Pearls of Wisdom – Swami Dayananda
Contents
Pearls of Wisdom: Acceptance of the Past .............................................................................................. 2
Pearls of Wisdom: Accommodating Others ............................................................................................ 3
Pearls of Wisdom: Anubhava .................................................................................................................... 5
Pearls of Wisdom: Bitterness - An Obstacle to Contemplation ............................................................ 6
Pearls of Wisdom: Daivam ......................................................................................................................... 8
Pearls of Wisdom: Do All Religions Lead to the Same Goal? ............................................................. 11
Pearls of Wisdom: Hurt and Guilt ........................................................................................................... 13
Pearls of Wisdom: Is Veda Scientific?..................................................................................................... 14
Pearls of Wisdom: Seek Help .................................................................................................................. 16
Pearls of Wisdom: Self-Judgment .......................................................................................................... 17
Pearls of Wisdom: Teaching through Silence ....................................................................................... 19
Pearls of Wisdom: The Role of Idol Worship ........................................................................................ 20
Page 1
Pearls of Wisdom: Acceptance of the Past
You cannot manage a situation unless you know exactly what is happening. The inner responses are just
allowed to happen for want of a proper insight and knowledge. We want to have the capacity to manage
every happening properly so that we do not deliver ourselves to the hands of likes and dislikes, to the
hands of anger, frustration etc. If anger happens we should be able to see it, recognise its pattern, its
roots. That is the capacity we are working for now.
Presently I am absolutely helpless in the event of a reaction. I seem to have no power over thing anger.
Please understand that it takes a lot of courage to accept helplessness. Unless I have the courage to
accept helplessness I can never grow out of it. I will not seek help even if it is available. It is like this man
who was an alcoholic. When someone would ask him, "Why do you take alcohol every day? He would
reply, "I am not al alcoholic. I can give up alcohol any day." This response is more from the alcohol than
from the person. A man who wants to give up alcohol has to first accept the fact that he has no control
over alocohol. Similarly, I must intimately know that I have no power over my anger, my sorrow,
depression, frustration.
Some people advise, "Don't get depressed". Very often religious teachers become advises. Nobody seems
to really understand what is going on. A person does not get depressed by choice, it just happens and
therefore that person has no choice not to get depressed. And so there is no point in advising someone
not to get depressed. When we advise someone not to get angry, he gets more angry because it is not
that a person wants to be angry. Anger happens. So realise this: you have no power over anger, over
sorrow, over mechanical thinking. Why? Because they are mechanical. If you had control over them, you
would not have them in the first place. If this is understood, there is something open for you.
When I am helpless in controlling my reactions, I can approach the Lord for help because everybody else
is in the same situation as I am in. I am sad and another person is also sad and two sad persons coming
together do not make a happy lot! If a drowning person gets hold of another drowning one, both get
drowned in the process. Therefore I should approach the Lord and seek help: "O Lord, I am helpless.
Please give me the maturity to accept gracefully what I cannot change, and the will and effort to change
what I can, and wisdom to know the difference."
All of your problems are because of refusal of acceptance of facts and very often we worry about things
we cannot change. We do not know what can be changed and what cannot be. If we knew that, we could
spare our efforts and divert our energy. Our efforts can gain a direction.
Page 2
Pearls of Wisdom: Accommodating Others
Vedanta is a teaching about oneself in which one discovers that the real meaning of the word 'I', the Self
who remains unchanged from childhood to youth to old age, and whose nature is pure awareness that is
absolute contentment and love, free from any sense of limitation. To appreciate yourself as such, you
require a mind that is prepared for assimilating such knowledge. For the one with an unprepared mind,
Vedanta becomes like calculus for a person still learning addition and subtraction. In Vedanta the
preparation required is a mind that has in relative measure what it seeks to discover in the absolute. If the
Self is absolute contentment, then the mind of the seeker must be relatively content. If the Self is absolute
love, then the seeker must be a relatively loving person, who happily accepts people and things as they
are.
To gain such a mind means to develop certain values and attitudes and to be clear about them in terms of
understanding their importance. Accommodating others in such a value. In fact your anger is due to lack
of accommodation. You want the entire world to behave according to your desires. It is your own
expectation of others that brings anger to you. You want the world to follow your dictates. Better
understand one thing to help you develop a value for accommodating others: the other person behaves
in a given manner because he cannot behave differently. How should you expect a behaviour other than
the one he has? That is all he is capable of. "He could have done better", you say; then he would have
done so. What right do you have to demand that the other person act differently, in the manner you want
him to? Does he not also have the right to ask you to behave in a different manner; because if you
change, then he need not change, he has the right to ask you to let him live as he is. At least he doesn't
want you to change; he wants you to let him live as he lives. What is wrong in that?
In fact only by accommodating others, allowing them to be what they are, you gain a relative freedom in
your day to day life. If you analyse it, everyone interferes in everyone's life. Everyone causes a global
disturbance by his actions. You only need a large computer to figure it all out. Ordinarily you just look at
things from a small perceptive, and you find one person looming large before you whose influence seems
to be so much. In fact you are never free from anyone's influence nor from all the forces in the universe in
so far as your physical body is concerned. Nor can you do an action without affecting someone. You
cannot even make a statement and get away without affecting another. Therefore no one is really free, we
are all inter-related.
Even the Swami is not free. Once I went to the zoo here and passed two people. One said to the other,
"Did you see the new one?" People always make comments. I try not to disturb people, but I disturb them
even by my dress. I wear these clothes because in my country they are the traditional dress of a
renunciate, and so I want to appear the same in this country also. I have made a decision, and that
decision definitely will affect someone. If I get disturbed by other's comments, I allow them to disturb me;
and then I gain only that much freedom which they grant to me. But if I reverse the process and give them
the freedom to be what they are and think what they think, as long as they don't step on my toes,then I
am free in this world. To the extent that you give freedom to others to be what they are to that extent you
are free. I just see myself as free, and I give you the freedom to have your problems. Therefore I don't
fight with you. My freedom is only the amount of freedom that I give to you to have any opinion you have
about me. When a person sees my clothes and asks, "What is all this?" I smile away. I say to him,
"Halloween has come early this year". I need not change his opinion, even though it may be wrong. I give
him the freedom to be what he is. It doesn't disturb me; that is the only freedom I have.
