I was casually exchanging mails with a satsangi and the topic shifted through lot of things that I'm doing or not doing and whether I'm confused. That led to a series of mails where I wrote up things that I was reserving for some blog entries. Instead I'll blog those mails in a dialogue, my friend here will be marked as MU:
me: I'm sure you may be thinking that I'm confused. And let me agree this time that due to so much of running around in the past, I'm kinda confused on things that I'll pursue being in Vasai. Maybe, all in good time! :)
MU: Confusion on the spiritual path is probably not uncommon..I'm sure that as you settle down, you will find your way.
me: Just to clarify, you too meant confusion (in worldly matters) on the spiritual path, right? :)
MU: Confusion, not necessarily, in worldly matters only - even in the spiritual path itself - I had a friend in the US who came to India, became a Sanyasin and then associated with so many gurus that finally he was confused as to which guru to follow, then another who is married with a child & is confused about how he can do rigorous sadhana given his station in life...in fact, in my opinion, confusion is the norm in spiritual life rather than certainty! :-) Hence the need for a guru!
me: Doesn't "hence the need for a Guru" and "confused about which Guru to follow" seem contradictory? And thats life, worldly life! :)
Well, to me, both the matters are essentially worldly. Spiritual path begins only on following principles that lead to moksha. Taking from the example and not specifically commenting on your friend, being confused about which guru to follow, having followed many, is akin to which path to follow, be it bhakti, yoga or jnAna or even in really spiritual details of Advaita Vedanta, whether to follow Bhamati or Vivarana(*), etc. If one doesn't know what to follow, if there's no faith/ understanding of the path, then the very step in the so-called spiritual journey was hurrying without being prepared for it or maybe smashAna vairAgya. I think a better way would be to stick on to guru who initiated one into saMnyAsa, if not identify a guru and then take to saMnyAsa.
The other end of how to do rigorous sAdhana while being a family-man is also a worldly thing, and actually defeating dharma. If the person is unwilling to take to saMnyAsAshrama, then he needs to do sAdhana thats agreeable with his family responsibilites, rigorous has no meaning left then.
In either case, therefore, the spiritual journey has hardly begun and confusion is in the worldly. I know this because I fall in the latter category of "how to do rigorous sAdhana being in Vasai" kinds and think that confusion is worldly... with Guru's grace, I'm clear about spiritual path in little bits that I've read/ followed. :) As I live in hope, all in good time. :)
[*Bhamati or Vivarana, etc: If one becomes confused between these, there are only two options, select one that you agree strongly with, or find a common ground between the two; it surely exists. Picking either or both mean the same thing to me, because both do take one to moksha! Unfortunately, most of us stay clear of both because they seem contradictory in others' opinion (or to us)! :)
MU: On a lighter note, I said "hence the need for a (note singular :-)) guru".
me: Yes, that did pass my mind :) Sadly though, lives pass by many Gurus till one really gets the one!
MU: I may have mentioned this to you before but would like to reiterate it in this context in particular in that, according to SwAmi PArthasArthy, spirituality is not tied into your station in life. One may choose sanyAsa if it follows the grain of ones nature but a householder too is equally capable of achieving mokshA. There are hurdles in each path, albeit of different kinds, but the goal can be reached via both.
me: Agreed, the goal can be reached by both... why only two, it can be reached via gazillion paths. Thats the reason I said that one needs to pick and walk on what one is ready for, including circumstantially available path, which in turn, I strongly believe (as per karma) is based on how much one is ready. So, there's no point in insisting one should do "rigorous sAdhana" within family life.
MU: If I am not mistaken, according to traditional VedAnta, sanyAsa is a must for mokshA. Therefore, I am curious, can you tell me what you mean when you say:
>> Spiritual path begins only on following principles that lead to moksha.
and
>> with Guru's grace, I'm clear about spiritual path in little bits
What are these principles? Can you share them with me briefly?
me: Yes... I was quite careful in wording myself as you can see below... :) ...
>> Spiritual path begins only on following principles that lead to moksha.
A path that *begins*, leading to moksha, need not end at the beginning. In that, vairAgya is not something that one enforces, it comes naturally to one ready for the spiritual path. Similarly, AFAIK, saMnyAsa will consume the person ready for moksha.
I've said this earlier, but will repeat myself again and again. The principles are the same: developing sAdhana cAtushTaya, not really worrying about how many different paths are there, who'll be the right Guru, whether I can do things within family life, can I ever be capable of giving up and take to saMnyAsa, etc. That development, at the right step, will take the person to the next door that one needs to walk into (or in liberation terms, walk out of).
Anything that seems inconsistent is because of lack of shraddha that comes from sAdhana cAtushTaya itself. And I'm yet to find anyone, be it any path one follows, or any grihasta Guru, or a saMnyAsi Guru, who'd disagree with anything in the sAdhana cAtushTaya! Thats the beauty of traditional vedAnta: going back to basics makes a foundation of solutions for the most complex of problems. There is a common ground to everything in the shruti, it can never be contradictory... meaning the principles are definitely the same.
