Atman, Brahman and Sadhana (Part-1)

Part-1   Part-2

O Learned and Devoted Servants of God,

Atman: Ajneya or Vijneya

The question is whether the Atman is knowable (Vijneya) or unknowable (Ajneya). There are statements in the Veda, which say that Atman is unknowable (Yasyamatam tasyamatam, achintyam, etc.). There are also other statements in the Veda that say that Atman is knowable (Drishyatetvagraya Buddhya, Atma va are Drishtavah) These are two contradictory sets of statements. How can these two statements be correlated? The Advaita philosophers treat this problem in the following way: They say that Atman is unknowable (Ajneya) to ordinary people, who are ignorant and who have superimposed idea of ‘self’ on their body (dehatmabuddhi). These ordinary people think that Atman is the body. To such people, the Atman is unknowable. However, to scholars, equipped with a sharp intellect and analysis, the Atman is knowable (Vijneya). It is revealed as the knower (Jnata). Thus, the Advaita philosophers achieve the correlation (Samanvaya) of the above two statements.

As far as this applies to Atman (individual soul), I agree with it. The Atman is indeed not known to ordinary people. The Atman, which is awareness, is a very subtle form of energy, flowing through the nervous system. It is too subtle to be analyzed and detected by ignorant people. Today due to the advancement in science, we are able to analyze that awareness is a form of energy, which can be even seen through sophisticated instruments. However, in ancient Vedic times, science was not at all developed the way it is today. That was the time when people thought that the Rahu and Ketu were swallowing Moon and Sun. But today science revealed that the shadow of earth falling on Moon and the shadow of the Moon falling on the earth are the reasons for the eclipse of Moon and Sun respectively. People were not at all aware of awareness as nervous energy. For those people, even identifying the existence of awareness was a big discovery. For the majority of such people it can be said that awareness was unknowable. In those times, very few scholars were able to recognize this awareness as said in the Veda (Drishyate tvagraya buddhya sukshmaya sukshma darshibhih). It means that the Atman can be known only with an extremely sharp and subtle intellect by concentrated analysis. It is also told in the Gita as “Pashyanti Jnana Chakshushah”, which means that only through deep analysis (Jnana) can the awareness be seen. Thus, all this is completely agreed upon as far as it relates to Atman, which is the soul, in view of the under developed science at that time.

However, there are Vedic statements that use the word Atman in the sense of Brahman (God). Now the question is: how can one prove that Atman, in the sense of God, is both unknowable and knowable? From the point of the Swarupa or inherent characteristic, the Atman (Brahman) is unknowable. This is because God’s inherent nature can never be known (Ajneya) as per the words of Yama in the Veda. However, from the point of knowing His existence, He is knowable (Vijneya) in the same words of Yama. You must note that the same Yama gave these two staements and hence, there should not be any contradiction. In other words, it can be known that He exists, but His nature or characteristics can never be known. His existence should be known. Otherwise, one may think that God does not exist. However, if it is said that He exists, one may think that He is known. Therefore, the Yama says that He cannot be known (Yasyamatam Tasyamatam). In other words, it should be known that He exists (Astiityevopalabdhavayah— Veda) as per the same Yama, but His nature or characteristics can never be known. Thus, we see that, Atman in the sense of God too is both Ajneya and Vijneya simultaneously.

Thus, when it is said that Atman is both knowable and unknowable, the statement is valid for both meanings of the word Atman (soul and God). The same statement, having multiple meanings is not uncommon. Even in poetry, we find that the same verse can have different meanings (shlesha) when interpreted differently. Then it is no surprise that the Veda, which is the word of God, may have even a hundred meanings. Thus, the concept that Atman is simultaneously knowable and unknowable, is applicable to both the soul as well as Brahman (God).

