inert in of themselves. However, sākṣī is our true nature, is Brahman, and it cannot be non-existent (śūnyam).
Ślokas 23-24:
If one contemplates his or her own existence, surely they cannot deny that they exist. Brahman is verily existence itself. If a person challenges this viewpoint and denies their very own existence, then who exactly is the opponent that they are opposing, given that this person is denying their existence outright?
In śloka 24, Swami Vidyāraṇya bluntly states that it is only due to delusion that a person could consider that he or she does not exist. The śruti (revealed scriptures) affirms the existence of Ātman and refutes those who deny this position. Our very nature is to exist and our experience in transactional daily life supports this. We desire to be recognized and our presence to be felt. Thus, it is only due to delusion that one can deny their own existence.
Śloka 25:
Swami Vidyāraṇya further bolsters śloka 24 by citing Taittīriya Upaniṣad 2.6.1: “If he knows Brahman as non-existent, he becomes himself non-existent.” Brahman is existence in of itself, so one cannot deny their own existence. While it is true that Brahman is not subject to objectification as discussed earlier in various multiple ślokas, one’s own existence is the key to understanding that Brahman surely exists.
Verses 26 – 28 | How Does One Know the Self?
Ślokas 26-27:
A natural question may then arise: “What is the nature of the Brahman/Ātman (the Self)?” Swami Vidyāraṇya aptly states that Brahman is not ‘like this’ (īdṛk) or not ‘like that’ (tādṛk).
One can pick an object of choice in the material world and describe it in great detail. Brahman being beyond objectification cannot be described in the same manner as it is beyond such description. An object is subject to change even in the observer’s viewpoint in the material world. For example, a person may be sitting at a desk and can describe the cup on the desk as ‘this cup’. Later on, the cup may be moved out of sight of the observer. The cup that was described as ‘this cup’ is now described as ‘‘that cup’. While subtle, this change in the position of the cup warrants a change in how this single cup would be described. Conversely, Brahman is not like this as it simply just is.
‘Not like this’ implies that Brahman is not apprehended via pratyakṣa (direct perception). The knowledge that is ‘like this’ is that which is subject to pratyakṣa, i.e., looking at a painting on the wall of a museum or listening to music at a concert. Brahman cannot be perceived via the senses as the senses remain confined to their own functional domain (as described in earlier ślokas of Chapter 3).
Not ‘like that’ implies that Brahman is not apprehended via parokṣa jñāna (indirect knowledge). The knowledge that is ‘like that’ is that knowledge where the thing to be ‘proved’ is beyond direct sense perception. This knowledge is ‘remote’ in the sense that one does not directly perceive the thing to be proven. For example, one may infer that there is fire on the mountain due to the presence of smoke. In this example, one does not see the fire (i.e., that which is to be proven) directly. Thus, this type of knowledge is described as ‘like that’.
Therefore, Brahman cannot be known through any of the six pramāṇas (valid means of knowledge):
- Pratyakṣa: direct perception
- Anumāna: inference
- Upamāna: comparison
- Arthāpatti: postulation
- Anupalabdhi: non-perception or perception through absence
- Śabda: verbal testimony
Pratyakṣa cannot be used to apprehend Brahman because It is devoid of qualities and form. Thus, it cannot be seen, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled, i.e., Brahman cannot be cognized by the sense organs. Brahman is beyond the functional realm of the senses, the sense organs, and the mind.
Anumāna is when a concept in the mind is established using previously acquired knowledge. The famous example in condensed form is ‘where there is smoke, there is fire’. This inference is understood from one’s previous experience seeing smoke and fire concomitantly. Anumāna is certainly a valid pramāṇa in Vedānta; however, its applicability only goes so far and cannot ultimately be used to realize Brahman. Why? Anumāna is based on pratyakṣa and thus the same limitations that pratyakṣa has in apprehending Brahman also apply to anumāna.
Upamāna cannot be used to realize Brahman as there is nothing in the material world that remotely compares to Brahman. Upamāna can be used to indirectly understand that Brahman is the source material of all manifested existence, similar to how one substance of gold can be manifested as a bangle, earring, and ring. There is one substance, gold, and there are many forms (jewelry) bearing various names. However, this application of upamāna is useful only to understand the ontological nature of Brahman, but does not provide any real direct understanding that Brahman is one’s true nature.
