PART 1 DEFINITIVE ANSWERS

This part is a record of many questions posed to His Holiness and His answers. Most of the dialogues presented here took place in Tamil and the rest in Hindi and in Kannada and they have all been rendered into English. His Holiness cited scriptural passages in Sanskrit. The translations of these have been put in italics and the references given as footnotes. The dialogues have been grouped under 31 heads and include even answers that have not been reported earlier; what was published earlier has been freshly edited and partially reordered by the disciple who had compiled them. As can be seen, His Holiness’s answers about different forms of meditation, samādhi (the acme of meditation), enlightenment and the state of a jīvanmukta (one liberated while living) bear the stamp of His direct experience.

1. GURU

Disciple: Is a Guru necessary for one who desires mokṣa (liberation)?

His Holiness: Very much.

D: What is the chief characteristic of a Guru?

HH: A Guru should be a jñānin (one who has realised the Truth). Further, he should be interested in the well-being of his disciple.

D: Nowadays, many pose as sages. Such being the case, how is one to identify a real Guru?

HH: No specific rules exist regarding this. If we are very sincere, Īśvara Himself will lead us to a Guru. We can see for ourselves whether the person whom we wish to have as a Guru is a jñānin and desires our well-being. Though it is difficult to conclude whether one is a jñānin or not, we can use the description of a jñānin contained in the Bhagavadgītā as a yardstick. However, while doing this, it should be remembered that the description was not given to select jñānins.

D: What should be the attitude of the disciple towards his Guru?

HH: He should not view the Guru, Īśvara and Ātman as different. It is said:

The disciple should always follow the instructions of his Guru. Regardless of any contrary opinion of others, he should treat his Guru’s directions as final.

D: Can one who has not attained jñāna bestow the knowledge of the Ātman on another?

HH: One cannot comprehend the Ātman even by deep enquiry if one is taught by a person who has not realised the Ātman. When taught by the teacher who is a jñānin, one attains liberation.²

D: Is it wrong on the part of a spiritual aspirant to listen to others commenting adversely on his Guru or Īśvara?

HH: Yes.

D: What should he do in such a situation?

HH: If the person who criticises is amenable to reason, he may be asked not to criticise. If not, the disciple should leave his presence.

D: What may a person desirous of going to a Guru and leading a spiritual life do prior to the attainment of a Guru?

HH: He can worship Īśvara mentally. There is no restriction in doing this. The method of performing such mental worship has been elucidated in the Mṛtyuñjaya-mānasapūjā-stotra, Śiva-mānasapūjā-stotra, etc. It is good to develop devotion towards Īśvara by dedicating the fruits of all actions to Him. Firm dispassion should be acquired by means of discrimination. Sincere prayer is potent in enabling one to get a proper Guru.

D: At what age should spiritual practices be commenced?

HH: The earlier we start, the better. Were not Prahlāda and Dhruva young boys when they began their spiritual practices?

D: Is the Guru’s upadeśa necessary for one interested in material life?

HH: Is a doctor necessary for one affected by a disease?

D: Yes.

HH: If a person desires pleasure in worldly life, does he get it to the extent that he wants? Not at all. Even to attain worldly happiness, would it not be wise to seek guidance? The blessings of a knower of the Truth are extremely potent. Hence, whatever may be the way of life desired, it is advisable to seek the grace and guidance of a saint.

D: Though some people wish to carry out the instructions of their Guru, they do not always act accordingly. They also have a wrong idea that they can get happiness through some other means. How are such thoughts to be prevented?

HH: Will not even a worldly person have an impression regarding a saint to the effect, “He is much more knowledgeable than I am?”

D: Yes.

HH: Will not a Guru consider the well-being and the difficulties of his disciple?

D: Yes.

HH: The Guru is concerned with our welfare. He knows more than we do. He has understood our difficulties. Since this is so, if he gives us some advice, will it not be for our own good? If the disciple firmly establishes such an idea in his mind, he will act according to his Guru’s instructions. When difficulties arise in following the instructions, he should think, “It is good for me to act as per his instructions.” Then, vacillation will cease.

D: Some people hesitate to disclose their problems to their Guru. Hence, when it is difficult to carry out his orders, they get the doubt, “My Guru has given this advice for my own good. But there are certain difficulties in following it. I am of limited capacity. How then am I to act as per his instructions?”

HH: Is it not sheer foolishness if a person hides facts about his disease when he goes to a doctor? Therefore, we should spell out our difficulties to our Guru without any hesitation. It is our duty. Even if that is not done, as the Guru is a knower of the Truth, his instructions will be only in accordance with the will of Īśvara. This being the case, whatever he says will be appropriate for us. If we do not have the capacity to follow his instructions, even that capacity will be obtained by his grace. An ideal disciple will indeed act as per his Guru’s instructions and not give place to thoughts such as, “Is it possible for me to do as he says? Shall I try something else?” If we follow our Guru’s instructions, it does not mean that we are unintelligent. It only implies that we have surrendered ourselves, for our own good, to a power superior to us.

D: Is it possible for even a heinous sinner to progress in spiritual life if he obtains a great Guru’s grace?

HH: If the blessings of Īśvara and the Guru are got, even the worst sinner can progress. However, we should not be careless thinking, “We will progress in life just by the power of grace.”

D: Sometimes, even those who have committed many ill-deeds become the recipients of the blessings of great souls. Certain others are quite moral. Still, they are seen to be deprived of similar blessings. Holy ones are not guilty of favouritism. Why then should such disparity be observed?

HH: We should infer the cause from the effect. A certain person is morally inferior to another. Yet, it can be seen that he enjoys divine grace to a greater extent. There should be some reason behind this. What could it be? The cause may be analysed thus: “If the present life of the sinner is looked into, no reason can be found. However, enquiry into this birth alone is insufficient as there has been a birth previous to this. There, he might have done very many good deeds. Therefore, he becomes a recipient of divine grace in this birth. Hence, it can be inferred that even though he may not be leading a morally sound life now, as he is receiving a saint’s blessings, he should have acquired puṇya (merit) in his previous birth itself.” It is wrong to infer that a saint is partial. Nothing remains to be attained by a jīvanmukta (one liberated while alive). “I have a liking towards this person. Therefore, I should shower my blessings on him. The other individual is not a favourite of mine. So I need not bless him” – such notions are not entertained by him. Whether he chooses to bless others or not, he stands to gain nothing, as he has attained what is to be attained.

D: If it is only due to merit acquired in the previous birth that one gets divine grace, will not grace become an object “bought” by puṇya?

HH: The light of a lamp falls on its surroundings. One may study the śāstras in that light, while another may pay no attention to it and sleep. The great souls are always showering their grace. Each one can derive benefit depending on one’s own mentality. If one takes a big vessel to a pond, one can bring a large quantity of water. Just because a small vessel can hold little water, it does not mean that the vessel itself is the limit for the capacity of the pond. Similarly, if a person has acquired merit in his previous birth, he might get the good company of a great soul. However, he may not fully utilise the opportunity. Another one, though not having got the same opportunity may, by exploiting the available chance to the greatest extent possible, soon become the recipient of the grace of a sage.

D: If the Guru has blessed his disciple with his pādukās, how should the disciple respect them?

HH: Whatever reverence he has towards his Guru should be there towards the pādukās also. Every day, after devoutly prostrating before them, he should place sandal paste and flowers on them. It may seem good to perform abhiṣeka to them daily. If, however, they be made of wood and if the disciple desires that they be with him for long, he himself can decide how sensible it would be to offer abhiṣeka daily. If he pays respects to his Guru’s pādukās with sincerity or if he prays to them with true devotion, he shall get the fruits of the very same actions done directly in his Guru’s presence. So he should never be careless as regards the pādukās.

D: If a disciple desires to meditate on the pādukās, how should he proceed?

HH: He can meditate on the Guru’s feet as adorned by the pādukās.

D: How should a disciple conduct himself in the presence of his Guru?

HH: He should have a reverential attitude towards him. He should serve him whenever he gets an opportunity. However, he should also get his permission before doing so. If any clarification is required, he can ask him when he is not engaged in any activity. He should be sincere in his studies, always thinking that it is his great fortune to learn from his Guru. He should constantly keep in mind the instructions of his Guru and lead his life accordingly.

2. ĪŚVARA

D: Some people get a doubt as to whether Īśvara really exists or not. This is because they are unable to see Him. Cannot Īśvara, by some means, reveal to them His existence so as to induce śraddhā (faith) in them?

HH: Īśvara Himself seems to have been caught in a fix. If He were to give darśana to them, He would have to assume some form. On seeing the form, people may say, “You have a form. Therefore, you are not omnipresent and cannot be Īśvara.” If He does not give them darśana by assuming a form, they may say, “We do not see Īśvara. Hence, there is no Īśvara.” Thus, there are some people who will not believe in Īśvara regardless of whether He takes a form or not. In this situation, what indeed can Īśvara do? Variety is the nature of the world. We have the group of atheists also. Faith in Īśvara can be induced and further developed, but there is no use in attempting to induce it by force. Arguments could be advanced and the true experiences of many devotees could be cited. Many wonderful incidents that have taken place could be narrated. What has been made known in the śāstras could be quoted. Still, if one does not believe that Īśvara exists, what can be done?

D: Can a devotee see Īśvara?

HH: You mean with form?

D: Yes.

HH: Īśvara, though without form, can take one for the sake of His devotees. If we have limitless devotion, we can definitely see Īśvara’s form. There is no doubt at all about this.

D: Does Your Holiness mean that one can see Īśvara’s form mentally or that one can perceive Him even with the eyes?

HH: Īśvara is capable of giving darśana both ways.

D: Does Your Holiness say that He can be seen, talked to and touched?

HH: Yes. If there is pure devotion, Īśvara is sure to reveal Himself. When He does appear, why cannot one talk with Him?

D: Can this happen even in this kaliyuga?

HH: What link is there between a devoted person seeing Īśvara and the kaliyuga?

D: Who can get Īśvara’s vision?

HH: He who longs exclusively for Īśvara can see Him. Limitless devotion compels Īśvara to come to us.

D: How can one know whether the experience one had in connection with Īśvara is real or not?

HH: For him, who has had a real experience, such a doubt will not arise.

D: What about the others? Can they not think that his experiences stem from hallucination or self-hypnosis?

HH: What does one who has had the experience lose by others not accepting it? The acceptance or rejection by others does not affect the experience of that person in the least. Though this is the case, I will give a more direct answer to your question.

Suppose that Īśvara, while appearing in a vision, gives a fruit or some other object to His devotee. If the fruit remains with the disciple even after Īśvara disappears, then it can be realised that the experience was real. Such an experience changes the mentality of the devotee. Though the experience may have lasted only for a short duration, its impact lasts long. Further, those who have had such experiences become capable of transforming others. If the person who has had the divine experience is quite healthy, why should he start concocting things all of a sudden? If a person is to get involved in self-hypnosis, he can do that any time. On the other hand, special experiences of the kind being considered are not had whenever one desires them. By such an analysis, a true experience can be differentiated from a hallucination.

D: Why is there so much suffering in this world? Since it is Īśvara who created this world, is He not responsible for these troubles?

HH: A person experiences misery only because of his past deeds. One’s actions must bear fruit. Due to the fructification of one’s previous misdeeds, one suffers in this birth. It is wrong to say that Īśvara is the cause of these sufferings. Human beings have the freedom to follow the injunctions of the śāstras or to transgress them. A person acquires puṇya (merit) or pāpa (demerit) as a result of his actions and Īśvara just gives the fruits of those actions. When it is said that it is the foul deed of a previous birth that causes suffering in this birth, one may ask about the cause of the suffering experienced in that previous birth. The answer is, “It is the karma (action) of the births prior to that birth.” As saṁsāra (cycle of birth and death) has no beginning, it is improper to seek to identify a first birth in which we started life without any karma. While creating the universe at the commencement of each kalpa, Īśvara manifests what was in the previous kalpa. He does not create anything fresh from nothing.

D: It is said that Īśvara is aware of the past, present and future. If He knows what is going to happen, then it means that people’s future actions are completely predetermined. If that is the case, a person is fully bound by the dictates of destiny and cannot be held responsible for his actions. On the other hand, if a person has freedom to decide the course of events, then the future is not prefixed. In such a case, even Īśvara cannot know the future with certainty. Therefore, how can one say that He is omniscient?

HH: The world is a play of Māyā, while Īśvara is the Controller of Māyā. In this sense, everything goes on according to His will, which is what appears both as the free will of people and as fate. If regarded in this way, the statements that He is omniscient and that everything need not occur according to just the dictates of fate can be simultaneously true.

The issue can be considered in another way too. Let us suppose that a boy does not at all prepare for an examination. Then, can we not say with certainty that he will not pass? Just because we say this, can it be said that the student does not have the freedom to read or not to read? Definitely not. In the same way, if we take it that Īśvara has understood His creation in its entirety, then also there is no difficulty in asserting that Īśvara is omniscient and that destiny alone is not the deciding factor.

3. WORSHIP OF ĪŚVARA WITH FORM

F (Foreigner): Do Hindus worship many Gods?

HH: We believe that there is only one Supreme Lord who has no form and who is responsible for the creation, sustenance and annihilation of the entire universe. However, He assumes many forms for the sake of His devotees. With whatever name and in whichever form His devotees seek Him, accordingly do they worship Him. You might have heard of Indra, etc. These terms refer to divine positions held at different times by the souls that have acquired adequate virtue. You should not confuse the occupants of such posts with the previously mentioned Supreme Being.

F: Will Your Holiness kindly say something about worship of idols?

HH: We do not worship mere stones. If we did, then, on seeing a stone idol, we would have addressed it as, “O Stone” and not as “O Lord.” We use idols as aids to our worship, realising that it is He who resides in them. In the temple deities, divine presence is installed through the kumbhābhiṣeka performed to consecrate the idols. This is strengthened by the sincerity and tapas (austerity) of the priests performing the pūjā and by the special characteristics of certain idols. Though without form, Īśvara is capable of giving darśana to His devotees. He indeed does so.

F: During pūjā I saw Your Holiness pour water, milk, etc., on the Śiva-liṇga. What do these acts signify?

HH: During pūjā, we ceremonially worship Īśvara. In its course, we give Him a bath and that was the abhiṣeka that you saw. We wipe Him with a cloth and then offer Him food. Though the limitless and formless Īśvara is not in need of anything, our devotion makes us perceive and worship Him in idols. In terms familiar to you, abhiṣeka is a ‘shower-bath’ that we give Īśvara.

4. MENTAL WORSHIP

D: Some people desire to perform pūjā but find no suitable opportunity. They are also unable to meditate properly. What can such spiritual aspirants do to have one-pointed concentration of the mind?

HH: They can practise mānasika-pūjā.

D: What is mānasika-pūjā?

HH: Mānasika-pūjā is mental worship of Īśvara. Flowers, incense, etc., are required for pūjā. Here, we imagine all the accessories, conceive that Īśvara has come and offer them to Him.

D: How should mānasika-pūjā be practised?

HH: “Īśvara has come. I should welcome Him. I should offer Him an āsana (seat)” – contemplating thus, we welcome Him and offer Him an āsana. After He adorns the āsana, we wash His feet and His hands. For His ācamana, we give Him pure water. He accepts that. We then bathe Him. Proceeding thus, we complete the pūjā mentally. We do so with the conviction that He accepts our mental offerings and service.

D: What is to be done if Īśvara’s form does not remain steady during mānasika-pūjā?

HH: One can keep before oneself a picture of one’s iṣṭa-devatā (chosen Deity). The mental pūjā may be done while looking at the picture. After some time, the pūjā can be continued with the eyes closed, conceiving that Īśvara is present at that place. If the form becomes unsteady, the eyes can be opened for a while.

D: Is there any restriction in doing mānasika-pūjā?

HH: There is no restriction. It can be done at any time and in any way. Charming effects are seen if Īśvara is worshipped mentally. The mind becomes purified and His grace is obtained. To get an idea about mānasika-pūjā, stotras like the Śiva-mānasapūjā-stotra and Mṛtyuñjaya-mānasa-pūjā-stotra may be studied.

D: Is everyone permitted to practise mānasika-pūjā?

HH: Yes. There are no restrictions.

D: How long should mānasika-pūjā be done?

HH: It can be done for any length of time. Initially, it may be difficult to practise it for a long time. But, with repeated practice, one will find increasing delight in it.

5. GAṄGĀ

D: It is believed that the river Gaṅgā effaces one’s sins. Does it?

