4 The Goal and the Means

(This benedictory discourse was delivered by Acharyal, in Kannada, on 2.7.1989 at Bengaluru. The venue was the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and the duration of the holy talk was 35 minutes. Some points are worthy of note in connection with this divine address.

1. It was delivered by Acharyal on His last visit to Bengaluru in the course of His final Vijaya Yatra prior to His Mahasamadhi on 21.9.1989. From Bengaluru, Acharyal returned to Sringeri to observe Chaturmasyam there. Consequently, this is among His last five benedictory addresses.

2. It was uncommon for Acharyal to speak about or comment on His gracious speeches. However, without any discernible occasion to do so, of His own accord, He recalled and commented on this holy address, at Sringeri, in August, 1989. He told me, “I remember that, while at Bengaluru, I went one day to the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. That morning, I had sat for long in Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Though I engaged in My normal activities, My mind was particularly indrawn that day. Perhaps, that is why I spoke about the viewpoint of a knower of the Truth and about Samadhi. I now get a feeling that I shall not be discoursing on those lines again.”

3. Acharyal was a nonpareil Yogi and had been frequently abiding in Nirvikalpa Samadhi, the pinnacle of Yoga, since His teens. He had the capacity to confer Samadhi on others. As stated by Him, He had sat for long in Nirvikalpa Samadhi on 2.7.1989. Yet, in connection with Samadhi, He chose to cite, in this sacrosanct address, the experiences of a disciple rather than His own; further, He took no credit whatsoever for those experiences. Such was His matchless freedom from egoism.

• Translator)

The Goal and the Means

(Benedictory address delivered, in Kannada, at Bengaluru on 2.7.1989)

(Obeisance to Lord Shiva, who has a body constituted by pure consciousness, is conversant with the Vedas, possesses a divine eye, bears the crescent moon and is the means to attain liberation.)

(I pay obeisance to the consort of Lord Shiva whose tresses are decorated with the crescent moon and who is a river of nectar that removes the intense heat of transmigratory existence.)

There are several religious traditions in the world. It is our duty to know about the particulars of our tradition and to conduct our lives accordingly.

There are two types of people in the world. Some say:

(There is only this world that is experienced and not any other that is attained after death.)

Others aver:

(There is this world as also the hereafter.)

Anyhow, both the Nastikas or unbelievers and the Astikas or believers constantly require the grace of the power that transcends the realm of human thought but, remaining in the background, conducts all activities.

From the words of the Puranas and from our experience, we learn to a great extent that nobody can unfailingly fulfil all his longings. Ravana was incomparably heroic. He decided, “I will procure the Atma Lingam that is with God, keep it with me and worship it. Then, I will definitely do that which is universally regarded as reprehensible.” Maybe he felt, “I am deathless. So what hindrance could I possibly encounter? Let me see.” But, even as he watched, strong and healthy, his design was thwarted by another.

(Acharyal refers here to the following story with which His audience was familiar. Once Ravana went to Kailasa and prayed to Lord Shiva that he be bestowed with the Lord’s own, most-sacred Atma Lingam. Never one to refuse a devotee’s request, Shiva obliged. Ravana took the Atma Lingam in his hands and started for his homeland, Lanka. The devas, however, shuddered at the very thought of the possible consequences of the inestimably-potent Atma Lingam being consecrated and worshipped in Lanka by the power-hungry Rakshasa.

As Ravana was journeying towards Lanka, the sun began to set. So, he stopped as it was time for him to perform his evening Sandhya Vandanam. Taking this opportunity, Lord Vinayaka appeared on the scene in the form of an ordinary boy. Ravana was aware that the Atma Lingam was to be placed on the ground only at the spot where it was to be consecrated. Hence, he approached the lad and asked him to hold the Atma Lingam for some time. The youngster agreed but laid the condition that if he wanted to leave, he would call out to Ravana. If Ravana did not return even after he had called thrice, he would place the Lingam on the ground and move away. There being no one else around to help him, Ravana agreed.

In a very short while, the boy shouted, “Ravana”. The Rakshasa asked him to tarry a while. But, in a few moments the lad called out a second time and, shortly thereafter a third time. Having done so, even as Ravana rushed back, he placed the Atma Lingam on the ground.

