Sri Ramakrishna: “Do you think I enjoy this suffering? I wish to
recover, but that depends on the Mother.”
Narendra: “Then please pray to Her. She must listen to you.”Master: “But I cannot pray for my body.”
My remark : (He is trying to be
proper than trying to be honest because he clearly does not enjoy suffering as
he has himself stated above)
Narendra: “You must do it, for our sake at least.”
Master: “Very well, I shall try.”
A few hours later the Master said to Narendra: “I said to Her:‘Mother, I
cannot swallow food because of my pain. Make it possible to eat a little.’ She
pointed you all out to me and said: ‘What? You are eating enough through all
these mouths. Isn’t that so?’ I was ashamed and could not utter another word.”
I feel Sri Ramakrishna was being correct and proper but not honest to
his innermost heart. In his heart of hearts he desired to eat food. He strongly
felt the urge to be able to eat. Instead of being correct and proper had he
been honest to his innermost true self, he could have frankly told Mother “ But
I am not getting the satisfaction of having eaten when all of them are eating
with their own mouths. Please bless me with that ability and I shall be more
than satisfied!”
Sri M replied that he had a great regard for Sri Ramakrishna as one of the great Saints of India and as
such he would not be able to answer the question.
In this interaction with Sri M and my subsequent ruminations about it,
I realised how in the past I have drawn conclusions about various people and
how such conclusions have coloured all subsequent judgments about that
person. Based on a fragment of a person’s
pronouncements I have drawn permanent conclusions about the entire person. To
cite an instance, I once had read an interview of Sri Satya Sai Baba. In the
interview the questioner had asked if he had ‘seen Shirdi Sai Baba’. “This body has not seen him”, Sri Satya Sai
Baba had replied.
To me the way the words were chosen and the way the sentence was
formed implied an underlying meaning of the impermanence of the body and a
lasting soul; the undervaluation of the importance of the body and so on. At a
later stage in the interview Sri Satya Sai Baba had proudly claimed that in all
the years his body weight had never exceeded 110 kg. To me this struck me as a
contradictory claim to the insignificance of the body. I had even remarked
cynically to my friend Raghavendra about it. One such fragment of evidence
would colour my total perception of a person and would make me undervalue all
his pronouncements and wisdom. It could even be true that some of his other
understanding may actually be profound, but the assessment that I would draw
from my understanding of the interview would hamstring Sri Satya Sai Baba in my estimation of him. Such
an attitude would prevent me from absorbing his wisdom if he was indeed wise.
Similarly, a total assessment of Sri Ramakrishna based on a fragment
of his conversation can hamstring the possibilities of my drawing valuable
lessons from his books. In the past I have also been guilty of laughing at
people for their peccadillos and I now see a need to apply some restraint in
making fun of people.
But what the hell! Maybe the world needs this banter and being too sombre and tight without having some fun at the expense of others even though it may be undesirable would make this world too aseptic for comfort. A little bit of irreverence, even at the risk of inviting the wrath of the Universe may be preferable to an ultra-clean universe, without banter, fun and humour.
xxx
12 comments:
Dear Deepak,
Underneath the sarcasm there is a genuine doubt and a valid question. Instead of stating it as a genuine question with due respect, poking fun at another person is in some sense, taking the easy way out. A genuine question posed with due respect is more likely to get a genuine answer. The genuine answer could even be 'i don't know' like the answer you got from Sr 'M.'
Humour comes from a sense of awareness, but there are other ways to express this awareness than humour. What is funny to one person can be offensive to another. As you yourself care to admit, this habit of rejecting a 'person' based on a rejection of a particular statement made by the person at a point in time has prevented you from absorbing potentially genuine wisdom that could have been of benefit to you. Take each statement on its own merit and refrain from judging a 'person' based on one statement.
The points you have raised about Sr Sathya Sai Baba and Sri Ramakrishna show their human side. They too, like many others have left some gap between their 'human' side and their pure spirit in their attachment to the body, its functions (e.g., eating) and its characteristics (e.g., weight). Hence, it shows that they were not 'Gods', but human just like the rest of us. Based on the conversation quoted by you, it appears that Sri Ramakrishna however was aware enough to admit that there were times where he longed to simply be 'human' and pray for his own sake rather than be unselfish all the time. This is because in his case, it appears that he still perceived some duality and conflict between his 'human' side and his 'spiritual' side.
