Jivanmukti is Jnana plus Sannyasa

Jivanmukti is Jnana plus Sannyasa

Author - Mr.Shyam

Extracted from www.Advaita-Vedanta.org

What is Jivanmukti? It is verily the pinnacle of human perfection, where a human attains to the status of the Supreme by a complete annihilation of his ignorance of his intrinsic non-individuality. It represents a release from the the pairs of opposites of sorrow and joy and represents an abidance in that Bliss that is one’s very intrinsic nature- the swarupananda.

Yah vai bhuma tat sukham – that which indeed is the iInfinite Incalculable Unexcelled Innumerable – these are its synonyms; that is sukham, Bliss. On a particle, a minute fraction, of that Bliss alone does every creature live – Br Up 4.3.32

It is the attainment of the fullness of one’s own Self – so’snute sarvan kaaman saha (– Taittr Up 2.1.1) all his desires are fulfilled and he attains to a state of complete desirelessness -ihaiva sarve praviliyanti kaamah – (Mundaka 3.2.1)

It is the State of Absolute Peace (paramam shantim – BG 18.62) that is unconditioned and intrinsic, of one’s very nature (Taittr Up 1.6.2).

Such a person has transcended the clutches of Time and mortality and revels in His intrinsic Eternity. The highest joys in the Universe are akin to droplet of water in the Ocean of Bliss that is a jivanmuktas intrinsic nature says Shankara in the Br.Up. In recent times we can look to the Shankaracharyas of Sringeri (His Holiness Bharata Tirtha) or Kanchi (His Holiness Chandrasekhara Mahaswami) or Bhagwan Ramana, among many others, as examples of such Oceans of Supreme Peace (only to help us gain a frame of reference of what or who is a jivamukta). In the words of Madhusudana Saraswati - among thousands of people, a seeker who sincerely adopts the janana marga is extremely rare; even among such men it is very rare to find one who has reaped the fruit of his jnananishta.

Now can there be gradations in such mukti? The answer according to Shankara as contained in the BSB is a emphatic “no.” And the reason he offers is that Brahman being homogeneous, mukti which is the very nature of Brahman, also has to be ekarasah homogenous as well…

“Because the Upanishads have definitely ascertained that state to be the same. For in all Upanishads, the state of liberation is determined to be uniform in nature, the state of liberation being nothing but Brahman itself. Brahman cannot be ofmany sorts, since Its characteristic indication is declared to be uniform by such texts….”
On the other hand ….“knowledge (of Unity) can take place over a short time or can take longer…”

One thus understands this mukti or the status of a jivanmukta to be without any differentiations or gradations of any sort – “it” – in and of itself, representing the Absolute.So one can understand the status of a jivanmukta as being uniform with no kind of gradations of any sort possible.

Jnana – or the liberating knowledge is the proximate cause of Moksha. Being a praptasya prapti – the gain of the already gained – it represents a removal of ignorance or aviyda – so that I realize that my intrinsic nature is of Purnatvam – in other words - I am Brahman – aham brahmasmi.

Now this knowledge is obtained by a repeated process of shravanam, mananam and nidhidhyasanam. A person who thus has a doubt-free knowledge of Truth can be said to be a knower.

In the Brhad Up we have such a knower as one of the principal teachers in the form of Yajnavalkya. It is important to note that Yajnavalkya was not a jivanmukta. He was knowledgable about tat tvam asi but was not yet established in Brahman. To gain knowledge OR ATMAJNANA he did not need to renounce anything – he could remain ensconced in his householder status – have not one but two wives – debate and score points over his opponents and actually teach people about Brahmavidya.

But when it came to attaining jivanmukti - Yajnavalkya had to renounce – tyage na eka amrtatvam – and leave his family and renounce his possessions and retire to the forest to live the life of a mendicant so that he may obtain nishta in the knowledge. In his Br Up vartika Sureshwaracharya comments thus: ..Yajnavalkya a householder who possessed knowledge of that wich surpassed all excellence (i.e. atmajnana) obtained the highest place of Vishnu after attaining the state of renunciation…Indeed renunciation (tyaga eva hi) is for all the best means to liberation (mokshasahdana) for it is ONLY by ONE WHO HAS RENOUNCED that the highest state (paramam padam) of the individual consciousness can be attained.

So the question remains as to whether after the dawn of doubtless knowledge, is there anything more that needs to be done? The answer is no.

There is nothing that needs to be DONE once knowledge has been gained, but there may be something that needs to be UNDONE

– particularly in the case of the unprepared mind or a unprepared student. Interestingly centuries ago, Swami Vidyaranya talks of “modern” (!) students being unprepared and hence needing sadhana after the acquisition of knowledge has been seen to be relevant at least for the past few centuries!

What about Shankara? Does he deal with his scenario of the non-synchronicity of jnana and moksha? First of all it is important to remember that in Shankara’s schema, Vedanta shravana has to begin with sannyasa. In his Upadesha Sahasri he explicitly mentions that the teaching should be given ONLY to a total renunciate.

In more recent times both the Sage of Kanchi as well as His Holiness the Shankaracharya of Sringeri among others have also talked about it being “ideal” for a student to be a renunciate prior to exposition to Vedanta shravana. In his commentary on the Vivekachudamani His Holiness Chandrasekhara Bharati comments.“ sannyasya shravanam kuryat one should hear ONLY after ordination as a sannyasin”.

So in the multitude of places where Shankara emphatically states in his bhashyas that as soon as one gains the understanding of tat tvam asi in that very instant one is liberated, we should also remember that he has already made clear who this tat tvam asi upadesha should be given to and what kind of a adhikari he has in mind. It is like a Professor of surgery saying that if you spend 2 weeks in practice with him he expects you to be competent in performing an appendix removal – it goes without saying that what this Professor has in mind is someone who is already a medical student and has completed the requisite study of anatomy, and pathology, etc – you cannot now hold him responsible if an unprepared sixth grader, spends two weeks in training with him, and is unsure of how to even hold a scalpel in his hand.

So when one wants to read what Shankara’s views are on jnana and mukti one cannot ignore the entire context in which his teachings are based and the very critical assumptions he is making about the student. After all in his age and time, this upadesha was a Royal Secret, and could only be transmitted by one Guru to his direct shishyas after of course ascertaining their mental competency for the same.

There can be no denying that this would be a ideal situation – perhaps too ideal to be practical in today’s age of freedom, of "google-able" information and its widespread dissemniation. So it is safe to assume that, with rare exceptions, all Vedanta students today are not ideally prepared as they devote themselves to Vedanta vichara and as a consequence, in these students, knowledge may be seen to arise with no concomitant fruit –i.e. jivanmukti.

Having said that, there are instances even in Shankara’s bhashyas where he clearly differentiates jnana and mukti, and of the consummation of the former leading into the latter.

In Br.Up 1.4.10 "Morover false notions do not arise in a Realized Man........however sometimes memories due to the impressions of false notions antecendent to the dawning of knowledge, simulating those notions, suddenly appear and throw him into the error of regarding them as actual false notions…" showing that there may be lack of constancy in the conviction of Oneness at least in some Realized men – i.e. Knowers.

Certainly this cannot be seen to be applicable to jivanmuktas as that Status, of Vishnor paramam padam, by accounts of both Shruti and Smrti has been shown to be clearly an Absolute, a point of no-return.

Furthermore in the same Upanishad Shankara also says even after the rise of right knowledge (samyag-jnAna), due to the strong effect of prior karma, whose momentum is like that of a released arrow, and the relatively weakness of the newly acquired tendency towards jnana, it is necessary to maintain a steady recollection of Self-knowledge(Atma-vijnAna-smRti-saMtati), accompanied by renunciation (tyAga).

In the Mandukya Karika as well we have a very similar description of a steady recollection (– see the identical use of the term smrtim) of self-knowledge
Mandukya 2.36 Vidityva enam HAVING KNOWN it evam thus YOJAYET SMRTIM one should fix one's memory ADVAITE on non-duality. And Shankara clarifies here – one should practice recollection for the realization of nonduality. And having comprehended that nonduality, having realized directly and immediately that Self, AND after attaining the consciousness I am the Supreme Brahman lokam acharet jadavat one should behave in the world like a dull-witted... Here we find a very clear cut distinction between knowledge and the direct realization thereof. The “having known” here refers to aparoksha jnana – in other words aham brahmasmi - alone – but this knowledge now needs to be constantly and incessantly contemplated upon by directing one’s thoughts exclusively towards it.

Furthermore, Shankara says in his Up Sah that The Knower who has renounced everything unreal does not get bound again, AND further, when the desires of a man of self-knowledge vanish he becomes immortal. Were the knower to automatically mean a muktA – these type of assertions would be rendered totally meaningless – if a person is a Knower, a Brahmavit, and he is already a jivanmuktA – then why qualify such a knower by saying “The Knower WHO HAS RENOUNCED EVERYTHING” – why not simply say the Knower does not get bound again….and similarly so for “when the desires of a man of self-knowledge….”

Elsewhere too, in the words of the Vivekachudamani - Pramado brahmanishtayam na kartavyah kadachana - In respect of brahmanishta one should not be guilty of negligence and Atah pramadanna parosti mrtyuh vivekino brahmavidah samaadhau For the man of discrimination who IS A Brahmavit is in deep concentration there is no other death than inadvertence
Now if aparoksha jnana of Brahman as “aham brahmasmi” that was fully mature after shravana and manana had already resulted in jivanMukti, then is it not extremely incongruous to talk of pramada or lassitude for that same “individual”? Here is an individual who has achieved the Supreme State of Peace and Immortality, from which there is no return and here is advice to him – be careful of unmindfulness??
Clearly there is a distinction made between one who is a Knower of Brahman – Brahmavit - and yet lacking in consummation of that Knowledge or jnananishta.

It is important here to note that the content or construct of the knowledge itself does not change. It is not as if the knowledge of aham brahmasmi is in anyway going to get transformed – in other words aham brahmasmi in the case of a “knower”, a Brahmavit, is in every sense of the term samyag jnana or aparoksha jnana. There are some who contend that this type of “non-liberating” knowledge is only paroksha jnana (in the case of a non-mukta knower) and that by deep and constant meditation it has to be converted into a different kind of special knowledge - a suprasensory knowledge or special experience in order to convert it into “aparoksha” jnana and thence only does he obtain mukti – this viewpoint has been firmly negated by Shankara in the Br Up 1.4.7 (“Others say that meditation generates a new, special kind of consciousness concerning the Self, through which the latter is known and which alone removes ignorance….this view is wrong.”.)

So if the knowledge itself is not going to change, and any further action is not possible for a knower, as he knows himself to be a akarta on account of his right knowledge, then what further remains to be done or can be done for Mukti?The answer is provided by both Shruti and Shankara – the Mundaka Up says - Those to whom the entity presented by the vedantic knowledge has been fully ascertained AND who ENDAVOR assiduously with the help of the Yoga of Monasticism (become free) – and Shankarra comments here that Monasticism is meant as a subsidiary of the knowledge of Brahman FOR ITS FULL MATURITY.
A similar line of reasoning is used in the Brahmasutra bhashyas as well (BSB 3.4.20)… ...an injunction about steadfastness in Brahman HAS to be admitted..meaning that there is such a thing as steadfastness or abidance or nishta in the knowledge of aham brahmasmi. To be more clear, when we talk of ordinary knowledge – such as knowledge of an apple, we do not talk of this knowledge and then abidance in this knowledger as two separate things. But when in repeated instances, both the Shruti as well as Shankara talk about such a thing as jnana nishta – one has to understand that this is something that is being differentiated from jnana – i.e. it is something more than jnana itself.

In the 18th chapter of the Bhagawad Gita, Shankara bhashya talks about this in very clear terms… “…..Even after removing the defects in the organs and the mind, there arises the possibility of acceptance of gifts either for the maintenance of the body or for righteous duties; discarding them as well, i.e. becoming a mendicant of the param-hamsa class; nirmamah, free from the idea of possession, becoming devoid of the idea of 'me' and 'mine' even with regard to so much as one's body and life; and for the very same reason, santah, serene, withdrawn; the monk who is effortless and steadfast in Knowledge, kalpate, becomes fit; brahma-bhuyaya, for becoming Brahman… he, the one who is of this kind and steadfast in Knowledge, labhate, attains; param, supreme; madbhaktim, devotion to Me, to the supreme Lord
Opponent: Has it not been contradictory to say, he knows Me through that which is the supreme steadliness (nistha) in Knowledge?

