God cannot be angry because anger can be there only when there is an agenda. If God also has an agenda then he cannot be God!

gurudev (2)There is a benevolent order and fairness and that is an expression of God. Everything functions according to the fundamental laws or the order, which is what ordains and controls everything. In that sense it can be said that the order is the expression of God himself. God is benevolent and not punishing. Even if there is a pain in life, which may be the result of the past actions, a devout person will not consider it as a punishment but will understand it as the result of his actions and that even the pain is meant for his growth. Faith in the benevolence of the order will create an attitude that will look at all situations as a means of inner growth.

We do not have the concept of an angry, punishing God or a God who takes revenge. God cannot be angry or revengeful because anger can be there only when there is an agenda. Anger is the result of unfulfilled needs and demands. If God also has an agenda or need then God also becomes a needy and incomplete being. Then he cannot be God; he cannot be fair. In order to be fair one must have no axe to grind. In a court of justice the presiding judge has no personal gain in the judgment that he passes. He is totally objective; and compassionate also.

God is always kind. Whatever is done is done out of kindness and not out of revengefulness. If he is revengeful then he becomes incomplete because he has. likes and dislikes. And then he cannot be fair. There is freedom from likes and dislikes when one is whole and complete within. Likes and dislikes are manifestations of incompleteness and discomfort. with oneself. When controlled by likes and dislikes, actions also will be violent. There cannot be violence for order and fairness to be there. So God cannot be violent or unfair. There will be no order in the world if he were so. Whatever is done out of completeness is always an act of kindness. One who feels happy, whole and complete can never be unkind. In God’s infinite compassion everything has a place.

Swami Viditatmananda Saraswati

Excerpts from: Hindu Dharma – Basics & Beyond
Link Videos of Swamiji’s Discourses

 

The maha-vakya of Kenopanisad: तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि – tad eva brahma tvam viddhi, May you understand that alone to be Brahman.

images

यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युधते !
तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते !!

May you know that alone to be Brahman, which is not revealed by speech (but) by which speech is revealed, and not this that people worship (as an object). (Kenopnisad 1.4)

The first line reveals primarily the pratyagatman, the inner self, that which is ear of the ear, etc., that which is neither known nor unknown, but the basis of both the known and the unknown. In the second line the inner self is pointed out as Brahman by saying tadeva brahma tvam viddhi, may you understand that is Brahman.

While Chandogya Upanisad says, “tat tvam asi” that (Brahman) you are,” here, the teacher Says “tad eva brahma tvam viddhi”, may you understand that alone to be Brahman.” That ‘you,’ is the eye of the eye, ear of the ear, etc, and which is neither the known nor the unknown. All these details make the meaning of tat very clear; it is you. Understand that consciousness alone to be Brahman which is you, in Whose presence you are aware of all these things. Brahman means limitless, the cause of everything-that from which everything has come, and unto which everything goes back. You are that Brahman.

Yada vaca anabhyuditam: That which is not revealed by the word. Anabhyuditam means na prakasitam, not objectified by a word. The vastu is not revealed as the direct meaning of any word. It is unlike the object ‘pot’ that is revealed by the word ‘pot’. However, the vastu is revealed by words through implication, after creating a context.

Yena vag abhyudyate: By whose presence a word comes to manifest. Here, we have to take into account all that is connected to a word-by whose presence alone a word is a word, a word is pronounced as a word, a word is heard, a word is understood. In the presence of the invariable pratyagatman alone a word is heard and its meaning understood. So too, it comes to manifest.

The word ‘vak’ can also be taken to mean the organ of speech. That caitanya, consciousness, which the organ of speech cannot objectify, but because of which it is able to function, is Brahman. This meaning is given here because a story is going to be narrated later, based upon this fact.

That vastu which is not revealed by a word, but because of which a word comes to manifest, is referred by the word, ‘tat’ which, in the context of the previous unfoldment, means ‘you’. The mantra exhorts you to understand tad vastu, that caitanya, to be Brahman.

The word Brahman is already arrived at in the language. It is derived from the root brh, in the sense of growth. Brhatvad brahma, that which is big or brhmanat brahma, that which is capable of growing into jagat. Both meanings are applicable here. The bigness here is aparicchinna, unrestricted. Hence, Brahman is ananta that Which is limitless-time-wise or space-wise.

An object is limited both in terms of space and time – previously it was not, now it is. Whereas, Brahman is unlike any object that exists in time and space. Space itself is paricchinna, limited. Even though space is relatively all-pervasive, it does not pervade Brahman. In fact, Brahman pervades space. That is why space is part of the jagat. Therefore, space also is mithya. It has kale-pariccheda, time-wise limitation, because it is collapsible, as we know from the experience of sleep. Brahman, being limitless, has no spatial or time-wise limitation – means it is not born, it is not gone, it does not grow, it does not decline.

Brahman is not a object, and so there is no vastu-pariccheda, object-wise limitation. Brahman sustains time and space, and .it sustains everything else that exists in time and space. No object enjoys an independent reality without the reality of Brahman. Therefore, every object is Brahman. This is the meaning of Brahman, that which is ekam eva advitiyam, one without a second.

Let us look at the word, advitiya, without a second. A second thing can cause three types of bheda, difference, to a given thing – sajdtiya, vijaatiya and svagata bheda. A coconut tree, for instance, is different from other trees within its own species. There are many coconut trees, and this is one of them. This is sajatiya-bheda, a limitation caused within one’s own species.

Then there is vijatiya-bheda. Vijati means something belonging to a different species. A tree, for instance, is different from the rocks, rivers, and so on. If the tee is a coconut tree, then there are varieties of trees like an areca nut tree, an oak tree, and so on that are different from the coconut tree. In the genus of coconut tree itself there is a dwarfed coconut tree, a hybrid coconut tree; there too, there are varieties. Things that come under botany, things that come under zoology, and [things that come under geology are all different. Within botany itself there are varieties of plants like a vine, a creeper, a small plant, a big tree and so on. A jati, species, keeps on dividing itself endlessly. But you can bring them all under one jati, one subject matter of botany, because they have certain commonness about them. The coconut tree is distinct from a dog that comes under zoology. This is called vijatiya-bheda, a limitation caused by things of different species.

Finally, there is svagata-bheda, difference within a given species. A given tree has varieties of differences within itself like the” leaves, the flower, the fruit, the trunk, and so on.

Taking one’s own body, one can see all these bhedas. It has sajatfya-bheda, because there are many human bodies. It has vijatiya-bheda, because it is different from the body of any other being, like a dog . and so on. Then, it has svagata-bheda, varieties within the body such as the head, shoulders, hands and so on, each one being different from the other.

All these bhedas are not there in Brahman. There is only one non-dual Brahman that is revealed by the sastra. All that is here is that Brahman. Since a second Brahman is not there, there is no sajatiya-bheda, limitation or difference caused by the same species. Further, as there is nothing other than Brahman, there is no vijatiya-bheda, limitation caused by a different species. Brahman is satya, and everything else is vikara, apparent modification, and hence mithya. Mithya cannot be counted along with satya. Brahman being non-dually one, and everything else being mithya, does not add to the one. In Brahman itself there are no parts and hence there is no svagata-bheda. Brahman is satyam jananam anantam. It is pure caitanya, consciousness, which is neither knower-known-knowledge but the truth of all the three.

Tad means pratyagatman, the inner self, consciousness. Tad is predicated here to Brahman. The subject matter pratyagatman has already been introduced, about which the teacher reveals something here. We do not really require a pramana to arrive at the existence of oneself. By drg-drsya-viveka, subject-object-analysis, we can come to know the subject, the self, is not subject to objectification. Recognizing this self-revealing consciousness is Brahman, is the result of veddnta-pramana.

