He wears
a strange shade of Ochre, which looks almost like pink. There are
silver knobs on his wooden sandals, which add at least three inches
to his five-feet five. His long tresses cascade on to his shoulders
framing with black and gray an intensely intelligent face. Swami
Chinmayananda, 65, is Hinduism's answer to the countless young men
and women who have strayed away over the years, disgusted with the
meaningless rituals and the tired theology of the world's oldest living
faith. (Please note that this interview and write up was done in 1980)
A distinguished scholar, an ardent teacher and a compulsive globetrotter,
the Swami is today held to be one of the few serious and credible missionaries
that Hinduism has to offer. His missions are all over the world.
So are his devotees and students. And they are growing at a rate
which will soon, perhaps, make Swami Chinmayananda numero uno in the
glittering pantheon of gurus, rishis, bhagavans and babas who hold
sway over India 's millions and many abroad. In many ways, this is
the best thing that could have happened to Hinduism. For the Swami
is no quack healer or fast-buck merchant. He offers no miracles to
lure the gullible. He makes no predictions, reads no fortunes and sings
paeans to no politician. He makes no claims to being a God, except
for argument's sake; nor does he offer you, for a fee, the quick route
to nirvana. He simply teaches. He is best known for his interpretation
of the Gita and almost every day of the year, somewhere or other, in
Bonn or Bangkok, Bombay or Baltimore , he has a class on. He is either
trying to explain Arjuna's dilemma in the midst of battle or the innate
logic of Krishna's persuasion. Not all his students are Hindus. Neither
are they all believers in any religion. More often they come out of
curiosity to see the Swami defend a faith grown old and decayed by
centuries of blind belief and senile commitment to rituals. There are
the usual pot-bellied devotees who come to donate fractions of their
ill-gotten wealth in the hope of buying happiness in another life.
There's the same bunch of rich, semi-literate women in chiffons and
diamonds who attend every religious event wearing the same moronic
demeanor. There are also, thank God, the young ones, from whom the
Swami derives his largest following. Pleasant faced young men, quietly
listening to the voice of religion. Swami Chinmayananda is, naturally,
not his real name. He was born P. Balakrishna Menon on 8 May 1916,
somewhere in the Malabar. There was nothing very brilliant about this
particular Malayalee child, who grew up and eventually joined The National
Herald as a cub-reporter. He joined the nationalist movement in 1941
and was briefly jailed. On release, he went to Rishikesh to meet Swami
Shivananda Saraswati, to write a journalistic piece on the religion
racket. The Swami persuaded the young skeptic to stay back for six
months at his ashram, to see things firsthand. By the end of the six
months, Balakrishna Menon gave up his name and his profession and assumed
the name of Chinmayananda. From Rishikesh, at the foot of the Himalayas
he went further north to spend ten years at the feet of Tapovan Maharaj,
the well known sage. While Swami Shivananda Saraswati gave him his
name and his robes, it was Tapovan Maharaj who educated him in the
sastras. Much of this is, of course, hearsay. There is no official
biography of Swami Chinmayananda and, unlike most of the other gurus,
he offers very little information about himself or his achievements
in mission handouts, books or lecture papers. When I asked him about
his past, he laughed it away and said, "Never
ask a Swami his past. If you knew the source of a river, would
you ever drink from it?" He is modest, intelligent and accessible.
He speaks with a sing-song accent and often mispronounces his words.
But his passion shows. "Hinduism is the religion for our times," he
asserts with confidence. I met him over two long sessions at Calcutta,
watched him deliver quite a few famous Gita lectures, saw some
of his missions, listened to him articulate his views on life and
death, freedom and spiritual bondage, religion in action and the
existence of God, I saw the tired lines on his face as he smiled
and bore the fawning and the sycophancy of his devotees, suffered
stupid questions about the behavior of the stock exchange, drank
coffee and fruit juice from persistent hostesses at half-hour intervals. " It
must be tough to be a guru," I
said to him, after a particularly tiresome session. " Not
tough; it's lonely," said Hinduism's most famous hostage.
Q)
Why do you give so much importance to the study of the Bhagavad Gita?
