PART 3 SCRIPTURAL EXPOSITIONS

This part is based on His Holiness’s exposition of the Bhagavad-gītā, Upaniṣads and the Brahma-sūtras as per Bhagavatpāda’s commentaries thereon, on some of His public discourses and on some of His private expositions of spiritually relevant matters. The elucidations included have been grouped under 15 heads.

1. Eight Great Qualities

Mahaṛṣi Gautama has, in his Dharma-sūtras, spoken of eight ‘Ātma-guṇas’ or personal qualities that every individual should cultivate.¹ They help a person to enjoy mental peace and happiness. They also give rise to virtue and so their benefits are not confined to the present life. Further, if people strive to cultivate these, the world will become a happier place.

The first such quality is “Compassion towards all beings.” God has nothing whatsoever to achieve for Himself. Yet, on account of His compassion and desire to uplift mankind, He has taken on many incarnations. When we have been given the capacity to help others, it is but proper that we should do so. After all, God Himself has shown us the way. The desire to relieve the sufferings of another is what is termed compassion. Compassion occurs naturally in some persons, while in some others, it arises by virtue of the company of great ones, who are certainly very compassionate. In the Bhagavadgītā, while listing the traits in devotees which render them dear to God, Lord Kṛṣṇa first mentions absence of hatred towards any being, friendliness and compassion.

In the Yoga-sūtras also, compassion towards one who is suffering is enjoined to get peace of mind.² Aversion, pride and the like agitate the mind. Suppose one cultivates the feeling, “I never want to be unhappy. The same is the case with others. Their suffering is on the same footing as mine. So let none have misery.” Then, one’s aversion and pride will get checked and the mind will become calmer than it would have been otherwise. The development of compassion acts as a remedy for anger too and it is well known that anger severely perturbs the mind.

The second quality is “Forbearance.” Normally, when one hears that which is unpleasant or encounters an unfavourable situation created by another, one feels angry and seeks vengeance. If one is strong enough, one directly retaliates. If not, one seeks to avenge oneself on the sly. Acting thus does not constitute the behaviour of a noble one.

Even though one may be in a position to take action, one could forgive the wrongdoer. One must not harbour malice. In the Rāmāyaṇa, we read, “Rāma does not, by virtue of His self-control, recall even a century of wrong acts committed against Him by another. On the other hand, He is satiated even with a single favour done to Him.”³

What is the point in being intolerant and angry? A person only loses his own mental peace by doing so. Suppose a person is slighted or censured by another. He may get angry. Who is the loser? Anger is like an ungrateful entity. It burns the very person who gives room to it. Instead of getting angry, the slighted or censured person could very well have analysed whether any actual shortcoming of his had been pointed out. If so, he could remedy that personal fault and be grateful to the person who brought it to his notice. On the other hand, the censure may have been unfounded. If so, he could think, “It is said that making others happy is a form of worship of God.⁴ So if this person is deriving some joy in condemning me, I am lucky. After all, without taking any effort, I am able to worship God by giving him some happiness. He has dome me a great favour.

The third quality is, “Not cavilling.” Often, people who are not dexterous or successful, find faults with others who are competent, prosperous or famous. The censure is basically to hide one’s shortcomings; the comments are not constructive. This is a bad practice, for we should appreciate good qualities in others and not assume or search for faults. In the Bhagavadgītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa declares His willingness to expound the Truth to Arjuna who “does not cavil.”⁵ Bhagavatpāda has said in his Prabodha-sudhākara that a person who listens to the condemnation another incurs sin.⁶ What need be said about the sin incurred by a man who himself engages in nit-picking?

Suppose a man were to cultivate an attitude of friendliness towards happy people. Then, he would only derive happiness in their success. For instance, does not a father feel joy on the success of his son? Likewise, why will not a man feel happy if he regards another in a friendly light? It is said, “The petty-minded think, ‘This one is my own. This one is not.’ For the broad-minded, the whole world is one family.”⁷ How can the prosperity of another agitate the mind of a person who looks upon everyone as a member of his family? In fact, such an attitude conduces to peace of mind by eliminating jealousy and the like that are disruptive of mental peace.

The fourth quality is, “Purity.” If we were to encounter a person who wears filthy clothes and who has not bathed for many days, his obnoxious smell makes us want to move away. On the other hand, the stinking one is hardly aware of anything abnormal. Likewise, some are in the habit of spitting in public places. Such practices are repulsive and unhygienic. So one must bathe daily and observe hygiene. Cleanliness is an ingredient of purity.

The fifth of the eight qualities listed is, “Freedom from laziness.” Many people do not diligently and promptly engage in the tasks that they should carry out but conceive of and advance some reason or the other to explain why they were not in a position to execute the tasks at the scheduled times. No employer would be pleased with an indolent worker. As regards a student who keeps putting off reading, he fares badly in his studies. When a person consistently occupies himself with the conscientious and timely execution of his various obligations, he fares well and his mind gets far less opportunity to engage itself in idle or harmful thoughts. Thus, it is in everyone’s interest to eschew laziness and cultivate zeal.

The sixth noble quality is, “Auspiciousness.” When we meet some, we note that their words as also facial expressions are not pleasing. This is undesirable. We should speak and conduct ourselves in a manner which is pleasant. For instance, on seeing an elderly or a great person rather than saying, “Sit down”, rudely, one should politely offer a seat and invite the person to sit. Proper speech is not just pleasing to hear but is also factual. Manu has said, “Speak the truth. Utter that which is pleasant. Do not verbalize a distressing truth. Do not say anything that is gratifying but false. This is the eternal dharma.”⁸ The Lord taught Arjuna, “Speech that causes no pain and is true, agreeable and beneficial, and the practice of studying the scriptures constitute austerity of speech.”⁹ Such austerity of speech purifies a person.

The seventh ordained quality is, “Absence of niggardliness.” The tendency to hoard and not part with anything in charity is the result of greed. Lord Kṛṣṇa has referred to desire, anger and greed as the triple gates of hell. Hoarding will never benefit us and when we die, we cannot take our wealth with us.

Nīlakanṭha Dīkṣita has humorously advised, “If you are keen that even after death you should not be parted with your wealth and that you should carry it with you in a bundle on your head, then give it to the deserving.”¹⁰ Currency notes cannot be taken to the next world. On the other hand, if a miser converts them into virtue by offering charity, he need not fear that he will lose them after death. After all, virtue will accompany him to the next world.

The scriptures prescribe giving of gifts to the deserving as an antidote for greed. Hence, charity, apart from bringing about happiness in others, greatly conduces to the spiritual well-being of the donor. A person who loses some money feels unhappy. But he feels happy, not sad, when he voluntarily gives the same amount to a poor student who is not in a position to pay examination fees. Charity can thus make not only the receiver but also the giver happy.

A person was advised by a holy man to gift a vegetable a day and told that he would attain great merit by doing so. The poor person strictly followed the advice. After death, he was reborn in a royal family and grew up to become a king. He was able to recall what he had done in his past birth. So he continued to gift a vegetable a day. Surprisingly, after death, he was reborn as a beggar. He was unable to comprehend the reason and so sought the advice of the holy man who had earlier blessed him. From the sage, he learnt that prior to becoming a king he had been very poor and so a gift of a vegetable a day was sufficient to give him a lot of virtue. On the other hand, as a king he was endowed with affluence. So, thereafter, the gift of just a vegetable a day was quite insufficient to earn him merit of any consequence. He realized that the extent of charity needed to earn a certain degree of merit depends upon one’s financial status.

The last of the eight qualities is, “Absence of attachment.” Most of our problems are due to our desires. It is said in the Pancadaśī, “He who is attached gets tied down in the world. The unattached one experiences joy. Therefore, attachment should always be given up by one who desires to be happy.”¹¹ It is perfectly possible to work efficiently and to fulfil all one’s duties without attachment. In fact, attachment impairs efficient functioning. Commonly, surgeons do not perform surgeries on their close relatives. If there were to be no risk of attachment clouding or impairing performance, such would not have been the case.

2. Stages of Devotion

Madhusūdana Saraswatī, the famous author of Advaita-siddhi, was a great devotee of Kṛṣṇa. His being an Advaitin par excellence did not in any way stand in his way of composing soul-stirring verses on Kṛṣṇa.

He has spoken of three stages of devotion. The first stage is the one where the devotee feels “I am Yours” with regard to God. In other words, the devotee dedicates himself to God. A special characteristic of a true servant of God is that he longs for nothing from God in return for his devotion and service.

Here the following instance comes to mind. To prove Prahlāda’s view that God is present everywhere and also in a pillar pointed at by Hiraṇyakaśipu, the Lord emerged from the pillar in the form of Narasiṁha. Lord Narasiṁha slew Hiraṇyakaśipu but continued to be very fierce. The devas were afraid of approaching Him and so was Goddess Lakṣmī. Hence, Prahlāda, who was but a young boy, was asked to pacify the Lord. Prahlāda consented and fearlessly walking upto the Lord, who was seething with fury, prostrated before Him. Immediately, the Lord calmed down and moved by compassion, He rose from the throne He was occupying and placed His hand on the boy’s head. Being pleased with His devotee, the Lord asked Prahlāda to seek a boon. Promptly, Prahlāda replied that he desired nothing from the Lord. There is a scintillating verse in the Bhāgavata wherein we have Prahlāda telling the Lord, “He who desires anything from God is a trader and not a servant of God.”¹²

The story brings out two aspects. One is that a true servant of God knows no refuge other than God. This is why Prahlāda felt no fear in approaching Lord Narasiṁha. The second aspect is that the true servant of God desires nothing from God. In fact, he does not even pray for mokṣa.

