devolve upon this attitude of the mind. Any affirmation of independence on the part
of an individual is the cause of the sorrow of that individual, because sorrow is an
immediate outcome in the form of an experience of the inability of the individual to
get on with the resources of its own individuality.
The finitude of the individual causes the sorrow. Wherever there is finitude, there
must be unhappiness. As a matter of fact, unhappiness and finitude mean one and
the same thing. It is the intense feeling of limitation in every way that causes
restlessness in our minds and also becomes the motivating force behind efforts
towards the obviating of these causes of limitation. That is why we are active and
work hard to come in contact with things outside. So, in a sense, what it amounts to
is that all joys of life, whether they are physical or psychological, are caused by
unselfish deeds of the past—which means to say, deeds which have suppressed the
sense of individuality to some extent, and enabled the altruistic nature to manifest
itself to the extent possible. Thus, pleasures and pains have a beginning and an end,
inasmuch as every action has a beginning and an end. Anything that we do in space
and in time is temporal; and if our deeds are the causes of our experiences, and if
these deeds are temporal in their character, our experiences also should be of a
similar nature.
Thus, we cannot have permanent happiness in this world, nor will we be
permanently unhappy. Happiness and unhappiness will come and go; they are a
transitional process. The unhappiness which one feels is, therefore, attributed to
demerit, and the happiness one feels is attributed to merit. The point aimed at here is
that whether it is merit or demerit—whatever be the nature of the action performed
by an individual—all this is urged forward by the klesas: avidya, asmita, raga, dvesa
and abhinivesa. They are trying their best to reconstitute themselves into a form or a
shape which will place them under better circumstances.
What is the meaning of ‘better circumstances’? It is a circumstance which will be
commensurate with the unity of things. Even the worst of actions is rooted ultimately
in a pious intention, though it is moving in a wrong direction. There is nothing
utterly wrong in the universe. The basis of all things, the essential root of things, is
holy and divine; it is a unity of all things. But the urge of this unity when it gets
distorted through the complex of space, time and individuality becomes a peculiar
experience and a motivating force which we call error, misconception, wrong action,
etc. Even a good thing can become bad when it takes a wrong turn—and thus, it is the
turn that it takes which determines its goodness or badness, not its essential nature.
Even a very good person can hit somebody on the head. Though hitting somebody on
the head cannot be regarded as something good, the man himself may be very good.
The turn that he has taken is bad; the substance is not bad.
Likewise, the intention behind even the so-called erroneous deeds of phenomenal life
is basically a search for permanent composure, peace and stability of existence, but it
is sought in an utterly wrong manner on account of involvement in space and time,
which persists in an externality of things, an isolation of individuals and a selfishness
of character. This is something like a good man becoming a friend of a bad man, on
account of which the goodness of the person gets adulterated and loses its
significance. The unitary urge that is behind things becomes spoilt by its association
with the externalising tendency of space and time, which is the cause of the diversity
of things and the affirmation of individualities with their asmita tattva. This is the