Vaiṣṇavism and its spiritual basis

Vaiṣṇavism is commonly regarded as the worship of Viṣṇu or Nārāyaṇa as the Supreme Being. We would do well to invert this understanding and consider that the Supreme Being is identified correctly and worshipped as Viṣṇu or Nārāyaṇa. 

Most Vaiṣṇava systems strongly advocate the exclusive worship of Nārāyaṇa and do not encourage the worship of other deities. This insistence is most profound in the Śrīvaiṣṇava system. Such insistence is perceived by some to be narrow-minded and as lacking in modern liberal outlook. In this article, we will dispel this misunderstanding and eliminate needless confusion. 

1. Get your priorities straight

The worship of God is a spiritual practice. God is not looking for favors from humans and asking them to worship Him in all the different forms equally. Even within 'Hinduism', we find that Hindus only worship a set of Hindu gods and not Greek gods. We do not find Hindus discovering the Brahman in the form of an ancient Egyptian God. What is relevant is the spiritual discipline of the individual and not how broad-minded one is towards different deities. There is absolutely no Vedic injunction to worship all deities. A careful study of the philosophical works of Śrī Śaṅkara, Bhagavad Rāmānuja, Ānanda Tīrtha and other saints of Vedānta would clearly reveal that they favor only the worship of Viṣṇu or Nārāyaṇa for sound reasons. They would be appalled by the intellectually lazy broad-mindedness of today's spiritual businessmen. 

2. The form of the deity matters

The form of the deity matters in spiritual discipline. For those yearning for liberation, this is a point of utmost seriousness. How God is meditated upon and understood has direct implications for one's spiritual practice. Any form is NOT ok. The fruit of meditation will be directly in accordance with the content of meditation - this fact is taught by the Vedas. Viṣṇu is meditated upon as blissful, beautiful, resplendent, auspicious, divine, transcendent, powerful and as the abode of all desirable qualities. Only meditation upon Viṣṇu can bring peace and delight to the heart, and imbibe positive spiritual qualities. Other meditations can take the practitioner only to some distance.  Liberation and the highest joy are possible only through meditation on Viṣṇu. Such is the unanimous verdict of all Sātvika-s. Viṣṇu is acknowledged by all saints as the form of pure and highest sattva (truth) that is free of all Rājasika and Tāmasika constructs. The avatāra-s and deeds of Viṣṇu directly speak to the practitioner and cultivate interest and delight. The deeds of Viṣṇu are not performed simply to showcase His power but are relevant to devotees spiritually. Pleasing Viṣṇu is the easiest and does not require any physical suffering. Devotion is more important than any physical gymnastics because Viṣṇu is the true form of the Brahman. 

3. Beware of mischief in spirituality

The so-called broad-minded spiritual doctors would not display their broad-mindedness in philosophical matters. They know it is absurd. For example, the so-called non-sectarian Ramakrishna Mission would go to great lengths in discrediting the greatness of Viṣṇu by calling Sātvika texts as sectarian works even while writing about those texts. But, in the same breath, they would declare that Dvaita is the initial spiritual stage which leads to Viśiṣṭādvaita and finally culminates in Advaita - an utterly confounding stance even to Saṅkarācārya. This is because they realize it would be absurd to be broad-minded and declare that all philosophies are equally valid. But, when it comes to meditation/worship, they suddenly feel the urge to become broad-minded and lose track of the philosophical background & purpose of meditation. Even in their exposition of their neo-Vedānta, they would be befuddled by the ancient texts which are acknowledged by all teachers since they are not suitable to their views. They would invent new sources like Yoga Vāśiṣṭa which are untouched by any Advaita teacher from Saṅkarācārya to Madhusūdana Sarasvatī. In general, most of the broad-mindedness can be easily be seen to be a consequence of Viṣṇu-Vaiṣṇava-dveṣa than due to any serious philosophical position. Such attempts have been made since the times of Appayya Dīkṣita to discredit the worship of Viṣṇu by hook or by crook, and confuse people. There seems to be an urge deep within to somehow deny the greatness of Viṣṇu even if the text or teacher explicitly teaches it. This urge sometimes takes the form of outspoken hatred where the great activities of Viṣṇu, which must be understood from the perspective of Vedānta, are distorted to spew abuse. By doing such things, no harm is caused to Viṣṇu who is the true representation of the Brahman. Instead, such abusers fall from their own spiritual practice. When Ramaṇa Maharṣi, a teacher of neo-Advaita, was approached with the question on which deity to worship, he responded that one must pick only one deity and worship exclusively. Though he did not speak of the greatness of Viṣṇu, he was clear that devotion can only be exclusive. This is a point sadly lost to the broad-minded spiritual heroes who count Ramaṇa Maharṣi as one of their masters. Likewise, a story (authorized) about Śrī Candraśekarendra Sarasvatī of  Kāñcī finds him chiding a Vaiṣṇava woman for violating her dharma and worshipping Śiva. He advises her to find redemption for her problems within her own dharma. However, these inconvenient messages are carefully glossed over by broad-minded teachers. 

