Acknowledgement of Source Material:
Ra. Ganapthy’s ‘Deivathin Kural’
(Vol.6) in Tamil published by Vanathi
Publishers, 4th edn. 1998
URL
of Tamil Original:
http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/dk6-74.htm
to
http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/dk6-141.htm
English rendering : V. Krishnamurthy
2006
CONTENTS
1. Essence of the philosophical schools
2. Advaita is different
from all these.
3. Appears to be easy –
but really, difficult
5. Takes time but effort
has to be started
9. Eligibility for
Aatma-SAdhanA
10. Apex of Saadhanaa is
only for the sannyAsi !
11.
Why then tell others,what is suitable
only for Sannyaasis?
12. Two different paths
for two different aspirants
13. Reason for telling
every one
15.
Knowledge of advaita basic requirement
for every one
16.
Nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekam:
(Discrimination between
the permanent and the ephemeral)
18. The Sextad of
treasurable qualities
21. Titikshhaa (Patience, Endurance)
22. Shraddhaa (Faith /
Dedication)
24. Who is qualified to
receive the teaching of the Upanishads?
26: The sextad of the
paramAtmA and the sextad of the JIvAtmA
27. Mumukshhu-tvaM (Longing for moksha)
28. Why is the ultimate
stage termed as ‘Release’ and nothing more?
29. Mumukshhu: Definition
by the Acharya
30. Mumukshu – Base level
& intermediate level
32. Ancient Scriptures and the Acharya on
mumukshhu
33. The four components of the armour of
spirituality
34. Prior to the three components of the third
stage
35. Bhakti
and its place in the path of jnAna
40. What is the object of
Love of an Atma-sAdhaka?
41. Nirguna Bhakti and Saguna Bhakti
43. To remove the conceit of the ego
44. Two stages of ego in sAdhanA
46. The NaaDis of the
heart: JnAni’s life rests, Other’s lives leave
47. Correct meaning of
Death in Uttaraayana
48. Two different results of Karma-yoga
49. The NaaDi that goes to the head: Mistaken
Notion
50. Bhakti of the path of
JnAna superior to Bhakti of the path of
Bhakti
50. Atman full of life,
Not just an Abstraction
51. Bhakti of the path of
JnAna, enunciated by the Veda itself
54. JnAna itself is
Bhakti: Krishna
57. Chain of linked names in Vishnu-sahasranAmam
58: SHravANAm ET AL –
Vedic Commandment
59. ShravaNam and SushruushhA (Respectful
Service)
60. Is an enlightened guru available?
61. Involvement in one
single goal
62. ShravNa, Manana,
NidhidhyAsana – Characteristics.
63. Penultimate stage to siddhi
64. Manana that
transcends intellect; Nidhidhyaasana
that transcends mental feeling.
65. To be rid of two wrong conceptions
66. Greatness
of Manana & NidhidhyAsana
67. Worm becoming the wasp; Making the worm a
wasp
68: What is to be done
immediately?
“There
is a Supreme Entity as the Cause for all this universe. For us also there is
the same Cause. That is what created us. We are only a finite JIvAtmA. But that is ParamAtmA, the infinite Supreme. This JIvAtmA has to go back to join that ParamAtmA. Only then this samsAra,
the repetitive cycle of birth and death, the tortures to which this karma
subjects us, and the unending turbulence in the mind will all end and we may
reach the state of eternal happiness. It is that state which is called ‘Release’ or ‘moksha’. Once we have
reached it then there is no more death and there is an eternal peace”.
So
says Religion and it also shows us the
way to reach that ParamAtmA. Each religious or philosophical school gives
a name to that ParamAtmA. One school
says it is ‘Shiva’. Another says it is ‘Vishnu’. Still another says it is ‘Shakti’.
Do this and this, then you can go to Kailasa where Shiva resides and that is
the world of moksha, says one school. Another says that world of moksha is only
Vaikuntha, the residence of Lord Vishnu. In the same way the Shakti school says
moksha-world is the world of Amba, called Shri-puram. ‘Moksha is the
Ananda-Bhuvana where Ganesha lives’ says another. ‘No, it is Skanda-giri, where
Subrahmanya resides’; ‘Even Rama and Lakshmana did not go to Vaikuntha after
they left this world, they have their own separate loka called ‘Saketa’;
‘Krishna has his own world of bliss, called ‘Goloka’ – thus the different schools of thought wax
eloquent. Each one gives a methodology of worship and also mentions that the
goal of all that Upasana is to reach that world of Infinite Bliss, to which
they give separate names.
What
would be the relationship between JIvAtmA and ParamAtmA? This is an important question raised and answered by each of the schools in its own
distinct way. One school says that the JIvAtmA
will always be distinct from the ParamAtmA;
and in that state of moksha, the JIvAtmA
would enjoy infinite bliss by worshipping the ParamAtmA with Bhakti – that
is the Dvaita conclusion. Another says: Even though the JIvAtmA will be a separate soul doing Bhakti towards ParamAtmA,
it will have the feeling of the ParamAtmA
immanent in it as its soul; this is
Vishishtadvaita. Still another says: When the Sun rises the stars do not lose
their existence; they just disappear from view, because of the luminosity of the
Sun; so also in moksha, the JIvAtmA,
though it does not lose its existence, will have its own little consciousness submerged in the
Absolute Consciousness of the ParamAtmA
– this is the doctrine of Shaiva-siddhanta.
There are still other schools of thought.
The
school of philosophy propagated by Adi Shankara Bhagavat-pada is called
Advaita. It says something totally
different from all the above. It discards all that talk about the JIvAtmA escaping from this world, from
this samsara, about the JIvAtmA going
and joining with the ParamAtmA and
all the consequent underlying assumptions about this world and the so-called
world of moksha and the relationship
between the two. There is no such thing as ‘this world’; it is only mAyA. Moksha is not a place or a world.
When the Atma is released from the bondage of the mind, that is moksha. It may
be right here and now. One can be ‘released’ even when alive, not necessarily
only after death. He whom we call a JnAni
may appear to be living in ‘this world’ but in reality he is in Moksha.
There
is no such thing as the union of JIvAtmA
and ParamAtmA. A union occurs only
when there is more than one. Only when there are two any question of
relationship between the two arises. In truth the JIvAtmA and ParamAtmA are
not two distinct entities. Atma is one and one only. It is itself by itself;
other than itself there is nothing. The Self being the Self as such is what it
is. That is called by the name ‘nirguna-brahman’.
However, with that Brahman as the support and at the same time hiding that very
support, there appears a ‘mayic’ show, as if it is a magic show, in the form of
this universe. The movie appears on the support of the white screen. There is
no show without the screen. Still that very show hides the screen itself which is its support. The screen has in no
way been affected; it is still the screen and it remains as the screen. In the
case of Brahman there is an additional mystery. On one side Brahman remains as Brahman;
but on the other hand, by its own MAyA
shakti, it has become several individual JIvas
each with a distinct inner organ (antaH-karanam). By a proper SAdhanA if we can dispose of this
antaH-karana, the JIva itself turns
out to be Brahman. In other words there is no ‘union’ of two things called JIvAtmA and ParamAtmA. The one knows himself as the other. The same entity that
does not know its own real nature thinks of itself as a JIva, and knows of itself as Brahman when the real nature is known.
There are no two entities. It is Brahman that has the name JIva when there is the bondage with the mind and when the bondage
is thrown off, it remains by itself as itself; thus no one gets united with
some one. There is no question of relationship here. Where is the question of
‘relation’ of ourselves with ourselves?
It is the release from this bondage that is called moksha; so there is
no place for calling it a different ‘world’ or ‘place’ of moksha. This is the
bottomline of advaita.
One
may wonder: ‘Dispose off the mind – we are ourselves Brahman. That is moksha’.
This statement of advaita seems to make it all easy for us. All along,
the other schools are saying that
there is something higher than us, above our world, that is called a world of
moksha; there is a ParamAtmA above
us, we are only JIvAtmA, far below
Him and we have to strive to reach His world. But advaita says there is no
high, no low; we are ourselves that ParamAtmA
and in order to reach this moksha we don’t have to ‘go’ anywhere; right here we
can have that. One may think that this
should then be very easy.
Because
that is a big ‘if’! ‘If only, we can
dispose off the mind, ..’, then there is the advaita-siddhi. The difficulty is
exactly there – to dispose off the mind. When our shirt loosely fits us we can
take it off easily. But if the shirt is tight, the taking off might have to be
made with some effort. And when we are required to take off our very outer
skin, imagine how difficult it could be. Just as the skin is sticking to our
body, our mind is sticking to us, but in deeper proximity! A dirty stinking sticky cloth becomes pure
when the dirt, stink and stickiness are off the cloth. It is not necessary to
look for another cloth. The same cloth, when the dirt, etc. are off, becomes
the pure cloth. So also for our JIva
we don’t have to look for a new entity called Brahman; if we can remove the
present dirt and stink of the mind, that should be enough. The same person will
emerge as the pure Brahman. But that is exactly the formidable task – to remove
the dirt and stink that is so deeply adhering to mind!
Mind
refuses to be disposed off. What exactly is this mind? It is the instrument
which creates thoughts. If the creation of thoughts stops, mind will also not
be there. But we are not able to stop the creation of thoughts. All the time it
is galloping to go somewhere. We go through lots of experiences and enjoyments.
We also keep seeing them; those of this birth that we know, and many more in
the other births that we do not know. Each of them has left an impression in
our mind. They keep running in our mind and sprout numberless thoughts. It is
like the smell that persists in the bottle in which we kept spicy asafoetida.
So also even after we have gone through experiences and enjoyments, their smell
persists in our mind. This is what is called VAsanA, or JanmAntara VAsanA (VAsanA that comes
from other births), or SamskAra VAsanA. What does it do? It keeps
surfacing thoughts about that enjoyment and becomes the cause for further
thoughts about how to have that experience again. These thoughts are the plans
which the mind makes. This ‘smell’ of the past has to subside. That is what is
called ‘VAsanA-kshhayam’ (Death of
the VAsanA). And that is the
‘disposal of the mind’!
‘Disposal’
implies the ‘end’. What keeps running all the time has an end when it stops
running. When a large flow of water is
dammed, the flow stops. In the same way when
the flow of the mind is stopped,
it means that is the end of the mind.
When
I say mind is stilled or stopped I do not mean the staying or resting of
the mind on one object. That is something different. Here when I say the
mind is stopped or stilled, I mean something else. When the mind stays on some
one object, it means the mind is fully occupied with that object. No other
object can have then a place in the mind. Even to keep the mind still like that
is certainly a difficult process. This is actually the penultimate step to
‘dispose off’ the mind. When a wild animal is jumping and running all around, how do you shoot it? It is
difficult. But when it is made to stay
at one place, we can easily shoot it.
Similarly the mind that is running in all directions should be made to stay at one place in one thought. It
does not mean the mind has disappeared then.
No, the mind is still there. Only instead of dwelling on various things
it is now full of one and only one
thought. This is the prerequisite to what I call the ‘disposal’ of the mind.
After this the mind has to be vanquished totally. That is when Realisation
takes place -- Realisation of the Atman.
In other words the being as a JIva
goes and the being as Brahman sprouts.
This
process of stopping the mind at one single thought and then vanquishing even
that thought in order to dispose off the mind along with its roots is a
Himalayan achievement. Our scriptures very often refer to “anAdyavidyA-vAsanayA”, meaning “because of vAsanAs of ignorance going back to beginningless antiquity”. This
is the reason for the dirt of the mind
being so thick and dense. Removal of that dirt is no doubt a most difficult
job.
However,
if we persist with our efforts, by the Grace of God, if not in this life, maybe
in a later life, that noble of goal of
Brahman-realisation, that is, the realisation that we ourselves are
Brahman and being–in-Brahman happens.
Who
is this God (Ishvara) that is
bestowing this Grace on us? JIvas and
the universe are just a show of mAyA,
but even in that ‘show’ there is a lot of regularity. It is not a haphazard mad
show; it is a well-enacted play. The mind, which is a part of this ‘play’ may
be weird in its ways of dancing hither and thither, but the entire universe of
the Sun and stars down to the smallest
paramAnu’s vibration within the atom, are all happening with a fantastic
regularity. Even this mind has been stilled to silence by our great men and
they have chalked out ways for us in terms of
what they called Dharma , to follow their footsteps and still our minds.
Further, there are thousand other things which
happen according to the rules of cause and effect that our ancestors
have discovered and left as a heritage for us. The affairs of this universe are
happening in spite of us according to some schedule chalked out for them so
that we may live in peace. If we observe all this carefully, maybe from the
absolute point of view everything is a MAyA
but in the mundane world of daily parlance, there is an admirable order that
must have been initiated or chalked out by a very powerful force, far more
powerful than all the powers that we know.
That power is what is called Ishvara
(God).
It
is Brahman that, in association with MAyA
– even the words ‘in association with’ are wrong; for Brahman does no work and
so does not ‘associate’ itself with anything; so we should more precisely say
‘appearing to be in association with’ – is the Ishvara that monitors and manages both the universe and the JIvas. It is in His control all this
world of JIvas rolls about. When that
is so, for us to transcend this curtain of MAyA,
and to get out also of His control so that we may realise the Brahman that is
the core of Him as well as us, is not
possible without the sanction of that power, namely Ishvara. In other words only by the Grace of Ishvara can our mind be overcome and Brahman-realisation can
happen.
In
this mAyic world, the dispenser of the fruits for all our actions is this Ishvara. What fruits go with what
actions – is all decided by Ishvara.
Every single action of ours has a
consequence and the dispenser of this consequence is the same Ishvara. It is this cycle of actions and
the cycle of the fruits of our actions that result in our revolving recurrence
of new and newer lives. Only when karma
stops may we ever hope to become the karma-less brahman. What prompts the JIva to be involved in karma is the
mind. It is by the prompting and urging of the mind that we do action. So action will stop only
if the mind stops . But the mind refuses
to stop. How can a thing destroy itself
by itself? Can a gun shoot itself out of existence? So what the mind can do is only this: In the
total agony of anticipation of its own death, it has to keep thinking all the
time about the JIva-Brahma-Aikyam
that would happen after its (mind’s)
death. This is what ‘nidhidhyAsana’ means. It has to be done
with great persistence. The essence of advaita-SAdhanA is this kind of persistent thinking. Of course this is also
‘action’. Walking is the action of the legs. Eating is the action of the
mouth. Thinking is action of the mind.
I
just now said that all actions are carefully watched by Ishvara and it is He who dispenses the fruits of actions. He also
watches this ‘thinking action’, namely the nidhidhyAsana.
When we do this persistently and sincerely, He decides at some point that this
person has done the nidhidhyAsana
sufficiently enough to destroy his balance of karma and dispenses His Grace
that will kill the mind that has been
always struggling to establish our individuality that shows this JIva to be distinct from Brahman.
This
is the meaning of the statement that by God’s Grace one gets Realisation of
Brahman. That does not mean however that
God waits and calculates whether we have
done enough SAdhanA to get our karma from all our past lives exhausted. If He does so then that should not be called
‘His Grace’! A mechanical calculation like a trader to balance the positive and
negative side of our work does not deserve the name of Grace. Love, sympathy, compassion, forgiving and allowing for marginal errors – only these
will constitute what is termed as Grace, or ‘anugraha’.
The
word ‘anugraha’ may also be
interpreted as follows. The prefix ‘anu’ stands for concordance or conformity;
also continuance. The word ‘graha’ connotes a catching up. When we try to catch
up with the Lord by following or conforming with His attributeless nature, by
the same principle of conformity He comes and catches us up. That is ‘anugraha’. The mind of us, instead of
being steadfast in its work of ‘catching up’ with the Lord, may also run away
from Him. Even then the Lord’s Grace follows us and makes us ‘catch up’. That
is ‘anugraha’. Here catching up with
the Lord includes both the MAyA-associated
Almighty and also the attributeless Brahman which is not associated with any MAyA. We may be subject to the whims and
fancies of MAyA but He is in total
control of it. So even when He ‘does’ so many activities under the guise of MAyA, He is always the actionless
Brahman . Thus even if we aim at the MAyA-associated
almighty, he absorbs us into the Brahman
that has no trace of MAyA.
It
is actually a running race between Ishvara
and the JIva. The JIva tries to catch up with Ishvara. But Ishvara thinks it unfair to grant
the Realisation of Brahman to
this JIva ‘who has so much balance of
karma’. And the JIva having failed to catch up
gives up the attempt and allows itself to be carried away by all worldly
distractions. That is the time when Ishvara
follows him with compassion and makes
the ‘catching-up’ possible. But this
compassionate easing up is done in a subtle way. It turns the mind towards
spiritual matters; that is what it means for Ishvara to ‘catch up’. At the same time it is done so gradually
that the full ‘catching up’ of the JIva
with Ishvara does not happen before
the time for it is due. To that extent Ishvara
‘slips’ away. But that itself makes the JIva fall headlong into the bottomless pit of sin and
again the compassionate grip of Ishvara
tightens. This tightening and loosening goes on and on until the JIva fills up its mind fully with Ishvara and nothing else. And that is
the time for the consummation of the ‘anugraha’.
The
Lord is called ‘karma-phala-dAtA’ –
the dispenser of the fruits of actions. Like the decision of a judge He has
every right to be very strict in His dispensation of justice. When He does so,
we have no right to fault Him for His strictness. But He does not do it that
way. He very often condones our failings with His supreme compassion. He is
neither too strict nor too lenient in His dispensation of justice. When the
supreme-most status is granted to us it is not fair to expect Him to grant it
without any concern whether the grantee deserves it well enough. Justice may be
tempered by mercy but it cannot go to the extent of denial of justice. In all these, it does not
stop with just doling out the punishment for the karma done. It is in fact
supplemented by the process of destruction of all pending karma, end of the mind and finally
the benefit of Brahman-realisation. With such a prospect, the condoning or
forgiving nature of Ishvara cannot be
expected to go too far!
5.
Takes time but effort has to be started.
There
are two categories: ‘JnAnavAn’ and ‘JnAni’.
Both are above the level of any ordinary human being. A JnAnavAn, by learning and hearing, has convinced himself that the Atma that is
called JivAtmA is nothing but Brahman itself,
and is trying hard to bring that knowledge into one’s own experience. A JnAni on the other hand has gone to that
peak of realisation of that knowledge as own experience. The JnAnavan who is making efforts to have
that Brahman-realisation ‘reaches
Me’, says the Lord, ‘only at the end of
several births’ (*bahUnAM janmanAm ante
jnAnavAn mAM prapadyate*) (B.G.
The
reason is: The goal is great and grand. ‘To become Brahman’ is something really great. But the one who
wants to win that high prize is so small! Naturally it has to take several
several life-times. Just to conquer another kingdom like his own a king has to
make elaborate preparations for war.
When that is so, for a small man
to win over the kingdom of
brahman-realisation, he has to take
enormous efforts. It is the kingdom of the Atman that the JIva is set out to conquer!
From
one point of view the whole matter appears simple. We are not aiming for the
kingdom of heaven in Vaikuntha or Kailasa
which are far away from us. What we are aiming at is to know ourself, to
know what is within us. Just to be what we are is the goal. There should not be
any difficulty here; because we are being asked to be what we are and nothing
more. When it is said that way it looks simple. But when we attempt it we come to know there is nothing more difficult than this SAdhanA. It is like walking on razor’s
edge, says the Katha Upanishad. But don’t lose heart, adds the Upanishad. Wake
up, there are excellent teachers to guide you. Even if it be razor’s edge you
can walk on it and come out successful! Thus the Upanishads speak of the
difficulties of the path but also give you the path. The Guru’s Guru of our
Acharya has also talked of these in very formidable terms. “Advaita is the only
fearless state. Even great yogis fear to
tread that path. It requires that
fantastic effort of emptying the waters of the ocean by using blades of grass,
soaking them in the water and shaking the water off from the ocean. Only by such unceasing effort can
the mind empty itself of all its thoughts and be in the Atman.”
Note: This is from Mandukya Karika:
III-39, 41
At
the same time what we learn from this is that to be the real Self instead of
the false Self it is so difficult. The false self is the mind, a creation of MAyA.
The real Self is the Truth that is Brahman.
It
may take many life-times; it may be very difficult and long. But the effort has
to start right now. The more you postpone it, the life-cycle will get more
extended. Suppose we don’t start this ascent of the spiritual ladder now. What
do you think will happen? We will be continuing to commit further sinful
activities and these will accumulate more and more dirt and trash in the mind.
More life-times have to be spent. That is why I said the effort has to start
rightaway, in order to escape from this life-cycle.
I
said just now ‘escape from this life-cycle’;
I also said ‘efforts have to be done’.
These two together constitute the definition of SAdhanA. Instead of doing certain things in a haphazard fashion as
and when the mood or the occasion arises, those great ancestors of ours who
have reached the goal have prescribed for us specific methodologies for us. To
walk that path is what is called SAdhanA.
6.
SAdhana-set-of-four
: The path chalked out by Acharya
With
great compassion our Acharya Shankara Bhagavat-pAda has mapped out a SAdhanA-kramaM (the methodology of SAdhanA) towards the goal of
advaita. Whatever he has done is only
according to the Shruti (the Vedas). The body of the Vedas has a head and that
is the Upanishads. They are called ‘shruti-shiras’, meaning ‘the head for the
body of Upanishads’. The lofty edifice
of SAdhanA that the Acharya has built for us has these Upanishads as its base.
What
he has chalked out is a SAdhanA
program, called ‘SAdhana-chatushTayaM’
(the four-part SAdhanA). In his
monumental work of Brahma Sutra Bhashya
right in the beginning, in his commentary on the
first sutra where he explains
‘After what shall we embark on
the enquiry of Brahman?’, he starts with
‘nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaH’ and
mentions the four parts of this chatushTayaM.
Just
as his Sutra-Bhashya is at the top of all his scriptural commentaries, so is
the Viveka-Chudamani at the top of all his expository works called prakaranas.
And there he has given very good definitions of the four parts of Saadhana-chatushhTayaM.
sAAdhanAny-atra chatvAri
kathitAni manIshhibhiH /
yeshhu satsveva
sannishhTA yad-abhAve na siddhyati
// (Verse 18)
This
is how he begins. ‘To hold firm to the Real absolute is impossible without these four means’ – so
says he emphatically. Only when these four are accomplished, there will happen
a hold on the Real absolute. (yeshhu
satsu eva sannishhTA). If these four are observed, there is success;
otherwise not. These have been enunciated by manIshis.
Who
are these manIshis? Ordinarily we are all manushyas, that is,
persons. Among us, those who are learned in the shAstras, and who can distinguish between right and wrong and who
observe all ethical, moral and religious standards are manIshis. “SAdhana-chatushTayaM” is what has been chalked out by them. This is how the
Acharya introduces the subject in his Viveka-chudamani.
There
is another prakarana of the Acharya called “aparokshAnubhUti”.
‘aparokshha’ means ‘direct’. In place
of somebody else telling you that the Self is Brahman, or instead of learning
it from books, if it is a fact of one’s own experience, that is ‘aparokshAnubhUti’. That prakarana book
also talks of these four means. There is another elementary first book called
‘Bala-bodha-sangrahaM’. Even there he talks about this Saadhana-chatushhTayaM.
In
the Tanjore Mahal Library there is a book called ‘Saadhana-chatushhTaya-sampatti’, whose author is not known. ‘sampatti’ means a treasure, wealth. This
SAdhanA is itself a great treasure
for us.
The
word ‘chatushhTayaM’ means an
integrated four-fold formation. Though there are four, the third part of these,
namely ‘samAdhi-shhatka-sampatti’ has itself six parts in it; just as the one
part called ‘head’ has within itself several parts called ear, eyes, nose,
mouth, etc. Thus the four-fold formation has, included within itself, six parts
in one of its parts, and so we have actually
nine steps in our SAdhanA
regimen. I have gathered you all here to tell you about these nine steps.
But
note. These nine steps are not steps of a staircase where you go from step 1 to
step 2 and from step 2 to step 3 and so on. The analogy should not be carried
that way. It is like our studying Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry in the
lower class and then when we go to a higher class we study all of them once
again but now more intensively and extensively. And when you go to college, you
concentrate in one of them as your ‘main’ subject and study the others as an
auxiliary subject. In our SAdhanA
regimen also we learn the basics of all of them in the beginning and then in
due time give each a special attention as we go along. Another analogy is what
a housewife does in the kitchen. She is cooking several things, she makes the
preparatory work for almost all of them, has more than one thing on her several
stoves, and gives the necessary attention to each one of them at the right time
almost simultaneously. Even in our eating, we drink something, we chew
something, we swallow something, we have something to go with something else,
and each one of us has a different order in which we consume different types of
food. So also in the SAdhanA regimen,
what is a side instrument at one time becomes the main instrument on another
occasion and for another purpose. Thus the different parts of the SAdhanA come in mixed fashion and at
different stages come singly also.
After
all that I must add the fact that there is, globally, some sequence of the different parts. The
rock bottom beginning is to learn about Atma-vidyA.
Even that has to be learnt properly from a guru. It is the guru’s grace and
blessings that prompts one to go the right path. Secondly the teaching of the
guru must be firmly established in one’s mind. And lastly, what has been
retained by the mind should now be brought into one’s nature and experience.
7. Preliminary to JnAna: Karma
and Bhakti.
There
is another set of three: karma, bhakti and jnAna.
The advaita SAdhanA that the Acharya
has taught us is the path of jnAna. But the person who wants to go in this path
must have purified his mind to such an
extent that he should have the capability of one-pointedness (*ekAgratA*); only then he can traverse
the path of jnAna. If the mind is
full of dirt it cannot go the path of JnAna-SAdhanA. For jnAna-yoga the mind has to become one-pointed; a vacillating and
vibrating mind cannot hold on to anything.
It
is for these twin tasks of purification of mind and of making it
one-pointed that the Acharya has prescribed
karma and bhakti as preliminary to jnAna
yoga. The prerequisite to starting jnAna yoga are karma yoga and bhakti
yoga.
The
barren land of the mind has to be tilled through karma yoga and then watered
through bhakti yoga. Without this tilling and watering, nothing can be made to
grow in that barren land of the mind.
When
one keeps on doing his svadharma,
meticulously and according to the shAstras,
the impurities of the mind slowly
disappear.
When
our mind becomes one-pointed in its devotion to the Lord, this training in
one-pointedness towards one form leads it to do the one-pointed enquiry into the formless Atman.
Thus
when the mind is purified by karmayoga and gets the habit of one-pointedness by
bhakti yoga, it can easily ascend the steps of jnAna yoga.
Of
course I have said it easily; purification of mind by karma and one-pointedness
by bhakti. But none of these things would seem to happen if one does not know
what the right karma is and what the right bhakti is.
Therefore
let me warn you rightaway. All this is going to be a slow process. It will take a long time to see progress. So
let no one despair. The feeling that ‘nothing is happening’ may always be
there. ‘Maybe I am not capable of achieving anything on the spiritual effort’ –
is the frequent thought that may appear.
Don’t despair or give up.
Where
there is a will there is a way. Efforts will not go waste. Keep going with all
your efforts, persistently. Don’t worry about the time it takes. In due time,
you will see the signs of progress and will also reach the destination. Faith
is the fundamental requisite. That is what they mean by ‘shraddhA. ‘The Lord will never forsake us. The path shown by the shAstras and the Guru will never go
unproductive’. It is that strong conviction that goes by the name of shraddhA.
Whenever
we say that someone has done this with shraddhA,
we mean it has been done with the whole heart, most sincerely. In fact the
sincerity has come from that faith which is implied in the shraddhA.
Whenever
we have a direct proof, there is no question of ‘faith’ coming in. But many of
the things which religious books talk about
do not have this kind of ‘direct proof’. Indeed some of them may be the
exact opposite. ‘Punya (Meritorious action) results in good and sin results in
bad’ is a statement that every religion
adheres to. However, what we see right before us in the world is the sight of
the suffering of people who do good and that of the happy living of those who
do evil actions. To this our Hindu shAstras
say: ‘You should not expect the results of good and bad actions in this one
life itself. The consequences will be had only in the course of several lives
of the individual. If a sinner is happy today and if a good man suffers today,
it only means that the sinner has done something good in his previous lives and
similarly that good man must have done something evil in his previous lives’.
There is no way to ‘prove’ this. This is
where ‘faith’, that is, ‘shraddhA
becomes necessary. In
the same way several other things have to be agreed to only by our shraddhA.
In
ordinary parlance we talk of believers and disbelievers (aastikas and naastikas).
An aastika does not mean simply that
he agrees that God exists. Just by accepting that there is an ultimate power
which is the source for everything, one does not go very far. ‘Believing’ (aastikyaM) is far more than that. That
Ultimate Power is watching all our thoughts and actions and is meting out
results accordingly; in His compassion He is constantly directing us, through the various scriptures, to do good; and, to boot, He is often
sending His messiahs (Acharyas) to show us the right path; and therefore we
have to follow these Acharyas and the Shastras that they communicate to us;
only then we can reach the Absolute. A
faith in all this constitutes aastikyaM
or Believing. So ShraddhA is what
makes you a believer. In Chandogya Upanishad (vii.19) it is said that only he
who has shraddhA will do the enquiry
into Atman; and our Acharya in commenting on this, says ‘ShraddhA is nothing but aastikya
buddhi’. In other words, ShraddhA is the faith in all the above.
Let
me dare say here that the westerners have gone one step ahead of us in this
matter. The word for religion in our language is ‘matam’. It means ‘what is
obtained by the intellect’. When the intellect researches on a maxim and
convinces itself by elaborate inquiry, it arrives at a ‘matam’. Also when we
cannot ‘prove’ something, but great men and shAstras
have accepted that something and therefore it must be right – Such a faith is
also ‘matam’. But the real meaning of ‘matam’ is that conviction which arises
from the intellect that is convinced by
reason – not by another’s word. The latter means of conviction is what ShraddhA means. On the other hand the
English people call ‘religion’ itself as ‘faith’. They have given that much
importance to faith, in matters of religion. In later times of course, they
started giving importance to ‘reason’ in matters of religion also – and also
pulled us into the same pattern of thinking. But in earlier times they thought
of faith in the scriptures as religion, ‘matam’ and must have used the word
‘Faith’ for ‘religion’ in that manner.
ShraddhA is most important. We shall come back
to this topic much later. In the peak stages of advaita SAdhanA, there will come a stage when shraddhA will have to be talked about more formally. What we are
now talking is only a simple plant which will grow into a grand tree of
Shraddha with deeper roots, in that peak stage of discussion. But remember. It is this plant that has to
grow into that big tree. When we learn to dive into the depths of the
ocean, first we have to stay near the shore and learn to hold our breath under
water just for a short time. But in due time we learn to dive into deeper
waters and also collect gems from the bottom of the sea. The shraddhA that we are talking now is like
learning to swim in shallow waters near the shore. The ShraddhA that will come later is like diving deep to gather pearls
and gems.
I
note a coincidence of language here. The word ‘pearl’ (‘muttu’ in Tamil) is of
significance. The Sanskrit word ‘mukta’ means ‘the released one’. The Tamil
equivalent is ‘muttar’. And that is very
near to ‘muttu’. The concept of ‘release’ is there in both the Sanskrit ‘mukta’
and Tamil ‘muttu’. Muttu is what is released by by being pryed out of the shell
of a pearl oyster; and a ‘mukta’ is the one who gets his release from the cycle
of births and deaths. Well, that was a
digression.
Just
as the collection of a pearl from the deep sea is a goal, the goal of mukti has ‘ShraddhA’ as one of the important requisites in the last stages of
the ascent to mukti. But the ShraddhA we are talking about now is
what is required in the very beginning of the ascent.
So
let us begin the ascent with ShraddhA.
Let the start be made with ShraddhA.
The Vedas and Upanishads have recommended it; Lord Krishna has confirmed it in
the Gita and our own Acharya has elaborated it with all accessories. Following
all these we shall surely aim to reach that stage of Brahma-anubhava, the
being-in-brahman.
The
start has to be with karma and bhakti; then only jnAna. Our mind is like a mirror, covered by lot of dirt and at the
same time it is not steady, it is vibrating. So in this kind of mind, nothing
of spiritual value reflects. The dirt has to be washed off by repeated
performances of rightful karma. The
vibration has to be stopped by continuous observance of bhakti. Only then will the mind be both steady and
pure and that is the mind wherein things
of spiritual wisdom will reflect. [And
the Swami says smiling]:Then we will also be equipped to
‘reflect’ on them!
Let
us not forget one thing. The regimen for Atma-SAdhanA is to be undertaken only after the dirt in the mind and its
vacillation have been removed. This is what our Acharya has prescribed. It is
to eradicate this dirt and shakiness of the mind that karma and bhakti have
been prescribed. He says so clearly that SAdhana-chatushTayam
is only for him who has crossed this barrier of dirty and vacillatory mind.
*sva-varNAshrama-dharmeNa tapasA
hari-toshhaNAt /
SAdhanAM prabhavet pumsAM
vairAgyAdi chatushhTayaM
//* (Aproksha-anubhUti: 3)
It
is ‘sva-varNAshrama-dharmaM’ (the dharma of one’s own
That
is what it means here also. The word ‘toshhaNaM’ means ‘to give satisfaction’
or ‘to generate contentment’. If we show bhakti towards Bhagavan, He gets
satisfaction and contentment that ‘this child of mine is coming back to good
ways’. So ‘Hari-toshhaNaM’ means ‘bhakti-yoga’.
The above quotation adds a ‘tapasA’ to ‘svadharma’ and ‘hari-toshhaNaM’.
‘tapas’ need not be a third. The ‘svadharma’
and ‘hari-toshhaNaM’ have both to be done as a penance (tapas), with the whole
heart, regardless of any physical discomfort. Only for such of those who do
this will SAdhanA-chatushTayaM’ be possible and be
acceptable. That is what “SAdhanAM
chatushTayaM prabhavet” means. Only after graduating from school you go to
college. So also, he says: ‘First you
purify your mind; make your mind capable of one-pointedness. Graduate from this
and then come to me for admission to my college. Then you can step into the process
of Enquiry into the Atman. Further up the ladder you can do the Enquiry more
deeply. And still further on the question of its becoming an experience will
arise. It is as if one finishes college,
then goes to the master’s level and then on to the doctorate. In other words it
is actually only after one gets Sannyasa”.
This
should not be taken to mean that one should not go anywhere near Atma-vidya
unless he has completely purified his mind and obtained one-pointedness. If that stage has really been reached, there would be no more necessity to have any
elaborate Atma-SAdhanA or
regimen. The mind will then be ready to
firmly establish itself in the teaching of the Guru and Realisation will be
almost automatic. The Acharya has not taken all the pains to elaborate the
methodlogy of the SAdhanA
ChatushhTayaM to such a highly evolved
person. If we understand him right, it is only this: A pure mind and the
capability to be one-pointed are surely basic to a certain extent; with that
basic equipment, one should read the shAstras
and enter the kingly path of the SAdhanA. Only then he can make real
progress. Otherwise he will only be touching the fringes and have a false
feeling that he knows everything.
The
Buddhists said that they have opened the gates to all; but what happened
thereafter was seen by the Acharya. That is why he prescribed that only those
with preliminary qualifications can
make real progress in Atma-SAdhanAa.
There
are people who say: “Every one is fit to carry on advaita-SAdhanA. No prerequisites are necessary. After all it is about
learning about the truth of oneself by oneself. Why are qualifications
necessary to become ourselves? It is enough to have the urge to know oneself.
By the tempo of that urge, once we discard our mind then that is all that is
needed to have Realisation. Self-Realisation is every one’s birthright. No
qualifications need to be prescribed”.
Maybe some of these people who proclaim this are really true JnAnis who know. And some who follow them even if they be
young, be a householder, be in business-like professions, be a westerner, could
have done the Atma Vichara with real fervour
and single-minded dedication and could have obtained clarity of jnAna.
But even among these who speak of such things and who listen to such
things there may be possibly one or two
percent who have really attained the Realisation. They read a lot of Vedanta
topics, they are smart, and they have thought
for long about Atman and the Vedantic knowledge; and they can construct
beautiful arguments for what they say, present papers, submit theses and so on.
When one looks at all these one is amazed and one feels that they are really
Enlightened JnAnis. But in truth, among such talkers and claimers
there may be one in thousand who have
really SEEN what they claim to have seen! The real ones who have SEEN it
usually don’t talk about it, like Dakshinamurti. For the welfare of the world
(*lokAnugrahArthaM*) the Lord Isvara Himself prompts a few like our Acharya to
talk and write about Atma Vidya.
Certainly
there may be rare ones who may have directly obtained Realisation, without
really renouncing in due manner, due manner meaning, proper observance of svadharma and then of bhakti yoga, and
then embarking upon the deep study of
Atma-VidyA. But they cannot say that
others also can do what they have done. What they have obtained is by their
prior samskara and that has given them the necessary spiritual qualification in
their previous lives itself and in this life they have the Grace of God in
full. Such people are not the ordinary run of people. Maybe the Acharya himself
would give them only very special treatment for spiritual uplift. But when the
Acharya writes or talks to all humanity
for their general good, he writes only
keeping in mind the ordinary run of people and therefore he talks about karma
yoga and bhakti yoga as prerequisites to Atma SAdhanA.
Accordingly
he has chalked out the four-fold regimen of SAdhanA-chatushTayaM. First with a purified
and one pointed mind study the
Shastras, find out what is eternal and what is ephemeral, use discretion to
accept and reject, and go on until the state of ‘mumukshutA’ being the only
breath. This itself is not the end of it.
The final end of all this graduation through bachelor’s and master’s
degrees ends when the PhD of ‘MumukshutA’ leads him on to the final
Realisation.
MumukshhutvaM -- the yearning for moksha – is the end of
the second stage. The first stage is that of eradicating the mind’s dirt and
vacillation by karma and bhakti. SAdhanA-chatushTayaM is the second stage. The SAdhanAs remove mostly all the defective
vAsanAs and perturbations adhering in the mind; if at all there are any that may
be only five or ten percent.
It
is in such a circumstance that the moksha-seeker (mumukshhu) feels he has only
one work to do, namely to get the Release. So he renounces his home and
possessions, takes Sannyasa and goes to the third stage. In other words, the
Acharya’s conclusion is, in that last stage, it is the Sannyasi that has the
right qualifications for Atma-SAdhanA.
Having renounced all attachments, bondage and worldly obligations, Atma-vichara
(Enquiry into the Atman) becomes his whole-time job. It is only for such a
seeker that the most blissful gift of Realisation of Brahman happens. That is
the maxim of the Acharya, as also confirmed by the Upanishads.
Thus,
in that third stage, he takes Sannyasa under a proper Guru, gets his upadesha
of the mantra which tells him about the identity of JIva and Brahman, constantly
rolls it in his mind, and in due time even that thought process stops
and he comes to be in union with his own aim, namely the Great Experience of
Brahma-anubhava. This is the
prescription of the Acharya.
Some
do ask: “The Acharya himself has said that the teaching of the maha-vakyas that
proclaim the identity of JIva and Brahman is only for the
Sannyasi. On the other hand how come the
Sama Veda maha-vakya was taught to the
Brahmachari Svetaketu by his father?”
The
Vedas, in each of its branches (ShAkhAs) has one Upanishad in which there is a mahAvAkya that proclaims the identity of
JIva-Brahman. From 1008 branches that
were there originally, we have come down to only seven ShAkhAs that are still extant, glowing like little torches. Though every shAkhA has
a mahAvAkya, traditionally we resort
to four mahavakyas corresponding to the four vedas, for purposes of giving
initiation to new Sannyasis. Accordingly in Rigveda the mahAvAkya occurring in Aitareya Upanishad does not mention who
taught it to whom. But it occurs at the end of the Upanishad revealed by a Rishi called Mahidasa Aitareya.
Just from what has been said in the penultimate mantras and from the previous
chapter where it is said that even as he was in the womb the Rishi Vamadeva had
obtained Brahma-jnAna, we can infer
that this mahAvAkya has been sparked
from his intuition to Vamadeva by God’s Grace. In other words it has been
taught to a Brahma-JnAni by Ishvara Himself. Therefore it appears
fair to conclude that it is to be
taught only to a Sannyasi, namely one of
the fourth Ashrama.
The
mahAvAkya of the Yajurveda occurs in
the first chapter of Brihad-Aranyaka-Upanishad in what is called
Purusha-vidha-brAhmaNaM. It says: “whatever Rishis or Devas saw it in their
experience as declared in this mahAvAkya,
they all became Brahman” and then gives one name, namely, Vamadeva. Therefore again one may conclude that this mahAvAkya also was sparked into the
intuition of the Guru Vamadeva, who was a JnAni, and therefore those eligible to receive this
teaching are only Sannyasis.
The
mahAvAkya of the atharva-veda occurs
in MANDUkya-Upanishad. In the Upanishad called Muktikopanishad, Shri Rama
teaches Hanuman that this one Upanishad (MANDUkya-Upanishad) is enough for a
seeker of Moksha to obtain Moksha. Thus this mahAvAkya also is to be taught only to Sannyasis.
The
question now is only about the mahAvAkya
occurring in Sama-Veda. The objectionists are raising only this. Of the four
mahavakyas this is the only one which is directly taught to a disciple by a
Guru. Naturally it gets a special status. And that disciple is a youth, a
Brahmachari. Not a sannyasi. Hence the
objection: “How come a teaching that was offered to a 24-year old Brahmachari,
is being recommended to be taught only
to Sannyasis?”
The
point is not about ‘young’ or ‘old’. The point is about the attainment of
spiritual maturity. Generally that maturity comes only to one who has gone
through the ups and downs of life and who has observed faultless karma yoga all through. That is why the Acharya prescribed, as a
general rule, that the teaching of the mahAvAkya
is to be done at the time one is initiated into Sannyasa. In worldly parlance,
they set a minimum age, like fourteen or fifteen, for graduation from school; but however,
there are some ‘prodigies’ who are considered brighter than even a B.A. or M.A.
even when they are seven or eight. On this account does it mean that the
general rule is wrong? Every rule has its exception. Even the general rule of
minimum age for high school graduation is exempted for very bright students. So
also the rule that only a Sannyasi is eligible for Brahma-Vidya has been exempted for that Samaveda boy, Shvetaketu. First he studied under his own
father, then went over for twelve years of study under other gurus and then
came back with his collar high up! When such proud individuals get the shock of
a setback of their pride they go to the other extreme of total modesty and are
prepared to do the full SharaNAgati!
Nothing can beat the circumstance of a good and scholarly man when he reaches a
stage of defeat where he realises that all his intelligence and scholarship are
of no value in the face of real experience. And that is when he dedicates
himself totally. That is what happened to that Samaveda boy before his father
who put to nought his high opinion of his scholarship and sparked him to
spiritual heights of intuition. That is when he was given the upadesha of the mahAvAkya. This should not be shown as a
precedent for the claim that the upadesha of the mahAvAkya should apply to all.
The
Brahmasutra (III – 4 – 17) gives a rule for the study of Atma-VidyA:
Eligibility is only for ‘Urdva-retasis’.
Who are they? They are the ones who have not wasted their energy in
sensual-experience but have conserved all of it for the uplift of their
spirituality. The one who has thus destroyed his lust will become a Sannyasi.
Even as a boy one may be as pure as fire to such an extent that later the
thought of
At
a town called Shribali, a father brought to him a boy who was totally inert to
everything and prayed that the Acharya should relieve him of his ‘disease’of
inertness. But the Acharya was able to see the maturity behind that inert
silence of the ‘patient’!. He gave Sannyasa to the boy and kept him with
himself. This is the famous Hastamalaka,
one of his four prime disciples. Again,
younger and much smarter than our Sama Veda child, there was a seven-year old
who dared argue with the Acharya himself. How can some one win our Acharya in
argument? But the point is not about who won or who lost. The fact was the newcomer was so full of
modesty after the event and actually surrendered to the Acharya. The Acharya
gladly accepted him as disciple, gave him the Sannyasa-Diksha, and also gave
the name ‘SarvajnAtman’. I am saying all this in order to point out that the
Acharya who was very regulatory did loosen his regulations in the case of
extraordinary individuals. The Sama Veda
boy we were talking about, though he was just twenty-four and full of youth,
did have the maturity to deserve the teaching of the mahAvAkya and that was why the Rishi gave the Upadesha to him.
Citing
cases of exceptions and asking for withdrawal of regulations in all cases is
not right. Vidhura, of the Mahabharata, when looked at from the way he was
born, would not be eligible to receive jnAnopadesha; but he was a JnAni. Dharma-vyAdha was running a
butcher shop; still he had jnAna
alright. The Acharya himself cites these cases in his Sutra-bhashya (I – 3 –
38) and says these are cases that happened because of the Samskara in earlier
lives. In the previous lives one gets
good spiritual maturiy, but is born again because of some tiny fault; however
the maturity of the previous life sticks on to him and very soon he reaches an
advanced stage in the spiritual ladder. Such persons are very rare. They cannot
form our model for making the general rule.
The
general run of people whose Samskara is rather dubious are to do Karma yoga
only. This is the rule. Even to carry on the karma yoga properly they will find
it difficult. To burden them with an
impossible sense-control, and control of the mind that are needed for jnAna yoga is of no use.
That is why the third stage
[Note by VK: The SAdhana-chatushTayaM is the second stage].
in the Advaita-SAdhanA is prescribed only for those of the fourth Ashrama
(Sannyasa) who has already thrown off all his obligations of karma and has
totally dedicated himself to the enquiry of jnAna.
Only if one throws off the burdens that make one run around for the
family establishment, the responsibility of feeding oneself or the household and also the bondage of relatives
as well as of money and position and sit whole time as a Sannyasi for the purpose
of Atma-Vichara, -- only then can one eradicate the inner burden of thoughts
and also wash off the long-lasting dirt and moss of the mind. Upto a certain
stage the composites of right action, svadharma
and obligatory duties do help to wash
off this old dirt; but after a stage they themselves become a potential for
further dirt and moss of the mind. They stick to one’s mind and prevent the
mind from losing itself in eternal peace. When we wash sticky and dirty vessels
don’t we apply tamarind and earth on
them and even allow them to stay there for some time? But even they are
ultimately rinsed off and only then the
vessels become bright and pure. In the same way, the karma that helps to purify
should themselves be eradicated in full in order for the inner organ (antahkaraNaM) to become pure and crystal
clear. That is exactly what Sannyasa means. After one becomes a Sannyasi, the
inner activities have also to stop and give relief. Activity means
peacelessness. Total peace is an ocean of bliss; one should dissolve in it and
be Brahman. That is immutable peace. If
it is possible to reach that state from our present state of perturbation and restlessness, then is it not our duty to put in the maximum possible effort for
it? If we don’t, then we are only duds,
whatever position or status we hold in whichever field it may be.
I might have named you a dud, but you
may raise the question: “How is it right to call us a dud without understanding
reality? Talking without any concern for actual state of today’s world – how is
it proper?” One may also think “Eternal Peace is of course very tempting. But
to attempt it in the third stage if one is required to don the ochre robe of
Sannyasa, it is not practical. We are not ready for it, nor do we have the
maturity for it. To obtain Peace one is asked to run away from all
relationships, household and profession.
But there is always the lurking fear about what will happen if one runs
away from all this; that fear itself will take away all the peace that one is
after. In the context of our bondages of desires and attachment how can we do
justice to the Ashrama of a Sannyasi?
Will it not end up in a mess? And being in that Ashrama, every fault
will be a major sacrilege. By taking up Sannyasa now itself and attempting to
live by it is only equivalent to
cheating ourselves by ourselves. And the Swami who recommends all this
to us is not such a dud as to think that we can live a Sannyasi’s life and do
Atma vichara all the time. Then why does he insist on our sitting here and keep
listening to his lectures?” In other
words, you are asking why I am telling
all and sundry what is only applicable to Sannyasis and to those mature
ones who are capable of Sannyasa and are
willing to take it up.
Your question is legitimate. JnAna teachings may be done in
abundance, conferences on advaita may be held in plenty, books on the subject may be published in cheap editions as well as
for free distribution – all these paraphernalia may draw large crowds
certainly, and the books may be in high demand, but finally those who actually
carry the teachings in practice will be
few and far between. “One in a thousand makes the attempt; and even among
them a rare one persists and succeeds”
says Bhagavan Himself. That is His play
of MAyA! Except for those rare ones whose good samskara from previous
lives is really strong all others are just unable to think seriously of getting
themselves out of the rut of worldly activities and of the pulls and pushes of
the mind.
Therefore the Lord distinguishes two
categories of people in the Gita and calls one of them eligible to do only
karma and demarcates the other to be eligible to go the jnAna path. Not only that. He says clearly it is not He who has now
made this distinction, but it has been there ever since ancient times, by the
use of the words “purA proktA”.This
word ‘purA’ is what occurs in the
derivation of the word ‘purANa’. The very first ShAstra, the Vedas, have
themselves made this distinction. “proktA”
means ‘well-declared’. It is Ishvara
who has given this message through the Vedas and so He says “This has been
taught by me in ancient times”. And what are the two paths?: “jnAna yogena sAnkhyAnAM karma-yogena yoginAM”. They are jnAna yoga and Karma yoga.
It is jnAna yoga that is our topic of advaita-SAdhanA. It is only for them
who have very noble samskaras. They are called sAnkhyas by the Lord. Several
kinds of meanings are usually given to this. I am thinking of one in a lighter
vein. ‘sankhyA’ means counting.
Population is called ‘jana-sankhyA’.
Therefore why can’t we take that ‘sAnkhyas’
means those who can be counted easily! It is for them and for them only that jnAna-yoga or advaita-SAdhanA is meant. Karma yoga is meant
for the others.
Karma is talked of as pravRRitti (involvement in the world)
and jnAna is talked of as nivRRitti (renunciation from the world)
The two have been clearly distinguished by Manu himself -- who gave us the most important ShAstra --
*pravRRittaM nivRRittaM ca dvi-vidhaM
karma vaidikaM* (Manu-dharma-shAstra
XII – 88). Two different types of people who have different mental make-up,
maturity and samskAra have been given two different paths. The same thing has
been said in Brahma-sutra III – 4 – 11. Just as we partition one hundred rupees into two parts and give
fifty rupees each to two different people, the paths towards Atman have been
divided as karma and jnAna and have
been given to two differently qualified people – this is what that Sutra says.
This Sutra actually occurs three-fourths way in the text of the Brahma-Sutra.
But right in the beginning itself, the same matter has been built into the very
first Sutra *athAto brahma-jijnAsA* which
says “Thereafter, hence forward,
deliberation on Brahman”. This
‘thereafter’ has been explained by the Acharya in his Bhashya. Having attained
perfection in the first stage, namely the path of karma, then having done all the SAdhanAs in the second stage (which we are about to see), -- after
all these, getting the Sannyasa through
the Guru and also the Upadesha (formal teaching) of the Mahavakyas and after this, one is
ready and eligible to devote
whole time in a dedicated fashion to pursue the deliberations on Brahman: this
is what the Acharya says in his
explanation of the first Sutra.
Those who are gathered here -- maybe there are one or two exceptions; but
the others – are only eligible for karma yoga. Certainly they cannot cast off
their karma. “Do your karma, persistently. But don’t look for the fruits, don’t
keep them as your sole desire; do your karma because it is svadharma, it is your duty. Leave the fruits as the responsibility
of the dispenser of fruits” . This teaching is karma yoga.
Only after the mind has been purified
by such desireless karma does one become eligible for JnAna-yoga. In his Gita Bhashya the
Acharya has made this crystal clear.
Though in modern times several persons – Tilak, Gandhi and others – say that
the gita teaching is that karma yoga is
a direct path to salvation, the Acharya has shown that it is not so. We are not
directly concerned with that topic now, but I have touched on that unknowingly;
so let me ‘clear’ some cobwebs.
*svakarmaNA
tam-abhyarchya siddhiM vindati mAnavaH* -- A person by doing his svadharma as a dedication to God,
attains the goal – so says the Gita in its last chapter. Those who say that karma yoga is a direct SAdhanA for moksha, interpret the word
‘siddhi’ here as ‘mokshaM’. But the Acharya explains: “The siddhi that is
spoken of here is only the eligibility for jnAna-yoga;
the end-goal (siddhi) of karma-yoga is
the transition from the stage of renunciation of the fruits of action to the
stage of renunciation of karma itself so that one can enter the stage of jnAna yoga and pursue the enquiry of the
Atman all the time”. Reading his impeccable logic with all its pros and cons
one is sure that this is the correct understanding. Wherever the Gita extols
karma yoga to the skies, it should be taken as ‘artha-vAda’, says the Acharya. To cheer us up and encourage us to
go by a certain path is what ‘artha-vAda’ means. It is like telling
the child to learn its alphabet in order that ‘the child may become king of the
country’! This cheering up is nothing but ‘artha-vAda’.
