Is the ‘DESIRE’ desirable?

IS THE ‘DESIRE’ DESIRABLE?

–

SWAMI SHUDDHABODHANANDA SARASWATI

WHAT IS A DESIRE?

Guru : A desire (kaama) is a craving, longing, or yearning for something that brings satisfaction, enjoyment or relief from sorrow, pain or suffering. It originates from the fundamental and universal urge of sukha-praapti (acquisition of joy) and dukha-nivritti (avoidance of sorrow) in all the living beings without an exception. It can come to an end only on gaining the infinite or limitless (ananta) happiness (aananda) totally free from even the least trace of sorrow. Then the pursuit of sukhapraapti and dukhanivritti stops. As a resultthere remains no cause that can prompt desires.

Disciple: Oh guro! Is it not a Utopia to think of a state or an entity having limitless happiness(ananta aananda) totally free from sorrows, leave alone gaining it?

Guru : Yes, at a cursory glance it appears so to those who have no exposure to the teachings of Upanishads or Vedanta which is the ultimate essence (taatparya) of the Vedas. But it is not so. Definitely there is such an unique entity. It is none other than the real nature of what all of us refer to as ‘I’ which is a non-changing, ever-experiencing and ever- knowing principle called cit (pure awareness principle) or atma identical with Brahman. It is all along changelessly available as ‘I’ in and through our ever-changing three states of consciousness (waking, dream and deep-sleep) and the three bodies (gross, subtle andcausal). The scriptures provide the means to gain it.

Disciple: Oh, now I remember that atmavidya or Brahmavidya is being referred to. But it invariably repeats and asserts the necessity of what they call vairagya (dispassion) asking us to give up all desires. It seems to be totally unnatural. Is it not a ‘non-thinking’ tospeak against the natural tendencies that are universal in nature?

Guru : Sonny, you should be extra cautious before passing on such remarks without proper investigation or taking into consideration as to who has emphasized the need of vairagya and why? It is adhyaatmashaastra (spiritual lore) that has emphasized the need ofvairagya. Its authorship is traced to aadigurus, Brahmaa, Vishnu, Maheshwara and galaxy

of rishis besides deities who were jeevanmuktas. They had nothing to gain from this world. They were full and all-accomplished. Their heart bleeds by seeing the suffering of others. If they say something, should we not investigate and try to understand why suchan advice is given before passing on such hasty remarks?

IS THE ‘DESIRE’ DESIRABLE?

Disciple: It is true. But guro! Please tell me point-blank whether the desire is desirable or not?

Guru : The desire is both desirable and undesirable.

Disciple: How can that be an answer? Is it not ambiguous?

Guru : It depends on you. You first define whether you are a bubhukshu or a mumukshu.

Disciple: What does that mean?

Guru : Bubhukshu is the one for whom enjoying the sense-pleasures only by all means is the prime goal of life. But the mumukshu is a mature person who has discovered that even the best sense-pleasures etc. available here or hereafter in heavens cannot make anyone truly contented and totally free from sorrows so long as the inevitable death withtransmigration continues.

Disciple: But what relevance this division of bubhukshu and mumukshu has got with havingdesires or not?

Guru : Desires appear to be desirable to bubhukshus. The scriptures even give to such immature people a long list of desirable things with the means to procure them, but of course strictly in accordance with dharma. Such a pursuit of permitted desires is allowed to those who are yet to develop a mature mind born of right evaluation of sense-objects. The life of dharma lived induces viveka in them by duritakshaya (ending of past sins). This leads to vairagya in due course. As a result they are no longer interested in the sense- pleasures. Having got convinced about the worthlessness, of the sense-pursuits they develop an intense yearning to get freed totally from sorrows and gain limitless happiness. They become mumukshus. Desires are no more desirable to them. On thecontrary, they discover that desires obstruct their highest pursuit of gaining atmajnana.

SENSE-PURSUIT IS NOT WORTHWHILE

Disciple: Oh guro! I am still unable to understand the worthlessness of the sense-pursuits whenthe fulfilled desires give joy or relieve from sorrows.

