42. धिक्कृताखिलदुर्मतः Dhik-kṛtākhila-durmataḥ

One who defeated all flawed beliefs and doctrines

The word ‘mata’ appertains to the mati, intellect, and hence refers to a belief or doctrine to which one subscribes. The Lord has cautioned, as seen under nāma 13, that delusion causes one to forget what one has learnt regarding right and wrong, and this in turn disrupts the intellect’s ability to distinguish right from wrong, true from false. Clearly, this disruption of discriminative ability makes the intellect fertile ground for false beliefs to take root, and the primordial cause of this is disastrous delusion. Any flawed doctrine, belief or dogma rooted in such delusion and hence ruinous, may be deemed a durmata. It is only by destroying this dreadful delusion that durmatas can be uprooted from the intellect and this is impossible other than through gaining right knowledge.

His Holiness is described here as dhikkṛta, One who defeated, akhila, all, durmatas. A maxim that is relevant here is: “Indeed, censure is not done to simply deride the fault or the faulty, but to commend that which is proper.”¹¹⁵

His Holiness’s aim in all cases was only to correct and not to censure. His openness, acceptance of people as they were, willingness to listen with patience, sharp intellect that enabled Him to swiftly gauge the intellectual ability of the person, His intense practicality, impeccable logic, purity of purpose, gentleness, kindness and compassion (vide nāmas 22, 37 and 106) made Him effectively and comprehensively, and yet tenderly, eradicate misconceptions of people.

A popular saying teaches, “A wicked person’s learning leads to argumentation, wealth to arrogance and power to oppression of others. On the other hand, a good man’s learning is for acquiring knowledge, wealth for performing charity and power for protecting people in difficulty.”¹¹⁶ His Holiness personified the latter category.

❧

Sri Nagendra Rao reminisced, “In the summer of 1967, at the end of my first-year classes at the Indian Institute of Management in Kolkata, I went to Delhi to visit my parents. His Holiness was camping in Delhi at that time and my mother was very particular that I should go to seek His blessings. I mentioned to her that I was extremely allergic to meeting and wasting time on holy men and saṁnyāsins. However, after much persuasion by her, I agreed to go but told her that under no circumstances would I go in the traditional mode of visiting Him (which is wearing a dhoti and aṅga-vastra). I would go just as I was, in a shirt and a pair of trousers, or I would not go at all. My mother had little choice and she accepted what I said with a somewhat heavy heart.

“We went to visit His Holiness. At that time, He was staying in the house of the then Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. People had congregated to meet Him but somehow, we were called in immediately for a personal audience with Him. His Holiness was seated on a silver āsana in a corner of a fairly large room in the front portion of the house. When we were ushered into the room, He immediately beckoned to us to come to Him. It was at this point that, suddenly, a spontaneous transformation came over me. The innate purity of His nature and the great power of His tapas were such that I suddenly felt unclean and rather out of place in the vestments that I had come in and, therefore, was extremely reluctant to go forward. He was kindness itself and repeated several times that I should come forward, and made me sit within a couple of feet from Him. His first response on my sitting down was, ‘Why did you not come to see me in Calcutta (Kolkata), my son? Your mother had shown me a photograph of yours and I was watching every day to see whether you were among the hundreds of people who came by.’ This was but one more surprise, which left me totally dumbfounded. In the first instance, I never really thought we could get in to see Him so quickly. And in the second instance, I certainly did not expect that He would remember me from the photograph that He had seen. Of course, at the time I had no idea of His Holiness’s phenomenal memory and His punctilious attention to even matters of the smallest detail. Ordinary people often imagine limitations in great souls which are really not there, because they judge them by their own limited abilities and attitudes.

“As I started to recover my power of speech, I felt one should be very honest in the presence of one who, I now started feeling, was a very unusual person and one of great spiritual magnitude. I launched into my explanation as to why I had not come to see Him in Kolkata. I explained to Him rather tersely that I had heard that He saw only people of wealth and high social standing and that I had really little use for meeting such personalities, no matter how spiritual or famous or eminent they were considered to be. There was pin-drop silence from everyone around. In my estimate never before had anyone been quite so irreverent and that too in so explicit a manner, in front of His Holiness. I fully expected to be told to leave the room, never see His face again - some form of the Hindu equivalent of excommunication on the spot.

“His Holiness’s response was totally unexpected. He just smiled and said, ‘I am told you are a student of business administration. Are you?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He then asked me if it was not true that I had to study some elements of law as part of my course work. I again said, ‘Yes.’ And He said, ‘Is it not also true that in law, as it is practised in the land, hearsay information is not considered evidence?’ I began to see what He was driving at and said He was correct. He then asked me that as a man endowed with considerable education and a fair degree of discrimination, was it not expected of me to have come there personally to see whether the allegations were true or unfounded. He was so logical and reasonable that I had really nothing left to say and I agreed with Him. What I also found remarkable at the time was that His Holiness used not the arcane letter and word of the traditional Śāstras of which I knew little at the time and for which I had even less regard. He used the very branches of secular learning with which I was fairly conversant and for which I had high regard, to make His point. This was another surprise to me. I had really not expected His Holiness to have such an immense understanding of and familiarity with the various branches of secular knowledge.”

