CHAPTER XV SOME TEACHINGS

H. H: Rich people think that, by having the wealth to get easily the means of worldly happiness, they can be happy and behave accordingly. If they are told that higher kinds of happiness can be obtained in other regions of experience or in future births and that they must spend out of the wealth in their hands now to ensure such higher. happiness, they naturally get sceptic about future states as they are not capable of direct perception now and begin to doubt the truth of the Sastras which talk of them. They are reluctant to part with what they now actually have, for, if the Sastras prove to be untrue, they will have missed happiness both here and hereafter. They decide therefore that it is safer to cling to what they have now and enjoy as much as is possible with it and it is wiser also to do so. They have therefore no mind to spend anything for Dharmic purposes. There is some logic in this attitude. Some pious people who are deeply attached to their wealth may well advance another argument also. When God has chosen to give us wealth so that we may enjoy, it will be sheer ingratitude to God to say that we shall not enjoy; we will be virtually disobeying Him if we decline to enjoy. Further, when God has chosen to give birth to a beggar or decreed that a person shall be a beggar, will not our helping him be a flagrant violation of His wishes? It is therefore a sacrilege to attempt to alleviate the poverty or sufferings of others.

The poor have no such spurious logic to call in aid to justify their neglect of Dharma. Some are born poor and some have become poor. They have no hopes at all of commanding any worldly happiness in this life. Do they at least realise that their penury is the result of past sins and that they must not sin any more? If they look forward to any happiness in the future, as it is impossible to get it in this life, their hopes must be centered only in the life hereafter. Do they realise this and try their best to practise Dharma and pray to God to be blessed with such happiness in the future? Even they are wanting in faith to engage themselves in the prescribed activities to secure it. It may be that they have to wander about to eke out a livelihood but they cannot certainly plead that they have no time for the Sandhya worship and such other simple things. Is it really a fact that it is their wandering that provides them with the means of livelihood? They forget that even at the time of their birth their life-period, the joys and sorrows that have to be experienced within that period have all been fixed up. They forget what is good for them. The Gayatri is capable of yielding all that is good, here and hereafter. Yet if they are asked to repeat it, their minds refuse to listen. Nothing of what we amass in this world can accompany us when we leave it. It is only Dharma and Adharma that will come with us. It is not wise to ignore this.

* * * *

H. H: The true nature of the self can be realised clearly in this world or in Brahmaloka. In the intervening states like Gandharva loka, Pitriloka or Devaloka, the realisation will not be so clear. So says the Upanishad. To reach Brahmaloka, the highest kinds of activity and devotion have to be engaged in. A consideration of the trouble involved therein will make us give up the attempt and even the desire to go there. Even if by strenuous effort as prescribed in the Sastras we manage to go there, we must there enquire into the nature of the self and, even if we get the realisation there early enough, we must await the end of the present Kalpa, the life period of the present Brahma, before we can get absolute freedom from embodiment for it is promised only when that Brahma gets it. To the person however who engages himself in that enquiry even here and realises his self, there is no need for him to go anywhere else and he attains freedom here itself. The wise man therefore will even here and even now try his best to attain the knowledge leading to liberation.

Disciple: Are not the Devaloka and other lokas the results of far greater Punya than what has given us this loka? How does it happen that in these lokas it is difficult to get knowledge?

H. H: That they are the results of greater Punya is itself the reason. They are not regions of spiritual activity. It is not possible to do any Karma there as they are mainly regions of enjoyment. The mind will be attracted by and be engrossed in the innumerable objects of enjoyments available there and will not turn to anything else.

Further, Detachment is a necessary condition and pre-requisite for knowledge and it is not possible to get it in those regions. In those regions there is no birth, growth, change, decay and death as we have here. From the moment of their appearance there to the moment of leaving them, the persons there remain of the same age competent to enjoy pleasures and they know also no disease, hunger, thirst or other painful experiences as we have. Unless such experiences are had, there is no room for desiring to be free from them or for any cultivation of the sense of detachment to objects of enjoyment. In the absence of such experiences of pain, they will naturally be immersed in sensuous pleasures and will feel no need for any enquiry or quest for any higher happiness which can be had from self-realisation.

Again for the same reasons, it will be difficult to find self-realised souls there who can teach about the Self. If they are realised souls even while here, they will not go at all to such worlds; nor is it possible to get there such realisation.

Disciple: Does this mean that, even if the residents of the Devaloka and other higher regions, thanks to their extraordinary virtues, long to attain self-realisation, they cannot get any Guru at all there?