4. Over-simplification leads to disaster

Most critics of Vaiṣṇavism try to over-simplify it. The worship of Viṣṇu must be understood in light of the entire spiritual system and not by the narrow-minded ignorance informed by unexamined spiritual positions. The position of Śrīvaiṣṇavism will be explained below very briefly. 

It is blatantly clear in both normal experience and in meditation that conscious experiences differ from person to person. This proves the Vedic message that there are several individual souls, not just one. Experience can only belong to a conscious entity. The non-sentient universe is, by definition, devoid of consciousness. How can it superimpose on a single conscious entity and lead to multiple disconnected, unique experiences? There is no evidence for unity of consciousness nor is such a unity necessary. 

It is also seen in the experiences of meditation that in the purest state of the soul, one is an observer to the modifications of one's consciousness by karma. This simple spiritual experience refutes the claim that the knower and the known become one in meditation. Rather, only judgment, which distances the observer from the observed, is removed and proximity is attained, not identity which would be absurd to explain. The fall of mind-body ego does not strip one of individuality and uniqueness of personal experience. This establishes that the soul is the knower and that there are several souls. No religious text can invalidate such clear perception. The presence of the knowing soul that is cognizant of the kārmic modifications establishes the presence of a core consciousness which is beyond all change, and an attributive consciousness that is subject to modifications due to karma. 

Śrīvaiṣṇavism would gladly accept these conclusions of Advaita that the soul, in its purest state, is beyond all such modifications and is nirguṇa in the sense that it transcends the three guṇa-s of prakṛti. However, it would disagree that there is only one soul or that this soul is the final end of spiritual practice for the below reasons.

Once one has transcended the effects of matter and identification with mind-senses-body, one still finds that one's karma-s continue their dynamics and cause modifications of conscious experience. Though one may learn not to react emotionally to these things, they are still there to be observed. One has not truly become free but only learned to remain in equanimity. One has become free of the psychological trauma but not of the conditions that can produce it. This is because of a very simple truth: even if you reach the greatest height of spirituality, you cannot become God. God is the ultimate cause due to whom the universe of sentient souls and non-sentient entities operate. Karma operates under the watch of, and with the energy of God. The laws of the universe are God's laws and owe their existence & operation to Him. 

God, who is understood as Viṣṇu or Nārāyaṇa, is the basis of all reality. He is the only independent Real. Everything is else is only conditional real, dependent on God. This provides the basis for religion. Śrīvaiṣṇavas determine that Śiva as a Yogī and as being worshipped in the form of void is a true representative of a jīva (soul), who through the practice of Aṣtāṅga Yoga dispels oneself from the modifications of matter. Śakti is  representative of the forces of nature - matter, energy and time - and is the emblem of Prakṛti. Other deities are representative of more limited functions: Agni, only of fire, Sūrya only of suns, etc. Viṣṇu is seen to be explicitly transcendent of all this, and representative of the true form of God or Brahman and is the abode of all perfections. This is how the gods introduced in the Vedas can be resolved and understood meaningfully. 

All sentient and non-sentient entities are the body of God. This is the meaning of understanding the Viśvarūpa of Kṛṣṇa  - that the whole universe is the form of Viṣṇu. Viṣṇu, by the meaning of His name, is omnipresent and pervades everything from within to control & support them as Antaryāmī. 

For Śrīvaiṣṇavas, this deep realization of Viṣṇu within oneself leads to surrender to God and a life dedicated to Viṣṇu which constitutes the Bhāgavata dharma. One realizes that one lives in Viṣṇu, for Viṣṇu, as a form or instrument of Viṣṇu. At this stage, one does not even have to seek liberation because Viṣṇu, the savior, is always within. We all belong to Viṣṇu and are inseparably related to Him. Since we belong to Him, it is His imperative to save us. Living life with this understanding is realized to be the highest maturity of spirituality. 

