Articles for Saadhana

Harih Om Tat Sat. Jai Guru. Jai Guru.

My mind was thinking about the discussion we had last night. The subject also was occupying my mind. To refer to God in the third person, to refer to Him in the second person as 'you', third person as 'He' and first person as 'I', actually the three make no difference. This is the proposition we were discussing. It is not merely with reference to God. It is with reference to the world also.

In any language, we have got nouns and we have proper nouns. We also have pronouns. In Sanskrit, if I am right, pronouns are called 'sarvanāma-śabdāḥ'. They are called 'sarvanāma-śabdāḥ'. What is meant by 'sarvanāama'? It is a noun which can be used with reference to one and all. And ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘he’, similarly ‘she’, ‘it’, ‘they’, all these are considered sarvanāmās. What does it mean? It means that you can use these words, these nouns with reference to all in this world. I think this is a point which all of you will do well to think. Our truthful introspection, ‘tattva vicāra’ can be on any subject whatsoever. Whatever you try to reflect upon, if you reach the very source of it, you will find we reach the same point.

The scientists in the world are trying to experiment into the ultimate particle or the ultimate source. If they succeed in doing so, I am pretty sure that where they will reach and where the spiritual thinkers and vedāntins have reached or will reach, will be the same.  They do it in the objective scientific ambience. We have done it in a step beyond that. Even the scientific investigation is done by the human mind, the human senses and the human intelligence. If the human intelligence, senses and mind were not there, there will be nothing called science or scientific investigation and discovery or invention. Whereas the spiritual and vedāntic people were using the very same elements like intelligence, senses and mind. Their laboratory was their own personality. You can say, it is one step either before science or after science.

Let us think about this 'sarva-nāma-śabdās'. I use the word ‘I’ with reference to this body or this being. But when I talk to you and you talk to me, you will refer to me as ‘you’. So, am I ‘I’ or ‘you’? I am ‘I’ for myself. The same ‘I’ becomes ‘you’ for you and for a third person he will say ‘he’. So, the same presence here, the same being here is referred to as ‘I’ by one, ‘you’ by another and ‘he’ by yet another. What does it mean? This ‘I’ is universally used by people, not that I alone is use. Every one of you uses ‘I’. Similarly, you also use ‘you’ and also ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘it’, ‘they’. This is why it is called 'sarva-nāma-śabdās'. A 'śabda' or a word which can be used by all and with reference to all. People are simply deluded because they don’t try to go into this usage or the foundation of the whole usage.

So, am I ‘I’? Yes. Am I not 'you'? Yes. Am I not also 'he'? Yes. So, what is the difference between ‘I’, ‘you’ and ‘he’? All of them are referring to the same source, the same person, the same being. Then what is this ahaṅkāra? While you are constantly using the word ‘I’, it does not mean that there is something called ‘I’ in you. Because the same 'I' becomes 'you' for another person and 'he' for another person. So, there is a presence other than the so-called ‘I’, ‘you’ and ‘he’ with reference to which you are using these three relative pronouns.

Anyone who tries to enquire into this ‘I’, is bound to reach the supreme source of existence, expression, knowledge and also bliss. Bliss is actually something that one experiences perhaps during his interactions, means interactions with other things. An interaction implies an activity between two factors. So, we are experiencing bliss during the course of our interactions. But, (that 'but' is very important) who is interacting with others? Oneself. And who is enjoying this bliss? Oneself. And where? The interaction is with a second factor or a second person. Though the interaction implies a second factor, a second person, the interaction itself is like action taking place in oneself.

I am seeing you, it is an interaction with you through the eyes but actually this interaction, the source and the subject are myself. I interact with you. Though the ‘you’ part comes during the course of the interaction, interaction by itself takes place in oneself and the interactional outcome namely joy, is also in oneself. So, the source of joy, you tell me, is it the object of interaction or is the subject interacting with the object? Then again, that there is a ‘you’ or an object, who says this? I myself say, I myself feel. If you think in this way and that way, though the interaction implies a second factor, the interacting person is oneself. And before interaction, who sensed the second factor with whom or with which he interacts? So, the whole experience even without interaction and with interaction is purely personal, inner, subjective and uniformly so. Where do we stand now?