Suppose I say, ‘tvam asi, you are,’ you do not get anything out of this sentence without knowing the predication. Tvam is the subject about which something is going to be revealed. Here, an akanksa, expectancy, is created to hear what the predication is; what is it that the speaker wants to convey about the subject? Suppose, I do not say anything after saying tvam asi, What does it mean? Each one, per his or her psychology, will read the silence. “You are,” creates, in the listener, an expectancy. The speaker fulfils the expectancy, communicating what he or she intends to convey, which is called vivaksa (the intention to say).

The subject, srotrasya srotram, is already introduced, but needs to be predicated. This is where pramana walks in to say, “tad eva brahma tvam viddhi –  you understand ‘that’ to be Brahman.” That ear of the ear which is not objectified by the organ of speech, and because of which the organ of speech functions, is advayam brahma, non-dual Brahman, and that Brahman you are. That means there is nothing other than you; the thought is not other than you, the knower is not other than you, the object of thought is not other than you. Any other knowledge implies a knower-known difference. Here, the knower is you, the knowledge is you, and the known is you. That is the revelation.

The teaching is, “May you understand that to be Brahman.” There are no two entities here – yourself and Brahman. You are Brahman. If you are ignorant, well, Brahman makes that ignorance exist and known. Like anything else, this ignorance also is mithya. What does not exist by itself, but draws its existence from something else is mithya. Ignorance draws its existence from the same consciousness alone. Hence, ignorance is also mithya; it goes away in the wake of knowledge. Therefore, tad eva brahma tvam viddhi. Let there be no ignorance with reference to the fact of the self being consciousness, satyam brahma. That is the whole intention of the teaching.

That vrtti, the cognitive thought that takes place in one’s buddhi as a result of teaching, is known as akhandakara-vrtti, a cognition in which the knower-known-knowledge are resolved into one awareness. That means all the three are you.

Generally, a vrtti is the connecting link between the object of knowledge and the knower. When you say, “This is a pot,” pot is the object and you are the knower of the pot. The pramana-phala, the result of operating a means of knowledge, goes to you, the knower. Between you and the pot, the connecting link is tadakara-vrtti, the thought having the form of a pot. Akara means a form. A given thought assumes the form of the object it objectifies through perception, inference, words, or recollection.

You, the knower, look at the thought and say, “This is a pot.” That pot thought is called idam vrtti. You are the knower all the time. Therefore, you say, “I am the knower, and the whole world of objects is different from me.” With this kind of division in thoughts, you move around knowing different things in the world.

Now, you are told by the sastra, tad eva brahma tvam viddhi, understand that Brahman you are. That consciousness is Brahman which is the mind of the mind, without which there is no thought, there is no object of thought, and there is no knower.

Further, on analysis, you recognize that Brahman as the intelligent and material cause of the jagat. That means the whole creation is non-separate from Brahman. Therefore, your body is Brahman, your senses are Brahman, your mind is Brahman, the knower is Brahman, the cognition is Brahman; everything is Brahman. In this vision you recognize the invariable consciousness cit, as satyam brahma.

In other words, cit is sat. Once you say Brahman is satya, everything the knower-known-knowledge is Brahman. That means it is the whole. That is why it is called ananda or annanta. Being the whole, it is not an object of any of these words, but rather known more by implication. You are not in any way, anywhere, circumscribed, limited.

“That consciousness is Brahman” is the maha-vakya, a sentence revealing the oneness of you and Brahman.

In this mantra, there is also a negation of what is not Brahman. Brahman is generally understood as God, the cause of the world. People worship Brahman as Visnu, as Siva. Is that not Brahman? It is Brahman if you include yourself. That which includes both the subject and the object is Brahman. Nedam yad idam upasate: Not this, which people meditate upon.

Upasana means ‘people worship’. The sastra does not criticize or condemn upasana; on the contrary upasana is included. However, one should not construe that the form alone is Brahman. When a topic is considered, due respect is given to the topic. The consideration is showing respect.

Upasana is fine, but the upasya, one whom you Worship, includes you the upasaka too. If the upasya and the upasaka are one, then the upasana-phala, the ultimate result of worship, is gained; the payoff is recognizing the fact that both the updsaka and the upasya are sustained by one consciousness, Brahman, which is srotrasya srotram; that is why it is satyam. Therefore, What people worship is also Brahman, but that alone is not Brahman. These are sentences revealing an equation and one must see the truth of these sentences. One has to inquire into them thoroughly, curbing the tendency to gloss over.

Swami Dayananda Saraswati

Excerpts from Kenopnishad

What are the mahavakyas?

dayanandji

Every Upanishad must have a maha-vakya महावाक्य, not just four Upanishads. For the sake of समन्वय samanvaya, showing that all four Vedas have only one तात्पर्य tattparya, vision, four maha-vakyas are quoted, one from each Veda:

  1. तत् त्वम् असि, Tat Tvam Asi -> That Thou Art.
    from Chandogya Upnishad, Samaveda.
  2. अहम् ब्रह्मास्मि, Aham Brahmasmi -> I am Brahman.
    from Brahadarnayaka Upnishad, Yajurveda
  3.  प्रज्ञानम् ब्रह्म, Prajananam Brahma -> Consciousness is Brahman.
    from Aitareya Upnishad, Rigveda
  4. अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म, Ayam Atmā Brahma -> This self is Brahman.
    from Mandukya Upnishad, Atharvaveda.

In fact, every Upanishad has maha-vakya. Without a maha-vakya there is no Upanishad, there is no Gita, and there is no शास्त्र sastra either. Any sastra reveals what is to be revealed, and therefore, maha-vakyas are seen in all the Upanishads.

In maya-vakyas there are no differences. It is not proper to create differences among them, like some people do. Some claim that, tat tvam asi is an upadesa-vakya, a sentence giving the teaching; aham brahmasmi is an anubhavakya, a sentence revealing the experience of oneness, and so on. The whole Upanishad is meant for upadesa, revealing an equation between जिव Jiva and ईश्वर Isvara.

Sawmi Dayanand Saraswati

Excerpts from Kenopanishad

Ananda is the Nature of Brahman, not an attribute!

gurudev (2)

अहमेव सुखं नान्यदन्यच्चेन्नैव तत्सुखम् |
अमदर्थ न हि प्रेयो मदर्थ न स्वतः प्रियम् ||

 Ahameva sukam nanyadanyaccnnaiva tatsukham
Amadartham na hi preyo madartham na svatah priyam

 अहं एव = I alone, सुखम् = (am) happiness, wholeness, न अन्यत् = (and) not different, अन्यत् चेत् = (if happiness is) different, तत् = that, न एव = not at all, सुखम् = (is) happiness; अमदर्थम्  = (if it is) not meant for me (then); न हि = (it is) not;  प्रेय = dear;  मदर्थम्  = (if it is) meant for me (then); न = not; स्वतः = by itself;  प्रियम् = dear

I am of the nature of happiness and not different (having happiness as my attribute). If it (happiness) is different, it is not bliss at all, for, it would not be clear if it is not meant for me, and, if it is meant for me, it is not dear by itself (whereas, the self is dear by itself). (Advaita Makranda – 24)

अहमेव सुखं Aham eva sukham, I alone am happiness, आनन्द ananda. न अन्यत् Na anyat, I am not different from this ananda. सुखं  Sukham is my nature and not an attribute or quality. It is not that आत्मा atma is asukha, unhappy by nature, and happiness is a quality it possesses from time to time.