After correlating the above two sets of contradictory Vedic statements, the third point is that there are Vedic statements, which say that Atman means only Brahman (Ayam Atma Brahma). Now this statement can be interpreted in several different ways. In one interpretation, one should note the use of the word ‘Ayam’ which means ‘this’. The statement says “This Atman is God”. It does not say that every Atman (every individual soul) is God. If that were so, the word Ayam (this) would have been replaced by words like ‘Sarvopi’ (every) or ‘Kashchidapi’ (any). Thus, the statement refers to a particular soul who is God. It refers to a human incarnation like Lord Krishna. However, if you take the sense in another way and say that he (the soul) is Brahman as in the case of other two Maha Vakayas (I am Brahman and You are Brahman), then also we have no objection in the correlation. In such sense, we will analyze the meaning of the word Brahman and since the word Brahaman means any greatest item in a category, the soul is the greatest or Brahman in the entire creation. Now in this sense even the fourth Maha Vakya can be correlated in your sense. Your sense is that the word Prajnanam means simple awareness. I agree to your wrong sense also even though the word Prajnanam stands only for best knowledge in the right sense. The simple awareness is greatest among all the forms of energy since it has a special unique property of the phenomenon of knowing and hence, even the simple awareness (soul) can be called as Brahman. When we take Prajnanam (Spiritual Knowledge) as the best knowledge, it is greatest among all the other branches of knowledge and hence, can be called as Brahman. Thus, even the greatest knowledge cannot be the characterstic of Brahman (God) and thus, Brahman (God) remains unknowable by its characterstic. This will make the statement of Yama always alive.

 Analyzing Brahman and Atman

Brahman

Let us analyze the word Brahman. Brahman does not reveal the Swarupa (inherent nature or charcteristic) of the object that it is used to describe. Brahman simply means, ‘the greatest’. Now anything or anybody can be the greatest in that category. You may say that an object X is the greatest in its category. But merely stating that it is the greatest, reveals no information about its nature or characteristics. You may say that a person Rama is the greatest. But the word greatest does not tell you any characteristic of the person Rama. Thus, greatness is only an associated quality (tatashta lakshanam) and not an inherent characteristic (Swarupa Lakshanam). Today someone is the greatest. Tomorrow someone else will be the greatest. Being only an associated quality, greatness cannot be fixed to a particular object. Thus, the word Brahman cannot reveal the nature of Brahman and therefore, Brahman in the sense of God is always unimaginable.

In Sanskrit grammar, fixing the meaning of a word to describe a particular object is called as Yoga Rudha. This also takes into account the root meaning of the word. Using a word to mean a particular object, based on its root meaning, is called as Yoga. Sanskrit grammar does not support fixing the meaning of a word only based on Rudha (arbirtrary assignment), without any basis of Yoga. If such meaningless fixation of a word to an object is done, it is called as Rudha. However, meaningless words not fixed in any object are to be neglected (Kevala Rudha Shabdah, ditthadavitthavat vyarthah eva). This means that meaningless words such as ‘dittha’, ‘davittha’ are not used to describe anything. The root-meaning has to be applicable to the object that the word is trying to describe. In case of a word, whose root meaning (Yoga) applies for a certain thing, that word can be fixed (Rudha) to mean only that thing. This method of fixing a word to describe a certain thing, while also satisfying the root meaning is known as Yoga Rudha. When there are several objects, which can be the meanings of the same word, since the root meaning (Yoga) is applicable, the word can be fixed to a particular item only. In such case, such fixed object to the word is accepted everywhere in the usage. For example, the word Pankajam means that which is born from the mud. Both the lotus flower and algae can stand as the meaningful objects for the same word. Yoga is satisfied in both the objects. But the word is fixed in the lotus flower only everywhere. However, if such fixation is not done in a specific object, the word can be used to mean any object provided the root meaning is applicable. Such a word is called Yaugika. In such case, the word Pankajam can be used to mean both the lotus flower and alge because the root meaning is applicable to both. Unless this distinction between the Yoga Rudha word and Yaugika word is clear, the confusion comes every time.

The word Brahman is yaugika and not yoga rudha since it can be applied to a variety of things based on its root meaning. Anything that is the greatest in its category, can be called as Brahman. Such use of this word is valid. Therefore, one cannot fix this word to mean only God. This is because, Brahman reveals no inherent characteristic (Swarupam) of the object that it is used to describe. It only indicates an associated quality (Tatastham). Hence, the word Brahman cannot have a fixed usage (Rudhi). In fact, we find that in the Gita, Brahman is used to mean the Veda (Brahmakshara samudbhavam), since the Veda is the greatest scripture. The Veda itself uses the word Brahman to mean a variety of things such as, matter, air, sun etc., in order to indicate their greatness.

