Welcome to The Baba Times

Your Window to the World of Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality!

This website is devoted to Philosophy, Religion, Spirituality and Science. We bring in articles on teachings by Great Saints like Sri Shirdi Sai Baba, Adi Shankara, Swami Sivananda, Swami Krishnananda, Aurobindo, Mother of Auroville and others.

LATEST NEWS We are conducting 'Guided Meditation Session' every Saturday at 5.30 PM EST from New York.

This will include discussions on various topics like Upanishads, Philosophy, Spirituality & Meditation through Skype. Please send 'Add Request' to 'DLSNewYork' from your skype account so that you can participate in this Satsang. These sessions are part of Divine Life Society from Rishikesh

Hari Om. The Baba Times Team, Contact thebabatimes@gmail.com

◄◄ First ◄ Previous (84) Next (86) ► Last (105) ►►

The Origin of the Valmiki Ramayana

The Origin of the Valmiki Ramayana by Swami Krishnananda

Created on Monday 10 March 2014 16:56

*READ MORE \* The Origin of the Valmiki Ramayana

Srimad Valmiki Ramayana, which is considered as the Adi Kavya, equivalent to Veda itself, is something whose exposition it is rare to obtain. Vedah prachetasadasit sakshat ramayanatmana is a famous verse which makes out that the whole of the Veda has been expounded in epic language by the Adi Kavi Valmiki in the Ramayana. The power, the force, the literary style, the mellifluous movement of the whole theme of presentation and a subtly permeating undercurrent of immortal power in the whole epic of the Ramayana make it an almost unparalleled scripture in the world.

All Sanskrit literature originated in its form as sahitya from the time of Sage Valmiki himself. There was, as we are told, no versification or presentation of any subject in the form of a sloka before Valmiki for the first time uttered words which became a sloka [verse] though what he expressed to all is a shoka [sorrow]. Manishada pratishtatum samagah sashvatisamah yat krouncha mithunadekam sokam avadhim kama mohitam. This seems to be the first verse ever available to us in Sanskrit literature, originated from the mouth of Valmiki Adi Kavi, who uttered these words not as a kavi but as a person in distress at the sight of a fowler shooting an arrow of death-bringing strength to a male bird, krouncha, [dove] which was with its partner. Valmiki felt deeply grieved. “How cruel you are to bring death to a joyfully seated dove.” A curse was imprecated at once by this great sage, which he spoke in anger. That imprecation, that curse, came in the series of these words: manishada pratishtatum samagah sashvatisamah yat krouncha mithunadekam sokam avadhim kama mohitam. Manishada pratishtatum samagah: O fowler, don’t live for long. That means to say, let this be the end of your life. Why? Yat krouncha mithunadekam sokam avadhim kama mohitam: When the male krouncha was with his partner with joy, you killed him. This is the cruelest of acts that one can deal to one who is most innocent. As you have dealt a deathblow to one of the two doves who was most innocent and not deserving of this harm, I utter this word of immediate annihilation of yourself.

When these words were uttered in a state of anger as a curse to bring death to the fowler instantaneously, Brahma the Creator descended and blessed Valmiki, the sage who uttered these words. “Glory to him who has uttered this first verse of glorification of the great Lord.” Where is the glorification of the great Lord in these words? Valmiki never knew that within the words of curse that he uttered there was a prayer to the Almighty Lord Narayana hiddenly present, unwittingly made present inside in the form of a systematic verse of thirty-two letters. Though the obvious meaning of this verse of thirty-two letters is a curse, it had another meaning altogether which was a glorification of Lakshmi-Narayana. Manishada: O abode of Mahalakshmi, is another meaning of these words. Ma means Lakshmi, nishada is one who is abode. Pratishtatum samagah: May your glory be forever and ever.

This is the meaning of this Sanskrit style. You can juxtapose the words this way or that way. In one way it is a death-bringing curse, and arranged in another way the very same words mean glory to Adinarayana. O abode of Mahalakshmi, may you be glorified forever and ever. Why? Yat krouncha mithunadekam sokam avadhim kama mohitam: Because you have been a conduit for bringing an end to Ravana, who was attached in a sensuous manner to objects. You brought an end to this crude way of living. May you live long. May you live long. May your glory be immortalised, O Narayana, the abode of Lakshmi.

“O, you have uttered these words?” Brahma immediately said, “You have started the glory of Rama, incarnation of Narayana, who came to end this tyranny of Ravana. I ordain you to write the whole epic Ramayana story from now onwards, commencing with this great glorification of Narayana.

There is also a secret behind the Adi Kavya Ramayana, which is for every thousand verses, the first verse commences with one letter of the Gayatri mantra. Tapah svadhyaya nirataam tapasvi vagvidam varam, naradam paripapracha valmikih muni pumgavam is the first verse. ‘Ta’ is the first letter. Tat savitur varenyam is how the Gayatri commences; and the next one thousand verses starts with the next letter of Gayatri. The twenty-four thousand verses of the Valmiki Ramayana have hiddenly, within them, at every thousandth verse, a letter of the Gayatri mantra. These verses are sometimes culled out separately as Gayatri Ramayana, and devotees recite it every day.

Valmiki Ramayana is a wondrous, immortal epic with a wondrous, immortal message. May God bless you!

[Extracted from Swami Krishnananda Maharaj’s discourses Divine Life Society]

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

Devi Mahatmya, Pronunciation of Mantras and Hindu Gods

Devi Mahatmya, Pronunciation of Mantras and Hindu Gods by Swami Krishnananda

Created on Sunday 9 March 2014 19:57

*READ MORE \* Devi Mahatmya, Pronunciation of Mantras and Hindu Gods

Visitor: Should all the slokas and mantras of the Devi Mahatmya be treated as three separate portions.

Swamiji: This was done because they were addressed to Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati. Were the chapters then spoken from different aspects? No. The three deities are the three stages of consciousness – tamas, rajas and sattva – reached in an ascending order.

Visitor: Are the chapters then suitably written to tamas, rajas and sattva?

Swamiji: No, because they are all one. It is our incapacity to see all three as one that brings in the distinction. It is the same one guna that appears as tamas, rajas and sattva.

Visitor: Then the number of slokas in each portion has no meaning as so many mantras? The numbers vary, unlike in the ashtottara and sahasra – namavalis.

Swamiji: There is no significance in the number as such of the slokas. It is all one continuous mantraof prayer to one deity only.

Pronunciation of Mantras

Visitor: Is it a sin if a mantra is mispronounced due to ignorance or physical defect?

Swamiji: Some people become fanatics and think only their mantra works, and only if pronounced correctly. A devotee in Tamil Nadu used to recite Namah Chivaya (instead of Namah Sivaya) with such faith that he was able to walk on water while reciting Nama Chivaya. One day a grammarian taught the devotee to pronounce the mantra correctly as Namah Sivaya. But with the correct pronunciation, the devotee could no longer walk on water. He fell into the water because he was concentrating on the pronunciation of the mantra and had lost faith in his Guru who gave the mantra. There was a sweeper woman who approached her employer, a proud Namboodiri Brahmin of Kerala, for a mantra she could recite. He was angry that she should ask for a mantra, as she was of a low caste. But she persisted. The Namboodiri yelled at her contemptuously “Go and recite Tapala Curry”, meaning frog curry. The woman took it in good faith and went on repeating the phrase with such devotion that she became enlightened. People asked her who her Guru was, and when she told them they went and praised his disciple’s saintliness and how good a Guru he must be. But the Namboodiri had forgotten all about the low caste woman. Now he remembered the incident and felt sorry for himself; for he was still in samsara while she had become enlightened with the ‘frog curry’ mantra! All these parables emphasise the importance of the attitude or bhava in mantra japa. The attitude is much more important than the mere sound of the word.

Hindu Gods

Visitor: Swamiji, someone with a definite purpose of his own, in order to provoke me into an argument, remarked, “Hinduism is nothing but one god fighting with another!” I knew his mind and so refused to say anything. But what is the meaning of these so-called wars between Vishnu and Brahma, for instance, when Lord Siva vanquishes them both and quells their pride? Lord Siva establishes at the same time that He is the Most Supreme! Is it because in such contexts the Manifested God gets accretions of their level which is lower than that of the Supreme Being? The Puranas and the Epics are full of such incidents of war among the Gods.

Swamiji: The subject-object opposition in time and space, the affirmation of the ego as superior to and supreme over everything, causes the clash, no matter at what level. This clash of the positive and the negative, both of which are inherent in everything finite, produces a spark as a higher synthesis and is absorbed in the higher synthesis. But this level of the present higher synthesis is, again, not the highest. It is still only in the process of evolution into the next higher synthesis. Hence this clash and this spark are repeated, and so is the absorption of the spark into the next higher synthesis, from level to level. This clash or ‘war’ between the gods – deities of the different levels – goes on until the last higher synthesis is absorbed into the Absolute. This process of the sparks getting absorbed thus is explained in the Puranas and the Epics as one god warring with another and a third god conquering (absorbing) both within Itself.

[Extracted from Swami Krishnananda Maharaj’s discourses Divine Life Society]

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

A Catechism of Hinduism

A Catechism of Hinduism by Swami Krishnananda

Created on Friday 7 March 2014 19:56

*READ MORE \* A Catechism of Hinduism

Q: When was Hinduism founded?

A: The word ‘Hinduism’ originated due to historical and linguistic circumstances, and refers to what more properly be designated as Bharatiya-dharma, or Sanatana-dharma. There is no personal founder for Hinduism. People who follow the faith or religion which goes by the name of Hinduism hold that the foundation of this outlook of life, or way of living, is eternal, since the way of life is an expression of the basic law operating in the universe. In fact, what popularly is known as Hinduism is a practical and ethical manifestation in day-to-day living of what should be considered as the inviolable law of existence, both in its immutable form known as satya and operating form known as rita. Hence, the name Sanatana (eternal or ever-present) associated with this inclusive ‘attitude to life’.

Q: Where was it founded, and who founded it?

A: Hinduism is not believed to be founded in any place, since it has no founder.

Q: What were the prevailing circumstances when it was founded?

A: While Hinduism has no founder, and therefore no circumstances can be cited in that regard, students of Hinduism and scholars who are accustomed to do research in its field have usually traced some sort of a logical background of the general structure of Hinduism in the panoramic vision of the Supreme Being as recorded in the Veda-Samhitas, which are supposed to find their detailed promulgation in the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads. This, if we would so like, may be cited as the circumstance explaining the fundamentals of Hinduism. The Bhagavadgita is regarded as the quintessential summing up of the general attitude to life as a whole.

Q: What are its basic principles?

A: Briefly, the principles of Hinduism may be stated as follows:

Q: Which are its Scriptures?

A: The principal Scriptures of Hinduism are:

Q: Which are the other important books written on it, and who are their authors?

A: The other important texts associated with Hinduism, apart from the basic canons mentioned above, are:

Q: What is the method of prayer?

A: Within the fold of the Hindu religion, prayer is mainly an inward contemplative submission before the Almighty felt as an immediate presence. But in popular practice, this inward feeling of presence is usually expressed as recitations or chants of mantras or passages from the scriptures, such as the Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas. Prayer is offered either individually by one’s own self in private, or collectively in a congregation, as it may be necessary. It may be verbally articulated or mentally contemplated with feeling.

Q: What are the rituals?

A: Ritual in the Hindu religion is a manifestation through external performances of one’s inward feeling of worship and adoration of the Almighty. The basic rituals consist of:

Q: Give glimpses of the life-sketch of its founder.

A: Hinduism has no founder, but it adores the great personalities mentioned in or associated with its fundamental scriptures mentioned earlier – for example, sages like Vasishtha, Vyasa, Suka, Valmiki, Yajnavalkya and Uddalaka, and all the propounders of the religion of knowledge, devotion and action.

Q: How and in which countries did it spread?

A: Hinduism has its stronghold in India, especially. But it spread outside India in the East and its impact in such countries and lands as Java, Sumatra, Cambodia and the like is well known to history. Today, a large population of Indians dwells outside India, in many different countries of the world. The way it spreads its message outside has been through its teachers, messengers, propounders and actual living participants, who accomplished this task either by travel or by written message, or through both.

Q: Where are its monuments/places of pilgrimage, and what is their importance?

A: The well-known places of pilgrimage by the Hindus are Badarikashrama (Badrinath), Kedarnath, Ayodhya, Mathura, Haridwar or Kankhal, Kasi (Varanasi), Dvaraka, Avanti (Ujjayini), Puri (Jagannath), Pushkar and Manasarovara in North India, and Kanchi (Kanchipuram) , Ramesaram, Madurai, Tirupati, Srirangam, Tiru-Anantapuram (Trivandrum), Palani, Kanyakumari and many other places in the South. There are several other holy places of pilgrimage associated with deities, saints and sages, such as Somanath, Pandharpur, Alandi, etc. and sources of holy rivers, like Gangottari and Yamunottari.

Q: What influence did it have on Indian Culture?

A: It would not be far from truth if it is stated that the foundational outlook of the entire culture of India is universally-oriented, since its policy has always been an accommodating, inclusive, friendly and absorbing spirit in regard to the different calls of life, whether philosophical, religious, social or political. This is the very forte of the Hindu view of life. Its policies of human relation have contributed vigorously not only to the stability of its internal structure in India as a nation, but also to international relationship as a gesture of perpetual harmony as a unit in the comity of the nations of the world.

Q: What are the moral and ethical codes?

A: In India, life has been always regarded as a process of progressive self-transcendence from the realm of matter (annamaaya-jivatva) to the realization of the supreme spiritual bliss (parama-ananda). Human values and ends in life have been classified into the scheme of the fourfold pursuit (purushartha) of existence, viz., the practice of righteousness and goodness (dharma), the effort towards earning the necessary material values (artha), the fulfilment of permissible desires through honest means (kama), and the endeavour for the final salvation of the soul (moksha). This analysis is based on a broad understanding of the different levels of individuals in relation to the Universe. The other aspects of its ethical and moral codes have been touched upon earlier.

Q: Who are the saints and prophets? Give their brief life-sketch.

A: The Hindus adore the well-known Divine Incarnations of Narayana or Vishnu, viz., Rama and Krishna, who are classified among the gods and are not regarded as humans. The great sages and saints who hold a pre-eminent position are Vasishtha, Vyasa, Suka, Dattatreya, Vamadeva, Yajnavalkya and the like; also, the great devotees associated with devotion to the principal gods popularly worshipped, viz., Vishnu, Siva, Ganesa, Devi, Skanda and Surya; included also are the Acharyas referred to above.

Q: What is its relation with modern science and how does it affect modern man?

A: Hinduism, as a religion of an almost universal inclusiveness, takes into consideration the different levels of not only the evolution of life by stages but also the levels of outlook in knowledge and experience. The question of the relation between science and religion arises due to the assumption that the objective of science and the aim of religion are perhaps different, maybe even irreconcilable. But Hinduism, if it gfis to be understood in the true spirit of its internal structure, is fully awake to the levels of perception and knowledge available to the human individual. The epistemological doctrine behind the philosophy of the Hindu religion recognizes the relative value of sense-perception and rational investigation as avenues of knowledge, though it holds that direct intuition of truth is the final test of absolutely valid knowledge. Science comes under the field of sense and reason, and Hinduism accepts the value and utility of the findings through these means of knowledge in practical life, provided they do not contradict the ultimate value of all life, viz., the realisation of the Universal Reality in direct experience.

The manner in which this attitude of the Hindu religion would affect the life of the modern man should, thus, be clear and obvious. That is, the spirit of Hinduism is so accommodating that it does not reject the matter-of-fact value or the practical effectiveness of the findings of modern science. The most interesting outcome of this general outlook of Hinduism is that in its concept of the degrees of reality in the several planes of existence as manifestations through varying levels of density, any degree of reality- such as the relation of scientific findings to human life in general – is part of the total outlook of Hindu philosophy and religion. Thus, one should say that Hinduism as a religion introduces a new spirit of positivity and enthusiasm even into the field of science rather than look upon it as something alien to itself.

Q: What are the recommended duties for man?

A: Man has a duty towards himself as a physical, psychological and spiritual embodiment, as also to the family, the community, the nation and the world at large. Man has a duty to the whole universe of which he is an integral part and from which he can never be separated organically. The primary duty of man is abidance by the law of the universe, which determines the lower relative laws applicable to the lesser levels of life in the world, one’s own country, community, family, and personality.

Q: How does it influence universal brotherhood and tolerance towards other religions?

