14. The Divine Drama that Followed

[The following conversation took place in August 1989. It is a continuation of the one recorded earlier in which Acharyal revealed about His vision of Śiva; Śiva told Acharyal to focus on the formless Absolute and blessed that Acharyal would soon become established in Brahman.] I: Did Acharyal inform Paramacharyal about the consummation of Acharyal’s sādhanā as foretold by the Lord?

Acharyal: No. Being My Guru and an excellent śrotriya-brahmaniṣṭha (sage versed in the scriptures and established in Brahman), He had the authority and the competence to decide upon not only the initiation and form of My sādhanā but also its progress and culmination.

(Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad IV.4.23) (This is the world of Brahman, O Emperor. You have attained this. Thus said Yajñavalkya.)

Yajñavalkya, the Guru, was the one who confirmed that Janaka, his disciple, had realised Brahman and become a jīvanmukta. It is possible for a disciple to have the delusion that he has realised the Truth though he is yet to do so. Did not Nārada mistakenly take it on knowing prāṇa that he had known the Truth and stop requesting Sanatkumāra for further instructions about the Ātman? As a worthy Guru would, Sanatkumāra corrected Nārada and led his disciple to the Truth.

(If you think that you have known Brahman well …)

The Guru may even challenge the disciple’s understanding like this so as to ensure firm, flawless realisation of the Truth.

{Bhagavatpāda’s bhāṣya on the segment of the dialogue between Sanatkumāra, the Guru, and Nārada, the disciple, referred to by Acharyal and occurring in the Chāndogya-upaniṣad is:

Having heard of that prāṇa which transcends everything, which is to be seen as one’s self and which is the self of all, Nārada stopped as he thought “There is nothing superior to this.” He did not ask, on the lines of his having done earlier, “O venerable sir, does anything exist that is greater than prāṇa?” Having found Nārada satisfied thus with this Brahman (prāṇa) that is a modification and is unreal and regarding himself as having realised the highest Truth and so transcendent in speech but actually not having accomplished the highest end, Sanatkumāra spoke to his competent disciple and drew him away from his specific false notion.

Introducing the passage of the Kena-upaniṣad cited by Acharyal,

Bhagavatpāda has written in His Vākya-bhāṣya:

Having turned away the mind of the disciple from what is known (such as a pot) and what is unknown, fixed it upon his own Ātman and crowned him in the kingdom of his Ātman by negating Brahman’s being an object of contemplation with the words, “Know that to be Brahman …”, the teacher shakes the understanding of the disciple by saying, “If you think that you know Brahman well …” What, then, is the purpose of such shaking? The answer is, “For ensuring firm realisation of the Truth grasped earlier.”}

I: When and how did Paramacharyal react to Acharyal’s establishment in the Absolute?

Acharyal: As I was returning from the hill, I saw Acharyal standing outside Sacchidananda Vilas and looking in My direction. He beckoned to Me and went inside. When I went to His presence, He was alone. Even before I could prostrate before Him, He rushed to Me and embraced Me. Then, holding Me by My shoulders, He said, “I am so very happy.”

(When the supreme Ātman, which is both high and low, is realised, the knot of the heart (comprising the host of tendencies and impressions of ignorance in the form of desires) is destroyed, all doubts come to an end and one’s actions become dissipated.)

(Then, he who was subject to death, becomes deathless and attains identity with Brahman while living in this very body.)

(But that man who rejoices only in the Ātman, is satisfied with just the Ātman and who is contented in just the Ātman - for him, there is no duty to perform.)

Acharyal cited these passages and said, “Such declarations of the Śruti and Smṛti are applicable to You who abide as the Supreme Brahman.” Altering the words of Gauḍapādācārya a little, He told Me:

(The Reality has been seen (by You) in the context of the individual and in the external world. You have become identified with the Reality. You rejoice in the Reality. You are undeviating from the Reality.)

{The original verse of Gauḍapādācārya, which is in the form of a teaching, is:

Having examined the Reality in the context of the individual and in the external world, one should become identified with the Reality, should have one’s delight in the Reality and should not deviate from the Reality.} (Acharyal:) On Acharyal’s letting go of My shoulders, I prostrated before Him for long, placing My hands and head on His feet. Such was Acharyal’s greatness that He highly appreciated anything positive in another. His instructions, blessings and grace were responsible for My sādhanā and whatever I achieved. Yet, Acharyal did not take any credit. He was so thoroughly free from egoism. Where can one now find the likes of Him?