Page 3
Thus you should accommodate people as they are. If someone makes a comment about you, allow him to
have his comment. If the comment is not true, you usually try to justify your actions and prove his wrong.
That is silly. If you are objective, you can see if there is any validity in his criticism of you. If he has put your
down for his own security, give him the freedom to do so; and then you are free. What tightening can you
do to a bolt when the threads are not there? By changing yourself totally in this way, you gain the
relatively abiding contentment and freedom that everyone wants.
Thus you have come to terms with yourself psychologically; that is what we call yoga-sadhana. You cannot
circumvent psychology; you have to come to terms with yourself as a personality. It is not an exhaustion
of vasanas or impressions; it is just understanding certain problems that are there. Look back in your life
and see what were the situations, the people and events, that had really disturbed you. What you find are
not mere memories but leftovers of reactions. A reaction is not what you do consciously. You cannot
consciously gent angry, for anger is not an action but a reaction that takes place because you have no say
over the matter. These reactions create a great impact on you and become part of your psyche. They are
the things that create a personality out of a person. In fact they are false, born because of a lack of
alertness on your part and having no real roots in the mind. Memory alone is not unpleasant.
Unpleasantness is there only because of the leftover reactions which have become as though real. People
might have caused some disturbance in you. Or you had disturbed some people for which you carry
around a certain guilt. In the seat of meditation recall them all and let them be as they are. Thereby you
free yourself form all the reaction that you have had.
When you look at the blue sky or the stars, or the birds and mountains, you have no complaints about
them; and you are pleased and happy. You see the rocks on the riverbed; they did not do anything to
please you. Yet you are happy because youdon't want them to be different. You accept them as they are,
and therefore you are pleased. The river flows in its own way; it doesn't bother you. You don't want the
volume of water to be greater or the flow to go in a different direction. In fact you seek out natural spots
because they do not invoke the displeased person that you seem to be, the angry, hard-to-please person.
The demanding chord in you is not struck by them. You are one with the situation, an accommodating
Self, without the world doing anything to please you.
Thus you are a pleased person with reference to a few things. See how pleased you are, and bring that
person to bear on all the situation and people that had displeased you and whom you had displeased at
one time or another. Then look at yourself just as you would when you look at the birds and the
mountains. Accept others as you accept the stars. Pray for a change if you think they need to change, or
do what you can to help them change. But accept them first. Only in this way can you really change as a
total person. Otherwise you can study any amount of Vedanta, but it won't work. You will only have a
feeling that there is something underneath. You want to change others so that you can be free, but it
never works that way. Accept others totally, and you are free; then you discover love, which is yourself.
Page 4
Pearls of Wisdom: Anubhava
The word 'anubhava' is translated into English as 'experience' by a number of people writing on Vedanta.
The English word leaves a lot to be desired. The word 'anubhava' means pratyaksa or aparoksa jnana,
direct knowledge in certain contexts. The word 'experience' does not convey the same sense. Any
experience is inconclusive in terms of knowing. One may gain a certitude of knowledge from experience
but experience itself does not constitute knowledge.
Any mental condition caused by a sense perception or memory can be called experience but one need
not have knowledge of what is experienced. Emotional pain is one's experience but the knowledge of it
implies its origin also. Therefore, it needs a certain process of reasoning leading to understanding. I may
see an object outside without knowing what it is. Seeing is no doubt an experience but knowing is entirely
different.
We often come across the expression atma-anubhava in the literature of Vedanta whose meaning is direct
Self-knowledge. Atma is Consciousness and its presence is never lost in any form of experience. In seeing,
hearing, thinking, the presence of Consciousness is never missed. The svarupa of atma is this anubhuti,
the content of every experience. Consciousness, the content of experience is recognised as Brahman, the
limitless which fact the sastra reveals in sentences such as 'tat tvam asi - That you are'.
Now the compound atma-anubhava is translated as Self-experience. Does the translation convey Selfknowledge? Certainly it does not. It is also said by many that the Self is to be experienced. That means the
Self is not within the ken of one's experience and it has to be experienced by some special means. If the
Self is consciousness, can the experiencer be independent of Consciousness? The experiencer is but the
Self while the Self is not the experiencer. So too the experienced object is again Consciousness and the
experience thereof is to outside Consciousness either. This ever present Consciousness, the Self, is taken
to be only the experiencer, different from the object of experience. This duality is certainly a
superimposition upon the Self, the Consciousness. Vedanta negates this superimposition and makes one
recognise the Self being free from this duality. This recognition is atma-anubhava or atma-jnana. While
the word 'experience' fails to convey the meaning of the Self-knowledge, it misguides one to pursuit of
gaining the experience of the Self. When will this experience come?
Page 5
Pearls of Wisdom: Bitterness - An Obstacle to Contemplation
The embittered mind does not contemplate; nor can the will command it to contemplate, for
contemplation is not an affair of the will. Only in the initial intention to contemplate is will involved. Even
then no big involvement is needed but just a natural thought, a decision, "Let me sit and contemplate" just a simple volition not different in nature from the thought "Let me take a walk." Later, when
contemplation begins, the initial thought goes and there is only contemplation 0 no actor, no action, only
simple contemplation wherein I see, without any thinking process, my own nature, time-free, careful
fullness that knows no lack. Contemplation requires no will for its maintenance but only a certain
disposition. What brings about a contemplative disposition? It is found in a mind free from the anger and
bitterness born of ideals.
Bitterness comes from idealisation about how things ought to be. When there is no idealisation there is
no reason to be bitter; but, generally, one grows up with some ideals. One has ideals about how one's
physical body should be, about one's family, one's friends, or about the world in general - ideals about
God, also. From these ideals come blaming and bitterness.