A: Hinduism should be considered as the great friend of man, in the sense that it has no enemies. In this sense, again, its influence on others is one of a true friend, philosopher and guide. It accepts and holds as valid every faith and every religion in its own field and context and operational jurisdiction, in the light of its origin and circumstances of the place to which it is related and the historical and cultural background of the people in whose midst it arose. It takes things as they are, from their own points of view, and accommodates itself in them, bearing in view the basic fact that all thought and action originating from anywhere is like a river which has to find its destination in a single ocean, the ocean of all-existence.

Q: How is religion related to the practical life of man?

A: Religion is veritably the art and the science and the way of the practical life of man in the world. Hence, no question arises as to the relation between religion and life.

Q: Is religion one of the essential functions in life?

A: Religion is the homage which the finitude of man pays to the Infinitude of existence. Hence, true religion is not a ‘function of life,’ but ‘the whole of life’.

[Extracted from Swami Krishnananda Maharaj’s discourses Divine Life Society]

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

The Importance of the Satarudriya

The Importance of the Satarudriya by Swami Krishnananda

Created on Wednesday 6 March 2014 16:41

*READ MORE \* The Importance of the Satarudriya

(Spoken on Sivaratri in 1980)

We celebrate the day and the night in honour of the great God whose majesty and glory is described in ecstasy, especially in the Rudra Adhyaya, or the Satarudriya, of the Veda. Every Siva temple has this daily programme of worship and abhisheka to the great Lord Siva with the recitation of the famous mantras known as Satarudriya – also known as Rudra Adhyaya – which occur in the Yajur Veda. It may well be said that these wondrous Vedic hymns known as the Satarudriya are a sort of magnum opus of spiritual ecstasy, an insight into whose significance and meaning should make one’s hair stand on end.

It is difficult to fathom the depth of the revelation and the feeling of the sage or the rishi to whom these visions were bequeathed by the Almighty. We have very few passages, prayers, hymns or stotras in religious literature comparable with this mighty Satarudriya, wherein everything that we can conceive of in respect of God humanly is portrayed in the language of spiritual intuition. Often it would appear that man is not supposed to understand its meaning, on account of the comprehensiveness of its approach and the profundity of the revelation that is contained therein.

No one can recite these Satarudriya mantras without having one’s sins cleansed at once from their very roots, if only one would have the leisure and the patience to go into the internal connections and the suggestiveness that is implied in these mantras. It will it is not a prayer to one God or to any particular God. Satarudriya, the name of the hymn, has several meanings: prayer to the hundred thousand Rudras – or to the Rudra appearing in a hundred thousand forms – who is Siva at the same time. Rudra yatte dakshinam mukham tena mam pahi nityam is an oft-quoted prayer. The power of God is also the terror of the human individual, while at the same time it is the most beneficent blessing that can ever be anywhere. Hence it is that the great Lord is often designated as Rudra-Siva, who has perpetually blended in His being the aspects of creation, sustenance and transformation of all things.

Those who recite these Satarudriya mantras in temples many a time chant them as a kind of routine, without bestowing sufficient thought on their implications. Most of our chanting becomes mechanical in the course of time, and we go on chanting mantras, repeating prayers and singing hymns automatically like the movement of the wheels of a vehicle, but the spirit behind the recitation can easily be lost when it becomes an everyday programme rather than a surge of the spirit or the call of the soul during moments of meditation and communion with the Almighty. A very beautiful English translation almost approaching the original in its meaning and suggestiveness has been published by the Sri Ramana Ashram; and there are very good Sanskrit commentaries, right from the one written by the great Sanyacharya, which gives us an insight into the extent to which some minds in ancient times could reach in their search for the reality of life.

One who recites these mantras of the Satarudriya is apt to feel that the person to whom these were revealed, who had this vision, was breaking up into pieces and his personality was scattered in various directions. He was dancing in madness of divine possession. And one who soulfully recites these mantras cannot afford to miss also being possessed by this power of ecstasy where the body, mind and the spirit are brought together in unison and forced to forge onward in the direction of the directionless Absolute.

Very mysteriously and curiously, the mantra Namah Sivaya, which devotees have been chanting today right from morning onwards, occurs in the middle of the Satarudriya mantras of the Veda. Very few of the normally accepted mantras occur in the Veda Samhita, but this occurs in the very middle of the Samhita. Namah sankaraya ca mayaskaraya ca nama sivaya ca sivataraya ca is the passage wherein the mantra Namah Sivaya occurs.

This morning someone asked me, “What is this mantra? What is the rishi? What is the chhandas and what is the devata?” I tried to explain that the mantra is a magazine of force. It is a hidden potency which is charged with a capacity which comes from various factors that go to constitute the importance of the mantra. The mantra does not necessarily mean merely the letters which are juxtaposed to constitute the formula, just as language does not mean merely the letters or the combination of the letters, but a hidden cementing power which gives the suggestion of meaning as latent inbetween the juxtaposition of the letters.

Therefore, the sound symbol which is the mantra is a compound of various elements that lose themselves in a fraternal embrace, as it were, to form a single indivisibility – just as, to give a very mundane example, when we sip a cup of tea, there is not merely the taste of milk, there is not merely the taste of sugar, there is not merely the taste of tea leaves, but there is a blend which is what is called the decoction. Or, to give another example, when we taste a delicious dish, we do not merely taste the salt and the other ingredients that constitute the dish. It is a new element altogether that crops up as a compound. The same is the case with a medical prescription; the components lose their individualities and enter into the formation of a new significance, which is the synthesis of the ingredients. Hence, the beauty of language, the style of expression and the significance of literature are elements that invisibly pervade the visible characters of the alphabet of any language.

Such is the meaning of what is known as the chhandas, or the metre of a mantra. The metre, or the chhandas, is the method of the bringing together of the letters of the mantra, by which they form a totality of energy and no more exist merely as letters; they melt themselves in the menstruum of what is known as the mantra. In the Alankara Sastra, which is a treatise on the rhetoric of the Sanskrit language, descriptions are given of what are known as ganas. This science has been lost in modern times. Gana is the force that is behind every letter and the significance that it conveys when it is placed in a particular position. If a sloka, a verse, a formula or a hymn is to convey the required significance or meaning, a particular letter should come in the beginning, a particular letter should come in the middle, and so on. The mantras are not haphazard chanting; they are scientifically organised systems of sound formation. So much may be said about the meaning of chhandas that is behind the mantras, whether Vaidika or Tantrika.

There is also the rishi, or the author, we may say. We know what role the author’s mind plays in the meaning that is conveyed by a textbook. The mind of the author pervades the entire book of which he is the writer or the formulator. The force of the author’s thought is to be seen throughout the book which he has written, from the first page to the last. When we read a powerful text, we do not see merely the letters. We enter into an ocean of thought-force, which is conveyed through the symbols of the letters which are visible on the pages of the text. Likewise is the role that is played by the great master, or rishi, to whom the mantra is revealed in meditation. We do not say that the mantra is created or written down or invented by a rishi. According to accepted theories, the Vedas are not written-down texts. The author of the Veda is unknown. The belief is that these mantras are eternal sound symbols, perpetually existing in the ether of the cosmos, never getting destroyed even during the time of dissolution. Therefore, there is no such thing as destruction of the Vedas or destruction of the knowledge, as the Vedas are more than just books. The idea is that the subtle, etheric tanmatric symbols of force, which become grossly manifest in the sound symbols audible to the ears, are indestructible. They are ultimately certain patterns of thought which become patterns of external sound symbols, grossening further into letters which are written on a palm leaf or paper, etc.

Finally, the vibration alone exists, and there is no substance. The Veda is not a solid book; it is not a visible substance; it is not a textbook. It is a symbol of the ethereal energy pervading in the form of the potency which can transform itself into certain patterns of expression at given moments of time. Modern science and modern thinkers on the basis of modern science have almost come to the borderland of accepting this great truth which is revealed in the original science of India known as sphota vada, the doctrine of sound. As I mentioned, all these sciences are becoming lost. Bhartrihari wrote a great book, called Vakyapadiya, on ancient Sanskrit grammar, which goes deep into the significance of sphota. Much of it has been mentioned by Acharya Sankara and others in their commentaries on the Brahma Sutras. However, the point is that the mantra is a super-sensible potency and a latency of energy, which is brought into contact with the mind of the meditator.

We are also told that the mantra is revealed to the rishi. Remembering the rishi gives us a blessing from that person. When we recite the mantra, we are supposed to remember the great person to whom it was revealed. For instance, when we refer to The Commentary of the Bhagavadgita by Swami Sivananda, the very name Sivananda thrills us in a particular manner. The great work The Life Divine by Sri Aurobindo immediately rouses our feelings, which is in consonance with Sri Aurobindo. It is the same with Ramana Maharshi. The moment we hear the names of the authors or the persons to whom the mantras were revealed, we are suddenly stirred up into a spiritual mood. So there is a great point in our being asked to remember the rishi when we recite the mantra, chant the formula or the symbol.

I already mentioned the chhandas. The components of the mantra are very important. I mentioned what are known in Sanskrit rhetoric as Gana Shastras. It is very difficult to explain these things. According to the science of Gana Shastra, the letters of the mantra are arranged in a particular manner by the very power of the intuition of the sage. They are not mathematically concocted or invented.

Then, above all these, there is the devata, or the deity of the mantra, who is embodied in the sound of the mantra. Just as the soul is embodied in this physical frame, just as the idea of the artist is embodied in the painted picture, just as the idea or the thought of the architect is seen in the building or the structure raised by him, the will of the deity – the force and the pattern of the form of the deity – is supposed to be visibly expressed in the vibrations that are produced while the mantra is being recited. Experiments have been conducted and it has been found that when a mantra is chanted very intensely and soulfully, it can produce electromagnetic waves in such velocity that they can scatter sand particles that are spread out in front of the chanter, and these sand particles form a pattern equivalent to or at least approximate to what is supposed to be the form of the ishta devata, or the deity, of that mantra.

Therefore, the great mantra Namah Sivaya that we are reciting today, right from morning until the end of the puja tonight, is not a chant in the ordinary sense. No mantra is to be regarded as commonplace; it is sacred. It is not supposed to be chanted with an unclean mouth – after eating something without washing the teeth, etc. We are supposed to recite it in a holy mood, in a spirit of dedication and sanctity of aspiration, as if we are seated in front of God Himself.

The Rudra Adhyaya, to which I referred earlier, will be recited several times during the course of the worship on this auspicious Sivaratri. But many of you will not know what they are chanting. You will hear only some sound, some chant – that is all. It may sound like noise; but it is not noise. It is the pouring forth of the soul as it was revealed to that mastermind, the rishi.

The Rudra Adhyaya is highly purifying. There are two or three occasions in the course of the hymns of the Veda Samhitas when superb ecstasies are recorded. The Purusha Sukta is one such occasion. It occurs almost in every one of the Samhitas – in the Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvaveda – where the incomprehensibility, the all-comprehensiveness and the might of the Almighty is devastatingly described. And I may say that the Satarudriya is even more devastating. It will make us dance in the ecstasy of divine possession if we know what it tells us. Prostration to every blessed thing! Whatever we can see, whatever we can hear, whatever we can touch, and whatever we can think, feel and understand is divine manifestation. God has spread Himself in this variety of the unintelligible creation, which stuns even the highest rationality of the modern mind.

The recitation of a mantra, especially of the type of the Satarudriya, is not merely an ordinary japa in the common sense of the term. It is our moving into the depths of the ocean of that comprehensive outlook which the mantra portrays in front of us.

The Satarudriya consists of two sections, the Namaka and the Chamaka. In the Namaka, which is the preceding portion, namah occurs many times: Prostrations, Prostrations, Prostrations; Salutations, Salutations, Salutations; Surrender, Surrender, Surrender. This prostration is expressed in an infinite way. Then comes the Chamaka: cha me, cha me, cha me. “Everything is to me; everything is to me; everything is mine.” There is nothing which is not ours here. “Everything may come to me.” Everything has to come to us as it has to come to God Himself.

One of the verses of the Bhagavadgita says, apuryamanam achalapratishtham samudram apah pravishanti yadvat tadvat kamayampravishanti sarve sa shantim apnoti na kama kami: “As rivers enter into ocean, everything enters into you.” We should not cry that we are paupers, beggars in this world – as if we have nothing, no friends, and are forlorn and outcaste. Everything is in our possession. Everything has to come to us when our will is expressed. At the affirmation of a single thought it has to materialise itself, provided – a tremendous provision indeed, of course – provided that our thought is in unison with the Almighty’s will. So, everything shall come to us. If everything shall go to God, why should it not come to us? We are amritasaya putrah, children of the Immortal. We are heir-apparent to the resources, the reservoir of the riches of the Almighty Himself.

Thus, the Chamaka portion invokes everything into ourselves in a divine insight into the all-comprehensiveness of God. We first of all surrender ourselves and become the very substance of God’s Being Itself, and then everything enters into us as rivers rush into the ocean. Wondrous! Many a time I become indescribably thrilled even when thinking of these Satarudriya mantras.

And so, on this auspicious occasion, may I request you all to bestow some thought upon these great legacies left to us by our ancestors of yore, the treasures which we are likely to overlook in the humdrum activities of modern comforts and distractions. The Veda Samhitas are reservoirs of all-force, all-power and all-meaning.

As I mentioned, there are a few occasions when such ecstasies are revealed in the Veda Mantras. One is Purusha Sukta; and another is the Satarudriya, which occurs in the Taittiriya Samhita of the Yajurveda and also in the Sukla Yajurveda. Another place where such majestic expressions can be found in the Vedas is a sukta in the earlier portions of the Rig Veda, where the story of creation in terms of the glory of the Sun-god is described. Here occurs the oft-quoted famous verse, ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti, the one poets sing of in various ways. In the Atharva Veda there is the Skambha Sukta, which is not well known. It is something like the Purusha Sukta where the rishi to whom the mantra was revealed contemplates on the miracle of creation, putting the question to himself: “What is the substance out of which this great citadel of the cosmos has been created? What are the rafters? What is the wood that is used for building this cosmos? What are the building bricks?” etc. There are also other suktas in the Rigveda, such as the Hiranyagarbha Sukta and the Visvakarma Sukta.

How many of us have the time, the leisure, the mood, and the interest to go into these mysteries? We are too busy wasting our time on good-for-nothing things. It is very unfortunate. Our soul is not going to be satisfied by any modern gadget. We must have time in our lives to be a little serious. We should not be like foolish children, running about as if everything is all right. Anything can happen in this world, at any moment, because we do not possess an insight into the purposes of the universe. The universe has been planned in a particular manner by the will of the Absolute, and everything moves according to that plan. Things do not happen because we will or wish them to happen in a particular manner. Hence, we must be prepared to adjust ourselves to any circumstance that may manifest in our experience in accordance with the plan of the universe.

Therefore, it is high time that we seriously contemplate what is worthwhile in our lives. We are souls – not bodies, not even minds and intellects. We are not merely social units, citizens, passport holders, etc. We are something more than that. We are not even this physical body constituted of the five elements. The requirements of the body are not our real requirements. They are only tentative demands felt under certain given conditions. For instance, medicine is required when we are ill, but we cannot say that medicine is our final requirement. We may require food when we are hungry, but that is not our final requirement. That is not the only thing that we are asking for in this world. We are not that which asks for food, we are not that which asks for physical comfort, we are not that which asks for social recognition, and we are not that which seeks authority and position in life. We are something transcendent to all these things. When the time of crisis comes, we throw off everything; and suddenly, to our consternation, we realise that we are the most valuable thing in the world. The most valuable and precious treasure in the world is ourselves, not what we possess – not our dollars and pounds and rupees, not our land and buildings, not even our friends. They can leave us in one second when the plan of the cosmos requires that to happen.

Yatha kashtham cha kashtham cha sameyatam mahodadhau, sametvicham yateyantam tatvad bhutasamagamah says the Mahabharata in a very famous passage: Just as logs of wood in the ocean come together as friends, as it were, but then separate, so also people come together and separate. We know how logs of wood meet on the surface of the ocean. They come together due to the current; and when the current moves in a different direction, they are separated. Likewise is friendship and bereavement. Therefore, the idea that we have friends is a false notion. Our friendships in society and our relationships with anything in this world are like the relationships that one log of wood in the ocean has with other logs. Sometimes one log collides with another – embraces another, as it were, as a friend. And then it is suddenly cast off in a different direction by the current of the water and by the wind that blows. When the wind of the plan of the universe blows us in some other direction, we should not cry that we have lost everything. We do not lose anything, we are only participants in the great plan of God; and one who is ignorant of this will reap sorrow, just as one who is ignorant of any law reaps some grief as a consequence thereof.

