Chapter 1	Ananda Marga Philosophy in a Nutshell Part 7 [a compilation]

Samája gurus [social preceptors] are those who lead the entire society by virtue of their extraordinary intelligence, deep wisdom, towering personality and leadership ability. Hence it can be easily imagined that this world has been blessed with few such social preceptors.

Kaolas are those who do kula sádhaná [the spiritual practice for the elevation of the kuńd́alinii] and elevate their minds to the level of Cosmic Consciousness through the realm of intuition by turning microcosmic negativity into Macrocosmic positivity. A Mahákaola is one who makes others kaola by his infallible spiritual guidance. But Táraka Brahma is quite a different Entity, a unique Entity, for He is spiritual preceptor, social preceptor, kaola and Mahákaola all in one. He is also something more: He acts as a compass in every stratum of society.

Sadáshiva was Táraka Brahma. As sovereign preceptor He did whatever was necessary for the undeveloped humanity of that age, providing inspiration and active help in every sphere of intellect in human life.

Humanity advanced a lot during the time of Lord Krśńa. But together with the flowering of human intellect there arose various mundane, social and psychic problems. To solve those problems Krśńa had to play various roles. Naturally the question as to which role was more significant and which less significant, or which situation was more difficult and which less difficult, is of no consequence.

In Krśńa’s time philosophy was undeveloped. Even though the sage Maharshi Kapila had been born before Lord Krśńa, his philosophical ideas had not been elaborated on, commented on, annotated, etc. The great Sáḿkhya commentator Iishvarakrśńa, a follower of Kapila, was born much later. So there existed no particular philosophy in Krśńa’s time in the light of which Krśńa’s activities could be judged.

At the time of Krśńa, our present age lay far in the future. It is not possible to judge Him properly from the perspective of the present age, because people today are not at all familiar with the environment of the age in which He lived. Nevertheless, we can analyse His activities in the light of the various schools of philosophical thought which have been discovered (or we could say invented) since His time and say how far His actions agreed with or deviated from their philosophical outlook.

Sáḿkhya philosophy is accepted as the oldest school of philosophy. Kapila, its founder, declared as its principal idea that the fundamental elements which make up the jagat [the world], the jiivas [microcosms] and Iishvara [God] have been specifically enumerated; that is, the world is a composite of those twenty-four elements. (Those elements were not elements in the sense in which contemporary science uses the word.) In Sáḿkhya philosophy, for practical purposes recognition was given to God as Janya Iishvara⁽¹⁾. But the main role of director of the universal drama in the flow of creation was assigned to Prakrti [the Operative Principle], and thus She was given another name as well – Pradhána [Foremost]. The presence of Puruśa [Consciousness] is like that of a catalytic agent.

For instance, gold is used as a catalyst in the preparation of makaradhvaja [a type of áyurvaedik medicine]. Once it has been prepared, the gold can easily be separated out. Yet makaradhvaja thus prepared is called svarńa-ghat́ita makaradhvaja [gold-made makaradhvaja] – gold was the catalytic agent. Similarly, in the Sáḿkhya philosophy it has been recognized that Puruśa does not actually do anything, yet without His presence nothing can take place in the universe. Puruśa does not actually do anything Himself; in this sense it is all the same whether Puruśa is there or not. It is the vast, dominant Prakrti which does everything. Puruśa is seen as the entity which remains inseparably associated with the countless tiny jiivas. Thus the chief contention of Sáḿkhya philosophy is that there are many puruśas but only one Prakrti. Behind this one Prakrti and many puruśas there is the presence of one catalytic agent (i.e., whose existence is indispensable), a kind of iishvara [controller] called Janya Iishvara. That is, everything is done because of [janya] this Entity, hence Janya Iishvara.

Now, if we consider Vraja Krśńa, we see that Ekamevádvitiiyam – “Puruśa is one without a second, and all the jiivas are Prakrti.” Here there is not a singular Prakrti but a multiplicity of Prakrtis. What is the nature of Prakrti? Prakrti Sá nityanivrttá [“Prakrti always undergoes change and decay, little by little”]. In this respect She can be likened to ghee, which grows radiant when it comes in contact with fire but ultimately burns itself out. In the same manner Prakrti (and every jiiva is Prakrti) is nityanivrttá [“constantly decaying”]. When the jiivabháva [microcosmic bearing] becomes pinnacled and advances towards Parama Puruśa to the complete exclusion of all other thoughts, becomes “I don’t want anything of this world, I want only Parama Puruśa, the Supreme Entity,” it is termed “Rádhá”. This is the expression of the single-minded devotion of the microcosmic mind.

Many people are not aware of the real import of the term “Rádhá”. The actual import is this: When the human mind realizes that nothing of this quinquelemental world is permanent, that nothing is absolute or final, that all thoughts and activities are extremely brief and transient, that the only reality is Parama Puruśa, and says, “I will run only after Him, not after anything else,” that very mentality is Rádhá. How long can human beings hope to remain alive? One hundred or one hundred twenty years at most. During Krśńa’s time, there was a popular belief that the average human life span was one hundred twenty years. Later on this idea changed and people began to believe that the average longevity of human beings was one hundred eight years. The earlier idea is mentioned in Kśańá’s saying:

Nará gajá bishe sha-y tár ardhek bánce hay;
Báish balda tera cháglá bale gela bará páglá.

[Humans and elephants live for one hundred twenty years. A horse lives for half that time; a bullock for twenty-two years, and a goat for thirteen years. That was the calculation of the astrologer Baraha.]

“Human beings and elephants live for one hundred twenty years.” No one lives forever, no one eats forever. Not only that, if at one meal someone is offered more food than he or she can eat, he or she will have to decline it: food is not absolute, clothing is not absolute, nothing is absolute… Parama Puruśa is the only real entity, the only absolute entity. The further the jiivas move towards Parama Puruśa, the more elevated their minds become. When they reach a very subtle stage of elevation, their concentrated mind-stuff speeds towards Him with the one-pointedness of an arrow. Such a mentality is called Rádhá. One who aspires to know the concept of Rádhá-Krśńa in depth must possess a sufficiently-developed intellect. The Bhágavata shástra, considered to be the most authentic texts on the bhakti [devotional] cult, does not give a satisfactory explanation of Rádhá tattva [the concept of Rádhá]. Those texts have failed too.

What is Rádhá bháva? When devotees feel in their heart of hearts that their existence is meaningless without attaining Lord Krśńa, that they cannot survive a single moment without feeling His blissful presence, they have attained the stage called Rádhá. Such devotees know nothing other than árádhaná [total mental absorption in Krśńa – the Supreme]. This Rádhá mentality is found manifest in Vraja Krśńa and nowhere else.

People come to this world for a short time for some fun and games, and then they go. So for human beings the earth is like a traveller’s inn, where they will not stay for long. Or it might be compared to a railway waiting room, where passengers from different places come and sit together for a while. The moment the train whistle blows, they forget each other, pick up their bags, and set off for the train. They do not look to right or left. Parama Puruśa Krśńa is that train, and this world is the waiting room.

This is an extraordinary idea – this is Rádhá bháva [the realization of Rádhá], in which árádhaná is the main thing.

Puruśa is one without any second – Ekamevádvitiiyam. But now I will show that Puruśa is neither the puruśa nor the Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya philosophy. According to Sáḿkhya philosophy there are many puruśas, but in the spiritual cult there is only one Puruśa. There are many Prakrtis, but one Puruśa; many Radha’s, but one Iśt́a, one Nucleus; only one sun, but many planets and satellites orbiting around that singular sun. The significance of human existence does not lie in philosophy or in argument, but in racing after Parama Puruśa. This beautiful notion will not be found anywhere except in Vraja Krśńa. There is not even a passing reference to it in any scripture or philosophical text.

Earlier I mentioned that the Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya philosophy can be compared to the gold which is used as a catalyst in the preparation of svarńa-ghat́ita makaradhvaja. He is there, passive, watching everything, but doing nothing in particular. But Krśńa as Puruśottama, Krśńa as Táraka Brahma, is extremely active (this concept of Táraka Brahma is completely alien to Sáḿkhya philosophy). Unlike the Sáḿkhya puruśa, Táraka Brahma calls everyone towards Himself: “Come, come, come to Me. I have come here for you and you alone. I am verily yours. Come and surrender to Me without any hesitation, without any reservation. I will take care of your future.” Táraka Brahma provides this great assurance to humanity, and Vraja Krśńa is an embodiment of this great assurance. He is not passive like the Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya.

Suppose someone is starving, or is being tortured or persecuted. The Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya remains a mute spectator to this suffering (and its witness-ship goes unrecorded), whereas Vraja Krśńa calls to suffering humanity, saying: “You, the starving, the persecuted, the tortured, come to Me. I will liberate you.” The sweet sound of Krśńa’s flute conveys the message of liberation to the ears of all. Sáḿkhya philosophy cannot come anywhere near this idea, cannot even touch Krśńa’s fingernail. It is far, far away from the practical reality. Where there is a tremendous expression of Parama Puruśa, how far can philosophical dabbling solve the actual problems? So we see that the Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya and Vraja Krśńa are not the same thing. Vraja Krśńa is the collection of all the divine qualities and occult powers, whereas the Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya is almost a static entity whose presence matters very little to the created beings.

According to Sáḿkhya, a brick, a piece of wood, an insect and a cat each are all puruśas, and they are all moving about in respective structures which are parts of Prakrti. But with Vraja Krśńa things are quite different. His philosophy is that each and every entity is a partial manifestation of Prakrti on which the one radiated Puruśa is reflected. When in contact with the puruśábhása [expression of consciousness], the jiivaprakrti [unit prakrti] realizes that the Cognitive Faculty, the sweet expression of Parama Puruśa, pleases the hearts and minds of the microcosms. Human beings feel very happy to live in the world because they experience a blissful feeling all over. Madhuraḿ madhuraḿ sarve hi madhuraḿ [“Everything in this universe is saturated with sweetness”]. So how blissful must be Krśńa, from whom such sweet vibrations come! A rasagollá [Indian sweet] definitely tastes sweet, but Krśńa is an infinite number of times sweeter – sweeter beyond measure. Thus as soon as jiivas understand deeply who Krśńa is, they rush towards Him with a fervent desire to merge in Him – this is jaeva dharma.

The interesting thing is that here jaeva dharma, mánava dharma and Aeshvariiya dharma⁽²⁾ are combined harmoniously, fusing together into something excellent and unique. The devotee becomes indifferent to any censure or praise and rushes towards Parama Puruśa in the form of Manomohana Krśńa [“the one who nourishes the human heart with divine bliss”].

Krśńa is also called Mohana [literally, “attractive”] because He charms everyone and attracts everyone towards Himself. A devotee does not like to be with Him in the presence of others, but wants to enjoy the intimacy and sweetness of being with Him alone. Such a devotee does not like to think that He belongs to everyone, but to him or her alone. But when the devotee and He are alone together, does the devotee then think, “He is all mine”? No, the devotee then forgets what to say to Him, and becomes oblivious to himself or herself. When people are self-conscious, hundreds of questions arise in their minds. Only when that self-consciousness merges into Parama Puruśa, do the questions come to an end. Because in the presence of the Entity who is beyond all questions, the devotee becomes self-forgetful. That is the stance of Cosmic bliss. Sáḿkhya philosophy, or for that matter any philosophy, does not come anywhere near that stance.

There is no mention of and no scope for bhakti in Sáḿkhya philosophy. Bhakti is like a tether which draws people near. In the cult of jiṋána, one remains where one was, and in the case of karma, one remains preoccupied with hundreds of actions. Without the cultivation of bhakti, one can never come in close proximity to Parama Puruśa.

The cult of devotion first originated during the period of Vraja Krśńa. (Párthasárathi Krśńa came later.) We find Parama Puruśa in charming form, in attractive form, in the form of one’s own (more one’s own than anyone else could be), for the first time in human history in Vraja Krśńa. In the cult of devotion, devotees view Parama Puruśa from their respective viewpoints according to their individual saḿskáras. The people of ancient India adored Krśńa in three different ways: vátsalya bháva, madhura bháva and sakhya bháva.

Nanda and Yashodá [Krśńa’s foster father and mother] adored Him in vátsalya bháva, whose spirit is: “How lovely the child is, how pleasingly He speaks, how charming is His smile, how sweet is his inarticulate ‘Pa-Pa-Pa Ma-Ma-Ma’. I shall feed Him, I shall dress Him, I shall bathe Him, I shall make Him laugh. I shall caress Him, placing Him on my lap.” Such devotees are busy exclusively with Him. Nanda and Yashodá were the first to find the Cosmic bearing of Parama Puruśa reflected in a tiny child. The name of this bháva [attitude, stance] is vátsalya bháva. Krśńa’s own father, Vasudeva, and mother, Devakii or Daevakii (one person, two names) were separated from Krśńa during His childhood and thus were deprived of vátsalya bháva. Krśńa only returned to them when He was quite mature.

Rádhá attained Krśńa through madhura bháva. In Krśńa she found everything that was charming and sweet in life. The spirit of madhura bháva is this: “I will make my entire existence, whether physical, mental, social or spiritual, one-pointed to derive bliss from my dear Krśńa.” Usually ninety-nine percent of all devotees maintain this Rádhá bháva due to its sweetness. Never before in history did anyone attain Parama Puruśa in madhura bháva; they attained Him for the first time in Vraja Krśńa. And Vraja Krśńa increased the degree of sweetness by playing His flute. People might say, “I will never look at Him again” – but then the flute sound would come to their ears and they would say, “How can I not look at him?” Or they might say, “I will never even think of Him again, but will remain content to look after my little worldly family” – but then the notes would call to them: “Why didn’t you come today? Are you not coming? I’m waiting for You.” This is madhura bháva. In the history of the world, Parama Puruśa first appeared as the personification of charm and sweetness, to be attained through madhura bháva, in Vraja Krśńa.