How do you know that ananda is your nature and not your attribute? In answer to that question, we have this to say: If sukham or happiness is a quality or an attribute of atma, then it should be different from atma, because, according to the Naiyayikas, a quality or गुण gun and its locus, the गुणि  guni, are different from each other. If happiness is a guna of atma and atma is the guni, they should be different from each other.

Now, whatever is different from atma can fall under one of two categories: either it is conducive or favorable to atma, or the opposite. There is a third category of things that are neither favorable nor unfavorable, which will be referred to later on. If happiness is something different from atma and not conducive to atma, then it cannot be happiness, because whatever is not conducive cannot be dear to mm: This is what the author means when he says, अमदर्थ न हि प्रेयो amadartham na hi preyah; if it is not meant for me, not conducive to me, it cannot be dear to me.

Happiness is always dear tome, and, therefore, it cannot be something that is not conducive to me. We know that Whatever is not conducive, such as a snake etc., is not held dear. What if happiness is different from me, but also conducive to me? Then it would be dear to you and be a cause or reason for happiness; it would not be happiness itself.

The author says, मदर्थ न स्वतः प्रियम् madartham na svatah priyam; if it is conducive to me, it is dear alright, but it still is not dear for its own sake. For instance, certain objects, one’s spouse or progeny etc, are dear to us, but not for their own sakes. They are dear because they give happiness and, in such instances, it is possible that they may not remain dear if they cease to be a source of happiness.

The idea is that the love for things and beings that are clear is conditional. They are dear only as long as they continue to be favorable, useful, and conducive. But happiness is not like that. We love happiness for its own sake, meaning that the love for happiness is unconditional. We love happiness at all times, at all places, and under all conditions. Therefore, anything that is conducive, but different from us cannot be happiness. It can be a cause or reason for happiness, but not happiness itself. ‘

Whatever is not conducive to me or is a source of unhappiness cannot be happiness, and whatever is merely a cause or reason for happiness also cannot be happiness, because the cause or reason for happiness is loved conditionally, whereas happiness is loved unconditionally.

In fact, as the Pancadasi says, all the things and beings of the world can be divided into four categories: one ’s own self, those that one likes, those that one dislikes, and those to whom one is indifferent. Happiness is not disliked, like a tiger or snake may be, because everyone desires happiness. Neither is one indifferent to happiness, such as to a stone on the roadside, again because happiness is desired by everyone. We cannot call happiness as something that is simply dear, because spouse, children etc., which are sources of happiness, are also dear. Thus, by the rule of elimination, happiness is the self.

But would it not be true that the self is dear because it is a means to happiness? After all, the self does not have to be happiness itself to be dear; it can be dear even if it is a means of happiness. To this, we have to ask whether or not a means to happiness, such as an object of pleasure, is seen to serve the purpose of the self. If the self is a means to happiness, whose purpose will it serve?

It is argued that the self serves the purpose of the self; however, then, it has to be visualized as both the subject and object simultaneously, which is illogical. Therefore, we have to conclude that self is dear, not because it is a means of happiness, but because it is happiness itself.

Common experience is that happiness is born and it dies, that it arises and subsides, but you claim that the self is always there. In that case, how can happiness, which is impermanent, be the self? The answer is that what arises and subsides is the thought, which manifests as happiness. Indeed like the sun, which always shines in the sky, happiness always shines as the self, because it is the same as the consciousness that is self-shining.

However, just as clouds create the disappearance of the sun, so also, रजस rajas and तमस tamas create the disappearance of happiness. When the thought becomes सात्विक satvika, being transparent, the happiness becomes manifest. Happiness that is the self always is It is not created. It only needs to manifest and that happens when the mind becomes satvika or pure.

Thus, with the help of reasoning, on the strength of the experience of wise, as well as many statements of, the scriptures, it is made clear that happiness is not a quality or an attribute of the self, but the nature of the self.

Swami Viditatmananda Saraswati

Excerpts from Advaita Makranda of Sri Lakshmidhara Kavi

Link to Swamiji’s Discourses

What is the Nature of the Self?

gurudev (2)


अहमस्मि सदा भामि कदचिन्नाहमप्रिय:|

ब्रह्मैवाहमतः सिद्धं सच्चिदानन्दलक्षणम् ||

 Ahmasmi sada bhami kadachinnahamapriyah |
Brahhmaivahamatah siddham saachidanandalaksanam ||

सदा = always, अहम् अस्मि = I exists, भामि = I shine, अहम्= I (am), न कदाचित् = never,  अप्रियः = not dear, अतः = therefore, सिद्धम् = it is established (that), ब्रह्मन् एवं अहम् = brahman alone I am, सत् -चित् -आनन्द -लक्षणम्  = whose nature is existence-consciousness-fullness

I exist ever and always I shine; never do I dislike myself. Therefore, it is established that I am brahman, of the nature of existence-consciousness-fullness alone. (Advaita Makranda – 2)

This verse provides a simple way of looking at ourselves. For instance, if I look at myself as the body, then I had a birth and I will face death; I am mortal and I am limited. If I look at myself through the medium of the mind or intellect, I can see that in knowledge, I am limited, and in terms of my memory, I am limited. Even in terms of skills, I know that I am limited. In every way that I look at myself, I can only sense that I am limited. such is the perception I have of myself. Yet the nature of the limitations I feel depends on the standpoint through which I judge or observe myself; indeed, if I were to stop looking at myself in terms of these incidental factors, my ’costume’, and consider myself in terms of what I really am, I will become free.

What is it in each one of us that is abiding?

Everything that you might consider has two aspects, an incidental aspect that is constantly changing, and an inherent or intrinsic aspect, which is constant and abiding. Take the instance of this cloth that I am wearing: it is made of cotton, and, in this form, it is called cloth. If you were to take away all the interwoven yarn, it would not be cloth anymore; you may perhaps call it threads. The name is changed when the form is changed; if you take away all the threads from cloth, there would not be any cloth. However, even as thread, it is still cotton. You can cut these threads into small pieces and they would still be cotton. The fact that it is cotton never changes; that is never denied. Because it never ceases to be cotton fiber, cotton is the intrinsic aspect of this garment, whereas, its status as a piece of cloth or threads or shorter lengths of thread is incidental.

Remember that the actor only appears as a beggar, king or minister, each of the roles is incidental, while being an actor is intrinsic to the individual. This is how everything in this universe is a combination of the essential and the incidental. Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, (Bhagavad Gita 13-26):

यावत्सञ्जायते किञ्चित्सत्त्वं स्थावरजङ्गमम्।
क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञसंयोगात्तद्विद्धि भरतर्षभ।।

 yāvat sañjāyate kiñcit, sattvaḿ sthāvara-jańgamam
kṣetra-kṣetrajña-saḿyogāt, tad viddhi bharatarṣabha

 Oh Arjuna, whatever being, animate or inanimate, is born, know it to have emanated from the union of the क्षेत्र  ksetra (matter) and the क्षेत्रज्ञ ksetrajna (consciousness). Here Lord Krishna says to Arjuna that whatever is created in this world is a product of the union of the spirit and matter, the essential and the incidental; it is  सच्चिदानन्द  saccidananda alone, in some name and form or the other. In this cloth that I am wearing, the aspect of cotton is its essence and the fact of its being cloth is incidental. One must learn to separate the abiding, the inherent, the unchanging and essential from that which is changing and incidental. We have to investigate and discriminate between the two.

