Once anyone decided to proceed from theory to practice on the basis of Bhagavan's teachings, the question was apt to arise how that affected his life in the world. Hinduism does not necessarily enjoin physical renunciation for active spiritual seekers, as did, for instance, the original teaching of Christ or Buddha. On the contrary, the state of the householder is honoured and the path of right action is a legitimate path. In fact, the classical system in ancient India was that a man should retire into the homeless state only after he had fulfilled his duties as a householder and had an adult son or sons to replace him.
However, the doctrine of non-duality, together with the path of Self-enquiry (to be described in a later chapter), which is based on it, has been traditionally recognized as suitable to the world-renouncer. It was therefore natural that Bhagavan's followers often asked him whether they should renounce the world. At the same time, it was a remarkable indication of the amount of spiritual determination that still remains in modern India, for renouncing the world does not mean living a solitary life in a little house and garden of one's own, as it might in the West, or even retiring to the austere security of a monastery, but going forth homeless and penniless, depending on the charitable for food and clothing and sleeping in a cave or temple or wherever possible. It does sometimes happen in modern times that a sadhu accepts a small grant from his family—enough to buy food and the simplest clothing; but even so, it is a bare, hard life. Nevertheless, there were constant requests to be allowed to take this life and constantly Bhagavan withheld permission. The work was internal and had to be done in the mind, whatever the conditions of life.
B.: Why do you think you are a householder? The similar thought that you are a sannyasi will haunt you even if you go forth as one. Whether you continue in the household or renounce it and go to live in the forest, your mind haunts you. The ego is the source of thought. It creates the body and the world and makes you think of being a householder. If you renounce, it will only substitute the thought of renunciation for that of the family and the environment of the forest for that of the household. But the mental obstacles are always there for you. They even increase greatly in the new surroundings. Change of environment is no help. The one obstacle is the mind, and this must be overcome whether in the home or in the forest. If you can do it in the forest, why not in the home? So why change the environment? Your efforts can be made even now, whatever be the environment.
D.: Is it possible to enjoy samadhi while busy with worldly work?
B.: It is the feeling ‘I work’ that is the hindrance. Ask yourself: ‘Who works?’ Remember who you are. Then the work will not bind you. It will go on automatically. Make no effort either to work or to renounce; your effort is the bondage. What is destined to happen will happen. If you are destined to work, you will not be able to avoid it; you will be forced to engage in it. So leave it to the Higher Power. It is not really your choice whether you renounce or retain.1
‘When women carrying jars of water on their heads stop to talk, they are very careful, keeping their mind on the water jars. Similarly, when a sage engages in activity, his mind remains fixed in the Self and his activity does not distract him.’2
D.: I believe celibacy is necessary even for a householder if he is to succeed in Self-enquiry. Am I right?
B.: First find out who the wife and husband are. Then the question will not arise.
D.: Isn't Brahmacharya (celibacy) necessary for realization of the Self?
B.: Brahmacharya means ‘living in Brahman’; it has no connection with celibacy as commonly understood. A real Brahmachari is one who lives in Brahman and finds bliss in Brahman, which is the same as the Self. Why, then, should he look for other sources of happiness? In fact, it is emergence from the Self that is the cause of all misery.
D.: But isn't celibacy necessary for yoga?
B.: It is one aid to realization among many others.
D.: Then is it not indispensable? Can a married man realize the Self?
B.: Certainly. It is a question of fitness of mind. Married or unmarried, a man can realize the Self, because the Self is here and now. If it were not, but were obtainable by some effort at some future time, if it were something new to be acquired, it would not be worth seeking, because what is not natural cannot be permanent. What I say is that the Self is here and now and that IT alone is.3
D.: Is it necessary to take sannyasa (a vow of renunication) in order to attain Self-realization?