[The following conversation took place at Sringeri, in August 1989 a day after the preceding one.]

I: Were Acharyal’s firm establishment in Brahman and confirmation of the same by Paramacharyal on that evening followed, in the next few days, by major behavioural changes?

Acharyal: Yes, but they were not the consequences of the knowledge of the Truth. Since that evening, samādhi ceased to have any role as an aid to realise Brahman. However, I had been repeatedly abiding in nirvikalpa-samādhi since pourṇamī (the day of the full moon). Nirodha-saṁskāras (impressions stemming from the interception of the mind) had, consequently, become intense. Because of this and utter indifference to names and forms, My mind subsided readily and on its own into nirvikalpa-samādhi. Such abidance in samādhi made the mind even further disposed to reposing in nirvikalpa-samādhi and disinclined towards everything else.

{In the Pañcadaśī, it is said:

(IX.95)

Having once acquired firm knowledge of the Ātman, the knower of the Truth is certainly able to talk about It, think about It and to meditate upon It whenever he wants to do so. If it be said that he would forget worldly dealings while meditating like a practitioner of meditation, the response is that he indeed does so but that forgetting is the consequence of meditation and not that of knowledge. Meditation is, however, optional for him since liberation has already been secured by knowledge.

About the nirodha-saṁskāras referred to by Acharyal, Vyāsa writes in his bhāṣya on Yogasūtra (I.51):

The existence of nirodha-saṁskāra generated by the interception of the mind is to be inferred by the experience of increase in the duration for which the state of interception persists.

Vacaspati Miśra clarifies in his gloss, Tattva-Vaiśāradi:

What is said is that the intensity of the interception of the mind is in accordance with the intensity of detachment and practice and is experienced by the yogin by the extension of interception for increasing periods of time, such as for a muhūrta (48 minutes), ardha-yāma (96 minutes) and so on.}

(Acharyal:) That night, no sooner did I lie down than I went into nirvikalpa-samādhi. By the time I emerged from it, the night had passed. When I completed performing My āsanas and readied Myself to start prāṇāyāma, My mind again plunged into nirvikalpa-samādhi. It remained in that state for about half an hour. Another session of nirvikalpa-samādhi, which occurred spontaneously during My āhnika, preceded My usual Friday-visit to the temples.

I: Did Acharyal experience the same indifference towards Śāradāmbā as towards names and forms in general?

Acharyal: No. As I silently stood before Her, tears of joy flowed from My eyes.

{It is recorded in the Bhāgavata-purāṇa:

Śaunaka asked, “Decidedly, that sage (Śuka) was intent on withdrawal, indifferent to everything and revelled in only the Ātman. How then did he master this voluminous work?

Sūta said, “Even sages who revel in only 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 God. The heart of the blessed sage, the son of Vyāsa, was captivated by the glories of the Lord and he ever loved devotees of God. So, he learnt this great work.}

I: How did Acharyal’s deep introversion affect Acharyal’s attending to Sri Ramachandra Sastry’s Tarka lessons that day?

Acharyal: Though it was not anadhyayana (the period when traditional classes are not conducted), I had no classes on that day; this was the case even on the preceding day and on the next three days. That afternoon, I did make an attempt to revise what I had been taught but failed because My mind soon went into nirvikalpa-samādhi.

By the evening, I was in a position to perform only what I was habituated to doing and which did not involve fresh application of the mind. Also, emerging from samādhi became difficult. The nirvikalpa-samādhi of the night stretched on to cover even the period when I would have normally performed My āsanas and prāṇāyāma. Had it lasted any longer, My morning bath would have become delayed. While I omitted nothing of My morning āhnika, because of introversion, My performance was like that of a sleepy person doing pūjā.

By the afternoon, the impact of the samādhis had become so much that I succeeded in doing My āhnika only poorly and was hardly aware of partaking bhikṣā. After bhikṣā, I remained in My room in nirvikalpa-samādhi till My evening bath, to complete which I needed some assistance. The mind was so intoxicated with bliss that the evening āhnika fared far worse than the afternoon one. I did not partake of anything before retiring to My room that night as I felt too disinclined to do so. There, I sat down and straightaway went into nirvikalpa-samādhi.

I descended from samādhi on becoming vaguely aware of the intonation of the Praṇava in Acharyal’s voice. When I opened My eyes, I beheld Acharyal Himself. He was seated next to Me and was gently stroking My head with His hand. “Taking care to avoid any further samādhi, finish Your bath and āhnika and come to Me,” He said and immediately left. I obeyed.

