Facets of Spirituality

by Swami Krishnananda

Compiled by S. Bhagyalakshmi

November 26, 1978

Swamiji: Socrates questions the existing value of things of his time. The value of all things was taken for granted by the philosophers of his time, who ruled the people's thoughts. Das Gupta, in his Studies in the Philosophy of Madhusudana Saraswati, takes the view that Nagarjuna negates the world and God. It is all only in the imagination. It is just a 'void'. Of course, that is the view Buddha also takes. He calls the Absolute state 'void'. The Hindu philosophy says it is 'purnam'—plenum—completeness. In a way, they are both saying the same thing. When there is nothing but completeness, there is nothing other than One; it is void. The two views ultimately meet at the same point. Socrates also states that there is neither this (world) nor that (God). And he is right. We are fools imagining that the world exists and is related to God. What is the relationship? Something else must also exist to be related to. Then what can be the relationship of the non-existing thing to that which is? We are all patting ourselves on the back, thinking we are very wise. That is not so. That is what Socrates' Dialectics say. How can A be related to B? It cannot be, because A is A. The very fact that you are saying A is related to B shows A is not B, is it not?

A visitor: It is like Nyaya Vaiseshika.

Swamiji: If A is not B, how can there be any relationship? You have already said there is no connection. And what do you mean by relationship of A to B? You are floored in one sentence. What is the meaning? And yet we are getting on. He argues like this, and you get fed up. But look at the point raised. It is a very interesting subject. It is not a joke. And it is one on which everything hangs. Your entire life is hanging on this little concept of relationship. Neither you are one with That, nor different from That. What else are you? Neither this nor that.

Visitor: He does not give the answer.

Swamiji: No. He simply has stunned you. By that he has proved the unreality of the relationship, that it does not exist at all. By which also he proves that the world also does not exist because the world is nothing but relationship. So the whole world vanishes into thin air in one second by this argument, and you are in a delirium of thinking that there are relationship and things. Are you sleeping?

Visitor: I got taste of that kind of logic from Sankara Muni's Atma Puranam. He goes into this Nyaya Vaiseshika argument, Paksha and then...

Swamiji: No, no. This is Vedantic argument. Not Nyaya Vaiseshika. Of course all these are based on Nyaya, the effect and the cause. The effect has come from the cause. It means it is different from the cause, and so it should have characteristics not inherent in the cause. But if they are not in the cause, from where do they come?

Visitor: There is no cause, rather it is modification of the cause.

Swamiji: Again we are in the same trouble. You cannot say something comes from nothing. So there must have been something existing there. So the effect is already in the cause. Then why do you say it is different from the cause? I am giving you a taste of all these arguments of Vedanta. Either you never go near it or you understand it! [Laughs heartily.]

Visitor: I think it is best to stay away from it.

Swamiji: [Still laughing.] Socrates used to put questions to the Greeks like that and debunk all their so-called wisdom. They were sophists. They thought they were very clever people. And this man's work was only to show that it was not so. They could not define even one idea—Truth. What is truth? You tell me what is truth. You all say, truth, truth, truth. Unless you know what is truth, how can you speak of truth? Let me first of all learn from you what is truth. Then I will speak the 'truth'. Now, you cannot answer this question, you cannot tell me what is truth. Then, why do you tell me to tell the truth? Your instructions are useless. Why do you tom-tom around, speak the truth, when you do not know what truth is?

And finally he said, “There is only one thing I know: I know nothing.” A very profound statement, that! Truth is what corresponds to facts. But how do you know what is fact? Then only the question of correspondence comes.

Visitor: If Socrates wanted to tell people that what they were saying was not anything correct....

