Lessons in Vedanta

Lesson - 32

In the previous lesson, it was shown that bliss is natural for the Jeevis. ‘How then does unhappiness afflict the Jeevis’? We had stopped at this question.

How is unhappiness caused?

There is only one major difference. During Sushupti, the Jeeva will not have any contact with the body and the sense organs. In other words, the feeling that ‘I am the body’ is not there. In the other two states, the Jeeva will enter a body and will think ‘I am the body’. Therefore, it can be said that wherever the Jeeva adopts a body, there is bound to be unhappiness. Wherever the Jeeva does not accept a body, there will be no unhappiness.

‘Can it be said with absolute certainty that acceptance of a body by the Jeeva will invariable result in some amount of unhappiness? Are there not some ‘fortunate’ persons in this world who seem to be always happy? For instance, look at the prince. He is always happy’ argue some people.

It is not true. Whether he is a king or a saint, everyone will have undergone unhappiness at one point of time or the other. Death of a relative, or one’s own imminent death will definitely cause some amount of unhappiness.

There are also some who undergo many hardships and still say ‘I am happy’. A sprinter will be gasping for breath. Still, the pleasure of the possibility of winning will make him say ‘ I am happy’. This is nothing but imposing the future happiness on the present unhappiness. Those who strive for money day in and day out also come under this category.

The summary of the above discussion is that wherever the jeevi accepts a body, (a) he will be under the illusion that unhappiness is happiness or (b) he will directly experience unhappiness.

Q. The above summary is indeed interesting. But it contradicts what you have said before. You have said before that the Jeevanmukta who has achieved Atma Jnana will experience permanent bliss. By definition, Jeevanmukta is one who has achieved mukti while still having a body. According to the above discussion, because he has a body, he is bound to have some unhappiness. If it is true, he can not be a Jeevanmukta. Are you not contracting yourself?

A. We have not said that by becoming a Jeevanmukta, the person will not have natural urges like hunger, thirst etc., or that he is not hurt even if he is pierced by a weapon. A Jeevanmukta is not a stone. ‘If a Jeevanmukta also experiences hunger etc., what is the difference between him and an ordinary person?’ you may ask.

A Jeevanmukta will be merely a witness to the pains and pleasures inflicted upon the Antahkarana. Even while doing so, he will be always be aware that there is no connection between him (who is pure and of the nature of sat-chit-ananda) and the unreal and inert Antah Karana - which succumbs to unhappiness. This is possible to him on account of the knowledge of the Upanishads, logical deductions and his own experience.

The Upanishads have mentioned in several places that the Atma is ‘Asanga’(untainted). It has been shown before that Atma does not have parts and there is no chance of it becoming attached to anything. This knowledge comes from logical analysis. Every day, during Sushupti, we are able to experience the Atma which is not tainted by unhappiness. This is personal experience.

Thus, with the help of the Vedas and Upanishads, logic and personal experience, it can be understood that the Jeevanmukta is not tainted by unhappiness. The unhappiness afflicts the Antahkaranas only.

What about the person who is not endowed with viveka (discrimination)? Because he is under the delusion that he is the body, he attributes the pain and pleasure belonging to the Antahkarana to himself. Further, he attributes the qualities like Chaitanya(consciousness) and Satyatva (Realness) to the Antahkarana. Because of this, when pain and pleasure afflict the Antahkarana, he wrongly believes that he is suffering. Similarly, he attributes caste, nationality etc. (which in fact pertain to the body) to the self and says, for example, ‘I am a Brahmin’, ‘I am an Indian’ and so on.

It is clear from the above discussion that though outwardly there is no difference between the two, internally the difference between a Jeevanmukta and an ordinary man is that the former is a witness to the suffering while the latter is a sufferer. Both are purely personal experiences.

Even in the external experience there is a difference between a Jeevanmukta and an ordinary being. As far as a Jeevanmukta is concerned, there is no difference between dream state and the wakeful state. Just as a person who wakes up realises that what he experienced was only a dream and not a reality, the Jeevanmukta who wakes up in Atma Tattva realises that even the wakeful state is unreal. Such a realisation will not be there for a person who lacks Viveka (discrimination).

Q .The above discussions imply that even Gods can not escape unhappiness. Afterall, many Gods are Jeevanmuktas. But the Vedas and other scriptures ordain that Gods should be worshipped to overcome hardships. When Gods themselves can not escape unhappiness, how can they remove our misery?

A. A king is suffering from severe stomach ache. Does it mean that he is incapable of removing the suffering of say, a beggar? Although he is suffering in one way, it does not take away his other capabilities. Same is the case with the Gods. Because they assume a bodily form, they have suffering. But their other aspects are so strong that they can relieve others of sufferings.

To put briefly, thinking that ‘I’ is the body causes unhappiness; thinking ‘I’ is not the body leads to liberation.

Q. You say that being devoid of body is Mukti. Some people say that some ‘liberated’ souls are shining in the sky in the form of heavenly stars. Which one of the above is correct?

1. Saalokya Mukti : When a devotee worships a particular god, he will ultimately obtain a place in the heavenly abode of that particular god. This is called as ‘Saalokya Mukti’. The method of worship followed here is called as ‘Charya’. It is a method in which the seeker considers himself a slave and the god as the Supreme Lord.
2. Saaroopya Mukti : A devotee practising even more intense devotion will not only obtain a place in the heavenly abode, but will also acquire the qualities of the god he worships. The method of worship followed here is called as ‘Kriya’. Kriya here means performing Pooja, Homa and other rituals.
3. Saameepya Mukti: If the worship is even more intense, the seeker will not only acquire the qualities of the god he worships, but will also gain a godly form and a place very near to God. This method is called ‘Yoga’. Here Yoga means the eight steps of Ashtanga Yoga.
4. Saayujya Mukti : When the worships transcends the Saguna form and reaches the Nirguna form, the seeker will realise that Jeevatma and Paramatma are one and the same. This is called Saayujya Mukti. The instrument to obtain this is ‘Jnana’. Jnana means realising the Atma Tattva with the help of Nitya Anitya Vastu Viveka.

The first three are not important. Although they are referred to as Mukti, the real meaning of Mukti is not reflected by them because those three kinds of Mukti are not permanent. Also, in each of the three, the Jeevi will be having some sort of form. After the merit is exhausted, he will lose the celestial body and will again take birth as a mortal.

The fourth type of Mukti is different. In this, the Jeevi will not have a body and will not have another birth either. Only this should be considered as real Mukti.

The term Yoga also conveys two meanings. One meaning is described above. The other meaning is ‘to realise the oneness of the Nirguna Parabrahma and Jeevatma’. It is to stress this meaning that several scriptures have declared ‘Atma Darshana is possible only through Yoga’. For instance, the Bhagavad-Gita says :

Ayam hi paramo dharmah yadyoge naatmadarshanam (achieving Atma Darshana through Yoga is the greatest Dharma). In such contexts, the second meaning should be considered.

Q. You say that Moksha is possible only if there is no (identification with the) body. You have also said that if there is a body, there is pain and pleasure. It means that in the Moksha described by you, there is neither the body nor pain and pleasure. Can we then assume that the ‘Moksha’ described by you is a ‘shoonya’(zero)?

1. Moksha is not nothingness. Let us see why.

(continues)