{Here the opponent asks about this thing called steadfastness - nishta? What is it? Is it not a contradiction in terms to talk of knowledge and then talk of steadfastness in knowledge? Is not knowledge so defined only when it is steadfast?}

Vedantin: If it be asked, How it is contradictory? Opponent: The answer is: Whenever any Knowledge of something arises in a knower, at that very moment the knower knows that object. Hence, he does not depend on steadfastness in Knowledge which consists in the repetition of the act of knowing. And therefore, it is contradictory to say one knows not through knowledge, but through steadfastness in knowledge which is a repetition of the act of knowing.
Vedantin: There is no such fault, since the culmination of Knowledge-which (Knowledge) is associated with the causes of its unfoldment and maturity, and which has nothing to contradict it- in the conviction that one's own Self has been realized is what is referred to by the word nistha (consummation): When knowledge-which concerns the identity of the 'Knower of the field' and the supreme Self, AND WHICH REMAINS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RENUNCIATION OF ALL ACTIONS that arise from the perception of the distinction among their accessories such as agent etc., and which unfolds from the instruction of the scriptures and teachers, depending on PURITY OF THE INTELLECT etc. and humility etc. which are the AUXILLARY CAUSES of the origin and maturity of Knowledge-continues in the form of the conviction that one's own Self has been realized, then THAT CONTINUANCE is called the Supreme steadfastness (nistha) in Knowledge.

What does jnana nishta entail? Jnana nishta entails a continuous stream of thoughts directed at self-awareness. Just as a flickerless flame, the mind constantly and steadily resolves all thoughts of the non-self in the self in a absorptive Self-contemplation. In Shankara’s own words – “Yatha, as; a dipah, lamp; nivata-sthah, kept in a windless place; na ingate, does not flicker; sa upama, such is the simile; yoginah, for the yogi; yata-citasya, whose mind is under control; and yunjatah, who is engaged in; yogam, concentration; atmanah, on the Self, i.e. who is practising Self-absorption.By dint of practising Yoga thus, when the mind, comparable to a lamp in a windless place, becomes concentrated.” and elsewhere - “steadfastness in Knowledge consists in being TOTALLY ABSORBED in MAINTAINING A CURRENT OF THOUGHT with regard to the indwelling SELF.”
This is of course a continuation of the process of nidhidhyasana. Shankara defines nidhidhyasana as nischayena dhyatavyah – meditation with intensity/determination. Sureshwara considers it a culmination of the process of shravana and manana – a process where in the perfunctory modes of thought that are opposed to Brahman are negated. Bh Ramana synthesizes the two beautifully when he says that when focuses one’s train of thoughts exclusively towards the Self the non-self automatically falls away. In the context of an unprepared mind that has acquired the knowledge of tat tvam asi (perhaps the vast majority) for this to be a uninterrupted activity every living moment of the day, becomes not just difficult but literally an impossibility, because of the sheer force of raga-dveshas which have not (yet) been appropriately sublimated prior to the onset of Vedanta vichara.
Here alone, nididhyasana assumes two roles – vasana kshaya and manonasha. Muktim prahih tadiha munayah vasanatanavam yat: The munis say what is called mukti is the attenuation of vasana. Vasanakshaya or durvAsanAkShaya is the eradication of our Ego – in particular its negative tendencies. These tendencies serve to hijack our thoughts and distract us from being focused towards the Atman. Once these vasanas are adequately purged, the mind is rendered incapable of again relapsing into the old mode of behaviour – thus rendering the mind infertile to sprout new weeds of vasanas is what is referred to as manonAshah. Even in the Brahmasutras we find that jivanmukti is said to be possible here itself ONLY IF there is absence of any obstruction - apratusta pratibandhe.
His Holiness Chandrasekhara Bharati while commenting on the Vivekachudamani puts it thus : ata eva svanubhavah ityuktam, viparIta-bhAvanA-nivartaka-nidhidhyAsana-abhAve SravaNamananAbhyAm jAyamAna-anubhavah saushThvam nASnuta iti - Therefore is said svanubhava - as in the absence of the nidhidhyAsana which prevents thoughts opposed [to Brahman], the experience borne out of SravaNa and manana does not attain completeness / excellence.
By vasanakshaya and manonasha alone is there a gradual removal of these obstacles.

While the term manonasha is frequently thought to be post-Shankaran – we find reference to this in the Mandukya karikas

- idam dvaitam manodrshyam - this duality is seen by the mind - when the mind ceases to be the mind manasa amanibhave dvaitam na upalabhyate duality ceases (Mandukya 3.31)
Similarly
atmasatyanubodhena na sankalpayate yada...when by the realization of the Self the mind ceases to imagine....and is endowed with discrimination.. (Mandukya 3.32-33)

Shankara also talks about this in relation to sattvika buddhi in the BG 18th chapter - Yat, that joy which is; iva, like; visam, poison, a source of pain; agre, in the beginning-when it first comes in the EARLY STAGES OF KNOWLEDGE - detachment, meditation and absorption - since they involve great struggle; but amrtopamam, comparable to nectar; pariname, IN THE END, when it arises from the MATURITY OF knowledge, detachment, etc.; and which atma-buddhi-prasadajam, arises from the purity (prasada), trasparence like water, of one's intellect (atma-buddhi); - 'arising from the high degree of clearness of that atma-buddhi (knowledge of or connected with the Self)'; In his treatise Aparoksha anubhuti Shankara asserts thus: Blessed dhanyaah indeed are those who at first know(vijaananti) the (self as) Brahman (i.e. are Knowers) AND having known (jnatva), develop it more and more (vardhayanti). The usage of the term vijanati clearly indicates a Self-knower – someone who has clearly discerned the Self from the non-Self.

This very same Knower is now being asked to develop this knowledge by means of concentration.
Then what?
– the differentiation between this type of Knower who develops his knowledge into maturity i.e. jnananishta by a long and deliberate process of steadfast and incessant absorption in this knowledge, and the other type of Knower, who though knowing does not, because of attachment, allow this to happen is now being clearly mentioned

- They, in whom this consciousness of Self (vrttih) being ever present grows into maturity (paripakka), ONLY THEY attain to the state of Brahman (praptah sadbrahmataam); OTHERS merely deal with words!(shabdavadinah)
Such persons are only clever in discussing about Brahman (kushala Brahmavaartaayam) but have no realization (vrtti-heenah), suraaginah being attached (to the world) they too as a consequence of their ignorance are born and die again and again.

This is where renunciation assumes centerstage. As long as one is a active member of society, there are certain inescapable domains that are still operative in one’s functional status. One has duties, and responsibilities. The most basic necessities to support life – food clothing and a home - need to be taken care of. For this what is needed is wealth. If one is young this means having a occupation that generates wealth. If one is older and retired, one may not need to work but one is then concerned about making sure that the wealth already earned is maintained with interest or that one’s pensions, or 401Ks, are accruing appropriately.
In addition one has to relate to one’s relations – and fulfil various duties – spouse, child, parent, and in-law and even grand-parent,etc – every member of society will have at least one if not all of these roles that require to be played and played actively in every spirit of those roles. Trying to cultivate an aura of detachment or disinterest as even one is fully enmeshed in this societal role-playing can be disastrous and is certainly not advisable/if it were even possible, and can only lead to conflict situations. If you are an employee you cannot let atmavichara allow your productivity to be hampered nor as a spouse can you excuse yourself from the innumerable obligations that go along with that role.

At every stage of life, there are countless sources of worries and tensions – personal progress at work, illnesses in one’s immediate and even extended family, death of near and dear ones, taxes, education and marriage of one’s children – the list goes on and on. How can such a life be made compatible with the ideals of constant and unrelenting atmavichara? It is simply impossible for it to be so. Any attempt at it can only be at the cost of seriously failing in one’s roles as a active member of society and can assume significant ethical and moral repercussions and dilemmas.

So the solution according to Shankara is the ageless prescription found in the Shruti itself - etaM vai tam AtmAnaM viditvA brAhmaNAH putraishhaNAyAshcha vittaishhaNAyAshcha lokaishhaNAyAshcha vyutthAyAtha bhikshAcharyaM charantIti."Having realized this very Self, BrAhmaNas give up desires for offspring, wealth and heaven, and take to mendicancy."Here it is important to note that Brahmanas here refers to people with Self-knowledge – according to Shankara who states this in categorical terms. It is not referring to people with pandityam or Vedic scholarship, but specifically to “knowers of Self”As a matter of fact Shankara in the BUB (2.4) holds that renunciation is prescribed AS PART OF the instruction about Brahman asya brahmavidyayaa angatvene sannyaso vidhisitah.
He also is clear-cut that this renunciation which is characterized by abandonment of all actions IS SUBSIDIARY TO the knowing of Brahman - Parivrajyam sarvasadhana-sannyasa-lakshanam angatvena vidhitsyate.

In the same vein as well, in his Br Up vartika, Sureshwaracharya expresses this quite explicitly.An ascetic (yatih) who has not given up desire may not attain liberation EVEN IF HE IS A KNOWER OF BRAHMAN (brahmaveditve) Therefore the COMBINATION of knowledge of Brahman WITH RENUNCIATION (sannyasena samucchayah) is mentioned here as a means to liberation (mukti).…I do not think we can find a more clear-cut assertion than this! and further Sureshwaracharya clarifies...and uses a beautiful expression here for nidhidhyasanam..
Therefore having COMPLETELY abandoned actions which proceed only from infatuation the one of clear intellect overcomes ignorance by knowing of Oneness; he of himself meditates on his own Self as the Atman which itself is knowledge (jnanamevaatmanaatmanamupaseeno) and becomes immortal (amrto bhavet)And he quotes a Shruti here – Bhallavi Shruti – sarvah sannyasatkarmeva jnanaatkaivalyamashnute – ONLY HE who has taken to sannyasa attains liberation through knowledge.

The institution of sannyasa, as a ashrama, thus becomes both sacrosanct and indispensable for a Self-Knower. This is because one is ethically, and within the realm of dharma, dissociating oneself from society. The innumerable spheres of responsibilities and the entire gamut of societal obligations are formally and permanently severed in toto. And this is where a ritualistic or formalized procedure is generally prescribed and described to reinforce what is ultimately a inner or mental renunciation.

And it cannot be underscored enough what a blessing it is to have such a formalized process in Sanatana dharma since beginning less time. It is interesting in this context to see what Elgin Skorpen’s views are: “So from either perspective, strict Kantian or compatible life-ideals, the result is the same. What the modern candidate for religious renunciation in the West is considering is, in fact, a "teleological suspension of the ethical," and that is something that ex hypothei he will not and cannot do lightly, and he may well experience fear and trembling if he does” and contrasts it with “the Hindu thoroughly internalizes morality as a representative of a class, so that moral conflicts are resolved not by modern reason but by appeal to authority -- in this case the authority of scripture” And he draws the following conclusions -

1.Western religious renunciation cannot be justified from the moral point of view;

2.the Hindu pattern, in contrast, is acceptable from the moral point of view given the premise that renunciation is a necessary means to self-realization, and

3. though Hindu religion and anthropology are "ill-suited to Western social practice," nevertheless, the Hindu pattern of renunciation "proposes a course of human growth leading up to renunciation that might better serve the renunciate ... than does the Western pattern."

One consumes one’s body mentally to the funeral pyre, and with this comes the strong conviction that all societal ties are severed in toto with no exceptions. This alone liberates the individual to now focus all his efforts and time exclusively towards atma vichara in an all-encompassing manner. Then alone can there be a gradual dissolution of the perfunctory mental modes of indisciplinary content, and a resulting enhancement of singleminded and one-pointed devotion to the Self.

This is what Shankara means when says “For the other has not got his conviction about differences removed. ..because of his seeing hearing thinking and knowing differences he believes "I shall get this by doing this". In the case of such a man who is engaged thus there CANNOT be any establishment in Brahman for he is possessed of the ideas arising from his attachment to false transformations”

Elsewhere Shankara again says this: Indeed, it is not possible that one who wants to go to the eastern sea and the other who wants to go in the opposite direction to the western sea can have the same course! And that (jnana-nishtA) is opposed to coexistence with duties, like going to the western sea. It has been the conclusion of those versed in the valid means of knowledge that the difference between them is as wide as that between a mountain and a mustard seed! Therefore it is established that one should have recourse to steadfastness in Knowledge ONLY BY relinquishing ALL rites and duties.It is the effacement of these ideas of non-self alone that constitute vasanakshaya.

And in this sense alone is vidwat SANNYASA the PROXIMATE cause of jivanMUKTI – in the words of Swami Vidyaranya – vidvat sannyasasya jivanmukti hetutvat.Even a trace of vasanas has the effect of quickly dragging the seeker downhill – akin to a ball - prachyutakelikandukah – a sport ball that has fallen from the hand – and which very rapidly falls down the stairs, to use a poignant analogy from the VC.

The Shurti beginning with shanto dantah prescribes concentrated contemplation for the sannyasin who has performed Vedanta shravana is order to be established in the sarvatmabhava (sarvatmasiddhaye) or kaivalya. Yatih – the sannyasin – to him alone can arise the state of being established in Brahman asat anusandhim vihaya giving up thinking about asat remaining steadfast in the contemplation of aham brahmasmi brahmani nishta svanubhutya by the realization of one’s real nature as self-effulgent and everblissful.

In the same vein, Shankara makes his position clear in the BSB as well :“And then it has to be considered as to whether that steadfastness is meant for anyonebelonging to any one of the four stages of life or to the MONK ALONE?.....the conclusion will be that the MONK ALONE can be STEADFAST in BRAHMAN..

Opponent:How can the term steadfast in Brahman, used in its derivative sense, and possible application to people in ALL the stages of life be confined to the monk alone?

