ANANDA-MIMAMSA

       We will continue the subject of the Taittiriya Upanishad. We observed that our individuality is constituted of different layers, and these layers are called Koshas in Sanskrit. There are primarily five such Koshas or sheaths, in which our consciousness is enveloped. These sheaths are nothing but the forces of objectivity that pull the consciousness outwardly in terms of space and time. Thus it becomes clear that these sheaths are not substances or material objects like five walls that may be built round a person sitting inside a room. They are mere urges of consciousness to move outward in greater and greater density, and with more and more of impetuosity towards externality of experience. Our unhappiness consists only in this much, that in order to come in contact with anything outside we have first of all to forget ourselves. The more we cling to the objects of sense outside, the more is the forgetfulness of our own consciousness. There is Atma-Nasha or destruction of selfhood, as it were, in a very significant manner, so that, in every clinging to object, there is a transference of ourselves to the particular object in which we are interested or towards which our consciousness is moving. Every kind of love, every type of attachment is a transference of oneself to another. If a mother loves the child, the mother has gone; the child only is there. The consciousness of the mother has identified itself with the child’s body in such an intense manner that she does not exist any more. The child alone exists for her, and anything that happens to the child appears to happen to the mother. If the child is happy, the mother is happy; otherwise the mother is not. If the child goes away from this world, it looks as if the mother herself is dead. This is the case with every kind of transference of consciousness to objects. Every attachment, positive or negative in the form of love or hatred, has this characteristic in it. So all our sorrows in life can be attributed to this peculiar trait in our consciousness to go outwardly, either positively as love or negatively as hatred, in respect of certain things. All this activity is undertaken through these peculiar apertures of personality called the sheaths by means of which the consciousness limits itself by a kind of focusing its attention upon limited groups of objects of sense. This is what they call, in Sanskrit, ‘Samsara’ or earthly existence or the life of bondage. It is bondage because the consciousness clings to what is not really there. It is moving towards a phantom under the impression that the Self is there. One of the characteristics of selfhood is non-externality. ‘You’ can never become another and by ‘You’ what is intended or meant is the deepest consciousness or intelligence in you.

       The body or the sheaths are not you. When you isolate the experiences of the sheaths, for instance as in deep sleep, you will find that you can exist independent of the function of the sheaths. And how did you exist in sleep? As pure center of awareness. There was no externality or corporeality. This consciousness which you really are is the selfhood of yours. By selfhood, to repeat, what we mean is, we have some status in us which cannot be externalized or transferred to something else. Now the transference which takes place between the Self which we are and the object outside is a false one. All loves, therefore, are false. There is no such thing as true love in the world. It is false because the Self artificially transfers itself to something, while such a transference is not permissible under the very characteristic of the Self. Hence every person who loves a thing shall also reap sorrow afterwards. No one can be happy eternally with external loves of any kind.

        Now comes the question of love and happiness. How are we happy, and how is it that when there is love for a particular object happiness seems to manifest itself from within? This is a very interesting philosophical as well as a psychological features in us. This is mentioned in a few words (perhaps only three or four words) towards the end of the Taittiriya Upanishad when it discusses the nature of the innermost sheath in us, called the Anandamaya Kosha. The causal sheath, the most subtle and pervasive and the innermost of sheaths in us, in our personality, is called the Anandamaya Kosha. It is called Anandamaya because it is characterized by blissfulness or happiness. Ananda means happiness; Maya means filled with. It is filled with and constituted of happiness only, warp and woof.

       How do we become happy, is a subject of psychological analysis. What makes us happy? When we come to the proximity of a loved object, we seem to be happy in our mind, "The object that I love is near me." The nearer we come to it, the greater is the happiness we feel inside. The happiness that one feels at the proximity of the loved object is called the ‘Priya’. It is not the apex of happiness because we have not possessed the object as yet, we have only seen it, we are near it and it is near us. But happiness increases when it is under our possession. Merely seeing it from a distance is of not sufficient satisfaction to us, though that also brings satisfaction. Whatever is to our liking, we wish to see it with our eyes directly as long as possible, perpetually. This happiness deepens itself when the object concerned comes under our possession and we have a feeling that it is ours. We are not merely seeing it, but it is ours, it is not somebody else’s. Take for example money. We can see a lot of money that does not belong to us. Well, even if we see money that does not belong to us, we will have a sort of happiness. That happiness is a peculiar connection that the mind has with the value called money. It may not be ours, but we feel a sense, of agitation if we see millions of rupees in front of us. But if it is ours, you can imagine how happy we will be. Now the happiness becomes most intense when we enjoy the object, not merely possess it. These three states or conditions or degrees of happiness of perception, possession and enjoyment are called Priya, Moda and Pramoda. So this is to give an external analysis of the nature of happiness born of love for things outside.

       But now comes the psychological feature. How is it that happiness arises at all? What do we mean by happiness? Can you define it? Is it a substance? Is it a thing? Is it an object? Is it material or is it non-material? Is it outside you or is it inside you? Or, is it mid-way between the two? Where is it situated? It is not very easy to answer these questions. Because we are so much concerned with the object and so much overwhelmed by a contact with the object that there is no time for us, nor even interest in us, to analyze the structure of the experience of happiness. But ignorance is bliss, as they usually say. We know nothing of the nature of this happiness and therefore we are blissful, in an utter ignorance of the character of the process that is taking place in the experience of this happiness. An analysis would make it clear that happiness is not in the object. If a particular object which attracts our attention is the source of happiness, then happiness should be really inside it as a part of its nature. Then, as the sun is shining for all equally and not merely to one person, the object concerned also should be a source of happiness to everyone in the world, if happiness is the real character of that object. But we will see on observation that this is not true. The object of our love may not be the object of other people’s love also. On the other hand that object may evoke hatred, the contrary emotion in certain other persons for different reasons altogether. So, it is not true that the object is the source of happiness. The happiness has not come from the object, and whoever imagines that it is located in the object is an ignoramus of the first water.

       But how then happiness comes, is a question. If it is not in the object, it should be somewhere! From where does the happiness come? Now we have to remember the observations we made earlier, about the nature of Reality or Perfection. In our study of the Aitareya Upanishad we noted that the Atman alone was, nothing else existed in the beginning. ‘Atma va idam agre asit; na anyat kinchana mishat.’ It was Perfection complete. It was omnipresence; nothing else existed. There is the selfhood in us, which is another name for the deepest non-externalizable consciousness. That alone existed, says the Aitareya Upanishad. What existed then? The Self alone existed; and what is the Self? Anything that cannot be externalized is the Self. Then, what is the meaning of that non-externalizable Reality, if the universe is an external something. Well, we know very well the universe is an external object. But the Upanishad says that only the non-external was there. It means to say somehow or the other the universe was experienced in that state in a non-externalized fashion. The universe was the Self, which means to say that there was a Universal Self and not the particular self of mine or yours, which conditions itself into a bodily embodiment and then regards the world or universe as something outside. So, what is Reality, the ultimate Truth? The non-externalized Atman is the Reality, by which what is meant is that the Universal Selfhood alone was there, nothing else was. What we call Truth or Reality is non-externalizable consciousness which is the Atman. It is the Atman, it is the Self. It is non-externalizable and, there, it is universal. Because it is universal, it should be present everywhere. That is the very meaning of universality. Therefore, it is in you, it is in me, and it is in every one. How does it exist in you, in me and in others? In the nature of a Self. You must rack your brain a little bit to understand what this implication means. The universal is not the vast spread out physical object you call Nature in the form of sky, air, trees and mountain etc., because that is externalized. The Self is a non-externalized something and it is also consciousness, and that was there. That existed and nothing else existed. If that is the reality, nothing else can be reality today. That which is real is real in the past, in the present and in the future. So even today that law persists. When we say that the Atman alone existed, it does not mean that it existed only many years back and that today it does not exist. It is only a way of explaining things to temporal minds which cannot understand except in a chronological or historical fashion any narrative that is given. So, even today it is of the same nature. Thus the Atman in us, the Self in us, even today is non-externalizable. So the consciousness in us which is moving towards the object outside is really a non-externalizable something. Even today it is universal in nature. Our consciousness even just now is universal, not that it was universal only many, many aeons back. So remember this point, even just now at this very moment, our consciousness is universal, because that is the part of Reality. So when we move towards an object of sense in affection, in attraction or in love, what happens is that there is a channalization of this universality of consciousness in a very limited manner through the avenues of the sense-organs. It may be through the eyes, it may be through the ears or it may be through the touch, etc. This channalization of this universal is the limitation of this universal for the purpose of conceiving this object as something outside.