Ravana was furious but the deed was done. He tried his best to lift the Atma Lingam but was unable to do so. Left with no choice, he returned to Lanka, empty-handed, with his desire to possess Atma Lingam remaining unfulfilled.)

The rise of a desire and its subsequent frustration which were what Ravana experienced, are actually experienced by all. We too, by nature, have desires, some small and some big. When we are successful in consummating several of them, we get puffed up with pride and think, “There is none like me. I am the greatest.” However, it is impossible for us to always fulfil our wishes; we do fail. Valorous persons themselves have perished. As death approached them, they realised, “What we understood about being able to achieve all our ends is wrong.” Not only can all desired objects not be attained, separation from the ones that have been obtained is also certain. Actually, worldly objects, whether desired and not attained or temporarily acquired, are all false, not real. It is said:

(The entire world is ever perishable.)

Here, one may object, “Advaitins say that the Universe, being perishable, is Mithya or false. But I do see the world. How then can it be false?” This is a pertinent point. To one who has seen the Truth, the world is clearly false. However, for the multitude who have not beheld the Truth, the world appears real. This difference in viewpoints can be elucidated by means of an example.

Sometimes, children make toy houses. But, to them, what they have built are actual houses. They go about saying, “My house is good.” It is, of course, another matter that after some time they get fed up with what they have done and dismantle their constructions. As far as the elders are concerned, the children are engaged in play. But to the children, they are engaged in an essential undertaking and not in a mere game. Why is that what is regarded by a child as an essential undertaking is considered by us, elders, as play? The reason is that we have a clear understanding of something superior to a toy house; we know of actual houses and their construction.

Till we attained maturity, we too did not regard the building of toy houses as mere play. We constructed toy houses and went about saying, “My house is big. Yours is small. Mine is good. Yours is not.” Now, we do not do so.

There exists a Parama Satya or absolute reality; everything in the world is real, but this is absolutely real. What characterizes the Parama Satya or absolute reality? It must be “Trikala Abadhya” or unsublated in the three measures of time. What about the world? It was there before our births. It exists now and it shall persist even after our deaths. But then, was it always there? That is impossible. Its present existence is universally accepted. It may be there after we pass away, but for how long? Even common people like us can conjecture that it will get destroyed in some distant future.

The Parama Satya or absolute reality was, is and will be. Since when does It exist? There is no room for this question as It always existed. Whatever point of time that you think of, It was there then. It exists now. It shall continue in the future too. Till when? There is no scope for specifying a time limit, for It is everlasting. Can this Universe ever satisfy the condition of being untouched by time? Never; neither a Nastika nor an Astika would agree. Suppose there is a person who has seen this Parama Satya which was, is and will be, without any question of temporal delimitation. To him, the world will obviously appear as specified in

(The entire world is ever perishable.)

It does not follow that the world is totally non-existent. Undoubtedly, it can be seen by the eye and objects can be grasped by the hand. However, the world is not real in the way we imagine it to be. In the Tarka Shastra, some objects are said to be “Pravahata Nitya” or eternal like a continuous flow; some are “Kutastha Nitya” or unchangingly eternal. According to the Tarkikas, Akasha is not “Pravahata Nitya” as it does not change; it is “Kutastha Nitya.” This is, of course, not the view of the Vedantins, for they recognize the origin and destruction of even Akasha. From the standpoint of people, this world is “Pravahata Nitya.” Something or the other keeps originating. But none claims that there is any single worldly object that persists for ever, without any change.

Consider a person who focuses his attention on the absolute reality, realises Its nature and obtains an unwavering conviction regarding It. As should be expected, he deems It alone as real. In view of his experience of the absolute reality, everything else is extremely transient. Thus, it is but natural that he should regard the Universe as Mithya or false. Such was the case with Bhagavatpada. He established that correct knowledge of the absolute reality is the cause of liberation.

Earlier, we noted that there are two types of people, Astikas and Nastikas, and that both are in need of the grace of the supreme power. God is this power; in essence, He is the absolute reality that was just discussed.

Astikas always accept the existence of God but, nevertheless, deluded by Maya, they do perform what they should not. Nastikas say on some occasion that God might exist. At any rate, they too commit misdeeds. Then, what is the difference in conduct between the Astikas and Nastikas, for both do err?