Arthāpatti cannot be used to apprehend Brahman as one’s true nature either, as something subject to postulation must necessarily undergo some sort of change or produce some effect. Brahman neither changes nor produces anything. An example of arthāpatti: suppose there is an overweight man named Devadatta. Devadatta is overweight, and yet, no one has ever seen him eat during the day. One may rightly postulate then that Devadatta must eat during the night to maintain an overweight physique. Another example of arthāpatti is that one perceives the world. One then argues that there must be a source for how this world came into being. A sādhaka may then postulate that Brahman is the cause of the world. However, as noted earlier, Brahman cannot be the cause of the world due to Its changeless nature. Anything that is the cause of an effect becomes modified which Brahman is not subject to.
Anupalabdhi cannot be used to apprehend Brahman as Brahman is never absent, unlike material objects. A sādhaka may keep a book on their table to study regularly from. However, if one day the book is missing, the sādhaka perceives the absence of the book (though this perception is not direct as there is no contact between the sense of sight and the sense object, or the book). This non-cognition of the book is what is actually perceived.
Śabda is categorized as either ‘laukika’ (dealing with the material universe) or alaukika (that which is beyond the material universe). An example of laukika śabda is the news that one reads in a newspaper or watches on television. One may not witness an event directly, but can gain knowledge through this indirect source. Alaukika śabda is śāstra (scripture) or other sources of knowledge that deal with subjects that are beyond human understanding in the material universe. For example, the Upaniṣads give direct knowledge of Brahman and its lakṣaṇa (indicators). Thus, while śabda also falls under the parokṣa jñāna category, the Upaniṣads are considered aparokṣa jñāna (direct/immediate knowledge) due to directly explaining the nature of Brahman. However, simply reading the Upaniṣads will not make one realize Brahman, as one must imbibe and internalize the knowledge that the Upaniṣads provide.
Śloka 28:
Having thus established that Brahman is not apprehended via pratyakṣa (direct perception) nor via parokṣa jñāna (indirect knowledge), as it cannot be an object of knowledge, Swami Vidyāraṇya states that Brahman is still ‘directly recognized’. Brahman is aparokṣa, or immediately recognized and is not dependent on any specific time, place, senses, or objects. One does not even have to cognize the idea that ‘I Am’. ‘I Am’ is simply ever-existent. It is the true ‘I’ and It is svayam-prakāśa (self-revealing). Just as a lamp in a room illuminates the various objects within the room, the same lamp which gives off light is not dependent on the objects in the room to reveal itself. Similarly, the ‘I am’ is an immediate self-revealing experience.
What are the indicators of Brahman (brahma-lakṣaṇam)? Swami Vidyāraṇya cites the famous mantra from Taittīriya Upaniṣad (2.1.1) that Brahman is satyam–jñānam–anantam (truth-knowledge-infinite). The ‘I Am’ is satyam because it is the truth. Truth is that which does not change in the past, present, or future. ‘I Am’ remains constant, regardless of what situations a sādhaka encounters. The “I Am” is knowledge, or awareness. This knowledge is not knowledge of something as an object, but simply an ever-existing awareness of ‘I Am’. Lastly, the ‘I Am’ is anantam, or infinite. A sādhaka may perceive objects and create a duality between objects. However, given that the ‘I Am’ is infinite, the sādhaka will eventually realize that the objects that are perceived and illumined are simply the ‘I Am’ being illumined and appearing as those objects. Only the ‘I’ exists and nothing else.
Verses 29 – 32 | The Self as Pure Existence
Śloka 29:
Swāmi Vidyāraṇya continues on the theme of the existence of Brahman/Ātman, the Self, in śloka 29. Earlier in ślokas 26-27, it was established that Brahman cannot be an object of knowledge and cannot be known via the six pramāṇas (valid means of knowledge). Having established this, the author now clearly states that existence, which is Brahman, cannot be denied. What exactly is this existence? Satya (existence) is changeless and thus cannot be negated. Change implies negatability. One may object that if Brahman is the substratum of the universe and the universe is full of entities undergoing numerous changes, then Brahman surely is subject to negation. However, this is not true as the universe is a superimposition on Brahman. The superimposition cannot cause any change to the substratum, as Brahman, being pāramārthikā (Absolute Reality) is the substratum of vyāvaharikā (empirical/transactional reality), and prātibhāsikā (illusory perception experienced by an individual).