I: Did Acharyal have much difficulty in doing so?

Acharyal: No. Acharyal’s word was final for Me. There was no way that the tendency to repose in samādhi, no matter how powerful, could stand against the tendency to obey Acharyal. When I went to Acharyal and offered namaskāras, He directed Me to sit down. Then, He said, “I knew that Your mind was becoming more and more absorbed in nirvikalpa-samādhi. Though You have transcended any need for samādhi, I did not interfere. Last night, however, the Lord made it clear to Me that Your samādhi had become so intense that You would not emerge from it on Your own. Unless aroused from samādhi, You would remain in it till physical death.

“As impelled by Him, I came to Your room before the night ended. Telling Your attendant to remain outside, I entered alone. The Math staff have been under the impression that You have been unwell since yesterday. So, the attendant assumed that I had come to check on Your condition. I found You seated motionless, deep in samādhi. With great difficulty, I succeeded in awakening You. Regulate Your samādhi and the introversion of the mind. Else, today itself, Your nirvikalpa-samādhi will become such that You cannot be aroused from it at all by anybody. Do not leave Me by entering irreversible samādhi and discarding Your human form. There is so much to be done by You for Me, for others and for the Math.”

{The Yoga-vāsiṣṭha delineates seven jñāna-bhūmikās (planes of knowledge). About these, Śrī Vidyāraṇya has written in the Svarūpasiddhiprayojana-prakaraṇa of the Jīvanmukti-viveka:

Herein, the first three planes are only the means to the realisation of Brahman and do not belong to the class of realisation.

The fourth plane termed sattvāpatti (attainment of sattva) is of the form of the fruit of the first three and is characterised by the direct realisation of the unity of the self and Brahman…The yogin who has reached the fourth plane is termed a brahmavid (knower of Brahman). The fifth plane onwards are variants of jīvanmukti. They stem from the gradations in repose effected by engagement in nirvikalpa-samādhi. In the fifth plane [called asaṁśakti (detachment)], one emerges from nirvikalpa-samādhi on one’s own. This yogin is called a brahmavidvara (great knower of Brahman). In the sixth plane [termed padārthābhāvanā (absence of objects)], one emerges from nirvikalpa-samādhi only when awakened by the persons nearby. Such a yogin is termed a brahmavidvarīyān (greater knower of Brahman)... The yogin who has reached the seventh plane called turīya never emerges from nirvikalpa-samādhi either on his own or in response to the efforts of another. Such a yogin is called a brahmavidvariṣṭha (best knower of Brahman).

The Yoga-vāsiṣṭha records that Vasiṣṭha told Rāma that, after enlightenment, Prahlāda went into nirvikalpa-samādhi and continued to remain in it for long. So deep was his samādhi that he could not have descended from it on his own. Finally, for the good of the world, the Lord aroused him from it by blowing His pāñcajanya conch. After hearing the story of Prahlāda, Rāma asked Vasiṣṭha how it was possible for Prahlāda to be aroused from his state of absorption in Brahman. Vasiṣṭha replied:

There is in the mind of jīvanmuktas pure vāsana (latent impression of past experience, seed of thoughts and feelings) that is akin to a burnt seed and which does not give rise to the sprout of rebirth.

It is through the gradual waxing, by some means, of this indwelling vāsanā that, even after the passage of a thousand years, subject to the survival of the body, jīvanmuktas become awakened (from nirvikalpa-samādhi).}

(Acharyal:) I eschewed samādhi in its entirety that day and slept during the night. By the next morning, I was once more in a position to determine the duration of My samādhi and, as intended, remained in it for an hour. When I had Acharyal’s darśana after My morning āhnika, He said, “It was in obedience to the directive of Paramacharyal (H.H. Nrisimha Bharathi Mahaswamigal) that Acharyal (H.H. Sacchidananda Sivabhinava Nrisimha Bharathi Mahaswamigal) checked the overpowering urge to be absorbed in yoga. I am happy that, in deference to My wish, You have regulated Your samādhi and can emerge from it by Yourself after a predetermined duration.

