Vairagyam III

[Guest guest]

Vairagyam III

Namaste Advaitins,

 

The contemplation of the state where desires have been fully curbed, gives a

strong impetus to the practice of vairagya. A man free from the clutches of

desires is a picture of supreme serenity. No force in the world can cause even

a ripple in his mind. The Yogavasishtha says, 'He who has won over the tongue

(taste) and the passion for sex has virtually the whole world at his feet.'

Here is a verse from a Smriti:

 

Yaccha kaamasukham loke, yaccha divyam mahat-sukham |

Trshnaa-kshaya-sukhasyaite naarhataH shodashiim kalaam ||

 

Neither the sensual pleasure in this world nor the great pleasure of heaven is

equal to a sixteenth part of the pleasure of the extinction of desire.

 

In his bhashya to the Taittiriya Upanishad, Anandavalli – 8, Acharya Sayana

says:

 

In that Supreme Bliss beyond the Hiranyagarbha all our separated blisses

attain unity; there all desire for higher and higher degrees of bliss and all

knowledge of duality are absent, in virtue of true Knowledge; and there freedom

from desire in all its ascending degrees reaches its culminating point. Having

thus arrived at the knowledge of the Supreme Bliss, we should then understand

through the scriptures that 'I am this Supreme Bliss'.

 

In contrast, let us see what the Sreyomarga says:

 

'Alas! because the small pleasures of the embodied beings are hard to procure

and subject to decay, and conduce only to misery, therefore, there are only

miseries upon miseries in this world.'

 

Advaita is Bliss:

 

In the waking and dream states involving duality, we experience only pain, for

the most part. If there is pleasure at all now and then, even that is a mere

pain, as involving many imperfections, namely, the trouble of procuring it, its

inferiority as compared with higher pleasures, and its perishability. In the

deep sleep state and in Samadhi, the two states of non-duality, there is Bliss

as there are no sense objects and interaction with them.

 

What causes misery?

A man given to desires knows no peace. One after another the desires keep

demanding his attention to fulfil them. He constantly expends his energy to

work to procure the objects that his desires bid him and enjoying them. The

Panchadasi puts it in a metaphorical way:

 

Kurvate karma bhogaaya, karma kartum cha bhunjate |

Nadyaam kita iva aavartaad-aavartaantaram aashu te |

Vrajanto janmano janma labhante naiva nirvrtim || (I.30)

The deluded engage in hard labour with a view to enjoy later. And they enjoy

the fruits of their labour only to engage in further labour. Like a worm that is

caught in an eddy of a river, is thrown from one eddy to another, these deluded

men go from one birth to another, never experiencing true respite.

 

Here is an account of a real-life instruction on vairagyam; it is included in

some detail as several aspects of vairagyam are brought out:

 

Finally, Paramacharyal asked, “Now, tell Me. Is it better to become a

householder or a sanyasin?” Bereft of any hesitation, Sri Srinivasa Sastry

averred that taking up Sannyasa was, indeed, superior.

 

One day, He posed some queries to Vaidyanatha Sastry. These were:

 

(i) I have heard that the eldest son in the family must compulsorily get

married. Is it so?

 

(ii) Our Guru embraced monasticism after becoming highly erudite. Is it

obligatory that one acquire a deep knowledge of the scriptures prior to

renouncing the world?

 

(iii) I have heard that when one is born, immediately a set of debts accrue to

one. Some of these are repaid by serving one’s parents, some by worshipping the

deva-s and yet others by begetting progeny. Is this indeed the state of affairs?

 

(iv) Is one permitted to enter another ashrama only after dwelling for long as

a brahmacarin in the hermitage of the Guru?

 

(v) Can a young boy like Me take up Sannyasa if he desires to? Parents may not

grant permission. Can Sanyasa be taken up without their approval?

 

Vaidyanatha Sastry was not in a position to reply satisfactorily to Him.

