Sri Ramakrishna Math : The Vedanta Kesari, April 2003

Let us take up M's second question for a short discussion. He talks about the art of living in the world with a purpose of getting out of it ultimately. What is this 'world'? M did not ask this question; maybe, he did not require any clarification. We also may not require it. But the scriptural information is that it is a creation, which surely includes us, by a creator. However, by both the questions, M reveals one idea: 'How to live in the world unattached to worldliness.'

'What is worldliness?' The Vedanta says: It is a silly/simple mistake. A mistake of ours we should be ashamed of! To be in the world and also of the world--is a relational problem. Sri Ramakrishna did not object to our idea that we are in this world. This cannot be denied by ordinary sense-bound Jivas. It is due to our relation or identification with the body that we feel: we are in the world. However, the other relation is due to our belongingness to this world; we feel that since others have relation with us and vice versa, we are of the world. We shall take up this point later for further discussion.

The Upanishads define Brahman as Sat-Chit-ânanda, i.e., Existence Absolute, Consciousness Absolute and Bliss Absolute. And we learn that the ultimate realization is: I am Brahman [Aham Brahma Asmi]. In our homes the children are very mischievous. They even learn to hide themselves behind something. You know that it is hiding there. You call out to it. It does not know that it should not respond; so it says: 'Yes!' You call out, 'Who is there?' It replies: 'It's me [I am, Aham Asmi].' Starting from a baby who has not grown hairs to an old person who has grown her/his hairs gray the same response comes: 'I am.' 'I' is the proof of our Consciousness and 'am' of our Existence. The Kena Upanishad says that we cannot disprove the existence of Brahman. Because our Existence is included in the Absolute Existence. Now, therefore, we are aware that we are Existence and Consciousness. But when I say, 'I am a Jiva' instead of affirming 'I am Brahman', I make a mistake about my nature which is also Bliss Absolute. My affirmation that I am a 'Jiva'(and not Brahman) is a limitation or covering put by me on the 'Bliss' aspect of mine; so I suffer in this world and try to conclude that this world is full of misery. This is a simple mistake, because while we accept the two other major aspects of our being (Existence and Consciousness), we make a simple mistake about the third aspect.

Since the covering is on the 'Bliss' aspect only, after realization of our true nature at last we become over-joyous to rediscover this Bliss and pity our foolishness. The Taittiriya Upanishad made a detailed discussion on the evaluation of this Bliss (ânanda) and finally says: 'People move towards and merge in [this] Bliss.' One day, after he had come down to the normal plane from an ecstatic state, Sri Ramakrishna said to the assembled devotees, 'First the bliss of divine inebriation and then the Bliss of Satchidananda, the Cause of the cause.'

Why is this mistake? Shankara affirms that it is due to Avidyâ (the cause), Kâma, and Karma. Sri Krishna almost laments pitying the condition of these Jivas: Mogha-âshâ mogha-karmâno mogha-jnânâ vichetasah .... Futile are the hopes, futile the works, and futile is the knowledge of these people who are deluded about their real nature.... This is an ignorance which creates the relations of 'me' and 'mine', viz., I am this body and these are mine. Owing to this ignorance, we lose the discriminative faculty, nurture desire for worldly bliss and strive to achieve it. But Yajnavalkya (in the Brihadâranyaka Upanishad) gives the lie to this hope when (in an intimate discussion regarding dividing his property between his two wives--Kâtyayani and Maitreyi) he tells Maitreyi: Amritattvasya tu na âshâ asti vittena, i.e., there is no hope of immortality through wealth. After all, to whom does this wealth belong (kasyasvid dhanam)? Have we acquired any wealth from outside the creation? Whatever material wealth we have is a result of our manipulation of the same things that are already there. We have seen, the idea of 'me' has a divine relation with the Reality and one's search or sâdhanâ is to know the Subject. Now we shall see that the idea of 'mine' can also establish a divine relation with the Reality and one's sâdhanâ can be directed to know It as the Object. As when one tries to peel an onion one starts peeling off from the outermost coating, even so to live in this world is to get rid of this outer coating of 'mine' relation.

Torrentially flows Sri Ramakrishna's answer to this question through many examples, the first of which is very significant: the 'maidservant ideal'. Let us remember that it is meant for all, the laity or the monastic, who would try to know 'How ought we to live in the world?' Sri Ramakrishna says: 'Do all your duties, but keep your mind on God. Live with all--with wife and children, father and mother--and serve them. Treat them as if they were very dear to you, but know in your heart of hearts that they do not belong to you. A maidservant in the house of a rich man performs all the household duties, but her thoughts are fixed on her own home in her village. She brings up her master's children as if they were her own. She even speaks of them as "my Rama" or "my Hari". But in her own mind she knows very well that they do not belong to her at all.' Continuing the discussion he says later: 'People shed jarful of tears for wife and children. They swim in tears for money. But who weeps for God?'

