Teachings of Swami Brahmananda Lecture 01

Introduction: The Eternal Companion

In these few days we are going to just read and then we can interact with each other. The teachings of Swami Brahmananda. This book is called Eternal Companion.

So why is it called Eternal Companion? We can understand this word "Eternal Companion" in two ways. First, wherever an incarnation comes, Swami Brahmananda will come in some form. Why? Because he is the Eternal Companion.

"Eternal Companion" means always he will be there. So with Ṭhākur he came, but with Rāma also he came, with Kṛṣṇa also he came, with Buddha also he came. Because they are inseparable.

Maybe as Lakṣmaṇa—we do not know. Because Lakṣmaṇa is supposed to be the Ādiśeṣa. That is why Lakṣmaṇa always acts as a support. He makes his house and then he protects him, and like that. So we do not know exactly these differentiations. Yogananda Mahārāj, for example—Swami Yogananda. Rāmakṛṣṇa said that he is of Arjuna's aṃśa. In what way? In Śrī Kṛṣṇa's time, Yogananda Mahārāj as Arjuna was the most important figure. But according to the Bhāgavatam, it is Uddhava who was most important.

The whole—you see, the Bhāgavatam is the most beautiful book, and its essence is the two—tenth and eleventh skandhas. The tenth skandha is meant for meditation, and the eleventh skandha is meant for sādhana. The last message of Śrī Kṛṣṇa—Uddhava. So here Uddhava. And in the Mahābhārata, it is Arjuna. What a great soul this Uddhava was, you know. The last message of Śrī Kṛṣṇa was given to Uddhava. So we do not know whether it was Uddhava or Arjuna who came as Swami Brahmananda. We do not know. Because every time they change their dress. Both they change their dress as well as address—Ayodhyā, then Nadiyā, and then Vṛndāvana. Like that they go on changing the address. Now Kāmārpukur. Later on he said he will come somewhere in the north side—north-west. We do not know where it is.

Two Meanings of "Eternal Companion"

What is the point here? Eternal companion because he will always be there with the incarnation. Every time an incarnation comes, he will be there. The other meaning is, this book is our eternal companion until we reach the goal. So this one book is more than enough.

This idea is so pithily expressed in something, you know. Even half a śloka of the Bhagavad Gītā is enough to take one.

Ślokārthena pravakṣyāmi yad uktaṃ granthakoṭibhiḥ | Brahma satyaṃ jagan mithyā jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ ||

"I will tell you in half a śloka the essence of all scriptures." All scriptures means which were in the past, which are now, which will be in the future. Because in the future, like the Gospel of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, the Complete Works of Swamiji—they were not there 150 years before. They have come now. So when a new incarnation comes, there will be new scriptures.

We also discussed it in the context of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad introduction. What is Upaniṣad? What is the meaning of the Upaniṣad? Whatever destroys our ignorance is Upaniṣad. So whether Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's teaching destroys ignorance, Swami Vivekananda's teachings destroy, Swami Brahmananda's destroy, Holy Mother's destroy, Ramana Maharshi's destroy—these are all Upaniṣads. But only thing is, formally we do not consider them as Upaniṣads. But as essence, these are the things that sustain us.

I would even go so far to say Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's teachings are the truest Upaniṣads. Not because of sentiment. You know why? Because in the Vedic times, the sages' experiences have been proved. But that is how long back. We want somebody to see it right now in front of our eyes. So it is a very recent phenomenon. So it will have more authenticity. That is why this is much more valuable.

The Need for Authentic Interpretation

It is valuable also in so many other ways. For those Upaniṣads, the Brahma Sūtras had to be written to correct the misconceptions that came as a result of different people teaching in different ways. As if it is not enough. See the fun: different Upaniṣads, same truth has been expressed in different ways by different people under different contexts. So to reconcile all of them, the Brahma Sūtras has been written. Now, five Ācāryas pull the Brahma Sūtras in again five different directions. That is why Swami Vivekananda made a very valuable statement: "The scriptures have to be read in the light of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's life and teachings." Not only teachings—life and teachings.

So far, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's teachings are not being twisted by anybody. But who knows? In future, it will come like that after some time. Then He will come again and say, "No, no, no, I did not speak like this. This is what I spoke." So every time He comes.

When the Upaniṣadic seers taught, were they teaching by texting? They were also doing exactly the same process. Here is a realised soul, here is a disciple. Is it not? So what is the difference? Absolutely there is no difference. The language has changed.

The Bengali language also will change. There are some Telugu books—just 150 years back written—I cannot make head or tail. It is pure Telugu without any admixture of Sanskrit. I cannot make head or tail of it. Same—every language goes through a lot of changes.

So, and then different people—Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's teachings. Supposing different Swamis. Here also there is something funny—it is not surfacing so far, but it will surface. There are what is called Rāmānuja's strong followers of Rāmānuja, like Swami Ādi Devānanda. When they interpret—so far they have not done, but in future they will do—accord with their understanding and devotion. But unfortunately, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's teachings will lend themselves to any interpretation. So then the future people might get some doubt: "What did Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa really teach?" But so far we are fortunate. All Swamis speak up with one accord. So it is absolutely fine.

So the words "Eternal Companion" we understand in two ways. One is referring to Swami Brahmanandaji—his nature. He is an eternal companion of God. But he is also an eternal companion for us. How long he will be an eternal companion? Until we realise God. He is a guide for us. Then what happens to him? Where does he disappear? We become one.

This idea is also there in the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad. Because the upper bird will never leave the lower bird. The lower bird is only cidābhāsa; the upper bird is cit. The lower bird is cidābhāsa. It is the ābhāsa which suffers. It is not even the ābhāsa, really speaking, which suffers. The ābhāsa which is mixed with the mind—it is the mind which suffers. Because ābhāsa cannot be touched by anything. Light cannot be polluted by anything. But the fellow who is using the light can mistake things; he can understand wrongly.

So we will read.

Question: How Did Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Look Upon Mankind?

Question: "How did Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa look upon mankind? Please tell us something about him."

Answer: Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa saw God in all beings.

Seeing his great love for his disciples, Swami Vivekananda once said to him, "You love us all so much. Is it not possible that because of this love, you too may meet the same fate that Jada Bharata met?"

Did Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Love All Equally?

