I do not have any ‘desire’ for the Self.
I also do not have any ‘desire’ for Liberation. Startling as these averments
may sound coming from one squarely on the Quest, when I search within me for
feelings of want, need, or desire in respect of these Goals, I find that there
is nothing there. And this fact fills me with the deepest sense of “shanti” (quietness, peace and
contentment) possible; and also immense satisfaction that I am being true to
the teachings of my Guru, Sri Bhagavan.
No folks, I have not imbibed some of that
ganja we spoke about in an earlier post!
I believe that there is a subtle but critical difference in seeking with desire,
and seeking without. In the former, much like for any object of the world, we seek
what we desire, directly. The
emphasis thus is selfish (!), on ‘my’ desire and ‘my’ goal; and on basing it
all on our own abilities to win us what we want. In the latter, seeking happens
on its own, as a by-product of the primary act of complete faith in the Guru and
unthinking obedience in carrying out His instructions. The emphasis then is on
‘Thou’, and the goals are not personal, but what come on their own via the Grace
of the Guru. I believe that this has been the way in India from ancient times.
‘But every Guru has said that an intense
desire for Liberation, or the Self, or God, is needed’. Yes, every Guru has
indeed said so, as has Sri Bhagavan on occasion. But in my humble opinion, the
primary instruction of the Guru is to do Vichara,
or to do other forms of meditation, or to do puja, or japa, or any
other practice that He teaches in His system. To desire the Self or Liberation
is an auxiliary instruction, and is intended only for the beginner. After all,
you can still achieve Liberation with earnest practice and no desire, but can
you achieve Liberation with just the desire and no practice?
Thus, I believe that the instruction to have
an intense desire for the Self or Liberation, handed out from time immemorial
to aspirants in Hinduism, is massively misunderstood by people nowadays. The
instruction is liberally dished out besides, by ‘instructors’ of spirituality,
the modern day apologists for Gurus. But the issues pertaining to this basic
and seemingly innocuous directive are not so simple. In this post, in Section
I, we will first draw from the ‘Tradition’, the agglomeration of spiritual
truths in Sanatana Dharma, refined,
tested and fine-tuned over many millennia, to consider the subtleties of this directive.
Some of these are: who the appropriate recipient of this instruction is, and the
context in which it is given; the difference, between ‘desire’ (kama, iccha etc.) and ‘Love’ (prema)
in a spiritual context; and how this instruction applies differently in the Bhakti (devotional), and in the Jnana
(knowledge-introspection-meditation) paths.
At the end of Section I then, the
conclusion may hopefully be reached that: The instruction ‘desire for the Self
or Liberation’ is intended for the beginner, who runs with it as long as he
(she) is plagued by mundane desires; it is but one of several ‘qualities’
recommended at the start, one which has get internalized within the aspirant so
as to become an unconscious part of him (her); at later stages if this desire
still persists overtly, it itself will become an increasingly bigger obstacle
in sadhana; and so, the aspirant
needs to evolve to having some other qualities as the driving force behind earnestness
in practice (if not already having them at the start, that is).
In Section II then, we will use this
backdrop to consider Sri Bhagavan’s teachings directly.
I am well aware, folks, that I stand in a
lonely place on this. It is my humble intention here to just present some food
for thought, an alternate way of looking at the Quest from what is virtually
the norm nowadays. I know that there are many advanced aspirants out there, who
still consciously sustain an intense desire for the Self and Liberation. Who
knows, perhaps this intense conscious desire itself may be holding back their
further progress!
Section I: The Tradition
ALL ‘Desire’ is
rooted in Rajas
In the post on ‘Dietary Concerns’ earlier,
we had touched upon the importance of the 3 gunas
- sattva, rajas and tamas, in an
aspirant’s life. Though the context was limited to food intake, we saw how
strongly Bhagavan held that rajasik
and tamasik items are a no-no for the
aspirant. The simple reasoning being: God is pure sattva; so is the Self, in a manner of speaking, though it is
beyond the gunas; Liberation is
reached when the sattva guna
permeates every pore of the sadhaka;
and thus it is immensely beneficial for him (her) to move from the rajasik and tamasik elements to the sattvik
ones.
The gunas
thus provide a simple basis for the sadhaka
to build his (her) spiritual and temporal life around. For instance, telling
even small lies is tamasik, strictly
avoided; bars are tamasik places, so
even if one does not drink alcohol, better to stay away; desperately seeking
wealth, rajasik, again avoid; the
company of honest, loving people, sattvik,
very good; temples and churches etc., sattvik,
go; and so on.
Unfortunately, ALL desire, howsoever
noble it may be, is rajasik. It comes
from no less an authority than the Bhagavad Gita. In Sanskrit, subtle shades of
meaning are imparted to generic ‘desire’ by the choice of words. To mention
a few: kama, trishna, iccha, and a
very special word – sprya. The Gita
uses these different words in different places just for their finer shades of
meaning (though I have yet to come across a translation that captures the
subtle import of all these words). It does so to emphasize the point that
whatever the shade of meaning you choose to take, howsoever noble the ‘desire’,
it still remains rooted in rajas. As
examples we will consider the usage of 3 words in the Gita:
“Kama”
is desire with the subtle shade of meaning of it being sensual desire, the
desire for pleasures and objects of the world, and thus at the bottom of the
heap. This one is roundly condemned in the Gita even though it still has roots
in rajas only (and none of tamas). Here are some verses where the
text uses the word kama for desire:
Chapter III: “Karma Yoga”
Sub title: Desire is the
Enemy of Man.
The Blessed Lord said :
37· It is desire, it is wrath,
born of the energy of Rajas all-devouring,
all sinful; that, know thou, is the foe here.
all sinful; that, know thou, is the foe here.
Sub-title: Desire Enshrouds
Wisdom.
38. As fire is surrounded by smoke, as a mirror
by rust, as the foetus is
enclosed in the womb, so is this
covered by it.
39· Covered,
0 son of Kunti, is wisdom by this constant enemy of the
wise, in the form of desire, which is
greedy and insatiable.
Sub title: The Seat of Desire.
40. The senses, mind, and reason are said to be
its seat; veiling
wisdom through these, it deludes the embodied.
wisdom through these, it deludes the embodied.
7. Know thou Rajas (to be) of the nature of passion,
the source of
thirst and attachment; it binds fast, 0
son of Kunti, the embodied one by attachment to action.
“Sprya” can be said to be the
highest form of desire from the examples we have taken. Most lexicographers
(incl. the venerable Monier-Williams) link the word to the root word {spardh}, which means ‘in competition
with’, and thus erroneously give a rather superficial meaning to “sprya” as ‘to desire intensely in the
sense of longing arising from envy or jealousy’. What is missed out is the fact
that “sprya” has at first the primary
root {spr}, which means ‘to release,
save, rescue, deliver from’; and thus “sprya”
implies intense desire as related to
release, deliverance and liberation. In mundane usage the word may imply
the desire to be free as in a person who is locked up, or in a bird fluttering
about in cage. But in a spiritual context the word takes on the subtle shade of
meaning of an intense desire for Mukti,
actually an overwhelming urge in the sense of a bursting out. In this verse, the text uses “sprya” for the word ‘desire’, and again,
confirms that even this exalted desire is rooted in rajas:
12. Greed, activity, the undertaking of works,
unrest, desire - these
arise when Rajas is predominant, 0 lord of the Bharatas.
[All verses are taken from - The Bhagavad
Gita, Text & Translation by Alladi Mahadeva Sastry, Samata Books]
I know a lot of people hold that ‘desire
for the Self or Liberation’ is not like any other desire, that it is ‘good’
desire. Yes it is, but only up to a point. At the initial stages of the Quest, the
beginner is anyhow full of desires of all sorts. And indeed, it is better to
have a desire for Liberation rather than the desire for money, or for watching
movies, or even for learning. It makes for a great substitution. As we can see
from above, even the Bhagavad Gita distinguishes between desires as it roundly
condemns “kama”, but not “trishna”, and not “sprya”. For the latter, in fact, it just mentions that it arises
when rajas is predominant. And ultimately,
it is this rootedness in rajas that disqualifies
it from being ‘good’ for the aspirant at a later stage.