{Here the opponent takes the position that how can you restrict what is a generic term of being established in Brahman to one particular class of humans i.e. the renunciates – why cannot people in all walks of life, including those that are active as members of society, attain to steadfastness in Brahman?}

Vedantin's Reply : The term steadfastness in Brahman implies a conusmmation in Brahman a total absorption in Brahman which is the same as the absence of ANY OTHER PREOCCUPATION except THAT - and that is NOT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE IN THE OTHER THREE STAGES.”

So we see that the exclusivity of jnana-nishta for ONLY sannyasis has nothing to do with the external characteristics which are only trivial incidentalities but to the extremely crucial aspect of a consummation that requires a unwavering and absolute commitment that is simply impossible unless one has severed links with society – especially in a formal(ized) manner.

This severance – this ritualized self-immolation imagery is as profoundly stark as it is irreversible. It is not a matter to be trifled with neither dismissed as being trivial. Once a man commits to sannyasa he is as good as dead to the world. If 2 days after this his child gets diagnosed with a dangerous heart condition he cannot be at her bedside nor, if some other calamity befalls his family of birth, can he change his mind a month later. He is bereft of any possessions, completely vulnerable and exposed to the elements – be they pesty mosquitoes or more deadly snakes and scorpions, inclemental weather, bodily illness or the lack of food. In his autobiography Swami Tapovan describes many of these incidents in vivid terms – same has been written of Bhagwan Ramana as well. His only strength is that of his conviction of his Oneness with the Supreme – that conviction alone is his only strength as Shankara says in his Brh Up bhashya.

Expressed in a stark manner – sannyasa is nothing short of a ritualized suicide from the kind of lifestyle we consider “normal” – and what is so supremely ironic? The fact that this life of joys and sorrows which we all hold on to so tencaciously is what Shanara in the Up Sahasri says is atmahatya the real Suicide. Let us pause for a moment to reflect on that – this thing we call “LIFE” with all its variety, and vivacity, for which we endeavor so assiduously to cling to, with much fanfare and passion and zest – is in Shankar’s words a suicide….the suicide we know is a “suicidal dying”; the suicide that Shankara laments about is our collective “suicidal living”!

In the Mandukya 2.35 we find this very vividly presented - This Self ayam that is beyond all imagination nirvikalpah and free from upasama the diversity of this phenomenal world prapancha and nondual advayah has been seen drshtah by the contemplative people munibhih the enlightened souls versed in the Vedas vedaparagaih and unafflicted by desire fear and anger. Shankara clarifies that the idea is that the Supreme Self is realizable ONLY BY THE MEN OF RENUNCIATION who are free from blemishes, who are learned, and who are devoted to the Upanishads... and not to those whose hearts are tainted by attachment. Further in the next verse it is said that the Knower “should behave as if dull-witted” ... What does this mean – behave in the world as if dull-witted is clarified in clearcut terms next verse

Mandukya 2.37

The mendicant should have no appreciation for greetings and he should be free from rituals He should have the body and soul as his support and he should be dependent on circumstances.

Shankara clarifies further -

"that is to say having given up all desire for external objects and having embraced the highest kind of FORMAL RENUNCIATION, in accordance with the Vedic text "Knowing this very self the Brahmanas renounce and lead a mendicants life (Br 3.5.1)and the Smrti With their Self identified in that..Gita 5.17) – An interesting term is used here in the karika chalachalaniketa - Shankara says chala is the changing body and the achala is the unchanging Self - whenver perchance impelled by hunger, etc such a one thinks of oneself as "I" by forgetting the reality of the Self, which is one's niketa support and which is by nature unchanging like the sky then the cala the body becomes his niketa i.e. place of abode. The man of illumination who thus has the changing and the unchanging as his support but not the man who as external obkects as his support. Also yadrrchikah bhavet he should merely depend on strips of cloth coverings and food that come to him by chance for the maintenance of the body

Only then the next karika clarifies does one not only become identified tattvibhutah with the Real, and have one's delight tadaramah in the Real and such a one does not waver aprachyutah fromthe Real.

The type of austerity or tapas that a sannyasi undergoes can never be even remotely matched by a grhastha or a householder. In the Mundaka bhashya Shankara says that “the Self is known by tapas, by making the mind and senses one-pointed. it is known from the smRti-s that "the greatest tapas is making the mind and the senses one-pointed" - that form of tapas characterized by single-pointedness is alone, by its very nature, conducive to atma darshana.. in fact such tapas IS verily Brahman. It is only when knowledge is accompanied by both tyaga renunciation and tapas austerity, that it can lead to the dissolution of the mala the dirt that clouds the antahkaranam and prevents the liberating knowledge from conferring the highest fruit of jivanmukti and Supreme Peace.

“The Atman is attained through truth, austerity, correct knowledge and Brahmacharya (self-control), observed CONTINUOSLY WITHOUT A BREAK.”(Mundaka Up)

Suppose one takes the stance that jnana and karmayoga also can lead to the same? Shankara completely refutes this position. "..."Since the avidya of the SELFKNOWER has been abolished he CANNOT undertake karmayoga that is rooted in error....therefore it is rational to maintain that Karmayoga is out of question for the self-knower...the self-knower having discharged all; duties has no further purpose to fulfil..renunciation and karmayoga equally promote liberation refers to the non-self-knower....which is distinct from the TOTAL RENUNCIATION of a self-knower

“Since it is IMPOSSIBLE that renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga can be undertaken by a knower of the Self, therefore, to say that both of them lead to Liberation, and to call his Karma-yoga as superior to renunciation of action-both these positions are absurd…"

"...But in the case of the knower of the Self, since it is impossible to pursue both renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga, therefore, to say that they lead to Liberation and that Karma-yoga is superior to renunciation of actions is illogical..."

Here we can see in categorical terms Shankara dismissing the very idea of nishkamya karma or karmayoga for a Self-knower who is "akarta asanga nityamukta"

With regard to this the Opponent asks a very pertinent question : "Is it that renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga are both impossible for a knower of the Self, or that one of the two is impossible? If one of the two be impossible, then is it renunciation of actions or Karma-yoga? And the reason for this impossibility should also be stated."

Shankara summarizes all the various portions of the Gita in his answer here-As to this, the answer is: In the case of the knower of the Self, since there has occured a cessation of false knowledge, Karma-yoga, which is based on erroneous knowledge, will become impossible. What is being established in various places here in the scripture (Gita), in the various portions dealing with the ascertainment of the real nature of the Self, IS THIS:

Having stated that for the knower of the Self, who has realized as his own the Self which is actionless owing to Its being free from all such transfromations as birth etc. and from whom false ignorance has been eradicated as a result of full enlightenment, there follows renunciation of all acitons characterized by abiding in the state of identity with the actionless Self, it is then stated that because of the contradiction between correct knowledge and false ignorance, and their results, Karma-yoga-which is opposed to renunciation of actions, which has false ignorance as its basis, which is preceded by the idea of agentship, and which is preceded by the idea of agentship, and which consists in being established in the active-self-is nonexistent for him. This being so, it will be logical to say that Karma-yoga, which has erroneous knowledge for its source, is impossible for the knower of the Self who has become freed from false knowledge.”

In other words – karmayoga involves dedicating “my” actions to the Lord and also relinquishing "my" attachment to the results of “my” actions – ishwara arpana buddhi and prasada buddhi. To a knower who has the knowledge “I am forever unattached, I am akarta satchitananda svarupa Atma” karmayoga is incompatible with this thought process. How can such a self-knower do karmayoga?? The very idea is so absurd, that Shankara rightfully dismisses it in toto.

Until the dawn of self-knowledge karmayoga is an indispensible tool to attain chittashuddhi - to enable one to gain self-knowledge – but after doubtless self-knowledge has been acquired and assimilated by repeated shravanam and mananam – a thought of being a “karmayogi” betrays a lack of assimilation of knowledge, and is certainly unhelpful and actually contrary to absorption in this knowledge.

Even in the case of someone, who with exceptional discipline, restricts himself to performing ONLY nitya karmas and does not indulge in ANY kaamya karmas (a purely theoretical possibility only) – even then those karmas will beget results. And so samsara will continue – Shankara makes this very clear in the 18th chapter of the Gita

– Objection: Well, is it not that they say the daily obligatory (nitya) and the occasional (naimittika) rites and duties have no results at all?

Reply: This defect does not arise. It is the intention of the Lord that the nitya-karmas (daily obligatory duties) also have results; …it is only in the case of sannyasins (monks) alone that there is no connection with the results of actions.

Elsewhere too in the Upadesha Sahasri Shankara repeats the same idea : Up Sah Four things only are the results of actions – production, acquisition, transformation, and purification. All actions with their accessories SHOULD therefore BE GIVEN UP – and this includes ones nitya and naimittika karmas as well.

The two contradictiory ideas I am Brahman and I am an agent cannot coexist – nahi brahmasmi karteti viruddhe bhavato dhiryo.

In his short treatise the vakya vrtti as well – Shankara repeats - The renunciation of ALL actions in order to discriminate the meaning of the word thou becomes the means to Self-knowledge according to the teaching controlling the internal and external senses (Br Up 4.4.23)

This is why at numerous instances in the Gitabhashya whenever Krishna talks about a parabhakta or a jnani or a gunateeta or a sthitaprajna or a Supreme yogi, Shankara quietly but explicitly introduces the term “sannyasi” to make it clear that such a person has to be one who has renounced ALL actions – not simply a mental renunciation of the doership notion, which can never ever be absolute, but a total physical renunciation in toto.

Ch 2 …that man who has become thus, the sannyasin, the man of steady wisdom, the knower of Brahman; adhi-gacchati, attains; santim, peace, called Nirvana, i.e. he becomes one with Brahman; yah, who; vihaya, after rejecting; sarvan, all; kaman, desires, WITHOUT A TRACE, fully; carati, moves about, i.e. wanders about, making efforts only for maintaining the body; nihsprhah, free from hankering, becoming free from any longing EVEN FOR the maintenance of the body;

Ch 3Two kinds of Convictions, viz the Conviction concerning Reality, and the Conviction concerning Yoga, associated with detachment from and engagement in action (respectively), which are dealt with in this Scripure (Gita), have been indicated by the Lord. As to that, beginning with 'When one fully renounces all the desires' (2.55) and ending with the close of the Chapter, the Lord, having stated that sannyasa, monasticism, HAS TO BE resorted to by those who are devoted to the Conviction about the Reality (Sankhya-buddhi), has also added in the verse, 'this is the state of being established in Brahman' (2.72), that their fulfilment comes from devotion to that alone.…with regard to the seekers of Liberation, renunciation of ALL actions has been prescribed as an ACCESSORY of Knowledge by all the Upanisads, Itihasas, Puranas and Yoga-scripures.

3.3 O unblemished one, two kinds of steadfastness in this world were spoken of by Me in the days of yore-through the Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization; through the Yoga of Action for the yogis.Now then, which is that steadfastness of two kinds? In answer the Lord says: The steadfastness jnanayogena, through the Yoga of Knowledge-Knowledge itself being the Yoga; had been stated sankhyanam, for the men of realization-those possessed of the Knowledge arising from the discrimination with regard to the Self and the not-Self, those who have espoused monasticism from the stage of Celibacy; itself, those to whom the entity presented by the Vedantic knowledge has become fully ascertained (see Mu. 3.2.6)-,the monks who are known as the parama-hamsas, those who are established in Brahman alone. Ch 66.10 From the uise of the qualifying words, 'in a solitary place' and 'alone', it follows that (he HAS TO undertake all these) after espousing monasticism. And even after renunciation, he should concentrate his mind by desisting from all acquisition. This is the meaning.

Ch 8

8.15 Upetya mam, as a result of reaching Me who am God-as a result of realizing My nature; mahatmanah, the exalted ones, THE MONKS; gatah, who have attained; the paramam, highest; samsiddhim, perfection, called Liberation; na, do not; apnuvanti, get; this kind of punarjanama, rebirth.

Ch 12

The group of qualities of the MONKS who meditate on the Immutable, who have renounced all desires, who are steadfast in the knowledge of the supreme Goal-which (qualities) are under discussion beginning from 'He who is not hateful towards any creature' (13)…

Ch 15

The disciplines leading to the state of transcendence of the qualities, which have been stated (in the verses) beginning from 'he who, sitting like one indifferent,' and ending with 'he is said to have gone beyond the qualities,' HAVE TO BE practised by a MONK, a seeker of Liberation, so long as they are to be achieved through effort. But when they become FIRMLY INGRAINED, they become the indications, perceivable to himself, of a monk who has transcended the qualities.

BG:Ch 18

But the enlightened ones who have realized the supreme Truth are competent only for steadfastness in Knowledge, which is characterized by renunciation of all actions

In his sadhana panchakam – a very short treatise containing the very essence of sadhana for jivanmukti, Shankara stresses initially adherence to svadharma and karmayoga (vedo nityamadeeyatam etc) for chittashuddhi and subsequently vividisha sannyasa (nijagruhathurna vinirgamyatham) in a very explicit and clearcut sequence

- Daily (pratidinam) take the medicine of food gotten as alms (bhikshaushadham bhujyataam). In solitude (ekante) live joyously (sukhamaasyataam) and quieten your mind in the Supreme Lord (paratare cheetah samadhiyatam) and only thereby brahmasmi iti vibhavyatam Be ever established in the conviction I am Brahman.

