Posted on: 11 Jun 2020
[Smt. Priyanka asked: Padanamaskaram Swami! I have a question about reflecting our personal emotions appropriately towards God or the Human Incarnation of God. I think You had mentioned earlier that a devotee can turn any dominant emotion in them such as anger, love, jealousy, ego, guilt etc. towards God and still reach God because God created all emotions and as long as they are used towards God, it is not a sin. There was also probably a mention of the contemporary Human Incarnation reflecting the same emotion back to a devotee, even though God is beyond all emotions. What I mean is, if someone has a brotherly feeling towards the contemporary Human Incarnation, does God also always reciprocate that brotherly emotion towards the devotee?
Swami, I am not sure if I have understood this well. I believe that whether a devotee expresses anything at all or not, God knows everything about them; what feelings they are having and what they are thinking. Sometimes, a devotee may feel shy or uncomfortable expressing some things in the presence of others around them. They may hide all their emotions within them forever and never say anything out of fear of society or out of fear of disrespecting God unknowingly and committing a sin. Can You please explain if it is alright for a devotee to hide all their feelings? In that case, is it also true that God also stays mum towards that devotee because he or she is not expressive?]
Swami replied: O Learned and Devoted Servants of God! There are three instruments (trikaraṇās) created by God in the body and they are (1) mind, (2) words and (3) action. The feeling of love is produced in the mind. The love produced in the mind is in an unexpressed state. It gets expressed through words and actions. Since human beings do not have the power of knowing the love present in a person’s mind, expression through words becomes necessary. But God is omniscient and hence, he has the power to know the love hidden in a person’s mind. Does this mean that love should be expressed through words only between human beings and that there is no need to express one’s love for God in words before Him? If it were so, there would be no need of so many scriptures containing numerous prayers and praises of God. After all, those prayers and praises are only expressions of the love for God expressed in words. They indicate that expressing one’s love for God in words gives a special happiness. Merely knowing the unexpressed love present in a person’s mind is not sufficient because the expressed love has its own special taste.
Taking it further, when it is possible to express love through words, what is the necessity of also expressing love through action? The love expressed through words may be real or false. We can cheat a person by expressing false love in words. The person hearing our words might get fooled into thinking that our expressed love is true. Whether the love expressed in words is true or not, can only be known only through action. Many of our friends express false love through words, but the reality of their love can only be proved when they are required to express their love in action. If love is expressed through action, words are not necessary because the expression of love through action has two advantages: (1) Action is a means for expressing the unexpressed love in the mind. (2) Action also proves that the love is true and not false.
Yet, as said before, the expression of love in words has its own special taste. If the mental love is expressed in words and is further expressed in action, the love is not only proved to be true love, but one can also enjoy its special taste. When Sītā wanted to enter into the earth in the end, she said the following words “If my love towards Rāma that is present in my mind, my words and my actions is true love, let this earth give way and let me merge with her (Vāk manaḥ karmabhiḥ patyau, vyabhichāro yathā na me...)”. Sītā was the best devotee of God Rāma and her statement reveals that devotion should not only be confined to the mind, but it should also be expressed in words and action.
Action consists of two parts: (1) Service (karma saṃnyāsa) and (2) Sacrifice (karmaphala tyāga). When the Pāṇdavās were performing the Rājasūya sacrifice, their wife Draupadī, was also sitting there, wearing a very valuable silk sari. God Krishna was also present at the function and His wife, Rukmiṇī was also wearing a valuable sari, which was, of course, not as valuable as the sari of Draupadī. While Krishna was eating a sugar cane, He accidentally cut His finger. Both Rukmiṇī and Draupadī rushed immediately to tie a bandage on the cut finger of Krishna. Since both wished to tie a bandage on Krishna’s finger, both were equal as far as their attitude of service towards Krishna is concerned. But Rukmiṇī ran here and there searching for a piece of cloth to bandage the wound, while Draupadī immediately tore one end of her sari and bandaged the finger. She practically served Krishna immediately by tying the bandage. All of us know very well how difficult it is for the ladies in any family to sacrifice their ornaments or their saris! In this aspect of practical sacrifice, Draupadī excelled Rukmiṇī even though both were equal in their attitude of service.
