|
SUPPLEMENT
The
Ishavasyopanishad
WITH A COMMENTARY
IN ENGLSIH
With God all this must be invested, even all that is world in this moving
universe; abandon therefore desire and enjoy and covet no man's possession.
the
guru
The Upanishad sets forth by pronouncing as the
indispensable basis of its revelations the universal nature of God. This
universal nature of Brahman the Eternal is the beginning and end of the Vedanta
and if it is not accepted, nothing the Vedanta says can have any value, as all
its propositions either proceed from it or at least presuppose it; deprived of
this central and highest truth, the Upanishads become what mleccha
scholars and philosophers think them to be, — a mass of incoherent though often
sublime speculations; with this truth in your hand as a lamp to shed light on
all the obscurest sayings of the Scriptures, you soon come to realise that the
Upanishads are a grand harmonious and perfectly luminous whole, expressing in
its various aspects the single and universal Truth; for under the myriad
contradictions of phenomena (prapañca) there is one Truth and one only.
All the Smritis, the Puranas, the Darshanas, the Dharmashastras, the writings of
Shaktas, Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Sauras, as well as the whole of Buddhism and its
Scriptures are merely so many explanations, comments and interpretations from
different sides, of these various aspects of the one and only Truth. This Truth
is the sole foundation on which all religions can rest as on a sure and
impregnable rock; — and more than a rock, for a rock may perish but this endures
for ever. Therefore is the religion of the Aryas called the Sanatana Dharma, the
Law Sempiternal. Nor are the Hindus in error when they declare the Sruti to be
eternal and without beginning and the Rishis who composed the hymns to be only
the witnesses who saw the Truth and put it in human language; for this seeing
was not mental sight, but spiritual. Therefore the Vedas are justly called the
Sruti or revelation. Of
Page – 447
these the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharvan are the fertilising
rain which gave the plant of the Truth nourishment and made it grow, the
Brahmanas are the forest in which the plant is found, the Aranyakas are the soil
in which it grows, the Upanishads are the plant itself, roots, stalks, leaves,
calix and petals, and the flower which manifests itself once and for ever is the
great saying so'ham — I am He which is the culmination of the Upanishads.
Salutation to the so'ham. Salutation to the Eternal who is without place,
time, cause or limit. Salutation to my Self who am the Eternal.
the
student
I salute the Eternal and my Self who am the Eternal.
Svāhā!
the
guru
The Upanishad therefore begins by saying that
all this must be clothed or invested with the Lord. By this expression it is
meant that the individual Jivatman or human soul in order to attain salvation
must cover up all this universe with the Lord, as one might cover the body with
a garment. By the Lord we mean obviously not the unknowable Parabrahman for of
the unknowable we cannot speak in terms of place, time or difference but the
Brahman knowable by Yoga, the luminous shadow of the One put forth by the Shakti
of the One, which by dividing itself into the Male and Female, Purusha and
Prakriti, has created this world of innumerable forms and names. Brahman is
spoken of as the Lord; that is, we best think of Him as the Ruler and Sovereign
of the universe. But still He is the ocean of spiritual force, which by its mere
presence sets working the creative, preservative, and destructive Shakti or Will
of the Eternal Parabrahman in the form of Prakriti, a moving ocean of energy,
कारणजल:
Of these two, the ocean of spiritual force and the
ocean of material form, the latter is contained in the other and could not be
without it. It may be said to be surrounded by it or clothed by it. The Lord
himself is present on the ocean in various forms, Prajna, Hiranyagarbha and
Virat, or Vishnu, Brahma and Maheshwara. This is what the Puranas represent as
Vishnu on the Serpent of Time and Space in the Ocean and Brahma coming
Page – 448
out of the lotus in his navel etc. This is the Lord, the King
and Ruler. We must therefore realise all things in this universe to be the
creation of that ocean of Brahman or spiritual force which surrounds them as a
robe surrounds its wearer.
the
student
I do not understand. Surely all things are
Brahman himself; why then should he be said to surround all things as if he were
different from them?
the
guru
It is meant by this expression that the
universal and undivided consciousness which we call Brahman, surrounds and
includes all the limited individual consciousnesses which present themselves to
us in the shape of things.
the
student
Still I do not understand. How can the one
indivisible consciousness be divided, or if it is divided, how can it at the
same time remain one and surround its own parts ? A thing cannot be at the same
time one and indivisible and yet divisible and multifold.