In other words, it is an exaggeration done in the best interests and
well-meant. When we wail in desperation
:“Only jnAna is the path to moksha;
but I am not able to go the jnAna
path; I think I have to only sweat it out with this karma” – the Lord, in order to cheer us up in the path which is
suitable to us, says: “Don’t under-estimate karma yoga like that, my dear; this
karma yoga can do this, can do that, in fact it will give you such and such
merits”. However when he talks about the JnAni,
‘The JnAni is nothing but myself’ (*jnAnIt-vAtmaiva me mataM*), ‘The JnAnis are those who have reached my
bhAva’ (*mad-bhAvam-AgatAH*) – so
says He in right earnest.
The Lord has thus in His own words demarcated JnAna yoga for sAnkhyas and karmayoga for yogis.
Bhagavan uses the word ‘yogI’ for those
who are eligible for karma-yoga. We think that a yogi is some great one who
sits with breath control and has
controlled his mind. But then why does
he say that such a one does not have yet
the maturity for JnAna, but is only
on some right path along karma yoga? For
this also I have a novel explanation. ‘Yoga’ implies uniting. ‘Union’ is the direct meaning. A union requires two entities, at least.
There may be three, four, or anything higher. Only then can we talk of a union
and ‘yoga’ can occur. When there is only one thing, there is no question of
that ‘union’. That remains as Itself.
There is nothing outside to unite with it. When we see it this way, a
‘yogi’ is always a dualist, ‘related’ to
something else; in other words, he is still revolving in the MAyA world. He is not someone who can
stand alone as an advaitin. [The Swami says smiling]: I am saying this in a
lighter vein. Let not scholars and pundits mistake me!
Most of us are attached to karma (‘karma-sangis). The utmost that we can do is
to do the karma without attachment to the fruits. That itself is difficult. All
our labouring is for some kind of result. When that is so, to do the karma
without any thought for the fruit of it is certainly most difficult. And to be
asked to go a step higher – why one step, in fact several several steps – to
renounce the karma itself and be only doing the dhyana all the time, is to do
the impossible! It is to ‘karma-sangis’ the Bhagavan says: “You don’t have to
do anything in the matter of the Atman. Just keep doing your karma as a yoga.
Let the purification of the kind happen in its own course. After that you can
enter the Jnana domain”. It is the same
Bhagavan who says “That path is for the Sankhyas but this one is for you” and
has thus demarcated the paths. We are
going in a certain path, and we actually are only struggling to keep in our own
path; what is the use of our knowing about another path which is supposed to be
inaccessible for us. [And the Swami says smiling]: In short, why this headache
of this sermon to us?
I shall tell you now.
What we are supposed to be doing is to
renounce the desire for the fruits of karma; to try to do so. That itself is formidable. Without a thought
for the fruit of the action, to keep on doing the present svadharma just to exhaust our previous karma balance and thereby
attain a purification of the mind is an uphill task. Just to do this – not as a
means to be able to do the nidhidhyAsana
of the Jnana path; but just to reduce the attachment to the fruits in the karma
path itself – we have to clarify our minds by learning several abstract
concepts and meanings and practising several regimens of exercise. But as a
matter of fact, ultimately, all these are the same steps that are prescribed in advaita-SAdhanA. To take sannyAsa
and do shravana, manana and nidhidhyAsana,
there are SAdhanA steps prescribed; the same steps are also necessary
for progress in the right way of doing karma yoga. But one need not have to
swim in such deep waters; it is enough to keep oneself in shallow waters – the
necessity is only that much.
A History (of India) book for the fourth grader also starts from
Mohenjo Dharo civilisation, Vedic period, Buddha’s times, Age of the Mauryas,
Gupta period, Age of the Turks, and Period of English rule, thus covering the
entire spectrum. And the same sequence of lessons is also there for a student
at the Master’s level. Certainly there is a large difference between the two
levels, but what is taught at the elementary level is also needed here at the
higher level. In the same way, on the path of JnAna also the
subject-matter that occurs at the higher
level are also to be taught to the
school students of the karma yoga level, though in a smaller dose.
Going to
There is another reason also. Every one
may not be ready for the advaita SAdhanA
right now. But that does not mean that every one is at the bottom rung of the
(spiritual) ladder. There may be different
types of people: those with a little purified mind and
a little of discrimination and dispassion; and those with a reasonably good purity of the three ‘karanas’
(trikarana-shuddhi) and of discrimination and dispassion. For them to know the SAdhana-regimen is to provoke their
interest in an eager thought : “Let me
make a little more effort, correct myself so that I may go in that direction”.
Just because it has been said that “here is a path”, they may start first of
all just to know what it is and then later to actually make efforts to go along
that path. Thus it all ends up turning different types of people in the right direction.
A mantra or a Kundalini method, which might be disastrous if even slightly wrongly done, must be protected
as a secret without being made available
to all and sundry. Jnana-yoga is not like that. By revealing it to all there is
nothing wrong.
One point has to be emphasized here.
Though the Acharya has prescribed Sannyasa-Ashrama only for those who take
Jnana yoga itself as their SAdhanA;
he has declared that those who are not so qualified (though they
should not do it as a SAdhanA
exercise), should know about Atman and
should be at least aware of the thoughts
of the Atman.
He has written a small expository work
called “Bala-bodha-sangrahaM”.
‘sangraham’ means a summary. The very name ‘bala-bodham’ indicates that
it is intended for children. In those days an eight-year old child would have
his upanayanam. And then when the child goes for gurukula-vasam, for the first
few years, he still is a child. It is for such children the teaching of
Bala-bodham is intended. It is designed by the Acharya as if a child is asking questions and the
guru is answering. The teaching is actually an advaita vedanta education. The
basic points of advaita are all given there in a nutshell. He has also
mentioned the different angas (parts) of advaita SAdhanA. Is it not clear from this that the Acharya never intended
the contents of advaita vedanta only for those who paractise jnana yoga after
acquiring all the preliminary qualifications?
Shouldn’t we understand from this that he thought that nobody should be
ignorant of the permanent truths of advaita philosophy? A direct practice of it
may happen at any time; but the methodology of the regimen, the path of SAdhanA, should be in the knowledge of every one –
that must have been the Acharya’s contention.
We usually think that the moment we
speak of the Acharya, it is only about advaita. His greatness however is in the
fact that he did not insist on it for every one. Just because he has structured
the philosophy of advaita so strongly and beautifully he did not keep it as a
regimen of practice for all. He understood human nature very well. So with
great compassion and sympathy he allotted to certain people only the karma path
and kept advaita for the rest.
An important point. Why did the
Acharya, as well as Lord Krishna Himself, demarcate only two classes of people:
those who qualify for karma yoga and those who qualify for jnAna yoga?
[Note by VK: cf. B. G. III – 3]
Why did they not make one more
classification, namely, those who qualify for bhakti? This is because, both the
karma yogi and the jnAna yogi need to
have bhakti. In both the classes, bhakti is an important part and both have to
do it. That is why it was not separated into a class by itself. The karma
pathfinder has to show bhakti at a certain level while the jnAna pathfinder has to do the same at a different level. Already I
told you about two levels of shraddhA.
Just as we use the word bhakti-shraddhA,
in bhakti also there are two such levels! – as we have two levels of courses in
Shorthand and Typewriting!. The lower level – karma pathfinder does bhakti in
order to recognise the thought that there is an Ishvara above us who watches us
and gives punishment. He should then progress in the same level and
continue to do bhakti now to focus the mind through Love. A further progress –
still in the same ‘lower’ level, not ‘higher’ – would make him carry on bhakti
with the attitude of surrender of all fruits of action. And now at the higher
level, the jnana pathfinder does his bhakti with the thought: ‘The Brahman or
the Atman for which I am doing my SAdhanA,
it is the same brahman that, in its saguna, is the Ishvara; it is that Ishvara
who has granted me the taste in this path and it is only by His Grace that I
should obtain siddhi (success).
Above this -- above or below, higher or lower, none of
which is applicable now – is the bhakti of those ‘siddhas’ who have reached
that experiential stage (of Brahman Realisation). For them there is no reason
why they do bhakti, says Sukacharya , one such realised soul. (Shrimad
Bhagavatam I – 7 – 10).
Thus, at all levels, there is bhakti in
both karma and jnAna; that is why
bhakti is not separately mentioned.
Thus the entire society was conceived
of by the Acharya as two classes –
karma pathfinder and jnana pathfinder –
and he kept advaita SAdhanA only for
the jnana pathfinder. But though it was kept like that, the general knowledge
about that shastra should be there for all, including the karma pathfinder – so
did he feel.
I happen to hold his name. So I have
the duty to tell every one about the advaita siddhanta that he propagated so
meticulously. That is why I began to talk on this topic. Usually I don’t talk
on this. Because there is too much talk about advaita from every quarter and
mostly it all ends up in talk and nothing in execution; and in the process,
every one has a false feeling that they have become advaitins by just talking!.
And I did not want to add to this talk and add to the Illusion of the general
run of people. But recently ,
[Note by Ra. Ganapati: He is referring
to the Shankara Jayanti celebrations at Tandiarpet, Chennai in 1965. This talk
of his and a substantial part of the other portions were delivered to a select
group of devotees, just a few days after that celebration]
there was a jayanthi celebration here
and also a vidvat-sadas (symposium by scholars). Some persons came to me and
requested: “ Why can’t we be taught some advaita?”. So I thought, in the name
of the position I hold as an advaita-guru, I ought at least to tell people
about what the requirements are for advaita SAdhanA
and what the restrictions are therein. Those who so requested me are also here;
so without further postponement, I am now beginning ....
I was telling you how from his elementary treatise entitled
‘Bala-bodham’, we can easily conclude
that the Acharya holds the view that every
one should have the thought about the Atman and should know about the basics of
advaita shAstra.
Another of his prakaranams for the
general public is called “Prashnottara-ratna-mAlikA”.
This is also written for the average householder. It is in the form of
Questions and answers. ‘Prashna’ means question and ‘Uttara’ means reply. The
two are combined in a raga-malika fashion and called prashna-uttara-malika.
‘Who is dead even while living?’ is one
such question. *ko hatah*. The reply is:
*kriyA brashhTaH*, that is, the one who avoids doing the karma that is his due.
The same Acharya, who has said in works of Jnana like Viveka Chudamani that
“Only he who renounces all his karma regimen, takes Sannyasa and enquires into
the Atman does justice to this human birth,
all others have killed their Atman; in other words they are dead even
though living” – the same Acharya now
says that man has to do only his bounden karma, otherwise he is ‘dead even
while living’. This shows that this work
has been aimed at an audience of average people. Again, to the question ‘By
what is a man free from unhappiness?’, the reply is given: ‘By an obedient
wife’ (Verse 31); ‘Who is the friend?’ – ‘Wife’ (Verse 49); again to the
question ‘Who is a true friend? The
reply goes ‘certainly the wife’. All
these show that he keeps as his audience the householders who are living in the
grahasthashrama. But even in such works the Acharya does not avoid things that
pertain to the Atman. And he has done it very artistically. What I mean is,
whenever he talks about the situation of the JnAni and his state of mind, he subtly indicates “This is not for
you. You need not be right away like this. This applies to only those who have
fully taken up the Atma-SAdhanA”,
though he is actually describing the lakshana (characteristic) that pertains
wholly to a jnani. When he talks about generalities applicable to all, he just
carries on his teaching without delineating any characteristic behaviour. An
example will help the understanding.
(For instance) Right in the beginning he talks
formally about the Guru – of course, in the style of question and answer. Then
(verse 3) the first question itself is *tvaritaM
kiM kartavyaM vidushhAM*. It
means ‘What should the knowing ones do immediately?’ Mark the word ‘knowing
ones’ here. ‘VidvAn’ means a scholar, a person who knows. The plural of this is
‘vidvAmsaH’. The genitive case of this
is ‘vidushhAM’. The question raised is:
‘What is the immediate work of the knowing ones?’. The question is not about
the common man. It is only about the
higher level ‘knowing ones’. What is it
that they should do with a sense of urgency? This is the
question. The reply comes: *santatic-chedaH*
-- ‘to cut asunder the chain of samsAra’.
In other words, it means to obtain the release from the repetitive deaths (and
births). Thus the path to moksha should be recalled even right at the beginning
to the common man – this view of the Acharya is implicit here. However the
urgency about it is not for the common man, it is for the ‘knowing ones’.
Later one meets with the question: *kasmAt udvegaH syAt?* (Shloka 19) -- Of
what should one tremble? The word ‘udvega’ means trembling or fearing. That is
the direct meaning. Nowadays many use ‘udvegam’ to denote an excessive haste or
a speed of action sparked by a motive or urge. That is wrong. ‘udvegam’ means
just ‘trembling’ or ‘fearing’. The question is: “What deserves to be feared?”.
The reply comes: *samsAra araNyataH
sudhiyaH* -- he says it is the forest of samsara that has to be feared. And
when saying this he characterises it by adding
the word ‘sudhiyaH’. This means ‘those with higher knowledge’. In other
words what is implied is that only the people who are qualified for the higher
knowledge think of samsara as a thing to be feared as a dangerous forest and so
they should get out of it and obtain sannyAsa.
The common man should just know that this will be the response of the man with
higher knowledge and that is why this question and this answer.
The ‘knower’ scholar should break off
from the samsara; the man with higher
intelligence (sudhIH) should fear the forest of samsara – an average man like
us should be aware of such things. Not only that. The Acharya has said one more thing that all
of us should do; and that he says in an interesting manner.
*kiM
samsAre sAraM* (Verse 5) is the question: What is the essence of samsara?
The answer is given: *bahusho’pi vicintyamAnaM idaM eva*
-- “to keep thinking of this again and
again”.
“Of what?’
“Just now you asked: ‘What stuff is
there in samsara?’ –that is what you have to ask again and again and keep
thinking of. The objective of this birth is to ask oneself repeatedly whether
there is any fruit for this birth and keep enquiring about it. That is what he
means by *idam eva bahusho’pi
vicintyamAnaM*’’
If one keeps asking himself like this
and analysing it by one’s intellect, one will get to know there is nothing of essence
(sAra) in this samsAra. And there will come an urge to know the Atman
that is the real essence. That is when we realise it is only by pursuing the question ‘kiM samsAre sAraM’ relentlessly we have come to this stage of
longing for this most noble quest (of the Atman). It is only this question that opens our eyes from our being a samsAri (involved in samsAra) and thinking that that is all
there is to our life. And so if there is anything worthwhile in samsAra, it is this question; a
relentless pursuit of the question.
In other words the shloka means that we
should be constantly engaged in the thought of the Atman. Note that he does not
add the words of qualification like ‘vidvAn’
or ‘sudhIH’. So this is a teaching
for all people. The Acharya thinks that even the common man who was spoken of
as ‘dead even when living’ if he leaves off his karma, has always to keep
thinking of the release from the samsAra.
Here he has said that the question
‘What is worthwhile in samsAra?’
should be repeatedly asked of oneself. A
little later, he raises another question (Shloka 16) “What is it that should be thought about, day
and night?” : *kA ahar-nishaM anuchintyA?*.
And he gives the reply: *samsAra-asAratA* -- namely, “the samsAra has no worth in it”.
The Acharya has blessed us with a work
called ‘SopAna-panchakaM’. When his devotees come to know that he was
winding up his mortal journey and was ready to reach Brahma-nirvANaM, they
requested of him: “You are leaving us all. You have given volumes of advice and
teaching to us in writing. But we may not be abole to read all of that. So
before you are done with this incarnation
can you please condescend to summarise them all and give us an
upadesha?”. In reply to this he delivers what is called ‘upadesha-panchakaM’ also known as ‘sopAna-panchakaM’. ‘SopAnaM’
means staircase. In this work he gives a step-by-step procedure for us ordinary
people to start from the rock bottom
starting point and go all the way to that peak stage of
Brahman-illumination.The beginning is
*vedo
nityam adhIyatAm tad-uditaM karma svanushhTIyatAM*
“Daily practise the recitation of the
vedas and perform the karmas prescribed therein”. So obviously all this is for
those who are to proceed by the karma path. But in the very same teaching it
says: “Nurture the taste for the Atman! Get out from the household! Get the
mahavakya upadesha from the Guru!” and then finally “Settle yourself in the
Absolute Brahman”. Naturally the Acharya
means that even those who are at present qualified only for karma should be aware of subjects connected with jnAna-yoga.
If we continue our scrutiny like this it is confirmed that though
the Acharya has distinguished between those who are qualified for jnAna and those who are qualified for
karma just like the Lord distinguished very clearly between sankhyas and yogis,
he did feel that the majority who were qualified for karma only should also
have a basic knowledge of jnana.
Bhagavan (
[And the Swamigal adds with a smile] :
All this is ‘justification’ for me (and my talk)!
Experts in music pursue a lot of study
about the svaras and the ragas, their elaborations and nuances and the nyasas
and the vinyasas associated with them before they decide on a particular mode of delivery. The child
beginning to have music lessons also has the same sa-ri-ga-ma-pa-da-ni for his practice. He may not be taught all
the elaborations and the nuances of the svaras, but the sharp and abrupt
voicings of the svaras are supposed to be enough at that stage. In the early
stages it is the coordination of the shruti and the rough fixation of the
svara-sthanas that are considered to be enough. Starting from these elementary
and rough beginnings, one is taken up to
all the different nuances and gymnastics about the nyasas and vinyasas in the higher stages of practice. So also sannyAsa comes at the end of life. What
subtle realities and techniques of practice one gets to know at that end stage,
the same realities and techniques have to be learnt by all in an elementary way
like a child learns sa-ri-ga-ma-pa-da-ni.
The
first one, like the ‘sa’ of music, in SAdhanA, that is, in SAdhanA-chatushTayaM, is NityAnitya-vastu-vivekaM.
Doing
our karmas sincerely and systematically as per the ShAstras, dedicating all of
them to Ishvara, doing bhakti towards
that Ishvara, by means of these attaining a certain purification in the
mind, as well as obtaining a capability
to keep the mind steady on one thing – all these constitute the first stage.
First stage, not in jnAna yoga, but
in the spiritual dimensional journey of
the jIva. This belongs to karma yoga
only. The second stage begins after this and that is the first stage in jnAna yoga. And in that, the first
subject of mention is ‘nityAnitya-vastu-vivekaM’. So now let us
asume that we have all reached that maturity resulting from the observance of karma and bhakti. [The
Swamigal adds with a smile]: Let us build castles in the air, or cheat
ourselves so and start to learn the ways of jnAna yoga. We certainly do a lot of
castle-building and self-cheating; let
us now do it for some good purpose!
If
one wants to get involved in matters of the Atman, what should lie at the base of
all that? It is the knowledge that the Atman is the only permanent entity all other things being only ephemeral. If this knowledge is not there,
man will always remain a samsAri and continue to suffer as he does now. The basic conviction that ‘everything that
gives us pleasure in this world, that gives status and honour, all of that is
impermanent; nothing will ever give us
permanent happiness; what gives permanent happiness is only the Atman, the only permanent entity’ – this faith is
the most important thing. Now and then
the mind may be distracted and drawn towards several other things. At every
such time one should beware and keep the
mind steady. “Should I go into this just because it gives me pleasure? Is this
an unmixed happiness? Even if it be unmixed happiness, will it be permanent?
Once the mind enters into it will not the taste of it entice it to make efforts
to go into it again and again? Would that not be a bondage of the mind? If
something will not help the mind to become pure and restful, should I enter
into it?” Such analysis has to be done
by the intellect. It should keep
weighing the pros and cons about what is permanent and what is impermanent.
Only then can we hope to go the spiritual path.
This
balancing analysis by the intellect is
called ‘vivekaM’. The analysis of balancing between what is
permanent and what is ephemeral is
called *nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaM*.
This is the very first step of Atma-SAdhanA.
About
impermanent things we certainly know well. In fact whatever we know well are
all impermanent things! Though what is permanent transcends the mind and
speech, the shAstras do tell us about
it. It is from them that we learn the fundamental information about the eternal
Atman. Dwelling in thoughts of That which can give permanent peace and
permanent happiness, we should be able to throw off the the impermanent things
which can give only impermanent peace and happiness.
It
is not necessary to throw them off right in this beginning stage. Though they
are not the permanent entity, Atman,
there are several things among the impermanent ones that can help us go
towards that permanent one. The shAstras
about the Atman, the teachings of great men about it, the holy pilgrimage
centres that produce a pure state of mind, puranas and stotras and several
similar ones, are all there. Of course
none of these is the Atman. Only when even these are nullified, the Realisation
of the Atman takes place. The experience of Permanence is that of being the
Atman alone, without any thought or
action. The only Absolute Truthful
experience is that and nothing else.
Even if God Himself stands before us and gives darshan, even if we are in the
lap of Mother goddess (AmbaaL herself) and She pets us – even that is not the
experience of the Permanent Reality of the Atman. However, all these can lead us to a close proximity to
that. Thus there are things of happiness
– what we then consider to be happiness – that range all the way from those
which takes us to that Permanent experience to those which takes us away very
far. At the beginning stage we should choose, by our discretion, the good ones among these and use them to
take us on the right path. Recall what the God of Death (Yama) told Nachiketas:
‘By means of impermanent entities we should reach the Permanent One’
(Kathopanishad: II – 10).
The
true Sadhaka on the JnAna path would
have already escaped from the sensual pleasures that are nothing but obstacles
to spiritual growth and from those others which are far away from the Atman,
like the pleasures of gossip, and of being an idler doing nothing. But ordinary
people like us who have to start from these beginnings, have to use our
discretion (vivekaM) that can distinguish between the Permanent and the
impermanent. Movies, gluttony, addiction to coffee or cricket commentary,
reading senseless fiction, excited gossip about politics – thus there are many
more that attract us very forcefully. We have to be alert and keep thinking:
‘Would these things contribute even an iota to my spiritual growth? Should I
give them so much importance?’ What can lead us to That Permanent One and what
cannot? – a mercilessly strict balancing analysis is what
nityAnityavastu-vivekaM means. I said ‘mercilessly strict’ because our mind
always tries to rationalize doing what it likes to do; it will find all sorts of justifications. Use the
discriminatory power that does not give in to that kind of imagination and
that judges this analysis very strictly, to assess ourself. See
that it does not allow itself
to ‘pass’ what deserves a ‘fail’.
What
I have just said is for the majority of us who are the average. Those who have
done the Atma-SAdhanA exclusively and
attained a certain maturity must have probably released themselves from the fascination for coffee, cricket, etc..
But even they would have some small weaknesses connected with the satisfaction
of the senses. Such things may even be good for us at our level and might help
us go up the spiritual ladder but these might not be necessary for them. So they should carefully search for these and
release themselves of these things also.
Atman-Realisation is the only thing to be looked for; in the absence of it one should feel like a
fish out of water. It is with that kind of anguish one should stay out of ,
say, even social service which may prove to be
right for the average karma yogi,
even pilgrimages, and even the upAsanA method of bhakti. Remember I told you
about lying on the lap of AmbaaL – even that! All these are impermanent; he
should have the discretion to be able to
avoid all this and resort only to those
that can take him deep into the Atman.
“Atman is the only thing desired; everything else is anAtma and all of them should
be discarded” -- this should be the
fervent conviction.
nityAnitya-vastu-vivekaM is also known as AtmAnAtma-vastu vivechanaM.
‘vivechanaM’ and ‘vivekaM’ are the same. It means the capability to sort
out what is good and what is bad. The only discretion that advaita shAstra recommends is this capability to
sort out what is AtmA and what is anAtmA. The work “Viveka-chUDAmaNi” is also called
“AtmAnAtma-viveka-chUDAmaNi”. As soon as
the mangalAcharaNaM shloka – that is,
the verse of benediction in the beginning of a work – is over, the text begins
with the topic of SAdhanA path. There
he talks about the performance of routine as per vaidika dharma, then
scholarship in the vedas -- these two
being common to all paths – and then he mentions just one thing, namely
“AtmAnAtma-vivechanaM” which is the route for the JnAna pathfinder and then goes to talk about svAnubhUti (Personal experience) and Mukti
(moksha). Later in the book the Acharya
defines, at the highest level, the concept of
‘viveka’ (discrimination) that decides between the permanent and the
impermanent.
*brahma satyaM jagan-mithyety-evaM rUpo
vinishcayaH /
so’yaM
nityAnitya-vastu-vivekaH samudAhRRitaH
//*
It
means: Brahman is the only Reality. The Universe is mithyA, that is, it may appear real but will become unreal; such
a firm conviction is what has been well declared as nitya-anitya-vastu vivekaM.” Who has made the
declaration? The Vedas. The authority to declare such Truths is that
of the Vedas only. The Acharya follows that tradition and so even if he does
not say “in the Vedas” he knows people will understand it that way.
The
Upanishads constitute the ‘anta’, the finishing portion of the Vedas. Therefore
we find this matter in abundance there. Is not the very purpose of the Upanishads to take us jIvas who are stuck in this worldly impermanence out to the Permanent One ? Starting from the
small boy Nachiketas all the way up to Indra himself several have been known to have understood the impermanent as
impermanent and comprehended the
Principle of Nitya – such stories have come down to us in Kathopanishad,
Chandogyopanishad, etc. The Lord of Death himself offered several rare gifts to
child Nachiketas, but the latter turned all of them down, saying “All these are
ephemeral; one day or other won’t they all come back to you?”. And, he insisted
on having the tattva-upadesha from the God of death himself and finally
got it! Among all the impermanent
things, there is only one thing that is ever permanent – said
Yama-dharma-raja *nityo’nityAnAM*.
“Whoever finds it, to him there will be eternal peace; not for anybody
else”. All that we call wealth is
anitya; nothing that belongs to anitya will ever lead to the nitya-vastu, that
is the Atman. In the Chandogya story, Virochana the King of Asuras , as well as Indra the King of the Gods, both of them pursue the question
: “What is the Atman?”. The asura comes to the conclusion that the body is the
Atman. It is ‘Asura-Vedanta’! On the other hand, Indra does an analysis of
experiences in the waking state, dream state and the sleeping state, discards
them one by one as unreal and finally comes to the Reality that is the
Atman. This kind of discarding is
nothing but ‘nityA-nitya-vastu vivechanam’ – the discrimination between anitya
and nitya. In the Taittiriya Upanishad
Brighu Maharishi begins from the anna-maya kosha, and goes through all the
koshas, first thinking that it is Brahman and then after enquiry discarding it
and finally comes to the right conclusion that Brahman is what remains as the
substratum of even the Ananda-maya-kosha.
Another way of looking at it is to say that by proper discrimination he
discarded the five koshas as impermanent
and finally got to know that the Atman is the only Permanent entity.
*neti
neti* -- “Brahman is not this, is not that; it is nothing that can be
circumscribed by anything; it is not related to another; it is not limited to
anything; it is not that which suffers; it is not that which is destroyed” so says the Brihad-Aranyaka Upanishad.
Whatever has been said here not to be Brahman, they are all matters for the mundane world. In other words, what is
circumscribed, what is related, what is limited, what is destroyed, all these
are material entities. So the “neti,
neti” analysis means to pick out the impermanent entitites of the world,
discard them as such, and hold on to the Permanent entity, Atman. “anyat ArtaM”
– “all others are having an end” . In other words, except the Atman, everything
else without exception meet their end. This idea coming again and again in BrihadAranyaka Upanishad
mantras is to distinguish the Nitya-vastu (Permanent One) from the anityas (the
impermanents).
Right
in the beginning of His Gitopadesha, Bhagavan makes it clear: Atman is the only
Permanent entity. The body from the
killing of which Arjuna retreats, is nothing but ephemeral (anitya). All
experiences of the body come and go:
*AgamApAyinaH anityAH*. That which is permanent, immeasurable is only
the Atman : *nityasyoktAH sharIriNaH anAshinaH aprameyasya*, thus runs his
elaboration. Later *anityam asukhaM lokaM imaM prApya bhajasva mAM* (IX – 33)
-- you have obtained a life in this impeermanent miserable world; in order to
get out of this, worship Me, says He.
What does He mean by ‘Me’? He is
the Atman, He is the Brahman. *ahamAtma guDHAkeshaH sarva-bhUtAshayaH
sthitaH* (X – 20) [I am established as
the indweller in the hearts of all beings]: this is His own statement. So
worshipping Him means only the meditation on the Self. The sum and substance of
what He says is: “In this world everything is impermanent; hold on to the Atman”.
The thirteenth chapter of the Gita is called ‘kshhetra-kshhetrajn~a
vibhAga-yogaM’. It is the yoga that
distinguishes the body that is the ‘kshhetra’ and the conscious Atman inside
that is known as ‘kshetrajn~a’. This kshetra-kshetrajn~a yoga is nothing but
the discrimination between the permanent and the ephemeral. When the Lord
defines (XIII – 5, 6) ‘kshhetra’ as made up of the five elements, senses, the
objects that senses run after, desire (icchA), hate (dveshhaM), happiness and
misery, etc., he is actually dissecting all those that are impermanent. In the
same way, he shows the Permanent One as the kshhetrajn~a. It is clear from his
further statements: “It exists in all the universes enveloping them all;
without and within all beings, moving and unmoving, near and far away is that”.
(XIII – 13,, 15). Then as He goes along distinguishing kshhetra and
kshhetrajn~a, Bhagavan says: “He who knows the distinction between prakRRiti
and purusha does not have another birth” (XIII – 23). In other words, such a
person attains moksha, says He. Suddenly he seems to switch over to two other categories; no, kshhetraM is
prakRRiti and purushha is kshetrajn~a, as is clear from the context.
This
is where he gives in a crystallised essence
the matter we have been discussing – namely nitya-anitya-vastu vivekaM.
What is known in sAnkhya shAstra as
purushha is the Absolute Reality of advaita shAstra
known as Atman and Brahman. What is called prakRRiti there (in sAnkhya) is MAyA here. Of course there is a slight
difference; but the fact that prakRRiti
and purushha is the MAyA and the
Atman, respectively, is 99 percent.
true. It is well known that the Atman is
the eternal Truth (nitya). So what is meant by nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaM is
nothing but the comprehension of the Atman as separate from the effects of MAyA.
In the word ‘AtmA-anAtma-vivacanaM’, the anAtmA is nothing but MAyA. So, to know the distinction
between prakRRiti and purushha is to distinguish between anAtmA and AtmA.
For
an Atma-JnAni there is nothing like
anAtma. But being an Atma-JnAni is in the future. There is a work
called “prouDhAnubhUti” by the Acharya, a wonderful rendering in a majestic
manner of the status of a JnAni, written in such a ‘madness’ full of advaita-Ananda, that could be even mistaken
by unknowing people as a kind of pride. In fact, [the Mahaswamigal adds
smiling] the ‘pride’ justifies the name ‘prouDhAnubhUti’. In this the Acharya
says very emphatically: “It is absurd to talk about Atma-anAtma – vivechanaM.
Is there a thing like anAtma? If there is one such then how can it be negated
out of existence?”. But remember, this
is the statement of one who has had the anubhUti (the Experience). But, for those who have yet to reach that stage,
the question that looms large is : “Is there something like the Atman? It is
only anAtmA that seems to be everywhere”!
For all those who have not yet reached that apex of jnAna, it is necessary, during their efforts on the journey, to be
alert and to keep sorting out with discrimination, which is the one that is
really eternal, which is the one that is the impermanent anAtmA, and what those
are that, though impermanent, would be able to help us go to the Eternal
Permanent entity, and what those are that, being impermanent, would drag us deep into further impermanence.
The Acharya, in the last but one shloka of his Bhaja Govindam, has recommended
us to do this sorting between Atman and anAtmA very carefully: *prANAyAmaM pratyAhAraM
nityAnitya-viveka-vichAraM*. The shloka after this in Bhaja GovindaM is a
phala-shruti.
The
Acharya has his own doubts whether we can do this sorting in an intelligent
way; so he gives in his prakaraNa work “anAtma-shrI-vigarhaNam” a long list of anAtma items. In each shloka
therein, the first three lines end with
*tataH kim?*. It means, “ So what?
What is the use?” Status, wealth, dress
and decoration, physical beauty, fine health – there are many of this kind that
we hold to be highly esteemable and in each line one of them is mentioned,
followed by a “tataH kiM”. Three such lines in every shloka
are followed by the fourth line *yena
svAtmA naiva sAkshhAt-kRRito’bhUt* (if one has not realised the Self). This
is repeated in every shloka. The meaning
of this refrain is to say: If one has not realised the Self, what is the use of
his status? Of his wealth? Of his decorative show? Of his
beauty? Of his health?. One does not know the truth of oneself; and
without knowing that, what is the value of adding one’s status, wealth and
health? – this is the substance of the
shlokas. Will it not look absurd if “we
don’t know somebody; but still we are going to honour that somebody with a
presentation of a purse of money”? That
is the situation here, says the Acharya. Atman is the truth of oneself; if this
truth is not known what else is going to be of value? On the other hand if one
knows the Self, to him also all these are of trivial value. In fact only if one discards all these as
trivial, one can know his own Self. Thus in any case, status, wealth,
decoration, beauty, health and whatever other things we hold to be great – all of them are undesirable. The discarding of all of them as anAtmA (non-self) is “anAtma-shrI
vigarhaNaM”. The meanings of the word ‘shrI’ known to everybody are: Lakshmi, auspiciousness, wealth. But there is another meaning also: ‘poison’!
Lord Shiva is keeping the poison in his
throat and that is why he is also called ‘ShrI-kanTha’. The pleasures
that we consider to be of value
from wealth and auspiciousness, should
be devalued as poison – this is ‘anAtma-shrI-vigarhaNaM’.
And this is nothing but another name for AtmA-anAtma-vivekaM,
that is, nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaM.
One
has to distinguish between nitya
(permanent) and anitya (impermanent),
discard what ought not to be and take what ought to be. In fact the discarding of
what ought not to be is more important. In life itself, between what
ought to be done and what ought not to be done, it may not matter if you don’t
do what ought to be done; but by doing what ought not to be done one invites
great trouble. Take the common cold,, for instance. They say: ‘You should have
rice mixed in mustard powder, but no
icecream.’ One may not eat rice with mustard powder. But by having
icecream the cold intensifies and one ends up in fever. Thus by eating
prohibited food one experiences bad consequences immediately; on the other hand
by eating the prescribed things do they immediately help? Not necessarily; they
may or may not. Again bathing in the
river Cauvery, if you do it near the shore, it is good both physically and
mentally. Those who don’t know swimming should not go into deep waters; if they
do they will be drawn into the vortex of the flow. A bath in the Cauvery may
even be missed; even if it is not missed, though the mind gets refreshed a
little, one does not observe any great improvement in health or spiritual
merit. But if one goes into deeper waters the danger of the vortex swallowing
you up is great. Thus it always happens that in this play of MAyA in the world, the negative forces
have usually more power.
It
therefore follows that once we have made an analysis of what is good for the
spiritual ascent and what is bad,
thereafter we should give first priority to the discarding of those
which are bad.
Here,
as I have said earlier, the ‘thereafter’ does not mean there is a strict ‘one
after the other’ rule in SAdhanA. It happens that we have to exercise all the
different steps of the SAdhanA
together in a mixed fashion. At one stage some one of them becomes important or
prominent and we usually talk of it as coming ‘later’ or ‘earlier’.
When
a foetus grows into a baby, does it grow in
sequence such as, first the feet, then the stomach, then the chest and
so on? All of them grow up simultaneously. So also these SAdhanAs have to be done side by side – not one after another.
At each stage the concentration may be
more in one or the other.
Thus
we begin with sorting out the good and bad. The very sorting will teach us something about the task of
discarding the bad and taking the good. And in due course of time this
sorting will become automatic, by sheer
practice over a long period of time! And that is when we have to start concentrating on the discarding of the
undesirables.
And
that is the part Number Two in the four
parts of SAdhana-ChatushhTayaM. That is called *VairaagyaM* (Dispassion). It
is also called *virakti* .
*rAgaM*
and *rakti* both mean desire or liking. The discarding of desire or liking is *vairaagyaM* or *virakti*.
Sensual
pleasures are the greatest obstacles to Spiritual wisdom.They are pleasures of
the senses. When we run after a pleasure it means there is a desire for
experiencing that pleasure. If we have
no such desire, do we run after them?
So
what it means to discard those obstacles to spiritual growth is to be rid of
all desires – from the little desire for consumption of a snack to the great
one of a desire for the obtaining of Bharat Ratna Award. This absence of
desires is exactly what VairaagyaM
means.
Tirumoolar,
the Tamil mystic, describes Vairaagya
parAkAshhTA (the apex of Vairaagya) as follows:
Cut off your desire; cut off your
desire!
Even
with God cut off your desire!
As
you keep desiring misery follows
Cutting
off desires – that is Happiness, Bliss!
[Tamil original: Asai arrumingaL, Asai arrumingal !
IsanoDAyinum Asai
arrumingal !
AsaippaDappaDa Ayvarum
tunbam
Asai viDa viDa AnandamAme ! ]
If
desires are eradicated totally, moksha is right there!. Nammazhvar has also
sung: *atradu patrenil utradu veeDu*,
which means exactly the same.
‘tRshhNA’ is thirst. Desire is a thirst.
When thirst arises, the tongue craves for drinking water; so also desire is the
thirst for the enjoyment of sensual pleasures.
Only when it is gone you can get NirvANa – that was the great discovery
of the Buddha, say the Buddhistic texts.
Whatever
religion there is among civilized society it does not fail to give importance
to the eradication of desires.
Our
Acharya also has given great importance to Vairaagya that eradicates desires.
In his work *aparokshhAnubhUti*, when he refers to the SAdhanA regimen, he calls it (shloka 3) the *vairaagyAdi chatushhTayaM* -- ‘the four parts
consisting of VairaagyaM etc.’, thus
mentioning VairaagyaM as the chief
part.
How
does the Acharya define VairaagyaM,
let us see:
tad-vairaagyaM jugupsA yA
darshana-shravaNAdibhiH /
dehAdi-brahma-paryante
hyanitye bhogya-vastuni
//
This
is the Acharya’s definition of VairaagyaM
in Viveka-chUDAmaNi (shloka 21). ‘That is indeed VairaagyaM’, says he dramatically!
‘What
is?’. Revulsion from objects of enjoyment by this human body, all the way from those
things seen, heard, etc. in this human world to those objects of
enjoyment in Brahma-loka – that is VairaagyaM.
“jugupsA”
means the feeling of disgust that causes one to reject it. An alternative
reading is ‘jihAsA’. The meaning is the same.
Once
jnAna has been reached, then one
feels love towards everything. There is
no question of revulsion then. Because, then none of the objects whether bad or
tempting, will affect him. In stages
that precede that, it is not so. All objects of enjoyment of pleasure that
cause us to slip down have to be discarded with distaste -- only then one can save our Self. For the later sprouting of the personality of
Love, one has to create for oneself this feeling of aversion!
Revulsion
is not of people. Certainly not. The
aversion or disgust is only towards the
bondage that originates from our
attachment to them; it is only of the
pleasurable things they may offer. If
one runs away from household, it is not
out of aversion or disgust of the mother, or of the wife, or son or daughter;
certainly not. The repulsion or distaste is because of the obstacles to
spirituality created by the bondage of attachment to them. The mother spoils our efforts at
soul-cleaning when we fast for the purpose, by pitying with us on our fasting
and tempting us with tasty food; when
the spouse is at your side, the mind becomes vibrant.; the son has got to be admitted
in an engineering college even if it costs a bribe of money; the daughter has
to be married to a doctor according to her own wish and accordingly a costly
dowry has to be met --- thus, each one of them binds you in a certain way. The
repulsion is from this binding. The
revulsion is from such bondage of these actions and from the enjoyable things
that arise from them, not from the people concerned. Nor from the community of
animals. Even in the shloka that we are discussing, it says “bhogya-vastuni jugupsA” – meaning, the
disgust towards ‘the objects of pleasure’ and not towards jIvas. In other
words, if we isolate ourselves from the JIvas,
it is not out of hate or disgust for them but because through them we get
attached to enjoyment of experiences.
Thus
by discrimination between the permanent and transient objects we learn that all
objects of sense-experience are transient and therefore we develop a distaste
for them *jugupsA... hyanitye
bhogya-vastuni*.
Note
the words *hyanitye* instead of *anitye*.
It is actually *hi anitye* that has become *hyanitye*. The word ‘hi’ gives an emphasis to what is
being said.
Only
when we develop a disgust do we stay
away from those objects which generate a bondage of MAyA. An attitude of “Leave
it alone; let it be” in this matter will not be a sAtvic attitude. It is only foolishness. “ Not being afraid of
what has to be feared is ignorance” says Tiruvalluvar. *anjuvathu anjAmai pethamai*. His Tirukkural teaches us to be
courageous men not to be afraid of anything. Even then before one gets that courage, we should
not bungle by our foolishness; so he says: “In this world one should certainly
avoid those things of which we should be legitimately afraid; otherwise we
shall only be foolish”. Ignorance and foolishness are not far apart. Our
Acharya who taught us to love everything – the same Acharya teaches us, to
develop, in the early stages of spiritual ascent, a disgust towards those
things which are in the nature of an obstacle to the growth of spirituality.
He gives a really telling analogy that actually
may hurt us deep. It is an example which
itself can be disgusting. The same
example is given by him in three books, ‘Bala-bodha-sangrahaM’,
‘aparokshAnubhUti’ and ‘sarva-vedanta-siddhanta-sara-sangrahaM’. In the first
two, he says *yathaiva kAkavishhTAyAM* and in the third, he says: *kAkasya vishhTAvat asahya-buddhiH*. The
analogy is to the leavings of a crow.
Just as we have a natural disgust for the leavings of a crow, so also there
should be a disgust towards things of
sensual experience – this is the purpose of the analogy. Suppose we are having
a picnic under a tree in its shade and
suddenly from the branches of the tree a crow’s leavings fall on your plate
full of excellent food. That very moment we move away from the food in total
disgust, don’t we? Even if the crow is hushed away and we sit at another plate
of good food, our mood would have been upset
and the good food refuses to go in! That kind of disgust is what should
be developed in objects of sensual enjoyment
-- that is vairaagyaM, says the Acharya.
When such a disgust becomes really intense, even a picnic will appear
only as disgusting as the leavings of a crow! One will start thinking that
there is no need for a picnic when, as
the Acharya has said, it is only necessary to calm the disease of hunger by
eating what one gets by BikshhA
(ritual begging).
It
is not as if we are talking only about the pleasures that one enjoys through
this human body in this world. Our distaste has to be even in those enjoyments
one hopes to experience in the world of BrahmA. The jugupsA has to extend that far. *dehAdi brahma-paryante*.
The
Absolute Truth that is formless and attributeless, called Brahman – that is the
only thing to be aimed. The enjoyments that may be offered by The Lord whose
form is Creator BrahmA, in his world, -- all these have to discarded as
valueless.
In
SAdhanA-chatushhTayaM, when the Acharya mentions vairaagyaM he actually refers to it with a long
qualifying adjective as *ihAmutrArtha-bhoga-virAgaM*
or *ihAmutra-phala-bhoga-virAgaM*.
(Brahma-sutra- bhashya:
‘iha’
+ ‘amutra’ is ‘ihAmutra’. ‘iha’ means this world we live in now. ‘amutra’ means the pitR loka or indra loka
etc. which are not ‘here’
or ‘near’ but ‘far, somewhere’. The world of the divines where several
of the devas live as well as the farthest ‘brahma loka’ where Brahma lives –
all of these are included in the ‘amutra’. Tiruvalluvar says: “Those with no
Money miss this world; those with no Grace miss the other world” – ‘this world’
here is ‘iha’ and ‘the other world’ here is ‘amutra’. The experiences in that
brahma loka are also not the spiritual experiences; nor are the bliss of the
Brahma-loka the Bliss of the Atman. The pleasure of Brahma-loka also vanishes
during dissolution at the end of the kalpa. It is not eternal or permanent like
the Bliss of the Atman. Further, even
there one gets only the pleasure that keeps
the distinction between jIvAtmA and paramAtma and so it won’t be even an iota of the great Bliss
of identification of the two. Thus the ‘virAga’ is the ‘vairAgya’ in the experience (‘bhoga’) of the objects (‘artha’)
that one gets in ‘iha’ or ‘amutra’. That is why it is ‘ihAmutrArtha-bhoga-virAgaM’. When we talk of this in another way
as ‘vairAgya’ in the experience of the fruits of this world or the other world,
he calls it ‘ihAmutra-phala-bhoga-virAgaM’.
‘artha’ is an object; ‘phala’ is that which we get from the object.
Those
who have ‘vairAgya’ are known as *vIta-rAga*’s. The ‘vAtApi GanapatiM’ song has *vIta-rAginaM vinata-yoginaM*. In Mundakopanishad (III – 2 - 5), the Rishis are said to have obtained
contentment in their Enlightenment, to have been established in the Atman, to
be ‘vIta-rAga’s (free from attachment) and finally are described
as ‘prashAnta’ – those who are fully composed.
It
is the distaste that arises from vairAgya
that is called *nirvedaM*. When one obtains complete indifference to
worldly matters, that is ‘nirvedaM’.
Incidentally, it is this feeling that is at the source of ‘shAnta rasa’
– says the alankAra shAstra. ‘vairAgyaM’ and ‘nirvedam’ are similar
words. It is also spoken of in the same Upanishad (I – 2 – 12) that speaks of *vItarAga*’s. The
Acharyal comments in his bhashya: The prefix ‘ni’ added to the root ‘vid’ gives
rise to the word ‘nirvedaM’ and the
meaning is ‘vairAgyaM’ -- *vairAgyArthe*. Two things that are spoken
of very highly in the path of karma is
what is known as *ishhTA-pUrtaM*, namely the yajnas and social services. But
even they are only preliminaries (*pUrvAngas*) to be renounced after they have
taken us to jnAna-yoga. Instead of
taking them to be part of karma yoga, those who think they can lead us to the
goal are only downright fools -- *pramUDha*’s, says the Upanishad. ‘Not just ordinary fools, but totally deluded
fools’. “An intelligent brahmin should discover by analysis that even the heavens that one obtains even
by the highest type of karma are only ‘anitya’
(impermanent) ; should get the knowledge that brahman which is actionless
cannot be obtained by any action; and thus get *nirvedaM* , that is, he should
get vairAgyaM. Thereafter he should
seek a Guru who is a brahma-nishhTa, get the upadesha from him and himself get
brahma-jnAna”.
Earlier
we saw that Karma yoga is the first stage; to get the formal teaching for brahma-jnAna after becoming a sannyAsi is the third stage; what comes in between as the second stage is
the SAdhanA-chatushhTayaM; and the second item in this four-fold SAdhanA is vairAgyaM. But here the first stage is spoken of as karma, then is
mentioned only vairAgyaM and then
quickly the teaching of brahma-jnAna,
which is actually the third stage, is mentioned. From this it is clear that vairAgyaM alone suffices and if one
holds on to it steadfastly, all the four parts of SAdhanA-chatushhTayaM
will be acquired automatically.
When
the Acharyal is writing the BhashyaM for this Upanishad, several mantras
earlier, when the matter of the worldly apara-vidyA and the spiritual
parA-vidyA comes up (I – 1 -5) he says:
“All can study the Brahma-vidya intending to give Brahma-jnAna and become very knowledgeable; but if one wants to get the
experiential knowledge of Brahman, one has to go, with vairAgyaM, to a Guru, and
get the upadeshaM – *gurvabhigamanAdi-lakshhaNaM
vairAgyaM*” . Thus he refers only to vairAgyaM here.
We
saw that the Acharyal has given the definition of ‘vairAgyaM’ as *darshana-shravaN- AdibhiH jugupsA*, that is, “a
distaste for all that is seen and all that is heard”. He thus talks about two things ‘seen’ and ‘heard’.
Recall that Lord Krishna also mentions (in II – 52) two things *shrotavyasya shrutasya ca* -- that which
is to be heard and that which has been heard. All the nonsensical things that
we have heard and stored up in our memory
constitute those that have been ‘heard’. Further those about which we
are dead curious and itching to know – ‘I should know about that and about
this’ – these are the ones ‘to be heard’.
From both of these we should get ‘nirvedaM’ – is what the Lord is saying
(in II – 52). When the Acharyal writes
the Bhashya for this he interprets ‘nirvedaM’
as ‘vairAgyaM’. The Lord says
here that when the intellect which has been totally tainted because of its
being immersed in the gutter of delusion comes out of that gutter, then one gets vairAgyaM in whatever that is heard or whatever is to be heard. The
point of taintedness by delusion is explicitly named by the Acharya as “the
confusion of the intellect in discriminating between Atman and anAtman”. That
is what was listed as number one in chatushhTayaM. The next one is vairAgyaM. The Lord also
lists them in the same order in this shloka.
vairAgyaM is the absence of ‘rAga’, that is,
desire. One who has vairAgyaM is
VairAgi, also BairAgi. The bairAgi homeless renuciates of north
Usually
we interpret ‘rAga’ and ‘
The
Upanishad says: He who has no vairAgyaM
is a ‘kAmayamAnaH’ and he who has vairAgyaM
is ‘akAmayamAnaH’. The Upansihad further
talks about them. The ‘kAmayamAnaH’ thinks that karma is everything and keeps
on performing his karmas, then he reaps their fruits in the other world; when
that gets exhausted he is born again here and
revolves in the same rut of karma. On the other hand the ‘akAmayamana’,
that is, the one who has vairAgyaM,
is, the Upanishad goes on, ‘akAma’,
‘nishkAma’ and ‘AptakAma’ . When he throws off his desires he is ‘akAma’
(desireless). Instead of his making efforts to get rid of desires, when they
themselves run away from him, he is
‘nishkAma’ (devoid of desires). Then he
becomes an ‘AptakAma’ – one who has attained his desires! When the Upanishad
speaks like this, one gets the doubt: ‘How does an ‘akAmayamAna’ (one who is
not subject to desires) have desires? What does he desire to obtain?’. But this is explained by the
next epithet which the Upanishad uses in the series: ‘akAma’, ‘nishkAma’,
‘AptakAma’ and ‘AtmakAma’. ‘AtmakAma’ is one who has desire for the Atman only.
When he gets that he becomes an ‘AptakAma’ – he who has attained his desire.
Thus the one who has vairAgyaM
becomes an akAma, nishkAma, AptakAma and
AtmakAma; when he dies his jIva does not go to any other world. The Upanishad
says that he is Brahman even while
living and when the body falls, he is still immersed in Brahman (Br. U. IV – 4
– 6) . It is the state of desirelessness, that is, vairAgyaM, that has been
said to be so qualified for Brahman-experience.
If
one is not just a ‘shrotriya’ – a scholar with deep understanding of the vedas
– but is also an ‘akAmahata’ , that is, one who is not destroyed by
desire, he is the one who rises step by
step, each times a hundredfold, in the bliss that starts from that of a ruler
of this world to the ultimate bliss of Brahman, says Taittiriyopanishad (II – 8) and also
(though slightly in a different way)
Br.U. IV – 3 – 33. Thus here
also, it is the destruction of desire, that is, being with vairAgyaM, is the prime
qualification.
In
the Gita also Bhagavan has emphasized as important, only the two things:
“Practice and Dispassion” *abhyAsaM* and *vairAgyaM*.
To still the truant mind in one place
persistent efforts have to be made.
Persistent effort is what ‘practice’ means. For stilling the mind the other
important requisite is Dispassion (vairAgyaM), says He.
In
the very beginning of Gitopadesha, when he talks about the characteristics of a
‘sthita-prajna’, he mentions as the first characteristic: *prajahAti yadA kAmAn sarvAn pArtha manogatAn*. This itself is
nothing but vairAgyaM. In the last
chapter, when he talks about what should be done in the jnAna path, after having attained success in the path of karma, he
says *nityaM vairAgyaM samupAshritaH* (XVIII – 52) – “Dispassion to be practised
uninterruptedly”.
vairAgyaM is the distaste in everything that you
see or hear. This is Acharyal’s statement (in Vivekachudamani). Of these,
putting aside ‘the seen’, the Lord says in the Gita, as I told you already, two
things “what is heard, and what is to be heard”. Now in the same Gita when the
Acharyal is doing the bhashya for *nityaM
vairAgyaM samupAshritaH*, he says
“The absence of a thirst of desire in both the seen and the unseen’ -- *dRRishhTA-dRRishTeshhu vishhayeshhu
vaitRRishhNyaM*. What does he mean by deisre in the unseen? It is the desire for experience of heaven and
in things like the post of Indra, etc.
If one goes through the regimen
of veda-ordained karmas as if they are an end in themselves, one obtains such
pleasures of the divine world. But they are not visible to our perception now,
so they are called *adRRishhTaM*.
*dRRishhTaM* means what is seen.
The unseen is *adRRishhTaM*.
Thus
we see ViarAgyaM from three different angles.
One: The abandonment of the
desires in everything that we see or hear; two: the abandonment of the desires
in what we have heard or what we are going to hear; and three: the abandonment
of desires in the seen and the unseen.
