From lesson 29 onwards, we have been discussing about the different paths in which enquiry about Atma can be undertaken. We presented Avachchinna Vaada and Pratibimba Vaada in the context of understanding about Atma and Anatma and we concluded that Atma is only one (without a second). Let us continue our discussion in another direction.

The entire Vedantic discussion started to seek permanent happiness. By permanent happiness, we mean happiness which is not tainted by sorrow. We must first find out whether such happiness exists at all because it would be foolish to seek that which does not exist.

Let us first see if there is a possibility of Jeevatma not being tormented by sorrow (or suffering). If suffering were to be natural to Jeevatma, no amount of argument and counter argument can remove it. If it were to be acquired, it means that one day the sorrow may vanish. It is therefore worthwhile to know whether the suffering of a Jeevi is natural or acquired.

What is meant by natural?

Heat is natural to fire. If there is no heat, it can not be called as fire. Sweetness is natural to sugar. If there is no sweetness, it can not be sugar. Fluidity is the nature of water. If there is no fluidity, it can not be called as water at all. That attribute, which is inborn and inseparable from an object is ‘natural’ to that particular object.

Heat in hot water is acquired. Even though water gets heated up on account of intense sun shine or fire, it (the heat) does not stay for ever. Similarly air acquires smell when the scent of a flower is present in it. It does not remain in the air forever. Those qualities which remain for a while and then disappear are ‘acquired’.

Let us repeat our question - for a Jeevi, is sorrow natural or acquired?

Let us assume that sorrow is natural to a Jeevi. What is the harm?

The smell of camphor remains even if it is a small piece of camphor. Strong smell is natural to it. If characteristic smell has to disappear, the camphor itself should disappear. Similarly, if sorrow were to be natural to a Jeevi, it will cease to exist when the Jeevi ceases to exist!

In the ancient scriptures, such as the Vedas we come across descriptions of ways and means of getting rid of sorrow and acquiring happiness. If sorrow is considered ‘natural’, we will have to say that the words of the Vedas and Shastras are completely wrong.

If we have to say that they are wrong, so be it. Let us hypothesise that sorrow will vanish only when the Jeevi ceases to exist. What is wrong in it?

Those who have said with absolute conviction that they have experienced everlasting happiness can not be brushed aside as cheats or mad people. Because they tell the same to their children, obviously they are not cheating. Because their other actions seem to be reasonable, there is no basis to call them as ignorant people. Because they are honest in their other activities, there is no reason to consider them liars. Such being the case, how can we say that they are wrong?

The Vedas are nothing but the recorded experiences of sages who were our ancestors. Therefore their authenticity can not be doubted.

Keeping in view all these aspects, is it justified to say that sorrow is natural to the Jeevi and that he perishes? Will it not amount to rejecting the experience of elders, soundness of the logic and authenticity of the Vedas?

Let us theorise like this - ‘although Jeevi is imperishable, sorrow is natural to him. But the sorrow is not permanent. Therefore it is possible to eradicate his sorrow with proper effort. What is wrong with this theory?

This is even more strange. Will you call an object which has lost all its heat as cinder? Will you call an object as candy if it is not at all sweet?

No. That is not the idea. A wizard can hold burning cinder in his hands. Not only that, he even places it in your hand. It does not hurt. Do you mean to say that it is not fire at all? A snake charmer makes the snake sniff a particular herb and takes the snake in his hand. It does not bite him. Even if it bites, it does not poison him. Do you mean to say that it is not a snake at all? Similarly, a Jeeva will get over sorrow with the help of the power of Yoga, power of Karma and power of worship. He will then be able to - as mentioned in the Vedas and Shastras - overcome sorrow and experience happiness. What is wrong with this theory?

The inconsistency is evident in the examples. Although the effect of the herb can prevent snake bite or its poisoning effect and the wizardry can prevent fire from hurting the person, as soon as their effect diminishes, the fire will display its true nature that is, burning. The snake will exhibit its natural tendency - that is, biting. Similarly, although sorrow can be temporarily overcome by the practice of Yoga or by worshipping, because it is natural to him, it will surface as soon as the effect of Yoga diminishes.

By taking medicines for a long time, many diseases can be cured. Similarly is it not possible to overcome sorrow by constant practise of Yoga?

Health is natural to man while disease is something that is acquired. By use of medicines, the acquired disease is cured and health which is natural to man is established. Similarly, if the practice of Yoga were to be like medicine, it can only cure that which is acquired, and not that which is natural. Also, something done in one life time, that too for a brief period can not bestow everlasting happiness. Therefore, if sorrow is permanent and natural, its complete eradication is not possible by practice of Yoga undertaken for a brief period.

That is exactly what we want to say. Sorrow is natural to the Jeeva. Therefore, he must overcome it by practising Yoga etc. periodically. Just as one uses the fireplace in winter to overcome cold, one should undertake practise of Yoga whenever one faces sorrow. This is our theory.

You may theorise as you please. But the Vedas and Shastras say that if once mukti (liberation) is achieved, it is for ever. There is no turning back. How can you reject the authority of the scriptures?

Why do you always depend so heavily on the scriptures?

The reason for this has been given already. Even the logical deductions arrived at in the previous lessons have established that sorrow is not natural to the Jeevi. Let us recapitulate.

You say that sorrow is natural to Jeevatma. If it were to be true, it should be experienced during Sushupti - a state in which there is no contact with the Indriyas or their objects - that the nature of Jeevatma is that of sorrow. But every Jeevi says that the state of Sushupti was indeed a happy experience. There is no exception to this.

Similarly a person who has experienced Samadhi transcends the transactions of the sense organs with the objects. When he comes back from that state, he says that he experienced absolute bliss in that state.

Is it not now clear that what is natural to the Jeevi is nothing but happiness? Also, the scriptures and logical deductions have also established that sorrow is something which is acquired. If I am of the nature of bliss, (i.e., if bliss is natural to me) why then am I experiencing sorrow?

Yes. You are experiencing sorrow. Why? Let us see.