To summarize the ideal path for jnanamarga according to Shankara is

Performance of nitya karmas --> Karmayoga --> Chittashuddhi --> Strong Viveka/Vairagya/ Mumukshutvam --> Vividhisha Sannyasa --> Shravana,Manana and Nidhidhyasana (available only from a shrotriya brahmanishta and with great difficulty) --> Aparoksha JNana --> (in some cases vidwat sannyasa) --> JivanMukti

This is explicitly described as much by Sureshwaracharya

- nityanaimittika karmanushtana --> chittashuddhi --> samsara yathatmyavabodha (knowledge of true nature of samsara) --> vairagya --> mumuksha --> tad upaya paryeshana (longing for the means to the end of samsara) --> vividisha sannyasa (renunciation of all desires – putra/vitta/loka) --> shravana manana nidhidhyasana --> tat tvam asi adi vaakyartha parijnana --> avidyoccheda/brahmajnanaavagati --> Moksha

As this is clearly not the path that is followed in today’s day and age (with rare exceptions) we have a significant detour in this pathWeak or Feeble Viveka/Vairagya/ Mumukshutvam/ +/- intellectual curiosity --> Vedanta shravana,manana, nidhidhyasana (freely available) --> Aparoskha Jnana --> internal sannyasa with continued nidhidhyasana with vasanakshaya+manonasha --> continuing into vidwat sannyasa --> jivanMukti

Mithyatvam defined in Gita

शर्ीगुरुभ्यो नमः
‘mithyA’ defined in the Bhagavadgita
In Advaita Vedanta the world is held to be ‘mithyA’. This term is variously rendered in English as ‘unreal’, ‘dependently real’, ‘seemingly real’, ‘relatively real’, etc. The most popular definition of mithyAtvam, ‘unreality’, as given in the Advaitasiddhi is: ‘That which appears in a locus where it does not belong in the three periods of time’. Thus, in the rope-snake analogy, the snake appears in the rope where it does not belong in the three periods of time. The rope is not the locus for the snake to exist. Yet it is apprehended there due to ignorance of the locus, rope. When the true knowledge of the rope arises, the snake is known to have not been there. Similarly, the world (and samsara) is imagined to be present in the substratum, locus, Brahman. When by the help of the Scripture and the Preceptor the knowledge of Brahman arises, the world will be known to have not been there. In the sequel a study of the application of the above definition of ‘mithyA’ is taken up with the Bhagavadgita as the source for the definition.
In the ninth Chapter of the Gita the Lord says:
मया ततिमदं सवर्ं जगद􁳞क्तमूितना ।
मत्स्थािन सवर्भूतािन न चाहं तेष्वविस्थतः ॥ (9.4)
By Me, the Unmanifest, all this world is pervaded. All beings dwell in Me; and I do not dwell in them.
न च मत्स्थािन भूतािन पश्य मे योगमै􁳡रम् ।
भूतभृ􁳖 च भूतस्थो ममात्मा भूतभावनः ॥ (9.5)
Nor do these beings dwell in Me; behold My Divine Yoga! Sustaining all the beings, but not dwelling in them, is My Self, the cause of beings.
In the first quoted verse, the Lord states the relative situation: the world rests in Him, Brahman. However, He clarifies that Brahman does not inhere in the world. This is the first part of the definition of mithyAtvam: the appearance of the world in the locus, Brahman.
In the next verse the Lord hastens to add: Nor does the world rest in Brahman. This is the absolute position that translates the second part of the definition of mithyAtvam: ….where it does not belong in the three periods of time.
Thus, the Lord, by first stating the ‘presence’ of the world in Brahman and immediately denying the presence of the world in Brahman, has stated in so many words that the world is just an appearance in Brahman.
Quite interestingly, He has supplied some more dimensions of the definition of mithyAtvam: the substratum does not exist in the superimposed object. This He says in the first as well as the second verse. Yet, the substratum can be spoken of being a support, only contextually, to/of the superimposed object in as much as the object ‘exists’ only with the borrowed reality of the substratum. One is able to talk about the apparent snake only because the rope is there really existing. If there had been no rope at all, there would not be a superimposition of snake possible.
The world has thus a dependent reality while Brahman’s is Independent Reality. Without the Reality of Brahman the world would be simply naught. Thus, perforce, one has to admit that it is Brahman that appears as the world. In a way, we can say that the world has Brahman for its ‘source’, origin, just as it is possible to say that the superimposed snake has the rope for its source. It is indeed the rope that constitutes the source material for the one who sees it erroneously as a snake. What he has
contributed is his imagination born of unclear knowledge of the rope lying there. Even so, owing to the ignorance of the true nature of Brahman, the world involving a body-mind apparatus, the subject and all the objective variety is imagined. Thus the duality of subject-object is churned out of this ignorance of the Non-dual Brahman.
It would be interesting and illuminating to note the Upanishadic basis for the above Gita verses. In the Mandukya Upanishad (M), the Absolute Reality, Brahman, is presented as ‘constituted’ of four quarters or limbs or components. The waking, dreaming and sleeping states are the first three and the state transcending these is taught as the Turiya, the Atman. We shall list the Mandukya-Gita connection as follows:
•
The third quarter of the M corresponds to the first verse of the Gita quoted above. There, the Ishwara-pAda of M says: //mantra VI. He is the Lord of all. He is the knower of all. He is the inner controller. He is the source of all; for from him all beings originate and in him they finally disappear.// The Gita verse says: All beings dwell in Me.
•
The Fourth quarter, pAda, of M corresponds to the second verse of the Gita quoted above. There, the Turiya-pAda of M says: //mantra 7 ….It is the cessation of all phenomena; ‘prapanchopashamam’. It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized. // The Gita verse says: ‘Nor do these beings dwell in Me.’ The world, prapancha, is not present in Brahman, says the Lord thereby translating the term ‘prapanchopashamam’ of M into the Gita language.
•
M says that the Ishwara-pAda is the source and sustainer of the world. Gita says that Brahman is the support of the world.
•
M, by saying that the Turiya, Brahman/Atman is ‘indescribable’ conveys that the Ishwara-pAda of the third quarter is only relatively placed just as the Lord says in the Gita that ‘He does not dwell in the world’.
•
While the first three pAda-s of M constitute the ‘adhyAropa’ or deliberate superimposition by the Upanishad, the Gita first verse is an adhyAropa.
•
While the Fourth pAda is the negation, ‘apavAda’, of what was stated in the earlier three quarters, the Gita second verse is a negation of what the Lord said in the first verse.
•
While the Lord says explicitly that ‘It is My Divine Yoga’ which is Maya that is at the root of the appearance of the world and its non-existence in Brahman, the M Upanishad only implicitly states this by negating the entire world-phenomenon of the three states in the Fourth.
•
Shankaracharya brings out the ‘asanga’ or unattached nature of Brahman: // I do not dwell in those beings, because of the absence of contact with others, unlike corporeal things.// (9.4). The rope, even though ‘supports’ the snake, does not inhere in the snake as it has no contact with the illusory snake. Clay is the support of clay-products. Can we really say that clay inheres/dwells in the clay-products? When we realize that clay-products are only clay in truth (based on the ‘vAchArambhaNa shruti’ of the Chandogya Upanishad VI Chapter), there would be no meaning in asserting that clay inheres the clay-products. Nor would be there any meaning, at that stage, in asserting that the clay ‘supports’ the clay-products. Similar is the situation with regard to Brahman and the world.
•
The M Upanishad says: //mantra 2: All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters.// This shows that Brahman pervades the ‘four (three) quarters’. The Lord says in the Gita: // By Me, the Unmanifest, all this world is pervaded.// The rope is said to ‘pervade’ the illusory snake in the sense that the snake has no existence independent of that of the rope. Terms like ‘support’, ‘pervaded’ only indicate that the one supported and pervaded is saturated by the one
that supports and pervades it. For example, space supports and pervades all objects situated in it. Brahman is in and through the world that It supports and pervades. That this ‘supporting’ and ‘pervading’ by Brahman is only relative is known by the Upanishad and the Gita negating the very world that is first admitted to be supported and pervaded.
Having seen these parallels between the Upanishad and the Gita, let us see what is the sadhana that helps us to get at this truth:
The world is mithyA. The M Upanishad, as quoted above, explicitly says: All this is Brahman. The Gita only states this implicitly by negating the world in Brahman. Since the world is only dependently real, when it is negated altogether, having no reality whatsoever, it is known to be mithyA. This knowledge born of logic, mananam, has to be internalized, through nididhyasanam, focused contemplation on the Truth. Since the Upanishad also said: This Atman is Brahman, the sadhana has to be on the lines of contemplating: I, the Pure Consciousness, Atman am the Non-dual Truth, Independent of everything. This objective world which depends on me for its existence does not exist in me the Consciousness. I am neither the support of this world nor do I inhere in the world. My pervading the world is also only relative to the world having an existence. In other words, the All-pervading nature of Brahman is also only relative to the existence of ‘all’. When the ‘all’ itself is negated, there is no question of Brahman pervading anything. This is because, the pervading-pervaded relationship is possible only in the wake of two real entities. That such is not the case is being clarified by the Lord. I, the Non-dual Consciousness alone am the Truth. There is no such thing called the world. I have no samsara. I have no birth nor will I die. I am the Eternal unchanging
Consciousness, Brahman. This is the kind of sadhana that will result in freedom from bondage.
[The above sadhana is wholly based on the teachings of the M Upanishad and the Gita.]
शर्ीसद्गुरुचरणारिवन्दापर्णमस्तु

Jivan Mukti Viveka By Swami Vidyaranya

Jivanmuktiviveka
of
Swami Vidyaranya

A summary

Chapter 1

Scriptural authority on Jivanmukti

This work consists of five chapters, known as Prakaranas. The first chapter deals with the scriptural authority for the postulation of Jivanmukti or liberation while still living. The chapter opens with a salutation to Sri Vidyatirtha, the author's Guru, who is identified with the Supreme Lord.

Sannyasa is of two kinds, known as Vividisha Sannyasa and Vidvat Sannyasa, or, renunciation of the seeker and renunciation of the knower. (These terms will become clear as we proceed further). The first is the cause of liberation after death (Videhamukti) and the second of liberation while still living in the body (Jivanmukti). The essential pre-requisite for both these kinds of Sannyasa is detachment.

Detachment is of three kinds-- weak, strong and stronger. The detachment that arises on the occurrence of some calamity such as the death of a dear one, or loss of possessions, is not lasting and is categorized as weak. Such a temporary feeling of detachment is of no use and does not make a person eligible for Sannyasa. The determination not to marry, beget children and live the life of a householder is categorized as 'strong' detachment. There are four varieties of Vividisha Sannyasa. These are-- Kutichaka, Bahoodaka, Hamsa and Paramahamsa. The detachment described as 'strong' makes the person eligible only for the varieties of Sannyasa called Kutichaka and Bahoodaka. Both of them are 'Tridandins' i.e. they carry three long thin sticks knotted together, emblematic of the triple renunciation of everything connected with body, mind and speech. The Kutichaka resides in a secluded hermitage. The Bahoodaka keeps moving from one holy place to another. The choice as to which of these two varieties a person with the kind of detachment described as 'strong' should take depends on whether he is physically fit to move about from place to place or not.

When a person is free from desire not only for the pleasures of this world, but even for those of higher worlds such as heaven, because of the knowledge that they are transient and will result only in repeated births and deaths, he is said to have 'stronger' detachment. This kind of detachment entitles the person to take the Hamsa and Paramahamsa varieties of Sannyasa. A Hamsa Sannaysi goes to Brahmaloka, realizes the absolute truth there and becomes liberated. This is known as Kramamukti or liberation by stages. The Paramahamsa is the ascetic of the highest order, who has achieved complete control over his senses. He attains liberation even while living in the body. This is called Jivanmukti.

Paramahamsas are of two kinds: the seeker after liberation and the knower of the Self. The seeker is one who has renounced all desires and wants nothing but the realization of the Self. He does not desire any of the three worlds or spheres of enjoyment, namely, the world of men, the world of the manes and the world of the gods. The means to the attainment of these three worlds are, respectively, the begetting of a son, the performance of the prescribed Vedic rituals and meditation (Br.Up.1.5.26). The seeker renounces all these means. He is intent only on attaining the world of the Self, which means liberation. To attain this he has to achieve total control over the mind, body and senses.

