“We should feel the pain of the hungry doggie limping along on the road, the monkey mother who lost her baby, the tree whose branches were savagely lopped-off by the road maintenance crew, the aged lonely beggar-woman sitting by the roadside with not a friend in the world, the newcomer morosely sitting in the hall struggling with Vichara without a clue as to what its all about and being noisy, the grain of rice that was not consumed but lies forlorn on the plate as if saying “I survived storm and drought and locusts over many months to offer myself to you, but you abandoned me just like that …”; and then we may “be Love”...”
These lines are taken from my earlier post “Vidya of Vichara III; ‘Anbu Punume’” put up on 21st Apr 2013. I was trying to give expression to the idea of true compassion, of how we need to “be love”. Then, the compassion or love throbbing within us will, on its own, ensure that we are kind to those in need; and indeed, in the context of this post now, not let us waste even one grain of rice. The implication clearly was that Bhagavan’s great emphasis on not wasting anything at all, of clearing His leaf-plate of even the last morsel of rice when He ate, came from the great natural and inherent compassion (love) of the Jnani Sage; thus setting an example for the disciple to follow.
I received an interesting, anonymous query asking (paraphrased):
Seshadri Swami was a great self-realized sage too. But we read of how he would eat only a little food and scatter most of it all around. He would enter a house or a shop and throw rice grains all around and into the mud. Does that imply that he had no compassion within him like what you describe, since he showed none towards the poor grains of rice? That he wasted precious food in the midst of so many hungry beggar-people in Tiruvannamalai? How would you reconcile the 2 positions, of one Jnani not wasting even one grain of rice, and the other tossing them away casually?
My unknown friend also makes it clear that he/she is rather fed up with the usual responses such questions get, such as: who knows about the behaviour of Jnanis?; the behaviour of a Jnani may not be understood by non-Jnanis; as many Jnanis, that many patterns of behaviour!; focus on your sadhana and do not waste time on understanding why a Jnani does what he does; and so on.
At the outset it may be appreciated that this query on the difference in behaviour with respect to the grains of rice as exemplified by Bhagavan and Seshadri Swami, is in effect a query on the broader question of why 2 Jnanis should show divergent behaviour. Given that Bhagavan has categorically stated that there are no degrees of Self-realization, and that the state of one Jnani is exactly the same as the state of any other Jnani, the query immediately becomes a very complex one. And one which, as a sadhaka like everybody else, I can only hope to rudimentarily answer.
[There may be some out there who may not be willing to accept that Seshadri Swami was Self-realized, and a Jnani. That does not really matter. For the purpose of this post they may take him as being representative of any acceptable, alternate, Self-realized Sage, whose public behaviour was in stark contrast to Bhagavan’s].
The World to a Jnani
For a start we know that it is not possible for a non-Jnani to really understand and appreciate how the world is seen by a Jnani. But we have pointers and clues given to us by Bhagavan, other Gurus, and the sacred texts.
“That which is called ‘I’ (nan) having gone, that which is called ‘Self’ (tan) shines. Sometimes the universe itself does not appear.”
[sayings of Sri Bhagavan recorded by Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai under the heading ‘Sri Ramana Maharshigalin Upadesa Mozhigal’ from the Mountain Path, June 1995, Pg 47; article by Michael James on the text ‘Who am I’].
So again, as ordinary folks, we may not be sure whether a grain of rice was seen to be a grain of rice as such by Bhagavan or Seshadri Swami. But what we may be certain of is that a grain of rice was seen (or not seen) in an identical manner by both. Simplistically put, both “saw” it as Brahman with no distinctions.
Seshadri Swami then, from the Jnani’s view of no differentiation, did not distinguish between the grain of rice and mud, or even the ambient “ether” which held the grain of rice. When he tossed the grains of rice all around, he might as well have been drawing with a white pen (like the type with the white correction fluid) on a white sheet of paper, if you get what I mean. For him then, in the distinction-less, amorphous mass (?) of whatever it is that the Jnani sees and experiences, a blow with his stick to the head of the person kneeling before him in devotion, would be the same as a loving, compassionate caress.
But Bhagavan, despite having exactly the same “view”, would with care and attention, eat the last fragment of a grain of rice from his plate. And exhibit all the characteristic actions of compassion and love as are given in that para from Anbu Punume. In fact, every act of His throughout the day and night was carried out with perfection, laying down a paradigm of the ideal Guru, and an example of preferred behaviour for the would-be seeker.