Root meaning of Atman

Let us take the word Atman. Its root meaning is ‘that which pervades’ (Atati Iti Atma). The root meaning indicates an inherent characteristic (pervading) of the object that this word describes. ‘Pervading’ is a Swarupa Lakshanam or Swabhava Lakshanam (inherent characteristic). Air pervades space. Pervasiveness is an inherent nature or inherent characteristic of air. Pervasion indicates dynamism. It means that the entity that pervades is not static. Now pervasion can be direct or indirect. For example, a wire occupies some space; it pervades some space. Similarly, electricity flows through the wire and hence, pervades the wire. Since the wire pervades some space, it can be said that the electric current also pervades space indirectly. This brings us to an important point that pervasion requires the pre-existence of space. Pervasion is meaningless without space.

The Veda says that space came from Atman (Atmanah Akashah). This means that Atman existed even before space. But we just saw that space is a pre-existing requirement for pervasion. Then, how can Atman (that which pervades space) be present before the creation of space? Moreover, how can this Atman be the source of space? According to the definition of Atman, it pervades space and necessarily requires the presence of space before it. But the Vedic statement says that Atman was present even before the space and that space came from it. This is absurd. Thus, we see that the root meaning of Atman (that which pervades) fails in this case. Clearly the word Atman is not used in the sense of its root meaning in this Vedic statement. The question is: how then is this word used in this statement? Since the word Atman fails in God because its root meaning is not applicable, therefore, the word Atman can be used only in soul in which the root meaning is applicable. This means that the word Atman is Yoga Rudha since it is fixed in the soul in which its root meaning is applicable. We know that the soul (awareness) pervades the body and so this word is applicable in soul by its root meaning.

There is another way in which a word can be used even though the root meaning is not applicable. It can be used as a metaphor (rupaka alankara). Let us take an example. A man is called a lion. What are the characteristics (Swarupam) indicated by the word ‘lion’? A brown colored fourlegged animal with sharp claws, teeth and a mane, is what is meant by ‘lion’. These are the inherent characteristics or the Swarupa Lakshanam of a lion. Obviously, the man is not an animal satisfying these characteristics, to be called a lion. Thus, the meaning of the word lion fails in the case of the man. However, we are using that word in the sense of a metaphor. We are implying that the man is brave like a lion. Thus, even if the meaning of the word fails to describe the thing, the word may be used in the sense of a metaphor.

Thus, we have seen that the word Brahman does not reveal the inherent characteristics (Swarupa lakshanam) of the thing that it is used to describe. It is used only with reference to the associated quality (Tatashta lakshanam) of greatness. Hence, it cannot be fixed to mean only a certain entity but it can be used to describe anything that has the quality of greatness. Thus, Brahman can be used to indicate God, but it cannot be fixed to mean only God. Atman on the other hand, reveals the inherent characteristic of that which it is trying to describe. However, it too cannot be fixed to mean God, because its meaning fails when applied to God, who is beyond space. So, the only way that remains to apply the word Atman to God, is in the sense of a metaphor.

Applying Atman as a metaphor

Now the only question is: how to apply Atman to mean God in the sense of a metaphor? Atman happens to be the most important item in an individual. The Veda says, “Atmanam Rathinam...”, in which the Atman is compared to the owner of a chariot and the body of the person is compared to the chariot. In this model described, the owner of the chariot is the most important item. Thus, in our body the most important item is Atman. In the same sense, the entire creation can be treated as a chariot and God can be treated as the owner of the chariot. Thus, God is the most important item in this model. So, in the sense of the most important item, the word Atman can be used to indicate God metaphorically. Thus Atman, can be used to mean God, only in a metaphorical sense since it cannot be applied in this case on the basis of its root-meaning.

Now coming to the point of knowability and unknowability of Atman, we have seen that this point is applicable to Atman even when Atman is used in the sense of God. Atman (Metaphorical God) is unknowable (Ajneya) in the sense that God’s nature can never be known. Atman (Metaphorical God) is knowable (Vijneya) in the sense that the existence of God (Astiityevopalabdhavayah— Veda) is known. The word Vijneya (knowable) pertains to knowing the existence of Atman (Metaphorical God) and the word Ajneya (unknowable) pertains to the nature or characteristics (Swarupa) of Atman (Metaphorical God). In this way, the samanvaya or correlation of these two seemingly contradictory statements (unknowable and knowable) can be done whether Atman means the individual soul or God. Depending on the context, one can interpret this point to apply it for the individual soul or for Metaphorical God.