       All this I told you is a kind of introduction to this main point of how happiness arises. How do we feel happy when an object comes into our possession or when we enjoy it? What happens is that the so-called externality characterizing the mind at the time of its movement towards the object ceases when we possess the object. Why does the mind move towards the object outside? Because it is not ours. We are not always thinking of our own body so much as we think of another person’s body or other things, or a substance which is not in our possession yet. Love ceases when it is possessed. It enhances itself when it is not possessed. A person who has confidence that he has enough of wealth is not so much thinking of it as the one who does not have it. So is the case with every kind of affection. Our love for a thing is intense when it is not possessed by us. But when it is already under our control, the love diminishes, for the reason that love is not any more necessary under the condition of the possession of the object. The love that we feel is nothing but a movement of the mind towards the object for the purpose of grabbing it. But when we have already got it, where is the point in the mind moving towards it once again? So, the mind withdraws itself. Now, what is the meaning of withdrawal of the mind? It means the non-externalization of the mind. The externalization of the mind outside was for the purpose of grabbing the object of sense. But, when the purpose is served, i.e., when the object has come near us and we have got it, the mind need not think of it. The externalization of the mind ceases and a miracle takes place. This miracle is an essential, psychological nature of happiness. When the externalizing force of the mind ceases oh account of the satisfaction felt by the possession of the object, there is, for a fraction of a moment, a flash of the universality of our consciousness. It may be for a split second and perhaps less than that. We cannot know how quickly it comes like a flash of a lightning. The mind ceases to think of the object because of having had the satisfaction of possessing it, and the cessation of the mind is the cessation of externality of consciousness. The moment this cessation takes place, the non-externalized Self within us bursts out, and happiness is nothing but the experience of non-externalized consciousness. Thus the happiness has come from us only; it has not come from outside. So we are happy on account of a condition that has arisen in us, for which the object outside has become an agent of action. It has only worked as a spade to dig out the happiness from within us. The spade itself is not the cause of happiness. It is an instrument to dig out the treasure; the treasure was inside us and not outside.

       But, this point is always missed by the mind on account of the quickness of the duration of this experience of happiness. If it had lasted for half an hour or one hour or two hours, we would have had time enough to think as to what is happening. But it is a miracle indeed and it does not last for more than a second. All happiness is miraculous, instantaneous, fractional. We cannot be happy for days together. That is not possible. It is not given to us in this mortal world. Now the moment the happiness flashes forth, we feel an ecstasy which is beyond description in language, and we are under the misconception at that time that this happiness has come from the object because we think, "When the object was far away from me, I was not happy; it has come near me and therefore I am happy." So naturally we argue logically, as it were, in a false fashion that the happiness has come from the object. It has not come from the object. It has come from a condition of perfection that has been aroused in our consciousness by the proximity of the object which has acted merely as an external agent. So Ananda or happiness, which is in the Anandamaya Kosha is a limited expression of the universal Ananda which is the essential nature of the Atman. As I mentioned to you, this Atman is also called Brahman, because it is everywhere. The selfhood of Brahman in every particular is defined by the term Atman, and the universality of the same Atman is defined by the term Brahman. So they mean one and the same thing, like the space all-pervading and the space inside a vessel. They do not make any distinction essentially or characteristically. This is the Ananda Mimamsa, - the analysis of the nature of happiness and love, etc.

       We are happy very rarely in life, an account of there being very few occasions when the mind comes back to its own source with the satisfaction of having possessed the things that we need. Always we are in search of things, but we do not get those things; and so the search continues throughout our life. As long as the search continues, the mind is outside, it is focused elsewhere. So we are not of ourselves; we have transferred ourselves to objects outside which have not been possessed by us. So perpetually we are unhappy, from morning to night there is only sorrow; there is no joy. But by chance, by some miracle of Nature or wonder, if the object comes into our possession, - at that moment we are happy. But, how long can the object be under our possession? Nobody can possess anything permanently, for the law of Nature is such. Nothing belongs to us and we belong to nobody. Everything belongs to one single whole and so the consideration on the part of any individual that one can grab a thing, possess it and enjoy it externally is again a false notion. So, there must be bereavement or separation of the object from oneself under the very law of Nature. The coming together of two objects is also a miracle. The coming into contact of the subject with the so-called object of affection is due to the working of, some Karma. When the wind blows in a particular direction on the surface of the ocean, logs of wood that are floating on the surface come together and they appear to meet. When the wind blows in another direction, the logs get separated. So the logs may think, if they have Consciousness, that they are friends, they are coming together and talking to each other and that they like each other. We like each other due to the wind that blows; if the wind blows in a different direction, we will be thrown off in some other direction. The law of Nature, the law of universality, or you may call it the law of Karma in a particular way, has brought about the union of one thing with another thing under certain given conditions and that seems to be the source of our happiness. The bereavement that we think of or the loss of objects that takes place is due to the contrary action of the very same law under the dispensation of its own constitution. Transfer of things from place to place is done according to the law of the universe and not according to the law of our personal wish. Personal wish has to be subordinated to the universal will of the Supreme, if we are to be happy. So this is a very unfortunate conclusion that we come to when we actually analyze how we love things, why we love things, how happiness arises in us, etc. We seem to be utterly mistaken in all our attempts at possession of things for the purpose of personal satisfaction. This Anandamaya Kosha or the sheath of bliss is the subtle-most layer, the most initial movement of consciousness outwardly. Then it becomes grosser as intellect, further grosser as mind, and then as the senses, Prana and the physical body, and then its relationship with the other physical objects. This is called the world of bondage, relationships, externality, contact, separation, sorrow and so on. So here we have in quintessence the meaning of the way in which the five sheaths work in the individual due to the isolation of consciousness from the Total.

       This was the subject of the Aitareya Upanishad, - how the individual was isolated, segregated, cut off from the Universal Whole and how it wriggles forth to come in contact with the universal by means of external contact which is called affection, love, etc. All this is a drama which is inscrutable to the ordinary, limited, bound mind, to disentangle with from this mire of bondage is the purpose of the analysis of the Upanishad. The Taittiriya Upanishad goes on further. The Universal Absolute is like a non-existence for us. What exists for us is the world only. If we think that the world only exists, and the Absolute does not exist merely because we cannot see it with our eyes, we are going to be miserable indeed. Because, we will also be negated completely from the selfhood of our experience on account of the wrong impression that we entertain that the Absolute does not exist. ‘Assanneva sa Bhavati, Asat Brahmeti veda chet’ Asti Brahmeti Chet Veda, Santamenam Tato Viduriti. Who ever denies God denies himself, because our own self is nothing but the replica of God. The denial of the Absolute is the denial of one’s own selfhood of character, because, as we have already seen, we are constituted of the very substance of the Absolute, The Absolute or the Universal is that outside which there can be nothing, including ourselves. So in denying God or the Absolute, we deny ourselves, which is absurd.

