Desire for the Self or Liberation - I

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.

 

‘Desire’ and The Bhagavad Gita

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.

 

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.

 

“Trishna”, literally ‘thirst’, is desire with subtle shades of meanings like ‘the thirst for knowledge’, or the ‘yearning to be loved’, or the ‘yearning to be in one’s own country’; thus a higher sense of desire. This verse uses trishna for desire:
 

            Chapter XIV

          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:

            Chapter XIV

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]

 

The Problem of “Vrittis”

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 Classical Position then

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:

           4.15.    Thus knowing, men of old performed action in the hope of Liberation:

                     Therefore do thou also perform action, as did the ancients in the olden time.

 

The Chatustaya (literally ‘the 4’) Qualities

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.

 

A Key Difference

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):

            Verse 31

     

1. (But, notwithstanding all the aforementioned qualities) of all the things, qualities, materials, instruments bringing about Liberation, Bhakti alone is ‘weighty’.

          [‘Weighty’, from “gariyasi” in line 1, literally ‘heavy’, the sense being – it is the only thing that really matters].

2. [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.]  

          Bhakti is designated as Sva-svarupa-anusandhana, the Practice of Self-enquiry.

 

The second concept:

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!

 

Jnana & Bhakti Paths – some distinctions

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.

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.

Ditto for Liberation.

 

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.

[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 …]




 

Advaita from First Principles (III): The Vivekachudamani Question

“Vivekachudamani”, as we all know, is the important Advaita text written in lovely Sanskrit verses by Sri Sankaracarya. Sri Bhagavan Himself did a free rendering in prose of the work in Tamil. In fact, not only did Bhagavan translate the text, He also composed an introduction to the work and 2 sublime invocatory verses. [Herein the translations are from “Vivekachudamani of Sri Sankaracarya”, by Swami Madhavananda, RK Math].

The text is in the form of a dialogue between the Guru and disciple. Over the course of 580 verses, it covers every aspect of Advaita. We pick up from the point the Guru has been explaining the nature of Maya or Avidya (Ignorance, Nescience):

108. (The Guru says:) Avidya or Maya, called also the Undifferentiated, is the power of the Lord. She is without beginning, is made up of the three gunas and is superior to the effects (as their cause). She is to be inferred by one of clear intellect only from the effects She produces. It is She who brings forth this whole universe.

There are several verses on similar lines, elaborating on the characteristics of Avidya. One point emphasised particularly is – that Avidya is BEGINNINGLESS. This prompts the disciple to come up with this incredibly pertinent query:

192. (The disciple questioned:) Be it through delusion or otherwise that the Supreme Self has come to consider Itself as the Jiva, this superimposition is without beginning, and that which has no beginning cannot be supposed to have an end either.

193.   Therefore the Jivahood of the soul also must have no end, and its transmigration must continue for ever. How then can there be liberation for the soul? Kindly enlighten me on this point, O revered Master.

I call this the “Vivekachudamani” Question, and every believer in Advaita needs to understand the answer to this riddle. Because if a logically robust answer is not possible, then Liberation Itself becomes impossible in the Advaita system.

To all of us who have been reading spiritual texts for some time, the nature of Maya or Avidya described as "beginningless" is almost drilled into us. Every Guru and spiritual writer says the same thing, so much so, we accept it automatically now without a second thought. But we do not realize the enormous implications of the same: if Maya or Avidya is without any beginning, it logically should also be without any end, and thus there should be no scope of removing it ever; and as long as Maya is, It will veil the Self or Brahman; thus all sadhana is wasted, and no liberation is possible for the Jiva.   

I believe that Vivekachudamani is the only text which squarely addresses this seemingly vexed issue, though it is peripherally tackled in other works. Sri Sankara answers the query perfectly, in a few simple verses. But I must confess that for a long time I never really understood the answer, and the deep but simple logic that lay behind the seemingly innocuous explanation. Yes, beginningless Maya can have an end, and that logic can be derived in a simple manner from first principles. 

Advaita from First Principles

First let us examine the nature of Avidya described as being “beginningless”. How can something be without a “beginning”? After all, for every object that we see in the world, we can attribute a beginning for.

Actually, everything that there IS (or not), can only be beginningless. Startling as it may seem, the statement holds true logically, always. Let us examine how:

A thing may be “real”, or “not real”, or both real and unreal [not getting into unnecessary complexities by also taking the “neither” option here]. If something is “real” it would always be real and always existing, now, in the past, and forever. Its existence then would be beginningless. If something is “unreal” then it would never exist, neither now, nor in the past, nor in the future. Thus its non-existence is beginningless. And then either way too, if something is both real and unreal, it necessarily has to be beginningless as well, as each of the constituents are so.

Now something both real and unreal is what Avidya is. It is real because it is seen (the world is seen & experienced) and it is unreal because it disappears in deep sleep (is sublated, the world is not seen and experienced). Thus it is called indeterminable [though a lot of complex arguments also further go into “indeterminability”]. In any event, Avidya therefore is beginningless.

Also, if it were not beginningless it would have a beginning; thus it would then have a cause; so either then we have to say that Brahman is the cause, and thus pollute Brahman with causality; or we say that another entity was the cause of Avidya; then we have to find another entity to be the cause of this entity & we have infinite regress. So Avidya cannot have a cause.

[Why then are you, I, the table in front, or the earth below NOT beginningless? Because we, and all these, are subsumed within Avidya. All the objects/entities of the world are the “effects” of Avidya; these all have Avidya as their “cause”, and thus they necessarily have to have a beginning].

And then, because “beginningless” Avidya is “indeterminable”, it can have an end - because it is both real & unreal at the same time. Of course, if it were real only, then it would exist always, much like the Self. But, because it is also unreal at the same time, and is actually of the nature of an “illusion”, it can revert to its unreal nature, and be as if it never existed. So theoretically, the possibility of its destruction (or reversion to complete non-existence) is always there. And once it is destroyed, it is as if it were totally non-existent and never there, because there is no cause for it; and thus, nothing is there to make it arise again.

[As an aside: How did it first arise? We don’t know and can never know. We are just presented with it. The Scriptures say that when vasana seeds sprout, Avidya arises. But in terms of logic all that can be said is that - when I, as Jiva, have awareness, the world & Avidya is presented to me as an indeterminable & beginningless entity. I have to take it from there].

Hopefully, the foregoing gives a flavour of how simple logical reasoning stands behind the averments made in the great texts.

The Vivekachudamani text itself answers the question thus:

194.   (The Master replied:)  Thou hast rightly questioned, O learned man! Listen therefore attentively: The imagination which has been conjured up by delusion can never be accepted as a fact.

195.  But for delusion there can be no connection of the Self – which is unattached, beyond activity, and formless – with the objective world, as in the case of blueness etc. with reference to the sky.

196.   The Jivahood of the Atman, the Witness, which is beyond qualities and beyond activity, and which is realized within as knowledge and Bliss Absolute – has been superimposed by the delusion of the buddhi, and is not real. And because it is by nature an unreality, it ceases to exist when the delusion is gone.

197.   It exists only so long as the delusion lasts, being caused by indiscrimination due to an illusion. The rope is supposed to be the snake only so long as the mistake lasts, and there is no more a snake when the illusion has vanished. Similar is the case here.

198-199.   Avidya or Nescience and its effects are likewise considered as beginningless. Bit with the rise of Vidya or Realization, the entire effects of Avidya, even though beginningless, are destroyed together with their root – like dreams on waking up from sleep. It is clear that the phenomenal universe, even though without beginning is not eternal – like previous non-existence [“pragabhava”].