ਪ੍ਰਭ ਭਾਵੈ ਮਾਨੁਖ ਗਤਿ ਪਾਵੈ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਭਾਵੈ ਤਾ ਪਾਥਰ ਤਰਾਵੈ ॥
ਪ੍ਰਭ ਭਾਵੈ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਾਸ ਤੇ ਰਾਖੈ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਭਾਵੈ ਤਾ ਹਰਿ ਗੁਣ ਭਾਖੈ ॥
ਪ੍ਰਭ ਭਾਵੈ ਤਾ ਪਤਿਤ ਉਧਾਰੈ ॥ ਆਪਿ ਕਰੈ ਆਪਨ ਬੀਚਾਰੈ ॥
ਦੁਹਾ ਸਿਰਿਆ ਕਾ ਆਪਿ ਸੁਆਮੀ ॥ ਖੇਲੈ ਬਿਗਸੈ ਅੰਤਰਜਾਮੀ ॥
ਜੋ ਭਾਵੈ ਸੋ ਕਾਰ ਕਰਾਵੈ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟੀ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਆਵੈ ॥੨॥
parabh bhaavai maanukh gat paavai parabh bhaavai taa paathar taraavai
parabh bhaavai bin saas tay raakhai parabh bhaavai taa har gun bhaakhai
duhaa siri-aa kaa aap su-aamee khaylai bigsai antarjaamee
jo bhaavai so kaar karaavai naanak daristee avar na aavai
If it pleases God, one attains salvation. If it pleases God, then even stones can swim.
If it pleases God, the body is preserved, even without the breath of life. If it pleases God, then one chants the Lord's Glorious Praises.
If it pleases God, then even sinners are saved. He Himself acts, and He Himself contemplates.
He Himself is the Master of both worlds. He plays and He enjoys; He is the Inner-knower, the Searcher of hearts.
As He wills, He causes actions to be done. Nanak sees no other than Him.
~ Guru Granth Sahib 277-3/5, Sukhmani Sahib, Ashtapadi 11-2
✥ ✥ ✥
Questioner: Acharya Ji, I am reading Sukhmani Sahib and loving it. Strangely, I agree with what is written there but disagree with what it implies. For example, it is stated that, “He Himself acts, and He Himself contemplates. He Himself is the Master of both worlds. He plays and He enjoys; He is the Inner-knower, the Searcher of hearts. As He wills, He causes actions to be done. Nanak sees no other than Him.” Tell me, what can a mere mortal do? Whatever pleases God is what He causes us to do. Whatever pleases God, that is what He does. It is stated that He contemplates, wills, acts, and causes actions to be done. It is also said that there is no other than Him.
These are harmless and acceptable assertions. However, they imply that there is no suffering and no ‘I’. I resist this implication. Is it by His will that ‘I’ exists, ‘I’ resists, and ‘I’ claims to be suffering? Am ‘I’ Him? He cannot be suffering, but I believe that I am suffering. Please resolve this paradox.
Acharya Prashant: That which makes you suffer, the ‘I’-sense, too, comes from Him. The ‘I’-sense is the suffering. The ‘I’-sense makes you suffer. In other words, the ‘I’-sense makes itself suffer. That too is coming from Him. So, all the actions that are generally attributed to the ‘I’, the Saint says, actually come from Him. There is a reason.
Does the ‘I’ really know what it is doing? If the ‘I’ is the originator of action, then it must know what it is doing. Does it really know? If it does not know what it is doing, then surely the action does not originate from the ‘I’, it originates from somewhere else. That somewhere else is called as God.
The day the ‘I’ starts really knowing what it is doing and why it is doing and who it is, then there is no difference between ‘I’ and God. ‘I’ exists as a separate ‘I’, as a separate doer, only as long as it does not know what it is doing. It claims it is doing something, without really being the doer. It says, “I am thinking”—but does it know why it is thinking, what it is thinking? An impulse arises and the ‘I’ says, “I am feeling in a certain way.” It can say what it is feeling, but can it tell where the feeling is coming from?
So, the saints have said that the ‘I’ feels like being a doer but is actually not a doer, it is just a puppet. If there is a puppet, then they say that let’s call the puppeteer as God. That’s what is being implied here.
“Am ‘I’ Him?”
You are Him when you know who you are. You are yourself as long as you do not know who you are. As long as you are acting in your darkness, you are yourself. When you start acting in light, you are Him.
So, you have the option to be either—you can be yourself, or you can be God. Who gave this option? You never wanted this option. You cannot even do away with this option, which means you are not the progenitor of these options. Where are they coming from, then? Wherever they are coming from, let’s call that point as God. That’s the philosophy.
The Upanishads were not composed to give you the normal kind of comfort and happiness. The Upanishads are there to give you an exalted happiness, a transcendental happiness, an eternal happiness. A happiness so rare and exquisite that it is not called as harṣa or moda or prasannatā; a…
Questioner (Q): I am studying philosophy at Hansraj College, and I have read that Hegel’s philosophy was that mankind has been increasing its power by increasing its knowledge about itself and its surroundings. This kind of a philosophy might suggest that our projected purpose is to become the most powerful…
Questioner (Q): Does Vedanta, or wisdom literature in general, offer any fundamental solutions to the problems that we face as normal individuals in our personal and professional lives?
Acharya Prashant (AP): Vedanta doesn’t go at all into the specifics of the problems we face. If it does that, it would…
