CHAPTER III GURU BHAKTI

His Holiness was ever revelling in a plane far away from that of the ordinary man so much so that, even when He was engaged in a simple matter-of-fact conversation with any visitor, He found it possible to raise the tone of it to that of a lesson in life and that He was able to convert a most ordinary incident into an occasion to learn something very valuable and useful. Before I give instances of the same, I think it will be proper to give some idea of the devotion that He had towards the great Sri Sankara Bhagavatpadacharya and His own predecessor. He did not look upon them as mere saintly personages but as God Himself in their form. The oft-repeated sloka which equated the Guru with Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara and even with the Absolute Brahman did not merely extol the Guru as equal to them but was, in His view, a statement of the fact of their identity. He would never allow us to forget this.

A gentleman high-placed in life once expressed to His Holiness his delight at seeing Sringeri.

G. What a glorious sight! Such a nice spot nestling in the heart of woods and hills! How pure and sparkling are the waters of the River Tunga! In these days of railways and motor cars, we somehow manage to come here to enjoy the beauty of this lovely spot. In the days of Sri Sankaracharya, there were no such facilities. He walked throughout the country only on foot. How did He find out that such a beautiful spot was just here? When I think of it, I am lost in wonder and admiration of Him.

H. H. Does the Creator of the world need any process of searching for finding out the objects of His own creation? Does He not know as a matter of course where everything is, for He Himself placed it there? There is nothing at all, therefore, to be wondered at in the great Acharya choosing this place as an ideal one, unless you forget that He was the Lord Himself incarnate and unless you consider Him just such a human being as we ourselves are. It is only in the latter view that any wonder or admiration can arise at any of His actions.

In a large gathering of Pandits assembled on the occasion of a Sri Sankara Jayanti celebration, His Holiness asked one of them to expound a particular topic in the Brahma Sutras. The Pandit did it admirably but in the course of his exposition he added an argument of his own to substantiate the proposition sought to be established in that context.

H. H. Is that argument found in the Bhashya of our Acharya ?

P. No.

H. H. Then why do you advance it ?

P. It is only an additional argument which will support and strengthen the case.

H. H. Evidently you think that our Acharya has failed to state it.

P. He might have included this also.

H. H. Is it not really, “ He ought to have included this ” ?

P. I do not say so.

H. H. Certainly not in so many words; but certainly you think that the Bhashya will have looked better and been more complete if this argument had been included.

P. I thought so.

H. H. That is, by advancing this argument you sought to improve the Bhashya ?

P. No, No. It would have been impertinent on my part if I had sought to do any thing of that sort.

H. H. All the same, the idea was at the back of your mind quite unconsciously; otherwise you would not have advanced a fresh argument.

P. I am sorry I did so if it gives rise to such an impression.

H. H. Sorry or not, you have put forward that argument. We shall see how far it is tenable.

His Holiness in a few minutes analysed that argument and demonstrated that it was not only irrelevant and fallacious but was itself destructive of the proposition to be laid down in the context. The Pandit realised his mistake keenly.

P. I am very sorry that I advanced that argument. I see now that it is quite untenable.

H. H. Please do not think that my demonstration was intended to extract from you an expression of regret or to show off my own dialectical skill. My only object was to eradicate from your mind the slightest suspicion that the All-knowing incarnate as our Acharya could have erred in any particular or omitted to mention any relevant matter. When we forget who He really was, there is naturally a temptation to “improve” on Him, for in our view He was just a learned Pandit like ourselves. You must give up that idea altogether.

An earnest disciple approached His Holiness for the solution of a difficulty in his daily Japa.

D. I have been initiated into some Mantras and they relate to different deities. There is a different Dhyana sloka for each. The form of the Deity described in the sloka is sometimes not only not attractive but is incapable of being conceived of; even if with some difficulty I am able to form a mental picture, the picture seems to be grotesque, for example, a form with five heads and ten hands, and it is not possible at all to retain that picture for more than a second. Further, after performing a particular Japa, when I pass on to the next Japa, I have to create a mental picture quite different from the former. I find it a great strain to do so. The result is that even the Japa seems to be a strain, however earnest I may be in doing it.

H. H. Are you performing the Japas with any definite purpose of invoking the particular Deity, with a view to get any special result ? If so, you must undergo the strain and try your best to form a mental picture of the Deity in accordance with the description in the Dhyana sloka.

D. I have no particular object in view.

H. H. That is, you have no other object in view than the purification of your mind and the grace of God.

D. Just so.

H. H. In that case, you need not strain yourself to make mental pictures of the Deities appropriate to each Mantra.

D. Am I to understand that the Dhyana slokas need not be repeated ?

H. H. Certainly not; they must be repeated.

D. What is the purpose in repeating a Dhyana sloka without a mental picture of the Deity depicted therein ?

H. H. I did not say that no mental picture was necessary.

‘ D. If then a mental picture is necessary and if that picture need not correspond to the Dhyana sloka, will there not be a variation, if not a contradiction, between the two ?

H. H. Not so, if the mental picture comprehends the particular Deity also.

D. If your Holiness means that the all-comprehensive Visvarupa form of God may be had for the mental picture, the difficulty in creating it will be far greater and further such a cumbrous form may be imposing and even terrible, as Arjuna found it, but cannot in any way be attractive enough to hold the attention of the devotee for any appreciable time.

H. H. You are quite right when you say that the Visvarupa form is difficult to conceive of and may not be attractive to all. I do not, however, mean any such mental picture.

