Hiranyagarbha, The Intricacy




Action is the effect of the individual on the Universe.

In fact individual is not a distinct entity sitting away from the universe.

This complex relationship between individual and the Universe gives rise to the first division. (That is the difference between ‘action that is done’ on the one hand and ‘action that happens on the other.)


In the first case individual is more self-assertive than he is in the second case.

Sometimes this self-assertion which is another name of ego may lead to a position wherefrom he tries to fight with or behave against the laws of nature.


In the second case he is less self-assertive so that he allows the nature in him to express itself through his behavior

That is why in this case the purpose is not apparent.

Many people became great artists for the reason unknown to themselves.

Psychologist Maslov names it as “self actualization”.


Many think that being less self-assertive is losing one’s identity. But this is untrue.

In fact if our real nature comes out, only that can be our “real” identity; and nothing else.

Even Maslov’s naming as “self actualization” proves the same fact.


Is this message for every one?

No. Certainly not. For that matter philosophy itself is not meant for everybody.

This knowledge and these suggestions though they are inseparably connected to everyone’s life are not for those who have important responsibilities on their shoulders to fulfill.


Can one become totally free from these responsibilities in one’s life?

Responsibilities are of two kinds.

1.      Imposed on us by our circumstances

2.      Self imposed.


If one has to perform the marriage of one’s daughter, clear one’s debts, fight for one’s nation etc; then let him finish those things first. If he loses his life in the process even then there is nothing to worry.


We see many people around us inclining towards philosophy with their shoulders loaded with responsibilities. They may show same interest, same penetration as a sincere aspirant does in this field.

But they themselves do not know if this interest is positively for philosophy or is the result of his lack of interest in his respective field.

If second is the case then he should force himself willingly or unwillingly into the battlefield of responsibilities.

Philosophy is not for escapists. If properly understood one can realize how responsible an affair it is.

This statement holds good even for them who consider philosophy as an armchair thing.


Now coming to our question ‘can one become totally free from these responsibilities’ yes; one may free oneself from these kinds of responsibilities, that are imposed on us by our circumstances; in other words the demands of our environment of which we are offshoots.


As far as the second kind, that is the self-imposed responsibilities are concerned, one can not come out of them even if he is given thousands of lives. It is like one’s being in love with one’s handcuffs. If he desires to remain cuffed then nobody is going to interfere with him. Even if anybody does he’ll be fooled.


Earning just for earning’s sake but not for any other necessity, desire for name and fame come under these ‘self-imposed’ responsibilities. They have no end.


How to decide if one truly deserves philosophy or not?

If philosophy is not an extra-terrestrial affair, if it can really answer the essential questions of life then those questions or problems should be of every day life. Otherwise we have nothing to do with philosophy.

To begin with, philosophy is for us; we are not for philosophy.


What are those everyday problems that direct us towards philosophy?

Problems are of two kinds.

1.      Particular problems

2.      General problems

I’ve headache. This is a particular problem. If I ask ‘why pain comes?’ then it is a general problem. My friend died. This is a particular problem. If the question ‘what is death?’ burns my mind then it becomes a general problem. It is not that one has to wait till one retires from one’s job to face the general problem.

Everyone faces problems every day. But the real problem is no one goes into their ‘generality’. Philosophy deals with these ‘general’ problems of every day.


In the first chapter of Gita, Arjuna could not enter into the generality of the problem. Bhagavan started giving His divine message only when Arjuna could totally come out of the particularity of the problem and innocently surrendered himself to the Lord.


If this general problem instead of remaining an aspect of our inquisitiveness, or of a “time-pass” discussion can really move us from the depths of our being and make us suffer for the proper solution to it then we truly deserve philosophy.


If one has this burning desire in his heart and an important responsibility on his head then what should he choose?

If somebody genuinely suffers from such a struggle then this clearly shows that he is not an escapist. He has to make a choice not between ‘responsibility’ and ‘irresponsibility’ but between ‘responsibility’ and ‘more responsibility’. Only then he will be daring enough to face the hardships of this unknown field.


Now coming back to our question he should certainly choose the first that is seeking after the ultimate Truth. The traditional name given to this act in Sanathana Dharma is “Sannyasa”.

Now our question can be asked as ‘who is truly eligible for sannyasa?’

Before going further here we have to understand two more important points.


1. To be spiritual, or, broadly speaking to realize the solutions of the ‘general problems’      

    of life, is it necessary to take Sannyasa?


2. If Sannyasa is necessary is it more important than the greatest responsibilities of life as         

    stated above?



From its definition Sannyasa means ‘leaving properly’ or more vividly speaking ‘discarding wisely.



ACTION-An expression or excretion?

Generally our actions are our efforts to relieve our minds from the burden of piled up emotions therein. That is why we feel relaxed when a particular action is done.