Naviinameghasannibhaḿ suniilakomalacchavim;
Suhásarainjitádharaḿ namámi Krśńasundaram.
Yashodá-Nanda nandanaḿ surendrapádavandanam;
Suvarńaratnamańd́alaḿ namámi Krśńasundaram.
Bhavábdhikarńadhárakaḿ bhayárttináshakárakam;
Mumukśumuktidáyakaḿ namámi Krśńasundaram.⁽³⁾

What is Krśńa like? “He is like the dark patches of cloud which appear as harbingers of hope in the northeastern sky after the scorching heat of summer. Krśńa brings hope, Krśńa means hope – hope of protection, hope of deliverance. The very sight of Him brings peace to the mind, delight to the eyes, and joy to the heart. Some chew betel or use other things to colour the lips and mouth, but my Krśńa needs nothing except His sweetly enchanting smile.”

Krśńa was one, but adored in different ways. Rádhá adored Him in madhura bháva. “Yashodá and Nanda worshipped Him” in vátsalya bháva, and the cowherds – who had no schooling, no learning, but sincerity and a loving heart – adored Him in sakhya bháva, as a friend. The gods also⁽⁴⁾ received Him in sakhya bháva as their friend. (Later⁽⁵⁾ I shall discuss how sakhya bháva is sometimes transformed into friendship-based dásya bháva,⁽⁶⁾ and at other times transformed into friendship-based madhura bháva.) Initially the gods accepted Him as their close friend, but later said, [suvarńaratnamańd́alaḿ –] “You are our friend, no doubt, but You are much more. You are more radiant than all the world’s pearls and jewels put together.”

Bhavábdhikarńadhárakam – “You are the helmsman in the ocean of bhava [the expressed universe]. You have all the qualities to cross this ocean of bhava. You do not need liberation in this world nor in the next world. I take refuge in You without any fear or reservation, for You are everything.”

Bhayárttináshakárakam – “When I am in trouble, when there is not the faintest trace of a single ray of hope, You appear to allay my doubts and fears.”

Mumukśumuktidáyakam – “Only You can grant liberation to those who seek nothing else but to be freed from worldly bondages after carrying out their worldly duties.”

[Namámi Krśńasundaram –] “O Vraja Krśńa, I salute Thee.”

Footnotes

(1) Janya Iishvara may be called “the Entity instrumental for creation” (see pp. 28-29). A derivation of the term using janya in a different sense will be discussed below. –Eds.

(2) Jaeva dharma is the dharma, or characteristic property, of jiivas, of all living beings. Mánava dharma is the dharma of human beings. Aeshvariiya dharma is the dharma of Iishvara, the Cosmic Controller. –Eds.

(3) For full translation of last four lines, see p. 33. –Eds.

(4) Referring to the mythological basis of the above shloka. –Eds.

(5) Ch. 9. –Eds.

(6) The attitude of a devoted servant towards his master. –Eds.

Chapter 2	Ananda Marga Philosophy in a Nutshell Part 7 [a compilation]

In analysing Vraja Krśńa, we see that, being the embodiment of Parama Puruśa or Táraka Brahma, He is beyond the reach of philosophy. It is said:

Yato váco nivarttante aprápya manasá saha;
Ánandaḿ Brahmańo vidván má vibheti kutashcana.

[Brahma is the One from whom words and mind return disappointed, after failing to fathom Its depths. But one who has known the blissful nature of Brahma is not afraid of anything.]

“Words fail miserably to reach Him, and the mind is obliged to return after meeting the same fate.” Parama Puruśa is beyond the eloquence and fluency of language, so how can philosophy fathom His greatness?

Sáḿkhya philosophy contains the highest expression of intellect, but intellect, after all, is not everything. To reach the Supreme Entity, one must go beyond intellect and enter the realm of intuition.

Some people may say that Vraja Krśńa was comparatively easy to attain, for He mixed freely with the common people. Thus it may have been possible for Sáḿkhya philosophy to say something about Vraja Krśńa, but even then it could not. That shows that Parama Puruśa, though established in the human mind, cannot be grasped by the human prajiṋá [intellect].

This applies even more in the case of Párthasárathi Krśńa. Being a king, He did not have much contact with the masses, but was confined to the circle of kings and vassals. Judged in that perspective, it is even more difficult for philosophy to reach Párthasárathi than to reach Vraja Krśńa. It should be added that although Párthasárathi was a king, and thus beyond the reach of the common masses, mentally He was always with the people.

The word sárathi comes not only from Rathena saha, but also from the suffix i [imparting the sense of “offspring”]. That is, a sárathi is one who treats the chariot as his own child and thus takes constant precautions to ensure that it is not harmed in any way. One does not qualify as a sárathi merely by being able to drive a chariot.

Now, ratha does not only mean a horse-drawn chariot. What is its actual meaning?

Átmánaḿ rathinaḿ viddhi shariiraḿ rathameva tu;
Buddhintu sárathiḿ viddhi manah pragrahameva ca.

He is Párthasárathi because He encompasses the human intellect. [Buddhintu sárathiḿ: “the intellect is the sárathi.”] He supplies the human intellect with His intellect.

Human beings are not concerned only about their physical existence. Behind the struggle for the minimum necessities of life (food, clothes, education, medical treatment and shelter) works the mind, which, in its turn, draws inspiration from the átman. People in today’s world become fatigued by their wants and needs, attractions and aspirations, pleasures and pains, and weaknesses and imperfections. The One (as their charioteer) who leads them from the depths of darkness to the realm of brilliant light and strengthens them with divine inspiration, is Párthasárathi. Only He has the might to shoulder such an immense responsibility, only He has the requisite vital force and intellectual acumen. So how can philosophy describe His greatness?

Now, let us compare Párthasárathi Krśńa with Sáḿkhya philosophy. Sáḿkhya philosophy says that there are many puruśas and one Janya Iishvara. Now what relationship can one [special] puruśa have with jiivas [microcosms], with the world, and with Iishvara? From the microcosmic point of view, Párthasárathi is a mighty, vigorously active puruśa, who brings about radical changes in the lifestyles of human beings and imparts benevolent guidance to them. Sáḿkhya does not mention anything about such a Puruśa. According to Sáḿkhya, there are many puruśas – a separate puruśa in each jiiva. But Párthasárathi is not like that. Nor is He like the Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya philosophy, whose presence is [only] a necessity for the creation of the world. He is a superhuman personality as mighty as a meteor.

Párthasárathi is a great personality reflected in every word, in every direction, and in every divine expression of His Macrocosmic imagination. He is great because He is turning the vast chariot wheel of the Cosmos, He is guiding all things, all sentimental living entities. He is Táraka Brahma. He absorbs everything within His mind and guides humanity. What is the need for Him to guide and advise individual entities? Being Táraka Brahma, whatever He imagines mentally will take place accordingly in the outer world. He whose thoughts take the form of actions is called Cintámańi⁽¹⁾ in the scriptures. Krśńa is Cintámańi. What was the need for Him to advise the Pandavas, to advise the Kaoravas, and to teach the Pandavas war strategy? Should He be considered like the unit puruśa as described by Sáḿkhya? No, certainly not, for it is impossible for the unit puruśa to think such grand thoughts, to make such powerful thought-projections. So since He is not Janya Puruśa, He is Cosmic Consciousness personified, why should He take the trouble to work in a planned way, advising people, teaching people lessons on the value of system? Why? Simply by thinking He could have materialized His goals. Why did He go out of the way to create a drama? The battle of Kurukśetra was a big drama. Why was it necessary? He could have thought, “Well, the Kaoravas are finished,” and the work would have been done. In fact, that is how things happened in the end, but only after staging a huge drama.

At the end of the war, Kurukśetra was turned into a burial ground. Gandhari, Dhritarastra and their one hundred widowed daughters-in-law came there to have a last look at the dead bodies of their nearest relatives. All wept profusely. Krśńa, Kunti, Draupadi and the Pandava brothers arrived on the other side of the battlefield for the same purpose. They too were weeping. It was indeed a heart-rending sight. While everyone was crying in deep sorrow Krśńa addressed Gandhari. “Mother, I beseech you not to weep,” He said. “Sometimes tragic calamities like this befall humanity; so lament not, O Mother.”

Gandhari was a noble lady of firm principles. A woman of integrity is called a satii. (In Sanskrit, the term sat means a virtuous man, whereas satii is used to describe a woman of integrity and pure character.) Both a maiden and a widow can be called satii nárii. Gandhari was a noble lady of high integrity. She was virtuosity par excellence. She was a princess of Gándhára, or Kandahar, a province of Afghanistan. When she was told that she would be married to Dhritarastra, who was born blind, she immediately blindfolded her eyes with a piece of cloth. Her contention was that as her husband was blind, she too should be blind. She removed the blindfold from her eyes only twice in her lifetime. The first time was on the eve of the Kurukśetra war when Dhritarastra instructed his one hundred insolent sons to go to her and ask for her blessing. “Go, my sons, to your mother. She is a lady of uncommon virtue,” he said. “Go to her and ask for her blessing.” They did according to their father’s bidding.

Now, one cannot bless others with closed eyes. Dhritarastra thought that Gandhari would surely take off her blindfold while blessing her sons, and that she being a satii nárii, blessing with her eyes open, the blessing would certainly be effective. Dhritarastra reminded his son Duryodhana that his arch-enemy was Bhima. He advised him, “My son, your mother being a satii nárii, if she casts a benevolent glance on your body, it will become as hard as a thunderbolt.” At that time Duryodhana was already a fully grown man, so he went to his mother wearing a loincloth, not completely undressed. The story goes that when Gandhari blessed him, his body grew as hard as a thunderbolt, except that portion covered by the cloth, which remained as soft as before. Krśńa alone knew this fact. At the end of the war, when Bhima was trying in vain to strike Duryodhana down, Krśńa signalled to Bhima to indicate the soft point on Duryodhana’s body where Bhima could deal a mortal blow with his mace. Bhima struck Duryodhana on that soft point and he died.

So Gandhari first removed her blindfold when blessing her sons. (As she was firmly committed to dharma, she did not say, “May you be victorious,” but proclaimed, Yato dharma tato Krśńah, yato Krśńah tato jayah – “Where there is dharma, there is Krśńa; where there is Krśńa, there is victory”. It was against her principles to pray for the victory of the impious. However, it is not our intention to analyse the character of Gandhari here, for I have already done that in Discourses on the Mahábhárata.)

And she removed the blindfold for the second time when the battlefield of Kurukśetra had become a burial ground. After Krśńa had spoken some words of consolation to Gandhari, she said, “O Krśńa, I know and admit that You are Táraka Brahma, that You are Parama Puruśa. If You had only wished something to happen, it would have certainly taken place accordingly. What then was the necessity of enacting such a bloody drama? It was totally unnecessary. You played the role of an ordinary man. You wrote the drama to serve as a lesson and inspire the common people. Yet you played the role of an ordinary man. Being Táraka Brahma, whatever You mentally imagine will take place accordingly. But no, You unnecessarily killed my sons and made my one hundred daughters-in-law widows. Had You only wished the victory of dharma, dharma would have been victorious.”

In Sáḿkhya philosophy this same question comes up. Since He was the vast Puruśottama, whatever He wished would have come to pass. Krśńa replied, “It is true that Parama Puruśa could do everything by mere wish. He could do everything without creating this world, without this Cosmos. But the drama of the Kurukśetra war was enacted to teach the common people that ultimately dharma always triumphs over adharma [injustice, unrighteousness]. It was meant for popular education. If Parama Puruśa were to accomplish everything by mere thought-projection, that would be hidden from people’s sight, and people would not learn anything from it. But when people see these events with their own eyes, they learn what should be done and what should not be done. Hence, the battle of Kurukśetra had to be conceived and dramatized. You, being an intelligent lady, certainly understand this.”

The bereaved Gandhari understood, but she threw back one more question. “I understand that You conceived of such a drama to educate the masses. But was it necessary to give my sons the roles of the adhármikas? You could have given the Pandavas the roles of the adhármikas, and my sons the roles of the dhármikas.”

The argument was irrefutable. Krśńa had no choice but to keep silent. Then Gandhari said, “Krśńa, I shall pronounce a curse on You. Accord me Your permission.” Before cursing Parama Puruśa, one should first take His permission. Krśńa said, “So be it.” Gandhari then uttered the curse, “Just as the Kuru princes perished before my very eyes, let the Yadava princes die in Your presence.” Krśńa said, Tathástu [“Let it be so”]. This very utterance, Tathástu, proves that Krśńa was not an ordinary puruśa.

There is a world of difference between the unit puruśa of Sáḿkhya philosophy and Táraka Brahma, Puruśottama, Párthasárathi. Whatever the latter did was to teach an important lesson to the common people for infinite time: that if one behaves like this, the results will be like that.

Mátulo yasya Govindah pitá yasya Dhanaiṋjayah;
Patito sah rańe viiro daevaḿ hi balavattaram.

[Even the great hero whose maternal uncle is Govinda (Lord Krśńa) and whose father is Dhanaiṋjaya (Arjuna) is killed in battle, because the decree of providence is mightier than anything.]

Nobody was spared, not even Abhimanyu, Krśńa’s nephew and Arjuna’s son, for in war between virtue and vice the sparks of fire fly out on all sides. Abhimanyu also had to sacrifice his life, because the drama was not designed to be one-sided. If an evil man falls on the battleground, the virtuous will also have to face some blows. It would not be natural for the virtuous to return from the battleground completely unscathed. Such an intricate plot and vast drama can only originate from a gigantic Puruśa – it is beyond the capacity of an ordinary puruśa. Thus Krśńa remains beyond the reach of Sáḿkhya philosophy.

