GEMS FROM THE OCEAN OF HINDU THOUGHT
VISION AND PRACTICE
BEACH 11: LIVE HAPPILY, THE
Wave 7: ONE
GOD, THE ABSOLUTE
[ OTHER WAVES ON THE SAME BEACH: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 ]
Question: You started with analysis of human happiness; then you went
on to show how at the end of meditation one attains infinite happiness; and
finally you have ended up now by saying that everything
is an inexplicable mAyA, to which we are all subject. So where is the rationale for bhakti yoga or karma yoga in all
this? In fact it is generally believed that Gita talks profusely about
bhakti, karma and sharaNAgati; you have not dwelt on these at all so far.
Yes, these are the topics that we are going to talk about hereafter.
Recall that we started by saying that there are five major teachings of the
Gita. Of these five, we talked about Sense-control as the first topic and that is what
took us into a discussion of meditation. And that also led us to the topic of Equanimous view of objects as well as of happenings.
The topic of PrakRti and MayA came in because it
constitutes the foundation on which we have to understand the objects of the
world and arrive at the right attitude that we should have in our reactions to the
happenings of the world – particularly those that impinge on us – in order that we may
not be overcome by unhappiness. And now we are ready to take up the remaining
three topics Bhakti, Karma and SharaNAgati. You will get to know that the full
comprehension of the presentation in the Gita of these three topics depends
very much on how closely we can tune in
with
1.
the undeniable need for indriya-nigrahaM (self-control)
2.
the unquestionable rationale for sama-dRshhTi (Equanimous
view)
3.
the inevitable labyrinths of the working of PrakRti, and
4.
the inexplicability and incomprehensibility of the
irrepressible mAyA.
It is therefore time to talk about Bhakti. Before we move forward let us reiterate one
warning about the understanding of the concept of mAyA. It is no doubt
inexplicable, inevitable and irrepressible. But that should not make us think
that we can be indifferent to our worldly responsibilities. The practical implication of the Vedantic fact that everything is mAyA
could only be the following:
1. All happenings,
whether fortunate or unfortunate, should be taken lightly; because
after all, nothing in this world of
mAyA is permanent. Recall ‘harati nimeshhAt kAlas-sarvaM’ (Time swallows
everything in a jiffy) of
Bhaja-GovindaM.
2. All obligations and
responsibilities should be taken seriously; because, if we shirk these
for any reason, we
are only falling into the clutches of ahamkAra,
which is only mAyA
in disguise, thereby inviting
unhappiness.
The stronger this understanding becomes a
conviction with us, the larger is the chance of our not falling a prey to the gang of thirteen, which
is only mAyA’s network and the nearer we will be to the Lord within.
Now let us
proceed to our next topic of Bhakti. First we have to sort out
the subtle distinction between the usual concept of God and the impersonal
Absolute that is talked about very often in Vedanta.
What hears sound is the ear. What tastes an edible is the tongue. But both the sensations are received by the brain, registered by
the mind and the awareness of both sensations are due to the life-force, the Atman-principle within.
That principle is called Consciousness. It is a
bundle of Knowledge. When we switch on a light in a dark room we see many
objects. The same light lights them all. But when the room is empty of objects,
the emptiness itself is indicated by the same light. In the same way, when the
room is dark, the darkness is registered in our awareness by the Light within
us. It is that Light within us that is called Consciousness. It is the
same Consciousness that showed the light to us when the room was lighted.
Of course if we are blind this Consciousness would not tell us whether
the room is lighted or not. But it would know that it does not know whether the
room is lighted or not. A dead body in the room would not know whether the room
is lighted or not and would not even know that it does not know. Because the
dead body is just inert matter (prakRti) without
the presence of the
purusha (Consciousness) in it. It is this Consciousness that is called Atman .
Question: The dead body also should have Consciousness, because Consciousness
as the Absolute Reality is everywhere. Then why is it not knowledgeable about
the lighting of the room?
