CHAPTER XVI VALUABLE ADVICE

Emphasising the value of Karma as a necessary, step towards the attainment of Jnana, His Holiness said one day:—

A gentleman who had retired from service as a District Collector had a son who would not attend his school regularly or study his lessons properly. He was a very soft man and did not like to chastise the boy but preferred to plead with him. On one such occasion the boy asked,

Boy: Why should I read?

G: You can get good marks only if you read well.

Boy: Why should I get marks?

G: You will be promoted to a higher class only if you get good marks.

Boy: Suppose I am promoted, what then?

G: If you study well there, you will be promoted to a still higher class.

Boy: After that?

G: You can go to a still higher class.

Boy: After that?

G: You may go up and up.

Boy: Take it that the highest class is reached. After that, what?

G: Then you may try for some good employment.

Boy: After that?

G: You will get a job and join it.

Boy: After that?

G: If you discharge your duties properly, you will raise steadily.

Boy: After that?

G: What do you mean by asking thus? If you behave properly and give satisfaction to the Government, you can retire honorably on a decent pension.

Boy: After that?

G: What is there after that? You can stay at home and rest just as I am doing.

Boy: Why all this trouble, father, for this end? I am even now at home and quite happy. Why not I remain in this state?

It is true that the realised soul has nothing look after what properties I have got. I am prepared to devote the whole of my remaining life-period in this service.

H. H: Do you know Sanskrit?

G: Yes.

H. H: How far have you studied it?

G: I have read the Kavyas like Raghuvamsa, Kumarasambhava and Magha.

H. H; Have you studied logic or grammar?

G: No.

H. H: Have you studied any treatises on Vedanta?

G: I have studied somewhat of Vasudevamananam and Vivekachudamani.

H. H: You say you have no family concerns to worry you and have abundant leisure. It is also patent that you have intense faith in our religion. Can you not utilise your convenience and leisure to study higher and higher? Can you not utilise them for the observance of Dharma in several ways? When you have got the opportunity and the need to better yourself, what is the meaning of your not interesting yourself in it and of interesting yourself in the uplift of others. Further, if by your efforts you seek to infuse faith in others, will they not first begin to scan you and find out how far you are yourself practising the dictates of Dharma? Your teachings will carry force only when you yourself observe them in actual practice. The attempt to reform others must come only after one has reformed himself. There is a saying, “How can one who does not know to swim help others to cross a river?” Please make the best use of the advantages you have got and make all efforts to better yourself. It is the proper duty of everybody to seek first his own spiritual progress.

Society is nothing but a group of individuals. If every individual attends carefully to the duties allotted to him and seeks to get rid of his own ignorance, the society will automatically improve. If, on the other hand, everybody begins to engage himself in the reforming of everybody else, it will not only be fruitless but will lead only to controversy and hatred. Our Acharya asks, “Who can be a greater fool than he who neglects his own interest?” Our life period is very short. Even for lifting ourselves up, many births of strenuous effort are required. While so, is it proper to think of spending any time in an attempt to uplift others? Nor is such a thing ever practicable. By making such an attempt, we will only have injured our own interests.

Further, it is a mistake to think that others will heed what we say. They have their own pre-natal tendencies. It may be that, if we lead a good life, some people may be inclined to follow our example. As there is the likelihood of their going astray if we lead bad lives, we must be very careful how we conduct ourselves. This responsibility is necessarily very great if one happens to be the head of a family or the principal man of his village or of his country and has gained the fame of being a “great man”. It may be possible in the field of politics or other secular sphere to make a mass appeal to a crowd and try to move it by your rhetoric and influence its thoughts but it is quite useless in the region of spiritual endeavour. You can gather together hundreds of people to drag a temple car. If you are hungry, there is no meaning in gathering a crowd; even if they gather, they will be equally hungry and cannot possibly achieve anything. Each one of them must necessarily eat for himself. Similarly those who are hungry spiritually and want to get rid of that hunger must seek the help of somebody who can point out the way. But they alone must do the seeking; they alone must tread the path pointed out; and they alone must have their hunger appeased.