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa used to love. Whom did he love most? Narendra. See, very fun. If we understand it in a different way, usually we do not question these things. We have to meditate. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa had many disciples and many devotees. Was he loving all of them equally? Yes. He cannot... You see, you go to an ocean. Hundred people go to an ocean with different sized utensils. And the ocean would never refuse to give anybody. It says, "Take as much as you like." But then somebody has taken a small one, somebody has taken a big one. Then the comparison comes: "Oh, the ocean gave me a small one. It is very partial." You see, this is how we suffer. The ocean never said anything. "Take as much as you want. You bring an ocean-sized utensil—take me." But you see, it is the people's inability to take it. But we are not thinking about it.

You know, there was a funny incident. After Ṭhākur passed away, there started a humorous quarrel: "Whom did Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa love most?" And everybody was claiming, "He loved me most, he loved me most." Until Plato Mahārāj, he put an end to the discussion. He loved everybody equally. And if you think he loved somebody more, that is because your vessel is small.

The Honey Trap

Why did he appear to be loving Narendra more? You see, I can make fun. I can pull the legs of Ṭhākur. What is, you know, it is a honey trap—trap something by bait. What is the purpose of—you know, this, you are showing fish—I am a trap. "I love you so much. Come, come, come. Come and have a bite." For what purpose? To catch the fish. That is exactly what Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa was doing. Narendra was trying to escape. He says, and then finally surrendered himself totally to Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa. The moment Narendra Nātha completely surrendered himself to Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa—he was resisting, you know. "Let hundred people, thousand people speak of you as an incarnation of God. I will not accept you as incarnation of God." Like that, discussions are there. But even last minute also, he had the doubt: "Can this man be incarnation of God?" You know that incident. So, then he surrendered himself to him. And the moment he surrendered, he was filled with Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa spirit.

So, what happened to other fellows? They were like Roman soldiers facing Gauls. Understand what I am talking? The moment this Gaul appeared, we surrendered. So, as soon as they came to Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, they surrendered themselves. What is the meaning of surrender? No, no, what does that mean? That means Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa had filled them. That is the meaning of surrender. If you fall into the ocean, you become one with the ocean. That means you are filled.

The Teacher's Love

In human tendencies, the teacher becomes very pleased with those students more than the others who do not care so much. So, would it not be the same? It is the same. Pleasing and loving—we have to take in two separate ways. Because if a dull student is there, the teacher has to work very hard. Bright student—just once he teaches, he learns like that. So, this is what happened with all the other people. Immediately, they surrendered. They accepted.

Why? Because the other people's role in Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's life is different. They were like small vessels. Whereas, Swami Vivekananda had to be a world teacher. So, not that Swami Vivekananda was resisting Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa like we resist. He has to act the role of many people—an atheist, a sceptic—and like that so that authentically he will understand Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa. And then, what he says will be accepted because the other person knows that what this man is saying is absolutely authentic.

The Modern Phenomenon of Near-Death Experiences

Yeah. You see, it is a very strange phenomenon going on now, especially in the West. So, if any—the recent phenomenon is one Anita—Dying to Be Me. You read about it? Yeah. So, one lady, she had cancer, advanced fourth stage or something. And then she had a near-death experience. And then she came out, all the cancer totally gone. It is a phenomenon which doctors cannot understand. Now, she wrote a book. She also appeared on TED Talks. Same thing she spoke. It is very interesting. I only watched a little because I know what she is going to tell and all that.

The point here is that she has an authentic experience. This is what people are looking. They are tired of what is called academic teachings and all this philosophy or lectures. They want to see somebody—either somebody has really experienced or the people think he experienced. There are so many people who do not experience. You know, there are so many. But they teach Advaita. So many in the West, the Advaita teachers are what is called prolific. And they are earning a lot of money also. People give. And they like they give. Do you think that this Advaita experience is so easy for people to have? Whole life people are practising. They do not even go near, anywhere near Advaita. This fellow, he simply says, "One day I was sitting like this. My mind went black. I had a wonderful experience." After that he becomes world teacher. Then he writes a book. And it becomes—you know—"I had this experience"—New York bestseller. Yes. Eckhart Tolle and all those fellows. They go on speaking.

How Do We Know Who Is Authentic?

"How do we know they are not authentic speakers? How do we know that we are not criticising them because we are not popular and he is popular?" How do we know? Thing is, we do not know their life. Who knows? I do not know his life. You do not know his life. What he appears on the YouTube. But we know by the way he is teaching. What is the way? He simply is telling the Power of Now: "You do not need to wait. Just now, forget the past. Forget the future. Live for now." And some stupid fellow sits like this. "Yes, I experienced the power of now." Go to the traditional teachers. "Have you done your, you know, Yama, Niyama, Sādhana, Caturthi, Sampatti?" And then so much of test is there. After all those things, maybe one in a million he will teach. This is the way. People are simply taken aback. These fellows who follow them, they do not even understand there are books there. Whether it is Śaṅkarācārya or Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa or Vivekananda—there are books are there, and in the beginning all these disciplines are outlined. Find out, these fellows, what is the discipline? What is it necessary for? "No, no, no. You are just as my wife loves me very much. Okay, that is not an obstruction at all." Do you see what I am talking about? Even our devotees are also taken. Our Swamis are taken. Where has all your reasoning power gone?

So what they are teaching is not wrong. What they are teaching is they have taken from here only, Advaita books only. But the way they are teaching, what are they saying? First they say, "I had this experience." How many authentic Swamis would ever say or publicly declare, "I had this experience"? Real Swamis will never tell anything about it. Even if you ask also, they will not tell. Because it is useless. If you have an experience, you will understand. Otherwise, it is just sentimentality—what is called titillation, nervous titillation. That is all, nothing else. "Oh, you had this experience." Secondly, they will not publicly go there and talk like that. They will say, "There are disciplines out there. You have to fulfil them." Simply say, "You sit and practise." And then later on you hear stories—the fellow has a mistress and he is in distress. Somebody defined—I think I sent you—"What is a mistress? You know? Miss for the first year and distress for your life." Anyway, anyway, it is a light, light talk. Terrible money.