HH: Yes. Why is there any doubt about it?

D: If Gaṅgā removes one’s sins, can one commit any sin and then get rid of it by bathing in the Gaṅgā?

HH: A dip in the Gaṅgā will remove those sins that are unknowingly done or knowingly done once for which we are repentant. It is not fair to expect Gaṅgā to free one from an intentional sin done with the idea, “I will bathe in the Gaṅgā and get rid of it.” However, one need not have even an iota of doubt regarding the greatness of Gaṅgā. Crores of people travel long distances with the firm faith that they will be purified by a bath in the Gaṅgā. Īśvara does not let their faith go unrewarded.”

There is a story in this connection. Once, Pārvatī asked Śiva whether Gaṅgā would remove the sins of all. By way of answering, Śiva took on the appearance of an old man and took Pārvatī, in the garb of His aged wife, to the banks of Ganges. He told Her that He would pretend to be drowning and that She should raise an alarm. She screamed to attract the attention of the passers-by and sought their help. People rushed to rescue Him. Pārvatī, however, stopped them and, as earlier instructed by Śiva, said, “Only that person who has not the slightest trace of sin can touch My husband.” Only one among the throng dived in without the least hesitation and rescued Him. Surprised, Pārvatī asked the rescuer if he was free from all sins. He replied, “Did I not enter the Gaṅgā to save your husband? My sins vanished at that very instant.” Śiva later told Pārvatī, “All one’s sins are surely washed away if one has such faith in the Ganga.”

6. VEDAS

D: It is said that the Vedas are anādi (without a beginning). Are they?

HH: Yes. They are like the breath of the Supreme Being.

D: Some say that the Vedas were authored thousands of years ago by the Aryans and that the Upaniṣads were written much later. Is there any flaw in accepting this view?

HH: This view is not acceptable to us. If the Upaniṣads were written long after the Vedas, why should the Taittirīya-upaniṣad now be considered as constituting the seventh, eighth and ninth praśnas of the Taittirīya-āraṇyaka at all places? If it is accepted that Taittirīya-upaniṣad was written at a particular place and after Vedas were written, why should all people consider it as part and parcel of the Veda? Further, why should they accept it as belonging to that very position to which it is assigned?

Let us suppose that the Vedas were written many years ago. Were the ‘authors’ of the Vedas sincere, or were they intent on cheating others? The Vedas speak about sacrifices that should be performed to attain heaven. We can get this knowledge only from the Vedas. Hence, if Vedic authors were sincere, they could not have written on their own about the sacrifices to attain heaven. On the other hand, suppose that they were frauds. Why should they themselves have performed these sacrifices?

Those who teach the Vedas are particular that during recitation no error should occur either in the words chanted or in the svaras (intonations). Why are they so particular? Merely because those who had taught them the Vedas had instructed them that the exact words and their svaras are vital and that any error would not bring benefit. Proceeding likewise from a student of the Veda to his Guru and, further, to his Guru’s Guru and so on up to the so-called authors of the Vedas, it will be seen that they too should have held the belief that the svaras are very important. Why did the so-called authors of the Vedas insist on the proper svaras in spite of the fact that it would be easier to learn the Vedas without svaras? Is it not because of their having known that Vedas are holy and that no changes whatsoever should creep into them? They could not have considered books written by themselves as very holy. Hence, they could not have been the authors of the Vedas.

Even scholars accept that Rāmāyaṇa was composed thousands of years ago. We find that Rāma of Ayodhya knew the Vedas. We also come to know that Rāvaṇa, who ruled over Lanka, knew the Vedas. How could the Vedas have spread so widely even at that ancient age? It takes many years to learn even a portion of the Vedas. In the days of yore, the Vedas were studied without the aid of books. They could have spread over vast regions and the recitation technique could have been carefully preserved only if studied by all in the same fashion, with the conviction that they are holy.

If the Vedas were written by primitive men, how is it that they are so potent? Apparently incurable ailments have been cured by Vedic means. People have come across such incidents. If the Vedas were merely ordinary books written in olden times, they could not have had such potency.

In the light of points such as these, we confidently consider Vedas to be the direct teachings of the Supreme Being.

D: If the Vedas emerged from the Supreme, how are different ṛṣis associated with various mantras? Ṛṣis are the authors of the mantras, are they not?

HH: Ṛṣis are not the authors of the mantras with which their names are associated. Sages acquired the realisation of the essence of the mantras from God and made them known in the world. They did not produce the mantras on their own. Brahmā taught the Vedas at the time of His creation of man. Being a manifestation of the Lord, Vyāsa subsequently took the diminished capacity of the people of the kaliyuga into consideration and codified the Vedas.

D: We find many stories in the Vedas. Are they accounts of historical events?

HH: No. The stories do not relate to actual worldly incidents. The Vedas are like the breath of the Supreme Being and have no beginning. So they are not the records of the historical events of any age. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad, for instance, contains a dialogue between Sage Yajñavalkya and King Janaka. This is not the retelling of a conversation between two individuals who lived in some specific period. An event similar to that narrated could have occurred at some time but it cannot be said that this is what has been cited in the Upaniṣad. The stories in the Vedas aid one’s comprehension of the scriptural instructions.

D: Long ago, through the process of evolution, man gradually came into being. In the early stages, his brain was much less developed than the human brain is now. He led a primitive existence. In due course, his brain improved to the present level. The Lord could have then taught him the Veda. Is there any flaw in conceiving thus? If we have it this way, the findings of palaeontologists are not contradicted and, at the same time, it is admitted that the Veda was revealed by Īśvara. What does Your Holiness have to say about this?

HH: This is unsatisfactory. Simultaneous with His creation of man, the Lord should have taught him the Veda. In the Bhagavadgītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa says:

At the outset, having created mankind along with yajñas, the Creator said…¹ Yajñas (scriptural sacrifices) have the Vedas for their basis. For a yajña to be performed, the Veda is needed. Thus, the Lord’s words imply that Īśvara taught the Veda when He created the world. If we do not accept this view, we cannot give logical replies to many queries. If a primitive man predated the Veda, he could not have known what is dharma and what is adharma. Since, the norms of righteousness and unrighteousness were not revealed to him by God, did God simply treat his actions as virtuous and reward him or just treat them as sinful and punish him? If his actions fetched him the rewards of righteousness, we are forced to conclude, “Before the Veda came into being, good fruits were obtained for whatever one did but after Veda came to light, one also reaps unpleasant fruits for one’s actions.” Is this fair? Further, can one accept the conclusion that before the Veda came to light, one did not have to go to hell at all as one always secured good results, whereas after the revelation of Veda, the possibility of going to hell arose? If the view that all actions led to bad consequences were accepted, then also the implication is queer.

Therefore, at the outset itself, the Lord should have revealed the Veda. That is to say, He should have, at the outset itself, made known what is dharma and what is adharma. Thus, it is improper to hold that the Veda came to light only much after the appearance of man.

D: Scientists have obtained numerous fossils that establish that many millions of years ago dinosaurs lived and held sway in the world. Further, fossil and other evidence establishes that much after that there lived human-like beings whose brains were less developed than those of modern humans. Must fossils and other such evidence be unavoidably disregarded for maintaining the traditional view about the Vedas? Or, is it possible to somehow support the traditional view logically even while acknowledging fossils, etc.

HH: There is no need to disregard fossils and the like. Here is a possible reconciliation based on an example. Let us suppose that you have a dream in which you see yourself as a ten-year-old boy. Should you not logically conclude that you must have been a child earlier?

D: Yes.

HH: Did the dream start from the time you were a babe?

D: No. The dream begins suddenly revealing me as a ten-year-old boy.

HH: That is, even though it suits logic to say that in the dream you should have been a small boy initially, in reality it was not so. Do you agree?

D: Yes.

HH: It is not proper to extrapolate backwards in time because of the abrupt commencement of the dream. A traditional view is that the world came about abruptly like a dream. It has been stated in the Veda-bhāṣya on the fifth mantra of the Nāsadīya-sūkta of the Ṛgveda that just as light spreads all over in a trice when the sun rises, likewise creation occurred in a trice. Going by this, it is possible that humans appeared with a developed brain. What I have given you is a glimpse of one kind of reconciliation. Other varieties of reconciliations too can be advanced.

D: Is it mandatory that the Veda must be learnt only from Guru? Can one not learn it on one’s own, such as by means of a tape recorder?

HH: The Veda must be learnt only from a Guru. Hence, it is been said: All learning by heart of the Veda is preceded by its having being learnt by heart by the Guru.¹ If one attempts to learn it from a recorded tape, it can never be true vedādhyayana (study of the Veda). If a parrot says, “Come here”, a person generally does not assign value to the words and go to the parrot. On the other hand, if another person calls him with the same words, he goes to the caller. The difference lies not in the words but only in the speakers. Vedādhyayana is characterised by a śiṣya listening to his Guru reciting the Veda and then repeating the same. It is not learning with the aid of recorded sound. A recorded voice does not have the have the sanctity and power of a Guru chanting the Veda.

D: The Rudra-prśna is chanted during śiva-pūjā and the much has been stated about the greatness of these veda-mantras. However in some portions of the Rudra-praśna, there are prayers for material benefits.

HH: So what?

D: Can a person who desires mokṣa alone chant these mantras? After all he is not interested in the material benefits prayed for.

HH: The śāstras say that even saṁnyāsins can chant the Rudram. It is well known that saṁnyāsins should not desire material objects.

D: How are they allowed to chant the Rudram?

HH: Whenever one chants vedamantras, it does not mean that one has to desire the objects mentioned there. Mantras, such as the Rudram, are very sacred. If the mind does not long for what is prayed for, purity of the mind and the grace of Īśvara are obtained. Further, the objects concerned are not thrust upon one by virtue of the chant. So saṁnyāsins also can definitely chant the Rudram and, through it, secure the grace of God, purity of the mind and knowledge of the Supreme.

7. DISTINCTNESS OF THE ĀTMAN FROM THE BODY

D: Many scientists maintain that consciousness has inert matter as its fount. They maintain that consciousness emerges when inert matter acquires a particular form, such as that of a brain. Is this contention incorrect?

HH: This view is like that of the ancient Cārvākas. It is not correct. Why does a scientist say that consciousness arises from inert entities and that there is no distinct entity called consciousness?

D: Since consciousness is found only where the body or, to be more specific, the brain exists. Consciousness is not seen where there is no body or brain.

HH: Such reasoning is flawed. Objects are seen by us when light is present. They are not perceived when light is absent. Would it be right to conclude from this that perception is a quality of light?

D: How can perception be a quality of light? It cannot be.

HH: Though perception occurs in the presence of light and not when light is absent, nonetheless, perception is not a quality of light. Likewise, though consciousness is noticed where there is a body or brain and is not noticed in the absence of a body or brain, nonetheless, consciousness is not a property of the body or brain.

The moon is, by itself, devoid of luminosity. However, at night, we experience the light of the sun reflecting in the moon. Like the moon, the body or brain has, by itself, no light of consciousness, but functions as the medium for the special manifestation of consciousness. Consciousness, like the bright sun, has independent existence, apart from the body or brain.

The śāstras are the highest pramāṇa (means of valid knowledge). There is no finality in our logic. One reason may appear to us to be right and unassailable but if a highly intelligent person were to argue against it, we may be forced to admit that what we thought right is wrong. Yet another logician may falsify the arguments that led to our changing our views. Mere logic thus lacks finality. Logic that has the scripture as its basis is decisive and deserves to be resorted to. The Vedas were taught by the Lord and are free from defects that could invalidate them. They clearly make known that consciousness that is the Ātman is distinct from the body. Therefore, we should accept this. The direct realisation of the jñānins that the Ātman is pure consciousness is in complete accord with what the śāstras say. In fact, the Ātman transcends the scope of scientific investigation because It is beyond the ken of the senses, is bereft of activity, is devoid of qualities, is formless and is true intrinsic nature of the very scientist who strives to pinpoint it. So there is no question of its existence being disproved by any scientific investigation.

Can any scientist conclusively demonstrate that consciousness arises from inert matter? No. None has done so done yet. Let us suppose that a scientist claims that he has created consciousness in his laboratory. How can he establish without any room for doubt that consciousness was not already present but unapparent in the inert material used by him and that it subsequently just became manifest? He cannot do so. As it cannot be conclusively shown by him that consciousness stems from inert matter, there is no necessity to subscribe to his claim.

Undoubtedly, many are the benefits that we get from science. However, because science has great value, it does not follow that the view of some scientists that consciousness has a purely material basis is well-founded and worthy of acceptance. At any rate, it is untrue that science establishes materialism. It is a fact that many great scientists were and are theists. Hence, dedication to science does not call for the denial of consciousness distinct from matter.

Our śāstras state and also give numerous reasons to show that the Ātman is different from the body. So we should not entertain any doubt or misconception in this regard.

8. REBIRTH

D: The śāstras say that rebirth exists. Is there any rational evidence in favour of this?

HH: Yes. There are many logical reasons supporting rebirth. One person suffers much in this world, while another lives happily. What is the cause? We see such differences even in young children who have done nothing in the present birth to justify such joy or misery. In order to rightly account for such differences, one must accept the existence of rebirth. It is only proper to say that we suffer now as a result of sins committed by us in our previous births and that we have joy now due to the virtuous deeds of our past.

Some people have memories of their previous births. I learn that scientists are investigating this aspect. Some of the investigated persons who recalled their previous births described certain scenes and incidents that were subsequently verified. Without any earlier experiences, how could such recollections arise? Subject to their being factual, such memories support the existence of rebirth,.

Our śāstras prescribe certain prāyaścittas (expiations) to get rid of some diseases. On the performance of the ordained expiatory karmas, cures are seen. How can the remedial karmas directed to nullify the sins of a previous birth cure a disease of this birth if there were no rebirth at all? If it is said that mere faith cures the disease, it cannot be explained why, when the prāyaścittas are performed with faith but not in accordance with the prescriptions, the desired result is not obtained.

Some young children are seen to possess talents and understanding that are extraordinary for their age. They could not, in the normal course, have acquired such proficiency and that too almost naturally. They could, however, have acquired their skills and understanding in an earlier life. The case of such precocious children favours the existence of rebirth.

If we do not accept rebirth, we would be forced to conclude that, “Īśvara is partial for He has kept some people happy and some others unhappy. He has no mercy either because beings experience misery.” Nobody associates such defects with Īśvara. Hence, it is logical to accept rebirth.

Not even a fool engages in an activity unmotivated by and without any conception of utility in it. A new-born babe sucks its mother’s milk even without being trained by anyone to do so. Presumably, this is because of its awareness that satisfaction can be had from mother’s milk. Such awareness could not have arisen in this birth prior to its suckling for the first time. Therefore, the child should have acquired that knowledge in an earlier birth.

If we do not accept rebirth, it has to be said that after death a person shall dwell forever in heaven or in hell. Is this logical? Not at all. As a rule, that which has a beginning must have an end. Stay in heaven has a beginning and so must have an end.

Further, consider the case of a baby that has suffered a premature death. It could have acquired neither puṇya nor pāpa. Will the baby be condemned to hell, or will it raised to heaven? If its destination is hell, it has to take up punishment for no fault on its part. If we accept the other alternative, heaven, we are led to concede that the baby experiences heavenly pleasures even though it has no puṇya to its credit. The non-acceptance of rebirth results in such absurd conclusions.

What I have mentioned here are just a few reasons from amongst a host of them that establish rebirth on a logical basis.

9. FATE AND FREE WILL

D: Do we have the power to overcome fate? On the one hand, the śāstras say that one can conquer fate. For instance, it is said:

This shows that free will is more powerful than fate. On the other hand, it is also said:

Will Your Holiness kindly clarify?

HH: First of all, one should know what prārabdha (fate) is. This should be understood along with its mechanism of fruition. Those actions of the previous births that are yielding fruits now constitute the cause of this birth. It is this set of actions that we call prārabdha. It does not force one along a good or evil path. Karmas that have started yielding fruits gradually lead one by stimulating tendencies of likes and dislikes in the mind. Hence, Lord Kṛṣṇa has said:

Having expounded this verse, Śaṅkara-bhagavatpāda considers the objection: “If everyone acts as compelled by nature, there is no place for śāstras at all. Such being the case, what is the purpose of the śāstra saying, ‘Be righteous’?” He then points out that the next śloka provides the response. That verse is:

Thus, it is clear that if we conquer likes and dislikes, we will no longer be under their sway. We should, therefore, shed likes and dislikes and then voluntarily function in keeping with the scriptural teachings. You asked whether prārabdha (fate) could be overcome. The reply is, “It can certainly be overcome.” If it is that prārabdha cannot be overcome, a person cannot be held responsible for his actions at all. He would not have any choice.