Rajas epitomizes unrest, agitation
and action. It is not a state in which the mind is at calm or peace to any
significant degree. When rajas predominates,
it floods the mind with vrittis relating
to action and the impulse to do this and that. We may note that of all the vrittis that flood the mind, Bhagavan
has said that only the aham-vritti,
i.e. the sense of ‘I’ within, or the ‘I-am-ness’ felt by every one of us, is
different from every other vritti.
All the rest have to be eliminated as we latch on to, and chase down the aham-vritti to its Source.
[“Vritti”
comes from the primary root {vr}
which means to veil or obscure; and secondarily from the root {vrit}, meaning to ‘roll’, a circular
motion like that of a swirl in water; thus in its purest sense, “vritti” means a swirl in the mind that
obscures the Self, the sense being - like a swirl in the water which muddies
the pond, obscuring the bottom. If this pure meaning is picked up, then
something like the term “Brahmakara-vritti”
in Vedanta becomes a contradiction in
terms. Thus, some Vedantic texts use
the word in a diluted sense, to simply connote any ‘wave’ in the mind.
Personally, I prefer the pure usage. In my humble opinion then, every “vritti” should be obscurative, even the aham-vritti, and has to be got rid of.
The latter though is the only useful one, as we can chase it down to “I”, the
Supreme Self Itself, and then it disappears of its own.]
So, if we nurture a sprya for Liberation with deliberate intensity within us, even
after we have moved on substantially from the other mundane desires that
possess the lay person, all that we do is to continue to flood our mind with action-oriented
vrittis, the very same ones that we
are trying to eliminate in our sadhana.
For the Jnana paths particularly,
wherein meditation is the basic sadhana,
this sprya then becomes a major
obstacle at some point.
The Great Scriptural Texts
It may come as a bit of a surprise to
some that references to ‘desire for the Self or Liberation’ are stunningly
scarce in Scripture, even though ‘desire’ is otherwise covered extensively in
many works. And where ‘desire for the Self or Liberation’ does apparently
appear, it needs a lot of careful consideration to really understand what is
being said. I thought to pick up here 2 notable instances from the Upanisads which are worthwhile examining;
particularly so, because in each case, a big misunderstanding of the Sanskrit
may lead some of us to conclude that desire for the Self, or equivalent, is categorically
recommended.
First, in the Chandogya, some verses in chapter 7 (from VII.16.1 till VII.23.1), and
the first verse in Chapter 8 (VIII.1.1), use the word “vijijnasa”. This is translated by just about everyone as the same
as “jijnasa”, ‘desire to know’, or ‘seek
to know’. These verses then become, successively, instructions to desire truth,
understanding, faith, action, and so on, culminating in the desire for the
Infinite and the Self. But the Upanisads
use Sanskrit terms very precisely, and the rule is that the simpler and shorter
word is always used, wherever a choice is available. If “vijijnasa” is used by the great Authors of these texts, it is done
as the meaning they intend to convey differs significantly from “jijnasa”. “Vijijnasa” is actually a very complex term, and it comes primarily from
the complex root “vi-{jna}”, meaning ‘enquiry into’ or
‘investigation into’. And then the sense changes dramatically from to ‘seek’,
or to ‘desire’, to ‘enquire’.
In fact, far from being instructions to ‘desire’ the truth, the Infinite, the
Self, and so on, these verses in the Chandogya
are the greatest exhortations in Scripture that I know of – to do ‘enquiry’,
actually ‘Self-enquiry’. “Atma-Vijijnasa”
is actually a perfect synonym for “Atma-Vichara”.
And in the Brihadaranakya, in verse (IV.4.6) there is an interesting term “atmakamo”, usually translated by most in
a bald sense as, ‘desire for the Self’. This then, coming from as important an Upanisad as this, immediately assumes
significance. What is missed out is the fact that in this verse there is a
complex interplay of words between “kama”,
“karma” and “krama” and their variants. The
“kamo” in the “Atmakamo” then, does not mean ‘desire for’, but, ‘those things that
are desired, i.e. objects of desire’. Thus “Atmakamo”
has the meaning that, ‘objects of desire become as the Self’, implying that the
accomplished sadhaka sees the whole
World as the Self Itself. The sense of the verse then is: when everything is as
the Self, there is nothing that is ‘apart’, and therefore desire itself is impossible.
In fact, this is the exact interpretation Sri Sankara gives in his commentary
to this verse. [Note: Bhagavan also gave a clarification on this verse on
similar lines in “Talks”, Talk No. 502; the quote is available in Section II on
Bhagavan’s teachings].
I could write a lot more on Upanisadic references to ‘desire’, but
the above 2 I believe, are the most important ones.
Let me also touch upon the Bhagavad Gita again.
As mentioned, it covers extensively all the possible variations for ‘desire’.
Besides, it extols certain qualities that an aspirant may possess, some of
which appear repeatedly to emphasize their importance. But it never once
mentions directly that an aspirant, whether
a beginner or otherwise, should have an intense desire for the Self or
Liberation, or even for Isvara! In
fact, the word “mumukshutva” (intense
desire for Liberation) never appears in the work anywhere. “Mumukshubhi” is the only word allied to
this idea that appears in the text, and only once at that. The verse itself is
rather cryptic and concerned more with ‘action’. Alladi Mahadeva Sastry
translates this verse as:
Still, the Guru recognizes that the
instruction to have an intense desire for Liberation is useful, nay crucial,
for the beginner. And so, he gives it as part of the host of oral or
preliminary instructions that accompany the formal teachings. And that is how Tradition
structures it all: the Guru gives appropriate instructions separately to the
beginners, whereas the great classical texts, being analogous to PhD documents,
contain the highest teachings for the mature sadhaka only; and thus largely convey the message that he (she) may
not have any ‘desires’ whatsoever.
In this vein, Sri Sankara mentions “mumukshutva” – an intense desire for
Liberation, as one of the chatushtaya,
‘the 4’ qualities for attainment, for the beginner in his Bhasya (commentary) on the Brahma Sutras.
[Whereas the Brahma Sutras themselves do
not mention ‘desire’ at all; in sutra 1.1.1. “athato-Brahma-jijnasa”, jijnasa
again loses its usual meaning ‘desire to know’; as the sutra implies continuance, jijnasa
becomes ‘a deliberation’, ‘an investigative study’. The sutra thus
describes the nature of the text itself and translates as, “Therefore, hereinafter,
a deliberation on Brahman”. The only other sutra in which anything close to ‘desire’
is mentioned is (VIII.iii.14), wherein an interesting term “Patipatti-abhisandhi” appears. This is interpreted by some as
‘desire for Brahman’. In fact, the term translates as: “the resolute intent
towards attainment”].
Actually, the 4 qualities are picked up by
Sri Sankara, as has been done by every other author, from those mentioned in
the Yoga Sutras. But it is Sri
Sankara and not Maharshi Patanjali who can be said to be the father of the
concept of ‘desire for the Self or Liberation’ for the beginner. Advaita leads the mumukshutva camp, and virtually every work of Sri Sankara’s will
extol the virtues of mumukshutva in
the beginner. Unfortunately, the instruction seems to have been
indiscriminately picked up by later interpreters and instructors, without carrying
forward the crucial fact of who exactly Sri Sankara intended it for.
In this context it may be worthwhile to
understand the difference between 3 key Sanskrit terms, “jijnasu”, “mumukshu” and
“sadhaka”. A jijnasu is one who has the desire to know more with respect to
spiritual matters. This stage represents the start of the Quest. Next, after inquiring
around, some preliminary instruction from the Guru, or elders, or via reading,
the jijnasu may evolve into a mumukshu, one who has an intense desire
for Liberation, mumukshutva. This
person now obtains proper instruction from a Guru (whether in the body or
otherwise), starts practice, and gains proficiency. Then he (she) may evolve to
a sadhaka. Popular usage does not
distinguish between a sadhaka and
others, employing the one term to represent all categories of aspirants. But a sadhaka is one who is literally
“proficient”; he (she) has learnt well and knows mostly all that is to know, only
practice is needed which also he (she) does earnestly, efficiently and
precisely; he (she) will not be denied the Goal, the only question being when.
Thus the sadhaka is at a stage when
mundane desires do not bother him (her), or cause obstacles in practice. And in
our discussion here, only the jijnasus and
the mumukshus are the appropriate
recipients of the instruction to have an intense desire for Liberation.