the
guru
On the contrary this is precisely the nature of
consciousness to be eternally one and indivisible, and yet always divisible at
will; for man's consciousness has often been split up into two states each with
its own history and memory, so that when he is in one state, he does not know
what he has been thinking and doing in the other. Persons ignorant of the Truth
imagine from this circumstance that a man's consciousness must be not single
and homogeneous but a bundle of different personalities. The Sankhyas and others
imagine that there must be an infinite number of Purushas, souls and not One,
for otherwise, they say, all would have the same knowledge, the same pleasure
and pain etc. But this is merely Avidya, Ignorance, and when the apparently
individual Purusha puts himself into the complete state of Yoga with the Eternal
he discovers that all the time there was only One Purusha who was cognisant of
and contained the others in the sense
Page – 449
that they were simply projections (sṛṣṭi)
from him. These states of split consciousness are only different states of one
personality and not separate personalities. This will at once be clear if a
skilful and careful hypnotiser put the man in the right state of sleep;
for then a third state of personality will often evolve which has known all
along what the other two were doing and saying. This is in itself sufficient
proof that all along the unity of consciousness was there, submerged indeed but
constant and subliminally active. The division of this one consciousness into
two separate states results from a particular and unusual action of avidyā,
the same universal Nescience which in its general and normal action makes men
imagine that they are a different self from the Universal Consciousness and not
merely states or conditions projected (sṛṣṭā)
of that consciousness. We see here then established an example of the one and
indivisible consciousness becoming divided and multifold, yet remaining one and
indivisible all the time. This single indivisible consciousness itself, the I of
the waking man, is only a division or rather a state of a still wider
consciousness more independent of gross matter which gets some play in the
condition of dream and of which dream hypnosis is only a particular and
capricious form, but which more permanently and coherently is finally liberated
from the gross body at or after death. This wider consciousness is called the
Dream condition and the body or upādhi in which it works is called the
subtle body. The Dream Consciousness may be said to surround the waking
consciousness and its body as a robe surrounds its wearer, for it is wider and
less trammelled in its nature and range; it is the selecting agency
from which and by which a part is selected for waking purposes in the material
life by a still wider consciousness which we call the Sleep condition or the
causal Body and from this and by this it is selected for life before birth and
after death. This Sleep condition is again surrounded by Brahman from whom and
by whom it is selected for causal purposes, —just as a robe surrounds its
wearer.
Thus you will realise that Brahman is a wide, eternally one
and indivisible Consciousness which yet limits itself at will and yet remains
illimitable surrounding like a robe all the various states or illusory
limitations.
Page – 450
the
student
True but the robe is different from its wearer.
the
guru
Let us consider a nut with the kernel in it, we
see that ether in the form or upādhi of the nut surrounds ether in the
upādhi of the kernel as a robe surrounds its wearer; but the two are the
same; there is one ether not two.
the
student
Now I understand.
the
guru
Consider next what the Upanishad goes on to
indicate more definitely as the thing to be clothed or invested — whatever is
jagat or jagatī, or literally whatever is moving thing in her that
moves. Now jagatī, she who moves, is an old name for Earth, Prithivi, and
afterwards for the whole wide universe, of which the Earth with which
alone we human beings are at present concerned, is the type. Why then is the
universe called jagatī, she that moveth? Because it is a form of Prakriti
whose essential characteristic is motion; for by motion she creates this
material world, and indeed all object-matter is only a form, that is to say a
visible, audible or sensible result of motion; every material object is
jagat, full of infinite motion, — even the stone, even the clod. This
material world, our senses tell us, is the only existing reality; but the
Upanishad warns us against the false evidence of our senses and bids us realise
in our hearts and minds Brahman the Ocean of spiritual force, drawing him in our
imaginations like a robe round each sensible thing.
the
student
But the Upanishad does not say that the material
world is itself Brahman.
the
guru
It will yet say that. It tells us next by
abandonment of this (all that is in the world) to enjoy and not covet any man's
wealth.
Page – 451
We are to enjoy the whole world, but not to covet the
possessions of others. How is this possible ? If I, Devadatta, am told to enjoy
all that is in the world, but find that I have very little to enjoy while my
neighbour Harischandra has untold riches, how can I fail to envy him his wealth
and why should I not try to get it for my own enjoyment, if I safely can ? I
shall not try because I cannot, because I have realised that there is nothing in
this world but Brahman manifesting the universe by his Shakti, and that there is
no Devadatta, no Harischandra, but only Brahman in various states of
consciousness to which these names are given. If therefore Harischandra enjoys
his riches, then it is I who am enjoying them, for Harischandra is myself, — not
my body in which I am imprisoned or my desires by which my body is made
miserable, but my true self, the Purusha within me who is the witness and
enjoyer of all this sweet, bitter, tender, grand, beautiful, terrible, pleasant,
horrible and wholly wonderful and enjoyable drama of the world which Prakriti
enacts for his delectation. Now if as the Sankhyas and other philosophies and
the Christian and other religions, declare, there are innumerable Purushas and
not one, there would be no ground for the Christian injunction to love others as
oneself or for the description by the Sruti and Smriti of the perfect sage as
सर्वभूतहिते रत:
, busied with and delighting in the good of all creatures; for then Harischandra would be in no way connected with me and there would be no point of
contact between us except the material, from which hatred and envy are far more
ready to arise than love and sympathy. How then could I prefer him to myself?