Vividisha Sannyasa (Renunciation of the seeker) 

The desire for Self-realization arises to a person as a result of the study of the Vedas and the performance of the rites enjoined by the Vedas in this life or in previous lives. The renunciation consequent on such desire is known as Vividisha Sannyasa or 'the renunciation of the seeker'. (Vividisha means 'the desire to know'). This Sannyasa is the means to the knowledge of Brahman. This is of two kinds: one, giving up the performance of only Kamyakarma, or actions motivated by desire for the fruit, and two, entering the Sannyasa Ashrama by muttering the Praisha formula and accepting the staff, etc. It is said here that ladies also are entitled to this Sannyasa before marriage and after the death of the husband, but it appears that they can become only 'tridandins', that is, only the Kutichaka and Bahoodaka varieties. Those who are not able to take the Sannyasa Ashrama for some reason can renounce mentally, while continuing to perform the duties of their own Ashrama.

Vidvat Sannyasa (Renunciation of the Knower) 

The entry into the Sannyasa order by those who have already attained Self-realization through hearing, reflection and meditation is known as Vidvat Sannyasa. Sage Yajnavalkya is an example of this. Having already realized the highest truth he declared his intention to renounce the world to his wife Maitreyi. He then became a Sannyasin. (See Br.Up. 4.5.2 and 4.5.15). This kind of Sannyasa is also mentioned in the Kahola Brahmana in Br.Up. 3.5.1.

While the Vividisha Sannyasin should devote himself to the study of the scriptures, reflection thereon and meditation for the realization of the Self, the Vidvat Sannyasin should strive for the destruction of the mind and the elimination of Vasanas in order to attain Jivanmukti. This matter will be dealt with in detail later on.

In the Jabala upanishad, when Atri objects that giving up of the sacred thread by a Brahmana is not permissible, Yajnavalkya replies that Self-knowledge is the real sacred thread for the Paramahamsa Sannyasin (Jabala.Up.5). So the absence of the external sacred thread is the sign that the Sannyasin belongs to the Paramahamsa category. It is further said in this Upanishad that Vidvat Sannyasins are without the external signs of Ashrama, bound by no forms of conduct and behaving like mad men, though not mad.

The procedure for a Tridandin to become a Vividisha Sannyasin who carries only one stick is the following. The three sticks, water-pot, begging bowl with the suspension-strainer, tuft and sacred thread should be offered to the Bhurloka, i.e. the earth, reciting the mantra: "Bhuh Svaha", meaning, "oblation to Bhuh" and thrown into water. He should then seek the Self.

The Paramahamsa who is a Vidvat Sannyasin is described as one who is like a new-born baby, whose mind is free from the effects of the pairs of opposites, devoid of all possessions, who is firmly established in the path to Brahman, whose mind is free from desires, who, just to maintain life without being under obligation to any one, goes about begging at the prescribed time, using his belly as the begging bowl, and is unperturbed whether he gets it or not, without a fixed dwelling, lives in places such as a derelict house, a temple, a hay-stack, under a tree, in a pottery, in a house where sacrificial fire is kept, on the riverside, in a mountain cave, in the hollow of a tree, or a place for the performance of sacrifices built near a spring. He is free from all striving, devoid of the feeling of "I and mine", ever meditates on the pure Self, is established in the supreme Self, gives up all actions and ultimately gives up his body with total detachment.

Both Vividisha Sannyasa and Vidvat Sannyasa fall under the category of Paramahamsa, but their characteristics are different and, in some respects, even contradictory. In Arunika Upanishad it is said that Vividisha Sannyasa is marked by the giving up of the tuft, the sacred thread, the study of the (Karmakanda of the) Vedas, the repetition of the Gayatri, etc, and enjoins the acceptance of a staff, bathing three times a day, meditation on the Self and study of the Upanishads. Though the same are prescribed for Vidvat Sannyasa also, it is said in the Paramahamsa Upanishad that these are not the essentials. A Vidvat Sannyasin is free from all rules regarding external symbols, social norms and conventions. He ever remains established in the realization that he is Brahman.

In the Smritis also, the distinction between these two types of Sannyasa is clear. With regard to Vividisha Sannyasa, Brihaspati Smriti says that those who find worldly life to be devoid of substance enter the order of Sannyasins even before marriage. The Mahabharata says that the wise, who aim at the attainment of Self-knowledge, renounce the world (14.43.39).

Regarding Vidvat Sannyasa, it is said-"When the eternal, supreme Brahman, becomes known (in a general way), then taking only one staff, the person must give up the sacred thread and the tuft; he should renounce everything and take Sannyasa, after having directly realized the supreme Brahman".

Desire for knowledge out of mere curiosity is no ground for renunciation. Vividisha implies desire for knowledge alone, excluding everything else. It can be compared to the desire for food of a person who is so hungry that he cannot tolerate even a moment's delay and will not accept anything else, however valuable. (In his Bhashya on Gita, 4.11 Sri Sankara says that it is impossible for a person to be a seeker of liberation and also a seeker of the fruits of action at the same time. This means that Vividisha, the desire to know the Self, can be said to be there only when there is total detachment towards everything else).

The culmination of knowledge is when the identification with the Self totally replaces the identification with the body (See Upadesa Sahasri, 4.5). On the attainment of this culmination, the knot of the heart is cut off, all doubts are destroyed and all latent impressions are annihilated (Mund. Up. 2.2.8).

The highest state attainable through karma is that of Hiranyagarbha. Even this pales into insignificance compared to the Supreme Brahman. The 'knot of the heart' means the wrong identity of the Self with the intellect, caused by beginningless ignorance; it is so called because it is as tight as a knot. The doubts referred to are-- Is the Self a mere witness or the doer of actions? If it is only a witness, is it Brahman or not? If it is Brahman, can it be known by the intellect or not? Does liberation consist merely in this knowledge? The 'latent impressions' are those that lead to future births. These three, being the results of Avidya, disappear on the realization of the Self. (See also Gita, 18.17).

A doubt now arises. Since Vividisha Sannyasa itself leads to the attainment of knowledge of the Self, which itself prevents future birth, and the remaining portion of this life has to be lived because of Prarabdha karma, what is the need for Vidvat Sannyasa? The answer is-- Vidvat Sannyasa is necessary for the attainment of Jivanmukti or liberation in life. Vividisha Sannyasa leads only to the attainment of Knowledge.

The nature of Jivanmukti

Bondage is the experience of pleasure and pain resulting from man looking upon himself as the performer of actions and the enjoyer of the fruits thereof. Because of this bondage one is not able to experience the Bliss which is natural to him. The cessation of this bondage is Jivanmukti or liberation in life. Now the question arises-- is the bondage the natural characteristic of the Witness (Self) or of the mind?. Since bondage ceases on the dawn of knowledge, it cannot be a characteristic of the Self, because what is natural can never be removed, like the heat of fire or the fluidity of water. If it is the natural characteristic of the mind, then also it can never be got rid of. It may be argued that though the natural characteristic of the mind cannot be completely removed, its effect can be neutralized by the practice of yoga. To this the answer given by the objector is that Praarabdha karma will make the person experience pleasure and pain and will prevent knowledge from destroying the ignorance along with its effects in its entirety. The Siddhanti's reply to this is that the human efforts prescribed by the scriptures can counteract even the effects of Praarabdha karma. If this is not so, all the sacred texts on liberation will become useless. One should not give up further effort just because of failure once. Nobody gives up eating for fear of indigestion or cooking for fear of being pestered by beggars or covering oneself with a blanket in cold weather because of the fear that there may be lice in it.

The efficacy of the efforts prescribed by scripture is known clearly from the dialogue between Vasishtha and Rama in Yogavasishtha. Rama says--"My Vasanas (the impressions of previous actions and thoughts) compel me to act in a particular way. I am powerless to go against them". Vasishtha replies-"Since you are subject to your Vasanas, your own initiative, combined with enthusiasm and effort by thought, word and deed is essential to liberate you from such dependence. Vasanas are of two kinds: good and bad. If the good Vasanas are powerful, they will themselves lead you to the attainment of liberation. If the evil Vasanas are powerful, you have to exert yourself to conquer them. The mind can be turned away, by the company of the good, from objects which are not conducive to spiritual progress. The mind is like a child. It can be disciplined by persuasion rather than by force. Control of breath (Pranaayaama) and withdrawal of the mind from external objects (Pratyaahaara) are the two methods of subduing the mind. By this method the mind becomes calm soon. When good desires arise soon after the practice of Rajayoga, it should be attributed to the practice of the yoga. One should continue with such practice in accordance with the instruction of the teacher, scripture and other valid evidence (Pramaana) until complete mastery over the mind is attained and the identity of Brahman and Atman is realized. After that, when the obstacles in the form of evil desires have vanished, even the good desires should be given up. It is thus clear that all desires (including those arising due to Praarabdha karma) can be got rid of through Yoga and so the possibility of Jivanmukti cannot be disputed.

The characteristics of Jivanmukti

The Srutis and Smritis establish the existence of the state of Jivanmukti. The Kathopanishad says (5.1),"the one already liberated is altogether liberated", which means that one who has become totally free from bondage while alive is freed from all possibility of future bondage after the fall of the body. Though during Pralaya and after death every one remains free from another birth for some time, he will certainly be born again, but one who has attained liberation in life will be free from birth for ever. The Br. Up. says, "When all the desires that are in his heart fall off entirely, the mortal becomes immortal and attains Brahman here (in this body) itself" (4.4.7). In another Sruti it is said, "Though with eyes, he is, as it were, without eyes; though with ears, he is, as it were, without ears; though with mind, he is, as it were, without mind; and though with life, he is, as it were, without life".

The Jivanmukta is described by different names such as, Sthitaprajna (man of steady wisdom), Bhagavad-bhakta (Devotee of God), Gunaatita (beyond the three Gunas), Brahmana (who has realized the Self), Ativarnaasramin (beyond the pale of the four Varnas and the four Asramas).

Jivanmukti can be attained only by a person who has given up all other actions, both Vedic and secular, who is in pursuit of knowledge alone and who is ever immersed in contemplation on the Self. Jivanmukti and Videhamukti are distinguished only by the presence and absence of the body and the sense-organs. The awareness of duality is absent in both of them.

The Jivanmukta is one for whom this phenomenal world, in which he moves and acts, has ceased to exist. In the case of an ordinary person, his mind reacts to the various forms in the world and gives him knowledge of their variety and their differences from one another. But the mind of the Jivanmukta does not get so transformed and so he does not see differences, but sees all forms only as Brahman. In deep sleep the mind does not undergo any transformation, but the seed for transformation remains. So sleep cannot be equated with the state of Jivanmukti. The Jivanmukta remains unaffected by both pleasure and pain. He is not elated by something good happening, nor is he depressed when a calamity occurs. He does not crave for anything, but subsists on whatever comes of its own accord. Though his senses function and can experience everything, his mind is absolutely calm and does not react to anything. Though his eyes see everything before him, his mind does not judge them as good or bad, favourable or unfavourable and so he is free from agitation and attachment or aversion. The senses themselves do not cause any harm. It is the mind which judges what is experienced by the senses and develops likes and dislikes in the case of an ordinary person. Since the mind of the Jivanmukta does not make any such judgment, he is free from all attachment and aversion. Because of the absence of transformation of the mind, the Jivanmukta is free from Vasanas. His mind always remains pure. He never looks upon himself as a doer of actions since he does not identify himself with the body-mind complex which alone performs all actions. Consequently he is neither elated nor depressed by the good or bad results of the actions. Others do not have any reason to fear him, because he never insults or harms others in any way. He is also not afraid of any one. He remains unaffected even if some wicked man insults or harasses him. He does not distinguish people as friend or foe. Though full of learning, he never exhibits it. His mind is absolutely free from worldly thoughts and is always fixed on contemplation of the Self. He remains cool even in matters concerning himself, just as a man attending a marriage or other ceremony in another's house remains unaffected by the gain or loss of that other person. This coolness is due not only to his freedom from worry, but also to his awareness of the fullness of his own Self. These are the characteristics of the Jivanmukta.

Videhamukti

When the body of the Jivanmukta falls, he becomes a Videhamukta, freed from his empirical existence and attains his real nature, like air resuming its tranquillity when the wind stops blowing. His subtle body is dissolved here itself. He cannot be described as 'sat', that is to say, he cannot be called 'praajna' conditioned by avidya or 'Isvara' conditioned by maayaa. He cannot be called 'asat', or made up of mere matter. He does not experience the gross objects of sense. He is neither Virat, nor Hiranyagarbha nor Isvara. Nor is he Visva, Taijasa or Praajna. Thus he does not come under the category of microcosm (vyashti) or of macrocosm (samashti).

Sthitaprajna

The man of steady wisdom (sthitaprajna) is described in the Gita as one who has acquired supreme detachment and gained complete mastery over his mind through the practice of yoga. His mind is always fixed in the Truth. When he is in Samadhi, he is absolutely free from all desires, as his mind is incapable of transformations in that state. The satisfaction he feels is reflected in the cheerfulness of his countenance. This satisfaction is the result of realization of the Self. In Samprajnata Samadhi there is the distinction of meditator, object of meditation and the act of meditation (known as Triputi). In the Samadhi which is spoken of here, which is called Asamprajnata Samadhi, these distinctions cease. The contentment in this state is not due to the transformation of the mind, but to the impression left by such transformation in the earlier state of Samprajnata Samadhi. When such a person is out of Samadhi, he is free from anxiety and pains, is indifferent to pleasures and is free from passion, fear and anger. Such a sage may, when he has come out of Samadhi, have mental transformations and experience of pleasure and pain brought about by Praarabdha karma. But he does not feel any anxiety or craving because of them, since he has attained total discrimination and detachment. Similarly passion, fear and anger, which are products of Tamoguna, have no place in his mind. He has no attachment to any person or thing nor has he any likes or dislikes, these being caused by Tamoguna, which is absent in him. As a tortoise draws in all its limbs, he withdraws his senses from their objects. The mind of the Sthitaprajna, when he is out of Samadhi, is entirely free from the grosser (Tamasic) kinds of transformation. When he is in Samadhi, his mind is subject to no transformation whatsoever.