Swamiji: But his point is you cannot define things like that. Your logic cannot help you in defining things. Nothing can be defined in this world; everything is undefinable—anirvacaniya. This is what Sankaracharya said finally. It is undefinable because every characteristic is definable only in terms of another characteristic. If you say something is red, there is something non-red. Otherwise it cannot be said to be red. But how do you know it is non-red? Because something else is red! Wonderful definition you are giving [laughing.] You are hanging on non-red for red, and on red for non-red. Do you call this a positive definition? [pause] And, this goes up to the limit, to the definition of God, Reality, the Absolute, the ultimate value of life, everything. And everything falls to the ground, everything is undefinable. The whole structure of philosophical thinking cracks and falls in a second, if you pursue this logic to the ultimate limits. And it cracks your existence also, finally, as you are a part of this world, and nothing exists. Then what remains?

There was a man called Sriharsa, who wrote a big book called Khandana Kavyam. Everything falls and cracks because of this invincible logic which does not allow anything to exist and stand on its own legs. But he says—he has got a saving factor: everything fails, everything has gone, nothing is, but at least you have awareness that nothing is. That is sufficient for you, he says. You cannot say the awareness also is gone because if awareness is gone, there must be an awareness that awareness is gone! So anyhow you cannot get out of the fact that you have awareness that awareness is. That awareness itself cannot be denied. So again there is a basic minimum of positivity, if at all you can call it so. That is Truth.

An ashramite: Nihilists, they say there is nothing. They destroy. Is it not so?

Swamiji: No, no. They destroy the idea that your definitions are correct. The ideas are all destroyed. You are right. They are called Vaiseshikas, destructive critics who do not accept the validity of anything. Everything is invalid—even what he says! That is another thing. Nagarjuna in India, Sriharsha in Vedanta and Bradley in England, they are of this type.

Another visitor: What is soul?

Swamiji: The soul is the ultimate irreducible minimum of existence of anything. The soul is the ultimate essence of existence of anything. Everything can be reduced to something else. You can reduce matter to molecules, molecules to atoms, atoms to electrons, and so on. Finally there is a state beyond which you cannot go down. That is the last barest minimum of reality. That is the soul of things.

Visitor: Do we make distinctions between the spirit and the soul?

Swamiji: You need not make a distinction. There is no necessity. They mean the same thing.

Visitor: Yes, spirit is the essence—the soul is the essence—so they are the same. It is the Ultimate Reality. That is the soul. You use another word, Atman. Is it different?

Swamiji: Soul is English. Atman is Sanskrit. So in what language would you like me to speak? There is a Latin word, anima mundi. That is maternal soul. When you say my soul, you don't mean the absolute self. You mean your physical personality, psychological individuality. That is what they call anima mundi, the corporal self. But, ultimately, even that is not the reality because that also can be reduced to the further, ultimate state. There is an Absolute Reality, which is the true Spirit.

Visitor: What is the spiritual path?

Swamiji: The spiritual path is the way to the Infinite. It simply means the way to the realisation of the Spirit—the path.

Visitor: What is spiritual life?

Swamiji: The dialect for this realisation is spiritual life. It is in stages, from one step to another step. The law of the spirit is quite different from the law that we apply in our empirical life. To that extent you can apply the laws of the spirit in your daily life, to that extent your life is spiritual. It is integration, unity and harmony, whereas empirical life is the opposite of it.

Visitor: If you follow the spiritual path, you must now be very kind and very good to others. Just leave people going their way or....

Swamiji: Listen, listen: These words, 'kindness', etc., are traditional, and they have to be understood in their scientific spirit. You cannot be kind by merely uttering the word 'kind' and taking its dictionary meaning. If a particular attitude which you call kindness is in consonance with the law of the Spirit, it is necessary to be kind. It is a false idea of kindness if it is contrary to the fact, and then it may not work. A mother has great care and kindness for her own child, but that kindness may be unkindness to others. If kindness to one becomes unkindness to others, you cannot call it kindness. So I am giving you an example where a traditional meaning has to work. If the mother gives a bitter medicine to her child to cure an illness, it is kindness. But if she takes away the sweet from another child's hand and gives it to her child, it is unkindness.