The Point: Sri Ramakrishna Saw God in All

Anyway, what is the point we are talking about? So, first these people practised it and then they are talking about it. So this was the question. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa saw God in all beings. So whenever he was looking he was seeing only God. When he was looking at Narendranātha, he was looking as what? And you know, Narendranātha himself did not understand because Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa was very anxious. Whenever Narendranātha did not visit him, he was panting. Now why was he panting? For whom was he panting? He was not worried. Do you think that he was worried about Narendranātha? Narendranātha was a perfected soul. He does not need anything. He wanted Narendranātha to be his messenger. So that is why he was running after him. Narendra was running away from him. But you know, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa is God. So once he decides, "I want this," there is no way anybody can escape.

Can a Jīvanmukta Make Differentiation in Loving?

So why was the first question we discussed? "Can any Jīvanmukta make differentiation in loving?" Does a mother make any differentiation between her children? No, no. We are talking about ideal. But usually it is not true. Mother loves everybody, but you see the point is she may be a little closer to some people, but she does not give less to other children. Most of the mothers they are like this. There are exceptions for some reason—karmaphala and all those things are there. So if normal human beings have so much of this, and a doctor treats all his patients with equal care and everything, then a Jīvanmukta's condition—we did not tell. If he is a Jīvanmukta, then he will treat everybody equally.

The Psychology of Equal Vision

How can a person be treated equally? What is the psychology involved here? Premārpaṇa-samadarśana. This idea is emphasised very much.

पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः.

paṇḍitāḥ samadarśinaḥ.

Because they see every object in the same light—that is the essence. Whereas what we see—the guṇas—what they see is the same essence. What is an object? Essence plus Nāma and Rūpa. So who is a spiritual person? He who sees the essence and ignores the Nāma-Rūpa. What do we do? We emphasise the Nāma-Rūpa and do not see the essence at all. That is why the differentiation is not in the essence. It is only in the Nāma-Rūpa. So that is what makes us bound and attached.

Love Is Equal; Treatment May Differ

So Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa loved everybody equally because he is only seeing God. If he is seeing God in everything, can he love anybody less? Is it ever possible? Another thing also you have to understand. You see, a person is what his character is. That character dictates how a person perceives. Simple example, you know. A cow is passing on the road, and there is one what is called shoemaker and a milk seller. Both are—let us say—and also a tiger. All these three are watching this cow. Are they watching in the same way? The shoemaker is calculating how much leather I can get from. The milk seller is seeing how much milk can I get from this. And a tiger is looking how much food I can get from this cow. This is the point.

So what is the point I am driving at? See, supposing there is God—does God see in any object? Can he see anything else? So you extend it. We do not understand what God is. A lover—what does he see? Only love through the eyes of love. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa is God. God means what? Love. If he is in love, he looks at everything as what? Can you make distinction between love? If anybody makes distinction between love, then it is not love. So that is why Vastu-tantra and Kartṛ-tantra are very important for us.

Yesterday's whole discussion is: nothing changes outside. It is our perception which changes. So if I put on the glasses of love, then I see the whole universe as a manifestation of love only. So not to speak of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa—even many sādhakas have that elevated view. So that is the point here.

Loving vs. Treatment

No, that is objective love. That is not true love. So somebody is loved more because that object is weak. That person thinks that object is better object. No, we are not talking. She treats—you see, loving is a different thing from treatment. So mother loves all the children equally. But for her eldest son she will give more food. For the baby she gives only food suitable. That does not mean the mother loves the child less. Her love is equal. In fact, it is her love which makes her treat the baby for the good of the baby.

So Narendra—this is very important point, you know. Supposing Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa loved Narendra blindly. He did not. Then what would he have been like Jada Bharata? He would have been next birth Narendra. Was it a bad idea? Suppose he is reborn as another Narendra. Would it be a bad idea? Yeah. So this is the understanding we must have.

But you know, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa was in a child's mode when this acquisition was made. He ran to the Divine Mother. He said, "Mother"—he was asking—"Mother, why do I love Narendra?" Have you ever heard anybody being questioned? Others can question, "Why do you love that person? What do you see in that person?" One person, each one of us asking ourselves, "Why do I love this person so much?" In fact, we should question that. Because the answer tells whether we are worldly or spiritual.

Swami Chetanananda's Story

Swami Chetanananda, he told something very interesting. Did I tell you? Yes. He is wise. Which one? Very, very beautiful. There was one American who used to come to him to listen to his talks, Vedānta, etc. And suddenly he disappeared. And after some years, again he reappeared. And Chetanananda asked, "Hey, where did you go?" Some name, he said—I forgot. "What happened? We do not see you." "Swami, I have not left Vedānta. I am learning Vedānta under some lady." Then Swami Chetanananda asked, "What is it that she teaches which we do not teach?" He said, "Swami, do not mind my saying so, but you are not as beautiful as she." So, is he going to learn Vedānta? Or is he going to stare at her face? He was smiling and telling, "Swami, you are not as beautiful as she." I liked it so much.

This is the problem most of us suffer from. Do we go to a teacher because we like the subject, or do we go to a teacher because we like the teacher? Yes, but the subject should take the precedence. Okay, if you have a choice—this teacher also is teaching, that teacher also is teaching—but it is convenient to go to this teacher and nice also. Okay, that is fine. But people go to extraordinary lengths because what is happening here? He will not learn much.

Why Do We Love a Teacher?

That is why we have to ask, "Why do I love this person so much? Is it because I have some personal motive, or is it because there is something which helps me?" If it is helping me, that is absolutely fine, but if I have some motivations, then there is something really wrong with that. That means you may learn other sciences—that does not harm—but Vedānta, your purpose is to get rid of all attachments, is it not?

Here is a teacher who can teach the subject very well so that I am in a position to understand it very well. So here I am not going to the teacher with a personal motive. The teaching—I love the teaching—the teaching comes through this teacher in a better way than I get from other people. So that is absolutely wonderful. In fact, you should do that. But the other way around should not be there. Whether this person is able to convey the teaching or not—that is what this man is telling. "This lady is beautiful." What Vedānta is he going to learn there? Yeah.

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's Reply

The master replied: "By thinking of matter, one becomes like matter. But you must understand, it is the God within you that I love." Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's whole life if you analyse, this is the only thing that comes. He is attracted to something automatically to the extent that he sees God in that. You know, that drama he watched—Yātrā. So whichever actress or actor has evoked that feeling of spirituality, godliness in him—to that person he says, "You have acted beautifully, you have sung beautifully; this is the reward." Always Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's actions were like that. He was a supreme psychologist. He knows what is going on inside him.