I earlier said that the karma that is now fructifying is prārabdha. It is what we did in the previous births. Hence, prārabdha cannot be stronger than effort. We can change the tendency created by our earlier actions by suitable exertion in this birth. However, if the tendency caused by the karma of our previous birth is very strong, we will have to put in a proportionally stronger effort to counter it. This is true in most of the cases. Of course, one’s freedom is not absolute.

An illustration is a cow tethered to a post. It can roam about freely only to the extent of the length of the rope. It cannot go beyond. Similarly, the fate of the country, the free will of other people and our former actions place a limit to our freedom.

A person may board a train but the train may meet with an accident. In the same way, sometimes, one might have answered a question paper satisfactorily but the expected result might not materialise. One should not give room to worry on seeing all this.

Almost anything may be attained in spiritual life by effort. One may be destined to be a householder but with the blessings of a Guru and by effort, one can lead the life of a brahmacārin and, later, that of a saṁnyāsin. Though the consequences of earlier karmas have to be experienced, the intensity of prārabdha can be decreased by the grace of Īśvara. The negative effects of prārabdha can also be reduced to a great extent by means of medicines, japa, homa, pūjā, dhyāna and satsaṅga (company of great souls).

D: If, according to one’s horoscope, one would live for eighty years, does it mean that one will not die before that? Similarly, if another is to have a very short span of life, can he not live beyond that age?

HH: It is possible for one to live longer or shorter than predicted.

D: Does Your Holiness then mean that the horoscope is read wrongly or that casting of the horoscope is itself wrong?

HH: No.

D: In that case, what is predicted with the horoscope as basis is useless. Hence, no purpose is served by the Jyotiṣa-śāstra. Is this the view of Your Holiness?

HH: No.

D: Will Your Holiness kindly explain?

HH: The horoscope merely indicates the effect of karmas that one had done in the previous births. In this birth, by exercising free will, we can definitely change the course of events. If we earn the grace of the Lord, like Mārkaṇḍeya, then we can live longer than we are destined to. Similarly, by falling into evil ways, we can spoil our health and die earlier than we are supposed to. Further, we hear astrologers say, “If one acts as follows, the effect of that karma will be reduced.” If the verdict of the horoscope is immutable, what is the use of such expiations?

Nobody need to fear a horoscope. It is only an indicator of what is to come. We can certainly alter destiny if it is unfavourable. Another point to be remembered is that destiny can very well be favourable. In such a case, our efforts will readily bear fruit.

10. DHARMA

D: How is one to decide what is dharma and what is adharma?

HH: Any action ordained by the śāstras is dharma while that which is prohibited is adharma. In deciding about dharma, Manu says:

The Veda is the foundation of all dharma. The Smṛti that is in consonance with the Veda is also a pramāṇa (a valid means of knowledge). Ācāra (traditional practice) of the noble ones, who revere the scripture, is another pramāṇa. Next, there is the one’s mental satisfaction with respect to what is not out of line with the scripture. These enable us to determine what is dharma and what is adharma.

D: Cannot a conduct be dharma in one circumstance but adharma in another?

HH: It can. In this regard, we necessarily have to take recourse to the śāstras. Mere logic will not do. If a person who steals from a house is arrested, he might argue, “I stole only from a prosperous person’s house. This loss is insignificant by his standards, whereas it has given me an opportunity to fill my stomach. Therefore, what is wrong in this stealth?” Will a judge ever accept this? He will not, because it is contradictory to what is laid down in the penal code. The judge is bound to punish him. Likewise, what is prescribed as righteous in the Veda is indeed dharma. What is prohibited by it is adharma. We do not have the competence to decide for ourselves by mere logic.

D: If we commit a mistake unknowingly, will we incur sin?

HH: When doing so, if we are unaware that it is wrong, not much sin results. The performance sva-dharma destroys the demerit arising from mistakes committed out of ignorance. There is no need for a special expiation. Prayer to Īśvara is also effective in effacing the sin of what is done out of ignorance. When there is an opportunity for one to know what is wrong but still one does not make efforts to know, sin will accrue. One should try to know, at least to some extent, what the scripture specifies as right and as wrong.

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 and each one is required to wear the shirt received. Is giving such an instruction proper and is it feasible for everyone to do so? No. Different physical sizes must be considered. Likewise, different dharmas have been prescribed for people in keeping with the differences in their competence. Though there are some variations because of this reason, nonetheless, sāmānya-dharmas are common to all.

D: What is sāmanya-dharma?

HH: Manu has said:

The dharmas common to all, as declared by Manu, are abstinence from injury, truthfulness, abstinence from theft, purity and restraint of the senses.¹

One should not even think of causing misery to another. Even if one just entertains such a thought, it is violation of ahiṁsā. It is wrong to assume that only physical pain constitutes hiṁsā (injury).

Next comes satya (truthfulness). That utterance which does not cause misery to others and is also factual is satya. If the fact is so disclosed as to harm others, it is improper. Even speech that is pleasant but not factual is not satya. Therefore, it is that which is good to others in addition to being factual. Abstaining from stealing others’ belongings is asteya. Refraining from stealing implies that another person’s property should not even be mentally coveted. “Let whatever belongs to another person, be with him. I shall give something of mine to others” – such a mentality should be ours.

Śauca is purity. This is of two types. One is bodily purity. Bathing, wearing clean dresses etc., pertain to this category. The other is mental purity. Clothing may be clean but if the mind is not, true śauca cannot be realised. Indriya-nigraha comes next. When an object is seen or a sound heard, the mind might be attracted towards it. Indriya-nigraha is the restraint of the senses from going out to external objects. Regulating the indriyas or the senses is indeed indriya-nigraha. These five dharmas are common to all.

D: Is there any benefit in observing the sāmānya-dharmas?

HH: In him, who follows dharma, the good effect is certain to be seen. Hence, everyone born as a human being should necessarily adhere to dharma.

D: We see so many people indulging in adharma and also that they are only reaping rich benefits. The reason for this may be the karma of the previous birth. But the present acts of adharma do not seem to yield fruit at all. Why?

HH: It is erroneous to say that an act of adharma does not fructify at all. It does yield fruits, but some time later. Īśvara has boundless mercy. He gives a sinner an opportunity to rectify himself. If the sinner refuses to change, Īśvara punishes him. As regards the result of adharma, Manu has said:

The adharma that is done does not immediately yield fruit, unlike a cow (that is ready for milking); but, when repeated, it fructifies gradually (like seeds sown in the field) and completely destroys the doer of adharma.¹ One apparently flourishes by adharma (such as treachery), then perceives prosperity (by acquiring lot of wealth) and then conquers foes. Finally, however, one is completely destroyed.²

D: If it is very difficult to adhere to dharma, what is to be done?

HH: However great the inconvenience may be, one should not allow one’s mind to drift towards adharma. With great effort, dharma should be followed, as it will give us benefits sooner or later. After one’s death, one’s relatives go away, discarding one’s body. Only dharma and adharma accompany one. So, only dharma can save us in the other world and also in the next birth in this world. Never will he, who protects dharma, be left helpless. That is why it is said:

Dharma protects one who protects dharma.¹

This is very much true. Even if the result is not perceived now, the effect will definitely be experienced. Further, it is our duty to act according to dharma. “Has Īśvara not provided me with all sorts of comforts and benefits? Did He not save me while I was helpless in my mother’s womb? Should I not be grateful to Him?” – considering thus, one should act according to the injunctions of the Veda, which is like His breath. One should adhere to dharma at least with this perspective.

D: Much wealth is required to perform the yāgas prescribed by the Vedas. How then there is scope for a poor person to follow dharma?

HH: In the śāstras it has been said that one should follow dharma to the extent of one’s capacity. In following dharma, he who is wealthy can construct a temple. If a person does not have wealth, he can go to the temple constructed by the affluent, offer his obeisance and thereby acquire merit. Hence, there is equal scope for both classes of people to adhere to dharma. The difference lies only in the particulars of dharma to be followed. If he who is poor donates a rupee for a noble cause, he acquires high merit, but if a wealthy person having lakhs of rupees donates a rupee or a half, he will not get the same benefit.

D: We see certain people who stick to their anuṣṭhāna but cause suffering to others. Is this permissible?

HH: No. It is said:

I will make known in half a śloka what has been said in crores of texts. Helping others is puṇya. Troubling others is sinful.²

If one causes misery to others, it is certainly sinful. However, if a person abstains from dharma thinking that others would be happy only if he does not follow dharma, it is improper. This is because, though the śāstras prescribe the practice of dharma without causing pain to anybody, the word ‘anybody’ here means ‘any good person’. The īśvara-pūjā that we do may not be to the liking of an atheist. But on that account, we should not abandon pūjā. We can just continue with it but refrain from abusing the atheist.

D: Is it necessary for a spiritual practitioner to take note of the social and civil regulations, for no sin accrues by not adhering to them?

HH: These regulations should be followed as faithfully as the scriptural injunctions. It is we who set up these rules and that too, only for our convenience. Hence, it is unbecoming of a wise person not to follow them.

D: How will any sin accrue by not obeying these laws?

HH: No sin may accrue but if we transgress these codes of conduct, we will have to face appropriate punishments. For instance, there is a rule that one should keep to the left of the road while driving. If we overlook this, we may meet with an accident. This is, of course, a form of punishment.

D: With the passage of time, strict adherence to the scriptural injunctions has become difficult. Cannot the śāstras be modified somewhat to cater to this difficulty?

HH: We should never be short-sighted in our views. Just because accepting bribe has become a common affair, are we justified in enacting legislation to permit it? That would only help its intensification. We should, likewise, not seek to modify the śāstras. Consideration of changes in our ways of living is inherent in our śāstras. “Follow to the utmost extent possible” is what they grant. We, in our present condition, should abide by them to the maximum extent possible. Lord Kṛṣṇa has said:

Even a little of this dharma saves one from great fear.¹

In the light of this, how are we justified in attempting to modify the śāstras?

This apart, one who wishes to bring about a change in śāstras should be a knower of the past, present and future. Without even knowing the mechanism by which karmas yield fruit, how can we change the śāstras? We just cannot. This is because we are incapable of asserting with certainty, “Follow this. Even if it be difficult now, you shall derive benefit from it later.” We are unaware of what is in store for us in the future birth, nor are we aware of the happenings of the previous births. In short, we are not omniscient and so are incompetent to modify the śāstras.

D: Yāgas, such as Atirudra and Sahasracanḍī, 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 these 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 Atirudra, 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 a waste.

D: Some object that Hinduism speaks of what one should do for one’s good but not about doing something for the sake of others What is Your Holiness’s opinion as regards this?

HH: This view is incorrect. Our śāstras speak of the necessity of purity of the mind for attaining mokṣa and compassion as essential for mental purity. Compassion manifests in the alleviation of the suffering of others. It is therefore wrong to say that helping others has not been prescribed in our śāstras. Our śāstras say that we should get rid of our ahaṁkāra (ego) and that we should be same-sighted towards all. Incarnations of the Lord have been spoken of in the Itihasas and Purāṇas. Why did the Lord incarnate many times? Was He in need of anything? No. He manifested only for the sake of others. The kindness that He demonstrated in His incarnations such as Rāma and Kṛṣṇa is an ideal for us.

The Lord has specified in the Bhagavadgītā what kind of devotee is very dear to Him. He has said:

In this verse, it is taught that there should be no hatred towards anybody and that we should be friendly and compassionate towards all. Our prayer is:

No differentiation between friend and foe is made. We pray for the well-being of all creatures.

Jñānins, who have reached the end of the path to liberation made known by the scripture, have no bondage whatsoever and to them, the world is an appearance. Yet, they are full of compassion. They effect great good to the world by their presence itself even when they remain still. Become like them is our aim.

11. AHIṀSĀ

D: As ahiṁsā has been prescribed in the śāstras as a preeminent dharma, must it be observed at all times and under all conditions?

HH: The śāstras speak of two categories of resolves, viz., vrata and mahāvrata. Mahāvrata is a vow that should be observed always, under all circumstances. Considerations of time and circumstantial limitations can apply to a vrata. A saṁnyāsin should follow ahiṁsā as a mahāvrata. For others, it can be a vrata. One who lacks mercy is not a human being at all. Everyone should have mercy on the distressed.

D: We kill some insects unknowingly. Therefore, how can ahiṁsā we be observers of ahimsā?

HH: The ahiṁsā characterised by not intentionally causing harm can be observed as a vrata and I meant this. Even the thought of harming others is a violation of ahiṁsā.

D: Suppose a scorpion or a poisonous snake approaches a person with the intention of harming him. Should he just be a spectator because he upholds ahiṁsā?

HH: No. He can remove the snake or scorpion.

D: Will this not violate ahiṁsā?

HH: No; because he only saved himself and did not deliberately cause injury.

D: If one is very docile, will not others take advantage of this and cheat one? Will they not create troubles through various means?

HH: Undue mildness in transactions is not called for. It is true that a saṁnyāsin should uncomplainingly tolerate all woes. However, for a person engaged in worldly transactions, suitable gentleness is adequate.

D: If one troubles or irritates me without reason, what should I do?

HH: You should be calm mentally but may object or feign anger. You should not give room to anger that makes you lose control over yourself. What I said does not imply that you should always pretend to be angry. Be patient to the extent possible. Present an appearance of anger only after a certain limit is exceeded.

(The questions that follow are from a soldier who had served in the Army.)

D: Will sin accrue to me since I have been responsible for the death of many people?

HH: No.

D: Is not killing prohibited?

HH: Did you kill them due to hatred?

D: No.

HH: You only did your duty and followed the orders given to you. You did that action for the sake of the nation and not for your own sake. Is it not so?

D: Yes.

HH: That is why I said that you would not incur sin. If you had killed anyone out of animosity or for your selfish end, you would have been a sinner. However, you stuck to your duty for the sake of the nation. Lord Kṛṣṇa told Arjuna, “For a kṣatriya, waging a righteous war is an act of virtue and not a sin.” You soldiers are in the position of the kṣatriyas referred to by the Lord.

12. UPROOTING DESIRE

D: Many spiritual aspirants make efforts to conquer desires but desires keep springing up again and again. What is the reason for this?

HH: To conquer desires, first of all, there should be a firm resolve to that effect. A brahmacārin may be advised not to sleep in the afternoons. If does not have the conviction that he should follow the advice, he may not sleep for some days, but when feeling tired on some day may think, “What is wrong if I sleep just today?” Hence, a spiritual aspirant should have the determination to overcome longings. Some spiritual aspirants do not practise viveka (discrimination). Still, they expect their desires to vanish. They will not. The reason for this is that their vairāgya (dispassion) is not well-established. Vairāgya develops from viveka and when dispassion becomes deeply rooted, desires become completely vanquished. To overcome desires, other spiritual disciplines should also be faithfully practised. In the initial stages, one may not have an inclination for them but if one abandons them on that account, how will one’s desires go away? One should sincerely practise karma-yoga, mānasika-pūjā, contemplation of the Lord, etc. If dhyāna is also practised, it is highly laudable. Study of the śāstras is important.

D: Desires sometimes subside and appear to have been conquered but manifest all of a sudden. Is there any reason for this?

HH: I will give you an illustration. Suppose there is a spring, one end of which is fixed to a wall. If we keep stretching the other end, the spring yields and elongates. No sooner do we stop pulling it than it returns to its original size. The mind is like a spring attached to the wall of the world. Like the spring stretched by force, the mind that is held down through effort remains quiet for a time. Then, like the released spring reverting to its initial condition, the released mind becomes undisciplined as before. When a desire raises its head, some spiritual aspirants suppress it thinking, “I should not give room for it now.” That desire lies low in the mind for the time being and later bursts forth when the opportunity arises. Hence, spiritual aspirants should understand desire’s nature, clearly recognize that it is detrimental to them and practise the means to uproot it. If its root is cut, there is no scope for it to arise suddenly. For him who finds it difficult to get rid of desire, satsaṅga (company of the spiritually great) is essential. By the influence of great souls, the minds of those who reverentially come to their presence become peaceful. The śāstras should be dedicatedly studied. They make known that sense-objects really do not give happiness. Though we have faith in the śāstras, our faith is generally not unreserved. Hence, we sometimes have improper notions such as, “Why not I enjoy this?” Even to get rid of such thoughts, it is important to study the śāstras again and again.