May we have the blessedness and the blessing of the mighty Rudra Siva, the Great Lord whom we are worshipping today, that He may bless us with understanding – dhiyo yo nah prachodayat. We ask for nothing from God except enlightenment, understanding, insight and comprehension. We do not want material prosperity or material goods. There is no use in having anything. We have to ‘be’ something. What we ‘have’ is not important; what we ‘are’ is important. A great saying of Swami Sivanandaji Maharaj is, “Be satisfied with what you have, but be dissatisfied with what you are.” But we are the other way around. We seem to be satisfied with what we are, but we are dissatisfied with what we have. We always complain about the goods that we possess and the commodities that we have, and we are always complacent about our own selves, our egoistic personalities.

The truth is, we have to be satisfied with every circumstance in which God has placed us, but we should always be dissatisfied with our own internal achievements. As the Upanishad puts it, neti neti: “This is not adequate; ‘not this, not this’, is the Truth.” Any achievement of ours is inadequate for the purpose, ultimately. The soul is not going to be satisfied with anything that is offered to it. Our soul is the infinite reservoir of forces. It is compatible with God-Being Itself. And so the infinite in us cannot be satisfied with any finite offering. Some little titbits and toys seem to satisfy us occasionally; a wristwatch, a transistor, some sound, colour and movement seem to be satisfying to us. We are ignorant children, moving and groping in the darkness of oblivion in this world. Thus, what we have to ask from the Mighty Lord is the blessing of enlightenment, knowledge and wisdom. And we ask nothing from God except God Himself.

May we all gather our powers, muster in our forces and bring ourselves together into a concentrated attention of devotion to the great Almighty, whose glories are sung in the great Veda mantras, so that we may be burnt and burnished in this austerity of spiritual attitude. May Lord Siva’s grace be upon us all!

[Extracted from Swami Krishnananda Maharaj’s discourses Divine Life Society]

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

Hinduism and the Vedanta

Hinduism and the Vedanta by Swami Krishnananda

Created on Tuesday 4 March 2014 16:47

*READ MORE \* Hinduism and the Vedanta

I

The word ‘Hindu’ is of foreign origin. It has no association with the principles which are psychologically compounded by habit and tradition with what one vaguely feels when the word ‘Hindu’ is uttered. The history behind this word seems to go back to the time when the Greeks and the Persians came to India, maybe somewhere around the time when Alexander, king of Macedon, invaded India. The barrier which these people from outside India had to cross was the river Sindhu, which today goes by the name of Indus. The letter ‘S’ gets transformed into ‘H’ when it passes through the Persian tongue, and into ‘I’ in the Greek tongue. The word ‘Sindhu’, which is actually the name of the river, got somehow associated with the very people who lived across the river, and ‘Sindhu’, dropping the letter ‘S’, got converted into the word ‘Hindu’, and further on into the word ‘Ind’ in Greek. Thus, even the word ‘India’ has its roots in the word ‘Sindhu’. From this one can gather how both the words, ‘Hindu’ and ‘India’, do not have any real connection with either the beliefs and faiths of the people so called or even the original name of the country itself. The country is traditionally known as ‘Bharatavarsha’ or, simply, ‘Bharata’. This is something about the name itself.

Now, what does one really mean by the word ‘Hindu’, whatever be its origin? To state simply and plainly, it would mean a person who follows or lives according to the canons and principles of the religion known as ‘Hinduism’. But this would raise the question, “What is Hinduism?”

Many definitions have been given by stalwarts like Lokamanya Tilak, and such leaders of Hinduism. The area which the religion called Hinduism covers is so large that it is not easy to give an off-hand definition of it at one stroke, as any such attempt is likely to carry with it a flaw of inadequate characterisation. However, broadly speaking, a Hindu is one who holds and lives according to some of the following essential principles:

There is no necessity to go into further elaborate details of what the word ‘Hinduism’ may suggest, because it would be clear that what is stated above would be enough to provide necessary guidelines to draw the requisite conclusions in matters of detail.

However, it has to be added that the religion known as Hinduism accepts the supernatural origin and final authority of the Word of the Veda, which consists of the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the Upanishads. Hinduism also accepts the validity of the ethical and legal codes known as the Smritis, the Epics of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the Puranas, the Agamas and Tantras, and also the six schools of philosophy known as Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa and Vedanta. The word ‘Vedanta’ suggests and includes also its variations known as the Advaita, Visishta-advaita, Dvaita, Dvaita-advaita, Suddha-advaita, and Achintya-bheda-abheda. It also includes the religious doctrines of the different schools of Vaishnavism, Saivism and Saktaism. Hinduism accepts and provides for the worship of the accepted Divinities of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, Ganesa, Durga, Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Surya and Skanda among many others which are all included in the all-embracing pantheon.

II

At the time of death, the individuality does not get dissolved, though the physical constituents may be separated and dissolved. What is it that takes rebirth? It cannot be the body, because it is discarded and it is dissolved into the physical elements of which it is composed. It cannot also be the essential Self, the Atman, because the Atman is a Universal Presence which cannot be said to be subject to transformation of any kind, such as transmigration. What else transmigrates?

The peculiar thing called the individual is neither the body nor the Atman. It is a strange admixture of localised self-affirmation in terms of space and time, and this principle of self-affirmation is impossible to define except as a peculiar pressure-point or force which is generated by the influence of space-time upon consciousness which by itself is indivisible. This point of pressure spatio-temporally occasioned is in fact the centre of what is known as the psyche, often called the mind, sometimes known as the Chitta or the Antahkarana in the Sanskrit language.

This pressure of consciousness causing the individual self-sense may be broadly understood as having three levels of empirical expression, viz., the conscious, the subconscious and the unconscious. Only the conscious level operates when a person is awake, the sub-conscious operates in dream, and the unconscious in deep sleep. The conscious impulses and activities of the individual are limited expressions of the desires which seek to fulfil themselves by way of contact with sense-objects. When the pressure of desires is too much and they cannot be easily fulfilled under conditions prevailing in the waking state, they operate as reveries in dream as a sort of satisfaction of strong impulses incapable of operation during waking state. But the desires of an individual are so immense and complicated that their satisfaction cannot be really achieved in a single life. Such unfulfilled longings get wound up in unconscious states, a specimen of which is deep sleep. It is the power of unfulfilled desires that acts like a projectile and drives like a rocket this complex known as the individual pressure-point in the direction of manufacturing a new apparatus for their fulfilment, under expected conditions, this new apparatus being called the newly formed body. Here is the interesting background of what is known as rebirth.

As a realised soul has no desires, it has no rebirth. Hence the passing of an ordinary person and the disappearance of a person like Lord Krishna have nothing in common. The energies which are elemental that go to contribute to the formation of a new body in the case of an individual with unfulfilled desires do not operate in the case of a realised soul, because rebirth is caused by the magnetic pull exerted by the desiring centre of consciousness upon the physical elements and the forces of nature outside. Such a desire being absent in realised souls, they have no rebirth. They merge into Universal Being. The legacy which acts as the link between the here and the hereafter is desire, which causes reincarnation. The legacy so-called is a mysterious admixture of consciousness and desire, which is the causative factor behind rebirth. It is neither the physical body formed of the five elements, nor the Atman which is all-pervading. It is not true that in death the apparatus through which thinking and feeling act is destroyed; it continues in spite of the body being destroyed. The screen of the television which projects the picture of individuality is the point of consciousness-desire, explained above, and it is not destroyed when the body is destroyed. In a way, our waking life is also a reflection of some anterior existence, which we do not remember now, since we are now in this world in a different space-time continuum, totally different from the space-time complex of the previous life. It has to be reiterated that death does not destroy the link between this life and the other life, because death is only of the physical body, and everyone knows well that a person is not exhausted by the physical frame only. There is something more in man than what appears to the eyes or to any sense-organ.

The modern theory of evolution from matter to plant, plant to life, life to mind and from mind to intellect is nothing but a corroboration of there being a continuous link from one state of life to another. Else, there would be no evolution and there would be no meaning in any form of ‘related’ life at all. All this requires deep study, and a mere cursory reading of one or two textbooks may not be adequate. The principle involves vast areas beyond the ken of the studies provided in our modern colleges and universities.

The principle of karma, or the principle of reaction which conditions the notions of good and bad etc., is not supposed to apply to the sub-human species since they do not have the self-consciousness of personal agency in action and are just guided by the natural forces of evolution. Nemesis cannot be attributed to an individual as long as it is free from personal agency in action. The sub-human species evolve in the same way as there is rise of life from matter to the vegetable kingdom, etc., as mentioned. This is not caused by karma, but by the very pressure of universal evolution.

If there is no transcendent meaning of the human being beyond the present life, no one would lift a finger or do anything in this life unless he is an idiot of the first water, knowing well that the next moment death may overtake anyone and no one can be sure that one can be alive after a few minutes more. Who, on earth, will try to do anything in this world if the next moment is uncertain, unless it is to be accounted for by an unconscious pull of the transcendent ‘Beyond’ which speaks in a language of ‘Eternity’ that there is life further to this medley of uncertainties, anxieties and insecurities here on earth? The point that man is to be restrained from undesirable behaviour and action can have meaning only if there is something more than the meaning seen in earthly life. Else, what is the point of being good or exhibiting good behaviour? Why should there be morality, why should there be anything at all, since everything is going to be devoured by death the next moment?

III

Advaita Vedanta does not naively say that Brahman is real or that the world of dualities is unreal. To attribute this sort of statement to the system would be something like calling the dog a bad name in order to hang it. The sense in which the doctrine asserts the absoluteness of Brahman would also explain the sense in which its relation to the world of experience is to be understood. My feeling is, this doubt arises due to a superficial reading of the philosophical problem involved, just either by hearsay or reading some titbits here and there, without going into the profundities of the subject.

The Advaita Vedanta does not hang on Sruti alone, though it has no reason to doubt the validity of the word of the Sruti. Firstly, take the question concerning the Sruti: The statement that Brahman is the cause of the Veda is not to be understood as if the Veda is an effect proceeding from Brahman as the cause, in which case the Veda would be non-eternal. What this position actually means is that the Veda is to be understood as an embodiment of eternal principles or truths, and here what is to be considered as eternal is the principle involved and not necessarily the way in which it is embodied in word or language. For instance, to give an example, that two and two make four can be taken as a permanent principle which cannot be changed, but the language in which it is expressed or the purpose for which it is applied need not be taken as equally permanent; because the same truth can be expressed differently in different languages and may be applied for variegated purposes. Also, Brahman does not cause the Veda as a potter causes the pot or a carpenter causes the table. Here causation is to be understood in a highly metaphysical sense, and not in an empirical way. The very fact of the existence of Brahman implies the existence of the eternal principles mentioned, even as, we may say, the fact of the existence of a three-dimensional universe implies the validity of the principles of mathematics. We cannot say that mathematics is caused by the three-dimensional world, so that mathematics would be a non-eternal fact. On the other hand, the fact of the validity of mathematics is a logical consequence of the three-dimensional world of space and time, and a logical deduction does not become non-eternal merely because it proceeds from a premise. The premise is in a way the cause of the deduction in a logical process of implication, but the implication does not become non-eternal because it is inseparable from the fact of the premise. Thus, the causation of Brahman in respect of the Veda does not in any way mean the non-eternality of the Veda, if we are careful to see that causation here is understood logically and not empirically in the sense of something proceeding from something else as if the one is different from the other.

Further, it is sometimes suggested that even the word of the Veda is eternal, even as an embodiment of eternal principles. This, again, is to be understood in its proper spirit. We may explain this position thus. Though the expression of a fact in a particular language may be considered as non-eternal, in the sense that it is finite because of its differentiation from other languages, yet the fact of it being possible to express a thing in that particular way should be considered as a permanent possibility, and here the word assumes a sort of eternality, Parinaminityatva, to put it in the language of Acharya Sankara, though not Kutasthanityatva as is the nature of Brahman itself. No one can say that the English language, for instance, is an eternal fact. Yet, no one can also deny the possibility of expressing a fact in that mode of language at any time or claim that the possibility can ever be absent and be non-eternal. I hope you catch the point of this interesting feature.

When Acharya Sankara says that the Veda itself is unreal from the Paramarthika point of view, the same is to be understood in the sense of nothing being eternal except Brahman, and even the Veda cannot be eternal if it is to be understood as something other than Brahman, for there cannot be two infinities or two eternalities. Here you will notice that the two apparently contradictory statements of Acharya Sankara are really not contradictory, for they have to be understood from two different points of view or angles of vision, from which position the statements are made.

The problem of free will and determinism can also be explained by a homely example afforded by the science of psychoanalysis, to give only one instance as to how it can be explained. The patient is made think in a particular manner by the determined will of the psychoanalyst, but patient always feels that he or she is having out of complete freedom of choice, notwithstanding the determinism of the will of the physician that is at the back of it. Perhaps you remember the interesting statement of Spinoza that a stone which is thrown into the sky by someone may feel that it is moving up of its own choice, if only it had consciousness of its movement. We feel that we eat a particular diet out of our free will and nobody compels us to eat such and such a thing, though it is well known that the choice of diet is determined by the physiological condition of the person; so where is free will here? Swami Vidyaranya, in his Panchadasi, says that free will is the way in which the omnipresent will of the Absolute (or you may say, Isvara) operates through the individuality of a created being. Here, again, it is a question of viewpoint or standpoint. The consciousness of agency in action is what is known as free will, though this consciousness itself may be impelled by a law that is operating in the universe. So, where is the contradiction between determinism and free will? Man will not be held responsible for his acts if he is conscious from the bottom of his heart that the universal law is operating through him, but he will certainly be responsible for what he does if he knows that he exists as an individual and therefore actions proceed from him and not from the universal reality. No one can do wrong unless this doing proceeds from individual consciousness which contradicts the fact of its being determined by another. Thus, there is a mix-up of arguments here, when doubts are raised as to how man can do wrong if he is determined. The doubt arises from a fallacious argument.

The problem of evil, again, is an old, hackneyed theme, which has been explained by masters of thought already. It exists in the world even as illness exists in a human organism. But do you believe that illness really exists in a person unless there is a maladjustment of the parts of the organism? The evil does not exist except as a condition of operation, and it is not to be understood as a thing hanging over us from somewhere outside. All this difficulty arises due to an anthropomorphic conception of God as somebody sitting in heaven and controlling the destiny of the universe. If God is understood as universal Omnipresence or Absolute Being, the very question of evil will be a self-contradiction, because that would imply the finitude of God. Here, again, the flaw in the argument that raises such questions can be seen.

[Extracted from Swami Krishnananda Maharaj’s discourses Divine Life Society]

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

The Laws and the Stages of Life in Hinduism

The Laws and the Stages of Life in Hinduism by Swami Krishnananda

Created on Tuesday 4 March 2014 16:47

*READ MORE \* The Laws and the Stages of Life in Hinduism

The Purusharthas

Life has been always regarded in India as a process of progressive self-transcendence from the realm of matter (Annamaya-Jivatva) to the realisation of supreme spiritual bliss (Parama-Ananda). Human values and ends in life have been classified into the scheme of the fourfold pursuit (Purushartha) of existence, viz., the practice of righteousness and goodness (Dharma), the effort towards earning of the necessary material values (Artha), the fulfilment of permissible desires through honest means (Kama), and the endeavour for the final salvation of the soul (Moksha). This analysis is based on a broad understanding of the different levels of individuals in relation to the Universe.

The principle of Dharma is summed up in the Mahabharata as the attitude of not meting out to others what one would not expect others to mete out to oneself. What is contrary to the welfare of one’s own self should not be discharged or done in regard to others (atmanah pratikulani paresham na samaoharet). Another definition of Dharma is that it is the conduct which conduces to prosperity here (Abhyudaya) and spiritual blessedness hereafter (Nihsreyasa). That charitable disposition by which one regards others in the world as ends in themselves and not mere means to one’s satisfaction may be regarded as Dharma. The practice of Dharma in this sense is more than ritual or ceremony. Morality is superior to external rites. A moral act presupposes a moral condition of the mind within, and the distinction between moral feeling and moral action is the same as that which obtains between character and conduct.

The moral perspective is based on a general view of the world as consisting of a larger family than the one with which we are usually familiar. Our existence is bound up with great mysteries and is more complicated in structure than is apparent from a surface-view of things. The world-view which reaches its logical limits sees all beings as constituting a single unit of a universal cooperative life, and the recognition of this fact in the smaller circle of individual and social life is Dharma, or righteousness. A violation of this principle is Adharma, or unrighteousness. Dharma sustains the organic structure of the cosmos, like the force of gravity which maintains the solidity of a body of matter. Adharma tends towards a rupture of the organism and brings about a condition of what may be called universal ill-health. If Dharma is health, Adharma is disease.

