There Is No Liberation for the Dead
Questioner: Sir, if I may add just two more thoughts — one came much before this session about the contradiction. I think Pitri Paksh were going on, and a lot of effort was being made by some family members about the liberation of the departed souls. At that time, I had written in one of my reflections that while people were alive, there was no talk of Mukti and not even a single discussion ever happened. The only Mukti that was ever imagined was death. But after the death has happened, some Mukti is being talked about, for which crows will come, and you know, pandits have to be fed and visits to Gaya are required. That was the first contradiction.
But the second one, on which I would definitely like your teachings, was or is the last sentence that you said: because it constantly feels that death came, death is a liberation to those who have died. It feels like that because my mother died at 55, 56, and struggled a lot with very deep mental health issues all her life. And my father was a very hard worker and everything and died at 64, right after retirement.
So, it always feels as if they have been liberated, while we are condemned to go on living. While what you have said is the exact opposite. So, why does that feeling not arise? Why does it feel like — why should it not come to all of us?
Acharya Prashant: Because liberation is not an absence of consciousness. Liberation is the joy of consciousness.
Liberation is not consciousness blenge into a coma. Liberation is the effervescence of consciousness.
What joy is possible to the dead? So, it is not possible that liberation comes through death. No, if you are gone, what joy is there to you? In fact, all the possibility of joy has also gone.
Therefore, Vedanta is unique in talking about *Videha Mukti and Jiwan Mukti and saying Jiwan Mukti is the real thing — Jiwan Mukti , when we talk of Mukti, it has to be specifically Jiwan Mukti — liberation while alive as the body. The body is there, and the joy of knowing that you are not the body is there. If the body is not no more there, where is the joy of knowing that you are not the body? If the toy is gone, what joy is there in witnessing it?
Organized religion is just an elaborate conspiracy to keep you away from Mukti. And you put it very nicely: nobody talks of Mukti when they are alive. Now, after they are gone, their kith and kin are supposed to be worried about their Mukti, which is all quite nonsensical. Once you are gone, the opportunity is gone. There is no liberation for the dead. No liberation at all for the dead.
And that is why the opportunity called life is so precious.
Liberation is not for the true self, Atma. Is there liberation for Atma? And there is no ego-sense. The body, you very well know when the ego is born — when the child gains consciousness. Liberation is not for Atma. Liberation is only for the ego. And the ego exists only with the body. Therefore, liberation is possible only when you are bodied. There is nothing called a disembodied ego.
But organized religion has come up with this ugly hoax: the disembodied ego, which it calls as the Jivatma. Vedant totally dismisses that—the disembodied self. There's nothing called the disembodied self, or ghosts, or Jivatma, or wandering soul, or any other nonsense of that kind. Will you please remember that Vedant arises out of deep compassion for the living being? Vedant is not about compassion for ghosts.
No Rishi is coming and saying, “I need to liberate ghosts.” For that, you can refer to the pandits of organized religion. They are interested in liberating ghosts. Vedant is about living, eating, breathing, talking, walking human beings. Vedant is about us, not the bhoot-pret.
Otherwise, the Rishis would have been talking all the time to the ghosts. Upanishad would mean the Rishi talking to ghosts because the ghosts are to be liberated.Shri Krishna should have been addressing ghosts.
Who is being addressed in Vedant? Give me one instance where a dead one is being addressed. Who is being addressed? Somebody alive. Because we are the ones who suffer. Ghosts don't suffer. Even if they suffer, their suffering is the imaginative outcome of our suffering. The more we suffer, the more we imagine suffering ghosts also.
And if you look at ghost stories, their sufferings are mirror reflections of our suffering. So, some male ghost has lost a female ghost, and he is absolutely heartbroken — that looks more like a human story, no? That is a human story imposed upon the ghost.
Or the ghost is envious. Or the ghost wants to extort some money. Or the ghost wants to have some wicked fun by entering somebody's body. Now, these are things that we do. You find a vacant plot and you occupy it. So, you have concocted a similar story saying the ghost found a vacant body and entered it.
The Rishis were talking to living people, not souls. Ever found a sermon being addressed even to a dead body — let alone a ghost? That a fellow is lying dead, or that the fellow is sleeping, or that the fellow is unconscious, and he is being sermonized? Any such instance? No such instance.
In fact, the listener has to be fully attentive; only then the Seer would speak. Which means you need a living, attentive consciousness sitting in front as a listener or a student. The concept of liberation has to be clarified.