One final point should be mentioned about Párthasárathi. It is a fact that although He mixed with kings, He thought more for the interests of the common people. The suffering of the masses, their plight and their struggles, were the object of His attention and consideration. Labouring hard, extending His personal influence, He made immense progress in advancing their welfare. He left us some 3500 years back, but He is still dearly loved and will continue to be loved by oppressed, suffering and struggling men and women.

Footnotes

(1) In mythology, a cintámańi was a gem that would fulfil all the wishes of its possessor. –Eds.

Chapter 3	Ananda Marga Philosophy in a Nutshell Part 7 [a compilation]

In my previous discourse I analysed Párthasárathi Krśńa in the light of Sáḿkhya philosophy, but much still remains to be said.

It is said, Otah protah yogábhyáḿ saḿyuktah Puruśottamah – “Puruśottama, or Parama Puruśa, is associated with microcosms and the world through His ota yoga [individual association] and prota yoga [pervasive association].” It is enormously difficult to be Puruśottama: He must always remain associated with everything and everyone. None of His created beings should be neglected or slighted. He must associate Himself with everyone’s mind, listening to their thoughts and alleviating their sufferings, whether they are literate or illiterate, rich or poor, shouldering the responsibility for the entire creation. Only then does He deserve to be called Puruśottama. He who remains motionless like a distant star, indifferent to the sorrows and sufferings of created beings, but accepting their worship, is not Puruśottama. To be Puruśottama one has to remain associated with the created beings both individually and collectively through ota and prota yoga.

The personal relationship with each and every individual, with every particle of dust, every drop of water, is termed ota yoga. That is, Puruśottama is aware of your individual thoughts and feelings, your joys and sorrows, and takes suitable steps to remove your distress and afflictions. Here I deliberately used the word “suitable”, for He has to remove one’s afflictions without jeopardizing the collective interest. For example, if the sunset were delayed for one hour for the good of one individual, it would go against the collective interest. This He cannot do. So without jeopardizing the collective interest, He is bound to pay attention to the needs and feelings of every individual. This is His ota yoga.

And prota yoga is Parama Puruśa’s association with the entire creation – humans and other living creatures, the world and the universe – collectively. Here He is obliged to listen not to the individual problems of individual beings, but to the collective problems of the collectivity of all beings. It is not an easy task to be Puruśottama. He has to be associated with one and all in ota and prota yoga.

Every jiiva, as part of its birthright under prota yoga, enjoys His grace. So no one is small, no one is insignificant. If anyone laments, “I am such a useless person, such a helpless sinner, that Parama Puruśa can’t possibly wish to listen to me,” I will point out that when He listens to the collective prayer, then He naturally listens to the individual prayer too. And when He listens to every individual in ota yoga, then is a sinner outside the creation? All so-called sinners are within His mental domain and so He is inseparably associated with them too. One should remember,

Api cet sudurácáro bhajate mámananyabhák;
So’pi pápavinirmuktah mucyate bhavabandhanát.

“If even the most wicked people worship Me with a concentrated mind, I will liberate them from worldly bondages.” They should not be concerned about their future.

According to Sáḿkhya philosophy, there are innumerable unit puruśas. But actually Parama Puruśa is One. Parthasárathi is not at all like the puruśa of Sáḿkhya philosophy. Let us see what relationship exists between the puruśa of Sáḿkhya on the one hand, and the jiiva, the jagat and Iishvara on the other; and let us also see what relationship exists between Parthasárathi on the one hand, and the jiiva, the jagat and Iishvara on the other.

Párthasárathi

Párthasárathi Krśńa united Arjuna with the many other righteous Indian kings of the day. The land that was then known as Jambudviipa extended from Afghanistan in the west to Burma in the east and from the Pamir [Range] in the north to the Indian Ocean in the south. The major part of this vast land was known as Bháratakhańd́a or Bháratavarśa. Most of the world’s population at that time lived in Jambudviipa or Bháratavarśa. (The remaining parts of the world were mainly covered by jungles and forests. Gradually people cleared those forests and built new settlements.) So in those days, the only way to do good to human society was to start a war between the moralists and the immoralists in India.

Párthasárathi Krśńa concentrated on this task. He worked for the propagation of dharma. Here “dharma” denotes the path of human welfare (it is called imán in both Arabic and Persian, and not majhab [religion]). He started preaching His liberal mánava dharma [human dharma]. As previously mentioned, He was a king, and had direct contact mainly with other kings; He did not have the same degree of contact with the masses (nor would that have been natural). But His desire for human welfare was universal; it embrace all of society, from the highest stratum down to a blade of grass. And for the sake of human welfare, He selected among the contemporary kings and monarchs. The kings of India of that time became perfectly polarized: on the one side the kings who gave Him their full support, and on the other side those who vehemently opposed Him. The historic battle of Kurukśetra was fought between these two warring groups. Párthasárathi wished to establish dharmarájya [the rule of moralism].

The question may arise why Krśńa was so intent on establishing a moralistic social order. Wicked people will say that they do not understand such things as dharmarájya, but virtuous people will say, “The rule of moralism? Oh yes, it’s the only answer for society’s problems.” A poet once voiced the feelings of Duryodhana:

Sab-i sei shat́h Krśńer káj, krúr cakriir kumantrańá,
Dharmarájya, dharmarájya mukhe yár váńii vid́ambaná;
Krśńár sáthe duśt́er dal sakhá bali tár dásya kare,
Yaduvaḿsher sei kalauṋka cáláy táder hásya bhare.

[This is all the trick of that cunning Krśńa, evil advice from that ruthless conspirator. The slogan of dharmarájya is a hollow sham. The fact is that this gang of conspirators, together with Draupadi (also known as Krśńá), call themselves friends of, but are really the slaves of, Krśńa, that black sheep of the Yadu dynasty, who misguides them with a deceitful smile.]

Duryodhana raged against Krśńa. Why? Because Krśńa wanted to establish dharmarájya, the rule of moralism. Krśńa’s mission was best understood by the Pandavas. That is why the Pandava brothers and Draupadi used to give the utmost attention to Krśńa’s advice. Seeing this, Duryodhana said that the gang of conspirators together with Draupadi followed Him like dásyas [slaves, servants]. But in fact, the Pandavas looked upon Krśńa as their sakhá, their most intimate friend. Sakhya bháva is one of the different bhávas or relationships between the devotee and the Lord. In the case of Vraja Krśńa people mainly experienced dásya bháva, sakhya bháva or vátsalya bháva, but with Párthasárathi Krśńa they mainly experienced sakhya bháva. He was friendly to all, to the exclusion of none, and made it His mission in life to provide food, shelter, clothing, medicine and education to everyone – to bring those deprived of education to the light of learning.

Atyágasahano bandhuh [“One who cannot tolerate separation from his or her friends is called a bandhu”]. That person is said to be a bandhu [friend] whose bond of love is so deep that he or she constantly endeavours to come even closer, and constantly radiates love from the depths of the heart to receive one with a smiling face. Puruśottama is called Jagadbandhu [Friend of the World]. This attitude of friendliness which draws the creation close to Him is called sakhya bháva. And not only is Parama Puruśa the sole friend of humanity, human beings are the only friends of Parama Puruśa. This is the spirit of sakhya bháva. Only Puruśottama, and no other, can be your lifelong friend in prosperity and adversity alike.

When this sakhya bháva matures, when this love for Parama Puruśa deepens, it is transformed either into dásya bháva or into madhura bháva. “Parama Puruśa is my best friend. He loves me.” When a person thinks like this, he or she draws close to Parama Puruśa. From a distance one cannot feel His greatness, but when one comes within His proximity one realizes that He is unfathomable, immeasurable, and thinks: “Oh, although He is my sakhá [my friend], how great He is! How vast! I consider myself fortunate to have come so close to Him.” When one thinks in this way, one’s sakhya bháva is transformed into dásya bháva. One then feels that since Parama Puruśa is so great and loves one so much, it is one’s duty to serve Him and fulfil His desire in every possible way. One feels, “Since He is earnestly seeking human welfare it is my duty to do His work.” This is the spirit of dásya bháva. “He is my Master, my Lord – I am His servant.” And the spirit of madhura bháva is as follows: “He is so vast, endowed with innumerable attributes, yet even then He loves me. He is so great, yet He is still my most intimate friend, so very close to me. What joy! What joy!” This is madhura bháva. This friendship between the Pandavas and Krśńa was born out of sakhya bháva, out of mutual friendship, but to Duryodhana it appeared to be nothing more than a slave-master relationship. To him, the Pandavas were mean-minded and ruthless conspirators.

Why did Krśńa wish to establish dharmarájya? He was Párthasárathi, endowed with a deep love for humanity. In order to do good to humanity by eradicating exploitation one will have to work cooperatively in every stratum of life. If, for example, people work cooperatively⁽¹⁾ in the spheres of production, distribution and similar activities, then they can easily save themselves from the fiendish exploiters. But “If there is a demon in the mustard seed it will not drive away demons.” And similarly, if there are wicked people among the leaders of a cooperative society, then the lion’s share of the profit will be misappropriated by them. That is why the rule of morality should be established in every sphere of human life. One may argue that it is sufficient to act morally, but this is not supportable because morality is based on dharma, or imán. Without a strong dharmic base, morality cannot stand. A strong current of selfishness or a flowing river of sin can easily wash away the sandy walls of morality. The only solution is to build the concrete embankment of dharma. Permanent human welfare cannot be brought about unless dharmarájya is established.

Unless people work in close cooperation, nothing great can be achieved. In order to promote human welfare and to fulfil the material needs of human beings, Párthasárathi had to raise the slogan of dharmarájya. He knew that without dharmarájya nothing can be achieved. We also know it, and yet we are still discovering it.

The puruśa of Sáḿkhya has no relationship with jiiva and jagat [microcosm and creation]. It is merely an entity created by Prakrti which only possesses the capacity of witness-ship within a microcosmic structure. It has nothing specific to do. Yesterday I said, Yá devii sarvabhúteśu Shaktirúpeńa saḿsthitá [“The goddess who is immanent in all created beings in the form of Shakti, the Operative Principle”]. Here the manifestation of Shakti means the manifestation of Citishakti [the Cognitive Faculty], and not the manifestation of jad́ashakti [material energy]. This manifestation of the Cognitive Faculty emanates from Supreme Consciousness. But the puruśa of Sáḿkhya has no such manifestation. He is simply a witness playing no active role (rather like the Indian god Jagannatha who has neither arms nor legs), who simply looks on passively doing nothing in particular. What use do we have for such inactive gods? We want those gods who will do something for us, who will inspire us to noble deeds, who will protect honest people from sinners, and strengthen the hands of the moralists. This is exactly what Párthasárathi wanted to do. He undertook this noble task with the help of the kings of the day and finally attained success. What we understand by the puruśa of Sáḿkhya is quite different from Párthasárathi. Párthasárathi was much higher than that: He was exactly what we call Puruśottama in our philosophy.

The Puruśa of Saḿkhya

Now we shall analyse the relationship between the Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya, the unit puruśa, and the role that Párthasárathi played.

The Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya is only a causal agent, having no specific role. His role is so passive that if a dishonest person tortures an honest person, He won’t even lift a finger or utter a single word in protest. He doesn’t have the capacity to do anything. Puruśottama is not like that; Párthasárathi was not like that either.

With the help of the Pandavas and other powerful and virtuous people, Párthasárathi destroyed wicked people wherever they were dominating Indian society. (Such as Jarasandha, the king of Magadha, whom he defeated in a long, drawn-out battle). These events unmistakably prove that the Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya is nothing like Párthasárathi Krśńa. Things and events occur due to natural law. But a passive entity like Janya Iishvara cannot do anything about it, cannot even inspire the jiivas. According to Sáḿkhya, “inspire” is also a verb and thus the Janya Iishvara is also incapable of inspiring. If an Entity does not provide inspiration for anyone, can its existence be justified? Let such a god reside in heaven; He is of no value to human beings.

Párthasárathi is altogether different. He existed for all. He took birth in order to supply the material needs of all, to punish the wrongdoers and to protect the virtuous. He is not like the unit puruśas or the Janya Iishvara of Sáḿkhya. He is Puruśottama Himself. He is not like the star in the distant sky, or the nebula of the endless void, or the pearl lying in the oyster in the depths of the unfathomable sea; He is a brilliant jewel carefully protected in the deepest layers of the human mind. He is a rare treasure in individual life and the highest object of worship in collective life. He does not come within the purview of Sáḿkhya philosophy. In vainly trying to count the number of fundamental principles in the creation, Sáḿkhya has made its biggest mistake in forgetting to count Parama Puruśa. Perhaps he [Maharshi Kapila] did not have sufficient intellect to realize that Parama Puruśa is the Supreme Primordial Principle.

Today, we are in the advantageous position of being able to analyse Him impartially. We can also see that Sáḿkhya philosophy remains far away from the lotus feet of Párthasárathi Krśńa. It can never aspire to come within His close contact, it can never touch those holy feet, though it break its head in the attempt.

Footnotes

(1) “Operate” comes from a Latin verb that means “to give shape to” something or “to move” any object from one place to another. “Operation” is the corresponding noun, and “co-” means “together”. “Cooperation” means “giving shape to something by working together”.

Chapter 4	Ananda Marga Philosophy in a Nutshell Part 7 [a compilation]

The subject of today’s discourse is Vraja Krśńa in the light of Vishuddha Advaetaváda.⁽¹⁾ The usual name of the Vishuddha Advaetaváda school of philosophy is Uttara Miimáḿsá Darshana. It was originally propounded by Vádaráyańa Vyása, yet it was developed by Shankaracharya, and more than ninety percent of it was influenced by Shankaracharya’s Máyáváda [the Doctrine of Illusion]. Needless to say, Vishuddha Advaetaváda and Máyáváda emerged long after the advent of Vraja Krśńa.