In a verse in the Śivānanda-laharī, Bhagavatpāda tells the Lord: “Tell me why You are not redeeming me from this wretched worldly state. If the answer be that it pleases You that I should wallow thus, then I have achieved all that has to be achieved.”¹³ When God is pleased what else is there to long for?

The second stage of devotion spoken of is the feeling “He is mine” with regard to God. Here the devotee is positively concerned about ensuring God’s welfare. It is not as though God is in need of the devotee’s care. In spite of this, He allows Himself to be even controlled by the devotee on account of the devotee’s love.

The Bhāgavata contains the explicit declaration of Lord Kṛṣṇa, “I am subservient to My devotee like one under the control of another.”¹⁴ Yaśodā’s love for Kṛṣṇa is an illustration of devotion of the form, “He is mine.” To her, Kṛṣṇa was her darling child and not the Lord. The Lord seems to have relished her motherly love so much that He deliberately withdrew from her the awareness that He was none other than the Supreme. Though omnipotent, He even allowed Himself to be tied to a mortar by Yaśodā.

The third stage of devotion is the feeling “I am He” with regard to God. In other words, Advaitic realisation is the highest stage of devotion. A reason is that while others are willing to brook at least some minute separation from God, a devotee of this class cannot bear even that. When can separation be totally obliterated? Obviously when one realizes that one is not different from the Supreme. In the Gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself indicates that the knower of the Truth is not different from Him.¹⁵

3. Prostrate, Surrender and Become Blessed

A devotee prayed to the compassionate Lord to forgive two terrible sins of his.¹⁶ What were they?

The devotee spelt out that in none of his previous births he had done namaskāra to God. This was a very grievous sin. How did he know that he had never saluted God at any time? The answer is simple. Namaskāra to God, according to the devotee, automatically ensures freedom from rebirth. Had he saluted God in any previous birth, he would not have been born. The fact that he had been born showed that such a holy act as prostrating before God had not been performed earlier. In the present birth, he was now offering his praṇāms, and that precisely was the cause of his second fault. On account of his paying obeisance to God, he would certainly not be born again. Thus, there would be no occasion for him to salute God in future. His inevitable failure to do namaskāra to God in any future birth was his second sin! These two sins should be pardoned; this was the prayer.

The prayer illustrates how important one should consider offering salutations to God. Normally, most of us prostrate before God daily but are most casual about the act. This is not correct. We must regard the opportunity given to us to offer namaskāra to be most valuable and to be due solely to God’s grace.

God has taken care of us even from the time when we lay helplessly in the wombs of our mothers. The least we can do by way of gratitude is to salute God with all our being.

Will God accept us, for we cannot truly claim to be leading a life much different from that of any animal? We spend much of our energy and time earning our bread and a large chunk of the remaining time in sleep. How then can we claim to be far different from animals unless we are strongly devoted to God and lead a spiritual life?

In His Śiva-bhujaṅga-stotra¹⁷, Bhagavatpāda poses this query to Śiva and then tells the Lord to accept him even if he be on par with an animal. Why? Is not Nandi the vehicle of Śiva? Surely, if Śiva can accept Nandi, a bull, there should be no problem in His accepting an animal-like devotee. How indeed could Śiva complain about the devotee being animal-like, when He had made an animal itself His own.

It is one thing to be on par with an animal and another to be sinful. What if the devotee be full of faults? Would the Lord then accept him? In the verse under consideration, Bhagavatpāda tells Śiva that even in such a case, Śiva should extend His love. Why? Had not Śiva placed Candra on His head even though the latter had violated the promise given by him to view all his wives alike and had even committed the sin of eloping with his preceptor’s wife? Decidedly, if Śiva could place on His head one who had such faults, He should have no reason to reject a devotee merely because of the devotee’s blemishes.

Let the devotee be on par with an animal and be sinful too and yet be qualified to be accepted by God. But then should not the devotee’s supplication be free from all traces of hypocrisy? Should not the devotee at least be free from double standards? Here again, Bhagavatpāda demurs, for he tells Śiva, “If you are opposed to ‘two-tongued ones’, then how is it that You keep a fork-tongued snake as a neck ornament? If You can adopt a snake, then why not me?”

In conclusion, Bhagavatpāda reminds Śiva that no matter what a person’s condition might have been, he inevitably becomes blessed on being received by the Lord. The implication of the prayer is that God’s kindness is limitless and so He will accept us in spite of all our faults and limitations if we offer ourselves to Him. Thus, we will do well to salute God and surrender ourselves to Him. The rest will be taken care of by God.

4. The Nectar of Devotion

People have a natural capacity to love. Affection requires an object and when that object is God, it gets the appellation bhakti or devotion. Nārada defines bhakti as extreme love of God.¹⁸ He who attains such devotion no longer longs for anything and is ever fully satiated and happy. While attachment to wife, wealth, etc., causes bondage, attachment to God liberates. A sense object sometimes gives joy and sometimes sorrow. It is not always available and has several faults. On the other hand, God is ever captivating, constantly available and totally free from blemishes. Further, what or who can be as loveable as God who is the repository of all good qualities? So bewitching are His glories that even sages who have realized the Truth and have nothing to achieve go into raptures on thinking of Him.

Though intrinsically formless, the kind Lord does appear in various forms to grace His devotees and to enable people to easily contemplate on Him. The scriptures describe several marvellous forms of the Supreme. We read in the Devī-māhātmyam of the Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa, “You are gorgeous, lovelier than all that is beautiful and absolutely stunning. Greatest of the great, You are verily the Supreme Goddess.”¹⁹

A devotee wanted to pray, “O Bhavāni, please bestow on me, Your serf, a compassionate glance.” So he began with the words “Bhavāni tvam.” So eager was the Goddess to fulfil Her devotee’s wish that She did not realize that the devotee’s pause before “tvam”, meaning “You”, was only the interval between successive words. Taking the request as complete, She immediately granted him “Bhavāni-tvam” or the state of being Bhavānī; that is, She made him one with Herself. Bhagavatpāda has stated this in his Saundarya-laharī.²⁰

The Lord’s mercy extends to all. Did not Rāma tell Sugrīva when the latter voiced concern about accepting Vibhīṣaṇa, “To anyone who seeks refuge in Me but once, saying, ‘I am Yours’, I grant fearlessness”?²¹ A sincere devotee has no cause for any worry, for he has surrendered his body and mind to God and left everything in God’s hands. Overpowered by love for devotees who have surrendered, Kṛṣṇa declared to Uddhava, “With a view to purifying Myself by the dust of the feet of the sage who longs for nothing, bears enmity to none and is same-sighted, I always follow him.”²² What a remarkable proclamation by the perfect Lord of the cosmos!

While it is said that a true devotee is in God’s loving care, it would be wrong to infer that a devotee ought not to have any hardship. The Lord is, after all, not only most compassionate but also perfectly just. If a person had committed major transgressions in earlier births, allowing him to go scot-free, without any punishment in the form of suffering, would be a travesty of justice. A judge who refuses to penalise murderers on the ground of kindness would be doing a great disservice to society. He can, of course, take mitigating circumstances and repentance into consideration to reduce the punishment awarded to a person found guilty of a crime. Likewise, God, being just, does award punishment even to devotees, but, being kind, reduces the penalty to the extent possible. Just because a mother scolds her child, does it mean that she does not dearly love her offspring?

God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and an ocean of mercy. Hence, there is just nothing that the devotee has to make known to God which is not already known to Him. Further, if the devotee says, “I want this; I want that,” how can he be said to have full faith in the gracious dispensation of the Divine One? This apart, even when faith is inadequate, it would be appropriate to avoid praying for anything. It goes without saying that the will of God is infallible. It is also well known that people feel happy when they obtain what they desire and unhappy when they do not. So he who attunes his will to that of God can never have any reason for dissatisfaction. How can suffering make a devotee grieve and lament if he cultivates the attitude that the pain too is in his best interests as it has been ordained by his dear God? At any rate, grief and lamentation do not reduce suffering; they only make it worse.

The path of devotion is special in that one begins to experience peace and joy even prior to one’s having made much headway. Further, sharpness of the intellect, scholarliness, prowess, age, physique, social status, occupation, wealth, etc., are not of consequence. God, being most loveable, there is no reason why anyone cannot cultivate devotion. By associating with and thinking in positive terms about a person, another develops a liking for him. Likewise, devotion to God can be developed by repeatedly thinking of God and His glories. To think of Him is not difficult, for one can mentally keep chanting His name and dedicate all actions and thoughts to Him. The company of holy devotees is highly helpful in developing devotion, for, in them, we see surrender and peace. On the contrary, bad company produces the opposite effect and turns one’s mind away from God and towards sense objects.

At first, when a person tries to fix his mind on God, he may not find his mind cooperative and he may not derive much joy in doing so. There is no reason, however, for despair. The budding devotee can change the situation to his advantage by giving God a detailed report of the antics of his mind. What difficulty is there in mentally telling God, “My mind refuses to think of You. See the way it rebels”? Such a conversation with God is itself a way of thinking of Him.

Even when a person is able to briefly fix his mind on God, he experiences peace. This is because, at least for that short duration, he is free from concerns and is like a baby in the arms of its mother. The sense of peace and joy comes rather easily in the presence of great devotees. The nice feeling itself provides an impetus to the budding devotee to think further about God. It is, nonetheless, necessary for him to recognize that in the initial stages there is the danger of the mind forgetting about God for long. Hence, without giving room to inadvertence, he must diligently strive to think of God often.