I'd like to play one final note, drawing an analog of the spiritual principles with education system. The somewhat anything-goes-attitude of the non-traditional systems, without initial sAdhana cAtushTaya (not necessarily rigorous) is akin to my wanting to do rocket science engg. without basic physics background. Enough said, I suppose. :)
MU: Ok, thanks for your inputs. Sorry, if my questions were a little repetitive (and hence irritating). I agree that sAdhana cAtushTaya is imperative for mokshA but it has never been easy for me to understand how to implement it in life. Just reading that one should develop viveka, vairAgya, etc sounds good but how does one do it in practice is the more difficult question. Hence attending lectures by SwAmiji's disciples helps me tremendously. It has been over two years that I have been attending these lectures and it is only recently that some glimmer of light is visible to me....and it is only a glimmer..I see only inklings of the path to follow...
me: Nah, nah, apologies if I sounded irritated. I wasn't. Its just that we all expect a different answer every time we ask the same Q on spiritual front, perhaps something easier, or maybe a short cut. IMHO, such a thing doesn't exist; else the laziest person on earth that I am would definitely grab it! :)
Precisely so. I'm sure you'd agree that even the disciples of Swamiji may have delivered the same thing that you may have heard earlier or read in Swamiji's books, albeit in various packages. Its only on repetitive reading or hearing (shravaNa), through various angles at times, that the concept gets down deep. I've one understanding that I blabber on my blog every now and then... that the understanding should become a habit (manana) to such an extent that the theoretical reading should get deeper and deeper, to reach even our dreams. Thats how its practiced, AFAIK, becoming a part of us (niddhidhyAsana).
hari Om tat sat
4 comments:
[To be taken in pure innocence and/or ignorance of me and my knowledge, and not as an offensive piece of literature, in any manner :-)]
Hi Praveen
While the Gunda Funda post had left my jaws wide open (with laughter), this post on “Spiritual Path and Guru(s) has almost done the same – eyes and mouth, both wide open (with confusion, complexity, and curiosity). I do not claim to understand as much about spirituality as you do, neither have I read enough books or scriptures, or interacted with spiritual personalities to debate on anything you have written here. I am just an infinitesimal element still trying to learn the spellings of and about spirituality. Yet, however, I am tempted to write here, out of sheer confusion without any intent of challenging your knowledge or thoughts, and of course of your friend MU. It might also seem inappropriate to even leave a comment on ‘this’ exchange of enlightenment.
I haven’t quite got the apt essence of this dialogue, whether is it necessary to have a Guru who puts you on the right path so that you attain Moksha or in order to achieve liberation you MUST have a Guru – this sounds terribly confusing, I know, but that’s the state I am in right now, more confused than you were at point of posting that blog entry. I understand that paths and Gurus may just be precedents for attaining Moksha, however, they are not the quintessential necessities. The quest (if I anticipate it correctly) dwindles between choice of ‘A’ guru and having many gurus, and then selecting a path. From my personal observations and experiences, I have seen people following some or the other Guru (this may not fit your definition of a Guru, in context here), I know of a family where all brothers follow different Gurus – babas, bapus, kumaris, matas, aais (Marathi for Mothers) etc and so on. Yet, none of them still understand spirituality and their discussions are largely based on religion, neither have they been taught about purification processes, lessons to follow righteousness – the qualities and practices of back biting, bitching around, hatred, jealousy, deceit still prevail among them despite the worships they do to their so-called gurus and the sermons that they listen to. How then is a need of a Guru qualified? Is it then essential to have a Guru? Well, somewhere you too may be trying to drive at this point. But as I told you, I am still awfully confused ;-]
In my opinion, probably we all know ‘WHAT’ it needs to attain Moksha, however, what remains unanswered is ‘HOW’. While it may seem amazingly simple to read the answers on HOW, it appears dreadfully impossible to act on it. Sri Krishna says “The divine qualities to liberation and the demonical ones lead to bondage, O Pandava!” [B.G 16.5]. Divine qualities would obviously include truth, love, kindness, patience, generosity, honesty, and so on. Sri Krishna also asks us to eschew demonical qualities, “O Partha! Hypocrisy, self pride, anger, arrogance, callousness, and ignorance belong to one who infuse demonical qualities in themselves” [B.G. 16.4]. When the Supreme Being himself has shown us the way to liberation through the greatest known book of truth, why are we still wandering finding a Guru? Is it our haughtiness that does not let us listen to that inner voice, and we seek to receive it physically from some form of Guru. Arjuna is asked not to grieve for the Jeeva (individual self), which by itself is divine. Then why take lessons on divinity from someone else? We posses that innate propensity to recognize and harness goodness within us, and it does not need any great external effort because each individual self is a divine. The demonical qualities are not instinctive in nature, they are not our natural traits, yet we misguidedly conceive them due to wrong worldly beliefs and suppress our righteousness.