In this entry I was genuinely asking a doubt. There are instances when I do try humour, but I scarcely see any humour in this post of mine.
The trouble is when we ask genuine doubts, others see attempts to malign the other person, and this makes a person who seeks clarification to just withdraw into himself and let the doubt hanging.
All I was seeking is an answer that if a person is once enlightened, will there still be traces of being human like the rest of us where the project their character rather than being true to themselves.
The last para gives an anser but the first two paras are unnecessary in the present context as I am aware that I only had the purpose of clarifying a doubt in mind.
Another question that the third para raises is - Does it involve an effort in being enlightened or is a person who is enlightened function at all times without effort and strain. As you say "...to admit that there were times where he longed to simply be 'human' and pray for his own sake rather than be unselfish all the time."
Dear Deepak,
You may choose to ignore what you consider to be unnecessary. I have shared it because i consider it to be necessary, perhaps not in the context of the tone of the post per se (humorous or not), but in the context of what you say in post in reference to "I have also been guilty of laughing at people for their peccadillos and I now see a need to apply some restraint in making fun of people"
In reference to your question on 'does it involve an effort'. it would depend on what you mean by 'effort and strain' in the first place. Life is a struggle with plenty of 'effort and strain' for any person who does not subscribe to typical world views, however an enlightened person would choose to take the path that involves being true to oneself even if it involved more effort and strain rather than opt for the path of least resistance.
Neither the story on Sathya Sai Baba nor the story on Sri Ramakrishna necessarily indicate that either of them was not enlightened. It only shows that they were human too. Their words need not be taken as absolute truths because only the state attained by them is absolute, not the words per se. From their perspective, which is formed by a combination of their enlightened present and remnants of their non-enlightened past, what they say may be valid.
Thanks Arjun. To tell you the truth, even I believe (I feel it in my innermost heart) that both were enlightened. But Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev (who I also believe is enlightened) says that after enlightenment, living becomes "effortless". But in the quote of Sri Ramakrishna that I've given, and in what you've explained, there seems to be effort and strain. By 'effort' and 'strain' I mean what is generally understood by the word 'effort'. I guess we all understand the word.
Yet I liked your explanation - "only the state attained by them is absolute, not the words".
The reason why i asked what you mean by effort and strain is because the context in which you asked if there is effort and strain and the context in which Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev used the term may be different, and both may be correct.
In one sense, an enlightened person faces less internal conflict in terms of knowing what to do, because of a constant tuning in to awareness. Further, in terms of implementing what one knows as to be done also, there is effortlessness because it seems to be in tune with nature and comes out naturally, without effort. However, in terms of external conflict with others who hold on to their non-enlightened views of what is to be done, there may be plenty of conflict.
To conclude, the enlightened person faces a different set of issues from a non-enlightened person. A non-enlightened person faces inner conflict, puts in efforts to pursue his goals, and strains to attain them. He feels at peace only when his desires are fulfilled, and that feeling of peace too is temporary. An enlightened person knows what to do and does it effortlessly and naturally, however he may be faced with external conflicts and his life may be a constant struggle with the external environment as he is constantly denied what is 'due' to him. Despite all this, he maintains peace through equanimity. It is through this struggle that he goes about establishing dharma where it is forgotten. Perhaps you will understand this in the context of Rama. Rama always knew what he needed to do, and did it without hesitation and effortlessly, however his life was a constant struggle with society, enemies etc and if not for the equanimity that came with his enlightened state, he would not have been able to patiently and persistently do what he did in the face of the most difficult of circumstances and overcome them.
But Arjun, in the examples of Sri Ramakrishna that I've cited, I see the evidences of internal conflict - just the way all of us have. In that place I guess even I would have said that. This is precisely why I quoted those words and asked those questions. It was not an attempt to be sarcastic. I wanted to understand how enlightenment would be different. I would imagine an enlightened person would not be speaking like that. Again my statement and doubt is genuine.