Dharma, thus, is eternal law and not the custom or religion of a country or people. All minor Dharmas, which go by the names of goodness and religion, receive the stamp of meaningfulness only when they are in consonance with this Dharma of the Universe. The pursuit of material prosperity (Artha), the fulfilment of one’s desire (Kama), and even attainment of salvation (Moksha) are all based on Dharma, which is the rock-foundation of all practical life. None of these efforts can be successful if it is rooted in the primary acceptance of the truth that the individual is co-extensive with the Universe.

The Ashramas

The grouping of life into the pursuit of the four Purusharthas is the basis of the ancient ethics of India. Every act of the human being pertains to one or the other of these aims. The ethical system in India is connected with the mode of life to be lived by one as a Brahmacharin, Grihastha, Vanaprastha or Sannyasin, which are the four orders (Asramas) or stages of life. It is the injunction of the scripture that a person cannot remain in a stage which is none of these four strata of society.

Brahmacharya is the first stage of life, which is lived in the observance of the vow of perfect continence and celibacy under the guidance of a preceptor and dedicated especially to the study of the Vedas and other scriptures. The Kshatriya students may also have to be trained in the art of using weapons and administration in general. It is a life of probation and strict discipline. The Brahmacharin is an adherent to the principle of non-violence (Ahimsa), Truthfulness (Satya), self-restraint (Brahmacharya), non-covetousness (Asteya), non-acceptance of gifts (Aparigraha), purity and cleanliness (Saucha), contentment (Santosha) , austerity (Tapas), sacred study (Svadhyaya), and service of the preceptor (Guru Seva). These are the constituent factors in the life of a Brahmacharin. He shines with spiritual splendour (Brahmavarchas), which he earns by way of self-control, and on account of this glowing nature of his personality he is termed a fire-lad (Agni-Marmaka).

While the stage of the Brahmacharin is particularly devoted to the accumulation of Dharma, the life of the householder is for the preservation of Dharma, the earning of Artha and the fulfilment of Kama. He puts into practice the knowledge gained during the period of Brahmacharya. Artha and Kama should be directed by Dharma. This rule is a great scientific prescription for sublimation of desire, as different from its suppression, regression or substitution. The householder is regarded as the hub of the wheel of life, round whom the welfare of the society revolves. His is a life of a balance of forces – social duty, personal desire and spiritual aspiration. His duties in the form of the Pancha-Mahayajnas have already been explained. This is the general rule for a householder belonging to the Brahmana class in society. The Kshatriya has the special duty of subscribing to the administration of the country by military service and the governmental system. The Vaisyas, or the trading community, and the Sudras, or the serving class, have their duties of providing for the economic harmony and needs of the country and the labour that is required for the sustenance of society. The classification of society into four castes is not to be taken in the sense of a rigid mechanical isolation of groups by virtue of birth and heredity alone, as it has tended to be viewed in later times, but a logically developed co-operative system of living instituted for the preservation and prosperity of the whole society through division of labour based on the quality of persons and the proportion of the contribution that people can make for its solidarity in accordance with their aptitude, knowledge and capacity. Svabhava (one’s inherent nature) determines Svadharma (one’s duty as an individual in society).

The third stage of life is of the Vanaprastha and is devoted to the duty of disentangling oneself from the attractions of the world. Artha and Kama do not any more interest the mind which seeks only the final blossoming of Dharma into the flower of Moksha. The duties of life which means a great value to the householder are relative to the phenomenal view of things and, while they are valid for sensory perceptions and mental cognition in the spatio-temporal realm, they do not reveal the Absolute which the soul hankers after and which alone can bring final satisfaction to it. The Vanaprastha girds up his loins to strive for this attainment through austerity (Tapas) and inward worship (Manasika-Upasana). The Aranyakas and some portions of the Upanishads throw much light on the nature of the contemplations which the one dedicated to a life of spiritual discipline practises. While the Samhitas may be said to be relevant to the Brahmacharin and the Brahmanas to the Grihastha, the Aranyakas pertain to the life of the Vanaprastha. The consummation of this discipline is in Sannyasa, or complete renunciation of worldly duty and desire, and living a life devoted to the highest meditations on the Absolute described in the Upanishads.

Though, originally, the order of Sannyasa as envisaged in Manu Smriti and the Mahabharata constituted a purely spiritual condition into which the Vanaprastha entered, and it had no linkage with any special tradition, the order of the monk gradually developed into a system (Sampradaya) by which the renunciates in different groups were related to one another by the allegiance they owed to their own particular orders, and thus formed a section of society devoted to a voluntary discharge of the obligation of the dissemination of knowledge, in addition to the individual duty of spiritual meditation. This compromise with social life arose not only due to the peculiar circumstances of a changing society in the passage of time, on account of which the minds of people in general may be said to have found a life of total isolation impracticable, but also due to the withdrawal of support from society from the way in which it used to be given in earlier days when the monks could sustain themselves on alms received without making their existence felt by people.

In its true spirit, Sannyasa is a spiritual state, and not a social classification, in which established one learns the art of depending on the Supreme Being by withdrawal of interest from the particular sources of support in the world. This condition is, however, not suddenly reached, and four stages even in the order of Sannyasa are recognised. In the first three stages, called the Kutichaka, Bahudaka and Hamsa, the Sannyasin lives in fixed residences – but in an increasing degree of freedom from the need for comfort – and the stages are distinguished by the increasing intensity of restrictions, in an ascending order, which the Sannyasin imposes on himself. The fourth stage is of the Paramahamsa, who is absolutely free from all the wants of a personal life and lives mostly a life of absolute self-dependence devoted to pure meditation. There are said to be two other stages, called the Turiyatita and Avadhuta, wherein fixed one does not pay attention to creature comforts and is satisfied with anything that comes to him of its own accord and remains mostly in a state of consciousness lifted above the body and its surroundings.

Sannyasa is also said to originate from four causes. A Vairagya-Sannyasin is one who enters the order being prompted by the latent impressions (Samskaras) which direct him to take such a step. A Jnana-Sannyasin is one who takes to the order due to his grasp of the import of the scriptures, after a deep study of them, and being convinced thereby of the existence of the spiritual ideal. A Jnana-Vairagya-Sannyasin is one who resorts to Sannyasa after deep learning and also having seen the normal enjoyments of life. A Karma-Sannyasin is one who embraces the order having passed through the stages of the Brahmacharin, Grihastha and Vanaprastha, gradually. But he who takes to Sannyasa directly from the stage of Brahmacharya is called a Vairagya-Sannyasin. One who takes to it for acquiring spiritual knowledge is a Vividisha-Sannyasin. One who embraces Sannyasa being compelled by impending death is an Atura-Sannyasin. One who takes to Sannyasa with a feeling that there is nothing except the Absolute is an Animitta-Sartnyasin.

But Sannyasa is, in the end, as observed above, not one of the modes or orders of social life but a condition of consciousness in which it realises its spiritual absoluteness. Here ethics and spirituality coalesce in the attunement of the individual to the structure of the cosmos. Man becomes one with creation, being freed from the bondage of attachment, convention and anxiety. The soul fixes itself in the Infinite and knows nothing other than it. The duties of the Brahmacharin, Grihastha and Vanaprastha are progressive stages of self-sublimation and self-transcendence which reach their fulfilment in Sannyasa. The three basic cravings, called Eshanas in the Upanishads, which correspond to the psychological complexes in the form of desire for wealth, fame (with power) and sex, are overcome in the graduated educational process constituted by the stages of life.

The plan of life arranged into the four stages is a systematic endeavour for the conservation and transformation of the vital, intellectual, moral and spiritual aspects of human nature towards the purpose of the attainment of Moksha, or liberation in the Absolute. In this fourfold scheme, society is preserved and transfigured for an insight into the reality which underlies it. It is a remedy for the problems and ills of life born of the separation of society into selfish individualities. It is the process of integration not only of the individual but of the family, community, nation and the world at large, through the expression of the great preservative force tending to universal solidarity – Dharma. The great hymn of the Veda, the Purusha-Sukta, makes the four aspects of the caste system limbs of the Supreme Being, thus teaching that the organic structure of society is knit into a single fabric with the threads of diversified personalities.

Here is the philosophical background of the ethics of co-operation by which the Universe is maintained. The four Varnas (castes) and the four Asramas (orders) are classifications based on the three properties (Gunas) of Prakriti – Sattva (equilibrium), Rajas (distraction), and Tamas (inertia) in their different permutations and combinations. The four Asramas are the stages of the progressive overcoming of matter by spirit, externality by universality.

[Extracted from Swami Krishnananda Maharaj’s discourses Divine Life Society]

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita by Swami Krishnananda

Created on Monday 3 March 2014 16:57

*READ MORE \* The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

I shall endeavour to touch upon a few salient points which will be of some meaning and utility in our day-to-day life. To apply knowledge to life is the most difficult aspect of knowledge. We have always been accustomed to bifurcate life from knowledge, and vice versa, so that a learned man is not necessarily a happy man nor even a rich man. The reason is that learning, knowledge, has been isolated from the facts of life. This is one of the conflicts that we observe in life. As they say humorously, Sarasvati and Lakshmi never live in the same house, meaning thereby that learning and wealth do not go together. There are many such conflicts, all which are supposed to be solved, in one way or the other, by means of the great teachings known as the Bhagavadgita.

Bhagavan Sri Krishna, when He spoke the Bhagavadgita, intended to resolve a conflict. What is a conflict, may be a question that raises itself before our minds. There are, actually, four types of conflicts, within which every other type or variation of disharmony can be subsumed. The occasion for the delivery of this Gospel was the battle of the Mahabharata, which means a field of conflict with other people. The first conflict one encounters in life is with other people. ‘You do not like me,’ and ‘I do not like you’. When we wake up in the morning and look at the world, we are faced with a conflict with other people, the human society. This is a difficulty which saps the vitality of many in the world. We have to see faces with whom we cannot reconcile ourselves. It may be a boss, a subordinate or an equal, it makes no difference. When we cannot reconcile ourselves with another face, there is a conflict; and we see nothing but faces when we get up in the morning and look at the world outside. The battle of the Mahabharata is a large epic, describing this primary conflict of human nature – conflict of one person with another person, in which can be included conflicts of groups, communities and nations, because all these are nothing but personalities and individualities associating and clashing in certain manners and patterns. What we call a society, or a family, or a nation, or a community, is the way of human beings grouping themselves into patterns. Thus, conflict with other people includes every kind of conflict in the world.

We have the Mahabharata epic, in the middle of which the Bhagavadgita occurs. Where is the Bhagavadgita located? In the middle of the battle of the Mahabharata. What is this epic battle? A conflict between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, cousin brothers in a unitary family. It was a family feud. We may say it was a conflict between Yudhishthira and Duryodhana, which amounts to the same essential situation. So, again, to reiterate, the conflict which Bhagavan Sri Krishna tries to resolve has as its background the conflict enumerated in the long epic poem of the Mahabharata. What is this background? The conflict of personalities! That was the occasion for the war. Huge armies were arrayed on both sides. Thousands were about to fly at the throats of one another. That was the occasion for the giving of this Gospel. The Gospel was not delivered in a school, a college, or a university, a temple, a church, or an auditorium. This most interesting and indispensable Gospel which we try to enshrine in our hearts, in our memory, was given on that momentous occasion of a war that was about to break between large contending armies. Nobody would, normally, like to seek wisdom on such a tense occasion. That is not the time to speak at all; it is the time to act and do something immediately. Who would speak philosophy when there are large numbers of men emotionally worked up into such a heightened pitch of anxiety and wrath that they will hear no words spoken by anyone, and are bent upon a severe type of action! On that occasion who would speak a sublime Gospel or a scripture! But that was the occasion, and there could not be a better time.

Now, the very purpose of this war was primarily to resolve a social conflict. Well; it was agreed that the war was indispensable. The purpose behind the war was not to destroy people but to resolve a social conflict or a political tension. It was impossible to mend people, and so they thought it was necessary to end people. And they concluded that by the ending of the embodiments of conflict, the conflict would automatically vanish. If you cannot untie a knot, you cut the knot. And for memory’s sake I may mention a few specimens who were involved in this conflict – the leaders, the generalissimos of the war. There were powerful veterans on the side of the Kauravas, almost invincible in battle, three of whom, the most prominent ones, were Bhishma, Drona and Karna. Nobody could face them with immunity to their lives. On the other side, that of the Pandavas, we have leaders like Bhima and Arjuna, the brothers of King Yudhishthira, the eldest of the Pandavas. While the most powerful from the Kaurava side was Bhishma, the most invincible on the side of the Pandavas was Arjuna. They knew every tactic of war, and people would shudder in their hearts by merely hearing the name of these people.

Now, on mutual acceptance, it was agreed that the war had to be waged to end a social conflict. But, when the hour of crisis came, when the iron was hot and it had to be struck, when that moment came, what happened? A most unexpected conflict arose within the mind of Arjuna. It was not a conflict with other people, but a conflict within one’s one self. I told you that there are four types of conflicts. The first one is conflict with other people, and to end it they started or embarked upon this perilous adventure of war. But before it broke out or started, the most important of the leaders, the hero of one party, the most renowned warrior, had to pass through a muddle of conflict within himself – his own thoughts, feelings, emotions, and the various tantrums of his psychological organ. You know the situation. All action emanates from the individual, and to do or not to do is to be decided by the individual himself. A decision can be taken only when there is no conflict in one’s mind. Either you do a thing or you do not do the thing. Either you want a thing or you do not want the thing. These are decisions that the mind takes. But if one begins to waver between the two horns of the dilemma, and one does not know which side to take and what steps to put forward, due to a conflict within one’s one mind, there would be no solution at all. A most surprising attitude did Arjuna put on, to the wonder and marvel of everyone there. The most heroic of persons began to speak words of pusillanimity, feelings of pity which would be completely unexpected from a warrior girt up on the brink of a war. Instead of attempting to solve the social conflict for the sake of which the war was to be engaged in, another conflict was added on to it. So, instead of one conflict, we have two conflicts here. Arjuna, the leader, the great warrior, advanced specious arguments before Krishna, his colleague, his friend and guide, who was seated on the very same chariot, and clinched the whole matter by saying, “I am not for this.” It was a very difficult thing to swallow, and only a personality like Krishna could take it in the true spirit in which it arose.

When a person is truly friendly with you, he knows how to take your moods. That is a wisdom of life. Krishna was not pleased; nor was he displeased. A doctor is neither pleased nor displeased with the patient. An emotion will not rise in the mind of a physician. Krishna was not distressed at the agonising condition of the mind of Arjuna. He did not weep, cry or beat his breast. He spoke words of wisdom laden with the profundity of the experience of life which, incidentally, opened up the gates for a solution to all conflicts in life. Not merely Arjuna’s conflict, but your conflict, my conflict, and anyone’s conflict at any time found a solution herein. All problems, all conflicts, all disharmonies, in everyone’s mind, in every pattern of society, and for all times, were dealt with effectively. Thus it is that the Bhagavadgita became a scripture of universal significance. Though it arose on account of a historical context, it gradually bordered upon timeless questions and the eternal problems of mankind, or humanity as a whole. The Bhagavadgita teaches not the Hindu religion, but religion as such. It is not my religion, or your religion, but it is the religion of the human soul that is spoken in the words of the Bhagavadgita. It is an answer to the questions of mankind, not merely the themes of some religion, cult or creed. It is ‘man’ putting a question to God. Not any particular person or any particular faith or association or affiliation raising a problem, but man, signifying humanity, raising a problem before the Maker of all things. And to it, the answer came from all sides. The answer came from all the mouths of the Cosmic Person, not merely from one individual called Krishna. There was no Krishna then, when this answer came. The query was not raised by Arjuna as a historical person. It was not Arjuna that kicked up the problem; it was the humanity present in Arjuna that raised the question. There is a character of humanity in everyone of us, which is neither male nor female, neither eastern nor western. The human element puts the eternal question. Hence, the answer has to be all-comprehensive. The human complexity raised the question, and who will answer the question? Not ‘another’ man. One man’s problem cannot be solved by another man or another person. Because another person is also a human being like this person. You cannot solve my problem, nor can I solve your problem, because both of us stand on the same pedestal of the human outlook. And here was the problem of humanity as a whole, not of one individual; and who will answer this question? Not Krishna, because to utter the name Krishna in this context would be to raise the question of an individual. It was not the historical Krishna that spoke to Arjuna, but it was Narayana who spoke to Nara. This is also known as Nara-Narayana-Samvada, though, indeed, Krishna-Arjuna-Samvada. God spoke to man, not Krishna to Arjuna, as a person. The Universal spoke to the particular. The All-comprehensive began to speak words of wisdom to that which is localised in space and time. Humanity was face to face with the Absolute. With this background of understanding we shall be able to realise the importance of this scripture of Yoga.