13. MASTERY OVER ANGER

D: How is anger to be conquered?

HH: “I am in no way profited by my anger. This person is chiding me. What do I lose by that? Nothing. Then why should I give room to anger?” – if one entertains such thoughts, anger will eventually subside.

D: Is thinking on the above lines sufficient?

HH: Further thought may be necessary. “If I now abuse this person due to my anger, it may seem that I have established dominance. However, in reality, have I not become a slave to my anger? In attempting to dominate a rival, I have been conquered by another. Anger not only overpowers me, it spoils my intellect and tempts me to do what I should not do. Why should I become a slave to this anger? I will get much more benefit and satisfaction by the control of anger than by abusing any person” – one should think thus. If one is alert, the advent of anger can be sensed. If its rise is foreseen, effort can be made to control it before it manifests. Half the anger will subside the moment its arousal is recognized. However, many are aware of their anger only after it has erupted. Even such people can develop the habit of sensing it before it erupts.

D: Will anger create obstacles to spiritual progress?

HH: Yes. The Lord has mentioned desire, anger and greed as the triple gates to hell. An angry person does not think of what he is doing and even resorts to dangerous steps. He eventually incurs sin. Anger destroys him through his sins. Therefore, no place should be given to anger.

D: Does ‘giving no place to anger’ imply that one cannot instruct subordinates in a stern manner?

HH: Directives should be given wherever they should be. Otherwise, an official may not be effective in places like offices. ‘Giving no place to anger’ only means that ideas such as, “I should harm this person or take revenge on him” should not be permitted. At the outset, instructions can be given calmly. If they are not adhered to, one may take recourse to stern language to convey that they should be carried out. However, anger must not be allowed to rise and upset one’s calmness.

14. KARMA-YOGA

D: What is the role of karma (action) in spiritual life?

HH: If actions are done for the sake of Īśvara, without attachment to the fruits of actions, mental purity is attained.

D: If there is no attachment to the results, will not actions be done inefficiently? When one is not interested in success or failure, one will not put forth one’s best. Is this not a logical conclusion?

HH: Not at all. A spiritual aspirant who is unattached will perform his actions properly, as he does his duty as an offering to the Lord. Would any devotee like to offer to the Lord that which is improper? He will not. He who practises karma-yoga will not indulge in a bad deed. Further, he will offer all actions to the Lord. On account of devotion to Īśvara, he will strive to act to the best of his ability. As against this, he who has attachment to the fruits of actions will be bogged down by longings.

D: Has this been spoken of in the śāstras also?

HH: Yes. Lord Kṛṣṇa has said:

He who is without attachment, without ego, endowed with firmness and enthusiasm and unaffected by success and failure – such a one is termed as a sāttvika (pure) doer.¹

D: Suppose a person acts with an idea that dedication of the results to Īśvara will ensure success in endeavours. Is he a practitioner of karma-yoga?

HH: No. This is because he has not truly renounced attachment to the fruit of action.

D: What makes practice of karma-yoga difficult?

HH: Attachment to objects and lack of devotion towards Īśvara. A person having attachment may say that he has dedicated everything to Īśvara, but, actually, will not have been able to do so. In the absence of staunch devotion to the Lord, the ideas, “Everything should be dedicated. It is my duty to do so” will not be there. This again makes whole-hearted practice of karma-yoga difficult.

D: Is it enough if one is unattached to the results or should everything be positively dedicated to the Lord?

HH: If it is to be karma-yoga, one must dedicate everything to Him.

D: Will Your Holiness kindly give an illustration to show that strong attachment to the fruit can be an impediment and that one who practises karma-yoga can perform one’s duty in a befitting manner?

HH: Let us suppose that a student takes an examination and that he is very much desirous of success. What happens if he does not fare well in a particular subject? He becomes worried. He may then not perform well even in the next day’s examination. This is because of the persistent worry that he had not fared well in the previous examination. On the contrary, he who is unattached, prepares whole-heartedly. As he reads without worry, he will act better. Further, he will not be troubled by lack of interest. He will feel, “I do this for the sake of Īśvara. Therefore, at least considering it as my bounden duty, I should be sincere.” Even if he were not able to answer some question correctly, he will not be bogged down by anxiety.

D: Who is competent to practise karma-yoga?

HH: Anybody can practise karma-yoga. By the practice of karma-yoga, the mind becomes very pure. Devotion towards Īśvara deepens. Realisation of the Truth dawns only in a pure mind. Hence, everyone should constantly resort to karma-yoga. All can derive benefit from it.

D: Is it sufficient to dedicate merely the fruits of actions to Īśvara or should one dedicate the actions themselves?

HH: It is great to dedicate the actions themselves. If that is not possible, at least the results should be dedicated. In the Bhagavadgītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa has spelt out a sequence of increasingly simpler practices. He has said:

Fix your mind on Me. Concentrate your intellect on Me. You shall dwell in Me alone. There is no doubt about this.¹ If you are incapable of fixing your mind firmly on Me, endeavour to reach Me by repeated practice.² If you are not capable of even repeated practice, perform actions for My sake. Even by performing actions for My sake, you shall attain perfection.³ If you are unable to do even this, then, seeking refuge in Me alone, dedicate the fruits of all actions to Me, with a disciplined mind.⁴

D: If one is engaged in karma-yoga, will one perform many actions?

HH: One need not. Actions may be classified into six categories. They are: (1) nitya-karma, (2) naimittika-karma, (3) kāmya-karma, (4) niṣiddha-karma, (5) upāsanā-karma, and (6) prāyaścitta-karma. Nitya-karma is that which has to be done regularly at the scheduled time. Sandhyāvandana is an example of this. Naimittika-karma is not governed by a recurring time restriction. Some of the karmas to be done during eclipses can be cited as instances of this. Nitya and naimittika karmas are ordained by the śāstras. Their nonperformance leads to sin. Kāmya-karma is that done to fulfil a wish. The śāstras do not prescribe such karma as obligatory. One does these only because of one’s desire. Niṣiddha-karma is that which the śāstras prohibit. Upāsanā-karma is related to contemplation. Finally, karma for expiating a sin is prāyaścitta-karma. These six types can be simplified by considering only four categories: nitya, naimittika, kāmya and niṣiddha karmas. One should not indulge in niṣiddha-karma. Kāmya-karma could be given up. However, one must perform nitya and naimittika karmas. He who practises karma-yoga will not get involved in all sorts of actions. Whichever act is necessary, he will do without attachment. Basically, he will be concerned with nitya and naimittika karmas.

D: One dedicates one's actions to Īśvara to obtain His grace. In such a situation, how can it be said that one does not have attachment to the grace of Īśvara? Does one not perform actions with the target of securing it?

HH: From one viewpoint, what you say is correct. However, if, instead of being attached to material benefits, one is attached to Īśvara, no bondage will be produced. On the other hand, we will gradually become unbound. However, in ideal karma-yoga, dedication is done without even expecting Īśvara’s favour. There should only be the idea, “It is my duty to offer this to Īśvara.” Bhagavatpāda says in the Gītā-bhāṣya:

Perform actions just for the sake of Īśvara, giving up even the attachment of the form, “Let God become favourably disposed towards me.”¹

D: In practising karma-yoga, how can one ascertain whether one has made progress or not?

HH: I said that there should be no attachment to the fruit of action. Is one unattached when one desires to know whether or not one has made progress in the path of karma-yoga? However, if one has a doubt about one’s progress in the spiritual path, one can introspect, “Is my mind pure? Am I peaceful? Am I carrying out all actions without any worry and for the sake of Īśvara?” This self-analysis will show whether one is following karma-yoga properly or not.

15. DEVOTION

D: Performing bhajans is considered an act of devotion. Some others say that performance of nitya-karmas is devotion. Which of these is true devotion?

HH: Bhagavatpāda has said in the Viveka-cūḍāmaṇī: Amongst the means to obtaining liberation, devotion reigns supreme.¹ He has also defined devotion. He has said that devotion is profound meditation on one’s own true nature. This is the definition of lofty devotion. However, none but a few can have this kind of devotion. Others need to be prescribed a lower, simpler kind of devotion. Śrī Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, while speaking of devotion, has said that devotion is of three kinds. The first kind is associated with the idea, “I belong to Īśvara.” The second is having the notion, “Īśvara is mine.” An illustration is Yaśodā’s love for the child, Kṛṣṇa. If great affection towards Īśvara is cultivated, the idea, “Īśvara belongs to me” can develop. Superior to even this is the knowledge, “I am that Supreme Being.”

D: How can the notion, “I am that Supreme Being” be termed bhakti?

HH: An ordinary devotee is prepared to accept that he is different from Īśvara but an ideal devotee, being unable to put up with even this separation, desires “I must merge with my Lord.” Finally, he does attain that realisation. So, this should be termed as the highest form of devotion. Lord Kṛṣṇa has said that He regards a jñānin as the greatest devotee.

D: What form of devotion should ordinary people have?

HH: As long as the feeling, “I am the body” exists, it is good to consider oneself as a servant of the Lord. Then, one will not desire anything from Īśvara. One will consider serving the Lord as one’s duty.

When the Lord said to Prahlāda, “I shall bestow a boon upon you,” Prahlāda replied:

He who expects something from Īśvara is not a servant; he indeed is a merchant.²

D: If that is so, is it erroneous to consider the performance of bhajans as devotion?

HH: No, it is not. Even that is an act of devotion. Sage Nārada, while speaking of devotion, has said:

Devotion is of the nature of supreme love for Īśvara.¹

Various kinds of love for Īśvara have been presented as devotion by Śaṅkara-bhagavatpāda in the Śivānandalaharī. He has said:

Just as the seed of an aṅkola tree attaches itself to that tree, just as an iron piece goes to a magnet, just as a chaste woman has affection for her husband, just as a creeper clings to a tree and just as a river merges with the ocean – if thoughts are thus ever fixed on the pair of lotus feet of Īśvara, it is termed as bhakti.²

The first example is that of the seed of the aṇkola tree attaching itself to the tree. In the same way, in the initial stages, the devotee turns his mind towards Īśvara. The second illustration is that of an iron piece moving towards a magnet. In the first stage, the devotee had to do something. But here, his mind goes towards Īśvara naturally. If one keeps thinking of Īśvara, one’s mind will go to Him by itself. The magnet attracts the iron piece. Likewise, Īśvara attracts His devotee to Himself. The third illustration is about a chaste wife. The wife loves her husband and he loves her in return. Likewise, the devotee and Īśvara deeply love each other. The fourth example is that of a creeper entwining a tree. The tree’s beauty is enhanced by the creeper entwining it. In the same way, the devotee’s extreme devotion enhances the glory of the Lord. The analogy of the river merging with the ocean refers to supreme devotion. Just as a river, on merging with the ocean, cannot be distinctly identified, the devotee with limitless devotion becomes one with the Lord. These are the different gradations in devotion. Therefore, performance of bhajans is also an act of devotion.

D: Some people say that it is sufficient if one does bhajans and ask as to why nitya-karmas should be performed. Is this view correct?

HH: No. Proper performance of nitya-karma is itself an act of devotion. Let us suppose that there is a master and that he has a servant. If that servant, without discharging the duties assigned to him by his master, just indulges in eulogy, will the master be pleased with him? No. Īśvara is our master. He has specified through the Vedas and Smritis how we should lead our lives. If we discard His injunctions and confine ourselves to praising Him, how will He be pleased? So one should perform nitya-karmas. As a supplement to that, one is welcome to do bhajans, etc.

D: How are we to cultivate devotion towards the Lord?

HH: How does attachment to any object arise in us? If we keep thinking positively of a particular object, attachment towards it develops. If we repeatedly think of some action as important, attachment arises towards it. Likewise, if we incessantly think, “He is Supreme. There is immense happiness in contemplating on Him”, devotion towards Īśvara will become firmly established.

D: Why should one be devoted to Īśvara?

HH: He has bestowed upon us all that we have. Hence, we ought to be grateful to Him. He grants material and spiritual attainments and so we should be attached to Him. Though normally these can be reasons, it is better to be devoted to Īśvara, regarding devotion to Him as something that we just must have. Devotion ought to be natural. That is true devotion and it does not depend on any logical reason. Īśvara is most lovable and the steadfast devotee’s mind spontaneously goes to Him.

D: It is quite natural that if one has great affection for one’s iṣṭadevatā, one will not have the same attachment to other deities. Can one with a liking for Śiva have hatred towards Viṣṇu?

HH: Having hatred is neither good nor acceptable to the śāstras. The formless Īśvara assumes a form only to shower His grace on His devotee. Īśvara, by Himself, is devoid of form. The Lord manifests Himself in the manner in which His devotee desires to see Him. It is improper to have notions of difference such as, “Śiva is different from Viṣṇu.” While one may be particularly attached to one’s iṣṭadevatā, one should not look down upon other deities.

D: Is there anything special about the path of devotion?

HH: Anybody can follow the path of devotion. There is no restriction at all. Moreover, it can be followed easily. One naturally has prīti (love). If it is turned towards Īśvara, it becomes devotion. In the path of jñāna or dhyāna, one may have to face many difficulties during practice. Only after having advanced to a certain extent, one enjoys great joy. Such is not the case with the path of devotion. We can experience great joy even before reaching an advanced stage. Even while contemplating on the Lord, we can enjoy bliss. Hence, in the path of devotion, there is happiness right from the beginning. Devotion is the means and also the end. This is another exceptional feature.

D: Sometimes, while reciting stotras, a person may commit some mistakes. He may not be aware of them. Is this a grave fault?

HH: It is always better to understand the meaning of stotras that we chant. Knowledge of the meanings helps us in focussing our minds. However, if certain mistakes occur without our knowledge, we need not be unduly concerned. Īśvara considers only what is in the heart. He is not swayed by external appearances.

An ignoramus may say viṣṇāya instead of viṣṇave, as would be uttered by a learned man. Both secure the same puṇya, as Īśvara takes in the devotional feeling. Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita has explained this by means of an illustration. Devotees offer flowers to Īśvara and attain liberation. Manmatha wanted to shoot an arrow made of flowers at Śiva. By doing so, he sought to hinder Śiva’s penance. The Lord did not accept the flowers. On the contrary, He reduced Manmatha to ashes. In spite of the commonness in the use of flowers, the devotees obtain the highest end, while Manmatha perished. The inner attitude is thus of prime importance.

D: Is it improper to pray to Īśvara for wealth, to perform well in an examination or for anything else?

HH: I do not say that such prayer is wrong but it is unnecessary. Īśvara knows what is good for us and is capable of providing everything. He is compassion personified and omniscient. Such being the case, it is best to pray thus: “You are in my heart and that is sufficient. Do as You think fit.”

If one acquires a kāmadhenu (wish-fulfilling cow), is it wise to use it for ploughing? Is not Īśvara like a kāmadhenu? Of course, if one prays for specific ends, it cannot be considered wrong; Īśvara responds to such prayers too.

D: Īśvara does not need anything. Nevertheless, it has been said that everything should be offered to Him. What is the reason for this?

HH: Īśvara does not need anything, but is it not our duty to surrender our hearts to Him? It certainly is. Therefore, we must always offer our minds to Īśvara. That is to say, we should always keep thinking of Īśvara. The Lord says:

By this, He emphasizes the need to think of Him at all times. If we offer anything to Īśvara, He will certainly accept our offering. The Lord Himself has said:

D: Sometimes worries prevent the mind from turning towards Īśvara and divert its attention. What is to be done with regard to such hurdles?

HH: Why should a true devotee have any worry? While travelling in a train, should one keep one’s luggage on the head or on the floor? We would call a person a fool if he carries his luggage on the head. Whatever goes on in this world happens only as per His will. Should we not be carefree, with the feeling that Īśvara does everything only for our good? If we worry, is it not tantamount to lack of the belief, “Īśvara protects us. He gives us that which is good for us?”

D: Though this is so, worries sometimes arise of their own accord.

HH: This is pointer to the fact that devotion has not become intense. One should make efforts to develop devotion and to get rid of worries. If one truly surrenders to Īśvara, one can live comfortably and be happy too.

16. STUDY OF THE VEDĀNTA-ŚĀSTRA

D: Why is the dedicated study of the Vedānta-śāstra needed?