What about the self? Well, consider what it is that is unchanging and inherent about you. That would be the truth, your inherent reality. The essence of a golden ornament is the gold of which it is made, while the different forms and designs in which it may appear may change. Similarly, there is a part of you that keeps on changing at any moment, you may be a walker, dreamer, sleeper, speaker, or worker; these forms, or states are constantly changing. Then what is it in you that never changes? It is the fact that you ’are’ that never changes. The I ’am’ never changes. Your roles as a son, a father, a brother or friend, a sleeper, dreamer, speaker or teacher keep on changing, but the fact that you ’are’ never changes.

How do I know that I ’am’? Do I need to hear myself to know that I am? Do I need to touch myself to know whether I am? Do I ever need to say, “Let me see whether or not I am there”? Understand that even seeing, touching, hearing etc., can take place only when one is there in the first place. Making any such effort presupposes that one ’is.’ If I want to know where I am, I may need to ask somebody or look around to determine my position. However, to know that I ’am’ does not require any effort on my part. Everything requires the ’I’ to reveal it, whereas, the ’I’ itself does not require anything in order to reveal itself. That I ‘am’ or that you ’are’ is self-revealing. This is the meaning of such: bhami, I always shine.

Being and shining or revealing always go together. For instance, there is a flower in my hand. When can you say the flower is? Only when the flower is, that you can see it; only when you see it can you cognize it. Only when the flower becomes an object of your awareness do you see it. However, when can the flower become the object of your awareness? That can happen only when it is. So which comes first? Is it the fact that you see it or the fact that it exists? Unless it exists you cannot see it and unless you see it you cannot be aware of its being there. This is why being and shining or being and knowing happen together.

To be and to shine are not two different things. That you are is a self-revealing and undeniable fact about you. Nobody can take away from you the fact that you ’are.’ That you are smart can be taken away by proving you not to be so, or that you are successful can be proved wrong by pointing out your failures. Such concepts are relative, whereas the fact that you are and that you shine is not relative; it is not a point of view. The fact of your being does not depend on anything else for it to be. It is the one aspect of you that is independent of everything else.

Now the poet says, कदचिन्नाहमप्रिय: kadacit na aham apriyah, I am never ‘not dear’ to myself, meaning, I always love myself. One may ask, “How do you say that I love myself”? Sometimes, I hate myself for having done something wrong.” It is true that sometimes, people hate themselves so much, they want to commit suicide. Nobody would want to commit suicide if they did not hate themselves. However, upon careful deliberation, we can see that every instance of self-hatred is indeed a hatred of pain, of failure; what one hates is the incapability that has led to the failure. Why do we hate these things? It is because there is always love for oneself.

We love the limitless self, which is  आनन्द ananda (bliss), so we hate that which makes us feel limited. A person has thoughts of suicide when there is no hope in life and he feels helpless. Yet this only shows a hatred for pain and not hatred for existence, only, he does not know how to end the pain. The impulse to end his existence only reflects his desire to end the pain. In fact, even hatred for life reveals the love for the self, and, therefore, under no condition, कदाचित् kadacit, does one hate oneself; in other words, under all conditions, one loves oneself.

The love for the self is unconditional. For instance, while others may not like to see our faces, we love to see ourselves in the mirror. We keep looking at ourselves when we brush our teeth, or when we comb our hair after a shower, and ‘We never miss a chance to look at ourselves on any reflecting surface, even if it looks distorted!

But why is the body so dear to us? It is because the self is reflected in it; it is not dear when the self does not reflect in it. As Sri Sankaracarya says in the Bhaja Govindam (Bh.Go – 6), भार्या बिभ्यति तस्मिन्काये  bharya bibhyati tasmin kaye, even the wife fears the body of the husband once the life-breath leaves it. Even the wife that loved the husband more than her own life fears his body once life ceases to reflect in it, once the grace of the self is no longer present in it. Anything becomes clear because of its association with the self and it remains so for as long as it reflects the self.

When does something reflect the self? It is seen to reflect the self as long as it is favorable to us, as long as it is helpful to us or pleasing to us. The moment things start hurting us, they do not remain the object of our love. We love things as long as they reflect the self or are favorable to us. While the love for everybody and everything else is conditional, the love for the self is unconditional.

Everything about us changes, but that we are aware never changes. We are aware in the waking state, we are aware in the dream state, and we are aware in the sleep state as well. We are of the nature of that awareness, which illumines the waking, dream, and deep sleep states. In the deep sleep state, we are not aware of anything particular, but unconditioned awareness is nevertheless present. In a pitch-dark room, we do not see anything Yet when we say that we do not “see” anything, what do we mean? It is only when our eyes have the ability to see anything at all that we can say we do l not see anything. Saying we do not see anything in darkness nevertheless involves seeing; it simply means that one is aware of the absence of everything.

The eyes see even in a dark room, but they see only darkness. It is because of this that we can say that it is dark. Similarly, even in the deep sleep state, there is awareness; only, there is nothing to be aware of. The self is always shining and as awareness illumines the waking, dream and deep sleep states. This awareness has no boundary because it has no form or attributes. We are of the nature of that attribute-less awareness.

Asti is sat, bhati is cit, and priyam is ananda, because happiness is so dear to us. Wherever there is ananda, there is also love. Therefore, we are sat-cit-ananda. What is the nature of ब्रह्मन् brahman? That is also sat-cit-ananda. The Taittiriya Upanisad (2-1) defines brahman as सत्यं ज्ञानं अनन्तं satyam, jnanam, anantam. Satyam means truth, jnanam means knowledge, and anantam means limitless. Whatever is limitless is also ananda.

As the Chandogya Upanisad says, (Ch.Up. 7-23-1) यो वै भूमा तत्‌ सुखं yo mi bhuma tat sukham, what is limitless is indeed happiness. Satyam is the same as sat and jnanam is the same as cit. Therefore, brahman is the same as sat-cit-ananda. Because we are also sat-cit-ananda, it stands to reason that we are brahman; brahman is our essential nature. It is in this manner that the author shows the possibility that we can be brahman.

Brahman is sat-cit-ananda. The abiding reality of each one of us is also sat-cit-ananda. Even though the states of waking, dream, and sleep come and go and our roles as doer, enjoyer etc. are variable and constantly changing, अस्ति भाति प्रियं asti bhati priyam, never leaves us under any condition; it is अबाधितं abadhitam, never negated. You are asti bhati priyam always, at all times, in all places, and under all conditions. At no time are you not asti bhati priyam. You cannot get away from it, just as a golden ornament cannot get away from gold.

Upon being told this, however, a question immediately arises. How can I be brahman’? I am limited in power, knowledge, and strength, and insignificant in every way, so how can I be the limitless brahman? Vedanta says that even the insignificant can be limitless, because insignificance obtains solely at the level of the form. For instance, a drop of water might feel insignificant if it compares itself with the ocean; here it is looking at itself as a form, a tiny drop, whereas the ocean is endless. However, if it thinks of itself as water, it would feel no different from the ocean. As a drop, it is insignificant in size and extent compared to the size and boundless nature of the ocean, but as water, it is the truth of the very ocean itself. Similarly, you are limited only at the level of the उपाधि  upadhi (costume) and your reality is no different from brahman; you are sat-cit-ananda.

When brahman manifests in the costume of a limited name and form, it is the ego, the jiva, and when the same brahman manifests in the costume of the totality, it is Isvara. In essence, however, Jiva and Isvara are are not different. In the Upadesa Saram, Sri Ramana Maharshi (Upadesa Saram 24) says,

ईश जीवयोर्वेषधीभीदा|
सत्स्वभावतो वस्तु केवलम् ||

isa-jivayor vesa-dhi-bhida, sat-svabhavato vastu kevalam

 due to the reality given to the costume (upadhi) there is the notion of division between Isvara and जीव jiva. However, from the standpoint of the essential nature, which is sat, the truth is only one. The difference between ईश्वर Isvara and जीव jiva is thus restricted to वेष  vesa in terms of their essential nature, the jiva is as much अस्ति भाति प्रियं asti bhati priyam as is lsvara.