But from the point of view of Vedanta, such preference is natural, right and in
the end inevitable. It is inevitable because as I have risen from the beast to
the man, so must I rise from the man to the God. This preference is the
perennial well and fountain, evolution meaning simply the wider and wider
revelation of Brahman, the universal spirit, the progress from the falsehood of
matter to the truth of spirit; and this progress, however slow, is inevitable.
How is the preference of others to myself inevitable, natural, right ? It is
natural because I am not really preferring another to myself, but my true self
to my false. God who is in all to my single body and mind, myself in Devadatta
and Harischandra, to myself
Page – 452
in Devadatta alone. It is right and inevitable because it is
better for me to enjoy the enjoyment of Harischandra than to enjoy my own, since
in this way I shall make my knowledge of Brahman a reality and not a mere
intellectual conception or assent; I shall turn it into an experience —
anubhava, and anubhava, the Smritis tell us, is the essence of true
jñāna. For this reason perfect love, by which I do not mean the mere sensual
impulse of man towards woman, is a great and ennobling thing, for by its means
two separated conditions of the universal Consciousness come together and become
one. Still nobler and more ennobling is the love of the patriot who lives and
dies for his country, for in this way he becomes one with millions of divine
units and still greater, nobler, more exalting the soul of the philanthropist,
who without forgetting family or country lives and dies for mankind or for all
creatures. He is the wisest Muni, the greatest Yogi, who not only reaches
Brahman by the way of Jnana, not only soars to Him on the wings of Bhakti, but
becomes He through God-devoted Karma, who gives himself up utterly for his
family and friends, for his country, for all humanity, for the world, yes and
when he can the solar system and systems upon systems, — for the whole universe.
Therefore the Upanishad tells us that we must enjoy by
abandonment, by tyāga or renunciation. This is a curious expression,
तेन त्यक्तेन भुञजीथा:
; it is a curious thing to tell a man that he must
abandon and what he has abandoned enjoy, by the very sacrifice. The natural man
shrinks from the statement as a dangerous paradox. Yet the seer of the Upanishad
is wiser than we, for his statement is literally true. Think what it means. It
means that we give up our own petty personal joy and pleasure, to bathe up to
the eyes in the joys of others; and the joys of one man may be as great as you
please, the united joys of a hundred must needs be greater. By renunciation you
can increase your enjoyments a hundredfold; if you are a true patriot, you will
feel the joys, not of one man, but of three hundred millions; if you are a true
philanthropist, all the joys of the countless millions of the earth will flow
through your soul like an ocean of nectar. But, you say, their sorrows will flow
there too ? That too is an agony of sweetness which exalts the soul to Paradise,
that you can turn into
Page – 453
joy, unparalleled joy of reliving and turning into bliss the
woes of the nation for which you sacrifice yourself or of the humanity in whom
you are trying to realise God. Even the mere continuous patient resolute effort
to do this is a joy unspeakable; even defeat in such a cause is a stern pleasure
when it strengthens the soul for new and ceaseless endeavour and the souls
worthy of the sacrifice, derive equal strength from defeat or victory. Remember
that it is not the weak in spirit to whom the Eternal gives himself wholly;
it is the strong heroic soul that reaches God. Others can only touch His shadow
from afar. In this way the man who renounces the little he can call his own for
the good of others, gets in return and can utterly enjoy all that is world in
this moving universe.