Subsequently, Paramacharyal went on His usual evening walk to the Kalabhairava

temple with both of them. On the way, He recited the following verse (II.35) of

the Prabodha-Sudhàkara:

 

(The Veda says that “loka” is not there for one bereft of a son. What is that

loka? Is it liberation or transmigration or another world? It cannot be the

first one.)

 

Paramacharyal then asked Vaidyanatha Sastry to recite the next two sloka-s of

the Prabodha-Sudhàkara and give the meaning. The verses are:

 

Sastry gave the overall meaning on the following lines:

 

It cannot be said that begetting a son confers liberation. This is because not

all people who have sons have attained the exalted state. Further, if mere

procreation were to yield emancipation, then the cycle of transmigratory

existence itself would cease since numerous people do have children. A son

cannot necessarily be the cause of happiness in this world and the next. The

reason is that to attain a higher world, the Veda prescribes the performance of

special rites, such as the jyotisthoma. It does not explicitly declare begetting

of progeny as constituting the means. The Veda clearly proclaims that wealth,

progeny and the like cannot serve to confer liberation. Only the realisation of

the Àtman, by hearing the Truth, cogitating upon It and focusing one's mind on

It, yields immortality.

 

Utterances of the Sruti to the effect that a son is essential should be

understood as merely eulogising the performance of sacrifices, such as the

putresti. The putresti-yàga serves to obtain a son. To induce people who have a

desire for children to perform it, its importance is stressed. The Veda, which

is like a mother, certainly does not intend to compel one without desires to

perform such sacrifices.

 

After this, Paramacharyal proceeded to give a detailed exposition. He said

that marriage is compulsory only for a person who wants to enjoy sensual

pleasures. It is not obligatory on one who has strong dispassion to lead a

house-holder's life. Further, there is no Vedic injunction that a dispassionate

one should get married. The Veda-s indicate remedies for the removal of desires

and never exhort the gratification of longings or procreation. Just as fond

parents would only try to save their child from falling into fire and would not

induce it to tumble into it, so too do the Veda-s indicate the means for people

to abstain from bad ways and to proceed in the holy path. In fact, the moment

one becomes extremely dispassionate, one can renounce and become an ascetic.

Thus, a man can become an ascetic regardless of whether he is a celibate or a

house-holder or a forest-dweller.

 

Paramacharyal went on to explain the futility of begetting a child. He

strengthened His explanations by various citations and firmly drove home His

points. For instance, He said that only rarely one happens to get a son who is

endowed with all good qualities. Even on such a son being born, if the lad were

to be short-lived or diseased or were to later have no children, the parents

would have to put up with mental suffering. If a young child were to suffer on

account of diseases or planetary influences, the grief of the parents would know

no end. If the child were to grow up a little but were to be stupid then too the

parents would be far from happy. Further, if after upanayana, the boy were not

to become learned or, if learned, he were to refuse to get married, then also

the parents would suffer agony.

 

Paramacharyal explained that shràddha (a rite performed for the deceased

parents) is an obligatory duty that purifies the performer. He emphasised that

the manes do not sustain themselves exclusively on the pinda (ball of cooked

rice) that is offered during the shràddha ceremony. He went on to add that the

stories found in texts like the Mahàbhàrata about the necessity of offspring are

not meant for advanced spiritual aspirants who have strong dispassion. All the

queries raised earlier by Sri Srinivasa Sastry were thus categorically answered

by the Paramacharyal; neither He nor Vaidyanatha Sastry had mentioned them to

Paramacharyal.

 

At times, nature seemed to aid Paramacharyal’s imparting of instructions about

detachment. For instance, on one occasion, when Paramacharyal was proceeding to

the Kàlabhairava temple together with His students, a funeral procession was

seen. On beholding the scene, Paramacharyal spontaneously identified the

deceased one as a wealthy gentleman and gave out his name. He went on to say

that that man was young and had been living in comfort. However, the Lord of

Death, Yama, had not chosen to spare him.