Service is called karma saṃnyāsa, which indicates that it is the only practical spiritual action that can be done by a saṃnyāsī (saint, monk). The saint is not capable of sacrificing wealth for God since he does not own or earn any wealth and he himself begs for his living. But a householder, along with karma saṃnyāsa (service), must also do karma phala tyāga or the sacrifice of his wealth for the sake of God. Both service and sacrifice or at least one of them, which is service in the case of saints, must be done depending upon one’s capability. The greatness of the sacrifice is judged based on the circumstances of the devotee. It is not judged based on the magnitude of the sacrifice. God appreciates a beggar donating one coin much more than a rich person donating thousands of coins.
Both Rukmiṇī and Draupadī were fond of their valuable saris. But Draupadī’s devotion for God Krishna surpassed her fascination for her sari, whereas, Rukmiṇī’s devotion could not surpass her fascination for her sari. Hence, Krishna fulfilled the wish of Draupadī in destroying all Kauravās, even at the cost of accepting the curse given by Gāndhārī, the mother of the Kauravās. Gāndhārī’s curse was that Krishna’s entire dynasty would be destroyed, as her sons had been destroyed by Krishna.
Draupadī treated Krishna as her brother, whereas, Rukmiṇī was the wife of Krishna. Generally, we see in worldly life that the bond between husband and wife is stronger than the bonds with one’s parents, brothers and sisters. The bond between husband and wife is also romantic, whereas, other bonds are non-romantic. But, in this example, the reverse proved to be true as the sister’s love exceeded the wife’s love. Hence, it is not the form of the bond with God that has much importance, but it is the weight of true love present in any bond that is important. We normally expect the romantic matrimonial bond to be stronger than the sisterly bond. It is like saying that a horse is more valuable than a donkey. But in a candy shop, where we find sugar candy molded into shapes of horses and donkeys, can you get one kilogram of candy-donkeys for the same price as a hundred grams of candy-horses? Are candy-horses more valuable than candy-donkeys? Not at all! The reason is that the form of the candy is not important. It is the weight of the sugar in the candy that decides the value!
The characteristics of true love are service and sacrifice which are done without any selfishness. False love is merely confined to the mind and words. It does not reach the final stage of action. The Veda says that all worldly bonds are only based on selfishness (Ātmanaḥ kāmāya...). One loves another in the world only for the sake of one’s own happiness and not for the happiness of the other. This is worldly life or pravṛtti. The majority of humanity extends the same pravṛtti-type of love to God. Worldly life is like a water pipe carrying no water in a hot dry summer. When the tap of any worldly bond is opened, all that comes out is the air of false love. You do not get even a drop of the water of true love!
The husband-wife bond or the brother-sister bond are both legitimate bonds of pravṛtti and Rukmiṇī and Draupadī respectively maintained these bonds with God. Rukmiṇī was defeated by Draupadī in the aspect of sacrifice, which is the essence of real love. Even though the bond of Rukmiṇī with God was expected to be stronger, the bond of Draupadī with God turned out to be stronger due to the greater weight of real love in her bond, which was proved through her sacrifice. If you take the case of Rādhā, her bond with God was expected to be far far lower as compared to the bond that Rukmiṇī had with God. Rādhā was married to Ayanaghosha, but she had an illegitimate bond with Krishna and such a bond belongs to duṣpravṛtti, which is the path of sinful action. She never touched Ayanaghoṣa and married Krishna secretly in a love marriage (gāndharava vivāha), which was presided by God Brahmā Himself! Rādhā was the Incarnation of Sage Durvāsā and the sage was an Incarnation of God Śiva! All Gopikās too had the same sort of illegitimate love for Krishna. Having such sinful relations is condemned by the scriptures and such a bond is expected to lead a soul to a horrible hell. Yet Rādhā defeated Rukmiṇī again on the same basis of the greater weight of her real love for God.
Once Rādhā came to Dwārakā. Rukmiṇī offered hot milk to Rādhā and Rādhā drank it. Rukmiṇī used to drink the same hot milk every day. But that day when Rādhā visited and drank the hot milk, God Krishna’s face became red and His body was burning. He said that He had turned red due to the hot milk drunk by Rādhā, which proves that He resided in the heart of Rādhā. It also proved that He did not reside in the heart of Rukmiṇī, since He never turned red even though Rukmiṇī would drink the same hot milk every day. The bond of Rukmiṇī was legitimate and justified, whereas the bond of Rādhā was the climax of sin. Rukmiṇī reached the abode of God (Vaikuṇṭha Loka) as Śrī Mahālakṣmī who always presses the feet of God. But Rādhā was given a special world called Goloka, which lies above the abode of God. She was made the queen of Goloka and the dust of her feet falls on the head of God constantly! It is the greatest shock for any spiritual devotee to find out that this highest fruit was the result of having a sinful bond. But this is the climax of spiritual knowledge and hence, it is said that the real test for any spiritual scholar is his understanding of the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (Vidyāvatāṃ bhāgavate parīkṣā).
Leaving a legitimate bond for the sake of an illegitimate bond is the greatest sin in pravṛtti. In pravṛtti, all the people with whom one forms bonds are only human beings. None of them are God. But nivṛtti is the spiritual path, in which one forms a bond with God. God is so sacred that any bond with Him becomes holy, just as both sandalwood and a poisonous plant become sacred ash when burnt in fire. This is the speciality from the side of God. The speciality from the side of the devotee, Rādhā is that she dropped all her worldly bonds naturally—without any effort—as a result of being immersed in real love for God. All the Gopikās were sages, who had done severe penance for several millions of births previously, in order to attain the divine love for God. When all their worldly bonds had automatically dropped off due to their most powerful love for God, one cannot object to the dropping off of just one of their legitimate bonds, which their bond with their husbands. All illegitimate and legitimate bonds drop off (Sarvadharmān…—Gītā) in the love for God. This is not possible in the case of one’s love for any human being. There was nothing else in the mind of Rādhā or of the Gopikās, except the love of Krishna (Ekabhaktiḥ viśiṣyate—Gītā). In that extreme case, you cannot ask why the devotee does not have such and such a legitimate worldly bond because no worldly bond—legitimate or illegitimate—remains for the devotee. The one and only bond that remains is the bond with God.
In the case of a characterless lady, who leaves her legitimate husband and goes with another human being, we do not find such a stage where all her bonds naturally drop off. All her worldly bonds remain intact and only one legitimate worldly bond, which is the bond with her husband, is replaced by an illegitimate worldly bond. Such a woman is certainly going to the most severe hell. The personality of God is so wonderful, so unimaginable, so divine, so sacred, so selfless and so powerful that you cannot compare it with the personality of the human being with whom the characterless lady is going. But in the case of the Gopikās, due to the total surrender (Tameva śaraṇaṃ gaccha, sarva bhāvena…—Gītā) of their entire souls to God, there is no question of sin and merit. It is a state of madness for God. Madness is the last stage in nivṛtti and the only stage beyond it is death, as per the ten stages of devotion (Unmādo maraṇaṃ tataḥ). This climax state of devotion should not be mistaken to be the lowest sinful state of having an illegitimate worldly bond.
The cases of Draupadī and Rukmiṇī are within the boundaries of pravṛtti, even though they are mixed with a lot of nivṛtti. Both treated Krishna as God while maintaining legitimate worldly bonds with God through considerable selfless service and sacrifice. This is the middle mixed state of pravṛtti and nivṛtti. The state lower than this is predominantly pravṛtti mixed with only a trace of nivṛtti, which is sticking to one’s justified worldly bonds and worshipping God for the welfare of one’s selfish worldly bonds. There is no selfless serivce or sacrifice in this state. Below that state is pure pravṛtti, without any nivṛtti. In this state, one’s entire concentration is only on oneself and one’s selfish worldly bonds. The person does not even think about God. Below this state is the level of duṣpravṛtti, in which even justified bonds are neglected or given up due to one’s fascination for injustice and illegitimate bonds. Completely opposite to this bottommost level is the topmost level of pure nivṛtti, which lies above all the levels mentioned above. That is the state of Rādhā’s devotion.