Visitor: So you must take the whole?

Swamiji: You must take the whole, and spirituality is nothing but that. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. That is not charity.

Visitor: No.

Swamiji: Though charity is good, ethical instructions have a limitation of their own because they have only a local value, and are not of an absolute nature. Therefore, they have to be understood from the point of view of the civics in which they operate, and not in a general manner.

Visitor: There are people dressed in rags, and they don't look after their body. Why do they do like that? Are they aiming at something? Or, when they are so badly dressed, are they aiming at realisation and negating the body?

Swamiji: They do it as a kind of austerity to control the mind and develop willpower. The practice of this kind of discipline is itself not spirituality. But it has a negative value in the sense that it helps in the development of willpower for the purpose of higher religious practices. I will give you an example. You fast on the ekadasi day. Now, that fasting itself has no spiritual value. But by that you develop a control over the mind and mastery of the physical instincts to some extent. This willpower that you develop is helpful to you for the purpose of applying that very same will for meditation. Your making money by itself has no value, but it is done for another purpose which has value. So is this austerity; it has a secondary value, though not an absolute value.

Another visitor: She thinks it is not a very good choice....

Swamiji: Which one?

Visitor: Wearing rags.

Swamiji: They are having a type of psychological mind. But it does not mean it is necessary for everybody. It is not necessary for all, but necessary for a particular type of psychological condition. If you understand this, that it is human psychology, and that human psychology is the same everywhere—East or West, South or North. It makes no difference.

Visitor: It is lacking in human dignity. It is madness.

Swamiji: Human dignity also is a part of human psychology. Unless you become identical in feeling, you lack understanding. And East or West makes no difference. You cannot think like a monkey unless you yourself become a monkey. You think of them differently because you have not entered their mind. And the others similarly think about you that you are mad to wear the dress you do. To judge anything from one's own point of view is not wisdom. There is always a necessity for giving due consideration to the others' point of view also.

Visitor: What is the standard?

Swamiji: Every standard is correct from that level. No standard is wrong. You must take it at that level.

Visitor: But then what is wisdom?

Swamiji: Wisdom is not negation of anything. Everything is okay from God's point of view. That is why God does not interfere with anything. Everything is okay for God, because every point of view is His point of view.

Ashramite: You are the greatest advocate for God, Swamiji. For all that He does, you excuse Him and let Him out!

Swamiji: God's point of view is all points of views.

Another ashramite: But God does not spare the wrongdoer; yet, according to God, there is nothing wrong!

Swamiji: He is not saying someone is a wrongdoer. He says, well, that is another way of doing it.

Ashramite: But we are vicious people still, and we are punished.

Swamiji: God will never call it punishment. It is a thing which God Himself does within Himself.

Ashramite: Even death, Swamiji explains, is evolution.

Visitor: But by that (punishment) man suffers.

Swamiji: Suffering is only an ethical word you are using. It is your way of looking at things. When you are dipped in the Ganges, it is suffering for you, but the fish does not call it a suffering.

Ashramite: But is it suffering or not?

Swamiji: You ask the fish if it is suffering. It will say, “I don't know what you are saying.” Again, when you are thinking of suffering, you are cutting off some aspects of it in your mind and calling it suffering. If it does not agree with you, it is suffering. It is a question of whether it is agreeable to your constitution. Again it is a subjective point of view. When your viewpoint does not tally with certain situations then you call it suffering. That is all.

Visitor: Is it a path?

Swamiji: Which path? Don't interfere with other people's path. Each path is correct from its own point of view. You follow your own path. We should not interfere with other's path and say it is wrong.

Visitor: There must be a standard.

Swamiji: Standard? Your standard is good for you, that is all. My standard may not suit you.

Visitor: Mind your business, in short?

Swamiji: Ah, yes. My standard may suit you when you come to my standard, and your standard will suit me when I come to your standard (laughs).