When things about which one once was bitter have become irrelevant, the bitterness goes away. Inquiry
into the Vedanta scripture takes care of a lot of situations, making them irrelevant; but ideals may remain
even if there has been some Vedanta study. Even after one has heard, "I, atma, am sacidananda, ever
existent, awareful fullness; I am what is absolutely real; all else is mithya, apparent," still ideals may be
there. The language of idealisation changes. One now complains, not about I, atma, but about one's
upadhis (the apparent from the reality that I am, but I do wish I had better conditioning!" In this way one
continues to conclude, "I am not allright."
Idealisation is creating satyam (that which is real, non-negatable) out of mithya (that which is apparent,
negatable). When I say that my conditionings have problems, that they should be different, then those
conditionings are satyam for me. One gives reality to the apparent because the understanding of
apparentness is not clear. Any conditioning is simply apparent and the more one sees the apparentness of
it, the more one is free from it; but when what is apparent is taken as real, duality continues. Duality
means problems: beginnings, endings, constant change, limitation. The problems of duality are solved by
seeing the apparentness of duality, by seeing that nothing apparent is going to be exactly as I want it to
be and that the reality of the "I want" is itself only apparent. I, limitless fullness am not wanting; wants
belong to the apparent and the apparent has no absolute reality. Making an ideal out of a `want' amounts
to drawings a conclusion about how the apparent, mithya, should be. This is silly. Mithya is created, and
anything that is created is proper. What is, is proper. The categories of proper and improper are
meaningful only with reference to what is to be done or not to be done, not with reference to things as
one finds them to be.
Giving up ideals does not mean giving up the standards that govern one's choice of action. To give up
ideals is not to live a loose life. What is to be done, is to be done in a proper way, and this - taking the
action the situation calls for - should be very simple for a vedantin. Giving up ideals means accepting
whatever is seen as it is without asking that any part of it be different, accepting relative facts as they are
without ascribing to them like/dislike, good/bad value judgements. To quit idealising is to quit trying to
control results. Over results one has no control; results belong to the laws of creation. It is over action, not
over results, that one has some freedom of choice. One chooses what to do and how to do it in
accordance with certain ethical standards necessarily born out of the collective self-interest of human
Page 6
society. However, such standards are not ideals. An ethical standard serves as a guide to action - what to
do and how to do it: an ideal measures the result of action against one's model of what should be.
Standards do not produce bitterness; bitterness comes from idealism.
Sometimes it is very difficult to give up ideals, particularly for those people brought up to have a value for
idealising. There is a seeming security in ideals - something to hold onto, to strive to become. But striving
to become something that you are not undermines the teaching of sastra. Vedanta tells you that you are
everything that you want to be, that you are paripurnananda, complete fullness. If you make an ideal of
becoming paripurnananda, the more you seek your ideal, the more you are away from it.
The person who says, "I know I am paripurnananda but I do not have a saintly mind?" is giving reality to
the notion that he holds of an ideal mind. Such a notion is an obstruction to the discovery and enjoyment
of one's saintly nature. One becomes a saint when one accepts the fact "I am not a non-saint". Saintless love, sympathy, compassion - is very natural. It is not required but discovered in a non-schemeing, noncalculating mind free from an ideal, free from the need to become something different.
Similarly, contemplation is very natural, as natural as putting a fragrant flower near one's nose to enjoy
the weet scent. Because the Self is beautiful, one appreciates oneself in contemplation; one goes towards
oneself naturally. The maintenance of contemplation does not involve will. Only when the mind is caught
up in the apparent does the maintenance of contemplation become a matter of will, a matter of effort,
struggle, and tension. The apparent controls, when the mind has ideals. To discover within oneself a
contemplative mind, ideals must go.
The kind of mind that is disposed to contemplation is simple and uncomplicated. It sees things as they
are; limited in nature - ever changing effects in an apparent creation not authored by this mind - a mind
which also is part of creation. When this is clear, the apparent will give no occasion for creating ideals.
Without ideals there will be no bitterness. When there is no bitterness, the mind abides, the teaching
becomes clear, contemplation is natural. There is no will involved. Wherever the mind goes, there
contemplation is.
Page 7
Pearls of Wisdom: Daivam
"Effort, initiative, courage, intelligence, resourcefulness and perseverance - where these six qualities exist,
there the Lord will always be helpful."
To accomplish something, you need not merely effort but well-directed effort, udyaman. Then, you need
entrepreneurship, sAhasam; courage dhairyam, which is sustained enthusiasm; intelligence buddhih;
resourcefulness saktih, in the form of manpower, money power, raw materials and infrastructure; and then
prakramah, perseverance which includes ability to face failures. Though there will be other competitors in
the game, when you follow the rules of the game and win, then it is called parakramah. But even when
you have every one of these six qualities, still there will be some unknown factor which can cause a
problem. There could be a slip between the cup and the lips. Any number of things can happen. You may
get exactly what you expected, less than what you expected, more than you expected, or something quite
different.
People generally do accept this concept, but they do not completely understand it. Someone might say, "I
was driving, and for no reason at all I had a flat tyre. Then God helped me by sending someone, who
stopped and changed the tyre for me. God's grace is great." But, then, the question is, "Why did He give
you the flat tyre in the first place?" The person thinks that the flat tyre was given by some bad luck, or the
Devil. Actually everything is earned by you; it is karmaphala according to the order, and it comes from
Isvara, the Lord, who is the order itself.
Therefore, in the Vedic culture, Isvara is taken as a partner in all of our undertakings. This culture is alive
even today. We always take into account that unknown factor, called daivam. By one's own effort one has
to invoke that daivam. I would tell the Lord, "If there is any impediment, please remove it". I may have all
the six ingredients for success but still there could be something that makes the difference between
success and failure. By my prayer, I invoke daivam, to take care of the unknown element.
