Archive for मई, 2010

The loss of India

At least now we can throw away the pretension that connection with local root has any place in the modern republic of India; if we go by Naipaul’s analysis, this thing started no less than a thousand years ago. Culturally, we have been a client state to the Universalist cultural and religious cults that prospered in the West. There is a steady and perceptible decline in the thing understood as ‘pagan’ owing to violent and colonialist intrusions in garb of universalism across the world and the value system and paradigm developed under these Universalist hegemonic ideologies have hardly been conducive to scientific temperament.  They are more concerned with the technological aspect with which they want to further their dominance and agenda. No doubt such ideas are portrayed as human and universal; there are strong rational grounds to challenge and reject them, wrong as they are.
India is a client state today. There are fancy terms to hide this hideous truth, and like denizens of majority of other client states Indians too have lost the connection with the land. There remains little sense of responsibility towards country, people and cultural roots. No one owes this land today, for the concept of ownership is alien in absence of understanding of core share values. This is evident everywhere, few of us today would attempt to plant trees at road sides or public places, would help needy people directly, try to work for public good etc. An essential characteristics of the client state is that it accept languages, values, institutions and what not from  colonial masters and in the process destroy their own roots. There is a feeling of smug surfeit among the successful in such a milieu and it is true with this land as well. These elites easily become subversionists, reactionaries, revisionist etc.,  but a person truthful to his land and people. These are the paradigms wherein they see themselves as protagonists while in reality they are cheap native informants at the best or traitors colluding with exploiters; but there exists a subaltern reality which persists below this and herein lays the hope of restoration.
We have entered in the second phase of the process with regional literature becoming part of the globalized Universalism (this means literature in these languages too are written under spell of the global forces and enjoy little connect with the people they are written for, in short they become a sort of missionary literature in some native language) ; before this the globally dominant languages have already replaced the local language. Access to this language holds the key to power and success and anyone away from it automatically gets thrown away from the connection with state, because the mode of connection to state and dominance is through such language only.
The scene is of decay in realm of art and culture in our life. We are unable to keep connect with that which we owe and are unable to assimilate that which want to owe. It is no wonder that architecture, aesthetics, literature and arts are disappearing from the landscape and our lives. We have houses, interior and exteriors, residential and commercial localities, cities, cloths, food habits, entertainment (even the aesthetics and values) all in a mess created in a place called universal bazaar. We don’t live in homes or families we live in a bazaar. In place of beauty and art industrialized products are passed on. They are displayed not for aesthetics but for some brand tagged with it. Not only the patrons have lost the connection; professionals and artists working in these fields are equally disconnected and clueless.

Going back to the time of independence would throw some light on this dilemma. The country was under spell of a mighty British Empire, White Sahib was perhaps the most prominent image other than God; western education, institutions, politico-social philosophy all was enlightenment. No surprise that leaders of suppressed people like B.R. Ambedkar were convinced of their role in replacing with the old feudal and exploitative order. The idea of constitutional democracy, legalistic framework that developed in this country almost tried to replicate the constitutional experiences from around the world to this menagerie of human species and it is still somewhat surviving. The other leaders were no less different. It was a time when not only the country was breaking shackles of bondage of external rule, after almost 1000 years rulers were to become responsible to their subject. Though loss of antecedent was there but trace of continuity was not totally nonexistent. There was little sympathy to this and thus a big opportunity of regeneration was lost. No doubt  major responsibility of this lay with the leaders of so-called ‘caste- Hindoos’, but those who willingly disparaged truth owing to personal experiences and convictions too did play their part of disservice.
In such a milieu, set-up adopted in education, values and institutions instead of restoring values furthered the end of cultural connection. Pt. Jawarharlal Nehru is a right specimen to understand this phenomenon. A scholar and thinker of no mean standard, despite all interest and appreciation of the culture of land and other qualifications remained an outsider to the tradition. People like him were rootless as they were reared in an alien socio-cultural milieu. There was a genuine lack of understanding of the tradition from inside. Art, culture and dharma all were studied in new imported enlightened theories and values of West. So strong was the influence of power that two world wars proved short in opening our eyes to evils of such Universalists.
The educational values and institutions accepted at that time of independence largely accepted from the Britons had very little of offer except colonial outlook and this became the guiding force of the country. Generations shaped by this education system is much more disjoined. People who are reaping fruit of this disconnectedness are collaborating more with forces of globalization. Thus a whole bogey of powerful people has mushroomed that include educationists, bureaucrats, politicians, industrialists, businessmen, popular intellectuals and media personalities that partaking in the booty of exploitation of the land has nothing but empty talks and some crumbs of populist measures for these brethren.
This disconnect not only robbed the people of the land of any sense of ownership, it also disrobed them of values. Ownership is a concept that is intrinsically connected with values and world view of people. It is also rooted in moral conviction about identity, sense of justice and purpose. Absence of continuity with the ancient thoughts on governance for long period left people rudderless when they were to face a much later comer, virile almost barbaric people and thought. Thus valueless citizen were ever successful in 1000 years old history of the country, while rulers changed this class always remained strong. They owned immense power, land and property but had very little to contribute to the continuum called India. Even rural parts of the country that was a bit less affected by the external world till 19th century, in absence of normal continuous growth of Indian tradition ended up in passing on weird sense of ownership in form of feudalism, clan loyalty, varna vyavastha etc. With declining understanding of Sanatana world view inversion of exploitation happened in this country. The only classes of people that had some understanding were scholars and wandering monks and they had little say against them and the masses was deeply embeddeds in such orders for self interest. When with British rule a chance arose to reshape the things, along with colonialists, missionaries there was a class of rabid rootless liberals which was hell bent to accept anything foreign to amend the history overnight. Every thing had simple and beautiful explanations and every problem had instant answers. As a result strange terms with solid identities like Hindu, Aadivasis, Brahaminism came into vogue in a flux like real world and then these terms and concepts were thoughtlessly used in developing structures for the new republic of India.
_ to be concluded