The actual enjoyment of sense objects can be given up by a person by avoiding them, but the desire for them would still remain. This desire will go only when the Self is realized. A realized person does not need any external objects for getting happiness, he being Bliss itself. The Br. Up. says," What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self" (4.4.2).

The constant practice of meditation on the Self is necessary to safeguard against inadvertently slipping down from the spiritual level reached, even for a person who has brought all his senses under control.

How a person may slip down is described in Gita, 2.62 & 63. When a man keeps on thinking of sense-objects, he develops attachment to them. Attachment leads to intense longing for the objects. If the longing is not fulfilled, anger arises. Anger leads to loss of the power of discrimination between what is right and what is wrong. This results in his giving up the practice of pondering over the Truth. This makes him unfit for liberation because of the current of opposite ideas which act as obstacles. But a man who has controlled his mind and is free from attachment and aversion even when he is in the midst of sense-objects, attains peace.

The means for the attainment of realization, such as control of the mind and senses and meditation on the Self have to be deliberately practised by the aspirant for liberation, but these become the intrinsic characteristics of the realized person. The condition of being firmly established in the knowledge of the Self, wherein all sense of separateness is obliterated by the uninterrupted flow of the light of the Self, is called Jivanmukti or liberation in life.

Bhagavadbhaktah-The True Devotee of God

He is described in Gita, ch.12, verses 13 & 14. In Samadhi the devotee's mind is fixed on God and so it is not distracted by any other thought. When out of Samadhi, though he experiences objects, he feels neither joy nor sorrow, he being indifferent to both. Verses 15 to 19 of the same chapter describe him as unaffected by all the pairs of opposites. In Naishkarmyasiddhi, 4.69 Suresvaracharya says that the good qualities such as absence of hatred manifest of their own accord and are not the result of any effort by him. They are natural to him and do not constitute the means to an end as in the case of those who are still in the stage of aspirants.

Gunaatita- one who has transcended the Gunas

Such a person is described in chapter 14 of the Bhagavad-gita. The whole world is made up of the products of the three Gunas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. One who transcends these Gunas is a Jivanmukta. Illumination, activity and delusion are the result of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas respectively. They are active in the waking and dream states, but subside in sleep, Samadhi and absent-mindedness. Activity is of two kinds, agreeable and disagreeable. The unenlightened man hates the disagreeable and longs for the agreeable. The Gunaatita, being free from the notions of 'agreeable' and 'disagreeable', feels neither hatred nor desire. The discriminating Gunaatita remains entirely indifferent, like a disinterested onlooker witnessing two parties fighting with each other. This is because of his conviction that the Gunas in the form of the senses act and react upon the same Gunas in the form of objects and he, as the pure Atma, has nothing to do with them. The wrong notion that one is the doer of actions (and consequently the enjoyer of the results) is the cause of mental agitation. This is totally absent in the Gunaatita and so he is ever free from agitation. He is balanced in pleasure and pain. Service to the Supreme Being by the practice of knowledge and meditation accompanied by unswerving devotion are the means to be adopted by a person who wants to become a Gunaatita.

Braahmanah- the knower of Brahman

The word Braahmana denotes the knower of the supreme Self. He is entitled to become a Vidvat Sannyasin. He is devoid of all possessions. He is not concerned about the kind of garment he wears or the food he eats or the place where he rests. He accepts only the bare minimum of food, clothing and shelter necessary for bodily sustenance. He should wear only a loin cloth and carry a staff for the purpose of instilling faith in his listeners while engaged, purely out of his grace, in imparting the knowledge of Brahman to them. He should never, in spite of his sympathy for others, utter even a word about the worldly concerns of his pupils, but should always remain absorbed in meditation. He should avoid all talk other than about Brahman. Meditation is unimpeded when one is alone. The Smriti says that the religious mendicant should remain alone, because if there are two or more there is a possibility of talk among themselves on subjects such as politics or about the alms received by each. He should not give any blessing to any one because that will create distractions in his mind because of thoughts about what each person wants to have. Another Smriti says that knowledge can never be attained by one whose mind is concerned with the things of the world or with mere bookish learning or the preservation of one's body. The liberated man must give up all these. In lieu of words of blessing he should merely utter the word 'Narayana' which serves the purpose of all blessings. He should not engage himself in any effort to gain anything either for himself or for others. It is said In the Gita, 18.48 that all undertakings are clouded by defects as fire by smoke. Salutation is prescribed only for Vividisha Sannyasins thus-"A senior monk should be saluted if he belongs to the same order of monks, but never any one else". Enquiry about the relative seniority of monks and whether they belong to the same order leads to distraction of the mind and so salutation is not prescribed for Vidvat Sannyasins. Sri Sankara says in Upadesa Sahasri, 17.64- "Whom should a knower of the Self salute, when he is established in the infinite, non-dual Self which transcends all names and forms? He has nothing to do with action of any kind". Although salutation of the kind likely to cause disturbance of the mind is prohibited, that salutation which brings about tranquillity of mind is permitted. Srimad Bhagavata, 3.29.34 & 11.29.16 say--"One should salute, prostrating oneself even before a dog, a Chandala, a cow and an ass, realizing that God is present in them all in the form of the Jiva”. Praise of men is forbidden, but praise of God is enjoined, because it will lead to freedom from bondage. He who is steadfast in the knowledge of the Self should not become dejected when he does not get any food, nor should he be overjoyed when he gets it, because both are governed by destiny. He is not bound by the injunctions or prohibitions of the Vedas. Sage Narada has said in Narada-pancha-ratra, 4.2.23 that the all-pervading Lord Vishnu should be treasured up in memory and not forgotten even for a moment; all injunctions and prohibitions are subservient to this. Mahabharata, Santiparva, 237.13 says that the gods consider him to be a Braahmana who is afraid of a crowd as of a snake, of conventional honour as of death and of woman as of a corpse. This is because the company of others may lead to futile talk and honour leads to attachment which sets up tendencies adverse to the true aim of life. The Yogi, keeping in mind the path of the wise, must conduct himself in such a way that people treat him with contempt and never seek his company. Manusmriti says that one should avoid sitting close to even one's own mother, sister or daughter because the powerful sense organs can drag down even a man of wisdom (2.215).

Men of the world should avoid being alone as that may cause fear, but the opposite is applicable to Yogis. To the Yogi the vast expanse of space appears to be full of the supreme bliss of the Self since he is always absorbed in meditation and so there is no cause for fear. A crowded place is unsuitable for meditation and so the Yogi should avoid it and seek solitude.

Ativarnaasramin
(one who is beyond the pale of the four Varnas and Ashramas)

The Ativarnaasramin is described in the fifth chapter of the section on liberation in the Suta Samhita. He is the teacher of disciples belonging to all the four Ashramas. He never becomes the disciple of any one else. He is the Teacher of teachers. There is none in the world equal or superior to him. He is one who has realized the supreme Truth. He is all Bliss and is the witness of the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. He has attained the firm conviction that Varna and Ashrama are imaginary super-impositions on the body, brought about by Maayaa and that he, being the pure Atma, has no connection with them. He knows from the Upanishads that the whole universe functions in the mere presence of the Atma which is identical with himself, just as human beings perform all their activities with the help of the light of the sun, while the sun itself is not at all involved in their activities. Just as various ornaments made of gold are nothing but gold, the universe of multifarious names and forms projected by Maayaa is nothing but Brahman. The appearance of Brahman as the universe is similar to the appearance of nacre as silver. The great Lord who is one, devoid of any relation, is like the all-pervading space, pervading all beings, big or small, high or low. He has realized that the world of the waking state is a fabrication of Maayaa, just as all objects seen in dream are the creation of delusion. Having realized that he is the Self, he is beyond all the duties enjoined for the four Ashramas.

Thus it is conclusively established in the Srutis that Jivanmukti is a reality.

Jivanmuktiviveka

of

Swami Vidyaranya

A summary

Chapter 2

On the obliteration of latent impressions (Vaasanaas)

The means to Jivanmukti are knowledge of the Reality, the dissolution of the mind and the obliteration of latent impressions. All these three have to be practised simultaneously to get the result. It is only by prolonged practice of these three that the knot of the heart can be cut. The world appears to us to be real because of having been experienced in innumerable past births. Only the prolonged practice of yoga can remove the wrong notions cultivated over numerous lives. The knowledge of the Reality, the dissolution of the mind and the elimination of vaasanaas are related mutually as cause and effect. Until the mind is dissolved, elimination of vaasanaas is not possible and until the vaasanaas are eliminated, dissolution of the mind cannot take place. The mind undergoes modifications in consonance with the objects experienced by it through the sense organs. The 'dissolution of the mind' means the mind becoming free from such modifications and remaining controlled. vaasanaa is the cause of mental modifications, such as anger, rising up all of a sudden and without any thought of past happenings or future consequences. The effacement of vaasanaas means the elimination of the scope for the rise of anger and the like, even when causes for such anger and the like exist. This is achieved by discrimination which brings about pure vaasanas such as control of the senses and the mind. If the mind is not dissolved, it will continue to react to external stimuli and emotions such as anger will arise and then there can be no effacement of vaasanaas. So also, as long as vaasanaas exist, transformation of the mind in the form of anger, etc, continues and there can be no dissolution of the mind. The two are thus related mutually as cause and effect.

The knowledge of the Reality and the dissolution of the mind are also mutually related as cause and effect. 'Knowledge of the Reality' means the conviction to the effect, "All this is verily the Atman. The phenomenal world of forms, tastes and the like is illusory, it has no real existence". As long as such a conviction has not been attained, forms, tastes and the like will continue to be looked upon as real and the mind will continue to undergo corresponding modifications. And as long as such mental modifications continue, the conviction that Brahman alone is real will not take root.

The reciprocal causal relationship between the obliteration of latent desires (vaasanaa-kshaya) and knowledge of the Reality can also be established. Knowledge of the Reality will not arise until the mind becomes free from anger and the like, which are caused by the vaasanaas. Conversely, the elimination of vaasanaas is not possible as long as false knowledge, which invests the causes of anger and other emotions with a semblance of reality, is not removed.

When one sees everything as Brahman there can be no reason for anger, fear and other such emotions. Virtues such as self-control are strengthened by the knowledge of the Reality and the knowledge of the Reality is strengthened by such virtues. Thus all the three, knowledge of the Reality, obliteration of latent impressions and the dissolution of the mind help one another to progress further. The means of accomplishing these three are personal effort accompanied by discrimination, and giving up all desire for enjoyment. Personal effort involves the determination to succeed in the effort. Discrimination means the conviction that sravana, manana and nididhyaasana are the means to the attainment of knowledge, that yoga is the means to the dissolution of the mind and that the setting up of an opposite current of vaasanaas is the means to the obliteration of impure vaasanaas. The desire for enjoyment has to be totally eliminated because once the smallest desire arises, it will grow and become stronger and stronger if left unchecked.

It has been shown before that knowledge of the Reality (Brahman) is the result of vividishaa sannyaasaa and Jivanmukti that of vidvat sannyaasaa. That means that, after having first acquired knowledge of the Reality, one should become a vidvat sannyaasi and strive for obliteration of vaasanaas and dissolution of the mind. Since he has already acquired knowledge, a doubt may arise as to why it is said that even at this stage such a person should continue to strive for all the three, namely, attainment of knowledge, obliteration of vaasanaas and dissolution of the mind. The answer is that while, for the vividisha sannyaasi, knowledge is the principal aim and the other two are subordinate thereto, for the vidvat sannyaasi the reverse is true. Though the vidvat sannyaasi no more needs sravana, etc, having already acquired knowledge, he should constantly remember the sublime truth. This is done by always thinking about the Reality, talking about it to others and meditating on it. In the episode of Lila in Laghu yogavaasishtha it has been said, “Reflecting on ‘That’, speaking about ‘That’, instructing one another about ‘That’, this is considered by the wise to be single-minded dedication and the practice of the knowledge.

When attachment and aversion are reduced to the minimum as a result of the realization of the unreality of the objective world there arises a new sense of happiness. This is called 'Brahma-abhyaasa' or the practice of Brahman. This is the means of effacing the latent impressions.