You seem to imply that the Gita is the only way to gain insight
into the
Indian mind, into the Indian sensibility. Don't you think our
other religious
texts are of equal importance?
A)
Every religious textbook is of equal importance. But I have
no authority to recommend books I have not studied myself.
I studied the Gita - and it was of great help to me - and,
therefore, I recommend it to everyone. Unlike the other scriptures,
the methodology followed by the Gita appears to be more conducive
to the modern, scientific mind and the educated classes.
For they don't believe in anything. They want everything to be
rationally proved, intellectually defensible. And the approach
of the Gita is very rational because Krishna had to address
a dynamic, young, educated, intelligent man who was a born
skeptic. Arjuna did not believe or understand that Krishna
was an intellectual giant. It is only in the eleventh chapter
that he got a glimpse - and, thereafter, his attitude changed.
But till the eleventh chapter he was absolutely rational.
He did not believe a word of what Krishna said. Krishna had to
make him believe it by the strength of logic. This approach
appeals to people like you and I. It converted me from an
atheist into a believer........
Q)
You were an atheist!
A) Of course. Any intelligent,
rational man is an atheist. Until, of course he is
initiated into religion. So when you write and attack religious
people at times, I sympathize with you because I was
also like that. I also thought that religion meant
ritualism. I never knew there was a science to it, that ritualism
was just a bark. The outer bark of the great tree that
shelters the whole community. The bark is necessary
for the tree. But the bark is not the tree. That I what I
try to explain to young people like you.
Q)
You are often exhorting young people to search
for a new ideal that would
give them motivation for self-sacrifice and dynamic
action. Wherein
do you think such an ideal lies?
A)
Each one will have to find out such a ideal. When
I say you must have a good, faithful wife don't
ask me where you can get such a wife. A wife you
can never get. A girl you can find and make her
your wife....
Q)
Are you quite sure? That I can never get a
wife.....
A)
( Laughs loudly) An ideal I can never give
you. You have to find out an ideal. Like, let's say, excellence in
your own profession. Or a political belief, an economic system you
may like to propound, a social value. Or, simply, your own moral
attitude. Uncompromisingly you will have to
live upto it, under any circumstance. You must be ready to die for
it, if necessary, but not yield an inch. One ideal you find - and the
best in you starts coming out. Until this ideal is there, the best
never comes out. You might get superficial
efficiency - but that's not enough. It's not the best. For example,
look at Mahatma Gandhi. So long as he was M.K. Gandhi he was a third-rate
man with no hope of any success. All that he
achieved was that he passed barristery. And that is because nobody
ever fails in barristery. ( Laughs) Now, when he comes to India.......
Q)
Yes?
A)
In Africa, nothing happened. African politics,
third-rate.... All that he gained was that
he lost his teeth. Nothing else. When he
came back to India, as luck would have it,
suddenly he got an ideal to pursue. Freedom
for 400 million people! Once he got that
ideal and was ready to sacrifice everything
else for it, look how the man's personality
grew up from week to week, month to month.
He was no more a four-foot or five-foot high,
big-headed man with spreading ears; a chinless
man with effeminate words, stammering language...
everything useless. Out of him came a brilliance
- such that he has already carved out a permanent
niche in world history. History is not complete
without Gandhiji's chapter. Where did he
get it all from? From his so uncompromising
personality! One ideal, and the whole thing
changes. Vivekananda must have been there
in Narendra. But as Narendra he was impotent
- an ordinary, useless, university student.
But once he got an ideal and started pursuing
it, in five years' time you saw a magnificent
unfolding of his personality. Out of Narendra
came a Vivekananda. A third-rate prince,
Siddarth - a stupid fool I would call him,
because at the age of 28 the fellow did not
know that there was death, that there was
old age, disease in the world! Think of the
enormous ignorance of the man! Once he got
an ideal and held onto it, out of the stupid
mudplaster beamed out the eternal prince
of compassion: Buddha. Without an ideal to
hook yourself on, that depth of possibilities
in you cannot be unearthed, dredged out.
An ideal is necessary...
Q)
Would you believe that political ideals can
also help to transform the
condition of our society? Straight political
ideals, without any moral
or spiritual strings attached?