Prayer is a deliberate action
A cow gathers no punya for giving milk to its master, nor papa for kicking him. This is because it has no
free will as humans do. However, for a human being, the free will must accompany a deliberate action to
accumulate punya-pap. Thus, while we enjoy our free will, we find there is a lot of pressure involved. It is
like when you give some money to your brother-in-law to start a business, you are definitely reaching out.
But by this action, you also want some peace at home or you want to win that person. This is an act of
charity, under pressure. If your eyes are on punya, then you take it is an investment. Thus, very few of your
actions are totally free. In any reaching out action, there can be psychological pressure, circumstantial
pressure, value commitment, and so on.
On the other hand, a prayer is the only action you can undertake where your freedom is total and
complete. Prayer is a deliberate action on your part, and therefore, it is karma, subject to punya-papa.
Prayer is a means for invoking the seventh factor, the grace, daivam. There can always be many hidden
variables, which I cannot control at all. All I can do is pray, out of my own volition. When you invoke Isvara
through some ritual with certain awareness, something happens to you because it is a deliberate action
on your part. Lord can be invoked in any form.
Page 8
Action is the final expression of a human being. If you want to give your best wishes to your close friend
for his birthday, what could you do? After all, the wish belongs to the heart. In your heart you can just
wish. That should be enough. Why should you send a birthday card or a bouquet of flowers or a gift? The
reason is, that act makes the wish real, it gives it a form. When I congratulate you for your achievement, it
is a form. Even talking is a form. We have associated words with certain meanings through a common
understanding. The script is a form. You can go on and on. Every form is reducible to other forms. Finally,
the truth is formless, into which all names and forms resolve. And that is the Lord.
In any religion, you have to some form, either a symbol or an action, in order to pray. In the Vedic vision,
however, the whole world, which is full of forms, is Isvara, the Lord. Therefore involving the Lord in any
form is recognising Him to be everything. that I can invoke the Lord in any form is a privilege granted by
our scriptures through the understanding of Isvara. These forms, given by our ancient books as words or
actions to invoke the Lord, are a blessing for our psyche throughout our childhood and adult life. I can
place a flower at an altar or do an elaborate ritual of puja. This is a means to invoke the seventh factor.
Just saying `Help yourself' is not enough. Seek help from Isvara. You can invoke the Lord to cause a
change through your attitude or your value-structure.
Managing your desires
Many modern sadhus, religious leaders, teach: "All the problems in life are due to desires. If there are no
desires, there will be no misery. There, remove all your desires and you will be happy." And some of them
also advise, "Don't expect results of your actions." But then, why should you do any action? Not even a
fool would act - "mandopi na pravartate" - without expecting any result. No one would perform any
action without an end in view, a desire, or an expectation. The desire is always for the result, not for the
action, per se. Teaching "Perform actions but don't expect results" creates a complex in people. Even
Krsna did not perform any action without expecting a result. When he played his flute, he expected at
least some sound, some notes, if not some audience.
Lord Krsna says in Bhagavad Gita that having desires is a blessing. "One is endowed with the faith to
engage in worshipping (seeking) whatever objects he/she desires, and he/she gains those desired objects
because they are ordained by Me alone."
As a creator, Isvara has jnanasakti (power to know), icchasakti (power to will) and kriyasakti (power to act).
Unlike animals, human beings are not totally programmed. Therefore, these saktis are also reflected in the
human beings and are active at all times. Imagining, knowing or planning is jnanasakti by which I am able
to know and understand something. Similarly, icchasakti is the reason I am able to desire. In every desire,
Isvara is manifest. Thus, removal of desires is neither possible nor necessary. That I desire is not a problem.
This desire becomes a problem when you come under its spell. Therefore, Lord Krsna says, 'tayoh na
vasam agacchet tau hi asya paripanthinau", meaning, `do not come under their spell, they are inimical for
you'. If these desires become the masters, and you are under their spell, then you are no more the free
person that you were. Fulfilment of desires implies another manifestation of Isvara, namely, kriyasakti. It
manifests in terms of activity. Managing, not necessarily fulfilling, your desires is success. Therefore,
everybody can be successful. This is otherwise called antahkaranasuddhi, freedom from one's own likes
and dislikes, raga-devasa. Raga is wanting to acquire and retain, devasa is wanting to avoid and get rid of.
If they managing me, I am a failure. I cannot fulfill all of them. If I am under their spell, then in my own
estimation, I would be a failure. And there is nothing more tragic than to have a low Self-opinion.
Prayer is karma-yoga
Page 9
To convert a desire into a luxury, Lord Krsna gives a clean plan under the title of karma-yoga. Karma-yoga
is not something secular. Without bringing Isvara into the picture, there is no karma-yoga at all. So when I
pray, I invoke the grace of Isvara. The graceful acceptance of what I get is possible when I have that
Isvara-awareness in day-to-day life. It is not a philosophy, it allows you to address your failures and enjoy
successess; it is your bread-and-butter. It makes you a real person, one who has the vision, the wisdom of
things that are to be known. You know exactly what is to be done.
To act or not to act in my prerogative. I have a choice over my action, `karmanyeva adhikaraste'. But once
you act, the result of your action is not in your hand. Who creates this result, karmaphala? The order that
is universal law. You are the cause for action, karmahetu, the law is the giver of the result, karmaphalhetu.
This is not a man-made law; this is the law, that is Isvara. Every result of my action that comes to me is
from Isvara. This is a cognitive change. There is nothing material here. Nor is there anything to practise. If
there is anything to practise at all, it is to bring yourself to accept all results equally, coming as they do,
from Isvara. That is why after puja, whatever comes from the altar is called prasada. Prasada can be even
ashes, vibhuti, kunkuma, a leaf or it can be your own child. Your own body, your senses, your mind are all
prasada to you. The whole jagat is prasada. Is there anything here that does not come from the Lord? In
that attitude there is `namah', there is non-resistence, graceful acceptance. This is called `samatvam'; this
is karma-yoga. Thus in everything I do, I recognise Isvara. I invoke His help, the seventh factor, by praying,
"O Lord, help me manage my likes and dislikes. Give me the wisdom to recognise and the strength to do
what is appropriate." And with the help of Isvara I can manage the situation. Only then, can I achieve the
ultimate success, born out of Self-knowledge. Between Isvara and you, there is an identity, like that
between the ocean and the wave. The reality of both the ocean and the wave is water. The truth of Isvara
and you is sat-cit-ananda atma. You can discover this through the study of Vedanta.