  The Absolute appears to be non-existent from the point of view of the senses, not from its own point of view. It is non-existent to the senses, because the senses can perceive only what is in space and in time. But the Absolute Brahman is not in space and in time; it is the Self. Again we come to the point we cannot see the Self just as we cannot see our own eyes. The Self is the seeing consciousness. That is called the Atman, that is called the Brahman or the Absolute. How can we see it? Who can see the Seer! We cannot see the Seer because the Seer is the seer of things. The Atman cannot be beheld in the way we behold a building outside or people in the world externally, because the beholding outside is done through the senses. But the senses function on account of the light of the Atman. The deepest Self within us cannot be experienced by any activity of the senses. And if we try to contact the Absolute with the help of the senses or through a test tube in a laboratory in a scientific manner, as they call it today, then we will be a failure. The Absolute is the selfhood in things and it can be known only by self-restraint, by self-control, by Tapas.

       Now we come to the importance of Tapas, whereby Varuna is supposed to have taught his son Bhrigu the knowledge of the Atman. Bhrigu approached his father and said to him: "Master, Father, Sir, teach me Brahman." The father gave the following definition of Brahman and asked him to contemplate on it: Yato va imani bhutani jayante; Yena jatani jivanti; Yat prayantyabhisamvisanti; Tad vijijnasasva; Tat Brahma. "That from which everything comes, or rather that from which everything has come, that in which everything abides, and that to which everything must return one day, - that is Brahman or the Absolute." This is a very difficult definition and we cannot make any sense out of it, and he was asked to meditate on this. He went on meditating. He could not catch the full import at all. So he realized that the whole material universe is Brahman. Annam brahmeti vyaja-nath. Due to the intensity of concentration there was a realization of the togetherness of all the physical things in the world. This is what we will experience in meditation. If we concentrate intensely on any object, we will find the interconnectedness of the things in this universe in a physical manner at the initial outset. This was what Bhrigu realized. He  realized Anna, food, matter, the physical universe itself is Brahman. Then he went to the father and submitted, "this is how I realized. Please tell me Brahman. Is it true?" ‘Tapasa Brahma Vijijnasasva, Tapo Brahmeti’. "You contemplate further, you will  know what it is." He did not give any answer. The father never initiated him into any further mysteries. He simply said 'Tapas Taptva', "You restrain your mind more and more, concentrate more and more, meditate more and more and you will realize what Brahman is?"

       The universal material is not the ultimate reality. This was what Bhrigu realized by deep meditation. He entered further inside into the substance behind the physical universe and came to experience that subtle vital energy permeating the whole cosmos as Reality. It is called Prana. ‘Prano brahmeti vyajanat’.

       Now, earlier we studied about the five sheaths in an individualistic fashion, which are experienced in a cosmical fashion by deep meditation. The individual is a cross-section of the universal. Whatever is in the universal we will find in the individual, but in a minute microscopic manner. The five sheaths are individual as well as cosmic. When we regard ourselves as this physical body alone, then we will have a notion only of the individual five sheaths. These are the Annamaya, Pranamaya, Manomaya, Vijnanamaya and Anandamaya Koshas mentioned. But in real meditation we concentrate our mind on the absoluteness of this object; that is the meaning of meditation, incidentally. Meditation is the fixing of the attention of our mind on any object exclusively, as if it is the total reality and nothing else exists outside it. This sort of intense fixing of the attention of the mind on any given object bursts the bubble of individuality or the limitation of the mind. Then we are made to enter into the ocean with which this particularity of the object and our own body are all connected.

       So likewise meditation was practiced by Bhrigu. From the universal physical he went to the universal vital that is Prana, universal Prana. And he went to the father and said: "This is what I experienced. Please teach me further." The father did not give any answer. He said, ‘Tapasa brahma vijijnasasva' - "Meditate further and realize for yourself." He was a very good Guru. He would not tell anything. He simply said, "Meditate further." Perhaps he was the best Guru. It is no use simply superimposing some ideas on the mind of the disciple by saying something which the mind cannot grasp. So he said, "Concentrate more, practice more, sit more and more for meditation and see what comes out."

       Then he realized that the cosmic mind is the supreme reality. ‘Mano brahmeti vyajanat’. This is still subtler. The cosmic mind which vibrates everywhere in the form of Prana or the vital energy in the cosmos was realized by him in his direct experience. Again he went to the father and said: "This is what I experienced, teach me further." The father replied "Tapasa brahma vijijnasasva - Meditate further and know for yourself." Then he realized the cosmic understanding, the intellect or intelligence, Mahat Tattva as it is sometime called, as Brahman. ‘Vijnanam brahmeti vyajanat’.

       Now in all these realizations, there was a little bit of externality. Whatever be the expanse of this experience in its cosmic manifestation, there is still a sort of externality in it. That externality should also go completely into universal subjectivity. That had yet not taken place. So, after the realization of the cosmic understanding, Mahat Tattva, again he went to the father and said, "Teach me Brahman." The father said, "Meditate further and realize for yourself." Then he realized ‘Anandam brahmeti yyajanat’. "Bliss is Brahman." The constitutive essence of Reality Is happiness. It is not objectivity, it is not an attribute, it is not a thing.

       So now we come to the essential point of the Upanishad and the essential aim of life itself. We are in search of happiness and not in search of objects. If we are under the wrong notion that we want bungalows, lands, gardens, property, airplanes, friends and relationship, we are fools of the first water. These are not what we want. All these are tools that we use for the purpose of evoking that universal happiness within us. That happiness is the real substance. Whatever may be our earthly possession, if we are not happy at the core of our heart, what is the use of that possession? If possession alone is sufficient and nothing else is wanted by us, then we can strive for such possessions; there are many in this world who have a lot of possessions, but they are miserable at the core. Unhappy is man. He is born with unhappiness, he lives in unhappiness and dies in unhappiness. He lives merely in search of happiness but he does not find it at all. It cannot be found, because it is inside him. How will he find it? He cannot search for himself in outside space and time!

       So, by deep meditation Bhrigu realized the universality of happiness. Now we are to understand another important feature of this happiness. We, as students of psychology in the Western sense especially, are likely to characterize happiness as a quality of an object, like greenness, blueness and whiteness, etc., and think that happiness also is a character. "I have happiness. I am happy." - such statements are likely to lead to a misconstruction of the very meaning of happiness. We are not happy in the sense that the flower is blue or the wall is white, etc. It is not an adjective of our self. Happiness is not an attribute, in an external sense. Again we are coming to externality which has to be abolished from the mind completely. There cannot be an attribute or quality unless there is space and time. Now we have gone beyond space and time; so, where comes the question of attribute? So, it is not that we are happy in an adjectival fashion. But we have come into possession of our true nature by the withdrawal of sense-activities and we have merged our consciousness in our own Self which is the true substance of things, not a quality of things merely. This substance is the existence of things, and it is the happiness of things. This existence itself is happiness. ‘Raso vai sah.’ It is called Rasa, the quintessence of things. It is the quintessence because it is the innermost substantiality of all objects. Inside the physical objects we have molecules, inside the molecules we have atoms, inside the atom there are the electrons, neutrons and protons and what not. Then we have the universal continuum of electric energy. That is the substance of all these little things that we see as bricks and trees and mountain, etc. The variety of things that we see in this world is nothing but the configuration or formation of this continuum of energy which is universally spread out everywhere in creation as the only substance existing. Likewise there is one substance continuously permeating throughout the cosmos, not merely permeating but existing as everything in the cosmos; that is the substance of things. That substance is itself aware of its own being. That is called Chit or Consciousness. In Sanskrit we call the continuum of existence as Sat or Sattva. Sat is Pure Being that is universally existent as a continuum, undifferentiated, as the substance of all things. It is aware that it exists in this fashion. So it is Sat and Chit, and its experience is Ananda. The consciousness of our being the universal continuum of substance in the universe is called happiness. So, what is happiness? It is experience of Godhood. When God reveals Himself within us, we are happy, not otherwise. And even when we take a cup of tea, if we feel a little exhilaration and joy, it is because God has revealed Himself there. Such a stilly thing as taking a cup of tea or cold water in hot summer makes us feel happy! It is God coming. It is not the water or coffee that has given us the happiness. They have acted as instruments outside, to rouse the universality within us for a fraction of a second, and this universality is Godhood. So God is revealing Himself every moment of time in our daily life. But we miss His presence on account of attachment and the misconception that arises on account of sense-activities that objects are outside.