A) Any ideal
can. Not just political ideals. Artistic
ones too. The belief that I can be the greatest
artist - maybe a dancer or a painter, it
doesn't matter. Even if it's a musician.
The best in you then starts coming out.
Q)
But this can also create a great but
completely amoral artist. A great
musician with a fascist vision of the
world. A great writer or a great
painter who is committed to his work
but has a completely perverse worldview
which can spark off totally negative
political movements. Surely,
an artistic ideal is not enough. A moral
stand is important for any creative
person. Otherwise, he could well be taking
mankind backwards. Towards
fascism, for instance.
A)
It is not the ideal that puts man back.
It is the interpretation. You can't say
that religion is the cause for wars or
the disaster in Iran . Can you say that?
Islam is not the cause. It is Islam interpreted
in a particular way. Similarly, Hinduism
is not the cause for the harijan problem
in the country now. It is the interpretation
of Hinduism. Caste is a universal principle
- it is man-made and you suffer for it.
It's not Hinduism. Take democracy. Government
of the people, for the people, by the
people. But by the time you practice
it in a parliament it becomes government
of the people, for the people, by the
people, on the people....and people suffer.
So, even the best things when man-handled
becomes the worst of things. So, don't
say that Nietzsche was the cause for
Hitlerism. Na na. What Nietzsche said
was that the Aryans are best among people
- but he took only that out of context
and interpreted it in his own way, and
damned himself. What can we do?
Q)
Many people believe, Swamiji, that
there is a vast hiatus today between
the world of religion and the world
of everyday reality, and that this
explains why more and more young people
are moving away from the spiritual
quest and seeking their answers in
the tough, materialistic world
around them where survival itself is
the most challenging battle. Would
you agree? Would you agree that religion
is a luxury in a scenario where
staying alive is so difficult, particularly
in the poorer countries
of the world?
A)
I think you are partially blind. You
see only with one eye. You see only
people moving away from religion and
striving to find their values in materialism.
You don't see the other stream. People
dropping out of universities and
colleges and professions - and seeking spirituality.
I got thirty students here to train
in the last batch. Americans. Young
boys and girls. It is they who are
now running my school there, my Hindu
seminary there in California. So,
don't think that it's only one-way traffic
Q)
No. It's only that I still feel
that this traffic of people moving away
from religion is considerably
larger than the traffic you speak of
- purely in numbers .
A)
I wouldn't say that. It can be
because materialistic attractions draw people
away from religion and self-discipline....
Q)
But why is this vast gap, let's
say, between the search for spiritual
values and the quest for a materialistic
reordering of society based
on principles of justice and
equality?
A)
First tell me what is religion.
Tell me and then you'll understand.
Materialism you know. It is purely
selfish. I want to be one up.
My happiness is all important.
My wife and my children must
be happy. I don't care a hoot
for others. It is utterly self-centered......
Q)
But surely religion is the same.
Each and every religious person
is searching for his own private
nirvana, his or her own self-realization.
This is an equally self-centered
search.
A)
What does nirvana mean?
Q)
Self-realization?
A)
You see, nirvana is not a
piece of cake that he wants
to get. It is not wealth
that he to put in a bank.
He is trying to expand his
consciousness. He wants to
embrace the whole universe.
Not with his hands. Not with
power. Not with money. But
with understanding. It's
a new dimension of consciousness
he is attempting. On one
hand you have bhog: sensual,
materialistic living. To
withdraw the mind's attention
from these wonders - this
dissipation in the world
of objects - and to quieten
it to turn it towards the
spring of life in you is
called yoga. Yoga and bhog.
It is not in the physical
body; it is not in the place
where you are staying; nor
in the clothes you are wearing.
It is in the mental attitude.
Coated, booted, suited with
beedi in hand, you can still
be a yogi. A man who has
got jatadhari - which is
only vibhuti all over and
nothing but a lengot - can
be the greatest of bhogis.
Isn't it? It's not the physical
appearance; it's the mental
attitude. So, one is expecting
or demanding or hoping for
happiness from the aggrandizement
of things outside. To acquire,
possess, embrace, indulge
and enjoy the objects outside.