Furthermore, Brahman is sākṣī, the Pure Witness of the universe. The question then arises: if Brahman is also negatable, then what would witness the negation of Brahman? Essentially, what negation can be posited if there is no witness to said negation?
Śloka 30:
Given that Brahman is the witness to all changes and negations in the universe, Brahman alone remains when all material objects perish. This includes not only material objects in general, but also the pañca-kośas (five sheaths). Practically, this negation of the pañca-kośas can happen in a state of meditation. The negation of the annamaya–kośa (gross body) can occur once the body is relaxed and intentionally negated. The prāṇamaya–kośa (vital air sheath) can be negated by the holding of the breath or even in the state of samādhi if it achieved. The manomaya–kośa (mental sheath) is negated in meditation as one withdraws from it and becomes its witness. This ongoing negation can continue into the vijñānamaya–kośa (intellectual sheath). Finally, one may reach the ānandamaya–kośa (bliss sheath) which can be described as a deep, profound silence. Despite the intense silence of the mind and stillness of the body and breath, this too must be negated, as one may potentially think of all the stages of negation one has achieved. Once the ego who has gone through the process of negation is also negated, then only does Brahman become self-evident.
Śloka 31:
Swāmi Vidyāraṇya presents a hypothetical pūrva-pakṣa (opposing view) that asserts that when all things—both name and form—perish, ‘nothing’ remains. The Vedāntin responds that this ‘nothing’ corresponds to ‘something’, i.e, Brahman. Given that Brahman is non-negatable, as established in ślokas 29-30, it must be ‘something’ and not ‘nothing’. Overall, this squabble is simply a matter of language, as Brahman is beyond all speech.
Śloka 32:
Scriptural evidence of this non-negatibility of Brahman is cited from Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad with the famous maxim, neti neti (not this, not this). Since Brahman cannot be apprehended as an object of knowledge, the śruti (revealed scriptures) indicates that the negation of ‘this’ is the practice to be undertaken. ‘This’ indicates any object of experience or knowledge. This ‘neti neti’ method of contemplation is in line with śloka 30’s statement that when all forms perish, only Brahman remains.
Śloka 33:
Swāmi Vidyāraṇya reiterates in this śloka that ‘this’,i.e., the world (all objects of knowledge and experience), can be negated. Why? Because ‘this’ is collectively that which can be apprehended via the six pramāṇas (valid means of knowledge) as described in ślokas 26-27. However, that which is not ‘this’, i.e., Brahman, can never be negated. That Brahman is simply sākṣī (Pure Witness), as described in ślokas 22 and 29. Again, Brahman cannot be negated as it is beyond the six pramāṇas and is never an object of knowledge.
Śloka 34:
Swāmi Vidyāraṇya writes that satyam (existence) which is a lakṣaṇa (indicator) of Brahman has now been firmly established (in ślokas 29-34). Earlier, in ślokas 13-28, the lakṣaṇa known as jñānam (consciousness) was established. Now the lakṣaṇa of anantam (infinite) will be discussed in the remaining ślokas of Chapter 3.
Ślokas 35-36:
The infinite nature of Brahman is simply established by the fact that the limitations of space (deśa), time (kāla), and all other objects (anya-vastūnāma) that manifest as illusions of māyā cannot limit Brahman.
What are these limitations of space, time, and objects? For example, a flower physically occupies a certain amount of space, but space is far vaster than the single flower. Brahman cannot be constrained in space like the flower. Similarly, the limitation of time also applies to the flower as the flower sprouted, grew, bloomed, and eventually will degrade due to the passage of time. Brahman existed before, exists presently, and will continue to exist in the future. The flower is also constrained by other objects as the flower does not exist in any other object distinct from itself. Brahman is the substratum of that flower and any other object that is in existence. Thus, Brahman is all-pervading, eternal, and is the essence of everything.
And yet, these indicators of Brahman being all-pervading, eternal, and the essence of everything takes space, time, and objects into consideration. Thus, even these indicators are simply superimpositions of time, space, and objects onto Brahman.