It doesn’t mean that performing action is the only remedy to unburden ourselves.

Action, once performed will intensify the tendency therein to do it again and again.

Similar is the case with ‘catharsis’. Though satisfies temporarily, we become habituated to it and depend on it. Catharsis is the opposite of ‘suppression’. Both are extremes.

Diversion of our mind towards entertainment or any other activity by making it busy is just another way of suppression though its procedure and effects are not as severe as those of suppression are.

So ‘catharsis’ is not good; ‘diversion’ is bad and ‘suppression’ is worst.

Is there any forth way, which can be the only possible solution to deal with ‘tendencies’?


Before discussing about the forth way we have to know that these three ways also have their own place in one’s life.

Catharsis can be practiced regarding any particular tendency if it is helpful or at least not harmful to oneself or one’s society. [Ex: singing, dancing, playing or doing service etc.]

Diversion may not be helpful in the case of any tendency but it certainly helps one take rest when one gets tired with one’s daily routine.

Suppression is required when one’s mind is crowded with anti-social temptations. At those times no other way may be helpful.


One should know the limitations of these ways very well.

If whole of my time is passing through one or the other of these three stages then I should realize that I’ve not yet begun the right thing I am meant to do.


What is that ‘right thing’? It is the ‘forth way’. What is it? 










Different phases of life:

Our daily life passes through one or the other of these four phases.

To involve in one phase is to keep us away from all others.

One’s greatness is determined depending upon how much time he spends in first and last of these phases. These two make one’s life worth living.

When one spends much of his time in either of these two phases ignoring the rest then that particular state is defined as ‘sacrifice’.


Physical phase:

If I am feeling hunger or thirst or if suffering from ill health or thinking to take rest etc., then I’m passing through this phase.

The word artha is used here in the sense indriyäthäh .

It has true necessities. They can never go against society.

They have temporary fulfillment.

They’re blind. They are not concerned about ‘how’ to fulfill them.

If I spend most of my time in this phase then I’m no better than an animal. Animals are not bad. But we are here for some other business than living like them.


Mental phase:

This is much complicated and important phase of all.







If I’m tempted to do something by my desires or feelings which, I know, is wrong then the condition of my mind would be that of CONFLICT

If I lose or miss something or somebody, I love then the feeling of my mind is called PAIN.


One could not escape from PAIN. And when that comes, the best way to deal with that is to ‘experience’ and not to try and escape from that.

But one should see that one could avoid Conflict.


Pain is there, here in this world. It is existential.

But Conflict is totally the creation of our own mind.


I try to do something, but I don’t want many of its consequences.  Still I couldn’t restrain myself from doing it.

This sort of confusion or lack of conviction causes CONFLICT.


 Though both Conflict and pain are the results of problem; the latter is the effect of ‘problem existent’ and former is the consequence of ‘problem created’.

There are two ways to handle ‘pain’. Either to ‘experience’, or, if possible to ‘solve’. There is nothing wrong in going through it. 

‘Conflict’ has no ‘solution’ and its ‘experience’ creates many disorders.


Many can not discriminate whether they are undergoing ‘conflict’ or ‘pain’.

This discrimination depends on choosing their ‘range of necessities’. One should know without any doubt the order of one’s necessities depending on ‘preference’.


If I’m thrown between two opposite necessities – which causes friction; or, the fulfillment of one end unavoidably demands the ignorance or negligence of the other- then I should know which one of them is more necessary.

In deciding this one should not forget taking into account one’s ability or capacity to restrain oneself from asking the other.



{Their Maintenance Depending upon different levels of Consciousness}



1.      Social Conscious:{Relationship with purpose}

This kind of relationship always depends on some purpose or other; even sometimes with some ulterior motive.[Ex: with superiors in office, with rich relatives and acquaintances etc.]


2.      General Conscious: {An ‘attachment’ without purpose}

This is a meaningful ‘attachment’ [and not just a ‘relationship’] without any purpose.

In attachment one feels pain with separation. Though without any purpose, not always ready to do anything or to sacrifice anything for such attachment. [A bondage without much responsibility]. [Ex: with friends, with colleagues, neighbors etc.]


3.      Subconscious:[innocent love]

A tight bondage from deeper levels of consciousness, the reason behind which is difficult to explain, it sprouts up from a realm beyond rational thinking.

Always ready to sacrifice anything for the object of love.

Not being able to sustain the separation. An unknown irresistible flow of love. [Ex: a mother’s love for her newborn child, between true lovers, between many couples etc.]



4.      Superconscious:[Universal love]

Above three kinds of relationship are between individuals. But this is natural and Universal.

Without any limits, always ready to sacrifice anything for the good of the whole.

