|Listen to Prabhaata-rashmih Audio|
Harih Om Tat Sat. Jai Guru.
Whenever a proposition, particularly a little new or strange proposition is made, there will always be a lot of resistance to understand it and accept it. Generally it’ll be a little deluding also. It is quite possible. Even when we say that every kind of trouble in man is due to ajñāna, ignorance or delusion; how many will be prepared to accept it?
A parent suffering in the hands of the son or the daughter; saying that he doesn’t behave himself well; he’s doing things wrongly. Actually, it is primarily the ignorance and delusion that make the parents suffer. But will you accept when I say this or the shastras say this? I don’t think.
Similarly, when I was speaking about sannyāsa yesterday, there was no question of comparing me, a sannyāsīn, with the inmates of the ashram, who are also half sannyāsīns, brahmacharis and brahmacharinis. I was always referring to the general life. The general life is, every time in the world,99.9999 recurring percent, will be house holders. sannyāsī also is born in a household. So it is always the household life that is compared and contrasted. If that also required a clarification, I was wondering, then again I repeat; you know people have an impression that when one takes up sannyāsa, he’s distancing himself from other things, denying himself many of the things of the householders. I don’t think it is right. As long as he feels he denies something, I don’t think sannyāsa will become a pleasant pursuit. I am leaving the household in order to do something still better and more delightful.
The rule about leaving is; when you leave X and when you take to Y, the Y should be better than X, otherwise the Y will not become desirable.
यावदन्यन्य सन्त्यक्तं तावत् सामान्यमेव हि।
वस्तु नासाद्यते साधो स्वात्मलाभे तु का कथा ।।
yāvadanyanya santyaktaṁ tāvat sāmānyameva hi
vastu nāsādyate sādho svātmalābhe tu kā kathā
Unless you leave something, you cannot get hold of another thing. If this is the rule everywhere in the world; svātmalābhetu kā kathā.
In order to get hold of the ātmā, that ātmalābha, what should be the extent of leaving? Is that leaving what you feel like denying? Not at all. I don’t think you will easily understand what I say, but you have to understand if you want to know the truth.
We have brahmacharya, then we become a householder. When you become a householder, are you denying some benefits of the brahmachari or are you including additional things as a house holder? Then, leaving the house hold, when you become a vanasprastha; are you actually denied something or are you getting something more, and finally when you take up sannyāsa, then also, I think, you get the maximum.
So, I would like every one of you to understand, even if you don’t understand, I would like to declare and pronounce one point; to take up or enter into sannyāsa is to have a life of far greater inclusion, expansion and elevation. It is not to deny. It is on the other hand to imbibe a far greater dimension. Whether it is with regard to sensory life, oral life, mental life, intellectual life, in terms of members, if I were a householder, I would have been living with three or four or five people, but here I am living with dozens of people, and, any time anybody can come. In household the membership is limited. Then the mind has to constantly think about and imbibe far, far, far, far greater dimensions. In the household it is selfishness that rules, but here it is selflessness that rules. In selfishness, what happens; you live with a small number of family members, but here, because of our selflessness, we live with a large number of people. You tell me whether it is a denial or an expansion. This is what I want to convey.
There is a rule, that unless you leave something, you cannot take something better. When you are promoted from one level of office to another level, is it a denial or is it an inclusion and an expansion? This is one thing that I want you to understand. Every time it is like that. So, we have to look at sannyāsa as a very, very desirable way of life.