Unlike other Vaiṣṇava paths, Śrīvaiṣṇavas find God not only without but also within. They are trained to constantly remember the true intimate relationship of the finite infinitesimal soul to the infinite God. Due to this, they do not strive particularly after specific spiritual disciplines that are taught by sages or by demigods, and hence do not worship those those sages/demigods for teaching them that discipline. They find faith only in the saving grace of God. They do not deny the Vedic path or the teachings of sages/demigods, but they reconcile them in the larger teaching of the inseparability of God and soul, and the knowledge that we all belong to God. They worship God with love and practice all disciplines as service to God. This is the life of Brahman-hood, of abiding in the Brahman and of complete dedication to God. They do not go around worshipping a hundred gods simply because there is no reason to do so. They find fullness of satisfaction in worshipping Viṣṇu who is the complete truth (sattva), and attain spiritual maturity through the same. They have no obligation to run around from god to god to showcase some unexplained broad-mindedness. Even those gods who are worshipped by these broad-minded folk would be smiling with pity at their lack of spiritual seriousness. 

Conclusion

Śrīvaiṣṇavas fully understand that each person is entitled to one's own spiritual practice and different practices have their own value. The Āzvar-s clearly state that different methods are created for different spiritual practitioners. By practising valid methods, one can mature spiritually. Since God is the highest, no human law can bind God, and He is free to accept and redeem souls through any method. However, it is only emphasized that Śrīvaiṣṇavism is an excellent way to spiritual redemption. It is a safe and sure approach if followed correctly by submitting to the grace of God. However, it is possible that those without clear understanding can falter even in this system and will have to wait out their spiritual redemption. The purpose of this article is to show that having clear spiritual vision is not narrow-mindedness but only firm spiritual focus. The defects attributed to Śrīvaiṣṇavism as being too narrow are born out of ignorance or an incomplete understanding of its architecture. In fact, they are born from the narrow-mindedness that forces one to discredit another system simply because one is not practising it. If Śrīvaiṣṇavism is sectarian, the view of broad-minded teachers is also equally sectarian because it wouldn't admit of any other view than their own. They just manage to package it with a misleading label. 

Tolerance & mutual respect are the need of the hour, not the empty pride in affirming a non-existent equality. The purpose of religion is spiritual success, not the display of magic or ego-boosting broad-mindedness. 

The Victory of Svāmī Rāmānuja

We are only a few days away from celebrating the 1000th anniversary of manifestation of Svāmī Rāmānuja who radically transformed the course of Indian philosophy and religion.

It is therefore fitting to note one of the key triumphs of Svāmī Rāmānuja's teaching that is relevant to our age. He was the foremost of philosophers who disputed the self-annihilating presumptions of philosophies that had gained prominence during his time.

Mindfulness has become popular in recent times across the world. It has been studied scientifically and it is being taught worldwide with keen interest. The mindfulness movement is truly a revolution in that it has thrown open the doors of spirituality, something Svāmī Rāmānuja intended to do during his times. Thanks to the spread of mindfulness, nobody has to accept the word of some secretive guru to understand what spirituality is about. Everyone can practise mindfulness and explore their consciousness for themselves. 

Mindfulness has made certain claims about our conscious experience directly verifiable. Though the world has still not come to terms with the experience and learned to put it in the right language - often confusing new spiritual aspirants with blatant contradictions - the accounts of experience are consistent and clear. What is more? If you don't believe them, you can practise meditation and verify them for yourself! 

Below are some of the claims which have been busted by uniform experiences in meditation. 

1. Pure consciousness without content is at the root of all reality

Though several teachers, not limited to those owing allegiance to Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta, keep repeating this statement, it is very straightforward to see that this claim is false. 

As one accesses deeper states of consciousness, one only experiences vivid perception and a sense of immense of bliss. It is not the goal of anyone subscribing to meditation to lose all experience and become one with contentless consciousness. This mischaracterization is one of the reasons why some see meditation as a way to escape the world - by going contentless. Instead, meditation only amplifies the value and content of experience without distortion by judgments and mental constructs. It generates contentment, happiness, gratitude and compassion. Meditation leads one to a rich state of conscious awareness, not to one that is devoid of all qualification. It enables us to see beauty in ourselves and in others. This is confirmed in the experience of several meditation practitioners. Yet, it is sad to find some teachers parroting something incorrect and confusing new practitioners on what they are expected to find. 