Dear Deepak,
If the conversation quoted by you is genuine, then i have no doubt that Sri Ramakrishna had not attained the ultimate state of enlightenment, and it is even possible that he was caught in a stage of 'divine madness' that bordered on insanity. This is because there is a duality between him and 'Mother', and 'Mother' actually makes 'him' guilty for wanting to eat. To an enlightened person, there is no such duality. The Gita says 'your self is your best friend and it is also your worst enemy'. To an enlightened person, the self is only one, and it does not alternate between being a best friend and a worst enemy. A normal human being would never feel guilty about wanting to eat, which is an essential function required for the maintenance of life. Also, a normal human being would not talk to himself. A psychologist may call this multiple personality syndrome and it may appear to a third person that 'Mother' is purely a figment of imagination and a mulitple personality. One should not lose grip with reality in the pursuit of enlightenment, because a fully enlightened person will surely not behave in a manner that can be confused with insanity. Meher Baba called people like this 'masts'. 'Masts' are people who are on a high plane but unable to take the next step from madness to enlightenment.
Regards,
Arjun
Now arises the analysis of the word insanity. Who is sane and who is insane? I have a teacher who vouchsafes with all the sincerity that she interacts with Shirdi Sai Baba. She says that during meditations in the mornings He comes and has a discourse and conversation with her. During other events like Bhajans, she says He arrives and gives instructions. We have seen other material evidences that He leaves behind as I have already discussed in the posts in this blog under "STORIES - THE GLUE THAT HOLDS SOCIETIES POSTS 1 TO 7".
When I argue with my non-believer friends that even Prophet Mohammed received instructions from Angel Jibreel, they are reluctant to believe it although it is my firm faith that it is true!
Again what is experientially true for one person, the other may not value it with the same fervour. It is also true that what a person finds true by his experience, he tries to force it on others without realising that the other person may have had an equally compelling evidence quite contrary to what he believes. A lot of rancour can be avoided if we learn to grant that the other person's viewpoint could also be true even though it directly contradicts my own experience!!
But with this sort of approach the world will come to a standstill - if every approach is true - and no progress can be made.
I AM AT A LOSS HOW TO APPROACH THE PROBLEM !!!
Just after I posted the above comment, my wife gave a very good analogy of Doctors. This is what she had to say:
Although many doctors may have studied in the same medical college and under the same system of medicine, it may happen that the treatment procedures of different doctors may vary within wide limits. No two doctors may prescribe the same medicine. Likewise in spirituality too there are different systems and they all work for different people (natures of people) and they all may have different ranges of validity!!!
Hi Deepak,
I looked into the blog and your discussions. Very interesting. I would like to put forth my rationale below.
If I have understood enlightenment, I would say that enlightenment is a realization that there exists only one Observer - The SELF and as per Adhvaitha philosophy, the SELF is GOD.
Everything else is a projection of various aspects of life on this SELF. The Observer is constant and everything else changes in time. If one is in categorically tuned his mind to his SELF, it is possible to overcome the physical pain in some cases. But given to the tendency and what I term Maya, the mind frequently alternates. Therefore I would get an answer myself to this doubt this way: When one is in a state of bliss, one gets over the pain, but when one's mind alternates and falls back to the physical sense, one experiences pain. I respect the fact that in the midst of all these, the SELF is above the mind and Observing every act of it. But it is somehow the state of mind which changes and makes one feel pain. As long we reside in this body all the physical pain has a direct impact on our mind and it is this which makes us feel the effort. That is why it is said that a great health is an ideal kick start for a great mind and a great mind is like an open parachute - fuels imagination and opens new dimension.
Unfortunately since some of us have to undergo health problems, the mind causes us to slip back as it feels the pain. This might have happened to Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.
What intrigues me is this question: After realization, is it really possible to get over the mind all the time in this practical world while also adhering to Karma Yoga?
PS: Feel free to correct me if I failed to get the broader picture of this discussion.
Dear Rakshith
I'm also familiar with what is advocated in Advaitha Philosophy but it remains only a theoretical understanding without any actual experience of the state. It is like someone who has described the taste of honey to you, but if in your whole life you've never got to taste the honey, you may get a rough idea of what he means but without the actual experience you can never know it!
Likewise with what has been told in Advaitha, I have a rough understanding but without the actual experience I can never say I know it.
Further, even after 'attaining enlightenment' a man has to live in the real world and carry out his interactions with people which needs the activities of the mind. I just can't seem to fathom how one can go beyond the mind!
There was a series of interactions I had on the networking site - The Speaking Tree, and the discussions that ensued there I have converted into a series of 4 blogs under the heading 'Brain, Mind & Consciousness'. I give the link to the last of the four blogs below, to draw your attention to the discussions that ensued there :
http://www.speakingtree.in/878ty3kmaouob5nwi7oz93xxp/blog/Brain-Mind-Consciousness-4/
Post a Comment