B.: Sannyasa means renouncing one's individuality, not shaving one's head and putting on ochre robes. A man may be a householder but if he does not think he is one, he is a sannyasin. On the other hand, he may wear ochre robes and wander about, but so long as he thinks he is a sannyasin he is not one. To think about one's renunciation defeats the purpose of renouncing.4
‘What do you mean by taking sannyasa? Do you think it means leaving your home or wearing robes of a certain colour? Wherever you go, even if you fly up into the air, will your mind not go with you? Or, can you leave it behind you and go without it?5
‘Why should your occupation or duties in life interfere with your spiritual effort? For instance, there is a difference between your activities at home and in the office. In your office activities, you are detached and so long as you do your duty you do not care what happens or whether it results in gain or loss to the employer. Your duties at home, on the other hand, are performed with attachment and you are all the time anxious whether they will bring advantage to you and your family. But it is possible to perform all the activities of life with detachment and regard only the Self as real. It is wrong to suppose that if one is fixed in the Self, one's duties in life will not be properly performed. It is like an actor. He dresses and acts and even feels the part he is playing, but he knows really that he is not that character but someone else in real life. In the same way, why should the body consciousness or the feeling ‘I-am-the-body’ disturb you, once you know for certain that you are not the body but the Self? Nothing that the body does should shake you from abidance in the Self. Such abidance will never interfere with the proper and effective discharge of whatever duties the body has, any more than an actor's being aware of his real status in life interferes with his acting a part on the stage.’6
D.: It has been definitely stated that so long as there is the least trace of the ‘I-am-the-doer’ idea there can be no realization, but is it possible for a householder who earnestly desires Liberation to fulfil his duties without this idea?
B.: There is no principle that actions can be performed only on the basis of the ‘I-am-the-doer’ idea, and therefore there is no reason to ask whether they can be performed and the duties discharged without that idea. To take a common example, an accountant working all day in his office and scrupulously attending to his duties might seem to the spectator to be shouldering all the financial responsibilities of the institution. But, knowing that he is not personally affected by the in-take or out-goings, he remains unattached and free from the ‘I-am-the-doer’ feeling in doing his work, while at the same time he does it perfectly well. In the same way, it is quite possible for the wise householder who earnestly seeks liberation to discharge his duties in life (which, after all, are his destiny) without any attachment, regarding himself merely as an instrument for the purpose. Such activity is not an obstacle on the path to Knowledge nor does Knowledge prevent a man from discharging his duties in life. Knowledge and activity are never mutually antagonistic and the realization of one does not impede performance of the other, nor performance of one the realization of the other.
D.: What is the significance of the life of a spiritually minded householder who has to devote all his time merely to earning a living and supporting his family and what mutual benefit do they get?
B.: The discharge of his duties by a householder such as this, who works for the support of his family, quite unmindful of his own physical comforts in life, should be regarded as selfless service rendered to his family, whose needs it is his destiny to meet. It may, however, be asked what benefit such a householder derives from the family. The answer is that there is no benefit for him from the family as such, since he has made the discharge of his duties to them a means of spiritual training and since he finally obtains perfect contentment by realizing the supreme Bliss of Liberation, which is the ultimate goal of every path and the supreme reward. He therefore stands in need of nothing from the members of his family or from his family life.
D.: How can a householder who is constantly engaged in the active discharge of his domestic duties, which should naturally impel him to still greater activity, obtain the supreme peace of withdrawal and freedom from the urge to such activity even while thus busily engaged?
B.: It is only to the spectator that the enlightened householder seems to be occupied with his domestic duties; for even though apparently engaged in domestic duties, he is not really engaged in any activity at all. His outer activity does not prevent him from realizing the perfect peace of withdrawal, and he is free from the restless urge to activity even in the midst of his activities.7
Visitor: Should I retire from business and take to reading books on Vedanta?