[Note by Ra. Ganapathy: In Gita XIII – 8 the word
‘VairAgyam’ occurs.
When the Acharyal
is commenting on this, he explains:
“In the senses like sound etc. , a
desireless attitude
towards the
experiences seen and unseen” .
The etc. connotes all that can occupy the mind through the
senses
– just as the
Mahaswamigal would want us to understand.]
Putting
all this together we get the meaning for *sarvAn pArtha manogatAn*, that is,
any desire that can occupy the mind has to be tabooed; that is what vairAgyaM is.
This is a very important part of SAdhanA.
BhartRhari
was a great man. He has composed a *shatakaM*, that is, a piece of hundred verses, with great feeling and
majesty, about Sannyasa and Sannyasi. He could have as well named it “Sannyasa
shatakaM”. Instead he has named it “VairAgya shatakaM*. If VairAgyam is there Sannyasa is not far
behind – seems to be the thought.
What
else is ‘San-nyAsaM’? Is it not a total ‘renunciation’? Unless you renounce that which is called
desire, how can you renounce everything else? So it is not surprising that Sannyasam,
as well as Renunciation, are both synonymous with vairAgyaM.
The
great Tiruvalluvar has told us in Tamil
about Dharma. In the chapter on Renunciation, he says that renunciation is
when we attach ourselves only to the
attachmentless God, thus renouncing all other attachments. It is by desire, by
rAga, that one gets attachment. Alternatively, when we have an association with
something, that is when we are attached to something, then there arises desire
towards that – just as the Lord has said *sangAt sanjAyate kAmaH* (II – 62).
Thus both desire and attachment are mutually cause and effect for each
other. Therefore when Tiruvalluvar says
*patru viDarkku* (abandonment of attachment), he is actually referring to the rise of vairAgyaM. He calls that renunciation and closes that chapter with
the words *patru viDarkku*. In the same section of chapters there is another
chapter called “cutting off of desires” (*avA aruttal*), which is also only vairAgyaM.
VairAgyam
is the walking off from all wealth. That VairAgyam itself is a great wealth, There
is nothing equivalent to that in the whole world, why, nothing in the divine
world either – says he very beautifully:
*VenDamai
anna vizhuccelvam INDillai
ANDum
akdu oppadu il*.
Almost
the same thought (about renunciation and vairAgyam) has been expressed by
Sadashiva Brahmendra. In his Atma-vidyA-vilAsaM he visualises the Sannyasi as a king (of the
spiritual kingdom) and says: *svIkRRita-vairAgya-sarvasvaH* -- the one who has
appropriated all the treasures of vairAgyaM. He himself was like that! Men like
BhartRhari, Tiruvalluvar and Sadashiva
Brahmendra were themselves in possession of great vairAgya. Their thoughts
about vairAgya touch our hearts -- at least for that moment! From their mouths
we learn how, though acquiring that kind of vairAgyam may be most difficult,
once we achieve it we then really have
the treasure of the bliss of the Atman, -- the treasure that belittles as trash
all those treasures that we have been
holding as great. Did not our own
Acharya run away with the utmost vairAgya at the age of eight from home, from
town and from the very mother who was treating him with extraordinary affection
as her own very soul? In fact he has
produced a panchakaM (a piece of five shlokas) where each shloka has the ending
refrain: *kaupInavantaH khalu bhAgyavantaH* (Blessed are those with nothing but
a loin cloth). In BhajagovindaM also he asks *kasya sukhaM na karoti virAgaH*
-- Who is the one that will not get Eterrnal Bliss from vairAgyaM?
The
moment one thinks of vairAgyaM one
will not fail to recall the famous PattinattAr! He was born as an amsha of
Kubera and was doing even overseas trade. But one day there came the boy, an
amsha of Lord shiva, who left a written message “Not even a useless needle will
come along with you on your last journey” and disappeared. As soon as
Pattinathar saw that, he renounced all his immense wealth and left home clad
only in a loin-cloth, carrying only a begging bowl (‘Odu’ in Tamil), singing
the couplet
*VIDu
namaakkut-tiruvAlangADu vimalar tantha
Odu
namakkuNDu*.
In
course of time even that begging bowl was thrown away by him since holding that ‘property’ was thought to
be unbecoming of a renunciate. And he
sang:
Hometown is not permanent; nor are
relatives
Neither
is the name they gave you .....
(In
Tamil: *Oorum cathamalla, uRRaar chathamalla
[uRRup-peRRa]
perum
chathamalla ...*)
When
we hear the innumerable songs he has composed, vairAgya arises in us, even
though temporarily just as one gets after a child-birth (called
*prasava-vairAgyam*) or after visiting a cremation (called
*smashAna-vairAgyam*) !
I
told you about BhartRhari. There is a story that even he was a disciple of this Pattinathar. BhartRhari is also known as Bhadragiri. This
Bhadragiri was a king of
There
are more interesting things in this
story; but I am not going to continue the story, for, then I won’t have time to
tell you about all the things I want to say about SAdhanA. When we are talking
of VairAgyam I thought the mention of these great role models of renunciation
would add to the depth of the ideas.
Here
the one who sang *Odu namakkuNDu* (‘we
have the begging bowl’) later came to the conclusion that even one who has the Odu (Begging bowl) is actually a
family man! There is a similar story in the life history of Sadashiva Brahmendra. He sings in his Atma
Vidya Vilasam (#46): “With the folded hand as
pillow, the sky as blanket, the
bare ground as bed, and dispassion
as wife – thus sleeps a renunciate in
the blessed state of samAdhi”. Once he was
himself in that blissful pose of sleep on the ground in an open field. A farmer
girl who was passing by, remarked to her friend, with a sarcastic smile: What a
sannyasi! He needs a head-rest for his
head; what type of renunciation is this? This made Sadashiva Brahmendra think:
‘How come I am thinking like an ordinary man that the head has to rest above the level of the rest
of the body in order to sleep? Unless I get rid of this attachment to the body
my sannyAsa is not worth the salt. It
is only Mother Goddess who has come in the form of this low-caste woman to give
me this upadesha’. Thus thinking, he removed his hand that was used as a head rest and lay on the
ground without any headrest.
But
the same woman who had commented earlier passed that way again, saw the change
in the posture of the sannyasi and again gave a sarcastic laugh followed by an
equally sarcastic comment! She said: “A Sannyasi should know things for
himself. Just to keep reacting to comments
made by passers-by does not speak well of renunciation!”
That
was the day when Sadashiva became an
honest-to-goodness non-reacting, non-acting, non-responding inert-like entity,
Sadashiva Brahman!
Thus
even the commonfolk seem to be knowing what kind of vairAgyaM should a Sannyasi possess.! It is in such a land of ours
we have modern Sannyasis who say they cannot remain without coffee or ovaltine!
And if you ask, they may say: “We are ati-varNAshramis, who are above the
Sannyasi level; as that low-caste woman said, we know what to do and what not
to do”
Instead
of showing off like this, if one wants to be really in possession of Atma-jnAna, the one single thing very, very
necessary, is vairAgyaM. It is said (e.g., in Jabala Upanishad IV and other
Sannyasa Upanishads) that when that vairAgyaM
has been acquired, then that very day
one can leave home as a Sannyasi -- *yad-ahareva virajet tadahareva pravrajet*.
But
one should not leave home or karma in
disgust of the present life not giving
any permanent happiness. Such a thing will turn out to be dry. The disgust
about the present impermanent life should be accompanied by the thought about
the permanent bliss of the Atman. Then
only it will turn out to be a right SAdhanA
and in turn lead to everlasting bliss. Once the Realisation is reached, the
disgust also will disappear and everything will be full of Love. In other words
it is in association with the
comprehension (vivekaM) of the syndrome of the permanent and the
impermanent that one should practise vairAgyaM. Neither vairAgyaM
without that vivekaM nor vivekaM without
the vairAgyaM will suffice. They have
to combine.
The
very fact we are asked to analyse the distinction between the permanent and the
impermanent is to discard the impermanent through dispassion. To get that dispassion is the first step of
the spiritual ascent. That is why ‘AparokshAnubhUti’ gives importance to
vairAgyam and classifies vairAgyaM as
the first step. In ‘VivekachUDAmani’ also *mokshhasya prathamo hetuH* (Verse
69/ Verse 70 in another reading) – An extreme vairAgya in things impermanent is
the first cause for Moksha – thus combining the two in a symbiotic way.
Thus these constitute
the first two of SAdhanA-chatushhTayaM.
Let
us go to the third now. Viveka and VairAgya are at least known to all people in
a general way. But the SAdhanA parts
that we are going to describe now may not be so known, even by name.
18. The Sextad of treasurable qualities.
The
third part of SAdhanA-chatushhTayaM is
called *shamAdi shhaTka-sampatti* --
the sextad of treasures beginning with ‘shama’.
These are: ‘shama’, ‘dama’, ‘uparati’, ‘titikshhA’, ‘shraddhA’ and ‘samAdhAna’. Of these people know about ‘shraddhA’, but even here, they usually
think it means a deep interest or
involvement. It is not so. A firm conviction or faith is called shraddhA; I have already mentioned that shraddhA is faith in what the ShAstras
and the Guru say. Again, the sixth one,
called ‘samAdhAna’ is also a well-known word but not a well-understood word in
its connotation of one of the six ‘sampatti’. We shall take it up when we come
to it in due turn.
The
six are referred to as ‘shamAdi’ by
our Acharya. Note that it is ‘shamAdi’
and not ‘samAdhi’. The ‘sha’ is not the
‘sa’ of ‘sa-ri-ga-ma-pa...’ but the ‘sha’ of ‘Shankara’. *shama-damAdi
upetaH syAt* says Brahma-sutra (III – 4 – 27). For the attainment of jnAna one should have shama, dama and the like. *tad-vidheH* -- that is the rule, adds the
Sutra. Who made the rule? Obviously, the Vedas. It is Ishvara who has so ordained through the vedas.
Where
exactly do the vedas prescribe shama,
dama and the like? In Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad, (IV – 4 –
23) where Yajnavalkya teaches Janaka, he
says a JnAni has to be a *shAnta*
(one with shama), *dAnta* (one with dama), *uparata* (one with uparati), *titukshhu* (one with titikshhA) and *samAhita* (one with
samAdhAna). In other words, only he who has practised and acquired all these
can become a JnAni or can obtain jnAna. Here five of the six have been mentioned. The same
order among them is also maintained by the Acharya. ‘ShraddhA’ is the remaining one. It is actually basic to everything.
The shruti talks about it in several places. Thus we always talk about the
sextad of ‘shama’ and the like.
What is ‘shama’? The Acharya gives the following
definition:
Virajya
vishhaya-vrAtA doshha-dRRishhTyA muhur-muhuH /
svalakshhye
niyatAvasthA manasaH shama uchyate
// (Vivekachudamani: 22)
The
conglomerate of all sensual experience in the form of sound, touch, form, taste
and smell by the five sense organs is called *vishhaya-vrAta*. By discretion (viveka) and dispassion (vairAgya) one has to analyse and
discover that all these are only obstacles on the path to Self-Realisation and
so we have to discard them. This is what is said by *muhur-muhuH
doshha-dRRishhTyA virajya* -- meaning, ‘often, by realising they are bad,
discarding out of disgust’.
Our
mind is always thinking about what it considers pleasurable and is perturbed
because of the inability to reach them. Thus it misses peace and happiness.
Once we discard the sense objects as bad then it would be possible to fix the mind on the goal of SAdhanA, the Atman, which is full of
peace and happiness. In other words the
mind that is frantically running after
multifarious matters can be made to stop that running and can be
tethered to one goal. That kind of control is what is called *shama*.
One
should think about the negative effects of ‘vishhaya-vrAta’,
the gang of sense experience.
‘virajya’ : discarding them out of
disgust.
‘sva-lakshhye’
: in one’s own goal.
‘manasaH niyata avasthA’ : keep the mind
tethered under control
‘shama uchyate’ : is said to be ‘shama’.
In short, the control of mind is ‘shama’.
Why
does the mind run after sense objects? It is because of the footprints of past
experience. They are called ‘smell’ or ‘vAsanA’. This continues life after life. This inter-life vAsanA continues in a latent
form in the subtle body, even after the
physical body dies. When the soul takes
another birth and thus obtains a new physical body, the latent vAsanAs begin to
show their mettle! If those vAsanAs can be eradicated in toto, the mind will be
calmed automatically. It is thus the
Acharya defines ‘shama’ in
‘aparokshhAnubhUti’. (Just now what we gave was the definition from Viveka
chudamani).
*sadaiva vAsanA-tyAgaH shamo’yam-iti
shabditaH*
Abandonment
always of desire-promptings through
vAsanAs is said to be ‘shama.
It is enough to understand that ‘shama’ is control of the mind.
The
thing that comes next is ‘dama’. It
is control of the sense organs. In fact
there is a lot more to say about ‘shama’. But mind-control and sense-control have both
to go hand in hand. So let us talk about some basics of ‘dama’ also now and then we can go more deeply about both together.
Sense
organs are ten – five organs of action and five organs of perception. But the latter cannot ‘do’ anything themselves. The organs
of action do action themselves: actions done by hands – the names ‘kara’ (hand)
and ‘kAryaM’ (action) are themselves indicative, the legs do action by walking,
jumping and running, the mouth speaks or sings, and two remaining organs
excrete waste or vIryaM from the human body.
On the other hand the organs of perception are those which cognize (or perceive) things in the outside world and ‘experience’
them. The ear experiences sound, the
skin experiences the smoothness or otherwise and the coldness or hotness of
something outside, the eye perceives
colour and form, the tongue experiences the taste like sourness, bitterness or
sweetness and the nose knows the experience of smell.
When
we do not keep these sense organs under control all the mischief happens. The JIva
is bound to this mayic world through the experiences by these sense organs.
Only when we control these organs may we hope to enter the world of
spirituality. Such control is called ‘dama’.
The
direct meanings of both ‘shama’ and ‘dama’ is control without any specific
qualifier as control of the mind or control of the senses. But traditional
usage recognises two controls – one, control of the sense organs which either receive or respond to knowledge
from outside and control of the sense organs which do actions to help such
perception or response and two, control of the mind which creates its own world
of thoughts and constantly is roaming about with or without aim in that
world. Usage distinguishes these two controls and so uses ‘shama’ for mind control and ‘dama’
for sense control. Since anyway both mean control the Acharya himself, in the
beginning of his ‘shhaTpadI stotraM’ goes against traditional usage and uses ‘damaya manaH’ where he wants to say ‘control the mind’ and
uses ‘shamaya vishhaya
mRRiga-tRRishhNAM’ where he wants to say ‘control the senses that run to the
mirage of outside sense objects’. The Prakarana works of the Acharya are unique
in describing the advaitic experiences. One can also get from them the
rationale and procedure of SAdhanA
regimen in a systematic way. On the other hand when we want to get at the
siddhanta (conclusion) by analysing the pros and cons of Vedanta, we have to
give weight to his Bhashyas. And we may be surprised to note that in these
very Bhashyas he has sometimes interpreted shama
and dama in a way contrary to their
traditional usage! In fact this has raised even some controversy among
scholars. Remember I told you earlier that the sextad of qualifications with
the exception of shraddhA has been
mentioned in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. In his commentary at that point, the
Acharya has interpreted ‘shAnta’ (one endowed with shama) as ‘one who has controlled the goings-on of the outer
senses’ (*bAhyendriya vyApArata upashAntaH*), that is, the one who has reached
a position generally accepted to be the
state of ‘dama’; and he has
interpreted ‘dAnta’ (one endowed with dama)
as ‘one who has released himself of the thirst (tRRishhNA) of the inner organ,
the mind, (*antaHkaraNa-tRRishhNato nivRRittaH*), that is, the one who has
reached a position generally accepted to be the state of ‘shama’. On the other hand, in his prakaraNa work, Viveka-chudamani, he goes with the general trend of meaning. But this need not raise a debate or
controversy. He wrote the Bhashyas
almost soon after he was initiated into Sannyasa in his youth. Shama, dama both point to ‘control’ and he
might have thought it fit to talk of sense-control first and then only of
mind-control. And later when he travelled throughout the country he might have
decided to follow the accepted tradition among the scholars.
‘dama’ and ‘shama’ both imply a control on oneself by oneself. So when we
generally talk of self-control in an integrated sense of both mind-control and
sense-control, we may rightly use either ‘dama’
or ‘shama’ alone. In
BrihadaranyakaM when BrahmA
teaches the divines generally to be humble, he just says “dAmyata” thus using only the word ‘dama’.
An
alternate name for Bharata, the son of
Dushyanta and Shakuntala is ‘sarva-damana’,
meaning one who controls and reigns over all.
It was because of the dominance of
her beauty that Damayanti is so called. The God of Death, Yama, is
called ‘shamana’ because he calms
away the life of every one, be he a king or a pauper, when the time comes for
it.
From
the word ‘dama’ the two words ‘damanaM’ and ‘dAnti’ have been derived; so also from the word ‘shama’, the two words ‘shamanaM’ and ‘shAnti’ have come. The words ‘shamanaM’ and ‘shAnti’ are more frequently in use than ‘damanaM’
and ‘dAnti’. We say ‘ushhNa-shamanaM’
and ‘pitha-shamanaM’ for controlling
heat and bile, respectively. Also ‘krodha-shamanaM’
for controlling anger. Though ‘control’
is generally the intention here, the connotation is more mild and points out
only to a softening rather than a violent control. The word ‘shAnti’ itself
connotes a calming down and stands for a peaceful process or state where the
intensity of control does not surface.
‘shAnti’
is the state of calmed mind; ‘dAnti’ is the state of calmed senses. Usually
sannyAsis are given the attributes like ‘shAnti
dAnti bhUmnAM’.
[Note by Ra. Ganapthy: In the Mutt
the Shrimukham of the PithAdipati (head
of Mutt)
includes this as one of the attributes.]
The
eyes and ears can close themselves and stop seeing or hearing. The hands and
legs also can be tied so that they are incapable of any action. But even then
the mind will be having its own goings-on without any discipline. Even though
the senses are not experiencing anything, the mind can imagine them and go
through all the rumblings and turbulences. When the senses act they act only by
the promptings of the mind and for the satisfaction of the mind or fulfillment
of the desires of the mind. So what is necessary is to immobilise the mind in
order to stop all the multifarious activities of the senses.
It
is because of this importance of mental
control and discipline that SAdhanA
regimens talk first of shama and dwell on dama later.
Of
course an objection may be raised: “If shama
is achieved then automatically dama
is also a part of it; so why has it to
be dealt with separately?”
The
complete control of the mind – what is also called the ‘death of the mind’ (*mano-nAshaM*) occurs
only almost at the last stage. We are here talking about the penultimate
stages. Of course one has to try to control the mind right from the beginning.
But the attempt at such control will only succeed temporarily. The moment the
eyes see a tasty dish or the nose smells something familiarly pleasant, all
discipline goes to the winds. The legs take you to the dish, the hands grab it,
and the mouth begins to chew it. Thus even the mind was having a little control
of itself, the senses perceive the sense object and that starts a yearning and
that does havoc to the control of the mind. Until we reach a spiritual height,
our mind behaves like this – that is, controlled when the sense objectrs are
not in the perception-range of the senses, and losing control when the senses
‘sense’ the objects of temptation. Those
are the situations when the ‘eyes’, ‘ears’ ‘nose’, ‘legs’ ‘hands’ etc. have to
be imprisoned and bound. This is why, ‘dama’
is mentioned as soon as ‘shama’ is
mentioned.
Kathopanishad
gives a beautiful analogy for mind and the senses. JIva is like the master seated in a chariot. The body is the
chariot. The intellect is the charioteer. The chariot has several horses. Which
are the horses? They are nothing but our senses. The charioteer steers the
chariot by pulling the reins thereby controlling the horses. Those reins
are the mind. The intellect – the one which has already been tempered by viveka and vairAgya, the first two of the four parts of SAdhanA-chatushhTayaM –
is now the wise intellect and therefore the right charioteer who pilots the
chariot of the body along the path of life.
The right path is the spiritual path. The charioteer has to pull the
reins (the mind) the proper way, not too
hard, not too loose, so that the sense-horses go only in the direction of the
highest experiences in life. When the destination of Brahman realisation
arrives, one releases the horses (senses)
as well as the reins (the mind) and also the charioteer (the intellect),
the JIva (the resident of the
chariot) who is the master can enjoy the Self by himself for himself!
‘dama’ denotes sense-control; but here
only the senses of perception (jnAnendriyas) are indicated. Just as it is the
mind which is the force behind the five senses of perception so also it is the
force of the senses of perception that motivate the karmendriyas (senses of
action) into action. That is why, the control of the senses of action are not
dealt with separately. The control of indriyas
usually means control of the five senses of perception only. In Viveka
Chudamani a little later (#76 or 78, depending on what
reading you are using) these five senses are shown to be the harbinger of all
evil. “The deer obtains its ruin by the sense of sound through the ear (Hunters play the flute, the deer gets
charmed by the music and stands still; that is when it is caught). The elephant
reaches its ruin by the sense of touch through the skin (The he-elephant is caught when he forgets
himself in the pleasure of contact with a she-elephant, already known to him
and now lured into his track). The moth
meets its death by sensing the form through the eyes (Does it not burn itself
by being attracted by the form of light-flame which deludes it?). The fish
meets its ruin by the sense of taste realised by the tongue (The bait of the
fisherman is the worm that prompts the fish to taste it and gets caught). The
bee meets its ruin by the sense of smell
(The smell of the champaka flower attracts the bee and it goes and sits
inside the full blossom of the flower; when the flower petals close up the bee
still remains there, being enchanted by the smell and that is when it dies,
starved of fresh air). Thus each of the
five different senses of perception prove to be the cause of death for one of
the five different species of beings. The human, on the other hand is a prey to
all the five senses of perception. What to speak of the crisis in store for him?”
However,
in shloka #23 he refers to *ubhayeshhAM
indriyANAM*, where he defines ‘dama’.
He says ‘dama’ is the control of both
types of senses, of perception as well as of action; the control is of the
experience of pleasures obtained by both:
vishhayebhyaH parAvartya
sthApanaM sva-svagolake /
ubhayeshhAM indriyANAM sa
damaH parikIrtitaH //
‘dama’ is said to be the withdrawal of both kinds of senses (jnAna as well as karma) from
their objects of enjoyment and limiting them to their own spheres
(*sva-sva-golake*).
Here
the ‘withdrawing of the senses’ makes sense; but ‘limiting the senses to their
own spheres’ is not so clear. Let me
tell you how I have myself understood this. It does not mean that one should
not see anything, should not hear anything, should not eat anything, should not
move about or do anything with hands and feet. No, the Acharya does not mean
that. If we stop all activities that way then the journey of life itself would
become impossible. And then where comes the SAdhanA? Only if the base screen is there you can draw
pictures on it. Whatever is necessary for life’s journey – like seeing,
hearing, eating, walking, moving – has to be done. Thus what is necessary to be
done automatically defines a limit, a limiting sphere of activity, on all the
senses. This is what is called *golaka* by the Acharya. That particular
activity of the particular sense (indriya) which is necessary for life to continue, that range of activity is
its golakaM. Once you transcend it, it
is detrimental to the spirit. That boundary shall never be crossed. An automobile
for instance can go at a particular speed; the very purpose of an automobile is
to go places. But there is a speed limit. In the same way in the journey of
life so long as the journey is on, there is work for the senses. You cannot
stifle them by cutting them off from their work.
The
Lord says in the Gita (III – 8) : Do what is prescribed for you; Without doing
any work you cannot carry on this journey of life. This has to be brought into concordance here.
Don’t
take *golaka* as ‘orb’. Take it as
‘orbit’ – the path of the movement and not just
movement. When all the planets keep to their orbits around the Sun the
solar universe and the inhabitants of this universe carry on their routine normally. In order for
life in the universe to be normal the movement of the planets has to conform to
its schedule. What will happen if one of the planets just go out of its
‘orbit’? What will happen if the planets do not get into their respectrive
orbits? Either way there will be chaos.
In the same way the ten senses of man have to keep staying in their orbits and
keep doing their prescribed work; otherwise, there will be no life – only
death. Maybe everything will then have to start all over again according to the
maxim *punarapi jananaM*. And we do not know whether we will get a human birth
in that ‘punarapi jananaM’. At least now we talk of the Atman and we have
occasion to talk of ‘SAdhanA’ to
reach that Atman. Our new birth may not be anywhere near the availability of
these opportunities. In short, we have to see to it that the indriyas do their
necessary work but do not get out of their limited sphere of action. The
*sthApanaM* (fixation, establishment) of the senses in their spheres of
action is not a stoppage of the senses, but is a fixing of
them in their own path.
Recall
that all this applies to both jnAnendriyas (senses of perception ) and
karmendriyas (senses of action).
Usually
the five senses of perception and the five of action are counted along with the
mind as eleven indriyas. The eleven rudra
forms of Lord Shiva are the adhi-devatas, the deities pertaining to these
senses. When we fast on the Ekadasi day
(the eleventh day of the lunar cycle) it is for starving these eleven indriyas.
Manu has said:
ekAdashaM mano jneyaM
svaguNeno-bhayAtmakaM /
yasmin jite jitAvetau
bhavataH panchakau gaNau
// (Manusmriti II – 92)
meaning,
“Know the mind as the eleventh indriya, that has an interactive relationship
with the pair of five indriyas each ; Just by vanquishing that one, we would
have conquered the other ten”.
There
is another kind of classification. Mind and the five senses of perception
(*jnAnendriyas*) only are together counted as six. In the Gita the Lord says
*indriyANAM manashchAsmi* (X -22). More
specifically, he says in XV – 7, *manaH shhashhTAnIndriyANi* -- ‘the six indriyas including the mind’.
There
are contexts where the Acharya also has the same opinion. For instance, the
indriyas are sometimes called ‘karaNas’ (instruments); because, it is the
instrument which implements the actions that fulfill the will of the jIva. On
the other hand, the actions of thinking, planning, enjoying happiness and
sorrow -- these are done by the mind
which is within. So mind is called ‘antaH-karaNaM’. Along with the five ‘karaNas’ that do work outside, the
Acharya visualises that sextad as a bee
and says in Soundaryalahari (#90) *majjIvaH karaNa-charaNaH shhaT-charaNatAM*.
The bee has six feet and so the JIva
with its six indriyas (‘karaNas’) is taken as a bee. All movement is with the
help of the legs. In life, all the movements of the jIva take place because of these six ‘karaNas’; so
they are as good as ‘legs’ for the jIva-bee! This is the ‘karaNa charaNa’ of
the shloka. The creature with six legs is the bee. The bee immerses itself in
the lotus flower and remains there in
enchanted forgetfulness. So also the plea of the devotee is to be
immersed in the lotus feet of Mother Goddess forgetful of itself like a bee
inside the lotus flower. That is when the mind and the pair of five indriyas
are calmed down and the JIva with shama and dama achieved, is immersed
in the Absolute. Mother Goddess (ambaaL) has in Her hands a sugarcane bow and
five arrows; the bow is to help us with
‘shama’ for mind-control and the
arrows are to vanquish the five senses thus helping us achieve ‘dama’.
In
short, both mind-control and sense-control have to go hand in hand,
complementary to each other. In fact all the parts of SAdhanA have to move in one
wavefront and so are to be practised as such in mixed fashion. I already told
you they are not supposed to follow one after the other in isolation. I have to
emphasize this further in the case of ‘shama’ and ‘dama’.
Sometimes
the senses do act involuntarily; maybe we can say those are the times when the
mind has nothing to do with them. But generally almost all the time, the
stopping of the actions of the indriyas or of the mind, does need the sanction
and prompting of the mind from within. The movement of the indriyas are in fact
the deliberate prompts of the mind which tries to fulfill its desires through
them. Of course there may be a little involuntary movement of the indriyas on
their own. Movement, maybe, but never the stoppage of movement. It is the
mind that has to stop the movement of the senses. Thus, not only is shama,
the control of the mind, but dama,
the control of the senses, also is the
responsibility of the mind. Therefore it is that we also have to contend with shama and dama together.
Lord
Krishna at one place talks of ‘dama’
as the work of mind: “indriyANi manasA niyamya” says He in III – 7. The same structure of
expression occurs in VI – 24 where he says “manasaivendriya-grAmaM viniyamya” –
that is, the gang of senses has to be controlled properly by the mind
itself. ‘By the mind itself’ – ‘not by
oneself’ is what is underscored by the words “manasaiva” ( = manasA eva). Thus
controlling, gradually and slowly (*shanaiH shanaiH uparamet*) one should calm down, says he. In fact ‘uparati’
is the next in *shhaTka-sampatti* starting from shama and dama. ‘uparamet’ means ‘one should reach ‘uparati’, namely the calming down
of everything.
The
Lord usually talks about shama and dama both together. *sarva-dvArANi
samyamya mano hRRidi nirudhya ca* (VIII – 12) : Here ‘sarva-dvArANi samyamya’
(damming all gates) is ‘dama’; ‘mano hRRidi nirudhya’ (fixing the mind in
the heart) is ‘shama’. The dvAras are the gates; these gates are the
indriyas, namely, ears, nose and mouth – in which the gates are visible and
explicit; and the skin, in which the gates are not visible, but we know every
hair on the skin is only a gate-like equipment, though invisible; and finally
the eyes, which we know is just a fixture in one of the openings of the skull
and further light passes through the eyes and creates all the images that we
see. So the controlling of these five
gates is nothing but the dama that
controls the senses. And the process of controlling the mind and stabilising it
in the Atman is the shama described
in “mano hRRidi nirudhya”.
“bhavanti
bhAvA bhUtAnAM matta eva pRRithak-vidhAH” – All the different attitudes of the
beings emanate from Me, says the Lord. And then He gives a list of the highest
among them: (X – 4, 5) Intellect, wisdom, non-delusion, forgiveness, truth,
self-
restraint (dama) , calmness (shama), ... . And when he makes a list
of all divine qualities in the 16th chapter, he includes both dama and shama in “dAnaM damashca”
and “tyAgaH shAntiH” (XVI – 1, 2) . As I have already mentioned, what is
obtained by shama is shAnti (Peace)
and what is obtained by dama is
‘dAnti’.
A
sannyasi is called ‘yati’. The Tamil
name ‘Ethiraj’ is only a mutilated version of ‘Yatiraja’. ‘Yati’ means a
Sannyasi. The direct meaning of the word is one who has the quality of control
or one who has controlled. Shri Ramanuja is usually known also as ‘Yatiraja’.
The words ‘yama’ and ‘yata’ both indicate ‘control’ or ‘discipline’. The divine Yama is one who controls every one
by fear. He takes them to his locale where they are controlled and punished; so
his locale is called ‘samyamanI’. That matter of Yama pertains to control of
others. But the matter of ‘Yati’ is control of the self. So the Shastras such
as the Gita talk of such a ‘yati’ as
‘yatAtmA’ or ‘samyatAtmA’. The forced controls take place in the city of
The
Lord says (IV – 39) *shraddhAvAn labhate
jnAnaM tatparaH samyatendriyaH* --
the one who has, with shraddhA (faith
and dedication), controlled all the senses and thus is a ‘samyatendriya’,
attains JnAna. Actually He has
symbiotically combined here shraddhA,
shama and dama , all three occurring in SAdhanA-chatushhTayaM!
In
describing the attributes of a sthita-prajna, He says: “Just as a tortoise
draws its head into the shell whenever there is danger, a human being should
withdraw his senses from the sense objects into himself” and thus emphasizes
the need for sense-control, by giving this beautiful analogy. Whenever the
senses go outward helter-skelter on their own, it is danger time for the human.
The tortoise has to draw its head into the shell only when it smells danger;
but the human has always to do this withdrawal. The Lord underscores this fact
by using a simple additional word, almost innocuously as it were, namely, the
word *sarvashaH* in that verse II – 58.
*sarvashaH* means ‘always and by all means’ ! : *yadA samharate cAyaM
kUrmo’ngAnIva sarvashaH*.
In
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad the entire divine community gets the advice: (V – 2 – 1) *dAmyata*, meaning, ‘Keep your
senses under control’. The story goes as follows: Not only the Divines, but the
Humans as well as the Asuras – all three species went to PrajApati, their
Creator to get advice. They were told by BrahmA only a single letter “da” and
were also asked whether they had understood it.
Generally
every one knows one’s own weakness. So if somebody tells him a message in a disguised way and asks him to
understand what he needed to understand, they will get the message in the way
they think it was applicable to them. To
understand something oneself this way has also a greater value. It will stick.
One will not find fault with the fault-finder, for the curiosity to decipher
the message will win!
That
is how, in the story of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the single letter ‘da’ was
conveyed by BrahmA to all the three species (devas, asuras and manushyas) at
the same time but each one of them understood it to mean differently. They
understood it to stand for the first letter of a message specially intended for
them. The divines took it to stand for ‘dAmyata’, that is, ‘control your
senses’. The Creator agreed with their interpretation of the message.
The
humans took it to mean ‘datta’ that is, ‘Give: Do acts of charity; be
charitable’. This also was approved by the Creator.
The
asuras took it to mean ‘dayadhvaM’, that is, ‘Be compassionate’. Again the
Creator gave his approval of this interpretation.
The
Acharya in his Bhashya has commented on this that the three categories of
people – devas, manushyas and asuras – are all of them in the human kingdom
itself. People who are generally known to be good, but still do not have their
senses in control are the ‘divines’. People who have no charitable disposition
and are greedy are the manushyas in the
classification, because man’s greatest weakness is greed and the consequent absence of a charitable disposition. People
who have not even an iota of compassion in their hearts are classified as
asuras. In other words, all the three messages of advice are for humanity.
The
moral of all this is that even those who have many good qualities do lack the
quality of self-control. This is because the attractions of sense-objects have
power to draw man into the vortex of MAyA. So the process of getting out of
those attractions can be very difficult. ‘dama
and shama’ -- it is not necessary to separate them as
two things; even for the divines the control of both the mind and the
senses was what was advised – this
control is what should be achieved with great effort. One should not leave off
the efforts after a few failed attempts. One should not have a feeling of
let-down by defeats in this effort. Trust in God and persistently make the
efforts. Keep the practice without losing heart.
Even
when the objects in the outside world
though perceptible to the ears, the eyes, and the tongue, are not within the
reach of these senses, the mind may be thinking all the time about the
experiences pertaining to those objects. The control of these thoughts is what
is called control of the mind. It is not at all easy to be achieved. What is to
be successfuly attempted at first is, even though the desires in the mind do
not vanish, at least in the outer world of activity the indriyas may be
restricted not to graze around – in other words, dama (control of the senses of action). A vrata, a fast, a starving
of the eyes from objectionable sights, avoidance of sense-pleasures on certain
days – such are the efforts that must be practised with some persistence. This
will lead to the mind being trained for the paractice of shama and becoming a little more mature. When the sense objects are
not around, it may be possible to control the mind from thinking about the
experiences with them and the mind may remain at rest; but once we come out
from that solitude to the outside world,
immediately the ears will long for movie music from the radio and the
tongue will yearn for that tasty coffee or other drink it used to have. Thus each indriya, without even
the prompting of the mind, will run after its old vAsanA. Independent of the
reins the horses now are ready to run! Now
again the ‘weapon’ of ‘dama’
has to be used. Thus controlling the indriyas from running after the external
objects, inspite of their availability around, the other weapon of ‘shama’ of the mind has to be applied so
that the mind also does not run after them. Thus the processes of ‘dama’ and ‘shama’ have to be used alternately as well as simultaneously until
one is really sure that one has achieved the needed control of both kinds. The
finishing line is of course the total peace that one obtains at the fulfillment
of ‘shama’.
Thus
what can be somehow accomplished is the process of ‘dama’. In the Mahanarayana Upanishad, with great sympathy, it
prescribes ‘dama’ regimen for a
Brahmachari and a ‘shama’ regimen for
the renunciate muni who has renounced everything. “The Brahmacharis hold that ‘dama’ is supreme, and revel in the
implementation of that; whereas the dwellers in the forests (the munis) hold
that ‘shama’ is supreme and revel in
the implementation of that” (Narayanopanishad: 78 – 3,4). The intended meaning
is that both ‘dama’ and ‘shama’ are to be started right from the
Brahmachari stage so that when one gets to the stage of sannyAsa, one can attain the total fulfillment of ‘shama’.
Where
the mind finally calms down and settles, that is the Atman. When the mind
stops, the Atman shines. Even in the previous stage, the senses would have
stopped running involuntarily and the mind would have of its own volition
controlled the senses. Thereafter the residual vAsanAs of the mind would be the
ones still to be eradicated. This eradication happens when ‘shama’ is totally achieved. Such a
complete cessation of the mind will generate the realisation of the Atman. Thus
it is that ‘shama’ is the final
calming down. That is why we say “shAntiH shAntiH shAntiH”
and also refer to it as “Atma-shAntiH”. The word ‘dAnti’ (controlled
mind and senses) is also of the same
kind. The controlling action implies a force, whereas what follows
is ‘shAntiH’. In other words it
is not ‘control, then shAnti’ but
‘control, that itself is shAnti’.
All
the great people pray mostly for the controlled calm of the mind. Lord Krishna
also advises us:
Yato
yato nishcharati
manash-chanchalam-asthiraM /
Tatas-tato niyamyaitat
Atmanyeva vashaM nayet
// (VI – 26)
The
use of two words ‘chanchalaM’
(wavering) and ‘asthiraM’ (unsteady) to describe the turbulent nature of the mind
is significant. By whatever
prompting this wavering and unsteady mind runs outward
towards objects, from each such prompting shall the mind be pulled back and
drawn into the confines of the Atman,
says the Lord.
Thus
when finally one settles in the Atman, that stage is the next, called ‘uparati’
in the sextad. ‘uparati’ means stoppage, cessation.
There is a meaning of ‘death’ also. In one of Tayumanavar’s songs (*parAparak-kaNNi* #169) he says ‘mind
should learn to die’.That is the stage when mind has reached a no-work state
and has calmed down thoroughly. By the continuous practice of shama and dama, mind has released itself from all the objects outside and
remains quiet, without any activity for itself – that is uparati. That is the definition in Vivekachudamani (#24):
*bAhyAvalambanaM vRRitteH
eshho’paratir-uttaMA *
This
uparati is mentioned here as the
highest (uttamA). ‘bAhyAvalambanaM’ is the hold of the
outside. The ‘outside’ does not just mean what is sensed by the senses of
perception, like seeing or hearing or moving the hands and legs. Whatever is
‘outside’ of the Atman, other than the Atman, is all included in the ‘outside’.
Indeed all the thoughts that rise in the mind belong to this ‘outside’. Mind
stands thus released from everything.
But this word ‘stands’ is almost equivalent to ‘death’ – that is why it
is called ‘uparati’. Mind has no action now. But still Atman-realisation is not there.
Once that happens it is just opposite to ‘death’; it is the state of
immortality (*amRRitaM*). But Atman
is not yet realised, though the mind has
no turbulence or vibration now, as if the mind is dead.
In
the Upanishads we meet several arguments between opponent schools. A spokesman
for one set of arguments might have answered all the opponents’ objections and
the opponent may become spell-bound and ultimately totally silent. The word that is used on such an occasion is
“upararAma”. It means the opponent
“rested, devoid of arguments”. In other words, he reached ‘uparama’, the state of rest. The words ‘uparama’ (the noun form describing the action implied in the verb ‘upararAma’)
and ‘uparati’ are both the same. In fact ‘yama’ and ‘yati’ both connote the
state of actionless rest. ‘uparati’
is of the same kind.
He
who has reached ‘uparati’ is said to
be an ‘uparata’. Such a person is
described by the Acharya in his Bhashya of BrihadAraNyaka-upanishad as *sarvaishhaNA vinirmuktah sannyAsI* (IV –
4 – 23). Here ‘EshhaNA’
means desire, longing. At another place in the same Upanishad (III – 5 –
1) a JnAni
is said to be roaming about like a beggar, having abandoned the ‘eshhaNA’ for son, ‘eshhaNA’ for money ands ‘eshhaNA’
for worldly life. Generally the three desires, namely ‘putra-eshhaNA’ (desire
for son) ‘dAra-eshhaNA’ (desire for wife) and ‘vitta-eshhaNA’ (desire for money) are said to
be the triad of desires (*eshhaNA-trayaM*). In LalitA-trishati, Mother goddess has a name
*eshhaNA-rahitA-dRRitA*. It means She
is propitiated by those who have no desires.
VairAgya (Dispassion) also connotes the state
in which desires have been eradicated.
But in that case it is disgust in objects that is dominant. That is the
state where one has discarded things because of disgust. But now in ‘uparati’ there is neither disgust, nor desire.
When
we say ‘VairAgya’ there was an
implied disgust towards all desires and so the main aim was to eradicate the
desires. In ‘shama-dama’ the sole
purpose was to subdue the mind from its desires and to subdue the senses from
acting to fulfill those desires. Thereafter no further action. The mind has
rested after all this vairAgya, shama and dama. But the rest is not a total rest – such a total rest,
annihilation, is still far away! The
present rest is only like a recess. The AtmAnubhava, its bliss etc. are not
there. It is almost as if there is a void; yet there is a peace since the
turbulence is absent.
Since
at this point the desires have been thrown off, the Acharya calls this itself
(in Brihadaranyaka Bhashya) as sannyAsa:
that is, he calls this ‘uparata’ a sannyasi. Actually out of the sextad of
qualities, there are still three more: SAdhanA,
shraddhA and samAdhAna. We have yet to see these three. After those three, there
is again ‘mumukshhutvaM’, the anguish for Release. Only after that, sannyAsa. Then, how did he bring it here? Let me remind you what I said earlier. These SAdhanAs are not supposed to be
sequenced as if one follows the other strictly. They come only in a mixed
fashion. When they come like that, when some one obtains a complete fulfillment
in VairAgya, described earlier, he
may take sannyAsa even right there :
*yadahreva virajet tadahareva pravrajet*,
as I quoted for you. If one is dead-set
even on one one of the SAdhanAngas,
all the others have to follow. They will.
That is why he might have
thought: When ‘uparati’ is fully
achieved, sannyAsa has to
follow. The direct meaning of ‘sannyAsi’
is ‘well-renounced person’; that could be the reason why an ‘uparata’ has been called a sannyAsi. For,
the qualities that are yet to come are ‘SAdhanA’,
‘shraddhA’ and ‘samAdhAna’ – in none of which there is any aspect of
‘renunciation’. You will know it when I
explain them. When the external holds (*bAhyAvalambanaM*) are all dismissed, that is ‘uparati’; and the discarding of all of
them is ‘sannyAsa’. ‘nyAsa’ is throwing off or discarding;
doing it well is ‘sannyAsa’.
In
‘Viveka-chUdAmaNi’, right in the beginning itself the Acharya talks of ‘SAdhanA-chatushTayaM’. Again, far inside, he talks about viveka, vairAgya and uparati. You may wonder why
he talks about these well after a person has taken sannyAsa and has gone almost to the
*vairAgyan-na
paraM sukhasya janakaM pashyAmi vashy-AtmanaH*
‘For
the yati who has controlled his mind, I know of nothing other than vairAgya that gives him happiness’.
Similarly,
after vairAgya comes knowledge and
after knowledge, uparati – thus the
complete fulfillment by uparati is
mentioned in shloka 419/420.
But
then the mind has now come to a certain uparati; will the ascent end there in
almost a dry manner? No. It may appear so. But God’s Grace will not leave it
so. This seeker who, with the single goal of seeking to know the truth of the
absolute Brahman, has controlled all his desires and rested his mind with such
great effort, would not be left alone by God just like that. Nor would He give him
Brahman-Realisation immediately. His karma balance has to be exhausted, before
that happens. Before that time comes, He would give him the opportunity to
reach the samAdhAna stage that makes
him ready to receive the upadesha of the mahAvAkya. And then the sannyAsa and then the mahAvAkya. It goes
on thus.
But
between ‘uparati’ and ‘samAdhAna’ there are two more: namely, ‘SAdhanA’ and ‘shraddhA’.
Next
to ‘uparati’ we have ‘SAdhanA’ (meaning, endurance,
forbearance or patience). The Tirukkural has a chapter on this subject. Our use
of the word ‘Next’ does not imply that ‘SAdhanA’
comes only after one attains perfection in ‘uparati’.
I shall repeat what I have said many times, because it is worth any number of
repetitions. To attain Atma-jnAna,
one needs several things – discriminatory intellect, dispassionate mind.
control of the senses and mind; and the mind has to wean itself away from all
things and stay put in the state of ‘uparati’.
In fact there are several other things to be achieved. If one thinks of
perfecting one step before going on to another step, he is mistaken. As an
example take a job in the Police Department. There may be several requirements
for such a job – like age qualification, level of education, height, weight,
character pattern, fufillment of restrictions or limitations with reference
to one’s caste and so on. All this means
they should all be satisfied simultaneously, not ‘one after another’. It is not like fulfilling the age
qualification first and then beginning to study to fulfill the educational
qualification! It is in the same sense the requirements of ‘nitya-anitya-vastu vivekaM’ to ‘mumukshhutvaM’ are to be concurrent and
not sequential. In other words though they have been mentioned by the Acharya
in a certain order, they have to be present and practised simultaneously.
Another
thing must be mentioned. There are several parts like vivekaM (Discrimination), vairAgyaM (Dispassion) and shamaM (Self-control). In none of these
can one expect to have attained
perfection until the final stage of Realisation. Each of them will at every
stage be somewhere below the mark of perfection. All of them go together towards perfection
until the final Realisation happens almost suddenly!
Why
do we have to do all this SAdhanA?
The objective is to purify the mind completely to such an extent there is no
mind left thereafter. What does it mean
to say that there is no mind? Desire,
the hankering after matter, should be absent. I just now told you that this
eradication of desire and hankering after material things will happen at the
stage of Realisation. In fact that
statement itself has to be modified.
Only if the Realisation of the Self happens, the taste for matter will
vanish. In other words, Self –Realisation is first. Then only, -- ‘then’ does
not mean ‘after a time’ – immediately, though only after the Realisation, does
the material hankering vanish completely. The Gita is very clear on this (II –
59). “ For each sense, if the corresponding sense-object is denied to it, by
that practice those sense-objects will go away (in other words, the concrete
physical experience of them would have stopped); but the taste of that
experience of it – as they say, ‘the cat that has had the taste’ (ruchi-kaNDa-poonai, in Tamil) – that
taste of experience would linger on internally and it will vanish only when the
Realisation of the Atman takes place” :
vishhayA vinivartante
nirAhArasya dehinaH /
rasavarjaM raso’pyasya
paraM dRRishhTvA nivartate
//
*paraM dRRishhTvA* -- Having seen the Absolute; Just by the
experience of the Absolute Principle. *rasaH api nivartate* -- the taste of
experience also vanishes.
On
the one hand it is said that only when the mind vanishes along with all its
taste of material experience will one have the Experience of the absolute and
on the other hand it is also said that such taste will disappear only when that
Absolute is experienced. Does this not look like the standard Tamil paradigm:
“Marriage can be fixed only when the mental imbalance is disposed off; but the
mental balance can be restored only when marriage is fixed”!
Not
so. The craving for the taste has to go. The mind has to go. Every effort has
to be made to achieve both and to have the vision of Reality (‘Atma-darshanaM’). But it is not easy.
The craving for the taste etc. will not disappear fully. When such a total effort has been done, the
Lord with His Infinite compassion grants him the Realisation of the Atman and
in that very process, destroys the taste and the mind’s craving for that
taste. If everything is going to be the
result of his effort, then what is the
greatness of the Lord’s Grace? In other words, till almost the last stage man has
to be practising all the different SAdhanAs.
The
various parts of Atma-SAdhanA have to
be practised simultaneously, just as a high school student studies for the
different subjects of his final examination, all together, though at any point
of time it appears he is studying for them in a certain sequence. The very idea
of sequencing the steps of the SAdhanA as if one follows the other is just to give a
clarity of understanding. In the early beginnings of the lessons on music the svaras ‘sa’, ‘ ri’,’ga’, ‘ma’, ‘pa’,
‘dha’ ‘ni’ are sequenced in order that the learner may get the right fixation
for each of the svaras. When it comes to full-fledged music like a Kirtana or
an Alapana, the upper and lower svaras do mingle in various orders.
The
word ‘uparati’ signifies a repose
after all ties or attachments have been dispensed with. And ‘then’ you are
supposed to practice the forbearance implicit in ‘SAdhanA’. This looks like telling a sleeping man to ‘be patient’!
So the word ‘then’ is not to be interpreted in terms of a sequence in time.
Rather it should be interpreted as a juxtaposed addition like a ‘plus’! The analogy of the high school student
studying different subjects for his final examination should not be forgotten.
If
one takes up the lesson of ‘uparati’
seriously and succeeds in it to a certain extent, the mind will be free of
perturbations of happiness and sorrow, unlike the normal mind which is always
tossed between these two extremes. Even then, if pleasure or pain happens in an
abnormal or subnormal way, there is likely to be a vibration from the state of ‘uparati’. It is in this context that ‘SAdhanA’ is prescribed by the Rishis of the Upanishad. The word ‘titikshhasva’ (Forbear) is actually the
Lord’s word (Ch.2 – 4) in the Gita.
The
common word ‘shItoshhNa’ is actually
made up of two words: ‘shIta’ – cold, and ‘ushhNa’ – hot. It is a pair
(‘dvandvaM’) of opposites. Similarly there is ‘sukha-dukha’ (pleasure and
pain), another pair of opposites. ‘Bear with hot and cold, pleasure and pain’,
says the Lord to Arjuna.
Off
and on in the Gita the Lord mentions several such pairs of opposites. Says He:
“Transcend all these pairs of dualities and be beyond all of them. Be a ‘dvandvAtIta’ – one who has transcended
all dualities. Whether your objective is fulfilled or not, be equanimous to
both fulfillment (siddhi) and non-fulfillment
(asiddhi). Such equanimity also
implies only ‘SAdhanA’ (tolerance,
forbearance, endurance). In the last chapter also He refers to this topic of ‘siddhi-asiddhi’ when He says: “That JIva
who has no impact by either fulfillment or non-fulfillment is the sAtvika doer” (Ch.18 – 26).
*siddhy-asiddhyor-nirvikAraH kartA sAtvika
ucyate*.
The
hot-cold pair that was mentioned in the beginning is again referred to in the
chapter on dhyana yoga, where He further adds (Ch.6 – 7) another pair -- *mAna* and *apamAna*. In many places
(2-57; 9-28; 12-17) He has mentioned the pair *shubha-ashubha* of direct opposites. The shubha-ashubha (auspicious and non-auspicious) is nothing but puNya and pApa (Spiritual merit and demerit). At several places He mentions
the pairs *priya – apriya* (likeable and unlikeable) , *ishhTa – anishhTa* (favourite and non-favourite), *lAbha – alAbha* (gain and loss), *jaya – apajaya* (victory and defeat) and
pleads for equanimity between these opposites.
We
have to keep on patiently tolerating whatever now appears to be bad among
these, so that in due course we can be totally indifferent to them. Extreme
cold, extreme heat, , the inauspicious, the unpleasant, sorrow, dishonour,
defeat – in all these, we have to build up such a tolerance. And this tolerance
should also be practised towards what appears now to us as good, namely,
healthy heat, healthy cold, pleasure, honour, success, the auspicious and the
pleasant. The Lord would not have mentioned
both if he did not mean these also, in his list of objects towards which we
have to be equanimous. Both good and bad have to be taken equally, ‘suffered’
equally, treated equally indifferently.
One
can easily understand what it is to tolerate/endure what is bad. Maybe we
cannot do it in practice; but we know what is meant. But what is it to say:
‘Endure the good things!’? Isn’t it funny? – To ‘endure’ the good things? That will be understood only if we take a few
steps up the ladder of saadhanaa.
Even those that appear to be ‘good’ will turn out to be ‘unwelcome’ at a
certain stage. Suppose a cool wind blows
softly. It is pleasant to the body. But the thought will arise: “Why this
hankering after the pleasure for the body? Cold or hot, whatever wind blows,
let it blow. That should be the goal. Why should one isolate the so-called soft
cold wind and the ‘pleasure’ that it is supposed to bring? Why can’t one be
indifferent to its ‘pleasing’ effect?”
In
the same manner, when one gets money or status, or when one receives the
aplombs of others, one will begin to think: “Why can’t I allow poverty to stay
with me? Let people not be pleasant to
to me. So what? Already I have trained myself to tolerate bad things; then why
should I now be different when the good things arrive? If I change now then I
would be making a distinction between good and bad”. In other words, just as we
feel now that bad things are unwelcome, so also, when one has risen up the
ladder of saadhanaa a certain number of steps, one will begin to feel that even the
so-called good things are unwelcome. The
policy of ‘Whatever will be, will be’ is
what leads to the feeling of tolerance of ‘bad’ and that is ‘titikshhaa’ . When one is ready to
reject what is called ‘good’ by calling
it equally ‘unwelcome’, the attitude of ‘titikshhaa’ means that even that ‘unwelcomeness’ is
tolerated. This is the ‘titikshhaa’ of even the good things.