If you cannot rise so high, still the words of the Upanishad
are true in other ways. You are not asked necessarily to give up the objects of
your enjoyments physically; it is enough if you give them up in your heart, if
you enjoy them in such spirit that you will neither be overjoyed by gain nor
cast down by loss. That enjoyment is clear, deep and calm; fate cannot break it,
robbers cannot take it away, enemies cannot overwhelm it. Otherwise your
enjoyment is chequered and broken with fear, sorrow, trouble and passion, the
passion for its increase, the trouble for keeping it, the sorrow of diminution,
the fear of its utter loss. It is far better by abandoning to enjoy. If you wish
to abandon physically, that too is well, so long as you take care that you are
not cherishing the thought of the enjoyment in your mind. Nay, it will often be
a quicker road to enjoyment. Wealth and fame and success naturally flee from the
man who pursues them; he breaks his heart or perishes without gaining them; or
if he gains them, it is often after a very hell of difficulty, a very mountain
of toil. But when a man turns his back on wealth and glory, then, unless his
past actions forbid, they come crowding to lay themselves at his feet. And if
they come will he enjoy or reject them ? He may reject them — that is a great
path and the way of the innumerable saintly sages but you need not reject them,
you may take and enjoy them. How will you enjoy them then? Not for your personal
pleasure, certainly not for your false self; for you have already abandoned that
kind of enjoyment in your heart; but you may enjoy God in them and them for God.
As a king merely
Page – 454
touches the nazarānā, passes it on into the public
treasury, so you may, merely touching the wealth that comes to you, pour it out
for those around you, for the country, for humanity, seeing Brahman in these.
His glory again he may conceal with humility but use the influence it gives him
in order to lead men upwards to the Divine. Such a man will quickly rise above
joy and sorrow, victory and defeat; for in sorrow as in joy he will feel himself
to be near God, with God, like God and finally God himself. Therefore the
Upanishads go on to say
Do thy deeds in this world and wish to live thy hundred
years.
A hundred years is the full span of man's natural life
according to the Vedas. The Sruti therefore tells us that we must not turn our
backs on life, must not fling it from us untimely or even long for early release
from our body but willingly fill out our term, even be most ready to prolong it
to the full period of man's ordinary existence so that we may go on doing our
deeds in this world. Mark the emphasis laid on the word
कुर्वन्
, by adding to it
eva. Verily we must do our deeds in the world and not avoid doing
them; there is no need to fly to the mountains in order to find the Self, since
He is here, in you and in all around you. And if you flee there, not to find Him
but to escape from the misery and misfortune of the world which you are too weak
to face, then you lose the Self for this life and perhaps many to come. I repeat
to you that it is not the weak and the coward who can climb up to God, but the
strong and brave alone. Every individual jivātman must become the perfect
kṣatriya
before he can be the brāhmaṇa.
the
student
All this is opposed to what the wisest men have
taught and those we most delight to revere, still teach and practise.
the
guru
Are you sure that it is? What do they teach?
Page – 455
the
student
That vairāgya, disgust with the world is
the best way and its entry into a man's soul is his first call to the way of
mukti, which is not by action but by knowledge.
the
guru
Vairāgya is a
big word and it has come to mean many things, and it is because these are
confused and jumbled together by the men of āryāvarta, that Tamas and
Anaryan cowardice, weakness and selfishness have spread over this holy and
ancient land, covering it with a thick pall of darkness. There is one
vairāgya, the truest and noblest, of the strong man who having tasted the
sweets of this world finds that there is in them no permanent and abiding
sweetness, that they are not the true and immortal joy which his true and
immortal self demands and turns to something in himself which is deeper, holier
and imperishable. Then there is the vairāgya of the weakling who has
lusted and panted and thirsted for the world's sweets but has been pushed and
hustled from the board by fate or by stronger men than himself; and would use
Yoga and Vedanta as the drunkard uses his bottle and the opium-maniac his pill
or his laudanum. Not for such ignoble uses were these great things meant by the
Rishis who disclosed them to the world. If such a man came to me for initiation,
I would send him back with the fiery rebuke of Sri Krishna to the son of Pritha
Truly is such weakness unworthy of one who is no other than
Brahma the Eternal, the Creator and the Destroyer of the worlds. Yet I would not
be understood to decry the true vairāgya of sorrow and disappointment;
for sometimes when men have tried in ignorance for ignoble things and failed,
not from weakness but because these things were beneath their true greatness and
high destiny, then their eyes are opened and they seek meditation, solitude and
Samadhi not as a dram to drown their sorrows and still unsated longing, but to
realise their divine strength and use
Page – 456
it for divine purposes; sometimes great spirits seek
the way of . the Sannyasin, because in the solitude alone with God and the Guru,
they can best develop Brahmatejah and once attained they pour it in a stream
over the world. Such was Shankaracharya, and sometimes it is the sorrows of
others or the misery of the world that finds them in ease and felicity and
drives them out, as Buddha was driven out, to seek help for sufferers in the
depths of their own being. True Sannyasins are the greatest of all men because
they are the strongest unto work, the most mighty in God to do the work of God.
the
student
I repeat that all this is opposed to the teaching of the
great Advaitavadin Acharyas, Sri Shankara and the rest.
the
guru
It is not opposed to the teaching of
Sri Krishna who is the greatest of all teachers and the best of jagat gurus.