2. The self is an illusion (or) the subject and object merge into one / disappear (or) the observer becomes the observed

One needs to define what one means by the term 'self'. The Vedanta indicates that the self can be understood at five levels, not one: (1) body (matter), (2) life (energy), (3) mind, (4) "I"-ness and (5) God/Brahman. 

What meditation leads to is the removal of the incorrect identification of the "I" with the mind. It is the mind-self or the person-self that is transcended through meditation, not all sense of self. If one feels that one has transcended all sense of self, one must consult a neurologist for advice. 

The mind is the instrument of grasping, language and concepts. Once the mind is diverted to some other job - such as focusing on one's breath, etc. - perception becomes rid of all structures of the mind. It is factually inaccurate to say that the sense of self completely dissolves and the boundaries between one and the other literally disappear. It can be verified by direct experience that this so-called self-transcendence is experienced only in one locality of consciousness but not it another. (That is, one individual experiences it and not another.) What occurs is simply the fall in activity of the desiring and grasping mind which leads to the opposite of selfishness. It so happens that the word for this is selflessness, but it does not mean that the self is annihilated. It only means that one acts without selfish motive. There is a kernel of "I" still left in this meditative state. 

This is confirmed by the uniform experience that one becomes witness/observer to the tantrums of the mind. Clearly, the witness is the self which observes everything non-judgmentally. This self is not pure-consciousness but it is a very concrete knower, jñātā who is intensely conscious of all experience: of the breath, of sensations, of perceptions, of thoughts. Listen to any meditation teacher and they will confirm to you that this is how it is, and then in the same mindful breath, some of them would claim that consciousness is without all attributes, that there is no subject and no object of awareness!

The collapse of the mind simply leads to proximity of the subject and the object as they are no longer separated by mental constructs. This is mistaken to be the collapse of the observer and the observed into one. It would be absurd to conclude that one's conscious awareness is the same as the tree being observed. It should not require a lot of effort to realize that language is being misused when one claims that the observer and the observed become one. Instead, it is that the observer becomes intimate with the observed without grasping, without actively judging, describing, interpreting. This is a state of unconditional love which those who meditate experience and describe. Experience does not collapse into nothingness; it is only liberated from mental constructs. But, so used are we to the tyranny of the mind that in the exultation following this liberation, we decide that we have ceased to exist. 

3. This sense of awareness is God. 

Traditions like Advaita equate the mind with the jīva or individual self though it has been taught that the manomaya and the vijñānamaya are different levels of awareness. If the mind is taken to be the individual self, then the next stage, the witness which transcends it must be God or Brahman or the Void - such is the understanding. 

However, it has been taught that God is one who is the witness of all. The witness accessed by mindfulness (as a first order practice) is only the witnessing jīva. The awareness, however vivid, is still only local awareness. It is not the infinite awareness of the Brahman.

Some teachers of Advaita or Buddhism may have deluded themselves into thinking that they have become God and ironically end up descending from the level of witness-self to the level of the mind-self, and behave immorally with their disciples. Teachers warn us that the moment you think I have become God you collapse again to the mind and its false ego. There is another reason why this is the case: we have not become God. The fall follows faith in a false claim. God-awareness or Brahman-awareness is the awareness that is simultaneously witness to everything, not just of one local experience. The individual witness-self is a finite manifestation (śarīra) or aspect (amśa) of the infinite Brahman-self. The witness-self is almost exactly the same as the Brahman-self in quality but not in identity. 

Reports that one has become one with the all are just a misuse of language that confuse new practitioners who are bewildered that this never happens to them. What is it to become one with the all? It is not to become the all. If that is the case, anyone who has this experience must report the experiences of everyone in the world and must be able to harmonize with the all. Instead, we find even awakened people being at the receiving end of hostile minds of 'others' who do not see the former's elevated state of awareness. Though it appears that awareness can transcend the body as seen in NDEs, this is not the state attained by any guru who claims to have become one with the All. All one has realized is one's inseparability from the Brahman; that is, one's apṛthak-siddhi-saṃbandha (relation of inseparable existence) with respect to the Brahman. It does not mean that the jīva literally becomes the Brahman or that one dissolves into the great void. The boundaries constructed by the mind vanish leading to inseparability, not to identity. 