 

At this juncture, Vaidyanatha Sastry cited the following verse that

Paramacharyal had composed when in a state of seclusion.

Dhanam vaa dhaanyam vaa bhavatu bahusho bhogyamapi vaa

Viraame ko bruute nanu chiram aham nirvrta iti |

Prakopa-prodbhinna-prakata-yama-damshtraam tu purataH

Prapashyat-kim kuruaat-prasabham avasaane prabhurapi ||

 

(Though having much wealth, grains or objects of enjoyment, who says at the

end of his life that he has been contented for long. On seeing in front of him

the teeth of Yama bared in wrath, what can even a king do?)

 

On hearing this, Paramacharyal said, “There is a verse of Bhagavatpàda in the

Prabodha-Sudhàkara that is appropriate to this occasion and worthy of being

cited.” All but Sri Srinivasa Sastry remained silent. He chanted:

Yo dehaH supto'abhoot supushpa-shayyopa-shobhite talpe |

Samprati sa rajju-kaashthair-niyantritaH kshipyate vahnau || (I.25)

(The body that slept on a bed adorned with flowers is now taken, tied by ropes

to logs, and consigned to fire.)

 

Paramacharyal explained the significance of the verse. He pointed out that the

dead man had, even on the previous night, been in the midst of all comforts. His

heart had suddenly collapsed while he was asleep and so he now lay tied by ropes

to bamboos. He was about to be consigned to fire. This would be the fate of all

and none was an exception.

Nityam sannihito mrutyuH kartavyo dharma-samucchayaH

(Death is ever at hand. Hence, one should accumulate dharma.)

 

Grhiita iva kesheshu mrutyunaa dharmamaacharet

(One should practise dharma (without delay) as if one’s tuft were in the grip

of death.)

 

We should perform our dharma and purify the mind so that we can obtain the

realisation of the Àtman and become liberated from all misery. Only then will

the goal of our lives have been reached. As He spoke, Paramacharyal's gaze was

constantly on Sri Srinivasa Sastry’s face. At that juncture, a woman's wail was

heard. Seeing the pitiful face of the dead rich man, his mother had given the

cry of anguish. “Even the son that I gained after the observance of many a fast

and vow has not lasted. Even if he had not been born, I would not have had to

suffer my present deep anguish. Having got married, he has now left his young

wife a destitute. Is this the only benefit of begetting progeny?” wailed the

disconsolate mother. Sri Srinivasa Sastry noted all this. “Is this the worth of

ephemeral existence? I do not want this at all,” He muttered. These words were

heard by Vaidyanatha Sastry. From His facial expression, Paramacharyal could

readily comprehend His disciple's state of

mind. He felt glad that His teachings were having the desired effect.

 

On several occasions, Paramacharyal spoke to Sri Srinivasa Sastry in private

about detachment and Brahmacarya. What follows is a brief account of the advice

given in some of the private sessions. [They were narrated to me in detail by

Acharyal, partly in 1977 and partly in 1984.]

 

(i) No amount of learning, wealth or enjoyment can confer total freedom from

sorrow and everlasting bliss. Only the realisation of the Truth can do so.

Kingship, divine weapons, heavenly damsels and the power to even create a new

universe did not, for instance, free Visvàmitra from all unhappiness. In the

Chàndogya Upanióad, it is narrated that though versed in the Veda-s and various

shàstra-s, Nàrada continued to experience sorrow; he transcended all sorrows

only when he received enlightenment from Sanatkumàra.

Labhdaa vidyaa raajamaanyaa tataH kim

Praaptaa sampat praabhavaadhyaa tataH kim |

Bhuktaa naari sundaraangi tataH kim

Yena svaatma naiva saakshaat-krto'abhut || (Anàtmasrivigarhanam 1)

(So what if learning respected by the sovereign himself has been acquired? So

what if unsurpassed affluence has been obtained? So what if a belle has been

enjoyed? What is there for him who has not realised his own Àtman?)