Very intelligent question! But although the Ultimate Self is there at
all times and in all things, yet it cannot shine in everything. As a reflection appears
only in polished surfaces, so also the Self shines as Consciousness only in the
intellect. This is the meaning of the 17th shloka of Atma-bodha:
sadA
sarva-gato’pyAtmA na sarvatra-avabhAsate /
buddhA-vevA-vabhAseta svaccheshhu pratibimbavat //
But the intellect has left the body in the case of the dead body!
The Absolute
Reality that is everywhere as a transcendent reality is this same Consciousness
– this is the interpretation of the Upanishads by the advaita
The Absolute cannot be said to be here and not there. It shines
everywhere. The only thing we can predicate about it is to say that it exists. Nothing more. Whatever else we predicate about it, will be
an understatement or a mis-statement. It has been there in all that was called
past and it will be there in all that may be called future. It talks not, sees not, walks not, stands not
and sits not. It does not do anything.
Recall
Yac-cakshhushhA
na pashyati, yena cakshhUmsi pashyati /
tadeva brahma
tvaM viddhi nedaM yad-idam-upAsate
// (Kena U.1 – 6).
Whatever cannot be seen by the eyes but by which the eyes see, know
that to be Brahman, -- not this that you see physically and worship.
na jAyate mriyate vA
kadacit
nAyaM bhUtvA
bhavitA vA na bhUyaH /
ajo nityaH
shAshvato’yaM purANo
na hanyate hanyamAne
sharIre // (II – 20) (
The intelligent Self is neither born nor does It
die. It did not originate from anything,
nor did anything originate from It. It is birthless,
eternal, undecaying, and ancient. It is not killed or injured, even when the
body is killed.
aNor-aNIyAn mahato
mahIyAn AtmA guhAyAM nihito’sya jantoH /
tamakratuH
pashyati vIta-shoko dhAtuprasAdAn-mahimAnam-IshaM // (
The Self that is subtler than the subtle and greater than the great is
lodged in the
heart of every creature. A desireless man sees that glory of the Self through
the serenity of the organs, and (thereby he becomes) free from sorrow.
adRshhTam-avyahAryam-alakshhaNam-acintyam-avyapadeshyaM ekAtma-pratyaya-sAraM prapanco-pashamaM shAntaM
shivam-advaitaM sa AtmA sa vijneyaH // (
(It is) unseen, beyond empirical dealings, beyond the grasp (of the
organs of action) , undefinable, unthinkable,
indescribable (as this or that), and whose valid proof consists in the single
belief in the Self, in which all phenomena cease and which is unchanging,
auspicious and non-dual. This is the Self and that is to be known.
In Lalita-Trishati one of the names of Mother Goddess is: “etat-tad-ity-anirdeshyA”,
meaning, ‘One who cannot be indicatged by this or that’.
If one first
starts with the Absolute (calling it brahman)
and then talks about its manifestation as the ParamAtmA, that
philosophical school is called advaita or the
The Upanishads give the name brahman to this Absolute Reality. We should only note
here that the technical names ‘saguNa brahman’ (brahman
with attributes) and ‘nirguNa brahman’
(brahman without attributes) are very often used to denote the
above-mentioned ‘ParmAtmA’ and the ‘ParmAtma-tattva’ respectively.
Among the various paths to the ultimate goal that is moksha,
all schools of philosophy agree that the Bhakti path is the best. This is so not because it is easy but because
there is a philosophical subtlety in it which marks it as the best. That the
Ultimate is One, everybody agrees. But the same religion which says so allows
myriads of deities, each deity being propitiated by thousand names in the form
of an Archana. On the face of it there appears to be a contradiction
here. When
one can resolve this apparent contradiction for himself, he gets
what might be called sAtvic bhakti.
Without resolving this ‘contradiction’ Hinduism can neither be
appreciated nor followed. Resolving this
contradiction means
understanding the concept of nirguNa brahman.
The eye does not see either
the fragrance in the flower, the heat in the fire, the salt in sea
water, or the electricity in the wire. However it is true that all these do exist. In the same way the immanent God is not perceptible to the senses
but still the immanence is true. A mango gives different experiences to
different sense-organs – taste for the tongue, smell for the nose, form for the
eyes, touch for the skin. But the mango is the same.
