72. मतिनिर्जितगीष्पतिः Mati-nirjita-gīṣpatiḥ

One by whose knowledge, Gīṣpati was surpassed

Gīṣpati is an epithet of Bṛhaspati, the deity who presides over speech and the intellect.²⁰⁴ This nāma asserts that His Holiness was One, through whose mati, knowledge, the intellect and speech (represented by Gīṣpati) were ‘nirjita’, conquered, that is, transcended. The presiding deity of the intellect can be conquered not by any intellect but only by what is superior to the intellect; likewise, the presiding deity of speech can be triumphed over not by speech but only by something to which speech itself is subservient.

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad teaches, “He, who inhabits speech, who is inside speech, whom speech does not know, whose body is speech and who controls speech from within, is the antaryāmin or Inner Ruler; He is your imperishable Ātman…. He, who inhabits the intellect, who is inside the intellect, whom the intellect does not know, whose body is the intellect and who controls the intellect from within, is the antaryāmin; He is your imperishable Ātman.”²⁰⁵ The Lord says, “That Supreme Ātman is, however, beyond the intellect,”²⁰⁶ and the Śruti says about Brahman, “Failing to attain which, speech, together with the mind, turns back.”²⁰⁷

Bṛhaspati is the presiding deity of the intellect, and His Holiness, being a knower of Brahman and hence Brahman Itself, thus transcended Bṛhaspati.

❧

As described under nāma 67, His Holiness cogitated and meditated on nirguṇa-Brahman and attained nirvikalpa-samādhi on 10^th December, 1935. That night, as well as the next morning and afternoon, He effortlessly entered nirvikalpa-samādhi.

He then reflected as follows: “Suppose the Ātman were knowable like an object. The question would then arise as to who can know the Ātman. The answer cannot be that the Ātman is known objectively by Itself, for it is impossible for any entity to be both the subject and the object of a cognition. The Ātman cannot be known by the intellect, mind, organs, body and objects, for they are all inert. Moreover, the Ātman is the unchanging witness of the presence and the absence of thoughts. When the intellect and mind are themselves just objects witnessed by the Ātman, how could they be the perceivers of the Ātman? The scripture declares that the Ātman is Brahman and there is no knower other than the Ātman-Brahman. Thus, the Ātman is just not knowable like some external object.

“Though not knowable like an inert object by any means of knowledge, the Ātman, which is none other than Brahman, is not unknown either. What is other than oneself and inert may be unknown. The Ātman, however, is one’s very self and is of the nature of consciousness. Consciousness is what reveals objects and never needs to be revealed by anything else. It is presupposed in every act of knowing and is ever self-established.

“The agent of even the act of knowing, which has a beginning and an end, cannot but be subject to change. Further, only an entity subject to change can experience pleasure and pain. As the Ātman is changeless, It is neither the agent of any act, inclusive of that of knowing, nor is It subject to pleasure and pain. Agency, suffering, enjoyment of pleasure and the like belong to the changeful intellect. However, owing to avidyā, one mistakenly superimposes these that belong to the intellect on the Ātman. Also, though the intellect is inert, the consciousness of the Ātman is wrongly ascribed to it and the intellect-centred ‘I’ passes off as a conscious agent and experiencer.

“The scripture advocates realisation of Brahman not in the sense of knowing what is unknown but in the sense of getting rid of the avidyā-based superimposition on It. Whether focused on the Ātman or distracted, the mind is but an inert entity illumined by the Ātman. However, the mental vṛtti of the form of Brahman destroys, as declared by the scripture, avidyā that rests in and veils Brahman and presents It wrongly.

“Suppose a person, who is adept at yoga, feels he is established in the Ātman when he is in samādhi but that he deviates to some extent from the Reality when he emerges from samādhi and engages in activity. Such a person is not free from avidyā. Samādhi and distraction are conditions of the mind and not of the Ātman. The Ātman is ever changeless and of the nature of consciousness. Samādhi and distraction do not affect it in any way. It is because this yogin is not free from identification with the mind that he sees himself as influenced by changes in the state of the mind. He who has fully realised that he is the changeless Reality remains established in the Reality and unaffected regardless of whether his mind is in a focused, agitated or dull condition. He should not become attached to nirvikalpa-samādhi under the delusion that for its duration he becomes one with Brahman.

“Perception of the world could affect the vision of the Truth of one who ascribes reality to duality but not of one to whom names and forms are illusory. He who firmly knows that what lies in front of him is dry sand is not affected by the appearance or disappearance of a mirage there. Likewise, he who knows that there is nothing whatsoever apart from Brahman cannot be affected either by the appearance of the mirage-like world of names and forms or its disappearance during samādhi or deep sleep.”

192 73. Moditākhila-bhaktāliḥ

Having reasoned thus, His Holiness reflected, in support of His conviction about the illusory nature of the world and that there exists nothing apart from the non-dual Reality, on the similarity between the states of waking and dream. He also thought of how the states of waking, dream and deep sleep rule each other out and of the persistence in all of them of consciousness, their witness.

The next evening, 12^th December, when He went for meditation on the hill, He attained direct realization of and firm establishment in Brahman, thus surpassing the intellect.

❧