Lessons in Vedanta

Lesson - 33

It was mentioned in the previous lesson that "Saayujya" type of Mukti was the real Mukti and that being devoid of the body was its characteristic feature. If in the Moksha state, there is to be neither the body nor the pleasure & pain resulting from the body, what else remains in that state? Because nothing remains, our discussion had reached a stage when it had to be conceded that Moksha was a state of nothingness (Shoonya).

The question before us is - can we say that Moksha is nothingness just because there is neither the body nor pain and pleasure perceived through the sense organs?

The state of Sushupti is something which is experienced by us everyday. Is there the experience of the body during Sushupti? No. Is there the experience of pain and pleasure which is normally felt by the sense organs? No. Just because of these two reasons can we consider Sushupti a state of nothingness? Let us for a moment assume that it is a state of nothingness. In the wakeful state which ensues the Sushupti state, we recollect "I experienced bliss during Sushupti". This is everybody’s experience. Therefore, does it not follow that Sushupti is not a state of nothingness and that there was ‘bliss’ during that state and that there was ‘I’ which experienced that bliss? Therefore, just because the body and the pleasure experienced by the body are not present in that state, it can not be considered as a state of nothingness. By the same token, it can also be said that Moksha too is not a state of nothingness.

Question: You say that the fact that bliss and its perceiver, i.e., ‘I’ which are present during the Sushupti state is recollected during the wakeful state. Because there is pleasure, there must be the sense organs in some form or the other and therefore, there must be the body, which is a substratum for the Indriyas (sense organs). What is wrong in thinking so?

Answer: In saying that an object is present, experiencing it itself is the proof. If there is no experience, either the object itself is not present, or, it is veiled by something else because of which we are not able to experience the object. If the body were to be present during the Sushupti state, should it not be experienced? But no one has such experience. Or, there must be something which is veiling it. If there is such a veil, we must perceive it. For example, when the sun is covered by the clouds, we may not be able to see the sun. But we can certainly see the cloud which is veiling the sun. No such veil is perceived during the Sushupti state. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that the body is being veiled by something during the Sushupti. It must therefore be said there is no body during the Sushupti state. (The knowledge - that the body of the person who is in the state of Sushupti is present - belongs to a person who is in the wakeful state. It is not the experience of the person in Sushupti. As far as he is concerned, it must be said that the body is not present.)

Because there is experience of bliss even though there is no body, this bliss is certainly not something which has come from the transaction of the sense organs with the objects. In that sense, it is not an ordinary bliss. It should be understood that it is the true nature of the Self, which is very much present in the Sushupti.

Question: If bliss is the nature of the Self, why then is the knowledge - ‘I am bliss’ not experienced during the Sushupti state? Why is it recollected only after the state of Sushupti ends and the wakeful state comes?

Answer: Just because it is recollected and not actually felt during the Sushupti, the fact that Self is of the nature of bliss can not be denied. If the nature of the Self were to be completely experienced in Sushupti state, it would verily become Moksha state! It would no more be merely Sushupti state.

Question: Let us assume that the state of Sushupti itself is Moksha. Characteristics like absence of body, absence of sense organ related pain and pleasure are similar to Sushupti and Moksha. Therefore, why not consider Sushupti to be Moksha itself?

Answer: Moksha is something which does not repeat. Although the sense organ related pains and pleasures are absent in both Sushupti and Moksha, we see reappearance of pain after the state of Sushupti. Also, in the state of Sushupti, the ignorance - namely ‘I do not know who I am’ is present. Such ignorance will not be there in Moksha. Therefore it can not be said that Sushupti and Moksha are one and the same.

Also, the veil of ignorance will be present during the Sushupti state. Because of this, the true nature of the Self becomes somewhat veiled. The aspects of Atma which cause the experiences like "I am present"(this is called Sadamsha - Sat aspect) and "I am knowledge" (this is called Chidamsha - Chit aspect) becomes veiled. Only the bliss aspect of the Self is experienced - just as the dull light of the sun veiled by the clouds is perceived. Therefore, in the state of Sushupti, the knowledge - "I exist" and "I am knowledge" are not experienced. On the other hand, in Moksha, the nature of the Self is experience in all aspects - namely, Sat aspect, Chit aspect and Ananda aspect.

One should not mistake here that the term ‘aspect’ here implies that the Self has parts. Sat, Chit and Ananda aspects do not have independent existence. In fact, Sat itself is Chit and Chit itself is Ananda. Because only Ananda(bliss) is felt in the state of Sushupti, the expression - ‘Ananda aspect’ is used here.

All this drives home one point - that although there is some similarity between Sushupti and Moksha, they are not one and the same. Just as Sushupti is not a state of nothingness, Moksha too is not a state of nothingness. Just as Sushupti is a state of direct experience, Moksha too is a state of direct experience.

Question: If Moksha is not a state of nothingness and if the Self is not attached to anything, why is the body needed? You say that the body comes from the five natural elements. Because the five elements have been there in the creation always, it has to be said that no one has achieved Moksha till now. If no one has achieved it till now, there is no reason to believe that it can be achieved at all! Why should we bother about something which has neither been achieved till now nor can be achieved in future also?

