11. kᾱma eva yasyᾱyatanam, hṛdayaṁ lokᾱḥ, mano jyotiḥ, yo vai tam puruṣaṁ vidyᾱt sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, sa vai veditᾱ syᾱt, yᾱjñavalkya. veda vᾱ ahaṁ taṁ puruṣaṁ sarvasya ᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, yam ᾱttha; ya evᾱyam kᾱmamayaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣaḥ. vadaiva, śᾱkalya, tasya kᾱ devatᾱ iti. striyaḥ, iti hovᾱca.

Now, Yājñavalkya's answers go on, ranging from the physical level up to the highest level. Inside the physical body, there is a vital energy which functions as desire, or rather is the instrument of the manifestation of desire in the individual. It is the Prāṇa that is inside which becomes responsible for the action of the mind in terms of desire for objects of sense. This vital force also becomes a deity, and in a particular level it is a great value by itself. In India's culture, Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣha - these four ideals are regarded as the aims of existence. They are aims of existence, and therefore, they are tremendous realities. The desires of the human beings are not to be regarded as outside the purview of Reality, even as the economic values on which they depend and which they need are also realities by themselves. They become realities under certain conditions. Dharmā virudho bhūtesu kāmo'smi: "I am the desire in beings which is not contradictory to the Ultimate Reality of things." This is what Bhagavan Sri Krishna tells us in the Bhagavadgītā.

The physical needs of life known as Artha, the vital needs known as Kāma, or desire, become realities, as they ought to be, of course, provided they are bound together by the cord of Dharma. They become part and parcel of the reality of life in its more comprehensive form, namely, Dharma, or Law, and they become citizens of a wider area. This Dharma, as you know very well, is a very enigmatic term. It really signifies the Law that operates from the point of view of ultimate liberation of individuals - Mokṣha. It is the law of Mokṣha that operates as Dharma in this world, and it is Dharma which is the law of Mokṣha that becomes responsible for giving any value at all to Artha and Kāma. So, ultimately, Mokṣha is the Supreme value. But it is present in the lower categories also. Just as the transcendent is present immanently in lower categories, Mokṣha is present in the lowest categories also and not only in the heaven as an after - death reality. Mokṣha is not an after - death realisation. It is a universal experience, and therefore, because of its being universal, its law operates in everything, in every degree of reality, in every stage of evolution, and every value that you conceive as necessary.

So, here, Yājñavalkya tells us that desire by itself, in its operation as an aspect of the mind in the human individual, its abode being the physical body, as mentioned earlier, is also a value by itself. Taken by itself it may look odd, but when it is taken in its connection with the other degrees of reality, the physical body, the higher realities like mind, intellect, etc., it becomes a necessary stepping stone to the evolution of the mind. Yājñavalkya says: "I know what is this Kāmamaya Puruṣha, the desireful individual." It is the vital body inside the physical body, and its deity is its own object, whatever be that object. The object of desire is the deity of that desire. It becomes a binding principle when the object is outside. Now, here is the secret of desire. Desire is binding when its object is outside, but it is liberating when its object is its own deity. It becomes an ultimate reality by itself, so that desire has got merged into the object. And in every stage of meditation mentioned here in the Taittirīya Upaniṣhad, the object thereof is contemplated as ultimate reality. Matter is ultimate; Prāṇa is ultimate; mind is ultimate; intellect is ultimate; Ānanda (bliss) is ultimate. Everything is ultimate. How can many things be ultimate? They are ultimate from your point of view, from the point of view of the stage in which you are, and therefore, when you complete a particular stage, that which is above you becomes the next reality for you, so that every degree is a reality by itself.

12. rῡpᾱṇy eva yasyᾱyatanam, cakṣur lokaḥ, mano jyotiḥ, yo vᾱi tam puruṣaṁ vidyᾱt sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, sa vai veditᾱ syᾱt, yᾱjñavalkya. veda vᾱ ahaṁ tam puruṣaṁ sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, yam ᾱttha; ya evᾱsᾱv ᾱditye puruṣaḥ, sa eṣaḥ. vadaiva, śᾱkalya. tasya kᾱ devatᾱ iti. satyam iti hovᾱca.