There is no scope to discuss Vishuddha Advaetaváda or Máyáváda in great detail here, nor is it necessary to do so. Its chief contention is Brahma satyaḿ jaganmithyá jiivah Brahmaeva náparah – “Brahma alone is real; the jagat [the creation] is false or illusory; all jiivas are nothing except Brahma.” Later I will explain what is really meant by the term Brahma, and what is meant by “Brahma alone is real.” I will also explain how they interpret the concepts of jagat and mithyá. But just now I will discuss jiivah Brahmaeva náparah – “all jiivas are nothing except Brahma.”

Jiivas are finite entities, handicapped by microcosmic limitations, suffering from numerous imperfections and weaknesses. People err all the time on account of their ingrained psycho-spiritual weaknesses. They often commit errors unknowingly and then realize that they have acted improperly and feel repentant. Sometimes they do not repent at all and sometimes they do not even realize their mistakes, what to speak of repent. These are the inherent imperfections, the ingrained weaknesses, of the microcosm. No right-minded person can deny this. Had all the microcosms been Brahma, such digressions would never have been made. Thus the contention that all jiivas are Brahma is a glaring defect of Vishuddha Advaetaváda in the practical sphere. If, even after seeing this serious flaw in their philosophy, they still contend that the philosophy is true, does it not amount to hypocrisy?

If after realizing the ingrained defects of the microcosm someone argues that they are not actually defects in practice, but only appear to be so due to the influence of Máyá, then the question arises, what is this Máyá? Máyá is explained as aghat́ana ghat́ana pat́iiyasii Máyá [“the dexterous hand of Máyá that can even create things impossible to create”]. Advaetaváda [non-dualism] contends that in reality nothing happens, but Máyá works in such a dexterous way that it seems as if something is happening. She who is very dexterous in this business of making what is not happening seem that it is happening, is known as Máyá. Suppose, for example, that Calcutta is non-existent, but due to the influence of Máyá appears to exist. If Máyá can make something appear, then where did this something come from? The city of Calcutta must have come from either something or nothing. If it appeared out of nothing, then that nothing must have a negative existence; and if it appeared out of something then that something must have a positive existence. Whether it is positive or negative in character, it is, after all, existence. If everything except Brahma is false then this existence is also false. So it logically follows that Máyá has built the city of Calcutta out of false materials. The whole thing seems impractical.

Now, if one contends that Máyá has built something out of false materials then one must admit the existence of Máyá. By admitting the existence of Máyá in this way one recognizes the existence of two entities: Brahma and the miracle-creating Máyá. Brahma exists along with the dexterous Máyá which makes nothing appear as something – non-existent Calcutta as existent Calcutta. So how many entities are there? Two. Then is this advaetaváda [non-dualism, monism] or is it dvaetaváda [dualism]? Monism surrenders to dualism and thereby digs its own grave.

To avoid the stigma of self-contradiction, the proponents of Máyáváda go one step further and declare that Máyá is mithyá svabhává; that is, Máyá also is unreal. It is the folly of madmen to claim on the one hand that whatever we perceive is the creation of Máyá, and on the other hand that Máyá Herself is unreal. Hence Máyáváda is full of contradictions from beginning to end. This sort of error is called pramáda in Sanskrit: error in the beginning, error in the middle and error in the end. The entire advaetaváda is pramádagrasta [full of errors].

Jiiva Brahmaeva náparah. It is as if Máyá was trying to convince the jiivas, “You are jiivas with bodies of flesh and blood, but living in a non-existent Calcutta, and those physical bodies are also unreal. You think you are jiivas, but actually you are Brahma.” They claim that you are unreal because you have been created by Máyá, but in the next breath they claim that Máyá Herself is unreal. Thus the entire philosophy is self-contradictory in nature. When one tells a lie, one is forced to concoct hundreds of additional lies to protect oneself from the stigma of falsehood. In exactly the same way, the proponents of Máyáváda have had to concoct one lie after another to protect their untenable position.

Once a certain mahápuruśa who happened to be an orthodox Máyávádin was walking along the road in Kashi [adjacent to Varanasi]. The popular saying goes that Kashi is famous for four things, for śánŕ, ránŕ, sinŕi, sannyásii – the bulls which throng the streets; the many widows; the stairs which one has to climb up or down every few metres; and the thousands of itinerant monks – and that in Kashi one should carefully avoid these four things. Anyway, one morning a wild bull suddenly started to charge that mahápuruśa, so he ran away as fast as his legs could carry him. A logician who happened to be standing nearby asked the mahápuruśa, “Well sir, if you say that this world is unreal, then the bull is also unreal, so why are you running in fear?” That mahápuruśa would not accept any defeat in logic and replied, “My running away is also unreal.” This is the way things went on for many centuries.

Though not so relevant, it would be good to mention one thing here. In those days, Baoddha [Buddhistic] Shúnyaváda was the dominant school of thought. It was a kind of nihilism. This philosophical doctrine had left the people cynical and brought them to the brink of disaster. In order to eliminate Shúnyaváda by any means, the word Brahma was used in place of the word Shúnya. This was not the Brahma as understood by genuine spiritualists, rather, it was merely an equivalent of the term Shúnya. It was nothing more than that, and this has been stated in clear terms. Shankaracharya said, Yathá shúnyavádináḿ Shúnyaḿ Brahma Brahmavidáḿstathá – “The Brahmavádins use the term Brahma in the same way as the nihilistic Shúnyavádins use the term Shúnya.”

To use the term Brahma in this way is acceptable neither to a philosopher nor to a devotee. If advaetaváda contends that this manifested universe has emanated from the One and will return to the One, that this plurality has evolved from the Supreme Singularity – Ekaḿ Sad vipráh bahudhá yad vadanti [“The Supreme Entity is one, but intellectuals explain It in various ways”] – and if they present thousands of similar arguments, then their contention will not stand in jeopardy. But if, while trying to justify the existence of this kind of Brahma (the Shúnya of nihilism) they deny the existence of any other entity or idea operating in the psychic, physical or psycho-spiritual spheres, then it is unmitigated foolishness. Regarding this, Jayanta Bhatta, the famous scholar and courtier of the Kashmiri king, Shankar Varma, said,

Yadi távat advaetasiddheh pramáńam asti, tarhi tadeva dvitiiyamiti nádvaetam atha násti pramáńam. Netaráń advaetam aprámáńikáyá siddherabháváditi mantrártha
vádottha vikalpamúlam advaetavádaḿ parihrtya tasmád upeyatámeśa padárthabhedah pratyakśa liuṋgágamágamyamánah.

The first part of his observation is quite correct. The fallibility of advaetaváda has been clearly shown. Only the portion upeyatámeśa padárthabhedah is debatable. The fallibility of advaetaváda and its uselessness in the field of dharma are bound to be accepted by all. Advaetaváda can be compared to unalloyed gold which itself is of no practical use. The scholar argues, “If you contend that there are pramáńas [proofs] in support of advaetaváda, then you are obviously supporting dvaetaváda [dualism]. Advaetaváda on the one hand, and its supporting logic on the other hand, are two entities, and so it is dualism. If you say ‘No, my advaetaváda is not based on any valid logic, it is only advaetaváda,’ then I will not accept advaetaváda! Without proof I will not accept it.” That is why Jayanta Bhatta declares that advaetaváda is based upon jugglery of words and philosophical rigmarole and as such does not deserve to be accepted. He asserts in his defense, upeyatámeśa padárthabhedah; that is, people should acquire knowledge according to its three valid sources (direct perception, inference and authority) as propounded by Sáḿkhya or Nyáya philosophy. However, one should not base one’s deductions on Nyáya philosophy, which contends that the jiivas and Parama Puruśa continue to remain separate entities, that the Supreme Entity does not attract the jiivas towards Himself nor do the jiivas attract the Supreme entity towards themselves. This is opposed to the fundamental principles of science. According to science, every entity attracts every other entity, sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly. That Entity whose irresistible attraction frees the jiivas from bondage is Parama Puruśa.

Let us now turn to Vraja Krśńa (as I mentioned earlier that we would). Vraja Krśńa is not the Brahma of advaetaváda. Neither is He any worldly entity; He is an entity beyond the world. And jiivah Brahmaeva náparah. In fact, Vraja Krśńa is none other than Parama Puruśa Himself. This is something which can be readily demonstrated. I told you a little while ago that every entity attracts every other entity. Due to this force of mutual attraction, the stars, planets, meteors, and nebulae continue to move in their respective paths. In the event of the slightest weakening of this force the whole cosmological order would lose its balance and fall like a meteor. Just as planets continue to move around the sun in their respective orbits due to the force of attraction, in exactly the same way, all created beings move round Parama Puruśa, my beloved Krśńa, knowingly or unknowingly. Some love Him consciously, others unconsciously. Some love Him while thinking “I don’t love;” some sincerely believe in Him and love Him passionately, yet nonetheless continue to argue about Him because they want to find more and more justification for their love of Him. Even those who say “I don’t love Him” have love for Him, but their love is a negative love.

There are devotees who long to hear the name Rádheshyáma [a name of Lord Krśńa] over and over again. So if anyone says “Rádheshyáma,” they pretend to be extremely angry. Seeing how irritated they have become, the utterer of “Rádheshyáma” takes delight in repeating it again and again. The devotees are also delighted for they get a chance to hear the Lord’s name spoken so many times. This is why they so cleverly feign anger.

There is a story in the Rámáyańa. Sita was surrounded by a number of rákśasiis⁽²⁾ who were guarding her in the Ashoka forest. Ravana, being obsessed with the annihilation of Rama, his arch-enemy, repeated Rama’s name over and over again, saying that he should be defeated in battle. To repeat Rama’s name was actually his inner desire. But he had instructed Sita’s rákśasii attendants to tell her not to take the name of Rama. However, by telling Sita, “Sita, Rama’s name is not to be uttered,” they were also unwittingly repeating the name of the Lord: Sita-Rama.

All human beings love Parama Puruśa, some consciously, some unconsciously. A healthy person who delivers fiery lectures on atheism during a symposium quickly apologizes to the Lord when he starts getting heart palpitations. “O Parama Puruśa, You know how deeply I love You,” he says; “I only said those things to help the theists to find more points in favour of God.” Then and there the palpitation stops and he says, “O Parama Puruśa, this shows that You love me whether I speak for theism or not. In the future, I’ll criticize You more, just to save my prestige among my friends, but I’ll beg Your forgiveness before doing so.” Similarly, there are many leaders today who accept money from the capitalists to get their work done, but tell the people, “We hate the capitalists, we hate the capitalists.” But behind the scenes they tell the capitalists, “We are just telling the people these things. It will be to our mutual benefit.” The atheist psychology functions like this.

All created beings in the universe move around Parama Puruśa for their very survival, otherwise their existence would be jeopardized. The centripetal and centrifugal forces can never coexist. So the contention of Vedanta philosophy (Vedanta is another name for Vishuddha Advaetaváda), jiivah Brahmaeva náparah [“all jiivas are nothing except Brahma”] is downright falsehood. In reality, the jiivas are moving around Him. Parama Puruśa is the shelter of the jiivas, and the jiivas are sheltered in Him. When devotion is aroused in the jiivas, that is, when the centripetal force becomes predominant, the jiivas rush towards the Nucleus, decreasing their radius with every surge in devotion. The closer one comes to Parama Puruśa, the more the devotees feel that Krśńa is not a man, but a bháva [devotional sentiment born out of psycho-spiritual parallelism] personified. The more one advances on the spiritual path, the more one realizes that Vraja Krśńa is not only a bháva, but is the life of one’s life. As one advances even further one realizes, “He is not only the life of my life; I have no existence apart from Him. My existence depends upon His existence alone. Vraja Krśńa exists and due to this, I exist.”

So we find that Vishuddha Advaetaváda is a defective, illogical and impractical philosophy. When human beings realize that their hearts can be illuminated by the spiritual effulgence of Vraja Krśńa they turn away from the arid desert of philosophical rigmarole. Vishuddha Advaetaváda is like last week’s newspaper – it carries no importance.

Vraja Krśńa, resplendent in His own glory, has been illuminating the minds of all jiivas of the universe, and thereafter attracting them to Himself. This is a never-ending process. It started in beginninglessness and will merge into endlessness. Vishuddha Advaetaváda shines for a few days in the world of logic, but is subsequently extinguished in the folds of darkness. Vraja Krśńa, however, will continue to exist as the source and nucleus of the endless creation, and at the same time will continue to draw all unto Him by the force of His irresistible charm and universal love. Vishuddha Advaetaváda came into existence as a school of philosophy only recently, just 1500 years ago. But Krśńa existed even before philosophy emerged, long before human beings were born on the soil of the earth, and will remain in future. He will still remain when not even a single microcosm remains alive on this planet. He is eternal and infinite. He is established in His own matchless glory; He is the embodiment of effulgence; He is vast. Vishuddha Advaetaváda concedes defeat to Vraja Krśńa even more ignobly than does Sáḿkhya philosophy. It cannot approach the greatness of Vraja Krśńa. Moreover, it has not the least capacity to taste the sweetness of His great personality.

Footnotes

(1) Doctrine of Pure Non-Dualism. –Eds.

(2) In mythology, a demoness. The terms rákśasa and rákśasii were used by the Indo-Aryans to refer derogatorily to the indigenous Indians, especially the Dravidians (in the context of the Rámáyańa, the Dravidians of Lanka). –Eds.

Chapter 5	Ananda Marga Philosophy in a Nutshell Part 7 [a compilation]

In my previous discourse, I analysed Vraja Krśńa in the light of Vishuddha Advaetaváda, but the discussion was incomplete. I mentioned that there are various branches and sub-branches within the school of Uttara Miimáḿsá Darshana. It is even true that the whole of Vishuddha Advaetaváda is not the same as Máyáváda, though most of it is Máyáváda.