In a verse in his Śivānanda-laharī, Bhagavatpāda has portrayed the stages in the growth of devotion.²³ In the first stage, the devotee somehow approaches God, just as the seed of the aṅkola tree manages to get to the tree and attach itself to the trunk. Thereafter, the effect of grace, which was there even earlier, begins to be clearly felt. God holds on to the devotee, just as a magnet attracts and holds a needle. The devotee feels the pull of God. In the third stage, the devotee and God are close to each other like a man and his chaste wife. The love is strongly mutual. Next, just as a creeper adds to the beauty of a tree, the devotee adds, as it were, to God’s glory. Indeed, devotees like Prahlāda were ornaments of God. In the final stage, the devotee merges with God just as a river flows into and becomes one with the ocean.

Lord Kṛṣṇa has compassionately taught how devotees of different capabilities should practise devotion.²⁴There is nothing in the world that is distinct from God. So a mature aspirant is advised to fix his mind and intellect on God as the Cosmic Person; everything is viewed as a part of God’s body, which is the universe. To the aspirant who is unable to view everything as related to God, Kṛṣṇa teaches repeated fixation of the mind on some chosen form of God. Suppose a person is unable to meditate thus, he is instructed to be intent on works for the Lord. The devotee should engage himself in hearing about God, glorifying Him, worshipping His idol, etc. Finally, even if the aspirant is unable to be absorbed in such tasks, there is an easier option that is available to him. The Lord says that the aspirant should, with regulated mind, dedicate all his actions to Him and give up desire for the results of all the acts. Normally, a person acts motivated by longing for the results. Such functioning is productive of bondage. The spiritual aspirant, motivated by his love of God, acts for the sake of God, without attachment to the results. Just as a fruit can be offered to God during worship, the devotee offers the fruits of actions to God. He acts with the feeling, “I do this for God”; he does not go a step down and hold, “I do this so that God may be favourably disposed.” He views success and failure with equanimity; here success includes the attainment of mental purity.

Acting as he does for the sake of God, the devotee abstains from misdeeds. He acts with firmness and enthusiasm. After all, his devotion makes him put forth his best. Treating the scriptures as the directives of God, he faithfully carries out the scripturally-prescribed duties that are pertinent to him. How can one who disobeys the commands of God, and neglects his religious duties be a true devotee? Thus, detachment from the fruits of actions does not imply inefficiency or negligence. On the contrary, the devotee’s performance is superior to that of a worldly man; unlike the latter, the former is not bogged down by anxiety, frustration, etc.

The Lord proclaims, “Fix your mind on Me. Be My devotee. Worship Me. Prostrate before Me. (Conducting yourself in this fashion, offering all ends, means and needs to Me), you shall come to Me alone. Truly do I promise thus to you, for you are dear to Me.”²⁵ Who indeed would not want to surrender himself to God who is so very loving and loveable!

5. Fundamental Tenets of the Bhagavadgītā

What is the philosophy expounded by Lord Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna? Does the Lord declare that liberation can be attained only by the realization of one’s true nature or does He opine that actions are also directly responsible for liberation? Is it the view of the Lord that there are many Ātmans and a real world or does the Lord hold that the Ātman is really none other than the Supreme and that the world is not absolutely real? To answer these queries, it is obviously imperative that we turn to the Gītā itself.

The Lord points out to Arjuna the immortality of the Ātman and its total distinction from the body and bodily attributes. “The Ātman is not born nor does it die nor does it cease to be. It is unborn, eternal, unchangeable and ancient. It is not killed when the body is killed.”²⁶ Such unequivocal declarations that the Ātman is distinct from the body are commonly found in the Gītā.

The Lord has equally clearly asserted that the Ātman is untainted by any bodily activity and that it is devoid of action. For instance, He has said, “Having no origin and bereft of qualities, this imperishable Ātman, though dwelling in the body, neither acts nor is tainted.”²⁷

What is it then that acts? The Lord has clarified in various places by utterances such as, “The guṇas of nature perform all activity. The one whose understanding has been clouded by egoism feels, ‘I am the doer’.”²⁸ From such pronouncements, it is patent that the Ātman is without any activity and is totally untainted. How indeed is it possible for such an Ātman to really suffer bondage? The Lord’s declarations would be readily meaningful if bondage is not real and is caused by ignorance.

The Lord says, “He sees truly who sees that all actions are done by nature alone and that the Ātman is a non-agent.”²⁹ The view that true knowledge destroys ignorance and results in liberation is explained by Kṛṣṇa by words such as, “He who has faith and is intent upon knowledge and has restrained the senses obtains true knowledge. Having attained knowledge, he immediately attains peace.”³⁰

Does not the grace of God confer liberation? Does not Kṛṣṇa aver, “They who seek refuge in Me alone cross this Māyā”?³¹ Yes, indeed the Lord has said that He confers liberation to devoted ones. But it must be seen how He does so. He Himself has clarified, “Out of mere compassion for them I, dwelling in their mind, destroy the darkness born of ignorance by means of the luminous lamp of wisdom.”³² Thus, the Lord has shown that knowledge is the means to liberation. Such knowledge destroys the fruits of all actions. The Lord has said, “Just as fire reduces fuel to ashes, so too does the fire of knowledge burn up all actions.”³³

It certainly cannot be said that the very Lord, who declares the opposition of action and knowledge, forgets His teachings and proceeds to say that liberation results from a combination of these. He has consistently taught that actions are meant for one who has not attained realization and that for the realized one there is just ‘abidance’ in Ātman. He clarifies, “For the holy man who tries to attain yoga, action is said to be the means. For the same man when he has attained yoga, quietude is said to be the means.”³⁴ By taking it as axiomatic that, “The end of that which is born is certain,”³⁵ the Lord has pointed out that all that has a beginning must have an end. If a real liberation were to be brought about by action then by virtue of having a beginning, such a liberation must also have an end. Hence, liberation cannot be brought about by action. Action’s contribution is the purification of mind. Kṛṣṇa makes this clear when He says, “Sacrifice, gift and austerity are the purifiers of the wise.”³⁶

As regards multiplicity of Ātmans and their relationship with the Supreme, the following words of the Lord illustrate His position. He says, “He who has been made steadfast by yoga sees the same everywhere and sees the Ātman as abiding in all beings and all beings as abiding in the Ātman.”³⁷

The use of the singular for the Ātman suggests that in reality there is no multiplicity of Ātmans. As regards the relationship of the Ātman with the Supreme, the Lord Himself has said, “O Gudākeśa, I am the Ātman seated in the hearts of all beings”³⁸ and “Understand Me to be the Kṣetrajña (individual Self).”³⁹

6. True Advaitins and Pseudo-Advaitins are Poles Apart

It is well known that Advaita philosophy recognizes Brahman alone as the ultimate reality and holds that the world is illusory, with no existence apart from Brahman. Avidyā or ignorance is responsible for the mistaken notion that one is the body or mind and that duality is a fact.

The individual soul is actually not different from the Supreme. Strictly speaking, a true Advaitin is one who has directly realized that one is the Supreme Brahman. Others who hold the Advaita philosophy as right are also called Advaitins but the usage is somewhat figurative.

Those who have directly realized the Truth are called jñānins; they are liberated even while alive. Such persons are most uncommon. Kṛṣṇa points out in the Gītā, “He who knows that Vāsudeva is all is very rare to find.”⁴⁰ Egoless, such sages do not flaunt their wisdom.

On the other hand, there are many who have not acquired such realization but who talk and behave as if they have attained liberation. We even find that they are not very regulated in their conduct. When questioned, they say, “After all I am not the body or the mind. I neither act nor am I affected by action. Further, the world is only unreal. So, why should I bother about what the body and mind are engaged in doing?”

There is a story in this regard. A person was teaching Advaita philosophy to a group of students and in the course of his discourse pointed out that the world is unreal. Suddenly, a wild elephant chanced to come rushing that way. The disciples fled as fast as their legs could carry them; the teacher was no exception. Unfortunately, the teacher slipped and fell into a pit. After the elephant went away, the students discovered their teacher in the pit, shouting for help. They approached him and asked, “O Guru, you were just telling us that the world is unreal. Why then did you run, gripped by fear, when the elephant charged? Further, why are you now shouting for help?” The helpless teacher thought for a moment, and said, “Help me to come out and I shall explain.”

They lifted him out. He resumed his seat at the place where he was teaching and, without batting an eyelid, declared, “I stand by what I said. The world is unreal. The elephant that charged was unreal. You saw me flee in terror but my flight was unreal. You noticed that I had fallen into a pit and was screaming for help. All that was unreal. Finally, your helping me out too was unreal.”

Maybe the explanation shows that the so-called teacher was shrewd but it does not alter the fact that he was being hypocritical. One should be true to one’s conscience. One may deceive others by high-sounding talk on Advaita, but it will not be of any use if one does not mend one’s ways.

It is said, “He who is attached to worldly comforts but still says that everything is Brahman is actually one who has fallen from karma and also from Brahman. Such a person must be discarded like a lowly one.”⁴¹ Because he fails to realize the Truth and procure liberation, it is said that he has fallen from Brahman. Because of his putting up a show that he is realized, he does not perform the ordained duties sincerely. Hence, there is the declaration of his having fallen from karma.

