TRAVAILS OF THE ORTHODOX

NATIVE  CHARM

TRAVAILS   OF  THE  ORTHODOX

Orthodoxy is taken to mean adherence to the accepted norms and standards of belief and conduct in religious matters. In practice, it always refers to the conservative sections, which are not eager to change with the times. We have orthodox elements in all religions-  though it has a specific connotation among the Christians, based on theological belief.  In general we may consider the Catholics as the orthodox among the Christians as they resist all attempts at 'modernisation' or reform, which in fact means to change their basic approach to life. Thus, they are not willing to concede  or accommodate demands for gay rights, abortion, divorce, live-ins, marriage for priests, euthanasia, etc. 

This adherence to their old standards is both their strength and weakness. It gives them a sense of historic  continuity and fellowship with old masters and authorities. It strengthens their feeling of community and psychological security. It provides for a corner of stability and permanence in this ever changing modern madness. However, since the changes they resist are all the popular ideas and demands  of the modern generation and secular societies and governments, adherents of orthodoxy will be singled out for ridicule , vilification, and may be, possible discrimination.. This is in fact happening in almost all Western countries, especially the US.

Hindus in India face the same problem. All the issues which are advocated by reformist elements abroad are also advocated here by groups calling themselves liberal, progressive, intellectual, etc. The govt is secular; but in India this word is used in the sense of pampering religious minorities at the expense of the Hindus.  The govt will freely legislate on Hindu religious matters; they will run Hindu temples, while other religions are free because of their minority status. In short, Hindus are denied public space to advocate or defend their views. If someone talks of cow protection, (which is in the Constitution) it will be called "communal" while the Vice-chancellor of  the Central Pondicherry University could pass orders that only 'Halal' meat should be served to the Muslim students!

But there are internal problems within the orthodox sections.  Broadly speaking, Hindus who have have been through school and college are secular in outlook- they could be called the children of Macaulay! They have been de-Hinduised., in the sense that they do not subscribe to the basic tenets of their ancestral religion. They are eclectic in their approach, and modern in interpretation. It means they follow the interpretation of foreigners. This is reflected increasingly in such serious matters as marriage , dress, food., performance of rituals,etc. They may call themselves  Hindu officially or nominally, but they do not adhere to the orthodox stipulations. In many families, the older elements are still orthodox- in the sense of being old fashioned, but they do not have a voice or control over the younger elements. This happens even if the older elements are also educated. This does cause some friction.

One of the areas seriously affected is the family. The joint family system has collapsed, and with it, the informal security and protection that were available to the less-endowed in each family. The aged parents are no longer cared for by the sons, especially after marriage, as the girl insists that the boy separate from their parents immediately after marriage. In some cases, the sons may provide some money but not physical company and protection, thus depriving the elders of physical  and emotional support. . Thus the famed Hindu family system has collapsed.

In the nuclear family too, since both partners work, the house resembles more a campsite  than a home- where the family deities are worshipped, the guests are honoured. In fact, in many homes the youngsters do not cook, but make do with ready-made or ordered food. Since such marriages are not considered sacred, but  increasingly as contracts of convenience, they are at risk of dissolution. Divorce rate is rising alarmingly among Hindus, especially among the educated.[ The latest news is that Rohan Murthy (son of Infosys Narayanamurthy and Lakshmi Venu, daughter of TVS Motor's Venu Srinivasan), whose marriage in 2011 got wide notice in the press, have filed for divorce by 'mutual consent'. Both are highly qualified- he from  Cornell and Harvard, and she from Yale.] Is modern education digging the grave of the institution of marriage?

This is mainly due to the result of secular and professional education among girls. They take up employment and career roles become more important than family . Indeed, it is  doubtful if they have any conception of family at all.

Hindus have never had a fixed hierarchy in religious matters. Each sect has its own order, but the control or influence of the leaders is tenuous. Their advice may be sought, but is not binding; and there is no penalty for noncompliance. Anything may be suggested, nothing enforced.

At times, the very notion of orthodoxy is quixotic. Taking the South, the Brahmin community was considered the pillar of orthodoxy. When Brahmins were occupying high positions in the administration ( govt. depts, education, law, medicine, etc, ) they tended to convert all religious functions as public show of their position, and events like Upanayanam, marriages became lavish and ostentatious.It was the orhodoxy then! Along with it other habits were acquired. Over 80 years ago, the Sankaracharya of Kanchi, who commanded great personal respect, thundered against such practices and told the Brahmin community, who considered themselves his prime followers:

- to give up coffee, silk saree and cinema
-to avoid all social aspects and follow the purely religious dictates in respect of upanayanam and marriage

-to adhere to the basic requirement of observing Sandhya and Gayatri

-to give up dowry

- to follow minimum household dharma ie obligations in respect of worship of family deity, honouring the manes, extending hospitality, helping the poor,etc.

He also said definitely that  Brahmin girls should not be sent for jobs. 

Though the number of his self-styled devotees increased over the years, none of these things was observed by the Brahmins. Once he said in exasperation that people kept his photos and those of Gandhiji  but followed neither.

This Sankaracharya was an intellectual, besides being a spiritual colossus.

.He went into the root of the matter. He identified the problems as arising from the desire of Brahmins for a secure and lucrative govt job, for which they sought  a modern, secular education at the cost of their religious tradition , learning, and obligations. But he saw that it was becoming increasingly difficult for them to secure govt jobs, and foresaw that it would become difficult to get admission to educational institutions too! During his visit to Madras city in 1957, he advised the community that their efforts at secular improvement had come to nought and they should return at least partly to their heritage. He made two definite proposals.

- Brahmins should give up their craze for formal, secular schooling. They should take to private education. Elders in the community who were educated and qualified could teach the subjects. They could then appear for the public exams and obtain the certificates.

- Learning and preservation of the Veda was the primary duty of the Brahmins. As far as possible, Brahmins should return to it. Every Brahmin boy should devote at least an hour daily for formal Vedic studies, and reach some minimum level.

Again the community which worships the Swami spurned his advice.  There are any number of 'leading devotees'  among the numerous professionals- doctors, lawyers, accountants; and others like businessmen.Many of them support the maintenance of traditional  Vedic schools. 

But ask them how  many of them sent their own children  to such schools- you will draw a blank.

Vedic students  from Kerala chanting.
from: https://mitchellktravelphoto.wordpress.com.
Copyright status not stated. Thanks.

Will such hypocrisy among the educated  serve the cause of orthodoxy and save the situation?

This is a stunning picture of a more orthodox manner of teaching Veda!  Veda Mata and Go Mata together! How wonderful!
This is from Sri Shankara  Vedavidya Gurukulam  near Dharmastala in Karnataka. 
Picture taken from www.Vedopasanain/pathashala.htm. Thanks.

New Veda pathashalas have been opened, but it is reported that many students do not complete the full course of study but leave after reaching a stage where they can officiate at rituals ie when they can start earning independently! Vedic education today is looked at only from the point of economic gain! Yes, we are reminded that we are in Kali Yuga! 

I have given this example because this Sankaracharya was the most candid and vocal and articulate in this matter. He served longest as the Pontiff- for over 80 years! He was utterly, almost unimaginably simple. He never used a modern gadget, never travelled in a car or plane, and walked all over the country twice.His spoken words have been recorded and preserved in many volumes.He was also the most publicly celebrated and respected. But in the end, it had no effect on the overall situation. The brahmins are still after secular education and employment. Not only do the  Brahmin girls all take up employment, many of them also go abroad! So much for orthodoxy (Sanatana Dharma) in the south!

There are  other Sankaracharya Mutts. There are many other organisations supposedly serving the Hindu cause. None of them has a cohesive, over all plan. Cow protection, spread of Gita education etc are themes spoken about but in the end they all end up in the celebration of some institution and personality. Many of the modern outfits- ashrams- have global ambitions ( or pretensions) and do not speak exclusively for the Hindus, especially for the orthodox elements.

For instance, many of them advocate Vedanta. Obviously, it derives from  the Veda and is based on the Upanishads. Though they study the Upanishads and the Gita, they neglect the Veda which is the base. And the Upanishadic study too is done in an academic spirit and atmosphere, and not as part of an exclusive living system. And some of them (including the Ramakrishna Math) have spread the sinister notion that the Upanishads differ from Veda.

Sri Aurobindo  alone among the modern-educated Indians studied and interpreted the Veda originally, independently of all other European views and Indian errors and established beyond all doubt how the Veda formed the root of all the ideas that were later developed in the Upanishads and Puranas, without any contradiction.

In these two books Sri Aurobindo explained the real, esoteric and mystical meaning of the Vedic hymns which were product of the highest wisdom and vision of the Rishis, not made by them but seen by them.This went beyond the mere dictionary meaning of the words. The mantras contained far more than mere formulae for ritual. He showed the idiocy of Western translators like Max Muller and the mistakes of Indian interpreters like Sayana.  No Hindu who wants to understand the real meaning of the Veda can afford to fail to read these books.

The pictures show the front cover of publications from Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Gratefully acknowledged.

It seems no one has paid attention to the basic problem.  The true Sanatana dharma  in practice depended on some social and political structure. The social structure in the form of Varnasrama has collapsed, and we only have the debris now. The king supported the dharma but now the rulers are governed by mlechcha ideals and in the guise of secularism are anti-Hindu. The religion not having a central authority, no one has any final say in any matter. The established  old Mutts think that they are carries of tradition, and have no authority to change anything. The result is that the common followers are carried by any trend or current, and changes are made everywhere; though not officially sanctified by any authority, they do prevail. The orthodoxy thus faces problems both from the outside and from within. And the problems do seem intractable.

 In Hinduism, orthodoxy ultimately means fidelity to the Veda, which is the source and ultimate sanction of all Hindu dharmas.The Brahmins were meant for learning and preserving the Veda. It has been so till the recent generations. But now large sections of Brahmins have deserted Vedic learning in the traditional way. There is an undeniable force or hand of economic compulsion, and may be the Time Spirit is at work. So, the Brahmins alone cannot be blamed. But then what is the solution?  We may ponder the following passage from the New Testament:

You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost his flavour, wherewith shall it be salted?  It is then good for nothing but to be cast out.

 Matthew 5:13

NOTE:

Sri Aurobindo  said about the Veda:

The Vedas come to us ..." in a language we have ceased to understand, a vocabulary which often, by the change of meaning to ancient terms, misleads most where it seems most easy& familiar, a scheme of symbols of which the key has been taken from us.Indians do not understand the Vedas at all; Europeans have systematised  a gross misunderstanding of them.@

 "At the root of all that we Hindus have done, thought and said through these many thousands of years, behind all we are and seek to be, there lies concealed, the fount of our philosophies, the bedrock of our religions, the kernel of our thought, the explanation of our ethics and society, the summary of our civilisation, the rivet of our nationality, a small body of speech, Veda.

 There is no part of the world's spirituality, of the world's religion, of the world's thought which would be what it is today, if the Veda had not existed. Of no other body of speech in the world can this be said." #

@ From: The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo, vol.17. p.361-362

# From: Sri Aurobindo Archives and Research, April 1977,p.31

The meaning of the Veda is so profound that it is not intelligible to the unrefined intelligence. (That is why the Gayatri, the most fundamental mantra of the Veda prays for 'dhi'- refined, purified intelligence.) The Tamil language uses the word "MARAI" for the Veda  which means 'hidden', 'concealed' etc. A separate discipline was required to study and understand that. That is why a whole Varna was dedicated for its study and practice as the sole lifetime occupation, not to be exchanged for money. People, and especially Brahmins should think about this deeply.

BEWARE OF INTERPRETERS

              SAINTS WILL AID

              5.  BEWARE  OF INTERPRETERS 

In course of time, the teachings of Sages come to be translated and also interpreted by succeeding generations.  These traslations and interpretations/  commentaries come to acquire more importance than the original texts themselves. In India, these texts are mostly in Sanskrit  in its ancient form. They are intelligible only to those who take time  and pain to learn them; such persons are few at any time. So, very few go to the original sources. 

The authority for Hindu religious/philosophical teaching is the 'Prastanatraya' : Upanishads, Brahmasutras and Bhagavad Gita. All our philosophical systems are based on interpretations of these sources. No Acharya has gone to the Veda, which is the very foundation. An impression has been created that the Veda deals with rituals and that the philosophical ideas are to be found only in the Upanishads, which break away from the rituals. It obscures the fact that the Upanishads are very much part of the Veda, an integral part, and no contradiction is involved betwen the two.

Among the modern Masters we are considering, one fact is clearly noticed. None of them depended on the authority of ancient sources to buttress their teaching, and cited them in support of their teaching. Their teachings are based on their exprience. They may refer to the ancient teachings in their conversations with devotees because the latter were familiar with them, to elucidate a point, but not as proof. Ramana Maharshi used to say clearly that he taught  on the basis of his experience, it is the others who found that it tallied with the old teachings.

This creates complications. Most followers/commentators want to enlist the support of the old authorities, and  interpret the Masters in the light of old teachings, and miss what is new. But those who want to prove the uniqueness or superiority of their chosen masters go to the other extreme, and deny the relevance of the old teachings! The truth is in the middle: No genuine Master is merely a copy or echo of an old one, but they do not break the old system either: they come to fulfil, not to destroy. In the spiritual world, the Truth is One, and as old the Creation! The sages merely explain, highlight aspects according to the needs of the times. This we see clearly demonstrated in the life and teachings of the three modern Masters.All the three Masters accept the authority of Vedanta as the final truth, but none of them has merely echoed or repeated the teaching of any old authority.

Sri Ramakrishna, we saw, stressed the way of Bhakti as shown by Narada as the way to liberation in our age. (We find that the same way is more or less reiterated by Rama to Shabari, by Prahlada  to the Asura children, and by the Yogi to king Janaka in the 11th Skandha of Bhagavatam!) He did not deny the truth of Karma or Jnana, but merely said that in the conditions of the modern world Karma could not be preformed properly as prescribed in the scriptures; and so long as we were conscious of the body, we could not, in all honesty, claim that we could pursue Jnana. So long as we could not get rid of the ego, 'let the rascal remain as the servant of God' he said. Sri Ramakrishna decried no previous school, though he pointed out the risks in following some like Tantra which he did not consider suitable or safe for this age.

This is exactly where Ramana comes in. Is there an ego at all? Is it absolutely true? If you investigate the ego, you find it is not there!  (Ulladu Naarpadu,25)Normally, it is the ego (mind) which goes in search of Truth. It is like the thief  acting as the policeman searching for the thief!  (Talks- 43,238,615) Ramana's method has been called the way of Jnana, but Ramana himself called it self-inquiry. It differs from the classical form: the old method focussed on Brahman, investigating the reality of the world, Ramana's method focusses on finding the source of one's own self ie self attention. People were not wanting in his own time who were wondering whether he taught Vedanta or Siddhanta! Sri Muruganar gave the effective reply: Ramana taught "Ramananta"!

 Scholars wrote commentaries on his works , based on their own beliefs. Once Lakshmana Sarma complained to Bhagavan that some Sanskrit translation did not reflect the original accurately. Bhagavan did not criticise it, but merely said: 'then, why don't you write your own?'  He did, submitted it to Ramana for correction, and Bhagavan did make many changes! But such problems arise only for those who cannot follow the original.  ( Among the many who came to Bhagavan, only Muruganar and Lakshmana Sarma came without any previous knowledge of Vedanta, though they were otherwise learned! They expressed to Bhagavan dfficulty in following the ideas of the Forty Verses. Bhagavan personally taught and explained it to them; they were thus privileged.) 

It is not that Sri Ramakrishna did not talk about or approve of Jnana; he explained it beautifully, but also its difficulty..

"Yes, one may reach Him by following the path of discrimination too; that is calld jnanayoga. But it is an extremely difficult path. i have told you already of the seven planes of consciousness.On reaching the seventh plane the mind goes into samadhi. If a man acquires the firm knowledge that Brahman alone is real and the world illusory, then his mind merges in samadhi. But in the Kaliyuga the life of a man depends entirely on food. How can he have the consciousness that Brahman alone is real and the world illusory?"

"What is jnanayoga? The jnani seeks to realise Brahman. he discriminates, saying ,''Not this,not this'. He discriminates , saying,'Brahman is real and the universe illusory'. He discriminates between the Real and the unreal. As he comes to the end of discrimination, he goes into samadhi and attains the Knowledge of Brahman."

"What is the meaning of jnanayoga? It is the path  by which a man can realise the true nature of his own Self; it is the awareness that Brahman alone is his true nature."

 Or that Sri Ramana did not talk of Bhakti. He always said,'inquire or surrender'; surrender is the last stage of Bhakti- atma nivedanam. In the entire bhakti literature, it is difficult to find more moving Bhakti hymns than the Five Hymns to Arunachala. In over fifty years, Sri Ramana never even once criticised other schools, or taught self-enquiry to any one on his own! Once, Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri said that Bhagavan prescribed self-enquiry, which was a tall order, for every one, regardless of their preparation or qualifications. Bhagavan merely said he but taught what he " knew or had experinced". He used to explain that ultimately one came to self-enquiry consciously or unconsciously. For instance, Yoga means union; it assumes there is separation! For whom is the separation? It is for me. Then, Who am I?This question has to be faced, and answered in the end by every one on any path! These are explained clearly in the 'Forty Verses'. Sadhu Om has also explained them, based on Bhagavan's teaching alone.

Sri Aurobindo's Yoga is  a predominantly psychological method, what in the olden days used to be called RajaYoga, but broader than that. But it incorporates karma and devotion as well- that is why it is Integral Yoga! Sri Aurobindo's Yoga invokes absolute Divine help for its performance, and is not based on human effort alone.

"It is the lesson of life that always in this world everything fails a man- only the Divine does not fail him, if he turns entirely to the Divine."

"To find the Divine is indeed the first reason for seeking the spiritual Truth and the spiritual life; it is the one thing indispensable and all the rest is nothing without it."

"Yoga is directed towards God, not towards man."

"This yoga demands a total dedication of life to the aspiration for the discovery and embodiment of the Divine Truth and to nothing else whatever." 

 

 He has very clearly enunciated both the differences from and common aspects with the old systems.

"I have never said that my yoga was something brand new in all its elements....it takes up the essence and many processes of the old yogas- its newness is in its aim,standpoint and the totality of its method."

"Why should there be anything new? The object of spiritual seeking is to find out what is eternally true, not what is new in Time."

"I have said that this yoga is "new" because it aims at the integrality of the Divine in this world  and not only byond it and at a supramental realisation. But hoe does that justify a suprior contempt for the spiritual realisation which is as much the aim of this yoga as of any other?"

Sri Aurobindo said his yoga was new as compared with the old because:

• it aims not at a departure out of world and life into heaven or Nirvana, but at a change of life and existence
• the object sought after is not an individual achievement of divine realisation  for the sake of the individual, but something to be gained for the earth-consciousness here
• the method is as total and integral as the aim- the total and integral change of  the consciousness and nature

 

As Sri Aurobindo has himself explained in his statment, his teaching starts from that of the ancient stages, but does not stagnate there. And even while accepting the old teachings, he has gone to the very source- Veda. But in his view, the Vedic rishis aimed at individual perfection,but did not try to make it part of earth-consciousness. The subsequent Rishis tried to state  the Vedic insights in intellectual forms; the later commentators tried to make it more logically rigorous. In this process, some aspects of the original insights were obscured, and resulted in mayavada.. This is what Sri Aurobindo rectified. His method:

• draws attention to the basic insights of the Veda, but aims to make that consciousness part of the earthly life
• regards the world as real, and not as illusion or unreal
• does not advocate running away from the world or renouncing it
• integrates all the human faculties and their methods- will: karma; emotion: devotion, and mind control: Yoga, as such.

The real difference between Sri Aurobindo and all the previous authorities lies in his conception of the nature of the ultimate goal, and what it involves in living.

So far, Sri Aurobindo has largely escaped the labours of 'interpreters'. Or, the interpreters have all been from the 'inside'. However, Sri Aurobindo is one Sage whose main means of communicaton was writing, and he wrote so clearly in English that one who knows English reasonably well  does not need any interpreters: one could always go to him direct. Those who do not know English are surely at a disadvantage. His writings are almost impossible to translate in many languages, and any translation would lose the mantric power of his  original writings. This, those who have read the original writings and translations do clearly experience. 

There is no difficulty at all in studying the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna- they are so clerly stated in the 'Gospel'. Those whose language is Tamil can follow the original writings of Sri Ramana, with a little application; for others competent translations are available. Sri Aurobindo's writings are in English; it appears tough and his style is not something Indians are used to- but it can certainly be read in the original, again with a little application. In no case we need interpreters.

Note: I always quote from the Masters themselves, from authoritative publications from the authentic sources- Sri Ramakrishna Math, Sri Ramanasramam, and Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Sri Aurobindo's writings are extensive and even on a single point, he has expressed himself from many angles. These are brought together in neat compilations. The quotations today are all taken from the publicaton 'The Integral Yoga', Second Impression,1996. Very useful compilations are also made by Dr.A.S.Dalal. 

Sai Baba of Shirdi

              SAINTS WILL AID

              1. SHIRDI SAI BABA

Sai Baba of Shirdi is probably the most popular Saint in India today. His following has grown over the last 100 years without any organization, any hierarchy, any successor. It has spread entirely by word of mouth  of actual followers. And almost every one has become a follower after an event considered a 'miracle', or some such event has occurred soon after becoming one. No one who came to him returned 'empty handed'.

We do not know whether he was a Hindu or Muslim. His dress was a long 'kafni' like that of a Muslim fakir. But his ears had marks of having been bored like a Hindu. He sat in a dilapidated masjid, renovated by Hindus. But he called it "Dwarkamai" -Mother Dwaraka. Baba had a 'dhuni' going there all the 24 hours,to which he fed fuel with his own hands. The 'udi'- ashes from this was given to everyone by Baba with his blessings, himself applying it on the forehead of devotees often.There were oil lamps in rows, burning bright. There was a Tulsi Brindavan in the front courtyard. He invoked Allah Malik or Fakir, but allowed Ram Navami and Krishna Janmashtami to be celebrated in the masjid with all pomp and ceremony. Bhajans were conducted regularly with all the traditional musical instruments. He himself was worshipped by Hindus in the Hindu fashion, complete with Aarti,blowing of conch shells, ringing of bells. He never preached about Islam to the Hindu followers. He was not observed saying the namaz, though he was familiar with the Quran. On one occasion when a Hindu who had converted to Islam came before him, Baba slapped him on the face,asking whether he was not ashamed to change his father.He encouraged Ramayana, Bhagavat and such other Hindu devotional literature to be studied or recited with due reverence. His talk was the purest Vedanta, of which he had the most intimate knowledge. Never in the form of a general talk or discourse, it was always addressed to a specific person, tailored to his immediate needs.. He had appeared to his devotees in the form of their own family or favourite Deities like Rama, Krishna. He insisted on people honouring  their traditional gurus, their family deities. fulfilling their vows, keeping up the sacred observances, festivals, etc. On one occasion, when he had to  give evidence in a court case, he stated his caste as 'parvardigar', his religion as 'Kabir" and his Guru as "Venkusa". Parvardigar means something like the Hindu 'Atiashrami', beyond all social distinctions; Being a Kabir means not having formal affiliation to any religion but treating  and respecting all alike, especially Hinduism and Islam. Venkusa is of course a Hindu name. His Hindu devotees far outnumber those of other faiths, though all come to him.
Let us also remember that days prior to his Samadhi, Baba asked a devotee to read Ram Vijay in his presence. He also indicated that he would occupy the Wada constructed by Buti, where he inteded to erect a mandir for Murlidhar!

 Does it now matter whether he was a Hindu or Muslim?

In the course of time, it is often the devotees who paint the Saints in a particular way, foist some rituals on them, make them appear as belonging to this  or that tradition. Or create a tradition or sect around them. Thus, the management of Ramakrishna Order went to the Court, declaring that Sri Ramakrishna was not a Hindu, that they were following 'Ramakrishnaism', and that they should be considered a separate sect, and a minority! All because they wanted to run some educational institutions! Curiously, some followers of Sri Aurobindo approached the court pleading that he should be considered Hindu! The court declined.

We see another curious development in the case of Ramana Maharshi. As we see now, the official set-up shows a distinctly orthodox south-Indian Brahminical flavour, complete with Vedic chanting, ritual worship and other ceremonial observances in the orthodox fashion. Even his teaching is given a distinctly Vedantic-Advaitic colour, of the Sankara School. But if we read Sri Ramana's own works, we do not get any such idea at all! The only teaching of Ramana was to enquire and find out the reality of one's own existence, one's own self.  The only dictum was: 'Enquire or Surrender'. He never advocated any particular philosophy or theology. He never followed any particular guru or tradition. His only attachment was to Arunachala, a hill outwardly, but the Self within, and of the Universe. His only worship was by circumambulating the Hill. He did not leave Arunachala even for a day in 54 years, and walked on it bare-footed. 

Every practice surrounding him was initiated by devotees on their own. The educated devotees and followers who came to him were mostly from the middle class families, orthodox south Indian brahmins. Most of them were of the Smarta tradition, following Sankara. There were others also from other traditions. So, their talks, questions, understanding and interpretation were from that standpoint. In answering them, Ramana had to use the words and concepts familiar to them. But this he did in respect of all: he spoke to men of each faith on their own terms. In the beginning, he lived by begging, sharing  it the with the few who kept him company. As visitors  started coming in numbers, they brought some offerings like fruits or sweets, which were shared on the spot, though this was found inconvenient. Later. in 1917, when his Mother came to stay with him, she started cooking out of the things received, in the way she knew- as in South Indian brahmin houses.The visitors were mostly the middle class South Indians,  some of whom desired to stay for long or short periods. So they arranged cooking and other facilities to cater to their needs  and tastes, after Mother's samadhi in 1922. Since Ramana had no personal agenda,he submitted to what his followers arranged. In course of time a  type of management, with brahminical touches, emerged. Even the later formal management was decided by the devotees. 

The origin of some of the practices is noteworthy. In the beginning, Sri Ramana was simply wandering on the hill and chose some old temples or cave for stay.Soon people started coming and one or two stayed with him. They used to read some old religious books and recite devotional  hymns of the old Saivite saints, or the verses rendered by Ramana in Tamil. Later, some Vedic pandits visiting from the town started  chanting the Veda. Ramana would sit listening attentively, self-absorbed. But orthodox elements objected to this, on the ground that such recital took place in a burial ground which was not approved. The pandits referred the matter to Ramana, who told them to decide for themselves! He had not initiated it, and had no mind ,one way or the other. Some of them decided to continue. Later, in the 30s, a foreign devotee, Major Chadwick, who had settled in the Ashram took initiative to have a Vedic school started there. About the only thing Ramana said about Vedic chanting was that it helped one to concentrate or meditate better!
Ramana did not want any new practice or reform started in his name or presence. In those orthodox days, brahmins and other did not inter-dine.So in the Asramam too, the common food was served to brahmins and non-brahmins alike, but seated separately, with Ramana sitting in the middle. Some reform minded brahmin youth would try to break the arrangement, saying  such separation should not be followed in the Asramam. Ramana would ask them whether they followed the reform in their own homes! This silenced them.

It so happened that South Indian brahmins were fond of coffee and started making and taking it, clandestinely. Ramana knew it, but let them enjoy their game. But once he told them if they wanted coffee, why not make in the open? Once, some one from the group offered coffee to a foreign visitor, saying it was 'prasad'. This gentleman had his doubt and asked Ramana straight. Ramana told him bluntly it was no such thing, those people wanted coffee, so they made it and drank it, but merely used his name! This is how traditions are created. Thus he was himself a prisoner of the 'establishment' that grew around him- a point at times  made by Sri Aurobindo, in good humour!

 But his teachings are so universal, they can be interpreted in terms of any religion, or no religion at all. Surrender for instance is nothing other than 'Islam' -submission  to the will of God! Enquire who you are, is nothing other than "Know Thyself". Insistence on finding your true Self is nothing other than finding "The Kingdom of God is within you". His  prescription to know "Who Am I" is strongly reminiscent of the Biblical saying " I AM THAT I  AM"-the only words to be printed in capital letters in the entire Bible , as Ramana himself pointed out. Even venerating the Mother's Samadhi is not far different from the Muslims venerating their Dargahs! His teaching is close to Buddha's own teaching- there is no philosophy, no theology, but only a practical method! In other hands, an entirely different system of worship or ritual could have been developed! Or, it could have been regarded as what people nowadays call "spiritual but not religious". I am not suggesting that what has happened  or prevails is wrong, but only that it is just one of the many possibilities! Akin to exactly how we give a name and form to the Formless and Nameless Supreme!

Even so it is with our Baba. There are orthodox elements who object to Hindus venerating Baba. But they overlook one historic fact. In the last 1000 years, India has been subject to foreign invasions and rule-both political and religious. India has declined in all respects- her glory is just a-n-c-i-e-n-t! Even her economic supremacy declined after the mid-18th century.  Orthodoxy has totally declined in all spheres. If Hindu orthodoxy is so infallibly correct, eternal as they would describe it- why has it fallen? Why were the Gods for whom such magnificent temples were erected not willing or able to prevent the Muslims from  desecrating or destroying them? Our own free Independent govt. has by legislation interfered with and altered many orthodox Hindu laws. What could orthodox establishments do about it? How many advocates of orthodoxy are sincere- eg. how many of them who talk about the greatness of Veda let their own children study the Veda in the orthodox manner?And how many of those who so study use their knowledge except as source of income? How many of them even study Sanskrit?  Do our marriages now comply with orthodox requirements?And has any head of any orthodox Mutt been able to prevail upon his own followers not to let their girls seek employment, as demanded by orthodoxy? How many Sanyasins do now live alone in the orthodox manner, as in the olden days? Maintaining and supporting the Mutt itself has become the main orthodoxy now!

The philosophical and cultural achievements of Hindus are great indeed. In some respects they are also unique. India is the native home of Hindus and it is the only home, as Hinduism does not believe in proselytising and converting other countries or peoples. So it must retain its predominantly Hindu character. But Hindus cannot live in splendid isolation any more!  Providence has poured every race, language, religion etc into India as the rivers pour their waters into the ocean! India has absorbed  everything and still remained India! This is what we have to  safeguard.

It is where Saints like Sai Baba  function as the instruments of Providence. How he forced his followers to keep their own dharma and traditions! How he instilled in them the basic moral virtues and religious spirit! How he forced them to remember and honour their own family deities! How he got local temples renovated, maintained and honoured! How he always held up before them the spiritual goal!

More than anything, his appeal undoubtedly rests on his ability to bring succour to suffering people. This is  happening even now, 96 years after his Samadhi. Sages may quote scripture and say one has to pay for one's past karma. Sages know the Truth, and expound Wisdom. But Saints help people directly, and bring light and happiness into their lives. Saints prepare the way for Sages. But where the Saint is also the Sage, what more can one aspire for? Sai Baba of Shirdi was one such. As he himself said, he gave people what they wanted so that they could be prepared to take what he himself wanted to give viz spiritual knowledge. Very much like the mother offering children some candy or chocolate, to induce them to take the medicine!

Orthodox religion is high-brow. It is based on the belief that the higher reaches of society should follow their dharma, which would set the example for the whole society. It is fine, like the modern mainstream economic orthodoxy, advocating 'trickle down' theory. Only, it doesn't work in practice: what trickles down is misery, not wealth or prosperity, which stagnates in limited pools. In the last 1000 years, orthodoxy has been on retreat in India. Literally, mutts moved places, murtis from temples were taken away and hidden, etc. It was not orthodoxy which helped people  face Muslim conquests or prevent conversion; it was the work of poet-saints who took simple practical religion  to the door steps of the people, speaking and singing in their own languages! Or like Samarth Ramadas  who showed people practical ways to outwit the restrictions imposed by the sultans and badshah on Hindu religious worship.  They brought the high philosophy to the common man, from the grand sutras to the ground level. They filled the gap created by the very failure of orthodoxy! Sai Baba of Shirdi has to be viewed in this context. 

Those who can practice orthodoxy, may go ahead with it by all means. But they should not decry other sources of wisdom or weal, unless they can fill the gap.

Mantra As Poetry

                         POEMS  AND POETS

         35. Mantra as Poetry

We Indians are familiar with mantra, or so we fancy. But most of us think of it as  nothing more than some mumbo-jumbo, used in religious rites or on special occasions. All mantras are in Sanskrit, but this language is as good as Greek to us now. We do not know the meaning, nor do we care to learn. The idea that mantra can be poetry, or poetry can be in the form of mantra does not occur to us.

The poetic mind is a medium for interpretation and creation. But what does he create or interpret? It is the vision of  a Truth that hides behind phenomena. Any one can see the sun rise; but only a poet can see our consciousness awakening , in the symbol of the sunrise. And the greatest poet will see that both the sun rising in the sky and the man apprehending it here are pervaded by the same Spirit. "Asavadityo brahma: brahmaiva Ahamasmi",he declares. This is not a mere assertion of a mental conviction, but a truth realised and expressed in a verbal formula. This is mantra. It takes us beyond the merely physical phenomenon.
Says Sri Aurobindo:

"......all art  worth the name must go beyond the visible, must reveal, must show, us something that is hidden, and in its total effect not reproduce but create....... the  artist....throws into significant form a truth he has seen, which may be truth of hell or truth of heaven.....but is never merely the external truth of  earth."

    "the mantra in poetry, that rhythmic speech which, as the Veda puts it, rises at once from the heart of the seer and from the distant home of the Truth,- the discovery of the word, the divine movement, the form of thought proper to the reality"

The more authentic the vision, the grander the expression!
This truth, in the words of  James Cousins,

" lies in the apprehension of a something stable behind the instability of word and deed, something that is the reflection of the fundamental passion of humanity for something beyond itself, something that is a dim shadowing of the divine urge which is prompting all creation to unfold itself and to rise out of its limitations towards its Godlike possibilities."

                            ( All these quotations  are from Sri Aurobindo: The                                Future Poetry. Chap.1; Sri Aurobindo Ashram,2000)

In short, our reach should exceed our grasp, in the words of Browning! Mantra is the highest poetic expression! Our Upanishads are the highest mantras we have!

We perceive the world with our senses, but it is our mind which makes sense of our perception. If our mind is not at attention, the eye may see but it is not registered.What makes the mind 'mind' its object? So wonders a Sage.

In the Katha Upanishad, Yama reveals a basic truth about man's perception:
Paranchi knani vyatrunaath Svayambhu:
Tasmaat paran pasyati.

The Self-Created One has made our sense faculties outgoing; that is why they only see things outside.

Man is always attracted or engaged by the world outside. Even so, unless he pays attention, ie engages his mind on the things for eg  which his eyes look at,, he does not really "see". So the Sage asks:

Keneshitam patati preshitam mana:?
Kena prana prathama praiti? etc

Under whose will, directed by whom does the mind fall on (drawn towards)  its object? By whom willed or ordered does the breath first proceed on its path?


This is a very momentous question that is being raised.
Come to think of it: is it only for man that the senses have this outgoing tendency? It is shared by the entire animal world. But man alone can raise this question. The animals are limited by this tendency; man can question it and so, there is the possibility of conquering it. Animals are limited by their animality; man can exceed his humanness. This possibility of self-exceeding opens up for man the prospect of Immortality.

It is not the purpose or method of the Upanishadic Seer to teach a doctrine or impose a faith. It is to raise a question, and set us up on the quest, each one to follow his own method, at his own pace. They only give hints. For instance, here, the Sage says this quest has to be undertaken here: iha:

Iha chedavedeedatha satyamasti
Na chedihavedeen mahati vinashta:

If one has known That ( the Self, Brahman) in this life, one then knows the supreme truth. Without this knowledge, one is doomed to much suffering.

The Brhadaranyaka is even more explicit. There Yajnavalkya tells Gargi,the Brahmavadidni:

Yo va etad aksharam Gargi  aviditvasmallokat
praiti, sa krupana:

O Gargi, he who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable.

The Sage is thus not only raising a basic question, but is also suggesting the importance of finding an answer in this very life. This is not to be postponed for a post-mortem condition.

It is made clear in the Upanishad that the ultimate Truth or Immortality cannot be attained by any amount of yajna or karma whose results are only transient. Yama tells Nachiketas:

Na hyadruvai: prapyate hi druvam tat
                                              Katha, 1.2.10

You cannot attain the Eternal by using  transitory things ( like engaging in external sacrifice). 

But we can take up the quest, by engaging in the Inquiry about Truth, " which begins by a sort of the reflection of the true existence in the awakened mental understanding" (Sri Aurobindo). To know the Truth, we have to get behind the phenomena of the world. And to do that, we have to get back behind our own sense faculties and mind! A deeper Truth lies behind both! Asavadityo brahma: Brahmaiva ahamasmi!

What is proposed as a spiritual quest is made a basic dogma in later theology. For instance the Bhagavatam records:

Esha buddhimatam buddhi:
Manisha cha manishinaam
Yat Satyam anrateneha
martyenaapnoti ma amrutam.            11.29.22

This is the intelligence of the intelligent,
the wisdom of the wise- that a man attains Me,
the Immortal One here ( in this very life)
by means of the unreal and the mortal-
his psycho-physical organisation.

Thus we can study the Upanishads and other 'scriptures' as sheer poetry, for the intellectul stimulation and aesthetic pleasure it provides. If they contain any truth or enlightenment, it will infect us!

The Outward Look

                                 POEMS  AND  POETS

                 34. The Outward Look

Great poets everywhere are moved by lasting themes and lofty thought. This connects them in an invisible way with the basic currents of life, though the expressions are conditioned by the immediate cultural context one is familiar with. Hunger is universal, but 'Gives us this day our daily bread'  pleads the Lord's prayer, while our Rudram seeks 'wajascha me, godhumascha me' etc.

Poetic inspiration comes from many sources. It can be spiritual-intuitional, as in the Upanishads; it can be intellectual, or even a mere verbal exuberance and linguistic felicity. But true poetry must leave a hint  at least of something beyond the words or objects described. Thus when Tennyson makes the brook sing " for men may come and men may go, but I go on for ever", it is the  very Time Spirit which is addressing us in the form of the brook. Man's mortality is set against eternity. The site and sounds associated with the brook are beautiful, but it is not just the physical dimension which matters.

Any true artist has to take us beyond the physical medium. He has to use nature to make us transcend it. A painter makes us forget the canvas, or he is no artist. One who just reproduces nature is a photographer, not painter. Photography is limited by the instrument, painting is not, music is not. When we listen to Kenny G, are we mindful of the instrument, or the music? Does not the music take us beyond the instrument ? " That out of three sounds he frame, not a fourth sound but a star.", as said by Browning. Imitation is not art, but creativity is.

The same holds true with words. In the olden days, poetry was read or recited aloud, where the sound suggested something beyond the sense words conveyed. A poet is not a mere wordsmith. True inspiration brings words in its own train.Sri Aurobindo remarks:

"it is not sufficient for poetry to attain high intensities of word and rhythm; it must have, to fill them, an answering intensity of vision and always new and more and more uplifted or inward ranges of experience."

This we see in poets across cultures, ages. Sri Aurobindo, our greatest poet and Rasika writes:

" In spite of a broad gulf of difference we yet find an extraordinary basic kinship between these two very widely separated great ages of poetry, though there was never any possibility of contact between that earlier oriental and this later occidental work,- the dramas of Kalidasa and some of the dramatic romances of Shakespeare, plays like the Sanskrit Seal of Rakshasa and Toy-Cart and Elizabethan historic and melodramatic pieces, the poetry of the Cloud Messenger and erotic Elizabethan poetry, the romantically vivid and descriptive method of Spenser's Faerie Queene and the more intellectually romantic vividness and descriptive elaborateness of the Line of Raghu, the tone and manner of Drayton and that of the much greater work of Bharavi. This kinship arises from the likeness of essential motive and psychological basic type and emerges and asserts itself in spite of the enormous cultural difference."

                                  From: The Future Poetry p.126
                                   Sri Aurobindo Ashram,2000

For the last thousand years or so, India has not expressed its soul in Sanskrit poetry; nor in regional poetry,either, except in the Bhakti movement. In modern times, this spirit briefly raised its head in Bengali, in a Bankim Chandra, or Tagore, and in Tamil in Subramanya Bharati. Alas, it was all too brief.

Providence brought English to India, but the education that became its vehicle made us  revolve "around a lawyer's office and a Government cutcherry, ...far away from the great stream of world's living thought and action"....giving us " the falsest possible education, a knowledge always twenty-five or fifty years behind the time.", in the words of Sri Aurobindo. Even so, the English language and literature remain our only window to the world, painfully small as it is. We have to ensure that this does not fall a victim to cultural chauvinism in the name of narrow patriotism, or linguistic jingoism..

                                                       

Gray's Elegy

                                         POEMS  AND  POETS

                    22. THOMAS GRAY: ELEGY

Elegy in English can mean only one thing: Thomas Gray's poem: Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. It is so well known wherever English is learned. What has made it so?

There is such a quality and a deeply personal touch. The reader gets the feeling that the poet is opening out his heart, and conveying his inner thoughts-feelings. It is not from the brain. We identify ourselves with those thoughts.

We learn that Gray was deeply affected by the death of dear ones. The near-death of his close friend from childhood,Horace Walpole shook him. He thought about the subject for long. What took shape was not only about death, but about remembering the dead, about the human desire to be remembered after death. And he writes about the unknown, unsung people lying buried in the graveyard.

Indian religious poetry freely talks about death. It is in fact the thought of death that raises serious questions about the quality of life! Transience of life,youth,wealth-is the bedrock on which both serious and simple  religious instruction is based in India. Indeed, birth, old age, disease and death-all four are dealt with seriously. Bhagavad Gita has some telling verses on it. On the contrary, this subject is not openly discussed in the West.

One of our great Upanishads starts from the death of a young student, Nachiketas.There Yama, the Lord of death himself becomes the teacher, and he teaches Immortality! One of our enduring legends is how a young devotee, Markandeya,son of a Muni, overcame death by devotion to Lord Shiva. He becomes a model for later devotees, like Arunagirinatha, who openly challenge Death: 'Dare to come near me, I will show you what! Have you forgotten what happened to you when you approached another devotee, Markandeya?' Then, there is the most endearing legend of Savitri, the devoted wife, confronting Death and bringing   her dead husband back to life! Sri Aurobindo converted  this legend into a Symbol too, immortalising it in the longest English poem, of 24,000 lines! In modern times, a school boy of 17,Venkatraman, became Ramana Maharshi after a 20-minute encounter with death!

During my school days, I had to pass  a Masjid on the way. I used to find one blind 'baba' in rags sitting near the entrance and crying aloud, with extended hand: 

Jo dega, woh marega;
Jo nahi dega, woh bhi marega.

meaning: those who give,they will die; those who don't give- they too will die.
It amused me a lot, but I did not know the meaning, nor did I care.
Over 30 years later, I met a colleague hailing from the North-west  part of Karnataka, who recited this to me! He said it meant that though all have to die, those who lead a good life, practising charity and all that, will have an easy death, and pleasant after-life, while those who are not charitable will also die, but this death being like a cave of permanent darkness! Outward death is common, the state of life thereafter will be different!

Gray had been particularly affected by the death of his aunt, and of  poet  Richard West. Later, he stayed for a time at Stoke Poge, visiting the church and the graveyard, which made him think of death often. The poem was sent to his friend Walpole who liked and circulated it, making it popular even before its publication. But the poem does not mourn any one's death in particular but reflects on the human condition in general. I feel it is where its secret of appeal lies.

Striking Opening Lines: The country scene:

The curfew tolls the knell of parting day,
   The lowing herd wind slowly o'er the lea,
The ploughman homeward plods his weary way,
   And leaves the world to darkness and to me.


For one like me, coming from the old rural area, when there was no electricity and all outdoor activities ceased before or at sunset,  the opening lines dramatically bring out the ethereal quality of a village in the evening, in the fading light at sun-set. In the villages, it could be seen, and felt suddenly! It just grips and overwhelms you!
And the scene of the 'lowing herd' returning after the day's grazing  in the open field is the stuff of our legend and lore- the time, with the dust raised, is considered very auspicious!
How many have actually seen a ploughman- with a plough on his shoulders? I have! And there is an unforgettable story about him!

Narada, the divine sage, gets conceited about his unparalleled devotion. One day he asks the Lord, apparently innocently, about who in the world could be considered the greatest devotee, expecting that the Lord would name him. The Lord sees through him and tells him that an old farmer in a certain village, is the greatest devotee.
Feeling slighted, Narada visits the village and watches the man through the day. In the morning, the fellow takes the plough , uttering the Lord's name once, keeps it on his shoulders and walks to his fields. He is busy with his work through the day. He returns at sun set, keeps the plough down, uttering the Lord's name once. He has his food and goes to sleep. Narada is enraged. This man, illiterate, uttering the Lord's name but twice in a day, and the greatest devotee? He comes to the Lord fuming, and questions him. The Lord does not answer him. Later, they go out for a stroll. They find an open field. The Lord poses a challenge, sporting: Narada has to take a vessel, filled with oil to the brim,and has to walk round the field thrice, without spilling even a drop of the oil. Could he do it? Easy, says Narada, and completes it. Then the Lord asks him: " Narada  did you remember me during your rounds? How many times did you take my name?" Narada is shocked! In his preoccupation with the oil, he forgot the Lord! But the poor village farmer? He did not forget the Lord, in spite of all his work! He was the greatest!
This is the association the figure of the ploughman brings to my mind!

The scene now shifts from the village in general to the graveyard which induces thoughts on the dead.

Beneath those rugged elms,that yew-trees shade,
  Where heaves the turf in many a mouldering heap,
Each in his narrow cell forever laid, 
   The rude forefathers of the hamlet sleep.

No familiar village sound is going to "rouse them from their lowly bed".

What sort of people were they? Poor, unknown creatures,or mighty ones? Whoever they were, they have become one in the grave.

Let not Ambition mock their useful toil,
   Their homely joys and destiny obscure;
Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
   The short and simple annals of the poor.

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
   And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Awaits alike the inevitable hour:
  The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

What if no suitable memorials have been raised for them?

Can storied urn or animated bust
  Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?
Can Honour's voice provoke the silent dust,
   Or Flattery soothe the dull cold ear of Death?

Perhaps these were men who had ambition, but no fortune.

Chill penury repressed their noble rage,
   And froze the genial current of the soul.

Full many a gem of purest ray serene,
   The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear;
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
   And waste its sweetness on the desert air.

They could not be great like a Hampden, a Milton or a Cromwell. But their humbler lot also saved them from doing harm!

To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land,
   And read their history in a nation's eyes.

Their lot forbade; nor circumscribed alone
   Their growing virtues, but their crimes confined.
Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne,
   And shut the gates of mercy on mankind.

The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide,
   To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame,
Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride,
   With the incense kindled at the Muse's flame.

Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife,
   Their sober wishes never learned to stray;
Along the cool sequestered vale of life
   They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.

But such is human nature that even such humble people desire memorial, for who does not wish to be remembered ?

Yet even these bones from insult to protect,
   Some frail memorial still erected high,
With uncouth rhymes and shapeless sculpture                                                                      decked,
   Implores the passing tribute of a sigh.

For who, to dumb forgetfulness a prey,
   This pleasing anxious being e'er resigned,
Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day,
   Nor cast one longing lingering look behind?

On some fond breast the parting soul relies,
   Some pious drops the closing eye requires;
Even from the tomb the voice of nature cries,
   Even in our ashes live their wonted fires.

Toward the end , the poem describes the grave of a poet, remembered by someone. There is then an epitaph from which we gather that the poet was rather unknown.

Here rests his head upon the lap of earth,
  A youth to fortune and fame unknown;
Fair Science frowned not on his humble birth,
   And Melancholy marked him for her own.

Large was his bounty and his soul sincere,
   Heaven did a  recompense as largely send;
He gave to Misery all he had, a tear;
   He gained from Heaven ('twas all he wished) a                                                                         friend.

So concludes the poem. This poet is perhaps one of those  gems of 'ray serene' of which he wrote earlier.  There is supposed to be an earlier version, but not being a researcher or academic, I have not bothered to look it up. I am happy with this gem.

This poem has always exercised a spell on me. I liked  many passages and expressions immensely, and many of them just registered on my mind on first reading. We  hailed from lower middle class, and thought we would be unknown to fortune and fame. The epitaph had a tragic pull , and I had wept over it! Perhaps our background determines what poems we get to like!

Why has Gray given us a poem of such sad reflections? But its very sadness makes it sweet.

A celluloid poet of ours  Sahir Ludhianvi wrote these lines:

Denge wohi jo paayenge
Iss zindagi se hum.
We can give to the world but that which we will earn here.

P.B.Shelley wrote:


"Our sincerest laughter 
With some pain is fraught;
Our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest                                                                     thoughts."
                                                        
                                                       

This I find has been rendered by one of our poets Shailendra in Hindi:

 Hain Sabse madhur  woh  geet jinhe
Hum dard ke sur mein gaatein hain!

That song is our sweetest, which we sing out of our pain.

But here the poet goes on to an optimistic note:

Jab gham ke andhera giir aaya,
Samjho savera duur nahin.

When it gets darkest ( when your sadness is too intense), just remember morning  is not far away!