CHAPTER VI METHOD OF TEACHING.

His method of teaching was unique. Many have been the instances of ardent disciples going to Him for having their doubts cleared and returning from Him with their doubts completely solved, witho t the need to even formulate those doubts. In His presence, somehow or other, each individual’s doubts and intended questions got automatically answered. At times a single word from Him was able to dispel many a doubt that had troubled the disciple for a long time. If the disciple felt on the other hand any difficulty in construing any passage in a particular book, His Holiness would ask him to read it aloud, and, before the passage had been read out, the disciple would himself realise that its meaning was now clear to him. At other times His Holiness would read the passage aloud Himself and ask the disciple whether he now understood it. The disciple would have to admit that he did. His Holiness would sometimes add some significant gesture or read the passage with a significant emphasis and these would be ordinarily sufficient to convey the meaning to the disciple without any need for any verbal explanation.

He did not care for finishing a book in any particular period of time. If he took up any book for exposition, it might take years to complete it, for He set more value on intensive study than on superficial learning extending over a wide field. He realised that the ancient teachers had condensed the teachings of all the Vedas put together in a few pregnant sentences or a few pithy stanzas and very often even in a single stanza or half of it. If one could grasp, understand and realise, in its fullest significance, the truths embodied in any such passage, that would be quite enough to help him to salvation. It is quite unnecessary to read books, all and sundry.

He used to say “If you have any doubts about the truth, or if you want to support it by your intellectual skill or learned lore, by all means study the several books. But if you have no doubt about the truth and only want to realise it in actual experience, all that trouble is unnecessary. If a cook wants to serve a tasty dish to another, he has to know what thing and how much of each thing go into its composition and how they have to be prepared and mixed and in what proportion and so on. The person who is only asked to relish it need not have that knowledge. So leave the dialectics of our philosophy to the learned among us for they have to prepare the dish for others. You may confine yourself to the practical enjoyment of the peace and joy of the Self. It is now ordinarily thought that for a modern Advaiti it is indispensible that he must study the commentaries of our great master Sri Sankaracharya. He was certainly a Seer. Did he become one after studying his own commentaries? Even if we are prepared to say that he became one only after writing them and cogitating over the thoughts contained therein, what about his predecessors Govinda-pada, Gouda-pada, Suka and Vyasa himself? Did they study the commentaries of Sankara to become Seers? This clearly shows that a study of these commentaries is not indispensible for a genuine aspirant for self-realisation. Further we are seeing every day very many persons who are very proficient in their exposition of these commentaries and other allied literature. Can we say with any truth that they are in any way nearer to self-realisation than others? Catch hold of a single truth enunciated by the Vedas and stressed by our ancients and try hard to make it your own. God will certainly reward your honest efforts and guide you aright.”

His Holiness did not like abstract discussions even in the field of Dharma. He usually declined to answer any hypothetical question raising the propriety of a particular course of conduct. If however any disciple earnestly approached Him for guidance in any particular and His Holiness felt satisfied that the disciple would act according to His directions, then and then only would He give him His advice; and that advice would be only for that disciple. If another person thinking that he had similar qualification or that his circumstances were similar asked His Holiness whether he also might not act by the same advice, he would very often receive a negative answer and would receive a different kind of advice with a note of warning that the disciples ought not to compare notes. It would eventually be found that the difference in the advices given was quite justified. His Holiness thus believed only in individual guidance and not in a directive of mass guidance.

He did not belittle the value of or discourage religious propaganda but believed in the possibility of achieving individual and national welfare only by concentrated and well-directed individual effort in conformity with the Sastras and had no faith in the so-called mass movements which ignored either the individual or the Sastras. A single example is far more valuable than a hundred precepts.