❧

A devotee took a group of foreigners including a Christian priest to Sringeri and had the darśana of His Holiness. His Holiness started chatting with them in His customary cordial style. The foreigners too freely voiced their doubts about Hinduism and its various tenets, including idol worship. His Holiness responded to their queries with convincing answers. The topic then shifted to Advaita philosophy, of which His Holiness gave a lucid explanation. Noticing the priest’s inability to grasp the subject, His Holiness resorted to catechism to drive home the points that He expounded earlier.

HH: Who are you?

Priest: I am so and so.

HH: No, I did not ask your name. Who are ‘you’?

P: I am the son of so and so.

HH: No, no, not that. Who are ‘you’?

P: I am the priest of…church.

HH: I did not mean that. Tell me who ‘you’ are.

P: (Confused) I don’t know.

HH: (Smiling) See, this is the problem. We do not know who we really are. Your name, relationship to someone else and your profession – all these pertain to your body and not to you. Now, tell me, what are you called when you are starving?

P: A hungry man.

HH: Correct. What are you known as when you are overeating?

P: A glutton.

HH: That’s right. Well, when you are travelling?

P: A traveller.

HH: Yes. Now consider this. Descriptions like ‘hungry man’, ‘glutton’ and ‘traveller’ are based on actions, again, pertaining to your body. Do you get the feeling that you are a different man every time you are called by a different name?

P: No, it is ‘I’ known by various names and relationships.

HH: There you are. ‘You’ are that unchanging common entity behind all these changing names and forms. That indeed is your true identity.

His Holiness then expounded the unreality of the universe according to the tenets of Advaita and the underlying Supreme Reality, the substratum of all names and forms. The delighted Christian priest profusely thanked His Holiness and was happy that he had received a valuable teaching that day.

❧

When His Holiness decided in the early 1980s to put up a permanent bridge across the river Tuṅgā, He entrusted the construction of the bridge He envisioned to Gammon India. In the planning stage, a superstitious consultant objected, “Connecting north to south by a bridge is not a good idea.” His Holiness responded, “If you want to connect east and west, it cannot happen here.” He added, “The Maṭha’s cowshed is in a certain place. You may say that as some cow or calf has died here, this is not the right location for a cowshed. I may accept your advice and build another cowshed at the place specified by you. If, after I shift the cows to the new place, a cow or calf dies, what should I do?” Turning to a devotee present there, He remarked that in such matters one should be pragmatic, not superstitious.

❧

Not only was His Holiness not superstitious, He was acutely discerning and logical. When He was around 21 years of age, a magician came to Sringeri and had His darśana. He then demonstrated to Him in private what he called, “My power of indrajāla.” He showed His Holiness the front and back of his open palm. He then quickly waved his hand and closed his fist. When he opened his fist, His Holiness saw a golden ring there. The magician went on to demonstrate several such tricks. Finally, he prepared a paper cone, showed it to be empty and then poured some water into it. After a few moments, he jerked the cone as if he were about to throw the water on His Holiness. But what fell near Him was a variety of small flowers. He liked the performance and told the man so. He, however, did not ask the magician how exactly he had performed the tricks because He felt, “Let me not embarrass him with questions about the secrets of his trade.”

In the 1980s, one day when a disciple went to His presence, He stretched out His right hand and told him, “Examine my palm.” “Is it not empty?” He asked. “Yes, it is,” the disciple replied. He waved His hands swiftly and while doing so, closed His fist. Then He burst out laughing and opened His fist. It contained kuṅkuma (turmeric powder reddened by adding lime juice). Giving some to the disciple, He said, “This kuṅkuma did not materialize from thin air. It is from Śāradāmbā’s temple.”

He then told the disciple, “Fetch a bowl of oil without telling anyone.” When the disciple returned with a vessel containing oil, His Holiness instructed him to heat it on a small electric heater. The oil was soon boiling. Even as the disciple watched, He dipped His right hand into the oil and pulled it out, all smiles. It was then that He told the disciple about the magician who had come to Him when He was around 21 years of age. “Though I did not ask the magician how he performed his tricks, I deduced them myself on the basis of what I had seen. Just as he produced a ring, I manifested the kuṅkuma purely by sleight of hand. He who is not discerning is likely to think that articles such as rings and kuṅkuma can be so manifested only through supernatural powers. I did not get burnt when I dipped my hand in the oil because, prior to my doing so, I had wet my hand without your knowledge. Thanks to the water, the temperature on the surface of my hand was far below that of the oil. I have read that a foreigner dips his hand briefly in molten metal. Unfortunately, molten metal is not accessible to me right now or else I would have duplicated his feat for you,” elaborated His Holiness.

