DEIVATHIN KURAL # 121 (Vol #4) Dated 25 Dec 2010

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 121 (Vol #4) Dated 25 Dec 2010

(These e-mails are translations of talks given by Periyaval of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam, Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we are proceeding from the middle of page number 672 of Vol 4 of the Tamil original. The readers may note that herein 'man/he' includes 'woman/she' too mostly. These e-mails are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com updated constantly)
218. The main point to understand is the difference between the possessor and the possession, owner and the owned. When we say that so and so is mine, it means that it is not us. When we point out to something or somebody and say, “This is my book, my pen, my house, my bank deposit, my husband and so on”, it means that they belong to me. It also means that they are my possession or relative and not me! Similarly when we say that this is my hand, my leg or my body and so on; it also means that I am not the hand or leg or the body. But, mostly none of us know as to who we are except in relation to something or somebody else!
219. Now, this body is not me. The four things by which this ‘anta: karaNam’ is made up of, namely, ‘mano, buddhi, ahankaara and chittam’, that is, ‘mind, brain, ego and intellect’ respectively are our tools or equipments and not us or me. On many occasions we say “my hand, my leg and my body,” is it not so? “After the operation, my eyes are seeing better or my ears are hearing better,” we say. In all this we are correctly recognizing ourselves to be the owner. Even about our anta: karaNam we say things such as, “I do not know your mind about it’ or “Do you mind?”, “I should beat my buddhi with a pair of sandals for committing such a stupid mistake”, or “He is not talking; it is his ahankaara or ego that is talking” and so on! So, for all these possessions, there has to be a possessor and that is the Aatma!? Something or somebody can be mine. But the ‘I’ cannot me mine! The owner is the Aatma.
220. In our talks if we ever say, “My Aatma or his Aatma”, it is wrong, a mistake that we commit as we do not understand what we are saying. Normally when do we talk about Aatma? If somebody is suffering too much, we say “It is sad that his Aatma is suffering a lot!” Or we say, “Restless Aatma!” When someone dies we place an insertion in the ‘Obituary’ column in the News Papers, ‘Mr So and so passed away on so and so date. Let his Aatma find peace!’ These are all misuse of the word. Aatma neither suffers nor is restless nor has to find peace! In all such occasions, we are referring to the individual, who is the reflected image of Aatma, the Jeevan as his self; and make these statements!
221. Let me emphasise this point again. What we think of ourselves is the combination of four separate entities of ‘mano, buddhi, ahankaara and chitta’ that has the collective name of ‘anta: karaNa’. These are all varyingly mixed up to make up our assumed idea of who we are. In fact all this put together is only a part of the reflected image of the Aatma, which is never divisible into parts! It is like dipping a cup or mug in the ocean and calling the filled cup or mug of water, the ocean! Whereas, Aatma does not do anything, let alone think of anything as its own. It knows itself and not anything apart from its self as an object, to claim it to be its possession. When everything that this Jeevan claims as his own, is all the same whole indivisible Aatma, it is no way affected by these imaginary divisions and identifications.
222. All the happiness we know of are all about this limited reflected edition of Aatma, Mr Jeevan and his ego and ahankaara! Its happiness is from fulfilment of its desires, while Aatma has no desires. You know that you can have desires about something only when it is other than oneself! Aatma knows of everything to be itself and does not know of anything other than itself. So how can Aatma have desire for anything and how can Mr Jeevan, who does not know of Aatma, have love or desire for it? In other words, Aatma can never be the target of desire and neither have desire for anything else!
223. But, it is said so in the Upanishad. Yagnyavalkya Maharishi is advising his wife Maitreyi, in Bruhad Aarnyaka Upanishad 2.4 and 5. Instead of using the word ‘desire’ he uses the word ‘priyam’. The two words are very close in meaning, but not exactly the same. What we desire, we have priyam. What is ‘apriyam’ is not desired. He was dividing his entire worldly possessions between his two wives, before adopting the Sannyaasa order Ashrama in his life. She asks him, if that apportioning of property will give her eternal happiness. Rishi Yagnyavalkya gives her a long reply worth reading in the original. We are giving a brief account of it here. He replies her in the following manner.
224. “When the wife has love for her husband, it is not for his sake but for the sake of the self. The husband also loves his wife not for her sake, but for his own sake. So also all love and priyam that anyone has for anything or anyone else is not for that thing or person but for one’s self! That is why vittam that is money is desired.” I hope you remember a story I told you some time back in these talks. A very greedy man spent all his wealth for his son; then left his son for his second wife; then when he fell ill, he gave her up for his own treatment; then for saving his eye sight was ready to get amputated; that is for gnaanendriya he could forego his karmendriya! Life goes on like that trading off something for something else temporarily thought to be more valuable! Then he was ready to give up everything including self respect to be able to forget the world in intoxication! Like adding innumerable bogies to the goods train, I have given too many examples. Now I am sure that you will be ready to give up anything for the sake of a clear understanding of the whole issue!
225. If the love of lucre is for the sake of the wealth, he would not be ready to spend it for the son. Then if the love for the son was so great, he would not be ready to ignore him for a second wife. Then the love for the second wife is also seen to be not really for her sake. She could not have been dumped for his own treatment. Then successively amongst body parts too, karmendriya is given up for gnaanendriya and then one’s own life seems to be priority one. Then finally one’s own self seems to be the most important. Actually this was so right from the beginning. These are all mistaken priorities as Aatma is the thing for which Sannyaasa is taken giving up everything else! When you come to it, Aatma does not need anything from anybody else. All this is done to satisfy the mind only and when you try to find out as to what is the mind you will come to know that there is a big Nothing! When even the mind is annulled and is removed from the scene, we will see that our love for the Aatma is the main motivator! So instead of going through all this rigmarole, can we not be clear from the beginning? Can we not try and control this mind and make it our tool rather than be its slave? Then we will see the beauty of Bhagawan’s advice, “tatasto niyamyeitat aatmanyeva vasam nayet”, and start doing so from this moment onwards!
(To be continued.)
Sambhomahadeva.