Am I still confused? Yes may be.
I also read in your post (MU’s statement), that “according to traditional VedAnta, sanyAsa is a must for mokshA”. I don’t know what should or must be the nature of sanyasa or what is an exact definition of sanyasa (for a timid mind like mine, sanyasa means walking into solitude leaving away all the pleasures – material as well as emotional [read family, friends, relatives]). Yes, this may sound intact with the detachment principle, but then are we justifying the karma philosophy? Aren’t we running away from our karma? For e.g. I belong to the merchant class (vaishya vani), then shouldn’t I be doing business rather than taking up vairagya in search of Moksha? What will really help me in liberation – taking up sanyasa or fulfilling my duty to this society?
Yes, my views here may seem myopic; I will certainly be pleasured to make them profound in nature, as applicable. Also, the verses from the Bhagvad Gita that I cite could have been interpretations of some swami or some guru or some baba, yet I still may not want to conclude we assertively need a guru. I am not even saying that we can immediately elevate ourselves to the edifice of sitting next Sri Krishna and understanding Him. However, it makes more sense (for me) to approach him directly than through some babas. After all, why to circle around branch offices when we can have direct access to head office ;-]
Nice discussion.
@Amol:
At the outset, I'd like to clarify that I wasn't confused on the spiritual front, thankfully ever. Whatever I knew till any moment was clear, without any bit of confusion, thanks to my Guru/ God... both being same. As the domain of knowledge grows, clarity improves, but confusion doesn't exist. There is a lot of confusion on the worldly front alone and which I couldn't care any less about! :)
I've written some on this topic earlier too. So on your related questions and comments, I'll link you, towards the end, to what I've already written. But here are my thoughts on other things...
First of all, considering Krishna himself as the greatest guide is a perspective of a bhakta, who cares not what moksha is, as long as he has his ananya bhakti to live with; if that is you, fair enough, I've no arguments. But still, even those great bhaktas need to know that Bhagavan Vishnu, in his *mortal* human avatAra as Krishna, had *Guru* Sandipani for guidance. Need I say more on it? :) Its a complicated topic, IMO, more clarifications in other blog entries.
Next, looking forward to B.G. and B.G. alone for guidance may be good, but then as you said, whose translation and/ or commentary would you trust? There are at least a hundred different interpretations, unless you yourself know Sanskrit well. B.G. is not as straightforwardly simple as you and I may believe it to be. All these versions consider themselves to be the right interpreters. And unless you have that trust about the version you refer to, its no good. If you do have that trust, then you have taken whoever interpreted that text as your Guru, whether you willingly did it or not, whether like it or not! :)
On other dangling issues, the HOW and "WHAT we need" for moksha that you mention in your comment are really not two different things, they are one. Removal of demonic qualities is making way for divine ones. The divine qualities are the qualities of Atman and when the jIva dissociates itself from demonic attachments, it remains its own free Atman/ brahman. jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH.
While all those babas and maais may preach religion more than spirituality, IMHO, Sanathana Dharma beautifully ties up both. If one follows one's own dharma, purification results automatically, the Guru doesn't need to tell it out so. Whether it is intended by these babas, etc, is a subjective thing so I won't know that. But its clearly tied up, else you yourself wouldn't bring out an interesting Q on karma: as a vaishya, whether your dharma of duty to society will help you for liberation or "running away" to saMnyAsa will! Obviously, you consider former to be better than the latter. But its not so. You can't consider vairAgya as running away. Running away is karma, an active participation in *doing* something, a choice, while vairAgya is a *happening*. saMnyAsa is a moment of truth that vairAgya leads to, whether the person wanders in order to merge into that Truth automatically or whether he takes to ochre robes or rarely stays back in society, appearing confused to others and not being himself... remaining totally free! Moreover, whether a vaishya or a brAhmaNa or whatever, karma that socially binds one is different from jnAna that leads to moksha. Following your own dharma is a *must*, but a must *only* till vairAgya sets in. Dharma on its own doesn't liberate, but it takes one to the path thats best suited for that person as-per-karma. Then on, he has nothing to do with his dharma as a vaishya or a brAhmaNa; his main goal is moksha. He may pursue bhakti or yoga with his karma for purification till vairAgya takes over to the other side. Only that can liberate. karma and jnAna (brahmajnAna, that is) DO NOT go together; its like trying to wet the wood in water and burn it as well! sAdhana cAtushTaya alone dries the wood for burning.
Need for Guru:
http://anythingwise.blogspot.com/2008/09/need-for-guru.html.
Some of the things *somewhat* inline with what you said is here:
http://anythingwise.blogspot.com/2007/05/wheres-guru.html
And for those who I consider masters:
http://anythingwise.blogspot.com/2007/01/masters-on-my-path.html
hari om tat sat
@Santosh:
Thanks
Post a Comment