Two pertinent doubts cross our mind: 'Is he not asking us to play hypocrite? Is he not asking us to be heartless?' The doubts do not seem to be unjustified so far as our immature understanding goes. Sri Ramakrishna speaks about two foolish acts of humans which are heartily enjoyed by God: (i) two bothers divide their property and say, 'This is mine and that is yours'; and (ii) the doctor assures the wailing parents saying 'Don't worry; I shall cure your child.' From our common experience we know that at last when the doctors also affirm the case to be hopeless, the parents are left with no other choice but to call on God and leave the responsibility on Him. Sri Krishna says that God is not displeased with this late awakening of His children (ârtah). After all, parents do not want to disturb a sleeping child! Well, if the unexpected cure really happens (and, believe it or not, it does happen) we convince the mind that it is a chance or coincidence! This is due to the deep-rooted doubt of a worldly and sceptical mind. Sri Ramakrishna has been extolled by Swamiji as the 'Greatest weapon to destroy this demon called Scepticism'.

As is his wont, Sri Ramakrishna would not leave a subject so easily. He gathers together many coincidences of the doubtful and weaves out a story only to convince our sceptic mind: The parents were wailing over the dimming life-flame of their fledgling who lay seriously ill. Someone comes in unexpectedly with invigorating words of absurd hope. He speaks about a divine medicine: (i) It will happen at night. (ii) The star called 'Svâti' will be in the ascendant. (iii) The father has to go to the cremation ground. (iv) There will be a short spell of rain. (v) A little rain-water will gather in a human skull. (vi) The father will see a frog leaping towards the skull. (vii) A snake will reach there. (ix) And then .... Well, we are thrilled even to read these coincidences together. What would be the effect on the father who is present there to observe the forecast becoming a reality! None other than Sri Ramakrishna could create that dramatic effect by his mystifying words: 'He [the father] was reflecting with a yearning heart when he saw a poisonous snake approaching. His joy knew no bounds. He became so excited that he could feel the thumping of his own heart. "O God," he prayed, "now the snake has come too. I have got most of the ingredients. Please be gracious and give me the remaining ones." No sooner had he prayed thus than the frog hopped up; the snake pursued it. As they came near the skull and the snake was about to bite the frog, the frog jumped over the skull and the snake's poison fell into it. The man began to dance, clapping his hands for joy.' The story goes that medicine would be prepared with the poison to save the life of the child.

Similarly if we gather all such chances and coincidences in our life, we will be dumbfounded to reckon that so many miracles happen before and after our birth which cannot be attributed to an inert fate or chance. The father in the story believed in God's will initially itself. So before venturing into the prospect of the impossibility to happen he prayed to God, 'O Lord, I shall succeed only if You bring together all the ingredients.'

By the ideal of a maidservant Sri Ramakrishna brings home this idea that 'not at long last but initially itself transfer to God the responsibility of your family and all (which does not exclude you)'. Sri Krishna says: My devotee is free from attachment (Mad-bhaktah samga varjitah). This divinizes all relations that are known as Maya. 'Yours in the Lord' means 'I am yours, not directly but through the Lord, because we all belong to the Lord'. Then only 'Uncle Moon' is every child's uncle. This is also the message of Sri Krishna: whoever takes refuge in me alone, overcomes this Maya of mine (The Gita, 11.14). Sri Ramakrishna opens this secret to his devotees exhorting: somehow or other catch hold of the owner.

The same message Sri Ramakrishna imparts to Shyam Basu, 'Why don't you give your power of attorney to God? Rest all your responsibilities on Him. If you entrust an honest man with your responsibilities, will he misuse his power over you?' But due to a simple mistake we feel that we have the responsibility. Earlier Sri Ramakrishna said, 'I and mine--that is ignorance. Thou and Thine--that is knowledge. A true devotee says: 'O God, Thou alone art the Doer; Thou alone doest all. I am a mere instrument; I do as Thou makest me do. All these--wealth, possession, nay, the universe itself--belong to Thee. This house and these relatives are Thine alone, not mine. I am Thy servant; mine is only the right to serve Thee according to Thy bidding (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna).'

This is what is meant by the expression 'to be in the world, but not of it'. Through such a relationship one can elevate an ordinary life to the life divine.

The body itself (which is the locus of the error 'I am the body') is also forgotten at last. On being asked about his health Nag Mahashaya (a lay devotee of Sri Ramakrishna) said to Swamiji, 'What is the use of inquiring about a worthless lump of flesh and bones!' Swami Vivekananda, addressing his disciples, observed, 'Look, he is a householder, but he has no consciousness whether he has a body, or not; whether the universe exists, or not. He is always absorbed in the thought of God. He is a living example of what man becomes when possessed of supreme bhakti.'