Yes, but what do I do? - David Godman About fifteen years ago, when I was collecting information for Nothing Ever Happened, I had the assistance of a group of people who were helping me by transcribing satsang tapes. Occasionally, the volunteers would make mistakes, especially if they did not know technical terms or the names of saints and gods that Papaji occasionally inserted in his stories. Sometimes, when non-native English speakers were involved, ignorance of English idioms occasionally caused errors. Usually, I could spot mistakes and correct them without ever needing to listen to the tapes, but I did occasionally get stuck, as when someone offered me a transcript in which Papaji had apparently said, I dont give people any goose or goats. I thought for a few seconds, knowing that it was obviously wrong, but having no idea of what the original words might have been. I gave up, ran the tape, and heard Papaji say: I dont give people any dos or donts Last year I mentioned this story to a friend of mine, Aruna, who occasionally does graphic design and page making work for me. Since she was coordinating transcription work for another Guru, I thought she might appreciate the story. She supplied me with her own best example, taken from her own volunteer crew. One of them had sent her a transcript in which the Guru had apparently said: I am neither a butler nor a nanny. After deciding that this was probably not what the Guru had said, she checked the tape and found he had said: I am not a bhakta or a jnani. Mishearings such as these were nicely parodied in Monty Pythons Life of Brian, in the scene where a group of men find themselves slightly too far away to hear Jesus Sermon on the Mount. One of them asked the people in front what Jesus was saying, and the word came back, ‘Blessed are the cheese makers. This confused most of the group, but one man, who considered himself to be a theological expert, started to give a talk on the religious significance of Blessed are the cheese makers. How many religious doctrines, I wonder, have emerged from misunderstandings such as these? The last two paragraphs are just entertaining digressions. What I want to do today is elaborate a little on Papajis statement: I dont give people any dos or donts. Many people go to the Guru with the idea that he should tell them to do something in order to reach some goal or be relieved of some problem or other. We are all so addicted to doing, we believe that we have to do something to attain whatever spiritual goal we are chasing. When the Guru says, You are the Self, you are Brahman, the disciple often responds by saying, Yes, I understand, but what do I do to attain it? How do I discover this for myself? The asking of such a question means that the disciple thinks that Brahman is something he should become, through effort, rather than something that he already is. The assumption implicit in this world-view is the premise behind all sadhana. With this in mind, read verse 271 of Guru Vachaka Kovai: The Guru who instructs the disciple, who has taken complete refuge in him, by giving one more prescription for action, instead of directing him towards jnana, and who leads him into activities, saying These should be done, is for the disciple [equivalent to] the coming of cruel Yama and Brahma. Only he who consummates them [the disciples], transforming them into those who have done all that needs to be done, enabling them to attain the true benefit of this birth, is the grace-bestowing, divine Guru. Since Brahma is the god of birth and Yama the god of death, the verse is implying that gurus who get their disciples involved in unnecessary activities, physical or mental, instead of directing them towards jnana, will be responsible for them being reborn. Bhagavan gave similar advice to the following devotee when the latter came up with a Yes I understand, but what do I do? query: Question: Our grasp is only intellectual. If Sri Bhagavan be pleased to direct us with a few instructions we shall be highly benefited. Bhagavan: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants peace and rest. In other words, he wants cessation of his activities. Instead of that he is told to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the seeker? Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of ones inherent happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a master but the killer. Either the Creator (Brahma) or Death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot liberate the aspirant but strengthens his fetters. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 601.) The same idea appears in Day by Day with Bhagavan, 27th March 1946, afternoon, where Bhagavan tells a questioner: the truth is, all karma of whatever kind will lead to fresh bondage. That is why it is said in Ozhivil Odukkam that the Guru who prescribes fresh karma or action of any sort, i.e., rituals or sacrifices to one who after trying various karmas comes to him for peace, is both Brahma and Yama to the disciple i.e., he only creates fresh births and deaths. Ozhivil Odukkam is a Tamil philosophical text composed by Kannudaiya Vallalaar several centuries ago. It was one of Bhagavan’s favourite advaita texts, so much so that he asked Muruganar to make a Tamil prose rendering of it in order to make the meaning clearer and more accessible. The original Tamil is extremely difficult to follow, and most people gain an understanding of the work through a commentary that has appeared in all editions of the text. Unfortunately, the commentator incorporated a few interpretations of his own that are not present in the text, which is why Bhagavan thought that a new and clearer rendering of the original was desirable. Muruganar never found time to execute this commission, so the true meaning of the original verses remains inaccessible to all but the most learned Tamil scholars. The idea that Gurus who tell disciples to do things are Yama and Brahma in disguise comes from verse 123 of this work: Having exhausted themselves by activities, aspirants come to the Guru seeking jnana. He alone is the true jnana-bestowing Guru who, possessing the wealth of bliss, produces the crop of bliss in them so that they wander without volition and without doing anything. But the Guru who occasions the least rising of their ego through his instructions is both Brahma, he who possesses the ability to create the world, and Yama too, the god of death. Without volition and without doing anything refers to the ego-free state in which there are no sankalpas (decisions or choices made by the mind) and no sense of being the performer of the actions that the body is doing. Most people will read a verse like this and decide that it refers to physical activities alone. My Guru is OK. they will say, He doesnt tell me to run around doing things; he tells me to meditate instead. That is not an acceptable response to this verse because it is also implying that keeping the mind busy even with meditation is no different from keeping the body busy. Anyone who prescribes either course keeps his followers on the wheel of birth and death. It would seem that Bhagavan accepted this position because, in the two citations from Talks and Day by Day that I have already given, he is introducing the ideas from this verse and endorsing them. I began with a quote from Papaji. I will reintroduce him here because one of his often-repeated maxims is highly relevant to what I am endeavouring to say: Physical activities produce physical results; mental activities produce mental results; since the Self is neither physical nor mental, an awareness of it cannot be brought about by either physical or mental activity. Thats a hard conclusion to accept for most people because it undercuts and negates all their mental activities that are optimistically geared towards realising the Self. The solution, as both Bhagavan and Papaji pointed out on many occasions is being still (summa iruttal). When Bhagavan gives out the instruction Summa iru (be still), he is not telling us to practise being still that would just be more doing, he is telling us desist from all mental activity, even meditation. Being still is not something you accomplish by effort; it is what remains when all effort ceases.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:13:32 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015