The Inner Watchman

And not only that, he kept a God within himself. Bhairava. Part of his mind acted like a watchman. So, he said, "I saw a Paramahaṃsa resembling exactly like me and he has a trident, and then he said, 'If your mind deviates from the lotus feet of the Mother, I am going to pierce you.'" So, he was extremely watchful. Swami Śaradānandaji—that book you have to study. He says, before Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa undertook any type of sādhana, he will ask himself—one part of his mind will ask the other part—two questions at least. The first question is, "Why are you undertaking this sādhana? Who are you? What is your motivation?" Three questions. The second question is, "Do you really want this? Or are you pretending? Or are you cheating yourself—'I want God-realisation' and all that?" Third question is, "Are you prepared to make all the sacrifices necessary to achieve that?"

When we ask mind, "Do you want God?" "Yes, certainly I want." "Are you prepared to make the necessary sacrifice?" "Maybe." We are not sure. "Not sure. Maybe no. Definitely not. Something I will do, but definitely not hundred percent."

The Fourfold Qualifications

That is why Anubandha-catuṣṭaya is so important. Sādhana-catuṣṭaya is the last qualification. What is it called? Mumukṣutvam. What is mumukṣutvam? Intense yearning for God-realisation or self-realisation is called mumukṣutvam. So that is the key, and in that order you see—you know what is Sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti? Viveka is first. Vairāgya is second. Śamādi-ṣaṭka-sampatti is the third. Mumukṣutvam is the fourth. So you cannot make them parallel. You cannot make them—you cannot change the order. First Mumukṣutvam comes, then Viveka comes. That does not happen.

Viveka and Vairāgya

First thing is: "This is better than this." But in this case it is not even "better." In this case it is "this is the only thing that counts"—Viveka. What is Vairāgya? What does that mean? We only substitute Sanskrit word with English translation. What it really means is: when once I am convinced that this is an objective worth achieving, whatever stands in the way of my achieving it, I am going to give it up without the least bit of regret. That is called Vairāgya.

In fact, that word Vairāgya is a Sanskrit—beautiful—vi means opposite. Sometimes it is opposite, sometimes it enhances. So here it means rāga. Beautiful word. You know what is rāga? The word rāga has got two meanings. Rāga means attachment. Rāga means coloured—colouring. Getting coloured. That is the meaning of rāga. Yeah. Also this rāga sometimes is used as anurāga. Anu means what? No, no. What does it mean? Anu means after. Anuja—ja means born. Anuja means born after somebody. So anurāga—anu means rāga comes only after. After what? So you will have to say: when a person does the discrimination—"this is better than this"—then only the rāga will come. You also do that. You go and compare and say, "This dress is not good, this dress is better." Like that. So then the moment you are convinced this is better, then only the attachment follows.

The Steps of Discrimination

That is from the ultimate point of view. That is why this word viveka—there are so many steps to be followed. The first step is sukha-duḥkha-viveka: "Do I want to be happy or do I want to be unhappy?" It is very important because if you ask anybody, even a fool will tell, "I want to be happy." Nobody will say, "I want to be unhappy." But whatever he is doing, if you go on looking, he is only doing things which will lead to unhappiness. But he does not wake up and say, "Why am I doing things which are making me unhappy?" But he hopes that in future, somehow without giving up what he has been doing, future will turn out to be very happy—when it is not going to happen.

So the moment the man sits and says, "Why am I going through this?"—that means there is a cause. This is in effect—there is a cause. If there is a cause for this unhappiness, if there is a cause for happiness, I must enhance that which increases my happiness, and I must give up what is causing unhappiness. This is called kārya-akārya-viveka. Then even then that is only a lower step. Then there is a higher step—it is called nitya-anitya-viveka. So "this is temporary"—that is what Ṭhākur gives. "You must practise discrimination"—the fourth commandment—and he explains what is that: "These worldly things are temporary; God alone is permanent." But for us, what is temporary and what is permanent—that idea should come, not "real" and "unreal," because "real-unreal" is very foreign. So okay, "whatever gives more long-lasting"—you do that discrimination.

The Example of Buying a Car

When you go to buy a car, you say, "Car is nice looking, but it may not last long, or the company has just gone bust. The company's car is there, product is there, but company has just gone bust. Will you buy that car? Because there is no long-term support." So you always discriminate: "What is the car which can last me quite some time?" You do not expect it will last you forever, but at least comparatively. This is called nitya-anitya-viveka.

When a man has passed through all these things, then sat—or satya—what is real, what is unreal. At this stage, forget about what is real, what is unreal. First to start with sukha-duḥkha-viveka—that is the only thing that comes.

Vairāgya in Practice

So we are discussing about Sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti. What is Vairāgya? When once we are convinced that this objective is the only worthy objective, whatever stands in the way of my attaining that objective should be slowly given up. Not possible to give up completely at once, but slowly, slowly it must be given up. For a person like Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, the moment he says it, it is given up. But we have not trained ourselves like Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa. Also there is another factor you have to understand. You see, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa does not have a lot of time. He comes only within that time he has to complete certain things. "I must become perfect in Hinduism, I must become perfect in Christianity." For us, not even let alone perfect—even to know that we are not perfect. All of us think that we are not perfect. This is the problem with us.

The Importance of Self-Awareness

You know, I can cite hundreds of examples—I already cited many times. Here is a devotee, she is nearing 70 years old, and she brings lovingly pāyasam to me. Loving is very acceptable, but pāyasam is not that much acceptable because it is half-cooked rice. Should she not know after so many years of cooking that it is half-cooked? This is one woman. Anybody with a normal intelligence—see, once you are—you are not eating it, and when you eat it, you should eat it discriminatingly. "Is it has it come out well? If it has not come out well, what is the problem?" It is easy to be scientific—that is why McDonald's any product, you know, go anywhere in the world, it absolutely tastes the same because very scientific: this ingredient measured this much, only temperature, it has to fry for such short time. Everything is mechanised. So it is possible.

Another woman, she every time she brings the pāyasam it is like—you know—this much milk, as though you have put this much sugar. The moment you put on the tongue, you feel like spitting it out. And she is also nearing 70 years old. How can there be a proportion for everything? You know, this is what Ṭhākur used to say: "If you sing a song, there is a proportion." Many scientists are not scientists, and many musicians they do not have aesthetic sense at all. Only very few people have found aesthetic sense. What is that aesthetic sense? I told you, you know.