No feeling of pain in separation because directed towards ‘whole’ and not towards ‘unit’.

No trace of any kind of expectation; Happens only with godmen.


{My relationship with my tradition is rather a ‘general conscious’ one, sometimes raising to the level of ‘subconscious’}


These levels are not separated with such demarcation. They are not ‘cut off’ from each other.

They merge into one another ‘gradually’. So there is the possibility of intermediary stages.


Much of ‘I’ is my relationship with my surroundings. So, clear-cut understanding about these things helps us exist nearer to ourselves. And it clears much of the confusion, which causes friction or ‘conflict’. [Ref: Friction and Pain]





Am I losing anything? I don’t know.

But I feel I am losing something. Not just something but a lot!

If I begin to think over this topic in depth, it is sure that I’ll realize that I am not only not losing anything, on the contrary gaining much that I don’t deserve.


But I can not keep quite with this rational analysis. The understanding, however nearer it may be to the reality, is not competent to clear my thirst.

And on the other side, there is a painful dissatisfaction in the depths of my heart.

If I prepare to solve the problem my mind shouts silently that the solution is not going to last for long.

Now what to do? This is a critical problem.

I can’t stay with it; can’t I solve it; also I can’t escape from it.



We may think that the only way to deal with a problem that can not be solved is to coexist with it. But one can not coexist with a problem but ‘lives’ with it.

Coexistence with a problem is just one side of a coin of which the other side is ‘coexistence with pleasure’. When pleasure comes to us, one doesn’t try to coexist with it but just lives with it. This disables him to coexist with a problem.

[now] ‘How to handle pain’ is the question we’re always worried about and not the question ‘how to handle pleasure’. But unfortunately both are interconnected.

Losing oneself or indulging totally in pleasure and trying to stay away or to forbear a problem is impossible, which everyone of us wish to do.

To ‘watch’ is not to indulge. Indulged in pleasure? You’ll be shaken off by pain when it comes.

Don’t want to be moved by pain? Then be detached when pleasure comes!

It is not that one of them is better than the other. It is just a matter of choice; that’s all.



Man is the only being who can keep himself from being exposed to nature. He protects or isolates himself from the direct influence of nature and sitting inside these walls tries to – understand and exploit the nature outside.

If nature penetrates through these walls to influence his life in an unexpected manner, then he considers it his failure.

Now his body is isolated from his environment, which is not possible with other beings, and so is his behaviour. [they say, man is the only being which can eat without hunger, drink without thirst and participate in love all the seasons]

And worse, his mind is isolated from his body; due to which he reacts, not to the existing questions or problems of outside, but to the ‘imaginary’ and unnatural askings of ‘mentally created world, which leads to many disorders. If I misconceive the dreamt objects for the real ones then naturally, my life becomes chaotic. [Nowadays we see in west, the ill effects of ‘utilitarianism’ in the form of social disorder collectively and in different kinds of mental disorder in individuals, which is gradually spreading towards east]

Now to be a real man, his mind should wake up from imagination and stay inside the body.

And his body in turn should remove all the walls erected between him and his environment and behave [behaviour = satisfaction of desires and fulfillment of responsibilities] harmoniously with nature.  


karma vs phala

The duty of the whole vs. the duty of the individual

Neglecting the second and striving for the first is the mistake done by the individual. But this topic is not that simple to end here. It is important to mention about that fragment of the first that is in the hands of the individual.

phala: Duty of the Universe towards individual. But Universe cares little for individual. [when I take food, I don’t worry about each of my life-cells, which one getting what type of result.]

We can say Universe is ‘almost’ unaware of ‘individuality’. It goes its own way. In the process individual ‘receives’ the results and responds to the Universe out side as if he is ‘isolated’ working outside the universe.

Since he is a part of the Universe he can’t act as he wishes. He can act only depending on his ‘nature’. All that he can do is to embellish or exploit that ‘natural’ ability by making use of his freedom.

This freedom is his adhikära on karma {karmanyevädhikäraste mä phale·u kadäcana} and where there is adhikära there is responsibility. And this responsibility is the duty of the Universe ‘in’ the duty of the individual.

If he neglects that responsibility he himself is going to loose. This is dharma[natural responsibility].


[boy] karma itself is the exertion and experience of some kind of strain. Here this experience should not be confused with the result of some previous karma.

Then… if not we do something, how do we get results?

They [the results] find their own way.

Here my intention is to draw a clear line between karma and phala

hasatä kriyate karma rudatä paribhujyate

karma indicates our freedom whereas phala indicates our bondage.

What is the part of our interests and expectations in this field?



Friendship is not a responsibility. On the other hand it is something opposite to ‘responsibility’.

There is nothing wrong in defining friendship as ‘irresponsibility’.

It doesn’t mean that it is not essential. It is a very essential irresponsibility.