As mentioned, Sri Sankara’s commentary on
the Brahma Sutras mentions only the 4 preliminary qualities needed in the aspirant,
but his work Vivekachudamani contains
all the other traditional requirements as well. It is much more familiar to Sri
Bhagavan’s devotees as He wrote an introduction to the work and translated it
in a prose form into Tamil. An English translation of this is given in
Bhagavan’s “Collected Works”. Most of us reading only the English translation
of Vivekachudamani would come across
the instruction, ‘have an intense desire for Liberation’ repeatedly in the
work. This may lead to an assumption that this great work is strongly
recommending such a desire for everyone, and at all stages of the Quest. And then,
a lot of us may assume that since Bhagavan Himself has endorsed this work,
Bhagavan is also giving a similar instruction to everyone. But the crucial fact
missed in all this would be, that the original Sanskrit text contains only the words “mumukshuta” or “mumukshutva”
for this desire for Liberation each time,
thereby clearly indicating that the proper recipient for this instruction is a
“mumukshu”, a beginner only.
Key Concepts associated with the Chatustaya
The ‘4 qualities for attainment’ are: viveka, discrimination
between the Real and unreal; vairagya,
aversion to enjoyment of fruits of action; the group of 6 attributes viz.
calmness and the rest; and mumukshutva, an intense desire for Liberation. Thus they are not
4, but 9 actually!
The first concept:
Sri Bhagavan Himself clarified that these
‘qualities’ imply such a level of perfection in the aspirant, that it is
practically impossible to find all of them in any one person [Talk No. 192,
quoted in Section II]. Thus the concept is that even a few from this list
should be fine. You could have just ‘calmness’ and ‘aversion to fruits’ as your principal qualities. Still,
I believe, you would do as well in sadhana
as you would if you had, instead, the qualities of ‘desire for Liberation’ and
‘discrimination’. Thus in practical terms you should have a little of each, and
plenty of 2 or 3. [In Talk No. 192, Bhagavan seems to emphasize upon the first
quality in the chatustaya, “viveka” (discrimination), as being
particularly significant].
Even in Scripture, there is little to
single out any one of them as being mandatory. The mother lode, the Yoga Sutras, give equal importance to a
whole host of qualities. Here are a few in order of appearance in the text (if
that be the criterion of importance; these ones are mentioned in the first
chapter itself): “Abhyasa”
(Practice), “Vairagya” (Renunciation),
“Yatna” (Earnest effort), Vairagya again used as ‘desirelessness’,
“Shraddha” (Faith), “Virya” (Courage), “Smriti” (literally ‘remembrance’ but herein implying ‘retention of
teachings’), and several more qualities before we get “Isvara-pranidhanam” (‘intense aspiration after Isvara’), analogous to ‘desire for Liberation’. Interestingly,
‘desirelessness’ comes before ‘desire for Isvara’!
Again, it is Sri Sankara, in Vivekachudamani (verses 28, 29, 30), who
has singled out vairagya and mumukshutva as the 2 most important
qualities in the aspirant, from amongst the chatustaya.
Interestingly, in the next 2 verses (nos. 31 & 32), he then seems to debunk ALL the chatustaya qualities, by stating
categorically that ultimately only the practice of Vichara matters. These verses could have been composed by Sri
Bhagavan Himself! Here is the remarkable verse 31 (translation mine):
- (But, notwithstanding all
the aforementioned qualities) of all the things, qualities, materials,
instruments bringing about Liberation, Bhakti
alone is ‘weighty’.
- [In line 2, the term “Bhakti abhi-dhiyate” at the end is really
not easy to translate. I would give it as: “after careful and deep
reflection, the closest approach to, i.e. the most accurate meaning that it
is possible to assign to, the word Bhakti,
is …”. To keep it simple, all of the foregoing is mentioned as, “is designated
as Bhakti”, below.]
The beginner is recommended to have mumuksutva in an unfettered, intense manner;
but as the aspirant advances, this desire needs to become ‘internalised’ in a
manner of speaking, become part and parcel of the sadhaka’s psychological makeup. So, it is not as if the quality becomes
as completely ‘non-existent’, like the ‘son of a barren woman’, to use the
classical example. The problem really is that the conscious and sustained
‘desire for Liberation’, creates additional vrittis
in the mind, the very thing that the sadhaka
is trying eliminate. But if the quality becomes ‘natural’, imbedded deep within
the psyche of the sadhaka, then it is
said to not raise any attendant vrittis.
In a sense, the ‘desire for Liberation’
in the advanced aspirant, has to become like the ‘need’ for food, water and air
that is intrinsic to every lay person. These ‘desires’ are considered natural
and integral to everyone, part and parcel of their mental apparatus. These are
thus, not ‘overt’ or ‘conscious’ desires at all, and the Tradition holds that
they do not create any vrittis in the
mind (until a significant deprivation of food, water, or air, that is).
With the quality ‘desire for Liberation’,
there is an added aspect in that its only role is to generate earnestness in
practice. Whereas the others, like ‘calmness’, ‘vairagya’ etc. are needed for
practice. Mumukshutva is thus
the engine that brings about all the other qualities in the sadhaka, as arising from this ‘desire’
he (she) goes about collecting all the tools (calmness, vairagya etc.) that are necessary for sadhana. Once the tools are sharpened, and earnestness in practice
is steady and unwavering, it can be said that the mumukshutva role is done. At this point, it should become
internalized within the sadhaka. He
(she) then no longer needs to keep fanning the desire for Liberation in order
to do sadhana with sincerity, much as
he (she) needn’t keep up a conscious desire to take in air in order to breathe.
The Subtle Angle:
The point of the above then is that - it is meaningless to give an instruction to
a person do something that is a preliminary aid to what he (she) is already
naturally, unconsciously and perfectly doing. To tell an advanced sadhaka that he (she) should have ‘an
intense desire for Liberation’, is analogous to telling an adult that he (she)
should keep up an intense desire for air in order to breathe, when he (she) is
already breathing perfectly well. The sadhaka
is already doing his (her) sadhana in right earnest anyhow.
In a practical sense the way this all
manifests is that - the Guru simply gives the instruction to have an intense
desire for Liberation to the whole ‘class’, to the entire gathering of disciples
sitting at His (Her) feet. The Guru knows to whom the instructions really
apply, the beginners, and that they will pick it up and run with it. And the
Guru also knows that those who have been around for a while will understand the
subtle points of this instruction, and know that they have outgrown the same. Thus, in fact, the instruction is
auto-directed to the appropriate person every time. If you pick it up and
run with it, know that you need to pick it up and run with it for some time!
There are certain crucial distinctions
between the Jnana and Bhakti paths with respect to ‘desire’.
These are centred on the basic “nirguna”
(without gunas, without Form) and “saguna” (with gunas, with Form)
qualities associated with the Supreme in each path.
The Jnana
Marga
As we all know, in the Jnana Marga, the Self / Brahman is
beyond the realm of nama-rupa (name
& form). It cannot be desired, or sought, or objectified, in any manner
whatsoever. Mukti (Liberation) is not
something to be attained, It is already our real nature. We can, after all,
desire only something that is apart from us, so where then is the question of
desiring the Self or Mukti?
Some may argue that this is a theoretical
position; in practical terms, since we live in the world of duality, we might
as well, notionally, objectify the Self and desire It. In my humble opinion,
absolutely NOT. In this context, we may remember verse 37 of Ulladu Narpadu:
[Line 1]: That doctrine is not true which says, ‘There is duality in practice and non-duality in attainment’.
Thus the Tradition says that the closer we are able to mould our attitude and practice to the ideal, the easier it will be to achieve it. It is a bit like sleep. You have to lie down, close your eyes, clear the mind, and pretend to sleep first, to be able to actually ‘fall’ asleep shortly thereafter. Similarly, to reach a stage of involuntary and continuous no-desire, we have to first voluntarily try to not desire; and from as early on a stage as we can do so.
[Line 1]: That doctrine is not true which says, ‘There is duality in practice and non-duality in attainment’.
Thus the Tradition says that the closer we are able to mould our attitude and practice to the ideal, the easier it will be to achieve it. It is a bit like sleep. You have to lie down, close your eyes, clear the mind, and pretend to sleep first, to be able to actually ‘fall’ asleep shortly thereafter. Similarly, to reach a stage of involuntary and continuous no-desire, we have to first voluntarily try to not desire; and from as early on a stage as we can do so.