B.: If objects have an independent existence, that is if they exist somewhere apart from you, then it may be possible for you to retire from them. But they do not. They owe their existence to you, to your thought, so where can you retire from them? As for reading books on Vedanta, you can go on reading any number but they can only tell you to realize the Self within you. The Self cannot be found in books. You have to find it for yourself in yourself. 8
D.: Is a vow of silence useful?
B.: The inner silence is self-surrender. And that means living without the sense of ego.
D.: Is solitude necessary for a sannyasin?
B.: Solitude is in the mind of a man. One man may be in the thick of the world and yet maintain perfect serenity of mind. Such a person is always in solitude. Another may live in the forest but still be unable to control his mind. He cannot be said to be in solitude. Solitude is an attitude of the mind. A man attached to the things of life cannot get solitude, wherever he may be, whereas a detached man is always in solitude.9
As this implies, Bhagavan did not approve of a vow of silence, such as people sometimes take in order to create a sort of solitude in society. The real silence, he taught, is a still mind. If the mind is active, there is no benefit in not speaking. What is needed is to control both thought and speech.
‘The silence of solitude is forced. Restrained speech in society is equivalent to silence, for then a man controls his speech. There must be a speaker before there can be speech. If the mind of the speaker is engaged otherwise, speech is restrained. When the mind is turned inwards it is active in a different way and is not anxious to speak. The purpose of a vow of silence is to limit the mental activities provoked by speech, but if the mind is controlled, this is unnecessary and silence becomes natural.’10
Until the mind is ripe to do so, it is not even possible to give up activity.
D.: How does activity help? Doesn't it simply increase the already heavy load upon us that we have to get rid of?
B.: Action performed unselfishly purifies the mind and helps it to fix itself in meditation.
D.: But suppose one were to meditate constantly without activity?
B.: Try and see. Your latent tendencies will not let you. Meditation only comes gradually with their gradual weakening, by the grace of the Guru.11
Even in the case of one who had fulfilled his destiny as a householder and, having grown-up children to take his place, could have renounced the world according to the classical Indian tradition, Bhagavan still did not give his sanction.
D.: I have no pleasure in my family. There remains nothing for me to do there. I have done what had to be done and now there are grandsons and grand-daughters in the house. Should I remain there or should I leave it and go away?
B.: You should stay just where you are now. But where are you now? Are you in the house or is the house in you? Is there any house apart from you? If you become established in your own place, you will find that all things have merged into you and such questions will become unnecessary.
D.: Then it seems I am to remain at home?
B.: You are to remain in your true state.
Sometimes the Maharshi was asked why he himself renounced the world and went forth to the homeless life, if he did not approve of that path for his followers, and he replied merely that such was his destiny. It is to be remembered that the path he taught, the use of Self-enquiry in the life of the world, combined with harmonious action, is a new path created by him to meet the needs of our time. He himself had to be established in Realization before he could establish the path thereto.
D.: Can I engage in spiritual practice even while remaining in the life of the world?
B.: Yes, certainly; one ought to do so.
D.: Isn't life in the world a hindrance? Don't all the books advocate renunciation?
B.: The world is only in the mind. It does not speak out, saying: ‘I am the world’. If it did, it would have to be always present even in your sleep. Since it is not present in sleep, it is impermanent. Being impermanent, it has no reality. Having no reality, it is easily subdued by the Self. The Self alone is permanent. Renunciation is non-identification of the Self with the non-self. On the disappearance of ignorance, the non-self ceases to exist. That is true renunciation.
D.: Why then did you leave your home in your youth?
B.: That is my prarabdha (destiny). One's course of conduct in this life is determined by one's prarabdha. My prarabdha lies this way; yours lies that way.
D.: Should I not also renounce?
B.: If that had been your prarabdha, the question would not have arisen.
D.: Then I take it that I should remain in the world and engage in spiritual practice. But if I do so, can I obtain realization in this life?