HH: To clarify the truth to a spiritual aspirant. Doubts can arise if we do not correctly understand the teaching of the scripture. Repeated study of the scripture clears such doubts. Firm faith in Vedānta is established. Scriptural study enables one to realise as a fact what is taught by the Guru and is the final import of the scripture.

D: What are the works that Your Holiness would recommend?

HH: For a spiritually advanced aspirant, the Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad alone is sufficient. Gauḍapādācārya’s kārikās and Bhagavatpāda’s bhāṣya thereon meticulously bring out its import. The Muktika-upaniṣad says about the Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad: The Māṇḍūkya alone is sufficient to give liberation to those keen on liberation.¹

The Yoga-vāsiṣṭha is a fine text. The Bhagavad-gītā, which emerged from the Lord Himself is very important. Bhagavatpāda’s works, Śrī Vidyāraṇya’s Pañcadaśī, etc., can also be studied.

D: How long should one study the śāstras?

HH: Till the knowledge of the Supreme Truth arises. Thereafter, it is not required. It is said:

Just as one desirous of grains discards the chaff, so also he who is desirous of liberation should abandon the study of the śāstras.²

D: Which verses of the Bhagavadgītā are particularly delightful to Your Holiness?

HH: He who is free from malice towards all beings, who is friendly as well as compassionate, who has no feeling of mine and is free from egoism, to whom pleasure and pain are alike, who forgives all, who is ever content and of controlled mind, who is endowed with firm conviction and whose mind and intellect are in Me – that devotee of Mine is dear to Me.³

D: Do not these verses refer to the characteristics of a jñānin? This being the case, will the verses be useful to a mumukṣu (one who aspires for liberation)?

HH: Bhagavatpāda has clarified that the attributes that are natural for a jñānin are also those that spiritual aspirants should cultivate with effort. If people have no animosity towards any being, are friendly and are compassionate as taught by the Lord, they will be happy and the world will be peaceful.

17. BRAHMACARYA

D: Is it necessary for a person desirous of only mokṣa to observe brahmacarya (celibacy) throughout life?

HH: It is advantageous for one who has vairāgya and longs for mokṣa alone. In fact, married life is a big bondage. He who observes lifelong brahmacarya can devote himself fully to realise the Supreme Being. The path is tougher for gṛhasthas (householders) as they have many responsibilities. Further, they have to deal with distracting pleasures that are impediments to immersion in spiritual practices.

D: If such is the case, why do the śāstras permit married life?

HH: Not all people desire mokṣa. Further, only a handful of persons are competent to observe brahmacarya throughout their life. Therefore, to enable others to attain the Supreme by leading a good life, the śāstras permit marriage. What the sāstras permit is a regulated married life.

D: It has been mentioned in many places in the śāstras that progeny is necessary for a person. Will Your Holiness kindly give reason for this?

HH: One deeply studying the śāstras can realise that such statements are meant only for people who do not have intense desire for mokṣa and whose minds are not free from sexual desire.

We learn from śāstras that a person with intense vairāgya need not lead a married life. The Upaniṣads say:

On the very day he gets intense vairāgya, he should renounce.¹ Let him take to saṁnyāsa from the stage of a brahmacārin or householder or vānaprastha (he who has retired to a forest).² What shall we do with progeny?³

D: Some people raise objections by asking how society can function if all observe brahmacarya. What is Your Holiness’s view in this regard?

HH: From among a thousand, one person intensely desires mokṣa. Even among those striving for it, only a few are committed to observing brahmacarya for life. Hence, the issue does not arise.

D: May women too remain unmarried to practise spiritual disciplines?

HH: Yes, they need not marry if they are serious about leading a spiritual life. Before resolving to remain unmarried for life, they ought to give thought to the control of mental urges and take care of their circumstances.

D: Does Your Holiness opine that householders cannot get jñāna and attain mokṣa?

HH: No. They too can attain jñāna and mokṣa. However, their path is tougher. An unmarried mumukṣu (one keen on mokṣa), especially one who is a saṁnyāsin, can remain away from causes of mental distraction and lead a life directed wholly to the attainment of mokṣa. Householders, however, have to live with familial responsibilities and deal with situations that are unfavourable. Nevertheless, it is incorrect to contend that they cannot secure jñāna. Janaka and such other householders were jñānins.

D: We read about ṛṣis in the Itihāsas and the Purāṇas and also learn that they were householders. Does it not follow that according to our holy texts many a householder was a jñānin?

HH: The words ṛṣi and jñānin are not synonyms and we cannot assert that all the ṛṣis were jñānins. Moreover, it cannot be maintained that every ṛṣi who was a jñānin attained his realization of the Supreme only after he became a householder and not earlier itself, when he was observing brahmacarya. Further, not all ṛṣis were married. We all accept that Śuka, Sanatkumāra, etc., were great ṛṣis. There were undoubtedly jñānins and were also celibates.

D: If one wants to live as a naiṣṭhika-brahmacārin (lifelong celibate), is it good to take a suitable vrata (vow)?

HH: A spiritual aspirant can take such a vow if he is firm in his decision, dispassionate and is not pestered by sexual desire. The vrata taken will give him spiritual strength. However, before taking a vow of naiṣṭhika-brahmacarya, he should recognise that great sin will accrue to him if there is any transgression of the vow.

D: Does Your Holiness opine that vulgar thoughts arising in the mind of a brahmacārin impair his brahmacarya?

HH: Certainly. Even if a vulgar thought arises accidentally in his mind, it is not a good sign. If he were to voluntarily allow or encourage such thoughts, it would be a kind of violation of brahmacarya. While a vulgar dream does not, per se, give rise to sin, bad thoughts of the waking state are transgressions of dharma.

D: In order to successfully observe the vow of lifelong brahmacarya, what should one do and what should one avoid?

HH: Wrong perspectives, vulgar conversations, bad company, immoral books and the like should be avoided. Regular physical exercise is beneficial as it favours health and combats indolence. The observer of brahmacarya should bear in mind that it is valuable, that sense-objects do not actually give happiness and that what one eats influences the mind. He should avoid foods disfavoured by the scripture for spiritual aspirants, such as onion, garlic, meat, liquor and very salty, hot or pungent items. He should do yogāsanas and prāṇāyama.

D: What are the benefits of being firmly established in brahmacarya?

HH: He who is established in brahmacarya attains one-pointedness of the mind and advances quickly in the path to liberation. He is able to uplift another.

D: Do spiritual aspirants who are detached, undisturbed by sexual desires and wish to observe naiṣṭika-brahmacarya have the blessings of Your Holiness?

HH: My blessings are always there for such persons. I would be glad if there were more like them.

18. SAṀNYĀSIN

D: When and what actions should be renounced?

HH: Unnecessary actions should not be done. A spiritual aspirant ought not to attempt to renounce all his activities at the outset but should dedicate them to Īśvara. As his mind becomes purer and purer through his karma-yoga, he becomes increasingly detached and his mind starts to turn inward and away from activity. He becomes bent on realizing the Truth. That is the ripe time to renounce the world and become a saṁnyāsin.

D: Should saṁnyāsa be taken up before or after the attainment of jñāna?

HH: The saṁnyāsa taken up after the dawn of jñāna is called vidvat-saṁnyāsa while that taken before the attainment of knowledge is termed vividiṣā-saṁnyāsa. The former is superior to the latter.

D: What state of mind qualifies a person for saṁnyāsa?

HH: After properly analysing the world, he concludes that he will not get any lasting happiness from it and heads towards a committed spiritual life. When he becomes naturally indifferent to actions and same-sighted towards the pair of opposites such as pleasure and pain, he becomes fit for saṁnyasa.

D: Can one take up saṁnyāsa even at a young age?

HH: Yes, provided one has intense vairāgya. Let him take to saṁnyāsa on the very day that he attains intense vairāgya.¹

D: Are there any regulations for a saṁnyāsin?

HH: There are regulations for those who have taken up saṁnyāsa but have not attained jñāna. However, there are no obligatory regulations for saṁnyāsins who have realised the Supreme.

D: If a saṁnyāsin does not get bhikṣa (food obtained by begging) for some days, should he make efforts to obtain food or should he keep quiet thinking, “I will not try to get it even if my spiritual life is hurt.

HH: The saṁnyāsin who has realised the Truth need not worry about food or death. However, if an unenlightened saṁnyāsin feels that his spiritual practices will be compromised, he may, if he wishes, make some more effort for bhikṣā.

D: Does not the word cāturmāsya mean four months? But nowadays, saṁnyāsins remain in a place only for two months. Has this been permitted in the śāstras?

HH: Yes.

D: Do saṁnyāsins need to observe ahiṁsā as a mahāvrata?

HH: Yes. Saṁnyāsins must practise ahiṁsā at all times. For them, it is a mahāvrata.

D: Do saṁnyāsins have the duty to guide others spiritually?

HH: There is no rule that a saṁnyāsin must guide others towards realisation. There is nothing wrong if he remains in seclusion. If, however, motivated by compassion, a saṁnyāsin who has realised the Supreme advises others, then that is the great good fortune of the disciples. Many enlightened saṁnyāsins have done so in the past and several are doing so now.

D: Is there any rule to the effect that all those who have attained jñāna should necessarily take up formal saṁnyāsa?

HH: No. If Īśvara feels that it would be better if they remain in the midst of the world, He will keep them in an āśrama (stage of life) other than saṁnyāsa. However, this does not imply that life as an enlightened householder is superior to life as an enlightened monk.

D: Why would a person who has realised the Truth desire saṁnyāsa or make any effort to become a saṁnyāsin.

HH: It is not that a person who has become fully enlightened longs for saṁnyāsa or strains himself to become a saṁnyāsin. Unmotivated to engage in actions, he gives them up effortlessly and having become a vidvat-saṁnyāsin, lives absorbed in bliss, as a jīvanmukta (one liberated while having a body).

19. CONTROLLING THE MIND

D: Many people find it difficult to do dhyāna as their mind wanders in many directions. What advice would Your Holiness give to enable such people to practise dhyāna well?

HH: Actually, dhyāna is a secret. The Guru instructs only after keeping in mind the competence of the disciple. As for mind-control, though it is difficult it is quite possible.

D: Some people say that it is just impossible for them to control the mind. What about them?

HH: Give a bundle of hundred rupee notes to the person who says that it is just impossible to control his mind. Ask him to count the notes without making mistakes. After he finishes this task, ask him if his mind wandered while he was counting. You will indeed get the reply, “It did not.” The mind does not wander while a person is counting his salary. What is the reason for this? It is only the feeling that there should not be any error. Why will the mind wander if such a feeling is had while practising dhyāna also?

Arjuna says:

O Kṛṣṇa! The mind is restless, turbulent, strong and obstinate. I think controlling it is more difficult than restraining the wind.¹

Lord Kṛṣṇa responds:

O son of Kunti! No doubt it is difficult to control the mind. Yet, by practice and dispassion, it can be controlled.²

D: What is abhyāsa (practice)?

HH: Abhyāsa is effort to keep the mind focussed. It involves constantly repeating in the mind the thought of one’s object of concentration.

D: In what sense is the word vairāgya (dispassion) used here?

HH: Indifference to worldly and heavenly pleasures is vairāgya. It is the foundation for spiritual life.

D: How should dispassion be cultivated?

HH: Vairāgya can appear in many ways. When one’s close relative dies, one may not want anything in this world. Such dispassion is temporary and is not spiritually significant. Steady dispassion is born of viveka (discrimination). For instance, we discriminate between sat (that which is ever existent, the reality) and what is other than sat. The vairāgya that is produced by such analysis remains steady. An easier analysis is, “No sense-object is actually a cause of joy.” This is a lower grade of viveka. One can develop vairāgya even through such viveka.

D: How can it be said that happiness is not at all derived from objects? When something desired is eaten or when some other enjoyment is had, happiness does arise.

HH: No. If carefully analysed, it will be perceived that happiness is not obtained from objects. If a certain thing is to be the cause of another, the rules of anvaya and vyatireka (concordance and discordance) should be satisfied. The existence of the effect when the cause is present is anvaya (concordance). The absence of the effect in the absence of the cause is vyatireka (discordance). Consider an example. Mud is the cause of a pot. Only if mud exists can the pot exist. This is anvaya. When there is no mud, there is no pot. This is vyatireka. For a cause-effect relationship to exist, anvaya and vyatireka should be satisfied. If an object is to be the cause and happiness the effect, the said rule must be satisfied between the two. However, it is not. Hence, objects cannot be the cause of happiness.

D: Will Your Holiness kindly explain this with an illustration?

HH: Suppose that a boy is eating a sweet. Let us now analyse whether that dish is the cause of happiness. If the boy is given the sweet when he is ill, it does not make him happy. Thus, no happiness is derived though the eatable is present. Further, even in the absence of the sweet, the boy can be happy, in the company of friends. Therefore, the sweet dish cannot be the cause of happiness.

D: When one object is absent, we get happiness through another object. Hence, even if an isolated object cannot be the cause, why cannot objects collectively become the cause of happiness?

HH: Even this assumption does not hold good. Everyone experiences happiness during deep sleep. On waking up we say, “I slept happily. I was aware of nothing.” During deep sleep, no object whatsoever is present. Nevertheless, we do enjoy sleep. So it cannot also be said that a collection of objects is the cause of happiness. It cannot also be asserted that even if one object is absent, some other object is always present to give happiness.

D: If objects do not cause happiness, how does a person get happiness when a desired object is obtained?

HH: It is only because of mental peace. When a person desires an object, his mind is restless because of longing. Hence, during that period, there is no happiness. When the object is secured, the desire for it subsides. Hence, the mind becomes peaceful, and one enjoys happiness. Subsequently, a desire for something else arises and mental quietude is lost. Consequently, happiness disappears. When that desire is consummated, there is peace again and, hence, happiness.

Normally, a person does not perceive that there is a gap separating two thoughts and does not realise that the happiness is due to mental peace. Further, one also falls prey to the wrong notion that an object is what is responsible for happiness.

D: If one recognises that mental peace gives happiness and not objects, can one thereby get vairāgya?

HH: Yes. If one repeatedly notes that happiness does not stem from objects and that they are worthless, one becomes dispassionate. For example, one wanting to neutralise the desire for wealth could think, “I have to work hard to earn money. Even preserving the earned money is difficult. There is pain when it is lost or becomes spent. Wealth thus causes not happiness but unhappiness.” To tackle desire for women, a person can reflect, “Her body is full of blood and flesh.” By repeatedly thinking in this fashion, desires can be neutralised. Dispassion makes the mind unwavering, peaceful and fit for dhyāna. A dispassionate person can attain the Supreme state.

20. DHYĀNA

D: What is meant by dhyāna?

HH: Dhyāna is the state wherein the mind concentrates on just one object.

D: What is the main advantage of practising dhyāna?

HH: If mental concentration is achieved by practice, the mind can then be turned towards Īśvara, and being thus purified, it can be directed towards the Ātman, which is formless and devoid of attributes. By doing this, one attains the nirvikalpa-samādhi, the highest peak of dhyāna, and therein one realises the Truth.

D: Though so good, why is meditation very difficult to practise?

HH: The difficulty in controlling the mind is indeed the reason.

D: How can the mind be controlled?

HH: The Lord has said that practice and dispassion are the means.

D: What are the obstacles to get dhyāna?

HH: Do you ask about obstacles during meditation or those arising at other times?

D: I am asking about the obstacles that prevent one from attaining samādhi (culmination of dhyāna) during meditation.

HH: The first among the obstacles is vikṣepa; that is, the mind wanders in all directions. This is the foremost obstacle. The second is the mind attaining a dull state. Of course, vikṣepa is absent. Even this is bad. If one attains an inert condition similar to sleep, one will not reach the Supreme state. Sakaṣāya is the third obstacle. This is a state wherein there is neither vikṣepa nor mental inertness. It gives a sort of happiness, but in it the seed of desire is not destroyed. This is unlike samādhi. One should carefully go beyond even this. Gauḍapādācārya has said:

If the mind is in a state of torpor, it should be woken up. If it is dispersed amongst objects, it should be calmed down. If it is latent with the seed of desire, that condition should be recognised. One should not disturb the mind established in equipoise.¹

D: How can we calm down the distracted mind?

HH: We should turn the mind repeatedly to the object of meditation. With growth of dispassion, vikṣepa subsides. During meditation, the conviction that meditation alone is important should exist. The feeling that the form or sound being meditated upon is actually present is useful in focussing the mind.

D: What is to be done if the mind becomes dull or sleepy?