The Proportion in Everything

So here is a small girl singing, and this tabla wala—you know, especially South Indian—that hair like that, going on banging the mṛdaṅgam and these things without caring. He wants to show. There is a proportion—the sound proportion is there: how much sound the violin, how much sound the accompaniment—it is an accompaniment, so it is not the main one. No, we can learn at any age provided we should be students. It is the business of the student to say, "Okay, is it coming? Otherwise, be humble and ask somebody else." Ask me, I will tell you. No, no, I will tell you how it is tasting, how it should taste: reduce the sugar and cook your rice a little longer. This is what I can tell you, and it will definitely be fifty percent more tasty than before. Definitely. It passes my understanding how they cannot understand the simple thing.

Anyway, this is only an illustration. What is the point here? Whatever stands in the way of our reaching the goal—I do not know, so in future it may be there, there may be something, but so far I do not know. That is it. Keep quiet. That is a true scientific attitude.

The Limitations of Science

And also we discussed during this: one pramāṇa cannot validate or invalidate the other knowledge sources of knowledge. Even this—what the eye sees, the ear cannot invalidate or validate. If this is such a simple thing, how dare a scientist go on telling that everything has to be proved only through their methodology? That is why Swami Vivekananda says: "Spirituality has its own methodology." In fact, science cannot prove even the most common experience. "Something is—I see beautiful." You take a photograph, put it in the machine—will the machine tell which is beautiful and which is not beautiful? This is very important for us to understand.

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's Statement on Attachment

"If my mind should ever become attached to any one of you as man or woman, I would at once dismiss all thought of you from my mind."

Two Points

Two points. First point is: Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa—was he looking at Narendranātha as a man or as a woman? But you know, there were so many—when Swami Vivekananda came, he was so attractive, so handsome, he had to face these problems both in India and also elsewhere. There were two women—one widow—she said, "You accept me as your wife with all my wealth—I am very rich." He would have become a rich man then. Like that, some woman had looked upon him as a handsome young man. He was really—he had two qualities: he was not only handsome, he was attractive. And handsomeness and attractiveness are totally different qualities. Do you know that? A person may be looking very plain, but he will be very attractive. Another person may be looking very beautiful, but that person may not be attractive at all. This is something people mistake often: "Because I am looking beautiful, I am attractive." No, people are not attracted. This is a very interesting phenomenon. No two people are attracted to each other by beauty. We mistake it. It is not the beauty. Beauty means what? Physical proportions—the colour of the skin, the nose, face, gut, etc. No, it is something very mysterious. It is that something connects to people, and we cannot understand it. Only they understand it—there is something which is there.

Swami Vivekananda and the Green Frog

Anyway, so Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa never looked—it is impossible for him. You know, when he came to America, how many American women were ready to become Swami Vivekananda's slaves with all their money! So he would have become a millionaire at that time. One woman openly expressed. Then he understood—compassionate like a father—he looked at her and said, "If you look at me like that, you will become a green frog. Green frog—do you want to become a green frog?" You understand the reference? Jealous? No, no. There is a reference—that folk tale—you know, one prince comes and kisses the green frog and she will turn out to be an extraordinary princess. And many women cherish this idea that some handsome prince is coming with a horse and then she will be alone. Some story like that was there.

The Romantic Novels Story

One lady always studying romantic penny romantic stories like that—you know, small books used to be—same author, one penny in those days, British penny romantic novels. So she used to read and say perhaps. So one day she was walking with one of her servants—especially rich, idle, useless young woman—used to read this kind of things. And then she was walking. The maid servant suddenly saw a very handsome man on a big horse was dashing from the opposite side towards her. Her heart flared up: "My prince is coming!" He came near, looked at her, and picked up the maid!

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's Ability

"If my mind should ever become attached to any one of you as man or woman, I would at once dismiss all thought of you from my mind." Rāmakṛṣṇa can never look upon anybody as man or woman. Why? Because how does he look upon himself? If you look upon yourself as a human being—either as a man or woman—then the others exist for you. We all have our own human viewpoint on everything, and man's viewpoint, and woman's viewpoint. You understand? There is no option but to look through our—there is something called total personality.

This is one. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa realised so. That means, what do you think he says, "Who am I? I am God." Then how do you think he will look upon everything? So the question does not arise. But if something happens like that, even if something happens, he says, "At once I would dismiss all thought of you from my mind." He has the ability—simply he says, it is like a switch—putting off the switch—switching off—finished. Man-woman idea will never come in his mind. Once for all it is gone. What does he see? Supposing he sees a man or woman, what does he see? Divine Mother. Only Divine Mother—divine—divinity in everything. Is Divine Mother male or female? Neither male nor female. No gender—divine.

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's Teaching on Renunciation

Because Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa taught the ideal of renunciation to his young disciples, he was often criticised by the worldly-minded. And to such criticism he would answer: "I have no objection to anyone living in the world. Neither do I teach that every man and woman should renounce lust and greed. I teach renunciation only to those in whom there is already some spiritual awakening. I want these young men to attain first knowledge and discrimination. And then if they wish, they may enter into worldly life."

Very clever statement, you know. Once they have developed this spiritual knowledge and discrimination, you know, it is impossible for an ordinary person to do it—not to speak of a spiritual person—that is the idea. But you know, "if they wish, they may enter into worldly life." Sometimes it may be destiny, but you understand what Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa is talking about? Sometimes they are not fully realised souls. But even if they are fully realised souls, sometimes it is their destiny to live as householders.

Nagamahāśaya's Example

For example, Nagamahāśaya and Yama. Yes, he wanted—he is more than a monk, but he expressed his desire to become a monk. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa forbade him. So what happened? One Swami Vivekananda told him, "Nagamahāśaya, if you come to Belur Maṭh and live here, you will be an ideal for all the junior monks and brahmacārīs." And he folded his hands and said, "Once I asked Ṭhākur about it and he did not give me permission, so I will have to remain as a householder." What was he—a householder? Yeah. It was what a blazing renunciation, you know.

