Bhagavad Gita Sthitaprajna lakshna - Verses 54 & 55, Swami Dayananda Saraswati's Commentary from Gita Homestudy Program.

[Guest guest]

Greetings Advaitin:

 

This commentary of Swami Dayanandaji on Sthitaprajna lakshna was provided by

Swamini Brahamapriyanandaji from Gita Homestudy Programinstituted by Arsha

Vidya Gurukulam. Swamiji's commentary brings the characteristics of True Human

Nature clearly and forcefully.

 

As I have stated before, the verses 54 to 72 elaborates what Gita is all about

and the rest of the 16 chapters describes questions that arise while

understanding True Human Nature. Swamiji has taken this opportunity to teach

all the interested students the basics of Vedanta as stated in Gita. I

encourage everyone to read and listen to Swamiji's persuasive arguements and

sound logic.

 

Swamini has provided commentary for the entire Sthitaprajna lakshna and I will

post them at appropriate time. In order to develop these materials, Swamini

has developed some 'macro language' to transfer the non-ascii to ascii

compatible text. The list wants to thank Swamini for her unselfish efforts,

 

regards,

Ram Chandran

 

 

Bhagavad Gita Sthitaprajna lakshna - Verses 54 & 55, Swami Dayananda

Saraswati's Commentary from Gita Homestudy Program.

 

arjuna uvaca

sthitaprajnasya ka bhasa samadhisthasya kesava

sthitadhih kim prabhaseta kimasita vrajeta kim Verse 54

arjunah - Arjuna; uvaca - said;

kesava - Oh! Kesava; sthitaprajnasya -of one in whom the knowledge is firm;

samadhisthasya - of one whose mind abides in the atma, self; bhasa -

description; ka - what; sthitadhih - one whose mind is not shaken by

anything; kim - how; prabhaseta - would speak; kim - how; asita - would sit;

kim - how; vrajeta - would walk

Arjuna said:

 

Oh! Kesava, what is the description of a person of firm wisdom, one whose mind

abides in the atma, self? How does such a person, whose mind is not shaken by

anything, speak, sit, and walk?

 

Sankara introduces this verse by saying that Arjuna, desiring to know the

characteristics of a person who knows the atma, asked a question, 'How does

such a person speak, sit, and walk?'

The word sthitaprajna refers to a person who has no doubts, vagueness, or

error with reference to the knowledge of atma. Thus, the knowledge stays,

becomes sthita. One's knowledge can also be so erroneous that there is no

doubt or vagueness, but the error will show in time. Here, the knowledge

stays without error, The word sthitaprajna being in the masculine gender,

means the person for whom the knowledge stays and not the knowledge itself.

The word for knowledge is prajna, which is in feminine gender. Prajna can mean

knowledge of anything, such as archery, for example. Sankara therefore

clarifies the knowledge being spoken of as, 'well-established, well-rooted

knowledge that I am the whole - param brahma aham asmi.' The topic here is

paramatma, not archery, and the person, for whom the knowledge of atma being

param brahma is steady, is called sthitaprajna. This person is also described

as one who is in samadhi, samadhistha, one whose mind is abiding in the atma,

is awake to the atma. Arjuna wanted to know how Krsna would describe such a

person. He asked, sthitaprajnasya ka bhasa? Sankara puts this question in

another way: How is this person described by others? - katham asau paraih

bhasyate?'

 

Bhagavan used the word samadhi in the previous verse, not sthitaprajna. It was

Arjuna who coined this latter word and his question reveals that he seemed to

know what it was all about - at least in the first line! He asked for a

description of a wise person, a sthitaprajna, which was an excellent question.

He also used the word sthitadhi, meaning a person whose buddhi remains firm.

But then he asked, 'Does this person talk? kim prabhaseta? Does he or she sit?

kim asita? Does he or she walk? kim vrajeta?' Sankara did not think that these

questions as worded were Arjuna's real questions. To ask, 'Does a wise person

talk?' would have been meaningless because Krsna had been talking all along.