Friendship with single hand helps in balancing the whole of other part of life, which is nothing but a heap of responsibilities.

One can not live peacefully if he is just a ‘responsible’ person. Then his life becomes a burden and mechanical.

In order to unburden himself he should take refuge of FRIENDSHIP.




When light passes through a denser medium, it refracts.

Similar is the case with the density of ‘EGO’.

When light of wisdom is thrown upon the ego; it certainly deviates the subject and compels the student to misunderstand the essence [depending upon the density of ego].

And the worse will happen when the subject is critical [as in the above example, if the light falls on the denser medium with an angle more acute than the ‘critical angle’, it not only not refracts properly, but also reflects the light in other direction.

So…my dear teacher! Beware of a wrong student.

bibhetyalpaš÷tädvedo mämaya- pratarediti




The proclamation of truth becomes necessary only to negate the prevailing false assumptions.

Here are some of such truths:



2.       WORLD IS THE MEANS TO REACH OUR GOAL. But that’s not all. Also…



But, what is its goal?

We don’t know! Our little finger doesn’t know what our purpose is!

The happenings of each moment here are the results of these two simultaneous efforts of individuality and universality.

We have absolute freedom to dream, to desire and to expect; but for their fulfillment – our freedom is limited. Our freedom is limited by the freedom of the world – the natural laws. Some of them are known; but many of them are unknown.

So… knowingly or unknowingly if we try to realize some unnatural desire, we unavoidably have to face the consequences.

The ambition behind every of our efforts depends on the way we make use of our freedom. But as far as the ‘result’ we get is concerned, the world is free to give whatever it wishes to do. Wishes, the other name of which are natural laws.

Hence every individual can only expect and attempt for, but not decide any result.

Then, is every person a weakling? No!

It is true that the result we are striving after is not totally in our hands, but is ‘result’ everything?

If that is so… every opportunist, who succeeds in his attempts should be considered as a great one. And actually that is what is happening here.

But many a blessed soul is considered great not for this reason!


 What does it really mean by ‘allowing the world to make use of him’?

This is a complex question. Its answer may differ from person to person. And it is the prime responsibility of every person to try and find out its answer.

Because such an effort enables him come face to face to his true nature.


And in this effort, the world is of little help. It is our ‘intense aspiration’ that helps us to realize our aim. ‘REALIZATION’ OR ‘AWARENESS’ OF WHAT REALLY ‘IS’ IS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ACTION.      

If I behold a rose, then it is improper to say that the existence of rose is the result my watching; and it is useless to say that watching of rose is the result of my opening eyes.



An important aspect of life, that results in many a dream, many an expectation, also in an entirely different approach towards the beings of opposite gender, almost of same age – looses its significance after marriage.

An ‘unfulfilled’, at the same time ‘intense’ desire is what makes youth warm, flavored and tasty.

Every pair of eyes, in this part of life, will be filled with thousand lively colors. The shyness, hesitation, sensitivity, waiting for certain things to happen, trying to watch and know about others secretly, caring little for future and past, giving more importance to beauty and attractive style of living – all these factors come together to make this part of life very special.


In my opinion, this is the time that demands more ‘introversion’ than any other stage of life do. Because the natural, inner urges and yearnings are too powerful to simply put aside, and they care nothing for the social behaviour. So, to answer them properly by maintaining our social status outwardly undisturbed – demands a lot of skillful effort from the part of individual, lacking of which, one is easily prone to take refuge of escapism or some secret illicit techniques. This is the age that makes maximum number of smokers, drunkards and adulterates and rest of the kind.

Problems after marriage are generally superficial, and the ways to solve them are also, more or less, outwardly.

But if properly lived, this youth remains wonderful.

If the life after marriage is compared to a ‘fruit’, then this age should be compared to a ‘flower’ that results in that fruit.

Fruit is, no doubt, ‘useful’. But flower is – ‘beautiful’, tender, inspiring and heavenly.

After marriage, all these qualities at once disappear and they become more and more ‘utilitarian’, extroverted, mechanical and earthly.

Life becomes a routine affair after marriage; but before that, every new day has a lot of freshness in it.

Before marriage life is ‘open’ and after which it defines its own boundaries and becomes ‘closed’.

Being less importance given to the responsibilities, life remains unburdened and hilarious before marriage, which is uncontrollably expressed through the gentle smile on their lips all the while.

Marriage brings with it many ‘fruits’, which load our life with burden.

Caring a lot for security and settlement, being more duty minded and rigid, giving more importance to social status than to inner ambition etc, are some of the characteristics of married life. But nowadays, due to lack of proper awareness and subduing to the pressures of social system, bachelors are living like ‘miniature house holders’ not knowing the glory of youth.