Oh, if you read his life, you will be thrilled. Especially one incident—you know that ants—termites, termites. He had this—you know, wooden poles, bamboo poles or something like—some wooden to support his cottage. So it was full of these termites eating away. Once one devotee came during his absence and he was horrified. He thought he was doing great service to Nagamahāśaya. He took them and then threw them at a long distance. And when Nagamahāśaya came and noticed, he started beating his forehead saying, "What have you done? For generations together they are living here and you made them homeless." He went there, found out some ants which did not go away, and brought them back and said, "You be free and fearless from now onwards—nobody is going to make you homeless." Even monks will not do that. That is the type of life he had led. But they are destined to be householders.

The Four Stages of Life

To many who came to him, he would say: "First go out into the world, gather your experiences, and then when you have become sick of the world, come to me for the cure." His teachings varied to suit all temperaments. Here is also answer. Mahārāj was telling. So many people will come: "Oh, you teach us spiritual things." He says, "No. You first go and eat the—you know—that fruit—sour. Ah, you know, in summer it comes. Chutney. Cool, cool, I think. Cool. Cool. He says, 'Then you suffer from colic pain and after that you come.'" That means you go, get married, get nicely beaten. Yeah. And then when you have learnt your lesson, then come to me, I will give you.

What does he mean? Unless discussion comes for the worldly—see, unless we—the whole beautiful beauty of his teaching is that Hinduism divided life into four stages. Why did they design householder's life? Because it is a necessary stage. See, both there is happiness, there is also unhappiness. There is also responsibility. So, everybody has some desire. And when they go through repeatedly, what happens is we cherish hope: "This life may be blighted, but next life I will be very happy." For most of us it is like that. Only when a person says, "So long as I am in saṃsāra, there is no hope"—then only he will pass into the third stage. It is a natural evolution. It had to come. But just saying is not enough. "So long as I am in saṃsāra, there is no hope." It has to come from within, from your experiences, from the state of mind. You have to get there.

Two Types of Jaundice

What is meant is—we are not true to that. We are not true to what we are thinking. Just have this idea. See, a sannyāsī sees a saṃsārī. But a saṃsārī is not seeing there. He is getting every second. The question of seeing does not arise there. He goes on getting and he hopes against hope that "some mistake I have committed, but I will..." Every saṃsārī suffers from two types of jaundice. One type of jaundice is: "I am unhappy, but everybody else is very happy." This is the first, you know. "That person is—oh, how nice couple, what an ideal couple." He does not know—that is the husband and wife, you know.

The Suicide Joke

Yesterday, Mukta was telling that joke. Listen. Have you heard, Mama? I think you might have heard. See, a husband and wife decided to commit suicide. So they went to a high place and jumped. The husband jumped first. And the wife was thinking, "Should I follow her?" Immediately she saw this fellow parachuting. The question was, who cheated whom? So, this is the first jaundice.

The Grinding Mill of Samsara

"I am happy, but others..." The first wisdom is: this place—the nature of this place is everybody—Jo dillī kā laḍḍū khāyā, wo bhī pachtāyā. Jo nahī khāyā, wo bhī pachtāyā. ("He who ate the sweet of Delhi, he also repented. He who did not eat, he also repented.") What is the second one? Without this saṃsāra, we will not allow a person to be happy for long. It will make that person go through this grinding mill. So, maybe it will take some lives, but he will be thrown out. And then he says, "This is not for me." It will come. And then he will enter into the third stage, withdrawing. This is a gradual process. There is nothing called suddenly. "Oh, this young man, from the beginning he is endowed with renunciation. And he has become a monk." You do not know how many lives he has gone through through this grind.

The Story of the Tiger and the Tantric

Like that tantric, you know. That man, to escape a tiger, he climbed a tree and then the tiger came. You remember? Then he says, "Oh, Mother, why did You appear to me? I only just started worship." And then he looked at that hillock. What do you see? What is that hillock? Bones—white-washed bones. Whose bones? So many times he was eaten by tiger. This is the last.

Swami Turiyānanda's Question

When Swami Turiyānanda was quite a young lad, he asked Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa how he could give up the thoughts of lust. The master said, "Give up lust? Why should you give up lust? Instead of trying to give up, you should increase." This advice amazed the young disciple, but he said nothing. And the master continued: "Direct all your thoughts of lust and all your passions toward God." Often he would point to himself and say, "Everything will be achieved if you love this." This means—Rāmakṛṣṇa. Rāmakṛṣṇa means God. He says, whenever he said this, he does not mean that particular individual. He means divine. If divine, maybe in that form. That is okay.

The Remedy for Lust

"The more intensely you yearn for God, the greater will be your revelation of Him." So here is a common problem to everybody. Lust. Animals suffer. Human beings suffer. Even saints also suffer. So many stories are there. So what is the remedy? Can anyone remove lust? Is it possible to get rid of lust, first of all? And if you really analyse, what is lust? Intense desire. Intense desire for what? For union. Intense desire for union. So, union with whom? It is like a man—"Oh, if I become united with this object, I will be happy." But he finds, first of all, it is not possible. Secondly, it does not satisfy. Then he searches—"Okay, this object, this object." Finally, ultimately he understands that there is only one being with whom we can really unite.

Only the Permanent Can Unite with the Permanent

It is very important to understand this concept. There is only one being with whom we can really unite. And there is only one thing which can unite within us. You see, body and body cannot unite. Mind and mind cannot unite. It is only the soul. Why? Because what is unity? One concept of unity is permanency. You understand? See, you eat food. After a few hours, you get hungry. That means your food has departed from you. So that is why no two objects can unite permanently. It is not possible.

There are two laws here. Two dissimilar things cannot unite. Only two similar things can unite. What is the similar thing in God and in me? Only consciousness. My consciousness and that consciousness. In fact, it is never separated. We think it is separated. Anyway, from Advaitic viewpoint. Even from the Advaitic point of view, by God's grace, I will pull you so that you will be forever with me. Only the permanent can become permanent. In other words, temporary will always be temporary only.

The Root Cause of Restlessness

Did you understand what I said? Temporary. See, this is what the scriptures are telling. That is why Rāmānuja brings out this concept so beautifully. You cannot love—love means unity—you cannot love any object because every object will vanish, including you, your body, your mind. But there is something within us. There is something permanent. The permanent, the eternal becomes one with the eternal.

So, Swami Ashokananda, he gives this: Why is the mind so restless? Why is it with desires? What is the root cause of this restlessness? What is the root cause of all desires? Your only answer is because we remember unconsciously our nature—that we are permanent beings, we are infinite beings. But something is troubling us. And we are searching. And ultimately, there is only one solution. It is only God. "Oh, I am God." Oh, that means I am permanent. I am infinite. Ultimately, that is the truth. But meanwhile, we will have to go through this so-called Māyā cycle. There is no other way.