The other is now, in this
finite world, in the realm
of time, I cannot have a
permanent, peaceful, happy
state. These are all right
as recreation but the main,
permanent happiness cannot
be here. Thus man withdraws
his attention from the outer
world and with a steady mind,
through contemplation, tries
to reach the higher echelons
of consciousness in himself.
That is religion or spiritualism.
In fact, religion is the
technology by which these
spiritual ideals can be reached.
So without religion, spirituality
is zero. Religion means..
the....the.....
Q)
Wherewithal?
A)
No. Not wherewithal.
The gymnasium where the mind
is trained to withdraw
from all these and turn towards
the high. For good health,
a gymnasium is necessary.
Not only that; you must
have good food and discipline.
You must go to the gym
to develop all your muscles.
Similarly, in order to
evolve spiritually, it is not only
sufficient that we know
philosophy - which is in the Upanishads,
etc. - but we must have
a technology by which we can
reach there. Purify your
mind. Learn the way to
turn your mind away from the outer
world. find out which
direction you should turn your attention
to.......
Q)
But this spiritualism you
are talking about has often
been the means to social
exploitation. Many practitioners
of faith have over the centuries
hoodwinked, shortchanged
and manipulated the weak
and the gullible. Many societies
have been kept under the
yoke of religion for years
and years, without hope
of escape or redemption.
Look how the church exploited
people. Look at how Hinduism
has exploited our illiterate
masses and kept them shackled
over centuries. Look at the
track record of most religions
and you will know what I
mean. Where do you find purity
in such a exploitative system?
Why has religion allowed
itself to be used as a tool
for social subjugation or
political aggrandizement?
A)
Have you noticed that in
India religion has never
been organized? In the west,
on the other hand, it has
always been so. This is because
Christianity had to organize.
They had to fight with Rome.
But when religion becomes
organized it becomes a power
- and power has always a
tendency to be abused.
Q)
The state versus the church,
with both sides equally corrupt......
A)
State versus church, right!
Until at last the church
won and became as tyrannical
as the state was. This is
natural. Now, in India, religion
was never organized. Look
at you. You are a Hindu -
and yet you have the right
to say you don't believe!
You are allowed this freedom.
But if a catholic had said
this, his marriage would
be annulled, his children
would be in deep trouble,
his body would not be accepted
in the burial ground. He
will be under tremendous
pressure. In fact, from birth
onwards, he is under the
pressure of church. Namakarana
ceremony, baptism, christening
- and then, afterwards, marriage,
the christening of the children
and so on it goes on till
you are dead and your body
is buried. From birth till
death, you are tied down
to the church. If you don't
obey they can throw you out.
Q)
In Iran today, the mullahs
are as tyrannical....
A)
That is what I am saying
about all these semetical
religions. Hinduism, on the
other hand, is absolutely
open. You, as a Hindu, you
want to go to church - go.
You want to go to a temple
- go. You want to do only
social work - do. Why is
this? Because we believe
that in freedom alone can
perfection can be reached.
Art can grow only in freedom.
Art can never grow under
compulsions, under govt.
rules. Freedom is very important.
You feel like meditating
- meditate. You like doing
puja - do puja. There are
no compulsions, no shackles
restraining you. You understand?
When Hinduism has been so
free for a long time and
the average man is not given
education nor taught what
is religion, slowly the whole
thing becomes tainted. This
happened around the 16th
century in India. Power politics
came into play. Religion
when mixed with politics
stinks. Politics also stinks
when it comes into touch
with religion - and religion
decays when politicians enter
the fray. In India, they
were separate: the king and
the rajguru. Dasharata, when
he had problems went to Vishwamitra.
Vishwamitra clearly said
he had no prejudices and
no party. He was impartial.
He said: "This
is dharma. If you think you
can do it, do it. If you
can't do it, do whatever
you can to serve your country,
and suffer the consequences.
But slowly and slowly power
became hereditary - as we
are now trying to do, you
know! (Laughs - [Note from
BVP - recollect that the
interview was in 1980]).
