Now, let us come to the process by which you will, and you really come out of it. The chapters n°7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, they all deal with this problem of knowledge, knowledge by which you distinguish between Apara Prakriti and Para Prakriti; you realise the relationship between the two; you realise where you are involved in Apara Prakriti and Para Prakriti, what is your fundamental relationship. You are told that you have no fundamental relationship with Apara Prakriti: normally because we are hooked to Apara Prakriti, we think that we are tied up with it. The knowledge that Sri Krishna gives us is that your fundamental relationship is not with Apara Prakriti. You are fully conscious, your true nature is full consciousness: manas, buddhi, and ahaṁkāra, are not fully conscious; therefore even if there is a wedding now, the wedding is wrong. You are not rightly wedded. You are only rightly wedded to Para Prakriti; you belong to Para Prakriti.
It is almost like an ugly duckling; that story of Andersen where you are a small child, a swan. The story is about a swan, but who grows up among the ducks; and the ducks laughs at the swan because it looks quite different from it, and they say it is ugly; it is ugly according to the standards of the ducks: all the swan basically are much more beautiful; but it is ugly according to the ducks in whose company it is living.
Now, Jiva is usually found to be like an ugly duckling, because in the company of, ahaṁbhāva, buddhi, and manas, they are not really of the nature of the Jiva. It is by mistake somehow, or because of some kind of a consent in you that you have got into it, by exclusive concentration of consciousness. But the moment you realise that you do not belong here; your true nature is different. So, you have to realise that you do not belong to Apara Prakriti.
Question: What is meant by ‘not fully conscious’?
What is meant by it? What is meant by it is: when you make an effort to move from darkness to light, then there are two conditions. Light is full light and darkness is full darkness; in between there is an intermediate stage, where darkness dims a little: there is some light, but not a full light. You have an experience of going from a cave towards the light, which is outside. As we move towards the end of the tunnel, the process is more and more luminous. You come from darkness, where there was utter darkness; there was no light at all, now you are moving towards greater and greater sunshine, which is outside. But some light is coming in. Now, this intermediate stage is what is called the incomplete light.
Let us take an example of the night. Night is usually found to be very dark, but in the Veda the night is the symbol of incomplete luminosity, incomplete consciousness; because in the night, there are stars, which are luminous, therefore, it cannot be called to be completely dark. But if there is a clouded night, so that even stars are not to be seen, then it is a complete darkness. But when there are stars, there are some lights at least on the heaven from where you get some kind of an indication. Therefore, night is described in our Indian thought as an example of something that is intermediate between complete luminosity and complete darkness.
Now, these are only analogies. To explain fully your question, when in the mind, you will see that mind has a tendency to find out; one of the natural tendencies of the mind is curiosity: you tend to go out of unconsciousness towards consciousness. Curiosity means that you want to find out; find out about a thing about which you do not know; find out a thing about which you have darkness. So, from darkness you move towards finding out what is luminous: this is the minimum condition of all mental consciousness. Therefore, mind is an instrument of incomplete consciousness: it is not completely dark, not completely in the state of luminosity because. Even when you have found out something, it is not as if that you have arrived at the end of a journey that you have found out everything. Mind is in a constant movement to find out. It is never satisfied with whatever it finds out. Therefore it is a state of incomplete consciousness.
Similarly, ahaṁbhāva: there is a speciality of ahaṁbhāva, it always wants to remain what it is and it always wants to be other than itself; it is a very peculiar condition of egoism. You ask, you contradict an egoistic man, and he will say “I have decided I will do what I have said”, he does not want to change it. This is the mark of his attachment to its own egoism: “I have decided I will not change it”. That is the sign that egoism wants to remain what it is. But if you ask what egoism is constantly doing is: to become better and better, “I have been wealthy today, I will be more wealthy tomorrow; my kingdom is this today, my kingdom will be much bigger to morrow”. This is all what egoism is constantly striving to become more and more and more. So, it is said that egoism is incomplete consciousness. It does not know what it wants really. When he really gets something, which he is about to get, he says ‘I don’t want it’.
How often good opportunities are lost only by egoism. The very thing that is now at our door step, somebody as just come to give you exactly what you want, at that time you are in an angry mood, and you simply shut the door and say ‘get out I don’t want to hear you’. That means that you do not know what you really want; you are not really looking forth an answer, which can come suddenly; it may be just at the threshold and you throw it away. That is why egoism is called a movement of incomplete consciousness.
Buddhi also, although it has a capacity of discrimination, it is largely under the influence of Tamas and Rajas, gradually it enters into Sattwa: therefore also it is incomplete consciousness.