Again, it is meaningless to get together a large crowd of people who are not hungry and to teach them the way to get rid of hunger. That is why our Sastras insist that no teaching should be given to anybody who does not earnestly ask for it. Whether the asking is due to earnestness to know or only to mere curiosity will be easily apparent from the method of asking. The proper method of asking is prescribed in the Gita. One desiring spiritual instruction must reverentially approach a proper Guru, prostrate before him, serve him devotedly and earn his grace and then ask him till his own doubts are cleared. It is thus only proper that each aspirant should himself strive to know the means suited to the intensity of his own spiritual hunger and suited to his competency to pursue them properly and then make earnest effort to practise those means and attain his goal.

• • • •

H. H: The Sastras are emphatic that absolute freedom from bondage is possible only to those who have given up all sense of I and Mine in the body, the senses and the mind and have realised that their inner self transcends all these. While so, if a man is particular about nourishing them and yet expects to get liberated, he is verily like a man desirous of crossing a river in floods by getting up on a crocodile thinking that it is a raft. So says our Acharya in His Vivekachudamani.

Disciple: It is nevertheless a fact that for any kind of earnest effort we require a strong body.

H. H: Quite correct. The body must be strong. There is no need for it to be stout. Further, it is not really in our hands to have a strong body. Only if we have past Punya, can we have a healthy body free from disease. What is really in our hands is to see that we do not take into the body we have got now any prohibited kinds of food and that it does not get into objectionable habits and that in general it is not made worse by our ways of life. It is not possible to escape the diseases and other ills which we are destined to have in this life and they must be endured. When we are afflicted by such troubles, they will lose their poignancy if we steady our minds and realise that by suffering them without murmur we are really wiping out our old sins.

Disciple: In this world there are many troubles which are really unbearable. How can they be borne?

H. H.: Have we not seen people cry out in the excess of their suffering “O! I cannot bear it. O! I cannot bear it”?

Disciple: Certainly.

H. H.: They are able to say so only because they do bear it. If it was really unbearable, how can they give expression to their suffering? The unbearability cannot therefore be absolute. There can be no doubt that, when God gives us a suffering as the result of our past sins, He gives us also the strength to bear it. It is therefore our duty to endure whatever happens as even that happens only by the will of God.

Disciple: I have heard it said that the physical body is a necessary instrument for the practice of Dharma. While so, how can we afford to neglect it?

H. H.: Nobody asks us to neglect it. On the other hand, we must take great care of it so that it may be competent to function as an effective instrument for the observance of Dharma. Further, most of the purificatory rites prescribed by the Sastras are only for the body. Only if the body is kept pure and is rendered pure by following the dictates of the Sastras, can it really be helpful in the practice of Dharma. We must not forget this aspect of the body as an instrument of Dharma nor content ourselves with nourishing it.

Disciple: In the old days our ancients had penances and fasts but in these days we have not the stamina to undergo them.

H. H.: That is not correct. Even now there are many who observe them punctiliously with faith. They are not any the less strong in spite of such observances. On the other hand, it may be said that they are really stronger than others..

Disciple: It is no doubt so. But why? The moderns eat far more than they.

H. H.: A watch will run only if wound up.

Disciple: Certainly so.

H. H.: As a watch will run only if wound, do you wind it once a day or keep on winding it whenever you like?

Disciple: Only once. If it is wound indiscriminately, the watch will get spoiled.

H. H.: The same principle applies to this body also. The Sastras say that ordinarily it must be given food twice a day, that on special occasions food once a day is enough and that on other special occasions there must be fasting. Apart from these restrictions as regards the number of times, the Sastras prescribe also what articles of food may be used, from whom they may be received, how to eat them, and so on. Only if we strictly conform to these prescriptions, can the body function as an instrument of Dharma. If we ignore them and take in whatever we get and wherever we get it without any kind of restraint or regulation, we shall be spoiling the body just as the man who keeps on winding a watch whenever he likes. Our body will then not only cease to be an instrument of Dharma but will become unhealthy.

Disciple: In these days it is very difficult to conform to these prescriptions, particularly when we move out of our villages. For example, if a disciple from the southern districts desires to come here direct to Sringeri, he has to do his ablutions in a summary manner at places like Jolarpet, Bangalore and Shimoga and take such light food as he can get in those places. He has necessarily to content himself with what is available in the railway station hotels.

H. H.: There is no such necessity. Nothing untoward will happen if he fasts for a day or two. Further, fruits will be available everywhere If he knows that he cannot get them on his way, he may himself take some with him. Anyhow I see no necessity for going to a hotel. There is no reason for such a conduct other than want of faith.

The mind will be pure only if the food we take is pure. We forget this and are intent upon nourishing the body neglecting the aspect of mental purity. This is not proper. If one sincerely believes that his body is primarily an instrument of Dharma, he will never entertain the idea of nourishing it in ways opposed to Dharma. Some people would say “How can we paint on a wall which is not well kept?” and offer this principle as justifying their nourishing the body. It may be generally stated that such people have no idea at all of ever painting but are intent solely on strengthening and polishing the wall. They will never have done with such services to the wall and the painting postponed till after they are completely done will never therefore be done. The body is every moment undergoing change and is being affected by the external elements and past sins unintermittently how is it possible to keep it steady and stable even for a moment? The wall is a mud wall and it is incessantly raining. When are we to see the end of the process of putting up the wall? By its very nature the body is full of several kinds of impurities. Every moment fresh impurities are being manufactured inside it. If we have a dip in a river, to wash our body free from any kind of dirt and ascend the steps secure in the thought that we have purified it, we begin to perspire even in the coming up. While so, how is it possible to keep it absolutely pure? We have no other alternative but to conform to the dictates of the Sastras and make the body engage itself in the pursuit of Dharma as best as we can.

* * * *

The Absolute Reality, Brahman, is described as incapable of being reached either by words or by thought. It may be asked-if it is really so, why should we exercise our powers of speech or our powers of conception to do the impossible? Is not all such endeavour mere waste? It would seem therefore that it is quite unnecessary to speak about it or think about it. The significance of the Upanishad passage is quite the other way. If we say of a person that he did not reach Kasi but returned without reaching it, we can do so only if he had started on a journey to Kasi, made a good progress in his journey, had almost reached Kasi, but by some reason was prevented forentering that holy place and then returned. We cannot say “He has returned without reaching Kasi” of any person who never had any idea of going there at all or who has not stepped out of his village. Similarly, when Brahman is said to be beyond the reach of words or thought, we must consider to whom it is said. The statement must relate only to the one who has tried to peep into it. It cannot relate to any person who has not even stepped into the path leading to it. He must have exercised his powers of expression and then only can he realise that Brahman is beyond their reach. Till such a state of realisation is reached. words in the shape of the Veda and in the shape of the Guru’s teachings are indispensable; similarly, cogitation, contemplation and other processes of the mind are absolutely necessary. That state can be reached only as a resultant of all these necessary stages. By such training the mind becomes pure and sharp enough to function as a proper instrument for the realisation of the self. How the mind is able even then to grasp Brahman is a different question.

It is said that in the order of creation the subtle elements are the evolutes of the power of Maya, called also Avyakta the unmanifest, inherent in God, that from the Satvika aspects of these subtle elements are born the collective mind and the individual faculties of perception, that from the Rajasa aspects of the same subtle elements are born the faculties of action. Thus Maya is the material cause of the mind and the senses. They cannot possibly comprehend its own source Maya. While so, how can they have the capacity to comprehend Brahman which transcends Maya? They cannot therefore directly point out Brahman but it is only through them that we can comprehend it.

* * *

Disciple: It is said in the system of Advaita that bondage and liberation are both purely relative and have no real significance and that we are always Brahman. If so, why do we not perceive the Brahmanhood now?

H. H: When you are seeing the illusory snake in the rope, why is the rope not seen by you? When you are really looking at the rope, the rope is not visualised by you and the snake which is not there presents itself to your vision. Similarly, it is even when you are really looking at the self it is not perceived by you, as the body and other factors which are non-self hide the self within and offer themselves as the objects of your perception. Just as the non-perceiving of the rope is responsible for the perceiving of the snake, the non-perceiving of the self is the reason for our mistaking the body etc., as the Self. This non-perceiving of the Self is known as Nescience or Ignorance (Avidya or Ajnanam).

Disciple: It is said that Maya and Avidya and other terms denote the same thing and it is said at the same time it cannot be described. How else are we to know it?

H. H: Suppose there is an article in a room and we ask a servant to fetch it. If the room is dark, he will take a lamp with him, throw a flood of light into the room, make it envelop the desired article, pick it out and then bring it to us. This is the usual procedure. Suppose now that a person does not know what darkness is and asks us, “What is darkness?” If we take him into a dark cave and tell him “What is here is darkness”, he will at once say, “I do not see anything!” If we tell him “Darkness is that itself”, he will not understand us. He has been accustomed to use a light to see things not visible before. He may reasonably ask “Darkness is not perceived by me. As it is the function of light to make visible all that was not visible, why not I bring a light to make darkness visible to me?” The only method of dealing with him is to ask him to bring a lamp and direct its beams into the cave. Darkness will immediately disappear and so darkness cannot be pointed out to him. In the first stage, darkness could not be pointed out as nothing was visible; in the later stage, darkness could not be pointed out as it has ceased to exist. All the same, it is quite possible to give him a conception of darkness by saying “That, enveloped by which the things in the cave could not be seen by you and which automatically disappears as soon as light comes in, is Darkness.” Similarly, Avidya may be defined as that by reason of which the ever present Self is not perceived and which disappears immediately on the dawn of knowledge.

Disciple: It is understandable that Avidya being similar to darkness is incapable of conception. But how does it happen that the Self which is said to be ever luminous is hidden by Avidya.

H. H: Does the snake really hide the rope on which it seems? Even when the snake is seen, the rope is shining forth as ever before. The seeming snake cannot in any way affect the real rope. Even when a cloud is hiding the sun from our view, the sun being far above the cloud is quite untainted by it and is resplendent as ever before. He is never clouded. We attribute cloudedness to him. That is our mistake.

Disciple: If the self is thus ever existing and ever shining, where is the need for any effort to realise it?

H. H: Certainly there is no need at all.

Disciple: But we do not perceive the self now. How can it be said that no effort is required?

H. H: If it is not perceived, effort is required to get rid of that non-perception. No effort is necessary for perceiving the self but effort is necessery to get over the non-perception of it.

Disciple: Does this not mean virtually that effort is necessary for perceiving the self?

H. H: No. The destruction of Avidya is alone the result of effort. All kinds of spiritual effort detailed in the Vedas are aimed only at destroying Avidya and not as means of realising the Self.

Disciple: Some passages like “He who knows Brahman attains the Highest” seem to imply that the state of liberation is something to be attained later on and not a present state.

H. H: Quite true. Thought and expression are within the world of duality. It is not possible to define the Highest Reality through them. If however they attempt to define it, they must do it only in their own way. They cannot do it in any other way. They have therefore to use such words as “attains”, “reaches” and so on. We must not understand these words literally.

Let us take an example. A merchant after the day’s transactions are over, writes up the accounts and hands them over to his son saying, “See whether the daybook, the ledger and the cash balance tally”. The son accordingly verifies the accounts and makes the necessary additions and subtractions. He finds that the actual cash balance tallies with the balance shown in the daybook. On totalling the ledger abstract however he finds that there is a difference of two annas. He comes to his father and tells him “I do not find two annas.” The father replies “Where can it go? It must be there Look well!” Then the boy goes into the accounts more carefully, finds that he has made a mistake in addition somewhere, corrects the error and goes to his father and triumphantly and gladly proclaims “The two annas have been found.” Where had this amount gone when he said that it was not found and where did it come from when he announced that he had found it out? It was not found on the floor nor did anybody bring it. If it had newly come in, the cash balance must have been affected; then again the accounts would not tally. The real truth is just what the father said, “It must be there itself. Look carefully.” Thus this sum, though actually never lost or never found, is talked of at one stage as lost and at a later stage as found. Similarly, it is said of the self in one stage that it is not perceived and in another that it is perceived. Though the sum was never lost, it was necessary to scan the accounts carefully to find out and correct the mistake which gave rise to the thought that it was lost. Similarly, though the Self is ever shining and is never lost, effort is required to get rid of the mistake which is responsible for the non-perception of the Self. This mistake, this hiding factor, which screens the Self must be eradicated. When the merchant said “Look carefully,” he did not mean “Look at the two annas” but only “Find out the mistake which makes you think that it is lost and remove that mistake.” He could not possibly have meant “Earn two annas and bring it.” Similarly, the passages requiring us to know