First I proved that the statement jiivah Brahmaeva náparah is not worthy of being accepted, and that Vraja Krśńa is an entity who is diametrically opposed to this idea. Judged in the light of such an idea, Vraja Krśńa will remain beyond human understanding. People’s theoretical or philosophical knowledge will not be deep enough for them to comprehend Krśńa in this way.

Now, the second part of Vishuddha Advaetaváda’s contention is jaganmithyá. Brahma satyaḿ [is the first part,] jaganmithyá [is the second part]. What does mithyá really mean? It means “non-existent” or “unreal”. The contention here is that this perceivable world which we can see, touch, hear, smell and taste does not exist; and that since the sensible world does not exist, the sense indriyas [organs] such as the eyes, ears and nose do not exist either; and that in the absence of the indriyas, the jiivas’ bodies do not exist either.

Mátá kasya pitá kasya kasya bhrátá sahodará;
Káyapráńe na sambandah vrthá ká parivedaná.

[Father, mother, brother and sister are non-existent, so where is the relationship between the káya (body) and the práńa (vital energy)?]

So there is no relationship between the body and the práńa. In that case there is neither life nor body. And in that case this expressed world of vision, hearing, understanding, etc., also vanishes in a moment. But the question is, if we say that all these do not exist, then why do we see them, why do we hear or feel them? It is a very pertinent question. Then again if some argue, as does Kśańika Vijiṋánaváda⁽¹⁾ (Kśańika Vijiṋánaváda is part of heterodox philosophy and is included in Buddhist Maháyáńa doctrine) that all these are not totally mithyá but partly mithyá[, even then it will not be tenable.] One somewhat following Kśańika Vijiṋána would say that we perceive the world as a particular form at one moment but not at the next, depending on the systaltic movement of the light waves. If the crests of the waves are considered as real, then the troughs are considered as unreal. Now if we wish to see the crests only (the real world) and ignore the troughs (the unreal world), then we shall see only the collection of crests, and there will be a continuity of seeing [crests]. Again, if we want to see the troughs only, then we shall see the collection of troughs – that is, nothing.

If this doctrine is accepted, then one will have to perceive either the collection of crests (the collection of “somethings”) or the collection of troughs (the collection of “nothings”). Therefore some people will argue that the world exists and others will say that the world does not exist, depending upon their psychology or psychological condition. Judged in this light, a “something” is within the scope of Máyá’s mithyá svabháva [illusoriness] according to Máyáváda. Though we see that something, it is because the indriyas deceive us. The light-waves are defective in some way, and this is due to the influence of Máyá. If we take a “nothing” attitude, that is, if we say that mithyá means násti – or if we say (as does Kśańika Vijiṋánaváda) that it means násti [non-existent] one moment and asti [existent] the next moment – then the world does not exist from an absolute point of view. So it is said, jaganmithyá [“the world is false”].

Those who advocate the proposition jaganmithyá commit a serious philosophical and physiological blunder. They say aghat́ana ghat́ana pat́iiyasi Máyá – “It is the work of Máyá to make what is non-existent appear to exist.”

For instance, the “rope-as-a-snake illusion”: While taking a walk along a path at dusk you may wrongly take a rope to be a snake. “A snake, a snake!” you shout, startled and afraid. The Máyávádins say that the world is just like that. There is actually a rope, but you see a snake; there is actually nothing, but you see the world. Actually there is no world, just as actually there is no snake.

Or the “oyster-as-silver illusion”: An oyster being shiny-white, one who sees it may take it to be a piece of silver. Actually there is no silver, but one thinks there is silver; actually there is no world, but one thinks there is a world; actually there are no jiivas, but one thinks there are jiivas. And actually the “I” that everybody feels that one has, one does not have; one only thinks one has it.

You all have an “I”; but according to this doctrine you do not actually have it, you only think you have it. In other words, other than self-deception, nothing exists.

Vishuddha Advaetaváda makes another philosophical and psychological mistake in this regard. And that is, what kind of people can fall victim to the “rope-as-a-snake illusion”? Only those who have seen a snake can make such a mistake! The snake illusion cannot trap those who have never seen a snake. Only one who is already acquainted with a snake can have the defective perception of a snake. Similarly, an oyster can only be mistaken for a piece of silver if one has seen a piece of silver; one who has not seen silver will not make the mistake. At most one can think it to be a glittering substance, but one will not conclude that it is not an oyster or that it is a piece of silver. In this example, both the perception and the analogy designed to expose the perception are defective!

They make another serious mistake when they say:

Mrgatrśńámbhasi snátah khapuśpakrtashekharah;
Eśah bandhyásuto yáti shashashrungadhanurdharah.

[Having bathed in the water of a mirage and adorned his head with flowers grown in the sky, the son of a barren woman holds a bow made from the horns of a hare.]

What is the nature of this world? It does not exist in reality but only apparently exists – Mrgatrśńámbhasi snátah – like a mirage. A mirage, of course, does not exist anywhere. Due to reflection, it appears that there is water at some distance. When you go near it, it appears to recede from you. Running thus after the water of the mirage, people die of thirst. Mrgatrśńámbhasi snátah means “having bathed in the water of a mirage”. Khapuśpakrtashekharah means “adorning the head with flowers grown in the sky”. Eśah bandhyásuto yáti means “the son of a barren woman”. How can a barren woman have a son? A woman is called barren becauseshe has no child. Shashashrungadhanurdharah means “holding a bow made from the horns of a hare”, but a hare does not grow horns. The contention is that to accept the world as real is just like accepting these things as real.

The person who composed this shloka must have had a very good sense of humour. The shloka is nicely composed, no doubt, but unfortunately makes a fundamental mistake. It says Mrgatrśńámbhasi snátah – “having bathed in the water of a mirage.” One should remember that there is such a thing as a mirage (there is no water in the mirage, but there really is a mirage), and there is also such a thing as water (perhaps not in the mirage, but in other places). Only this much can be said, that there is no water in the mirage. Similarly, khapuśpakrta shekharah: kha means “sky” and puśpa means “flower”. There is a sky and there are flowers, so at most we can say that there are no flowers in the sky. Again, eśah bandhyásuto yáti: well, barren women do exist, and so do sons, though the sons of barren women do not exist. At most we can say that there cannot be any son of a barren woman. Shashashrungadhanurdharah: Shasha means “hare”. (And shashaka means “rabbit”; khargosh is a general term for the two.) There is an animal called a hare and there is also such a thing as a horn, though horns do not grow on hares.

So while elucidating their philosophical points, the proponents of Máyáváda are making big mistakes. They want to say one thing, but in making their point they say something completely different. The most interesting thing is that all the items used in their analogies to prove the illusory nature of this world – mirages, water, barren women, etc. – are themselves objects of the world. Then they declare that the world is unreal. If the world is mithyá [unreal], then all the objects of their examples are also unreal, so the examples are unreal, and therefore fail to substantiate the viewpoint.

The Máyávádins, instead of declaring the world as outright mithyá, could better have said that no worldly form remains unchanged for a long period of time. The world always undergoes metamorphosis; this is how it maintains its existence – through evolution, through transformation. That is why I say the world is never static, is always moving. The Sanskrit word jagat means that which is always moving, always changing. Gam (the root verb) plus kvip (the suffix) [i.e., jagat] means “that whose nature is to move”; sam – sr (the root) + ghaiṋ = saḿsára, or “that which is always changing its position”. Jagat and saḿsára are synonymous. So those who deny the mobility of the world and declare it as false are only practising self-deception.

Now let us analyse Vraja Krśńa. To Him everything is sweet; every atom or molecule of this mundane world is sweet. He attracts all the atoms and molecules, all the ions, of this world, towards Himself by playing His flute, by radiating His charming smile. Had any one of these atoms and molecules, any one of these expressions – from a lowly blade of grass to Brahmá, the Creator of the world – been false, then His flute-playing would also have been false, because whom then would He have been calling? And regarding Máyá’s creation, Máyáváda says that this world, this “nothing”, which we take to be “something”, is produced by Máyá. If in reply to this, someone contends that since Máyá is creating, certainly She must be creating something (and creating that something out of something), they will again reply, “No, She is creating nothing out of nothing. The nothing only appears to be something.” If in reply to this one argues that the Máyá that is creating certainly must exist, otherwise how can She create, they in their turn will reply that there is only one singular Brahma; just as there is no pramáńam⁽²⁾ [supporting proof] as a second entity, so there is no Máyá as a second entity. Then who is creating these unreal objects? Well, it is Máyá. So then Máyá does exist? No, Máyá doesn’t exist, She only appears to exist.

What a miserable logical position! Máyá, the entity that creates this world, this apparent world, does not have any existence at all. She is by Her very nature false. Her existence is basically unreal. Her existence is based on non-existence.

This is all manipulation of words. That is why it has been said:

Vák vaekharii shabdhajharii shástravyákhyánakaoshalam;
Vaeduśyaḿ viduśaḿ tadvat bhuktaye na tu muktaye.

“Simply by playing on words and thereby confusing people, a section of so-called learned pandits may derive intellectual pleasure, their intellectual thirst may be quenched, but the human heart remains unsatisfied. These intellectuals, steeped in intellectual vanity, may get temporary satisfaction, but they can never attain salvation.”

However, Vraja Krśńa is quite different. He attracts all beings to Himself by playing His flute. For Him no one is downtrodden, no one is fallen, no one is neglected. All are equal to Him; His call is meant for all. The sound of Lord Krśńa’s flute has been resonating throughout eternity. One who contemplates Krśńa can immediately hear this sound (as those of you who practise spiritual sádhaná may have realized). But if people’s minds become engrossed in the mundane world and remain oblivious of Krśńa, they will be deaf to that divine sound.

I have already said⁽³⁾ that this world is a relative truth: jagadapi satyamápekśikam [“the universe is also truth, but relative”]. The entity which leads the jiivas away from Krśńa bháva is Máyá. Máyá leads the jiivas away from Krśńa first of all through the force of vikśepa shakti. Vikśepa shakti misguides jiivas by making them believe that this world is everything; that nothing exists beyond what is seen. A second force is ávarańii shakti. Vikśepa shakti no doubt draws the jiivas away from Krśńa, but it cannot keep them completely forgetful of Him. Ávarańii shakti, however, places a veil of ignorance over people’s eyes⁽⁴⁾ so that they cannot see Krśńa clearly. Máyá draws the jiivas towards crudity with the help of Her twin forces of vikśepa and ávarańii.

Máyá has another aspect which leads the jiivas towards Parama Puruśa, towards Vraja Krśńa. Even if people remain steeped in the darkness of ignorance due to the influence of Máyá they will suddenly come to their senses when the music from the flute of Krśńa falls upon their ears and touches the cores of their hearts. People say to themselves, “What am I doing? This is not the way to live. These transient objects can never bring me lasting satisfaction because nothing in this world is permanent.” Suddenly this idea strikes: nothing in this world is permanent.

Thákbe ná bhái, thákbe ná keu, thákbe ná bhái kicchu,
Ei ánande yáo re cale káler pichu pichu;
Adhik din to baite hay ná shudhu ekti práńa,
Ananta kál eki kabi gáy ni eki gán;
Málá bat́e shukiye mare, ye jan málá pare
Se-o to nay amar! Tabe duhkha kiser tare?
Thákbe ná bhái, thákbe ná keu, thákbe ná bhái kicchu,
Ei ánande yáo re cale káler pichu pichu.

[No one and nothing will remain permanently, O brother. Keep moving blissfully on the path of eternity. No one carries the burden of a life for long, no poet sings the same song forever; a garland soon withers, indeed, but the person who wears the garland is not around much longer. But why should one lament? No one and nothing will remain permanently, O brother. Keep moving blissfully on the path of eternity.]

That Máyá which awakens the jiivas to their senses and leads them towards Parama Puruśa by advising them to listen to His sweet flute is called Vidyámáyá. Vidyamáyá is that aspect of Máyá which arouses a consciousness in the human mind that nothing in the world will last long. “Those whom I went to seek, forgetting You – they do not seek me.” This realization is known as sambit shakti. Sambit means “consciousness”, “understanding”. “What am I doing? From this moment I must take to the right path.” Sambit shakti is a part of Vidyamáyá. The second aspect of Vidyámáyá is hládinii shakti (or Rádhiká shakti). Hládinii shakti means to derive joy. After sambit has been awakened, consciousness has been awakened, understanding has been awakened, one cannot remain away from Parama Puruśa. “Let me go to the source of that sweet flute sound,” the devotees say. “I must go there, for that is my real place.” With one-pointed determination and the sweetness of madhura bháva they advance towards Parama Puruśa, towards Vraja Krśńa, goaded by the hládinii shakti of Vidyámáyá. So Vraja Krśńa has nothing to do with the Máyáváda of Vishuddha Advaetaváda, with the Máyá which is mithyá svabháva [unreal by nature]. To Vraja Krśńa, Prakrti has two aspects: Vidyámáyá and Avidyámáyá. Vidyámáyá helps spiritual aspirants, and Avidyámáyá distracts them from the spiritual path. Are they two completely separate entities? No, they are not. When the same Máyá misguides sádhakas, She is called Avidyámáyá, and when She inspires them to move towards Parama Puruśa, She is called Vidyámáyá. In relation to Máyá, there is no difference between the roles of Vrajagopála and Párthasárathi Krśńa.

Daevii hyeśá guńamayii mama Máyá duratyayá;
Mámeva ye prapadyante Máyámetáḿ taranti te.⁽⁵⁾

[This Máyá of Mine is of the nature of three principles, and is almost insurmountable. Only those who take refuge in Me can overcome this Máyá.]