And thus, one explanation for my unknown friend’s query suggests itself: that Bhagavan was also, specifically, carrying out the role of a great Guru.
The Great Atiashrami Guru
Let me refer to my last post ‘The Guru-shishya relationship’ (11th Feb 2014), and bring in the great atiashrami Guru. The point was made that though Bhagavan Himself denied the role of a Guru in a formal sense, even a rudimentary study of His life and teachings brings out the fact that in effect, He was the exemplar nonpareil of one such. And so, every act of His was perfection itself, an example for others to follow, Supreme Dharma in its own right.
Every atiashrami is in a natural way a Guru, but Seshadri Swami’s role was more of the nature of those Sages who give darshan only, into whose presence devotees may passively come and imbibe blessings; rather than of those who teach a great sadhana, give lots of instruction, and answer many queries. And, as he was not playing the “role” of a Guru, he had no need to be an exemplar of spiritual behaviour, and could behave in the erratic manner that he did.
Ah ! But ...
Folks, admittedly the foregoing explanation goes about half-way only in explaining this difficult issue. It works in this instance where the other Jnani in consideration is Seshadri Swami, who was not in the “role” of a Guru. But my unknown but very persistent friend who initiated the query in the first place will say - what if the second Jnani was a Guru too, one who interacted on an ongoing basis with sadhakas, whilst also displaying “aberrant” behaviour? Certainly, examples may be found of such Gurus.
And if we study the literature on this issue, we find some other explanations, all inadequate. The most common ones are:
- That there are several categories of Jnanis: superior, middling, and inferior, and their actions are in concord with their “level”. But simple logic tells us that this is unsound. And also, more significantly, we have Bhagavan’s categorical statements that there are no differences between Jnanis.
- That prarabdha karma carries on after enlightenment too, that the body is doomed, in a sense, to carry out its pre-ordained acts like an arrow shot from a bow that cannot be pulled back. And thus different Jnanis act differently as per their pre-determined karma playing out. Again, this was brushed aside by Bhagavan:
Sri Bhagavan: “If one says that the sage is free from the accumulated karma of past actions [sanchita] and the karma now being made [agamya] but is subject to the karma that is to be worked out in this life [prarabdha], that is only to satisfy others who ask about it. You should know that just as none of a man’s wives can remain unwidowed on his death, when the doer is gone, none of the three forms of karma can survive.” [From: “Sri Ramana Darsanam”, Pg 106; Also: Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, verse 33].
Actually, the problem lies our erroneously taking the actions of the Jnani in the world as his prarabdha karma playing out. Whereas, the ONLY prarabdha karma in play, in the first place, is ours and ours alone. Or to put it more accurately, the one Jiva’s.
The view from Eka-Jiva (One-Jiva)
It is my humble opinion that the only way to understand Bhagavan’s teachings in significant depth, and even the great truths from scripture, is from the viewpoint of eka-Jiva-vada (“the doctrine of eka-Jiva”). Though a detailed exposition on this topic is beyond the scope of this post, a few preliminary points may be outlined to enable us to tackle the issue at hand.
The basic theory is succinctly laid down by the great Madhusudan Saraswati in his Siddhanta Bindu [Para 76, translation by Sri S. N. Sastri, published by Adi Sankara Advaita Research Centre, Chennai]:
“... Consciousness limited by nescience is the Jiva. This is the main Vedanta theory, known as the theory of a single Jiva (eka Jiva). This itself is called ‘drishtisrishtivada’. In this view the Jiva himself is the material and efficient cause of the universe through his own nescience. All the objects perceived are illusory (like things seen in dream). The delusion that there are many Jivas is only due to there being many bodies. Liberation is attained by the single Jiva on realization of the Self as a result of the perfection of hearing, reflection etc., with the help of the Guru and the scriptures which are all conjured up by him. The statements about Suka and others having attained Liberation are only by way of eulogy…”
We know that Bhagavan held that eka-Jiva is the ultimate truth [actually, though not so easily apparent, the doctrine of eka Jiva runs concomitant with Ajata]. Bhagavan’s detailed analogies comparing the seen world to the dream world are characteristic of the type of arguments put forward in this system. My earlier post (8th Feb 2013) entitled “Just as Dream and Magic…” gave a whole series of quotes by Bhagavan on this theme. And from there I will pick out just one to try and explain the query at hand.