Also, herein, right from the start, the sadhana
is basically introspection and meditation; an activity, technically defined as -
the endeavor to first reduce, and then extinguish, all the vrittis of the mind. (I believe that Maharshi Patanjali laid down
the perfect definition for all spiritual endeavours in the Yoga Sutras by saying: “Yoga
is chit-vritti-nirodhah”, i.e.
intentionally bringing about the stoppage of all vrittis of the mind). As explained in the section above on the gunas, all desires come from a rajasik root and create vrittis in the mind; as does the desire
for Liberation. Thus, in my humble opinion, if the Quest were to be divided
into 10 steps, in the Jnana-oriented
paths, the conscious desire for the Self or Liberation is ‘good’ up to step 3, at the max.
The Bhakti
Marga
The situation is a little different for
the Bhakti paths. Bhakti implies a lot of ‘action’ on part
of the devotee. Herein, at the start, and well into later stages too, the sadhana implies that the aspirant has to
do puja, collect the choicest
material for the same, sing bhajans,
dance for the Lord maybe, learn the slokas,
say his (her) prayers with intensity, and so on. Also, Isvara is in the realm of nama-rupa
and the subject-object duads. He can be thus the Grand Object, in the sense of
perception, for the bhakta. Puja-oriented
vrittis in the mind are actually
beneficial here up to a much later stage. In our 10-stepped Quest above, to ‘consciously
have an intense desire for God’ can be said to be ‘good’ till step 6 perhaps.
That is why the devotional paths are considered easier by most people, as a lot
more leeway is available with respect to the difficult matter of controlling
the vrittis in the mind.
At the more advanced stages in the Bhakti paths, the vrittis are said to be controlled when “sprya” (desire) changes to “prema”
(Love). The great difference between these two is that, unlike “sprya” which arises from rajas, “prema” is rooted in sattva.
All the agitative vrittis in the mind
have to die down for sattva to
predominate. “Prema” then, is unconditional
‘self-surrender’. The instruction for the mature sadhaka on the Bhakti
path then changes to, ‘do not desire anything, not even Liberation, just have
unconditional prema for God’. Such prema is described many times by Bhagavan
in the great hymns, and recorded in many of the reminiscences. In my humble
opinion, such an unconditional surrender is one of the most difficult things to
do amongst all the spiritual disciplines. Who amongst us dares to be, or can
be, a Mirabai, or Andal Mata, or a Kanappan?
Still, since the vritti of ‘desire for Isvara’
is ‘good’ in the Bhakti paths till a
much later stage, implies that this, and similar instructions, are particularly
given by the Guru to those of his
disciples who are not suited for the Jnana
paths, or who are already on the Bhakti
path. It may be also remembered that traditionally, most people who have
‘families’ and such worldly linkages, move slowly from the Bhakti to the Jnana Margas.
Typically, up to and during the grahasta
ashrama (householder stage), the aspirant usually does puja as his (her) primary sadhana.
Only after the ‘responsibilities’ are over, can he (she) switch to the
meditation sadhanas in an earnest
manner.
The Way of the Sadhaka
“No
way to self-realization is short or long, but some people are more in earnest
and some are less. I can tell you about myself. I was a simple man, but I
trusted my Guru. What he told me to do, I did. He told me to concentrate on ‘I
am’ – I did. He told me that I am beyond all perceivables and conceivables – I
believed. I gave my heart and soul, my entire attention and the whole of my
spare time (I had to work to keep family alive). As a result of faith and
earnest application, I realized my self (‘swarupa’)
within three years. You may choose any way that suits you; your earnestness
will determine the rate of progress. Establish yourself firmly in the awareness
of ‘I am’. This is the beginning and also the end of all endeavor”.
[Sri
Nisargadatta Maharaj, in “I am That”, Pg 52]
It is a given that an intense and
sustained effort is required in sadhana.
At the same time, the underlying force behind the earnestness should not create
vrittis in the mind. This quality is called “Yatna” in the Yoga Sutras. Its root lies in “prema” (Love) and “prapatti” (surrender) with respect to
the Guru, as reflected in Faith in His teachings. Based on an unshakeable Trust
in the Guru, the sadhaka simply does
what the Guru has told him (her) to do, as well as he (she) can. In the chatustaya this Faith is covered under the
head “Shraddha”, one of the ‘6
attributes’. Shraddha comes without any accompanying vrittis, because you just have Faith or do
not; or sometimes, it kind of grows on you, but it does that naturally, without
effort.
After all, how does an aspirant know what is the Self, or what is Liberation to be able to desire It? The basic ‘desire’, if I can call it that, is actually ‘to-be-happy’ always, and we have heard or read that the Self or Liberation will give us that. To-be-happy is an integral and unconscious ‘need’ in each one of us, much like that of breathing or eating or drinking water. Some people will consciously go looking for happiness, and again, make the grievous mistake of creating vrittis from this ‘conscious’ desire in the mind, without finding any happiness at all anyway. Because, how does one seek happiness? Look for it in objects of the world? In riches? In knowledge? Ultimately it is found that happiness is really in the state analogous to deep sleep, when there are no thoughts in the mind, i.e. when there are no vrittis in the mind, in effect, no mind at all. The very desire for happiness if consciously sustained, will thus create obstacles for the manifestation of that happiness. Happiness therefore can never be sought. It comes as a by-product, of doing what the Guru has told us to do.
After all, how does an aspirant know what is the Self, or what is Liberation to be able to desire It? The basic ‘desire’, if I can call it that, is actually ‘to-be-happy’ always, and we have heard or read that the Self or Liberation will give us that. To-be-happy is an integral and unconscious ‘need’ in each one of us, much like that of breathing or eating or drinking water. Some people will consciously go looking for happiness, and again, make the grievous mistake of creating vrittis from this ‘conscious’ desire in the mind, without finding any happiness at all anyway. Because, how does one seek happiness? Look for it in objects of the world? In riches? In knowledge? Ultimately it is found that happiness is really in the state analogous to deep sleep, when there are no thoughts in the mind, i.e. when there are no vrittis in the mind, in effect, no mind at all. The very desire for happiness if consciously sustained, will thus create obstacles for the manifestation of that happiness. Happiness therefore can never be sought. It comes as a by-product, of doing what the Guru has told us to do.
Ditto for Liberation.
To summarize then, the primary instruction
from the Guru is – to earnestly carry out the practice as taught by Him, i.e. to
do meditation or bhakti, period.
Every instruction comes after that. To desire the Self or Liberation is thus an
auxiliary instruction, given at the beginning, for when the aspirant still needs
a selfish (!) motivation to keep firing. And there is available a much more
powerful spur to build up that earnestness in sadhana - faith, love and surrender to the Guru.
[Folks, let me also clarify a point which
has been bothering me a bit since the beginning of this post. I hope it is
clear that it is NOT being stated that the person who nurtures a desire
for Liberation is necessarily at a beginner level, or less mature, than a person
who has no such desire as a part of his (her)
sadhana. Not in the slightest. In fact, the former could be
far ‘ahead’ of the latter. The debate is centred on who the instruction ‘to
desire the Self or Liberation’ is appropriate for, which is the beginner, and
whether this desire is of critical importance for Vichara or not. An advanced sadhaka
may still be nurturing an intense desire for Mukti, even though he (she) does not need it now. And the point is,
even this advanced sadhaka would find
that Vichara becomes substantially easier,
if he (she) were to drop this desire too, as then there would be less vrittis in the mind to deal with.
And so, folks, the rather grand opening
para wherein yours truly loudly claimed no desire for the Self or Mukti, does not imply any particular
maturity at all for me, as far as ‘sadhaka-hood’
is concerned!]
Apologies folks, think I should pause here. Section II on Bhagavan's teachings on this issue will follow soon. In the post above, some quotes from “Talks” were mentioned. Though part of Section II, just
these 2 are duplicated here so as to provide ease of reference.
[Talk No. 192,
page 164; the relevant lines are underlined by me]
Maharshi explained in the course of conversation: Whoever desires
liberation? Everyone wants only happiness - happiness too as found in the
enjoyment of the senses. This question was asked of a Guru, and the latter
answered: “Quite so. That happiness which is the result of enjoyment by the
senses is the same as that of liberation. That desire of such liberation is one
of the four qualifications for attainment. This is common to all. So all are
eligible for this knowledge - Self-knowledge.”
