#149 Self-love in Vedanta

Many new age authors declare that we must have self-love. Some celebrities and influencers endorse self love after sharing how they struggled with low self esteem. When they embraced themselves warts and all, they found themselves.

This topic of self love brings up many questions? In self-love, who has to love whom? Is it similar to loving another person? Why should one have self love?

What does Vedanta have to say in the matter? I respectfully turn to our revered muni Sri Vidyaranya who wrote the beautiful and profound Panchadashi, which literally means 15 chapters. The 12^th Chapter Brahmanande Atmananda does a deep dive into the Ananda of the self and in this episode I will restrict it to the enquiry into the self, the Atma. Some related aspects of unconditional love and being loving have been covered in episodes 29 and 79. 

We start with the profound dialogue between the husband, who is sage Yajnavalkya and his second wife, Maitreyi. Yajnavalkya a great and highly revered rishi was happily married with two wives. As he was advancing in age, he sought a life of contemplation and wanted to enter the fourth phase of life that is sannyasa. Before entering this phase one is required to distribute his wealth and ask for permission from the partner. The purpose of sannyasa, renunciation is to free oneself ritually from obligatory social and family obligations and duties to devote oneself fully for the attainment of moksha, the highest goal of life. He tells her that he has divided his wealth equally between the two wives upon which Maitreyi asks – If indeed this whole earth full of wealth be mine, shall I be immortal through that? The honest sage that he is Yajnavalkya says that with wealth your life would be like that of others who have plenty of things. But immortality – no that ‘s not possible. Seeing the limitations of wealth, Maitreyi says – Then, what is the means of immortality?   

Yajnavalkya lovingly tells her that he will explain it to her and she may meditate on what he says. And he begins – It is not for the sake of the husband that he is loved, but because he evokes a pleased you. Meaning? Surely the husband is loving, hardworking, successful.  That makes him lovable, right? Yes but you love him because he evokes the pleased you.   

Yajnavalkya further adds –

Atma va are drashtavyah, shrotavyah, mantavyah, nididhyasitvayah.,

The Self I, Atma is to be seen directly, heard of, reflected upon and meditated upon.

He then teaches her that the self that she had taken to be just the wife, a woman, and so on is really the limitless Atma, the one with no boundaries, the one without a second.

All things and beings such as the husband, wife, son, wealth, cattle, Brahmanas, kshatriyas, the 14 lokas, Devas, Vedas and the five great elements are dear for the sake of the self alone and not for the sake of the objects.

The presence of each or any of these evokes the pleased and happy you and hence becomes an object of love. Allow this to land.

When the presence of someone evokes a happy and pleased you – it could be a compliment or someone doing something special for you or you meeting someone after a long time, which makes you happy, that person becomes an object of love.  

The unconditional love for oneself is evident in the unwavering desire seen in everyone – May I never perish. May I be immortal. It is not an acquired desire for a cheese sandwich or a strawberry milkshake. It is what we are born with and even if we try to fight the desire of not wishing that we were immortal, it is not possible.   

The parent argues against this – My son is myself. I love my son more than myself.

Here is where Sri Vidyaranya enquires into the extent of love for the self – Is love for the self the highest and hence primary or is that Atma secondary or mithya?

He considers the Atma to be of 3 kinds depending on the level of identification – Gauna Atma which means secondary Atma, Mithya Atma which is an identification with five levels of body-mind and Mukhya Atma which is the absolute self.

Please note that these three type of Atmas are just temporary categories for us to understand. These categories are swallowed at the end of the teaching. 

Panchadashi 12.40

Devadatta stu simho’yam ityaikyam gaunametayoh

Bhedasya bhaasamaanatvaatputraaderaatmataa yathaa

If the parent argues that my son is my self it is only a figure of speech to indicate how much joy the son gives him, it needs to be understood. Just like in the statement – Devadutta is a lion, the identity between Devadutta and the lion is secondary because the difference between the two is obvious. So too the status of the son to be the self is secondary. A secondary characteristic, a guna of the status of parenthood is referred to, as one is not a parent to everyone all the time. Hence it is called Gauna Atma.

12.41

Bhedosti panchakosheshu saakshino na tu bhatyasau

Mithyaatmataa‘tah koshaanaam sthaanoschauratmaa yathaa

The second type of Atma is called Mithyatma. The Sakshi witness-consciousness is different from the five levels of modifications namely annamaya – modification of food, pranamaya – modification of prana, manomaya – modification of mind, vijnanamaya – modification of the doer and anandamaya – modification of the experiencer. Hence mistaking these five levels of identifications as the Atma is mithya, not absolutely real. This is similar to mistaking the post in the night to be a thief.  

Then, what is the real meaning of Atma?

12.42

Na bhaati bhedo napyasti saakshino apratiyoginah

Sarvaantaratvaat tasyaiva mukhyamaatmatvamishyate

The witnessing self is one without a second and therefore does not contradict anyone, nor is there any negation of anything by the self. This self is the primary self, mukhya atma. 

In the case of mukhyatma or the primary Atma there is no frame of reference. There is no division such as father or son either in appearance or experience nor is there any division in body and mind.

This primary atma is the basis of both the gauna atma and mithya atma.