“It is incorrect to say that Máyá, whether Vidyámáyá or Avidyámáyá, is mithyá svabháva – She is not nothing, She is something, and She is My Máyá.” Shaktih Sá Shivasya shaktih – “This Máyá is the Máyá of Shiva [Consciousness], this Shakti is the shakti of Shiva. This Máyá is the Máyá of Viśńu, the veritable Viśńumáyá.” She is not by nature false. And because this Máyá is the Máyá of Parama Puruśa, mámeva ye prapadyante – “those who take Him as their shelter can easily overcome Máyá.” They surmount Avidyámáyá, Avidyámáyá cannot keep them in bondage any longer, and the Vidyámáyá of Vraja Krśńa takes them to Parama Puruśa with great speed.

That which takes human beings to Parama Puruśa is called upaniśad. Upa means “near”, ni means “ideally”, and sad means “to set near”. Upa – ni – sad + kvip = upaniśad. My beloved Vraja Krśńa is the quintessence of the Upanishads. One need not read the Upanishads to realize Parama Puruśa. Those who have inextinguishable love for Parama Puruśa rise above all theories, all learning; while Vishuddha Advaetaváda somehow maintains its precarious existence in moth-eaten palm-leaf and birch-leaf manuscripts. This school of philosophy has no importance whatsoever in human life, whether practical life or spiritual life.

Footnotes

(1) Doctrine of Momentary Existence. –Eds

(2) See preceding chapter. –Eds.

(3) Ánanda Sútram, 1962. –Eds.

(4) Ávarańa means “cover”. –Eds.

(5) Bhagavad Giitá. –Trans.

Chapter 6	Ananda Marga Philosophy in a Nutshell Part 7 [a compilation]

The Vishuddha Advaetavádiis say Brahma satyam [“Brahma alone is real”]. Before analysing this part of their proposition, we should know what the two terms Brahma and satyam really mean.

The word Brahma is derived from the word brhat. Brhat means “vast” – so big that the entity cannot be measured. (It can be said that something is “this big”, but it cannot be said that something is “this vast”.) Brahma may also be derived from another word, brḿhań. Brḿhań has two meanings: the first is “to make others great”; the second is “to make others hear, see or understand something very, very big or great”. So if derived from brḿhań, Brahma means the Entity who has the capacity to make others as great as He is. The one who is brhat is Brahma, and the one who makes others great is Brahma. (You must be very careful in following this analysis. I am mentioning a very important point.)

Brahma Derived from Brhat

To indicate vastness there are two Sanskrit words – vishála and virát́a. When something is very big but comes within the scope of measurement, we call it vishála; and when it is beyond measurement it is called virát́a. (The Bengali word baŕa [big] came from the word brhat.) Does not the term brhat [a superlative, closely related to virát́a] imply, directly or indirectly, that all other entities are smaller? If there is an “eldest brother” in a certain family, it necessarily implies that there are younger brothers – maybe two, three, four or more. If there were only one brother, we would simply say “brother”, not “eldest brother”. Similarly, when we say Brahma – that is, “the greatest entity”, the “vastest entity”, the “entity defying measurement” – then that necessarily implies the existence of many small or very small entities. According to Vishuddha Advaetaváda, only Brahma is real, everything else is unreal, non-existent. If we say other entities are non-existent, then how can He be Brahma, the Greatest Entity! If we say that there are no other entities besides Brahma, then the term Brahma becomes meaningless. This is a fundamental mistake.

Brahma Derived from Brḿhań

The second derivation is brḿhańatvád Brahma.⁽¹⁾ He is great, so He is called Brahma; and “He makes others great, so thereby also He is called Brahma.” But if no other entity exists apart from Brahma, then whom will Brahma make great? The question of making something great can only arise when there is something small to be made great. Either He will make that other entity equal to Himself or He will make it greater than Himself. He will decide to do whatever He likes, but still there must be something small to be made great. If there is no one apart from Him, then the second part of the proposition – brḿhańatvád Brahma – becomes meaningless.

Hence [by either derivation] the use of the term Brahma in Brahma satyam is defective.

Satyam “for the Welfare of Others”

One meaning of the word satyam is rtam [“stating the fact as it is”]. Satyam is also defined Parahitárthaḿ váunmanaso yathárthatvaḿ satyam – “The use of speech and thought for the welfare of others is known as satya.” But if we say Brahma satyaḿ jagat mithyá, that the “world is false” and the jiivas are non-existent, then whose welfare can you promote? Parahitártham [“For the welfare of others”]: If, as according to Vishuddha Advaetaváda, there is no such thing as para [other entities], then the existence of satyam [which is for others] remains in jeopardy.

Satya Meaning Aparińámii

A second interpretation of satya is aparińámii, “that which undergoes no metamorphosis”. If we want to categorize something as unchangeable, then we must admit the concept of change, and we must say that all other entities undergo metamorphosis, while Brahma alone remains unchanged. So in order to call Him unchangeable, we must admit the existence of other entities which are subject to change.

It is only by means of the characteristic of change that we can distinguish Him from other entities. When we deny the very existence of other entities as the Vishuddha Advaetavádiis do in saying jaganmithyá, then His unchangeability is also mithyá [false]. If the relative existence of jiiva and jagat is not accepted, then the existence of Brahma is called into question.

What a suicidal argument this is! It is surely an intellectual extravaganza, rather, a foolish intellectual extravaganza!

Satyam as Rtam

The third thing about satyam is that it is [sometimes] synonymous with rtam, which means “stating the fact as it is”. The shástra which is based on satya [satya in this sense] is called itikathá (history). (It is not called itihása. Itihása has a different meaning.) Thus a chronological record of events – as something occurs, so it is written – is satyam. Using this definition of satyam, if someone then claims that there is only Brahma and no one else, then how can any events occur? For there is no one and nothing except Brahma.

Aśt́akulácaláh saptasamudráh Brahma purandarah
dinakararudráh;
Na tvaḿ náhaḿ náyaḿ lokah vyarthah kimarthaḿ kriyate shokah.

“The eight mountains, the seven seas, the vast nebulae, the Creator Brahma, the sun, Rudra – none of these exist in reality. Neither you nor I exist. Then why should you weep for these things?” This is how Vishuddha Advaetaváda propounds its philosophical ideas. But in the absence of existence, how can events take place? Events invariably presuppose clash and cohesion between so many things. If one moves this bolster from one side to another there are two entities: the bolster and the person who moves it. The action of displacement occurs. But if there is nothing other than Brahma, then no event can take place. Events presuppose acting agents, things and connecting verbs. Since nothing takes place, there is no question of recording chronological events; there is no person to record the events, no pen, no paper, no history, no historian. So when there are no events to be recorded – since satya is a record of events – then it stands to reason that there is no satya either. So how can we accept Brahma satyam? How can we say that Brahma is satyam when satya itself is non-existent? It is another fundamental mistake.

If we accept that Brahma is the composite of Puruśa and Prakrti, and Puruśa is satyam while Prakrti is instrumental in the creation of countless entities[, a sound philosophy can be built.] Aghat́anaghat́anapatiiyasii – “Máyá has been creating numerous names and forms in this universe with Her dexterous touch.” Brahma is the composite of Puruśa and Máyá, and Máyá creates countless things. Let us illustrate this by using a piece of paper. It has two sides. If one side represents Puruśa, then the other side represents Prakrti or Máyá. Puruśa cannot be separated from Máyá, just as one side of a piece of paper cannot be separated from the other. If one side of the paper is removed, then the other side can no longer exist. Similarly, Puruśa and Prakrti are inseparably connected. Let us take another example, milk. Milk is inseparable from its whiteness. If the whiteness is removed, then the milk is no longer milk. Entities which cannot exist without each other are said to be avinábhávii with each other. If we remove one side of a piece of paper, the other side also disappears.

Puruśa and Prakrti are avinábhávii. Puruśatattva remains as the fundamental substance, as well as the witnessing entity, while Prakrtitattva is responsible for creating the countless number of entities. Tvameko dvitvamápannah Shivashaktivibhágasah – “You are one, called Brahma or Parama Puruśa. Your one side is Puruśa, or Citishakti, and the other is Máyá, or Prakrti.” Essentially, He is one, like a sheet of paper. If such a Brahma is accepted, a sound philosophy can be built around It which will be easily acceptable to learned people.

The Brahma of Vishuddha Advaetaváda, however, is different. Vishuddha Advaetaváda contends that one aspect of Brahma, Puruśa, is satyam [real], and the other side is mithyá svabháva [unreal]. Can one imagine a sheet of paper with only one side? Hence, this whole philosophy is hypocritical. It is nothing but the practice of self-deception. Moreover, it is self-humiliating – those of discerning intellect will easily discover its obvious defects. They are sure to see that it is nothing but a play on words, merely philosophical rigmarole. Suppose a mother asks, “Who is in the kitchen?” and her child replies, “No, I didn’t eat the biscuits!” From the answer itself, we know that the child has definitely eaten the biscuits.

Now, according to the Vishuddha Advaetavádiis, if Brahma is Puruśatattva, then the other side of the paper is Máyá, who is giving shape to the an infinite variety of forms. If Máyá is the Creative Principle, then where does She get Her materials from? If you want to make pancakes, you require flour, milk, baking powder, etc. You cannot suddenly produce a pancake out of nothing. So how does Máyá create this world? She collects her materials for Her numerous objects – hills, mountains, water, etc. – from the vast Puruśadeha [body of Puruśa], just as a potter collects clay from the earth and produces a variety of pots, pitchers, etc. In the same way, Máyá uses the body of Puruśa as Her basic building material and from it creates Her innumerable entities. It follows that this Máyá, who has the capacity to utilize the Cognitive Faculty as the fundamental substance of the creation, is no ordinary entity. She has tremendous power. How can that Entity, who possesses enormous power, who can create this vast world out of the Puruśadeha, be unreal? She cannot be mithyá svabháva [unreal by nature]. Rather, She is pracańd́a svabháva [having a strong personality by nature]. Her presence is felt by all. Thus advaetaváda, while trying to downplay Her importance by branding Her as mithyá svabháva, shows itself to be an untenable philosophy. The idea itself is absurd.

Regarding Puruśa, Vedanta and Vishuddha Advaetaváda claim that He is merely a witnessing Entity. But how can His witness-ship be accepted philosophically? The one who remains as the witness of the created world is described as Saguńa Brahma [Qualified Brahma]. If, however, we call this world mithyá, having no existence in reality, then what is there to witness? It is the witness-ship of nothing. In other words, He continues to witness that expression of Parama Puruśa that actually does not exist. The idea is fantastic. If this is true, then He is Nirguńa Brahma [Non-Qualified Brahma]. He has the capacity to witness, but in the absence of anything to witness, His witness-ship becomes suspended. To accept an entity whose very existence is in jeopardy is finally untenable.

Now, what about Vraja Krśńa? He is Parama Puruśa Himself. Which part of Parama Puruśa? He is the Táraka Brahma aspect of Parama Puruśa. He is the nuclear point from which Parama Puruśa witnesses the entire universe. By His active witness-ship, balance is maintained in the universe. Here I am deliberately using the phrase “active witness-ship”.

The head of a family is seated, as it were, in one corner of a big marriage pavilion. He does not do anything specific. Others are doing their respective duties: some make bread, some make sweets, and some lay the dinner table. He is in the role of active witness-ship (but according to advaetaváda is witnessing nothing!). If he happens to detect someone putting too much semolina in the rasagollás, he immediately takes the guilty party to task. If someone puts too much ground chilli in the vegetables, he takes the guilty party to task. If the vegetables get a little burnt, he says, “Oh, people can’t eat this. Quick – pour a lot of water onto them, and add fifteen or twenty betel leaves. That will reduce the burnt effect.” Though not doing anything specific, his is the active witness-ship.

My beloved Vraja Krśńa has been playing His flute and calling people to Himself since the dawn of time. The created beings of the universe are revolving around Him. Because they are constantly moving, their balance is maintained, otherwise they would fall apart. The planets move around the sun, and thus they maintain their balance. The moment they stop revolving, they will disintegrate. Similarly, every microcosm is moving, dancing around my beloved Vraja Krśńa. In His ocean of blissful bháva [devotional sentiment born out of psycho-spiritual parallelism], in His eternal flow of infinite sweetness, He is making others dance in joy and bliss, filling their minds with divine ecstasy. This is His rásaliilá, His divine sport of joy. Raso vae sah [“He is an eternal flow of bliss”]. Remaining in the middle of the ocean of bliss, He maintains the balance of the universe. No one is detached from His Cosmological order, no one feels isolated.

Everyone knows that Vraja Krśńa exists to take care of those who have no one of their own. He is amidst all; He does not neglect me, He does not neglect anyone. I exist because He exists, that’s why He is Krśńa. One of the meanings of the root verb krś is “He exists, that’s why I exist.” The word krśńa also has the same meaning. And like the head of the family in the marriage pavilion, He is an impartial witness who not only sees, but oversees, everything. (Remember, “to see” is also a verb.) So the impersonal Nirguńa Puruśa of Uttara Miimáḿsá may have His existence in the intellectual world of visionary idealists, but not in the practical world.

My beloved Vraja Krśńa is drawing everyone to Himself, making others move or dance around Him in His rásaliilá. Not only that, it is He who sustains the very existence of everything. Hence to move towards Him, to rush headlong towards Him, is the dharma [predominant characteristic] of the jiivas. This is the only dharma of the jiivas.

This being so, you might, of course, raise a question about your material needs. If your basic physical needs are not fulfilled, you cannot move towards Parama Puruśa. So you make necessary arrangements for your food and clothes, build a well-knit society, try to provide people with the five essential needs – food, clothes, shelter, education and medical treatment. But why? So that you can create a congenial atmosphere to move towards Parama Puruśa in a better way, in a nicer way. If your food is not provided for, you will not be able to concentrate your entire mind on Parama Puruśa; part of your mind will flow towards your stomach. Food is the top priority and should be arranged first to prevent the mind from running towards the stomach. So human beings should be provided the basic necessities of life so that the mind, freed from the worries of mundane problems, can rush towards Parama Puruśa. This is the beauty of the sweetness of Vraja Krśńa; this is His rásaliilá.