Why then does one act as if one is aware that the world is unreal even though one does not possess such realization? One reason is self-delusion. Another is that one wants to get a good name. Nīlakṇṭha Dīkṣita has humorously written, “Always keeping the rosary in the hand, occasionally opening one’s eyes and declaring that everything is Brahman are sure ways of creating a good impression!”⁴²

Such pseudo-Advaitins are not a rarity these days. They will do well to bear in mind the declaration of the Kaṭha-upaniṣad, “One who has not desisted from bad conduct, whose senses are not under control, whose mind is not concentrated and whose mind is not free from hankering for the result of concentration cannot attain the Ātman through knowledge.”⁴³

It is clear that true knowledge can dawn only after the mind has been rendered very pure by the practice of spiritual discipline.

7. Essential Prerequisites For Knowing the Supreme

The first of the Brahma-sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa is, “Hence, deliberation on Brahman should be undertaken thereafter.”⁴⁴ The word “thereafter” reveals that enquiry into the real nature of the Supreme must be done only after some requirement is met. The prerequisite is not knowledge of the rites detailed in the Karma-kāṇḍa, portion dealing with rites, of the Vedas. On the other hand, it comprises the “sādhana-catuṣṭaya” or the four-fold spiritual means. Even if a person were to study Vedāntic texts for long, master them and become an exponent who delights scholars and common people, if he lacks the sādhana-catuṣṭaya, he will not get direct experience of the Truth. He will, for all his scholarliness in Vedānta, remain trapped in the cycle of transmigratory existence. On the other hand, he who equips himself with sādhana-catuṣṭaya and endeavours under the guidance of a sage, can get realization of the Supreme and, so, liberation.

The first member of sādhana-catuṣṭaya is “viveka” or discrimination. The aspirant should differentiate between the eternal, which is Brahman, and the transient, which is all else. Only he who knows “this is eternal; this is transient” will tend to withdraw his mind from the transient world. The world is to be viewed not merely as subject to destruction but as quite illusory. Indeed, who would desire an object which he firmly regards as being illusory? It is inadequate to see sense objects as transient because people are commonly found to seek worldly pleasures though knowing that these enjoyments are not ever-lasting.

The second element of sādhana-catuṣṭaya is “vairāgya” or dispassion and this, as seen earlier, stems from discrimination. When some close relative or friend dies, a person may experience disinterest in the world. However, such indifference soon fades away. It is only the steady dispassion born of discrimination that conduces to the realization of the Supreme. The aspirant should carefully cultivate dispassion till he finds all worldly and heavenly objects of enjoyment, inclusive of his body, to be as unappealing as the droppings of a crow.

The third constituent of sādhana-catuṣṭaya is a set of six qualities. The first member of this set is “śama” or mind-control. This is characterized by the mind remaining fixed on its objective. In the absence of strong dispassion, the attention of the mind would keep getting diverted to sense objects. On the other hand, he who repeatedly perceives the shortcomings of sense objects, such as that they are transient, require expenditure and effort to acquire and that they even turn insipid, ceases to be attracted to them. His mind quits being diverted by them. Thus, dispassion is the basis for steady mind-control.

Mind-control facilitates “dama” or withdrawal of senses from their respective objects. In the Kaṭha-upaniṣad, the sense-objects have been likened to roads, the senses to horses and the mind to the reins.⁴⁵ So the senses can be kept under check by a mind that is preoccupied with its objective; mind-control leads to restraint of sensory activity. It should not, however, be supposed that an aspirant should first pay attention only to controlling the mind, while ignoring the activities of the senses. As the Lord points out in the Gītā, the senses are powerful and can unsettle the mind.⁴⁶ While avoiding sense-objects provides a situation conducive to gaining control over the mind, firm restraint of the senses even in the presence of beautiful sights, tasty objects, etc., can be effected only by a regulated mind.

Sense-control is the precursor of “uparati” or self-withdrawal. The withdrawal is from sense enjoyments and from bondage-fostering activity. If one is immersed in worldly activities and in the performance of religious rites, how can one uninterruptedly and intensely strive to know Brahman, which is devoid of all attributes and is the subtlest of the subtle? The limit of withdrawal occurs when one is totally oblivious of the world, inclusive of the body, and is immersed in nirvikalpa-samādhi, the acme of yoga.

The fourth element of the set under consideration is “titikṣā” or forbearance. True forbearance is marked by the tolerance of all afflictions without the institution of remedial steps and without worry and lamentation. When self-withdrawal is at its peak, the mind does not cognize heat, cold, etc. However, when apprehension of heat, cold and the like does occur, they are endured. Normally, when people are unable to remedy some unpleasant experience, they worry and lament. The spiritual aspirant who is endowed with true forbearance is different. A mind that is tainted by anxiety, lamentation, etc., is unfit to successfully enquire about the Truth.

“Śraddhā” or faith is the firm acceptance of the words of the Guru and the scripture as true. Even in a worldly matter, a person does not think in accordance with the words of another when he lacks faith in the latter. Such being the case, what need be said about the importance of faith in matters that cannot be ascertained by means of sense-perception? Intense faith in the Guru and the scripture is vital to know the Truth. Further, it is only he whose mind is focused, whose senses are restrained, who has withdrawn himself and who is forbearing who can obtain a firm conviction of the form, “It is indeed so”, when taught, “Brahman alone is the reality; all else is illusory. You are actually the Supreme.”

Extreme faith in the Guru and the scripture leads to freedom from doubts and distractions. Hence, the aspirant is able to unswervingly establish his intellect on Brahman, which is devoid of all qualities. This kind of steady establishment of the intellect characterizes “samādhāna”, the sixth member of the set. In the stage of “śama” too, the mind is fixed on its objective, Brahman, but such focus is accomplished with effort; further, doubts are not fully resolved. Thus “samādhāna” is not identical with “śama” but is the latter’s culmination or fruit.

We finally come to the fourth and last constituent of the sādhanacatuṣṭaya. This is “mumukṣutva” or yearning for liberation. When a person whose mind is tainted by worldly tendencies hears an exposition of Vedānta, he may feel a desire for freedom. However, such a desire is fleeting and hardly persists beyond the time of listening. It does not lead to liberation and is classed as mumukṣutva of the inferior type.

When the hearing of scriptural texts leads to discrimination and thence dispassion, a person gives up worldly matters and approaches an enlightened Guru for earnest enquiry. Mumukṣutva of the middling kind then develops in him as he listens to his Guru. This too is insufficient.

When he achieves uncompromising dispassion, his mind becomes focussed. Flooded by the Guru’s grace, he longs for nothing but liberation. He cannot brook any delay in becoming free and is on par with a person who rushes towards water to put out a fire on his head. His mumukṣutva is of the well-developed kind. Being pre-eminently qualified, he quickly attains direct experience of the Truth and becomes liberated, even while alive.

8. The Source of All Evil

Arjuna asks Lord Kṛṣṇa, “O Vārṣṇeya! Impelled by what does a man, even though reluctant, commit sin as if he were forced?”⁴⁷ Arjuna is baffled because he finds that not only those who wish to do evil but also those who wish to abstain from unrighteousness appear to commit sin. It is as if one is being forced to err akin to a servant ordered by a king to perform some task.

The Lord wishes to point out to Arjuna the source of all evil. He says, “It is desire and it is anger, born of the guṇa ‘rajas’, all devouring and sinful. Know that to be the foe here.”⁴⁸ The enemy of the whole world is desire from which evil comes to all beings. When desire happens to be obstructed by some cause, then it gets transformed into anger. Hence, anger is a mutation of desire.

Everything in the world is comprised of the three guṇas of nature, namely sattva, rajas and tamas. Sattva is responsible for a peaceful, happy disposition, rajas for an overactive, attached nature and tamas for sloth, etc. Desire, according to the Lord, is born of rajas. An alternative interpretation of the Lord’s words is that desire itself is responsible for the rise of rajas. When desire manifests, it arouses rajas which impels a person to act. Desire is declared by the Lord to be very sinful because it is only when one is impelled by desire that one commits sin. For that reason, it is one’s enemy in this world.

The Lord is competent indeed to declare things in their true perspective. Thus, Bhagavatpāda, when commenting on this portion, explains the meaning of the word Bhagavān. He says that the Lord is called Bhagavān because He is the one in whom ‘bhaga’ abides. According to the Viṣṇu-purāṇa, bhaga means the six attributes of perfect mastery, might, glory, splendour, dispassion and salvation.⁴⁹ The Viṣṇu-purāṇa also says, “He is called Bhagavān who knows the origin and the end, the coming and the going of beings and what is wisdom and what is ignorance.”⁵⁰

The Lord illustrates how desire is our foe. He gives three examples which convey the gradations in the covering of knowledge by desire. He says, “Just as fire is enveloped by smoke, a mirror is covered by dirt, and just as the foetus is enclosed by womb, so too is knowledge covered by desire. Covered, O son of Kuntī, is knowledge by this constant enemy of the wise in the form of desire, which is greedy and insatiable.”⁵¹ Fire covered by smoke is able to burn. A dirty mirror is unable to produce a clear reflection until it is cleaned. As for the foetus, it remains completely unseen and confined.