Thus, on the background of the necessity to solve a social conflict, an individual conflict arose in the mind of a symbol of humanity, known as Arjuna. As I already pointed out, I cannot answer this question and you cannot answer this question, because we are all persons, human beings, individuals, and it is the individual that raises the question. Then who is to give the answer? Not anyone in the world. The answer has to come from That which is beyond the world. And hence the personality of Krishna began to expand gradually into the All-inclusive Consciousness which covers the entire gamut of the evolution of mankind and the world as a whole. This apocalypse of Consciousness is what is known as Virat, or the Visvarupa. It expanded not merely quantitatively in space and time; it is not the swelling of a body that is called Virat, or Visvarupa, but a humanly unimaginable expansion of Consciousness, which alone can solve the questions of mankind’s conflict.

And what is mankind’s conflict? One person set against another person. This is the first phase of the problem. That each one is at loggerheads with one’s own self is another phase of the conflict. You do not know what you will think tomorrow. You do not agree today with what you thought yesterday. Your understanding cannot go hand in hand with your feeling. Your feelings cannot go hand in hand with your will. Your emotions will not agree with your logical argument. Your logic goes against the facts of human society outside. All this is a description of internal conflict. “I can neither fully agree with you nor fully reject you.” This is also a personal conflict. If I can fully agree with you, there can be no conflict. If I can fully reject you, then also there is no conflict. But, unfortunately, I cannot fully reject you for certain reasons and cannot also wholly accept you for certain other reasons. This is individual conflict. And there are also non-alignments of the layers of the personality itself.

The four conflicts are a, b, c, d. The earlier one is the cause of the later. I am proceeding from the posterior to the prior, from the gross to the subtle, from the visible to the invisible, from the outer to the inner, for the purpose of explanation. The outer conflict of society is an outcome of the internal conflict of human nature. Why has this conflict come? Is there any solution for this? Arjuna fell at the feet of Krishna. “I am confused, and I do not know what I am supposed to do. Bewildered is the condition of my mind. It is true that I have come here for battle, as a general of the army, but now something is happening within my own mind. I do not know, Krishna, what is happening! I am sunk in grief. I am gripped by sorrow. I cannot lift my finger. I cannot raise my hand. My nerves are getting paralysed. I cannot even stand up. I am falling down. My reason is failing.” This is what happens when internal conflict reaches its climax. And here the real Bhagavadgita starts, which is God speaking. Up to this time man was speaking: “I shall wage a war, I shall end these people, crush them and pound them to powder.” That was the boast of man before the war was entered upon. Then the sinking down of the personality: “This is impossible. I shall withdraw, because I do not think that I am fit to adjust myself to this complex that has arisen now in the form of a social conflict, which, I hold, is raised by us due to ignorance, greed and callousness towards the consequences of war.” The answer of Bhagavan Sri Krishna, representing the unity of the cosmos, is simple and precise, though it is apparently a long gospel of many chapters.

Arjuna was thoroughly mistaken in assessing the values of life. “Your understanding is turbid, it is not clear enough to grasp the vitality of life. Nobody asked you to start the war. It is you who started this, and I merely said nothing against it. If you want it, have it, and be done with it. After having started it of your own accord, relying on the strength of your arms, listening to nobody else’s advice, what makes you now sing a different tune altogether, as if you are another person having nothing to do with the previous person that you were who decided to wage the war? The answer of Arjuna was: “I do not know.” There are some students who come to this Ashram. If I ask them why they came, the answer is: “I do not know.” It is difficult to speak to such people. How is it that they do not know anything? You must know something at least. The truth is that you know that you do not know. Don’t you know even that much? Well, it looks something humorous. But, this was exactly what Arjuna did. “I do not know what to do. Tell me what is my duty.” The answer is the Bhagavadgita, which is supposed to be a Gospel on duty.

What is the duty of man? I began by speaking of the four conflicts, which the Bhagavadgita endeavours to resolve. To solve the first conflict, Arjuna thought that battle is the only way. But before the war took place outside, a war broke out inside the warrior. There was a psychological war which fumed up like wild fire within the mind of the hero, even before the outer social war took place. “Do you know why this happens? Do you know why any war takes place at all? Why conflicts should arise at all? The ultimate cause of all conflicts? Do you know this, Arjuna?” Sri Krishna spoke. You do not know anything. You do not know that you have a higher conflict pushing you forward into a further external conflict. Behind the social conflict, is the individual conflict. Behind the individual conflict, there is another conflict which was not apparent to the mind of any person then, but Krishna knew what it was. It was the conflict between the individual and the world as a whole in the form of this vast creation.

Man has estranged himself from Nature. This is the third conflict – the conflict between man and Nature. The world seems to be outside us, and we seem to be strangers in this world. We are not sure if we are really wanted in this world. Sometimes it looks that we are not wanted at all, and yet we, somehow, reconcile ourselves with the hardships of this mysterious creation and pull on in life, “get on”, as we say. The world is not going to be reconciled if we are not going to obey its laws. Because of a conflict of our individuality with the universal Nature we suffer various pains – hunger and thirst, heat and cold, and, finally, death. All these catastrophes of human life, and life in general, are the outcome of an isolation of the individual from the cosmic Nature. Nature does not die; it is the individual that dies. Nature has no hunger and thirst; it is the individual that has hunger and thirst. Nature does not feel cold. Nature does not want a blanket or a sweater; it is the individual that feels heat and cold. The bodily limitations, the vital limitations, the mental limitations, the intellectual limitations, are all the result of this bifurcation of personality or individuality from the universal Nature. If you are to be tuned to Nature, you are to become an integral, vital, universal part of Nature. Then you will have no hunger and thirst, no heat and cold, no death. But why should this difficulty arise? “I never wanted to isolate myself from Nature.” Nobody would purchase trouble deliberately. And why has this happened? Who is responsible for this banishment of the individual from the universal? This third conflict is due to another conflict altogether, viz., the fourth conflict – the conflict between the Universe and the Absolute, between man and God. We are removed from God Himself. That is why every other disease has cropped up. Social conflict or political conflict is due to individual conflict. The individual conflict is due to the conflict of natural forces in respect of the individual. This, again, is due to a higher conflict between the Universal Being and the individual.

The war seen before us is the array of forces which God has unleashed to teach us a lesson. The whole world is up in arms against us, because we have set ourselves against God. Can we expect to have peace and happiness here when we wage a battle with God Himself? But this is the secret that man does not know because of an original ignorance, what we call the original sin of man, the fall of man, the fall of the soul from its Divine Status of Universality. Unless we reconcile ourselves with God, we are not going to reconcile ourselves with Nature. Nature is nothing but the army of forces let loose by God against the erring individual, as a reaction to the rebellion set against Him. When there is conflict with a country in war, we cannot speak to its soldiers, “My dear friends, please do not fight,” for they are not responsible for the battle. They are released by some other force behind them. We must tackle that force, which is the cause of the release of these forces. Why do we talk to the soldiers, because they, poor fellows, know nothing except that they have been ordered; and they act. Thus there is no use of speaking to the world, “My dear friend, Wind, don’t bite me. Water, do not drown me. Fire, do not burn me.” They will say, “We do not know. We are only ordered to act, and we shall do according to the order. You speak to the Person, the Force who has ordered thus. Otherwise, we shall burn you down, cut you, blow you up, drown you, kill you.” So there is no use trying to get rid of the troubles of life, because these are forces released by a higher Nature. Unless we reconcile ourselves with God, we are not going to be friendly with Nature. And unless we reconcile yourself with Nature, the cosmos as a whole, our internal conflicts are not going to cease. And until internal conflicts are solved, the external wars are not going to end. The social peace which we are clamouring for, the national peace, world-peace, the Ramarajya as we call it – all these wonderful things that we are aspiring in life – cannot be had on earth until we solve the original conflict that is between us, within us, with Nature, and God.

This is the essence of the themes described in the chapters of the Bhagavadgita. We are face to face with the Supreme Being in the eleventh chapter; and whatever I have told you now is the inner significance of the contents of the first eleven chapters. The chapters that follow from the eleventh onwards describe methods of practically applying this knowledge in specific contexts of life. Before doing anything, understand well. And think well, dispassionately, taking into consideration all aspects of the question that arises in your mind. Cast a glance around you, and recognise where you really stand in this world, what your difficulties are, and tap the diffiuilties in their roots. Then it is that you will be blessed, and mankind at large reach blessedness and beatitude.

Social collaboration, individual self-control, universal interrelatedness, and Absolute Oneness are the standpoints from which the Bhagavadgita exhorts us at different levels of its teaching. The highest Reality is Aksharam Brahma (the Imperishable Absolute). It is the Supreme Person, or Adhiyajna from the standpoint of creation. It is manifest as Adhibhuta (the external universe) as the object on the one side, and as Adhyatma (the individual experiencer as the subject) on the other side. The Divine Principles organising the relations between subjects and objects is Adhidaiva (superintending Deity). The movement of the cosmic cycle, the inexorable impulse to action, the universal urge of creativity, is Karma-Visarga (the complex of activity determined by interconnected universal factors). No one can escape this duty of ‘All-Life,’ and none can afford to be ignorant of this secret of existence. Here is the Bhagavadgita in a nutshell.

[Extracted from Swami Krishnananda Maharaj’s discourses Divine Life Society]

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

Spotlights on Hinduism and Religious Values

Spotlights on Hinduism and Religious Values by Swami Krishnananda

Created on Sunday 2 March 2014 19:56

*READ MORE \* Spotlights on Hinduism and Religious Values

(1968)

  1. The influence of religion over the masses is definitely on the wane, since religion, unfortunately, has latterly tended to become formalistic, ritual-ridden and church-oriented, with its social rigidities, mechanised disciplines and an emphasis which began to appear more like an external pressure on the individual rather than a spontaneous incentive for the development of the natural spiritual potentialities of the seeking spirit. Corruption and such other pointers to personal and social deterioration can be attributed ultimately to a lack of the true spiritual sense among mankind.
  2. The charge against Hinduism that it is fatalistic is born of an ignorance of the scientific law of cause and effect, traditionally known as karma, upheld by Hinduism as one of its necessary tenets in the field of its vast compass. Very few, even among Hindus, have a correct knowledge of what true Hinduism is. This is perhaps the fate of the majority of followers of the other religions in the world, also. The interpretation of the law of karma that it inhibits progress by making people slaves to the belief in the inevitability of whatever is to happen is erroneous. The law of karma does not mean that. What it actually implies is that every cause produces an effect of equal force, similar to the force of gravitation in the field of physical nature. Inasmuch as the universe is a balance or an equilibrium of forces and it tends to maintain this balance on any account, a disturbance of this equilibrium by any individualistic action receives a kick back by the power of this equilibrium of the universe in its attempt to restore its lost status quo, and this reaction produced by the universe is really the essence of the law of karma. If it implies any sort of ‘inevitability’ as suspected, it is the kind of inevitability that is involved in the fall of an apple from a tree due to the law of gravitation. This cannot be called fatalistic with the shade of the anathema that seems to be suggested thereby. The force of karma can be overcome by purushartha or the higher creative effort which every individual is capable of and can achieve by a gradual approximation of oneself to the nature of Reality.
  3. The charge of fatalism leveled against Hinduism is therefore unfounded. If well-meaning, highly educated people of today, too, subscribe to this erroneous notion, that would be an added credit to the depth of their knowledge and the profundity of their wisdom!

The catholicity of Hinduism, its breadth of outlook, is not equivalent to a featureless uniformity of approach like a common form of diet that may be prescribed to everyone in the world. The catholicity implies that everyone is equally hungry and needs food, but it does not mean that everyone should be served the same kind of diet. While there is a basic unity among fundamentals, there is an infinite variety in the methods of approach and the working out of the details. The principles of dharma, artha, kama and moksha as the foundational pre-requisites for an integral approach to life as also the most scientific psychology that is behind what is known as varnashrama dharma are enough testimony to refute the fallacious argument that there is very little that is common in the form of a prescribed formula of religious observances, obligatory for all. It is doubtful if any other religion has within its bosom such a power of absorption, such a strength of transmutation and such a large variety in the methodology of approach as Hinduism.

It is certainly possible to lay down an outline of certain basic minimum observances for all Hindus. The practice of the five yamas – ahimsa, satya, asteya, brahmacharya and aparigraha – with a proper understanding of what these actually mean and how they are to be applied with the necessary permutations and combinations, under different circumstances or conditions of life, an organic approach of life as intended in the canon of the four purusharthas referred to above, as well as a scientific adherence to the psychological principles enshrined in the vehicle of the varnashrama system are instances on the point.

  1. To equate Hinduism with casteism is again wrong to the hilt. In fact, Hinduism is no ‘ism’ at all, if an ism means a creed or a cult or even a caste. The name Hinduism was not given to it by the Hindus, and this name was not even known to them before the entry of the Greeks and the Persians into India. The eradication of casteism is quite all right and perhaps necessary if casteism means a fanatical sticking to outdated forms, meaningless routines and an unjustifiable social stratification derogatory to the dignity of the human individual. But if the system of caste means merely an allocation of function to individuals and groups according to their knowledge and capacity for the overall well-being of the organic structure of the human society, it is something which cannot be avoided by anyone who has a proper knowledge of human nature, its ways of working, and its aims in life. It is absurd to make it felt that Harijans are to be exposed to ridicule. If this has happened for any reason, so much the worse for it. Psychological classification for purpose of the fulfilment of the necessary stages in the development of an integrated society cannot include any type of social degradation as a part of its programme. The evil of untouchability has to be abolished and the respect and dignity that are due to a human being in his or her own status or station in society should be accorded. Let, first of all, everyone be made to feel that they belong to the religion of humanity. Until this is achieved, the religion of God cannot enter the minds of people.
  2. Though it may be true to some extent that a study of Sanskrit may help Harijans in feeling a sense of elevation in themselves, and to this extent a study of Sanskrit may be regarded as very helpful, the difficulty cannot be solved by a mere study of the Sanskrit language. The solution lies more in a transformation of the mental attitude that people have towards them or they have towards others, which can be brought about by the spirit of education alone, and education cannot be equated merely with the knowledge of a language, whatever be the importance of the study of a language in the process of education. As for the Harijans, the required incentive can be provided if they can be made to properly understand and appreciate the value of Sanskrit literature as also the knowledge of which it is the medium of expression.
  3. The Smritis embody two aspects of dharma or the law: (a) Samanya dharma or the unchangeable basic law of life which cannot be changed and does not stand in need of any change; and (b) Visesha dharma or the special forms of the law of life which have to be changed according to the prevailing conditions, social or personal. This necessity has naturally to be acceptable to all section of the Hindus, for it is unavoidable.

This does not mean that new Smritis have to come into being, but that their interpretation should be newly oriented according to circumstances. Inasmuch as Hinduism has no common organisation or an established social form of administration as there is, for instance, in Christianity, the ultimate deciding authority in matters of doubt regarding the visesha dharmas becomes a little difficult to fix upon. A possible solution is to leave the matter to the heads of the different section of Hinduism, who will decide the nature of the case as applicable to conditions within their own circles. There seems to be no other alternative since there is no single Guru or Head for the whole of the Hindu religion.

  1. In the present context of social and international life, it is necessary that the wide reaches of Hinduism should be allowed to take effect without taking sides of any parochial nature, an unfortunate feature that can manifest itself occasionally due to the characteristic weakness of the human mind in general. Though it is difficult to give a complete list of all the correctives that may require to be introduced into the present attitude that Hindus generally have towards their religion, the following essentials may be mentioned as salient issues:

  2. The emphasis on the spirit rather than the letter of the law, that is to say, concentration on the intention, the purpose or the essential significance of a religious mandate rather than a mere mechanistic adherence to the formality of the law. To cite an example, many perform sandhya vandana as if they are operating a machine, with neither a knowledge of its meaning or a real faith in its efficacy.
  3. The proper role of ritual in religion, that is, its necessity and value at a particular stage of the religious life as well as its absurdity when it is stretched beyond the permissible limit.
  4. An understanding of the meaning of the varnashrama dharma as a principle for the solidarity of human society and an eradication of the mistaken idea that it implies an unjust social stratification attended with the notion of function.
  5. The erroneous notion that religion is otherworldly which can be rectified by a correct knowledge of the compound (not complex) of dharma-artha-kama-moksha as the foundational ideal of life.
  6. Removal of the mistaken idea that the law of karma implies a passive resignation or a fatalistic attitude.

