Sri Ramakrishna Math : The Vedanta Kesari, August 2002

There are various definitions of the species called man. [We use a gender-specific word 'man' not due to any chauvinism, but because there is no word available in English to denote both male and female.] Undoubtedly, the definitions should include all, in a wide range, from the child to the most perfect man or God-man, which includes the feminine gender also. In psychology, there is a debate on whether a child is a 'person'. Biologically speaking, a man is a man in any of his levels--physical, mental or spiritual levels. But when man is differentiated from other creatures of the animal kingdom, there is a very specific definition: Man has the sense of morality, and most significantly, man can love even his enemies.

Sri Ramakrishna accommodates all definitions of man, yet gives a unique definition of his own: Maanush is 'maan o hunsh' (in Bengali). This is the subject matter for our discussion. Man as an intelligent, moral being has two, and not one, dimensions of awareness (hunsh): one, maan, meaning measure, i.e., limitations, and two, maan, meaning value, i.e., possibilities. On one hand man should not deny his limitations and on the other he should not disregard his possibilities. The more the awareness, the better the evolution of man. Both these types of awareness are present in an ordinary man, as also in a baby or a child. Thus 'man is a measure' not 'of all things' as Pythagoras has said, but of himself.

The question is about 'what' of our being, i.e., about how the dimensions are regulated by common laws--physical and psychological--and what is or are the subtlest or original building block or blocks of these dimensions.

The Bhashaparichchheda (110) defines dimensions as: anu-dirgham mahat-hrasvam, small and big, long and short. There are things small and big that are definable according to their dimensions--even there are things which have got many dimensions. This is the truth about all physical things.

Let us take for example the human body and mind. We shall know the laws that govern their activities and also what they are made of. Genetic engineering and psychology focus on these aspects. The ancient yoga of India took up the subject in a scientific manner. That is why it is able to cater to the needs of even the modern man. An extension of this yoga, or a branching off of this art, are the physical sciences of the world, which also discuss the 'what' of the universe--universal laws and the building blocks of the universe. But there is a certain limitation in studying only the external world. Swamiji points to this limitation saying, 'That is certainly nature--time, space, and causation. That is all that is meant by nature. Time began when you began to think. Space began when you got the body; otherwise there cannot be any space. Causation began when you became limited. We have to have some sort of answer. There is the answer.'¹

Our experiences which come through the doorway of the senses are limited. Not only the experiences, but questions about these also have limitations! We see in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, sage Yajnavalkya cautioning the questioner ma atiprakshi, do not overstep the limit of questioning. Otherwise, your head will fall (murdha te vyapatishyati). Why? Because, having a small carrier pot to store water, one does not order for an ocean! Swami Vivekananda says, 'Everything must be limited that comes through the senses... and for the limited to be the unlimited is simply absurd ...'² This limit has been measured by Zarathustra in the following words: Man is a rope connecting animal and superman--a rope over a precipice. ... What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal.

The free-will about which we discuss so much also has its own limitations. Sri Ramakrishna compared our free-will with the free-will of a cow tethered to a post, maybe with a long rope. Though the cow is free to graze at will, the length of the rope sets her a limit.

The fear (bhayam) that a being has, is about this rope, lest it should give way. We are afraid of losing our limit, our identification with the limited existence. The more we are aware of our limits, the better is our appreciation of the beyond, the unlimited. The aspirant will then be able to say, 'There is nothing (here) that is not the result of karma; so what is the need of performing karma (nasti akritah kritena)?'³

This relates to the question about 'why' of our being. Though it does not neglect the 'what', yet it transcends its boundary and looks at the beyond. This questioning ushers one into the realm of spirituality. It shows that the questioner has had an experience about his limitations. The student of the Kena Upanishad articulates such a question when he asks, 'Willed by whom does the mind proceed towards its objects?' We are dissatisfied with the limitations, so the eagerness to look into the beyond. '...the greatest error, says the Vedanta, is to say that you are weak, that you are a sinner.'⁴

The existence of Brahman indicated by the Upanishadic word Sat (That) is the goal of our search for possibilities. Even a self-content universe of plurality will have scope for the why of creation. We quote Swamiji again, 'The limited always requires a higher generalization of the unlimited to explain itself.'⁵

The combination of an individuality of the soul and immortality of the Self forms the description of man. A gradation in this awareness is the percentage of attainment by a person, of the totality indicated by the definition. As it is an outcome of some hard personal experiences, it does not take long for a person to proceed with rapid strides and catch up with the goal.

