BORN on August 15, 1930 in Manjakkudi, Tamil Nadu, little Natarajan was a fearless boy who caught poisonous snakes with his bare hands. He had the guts to take on the burly class bully and cut him down to size. After his studies he became a journalist and contributed to important national papers, but all of a sudden he joined the Indian Air Force. A chance meeting with Swami Chinmayananda in 1952 changed his life, and he became Swami. Chinmayananda's disciple. Ten years later Natarajan renounced the world and came to be known as Swami Dayananda. He has established centres for vedic studies in Rishikesh, Coimbatore, and Pennsylvania, Ontario, Rio de Janeiro, and New South Wales. Swami Dayananda spoke to Kuldip Dhiman and summed up his message thus: "The problem is you, and the solution is also you."
Most of us know that there is something called Vedanta, which has the answers to our problems. However, not many really know what it is.
Vedanta means that which is at the end of the Vedas. At the end of each Veda, there is a section called the Vedanta. This section deals with reality. Upanishads are the subject matter of the Vedas. Upa indicates Sameepa or upasameepa — the nearest. The nearest to you is you alone. In fact the nearest to you is the one you want to know and want to be; it is not different from you — it is your self. The reason for all our suffering is ignorance about ourselves. So the knowledge of the self that frees you from all vagueness, doubt, and misery is called Upani or Brahma vidya. It is this self-knowledge that makes ignorance disappear, finally leading us to moksha or liberation.
Adwaita and Dwaita are the two main schools of Vedantic philosophy. Since you are a proponent of Adwaita Vedanta, could you explain to us the difference between the two?
You might add another one to the list — it is called Visishta Adwaita — qualified Dualism. Dwaita or Dualism says that I am different from you, the world is different from you, and we are limited in power, knowledge, everything. So there must be one Lord who must be limitless. Because I am different from Him, how can there be an equation between the Lord and myself? Now, to understand Dwaitam you don't have to study Vedanta. Dwaitam is a matter of belief. But God cannot be a matter of belief. He has to be understood. If you say 'I believe in God' I might ask "On what basis do you believe in Him?' There is no basis for belief at all, for if your belief has a basis, then it no longer remains a belief: It becomes understanding! Belief is not based on knowledge, and so it can always be shaken. Knowledge, on the other hand, cannot be shaken. Even if a million people say that fire is cold, you will not accept it, because the fact that fire is hot is knowledge, not belief. The second school, Vishista Adwaita, says you are not the Lord, but a part of Him. For example, a wave is a part of the ocean but it is not the ocean. This situation, in my opinion, is worse that the first one. Earlier, at least I had an identity, no matter how insignificant, but now I have become an insignificant part of the ocean; I have become a mere attribute, a nonentity.
Therefore, the Adwaita Vedanta that is Non-Dualism says eka vigyanena sarva vigyatam bhavati — through the knowledge of one thing everything is understood. To say energy is energy, matter is matter, gold is gold, silver is silver — you don't have to know physics. But to say that all matter and energy is one, you require a lot of physics. Let's go back to the wave-ocean analogy. Dwaita philosopher says a wave is a wave and an ocean is an ocean, and because they are different there can be no equation between them. Vishista Adwaita says, the wave is not different from the ocean, but a part of it, and without the ocean the wave cannot exist.
All right, suppose I touch a wave, am I not automatically touching the ocean? I can say I am touching the wave, or I can also say I am touching the ocean. But if I want to touch the ocean what do you think I would do?Wouldn't I touch the nearest wave and say I am touching the ocean?Why? Because the wave and the ocean are basically the same thing. Hence, there is something else that is the wave as well as the ocean — it is water. This is Adwaita — the wave and the ocean, that is you and the Lord are one. In other words — You are Brahma.
It is generally believed action without expectation of results is the core of Vedanta and the Bhagavadgita. Do you support this view?