Consequently He did not like the idea of the public preaching of religion for He felt that a public lecture really helped nobody, neither the speaker nor the listener. He felt that it was futile to talk and discuss about the nature of Brahman when people were not able to give up even falsehood or did not care to perform even their daily religious duties properly. He once asked a Pandit “I suppose you are expounding the Bhashyas as usual” The Pandit replied “Yes, with Your Holiness’ blessing.” He was confounded by the next immediate question of His Holiness, namely “I suppose you are performing regularly your daily Oupasana (oblations in the sacrificial fire)?” The Pandit said “I am sorry I am not able to do it,” and foolishly trying to excuse himself added, “As I am living in a big town, it is not possible for me to get proper cow-dung (for preparing cakes to preserve the fire in).” His Holiness with some severity said “The cows in your town evidently give only milk for your coffee and no cow-dung for your Oupasana !.”

Though His Holiness was an adept in the intricacies of Hindu logic and philosophy and was a very good dialectician Himself, He did not like that anybody should engage himself in any wordy fight merely for the sake of the pleasure of it. Once when a gentleman had taken the trouble to write out a detailed answer to the objections raised by the head of a Madhva Mutt to the doctrine of Advaita, His Holiness asked him “Has our Acharya anywhere laid down that such as these are any means to a realisation of the goal of life ? Why have you wasted your time and energy in this endeavour ? It is really a work of hatred and bound to provoke more hatred. While our Acharya has asked us to give up Raga (passion) and Dvesha (hatred) completely, you are trying to give them a place even in the field of religion. I do not wish to be troubled with such works.”

His Holiness would say “ Why should people quarrel about the nature of the Absolute Being ? If we are content to believe that the Being has a form, we are at present far far away even from His feet; and the path to attain those feet is yet to be trodden by us all. When we are at the end of that path and if, by the grace of that Being, we are enabled to have a vision of His glorious face, it will be time enough then to look Him in the face and ascertain whether He is wearing on His forehead holy ashes or the trident mark or anything at all and whether He can be called Siva, Narayana, or by any other name. Why should we wrangle over it now ? What does it matter to us in the stage in which we are at present situated whether the highest truth is absolute non-dualism, qualified non-dualism or dualism ? The path of Dharma is broad enough for all of us to travel along; each according to the Dharma prescribed for him; when we have advanced far enough in this long and arduous road and are on the threshold of the final goal, it will be time enough to consider the true nature of the Absolute Being.”

His advice was therefore usually confined to such simple admonitions as Remember God, Perform your daily ablutions, Do not hanker after riches, Be content, Preserve an attitude of detachment and so on.

“It may seem strange to you when I ask you to remember God. You occupy high positions in life and are learned in our sacred lore. Is it not improper on my part to ask you to remember God? It will certainly be improper if I ask you to do so when you are feeling the presence of God. Does not the existence of so many courts in your town, of so many documents to evidence transactions, of so many offices to register those documents, and in fact every other dealing of yours, proclaim not only that you do not remember God but have completely forgotten His existence ? This may seem a very elementary teaching but people require it the most now.”

“If you honestly believe in the Law of Karma and honestly believe that pain and pleasure are both the results of antecedent Karma, and if you do actually get one of them, namely, pain, without the least attempt or intention on your part to get it, why do you long for and work for the other, pleasure, alone? Will it not come of its own accord if you have merited it by your past karma and will it ever come to you in spite of your most earnest efforts now, if you have not merited it already? Why do you waste your time and energy in this futile endeavour? Spend them in accumulating the store of virtue to enable you to lead a higher and better life in other regions or in future births or, better still, spend them in trying to eliminate birth altogether, for if you happen to take birth again I feel sure that you will not find then even the few facilities which you now have for spiritual uplift.”

I may mention in this context that His Holiness was averse to any broadcasting of His spiritual teachings as if they were the common property of all who chanced to come across them. It is difficult therefore to give an abstract of His teachings except what can be culled from His casual conversations or from His very rare public utterances.

In the field of genuine devotional poetry, His compositions are innumerable but only a very few have found publication through the exertions of some ardent disciples. It is an open secret that His predecessor began a commentary on Sri Sankaracharya’s famous work “ Viveka Chudamani “ and that His Holiness continued it and yet the manuscript was not handed over by Him to anybody. His own feeling was that it was a book for the guidance of qualified, earnest aspirants and not to be broadcast to all and sundry.