       So the Taittiriya Upanishad reveals to us a very great truth that bliss is the nature of Reality. It is not merely an adjective, it is the substance of Reality, and we are non-differentiated from that. It is the Self and therefore we cannot be outside it; and because we are also the Self, it cannot be outside us. Neither we are outside it, nor is it outside us. There is one totality of Being which is characterized by Selfhood. That is Atman, that is Ananda, that is Bliss; not a quality but a substance. So what is within is also without. 'Sa yaschayam Purushe yaschasavaditye, Sa ekah.' What is shining there as a lustrous sun in the distant skies, and what is within us twinkling as the Atman, they are identical. The macrocosmic and microcosmic are one. The universe is not bifurcated into the object and the subject as we imagine. It is one total Being, and one who knows this in direct realization is the liberated being. Such a person crosses the bondage of the five sheaths. ‘Sa ya evam vid’ He knows who knows this in actual experience and realisation by deep meditation. ‘Etam Annamayam Atmanam Upasankramya, Etam Pranamayam Atmanam Upasankramya, Etam Manomayam Atmanam Upasankramya, Etam Vijnanamayam Atmanam Upasankramya, Etam Anandamayam Atmanam Upasankramya’, Etat sama gayanaste’. He is in the universal bliss and ecstasy of exclamation and cannot find words to explain what he feels at that time. It is as if the whole ocean has entered him and is inundating him from all sides, and he has become one with the ocean, - not the ocean of waters but the ocean of Happiness. This is the great conclusion to the immense glorification and satisfaction of all of us. This is what the Upanishad presents before us as the great legacy of our culture, to contemplate which we have to find adequate time every day. If we cannot find time to meditate on this truth, what else is the objective of life? So we have to think deeply on this matter and put forth the greatest effort possible for cogitating along these lines and realize the aim of our life within our own Self as the emblem of universality which God is.

       The Taittiriya Upanishad tells something more about this theme of happiness called Ananda Mimamsa, - an investigation into the character of happiness. We noted earlier in our analysis that at the time of our coming in contact with a desired object, there is a temporary forgetfulness of both the subjective and the objective sides of experience and there flashes forth, for the fraction of a moment as it were, a sense of perfection, a feeling of completeness which is the indication of the descent of the Absolute into our consciousness. This is the reason for our being happy when we come in contact with, possess, or enjoy an object of our desire. Now this analysis may also lead to a misconstruction or a misapprehension, namely, that this little fractional experience of happiness is qualitatively at least, though not quantitatively, the same as the bliss of the Absolute. When we have an immense ecstatic experience of happiness at the time of enjoyment of a desired object, are we qualitatively having the same happiness as the one that is the essence of the Absolute, though not quantitatively, of course? The Upanishad refutes this notion. Even qualitatively it is not the same, notwithstanding the fact that it is the Absolute that is revealing itself in the form of that happiness. Quantitatively, of course, it is far small; because it is manifest through a little aperture of our own little mind. So it is like a drop in the terrible ocean of existence. Thus, from the point of view of quantity it is nothing. Even from the point of view of quality is it nothing, says the Upanishad, so that we need not be under a misconstrued complacency that perhaps there is a little jot of divine experience at the time of sensory contact. It is not so. This is the subject of Ananda Mimamsa in the Taittiriya Upanishad.

       Now we have to understand this new type of analysis very carefully. It is difficult to explain things transcendent in empirical terms. But we have to do that. We have no other alternative. So empirical expressions, comparisons, analogies are resorted to for the purpose of driving home to our minds the nature of the transcendent reality. What is our notion of happiness? The largest amount of possession, freedom from disease, freedom from fear from others, the possession of everything that is existent anywhere to the largest extent possible, a very healthy constitution; we don’t want to be children or old people, we must be youths with the capacity to enjoy things to the fullest extent; we should not be idiots also, we must be very well-educated, learned, cultured, well-qualified; all wealth must be ours; all powers should be ours; there is nothing that we lack; - if such a person can exist in this world, that is the least kind of happiness which we can count as the unit for our computation of the gradation of happiness. Suppose there is a king of the whole world of this nature! Such a king does not exist and he never existed, perhaps he will never exist; but for the purpose of theoretical concept at least we can imagine the possibility of such a ruler or emperor of the whole world. The whole earth is his, very healthy is this young man, and he has the greatest power conceivable; there is nothing he lacks, he is very learned and educated. His happiness is incalculable. Now, this is the lowest unit, number one for the purpose of our conception. The little joys that we have in our life naturally are nothing compared to the conceptual happiness of this imaginary person. But this is what we call earthly happiness. The emperor’s happiness is earthly happiness though it is untrammeled by opposition from others on account of his being in possession of everything in the world. The Upanishad says, that qualitatively one hundred times the happiness of such an imagined emperor is the happiness of the higher region of the Gandharvas, which is internal to the physical world.

       The more internal we go into realms of being, the subtler becomes the happiness; the greater is the proximity to Reality, the more intensive is the happiness qualitatively. There are various realms of being one inside the other. These realms are subtler and subtler, more and more pervasive expanses of reality, tending nearer and nearer to the Absolute. So the point that is made out here is that the nearer we go to the Absolute the greater is the quality of the happiness. Now nearness does not mean specially coming closer. There is no space in the Absolute. Nearness means qualitatively ascending. The degree of happiness increases in comparison with the degree of the intensity of the subtlety of experience, which is what is meant by nearness to the Absolute. The realm of the Gandharvas, the celestial minstrels, is supposed to be superior to the earthly plane. Higher than the realm of the Gandharvas, is the realm of the forefathers, the Pitrus, the realm where our ancestors who are virtuous in their nature are supposed to go and reside in a state of joy. Higher than this is the realm of the Devas, celestials or gods, the angels, the paradise as they call it. Higher than that is the sway which the king of the celestials called Indra has. Indra is not a man, he is a celestial, he is capable of exercising any kind of power due to the superior knowledge that he has and the immense subtlety that he enjoys in that realm of paradise. Higher than that is the realm of his own Guru called Brihaspati. Higher than Brihaspati is Prajapati, the Creator himself. Then comes the Absolute.