Tradition is that system, which can direct the blind but powerful human emotion, which, if let free can turn this world into a hell, the prevention of which is not in the grasp of ‘law and order’. [Ex: Successful marriage system, social cohesion and virtuous behaviour of individual etc are possible with tradition.]

Any tradition doesn’t serve its purpose if it fails to alter and adjust itself in accordance to the changing circumstances.

Sanatana dharma, knowing this very well, always invited any good change with least resistance.

In fact, the very definition of ‘dharma’ is based on this very fundamental fact.


vidvadbhih sevitah nityam

dharmastam nibodhata


It shows that the right to construct a new tradition or alter the existing one is confined t a few blessed souls.

They are wise{ vidvadbhih}, noble { sadbhih}, and beyond any likes and dislikes


They are the people who understand their responsibility towards society very well and never fail to fulfill that duty at any cost.

Also ‘dharma’ is not defined as what they ‘think and formulate’ but as what is ‘realized by their hearts’{ h÷dayenäbhyanujñäto}.

That is when their individuality or particularity is merged in the Universality and when their hearts are elevated to the heights beyond their personality, so that they become transparent media to express the language of the Universe or of the whole without any deviation, only then they revealed what they saw {÷·ayo satyadra·tärah}.

And the dharma though preached from such status is given value only when they themselves follow it ‘in deed’ {nitya- sevitah}. All others used to follow whatever these men practiced and preached.

Though at times these men are many in number, they never contradicted but complemented each other, as they all felt that these words came from the same source, ‘through’ them.

Sanatana dharma flourished with full of its glory until the society followed these precepts.


But in recent centuries, when escapism and opportunism has crushed the feeling of responsibility – hypocrisy has taken the throne wisdom and nobility, leading to disorder in many fields of society and life. Gradually some of the precepts have not been given the reverence they deserved and some others are highlighted due to which Sanatana dharma as a whole was looked with irreverence.


Now “who is to be followed?” is the modern man’s question. It is a strange question. Because even if it is answered, one can not make sure if the questioner follows the answer. Also, who to ask this question is another question.

Anyway this questioning is far more well than coming to some hasty conclusions or making some blind decisions, which, the so called today’s ‘rational man’ usually does.


Now society has reached a stage, which puts more responsibility on every individual’s shoulder to know the true meaning of life, of world and also the aim of life.

If modern man squanders his mental and physical energies in just ‘living like that’, then he, at the most, may make his life ‘useful’. But he can never make it ‘meaningful’.


cittav÷tti nirodha – A jñäna yoga way

A ring can stand only until it revolves. That is why the name ‘v÷ tti is given to the thoughts.

The source of a thought is its tendency. This tendency is strengthened by the intensity of thinking. It is a vicious circle which goes on increasing its strength to tighten the ropes of bondage.

Then how to undo all this process?

Certainly an effort to loosen these bonds will be futile, for, it unavoidably includes “thoughts”.

So the only way to be free is to disappear from the ropes. This is not an ‘escape’; because there will not be any ‘escapist’.



World is between sensation and perception. There has been a perpetual struggle about the deciding factor out of these two phenomena, that is, whether sensation decides perception or perception decides sensation.

In the world we live, the part of sensation is to present, and that of perception is to receive. At times though we tend to receive something, sensation forcibly penetrates through perception to give an entirely different picture of the world.

But in general, in not much altered situations perception plays a considerable part in apparently modifying the world around us.

I can not nullify my perception so that I can simply reflect whatever is presented to me by sensation like a mirror; it is not lively.

At the same time, I can not give that abundant capacity to my perception to simply neglect the sensation and live in its own dream world. (Which, many artists and aesthetics succeed in doing) This is the struggle of life. Life is nothing but a result of ‘ups and downs’ of sensation and perception.

Realists and opportunists, with their utilitarian perspective give too much of importance to ‘sensation’, whereas so-called ‘off beat’ people overweigh ‘perception’.

Then what should I strive after?

If we begin to try to do something, then it should be either in accordance with our perception [when we exert something] or with the sensation [when we accept something].

So our effort may not help us in balancing these two factors.

And I can’t keep myself from effort. This is the paradox of life. I can neither control, nor can I accept. I am not able to think whether to think or not to think!



Is there anything called ‘natural perception?’ This question is raised because we don’t find any. But it is this ‘unnatural perception’ that made people possessive and selfish. This made women imitate men; this made people isolated and turned them into opportunists and escapists as far as social responsibility is concerned.

A conflict between perception and sensation is explained above. This conflict is not between ‘natural perception’ and ‘natural sensation’ because nature knows no conflict within itself.

In any whole organism there exist only ‘events’ but not ‘conflicts’.

As far as nature is concerned conflict is always between nature and something ‘unnatural’.