Visitor: That means standards are not static?

Swamiji: That is for your convenience. They have no absolute validity. When you have acidity in the stomach, you take sodium bicarbonate. This is a standard. But you cannot give that to everybody, unless there is acidity. What do you say? It is a standard prescription, and you give it to everybody because it is a standard prescription.

Ashramite: But a prescription is given for a specific ailment.

Swamiji: But not for every ailment. You won't give it for every purpose. So all standards are conditional and relative. Absolute standards do not exist. Otherwise, everybody can have the same prescription for all conditions. Time, place and circumstances—these are conditional factors. For example, in Kerala you may take a bath five times daily, but in the North India, in Kedarnath, will you also take a bath five times a day? How is that possible? In Kerala it is necessary because the climate is such. You will fall sick if you don't take bath because it is warm and you are perspiring. You can't wear a coat in Guruvayur temple, they will tell that you are a stupid. But a man wearing a coat does puja in Kedarnath. So it is the place and the time also. It is just common sense. Time, place and circumstance, and the prevailing condition—these should give the verdict. If there is a war taking place, what do you do at that time?

Ashramite: There is a hot spring in Kedarnath? He can perhaps...

Swamiji: No, no, they will not allow him to bathe in the hot spring. God does not want comforts [laughs and so also the gathering]. How do you do puja at that time? You do archana, with Sahasranama and so on. But sometimes it may not be possible. There is a hubbub all around—floods, cyclone, wind, somebody is dying, and what not. Do you sit and do archana while all this is going on? Conditions and circumstances must be taken into consideration in deciding on what action is to be taken in the context of desa, kala, vastu, sambandha. You must live and let others live. You might have to lower your standard sometimes to let others live. If you raise your standard of living beyond a certain limit, it may not enable others to live. That is a great point in social sciences. But if you do not want others to live, you only want to live, then you keep your standard.

Ashramite: Then there is no system as pulling up to the standard?

Swamiji: Yes. If you can pull up the standard, good, unless by pulling up your standard you pull down others. Qualitatively, comparatively, you must raise up others.

Visitor: There is no absolute standard?

Swamiji: What do you mean by absolute standard? I cannot understand what you are saying. I am telling you, the world is empirical and relative. Everything is hanging on something else. How can you have an absolute standard in the circumstances of such interdependence?

Visitor: Was there never an absolute standard?

Swamiji: They say there was absolute standard, in mythology at least, in Krita Yuga, when everyone was like everyone else. Government did not exist. There was no government, as there was no need for it. What is the government for?

Visitor: To do justice to everyone.

Swamiji: Yes, that time was called Krita Yuga. They say that a millenium of that type prevailed. Bhisma mentioned this in the Mahabharata. There was no caste, and no distinction of any kind. And the Vedas also did not exist! Only Pranava, Omkara eva pura veda praneva sarvang mayaha. This is what Krisna tells Udhava. There was only one Veda, and it was called Om. The Rig Veda, Sama Veda started afterwards. There was only one caste, called Brahma. There was no Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, etc. There was no government, because everybody knew his duty. That was an ideal, known as the Krita Yuga, and they say it will come again.

Visitor: The Krita Yuga will come?

Swamiji: Well, they say it will come after 4 lakhs of years. We have got now Kali Yuga. The wheel will move and the spokes that are down will come up again.

Visitor: The cycle will go on rotating?

Swamiji: Well, it has happened so many times. The 28th Kali Yuga is now going on. The wheel has rotated 28 times, they say.

Ashramite: Is it possible to reach the Absolute in Kali Yuga?

Swamiji: I don't know if there is Kali Yuga for the Absolute! It doesn't exist for it. The Absolute doesn't know what you are saying. It is like talking to the...

Ashramite: I know what I am saying...

Swamiji: It is like talking to the sun about night. The sun says, “What is night?” [laughter]. He doesn't know what you are talking about. “I have never seen it,” the sun will say.