I will tell you one incident, which really struck me. There was a Vaidyan here, Balakrishnan Vaidyan. One day I was standing in Tapovan vihar at the last level; that extreme southernmost paddy field end. I installed a 10 horsepower motor. To get the 10 horsepower motor installed, get the connection, and then the water was being pumped to a height of about 150 ft high; and in so many places I had put outlets for watering the garden, here, there etc. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, something like that. So, I switched on the motor and saw what is the discharge of water, whether it goes in the manner I planned. So, I started opening one outlet after the other and ultimately came the last point at the bottom level. So, everything was working. So, it was laying pipes to the extent of 1500 ft length. Normally in a household it will never happen. So this was done. We had to cross the road, without disturbing the traffic. So, I stood there and with my own indigenous ways, I covered the pipes with sand and put bricks on both sides, and put one brick over the other, then sealed it. Now, nothing has been done, maybe 25 yrs have passed, nothing, no damage is there, so far as the road is concerned. It has been concreted, metalled, so many things have taken place. Now, at the end of it I was feeling, to establish an ashram or to run an ashram, it is not easy at all. It requires a lot of exertion, a lot of effort.
Then I told Balakrishnan Vaidyan, “Balakrishnan Vaidyan, it’s not easy to run an ashram or to establish an ashram.” You know what this Vaidyan told me, “Swamiji, to run a household itself is difficult. If to run a household it is so difficult, what should be the extent of difficulty and effort required for establishing an ashram and running it?” he said. When he told me I heard it from a householder, a typical householder. He is also a householder, with enough of land, paddy fields, doing agriculture, quite a lot of land he has. So much that it was not within the limits of law, so he had to make some arrangement. So, a very good householder, he was very loyal to the father, mother etc. such a person. So, this is what he told me. So, that statement of his, that if to become a sannyāsīn one must have much more merits and much more preparedness to exert than a householder. This one statement coming from him, I don’t know, it meant something very seriously for me.
So, even now what I am wondering is that; to take to spiritual life, is to take to a life of delight, a life of joy. What kind of a joy? Normally our joys are connected with external objects and external possessions and relationships; but when you become a spiritual man, we identify the source of joy is inside. And because of the inside joy, we directly try to access it and handle our mind in such a manner that the mind will be constantly delightful.
So, we are not losing delight of the householder. On the other hand, we are gaining a lot more of delight. We shift the delight from outside to inside and by so doing the delight becomes constant and because of the uniqueness of the inner delight that we are representing and we are speaking about, many people come, saying that this is the truth, so, I would also like to have that path. May not be fully as an ascetic but even as a householder I would like to shift my delight from the external to the internal.
See, yesterday, a couple came here and they told me about their trouble, and what did they say? We are rejected by our community. See, their son did something. They are themselves unpleasant about it, they find it difficult. So should the community stand by them and help them? “See, after all it is the son, they are grown up people, they do what they like. These are days instances of this kind are common. Don’t worry about it, we are all supporting you.” Should they support them or should they reject them? You tell me. But they come and tell me that they have been rejected. What is the meaning? Where is the joy of the householder? Who is a friend? A friend is a friend in need. So they don’t find any friends for them in the time of need and they are coming to an ashram and to a Swami. Why? You tell me. What is the reason? Is it not for house holders to understand the plight more than I do and help them? So, where is the right point of view, where is the right friendship? So, I would like to question this whole hollow relationship. Whether it is blood or matrimony, this is what I am finding.
All the people who come here, invariably you will find, they have some trouble or the other in the household. And why should we be there to relieve it? Whatever we say is applicable to the householder, not to the sannyāsīn. I always speak to the householders, very seldom sannyāsīns come here. So I think there is a lot of substance in what I have said. And I am a little sorry that people take to … I don’t know what happens … to a superficial level etc. and they are not able to understand. Because it’s a capital statement, I try to repeatedly say and I put it in a very pungent manner, so that people will understand it.
In a life of a sannyāsīn, nothing is denied, but greater and greater things are included, is what I would like you to understand.
A sannyāsa is a life of progression. That is why we have brahmachari, householder, vanaprastha and sannyāsa. It is all one above the other. Not one lower to the other, one above the other, above the other. We also have a concept called atyaashrami; even beyond the sannyāsa ashrama. I am perhaps one like that. I am an atyaashrami. Valmiki Maharishi, Vedvyasa; all of them were atyaashramis, because they had to transgress the limits imposed by sannyāsa also, for the benefit of the society.
Harih Om Tat Sat. Jai Guru. Jai Guru.
* * *