If there be a respected elder at home, even when there is an occasion to do wrong, a person often restrains himself, thinking, “What explanation will I be able to give when I return home?” On the other hand, in the absence of such an elder, there would be no need to explain and so the person would do whatever he feels like. Having erred, he might be subject to remorse later.

In the case of an Astika, his firm belief in the existence of God serves as a restraining influence on him, like the presence of an elder at home. So, he discards several opportunities to go astray. The Nastika lacks the benefit of such a regulating influence. Where exactly is God who serves as a regulating influence on the Astika?

He dwells within the heart. Is He then not found outside?

(Narayana pervades the interior and the exterior of everything perceived or heard of in this world.)

Thus, God is within and outside. It is relatively easy to see Him in the exterior but apprehending Him within is tough. Madhusudana Saraswati has said:

(By means of the mind brought under control by the practice of meditation, Yogis behold the Supreme Light that is free from attributes and activity. Let them do so.)

Some behold the absolute reality, the Supreme Brahman that is devoid of attributes and form. Who are they?

They are those who, having practised meditation, have brought their minds fully under their control. Even though such a person may be seated in the midst of several people and engaged in conversation, if he were asked, “Where are you?”, his heartfelt answer would be, “I am everywhere.” He would not feel that he is delimited by the body. For such Yogis, seeing God within is easy.

(The Supreme, which is partless, actionless, tranquil and faultless.)

God who is the absolute reality as specified above, can, however, take on forms. As Sri Krishna puts it:

(Though I am birthless, undecaying by nature, and the Lord of all beings, still, by ruling over My Maya, I take birth by My own Maya.)

Though actually birthless and undecaying, God manifests for the good of the world. He thereby makes it easy for people to see Him outside themselves. For instance, numerous people had the good fortune of beholding Sri Rama and Sri Krishna in the Treta and Dwapara Yugas. Now, people can take advantage of idols and pictures. When one sees a picture, such as of Lord Krishna or Shiva, the concerned form easily comes to his mind.

However, such visualization, does not, by itself, constitute deep meditation and the clear apprehension of God within oneself. When one observes a picture briefly, closes one’s eyes and tries to hold the form steady in one’s mind, one is usually unsuccessful. On visualizing the divinity’s head, one fails to see the deity’s feet; when the feet are seen, the hands do not come to mind; when a hand is apprehended, some other part is not visible. This is a common problem.

What is a remedy for such inability to meditate on a form of God? If one were to see a picture for long and to then close one’s eyes, the form would get imprinted rather clearly in the mind. Then one could meditate upon the form that has got impressed upon the mind; with adequate practice, one succeeds.

Some ask, “What is the need for temples?” It is true that they are not necessary. But for whom? If a person can behold God wherever he happens to be seated, a temple is superfluous for him. On the other hand, consider the case of a man who is unable to focus on God even when he goes to a temple. What would his condition be if there were no temples at all? Thus, for a person of this kind, a temple is essential.

Bhagavatpada recognized this. His explanation of the Truth is lovely. He avers, “Intrinsically, God has no form. But He can take on any form.” God comes to some in the guise of a friend. For instance, Lord Krishna came to Arjuna not as God but as a friend. He came to Vasudeva and Devaki not as the Supreme but as their son. To Kamsa, He appeared in the role of an enemy. We cannot know in what form He will come to us.

The best course is for us to recognize that everything has got God for its essence. We should contemplate on God as immanent and as possessed of a form and make it our aim in life to experience Him. Alternatively, we should strive to make this our last birth by directly realizing that we are intrinsically God, the non-dual absolute reality, devoid of attributes. Only then will our life as humans become truly significant.

On the other hand, having got a human birth, association with a sage and the capacity to discriminate, if we remain concerned only with worldly enjoyments and the means to attain them, the following statement will apply to us:

(Who indeed, is a greater fool than the person who is negligent of his own welfare?)

The Shastra teaches us what is good for us and not about the welfare of some unknown third party. It tells us, “Uplift yourself.” If we do not do that, we are thorough fools.