Ashramite: Can the jivas attain the Absolute in Kali Yuga?

Swamiji: Kali Yuga is nothing but the condition when you feel that you cannot reach the Absolute [ashramite laughs]. That is called Kali Yuga. When you feel it is possible, Krita Yuga has come to you in a second. This is another revealing and solacing factor for you.

Visitor: It is a condition of the mind.

Swamiji: You need not worry about the cycle, it will come automatically, in one second, though the Puranas say it is four lakhs of years.

Visitor: It amounts to that. It is an attitude of the mind, Swamiji.

Swamiji: Yes, ultimately the Yoga Vasistha will tell you all this. All these terrifying doctrines will vanish in a second before another greater truth. They are terrifying but, when understood, they are nothing. Otherwise, who can bear these four lakhs of Kali Yuga? But there is also another teaching that it is not so terrifying if you can understand it: you can simply melt it like the snow melts before the light of the sun. The whole Kali Yuga will melt in one second before the light of enlightenment, so don't cry unnecessarily if you believe God exists. But a clause has to be added to it: God exists, and nothing else exists. Then it would be a complete statement. But you can imagine what consequences will follow from that doctrine of nothing existing. You will vanish in a second and be finished.

Visitor: Then what is the meaning of 'All-pervasive'?

Swamiji: Nothing, nothing! When everything has vanished, then where is the question of pervasiveness? Again you are implying that something else exists when you are diminishing. By saying He is all-pervasive, you have implied that God is different from the world. Then only you would use 'pervading', and that would make God a second-grade God. First you deny God, then you say He is staying far above, then you say He is related. In the Bhagavad Gita, all the 18 chapters tell you these various stages. First, know God. The Gita never talks of God in the beginning; afterwards, it slowly begins to say that God is above, then it says that God is also below, then it speaks of relationship, and then it says that God is everywhere. It takes you gradually. Religion has various stages of approach, but you should not say “That only” in the beginning itself. So gradually take the mind up [laughs.]

Visitor: To the Ultimate Truth?

Swamiji: Ah, yes. When you are prepared, when the vessel is prepared to contain the substance, then only you can fill it with the substance. Otherwise a pot of mercury poured into a mud the pot will crack. So the chapters of the Gita prepare the mind gradually for the reception of higher knowledge. In the beginning it was such a catastrophe that there was simply crying. It started with crying. A strategic method is adopted, step by step, until there is a cataclysm, the flood of God coming. There's nothing like the Gita. It is everything, if it is properly appreciated. God comes and attacks you like a cyclone. In the beginning it is frightening. “Enough,” Arjuna says, “A cyclone I don't want.” Even a God-cyclone is terrifying. Is it not?

Ashramite: Yes, Arjuna cried like that.

Ashramite: Is idealism not a mania?

Swamiji: A normal thing you don't call mania. If you have desire to eat food, you don't call it a mania. But a desire to commit suicide can be called mania.

Ashramite: I mean martyrdom?

Swamiji: Martyrdom is...

Visitor: Martyrdom is done for a good cause.

Swamiji: That is a different matter, now you are interpreting something. She is talking as it is. All martyrs are so for a good cause only, not otherwise. Nobody calls it martyrdom for a bad cause.

Ashramite: But that is a mania.

Swamiji: Why do you call it mania if it is for a good cause? Martyrdom is not a mania because a martyr is aware of every sequel of consequences and is prepared for it. So there is no shock for him, and he is the master of emotions. If you push a man into the Ganges, he gets a shock. But if he himself dives into the Ganges, he is prepared for the cold and the force of water. But a person who commits suicide, you call him a maniac. Because he is not prepared for the consequences, his being gets a shock.

Ashramite: But the man committing suicide is prepared for the consequences. He knows he will end and will go into the unknown...

Swamiji: That is only at his conscious level, but not at that subconscious level which gets a shock because it is not prepared for it.

Thank you, God bless you all!