Even
though we might want to think indifferently about both good and bad things, our
karma of the past might bring in certain good things in spite of ourselves.
Without our wanting it wealth might pour in.
Relatives and friends may behave
very favourably. More such good things might happen. One may think ‘Oh No. I
don’t want these good things to happen. Only if I keep cool and happy when bad
things are happening to me I can check my success in saadhanaa. The good things are only traps that draw me deeper into MAyA. I don’t want them’. Such thoughts
again speak against ‘titikshhaa’. One
has to show ‘titikshhaa’ even of good
things; in other words, even the good happenings must not be unwelcome – they
also must be suffered, endured!
The
Acharya has defined ‘titikshhaa’ as *sahanaM sarva-dukhAnAM* in Viveka
Chudamani as well as in his AparokshAnubhUti.
It means to ‘bear all sorrows’. Here ‘all’ includes
the so-called ‘pleasures’ also
because what appears to be pleasing or a pleasure turns out to be really a
sorrowful thing from the point of view of eternity. Only ‘JnAna’
is happiness. Happiness is only that which
arises from advaita-jnAna.
Any experience in the world of duality is opposite to that jnAna and therefore is only to be
considered as unhappiness, not happiness. At least what appears to be an
unhappy thing now gives us a distaste for this worldly involvement and thereby
it moves us a little towards enlightenment; whereas, what appears to be a happy
experience binds us further to the world of involvement. Consequently one will
have to develop an attitude of treating those happy experiences only as unhappy
ones. At a later stage , just as one bears misery with forbearance, so also one
should be able to forbear with what
appears to be happiness. That is why the Acharya says *dukhAnAM
sahanaM* (forbearing the sorrows) and stops with that. All our scriptures recommend to us the forbearance
of both pleasure and pain equally; in other words, even what appears to be a
happy pleasing thing should be ‘endured’
as indifferently as we are
expected to endure the unhappy things.
Of
course that happens after we reach a certain stage of maturity. But even at an earlier stage, at a ‘lower’
stage, we have to observe ‘titikshhaa’ of good things in another way. When a good
thing happens our mind gets excited about it. The excitement is as bad as the
one we get when an unhappy thing occurs.
In both cases the equanimity of the mind is the victim. Only when the
mind is steady without any vibration can one have the enlightening realisation of the Atman. Thus even the
excitement that naturally follows a happy feeling should have to be ‘endured’.
It is another kind of forbearance. When we do not think of a weight as a
burden, it does not any more weigh with us. When there is no weight on either
side the needle of the weighing balance is steady and straight. Think of the
‘good’ and ‘bad’ as the two side-plates of such a balance. On whichever side
you may place a weight, the balance is going to tilt. So neither the experience of the unpleasant
nor the emotional excitement that might be caused by the pleasant should be
allowed to tilt the needle of the balance from its normal equanimous
position. The ‘good’ also should not
‘weigh’ with us. That is the ‘titikshhaa’
of the ‘good’.
In
all that we have said what we call ‘good’
is not with respect to our spiritual progress. It is what we ordinarily
call ‘good’ from our mundane material world,
that is, what pulls us away from
progress on the spiritual path.
There
is a certain negative aspect in these ‘good’ things, that is not there even in
the ‘bad’ ones. When we meet with
something that is pleasant and happy for us, we always wish that it should
happen again; we want ‘more’ of it. This peculiar desire that the ‘good’ should
repeat is called ‘spRhaa’ in
Sanskrit. To prevent the rise of such ‘spRhaa’
is also ‘titikshhaa’. Recall
the Lord’s words:
*dukhesh-vanudvigna-manAh sukheshhu
vigata-spRhaH* (B.G. II – 56)
In
other words, ‘titikshhaa’ stands for
not being perturbed by a miserable happening as well as not being affected by *spRhA* at the onset of a happy
occurrence. One is not to be influenced by the dualities like pleasure and
pain. To be away from duality means non-duality. When duality disappears, the
bondage of samsAra is cut and the
gates of mokshha are already open. In Gita V – 3, Bhagawan has shown the
ultimate goal itself as the end result of ‘titikshhaa’:
*nirdvandvo hi mahAbAho sukham bandhAt
pramucyate* meaning, He for whom duality is gone easily releases himself
from bondage.
One
who has ‘titikshhaa’ is called ‘titikshhu’.
Such a one is characterised by our Acharya
as one who tolerates or endures dual opposites -- *titikshhuH dvandva sahishhNuH* -- in Brihad-AraNyaka bhAshya (IV – 4 -
23). The vanishing of duality means there is only One. And the One is
Atman, no doubt.
In
summary the Acharya’s clarion call is : “One should not worry about either what
is directly an unhappy thing or about what appears to be pleasant but in
reality is also a miserable thing. ‘Not worrying’ means ‘not wailing’ about
it. Nor should one look for anitdotes
for either the sukha (happiness) or
the dukha (unhappiness). Silently one
should be forbearing both”.
*sahanaM sarva-dukhAnAM apratIkAra-pUrvakaM /
cintA-vilApa-rahitaM sA
titikshhaa nigadyate //*
(Viveka Chudamani #24 (or 25))
sA titikshhaa nigadyate : She is said to be ‘titikshhaa’
sarva-dukhAnAM sahanaM : forbearing all unhappiness
Note
that so-called happiness is also included in the ‘unhappiness’.
apratIkAra-pUrvakaM : without searching for steps for
nullifying (the ‘sukha’ or ‘dukha’) Note ‘pratIkAra’
means ‘antidote’ or an ‘annihilating step’.
cintA-vilApa-rahitaM :
without worry (*cintA*) or lament (*vilApa*).
Now
let me take up the feminine gender used here. *sA titikshhaa* says the
Acharya. ‘titikshhaa’ is a feminine word.
But it is not just grammar that is involved here. When he talks about ‘nitya-anitya-vastu-viveka’ (Discrimination between the eternal and
the ephemeral) he says *so’yaM
nityAnitya-vastu-vivekaH*; here he uses *saH ayaM* -- ‘that is he’ –
thereby invoking a masculine construction. The word ‘vivekaH’ is masculine. Maybe
because of the age-old traditional opinion that a feminine mind is prone to
vacillation and a masculine mind has a discriminating tendency.
On
the other hand the concept of dispassion is indicated by the neuter gender
specification *tad-vairAgyaM* -- That is dispassion. Maybe because, by means of dispassion one’s mind becomes
immune and inert!
In
the process of discrimination there is an inherent analysis involved. Consequent to that, the mind becomes
desireless. So in discrimination there is an action (though mental) whereas in
dispassion there is not so much action. Action indicates a masculine power (*paurushhaM*) and so is indicated by ‘saH’ (he) whereas the inaction-like
inertness of dispassion is denoted by a neuter ‘tat’ (that).
The
words ‘shama’ (mind control) and ‘dama’ (sense control) both occur in the
masculine as ‘shamaH’ and ‘damaH’. Both
imply control. Accordingly they adopt the gender that implies action, namely
the masculine gender.
After
saying what ‘shama’ is, he says ‘manasaH
shama uchyate’ – this is what is
known as ‘shama’ of the mind -- and
here the masculine ‘shamaH’ is used. He does not say ‘shamaM uchyate’ in the neuter gender. But he does not use the explicit ‘saH’ (he) here as in the case of
‘viveka’ (discrimination) where he said ‘ayaM saH’ – this is he. Also when he
defines ‘shama’ instead of saying
just ‘mind control’ he says
‘sva-lakshhye niyata-avasthaa’ meaning ‘what stays in its own goal’. After the
active masculine work of controlling the mind, one stays in the
peaceful state of resting in the Atman; it is this state that is meant by ‘shama’. So, maybe, the Acharya did not
want to emphasize the masculine aspect of shama,
by using *saH* (he) for ‘shamaH’.
On
the other hand, when he talks about ‘dama’
(control of the senses) he says *sa
damaH parikIrtitaH* meaning “he is called damaH”, where the masculine gender is
explicitly emphasized. When the senses run amuck, to control them and draw them
behind a lot of masculine activity is needed, certainly.
The
word ‘uparati’ is feminine. When we
equate activity with masculinity then the actionless restful state has to be
feminine. And so he says
*uparatir-uttaamA* -- the highest is ‘uparati’
(cessation) – using the feminine for ‘the highest’.
And,
for the subsequent ‘titikshhaa’, he
specifically uses the ‘sA’ (she). Forbearance is known to be a special
characteristic of women in general – the quality of a mother. Don’t we usually
refer to the Goddess Earth as the ideal for tolerance?
In
the sextad starting with ‘shama’ the next one is ‘shraddhA’ (Faith/Dedication). When one is involved in
something by the sheer conviction – not
by any direct ‘proof’ -- that what the shAstras
or the righteous ones say must be right, that is known as ‘shraddhA’. Compared to men, women stand higher in ‘shraddhA’ – so long as they do not
involve themselves in academic research. In fact, I think, even after their modern involvement
in studies, they are still one step higher in shraddhA. Maybe in the days to come this will be different.
Shraddhaa
leads to Belief (AstikyaM) as I already mentioned. Among those who have become
non-believers, women are probably just one-fourth of the number of men. Even
the wives of leaders of parties of non-believers, have faith in temples,
austerities and worship. I think the ‘shraddhA’ word is rightly feminine!
Right
in the beginning when I talked about ‘shraddhA’
I told you this topic will recur again
at the end of the SAdhanA. We have
now come to that second level ‘shraddhA’,
the higher grade one.
At
this stage the seeker has taken several steps towards his spiritual maturity.
To inquire and convince oneself what is eternal and what is ephemeral; to
develop a dispassion towards the ephemeral; to quell the thoughtful mind by
self control and convert it into an emptiness; to cultivate patience and
tolerance – in all this he has made sufficient progress. So at this stage what
is this shraddhA for? That is
something to be there right at the beginning, when he was putting the
foundation for all his SAdhanA. In
the beginning when he was nowhere near any familiarity with spiritual conduct
and regimen, there was a meaning in prescribing a shraddhA for him by saying, “This path does not allow intellectual
proofs and verifications; many things have to be taken on faith from the shAstras and the words of the Guru”. Now
that he has taken significant steps towards spiritual progress, why bring the shraddhA back again? It is because, by
the very fact of his progress gained upto now, there is danger of his losing
the very faith that has brought him so far!
In
the beginning he was likely to have had some modesty and
naivety and a consequent shraddhA
because at that zero stage one is rather scared about the strict requirements
of discrimination, dispassion and sense-control
and one wonders whether all these are achievable. At that time it was
easy to believe that perhaps in the spiritual field there might be many things
which cannot be understood or argued out by the rational mind and one must
trust the words of the scriptures and the wise. But now after one has made some
progress on the spiritual SAdhanA
path, one is likely to think that the mind is now clear and hereafter it will
understand all that has yet to be achieved on the path of Self
Realisation. This is a kind of ego – an
unrecognizable ego that creeps in. Things do happen even upto the stage of
Self-Realisation, that cannot be
understood by the smartest intellect . Even a JnAni who has achieved that Self-Realisation will not be able to
explain them by his intellect. One has
to continue with the same regimen without questioning them until the
Self-Realisation sprouts up like the rise of the Sun. When those things happen,
one has to take them as they are, without analysing them by the intellect. One
may have to be content with the thought: “The SAdhanA that has brought me so far will certainly take me further
by the same Grace of the Lord that brought me up to now; I shall not subject it
to any intellectual questioning.” Even
after one has obtained Enlightenment, the things may still be inaccessible to
the intellect. Even our Acharya – there cannot be a better Acharya than he –
does not try to tell that secret of achievement to us in the language of the
intellect. “I cannot describe it. Simply keep on proceeding with Faith” – this
is his message and accordingly he keeps this shraddhA at this advanced stage of SAdhanA.
Had
the Acharya told us all the secrets,
there would not have been a necessity for Ramanujacharya to
establish a VishishhTAdvaita. Somewhere
in the philosophy of advaita Ramanuja asked an intellectual question and not finding a reply to
that, he thought he had a suitable reply
to it and that became his vishishhTAdvaita. OK, but did that reveal all the
hidden secrets? No. That is why a Madhwacharya had to establish his dvaita. But
even then intellectual questions remain unanswered. That is why still there are many advaitins
and many vishishhTAdvaitins. And we are arguing and arguing. Though these arguments
are going on at the intellectual level, those who came thereafter, without
worrying about testing everything on the touchstone of the intellect, simply
follow their own Acharyas with shraddhA
on the plea “I am born in this particular Smarta or Vaishnava tradition; let me
follow with faith what my Acharyas in my tradition have taught us” – and they
have reached great spiritual heights accordingly.
A
smarta (belonging to the advaita tradition)
may say that nothing would equal the experience of identity of JIva and Brahman, whatever these
followers of other traditions may claim
about their spiritual achievements. Let
him say so. But they are certainly greater than many of these smartas who don’t
practise any SAdhanA with shraddhA. Maybe they have not reached
the peak experience of realisation of nirguna brahman, of which the smartas
speak. But isn’t it the same brahman
that appears as the Ishvara or saguna
brahman? Those achievers of the
other-tradition-followers do
somehow establish a rapport with that Ishvara.
And they do obtain a certain godly nature, blessing of Divine Grace and a heart
of compassion. Even on the spiritual side, rather than simply bragging about belonging to the glorious advaita tradition without knowing
anything worthwhile about the Atman, except one’s body and the goings-on of the
mind, those experiencers of other traditions who are convinced that their
soul has been born only to worship and propitiate the Divine are certainly
greater. One who thinks that his pure
mind which is full to the brim with that
kind of bhakti is the Atman is superior to some one who has had no experience
of anything connected with the Realisation of the Atman. Once the mind becomes
that pure, automatically in course of time there is the chance of that very
mind eradicating itself leading to
Self-Realisation. But let that be in the future. Right now, those
followers of other traditions have, as I
said, because of their shraddhA,
obtained a divine contact and a divine grace and benefics. That is the very
reason there are great souls in all our traditions, known the world over.
It
is the play of Mother Goddess – Bikshaa of Illumination – that, at a certain
stage, one rises on the strength of his shraddhA alone, without any effort on
the part of the intellect. That is when shraddhA becomes most significant. Even
those who have taken several steps on the SAdhanA
path should simply continue in the path of shraddhA
and ask no questions; questions will not get any answers palatable to the
intellect, nor will it be able to elicit any answers from the Guru
understandable by the intellect. It is for this reason that shraddhA has been placed as one of the
parts of the SAdhanA regimen.
This
kind of shraddhA, that is the
opposite of “I shall find it myself; I will be able to intellectually
understand it”, has to be there not only in the beginning but till the end.
“The shAstras say so; our guru says
so. Let me go on doing what they say – whatever may happen in between. It will
automatically take me to the Goal” – this attitude is shraddhA. It is not just one
of the components of SAdhanA ; it is
the peak component. The Acharya says in his introduction to the second chapter
BrihadAranyaka Bhashya *shraddhA ca brahma-vijnAne paramaM SAdhanAM*. The Lord also emphatically
says (B.G.IV-39) *shraddhAvan labhate
jnAnaM* ((only) he who has shraddhA gets the enlightening wisdom).
A
special status is attached always to the mantras of the Upanishads called
*mahA-vAkyas* that declare the identity of jIva and brahman. Even among those
mahAvAkyas, one of them gets a further unique status, because it is the one
which is directly imparted to a shishhhya (disciple). It is the one in
Samaveda, where it is given to a celibate youngster who is not a renunciate.
The Absolute ParamAtmA who is denoted by ‘That’ is what You, the jIvAtmA, are –
This is the message there. The father Uddalaka Aruni is the one who doles out
the teaching; and the receiver of the teaching is the son, Svetaketu. The
father keeps on reeling mantra after mantra and ends up with the emphatic
refrain: “That is what You are”. As he goes along, right in the middle, he
says, “Go and bring a banyan fruit, my child”.
“Here
it is”, says the son and produces the fruit.
“Break
it” says the father.
[Note by R. Ganapathi, the author of the Tamil rendering:
‘Here the Swamigal gives the conversation in a dramatic
fashion
feigning two voices, one of the guru and one of the
disciple.]
“Done, my Lord”
“What
do you see within the broken fruit?”
“Seeds,
and seeds, like small small particles”
“Well,
my child, break that seed also”
“Done”
“What
do you see inside, now?”
“Nothing,
my Lord”
“The
nothing that you are referring to has an invisible subtle thing in it. “It is
from that subtlety the entire banyan tree springs out” says the sage Aruni, and
it is at that point, he addresses the child with affectionate warmth : “Saumya
(Smart one), Believe me. Have faith in what I say. *shraddhasva*” *shraddhasva* means ‘Have shraddhA’.
This
is the mahAvAkya that is at the lofty
Not
only in the trust that we place on the concepts and the like. The trust has to
be also that, ‘by that Guru who gives them to us one would also see
the final gate open for us’. This is very important. Even though he might be a JnAni, he has to play his role of a
human, just as God plays the part of an Avatara. Even that would be only a way
of showing the right path to some one.
But when he involves himself in some of these human activities, the
disciple may land himself into a doubt about whether his guru is indeed a JnAni.
Once he starts doubting why the guru is acting like an ordinary
human, and whether such a personality
can ever deliver the spiritual release that he is seeking, there begins the
disciple’s downfall. That very doubt
assumes gigantic proportions and like a ghost occupying his brain, does
not allow him to continue his SAdhanA.
The constant thought that one has been cheated
devours him as well as the dreams
about his goal. “samshayAtmA vinashyati”
(B.G. IV – 40) says the Lord -- ‘He who
doubts, goes to ruin’. And when He says this he adds the words
*ashraddha-dAnascha*, meaning ‘one who has no shraddhA’. In IX – 3, He
says
*ashraddha-danAH purushhaaH nivartante mRtyu-samsAra-vartmani*
--
‘the
man without faith (is ruined and) comes back to this transmigratory cycle again
and again’. In fact he frightens us with a warning, at the same time very compassionately. It is not just a false warning; it will
surely happen that way. We should not allow it to happen. We have to develop an
unshakeable faith in the thought ‘I have come to this Guru. Let him appear to others
in whatever way they think. As far as I am concerned, God will not let me down;
He will certainly grace me, through this Guru,
with the Release that I seek’. The conviction and faith that we usually
develop in our Vidya-Guru (the teacher who instructs us with the basics of
education) in our early days, -- that same conviction and faith has to be there
in the dikshA-guru (the Guru who finally grants us the sannyAsa status). It is
important to cultivate this shraddhA-cum-bhakti-cum-sharaNAgati.
Of
course it is true that one should resort to a guru only after thorough
enquiries about him. But suppose you land yourself with a fake guru. Even then,
if without losing faith in him, if you
surrender to him, the All-knowing Lord will bless you with Enlightenment
through that Guru, though he may not himself be a JnAni!
“Conviction
comes only by actual perception by ourselves as truth; instead of this if one
goes on faith by the shAstras and the
Acharyas who repeat those shAstraic
statements, that cannot give a firm
conviction” – such thinking is nothing
but absence of shraddhA. On the other
hand shraddhA is the faith that says:
“By the very fact that something is not comprehensible to my little intellect
it must be higher than what can be revealed by my own inquiry; it must be the
truth revealed to the Rishis and passed on to us by the Shastras”.
One
of the six accessories to Vedic knowledge is called *niruktaM*. It was done by
Yaska. It delves into the word-meanings of words found in the Vedas. When
dwelling upon the meaning of the word ‘shraddhA’
he says it originated from the two root words ‘shrat’ (indicative of Truth) and ‘dhA’ (which means
‘fixing’). So the integrated meaning of the word ‘shraddhA’ is to ‘fix something in the mind as the truth’ – in other
words, to believe in something with conviction.
In
Chandogya Upanishad (
Brahma-vidyA
(Knowledge pertaining to the subject of brahman) should be taught only to those
who have shraddhA – says Mundaka
Upanishad. Who are those so qualified? The Upanishad gives a list of such
qualifications. (III -2-10). Those who
discharge their obligations (karmas) in the right manner; *shrotriyas* (those
who have excellent scholarship of the vedas); those who have an intense anguish
to be in brahman; and those who have shraddhA.
In
Prashnopanishad also (I – 10) it says those who seek the Atman become eligible
to do so by their tapas (austerities), celibacy (brahmacharya), shraddhA, and learning.
In
the Gita, Bhagawan explains in one whole
chapter the details of divine qualities as against the ‘asura’
(undivine) qualities and when he finishes this chapter, says: “He who
transgresses the rules and regulations of the Shastras will get neither success
nor happiness; therefore, O Arjuna, keep the Shastras as your pramANa (basic law) and decide on what
to do and what not to do”. Having said this, right in the beginning of the next
chapter he says there could be an inborn
shraddha, totally unrelated to Shastraic issues, and this could be in three
different kinds, namely, rajas and tamas which are not desirable, but also a desirable sAtvic shraddhA. All this only shows the importance that one
has to attach to the concept of shraddhA.
The
Acharya keeps emphasizing, in all his works, the shraddhA in Shastras and the words of the Guru.
He
has added ‘shraddhA’ as one of the ‘shamAdi-shhaTka-sampat’ (the
treasure-sextad beginning with shama), along with shama, dama, uparati, titikshhA, samAdhAna. But he has not added it as a sixth, following the five
mentioned. The first four are mentioned in that order in Brihad-Aranyakopanishad;
he keeps that order and now adds shraddhA
as the fifth. So shraddA comes after titikshhA
but before samAdhAna.
The
word ‘samAdhAna’ has several
meanings. One of them is the establishment of truth after meeting doubts.
Usually the proponent of one school makes a claim and the opponent from
the other school raises objections to the claim. These objections and the
arguments laid in support of the objections are collectively called
‘pUrva-pakshhaM’. Now the original
proponent meets all these objections, and establishes his proposition. This
process of meeting objections is called ‘samAdhAnaM’. And the established
proposition is ‘siddhAntaM’. When one
listens to the arguments of the purva-pakshha side, even the disciples of the
proponent himself, may begin to doubt the truth of the proposition of their own
master. In other words their faith in their own master’s proposition would
waver. This loss of faith, which is the opposite of shraddhA, is what is ‘pacified’
by the ‘samAdhAna’ of their
own guru.
When
the Acharya includes ‘shraddhA’ as
one of the components of SAdhanA, the
implication is there is what is called ‘ashraddhaa’ (the opposite of shraddhA, namely, lack of faith). To
conquer that lack of faith is ‘shraddhA’. Having conquered that, one reaches the ‘samAdhAna’ stage. Just like Peace after War. When faith has to duel with lack of faith,
more faith (shraddhA) is needed.
Afterwards, when there is no more duel, it is the ‘samAdhAna’ stage.
All this means that ‘samAdhAna’ has to be preceded by ‘shraddhA’.
That
is why when the Acharya decided to to
keep ‘shraddhA’ – the basic
prerequisite for any spiritual venture – also as a component of SAdhanA at the higher stage of entering sannyAsa, he decided to keep it
before ‘samadhAna’. Because ‘samAdhAna’
is the stage when the mind is settled enough to receive the sannyAsa rigour. So
naturally it comes after the first four, namely, shama, dama, uparati and titikshhA.
The
SAdhanA components though sequenced
thus do not turn out to be that sequential. I already told you how they have
all to be practised simultaneously. By continued practice of the SAdhanA, one rises on the spiritual
ladder but one also slips. Very often it
happens that the fall through a slip is more than the rise. You rise by two
steps, but you also fall by four steps!
So further practice of SAdhanA
makes you rise by two steps but you now fall only by three or two steps!
Practise further. Practise, practise, practise. This persistent and consistent
practice gives even more than the
expected success, if it is coupled with the intensity of the SAdhanA, the strength of the will to do
it, and the power of the Lord’s Grace.
One may even jump like a frog from a lower step of the spiritual ladder
to a step several steps higher!. And for all this it is the shraddhA that gets things done. And that
is why shraddhA is kept before ‘samAdhAna’.
The
Acharya himself has given a deep meaning for ‘samAdhAna’. But we shall come to it later. Before that we shall see
how he has defined ‘shraddhA’. And
still before that, just as we saw how it comes before ‘samAdhAna’ we shall also see
how it comes after ‘titikshhA’.
We were going to see why shraddhA has been kept after titikshhA.
The
discretionary enquiry about the transcendental and the ephemeral (nitya-anitya-vastu-viveka) results in a certain conviction about what is
impermanent; but the conviction is not so strong about the permanent. Isn’t the
permanent one the Atman? Unless one has an experience how can conviction about
it be strong? But the experience of the Atman is to be had right at the very
end. By all the enquiry, by all the listening to the teachings of one’s
Masters, by all that reading of the various works of the Acharya, and by all
that exposure to the Upanishads and other philosophical works, one
intellectually arrives at the conclusion that there is certainly a thing called
Atman and it must be of the nature of the fullness of sat-cit-AnandaM. But the conviction in this conclusion will not be as strong as
the conviction that arises about the impermanence of the universe of objects,
because the latter is experiential. The clarity with respect to the Atman
cannot be expected to be that perfect. In other words, we are more
knowledgeable about what is to be discarded rather than about what is to be
merged in. Thus a disgust-cum-dispassion starts with what is to be discarded.
Following that, instead of running after the impermanent non-Self, one, through
that very dispassion, engages oneself in the control of the senses and the mind
– shama and dama. In due time the craving for the ephemeral objects of the
universe disappears and the mind becomes empty. This is uparati. But even here
there is no experience of the Atman. The misery of experience of the non-self
is not there, but still the bliss of the fullness of experience of the Atman is also not there.
Then comes the stage of titikshhA – the unaffectedness by the
happiness and misery of the outside world. Even here the progress is only on the side of the discarding of the non-self,
and not on the side of the experience to be.
Another
point has to be noted here. A shadow, a trace, of the bliss of the Atman will
however be there right from the beginning, just as one feels a cool breeze
slightly sneaking through a hot summer day, because of a distant rain
somewhere. That trace of bliss is the
grace of the Almighty. And that grace increases to light showers – but not a
downpour. Hot sun, and off and on some cool air, now and then some showers.
This is how it goes, because the bliss of the Atman comes only after numerous lives. We forget
the fact that through all that journey through several lives we have been
immersed in the non-self. We think we have not been compensated well enough
after all the SAdhanA we have done in
this life. We feel a sense of disappointment and there is an intense anguish.
By the steps of our SAdhanA we think
we have achieved quite a bit of tolerance and endurance (titikshhA), but this anguish for the blissful experience of the
Atman comes from nowhere, as it were. It
actually comes because the Lord Himself is testing you. This is the time when
you need shraddhA so that you don’t
leave off your SAdhanA. That is the
reason for shraddhA, the higher level
shraddhA, being kept after titikshhA.
The
definition that the Acharya gives to shraddhA
is:
shAstrasya guru-vAkyasya
satya-buddhyA-vadhAraNA /
sA shraddhA kathitA
sadbhiH yayA vastU-palabhyate
//
(Verse
25/26 of Vivekachudamani)
“The
noble ones say: ShraddhA is the
conviction arising through the intellect that shAstras and the words of the guru are indeed true; by this shraddhA is the Reality attained”.
Ordinarily
we take faith or shraddhA to be that
which discards the function of intellect (and takes things on faith). Here it
says the ShAstras and words of the guru are taken to be true by an analysis of
the intellect -- *buddhyavadhAraNA*.
There is no contradiction. Because, analysis or confirmation by the intellect
does not mean one takes shAstras and
words of the guru as true only if the intellect confirms them after an
analysis. Then what does it mean? It is
the intellect that has to decide after an analysis: “I cannot expect to know
everything. It is not possible to offer a judgement all by ourselves. Regarding
matters connected with after-life and with the Self, things incomprehensible to
us, but intuited by the jnAna-dRRishhTi
(intuited wisdom) given by the Lord Himself and by one’s own experience by the
authors of the ShAstras and the Guru who knows the ShAstras; what they say have to be accepted by us
without further inquiry”. To arrive at this conclusion by use of one’s
intellect is what is called “buddhy-avadhAraNaM”.
It is not that the intellect is used to decide on the Truths; the intellect
decides that there is no place for intellect here!
Mark!
This is not what a stupid who has no power of the intellect accepts anything
without question. Such a one will get cheated. When we said ‘nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaM’, we did mean
the process of discriminating between the good and the bad and that would
certainly imply the use of the intellect. In order to discriminate, one has to
develop and train one’s intellect to become sharp. On the other hand when the
Shastras and the Guru are saying something which is not comprehensible by that
intellect, he has to accept that without allowing the intellect to
intervene. It is more difficult not to
allow the intellect to intervene, rather than allow it to do its function. This
is possible only if there is modesty to the extreme. One has to develop that
kind of modesty. Instead of having a stupid man’s faith, one has to cultivate
an intelligent faith in the words of the Guru and of the Shastras, without
countering them by objections – this is the shraddhA
that is being talked about.
*avadhArana* has two meanings. One is ‘a
deep conviction’. The other is ‘a limitation’. Both the meanings have to be
integrated here. The intellect limits itself by concluding that this is ‘beyond
my own jusrisdiction’ and therefore is determined to consider Shastras and Guru-words
as true. By shraddhA one can reach the Truth is what is implied by *yayA vastu upalabhyate*. ‘She’ (*sA*) is called shraddhA – the word is feminine – by which the Absolute Reality (*vastu*)
is obtained (*upalabhyate*).
In
the Tamil region we use “vAstavaM”
and “nijam” for something true. The word “nijam” does not mean that “nijam” means ‘what is in its own
nature’, or ‘what belongs’. Probably our usage that gives the meaning ‘true’ to
it must have arisen thus. When we dress up for a particular role in a drama we play the role,
don’t we? That is only a role, a pose, a
disguise. When we are off the disguise,
we become what we are usually. So a
disguise or a role presents only a falsity, whereas when we take off the role
we become our true personality, whatever we are. Since a disguise means falsity or untruth,
its opposite, namely, the role to which we naturally belong, -- that is our ‘nijam’ – is taken to denote truth. This
is how ‘nijam’ must have come to
stand for ‘truth’! But let that be.
But
the meaning of ‘vAstavaM’ as
something that is true, is a correct one. The word has been derived from ‘vastu’. The nature of ‘vastu’ is ‘vAstavaM’. ‘vastu’ means a ‘thing’ ordinarily; but its most important
connotation is ‘that which truly exists’. Things and objects are not in our
imagination; they actually exist and that is why a thing is called ‘vastu’. Thus ‘vastu’ means something that truly exists and so we also use ‘vAstavaM’ the property of ‘vastu’ for ‘truth’.
In
the defining shloka for ‘shraddhA’
that we were discussing, it says, ‘by means of shraddhA is the reality obtained’
*yayA vastu upalabhyate*.
Ordinarily though we call everything that exists in the operational world as ‘vastu’, when enlightenment comes upon us
all these will be known as existing only in our imagination, because it is the
absolute Brahman only that really exists in the absolute sense. That is the ‘vastu’ ultimate. And that ‘vastu’ is obtained only by shraddhA.
In
this definition of shraddhA, it is
the intellect that realises its limitation and gets the conviction that shAstras and the words of the guru are
true and this conviction is shraddhA,
says the Acharya. But in his ‘aparokshhAnubhUti’ he does not even rely on this
role of intellect to voluntarily limit itself. There he does not give any such
leeway to the intellect and accordingly he gives the simple definition in the
commonly understood way:
*nigamA-chArya-vAkyeshhu bhaktiH shraddheti
vishrutA *
meaning,
ShraddhA is the exhibition of bhakti (faith and dedication)
towards the words of the Guru and of the ShAstras.
It
is very customary to link the two words bhakti and shraddhA. ‘bhakti’ denotes the aspect of love and liking and ‘shraddhA’ denotes the aspect of faith. But if we think about that,
faith or trust comes only if there is a liking
and the liking comes only if there is a trustworthiness. The two are
inseparable. In the words of the guru and the ShAstras, we should have this
faith coupled with liking and this love coupled with trust. That is shraddhA. Love is what involves our
heart in the thing. Such involvement of a heart-felt trust in the guru and the shAstras is shraddhA.
After
Shraddhaa the Acharya lists *Samaadhaana* as the sixth item in the sextad of
spiritual accomplishments. The words *samaadhaana* and *samaadhi* have the same
meaning. The six ‘treasures’ starting
with ‘shama’ are known as ‘shamAdi
shhaTkaM’ [shama-Adi (beginning
with shama) – shhaTkaM (sextad)] and
this ‘shamAdi shhaTkaM’ terminates with ‘samAdhi’ !
SamAdhi
is the final goal. The final aim is brahman. To be totally immersed in brahman
is samAdhi. Being the final goal it
cannot be termed as a part of the SAdhanA.
It is the final state of accomplishment. Accordingly the Acharya does not also
mention it in the second stage of jnAna path, namely, the SAdhanA-chatushTayaM (the four
components of SAdhanAa) . Thereafter,
in the third stage, where one adopts the renunciate stage, when one goes
through the regimen of shravana, manana and nididhyAsana, this is not mentioned as one of those
exercises. Because it is just the end-result of all this SAdhanA. In the state of samAdhi one experiences it and does not do
anything by one’s effort . Thus it is that the Acharya never mentions samAdhi
as a component of SAdhanA. However,
--
There
are two grade-levels in shraddhaa, as there is in bhakti. The samAdhi
I talked about just now is the higher grade; there is another one of a
lower grade. The lower grade samAdhi is the ‘samAdhAna’ of the
‘shamAdi-shhaTkaM’ spoken by the
Acharya. ‘samAdhi’ has generally the connotation of being in unison with the goal of brahman; so in order to make
a distinction he calls this as
‘samAdhAna’.
I
told you already how the Acharya adds ‘shraddhaa’ to the five accomplishments
mentioned by Rishi Yajnavalkya in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. And Yajnavalkya
calls the person who possesses them as ‘shAnta, dAnta, uparata’, etc. The Acharya calls the accomplishments
defining them as ‘shama, dama, uparati’, etc. and makes them as components of
the SAdhanA. Yajnavalkya names the
one who has the last (the fifth) accomplishment as ‘samAhita’. That which makes him a ‘samAhita’ is named by
our Acharya as ‘samAdhAna’. ‘sama’ + ‘Ahita’ is ‘samAhita’. ‘sama’ + ‘AdhAna’
is ‘samAdhAna’. The two words ‘Ahita’ and ‘AdhAna’ have the same meaning;
namely, ‘to unify, confirm, establish,
in one place’. What is supposed to be established, confirmed? Where?
‘sama’
means equality – no high, no low. There are other meanings also. What is full or complete is also said to be ‘sama’. ‘samAdhAna’ means to unify the mind and
establish it completely in one place.
[Note by VK: I have used the word
‘mind’ here
for the Tamil word ‘cittaM’ that
the Mahaswamigal uses in this chapter.
But as he goes along he explains the usage
of ‘cittaM’ for
‘manas’ (Mind).
This explanation
will come in the next post.]
It
should not be allowed to move this side or that side. We all know the mind
thinks of several things at the same time. To converge it into one place and
firmly establish it there is ‘sama AdhAnaM’ or ‘samAdhAnaM’. The one who has so
established the mind by fixing it in one place is a ‘samAhita’. By doing this
the perturbations of the mind are all calmed and it becomes focussed completely
at one place. By such a ‘samAdhAna’ the
peace of a calm restful mind is obtained.
What
is that one thing into which the mind is to be focussed without running into
all directions?
*shuddhe
brahmaNi* : ‘In the pure unmixed
Brahman’. To establish the mind always and in all manner, completely in Brahman
is ‘samAdhAnaM’.
*samyak
AsthApanaM buddheH shuddhe brahmaNi sarvadA /
tat-samAdhAnam-ityuktaM
…. //*
This is how the Acharya defines it in
Vivekachudamani shloka 26 (27).
‘samyak’
means ‘correctly’ or ‘completely’. Here both meanings have to be taken in.
‘AsthApanaM’ means ‘ the establishing of’.
‘The intellect has to be always
(*sarvadA) established completely in Brahman in the right manner (*samyak*);
this establishing is said to be (*ityuktaM*) samAdhAnaM’.
Brahman
is the only thing which is unmixed with MAyA.
What is referred to as the substratum of the entire universe is Brahman; the
same thing when referred to as the substratum of the jIva is called Atman.
Brahman which is the same as Atman is the only thing which is untouched by MAyA. Hence it is called ‘shuddha
brahman’ – that is why the shloka has ‘shuddha Brahmani’. Even a little mixture
of MAyA will make it different. Ishvara Himself has such a mixture of MAyA.The universe which is totally mixed
with that MAyA is being administered
by that Ishvara, who has MAyA with him (*MAyA-sahita Ishvarah).
Brahman does not do any such thing as administration of the universe. Brahman
has nothing to do with the universe or its affairs. Of course it is the
substratum, basis of the universe; but from that Brahman it was MAyA
that produced the vision of the universe. Brahman is not related to the
universe.
The
dim light produces the vision of the snake from the rope, but the rope in
reality has no relationship with the snake. It is an unmixed rope all the time.
That
kind of unmixed thing-in-itself is what
is called shuddha Brahman. Instead of the saguna form of Ishvara, if the mind is focussed on nirguna Brahman, that is said
to be ‘samAdhAnaM’.
Our
SAdhanA is Atma-SAdhanA. The SAdhanA is
for the Realisation of Brahman which is attributeless (nirguNa) and which is
the Atman . Therefore it is necessary to keep the mind unshaken in the Brahman
which transcends the MAyA, instead
of in the Ishvara with His MAyA.
By
Ishvara is meant all the different
forms of God. Originally it was one such form that was worshipped by us and
that is why the mind was trained to focus itself on one thing.That was the
first stage. In this second stage, the mind has to have its ‘AdhAna’ in the
Brahman without form.
Off
and on one will recall the saguna form of Ishvara.
When it comes, don’t think of Him as the administrator of this mAyic universe
but think of Him as Grace Personified (*anugraha-svaruupaM*)
which granted us the thought that we have to transcend this MAyA. And with the determination that
‘It is He (that saguNa form) who shows us the path of JnAna towards the nirguNa Brahman and so we should no more cling to
the saguNaForm of His’, one should turn one’s mind towards the Atman principle.
He is the One who shines as our Atman. So holding on to the Atman is as good as
holding on, doing bhakti, to Him. The mind should always be turned towards the
nirguna brahman; even if the memory of the saguna Brahman recurs, knowing that
the basis of that saguNa one is only the nirguna brahman, we should dissolve
the saguna in the nirguna.
I
have been telling you of ‘the mind’ so far. But the Acharya has referred to ‘buddhi’, the intellect. *samyak
AsthApanaM buddheH* are his words – namely, ‘the intellect must be caught hold
of and fixed in Brahman’.
The intellect (*buddhi*) is only one particular aspect of the mind.
Cit
is Knowledge. The organ that the JIva
has that is associated with knowledge is ‘cittaM’. This is an internal organ;
called ‘antah-karaNaM’. By ‘Knowledge’ is not meant just what is done by the
intellect (buddhi). Though what is
done by the intellect is part of this Knowledge, ‘cittaM’ is not just that. The
feelings that arise in the mind (manas) is also part of it. The work of the
mind, the work of the intellect, what the mind thinks, feels, what the
intellect knows – all these together constitute what is called ‘cittaM’.
Because of this combination of works of both the mind and intellect, it is
customary in advaita works to refer to the process of cleaning up the mind and
the intellect and of
focussing
them as ‘citta-shuddhi, citta aikAgriyaM’.
There
are four: cittaM, manas, buddhi,
ahamkAraM.The four together constitute ‘antah-karaNaM’. ‘Thought’ is something
that is common to all the four. But its source is ‘cittaM’. The ‘cittam’ that
produces thought associates itself with the other three. Manas is the
instrument of feeling. It does not know
good and bad. It drowns itself in all kinds of feelings. It is the intellect that is the instrument of
discrimination between good and bad. Only the intellect has the power of
judgment.Ahamkaara is the mood (bhAva) that arises first in all thoughts. The
thought of separate jIva as differentiated from the ParamAtmA, with an ‘I’ of
its own, is what is known as ahamkAra (Ego). When and only when that is
destroyed then only the separate JIva-hood
will go and the status of the Atman in its Realisation of one-ness with the
ParamAtmA arises. This destruction/end of the Ego is the apex of SAdhanA.
When
he defines ‘samAdhAna’ the Acharya talks
of the intellect (buddhi) – the
role/pose of ‘cittaM’ when it exercises the power of discrimination –and says
that this intellect has to be fixed in Brahman.
Ordinarily,
cittam is equated with manas (mind). In
the same manner, what is to be monitored and controlled with effort is the
manas (mind) – this is the common understanding. Even if we do not understand
the meaning, we are in the habit of saying ‘The mind does not have samAdhAna
(peace or rest)’ or ‘Rest your mind, pacify the restlessness of the mind’. In
ritual mantras they say ‘manas samAdhIyatAM’ in the sense of ‘Let the mind rest
in peace’. And in reply to that prayer, one says *samAhita-manasaH smaH*. Note
that in all this, it is the mind (manas) that is talked about.
In
other words, we equate ‘manas’ and ‘antaH-karaNaM’ in all our ordinary exchange
of ideas. ‘Control the mind, Let the MAyA
covering the mind be removed, May the
dirt of the mind be erased’ – these are the statements in the literature of
spirituality and Atma-SAdhanA. The
reason for all this is that it is the mind (manas) that draws the JIva by its feelings into all
directions. When the Acharya defined ‘shamaM’ in this sextad, he says it is
“the state wherein the mind (manas) is anchored to the goal (lakshyaM) of the
Atman” -- *svalakshhye niyatAvasthA manasaH shama ucyate*.
The
next one ‘damaM’ is also the controlling of the mind’s agents, the senses.
‘uparati’ is also another component of mind-control. Holding back the channels
(vRtti) from proceeding to outside
attractions is ‘uparati’ and the channels are nothing but flows of the
mind. The tolerance or patience implied
in ‘titikshhaa’ is also a work of the mind. Thus all that we have seen so far
are SAdhanAs that correct the mind.
Here
when he talks of ‘samAdhAna’ he talks
about the ‘fixing’ of the intellect (buddhi).
We have heard many speak “The mind has
to become still; the mind has to be drawn and made to be fixed on one thing; it
is the mind that has to be anchored ..”.
In this kind of environment it will be odd if I tell you to do such
things with buddhi; I did not want to
appear different, right from the start. So I tried to be smart and without
saying it is the mind or the intellect that should be brought under control, I
mentioned ‘cittaM’ which is common to both.
Also the Acharya himself has shown me the way for that. In
AparokshhAnubhUti (Verse #8) he says “The unitary focussing of cittaM
on the goal of Absolute Reality (*sat*) is said to be ‘samAdhAna’*:
*cittaikAgRyaM
to sallakshhye samAdhAnam-iti smRtaM*.
Having
made all this introduction, we shall now see why the Acharya has mentioned the intellect here (instead of
simply, the mind).
When
he was talking about shraddhA
earlier, though he made it clear that buddhi
(intellect) has to be kept aside and it is only the mind that has to posit the
faith, still he said that it is the confirmation by the intellect
(*buddhy-avadhAraNaM*) that is called shraddhA. And we explained by
saying that it is the intellect itself
that has to decide that it has to play no role and thus make way for the mind
to accept the words of the Guru and the Shastras.
The
present context where he says that buddhi
(intellect) has to be focussed on brahman,
and that is samAdhAnaM, is being done in the same strain .Without being
swayed by emotion, it is the intellect as the component of the internal organ
that weighs truth and falsity and makes judgments in all worldly matters. That
same buddhi has now to be withdrawn
from that function and coordinated to converge on matters relating to Brahman.
He says that is samAdhAnaM. It is not only the feelings of the mind that run
helter-skelter; the intellect also does the same. But we usually think it is
the play of emotional feelings that is bad; we do not think in that manner of
the goings-on of the intellect. In the name of ‘Pursuit of Knowledge’, the
intellect goes in search of all sorts of information and all of us are in the habit of praising such
action. It is generally an acceptable
thing to say: “We should know everything; all arts and science. Even thieving
is an art. (Recall the Tamil saying: *kaLavuM katrumaRa*). Even the Acharya got
the award of ‘sarvajna’ (all-knowing)”.
In fact I myself have told you many times the same things. But note that
such things are not told to a spiritual sAdhaka who is advancing in the second
stage. They were all said to one who is far behind; that was the stage when the
intellect has to be sharpened. It is that sharpness of the intellect that had
to be used to do the ‘nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaM’ (the discrimination between
the ephemeral and the transcendent). This viveka (discrimination) is totally a
function of the intellect. After having become an ‘Atma-sAdhaka’ (seeker of
spirituality) he does not need any more outside knowledge. The only knowledge
that he needs is Self-Knowledge. His intellect should not any more digress into
other matters. The only subject to which it should now be anchored is the pure
Brahman.
The
Gita (V -28) says *yatendriya-mano-buddhiH* that is, not only the senses and the manas,
but the intellect also should be controlled.
Intellect has to be stationed in brahman, without tossing itself into
several objects.
This
fixing of intellect in brahman has been called *brahmaNi buddheH sthApanaM* by
the Acharya. But the Upanishads on the
other hand say that we cannot reach brahman by our intellectual power. In two
Upanishads, namely, Kathopanishad (II –
23) and Mundakopanishad (III-2.3) it says emphatically * na medhayA* (not by
intelligence). Neither by mind, nor by speech, nor by intellect can the Atman
be obtained – is well-known.Then why did the Acharya say so? It means he is not
talking about the final Realisation stage of ‘samAdhi’; he is only talking of
the lower stage, *samAdhAnaM* and thus let us remember he has distinguished
both.
So
neither by intelligence nor by Vedic scholarship can the Atman be obtained. If
that is the conclusion of those two Upanishads then by what shall one obtain
the Atman? You have to ‘choose’ it. This
process is called ‘varaNaM’. What does one mean by ‘varaNaM’?
What
is ‘varaNaM’?. ‘vara’ means ‘best’. When
a bridegroom is chosen for an eligible daughter; the bridegroom is called
‘varaH’ in Sanskrit and ‘varan’ in Tamil. Also another meaning is one who has been chosen from among several.
This choice is inbuilt into the word ‘svayamvara’ where a bride (usually a
princess) chooses her match from an assembly of several princes who consider
themselves eligible bachelors for the princess.
She chooses whomsoever she likes best. The act of choosing is ‘varaNaM’.
We look for a proper guru, finally choose one and seek him as our guru – this
is ‘guru-varaNaM’. Accordingly there is
‘sishhya-varaNaM’ also.
In
a similar manner we have to choose ‘Atman’, by discarding everything else. We
have to keep praying “Please reveal yourself, O Atman. You are nothing but my
self; but I am not able to recognize it. All this mind, speech, and
intelligence (medhA) which think of
myself as ‘I’, cannot recognize you.
Therefore please reveal yourself by yourself”.
A continued prayer like this will one day flash the truth. It will
nullify the intellect, manas and speech and produce a Self-realisation as the
Atman itself.
This
is ‘Atma-varaNaM’. The reciprocal process by the Atman, is beautifully
described in the Upanishads and called *vi-varaNaM*. The word means ‘revelation
of what is inside or hidden’.
In
sum, the sAdhaka has to do only this. He should understand that intellectual
smartness will not work with Brahman. What will work is only a constant prayer,
after having discarded everything else, to Atman itself, to be the chosen goal,. The word
‘varaNaM’ which is the process here,
includes in it the concept of ‘prayer’ also; that is how the Acharya has
constructed his Bhashya for those mantras of the Kathopanishad.
The
same Acharya here says: “Establish the buddhi
(intellect) in shuddha Brahman”. What is meant by this? I think it is only
this: The intellect should dwell, not on shuddha brahman, but in a one-pointed
way on what has been said by the Guru
and the Shastras about Brahman.
To
allow buddhi or intellect to be
drowned in the
Here
it is ‘samAdhAnaM’. ‘BrahmaNi’ does not
mean ‘in Brahman’ here but ‘in matters pertaining to Brahman’ – what the
ShAstras and the Guru say about it. This is the right way to understand it. The
purport is that we should direct the intellect to dwell always on the
philosophical implications of Brahma VidyA.
In
the exercise of shraddhA, we made the
intellect to confirm (avadhAraNa) the faith in what the ShAstras and the Guru
say. In continuation of the same , as a logical conclusion, the Shastra of the
Atman has now to be learnt, by the intellect itself, without any doubts raised by the intellect. The Guru might add something of his own,
which may not be in the ShAstras. That also has to be absorbed in the same way.
Realisation
or Experience of Brahman (*brahmAnubhava*) comes much later. That is the true
Enlightenment. Right now whatever has to be learnt through the intellect has to
be absorbed as ‘buddhi-jnAnaM’. The total force of the
intellect has to focus on this now. This is the *samyak AsthApanaM* (Right
fixation). And this has to be done always. This is the ‘samAdhAna’ of the intellect.
Now
the Sadhaka has not yet matured to sit in dhyana and have his intellect
dissolved in the Atman. At this stage the intellect keeps on doing its
functions. Use that intellect only in those functions which help you rise in
spirituality. And what could be those functions except to know well the
ShAstras about the Atman? Except for the formal initiation (upadesha) into the
mahAvakyas (which has to be done only at the time of taking Sannyasa),
everything else has to be learnt now by proper study.
They
have to be learnt at the feet of a guru. This is the VidyA-guru.The one who
later gives him the sannyAsa and initiation into the mahAvAkyas is the
Ashrama-guru. It goes without saying that the latter has to be a SannyAsi
himself. Probably he might have been the
Vidya Guru earlier. Or probably he might be a scholarly practitioner of the
Vaidic Karmas.
There
is an opinion that only SannyAsis have the right to study the Upanishads. In
other words only a SannyAsi should teach Upanishads and that too to SannyAsis
only. They say that the others such as,
a Brahmachari, a householder, etc. may learn Vedanta from other expository
books. When a brahmachari goes through the study of the Veda-recitation, he
also learns to recite the Upanishads. Certainly. Among the various vidyAs and
upAsanAs therein, many are intended for householders. Even then, without
concentrating on the learning of the meanings, one can learn to recite. If
desired, one can get to know the content of them in outline. But a deep study
in detail of the meanings of the Upanishads is only for the SannyAsis. This is their opinion.
But
what appeals to me is what tradition has handed over to us. Whether one is a
brahmachari or a householder, they have been learning, in fact deeply, all the Upanishads. So I think only the
initiation into the mahAvAkyas is to be postponed to the event of taking over
SannyAsa.
Of
course in the recitation of the Upanishad itself, the mahAvAkyas will come. But it is only the SannyAsi who can use it
for a japa. For this he has to receive by the process of DikshA, the mahAvakya mantra from the SannyAsa Guru
only.
Otherwise,
all those who are eligible to learn the vedas, in whatever stage of life they
are, can learn the Upanishads from a guru. This, I think, is the opinion of the
learned and this has been in vogue for a long time.
As
support to this one may state that originally
those who gave out the Upanishads or were the recipients of the
Upanishads were themselves not SannyAsis.
But I don’t like to lean on that point. For when the yugas change, the
dharmas also change. The spiritual strength of people of the earlier yugas does
not subsist in those of the later yugas. That is why dharma shAstras prohibit certain things which
were in vogue in the earlier yugas. We should not transgress those injunctions
of the shAstras. Therefore it is not
a valid point to quote instances from the Upanishadic times in support of the
continuance of those practices. Of course the SmRti does not specifically say
that Upanishads are only for Sannyasis.
But instead of taking my stand on this, I would rather go by what has
been handed to us by tradition.
There
is what is known as ‘ShAnti pAThaM’ consisting of certain mantras and
invocatory shlokas, prescribed for being recited at the beginning of every
Upanishad class. One of those mantras says: “ Who once created Creator BrahmA
and taught Him the Vedas, that Almighty
is the One who enlightens my intellect; being a seeker of MokSha, I surrender
to Him”. The word used here for the seeker of MokSha is ‘mumukShu’. Only the advanced seeker is
called mumukShu. In Svetasvataropanishad, which, though not among the ten
topmost Upanishads, has been commented upon by the Acharya, it is said that
this Upanishad was taught to advanced SannyAsis. People who advocate that SannyAsis are the
only ones to be taught the Upanishads usually quote this fact. But our Acharya
has mentioned in his commentaries that several portions in the Upanishads are
only for the manda-adhikAris (those who are not fully qualified). Certainly a
mumukShu is not a manda adhikAri. So I
go by the traditional viewpoint, namely, instead of saying that Upanishads can
be learnt only after one is advanced in jnAna-acquisition,
I would say only by the learning of the upanishads one would advance in the
acquisition of jnAna. Traditional
practice has legitimately adopted this relaxation.
SamAdhAna
is the grounding of the intellect completely and firmly in matters pertaining
to Brahman.
