“ I am a White Brahmin, of purest ray serene! ” - UG

I just recall this one-off anecdote.

UG and Mahesh Bhatt had just returned to Parekhji’s place after their lunch at the Oberoi in downtown Mumbai.

UG recollected an interesting exchange at the table.

When they were at the restaurant, someone brought up the subject of Mahesh’s parentage. His father was a Brahmin, Nana Bhai Bhatt and mother, a Shia Muslim, Shireen Bhatt.

UG, as was his wont, had shouted across to Mahesh (which made many heads turn!), “Look here mister, you are only a half-Brahmin, but I am a full Brahmin!”

Recounting this exchange, UG began to wax eloquent, “Sir, I am not just a Brahmin but a ‘Swetawarniya Brahmin’, a white Brahmin, of purest ray serene!” [1]

This remark coming from UG, who always maintained that ‘there is no one here’ (pointing to himself)’ was confounding!

(Shweta-warniya or ‘श्वेतवर्णीय’ in Sanskrit means the ‘white-colored one’ or the ‘spotless one!’)

******

UG vehemently condemned the caste system in India, and during his early years as a Theosophist, even employed the services of a ‘Harijan’ as his personal secretary to prove his solidarity with the community. He added that this had helped him to keep away his orthodox grandmother (‘I did this to throw away the b***h from my place’ – UG).

UG never spared the Brahmins. He would sometimes refer to their charming countenances, ‘despite the glow on their faces, they are empty people, leading shallow and frivolous lives!’

******

But who is a true Brahmin, leave alone a White Brahmin?

A true Brahmin (or a sage) is defined in Vedas as someone who functions in a state where there is no sense of a separate ‘self’ or ‘individuality’, where there is no division or separation from the ‘totality of life’ or the ‘Life Infinite’ or ‘Brahma’!

Vedas refer to such individuals as Brahmanas or ‘the twice born’ or ‘the Dwijas’. The phrase ‘twice born’ explicitly suggests that such individuals ‘died and resurrected.’

To use UG’s analogy, such individuals possibly ‘mutated.’ Such mutation being a random and rare phenomenon in nature like a lightning strike.

As UG said, ‘ perhaps this happens to only one in a billion. You can count them on your fingers – there are only very few – a Jesus, a Ramana or a Ramakrishna…”   

To make matters clear, we have plenty of namesakes amongst us who are ‘Brahmins by caste’ or ‘Jati- Brahmanas’, by virtue of being born in a certain caste. They cannot and do not qualify as true Brahmanas as defined by Vedas. Period!

Further, by the same token, neither a ‘sadhaka’ (ascetic) nor a ‘sannyasi’ (saint) nor a ‘guru’ can be referred to as a Brahmana as long there is the sense of ‘identity’ in these individuals and they carry motives and have an ‘investment in society’.

The true Brahmanas or sages on the other hand move about in society but are fiercely independent with no agenda or investment in society!

******

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, we have a Mahavakya or ‘Great Utterance’, ‘Aham Brahmasmi’  or ‘I am Brahman.’ The statement denotes an undivided state of existence where there is no isolation or separation from the Life Infinite (Brahma).

“Aham Brahmasmi” became the foundational, the central tenet of Advaita Vedanta philosophy of Sri Shankarachrya.

Any ‘hint of separation’ or ‘sense of division’ is referred to as Maya in Vedanta (or Upanishads). 

The term Maya denotes the ‘sense of separation’ which brings about the notion of the ‘individual’ or a ‘separate identity’ divorced from the rest of Life or Brahma.

There are lots of misgivings about and misinterpretations of Maya. It has remained the bone of contention among Eastern philosophers to this day!

******

UG offered a rare and unique perspective on Maya and clarified it in such unmistakable language.

Here he goes about deconstructing the enigmatic Maya with laser like precision. He offers a flawless rationale for the phenomenon that has confounded the best of minds. Here lays it out in clear, easy and simple terms:

“ The world you experience around you is also from that point of view. There must be a point ('you' or 'I' or 'self') and it is this that creates the space (the psychological eco system). If this point (self)  is not there, there is no space, so anything you experience from this point is an illusion (maya).

Not that the world is an illusion—the world is not an illusion—but anything you experience in relationship to this point, which itself is illusory, is bound to be an illusion, that's all.

The Sanskrit word maya does not mean illusion in the same sense in which the English word is used. Maya means to measure. You cannot measure anything unless you have a point. So if the centre is absent there is no circumference at all. That is pure and simple basic arithmetic.

This point (self) has no continuity. It comes into being in response to the demands of the situation. They (the social and cultural demands) create ( and maintain) it.”

                        UG Krishnamurti ( “ The Natural State”)

In one fell swoop, UG puts an end to all ambiguity and turbidity associated with Maya:

a. world is not Maya or illusion (as misinterpreted by some commentators)

b. world is real , it exists (you could try jumping off the terrace to ascertain its reality at the expense of your limbs!)

c.     though it is true that the world is not an illusion, ‘our experience’ of the world is an illusion. The ‘experience’ of the world is premised on the ‘self’ and since the ‘self’ itself is illusory, the whole experiencing is nothing but an illusion!

In light of above, ‘self’ and ‘experience’ are synonymous terms. Experience creates the ‘self’ ( ‘experiencer’ ) and the ‘’self’ authenticates or legitimises the ‘experience’ . The self and experience are like the two sides of the same coin.  