Read Full Post »

(an article written for a Journal of  small group of spiritual aspirants in 2004, here with minor editing)

In India various religious sects have co-existed in an unusually peaceful atmosphere for centuries; another noteworthy feature is the fact that there had been a creative dialogue among these sects. The need to study this aspect of Sanatana Dharmic tradition is all the more relevant today as the exclusivist religious thoughts are shaking the foundation of civilization itself and to pretend ignorance of this clash is not possible anymore.
The relationships of the Sanatana Dharmic tradition and its various sects need a careful analysis; by this we shall be able to appreciate – those features that helped them co-exist and survive together without losing their distinct philosophical stands and mundane outlook and how by creative mutual exchange of thoughts and ideas contributed to the culture of peace This will not only emphasize the underlying connectedness of the truth taught at various times but would also be a help to understand the comparative contribution of these sects to the human thought. In particular a short analysis of the Vedanta and Bauddha darshana in respect of their fundamental analogies is attempted here.

The ritualistic bend of thought i.e. looking man into wider holistic connection of man with the cosmos through ritual (and the perennial search of real) in India gave great scope for analogies to explain real behind apparent, essence behind superfluous- the time-bound and the transcending ultimate. No wonder analogies have been liberally employed in Shruti, Smriti and mundane literature. Even in our daily conversation we are much given to use them, this is more strikingly visible in Indian languages.
In sphere of Dharmic tradition analogies played a seminal role in shaping the dialogues of the elect and perception and understanding of the masses. It was through these analogies, the complex philosophies were presented to the people across region. They made instant sense to people. They represented the essence of the philosophical school and acted as typical identity tags for them.
Vedanta and its salient analogies
With roots in Upanishads, Vedanta or the Uttar-Mimamsa school of the Aastika (orthodox and reverent to Vedas) philosophical system is a school that has shown incredible flexibility in structure and it has helped this school in assimilating many salient features of the other Aastika and even Nastika school without diluting its characteristic precepts. (1)