In the time of Bhagavatpada, there were many creeds. For instance, there were Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Shaktas, Buddhists and Charvakas, the total Nastikas. There was discord as to who was right and who was wrong. Reasoning that springs from the mere imagination of persons lacks conclusiveness, for man’s conjecture has no limits. It is seen that an argument discovered by adepts with great effort is falsified by other adepts. An argument hit upon by the latter is proved to be hollow by still others. So, nobody can treat as final any argument springing merely from conjecture; after all, human intellect differs.

However, since time immemorial, we, in India, are familiar with the Veda. The Veda is beyond the confines of human schools of thought and is the final deciding authority. Here, some may object, “The Buddhists do not accept the Veda as authoritative.” I too concede that the Buddhists do not accept the Veda as an authentic means of knowledge but recognize that the mental impressions of the early Buddhists were only Vedic. After all, they had studied the Veda. They accepted the portions that appealed to them but discarded the portions that did not. That is why they got the name “Avaidika” or “one who does not follow the Veda.” On the other hand, if they had accepted all that is said in Veda, they too would have been termed “Vaidika” or “follower of the Veda.”

They accept this teaching of the Veda. Next comes the injunction:

This too appeals to them. The Veda further says:

They concur with this order. Then comes:

They follow all this as they do believe that the mother, father, teacher and the guest are venerable. Indeed the early Buddhists came from families familiar with the Veda. But when the Buddhists encountered the Vedic teaching,

they rejected it.

The following maxim is pertinent in the context of their partially accepting and partially rejecting the teaching of the Veda.

A man purchased an egg. He desired to preserve it till it hatched and he obtained a chick. At the same time, he could not control his desire to have the taste of the egg. So he thought, “Let me keep one half of the egg for hatching and eat the other half.” He implemented his plan. The result was that hatching was not possible and, further, he had only half an egg to eat.

Thus, once one takes a text such as the Veda as a Pramana or a valid means of knowledge, one should accept it in its entirety. Here, one such as the Buddhist may object, “There are internal contradictions in the Veda and, as such, it is unacceptable.” What superficially appear to be contradictions are actually not so. They can be fully resolved by means of proper, interpretative logic. Such logic must be resorted to. It is the Veda which says,

And it is the very same Veda, that also says:

There is no real contradiction here, for the former is the general rule and the latter is an exception. In the Karma Kanda of the Veda, we find specifications of the form, “If you desire this, perform such and such a rite.” The question of whether the desire is right or wrong is not analysed at that juncture. In case the desire is not present, it is unnecessary to perform that rite. Viewed in this light, the Veda is blameless and free from contradictions.

One may ask whether the scripture advises one to become a householder or a Sannyasi. In this connection, what Bhagavatpada has said in His Upadesha Panchakam is striking. He advised:

(Study the Veda everyday. Perform well the acts enjoined therein. Worship God through the performance of duties. Give up the thought of engaging in desire-prompted rites. Eradicate the host of sins. Contemplate the faults in worldly enjoyments. Establish the desire for the Self.)

All this was nice to hear. Abruptly, Bhagavatpada went on to say:

“Quickly go away from your house.” Here one may think, “Oh! Having accomplished all this, must I leave home?” Yes, if, after having done all this, you feel you have had enough of the world, then leave home. If you feel that the worldly experiences you have had are not sufficient, go right ahead and do the above activities not merely for the duration of this life but in a few succeeding lives also. At least thereafter, you will feel, “Enough of the world.” This is the special feature of Bhagavatpada’s Veda-based teaching; the competence of the person is fully taken into consideration.

Next, there is the question, “Should one resort to God as Saguna, with qualities, or as Nirguna, devoid of all attributes?” The answer pertinent to the common man is, “You should resort only to God as Saguna.” With respect to God with qualities, a person may wonder, “Is Shiva the greatest or Vishnu or Shakti or any other?” To the people who have such a doubt, Bhagavatpada’s advice is, “The Supreme Brahman, devoid of all attributes and forms is indeed the greatest. It is this reality that appears as Shiva, Vishnu, etc. You may worship Shiva or Vishnu or Shakti or any other such divinity. When all of them are really one, what room is there for discord?”

(He should follow the path of his father and grandfather.)

As per this statement, one should worship in accordance with one’s family tradition.

Alternatively,

(You alone are the sole goal of persons who, because of differences in their tastes, follow different paths, straight and convoluted, just as the ocean is the goal of the rivers.)