Not only this; sometimes ‘unnatural’ also does not fight with ‘unnatural’. So, missing conflict doesn’t simply indicate that everything is all right and natural.

The possibility of sensation’s being natural is more; and similarly the possibility of perception’s being unnatural is more; hence the conflict.

If this unnatural perception succeeds in turning sensation also into unnatural, even then there will be no conflict at all. In such a case the conflict exists not between perception and sensation but between ‘individual’ and ‘nature as a whole’ as the individual becomes the ‘unnatural force’ against nature.

Any part in a ‘whole’ or any organ in an organism can never be offensive with other part or organ. It can only be defensive. Identity is just defensive; but ego is always offensive. [This is the idea behind Sri Ramakrishna’s story of a snake listening to the advice of a monk.] Ego hurts others but identity never. Ego is the result of ‘unnatural perception’.

Society as a whole ‘learned’ to be unnatural at a certain stage in the history. From then almost every child, who is totally natural in the beginning, is taught to become unnatural.

Unnaturality can only be “learned” with great effort. This process is like changing a real rose into a paper flower. Man missed the track somewhere and came a long way away from it. Now it has become difficult for him to go back. The very environment created by him prevents him from doing so.



A feeling can only be felt but not thought. Is there anything apart from feeling in human life?

Thought is the unnatural make-up of natural feeling.

One finds oneself at ease in the expression of thought.

But a feeling is something, which cannot be expressed ‘as it is’ (in its totality) by our effort.

Human effort at the most helps one to escape from any natural event, weather internal or external. It is too weak to fight with it.

We are habituated to escape, escape from feeling by expressing thought.

We indulge more in thoughts than in feelings.

When it becomes unavoidable for us to escape from any natural feeling, when the feeling becomes so powerful that it penetrates through thought, then it is a shocking experience.

My whole effort is to be free from this bad habit.


Whenever a feeling comes out by itself (without any effort) others can ‘feel’ the freshness, and smell the originality of that expression. These types of expressions are denoted by ‘creativity’.


In God’s creation no two things are alike. It is only after man’s mathematical mind started manufacturing that this ‘copying’ has become true. This is the result of thought.

I want to dwell in such a world, where ‘Love’ rather than becoming an important factor, becomes so simple. It is only due to the dominance of thought that ‘Love’ has become such an important factor. But when ‘feeling’ prevails and rules the world Love becomes very unimportant and simple.


“Oh! Lord! However scaring it may be; however painful it may be; however shocking it may be-

Let me feel; let me feel; let me feel!”



Here the importance of feeling is emphasized. The above concept is to be valid only in phala k·etra and not in karma k·etra.

Every feeling is to be ‘experienced’. It doesn’t mean that every feeling is to be ‘expressed’ whether through word or deed.

If there is any feeling that is to be expressed out, it is only ‘natural feeling’, which is nothing but dharma.

In the above description, ‘unnatural’ and ‘natural’ concepts are divided as thought and feeling, which is not true. Also there are unnatural feelings and natural thoughts.

Natural thought is that which is rational and scientific.

Unnatural feeling is one’s personal (egoistic) emotion.














If not original, there is nothing wrong in imitating a virtuous (dhärmika) deed.

Though original, it is not good to perform a non-virtuous (adhärmik) one.


Yes! Originality leads to mok·a, but ‘less good for many’ is better than an individual stepping forward in his spiritual path, if the process he follows is not good for many.




An object or an event is experienced by every individual by the center of consciousness, through its circumference.

There is no circumference without center.

But this process itself doesn’t allow anybody to experience the truth ‘as it is’.

The circumference acts as a divider, as it were, resulting in the split between ‘I’ and ‘not I’.

Meditation should help us- not in allowing this center of the consciousness to experience ‘something different’, but in allowing the meditator to ‘shift’ this center from ‘somewhere’ to ‘everywhere’ so that its circumference becomes ‘nowhere’.

When the center of the consciousness becomes everywhere, then I can’t call myself the subject experiencing some object whether it is divine or earthly.



There is sorrow, there is insult, there is disease, there is death, there is non-purity, there is ignorance, there is selfishness etc. There are many things that a good man dislikes, also there are many things that a bad man dislikes. At the same time there are many things with which both of them feel happy. For any individual, good or bad, the intensity of feeling joy and sorrow depends upon his attachment with that particular object or event.

It is not possible to be attached only to the things that give joy and be detached with the things that give sorrow. Happiness and sorrow are but two sides of a single coin. It is not possible to stay nearer only with one side. Yes! At a particular point of time one may be ‘facing’ only one side. But the other side also is to be faced before long. Because the coin turns!

Now for detachment, only those two phenomena can be detached which are ‘attached’ together in the present state.