For he tells Sanjay in the Mahabharata that between the creed of salvation by
works and the creed of salvation by no works, that of salvation by works is the
true creed and he condemns the other as the idle talk of a weakling; and again
and again in the Bhagavad Gita he lays stress on the superiority of works.
THE
STUDENT
This is true, but he also says Jnana is superior to all
things and there is nothing equal to it.
THE
GURU
Nor is there; for Jnana is
indispensable; Jnana is first and greatest. Works without Jnana will not save a
man but only plunge him deeper and deeper into bondage. The works of which the
Upanishad speaks are to be done after you have invested all this universe with
God; after, that is to say, you have realised that all is the one Brahman and
that your actions are but the dramatic illusions unrolled by Prakriti for the
delight of the Purusha. You will then do your works
तेन त्यक्तेन, or as Sri
Krishna tells you to do, after giving up the desire for the fruits of your works
Page – 457
and devoting all your actions to Him, — not to your
lower notself which feels pleasure and pain but to the Brahman in you which
works only लोकसंग्रेअहार्थम्
that instead of the uninstructed multitudes being bewildered
and led astray by your inactivity, the world may rather be helped, strengthened
and maintained by the godlike nature of your works. This is what the Upanishad
goes on to say, "Thus to you there is no other way than this, action clingeth
not to a man." This means that desireless action, actions performed after
renunciation and devoted to God, — these and these only — do not cling to man,
do not bind him in their invisible chains but fall from him as the water from
the wings of the swan; and they cannot bind him, because he is freed from the
woven net of causality. Causality springs from the idea of duality, the idea of
sorrow and happiness, love and hate, heat and cold which arises from Avidya and
he, having renounced desire and realised Unity, is above Avidya and above
duality. Bondage has no meaning for him. (It is not in reality he that is doing
the actions, but Prakriti inspired by the presence of the Purusha in him.)
THE
STUDENT
Why then does Shankara say that it is
necessary to give up works in order to attain absolute unity? Those who do
works, in his opinion, only reach सालोक्य
with Brahman, relative and not
absolute unity.
THE
GURU
There was a reason for what Shankara
said and it was necessary in his age that Jnana should be exalted at the expense
of works; for the great living force with which he had to struggle, was not the
heresies of later Buddhism, Buddhism decayed and senescent, but the triumphant
doctrines of the karmakāṇḍa
which made the faithful performance of Vedic rites and ceremonies the one path
and heaven the only goal. In his continual anxiety to show that works — of which
these rites and ceremonies were a part, — could not be the one path to heaven,
he bent the bow as far as he could the other way and argued that works were not
the path to the last and greatest mukti at all. Let us, however, consider
Page – 458
what the depreciation of the Karmamarga means in the
mouths of Shankara and other Jnanamargis. It may mean that Karma in the sense of
Vedic rites and ceremonies are not the way to Mukti and if this is the meaning,
then Shankara has done his work effectually; for I think no one of authority
will now try to maintain the opposite thesis. We all agree that Swarga, the sole
final result of the Karmakanda, is not Mukti, is much below Mukti and ends as
soon as its cause is exhausted. We all agree also that the only spiritual
usefulness of Vedic ceremonies is to purify the mind and fit it for starting on
the true path of Mukti which lies through Jnana. But if you say that works in
the sense of कर्तव्यकर्म
यि कि लोके अमुष्मिन् लोके are not a path to Mukti, then I demur; for I say that
Karma is not different from Jnana, but is Jnana, is the necessary fulfilment and
completion of Jnana; that bhakti, karma and jnana are not three
but one and go inseparably together. Therefore Sri Krishna says that Sankhya (jñānayoga)
and Yoga (bhakti karma yoga) are not two but one and only
बाला:,
undeveloped minds make a difference.
THE
STUDENT
But how can Shankaracharya be called an undeveloped
mind ?
THE
GURU
He was not an undeveloped mind but he
was dealing with undeveloped minds and had to speak their language. If he had
given his sanction to Karma, however qualified, the general run of people would
not have understood and would have clung to their rites and ceremonies. It is
indeed to this difficulty of language, its natural imperfection and the
imperfection of the minds that employ language, to which all the confusion and
sense of difference in religion and philosophy is due, for religion and
philosophy are one and above difference. Nor was Shankara so entirely opposed
to Karma as is ordinarily imagined from the vehemence of his argument in some
places. For what do you mean when you say that Karma is no path to Mukti? Is it
that Karma prompted by desire is inconsistent with Mukti, because it necessarily
leads to bondage and must therefore be abandoned? On this head there is no
dispute. We all agree that works prompted
Page – 459
by desire lead to nothing but the fulfilment of desire
followed by fresh works in another life. Is it that Karma without desire is
inconsistent with Mukti, prevents Mukti by fresh bondage and must be abandoned ?