No liberation after death. No bondage after death. No liberation before birth. No bondage before birth. Nothing before birth, nothing after death.
Because all sorrow is there only as you are alive. Is there sorrow before your birth? No sir. Is there sorrow after your death? No sir.
All the hotch potch and the drama is while — when — we are alive. Therefore, all the teachings are addressed to living people. Shri Krishna is not choosing to talk to Arjun’s father, the deceased father, is he?
Once someone is gone, it's time to turn to the welfare of those who are still alive. No welfare is possible for the one who is gone. Now gone means gone. The window is closed. However, the window is still open in the form of several other people who are still alive. Take care of them.
That's empathy. That's genuine compassion. In fact, the more you try to take care of the departed ones in some way, the more cruel you are.
It’s like feeding a dead one at the cost of starving the living ones. Concentrate on the living ones. They are the ones who can still be uplifted or saved or liberated.
You know, in India, one of the reasons behind the high rate of suicides in rural areas is this: the prevalence of expensive religious customs — especially the customs spanning 13 days after death.
Now, you can somehow cut corners when it comes to customs on other occasions, but a great scare grips you when it comes to the departed soul. And the priest is there to drill the fear deep down. He will say, “If you do not spend so much money, if you do not gift so many items, if you do not feed so many Brahmins, then your departed father will burn in hell.”
Now, this is something no son, no daughter, no wife, no family member can tolerate. So, the poor people actually borrow for the sake of these rituals. And then the loan cannot be repaid because microfinancing is very expensive.
Still, in rural India, people borrow from local moneylenders at high monthly rates of interest. And then one death becomes the reason for a couple of suicides within next two-three years. Why? Because people were trying to ingratiate a departed soul.
And it is not something that halts just after 13 days. The entire cycle of rituals continues — initially month after month and then year after year. You even have to make expensive journeys. How will a poor man afford all that?
So, I said, all this can very rightfully be called an elaborate conspiracy. Let’s not fall for it. It's a parallel economy. It's just that it's a very wasteful kind of economy in which no value is created — just that millions of people draw their sustenance from this by scaring, rather looting, other people.
Questioner: You have to donate 13 sets of vessels, which the pandit goes back to the market, sells it off, then it comes back to him.
Acharya Prashant: No, not just that much. You actually have to accept one particular priest as your departed father.
There is the concept of Mahabaman, and you have to gift everything that you would probably want to gift your father — because your father is supposed to be undertaking a long and arduous journey towards heaven now. And he would need a lot of things.
He also needs a vehicle. So, this particular priest would come and say, “Why don't you give me a vehicle, because I am your father, I am your deceased father standing in front of you.” Bed, mattress, clothes, utensils, money—these are small things. Even a vehicle has to be gifted.
And you cannot deny it because that fellow actually behaves as your father.
The concept of Jivatma has been economically a very rewarding one. Do you see why it has stood the sands of time? — Economics. Very, very fruitful economics.
If a concept proves economically rewarding to a particular section, will that concept be ever allowed to die down? So the concept stands. If they say, "It’s the money, honey!"— wherever you find the prevalence of superstition, look sharply, you'll also find a parallel economy.
No superstition stands on its own. Money is changing hands somewhere. Somebody is filling his pockets, and that’s why the superstition keeps breathing — Dirty economics. We talk of black money — this is the blackest kind of money.
In my corporate life, I was once a consultant to one of the top vehicle manufacturers of our country. And you know, in the small and midsize segment, models are especially made to cater to the dowry market. So that you can claim that you gifted this kind of car to your daughter without mentioning the exact model.
So, the difference between the base model and the highest one can even run into 2X. I'm talking of 2004–05. The base model could be priced at 4, the top model could be priced at 8 or 9. But still you could claim that, “I have gifted this particular car,” let’s say a Santro at that time. So I inquired, and they said, “It’s the dowry thing. Our retailers are trained to ask a customer shaadi ke liye chahiye kya — the moment you learn that the fellow is buying it for shaadi — you know the particular model to direct him to.”
It’s economics. What else is the ego all about? An incompleteness that is bound to be greedy. If I’m incomplete, I’ll be greedy. So, all superstition is actually just greed. Somebody is benefiting from it.
If you read up on this, you’ll be surprised: more than 50% of what you call religious tourism is actually just superstition tourism. People traveling to worlds of bad, evil influences. People rushing to some great temple because they believe that they have been possessed, and if they go to that particular place, then the Baba there will shoo away the ghost possessing your head.
And all that is accounted for as religious tourism. That is not religious tourism.