How are we to understand that these superimpositions that appear are not truly existent? For example, assume there is water which represents Brahman and the waves that manifest in the water are the superimpositions of māyā. One can assume that the world is absolutely real, i.e., that the wave manifests in water and exists separately from water . A sādhaka (practitioner/seeker) with more knowledge and experience will realize that the wave is actually just a projection on water, i.e., is superimposed on the water. Thus, just as the wave is an appearance in water, the world is just an appearance in Brahman. Finally, an enlightened being who engages in vicāra (contemplation) will realize that the waves in the ocean are nothing but water, i.e., the world is nothing, but Brahman.
Of course, māyā is only perceived from the standpoint of ignorance, and enlightened beings will only affirm that there is nothing but Brahman.
Śloka 37:
Swāmi Vidyāraṇya in ślokas 35-36 established that Brahman cannot be limited by space (deśa), time (kāla), and all other objects (anya-vastūnām) that manifest as illusions of māyā. Now in the current śloka, it is reiterated that Brahman is satyam (existence), jñānam (consciousness), and anantam (infinite). Thus, though Brahman also appears as the individual jīva and Īśvara, Brahman is still not limited, as jīvā and Īśvara are upādhis (superimpositions) on Brahman due to avidyā and māyā.
How is this possible? Imagine there is a point in space. Around that point, you draw one circle (Circle A). Around Circle A, you draw a bigger circle (Circle B). While the circumference of Circle A is smaller with respect to the circumference of Circle B, the point that was originally there remains the same. Taking this illustration, the point when associated with Circle A is the individual jīva and Circle B is Īśvara. Brahman’s infinite nature allows it to manifest in various ways. If this is the case, does this mean that one should not worship Īśvara? No. The reality of a sādhaka and the Reality of God is one and the same. Thus, Īśvara’s grace is needed on the spiritual path. Before knowledge of Brahman dawns in a sādhaka, this difference between a jīva and Īśvara is maintained. After attaining mokṣa, the liberated being’s acts of worship are essentially Brahman worshipping Brahman.
Ślokas 38-39:
What is this śakti (potency) of māyā that Īśvara wields? Śloka 38 reveals that this śakti influences all aspects of the empirical transactional experience from the bliss sheath all the way down to the physical body/external world. Śakti is that which cannot be observed by the eyes, but can be observed by the effect it produces. For example, the power to burn in fire is not directly perceived itself, but the effect of burning on an object can be clearly perceived by one who has a functioning sense of sight. Thus, this śakti of Īśvara is responsible for the creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the world.
Empirical science has demonstrated that there are laws of nature that the universe is ordered by; this śakti of Īśvara is responsible for it. In śloka 39, Swāmi Vidyāraṇya emphatically declares that chaos would ensue in the world as material objects would have no differentiating properties among them. Essentially, there would be no order and pattern to the universe without this great śakti of māyā. Thus, it is only possible for such an ordering in the world to occur with a conscious entity ruling over it, rather than some inert entity.
Śloka 40:
Continuing on the discussion of the śakti (power) of Īśvara known as māyā, Swāmi Vidyāraṇya teaches that māyā, though inert, appears as ‘conscious’ due to the ‘reflection’ of Brahman. A sādhaka may question what does it mean for Brahman to be ‘reflected’. Space, for example, is all-pervading, yet can be reflected in water. If one looks into a pool of water and sees celestial bodies, trees, etc., one can also perceive space between the trees, stars, etc. Similarly, Brahman, being all-pervading and ‘reflecting’ in māyā, appears as Īśvara. Thus, it can be said that Brahman (reflected as Īśvara) is omniscient, though Brahman alone cannot have this quality of omniscience.
Ślokas 41-42:
In addition to appearing as Īśvara, Brahman appears jīvātmā (individual soul) when It is associated with the pañca-kośas (five sheaths). Swami Vidyāraṇya teaches that this designation of Brahman appearing as the jīvātmā is similar to a man being designated a ‘father’ or ‘grandfather’, only in relation to the man’s son and grandson. Without the son and grandson, the man could not be given these extra titles. Similarly, Brahman only gains these appellations of Īśvara and jīvātmā in relation to māyā and the pañca-kośas. However, Īśvara and jīvātmā, while playing an integral role in the vyāvahārika sattā (transactional, empirical existence), cannot be considered the Ultimate Reality (which is Brahman). Brahman alone exists and cannot be designated in relation to any other referential identities.