“While You can now manage to perform Your routine activities, Your mind is still too introverted to engage in the serious study of the Tarka and other śāstras. Only tranquillity and happiness can be seen in Your face. Even if I, to whom You are deeply devoted, were to cast off My body right now, Your facial expression would not change. No matter how much You be provoked, not a trace of anger would be visible. Nothing of the world interests You at all. Such readily noticeable, rock-like imperturbability and disinterestedness in everything would be unexceptionable if You were an independent saṁnyāsin. On You, however, rests the future of this great Peetham.

“Acharyal (H.H.Sacchidananda Sivabhinava Nrisimha Bharathi Mahaswamigal) was ever established in Brahman. He had nothing whatsoever to gain or lose by anything. Yet, enacting His role to perfection, He wept when Paramacharyal (H.H. Nrisimha Bharathi Mahaswamigal) shed the body, rejoiced when the Candramoulīsvara-liṅga was recovered, evinced deep interest in promoting the study of the Vedas and śāstras, appreciated the good efforts of people and expressed disapproval of their straying to the path of adharma. He captivated the hearts not merely of spiritual aspirants and mahātmans but of all. He was an unmatched master of the śāstras whom even the most erudite looked upon with awe. He brought immeasurable glory to the Peetham. It is like Him that You must be.

“Accordingly, though unswervingly established in Brahman, You should study diligently and master the śāstras. Further, You should learn to show, whenever appropriate, interest, appreciation, concern, anger, curiosity and the like in Your dealings with devotees, Math staff and others.”

(Sport in the world, O Rāghava, internally bereft of all longing relating to the future, without attachment to anything current and devoid of tendencies born of the past, but externally conforming to all the observances.)

(Sport in the world, O Rāghava, with assumed attachment, anger, etc., on the outside but without any turbulence in the heart, as a doer externally but internally not a doer.)

(Sport in the world, O Rāghava, hot without and cool within.)

Citing these verses, Acharyal said, “These verses occur in the Yoga-vāsiṣṭha and constitute the advice given by Vasiṣṭha to Rāma. Be as prescribed in them. You must be an ideal for others. Appreciate the condition of others, conduct Yourself suitably and do good to them.”

{That the great serve as ideals for others is stated by the Lord as follows:

Whatever a great person does, that is what another does. Whatever he upholds as authority, the world follows.

About the advisable conduct of a jīvanmukta towards the ignorant, it is said:

It is but appropriate that the enlightened one behaves in conformity with the ignorant just as a father of a babe in arms behaves in conformity with it.

That acting ought certainly to be done by which the ignorant man will get enlightenment.

In the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha, it is reported that after Vasiṣṭha enabled Rāma to become established in the Truth and then advised Him to avoid remaining for ever in samādhi and, instead, strive to make people happy, Rāma said:

By your grace, I am beyond injunctions and prohibitions. Nevertheless, your word should always be carried out by Me. In the Vedas, Āgamas, Purāṇas and Smṛtis, it is said, O great sage, that the word of the guru is what should be carried out and what is opposed to it must be eschewed.}

(Acharyal:) To implement Acharyal’s directives, I ignored the prevailing disinterest and revised My Tarka lessons. Over the next week, I gradually regenerated the interest in śāstraic studies that had vanished. Acharyal graciously expedited the process by intensely examining My progress and chiding Me on any inadequacies. Displaying emotional responses proved tougher to achieve. The mind felt just peace and bliss and the emotions that had been so readily experienced in the past seemed no more than a vague, distant dream.

Laughable though it sounds, the sādhanā that followed the vision of Śiva was simpler and smoother than learning afresh to display anger or anxiety. (Pointing to Himself and laughing:) This short-tempered tiger was a very gentle cow at that time!

It was clear to Me that Acharyal did not intend that I learn to pretend to be pleased, concerned and the like, without such feelings arising in the mind at all. I recognised that I would be a deceiver if, while being thoroughly disinterested, I were to make a person think that I wish that he come again soon or that I am interested in what he is showing Me or that I am displeased that he has not done something important. Moreover, consistently and adequately exhibiting the physical signs associated with strong emotions, such as a flushed face with wrath, would be very difficult when the mind is thoroughly tranquil and unconcerned. I could also see that such deception, even if diligently practised, would undoubtedly come to light sooner or later. In any case, there was no question of Acharyal advocating hypocrisy and deceit.

To facilitate interpersonal dealings, the mind could learn to accommodate fleeting emotions as opposed to gaining proficiency in deceiving others. Appearance of thoughts and feelings merely when necessitated by and as appropriate to situations would enable effective and totally unpretentious functioning while leaving the mind basically silent. Further, such mental activity would be powerless to cause any bondage as misidentification of the Ātman with the mind had already ceased once and for all and there was no forgetfulness of the falsity of the mind either. I did not have any difficulty in clearly comprehending thus the thrust and mode of implementation of Acharyal’s directives.