“Feel my pulse,” He continued. As the disciple did so, He closed His eyes. Soon, the disciple was unable to detect any pulse in His left wrist. A little later, the pulse was again detectable and He opened His eyes. “You might have imagined that because I went into a state of deep meditation, my pulse ceased to be detected by you. Actually, I did not meditate. Instead, it was through a strictly physical means that I briefly inhibited the blood flow to the hand. My heart continued to beat normally.”

He then closed His eyes once more and began to speak in a variety of markedly dissimilar voices. It would have been impossible for anybody to discern that the voices were from a single source. In fact, to the disciple, some of the sounds clearly seemed to be those of females with high-pitched voices. His Holiness opened His eyes and said, “What passes off as possession by a spirit is normally not so. It is easy for a person to consciously speak like different people. So a deceitful man can pretend to be possessed by some divine being and earn name, fame and money. People often do not realize that their faces and, in particular, their eyes betray far more than they imagine, about the workings of their minds. This and information gathered through assistants can help a fraud to pass off as a mind-reader. The behaviour of a person in the grip of hysteria may give rise to the impression that he has been possessed by some spirit.”

He then went on to explain how it was possible for a charlatan to make some vibhūti-like powder form gradually on his photograph. Finally, He told the disciple, “Till today, I have not demonstrated these tricks to anyone. I just wanted to show you some of the means people employ to fool the gullible and to pass off as persons endowed with special powers. I am, of course, not saying that genuine miracles do not occur. Yoga-siddhis do manifest but saints do not care for them.”

❧

[The following parable was narrated by His Holiness in a benedictory discourse.]

“Once a proselytizer told a man that he had changed the latter’s religion and caste. A few days later, the ‘converted’ person invited the proselytizer to dinner. The convert served pork to his guest. The guest asked, ‘What is this?’ The host replied, ‘It is pork, sir.’ ‘What! Pork!’ exclaimed the guest. ‘Take it away from my plate. I do not eat such things.’ The host was not to be put off. ‘You told me that you had converted me. Why should you not accept what I give you?’ he objected. ‘Pork is impure’, replied the proselytizer. ‘Just as you changed my religion and caste by sprinkling water on me, I have also changed pork into mutton by sprinkling water on it. So, from your standpoint, it should be mutton, and not pork. It is surprising that you are not prepared to eat it’, argued the host. The proselytizer had no reply.

“The Śāstras do not accept that a Hindu can be genuinely converted to any religion by some process, such as sprinkling of water. If a person ceases to follow Sanātana-dharma, he becomes a bhraṣṭa, a fallen one. For various sins, expiations are prescribed. One can expiate for having discarded one’s scripturally-prescribed duties and carry on as if the ‘conversion’ had never taken place.”

❧

[In the following lucid explanation given by His Holiness, He throws light on the significance of idol worship, and sets at rest the objections of many who consider idol worship meaningless.]

A person purchased a mud idol of Vināyaka and began worshipping it on Vināyaka-caturthi. At the end of three days of pūjā, he carried the idol and immersed it in a river. This was seen by a friend of his who had hardly any knowledge of idol worship and was puzzled by what he saw.

Friend: You were worshipping the idol with great faith. Yet, now, you have thrown it into the river. Why?

Worshipper: Originally, the idol had no sanctity and was just a beautifully-shaped piece of mud. Then, at the commencement of worship on Vināyaka-caturthi day, I duly invoked Lord Gaṇeśa into it. Thereafter, it became sacred. Treating it as the Lord Himself, I performed pūjā to it. At the end of the stipulated period of worship, I requested the Lord to withdraw His special presence in it. The idol lost its sanctity and became just a piece of mud. It was that mud piece which I immersed into the river.

Friend: How is it possible for a mere piece of mud to become holy and to then revert to its original state? Further, how can a devotee have the capacity to effect such transformations?

Worshipper: Consider an example. There is an ordinary man with whom we are all familiar. We are able to meet him whenever we wish. If he desires to see a high-ranking government official, he has to struggle to get an appointment. At the suggestion of people like us, he contests an election and, because of our votes, wins. He then gets appointed as a minister. Thereafter, if we want to see him, we have to fix up an appointment. The very officials whom he had difficulty in meeting, now come to him and carry out his orders. He is provided with security and good accommodation. After his tenure as minister, he contests an election again. This time, the people do not vote for him as before and hence he loses. Thereafter, as before, he becomes a common man. The special privileges and the authority of a minister are not his any longer.