Rῡpᾱṇy eva yasyᾱyatanam, cakṣur lokaḥ: The very act of perception through the eyes also is an object of adoration. You can see God through perception. It is not possible to see the Reality in the act of perception because of the fact that we do not know or visualise the connection between our eye that perceives and the object that is perceived. As I mentioned, we regard objects as outside. Therefore, we are caught. The divinity present in things gets revealed when the connection between the object outside and the subject that perceives is appreciated in its proper form.

Yājñavalkya is queried by Śākalya by another question: "What is that reality of which form is the abode, eye is the light of perception, and mind is the guide? What is that?" Yājñavalkya says, "I know what it is. It is that Being which is in the eye and which is in the sun." The two are identical, ultimately. On what are they based? Why are you considering them as identical? In what sense can you say that the eye is one with the sun? Apparently they are different. They are so distant. Their connection lies in the fact that both are comprehended in the Virāt Puruṣha. In the Puruṣha-Sūkta and other places we are told that the sun is the eye of the Virāt - cakṣoh sūryo ajāyata. And so, our eyes have some connection, in an indirect manner, with the Supreme Eye of the Virāt, which is the sun. "This Puruṣha, whom you are referring to as the one whose abode is form in acts of perception through the eyes, this Puruṣha is the one in the sun, and its deity is Reality - Satya." What is that reality? It is the Supreme Eye. What is that Supreme Eye? It is the perceptive organ of the Virāt Puruṣha. So, when you consider the connection of the sun and the eye with the Universal Being, Virāt, they become deities by themselves, and are then objects of meditation.

13. ᾱkᾱśa eva yasyᾱyatanam, śrotraṁ lokaḥ, mano jyotiḥ, yo vai tam puruṣaṁ vidyᾱt sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, sa vai veditᾱ syᾱt, yᾱjñavalkya. veda vᾱ ahaṁ tam puruṣaṁ sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, yam ᾱttha; ya evᾱyaṁ śrautraḥ prᾱtiśrutkaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣaḥ. vadaiva, śᾱkalya. tasya kᾱ devatᾱ iti. diśaḥ iti hovᾱca.

Ākᾱśa eva yasyᾱyatanam, etc. "What is that Being," asks Śākalya, "whose abode is the all-pervading space, ears are the instruments of perception, and the mind is the real operating instrument?" Yājñavalkya says: "I know that. That Being is the function of the ears whose deities are the quarters, the divinities presiding over the different directions." The eye was said to have been presided over by the sun, and likewise, the ears are presided over by the divinities of the quarters. If the quarters can be identified with the act of hearing sounds, and if we do not consider sound as merely an object coming from a distant source, as something which impinges upon the eardrums, then we would be able to know the connection between the distant space and the ears within us. There will be no distance at all. The distance between the object outside and the instrument of perception gets transcended, or ceases, the moment identification is established between the instrument of cognition and the object in the act of meditation.

14. tama eva yasyᾱyatanaṁ, hṛdayaṁ lokaḥ, mano jyotiḥ, yo vai taṁ puruṣaṁ vidyᾱt sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, sa vai veditᾱ syᾱt, yᾱjñavalkya. veda vᾱ ahaṁ tam puruṣaṁ sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, yam ᾱttha; ya evᾱyaṁ chᾱyᾱmayaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣaḥ. vadaiva, śᾱkalya. tasya kᾱ devatᾱ iti, mṛtyur iti hovᾱca.

Tama eva yasyᾱyatanaṁ, etc: "Darkness is the abode of something. Is there something whose abode is darkness? And for whom the heart is the perceiving medium, hṛdayaṁ lokaḥ, and the mind is the guide? Here, again, what is that Being whose abode is darkness?" Yajñavalka says: "I know what you are referring to. It is the phantom perception in our daily life which you are referring to as that Being whose abode is darkness. What is this phantom perception? Chᾱyᾱmayaḥ puruṣaḥ: Shadow is its Being."