{Śrī Vidyāraṇya has written in the Vāsanākṣayaprakaraṇa of the Jīvanmukti-viveka:

Objection: If attachment and aversion are admitted in a knower of the Truth, then, on account of the resulting merit and demerit, there would arise the contingency of his being reborn after death. Answer: Such is not the case. Likes and dislikes that are akin to uncooked seeds (capable of sprouting) and foreshadowed by avidyā (and, so, by the erroneous identification of the Ātman with the mind) are the ones that, by virtue of their constituting the primary variety of attachment and aversion, cause rebirth. The attachment and the like of the knowers of the Truth are, however, like burnt seeds (which are incapable of sprouting) and merely have the appearance of the primary ones.

Acharyal referred not only to the cessation of the misidentification of the Ātman with the mind but also to the absence of forgetfulness about the falsity of the mind. About the latter, it is said in the Jīvanmukti-viveka, subsequent to the passage cited earlier:

Though they be mere appearances of the primary likes and dislikes of the ignorant and incapable of contributing to rebirth) the likes and dislikes of the knower would, while they last, cause trouble like the primary likes and dislikes. A false snake seen in the place of a rope causes, for the time being, fear just like a real snake. The case of the apparent likes and dislikes is like this. Objection: There would be no trouble at all (even temporarily) if the falsity of the apparent likes and dislikes were kept in mind. Answer: May you live long! This (keeping in mind the falsity) is what we regard as marking jīvanmukti.

The possibility of apparent erroneous notions causing transient delusion in a knower of the Truth is stated by Bhagavatpāda as follows in His Brhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad-bhāṣya on the passage (I.4.10):

Erroneous notions (such as that one is an agent and that one experiences pleasure and pain) cannot arise in the knower of the Truth…Sometimes, however, recollections that stem from the impressions formed by the erroneous notions that arose prior to enlightenment and which have the appearances of erroneous notions crop up and suddenly delude him as to their being actual erroneous notions just as even one who knows the directions well sometimes suddenly becomes confused about them.

In the Pañcadaśī, it is said:

Acharyal’s mind unaccompanied, even for a while, by the awareness of its falsity.

Acharyal: No, never. Even during excruciating pain, there has been the clear awareness that it pertains only to the illusory mind and that I am the changeless witness of the nature of pure consciousness.

All this is solely due to the grace of Acharyal and God. Else, where was the question of even one so ordinary as I becoming unswervingly established in Brahman and functioning in the world as I was directed to?

Though Acharyal was the one who uplifted Me, because of His total freedom from egoism and extraordinary fondness for Me, He went to the extent of averring, prior to sending Me to Bangalore (in 1936), “I know that You are God Himself and ever perfect. Your engaging in sādhanā and apparently attaining enlightenment were only a part of Your divine sport. Your vision of Śiva and Your receiving His blessings and instruction a few days before Your taking Your sādhanā to its culmination were on the same footing as the vision, blessings and instruction of Śiva obtained by Kṛṣṇa.”

{At this point, Acharyal’s face became flushed with emotion, Joining His palms, He turned towards a photograph of Paramacharyal.}

(Acharyal:) Who can be like Him? I am so fortunate to be His disciple.

{The following are three of the verses composed by Paramacharyal about Acharyal; the period of composition is given by Him as the month of Aśvina of the year Subhānu (30.9.1943 - 29.10.1943}.

O, Wise people! Hold in the heart-lotus the Guru, Vidyatheertha, the young one with tranquil mind, who is exceedingly compassionate, who destroys the mountain of impediments by His extremely pure glances, who is skilled in protecting the whole world, who is known by means of the Praṇava, Om, and who is the manifestation of the Supreme Brahman.

Numerous rites and festivals relating to the Gurus and the Divinities have been created to purify the body, the organs and the mind. Your body is their fruit.

May Vāṇī, Lakṣmī and Gaurī guard You, the foremost Guru, while You sleep, sit, stand and walk.

After giving the verses to Acharyal, Paramacharyal said, “I have written only what I definitely know to be true about You. There is no encomium here.”

Paramacharyal explicitly told some devotees that Acharyal was God Himself and that they should not think that He was just a young saṁnyāsin.}

✧✧✧✧