But this is not all. I said a little while ago that the head of the family at a marriage does not witness passively, but actively. That is, if someone makes a mistake, he immediately intervenes: he points out the mistake, chastises the person at fault, rectifies the mistake and takes the offender lovingly on his lap – all of this is his duty. So when Krśńa attracts all by His divine flute music, what does it signify? It means He calls the jiivas, saying: “O my loving children, come to Me, come to Me, one and all, and live with Me in joy throughout eternity in this Cosmological order. The world of jiivas is not absolute satya, but relative satya. From that relative world, come to Me. This is what you and I both desire. This is what will give us both bliss.” This is the final word of Vraja Krśńa.

We have discussed today only one part, that is, Brahma satyam, of the shloka of Vishuddha Advaetaváda. Unfortunately, the proponents of Vishuddha Advaetaváda philosophy could not grasp the significance of the word satyam. If at all they understood anything about it, then they deliberately misguided the common people. Vraja Krśńa is sweetness as only sweetness can be. He lies beyond all these misconceived and confused assertions.

Footnotes

(1) Referring to the definition Brhattvád Brahma, brḿhańatvád Brahma. –Eds.

Chapter 7	Ananda Marga Philosophy in a Nutshell Part 7 [a compilation]

Of all the doctrines centred around Vishuddha Advaetaváda, Máyáváda is considered to be the most important. Let us see how far it is possible to analyse Párthasárathi Krśńa from the viewpoint of Máyáváda or Vishuddha Advaetaváda.

The life of Párthasárathi Krśńa was intensely practical, whereas Máyáváda is an impractical, visionary philosophy that floats in the air. Many take delight in moving in this world of fantasy, the world of Máyáváda, and losing all contact with the world of reality. Although the role played by Vraja Krśńa extended throughout the three spheres of existence, His sweetness was felt most in the spiritual sphere. Yet even so, when I analysed Him in the light of Máyáváda, Máyáváda suffered an ignoble defeat. How then will it be possible to judge Párthasárathi in such a light? Though it is an extremely difficult thing, still I must make the attempt, but the question is, how? One idea comes to mind.

The Vivekacud́ámańi and the Mohamudgaraka

People generally consider the two books Vivekacud́ámańi and Mohamudgaraka to be something related to practical life, or to the materialization of Máyáváda in the quinquelemental realm.

Párthasárathi, as we have already observed, was an intensely practical man. He worked hard not only to promote the spiritual elevation and psychic welfare of human beings, but also to satisfy their needs for food, clothing, education, medical care and accommodation. He tried to bring all rational people, kings as well as commoners, together under one banner for the establishment of dharmarájya, the rule of morality, so that all could live in peace and prosperity. How can we judge the life and personality of such an intensely practical man in the light of Máyáváda? It is like trying to measure milk with a tape measure. Of course there are things that can be measured with a tape measure, but how can we measure liquids in that way? And how can we measure Parama Puruśa with the tape measure of Máyáváda? Párthasárathi represents the universal existence of Parama Puruśa; He is the Sarvabhaoma Sattá [Supreme All-Pervasive Entity].

You know that the word bhúmi [the root of sarvabhaoma] is synonymous with vasu. Vasu or bhúmi means a land which people can inhabit without any difficulty. And where people live their mundane existence is this quinquelemental world. And who is the Entity who makes suitable arrangements for human beings and other jiivas in this quinquelemental world? It is Parama Puruśa who does, so He is surely the Bhaomika of the physical world. [And sarva means “all”.]

You all know that in ancient and medieval Bengal, the landlords used the surname Bhaomika.⁽¹⁾ In modern Bengali it is Bhuniya. They are both derived from the word bhúmi. Parama Puruśa is called the Bhaomika of the quinquelemental world because it is He who holds the key to the solution of all mundane problems.

There is another world, the psychic world, the psychic bhúmi, which lies beyond this mundane world. It is a world of innumerable feelings, emotions, sentiments, etc. From where do people draw their inspiration for these things? From Parama Puruśa, certainly. So Parama Puruśa is not only the Bhaomika of the physical world, He is the Bhaomika, the Lord, of the psychic world as well.

Beyond the physical and psychic spheres lies the spiritual sphere. A person, whatever may be his or her degree of spiritual elevation, possesses an átmika sattá [unit consciousness] which shines out like a diamond in a heap of coal. But where does the effulgence of that átmika sattá come from? Certainly from Parama Puruśa, Párthasárathi. So He is Lord, or Bhaomika, of the spiritual realm as well. His existence is tribhaomika.

If Máyáváda is the tape measure, how will it measure that Parama Puruśa who is the Lord of the three realms?

Still, we have to try to measure Him in the light of the so-called practical interpretations of Máyáváda. They say:

Pitá kasya mátá kasya kasya bhrátá sahodará;
Káyapráńe na sambandha vrthá ká parivedaná.

[Father, mother, brother and sister are non-existent, so where is the relationship between the káya (body) and the práńa (vital energy)?]

“Who is one’s father, who is one’s mother, who is one’s brother, and who is one’s sister in this world? No one exists.” Look, human beings come into this world and attend to so many duties. Among so many fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, you will come across some who spend their whole lives maintaining their younger brothers and sisters. There are others who spend their lives caring for their ailing parents. Many people look upon human beings as God Himself and throw themselves into the service of humanity abandoning their families and personal comforts. Defying all obstacles – the dense forests, the towering mountains, the stormy oceans – they travel throughout the world promoting the welfare of all.

It is the sense of duty that causes one person to renounce everything; and it is the sense of duty that inspires another person to readily accept the burden of caring for his or her family. It is the sense of duty that makes a person great. Of all bonds, the bond of duty is the strongest, and the bond of moha [blind attachment or infatuation] is the worst. Humanity will have to break the bonds of moha and increase the bonds of duty willingly and consciously. This is the law. So if we say that human beings, our friends and relations, have no existence, are all Máyá and as such unreal, then whom shall we serve? If you tell a teacher that all his or her students are unreal, then why should he or she devote six hours a day to teaching them? Even to take care of one’s family goes against the doctrine of Máyáváda – as does the life of renunciation, cutting off all relations with the worldly family in order to serve the world – because the family does not exist, nor does the world. If one sincerely accepts Máyáváda, then the only thing to do is to adopt the Pi-pu-phi-shu policy,⁽²⁾ that is, remain inert and do nothing at all.

Then the question arises whether or not adherents of Máyáváda should eat. I suggest that they should not eat, because the rice, dal, rasagollá and rájabhoga that they will eat are also Máyá. I will go one step further and say that they should not live either, for in order to live one must breathe in and breathe out, and air is also Máyá, so they should stop that breathing in and out.

It is said, káya práńe na sambandha vrthá ká parivedaná.⁽³⁾ Káya means “that which is collected from different sources”. Our human body is composed of water, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron, a little gold, minute quantities of silver, and a considerable amount of calcium. As our body is a collection of various elements coming from various sources, it is known as káya in Sanskrit.

When the world itself is non-existent, then how can there be any carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc? They must also be non-existent. The fundamental tenet of Máyáváda is that your body has no existence and thus you have no connection with the rest of the world, for human beings are connected to the rest of the world through their bodies. How can there be any practical application of Máyáváda without the existence of the physical body? There cannot be. Moreover, as I have already said, the Máyávádins should give up food, since they have no body. Thus it follows that the practical application of Máyáváda is impossible; it is a mere fantasy.

Our next point of discussion is práńa. In Sanskrit, when práńa is used in plural form, práńáh, it means “vital energies” or “life”, and when used in the singular form, práńa simply means “energy”. The Máyávádins do not explain this point clearly, nor is it necessary, because vital energy is the transmuted form of different physical energies. They assert that the physical body has no relationship with the various forms of physical energy. A sensible person may raise a point here. When the physical body itself is non-existent, then the question of it having any connection with the external world does not arise. Then is it not redundant to use the term práńa? – for práńa does not exist either.

Obviously, in the absence of energy, its acoustic root ra does not exist either. In ancient times, a section of Máyávádins would never utter the sound ra because there was no such thing as energy; they would say it was all Máyá. For instance, they would pronounce “Rámacandra” as “Ámacandra”. However, the days of such crazy notions are long gone. The human beings of today have made enormous intellectual progress. They will no longer accept any illogical or irrational proposition.

According to the previous shloka, the human body and its vital energy have no relationship. If that were so, how could that gentleman who advances such peculiar ideas operate his vocal cords? The vocal cords operate with the help of vital energy. A healthy person can speak clearly; a sick person will mumble some words in a feeble voice due to the shortage of vital energy. What does common sense suggest? It suggests that people have both life and a physical body. Nothing is permanent in this phenomenal world, neither the body nor the vital energy, but at this moment they do exist. “Do not be concerned about anything in the world. Do not bother unnecessarily as to how human beings will progress or how collective development can be brought about. All these do not actually exist,” is the practical application of Máyáváda.

Ká tava kántá kaste putrah saḿsáro’yamatiivavicitrah [“Who is your wife? Who is your son? The world is very strange.”]. Kasya tvaḿ vá kutah áyátah [“To whom do you belong? Where do you come from?”]. You should think only this, that nothing really exists. You should think only about where one has come from and to whom one belongs. But when nothing really exists, questions about one’s origins do not arise. Even the questions do not exist. When no one really exists, then you also do not exist, so where will any questions come from? The entire philosophical discussion becomes meaningless. This is a kind of nihilism that limits the scope of human expression. It is something that people must carefully avoid. They should remember Shiva’s statement in this regard, Lokavyámohakárakah, which means that such people create disease in the human mind by their high-sounding words. One must keep aloof from such things.

Look again at how they contradict themselves,

Naliniidalagatajalamatitaralaḿ tadvat jiivanamatishayacapalam;
Kśańamiha sajjanasauṋgatireká bhavati bhavárńavatarańe
naoká.

It is said, “Human life is fleeting, just like the momentary pause of a drop of water on a lotus leaf before it slips to the ground. Thus, the most important thing in human life is satsauṋga [keeping good company], even for a short time, because satsauṋga is the boat which will ferry human beings across the ocean of bhava [the unrequited saḿskáras which cause rebirth].” I must ask, when no one exists then how can good people exist? How can the ocean of bhava exist, much less the boat? Only if the physical world, the ocean and the boat exist can satsauṋga be compared to a boat. If one denies the existence of any of them, how can one make analogies with them? Thus, Máyáváda has bound itself up in a net of self-contradiction. It has become the cause of its own demise.

Párthasárathi

Now, what about Párthasárathi? What did His worldly existence signify? He was an embodiment of tremendous karma shakti [energy for action]. He was determined to destroy whatever was harmful and undesirable for humanity by application of His indomitable strength and commanding force, and at the same time facilitate the growth of all that was good and helpful. Those of noble intentions who are weak and lack the ability to provide for themselves should be supported and cared for by the society as a whole. This was the theme of Párthasárathi’s life.

There are many people who remain weighed down by numerous cares and anxieties as well as the lack of the basic necessities of life. Párthasárathi took birth at a critical juncture in the history of human society, towards the end of the Vedic age, when exploitation had reached its zenith, with opportunists finding ample scope to prey on human society. At such a moment in history could He afford to teach people that all was Máyá? That their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters did not really exist? Rather, He expected people to sympathize with the poor and the miserable and help to alleviate their suffering.

Párthasárathi never preached the vaerágya⁽⁴⁾ message of the Mohamudgara. This nihilistic philosophy has made the people of India and Southeast Asia averse to reality and has been the cause of untold misery in their lives. The life of Párthasárathi was the antithesis of this nihilism. He advised people, “Move collectively; look after the welfare of all; develop yourselves in the physical, psychic, and spiritual planes while maintaining proper adjustment among them; follow the dictum Varttamáneśu vartteta [‘Live in the present’], meaning that while you go on solving all your mundane problems collectively, you should direct your minds towards subtler spheres.”

There is a close relationship between the body and vital energy. The body you possess in this relative world requires food, water, etc., in order to maintain its existence, and vital energy in order to function properly. To increase your vital energy you need a suitable quantity of food. If you cannot provide food through your own efforts, then society should do it for you. For this, dharmarájya [the rule of morality] must be established, and that is why Párthasárathi devoted His entire time and energy to establish it.

Kśańamiha sajjanasauṋgatireká [“Even the momentary company of good people is the medium to uplift you”]. Párthasárathi does not support this sort of philosophy. Párthasárathi’s message is, “Do all your mundane duties with utmost sincerity, but keep your mind constantly engaged in the thought of Parama Puruśa.” Why “momentary” only, why just for a moment? To make significant progress you must remain in the company of Parama Puruśa not just for a fleeting moment, but constantly, round the clock. But if you look upon this world as mithyá, then your existence will also be unreal, and then to whom will you turn for company with your heavy load of unreality? What is the benefit of keeping company with good people only for a moment, if your very existence is negated?

Párthasárathi taught people that this body exists, and the vital energy also exists. People should always try to develop the body, mind and vital energy that they have been endowed with, and should always bear in mind that Párthasárathi is always with them.

Your hands may be weak but His hands are strong. Párthasárathi has gone on playing His flute to draw your mind towards the internal world, and He who held the flute also caught up the sword to promote the greater welfare of humanity.