       Now these are the levels through which we have to ascend. As we go higher and higher, the greater is the happiness; and the Upanishad tells us that each higher realm is constituted of an experience which is tantamount to one hundred times greater happiness than the earlier one. One hundred times the happiness of this imaginary king of this world is the happiness of the Gandharva. One hundred times the happiness of the Gandharva is the happiness of the Pitru. One hundred times the happiness of the Pitru is the happiness of the celestial. One hundred times the happiness of the celestial is the happiness of Indra. One hundred times the happiness of Indra is the happiness of Brihaspati. Then one hundred times the happiness of Brihaspati is the happiness of Prajapati, the Creator. One hundred times the happiness of Prajapati is the Absolute Happiness. So our happiness is nothing. It has no meaning at all. We need not be too complacent that we are also having a jot of divine happiness; it is not so. We are far, far removed from the Absolute in quantity and quality. Wretched is our condition. This is a very important point that is brought home to our minds by the Upanishad.  

SOME LIGHT ON YOGA PRACTICE

       Why are we so far away from the Absolute, is also a question. The Supreme Being or Absolute is transcendent to our level. This transcendence, which we call Brahman or the Absolute, is manifest through space and time by way of externalization and in the process of externalization the selfhood of experience is gradually lost. The greater the externalization, diversification, expression, manifestation outwardly towards objects in space and time, the greater is the loss of selfhood. The more we are conscious of an external object, the greater is the loss of self-consciousness. As we noted earlier, in all attachments to objects of sense, there is a transference of self to the object, so that we lose our self first in order that we may love the object. So self-loss takes place on account of a complete transference of character of selfhood to the object outside. The more we move outwardly, the less is the selfhood of experience; and the greater is the loss of the selfhood, the greater also is the loss in the quality of happiness. So it is the Self that is the source of bliss, not any object or any kind of external movement towards an object. But the more we gravitate towards externality, the more is the extent or the measure of the loss of selfhood in us. Thus we have descended too far. According to Vedanta terminology, there is a gradual descent from Brahman to Isvara, from Isvara to Hiranyagarbha, from Hiranyagarbha to Virat and from Virat there is a further triplication taking place; on one side the objective world, on the other side the individuals and in the center we have got the controlling divinities called Devatas, so that we, the subjects, look upon the object outside through space and time as if it is bifurcated from us, with no connection at all between one and the other. Not only that, something worse has taken place. From the causal condition we have come to the intellectual, from the intellectual to the mental, from the mental to the vital, and from the vital we have come to the physical level. These are the five Koshas mentioned earlier. You can imagine how far we have descended. So there is no wonder that we are unhappy, and that the so-called happiness of sense contact is not divine happiness; though, by means of psychological analysis, we are able to conclude that even that little fraction of so-called happiness of sense-contact is due to the presence of the Absolute, by way of reflection and distortion. So this is the reason why we are unhappy. This is also the nature of happiness, and this also gives a clue as to how we can reach the Absolute. This method is called Yoga.

       The practice of Yoga is the art of contacting the Absolute. There is no such thing as contacting the Absolute in a literal sense. You know we contact an object, but the Absolute is not an object at all; it is the Self, it is the internal being of everything. How can we contact it? How can we contact our own consciousness? But this is what is meant by Yoga. Yoga means union, - union of the individual with the Absolute. But what is this union? How can we unite our Self with our own inner being? This is the difficulty. We cannot even imagine what it is. But this union is a metaphorical one, it is not a physical contact. It is metaphorical in the sense that in Yoga there is the union of our consciousness in the present context with the supreme essence that we are. In this practice of Yoga we gradually lessen the degree and the intensity of externality of consciousness and move inward gradually. It is self-control, ultimately, which is called Yoga, - self-restraint which includes the restraint of the operation of the sense organs, the restraint of the mind, the restraint of the intellect and the restraint of the impulse to externalize consciousness in any manner whatsoever. The urge of the consciousness to manifest itself in an external form is contrary to Yoga.

       In the Kathopanishad there is a hint given to us as to how we can practice Yoga. There are one or two verses in the Kathopanishad which give the sum and substance of the practice of Yoga, which is also the same Yoga explained in greater detail in the system of Patanjali. The Kathopanishad says, in these verses, that the subtle essences of objects are superior to the sensory powers, they are higher in their degree and in quality. Higher than these essences of objects is the mind; higher than the mind is the intellect; higher than the intellect is the cosmic intellect called Mahat. It is also called Hiranyagarbha. Higher than that is the peaceful undifferentiated causal state called Avyakta. Higher than that is supreme Absolute, Purusha. The same Upanishad mentions the system of practice in another verse. The senses have to be rooted in the mind. The mind has to be centered in the intellect. The intellect has to be fixed in the Cosmic Intellect, and the Cosmic Intellect has to be united with the Peaceful Being. Sometimes this Peaceful Being, Shanta-Atman, is identified with the Isvara of the Vedanta. This is how we have to control the mind.

       The restraint of the mind and the senses is not an easy affair. Because, first of all, it is difficult even to understand how this can be done at al!. We practise the traditional routines of stopping the breath, not thinking of objects, sometimes not thinking anything at all, and then keeping quiet in a blank state of mind, under the impression that we are practicing Yoga. These are all like sweeping the ground, but that is not the entire function in a house though they are important enough from their own points of view. The mind is not such a simple thing as to come under our control in a few days. For this purpose, intense philosophical analysis is necessary together with other accessories such as living in an atmosphere which is conducive to this practice, study of scriptures and books which will fill the mind with ideas that are elevating in their nature and of the nature of the practice of Yoga. Living in the service of a Guru is a great help in this direction. Finally, a very correct grasp of the meaning of self-control is necessary. Since the Absolute is everywhere and all-pervading, and its realization in our own experience is the aim of this practice, withdrawal of the mind from objects implies some subtle technique which is commensurate with or not in contra-distinction with the presence of the omnipresent Absolute.

       Sometimes doubts arise in the mind. "From what am I withdrawing the mind? If Brahman is everywhere, if the Absolute is everything, whatever I think in the mind is the Absolute only. So what is it that I am withdrawing myself from? If I think of some object, it is a shape of the Absolute. It is a form taken by Brahman. So am I withdrawing the mind from Brahman itself, while my intention is the realization of Brahman? What is self-control?" These doubts may come to the mind of even experienced Sadhakas or seekers. It is true that the Absolute is everything. The Supreme Being is manifest as all these things. Even the wall that we see in front is Absolute manifest. But, and a terrible but indeed, there is some great mistake in our notion about this wall. We have again to bring to our memory the selfhood character of the Absolute. The Absolute or Brahman is the Atman, it is not a Vishaya or an object of sense. So when we look upon this wall as an object outside, it has ceased to be the Absolute, though it is true that ultimately in its essence it is that. The mistake is not in the substance of the object as such or the Astitva or existence of the object, but in the Nama and the Rupa, or in the name and in the form of the object which is the effect of the externalization or the separation of the object from our consciousness. Name and form have to be distinguished from existence or pure being of the object. When you say, "There is an object outside", you make a confusion of characters. There is the object that exists as anything else also exists. This character of existence or being is general. I exist, you exist, this exists, that exists. But the name and the form, the shape and the contour, etc. are different. This shape of mine has risen on account of the space and time factors interfering with the being that I am. There is a ball of clay or mud, which is the substance. It takes the shape as a pot or a vessel. There can be many shapes of vessels: it can be round, it can be oblong, it can be square, it can be anything. Now the substance of every type of pot is the same, the clay. This is the way in which Brahman exists in every thing. The clay exists in every form of the pot, but the form of the pot cannot be identified with the substance. What we call the form is a peculiar indeterminable something which is not identical with clay and yet not different from clay. The shape of the pot is what we call the pot, not the clay itself. When I say there is a vessel or a pot, what 1 actually speak of is the shape which the substance has taken; it is not the substance itself that I am referring to, because that substance is elsewhere also, not only here. This particular shape is the space-time factor involved in that substance we call clay. So all problem is due to space-time. It is not due to the substance as such. So the interference of the so-called factors of space-time in the substance of the Absolute is the cause of the manifestation we call this vast universe. So self-control, control of the senses, mind-control, Yoga practice, whatever it is, is not a withdrawal of the mind from the substance of the object, which is the selfhood of things, but from the name and the form which are the external characters of the object. The selfhood of the object is the same as the selfhood of ours. That is not the problem. The problem is the externality of it. Who told you that it is out there? The space makes you feel so. There is something called space. We do not know what space is, what time is. These are only some words that we are using to describe a thing which is unintelligible ultimately. The space-time factor is nothing but a force of externality; that is all we can say about it, we cannot say anything more than that; because it is involved in our experience. Space and time are part and parcel of our experience itself, and therefore we cannot say anything about them. Yet this much can be understood of them that they are expressional habits of the mind, they are the factors which pull consciousness in a particular direction called externality, and Yoga practice is nothing but the subdual of the character of the mind from its movement in terms of space and time.