  7. That moksha the supreme ideal of life means a spatial and temporal getting rid of the world or the life in it without the knowledge that it really means a realisation of the Universality of consciousness.

  8. A scientific and logical trend of the teachings of the Vedanta has of course attracted the attention of the rationalistic minds, or the intellectuals in society. But it is not true that the emphasis on jnana which is one of the features of the Vedanta has been able to enter the hearts of the populace or the common man. The masses still conceive of and adore God in the fashion adumbrated in the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas, Agamas and Tantras, and not necessarily in the way prescribed by the Upanishads. Also, the term ‘Vedanta’, though it is usually associated with the Upanishads, came to mean later on any teaching which holds God to be the Supreme Reality. In this sense the teachings of Sankara, Ramnuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka and Chaitanya are all Vedanta in its different forms. Even the Saiva and Sakta religions are a kind of Vedanta alone, in their own way.
  9. A Guru is essential for one treading the spiritual path, up to a certain stage, as it is in every field of the educational process. Tentatively we may say that a person whom one regards as the best among all those one has seen or come in contact with in one’s life may be regarded as one’s Guru, until one comes across a greater person whom the religious instinct can recognise by a spontaneous reaction.
  10. Though mantras in Sanskrit have a special significance, we cannot say that a formula in some other language, charged with an ardent fervour of religious feeling, has not such an efficacy. The Sanskrit mantras have an additional advantage of semantic or phonetic structure, in addition to their capacity to rouse a religious feeling. Mantras in other languages are also effective.
  11. Fasting and such other dietetic regulation, etc. have a disciplinary value, and therefore these are necessary. But they have no ultimate value as they are not the essence of the spiritual life.
  12. Rituals in religion are not to be discouraged, for they are like the feet of the religion on which its body is supported. But the feet are not the entire personality and should not be mistaken for the same. The mistake is not in the performance of the rituals but in the overemphasis laid on their mere outer form as if it is the whole of religion. The legs are not the whole body, though the legs are necessary for the body in spite of the fact that they are not the essential parts of the body. As regards the extent to which rituals are to be regarded as essential, our explanations above will give the answer.
  13. The samaskaras prescribed in the life of a Hindu are necessary purificatory processes. Our view on ritual is, again, the answer here.
  14. The Karma-kandas of the Vedas in the section dealing with the necessity for ritual in the observance of religion, in one of its forms. Though every rite prescribed in the Kama Kanda of the Vedas may not have any significance, in the context of modern times, the essentials need not be neglected, at least where they are honestly felt to be helpful. All these peculiarities of religion require personal guidance from an expert and cannot be put in black and while in a generalised fashion.
  15. Hinduism is a way of life. Hinduism is not a theoretical doctrine or merely an intellectual school of philosophy. Hinduism is neither a ritual, a creed, cult, faith, dogma, theoretical philosophy, or even a religion as a mere outlet for emotion or what the psychologists condescendingly call ‘the religion instinct’. Hinduism is a name given to the very science of life, the art of living, and it is as wide, as meaningful, and as necessary as life itself. To the question, what should constitute the way of life in the present context, the only answer we can give is that the proper way of life is the ordering of one’s thought, speech and action in accordance with the principles, a bare outline of which has already been indicated in the preceding paragraphs. Here, again, we should add that the entire science of life, which Hinduism is, cannot be explained in a short article or essay. The standard texts already available on this subject, and the example of the Masters who have lead and are leading this life in their own persons, are the proper guides.
  16. It is possible for all sections of Hindus – Advaitins, Visishtadvaitins, Dvaitins, etc. – to come together and form a single force that Hinduism really is. Why should this not be possible when the essential meaning of the rock bottom of Hinduism is properly grasped by means of right education?
  17. We can confidently assert that the future of Hinduism is a glorious success in the fulfilment and materialisation of its values, as long as these values are in conformity with the law of Truth. For, Truth alone triumphs: satyameva jayate.
  18. The steps that are to be taken in the direction of coordinating the essential values of all religions are, we reiterate, the steps towards right education. What right education is, of course, is a different subject altogether. And we do not feel it worthwhile spending time in writing a few lines on this subject which borders upon the deeper foibles of human nature, since a solution to this problem will perhaps have to be attempted by a collaboration of persons competent in this line, who have to come to a conclusion as regards the modus operandi here.
  19. We do envisage a properly constituted approach of Hinduism in the Western countries at this junction of the atmosphere in this century. What is required is a band of experts who know what real Hinduism is, and not merely pundits and scholars with only an academic acquaintance with the fringes of Hinduism or even the go-getters in religion whose influence on the public mind is bound to be inadequate, sketchy, artificial and even commercial rather than truly religious or spiritual. With the concentrated force of stalwarts endowed with this special capacity, the spirit of real Hinduism can not only produce a solacing effect on the tension-ridden psychology of the West but also hold aloft the banner of the Universal character of Hinduism, not as a religion with its traditional connotation but as a comprehensive way of life.
  20. There is no need for anyone to work upon the idea that proselytisation is necessary to instil into the minds of people consciousness of true religion. In fact, the system of proselytisaiton would imply a distrust in the value or efficacy of religions other than the one which the proselytiser professes. Since no religion can be said to be complete from all points of view or to represent every phase of Truth, it would be improper to arrogate the character of completeness to any religious faith so that it can consider others as standing in need of a transmutation into its own make. Rather it is the duty of everyone really interested in the welfare of people to guide them on the path which they are already treading towards the One Destination which is reached by the many paths from many directions, instead of asking a pedestrian already on his way to retrace his steps or to discourage him by saying that all along he has been wasting his time by walking in the wrong direction. For, every direction is a direction to the Infinite, as every river finds, by its winding movements, its way to the ocean, into which other rivers also enter.
  21. The changes that have been presently visible in Hinduism may be due to its contact with the West, or in the mode of the presentation of its contents, but not in the nature of these contents themselves. The sanatana or samanya dharma does not change, though the visesha dharma has to change in accordance with prevailing conditions, as was noted above. Perhaps, pedantic orthodoxies which stuck to forms rather than essences are giving way to a broader understanding and appreciation going hand in hand with modern scientific thinking and logical analysis of religious principles, a method of approach which may be said to have been inherited, to some extent, by its contact with Western culture. But, at the same time, it has to be added that the Western impact has tended to make the Hindu approach to life more academic, social and pragmatic instead of deepening or even emphasising its true spiritual nature.

[Extracted from Swami Krishnananda Maharaj’s discourses Divine Life Society]

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

The Bhagavadgita – A Synthesis of Thought and Action

The Bhagavadgita – A Synthesis of Thought and Action by Swami Krishnananda

Created on Saturday 1 March 2014 19:43

*READ MORE \* The Bhagavadgita – A Synthesis of Thought and Action

(Spoken on Gita Jayanti in 1973)

The culture of mankind may be said to have reached its zenith in the thoughts of the Upanishads, wherein we have an exposition of the quintessential essence of all values that humanity has been seeking through the passage of history. In this groundwork of human culture, we have the perennial inspiration of the soul of man, the cry of the deepest in the human individual, the raptures of what may be regarded as the most valuable part of human nature. Such is the meaning hidden behind the gospel of the Upanishads, which soar into the empyrean of the superhuman and the meta-empirical, rising to levels of such ecstatic heights almost inaccessible to the faculties available to the human individual, making us giddy with the heights that they have reached. It is practically impossible for the modern man especially even to think of their significance except that they are wonderful spiritual messages given to us. While the human mind is always able to very quickly misunderstand things, it is not so easily able to understand things in their proper perspective and context. It is very easy for me to misunderstand you, but it is not so easy to understand you. This is human nature in its simple openness and placid empiricality. To commit a mistake is easier than to pursue the course of truth.

The glorious teachings of the Upanishads contain truth in their simple nakedness, unclothed with vestures of human liking or sentiment. This is precisely the reason why they could not easily become a guiding directive of the practical life of man in the workaday world.

In the Bhagavadgita we are supposed to be given a practical turn to the supreme and ideal loftiness which the spirit of the Upanishads embodies. You will remember that towards the end of each chapter of the Gita is the colophon: iti shrimadbhagavadgitasu upanishatsu. The Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita are like brothers or sisters born of the same parents – the Vedas, the Srutis and the Smritis – which contain within themselves the wisdom of man in its theoretical as well as its practical aspects.

We have in our own sciences such as mathematics or physics the theory and the practice, the theorem and its corollary, and so on. In one sense at least, though not in every sense, we may say the Upanishads lay down the fundamental theory of the cosmos on which we have to work out the practical application of the doctrine in our day-to-day life. This application of the theoretical dictum or the fundamental principles of the Upanishads is in the gospel of the Bhagavadgita. The Upanishads tell us how to think, and the Bhagavadgita tells us how to act. We always think before we act; but how are we to think? The direction of our thoughts is provided by the Upanishadic gospel but the direction of our action is given in the Bhagavadgita. So we have in the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita a complete science of life.

And today, as we are here to humbly and yet solemnly observe the sacred occasion of the delivery of the Bhagavadgita many thousands of years ago, we may very well confine ourselves to what the Bhagavadgita seems to expect of us in our life – no doubt, on the basis of the wisdom of the Upanishads.

The Bhagavadgita is the science of mankind’s culture and activity, to put it simply and precisely. The Bhagavadgita is not a religious gospel of the Hindus. It is not a scripture in the sense of any sectarian doctrine. It does not teach religion in the popular sense of the term. It does not teach any type of ethics or morals in the common understanding of the meaning of the term ‘ethics’ or ‘morality’. The Bhagavadgita purports to expound human nature in its various aspects. It is not necessarily the Hindu nature or the Christian nature or the Buddhist nature; it is human nature. The problem of Arjuna was a human problem. It was not a Hindu problem or an Eastern problem particularly. It was a problem of the psychology of the human individual, and psychology is the same everywhere, wherever man or woman is. So in this sense, we may say that the Gita is a universal gospel. It is meant for me, and it is meant for you, and for all alike. It has no distinction of sex, colour, caste, creed, state, language or hemisphere. It also does not belong to a particular time in history. It is not a historical document that is given to us. It is a spiritual message. Inasmuch as the spirit has no time and space, this message of the Gita also may be said to be timelessly and spacelessly valid, which means to say that it is going to be a directive in our life at all times – past, present and future.

In the life of Bhagavan Sri Krishna we have a pictorial representation of what the Bhagavadgita ideal of life should be, ought to be. We have in the glorious life of Bhagavan Sri Krishna a representation of the doctrines of the Bhagavadgita in practical life. The understanding of the nature of life is a presupposition of understanding the meaning of the gospel of the Bhagavadgita. It is very difficult to make out what is actually the sense that the Gita ultimately conveys to man, on account of which hundreds of commentaries on it have cropped up like mushrooms – not one giving the entire meaning of it, and not any one of the commentaries being capable of being regarded as redundant. Every commentary gives an aspect of the truth of it, but not the whole of it. The Bhagavadgita is such a totality of approach that even Bhagavan Sri Krishna declined to tell it a second time when Arjuna requested him to speak it once again after the war was over. That comprehensive approach cannot be summoned into consciousness constantly in human life. Very rarely do we rise to such heights of human understanding. For Sri Krishna himself to say that he could not speak it a second time would give us an idea as to the meaning hidden behind the whole gospel.

We may say it is God speaking to man. When God speaks to man, He speaks from every corner of the world. He does not speak only from the front or from behind or from any particular direction, because the existence of God is not a local, objective station. The presence of God is not like the presence of an object. It is not here or there or somewhere. It is everywhere. And therefore, the message of God should come from every direction. When it comes from every direction, it touches every aspect of life. It does not merely touch every aspect of life, but solves every question and every problem. Thus we are told that the Bhagavadgita is sarva shastra mayi, which means to say the essence of every teaching is in the Upanishad and the Bhagavadgita. Whatever question may arise in one’s mind, that question can be answered in one way or the other in a word, in a phrase or a sloka of the Bhagavadgita. There is no mental trouble or psychological complex which is not touched in the Bhagavadgita, and there is no remedy for the psychological ills of man which cannot be unearthed from some place in the Gita gospel.

Thus, as the teaching of the Bhagavadgita is of universal significance, to study it is to study man himself, to study life. If we can chant with the poet who said the proper study of mankind is man, we can also say in the same strain that the proper study of the Bhagavadgita is man. But the understanding of the real purport of the Gita gospel is almost a superhuman task. It is difficult to make out what it actually teaches. Some think that it teaches the principles of action or activity in the world. There are others who think that it teaches the way of devotion to God, the creator of the world. There are still others who are of the opinion that it is a political gospel. It is also a guide light for social life, for individual discipline, for even the sciences of civics and economics. These standpoints have given rise to various expositions of the Gita, as I mentioned a few minutes before. All these aspects may be regarded as true, inasmuch as we have to accept that the Gita touches all sides of life in its generality. But when we try to apply its knowledge in our day-to-day existence, we have to take it very seriously and apply it in a manner consonant with the various difficulties that we face from morning to night.

It may be reiterated that the Bhagavadgita is not such a gospel of any religion as to be consecrated in a puja room or only for certain occasions of festivity, ceremony, etc. It is our vade mecum, our pocket guide for every problem, even in our prosaic earthly life – maybe in an office or a factory or the fields of our vocations. If the Bhagavadgita cannot give us piece of mind, it would mean that the Bhagavadgita has not helped us, which would also mean that we have not understood it. We cannot read all eighteen chapters of the Gita and then start crying, cursing and complaining. It is to prevent this erroneous, ugly attitude of the human mind that this gospel has been introduced to us.

Every verse of the Gita points to a particular corner of human life and tries to throw a floodlight into that corner. While our activities are manifold, they can be classified under certain primary heads or groups so that a study of these principle heads of our activities would be tantamount to a study of the entire life of every one of us. As I pointed out a little earlier, we have to think before we act. It would not be proper for us to act first and repentantly think later on. Most of us try to go headlong into an activity without proper thought being bestowed upon the nature of the activity before us. We are emotional too much, sentimental beyond a permissible degree, and that is why we act first and think afterwards. Generally, the thought that comes after the action is one of grief, repentance, melancholy, and intense unhappiness. “Oh, I have made a mistake!” But why did we rush into activity so hurriedly without considering the pros and cons of the action? This requires self-control. Unless we have a control over our own nature, we cannot restrain our emotions; and unless the emotions are restrained, thought cannot precede action because we must have time to think, but the emotions will not allow us any time to think even once. They start speaking and acting suddenly, at the spur of the moment, without laying the foundation of proper thought over the issue that has arisen.

The Upanishads are the basic building bricks of the basis of the structure of thought to precede human action in general. I do not mean any particular action specifically. Human action in general, whatever be its nature, is to be preceded by a type of thought, which is beautifully represented in the Upanishads. We cannot go into the vast details of this scientific subject in the few minutes available to us here, but suffice it to say that while the thoughts of the Upanishads lay the foundation for a universal approach to things, the Bhagavadgita gospel brings into high relief the daily operation of this thought in every nook and corner of the world through each and every action of the individual.

The problem of Arjuna was a sentimental and an emotional one, sentiment and emotion having overpowered his understanding, preventing him from thinking in the right direction and urging him to take a decision contrary to what was justifiable under the circumstances. How are we to decide upon the yes or no of an action? Is an action right or wrong; how are we to know? This is the question that the Bhagavadgita tries to answer. Whenever we embark upon a line of action, we are likely to think that it is the right course. Each one thinks that he or she is right and others who oppose that line of action are wrong. Now, is this a permissible course of thinking? Can I say that whatever I do is right and anything contrary is wrong? If each one starts saying this, who is right and who is wrong?

For this, a standard of reference is provided by the Bhagavadgita. Whenever we say that something is right or something is wrong, we have a standard of reference in connection with which we pronounce this judgment. How do we know that something is wrong? Because we have in our mind an idea of the right. Wherefrom has this idea of the right arisen in our mind? This idea might have arisen on account of various factors, but those factors should be based upon an unshakable principle. If the very principle itself is to be shaken and if it is going to be susceptible to changes in the course of time, then our idea of the right will also go on changing every day. The Bhagavadgita provides a permanent standard of reference for judging whether a particular course of action is right or wrong. From this standpoint, Arjuna could decide whether what he thought in his mind was proper or otherwise.