Atman is Brahman

When the Vedic statements such as “Ayam Atma Brahma” declare the identity of the individual soul with Brahman (God), you can take that as an example of God charging a medium—the concept of an incarnation. God, who is beyond the medium, enters the medium of the human body, which contains the soul. If Atman refers to the individual soul of the incarnation, like Lord Krishna, that soul is the greatest among all souls and hence, can be called as Brahman. If Atman refers to the God who has charged the medium of the human body, then that God is definitely greater than any item of creation or the entire creation. He is definitely the greatest. So, He can be called as Brahman. In both the above cases, there is no problem in calling the Atman as Brahman because Brahman cannot be fixed to mean only a particular thing because the word Brahman is Yaugika.

The only difficulty is in recognizing the human incarnation such as Krishna, to be God. The medium (human body of Krishna) appears just like an ordinary human being. But when it is said, “This Atman is Brahman” it refers to God who is beyond the medium. Now the question of knowable and unknowable comes in. Can we say that by knowing Krishna, we have known God? The answer is no. Then the question may arise as to whether God even exists in the body of Krishna. Here it is said that God exists. In that sense, He is knowable; it is known that He exists. It is Vijneya that God exists in that human body, but His nature or characteristics (Swarupam) is Ajneya.

In interpreting the words of God (Veda) one should keep in mind that there can be several interpretations because the knowledge of God is multidimensional. One has to take the correct interpretation based on the context of analysis. If one is analyzing only about the soul, then one has to take the appropriate interpretation. If one is analyzing in the context of God, then one has to take a different interpretation. One has to define one’s goal in the analysis. Is your goal, the analysis of the individual soul in a body, or is it the search for God in the world, or is it the search for God in a certain human body and so on. According to the goal, the appropriate interpretation can be chosen.

Now the main point of Advaitins is that every individual soul is Brahman. In order to analyze the validity of this statement, we have to go back to the definition of Atman. The soul is called the Atman, based on its root meaning (pervasion). The soul pervades the human body and hence, is Atman. The body pervades space. Awareness pervades the body (puri shete iti purushah) and hence awareness (soul) pervades space. Thus, the soul or awareness requires the pre-existence of space. Once this is said, you cannot say that space came from this Atman (Atmanah Akasha— Veda). Otherwise, it would lead to an absurdity. This clearly proves that the individual soul (Atman) is different from the Atman referred to as the source of space. The Atman, which is the source of space, is used in a metaphorical sense to indicate God, the creator of space; whereas the individual soul is a created item, which is created after several items after space as mentioned in the same paragraph of the Veda (Akashat Vayuh… Annat Purushah). God is the first item in the chain and soul is the last item of creation. How the last item of creation can become the first item, which is creator?

Testimony of Lord Yama and Hanuman

Lord Yama clearly says that the existence of Atman (God) can be known (Astiityevopalabdhavayah— Veda). If the Vedic statements that describe the unknowability of God, had meant that no information whatsoever can be gained about God, then it would mean that there is no information available even of His existence. In that case, there would be no point in even talking about God. However, to avoid this misunderstanding, it is told in the Veda, that His existence can be known. But any further information about God such as His nature, characteristics, etc., cannot be gained. In this matter too we have to take the word of Lord Yama as final. In the Gita, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that in the beginning of creation, He had given this divine knowledge, to the Sun-god (Imam Vivasvate). The Sun-god is obviously far more intelligent than any human being, including an Advaita scholar. He is in fact the god of knowledge and intelligence and human beings pray to him to be blessed with intelligence (Dhiyoyonah… Veda). Lord Yama is the son of the Sun-god. If God had revealed the great secret knowledge that the inherent characteristic (Swarupam) can be known and that it is nothing but awareness, as the Advaita scholar thinks, then the Sun-god who possessed this knowledge, must have certainly imparted it to his own son. The Sun-god would definitely not keep such an important finding, from his own son. Even if we assume that the Sun-god was attached to his son, he might not reveal it to his other disciples but would never fail to reveal such important information to his own son.