Samyag-AsthApanaM
buddheH shuddhe brahmani sarvadA /
tat-samAdhAnam-ityuktaM
na tu cittasya lAlanaM //
Right
fixation of the intellect in shuddha-brahman, always, is said to be
‘samAdhAnaM’, not the pampering of the
‘cittaM’.
Note
that he starts with buddhi
(intellect) but ends with ‘cittaM’. The
latter is the source for the thought-process that always goes with the other
three, namely, buddhi (intellect),
manas (mind), and ahamkAra (ego). So cittaM may refer to either buddhi or manas according to the
context. Here first he has talked about
the one-pointedness of buddhi and
immediately talks about ‘cittam’; so the latter may be taken to refer to buddhi or the instrument that generates
the thought.
‘na
tu cittasya lAlanaM’ is significant.
‘lAlanaM’ means fondling through pampering. Sometimes we do offer sweets
to a child in order to get something done by the child. The same kind of indulgence is done to a sAdhaka in his
beginning stages, so that he takes interest in the upward climb of
spirituality. Instead of forcing him to do the difficult task of concentrating
on a nirguna (attributeless) goal, we do allow him to take resort to a saguna
upAsanA, in fact even to several forms of the Divine, and thus in a sense
pamper him. But when he has made some
advances on the SAdhanA ladder, we
should not continue this indulgence. At this advanced stage we have to put an
end to this over-indulgence and with some rigour turn him into the upAsanA of
nirguna brahman. In the first stage we might have been lenient, as far as it goes, but when he has passed through the second stage and
has now arrived at the stage of readiness for Sannyasa there should be no more ‘lAlanaM’ of the
‘cittam’. It should fully turn to thinking only about Brahman and the teachings
about Brahman.
All
this not only applies to a guru training the sishhya, but to oneself. One must
guard oneself against self-pampering. When the Acharya says “See that the
intellect gets fixed in Brahman and matters connected with Brahman and do not
allow any pampering” he means one should not think now at this advanced stage
“Let me not compel myself to think only about Brahman all the time; let the
intellect dwell on other things for some time. When it is necessary to draw it
back I will be able to do it; I have come so far in SAdhanA, so it should not be impossible for me”. This kind of self-pampering has to come to a
dead stop some time and the time has come now when one has come to the
samAdhAna stage of SAdhanA-chatushTayaM.
The sextad of the JivAtmA is *shama,
dama, uparati, titikShA, shraddhaa and samAdhAna*. This is the sextad of spiritual treasures.
This, remember is the third component among the four of Spiritual SAdhanA. Just as the householder has six
categories of karmas to do, the Acharya has prescribed these six eligibility
qualifications for one who is seeking the SannyAsa Ashrama. But as I said earlier, even the householder must
have some practice in these six; only then he will be able to meet the
responsibilities of his life with peace and comfort. And some distant day he
will also become eligible to enter the fourth Ashrama, Sannyasa.
We refer to the Almighty God as
‘Bhagavan’. The reason for that name is that the Lord has six ‘bhagas’. This is
mentioned in Vishnu Purana. ‘Bhaga’ also
means ‘treasure, excellence (*sampat*)’.
Bhaga is also a name of the Sun-God. Whatever excellence shines like the
splendour of the Sun is called bhaga. The Lord has six Bhagas:
With
this we have seen the six components of the sextad beginning with shama. The
sextad is the third component of the SAdhanA-chatushhTayam.
The fourth and last is mumukShutvaM (Longing for mokSha).
The
meaning of ‘mumukShu’ is one who longs, (wishes, desires) for mokSha. He for
whom that wish is fulfilled and Self-Realisation is obtained is called a
‘mukta’. Only after being a ‘mumukShu’
one can become a ‘mukta’.
Of
course every one wants to get out of this mire of samsAra and reach that stage of mokSha which is permanent
bliss. But just a vague or minor wish
for mokSha does not become the ‘longing’ (*kAnkShA*) inbuilt into the word
‘mumukShu’. Intense desire, an anguish coupled with readiness to take every
effort possible – only when all these are present it becomes a *kAnkShA*. And
that kind of longing for mokSha is what makes a mumukShu. His characteristics,
his nature, what he does – all these constitute ‘mumukShu-tvaM’. ‘mumukShutA’ is also another word. The
Acharya gives the definition in his aparokShA-nubhUti (verse 9) thus:
samsAra-bandha-nirmuktiH kathaM syAn-me dayAnidhe /
iti
yA sudRRiDhA buddhiH vaktavyA sA
mumumkShutA //
The
flow of words reflects a desperate craving and pleading, almost a cry,
before the Lord or the visible Guru. ‘Oh
“ The confirmed will that reflects in the
anguish-filled prayer to the Merciful Guru ‘When would I be able to get release
from this bondage of samsAra?’, is
mumukShutA”.
When
he talks about the same subject in Viveka Chudamani (shloka 27/28), he says
*sva-svarUpa avabodhena moktuM icchA
mumukShutA /*
that
is, it is not enough to be relieved from the bondage of samsAra; the JIva is not
to become inert, after the release from bondage. One must have
*svasvarUpa avabodhaM*. This means one
should get the awareness of enlightenment that experiences one’s true status of Atman.
That
is what is important. One should pine
for that. The anguish that is called mumukShutvaM is for the experience of
Truth rather than for the eradication of MAyA.
One prays for the ending of bondage only because of the fact that the bondage has got to disappear for the
purpose of Realisation.
However
generally the importance is given more to the release from bondage rather than
to the Realisation of the Self. This is
how the final goal of fullness is described as mokSha’ or ‘mukti’. Those words do not describe the state that we reach;
instead they talk about the state that we are leaving behind. The two words
‘mokSha’ or ‘mukti’ both indicate
only the state of release. The Tamil use
of the word ‘VeeDu’ also does the same. The English word ‘Liberation’ also says
the same thing. The root word is ‘muc’
in Sanskrit. (‘u’ as in ‘put’). It has an alternate form, namely, ‘moc’ (the
‘o’ as in ‘go’). The root word ‘muc’ gives the noun ‘mukti’. There is another noun ‘muku’ (not very much in use) meaning release. He
who gives ‘muku’ is ‘Mukunda’. The root verb ‘moc’ gives the noun ‘mokSha’, ‘mocanaM’ and
‘vimocanaM,. All these are words which indicate the release from the bondage of
samsAra; they do not say anything
about the infinite bliss that comes at the Release. Thus why has this final
goal been called by something which indicates only the release part and does
not indicate anything about what we get after the Release, namely the
Realisation as the very brahman? Why has it not been called by something which
indicates the bliss? Why?
I
think there are two reasons. First the Bliss of Brahman cannot be described by words. This may be the
prime reason.
The
other reason could be as follows. Every school of philosophy has a book of
sutras as its authoritative source (pramANa).
And that is where the tenets of the
school are given in short aphorisms. Our Vedanta tradition has ‘Brahma-SUtra
as its source authority. The very first Sutra mentions about what is in
the book and what the subject is. The
subject is ‘brahma-jijnAsA’. ‘jijnAsA’ means the desire to know.
‘Brahma-jijnAsA’ here means ‘the
enquiry made with the purpose of knowing brahman’. The subject which is thus
enunciated is the object-goal of those who take this book as the authority (pramANa). So our goal – we all belong to
the
When
the basic sUtra of the Vedanta school
is itself mentioning the Brahman experience as the ultimate goal, why is
that MokShaM is talked of popularly as the ultimate goal? I have already
given one reason for this. Another
reason strikes me. The ideas of the Vedas and Vedanta go back to antiquity. Later, that too in
ancient times, other schools and religions did blossom – namely, BauddhaM,
PAtanjalaM (that is, Yoga Shastra), NyAya (Logic). Humanity did generate different opinions.
Among these, there did come in later times, schools and religions much
different from the basic Vaidika school of thought. There came even some which
were totally against the Vaidik religion. However, except for the Lokayata
school of thought, all others have agreed to the central point of reaching a
state which transcends the bondage of samsAra.
The Lokayata school which contends that
“There is no God; no Atman, no after-life; so there is no question of karma or
karmic experience, let us eat well and enjoy well” is not eligible to be called
a religion. The others, though different from pure Vedanta, certainly keep the
goal of Release from worldly tangle.
However,
none of them talk about the bliss after the Release! BauddhaM talks about the
state of void – nirvANa – at the end of it all. Nyaya – and its sister-school,
Vaisheshhika – talk of the goal as ‘apavarga’, which is said to be only a state
of sorrowlessness, but there is no talk of any state of happiness or bliss. The
Release from the bondage of samsAra
produces sorrowlessness. Since there is no mention of any happiness, one might
even think of it as an inert state which does not recognize any unhappiness.
The ‘kaivalya’ that is the goal of Sankhya is only the Release from the play of MAyA caused by PrakRti; there is no talk of any positive happy
state. In Patanjali’s yoga also, the very sUtra
talks negatively about the control of flow of mind and there is no positive
mention of any Bliss of Realisation. Obviously the bondage of SamsAra as well
as the impact of MAyA are both felt
only by the mind-flow and so if one can stop that mind-flow by a rock-like dam,
the resulting Release is the Release from samsAra.
All
these different schools and religions have been there since ancient times. And that may be the reason why our Vedanta
also has mentioned the so-common
‘mokShaM’ as its lakShyaM (goal).
If
one goes by the Vedanta route and obtains that MokSha, it has to be only
Realisation of Brahman. It does not mean there is something new called Brahman
which is ‘realised’. Nor does one obtain
any new happiness of a state called sat-cid-Ananda. The JIva
is always Brahman. He is a mass of
sat-cid-AnandaM. Still MAyA has
played its trick by binding a blindfold on
him. When the SAdhanA is
complete, that blindfold gets severed.
He is released from MAyA. That
is, he obtains MokSha. And simultaneously and automatically he knows his true
nature as Brahman. So all the SAdhanA
is for the removal of MAyA, to get a
release from MAyA – not for producing
a sat-cid-Ananda Brahman, nor to obtain it, nor for any action related to that.
It cannot be produced or created. Nor can it be destroyed . It is always
existing. It is with us all the time --*svayaM siddhaM* --. There is nothing
like ‘obtaining’ it.
Looked
at this way, what is achieved by SAdhanA
is only the breaking of the MAyA-bondage and the Release implied therein; so it is but
fitting to call the goal of SAdhanA
as ‘MokSha’.
One
has to come out of this MAyA and
become Brahman; this should be the only thought of the mind. One who is thus
totally involved in this manner is said to be a ‘mumukShu’. The Acharya in
shloka #27(or 28) of Vivekachudamani gives this definition:
ahaMkArAdi
dehAntAn bandhAn-ajnAna-kalpitAn /
sva-svarUpA-vabodhena
moktum-icchA mumukShutA //
Here
he talks about both the MAyA that has
to be discarded and the Realisation of the Natural state, that one experiences
after the release from the MAyA.
Ignorance
itself is MAyA. It is because of MAyA
that Ego is imagined as an ‘I’
distinct from the Supreme Self. This ego is the source of all the hierarchy of
errors. The hierarchy starts in the form
of that ego as a subtle thought and ends up with an individualised ego in
every physical (sthUla) JIva. What
thinks of the body as oneself is the action of MAyA. The JIva has been bound by imagined bondages
right from the subtle ahamkAra down to the concrete physical body. This is what is said in the first line of the verse above.
[Subbu-ji’s explanation of ‘dehAntAn’:
‘dehAntAn’ is one word which is a
plural of the
word ‘dehAntaH’. The meaning is 'the group consisting of
members
starting from ahamkara upto deha.' The overall meaning of
the verse
considers each member of this group to be a bandha. Thus ahamkAra is
a bandha, buddhi
is a bandha....upto deha which is a bandha].
[Another comment by Subbu-ji:
Incidentally, the verse is a profound
refutation of the several
schools that hold any one of these members as the ultimate
reality.
The verse 'deham praanamapi' of the
Sridakshinamurtistotram is called
up to one's memory when the above verse is read.]
The desire to be rid of this bondage is *moktuM icchA* (desire to be released).
The anguish for the release is *mumukShutA*. Such is the negative definition of
‘MokSha’. But what the final goal is, is also mentioned right in the middle of
the shloka in a positive way: *sva-svarUpAvabodhena*. ‘avabodhaM’ means waking
up. The waking up is the awakening to wisdom from the darkness of
ignorance. Wisdom about what? About
‘sva-svarUpa’, that is, about Atman,
one’s own natural true state. Instead of saying ‘ awakening to wisdom
about Atman’ we better say ‘awakening to the Atman’. The Atman itself is the
wisdom, knowledge. This awakening is called also ‘Awareness’. The
self-consciousness brought about by this awakening is not different from the
Atman. They are both the same. MAyA is Ignorance; Brahman is JnAna, Knowledge. That Knowledge is the
‘sva-svarUpa-avabodhaM’.
To
be relieved of all bondages is not an end in itself. A person who thinks of it
as an end-in-itself, because the bondages were the cause of one’s suffering and
so their end is all that is needed, is not considered as a ‘mumukShu’ by the
Acharya. He does not leave the matter
like that, as Patanjali did with his yoga theory that the stoppage of all
mind-flow (citta-vRtti-nirodha) is all there is to it. Our Acharya’s subject and object in the source book, Brahma Sutra, is ‘brahma-jijnAsA’. So the anguish-cum-desire for
release from all bondages is only for the Realisation of the non-difference
between JivAtma and ParamAtmA – that is ‘brahma-sAkShAtkAra’ (Realisation of Brahman) -- and it is this
desire that is ‘mumukShutA’. This is clear from the shloka of Viveka Chudamani
that we were discussing.
*sva-svarUpa-avabodhena*
means ‘by the awareness arising from the Enlightenment as the Atman’. It is
through that awareness that one should desire to get rid of the bondage of
Ignorance. But mark it! This does not mean: “First there happens Realisation of
Brahman (this is the *avabodhaM*) and then follows the release from bondage. This
contradicts what has so far been said. In other words, the so-called ‘positive’
event of Brahman-Realisation finally leads only to the ‘negatively-stated’
Release (mokshha) from bondage”. No,
this is not how it should be understood.
No one who has studied Vedanta in depth or who has understood the
teachings and works of the Acharya, would arrive at such a conclusion.
Between
the two, namely, Release from bondage, and Realisation of the Atman, -- between
these two, there is nothing that is before or after. Both are simultaneous. In total darkness we
light a match. And there is light. Darkness is gone. Does light come first and
then after some time does the darkness disappear? Are they not both
simultaneous?
But
note one thing. It is not that darkness goes
and light comes at the same time!
Light comes and at the same time darkness is gone!
This
is where Vedanta is great. Its goal is to find the Light of the Self. Keeping
this as the central focus, it starts from nitya-anitya-vastu-viveka (discrimination
between permanence and impermanence) and ascends gradually from one step to
another. Their objective was not the removal of misery (as was that of the
Buddha), nor was it the stoppage of
mind-flow that causes all misery (as was
that of Patanjali); the Rishis of the Upanishads, the author of the Brahma-sUtra and the Acharya all emphasized the
Realisation of Brahman as ‘the Goal’. They prompted us to search for the Truth and go after it. Theirs was a
“satya-anveshhaNaM”. In other words, they declared: “Whatever is the Ultimate Truth, that has to be found
by an intense inquiry. Let it be good or
bad, let it be happiness or misery. The
flood of Time brings events after events and the whole universe is in motion. For all this movement there
must be a base of action. And that must be something firmer than all of them. So
also in the case of the JIva that
pertains to us, who are waxing and waning,
something grants us a life, a consciousness and a power; what is the
permanent substratum of this? Let us discover it.” With this trumpeting call the Upanishad
Rishis marched on with infectious enthusiasm, confidence and courage and
proceeded bravely like ‘dhIras’ towards
that discovery. Truth for the sake of Truth, that was their clarion call.
Theirs was not an aimless adventure of a
distressed and crying mind that looks
for ways to be rid of any existing despair in the hope of accepting whatever
that comes. Their spiritual march was not a disgusting prompt by the torture of
the mind flow; nor did they proceed as if they were running away to a distance
which may hold or open up what they know
not, but which they will accept, so long as they are assured of relief
from the misery of the mind flow. On the
other hand, they all started with a determination to discover that ineffable
Light of the Atman that was shadowed by
an unreal MAyA. Not only did they
march to inquire and discover, but they urged the whole humanity to march with
them on the same call!
I
said they did not start with a distressed and crying mind. One who started with a distressed mind was
the Buddha. But even about him, the followers of that religion speak of him
only as one who went out seeking a positive state of Enlightenment and he got
that Wisdom (bodha) underneath the Bodhi
Tree. And that gave him the name The Buddha. Before he sat for meditation under
that tree it appears he himself said something which has become a significant
shloka in ‘Lalita-vistAra’ (A life history of the Buddha). It is so significant
that even now we can cite that as the best example of a ‘mumukShutA’ :
*ihAsane
shushhyatu me sharIraM
tvag-asti
mAmsAni layaM prayAntu /
aprApya
bodhaM bahu-kalpa-durlabhaM
naivAsanAt
kAyam-idaM chalishyati //
meaning, “Let this body dry out on this very seat;
let skin, bone and flesh die. Without getting Enlightenment, even if it takes as long as a kalpa, this
body shall not move from this seat” !
This is the rock-like resolve that he made before he sat under the
Tree. Whatever it be, our Rishis of the
Upanishads did leave everything only to
discover the Ultimate Truth.
To
those sAdhakas whose only goal is to discover the Ultimate Truth, the
Realisation of that Light of Truth becomes the only object of attainment. From
that attainment itself they will be able to infer that the darkness of MAyA is gone. If we look at the way such
Atma-JnAnis have described their
experiences, we learn that they kept on pursuing their enquiry about the Atman
and suddenly the Atman did shine. That is how they say it. They never say that
some such thing as the bondage of MAyA
disappeared and then there was Realisation of the Atman. Because, just as
Gaudapadacharya has said (in his Mandukya-kArikA), there is nothing in reality
like bondage of MAyA, nor something which
shows up as release of bondage. But now let me not take you into that ‘high philosophy’. Whatever it be,
the only objective of the right advaita-sAdhaka is the Realisation of the
Atman. It is for that purpose, he keeps meditating, at the final stages of his SAdhanA, on the mahA-vAkyas. And he
experiences the non-different status of JIva
and Brahman, declared by the mahAvAkyas.
By that very experience he knows that the bondage is gone. And that is
why the Acharya says *sva-svarUpAva-bodhena moktuM*.
‘Avabodha’ means waking up to a perception. ‘Waking up’ does not mean
that ‘sleep’ is gone and then ‘waking’ happens. One wakes up
instantaneously. And by that itself one
knows that ‘sleep’ is gone. The same way here.
We
can even say more. *sva-svarUpa-avabodhAya* , that is, only for the awakening
to One’s Nature. (awakening to Spritual Wisdom). When one is in the state of
‘mumukshhu’ he desires release from bondage. When he goes beyond and attains
enlightenment, he awakens to Wisdom (*sva-svarUpa-avabodhena*) and by that very awakening he knows he has
been released from bondage.
An
one-pointed intense desire for mokSha is mumukShutvaM. ( Here I have used the
word ‘mokSha’ instead of
‘brahman-realisation’. The former is the layman’s understanding of it and the Acharya also follows the same; so I
shall also go by the same tradition).
But even those who may not have that intensity of anguish
for mokSha, he accepts them, with a
gracious mind, as base level (*manda*) and intermediate level (*madhyama*)
and in the next shloka enthuses them.
In
all SAdhanAs and upAsanAs, there are
three levels – manda, madhyama, and uttama (top) – and accordingly practitioners are spoken of as
‘mandA-dhikAri’, ‘madhyamA-dhikAri’ and
‘uttamA-dhikAri’.
In
advaita-SAdhanA, only those who have
reached a reasonable top level will have the deep desire for mokSha. In other words, only an uttamAdhikAri throws
away all other desires and focusses on mokSha as the single goal. But the Acharya,
in his compassionate view, has given a role to manda- and
madhyama-adhikAris. Even the base level
sAdhaka has started his SAdhanA only
because he has a soft corner for mokSha.So the Acharya considers him, as having mumukShutA in the ‘manda’ stage.
After doing some SAdhanA and
attaining a little maturity he (the sAdhaka) starts thinking a little more
about mokSha. This is the intermediate level. Even now his mind is not steady;
it keeps wavering from this to that.The desire for mokSha which was only
momentary in the beginning is now a little more stationary; but even this does
not take any deep root because of the grip of MAyA. And that is when that intermediate level mumukShu begins to
lose faith because of thoughts like “How can this poor me get the great
achievement of mokSha? It is not possible”. If this is the case of the intermediate level sAdhakA, then why
speak of the basic level one? Both these
have to be enthused into a sustained SAdhanA
effort; so he says:
Manda-madhyama-rUpApi vairAgyeNa
samAdhinA /
prasAdena
guroH seyaM pravRRittA sUyate phalaM //
“Don’t
cry, my dear! Everything will turn out alright by the grace of the Guru. But
you should also deserve it by practice of dispassion. Practice
shamAdi-shhaTkaM. If you do that, even if your mumukShutA is of a basic or
intermediate level only, by the blessing of the Guru it will improve and will
get the desired result”.
Among
the three stages ‘mandaM, madhyamaM, uttamaM’, the third one, ‘uttamaM’ is here
called ‘pravRRittaM’ (that which is well developed). Instead of crying at one’s inability, if one
makes the best possible effort, that along with the grace of the Guru, will
make the effort a ‘pravRRitta’ one.
Not
only for mumukShutA, but from A to Z everything in SAdhanA needs the Grace of the Guru. The Guru views with compassion
the effort done with heart-felt intensity and purity by the disciple and blesses him at every step and that is
what takes him to the next step.
Next
comes the third stage of SAdhanA.
[Note by VK: Just to recall.
The first stage is karma-bhakti
for the purification of the mind.
The next stage is
SAdhanA-chatushTayaM,
consisting of Viveka (Discrimination),
VairAgya (Dispassion),
shamAdi-shhaTkaM
the sextad beginning with shama,
and mumukShutvaM (intense longing for mokSha)]
In
this stage, the Grace of the Guru and surrender to the Guru are very important.
So far, even if there is a small slip-up in the control of the senses, it
may not be a big fault. But when one
comes to the stage where he is ready to take sannyAsa and receive the upadesha
of the mahA-vAkyas – and certainly beyond that – even if the mind errs slightly
that will become a gigantic fault or sin. At that point if one thinks that one
can self-correct it, he is mistaken. Of course self-confidence is a good thing.
But just that confidence in oneself will not take one far in the question of
defence against such slips. He needs the strength of Guru’s Grace, in addition
to his own strength, particularly at this stage he has to walk on razor’s edge
as it were. That is why the Guru’s Grace is emphasized here. Once the strong adherence to mumukShutvaM is
there, the SannyAsa and the receiving of the mahAvakya mantra has been done and
so hereafter everything is going to need the Grace of the guru.
About
mumukShutA, (longing for mokSha), the Acharya has talked in several places. Particularly in the Viveka
chudamani, detailing the five koshas one by one, when he comes to the
mano-maya-kosha, he dwells on mumukShutA.
When
he talked about shraddhA and
samadhAna, we saw he related them to the buddhi
(intellect). But when he came to mumukShutA, he relates it to manas, the mind.
We should not take it to mean that mumukShutA is supposed to arise in the mind
only. He actually shows that only when one attends deeply to the fact that
there is nothing like mind, one can become a proper mumukShu and then proceed
further on the right path. Till we reach a certain stage one has to sift good
from the bad, all of which rise in the mind and take only those that are good.
But after that stage the only aim should be mokSha. Thereafter the conviction
should arise this way: “The good things, in the same way as the bad ones, do
rise in the mind itself and are experienced only in the mind. So we should
discard even the good ones, as well as the mind which is the basis for all of
them and resort to the Atman, the only one thing, whether it is good or bad”. And it is for
this reason, when he talks about the manomaya-kosha, he gives the warning and advice intended for the mumukShu.
Firstly
(*agre* is the word he uses) one should be steadfast in viveka (discrimination)
and vairagya (dispassion). These have to
be there in abundance; ‘excessive’ (*atireka* ) is the word – shloka (175/177).
He says (shloka176/178): “Mind is a great tiger. It is roaming about in the
forest of objects of enjoyment. The mumukShu, the pious person that he is,
should not go anywhere near it. Therefore stay away from it”. In other words, ‘don’t use the mind even to think good or do good’. For this the purification caused by a a lot
of viveka (discrimination) and dispassion (vairAgya) is necessary. “It is the mind that originates, with no
exception, all those objects for the
person who is the experiencer (bhoktA) (shloka 177/179). It is the mind again
that is the cause for man to orbit round actions and the experiencing of the
results (shloka 178/180). In short, Ignorance (avidyA) – that is, ajnAnaM,
directly opposite to jnAna
(Knowledge) -- is nothing but the mind.
Knowledgeable persons say so:
ataH
prAhur-mano’vidyAM paNDitAs-tattva-darshinaH (shloka 180/182)
Therefore
it is the mind that has to be discarded. Before discarding it, it should be lightened by a purification.
Unclean thoughts thicken the mind by their dust; that has to be purified and
lightened. Then MokSha is in your hands”. (shloka 181/183).
At
the end of Viveka-chudamani he ends it by saying that the whole book is for a
mumukShu only. It is clear therefore
that till the last moment of
Realisation, the longing (mumukShutvaM)
for MokSha continues. The SAdhanA
regimen contends that, after this (that is, after SAdhanA-chatushTayaM) one receives sannyAsa and then goes through the processes of
shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana
and then gets the Light of Realisation, thus becoming a mukta. But even though the shravaNa, manana and
nididhyAsana are mentioned after the four SAdhanA
angas that include mumukShutvaM, even in these stages (of post-SAdhanA-chatushhTaya stage) the intense longing for mokSha (that is,
mumukShutA) has to continue unabatedly. He may go even to the peak of
nididhyAsana, almost at the point of Brahman-Realisation – even at that time he
is called only a mumukShu, says the Acharya at the end of the book. Look
at the attributes he gives him in the
last but one shloka of VivekachudAmaNi:
hitaM
imaM upadeshaM AdriyantAM
vihita-nirasta-samasta-citta-doshhAH
/
bhava-sukha-vimukhAH
prashAnta-cittAH
shrutirasikA
yatayo mumukShavo ye //
Those mumukShu sannyAsis who have eradicated the
impurities in their minds by the injunctions of the shAstras, who have turned away from worldly pleasures and sensual
experiences, who have calmed their
minds, and who have known the essence of the vedas – may they follow these good teachings.
I
draw your attention to the way mumukShus are described in this shloka. It is
clear therefore that till the moment that one gets to the point of the
experience of Brahman, to the point of one becoming a jIvan-mukta, one is still
a mumukShu.
The
whole of Viveka Chudamani has been given by the Acharya a story-setting. The
disciple asks the Guru (shlokas 49/51) “What is bondage of samsAra? How did it arise? How did it get rooted? And how do we
release ourselves from it?”. The teaching contained in Vivekachudamani is the
reply to all these questions. The disciple listens with great bhakti towards
the Guru and coupled with his true ‘mumukShutA’, as soon as the Guru finishes
his teaching, he obtains all the wisdom and enlightenment – the supreme-most
brahma-jnAna and brahmAnubhava – and
thus being released from the very bondage about which he questioned earlier, he
bows to his guru and departs as one who is *nirmuktaH* (shloka 576/577), the
Released One. And the Acharya himself in his own words winds up the work with
“thus has been said in the form of a dialogue between guru and disciple, the
characteristic of the Atman, for the purpose of generating easy enlightenment
for ‘mumukShus’. It is only after this that verse *hitam imaM * appears, where
he gives so many epithets for ‘mumukShus’.
Since
the Acharya has agreed to include three levels – base, intermediate and
top (*manda, madhyama and uttama*) –
among mumukShus, there is scope for all, from
ordinary people like us all the way up to true Sannyasis who have calmed
down their minds. Actually it only shows the broad-mindedness of the Acharya.
But amidst that generous gesture, he has also clearly stated that the base
level and intermediate level sAdhakas should rise to the top level by proper
practice of dispassion and
shamAdi-shaTkaM, by which they will obtain Guru’s Grace and thereby their mumukShutA
also will rise to its completion.
It
is in concordance with this thought “Unless there is the intense strength of
mumukShutA as well as the power of the Grace of the Guru, one cannot attain the
Atman” that Mundaka Upanishad says ‘The Atman cannot be obtained by a
weakling’.
When
it says Guru’s Grace, it actually means ‘the Grace of God’. The disciple should
never forget that it is Ishwara, the Almighty who is coming as the Guru.
Particularly in advaita-SAdhanA,
since it is all a matter of search for JnAna instead of saguna upAsanA, in the
place of the Grace of God one should stick steadfastly to the concept of Guru’s
blessings and allow it to take roots in the mind. I shall come back to this
topic a little later. Now let me finish this topic of mumukShutvaM.
I
said a weakling cannot attain the Atman. In that Upanishad, in the mantras
before that, it details, in a sense, the
defining characteristics of a mumukShu. Whosoever, not having any other
desires, chooses, as DhIras, to woo only
the Atman, to them does the Atman manifest Itself – says the Upanishad.
“To
woo only the Atman”, as is said here, is the positive aspect of mumukShutA. In opposition
to a renunciation of samsAra out of
disgust, what we do here is to identify something, with love, as most desirable
for us – this is what is called ‘varaNaM’
(choosing). It is a ‘svayam-vara’
by us whereby we choose the Self after having discarded all that is non-Self.
The Upanishad mentions here the goal as well as the interest in it as a pleasant, blissful, positive fact.
In
his SopAna-panchakaM verse 1, the Acharya has also mentioned this positive
aspect in the words *AtmecchA vyavasIyatAM*.
It means that one should cultivate with determination, the desire to
obtain Brahman-Realisation. SopAna-panchakaM is a set of five verses where he
takes us step by step through the process, starting from the rock-bottom of
karma-bhakti upto the state of Realisation. There, before he mentions the
renunciation of the household as a SannyAsi, at the point of mentioning the previous step of mumukShutA,
instead of pointing out what is to be discarded, he focusses on love towards the Atman, which is what is to
be obtained, by saying ‘desire to have
mokSha’.
At
several places in the Upanishads we are told about this matter of seeking
what is to be sought rather than
searching what is to be discarded. Appar Swamigal says: “After searching within
myself I discovered for myself” (*ennuLe tedik-kaNDu-koNDen*). MumukShus have
been referred to as *brahma-para*, that
is, those who have their only goal (*lakShya*) as Brahman; *brahma-nishhTa* ,
those whose attachment is only in brahman-related matters – here, we are
talking about persons whose interest is in the experience of Brahman; so
‘nishhTA’ here does not mean ‘to be
stationed in Brahman by experience’; so the meanings of attachment, dedication
for ‘nishhTA’ are to be taken --, and *brahma-anveshhamANa*, those who are
searching or looking for Brahman. In Prashnopanishad where it begins with six
persons going to a Rishi, it only
describes six mumukShus positively. The ‘anveshhamANa’ word used here is in
concordance with the famous statement in
Chandogya Upanishad (VIII – 7 – 1) where it says that the ParamAtmA is
‘anveshhTavyaH’ , the one to be searched, sought after.
Kathopanishad
showpieces Naciketas for the entire world as an ideal mumukShu. That little boy
had the only goal, only desire, to learn about the truth of the Atman. In a rare moment of anger, the father of the
boy had said: “I have given you over to Yama”. That, taken as law of the
father’s word, makes him go instantaneously
to the abode of Yama himself. After all it is Yama that takes the life when one
dies. So Naciketas had a firm conviction that Yama must be knowing the mystery of the Atman which is the truth
behind all life. He is determined to get the teaching directly from Yama
himself. To Yama-puri, the very thought of which frightens people, the little
boy proceeded as if it were his
gurukulaM. The reason could only be his was a true mumukShutA! When he arrived
there, Yama was not home. He returned home only three days later. All the three
days the residents of Yamapuri wanted to play host to him, but Naciketas wouldn
either eat nor accept any thing ‘Until I get taught what I sought, why
would I take food, or for that matter, anything else?’ said he, with his mind
anxiously set on his goal.
Then
it is that Yama, the terror of the three worlds, became fearful of this
bachelor boy, lest the sin of keeping him for
three days stay without food at his place might consume Yama himself.
So he gives the boy three boons, one for each of those days.
Of
the three boons, the important one was the third wherein the boy asked to be
taught the philosophy of the Atman.
Before
Yama gave the supreme teaching to Naciketas, he put the boy to a test just to
confirm the intensity of his mumukShutA (longing for mokSha). Or maybe Yama
knew it all; he may just have wanted to put the boy to a test just to
showcase to the world at large this
ideal mumukShu.
The
Lord of Death told the boy to ask for a different boon ‘because the
Atman-philosophy is something which can confuse even the divines’. But the boy
was smart enough for that. He says: “By the very fact you are categorising it
like this, it must be great. So nothing
else would be equivalent to that boon which I am seeking. Please give it to me.
There is nobody else who can equal you in teaching this to me.”
Yama
tries different artifices to convince the boy. “I will grant you lots and lots
of elephants, horses, treasures, land, kingship, sons and grandsons, life as
long as you wish. Whatever you desire I will grant it. I will send my own men
to run your chariot and to play music
for you. Please don’t press for your boon. Ask anything else” says Lord Yama.
All this is a test. He forces a golden necklace on the boy.
Nothing
tempted the boy Naciketas. “What all you are giving will one day return to you.
I want only that which will be permanent, ever.
I want only that. This Naciketas will not take anything else!”—says the
boy most emphatically. The golden necklace is not even touched by him.
And
Yama is completely satisfied. He praises
the boy. “You have discarded all these gifts as *alpaM* (finite, trivial). You
have kept your mind on VidyA only. May I
get more and more seekers like you! (This statement of Yama shows that such
persons are really rare). You are a *DhIra* (brave soul). The gates of Brahma
Loka are open for you! (Here Brahma-loka does not mean the world of Creator
BrahmA. It means that the gate is open for you to go forward to the Truth, that
is Brahman.” After praising the boy
like this, he gives him the secret teaching as was demanded by him.
And
at the end of the Upanishad we are told Naciketas, who came as a mumukShu, became actually a mukta (one who is
released). And further, those who get to know the Truth like him will all get
Release -- so ends the Upanishad. “Like him” means, “ with that kind of intense
mumukShutA”.
We
began with the four-part SAdhanA
regimen. These four parts end with this ‘mumukShutA’.
The
entire SAdhanA regimen is a
four-pronged army to fight the bad elements and capture the kingdom of the
Atman. The last of the four prongs was ‘mumukShutvaM’.
‘mumukShutvam’
has been all along described as something to be achieved. What was there as a trace in the beginning,
slowly got intense and that intense desire for mokSha is to be finally, at this
stage, culminated to its peak intensity, by the intellect. Now and then it
might have happened that one has slipped into the depressing thought: “Release of Bondage? Realisation? Not for poor me!” One should not give way to
such a thought. Not only that. One should develop the positive attitude: “It is
possible to achieve; to know the Truth. Why would it be inaccessible, if
persistent efforts are made? Guru’s
Grace will manage all my ups and downs. So let me yearn for the Release, for
the Truth, with all earnestness”. This should be done as an exercise. “Was I not a total ignoramus once? Even for
me the ascending steps of discrimination, dispassion, sense control, shraddhA became gradually
accessible. Guru’s Grace that has
brought me so far would not let me down. It should certainly be possible for me – if only I
intensely yearn for it”. This is the exercise of mumukShutA.
Here
ends the SAdhanA-chatushTayaM. But remember, this is only the middle stage – second
stage. Higher than this is the third stage.
After
practising well the four parts of SAdhanA-chatushTayaM, one obtains through a Guru
the Ashrama of Sannyasa as also the
teaching of the mahA-vAkya, and learns from him all the traditional Shastraic
knowledge along with direct experiential information. All these are learnt by
the intellect, churned and digested into a heart-felt experience by constant
meditation. These are the componenets of the third stage. After such persistent
meditation , one attains Brahman-Realisation. That is the Release from Bondage;
the Realisation of Truth.
These
are usually sequenced as three components: ‘shravaNa’, ‘manana’ and
‘nididhyAsana’.
So
naturally you would expect me to take up the topic of ‘shravaNa’ now. But I am
going to disappoint you. However you
cannot fault me for that. Because the Acharya himself has ‘disappointed’ us at
this stage. I am only following him in
this disappointing act!
See
the Viveka Chudamani. We have been following that in all these discourses so
far. Because that is the Acharya’s own magnum opus. After talking about
mumukShutvaM, and then saying words of encouragement to the low-level and
intermediate level sAdhakas, then he says at the point of winding up the SAdhanA-chatushTayaM, (shlokas 29,30 or 30,31): “ It is true that, if dispassion and mumukShutA are not intense but
mild, then the Atman will not show up. In that low level, even if there is an
appearance of the mind calming down, it is only a mirage-like show.But don’t
lose heart. Don’t lose faith. Try to intensify the dispassion as well as the
mumukShutA. Then, even the low-level as well as the intermediate level people
can rise to the peak of excellence of controlling the mind. And by that means
one can reach success also”. Thus he
ends the SAdhanA-chatushTayaM.
This
is where one expects him to go to the topic of shravaNaM. But he starts a new
topic, namely, Bhakti!
Viveka-ChudaMAnI
(#31 / 32)
mokSha-kAraNa-sAmagryAM
bhaktireva gharIyasI /
svasvarUpA-nusandhAnaM
bhaktir-ity-abhidhIyate //
mumukShu
is one who longs for mokSha. To help in the obtaining of that mokSha there are
many procedures, many instruments of help. The
processes of ‘shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana’ (hearing, thinking and
contemplation) are of such kind. All the
components of SAdhanA-chatushTayaM (the set of four
disciplines of the SAdhanA) that we
have been talking about all along are only such instruments of help.
Collectively they are all called ‘sAmagrI’.
It is not ‘sAma-kriyA’ as is wrongly spoken of in the Tamil world; it
has no connection with ‘kriyA’. When several things form necessary accessories
to a certain object to be attained, they are together called ‘sAmagrI’. We use the same word in the sense of
‘instrument for help’ (upakaraNa). Here
the word used is *mokSha-kAraNa-sAmagryAM*. This therefore means ‘among the
instruments of help for the obtaining of mokSha’. *gharIyasI* means ‘that which has weight’.
Among the eight siddhis the process of becoming heavy like a rock is called
‘gharimA’. ‘gharIyasI’ means ‘heavy’ and
‘heavy’ implies importance and connotes
‘the best’. This is the meaning carried
into the word ‘ghanavAn’ (a prominent figure). So here the Acharya says: ‘the
best among such instruments of help that lead to mokSha’. And what does he
indicate as ‘the best’?
This is where he brings in ‘Bhakti’!
It
is the Acharya who delineated for us the SAdhanA-chatushTayaM, followed by shravaNa,
manana and nididhyAsana. That completes the path – is the general
understanding. But here he suddenly brings in something which is not there and
says that is the most important instrument of help!
Whereas
jnAna and bhakti are known to be two distinct paths to mokSha, it is he
who wrote the Viveka-chUDAmaNi for us
and chalked out the SAdhanA regimen,
which is supposed to take us along the jnAna
path. But in that very path, he gives so
much importance to bhakti! He says the prime instrument of help for mokSha is
bhakti!
In the jnAna
path, that he presents and publicly preaches for the world, it is not as if
there is no place for bhakti. But that place is at the very beginning, at the
baseline. In other words it comes even before one starts the four-component-SAdhanA. Even before one gets admitted
to his
Among
components there are what are called external (*bahiranga*) and internal (*antaranga*) components. The internal ones help directly in achieving
the objective. External ones stay far away and help indirectly. For example,
take a large dinner arrangement. The direct causes are the host and the
occasion for which it is held. The farmer who produced the groceries used in
the dinner, the officer who procured them, the shopkeepers who sold them, the
cook who prepared the food, the one who supplied the vessels and crockery -- are they not all of them a cause? Among
these, perhaps the cook and the servers may be included in the list of
‘internal’ components; but all the others are only ‘external’.
In
the same way it is well known that, in advaita tradition, jnAna
is the internal SAdhanA-component for
mokSha, and for that jnAna to arise,
the internal components are shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana, and, though not to that extent internal, but
still to be included as ‘internal’, the four of ‘SAdhanA-chatushTayaM’. Outside of these are the ‘external’
components, namely karma and bhakti.
When
such is the case, the prime-most proponent
Acharya of advaita declares the external component Bhakti as a very
important accessory (*sAmagryAM gharIyasI*) and makes it get the status of an
‘internal’ component. How is that? Why so?
You
might have expected a Swami of advaita mutt to talk only of advaita; but it
appears I have been talking too long elaborately and in this process of my
extensive talk, only some of you might
remember what I told you long ago: namely, the matter about the two ‘grades’ –
‘lower’ and ‘higher’ – in both shraddhA
and bhakti. The Bhakti that was spoken of as a component for attaining
one-pointedness of mind, is the ‘lower grade’ bhakti -- a subject at the high school level. In that context it is an
‘external’ component of advaita-SAdhanA.
Now we have come to the level of a post-graduate Ph.D. level; at this point,
the bhakti that is spoken of as *sAmagryAM gharIyasI* (the heaviest component)
belongs to the ‘higher grade’. Mark it;
there is ‘the highest’ also. That bhakti is what is done by a JnAni who has attained Enlightenment.
Why he does it, for what purpose and in what manner – these are questions for
which answers are known only to him! Maybe even he does not know. Only the
Almighty who makes him melt in that Love knows. That matter is outside of our
expositions.
What
comes within our exposition is the bhakti which is an ‘internal’ component-SAdhanA for mokSha and which is spoken
of *sAmagryAM gharIyasI*.
In
order to know why the Acharya brings it
in this fashion, we have to first understand what Bhakti is.
A
well-known general opinion about Bhakti is that it is to think of the ParamAtmA
as a ‘devatA murti’ (form of a divine) with
name and attributes and to
lovingly worship that form. It is difficult to keep that love at the mental
level only; so we have added to it certain actions like PujA (Ritual worship),
darshan (of the deity) in the temples,
and recitation of devotional hymns. There is nothing wrong here. But at
the higher grade level of bhakti, one need not have to think of the Almighty as
a Divinity with a form: one should get into the habit of showing love to the
Almighty even when the latter is
formless. When the deity of devotion has a form with eyes, nose, ears and hands
– four hands, eight hands -- with decorative dress materials visible to the
eyes, when we get to know their attributes, glories, infinite compassion and
grace through the various puranas and hymns, it is easy to direct and focus our
love on such a divine form. Love is
Bhakti. Among all expressions of Love, it is the highest Love shown towards the
Lord that is termed as Bhakti. It is easy to express
Bhakti which is nothing but Love towards a Divinity with form, that has
attributes pleasing to the mind. Whereas, to show Love towards a formless
attributeless ParamAtmA that is incomprehensible even by the mind, is certainly difficult.
Maybe
it is difficult for us at our level. Let
it be. Left to us, let us be content with a divinity with form, a PujA and a
pilgrimage to pilgrim centres. But to those sAdhakAs who are refined by their
progress in SAdhanA-chatushTayaM (SAdhanA-set of four), it is easy to place their Love on something
which has neither form nor attributes. Because, at their stage, it is not true
that love sprouts only towards a form with attributes and glorious deeds. On
the other hand it is a stage where love needs no object of love; it sprouts by
itself. If that sprouting is not followed in reality, even in that refined
state, all that SAdhanA will be
swallowed by a burst of ego.
He
will certainly get his MokSha because of
all the SAdhanA he has done; but that
will happen perhaps after crores of years when the total universe goes through
the Grand Dissolution. What is this Ego
that I am speaking of here? What is this Grand Dissolution? I shall revert to these topics later. But right now we should know what this Love is that I am talking about.
What
is Love? The same Supreme Self has become all the souls. When thus there is a
multiplicity of lives, the mAyic drama
of mutual distinctions takes place. And at the same time, in the opposite
direction, there is a welcome supreme force dispensed by the Grace of the
Almighty, that helps to unify all the distinct elements; this is what is called
Love. Usually human tendency is to gain
something from the other person. The opposite cure for this is Love, that
produces a sense of fulfilment by giving oneself to others. This is the
difference between Desire and Love. When we like something it means that we
obtain a satisfaction/happiness for ourselves from it. But when we love something or some one it
means we give satisfaction/happiness to that something or some one. Desire implies receiving; Love indicates
giving. Our happiness happens only when the other being has some treasure of either form (rUpa) or of
quality (guNa), or, even, of money; only when the other being has one of these
or something similar that we may acquire, we get the happiness that we expect.
The attachment to the other being that we develop for this very purpose is what is called
Desire. This is wrongly thought to be Love.
Love
is what arises when our internal organ
(*antaH-karaNaM*) is at its noblest height. Then it is that the mind and
intellect are drawn into the Ego, and the antaHkaraNaM changes its location to
the heart and works from there.
[At this point, the collator, Shri R. Ganapathy has this
note:
“As far as I know, this thought and the consequent
thoughts
that follow this seem to be new. Except on this occasion,
even the Mahaswamigal is not known to have spoken about these.
Regarding this, when he was asked to add further details,
he said: ‘Whatever was said that day, that is all’
and thus put an end to any further discussion”]
Mother
Goddess is Love personified. So in Her creation, even the most cruel beings
have been blessed to show Love some time. And for those who have refined their
mind by SAdhanA there arises the
possibility of the sprouting of Love all the time. And that is when the heart
becomes the permanent location of the antaHkaraNaM.
[Note
by VK: I found the translation of the
dense material in this Section (and a
few following sections) very difficult. Either my English is not up to the mark
or my knowledge of the subject-matter is not enough (or both!). So, reader,
please read carefully and let me know how the translation can be improved. But
let me also tell you. To my knowledge, these portions have not been so
elaborately and so authentically clarified elsewhere in the literature. I
therefore urge even those who have not been reading through these discourses so
far, to read these few sections].
Even
though the word ‘inner’ (*antaH*) is there in ‘Inner Organ’ (*antaH-karaNaM*),
in stead of looking inside it is always turned outside. It is termed ‘inner
organ’ because it is subtle inside and
not concretely visible from outside like arms, feet, eyes, nose,
etc. Its subject matter is the dualistic
world and dualistic experiences.
Generally it is so with all jIvas. It
thickens by the dirt of experience and
stays like the dirty and greasy stain attaching itself to cooking
vessels. This is a matter of the inner organ.
The
heart that I speak of, on the other hand, is again not the physical organ on
the left side of the chest of the human body. Nor is it the anAhata-chakra, located in the dead
centre of the chest, in the suShumnA nAdi that is within the spine. This heart is indeed the location of the very
Atman.
[Note by R. Ganapthy, the collator of these discourses:
Shri Ramana Maharishi used to say:
“The (spiritual) heart, which is the location
of the Atman
is within the right
chest of a jIva”]
Of
course it is true that the Atman is permeating everywhere in such a way that
there is no space for ‘space’ and so no ‘location’ to be specified for the
Atman. The words ‘sarvaM’ (all) and ‘vyApakaM’ (permeation) both need for their meaning the concept of
space, but it is true that space itself is subsumed by the Atman as to be
nowhere. However, for the mind (antaH-karaNaM) which is always drawn towards duality, to be turned to non-duality by the Grace of
God, and towards meditation of the
Atman, it needs some kind of a prop, at least mentally. For this reason if one
attributes a form or qualities to the Atman and makes it totally ‘saguNa’ (with
attributes) and dualistic, that is not right. Then how do we create the prop?
The Formless one that is permeating everywhere is something which surpasses all
attempts to imagine it! That is why, even if the Atman is not attributed with
qualities and form, a point has, as it
were, been specified within the JIva’s
body itself and the location of the Atman is to be imagined there. Who has done
this specification? No less than the ParA-shakti Herself! She it is who
showpieces all that dualistic MAyA.
And She Herself when She chooses to show compassion by bringing some one into advaita has kept
that unique ‘point’ as the ‘Atma-sthAnaM’ (location of the Atman), where the
antah-karaNaM (Inner Organ) can converge. The antaH-karaNaM which lives on the strength of the individualistic
JIva-bhAva created by itself, as well
as the life-breath which gives life to the whole body – both merge into that
single point, the single root of everything, The enlightenment of the self as
Self also takes place right at that point.
It
is a ‘point’, very small, like a needle eye.
*nIvAra-shUkavat*, that is, as
slender as the awn of a paddy grain; it has been said to be that small. Within
the heart, which is like the bud of a lotus suspended in an inverted position,
there is a subtle space. From there spreads
throughout the body a hot Fire,
the Life-power; and in the centre of that Fire there abides a tongue of
Fire, dazzling like the flash of lightning; that is the PrANa-agni. That ends
up at the point as the awn of a paddy grain. That point is the locale of the
Atman (Atma-sthAnaM) – says the Narayana SuktaM.
[Note by VK: A question of language. What would be most
appropriate?
‘locale’, ‘location’
or ‘habitat’ for *sthAnaM*?]
By
the statement about the subtle space-point which is the locale for the Atman in
the heart, it follows that all around the point there is the heart. That is also a small locale. The Upanishads
use the two words ‘daharaM’, ‘dahraM’
for this. Both mean ‘small’. In
later times this ‘dahraM’ became
‘dabhraM’. The heart and the Atma-sthAnaM (location for the Atman) within are
called ‘daharaM within daharaM’ and ‘dahraM within dahraM’ in the Upanishads
(Ch. U.
The
entire universe is the cosmic expansion of the VirAT-purushha. The heart of
this Cosmic Purushha is Chidambaram. The
ChitsabhA (the assembly in the temple there) is the ‘point’. This is the meaning of the well-known facts:
“It is a subtle gate; there is nothing but space there. It is a secret. Among
the kshetras corresponding to the five elements, Chidambaram is the AkAsha
(Space)”. Chit-sabhA is also called ‘dabra-sabhA’. The direct Tamil equivalent of this is
‘ciRRambalam’ (meaning ‘small ambalam’). The popular opinion that ‘ciRRambalam’
and ‘cidambaram’ are mutations of the same word is wrong. ‘cit ambaraM’ means JnAna-AkAshaM
(Knowledge-space). The Sanskrit word ‘ambaraM’ has two meanings – one is
‘Space’, the other is, something unrelated to the present context, ‘cloth’. But
‘ambaraM’ never means ‘sabhA’ (assembly). But there is a Tamil worl ‘ambalam’ –
possibly derived from the Sanskrit word ‘ambaraM’; and that has two meanings:
‘space’ as well as ‘assembly’. The principle
behind the Space-ambalam (in Tamil) is also the God Nataraja of the
Sabha-ambalam, namely the Assembly of Dance.
That
is the case of the Cosmic Purushha. But
in every one of us, in our hearts, there is a small subtle gate, which is
point-size.
I
said the disposition of JIva goes
into that, shrinks and shrinks and finally merges there. This is what happens
when the JIva gets Godhood (of
Shiva). It is delightfully called ‘Involution’. It is the submerging action, by
a convex caving in, of something which was expressing itself by expansion. On the other hand, Shiva who is nothing but
Sat (Existence), that is, the ParamAtmA, when he evolves into the JIva with body, senses and antaHkaraNaM,
that happens again in this same heart by
the sprouting of the ego in the expression ‘I am an individual JIva’. I told you earlier I will tell
you about ahamkAra (Ego). That is this matter.
AhamkAra is nothing but the thought of ‘I’ as distinct from
Brahman. That thought is the starting
point (dramatically termed as ‘pillaiyAr chuzhi’ in the Tamil world) of the
process of evolution of Shiva into a JIva.
Evolution
is called ‘SrshhTi-kramaM’ (the regimen of creation) and Involution is called
‘Laya-kramaM’ (the regimen of dissolution). ‘Laya’ is also known as ‘samhAra’.
But I did not use that word lest you may be scared. The ‘samhAra’ word has no
connotation of freight. ‘hara’ means the action of grabbing. ‘sam-hAraM’ means
the process of the Lord taking us over fully (*saM*) into Himself!.
It
is the heart that is the locale at the time of creation for the ego to make the
JIva separate (from Brahman) as an
individual separate from Brahman; it is
the same heart that is the locale at the time of dissolution (not ‘temporary’
but as a permanent ‘identity’) for the inner organ to converge inwardly to the
Ultimate. Further when it converges further and stays at the sharp point at the
centre of the heart, that is when
Enlightenment takes place.
Let
it be. Note that both when the JivAtma separates from the ParamAtmA and when it
goes back and becomes one with the ParamAtmA, the locale is the heart that we
spoke of above. The ordinary example of the door of a house being both the
entrance and the exit is good enough!
In
the antaHkaraNaM there are four entities: cittaM, manas (mind), buddhi (intellect) and ahamkAraM (Ego).