The rightness or the wrongness of an action does not depend upon the pleasure or the pain of the individual concerned in the action; this is the first warning given to us in the Bhagavadgita. We are likely to think that what brings us satisfaction is right and what brings us sorrow or grief, unhappiness, is wrong. This is an unfortunate, hedonistic approach which cannot be ultimately justifiable from the scientific point of view. A scientific principle does not care for our pleasure or pain. When we talk of a scientific principle, we speak of a truth that holds good for every person under all circumstances, irrespective of the emotional condition of the individuals concerned. So our joy or sorrow, personally and individually speaking, cannot become the standard of reference for the rectitude or otherwise of an action.

Arjuna thought that it was a horror before him in the form of a war presented before his terrified eyes. He was not happy. “Krishna, I am very sorry. I think what I am going to do is wrong.” He thought that the action upon which he was about to embark was going to be wrong, inasmuch as it shook his emotions and tore his personality. He was intensely grief-stricken. So you intend to judge actions from the point of view of your personal happiness – if you are happy, it is all right; otherwise, it is not all right. This is not the correct approach, says the Bhagavadgita.

Now, again we go back to the Upanishads. Why should the rectitude or the otherwise of an action not depend upon the pleasure of the individual or the otherwise? The Upanishads give an answer to it. The nature of existence itself is contrary to holding such an opinion. The structure of all phenomena is of such a character that it will not permit us to hold such an individualistic opinion in respect of any action whatsoever. The universe does not belong to you or to me particularly. It does not belong to anyone. As such, we can say that nothing in this world belongs to us because everything belongs to the universe. It is a part of the world. And as the world is the basic repository of even our own personal existence – we belong to the world rather than the world belongs to us – nothing can belong to us. If nothing can really belong to us in the proper judgment of values, on an impartial judgment of things, how can anything give us pleasure or pain? The pleasure or the pain that we seem to be receiving from the context of particular objects or groups of objects outside – this pain or pleasure which is a reaction to the stimulus from objects outside – arises on account of our possessiveness or the establishment of a specific relationship in respect of the objects of the world, which is unjustifiable, scientifically speaking. We are not permitted to establish particular relationships with anything in the world, as nature is a wholly unselfish entity bearing no positive or negative attitude towards any content thereof.

If the world is a single unity, of which we are also an integral part, accepted, no object or person in the world relates to us in any personalistic fashion and, therefore, no one in the world can bring us happiness or sorrow. Our individualised happiness or grief is an immediate outcome of our so-called relationship with certain persons and things in the world which ultimately does not exist, and cannot be justified.

The Upanishads speak of the ultimate truth of things. Yo vai bhūmā tat sukham: The Plenum is felicity. And what is the Plenum? What is this Bhuma which is the source of real bliss? The Chhandogya Upanishad tells us: yo vai bhūmā tat sukham, nālpe sukham asti (Chhandogya Upanishad VII.23.1); yatra nānyat paśyati nānyac chṛṇoti nānyad vijānati sa bhūmā (VII.24.1). Where you are not permitted to look on any object as an external something, that is the Supreme Plenum. But where you are drawn down to the level of an individualistic perception of such and such a thing being personally related to you, that is finitude of consciousness. It is not the true nature of things. Satyam eva jayate nānṛtam, satyena panthā vitato deva-yānaḥ, yenākramanty ṛṣayo hy āpta-kāmā yatra tat satyasya paramaṁ nidhānam (Mundaka Upanisahd 3.1.6), says the Upanishad. Truth succeeds; untruth will never succeed. And what is the truth? The Plenum is the truth. And what is the Plenum? Wherein you are not to look upon anything as an isolated something or a disjointed object separated from your own existence, that is the Plenum.

If this is the truth, all your pleasures and pains should be untruth. Therefore, Arjuna, pleasure and pain cannot become the standard of judging the rectitude or otherwise of an action. That would be to base the action on a false foundation. You have to base your action on the concept of duty rather than on the concept of pleasure.

Now, what is duty? Duty is the obligation that an individual owes to the world outside, and we cannot know what our duty is unless we know what the world is because, as I mentioned in this simple definition of duty, it is an obligation that we owe to the world as a whole. But how do we know what is our obligation to the world if we do not know what the world is? The world is not made up of mountains and rivers. It is not a conglomeration of earth, water, fire, air and ether, sun, moon, stars. The world is a fabric of forces. It is a pattern of energies which work everywhere uniformly both in organic and inorganic substances. We are told today that the universe is made up of energy. It is not made up of substances or things. The world is not made up of things of our taste. The ultimate stuff of the world is something different from the tasty, delightful objects that the senses behold in the structure of space and time. The world is different from what the senses perceive, and therefore we cannot understand the world by merely opening our eyes and seeing it. The five senses of perception cannot give us an understanding of what the world is made of.

Arjuna looked at the world with the five senses. This is not Sankhya, as the Bhagavadgita tells us. Arjuna, you have to look upon the world with the Sankhya knowledge. The Second Chapter of the Bhagavadgita is an exposition of the Sankhya understanding that is to become the basis of our attitude towards the world. And without this Sankhya, yoga will not come. Yoga is the practical application of Sankhya or, in the terminology of the Bhagavadgita, Sankhya is knowledge, yoga is action. So unless you have a knowledge of the nature of the world, you cannot act in the world properly. You will make mistakes in every one of your approaches. Now, this Sankhya which the Bhagavadgita speaks of is the knowledge of the world, which is going to be the foundation of the methodology of action in the world in every field, in every occasion.

Arjuna’s standpoint of knowledge was erroneous because it was sensory, empirical, externalised, personalistic and, therefore, false; so he was in sorrow, whereas Sri Krishna expected Arjuna to rise to the level of the Sankhya, which means to say the uniformity of knowledge which is at the basis of the structure of the world. We are under the impression that the world is outside us; therefore, we have a peculiar attitude towards things which is, again, to come down to the level of our own perception, the attitude of pleasure and pain in respect of things.

“This is wonderful.” “This is very nice.” “This is no good.” We pass such remarks on persons and things on the basis of a sensory evaluation of them. But this is an incorrect attitude. The world is not made up of good things or bad things, pleasurable things or miserable things, our things or other things. It is made up of things in general. It is not our things. They are there even if we are not there. We too belong to it. It is very difficult to conceive what the world is. When the world starts thinking, it is not you or I who thinks. This is Sankhya – the nature of the world in its essential being, quite different from what it appears to us in our sensory perception.

“The world is not outside us,” says the Third Chapter of the Bhagavadgita in a very pithy, pointed half verse: guṇā guṇeṣu vartante iti matvā na sajjate (Gita 3.28). The perception of the world is not the perception of an object, really speaking. The world is not an object. It is a set of forces impinging upon another set of forces within us, called the senses. A group of fabricated structure, a bundle of energy outside, produces an impact of another bundle of energy in our own individuality, called the sensory structure. The colliding of forces from outside in respect of the very same forces inside produces a reaction. That reaction is called perception. The gunas are nothing but forces of nature, prakriti’s attributes – sattva, rajas, tamas, as we call them – present equally in objects outside and the senses inside, and these gunas present in the individual as the forces of sense and mind become responsible for the cognition of the objects outside, whose embodiment are also the very same gunas.

The gunas perceive gunas. We do not perceive the world. Forces come in contact with forces. Energy collides with energy. Nature perceives itself. We do not perceive nature. Therefore, in this cognition of nature by its own self there cannot be any such thing as pleasure or pain. There is only an impersonal demand for duty on the part of every individual, irrespective of caste, creed, colour, sex, age, etc. What nature demands of us does not depend upon our age, our culture, our understanding, etc. It is universally applicable, like the law of gravitation. The law of gravitation does not apply only to old people or young people or learned people, etc. It is for all and sundry. The law of gravitation is one of the forces of nature, and hundreds of others exist in its bosom.

Thus, on the basis of this Sankhya knowledge of the uniformly applicable structural pattern of nature, our actions have to be gauged. Arjuna became giddy. “Very difficult, sir! What are you saying? I cannot act. My mind is giddy. I cannot understand what you are saying.” Then Arjuna’s thoughts are raised step by step from one stage to another stage through the various chapters of the Gita until the apotheosis or the apocalypse is reached in the Universal Viratsvarupa in the Eleventh Chapter. Unless we have the cosmic vision of the Absolute, we cannot understand the world. “Arjuna, you cannot even lift your finger unless you see the Universal Form.” And after the Universal Form was visualised, the proper location of the individual was known. The correct position of each person in respect of the Universe was understood. My status is known only when I know what the Universal is. So Arjuna could not take a single step until the Vision Supreme was bestowed upon him – Sankhya, knowledge, melting into an experience of the very basic creative will and power of the cosmos.

It is in this basic foundation of the cosmos that we have an answer to the question of the relation between matter and spirit of the individual and the world and society. All antitheses get reconciled in the Vision Supreme. The Bhagavadgita takes us through action to knowledge, though it goes from knowledge to action, thus blending knowledge and action in a beautiful synthesis so that knowledge and action cease to be two different approaches. We have not here the conflict between knowledge and action, as both mean one and the same thing. When action understands itself, it is called knowledge; when knowledge starts moving, it is called action. They are one and the same.

Such is the basic implication of the Bhagavadgita gospel, knowledge and action combined, providing a simple rule of judgment of values in our day-to-day life – God speaking to man and God blessing man perennially with an inspiration that can be explained only in terms of that vast unfoldment of Realisation we have in the Eleventh Chapter of the Bhagavadgita. This unfoldment of Realisation concretising itself into manifold activity is expounded in the remaining chapters from the Thirteenth onwards until it reaches the Eighteenth Chapter where all social problems are also touched upon and explained, concluding with a resounding message that God and man should work in unison. Yatra yogeśvaraḥ kṛṣṇo yatra pārtho dhanur-dharaḥ, tatra śrir vijayo bhūtir dhruvā nītir matir mama: Human effort and divine existence are to work in synthesis, in collaboration, in unison, so that when man thinks, God thinks, and when God thinks, man thinks. They are not two different thoughts. When one acts, the other also acts. Where such unity of action rises from a correct understanding of the structure of creation, success is bound to come. “You will certainly succeed in your life; there is absolutely no doubt,” says Sanjaya towards the end of the Bhagavadgita gospel.

[Extracted from Swami Krishnananda Maharaj’s discourses Divine Life Society]

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

Commentary on the Isavasya Upanishad Part 3

Commentary on the Isavasya Upanishad (Part 3) by Swami Krishnananda

Created on Friday 28 February 2014 15:33

*READ MORE \* Commentary on the Isavasya Upanishad

Part 3

andhaṁ tamaḥ praviśanti yo’vidyām upasate      
tato bhūya iva te tamo ya u vidyāyāṁ ratāḥ   9  
anyad evāhur vidyayā anyad āhur avidyayā      
iti śuśruma dhīrāṇām ye nas tad vicacakṣire   10  
vidyāṁ cāvidyāṁ ca yas tad vedobhayam saha      
avidyayā mṛtyuṁ tīrtvā vidyayāmṛtam aśnute   11  
andhaṁ tamaḥ praviśanti ye’sambhūtim upāsate      
tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u sambhutyāṁ ratāḥ   12  
anyad evahūḥ sambhavād anyad āhur asambhavāt      
iti śuśruma dhīrāṇām ye nas tad vicacakṣire   13  
sambhūtiṁ ca vināśaṁ ca yas tad vedobhayaṁ saha      
vināśena mṛtyuṁ tīrtvā sambhūtyā amṛtam aśnute   14  

These are very knotty statements in the famous Isavasya Upanishad, with which the Shukla Yajurveda Samhita concludes. This is the only Upanishad which forms part of a Samhita of the Veda. All the other Upanishads belong either to a Brahmana or an Aranyaka portion of the Veda.

Having pronounced the omnipresence of God in all creation at the very commencement of the Upanishad, it is said, “They go to darkness, who entangle themselves in activity born of ignorance. They go to greater darkness, who satisfy themselves with mere learning, with knowledge in the ordinary sense. The aim of activity is one thing; the aim of learning is another thing. There is no connection between the two. But those who are in a position to blend activity and knowledge in the requisite proportion, they cross over the clutches of death through action and attain immortality through knowledge.”

They go to darkness who involve themselves in this world. They go to greater darkness who think that reality is above this world, as if it is outside. Clinging to the world has one aim, and clinging to that which is otherworldly has another aim. They are two different things altogether. Those who are in a position to blend the externality of the world with the transcendence of reality overcome death by living in this world, and attain the Immortal by communing themselves with the transcendent Reality.

This is an almost literally translated meaning of these verses. Commentaries after commentaries have been written on these verses, and everyone finds a great problem in understanding what all this means. Everyone has to say something new about them; and everyone can say something new about them, because they are so enigmatic in their meaning and their intention is not very clear from a mere surface reading. Having considered the importance of these verses, whatever they may be signifying, Acharyas have left no stone unturned in ransacking their mystery, and have come to some sort of conclusion which seems to be rationally founded and perhaps even scientifically acceptable. The Upanishad wants to free us from any kind of extreme in approach.

We live in a world that has a peculiar characteristic of its own. The characteristic of the world is that it obliges us to do something, compels us to be active every day, to engage ourselves in some work or the other. There is no one who does not do something. Activity is the essential character of earthly existence, empirical life. We would have never seen a person who does not do something. The impulsion to act is generated by the very relation that seems to obtain between ourselves and the world outside. When we are thus compelled to engage ourselves in activity of some kind or the other, we have, at the same time, an idea of the motive behind our performances. It is true that we do not act deliberately of our own accord. We feel pulled and pushed by some force in the direction of activity, making it impossible for us to be inactive, whether or not this activity is going to bring any fruit as a result of its performance.

Our concept of activity involves a result that has to follow from what we do. We become habituated to this vehement impulsion. It becomes part and parcel of our very life itself, and then we never feel that we are impelled to work. We begin to feel that ‘we’ work. ‘I’ do the work. No one says, “I am forced to work. I am compelled.” Though originally it is a sort of compulsion consequent upon the empirical relationship between ourselves and the world of externality, our habituation to this continuous activity, day in and day out throughout our life, creates a peculiar psychological circumstance which makes us wrongly feel that we do the work, even though we are forced to work. And inasmuch as ‘we’ do the work, we do it with a purpose. We expect a result to follow from the work that we do in this world.

This is the kind of attitude that we generally have towards life, and we have no other opinion about ourselves except that we work and some fruit is reaped out of this work. We start our day with work, and end our day with work. We are born with an impulse to work, and we die with work. If this is the only meaning that we can see in this world, then to darkness we go after death, because that is not the meaning of life. Merely because there is an impulsion to work and we are helplessly driven, as it were, in the direction of this work, and we do the work, it does not follow that there is a proper comprehension of the meaning of what this work is. Why should we be impelled so? Taking for granted that there is an impulsion to act, from where does this impulsion come? This question is rarely raised by anybody.

We have to work. We have this duty to perform. We have this family. We have these obligations. “I am involved in it. I am very busy. I am helpless. I do, and I must do.” This is all we hear from anyone in the world, as if this explains the whole mystery of life. It is an explanation of a particular phenomenon through which life presents itself as an aspect. But the impulsion to work is not the whole meaning of life. And, worse still, we feel that it is good to subject oneself to the pressure of some force that is impelling us to work, and then get on with this drudgery of action. To darkness we go after we leave this body, if we live a life of this kind, which is pure slavery, involvement without any kind of freedom attached to it. Avidya, ignorance is the name of this kind of living.

But if this kind of extreme attitude that we adopt, due to sheer subjection to outer activity, will take us to darkness after death, what else are we expected to do? There are people who withdraw themselves from all activity in a theoretical concept of the structure of things, and rational investigation is conducted into the motivation to work. They come to the conclusion that the life that we live in this world has a transcendent meaning. Reality is transcendent. The knowledge of the transcendent is to be the main occupation of our life, because the meaning of life cannot be discovered in empirical activity. Activity is an outer expression of another impulse that originates from a transcendent significance, so let us resort to the transcendent only and do nothing, because the transcendent does not compel us to work. Work is an arrangement between the human individuality and the outer world of space and time. The transcendent is not in space and time and, therefore, there is no question of work. These are people who try to contemplate an ethereal transcendence that is totally divested of any kind of connection with this world. For instance, to put it in a more concrete form, as it is bad to get attached to the body, we ignore the body totally and go on contemplating on a self that we imagine in our mind: “I am contemplating on my Atman; I am not interested in this stupid body.”