The wise person knows, even before suffering the consequences, that he has been led by desire to evil ways. So he feels miserable. Hence, desire is the enemy of the wise. On the other hand, the ignorant regard desire, at the time of their thirsting for objects, as a friend. It is only when suffering results, but not before, that an unwise person realizes that he has been rendered miserable by desire. Desire is ever insatiable and greedy. It is said, “Never is desire satiated by enjoyment just as fire is not put out by pouring ghee into it.”⁵²

Next, the Lord points out where this enemy resides, for this would render killing the foe easy. He says, “The senses, the mind and the intellect are said to be its seats. Veiling knowledge through these, it deludes the embodied soul.”⁵³ How is one to conquer desire? The Lord says, “Therefore, O great one amongst the Bharatas, restrain the senses first and cast off this sinful thing which is destructive of direct and indirect knowledge.”⁵⁴

In the Bhagavad-gītā’s second chapter itself, the Lord had indicated that the senses are dangerous, for they forcibly carry away the mind of even a striving wise man.⁵⁵ So to conquer desire, it is essential that the senses be restrained. That much alone is not sufficient. The mind and intellect too are, after all, the seats of desire. Therefore, according to the Lord, one must comprehend the Ātman, which is superior to the intellect, attain spiritual absorption by means of the purified mind and thus slay desire.⁵⁶

When one knows that one is not the body-mind complex but is the Ātman, which is changeless and of the nature of pure consciousness, one ceases to desire anything phenomenal.

In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad it is said, “A man who desires is reborn. But the person who does not desire is never reborn. He who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desires have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Ātman - such a person’s organs do not depart (on his death and proceed to another body). Being but Brahman, he gets merged in Brahman.”⁵⁷

Here, we have an account of how state of being without desires is attained. When a person realizes that the Ātman alone exists and that there is nothing apart from It, then he attains all objects of desire. After all, for him, there is no object of desire distinct from the Ātman that is himself. As all objects of desire have been obtained by him, desires leave him. Normally, gratification of a desire produces only temporary silencing of that desire; longing rises again, with force. In the case of the knower of the Ātman the fulfilment of desire is constant. Thus, it is appropriate to say that desires leave him. As desires have quit, he is without desire.

It is only by realizing the Ātman that the problem of desire can be completely solved. Else, desire can be checked but its seed remains. That is why the Lord specifies establishment in the Ātman as the way to slay desire. Restraint of the senses is an important step towards this end.

9. Three Impure Tendencies

It is important for one who is seriously striving to attain realization of Brahman to eliminate not only desire, anger and greed but also, three types of impure vāsanās or mental tendencies. This triad of vāsanās comprises loka-vāsanā or mental impression relating to the world, śāstra-vāsanā or mental tendency pertaining to the scripture and deha-vāsanā or latent mental imprint concerning the body. These vāsanās prevent the dawn of direct experience of the Truth. Thus, it is declared in the Muktikā-upaniṣad, “True knowledge never dawns in a person with loka-vāsanā, śāstra-vāsanā and deha-vāsanā.”⁵⁸

Vāsanās are the mental seeds owing to which feelings, such as of desire, crop up quickly without being preceded by any deliberation. A boy who has had the misfortune of being chased by a bull abruptly feels fear on encountering another bull at some other time. The vāsanā engendered by the initial experience is activated by the sight of the second bull and it agitates the boy’s mind with fright. Countless vāsanās abide in the mind, implanted and nurtured by the thoughts and experiences of the present and previous lives. Good vāsanās aid spiritual progress while the bad ones are antithetical to it. A bad vāsanā can be rendered impotent by assiduously cultivating a vāsanā of the opposite kind. So a spiritual aspirant should neutralize the impure vāsanās that plague him by developing appropriate pure vāsanās.

Loka-vāsanā pertains to a fixation of the form, “I shall always conduct myself in such a way that people do not censure me and, instead, they praise me.” This vāsanā is an obstruction to a spiritual aspirant because it demands what cannot be achieved. There will always be at least some persons who disapprove of us or of what we have done.

Sītā was the exemplar of chastity. She even underwent an ordeal by fire to confirm Her purity. Yet, the people of Ayodhyā cast aspersions on Her and censured Lord Rāma Himself as being swayed by desire in accepting Her at Lanka. If such be the fate of spotless Divinities like Rāma and Sītā, what need be said about the fate of others? Hence, it has been stated, “There is no available means by which one can satisfy all people. So a man should ever do what is right for him.”⁵⁹ The texts on liberation advise the spiritual aspirant to treat praise and censure alike; he should rid himself of loka-vāsanā by realizing the futility of attempting what it entails.

Some points need to be noted with reference to the eradication of loka-vāsanā. It does not imply that the aspirant nonchalantly dismisses the views of others. He may certainly utilize the observations of others for self-improvement; what he gives up is elation and displeasure when appreciated and depreciated respectively. Conquest of loka-vāsanā should be attempted in the context of other spiritual disciplines. For instance, it would not be beneficial for a boy who avoids bad company primarily because he wants to earn a good name at home to blindly check this aspect of loka-vāsanā without taking other steps. Further, one who tries to maintain an image of being a rebel, who does not care about what others say, is also under the grip of loka-vāsanā; conservation of that image is essential to him.

Śāstra-vāsanā is of three types; obsession with study, preoccupation with many subjects and marked squeamishness with regard to observances specified in the scripture. The Taittirīya-brāhmaṇa contains a narrative that can serve to illustrate the first kind of śāstra-vāsanā.⁶⁰ Bharadvāja, the Veda says, seriously applied himself to the study of the Vedas for three successive births. In his fourth life too, he wished to strive incessantly. Taking pity on him, Indra explained the impossibility of learning all the Vedas and then taught Bharadvāja about Brahman with attributes. While Bharadvāja’s study of the Vedas was not wrong, it was his obsession with mastering all the Vedas that was the problem. To get rid of this type of śāstra-vāsanā, the aspirant should impress upon himself that it is impossible to know a subject in its totality.

Addiction to the study of many subjects is also bad. The story of Durvāsas encountered in the Kāvaṣeya-gītā is pertinent. Durvāsas, it is said, once came to the assembly of Lord Śiva to pay his respects. He arrived with a cart-load of books. Nārada made fun of him by comparing him to an ass burdened with a great load on its back. Irritated and cured of his obsession, Durvāsas dumped his books into the sea. Thereafter, Śiva initiated him into the knowledge of the Ātman. One should realize that Brahman cannot be known by being preoccupied with books on a variety of topics. Thus, the Kaṭha-upaniṣad declares, “This Ātman is not attained through much study, through the power of grasping the meaning of the texts or through much mere hearing.”⁶¹ Likewise, in the Chāndogya-upaniṣad, we read that in spite of mastering a wide variety of subjects, Nārada was not free from grief as he had not realized the Ātman. To attain that sorrow-eradicating knowledge, he approached Sanatkumāra as a disciple.⁶² It has been said, “What is the point in vainly chewing the filthy rag of talk about sacred treatises? Wise men should, by all means, seek the light of consciousness within.”⁶³

Sincere practice of scripturally ordained rituals is essential for a person who has not progressed to the stage wherein he can dispense with rituals. However, undue fastidiousness with respect to religious observances, which characterizes the third type of śāstra-vāsanā, is an impediment. In the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha, we encounter the story of Dāsura which is relevant here. Dāsura, on account of his intense fastidiousness, was unable to locate a single spot in the whole world adequately pure for him to perform his religious rites.⁶⁴

Śrī Vidyāraṇya, who has elaborately dealt with the destruction of vāsanās in his Jīvanmukti-viveka, points out that śāstra-vāsanā leads to pride of learning and that humiliation somewhere at some time is inevitable. This is a reason, in addition to the impossibility of consummating the needs of śāstra-vāsanā, for the śāstra-vāsanā being labelled as impure.

Finally, we come to deha-vāsanā. This is of three kinds, the worst being marked by the identification of the Ātman with the body. Such identification is wrong because this view is opposed by the scripture and because it is the cause of misery. Unfortunately, it is almost universally prevalent. Being difficult to uproot, it must be assiduously tackled by cultivating the right notion that the Ātman is distinct from the body.

The second type of deha-vāsanā, is characterized by concern with the acquisition of bodily grace. Motivated by the vāsanā of this kind, people strive, for example, to beautify themselves by the use of cosmetics and to purify themselves by bathing in rivers like the Ganga.

Cleanliness is laudable and is listed among the eight noble qualities that all should acquire. In the Yoga-śāstra, this is described as a facilitator of meditation.⁶⁵ What is problematic is the false belief that the body can really and consistently be made gracious or pure; this leads to effort to accomplish what is impossible.

Charm and sweet smell, for example, belong to the cosmetic and not to the body, which is an assemblage of fat, flesh, bones, etc. A pretty attire does not make the body different. Consumption of pepper to make the voice melodious is not necessarily effective nor is the effect unceasing. A bath makes the body externally clean but only for a short while. As for scriptural means, such as a bath in the Ganga, to attain purity, it must be noted that there are powerful scriptural passages to the effect that the body is ever impure.

The third form of deha-vāsanā is related to the second kind; it is characterized by the persistent effort to rid the body of flaws. Striving to eradicate disease comes under this head. The problem is that diseases cannot be always kept at bay nor can all ailments be cured.

As regards the body, the scripture is emphatic that it is, by its very nature, the repository of what is unclean. Thus, in the Maitrī-upaniṣad, we have, “O Lord, this body is malodorous, insubstantial and a compact mass of skin, bones, sinews, marrow, flesh, blood, semen, mucus, tears, rheum, urine, excreta, bile and phlegm. What sense is there in gratifying one’s desires in that?”⁶⁶

At this juncture, it is necessary to emphasize that the spiritual aspirant should be clean and ought not to be negligent of health. A sick, dirty body does not favour the practice of spiritual discipline. The aspirant should, however, get rid of his longing to appear attractive and give up preoccupation with health and freedom from bodily defects.