Of these the locale for the mind is the neck. That of the Ego is the heart.
That of the intellect is the face. CittaM is specifically referred as memory power. When it is the
memory power its locale is the navel.
But really, the basics of all the three, namely, mind, intellect and ego
is that which is called thought and this originates from cittaM. Therefore
cittam does not need a separate locale for itself. When we vacillate between
this decision and that, cittaM is at the neck. When we finally decide, by our
intellect, to do something in a certain
way , cittaM is in the face. When we establish ourselves as ‘I, the JIva’, cittaM is in the heart which is
the locale for the Ego.
It
is this false ‘I’ that has to become the real ‘I’. One has to give it some prop
of something which can help it unify with Brahman from which it has separated
and now has to be turned away from the multifarious objects of this dualistic
unverse. It is necessary to make the Inner Organ go back to the Atman-locale in
the heart. The Inner Organ is the conglomerate of the mind, the intellect and
Ego. The Ego is the false ‘I’ which has fattened itself by its appropriation of
things and objects from the pluralistic variety of the universe.The mind and
the intellect function at the basic prompting of the Ego. When somebody has fattened himself well, how
can he go through a small gate? When a
fat person arrives at our house don’t we sometimes make fun of him by saying
that our entrance has to be demolished and redone to admit him?! But this gate
(of the heart) cannot be broken or hammered into a smaller one! We have only to
make the whole person (Ego) leaner! How
to make him leaner?
How
did he (the Ego) become fat? Seeing
everything as distinct from everything
else, he has been annexing and accumulating
from this plurality and fattened himself. All that outer coating has to
be melted/dissolved away now. Not only that. Afterwards that ego which is
making him think of himself as a separate JIva
has to be melted away. Only if it is
reduced thus, it can hope to
enter that small needle point through the heart and reach that advaitic bliss of the Atman
within. How can that be done? – is the question. It can be done only by
practice of ‘Love’!
The
egoistic false ‘I’ has been amassing left and right all along. That has to be
changed to a process of giving oneself in love – that is the only way to reduce
the fat ‘I’ to a lean ‘I’. That, and nothing else, is the route to go to the locale of the
Atman.
One may ask: Did not one reduce the fatness of
the Ego by dispassion, shama and dama? What was reduced was only
the fat in the mind and the intellect.
It is true that they were cleaned, sharpened, churned and reduced. But the Ego is more subtle than these. It is
the one which drags us into the mire of duality, without our even knowing that
it is so dragging us! We may not be outwardly bragging with pride: “I have got
dispassion; shama and dama, etc. have been achieved by me”.
But inwardly without our being conscious of it, this individualised ego which
has separated itself from the ParamAtmA, will be patting itself on its
achievements. Actually the gains in
Atma-SAdhanA, that have so far been obtained, along with the
individuality, should be melted away in
the Atman. Instead of that, the ego appropriates all the honours to
itself. And it thus fattens itself! It
is the feeling of individuality that is at the head of all these and that is
what prevents it even of thinking to
reduce and merge into the locale of the Atman. In other words, the most
important thing needed for Brahman-Realisation, namely surrender of the ego,
never takes place.
The
function of Love – the noblest attitude of giving oneself up -- is exactly this: it prevents the ego
fattening itself on the great achievements and helps it to thin out.
Fortunately, the acquiring of discrimination, dispassion, shama, dama, etc. have
refined the antaH-karaNaM. So if only
one makes the determination, one can
generate the necessary Love. And one can go on to surrender the ego and the
individuality and thus exhibit this Love.
But
to whom do we exhibit this Love? What is the object of this Love? To whom does one give himself up? If it is to
other people, other places, the nation, or the world – these things are out of
place at this stage. For, such an action will germinate an attachment and a
consequent danger! One need not forget the story of JaDa-Bharata. In earlier stages, service to others, to the
nation and to the world are all good self-effacing acts that will result in the
cleaning up of the mind and so turn out to be very good. That belongs to Karma Yoga. But now one is
going on the JnAna path towards the
discarding of everything that is MAyA
and, love or service towards the to-be-discarded MAyA world is inconceivable. Of course it is true that a JnAni after he has attained Brahman realisation sometimes does
perform worldly service by the prompting of the Almighty of the mAyic world.
Our Acharya himself was one such. But that was, after the stage of influence by
MAyA – in other words, one has
established himself as ‘MAyA-proof’! That JnAni
is not doing things on his own volition; he does them as an instrument of Ishvara. Thus love can be expressed or
exhibited either before one begins any
such thing as advaita-SAdhanA
or, after one has attained Realisation,
in the form of service to the world or to individuals – but not at the present
stage of advaita-SAdhanA that we are
discussing. One in a million who has engaged in this SAdhanA not doing worldly service is also not a big loss to the
world. In fact it is the other way. It is we who have to do service to him with
the thought: “We have got ourselves into the mire of samsAra. At least some rare person is struggling to get the
Release. Let us do whatever we can to smoothen his journey of life”.
Thus
neither to individuals nor to the society does this sAdhaka have to show his love. That does not mean he has to be
inimical to society. There is neither love nor hate. Non-violence is his first
characteristic – by the very fact that he has taken a promise at the time of
taking SannyAsa, that not a single being shall have any fear of me – in other
words, “ I shall not harm in any way any living being”. So he cannot have any
hate towards any being or society. This
absence of hatred, however, which has come as the effect of the strength of his
SAdhanA, is not to be shown as an
explicit love in the outside world.
However,
when Love is sprouting from inside, that nectar of love has to be poured to
some one to whom one should be giving oneself up – then only one can hope to
reduce the ego and enter the innermost
small recess of the heart. Who should be that some one, if not the Atman
itself?! Atman should be wooed – that is what we said when we were talking
about mumukShutA. The wooing should
become a surrender to the Atman in a spirit of dedication of the self. The Atman should not only take over the
individuality but actually ‘vanquish’ it to nothingness – that should be the
attitude of Love towards the Atman!.
Maybe before the Atman reveals itself, one has to go through severe testing.
The readiness for such testing is to be shown by the attitude: “ Am I keeping
anything with me without being offered to you?
Then why all these tests? I am ready to be consumed by you”. This is where Love turns into Bhakti!
Love
placed in the noblest of objects is Bhakti. Love placed on our equals is
friendship. Love reposed in elders whether they are noble or not, is respect. Love placed in younger ones, or those below
us, is grace. Love placed in those who suffer is compassion. Love placed in
noble ones with humility is Bhakti. The
noblest object is God and so if we
humbly submit to Him with Love that is Bhakti. This Bhakti then becomes Guru
Bhakti, Matru Bhakti, PitR bhakti, Bhakti towards our nation and so on. Among
these, only God and the Guru can really
take our Love as well as our individual ‘I’ and melt it in the universal ‘I’.
The
SadhakA on the jNaNA path is supposed to have his God, not with
attributes, but as the nirguNa-Atman. So
he has to show his Love, Bhakti, only towards that Atman.
Just
now I talked about the Atman that tests, the Atman that reveals itself, the
Atman that does the action of taking over the surrendering self. “Do all these
mean that the Atman is not nirguNa but only a saguNa that does actions? If it
is saguNa then that is not our objective.
How can that be so?” – such questions may arise. This is where one has got to bring in shraddhA (Faith)! Our Acharya, who takes
great care to show us the way, has already created this bodyguard of shraddhA for our protection! “Don’t ask
questions about saguNa and nirguNa. The very Upanishads which have talked
elaborately about the nirguNa Atman has spoken at this point only thus. Take
that in full faith and give yourself up to the Atman with Love. Thereafter you will be taken only to the
nirguNa Absolute, so say all the Upanishads. So proceed just on faith” – this
is what you have to repeatedly remind yourself and function.
If
you want you may believe that the nirguNa brahman, in order to shower its grace
on you, works for just that moment like saguNa, and then after sending you
inside the core of your heart, within there it remains nirguNa and takes you
over. Instead of resorting to such
wishful thinking, the best thing would be to go forward with shraddhA and shraddhA alone!
Memory
does go back to the Ishvara (saguNa
brahman). As long as there is a mental action, thinking of anything good does
bring back the memory of Ishvara, who
is the aggregate of all that is good. Except for advaita, all the other schools
of thought earmark him as the destination. How can an advaita-sAdhaka not think about Him? But when
that thought does occur, start thinking: “Oh Lord, it is because of your Mercy
my mind has ventured into advaita. And by Your Grace I am moving on this path
little by little. I know you are doing all this, in your great compassion, to
take me over finally into your advaitic oneness. So if I now worship you as a saguNa deity, I
will be going against your own sankalpa. Please help me go forward on this same
path” This is a kind of expression of gratitude for the path so far trodden and
a prayer for the path that is remaining, so that the mind still stays on the
nirguNa principle.
Gratitude,
that is very important. The Bhakti that arises out of this gratitude –
gratitude to Him who has directed us into this most remarkable advaita -- raises its head now and then. Of course we may have to maintain it for a
very short time and quickly resume our journey.
However, this Bhakti of short duration is so intense that all that
bhakti that we did long ago for the one-pointedness of the mind pales into
insignificance. When we were carrying on
that Bhakti almost incessantly, it was like a routine, and sometime lifeless.
But now on our jnAna path, a certain
bhakti shoots forth as if from an underground spring, along with a sense of
gratitude, and even though it is only for a moment, it is full of life.
But
since our objective is nirguNa, even
from this, the mind has to be turned off.
However,
if there is the thought that it might still be better if there is a
saguNa-mUrti for directing our Love, especially at the beginning of this
advanced stage of SAdhanA, then
certainly there is the Guru. Pour all your Love and Bhakti on him. He will lift
you up and make you direct your Love
towards the nirguNa. Has not our Acharya said: *prasAdena guroH seyaM pravRttA
sUyate phalaM* (See KDAS-46: Sec. 29)
–‘By the Grace of the Guru, the effort will become pravRtta and will give the
desired result’.
After
all what is Love? Is it not what goes and attaches to you wholly? But here the thing to which we get attached
is not for being possessed by us.
Instead it should possess us; that is the anguish with which we get attached. What should go is the
so-called individual self or ego.
To whatever we attach deeply for that very purpose,
that is Love, that is Bhakti.
But
just because love or Bhakti is but a deep attachment to something, it does not
mean such an involvement in chess or
cricket or being a bibliophile is Love or Bhakti. Because such attachment is
all for fattening the individual ‘I’. In other words it feeds the ‘svayaM’ (the
outer self). On the other hand feeding the ‘svayam’ (to the Self) – that is,
the ‘svayam’ is to be fed to the Self --
is Love or Bhakti. This is the grand
‘svayamvaraM’ wherein the bride is ‘fed’ to the bridegroom!
Another
point to be noted is this. What we are attached or involved in is something that has life. In the name of
this involvement our little self establishes a relationship. But afterwards,
this relationship, as well as itself are
all gone and it becomes that. This is Love. Life! That is important. Life unites thus with
life. That is Love. Can you imagine
chess or cricket having life?
But
we know monumental examples where the practitioners of music, dance, literature
give up all their lives to such arts as if they are divines with life. And when they dwell at the peak of excellence
in their performance, we say “they performed as if in trance, forgetting their
self”. It only means, for that moment they gave themselves up to those
arts. And the ‘life’ within the art
makes them reach a peak of excellence.
In
Science also the same self-effacing ‘intuition’ produces the discoveries
attributed to Einstein and others. One may say that such scientists did not
consider their Science as a living devatA. But all living beings have a super-Being as their common
source. That central source is the root source of all the arts and sciences and
of all knowledge and action. When the scientists devote themselves heart and
soul to their science in a dedicated fashion, it is that common Universal
Source of Knowledge that sparks them with that intuition about new truths and
discoveries. Even in chess and cricket also this might happen. But in all
these, the beauty of the relationship of
one soul giving its all to another living soul is absent. That ‘mAdhurya-rasa’,
the taste of sweetness, is what is
missing!
Starting
from nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaM (discrimination between the real and the
unreal), the SAdhanA that goes
through vairAgya (dispassion), shama
(sense control) and dama (mind
control) and uparati (cessation), has been a dry affair keeping everything as
well as oneself dry like an inert object. There has been no trace of a
relationship with ticking life. If one goes that way one will only end up in
the emptiness advocated by BauddhaM. But
Vedanta’s Brahman is not emptiness. It
is a fullness, full of the quintessence of bliss. The Taittiriyopanishad has
revelled that JIva in its Fullness
becomes Bliss itself (II – 7). It is the cit (Knowledge) that has become Life.
It is the essence of cit and Ananda, Fullness of cidAnanda. The whole concept of Bhakti is to conceive of
it as a living fullness, relate ourselves to it and develop the thought that we
should dissolve in that fullness. That is how through Bhakti one cools and
waters the dry SAdhanA regimen.
When
we kept it dry, that was also justifiable. There are methods of cure where the
medicine is administered only after one is made to starve. Even among crops,
sometimes they are allowed to dry up and then only proper watering is done to
cool them and make them grow better. It is the same situation here. We usually
are in such a state where, in the mind, intellect and ahamkAra, thoughts, feelings and determinations arise
as food for them. It is necessary first to dry them all up. By that very drying up the sprouting of love
takes place by which that very ahamkAra becomes ready to be offered as food to
something else. That is when it can be
converted into Bhakti towards the Universal Source of all Life.
Bhakti
towards Brahman, that is, the Atman, bhakti
sometimes towards the saguNa Ishvara,
bhakti towards the Guru, all these are a must. One more bhakti is a must. You
remember, after all the four-component SAdhanA,
one is now ready for the SannyAsa and to receive the mahA-vAkya teaching. We
are going to learn deeply all the shAstras
and Upanishads. These mantras as well as
the philosophy imbedded in them are equally living things, -- not just pieces of information to be
learnt from writing. They are living
divine things. Just as the icons of the
temples which have been ritually invoked by PrANa-pratishhTA, the mantras etc.
are deities in the form of the akshharas (letters). We have to set up a
relationship with them, a sort of love that
takes us to that state where we ourselves melt into nothingness . These
principles of philosophy that the Guru teaches us and which are to be absorbed
by manana and dhyAna, are wrongly considered to be dry philosophy. They should
be practised with great bhakti as if they were equivalent to the icons with
life. All along we have been doing SAdhanA
in a dry mechanical way; but hereafter we have to do the shravaNa, manana etc.
with great devotion that breathes a cold air.
The
next step being sannyAsa, one may think that this is the ‘dry’ stage in the SAdhanA. On the other hand, the wet and
cool weather is going to start only now.
It is dry only from the outside.
The outside world thinks it is a ‘dry’ world which discards the ‘outside’.
But in reality that is the world that is full of the coolness of nectar of
love. Outside there is only bark and
shell, but inside there is the sweetness of coconut-water. That is the nectar of love which has to be
milked from the Thing that is inside everything. This is the stage of SannyAsa
that the Acharya has shown to us with great compassion.
There
are two things to be avoided by a sAdhaka. He should not turn out to be dry and
lifeless. Secondly he should not fall a prey to conceit or pride. The ego as part of his inner organ
(antaH-karaNa) has to go finally. But that is a big task that will be achieved
almost at the end. Right now we are talking about the commonly understood
‘egotism’ (‘aham-bhAvaM’, in Tamil).
Usually the technical shAstra
literature does not make a distinction between ahamkAraM and this aham-bhAvaM’.
I am making the distinction for
clarity. Egoism is the name given to the ego’s thought of ‘I’ and
egotism is the name given to the conceit and vanity of a swelled head. The head
swells because of the thought: “I have advanced far above the base-level and
intermediate-level sAdhakas, far above
the ordinary karma-bhakti path and am now advancing on the jnAna path” and this thought is the end of it all! The Acharya has
kept Bhakti in order to promote the modesty and humility that is most needed
now. The ‘I’ itself has to melt in Love to become a zero; when that is so, what
to speak of any ‘weight’ of the head! Bhakti will make him really light-headed.
JnAna path has been recommended only
for the top-level aspirants. In order for him not to lose his balance by that
very qualification of topness, and for his SAdhanA
not to be broken by the weight of such extraneous thoughts, the submissive
attitude of bhakti becomes necessary. However
much we may woo Brahman with
love, unless brahman itself does the ‘revealing’ (known as ‘vivaraNaM’), there
is no scope for salvation. It is with this thought that one has to submit
humbly before the ideal goal. To obtain this submissive attitude it is only
Bhakti that helps. Not only in the case
of that phenomenon at the apex level.
The submissive bhakti should extend to the belief: “Whatever I have
achieved so far in SAdhanA is all the
Grace of God! What I did was effort only. The very thought of making that
effort and the continuance of that effort were all again the gift of God!” Only
by this the renunciation of egotism (conceit and pride), a property most
important of all the properties to be
renounced, at the time of taking SannyAsa, can materialise.
“When
We say ‘Love’ or ‘Relationship’ it needs two people. Consequently it is
dvaitaM. It should not come anywhere near advaita-SAdhanA” – this might be the general understanding. Yes, for a long
time during the course of the SAdhanA
it remains that way. In other words, understanding love to be limited to just kindliness one is not supposed to bring
it anywhere near actions. But in due course of time, by the very fact that a
refinement takes place by SAdhanA,
one gets to know what true love is. The relationship that arises from that is
not any more dualistic. One knows that it is to
become a relationship whereby the one who relates gives oneself up to
the object that is admired and dissolves
to the extent that there are not two now, but only one. And then one gets the
maturity to practice what one has known. That is where Love has been termed as
Bhakti by the Acharya. If one continues in that practice, the maturity ripens
further and thereafter there is only the non-dual dissolution!
For
what purpose does one begin a SAdhanA?
His goal is the thought “I should reach Brahman. I must become Brahman”. And he
continues the SAdhanA to reach that
goal. But when he reaches the goal, does the ‘I’ who started it all become the
Brahman? No. Not at all. There is no one to claim that ‘I’ now. There is only
Brahman. Only when the ‘I’-hood ends there is Realisation (*sAkShAt-kAraM*).
Even the word ‘Realisation’ is only a formality (*aupachArikaM*). It is
actually wrong to say ‘One realises Brahman’. No one can do anything to
Brahman. There is no ‘sAkShAt’, no ‘karaNaM’. Nothing can be done with Brahman.
Really what happens is, in that final
state this very person (sAdhaka)
vanishes. Whoever did the SAdhanA he
himself is not there at the end of the SAdhanA;
only the goal remains! It is this very phenomenon that the great Ramakrishna
described as “the story of the doll of salt examining the depth of the ocean”.
Desirous
of being totally consumed and dissolved by it,
one sacrifices himself to it. That is what is termed here as
‘higher-grade’ bhakti.
When
one begins SAdhanA we keep on using the word ‘I’ in our
thoughts: “I should get Release. I should reach Brahman. I should become
Brahman”. It is impossible to sacrifice
that ‘I’ at that stage itself. Even the
thought of it might be scaring. Many westerners who are strong in their
intellect and courage are fearful of the
thought of sacrificing the JIvahood –
the feeling of an individual self – and they say: “What? Am I to sacrifice my
individuality?”. Even when one is not afraid from the very beginning itself,
the JIva-hood does not disappear then
and there. Only when all old vAsanAs are extinguished it will go. The
extinction has to be done by means of the JIva-hood
itself. The SAdhanA-set- of- four is for that very purpose. First the effort
goes with the thought “I shall try to cultivate Discrimination”; after some
time one gets the satisfaction “I have got some Discrimination now” and then
the effort continues with the thought “Now I shall try to cultivate Dispassion” and this, afterwards
becomes “I have cultivated some
Dispassion now”. This goes on. All the time the efforts as well as the results
are all based on the individual self.
This is an ego-based feeling, no doubt, but it is necessary to enthuse
ourselves in these earlier stages.
Nothing wrong. Not only for encouraging ourselves in the progress but
also for a proper regret and due correction at times of slipping down. Only when the individual feeling of ‘I’ is
there, the thought will arise: “Oh, I have slipped down. I should correct
myself and practise more carefully”. On the other hand if we rationalize it by
an incorrect use of Vedanta by saying “After all everything is false; there is
no individual jIva. So where is the slip? Where is the correction?” then there
will be no upward progress of spirituality. The apex attitude of “There is no
individual ‘I’ at all” is not to be imagined on the way. If in that imagination
one ignores the necessary self-effort, then there is nothing to hold you back
and all the SAdhanA will go
waste. The very fact of SAdhanA is for the egoistic individual
self. It is not for the Atman. Does the
Atman have to do SAdhanA to realise
itself? The Atman is actionless and it remains as it is always as Atman.
Therefore it is the individual JIva,
that has to do the SAdhanA basing its
actions on the ego which is the cause for its individuality.
However,
after one obtains a certain success in controlling one’s senses, mind and
intellect, having discarded much of those that need to be discarded, having
obtained the formal teaching about the Atman to be realised, one reaches the
stage of readiness for being in the only thought of That and that is the stage
when the ego joins the set of those that are to be discarded. Hereafter
whatever is achieved is not to be ‘earned’ as the result of effort by the SAdhanA of the JIva, but they are the solvents of the self awarded by the Grace of
God. That is why the SAdhanA-set-of-four
ends with ‘mumukShutvaM’ according to the Acharya. So what happens thereafter is not by the sAdhaka’s effort; He has nothing to earn. They are what he has to
do to sacrifice himself. They are shravaNa (listening), manana (thinking) and
nidhidhyAsana (contemplation).
When
we manufacture a cracker we pack tightly a lot of explosive material inside,
wrap it up by decorative paper, and make it attractive from outside. All this
is done for the final purpose of lighting up the wick and explode it so that
nothing remains of that cracker. Here also the ego inside has to be exploded so
that nothing remains. In Tamil one word for cracker is ‘vANam’. The vANaM’ (that is the ego) is elaborately
prepared through a SAdhanA for the
final purpose of exploding it and making
it ‘NirvANa!
It
is true that even in the beginning, everything happens by God’s Grace. But
during those times the JivAtmA was engaged in self-purification and for that to
happen well God’s Grace helped. But now the purification task has reasonably
progressed. Now the purified antaH-karaNa (inner organ) has to reach step by
step the state of experience. ‘Reach’ is
really not the right thing; unusually instead of ‘reaching’, now it is
‘giving’. As Manickavachagar said, it is a smart trading. One gives up the JIva-bhAva and receives the ‘shiva-sthiti’ (the state of
being the Absolute). But even this is only true in a poetic sense or in the
sense of bhakti. In reality, there is no JIva
who receives the ‘Shiva’. JIva is gone but Shiva remains!
Bhakti
has been prescribed for reaching this maturity of the vanishing of the ego. The
Acharya says, as it were, “I have prescribed SAdhanA so that you may acquire the wealth of the sextad (ShamAdi
sampat) starting with Shama, the wealth of Dispassion, the wealth of
Discrimination, etc. You have acquired them all. Hereafter you must learn to
empty yourself. That is why Bhakti has been prescribed.”.
As
one progresses in the bhakti, Love and the submissive attitude consequent to
that, the SAdhanA that has been done so far make the mind and intellect light
and they are drawn by the ego to be sucked into the recesses of the heart.
Everybody knows that in that bhakti, the true bhakti wherein the individual
soul delivers itself to the paramAtmA --
this is Atma-nivedanaM – there is no role or work for the intellect. Not only
that. Even the mind has no work there. Mind is nothing but an aggregate of
volitions and indecisions (samkalpa-vikalpa). These two have no role in true
bhakti. True bhakti is the state where we rest in the thought “It is Thy Will”. The feeling of
bhakti is not one among the many feelings that arise in, and are experienced
by, the mind. VatsalyaM (affection),
madhuraM (pleasantry) and dAsyaM (servanthood) are often talked about as the
indicator-qualities of bhakti. But there is a mountain of difference between
these and the affection that a mother gives a child, the love that
spouses exchange with each other, and the submissiveness that a
dedicated servant shows to his boss. Is
there not a ton of difference between the affection shown by a woman to a
neighbour’s child and the tenderness that she showers on her own child? Far
more than that is the bhakti that a great devotee shows to his god of devotion!
The same degree of difference will there be when love or servanthood are
exhibited as bhakti to the Lord! These feelings arise somehow through somebody
and are of a unique class by themselves, far more purified, far more powerful,
than ordinary feelings of the mind.
Thus,
true bhakti is not the work of the mind. It arises from the ego itself that
lies deep within as a steadily rooted feeling of ‘I’ without any of the
perturbations of the mind. Further it
arises not to nurture that ego, but to lighten it and dissolve it in the unique
self that is also its own root source by
going into the locale of the Atman. For desiring to dissolve there must be some
one to desire. Without its being there, how can there be a desire to dissolve? And that singleton is the ego. It
is not the ego that does the bhakti, but the ego exists for doing the
bhakti!
What
should not be forgotten here is this. This bhakti that arises in this quest for
the goal of advaita is not like the ordinary bhakti which has the goal of varied experiences of ‘rasa’. Because for that
experience of the ‘rasa’ one has to hold on to the individual jIva. So do those philosophers say who consider bhakti as
an end-in-itself and that itself as
mokSha. But here, the basic maxim that in order to be doing bhakti
eternally, the egoistic individuality has to be there eternally, is
invalidated. Indeed the objective here
is to dissolve the ego by Love. How can it remain continuously dissolving? After a certain period of dissolution, the
ego has to be totally extinguished, so that there is nothing more to dissolve.
If Bhakti is intended to be a coating to be applied over and over, then one can
be doing that continuously. When actually it is not a coating, but an acid in
which the ego dissoves, then how can it be an eternal process? Bhakti
plays the role of acid for the ego. The ego thus gives itself up to
bhakti; thereby in the heart which is the locale for the ego, the ego thins out
and thins out until there is no more ego but only bhakti pervades there. And
the heart then becomes the locale for bhakti.
As
one matures in that bhakti, along with the change in Ashrama (i.e. having taken
SannyAsa) and along with that bhakti --
that is, dissolving the ego in the goal through Love – one continues the shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana. Bhakti
now sprouts fast and full in the heart
and the feeling of ego is eradicated. But before it is totally eradicated, the
locale which is like the physical heart is filled up by the subtle atoms of
bhakti.
Wherever
the Upanishads speak of the heart as the locale for the ego, (Ch.U.VIII – 6 – 1, BrihadAranyaka U. IV-2-3)
the Acharya speaks only of a ‘lump of flesh’ .
Even then it should not be taken
to mean it is a full-fledged physical organ.
That is why the words “like the physical heart” were used above. It is the organ which pumps blood that is
totally physical. This heart however is in between the physical and the subtle.
The chakras that yogis speak of, and many of the nADis are totally subtle. They
do not fall in any X-Ray. This heart
also is not to be captured by X-Ray. Still it is not that subtle. It is this
heart which somehow controls in an integrated manner, by its life-feed, the
blood circulation done by the physical heart, the passage of breath conducted
by the physical lungs, the functions of the nerves prompted by the physical
brain and the functions that take place in the digestive organs and the
associated passages. It does this control through the nADis that start from it.
Without the feeling of ‘I’ in the JIva,
what can happen in a body? That is why this ‘power’ has been given to the heart
which is the locale for the ego. Probably because of the importance for the
JIva of all the physical functions of the body and the necessity of the JIva to monitor them, this heart is also
kept ‘semi-physical’.
Even
though it is semi-physical, once the continued practice goes on with the
thought that ego is to be dissolved, in due time it becomes subtle and becomes
almost just space. The Atma-sthAnaM (the locale for the Atman) however is more subtle; it is kAraNa-AkAshaM (causal
space) – it is the centre point of the heart. This subtler thing cannot be
approached by anything physical or semi-physical. Only by lightening the ego,
making it subtle, it can enter the subtler space. This lightening of the ego
(*ahamkAra-kArshyaM*) is what is done by
Bhakti.
When
Bhakti ripens, it is only Love that
shines through the whole heart more prominently than the flesh and the nADis.
That is why it goes by the name of the heart. When somebody has no love or kindness
we say they are heartless. Sometimes we combine the two and say loving heart,
or kind heart. The Inner Organ (antaH-karaNa) has four organs in it. But note
that never are they identified with their physical locations in the body. The
location of mind is the neck, but we never call those who have a good mind as
one with a neck! Or, for that matter, someone with a good
intellect as one with a face!. The reason is, among these fleshy physical
organs, the organs of the antaH-karaNaM
sit like a person in a chair; the chair is never identified with the person in
that seat!
The
heart also, when it is semi-physical, is the chair for the ego, as I told you
earlier. But we do not call some one with a lot of ego as one with a heart. It
is in the subtle form of the heart that love, unlike anything else, penetrates deep into the core, and that is
why we identify love with the
heart. Further when we refer to Bhagavan
as *hRdaya-vAsI* we are not saying that it is He who sits in the semi-physical
heart donning the robe of JIva with
an ego. We are actually saying that it is He who shines forth from inside
having melted the physical into the subtle by Love at its peak of
excellence. Maybe we are not
understanding it in all this detail but at least we understand that He
manifests himself in Bhakti that is full of Love.
Isn’t
it strange? From that very heart things take place – even those which are not
related to Love! That is Ishvara’s
mysterious MAyA shakti! All this
because, the heart is the locale for the ego. The nADis that control and
monitor the jIva’s personal matters of life start from there and proceed to the
other organs giving them the life-force, as we have seen earlier.
Several
semi-flesh nAdis go forth from this heart in all directions. Among them are those which end in one of the nine Gates.
(*nava-dvAra*). For all those who have to take another birth – in other words,
for ninety-five percent. of all the people,
life leaves through one of these gates.
Besides these nine there is a gate of the size of an atom at the top of
the head. For all people life enters
into the foetus through that gate. But at the time of death of all those who
have to have another birth, life leaves not by that gate but by one of the
other nine gates. For those who do not have to be born again, other than the JnAni, life leaves only by the gate at
the head. That is what is called
“kapAla-mokShaM”.
I
said “other than JnAni”. So what is
the case of the JnAni? Other than the JnAni, who are those that are not destined for a rebirth?
The
prANa of the JnAni does not go anywhere outside at the time of
the fall of the body. There is no mokSha which he has yet to get. And in the
same way, there is no mokSha which has to be obtained at some time after death,
for him. Whenever he got his jnAna,
that is, the Realisation of Brahman, then itself, his antaHkaraNaM (the mind of
the jIva) has been extinguished and he has been released from MAyA; so he becomes a mukta, a JIvan-mukta then and there. Thus he has
been ‘released’ even when being in the body and the prANa does not have to go
anywhere after the fall of the body, for mokSha.
He
has been thinking of the Atman, as his life, the supreme life. Without even recognizing
it as bhakti, but with a great attitude of bhakti, he has been doing his SAdhanA for the purpose of dissolving
the ego. By this process, it dissolves and dissolves and reaches such an
emaciated slender state, that it enters the small gate of the heart which is
the locale of the Atman, converges into the Atman, unifies with it and
itself gets extinguished. And
immediately he becomes a mukta.
However,
his life (PrANa) has not left him. He is living and he is also a mukta; that is
why he is called a JIvan-mukta. Then in due time one day his body dies. Why should he live after reaching the mukta
state, and when does his life part with him – these are questions into which we
don’t need to enter at present. Mostly the opinion is that he lives in order
that his *prArabdha* may exhaust itself.
When it thus exhausts itself, then life also leaves. Let us be content
with that (explanation). Thus even after
Brahman-realisation he has his life (prANa). What happens to that prANa at the
time of his death? Just as the ahmkAra (since the mind and intellect has
gone into the ahamkAra – so we can as well say it is antaHkaraNaM now) has
already gone into the heart-gate and merged into the Atman-locale, so also now when death takes place the prANa
also merges in the same way in that Atman-locale. In other words, when the JnAni’s body dies, his prANa does not go
outside anywhere through any nADi. In the Upanishad and the Brahma-sUtra it is so declared clearly. (Br. U.
III-2-11; IV-4-6) (Br. S. IV-2- 12 to 16).
In
general parlance also, it is never said that the JnAni’s life is gone; it is usually said that it has ceased,
settled or disappeared.
Other
than the JnAni who are those that
have made themselves not to be reborn in this world? They are generally called
‘upAsakas’. There are several categories
among them. They all have something in common. They all know that this world or
this body is not the end of it all. That there exists a basic Truth is a
confirmed belief of all of them. They all have the thought of the necessity
to release themselves from this world
and the bondage. The common opinion stops here. Beyond this there are lots
of separate opinions. And the
observances also differ accordingly.
One
of those opinions holds the basic Truth as nirguNa, just like the advaitin.
However he thinks (contrary to advaita) that the Truth basis differs from JIva to JIva. The advaitin holds that even though it is nirguNa, it is
sat-cid-Ananda-ghana.But he (the other opinion) thinks it is a blank, but still
not void (like the Buddha). He performs yoga by controlling the mind and for
ultimate union with that blank Existence.
We call him yogi. He also thinks that the individual jIva-bhAva – ego –
has to be destroyed. However, he has not known correctly about the one absolute True status . About
the control of mind also, he commits the
same error. “I am not the mind. I am Brahman. Why should I be tossed about by
something which is not Me. Let me constantly recall the Shruti statement that
‘I am Brahman’ and put an end to this” –
this is the thought of the seeker on the jnAna
path, but the Yogi does not do it. In order to overcome the difficulty in the
direct control of mind, he gives much importance to breath control, and only
with its help he controls the mind.
[Note by the Collator Ra. Ganapathy:
The mind and the breath have both the same
root-source; and so
this is possible]
By
such a process, even though his goal Truth
is a blank kaivalya, strangely, the breath shakti goes to prANa-shakti, its source, that prANa
shakti goes back to the mahA-prANa-shakti, which is the root-source of all
living beings, and by the might of that shakti, he obtains several miraculous
powers. And he gets the added
responsibility of not missing his goal
by being attracted by them.
Another
opinion holds that the Basic Truth is only saguNa. He thinks: ‘We should reach that goal; but
we should not merge in it. Because if we merge into it then there will be no
possibility of enjoying, by experience,
its multifold qualities. Either in one of them or in all of them one
should experience it and it is in this
experience there is the Bliss for the JivAtman. So without being one with it, I
should be outside and be permanently enjoying that. And that is mokSha’. Only
by placing our Love on something we can experience and enjoy how it is
and what it does. So he considers
Love as the basis of all that experience and he practises loving it. We call
him a Devotee (Bhakta). Not only does he think that one should not become one
with the paramAtmA which is saguNa. He goes even further: “Such a union with
the paramAtman is not possible. The Lord has not provided for such a union” –
this is his contention.
Another
proponent, however, is not able to do
the SAdhanA by breath and mind
control; or he is not interested in that direction. Nor is he able to do bhakti
by pouring out his mind. But he is also
one of those to be listed in the ‘upAsaka’ category of those who wish to be
released from this samsAra and the
world of sensual pleasures. He does believe in the existence of God but he is
not able to hold on to Him either by bhakti through a feeling for Him, or by jnAna through his intellect, or by any
saguNa or nirguNa conception . So, on the path
for Release, he keeps on doing
his svadharma duties and obligations
without being attached to the fruits thereof. Whatever the Vedas have
prescribed as samskAras for purification of the JIva, he performs. We should also include in this category those,
in the modern world, who do service, without the thought of any gain for
oneself. But whether it is a religious karma or social service, whatever he is
doing, he should be one who longs for a
retreat from samsAra (Release from Bondage ). Not only should he
not be thinking of one’s own benefit, he
should not be thinking of the results, to others, of his actions or service by the work or
service he is doing. In other words, there must be no stubbornness that the
result must happen. On the other hand, the conviction should be: “There is a
God above. Whatever happens to
anybody will happen only by His Will,
according to norms of dharma and
justice. I have no right to demand that things should happen only a certain
way. I should keep on doing whatever
appeals to me to be just and good . And
leave the results to that dispenser of fruits (*phala-dAtA*).
This
is the path of Karma yoga and the one who follows it is a karma yogi.
From
what I have said so far, it is clear that except for the seeker on the JnAna path, the other three major ones,
namely, a Yogi, a Bhakta and a Karmi (the one who adopts karma yoga) – all
three of them – are ‘upAsakas’. In the same category we may include all those
who follow different schools of
philosophy which do not object to the Vedas and which do not subscribe to the
idea that ‘there is no Ultimate Truth, there is only a void’.
All
the above get release from samsAra
after their death. They are not reborn.
However, the soul that goes out from their body does not immediately get
absorbed or unifed with the ParamAtmA. Because, none of these had the goal of
non-dual one-ness and an identification with the absolute. They did not think
of it nor did they understand it and do what was required for that. Even when
one asks for it, the Lord does not give it out so easily; so why would He give
it unasked?
However,
all these have asked for release from samsAra
and from rebirth and have followed noble paths, the Lord grants them that
release from samsAra certainly.
In
this way. The souls that left their bodies do not return to this world. Instead
they go to Brahma-loka And that grants them the release from the samsAra of this world and all the
attendant sufferings and also from the rebirth. This is mokSha.
Brahma
loka does not mean the world of Brahman.. You would have inferred this yourself
from all that you have heard from me so far. Yes, there is no loka (world) for
Brahman). What we refer to as Brahma-loka is just the world (loka) of the God
known as Creator BrahmA.
But
instead of calling it BrahmA’s world (the world of the four-faced deity BrahmA)
we should call it saguNa-Brahma-lokaM. Knowledgeable people call BrahmA as
Hiranya-garbha and Brahma-loka as
Hiranya-garbha-loka.
Nirguna
brahman is subtler than the subtle state. By the work of MAyA the concrete creation takes place. This is the concrete
state. In between the two states is the state of Hiranyagarbha. This is the
state where creation has not yet taken
place, but the saguna-brahman with its MAyA
has kept the whole creation within itself as if in the embryo stage. Hiranya means gold. AvidyA (Ignorance),
otherwise MAyA, by itself is like
darkness, but by the presence of Brahman-consciousness it works out this
wonderful task of creation, the consciousness which thus shines and reflects is
said to be golden.
The
gate that allows things to go out is
also the gate through which things enter. So the creation which came out from
Hiranyagarbha goes back inside through the same Hiranyagarbha. When does it go
back? – when Hiranyhagarbha is of age one hundred and thus his lifetime is
over, he merges into nirguNa brahman. In
our reckoning, 1000 caturyugas (the period of four yugas: Krta, Treta, Dvapara
and Kali) make one day-time of
Hiranyagarbha. Similarly another 1000
caturyugas make one night of his. So that his one full day is 2000 caturyugas.
His years are calculated on this basis. Like that he lives 100 years of his.
All that time Creation goes on. When he is of age 100, he is taken in into
Brahman. Along with him all the worlds, jIvas and all that was created would go
and merge into Brahman. Brahman alone is
there now. Whatever time was spent in all this creation, an equal time goes on
without any creation, but with Brahman alone. Then Creation begins again.
When
the lifetime of Hiranyagarbha ends his Creation work ends and he merges in the
ParamAtmA. This event is called ‘Adyantika-pralaya’. You may recall I earlier
mentioned it and told you I will come back to it later.
For
the majority of of us jIvas who have a lot of karma balance and instead
of going on the path of Karma-yoga, or Bhakti, or Yoga or JnAna, have to repeatedly
die and be born, they are destined to suffer lakhs and lakhs of janmas till
that pralaya. He who goes by the jnAna
path merges in brahman in this life itself. The others who are ‘upAsakas’
escape from the birth and death syndrome, but still do not get the advaita-mukti. They go to Brahma-loka and from
there at the time of Adyantika-pralaya dissolve in the very brahman along with
Creator BrahmA.
What
would be that Brahma-loka like? He who reaches there would not have either the
internal enemies like lust, anger, etc. or the external enemies like disease,
heat and cold, asura, etc. Their life will be pleasant and pure. This is true of all kinds of
upAsakas who go there.
Besides this, for each particular kind
of ‘upAsaka’ it will be different.
For
the Karma person, it will be a place where whatever he desires that is not
faulty will be fulfilled.
For
the Bhakti person, it will be a place which has the favourite deity that he
wanted to reach. Brahma-loka does not
mean that there is BrahmA there. Various bhaktas might say that even beyond,
further higher up, there is Vaikuntha (the loka of Vishnu) and there is Kailasa (the loka of shiva); but
really it is this Brahma-loka that appears to different viewers in a different
way. The same paramAtmA shows up as Vishnu, Shiva in the ‘different’ lokas.
Incidentally,
BrahmA is not the favourite deity (ishhTa-deivam) for no one! Then why is this
called Brahma-loka? Maybe that is
exactly the reason!. Let me explain. The
ShAstras assign this Hiranya-garbha loka
only to those who perform their religious rituals without desire for the
fruits thereof, but as a path to mokSha. Not only in the spiritual type
ShAstras like Upanishads but also in Manu-smRti, which is a Dharma-shAstra, the assignment of Brahma-loka
is only for such persons. He does not have a favourite deity in particular. So
on the plea that he goes back from Creation to the Source, the world that is
the path from one to the other is given the name of the Creator. Maybe,in a
lighter vein, one might say that if it had been named after one of those
favourite deities, the others in the same category might object to it!
We
can be more ‘generous’ and include some more in this list of ‘upAsakas’.
Originally once upon a time only the Vedas were there all over the world.
Later, in the other countries, somehow it all got mutilated and in course of
time, the very fact that there was a vedic path was itself forgotten. At some
places some great men established a religion or a religious philosophy – and
these were made in such a way that it promoted devotion to the divine, good
character and spirituality. All those who follow these other religions and
religious works may be included in the list of ‘upAsakas’. We may even suppose
that they will also go to Brahma-loka and that will be their ‘heaven’ or ‘the
relieved state’ which is their goal according to their belief.
We
can be even more generous and broad-minded. Once our Vedic religion itself was objected to and there were founders of
other religions. Let the matter be whatever with these Founders. In fact our Vedas have said (see Br. U.
IV.3.22) the Veda is not a Veda beyond a certain stage. Maybe one or two people
might have transcended by themselves the ritual regimen of the Vedas. Let us
not try to infer anything about those individual people. But unlike the avaidik
(i.e. which do not accept the vedas) religions that sprang up in other
countries, other religions in our own country were established by objectors to
the Vedic religions that prevailed here. I am now speaking of those who came in
later times in these other religions. They have been following these non-vaidik
religions as their veda and have been
revering, with devotion and dedication,
their founders and other important persons as much as we revere our
rishis and Acharyas. They cannot be faulted for this. For them also it is possible that Brahmaloka
is their destination. For them it may be exactly what they think it is – void
or whatever. Whether Ishvara gives them Brahma loka or so,
let me have the credit of being ‘broad-minded’ for giving them this! If you ask
the hard-liner Vaidik people, they might not agree with me. They might opine:
‘If those who belong to the non-vaidik religions follow their religion
steadfastly, as a consequence they will be born in their next birth in some
vaidik religion and only by properly doing the upAsanAs there they will reach
Brahmaloka’.
I have to tell you one or two more
points on the subject of mokSha.
It
is not as if only the mokSha of the ‘dualistic’kind is what will be obtained by
all the followers of the Bhakti path till the end. That was said only with
respect to those devotees who circumscribe themselves by a non-advaitic
philosophy. But in actuality, when one adheres to bhakti that comes from the
heart and overflows in its own natural way, it cannot be circumscribed by any
boundary. Such were the devotees, like
the Alwars and Nayanamars. Instead of limiting themselves to visishtadavaita or
shaiva-siddhanta, they just allowed themselves freely to be led by their
noblest emotion of bhakti, wherever it tossed them, to whatever experiences
they were subjected to. For many of them, even this process was not enough;
they were not satisfied with doing this from outside, they wanted to be one
with their Ultimate. They poured all this in their songs and some have sung
about the non-dual experience that they were blessed with. Such travellers who journeyed on the path
of parA-bhakti and were led on to the
continuous state - *anusandhAnaM* - of one-ness, will not go to the
saguNa-brahman of Brahma-loka. Instead they will reach the MokSha of non-dual
Realisation (*advaita-sAkShAtkAra-mukti*).
The
person who by himself does not do any
yoga-SAdhanA, but keeps on praying to
God that He should grant him advaita-mokSha, to him also the Lord grants
the Brahma-nirvANa, that is superior to Brahma-loka. What the pilgrim on the jnAna-path obtains, through his SAdhanA, without recognising that it is also the Grace of God,
this devotee-type person obtains by prayer, knowing full well it is the
blessing/benediction (prasAda) of God. Of course elder traditionalists in our
religion may say that the Lord might not just give him advaita-mokSha on a
platter, he will also be turned towards the jnAna
path and then only he will be made to reach his goal.
Thus
there are several yogas. In one of these it has been stated that one should
hold on to the primeval shakti, hold on to it and rise on the sushumnA nADi,
chakra after chakra, and finally through that Power reach the Source of that
Power, namely the ShivaM that is Brahman and unite with it in one-ness.
And that mukti has been
depicted as an advaita-mukti only.
For such upAsakas also, we may be sure that the destination is not Brahma-loka, but the advaita-mukti itself.
Another
opinion is the ashhTAnga-yoga siddhas who speak of the goal of samAdhi in the attributeless Absolute also
obtain *Brahma-nirvANaM* (advaita-mukti).
But the words of the Gita don’t support this. There is no greater suthority
than Lord Krishna Himself. That He calls
only JnAnis as ‘sAnkhyas’ or
‘sannyAsis’ is well-known to scholars of all the different traditions. Krishna
says: Only those who go on the advaita path become ‘brahma-bhUtas’ while living
in this world and reach ‘Brahma-nirvANaM’ when the body falls. (B.G. V
-24). /span>‘Brahma-bhUta’-becoming is also
only Brahma-nirvANaM’. Just to show the difference that one is in the jIvan-mukti stage even when being in the body,
we use the term ‘Brahma-bhUta’. To clear this , He himself says one or two shlokas later: (V-26): “abhito
brahma-nirvANaM vartate …”: “In both situations, that is, both in this world
and in the other world, JnAni gets
the Brahma-nirvANaM’.
He
also says what happens to those who go along the ashhTAmga-yoga (the
eight-component-yoga) path, what we ordinarily call the yoga-mArga. But the
Yogi he refers to must have practised well his ashhTAnga-yoga, and must have
perfected both the breath-discipline and the mind-control regimen. In addition,
as an added qualification he should have deep devotion and must be one who
constantly and continuously thinks of God – not just one who has to think of God (*Ishvara-praNidhAnaM*), as per the prescriptions of the yogashAstra, for the purpose of developing
concentration . Krishna says “mAM anusmaran”
(remembering Me continuously) “satataM yo mAM smarati nityashaH” (B.G.
VIII – 13, 14) (he who remembers me always and every day) . Such a yogi who has
also devotion, even though he may leave the body in the contemplation of
praNava that has been equated to shabda-brahman, will still not get the advaita-mukti.
This is what the Lord says in the eighth chapter called
‘akshhara-brahma-yoga’. It has been
described
that
his soul goes only to Brahma-loka along
the path of the ‘uttarAyaNa-Sun’.
[R. Ganapthy, the collator of these discourses, writes
this note at this point:
In Chandogya VIII– 6.5 also, the JIva
who leaves the body
in the
contemplation of Aum
is said to reach saguNa-brahma-loka only
In the fifth prashna of prashnopanishad the mukti ascribed
for the worshipper of Aum has been commented on
by the Acharya in his Bhashyain the same way.]
The
idea of ‘Death in Uttarayana’ has become well-known. But the general opinion about it is not
correct. What I am going to say may surprise you. But I am telling you only what is in the
Bhashyas of the Acharya. (B.G. VIII-24. Brahma-sUtraM IV -3. Chandogya U. V-10-1. Brihadaranyakam VI-2-15 –
Bhashyas of these by the Acharya). The
Acharya never interpreted ‘Uttarayana-death’ as death in the six months of
Uttarayana. Then how has he interpreted
it? The Yogi ( a desireless karmi and
all upAsakas and bhaktas – other than JnAni)
goes to Brahma-loka by a divine path called devayAna after the soul leaves the
body through the nADi that goes from the heart to the head. But before reaching
the terminus there are several junctions! Each of these is the seat of a
devatA. First comes the seat of Agni. Then comes the seat of the devatA for the
daytime; then the devatA for the white fortnight and then the seat for the devatAs of the UttarAyaNa period.
Mark
this carefully! It is not UttarAyana period. It is the devatAs of the
UttarAyaNa period.
Thus
the Acharya has explained that it reaches the terminus after crossing several
junctions. The Lord also already has
said in the Gita only in accordance with what has already been said in the
Upanishads of Chandogyam and BrihadAranyakam.and others. The Brahma sUtra and the Bhashya of later times
(later than the Gita) also explains this point without the least possibility of
any doubt.
In
the same manner, the dakshhiNAyana-death
is wrongly associated with the result of having a next birth.
DakshhiNAyana-death does not mean that the time of death is dakshhinAyana, but
the seats of the devatAs associated with dakshhinAyana constitute the path (*pitRyAnaM*) of the
leaving soul.
Further,
another matter. This kind of passage through the path of the seats of the
devatAs like those of UttarAyaNa, then
passing through junction after junction, finally arriving in Brahma-loka, and
then at the time of Grand Dissolution, becoming one with Brahman – all this
process has nothing to do with a JnAni.
So by looking at the date or tithi of the leaving of the body of a JnAni, it is not right to conclude that
“the time is not that of UttarAyaNa and so they have not got mokSha”!
I
mentioned many times that for one who follows karma yoga well his mind gets
purified on account of that and he gets
the eligibility to tread the jnAna
path; and that, if such a karma-yogi gets that mental purity and starts jnAna-yoga, either in this birth or in
one or two more births, he will obtain his advaita mukti in that very life. How does this reconcile with the present
statement that karma-yoga is nothing but one of the many upAsanAs, and that
instead of going to the path of jnAnayoga
he will go to Brahma-loka and then he will get advaita-mukti only after several crores of years when the Grand Dissolution
happens?
Let
me explain this. It all depends on what he has been aiming at, what he has been
keeping as his goal.
If
he had had the goal as advaita, and if however he started karmayoga-type of
life just to get the mental purity and eligibility for jnAna yoga, then that itself would lead him to the path of jnAna, as soon as his mind is purified;
and he will also soon reach the
destination of advaita mukti .
If,
on the other hand, his interest, taste or inclination not being in the jnAna path, he lives a life of a karma-yogi (and nothing more) only with
the thought “Let me be relieved of this samsAra.
Whatever possible, let me do the karmayoga right”, he will obtain only the
Brahma-loka as his result. As I said
earlier, the Lord does not voluntarily give what was not asked.
Let
us analyse how we got into this topic. We started analysing the question: “Is
Bhakti an allowed concept on the jnAna
path? How is it a garIyasI sAmagrI (most prominent accessory or instrument)?”.
After one was told how to control the senses, mind and intellect, bhakti was
mentioned only for the control and destruction of ahamkAra which is the basis
of JIva-bhAva. It is the sword to cut
asunder the very root; that is the ‘garIyasI sAmagrI’. All this we saw. We further saw how the (spiritual) heart is
the seat of ego and how, if we make it the seat of bhakti, and by that very
bhakti if we dissolve the ego gradually and thin it out, then it will go
through the gate, the seat of Atman,
in the middle of the heart and
the JIva-bhAva disappears and stays as the Atman.
It
was in that context, the question arose: “If the JnAni goes like this, what
happens to the others? They also have their ego in the heart. If it does not go into the seat of the Atman,
then where will it go?”
And
thus came all the other matters in reply to this. “There are several nADis that
emanate from the heart. Among them are also those which end up in the nine
gates of the body. The mind, intellect and ego of all those whose karma-bondage
has not been cut asunder will remain fat, without getting thinned out, till the
last breath. That last breath carries
that heavy luggage of the antaHkaraNaM
and goes out by one of those nine nADis.
Later when another birth occurs, it enters that body. Besides these nine, there is one nADi which
goes to the head. Those who do not go by
the jnAna path, but still have the
objective of the removal of the bondage of samsAra
and do the various upAsanAs, --for them
the soul leaves by that head-nADi and reaches Brahma-loka.”
Another matter. This is about the nADi
that goes to the head. Just as there is
an incorrect opinion about uttarAyaNa-death so is the case with this. Even
those scholars who do know rightly about the UttarAyaNa death that it only
means passage through the various seats of the devatAs associated with
UttarAyaNa, even elder knowledgeable people, who have written commentaries and glosses on the Bhashyas of Acharya in
order to explain them better, -- even they, do not hold the right opinion about
the nADi that goes to the head. They all
think that it is the sushhumnA nADi spoken of in the yoga-shAstra.
But this is not that
sushhumnA.
That sushhumnA of Yoga-shAstra starts from the mUlAdhAra at the
base of the spine and goes straight up to the head. The nADi that we saw and
which is spoken of in the Upanishads and Brahma-sUtra, starts from the heart. The process of the ascent of
prANa-shakti on the sushhumnA that starts from the mUlAdhAra, is a matter that
pertains to the yogis who perform SAdhanA
for that purpose. They hold on to the *lokAdhAra-shakti* and through that become one with shivaM in the head. That is a
particular yoga matter. Our Vedanta
which is based on Upanishads does not touch upon those things.