My son, my son, my son! By
the time the third generation
of kings came, things went
awry. The first generation
really sweated and craved
out a kingdom. The second
generation at least saw their
fathers going out to fight.
The third generation never
saw their fathers going out
anywhere. Subsequent generations
thought it was their privilege
to rule. `Some people are
lucky - I am a king by birth!'
So, by no fault of his, he
became purely indulgent.
The rajguru also became the
same. The fourth great grandson
of the rajguru had nothing
spiritual about him. He said
: " All
right, raja saab, aap raja
hai, why should you get into
this mess? Whatever important
papers are there, I will
bring you and you sign them.
You have the harem and you
can drink from morning onwards.
That is your privilege -
why deprive yourself?" The
raja said `Perfectly right!'
So the raja was soon a de
jure raja; the de facto raja
was the minister. Now the
minister wanted to hold all
the reins of power in the
community. How could he do
so? How can you hold power
in a community? You must
have a party. So the rajguru
- who was a Brahmin - brought
the brahmanical community
with him as his party. He
became their patron. In those
days, you couldn't be a patron
by giving someone an import
license. You couldn't give
money because there was no
money. What was available?
Only land. So land was given
to all the Brahmins. Now
land is a funny thing. Any
amount of money you get,
you can digest it, use it.
What will you do after you
get three acres of land?
You, your wife and three
children - how will you plough
more than three acres? So
you need an army of workers,
who must work for you almost
for nothing and bring in
the profit. Only then is
it profitable, isn't it?
Q)
So you create your own serfdom
as well as your army?........
A)
Of course. But where
will you get it as long
as the Vedanta is prominent
in your society? Everyone
knows he is from Narayana;
everyone is equal. So,
the scripture books became
dangerous for political
maneuvering in those
times. So, the Brahmin
class said: `Proscribe
the scriptures.' Not
just did they proscribe
the books they said:
`The non-Brahmins cannot
study Sanskrit.' Just
as it is happening today.
Ministers don't want
anybody to study in English
schools - while their
own sons must go to English
schools! (Giggles) You
see! It's repetition.
Man is not intelligent
enough to think up a
new mischief! (laughs)
He repeats his old mischiefs.
So, Sanskrit was removed.
They were told: `You
are not to read the scriptures;
we will tell you everything.'
And what they told them
was Rama Krishna stories.
Five hundred years of
this! Today, the brahmin
doesn't even know the
scriptures! For, why
should he study! All
the others accept that
he is a brahmin. So why
should he worry? So you
can blame neither the
brahmin today, nor the
a brahmin. Neither of
them know the scriptures!
They must be retaught.
And that is what we have
been trying to do for
the last 20 - 30 years.
Now I think the average,
intelligent, educated
man knows something of
his scriptures. At least
he knows the spelling
of Upanishads. Before
that, they had not even
heard of it!
Q)
But the average,
intelligent Indian is also a prey
to a lot
of hocus - pocus being peddled around
in the name
of religion?
A)
Look. After
all, if I believe my thumb is God, it does
not matter.
The mind returns to it and the individual
gets his
consolation. Why do we have all these recreations
like the
cinema, for instance? Are they not meant to make
human society
happy? Why not religion - if that can
make some
people happy, give them some comfort?
Q)
What about
the current Hindu pantheon of Gurus and Godmen
who run
their private industries, not just in this land but
also overseas?
What do you, as a scholar of Hinduism
and one
of the most distinguished teachers, think of this strange,
esoteric
bunch of faith - peddlers? I am referring
to some
of the well - known names like Satya Sai Baba,
Balyogeshwar,
Rajneesh, Mahesh Yogi, Ananda Murthi - or
even Krishnamurthy.
I know I am clubbing completely
different
kinds of people together. But what I am trying
to ask
you is whether you think Hinduism deserves such
a vast
variety of masters who often suggest completely
different
routes to salvation. In fact, the routes are quite
often contradictory.
A)
Have you
watched
the followers?
They are
all voluntary,
free -
no one
forces
them. They
follow
these masters
because
they find
some consolation.
So, at
different
levels,
all of
them are
valid.
I know
that there
are too
many teachers,
too many
masters,
too many
gurus in
this country.