Brahman is still superior and beyond this local witness-awareness. The local witness-self can attest that it is still subject to the vagaries of saṃsāra. It cannot decide what arrives in its experience. There is pleasure, there is pain. Though all of this is experienced in a detached way, it still is there and cannot be mastered. The master is the Brahman, who regulates the experiences of the witness-selves according to the laws of karma. He takes the witness-selves who exist as latent potentialities in the subtle universe, and transforms them into patent and aware selves in the actual universe. Riding the dynamics of karma and finally learning to transcend them, a process of soul-making is at work which uplifts the state of awareness to higher and higher levels till it attains the state of loving awareness or bhakti in which the Brahman is revealed. The witness-self is still subservient and subordinate to God. This truth never changes, no matter how high one feels about oneself. Love only cultivates a deep sense of humility with respect to God.

This is also the reason that in Viśiṣtādvaita, Bhakti is not explained in terms of bhāva-s or rasa-s because bhakti is not a sentiment (though it can manifest in sentimental effect), but a state of awareness - one in which God or Brahman is revealed. Interpreting the Śrīmad-Bhagavad-Gītā, Svāmī Rāmānuja explains that the love that is called Bhakti follows the state of awareness where the witness-self is realized. This unconditional and focused loving state of awareness is one which comprehends God. It is possible for the witness-self to become self-aware of its own bliss and stop there: this is the liberation of kaivalya. But, it is also possible to allow awareness to transition to the next level and become the all-encompassing love that comprehends Brahman. Kṛṣṇa says in the the Gītā that of all Yogī-s, the one whose awareness is in the state of love that comprehends God, is the highest. This awareness is the state of all-comprehending love. This is different from emotional/sensuous/sentimental love with which Bhakti is identified by some other schools and tantras.

It is quite possible that several Advaitins and Buddhists (and mystic Christians / Sufis) have truly attained to this state. The difference is only in the way in which they express this state. Often times, the expressions/descriptions serve only to bewilder those interested in spirituality and lead to frustration. In this respect, Svāmī Rāmānuja development of Bhakti (love) and Mukti (liberation) stands apart, tall, above talks of identities, illusions and emotions, and truly states the case as it is. 

P.S. The goal of this essay is to celebrate Svāmī Rāmānuja's development of theistic philosophy that reconciles Yoga, mysticism and practical life without sublating one with the other. It is not the intention to criticize or put down other forms of thought. The success of any practice lies in the fruit and there is nothing but the deepest respect for all traditions that lead to full realization of oneself. The efforts of meditation teachers of all schools to uplift the state of our consciousness is praiseworthy. 
It is also acknowledged that those claiming to follow Svāmī Rāmānuja commit indiscretions, while there are those who do not claim to follow, but display a highly evolved state of awareness. It appears that spiritual evolution is not tied strongly to how accurately one describes that level of awareness. However, it is important that a teacher not confuse the disciple but teach correctly. It is in this that Svāmī Rāmānuja's success is unparalleled.
Regardless of which school of thought we subscribe to, the need for an awakened state of awareness is urgent and we must all work together in this mission.

Unconditional Love

In the beginning of the ninth centum of Tiruvāymozhi, Svāmī Nammāzhvār declares that there is no real love in spouse, children, relatives, friends or others. They behave in favorable manner when there is something to take and not otherwise. 

Some of us may feel outraged by this suggestion. We may believe we enjoy the true love of someone or we may believe that we truly love someone. How can it be said that this love is motivated and unreal? 

Before we lose our composure, let us take a step back (as usual) and look at what this love is. The first question to ask is: Is love conditional or unconditional? 

The first answer is that love is conditional. After all, we do love only some people and not others. There is something in them that we like or learn to tolerate. We do not like others the same way. If this is the case, the matter is over. Love is established to be motivated by conditions. 

Some fortunate people, who have experienced love in their lives, may claim that love is unconditional. However, this is generally found to be an illusion. What is called unconditional is generally a superior set of conditions. Instead of loving for superficial reasons, if love is developed for slightly higher reasons and if it is developed with a slightly higher sense of tolerance, we think it is unconditional love. 

But surely, the love of a mother for her child must be unconditional? Probably. But, even this has its limits and love can quickly turn into emotional excess or over-protective control. Many times, attachment gets confused for love. The mother may just be trying to control and modify the behavior of the child with the idea, "I know what is good for you". Love is something that is beyond attachment. To think, "You are my child. I birthed you. Therefore, I love you." is also a way of attachment. Some parents are distraught when they learn that their children do not reciprocate their love. In reality, their wards did not reciprocate their attachment and left to other attachments. Mothers, who love their children excessively, do not love other children the same way. It appears as if their kids are special. They would wish that their kids should win and other kids should fail. Why? Due to the simply reason that "this is my child". 