Though it is thus practically impossible to get at His highest teachings except through the gateway of earnest discipleship, a glimpse of the same can be had even from a casual conversation with Him. To converse with Him or to listen to a conversation between Him and another was itself a great pleasure and a valuable lesson. His method of enunciating almost playfully the highest truths of our religion from the simplest observed facts or from simple axiomatic first principles was not only inimitable but a genuine delight to listen to. For some samples of His method, the reader is referred to the books “Dialogues with the Guru,” “The Call of the Jagadguru (Sringeri),” etc. The following is an illustrative sample.

“If a man is suffering from acute poverty, is it of the slightest use to him to know that another man who is quite unconnected with him is rolling in wealth? On the other hand, such man, the latter does derive some pleasure from saying that so-and-so is related to him. If the former is on the other hand deeply attached to the latter, the latter’s pleasure will necessarily be more acute. From these observed phenomena we may draw a lesson that if a miserable man wants consolation he must get into the habit of looking upon all happy people as related to himself as his own. Further as a God who is seated somewhere at an unapproachable distance has no intimate relationship with us but is enjoying unlimited bliss can be of no practical use to us, it is certainly wiser to conceive of Him as being ever with us wherever we may be, ever loving us and ever prepared to help us. It is as such an affectionate Friend that the Sastras define God.

“ The relationship between God and ourselves may be conceived of in various ways. Suppose a poor boy wants to enter into relationship with a rich land-lord of his village. The first step is to enter into the service of that land-lord, honestly and efficiently carry out the duties entrusted to him and generally earn the good graces of the master. If he thus behaves and gives satisfaction to the master, the latter will like him and provide for all his comforts; he will give him any special sweetmeats prepared for himself, will provide him with proper clothing according to his needs, will send his own doctor to treat the boy if he happens to be unwell and will generally look to all his needs and requirements. If however he feels that the boy is not really attached to him but is serving him only for the salary that is paid him, he will not extend his help in any way but will be strict in exacting work from him.

“If it happens that the rich man has no children of his own and thinks of adopting a boy, his first thought will turn towards the boy who has been so honestly and disinterestedly serving him all these years and giving him great satisfaction and has successfully endeared himself to him and he may decide upon adopting this boy himself. If he does so, the boy becomes affiliated to the family; he is no longer a servant but has become a son. Any work that he may do thereafter is no longer the “master’s work” but is his own. It will not be necessary for him to take orders from the master for everything that he may have to do; he will take the initiative himself and act in the interests of the family which now includes himself. If the land-lord notes that the young man is interestedly and efficiently conducting the family concerns, he will gradually relieve himself of their control and allow the young man himself a free hand in the management. It may happen also that even if the land-lord wants to carry out some work he will seek the advice and help of his son. If anybody else chooses to ask him about any family matter, he will be directed to the son for an answer. In course of time it may be rumoured about that the big man is now “obedient” to the son. Even then the title deeds for the properties and the entries in the Government registers will continue to be in the name of the land-lord himself.

“A stage may come when his love for the young man and the young man’s love for him are so intense that each of them forgets that the other has any interest of his own. When such a stage is reached, the big man will be glad to divest himself even of the formal title and bestow it upon the son himself, preferring to remain unconcerned with any family affair and to enjoy the peace of rest. At that stage the young man himself becomes the land-lord.

“Thus we may trace three stages, first when the boy is a stranger but is prepared to work as an obedient servant, second when by adoption he becomes intimately related to the land-lord and third when he himself becomes the land-lord. The Sastras want us to maintain relationship to God in similar stages. We must first look upon Him as our master, abide by His commands and sincerely serve Him without any expectation of reward; this is known as the path of Karma or Action. If we get into intimate contact with Him, earn His divine love and become, as it were, a limb of His, we are on the Path of Bhakti, or Devotion. If we lose all sense of distinction and realise our oneness with Him, we have traversed the Path of Jnana or Knowledge.”

—