People like us, by our votes, cause this ordinary man to become a minister and then we revert him to his earlier state. Likewise, in response to the devotee’s āvāhana, invocation, the Lord specially graces an idol and the idol then becomes holy. Having accepted the devotee’s worship, the Lord withdraws His special presence in response to the devotee’s request; the idol loses its sanctity.

An idol in a temple may have originally been a part of a rock on a hill; people might have walked over that rock and may have even urinated on it. A sculptor fashions what is an ordinary rock into a beautiful idol by chiselling it. Even then, it does not become holy. It, however, becomes sanctified when it is duly consecrated in a temple. Thereafter, people worship it. The very sculptor, who earlier delivered hammer blows to it, prostrates before it and does not so much as touch it.

Friend: Why did you make reverential offerings to the idol during your worship? After all, it did not even move a millimetre to accept anything.

Worshipper: When a venerable guest comes to our house, it is in our holy tradition to receive him with honour. He is offered a seat and his feet are washed. He is fed.

Devotees see in the idol not just mud or stone but the living presence of God. They hold that God does accept what is offered to Him, though the idol itself does not stretch out its hand to take what is given. That is why, in the course of my worship, I offered God a seat, just as I would, to a holy one who comes to my house. Then, I offered pādya, water, to wash His feet. Subsequently, I fed Him; this was my offering of naivedya.

Suppose a guest proves unworthy of the respect that is shown to him by misbehaving with a female in the host’s house or by pilfering costly items. It is likely that the host will hand him over to the police. In the case of God, there is no possibility of His ever proving unworthy of the devotee’s worship. Hence, devotees never discard the idol they worship in the middle of the pūjā.

Friend: On Vināyaka-caturthi day, Gaṇeśa is worshipped in many places at the same time. Which idol does He choose to specially abide in? What influences His choice?

Worshipper: All idols wherein God is properly invoked become sanctified. Wherever there is a drop in pressure, air rushes there. Likewise, God, who is everywhere, specially occupies all the idols where He is worshipped, regardless of the number and the location of such idols.

Friend: In some places, the food that is offered is very small in quantity and in others, it is very large. Is not the former insufficient for a deity and the latter excessive?

Worshipper: No. In the Vedas, it is said that the offering gets modified in accordance with the wishes of the devatā to whom it is offered. What is important is that if a devotee were to resolve to offer a certain number of modakas, say 1000, in a Gaṇapati-homa, that is the number he must offer. He should not think, “This is too much for Gaṇeśa to eat”, and offer less. Actually, the Lord needs nothing but accepts and becomes sated with whatever is offered by a worshipper with devotion.

❧

[What follows is a selection from different dialogues had by devotees with His Holiness in which He answered questions about religious practices and their relevance in the modern world.]

D: Yāgas are being performed at several places. Expenditure is incurred for them. Some people raise the objection that the money could have been utilised to uplift the downtrodden instead of wasting it on yāgas. Is the objection valid?

HH: The expenditure on yāgas is but an insignificant fraction of what we spend on material pleasures. How can we object even to this? Further, gratified by the holy offerings, the Lord showers on us His returns that are many times greater than our meagre offerings. For instance, pleased by the yāga, Īśvara brings about sufficient and timely rains. It cannot therefore be said that expenditure on yāgas is a waste.

We sow seeds and reap the crop. As against this, is it sensible to say that sowing seeds is a waste and that we could have eaten the seeds instead? Like seeds sown, yāgas yield precious fruits. The Śāstras do not expect a poor person to perform a yāga involving much expenditure. That the scriptures command us to adhere to dharma to the maximum extent possible by us is a pointer to this. The expenses in yāgas are therefore only for our betterment. It is improper to look upon these expenses as wastage.

D: Will it not be convenient to have a single dharma, common for all? Is it necessary to have it as, “This is dharma for one; that is dharma for another?”

HH: Suppose shirts of the same size are distributed to a motley group of people. Then each one is required to wear the shirt received. Is it feasible for everyone to do so? No. Different physical sizes must be considered. Likewise, different dharmas have been prescribed for people of varied competence. However, sāmānya-dharmas are common to all though there are differences in the viśeṣa-dharmas (special dharmas). [Sāmānya-dharmas are explained under nāma 105.]

D: Those who are not brāhmaṇas do not have the opportunity to attain mokṣa. Some raise such an objection. Is the position really so?

HH: Whoever said that only a brāhmaṇa can get jñāna and, hence, liberation? Vidura, for instance, was a great, enlightened soul. He was not a brāhmaṇa. That formal study of the Veda is traditionally done after upanayana does not imply that the path to liberation is not available to all. We can find the essence of the Upaniṣads in texts like the Yoga-vāsiṣṭha and Vicār-sāgar (Hindi). All can study such works and acquire jñāna. Everyone is competent to get jñāna. Śaṅkara-bhagavatpāda has said this conclusively.

❧