Guru : This needs an unbiased investigation to discover what is really dear (priya) to us? What isthe true source of everlasting happiness? What can be the entity wherein no sorrows are ever possible? Are you ready to embark upon such an enquiry?

Disciple: Yes, guro! Please guide me. Please have compassion on me.

Guru : First of all know a universal principle. Anything that is dear (priya) to us is necessarily the source of happiness (aananda). If it is more dear (priya) then it is the source of more happiness. If there is an entity which is the most dear, it should necessarily be the source of maximum or limitless happiness. Now consider the fact that the sense-objects (vishayas) are dear and desired for the sake of ‘I’ (cit, atma). Therefore ‘I’ is more dear(priya) than the vishayas.

Disciple: But the vishayas such as wife, husband, children, wealth, possessions, etc. are also dear.

Guru : The vishayas do appear so to begin with. But in the course of time they end in sorrows and therefore become disliked (apriya). That is what Bhagavan Krishna says that they are nectarine to begin with, but in the end like the poison they become the source of sorrow. In procuring sense-objects there is sorrow. In protecting them after getting also there is sorrow. When they get destroyed, there is nothing but sorrow. At times even for the sake of oneself, the vishayas are abandoned. That shows that oneself is more dear. A sense-object is dear (priya) so long it gives joy. Similarly an entity is disliked (apriya) so long it gives sorrow. No sense-object (visaya) can be permanently priya (pleasing, dear) or apriya (disliked). But ‘I’ (cit, atma) is always priya (pleasing, dear) and never apriya (disliked). It is universally observed that everyone without exception longs : ‘ May ‚I‛ live forever, may ‚I‛ never cease to exist!’. Even a person on the verge of suicide is not an exception to this. What he dislikes may be a particular condition of the body or the state of mind with some non-solvable problems according to him. If an infalliblesolution is offered, he will never commit suicide.

Thus ‘I’ (cit, atma) alone is the locus of limitless love (parapremaaspada). The obvious corollary is : ‘I’ is limitless happiness (paraananda). That ‘I’ is free from all upadhis in the form of threefold embodiment and perceptible (drishya) jagat which alone is the source of sorrow. The gross and the subtle bodies are the sources of sorrows. The causal body contains sorrow in a potential form. All these three with jagat are absent in ‘I’. Therefore ‘I’ (cit, atma) is limitless happiness totally free from even the least trace of sorrow in contrast to the vishayas (sense-objects) which can give tinsels of transient happiness ever-mixed with sorrows.

THE TRIPLE CARDINAL TEST

What we have deduced so far is based on reasoning (yukti). The sruti (Upanishads) also declares that ‘I’ (atma) is sat (ever-existent principle), cit (fundamental knowledge principle) and aananda (happiness). The word aananda generally means vishaya-sukha (sense-pleasure). But here in the case of atma, such limitations are eliminated by juxtaposing ‘aananda’ with ‘sat’ (ever- existent principle) which shows it to be indestructible in nature. Such an entity has to be necessarily limitless (ananta). Thus atma is ananta aananda. Chhandogyopanishad (7-23) directly points out : ‘That which is bhoomaa (limitless, mahat, Brahman) is itself sukha (happiness), there is no sukha (happiness) in the alpa (any limited entity, saanta). Further this is verified by vidvadanubhava (the anubhava of jnanis who have got aparoksha Brahmajnana). Thus the above factis proved by the triple cardinal test accepted by Vedanta namely sruti, yukti and anubhava.

THE SOURCE OF SENSE-PLEASURE

Just as the sat (existence) nature of atma is the basis of the ‘existence’ or ‘is’ness in all entities that are there in the entire Creation and its cit (knowledge principle) nature is the basis of all varieties of specific knowledge, so is the aananda (happiness) aspect of atma the basis of all vishayasukha (sense-pleasures) enjoyed by all living beings. Happiness is not the intrinsic feature of vishayas. The happiness that we experience by sense-indulgence is borrowed from atma / Brahman which is the limitless happiness (ananta aananda). This fact can be verified fromthe Upanishads.