In fact there may not be found any individual in the world who possesses
all the qualities in perfection necessary for an aspirant as mentioned in Yoga Sutras,
etc. Still pursuit of Self-knowledge should not be abandoned. Everyone is the
Self by his own experience. Still he is not aware, he identifies the Self with
the body and feels miserable. This is the greatest of all mysteries. One is the
Self. Why not abide as the Self and be done with miseries? In the beginning one
has to be told that he is not the body, because he thinks that he is the body
only. Whereas he is the body and all else. The body is only a part. Let him
know it finally. He must first discern consciousness from insentience and be
the consciousness only. Later let him realise that insentience is not apart
from consciousness. This is discrimination (viveka). The initial discrimination must persist to
the end. Its fruit is liberation.
[Talk No. 502; Page 500]
D.: A sloka is quoted which means: “I do not desire kingdoms, etc. Only let
me serve Thee for ever and there lies my highest pleasure.” Is that right?
M.: Yes. There is room for kama (desire) so long as there
is an object apart from the subject (i.e., duality). There can be no desire if there is no object. The state of
no-desire is moksha. There is no duality in
sleep and also no desire. Whereas there is duality in the waking state and
desire also is there. Because of duality a desire arises for the acquisition of
the object. That is the outgoing mind, which is the basis of duality and of
desire. If one knows that Bliss is none other than the Self the mind becomes
inward turned. If the Self is gained all the desires are fulfilled. That is the
apta kamah atma kamah
akamascha (fulfilment
of desire) of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. That is moksha.
[To be continued …]
43 comments:
Arvind,
Happily the beginner does not have to contend with any of these things.
"Do you know my attitude? As for myself, I eat, drink, and live happily. The rest the Divine
Mother knows"-The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.
Appreciation of issues or perspectives seems to be for the 'advanced Sadhaka' only.
Namaskar.
Arvind,
For me,Viveka is the good sense that tells us that there is no lasting good in the world,Vairagya is to followup this god sense in action and remain unattached to the world proces and Mumukshutva is the appreciation and compulsion that coexists with the other two-and this means to be free from the clutch of the ego or the limited 'I' sense.This is self motivation-if one may say so and does not depend on any Trigger from outside to sustain it or fuel it.
Also coexisting is something which is all the time the core of what we are-the anubhava of this,is Bhakti or Jnana.
I do not view these things as a multistage Rocket to be jettisoned on the way.These are things that are ever intensified and mutually strengthen each other until the screen of maya is unveiled revealing the Fullness or wholeness-Poorna Brahman.
Namaskar.
Hi Ravi, thanks so much for dropping by.
"Do you know my attitude? As for myself, I eat, drink, and live happily. The rest the Divine Mother knows."
Arrey bhai, that was said by Sri Ramakrishna when talking to Keshub for himself, the Great Sage! He is, after all, the perfect “prema” and “prapatti” example. This is NOT applicable for the beginner. If a beginner were to follow this, he would eat, drink and sleep, and that is all that would happen!
My humble belief: the state of ‘no-sadhana’ can come only after the most intense ‘sadhana’. Always. If somebody is seen to be a great sadhaka without apparent effort, then the sadhana has been done in a previous life.
Best wishes & Namaskar
Arvind,
"Arrey bhai, that was said by Sri Ramakrishna when talking to Keshub for himself, the Great Sage! He is, after all, the perfect “prema” and “prapatti” example. This is NOT applicable for the beginner".
Reminded of this verse of Mahakavi Bharati:
A Spark of Fire - அக்னிக் குஞ்சொன்று
அக்னிக் குஞ்சொன்று கண்டேன்
அதை அங்கோர் காட்டிலோர் பொந்திடை வைத்தேன்
வெந்து தணிந்தது காடு
தழல் வீரத்தில் குஞ்சென்றும் மூப்பென்றுமுண்டோ!
Agnik kunjondru kandane
adhai angOr kAttilOr
Bondhidai vaiththane
Vendhu thanindhadhu kAdu
thazhal veeraththil kunjenRum
MooppenRumunDO!
A spark of fire did I espy
Yonder In a forest,in a niche-I placed that;
Burnt to a cinder-the forest.
In its fiery rage, is there
such a thing like a fledgeling and a Grownup?
Kunju refers to a fledgeling and Agnik Kunju means a spark-a beginner so to say.We may recall Kunju Swami who came to Sri Bhagavan when he was quite young.The word 'kunju' means the same here.
Namaskar.
Arvind/Friends,
An excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
Sri Ramakrishna spoke to the young brahmin.
MASTER: "Give up knowledge and reasoning; accept bhakti. Bhakti alone is the essence.
Is this the third day of your stay here?"
BRAHMIN (with folded hands): "Yes, sir."
MASTER: "Have faith. Depend on God. Then you will not have to do anything yourself.
Mother Kali will do everything for you.
Jnana goes as far as the outer court, but bhakti can enter the inner court."
Namaskar.
Arvind/Ravi (& Others):
a refreshingly interesting post :D
bhAratiyAr's lines quoted here seem more to highlight the unity of essence, be it a 'tiny spark' or a 'raging inferno', rather than their difference in scale; obviously, it'd be inane to equate the same, for a spark is welcome in every home while an inferno isn't!!! just as it's the same self, be it bhagavAn or anybody else but if that's construed to imply the equality in operational terms between the two, one resorts to it under one's own peril, perhaps misleading others besides! :-) so long as one hasn't 'experienced' that samatvam (no amount of reading can lead one to it!), the distinctions are to be preserved as well as observed in the same way as bhagavAn emphasises time & again the truth of the self and nothing but the self, and yet clearly cautions a disciple from ever employing the same towards one's guru!
but for mathematical truths, almost everything else is preferably not comprehended in its absolute sense, for the interpretations are more or less always conditioned by the contexts in which they arise & fall! thAkur's words are no doubt beautiful but it's most likely for them to have been relevant to the gentleman who asked it and not extendible to all & sundry. the same master who tells sweetly to have faith, as we know, also was a serious task-master who didn't leave any stone unturned to make nearly all his closest disciples do some seriously back-breaking tapas (including svAmiji) :-)! surely, he wasn't contradicting himself because he must have known not only what's appropriate for each student but also how much each of them was capable of putting those received instructions into practise :-).
last but not the least, ravi's comments don't appear much relevant as such to the topic at hand(!), i.e., though sensible in a general way, yet they seem off-key in the present context! :-) bhakti is not even an issue here; the issue is whether in the paths primarily based on meditation, jnAna & yoga mArgAs, retaining & nurturing the 'desire for the self' is more of a fetter that subtly entangles the seeker, a bondage which in due course more enslaves than liberates, which though disguised as an aid transforms itself to an angst...
s/Friends,
Here is the excerpt from the concluding part of the article:
"Conclusion
To summarize then, the primary instruction from the Guru is – to earnestly carry out the practice as taught by Him, i.e. to do meditation or bhakti, period. Every instruction comes after that. To desire the Self or Liberation is thus an auxiliary instruction, given at the beginning, for when the aspirant still needs a selfish (!) motivation to keep firing. And there is available a much more powerful spur to build up that earnestness in sadhana - faith, love and surrender to the Guru."
All that I have said is the same!Just go through my posts from this perspective.I have also added that Mumukshutva is not to be seen as different from this but as a part and parcel of this.The Mumukshutva is desire of Freedom from Bondage of the constricting Ego and it is something fundamental-not auxiliary as is made out.It is not a desire in the usual sense of the term, a Fancy after an imagined Self or imagined sense of Liberation-that one goes after with gusto and then gets tired of and gives up later on.
Bhakti is the True motivation,if at all it may be called so-as it is related to the 'I' sense-its deep desire to dissolve itself in its own essence or Being;Mumukshutva is part and parcel of it.
The Basic thing is that it loses all its restlessness and turbulence as it gains in Depth.It may no longer then be called a Desire.It now is more akin to Will and Love.
It is somewhere here that one may reasonably call oneself a 'Beginner'-all things prior to this is a sort of 'Hobby' only.It is only now that one gets prepared to enter the 'inner court' as sri Ramakrishna puts it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------The Other arguement we encounter whenever we quote is -"Well the 'Master' can say so,Can we say so?Is it applicable to us?"