Is it really true that your experiential reality shows you to be limited? Is it indeed your direct experience that you are limited? What is direct experience? It is something that takes place in the mind and through the sense organs. However, आत्मा atma obtains as the witness. The sense organs and the mind cannot objectify it. The fact is that your self or atma cannot be objectified by any available प्रमाण  pramana or means of knowledge. You can truly never really ’see’ yourself. In reality, it is a mere notion that you are limited, something that you just take for granted. You believe quite strongly that you are an insignificant speck in this universe, limited in every possible way. Nevertheless, who is it that says you are insignificant? It is you yourself who Says that you are insignificant. Yet on what grounds do you say that?

Have you ever experienced yourself to conclude that you are limited? Given that the self cannot be objectified, how do you say you are limited? Is it because you were born, because you have a body that is subject to various limitations, and because you are going to die some day? What was born? Only the body is born; you are not born. The conclusion that one is limited truly has no basis. You may feel that you are a limited being, but the self that is judged to be limited is indeed not available for direct experience, unlike this flower in front of me, which is there for you to see here and now.

आत्मा Atma cannot be objectified by any available means of knowledge, and, therefore, not available to inference or to any other means of knowledge. The conclusion of the self being limited thus has no basis. You can never see the ’I’ directly and you cannot experience it in any way or even visualize it, like you can any other object. It is like looking at yourself in a mirror and concluding that there is a big stain on your face, when, in reality, the stain is a flaw or smudge in the mirror. In the same way, you look at your body, see that it is limited, and conclude that you are limited. The cause for it is the identification with the body, which is the non-self. There is a lack of discrimination between the self and the non-self.

The self can never become the object of perception or object of knowledge. It is of the nature of knowledge and cannot become the object of knowledge; it is the witness and cannot ever be witnessed or objectified. So you must understand that you cannot ever say that it is your experience that you are a limited being. It is a conclusion and not an experience.

When I see a snake where, in fact, there is only a rope, it is again a conclusion; it is my projection and not a reality. In the same way, the limitedness of the body-mind complex is projected on the self and you take yourself as limited. Limitedness is present in the vesa or costume alone. That one is limited is not an experience, but a projection. Let alone experience this limitedness, you cannot even infer limitedness, for all inference is based on perception.

Swami Viditatmandanda Saraswati

Excerpts from Advaita Makaranda of Sri Lakshmidhara Kavi

Link to Swamiji’s Various Discourses

What is the cause of the creation? Ignorance!

gurudev (2)

आत्माज्ञानमहानिद्राज्र्म्भितॆस्मिञ्जगन्म्ये
दिर्घस्वप्ने स्फुरन्त्येते स्वगमोक्षादिविभ्रमा
:

 Atmajnanamhahanidrajrmbhite sminjaganmaye
Drghasvapne sphurantyete svargamoksadivibheamah

 एते = these, स्वर्ग-मोक्ष-आदि विभ्रमाः = delusions like heaven, liberation etc, अस्मिन् = in this, आत्मा-अज्ञान-महानिद्रा-जृम्भिते = projected out of the great sleep (called) ignorance of the self;  जगन्मये = of the nature of (this) universe; दीर्घ-स्वप्ने  = in the long dream; स्फुरन्ति;  = spring forth.

In this long dream of the nature of this universe projected out of the great sleep, called ignorance of the self, do all these delusions like heaven, liberation etc., spring forth. (Advaita Makaranda, 18)

दीर्घ-स्वप्ने  Dirghasvapne means in this long dream. How long is the dream? It is going on since time-without-beginning. What are we told about it? स्वर्ग-मोक्ष-आदि विभ्रमा Svarga-moksa aadi-vibhramah, that the delusions of heaven, liberation etc., appear in this long dream. स्फुरन्ति Sphuranti, and in this long dream do all these things shine. What is this sleep or this dream? आत्मा-अज्ञान-महानिद्रा Atma-agana-mahanidra, this long sleep is of the nature of the ignorance of आत्मा aatma or one’s true nature, and the long dream is the world, which arises out of this sleep. Ignorance is compared to sleep here.

Here sleep is not just deep sleep; it is sleep characterized by dream. In deep sleep, there is no संसार samsar, since the I-notion is absent. It is the dream in which projection takes place. Therefore, the Bhagavad Gita (2.69) says:

या निशा सर्वभूतानां तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी |
यस्यां जाग्रति भूतानि सा निशा पश्यतो मुने: ||

ya nisa sarva-bhutanam tasyam jagarti samyami
yasyam jagrati bhutani sa nisa pasyato muneh !!

ya–what; nisa–is  night; sarva–all; bhutanam–of living entities; tasyam–in  that; jagarti–wakeful; samyami–the self-controlled; yasyam–in which; jagrati–awake; bhutani–all beings; sa–that is; nisa–night; pasyatah–for the introspective; muneh–sage.

In the reality to which all the creatures are sleeping, the wise person is awake. That which is night to the wise, there, the ignorant creatures keep awake.

Ignorance is often compared to the state of sleep or the darkness of the night; both deprive us of the perception of what truly is. In the case of sleep, there is often also a projection of the dream, comparable to the projection of a snake on rope. This projection is प्रातिभासिक सत्ता pratibhasika-satta or a subjective . projection, being the projection of the individual mind. Then there is the creation in the waking state, which is an objective reality, a projection of माया maya or the cosmic mind, the creative power of ईश्वर Isvara.

The individual projection, such as the dream, is called जीव श्रुष्टि jiva-srasti, and Isvara’s projection, viz., this objective world of names and forms, is called ईश्वर श्रुस्ष्टि Isvara-srsti. Being projections, both are मिथ्या mithya, and, very often, the individual projection is cited as an example to explain the reality of the creation, which is called a long dream, dirgha-svapna.

In the verse of the Bhagavad Gita quoted above, Lord Krishna says that the ignorant are asleep to the reality, meaning that they are unaware of the reality to which the wise are awake. That reality is the self, the consciousness or ब्रह्मन् brahman, the very substratum of the universe of names and forms. The universe exists and shines because of brahman, just as a projected snake exists and shines upon the rope, its substratum. The wise know brahman as the self that is self-shining and give no reality to the world of duality.

When it is said that the wise person is asleep to the world, what is meant is that he does not give reality to the world; he knows it to be mithya. On the other hand, the ignorant person gives reality to the world of names and forms, to the duality, which is a projection and is compared to a dream. In the dream state, a person is asleep to the reality of the waking world and awake to the dream world projected by his own mind. Similarly, the ignorant person is both sleeping and awake at the same time; he is asleep to the absolute reality that is brahman and awake to the objective reality or projection, in taking it to be real. The ignorant are all asleep to the reality of the self, but awake to this world, which they look upon as real.

What is the cause of the creation? Vedanta states that maya or ignorance gives rise to the creation. We call mithya the projecting power, while the scientists call it energy. There are two aspects to ignorance -its power to veil and its power to project. In the rope-snake example, there is delusion of there being a snake where there is only a rope; here the snake is a projection and the rope is veiled. In the same manner, the true nature of self is veiled by self-ignorance, while all kinds of false notions are projected upon it. The false notions about oneself are the reason for creation. If I knew myself correctly, there would be no need to create anything.