       So the control of the mind, or withdrawal of the senses, is a very difficult task. It involves a Herculean effort indeed, because it involves a very subtle understanding of what is expected to be done. There are many people who have a wrong notion of the nature of things. They think to become a Yogi or a seeker of Truth one has to renounce things. We are always told in religions that we have to renounce things and the world in order to reach God. But we renounce the substance itself, together with the name and the form. This is a mistake arising on account of the incapacity of the mind to distinguish between the name and form, and the existence as such.

       There is a humorous story. There was a small boy whose mother was very ill. She was an old lady. She was lying on bed almost in a dying condition. Flies were sitting on her body, and one fly was sitting on her nose again and again, troubling her so much that the people told the boy: "Please drive the fly away. Don’t allow the fly to trouble the old lady, she is in a very bad condition." "O! Yes," he said "I will drive this fly away." But the fly would not go easily like that. Again and again he tried to fan it off, but again and again it sat on her nose. So be took a huge stick and gave a blow so forcefully that it broke the nose of the mother. The fly went off! Poor boy did not know that he was hitting the mother and instead of driving away the fly he broke the head and face of the poor lady.

       So, this sort of mistake we may commit in rejecting the world. It is not the world that we have to reject. The worldness in the object, the externality in the object, and the non-selfhood, Anatmatva in things have to be thrown off. Here is the crux of the whole matter. Here it is that we always become a miserable failure. When we come to this point it is hard for us to grasp what this actually means. We think, to leave the house and to go to a forest is renunciation. But it is not. Because we are still in the world only; even in the forest we are in the world. The world has not gone out of us. The idea that there is a world outside us is to be abrogated. Otherwise, if Yoga had been so simple, everybody would have become Yogis. A little closing of the eyes, a little Japa and a little breathing will not make us a Yogi. The intellect is a terrible hindrance; it will never allow us to grasp the truth of things. It always misleads us, it always takes us in the wrong direction. We say then, "I reject this, I fast, I don’t sleep, I don’t talk." All these techniques that we adopt in Yoga do not even touch the fringe of the actual problem. They are all very necessary things, as fasting before treatment of a disease. Bit fasting itself is not the treatment; we have to give the proper medicament and take care of the body by positive treatment, etc. So, likewise is the case with Yoga.

       It is not enough if we merely practice the preliminaries of external detachment, which are important enough no doubt. But they are preliminaries only and not Yoga proper. Yoga proper is an internal psychological technique. It is the most difficult of things to conceive because the mind thinks of an object even in the act of rejecting the object. This is the difficulty. Even when we try to remove the idea of an object from our mind, we have some object in our mind. The objectness does not leave us, just as when we love a person or thing we think of that person and when we hate that person also we think of him. Merely because we hate a thing it does not mean that it has gone out of our mind. So, even renunciation may be a bondage. We may go to a worse condition, if it is not properly conceived. We should not think that hatred is the opposite of love, it is not true; it is same as love in a different form. So it is not so simple an affair to practice Yoga. It requires a very careful analysis of what is happening inside. The problems are not outside. They are not in the world, they are not caused by people, people are not troubling us, nobody is giving us any problem; we are our problems.

       So the whole problem is in the incapacity of the mind to grasp the peculiar relationship that it has established with objects outside. Now when we say outside, it means again the peculiar concept of outsideness that has arisen in the mind. This habit of thinking in terms of non-self, Anatman, externality, space and time has to be removed. Then the world becomes something not intended to be rejected but absorbed into our Self, because the Astitva or the being of the world is the Atman of the Absolute, which is the same as ours. So here we have got a little clue to the inner significance of these two verses I quoted from the Kathopanishad where the ultimate Purusha is supposed to be realized by an internal movement which is not a movement towards a town or a village or city or some object. The great commentator Acharya Sankara is never tired of telling us in such contexts that movement to God does not mean movement in space, it is not actually moving in a motor car or an airplane. It is a conscious transfiguration that is taking place inwardly. Even the word ‘inward’ may be misconstrued. It is a universalization that is taking place gradually which looks like an inwardness on account of the Atmanhood present there. This is Yoga.

       These are very difficult things indeed and it is really unfortunate if we should think ourselves well placed, very happy, and that we are great seekers of Yoga. We are really very far and so we should be very careful. We are in a difficult situation, we are in a world of great complexities, diversities and misconceptions which sidetrack us every moment of time. Every thought that arises in our mind is a wrong thought. Correct thought very rarely comes to us, because we have no time to think correctly as we are always moving in the same old groove of traditional thinking. The actual reoriented thinking is unknown to us. We have no time, we are always busy, busy in doing something nonsense, and that has engulfed us in such an intensity and to such an extent that we are immersed in it. And in that immersed condition we are crying for God, and He does not come. So it requires ultimately the grace of God himself.

       After all these, we come to the conclusion that this terrible mess cannot be crossed over unless some miracle takes place. By some mystery of the workings of Nature, as it were, divine hands begin to operate and grace descends and we are brought in contact with a proper Guru or a teacher. That itself is a great blessing; contact with a proper Guru is really coming in contact with God Himself. To get a Guru is as difficult as getting God. And once you get a proper teacher, then you are on the path. This is a great achievement, and again this is the work of God.
 