Or "It is meant for that Particular person.It should not be taken verbatim as something universal"
This is the surest way of closing the door on ourselves.It is not as if any of these sayings are watertight compartments that shut out other aspects of truth;nor is one blind to the need of Intensity of the seeking when the emphasis is on Faith in the Divine working.
Intense Bhakti and Calm Trust can coexist.In fact without the calmness the Intensity will run out of steam sooner or later!Hence the use of the word mix-'Shraddha -Bhakti'
The Spark refers to the spark of Divine inspiration-this is not a Proprietary thing that only a Sri Ramakrishna or Sri Bhagavan can own it!It is not at all necessary that we ape them-it is enough if we discover this spark within us and let it do the work and mould us in whatever way it wills-Each one of us is unique and it is enough to pass off as what we are-only we need to discover and live this essence in us.
The Bharatiyar's song drives home this point only-not to undermine this tiny spark and its potency to burn the pile of our Karmic baggage to cinders.It is not meant to affirm-'I am equal to Sri Ramakrishna' or 'I am no Less':-)
Namaskar.
Ravi, folks,
Apologies for a late response, had some stuff to do all day.
When we say that the Guru’s instruction to “don’t do anything, just depend on Isvara” is not applicable to the beginner, it is in the sense the beginner will never be able to carry out this instruction. Not that he (she) should not try doing it.
It is like giving a PhD level maths equation to a school kid to solve. In the end, the kid gets so frustrated that neither the equation is solved, nor is anything learned or done. The kid then is wasting his (her) time with the problem. So, once the kid is given the problem and he (she) understands what is needed, the kid starts learning algebra first, and other basics, and doing other exercises. And then the kid, after a few years, will easily solve the problem. But if the kid just sits back and keeps telling everyone that he (she) is solving the problem, whereas he (she) is not bothering to learn basic algebra, he (she) will never solve the problem in this lifetime.
Of course, sometimes, the kid may actually be a Srinivasa Ramanujan, who will instantly solve the problem, then and there. But we know that most of us are not in that category!
Best wishes
Hi S.,
Thanks so much, it is “refreshing” to have you commenting too!
“retaining & nurturing the 'desire for the self' is more of a fetter that subtly entangles the seeker, a bondage which in due course more enslaves than liberates, which though disguised as an aid transforms itself to an angst...”
Nicely put!
A dear friend once told me: If we cannot do sadhana even, in the “nishkama karma” sense (i.e. without aiming for the fruits), how will we ever do the day to day activities as an instrument only, without looking to the fruits? So to do sadhana desiring the result, is the pinnacle of “Sakama karma” (doing action in the expectation of fruits).
Best wishes
Arvind,
Thanks for your response.
"When we say that the Guru’s instruction to “don’t do anything, just depend on Isvara”.
No Guru says that:-)
They only ask us to get rid of this 'doership'.When they say 'Have Faith.Depend on God. Then you will not have to do anything yourself.Mother Kali will do everything'-it means just this.
Namaskar.
Ravi,
Thanks for your comments and the quote on mumukshutva from the Kanchi Paramacharya. As a Mathadish and a great Guru of the masses, do you think he would at a public lecture ever say “Do not have any desire for God or Mukti?” Most of the crowd would wonder what are they are doing there in the first place. The lay person associates action with desire. In the World, for anything at all, first you desire, then you seek to fulfil that desire. It is a simple equation. The same equation was adapted by Sri Sankara to get the masses to take to spirituality, and he used it to propagate Sanatana Dharma in the land when it was massively into Jainism & Buddhism. Though it pains me immensely to say so, for upholding bald doctrine, and a rather narrow view of the Dharma Sastras, the Paramacharya could even issue an edict that no one should visit Sri Ramanasramam and meet Sri Bhagavan. The very Embodiment of all that the Kanchi Math stood for! [Later articles did a good job of papering over all of that; sometimes my father opens up and talks about the real situation].
Sri Bhagavan being an “ati-ashrami”, and not bothered with the propagation of doctrine, could say ‘no desire for Liberation is also needed’, and did.
Like I said, Advaita is the father of mumukshutva. I could quote you many more interpretations of mumukshutva from both sides of the fence. But my article above is all about subtleties in the instruction. If you choose to barge into mumukshutva and pick up just what you see in front, and run with it, you need to pick it up and run with it!
Best wishes
Hi Ravi,
Yes, I have read this lot of talks of the Paramacharya. I always thought Ra Ganapati collected them over the years from various “pravachans” of the Paramacharya. But I could be wrong. Sorry about that. And I have read the big red book of lectures (public) on Saundaryalahiri, a couple of times actually; it is easily the greatest work on that difficult text that one can hope to find. Then we have at home a collection of souvenirs and commemorative releases from the 1970’s onwards, which contain many “talks” of the Paramacharya. Some of them are duplicated in Ra Ganapati’s work, but not all.
There is no need to shy away from talking about facts with respect to the Paramacharya’s edict on Sri Bhagavan. Given that my father is a “dikshit” disciple of the Sankaracharyas from the 1970’s, (and not merely because of his public stature as a Great Sage), I have the highest possible respect for him. But that respect does not mean that I will agree with him every time, or try to rationalize every act he did. And which holds for every Great Sage from recent times to the ancient, except for Sri Bhagavan. There is no need to exactly agree with what every Sage has said over the years. Disagreement on some details of doctrine here and there does not imply that respect is lacking. I do not agree in fact, with some interpretations of Sri Sankara himself in the commentaries, despite being an avowed Advaitist.
Well Ravi, we have established you have an intense desire for the Self and Liberation. I would be grateful if you would also share what it has led you to do. What has this ‘desire’ prompted you to do by way of sadhana? What is the advantage in having it? Maybe I can pick up some pointers from you then, and adjust my own spiritual discipline accordingly. Thanks in advance …
Best wishes
Hi Ravi,
“If we consider ourselves as Sri Bhagavan's devotees,how is it that we do not share his viewpoint-that there is no Real difference between 'here' and 'there'?(Paraphrased-ravi)”
The Guru is Isvara and the Self, “Isvaroguruatmeti”. Bhagavan is saying that the Paramacharya and Himself are both the Self only. The same Self is ‘here’ as is ‘there’. Hence there is no difference. In the worldly sense, obviously there is the difference between the an “Ati-ashrami” and one who is a “Mathadish”. He is not saying that what the Paramacharya does and upholds, is exactly the same as what He does and upholds. For eg. There is the stark difference in the viewpoint with respect to widows between the two.
Every Gurus teachings will be slightly different from another ones. This is needed as the sishyas have differing temperaments also. But in each case, the teacher is the Self alone. Thus what is 'here' is 'there' too.
Best wishes
Ravi, definitely there is difference in the Pontiffs treatment and Maharshis towards widows. Even a great devotee like Nagamma was not permitted even to see the Pontiff. Is this the greatness of Hindu dharma that the ones most needing spiritual comfort are thrown out of even the presence of its spiritual head? So many widows came to Bhagavan and were met with kindness and succor. They could sit at his feet and learn spirituality from him. Instead of teaching them the Pontiff would not even allow them to meet to bless them? How is this upholding Dharma?
Suri Naggama in Letters from Ramanasramam: No. 26 (copy-pasted)
One day Kalluri Veerabhadra Sastri, a reputed Sanskrit
scholar and a capable exponent of sanatana dharma came to
see Bhagavan. As he had given discourses on Bhagavad Gita
for several months at my brother’s place in Madras, I knew
him well. On renewing our acquaintance, he asked me if I
had the darshan of Kamakoti Swami. As a matter of fact I had
no desire to see anybody else except Bhagavan. Even so I did
not like to mention that to him and so said casually, “Is it not a
fact that the Swami does not see people like me, i.e., brahmin
widows who have not removed the hair on their heads.” “Yes.
That is so, but you could see him from a distance during a
public meeting,” he said. I replied, “It is useful for sadhana if
one could go near and talk to elders like that but what use
could there be by merely seeing them from a distance?” He
agreed with me in that.
Later on, one morning I learnt that the Swami had started
for giripradakshina (circumambulating the hill) and that he would
pass by the Ashram as it was on the way. There was speculation
amongst the devotees whether he would step into the Ashram
or not. I did not like to get involved in those discussions and so
went and sat before Bhagavan.