H. H: If they have the capacity to go to Brahmaloka, they may go there and have Brahma Himself as their Guru or may find a Guru among those who are there and have realised but have to wait for the end of the Kalpa to get absolute freedom from embodiment and are for the present carrying out some cosmic functions. If neither alternative is available, the aspirant must come down to this world itself. In any case, there is no chance in the other worlds.

Further, for the attaining of self-realisation, it is necessary to have a firm conception that the universe of duality is not real but is only an illusory seeming. An illusory thing cannot be said to have no existence, for it is seen; nor can it be said to have existence for it disappears the moment right knowledge is had. Is it possible for a thing to be conceived of as different from the existent and at the same time different from the non-existent also? When such a doubt arises in our minds, we have here the illusory appearances of a snake in a rope, a thief in a pillar, water in a mirage, silver in nacre and other such which seemingly exist but do not really exist. From such examples we can easily understand the statement that the universe also though it seems to be real is not really real but is only an illusory appearance. Such illusions are not possible where there is absolute darkness or where there is bright light. They require a semi-darkness to make their appearance. We have here day and night, light and shade, and other factors conducing to their appearance. In the higher lokas however, there is neither darkness nor shade for they are ever bright. How can there be any semi-darkness there? There is thus no possibility of anyone mistaking one thing for another. Therefore, even if a teacher can be found to teach Vedanta in those regions, he has no illustration to offer to impress his teachings on the mind of the disciple.

If in this world a student asks “How is it possible to say that this insistent tangible universe is illusory?” the teacher may easily point out to him his own experience and say “When you are sleeping, do you not see very many extensive cities, grand palaces and several people in your dreams? Are they real? When you yourself have got the potency to create all these, is it inconceivable that the Omni-potent God creates this vast universe? Just as you know as a matter of fact that your dream creation, however real and substantial they may seem to be at the time, is all illusory, you can easily understand that even this waking world is really illusory from the stand point of absolute truth”. Unfortunately for those in the higher regions, they never sleep and do not even wink. They can have therefore no dreams at all. It is not possible to teach them the truth’ with reference to the example of a dream.

Again, for the purpose of teaching us that there can be a happiness which does not depend upon external objects and which transcends also the need for any senses to serve as the channels of perception, it is possible here to point to the experience of deep sleep but it is not possible to do so in the higher worlds for those there never sleep.

If a teacher has to teach about the Self which is beyond the reach of the mind and the senses, he can succeed only if he has a familiar illustration to drive home the teaching and that illustration must be within the experience and grasp of the student. As none of these illustrations which are necessary for a proper understanding of the Advaitic truth is present in the higher lokas, how is it possible to teach it there? From this aspect also, we can easily see that it is not possible to get realisation there. Somehow thanks to the Punya accumulated in the course of several births, we have been blessed with birth in this world so eminently fitted for the acquisition of knowledge, particularly in this land of Bharata eminently suited for spiritual effort and more particularly as the lineal descendants of the glorious saints of old. We ought not to waste all these invaluable advantages but must make the best use of them, follow the dictates of the Sastras step by step and try our best as quickly as possible to realise even in this life the highest good. This is our imperative duty.

* * * *

In the course of conversation a devotee said “It is said of Sri Ramanujacharya that he stood on the top of a temple tower and gave out the sacred Ashtakshara Mantra to one and all there. But some Vaishnavas discredit this story.”

H. H: Why do they discredit it?

Devotee: Though there may be some difference in actual practice. Sri Ramanuja has not given the go-bye to the rules of Varnas and Asramas. He has on the other hand emphasised the need for conforming to them. So they say he would not have done any such thing

H. H: How does this action violate the rules of Varnas and Asramas?

Devotee: Will it not be a violation of Dharma to broadcast a Mantra obtained by initiation from a Guru to sundry people who were not competent to receive it?

H. H: What is wrong if we take it that what he gave out was not a Mantra and that he did not give them any initiation?

Devotee: Is not Ashtakshara a Mantra and did he not give it out to them?

H. H: Neither.

Devotee: How is that?

H. H: The definition of a Mantra is not a mere collection of syllables. It is a Mantra only when it is obtained by a competent disciple through the channel of initiation imparted by a Guru with his blessings. The mere repetition of the syllables is mere noise and never a Mantra. Similarly a disciple must in all humility approach a Guru, earn his grace and get the Mantra as a Mantra; then only will it be an initiation. Sri Ramanuja knew this principle quite well. It is just possible that, even in his days as now, there were some troublesome persons who resented his “secretiveness” and unduly pressed him to give to them also the Ashtakshara that he was holding so sacred. He would have told them that it was not a matter to be so easily communicated and that it would not be a Mantra if so given out and that therefore there could be no benefit at all to them. Without heading this, they would have insisted upon his pronouncing it. We may take it that thereupon he got up the temple tower and pronounced the syllables and demonstrated to them “I have now pronounced the syllables. But as you did not get them in the prescribed manner, you will derive no benefit from hearing them. You only gave me this trouble unnecessarily without any corresponding benefit to you”. If we understand the incident in this way, it does not violate any Dharma.