THE SECRET OF SADHANA

       We hear in the scriptures that when creation was complete, a war took place between the Devas and Asuras, the celestials and the demons. The epics and the Puranas in India are replete with stories of Devasura Sangrama, the Yuddha or the war continuously taking place between the gods and the demons. The gods used to have an upper hand sometimes, but mostly they were defeated. In the Upanishad we are told that the gods are lesser in number than the Asuras. As we have also in the Epic, the Mahabharata, the Pandavas were lesser in number than the Kauravas. The evil forces are larger in quantum than the beneficent forces in the world. Acharya Sankara, while commenting on the Upanishad, tells us that it is quite obvious, because the impulse towards evil, which is the urge towards contact with the objects of sense, is more powerful than the impulse towards God. Rarely people turn to God; mostly they go down to objects of sense. So the number of spirited seekers moving towards the light of God, perhaps, can be counted on fingers. But the downward forces rejoicing in contact with senses are plenty, and, therefore, their number is more. So the war went on for ages and ages. Once the gods had a brainwave. They conferred among themselves. "This state of affairs cannot be for a long time. We must find out a means of overcoming the Asuras. We shall chant the holy Udgitha Saman which is a Veda Mantra, and we shall have some of us engaged in doing this work of holy recitation to quell the Asuras." So the deities, who were all implanted in the sense like eyes, ears, etc., and even the mind, were all requested to undertake this discipline of the chant of the Udgitha. The deity of the speech was told: "You chant the Udgitha for us, and with the power of this great force we shall overcome the Asura forces." The Asuras got wind of it. They knew that a great spiritual discipline is being undertaken by the Devas so that they may overcome the Asuras. So the Asuras thought, "We shall not allow this to happen. We shall not permit this spiritual discipline going on. We shall attack it." When speech was chanting the holy Mantra, the Udgitha, Asuras came and attacked, and speech was quelled and thrown down. The Upanishad says that this is the reason sometimes, - why sometimes, mostly, - speech that is uttered by people is not beneficent, not worthy, not delicate; but harsh, barbaric, cruel, cutting and insulting to others. This detrimental negative attitude adopted by speech often is the effect of evil influence imprecated upon it by the Asura forces. So the deity of speech was defeated. Then the gods told the deity of the nose, "You chant the Mantra, speech is defeated." So the deity of the nose started chanting the holy Mantra, and the Asuras understood this. They came with a force and attacked this deity of the nose. That is why it is said that we can smell also bad odor, not only fragrance. So sometimes we close our nose, when certain odors enter our nostrils. The nose was defeated. The angels told the other sense-organs, one by one, to chant the Mantra, and all had the same fate. They were all overcome. The Upanishad tells us that every sense-organ has, therefore, a double activity. It can do good and it can do bad; it can receive what is good and it can receive what is bad. We can hear nice things and we can hear bad things also. The mind also was defeated. The mind was inflicted with the evil by the Asuras when it chanted the Mantra. So it can think right and it can think wrong, Thus, there was no way out. The gods were defected repeatedly. They were utterly helpless.

       When they were all thus defeated, they joined together and considered as to what could be done under the circumstances. They thought that they had made a mistake in choosing their agents for chanting the Udgitha. So they asked the vital force, the Prana Sakti, which is prior to the operation of the senses, which impels the senses to act as sun impels all activity in the world, himself not doing anything. They said: "O Prana, chant the Udgitha for us." And the Prana, the unifying force, the vital energy, chanted the Udgitha. And when the Prana started the chant, the Asuras came in a large battalion to attack it. What happened? They were thrown back. As a mud-ball thrown against a hard rock would break to pieces and become dispersed in all directions, the Asuras were thrown and cast in various directions powerless by the force of the Udgitha chant conducted by the vital force, Prana Sakti, - a thing which the senses could not undertake and could not succeed in doing. Then the Devas won victory over the demons. They assumed their original positions of angels, which had been occupied by the Asuras, the demons. Now, inasmuch as the Asuras were quelled and overthrown completely in this battle with the force of a chant conducted by the vital force, the gods regained their original positions. The lost kingdom was regained. "One who knows this secret also regains one’s own position," says the Upanishad.

       Here is a very mystical anecdote given to us in the sacred text, the Upanishad, which is very precise and goes to the point. The meditation process or spiritual discipline is described here in the form of a story. The angels fall and lose their positions due to the evil influence of the Asuras. And in order to regain their lost positions they have to take recourse to the vital force and not to the sense-organs. Sense-organs are not our friends in the practice of spirituality. They succeed in making an attempt only, but really they do not succeed in the end. Now what does all these mean to us? It means everything to us. The gods, the angels, the celestials are the denizens of the Garden of Eden. They were bosom friends of God, limbs of the Almighty, scintillating sparks of the Divine Conflagration, inseparable from the Supreme Being. That is the angelic condition. There, in that condition, the consciousness of the angel is a perpetual awareness of its relation to the Almighty. The angels never lose consciousness of God. Whether it is Deva, or Michael, or Gabriel, or any other angel mentioned in the scriptures, whatever be the name given to these angels, they are perpetually in the presence of God. They are the guardians of heaven; they are parts of the Divine Kingdom. There is eternal daylight there, says the Upanishad. "Sakrit Vibhato hi Brahmalokah." In Brahmaloka, which is the Indian counterpart of the Garden of Eden in the Bible, there is eternal day, no night there. It is all blazing radiance. This blazing radiance does not come from some object hanging in the skies, as it is the case here in this world. The radiance of Brahmaloka is not the effect of a light coming from some lamp, not even the lamp like the sun or the moon. It is self-radiance. It is the light emanating from everything that is there. It is light shining upon its own self and not shining on some other object which cannot shine. This is the Kingdom of God, this is the Garden of Eden, this is Brahmaloka, this is the world of the angels, the gods, the celestials.

       The angels fell. What is this falling? The Upanishad’s answer is, the fall took place due to the Asura influence, which is a difficult thing for us to understand. The problem of evil is an indescribable problem for every one. Philosophically conceived, the Asura is the impulse towards sense-objects. The desire for anything other than one’s own self is the Asura or the demon. This is something very interesting. We can know where we stand by the measure of this yardstick. One who desires anything other than one’s own Self is the Asura. The angels have no such desires. They are self-satisfied, self-contained, self-complete, radiant sparks of Divinity. Something happens! Nobody knows the mystery of creation. This mystery, this so-called something seems to have occurred, whether it was the cause of the fall of Lucifer or the cause of fall of anybody else. Something happened. This mystery diverted the attention of the angels in a direction which is contrary to the original angelic vision. So we do not think like angels. We think like men and women, like human beings. What is the difference between the vision of the celestials and the vision of the mortals like us? The Upanishads have many things to tell us in regard to this interesting feature in the process of creation. An explanation of the significance behind this anecdote can be found in the Aitareya Upanishad, wherein the description of the descent is characteristically described. When the angel or the celestial or the god becomes the mortal, the subject becomes the object and the object becomes the subject. This is what has happened. In the beginning of the creationprocess, the universe remains as an inseparable body of the Almighty. Since God revealed Himself as this creation, all things in creation are inseparable from God’s Being; and since God cannot be regarded as an object, anything in this world also cannot be regarded as an object. Since the world is the body of God, it is an appearance of the glory of the Almighty Himself. But, for every one of us the world is an object of sense, as if God Himself has become a sense-object. We are running after things which were originally inseparable from us, but which have assumed now the context or the position of the things which are external to us. The origins of our own present individualities, the causes of our present form of existence have assumed erroneously the position of an object of sense outside. The world is an object of sense for every one of us. And we have assumed a false position of subjectivity or the position of a seer or experience, while we are the experienced objects from the angelic or the cosmic point of view. The so-called subjectivity in us is an objectivity to God, and to assume that we are subjects is to assume what Lucifer assumed in the presence of the Almighty. So what a position we are all occupying in this world will be clear to every one of us.

       The senses were asked to chant the holy Mantra. We also chant the Mantra everyday. We employ our sense-organs in the practice of spiritual Sadhana. The chanting of the Udgitha is nothing but the invocation of God, the Almighty, for the purpose of overcoming this evil influence by which we have somehow or the other become entangled in attraction to objects, the evil influence inflicted upon us by the Asuras. But the senses are not reliable instruments for spiritual practice. The ears, the nose, the senses of seeing, touching, tasting, etc. are not our friends. And, therefore, to ask them to chant the spiritual Mantra would be to court defeat in this battle. This has actually happened. The cosmical envisagement is impossible for the sense-organs. The very idea of contemplation in Yoga or meditation on the Divine Principle is a non-sensory or a super-sensory aspiration arising from us. Spiritual aspiration is a super-sensory impulse. It is not a sensory impulse. It has very little to do with the sense-organs. What we call Pratyahara, the well-known word, is the accumulation within ourselves of a force which overcomes the distracting influences of the senses, the production of a cumulative energy within ourselves which precedes the distracting movements of the senses. This is actually what is meant by the Prana which sung the Udgitha and won victory.