It would also have meant that Arjuna had a doubt about whether Krsna knew what

he was talking about and, therefore, whether he was a sthitaprajna. Because

kim can mean 'what' or 'how.' Sankara took Arjuna's questions to mean the

latter. How does a wise person talk, sit, and walk? When someone asks you a

question, you either answer the question or you answer the person. When you

answer the person, you still answer the question, but it is the spirit of the

question that you address. When you answer the person, you consider what the

person had in mind when he or she asked the question. Before a person talks,

he or she has a sense to convey. This is the reason why one talks. Therefore,

the listener tries to understand the intention or the sense of what the

speaker is attempting to convey. This is real listening and is very important,

whether you are reading something someone has written or are listening to

something someone is saying. A person may not always say what he or she really

wants to say. A person's look may be enough for you to see his or her

language. This sometimes happens without the eyes also, like when you hear two

or three words and understand the whole sentence. It all depends on your

capacity to see what the speaker wants to say.

 

 

THE SPIRIT OF ARJUNA'S QUESTION

When Lord Krsna answered Arjuna, he did not answer his question. Instead, he

answered the person, as we will see. If he had answered the question, what

could he have said? Would he have described a sthitaprajna as one who walks

very slowly or quickly because the person is a sthitaprajna! Suppose the

sthitaprajna does not have any legs? Or, would Krsna have said that a

sthitaprajna talks very slowly because he or she is very alert? Or, that being

very alert, the sthitaprajna's words are carefully measured and come only in

half-minute intervals, the person being so rooted in the self! What does all

this mean? How does it make any difference? Some people think that if you talk

very slowly, you are wonderful. They think that the words of a wise person who

talks slowly come from infinity and, therefore, they take time! They come from

such depths, it seems! People can be very easily fooled by those who pose as

wise by saying very little and speaking very leisurely. There is yet another

popular description of a wise person: 'Words just tumble out. The physical

organ is incapable of keeping track of the pace of the quicksilver mind of the

wise. It is so mercurial. No God has made an organ of speech that can keep

pace with it. The person has such enormous energy!' And then there is another

type of wise person, it seems, who, having reached atma, does not talk at all.

He or she is always in samadhi. People come and the person just looks at them

without even blinking! Why? Because he or she is a sthitaprajna, one of steady

wisdom! Thus, we see that if Arjuna's question had been taken literally, no

answer would have been possible unless Krsna himself believed in such

definitions of a wise person. Therefore, the second line of Arjuna's question

did not mean anything to Krsna, but there was a spirit to it; that is, how

does a wise person interact with the world? How does he or she talk and go

about in the world? Is there any indication that this person has wisdom? Is

there anything that betrays or reveals the wisdom he or she has? Will there be

any difference in how this person interacts with the world and how an ordinary

person interacts? There should be some difference. Therefore, what is it that

characterises the person's wisdom? This was the spirit of Arjuna's question

and it was this question that was answered in the verses to come.

 

sribhagavanuvaca

 

prajahati yada kaman sarvanpartha manogatan

atmanyevatmana tusah sthitaprajnastadocyate

 

Verse 55 sribhagavan - the Lord; uvaca - said;partha - Oh! Partha; yada -

when;

sarvan - all; manogatan - as they appear in the mind; kaman - desires;

prajahati - gives up; atmani - in oneself; eva - alone; atmana - with

oneself; tusah - one who is happy; tada - then; sthitaprajnah - a person of

ascertained knowledge; ucyate - is said to be

Sri Bhagavan said:

 

When a person gives up all the desires as they appear in the mind, Oh! Partha,

happy in oneself, with oneself alone, that person is said to be one of

ascertained knowledge. The characteristics stated here and in the subsequent

verses of the chapter are with reference to a person who has already attained

this knowledge. Both the definition, laksana of a wise person, sthitaprajna

and the means for becoming wise, the sadhana are discussed. Although Arjuna

only wanted to know who is a sthitaprajna, the sadhana is also taught because,

throughout the sastra, the characteristics of a wise person are said to also

be the means for preparing one's mind for the knowledge of the atma. In his

commentary, Sankara referred to a sthitaprajna as one who is accomplished, one

who has made it, a krtartha. The characteristics of one who has made it by

gaining this knowledge become the sadhana, the means, for gaining the

knowledge. Thus, the wise person's spontaneous expressions in life, the

attitudes and disposition with which he or she interacts with others, are the

characteristics that establish the norms to be followed by the seekers of this

wisdom.