What is the purpose of the creation? The creation exists so that our desires may be fulfilled. What is the desire? It is that we should be free, limitless. How can there be a desire to be limitless, when one is already limitless? It is because we are not only unaware of this truth, but also take ourselves to be limited; hence, we are constantly striving to fulfill our desire to become limitless, to become free. The universe must necessarily be there to enable us to fulfill our desire to be limitless, which is indeed the desire behind all desires.

Desires are of two kinds: one is the desire for स्वर्ग svarga – heaven or material prosperity, and the other is the desire for moksa मोक्ष, liberation or spiritual prosperity. To some, moksa becomes very important, and, to some others, svarga. The desire for moksa indeed amounts to the limitless seeking limitlessness. The one who is of the very nature of आनन्द ananda searches in vain for happiness; this absurdly ridiculous situation in our lives is created by ignorance. Desire is thus the product of the ignorance of one’s true self.

Why do we say that the universe exists so that we may fulfill our desires? It is, because, to fulfill even a simple desire, such as for a cup of tea, you need the Whole universe to cooperate. For instance, you need tea, you need sugar, you need water, and perhaps milk, and then you need a stove on which to heat the water. Yet, come to think of it, you would also need gas to run the stove, and the gas comes from petroleum wells, and the sugar is extracted from sugarcane, which needs water, sunlight etc. to grow, which, in turn, will require the contribution of all the elements of the universe.

Indeed, therefore, to fulfill the simple desire for a cup of tea, you will find that there is an entire chain of requirements that depend on the help or contribution of the whole universe. It means that this entire universe is a product of countless desires, which have arisen from the primary desire to be free, which, in turn, is a product of ignorance.

Ignorance both exists and shines in consciousness. Therefore, consciousness or brahman is indirectly the reason for ignorance. The corollary is that consciousness is also the indirect cause of the creation and not the direct cause. Vedanta explains that the primary cause of creation is अविद्या avidya, ignorance or माया maya. However, maya is enlivened only in the presence of consciousness, and, therefore, in an indirect way, consciousness or brahman is also looked upon as the cause of the creation. God is called the creator, sustainer, and dissolver in an indirect sense; the universe is primarily created, sustained, and dissolved by maya. This is why the text describes universe as a long dream projected by the great sleep of ignorance.

The ignorance of the self is the great sleep because it is beginning-less. And it is called sleep because it veils the true nature of the self and projects the dream of the universe. In this long dream of the universe given reality by the ignorant do the delusions of heaven, liberation etc. shine. The dream world is real for one who is dreaming, and, similarly, the world of duality is real for the ignorant. He takes himself to be a limited being and entertains a desire to be free. Because of a lack of maturity, he looks upon svarga, the heaven or any other worldly or otherworldly achievement, as representing freedom and aspires to gain it. Another one, who has gained emotional maturity, understands the transient nature of all worldly and otherworldly achievements and desires; instead, he aspires to gain moksa or the permanent.

Swami Viditatmananda Saraswati

Excerpts from: Advaita Makaranda of Sri Laksmidhara Kavi

Link to Swamiji’s Discourses

Give that infinite wisdom the benefit of the doubt; surrender the individual petty wisdom to the infinite wisdom. Let it be a surrender that comes from trust.

gurudev (2)

Accepting the Lord means accepting the infinite wisdom that He represents. When we say that the whole universe is a manifestation of the Lord, it means that the whole universe is a manifestation of the knowledge, of the omniscience, of his infinite wisdom. Letting go of our limited perceptions or limited conclusions and accepting that wisdom is accepting the Lord. This is प्रसाद बुद्धि prasada buddhi: performing an action and accepting the reward as it comes; recognizing that the outcome of our actions is determined by ईश्वर Isvara; accepting the infinite wisdom, and letting go of any resistance to it. When the results are not favorable to us, we are apt to resist or reject them. Therefore, recognizing that the outcome of every action is in accordance with that order and accepting that it must be fair is प्रसाद बुद्धि ‘prasadwbuddhi’. A large part of the worship of the Lord lies in adhering to the universal order when performing the action and in accepting the outcome of the action gracefully.

The different situations that we face are not without reason; every moment that we encounter is the outcome of an action. We do not control the outcome of an action; it is the result of  प्रारब्ध prarabdha or destiny. What is destiny? It is the result of whatever we have done in the past, and it presents itself before us in the form of the various situations that we encounter in the present.

What should be our attitude towards things that we cannot control? The result of our actions, whether in the present or in the past, is one of the things that we do not control. For instance, why should a given thing happen to us? There must be some reason for that. We do not know what the reason might be. Yet we grant that there must be some reason, some fairness involved, or that there must be some benefit in it for us. Again, this is called मत्पर: mat-parah, having trust that the Lord is always our well-wisher. The Lord declares, सुहृदं सर्वभूतानां  suhṛidaṁ sarva-bhūtānāṁ [Bhagavad Gita, 5-29], “I am the well wisher of all living beings.” Therefore, we need to accept the Lord as our well wisher. This will require us to let go of our resistance and give up many of our complaints and the blaming which is, again, a habit. It is the ego that is responsible for the complaining, blaming, and resisting because we always want to control everything. We want the whole world to be favorable to us. If anybody or an g is not favorable to us, we react with intolerance, impatience, anger, or frustration. our anger and frustration only show our discomfort with the realities of life Therefore, accepting ईश्वर lsvara  in our lives means accepting the realities of life gracefully. It means accepting that which is determined by the omniscient Lord, who is all knowledge, power; and fairness. Thus, letting go of our resistance, letting go of our complaints, letting go of our tendency to blame, letting go of intolerance, and letting go of frustration is a great process of growth.

Pujya Swami Dayanandaji says, “I make it impossible for the world to upset me or do anything to me. You can’t tighten a screw if there is no spiral thread on the screw. Blaming, complaining, intolerance, impatience, and non-acceptance are the ’threads’ on our ’screws’. The world, the order or Event, has an uncanny knack of tightening our screws or pushing our buttons. ईश्वर lsvara pushes these buttons so that we may learn something from our experiences. Every. experience of frustration or disappointment can teach us something. It shows how there is a tendency on our part to resist, to not accept or to reject the reality. It challenges us to develop comfort with the realities of life. Karma-yoga is not an ordinary thing; it brings about a complete transformation. According to Pujya Swamiji, Isvara is the greatest therapist; we should accept him as a therapist and allow him to work. In what way is he a great therapist? He ‘ pushes our buttons, often very gently. If we accept him, or accept the very order, have trust in him, and give him the benefit of the doubt, we can give “up our resistance, intolerance, and impatience. The ego is nothing but the product of ignorance and all these tendencies are nothing but the manifestations of that ignorance.

अनन्येनैव योगेन Ananyenaiva Yogena. Yoga means joining Ananya is when there is no anya, other Ananya-yoga is joining with the Lord and with nothing else. मम ध्यायन्त उपासते  Mam dhya‘yanta upasate, those who worship me. Life becomes a form of worship if we live it with a worshipful attitude By following a value, We are not obliging anybody. In fact, we are obliging ourselves; and we look upon that as an opportunity to use our-free will. We are human beings gifted with free will. We are also gifted with the faculty of deliberation. This distinguishes us from other living beings; they perform impulsive actions, Whereas, we have the faculty of choice so that we can perform deliberate actions. That is grace.