To one seeking liberation, the aims are Jivanmukti and Videhamukti. Katha Up. 2.2.1 says-" Having been liberated from ignorance while still alive, he is altogether liberated on the fall of the body". One who has divine qualities attains liberation, while one with demoniac qualities remains in bondage, as said in Gita, Ch.16. These qualities are described in the same chapter. When the evil vaasanaas inherent in a person from birth are eliminated by the cultivation of good vaasanaas through personal effort, there results Jivanmukti.

The dissolution of the mind is also mentioned in the sruti as the cause of Jivanmukti, along with the obliteration of latent impressions. Amritabindu Up. says that the mind alone is the cause of bondage as well as of liberation. A mind attached to objects of sense causes bondage and when free from attachment the very same mind is the cause of liberation. The seeker after liberation should therefore keep his mind free from attachment. The mind, devoid of attachment to sense objects, becomes free from all modifications and comes to rest in the heart. The mind should be prevented from attaining modifications (caused by desires, likes, dislikes, anger, and the like) till its dissolution in the heart. This is knowledge and also liberation.

Bondage is of two kinds: strong and moderate. Demoniac qualities, being the direct cause of misery, make up the strong kind. The mere perception of duality, not being by itself the cause of misery, is the bondage of the moderate kind. By the obliteration of latent impressions the bondage of the strong kind alone is removed, while both kinds are removed by the dissolution of the mind. It should however not be thought that the dissolution of the mind alone is sufficient since it removes both kinds of bondage. When the powerful praarabdha karma, which is the cause of happiness and misery, brings the mind into action, then the effacement of the latent impressions is necessary to remove the first kind of bondage. All the mental transformations caused by tamoguna are to be considered as strong bondage. Transformations caused by sattva and rajoguna constitute moderate bondage.

It should not be thought that, since the moderate kind of bondage (which is the mere perception of duality) is inevitable, and the strong kind can be removed by the obliteration of latent impressions, the dissolution of the mind serves no purpose. The inevitable experience of happiness and misery, caused by a weak praarabdha, can be counteracted only by the dissolution of the mind and so this is also necessary. It has been said (Panchadasi, 7.156), " If it were at all possible to prevent the experience of happiness and misery, then, Nala, Rama and Yudhishthira would never have been stricken with misery". Thus the obliteration of latent impressions and the dissolution of the mind are the direct means to Jivanmukti, and knowledge of the Reality is subordinate, being only a mediate cause, as producing the other two.

To sum up, obliteration of latent impressions and dissolution of the mind are the principal causes of Jivanmukti, while knowledge is the principal cause of Videhamukti.

A person who, without making efforts to attain knowledge of Nirguna Brahman (by sravana, etc), practises, to the extent possible, the effacement of latent impressions and dissolution of the mind and devotes himself only to Brahman with attributes (saguna), cannot attain Kaivalya, because his subtle body is not destroyed. By Kaivalya, brought about by knowledge (of Nirguna Brahman), the person is freed from bondage.

Bondage is of various kinds, signified by the expressions-- knot of ignorance, the conviction of being not Brahman, the knot of the heart, doubt, karma, hankering after objects of sense, death, rebirth and the like. All these are removed by knowledge. See Mundaka up. 2.1.10, 3.2.9, 2.2.8, Taitt.up. 2.1, Sveta.up. 3.8, Katha up. 1.3.8, Br.up. 1.4.10, Br. Su.1.1.4 & 4.1.13.

Here Swami Vidyaranya says that Videhamukti is attained at the very moment in which knowledge arises, because when all bonds, which are all due to ignorance, are destroyed by knowledge, they can never come into being again. He supports this view with the statement in Sri Sankara's Bhashya on Brahma sutra, 4.1.13- "On its attainment, future and past sins are destroyed". This view is at variance with the generally accepted definition of Videhamukti which is that when the body of a Jivanmukta falls, he becomes a Videhamukta. Ch.up, 6.14.2 says "He remains here only as long as he is not released (from the body). The moment he is released, he becomes one with the All". In Vakyavritti, 52-53 it is said, "Through the effect of praarabdha karma he becomes a Jivanmukta. Then, on the exhaustion of that karma he attains the supreme state of bliss, called Kaivalya, from which there is no return". In Brahma sutra, 4.1.19, it is said, "After exhausting the other two (the good and bad effects of Prarabdha karma), he attains it (Brahman)". Laghu Yogavaasishtha, 5.98 says that when the body falls, the Jivanmukta gives up that state and becomes a Videhamukta.

Vidyaranya says that these two positions are not contradictory because they are based on different points of view. The views quoted above take the word 'deha' in Videhamukti to mean the existing and all future bodies collectively. Therefore, according to them Videhamukti can take place only when the present body has ceased to exist and no future body is possible. But Vidyaranya uses this word in the sense of 'future body' only. Thus, as soon as it becomes clear that there can be no future embodiment for the person, he becomes a Videhamukta. Therefore, Videhamukti, in the sense of preclusion of future embodiment, is simultaneous with the rise of Self-knowledge.

Thus it is established that knowledge is the direct means of attaining Videhamukti, while the obliteration of latent impressions and the dissolution of the mind are subordinate, being only the means of attaining knowledge. For Jivanmukti the obliteration of latent impressions (vaasanaa-kshaya) and dissolution of the mind (manonaasa) are the principal means.

Now a doubt arises. When a Vividisha Sannyasi has accomplished these three means and thereby reached the stage of Vidvat Sannyasa, has he still to endeavour afresh for acquiring these? The answer is that knowledge will continue to exist, but the other two have to be striven for afresh. The student fit for the acquisition of knowledge is of two kinds: he who has practised meditation and he who has not yet done so. To the student who has practised meditation to the extent of actually realizing the object of meditation, Vidvat Sannyasa and Jivanmukti will follow of their own accord because of his firm hold over the obliteration of vaasanaas and the dissolution of the mind. Nowadays men rush in quest of Self-knowledge, out of sheer curiosity, without going through the preliminary stage of upaasanaa. They accomplish obliteration of vaasanaas and dissolution of the mind temporarily. By study, reflection and meditation on the Vedantic texts ignorance, doubt and false perception are removed and knowledge is attained. In the absence of a more powerful means which could resuscitate the ignorance, the knowledge remains steady. But the obliteration of vaasanaas and dissolution of the mind can be easily extinguished, like a lamp exposed to the breeze, for want of steady application and because of being influenced by praarabdha karma. This means that for such Vidvat sannyaasis only the knowledge continues, but the other two are to be accomplished by effort.

Vaasanaa or latent impression has been described by Vasishtha as intense hankering after things to such an extent that the mind becomes totally obsessed by it. This results in the real nature of things and their past or future effects being completely lost sight of. The person then identifies himself with the thing he hankers after and his vision becomes clouded. The blind attachment that people have towards their traditional customs and manners, their countries and their communities is cited as an example. Keeping in view the vaasanaa of this kind, it is said in Br. up, 4.5.4:-- 'He shapes his ideas in accordance with his desires, he does such acts as fulfil his ideas, he becomes that which he does'.

Vaasanaas are of two kinds: pure and impure. Impure vaasanaas result in continuation of the cycle of birth and death. The pure vaasanaa is like seeds sown after being roasted on fire, which do not sprout. It does not cause rebirth. The impure vaasanaa is described as of the form of very dense ignorance. Ignorance is that which veils the distinction between the five sheaths and the Witness Consciousness. This kind of vaasanaa is spoken of as demoniac nature in Bh. Gita, ch.16.

The pure vaasanaa is of that kind which knows what is to be known, namely, the Self. This is described in Gita, ch.13, verses 13 to 18. The conditioned and unconditioned forms of Brahman are set forth in these verses to enable the comprehension of Its tatastha-lakshana and svarupa-lakshana. The former is a random quality applied exclusively to signify a thing, for instance, pointing out the house of a particular person as that on which a crow is sitting. The latter is the quality which defines a thing by its permanent feature, as for example, 'that which is highly luminous is the moon'.

That activity of the senses which is pervaded by an undercurrent of the perception of the Reality is called 'pure vaasanaa'. This is of use only for maintaining life in the body. It does not produce either demoniac qualities like hypocrisy, vanity and the like or dharma or adharma, which lead to future birth. It is like roasted grains which do not germinate.

Impure vaasanaa is of three kinds: desire for (unblemished reputation in) the world (loka vaasanaa), obsession with learning (saastra vaasanaa) and undue attachment to the body (deha vaasanaa). The first one takes the form 'I want to be always praised by everyone'. This i

s called impure because it is something impossible of achievement. No one, however good, can always escape slander. Even absolutely blemishless Sita was slandered. People speak ill of others merely because of local peculiarities. The southern Brahmanas censure the northerners, well-versed in the Vedas, as meat-eaters. The northern Brahmanas retaliate by ridiculing the southern custom of marrying the daughter of a maternal uncle and for carrying earthenware during travel. A pure man is looked upon as a devil, a clever man as presumptuous, a man of forbearance as weak, a strong man as cruel, an absent-minded man as a thief, and a handsome man as lewd. Thus nobody can please everyone. So the scriptures advise us to treat censure and praise alike.

The obsession with learning (saastra vaasanaa) is of three kinds: addiction to study, addiction to many scriptural texts and obsession with the mechanical observance of injunctions with regard to the performance of rituals. The first only is exemplified by sage Bharadvaja, who was not satisfied with having devoted three successive lives to the study of the Vedas and continued the same in his fourth life also. This is also an impure vaasanaa because it is not possible of achievement. Indra cured him of this by explaining to him the impossibility of his undertaking and initiated him into the knowledge of the conditioned Brahman for the attainment of a higher end.

Addiction to many scriptural texts is also an impure vaasanaa because it is not the highest aim. The example for this is Durvasa. Once he went with a cart-load of scriptural works to Lord Mahadeva. Narada ridiculed him by comparing him to a donkey carrying a huge load. Durvasa became angry and threw away the books into the ocean. Lord Mahadeva then imparted to him the knowledge of the Self which does not come from study alone.

Obsession with injunctions relating to the performance of rites is exemplified by Nidagha, as described in Vishnupurana. Another example of this is Daasura who, because of the intensity of his desire to adhere to the injunctions, could not find any place in the whole world pure enough for the performance of rites. This mad desire for performing karma is also an impure vaasanaa because it results in the person continuing in the cycle of repeated birth and death. Saastra vaasanaa is also impure for another reason, namely, that it is the cause of vanity.

Deha vaasanaa is of three kinds-- looking upon the body as the Self, concern about making the body attractive and desire to remove defects in the body. The first two are clearly impure vaasanaas because they are obstacles to spiritual progress. The third is impossible of achievement because the body is essentially impure and so it is also an impure vaasanaa.

All these three vaasanaas should therefore be given up by discriminating people, since they obstruct the rise of knowledge in the seekers and affect the permanence of the knowledge acquired by the knower. The impurity of the vaasanaas arising from a demoniac nature, which take the form of hypocrisy, vanity and the like, is well-known and so it goes without saying that this has to be destroyed.

Just as the vaasanaas have to be obliterated, the mind has also to be dissolved. The Tarkikas hold that the mind is an eternal substance of atomic dimension. In this view the mind can never be dissolved. This view is not accepted by Vedantins. They hold that the mind is a substance with parts, is not eternal and is capable of transforming itself into various forms. The mind is defined thus in the Br. up, 1.5.3--"Desire, will, doubt, belief, disbelief, resoluteness, irresoluteness, shame, intelligence, fear, --- all these make up the mind". These transformations are directly perceived by the Witnessing Self. The sense organs cannot experience their objects without the co-operation of the mind. This internal organ is called manas when it performs the function of thinking and debating; it is called chitta when it performs an act of perception. This chitta is of the nature of sattva, rajas and tamas. When tamas predominates, demoniac qualities make their appearance. The predominance of rajas gives rise to the three vaasanaas-- loka vaasanaa, saastra vaasanaa and deha vaasanaa. When sattva gains mastery, divine qualities become established. Sattva is the principal material cause of the mind; rajas and tamas are only accessories. Therefore sattva is the residual native form of the mind of an enlightened person, since he has got rid of rajas and tamas. Such a mind is one-pointed, being free from rajas which is the cause of fickleness. It is also very subtle, being free from tamas which is the cause of the gross forms assumed by the not-self. Such a mind is fit to receive enlightenment.

Bondage is nothing but the bond of vaasanaas and liberation is the obliteration of vaasanaas. One should first give up the three kinds of vaasanaas relating to the world, learning and the body mentioned above, as well as the desire for objects of enjoyment. Then one should set up a current of pure vaasanaas such as friendship, compassion, contentment and indifference towards happiness and sorrow, and other pairs of opposites. The hankering after pleasures contaminates the mind. If a person is friendly towards those who are happy and looks upon their happiness as his, hankering after pleasures will vanish. Attaining mental equilibrium in this manner, one should remain attached only to knowledge of the Reality. Ultimately even the desire for knowledge should be given up, because it is also only something conceived by the mind and the intellect.

The three vaasanaas described above, namely, loka vaasanaa, saastra vaasanaa and deha vaasanaa are collectively called 'mental vaasanaa'. There is another kind of vaasanaa known as vishaya vaasanaa which relates to objects of enjoyment. By objects are meant sound, touch, form, taste and smell. Mental vaasanaa is that impression which is born of the desire for these; vaasanaas relating to objects are impressions born of actual enjoyment of desired things.