 

THE DEFINITION IS ALSO THE MEANS

These characteristics are to be cultivated because they are the means by which

the seeker becomes a wise person. Without these sadhanas, a person does not

become wise. Thus, in the beginning, there is a sadhana and then, later, the

sadhana becomes an expression. Sympathy, love, freedom, giving, and so on are

all sadhanas in the beginning. They are means for self-purification and

maturity, eventually becoming the natural expressions of the same person. It

is not that the person tries to be sympathetic, loving, and giving; he or she

is naturally sympathetic, loving, and giving. However, for the person who has

not yet made it, he or she tries, for example, to give. This is necessary

because, along with the giving thought, there is also the opposite thought in

the form of a reluctance to give. In the mind of the person, the question,

'Why should I give?' still arises. If the ego is there telling me not to give,

then I am not a giving person. Thus, giving, love, sympathy, consideration,

and so on, all of which are the spontaneous expressions of a wise person,

become the sadhanas for the person who wants to be wise, the mumuksu.

 

The sadhana itself is to be accomplished by effort, yatna. If you succeed in

acquiring these characteristics, then you become firmly established in the

knowledge. You gain jnana-nisha. What was accomplished with effort becomes the

natural expression of the wise person. That is the rule. Therefore, all the

universal values, being natural to the sthitaprajna are the sadhanas for a

mumuksu. They became natural to the sthitaprajna because they are a natural

expression of oneself. But, in the beginning, the person deliberately

cultivated them. To become wise, you have to follow them; only then can you

gain jnana-nisha. Thus, these values are both the qualifications and the

qualities you need for the knowledge to take place and, in time, they become

very natural to you. The qualities represented by universal values are not

like a boat that you use to cross the river and then leave behind once you

have reached the other side. Even though these qualities are the means for

preparing your antah-karana for the knowledge, they become natural expressions

because you continue to be a person with such a mind. You interact with the

world as before, but now you interact spontaneously because these qualities

have become natural to you. Thus, in the beginning, they are in the form of

sadhanas, the means for accomplishing self-knowledge whereas, later, they are

like ornaments - very natural, spontaneous expressions of the person.

 

Bhagavan Krsna included both the definition of a wise person and the means

for becoming wise in his response to Arjuna's request for a description of a

sthitaprajna because they are one and the same thing. Sankara makes the same

point in his commentary introducing this verse. Krsna also indicated that

giving up all desires, sarvan kaman, does not mean that the sthitaprajna has

no desires, but that as they arise in his mind, manogatan, he gives them up -

prajahati. That means the desires are not pursued. In this way, the wise

person gives up all desires.

 

CAN YOU BE HAPPY IF YOU GIVE UP DESIRES?

Now the question may arise, if a man gives up all his desires, does that not

mean that he will have no happiness, ananda? We know that a man is happy only

when he fulfils a desire. But, here, he gives up all desires as they arise in

his mind and at the same time continues to live. If all his desires disappear

and he disappears with them, there is no problem. But if he gives up all

desires and continues to exist in this world, it seems that he has no way of

being happy. What recourse does he have, except to become high on drugs or a

mad man who is always laughing at nothing! In order to answer this question,

we have to take two things into consideration. First, people are not happy

and, secondly, people are always busy fulfilling their desires in order to be

happy. They are always hopeful that happiness will come because they do become

happy occasionally. 'Tomorrow will be better,' they say. 'Everything will be

wonderful when this is over.' It seems therefore, that people who pursue their

desires are always working for happiness, whereas those who have given up all

desires have no way of being happy. And no one can remain for a long period

without being happy.

 

Bhagavan corrected this train of thinking by saying that such a person is

happy with himself or herself - atmani eva atmana tusah. In himself or

herself, the wise person is happy. Everyone is happy in himself or herself

anyway, but always because of something else. Here, without any external props

or circumstances, without expecting or depending upon any condition

whatsoever, the person is happy. The analogy of a sugar crystal is useful

here. Simply by being a sugar crystal, a sugar crystal is sweet. It does not

require a sweetening agent to be sweet because it is already saturated with

sweetness. That is why it is sugar crystal. Therefore, it cannot be sweetened

further. Similarly, one who is happy, tusa, does not depend on any other

object or situation to be happy. By one's own awakening to oneself alone one

is happy. Such a person is called sthitaprajna. Sankara explains here that

sthita means well established and prajna is that knowledge which is born of

viveka, the discriminative inquiry into and analysis of the atma and anatma.

Therefore, the one for whom this knowledge is well established is called a

sthitaprajna or a vidvan, a wise person. Arjuna wanted to know what a

sthitaprajna was and this was Krsna's definition. It is an excellent and

complete definition. A sthitaprajna, Krsna said, is one who, being awake to

the fact of the atma, being happy for no other reason, gives up all desires

that arise in his or her mind.