As far as ‘experiencing’ a certain thing is concerned, there are three places, where any two distinct phenomena are attached. They are…

1.        Between event and sense organ

2.        Between sense organ and mind

3.        Between mind and self.


Detaching the sense organ from an event or object is impossible and meaningless. Just running away from things don’t do.

Detaching the mind from the sense organ is not as impossible as detaching organ from object. Yet it is not that simple an issue and needs explanation.

At this stage detachment should be applied by mind and not by senses. Mind is less inert than senses. So… mind has to struggle with itself before doing anything, because there are two forces working. One force in attaching and another in detaching.

There lies no conflict in a sense organ experiencing an object (that is in sensation). The possibility of conflict is there in the mind receiving the information carried by a sense organ (that is in perception). The less inert a phenomenon, there lies more possibility of change. So there is a possibility of mind changing, even that, according to the orders of mind itself.

In this conflict of mind with itself, concepts like emotion, nature, ignorance, awareness, weakness, strength, tradition, responsibility, and social status- play an important role.


For instance, if we are going through some agony, and worrying a lot, then the conflict starts and the other part of the mind teaches the former one, thereby resulting in consolation, or in realization of some unavoidable facts (for time being of course)- if the latter one succeeds in the conflict. And if the former mind is so tense that it is not in a position to listen to the latter, then the pain will be multiplied, for, it is now the pain of both the parts of the mind, former, worrying for the true cause and latter, for the fact that it could not control the former.


So, there are three types of pain experienced by mind:

1.        Pain experienced by the mind without any conflict. (This is the case with animals and tightly bound people.)

2.        Pain controlled due to the intellect (latter mind) succeeding in explaining the former one in the conflict.

3.        Multiplied pain due to the intellect failing in explaining the former one in the conflict.


Though the third kind of pain is more, it is better to go through this kind of pain because it is more humanly.

But one thing is sure! And that is- in all these three cases it is not easy to detach the mind from its sense organ.

But such a detachment is possible when the mind succeeds in creating some distinct phenomenon and losing itself in that. So… this shows the forth possibility! And it is…

4.        Escaping from the pain.

There are two types in escaping. That is (1) escaping by depending on the wrong things and (2) escaping by depending on the right things.

This differentiation is made taking into account the result of the escapism, whether one becomes more weak or more strengthy.

Escapism that makes us strengthier is Yoga.


So… this is the case with the detachment between mind and sense organ.

Now let us discuss about the third kind of detachment that is between mind and the self.




If there is any fundamental truth that can be experienced by everyone in one’s life, it is ‘void’, an ‘emptiness’. All of one’s endeavors in one’s life are but to fill up this emptiness in one way or the other.

Where everyone here try to fill up this emptiness, a philosopher try to ‘understand’ this emptiness. In fact one can say it is his way of trying to fill up this emptiness.

The moment one faces this void, his natural reaction will be to fill it up; it needs a lot of guts to face it naked, and bravely examine it. Because the void we are talking about is not just like an empty shell! The moment it appears it tempts us and compels us to fill it as early as possible; and the way we respond is the way of our life. So…
void makes one weak; void makes one powerful!

Void makes one foolish; void makes one intelligent!

Void makes one mad; void makes one creative!

Void makes one great; void makes one infamous!

Void makes one loving; void makes one ugly!

Void makes one friend; void makes one enemy!


Till now no single individual has succeeded in filling up this void totally!


havi·ä k÷·navartmeva bhüya eväbhivardhate


 An effort to fill up the void of life is like trying to reduce the flames of fire by pouring ghee into it.


So… at one moment or the other one has to realize the fact that all these efforts to satiate the void are futile and we have to apply some other means to get rid of that!

Efforts to fill up the void by some means or the other are denoted in our šästräs by the name prav÷tti and the effort to go beyond it by niv÷ tti.


We should not expect everyone to be powerful enough to face the void in the proper way and try to go beyond it by following the niv÷tti märga. It is not only the question of one’s ability, it is also the question of one’s nature.


So… though the permanent solution to deal with the void of life is to go beyond it, since it is not possible with and not applicable to everyone, our ÷ ·is formulated a particular way wherein the efforts of all the individuals in a big group to ‘fill up’ their respective voids are ‘regularized’ in such a way that one’s efforts do not create hurdles to others. And this particular way is known as ‘dharma’.


Now, is there no relation between these efforts to ‘fill up’ the void and ‘going beyond’ the void? Yes! There is! And that relation is – only that individual who doesn’t tread the non virtuous (adhärmika) ways in his efforts to fill up the void will be eligible to tread the path of niv÷tti or the path that redeems us from this sa-sära cakra.    


yajña däna tapašcaiva pävanäni manï·inäm


So prav÷tti is not just a way, which allows us to work in the direction of filling up the void in us, it is a responsibility imposed on us that should be fulfilled at any cost, only for our good of course.