What was the reason for the failure of Rukmiṇī before Draupadī and Rādhā in her love for God? The reason was the constant association of Rukmiṇī with God-in-human-form. The Veda says that the psychology of souls, including angels, is to like that which is far and dislike that with which one is closely associated (Parokṣa priyā iva hi…). Both Draupadī and Rādhā were not constantly living with God Krishna. Another additional factor is the repulsion between the common human media. Any human being neglects another fellow human being upon observing the other person’s common properties like hunger, thirst, sleep, sex, illness, inevitable death etc. The human medium of God also possesses the same properties and so a person living with the Human Incarnation easily develops negligence towards the Incarnation. The electric current passing through a metal wire (medium) does not affect the properties of wire like its leanness and length. Similarly, God does not affect the properties of the human medium in which He has merged. The repulsion between common human media of God and the soul is the result of the soul’s ego and jealousy. So much is the force of the ego and jealousy that the soul finds peace only after insulting the human form of God (Avajānanti māṃ…—Gita). Souls prefer the unapproachable-unimaginable state of God over the state of God with a form. Human beings can especially not tolerate the human form of God for the above-said reasons.
All items in creation including souls are only relatively real. They are not absolutely real at all. Hence, the worldly bonds of souls with other souls and with other worldly items are also not absolutely real. The bonds of souls with God alone become real since God is the absolute reality. The bond with God alone continues forever, throughout all the births of the soul. All worldly bonds of souls are confined only to the birth. They are temporary and hence, unreal. The Veda (Nāstyakṛtaḥ kṛtena…; Ādāvante ca…), the Gita (Nāsato vidyate…sataḥ ; Avyaktādīni bhūtāni…) and Śaṅkara (Yadanityaṃ tat kṛtakam) say that anything that is temporary is not real. Once, in a spiritual debate, the queen of King Janaka asked the sages about her bond with King Janaka in the previous birth. The sages hesitated for sometime, but since the queen insisted, they told her that she was the mother of King Janaka in the previous birth! Later on, Sage Aṣṭāvakra also told the same point to King Janaka. In an old movie, a certain hero and heroine acted as husband and wife. In a more recent movie, the same hero and herione acted as son and mother! You cannot say that the bonds of husband and wife or mother and son were temporary and confined only to the shooting of the movies. Actually, the bonds are totally unreal. They were unreal even during the time of shooting the movies. This is the meaning of the quotations from the Veda, Gita and Śaṅkara. All the actors are only colleagues acting in different roles in different movies. Their bond with the producer-director of the movies alone is real and permanent, asssuming that there is only one producer-director for all the movies. That real and permanent relationship of the actors with the producer-director is that of the paying master and paid-servant. God is the single producer-director of the lives of all souls. The real and permanent relation between God and every soul is that of master and servant (sevya-sevaka sambandha), as described by Madhva.
Hanumān from the Rāmāyaṇam and Rādhā from the Bhāgavatam, are the two record-breakers in their devotion to God. Both occupy the same place in the heart of God. Both the devotees are actually one. Hanumān is the Incarnation of God Śiva. Rādhā was also an Incarnation of God Śiva because she was the Incarnation of Sage Durvāsā and the sage was an Incarnation of God Śiva. Hanumān was tested for His ability to do service (karma saṃnyāsa) by Rāma. Rādhā, along with the Gopikās, was tested for her ability to sacrifice (karma phala tyāga). Both service and sacrifice are the two sides of the same coin of practical devotion, which is known as karma yoga. God also proved that He resided in the hearts of these two devotees. When Hanumān tore His chest, God Rāma was seen in His heart. Similarly, when Rādhā drank the hot milk, God turned red due to the heat, proving that He resided in the heart of Rādhā. In both cases, the same test gave the same result since both the devotees are actually one.
Keywords:
| Shri Datta Swami | Expressing Devotion To God | Vaak manah karmabhih patyau vyabhichaaro yathaa na me Karmaphala Karma Samnyaasa Karmaphala Tyaaga Samnyaasa Aatmanah kaamaaya Rukmini Gaandharava Vivaaha Ayanaghosha Raadha Vaikuntha Shri Mahaa Lakshmi Vaikuntha Loka Vidyaavataam bhaagavate pariikshaa Sarvadharmaaan Ekabhaktih vishishyate Tameva Sharanam gachchaa sarva bhaavena Unnmaado maranam tatah bhaagavatam Rama Hanuman naastyakrutah krutena aadaavante cha Durvaasa Durvasa Radha