Page 10
Pearls of Wisdom: Do All Religions Lead to the Same Goal?
"All religions lead to the same goal", is a concept widely subscribed mostly by educated Hindus. I feel that
this well-meaning concept needs to be enquired into and understood.
If all religions have a well-defined common goal, the difference would be purely cultural. Difference of
culture is totally acceptable, to any thinking person. If the goal of various religions is the same, there will
be no religious issue necessitating any discussion. But then what is the truth of the statement "All
religions lead to the same goal"?
If ethical values constitute the goal of religion, certainly there is a singular goal adopted by all religions,
the ethical values being universal. But, should any person be religious to be ethical? Is there a necessity to
be educated by religious scriptures to know what is ethical and what is not? Is it not true that any normal
human being is well informed about the universal values? An aborigine in the outback of Australia as even
a pandita from Benares has the same value in not getting hurt at the hands of another. That others also
do not want to get hurt from him or her is also very well known to the person. Other values like nonstealing, compassion, sharing and so on are equally known facts. In fact, they form the moral infrastructure for human interaction with one another and also with the other living organisms in the world.
This value-knowledge is born of human common-sense. When there is this faculty of choice for a human
being, there should be a matrix of norms known to him for making the right choices. If the human being
is totally programmed, there will be no such thing as right or wrong in human behaviour. Without
religious masters and religious scriptures preaching about right and wrong, one is very well informed
about them. Therefore, ethical values cannot constitute the goal of any religion, for one can be ethical
without being anyway religious. On the other hand, some religions take away the universality of these
common-sense-born value by giving sanction to killing of those who do not conform to their beliefs and
who articulate their non-conformity. That the common-sense-born ethics are better off, without any
interference of religion, is really a cause for sadness. In fact, religion should confirm the universal values as
most of them do. The Vedic religion adds strength to the value-structure by introducing the adrsta phala
of punya and papa for actions that are right and wrong. Many other popular religions also introduce this
element of reward and punishment. Suppose the goal for all religions is just reward or punishment, we
may be able to say that all religions have the same goal in spite of differences in these rewards and
punishments.
Theology differs from religion to religion. The concept of reality of God, world and you is again thought of
differently. More often, God is looked upon as a judgemental person located in a place yonder. Reaching
that place and living with him is the goal. Neither the Vedic religion nor Buddhism will accept this as a
goal. Much less will a devout Christian accept a goal other than reaching the heaven promised by his
scripture. Then, what does the statement that "all religions lead to the same goal" mean?
For a vaidika who accepts with total understanding that this world including one's body-mind-sense
complex is the Lord's manifestation, any form of prayer and worship is valid. Every name and form is valid
enough to invoke the Lord, the Lord being every name and form. But prayer either mental, oral or
ritualistic is a karma, capable of producing a result. The given result is not the goal of religions much less
the goal of any individual even if one thinks so. The goal of an informed vaidika is freedom from a sense
of limitation centred on I. Can there be an ultimate goal for a human being other than this? This freedom,
moksa, from this sense of limitation is the human goal.
Page 11
The Veda says that the sense of limitation is due to one not knowing oneself. Then it is obvious that the
human goal is Self-knowledge. The various theologies of various world religions and that of some cuts in
Vedic religion as well do not have anything to do with this goal. They are committed to their own beliefs
even though they are non-verifiable and more often than not, unreasonable. They have a right to have
their beliefs which do not have any space for accommodating other religious goals. But these beliefs are
not acceptable to any thinking person. They are not acceptable to a person who understands moksa
either. So all that a vaidika can say is "all forms of prayer are valid". Being an act, a karma, each prayer can
produce a limited result. One wants a limited result too in life. But it can never be the goal of religion
much less of a human being.
Page 12
Pearls of Wisdom: Hurt and Guilt
All psychological, emotional problems are centred on `I', the Self. When you say, "I am frustrated", is that
frustration possible without `I' being involved? Will there be frustration if `I' is removed from frustration? I
am frustrated, the mind is not frustrated. In fact, it should get frustrated because of you! It is wrong to say,
"My mind is giving me trouble". Mind does not give you trouble, you are the trouble. `I' is involved in
frustration, `I' is involved in despair, it is not the mind that is sad, I am sad. In fact, all your problems are
centered on `I'. By educating yourself `I' becomes more enlightened, mature. The problems are under
control to a certain extent for a mature person, but not totally.
All your problems viz., frustration, despair, sadness etc., can be reduced to two: "I am hurt" and "I am
guilty". When we think about it, we find there is no third problem.
I am guilty. Of what? Of what I did or did not do. "I should not have done that. Why did I do it? "I should
have done that. Why did I not do it?" Certain incidents are so well rooted in our memory that they keep
coming back. More you to try to avoid them, more they come back. You cannot avoid thought, for, you
cannot avoid memory. A thought will be forgotten if you forgot to remember, but that does not happen.
The more you to try to avoid a thought, the more it comes back. It is silly to try to avoid anything in the
memory. Memory is memory. The more you try to avoid, the more reality you are giving to it. You are
giving a new lease of life to the dead past. What is past, is past anyway. All that remains, is just a memory.
But the problem is that `I' is involved. `I' is involved in every guilt.
`I' is involved in every hurt; Why did he do this to me? How can he do it to me? Why me, of all the people?
Remember that it is you who allows the world to hurt you. And `world' included your family, relatives,
friends, even gods. All of them can hurt you only to the extent you permit yourself to be hurt. I can hurt
you only to the extent you allow me to hurt you. It is like hypnotising; you can get hypnotised by me only
if you allow yourself to be hypnotised.