If one is totally ignorant of the existence of the Atman inside, and is wholly engaged in bodily comforts and works through the body for the sake of physical satisfaction, it is bad because the physical body is not the reality. So, one kind of extreme in the attitude of people makes them bend down to the needs and clamours of the bodily satisfactions and work for the body only, whether one’s own body or family body. This is sheer ignorance, as we know very well. And contemplation on the Atman by imagining it to be a light transcendent to the physical world and this body would take another course, whereby we are likely to ignore the body completely. On the one hand, we ignore the Atman and cling to this world and the body for its own satisfaction; and on the other hand, we ignore the body and the world, and cling to a concept of the Atman as a transcendent element. To greater darkness we go if we think that the Atman is outside the body or inside the body, and we are totally oblivious – deliberately, as it were – to the existence of the body and its connections with the world, and we engage ourselves in a contemplation that is pure ethereal engagement and pure theory.

The effect of this kind of involvement in physical activity and bodily comfort is one thing. That is unadulterated bondage, as can be very well imagined by everyone. We will be born into the same condition in which we lived because of such attachment to the physical body and the actions of the body in relation to the physical world. There is no Atman, no God, no spirituality; no such idea occurs to the minds of people who are totally physical, material, economic, bound to human society, family, money, name, fame and power. All these come under worldly comforts, connected with human activity of various kinds. There is no talk of Atman, Self, Light, etc. To darkness they go, because of the sheer ignorance in which they are living.

Now, what is the step that we have to take to free ourselves from this possibility of entering into darkness? If we ignore the world, ignore the body, and contemplate the Atman, to greater darkness we go. This is how the Upanishad tries to catch us from both sides. We will not be permitted to be wholly interested in the bodily requirements and the world of activity, because we will be condemned to go to darkness. Killers of the Self are those who think only of the body and all its relations in the form of activity in the physical world, says the Upanishad. But what about those who have awakened to this consciousness of the bondage of this body and the world, and abstain from all work, ignore the body, punish it, and do tapas to such an extent that it starves and kills the body for the sake of the Atman? To greater darkness they go. It is worse than the darkness into which others enter.

The nature of Ultimate Reality is neither externality not internality. God is not outside. God is also not inside. There are people who have no idea of the Selfhood of the Supreme Being, which dominates all life as the Atman Supreme, and consider themselves satisfied with world relations. There are others who think that God is not connected with the world. He is extra-cosmic. There is absolutely no relation between God and world, because God is uncontaminated by space, time and objectivity. This is what we hear in the scriptures. There is neither space nor time, nor individual objects in God. And this world is nothing but that. It is just space, time and objectivity. How can there be any connection between darkness and light? This world is like darkness, and it is perpetually changing. God is unchanging. Everyone in this world is grief-stricken; everyone has some sorrow or the other. God is free from all grief and sorrow; He is all bliss. This is the world of death, where everyone has to die one day or the other. God is immortal. What connection can there be between this world and God, if this is the state of affairs? Therefore, it is futile to have any kind of relation with this world. We shall retire from all relationship to the body and the world, and contemplate that which is not of this world, not in this world and which has no connection with this world.

This is a mistake, says the Upanishad. It is a mistake to think that this world is everything, that bodily comfort is all-in-all, and to live and die only for work. It is a mistake not to have any cognisance of a reality that is above the world. But it is also a mistake to imagine that reality is totally outside the world and has no connection with this body, the prana, the senses, the mind, and any kind of relation in this world. Mostly religious practices go to extremes of this type or that type. Transcendence is mostly the attitude of religion. We have to blend avidya and vidya together for the sake of freedom and immortality, says the Upanishad. The bondage to which we are subjected by action, day in and day out, will make us disgusted with everything, and we will be automatically freed from the impulse to act. The world itself will liberate us from its clutches when we have paid our debts to it.

We owe a debt to this world, and we owe a debt to this body. It is the debt that we owe to this body and the world that compels us to live in this body and to work in this world. Sometimes this debt is designated as prarabdha karma – a kind of nemesis, a reaction produced by certain actions that we did in the past, accumulated for the purpose of experience in this world, forcing us to reap the fruit of those actions, whether pleasurable or miserable, whatever the case may be. This is that impulse to act. It is this impulse that keeps us alive in this body. As long as the reaction of those actions, called prarabdha, continues, as long as the momentum of those actions continues, as long as we have not exhausted by experience the results of those actions which are called prarabdha, the body will continue to live. The body cannot live even for a moment after the exhaustion of this prarabdha karma. Like the flame of a lamp gets extinguished when there is no more oil, death of the body will take place instantaneously when the momentum of those actions which have produced this body ceases to act. Similarly will the impulse to act in this world cease automatically.

Therefore, it is futile to try to cut off connection with the world. No one can ignore this body. No one can deliberately disconnect oneself from this body and the world as long as this impulse with which we are born, and which itself is the reason for our birth, is alive. Hence, the warning is discharged in this Upanishadic Mantra: do not attach yourself to this body or the work of this world under the impression that there is nothing more; and also, do not ignore the body or the world, because you cannot do that. No one can peel one’s own skin. Work has to be carried on in this world through this body, though not for the pleasure that the work brings or the delicious fruit that the work may yield. That would again be further attachment to the work, and would increase the desire to perpetuate life in this body. Work should not be done for the pleasurable fruit that it brings, not for name, fame, authority, not for any kind of compensation that we expect through this action, but merely because it has to be done as a debt that we owe to the body and the world through this working of the prarabdha karma.

In that manner, live in this world. Thus the world will free you from its clutches. Mrityu, death, will not any more harass you because death, which goes together with birth, is a consequence of the karmas of the past. As long as the karmas of the past germinate into action, life in this world and the body will continue to exist, with all its involvements in life. Knowing this, one has to discharge the debt through the body in respect of the world – but be not attached.

The knowledge which is referred to here as the counterpart of action, resorting to which entirely, unconnected with action, is supposed to lead one to greater darkness, is theoretical knowledge. It is imagining in the mind, like building castles in the air: I am not this body, I have no connection with this world, I have no connection with anybody, I have no relation to any person in the world, this body is not me. There are people who chant mantra-like statements of this kind, which cut no ice because what is the use of merely saying “I am not this body”, when we know we are the body? That knowledge, which is mere adumbration of a false notion entertained conceptually – not actually a freedom from the body that is realised, but a mere thought in the mind together with the entanglement in the body – such a knowledge will take us to greater darkness because it is hypocrisy. It is hypocritical contemplation to imagine theoretically “I am the Atman”, while we know that the body pinches with every kind of pain in this world. We have hunger and thirst, and terror of every kind in this world. The body experiences them. As long as this consciousness of the existence of the body is with us, we cannot say that we are not the body. Merely saying, or chanting a mantra-like type of conceptualisation that is theoretical, scriptural, will make a person go to greater darkness, because the bondage will not cease. They will take birth once again, and because of the egoism with which they started this kind of theoretic contemplation – a hypocrisy, as it were – they will entangle themselves once again in rebirth, and continue to do the same work to which they were subjected earlier.

What is the solution? The solution is also mentioned in the Upanishad. We have to work with knowledge, and not simply work without knowledge. We should not only have knowledge, minus work. Both should be known together as a blend.

Here, in these mantras of the Isavasya Upanishad, we seem to have a seed of the gospel of the Bhagavadgita, where Sri Krishna hammers into the mind of the student Arjuna that karma should be based on buddhi, or sankhya. Yoga is an expression of sankhya. Yoga is action, sankhya is knowledge. Arjuna knew what action was, but he did not know what knowledge was. He was considering the pros and cons of activity. The gains and losses, the loves and the hatreds involved in action, were before his mind’s eye. But he did not know; he had no sankhya. He had no knowledge as to why he had this sentiment of love and hatred inside, and the idea of gain and loss outside. Sri Krishna reprimanded Arjuna, “You are lacking sankhya.” Sankhya buddhi was not there. Here in a little passage, in a two-line instruction of the Isavasya Upanishad, we have a premonition, as it were, of the great gospel of the Bhagavadgita.

In the Bhagavadgita, as well as in this mantra of the Isavasya Upanishad, we are told how we have to live in this world. We should not go to extremes, either empirically or transcendentally. Neither can we deny what consciousness accepts as reality, nor can we cling to it as the only reality. In this condition of our physical existence, what consciousness accepts as reality has to be accepted as reality – to the extent it is accepted by consciousness. But in this acceptance, we cannot be attached to that perception, because it is not the whole of truth. Our consciousness clings to this body and clings to the world of values, though this clinging is unwarranted. It is a mistake. It is ignorance, avidya. It is death. As long as we persist in the acceptance of a mistake, it is a reality for us. We accept a mistake deliberately and affirm that it is right because our consciousness has taken a stand that it is right. As long as we are not disillusioned of this fact, the acceptance of reality of the otherwise mistaken notion will continue.

A gradual disentanglement of consciousness from the involvement in the physical world is advised. That gradual system is yoga. That is knowledge; that is sankhya. The sankhya says that purusha is involved in prakriti. If the purusha does not know that it exists independent of prakriti, and gets totally involved in prakriti and does whatever the prakriti does, it is earthly bondage, avidya, which takes us to darkness. But if, having involved itself, the purusha imagines, “I am not involved. I am totally independent” – that would also not be freedom. A person in a prison can say that he is a free man and nobody can bind him. He may have a conceptual freedom in his mind, but he is actually in bondage in a prison.

What is reality? Whatever we accept as reality is reality for us, whether or not it is the Ultimate Reality. The acceptance of the reality of this body and the world is a temporal concession given to the working of prarabdha karma. This vehement action of prarabdha on this body and the world cannot be avoided as long as it is working in the direction of its own self-exhaustion. Fire will burn as long as there is fuel. When the fuel is not there, the fire subsides. This fire of longing for this body and the world will subside only when the fuel of prarabdha subsides. As long as the prarabdha karma continues, the body will not die even if we starve it. It will live somehow or the other. And when the prarabdha is exhausted, we will certainly die, even if we are eating the best food. We do not live and die because of eating or not eating, as we may imagine. Unprotected but God-protected, one can live. But protected by the whole world and not protected by God, one will perish. Unknown, unbefriended, but under the care of providence, a person can live even in a forest. But he can die even when perfectly taken care of in the midst of family and friends, when providence is against it.

The idea is that we should neither attach ourselves to our body and the work that it does in respect of the world, nor should we shun it. Do not say, “I will only work; I don’t know anything else but work.” That is attachment. Do not say, “I don’t want work,” because it is attachment. That will not work, because it is attachment to non-action. The concept of not-doing is also a kind of doing because all action is actually only the mind working. Action, so-called, is mental. What the mind thinks is action, and not so much what the body does. If the mind is absent, physical action is no action. But if physical action is absent, although the mind is acting, the real action is going on.

Thus, the Isavasya Upanishad goes together with the teaching of the Bhagavadgita, the great teaching that action and knowledge have to be combined. That is to say, work we must. But how would we combine them? No one can be here without any action. We must perform action because, as already mentioned, as long as we are in this body and this world, action is the law of this body in its relation to this world. We must participate in this action of this impulse to live through the body and the world, but not get attached to it. The idea of non-attachment cannot arise in the mind of a person unless he has knowledge, sankhya buddhi, vidya.

That action actually is a bondage, and that it is somehow to be carried on to discharge one’s debts is the knowledge that is to be at the back of this action. We have to do the drudgery. We cannot free ourselves from that as long as it is necessary for us to live in the body and the world. But we need not be attached to it. This freedom from attachment can be possible only if we know why we have come into this body. That is called sankhya. So, knowledge and action should go together. This is one teaching of the three verses connected with avidya and vidya.

The other three verses tell us another aspect of the matter, relating us to the world and God. There are people who believe that the world exists, but God does not exist. There are those who think that God exists, but the world does not exist. These are two types of people in the world, and neither type is totally correct in their feelings. Those who feel that only the world exists, and God, or the Ultimate, does not exist, will go to darkness. Those who deny the world entirely, and think that God is extra-cosmic, go to greater darkness.

What is the relationship between God and the world? The teaching of this mantra is that we have to blend the concept of God and the world. Here in this context, the Purusha Sukta of the Veda is a great admonition to us that the Supreme Being became the cosmos. He envelopes the whole Cosmos, and is immanent in every little particle of sand. Every atom in creation is indwelt by God. That is the immanent aspect of God. If that is the case, and that is the only thing that we know – we know nothing more about God except that He is indwelling, that He is enveloping the cosmos – then it would mean that He has exhausted Himself in this world. He does not exist anymore as an independent reality. Just as milk has become curd, God has become the world. If God has become the world as milk has become curd, then as there is no chance of curd becoming milk again, as we know very well, no one can attain God. The idea of God-realisation would be a futile attempt, as God has exhausted Himself in this curd of the world. Is it so? It is not true. God has not become curd, though one doctrine of philosophy, called parinama vada, adumbrates and tells us that God has transformed Himself into the world. This idea of transformation should be taken with a pinch of salt. What do we mean by ‘transformed Himself’? Has He become something else? To say that God has transformed Himself into the world would be to say that God has become another thing.

God has not become another thing. Logically, ‘A’ cannot become ‘B’. ‘A’ is ‘A’, and once ‘A’ becomes ‘B’, ‘A’ ceases to be. God would cease to be, if He has transformed Himself into the world. And what is God-realisation? The question does not arise.

God also transcends the world, says the Purusha Sukta, and is not merely present in the world. Very metaphorically, we may say, the sutra tells us that a little fraction – one-fourth, as it were – has become the world. Three-fourths is still there as the transcendent, uncontaminated Eternity. It does not mean that God can be divided like that into one-fourth and three-fourths, etc. The idea is just to instruct that this vast creation that is unthinkably and unimaginably astounding in its extensiveness is, after all, a little fraction. This is one Brahmanda, and God is supposed to be the Lord of endless crores of universes, which are regulated, controlled and ruled by Him. Every little particle of creation is indwelt by Him, and yet He is transcendent.

If we soak cloth in a bucket full of water, every fibre of the cloth will be indwelt by water. I am giving a small example of daily life to illustrate how a thing that is immanent can also be transcendent. God is immanent. But He is not simply immanent; He is transcendent, also. The whole of the cloth is saturated with water. There is water everywhere, in every fibre of the cloth. Water is indwelling the cloth. It is immanent. But water is not the cloth. It is very well known that cloth cannot be water; water cannot be cloth. Water is transcendent to cloth, though it is immanent in the cloth. This is a homely example just to show how a thing that is immanent and indwelling can also be totally transcendent.

Therefore, the Upanishad tells us that the Ultimate Reality is not merely transcendent in the sense of complete disconnection from the world. So we need not shun the world as the creation of Satan, or utter evil, nor can we cling to the world as a final reality. The world is not evil, because it is indwelt by God. It is not the final reality, because God is also transcendent. So this clinging to the externality of the world as the only reality is a mistake which will take us to darkness. And imagining God as a totally transcendent Being above the world will take us to greater darkness. We have to combine in our meditations the blending of these two concepts. God is present everywhere in all creation, and yet stands above the world. We will not be attached to this world, and yet, at the same time, we will not ignore this world.

These verses of the Isavasya Upanishad warn us in two different ways. On the one hand, we are expected to bring together knowledge and action in our daily life, and not separate action from knowledge or knowledge from action. On the other hand, it does not want us to separate God from the world and the world from God. They have to be brought together. There is a synthesis in our personal life in the world, and a synthesis in our meditation on cosmic existence, which is the creation of God. There is inward synthesis and also outward synthesis. When this inward synthesis and outward synthesis are effected, these two syntheses have again to be synthesised into a total Infinitude, which is what the Bhagavadgita explains in its chapters from seven to eleven.

So goes the Isavasya Upanishad, a wonderful scripture. In pithy, precise statements it gives us the whole philosophy of life, which is given to us in a more detailed form in the scripture of the Bhagavadgita. How have we to live in this world? By neither shunning action and the world, nor attaching ourselves to action and the world; by blending action with knowledge, and blending the whole cosmos with the Supreme Creator.

This is to live a totally integrated spiritual life, which is the only way to final salvation of the Spirit, moksha prapti.

[Extracted from Swami Krishnananda Maharaj’s discourses Divine Life Society]

The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita

◄◄ First ◄ Previous (84) Next (86) ► Last (105) ►►