Among the astrological planets, Shani (Saturn) is also another son of the Sun-god. He too is regarded as the giver of knowledge (Jnana karaka) as per the astrology. Thus, the Sun-god stands for knowledge, and his sons also stand for knowledge. That is why Nachiketa in the Katha Upanishad, went to Lord Yama to get knowledge. If the Advaitin claims, that awareness is the ultimate Brahman (Parabrahman), were the truth, then the Sun-god would have definitely had this information since he is much superior to the Advaita scholar and since the Lord Himself had preached to him. The Sun-god would have definitely passed it down to his own son, Yama. Yama in turn would have revealed it to Nachiketa in the Katha Upanishad. On the contrary, we find no such revelation in the Katha Upanishad. Lord Yama instead says that God cannot be known and only His existence can be detected. He says that even the angels are speculating on the real nature of God (Devairatrapi... Veda). He said that he (Yama) is one among those angels, so how could he know the real nature of God (kathametat vijaniyam)? If the Advaitin’s claim were true, all that Lord Yama needed to say was “My dear Nachiketa, the real nature of God is your own awareness. Therefore, you yourself are God; right here and now”. Why did Lord Yama have to beat around the bush so much? Indeed, if awareness were Parabrahman, the whole Katha Upanishad need not have been written. Lord Yama could have merely told the great statements (Tatvamasi, Ayam Atma Brahma) to Nachiketa and Nachiketa, by merely listening to them, (Mahavakya Shravanam) would have become Brahman!

Another important testimony comes from Hanuman. Hanuman was a disciple of the Sun-god, and had studied all the Vedas, nine grammars etc., from him. He was an exceptionally brilliant student. Yet we find that He served Lord Rama (human incarnation of God) as a mere servant. Never once did He claim that He was Brahman. He never said “So’ham” (I am God) but instead He said, “Daso’ham Kosalendrasya” (I am servant of Lord Rama). If the truth were as simple as “Every individual is Brahman” or “Awareness is Brahman” then do you seriously believe that Hanuman would not have known it? Thus, even if we leave aside all the intensive analysis and arguments, and for a brief second, just use simple common sense, it will be crystal clear that there is a defect in the Advaitin’s claim. Even a common man can understand that.

Method of Propagating Swami’s Knowledge

In ancient times when the disciple approached the Guru, the Guru would initially test and examine the student to evaluate the eligibility or level of preparation of the disciple. The ancient system of teaching consisted of four factors: the eligible candidate for the knowledge (Adhikari), the related (Sambandha), subject matter (Vishaya) and the goal or objective of the teaching (Prayojanam). These four factors were called the Anubandha Chatushtaya and were followed in the teaching tradition. After evaluating the eligibility or level of preparation of the disciple, the Guru would give him only that part of the entire spiritual knowledge, which was suitable (related; Sambandha) to his level and capacity (Adhikaritva). In evaluating the eligibility (adhikaritva), the Guru would not only evaluate the level of the disciple, but also the potential of the disciple. For example, suppose the entire spiritual knowledge consists of a hundred steps. A certain disciple approaches the Guru. The Guru evaluates that disciple is at the zeroth step of the spiritual knowledge and he has the potential to reach up to the 1st step. Another disciple is also at the zeroth step and has the capacity to reach the 5th step. Yet another disciple is at the zeroth step but has the capacity to reach even the hundredth step. Then based on this eligibility, the Guru reveals the knowledge (Vishaya) related to those steps (Sambandha), differently to different students. To the first student, he will reveal only the part of the knowledge related to the first step. To the second student, he will reveal the knowledge up to the fifth step and to the third student, he would reveal the knowledge up to the final step.

Such stepwise and appropriate revelation of the spiritual knowledge is purposeful and useful (Prayojanam). If the knowledge of all the hundred steps is revealed to the first student who is not eligible for it, he will not be able to digest it. In fact, looking at all the hundred steps, he will feel discouraged and will not reach even the first step. Then the purpose (Prayojanam) of teaching him, which was to take him to the first step, is lost. Hence, the Guru would not reveal the entire knowledge to every disciple. He would reveal only that much knowledge that that was suitable for his eligibility and capacity. The rest of the knowledge was hidden from the disciple for the disciple’s own benefit. Not only that, but the Guru also declares the highest step that the disciple can achieve to be the final (hundredth) step. The goal of the hundredth step is brought down to every step depending on the level of the disciple. This is the only way that the disciple will feel encouraged to learn. In the case of the first student, who can reach only up to the first step, if the Guru announced that the goal to be achieved, is only the first out of a hundred steps the disciple, would again feel discouraged. Therefore, the Guru would declare that the first step itself is the hundredth step. Thus, Arthavada was also used by the Guru. Arthavada is the hiding of the entire truth and declaring the partial truth to be the entire truth, for the benefit of the disciple.