Direct All Desires Toward God

So, direct all your desires for God. This is what he says. Why is he mentioning lust? The most intense desire is called lust. And that is very important because unless our desire for God is most intense, we are not going to achieve it. So, this is an example. That is why all these romantic, Sufi romantic songs, they are all indirectly indicating the longing of the soul for God. But nowadays, you know, it is all directed towards man and woman and all those things. That does not work out.

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa as Gnani and Bhakta

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa was many-sided. Whenever he talked about the intuitive knowledge of the Godhead, he would talk to one who was as a pure Jñānī, a knower of God. And whenever he talked about love and devotion, he talked as a pure lover and devotee. He impressed upon us very clearly that mere secular knowledge is nothing but vanity and that one should struggle hard to attain spiritual knowledge and love and devotion to God alone.

So, this is the most wonderful teaching. But the thing is, we cannot help but run after here and there. And only in course of time, we understand that all knowledge is useless knowledge. It is called Aparāvidyā.

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad Example

That is why this Chāndogya Upaniṣad, seventh chapter—Nārada comes. Nārada-Sanatkumāra Saṃvāda. Nārada comes and asks, "Bhagavān, You please give me teaching." Very interesting. And then Nārada was asked by Sanatkumāra, "Okay, first tell me what you have studied." Very interesting. Then he was a walking encyclopaedia, including Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda. And where is this Chāndogya Upaniṣad? It is in the Sāma Veda book. So, what was the story? "You studied so much, and what have I got to teach anything?" He said, "No. Only when a realised soul teaches, that leads to peace of mind." That is what Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Mahārāj is telling.

When Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa used to talk to a Jñānī, he is talking as an experienced Jñānī. When he is talking about Bhakti, as an experienced Bhakta. Otherwise, authenticity will not be there.

Who Is Fit for Jñāna Mārga?

In this connection also, it is very important to understand: there are some people who go on talking about Jñāna. Nowadays, most of the many people in the West, they want to follow Jñāna Mārga. "You are that—you are Brahman. That is what I have been thinking, you know. I am God—I was thinking but I am doubting. Now that you teach me, that you support me, now I know that I was all the time right." This is the idea. And many of us also are reading Upaniṣads for supporting Bhakti, not for following Jñāna Mārga.

So who is fit for Jñāna Mārga? One who does not have body consciousness? No, that is not correct. One in whom, without understanding, the man will never do anything. Intellect must understand. But there are two types of understanding. What is called intellectual understanding and existential understanding. What is intellectual understanding? Professors of philosophy, etc.—they understand perfectly; they know better than our Swamis. It is a very interesting conversation—it is there. I will talk to you later on.

Intellectual vs. Existential Understanding

So what is existential knowledge? By experience? No, it means when a man is convinced this is right, he will immediately follow it. When the man is convinced this is not right, he will give it up. Only such a man is fit to follow the path of Jñāna. Only such a man is fit to follow the path of Jñāna. The conviction should also be supported by the experience.

When does faith become conviction? You see, it is like putting the cart before the horse. First we start with faith. There are these two types of faith: intellectual faith and what is called like Naciketā's faith. So at some point, the faith will take over us. But that is only the beginning. "So first let me see God, then I will do sādhana." That is not going to work out.

The Story of Nārada

There are so many Prabuddhas who go on telling, "First Swami, you convince me that God exists. Show me God at least once. After that, of course, I will do this sādhana." And that also happens sometimes. You know Nārada. Lord Nārāyaṇa appeared to Nārada. And then like lightning it disappeared. Nārada was disappointed, distressed. Then a voice comes: "You know, it is only to incite you to come towards Me. I just showed Myself for a short time. Now that you are convinced that I do exist." And that is why Nārada became quickly, you know. But we are not Nāradas. We are also Nāradas in a way. Who is a Nārada? Who enjoys creating quarrels with Nārada. We do get glimpses of our goal once in a while here and there. If we get that, it is good. But that does not show constancy. What is constancy? That if anybody has got some glimpse, then it should help him strengthen his faith and go forward. But many times we slide back also. And that does not show it is a real glimpse.

The Professor of Advaita

Anyway, there was this incident. There was one young man—brahmacārī—not brahmacārī. He was thinking of joining. And he wanted to study Vedānta philosophy. So there was a professor of Advaita Vedānta in Mysore University. So this young man went there. And then that professor asked, "What for did you come?" He said, "You know, I am thinking of becoming a monk. And I did not find any monks who could teach me Advaita Vedānta. Somebody mentioned your name. You are an authority on it. So that is why I have come to learn." And then the professor looked at him and said something most wonderful. "You see, if you are planning to be a professor of Advaita, I will be very glad to teach you. But if you are thinking of living a monk's life, go to any monk—whether he knows Advaita Vedānta or not. Learn from him whatever he can teach." Did you understand? Yes. He said, "I am only an intellectual person. I know everything—Śaṅkara-bhāṣya and all these things thoroughly I know. But I cannot give you inspiration. But whereas any living monk can give you inspiration. They may not be paṇḍits. They might not even understand Śaṅkara's language. But they are living the life. And that alone can help you." When I heard this, I liked it very much. And then eventually I think he joined our Ramakrishna Order like that.

Veda Ghoṣa vs. Veda Mīmāṃsā

You mentioned there are two ways of learning Vedas: the Veda Ghoṣa and the Veda Mīmāṃsā. Ghoṣa means how to chant and how to learn a little bit for performing what is called rituals—Pūjārī, Purohit and other things. Most people end because in those days they have to earn some livelihood. Veda Mīmāṃsā is only after learning how to chant, how to use the mantras in a preliminary way. Some students, they would like to go deep into it to understand the inner meaning. That is called Veda Mīmāṃsā. And they will turn up invariably. Sometimes they become Naiṣṭhika Brahmacārīs. Sometimes monks. But even if they do not turn out to be, they are far superior to the Veda Ghoṣas.