In the same way, the immanent indweller, the Lord, cognises sight when
manifesting through the eyes, and cognises sound when manifesting through the
ear. He thus shows Himself in varied ways. The pleasure
that is inside honey – Is it black or white? Would the eyes know or would the
tongue testify? The Almighty within, which is nothing but Infinite
Happiness, is not perceptible to, or experiential for, any one of the senses or
for that matter for all of them in unison, namely, for the mind. He will be perceptible, say the wise, when we become what we always
are.
What does this mean? To become what we
are? Right now what we are is associated
with our dress, a place, a name, a race, a lineage, a gotra, a profession, a
body, a mind, an intellect, an attribute, etc. All these go to make what we are
at present. Can we discard all these and reduce ourselves to whatever remains
without these attributes? Let us throw away everything
that we can call ‘mine’. After that whatever remains is what we always are.
That is the real ‘I’. That is the Atman. That is the God-principle. That is the
Absolute Reality.
The Gita talks about the Absolute Brahman
in more than one context. Here are some of the unforgettable descriptions from
the thirteenth chapter. (Shlokas 12, 13 - in some rescensions, 13, 14)
“jneyaM yat-tat-pravakshhyAmi yaj-jnAtva amRtam-ashnute /
anAdimat-param brahma na sat tan-nAsad-ucyate // ”
I will declare that which has to be ‘known’, ‘realising’ which one
attains immortality – the beginningless supreme brahman,
said to be neither being (existence) nor non-being (non-existence).
There are two kinds of ‘knowledge’. One is indirect, that is via a
medium. So the first ‘jneyam’ here – meaning, that which is to be known
– is through the medium of
“sarvatah pANi pAdam tat sarvatokshhi-shiro-mukhaM /
sarvatH
shrutimal-loke sarvam-AvRtya tioshhTati” //
With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes heads and mouths everywhere,
with ears everywhere, He exists and surrounds all this
world with Himself.
In short He is the universal Being in whose embrace we live.
But the Gita also says, in condescension to our human frailties,
“kleshodhikatars-teshhAm
avyaktAsaktachetasAM /
avyaktA hi
gatir-dukhaM dehavadbhir-avApyate //” XII – 5.
Greater is their difficulty, whose minds are set in the unmanifest.
For, the goal, the unmanifest, is very hard for the embodied to reach.
So now comes the
concept of God. Any
time you circumscribe the ultimate Brahman by means of a name or form or
both, you already have the saguNa brahman.
You are actually talking of a manifestation of Absolute Reality in that
name and form. Any such manifestation of Absolute God-principle may be called
God. He is the Almighty, the Incomparable Supreme of all religions. He is the saguna brahman of Vedanta. Just as the same actor dons
different roles and forms on different occasions in differtent capacities, so also the
Absolute manifests itself in different names and forms. That is why
“Yo Yo
yAM yAM tanum-bhaktaH shraddhay-Arcitum-icchati /
“tasya tasy-AcalAm shraddhAm tAm-eva vidadhAmy-ahaM
//”
Whatsoever form whosoever devotee desires to worship with faith – that
faith of his I make firm and undeviating.
It is therefore very common in scriptures to glorify different
divinities in different contexts. Each time a divinity is glorified they talk
about it as the highest Transcendental Supreme; not only that, the other
divinities without exception are said to be subservient to the divinity under
consideration. There is only one hypothesis by which one can clear oneself of
any misunderstanding of a hierarchy here.
And that is the hypothesis which Hinduism declares from the mountain
tops every time it has an opportunity. There is only one
Godhead whatsoever. There is no hierarchy in the
worldly sense of the word. The right understanding would be to consider
all divinities to be so many presentations of the same one Godhead about which
the entire gamut of scriptures talk in so many varied ways.
For several centuries there has existed an internal dissension (which
is happily disappearing now amidst the modern onslaught of anti-religious
attitudes) within Hinduism, particularly among the orthodox wing, about which
name or what God is ultimate - Siva or Vishnu. The vedic literature
does not distinguish between the worship of Siva or Vishnu. If we
carefully go through the rituals which are totally veda-based, the names Vishnu
and Siva would occur almost indiscriminately without any connotation of the
differences we attribute to the forms denoted by the two names today. Whether
it is Siva or Vishnu it refers only to the Supreme God -- this is the intent of
the vedas.