In keeping with this, one’s preference can be the deciding factor. However, one’s freedom is not absolute. One should not resort to whatever catches one’s fancy. What is forbidden by the scripture must be left out. Amongst what is prescribed, such as worship of Shiva, Vishnu and the like, a man may choose whatever appeals to one.

What is that which is forbidden?

(Do not injure any creature.)

There is no question of saying, “I do not agree with this rule.” One has to follow it. Then we have,

(Venerate your mother as a god. Venerate your father as a god. Venerate your teacher as a god.)

One has to accept all this. Further, one is not given a choice when it comes to doing what is specifically enjoined upon oneself by the Shastra and abstaining from what all is explicitly prohibited. One may think, “I am not in a position to do everything that I am required to.” To this, the scripture itself provides the solution.

(Even a little of this Dharma saves one from great fear.)

Have faith and do as much as you are capable of. The general rule is that one should bathe and only after that perform one’s Sandhya Vandanam and worship of God.

Suppose you have fever and the doctor tells you that if you bathe, your ailment can turn serious. Should you still bathe and only then perform Sandhya Vandanam? No. You can apply Vibhuti, Gopi Chandana or something else depending on your tradition. Thereafter, you can perform Sandhya Vandanam; there is no need to take a bath.

Suppose the situation is worse and even Vibhuti and water are not available.

(He who remembers God becomes externally and internally pure, regardless of whether he was impure or pure or in any state.)

In keeping with this, one should think of God and pray, “O Lord! I am unable to access even water. How then am I to bathe. Further, I do not even have the strength to do so right now. But it is said that any good activity should be done while being pure. For me, to become pure, there is just You, the purest of the pure. So I think of You.” If, after such sincere prayer, one were to perform Sandhya Vandanam, God would accept it.

On hearing of this position of the Shastras, a boy perversely decided, “In winter, there is no need for me to take a bath. I can just do Sandhya Vandanam straightaway. On the other hand, in summer, I can take three baths and perform Sandhya Vandanam.” This is not a conclusion based upon scriptural authority but is dictated merely by one’s own desires. The rules prescribed by the Shastras must be adhered to; deviation from the norms is permissible only in exceptional circumstances.

The case of the boy also illustrates that it is necessary for a teacher to consider how much information should be imparted to a particular person. Some years ago, a huge Sabha, was organized well at Paramahamsi Ganga Ashram in Madhya Pradesh, by Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati, who is close to Me. Between 10,000 and 20,000 people attended. One speaker narrated the following story.

There was a Sadhu who was a great devotee of God. He never took food, without first offering it to the Lord. One day, the item that he had kept for offering got contaminated by snake venom. Unaware of this, he offered it to God. Subsequently, he ate the food and went to sleep. He woke up in the morning, quite healthy. However, he found that the image of God that he worshipped had fallen to the ground. What had happened was that when God ate the food, it became pure. So, the devotee was left unaffected. It was Lord’s idol that suffered the consequences.

On hearing the story, I told the narrator, “Please do not say such things. Many children are present in the audience. They may offer some milk to God even it happens to be contaminated and, influenced by your story, may casually drink it, expecting to remain unaffected. Do not take the responsibility for such disasters. All that you have said pertains to “Bhakthyudreka” or extreme devotion. When it is there, extraordinary acts, such as the eating of poisoned food, may be carried out. But the normal situation is different. It is necessary to keep the competence of the hearer in mind.”

(Attainment of the result is specifically dependent upon the qualification of a person.)

Bhagavatpada’s position is that neither Karma or religious action nor Jnana or knowledge is proscribed; both Karma and Jnana are needed and so is Bhakti. In the Bhagavata, it is said that Karma, Bhakti and Jnana constitute the means for a person to attain the highest and that there are no other paths besides these three.

Meditation on Shiva, Vishnu, etc., is included in the path of Bhakti. When it is said that Karma and Jnana are both necessary, does it mean that they have to be conjoined? In other words, do they have to be practised at the same time? That is, impossible. Can water and fire be kept together in the same place at the same time? No. Similar is the case here.