Vedanta thus has taken preponderance over the other orthodox schools of Darshana. It developed into one so inclusive a system that it acted as bedrock for discussion for even dissenting schools. The reason was its inclusivity and ability to synthesize knowledge with daily life of a common man. This is a characteristic that is present in all those other schools that grew across vast tract of Bharatvarsha and survived to us today. Even the Bhakti school despite the obvious differences otherwise has used the Vedantic logic, analogies etc.; so much so that their differences are limited either to replacing the Vedaic Brahman by a personal God or about the Adhikarbheda (competency of the aspirant) for the discipline and truth. Chronologically also the Bhakti Movement is the right successor of the Vedanta especially if we take into consideration the contribution of the Vedanta Darshana to it. The Bhakti movement never had to face the type of opposition that Vedanta faced; there hardly are any examples where they were asked to defend against questions of the atheistic school of Jaimini or Kaplia; for them the floodgates had already been opened by Sankara. Various schools of the Bhakti movement were assimilative philosophically but held rigid views of particular personal Godhead. Though Bhakti was a well established school before advent of Islam in the sub-continent, we can safely assume that advent of a religion so different about religious views, ethical and moral norms furthered growth and resilience of Bhakti school. It was Bhakti movement that supported the tradition when sources of learning was under intense pressure; knowledge so essential for faith was simply not available, the Varna and Jaati were increasingly sought to play the roles of tribes and clans of central Asian hordes, the Vaidic conception of universe was at low ebb and few reforms were attempted from within.
The reason behind the unmatched flexibility of the Vedanta philosophy lies in its ability to sustain the empirical or rational along with the super-conscious. Thus Shruti texts had been given preponderance over the Smriti. Vedanta concerns with the absolute and the essence of reality. The test of truth for it rests in an objects’ ability to exist in the three Kalas i.e, eternally, thus the phenomenal world stands falsified.
In his introduction to the commentary on Vedanta Sutra, Sankara questions the reality of our experience; our senses may deceive us, memory may be an illusion, the forms of the world may be a fancy; every knowledge is open to doubt but not the doubter. ‘All means of knowledge exists as dependent on self-experience and since such experience is its own proof there is not necessity for proving the existence of self.’ (2) Such a self (properly the identity of it) is posited as a being transcending the three awasthas (states namely that of wakefulness, dream and deep sleep) perceptible in its purity in the Turiya, (the fourth state); also called Pratyagatmana (meaning the one whose existence is understood by turning one’s vision inward), it is the substratum reality that persists in all awasthas and it is also the unborn eternal. The reality is Atman (also called Brahman) and alone real and is Sat-chit-ananda.
A few of the popular analogies of Vedanta are discussed here.
To start with, a salient analogy used in Vedanta (Brihadaranyaka Upanisad) is that of Spider. God like spider creates world out of itself, maintains it and again takes whole creation inside of it. The immanence of the God is thus explained along with his creation (this God a step lower to the absolute Brahman). This example puts the whole creation in ambit of God, it robs individual of his ‘I’ness. Thus while the creation doesn’t lose on reality, individuality melts in the divine-cosmos.
The two bird’s parable from the Mundaka Upanisad sees the world from the individual point of view. It speaks of two birds, one sitting on a higher branch and another one below. The one on top is calm, peaceful, immersed in self, another on the lower branch eating sweet and bitter fruits becoming happy and miserable by the taste of fruits. As last disquieted by the repeated misery, he sees the one on the top branch calm, serene and immersed in self, getting nearer, he finds his individuality melting and realizes that he is a mere reflection of the bird sitting above nay, he is that.
The third analogy is that of reflections in water pitcher. Brahman is the Bimba reflected in the Upadhi (adjuncts) giving rise to the Jiva (reflection of the Chaitanya in Antahkarana or Buddhi, having three bodies, five sheaths and three awasthas) which is nothing but refection of the Brahman. The simile suggests the non-duality of the Brahman and Atman, as the various reflections in the water pitchers and the Sun are not different.
The fourth simile, that can be taken is of adhyasa or superimposition, as a man taking the rope in darkness for a snake and getting afraid. The wrong perception is brought about by Avidya (ignorance) which is Anivachaniya and the root of all duality or multiplicity. Once the right knowledge dawns, the Jiva’s identity with the Upadhis fall and the true identity is realized.
The fifth analogy is that of the Ghatakasha and the Mahakasha, the space within and without pitcher. As the space inside and outside of the pitcher is one and the same, so is the Brahman, which is Jiva owing to Maya sees limited by the Upadhis like body, senses etc. Once ignorance is dispelled by true knowledge, false distinction falls.