For example, it is said in one prayer, that if you merely utter the name of the holy river Ganga, you will reach the abode of the Lord (Gange Gangeti…Shivalokam). If this were actually true, then there is no need to go to any holy places or lead a moral life. All spiritual practices would be unnecessary. One could do all possible sins and then simply chant the word Ganga, and all the sins would get washed away immediately! Chanting the name of Ganga is the first step. Reaching the abode of the Lord is the final step. The final goal is simply brought down to the first step. In reality, there are many steps in between, which are not mentioned. This statement is meant for people who are not at all spiritual. Such people will be convinced to at least chant the name of Ganga, which is the first step in spirituality. As they progress spiritually, the Guru will point them to the next step, each time telling them that the next step is the final goal.

In the ancient system, when one went to a qualified Guru, all these factors were taken care of and the disciple was certain to get knowledge, which is most useful to his particular level. However, when the same knowledge is available in a published form, this control is lost since readers of different levels can read the same text. Even then, there was some gradation in the knowledge even in published form. The prayers and spiritual poems cater to a certain level of people, the commentaries of the great preachers cater to a different level of people and so on. When Shankaracharya composed the Bhaja Govindam, it was a spontaneous message given to a grammarian, who was only interested in earning money for the sake of his family. There Shankara only advises him to worship God instead of focusing only on self-effort (Purusha Prayatna) for the sake of family and the self. Shankara explained how money, family and even one’s body is temporary. There Shankara did not preach any elaborate philosophy (Atma Vichara, etc.) that He preached in His commentaries.

In modern times, easy publication and distribution of spiritual knowledge via computers and the internet, has resulted an even wider reach of this knowledge. When both the Bhaja Govindam and the commentaries of Shankara are available to everyone, what knowledge should be taken is decided by the person’s own level. When Shankara was alive, He used discrimination to evaluate the level of the disciple and gave the Bhaja Govindam to the foolish grammarian and the commentary to Padmapada, who was a highly advanced spiritual seeker.

When both texts are available in print, there is no control over who should take what. Textbooks of all levels, from primary school to university level are available in the market. The student has to critically evaluate his own level and buy the correct textbook. Similarly, when Swami’s knowledge is published and distributed via computers and the internet, it will be available to all people irrespective of their level. The only advice that can be given is that each person should take that part of this entire knowledge, which is suitable for his own level. He should not feel discouraged if he happens to read something which is of a higher level. Swami’s knowledge includes the book on miracles “Mahima Yamuna”. This is the first step in spirituality and people who are beginners will find this book most interesting.

Sadhana for Swami’s Servants

The question is whether the servants of Swami, who are serving in His mission, should do some personal sadhana (spiritual practices) for self-upliftment. The recognition of Swami as the Paramatman (God) and doing personal service to Him, is one thing. But it does not necessarily qualify a person to be the highest devotee. A person, who has some worldly problems and wants to get them solved, may also recognize Swami as God and serve Him with a desire that Swami will solve his worldly problem. Clearly, he is not the highest devotee because the service done by the highest devotee like Hanuman is free of aspiriation. Lord Krishna says in the Gita says that four types of devotees approach the Lord (Chaturvidha bhajante…): Arta (people who are attacked by pain or difficulty), Artharthi (people, who are living comfortably but desire more wealth or prosperity), Jijnasu (people, who are interested in getting knowledge) and Jnani (people who have complete knowledge). Among them, the Jnani is the highest. People from the other three categories have to rise further to the level of the Jnani through their sadhana. It is not enough to just approach the Lord in these three ways. Although all four categories have recognized the Lord and are prepared to serve Him, there is a difference between them. There is a difference between the service of Hanuman, who was a Jnani and Sugriva, who wanted a solution to his difficulty. Both had recognized Lord Rama as the God and both were serving Him in His mission to find Sita. Sugriva’s attitude was business-like. He wanted help from Lord Rama to get back his lost kingdom and wife. In return, he was helping Lord Rama to get back Lord Rama’s wife. However, Hanuman’s service was completely pure. He did not aspire for anything in return from Lord Rama. His only aim was to serve Lord Rama to the maximum possible extent. Pleased by the selfless service of Hanuman, the Lord made Hanuman the future Creator, even though Hanuman never expected any reward. On the other hand, Sugriva, who was helped by Lord Rama to regain his kingdom, forgot about his promise to help Lord Rama in return. He had to be reminded by Lakshmana about his promise, which Sugriva fulfilled later. But he was not granted any reward like Hanuman.