Bhagavatpada advises, “You should keep doing Karma with sincerity. By virtue of its performance, your mind will become pure in due course. Then take to contemplation on God. With the practice of contemplation, you will gradually get to the stage where you will see the entire universe as having no existence apart from the Supreme. Then you would have become a Jnani or a knower of the Truth.”

(In you, in me and elsewhere, there is only Vishnu. Being impatient, you unnecessarily get angry with me.)

I have examined Myself to see what difference there is between a young person and an old person as far as anger is concerned. When I was young, if someone scolded Me, I used to get angry and demand, “Why do you scold Me?” Now I feel, “Some task of his has not been done by Me. He has come to Me with expectations. He is disappointed now. He is unable to beat Me. So what is he to do to vent his feelings but to censure Me? If I had done his work, he would have left this place, praising Me. I do not have the capacity at present to do what he wants. He is unable to understand this. So, he scolds Me. Let him go ahead.”

When a person has had numerous experiences of being censured, he gradually gets the realization, “In this world, neither censure nor praise has any value.” If we remain unruffled even in the face of provocation, then we become noble persons. When does this understanding dawn? Usually, on our becoming old. With respect to a young boy, the following conversation is likely.

Boy : He scolded me and so I shouted back.

Elder : You scolded him but what came out of it?

Boy : I retaliated.

Elder : Is that all? What did you achieve? Nothing.

Just as with the passage of years, people progress from immaturity and irritability to maturity and calmness, one gradually progresses from activity to renunciation. One should start by regularly engaging in one’s religious duties. It is said:

(Only by being engaged in rites, one should desire to live here for a hundred years.)

Having performed Karma, one gradually comes to the following conclusion:

(Having seen that the world is definitely puerile and desirous of apprehending the essence (inmost Truth)...)

No matter what is seen in this world, there is not much to it. The sun rose. We got up. Then, we bathed. Next, we ate breakfast and went to office. There, we did work, came home, ate our night meal and then went to sleep. The next day, the same sequence was repeated. Nothing else.

Bhartruhari says, “We keep doing the same things again and again. However, because of our delusion, we do not even feel ashamed of ourselves.” One should sit, reflect deeply and realize that this is the way of the world. If something needs to be done then let it be carried out; else, let it not be done. When does an understanding of this form arise? Only after prolonged analysis of the ways of the world. Even if one were to go from here to heaven,

(On the exhaustion of Punyam, they return to the world of mortals.)

On coming back, the man who went to heaven engages in further Karma. Again, he goes to heaven and then returns. Thus, either in this world or in going to heaven and coming back, there is nothing of consequence. Does it not seem, “enough”?

The river flows and keeps on doing so. Till when? Till it reaches the ocean. Then it just becomes the ocean. It is the water of the ocean that becomes mist, then a cloud and descends to the ground as rain. The rain water forms a brook, then becomes a river and goes back to the ocean. He who has not analysed the situation would say, “The ocean and the source of the river are far apart and yet some say that the river and the ocean are one. They are stupid.” However, he who has analysed would say, “The river could not have come into existence but for the ocean. The source of the river is the ocean itself and it is to the ocean that the river goes back. As such, they are essentially one.”

When does transmigration cease for the individual soul who goes from birth to birth like the flowing water of a river? The Lord says,

(But on attaining Me, there is no rebirth.)

So many are the Jivas or individual souls that are encountered in the world. Who are they?

(It is verily a part of Mine that has become the eternal individual soul in the world.)

There is a big fire from which a spark emerges. Is this spark different from the fire? No, they are essentially one. On separation from its source, a fiery particle becomes a spark. On its rejoining its source, it becomes indistinguishable from the big fire. “Likewise”, says the Lord, “If you, who is a spark that has emerged from the big fire that is Myself, want to escape from this cycle of birth, old age and death then merge with Me.” How are we to merge with God?

(Just as flowing rivers give up their names and forms and become indistinguishable after reaching the ocean... )

A river has a name and form till it reaches the ocean but not thereafter. After it merges with the ocean,

(It is just called, ‘ocean’.)

For us, who have been moving, like a flowing river, from birth to birth in the cycle of transmigratory existence, the goal is merger with the ocean that is the Supreme. What demarcates our case from the merger of a river or a spark into its source is that we were never actually separated from our source, the Supreme. Our separation is only apparent. While we continue to be the Supreme alone, owing to our ignorance of our true nature, we suffer.