This is not consistent with reason, for bondage is the result of desire and
ignorance and disappears with desire and ignorance. Therefore in niṣkāma
karma there can be no bondage. It is inconsistent
with Sruti त्रिणाचिकेतस्त्रिभिरेत्य सन्धिं
त्रिकर्मकृतरति जन्ममृत्यू इत्यादि. It is inconsistent with
facts for Sri Krishna did works, Janaka and others did works, but none will say
that they fell into the bondage of their works; for they were
जीवन्मुक्त. Is it
meant that niṣkāma karma may be done as a step towards
ब्रह्मप्राप्ति
by Jnana
but must be abandoned as soon as Jnana is acquired ? This also will not stand
because Janaka and the others did works after they had acquired Jnana as well as
before. For the same reason Shankara's argument that Karma must cease as a
matter of sheer necessity as soon as one gains Brahma, because Brahma is
अकर्ता,
will not stand; for Janaka gained Brahma, Sri Krishna was Brahma, and yet
both did works; nay, Sri Krishna in one place speaks of him as doing works; for
indeed Brahman is both अकर्ता
as Purusha and
कर्ता
as Prakriti; and if it be said
that Parabrahman the turīya ātman in whom all bheda disappears is
अकर्ता, I answer that he is neither
कर्ता
nor अकर्ता
. He is नेति
नेति, the
Unknowable and the Jivatman does not merge finally in Him while it is in the
body though it may do so at any time by Yoga.
लय
takes place
आदेहनिपातात्, that is
to say by the muktātmā after leaving its body, not willing to return to
another. The jīvanmukta is made one with the luminous shadow of
Parabrahman which we call the Sachchidananda. If it be said that this is not
Mukti, I answer that there can be no greater Mukti than becoming the
Sachchidananda, and that laya in the Parabrahman
स्वेच्छाधीन
is to the Jivatman when it has
ceased to be Jivatman and become Sachchidananda; for Parabrahman can always and
at will draw Sachchidananda into Itself and Sachchidananda can always and at
will draw into Parabrahman; since the two are in no sense two but one, in no
sense subject to Avidya but on the other side of Avidya. Then if it be said that
निष्काम कर्म
can only lead to Brahmaloka and not Mukti, I still answer that in that
case we must suppose that Sri Krishna,
Page – 460
after he left his body, remained separate from the
Supreme and therefore was not Bhagavan at all but only a great philosopher and
devotee, not wise enough to attain Mukti, and that Janaka and other
jīvanmuktas were falsely called Muktas, or only in the sense of
आपेक्षिक
Mukti.
This however would contradict Scripture and the uniform teaching of Sruti and
Smriti, and cannot therefore be upheld by any Hindu, still less by any Vedantin;
for if there is no authority in Sruti, then there is no truth in Vedanta, and
the doctrine of the Charvakas has as much force as any. Moreover it would
contradict reason, since it would make Mukti which is a spiritual change
dependent on a mere mechanical and material change like death, which is absurd.
Shankara himself therefore admits that in these cases
निष्काम कर्म
was not
inconsistent with Mukti or with being the Brahman; and he would have admitted it
still more unreservedly if he had not been embarrassed by his relations of
intellectual hostility to the Purvamimansa. It is proved therefore that
कर्म
is not
inconsistent with मुक्ति
but that on
the contrary both the teaching and practice of the greatest Jivanmuktas and of
Bhagavan himself have combined Jnana and Niskama Karma as one single path to
मुक्ति.
One argument,
however, remains; it may be said that Karma may be not inconsistent with
mukti, may be one path to mukti, but in the last stage it is not
necessary to mukti. I readily admit that particular works are not
necessary to mukti; it is not necessary to continue being a householder
in order to gain mukti. But no one who possesses a body, can be free of
Karma. This is clearly and incontrovertibly stated by Sri Krishna in the
Bhagavad Gita. And this statement in the Gita is perfectly consistent with
reason; for the man who leaves the world behind him and sits on a mountain top
or in an Ashram has not therefore, it is quite clear, got rid of Karma; if
nothing else, he has to maintain his body, to eat, to walk, to move his limbs or
to sit in āsana and meditate; and all this is Karma. If he is not yet
Mukta, this Karma will moreover bind him and bear its fruits in relation to
himself as well as to others; even if he is Mukta, his body and mind are not
free from Karma until his body is dropped off, but go on under the impulse of
prārabdha until the prārabdha
Page – 461
and its fruits are complete. Nay, even the greatest
Yogi by his mere bodily presence in the phenomenal world, is pouring out a
stream of spiritual force on all sides, and this action though it does not bind
him, has a stupendous influence on others. He is
सर्वभूतहिते रत:
though he wills it
not; he too with regard to his body is
अवश: and must let the Gunas of Prakriti
work. Since this is so, let every man who wishes to throw his
कर्तव्यकर्म
behind him, see that he is not
merely postponing the completion of his
प्रारब्ध
to a future life and thereby condemning himself to
the rebirth he wishes to avoid.