But I would
wish there
were more.
Q)
Sure.
As long as
they
are teachers
- not
quack healers
or exploiters
of the
innocent.
A)
Don't
think
that
all teachers
will
teach
only
at the
B.Sc
level.
Or that
the M.Sc
level
teacher
can teach
everybody.
There
are students
who must
be taught
only
alphabets,
only
addition
and subtraction.
Isn't
this
true?
In education,
there
are various
levels
and various
teachers.
If the
M.Sc
teacher,
is given
an elementary
class
to teach,
he will
become
confused,
go screaming
mad.
The elementary
teacher
cannot,
similarly,
take
M.Sc
classes.
So, at
different
levels,
different
teachers,
different
teachers
are valid.
They
don't
know
beyond
their
levels;
just
as their
students
cannot
understand
beyond
the levels
at which
they
speak.
Q)
But would
you like
teachers
of religion
to also
educate
their
students
at whichever
level
they
may be
- with
miracles,
faith
cures,
materializing
laddoos
and Seiko
watches
out of
nothing;
or by
teaching
them
that
salvation
and self
- realisation
lies
exactly
six inches
below
the navel?
Do you
think
magic
and group
sex have
anything
to do
with
an understanding
of religion?
A)
It does
not matter
whether
I believe
in these
things
or not.....
Q)
Do you
think
these
are valid
ways
of learning
and Self
- discovery?
A)
Are they
not?
Look
at them.
Go there
one morning
or evening
and see
the crowds.
Don't
look
at the
Sai Baba;
Look
at the
people.
See what
an amount
of consolation
and comfort
they
are getting.
Why the
hell
should
I take
it away
from
them?
When
you -
the writer,
the politician,
the socialist,
no one
is giving
them
any comfort.
This
one single
man moving
about
there,
with
every
body
prostrate
before
him,
feeling
so very
happy
about
it. If
one can
give
by mere
darshan
so much
of comfort,
why do
you want
to take
it away
from
them?
Let them
have
it. Just
as a
few whiskeys
inside
him make
him feel
good.
Maja
maja
hai!
We know
that
drinking
is not
a maja;
but the
drunkard
thinks
that
it is
great
fun.
Rock
and Roll
is a
head
splitting
noise
to a
sensitive
musician
but,
then,
there
are youngsters
who enjoy
it thoroughly.
Why do
you grudge
them
their
enjoyment?
Q)
But that means
it is a lower
level of consciousness......
A)
Yes,
I admit
it. It
is a
lower
level
of consciousness
and,
therefore,
they
can only
appreciate
it at
that
lower
level.
When
they
come
higher,
they
will
drop
it themselves.
There
are many
who have
dropped
Sai Baba.
they
went
there
first.
It was
an introduction
for them;
they
were
stunned
by what
the man
could
do. My
intellect
cannot
explain
it. It
is scientifically
impossible
to explain.
And when
you ask
him,
he doesn't
say it
is all
because
of his
glory.
He says,
you can
also
get this
power.
Turn
towards
him and
sing
the song.
The man
sincerely
does
it for
sometime
and then
drops
him because
he starts
finding
higher
levels
of consciousness.
Then
he wants
to study
the Gita.
So he
comes
to me.
He starts
reading
the Gita.
And then
wants
to go
to the
Upanishads.
I teach
him.
Then
he wants
to go
to the
original.
To the
Sanskrit.
So they
go to
Benares.
I know
thousands
who have
thus
streamed
out -
from
lower
to the
higher
and higher.
Those
who are
sincerely
striving
to quieten
the mind
and experience
the world.
I am
not saying
everyone
- for
everyone
is not
a Mozart
or an
Einstein.
There
are many
science
students;
but there's
only
one Einstein.
Q)
Would
you believe,
like
some
Godmen
do, that
liberating
the libido
is the
only
way for
man to
transcend
his environment
and achieve
spiritual
freedom?
A)
Before
answering
this
question,
I would
like
to know,
what
is this
word
`godman'.
Everybody
uses
it; it's
become
a journalistic
lingo.
Q)
Well,
let me
try and
explain.