All knowledge that precedes and follows empirical experiences is limited, yet unlimited. Let us look at the following diagram. The subordinate clause 'I do not know Jack' in the first sentence is a negative knowledge. Similarly, the clause 'I know John' is a positive knowledge. Though it is a positive knowledge, it has limitations, because I may know John to some extent, but not fully; that full knowledge is always his and his alone. But the awareness that 'I know' (the principal clause before the two subordinate clauses in the diagram [number 3]) is never negative, and cannot be negative, else the experiences under the two subordinate clauses will be void. This awareness of 'I know' gives validity to both the negatives and positives in this world.

The third sentence shows the combination of the first and the second sentences. It may, by chance, so happen that the positive and negative sentences branching out after 'that', relating to any of Jack and John, like negative and positive particles cancelling each other, result in a net zero experience or statement. Yet the principal clause 'I know' (occurring before 'that' in the third sentence) will remain valid. But, significantly, the 'know' of the principal clause will also lose its necessity and merge [by recursion, 'I know that I know', etc.] with 'I', which is or who am the ever-awake witness, the representative of all possibilities. When we stand at the doorway of these two knowledges, our hearts do throb at the prospect of losing our limit or gaining unlimitedness! In his immortal language the famous poet, a Nobel Laureate, Rabindranath Tagore writes (Gitanjali, 29):

When a man reaches a superconscious state, all feeling of the body melts away. Then alone does he become free and immortal.

The Upanishad denies the existence of happiness in the limited (nalpe sukham asti bhumaiva sukham⁶). Because limitedness is the cause of thirst for more. And thirst is the seed of sorrow.

Searching for one's own self is not selfishness or self-centredness. Sri Ramakrishna once told Swamiji: 'Suppose there is a bowl of water (meaning nectar) and you have become a fly, how will you drink of it?' Swamiji answered, 'I shall sit on the brink and drink from there with stretched neck.' 'Why not plunge into it and drink?' asked Sri Ramakrishna. Hearing Swamiji's answer that he would then die, Sri Ramakrishna laughed and said, 'You see, it is nectar there. If anybody falls therein he or she will become immortal.' It is the nature of Brahman that as much as we approach It, so much do we discover ourselves to be present in all. It is not selfishness, but selflessness.

The measure of our advancement from a limited individuality to the unlimited places us in different classes. Sri Ramakrishna tells us about four such classes of people: All people are by no means on the same level. It is said that there are four classes of people: the bound, the struggling, the liberated and the ever-free.

A boy like Nachiketa of the Kathopanishad hated to belong to the lowest level. He was convinced that he might either rank first or at least be somewhere mid-way. Then it is a sure sign of marching forward. Stones cannot move because they are dead; trees cannot move because they have been denied that ability. Having acquired the ability to move man should go forward. Once a disciple asked the Holy Mother, 'Mother, you are the Universal Mother. I have taken initiation from you. Do I require to do Japa?' Mother exclaimed, 'What do you say? God has given you such beautiful fingers.' Such foolish questions about our insufficiency behove only a handicapped person. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad terms a man in the negative term kripana, i.e., miser, saying, 'Yo va etat aksharam Gargi aviditva asmat lokat praiti sah kripanah, one who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable is called a miser!' Know thyself, atmanam viddhhi. Because, atmana vindate viryam, all power comes from Atman, knowing which one does not suffer from complexes any more.

1. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vols 8. (Kolkata: Advaita Ashram, 1984), 2.466. Hereafter referred to as CW.
2. CW 2.99.
3. The Mundaka Upanishad, 1.2.12.
4. CW 2.295.
5. CW 4.255.
6. Cf. Chhandogya Upanishad, 7.23.1.