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BINDING AND NON-BINDING DESIRES

Desires, kamas, are divided into two types - ragas and dvesas. Raga-dvesas

being nothing but desire, the common word for both of them is kama, 'I want'

is kama. 'I want such-and-such' can be either something you want to acquire or

protect or something that you want to avoid or get rid of. Either way it is a

kama, 'I want.' This want can be in the form of raga or dvesa, depending on

whether you want to acquire something or get rid of something. Raga-dvesas are

also of two types - binding and non-binding. Whenever the sastra talks about

kama in the form of raga or dvesa, it is referring only to those that are

binding. When a person gives up all kamas as they arise in the mind, he or she

does so for a reason. Otherwise, giving them up is not possible. That a man

who gives up all the desires in his mind and who is happy in himself, is

called a wise man, sthitaprajna, seems to mean that the first condition is a

necessity for the second condition. Thus, in order to be happy with oneself,

one has to give up all desires. How is that possible? Unless you are happy

with yourself, how can you give up all desires? If, in order to give up all

desires, you have to be happy with yourself, and in order to be happy with

yourself you have to give up all desires, you are in an unenviable position.

It is something like a mentally unbalanced man who is advised that unless he

marries, he will not be cured. In other words, the diagnosis and the treatment

are one. Because no father will give his daughter in marriage to a madman, he

will not be able to marry and unless he marries, he cannot be mentally well.

We seem to have the same situation here. But do we? According to some modern

translations, it may look that way, but not according to Sankara.

 

NON-BINDING DESIRES ARE NOT THE PROBLEM

First, Sankara created a problem by saying that a person who gives up all his

desires is like a mad man. Otherwise, how can he be happy? Then, he said, a

man who is happy in himself, by his own awakening to himself, does not need

any desire to be fulfilled in order to be happy. What desires are being

referred to here? Only those desires whose fulfilment is meant to make me

happy and not those that are non-binding in nature for me. Non-binding desires

may include a desire to do, a desire to write, a desire to teach, a desire to

give, a desire to just simply stay put, and so on. Non-binding desires are not

being considered here, only binding desires. If a wise person is one who gives

up all desires, where does that leave Sankara, who wrote the commentary on

giving up desires? Was he a wise man? Was Krsna, who taught Arjuna, a wise

man? Was Vyasa, who wrote the Mahabharata in which the Gita appears, a wise

man? If only those who have given up all desires are wise, none of these men

can be considered to have been wise. Krsna seemed to have a desire to teach.

Krsna all but pounced on Arjuna! He did not even mind that he was in the midst

of a battlefield. Krsna's knowledge seems to have been bottled up inside him

and it came pouring out for Arjuna's asking in one long, continuous flow!

Aside from his desire to teach, Krsna seemed to have some other desires, too.

For example, when he was asked to drive Arjuna's chariot, he agreed.

 

Had Krsna given up every desire that arose in his mind, he could not have

driven the chariot. But he did drive it. He also took up the flute and played

a lot of songs. If this desire had been given up, all the gopis would be

still, waiting to hear his music and he would be still sitting with his flute

poised. He would not have even had the desire to remove his hands from the

flute! Since Krsna presented himself as one who performed various actions and

since doing presupposes desire, he could not have been a sthitaprajna by his

own definition. Vyasa also must have had a lot of desires to have written this

great magnum opus, this huge work called the Mahabharata. To have kept on

writing as he did, Vyasa must have had a very special mind indeed- and a lot

of desires as well. People often have the desire to accomplish some enormous

project or the other, but then after a while they give it up. They begin it,

but do not complete it. Not Vyasa. He began and finished every chapter. Thus,

according to the definition, he could not have been a jnani. In fact, no

teacher can be a jnani. Thus, they must all be ajnanis. If the desire is not

there, a wise person cannot teach. Which means that only the 'otherwise' can

teach, but they have nothing to teach! Unfortunately, the explanations put

forward in some modern commentaries of the Gita, based on incorrect

translations, have created a lot of problems in understanding what is meant by

giving up all desires. If this were not the case, there would be no

misunderstanding because what was said originally by Krsna is very clear.

 

 

WHEN YOU ARE EVERYTHING, WHAT IS THERE TO BE DONE?