The mother's dedication and sacrifice is worthy of the highest respect, but if we analyse it deeply, we find that it is a product of attachment. The condition of attachment motivates this love. It is a matter of pride to the mother if her child does well. She has skin in the game. 

Can there be love that is truly unconditional? Can there be love that is not motivated by even the highest of conditions? 

The answer is as simple as it is uncommon. To experience or provide love unconditionally, we have to get out of the conditions and see ourselves for who we are. As long as we approach the world with conditioned minds, it is not possible to love unconditionally. 

This unconditional love is called Bhakti. Bhakti is not the love that grasps (develops attachment to) an individual. It is the outcome of an enlightened state where one sees oneself truly and loses the false ego. The love which is unconstrained by conditions of mind, body, etc. spreads out fully. It expresses itself totally and with respect to the All, the Brahman. When the pettiness of conditions falls apart, the larger picture becomes revealed. The need to grasp this or that fades.  The glorious harmony of all entities in the Brahman becomes evident. One does not see the many, but only one, the One - in whom everything is strung like pearls on a twine. Also, truly unconditional love is the Brahman's love. It is His love that gets expressed through multiple channels. Some contaminate that love through attachment. But, it is truly His love. He is mother, father, friend, relative, spouse and child of all of us. An enlightened person is one who is pleased merely by the sight of another soul, by the simple nature around oneself and does not have to grasp something to attain pleasure. That is because there is nothing to grasp but Nārāyaṇa. All these sentient and non-sentient entities are His modes and He is the governor of their reality. They are His bodies, His expressions. 'sarvaṃ brahmātmakam.' Love to Nārāyaṇa is not an outcome of "if"s and "because"s. It is all there is in reality. It is all the love experienced and it is all the love expressed. It is the love woven into the fabric of reality. 

Upāya - Method

When there is an object to be attained, one seeks the method. There is a always a procedure to carry out any activity to bring out some result. When the process is well-defined we feel comfortable. When the process is not defined, we find ourselves confused and disturbed. 

In the spiritual parlance, what is the method to attain spiritual success? What is the process? 

Some teachers feel that there is no method. Others think there are methods and list them out. Some others think that the situation is more complicated and that a simple answer is not possible.

In Śrīmad-Bhagavad-Gītā, Kṛṣṇa teaches that there are three well-defined spiritual methods:

1. Karma Yoga - Communion through action

2. Jñāna Yoga  - Communion through knowledge

3. Bhakti Yoga - Communion through love 

The purpose of Karma Yoga and Jñāna Yoga is to produce self-realization. The purpose of Bhakti Yoga is God-realization. 

Śrīmad-Bhagavad-Gītā clearly teaches self-realization as a precursor to God-realization. This is important because unless one knows oneself, it is hard to want God in a genuine way. When one is identified with the body or the mind, one only thinks, "May I have a good body. May I decorate it well. May I present myself well. May I have pleasurable experiences and feel happy." Only when one understand the self, knowing oneself truly, one develops detachment towards other objects and the attention becomes focused on God. This is not because there is some rule book that says that we must want God. It is simply that this turns out to be the greatest good. "Discover yourself truly, and then you will find out what is good for you." The teaching of the Gītā is very straight forward. Without this systematic approach, we will have sudden 'flings' with God which are either very superficial or very mundane. 

Let us investigate the methods. 

Karma Yoga does not create any artificial constructs. Its role is simply to teach us the truth. Karma Yoga is practising action with detachment. This is not unnatural. We have a right to only engage in action but not a right to the result. We may believe we deserve some results, but there is no natural right to those results. Our only right is in acting. This is not a bad thing. It is a very good thing. By detaching ourselves from the fruits of action, we have the opportunity to remove ourselves from the karmic fruits which lead to suffering. Our action is possible only because of the body, the senses, the mind, ... the manifest world in which we are. None of this is the "I". But action has meaning only in this world of mind, senses and forms. Karma Yoga teaches us to deeply realize this. Through this realization, we form detachment to agency, "I am the sole doer" which breeds identification with the mind or the body, and also removes the notion, "This is my action." 