The Taittiriyopanishad (2-8) and Brihadaranyakopanishad (4-3-33) contain an inquiry intothe measure of aananda (happiness) enjoyed by beings in different species of embodiments. The enquiry starts with the happiness enjoyed by an ideal emperor as the basic unit, with a

hundred fold increase in each successively higher embodiment upto the highest embodiment, Hiranyagarbha. The counting stops there. The aananda (happiness) enjoyed in all those embodiments is akin to a drop in the ocean of happiness that is Brahman, (Br. U. 4-3-32) called Brahmaananda. Thus Brahmaananda is limitless (aananda) happiness and non-dual in naturewhich is self evident in aparoksha Brahmajnana.

A mumukshu is in for gaining limitless happiness totally free from sorrows. Therefore he wants to know his real nature by its aparokshajnana (direct knowledge). He is not interested in sense-pleasures. The Vishayas (sense-objects) are no more desirable to him, nay, the desires are the main obstructions in gaining atmajnana. Considering this, none other than Bhagavan Krishna himself comes down heavily on kaama (desire) along with anger and greed in his statements: ‘The kaama is voracious, great sinner’, ‘eternal enemy of jnanis’, ‘kill the enemy called desire who is unassailable’ (B. G. 3-32, 39, 43), ‘a self-ruining gateway to hell’ (B.G. 16-21). All Upanishads invariably highlight the role of vairagya more or less. Therefore the desire is notdesirable to a mumukshu.

KAAMOSMI – I AM THE DESIRE

Disciple: Oh guro! I do understand what you have said so far. I have read how Bhagavan Krishna has criticized the desires to the point of condemnation. But here is a small doubt. What is wrong if we entertain desires until we gain atmajnana? Notwithstanding his criticism of desire, Bhagavan Krishna also has declared, ‘Oh Bharatarshbha (Arjuna), I am desire’(kaamosmi Bharatarshbha) (B.G.7.11).

Guru : Sonny, I had cautioned you earlier. A hasty conclusions without the proper investigation and analysis (mimamsa) is not desirable. First of all keep in mind that Bhagavan Krishna has not said that he is any and every desire in general. He specifies the desire referred to as : ‘In the case of living beings (bhuteshu) the desire (kaamah) that is unopposed to dharma (Sastra, scripture) (dharmaaviruddha)’. Bhashyakara explains this as the desires to appease the hunger and quench the thirst necessary to sustain the body. A thoroughmimamsa (sacred inquiry, analysis) is indispensable in this context.

The first six chapters of Bhagavadgita describe the nirupadhika atma/Brahman with the means of gaining it. The next six chapters unfold the saguna Brahman called Isvara. That is why Bhagavan Krishsna makes a declaration in the beginning of seventhchapter that he is going to impart that jnana (knowledge) with vijnana (svaanubhava–

samyuktam, endowed with one’s experience) in such a manner that Bhagavat-tattva (divinity principle) can be known in its entirety (samagram). Bhashyakara explains the word samagram (entirely) as, ‘endowed with the features such as glory, strength, power, overlordship etc.’. That means the knowledge of Bhagavan is complete when known in its nirguna and saguna form.This meaning gets corroborated by Bhagavan Krishna’s statement : knows me (maam abhijanati) yaavaan (of what magnitude) yah cha tattvataha (of what nature in reality) asmi (I am) (B.G. 18-55). Bhashyakara explains yaavaan as the magnitude in terms of different glories born of upadhi (upadhikrita– vistarabheda) whereas yah as the nirupadhika nature (vidhvasta-sarva-upadhibheda). Thus to glorify Isvara, some of his glories are given in the verses 8 to 12 of seventh chapter of Bhagavadgita. Bhashyakara explains as a sample the first glory namely ‘I am in the rasa (essence, pith) in the water’ as ‘in me (Isvara) who is the very rasa (essence) the water is centred’. It is worth noting what Bhagavan says in the same verse as that of kaamosmi: ‘I am the bala (strength) devoid of kaama ( hankering for sense-objects) and raga (love for sense-objects gained) in the balavaan (strong)’. The Bhashya clarifies that the bala (strength) referred to is the one that sustains the body etc. and not the one that is the cause of hankering for sense-objects and the love for them. In the light of all these explanations the statement of Bhagavan, ‘I am the desire unopposed to dharma’ should be understood. The word kaama here does not mean all desires. Only the good thingsare pointed out as the glories of Bhagavan.