There
are religious
teachers:
we call
them
gurus.
Then,
there
are those
who think
they
are more
than
teachers:
we call
them
Godmen.
I confess
the term
is a
bit tongue
in cheek.
But then,
what
can you
do when
an acharya
graduates
into
a Bhagwan
or a
materialiser
starts
with
fistfuls
of vibhuti
and then
begins
to bring
out latest model quartz
watches?
The gurus
and the
Bhagwans
don't
like
being
clubbed
together.
What
can I
do?
A)
But what
is God?
(Laughs)
Unless
you know
what
is God
how can
you call
anyone
God-man
or man-god?
Man I
know.
But what
is God?
Q)
Bhagwan?
A)
Bhagwan.
Does
it really
mean
God?
A Bhagwan
has certain
qualities:
he is
a man
who is
capable
of commanding
nature,
who can
attract
a large
number
of people,
who can
cure
diseases,
who can
do something
ordinary
people
can't.
It is
someone
who has
that
mental
power
to forecast
things
correctly,
to read
other
people's
minds.
These
qualities
were
in Krishna
and,
therefore,
we called
him Bhagwan.
And since
Krishna
is considered
an avatar
in this
country,
by association
of ideas,
the word
can come
to mean
God.
I have
no objection.
Because,
according
to Vedanta,
even
you,
who do
not know,
you are
nothing
but a
Bhagwan.
I am
a man.
I can
prove
to you
right
now!
But because
too many
people
are sitting
here,
it will
not be
decent.
But I
don't
know
whether
I am
a God
man.
(laughs).
Q)
To get
back
to my
question
now,
do you
think
liberating
the libido
has anything
to do
with
spiritual
self
realization?
A)
What
is the
libido?
According
to Vedanta
shastra,
it is
the pressure
of the
past
on you.
Habit.
The tendency
to repeat
ad nauseum
one's
past
actions
- we
call
it vasanas.
Vasana
means
fragrance
- the
fragrance
of what
we have
done
and thought
of. Whatever
we do
- karma
- and
whatever
we think
of, they
all leave
impressions
on us,
they
pressurize
us to
repeat
ourselves.
For five
years,
you drink
a cup
of coffee
at three
in the
evening.
After
that,
you don't
need
a wristwatch.
Whatever
you may
be doing
at that
time,
you will
crave
for that
cup of
coffee.
That
is the
pressure
of the
past.
It takes
away
your
freedom
to think
anything
original.
The average
man is,
therefore,
only
a repetitive
bird,
repeating
like
a tota,
like
a parrot.
Unless
these
past
pressures
are eliminated,
we cannot
rethink
and review
the world
we are
seeing
around
us. We
see now
through
our own
mind
coloured
by the
past.
So to
recognize
the world
as it
is and
to re-estimate
one's
own place
in the
scheme
of things,
first
cleanse
your
mind.
All the
scriptures
in the
world
tell
you this.
When
the mind
is freed
from
the past,
it is
free
to fly
into
newer
climes
and make
new discoveries.
Only
then
does
the mind
become
meditation
- worthy
-- just
as a
plane
must
be air
- worthy,
a boat
must
be ocean
- worthy,
a car
road
- worthy.
Some
of the
greatest
of men
have
been
notoriously
immoral
in their
activities.
This
is the
dichotomy
in their
personality.
So spirituality
is insisting
upon
self
unfoldment.
Lift
yourself
by yourself.
So says
the Gita.
For it
gives
you the
logic
behind
every
term
used...
Q)
So you
believe
in logic?
A)
O yes!
The average
man is
intellectual.
But the
truth
lies
beyond
the intellect.
With
the intellect
we have
to go
beyond
the intellect.
Isn't
it? So
I must
first
convince
the intellect
that
it is
logical,
only
then
will
I consider
the possibility
that
there
is something
beyond.
Then
there
is a
method
by which
from
the intellect
you can
take
off -
it's
called
contemplation.
So, first,
the intellect
has to
be satisfied.
Only
then
can we
know
freedom.
Q)
What
is this
freedom
you speak
of?
A)
At this
moment,
what
is your
freedom?