HH: If a person is alert, he can discern that his mind is becoming passive and dull. By sensing the onset of torpor and awakening and focussing the mind, he can deal with dullness. The japa being done mentally may be intensified. The mind will then become alert. But if, in spite of effort, the mind continues to drift into the state of torpor, it is advisable to take a small break, have a walk and then recommence dhyāna. On certain occasions, the mind should not be forced to meditate. If there is tiredness, it is advisable to commence dhyāna after a break. But, if indolence is the reason for the dullness, one should force the mind to continue with meditation.

D: Is it necessary to do japa during dhyāna?

HH: While doing saguṇa-upāsanā, japa is useful in the beginning. It helps the mind to be calm. As the mind locks on to the object of dhyāna, japa ceases of its own accord. Thus, there is often no need to stop japa wilfully.

D: How should meditation on a form be practised?

HH: Techniques vary and different aspirants have to be instructed differently. A common code of instructions cannot be prescribed. I shall spell out one method. One can proceed with the notion that one’s iṣṭa-devatā (favourite deity) is seated in the lotus of one’s heart. If one finds it difficult to visualise and focus on the pertinent form of the Lord, one can take the aid of a picture of the deity. Japa should be done while looking at the picture. Then, after partially closing the eyes, one should try to meditate on the deity, with the idea that one is actually seeing the deity. The mind may focus for a while, without wandering. But once the mind starts wandering, one can open one’s eyes and look at the picture again. This can be followed by meditation, with the eyes partially closed. If the attempt is repeated in this manner, the form of the iṣṭa-devatā will remain in one’s mind, without the need for looking at the picture. This is one of the methods of practising meditation.

Meditating on sound is another method. Mahṛṣi Patañjali prescribes the general rule:

Or, by meditating on any desired, permitted object.¹

The Guru determines the method that is best suited to his disciple.

D: Is it advisable to do meditation when one is not keeping good health?

HH: That depends on the extent of ill health. Those who have progressed considerably in meditation will be able to meditate whenever they wish to. But those who are still in the beginning stages may be able to meditate only when they are keeping good health. Increasing the practice of meditation yields correspondingly better fruits. This does not, however, imply that one should sit so long as to strain the mind. Experts in meditation can concentrate for hours together. But if one who is not versed in meditation tries to sit for hours in dhyāna, only unpleasant memories will be generated. Also, headache or some other pain may make its appearance.

D: How should nirguṇa-dhyāna (meditation on the Self devoid of attributes) be practised?

HH: While doing nirguṇa-dhyāna, one need not take the aid of any divine form or japa. It is suited to those who have attained high levels in the practice of dhyāna. Meditation on that which is bereft of form and attributes is nirguṇa-dhyāna. It leads to nirvikalpa-samādhi, the highest state of meditation. No unique method exists for practising it. One of the methods for this is as follows. First, the rise and fall of thoughts should be just watched, with the conviction that there is no connection between oneself and the thoughts. Gradually, the thoughts automatically subside. Another method consists in directly putting a stop to all mental wandering and then firmly thinking, “I am pure consciousness and bliss.” During nirguṇa-dhyāna, awareness of the body is absent.

D: Why do some experience bodily jerks at times during meditation?

HH: It normally means that the body is weak. It can also be due to the influence of the kuṇḍalinī-śakti. Meditation can be continued without worrying about minor jerks.

D: Where should meditation be performed?

HH: In a calm and pure place.

D: Many desire meditation sincerely but still are not able to do it properly. Why is it so?

HH: It may seem that they greatly long for meditation, but is it actually so? No. Even a little analysis of the life of most people shows that they do not attach adequate importance to meditation. Sleep, food, office, examination, etc., get higher priority than meditation. If it is time for the office, that is the end of meditation. Further, even when they sit for meditation, they do not sit with the idea, “Let anything happen in this world. I need only meditation now.” This apart, meditation is difficult in this birth for those who have not practised it much in their previous births. By the same rule, those who had practised much meditation will now find dhyāna easy. Swimming is initially difficult. It becomes easy with practice. That is the case here also.

D: When one is seated for meditation, will the resolve, “I am not going to give room to any worry or worldly thought” be helpful?

HH: Yes.

D: It stands to reason that he who has intense vairāgya should be easily able to forget the world when he sits for meditation. However, we see some persons with intense dispassion who are unable to meditate well. Will Your Holiness clarify why this is so?

HH: Normally, dhyāna is easy for those who have intense dispassion. However, because of their not having duly practised mediation in their previous births, some deeply dispassionate ones may experience difficulty in achieving intense focus during meditation.

D: If one is defeated again and again when trying to meditate, will not one become disheartened and irritated?

HH: Giving place to disheartenment or irritation is equivalent to one standing as an obstacle in one’s own way. Even to get a degree, one has to go to college and study for years. What then need be said about the effort required to achieve success in dhyāna, which is very subtle and far superior? Not only do people not put in the same effort as they do for earning a degree but they object that they feel irritated and frustrated. You can judge for yourself how fair this is. Mahaṛṣi Patañjali has said in his Yogasūtras: It becomes firmly rooted when practised for a long time, without any break and with sincerity.¹

If people could successfully accomplish dhyāna in days or a few months, the sage’s aphorism would be meaningless.

D: Even those who are able to get good meditation may experience fluctuations in their level of meditation. Their meditation is deep on some days but on some others, it is unsatisfactory. What should be done to get good meditation always?

HH: Ill health, unrestricted food, laziness, worries, desires, etc., remain as impediments to dhyāna. Hence, if we remove these obstacles, dhyāna will become steady. If the problem persists, then, without giving any room for worry, further efforts should be made. If meditation gets spoilt because of a particular powerful obstacle, one should, with the guidance of a Guru, remove it by a specifically directed effort. All this apart, advantage can be taken of the fact that the mind is naturally peaceful at certain times of the day, such as dawn and dusk.

D: Is dhyāna alone sufficient to control desires?

HH: Those who attain the highest state of meditation, namely samādhi, can destroy desire through it. For others, meditation alone can be insufficient. Mental impressions are generated or strengthened when one thinks of or resorts to objects of desire while one is not in meditation. These tendencies tend to overpower those produced during meditation. Hence, when one is not doing meditation, one should assiduously cultivate dispassion by the perception of faults in objects. Studying scriptural texts daily and contemplating on the ideas expressed therein help one to conquer desires. The company of saints is greatly helpful in curbing longings.

21. NIRVIKALPA-SAMĀDHI

D: What is nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: It is highest samādhi wherein there is no awareness of the distinction of the seer, the seen and the act of seeing. The Ātman is realised in nirvikalpa-samādhi.

D: Does one’s breathing fully stop when one is in nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: No, breathing persists to a minute extent.

D: Is there in nirvikalpa-samādhi the manifestation of bliss or only the absence of sorrow?

HH: There is not only the absence of sorrow but also the manifestation of supreme bliss.

D: I heard that akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti (a plenary mental activity having the Ātman for its basis) is present in nirvikalpa-samādhi. Your Holiness said that there is no awareness of the distinctness of the seer, the seen and the act of seeing in nirvikalpa-samādhi. If so, will the knowledge of akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti be there in samādhi?

HH: No. When one is in the state of nirvikalpa-samādhi, one will not be aware of the presence of the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti.

D: If so, how can it be said that the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti existed during nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: One can know that by means of inference and scriptural statements. If recollection is to arise, there should have been a preceding experience. When the mind comes down from nirvikalpa-samādhi, there is a memory to the effect that supreme bliss was experienced earlier. For the memory to be present, there should have been an experience. If there is to be an experience connected with the mind, there should have been a thought. That mental vṛtti is called akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti.

D: An object is required for a thought to arise in the mind. What is the object of the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti?

HH: Just the Ātman.

D: When an object is perceived, the mind assumes its form. Only then does knowledge of the object arise. In dreams too, the mind assumes the form of what is seen, with the difference that the senses do not play a role. Thus, in both waking and dream states, the vṛtti assumes the form of an object. Your Holiness said that the Ātman alone is grasped by the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti. How can the Ātman become an object of the vṛtti as It does not have any quality or form at all?

HH: When it is said that the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti’s object is the Ātman, what is implied is that the mind is so extremely pure at that time that it just cannot be discerned distinctly from Brahman. The mind is then like a pure crystal. The effulgent Ātman manifests in it clearly. Just as a crystal, when placed in the vicinity of a red flower appears red, so also is the nature of the Ātman assumed by the mind. This akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti is the one that destroys ignorance.

D: Will a single experience of nirvikalpa-samādhi be sufficient to attain brahma-jñāna?

HH: Normally, it is not sufficient. During nirvikalpa-samādhi the Ātman is experienced. After emergence from that state, the experience gradually begins to fade. However, just after coming down from it, everything is perceived as the Ātman. Nothing distinct from the Ātman is discerned. To cite an example, one feels, “I am a big ocean. It is in me that the bubbles constituted by the world are produced.” The experience of nirvikalpa-samādhi must be had to be understood. Verbal descriptions are woefully inadequate.

If one gets the experience of nirvikalpa-samādhi repeatedly, one’s jñāna becomes stable. After the realisation becomes stable, the mind is destroyed and one becomes a jīvanmukta.

D: Why does one descend from nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: If prārabdha is not exhausted, one is obliged to emerge from nirvikalpa-samādhi. We can find different illustrations for this in the Yoga-vāsiṣṭha.

D: Can the Ātma-jñana be attained only by means of nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: Clear knowledge of the Ātman is had through enquiry. The knowledge that stems from the teaching of the Guru and the śāstra and is rendered free from doubts by enquiry is manifested clearly by nirvikalpa-samadhi. It does so by eliminating all disturbing influences. Nirvikalpa-samādhi is a wonderful means. However, it does not by itself bring about the realization of the Truth which liberates one from bondage. On the other hand, it is only when backed by the teaching of the Guru and śastra and enquiry that it serves to manifest, without impediment, the realization of the Truth.

D: During nirvikalpa-samādhi will there be any awareness of one’s body and one’s surroundings?

HH: No.

D: Can one be awakened from nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: In most cases, it can be done with some difficulty. Sometimes, it becomes almost impossible to wake one up. All this depends on the depth of the samādhi.

D: Can one predetermine the duration of one’s stay in nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: Yes, if there is sufficient practice. If a suitable resolve is made before going into samādhi, one can descend from the exalted condition at the predetermined time. For example, if one thinks, “I will do pūjā in an hour” and goes into samādhi, then one can come down from samādhi after being in that state for exactly one hour.

D: Will Your Holiness kindly explain the experiences that precede the onset of nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: It is impossible to give a precise description and the steps preceding nirvikalpa-samādhi are not unique. However, I will give a rough account of what can happen. First, awareness of the body and the surroundings gradually vanishes. Then, only the thoughts of the mind are perceived. As meditation proceeds further, mental activity subsides. One feels, “I have become infinite like the sky.” Then comes a great blissful experience. After this, there is a sudden change and awareness of the distinction of the seer, the seen and the act of seeing ceases. That experience is beyond words.

D: What is the procedure to be adopted to attain nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: Usually, nirvikalpa-samādhi can be attained if one repeatedly gets savikalpa-samādhi.

D: Will the awareness of the distinction of the seer, the seen and the act of seeing cease in savikalpa-samādhi also?

HH: No. It ceases only in nirvikalpa-samādhi. The term savikalpa-samādhi itself shows that this is a samādhi with awareness, though very mild, of the distinction of the seer, seen and seeing present.

D: Will the joy got in savikalpa-samādhi be the same as that in nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: No. The joy of nirvikalpa-samādhi is unparalleled. But it can be said that the happiness obtained in savikalpa-samādhi is extremely great when compared to any worldly pleasure.

D: Can it be said that liberation will definitely be had by one who arranges for his death in nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: It cannot be said so. Mokṣa is attained when jñāna becomes thoroughly unobstructed and fructifies. If one has not attained full enlightenment and one arranges to have oneself killed in samādhi, there would be scope for rebirth.

D: Can it be said that if one dies while in nirvikalpa-samādhi, one can attain jñāna easily in one’s next birth?

HH: Yes.

D: Is there a possibility for one to fall from spiritual life even after attaining nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: Yes, there is the possibility of a fall, until complete, firm realisation of the Truth arises. I have come across persons who have slipped after nirvikalpa-samādhi.

D: Can nirvikalpa-samādhi be obtained by means of drugs, self-hypnosis, and such else?

HH: No.

D: Is it possible to feel thirst, hunger etc., immediately after the mind comes down from prolonged nirvikalpa-samādhi?

HH: These are normally not felt. Rarely, a little body ache may be felt due to the body having remained erect and motionless for long.

D: Will Your Holiness say something about nirvikalpa-samādhi from personal experience?

HH: (Smiling) Do you think that all the while I was merely repeating like a parrot what is contained in the śāstras?

22. NĀDĀNUSANDHĀNA

D: What is meant by nādānusandhāna?

HH: Generally speaking, it is also a kind of meditation.

D: How can it be practised?

HH: There are a few ways. I shall mention one of them. The ear, nose and mouth should be closed with the fingers and the sound that is heard inside one’s ears should be carefully listened to.

D: How is one to breathe if the nose and the mouth are closed completely?

HH: I did not mean that the nose should be shut completely.

D: Is there any benefit in paying attention to the sound produced inside?

HH: Yes. It is essential to make the mind one-pointed. This can either be done by fixing the mind on a form or by paying attention to a sound. External sounds are attenuated when the ears are closed. However, the internal sound is clearly apprehensible. By directing attention to that sound, the mind becomes one-pointed.

D: How is one to concentrate on the sound heard internally?

HH: One can focus the mind on it just as one would concentrate on an external sound. This is because the internal sound can be heard when the ears are closed.

D: While meditating in this manner, is it necessary to concentrate on a form?

HH: No. Fixation of the mind on the sound within is sufficient.

D: What will result if the mind is fixed on the sound?

HH: Gradually, the mind becomes more and more peaceful. External sounds and other disturbances cease to distract the concentration. The sound heard from inside becomes very clear. With the passage of time, different internal sounds are heard. Finally, all sounds cease and the mind plunges into samādhi.

D: Can we see the manifestation of any special power when meditating on the internal sound?

HH: Sometimes, one can hear the sounds or conversations that originate far away. However, one should be indifferent to clairaudience and just continue with one’s meditation. One’s spiritual progress will suffer if one turns to clairaudience and the like that may manifest.

D: Is nādānusandhāna better than meditation on a form?

HH: What is best for one may not be so for another, as the qualifications and aptitudes of spiritual aspirants vary. A Guru may, therefore, prescribe nādānusandhāna for some disciples and meditation on a form for some others.

D: Is there any speciality in nādānusandhāna as compared to other methods?

HH: (Smiling) Even a person who is not proficient in nādānusandhāna ought not to be disturbed by external sounds and external forms since his ears and the eyes are closed. You can consider this itself as a speciality!

D: Is there any difficulty in practising this type of meditation?

HH: (With a smile) Will there not be pain when the hands are used to close the ears for a long duration?

D: Are there other methods of practicing nadānusandhāna?

HH: I have watched some Buddhists practising meditation with using a bell that rings for a long duration. Two persons sat facing each other. They alternately ring the bell and concentrated on the sound. There are other such methods of focus on sound in vogue.

23. LAMBIKĀ-YOGA

D: I have read that Śrī Vidyātīrtha (the tenth Jagadguru of the Sringeri Sharada Peetha) spent his last days in lambikā-yoga. Will Your Holiness kindly explain what is meant by lambikā-yoga?

HH: During lambikā-yoga, nectar flows down from the sahasrāra-cakra situated in the head. That nectar causes hunger and thirst to disappear and confers good health.

D: How should one practise lambikā-Yoga?

HH: According to haṭha-yoga texts, the tendon at the lower part of the tongue should be cut a little. Medicines should then be applied to heal the wounded portion. The lower portion of the tongue should then be cut to a further extent. Simultaneously, the tongue should be stretched, little by little. Soon, the tongue becomes thin and elongated. When this elongated tongue is stretched, it should reach the region between the eyebrows. The tongue should now be folded back and thrust upwards. When meditation is practised after this, nectar flows down.

D: Does meditation of this nature cause physical pain and dumbness?

HH: It cannot be guaranteed that there will be no pain but it is wrong to say that one will become dumb. The voice will be clear.

D: How will the nectar taste? Will one know by experience that it is flowing down?

HH: There is no need to say that the nectar is tasty. It can surely be experienced as it flows down to the throat.