Vedanta goes a step further. It says: No one can hurt you. Nayam hanti na hanyate. Atma, I neither hurts
nor gets hurt. If you listen to the teaching, you will discover the Self to be akarta, actionless. Atma is free
from action. It never performs any action to have a guilt complex. Whatever there is, is just in your
memory, just impressions. God has given us memory not for self-judgement. It is just given to remember
the necessary things in life, so that you will not fail to recognise your wife and child when you return
home or that you would not be asking for another lunch the same day!
Memory is not you. You have picked up impressions in life, some of them pleasant, some of them
unpleasant. It is only maturity to recognise the fact that all events cannot be pleasant. Life is a mixture of
the pleasant and the unpleasant. A mature person is one who accepts in one's stride, both the pleasant
and the unpleasant in the journey of life. Memories are just memories, whereas the `I' in you is simple
awareness.
Page 13
Pearls of Wisdom: Is Veda Scientific?
We often hear that Veda is scientific. Is this true?
The Veda as a whole is looked upon as a means of knowledge in the Vedic tradition of learning. Being an
independent means of knowledge, the subject matter of Veda has got to be one which is beyond the
scope of other means of knowledge and it has to be meaningful as well. It talks about a heaven, punya,
papa, duties, rituals with their results to be experienced here or in the hereafter. This subject matter is
certainly beyond the scope of the means of knowledge like perception, inference and so on which a
human being commands. It does not expect any corroboration from other sources of knowledge, much
less the subject matter revealed by the Veda is subject to contention on the basis of other means of
knowledge. Any contention is only with reference to a subject matter within the domain of perception,
inference etc.
Science is a body of knowledge gained by one's perception and inference. Any scientific theory is
therefore subject to contention. An error is committed when one makes a statement that the `Veda' is
scientific. Neither a scientist can accept the declaration nor one who knows the tradition can stand it.
Proper it would be to say that the Veda is not illogical inasmuch as its area is independent of perception
and inference.
When the last portion of the Veda, that is, Vedanta talks about the truth of oneself, does it reveal totally
an unknown Self? If it does, the Self would be like heaven, which exists without any possibility of
immediate knowledge in this life. If it talks about a Self which is self-evident, then the Self cannot be the
subject matter of the Veda, it being already evident. Vedanta, therefore, cannot be a part of the Veda
since it reverses its status of being an independent means of knowledge. It will have no subject-matter to
be looked upon as one solely revealed by the Veda.
A human being employs various means of knowledge including the Veda to know. Every piece of
knowledge becomes evident to the person through a relevant means of knowing. This person does not
come to be evident through any means of knowing. Employing a means of knowledge presupposes the
presence of the person who employs. Naturally the person is self-evident. So, existence of oneself does
not depend upon any evidence born of any employed means of knowing. Self-evident existence of
oneself is revealed when one says: "I am". So the Veda does not need to reveal the existence of the Self. If
this Self is Brahman, the cause of the entire world, which is non-dually one, then there is no way of
knowing that Reality by the individual, whose existence is no doubt self-evident but is taken to be the
knower other than the known and who is subject all forms of limitation. Vedanta, in this area, is a means
of knowledge to free oneself from the error. So it has a subject matter to be included in the Veda.
Here, in Vedanta, the subject-matter being myself, the knowledge unfolded by its sentences has got to be
immediate. If any intellect raises any objection to the way in which the advaita-sampradaya presents the
meaning of the sentences like "tat tvam asi"--that you are, we employ reason along with the texts of the
sruti and smrti to see the fallacy in the arguments raised by the one who objects or differs. If the non-dual
vision is contented on the grounds of a given form of reasoning and experience, again the fallacy is
shown in the arguments advanced. Thus reason and experience are meaningfully employed by the
teaching tradition.
Page 14
When the doubts and errors are cleared, the vision of Vedanta that "I am Brahman", the whole stays
without any blemish, proving that Vedanta is a means of knowledge, independent of perception and
inference. So the subject-matter of the whole Veda is not within the domain of science. Of course there
are a lot of statements about things empirically true. They can be scrutinised by the scientists to find out
how far they are true.
Page 15
Pearls of Wisdom: Seek Help
You cannot manage a situation unless you know exactly what is happening. The inner responses are just
allowed to happen for want of a proper insight and knowledge. We want to have the capacity to manage
every happening properly so that we do not deliver ourselves to the hands of likes and dislikes, to the
hands of anger, frustration etc. If anger happens we should be able to see it, recognise its pattern, its
roots. That is the capacity we are working for now.
Presently I am absolutely helpless in the event of a reaction. I seem to have no power over thing anger.
Please understand that it takes a lot of courage to accept helplessness. Unless I have the courage to
accept helplessness I can never grow out of it. I will not seek help even if it is available. It is like this man
who was an alcoholic. When someone would ask him, "Why do you take alcohol every day? He would
reply, "I am not al alcoholic. I can give up alcohol any day." This response is more from the alcohol than
from the person. A man who wants to give up alcohol has to first accept the fact that he has no control
over alocohol. Similarly, I must intimately know that I have no power over my anger, my sorrow,
depression, frustration.
Some people advise, "Don't get depressed". Very often religious teachers become advisers. Nobody
seems to really understand what is going on. A person does not get depressed by choice, it just happens
and therefore that person has no choice not to get depressed. And so there is no point in advising
someone not to get depressed. When we advise someone not to get angry, he gets more angry because
it is not that a person wants to be angry. Anger happens. So realise this: you have no power over anger,
over sorrow, over mechanical thinking. Why? Because they are mechanical. If you had control over them,
you would not have them in the first place. If this is understood, there is something open for you.
When I am helpless in controlling my reactions, I can approach the Lord for help because everybody else
is in the same situation as I am in. I am sad and another person is also sad and two sad persons coming
together do not make a happy lot! If a drowning person gets hold of another drowning one, both get
drowned in the process. Therefore I should approach the Lord and seek help: "O Lord, I am helpless.