Meditating upon the Lord can also mean meditating Upon this grace. We are enjoying his grace all the time, As Pujya Swamiji says, we are enjoying his grace every moment. Our hearts are throbbing ’lub’ and ’dub’ all the time. Between the ’lub’ and the ’dub’, there is a small rest or gap. This throbbing need not happen. It can stop anytime, but it goes on by his grace. Every doctor knows that there are millions of things that can go wrong with the body; yet the fact that it is functioning more or less well is due to the grace we enjoy.

What we have is by his grace, and what we do not have is also by his grace. “Swamiji, how can you say that? How can it be by his grace that I’ did not get what I wished for? ” Well, who knows whether you would have been better off if you had been granted all the things you wanted? We do not know. It is a matter of faith. If you say that you would have been better off having something, you could say just as well that you are better off without it. Therefore, give that infinite wisdom the benefit of the doubt; surrender the individual petty wisdom to the infinite wisdom. Surrender gracefully, not out of helplessness. Let it be a surrender that comes from trust. In this manner, life becomes a process of worship.

Swami Viditatmananda Saraswati

Excerpts from Satsanga with Swami Viditatmandanda, Vol:2

Link to Swamiji’s Discourses

A God known is no more God!

swamiji

The one question that is most difficult to grasp in understanding the Advaita philosophy, and the one question that will be asked again and again and that will always remain is: How has the Infinite, the Absolute, become the finite?

Supposing we knew the answer, would the Absolute remain the Absolute? It would have become relative.

What is meant by the knowledge in our common-sense idea? It is only something that has become limited by our mind, that we know, and when it is beyond our mind, it is not knowledge. Now if the Absolute becomes limited by the mind, it is no more Absolute; It has become finite. Everything limited by the mind becomes finite. Therefore, to know the Absolute is again a contradiction in terms. That is why this question has never been answered, because if it were answered, there would no more be an Absolute. A God known is no more God; He has become finite like one of us. He cannot be known; He is always the Unknowable One.

But what Advaita says is that God is more than knowable. This is a great fact to learn. You must not go home with the idea that God is unknowable in the sense in which agnostics put it. For instance, here is a chair, it is known to us. But what is beyond ether or whether people exist there or not is possibly unknowable. But God is neither known nor unknowable in this sense. He is something still higher than known; that is what is meant by God being unknown and unknowable. The expression is not used in the sense in which it may be said that some questions are unknown and unknowable. God is more than known. This chair is known, but God is intensely more than that, because in and through Him we have to know this chair itself.

He is the Witness, the eternal Witness of all knowledge. Whatever we know we have to know in and through Him. He is the Essence of our own Self. He is the Essence of this ego, this I and we cannot know anything excepting in and through that I. Therefore, you have to know everything in and through the Brahman. To know the chair, you have to know it in and through God. Thus God is infinitely nearer to us than the chair, but yet He is infinitely higher. Neither known, nor unknown, but something infinitely higher than either. He is your Self. “Who would live a second, who would breathe a second in this universe, if that Blessed One were not filling it?” Because in and through Him we breathe, in and through Him we exist. Not that He is standing somewhere and making my blood circulate. What is meant is that He is the Essence of all this, the Soul of my soul. You cannot by any possibility say you know Him; it would be degrading Him. You cannot get out of yourself, so you cannot know Him.

Knowledge is objectification. For instance, in memory you are objectifying many things, projecting them out of yourself. All memory, all the things which I have seen and which I know are in my mind. The pictures, the impressions of all these things, are in my mind, and when I would try to think of them, to know them, the first act of knowledge would be to project them outside. This cannot be done with God, because He is the Essence of our souls; we cannot project Him outside ourselves. Here is one of the profoundest passages in Vedanta: “He that is the Essence of your soul, He is the Truth, He is the Self, thou art That, O Shvetaketu.” This is what is meant by “Thou art God.” You cannot describe Him by any other language. All attempts of language, calling Him father, or brother, or our dearest friend, are attempts to objectify God, which cannot be done. He is the Eternal Subject of everything. I am the subject of this chair; I see the chair; so God is the Eternal Subject of my soul. How can you objectify Him, the Essence of your souls, the Reality of everything? Thus, I would repeat to you once more, God is neither knowable nor unknowable, but something infinitely higher than either. He is one with us; and that which is one with us is neither knowable nor unknowable, as our own self. You cannot know your own self; you cannot move it out and make it an object to look at, because you are that and cannot separate yourself from it. Neither is it unknowable, for what is better known than yourself? It is really the center of our knowledge. In exactly the same sense, God is neither unknowable nor known, but infinitely higher than both; for He is our real Self.

Swami Vivekananda

Excerpts from Jnana Yoga, The Absolute and Its Manifestation

What is the nature of brahman ब्रह्मन्? What is the nature of the self?”

gurudev (2)

अस्ति भाति प्रियं रूपं नाम चेत्यम्शपञ्चकम् !
आद्यत्रयं ब्रह्मरूपं जगद्रूपं ततो द्वयम् !!

Every object has five aspects, namely it exists, it shines, it is pleasing, and it has a form and a name. The first three are of the nature of ब्रह्मन् brahman, and the last two are of the nature of the world. [Drk-Drśya Vivekah, 20]

The five aspects of every object

Everything has amsa-panchakam अंश-पञ्चकम्, five amsa. Amsa means a constituent or aspect. Of these five, आद्य-त्रयम् addyatrayam, the first three, namely अस्ति asti, भाति bhati, and प्रियं priyam, are ब्रह्म-रुपम् brahmarupam, of the nature of ब्रह्मन् brahman.

As an example, let us take a pot. First asti, it is. How do you say that? Because bhati, it shines, meaning it is an object of my awareness. We can say that something ’is’ only when it is the object of our knowledge. So being an object of awareness is the second aspect. It is because it shines, or it shines because it is. Thirdly, this object is priyam, pleasing, because it is useful (उपकारक, upakaraka), it serves a useful purpose to me.

Ultimately, we know that it is the self which is pleasing to me, but whatever is favorable to self, whatever serves a useful purpose to the self, also becomes pleasing or dear to me. It is clear to me not for its own sake, but because it serves a useful purpose for me. Therefore, asti bhati priyam, the object such as a pot is, it shines, and it is dear or pleasing. Then, the pot has a रूप rupa, form. It has a big round stomach and a narrow mouth, for example. And it has a नाम nama, name, in this case ‘pot’.

If you take any object, these five aspects are there. An object is, it shines in my awareness, it is dear to me, it has a form, and it has a name. It can be a pot or a piece of cloth, or anything. The cloth is, the cloth shines, the cloth is dear to me, the cloth has a name, and cloth has a form. A table is, it shines, it is clear to me, it has a name, and it has a form. I am, I shine, I am dear to me, I have a name, and I have a form. This applies everywhere.

Everything is potentially a source of happiness.

Even though the author says that everything in the universe has these five aspects, we may have some problem with the third one, namely priyam. We have no problem accepting that something is and that it shines in my awareness, but this ‘dear to me’ aspect, I am not always willing to accept that. How can everything be dear? Is garbage also clear? Is a terrorist also dear?

Let us say that it is dear to somebody. For example, when people cook in India, they peel the vegetables and fruits and so on, and then they throw the scraps outside. When they do this, a cow is waiting there to receive them. Those scraps may not be dear to the person doing the cooking, but the cow feels otherwise, and therefore it is waiting. These scraps are dear to the cow.

Nothing in the universe is redundant, everything has a Purpose to serve. It serves a useful purpose for somebody, at some time, under some conditions. Everything is dear to somebody at some time under some conditions.

But then, if one says that everything is dear, that means that everything should be dear to me. The answer is that everything has the potential of becoming dear to me. What is dear to me is that which is the object of happiness. That which creates happiness in me is dear to me. Everything in the universe has the potential of becoming a source of happiness for me.