O human beings, be fearless. O human beings, do not worry unnecessarily and destroy your future. O human beings, move ahead with smiling faces. Párthasárathi is always with you. One who is devoted to Iishvara [the Cosmic Controller], one who meditates on Parama Puruśa with madhura bháva, need not go on a pilgrimage, for he or she remains constantly with Parama Puruśa. Such a person will say:

Nitya áchi Vrndávane, ámi to nai Hari cháŕá;
d́ákle Hari ásbe káche, d́ákle pare-i dey se sáŕá.

[I am always in Vrindavana, I am never without Hari, the Lord. If you call Him, He comes near. If you call, He will respond.]

This is the philosophy of Párthasárathi. There is not the slightest relationship between Máyáváda, or Vishuddha Advaetaváda, and Párthasárathi.

Footnotes

(1) Bhumi + suffix snik = bhaomika.

(2) When a fire broke out in the Pi-pu-phi-shu residence, the backs of those idlers soon started to be licked by the flames. One of them said, Pi (in spite of his pain, he was too lazy to utter the full word pitha, “back”). Another said, pu (instead of saying purche, “is burning”). A third said, phi (short for phire, “turning over”). And the fourth said, shu (“lie down”). In this way, through a concerted effort, they more or less completed the sentence Pitha purche, phire shu – “Our backs are burning, so roll over, but remain lying down.” –Eds.

(3) The word káya [body] is derived from the Sanskrit root verb ci and the suffix ghaun (finally passing from the ca varga [group of letters] to the ka varga). Káya is grammatically correct; káyá is incorrect. Of course, it can be káyáh in Sanskrit when used in the plural, but káyá in Bengali is altogether incorrect. But the poet Hemachandra Bandopadhyaya in one of this poems rhymed káyá with cháyá. Since then, káyá has been used in Bengali literature. In Sanskrit, káya is used in the singular and káyáh in the plural.

(4) Renunciation, meaning here renunciation born out of negativism. –Eds.

Chapter 8	Ananda Marga Philosophy in a Nutshell Part 7 [a compilation]

Last Sunday we discussed how Párthasárathi appears from the viewpoint of Vishuddha Advaetaváda. The propounders of Vishuddha Advaetaváda, especially Máyáváda, stress one thing in particular – that the difference between any two objects is upádhigata, or qualitative (this is accepted by all). But the very next moment they hasten to add that this upádhi [special quality] is not real, that it only exists in people’s imaginations. If we accept this contention, then we presuppose the existence of the one who does the imagining. Logically, we cannot accept that nothing is imagining – there must be something doing the imagining – and thus the existence of the imaginer has to be accepted. Now, what does this person imagine? He or she imagines upádhi. And what is that upádhi? “Nothing, for it does not exist!” they say. But then they hasten to add, “Well, it’s something which exists in the imagination.”

What is upádhi? In Sanskrit, upádhi refers to a special quality, whereas an ordinary quality or title is termed padavii. For example, there is a certain gentleman, Mr. Shriikánta Cat́t́opádhyáya. Shriikánta is his first name; Cat́t́opádhyáya is his surname. “Cat́t́opádhyáya” does not indicate any special quality but means an Upádhyáya Brahman scholar of Cátuti village (situated in the Rarh area of Bengal, west of the Bhagirathi River). If the same gentleman utilizes his scholarly qualities for the benefit of humanity, he will use the word “Bhat́t́ácárya” as his upádhi. Bhat́t́a means a Sanskrit scholar; ácárya means a person who utilizes his or her intellect for the benefit of others. So Shriikánta Cat́t́opádhyáya will write his name as Shriikánta Bhat́t́ácárya; that is, he will use his upádhi, not his padavii. If asked by someone, he will reply, “My padavii is Cat́t́opádhyáya, but my upádhi is Bhat́t́ácárya.”

Tayorvirodho’yam upádhikalpito na vástavah kashcidupádhireśah;
Iishádyamáyá mahadádikárańaḿ jiivasya káryyaḿ shrńu paiṋcakośam.

[The difference between the two (unit consciousness and Supreme Consciousness) really lies in their respective upádhis, differentiating faculties; there is no other substantial difference between the two. Prakrti acts upon Puruśa in order to bring about the creation, from the “I exist” feeling down to the state of crudest matter. O human beings composed of the five fundamental factors, remember this.]

What is the difference between the jiivas and Parama Puruśa? The difference lies in upádhi. If we say that the difference is only upádhi saḿkránta [qualitative], then I must accept that they both have the same padavii, or common quality, and that the difference lies only in upádhi. Indirectly, it is accepted that the qualities which exist to a limited extent in the jiivas exist in Parama Puruśa to the fullest possible extent. On this point, there is no difference of opinion. It is accepted that the jiivas and Parama Puruśa possess the same qualities in different degrees, but that Parama Puruśa possesses a special quality. If I believe in this proposition, then I must also admit the existence of the jiivas. If we then say that the jiivas do not have this special quality, and only Parama Puruśa has it, then there remain four factors: (1) jiiva, (2) Shiva [Consciousness], (3) common quality and (4) special upádhi [quality] of Shiva. Then where does advaetaváda stand? It is not advaetaváda or non-dualism, it is caturauṋgaváda or quadrupleism! If one accepts the existence of these four factors and still dances to the tune of advaetaváda, it will be as if one is doing one thing, saying something else, and thinking something completely different. This is surely hypocrisy.

The contradictions do not end here. The propounders of advaetaváda go one step further and say that this upádhi belongs not only to Shiva, or Parama Puruśa, but also to the jiivas to a lesser degree. And how does the upádhi of the jiivas work? They claim that due to the upádhi of Parama Puruśa, the quinquelemental factors – the perceptible world of solid, liquid, luminous, aerial and ethereal – have emerged, and that due to the upádhi of the jiivas, jiivasya káryyaḿ shrńu paiṋcakośam [“O human beings composed of the five fundamental factors, remember this”] – this physical body of five fundamental factors, having eyes, ears, nose, intelligence, personality, joy, sorrow, etc., has been created. But they also say, Na vastavah kashcid upadhiresah [“In reality upádhi of any sort does not exist”], and thereby make everything even more confusing. After saying so much about upádhi, they finally say that there is no upádhi! So you can fully understand what a great hypocrisy it is!

The people of those days did not think deeply about anything. They used to take things very easily so it was not difficult to get away with all these self-contradictory ideas. The enlightened people of today, however, will never accept such things.

Etávupádhi Parah jiivayostayoh samyaunnirásena Parah na jiivah;
Rájyaḿ narendrasya bhat́asya khet́akastayorapohena bhat́o na rájá.

[These upádhis, differentiating marks, are characteristics of both the Supreme Subject and of the unit. Once these marks are obliterated, the microcosm will become the Macrocosm – just as a single individual will be considered a king if he has a kingdom, a warrior if he is holding a club. Take away these differentiating marks, and it will be difficult to distinguish between the two.]

Here they outline people’s duties. I cannot understand how they can prescribe the dos and don’ts of those whose very existence they have already denied. However, it is mentioned that there is a qualitative difference between the jiivas and Parama Puruśa: Samyaunnirásena Parah na jiivah. They argue that if the jiivas and Parama Puruśa are divested of their respective special qualities, then they will become one. The one who cuts grass with a scythe is a grass-cutter and the one who plays a drum is a drummer. If you remove the drum from the drummer and the scythe from the grass-cutter, then according to the advaetavádiis, the two will become one. I must contradict this by saying that they will not become one, but will still keep their separate identities. At best we can say that the drummer is no longer a drummer, but an ordinary person, and the grass-cutter is no longer a grass-cutter, but an ordinary person as well. But their separate identities are not lost. The only difference is that each has lost his upádhi, the drum or the scythe. So how can we accept the argument that when the upádhis are removed from Parama Puruśa and the jiivas, they become one? Furthermore, the most important thing is that they have already said that there is no upádhi. When upádhi itself is non-existent, then there is no question of removing it.

For many centuries people have been exploiting the gullibility of the masses through this sort of intellectual extravaganza. This has harmed the Indian people enormously. The followers of advaetaváda learned how to deceive themselves. The worst crime is self-deception. One should never encourage any dogma or self-deception. Cheating others is a heinous crime, and if you do that society will certainly criticize you. If you deceive yourself, however, no one will criticize you, no one will know of it, but ultimately you will certainly suffer irreparable damage.

Rájyaḿ narendrasya bhattasya khetakastayorapohena bhat́o na rájá. In this shloka it is mentioned that if we give a kingdom (an upádhi) to one person we will call him a king; and if we give a club (another upádhi) to another person, we will call him a fighter. If we remove the kingdom from the king, and the club from the fighter, they are no longer a king and a fighter, but they are not one.

If we analyse Parthasárathi in the light of this upádhiváda, what do we find? Párthasárathi exhorts people: “Take up arms against injustice, against adharma, with courage and determination.” Whom does He exhort? He exhorts those people in the world who have both padavii and upádhi. Here upádhi means being human. This is how the individual identity of a human being has been accepted.

So, this upádhiváda cannot stand before Párthasárathi. He gave recognition to the uneducated and persecuted masses – those who had been neglected and humiliated for many centuries. And for their emancipation, He united the various kings of India and waged war against crime and injustice. Moreover, He also inspired others to participate in the struggle against adharma. His entire life was dedicated to this cause, and this cause alone. He entrusted the charge of His kingdom to His brother, Balarama, and His wife, Satyabháma, and travelled the length and breadth of the then India to awaken socio-spiritual consciousness and arouse an anti-persecution sentiment. Thus Párthasárathi was poles apart from the eternal conflict between upádhiváda and anupádhitva. Upádhiváda is alien to Párthasárathi. He exhorts people not only to wage war against injustice and adharma, but also teaches them how to live in peace and prosperity, and how to make progress in spiritual life.

Human existence is tri-stratumic. Only when there is a happy adjustment amongst the three strata can human beings tread the path of spirituality. In the absence of a proper adjustment, everything disintegrates and falls into ruin. It may be that many good people who became sannyásiis [renunciants] did so initially for the good of humanity, but that later their minds changed when they had to confront the stark reality of hunger. At first perhaps they had thought that they would knock at only five houses for alms, and follow mádhukarii vrtti,⁽¹⁾ but they found that they could not subsist in that way. As a result they may have decided to try ten houses, then fifteen, and so on. Their greed instinct increased, and little by little they became caught in the python noose of all sorts of sin.

The rule is that if an honest person leading an honest life solves the mundane problems of procuring the basic necessities of life while moving towards the divine goal, he or she will never become downfallen. But all too often people remain enslaved to their stomachs and creature comforts. And if the social order is defective, even good people go astray and meet their demise. But Párthasárathi wanted to create a society based on dharma, or in His language, dharmarájya, a moralistic social order. He wanted to bring about progress in the physical, psychic and spiritual spheres. Upádhiváda completely denied the material side of life. Had they attempted to bring about the psychic well-being of people, it would have been better than nothing, for if people could have found some mental happiness, even on an empty stomach, then physical deprivation would not have been so hard to bear.

Sarpáh pivanti pavanaḿ na ca durbaláste,
Shuśkae strńaervanagajáh balinah bhavanti.
Kandaerphalaeh munibaráh kśapayanti kálam,
Santośa eva puruśasya paramaḿ nidhánam.

“Snakes live on air, but it does not make them weak. Forest elephants live on dry grass, yet they do not lose their strength. The sages live on roots and fruits, yet they remain hale and hearty. Thus it is contentment which is the root of all happiness.” I will agree that contentment is the prime factor for mental happiness. In upádhiváda, however, psychic satisfaction has not been given any place, because the psychic world of ideas, feelings and thoughts has been denied. Even the forces of Máyá which operate in the individual are denied. Thus ultimately only a theoretical Brahma remains who has no relationship whatsoever with the jiivas. This sort of dangerous doctrine has acted upon the minds of the Indian people for the past 1300 years, bringing them to the brink of disaster.

Our Párthasárathi is just the antithesis of upádhiváda. He wanted to establish dharmarájya for the physical and psychic well-being of humanity. Here psychic well-being means absolute freedom from dogma. The weaknesses and imperfections which have been infecting people’s minds for so long, now lie like a dead weight upon the mind, crippling its capacity for free and independent thought. As a result, a sort of psychic vacuum has been created. This state of affairs has lasted for centuries.

The influence of dogma on the human mind is peculiar. A patient may know that a certain medicine will cure his or her disease, yet will pray and make offerings to a certain deity. This is only due to a fear complex created by dogma. Or suppose an epidemic has broken out. As a rule, people should be very cautious in this situation. It is common sense that the food from the house of one affected by the epidemic should not be sent to anyone else’s house. However, a pújá [act of worship] is often performed in the patient’s house, and the prasáda [offerings] is distributed to all the other houses in the neighbourhood. This is how the epidemic spreads!

Or, why are there so many god and goddesses? People know that they are all nonsense, yet they cannot think of going beyond the pale of dogma which lies like a dead weight on their minds.

In order to free human beings from this senseless attachment to the past born out of dogma, Párthasárathi said, Klaevyaḿ másmagam Pártha – “O Pártha [Arjuna], never encourage this sort of dogma, this weakness, this psychic inertness. Go ahead and do your duty.”

This duty is to take all humanity to the path of well-being, to free them from bondage, and to place the leadership in the hands of those who follow the path of dharma – those who put the welfare of others above their own. Therefore Párthasárathi’s existence was diametrically opposed to Vishuddha Advaetaváda, a clear antithesis to upádhiváda. No relationship between them ever existed in the past, nor does exist in the present. Suffering humanity should accept Párthasárathi as their ideal. They should not be expected to accept the visionary idealism of Máyáváda, or the fantasies of upádhiváda, or any philosophical rigmarole. These things have no practical value in human life.

Footnotes

(1) Traditionally sannyásiis were only permitted to beg for alms at five houses. Mádhukarii vrtti: the “propensity of a honey-bee” is that it moves around collecting food, but does not try to save anything for the next day. –Eds.