Light on the Path to Enlightenment

Invocation

(Bhagavatpāda’s Dakṣiṇāmūrti-stotra 5) [Out of extreme compassion, the primeval God who dwells at the base of a fig tree (that is, Śiva in the form of Dakṣiṇāmurti) has manifested before me. May He impart to me knowledge that is characterized by ‘Om’ and remove my darkness of ignorance.]

The Path to Emancipation

One should duly perform the actions ordained for one by the scripture and acquire purity of the mind, then one should approach a Guru, hear about the Truth, reflect upon It through reasoning, steadfastly focus on It and, thereby, realize It and become emancipated; this is the settled view of the scripture. Several possible doubts that might arise in this regard have been tersely raised and resolved by Sage Vyāsa and dealt with in depth by Bhagavatpāda.

A Query on the Eligibility to Secure Knowledge

The triad beginning with the hearing of the Truth is the proximate means to realization. One becomes fit for it only after acquiring purity of mind; mental purity stems from the diligent performance of one's duties, ordained by the scripture. Such being the case, a question arises about those who are ineligible to perform the scriptural rites. Can they strive for and obtain enlightenment or not? This is enquired into and ascertained in the Brahmasūtras.¹

The scriptures stipulate that only a gṛhastha, a married man with a living wife, can perform yāgas, sacrifices; wealth and relevant resources are also needed. So, those who do not belong to any of the four āśramas², stages of life, such as widowers, and householders too who are bereft of wealth and other resources cannot engage in Vedic sacrifices. Is it possible for such people too to attain salvation? Or are they are completely unfit for the path of liberation? This is the issue.

Alternative Means to Acquire Purity of the Mind

The opponent deems widowers and others who cannot perform Vedic sacrifices to be ineligible. Conversely, Vyāsa and Bhagavatpāda have taken exception to this extreme position and categorically stated that despite their disqualification to perform sacrifices, they too can definitely practise certain alternative means such as the repetition of a mantra, fasting and the worship of God. As these means do confer mental purity and can be resorted to by all, the path to knowledge and, thus, liberation is not ruled out for those ineligible for Vedic sacrifices.

Efficacy of Repeating a Mantra

The scripture lauds the efficacy of repeating a mantra:

[A Brāhmaṇa attains perfection through the repetition of a mantra itself; there is no doubt about this. Let him engage in rites or let him not. He is said to be a friend of beings (as this does not involve injuring any being).]

When one repeats a mantra with faith and firmness, one’s mind becomes pure, regardless of whether one can and does engage in rites and such else or not. Becoming pure-minded, such a person surely qualifies for taking up the means to knowledge, such as hearing about the Truth. Like the repetition of a mantra, fasts and worship of God too are purifiers of the mind and can be universally resorted to and everyone can engage in them on one’s own.

However, as noted, to engage in sacrifices, a person needs to have his spouse by his side. The rule is:

[A man and his wife have joint eligibility for a sacrifice.]

This implies that a widower is unfit to perform Vedic sacrifices. Nevertheless, as there is no restriction on widowers and such others who do not belong to any of the four āśramas to repeat a mantra, fast or engage in the worship of God, they too can, through such means, acquire purity of the mind and qualify for the path of knowledge. The scripture does not shut the door upon them; contrariwise, in keeping with one’s competence, it presents every one with spiritual practices by means of which one can cleanse one’s mind and move ahead.

Wisdom of People Outside the Four Stages of Life

It can be discerned from the Upaniṣads that even some of those who did not belong to any of the four āśramas were knowers of Brahman.

For instance, as per the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad,¹ when Sage Yājñavalkya was being tested by savants in King Janaka’s court on his knowledge of the Truth, a lady named Gārgī, the daughter of Vacaknu, challenged him with a pair of deep questions about Brahman; she told the assembled scholars that were he to be able to answer her queries, they would have to admit that none could best him in the exposition of Brahman. While he was able to convincingly answer her, what is pertinent here is that she was able to so quiz him about the Truth and that too in the assembly of those who were highly knowledgeable about scriptural matters. Obviously, she must have been rather conversant with Brahman to even dare to do so. Now, Gārgī was a spinster; the Upaniṣad does not state or hint that she had a husband. Thus, she did not belong to any of the four āśramas. Not being a member of any āśrama, she was ineligible to tread the path of scriptural rites and thereby acquire the purity of mind needed to tread the path of knowledge. Yet, as she did have scriptural wisdom, it may be presumed that she must have, through diligent recourse to some other means, become possessed of the mental purity needed for her to know Brahman. The case of Gārgī is an instance met with in the scripture of a person outside the āśramas who, nonetheless, became knowledgeable about Brahman.

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad speaks of a sage named Raikva who imparted the saṁvarga-vidyā (a specific meditation on two places of merger) to King Jānaśruti.¹ Raikva (who was associated with a cart) did not belong to any āśrama; he was not a celibate pupil learning from a preceptor or a householder or one retired to the forest or a monk. Nonetheless, he was a knower of the Truth and it may be presumed that he must have earlier resorted to means other than sacrifices and the like for which he was ineligible.

To sum up, a question was taken up in the Brahma-sūtras as to whether those who do not belong to any of the four āśramas specified by the scripture are eligible to engage in spiritual practices for enlightenment. The prima facie view was that they are not eligible, while the final position was that they are. The conclusion relied upon instances encountered in the scripture of some persons who did not belong to any āśrama but were, knowers of Brahman and upon the scripture having prescribed means such as the repetition of a mantra which purify the mind and are widely accessible.

Prohibition of Reversion to an Earlier Āśrama

Another issue pertaining to the stages of life is taken up in a subsequent section of the Brahmasūtras.¹ A spiritual aspirant takes up saṁnyāsa to hear the Truth, reflect upon it through reasoning and steadfastly focus upon It and, thereby, become enlightened. After all, it is only a saṁnyāsin who can invest the maximum time and effort in the pursuit of knowledge, unlike a gṛhastha who has many ordained rites to perform and familial responsibilities to fulfil. Thus, a scriptural prescription is:

Yatidharma-prakāśa; source not extant)

[Having renounced, one should resort to hearing the Truth.]

Ostensibly, a person took up saṁnyāsa in the pursuit of enlightenment. Unfortunately, however, he developed second thoughts about his new stage of life. He mused, ‘I could not perform all the sacrifices that I wished to when I was a gṛhastha. So let me revert to being a householder to punctiliously perform more Vedic rites.’

Another, who became a saṁnyāsin contemplated on reverting to the stage of a householder as he missed worldly enjoyments. In the Brahmasūtras, it is settled whether a monk has the option to revert to the stage of a householder. Vyāsa and Bhagavatpāda spell out that there is no such choice available to a saṁnyāsin. The scripture does not permit a saṁnyāsin to become a gṛhastha again, whether due to his desire to perform rites or to a longing for worldly pleasures. Its instruction is:

[Completing the stage of celibacy, he should become a householder. Having been a householder, he should go to the stage of a forest-dweller. After being a forest-dweller, he should renounce (and live as a monk).]

First, one should become a brahmacārin, then go on to be a gṛhastha, then become a vānaprastha (one who has retired to the forest) and, finally, take recourse to saṁnyāsa. While the scripture explicitly sanctions, as in the passage cited, ascent to the next stage of life, it never permits reversion to an earlier stage, such as from that of a saṁnyāsin to that of a householder.

Even the conduct of noble persons of the past is not at all in favour of one turning back to an earlier āśrama.

What is prescribed by the scripture constitutes one’s dharma and not what merely appeals to one. Here is a worldly example. Three students who were studying in class two, seven and nine appeared for an examination conducted in a school. At the examination hall, all the three were given their respective question papers. The ninth-standard lad found his paper difficult to answer. He took the question paper from the seventh-standard student and answered all the questions extremely well. When the results were announced, the ninth-standard boy was shaken to find that he had failed. Disappointed, he lamented to his parents, teachers and others, ‘How unfair! I answered all the questions so very well and, yet, the examiner has failed me’. All were perplexed why a student who supposedly answered all the questions correctly did not pass. An enquiry was conducted and it came to light that while the boy had indeed answered all the questions well, what he had answered were not those from his question paper but from the one given to the student of the seventh standard and that is why he had been assigned zero marks and failed. The student was strictly told that he cannot pick up any question paper at will and answer it because he is comfortable with it; he must answer only the question paper meant for him.

Similarly, a person in any stage of life will stand to gain only if he adheres to what is prescribed for him in the scripture; he cannot backpedal from his current āśrama to an earlier one on a whim. The Lord has declared:

Even though you may not be able to follow to the last letter what is prescribed for you by the scripture, you will do well to perform your own dharma, to the extent possible. Performing the dharma of another even well will do you no good. The scripture is the final authority for us when it comes to deciding what is righteous and what is not. By doing what one is not entitled to do, one would not only not profit, one would incur sin. By quitting the saṁnyāsa-āśrama for domestic life, one would get only demerit.

To recapitulate, Vyāsa has stated and Bhagavatpāda has explicated that a saṁnyāsin cannot defect from monasticism and revert to the gṛhastha-āśrama even due to a desire to perform Vedic rites; this is because while the scripture sanctions progression from one to the next of the four āśramas, it nowhere allows descent from an āśrama to an earlier one; the conduct of the noble ones of the past is also not of this kind.

A Knower’s Childlike State

The Brahmasūtras¹ clarify how a person who has learnt the Truth well from his Guru and the scripture should conduct himself. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad says:

The teaching of the Upaniṣad here is that after hearing the Truth repeatedly and comprehending the essence of Vedānta clearly, one should remain like a child. A babe consumes anything that attracts it and answers the calls of nature anywhere and whenever it feels an urge to do so. It is unconcerned with and unfettered by any rules about what to eat and what not to and about urinating and defecating. When the Upaniṣad says that a knower should be like a child, does it mean that he should, like a child, behave in an unrestrained manner? ‘Yes,’ is the prima facie view considered by Vyāsa and Bhagavatpāda. Its crux is that the word ‘bālya (the state of a child)’ employed by the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad suggests unregulated conduct.

A pseudo-vedāntin argues: ‘Injunctions and prohibitions are only for the ignorant. Having repeatedly heard the Truth, I know It and, therefore, am beyond them. The scripture itself has laid down that that a knower should be akin to a child and so, I ought to behave like a baby, with no care about any regulation.’

The Lord has said in the Bhagavadgītā:

[In that which is night to all beings, the self-restrained one is awake. That wherein beings are awake is night to the sage who sees.]

A person mistakenly understood the import of this verse as, ‘A knower must sleep when others are wide awake and be awake when others are asleep’¹ and decided, ‘Engaged as I am in assimilating the knowledge of the Truth, I will, henceforth, sleep during the day, for that is when others are awake.’ What can we say about such a misinterpretation and conclusion? Even a dog keeps awake during the night and rests during the day. The Lord is not advocating that a wise man should be like it. The prima facie view mentioned earlier, and illustrated through the words of a pseudo-Vedāntin, is a gross misinterpretation of the teaching of the Upaniṣad, much like the misinterpretation of the teaching of the Lord just considered.

Bhagavatpāda has, in the Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya, refuted the false view that the instruction, ‘bālyena tiṣṭhāset, he should seek to remain in a childlike state’ prescribes childlike, unregulated conduct. He has also spelt out, in consonance with the words of Vyāsa, its correct import.

A baby is free from ostentation and pride. The knower too should not give room to ostentation and pride; he should not flaunt his wisdom and virtuousness. It is said:

[Though knowledgeable, a wise man should conduct himself like one who is dim-witted.]

Even by taking a cue from this verse, none of us should boast about our learning. There is so much more to be learnt by us and God alone is all-knowing. Why then should we show off our knowledge, which is but little?

Reverting to the topic on hand, an infant is not smitten by lust nor does it harbour ill will towards anyone; one on the path to enlightenment too should be like that. Conceit is absent in a child and, it being detrimental, he should avoid it. Though truly knowledgeable, he should be unassuming. This is what the Upaniṣad indicates.

Bhagavatpāda has, after setting aside the erroneous view, established the correct import of the passage and buttressed the final position by referencing several supportive, scriptural passages.

Would Liberating Knowledge Arise in This Life Itself?

A query that has been addressed in the Brahmasūtras¹ is about the time of fruition of the means to knowledge. Hearing the Truth, reflecting upon It through reasoning and steadfastly focusing upon It culminate in the dawn of enlightenment. The question referred to is whether knowledge would arise in the present life in which these means are properly taken up or only later.

The prima facie answer is that they must do so in the present life itself. After all, it is only to gain liberating knowledge now that anyone resorts to its means. No one does so with the aim, ‘May knowledge arise in some future birth of mine.’ A white umbrella is deemed to be an insignia of an emperor. No one who aspires to become a monarch in some future life would acquire the said umbrella in this birth itself, thinking, ‘Though I cannot become a sovereign in this birth, let me procure the white umbrella now itself.’ Similarly, none would resort to the means to knowledge in this birth to become enlightened in some future life. So, it must be admitted that enlightenment dawns in the very life in which the proximate means to it are practised.

The response in the Brahmasūtras to this objection is, ‘If there are no impediments, a practitioner of the means to realization will attain it in this birth itself; else, he will do so a subsequent birth only.’ How are we to know if there are obstacles to the dawn of realization? If a person attains enlightenment in this birth, it can be understood that the fruition of the means was not blocked by obstacles; if knowledge does not arise, then it can be discerned that there were impediments that precluded the means from fructifying.

There is no hard and fast rule that knowledge must arise in this life itself because one strives for it now. This is clear from the Lord’s words:

[Perfected in the course of many lives, he attains the supreme goal.]

[At the end of many lives, the man of mature knowledge attains Me.]

Though the example that none would procure a white umbrella now itself in anticipation of one’s becoming an emperor in a later life is valid, it does not fit the context. It cannot be said that one will never practise the means like hearing about the Truth now because liberating knowledge may arise only in a future birth, for it would dawn in this very life if it were not strongly obstructed and one does not know beforehand whether there are such impediments or not. Hence, we should start practising the required means now itself and should never postpone doing so.

To sum up, Vyāsa’s and Bhagavatpāda’s answer to the query whether knowledge emerges in this very life in which its means are resorted to or whether it would do so in a later life is, ‘Knowledge would arise in the present life, or in a subsequent one depending upon whether obstructions to its dawn are present or absent.’

Conclusion

In the Brahmasūtras and the Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya, Vyāsa and Bhagavatpāda have kindly thrown light on various matters bearing on the path to enlightenment and the dawn of knowledge. Attaining emancipation by realizing Brahman should be our ultimate goal and, for this, we should practise, without laxity, the disciplines that are appropriate to each of us. It is to enable us to finally reach the goal that Bhagavatpāda has blessed us with His bhāṣyas and resolved the possible doubts that might arise and answered the various objections that have been raised. We should familiarize ourselves with His expositions, assiduously adhere to our spiritual disciplines and make our lives meaningful.

हर नमः पार्वतीपतये हर हर महादेव