It is not that the happiness, or the potential of happiness, is not there in the thing, but usually I am not available to enjoy that because of the obstructions obtaining in my own mind. This question is asked in Pancadasi [12.73], namely, you say that आत्मा atma is सत् चित आनन्द sat-cit-ananda; atma is, atma shines, atma is ananda. If that is the nature of myself, then I should constantly experience it that way. I do experience my existence, so asti or sat is experienced. I know that I am a conscious being, so cit is also experienced. When sat and cit are experienced, then I can accept that atmd is sat-cit; it is and it shines. But where is ananda? If atma is of the nature happiness, then I should be able to experience it.

 Impurities of the mind obstruct the experience of happiness

The answer is that the राग द्वेस raga-dvesas, attachments and aversions, the agitation and dullness in my mind deny me the experience of the happiness that I am. All these negative tendencies in my own mind make it agitated and disturbed, and make it run away from me.

To the extent that we have अन्तःकरण शुद्धि antahkarana-suddhi, a mind that is free from रजस rajas and तमस tamas or raga-dvesas, to that extent we experience the inner cheerfulness. No separate effort needs to be made to experience happiness. The only effort that is really needed is to clean our mind of these impurities.

We can think of the mind like a pool of water. When there is dirt in the water and the surface is also agitated, then we cannot see what is at the bottom. But as you remove the dirt from the water and the surface becomes calm, the bottom becomes clearer and clearer. When all the dirt is removed, and the water is also very calm, then it becomes transparent and you can very clearly see what is at the bottom. Similarly, to the extent that our mind becomes free from impurities and agitations, and therefore becomes calmer and more composed, to that extent the happiness which is our nature becomes evident. This process is called yoga.

We are unnecessarily running after things, and are not doing what we need to do. This process of running after things is called bhoga. An external object can give me happiness only when the object is able to create that calmness in my mind for some reason. Even though there is a chance that the thing I am running after might create that kind of condition of mind momentarily, the condition lasts only for a limited time, and there is no guarantee that the object will create it at all.

So, rather than trying to reach around behind my head with my right hand to catch my right ear, why not do it directly? In other words, rather than seeking to gain that calmness of the mind through the objects, I should instead live a way of life that is conducive to creating the calmness of mind. This is Where karma-yoga comes in. We need to perform actions in such a manner that our raga-dvesas become neutralized.

In short, the author explains that you do not experience the ananda that you are, not because atma is not ananda, but because the raga-dvesas in your mind become the obstruction to the experience of ananda. These raga-dvesas are not obstacles to experiencing sat and cit, that I am and I shine. Even raga-dvesas do not obstruct that experience. But they do become obstacles to the experience of the ananda that is my self.

Swami Vivekananda Saraswati

Excerpts from Drg, Drsya, Viveka

Link to Swamiji’s Discourses

Nobody can really say “I do not believe in God – Isvara”! What we are all searching, and constantly seeking is nothing but God – Isvara!

gurudev (2)

“What do we want?” If you ask this question, and analyze what we are all seeking, it will become very Clear that each one of us is seeking Isvara, the Lord.

Suppose someone asks, “What do you want?” The answer would be, ”Happiness.” If he asks, “How long do you want to be happy? One hour a day? Two hours a day?,” then I would say, “If I had my way, I want to be happy 24 hours a day.” If he qualifies it, “As long as you are in this place you can be happy, but if you go out you’ll be miserable,” I would answer, “No! That is also not acceptable. I want to be happy in all places. Even in my workplace I want to be happy, and at home also I want to be happy -wherever I am.” If he further qualifies it, “You will be happy only in the company of certain people,” I would say,  “No! I want to be happy with everyone, even my boss.”

I want to be happy everywhere, under all conditions, at all times, and in all places. I do not want any kind of strings attached or conditions placed on my happiness. That I can be happy only at a given time, at a given place, or in a given condition is not acceptable. I do not want that. I have to settle for it; that is a different matter. I keep settling for it, helplessly. I cannot be happy with everybody, so I settle for a few people. I cannot be happy all the time, so I settle. That is a different thing, but that is helplessness. Everybody is a wounded person. So many desires arise in our minds, and many of these desires are unsatisfied, unfulfilled, so we have lots of frustrations. We are carrying a lot of these wounds. If we had our way, we would want happiness at all times, in all places, under all conditions.

Now suppose somebody asks me, “Swamiji, what kind of happiness would you like? Happiness with effort, that you work for, or happiness without effort?” Naturally, the choice is clear. I would like to have happiness without effort. If he says, “We’ll give you an injection that makes you unconscious and then you’ll be happy. Is that what you want?” I would have to answer, “No, no, I want conscious happiness.” I am told that I enjoy happiness in deep sleep, but that is not enough for me. Not only do I want to experience happiness; but I want to be aware that I am experiencing it.

We want happiness with knowledge, not in ignorance; and it must be अपरोक्ष aparoksa, immediate, not distant in any way. We also want happiness without effort. The only thing that can be experienced effortlessly is that which is already existent, meaning it is स्वयमेसिद्ध svayamésiddha, self-existent. We Want it all the time, which means it must be नित्यं nitya, eternal, not subject to time. We want it in all places, which means it must be पूर्ण purna, complete, all-pervasive. When we examine all these words that we use – nitya, siddha, aparoksa, purna – and add them all up, it becomes ईश्वर  Isvara – God.

This is what we want. We want happiness that is nitya, eternal, so it never goes away. We want happiness without any effort, siddha. We want happiness that comes with awareness, aparoksa. We want happiness everywhere, puma. That is the Isvara of Vedanta.

Therefore nobody can really say, “I do not believe in Isvara.” If somebody says, “I do not believe in God,” then you should ask that person, “What do you want in your life? Happiness or unhappiness?” He will say he wants happiness. Then you ask all these questions and establish that what he is seeking is sukha, happiness, ananda, fullness, that is nitya, eternal, aparoksa, immediate, nitya-siddha, always existing. Ask that person, “Is that What you want? Is it clear to you?” He will answer, “Yes.” Then you tell him,  “Well, that is Isvara; that is God.” Therefore, nobody can really say that they do not believe in God, because if you did not believe in that, how could you be searching for it all the time? What you are searching for, what you are constantly seeking to achieve, is nothing but that. That is God.

So if somebody says, “I do not believe in God,” the question is in which God do you not believe?” If you do not believe in God who is in heaven, that is okay, but you cannot say that you do not believe in God as Vedanta explains it. You may say that even this God is also very different from me, away from me. You could say, “I am searching for it, but I do not think it exists anywhere. I have not found it yet, therefore I do not believe it exists.” But the God that Vedanta teaches us is nitya, eternal, aparoksa, immediate, siddha, always existing, purna, fullness. That God is not elsewhere; it is my own self. Do you believe that you exist or not? Can you say, “I do not exist?” You cannot even ask the question or answer it if you do not exist. So nobody can deny the God that Vedanta teaches. Vedanta teaches about ‘what is’, it does not teach about some special God.

Thus the God that we are searching for is to be known rather than acquired. According to Vedanta, the very search for God is a denial of God. When we search for freedom and happiness, it is a denial of that.

As Ramana Maharshi says, the knowledge or realization of God is knowing God as one’s own self. That is the nature of the self, and if we knew the self as such, there would be no problem of sadness or sorrow in life at all. There would be total comfort with the self.

Swami Viditatmananda Sarawati

Excerpts from Drg, Drasya, Viveka

Link to Swamiji’s Discourses Videos