July 19, 2026
mayā dṛṣṭā tadākāśameva śāntaṁ tadākṛtiḥ
mayaiva tatparijñātaṁ nānyaḥ paśyati tattathā (3)
VASIṢṬHA continued:
The cosmic form that I described to you as lord Śiva was pure consciousness; that itself was Rudra the dancer. There was no such form nor was there formlessness. In the mass of consciousness, all this was felt to have been experienced. I saw only that space (plane) which was supreme peace; and I experienced it in the form which I described. No one else saw it that way.
What was described as the end of a world-cycle, as Rudra and as Bhairavi – all that was but an illusory appearance; they were experienced in those forms only by me. The mass of consciousness alone exists. When it is perceived as a certain form (Bhairava), it is seen in that form and it seems to assume such a form. The comprehension of a word and its meaning (object) is not possible without consciousness. It is because of persistent use of such comprehension that you begin to feel that the object denoted by the expression is absolutely real. There was neither a Bhairavi nor a Bhairava (Kālarātri and Rudra) nor even the cosmic dissolution; all these were illusory appearances. The only reality is the infinite consciousness. Thus, I have described to you the significance of the form and the formlessness of Rudra. I shall now explain to you the significance of the dance.
Consciousness is never without some movement within itself. Without this movement it might become “unreal”. Thus consciousness appeared to be Rudra on account of this movement within itself. Movement is the very nature of consciousness and therefore inseparable from it. This movement of consciousness within itself is what was experienced as the dance of the lord Rudra. That movement was but pure movement. It was experienced by me as the dance of the Lord on account of my own psychological conditioning. Thus, the dance of the Lord was the movement within pure consciousness.
RĀMA asked:
When all that is unreal is dissolved during the cosmic dissolution, how does consciousness become aware and of what?
VASIṢṬHA continued:
Of course, consciousness does not become aware of another. What is said to be the object of observation here is only a reference to the very nature of that consciousness. Just as in a dream, the cities, etc., are all within the consciousness of the dreamer, consciousness becomes aware of its own movement within itself right from the moment this movement arises. Thus arise in it notions of a moment, an age, a world-cycle, etc., as also notions of “I” and “you”, etc. Thus, there is neither a duality, nor a unity, nor a void, neither consciousness (as the subject), nor unconsciousness. There is pure silence or not even that. The infinite consciousness alone exists.