THE
STUDENT
But how can this be that the
Jivanmukta is still bound by his past deeds? Does not mukti burn up one's
past deeds as in a fire? For how can one be at the same time free and yet bound
?
THE
GURU
Mukti
prevents one's future deeds from creating bondage; but what of the past deeds
which have already created bondage? The Jivanmukta is not indeed bound, for he
is one with God and God is the master of His prakrti, not its slave; but
the Prakriti attached to this Jivatman has created causes while in the illusion
of bondage and must be allowed to work out its effects, otherwise the chain of
causation is snapped and the whole economy of nature is disturbed and thrown
into chaos, उत्सीदेयुरिमे लोका:
etc. In
order to maintain the worlds therefore, the Jivanmukta remains working like a
prisoner on parole, not bound indeed by others, but detained by himself until
the period previously appointed for his captivity shall have elapsed.
THE
STUDENT
This is indeed a new light on the subject.
THE
GURU
It is no new light but as old as the
sun; for it is clearly laid down in the Gita and of the teaching of the Gita,
Sri Krishna says that it was told by him to Vivaswan, the Vishnu of the Solar
system
Page – 462
and by him to Manou the original Thinker in man, and by Manou handed down to the
great king-sages, his descendants. Nay, it plainly arises from the nature of
things. The whole confusion on this matter proceeds from an imperfect
understanding of mukti; for why do men fly from action and shun their
कर्तव्यकर्म
in the pursuit of mukti? It is because they dread to be cast
again into bondage, to lose their chance of mukti. Yet what is
मुक्ति? It
is release, — from what ? From Avidya, from the great Nescience, from the belief
that you are limited and bound, who are illimitable Brahman and cannot be bound.
The moment you have realised that Avidya is an illusion, that there is nothing
but Brahman and never was nor will be anything but Brahman, and realised it, I
say, had अनुभव, of it, not merely intellectually grasped the idea, from that
moment you are free and always have been free. Avidya consists precisely in this
that the Jivatman thinks there is something beside himself, he himself other
than Brahman, something which binds him; but in reality He, being Brahman, is
not bound, never was bound nor could be bound and never will be bound. Once this
is realised, the Jivatman can have no farther fear of karma; for he knows
that there is no such thing as bondage. He will be quite ready to do his deeds
in this world; nay, he will even be ready to be reborn, as Sri Krishna himself
has promised to be reborn again and again; for of rebirth also he has no farther
fear; since he knows he cannot again fall under the dominion of Avidya, unless
he himself deliberately wills it; once free, always free. Even if he is reborn
he will be reborn with full knowledge of what he really is, of his past lives
and of the whole future and will act as a Jivanmukta.
THE STUDENT
But if this statement once free, always free holds, what of the statements about
great Rishis and Yogis falling again under the dominion of Avidya ?
THE GURU
A
man may be a great Rishi or Yogi without being Jivanmukta. Yoga and spiritual
learning are means to Mukti, not Mukti itself. For the Sruti says
नायमात्मा प्रवचनेन लभ्यो न मेधया न
Page – 463
बहुना श्रुतेन।
THE
STUDENT
Will then the Jivanmukta actually wish to live a hundred
years, as the Sruti says ? Can one who is Mukta have a desire ?