(But on attaining Me, there is no rebirth.)

Merger with the Supreme, characterized by our realizing our true nature, is the goal that we must attain. For this, the paths are those of Karma, Bhakti and Jnana; Karma leads to Bhakti and Bhakti to Jnana. After Jnana or firm realization of the Truth is got, what does a person have to do? Nothing. He has no identification with the body and abides in bliss.

There is a disciple of Mine. Owing to the special merit acquired by him in his earlier birth, on his sitting in Samadhi, the acme of Yoga, he does not get up even when three days have passed. One may ask, “Has Sandhya Vandanam not got omitted?” He is doing something that is far superior to Sandhya Vandanam.

(He is absorbed in the Supreme Brahman.)

I : What was it like when you remained for three days in Samadhi? Were you aware of day and night?

Disciple : No, I was aware of nothing external. I just abided in that state.

I : How did you know that three days have passed?

Disciple : I had kept a watch with me. When I got up, I learnt from it that three days had lapsed.

When he has attained a high state, is it necessary for him to perform Sandhya Vandanam or to perform Abhisheka to a Shiva Lingam? No.

On the other hand, suppose there is a person who desires to eat tiffin, drink coffee and go out and wander in the streets, and also does all this but remains without performing worship of God. What can we say to him except “You are a thorough Nastika.” On the other hand, it must be said about this disciple of Mine that he is the ultimate Astika. Why? Because, in Samadhi, he does nothing. If he were to engage in activities then it might be suggested to him to do Sandhya Vandanam too. But he does nothing whatsoever; even food is not needed by him. There do exist such persons.

What I am saying is what I have been seeing in My disciple. His achievement is because of the special merit acquired by him in his previous birth. He told Me, “I wish to go to a forest and sit in penance.”

I : For how many days?

Disciple : One month.

I : What will you eat?

Disciple : I shall keep with me a little Aval (flattened rice).

I : What will you do if a tiger comes ?

Disciple : Oh, am I not there as food for that tiger? If it feels like eating, let it do so.

That is the extent of his firmness of mind. One day, when he was seated, a tiger actually came there. He saw it and felt, “God has come to me in the form of this tiger. He is revealing Himself like this.” He just remained seated. The tiger observed him and saw whether he was moving his hands, or legs or head. He did not move at all. What did the tiger think? Perhaps, it concluded that this person must actually be some stone. It went away. If we get that kind of capacity, need we do worship of God? No, for God would be experienced by us right where we are. After all,

(Narayana pervades the interior and exterior of everything perceived or heard of in this world.)

To him who cannot see God within, God is only outside, in the temple. Such a person could be advised, “Avoid misdeeds at least in the temple.”

There was a person who was engaged in sorcery for malevolent purposes in a place of worship. On being asked, “Why do you commit such misdeeds here?”, he replied, “Even if God were here, wrong acts could be done. I have decided that there is no God. So, it does not matter what I do anywhere.” What is the remedy for such a pervert? He lacks self-control and is swayed by his senses. His justification is just an instance of:

(Scholarliness only in advising others.)

Such scholarliness is useless. One must have personal experience in life. So, Manu says,

(Four things - life, knowledge, fame and strength increase for the person who habitually pays obeisance to elders and always serves them.)

Nowadays on seeing an elder, youngsters say, “Hey, old man! Step aside.” They do not have the courtesy to request, “Kindly let me pass.” Manu says that on becoming a nonagenarian, a person becomes venerable, regardless of his position in society. Why? Because of his great experience, there is much that a young person can learn from him. For instance, he would have ingested many items of food during his long life and would be able to say what would be the effect of eating something. Therefore, by virtue of his age itself, he is venerable.

Regardless of our same-sightedness with respect to all people, we should implement in our lives only what is appropriate for us. Whose conduct should we emulate?

(Those Brahmanas who may happen to be there, who are able deliberators, who are adepts in duties and customs, who are not directed by others, who are not cruel and who are desirous of Dharma...)

There are persons who are desirous of Dharma and do not wish to cause any unhappiness in the mind of another. Their conduct should be our standard. By emulating them, we would be following our holy tradition and heading towards the goal.