* * *

Devotee: In interpreting the Upanishad passages which characterise Brahman as Nirguna (quality-less), Sri Ramanuja says that the word does not mean absolutely quality-less but only “devoid of bad qualities” and that Brahman is endowed with all auspicious qualities. Is that proper?

H. H: The distinction of bad and good is only for us and not in Brahman. Our conclusion is that it is devoid of any quality. If it were meant to exclude only bad qualities, it would have been quite sufficient to say “fautlless” and quite unnecessary to say “quality-less”

Devotee: As a smell may be a bad smell or a good smell, so can quality be either good or bad. Why not take it as bad quality in this context?

H. H: On the other hand, as quality can be either good or bad, the word ‘quality’ used without any restrictive adjective would logically include both.

Devotee: I only meant to say that, as bad quality is also included in the general word “quality”, there could be nothing wrong in interpreting the word as denoting bad quality.

H. H: Of course there is nothing wrong in doing so. The wrong consists in restricting the word to bad quality. When the general word is used, what is the justification for limiting its significance to bad quality?

Devotee: Though the word “stench” means only a strong smell, do we not limit it to bad smells?

H. H: Quite right. Have you ever heard of the word Guna (quality) by itself being used anywhere as denoting bad quality. When sage Valmiki asks of Narada गुणवान् कश्च वीर्यवान् (Who is endowed with qualities as well as with prowess?), does he include bad qualities? Even in ordinary use, quality invariably means good quality.

Devotee: Though not in ordinary use, the word ‘quality’ may certainly signify bad quality.

H. H; Quite so, but it signifies good quality also. Further, it is not proper to ignore usage. Suppose when we are sitting here a gentleman enters this room and I introduce him to you as a very “uneducated” man, you will be taken aback by such an introduction Suppose I then explain to you that by “uneducated” I meant ‘not educated in bad ways’ and that I really meant that he had in abundance all the good kinds of education, will you accept this explanation? You may decide for yourself.

* * *

Devotee: Godhead is ascribed to Sriman Narayana reclining in the ocean of milk or seated in His golden throne in Vaikuntha. Do the Advaitis agree to this?

H. H: Why should they not? When they say that God is pervading everything in the universe, how can they deny Godhead to those resplendent forms?

Devotee: Then what is the difference between the Vaishnavas and ourselves?

H. H: They say that such forms are the Highest Reality. We say that those forms are the highest manifestations of the Absolute Reality which is really formless.

Devotee: What is the objection to accepting those forms themselves as the Reality. The Sun though seen in the sky pervades the world by his heat and light. Similarly though God may be seated in Vaikuntha He may well pervade the universe by His splendour and power. Can we not understand it in this way?

H. H: We may. But it must be noted that though heat and light pervade the world the sun by itself does not do so. Similarly, we will have to attribute pervasiveness to God’s splendour and power and not to God Himself. When the Veda is positive in ascribing all-pervasiveness to God and in calling Him Brahman(Great), is it proper to transfer this all-pervasiveness to His power and limit His existence to Vaikuntha, Kailasa or other region however resplendent it may be?

Devotee: Is it wrong then to attribute forms to God?

H. H: Certainly not. Such forms are necessary for the spiritual aspirant to enable him to worship and contemplate. Further, when as the result of his worshipping in the prescribed way he goes to other worlds for enjoying special happiness, his object of worship must be there to bless him. In any case, forms are necessary.

Devotee: An aspirant who is able to go to Vaikuntha or Kailasa will have transcended all love and hate. As he will be free from all desire for sensuous enjoyment, he will not be distracted by the objects there however enchanting they may be. He will have the ineffable joy of looking at the divine form there and will be content to live on thus for ever. Can we not take that state itself as the state of liberation. Why do the Advaitis postulate a still higher state of Kaivalyam “Aloneness” as the final goal?

H. H: You are quite correct in saying that the experience in Vaikuntha and other similar regions may be treated as the state of liberation itself but the difficulty arises in granting to such a state eternality. It is neither practicable nor proper to say that one can be for ever enjoying the divine presence in those regions.

Devotee: Why not?