D. Then what is the mental picture which your Holiness recommends ?

H. H. You said that a mental picture which could retain our attention for some time must be easy to create and be at the same time attractive.

D. Yes.

H. H. It will be better still if the picture has not to be created anew but is already in existence.

D. Certainly.

H. H. It will be far better if your mind has not to give it an attractive appearance but it is attractive in itself.

D. Quite so.

H. H. It may be that people who lived long ago had the difficulty that you speak of but certainly we have no such difficulty.

D. How ?

H. H. You have seen His Holiness our revered Predecessor. Have you not ?

D. Yes, I have.

H. H. I am sure that, even if you had seen Him but once, He will have made a deep impression on you so that you can easily recall His figure before your mind’s eye.

D. Certainly.

H. H. You will agree also that He had a very attractive personality and it is a genuine pleasure to have His figure before our mental vision.

D. It is so.

H.H. You have here then the two requisites that you wanted, easiness of conception and attractiveness. Instead of taxing your imagination to create for you a picture and to make it attractive enough, you have here a ready-made figure of a personality whom you have met in person and who was eminently attractive in all the aspects in which one can attract another.

D. But if I have His Holiness’ figure before my mind’s eye when I perform the Japa of Siva or Vishnu, will it not be really a contradiction ?

H. H. Why should it be? You know that it has been laid down : “ Gurur Brahma Gurur Vishnur, Gurur Devo Mahesvarah; Gurus Sakshath Param Brahma Tasmai Sri Gureve Namaha:” Our very conception of a Guru is that he is verily the Absolute Brahman Itself and necessarily includes all Its limitations and manifestations. There is therefore no contradiction in having the form of the Guru before you when you are reciting the Dhyana sloka or repeating the Mantra of any particular Deity, for even that Deity is included and inherent in the Guru.

D. Am I to understand that the form of the Guru may be kept in mind whatever may be the Mantra taken up?

H. H. Why not ? What is the necessity for changing the form when the Deity of the next Mantra also is included and inherent in that form ? When we are told by the Sastras that every Deity is inherent in the cow and in the Brahmana, does it not follow that all the Deities are inherent in our Guru who, even ordinarily speaking, was certainly the best of Brahmanas, was in the highest Asrama, occupied the highest spiritual seat and had reached the highest stage of Atmic realisation Can He not represent any Deity that you want?

Brahmasri Srikanta Sastri who had served the Mutt almost from his boyhood and had the good fortune to be intimately close with His Holiness Sri Sachchidananda Siva Abhinava Narasimha Bharati Swamigal, the illustrious predecessor mentioned above, had written a life-sketch of that great saint in Kannada. At the instance of His Holiness, a Tamil edition of the book was being read out to Him and one evening, in a passage that was read out, it was mentioned that the previous Acharya had made good progress in Yoga up to a certain limit and did not seem to have advanced further up in that line.

When this passage was read out, His Holiness at once said :

“Quite so. He did not seem to have advanced. To the writer, He did not seem to have advanced.” His Holiness did not want to dispute the accuracy of the writer’s statement and at the same time showed that He did not take the statement as final and did not want the listeners to get the impression that the previous Acharya did not advance further. He drew by this simple remark the attention of all to the incomplete knowledge of the writer as He would not concede the possibility of any imperfection in the great Acharya’s Yogic attainments.

His Holiness was one evening casually talking about the Avataras and, in referring to Sri Krishna, He said;

“Sri Rama was content with practising Dharma and showed Himself more as a student than as a teacher. Sri Krishna, however, was a teacher as well. He taught not only the Dharma of Activity, Pravritti Dharma, but the Dharma of Renunciation, Nivritti Dharma also and, in expounding the latter, he emphasized the attitude of mental equipoise which did not allow the equilibrium to be disturbed by any event. He described the Seer as such a Sama-buddhi, an even-minded person. He described Himself as such a Sama-buddhi.

“ I am the same in all beings. There is none who is hateful to me or dear. ”

“ But being a kshatriya and a Grihasta and in the midst of the world with its attractions and repulsions, He could not fully exemplify in Himself the Ideal. In fact, even in the Gita He had not only to say repeatedly that the man of devotion was ‘dear’ to him but He told Arjuna that He liked him and that he was ‘dear’ to Himself.

“ Lest an impression be created that such an Ideal was not capable of being attained in actual practice, the great Lord decided upon incarnating as a Brahmana and taking up the Asrama of a Sannyasi so that He might exemplify in Himself better the Ideal taught in the Gita and He accordingly came to this world as Sri Sankaracharya. But even then He found the necessity for refuting many a heretic creed and for vanquishing its votaries by His arguments and by the help of King Sudhanva. He necessarily earned thereby a large number of devotees and also a large number of enemies. He could not even then demonstrate fully the possibility of the highest Ideal.

“ It is with a view to show to the world that the highest Ideal was actually realisable in practice He again took human form as our Acharya. He was verily Peace and Bliss incarnate. He attracted everybody, man and beast, and endeared Himself to all. He knew no foe nor had He any special friend, for He was equally the friend of all, so much so that anybody who happened to see Him ever afterwards thought that he himself was a special object of His affection. When all and sundry entertained such a thought, it could only be because He had realised His oneness with all beings. It would be more accurate to state that He was ever one with all and demonstrated to the world that oneness by His overflowing love and grace. In this aspect it may be stated that His advent in our midst was really more useful and instructive and inspiring to us than previous Avataras.”