As Krsna told Arjuna in the third chapter, a wise person is not bound by his

or her desires and is not subject to any kind of mandate. Desires are only

binding if you take yourself to be a karta, a doer. Only then do you have

things to do; only then can there be dereliction of duty. If, on the other

hand, you do not look upon yourself as a karta and are awake to the knowledge

of yourself, there is no question of the self being a doer. Therefore, there

is no doership and nothing to be done. Lord Krsna told Arjuna that because he

had no desires, he had nothing to do. Because Krsna is everything and

everything is himself, what is there to be accomplished? Nevertheless, he was

always active, meaning that all the activities he performed were non-binding.

 

If activities are non-binding, the prompting factor of activity, kama must

also be non-binding. Here, in the Gita, non-binding kama is not the topic;

only binding kama is discussed. The placement of the words 'when - yada and

'then - tada' in this verse is also significant. The word 'then' comes much

later and until it comes, the force of the word 'when' continues. When a man

gives up all desires as they arise and being happy with himself in himself,

only then can he be called a sthitaprajna. The force of 'when' is the same for

both conditions 'when he gives up all desires' and 'when he is happy' with

himself, in himself, depending on nothing for his happiness. Therefore, one

gives up all desires arising in one's mind that are binding in nature - the

desires to be secure, to be happy, to be somebody, and so on. A person who is

secure with himself or herself gives up such desires naturally. The word tusa,

in the verse, does not merely mean happiness; it implies security also. The

insecure cannot be tusa, happy. Therefore, one who is secure is also happy.

And giving up all desires is possible only when one is happy with oneself.

Thus, the definition of sthitaprajna is complete. What else can be said? One

who is happy with oneself is a wise person who can totally accept himself or

herself because the self is acceptable. The self is perfect; it is not

imperfect. Perfection means that there is no sense of imperfection whatsoever.

The self is free from any sense of imperfection and the whole creation, the

whole world, the universe, is non-separate from the self. Because the self is

complete, p£rna, it cannot be improved upon. Just as the sweetness of sugar

cannot be improved upon, so too, the fullness of the atma cannot be improved

upon. Being awake to that fact, the person is happy.

 

TO BE WISE YOU MUST HAVE WISDOM

This, then, is the laksana, the definition, of a wise person. To be wise

requires wisdom, nothing else! How a wise person walks, talks, and sits means

nothing. Anyone can learn to walk in a certain way. And if the definition of a

wise person is that he or she talks slowly, then every one who talks slowly

would be a jnani! The speed at which one talks or how one walks means nothing.

Wisdom alone makes one wise, just as being friendly is the only way to make

friends. There is no other way. Similarly, some people ask how they can

develop love. All that is to be done is to love. What else can you do? You

cannot discover love outside of love itself. If you want to discover more

love, be loving. Create conditions that will help you discover love,

conditions that are not inimical to the discovery of love. People often create

certain conditions in themselves, knowingly or unknowingly, that are inimical

to the discovery of love. If you avoid doing this, you will find that you are

loving.

 

LOVE IS A MANIFESTATION OF ONE'S FULLNESS

Love is nothing but the expressed form of fullness, ananda. And just as wheat

flour takes on names such as bread, rolls, and muffins, so too love is subject

to various forms. The different names given to wheat represent modifications

of the wheat. Similarly, love is a simple emotion, which is a modification or

manifestation of ananda. If you analyse love, you will find nothing but

ananda. The manifest form of ananda is love and love itself turns into such

natural qualities as sympathy, compassion, and giving, depending upon the

situation. And when that same love is distorted in any way, it becomes kama

leading to negative emotions such as greed, anger, depression, and so on. All

of these, then, are nothing but one expression of ananda, love. This is why we

say love is Bhagavan, meaning that the expressed form of ananda is Bhagavan.

And what is Bhagavan? The essential form of Bhagavan is sat-cit-ananda. And

the expressed form of ananda, Ìsvara, the Lord, is love. The modifications of

this love can be either positive or negative. Sympathy and compassion are

examples of the positive modifications of love, whereas negative modifications

are anger, greed, jealousy, and so on. All that is there is one ananda,

expressed or unexpressed. Unexpressed it is the svar£pa, the very nature of

fullness, which is the definition of ananda; expressed, it becomes love,

prema. We shall see more of this definition later. Here, the sthitaprajna is

one who discovers the ananda in himself or herself and knows that there is

nothing other than oneself. When one says, 'I am the whole,' it means that the

person is himself or herself the fulfillment of all desires. We shall see, as

we proceed, how the discovery of oneself and the fulfillment of all desires

are not separate, but identical.