In fact, it should be known for certain that everything whether in the category of dharma or adharma, good or bad, right or wrong is nothing but the manifestation of Isvara only in the sense that the entire jagat is superimposed on Brahman as its basis(adhisthana). It has no independent existence. Only the glories are described here.

Disciple: Then revered guro! Why does the Shastra make the difference of ‘dharma, adharma’ or‘good, bad’ etc. when everything is Isvara?

Guru : The shastra has a point. It wants all to avoid adharma, bad and wrong things or pursuits and take to dharma, good etc. in the beginning to prepare the mind to know Isvara or atma/ Brahman. Finally nirupadhika atma/Brahman free from both alone has to beknown which is beyond the realm of both dharma and adharma etc.

Truly speaking the referred statement by Bhagavan does not mean, ‘I am thedesire unopposed to dharma’. Actually it means, ‘I (Isvara) is the one to whom the

desires unopposed to dharma belong’. It should be taken as an attributive compound(Bahuvrihi samaasa).

Disciple: How can that be so guro? Even a child who knows the Samskrit language will tell the meaning of that statement by Bhagavan as ‘I am such and such desires’. What is the pramana that it is an attributive compound? Bhashya on that verse has not saidanything like that.

Guru : Look, I have already cautioned you that a proper investigation is indispensable if a statement coming from an authentic source such as Bhagavan Krishna is either not clear or is seemingly ambiguous. When Bhagavan has described the kaama (desire) as an unassailable eternal enemy of jnanis and a self-ruining gateway to hell, can the desire be his nature only because the phrase ‘I am desire’ is used? This needs a thorough investigation. It is true that the Bhashya of that verse is silent on this matter. You may ask, ‘where to look for help?’. Please know for certain that Bhashyakara himself has come to our rescue elsewhere in a similar context. In the Chhandogyaopanishad as a part of Shandilyavidya, the upasana of Brahman in its saguna form is enjoined. Therein some of the attributes (gunas) suggested in the case of saguna Brahman are: sarvakarmaa,sarva-kaamah, sarva-gandhah, sarva-rasah, etc.

The saguna-brahma (Isvara) is called ‘sarvakarmaa’ because the entire (sarva) Creation (vishva) is Created by him. Thus the one whose Creation (karma) is the entire jagat is ‘sarvakarmaa’. Further the word ‘sarvakaamah’ is defined as ‘the one to whom all (sarva) harmless (dosharahitaah, i.e. non-binding) desires (kaamas) belong’. To corroborate this bhashyaakara quotes the statement of Bhagavan: ‘dharmaaviruddho bhooteshu kaamosmi’ (B.G. 7-11). A contrary proposition (purvapaksha) objects the attributive compound employed to resolve the word ‘sarvakaamah’. It says attributive compound is not applicable here because Bhagavan has told ‘I am kaama’ in the Gita. Bhashyakara refutes this stand by pointing out that a desire needs to be produced like a sound. If the desire is equated to Isvar because of the statement, ‘ I am kaama’, then Isvara will be dependent on some other entity to come into existence as an effect (karya). Isvar will no longer be anaadi (uncaused). Therefore just as the attributive compound is applicable in the case of ‘sarvakaama’ here in this sruti, similarly the Gita statement also should be interpreted. (Ch. U. Bh. 3-14-2). Desires being the products ofavidya are invariably binding in nature. And yet, those which are on account of

sustaining the body cannot bind. Therefore Bhagavan counts them in the category ofglories. Is it clear to you?

‘SARVAM BRAHMA’ IS AN EQUATION FOR ‘PRAPANCHA PRAVILAAPANA’

Disciple: Yes guro, but if I am not impertinent, may I ask another question?

Guru : Go ahead.

Disciple: It is true that the desire is a produced entity whereas saguna-brahma or Isvara is the Creator. Therefore we are told that Bhagavan’s statement ‘I am kaama’ does not mean an equation in the form of ‘Isvara is equal to kaama’. But the sruti itself tells us in the form of an equation: ‘Sarvam Brahman’ (Everything is Brahman). Is there not acontradiction?