Baudhha Darshana
Buddha’s is a psychological analysis. The self that Buddha speaks of, is the empirical self available to every man, perceptible in/to thoughts. In this sense Buddha is very modern. This is perhaps the reason for his appeal to the modern intellect. He rather speaks of Dukha i.e., suffering, its cause and way to its ultimate annihilation. So instead of philosophical ground he chooses an urgent, experiential and utilitarian ground of ultimate annihilation of suffering while steadfastly avoiding metaphysical contours- nothing about ultimate reality, Atman, Brahman etc. His refusal to enter into metaphysical speculation is famous and well documented. In fact like his contemporary Sanjay Belattiputta, he declined to answer some very popular philosophical questions of his time like those pertaining to the atman, creation, rebirth etc.
He gave the famous illustration of a man suffering from headache. He said that no amount of discussing as regards headache is of any use to the suffering. A remedy is required, so is true with Dukha. The remedy is Arya Ashtanga Marga.(3) This is a yogic-ethical way for the annihilation of the suffering. Since the self that he speaks about is nothing but a stream of becoming, the remedy is also external (from Vedantic standpoint of Atman).
Buddha criticized the Atman as a priori concept and likened it to the belief of a man who tries to climb a ladder to the sky to reach a place he knows nothing about, or is like the attempts of a man who falls in love with a beautiful damsel whom no one has seen.
Some Salient Bauddha Analogies
First Bauddha analogy that comes to mind pertains to the fire circle created by firebrand. As evident, there is no circle as such but a false appearance. The key word here is an-atta (non-self) and any impression of continuity (of such self) is an illusion.
A teaching perhaps most representative and of Buddha is in assertion, ‘Whatever is arising is a ceasing thing’. There is a law of Pratityasamutpada or dependent origination which creates the seemingly underlying unity responsible for the coherence in life. This is in reality a stream of becoming.
The second analogy is that of fire produced by the magnifying glass. According to Bauddha school when senses meet their objects sensation is born; sensation leads to memory. The self comes into existence from the contact of the senses and their objects, just as fire occurs from the contact of magnifying glass and the Sun rays. The bud originates from the seed; though not the seed nonetheless no different from it as well. Life also, likewise comes into existence.
The third example is that of river, Samsara, the transient world is like a river. It’s an ever-changing phenomenon and the name as such is just notional, for everything is changing.
A comparision of Vedantic and Baudhha Darshana in light of their analogies
Like any other philosophical system, both the schools attempt truth from their respective stand point. The question of the Vedanta school is – Who am I? For the Buddhist school it is – ‘What is ‘I’?
Thus the problem of Samsara and bondage is dealt with in two marked manners by these two schools. Vedanta a synthetic philosophy rooted in the Veda’s, starts with the true self, atman or Brahman (a priori concept) and therefore for an aspirant as such the Vedantic truths were said first and then realized. Naturally an authority for the preceptor and or Vedas is invoked. A grand synthesis was required as many a concept of the Veda’s which lack a coherent philosophy (more so not like that of Vedanta) needed various things in proper place and perspective and in proper classification of hierarchies. The famous classifications of Sankara achieved it exactly.

The Vedantic concern is the real, substratum reality by positing that self which we find unchanging. Vijnataram Arey Kna Vijaniyat, the knower of the known cannot be known (i.e., by those senses by which we know the external world). Thus the Vedantic sadhana is more aimed at removing the false notion. (5)

The Buddha’s prescription for the annihilation of suffering is clear and simple, the five precepts and the noble eight fold path. His is a comprehensive yet simple ethical-spiritual philosophy and the ethics and more at individualistic concerns, social considerations are more incidental. Buddha consistently refuses the existence of a permanent individual self. He said, sab-be Dhamma an-atta, all things in nature are without permanent self. Thus for him the law of Karma i.e., the chain of sequences is collective concept. His last words that individuals are transient, labour therefore strenuously is in the same strain. His doctrine is concerned with the existential suffering.
In an important conversation with Ananda, Buddha deals with the concept of the self and sensation. He says that in three ways the theorist regard the self. Some regard the self as sensation for some others the self and sensation are different and independent and for still others sensation is nature of the self though the sensation is not the self. Buddha says that this (the first theorist’s school)is not correct, as the sensation (pleasant, painful and neither pleasant and painful) as Annica (transient), Samkahata (made-up) and Pratiya Samutpanna (originated by dependence); by nature is decaying and subject to cessation… . Those who see the self and sensation as different are also incorrect as how can one be aware of one’s asmiti (existence) in absence of sensation? And those who regards the sensation as nature of the self, is it possible for them to associate with such self, in absence of the sensation as, Ayam aham asmiti, this I am?
Therefore the logical faculty used in the Vedanta philosophy to deconstruct the external reality is used in Bauddha darshana to deconstruct the ‘conception of self’. But as we shall see later the ‘Nirvana’ of this school and the ‘Jnana’ of the Vedanta are categories which are quite similar in their conception and result. The liberation of mind from conception of self and sensation and their association for Buddha is ‘Nirvana’.