On enquiry we see that the Atma is other than the body because the body is an object of knowledge and is subject to birth and death. If we are afraid of loss then we are afraid of the loss of mithya atma, I, identified with body which has a dependent reality

Atma is other than the relationship of the son because the relation of a parent is a changing one, pertaining to this lifetime only and related only to a particular person. It is not one’s defining identity.

But why are these three types of Atma mentioned?

The Atma being of 3 kinds whatever is the proper meaning of the self, in the appropriate worldly dealings only that meaning of the self as primary, secondary or mithya will be taken.

How?

He gives an example – for a person on his deathbed, protection of the house and the son and wife will be considered as the primary self and not the real self. Therefore, for the dying person, the son who is in fact the secondary self, gauna atma is the primary self, mukhya atma.

In statements like I am weak, I will attain a healthy body the meaning of the self to be the body is appropriate. The eating of food is meant for the health of the body. There is deha atmata, taking the body to be the atma and hence mithyatma is the primary meaning here. The son or some person external to the person as gaunatma is not being considered here.

So, the points of reference for determining the primary meaning of Atma varies from situation to situation.

When a person decides that I shall attain moksha with the help of guru and shastra he comes to discover himself as that primary, chidatma consciousness that is the self and does not desire anything. He comes to see that the right meaning of Atma is pure consciousnesss.       

He does not want to do anything or achieve anything because doing is only with reference to the annamaya, manomaya or vijnaanamaya or gaunatma which are not absolutely real. When such a student talks of liberation he is not speaking of living or dying. He sees the Atma as mukhyatma and the basis for all identifications such as the gauna atma and mithya atma. He sees that Mithya is not opposed to satyam but the apparent is as though supported by the absolute.

This strange description of three types of Atma is not to categorise that which cannot be categorized but it is to understand the correct context and apply appropriately in our dealings.

It also brings home the fact that anything that appears, modifies and disappears are only superimpositions on the absolute self that is never changing.     What was referred to as Gauna atma or Mithya Atma is a referential description of the self and does not define the Atma.

In our different dealings love for the primary self is extreme and for the other secondary things that are helpful to the primary self, there is love. For things other than these two neither love nor extreme love is seen. Firstly depending upon the worldly interactions the Atma as though becomes Mukhya Atma for which we have supreme love.

Since this mukhya atma is temporary the ati priti or suprme love is also temporary. Secondly those who are helpful to the mukhya atma receive ordinary love, priti. At the third level are those for whom there is neither love nor extreme love. This could be indifference or dislike. Our attitudes of extreme love, love, indifference and dislike keep changing in the relative world.

To explain this when a tiger is facing us, there is dvesha, dislike and fear, when it is going away one is indifferent to it. If the tiger is reared as a pet then it considered to be an object of love. In this way, the object being the same depending on the situation our attitude towards it changes.

If our attitudes change so much how are we to conduct ourselves?

There may not be easy criteria to label things as primary or secondary but they can be considered as favourable, unfavourable and indifferent. Generally what is favourable to oneself is loved, what is not favourable to oneself is disliked and where the object is neither favourable nor unfavourable, one is indifferent.

To conclude, the Atma is the dearest. Those that support the mukhyatma are dear and others evoke either dislike or indifference. What is me and mine is considered favourable. The attitude of what is mine or my-ness makes one categorise persons objects and experiences into atipriya, extremely lovable, priya, lovable, dveshya worthy of dislike and upekshya, worthy of indifference.

Things from the prana upto wealth are a means of joy depending on how useful they are. The extent of proximity to the self is co-relational with the degree of love for them.

The self is the innermost , pratyagatma present in the waking, dream and deep sleep state and thus in all experiences. Hence, I is the dearest. Next are the gross body, the mind, the senses whatever is perceived to be close and hence the degree of love to it will closely correspond.   

By Atma Vichaara, the enquiry into the Atma, one recognizes the Sakshi, who is able to know the son, the wealth which are gauna atma, the secondary self, the panchakoshas – the 5 levels of identification as mithyatma.

Since this has still not been understood, the teacher says – Your dear ones will make you cry. The student enquires into this. The son who is unborn or not yet conceived by the parents gives pain to the parents. The parents are anxious until they conceive. If conceived there is a fear of abortion. The child also gives pain during delivery. If the son is born there are worries about unfavourable planets and possible diseases inflicting pain. If the son is a teenager, the parents are worried about his studies and his foolishness. If he is well educated then they are worried about his bachelorhood and falling into bad company. If the son is well settled the parents are worried about a sudden stock market crash or a sudden death because of his frequent travels. In all such situations, Sri Vidyaranaya highlights that there is no end or limit to the misery of the parents.

Through the above analysis, the student understood the teacher’s statement –   Your dear ones will make you cry.

Through this when the student enquires into the role and the identity of a parent then understands the son to be gauna atma, the secondary self. The son is dear because he evokes the pleased, expansive self. An enquiry into one’s psychological and physical state in relation to the son and we come to mithya atma. Mukhya atma illumines and lights up both these – gauna atma and mithya atma which are just relational words for when we use the sentences – I am a parent. I am missing my son and so on.

Thus in Vedanta self love is the highest. This is the truth. It does not make one selfish but rather it is seeing the self as the self of all. Because the Atma is loved unconditionally, we are drawn to self-enquiry.

In the light of Vedanta the Atma is discovered as the limitless, that which is not subject to birth or death,

The Atma which is present in and through all experiences

The Atma which is present in and through all forms including your body

The Atma which was never bound is you.