Consider the very simply act of seeing. We think, "I am seeing" and we tend to get very stimulated by sights. But, the blind person cannot see. This simple act is not possible for that person. Yet, we get attached to the action and identify ourselves with mind and form. When we reflect upon the factors in everything, we realize that 'seeing happens to us'. The laws of universe makes our experience possible. We do have an important role in this process. It is the conscious self that sheds its light and illuminates the non-sentient universe. But this freedom is fairly limited. Our actions, their nature and their fruits are not in our control. 

So, in Karma Yoga, one understands one's actions as the effect of the modes of nature. However, action is important without which we cannot survive and our civilization will degrade. So, Karma Yoga discourages inaction. Actions are performed and they are offered to God as worship. I am fulfilling a particular state of the universe as willed by God. Work is literally worship. This understanding removes selfishness and attachment in action. Karma Yoga teaches us the truth of who we are, the nature of action and our subordination to God - our minds, bodies and the universe are governed by one set of laws, and we ourselves are tied to this state of experience by another set of laws. Both of these are the laws of God in effect. So, one is fully subordinate to God and every action is a worship of God - not my action for my benefit. 

Jñāna Yoga is the method of knowledge that involves deep reflection. One seeks to truly discover oneself through inquiry and reflection. Finding oneself, one rests there firmly. 

The method of knowledge is easy(?) when one is alone and without distractions, when one's needs are taken care of. But, for the rest of us who have to engage with the rest of the world on a regular basis for our survival or live in complex situations, the method of action is more helpful. Many wise people who live well by themselves attain downfall because they do not know how to interact with the world. They lose grounding in themselves when nature strikes with a vengeance. 

In a way the two methods are complementary. One must have some taste of oneself to even trust that the method of action is meaningful. There is some degree of reflection required to undertake Karma Yoga. Likewise, as one practises Karma Yoga, it eventually shatters the masks and unravels the true self. 

The method of love or Bhakti is the stage that comes after self-realization and is a very vast topic. It leads to God-realization and is best appreciated by those who get to the self-realization stage. So, let us take that topic separately later and analyse something else now. 

The realization of oneself, and one's dependence and subordination to God provides us clarity in action. It shatters the false ego. It also leads us to ask an important question, "If the situation is such, who is doing the method?" Am I the practitioner of the method? After all, a process or method is not different from action. Who owns the execution of the method? 

If one fails to ask these question, there is a vestige of false ego: 'I am a practitioner of Karma Yoga which removes my false ego in relation to action.' This is a meta-false-ego. Sometimes, it can be more dangerous than the more mundane false ego. The meta false ego thinks that it is removing the mundane false ego. But, both are effectively the same entity in two different forms. The false ego likes goals, conflicts and problems. So, instead of self-realization, one ends up strengthening a heavyweight 'spiritual' false ego and goes about defending that false identity. 

Getting free of these meta false egos is very difficult and hence the whole process is very slippery. Arjuna was baffled as he realized how tricky the situation is. This is when Kṛṣṇa taught the method of surrender. Surrender to Kṛṣṇa  and be without worry. Worry also breeds the false ego; likewise, self evaluation: "Is this method really working for me?" and the meta false ego: "I am all set now because I am doing this method for my own good. Soon, my false ego will fall off and it will be awesome."

Surrender does not mean inaction or compromise. One continues to do all the methods mentioned about but not with the sense that these are methods to some end. They are done out of love to God who creates the situations that lead to self-realization and God-realization. Surrender is directness with God. It is the interplay between God creating the situation and the self responding in the right way. Action becomes service; knowledge becomes self-vision; love becomes the playground for the experience of God. The nature of the methods don't change, what changes is the way we consider them. 

Not going through this line of thought leads to (and has led to) endless confusion. Some people ask, 'Is surrender a different method from action, love, knowledge, etc.?' This is again the false ego trying to reassert itself. In the name of philosophical development, some teachers create a further split: surrender as method and surrender as non-method. The poor mind then wants to know if surrender is not the method, then what is? It has to be pacified with the answer that God is the method. Some minds are not pacified here because they cannot understand why God is the method. A method is something that is done, a process. How can God be a process? Again, in the name of philosophical development, we can go on developing new concepts to trick our minds. But, the simplest way is to stick to the truth and develop understanding. Surrender is not a method. It is not even something separate from the three methods mentioned above. It is simply the basic truth which underlies the three methods asserting itself and transforming the methods into non-methods. Surrender is the final death of the false ego. 