Buddhism in the Sanatana Dharmic tradition
In Buddha’s time his was one of numerous schools, which had a greater influence than other lesser popular ones. Even the area he travelled and preached was comparatively small (covering some five-six districts of today’s Uttar-Pradesh and Bihar states); it is doubtful that he had had a chance to preach his doctrine to the followers of orthodox Vaidic fold. One important reference of his prominent disciple Maha-Kaccana’s travel to the Surasena territory is available, There is Madhura the Raja asks Maha-Kaccana about the Brahmins’ claim of their superiority being; setto-verno, fair… pure… sons of Brahma, his own, born from his mouth, necessarily a Vaidic idea. (Jennings also notes the superiority claims of the Brahmins of Vaidic heartland area the North-Western territory) (5) These ideas were not that dominant in the eastern parts of the country.
Buddhism was quite different, its birth and growth in a philosophically, heterodox tolerant society, with its emphasis on Nivrutti and its centralized set-up in changed milieu greatly curtailed its effectiveness and scope. (6)
Buddha’s doctrine attracted masses and scholars alike, his ethical teachings and personality must have endeared him even to the most orthodox elements as well. His choosing Pali meant that his doctrine was for all and by avoiding Sanskrit, be bypassed those metaphysical concepts and nuances with which the philosophy was heavily laden. Thus he tried to deliver his message in a fresh milieu. His moral code, unsurpassable ever since in splendor, changed the Sanatana Dharmic tradition forever. His philosophy transformed the nature and content of human thought in the sub-continent. The ethics and Ahimsa had its obvious hazards and how his school fared, when tribes with alien violent faiths marched towards sub continent, chronicles and numerous ruins from Pakistan, Afghanistan- Iran to Central Asia, stands still, in testimony.
The Sanatana Dharmic tradition comes out as a geographic and cultural concept. Though chiefly rooted in the Vedas, true to its liberal tradition the others are not excluded out of design. The Vaidic was essentially a Pravrutti Marga. There must have been in existence a strong Nivrutti Marga as well. The Shramana, Nigarantha, Vratya and also the host of schools that existed during Buddha’s time testify this. Sanatana Dharmic tradition reconciles these two paths from time to time on consonance to the Yugdharma (which take care of the socio-political progression of the society). Krishna is the ideal Sanatana Dharma representative in the Gita. Here also lies the contribution of the seers of the land. If Buddha, Samkara, mahaveer put the Nivrutti Marga to fore, Krishna Janak and Nanak upheld the Pravrutti Marga. Samkara infused the Nivrutti Marga in the Vaidic fold is such a way that it became a part of wider fold of Sanatana Society. Though the two categories are not as divorced as they seem today, as there exist a superior objective of the experience the reality and the Yugdharma call reconciled them together. The life of Vaidic seers was not much different from those Nivrutti Marga adherents as they too had a clear priority for the experience of reality. Also important is the reality of the world and about the ultimate reality. Both the school aims at transcending the limitation of the world; Vedanta by searching the real being who is the Kutastha, unchangeable observer of all experiences, Buddhism by examining the psychological conception of being which we experience in/by our thought process.
Ashwattha tree seems a right analogy for the sanatana dharma. A gigantic banyan tree ever growing with new branches, roots
and taking nutrition from the infinity; each new sect support supplementing and in whole, to the tradition, no one conceivable in isolation; each many.. many one.. one all.. and all one.