Please give me the maturity to accept gracefully what I cannot change, and the will and effort to change
what I can, and wisdom to know the difference."
All of your problems are because of refusal of acceptance of facts and very often we worry about things
we cannot change. We do not know what can be changed and what cannot be. If we knew that, we could
spare our efforts and divert our energy. Our efforts can gain a direction.
Page 16
Pearls of Wisdom: Self-Judgment
Suppose I say, I am a failure, it is a judgement. A lot of people have this problem. Everybody has a
judgement somewhere in a corner. I am a failure, I am worthless, I am useless, I am ugly. Even Miss
Universe has this problem. You may wonder, how? She is declared by a panel of judges, to be the most
beautiful woman. She is crowned also. All the newspapers and T.V. write and talk about Miss Universe. It
means the whole world has accepted her as the most beautiful woman. One cannot be more beautiful
than that. Humanity has accepted her. Only gods have to declare whether she is beautiful or not. And she
has to decide whether she is beautiful or not. We need not bother about gods. In the eyes of gods,
everything must be beautiful. Therefore only she has to accept herself that she is beautiful. Hereafter this
woman need not prove herself to anybody. So from the next day she can come out in a simple dress. She
need not have any make-up. But I tell you, now she has more responsibility. Being a Miss Universe, she
spends more time with her cosmetics that she did before. Because after all she is Miss Universe. How can
she come out like that? She is not convinced that she is the most beautiful!
Everybody has a self-judgement. That is called ahankara. It is always small. Until you gain Self-knowledge,
there is self-judgement. So what is a judgement? A judgement is based on some data and that means it is
not knowledge, really. That is why it is called a judgement. All the judges when they judge, purely go by
evidence. They have to be as objective as possible, keeping their subjective feeling etc., aside.
That is called a judgement. Knowledge is different. A judgement may be other than what the fact is. If the
judgement and fact happen to be identical, it is your luck. But knowledge has to take place. Till then it is a
judgement. Therefore if you make a judgement about yourself, instead of realising you are ananda, you
are amrta, which is the fact about the Self, you are always going to judge yourself smaller than what you
really are. If I am less than infinite, what am I? Finite. And what is the distance between infinite and finite?
Infinite. That is the problem. In the absence of knowledge of what you confront or deal with, you have to
judge. You cannot avoid judgement. That is the reason why we are always seeking, because there is a
judgement which we cannot live happily with. So we seek. That is the original beggarly problem of the
human being. We want to prove ourselves better than what we think we are all the time.
The judgement is invariably based firstly upon our body and mind and then upon the body-related and
society-related things. Therefore in a society where cows are wealth, you must have, a few cows. Then you
are rich. In a society, where power means something, you must have power. Then you are big.
When you say "I am a failure", on what basis you are saying that? "Oh, I started a business and I lost even
the capital and a friend too." So, that particular undertaking was a failure.
Then you took up a job. There also you could not do well. That was again a problem. When it happens
twice, thrice, your wife and others also start saying that you are a failure and that they knew you would fail
even before you started. So people around are not very helpful. They confirm your own opinion.
Now on this basis you say, "I am a failure." This is exactly what is called lumping - putting a lot of things
together. We are lumpers really speaking! To say "I am a failure", you should be of a failure all the way,
that is, if you wish to lift your leg or hand, you should fail to do it. Then you are a failure. If you eat, you
should fail to digest the food. Then you are a failure. But you do carry out hundreds of tasks everyday
where you are successful. Only one or two are the tasks you failed in. Even that business which you call
Page 17
failure, is also not a total failure, really speaking. May be you did it for two years during which period, you
took money out of it, you lived out of it. Then why not call it an experience, which in fact it is?
There is no failure in life. There are only varieties of experiences. We learn from experiences, not from
failure. We become sad by failure, wiser by experience. Memory is meant to serve us, to enable us to
remember, not to become a basis to make judgement. If you do not remember what happened, how are
you going to judge? "I am a failure" is purely based on memory. Memory is meant not to make
judgements about you. Memory is just to help you remember that you already had your lunch; otherwise
you will be eating another lunch! It is purely for that purpose. Memory is also a karana, a means. But we
make a karta, an agent out of it. There, too, you take a part of it, just blow it out of proportion and then
place yourself under that judgement completely and conclude, "I am a failure".
Nobody is a failure. This self-judgement is purely due to non-recognition of the fact that life is a variety of
experiences. You learn from them. Nobody every fails.
Page 18
Pearls of Wisdom: Teaching through Silence
We hear that Lord Daksinamurti revealed through silence, the truth of oneself being Brahman, the
limitless, to the four disciples, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatkumara and Sanatsujata. This story is often cited
to prove that silence is the means of communicating the ultimate truth, not words. This notion has turned
many a person away from the sastra. It is important, therefore, to understand the truth of this concept.
What does silence convey? If it is a response to a question, silence can be construed differently by the
people waiting for a verbal answer. Ignorance, difficulty, reluctance to answer, inexplicability, definition
(laksana) of the subject in question or even hostility can be the construed meaning of silence. In other
words, the person who wants to know, who is ignorant of the subject, is placed to interpret the silence!
Suppose the question is "What is God?" or "Who am I?", the person asking the question has no
knowledge of the subject to interpret the response that is silence. Don't we see here not only an absence
of communication but also an opening for error?
If the knowledge of the Self is beyond the pale of perception and inference, it has got to be gained by a
means of knowledge entirely different from the ones that a human being is endowed with. In other words,
it has got to be from a source which is eternally knowing. Like even the uncaused cause of the world, the
source of knowledge should not have a source. If the Lord, Isvara is looked upon as the uncauses cause of
the world, then the source-free source of knowledge is the same Isvara who is looked upon as the teacher
of all teachers. That source is presented in the form of Daksinamurti.
Various rituals, devatas etc., have got to be revealed, inasmuch as they are not available for the means of
knowledge a human being has.