Morality

It is very dangerous these days to talk about morality. We would accept any moral injunction as long as it is what we wish to hear. The moment we hear something that rejects our position, we feel immediately revolted and try to find reasons to escape the rule. Some moral teachers also preach unnecessary or foolish things in the name of morality. So, people develop a strong aversion to any moral-talk. They would laugh and say, "Here comes the saṃskārī, who will lecture us on culture and morals! Let us escape." Others may choose more violent methods. 

However, morality is the basis of spiritual life. Today, spiritual movements gain traction because people face difficult situations in life and do not know how to cope with them. They are under stress. They want to escape that situation. Some people are truly curious about themselves. In either case, the starting point of many spiritual excursions is the misplaced sense of ego which wants to enhance itself in one way or the other. How can I become better? How can I become more successful in life? etc.

In a society where choices are limited, people are content to settle for whatever is available to them. But, when there are many choices, the mind becomes distracted. It develops jealousy and dissatisfaction. The mind that has many choices is never content. It never allows the individual to live. It is always comparing and optimizing. It is always frustrated. There are smiles on faces of ordinary people but the rich man is frustrated and tense. 

We choose spiritual paths to become better; we need one more accomplishment. These spiritual paths have their own set of moral dictates. Then, one starts following them taking resolution to remain steadfast. But, after the honeymoon period, the effects vanish. For a brief period, the stories of other people return one to focus on the discipline. After a period of time, even that becomes shallow. The mind becomes frustrated. Some spiritual traditions openly declare that no morality is needed, and there also one is frustrated very soon. Freedom is a very tricky thing.

Morality cannot come from rules or books or from the desire to accomplish something. These are dangerous ways to justify one's methods. Anything can be justified quickly. 

A spiritual life is the true basis for morality. Morality is that which enables a spiritual life and raises the consciousness of the individual. It does not constrain the individual and lead one to suffering. It is not an ancient dictate. 

Absence of morality is not freedom. It leads to a society where the members are not interested in a spiritual life. They are busy doing the things that all animals are doing. But, they think they are doing it in a glorified way. That is why there is plenty of wealth and also plenty of poverty. If an alien were to come from a different planet and look at all the wealth in this planet, and then look at all the hunger and poverty, he would be very surprised. This is clearly immoral. People say that they want their money to do something. Of course it should. Far be it from me to say that we must simply divide up all the wealth and be content. Let money do something; let there be investment, profit, etc. In fact, we cry, "Please let it do something." The results must add up to a better life, to lesser hunger, lesser disease, more time for spiritual pursuits and knowing oneself. We have to come out of the life of a beast and know ourselves. That is the goal of life. What kind of values lead us to that life? The answer to this constitutes morality. 

If teachers merely say, "do this, do that", no one would be prepared to listen. They must show how it leads one to a more spiritual life. The individual also would do well to not simply discount morality and claim liberty. There is no liberty in being the victim of emotions and passions. It is a very injurious way of living, even to physical health. One must go deep and understand why the system is so. 

Without morality, there is no spirituality. In Śrīvacanabhūṣaṇam, Svāmī Piḷḷai Lokācārya says that an enlightened master should demand and instill spiritual morals before admitting one as a disciple and revealing the esoteric mantra. 

For these spiritual morals to evolve, the simple, direct and most effective reason is love for Nārāyaṇa. Love or Bhakti or Prāvaṇya is the state of excellence of consciousness. Viṣṇu is the purity in what is pure, and can purify any individual who seeks His refuge; He is our deepest self (Paramātmā); we are His mode, His expression. When this love, Bhagavad-bhakti, Bhagavad-prāvaṇyam, takes root, spiritual morals will develop automatically . There is no need to keep pointing and saying, "do this, don't do that". All spiritual morals find purpose and direction through the love for God, the cause of all causes, our deepest Self and Master. 

The best spiritual morals are restraint over external senses and the mind. Note that restraint is not control. Restraint comes from the loving state of God-consciousness. This is an important point. When one has reached this stage, the master reveals the message of esoteric mantra. It is hidden till then not because it is some orthodox way of keeping secrets, but because it makes sense to the listener only then. When it makes sense, one attains God and attains the highest abode. 

Spiritual morality is important not because it binds but because it liberates, not because it restricts life, but because it fills it with meaning. Then there is no frustration, no sense of emptiness or loneliness, no confusion in purpose. It is all very clear.