It may be asked, how is it possible to give up vaasanaas, which have no form? Things which have form, like dust and straw, can be swept away with a brush, but how to remove vaasanaas which have no form? The answer is that this can be done by cultivating friendship and similar virtues. These are described by Patanjali in his yoga aphorisms: ‘The mind becomes serene by the practice of friendship, compassion, joy, and indifference respectively, towards those who are happy, those who are suffering, those who are virtuous and those who are sinful’ (Yoga sutra 1.33). If one adopts a friendly disposition towards those who are happy, and identifies himself with them to such an extent that he looks upon their happiness as his own, he will not hanker after happiness and his mind will be calm and serene. If one has compassion for every miserable being and feels that no one should experience sorrow of any kind, then too, the mind will become serene. It has been said, “Life is as dear to all beings as it is to oneself; the wise feel compassion for every being, taking their own selves as the standard of comparison”.

If one feels joy at the sight of virtuous men, one would, of one’s own accord, perform virtuous acts. If one adopts an attitude of indifference towards sinful men, and is not tempted to adopt their means, one can keep away from sin. By all these means the mind can be made calm. By adopting an attitude of friendliness towards those who are happy, one not only becomes free from attachment, but also free from malice, jealousy, and similar defects. Malice results in maligning the virtuous. Jealousy is the unwillingness to tolerate the superiority or virtue of another. When, out of friendliness, one looks upon the happiness of others as one’s own, malice and jealousy will have no place. When one feels compassion for the miserable the vanity arising from one’s own state of prosperity vanishes. This vanity is what has been referred to in the Bhagavadgita thus: “I am the lord, I am the enjoyer, I am perfect, powerful, happy; I am rich, well-born; who is there equal to me?” (16. 14-15).

It has been said above that if a person cultivates the habit of becoming exalted when he sees a virtuous person he will become more inclined to perform such virtuous acts himself. Now a question may arise, will not such an inclination be inappropriate in a yogin? It has been said earlier under ‘saastra vaasanaa’ that the mad desire for performing karma is also an impure vaasanaa because it also leads to rebirth. The answer is that what was implied there was only acts of virtue done with a motive. The virtuous acts referred to here are those which, being ‘neither white nor black’ do not lead to rebirth. Patanjali’s yoga sutra 4.7 says: “Actions are neither white nor black in the case of yogins; in the case of others they are of three kinds”. Actions sanctioned by the scripture, when performed with desire for the fruit are ‘white’. Actions prohibited by scripture are ‘black’. Actions which partake of both these qualities are ‘mixed’. These three lead to three kinds of re-embodiment as stated by Sri Sureshvaracharya in Naishkarmyasiddhi, 1.41: “A person who, because of ignorance, considers himself as the performer of actions, attains the status of a god by doing desire-prompted good deeds, goes to hell by doing prohibited actions and attains the status of a human being by doing both good and bad deeds”.

The actions performed by a yogi are described as non-white because they are not prompted by desire.

The real yogis are only those whose minds are serene because of the cultivation of qualities such as friendliness mentioned earlier. They naturally perform only virtuous actions.

The qualities described in the previous chapter as the characteristics of the Jivanmukta and Sthitaprajna, if cultivated by the spiritual aspirant, will destroy all impure vaasanas.

One should examine one’s own mind and find out what are the impure vaasanas there. He should cultivate such pure vaasanas as are necessary to counteract his impure vaasanas. Just as a person who is disgusted with worldly life takes to renunciation, a person afflicted by impure vaasanas such as arrogance due to learning, opulence, pedigree, etc., should cultivate discrimination to counteract them.

In Laghu Yogavaasishtha king Janaka points out the means of attaining discrimination thus: One should ask oneself, ”How can one place faith in greatness? Those who were considered great in the past are no more now. Where has the fabulous wealth of emperors gone? Where are the innumerable worlds created by Brahma? The old order of things has gone into oblivion. Millions of Brahmas have come and gone. Myriads of heavens have vanished one after another. The most powerful emperors of the past are now nothing more than dust. This being so, how can the existence of persons like me be of any consequence?”

Now a question arises. The discrimination mentioned above should precede the rise of the knowledge of the Reality because such knowledge can arise only after discrimination between the eternal and the ephemeral has been acquired. Here the means to Jivanmukti such as the obliteration of vaasanaas for one who has already realized Brahman are being dealt with. Is a discussion of discrimination not out of place here?

Svami Vidyaranya explains that normally one can realize Brahman only after the acquisition of the four preliminary requisites, namely, discrimination between the eternal and the ephemeral, detachment, the six qualities starting with control of the mind, and yearning for liberation. But king Janaka is said to have attained realization as soon as he heard the Siddhagita in Yogavaasishtha. This happened because of the merit (punya) accumulated by him in past births. After that he had to cultivate discrimination in order to attain calmness of mind. So reference to discrimination at this stage is relevant in his case.

It may be objected that since all impure vaasanaas must have disappeared on the attainment of knowledge, effort to cultivate pure vaasanaas is not necessary. The answer is that it is not so as a general rule. For example, impure vaasanaas are seen to have existed even after dawn of knowledge in Yajnavalkya, Bhagiratha and others. Yajnavalkya as well as his opponents Ushasta, Kahola and others had vast pride of learning as is evident from the fact that they entered into a debate with the desire for victory. It cannot be said that they had only other knowledge and not knowledge of Brahman, because all the questions and answers in the debate related to Brahman. Their knowledge of Brahman cannot be said to be only mediate and not immediate, because in that case our knowledge of Brahman arising from their statements would be also only be mediate. Moreover, the questions put were concerned with the direct and immediate knowledge of Brahman.

Now an objection may be raised: Acharya Sankara says in Upadesa Sahasri, 12.13 that only a person who has given up the egoism that he is a knower of Brahman is a real knower of the Self and not others. In Naishkarmyasiddhi, 1.75, Sureshvaracharya says, “Identification with the body which is due to demoniac delusion is not possible for an enlightened person. If even an enlightened person has such delusion then Brahman-realization would be of no use”. It follows from these that there cannot be pride of learning in an enlightened person.

The answer to this objection is: the enlightenment referred to in these verses is that of a person who has become a Jivanmukta. It is accepted by us also that there cannot be any pride of learning in a Jivanmukta. Here we are making a distinction between a Sthitaprajna (i.e. a Jivanmukta) and a mere knower of the Self. As regards the mere knower, Sureshvaracharya says in Br. Up. Bhashyavartika, 1.4.1539 and 1.4.1746, “Let attachment and the like remain, their presence does not do any harm. What harm can avidya do when it is like a snake whose fangs have been removed? Desire, etc., arising from ignorance of the Reality are the cause of bondage, but for a knower of the Reality these do not cause bondage just as seeds which have been roasted cannot sprout even though they retain their appearance. It has been said in Varahopanishad, 3.24, 25, “Attachment, etc., are burnt out by the fire of discrimination as soon as they arise; how can they sprout?”.

Yajnavalkya, while engaged in debate with Ushasta, Kahola and others (as described in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) had not attained the state of Jivanmukta because he was to enter vidvat sannyasa in order to obtain peace of mind. He shows, not only the desire to win over his opponents, but also greed for gold. Later he cursed Sakalya to death. But it should not be thought that such a heinous sin as killing a Brahmana would bar him from liberation; for the Kaushitaki upanishad says, “He does not lose that state by any act whatever, whether it is matricide, patricide, theft or foeticide” (3.1).

Even reputed knowers of Brahman, like Yajnavalkya, are subject to the influence of impure vaasanaa. Vasishtha says in Yogavaasishtha that Bhagiratha, though a knower of the Reality, could not get peace of mind while engaged in ruling over his kingdom because of the impact of impure vaasanaas. He therefore renounced everything and only then attained peace. It therefore follows that we should carefully examine our defects caused by impure vaasanaas, with the same strictness with which we detect the defects of others, and apply the necessary remedies. It has been said in a smriti, “If a man of the world, who is adept at detecting the defects of others, applies his skill to detect his own faults, he will certainly be liberated from the bonds of ignorance”.

To answer the question, “What is the remedy for the pride born of leaning”, it has first to be decided whose pride is meant. Is it the pride of the leaned man who seeks to show that others are inferior to him, or is it the pride of some other person who wants to show that he is superior? In the first case, the learned man should always keep in mind that some day it will be crushed by some one superior. If the pride is in some other person who wants to show that he is superior to us in knowledge, the best course will to say to oneself, “That man is puffed up with pride; let him insult or slander me; I do not lose anything thereby”. It has been said: “If they slander the Self in me, they slander only themselves. If they slander my body, I should look upon them as my friends”. In Naishkarmyasiddhi

It has been said: “What does it matter to a person who has cast off his excreta, if someone comments on its unclean nature? In the same manner, when a person has dissociated himself from both the gross and subtle bodies through discrimination, will he be affected in the least if some one speaks ill of them?” (2.16-17).

The sruti says: “Without deviating from the path of rectitude, the yogin should so conduct himself as to make people avoid his company in sheer disgust” (Naradaparivrajakopanishad, 5.30).

The two varieties of pride of learning described above which were seen in Yajnavalkya and others should be got rid of by discrimination.

The method of getting rid of the greed for wealth is described thus: “There is considerable effort and trouble involved in the acquisition of wealth, as also in its preservation; if it is spent or lost there is great anguish. O fie upon wealth, which produces unhappiness at every step”.

Anger is also of two kinds: anger in oneself directed at others, and anger in others directed to oneself. With regard to the first it is said: “While you become angry with someone who has done you some harm, why do you not feel angry with that same emotion which does even more harm by blocking your way to the attainment of the four purusharthas and which affects even your physical and mental well-being?”

With regard to the second kind, it has been said: “One should never give room for the thought, ‘I have offended none. So anger towards me is not justified’. On the other hand every one should consider as his gravest offence the inability to free himself from bondage. He should bow to the god of anger who burns away his own seat and bestows detachment by imparting the knowledge of his faults”.

Attachment to wife and children should also be eradicated in the same manner as greed and anger.

All impure vaasanaas should thus be eradicated by reminding oneself of the evil consequences that flow from them. Sage Vasishtha says in Yogavaasishtha: “If you put forth sufficient effort and destroy all vaasanaas, all your ills, physical and mental, will get dissolved. Then access to the highest state will become attainable”.

As stated by the Lord in Bhagavadgita, 2.60, 67, the turbulent senses carry away the mind of even a wise man striving for perfection. If the mind yields to the senses, its discrimination is carried away, just as a gale carries away a ship”. So one should restrain all the senses and fix the mind on the Lord as the supreme goal. The wisdom of a person who has brought his senses under control becomes steady.

When qualities such are friendship are cultivated and become firmly established, the impure vaasanaas will be obliterated.

The Naradaparivrajakopanishad says: “The mendicant who is tongue-less, impotent, lame, blind, deaf, and mad certainly attains liberation. He is tongue-less who, while eating, is not attached to the food and does not concern himself with its pleasantness or unpleasantness; while speaking he is moderate and always tells the truth with the intention of doing good to others. He is impotent who remains unaffected at the sight of a young woman of sixteen, as of a girl just born, or a woman bent double with the weight of years. He whose movements are confined to begging alms or answering the calls of nature, and do not by any means exceed a yojana (about five miles) is a lame man. He is blind, the ken of whose eye, whether standing or walking, does not extend far beyond four yoke-lengths. He who turns a deaf ear to words uttered within ear-shot, however friendly or pleasing, is said to be deaf. The mendicant who, though alert and with senses unimpaired, behaves as if he is asleep is said to be a mad man. Such a person never indulges in censure or praise, nor talk too much and treats all alike. He would never be in the company of a woman, nor recall to mind any woman seen before (3.62-68)”.

Realizing that all the insentient objects in this universe are only manifestations of pure consciousness (Brahman), one should fix the mind only on pure consciousness. Just as a goldsmith, when buying an old bracelet of gold, fixes his mind only on the weight and the colour of the gold and not on the form of the bracelet or its beauty, the seeker should fix his mind only on pure consciousness while seeing the various objects in the world. The effort in this regard should be kept up until the consciousness of the phenomenal objects is obliterated and the consciousness of Brahman becomes as natural as breathing.

He who, though awake, keeps his mind in a tranquil state and does not react to the world around, as in sleep, is the truly liberated person. The liberated man with a virile intellect, who has eradicated all desires from his heart, is ever free from all agitation of the mind, and is himself the great Isvara. Whether he is in samadhi or not, whether he performs the rituals laid down for his order or not, he stands liberated, free from all attachment. With his mind cleared of all vaasanaas, it makes no difference whether he performs karma or not. He has no concern with efforts to attain samadhi or with performing japa, etc. He may engage himself in action in the world, but he remains untouched by them. He is not dejected by adversity. He never swerves from the path of self-restraint.

King Janaka had attained this state. He therefore performed his duties as the king without the least attachment to the results. He did not think of the past or worry about the future, but lived in the present, his heart ever filled with bliss.

**********************