D: Will hunger and thirst disappear completely once the nectar is tasted?

HH: It cannot be assumed that they disappear forever. They are normally not felt for some time, but reappear later. So long as the effect of the nectar lasts, the body is not in need of food and water and does not grow weak.

D: Has Your Holiness seen anybody who has cut his tongue in the prescribed manner?

HH: Yes. I have seen one person. He had a clear voice. He demonstrated lambikā-yoga by folding his tongue and pushing it upwards. He was making a peculiar sound. Finally, he succeeded in obtaining nectar.

D: Would any external sound or disturbance have caused harm?

HH: Yes. Excessive disturbances could have been fatal.

D: Is there any other easier way of obtaining nectar than cutting the lower part of the tongue?

HH: Certainly, there is. What I told you now is the haṭha-yoga method of obtaining the nectar. For some, it descends during meditation due to their pertinent practice in the previous birth. My Guru (His Holiness Jagadguru Sri Candraśekhara Bhāratī Mahāsvāmin) has told me about the flow of nectar.

D: In which kind of meditation does nectar flow?

HH: Usually during saguṇa-dhyāna.

D: Since the nectar is said to flow down from the head, can one come to the conclusion that nectar is stored there? Is it not surprising?

HH: Whether it is surprising or not, is irrelevant. The existence and descent of nectar are directly experienced. Besides being tasty, the nectar also frees one from hunger and thirst. So there is no room for doubt. However, neither the nectar present in the sahasrāra in the head, nor what flows down to the throat is detectable by others. It is not something gross.

D: If lambikā-Yoga is taught to all, then countless people suffering from hunger can be benefited. Is it not?

HH: Only extremely few will successfully obtain nectar and so the practice cannot be made universal. The effort required to succeed is tremendous and would act as a deterrent even to those assiduous practitioners who may be keen on tasting the nectar.

D: Has Your Holiness noted any characteristic in persons who have experienced this flow of nectar?

HH: Yes. For some people, a little quantity of water oozes from the crown of the head. However, this is unrelated causally to the flow of nectar.

D: When would the water ooze from the head?

HH: It may come any time. Even while taking food.

D: How much?

HH: More or less one uddharaṇī-full.

(An uddharaṇī is spoon-like and is used during anuṣṭhāna.)

D: Is what emerges water or any other fluid resembling water?

HH: (Smiling) Water.

D: Will there be any inconvenience on account of the flow of water?

HH: There is no inconvenience at all. The water that emerges needs to be removed with a cloth. Otherwise, it will flow down the face.

D: What is the reason for such flow of water?

HH: It can flow. That is all.

D: Has Your Holiness made effort to make nectar descend?

HH: I neither pay attention to such siddhis nor do I make effort to obtain it. It just comes as it pleases. I do not make any effort to get it or to prevent it.

D: Your Holiness pointed out that nectar could descend in some people even if the lower part of the tongue is not cut. What can such people do to initiate or facilitate the flow?

HH: While practising saguṇa-dhyāna, they could keep the tongue folded back, with the tip at the rear of the upper palate. If the practice of their past births is suitable, this would be of some help.

D: Would it not be beneficial to spiritual aspirants to get over the need for food and water by recourse to lambikā-yoga?

HH: No. The aim of those aspiring for liberation should only be the securing of the realisation of the Supreme and, thus, liberation. Turning attention to dealing in an extraordinary way with hunger and thirst is also a kind of distraction from the goal. Laṁbikā-yoga came naturally to sages like Śrī Vidyātīrtha and so they allowed it. If, however, a beginner spends his time on this, he will be wasting his precious time. We should take care that the mind does not deviate from the goal.

24. KUṆḌALINĪ

(Kuṇḍalinī is the Supreme Power in the form of a snake. The suṣumnā-nāḍī is a subtle tube passing through the central canal of the spine. Seats of manifestation of śakti (power) are present in the suṣumnā-nāḍī and within the head. They are called cakras and resemble lotuses. If the kuṇḍalinī comes to these locations, śakti manifests in a special way. Generally, the kuṇḍalinī lies asleep in the mūlādhāra-cakra, at the base of the suṣumnā-nāḍī. One attains samādhi when the dormant kuṇḍalinī awakens, rises from the mūlādhāra-cakra and ascends, via the suṣumnā-nāḍī, to the sahasrāra-cakra, which is in the head.)

D: Do the kuṇḍalinī and the cakras really exist?

HH: Kuṇḍalinī is the embodiment of the Divine and is a source of power. There is no gross serpent actually coiled up at the base of the spinal cord. Nor again are there gross lotuses in the spinal cord. The kuṇḍalinī’s arousal and ascent up the back can be felt. Stages in the manifestation of śakti are apprehended. These correspond to the ascent of the kuṇḍalinī to the various cakras.

D: Why have the cakras been presented as lotus-like and why has a description of the divinities therein been provided?

HH: Contemplation of the kuṇḍalinī and the cakras, as described in the Tāntrika texts, does cause manifestation of power and expansion of awareness. Physical effects can also be seen. One would die if one does not breathe for a long time. But, during the practice of kuṇḍalinī-yoga, one can sit for long, with breathing suspended. I have seen some who obtained powers by contemplating on the cakras. Special powers can be acquired through kuṇḍalinī-yoga. The description of the cakras serves even this end. However, for those who ardently desire liberation, all such powers are irrelevant and for them, kuṇḍalinī-yoga serves a higher purpose.

D: How can one awaken the kuṇḍalinī that is dormant in the mūlādhara-cakra?

HH: It may be awakened through suitable meditation and through prāṇāyāma. Other methods are also there.

D: How is one to practise prāṇāyāma?

HH: There are different forms of prāṇāyāma. One should learn them directly from a qualified Guru before practising them.

D: Will Your Holiness explain a simple form of prāṇāyāma that can be practised during anuṣṭhāna?

HH: One should sit in a firm position and keep the back straight. Prāṇāyāma is practised by breathing in through one nostril, retaining breath for some time and then exhaling through the other nostril. Next, air should be drawn in through the nostril used earlier for exhalation. Ordinary prāṇāyāma has got three parts. They are pūraka, kumbhaka and recaka. Breathing in is pūraka, retaining the breath is kumbhaka and breathing out is recaka. One will not find it difficult if these are done in the ratio of 1:2:2. What I mentioned now is a variant of the standard ratio of 1:4:2. To obtain special benefits, the jālandhara-bandha, uḍḍiyāṇa-bandha and mūla-bandha too should be performed in the course of prāṇāyāma. These should be learnt from a teacher. Improper practice of the bandhas is harmful.

D: Should one retain air long enough to cause discomfort?

HH: No. Care should be taken while doing prāṇāyāma to see that discomfort never sets in. If it does, the durations of inhalation, retention and exhalation may be proportionately reduced.

D: What are some benefits of prāṇāyāma?

HH: It purifies the nāḍīs and makes the mind calm. It is a form of expiation. It also helps to arouse the sleeping kuṇḍalinī.

D: It is said that when the kuṇḍalī reaches the sahasrāra-cakra, the spiritual practitioner attains deep samādhi.Will everybody who attains samādhi be aware that his kuṇḍalinī has ascended to his head?

HH: No. A spiritual aspirant may attain samādhi even without awareness of the awakening and upward travel of the kuṇḍalinī. There has been such lack of awareness in persons who have attained samādhi through just Vedānta. They can, if they want, experience the ascent of the kuṇḍalinī to the sahasrāra. Though what I have just spoken of has not been described in the prominent Tāntrika works and in the Haṭhayoga-pradīpika, it is something borne out by experience.

25. AMANASKA-YOGA

D: One feels happy when one remains motionless and calm. Hence, may one sit quietly for some time, even with the eyes open, to obtain mental peace?

HH: Yes. Sages like Yājñavalkya have spoken of a practice of this form, called amanaska-yoga.

D: What is amanaska-yoga?

HH: It is a state of mind wherein no thoughts appear. True amanaska is had only when the mind is destroyed in samādhi and one becomes a jīvanmukta. Normally, we dwell on different objects. It appears that thoughts occur continuously. Careful observation, however, reveals that there are gaps between successive thoughts. The Ātman clearly shines in the gaps. People do not note this, as the interval between thoughts is very short. Bhagavatpāda writes in the Laghu-vākyavṛtti: A thread covered by pearls is seen between two pearls. Likewise, consciousness is covered by thoughts is clear between thoughts.¹

In a garland made of pearls, the thread is hidden in the places where the pearls are present but in-between two pearls, the thread is seen. Likewise, the Ātman of the form of pure consciousness is not apparent when a thought is present but it is patent in the interval between the end of one thought and the rise of another. We can obtain great happiness if we calmly enlarge the gap between one thought and another.

D: Can this be practised even with the eyes open?

HH: As I pointed out, the aim is to see that no thought arises in the mind. So there is no harm in keeping the eyes open. It is sufficient if the mind does not wander towards external objects. While practising, one should remain calm and quite free from worries. No effort should be made to do or dwell on anything. If any thought arises in the mind, its continuance should be discouraged.

D: What indication is there to show that one is progressing in the path of amanaska-yoga?

HH: The mental peace and happiness that one derives is an indication of progress.

D: Is it not difficult to see to it that no thought arises in the mind?

HH: It is difficult to attain the zenith of thoughtlessness. But the mind can be kept peaceful to a considerable extent.

D: Do mundane people also have the power to still the mind?

HH: Do not all people sleep?

D: Yes.

HH: How?

D: I am at a loss to know the import of Your Holiness’s question.

HH: People lie down. After that, how do they go to sleep? They close their eyes and remain quiet. Soon, sleep envelops them. Is it not?

D: Yes.

HH: We note that during deep sleep, people are thoroughly at peace. They have rendered their minds thoughtless. Of course, this is achieved involuntarily. Is it not so?

D: Yes.

HH: Therefore, it can be said that all can still the mind. Mundane people still it during deep sleep without any effort and without being conscious of it. In the path of amanaska-yoga, one thoroughly silences the mind in the state of wakefulness.

D: Can amanaska-yoga be done in any place?

HH: It may be practised anywhere but there should be facilities to sit comfortably. How can one practise it while running a race?

D: Are there any ill effects?

HH: No.

D: What should one be careful about, when practicing amanaska-yoga?

HH: (With a laugh) One should not go to sleep! Sleep should be averted by being alert.

26. MĀYĀ

D: In dim light, a rope may falsely appear as a snake. Similarly, the Supreme Being appears as the world. This, I have learnt from the śāstras. If a rope is to falsely appear as a snake, someone different from both the snake and the rope is necessary. Similarly, if Brahman appears as the world, an observer, distinct from Brahman and the world, is necessary. Such an entity is not there. Therefore, is the illustration proper?

HH: An analogue can never match the original perfectly. If it does, then it will be non-different from what is sought to be illustrated. The rope-snake example is advanced only to show that one thing can falsely appear as another. Only this aspect of the illustration should be considered and not the existence of a perceiver different from the rope and snake.

D: For a person to mistake a rope for a snake, he must have seen a real snake earlier. Else, the wrong notion of a snake cannot arise in him. Thus, the mistake presupposes the existence of a real snake. In the same way, if the Supreme Being is to be mistakenly seen as the world, there should be a real world. Is it wrong to argue in this manner?

HH: Yes. It is wrong. To mistake a rope for a snake, knowledge of a snake is necessary. It is incorrect to say that only a real snake can produce such knowledge. I will give an example. A person mistakes a tree to be a ghost. He saw a ghost in a dream had by him earlier. When he sees the tree now, he misapprehends it to be the ghost dreamt of by him. Did that ghost really exist? No, because it was seen only in a dream. Everyone knows that whatever is seen in the dream is unreal. So, it is only the knowledge of the snake that is necessary and not a real snake. Similarly, for the Supreme Brahman to appear as the world, there is no need for a real world to exist.

D: Is Māyā real? If it is, then it will be wrong to say that Brahman is advitīya (non-dual). Nor can we assert that Māyā does not exist, since we are able to see the effects of Māyā. Will Your Holiness please explain the perplexing nature of Māyā?

HH: Māyā cannot be said to be ‘sat (absolutely real)’ because it is destroyed the moment true jñāna dawns, just as a dream disappears when we wake up. Hence, there is no second entity called Māyā, different from Brahman, just as there is no dream-object apart from the dreamer. Māyā cannot also be termed ‘asat (non-existent)’ as we can see its effects in the form of the world. That is why it has been said, with logic as the basis, that Māyā is neither sat nor asat.

D: It is said that everything except Brahman is false. Then, are not the Vedas also false? If so, will not Advaita philosophy, which is based on the Vedas, be untrue?

HH: Advaitins say that the world is untrue from the standpoint of the Absolute. They do not, however, deny the empirical validity of the world. From the vyāvahārika (empirical) standpoint, to the extent that the world is admitted to be true, so are the Vedas. The Vedas, whose reality is no less than that of the world, give rise to the knowledge that is potent enough to sublate the ephemeral world. What shines thereafter, is just the non-dual Brahman. Thus, Advaita-vedānta is quite in order. Further, no damage will be done even if it is postulated that the Vedas are not real. This is because even an unreal thing can give us a real effect. For example, assume that a tiger chases us in our dream. We may wake up due to the fear produced. Here, the unreal tiger brings about the real effect of waking up. Hence, even if we say that the Vedas are unreal like the world, undoubtedly liberating knowledge can arise from its teachings. In this way too, it can be seen that Advaita philosophy is quite in order.

D: Scientists gather information about and analyse the world. If the world itself is unreal, is the research carried on by scientists meaningless?

HH: No. We do not say that studying the world and analysing its laws are pointless. The empirical utility of science is unquestionable. This much, however, is certain that none can truly establish, “The world is definitely like this.” A bat recognises the presence of an object by means of ultrasonic waves. What it perceives is different from what we see. Similarly, if we had the X-ray vision, our perception of an object would be different from what it is now. Which of these perceptions is the right one? Either all these different conceptions are valid or all of them are invalid. If an object is to be known as it is, our scrutiny of it should not alter its condition in any way. Physicists, however, accept that the scrutiny of an electron alters its state. Our apprehension of an object is influenced by factors other than the bare object. When, for instance, we see a room through a dark glass, everything therein appears dark as compared to what it appears when we look through a clear glass. We perceive things only as the mind “shows” them to us. Hence, it can only be said, “This is the universe as we understand it” and not, “The cosmos is decidedly only like this.”

D: It is said that Māyā is the cause of all bondage. Why does Māyā exist?

HH: As far as a jñānin is concerned, there is nothing called Māyā. The Supreme Being alone exists. Thus, with regard to him, there is no scope for this question at all. Questions and answers are possible only in the realm of duality, in the realm of Māyā. If such a question is to be answered logically, one should have understood the nature of Māyā. However, the moment one grasps the true nature of Māyā, it vanishes totally and Brahman alone shines. Thus, it is not fair to expect a proper answer to this question, as the question itself is faulty. Māyā itself is like a big question mark. The Supreme Being is non-dual but Māyā creates this appearance of duality. This indeed is the power of Māyā.

In the absence of adequate light, a rope may seem to be a snake. Seeing this, one may ask, “Why should the rope appear as a snake when they are two different entities?” The answer is, “It does so on account of one’s ignorance.” Suppose one asks, “Why does this ignorance exist?” This question cannot be answered. A person who has no misconception ever sees the rope only as a rope. The question is baseless as far as he is concerned, for, to him, the rope never appeared as a snake.

Next, take the case of a person who has the wrong notion that he is seeing a snake. He too cannot answer the question because, as far as he is concerned, what is in front of him is indeed a snake, not a rope. Let us consider a third man’s view. He initially mistakes the rope to be a snake. Later, he realises that it is a rope. Suppose, he is asked, “Why did the rope appear to you as a snake?” His reply will be, “It was due to my misconception.” He is then asked, “Why does this misconception exist?” He will not be able to answer. This is because he now sees only the rope and the misconception being asked about is totally absent.

Some questions have no answer because of the fallacy inherent in the question. What answer can be given to the question, “Where is the beginning of a circle?” The questioner asks this question with the misconception, “A circle has a beginning.” It is the question that is improper. Likewise, the question, “Why does Māyā exist?” is inappropriate.

D: Would Your Holiness explain how one could surmise that the world is illusory; something conjured by Māyā?