Guru : My dear, both these statements are from two different standpoints. The statement from the Gita takes for granted the Isvara, jagat and everything that is there in it at the level of vyavahara to describe Isvara’s glories which are useful to mumukshus and devotees in their saadhanaa. But the sruti declarations such as sarvam Brahma’ is only to reveal the immanent (sarvavyapi) nature of Brahman as the basis (adhisthana) of the entire adhyasta jagat. The jagat has no independent existence apart from Brahman. Such sruti statements do not intend to confer the status of nirvikari (changeless) Brahman on the vikari (ever-changing) jagat. The samanadhikaranya (juxtaposition) ‘sarvam Brahma’ is used only for the sake of dissolving Creation (prapancha-pravilapanartham) (Br.Su.bh.1- 3-1). The principle is: though the jagat is non-different (ananya)from Brahman on account of the cause-effect relation between the two, the true nature of jagat is Brahman but the true nature of Brahman is not jagat (Br.Su.bh.2-1-9). Thus the equation ‘Sarvam Brahma’ holds good but not ‘Isvara is kaama’. It is just like the nature of the mistaken silver (rajata) in the place of sea-shell (shukti) is the shell, but the nature ofshell is not the silver.

Oh disciple, are you convinced by now that desires are not desirable for amumukshu?

Disciple: Yes guro, but I find that it is very difficult to control desires because senses (indriyas)run to the sense-objects forcefully.

Guru : You are right. There is a reason for that. The bodies of all jivas are meant in general to undergo the bhoga (enjoyment and suffering) according to one’s karmaphalas. It requires the contact of indriyas with the external vishayas. Therefore Isvara has created indriyas extrovert (paraanchi) by their nature. But sensing the danger of jivas being immersed in samsara for ever, Isvara has provided a provision of withdrawing the mind and the indriyas from the sense-objects and make them introvert by viveka and vairagya to gain the atmajnana (Kathopanishad, 2-1-1). Therefore a mumukshu has to take a right about- turn from extrovertedness to develop vairagya. But vairagya is possible only when the viveka is highly mature. Viveka dawns only when durita-kshaya (ending of past sins) takes place. It depends on discharging one’s duties in dedication to Isvara as enjoined by the scriptures. This shows that gaining atmajnana is certainly difficult. It is not that easy as picking up informations from Vedantic texts and parroting them. It needsperseverance with perfect eligibility until the aparoksha Brahmajnana is gained.

Disciple:

Revered guro. One main question still lingers. How does desire or extrovertedness obstruct the pursuit of gaining atmajnana because of which Bhagavan Krishna totallycondemns it?

NATURE OF ATMAJNANA AND ITS PREREQUISITE

Guru : This question originates from the non-understanding of the exact nature of atmajnana , how can it be gained, and what is its most essential prerequisite. In the case of pratyaksha (direct perceptual knowledge) and atmajnana / Bhrahmajnana, an antahkarana-vritti (thought) totally conforming to the entity to be known which can serve as its replica is indispensable. Such a vritti with respect to vishayas is called vishaykara-vritti (vritti having the form of sense-object) or in general tattadakara-vritti(vritti having the form of the entity to be known).

In the case of atmajnana / Bhrahmajnana such vritti is called atmakara or Brahmakara or akhandakara. Atma/ Brahman has no akara (form), but its nature is atyanta (completely) nirmala (pure-free from all the drishya jagat that is adhyasta / superimposed on it), svaccha (clear – completely unconnected to the virtues and vices of all drishyas illumined by it) and sukshma (subtle / nirguna / free from all attributes). But Isvara has created the buddhi (antahkarana) capable of assuming the exact nature ofatma–chaitanya free from all that is superimposed on it. This needs an antahkarana

which is totally introvert and not at all extrovert or preoccupied in the drishyas on account of desires, sense-objects and karmas thereof. In short without such vritti the avidya of atma and its effect the jagat cannot be ended. Thus, knowing atma is to end the adhyaasa of ignorance (avidya) with its effect the drishya jagat (Bhashya, B.G. 18-50 andBr. U. 1-4-10). The following quotes will corroborate this fact.