       There is something in us that is different from, superior to, and transcending the sensory diversifications. We cannot see God with the eyes, not hear Him with the ears, not touch Him with the fingers, not taste Him with the tongue, not smell Him with the nose. That which is transcendent is not an object of these senses. That means to say that the recourse to spiritual practice is not a sensory activity. It is not anything that is done by the eyes or the ears, or the fingers or the nose or the tongue. So the chanting of the holy text, the Udgitha, which is an invocation of the glory of God, cannot be undertaken except by that which is Divine in us. And the senses are the undivine henchmen which force us to go contrary to the righteousness of the Kingdom of God. So all the senses were defeated. The gods had to take recourse to that which is superior to all the senses, viz., the Prana, which has a variegated meaning. We do Pranayama, control the breath, by withholding inspiration and expiration, and we speak of the restraint of the Prana. We are also told that there are various functions of the Prana viz., Prana, Apana, Vyana, Samana, Udana, etc. Actually Prana is the vitality in the whole human organism. It is not located in any particular sense-organ, but the sense-organs move on account of this dynamo that is working inside. This dynamo is the power generator and it can be utilised for any purpose, to move a train or to light a bulb or work a refrigerator or heat a stove. We can do anything we like but the generator is not concerned with that. Likewise is the Prana Sakti. We can use it for seeing with the eyes or hearing with the ears, smelling with the nose, tasting with the tongue, etc., but it has no concern with all these, even as electricity has no concern with light and movement, etc. So there is a super-sensory integrating vitality in us which was the thing that finally succeeded in chanting the holy invocation and quelled the Asuras. How could it be done? Because the integrating force is the only power that can put down the distracting force. The impulse of the senses in terms of or in relation to objects is the evil spoken of as the Asuras here in this battle. This sensory impulse cannot be overcome by employing the senses themselves. It would be like employing a thief himself as a police to catch the thief. He will not succeed in that, because he is a friend of the thief. So the senses are not good instruments in the practice of Yoga. They have to be withdrawn in Pratyahara, and this is done by various ways, as you all know. So the Udgitha, the divine invocation was the recital by that integrating vitality which sung the chant and the concentration of this force, which is the total energy of the system, melted the impulses of the senses, and there was a retention of the activity of the senses; a true Pranayama-Kumbhaka took place in Yogic parlance. The senses ceased from operating in their own ways.

       The Asura spoken of is not a human being or something like a human being, but it is a power. Everything in this universe, in all this creation is a force, finally, moving in this direction or that direction. The Deva, the angel, the god, the celestial, the power Divine is the impulse towards cosmic integration, divine experience. The Asura, the demon, the Rakshasa, the evil that is spoken of is the counter energy that rushes towards the periphery of creation, away from the center, to the farthest gross form of objects: of sense, recognizing a drop of honey there and to lick it, like a dog licking a broken bone! The spiritual practice or Yoga is the union of the powers of the senses together and the centralizing of this force in the great vitality in us which is indescribable, finally. This energy or Sakti is in every one of us. This Sakti is not a physical power merely, and the physical power of ours is only an expression of this internal Prana Sakti. The Udgitha Mantra was chanted thus by the Prana and the Asuras were quelled and the gods assumed their original positions.

       What is the meaning of gods assuming their original positions? It means that the gods went to the heaven. Otherwise they were banished as exiles and they were wandering anywhere, helplessly. When the Asuras were defeated in battle, the angels got back their original positions. The angel is a limb of the Virat who visualizes everything as a subject rather than an object. There is no object for Virat or the Supreme Universal Consciousness and we were all parts of it; and we are all parts of it even now, but we are blindfolded and afflicted with some kind of evil, the Upanishad mentioned already, and so we have lost our positions. We have been thrown out as exiles from this relation that we had with the Cosmic Virat or the Hiranyagarbha. The origin that we aspire for, the position that we have to regain is that position in the limb of the Almighty. Everything was visible in that Cosmic Form described in the Mahabharata; particularly in the Bhagavad-Gita. Everything is found there. Even the one who sets it is there already included. The seer of the Virat is also inside the Virat. That mans to say that there is nothing outside it. So the so-called outsideness and the running after the things that are outside is something totally undivine. And the practice of Yoga, the living of the spiritual life is the chanting of the Udgitha. It is the Divine Name for all practical purposes. It again means the invocation of the Divine principle in our practical lives, implanting God in our hearts and seeking the blessing of the Almighty.

       This is a hard job, because when we visualize the Divine Being, or when we invoke the Divine into us, the senses persist in their action, the Asuras attack us, as the Upanishad told us again and again, and we do not succeed in our attempts. Because there is always a tendency in us to objectify everything, we cannot think in terms of the angel’s vision. That is out of question. But we have to succeed in doing it. Otherwise there is no entry into this Divine Kingdom. "A flaming sword is placed at the gate and an angel guards it that no mortal may enter the gate." It means to say, no sensory appetite may be permitted there. Not only appetite, even an activity of a sensory type will not hold water. "Straight is the gate, narrow is the way." The gross objects of sense cannot enter that narrow gate. It is so narrow that even this body cannot go. We cannot carry this body there; we have to shed it.

       The angels have no physical body. The angel is an ethereal existence, which can penetrate through walls and pierce through everything. It is not physicality; it is rarified angelity. That is the Spirit within us; the angel is still speaking within us. He is not dead. The Spirit within us is the angel. But the whisper which compels us to divert the attention of this angel to the body and all its external relations is the Asura, the Satan speaking. The voice of the Divine is the voice of pure divine Subjectivity in affiliation with God’s Omnipresence; but this is not the way in which we are working in the world. We have a different way altogether. We are not in the Kingdom of God, we are in a mortal world of birth and death. The process known as transmigration is consequent upon this Divine impulse, stifled by the urge for sensory contact, struggling to regain its original position but getting defeated again and again. Birth and death are processes of the struggle of the Spirit to regain its original position. But in every attempt of it, it gets defeated. And so it is born and it dies; it is born and it dies; and there is no end for it. So the gods fight and get defeated; fight and get defeated again and again, because they have not employed the proper means in the battle with the Asuras.

       After ages of struggle we awaken ourselves to the proper means. We have to know the tactics of the enemy in order to meet the inimical forces. Already we have been told that the angels are lesser in number and the evil forces are more and they can threaten us. The quantity of the world always surprises us. And the quality of our Spirit seems to be a little spark before this mighty magnitude of the physical world. We are awe-stricken even by looking at this world. We do not know whether we can do anything here at all. Such a mighty giant is this world before us. So the quantity engulfs the quality; the Asuras overpower the gods. But, the gods have their own strength; quality is superior to quantity, as we all know. Yet, we are frightened by the quantity of things because of the incapacity of this little quality of the spark to assert its pure independence in its primitive originality. This is the meaning behind the Upanishadic story of the Devisor Sangrama, very interestingly told us though not in much detail. But it becomes a large epic as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and the Puranic stories later on, all meaning finally the age long struggle between the Divine and the undivine forces. It is a conflict between Spirit and matter; Light and darkness; the Subject and the object; the Seer and the seen; the ‘I’ and the ‘You’, and so on. For this purpose we have to conduct a very incisive analysis of our position and engage ourselves in the very same discipline which was contemplated by the gods in heaven, after receiving several kicks and blows and getting defeated. We have been defeated many a time. We have passed through many, many forms of earthly existence. We are told that we have passed through 84 lakhs (8,400,000 or 8.4 million) of species of living beings etc., and now we have come to the end of it, as it were, by assuming human form.

HARI OM TAT SAT