[Note by R. Ganapathy: This is based on
the prominent ten Upanishads
covered by the Acharya Bhashya]
It
will not go in a roundabout way dealing with breath, shakti, etc. Vedanta shows
the way only to experience the goal by a proper intellectual enquiry, keeping a
straight aim on the target, namely the Real ‘I’ which is what subsists after
the discarding of the little ‘I’. The nADis that, according to the Upanishads,
starts from the heart, are related to the process of life as well as end of
life, for the entire humanity. Among them the most important one is the one
that goes to the head. Nowhere in the Upanishads or Brahma-sUtra is it called the sushhumnA. They only say *mUrdha-nADi*, that
is the nAdi which is in the head or which ends
in the head. In the Gita also (VIII – 12) *mUrdhny-AdAyAtmanaH prANaM*
where the reference is to the leaving of the body by bringing the PrANa to the
head, both in the text and in the bhAshya, there is no mention of sushhumnA. As
the Acharya was going on writing the BhAshyas for Upanishad after Upanishad,
only in the early bhAshyas, namely, Kathopanishad, Prashnopanishad,and
Taittiriyopanishad, has he mentioned
sushhumnA. Also in Taittiriya, he has referred to the heart (hRdayaM) as
even the physical heart all of us know.
Let me explain why.
When
the person who treads the path of jnAna,
at the apex of his SAdhanA, resorts
to bhakti for the extinction of his ego, the mind and intellect come into the
semi-physical heart, the seat of the ego; the heart is filled up by love in its
subtle form and the ego thins out and then goes and shrinks into the central
gate -- all this process takes place
(involuntarily) without his knowledge! The Atman is attributeless, so the mind
has no hold on it or has only a vague hold. So as the Guru has told him he
holds on to what appears as the root or
source of breath and thought and he concentrates at that ‘point’. That is all.
The Guru might have told him and he would have learnt that it is the center of
the heart. Still in actuality, his cittam (antaHkaraNaM) will not be drawn into
it permanently in its entirety then and there. To a certain extent he has
located something like that and his cittam stations itself there for the
moment. All the vAsanAs have to be exhausted, ego has to be totally
extinguished; only thereafter, it stands there for good. Here ‘stands’ has two
connotations: one is, ‘stops, halts’; the other is ‘endures, abides, belongs’.
So here what happens is, the process begins with the first meaning and ends
with the second. The whole process which
thus takes place in relation to the
heart and the nADis is not in his knowledge. His attention is not there. His
only attention, and all his thought, is
– and should be -- in the Atma-sphuraNaM
(Sparking of the Atman) at the seat or locale
that he has caught hold of almost as a bhAvanA (attitude). His concentration is all on the goal of
Realisation. If he thinks of anything as a ‘path’ now, it will be a
distraction. Attention to the path will stray you from the goal; and then the
path will also disappear! And you will be left back with the straying mind;
back to square one!
Suppose
somebody tells us that Ambal (Mother Goddess) has manifested somewhere in your
vicinity. What would we do immediately? Mentally we get a kind of locale for
Her and we rush on the road to find it in reality. And as we rush, do we pay
attention to the track that we pass through – whether it is a country road or a
macadamised road and so forth?
Therefore,
if we accost an enlightened JnAni and
ask him about the heart, the nADis and the Gate that Vedanta talks about, he
may not tell us anything! He does not know about what is happening to himself;
wherefrom would he know about the other persons, devotee or layman? How do you
expect somebody who does not know how he
came here to know what kind of shops or buildings were there on his way?
But
then how did the enlightened Rishis
mention these things in the Upanishads?
After they got their enlightenment, after again they got the siddhi that never slips at all, the
paramAtmA Himself, in token of His appreciation, makes the mysteries of His creation and other
secrets known to them and also tells them about all the processes related to
upAsakas as well as laymen. Revelling in the sweetness of those leelAs and
miracles, they have made it known to others also.
But
after all the information reached others, they have also done some
blurring. Doesn’t the touch of MAyA come everywhere? That might be the
reason! If we go to some JnAni to
resolve the perplexity, he is not knowledgeable! Or perhaps, he knows only to
that little extent that the Almighty has opened out for him! Probably he (the JnAni) does not himself want to know
anything more! Nor does the seeker , who just received the information just
because the JnAni condescended to
tell him something, develop any further
interest in it, to seek more knowledge! In this state of affairs, the vague
knowledge itself becomes and remains the complete knowledge!
It
is in that manner, when everybody was thinking that the mUrdha nADi that goes
to the head was itself the sushhumnA of the yoga-shAstra, it was at that time that our Acharya manifested on Earth!
He was all-knowing even at birth. There was nothing which was not known to him.
However, having manifested as a human being
to show the way to humans, he had to show that he learnt everything only
from the Guru. First he studied several shAstras, as a Brahmachari, staying with
a guru (*gurukulavAsaM*) and then from a sannyAsi-guru he took over the
Brahma-vidyA. Thereafter he wrote the Bhashyas as per the orders of the Guru.
When
he thus wrote the Bhashyas, he did something which demonstrates his great
humility. Though he was himself an all-knowing person as also one who had the
experience, he did not claim to say anything
on the basis of his own experience or knowledge. He always leaned on shAstras, tradition and the regimens of
elders’ observance (*shishhTAchAra*) and the things approved by them. “If I
said things on my own authority, what guarantee is there that things will
happen to others in the same way it happened to me? Only by declaring theories
on one’s personal authority did the Bauddha and Jaina philosophies go wrong and
it has been left to us to make the correction” – this was the thought of the
Acharya and accordingly he restrained himself and made tradition do the talking. In matters unrelated to the
growth of spirituality, even when the traditional belief was not right, he
thought “Let me not touch it. Once I meddle with it, that will leave the
precedent for others to do the same and
discipline will be lost” and thereby he spoke only in conformity with tradition and its beliefs.
The
matter of the heart and the NADis that Vedanta talks about is one such. By knowing about them there is not going to
be any gain of spirituality; nor is there any loss by not knowing about them.There is a great difference
between the sushhumnA and other nADis that Yoga ShAstra talks about and this
(matter of the heart, etc.). The Yoga-shAstras
say several things about how you have to practise, how you have to generate the
activity of prANashakti in the nADis, make it ascend or climb, and you may reap
such and such results. Among these there are also included some for the growth of spirituality. On the other hand, we cannot do anything with
the heart or nADis or the central gate, enunciated by our Vedanta shAstras and obtain any result.It all
depends on his life style, upAsanA,
self-enquiry and accordingly the JIva-bhAva
automatically goes and joins thosenADis or the central seat of the Atman.That
is all. In the YogashAstras, whatever
movement of the prANas that one creates through self-effort, that influences
and formulates the life and SAdhanA.
In Vedanta, on the other hand, depending on the life style, routine and SAdhanA, certain things happen, beyond
his control, in the nADis etc. And knowing those ‘certain things’ he does not gain anything; nor does he lose
anything by not knowing them.
The
matter of the yoga-shAstra-nADis is
like a careful climb up a ladder. Every step there has to be done by
self-effort. VedAanta-nADis are like an elevator. It lifts you up by
itself. You don’t have to do anything.
You don’t have to know how the lift works. Even if you have a wrong
understanding of it, it does not fail to do its job.
That
is why when the Acharya wrote the Bhashyas, in the beginning days, whatever
general opinion was there about the nADis he also wrote the same way and used
the ‘sushhumnA’ accordingly. He did not elaborate on it, but he did write
briefly about it. Later when the matter came up more deeply in BrihadAranyaka
and Chandogya Upanishads and also in the Brahma-sUtra, instead of using the word ‘sushhumnA’ he just said ‘the nADi
that goes to the head’ and stopped there. Even then he did not say explicitly
that ‘it is not the sushhumnA’. Also he did not do any correction to his own
usage of ‘sushhumnA’ in the previous Upanishads. Obviously he does not give importance to
insignificant controversies! Only I am making a big issue of this!
But
then why did he take up the matter of UttarAyana-dakshhiNAyana and emphasize
the right thing, that was contrary to general opinion? Of course even the
knowledge of that matter does not also
profit you spiritually in any way.
However, by knowing it wrongly one wrongly concludes that some
non-entity who dies in the uttarAyaNa period as a great soul; but even this
thinking is excusable. It is the other opinion, namely, thinking of a mahAtmA
who had his final exit from the body in dakShiNAyana, as an ordinary person
destined to be born again – this is certainly unwholesome and that is what made
the Acharya emphasize the right thing.
Where
he says why Bhishma was waiting for a death in Uttarayana, in the Bhashya of
Brahmasutra IV-2-20, we see the noble
mind of our Acharya. *AcAra-paripAlanArthaM*, says he – that is, for the
purpose of conforming to worldly practice.
Another
interesting point to note. The name ‘sushhumnA’
itself was there originlly only for the
mUrdha-nADi, spoken of in Vedanta!
The sushhumnA is the first ray among the most import seven of the Sun.
Appayya Dikshidar has mentioned it in his stotra of the Sun. (‘Aditya stotra
ratnam’: Shloka 4). It is the Sun’s rays that run through the nADis (that
Vedanta speaks) that run from the
heart and spread through all the parts of the body and produce the semi-physical juices which are the source for
blood, bile and flegm. Chandogya Upanishad (VIII – 6) has this matter. Of these
nADis, the nADi through which the Sun’s sushhumnA ray runs is the one which
goes from the heart to the head. Therefore it is that one which was originally
called the sushhumnA nADi. The Yoga-shAstra people used that name for the
central nADi which is most important for
their yoga. Though the source of sushhumnA goes to the Sun, they gave that name
to the agni-nADi because of its centrality,
in their shAstra, instead of giving that name to the
sUrya-nADi.
The
fact that the Acharya who uses the name
mUrdha-nADi in the BrihadAranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads and in the
Brahma-sUtra – in all three of which
the topic is elaborated – left the name of sushhumnA uncorrected in the first
three places where he used that name,
probably has the following explanation.
He might have left it like that in order to bring home to everybody the
fact that it is the heart-nADi of
Vedanta that had the original name SushhumnA. But really what has happened is
the reverse. Scholars of later times have concluded that just because in those three
places it has been called sushhumnA, in the other places also it is the
sushhumnA of the mUlAdhAra that has been mentioned!
We started with the question: “Is there
something like bhakti even in the path of jnAna?”.
We pursued the inquiry and finally we have arrived at the understanding:
“It is this (jnAna-mArga) bhakti that helps to obtain even the most
permanent advaita-mokSha (non-dual Release) right in this very birth. It helps
the JIva to identify and become one
with the Brahman, the basic Truth. On the other hand, the bhakti talked about
by the path of Bhakti, comes to an end with the unification of the JIva with what turns out to be just
a charade adopted by the substratum of
Truth together with MAyA. However much the qualities of saguNa-brahman (brahman with
attributes) are extolled superlatively, it is only a charade or disguise. Here
the word ‘unification’ itself is a
misnomer. There is no unification here. It is only a kind of unison that experiences the union by being
separate. For crores of years in a kalpa one may enjoy it, still it does not become a permanent (*shAshvata*) mokSha –
though the originators of that path may
claim it to be so. One day when the saguNa brahman itself is taken into the
nirguNa (attributeless) brahman, this whole thing ends and thus this bhakti is
useful only to obtain an impermanent mokSha”.
The
devotee might say “Let me keep on continuously doing this bhakti”. But Bhagavan
(saguNa brahman) says: “It cannot be so. I am done with this charade. How can I carry on this charade for ever? At
some point or other I have to be what I am. And that point of time has
come. I am tired of this play. For whatever time I have carried on this
drama, that much time it is going to be only rest hereafter” and terminates the
show by throwing off His MAyA and
remains nirguNa. Without MAyA and Ishvara where is the question of a JIva? So he also has to go
for advaita mokSha along with Him! That
is the only permanent mokSha. For a whole period of time equal to BrahmA’s
lifetime the paramAtman rests, that is, stays alone in its nirguNa status, and
then again Creation begins; but now the one who had reached advaita mukti earlier would not now be born
again in this new creation.
So
what we have learnt now is that bhakti
is that which dissolves by Love the ego
at the base and unifies it with the Source.
But the destination being
nirguNa, there is no scope for our melting in the varied rasas
(quintessences, dispositions) of quality of Bhagavan, it turns out that the
melting is in the unfragmented infinite Consciousness that transcends all
qualities. Infinite Consciousness means
a living entity that is not circumscribed by
definitions. The taproot for the JIva-bhAva
is the concept of I-hood. This feeling
has to be dissolved in the Infinite Consciousness. This goal of dissolution is the only thing in
the mind of the seeker on the jnAna
path. In fact he thinks so without
recognising that that very thought is
the true bhakti. In his thinking, it is not a union with something of which we
do not know a thing, nor is it a union with the void, nor is it a path towards annihilation because
there is nothing to be united with.
Instead of any of these, his is a positive thinking, whereby the longing
is to unite with the living fullness of sat-cid-AnandaM. This is how any
sAdhaka who has cared to learn the advaita-vidyA would do his SAdhanA. ‘This life has to be dissolved
in That which lives’ – this very concept is Love; even if he does not recognise
it as such, Love sprouts by itself.
“Such a good thing as Love – why should it be done without recognising
it to be so? Just because of the ignorance of this fact, one thinks of Brahman
purely by a philosophical intellect and allows himself to be drawn away by the
intellect. It may open up the heart to
show Love and by that very act close up the only route to cut asunder the root
of ego that has anchored itself there”. It is with these thoughts, perhaps, the
Acharya decided to explicitly
proclaim loudly :
*mokSha-kAraNa-sAmagryAM bhaktireva garIyasI*
(Among the instruments of moksha, bhakti is the most important).
I
said bhakti is the union with the universal Source by the dissolution of the ego
through Love. Generally it is understood that to do exactly that with
the saguNa form of that Universal Source is bhakti and that such bhakti is
different from the bhakti path of the jnAna-finder.
Whence came this understanding?
An
attitude or a disposition does not show up in all its brightness so long as it
remains the same way only as an attitude,
like a nail pinned to the wall.
Only when that disposition shoots forth new and newer branches and
manifests in action through the JIva,
does it brighten up. The swaras ‘sa’ and ‘ri’ alone however much they are
emphasized, will not be palatable to the
ears, until all the seven svaras show up. Barring the silent samAdhi that takes
place after the mind fully rests, the various dispositions of even little
little activities of the mind will not show up
unless they take new and newer forms.
‘Not showing up’ does not mean they are not visible to outsiders; even
to the individual himself they will not be felt in his consciousness.
Bhakti
in the NirguNa implies an anguish of the indivudal soul to dissolve in the Universal
Soul. That one-pointed anguish is like extending a single svara. There is no
scope for new and newer colours in it. Whatever new is done is the action of
the mind. But this individual is set towards the goal of the extinction of the
mind. He has already disciplined it by shama and dama. As far as he is
concerned, to know about it (activity of the mind) is an undesirable matter
that comes under ‘ego consciousness’. Therefore he himself would not recognise
the bhakti aspect in all its brightness. Why talk of outsiders? They will have
no idea of his bhakti!
The thing towards which bhakti is being
directed -- does it at least do anything
to cause an explicit showing up of the bhakti? No! Not at all! How can the
nirguNa-brahman react? The saguNa Ishvara
who administers the activities of the entire universe is the one who admires
his bhakti and causes him to mature to
higher and higher levels of perfection. The Lord’s intention however is not to
direct him to a saguNa (worship) and so He does whatever He does, only
implicitly. Thus the bhakti is taking place in a one-sided way, even without
that ‘one side’ knowing it!. This is the
true bhakti that dissolves the ego. Even then it does not show up! In addition
to its function of dissolving the JIva,
this bhakti dissolves itself without itself being visible to external
perception! It is a bhakti which imparts to him an extreme renunciation, and is
itself a renunciate!
On the other hand what about
saguNa-bhakti? There is a
tremendous scope in it for branching off into new and newer types of tastes and
methods of exhibitions according to the attitudes that spring up towards the
saguNa-mUrti who keeps performing ever-new miracles and leelAs.
Over and above all, it is here that the
relationship of love shows its exhuberance. A relationship of Love of the JIva
with the nirguNa brahman is like setting up a rapport with one who is in
the samAdhi-nishhTA, who is unaware of even the strike of lightning on him! On
the other hand with a saguNa-mUrti it is possible to direct our bhakti through
a relationship with Him in several ways
as the Lord, as a Son, as a Mother, as a Friend, as a Husband. And that
attitude shows up in multifarious actions like dancing, singing, bhajans,
sankirtana, pilgrimage, festivities, discourses etc. The lifeline of this path
is to do bhakti and so all this is done very consciously.
As the crowning glory of it all, the recipient of this bhakti, namely, the
Lord Himself, does react to it. Maybe He does not do it to all devotees. But to those who have reached some peaks of
excellence, He gives darshan, He performs varied miracles and reciprocates with a Relationship of divine
love towards them that
is million times richer than their own bhakti towards Him. Sometimes He
makes them cry in despair, He scolds them to the extreme and among all this
crying and faulting, He showers His nectar of Love through His divine play!
Just to hear stories and songs of such
LeelAs of His towards these devotees – that itself gives a great bliss, to all
others, of companionship with Him. Even
to all of them He keeps pouring His Grace, rather subtly, but certainly in a
way that imprints itself in their minds and reminds them of His proximity to
them.
Thus the bhakti-bhAva shines explicitly
even when one is only having a dualistic relationship with the saguNa brahman
and this is the reason for this being called a bhakti path and the one doing this being called a
bhakta.Accordingly the two are distinguished from a JnAni and the jnAna path.
However when it comes to a
self-effacing offering to the Absolute it is the jnAna-pathfinder that soars higher than the bhakta of the bhakti
path.! The bhakti path-finder certainly has extinguished for himself the ego as
far as the worldly matters are concerned.
Even within himself his own
mental inclinations have mellowed his ego. However, deep within himself, there
is the ego which is the taproot for the existence of the JIva; he has not willed to extinguish that. For doing bhakti, for
enjoying that experience of the blessed qualities of the Divine, for the bliss
of tasting that relationship, he thinks he has to have that individuality of
his JIva-ego. Earlier we
distinguished between ahamkAra and aham-bhAva. Of these only the latter has
been sacrificed by him, but not the former.
Therefore, though it is in the bhakti
literature that surrender has been emphasized, the bhakti pathfinder, instead
of making a total self-effacing surrender, he surrenders only part of his self
and has kept the remaining ego of the JivAtmA for the purpose of experiencing
the paramAtmA. It is not a total
surrender. It is the jnAna-path-finder,
who does not use such words, but who has offered his JivAtmA as a camphor in the Fire of the Absolute. This is the true
and complete Atma-nivedanaM, SharaNAgati, Bhakti , Prapatti etc.
Bhakti is thus the most internal
accessory for the achievement of advaita. And the Acharya has chosen the words
pregnant with this meaning, when he says: *mokSha-kAraNa-sAmagryAm bhaktireva
garIyasI*.
That
was the first half of the shloka. In the second half he gives the definition of
Bhakti:
*sva-svarUpAnu-sandhAnaM
bhakti-rity-abhidhIyate*
Bhakti
is said to be the unbroken union with one’s own natural Self – the Atman.
*bhaktiH iti abhidhIyate* means ‘it has been named bhakti’.
Do
‘anusandhAnaM’ of one’s own natural state, says he. What is ‘anusandhAnaM’? *sandhAnaM* means a
unification or joining with something. A
meeting’! If that union stays continuously, it is ‘anusandhAnaM’.
Does
unification with the Atman mean that Atman is one thing, and the JivAtman that
fuses with it is another? No. No union or joining with the Atman is
possible. Even this kind of little or
minute duality is not permitted there.
The merging, the fusing, the union -- all these are out of place here. What
happens is, having ‘swallowed’ /’consumed’ the JIva that pines to unite, pines with love and anguish – in other
words, having swallowed the antaH-karaNa (inner organ), It stands alone. So it
is not a question of ‘anusandhAnaM’ of the Atman which is the Real Nature. It
has to be immersed in the constant
memory of the Atman and the filling up of the chittam with that – this is what
we should understand by ‘anusandhAnaM’.
In the case of the intellect also this is what we did. It was said that
the intellect should be established and rested in shuddha-brahman; but intellect cannot
approach anywhere near shuddha-brahman and so we understood it to mean that the intellect should dwell on matters or
teachings or the Shastras pertaining to Brahman. In the same way here also, to
say that one should do ‘anusandhAnaM’ on the Nature of the Atman, is only to
mean that the ‘anusandhAnaM’ (being in continuous union with the Atman) is of
the thoughts about the Atman.
This
anusandhanaM begins well before sannyAsa.
But it is further strengthened and deepened after sannyAsa and in due
course the sAdhaka gives himself up totally, and the Atman alone shines
thereafter.
Continuous fusion or merging is certainly
the Bhakti out of Love.
One
thing should be said about the para-brahman consuming the JIva-bhAva snd Atman alone remaining. It is not that the consumption is done in one
go. It consumes but then it also
regurgitates. Again it swallows; again it regurgitates. The state of
being in samAdhi, and then coming down from samAdhi – these are both the
swallowed and regurgitated states. Everytime the JIva-bhAva is consumed and later spit out it comes more emasculated
and dissolved. But it still is. And those are the times when the anusandhAnaM
with bhakti has to continue with the hope of further dissolution.
When
he talked about *mumukShutA* (in shloka
27) he mentioned *sva-svarUpa avabodhaM*. Now when he is talking about bhakti,
he says *sva-svarUpa anusandhAnaM*. ‘avabodhaM’ means an awakening. MumukShutA was said to be to desire that one
should get Release for the sake of the awakening to the Atman. In the beginning
of the shloka (27) itself his reference is to the ‘ahamkAra’ that I have been
talking about all along. The subtle
ahamkAra is the ‘alphA’ of the JIva.
Starting
from that and ending with the physical
body, everything is a bondage, which is an imagination because of mAyA; it is from this bondage we have to
get Release. Just a Release is not enough;
“That Release is to be obtained for the purpose of awakening to the Real Nature
of one’s Self (for *sva-svarUpa avabodha*). If one pines in anguish ‘for this
awakening’ (*avabodhAya*), then one gets that awakening and by that
itself (*avabodhena*) one may get his Release – that is how we understood it.
In fact in shloka 27:
*ahaMkArAdi
dehAntAn bandhAn-ajnAna-kalpitAN /
sva-svarUpAva-bodhena
moktum icchA mumukShutA *//
the
word *avabodhena* is to be in the context of the end stage, whereas what begins with *avabodhAya* (for the awakening)
ends with the awakening.
Thus
mumukShutA is the desire for relief from the bondage of the ego; after the
mumukShutA he places bhakti in the logical sequence. This bhakti emasculates
the power of the ego. Among the mind and
intellect and the ego (which together make up the antaHkaraNa), the mind is
tamed by shama, dama, etc., the intellect by shraddhA and samAdhAna, and then the ego is controlled by
mumukShutA and tamed (reduced) by bhakti – so goes the logical sequence.
Actually
When the Atman-awakening takes place – the Atman is certainly awake all the
time; but since we don’t know it, we name the time when we know it as the time
of Atman-awakening – at that time, the individual sAdhaka vanishes!. But it is
not true to say we vanish. “Even the self-luminous Atman appears to sleep for
us who are overcome by MAyA; Let us
wake up” – if and when this thought is there, then we are there. A vague sense
of the Atman-awakening, it is only an imagined perception, that cannot be
described as this or that – such a thought also persists. In fact it is beyond
all description. But a thought persists
about the Atman-Brahman, as a something
which is Infinite, something that is perfect and pure, something that is Existence-Knowledge-Bliss.
In fact the conception of either the
Infiniteness or the sat or the cit may not be precise or well-defined; however
there will be an idea of them all. Until
the antaHkaraNaM totally vanishes, some thought or other will continue; and
certainly the opinion or bhAvanA about the Atman will also continue to exist.
When such an Atman-awakening is imagined, one should not think of it as just an
abstraction, but conceive it as a living principle. And then lay down this
little soul to That; having got to this state, thereafter the continuance of
that same bhAva is bhakti. This is the
*anusandhAnaM* after the *avabodhaM*. It is like waking up after sleep; after
the awakening, next comes the setting up of a relationship! Even the relating
should go and give place to the relationship which keeps the goal of an
identification!
Do
not have any notion (of the Atman) this way or that way. Whatever it is in
reality let it show, let it take over.
Keep only a watch. Don’t give attributes to it like sat, cit or
infinite. Leave it ‘As is’. Yes, it is difficult to leave it like that and be
quiet. But it is not impossible at this advanced stage. When one keeps on
conceiving it in terms of this or that attribute, involuntarily one may come to
the stage of thinking: “Why all this build-up? Let us see it as it is”. When
one sees it without any preconceived notion, there is the danger of it
appearing as dry and void nothing. So
even though you may not have any other conception (of the Atman) you should not
leave off the basic truth that the Atman is not a void, it has life. The word
‘life’ reminds us that since we are also living, at the base we are also life
and so there is an automatic relationship. And relationship means there is
scope for love. We must make it true love.
It should not be a wrong love that expects something for this little
soul from that universal soul. Instead ‘this’ should go and unite with ‘that’
and ‘that’ should consume ‘this’. This anguish
should become a true love.
In
order for that relationship and that life to show itself, the Acharya has used
the word ‘svarUpa’ in both places by saying ‘sva-svarUpa avabodhaM’ and
‘sva-svarUpa-anusandhAnaM’. There is a
double occurrence of ‘sva’ in
‘sva-svarUpa’. The first ‘sva’ means
“one’s own”. The second ‘sva’ means “natural”.
So ‘sva-svarUpa’ means one’s own
natural form (rUpaM). It is the natural, true, Atman, the form which is unmixed
with MAyA, of the JIva that has an
artificial form mixed with MAyA.
You
may ask: Wherefrom did the Atman get a ‘form’?
Here ‘rUpaM’ does not mean ‘form’ or ‘shape’. Whatever is one’s nature,
that is called ‘rUpaM’. The derived word ‘nirUpaNaM’ (proof) is derived from the idea that proof is
nothing but a demonstration of the true nature.
[Note by VK: I am not translating here
four or five lines
where the Mahaswamigal discusses the
Tamil word ‘uruvaM’
and its derivation from the Sanskrit
word ‘rUpaM’]
However
when we say ‘rUpaM’, our mind does not take it to be of an inert nature but
something which has life. For instance
when we say “the musician brought forth the ‘rUpaM’ of the rAga very well” we
actually feel that the rAga itself is a living soul. In fact we do that to every art form. Science is never spoken of that way. Do we ever say “The Professor brought forth
very well the form of Physics”? The reason is that Science is not thought of as
a living thing like Art. I am saying all this because whenever we speak of the
nature of something in terms of ‘rUpa’, there is always some connection with
the concept of life. And when the prefix ‘sva’ is added and it becomes
‘svarUpa’, it is generally taken to refer to something substantial that has the
JIva-power. The very word
‘Atma-svarUpaM’ brings to our mind
something with life. The small word ‘sva’ indicates something that is there naturally for oneself. And the words ‘for oneself’ also connotes in
our mind a sense of life for that thing.
We
speak of life. Certain words have life! When we say sat-cid-AnandaM’, sat means
that which is. The word ‘is’ means only ‘is with life’. We speak of it as
‘Being’, ‘Existence’ or ‘Life’. The word ‘Being’ smacks academical and may not
have the connotation ‘with life’. The
word ‘Existence’ is still more dry and metaphysical and appears to refer to
life itself as inert. It is the word ‘Life’ that indicates a living that is
ticking and the word itself has a poetic element in it. The word itself has
life and so what it represents also broadcasts the JIva-essence. Similarly with the word ‘svarUpa’. Mainly to make us understand that Atman is full of life, not a dry
principle, the Acharya has prescribed
mumukShutA for the *svarUpa-avabodha* (awakening to one’s own natural state)
and, after that awakening, bhakti for
the relationship of love of that *svarUpa* and the continued mental communion
(anusandhAnaM) with it.
Thus
in both places the Acharya uses the word *svarUpa*. But further ahead in shloka 32/33, he quotes
a different opinion: “There are also
people who say that Bhakti is the ‘anusandhAnaM’ of the Atman-principle”.
*svAtma-tattvA-nusandhAnaM
bhaktir-ity-apare jaguH*
svAtma-tattvA-nusandhAnaM
: The continuous reflection on the
principle of one’s Atman.
bhaktir-ity-apare
jaguH :
Others say (it) is bhakti.
The
very statement “Others say” shows that this is not the contention of the
Acharya. His own contention has been
stated in the earlier shloka as *sva-svarUpAnusandhAnaM* (the continuous reflection on one’s own
Natural Self). Right now he is being fair to the other opinion-holders who
say it is not ‘sva-svarUpaM’ (one’s own
natural Self) but ‘svAtma-tattvaM’ (the principle of one’s Atman).
What
is the difference? All along we have
been saying ‘Love’ ‘Life’ and ‘Warmth’ .
[Note by VK: The Mahaswamigal uses the word *Iram* in
Tamil.
The literal translation of this would be ‘wetness’ .
But this does not make any sense in the English language.
It is
surprising that the corresponding word which gives the
meaning
intended in the
context is ‘warmth’
(of the heart)!]
In
contrast the other opinion-holders contend that, keeping the Atman as an
abstract principle, continuous reflection on that principle (tattva) is Bhakti.
They do not hold the Atman, the goal, to be a living entity worthy of being
loved, nor do they hold the sAdhaka as a soul who dissolves in that universal
Soul; instead they hold that Bhakti is the continuous thinking of that
philosophical principle. One may ask: “When they do not agree with the
relationship with something that is living, how can they say that this thinking
of a principle is bhakti”. Their answer comes from a narrow interpretation of
bhakti, which they hold to be only a one-pointed involvement in one thing and
nothing more.
RupaM
is inherent nature. Tat-tvam is also the same. In fact it is ‘tat-tvaM’ that
directly means ‘inherent nature’.
However, ‘sva-svarUpa-anusandhAnaM’ has an implied sense of internal
dissolution of the individual soul in the Universal source, which sense seems
to be absent in ‘svAtma-tattva-anusandhAnaM’.
It looks as if some inaccessible principle is being experienced from a
distance,
Whatever
it be, The vote of the acharya is not for this. So why worry about it? Let us
not take just a dry involvement as bhakti, but take it as something which is
Love of a Living entity.
All
this has been said by the Acharya just to show the second opinion prevalent
among advaitins themselves. In fact, it is this second opinion that has been
more popular! Many devotees of the Acharya and many disciples do subscribe to
that opinion! Indeed I myself started all this discussion by asking the
question: “How come he is talking about Bhakti in JnAna path?” and am going through all this explanation !
The
bottom line of all this explanation is: The thinking about the Atman is to take
place in the fashion of a relationship of Love. But the relationship is not
supposed to continue for ever. Instead of that purpose which involves duality,
the real bhakti is to desire to get dissolved in that non-dual Ultimate.
I
hope you have now understood what it is to have bhakti towards nirguNa. Also
you would have understood why bhakti is the ‘garIyasI sAmagrI’ (the heaviest
accessory) for mokSha.
In
the path of jnAna the direct SAdhanA that finally takes you to the
destination is called ‘nidhidhyAsanaM’.
It is also considered as belonging to dhyAna-yoga. When considered like
that, it is thought of as continuous reflection on the tattvaM, without the
notions of life, relationship, etc. But
it is not so. It has to be practised only as dhyAna-yoga in which the bhakti
yoga of self-surrender through a relationship with the Universal Life is
imbedded. In Vivekachudamani itself the Acharya has made this explicit in
another place. He doesn’t talk of it as
his opinion alone. He says the
commandment of the Veda itself is this: (Shloka 46/48)
*shraddhA-bhakti-dhyAna-yogAn mumukShoH
mukter-hetUn vakti sAkShAt shruter-gIH
/*
A
basic shraddhA, over and above
it a mix of Bhakti yoga and dhyAna-yoga
– which means dhyAna yoga in which the Bhakti attitude is imbedded -- this is what leads to mukti for a mumukShu. Thus says the Veda itself. *shruteH gIH*
means “the word of the Veda”.
“Is
that so? Does the Veda itself say that in the path of jnAna there is also bhakti? Where does it say so? In Kaivalya Upanishad. It occurs in Krishna
Yajur Veda. The beginning itself of its
teaching says
*shraddhA-bhakti-dhyAna-yogAd-avaihi*
meaning,
By shraddhA, bhakti and dhyAna-yoga
(reach brahman).
It
is these words of Upanishad that formed the basis of the Acharya’s own
statements.
It
is not only in Vivekachudamani that the Acharya has talked about Bhakti as
an ‘antaranga SAdhanA’ of jnAna.
Even in (Brahma-)Sutra-Bhashya he has said the same thing. Why did I say “Even in”? Among the various
Bhashyas, expository works and stotras in the name of the authorship of Acharya, there are many
questions raised about whether it was he who wrote it. Though people ask such
questions of one another, one thing that all of them unanimously agree about is
his authorship of Brahma-Sutra Bhashya. Further, among all his works on advaita
shAstra, it stands at the peak. So
whatever is said there has a high value.
In
Brahma-sUtra, the means of achieving Brahman-experience is
called *samrAdhanaM* . (III -2-24). The word gives the same meaning as
‘ArAdhanaM’ or ‘samArAdhanaM’. The
worship through bhakti is called ‘ArAdhanA’ in general. Here, worship through jnAna is called ‘samrAdhanaM’. When the Acharya elaborates on the
word in his Bhashya, he says
*bhakti-dhyAna-praNidhAnAdi
anushhTAnaM*.
*praNidhAnaM*
is a word synonymous with ‘samAdhi’ or
‘samAdhAnaM’ ; it means a complete one-pointed unification. Whenever we think
of jnAna-SAdhanA for the purpose of Brahman-experience, we always think, in
line with the Acharya’s teachings, that it is a discipline of meditation by
making the antaHkaraNaM totally one-pointed. But the same Acharya here gives
priority to bhakti and then only mentions dhyAna and recommends a praNidhAna
(profound meditation) in both cases and by both means.
Like
ArAdhanA, upAsanA also generally refers
to worship of something with attributes. Not just ‘generally’. In Vedas and
Vedanta ShAstras it is so referred. Instead of Karma-Bhakti – JnAna, the Vedic scholars call it Karma-
UpAsanA – JnAna.
In
Brahma Sutra (IV – 1 – 1) it says, one has to repeatedly recall (mananaM) the
teaching that was learnt – in other words, one has to think about it, analyse
it and confirm it . Here in the original sutra there is no mention of upAsanA done with bhakti, or the jnAna-SAdhanA based on the intellect.
It is just a general mention of necessity for mental repetition. But it is clear from the organization of the
Sutras that go before and after that the repetition recommended in the context is for a mumukShu who has formally obtained
the MahAvakya teaching.
The Acharya has clearly emphasized this
point in his commentary.
But
when he finishes the commentary on this particular sutra, he himself takes up
the matter of the upAsanA path and demonstrates how the Upanishads talk about both the process of upAsanA and
the process of knowing as the same without any distinction between them.
DhyAna
is the continuous dwelling mentally on the meaning of something which has been
repeatedly already analysed (manana) by
the mind after hearing it (shravaNa) as taught; in the same way if a disciple
dwells his mind without break on his guru we call it guru-upAsanA; if a subject does the same thing to his Lord
the King, we call it upAsanA of the King; a chaste wife does the same thing to
her husband and we call it ‘pati (husband) upAsanA’ -- thus demonstrates the Acharya. Thus he
delineates the highest bhAvas among all bhakti-bhAvas -- AtmanivedanaM (offering up of one’s self),
dAsyaM (servitude), mAdhuryaM (Love) . Only after doing all this, he comes to
the Upanishad matter of knowing and worshipping and says they have been spoken
of as the same and also offers two examples in this context (ChandogyaM IV-1-4
and IV-2-2 for the first example; ChandogyaM III – 18-1 and III – 18 – 3 for
the second example).
Of
the two, the first example is a great support to what we have been talking all
along. Instead of keeping the goal as just an abstraction, it should be figured
as a living entity and it should be contemplated on with love and devotion. Let
me tell you what it is. One hamsa bird,
as it flies along in the sky, tells another hamsa bird about a JnAni named Raikva in a most
complimentary manner: “Whatever every one knows is all subsumed by what he knows”. This shows that he should be
a brahma-JnAni. A King by name Janashruti, who was relaxing
in the balcony of his house heard this statement of the bird and sets out to
find this JnAni. And here comes our
topic. He goes to request that JnAni to teach him that Knowledge which he knows.
But when he goes there, he does not say: “Please teach me the Knowledge of
Wisdom that you know”. Instead he says:
“Please teach me about the Deity that you worship (do upAsanA)”! in other
words, it is very clear that what we
call Philosophical enquiry, research or contemplation, in Vedanta
tradition is to be done with the
attitude(bhAva) of a worship of a living mUrti (icon, deity). This is of great
significance, since it is straight from the Upanishads, and our own Acharya has
specifically quoted it, in almost what looks as an out-of-context mention.
The
Acharya, though he writes elaborately in his commentaries, usually makes all
that elaboration only to explain what is there in the original; he never goes
about in a roun-about way or take unnecessary digressions. Even Vinobha has
said: “The commentaries that he makes for the sUtras are themselves crisp like the sutras themselves.
*vyartha-vistAr kahIm nahIm karte* (he nowhere does unnecessary elaborations)”.
If such is the nature of our Acharya and here he appears to be drawing
something out from a total out-of-context source, it only means it is of great
significance.
At
the same time he is a great supporter of Tradition. So probably he thought it
not fit to explicitly mention and elaborate bhakti in his advaita shAstras and create confusion in the minds of unknowing people. So
he might have left it for disciples to learn from their respective gurus at the
appropriate time. However, when it comes
to Viveka Chudamani in which he
condescends to explain as if this is his final upadesha (teaching), in
the manner of *eshha AdeshaH, eshha upadeshaH, etad-anushAsanaM* (This is the
commandment, this is the teaching, this is the order), he talks about bhakti
and mentions it as the most important of
all the accessories to jnAna-yoga.
More
than the idea that bhakti is an important accessory for jnAna, Lord Krishna has shown that jnAna itself is Bhakti. He mentions four categories of devotees and
in naming them he lists ‘ArtI, jijnAsu, arthArthI and jnAnI’ (B.G. VII – 16:
Arto jijnAsur-arthArthI jnAnI ca bharatarshabha). ‘Arta’ means the distressed
sufferer. ‘jijnAsu’ means the one desirous of knowledge, that is, the one who
wants to know the Truth and makes effort to know. ‘ArthArthI’ means one who
desires wealth, money, possessions, property, power etc. The fourth is JnAni himself. The formal order among
these should be ArtaH, arthArthI, JijnAsu and jnAnI. For the purpose of metre
requirements, the order has been changed in the Gita verse. Our business here
is the mention, namely, the jnAnI as the topmost devotee. Why can’t we take him as a dvaita (dualistic)
JnAni? – may be a quixotic question
here. But this has been met with already
by the Lord’s statement in the next verse : He has one-pointed devotion
(*eka-bhaktiH*). The Lord caps this by the further statement *JnAni-tvAtmaiva me mataM* (JnAni and Myself are One – that is my
final opinion). Later when he dwells on ‘bhakti-yoga’ itself and teaches the
upAsanA (dualistic saguNa upAsanA) he only uses the words *atIva priyaH* (XII –
14 – 20) (most dear to Me), he never says “he is Myself”; from this it is clear
(when he talks about this JnAni here)
he refers only to the advaita-JnAni.
In the teaching of bhakti-yoga he says: “The nirguNa-SAdhanA gives difficulties (klesha) and dukha (unhappiness) for
those who are conscious of their body” and then goes on to teach the
saguNa-upAsanA. In other words, for those who are too conscious of their body,
the jnAna path is not easy to
attain and that is why he teaches the
saguNa upAsanA to them; not with the idea that the saguNa upAsanA is superior
to the jnAna path. Let that be. Later
when he starts talking about the qualities of the Bhakti upAsaka from the shloka *adveshhTA sarva-bhUtAnAM …* (The
one who has no hate towards any being ,,,,) through seven or eight shlokas and
winds up the chapter with “Such people are dearest to me”, it will be clear to any neutral observer that
whatever qualities he has described here apply only to a JnAni. Nowhere has he said in Bhakti yoga, about revelling in the
multifarious qualities of Bhagavan, weeping, laughing, dancing, singing, going
into unconscious trance, establishing relationship with God through various
moods like, servitude, filial affection, etc. or enjoying the ritual bathing
(abhisheka) or decoreating the deity, etc. The qualities that He enunciates,
viz., love and affection to all beings,
getting rid of the feelings of ‘I’ and mine, equanimity with respect to
happiness and misery, fear and delusion, contentment with whatever one gets and
being independent of possession and property – all these qualities are only
those of the JnAni! There is also one
shloka which describes devotees:
Mac-cittA madgata-prANAH bodhayantaH
parasparaM /
Kathayantashca
mAM nityaM tushhyanti ca ramanti ca // B.G. X – 9
Those
who have turned all their mind toward Me, who have reposed their very lives in
Me, who are constantly enlightening each other and talking about Me and for
whom that is the satisfaction and that is the delight! But note that this statement does not come in
Bhakti Yoga or about those generally termed to be bhaktas. It comes under ‘ VibhUti Yoga’ where the
Lord’s Glory and Power is declared to be manifested in the whole universe. In
short He says those who see such Godly Power and Glory in everything repose
their mind and life in the Lord and revel in thinking and talking about Him.
However they are not dry philosophers, but ‘bhAva-samanvitAH’, that is,
knowledgeable people (budhas) who are involved in God with Love. In other words
they are like JnAnis as described by
the Acharya. Further on when the Lord continues, He does not propose to give
them Bhakti Yoga. He specifically promises to Grace them with the path of JnAna, that is, buddhi yoga; and burn any remnants of darkness of
ignorance in them by the Lamp of Wisdom (jnAna
deepena).
In
the final chapter also He says “bhaktyA mAm abhijAnAti” – by bhakti one knows
Me right; and thus emphasizes the jnAna angle. The root ‘jnA’ gives rise
to both the words ‘jnAnaM’ as well as
‘jAnAti’. ‘Through Bhakti one knows Me
as I am, thereby enters Me and by My Grace obtains the eternal Immortal
position’ -- so ends His message in the
advaita fashion. In pursuance of the same, while giving it to Arjuna, He says
‘Adopt Buddhi Yoga’ – not Bhakti Yoga!
Thus
there is no ringing of bells, no offering of flowers, no relationship in
several moods. However it is the mood of Love with which one gives Himself up
to the Universal Life-Source and this
apex bhakti is what plays an important role in the path of jnAna.
Once
we have passed the SAdhanA-set-of-four,
we come to the third stage, the final stage.
No one here (in this audience) is
likely to go to that stage. Because it is a stage to be performed after one has
renounced all wealth, possession,
property and kinship. So possibly it may not have to be explained here.
But still, since I have said so much about advaita-SAdhanA, let me just touch upon it for the sake of completion.
Three
things come there. Listening to the teaching; confirming what one hears by
repetitively thinking about it; and keeping the antaHkaraNa in that thing and
meditating on it. These three are always
to be practised right from the basic stage all through the SAdhanA, according to the necessity and capability of the
sAdhaka. Therefore I should not leave
out telling you about it.
Even
though no one here may (or should have to) reach that stage, I have to talk
about it since the very first part of true advaita sAdhanA starts with
sannyAsa. All links and bondages have to be cut asunder completely. It is not
so for others. All seekers, however,
have to work for reducing their attachments to a certain extent. It is
therefore good to learn about the SannyAsa stage at least to the extent of
hearing about it.
If
we have to know about the Atman, we have to be constantly thinking about it as
the only task and only goal. The grand goal being Brahman, one has to totally
dedicate oneself to that goal and be
attached to that only task. If we have
other attachments, interests and also try to do this, that mAyA and this jnAna
cannot coexist. We cannot succeed in fanning a fire by simultaneously pouring
water on it. It is the renunciation of all other tasks and goals that is called
SannyAsa.
Only
after taking up SannyAsa one gets the eligibility and right to receive the teaching of the mahAvAkyas that the Vedas
proclaim in forms like “This Jiva itself is Brahman”. Brahman also means Veda. Since the Vedas
which are verily Brahman themselves declare Jiva as Brahman the mahAvAkyas get
that exclusive spiritual power. Just by
knowing well that Jiva is brahman and by meditating on that will not make that
goal a fact of experience. That
declaration has to be repeated as a japa through the conglomerate of the
letters of these veda-mantras and has to be meditated upon as a regimen; that
is what makes the goal accessible. ‘Accessible’ does not mean ‘easily
accessible’! I only said it in a comparative sense. To hope to obtain
Brahman-realisation by just continuous thinking about it is like a man who
wants to have a bath, starts all the way from digging up a well for the
purpose. But to reach the same goal through the mahAvakyas of the Upanishads is
like drawing water from an alreadyt constructed well. Of course you have to
draw the water – not like opening a tap
and using the downpour from it. The drawing of sufficient water from the
well depends on the size of the bucket or the pail, the depth of the well and
other factors. The Samskaras of the individual influence the efforts to be made
just as the smallness of the bucket will force you to draw water several times.
But when you compare this with the process of our digging up of a well – well,
that is the comparison I mentioned.
Moreover
this is protected water. There is a watchman! Only if he allows you, you can
draw water. That watchman is called the Guru!
The
conglomerates of sound vibrations called mantras suck in several ways the Power
and Grace of the Absolute, that is permeating the entire space and produce for
us the many beatifics of this world and the world beyond. Among such mantras
the mahAvakyas that identify the JivAtmA with the ParamAtmA without any
distinction are at the peak. The Acharya speaks of them (in Aitareya Upanishad
Bhashya 1.3.13) as sounds that wake you up to Atma-jnAna, the advaita
jnAna that lies dormant in the JivAtmA
that is sleeping in Ignorance. It is the Guru that trumpets the drum of the MahAvakyas, wakes you up, as it were,
from your sleep, thus waking you up to Enlightenment.
That
Guru takes care to dispense the mahAvAkya teaching only after checking the
Sishya’s eligibility and after initiating him into SannyAsa. That eligibility
is nothing other than the progress, to a certain extent, in Viveka
(Discrimination), VairAgya (Dispassion), shama (sense control), dama (mind
control), etc. in the SadhanA-set-of-four.
The
Vedas have 1180 shAkhAs (branches). Each ShAkhA has an Upanishad of its own and
every Upanishad has a mahAvAkya. Though there are thus more than 1000
mahAvakyas, four of them, one for each Veda, have been held as important. It appears from ‘Visveshvara-smRti’, which
details the SannyAsa Dharma, ‘Nirnaya-sindhu’, an anthology of Dharma ShAstras,
and from other authoritative sources for Dharma ShAstra, and knowledgeable tradition that at the time
of SannyAsa dikshhaa (formal initiation) these four mahAvakyas are to be
formally transmitted from the Guru to the initiate. And there is also scope for
the teaching of other mahAvakyas. Also there is a tgradition that the new
SannyAsi who is getting the dikshhaa must also get the additional mahAvakya
that occurs in the ShAkhA to which he belonged before he took SannyAsa. There is also a further tradition that first
the PraNava (“Aum”) is taught and then the mahAvakyas.
To
hear and listen to such mahAvAkya teaching is what is called ‘shravaNa’ in
Brahma-VidyA-shAstra. The direct meaning of ‘shravaNaM’ is
‘hearing/listening’.In the Tamil Tirumandhiram Verse #139, Tirumoolar means by
this word ‘Receiving the mahAvakyopadesha’. Tayumanavar, in one of his songs,
refers to the three processes, ‘shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana’. Tirumoolar follows the ‘shravaNa’ word by
*guru-vuru-cintittal* meaning the memorisation of the mantra taught by the
guru. The Tamil word *uru* here means mantra-japa that is manana. By thus
memorising and repeating the mantra one is automatically led on to the next stage of ‘nidhidhyAsana’.
There
is an old saying *sannyasya shravaNaM kuryAt* -- one should do the ‘listening’
part only after taking up sannyAsa.
The
object of this shravaNa is to obtain mukti as nirguNa-brahman right where you
are without having to go anywhere. Inferior to this is the union with saguNa-brahman
by going to Brahma-loka along the path of the Sun. Even for that, according to
Mundakopanishad (1.2.11) a mature Jiva – who is learned and also accomplished
with the qualities of shama, dama, etc. has to leave home, go to the forest,
and do penance, living by bhikshA. So does it not mean that one who receives
the teaching on NirguNa-brahman has to take SannyAsa first? The next mantra talks about him. He examines
the whole world-experience and decides: “Everything revolves around karma. Our
goal of the Atman will not be accessible to/by
any karma. So let me abandon all karma”. In other words he is ready to
take up SannyAsa. But it has to be done only through a guru. So he goes in
search of a guru. The words ‘only through a guru’ is because of the emphasis
*guruM eva* in the Upanishad. The
Acharya explains why *guruM eva* occurs there: “Even a scholar who is
knowledgeable on everything should not make his own efforts and hope to independently obtain Brahma-jnAnaM”.
Later
in the same Upanishad (III-2.4) it says, ‘It is not only by a man devoid of
spiritual strength or a man overcome by delusion that the Atman is
unattainable, it is not attainable even by one who is doing the austerities but
who is ‘alinga’, that is, one devoid of the symbol that represents sannyAsa’.
This is the way the Acharya comments on the word ‘alinga’ in the Upanishad.
In
BrihadAraNyakaM also (IV-4-22) the qualifications for sannyAsa are enunciated:
“The one who wants the spiritual world, renounces the present world and his home. Because that is how in ancient times the
learned ones whoi studied the spiritual vidyA just discarded the desire for
kith and kin, desire for wealth and property and desire for the other worldly
attractions and they left home literally as beggars”.
In
every work there are always expressions of different opinions but following
them there is also the reconciliation passage that comes later. So also in this
BrihadAraNyakaM, earlier to this passage in (III-5 ) it says “AtmAnaM viditvA”,
that is, cognising the Atman, ‘discarding desires for kith and kin, wealth and
property and the other world, they run away as beggars’. Here the words
“AtmAnaM viditvA” looks like saying ‘after one has cognised the Atman’. It
appears that this means, in contrast to what was said earlier, namely the
earning of eligibility for SannyAsa for the sake of earning the Atma-jnAna, it
is now said that sannyAsa takes place after the acquisition of jnAna. This is a legitimate question; but the answer
comes if we carefully examine the context. In the same mantra, the question is
raised: “How will a jnAni behave?”. And the answer comes; “Howsoever he may
behave, he is just such, he is a jnAnai”.In other words he is not regimented by
any shAstra or regulation. For such a person , where is the need for the rule
that he should adopt the fourth Ashrama among the four Ashramas? So we should
not interpret “AtmAnaM viditvA” to say “after learning by experience” but
should interpret it as “understanding by the intellect”.It is clear therefore “He
who confirms by his intellectual understanding that what he has heard and
learnt from the advaita-shAstras is true, now throws away all his desires and
becomes a sAnnyAsi” is what is said here.
There
is a custom of offering me a PoorNa-kumbha (the formal ritual reception with a
vessel full of purified water). At that time, as well as in your marriages and
other functions when you offer the sacred offering to the Achareya, there is a
mantra which is recited by the Pundits. It refers to “those great ones whose
antaH-karaNa has been purified by sannyAsa-yoga”
[cf. Mundaka U. III-2.6.
*vedAnata-vijnAna-sunishcitarthAH
sannyAsa-yogAd-yatayaH shuddh-satvAH*]
Here
the reference is to the jnAnis. And this again shows the contention of the
Upanishad that sannyAsa is first, and then only, through that purification one
obtains jnAna.
An
‘atyAshrami’ is one who is either in the SannyAsa-Ashrama or one who is even
higher than that, namely one who is a jnAni whom no ShAstraic injunctions
touch. The Svetasvataropanishad (VI-21)
seems to be teaching Brahma VidyA only to such atyAshramis. There is an
Upanishad called Kaivalyopanishad. The Acharya used to quote from it often. In
the beginning of that Upanishad it says the atyAsharami goes to a solitary
place, sits in a straight Asana, controls his senses and mind and meditates on
the Shiva svarUpa, his Atman.
After
shravaNa, come manana and nididhyAsana. Just as it says: “Only after becoming a
sannyAsi the shravaNa process takes place” so also there is also an authority
for saying Only a SannyAsi has the right to do manana and nididhyAsana:
*mananAdau sannyAsinAM adhikAraH*.