No. Thanks to inexperienced commentators and translators, this is a misinterpretation of the message. Whenever we perform an action, it is but natural for us to expect a desired result. Only a mad man will perform an action without expecting a desired result. So we must definitely have an end in mind when we perform any action; it is a different matter that the end might not turn out to be what we originally wanted. For example you want to catch a bus. The action to be done is to cross the road and catch a bus. But there can be various results of your action. You might cross the road and catch a bus: the result matches your expectation, and you are happy. The second possibility is that you cross the road and a friend might give you a lift in his air-conditioned car: here the result is far above your expectation: you are extremely happy. There is another possibility however.
While crossing the road you might get knocked down by a vehicle and land in a hospital with broken limbs: here the result is totally different from what you expected, and you are miserable. Hence, unlike animals, although you have the choice to act according to your conscience, the result might not be necessarily the one you originally desired. The relationship between an action and its results is governed by the laws of nature. We can attempt to understand these laws but we can never change them.
Is wrong action better than no action?
Not at all. You have to first understand the difference between karma, that is action; vikarma, that is wrong action; and akarma, that is inaction. Just because you don't act, it doesn't mean you are inactive. There is an expression — naishkarmya — that is I am free from action, but this is different from being idle. You might think that by not doing anything you might become free of action. Not doing anything is also action, as long as you have this feeling that you are doing something, or not doing something for that matter. You must understand that you are not the doer. Only atma is inactive; it doesn't perform action. Inaction is never suggested in the Bhagavadgita. Sri Krishna says let there not be any kind of attachment with the results that are the outcome of action or even inaction, that's all — this is the real meaning of being free from action. It does not mean you do any mindless act and claim that you did it and are now ready to accept the result without attachment.
The difference between you and an animal is that you have a conscientious mind that can decide whether an action is good or bad. If you stand behind a donkey, it might feel like kicking you. The donkey will kick you without having any compunction whether the act of kicking you is good or bad. It is up to you whether you wish to be a donkey or a human being.
Now, you know the difference between inaction and being free from action. Inaction is not anyway better than action, but wrong action is definitely worse than inaction; wrong action amounts to sin. Inaction will not amount to sin, but it might create conditions conducive to doing wrong action. Inaction is, therefore, dangerous, but wrong action is the danger produced by inaction.
Why is humanity in such a miserable state?
That is because all the time every human being feels that he is inadequate, deficient, or incomplete, and all his life his main pursuit is to become adequate, or complete. He tries to achieve this goal through artha — security and kama — worldly pleasures. However, any gain that comes as a result of effort is not absolute. Every gain of security through effort involves a concomitant loss. The gain obtained is always negated by the time and effort expended, by the responsibility assumed, by some other thing sacrificed. For instance, when I buy a large house, the pleasure and security I gain are negated by the money spent, the debt incurred, the cleaning staff required, the fear of income tax authorities; all of which take away something from the feeling of adequacy and comfort that I sought before buying the house.
Remember, an inadequate person remains an inadequate person even after gaining a desired object. Even if you become a sanyasi it does not help, because earlier you were a miserable king, now you are a miserable beggar. So, one does not become complete by either gaining something, or even by giving up something. Therefore, a brahmanah or enlightened person is the one who recognises that what he really wants is a drastic change in himself; not a situational change. This realisation brings a certain nirveda — dispassion towards security towards his former pursuits and then he becomes ready to seek moksha or liberation directly.
Remember, an inadequate person remains an inadequate person even after gaining a desired object. Even if you become a sanyasi it does not help, because earlier you were a miserable king, now you are a miserable beggar. So, one does not become complete by either gaining something, or even by giving up something. Therefore, a brahmanah or enlightened person is the one who recognises that what he really wants is a drastic change in himself; not a situational change. This realisation brings a certain nirveda — dispassion towards security towards his former pursuits and then he becomes ready to seek moksha or liberation directly.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99may30/sunday/view.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment