Piercing the illusion of the material world
Rahūgaṇa frankly admitted his lack of knowledge and urged Bharata to elaborate on his explanations and thus teach him.
Subscribe to receive new articles by e-mail. It’s free, but if you like, you can pledge a donation:
In the previous article, we studied how Rahūgaṇa was scolded by Jaḍa Bharata, who, despite the injustices committed by the king, decided to give him mercy by enlightening him on transcendental knowledge.
Despite not being very much enlightened philosophically due to the covering of the mode of passion, Rahūgaṇa had faith in philosophical talks on the absolute truth and was used to hearing from great sages. Hearing from Jaḍa Bharata, he could immediately recognize him as one of them. He thus immediately abandoned his position of false prestige, getting down from the palanquin and offering obeisances to the great devotee.
Jaḍa Bharata understood this predisposition and thus took the trouble of instructing him. If the king was just a rascal in the mode of ignorance, like the dacoits that previously tried to behead him, he would have just tolerated whatever the king would try to do to him.
Being part of Vedic society, Rahūgaṇa knew very well the calamitous results of offending a brāhmana or a Vaiṣnava, and he was thus very anxious to be forgiven for his offenses. Before, he thought Jaḍa Bharata was an ordinary worker and was thus ordering and threatening him. Now, however, it was established that Bharata was a brāhmana or great sage, and was thus proper for the king to offer obeisances to him. This is another point that illustrates the beauty of the Vedic culture. People would be trained in such a way that they would immediately offer respect to saintly persons and, in this way, would have a very clear path for spiritual advancement. Even a proud king like Rahūgaṇa didn’t hesitate to offer obeisances to his previous palanquin carrier.
Rahūgaṇa understood that Jaḍa Bharata is qualified in the spiritual science, even though he was not able to fully understand what he said. He thus frankly admitted his lack of knowledge and urged Bharata to elaborate on his explanations and thus teach him.
Jaḍa Bharata said he was not the body and was thus, as the soul, he was not tired from the work of carrying the palanquin. One could take this explanation as supporting the Māyāvādi idea that the material world is false, and thus all the actions performed and relationships we cultivate here are equally false.
It appears that Rahūgaṇa was not familiar with Vaiṣnava philosophy and thus understood the arguments of Jaḍa Bharata in this light. He thus presented some valid arguments that contradict the Māyāvādi view, protesting against the idea of the material world being false.
A Māyāvādi could argue that the world is false, and thus there is no fatigue. However, that’s not our experience. Even though we accept we are not the body, it is a fact that we are practically affected by the state of the body. A dream is certainly illusory, but we can’t say it is false, since we indeed experience the dream, and what we see affects our mental state. Similarly, even though one is not the car, if the car is destroyed, he will certainly be mentally affected.
Similarly, even though we are not the body, as long as we are in the body, we are affected by the state of the body. If I don’t eat, I will not have the strength to work and perform my duties. We understand we are not the body, but at the same time, we don’t neglect the practical aspects of material existence. We understand the material world is temporary, but we don’t say it is false.
There is, however, a difference between this practical level and the absolute level of realization of a paramahaṃsa like Jaḍa Bharata. Although not false, a dream has no effect on reality. A dream affects me only to the extent I believe the dream is real. From the moment I understand it is just a dream, it has no effect on me whatsoever.
In this way, both the positions of Jaḍa Bharata and Rahūgaṇa are correct in a sense. Jaḍa Bharata speaks on the absolute level of realization, seeing himself as factually separated from the body, as the pure soul, unaffected by the pains and pleasures of the body. Rahūgaṇa, on the other hand, speaks from the level of someone who intellectually understands he is not the body, but still identifies with it. This is the same level most of us are, and in the next chapter, Jaḍa Bharata will give us instructions capable of elevating us to the absolute level of realization of a self-realized soul.
How is the soul untouched by pleasure and pain?
Jaḍa Bharata mentioned that fatness, thinness, thirst, hunger, fear, anger, lamentation, etc., are transformations of the material body and mind, not of the soul. Rahūgaṇa, however, under the impression that this sounded like Māyāvāda philosophy, argued that even if he were to agree that all of these are transformations of the body and mind, the soul is still connected with the body and feels all of that. Being so, how can we say that the soul is untouched?
To illustrate his point, Rahūgaṇa used the analogy of a pot containing rice and milk put over a fire. Very quickly, the fire heats the pot, and as soon as the pot becomes hot, the heat is transferred to the milk, which in turn starts cooking the rice. As long as the rice is inside the pot, and the pot is over the fire, there is no way to stop this cooking process. Similarly, material pain and pleasures affect the body and senses, and this in turn affects the mind. Being the soul inside the body, as soon as the mind is distressed, the soul also becomes distressed. How can one be completely detached from this?
This argument is correct from a practical point of view, but it is applicable only as long as I identify with the body. Just like a car being hit by a truck provokes pain only to someone identified with this particular car.
Technically speaking, the connection between the soul and the body is called ahaṅkāra (identification). Because of this identification, centered around the false ego, the soul sees himself as the body and mind, and effectively experiences what the body experiences. In this case, the analogy of Rahūgaṇa of the pot in the fire is applicable. Jaḍa Bharata is also identified, but not with the body. He is identified with his real, eternal form as a soul (svarūpa), which is distinct from the body. A perfect devotee in this level sees the body as something separated from himself and simply observes it, just as someone seeing from the outside. That’s why he was not disturbed when the dacoits were preparing to cut his throat or when the constables of Rahūgaṇa were forcing him to carry the palanquin.
Within his attached mentality as a king, Rahūgaṇa couldn’t conceive that someone could be completely impervious to the situation of the body as Jaḍa Bharata was. He could see practically that he was unattached to the body, and thus he acquired a great respect for him, but how it could be so was completely inconceivable for the king, leading to these inquiries.
Who is the master, and who is the servant?
Jaḍa Bharata also spoke about the roles of master and servant, king and subjects being temporary and illusory, and about the uselessness of punishment. One could use this as an excuse to avoid performing one’s duties. If my position as a father, husband, king, etc. is illusory, and no one is the body anyway, why should I bother performing duties?
This argument would be valid from the point of view of a self-realized soul who really is beyond any sense of material attachment or proprietorship. However, as long as one is attached and identified with the body, one should perform his or her duties, because this helps one to become free from karma and gradually progress. Rahūgaṇa was precisely on this platform, and therefore, he protested the idea that as a king, he should not punish and thus correct his subjects.
Rahūgaṇa saw himself as a king and argued from this perspective. We can see that he was engaging people in carrying his palanquin, seeing himself as their master, without even paying them a salary. Jaḍa Bharata already established that this concept is illusory. In the absolute sense, who is the king and who is the servant? A king should not rule because he thinks he is a king, but rule as a servant of the Lord, punishing, rewarding, teaching, and guiding the citizens in ways that can help them to develop their Kṛṣṇa Consciousness. That’s the point Rahūgaṇa was missing.
You can also donate using Buy Me a Coffee, PayPal, Wise, Revolut, or bank transfers. There is a separate page with all the links. This helps me enormously to have time to write instead of doing other things to make a living. Thanks!