In
Brahma-sUtras, the sannyAsis are referred to (III-4-17) as *Urdhvaretas*. This means those who don’t waste their energy
in low activities of the senses, but take it Brahmasutras and also upward into
noble paths. Reading through those portions of the the Achary’a Bhashyas on
them, it is clear that they (the SannyAsis)
are the ones who are qualified
for the third stage in advaita-sAdhanA. A jnAni has to be a sannyAsi; should
be.
Brahmasutra
has another name for it: ‘Bhikshu-sutra’. Bhikshu means sannyAsi. One who
lives, not on one’s home-food, but on BhikshA (formal ritualistic begging) is
called a bhikshu. The book that is
totally dedicated to enquiry into Brahman being called ‘bhikshu-sUtra’ shows
that it is the sannyAsi who has the right for this v idyA.
When
a matter occurs in the Gita, then there is no higher certificate needed! If we
question whether the matter of sannyAsi having the only right for shravaNa etc.
has occurred in the teachings of the Lord, the answer is yes! “All karmas
finally end up in jnAna” (IV – 33, 34), says the Lord and continues “The seers
of Truth will teach you the jnAna. One should bow to them, be in servitude to
them, and learn by questioning and further
questioning”. Ending up of karmas means thereafter it is only
sannyAsa. Does it not then mean that
“Only such a sannyAsi has the eligibility to receive the teaching of jnAna”?
Truth
is the absolute ultimate, no, it is tapas (austerity) that is ultimate. No
again, it is dama (control of mind); it is only shama (control of the
mind) -- and so on goes the
Narayanavalli, detailing the greatness of one after the other (Mahanarayana
Upanishad. Anuvaka 78). But finally, it says: “It is none of these that is
ultimate. SannyAsa is the Ultimate Principle. The Creator Brahma Himself has
said so”.
When
one reaches the higher rungs of the ladder of sAdhanA to know the Atman, it is
possible only by the SannyAsi who has left
karma behind. Atma is
inaccessible by karma. It has to be enquired into, meditated on, further
meditated on, and then in due course even that meditative action has to stop –
only in that stage one can know the Atman. ‘To do karma and also to do dhyAna
simultaneously’ is incompatible. So long as one is in karma stage, associated
with that there will be several relationships. *sangAt sanjAyate kAmaH …krodhaH
… * as the Lord has said (B.G. II – 62),
a single such association will set up a chain relationship of kAmaM, krodhaM,
etc. and finally end up in *buddhi-nAshAt praNashyati* (intelligence is
destroyed and the individual is lost). That is why the Acharya says in
Vivekachudamani (147/149) “karma-koTibhiH na shakyaH” – even if a crore of
karma is done, the bondage will not cease. *viveka-vijnAna-mahAsinA vinA dhAtuH
prasAdena sitena manjunA* -- It can be
cut asunder only by the grand sword of
sAdhanA starting from nitya-anitya-vastu-viveka (discrimination between
the unreal and the real) up to the vijnAna stage when one gets the wisdom of
experience, by the Grace of God.
If
one has to dedicate one’s life to cut this bondage, one has to get away from
family, relationships, profession and even all religious obligations.
But
one thing should not be forgotten. It is not as if any one can just throw away
religious obligations of karma and become a sannyAsi. The Acharya has never
said so. He has ruled that such a right is there only for those whose minds
have been purified. How to purify the
mind? The emphatic direction of the Acharya is to discharge all the karmic
obligations systematically and without default. The same Acharya who said that
even a crore of karma cannot give you release from bondage, in his great
compassionate anguish at the dim prospect of this being misused by immature
people who may throw away the karmic obligations as well as their svadharma and thus destroy themselves,
has, right in the next shloka, cleared this
matter:
*shruti-pramANaika-mateH svadharma-
nishhTA
tayaivAtma-vishuddhir-asya /
vishuddha-buddheH
paramAtma-vedanaM
tenaiva-samsAra-samUla-nAshaH //*
The
latter half of the shloka says:
‘tenaiva
samsAra-samUla-nAshaH’ : through that alone the samsAra bondage is cut along
with its roots.
Through
what?
‘paramAtma-vedanaM’
: the sparking of the jnAnaM about the paramAtmA.
‘Vishuddha-buddheH’
: to the one who has had his mind purified.
How
does that purification of mind happen? He gives it in the first half.
Svadharma-nishhTA : (he
who is) fully and firmly established ( nishhTA) in one’s own dharma.
Tayaiva
Atma vishuddhiH : By that alone the mind gets purified
Well,
how does one know what that svadharma is?
The
answer is already there in the very bveginning of the shloka:
Shruti-pramANaika-mateH:
The nishhThA of svadharma comes from the unique faith and comviction that the
religious sanction comes from only the vedas.
What
the Vedas say is the authority. With that faith one goes about doing his
svadharma as the be-all and end-all. That is svadharmaika-nishhThA. The svadharma
that the Vedas talk about is the division into the varNas and the allocation of
duties to each. There is also prescribed what a Brahmachari should do, what a
householder should do, what women should do and so on . So the nishThA that
comes from the authority of the Vedas means the nishTA in the discharge of all
karmic obligation. Thus one should do
one’s karma completely. That is what gives purification of mind. And then
follows Atma-jnAna as well as the end of all bondage.
When
one does karmas according to the prescriptions of the Vedas, first it drains
all the dirt from the body by those sheer karmas. Not only that. Simultaneously
the dirt of the mind is also rinsed and wrung out. Afterwards one stops doing
his karma but now goes into the karma of the mind by doing dhyAna. And still
later even that dhyAna stops and he reaches the stage of jnAna.
So
the sequence is first dharma nishThA, then karma-nishThA and finally
jnAna-nishThA. Nothing should be missed here. One should not move forward
without having done the earlier one. Nor should one have anything to do with
the earlier one once he has moved forward. When a cloth is washed, we do mix a
lot of water and wring the cloth for the dirt to go. But once the dirt is
gone no more wringing is necessary. If we keep wringing the cloth after that it
will only damage the cloth. What is necessary now is to dry it up in air. This
is the going to the jnAna path! The air and sunlight evaporates the water in
the cloth. But jnAna evaporates the
cloth itself. It is not just a total end of the cloth. The Jiva cloth is there
no more, but now it has become a golden sheet of Brahman. The nishThA in the
Atman that the Jiva was engaged in is not any more the action of the Jiva, the
Jiva is not there any more, the Existent Thing (*sad-vastu*) that was in an experiential form in the
culmination of the nishThA – that alone remains. It is the Peace Ultimate, it
is the parAyaNaM talked about as the peak state. *nishThA shAntiH parAyaNaM …*
says the Vishnu sahasranAmaM.
*nishThA
shAntiH parAyaNaM* comes in Vishnu-sahasranAmaM. Some names occur here in a
chain, relating to each other beautifully on the same concept. There are nine
names (of God) strung together like
flowers in a garland, on the idea of SannyAsa.
*….
nirvANaM bheshhajaM bhishhak /
sannyAsakRt
shamaH shAnto nishThA shAntiH parAyaNaM *//
*nirvANaM*
is the end of jnAna-yoga. He is the same as the saguNa-mUrti VishNu.
*bheshhajaM*
means medicine. He is the medicine in the form of jnAnaM for the disease of
samsAra.
Muthut-tANDavar
was a devotee of God Nataraja. He lived before the age of the musical trinity
of Tamilnadu. When a snake bit him he considered Lord Nataraja as the only
medicine and sang an extempore Tamil
composition beginning with
*aru-marundoru tani marundu* (meaning:
the rare medicine, the unique medicine) on Lord Nataraja. He was relieved from
the snake poison..
When
the poison of karma invades the system the medicine of jnAnaM that is the antidote
for the poison is only the Lord.
He
is not only the medicine; but He is also the Doctor who gives the medicine! So
He is *bhishak* (Doctor). Here in Tiruvanmiyur (in Chennai, India) the Lord
presents Himself as “marundIshvara” (the Lord who is the medicine). In the town
called Vaideesvaran Koil he is called “Bhava-roga-vaidyanatha swami’ meaning
the JnAna-Acharya who cures the disease of samsAra. In his commentary on Vishnu
Sahasranama, the Acharya says “the Doctor who gave the medicine of the Gita for
all the world”.
In
the Gita the Lord gave his final diagnosis and the curing medicine, which is
SannyAsa. He leads us on through the
path of karma yoga ultimately to the SannyAsa in jnAna yoga. In the science of
Ayurveda, they first give you a laxative-type of medicine and then only they
give you the medicine that is needed for the illness. So also the Lord gives
first the laxative of karma yoga so that all our karma-garbage may be exhausted
and then finally when he gives the medicine of jnAna, he prescribes
sannyAsa. In the beginning it was he who
created the four Ashramas and made Sannyasa the fourth Ashrama. So He is
*sannyAsa-kRt*, the maker of SannyAsa.
We
saw a lot about *shama*. That is also
the form of the Lord. When the mind stills to rest that is shamaM. That is in
fact the heart of jnAna yoga, its life. Right now it is unbridled in us and
from this through the various stages of its control little by little, we have
to go through several steps. Finally when nothing of the mind is left, it rests
in the Atman; that is the destination point.
That is the goal of a SannyAsi. At this place the Acharya gives a
quotation which pinpoints a unique
dharma for each Ashrama. It says: “For the SannyAsi his dharma is
shamaM; for the Vana-prastha, his dharma is the conglomerate of tapas and
vratas, all together called niyama; for the householder the dharma is charity;
and for the brahmachari it is serving the guru.
*yatInAM
prashamo dharmo
niyamo
vanavAsinAM /
dAnameva
gRhastAnAM
shushrUshhA
brahma-chAriNAM //
Next
comes the name *shAntaH*. He who has
shama is shAntaH.
Only
next to this, the word *nishThA* appears. Having become a sannyAsi, and then
also a shAnta for whom the mind is totally at rest, he establishes himself
firmly in the nishThA of the experience of jnAna, that state is also the
Lord. This is The SaguNa Brahman who is
our Lord with attributes, in His nirguNa state.
And
in that state there is a total peace. Therefore *shAntiH*. And that is the
supreme goal; therefore *parAyaNaM*.
As
soon as the sannyAsa is taken, one gets the mahAvakya-teaching. To receive it
is shravaNaM. ‘mananaM’ is the chewing and churning of that in the mind by
repetitions and analysis. Following that is the dhyAna that is done to get the
direct experience; this is called nidhidhyAsanaM. These three complete the
sAdhanA.
These
three (shravaNa, manana and
nidhidhyAsana) are actually commands
of the Vedas. The same Upanishad which talks about shama, dama, uparati
and titikshhA (BrihadAraNyakopanishad: II-4-5) also gives the commands about
these three. But shama, dama, etc. are
not directly given as an order, they are
recommended only indirectly by saying that a jnAni would have these treasures
of spirituality, namely he will be a “shAnta, dAnta, uparata” etc. But these
three have been what is called an ‘injunction’ in the form of a formal order.
*shrotavyo mantavyo nidhidhyAsitavyaH*.
“The Atman principle only has to
be listened to, has to be repeated in the mind and has to be meditated on” –
this is the rule.
We
shall take these one by one now.
First
there is shravaNaM. It stands for the receiving through hearing/listening of
the teaching of the mahAvakyas from the Guru. Along with that he teaches also
several other matters about tradition according to Brahma-vidyA ShAstra. He
also tells you several methodologies of how to reflect through DhyAna on the
non-difference between Jiva and Brahman. Receiving all this through hearing is
also shravaNaM.
It
does not mean that it is just hearing through the ears. One has to receive it
in the heart and hold on to it. This is what is formally called shravaNaM. When
we refer to the action of eating we usually refer only to the action that takes
place in the mouth. Actually the purpose is to get it into the stomach and get
it digested and absorbed into the blood. The mouth is only an external organ
whose action is termed ‘eating’. So also
the external organ, the ear, does something and we name it shravaNaM, but it
really means that what the ear consumes has to be digested in the mind and
intellect as ‘nectar’ of upadesha and finally it has to be absorbed in the
heart. When the ‘Vinayakar Ahaval says *yen cheviyil yellaiyillaa aanandam-aLittu*
it means it goes through the ears into the heart and creates Bliss there.
Sound
is what belongs to the all-permeating space principle. That is why there is
importance to shravaNaM of receiving the teachings that are in the form of
sound. Our Veda-mantras are the sound-chains
that have been caught as such, so as to be accessible to our ears, by
the Rishis through their extra-sensory powers, in the form of subtle sound
vibrations that emanated in space from
the very breath of the Lord . What they
heard through their subtle ears should
also be heard only by our physical ears and not be written down and learnt –
this is the rule. Then only the quintessence of the teaching that has to reach
the heart-space, the Source of everything, will go through by tracing the
Universal Space, the breath of the Absolute, and the breathing paramAtmA. Hence
the importanc of shravaNaM.
Another
thing. When we learn from a book, the book, being an inert object, may show the
writing but it will not feed us the life behind the writing. It is when the letters come through the live
medium of the Guru or the Acharya who has known the essence of the Teaching,
that the upadesha enters as a living message.
Furthermore,
only when there is the upadesha coming from the Guru there happens the disciplic bhAva (*shishhya-bhAva). The humility and the sense
of smallness are necessary for the destruction of the ego. The thought that “I
am doing the very difficult jnAna yoga sAdhanA” certainly will bloat the ego;
it is only the sushruushhA that one does to the Guru – who is himself in that
enlightened state – that will knock you on the head and constitute the strategy
for killing the ego.
[Note by VK: The Tamil word the Mahaswamigal uses
here as an attribute of the Guru is *anubhavi*.
The literal English equivalent would be ‘Experiencer’
A few paragraphs later, the Mahaswamigal himself explains
what *anubhavi* means.]
I
said ‘sushruushhA’. The Tamils wrongly
call it ‘sishruushhA’. If we go by the
root word for sushruushhA, it is related to ‘shravaNaM’. The root ‘shru’ means
‘to hear’. It is from this that both the words ‘sushruushhA’ and ‘shravaNaM’
have come. The direct meaning of ‘sushruushhA’ is ‘to long to hear’.
The
meaning of ‘to long to hear’ when related to the Guru, is ‘to long to do what
is heard’. It is not just hearing that matters. The heard matter may be to
one’s liking or not. Either way there is no question of discarding it or
leaving it just there after a word of appreciation. Without any scope for liking
or disliking, what is heard must be put into practice. Thus ‘sushruushhA’ in
its extended form has the meaning ‘to long to practise whatever is going to be
heard’.
‘Listen
to what is said’, we usually say. We find fault by saying ‘One is not being
heard’. On all such occasions what we mean by ‘heard’ is ‘heard and done’.
Similarly, ‘to long to hear for the very purpose of doing what is going to be
heard’ is *sushruushhA*.
To
do what one is told one needs a lot of the quality of humility. Once the quality
of humility is there, a natural desire will arise to do service to him before
whom we are humble. In other words respectful humility will automatically breed
the willingness to serve. It is that
service that has come to be known as *sushruushhA*.
‘Go
to the Guru! Fall at his feet! Listen! Do service! Serving him get the upadesha
of jnAna from him! --*tad-viddhi praNipAtena pariprashnena sevayA*, says the
Lord.(B.G. IV – 34). *praNipAtaM* is ‘straight fall’. ‘pAtaM’ is fall.
‘nipAtaM’ is a clean fall. ‘Pra-nipAtaM’
( = *praNipAtaM*) is a very clean, straight fall, as a total surrender.
*pari-prashnena* means by a constant and repeated questioning. That is exactly
‘sushruushhA’. As soon as He says that, he adds ‘sevayA’, meaning ‘by service’.
The
matter unwinds here by a chain of one thing leading to another. The way the
Gita shlokas appear here tells us that one gets the jnAna-upadesha from a guru
only after one has abdicated all karmas and become a sannyAsi. “More than the
yajna that one does in karma yoga with external accessories, the internal yajna
of jnAna yoga is superior. All karma finally terminate in jnAna” says He in the
previous shloka. Having said that, immediately he follows: “The jnAnis who have
directly seen the Truth—that is,
experienced – will teach you
jnAna. Go to them, fall straight at their feet, question and listen repeatedly,
and serving them, learn”. This occurs in JnAna-karma-sannyAsa-yoga. When we put all these together, it is clear
that he is talking about getting the Brhma-vidyA teaching from a jnAni only
after throwing off karma and taking up sannyAsa.
The
sequence goes like this. First we hear by the ears. The very hearing is done for obeying what we
have heard. This is sushrUushhA. The
inseparable part that comes out of this is the humility. And from that the
respectful service. Thus starting from
hearing by the ears it leads on to service. And the service itself has
got the name of sushruushhA. In due course of time people came to think that
sushruushhA means service; its original meaning of ‘listening’ disappeared from
vogue.
But,
more than the sushruushA of respectful physical service, the Guru considers as
great (and is pleased at) that
sushruushhA by which the disciple
receives, with a clean heart, with the intention of carrying out in practice,
the teaching imparted by the Guru with all the humility and the respect it
deserves. He will not think as greatly of the service that the disciple
does for the Guru’s physical comforts as he would, of the spiritual progress
that the sishhya makes by properly benefitting from the treasures of the Atman
that the Guru transmits to him. It is
the proper sushruushhA of the ears that constitutes the greatest sushruushhA of
service. ShravaNa-sushruushhA is what is superior in the eyes of the Guru.
Instead of his being served by the disciple, he would rather have his disciple
rise spiritually with the instrument of the upadesha he transmits. But from the
point of view of the disciple, however,
both kinds of sushruushhA must rank equally important. One should
receive the upadesha from the bottom of the heart and obey accordingly in
practice; and one should also consider the dispenser of the upadesha as Ishvara
himself, surrender to him and do all kinds of respectful service to him .
The
mantra that is taught does half the job and the Grace of the teacher completes
the other half!
Where
is the scope for all this when one learns from books?
Guru
is always depicted by shAstras as an *anubhavi* (one who has seen the Truth
directly): ‘brahma-nishhTha’ in Upanishads, ‘tatva-darshinaH’ in the Gita. Such
a person, who has truly realised Brahman – would such a person be available in
modern times? Don’t worry about it. If
you are crying in true anguish with sincere mumukshhutA (longing for Release)
the Lord will not fail to show you such a one. Whether he is a brahma-nishhTa
or not all the time, you will be shown the best available one and the Lord
Himself will enter into him at the time when you are being givn the
mahAvAkya-upadesha. That is how it happens. That is how. No doubt about it.
[Note by the Collator Shri R. Ganapathy:
Here the Mahaswamigal speaks with great conviction,
emotion and emphasis that he is passing on a great truth]
Just as the disciple is feeling the anguish
whether an *anubhavi* guru will be available even these days, the Lord is also
looking for, with the same anguish (!) whether a proper mumukshhu is going to
come; so such a person would not be missed by Him. Maybe He will not appear in
concrete form in the body of a human Guru, but it is possible that He manifests
as a subtle guru in the very antar-AtmA
of the disciple and grace him. But if I say it this way, it may turn out in
this independent age where humility is wanting, people might go with the
impression: “Even the Shankaracharya of the mutt has said so. A separate
individual as a Guru is not necessary. The Lord will come into us directly and
grace us from the inside”. It is really
very rare for such a thing –without an external human guru, for the Lord
Himself to come as an internal guru -- to happen. Rare top-ranking mumukshus
will have that privilege. Or if there is
an enormous amount of pUrva-samskAra from the earlier lives, even if one is not
a mumukshhu but just an ordinary person, the Lord Himself on His own pulls him
out and blesses him with all grace. To
make this the general rule is totally wrong.
Now
we have come to the stage where one has taken up sannyAsa and also received the
upadesha from the Guru. Afterwards what should the Sannyasi do?
Let me tell you that he should certainly not be doing what I am doing
now! [The Swamigal laughs]. I am getting
into all sorts of newspaper gossip; am I not? History, Geography, Local news
all of it are coming into my speeches and actions. A true SannyAsi would have nothing to do with
all these.
[Ra. Ganapthy adds a footnote here: The Mahaswamigal
is describing
now the dharma that pertains to a SannyAsi
who is yet to reach his siddhi.
With great humility
combined with humour
he laughs at
himself saying he is
not following rules.
But actually he is a Jivan-mukta, an enlightened soul.
He can do anything, no rule will bind him. ]
All
the time he has to be only in the thought of the Atman; that should be his
speech, that should be his goal. The Mundakopanishad says (II – 2) “Leave off
all talk about anything that is non-Self. In the bow of PraNava (that is, the MahAvakyas), mount the
arrow of your own self, shoot yourself
at the goal and be fixed there”. The one idea of the non-difference between
Jiva and Brahman should be the only occupation of your mind. All other talk is
only an unnecessary exertion for the throat, says BrihadAraNyakopanishad
IV-4-21. Lord Krishna builds it up like
this: *tad-buddhayaH tad-AtmAnaH tan-nishhTAH tat-parayaNAH*.
Keeping
the intellect in the Atman, the life itself in the Atman, and firmly
established in that one Self, with That only as the goal (B.G. V – 17) – this
is how he should be. This is what He says in “sannyAsa-yoga”. When he talks in “vibhUti yoga” it is He who plays all the other roles and
those who know this revel in His thought
only, their very life in Him, exchanging with one another thoughts about Him
and narrating to one another the stories of His Glory and thus dance and revel
in great satisfaction about Him.
maccittAH
madgata-prANAH bodhayantaH parasparaM /
kathayantashca
mAM nityaM tushhyanti ca ramanti ca //
In
the same context, Vidyaranya Swamigal talks about nirguNa upAsanA (that is what
a SannyAsi should be doing) and says:
The only thought being Brahman, the only conversation between each other being
That, the only teaching among one another is That – thus a Sannyasi has That as
his only occupation.
If
there is a number of sannyAsis at one place gathered together, the teaching of
one another (bodhayantaH parasparaM) and the recalling to one another (anyonyaM
tat-prabodhanaM) take place. But such
crowding of several sannyAsis and their living together is not first of all
recommended as a good thing. Scope arises for attachment, enmity, hate,
competition, jealousy and differences of opinion. So after becoming a SannyAsi
one should hasten to a solitary place. No attachment or bondage should be
allowed to develop. Staying at the same place for more than three days is
taboo. The SannyAsi should keep moving. That is the meaning of a ‘parivrAjaka’.
That is the Dharma of a Parama-hamsa SannyAsi.
[Ra Ganapathy’s note: But this does not apply to heads of
mutts
who have organisational and training responsibilities.]
In
sum, after one gets the upadesha, the Sannyasi has to have the only goal of
obtaining a direct perception of the advaita brahma-bhAva that has been taught
to him by his guru.
To
achieve this, two processes – manana and nidhidhyAsana – are prescribed.
NidhidhyAsana may also be called nidhidhyAsa.
ShravNa,
Manana, NidhidhyAsana – with these three the elaborate presentation of
advaita-sAdhanA comes to an end.
The
mental analysis of the upadesha by rolling it over in the mind repeatedly is what is called mananaM.
Thereafter, without scope or necessity
for any more enquiry, analysis, research or debate in the mind, follows NidhidhyAsana, which is the
one-pointed identification in that Atma-tattva, about which there is now
perfect clarity, and the mind is without any vibration.
The
Acharya has graced us with an expository work (*prakaraNa-grantha*) called
“AtmA-anAAtma-vivekam” in prose in the form of questions and answers. What is
shravaNa, what is manana, what is nidhidhyAsana, -- all these are defined there
in a very crisp fashion. Usually there are six components of proof by which a
matter is established as a conclusion. That the advaita truth is what the Vedas
declare will be explained by the Guru through the medium of all these six
components of proof. To listen to and receive it is shravaNaM. Having learnt
about the non-dual entity one analyses and pursues the reasoning in his mind in
accordance with the Veda-ShAstras; this is mananaM. Mark it; I said ‘in
accordance with the Veda-shAstras’. This is important. The logic that you
follow has to be in accordance with the Veda-shAstras. Your mental make-up has already been tuned
properly by the sAdhanA-set-of-four, particularly the component of shraddhA
therein. One does the mental analysis of
the Guru’s upadesha without being drawn astray by the narrow intellect, wrongly
called rational mind. The Acharya has warned us against this in his
sopAna-pancakaM: *dustarkAt suviramyatAM shruti-matas-tarko’nusandhIyatAM* --
meaning, Discard distorted logic; adopt
the logic consistent with the purpose of the Vedas. Such an analysis is mananaM. Having confirmed it by the intellect, now you
have to experience it. So without being distracted by any other thought, the
mind (cittaM) should now flow like flood in the one direction (of the Atman).
That is ‘nidhidhyAsanaM’ – that is how he defines it in AtmAnAtma-vivekaM.
In
between I told you about the six components of proof. What are those six? The
subject of a book can be known from the beginning and end of it. This is called
‘upakrama-upasamhAraM’. This is the first of the six. The second one is repetition. If a book
declares the same thing repeatedly, it is clear that it is the subject of the
book. This is called ‘abhyAsaM’. The third is ‘apUrvaM’; if an idea is
presented in a most unusual way, that is
the subject. The fourth is the process,
called ‘phalaM’ of telling something and immediately listing the positive effects of it one by
one. The fifth is the method of praising something sky-high; this kind of praise is called
*artha-vAdaM*. And the last, namely the sixth, is ‘upapatti’ which brings out the reason, the concordance
and logic and establishes that such and such is the subject.
Several
ideas about the Atman will get clarified during the mananaM, and that itself
will lead to the nidhidhyAsana of meditation on that One Atman alone.
When
the manana-nidhidhyAsana are deep, many things will occur -- may occur -- known
only to the Ishvara and that Jiva who is the sAdhaka. Some things may occur which are not
comprehensible even by the Jiva. Here he
should not falter just because they are incomprehensible; it is for this that
the Acharya had already instilled into him enough of shraddhA and bhakti! So
without getting confused about the fact that nothing is being comprehended, he
will go on in the straight path that the Guru has shown him. Ishvara also will do things that wring out
any residual karma or vAsanA in order to take him on to his final
destination. Only when such VasanAs and
karma get destroyed, that process itself will set up the chain of further
wringing out in the heart-nADis – this is called “nAdi mathanaM” – which makes
the merging of the antaHkaraNaM in the heart.
I
wonder whether it is right for me to say these things to you. Because the
sAdhaka’s only thought should be Brahma-anubhavaM (“Brahman-experience”); so
when I say ‘nADi’, ‘heart’, ‘mathanaM’ etc. he might get distracted from his
one-pointedness by unnecessary observations about ‘wringing of the nADis’,
‘merging in the heart’ etc. Actually
these things take place involuntarily. So there is no need to know about
them. By being distracted by the
beauties of the garden outside one may finally fail to enter the house!
Further
Ishvara may not be doing everything the same way to every one. He might have
several ways of handling. The old (karma) balance might be different from
person to person and Ishvara’s manner of
settling them also will differ accordingly. Also He has his own style of
several leelAs of pleasing Himself! Once He takes the sAdhaka to his
destination, there will not be any scope for His leela, so he might be doing something
new for every one! Maybe some of them might not have any such ‘wringing’ or
‘mathanaM’ at all! Why, even it may be that for some there may not be any
necessity to make the mind one-pointed at the Atma-sthana in the heart, and one
might be able to think of the Atman as transcendent and all-pervading and be
able to concentrate on it.
It
is in view of all this that the Acharya simply says “Carry on your
nidhidhyAsana deeper and deeper and keep going”
and then just mentions the Brahman-Realisation as the destination and
winds up there.
There
are three authorities -- shruti (the
Vedas), yukti (reasoning), anubhava (experience) – for knowing the Truth. Of these it is said that shruti corresponds
to shravaNaM, yukti corresponds to mananaM and anubhava corresponds to
nidhidhyAsanaM. The mantras of shruti and all the matters pertaining to
Brahma-vidyA are heard by the disciple through his ears (shrotra) from the guru.
It is quite fitting therefore to associate shravaNaM with shruti.
The
concept of ‘yukti’ is a little more tough to be understood correctly. This ‘yukti’ (reasoning) is not the rational
thinking by which in the ordinary world we use our intellect to arrive at
conclusions. Nor has this word ‘anubhava’ (experience) the common connotation of experience that
happens to us merely at the level of the mind
in several alternating ways! What
is being said here is a ‘yukti’ (reasoning)
that will be done, at the highest sophisticated level, by the
mind and intellect – which have been flooded by shraddhA and bhakti, calmed, rested and purified, after all that sAdhanA -- when they are converging to the very base of
the ego for the purpose of destroying that ego. Similarly, the ‘anubhava’ is
what such refined and tempered mind and intellect have known by this
‘yukti’, as now experienced at the
deepest layer of the mind right from the very base of the ego. I dare not lecture about them now. If it
truly happens to a fortunate one amongst us, he will know it by himself.
[Note by VK: Usually I don’t add any word whose equivalent
either in language or in sense does not exist in the Tamil
original.
In the above paragraph I have made one exception.
The word ‘sophisticated’
is mine. I am not very clear why I want it there. But after having typed
it almost without thinking,
I feel that without it, I am not
getting the Mahaswamigal’s mind!
Readers should decide whether it should be there or not.]
That
neutral state of peace and quiet is said to be sAtvikaM. On the other hand, if
we are vacillating by the force of emotion as we usually are, that is called
rAjasam. The reasoning of our intellect at such a time is therefore rAjasic,
and so, wrong. But the third stage sAdhaka whom we are
discussing now, has destroyed his rajasic intellect and made it satvik. The reasoning that it carries out will be
totally different. It will not be the reasoning
that we do by objecting to the Truth and the Shastras, circumscribing ourselves
by a small boundary called rationality. Instead it will be concordant with the
ShAstraic Truth and be the reasoning of a wisdom that is superior to
‘rationality’. About this the Acharya has said:
Mokshaika-saktyA
vishhayeshhu rAgaM
nirmUlya
sannyasya ca sarva-karma /
sashraddhayA
yaH shravaNAdi-nishhTo
rajaH
svabhAvaM sa dhunoti buddheH // (Viveka Chudamani 182/184)
The
only involvement should be for Release (from samsAra). All attachment to sense objects should have
been uprooted. And accordingly leaving off all karmas, becoming a sannyAsi,
whoever with shraddhA is established in shravana, manana and nidhidhyAsana, he
it is that discards all rajas nature of the intellect.
Note
that the sAdhanA regimen of mumukshutvaM, sannyAsaM and shravaNa etc. have all
been mentioned. And in that state, the reasoning itself will be unique.
So
also in that stage, the ‘anubhava’ or experience will also be unrelated to the
senses but related to the antarAtmA.
[Laughing,
the Mahaswamigal says] I am telling you in the manner of a professor. That kind
of reasoning will be ‘super-rational’ and the experience ‘mystic’!
MananaM,
the process of mental repetitions of the upadesha, is for the purpose of the
mind to stay put instead of giving any scope for digression or distraction. It
is this mananaM that is called ‘AvRtti’ in Brahma-sUtra. “The Vedas have
repeatedly prescribed repeated memorisation”: -- *asakRd upadeshAt* (IV – 1.1.)
How long should one do this memorisation? The Acharya replies with a sense of humour:
If you are told to husk paddy, you should not be asking ‘how long should I husk
it?’. You have to husk until you see the
rice coming out. So also until the Atman
comes out of the cloud of avidyA, you have to be in that same thought, same
repetition, same dhyAnaM.
However
much the mind and intellect might have matured, until the Brahman Realisation
happens, mAyA does not spare you. Maybe
it is not right to throw the blame on mAyA. Realisation is the apex of all
sAdhanA. It cannot be achieved unless all karma is extinguished. What can be done if, inspite of all the
sAdhanA done, the earlier karma is several times heavier? Maybe for their
extinction, right now, not by the work of mAyA, but by the Grace of Ishvara,
there arise undesirable thoughts that shake up the sAdhaka. I am not referring
to thoughts of kAma, krodha, etc. They have all been extinguished much
earlier. There are two other undesirable
thoughts or conceptions. One is called *asambhAvanA* and the other is called
*viparIta-bhAvanA*.
[Note by Ra. Ganapathy:
As far as this collator knows, these two words
‘asambhAvanA’ and ‘viparIta-bhAvanA’
occur in the very first ‘taranga’ of ‘VichAra-sAgaraM’ in
Sanskrit,
which itself is a translation from a work of the 19th
century in Hindi by Nischaladasa.
In advaita works, ‘asambhAvana’ is known as ‘samshayaM’
And ‘viparIta-bhAvanA’ as ‘viparyayaM’.]
“SadhanA
has been done for so long. The so-called goal is impossible. After all I am
finite. How can this finite little being become the Infinite Universal
Brahman?” This is ‘asambhAvanA’. In fact it is the question which casts a doubt
on whether the advaita experience is a possibility at all. When this doubt
crystallises and matures, instead of being a doubt it turns out into a reply to
the question and says to itself: “No. It is not possible. It is only Duality
that is possible. And that is the truth. Jiva is different and Brahman is
different” – this is ‘viparIta-bhAvanA’.
‘After such long effort, I am still only a separate Jiva, so I have to
remain only as a separate Jiva. This is the duality in which I have to be
always’ – it is this trend of thought that creates the ‘viparIta-bhAvanA’.
Of
these two, to eradicate the ‘asambhAvanA’ one needs to do mananaM. And to get
rid of ‘viparIta-bhAvanA’ one needs ‘nidhidhyAsana’.
‘asambhAvanA’
might have covered one entirely like moss. But if one is constantly chewing in
the mind the Vedanta statements and analysing them by the matured mind,
repeating the powerful mantras in the form of the mahAvAkyas, even if the real
Brahman experience does not occur, the possibility of its occurrence will get crystallised in the mind.
Maybe
the possibility becomes acceptable, but unless it has actually occurred, thus
leading to resolution of all doubts once for all, how will this acceptance be
sufficient? The present everyday
experience is a direct experience of duality.
We are having a direct observational experience of Brahman as something
different from us. If advaita is the
truth that also should become a direct such experience. In other words, without
a Brahman-realisation, how can the viparIta-bhAvanA disappear? That direct
experience will occur only if the nidhidhyAsanA continues as a single dhyAna to the exclusion of everything else. There is
no other way. That the
(familiar-to-the–Tamil-world) ‘panchAmRtaM’ is composed of honey, milk and
ghee, etc. and can therefore be expected to be nothing but sweet, is mananaM.
However, there could be a doubt. ‘Is it truly a sweet dish? Maybe the sweet things together by some
combination make it bitter. Who knows?’ When such a doubt arises, the only way
to get out of the doubt is to taste it; how can there be a resolution of the
fact otherwise?
If
one goes through the nidhidhyAsanaM with perfect dedication to the prospect
that the Ultimate Reality, the
existence of which was conclusively confirmed by reasoning in the course of the process of
mananaM, must show itself up in one’s experience, it will certainly show its
taste off and on. Of course the taste, the taster and the taste-Giver would
have become all one! Even though that state disappears, one gets the
confirmation that there is certainly an advaita experience. How can the
viparIta-bhAvanA rise up thereafter?
The
very fact that in this third stage these negative bhAvanAs pop up is in a sense
a God-sent blessing in disguise! It is because of that the sAdhaka continues in
full earnest his manana-nidhidhyAsana efforts in order, one, to get the intellectual conviction at the level of his antaHkaraNa that advaita
is the Truth and two, to get one’s own shades of experience at the level
of the inner Self! Otherwise he may be a little easy-going and miss it
entirely! Even if it is not missed it may certainly get postponed. Only when a
counter-thought occurs one gets the motivation for a full-fledged no-mercy
onslaught to check it either way. It is in that sense the two dispositions of
asambhAvanA and viparIta-bhAvanA help as ‘incentives’!
The
mananaM that keeps analysing the conceptual matter off and on leads on to the
nidhidhyAsana which shows the same thing as an experience. Thereafter there is
no analysis or churning. There is only that single thought, dhyAna. The Acharya
has a favourite way of saying this. *samAna-pratyaya-pravAha-karaNaM*. He uses this expression in many places.
(Sutra-Bhashya IV-1.7.8; Gita Bhashya XII – 3). Just as the flow of a flood of
water converges in one direction so also the converging of thought in one
direction is what dhyAna means. ‘Just as oil flows down in a straight wire-like
appearance – taila-dhArAvat’ is also
another expression of his.
‘Muni’
is a Sanskrit word for a great person who is a perfect jnAni and spiritually
very powerful. He is actually the best among Rishis. Only he who is an adept in the process of
‘mananaM’ is called a ‘muni’. In Sutra Bhashya III – 4 – 47, this is how the
Acharya speaks of the derivation of the
word ‘muni’: *mananAn munir-iti (ca) vyutpatti-sambhavAt*. He also says there
that the word ‘muni’ has a special significance in jnAna--
*jnAna-atishaya-arthatvAt*. Thus the process of ‘mananaM’ is not just
repetition for memorisation, nor it is, as we think of it usually, a logical
reasoning at the intellectual level to import spiritual matters just into the
brain. It is far higher than that. It is something that dwells on matters
clarified by the touch of intuition.
Remember
our Acharya is one who gave the noblest status to the hearing (shravaNa) of the
teaching from the guru. If the same
Acharya says “Let it be understood that
mananaM is a hundred times greater than shravaNaM”. *shataguNaM
vidyAn-mananaM*, then at how really a
high level should shravaNaM be counted?
And
he doesn’t stop there. If mananaM is a hundred times greater than shravaNaM, he says nidhidhyAsanaM is a
hundred-thousand times greater than mananaM: *mananAdapi nidhidhyAsaM
lakshha-guNaM*.
MananaM
is not just dead information; it is knowledge full of life. But even that
knowledge becomes tiny little in the face of experience. You may know
everything about sugar, you might have bales and bales of high class sugar, but
they are not equivalent to that experience one gets from the taste of a little
pinch of that sugar. That is why he says
nidhidhyAsaM is one hundred thousand times greater than mananaM.
NidhidhyAsaM
is also not a one-shot affair by which one gets established into a permanent
Brahman-experience. It is only with a self-effort that one does what is called
nidhidhyAsaM. And he gets flashes of that Brahman-experience. The moment we say this we know there is
duality in this. The Brahman-experience, instead of glittering, twinkling and
disappearing like a lightning flash, if that lightning of brahmAnubhava
‘electrocutes’ him in a sense, killing his Jiva-bhAva, and makes him the
nectarine brahman itself, that will be the end of it all; that is the siddhi
position. The sAdhanA stops there, the sAdhaka himself becoming the sAdhya (the
goal) sthAna (locus).
Just
as hands and feet do works, so also nidhidhyAsa is work done mentally. However
glorified it is, there is the duality of action and of doer; so how can it be
considered as the Final Truth that stands alone by Itself?
Even
so, so long as one continues as a Jiva,
the one noblest thing that he can do not to be that Jiva is to keep thinking
only of Brahman; as such one has to steadfastly hold on to the
nidhidhyAsa-action.
The
action of constantly thinking about brahman ends up in the state where one has
become the action-less brahman.
There
is what is called a *bhramara-kITa-nyAyaM*.
Bhramara is the wasp. KITa means a worm. The worm is said to be
constantly thinking of becoming a wasp. That constant thinking, it appears,
causes its own transformation of its form and the growth of wings and finally
it becomes a wasp and flies away from the nest. So it is said! The nidhidhyAsaM
of the worm makes it the wasp – this is bhramara-kITa-nyAya. In the same manner
the Jiva in the constant thought of Brahman, thinks of ‘this’ Jiva becoming
‘that’ Brahman, thinks that even now ‘this’ is only ‘that’ and such a
nidhidhyAsana all the time ends up with the Jiva becoming Brahman – so says the
Acharya in Viveka chudamani 358-359/359-360.
This
has been said by the Acharya in order that the jnAna-pathfinder does not get
side-tracked into the direction of saguNa-brahman. In other words he has wound
up the context of Vivekachudamani by saying that by the sheer power of this
constant thought one automatically becomes Brahma-svarUpa. In actual fact this
becoming happens only by the Grace of God! It is by His Grace that the JivAtma
becomes the ParamAtmA! The Acharya certainly knows this; and knows this quite
well. To win over the karma-mimamsaka-upholders this is the final BrahmAstra
that the Acharya used: “No action by itself gives the result; the results are
given by Ishvara”. When that was the case, he would have never subscribed to
the idea that the very mental action of nidhidhyAsana would automatically produce
the great result of Brahma-nirvANaM.
MayA’s
function of hiding things is called ‘tirodhAnaM’. Right now the real Brahman
that we are is *tirohitaM*, that is, hidden from us. The hidden thing comes out
by the dhyAna of ParamAtmA – so says BrahmasUtra, but immediately, lest we may
think it is an automatic consequence, it adds, clearing up any confusion, “This
hiding as well as the bondage (caused by the hiding) are both by Ishvara. When we do nidhidhyAsanaM, the removal of the
hiding, the manifestation of the Truth and the grant of mokshha, all are again
the work of Ishvara”. (III – 2-5). When
the Acharya writes the BhashyaM on this, he says, more explicitly, “This
manifestation will not happen automatically or naturally for all and sundry.
Only to that rare person who makes effort to do intense nidhidhyAsana it
happens by God’s Grace”. *na svabhAvata eva sarveshhAM jantUnAM* --
‘Revelation’ does not happen naturally for everybody. *Ishvara-prasAdAt
samsiddhasya kasyacit eva Avirbhavati* -- ‘By God’s Grace It reveals only to
that rare person who has the highest achievement’.
[Note by Ra. Ganapathy:
See the Mahaswamigal’s related discourses in Tamil under the Sections
‘The jnAna gift of the Lord as per Adi Shankara’ in
http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/part4kural364.htm
and ‘The bondage of Karma is by the Lord;
the attainment of jnAna is also His Grace’ in
http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/part4kural367.htm
]
In
advaita shAstras it is customary to depict God’s Grace as Guru’s Grace itself.
[ See again http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/part4kural365.htm
under the heading: ‘The duality in the form of Guru does
not intervene’]
But
the Acharya in the apex of his prakaraNa-granthas, namely, the Vivekachudamani
(476/477) has given a higher place to
Ishvara’s Grace over and above Guru’s Grace.
A person asked me this question. The reference is to the statements:
“The Gurus stay on the banks of the ocean of samsAra and being on the bank they
teach you how to swim across the ocean of samsAra. It is the disciple who, on
his own, has to get the prajnA of True Knowledge, and keeping it as the boat he
should cross the ocean; and this prajnA is granted only by God”.
Maybe
the Acharya thought: “In the coming ages, there may not be many gurus of
knowledge who have attained enlightenment.
Even then, as far as the disciples are concerned, even through them
(such gurus) the Lord Himself will grant the release” and so depicted the gurus
as those who have not crossed; but
however he added, the disciples will cross (the ocean) by God’s Grace.
Another
reason may also be mentioned. If a disciple gets the true attitude of
surrender, by which he totally surrenders to the Guru and leaves it to him to
‘do whatever he likes’, then that Grace of the guru itself is the boat as well
as the favourable wind, and it ferries
him to the other shore. But that kind of total surrender is not
possible by every one. Even if he does not do the total surrender, he may
default by being a little indifferent in his sAdhanA, thinking that “After all
he is our guru. He is the one who
blessed me with the teaching . So his own Grace will surely lead us on to
the goal of the upadesha. How can this fail to happen?” Coupled with the absence of total surrender
if this kind of default persists wherein even the sAdhanA is not perfect, and
if there is the indifferent attitude in the hope that the Guru will take care,
-- such a possibility should be preventeed. Addressing such defaulters, in other
words, to emphasize the fact that one should not lax on the self-effort on the
alibi of Guru’s Grace, the Acharya must have said “Guru shows the way from the
bank; it is you who have to set sail in the boat and cross the ocean”.
Though the Acharya
said “You have to do it yourself” he
must have also thought this might end up in boosting up one’s ego in the
thought “Thus after all it is our own effort that has all the power”. So he
also says that even though it is you who do it, that is also Ishvara’s Grace.
It is He who prompts you and keeps you company.
If
we carefully note what the Lord says in the Gita we would know the Acharya has said the same thing. When He
winds up the Gita, the Lord says: “Surrender to me and rest. I will take care
of you!” A little before that he also
says “Do a total surrender to the Lord in every possible way. By His Grace you
will attain the highest goal of Peace”. And He Himself says in another place
*uddhared-AtmanAtmAnaM* ‘one has to lift oneself by oneself’ and thus talks of
self-effort as great. Unless one does the total surrender, it is self-effort
that wins – this is the sum and substance.
In all this also there is God’s Grace in hiding!
He
who does the nidhidhyAsana really deeply does forget himself off and on and
gets hooked up to Brahman but he also comes out of it. He who causes them to happen is Ishvara.
From the very beginning, from the time one begins with
nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaM – why, even further down, from the rock bottom
practice and performance of karma and bhakti
-- the agent-provocateur who takes him up inch by inch, in answer to his
efforts, is only the Ishvara. But He never explicitly shows Himself, even a
little, to be so. It is the sAdhaka who
has to infer it, by the thoughts ‘I think my mind is now
purified a little, some dispassion has come, it is now possible to still
the mind for a moment at least’ and so on, by observing himself. He does the
nidhidhyAsana, but to be lost in that trance even for a moment is His work!
Formerly, the action of progressing in the sAdhanA, as well as attaining
greater and greater maturity, was the responsibility of the JIva. But now he is
progressing towards the state of actionlessness; what action shall he do
now? He can only think of it; except for that how can he do the ‘becoming That’
as an action?
We
say ‘I passed the examination’. Actually
the act of passing, was not done by us. Our action was only to write the
examination. Yes, we did it well. But we cannot ‘pass’ ourselves. Some responsible official has to ‘pass’ us.
Our business ends with writing the examination.
The awarding of the ‘pass’ is by the person responsible for it. (Of course I am talking about the period
before Indian Independence. The methods of ‘gratification’ or ‘applying
pressure’ for the purpose of ensuring a ‘pass’ were not known in those days!).
To ‘pass’ in the sAdhanA examination, which means to ‘pass’ to be admitted to
the world of actionlessness, it is the Grace of the Ishvara, the ‘phala-dAtA’
(dispenser of fruit) that is not only the capital but also the instrument of
action.
Unlike the case of the ordinary examination, where
the result is only a piece of news, the value of which is only a further job or
an eligibility to pursue studies further , in the case of sAdhanA, a pass in
the final examination of nidhidhyAsanA is
indeed a great Experience. There is nothing above or beyond that. It is
nothing but Brahma-nirvANa, advaita-moksha.
The
truth certainly is that the Lord makes the JIvAtma as paramAtmA, as a result of
the constant thinking of the former.
In
the Tamil world, there is a saying which is in conformity with
‘bhramara-kITa-nyAya’. “The wasp stings and stings and makes the worm one of
its family” goes the saying. *koTTik-koTTi kuLavi tan-niRam AkkitrAm*! It is
not that the worm becomes the wasp by itself; it keeps on thinking about the
wasp, the wasp continues to sting and converts it into the form of the wasp –
so goes this saying. It is in that manner Ishvara does to the JIvAtmA who does
the nidhidhyAsana.
Mark
it! There is a difference! The One who does the transformation here is the
Ishvara who is the saguNa-brahman. But the transformation he does to the
JIvAtmA is the formless nirguNa-brahman! And the Jiva does the dhyAna only to
become nirguNa and not for becoming the saguNa Ishvara! So this transcends all
analogy and stands very high!
From
the beginning Ishvara did not reveal Himself as the one who was granting the
progress step by step. Even now he only plays ‘blind and seek’. Now and then he
takes the sAdhaka to samAdhi and later permanently makes him a JIvan-mukta or a
videha-mukta. However there is a major difference. In earlier stages, all the cleaning up or
purification and other touches-up that were happening in the mind, had Him as
their Cause. But now He destroys the very mind itself! Once the mind has
vanished, how can this (sAdhaka) get to know Him (the saguNa Brahman)? And that
is why even now the work of Ishvara is a black box to the JIva! But though it
is not visible to the eyes, it is million times proximate in the sense that
there is a unification between ‘this’ and ‘that’ NirguNa. The saguNa Ishvara who makes the JIva a
nothing, also makes Himself a nothing and shines only as a sat-cit-Ananda
tattva only. [The Mahaswamigal laughs
here] I said ‘shines’; is it the light of a bulb of one thousand watts? We are running out of language here! We are
only talking at our level like this in order to attempt to communicate!
Indescribable
by words, unreachable by the mind – nothing more blissful, nothing more
peaceful than that, nothing more independent, nothing more of knowledge – it is
a state, the truth of truths, the universal One! That is the destination for
the jnAna path, and for the regimen of
advaita-sAdhanA, wonderfully paved for us into a royal path by the Acharya.
By
his Grace we got the fortunate opportunity of talking about it, hearing about
it and thinking about it. Let us pray to him that we should be able to march
forward in that path, little by little.
The
First thing to be done is the discharge of obligatory karmas – what the
shAstras have ordained and in the manner they have chalked out. Nowadays
‘advaita’ has come to mean the discarding of all karma, and all AchAra
(regulatory prescriptions). They think ‘advaita’ is a free license to be
without AchAra. And they even advise ‘conventionalists’ such as me and say
“What is there in all this (AchAra)?”. Without an iota of experience of advaita
or the JIva-Brahma-non-difference, without having made even the slightest
effort towards that, they get into the habit of
playing with expressions of opinions like “How can Atman have karma? Or
regulatory prescriptions? By observing varnAshrama dharma are we not
contradicting advaita?” In other words,
they intervene into advaita only to do what they like irrespective of the
shAstras. I have all along been shutting
my mouth ( and not talking about advaita), lest I become a party for the
promotion of such opinionated sins.
Somehow it has happened that I have talked about it all. But let me not wind up with a guilty note.
The final goal being advaita, every one should know at least an outline of it –
this has been the maxim of the Acharya. And by his Grace only I have been able
to tell you something; and that is my satisfaction.
Let
no one immediately take all this (advaita-sAdhanA) seriously. At the core of
your mind, hold on to the thought that JIva and Brahman are the same. Once you
hold on to it, it will have its own effect.
What you have to do voluntarily is to discharge your karmic obligations
according to the shAstras.
In
the advaita shAstra that has been handed down to us by tradition through the
efforts of great ‘anubhavis’ one has been asked to move on to advaita-sAdhanA
only after one has reached a reasonable perfection in the discharge of his
shAstraic duties.
More
fundamental than that we should make efforts to become ethically pure.
Beginning a great sAdhanA to become that ‘Pure One’ (*Ekam sat*) does not mean
that we ignore the necessity to be ethically pure! The word ‘sat’ has, in
addition to its meaning of ‘Brahman, the Reality’, has also, according to Lord Krishna
Himself, (B.G. XVII – 26) the meaning of ‘good’, that is, a good quality or
character. *sad-bhAve sAdhu-bhAve ca
sad-ity-etat prayujyate*. We call those
who are good, as sAdhus; that has its origin from the word ‘sat’. We speak of people as ‘sat’ (good ones) and
‘asat’ (bad ones). As such, we have to
hold on to this ‘sat’ (the good) and then through this go to that ‘sat’, the
Reality!
This
‘sad-guNa’ (good quality) and that brahma-jnAna are not unrelated. Without this
that will not be obtained. The Acharya says: For that, this is the ‘sahakAri
cause’ – i.e. the accessory cause; the cause with which it cooperates and
produces the fruit (phalaM). The word ‘phalaM’ and ‘sahakAri’ remind me of the
type of mango called ‘sahakAra mango’. It is a mix of different types of
mangoes. In Kanchipuram there is a mango tree of this type and it is at the
foot of such a tree that the Goddess is united with the Lord
Ekambareshvara (cf. Mukapanchashati
AryashatakaM shloka 64). In the same manner the good quality ‘sat’ and ‘jnAna’
have to integrate together to produce the ripe fruit of moksha. In the Gita, at
a certain place (XIII – 7) where He delineates what jnAna is, the Lord says:
“Self-pride is wrong. Pretentiousness is taboo. One should have the quality of ahimsA
(non-injury), forbearance and straightforwardness”. Beginning thus He reels off
a big list. That is where in the Acharya’s Bhashya, he himself raises the
question on behalf of the opponent “How can these things be jnAnaM” and
replying to the objection, says “All these are ‘sahakAri’ causes for jnAnaM and
hence themselves called jnAnaM”. Further
he adds that these are the good qualities that constitute the fertile ground
for the spark of jnAnaM.
The
statement that self-pride is wrong implies only the necessity of humility. A
humble nature. We should all begin with that kind of humble nature and make
efforts to become good. Keeping the thought of that ‘sat’ (the Reality) at the
bottom of our hearts, and with the Grace of the Acharya, let us all do what we
should for this ‘sat’ (goodness).
One
should close with the word ‘sat’ (Recall
*om tat sat*). So let me mentally say so for all of you.
CONCLUDED.
PraNAms to
all students of advaita.
PraNAms to
the Maha-Swamigal.
Acknowledgement of Source Material:
Ra. Ganapthy’s ‘Deivathin Kural’
(Vol.6) in Tamil published by Vanathi
Publishers, 4th edn. 1998
Ó Copyright of English summary. V. Krishnamurthy