Taittiriya Upanishad Lecture 112 Ch3 10.5 on 08 July 2026 Q&A

Do Saṃskāras from Lower Stages Persist When the Aspirant Moves Higher?

'''Question:''' When the aspirant moves from Annamaya to Pranamaya to the different stages, there are ''saṃskāras'' that have been formed in the lower stage. Overall, when the aspirant moves to the further stage, the ''saṃskāras'' might still pop up, right, Mahārāj? Even though most of the time the person is dwelling in the ''prāṇa-maya''?

'''Response:''' You see, that is not a correct understanding. The moment a person reaches a higher stage, the old ''saṃskāra''—that means he may be doing the same thing, but it will not affect him. The problem is not the ''saṃskāra''; the problem is the ''effect'' of the ''saṃskāra''. You have to distinguish between ''saṃskāra'' and the effect of the ''saṃskāra''.

Let us take an example. A saint is born in Bengal. He is accustomed to what type of food?

'''Questioner:''' Bengali food.

'''Response:''' And if you give him this South Indian Andhra mango pickle, what happens if you give it to him?

'''Questioner:''' He won't be able to appreciate it.

'''Response:''' He will be struggling like a fish out of water. So, what happens? According to ''saṃskāra'', our body moves. ''Saṃskāra'' means habit. So—very interesting question, important question also. So ''saṃskāra'' means habit. So habitually we are used to think in a particular way and act in a particular way. Take the example of an ordinary person. Each one of us is completely addicted to our own—where we are born, what our mother cooked, the taste, the smell, etc. Isn't it?

'''Questioner:''' Yes Maharaj.

'''Response:''' So if it is not available for some reason—something which we are not accustomed to—immediately it will create a reaction in our mind: "This is not tasty." That is the reaction. "I wish to obtain that dry fish curry; then only I can enjoy it." That reaction is what makes a person worldly. But what is this person doing—a spiritual practitioner? He is: whatever circumstances—somebody honors him, somebody respects him, some food is available which is tasty, some is not tasty—he says, "Food must have nutritional value. Taste is not important for us." What is important? Taste is also important, not nutrition. So a spiritual person has been developing: somebody honored me, somebody is dishonoring me, somebody stole, somebody is bringing something. So he develops a ''saṃskāra'' of reacting—and what is this reaction? He is a happy person under all circumstances—isn't it?

'''Questioner:''' Yes Maharaj.

'''Response:''' Does that answer your question now?

Whether Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa eats his accustomed ''pañcapūraṇa'' curry, or whether he is offered South Indian food—you know, in South India we offer—we don't offer this fish and meat, another thing. Morning ''idli'' is offered with hot coconut chutney. Do you think Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa is suffering? "I would like that ''muḍi'' only; otherwise I have become very ''muḍi''." No, you see. We are all practicing: "OK, let people do what they like. It is my ''karmaphala''. Actually, people don't do anything; it is my own ''karmaphala''. So I am getting the result of what I had done." That is the greatest ''saṃskāra'' we have to create. Then we stop blaming others or praising others. But we are grateful. Spiritual quality—positive spiritual qualities are there.

So the important point what we discussed now: let there be ''saṃskāra'', but his reaction will not be a worldly reaction. It would be a purely spiritual reaction. So what does it matter what he gets? Yeah, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, in his—when his mother was very old, he used to get bored of Holy Mother's cooking. He goes to his mother and says, "Mā," he used to prepare that five-spices curry which I would not touch with a twelve-foot barge pole. He says, "That you cook," and she would be very happy: "Someone is appreciating my cooking." And he would enjoy with great relish. Do you think that his ''saṃskāra'' of seeing Brahman disappeared at that time? No.

So that is why he can kill also. It is said in the Gītā: if a ''brahmajñānī'' kills the whole world—''imāṃlokān hatvā na lipyate''—because he is not killing. First of all, he is not killing because he can only kill himself. Then who remains? The killer. So if you kill yourself and you remain yourself, are you killed really? No. So identification with everybody makes the person infinitely compassionate. But at the same time, he knows whatever we are experiencing is only like the cinema we are witnessing—not real, realistic, not real.

Very difficult even intellectually to understand the ''brahmajñānī''—the ''jīvanmukta''—mind. He pretends: "Oh, I am suffering so much." Sometimes he doesn't say, "I am suffering." Sometimes he says, "There is no suffering." Sometimes he says both are manifestations of His ''līlā''—attitude of ''līlā'' only.