At about 9 a.m. it was reported that the Swami was
nearing the Ashram, so all of them went out and waited at
the Ashram gate. Bhagavan and myself were the only people
that remained behind. Bhagavan asked me why I had not
gone along with them. I replied saying that since the Swami
did not see people like me (i.e., brahmin widows with hair on
their heads) I did not wish to create any embarrassment to
him or to those around him. Bhagavan nodded his head in
approval and with a look of compassion towards me remained
silent. A little later, the Swami with his followers stopped at
the Ashram gate for a while looked around and left. The
Ashramites came back and reported about it. That evening
at a public meeting, the Swami spoke at great length saying
that every head of a religious organisation has to observe
established traditions, while one who is an Athyasramite has
no such restrictions. An Avadhuta is such an Athyasramite and
to attain that state is very difficult, and that had been possible
only for a great soul like Ramana Maharshi.
Four or five days later Raju Sastri and other pandits
well versed in the Vedas and who were coming from town
daily for Veda Parayana before Bhagavan and Mahanyasam in
the Mother’s temple came a little earlier than usual and told
Bhagavan that they had been served orders from the Swami
prohibiting them from doing Mahanyasa Puja in Mother’s
temple saying, “Sannyasa for women is not permissible, that
the Mother’s Samadhi and the linga erected over it is against
the sastras, and so Mahanyasa Puja in the temple should not
be performed.”
Thereupon Bhagavan said, “In Ramana Gita,
in reply to a question Visalakshmamma asked me through
Nayana, I have already given a suitable reply to this question,
namely, for those women who become parivrajakas through
the practice of jnana there is no prohibition either for sannyasa
or for samadhi. What more is there to be said now?” They
however enquired, “What reply should we give to that
Swami?” “Why are you concerned about all such arguments
and counter-arguments? So long as he is the head of that
peetam he must observe and practise the rules and regulations
of that peetam. He has therefore sent his prohibitory orders,
in the usual course. It is better we quietly continue our work.
Whoever amongst you want to come, may come; others may
keep away. Why raise all sorts of doubts?” said Bhagavan.
They were fully convinced of what Bhagavan had said
and continued to perform Veda Parayana and Mahanyasa Puja
as before. I give hereunder Visalakshmamma’s question and
the explanation contained in the Ramana Gita, XIII Chapter:
If obstacles confront women that abide in the Self, does
the sastras sanction their renouncing the home and
becoming ascetics?
Sloka 5
If a woman, liberated while alive, happens to shed her
body, what is the proper thing to do, cremation or burial?
Sloka 6
Bhagavan, the great Sage, Knower of the import of all the
Scriptures, listened to the two questions and gave his decision:
Sloka 7
Since there is no such prohibition in the sastras, there is
nothing wrong in women abiding in the Self and fully
ripe becoming ascetics.
Sloka 8
As in mukti and jnana there is no difference between man
and woman, the body of a woman liberated during life is
not to be cremated, for it is a temple.
Sloka 9
Whatever evils are said to follow the cremation of the body
of a man liberated during life will follow even when the
body of a woman liberated during life is cremated.
Ravi, you can also see that the Pontiff differed with Bhagavan that women cannot be sanyasis. They cannot be self-realized. A Samadhi with a lingam cannot be made for them.
Ravi:
i could be wrong, perhaps i'm as is most often the case, but it does appear that your liking for the paramAchArya (& others in the orbit of your 'like') makes you turn a nelson's eye on slips that may be apparent to quite a few! kindly don't think i'm trying to point any faults (i do shudder on the many that afflict me, everyday). well, this sort-of gets amplified by your continual efforts to justify them someway & somehow howsoever & whatsoever :-). at times it also appears, again perhaps my mistake, you are preaching more & clarifying less, proselytising more & elucidating less :-(. i've felt, within me, the same hollowness in the past whenever i'd got to notice, or was pointed to by some good samaritan, some kind of a tendency to have the 'last word', and don't know why (i may be in error) a few of your comments remind me of that feeling (it wasn't like this before)...
Folks,
An "addendum" is just added to the post above on mumukshutva as envisaged by the Kanchi Paramacharya.
Thanks for the comments Anonymous, S. and Ravi. I have been trying to finish Part II on Bhagavan's teachings actually, and gotten busy there. Should be up in a day or two.
Best wishes
Arvind,
I find that your time is getting consumed by my references to Kanchi Mahaswami's talks on Mumukshutva.Please ignore my posts if they have not been helpful-and do carry on with what primarily interests you and your work with the followup post.
Wishing you the very Best.
Namaskar.
Arvind/Friends,
I have removed some of the posts.Please do not take it amiss :-)
Namaskar.
Ravi,
Arrey bhai, there was no time issue whatsoever. I would happily spend hours in doing up a response to any point raised here, if so needed. Anyway none of the responses here took time away from working on the 2nd post.
Well, I hope you were not upset at my responses and the “addendum”. If you were, then I sincerely apologize for that.
Best wishes
Folks,
The “addendum” is meaningless now that the comments have all disappeared. Accordingly, I shall take it down. I dunno if other than Ravi there was interest in the Paramacharya’s views overall on sadhana etc. Well, if someone is interested please put up a comment here and I will reinstate it appropriately.
Best wishes
Friends,
Those curious/interested/serious on Kanchi Mahaswami's talks on Advaita Sadhana(Translated from Volume 6 of 'Deivathin Kural') may download it from here:
http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Advaita-Saadhanaa-Kanchi-Maha-Swamigal%E2%80%99s-Discourses.pdf
Those who know Tamizh may find the first set of 6 volumes in Tamizh.Understand 7th is in progress.Please lookup:
http://mahaperiyavaa.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/deivathin-kural-corrected-version/
Namaskar.
Arvind,
"Well, I hope you were not upset at my responses and the “addendum”. If you were, then I sincerely apologize for that."
No:-)
Just that the "addendum" did not fully represent either the spirit or the content of the Talks.
I have posted the links to the talks for those who wonder what the matter is all about.
Looking forward to your sequel.
Namaskar.
Arvind/Friends,
Just presenting something to ponder about:
Mumukshutva means intense longing for liberation. When this stage is reached, moksha (liberation ) is not one of the mumukshu's desires, it is not even the biggest desire, it is the ONLY desire.
The Nature of this 'desire' is such that it coexists with Sama,Dama,Uparati,Titiksha,Shraddhaand Samadhana.
Namaskar.
Friends,
An Excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
NARENDRA: "I went to my study at my grandmother's. As I tried to read I was seized
with a great fear, as if studying were a terrible thing. My heart struggled within me. I burst
into tears: I never wept so bitterly in my life. I left my books and ran away. I ran along the
streets. My shoes slipped from my feet-I didn't know where. I ran past a haystack and got
hay all over me. I kept on running along the road to Cossipore."
Narendra remained silent a few minutes and then resumed.
NARENDRA: "Since reading the Vivekachudamani I have felt very much depressed. In it
Sankaracharya says that only through great tapasya and good fortune does one acquire
these three things: a human birth, the desire for liberation, and refuge with a great soul. I
said to myself: 'I have surely gained all these three. As a result of great tapasya I have been
born a human being; through great tapasya, again, I have the desire for liberation; and
through great tapasya I have secured the companionship of such a great soul.' "
M: "Ah!"
His intense dispassion
NARENDRA: "I have no more taste for the world. I do not relish the company of those
who live in the world-of course, with the exception of one or two devotees."
Narendra became silent again. A fire of intense renunciation was burning within him. His
soul was restless for the vision of God. He resumed the conversation.
NARENDRA (to M.): "You have found peace, but my soul is restless. You are blessed
indeed."
M. did not reply, but sat in silence. He said to himself, "Sri Ramakrishna said that one must
pant and pine for God; only then may one have the vision of Him."
Immediately after dusk M. went upstairs. He found Sri Ramakrishna asleep.
It was about nine o'clock in the evening. Niranjan and Sashi were sitting near the Master.
He was awake. Every now and then he talked of Narendra.