Similarly, this knowledge also is revealed. The rsis who received the knowledge of rituals etc. were not
taught by any person external to them. And that is why, they are called sears, mantradrastarah. In other
words, that body of knowledge is revealed to the rsis and they, in turn, reveal the knowledge through
words. So too, the Lord revealed himself to the sanakadi-rsis as non-separate from them and they, inturn,
taught the same through words. In fact, in the Chandogya Upanisad we see a dialogue between
Sanatkumara, one of the four rsis, who received the knowledge from the Lord and narada. We also see the
teaching of Sanatsujata through words presented in Mahabharata. So the teaching tradition has always
been through words. And the tradition knows the limitation of words.
Since the tradition knows the limitation of words, it has employed with great care paradoxes to reveal the
truth. The sampradaya has always looked upon the words revealing the truth as laksana which reveals by
implication. In fact, the Upanisad does not leave us in any ambiguity about his twofold fact that words
have to be employed to reveal the truth, that is not the immediate meaning of the words. That it is not
the immediate meaning of the words is also the reason why we say that it is beyond words. In fact, where
the immediate meaning of the word ends, the implied meaning begins. So the implied meaning is
conveyed in silence. That does not mean the word has no role to play. Even to imply, the word is a must.
Neither silence is the svarupa of the Lord nor is any given sound. But both silence and sound are
nonseparate from God, he being both the efficient and the material cause.
Page 19
Pearls of Wisdom: The Role of Idol Worship
What is an idol? We say that the whole creation is bhagavan, the Lord. Every form is the Lord's form;
therefore in any one form I can invoke the Lord. Traditionally some forms have been handed over to us
and the bhagavad-buddhi (seeing it as the Lord) is associated with those forms in our mind.
Today, they spend a lot of money for creating such an identity. 7 O' clock means a blade, Lux means a
toilet soap. Who creates that buddhi? The commercials in the media.
For generations the Lord is worshipped in certain forms and those forms have been handed over to you.
The tradition did not begin just yesterday. It is coming down to us for generations - a great benefit? When
I see Ganesa, I recognise the form as the Lord, not as a strange creature with an odd head and a big belly.
I recognise the form as the Lord and this is what we call `tradition'. This is a treasure, we should
understand. Just to create that buddhi of `Lux' as a toilet soap you have to do so much publicity and keep
doing it; otherwise people will forget and soap would mean to them Rexona or Hamam!
Idol worship is handed over to us generation after generation. Even atheists in this country have to first
accept Ganesa as God and then negate that there is no God..... We have inherited this particular legacy
and therefore the idol invokes in us the devotee and that is a great heritage.
Nobody worships an idol; everybody worships the Lord. There are sculptors in Rajasthan, who make
marble idols. An idol of Lord Siva was supplied by a Rajasthani sculptor to a temple in Bombay. Certain
parts of the idol, the eyelashes, the lips, the naga (snake) etc., were colour-painted by the sculptor. In
course of some five or six years, that painting got erased. The manager of the temple wrote to the
Sculptor asking him to come to Bombay and repaint the idol. Do you know what was the reply of the
Sculptor? He wrote, "Do you realise what you are asking me to do? Who am I to paint the Lord? If you
want a new idol, I will make one and send to you, but I won't paint my bhagavan." Why? Because the
sculptor creates a statue, an idol and not the Lord. Do you know what he does at the time of installation
of the idol? He also attends the function. Until the installation ceremony, the idol is a stone only, it is not
the Lord. During installation, they do pranapratistha, imparting life to the idol, by mantra, by samskara just as, by samskara, a person is made a dvija, twice-born; by the diksa of gayatri-mantra, you make him a
different person.
Similarly here, even though it is a stone idol, it is given `life' by samskara and the last act of the sculptor is
to open the eyes. He brings a fine chisel and a hammer with him and when the samskaras are done, he
opens the eyes of the idol. Till then the eyes are covered. The sculptor removes bits of stone covering the
eyes and then he is the first person to fall at the feet of the idol which is no more an idol for him. Till then
it was only a stone but now it is the Lord and he worships the Lord.
You do not need even a stone for worship. Stone also is Lord for us. But we do not require even a stone;
we require only haldi (turmeric) powder. We make a lump out of haldi and then say, "asmin bimbe
mahaganapatim avahayami" - I invoke the great Lord Ganesa in this lump. All you have is water in a
bucket and you say, "gange ca yamune caiva godavari sarasvati narmade sindhu kaveri jale'smin
sannidhim kuru"- "O Ganga, Yamuna, Godavari, Saraswati, Narmada, Sindhu and Kaveri, may you all be
present in this (bucket of) water."
Page 20
In this manner, everybody people bathe in the Ganga, Yamuna, etc. - they need not go to the Ganga,
Yamuna etc., local water is enough. All that is there is the attitude. It is everywhere and every day it is the
same. What is there is the picture of the your father? It is just a black and white photograph, but you place
a flower there. Why? As a mark of respect to the father and to the piece of paper. And without such forms
of expressions of respect, of friendship, of love, life will be nothing. So even the people who criticise idolworship do worship some books and places.
People worship the Lord. Why do they worship the Lord - you ask me. Don't ask me why do people
worship idols. You never worship an idol, you always worship the Lord.
Well, for Self-realisation, why do you worship the Lord? To know that Lord is everywhere. Until you know
that, you have to keep your ego under check. In fact the Lord is everything and so your ego is swallowed
by the Lord. But you think you are different from the Lord and so you place a flower at the feet of the
Lord and your ego is kept under check.
Worship brings about antahkaranasuddhi, purity of the mind, which is needed to understand that the Lord
is everywhere. "I am everything." is Self-realisation. "Lord is everywhere" or "I am everything", both are
one and the same.
Self-realisation is not elimination of thoughts. Self-realisation is knowing the fact that I am the Self which
is everything or that the Lord is everything and that Lord I am. This is the knowledge for which I require a
pure mind. For that, I seek the Lord's grace by worship which is an action, an act of devotion.
Page 21