HH: The seed of a banyan tree is small. If it is broken, only smaller pieces are seen. But a big banyan tree grows from it. Does this not, at first sight, seem to be a magical feat? From the sperm of a person, a baby is born and gradually becomes a big man. Does this also not seem like magic? So, one can consider the world to be an illusory projection.

What we see in our dream greatly matches what we see in the waking state. Hence, we cannot say with certainty that the two are different.

If we keep on posing the question, “why” with regard to anything of the world, we finally end up with the answer, “I do not know.” Such should be the case if the universe is illusory. Let us suppose that we see in a dream a huge elephant within a small room. The doors of a room are very small. If one starts enquiring in the dream as to how the elephant came into the room, the conclusion will be, “I see the elephant but I cannot understand how it came in.” Similar is the case with what is shown by one who practises indrajāla. In such cases something is seen but no satisfactory explanation can be given. The world too is inexplicable in this manner and so, presumably, is like a dream or an illusory projection.

After waking up from the dream considered, we would say, “Actually, there was no elephant, no small room and no entry of an elephant into the room.” On realising the Truth, the world is negated in the same way. The words of the Veda are:

D: If the world is just an appearance, why has its creation been spoken of in the śāstras?

HH: If a child asks about the sun, what do we say? We reply that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We do know that the earth rotates and that there is no actual rising and setting of the sun. Still, we say that the sun itself rises, just to satisfy the inquisitiveness of the child. Similarly, when one seeing the world gets a doubt as to its origin, the śāstra, being like a mother, speaks a little about the world. Then, it leads the enquirer stage by stage and finally explains the Truth. The final description of the Truth is:

27. WAKING STATE AND DREAM STATE

D: Is the waking state different from the dream state?

HH: It is not when considered from the standpoint of the Truth.

D: Then, does it mean that everything is a fabrication of the mind?

HH: Yes.

D: Will Your Holiness please explain?

HH: In the dream state, we see a world that appears to be real when we are witnessing the dream. We see a world in the waking state. This also seems to be real. We experience joy and sorrow in the waking state. Likewise, we experience them in the dream too. Therefore, both the states are similar.

D: In the waking state, if a book is placed on a table, it remains at the same place the next day also. However, a book placed on a table in the dream is not to be found there when one wakes up the next morning. Considering this difference, can it not be said that the waking state is real while the dream state is unreal?

HH: Suppose, for example, that you keep a book on the table in a dream. Then you go to do some other work in that dream itself. On returning, will not the book be found in the same place?

D: Yes, it will be there.

HH: This example should have cleared your doubt. In this waking state, if a book is kept at a spot, it remains in the same place. Similarly, during a dream, a book remains where it is placed. No doubt, a book of the dream state vanishes when one wakes up but, then, similar is the case of a book of the waking state vanishing when one goes to sleep.

D: There seems to be another difference also.

HH: What is it?

D: Some others see us sleeping. They can assert that we were asleep. So dreams are unreal.

HH: Let us assume in the course of a dream you see yourself sitting and daydreaming. In your dream, some people see you sitting. As far as they are concerned, your sitting at that place is real but what you are imagining is unreal. Is it not?

D: Yes.

HH: Were you really sitting near those people?

D: No.

HH: The reason is that both your sitting at that place and your being observed by other people belong to the dream. Similar is the case with people watching another sleep.

D: The waking state continues for years, while a dream persists only for minutes or an hour. What about this difference?

HH: If this reasoning is adopted, you will have to answer the following question. If one dream lasts thirty minutes and another ten minutes, will you say that the dream that lasted thirty minutes is more real than the dream that lasted ten minutes?

D: No.

HH: Therefore, just by giving the reason that the waking state lasts longer than a dream, it cannot be concluded that the waking state is more real than the dream state. Further, the passage of time too is something imagined. In a dream, one may think that a long time has lapsed but, with regard to the waking state, only ten minutes might have passed.

D: I accept that the world in the waking state is very similar to the world experienced in the dream. However, a fresh doubt has arisen.

HH: Ask without any hesitation.

D: We are not aware that whatever we experience in the waking state is unreal. Why?

HH: In the course of a dream, are you usually aware that it is unreal?

D: No.

HH: When is it known by you that the perception had in the dream is false?

D: Only when I come to the waking state.

HH: Likewise, we will realise unmistakably that the world of the waking state is false only when we awaken from this dream of the waking state.

D: When will one wake up from this dream?

HH: When one attains the realisation that one is the Ātman, which is devoid of all bondage and is of the nature of Supreme bliss.

D: When will such a realisation occur?

HH: When one wholly purifies one’s mind and fixes it on the Ātman.

D: What role do the Guru and the śāstras play in this matter?

HH: The teachings of the Guru, which are in accordance with the śāstras, produce the knowledge of the Truth.

D: Do not the śāstras and the teachings of the Guru belong to this unreal world? If so, how can they generate the knowledge of the Truth?

HH: These teachings also belong to the world. Still, right knowledge can dawn because of them. Let us assume that in a dream, a tiger is chasing us. We may wake up on account of fear. In the same way, the dictates of the śāstras and the teachings of the Guru wake us up from this big dream.

D: Then, what is creation?

HH: Perception is creation. There is no creation other than perception. Perception of a thing is its origination.

D: Are Īśvara and the Guru, then, real or false?

HH: They are, in truth, the Ātman that is the nature of absolute existence, pure consciousness and infinite bliss. However, the body of the Guru and any form of Īśvara are false. In reality, there is neither cause nor effect. When there is no real creation, how can Īśvara’s role as a creator be real, on par with His intrinsic nature? It is said:

There is no dissolution of the cosmos, no creation, none who is bound, none who strives, none who desires liberation and none who is liberated. This is the ultimate Truth.¹

One has bondage as long as one deems that one has bondage. He who deems that he is free is indeed free. That is why it has been said:

He who considers himself liberated is a liberated one. He who feels that he has bondage is bound.²

Therefore, one should get rid of the wrong impression that one has bondage.

D: Is the removal of the wrong idea that one has bondage the means to attain mokṣa?

HH: Yes. So far, I was speaking with the dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (perception-is-creation view) in mind. This, however, is not suitable for many people because, owing to the absence of intense dispassion, they cannot correctly imbibe it. People accept that the dream state is unreal. If told that the waking state is equally unreal, they would be unconvinced about this or feel ill at ease. Since only few are qualified to correctly comprehend the dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, embrace it and become liberated, the śāstras teach this in only select places.

28. NATURE OF BONDAGE

D: Does bondage really exist?

HH: No. If bondage is real, how can it be destroyed by knowledge?

D: Who has got bondage?

HH: He who has the delusion that he has bondage.

D: Who has the misconception that he is bound?

HH: You first answer that.

D: The Ātman.

HH: The Ātman is of the nature of existence, consciousness and bliss. It does not have any kind of bondage. This is the conclusion of the śāstras.

D: If the bondage is not for Ātman, it should be for the mind.

HH: The mind is an inanimate object. How can it have bondage? It is not at all possible for an inanimate object to have bondage.

D: If the bondage is neither for the Ātman nor for the mind, how can bondage be present at all?

HH: Did you think of all the possibilities?

D: I have not considered a combination of the Ātman and the mind because that is meaningless.

HH: Why?

D: Since the nature of the Ātman is quite different from that of the mind, how can they unite?

HH: Are heat and light the attributes of iron?

D: No.

HH: Are they the attributes of fire?

D: Yes.

HH: What happens when a piece of iron is heated for a long time?

D: It becomes white-hot and glows.

HH: That is so. If you were not already aware that heat and light are the qualities of fire, would you not consider them to be the attributes of the heated iron as they are seen in it?

D: Yes.

HH: The mind is inert and the Ātman is of the nature of consciousness. Bondage is only for the jīva, who, like the heated iron, is a blend of the mind and the Ātman. It is not as though bondage is for the Ātman alone or the mind alone. In reality, the jīva is the Ātman. The jīva experiences bondage as long as he is unaware of his true nature. When the jīva realises his true nature, he gets freed from rebirth.

D: In that case, even mokṣa cannot be permanent.

HH: Why?

D: Because that which has a beginning should also have an end. Mokṣa is produced when jñāna dawns and so, has a beginning.

HH: The objection is not valid as there is no real bondage. Bondage is unreal and is because of ignorance. When ignorance is destroyed through knowledge, all bondage ceases. Mokṣa is nothing but abidance in one’s true nature as Brahman. We do not say that mokṣa something actually attained by the Ātman.

29. THE MEANS TO ATTAIN MOKṢA

D: What is the means to mokṣa?

HH: Brahma-jñāna alone is the direct means to mokṣa. The śāstras say:

D: Does it follow that action is not the direct cause of liberation?

HH: Yes. The śāstras are conclusive in this regard. For example, the Mahānārayaṇa Upaniṣad teaches:

D: When does jñāna dawn?

HH: Jñāna arises when the mind becomes pure.

D: Will not the mind attain purity if actions are performed in a spirit of dedication to Īśvara?

HH: Yes. It will.

D: Then, should not karma also be said to be the cause of mokṣa? This is because the mind becomes pure when karma is performed in a spirit of dedication to Īśvara. Jñāna dawns in a pure mind and mokṣa is, thereby, attained.

HH: Your reasoning itself shows that karma is not the direct means to mokṣa. Everybody knows that clay is the cause of a pot. Similarly, the one who makes the pot is also its cause. Now, is the father of the potter also a cause of the pot? After all, but for his father, the potter would not have been born and but for the potter, the pot would not have been produced.

D: The father of the potter cannot be considered as a cause, for if he is, we will be forced to regard the potter’s grandfather, great-grandfather, etc., also as causes.

HH: If the same reasoning is applied, it can be seen that karma is never the direct cause of mokṣa. Further, that which stems from karma has a beginning and so, has an end. Hence, if mokṣa results from karma, it cannot be permanent. However, the śāstras say that mokṣa is permanent. Hence, it should be understood that jñāna alone is the direct cause for mokṣa and nothing else.

30. DIFFERING VIEWS IN ADVAITA TEXTS

D: We find differing views in the Advaita texts. For instance, some speak of the jīva as the reflection of Brahman in avidyā, while some others speak it as Brahman delimited by avidyā. Some speak of the presence of multiple jīvas, while some say that there is only one jīva. What is the reason for such differing views?

HH: Advaita philosophy, which stems from śāstras and is elucidated by Bhagavatpāda, has some variety just as the Gaṅgā branches severally before merging with the ocean. However, all Advaitins agree that:

Further, the followers of Bhagavatpāda are unanimous that jñāna alone is the cause of mokṣa.

The variations seen are in the description of the world, God and the individual self. The different views serve to cater to the needs of aspirants of differing competence and temperament. To a highly competent and advanced aspirant, the eka-jīva-vāda (the view that there is only one jīva) is appealing. Difficulty may arise if others are also taught this. So, for them, nānā-jīva-vāda (the view that there are many jīvas) is presented. Sureśvarācārya has clarified:

Through whatever mode of exposition a person gets the knowledge of the inner Ātman, that is appropriate here; the mode is not rigidly settled.¹

31. JÑĀNIN

D: Whom does the śāstra speak of as a jñānin or jīvanmukta?

HH: He who has obtained the direct realisation of the Ātman; he who has attained the complete realization that he is the Supreme Brahman.

D: Is a jñānin beyond virtue and sin?

HH: Yes.

D: Then, since no merit or sin is acquired by a jñānin, will he conduct himself in any manner whatsoever?

HH: A jñānin will not normally do so. His mind should have become extremely pure before he attained jñāna. This purity persists after the dawn of knowledge. Sureśvarācārya has observed:

If a person who has realised the non-dual Truth were to behave as he pleases, then what difference is there between him and a dog with regard to consuming what is impure?²

A jñānin is an ideal for others.

D: How can the mind of a jñanin be active after the realisation of the Ātman and how can the experience of joys and sorrows occur in it?

HH: Let us suppose a person is spinning a wheel. If he takes his hands off the wheel, it will come to a stop only after a few more rotations. Prārabdha is the cause of the jñānin’s body. Once jñāna is attained, identification with the body and mind ceases. Nonetheless, as long as prārabdha (the actions of the past birth that are fructifying) remains, like the momentum of the wheel, the jñanin’s body and mind continue to act. While from an observer’s perspective, he has prārabdha and experiences its fruits, from his standpoint, he has no prarabha, no joys and sorrows and no body and mind.

D: Is a jñānin’s abidance in the Supreme constant in the states of waking, dream and deep sleep?

HH: Yes.

D: What will be his experience when he perceives the world?

HH: “Nothing is different from me; there is no universe apart from the Ātman; it is the Ātman that appears as the universe” – he knows this as a matter of experience.

D: Why are jñānins full of compassion?

HH: Prior to the dawn of knowledge, a jñānin's mind should have been very pure, for jñāna dawns only in a very pure mind. So compassion should have been cultivated by earlier. This manifests itself more prominently after his realisation of the Truth. Jñānins are ever satiated. What is worth attaining has been attained by them. Hence, it can be said that the life of a jñānin is only for the good of others.

D: Can jñānins have devotion to Īśvara?

HH: When a jñānin can and does feel, why should he be incapable of devotion to Īśvara? The Lord’s divine qualities, attraction and glory are infinite. Consequently the very pure mind of the jñānin is intensely attracted to God. His devotion is wholly unmotivated by any expectation. We read in the Bhāgavata-purāṇa: Even sages who revel only in the Ātman and are without any bond (or have given up even the study of texts) are devoted, without any expectation whatsoever, to the Lord. Such is the excellence of the Lord.¹

D: To which world will a jñānin or a jivanmukta go after death?

HH: He will not go to any world. He just remains as Brahman. After his death, we refer to him as a videha-mukta. The śāstras say that he who has attained jñāna becomes immortal. He realises Brahman here itself. After death, he is not differentiated from Brahman.

D: Will a jñānin desire samādhi? Is there any need for him to remain in that state?

HH: A jñānin has neither craving for, nor the need to remain in samādhi. Be it samādhi or distraction, they are mental states. He is beyond all these. Considering the depth of a jñānin’s experience of samādhi, it is said that one jñānin is superior to another. This is with regard to an observer. That is, as far as an observer is concerned, gradations, such as, “He is a greater jñānin”, are there. But as far as the jñānins are concerned, there is no such differentiation at all. A jñānin who engages in activities is referred to as a brahmavid. If a jñānin has the practice of going into nirvikalpa-samādhi and coming out of it on his own, he is a brahma-vidvara. If he can be awakened from nirvikalpa-samādhi only by the efforts of others, he is a brahmavid-varīyān. A brahmavid-variṣṭha is one who never emerges from nirvikalpa-samādhi. His body perishes while he is in samādhi. As a brahmavid-variṣṭha has the best prārabdha, he is deemed the greatest jñānin. All these gradations are from the viewpoint of others and not at from from the standpoint of the jñānin.

D: How does a jñānin conduct himself in times of joy and pain?

HH: Since he knows that he is the Ātman that is untouched by any sorrow and since his mind is extremely pure, he does not become perturbed or despondent. He is like a soldier who does not cease firing even though he is wounded. A jñānin does not give room to ill will even if another person causes him misery.

D: Can a jñānin experience dreams?

HH: Why not? Even he does get dreams. Just as the jñānin sees the world of the waking state as having no existence apart from the Ātman, he apprehends the world of a dream as having no existence apart from the Ātman. I just told you the actual state of affairs.

D: Will all jñānins have various siddhis (supernatural powers)?

HH: No. If the prārabdha of a jñānin is such that he should have siddhis, we can see them in him. If the jñānin so desires, he can get siddhis but it is improbable that he will want them.

D: Do siddhis indicate the attainment of an exalted spiritual state.

HH: No.

D: Do siddhis have any significant impact on a jñānin?

HH: No. He is indifferent to their presence and absence. If some jñānin is possessed of siddhis and, on some occasion, there is a dharma- related requirement to employ some siddhi, he may use it without any attachment, for the good of the world. His doing so will have no negative effect whatsoever on his dispassion and steadfastness in the Ātman.

D: What are some of the fruits of becoming a jñānin?

HH: A jñanin is not reborn. Even while having a body, he is free from bondage. He becomes one who has done whatever needs to be done and has attained whatever needs to be attained. He see only himself, the Ātman, everywhere. He is full of bliss. He can enlighten and liberate his disciples. Being liberated even while embodied is the greatest accomplishment. The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad says:

When the Supreme Ātman, which is both superior as the cause and inferior as the effect, is realised, the knot of the heart is destroyed, all doubts come to an end and one’s actions become dissipated.¹