The ‘I’ is actually a reference to one’s existence, one’s expression and one’s experience. I experience that I am. This experience is what is referred to as ‘I’. The same experience you refer to as ‘you’ and the third person refers to as ‘he’. So, oneself, he becomes a subject or object of a threefold reference – I am myself ‘I’, I am equally 'you', I am equally 'he'. So, all the pronouns refer to the same person. Is there anything in this world not covered by these three pronouns? My dear souls, you have to think about it. We always feel this Vedānta is very religious, it is very devotional. Not at all! It is an extension, an expression, a compulsion and a prevalence of human intelligence. The intelligence is no other than the refined form of the mind itself. And both of them are expressions and functional notes of consciousness.

So, what is the point in having this ahaṅkāra? If there is ahaṅkāra, then there is you-kāra also and he-kāra also. But we don’t suffer from you-kāra and he-kāra. But we suffer from I-kāra. Is it right? In all my activities, the respective organs are involved and the activities are their expressions – seeing is of the eye, hearing is of the ear. The same person when he becomes old, he becomes short of hearing. He is still there, he is not short but he becomes short of hearing. So, the hearing is actually enabled by the ear and it is a function of the ear. Similarly, thinking is of the mind, understanding is of the intelligence. Beyond these, in the ‘I’ level what do you do? Nothing. What do you get? Nothing. What do you want? Nothing. What do you seek? Nothing. What have you got? Nothing. If this is the truth, where is the place for ahaṅkāra?  Where is a place for tvam-kāra? Where is the place for sā-kāra? See, it is something very interesting. People have to think about it.

By ahaṅkāra, we mean a sense of ownership and possession or possessiveness. I don’t think I possess my body. If I possess my body, its functioning and many things about it should be under my control. I have to breathe minimum and what I breathe is the air around. I don’t control the air or provide the air or even alter the air and I cannot control my breath also. The breathing in and the breathing out are irresistible biological processes which I never own, I never institute, I never control and moderate. Similarly, my hunger produced by the stomach, I appease it with food. And the food I take physically and mechanically. This food passes through the alimentary canal and through the peristaltic movements, the food is digested and converted into blood. Different types of food with different tastes, colors and properties I consume, but all of them are uniformly converted into red hot blood, full of energy. The whole process does not take place responding to me or governed by me. Then can I say I possess my body? The biological processes are not within me, under my control. The psycho-intellectual processes also are not controlled and governed by me.

I close my eyes after sitting here and I begin to talk. The feeling to talk comes to me, I don’t know why, how. And as I talk, words come out of mouth. I am the first hearer of my speech but I am not the producer of my speech. I don’t know where ideas are formed, how are they transmitted to the vocal system and how the vocal system administers different sound combinations to the ideas and how they come out of the tongue, mouth, lips, teeth and nose, I don’t know. Maximum, I cannot even say I am a witness because I don’t know where the signals are, how are they sent, where do they pass through.

Srimad Bhagavatam says that the prāna along with the ideas move from the brain region, head region to the end of spinal cord. There up to this point, it is neither visible or feelable. Then it comes up, it reaches the abdominal level. At that point, slight vibration or movement is visible. Then it goes further up 'parā paśyanti'. Then when it touches the throat, at that point it is converted into sound. Until then there is no sound at all. It becomes vaikhari, audible, audible, audible. The whole processes, I am not a witness even. I don’t know where they take place, how they pass through, how they come up. I only hear the sound as it comes out. See, when I am not able to produce one sound, I don’t know how, maximum I can try with my throat and vocal system and try to imitate what another says or shows.

When I am teaching pronunciation for the others, I will ask them, "Look into my tongue, look into my lips." I will also do some gesticulation with the hand and then repeat, "Yes, this." "Roll your tongue, bite the tongue, close your lips, let the sound come. Don’t roll the lips in 'bah bah'. Just let the lips contact each other at the tip and then say, 'pha, bha'." In this way, I show them, that's all. See, it is a wonderful thing. So there is no ahaṅkāra at all. I become 'I' for myself, 'you' for you and 'he' for another. So, these three are referral points. They don’t mean anything more than that. All the three are referring to the same presence. So, whether I refer to God in the third person, or refer to the same God in the second person or refer to Him in the first person, there should come a time when it makes no difference at all. But referring to Him in the third person is easy, second person is rarer, and first person is still rarer and rarest. But in all the references, the subject implied is the same.

Harih Om Tat Sat. Jai Guru.