Our daily perceptions are not true perceptions. They are fragmentary and distorted. We do not see things properly. The light of perception in respect of objects in our waking life is really a manifestation of darkness. It is ignorance that is parading as knowledge in our sensory perceptions. Merely because it has a utilitarian value, it does not mean that it is the Ultimate Reality. Because it is based on ignorance, it is called darkness. What is this darkness? What is this sort of ignorance that you refer to? It is the ignorance of the ultimate nature of things. That objects are outside is not true. This is the essence of the ignorance or darkness on which sense-perceptions are based. If things are not external to us, how is it possible for us to perceive them? So, every perception is an erroneous perception inasmuch as things are not outside us. The conception of the mind that things are outside is ignorance, and it is on the basis of this ignorance that there is perception. What you perceive is a mere phantom. It is not true. It is only like a shadow; it is Chāyā; it is only an appearance, like a picture cast on the screen in a cinema. It is not there, but you can see it! So a thing that is not there can be seen as a solid reality, as it were, with three-dimensional depth, as you see objects in a cinema with a flat screen. So there can be optical illusion. Your perceptions are optical illusions, and they are based on utter ignorance of the fact that objects perceived are not outside you.

So, tama eva yasyᾱyatanaṁ, darkness is the abode of this reality which you consider as an object by itself - hṛdayaṁ lokaḥ, mano jyotiḥ. Yājñavalkya says: "I know what you are referring to. It is the imaginary Puruṣha that you are seeing outside as an object." "And what is its deity?" "Death is its deity." You are going to perish by this attachment to things. This so-called knowledge of yours, this wisdom which you identify with objects of perception, this learning and sciences that we have got these days - these are roads to death. You are going to die with your own learning. And so, Yājñavalkya clinches the whole matter by saying that the deity of this perception is death. Very strange!

15. rῡpᾱny eva yasyᾱyatanam, cakṣur lokaḥ, mano jyotiḥ, yo vai tam puruṣaṁ vidyᾱt sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, sa vai veditᾱ syᾱt, yᾱjñavalkya. veda vᾱ ahaṁ tam puruṣaṁ sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, yam ᾱttha; ya evᾱyam ᾱdarśe puruṣaḥ, sa eṣaḥ. vadaiva, śᾱkalya. tasya kᾱ devatᾱ iti, asur iti hovᾱca.

Rῡpᾱny eva yasyᾱyatanam, cakṣur lokaḥ, mano jyotiḥ, yo vai tam puruṣaṁ vidyᾱt: Now, again another question is put. "There is a kind of perception whose abode, of course, is a form that is seen outside, and the eye is the light of perception, the mind is the guide, but there is something quite different from what I mentioned to you earlier. Do you know what it is, what I am thinking of in my mind?" "Yes," said Yājñavalkya, "I know what it is. It is that what you see in a reflection."

Now, this is a difficult passage to understand. What is it that you see in a reflection? You see things topsy-turvy. You do not see things properly. Suppose you see your face in a mirror, you see something wrong there. Your right ear looks like the left ear and the left ear looks like the right ear. There is a complete reversal of the original in the reflection. Now, in this Ādarśa; Puruṣha, or the reflected being, there is no reality inasmuch as there is a complete topsy-turvy perception, and therefore you cannot say it is connected, really, with the original. This happens in our daily perceptions with the objects. We do not see things in their original capacity. When you see an object outside, you do not see it in its original form. The archetype of the object is not visible. The archetype, as the philosopher Plato would tell you, is in the heaven. It is not here in the physical world. What you see is only a shadow that is cast by the original. And the shadow is distorted by various factors. The distorting factors are the space-time-causal connections, due to which a difference is established between the subject and the object. Now, difference is involved or included in the spatial concept. So, when we say 'space', the difference need not be mentioned once again, as it is because of space that we see the difference. There is therefore a reversal, a distortion, a topsy-turvy vision of the object of perception. In every act of perception, when we see an object, we are seeing a distorted form of it, whether it is a human being that you see or any other object. It is distorted because of the fact that it is turned upside down. You see the top as the bottom and the bottom as the top and the right as the left, etc.