THE
GURU
The Jivanmukta will be perfectly ready
to live a hundred years or more if needs be; but this recommendation is given
not to the Jivanmukta or to any particular class of persons but generally. You
should desire to live your allotted term of life, because you in the body are
the Brahman who by the force of His own Shakti is playing for Himself by Himself
this lilā of creation, preservation and destruction; in this view
Brahman is Isha, the Lord, Creator and Destroyer; and you also are Isha, Creator
and Destroyer ; only for your own amusement, to use a violent metaphor, you have
imagined yourself limited by a particular body for the purposes of the play,
just as an actor imagines himself to be Dushyanta or Rama or Ravana; and often
the actor loses himself in the part and really feels himself to be what he is
playing, forgetting that he is really not Dushyanta or Rama, but that Devadatta
who plays a hundred parts besides. Still when he shakes off this illusion and
remembers that he is Devadatta, he does not therefore walk off from the stage
and by refusing to act, break up the play but goes on playing his best till the
proper time for the curtain to fall. And so we should all do, whether as
householder or Sannyasin, as Jivanmukta or as mumukṣu,
remembering always that the object of this Samsara is creation and that it is
our business so long as we are in this body to create. The only difference is
this, that so long as we forget our Self, we create like servants under the
compulsion of our Prakriti or Nature, and are, as it were, slaves and bound by
her actions which we imagine to be ours; but when we know the Self and
experience our true Self, then we are masters of our Prakriti and not bound by
her creations; our soul becomes the sākṣi,
the silent spectator, of the action of our nature; thus are we both spectator
and actor, and yet because we know the whole to be merely the illusion of an
action and not action itself,
Page – 464
because we know that Rama is not really killing Ravana
nor Ravana being killed, for indeed Ravana lives as much after the supposed
death as before; so are we neither actor nor spectator but the Self only and all
we see only visions of the Self — as indeed the Sruti frequently uses the word
ऐक्षद्, saw, in preference to any other for those conceptions with which the
Brahman peoples with Himself the universe of Himself. The mumukṣu
therefore will not try or wish to leave his life before the time, just as he
will not try or wish to leave actions in this life, but only the desire for
their fruit. For if he breaks impatiently the thread of his life before it is
spun out, he will be no Jivanmukta but a mere suicide and attain the very
opposite result of what he desires. The Upanishad says
Shankara takes
this verse in a very peculiar way. He interprets
आत्महनो
as slayers of the Self,
and since this is obviously an absurdity, for the Self is eternal and
unslayable, he says that it is a metaphor for casting the Self under the
delusion of ignorance which leads to birth. Now this is a very startling and
violent metaphor and quite uncalled-for, since the idea might easily have been
expressed in any other natural way. Still the Sruti is full of metaphor and we
shall therefore not be justified in rejecting Shankara's interpretation on that
ground only. We must see whether the rest of the verse is in harmony with the
interpretation. Now we find that in order to support his view Shankara is
obliged to strain astonishingly the plain meaning of other words in the sentence
also; for he says that Paratman is above birth and above Devahood. Asurya can
only mean Asuric as opposed to Devic. Devas cannot be Asuric births as opposed
to the Daiva birth of Paratman, as opposed to the Paratman; but this is a misuse
of words because... means the various kinds of birth, even the Devas being
considered Asuric births; and then he takes Loka as meaning various kinds of
birth, so that असुर्या लोका: means the various births as man, animals etc., called
आसुर, because Rajas predominates in them and
Page – 465
they are accompanied with Asuric
dispositions. All this is a curious and unparalleled meaning for Asuric Worlds.
The expression लोका:
is never applied to the various kinds of forms the
Jivatman assumes, but to the various surroundings of the different conditions
through which it passes of which life in the world is one; we say
इहलोक
or मर्त्यलोक,
परलोक
or स्वर्गलोक,
ब्रह्मलोक, गोलोक
etc. but we do not say
पशुलोक, पक्षिलोक,
कीटलोक.
If we say आसुरलोक we can mean nothing but the region of āsuric
gloom as opposed to the divine लोका: as, brahmaloka, goloka, svarga.
This is the ordinary meaning when we speak of going to a world after death, and
we must not take it in any other sense here just to suit our own argument.
Moreover the expression ये के loses its peculiar force if we apply it to all living beings
except the few who obtain Mukti partial or complete; it obviously means some out
of many. We must therefore refuse to follow even Shankara, when his
interpretation involves so many violences to the language of Sruti and so wide a
departure from the recognised meaning of words.
The ordinary sense
of the words gives a perfectly clear and consistent meaning. The Sruti tells us
that it is no use taking refuge in suicide or the shortening of your life,
because those who kill themselves instead of finding freedom, plunge by death
into a worse prison of darkness — the Asuric worlds enveloped in blind gloom.
THE
STUDENT
Are then worlds of Patala beneath the
earth a reality and do the souls go down there after death? But we know now that
there is no beneath to the earth, which is round and encircled by nothing worse
than air.
THE
GURU
Do not be misled by words. The Asuric
worlds are a reality, the worlds of gloom in the nether depths of your own
being. A world is not a place with hills and trees and stones, but a condition
of the Jivatman, all the rest being only circumstances and details of a dream;
this is clear from the language of the Sruti when it speaks of the spirits'
लोके or
the next world अमुष्मिन् लोके
Page – 466
Continue
HOME
|