APPEARANCES ARE DECEITFUL

We have fixed ideas about the characteristics of people in each walk of life. This imagination and expectation knows no boundary in the case of spirituality. People hold high opinion about Vedic scholars, the Temple priests and those who discourse on the Epics. But people notice only the external personality and not their mentality - what actually lies within.

When a person who strictly adheres to the dress code of his caste/religion, wears garlands around his neck as ordained by his caste/religion, also wears the caste mark on his forehead and regularly visits Temples happens to meet with problems in life we remark, "Alas! Why should such a virtuous person meet with such a fate?" Whereas, when a man of wrong habits enjoys good things of life we bemoan, "Oh! Lord! What a wicked fellow he is! But just look at his fortune!"

A man is considered wicked if his dressing and behaviour is not very pleasing. We totally ignore his frame of mind. Though the Temple elephant wears the 'vibhooti' (the Holy ash mark of the Saivaites) or 'Tirumann' (the Holy mark of the Vaishnavaites) can it be called a devotee? Its devotion comes out in the open when it gets wild!

Can one be called a devotee for the mere reason that he bathes frequently and keep his body clean? Does not the fish always live in water? Can one be held in high esteem for the mere reason of sporting long beard and long hair? Is not the bear, too, covered with hair! So, all these are mere external appearances.

There is very little connection between the external appearance and one's inner purity. Virtue or vice depends on one's mental status. We cannot read another's mind. We, therefore, cannot understand if a man is good or otherwise. Even when a man performs a good deed we cannot understand if it has been done for fame or earning merit ('punya'). Only the one who performs good deeds for the sake of its virtue can be considered virtuous.

A devotee used to frequent a Mahatma's Presence. This devotee possessed all the habits considered sinful as far as the world was concerned. Never did he practise japa or dhyana. But the Mahatma said of him, "If this man were to do dhyana he would become a Jivan Mukta!" How to comprehend this! I began to analyze this.

How was the early life of Arunagirinãthar? We also see the various narratives about Mahakavi Kãlidãs. What was the state of Sanatana Goswami and Roopa Goswami who had come down to the earth along with Mahaprabhu for the sake of the latter's Avatar work before they met Mahaprabhu? They had embraced another religion for the sake of worldly comforts!

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa would not permit those who had committed even a small sin to touch him, as he could not bear their touch. A man might have uttered a small lie the day he visited the Paramahamsa. To him he would remark, "A black veil hangs over your face." Such a one used to feed Girish Chandra Ghosh with his own hands! Girish Chandra Ghosh led a wayward life. He was a drunkard and had relationship with immoral women! What was the reason behind this? It may be due to the reason that the Paramahamsa saw him as the part of Kãla Bhairava in his vision during dhyana. Good and bad, virtue and vice fall within the line of Maya. But divinity is beyond all these. Do not at once conclude that I support wayward life. The three Jivan Muktãs Bhagavãn Sri Ramakrishna, Bhagavãn Sri Ramana and Bhagavãn Yogiramsuratkumar were afflicted with cancer. This does not mean that all those who are afflicted with cancer are Jivan Muktãs!

All that I wish to say is - who can comprehend where Godliness resides? Beauty is not just skin deep!

NOTE: Sri Sri Swamiji's essay in Tamizh is being brought to you here. Any discrepancy/lapse in the translated version of the essay is the sole responsibility of the person/s who translated the work from Tamizh into English.

Home • e-MM • Contact

Radhe Krishna