Liberation From and Mastery of the Exte al Nature of Man

Many religious and spiritual traditions focus on the idea of ‘liberation’ from bondage to the illusion of the exte
al world and its enticements and attractions. In some cases, this takes the form of a vow of austerity and a focus on achieving redemption and access to heaven after one dies. In other cases, it involves the one-pointed focus on liberation with the abandonment of the active life in the world, a reduction of one’s needs down to a bare minimum, and in some cases, using a begging bowl to obtain food and accepting whatever, if anything, comes to one. Some practice austere meditations or practices of concentration while residing in the desert, in mountain caves, etc.

There is a tradition that indicates that a liberated soul can be fully engaged in the exte
al life, but without attachment to the fruits of that life. The legend of King Janaka, for instance, incorporates such a sense. The goal remains liberation, but the active life is not set up in opposition to it; rather the seeker needs to act in the world without attachment, act based on principles of righteousness, fai
ess and balance, and carry out one’s Dharma in an upright and proper manner.

To a great degree there has been a divergent view between those who seek liberation from the world, and those who want to bring about progress and development in the world. In The Life Divine, Sri Aurobindo sets forth the opposing views in chapters 2 and 3, the Materialist Denial and the Refusal of the Ascetic. He reconciles these two standpoints in Chapter 4, Reality Omnipresent. Liberation and progressive development of the exte
al Nature are not opposites but complementary aspects of one Reality and thus, both have their underlying validity.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna explains to Arjuna that the liberated individual is not to be identified by any particular outer activity, or manner of action, but according to his inner state of spiritual realisation. In Chapter 13, Verse 23, however, the Gita goes even further, as translated by Sri Aurobindo: “Witness, source of the consent, upholder of the work of Nature, her enjoyer, almighty Lord and supreme Self is the Supreme Soul seated in this body.” The significant point here is that the Gita goes beyond the description of the Mundaka Upanishad that treats the Supreme Soul as the Witness, while the soul of man is actively participating in the actions of Nature. The Supreme Soul is seated in the body and is not simply a witness of nature for the Gita, but also “source of the consent”, “upholder of the work of Nature”, “her enjoyer”, “almighty Lord and supreme Self”. This implies the possibility that Sri Aurobindo expands upon when he describes the difference between assuming the role of the Witness of Nature and the potential for transformation and mastery of Nature, or in the interim refusing or withholding of consent for certain responses of Nature..

Sri Aurobindo writes: “You can certainly go on developing the consciousness of the Witness Purusha above, but if it is only a witness and the lower Prakriti is allowed to have its own way, there would be no reason why those conditions should ever stop. Many take that attitude — that the Purusha has to liberate itself by standing apart, and the Prakriti can be allowed to go on till the end of the life doing its own business — it is prarabdha karma; when the body falls away the Prakriti will drop also and the Purusha go off into the featureless Brahman! This is a comfortable theory, but of more than doubtful truth; I don’t think liberation is so simple and facile a matter as that. In any case, the transformation which is the object of our yoga would not take place.”

“The Purusha above is not only a Witness, he is the giver (or withholder) of the sanction; if he persistently refuses the sanction to a movement of Prakriti, keeping himself detached, then, even if it goes on for a time by its own momentum, it usually loses its hold after a time, becomes more feeble, less persistent, less concrete and in the end fades away. If you take the Purusha consciousness, it should be not only as the Witness but as the Anumanta, refusing sanction to the disturbing movements, sanctioning only peace, calm, purity and whatever else is part of the divine nature. This refusal of sanction need not mean a struggle with the lower Prakriti; it should be a quiet, persistent, detached refusal leaving unsupported, unassented to, without meaning or justification, the contrary action of the nature.”

Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, Looking from Within, Chapter 5, Attitudes on the Path, pp. 150-151