B.: This has already been answered. You are always the Self. Earnest efforts never fail. Success is bound to result.12
With many European and some Indian visitors, it was the opposite question that arose—not whether they should renounce the world but what they could do to help it. Being ‘in the world but not of it’, following the inner spiritual quest while outwardly conforming to the conditions of life, seemed to them too much of a withdrawal, not too little. To some extent, Bhagavan's answers varied according to the understanding of the questioner. If the latter was capable of spiritual understanding, he would turn him inwards.
D.: Why is the world enveloped in ignorance?
B.: Look after yourself and let the world look after itself. What is your Self? If you are the body, there is a physical world also, but if you are the Spirit, there is only Spirit.13
Visitor: What do you think about social reform?
B.: Self-reform automatically results in social reform. Attend to self-reform and social reform will take care of itself.14
However, people who raised this sort of objection were more often of a devotional temperament, such as requires worship and a dualistic religion; and in such cases Bhagavan would enjoin submission to God. All that is required is to submit to God and do one's duty, play one's part in life, with full confidence. That is all that is asked of one. One is not responsible for the outcome.
B.: Now, I will ask you a question. When a man gets into a train, where does he put his luggage?
D.: Either in the compartment or in the luggage van.
B.: He doesn't carry it on his head or in his lap while on the train?
D.: Only a fool would do so.
B.: It is a thousand times more foolish to bear your own burden once you have undertaken the spiritual quest, whether by the path of knowledge or devotion.
D.: But can I relinquish all my responsibilities, all my commitments?
B.: You remember the temple tower? There are many statues on it, aren't there? Well, there are four big ones at the base, one at each corner. Have you seen them?
D.: Yes.
B.: Well, I tell you that the huge tower is supported by these four statues.
D.: How is that possible? What does Bhagavan mean?
B.: I mean that to say that is no more foolish than saying that you bear all the cares, burdens and responsibilities of life. The Lord of the universe bears the whole burden. You only imagine that you do. You can hand over all your burdens to Him. Whatever you have to do, you will be made an instrument for doing it at the right time. Do not imagine that you cannot do it unless you have the desire to. It is not desire that gives you the necessary strength. The strength is the Lord's.15
Sometimes there was a more pressing anxiety about the state of the world and a desire to assume responsibility.
D.: Will Maharshi give his opinion on the future of the world, as we are living in critical times?
B.: Why should you worry about the future? You don't even know the present properly. Take care of the present and the future will take care of itself.
D.: Will the world soon enter a new era of friendliness and mutual help or will it go down in chaos and war?
B.: There is One who governs the world and it is His task to look after it. He who has given life to the world knows how to look after it also. He bears the burden of this world, not you.
D.: Yet, if one looks round with unprejudiced eyes, it is hard to see where this benevolent care comes in.
B.: As you are, so is the world. Without understanding yourself, what is the use of trying to understand the world? This is a question that seekers after Truth need not worry about. People waste their energy over all such questions. First find out the Truth behind yourself, then you will be in a better position to understand the Truth behind the world of which you are a part.16
‘Another visitor asked Bhagavan for a benedictory foreword to a book he had written, called The Destiny of the World or something of that sort. He said that someone else had already agreed to write an introduction but he would be grateful if Bhagavan would write a few words conveying his message and blessing. Bhagavan explained to him that he had never done such a thing and therefore should not be expected to now. The visitor persisted, and I went to some trouble to convince him that all his persuasion would be in vain. Then he began saying that the world badly needs a spiritual message and that the youth of India and of the world are not properly brought up, since religion is not instilled into them, and so forth. I had to tell him that Bhagavan holds that before a man tries to reform the world he should first know himself, and then he can go about reforming the world if he still feels so inclined. I believe the visitor was for continuing the argument, but fortunately it was time for the Parayanam (recital of the Vedas) and he was effectively stopped thereby.’17
D.: Should I try to help the suffering world?