So the point is every student is not going to be a Vedic scholar. Even those who are called Dvivedī, Trivedī, Caturvedī—these two types are there. There is a Ghana Pāṭha we call it. There are so many types of Pāṭhas, means how to do it. Cidanandaji learned. He has that persistence for several years. He and his brother both. And his brother died 2-3 years back. Very nice person. Very nice person. He was in Bombay. So the point is even those Trivedīs and Caturvedīs, even there are two types. One type is they have just gone through all these three Vedas or four Vedas or two Vedas. But they have not gone deep into the meaning. And there are some people even today, very rare, they can, by closing their eyes, they can recite the whole Ṛg Veda—which consists of slightly more than 10,000 mantras. And there is one, the present Kanci Pīṭha, Kāmakoṭi Pīṭha, younger sannyāsī, he is junior—he can recite Ṛg Veda, I heard, from backwards. Backwards. No, no, it is possible. There are some people, entire Qur'an, they know by heart. Yeah, it is possible.

But these are called Ghoṣins—Veda Ghoṣins. But there are some people who go to some Ācāryas and learn Bhāṣyas—either Śaṅkara Bhāṣya or Rāmānuja Bhāṣya or Madhva Bhāṣya, etc. They are called Mīmāṃsakas. Mīmāṃsā means thorough analysis. That is the meaning of the word Mīmāṃsā. Not Māṃsā—do not do this. What māṃsā you are talking about? Please come—I heard some māṃsā word. That is why we came here. What is in Bengali—Mīmāṃsā word means to settle a dispute. It is also analyse a subject. Thoroughly—what is called threadbare. Analyse it threadbare—study it threadbare, they call it, you know.

Why Study Vedas Without Bhāṣyas?

"Guruji, Swamiji, often times he actually asks his disciples to study Vedas, not through the Bhāṣyas. Why?"

You see, it is a very interesting event. Because it is found out so far that when a person goes, studies these Vedas, he has to go through somebody. The reason is the language had become—first of all—archaic language. Excepting few words, many of these and those words—the meaning of the words same—but the meaning earlier and the meaning now are totally different. Because language changes. Secondly, it is so much disconnected. The Vedas, suddenly they talk something and suddenly something else comes into it. That is why we have no way but to go through, especially—how many Bhāṣyas are there? We are not talking about Upaniṣads, we are talking about entire Vedas. Sāyaṇa—so far as we know—is one of the latest in 15th century—Sāyaṇa Bhāṣya. He commented upon all the Vedas. So earlier, supposed to be one Śabara Bhāṣya, one or two Bhāṣyas, which are not available any longer.

So why Swamiji said any study of any Upaniṣads or anything Bhāṣyas? It is like getting brainwashed. Once you study that, you stop thinking deeply, and all your argumentations, reasonings work only with that view. So we may often miss some unique meaning which is there in the Vedas. Aurobindo, he attempted to do, but very peculiar, twisted commentary he made. It is not accepted by anybody. It is The Secret of the Vedas. He has written a book. He has his own peculiar philosophy. It is more akin to Śākta philosophy than Vedānta philosophy. You understand? Śākta. So, he has coined certain terminology which are terrible—the super—something is there—super reality or something—descends super divinity and then turns this whole earth into paradise. According to him, in course of time, the divinity will come and this earth becomes a spiritual place. And such a terrible, mistaken idea. Nowhere else, nowhere in the Vedas, Vedānta, it is said this earth is going to be divine. Only from our perspective point of view, if I become divine, then the whole earth appears to be divine. This world is not going to change. But if world is going to change by chance, then there is no need for anybody to do any sādhana. Automatically everybody will be in paradise.

And he also issued so many statements which I thoroughly disbelieve. He said Swami Vivekananda appeared to him in the Dalipur jail or somewhere. And then he said, "You know, I could not teach so many things. And I am leaving it to you," and he taught him. So that he is a—what is called—no, no. He is the completer of Swami Vivekananda's message. That was what—this is a horrible thing. And his life itself, you know, he used to meet only with that French woman. And then once in a year only he used to give darśana, etc. And then he also issued a statement: "Because of the descendants of the divinity, my body will be in the same way giving fragrance for many days." And after one or two days, when this horrible smell started coming, then he hastily had to bury, cremate his body.

Why Did This Happen to Aurobindo?

Did Swami Vivekananda or Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa or any of the direct disciples make any of these kind of statements? You know, why did this happen? It is one of the questions raised. He seemed to be a very sincere sādhaka. Why did this happen to him? So, one conclusion that we have come to is because he had no guru. In fact, he discarded one guru from Mumbai—somewhere he adopted. Very soon he left his guru. I mean, he said, "You are not my guru," like that. And then he went, fled to Pondicherry. And there he started his own.

Swami Brahmananda's Warning

So that is what Swami Brahmanandaji warns: if anybody undertakes sādhana without the guidance of a competent guru, two things will happen. Rather, he said, three things can happen. In most of the people's case, they become hypocrites. If they are persistent, they will go mad. Only one in a thousand or something, he would achieve his goal by God's grace. This is what he said.

Why Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Needed a Guru

That is why Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa—he could have attained. In fact, he did attain—you know that? Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's sādhana can be divided into two parts. The first part is, without the help of any guru, through intense yearning, he achieved everything, including Nirvikalpa Samādhi. That is what Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa the Great Master analysis says. Then the question came: if he had already attained, why did he need to go through the same thing? It is because we have a tradition. According to the scripture, no man's realisation can be trusted unless it is proved by three factors: svānubhūti, guru-upadeśa, and śāstra-upadeśa. Śāstra, Yukti, and Guru. Yukti means reasoning. So if anybody says, "I have this experience," and it sounds irrational, then that should be rejected. It should be Guru, Śāstra. What is Śāstra? Śāstra is equivalent to Yukti. Because Śāstra has to be studied under some competent person. Guru must certify: "Yes, your experience is authentic." That is what Totāpurī authenticated. Bhairavī Brāhmaṇī authenticated. Whoever came to him, they authenticated. So he has not done it for his own sake, first. Secondly, he has not experienced anything new. Same old thing he experienced. But this time, what was he doing? He is validating the scriptures. And he is also sending the message to people: "Do not go independently. So you go through a Guru."

Cidābhāsa

Cidābhāsa—cit means consciousness; ābhāsa means its reflection. So—cit. Not citta—citta means mind. Cit means consciousness, God. Sat, Cit, Ānanda.

All right. Om Śāntiḥ, Śāntiḥ, Śāntiḥ.