If an individual gains tattvajnana (atmajnana), then itself his desires cease.Tattvajnana and desires cannot co-exist like ‘light and darkness’. (Yogavaasishtha, Ni.U. 37-30).

Sureshvaracharya highlights the above fact in Panchikarana-vartika: ‘ A jnaniwhose mind is absorbed steadfastly in atma does not perceive the drishya-jagat ‘.

Sage Ashtavakra warns : ‘Oh Son! You may learn or even teach different shaastrasmany a times. Nevertheless, your mind will not get absorbed in atma unless you withdraw from all drishyas’. (Ashtavakra-gita 16-1).

Mumukshus should know very clearly why the mind or antahkarana totally free from the experiences of drishyas or preoccupation in them alone can know atma. Consider an example. Suppose there is a person who does not know that the sugar is sweet. He is given a pinch of sugar. But to know it, he has to be aware of that sweetness exactly as it is through a vritti corresponding to sweetness for which he has to taste it. If he is aware of its sweetness because of tasting and yet knows not that it is sugar, it needs to be introduced by a person who knows the sugar, by saying: ‘what you have tasted now is sugar’. Thereby he gains its knowledge. The same is the case with the knowledge of atma (‘I’) which is aparoksha (svaprakasha, svayamjyoti, self-evident).

Atma is simultaneously anubhava-svarupa (self-experiencing principle), jnapti- svarupa (self-knowing principle) and cit-svarupa (self-awareness principle). These are not three distinct natures of atma but one and the same nature, expressed differently. We are experiencing or are aware of atma moment by moment as ‘I’, but erroneously. We do not know it exactly in its true nature of being totally free from all the features of adhyasta (superimposed) drishyas which comprise the calamitous samsara. Vedanta describes the means by which all the adhyasta drishyas on ‘I’ (atma) can be endedwherein the seeker becomes aware of atma exactly what it is in its real nature free form

sukha-dukhatmaka samsara. This is called shodhita (nirupadhika) tvam pada (the ‘you’ in ‘tat tvam asi’ ‘you are Brahman/tat’). Let us remember that in the state of ignorance, atma (‘I’) is available as anubhava-svarupa with upadhis i.e. it is sopadhika anubhava-svarupa. But when atma is made shodita (nirupadhika) tvam pada by ending the adhyasta drashyas, it remains as nirupadhika anubhava-svarupa. Its nature of being self-experiencing principle (anubhava-svarupa) does not become extinct in any state of antahkarana. Atma does not cease to be anubhava (experience) by itself in any state whether it is sopadhika (with upadhis) or nirupadhika (free from upadhis).The accomplishment of shodita tvam pada wherein one is aware of one’s nirupadhika nature is the first step in gaining Brahmajnana because that itself is Brahman. Shodita tvam itself as Brahman is indicated by the pramana such as ‘tat tvam asi’ mahavakya. Then what remains is described synonymously by the phrases such as anubhava-svarupa, jnapti-svarupa or cit-svarupa (self-evident) atma identical with Brahman. That is aparoksha atmajnana,that is aparoksha Bhrahmajnana which is self-experiencing without triputi. Anything short of it is only paroksha-jnana, which cannot end ignorance or liberate. It is incapable of ending the pursuit of sukha-prapti and dukha-nivritti which is the sine qua non of samsara. Bhashyakara points out in adhyasabhashya that the actions of a paroksha-jnani is similarto that of cattle etc. (pashu aadibhihi avisheshaat).

The mumukshus must bear in mind that mahavakya pramana such as ‘tat tvam asi’ will not operate unless one is directly (aparokshatayaa) aware of or experiences shodhita tvam as (nirupadhika I / atma) or what is called nirupadhika anubhava–svarupa atma free from the features of samsara in contrast to the sopadhika anubhava-svarupa atma experienced with all samsara comprising sukha dukha (joys and sorrows) in the state of ignorance. To say that such experience of shodhita (nirupadhika) tvam pada is not necessary because atma is anubhava-svarupa does not end the problem of sorrowful samsara. The anubhava-svarupa atma alone brings invariably the calamitous samsara presented to us by inert antahkarana-vrittis (called avidya-pratyayas) in the ambit of our experience. The samsara, bondage, transmigration etc. are exclusively our problems and not that of atma. Atma has none of them nor moksha. It is always in its Paramaananda svarupa whether mithya Creation is present or absent. Even attaching a label that the samsara is ‘mithya’ (false) because the sruti-pramana says so is not a solution. It does not end the samsara. If adhyasta samsara is anubhava-siddha for the jiva,its absence also in the self-evident atma should be equally annubhava-siddha. That is