B.: The Power that created you created the world as well. If God created the world, it is His business to look after it, not yours.18
Nevertheless, this does not mean that Bhagavan's teaching condoned coldness or callousness to human suffering. Those who were in distress had to be helped, but they had to be helped in a spirit of humility. What was forbidden was only the self-importance inherent in trying to act the part of providence. This is made very clear in the following passage:
D.: But we see pain in the world. A man is hungry. It is a physical reality. It is very real to him. Are we to call it a dream and remain unmoved by his suffering?
B.: From the point of view of jnana or Reality, the suffering you speak of is certainly a dream, as is the world of which that suffering is an infinitesimal part. In a dream you have when you are asleep you yourself feel hunger and see others also suffering from hunger. You feed yourself and, moved by pity, feed the others who are hungry. So long as the dream lasted, all this suffering was quite as real as the suffering you see in the world is to you now. It was only when you woke up that you discovered it to be unreal. You might have eaten heartily before going to sleep, but you still dreamt that you had been working hard in the hot sun all day and were tired and hungry. Then you woke up and found that your stomach was full and that you had not stirred from your bed. But all this is not to say that while you are in the dream you can act as if the suffering you feel in it is not real. The hunger in the dream has to be appeased by dream food. The fellow beings you find hungry in the dream have to be provided with dream food. You can never mix the two states, the dream and the waking state. Similarly, till you attain the state of Realization and thus wake out of this illusory, phenomenal world, you must do social service by relieving suffering whenever you see it. But even so you must do it without ahankara, that is without the sense of: ‘It is I who am doing it.’ Instead you should feel: ‘I am the Lord's instrument.’ Similarly, you must not be conceited and think: ‘I am helping a man who is below me. He needs help and I am in a position to give it. I am superior and he is inferior.’ You must help him as a means of worshipping God in him. All such service is serving the Self, not anybody else. You are not helping anybody else, but only yourself.19
In general, Bhagavan discouraged political activity among those dedicated to the quest.
D.: Is it not our duty to be patriots?
B.: It is your duty to BE and not to be this or that. ‘I am that I am’ sums up the whole of the Truth. The method is summarized in ‘Be still.’20
However, when people who were engaged in political life approached him, he would simply advise them to carry on in a spirit of service and surrender, seeking to eliminate all egoism from their work.
D.: Is the desire for swaraj (independence) right?
B.: Such desire no doubt begins with self-interest. Yet practical work for the goal gradually widens the outlook so that the individual becomes merged in the country. Such merging of the individuality is desirable and the karma in question is nishkāma (unselfish).
D.: If self-government for India is granted after a long struggle and terrible sacrifice, is one not justified in being pleased with the result and elated by it?
B.: In the course of one's work one must have surrendered oneself to the higher Power whose might must be kept in mind and never lost sight of. How then can one be elated? One should not even care for the result of one's action. Then alone the karma becomes unselfish.21
B.: Gandhiji has surrendered himself to the Divine and works accordingly with no self interest. He does not concern himself with the results but accepts them as they turn up. That must be the attitude of national workers.
Q.: Will the work be crowned with success?
B.: This question arises because the questioner has not surrendered himself.
Q.: Should we then not think of and work for the welfare of the country?
B.: First take care of yourself and the rest will naturally follow.
Q.: I am not speaking individually but for the country.
B.: First surrender and then see. Doubts arise because of the absence of surrender. Acquire strength by surrender and then your surroundings will be found to have improved to the degree of strength acquired by you.22
Persons whose temperament drew them to activity and who found it hard to understand that spiritually there are no others, queried whether there was not some egoism in seeking their own realization, not understanding that the very expression ‘their own’ did not apply and that not merely egoism but the ego itself had to be renounced. Bhagavan himself was asked why he did not go about preaching to the people.
D.: Why doesn't Sri Bhagavan go about preaching the truth to the people at large?