Now, you cling to this just as if it is an ultimate value by itself. Why do you cling to objects in spite of the fact that they are reflections? Do you want to cling to a reflection or do you want the original? We want the original, but we cannot see the difference between the original and the reflection. We see the moon in the water, and try to catch it like children would like to do. So, our attempts at catching objects of sense, for the purpose of our satisfaction, may be considered as the attempts of a baby to catch the moon though just a reflection in the water. The clinging of a human being, or for the matter of that, any created being, to objects of sense is a mistaken action of the mind. It is the love of life. Asuh can be translated as the love of life, Prāṇa, vitality, whatever you call it. The love of life is responsible for the clinging that we evince in respect of objects which are completely distorted and are not going to promise any satisfaction to us. This is the Ādarśa; Puruṣhaarthbhagaadarsa; this is a reality by itself as long as it is seen there. It has its own value of course, but it is a deity tentatively, as any other deity is. "Asu, or love of life, is its deity." or love of life is its deity."

16. ᾱpa eva yasyᾱyatanaṁ, hṛdayaṁ lokaḥ, mano jyotiḥ, yo vai tam puruṣaṁ vidyᾱt sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, sa vai veditᾱ syᾱt, yᾱjñavalkya. veda vᾱ ahaṁ tam puruṣaṁ sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, yam ᾱttha. ya evᾱyam apsu puruṣaḥ sa eṣaḥ. vadaiva, śᾱkalya, tasya kᾱ devatᾱ iti. varuṇa iti hovᾱca.
    
    
17. reta eva yasyᾱyatanam hṛdayaṁ lokaḥ, mano jyotiḥ, yo vai taṁ puruṣaṁ vidyᾱt sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, sa  vai veditᾱ  syᾱt, yᾱjñavalkya. veda vᾱ ahaṁ tam puruṣaṁ sarvasyᾱtmanaḥ parᾱyaṇam, yam ᾱttha. ya evᾱyam apsu putramayaḥ puruṣaḥ, sa eṣaḥ. vadaiva, śᾱkalya, tasya kᾱ devatᾱ iti. prajᾱpatiḥ iti hovᾱca.

Āpa eva yasyᾱyatanaṁ, etc: So likewise, Śākalya puts more questions to Yājñavalkya, asking him, "Do you know that Being whose abode is water, the heart is the perceiving medium and mind is the light?" Yājñavalkya says: "Varuna is the deity of water." "Who is that whose abode is Retas? Who is its deity?" asks Śākalya. "The urge for progeny (Putramayaḥ Puruṣaḥ) which is the form, has virility (Retas) as the abode, the Heart (Hṛdaya) as the eye, the Mind (Maṅas) as the light and Prajāpati as the deity," replies Yājñavalkya.

18. Śᾱkalya, iti hovᾱca yᾱjñavalkyaḥ, tvᾱṁ svid ime brᾱhmaṇᾱ aṅgᾱrᾱvakṣayaṇam akratᾱ u iti.

Yājñavalkya answers like this to all these fantastic questions, funny but full of meaning. Yājñavalkya gets annoyed afterwards. "What are these questions? How many questions do you ask like this? I am tired of answering your questions. Śākalya! What is the point in your going on asking questions like this on every blessed thing in the world? Is this audience here to use you as a kind of cat's paw? Are they using you as tongs to hold hot embers of fire? Are they utilising you as an instrument?" It has a double meaning. Yājñavalkya is a little bit irritated by these questions, though he has given answers to them all, even though they are very strange. Yājñavalkya refers to himself as hot fire, and one who touches him must be in danger, indeed, as he is hot embers. "And you want to catch me with the tongs of questions," he exclaims.