 

Enlightenment dawns only in a very pure mind. Desires are impurities that

sully the mind. To render the mind pure and fit for enlightenment, they must be

assiduously eradicated.

 

(ii) Sense objects are not the source of happiness. It is a mistake to think

that they are. Were an object intrinsically a source of joy to a person, he

ought not to ever find it to be a pain. However, it is well known that objects

are sometimes liked and sometimes disliked. For instance, to a person who

develops severe nausea during a meal, the very dishes he found delectable appear

to be unappealing and a burden to consume. How can an object intrinsically be a

source of happiness to a person when, though remaining just the same, it is at

times a bane to the very same person?

 

When a desire for an object arises in the mind, the mind loses peace and the

period of longing is not one of joy. When the desired object is obtained, the

desire that agitated the mind becomes temporarily quieted. With the calming of

the mind, there is joy. Thus, calmness gives happiness and not desire or a

sensory object. In deep sleep, when no sensory object whatsoever is apprehended

and the mind is in a state of latency, there is very great happiness. The sage

whose mind is very calm and focused on the Supreme has unsurpassed happiness.

 

Stable mental calmness can never be had by the gratification of longings.

Though briefly quieting a desire, gratification only leads to the growth of the

desire; the desire manifests again later, with increased strength. Desiring and

striving for sense objects constitute, therefore, the wrong approach to obtain

happiness, which is what all want. By discerning that sense objects are never

the cause of happiness, one should develop detachment towards them. The

dispassionate one is calm and happy.

 

(iii) There is great benefit in observing perfect Brahmacarya. For this,

complete control over the mind is important. To achieve such mastery, one should

avoid thinking of sense objects. The reason is that as one thinks of sense

objects, one gradually develops a degree of attachment to them. When attachment

is allowed to grow, it becomes an intense desire. When a powerful longing is

permitted to manifest, it becomes difficult to check and uproot. When a man

strongly desires some object or honour and a person or situation thwarts the

consummation of his longing, he becomes irritated.

 

When a man gives way to anger, he loses his power of proper discrimination

between right and wrong. It is well known that an irritated man may be

disrespectful even to his Guru. From delusion, the recollection of what one has

been taught regarding righteous conduct is lost. This destruction of memory

disrupts the functioning of the buddhi and the man in this state is as good as

destroyed. The seed of all this evil is thus thinking about sensory objects. So,

if You wish to control Your mind, You must not allow Your mind to cogitate upon

the objects of the organs.

 

(iv) Married life is a big source of bondage. A householder has to cater not

only to his own requirements but also to those of his family. Hence, he cannot

devote himself entirely to meditation and such spiritual practices. Many are the

people who get married and think that that course of life is good for them.

Actually, for a discriminating person, family life is so full of misery that it

is better to stand on burning coal rather than to get married.

 

The body is made up of skin, blood, flesh, bones and so on. It contains within

it urine and faeces. The body of even the female whom the undiscriminating

consider to be extremely beautiful is only of this kind. Bhagavatpàda has

taught:

 

Nari-stana-bhara-naabhii-desham drshtvaa maa gaa moha-aavesham |

Etan-maamsa-vasaadi-vikaaram manasi vichintarya vaaram vaaram ||

(Seeing the breasts and the navel region of a woman, do not fall a prey to

delusion. The female form is but a modification of flesh, fat, etc. Reflect well

thus in your mind, again and again.)

 

Such recourse to discrimination enables one to combat lust and be established

in Brahmacharya.

 

{Acharyal has told me, “My Guru was so kind that even when I was too young (He

was hardly 14) to be afflicted by passion, He emphasised the worthlessness of

sensory pleasures and stressed the importance of dispassion and thereby

precluded any scope for even the seed of passion finding a place in My mind. He

rendered Me fit for Sannyasa.”}

End of excerpt from the book Yoga Enlightenment and Perfection

 

 

Pranams to all,

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.