precisely what

the sodhita-tvam pada accomplishes. It reveals to us directly

(aparokshataya) the nirupadhika anubhava-svarupa atma free from even the triputi. The

sruti provides the means to gain it. That is why bhashyakara emphasizes that to gain the knowledge, ‘I am Brahman’ (Aham Brahma asmi) the entire adhyasa beginning from self- ignorance onwards has to be ended (Br. U. bh. 1-4-10, B.G. bh. 18-50). Vedanta is not a lip-service or some psychological consolation. Sutrabhashya makes it very clear when itdescribes the finale of Brahmajnana in its statement: ‘Anubhavaavasaanatvaat

Brahmajnanasya – अनभ

(Br.Su. Bh. 1-1-2). That is where the

ु वावसानत्वात ् ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य

role of sadhana-catushtaya, suddha-antahkarana, citta naishchalya, sarvakarma sannyasa etc. to be eligible to gain atmajnana becomes meaningful. This should make it clear that the Vedantic pursuit is not an academic study. Moreover without the aparoksha anubhava of shodhita (nirupadhika) tvam (you) i.e. ‘I’ in its true nature, the mahavakya will be akin to introducing a person to a schizophrenic whose basic perception of the person being introduced is already distorted. The equation of the mahavakya points out that tat and tvam are identical. This will hold good only if there is awareness of tvam (you, i.e. ‘I’) exactly in its true nature totally free from the features of samsara including all the upadhis. The tvam (you i.e. ‘I’) as experienced now as samsari identified with upadhis cannot by itself be the nirupadhika tat pada – Brahman. In the absence of shodhita tvamthe sruti-pramana will fail to produce atmajnana.

An extrovert (bahirmukha) mind cannot accomplish shodhita (nirupadhika) tvam pada. Therefore a totally introvert (antarmukha) pure mind is indispensable. This requires a total abstinence from desires, vishayaasakti (love for sense-objects), karmas, sense-indulgence or anything else that demands the mental pre-occupation. That is why Vedanta insists on the eligibility in terms of sadhana-catushtaya, shuddha antahkarana, citta naishchlya, amaanitva etc. The Mundakopanishad (3-2-4) clearly declares that atma cannot be gained by tapas (knowledge) that is alinga (devoid of sannyasa). The eligibility to take to sannyasa and the conduct of sannyasis as envisaged by the sruti are such that by strict adherence to them a sannyasi alone can command a totally introvert mind necessary to gain atmajnana and nishtha (steadfastness) therein. Perfect vairagya, no vishayaasakti, total freedom from karmas, no possessions (aparigraha), having well developed antahkarana-shuddhi, shama, dama etc., living in solitary place, total shraddhaa in Isvara for the sustenance of his body, no talk of worldy things or anatma (Mu.U.2-2- 5), and strict adherence to the conduct of Sannyasis make him totally introvert. By the mention of sannyasa (alinga), the sruti does not mean just the external marks. There must be total commitment to gain atmajnana. It cannot be a part-time pursuit. Mundakasruti expresses this fact in its statement : ‘The person who longs for (vrunute) gaining

atma by all means, to him alone atma reveals (vivrunute) its true nature’ (Mu.U. 3-2-3). It is well-known that desires invariably prompt the extrovertedness of the mind. Therefore desires cannot co-exist with the introvert mind which is so indispensable togain atmajnana and nishtha in it. Desires and introvert mind are like light and darkness.

Oh disciple, is it clear to you by now as to how desire obstructs the pursuit ofgaining atmajnana and why Bhagavan condemns it so vehemently?

Disciple: Yes, revered guro.Now mumukshu.Om Namo Gurubhyah.

can

see

very clearly why

the

desire is

not

desirable

to a

Post Views: 335