Foot note:
1.) Though attributed to the brilliant analytical skills of Samakra, it is no less true that there are some unequivocal assertions that falsifies this hypothesis; even if accepted the fact remains that some inherent concepts existed that allowed such potentialities which were amenable to synthesis; preponderance of reality and emphasis on its experience is also present in Upanisads. ( likewise to see the late Buddhist development – Nagarjuna’s philosophy, zen etc. in isolation is improper. Dharma is living concept and not a static phenomenon.
2.) S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy –II P. 476 (London Gerorge Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1931 edition.)
3.) Arya Ashtangika Marga comprising of – Right outlook, right resolve, right speech, right act, right livelihood, right endeavor, right mindfulness, right rapture of concentration.
4.) That Vedas enumerates the spiritual-ritual traditions of puru-bharata clan and region. Thw Upahisads attest attempts to grow out of the stifling Karma Kandas either by overgrowing or by bypassing them. In their search of truth seers allowed no tradition to hold their pace. In fact this concept of ‘allegiance’ to book appears out of place in Vaidic milieu.
5.) J. C. Jennings, The Vedantic Buddhism of the Buddha, P. 341. Oxford University Press, London 1948
6.) Pravrutti anf Nivrutti Marga are complex mies of philosophical quest and belief system, peculiar to sub-continent. Pravrutti Mrga Signfies the balanced approach more prevalent in the Vaidic Life; essentially meaning no radical un-orthodox (irreverent) attempt in the quest. Nivrutti Marga is a clear cut prioritization of the spiritual quest over other objectives. That Samkara infused it in Vaidic fold (if more forcefully) is evident from the fact that – no other orthodox school recommends it; his organization of the Sannyasin order is in stark contrast to the Four Asrama (stage) life cycle of the others; and lastly that Purva-Mimamsakas were the maoin protagonist of him ( the Buddhism has lost its vigour) and that Purva- Mimamsakas criticized Samkara as ‘Pracchana Bauddha’.
The difference is also about the concept of Dharma, which for the Vaidics is a duty enjoined in Vedas (following the ritualistic order and connection) the four Purusharthas or aims of life – Dharma, Kama, Artha and Moksha to be attained in four stages of life Brahmacharya, Grahastha, Vanprastha and Sannyasa. For Buddha it is the nature of things of being and he rested it on the concept of non-ego. As if the Vaidic school were more concerned with upholding the order and righteousness in holistic context and Buddha more with alleviating the individual suffering.

Read Full Post »

Direction those moments

Revolution come
With a unique mix of old and new
Of bleak reality and budding hope
A moment before birth
That starts the juggernaut
Exists there a blank
Consciousness as if gasps
Way it want
After a long drum beat march
A hibernation
Steps some hesitant, a pause
Neither man nor equations seems to know
Which turn the march will proceed
Compromising notes and deathful idealism
Riding the mass discontent
A marriage sprouting
Moments of change, sensitivity more
Skies clear, air still in anticipation
Pressure rising on the eastern line
Direction those moments

Read Full Post »