Śloka 43:
Swami Vidyāraṇya finishes the exposition on the discernment of the pañca-kośas by stating that the one who realizes Brahman becomes Brahman. Given that Brahman is birthless, this individual too will not take birth again (i.e., will not continue to rotate in the cycle of birth and death, or saṃsāra). Note, however, that this ‘becoming’ Brahman is simply a limitation of language. One does not ‘become’ Brahman because one is already Brahman. If one was to ‘become’ Brahman, this would negate the teaching that Brahman alone exists..
Chapter 3 Summary
The 43 ślokas comprising the third chapter of Pañcadaśi, ‘Pañcakośa Viveka’ (The Differentiation of the Five Sheaths), can be broadly categorized in the following seven categories:
-
- Brahman Within the Cave: ślokas 1-2
- The Five Sheaths: ślokas 3-10
- Objection to the Five Sheaths and Rebuttal: ślokas 11-12
- Jñānam: ślokas 13-28
- Satyam: ślokas 29-34
- Anantam: ślokas 35-42
- Conclusion: śloka 43
The chapter begins with Swāmi Vidyāraṇya describing that Brahman is ‘lodged within the cave of the heart’ and is ‘obscured’ by the pañca-kośas, or five sheaths. The author then lists out the pañcakośas and their respective functions The pañca-kośas are in the following order of outermost/least subtle to innermost/subtlest:
- Annamaya–kośa: lit. ‘food sheath’ or the gross body
- Prāṇamaya–kośa: vital air sheath that governs all the physiological functions of the gross body
- Manomaya–kośa: mental sheath, the seat of the emotions
- Vijñānamaya–kośa: intellectual sheath, which gives the notion of ‘doership’
- Ānandamaya–kośa: bliss sheath
A purva-pakṣa (opposing view) is then raised that if the five sheaths are not Brahman, then the following issue arises: when the five sheaths are negated, nothing is experienced past the ānandamaya-kośa. In response to the purva-pakṣa, Swāmi Vidyāraṇya agrees with the view that all the pañca-kośas are experienced and nothing beyond these sheaths is experienced. However, does this imply that nothing beyond the annamaya–kośa exists? No, because if one accepts that experiences do occur, then to deny that there is an experiencer experiencing the experiences is unreasonable.
Swāmi Vidyāraṇya continues and and explains that Brahman is of the nature of jñānam (consciousness). Brahman is of the nature of experience, i.e., ever-experienced. Secondly, Brahman is that which bestows consciousness to inert, material nature (such as the mind and eyes), but said material nature cannot bestow consciousness on Brahman. Furthermore, Brahman, being Pure Subject, cannot be an object of knowledge. Therefore, Brahman cannot be apprehended via the six pramāṇas (valid means of knowledge):
- Pratyakṣa: direct perception
- Anumāna: inference
- Upamāna: comparison
- Arthāpatti: postulation
- Anupalabdhi: non-perception or perception through absence
- Śabda: verbal testimony
Additionally, Brahman is satyam (existence), given that Brahman cannot be negated.
Brahman, being pāramārthikā (Absolute Reality) is the substratum of vyāvaharikā (empirical/transactional reality), and prātibhāsikā (illusory perception experienced by an individual). Thus, when all else is negated, Brahman alone remains.
Finally, Brahman is Anantam (infinite). Brahman cannot be limited by time (as It is eternal), space (as It is all-pervading), or any material objects (as It is the Self of all objects). Brahman is beyond time, space, and objects, as these are simply upādhis (superimpositions) caused by māyā. Given that time, space, and objects cannot constrict the infinite nature of Brahman, it follows that Īśvara (‘God’) and the individual jīva are also upādhis on Brahman. Māyā is that śakti (potency) of Īśvara which is responsible for the creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the cosmos. Without māyā, there would be no ordered cosmos where observable laws of nature exist. Brahman in relation to māyā is Īśvara, while Brahman in relation to the five sheaths is the individual jīva. However, these upādhis are only in relation to māyā, but it should be stressed that Brahman essentially exists and nothing else.
Swāmi Vidyāraṇya concludes this illuminating third chapter of Pañcadaśi by stating that the one who realizes their identity with Brahman remains as Brahman and will never experience birth and death again in the rotating cycle of saṃsāra.