******

Finally, UG’s thoughts on the three famous Eastern philosophical schools and their doctrines.

The three teachers - Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhwacharya were intellectual giants who respectively founded the three famous philosophical traditions of India – अद्वैत ( Advaita or Monism), विशिष्टाद्वैत (Visishtadvaita or Qualified Monism) and द्वैत ( Dvaita or Dualism).

They are fundamentally three different interpretations of the same वेदान्त, ( Vedanta or Upanishads) by the three Acharyas.

Vedanta means ‘Veda + anta’ or the culmination of the Vedas. While the first half of Vedas is all about rituals, its complementary half, the Vedanta offers the essence or the distilled wisdom of the Vedas. 

UG remarked, “ It is really amazing how these three world teachers – Shankara ( Advaita), Ramanuja ( Vishistadvaita) and Madhwa (Dwaita), each come out with a unique interpretation, based on the same texts - the Upanishads and Brahmasutras…”

******

UG demystified the three philosophies in a delightful exchange with Dr. Sreedhav.

UG uses the simplistic  metaphor of ‘the rain drop’ and ‘the ocean’. [2]

‘The rain drop’ in the metaphor is used to describe the ‘individual’ and the ‘ocean’  points to ‘the Life Infinite’.

Firstly, Monism ( Non-dualism) or Advaita.

Imagine a rain filled cloud above and the ocean below. 

Now imagine that a single rain drop from the cloud drops into the ocean below.

The ‘rain drop’ merges so completely into the ocean that it loses its identity. This is Advaita or Monism or Non-dualism where the individual is completely merged and becomes inseparable from the Life Infinite (Brahma).

 ‘Aham Brahmasmi’  or ‘I am Brahman’ is how the Upanishads sum up this state.  Now recall UG’s earlier statement, “ I am a Brahmin, a white Brahmin”

But this claim, if taken literally by all and sundry, without realising how UG’s state came about, will lead to fallacious distortions.

UG illustrated this problem through a parody that brings out the notoriety of the claim, “ Saying ‘I am Brahman’ is like someone in  in a mental asylum claiming, ‘I am Jesus Christ’. ”

UG explained that:

One, you cannot describe the undivided state.

Two, you cannot experience such a state

Either of these is possible only if there is a separation and any separation only falsifies that state.

UG concludes, “ Monism is something which you cannot talk about - for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.”

******

Secondly, Dualism or Dwaita.

Let us now take a look at Dvaita or Dualism.

UG asks us now to imagine a second drop that falls from the cloud into the ocean.

But this drop never merges with the ocean and tells itself that it is separate from the ocean. We now have the doctrine of Dualism or Dvaita where the individual has an independent existence and forever stands apart from the Life Infinite.

This too is not free from some inconsistencies. The emphasis on separation goes against one of its own belief in ‘Moksha’ or ‘Mukti’ or ‘Release’.

Moksha means that the ‘individual’ merges back into the ‘Life Infinite’ at the time of ‘Release’ or ‘Liberation’. That means separation or division ends at the time of Moksha which doesn't gel with the fundamental premise of Dualism.

This conundrum remains unresolved to this day!

******

Finally, Qualified Monism or Visishtadvaita.

Let us now imagine a third rain drop that falls into the ocean below.

This drop also merges with the ocean but somewhere it retains an ‘iota of seaparateness’.

In other words, the ocean and drop both have a place when ‘the ocean’ is thought of as the sum total of all ‘individual drops’. That is reality or totality expressed as multiplicity. Here the ‘individual’ is an expression of the Life Infinite as well as its inseparable part and parcel.

The brilliant Ramanuja puts the philosophically contentious riddle finally to rest with such finesse and precision by synthesising the extreme positions of the Monist and Dualist schools.

******

UG sums up the three philosophical traditions:

“ You cannot go beyond Ramanuja's position (qualified monism), as far as philosophy is concerned. There it stops. Monism is something which you cannot talk about - -- for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.

That is the limit." I'm not pro-Ramanujacharya or anti-Sankara. As I see it -- as a student of philosophy. I studied philosophy -- you cannot go beyond that chappie Ramanujacharya.

You may not agree with me. As far as the philosophical position is concerned, Ramanujacharya's position is the limit, the ultimate. The rest of it? Maybe there is.... If there is a monistic situation, that is something which cannot be talked about, and which cannot be applied to change anything in this world. ”

                 UG Krishnamurti ( “ The Mystique of Enlightenment ”)

******

---

[1] When he used the words White and Pure, UG perhaps was referring to their currency in the Theosophical parlance, the words like the Black or White Lodge, White Brotherhood etc.

Here is a small anecdote recounted by a Theosophist who was skeptical about Sai Baba of Shirdi who was attracting huge numbers from all religious communities and wondered whether he belonged to the Black or the White Lodge?

Saibaba thundered, " This is a Brahmin, pure Brahmin. He has nothing to do with black things … this Brahmin can bring lakhs of men on the white path and take them to their destination "

(– as recounted by Mrs. Kashibai Kanitkar- page 79, Sai Leela, Volume 2, 1934.)

[2] Special thanks to Dr. Sreedhav for the wonderful share. My sincere gratitude for his kind inputs while working on the script.