Thus, merely recognizing Swami as the Lord and serving Him is not the final goal. Serving Swami, like Hanuman is the goal. Recognition of Swami as the Lord and serving Him remains the goal but the advancement in the level of the devotee is essential. For such rise in the level of the devotee, sadhana is required. Hanuman did not do any sadhana for self-upliftment because His spiritual effort was already complete. He had purified Himself with knowledge and devotion even before He met Lord Rama. Therefore, when He met Lord Rama, He could directly serve Him in the purest and most complete way. Sugriva’s case was different. He had not purified himself completely when he met Lord Rama. But he recognized Lord Rama as the Lord. He did so by testing Lord Rama. He told Lord Rama to cut seven trees in a single shot of an arrow. Then he also asked Lord Rama to throw a gigantic skeleton over a very great distance. When Rama successfully completed these tests, Sugriva accepted Him as the Lord. However, Hanuman never conducted any tests. He recognized Lord Rama even without the tests.

Sugriva’s recognition was temporary. When he was in difficulty, Lord Rama was the Lord to him. Once he got his kingdom back, Lord Rama did not exist for him. Similar was the case of Arjuna. When he was on the battlefield and needed the help of Lord Krishna, he recognized Lord Krishna as the Lord. However, after he won the war, he treated Lord Krishna as an ordinary human being. He wanted Lord Krishna to get down from the chariot before him, since Arjuna was the victorious commander of the army and it was a custom for the charioteer (driver) to get down before the master of the chariot. He forgot that Lord Krishna was the Lord Himself and had agreed to become the charioteer (Driver) of Arjuna at his own request.

Let us take the example of the Gopikas. When Lord Krishna left Brindavanam, the Gopikas became mad in His devotion. They gave up all their household responsibilities and work. While Krishna was still in Brindavanam, the only reason why they were working, was to provide butter for and feed Lord Krishna. Once Krishna left, they gave up their families and their work and wandered around like mad persons in the devotion of Krishna. Similarly, after Lord Rama left His body, Hanuman gave up all His work and lived like a saint in the forest of banana trees.

This shows that mere recognition of the Lord is not the issue. The extent of recognition is very important. Service and faith, which are the results of this recognition, are proportional to the extent of recognition. If the recognition is partial, then service and faith are also partial. If the recognition is complete, then service and faith are also complete. So, the purpose of sadhana is to increase the percentage of the recognition of the human incarnation. The goal, which is serving the human incarnation, remains the same. What has to be increased, is the extent of recognition. One has to improve one’s level from that of Sugriva or Arjuna to that of Hanuman or the Gopikas.

The main goal of sadhana is to reduce egoism and jealousy, which prevent the complete recognition of the human incarnation. Shankara stresses on sadhana while showing the ‘carrot’ of becoming Brahman. A person, who has a lot of egoism and jealousy, needs a strong motivation to do this sadhana. The temptation of becoming Brahman enables him to continue with his sadhana. Shankara says that the individual is already Brahman. However, the covering of ignorance (Avidya) is like dirt that covers this real nature of the individual. Although knowledge alone can remove ignorance, the knowledge is not effective in removing the ignorance due to the precipitated modifications of this ignorance, which are called as Vikshepa. Sadhana is necessary to remove Vikshepa. Then He says that removal of this covering of ignorance, happens only by the grace of God (Ishwara anugrahadeva...) and hence one must do sadhana which involves the worship of God. In fact, this dirt of ignorance is nothing but the egoism and jealousy (ahankara and asuya) of the individual.

Now if we further analyze, what are egoism and jealousy? They are qualities (gunas or bhavas). Normally, by sadhana, people think of verbal or mental chanting or repetition of some sacred words (Japa), meditation, singing devotional songs (bhajans), fasting etc. How can these activities lead to the removal of egoism and jealousy, which are qualities? Actually, they can be removed only by another quality, which is knowledge. By the quality of knowledge, the dirt of egoism and jealousy is removed. Chanting may be useful to concentrate your mind on a single thought, which will be useful to gain knowledge. Fasting can be useful to get good health. However, none of these activities can lead to the removal of the qualities. The qualities of egoism and jealousy can be removed only by discriminative knowledge and analysis (Vichara or Sadasad Viveka). Determined right knowledge alone leads to the removal of the qualities. Therefore, Shankara stressed a lot on knowledge. One has to first obtain the right knowledge. Then one has to analyze it repeatedly. Gradually the knowledge will become a full determination in your mind. The determination has to become stronger than your egoism and jealousy. Such firm determination alone will be successful in removing egoism and jealousy. Only a diamond can cut another diamond. The knowledge, which is made of thoughts or feelings can only cut the egoism and jealiousy, which are also feelings.