It is noteworthy that in the Yoga-sūtras it is specified that one who is established in purity develops dispassion towards the body.⁶⁷ Normally, it is one who bathes regularly who notices the foul odour of dry sweat and the like, while a person who is habitually filthy is unlikely to do so. Thus, it is the clean person who is better equipped to recognize the innate impurity of the body.

10. God, the Universe’s Cause

We encounter two types of causes: the material cause and the efficient cause. The first is responsible for the substance of which the effect is made, while the other is only instrumental in producing the effect. For instance, the material cause of a pot is mud, while its efficient cause is a potter.

We see the world and with regard to it, there arises the question as to what constitutes its material cause. Is God that material cause or not? This issue has been dealt with by Bādarāyaṇa in the Brahma-sūtras. The Vedāntic position is that Brahman is not only the efficient but also the material cause of the universe.

Some objections have been raised against this stand. In the Upaniṣads, statements are found to the effect that God reflected prior to manifesting the cosmos. A potter thinks of a pot and then proceeds to make it. God too deliberated and then produced the universe. Thus, being similar to the potter, God should be regarded as only the efficient cause of the universe. In the world, we do not find any instance of a material cause reflecting and then generating an effect.

Another reason adduced is that the scriptures declare God to be the Lord of all. In the case of lordly beings like kings, only efficient causality is perceived and not material causality. Indeed, no king served as the material with which a palace or a road was constructed.

Yet another reason is that the world has many shortcomings. If an effect is tainted, then impurity must be there even in its material cause. So if God were the material cause of the universe, He would not be free from defilements. Not only is the proposition that God is flawed unappealing, it is refuted by the scripture. For instance, the Śvetāśvatara-upaniṣad explicitly states that the Supreme is unchanging and taintless.⁶⁸ Hence, God cannot be affirmed to be the material cause of the cosmos.

On the basis of arguments of the form listed, it has been contended that God is the efficient but not the material cause of the world. Declaring the true view of the Upaniṣads, Bādarāyaṇa aphorises, “Brahman must be the material cause as well so as not to contradict the proposition and the illustration.”⁶⁹ We shall now consider this Brahma-sūtra further.

In the Chāndogya-upaniṣad, we read of the sage Uddālaka Āruni querying his son Śvetaketu, “Did you ask about that teaching through which the unheard of becomes heard, the unthought of becomes thought of and the unknown becomes known?”⁷⁰ On comprehending the efficient cause of an object, the object does not become known. On the other hand, as the effect has no existence apart from its material cause, knowledge of the material cause does make the effect known. So the proposition of Uddālaka relates to the material cause of the universe. As the Upaniṣad explains in depth that by knowing Brahman, everything becomes known, the Supreme must be the material cause. Else, the proposition would get contradicted.

In the other Upaniṣads too, we find a similar basic premise. Thus, in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad, there is the proposition of Yājñavalkya, “My dear, all this becomes known when the Ātman is seen, heard of, reflected on and meditated upon.”⁷¹ In the Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad, the student Śaunaka asks his Guru Angirasa, “What is that on knowing which all this becomes known?”⁷² In all these cases, the basic premise would get falsified if God were only the efficient cause.

Reverting to the Chāndogya-upaniṣad, we find Uddālaka giving several illustrations that clearly reference a material cause. For instance, he says, “By knowing a clod of mud, all objects made of mud become known. All modification has speech as its support and is merely a name. It is true only as mud.”⁷³ When mud is known, all products of mud, such as pots, can be regarded as known, for a pot has no existence apart from mud and is basically a name given to a particular shape of mud. Another example of Uddālaka is, “By knowing a piece of gold, all things made of gold become known.”⁷⁴ All such illustrations would become inappropriate if the Supreme were just the efficient cause.

Thus, the Brahma-sūtra in question points out that the proposition and the illustrations of the scripture will be contradicted unless the Supreme is the material cause of the universe. The sūtra specifies by the words “material cause as well” that Brahman is the efficient cause too. Indeed, if the universe were to have a maker other than God, it would be impossible to have knowledge of everything just from the knowledge of the Supreme and as such the proposition and illustration would not be apt. Further, the Chāndogya-upaniṣad explicitly declares that prior to the manifestation of the universe, there was just the Supreme, one alone, without a second; the Supreme’s deliberation followed by creation is also spoken of.⁷⁵ Thus, the Supreme is the efficient cause too.

An objection considered earlier was that nowhere in the world do we find a material cause that deliberates and generates an effect. This is inapt in the case of the universe’s cause, which can be known from the Vedas alone. From the Upaniṣads it can even be comprehended that Brahman does not undergo any actual change to become the universe. On the other hand, remaining perfect, It appears as the world due to Māyā, just as a rope, not apprehended correctly in dim light, appears to be a snake or a crack in the ground.

11. God is Neither Partial Nor Cruel

There is tremendous inequality in the cosmos. The devas are said to enjoy great felicity in heaven and are endowed with powers of the kind that men are not. Humans constitute a middling class while animals lie lower than man in creation.

Apart from the fact of inequality, there is great suffering too. All animals and humans are subject to death and the inhabitants of heaven have to return to the world of mortals on the exhaustion of the stock of virtue that enabled them to enter heaven in the first place. Even young, innocent babies are, sometimes, seen to be in great suffering. Disease, infirmity and such else are widely encountered and result in unhappiness.

The Vedāntic conclusion is that Brahman is the material and efficient cause of the universe. Thus, God ought to be the one who creates this cosmos with its great inequality and its sufferings. Would not such a God be partial by virtue of His ordaining inequality? Further, would not God be cruel by being the originator of great misery? Surely, a partial and cruel God is no true God at all. This conclusion follows from the proposition that God is the efficient cause of the universe. As it is thoroughly unacceptable, God could not have been the creator of the universe. This is one of the objections considered and rebutted in the Brahma-sūtras by Bādarāyaṇa.

Bādarāyaṇa aphorises, “Partiality and cruelty are not there in God owing to His consideration of other factors, for the Vedas so show.”⁷⁶ If God had created this world arbitrarily, without taking any factor into consideration, He would have been open to the charges of partiality and cruelty. However, God is blameless since this unequal creation is brought about by Him in conformity with the virtues and vices of various beings. God is like rain. Rainfall is the common cause for the growth of a variety of crops such as paddy and barley. However, the differences between crops stem from the disparity in the seeds. It is not rain that makes a barley seed sprout into a crop different from paddy. Like rain, God is the common cause for the birth of the devas, humans, etc. But it is the great merit acquired by the deva in an earlier birth that results in his being born a deva; a man is so born because of his having earlier earned merit as well as demerit.

How is it known that God creates in accordance with the virtues and vices of beings? The aphorist points out, “for the Vedas so show.”⁷⁷ For instance, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad teaches, “It becomes virtuous through good deeds and vile through evil acts.”⁷⁸ In the Bhagavad-gītā the Lord tells Arjuna, “In whatever way people worship Me, in the same way do I consummate their desires.”⁷⁹

The aphorist next presents another objection and answers it. “If it be contended that this is impossible for want of any distinction in work prior to creation, we reply ‘No’, because the transmigratory state has no beginning.”⁸⁰ Prior to the first creation of the cosmos, there could have been no karma, virtuous or vile in accordance with which God could have created a world of inequality and suffering. The Chāndogya-upaniṣad says, “In the beginning, O good looking one, all this was but the Truth, one alone without a second”⁸¹ and thereby rules out differences. Therefore, if God were the creator of the universe, He must be the one responsible for the inequalities at the start of creation. At best, He can rely thereafter on the good and bad acts of persons to reward or punish them in their subsequent lives. Thus, God must be guilty of partiality and cruelty by virtue of His having introduced inequality and suffering at the very start of creation.

The Vedāntin answers this objection by saying that the problem mentioned does not arise, for the transmigratory state has no beginning. There is nothing like the absolute starting point. Every cycle of creation is preceded by another cycle which provides the requisite disparity in the merit and demerit of creatures.

How is it known that the transmigratory state has no beginning? Bādarāyaṇa answers, “This is logical and it is met with in the scriptures.”⁸² Suppose the cosmos with its unequal inhabitants had an absolute starting point. Its emergence must then have been capricious. God could not have been responsible for the inequality. This is because He operates, as seen earlier, on the basis of the past karma of creatures and there could have been no karma prior to the origin of the universe with beings. Avidyā too could not have been the cause of inequality as, without the involvement of past karma, it is, per se, homogeneous. Hence, a universe with an absolute starting point could have come into being only by chance.

If events can occur capriciously, then it should be quite possible for beings to have happiness or misery for no rhyme or reason. A man’s good and bad deeds could go unrewarded and unpunished respectively. Further, if chance occurrences are possible, there is nothing to preclude the accidental rebirth of liberated souls. All this is unacceptable and absurd. On the other hand, everything falls into place if the transmigratory state has no origin. The relationship between the condition prior to and after the start of each cycle of creation could then be on par with a seed and a sprout.

The scriptures too declare transmigratory existence to be devoid of a starting point. For instance, the Ṛg-veda teaches, “The Lord devised the sun and the moon as before.”⁸³ The Bhagavadgīṭā states, “Its form is not perceived here as such neither its end, nor its origin, nor its continuance.”⁸⁴

The teaching of the Purāṇas also is that the past and future cycles of creation are without number.

To conclude, God is not guilty of partiality or cruelty because He creates in accordance with the past merit and demerit of each creature. There is no first creation prior to which there was no merit or demerit for God to consider. There is thus no flaw in the Vedāntic conclusion that Brahman is the material and efficient cause of everything.