B.: How do you know that I don't? Does preaching consist in mounting a platform and haranguing the people around? Preaching is simple communication of knowledge and can be done in silence too. What do you think of a man listening to a harangue for an hour and going away without being impressed by it so as to change his life? Compare him with another who sits in a holy presence and leaves after some time with his outlook on life totally changed. Which is better: to preach loudly without effect or to sit silently sending forth intuitive force to act on others? Again, how does speech arise? First, there is abstract knowledge (unmanifest). From this there arises the ego, which gives rise to thoughts and words successively. So then:
Words therefore are the great-grandsons of the original source. If words can produce an effect, consider how much more powerful preaching through silence must be.23
Bhagavan answered those who doubted its utility that Realization was the greatest help they could possibly render to others. Indeed, Bhagavan himself was the standing proof of this, as one saw from the numbers of people helped to the very depth of their being, lifted out of confusion and sorrow on to a firm path of peace and understanding, by the silent influence of his grace. And yet, at the same time, he reminded them that, from the point of view of knowledge, there are no others to help.
D.: Does my Realization help others?
B.: Yes, certainly. It is the best possible help. But really there are no others to help, for a Realized Being sees only the Self just as a goldsmith, estimating the gold in various jewels, sees only the gold. Separate forms and beings exist only as long as you identify yourself with the body. When you transcend the body, others disappear along with your body-consciousness.
D.: Is it so with plants, trees and so on also?
B.: Do they exist at all apart from the Self? Find out. You think that you see them. The thought is projected from yourself. Find out wherefrom it arises. The thoughts will cease to rise and the Self alone will remain.
D.: I understand theoretically, but they are still there.
B.: Yes, it is like a cinema show. There is the light on the screen and the shadows flitting across impress the audience as the acting of some story. Now suppose that in this film story an audience is also shown on the screen. The seer and the seen will then both be on the screen. Apply this to yourself. You are the screen, the Self has created the ego, the ego has its accretions of thoughts, which are displayed as the world, trees, plants, etc., about which you are asking. In reality all these are nothing but the Self. If you see the Self it will be found to be all, everywhere and always. Nothing but the Self exists.24
The same was explained to Mr. Evans-Wentz, the well-known writer about Tibet.
E. W.: They say that there are many saints in Tibet who remain in solitude and are still very helpful to the world. How can that be?
B.: It can be so. Realization of the Self is the greatest help that can be rendered to humanity. Therefore saints are said to be helpful even though they remain in the forests. But it should not be forgotten that solitude is not to be found in forests only. It can be had even in towns in the thick of worldly occupation.
E.W.: Isn't it necessary that saints should mix with people and be helpful to them?
B.: The Self alone is the Reality; the world and the rest of it are not. The Realized Being does not see the world as different from himself.
E.W.: Then does that mean that a man's Realization leads to the uplift of mankind without their being aware of it?
B.: Yes; the help is imperceptible but is still there. A Realized Man helps the whole of mankind although without their knowledge.
E.W.: Wouldn't it be better if he mixed with others?
B.: There are no others to mix with. The Self is the one and only Reality.
E.W.: If there were a hundred Self-realized men, wouldn't it be to the greater benefit of the world?
B.: When you say ‘Self’ you refer to the unlimited, but when you add ‘men’ to it, you limit the meaning. There is only one Infinite Self.
E.W.: Yes, I see. Sri Krishna has said in the Gita that work must be performed without attachment and such work is better than idleness. Is that Karma Yoga?
B.: What is said is adapted to the temperament of the listener.
E.W.: In Europe people do not understand that a man can be helpful in solitude. They imagine that only men who work in the world can be useful. When will this confusion cease? Will the European mind continue wading in the morass or will it realize the Truth?
B.: Never mind about Europe or America. Where are they but in the mind? Realize your Self and then all is realized. If you see a number of men in a dream and then wake up and recall your dream, do you try to find out whether the persons of your dream-creation are also awake?25
‘A self-realized being cannot help benefiting the world. His very existence is the highest good.’26