H. H: Worship and contemplation are as much activities as other activities though they are essentially mental. When the stay in Vaikuntha or other region is thus the result of the merit acquired by the performance of an activity though it be of the highest kind, it must have an end when the merit is exhausted by enjoyment. That is, a return to this world after the period of enjoyment is inevitable. So a stay there for ever is not practicable.

Devotee: How is such a stay improper?

H. H: If we grant that the devotee is looking at and enjoying the Divine Presence in such regions, we necessarily attribute to him the characteristic of being an Enjoyer; as a necessary corollary, we are at the same time attributing to that Divine Presence the characteristic of “being enjoyed”. In all cases of enjoyment, the enjoying subject is conscious and is the self; the enjoyed object is ever the unconscious and is the non-self. If we say therefore that the devotee is enjoying the Divine Presence, he really makes the latter an enjoyed and non-conscious non-self. This is a great sacrilege which the Advaitins cannot tolerate. They postulate therefore as the ultimate goal the state where the distinction of subject and object is transcended and where there is but one Reality.

Further, form implies limitation. It is not proper to say of any form that it is the highest Reality. Let us take for example the Lord Mahavishnu. He is described as holding up in His right hand the Chakra and in His left hand the Sankha. In that posture, there must be some interspace between the hand and the shoulder. Does this God pervade this interspace? If He does not, He cannot be called ommipresent. If He does, there is no reason to say that the form alone is God. He really pervades not only that interspace but also the place where He is seen, the entire region of Vaikuntha, all the fourteen worlds and all that is in them. How is it logically possible to postulate any form for Him without granting the existence of some space where He is not? If therefore we limit Godhood to any form, we are really denying Him omnipresence. This is certainly a sacrilege. Though it is not thus possible to accede to such divine forms absolute reality, we cannot deny them reality for all practical purposes and they are therfeore as real as other things in the universe. Just as gradation of various sorts is a necessary factor in the universe, the reality of those forms is of a higher standard and of a longer duration than that of other things and it is in this sense that those forms are true and eternal. They are true as long as we have the sense of duality. In our present state, we have to engage ourselves in the activities and devotion prescribed in the Sastras and we are quite unqualified to inquire about the ultimate Reality which can be realised only in the highest stage of knowledge; such an inquiry is now quite fruitless and to quarrel about the nature of that Reality is mere waste of time and energy. When the state of realisation is reached, the Reality will shine of its own accord and then actually there will be no occasion at all for dispute.

One day a disciple raised the question whether it was not necessary to know the meaning, the import and the full significance of a Mantra before taking it up for Japa. His Holiness said.

“Generally whenever the Sastra prescribes some activity it will also mention the benefit that can be got as the result of that activity. Before any person engages himself in any activity he must know to what it will lead him. If he has an accurate conception of the benefit to be obtained and also an accurate conception of the means to obtain it, his activity will certainly be very efficient and the resultant benefit also good. But if a man engages himself in a prescribed activity without these conceptions, even then the activity will not be wasted for the relationship between an activity and its resultant benefit being in the nature of cause and effect does not depend upon the knowledge of the actor. All the same, this knowledge does make a great difference in the accruing benefit.

“The Upanishad when dealing with activity done with knowledge and without knowledge points out that the activity done with understanding, faith and knowledge of its secrets is more potent. This necessarily implies that what is done without these is also potent though not to the same degree. Our Acharya when commenting on this passage says that a man who takes a purgative will have motions whether he knows that it is a purgative or does not know it to be one. It may be argued from this that the knowledge is of no moment at all. To obviate this, our Acharya takes the example of a precious stone found in a forest by a hunter. He knows that it has some value as it is more glittering than ordinary stones but has no idea of its real worth. He is glad to part with it for a small sum. The purchaser, if he happens to be a dealer in precious stones, will know its real worth and sell the same stone for a considerably higher sum. Though the stone remains the same, the benefits obtained by the hunter and the dealer differ vastly. This difference is not due to the stone but to the difference in their respective knowledges. Similarly, an action engaged in with knowledge and the same action engaged in without knowledge will be identical to all outward appearances but there is bound to be a great difference in their respective results. It may seem to some that our Acharya gave a different example as it was not possible to sustain the principle with reference to the purgative example itself. It was not so. If a man takes a pill without knowing what it is and has free motions, he will be afraid that he has taken some poison and will feel miserable. If he knows that it is a purgative, he will not only be not afraid but feel relieved of the impurities in his body and consequently happy. The swallowing of the pill and the resulting motions are certainly common to both the cases. But in the one case it leads to misery and in the other to happiness. The difference is not in the pill or in the method of taking it but only in the knowledge and the absence of knowledge of its nature. Thus knowledge is certainly a very important factor which affects the quality of the result”.