[From: “Mountain Path”, 1969, Pg 89; “Wake Us Up”, by R. Narayana Iyer]
I once asked Sri Bhagavan: “If all that we see is mere illusion, and no more real than a dream, what about the form before us, on the couch talking to us about Truth and Reality?”
He remained silent for a few seconds. I repeated the question. He called for a Tamil book Ozhuvil Odukkam and read out and explained the second verse in it, which said that a Jnani is, to his disciple in jagrat (our state of wakefulness), like a lion in the dream of a mad elephant. The dream lion startles and wakes up the elephant – the lion, the dream and the elephant vanish and what is, remains. Even so the enlightened Guru wakes up the adept disciple to absolute Reality in which there is neither Guru nor sishya.
“Bhagavan, we are still asleep. Wake us up”, I said.
“Who is it that is asleep, and who is it that wants to be woken up. Find that out first, and all doubts will vanish”, said Sri Bhagavan. I was not satisfied. Then Sri Bhagavan said: “Last night you met a number of persons in your dream. Now, how would it look if I were to ask you to go and tell everyone of them, ‘you are not real’, ‘you are not real’, etc. What you say now is similar to that.
In the world seen by Arvind, who is the illusory dream-perceiver arisen in the “sleep” of the one-Jiva (that is nought but Brahman), every individual, object and event is just like an individual, object etc. seen in a dream. Therein, even the great Jnani Guru is just another dream character - albeit one much worshipped and loved by the said Arvind, who recognises Him as an infinitely superior and a very special entity. The Jnani-Guru is Brahman taken form out of Grace, with the sole intention of waking up the Jiva. Like the lion in the dream of an elephant, the Jnani-Guru startles the said Arvind into oblivion, and the Jiva wakes up as Brahman.
The foregoing is especially set in terms centric to “Arvind” because that is how we have to view the unfolding of the eka Jiva logic. To elucidate further, Bhagavan has appeared in Arvind’s dream with specific attributes which would be efficacious in startling Arvind into oblivion and waking up the underlying Jiva. These attributes include those of spontaneous compassion and love which shines out even for a grain of rice, or a hacked up tree, or a limping monkey. What attributes other Gurus have or not have, or even if they are Jnanis in the first place or not, are all peripheral for Arvind. The Lion in Arvind’s dream is Bhagavan and Bhagavan alone.
So folks, for Arvind you all are objects in a dream. But for you, obviously, you are not. Each one who can feel herself/himself as an entity with a throbbing ‘I’ in the Heart, may substitute her/his own name for “Arvind” in the above, and see who is the Lion in their dream. Is it Bhagavan? Or is it Seshadri Swami? Or is it someone else? And then you have to be primarily concerned with the attributes as displayed by that “Lion”. The attributes of others are just like the differing attributes we find amongst the vast multitude of human beings. And comparing one to the other is as fruitless as comparing any one arbitrary person with another. Not that what the other characters do or say is meaningless. The whole scene is carefully crafted by the Lion to “startle”. The “movie” is, in fact, lovingly produced and directed by the Lion, every act and event being thus completely pre-destined.
And so, in Arvind's world, Seshadri Swami is just another character, albeit a much respected and loved one, and as a great Jnani Sage, again infinitely superior to the character Arvind. But his lines and actions too were written out carefully by the Director-Bhagavan for the perceiver-Arvind (like the lines and acts of every other entity). And specifically, perhaps, his act of tossing of rice all about him was written into the screenplay by Bhagavan for Arvind to pause and ponder “why so?”, and thus gain spiritual insights to take one step closer to be “startled” into oblivion, enabling Brahman to shine forth.
In Conclusion
If we were to be asked: why do any 2 ordinary persons behave differently? We would immediately come up with a reply of the type - they have different personalities, or that their intrinsic nature is different. But a Jnani having no personality and being Brahman Itself, is “reduced” to The Identity. All Jnanis thus, by following simple logic, should not exist at all in the world as they should disappear on Self-realization; or else, at least display identical behaviour. But in the world we see that Jnanis not only exist, but behave as differently from each other as do ordinary persons. This is the basic conundrum.
Folks, I believe that it is only from the eka-Jiva viewpoint on the lines as above, can any reasonable explanation for this conundrum be found. Admittedly, eka-Jiva is not a doctrine easily understood, or even palatable to many of us. I struggle too with some of the staggering conclusions that it leads to. But we know how firmly Bhagavan held this view. And for me at least, that gives it legitimacy like that of the highest scripture.
As always, comments are most welcome folks!