“sa brahma sa shivas-sa harish-chendras-sokshharaH paramaH
svarAT” This teaching of non-difference is important for a proper
understanding. So long as you think it
is Siva or Vishnu and not the Transcendental Supreme you have not got the
purport of the vedas. References to this identity among the literature composed
by devotees of Siva are innumerable; but this is not surprising since most of
the devotees of Siva also appreciate the non-dualist philosophy. But references
to the identity of all names of God are also available in Vaishnava literature;
here is a sample. Nammalvar, the Tamil Saint-poet, who is the foremost of the
twelve Alvars and whose contribution of 1352 poems to the four thousand prabandhams
of Vaishnava canon is considered as the Tamil Veda, writes:
Even if we scrutinise hard and discuss it further, the concepts of
BrahmA, Vishnu and Siva -- after all the verbal exchanges, are tantamount to only one God of which these
three are the names. (Tamil: tiruvAymozhi 1-1-5.).
Thus God is One, in spite of His many names
and forms. Many youngsters who have been influenced by the organization of
religions in the western world constantly express doubts about the rationale of
the multiplicity of gods and goddesses in the Hindu religious ethos. It is only when there is multiplicity, diversity and variety
there is life, there is challenge, there is enjoyment. The challenge may
be demanding but Hinduism has not only perfected it but also enjoys it as is evident from the
endless festivals and colourful celebrations with a convenient mixture of
devotion and extravagance, connected with the temples all over India. The many
names and forms of God suit the multifarious tastes of people and their different
levels of spiritual evolution. Multiplicity is for enjoyment and the one-ness
at the back, at the base, at the bottom, is for Peace. While oneness is
primary, its manifested plurality is secondary. The one-ness is in spite of the visible
external multiplicity. When a Hindu worships the Sun as the Sun-God,
what he is worshipping is not the physical star called the sun, but the
Absolute supreme in its manifestation as the Sun. A Purana dedicated to Siva
may extol Siva as the highest God, the transcendental Supreme and a Vishnu
Purana may say the same thing about Vishnu. There is no contradiction meant,
implied or slurred over. When Hinduism says that all
names and forms are those of God it means it.
In conclusion, since the permanent residence of God is in one's own
heart, every time a Hindu worships outwardly, he creates an idol or a picture
for the God of his choice, or the God that suits the occasion, invokes God in
that idol or picture from his heart and worships it in all the external forms
he likes. This method of Puja (worship) is recommended to give devotion a
concrete focus. Mark that it is God that is worshipped in the form of the idol
and not the idol as God. So long as you think it is an idol you have not got
it. It is the Infinite Absolute Brahman, the all-knowing all-permanent Soul of
our souls that is invoked into the form of the idol that is before us. “tameva bhAntam-anubhAti
sarvaM tasya bhAsA sarvam-idaM vibhAti” – Mundaka Upanishad II-2-10.
Here is a shloka from Narayaneeyam (91 – 8) which explains why we have
to worship saguNa
brahman ev en though we may be convinced
that the Ultimate is nirguNa:
bhItir-nAma
dvitIyAd-bhavati nanu manH kalpitaM ca dvitIyaM
tenaikyA-bhyAsa-shIlo hRdayam-iha yathAshakti buddhyA nirundhyAM /
mAyAviddhe tu
tasmin punarapi na tathA bhAti mAyAdhi-nAthaM
tat-tvAM bhaktyA
mahatyA satatam-anubhajan-nIsha bhItiM vijahyAM //
Tr. Fear arises from the consciousness of a second (thing) different
from oneself. This consciousness of (such) a second is indeed an imaginary
super-imposition of the mind. Therefore I am trying my best through
discrimination to discipline the mind in the consciousness of oneness. But when
this power of discrimination is overpowered by Thy mAyA, no amount of effort is of any
avail in getting established in Unitary Consciousness. Therefore Oh Lord, I am
trying to overcome the fear of samsAra by constant and devoted worship of Thee,
the Master of mAyA.