Answer: This question arises only when we say that the body comes only from the five natural elements. What is the use if there is a huge lump of clay? Can a pot come in to existence on its own? Does it not require a potter who can make use of the clay to make the pot? Similarly, it is of no use if only the potter is there and there is no clay. To make a pot, both clay and the potter are required. Both are causes and pot is the effect. In a pot, from whichever direction you may see, you can see only the clay. You can not see the potter. That cause which remains even after the effect manifests is called as ‘Upadana Karana’ (proximate cause). The cause which can not be seen thus is called ‘Nimitta Karana’(instrumental cause). For any Karya (effect), it is not enough if one of the causes is present. Both Upadana and Nimitta causes must be present.

The natural elements serve as Upadana Karana (proximate cause). The past Karmas constitute Nimitta Karana (instrumental cause). Only when these two causes come together, the effect - namely the body comes in to being. Because the legacy of the birth of bodies is without a beginning, the question - ‘from where did the Nimitta Karana for the first body come?’ does not arise at all. (Upadana Karana was discussed in the 17^th lesson. That the legacy of birth is without a beginning will be discussed in future lessons)

Therefore, if the Jeevi has such Karmas which necessitate experiencing of pain and pleasure, that Karma will pick up the necessary Pancha Bhootas (five elements) and will form the body accordingly. Further, it will create the body suitable to experience the karmas which have to be suffered during wakeful state as well as the body suitable to experience the karmas which have to be suffered during the dream state.

When such a time comes when no Karma needs to be suffered, there will be no necessity for the body and therefore, the state of Sushupti sets in. After some time, some Karma will surface and thus the Sushupti state ends and, depending upon the nature of this Karma, a suitable body (wakeful body or the dreaming body) will come in to being. When all karmas are nullified by the help of self realisation, then the Nimitta Karana required to produce the body ceases to exist and thus, there will be no birth of the body even though the five elements are present. Have we not seen that even if there is a big lump of clay a pot can not come in to being if the potter is not there? Therefore, if eternal bliss has to be achieved, there is no alternative but to realise the Self.

Question: If it is true that all karmas can be nullified with the help of Self realisation, it is possible to achieve Moksha, which is devoid of body. But how fair is it to say that all past actions become annulled merely by knowledge? It is wrong according to our scriptures. We come across quotations such as

Answer: We discussed about Adhyaaropa from the 15^th lesson till 23^rd lesson. It was shown that the karmic creation is just a superimposition on the Paramatma, just as one superimposes snake on the rope. In the dim light, when a rope is mistaken to be a snake, we do not require different contrivances for the disappearance of different parts of the snake. Just one means - good light is enough to get over this delusion. Similarly, it is not possible to use different means to get rid of the different parts of the superimposed world. If the root cause - ignorance is eradicated, the entire superimposed creation will cease to exist at once. Just as darkness can be removed only by light and nothing else, ignorance can be removed by knowledge and nothing else. This was explained adequately in those lessons. Therefore, it would be wrong to reject the fact that knowledge nullifies the karmas.

Coming to scriptural quotations, such references are certainly found in the scriptures. But we also come across quotations such as

A boy is fond of spicy articles. His mother prevents him from eating such articles and says, ‘spice is like poison; eat as much sweet as you wish; it is like a panacea.’ When the boy became a middle aged person, he became a diabetic. His physician told him ‘sweet is like poison to you; you may however use spices to enhance the taste of your food’. Now, if the person becomes confused because his mother and his physician have said completely contradictory things and seeks clarification, don’t we say, ‘both are right; you are a diabetic now; therefore, the doctor’s words are overriding’?

How were we able to say so? We analysed as to when his mother had told him and in what circumstances is the physician telling him. Both are valid statements. But, under the prevailing circumstances, the doctor’s advice has to be treated as ‘strong’.

Similarly, in the context of the fate of our actions, it has been said that all the fruits karmas have to be suffered. In such contexts, they are certainly valid.

When it comes to finding out the means to eradicate Karmas, the second set of quotations (Jnaanaagni dagdha karmaanai …..) are to be considered. They are also the ‘strong’ quotations because they have been said while discussing the Atma Tattva comprehensively.

The purpose of the first type of quotation is to caution man that it is not possible to escape the fruits of his wicked actions, once they are performed and therefore he must exercise enough caution to desist from such actions.

The purpose of the second type of quotations is to stress the fact that however much one may carry out noble acts, the circle of births doesn’t end. The only way to overcome this is to eradicate the cause - viz., ignorance with the help of knowledge, which alone is capable of cutting off the continuous chain of pain and pleasure permanently.

We can easily make out that the latter type of quotations are ‘strong’. Thus, even from the point of view of the scriptures, it can be undoubtedly said that Moksha can be achieved only by the knowledge of the Self.

Question: Very well, ‘performing karmas is one stage. Suffering their effects is another stage’ is what you are saying. How many types of karmas are there? How many types of performers are there? Who is this Karta?

Answer: Let us see.