12. No Total Change of Brahman into the World

In his Brahma-sūtras, Bādarāyaṇa has presented and refuted several objections to the Vedāntic conclusion that Brahman is the material and efficient cause of the universe. One such objection is tersely stated by Bādarāyaṇa as follows: “There shall arise the eventuality of wholesome transformation or of the violation of Upaniṣadic statements about (Brahman) being without parts.”⁸⁵ If Brahman is to be the material cause of the cosmos, then either the whole of Brahman must become the world or a part of the Supreme must undergo modification. Both these options are unacceptable.

The first alternative is inappropriate because the Upaniṣadic instruction about the realization of Brahman would become purposeless. After all, if Brahman wholly becomes the world, then no Supreme transcendent of the cosmos would remain to be known. As for Brahman in the form of the world, it is already being perceived and so scriptural advice in this regard is not required. The Upaniṣadic declaration that in deep sleep, the individual soul becomes absorbed in the Supreme would get falsified, for there would be no Brahman other than the cosmos into which such absorption could take place. This apart, the teaching that Brahman is unborn would have to be discarded. The second alternative too is inappropriate. Only if Brahman has parts can a portion of the Supreme become the world and the rest remain transcendent. Requiring Brahman to have parts would imply negation of the numerous Upaniṣadic passages to the effect that the Supreme is without parts and admits no distinctions. Moreover, no entity that has parts can be eternal. So if Brahman has parts, it cannot be eternal as taught by the scripture. Bādarāyaṇa commences the Vedāntin’s reply with the aphorism, “(But there is no complete transformation) on the authority of the Upaniṣads and on account of Brahman being known from the Upaniṣads alone.”⁸⁶

The fundamental contention of the Vedāntin is that his position is not defective as it is based on the Upaniṣads. Brahman can be known from the Upaniṣads alone and not by mere logic. It is said, “Do not argue about those things that are beyond thought. The characteristic of a thing beyond thought is in its being other than what lies within the realm of prakṛti or nature.”⁸⁷ A supersensible entity such as Brahman can be truly comprehended only through the scripture. As for the Upaniṣads, they unambiguously state that Brahman is without parts and devoid of modifications as also that the Supreme is the material and efficient cause of the universe.

That the manifestation of the cosmos does not obliterate Brahman’s transcendence is, for example, clear from the following statement of the Chāndogya-upaniṣad: “His glory extends that far. The all-pervading Being is higher than that. All things are covered by one foot of His. The imperishable three-footed One is established in His own Self.”⁸⁸ Had Brahman been fully transformed into the world, the same Upaniṣad would not have said with regard to deep sleep that the individual soul then becomes absorbed in the Supreme.⁸⁹

Here, the opponent may object that even the Veda cannot teach what is patently self-contradictory by saying that the Brahman, which is without parts, changes partially into the world. The Vedāntin readily responds that there is nothing incongruous about the scriptural teaching. This is because the Upaniṣads intend to show that while Brahman, in Its real aspect, is changeless and transcendent, variety is imagined on It through avidyā. For instance, the moon is one but appears to be multiple to a man afflicted by diplopia or polyopia. Since the differences of name and form are conjured by avidyā, the Brahman’s being without parts is not affected. At the same time, Brahman seems to be partially transformed into the world.

The Veda does not aim at establishing any real transformation of Brahman into the world. Indeed, no fruit would accrue to a person by knowing about such a transformation. The Upaniṣad would not teach that which confers no benefit. The texts about transformation actually have another aim and that is to show that there is nothing whatsoever apart from Brahman, which is transcendent of all phenomenal processes. Such a correct knowledge of Brahman has the invaluable fruit of freeing one from transmigratory existence.

Bādarāyaṇa continues the Vedāntin’s response with the aphorism, “Since in the individual soul also, as in the case of devas, etc., diverse creation occurs. Similarly, in the case of Brahman.”⁹⁰ In the dream state, without any change of nature in the individual soul, there appears the multifaceted world of dreams. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad says, “There are no chariots nor animals to be yoked to them nor paths there. But he creates chariots, animals and roads.”⁹¹ The devas are said to be able to display diversity without undergoing personal modifications. In the world too, a magician may, by means of hypnotism, cause another to see several objects without himself being personally affected in any way. Similarly, even in the case of Brahman, there can be diverse creation without Brahman actually undergoing transformation or having parts.

To conclude, the Vedāntin’s position that Brahman is the material cause of the universe and yet without parts and immaculate is not defective. It is based on the scripture, which is the authority in such matters. Avidyā is what makes the non-dual Supreme appear as diverse. Supportive illustrations too are available.

13. The Greatest Secret

Lord Kṛṣṇa, in the course of His advice to Arjuna, extols the sacred doctrine and then reveals it. He says, “To you who do not cavil, I shall now declare the greatest secret which is knowledge coupled with direct experience, having known which you will be liberated from transmigratory existence. This is the sovereign knowledge, the sovereign secret and the sovereign purifier. It is directly realizable, unopposed to dharma, very easy to perform and imperishable.”⁹² This eulogy is intended to make the hearer interested and focused.

The Lord then proceeds to directly expound the sacred doctrine. He says, “In My unmanifest form I pervade the entire world. All beings dwell in Me but I do not dwell in them. Nor do beings dwell in Me. Behold My divine Yoga! Sustaining all beings, but not dwelling in them - such is My Self, the cause of all beings.”⁹³

At the first sight, the teaching of the Lord appears to be full of contradictions. How? The Lord declares that everything is pervaded by Him and that all beings dwell in Him and immediately follows this up by saying that neither does He dwell in beings nor beings in Him. Surely, the Lord would not speak thus in riddles unless the nature of the teaching demands such an exposition.

If we take the world to be real then the contradiction cannot be properly resolved. On the other hand, consider a rope mistaken, in semi-darkness, to be a snake. Can the apparent snake be visualised in the absence of the rope? No. Can there be any portion of the snake where the rope is not there? Here again the answer is, “No.” Since the snake has no existence apart from the rope and since whatever portion of the snake is seen, the rope is also there, it would not be wrong to say that the snake is entirely pervaded by the rope. Further, as the rope is the substratum of the illusory snake it can be said that the snake dwells in or has as its substratum, the rope. No doubt such statements can be made but are they true when examined with greater insight? No, for neither does the rope really pervade the snake nor does the snake really rest on the rope. This is because there is no real snake at all. Only if the snake were to be real could a real pervasion take place. Similar is the case with the Ātman. The Ātman being the substratum of everything without which nothing can exist, it can be said that everything rests in the Ātman. On the other hand, if one were to view the scene with greater insight it would be impossible to assert that the Ātman really dwells in all beings or that all beings really dwell in the Ātman. The Lord took recourse to such a mode of exposition to drive home the point that the Ātman alone really exists and that the world is illusory.

Adducing His seemingly inexplicable, contradictory statements, the Lord clarifies, “Behold My divine Yoga (My divine function).”⁹⁴ Earlier, the Lord had spoken of His Māyā by saying, “Indeed this Māyā of Mine, composed of guṇas, is hard to surmount.”⁹⁵ Hence, it is clear that the Lord makes known that the world appears in Him only on account of Māyā but not in reality and that He is totally unaffected by its appearance. The Lord has taken recourse in other places too to the mode of exposition followed here. For example, in Chapter 13, He has said about the Ātman, “Shining by the functions of all the senses and yet without senses, unattached and yet supporting all, devoid of qualities.”⁹⁶

In the verses taken up for consideration, we found the Lord saying, “My Self is the cause of beings.” Does this mean that the Lord has an Ātman distinct from Him? No, He Himself has declared later, “I am the Ātman.”⁹⁷ Hence, here the Lord has merely resorted to common parlance in making such an utterance. Certainly, no one can say that the Lord is ignorant. Even a knower of the Self may use the word “I” in conformity with an ordinary person. In the Pancadaśī, it is explained that when the knower of the Truth says, “I go” etc., he refers to the body but when he says, “I am the conscious Self”, he refers to the changeless Ātman.⁹⁸ The Lord’s saying, “My self is the cause” rather than, “I am the cause” is like this.

14. Atman is Self-effulgent Consciousness

In the Jyotir-brāhmaṇa of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad, the Ātman is taught to be of the nature of unchanging, self-effulgent consciousness. To indicate the mode of imparting and receiving the teaching and to eulogise knowledge, the Upaniṣad resorts to a story involving a disciple, emperor Janaka, and his Guru, Sage Yājñavalkya. Janaka initiates the dialogue by asking his Guru, “What serves as the light for a person?”⁹⁹ Bhagavatpāda has compassionately conveyed the teaching of the Jyotir-brāhmaṇa in a simple, single verse; this is his composition, “Eka-ślokī.”The Eka-ślokī describes the conversation between a Guru and his disciple. Unusually, it is the teacher and not the student who poses the queries. By a series of questions, each following a reasoned reply from the disciple, the Guru leads the disciple to the realization that the Ātman is the ultimate light. Since the disciple is induced to think deeply, he is not troubled by inattention, doubts and lack of conviction at any stage of the instruction process.

Imitating Janaka, the Guru asks, “What is your light?” The import of the question is, “What light enables you to perceive objects and to engage in activity?” The disciple responds, “During the day, the sun serves as my light.” Once the sun has set, human activity does not automatically cease. At night, people resort to lamps. Not only man-made sources of light but also natural sources facilitate perception and activity. For instance, on a full-moon night people can find their way home. Therefore, the disciple continues, “At night, lamps, etc., serve as my light.”