This is one of the key slokas in Narayaneeyam that trumpets the highest
advaita concept. The sentence ‘manaH-kalpitam dvitIyaM’ (The consciousness of a
second object is an imaginary superimposition of the mind) constitutes the
‘brahma-sUtra’ of advaita. Bhattatiri clearly makes the point that the unity of
the jIva with the supreme Spirit is the ultimate goal. But he hastens to add
that the same is not reachable by any one directly but only through the love
and service of Him and His Grace. It is
only by God’s Grace that non-dual consciousness is obtained. The devotee merges
in His Being by His grace, The ‘I’ disappears in Him
and ‘He’ is left. The becoming merges in the Being. It is not vice versa. This
is what one might call Realistic advaita, to be subtly contrasted with
‘kevala-advaita’.
Question: In the Gita Krishna takes the stand
that He is the sovereign Lord of the Universe, namely Ishvara. In what way is
this Ishvara different from Brahman the Absolute Reality? According to advaita, are we ultimately
Brahman or Ishvara?
This actually is not one question; it encompasses several lessons on
advaita. However, briefly we can summarize the interrelationships of brahman,
Ishvara and jIva as follows:
Brahman is nirguNa, attributeless; is not the predicate of anything,
cannot be pointed at, is neither this nor that – and thus it goes on.
So there is no way of ‘worshipping’ it. No, we cannot
even talk about that except by giving it a name, though not a form.
Therefore Upanishads give it a name ‘tat’, just for purposes of referring to it and to
say that ‘tat’
has no attributes.
But our intellect wants to do something with the Almighty Supreme. A
worship, a prayer,
a meditation, an offering or whatever. All these involve a duality of the
worshipper and the worshipped. The moment we think of Brahman as an object of
worship or prayer or meditation, immediately, the concept of brahman
is automatically jeopardized. Thus the intellect has created brahman
with attributes – a saguna brahman.
The very fact that our intellect has come in the picture implies that mAyA has
done its job. It is mAyA’s effect that there is an intellect and we
begin to think of objects through our intellect. Thus Brahman, with the upAdhi (impact,
coating, influence, superposition, covering, conditioning, ... - - choose your word) of mAyA, is called saguNa brahman. You can go on debating now whether
we (through our intellect) created the saguna brahman or whether
it is somewhere there, if not an object, as a subject. That question is neither
relevant, nor will it take us anywhere.
That saguNa
brahman is the Ishvara. Now Ishvara has all the superlative qualities
that any religion associates with Almighty God.
But mAyA
did not create Ishvara. It is Ishvara who has MayA in His control. It is like a snake
having poison but is never affected by its own poison. Ishvara is not affected
by His mAyA.
On the other hand, the spark of brahman which
is the core essence of beings, (‘jIva-bhUtAM’) is the creation of mAyA. So all jIvas are under the influence of mAyA.
To get out of this mAyA we need the Grace of that Ishvara, who, by
His magic wand, can take us out of the grip of mAyA.
Thus Brahman and Ishvara are the same, except for the way we look at
them. If we don’t look for brahman, but knowing we are brahman, if we ‘are’ brahman, then there is nothing
more to say or do. ‘aham brahma asmi’. Period.
On the other hand, if we want to look ‘at’ brahman
in some way or other, already we have made brahman an object and thus it is
already only the saguna-brahman
that we are talking about. So we can ‘look at’ it, meditate on it, aspire to ‘reach’ it and all that sort of thing.
Jiva on the other hand, so long as it is in the grip of mAyA, is
separate from brahman and also separate from other
jIvas. Once it transcends mAyA, it is brahman. This is
the jIva-brahma
aikyam that advaita keeps trumpeting to us. When jIva identifies
itself with brahman there is no need to bring in an Ishvara now; because the
very identification of jIva with brahman already includes the identification of
brahman and Ishvara – because the identification itself is something that transcends mAyA. So the upAdhi of mAyA is gone from both jIva and
Ishvara.
Go to Chapter 8
Copyright © V. Krishnamurthy Jan.27, 2004