Your
freedom
is to
go on
a marked
line.
If at
early
morning
bed tea
is not
there,
you are
most
miserable.
If at
the next
moment
your
wife
doesn't
smile
the exact
amount,
you are
miserable.
If she
smiles
too much,
you are
worried.
Why is
she grinning
at me?
And if
it is
less,
then
she is
not happy.
How dangerously
balanced
are our
joys!
Thereafter,
comes
breakfast.
I must
have
the things
I like.
Nothing
else.
If it's
anything
else,
life
instantly
becomes
a misery.
When
I go
to office,
everybody
must
smile
at me.
Everything
you do,
from
morning
till
evening,
you are
repeating
yourself.
You have
no freedom
at all.
I can
make
you angry
in no
time.
I will
confuse
your
papers
on your
table
- change
them
around
- and
then
look
through
the window:
I will
see you
dancing
around
in anger!
(Laughs
loudly)
Thus,
we give
our strings
to the
world
outside
to pull
and make
us dance
as it
wishes.
We have
no freedom.
The outer
world
dictates
to us
all the
time.
And the
mind
and intellect
persecutes
us. I
am a
poor
slave,
being
kicked
from
within
by my
own equipment
and from
without
by the
world
around
me. What
freedom
are you
talking
about?
Only
man who
is detached
can be
free.
he is
like
the wind.
Q)
How does
a man
detach
himself
from
the world
around
him?
A)
O Narayana!
That
is the
whole
yoga,
including
rituals!
(Giggles)
The rituals
which
you rejected,
including
those
as well.
All this
is necessary
in order
to learn
the art
of withdrawing
yourself.
Stand
apart
as a
witness
to everything.
Even
anger.
They
are in
me: I
am not
in them.
You must
feel
this.
Just
as a
ocean
does.
How do
you think
an ocean
will
introduce
itself?
These
what
you see
as waves
are in
me -
but I
am not
in them.
Each
wave
conceiving
itself
as a
separate
entity
has a
birth
date;
it grows,
reaches
its highest
peak,
becomes
vain,
then
it starts
dipping.
`O Lord,
what
have
I done
that
this
should
happen
to me!'.
Until,
at last,
the small
waves
start
eating
it up.
`Millions
of waves
have
I eaten
up myself
-- and
now these
waves
are eating
me up!'
the downcast
wave
starts
screaming.
Like
this,
millions
of waves
are always
screaming.
It is
these
stupid
waves
that
make
the roar
of the
seas.
Now the
ocean
says:
`The
waves
are in
me, yes.
Without
me, there
are no
waves.
But the
sorrows
and joys
of the
waves
are not
mine.'
For why
should
the ocean
be happy
when
a solitary
wave
is rising?
Or why
should
it cry
when
a wave
is dying?
In this
way,
you will
have
to detach
yourself.
The body,
the mind
and the
intellect
are in
you --
but you
are not
in them.
You are
not a
shareholder
in their
joys
and sorrows.
only
then
can you
become
a man,
free
from
the equipments
of life.
This
is called
freedom.
Freedom
for man.
Mukti.
Q)But
can a society
like ours
progress in materialistic
terms and retain
this spiritual
freedom?
A)
Material development
is not
possible without
this inner
development. Character
is important.
Why is
that the
Chinese and
Japanese are
so good?
Why are
Americans good
at materialism?
Isn't it
because they
have materialistic
ethics, commercial
ethics. We
have nothing.
I am
not talking
of spirituality.
We don't
even have
commercial ethics.
Anything we
send out
from India
if it
has a
market, never
carries on
for too
long. they
tell you
soon to
stop it.
For the
quality falls
after a
few consignments.
All we
want is
to get
rich quick
- because
you know
that you
are becoming
rich not
because of
your quality
but because
of an
accident, and
you want
to take
advantage of
it.
Q)
But you
are now
talking
in materialistic
terms
yourself.
The ideal
of progress
is totally
western.
We never
had progress
on an
altar
in our
country.
In fact,
this
western
concept
of progress
should
strike
us as
illusory,
Maya.
Why are
you,
a Swami,
impressed
by such
norms
of progress?