जो सच्चई से परमेश्वर को पकड़ लिया सविशेष को, वह निर्विशेष में जाएगा ही, इसमें किसी प्रकार का संशय नहीं।
जिस समय ब्राrाण लोग वृन्दावन के पास यज्ञ कर रहे थे। यज्ञ पत्नियाँ भगवान (श्रीकृष्ण) को भोजन लेकर गईं थीं, तो वह मथुरा लौटीं तो भगवान के रूप की, भगवान के स्वभाव की – भगवान के चरित्र की, निरंतर घर में कथा शुरू हो गई। मथुरा में एक ब्राrाण कन्या थी, उसका नाम चन्द्रावती था। वह कन्या जब सुनने लगती तो इतने ध्यान से सुनती कि सुनते-सुनते, उसका चित्त एकदम कृष्णमय हो जाता। उसके अन्दर तड़प हो गई कि मैं कैसे दर्शन करूँ? ये सब तो बड़े भाग्यवाले थे, दर्शन कर लिये, मुझे क्या दर्शन नहीं होगा? ऐसा चिंतन करते करते उसकी निद्रा छूट गई। एक दिन जब उसके विवाह की चर्चा चलने लगी तो वह घबड़ा गई। तीन बजे रात घर से निकल करके वृन्दावन की तरफ भागी। रास्ता नहीं जानती पूछते -पूछते चलते-चलते वह वृंदावन पहुंची तो देखा, वृंदावन में सब बेहोश पड़े है कोई बोलते ही नहीं। वह कोई रो रहा है कोई लोट रहा है, कोई रो रहा है कोई लोट रहा है, वहां तो उजाड़ दिखाई दे रहा है। वह बड़े संकट में पड़ गई, क्या बात है? पता लगाया, किसी व्यक्ति ने कहा कि आज कृष्ण कंस के यज्ञ को देखने के लिए मथुरा चले गए। इतना सुनना हुआ कि मानों उसके शरीर से प्राण ही निकल गया हो। एक घंटे तक तो वह बेहोश अवस्था में रही। एक घंटे बाद उसके मन में एक विचार आया कि क्या कृष्ण को आज ही मथुरा जाना था, अक्रूर के साथ मथुरा? और यदि जाना था मथुरा तो मथुरा से हमको यहां क्यों बुलाना था- यह विचार आया, क्या यही क्षण जाने का था, रुक करके नहीं जा सकते थे?
जब व्यक्ति अपनी प्रवृत्ति के मूल में भगवान को व्याप्त करने लगता है तब इसको एक बड़ा भारी बोध हो जाता है। उसने कहा- जरूर कोई न कोई मेरा वृन्दावन में काम है इसलिए कृष्ण ने हमको यह यहां पर बुलाया। अब देखा आने की प्रवृत्ति के मूल में क्या था, कृष्ण दर्शन। अब उसको दिखाई दे रहा है कि आने के मूल में कृष्ण की इच्छा है। कितना बदल गया? देखिए कैसे बदलता है भक्ति में सब कुछ। उसने देखा क्या कत्र्तव्य है। कहा – बस भगवान ने इसीलिए भेजा है, ये सब जोर से रो रहे हैं, पड़े हैं, इनको संभालने के लिए भेजा है। तुरन्त नन्द के घर में जहां नन्द पड़े थे, यशोदा पड़ी थी, वहां गई। पानी गरम किया। नन्द जी को, यशोदा माता को स्नाने कराया, दूध पिलाया। जो जहां दु:खी था, वहां जा कर सेवा किया। चौबीस घंटे, उसका जीवन सेवा में ऐसा लग गया कि कृष्ण भी भूल गए, ऐसा सेवा में लग गया। कोई समझता नहीं कि है कौन, पर सबको लगता है कि जैसे कृष्ण ने हमारे संभाल के लिए इसको भेजा है। ऐसा मन में सबको लगता है पर कोई पहचानता नहीं कि है कौन? कोई पूछ भी नहीं पाया कि कौन है? वृन्दावन के जितने दु:खी थे सबको संभालने का बीड़ा उठा लिया उसने।
कुरूक्षेत्र में जब सूर्यग्रहण लगा, भगवान भी द्वारिका से आए। इधर ब्रजवासी भी वहां स्नान करने को गए। वहां जब माता से मिलने के लिए भगवान जाते हैं, माता को प्रणाम करते हैं, प्रणाम करते और इधर-उधर देखते हैं। नन्दजी को प्रणाम करके माता से पूछते हैं कि माता चन्दा कहाँ हैं? माता ने कहा- अरे, अभी तो यहीं पर थी वह कहां चली गई? तू कैसे जानता है उसको? तुमने तो देखा ही नहीं उसको। भगवान कुछ नहीं बोलते। माता बहुत चिल्लाती है चन्दा, चन्दा। पर चन्दा का कहीं पता ही नहीं लगता, कहाँ चली गई? भगवान का मन भाव से भर जाता है। माता से मिलकर वहाँ से चलने लगते हैं। चलने के लिए जब वहां से बाहर निकलते हैं तो सामने से चन्दा अंजुलि भर पुष्प लेकर भगवान के चरणों में गिरती है और उसके प्राण भगवान के अंगुष्ठ से भगवान के स्वरूप में प्रविष्ट हो जाते हैं। अब बताओ उसका शरीर तो भगवान का सूक्ष्म शरीर हो गया, जो ज्ञान समुद्र है। अब उसके ज्ञान में कहां बाधा होगी। . . .
सविशेष का आधार लिया जाता है निर्विशेष में जाने के लिए। क्योंकि निर्विशेष को आप मन बुद्धि का विषय नहीं बना सकते, इसलिए सविशेष का आधार लिए बिना कोई निर्विशेष में नहीं जा सकता। जैसे कर्म का आधार लिए बिना कोई अकर्म में नहीं जा सकता। शर्त इतनी ही है कि आपको शास्त्रीय आधार लेना पड़ता है। सच्चाई से लेना पड़ता है।. . .
स्वामी रामानन्द सरस्वती द्वारा दिया गया दृष्टांत- पुस्तक अमृत वचन से।

Read Full Post »