Thus, even the personal sadhana is nothing but knowledge. With this sadhana, one has to rise from the level of Arjuna to the level of the Gopikas or from the level of Sugriva to the level of Hanuman. Such sadhana will strengthen your recognition of the human incarnation. It will strengthen your service to Him. Your service will be free of aspiration for anything in return. It will be free of egoism and jealousy. If this purification (sadhana) is not complete, then one is likely to make several errors in recognizing and serving the Lord. Take the example of Bhishma. He had a choice of following his duty towards his ancestors and his king on one side and following the Lord on the other. The first choice was part of dharma, which is worldly justice. God is above dharma. So, he should have taken the second choice. But he made the error of choosing dharma over God. He fought against Lord Krishna and when Lord Krishna attacked him with a chariot wheel, Bhishma bowed to Him saying that he was sure to get salvation if he was killed at the hands of Krishna. But it is ironic that he chose to fight against Krishna in the first place!

In the human incarnation, there are two factors: one is God (X) and the other is the human body (Y), which is the medium for God to approach humans. The medium is taken up by God because He cannot be approached by us directly. Through the medium one has to see the hidden God. Through Y one has to approach the hidden X. The medium is unreal from the point of God but it is real from the point of human beings. Different people see these two factors differently. The highest view is that of a person like Hanuman and Gopikas whose purification (Chitta Shuddhi) through sadhana is complete. When they approach the human incarnation, they see only X; they completely forget Y. A person like Duryodhana, who is completely impure, sees only Y and does not see X at all. Both these are the extreme ends. In between these two lie devotees like Sugriva and Arjuna who see either both X and Y simultaneously or see X for some time and Y for some time.

In the first stage, one is only aware of Y and X remains unknown. Eventually one should equate Y with X. In other words, one should understand that Y stands for X or the human body of the incarnation stands for the unimaginable God. When this recognition is partially achieved, both X and Y are present simultaneously. Such people either think that the human incarnation is a mixture of both X and Y or they sometimes view Him as X and sometimes view Him as Y. In any case, complete recognition has not come in them. The goal is that Y must completely disappear and one must see X alone in the human incarnation. This last stage is exactly the opposite of the first stage.

The reason why people cannot see Y as X is that they are able to see the properties of the medium Y. For example, the human incarnation comes to preach to humanity. In order to preach, He needs a mouth. The mouth is present in the human body. So, when He takes up the human body in order to preach to humans, people only see the human body and are unable to see the hidden God. We have to understand the inevitability of the medium and not attach importance to the properties of the medium. The Lord can preach to you even without the medium of the human body. He could preach through space or a stone idol for instance. However, if He does so, then it would be the miracle. Such miracles cause a lot of excitement, fear and stress in people. In such an excited state, one cannot learn and analyze the knowledge that is being given. There will be no closeness. People will not feel free to ask their doubts to Him. In that case, what is the use of that preaching?

In order to establish this closeness, the Lord has to maintain all the properties of the medium Y. He will sometimes deliberately show all the properties of the medium. This reduces the gap between the Lord and the disciple. The disciple will forget the X for a while and feel close to the medium Y. He will serve the human incarnation with love. This atmosphere is conducive to learning. If the impression of X alone remains on the mind of the disciple, then he will shake with fear and excitement and his mind will not work. There is an example of the wife of Vidura in the Mahabharata. Lord Krishna visited the home of Vidura. Vidura’s wife was extremely excited that the Lord Himself was visiting them. She offered Him a banana to eat. In her excitement and confusion, she peeled the skin and offered Him the skin to eat and threw out the banana. This was because while offering Him the banana, she was thinking of Him as X. The impression of Y is also necessary for closeness and service. For darshana (vision), sparshana (touch), sambhashana (conversation) and sahavasa (living with Him) of the human incarnation, the impression of Y is essential. With knowledge one has to understand that even though the properties of Y are shown by the human incarnation, the properties of Y can never touch X. Then one will never bother about the properties of Y.

To be continued...

★ ★ ★ ★ ★