Many may think that dharma is for the good of the whole, which is not totally true. In fact there is no group or whole sitting somewhere away from the individual. Also… if anybody treads the non-virtuous path or adhärmika märga, it is not the ‘whole’ that is going to lose something, it is the individual himself who will be at a loss. Such is the karma siddhänta. 



Many think that a child is like an empty sheet on which many feelings will be written by the experiences that he goes through- a concept, which is not totally true. Usually this conclusion is reached just because of the fear of otherwise accepting the theory of reincarnation because they feel that the concept of reincarnation is a blind belief and not a scientific one.

“If a newly born child is left alone in a jungle and allowed to live away from human society and culture, what will happen? Doesn’t he live just like another animal? Can he express all the feelings that he would have been expressed in a social life?” such are the questions they pose in support of their argument. The thing they have to remember here is this: every feeling needs a suitable situation for its expression.

If a person is jealous of somebody, that ill feeling in him needs proper situation for its expression. It is not that he is jealous ‘just like that’ and expresses it all the while. So…the non-expression of a feeling doesn’t deny its existence.

Since man is the fruit of society and since he can’t live without society (if there is no society, he creates one), his character will be properly examined only in society. We see nobody here without feelings. And it is not proper to say that environment in which they are brought up is the sole maker of their character. Because two individuals brought up in the same kind of environment are seen with different attitudes towards life. We see in some children a particular kind of inclination towards certain things, and a kind of reluctance towards certain other things that is not found in others.

While many say that an individual’s character is totally learned, many others contend that in the beginning, since it is a part of their parents interest and disinterest towards respective things come from their parents. Though one cannot deny these two arguments they don’t reveal the total truth.


Every child has certain qualities that it brings from its previous lives, and since it is allowed to take birth from appropriate garbha according to its prarabdha, certain other qualities come from their parents and also there is every possibility of its learning from its environment.

The thing we have to remember here is that whatever is the source it has got the quality from, it totally owns the capacity and ability to eradicate any quality or improve any other quality. Since every quality is the result of what we have done in the past we have the right to do something else or undo that is already done. So it is useless to think of the origin of a quality and it is better to think of the significance of each and act accordingly.


The prepared masälä directs our physical and mental activities. For instance a man can control his temptation for liquor or cigarette and another cannot. The difference lies in their respective masäläs (that is their temptations depending on their intensities) inside and their capacity to sustain their temptation.

Our physical and mental activities tempted by masälä binds us to the world outside. What do ‘binding’ mean? Binding is the reaction that makes our personality and the world outside as a ‘single unit’ so that I feel depended on the world in every respect.

I feel the need of a friend or partner to share my views, feelings; I feel the need of the world recognizing my identity and speciality. I feel the need of being successful.

The sole purpose of my existence on earth is to realize the Truth and these activities hinder my efforts in that direction. So… the very first step is to disentangle with the world.

What is to be disentangled from what? I am to be disentangled from the world outside because disentangling is possible only where there is entanglement. And I think that it is between my body and the world outside which is absolutely wrong. In fact it is the entanglement of my mind (with its masälä) with the world outside. This masälä compels our mind to ‘expect’ some result and act accordingly. When the result we get is what we expected, we feel happy; and when it is not, we feel sad. This is the ‘entanglement’. With this we confine ourselves with this realm of ‘give and take’ with the world and cannot think beyond. If this entanglement is virtuous then there comes a time when we will be able to realize the true purpose of our life. Then we begin to turn around, towards our own self. This process of disentangling is not like ‘cutting’ a chain but like ‘watching’ a chain. When I watch the way I’m entangled with the world keeping in mind the real goal of my life, there comes a dissatisfaction, which I should go through without fail. I should not try to escape from that. In fact I should never try to escape from any type of dissatisfaction whatsoever. Because experiencing the world ‘as it is’ allows us to understand it properly. This understanding makes us aware of our faults throughout all these years, which is nothing but the process of disentangling. The problem is that we find this entanglement ‘totally legitimate’.



There are three kinds of satisfaction and three kinds of dissatisfaction we can experience.

They are…

1. adhärmikänanda  1. adhärmika duhkha    - This is cruel and inhuman

2. dhärmikänanda    2. dhärmika duhkha      - This is humanly

3. sädhanänanda      3. sädhana duhkha        - This indicates our journey towards the Truth.


It is not that every instant we experience either pleasure or pain. There are a lot of moments of indifference in our lives. And this indifference is also of three kinds namely dhärmika, adhärmika, and that which is related to sädhana.

 [r1]Ideally these two should become the means or tools to reach the aim.

 [r2]Ideally these two should become the ends or aim for which we’re here.