It is not the intention of the Guru to stop with getting the disciple to give this familiar answer. Hence, he probes further by saying, “That may be so. What is the light that enables you to perceive the sun and lamps?” The sun, moon, stars and lamps are luminous but are objects that are perceived. Sounds may be present but one who is deaf will not be able to hear them. Thus, sounds are not self-revealing. Likewise, the sources of light spoken of by the disciple are themselves in need of being revealed by another “light.”

The disciple thinks about the question and concludes that it is by means of his organ of sight that he apprehends any external source of light. His senses are present unimpaired even in the absence of external factors. For instance, when one enters a dark room just because one does not perceive objects, it does not mean that one has lost one’s power of sight. After all, one apprehends darkness. On the other hand, when the organ of sight does not function, none of the external sources of light such as the sun can enable one to see; they themselves remain unseen. Thus, the disciple answers, “The eye.”

The Guru leads the disciple further by asking, “At times when the eye is closed, etc., what is your light?” One can sense whether the eyes are open or closed. Also, one can comprehend that one is able to see clearly or that one’s vision is significantly impaired. Thus, the eye itself is an object of apprehension. When one is quite inattentive, though the eyes are open and there is adequate light, one does not cognise objects, the sun and the state of the eyes. On the other hand, one is able to think when the eyes are closed. Analysing thus, the disciple answers, “The intellect.”

The teacher decides to clinch the issue by taking the disciple one step further. He queries, “What is the light by which the intellect is perceived?” People are aware of the presence and absence of their thoughts. Thus, the mind itself is an object of cognition. Just as the sun cannot reveal itself and the eye cannot perceive itself, the intellect too does not, on its own, apprehend itself. After all, a thing cannot be the subject and object simultaneously. It cannot even be assumed that each thought is revealed by another thought. This is because if a thought were required to generate awareness of another thought, then yet another thought would be required to grasp the thought that has for its object the first thought. Thus, there would be the fallacy of infinite regress.

An alternative interpretation of the teacher’s words is also possible. The teacher’s query can even be taken as, “When the intellect is not seen, what is your light?” When one is in deep sleep or in nirvikalpa-samādhi, the acme of yoga, thoughts are not present. Still there is awareness. Thus, on waking up from sleep one recognises, “I slept happily. I did not know anything.” This recognition could not have arisen if awareness were totally absent during sleep. In the interval between thoughts too, awareness is there.

Thinking deeply over his Guru’s query, the disciple answers, “I am there.” After all, it is he who perceives the rise and fall of thoughts as also a state of thoughtlessness. The disciple realizes that he must be of the nature of awareness. Appreciating the disciple’s understanding, the Guru presents the conclusion, “Therefore, you are the ultimate light.” Suppose the one who illumines the intellect were not self-effulgent. Then another perceiver would be required to reveal that illuminator of the intellect. To reveal the second perceiver, a third perceiver could be needed. There would be infinite regress. Thus, what apprehends the functioning of the mind is self-effulgent consciousness. The disciple cannot but be that self-effulgent consciousness. Not merely on account of intellectual understanding but also from direct experience, the disciple asserts, “Yes I am, O Lord!”

Be it the waking state, the dream state or the state of deep sleep, the Ātman is the unchanging self-effulgent witness; only what is apprehended changes. Thus, in connection with deep sleep wherein consciousness supposedly ceases to be, Yājñavalkya teaches Janaka, “The knower’s function of knowing can never be lost as It is imperishable. However, there is no second thing separate from It which It can know.”¹⁰⁰ A rough example is that of a man with normal eyesight entering a dark room. In nirvikalpa-samādhi too, duality is not apprehended; the Ātman, however, shines clearly on Its own without the thick veil of avidyā that marks dreamless sleep. To conclude, the Ātman is unchanging, self-effulgent consciousness.

15. Liberation of Sages with Divine Missions

Can one who has realized the Truth be reborn? In view of the explicit assertion of the Upaniṣads that knowledge of the Supreme is the cause of liberation, this query would appear to be dispensable. It would perhaps be on par with wondering whether or not the hunger of a man who has begun eating a full meal will be appeased. The question, however, is pertinent because in the Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas we come across stories of knowers of the Truth being reborn.

For instance, it is written in the Rāmāyaṇa that the great sage and mind-born son of Brahmā, Vaśiṣṭha, lost his body due to a curse of King Nimi. Vaśiṣṭha sought Brahmā’s help and, in accordance with Brahmā’s advice, acquired a new body by being born of Mitra-Varuṇa.¹⁰¹ There is no room for doubt that Vaśiṣṭha was completely enlightened.

The Mahābhārata informs us that Apāntaratamas, an ancient seer and teacher of the Vedas, was directed by Viṣṇu to take birth at the junction of the Dvāpara and Kali yugas as Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana, commonly known as Vyāsa.¹⁰² It is narrated that sage Bhṛgu and others were reborn at the sacrifice of Varuṇa¹⁰³ and that the exalted Sanatkumāra acceded to the wish of Rudra and was reborn as Skanda.¹⁰⁴ Apāntaratamas, Bhṛgu and Sanatkumāra and were decidedly knowers of Brahman that is devoid of all attributes. More than one birth of the celestial sage Nārada has been spoken of. Supportive evidence is available in the mantra and corroborative portions of the Vedas.

From the various accounts, it can be seen that some sages acquired new bodies after the fall of their original ones; some others retained their bodies but, by their powers of yoga, simultaneously entered multiple bodies. These sages are described by the Smṛtis as possessed of the realization of the full import of the Vedas.

In the light of all this, the prima facie position is that knowledge of Brahman devoid of all attributes sometimes results in liberation from transmigratory existence and sometimes it does not. Rebutting the prima facie view, Bādarāyaṇa aphorises, in his Brahma-sūtras, “For those with a mission, there is corporeal existence till the completion of the mission.”¹⁰⁵

We shall consider this sūtra in the light of Bhagavatpāda’s commentary on it. Realization of the Truth never fails to confer liberation. A Vedic rite such as Jyotiṣṭoma results in the performer of the sacrifice attaining heaven after his death, which may occur long after the completion of the rite. So there is at least some occasion for a man of inadequate faith to fear whether the result of a rite will accrue or not. On the other hand, there is no such scope for uncertainty in the case of knowledge of the Supreme as it produces an immediately-experienced, direct result. Thus, on realizing the Truth, one becomes liberated even while alive. Persons like Vaśiṣṭha were not exceptions.

Knowledge burns away the seeds of karma or action. The Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad declares, “When the Supreme that is both high and low is seen, the knot of the heart gets torn, all doubts cease and all one’s actions become dissipated.”¹⁰⁶ In the Bhagavad-gītā too, we find the Lord stating, “O Arjuna, just as fire reduces fuel to ashes, the fire of knowledge burns away all actions.”¹⁰⁷ After the dawn of realization, no bodily or mental activity of the sage leads to the acquisition of merit or demerit that must be exhausted by taking a future birth. This is true even of knowers like Vaśiṣṭha.

Knowledge ensures that the store of actions of the past birth that would normally have begun to bear fruit only in future births becomes thoroughly infructuous. All that remains is prārabdha-karma, the actions of the past that have already started yielding results. The Chāndogya-upaniṣad thus teaches, “His delay is only as long as his body does not fall. Then he merges into Brahman.”¹⁰⁸ On the prārabdha-karma getting exhausted, the body of the one liberated while alive ceases to function and the sage attains disembodied liberation. The norm is that prarabdha-karma ends with the very life in which one attains mature knowledge.

There is definitely no difference between knowers of the Truth, such as Vaśiṣṭha, who are entrusted by God with special missions and other knowers of the Truth in their being untainted by physical and mental activity and being liberated even while alive. However, a special feature in the case of the former class is that corporeal existence lasts not till the fall of the body in which realization of the Supreme dawns but till the mission ends. It is as though a person like Vaśiṣṭha is a knower of the Truth with an extraordinary prarabdha-karma that gets fully exhausted only when the divine mission undertaken ends. At the end of the God-entrusted task, disembodied abidance as Brahman occurs just as it does in the case of a normal knower on the fall of his body.

Great ones such as Apāntaratamas are allocated by God the holy task of bringing about the well-being of the world by propagation of the Vedas, etc. Hence, their corporeal state is regulated by their mission itself. These sages are divine and for the task undertaken they move from one body to another with perfect liberty just as a man moves from one house to another. Whatever residual karmas or actions have begun to fructify they shed once and for all in the various lives. All through, they retain complete memories of their true identity. Being masters of the materials needed to produce bodies, they create new bodies for themselves and possess the bodies one or more at a time.

It is stated in the Mahābhārata that an exponent of Brahman named Sulabhā wished to have a discussion with the emperor Janaka. So she set aside her body and entered that of Janaka. Having finished her discussion with him, she again took possession of her body.¹⁰⁹ This story furnishes an example of how a great one may freely move from one body to another.

Sages such as Vaśiṣṭha cannot be placed on par with jāti-smaras, who are persons with the special capacity to recollect their past lives. This is because the sages have complete enlightenment, are fully independent in their movements and remember their identities under all circumstances. Accordingly, even after taking birth through Mitra-Varuṇa, Vaśiṣṭha continued to be portrayed by the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata as being Vaśiṣṭha, the mind-born son of Brahma.

To conclude, there is no exception to the rule that realization of the Truth gives rise to liberation. In the case of normal knowers of the Supreme, there is total disembodiment after death. On the other hand, persons entrusted with holy missions by God continue to have corporeal existence till the completion of their special tasks. Then, they attain disembodied abidance as Brahman.