MASTER: "How wonderful Narendra's state of mind is! You see, this very Narendra did
not believe in the forms of God. And now you see how his soul is panting for God! You
know that story of the man who asked his guru how God could be realized. The guru said to
him: 'Come with me. I shall show you how one can realize God.' Saying this, he took the
disciple to a lake and held his head under the water. After a short time he released the
disciple and asked him, 'How did you feel?' 'I was dying for a breath of air!' said the
disciple.
"When the soul longs and yearns for God like that, then you will know that you do not have
long to wait for His vision. The rosy colour on the eastern horizon shows that the sun will
soon rise."
Namaskar.
Friends,
"அன்னியத்தை நாடாதிருத்தல் வைராக்கியம் அல்லது நிராசை;தன்னை விடாதிருத்தல் ஞானம்.உண்மையிலிரண்டு மொன்றே.
Not seeking the External is vairagya;Not deserting the Self is Jnana.In Truth both are one".
-Sri Bhagavan in 'nAn yAr'
Namaskar.
I had just returned from a several-week-long trip to the US. I am still jet-lagged and woke up this morning at 3 a.m. I gave up on the idea of sleeping and decided to catch up on some reading. This article caught my attention. Thanks for writing it. It is well researched and well documented. Before I comment on the main thesis, can I ask you how you interpret this conversation from Sat Darshana Bhashya:
D. - You said that the Atman is ‘immutable, self-effulgent, etc. But if you speak at the same time of the incessant flash of I-consciousness, of this ‘Aham sphoorti’ does that not imply movement, which cannot be complete realisation, in which there is no movement?
M. - What do you mean by complete realisation? Does it mean becoming a stone, an inert mass? The Aham vritti is different from Aham Sphoorti. The former is the activity of the ego, and is bound to lose itself and make way for the latter which is an eternal expression of the Self. In Vedantic parlance this Aham Sphoorti is called Vritti Sphoorti. Realisation or Jnana is always a Vritti. There is a distinction between Vritti Jnana or Realisation and Swaroopa the Real. Swaroopa is Jnana itself, it is Consciousness.
Swaroopa is Sat Chit which is omnipresent. It is always there self-attained. When you realise it, the realisation is called Vritti Jnana. It is only with reference to your existence, that you talk of realisation or Jnana. Therefore, when we talk of Jnana, we always mean Vritti Jnana an not Swaroopa Jnana; for Swaroopa itself is Jnana (Consciousness) always.
___________
Since you explained vritti as a kind of swirl or eddy that obscures the Self, what do you think Bhagavan is talking about here when he states that 'Realisation or Jnana is always a Vritti'?
My own feeling is that, since he knew he was speaking to devotees who believed (as Kapali Sastri and Ganapati Mini did) that individuality and the mind survived in the state of liberation, he abandoned his usual position that swarupa was a vritti-free state and appeared to agree with them on this point. Why? I have no idea.
What do you make of this passage?
Hi David,
Thanks so much for the kind and gracious words. Good to have you back in India!
I did describe a vritti as a sort of swirl or eddy in the mind that obscures the Self; the imagery being that of a pond with waves and ripples in it, obscuring the bottom. If the ripples were allowed to subside, i.e. thoughts done away with, the purified mind would subside letting the substratum, the Self shine forth.
However, vritti is used in a slightly different manner in the theories of Perception. Therein, it is revelatory in an empirical sense (tho’ being obscurative of the Self), in that it reveals an object to the witnessing mind. The mind goes out to the object through the sense organs, takes-on the shape of that object, and then presents it to the Saksin (the Witness). The “nescience” that envelops the object, technically called it’s “prior-unknown-ness”, is thus removed by a vritti. “Vritti-Jnana” essentially denotes exactly that. It is the knowledge (jnana) of objects of the world as revealed by the process of perception.
Thus the technical term “Vritti Jnana” in Vedanta, does not mean in the slightest that Jnana, as in Absolute Knowledge, is somehow achieved via vrittis. In the passage from SDB, Sri Kapali Sastri (KS) seems to have somehow completely confused jnana in “Vritti Jnana”, with Jnana as in Self-realization. He seems to treat Jnana taken in the Absolute sense (and Aham Sphoorti), as an object known by a vritti. This is totally at odds with Bhagavan’s teachings (and indeed with Advaita).
“In Vedantic parlance this Aham Sphoorti is called Vritti Jnana”. This is factually incorrect as this is not the position in Advaita Vedanta, nor in Bhagavan’s teachings (it is not even the position in any of the Dualistic schools I believe, tho’ my knowledge of their doctrines is not so good). “Realization or Jnana is always a Vritti”. Absurd. Again, jnana can be a vritti in the sense of the knowledge of the objects of the world; and NOT when Jnana is taken as Absolute Knowledge. “There is a distinction between Vritti Jnana or Realisation and Swaroopa the Real”. Again, there is an incomprehensible element within this statement equating “Vritti Jnana” with “Realisation”. The statement should perhaps simply read, “There is a distinction between Vritti Jnana and Swaroop the Real”.
I do not believe in the slightest that Bhagavan would have made these statements.
Like you David, I find the passage quoted as puzzling, in that I would normally expect such an enormously learned person as KS to be pretty familiar with Vedantic terms. (I can dig up many references to define “Vritti Jnana” if needed, to confirm that the term refers to just empirical knowledge). I believe that this is a problem only with KS’s interpretation, because such an extraordinary version as this, with respect to Jnana, Aham sphoorti, vritti etc., appears only in these talks recorded at the beginning of SDB. Everywhere else, Bhagavan has stated His position quite clearly, as in this “Talk” from “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi”.
[cont ...]
Talk 307.
Mr. Shamanna from Mysore asked Sri Bhagavan: Kindly explain Aham Sphurana (the light of ‘I-I’).
M.: ‘I’ is not known in sleep. On waking ‘I’ is perceived associated with the body, the world and non-self in general. Such associated ‘I’ is Aham vritti. When Aham represents the Self only it is Aham Sphurana. This is natural to the Jnani and is itself called jnana by jnanis, or bhakti by bhaktas. Though ever present, including in sleep, it is not perceived. It cannot be known in sleep all at once. It must first be realised in the waking state, for it is our true nature underlying all the three states. Efforts must be made only in the jagrat state and the Self realised here and now. It will afterwards be understood and realised to be continuous Self, uninterrupted by jagrat, svapna and sushupti. Thus it is akhandakara vritti (unbroken experience). Vritti is used for lack of a better expression. It should not be understood to be literally a vritti. In that case, vritti will resemble an ‘ocean-like river’, which is absurd. Vritti is of short duration, it is qualified, directed consciousness; or absolute consciousness broken up by cognition of thoughts, senses, etc. Vritti is the function of the mind, whereas the continuous consciousness transcends the mind. This is the natural, primal state of the Jnani or the liberated being. That is unbroken experience. It asserts itself when relative consciousness subsides. Aham vritti (‘I-thought’) is broken, Aham sphurana (the light of ‘I-I’) is unbroken, continuous. After the thoughts subside, the light shines forth.
--------
[Words in bold are marked so by me]
Now I know that KS read out the talks recorded by him to Sri Bhagavan and apparently incorporated His suggestions. I remember reading this in one of your write-ups David, somewhere. I believe that Bhagavan may have (orally) corrected the passage in question also, but perhaps KS was so steeped in Sakta philosophy that, somehow, he just missed the whole concept of jnana and vrittis completely. KS therefore, probably misunderstood even the suggestions and corrections given by Bhagavan, and could not come up with an accurate presentation of what Bhagavan intended to convey. After all, it seems that Bhagavan never went over any manuscript of these talks, wherein He could have Himself made the corrections as needed directly.
Again, the passage remains puzzling. KS was undoubtedly a very learned man, a holy man, and by all accounts, a genuine devotee of Bhagavan’s. Bhagavan also was apparently quite “fond” of him. I therefore hesitate to attribute a deliberate attempt on KS’s part to record the conversation in a manner to further his own beliefs. And since I personally believe that it would be unlikely of Bhagavan to have let such a massive misunderstanding of His teachings to pass, particularly when being recorded by a dear devotee as a direct quote from Him, the foregoing, in my humble opinion, remains the only explanation possible.
But certainly, your view is possible too, David. It could be that Bhagavan simply let the passage be recorded as it was by KS without any changes, for some unknown reasons, even though it went contra to His essential teachings.
Always great to have you sharing your ideas!
Best wishes
Post a Comment