Mahabharata

Let's take a look at life from two perspectives.

The first perspective assumes that I'm a jeeva, an individual and innately I set out to explore the world (let's categorize the world or Jagata as People & Things). We call it the Jeeva view. An example would be that of a clay pot. Jeeva here refers to the pot.

The second perspective is that I am the clay. The name "Pot" is given to a particular "modulation" of me. In other words, this pot is in me, but I am not the pot. Before the name and form (nama-roopa) of pot came about, I was. As pot exists, I am. And after the pot is broken, I still will be. Refine this further. Looking at it from my, clay's angle: is there a demarcation of time? Is it that I was, am and will be or that am-ness or being ness is my nature? Read it again carefully! It would help to drill down to the pot's existence, isolate that period in time, to understand this better. When the pot says, I am, what is it referring to? Is it referring to its form? Assume for a moment this pot is sentient with a 'human mind'. What the pot is saying by "I" "am" is that sense of being or being-ness is me. And also that I am only in this pot or I identify as this particular pot. But what really is the pot? Isn't it clay actually? If clay didn't exist or lend its existence to the pot, could pot exist? Let's analyze this further.

When the pot says I am, is it 100% pot and 0% clay? Or 100% clay and 0% pot or mixed percentages of the two? Look here closely, can we say that when the pot looks at it, it is 100% pot and 100% clay. What sorcery is this? How can I the pot be both clay and pot? Can two truths about me co exist? Can I be something and be something else at the same time?

Read the percentages above again. When I say 100% clay and 0% pot, we could say the being-ness of the pot is lent by me, the clay. In other words, the pot's entire existence is a borrowed one, a dependent reality. When Clay isn't, pot isn't. When clay is, pot is and finally to clinch it, when pot isn't, clay is! This is what Bhagwatpad Adya Shankaracharya says when he means samsara is mithya. He doesn't reject that world cannot be experienced, transacted or used. Just as a pot can be. But it enjoys a dependent existence. So do we as Jeevas.

Future posts will expand on this, but back to the two perspectives. To all of us bar the Atma Jnanis, the first perspective is natural. We are born this way and continue to live our lives until "we" die. Viewed this, the Shastra intends to give us a roadmap to prosperity in the now and hereafter. Mahabharata is relevant because it teaches us this truth or prepares us to become equipped to grasp the second perspective, claim it in due course. An unprepared intellect can never grasp it, let alone have the grace of a Guru. Luckily, in many Indian households, the study of Ramayana and Mahabharata has been carried out thus imparting the much needed samskaras to the children. Sadly, a myth prevails that keeping Mahabharata in a home leads to conflict. Nothing can be further from the truth. If anything, nitya or daily study of Mahabharat, two chapters atleast (Gita Press e books are available too), will plant the seeds of the Vedantic ideal in our minds. It will push a thought sparked by the lofty teachings in daily life just when you need it. And when that happens, you realize how beautiful life can be. Nestled in the teachings, the mind is on a journey, cross crossing People & Things, and if one must adamantly hold onto being a pot only as one's reality, then one would do well to consider the Mahabharata as one's life companion. Don't rely on my words, read it for yourself. Discover it. Reap the fruits of this infinite wisdom today!