Gita Satsang - [Ch. 5 concl.] Chapter 6 Introduction

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

[To recap Ch. 5, Sw. Chinmayanandaji's concluding comments are given

first.

 

Introduction to Ch. 6 is from Shankara Bhashya]

 

[[HE ATTAINS PEACE ON KNOWING ME --- It is never to be forgotten

that, in the Geeta whenever Lord Krishna uses the first person

singular, he does not mean the mortal framework of the son of Devaki,

but indicates the Self in the individual --- the Eternal Principle,

Sri Krishna Paramatman. The Self is the real vitality behind the ego

(Jiva) which functions in identification with the matter-envelopments

and feels that it is the doer and enjoyer. The term "Yajna" has been

already explained earlier. In its Geeta implication, Yajna is the

self-dedicated work which one performs in any field of

activity. "Tapas " means all self-denial and practices of self-

control which the ego undertakes in order to integrate and revive its

own capacities to seek its real identity with the Eternal.

 

The Self is certainly the "Maheshwara" --- the Lord of all lords, the

God of all gods. Here the Ishwara is to be understood as the

controller of all fields of activities: activities of perception and

expression. Each one of them is considered as presided over by

various faculties, and they are termed as devas,

meaning "illuminators." The faculty of seeing illumines the field of

the eyes and thus gives the knowledge of forms and colours; the

faculty of hearing illumines the field of the ears and thus provides

the knowledge of sound, and so on. The Self is in fact the Lord of

all these individual lords governing, controlling and ruling over the

various fields. Therefore, Lord Krishna as the Self confers upon

Himself the title of "Sarva-Loka-Maheshwarah."

 

In our ordinary experiences in the world, a man who has kingly powers

is very difficult to approach, and the King of kings, a personality

striking awe and reverence in the heart of the ordinary man, becomes

almost unapproachable to the ordinary people. Therefore, the Lord has

to qualify his title of "Sarva Loka Maheshwarah" with the epithet

that he is at the same time "A FRIEND OF ALL LIVING CREATURES."

 

The term "knowing" is not objectively knowing Krishna , in the sense

in which we come to know a flower or a fruit, but here the

term "knowing" is to be understood as "realising." Spiritual

experience is the realisation of the Self to be the one great ruler

within, who presides over all the activities within the body-politic,

who is the One, at whose altar the perfection-seeking ego surrenders

all its spiritual activities, and as a tribute to Whom, the seeker

brings all his self-denial and asceticism.

 

"KNOWING HIM TO BE NONE OTHER THAN KRISHNA, THE INDIVIDUAL REACHES

THE GOAL OF PEACE, THE ETERNAL SANCTUM OF PERFECTION."

 

Thus in the UPANISHAD of the glorious Bhagawad Geeta, in the Science

of the Eternal, in the Scripture of YOGA , in the dialogue between

Sri Krishna and Arjuna the fifth discourse ends entitled:

YOGA OF TRUE RENUNCIATION.

 

The 'Sakalpa Vakya' appended to the end of each Chapter starts with

an assertion "OM tat sat" OM That is the Truth. The idea of repeating

this at the end of each Chapter seems to point out to a very sacred

principle in the study of all Shastras. To repeatedly read chapter by

chapter the scriptural text-books with a monotonous parrot-like

mechanical faithfulness is not the way to study and try to live the

Truth discussed in scriptural text-books. Each chapter is to be

exhaustively studied, pondered over, and at least slightly practised

until the ideas contained in that chapter have all become our own.

When tus exhaustively we have studied each chapter we will be in a

position to declare honestly at the end of the chapter, "That is

Truth". Until such a sense of satisfaction comes to us, naturally it

is incumbent upon us to repeat our studies again and again.]]

____________________

====================================================================

Shankara Bhashya - Ch. 6 Introduction :

 

THE YOGA OF MEDITATION

 

The verses, 'Keeping the external objects outside' etc., forming

aphorisms on the Yoga of Meditation which is the proximate discipline

leading to complete illumination, have been presented at the end of

the just preceding chapter.  This sixth chapter is begun as an

exposition of them.  As to that, since rites and duties (i.e.

actions) are the preliminary disciplines of the Yoga of Meditation

(Dhyana-yoga), therefore actions have to be undertaken by a

householder who is qualified for them, so long as he is unable to

ascend to the Yoga of Meditation.  Hence, the Lord eulogizes it.

 

Objection:  Well, since obligatory duties have surely to be performed

so long as one lives, why should ascending to Dhyana-yoga be

prescribed as a limit?

 

Reply: Not so, because it has been specifically stated, 'For the sage

who wishes to ascend to (Dhyana-) yoga, action is said to be the

means', and because inaction alone has been prescribed as suitable

for that person when he has ascended. If the intention was that

inaction and action were both duties for the man desiring to ascend

and to the one who has ascended, then the specification and

differentiation between one trying to ascend and one who has

ascended, from the point of view of the difference between the scopes

of inaction and action, becomes meaningless.

 

Objection: In the empirical world, among people belonging to the

different stages of life, some one becomes an aspirant for ascending

to (Dhyana-) yoga, and some one has ascended to it, whereas others

are neither trying to ascend nor have they ascended.  May it not be

said that with regard to them (the third), it is certainly logical to

specify and differentiate by saying 'for one wanting to ascend'

and 'for one who has ascended'?

 

Reply: No, because of the statement, 'for that person...alone'; and

the use of the word '(Dhyana-) yoga' over again in, 'when he has

ascended to (Dhyana-)yoga', amounts

to                        asserting that, in the case of that very

person who was earlier trying to ascend to Yoga, inaction itself

becomes a duty as a means to the fruition of Yoga when he has already

ascended to it.  Hence,  no work whatsoever becomes a duty to be

followed throughout life.

 

This follows also from the statement about one who has fallen from

Yoga. [The verses 37-9 refer to the fall of a monk who had to

renounce all actions (rites and duties) before espousing

monasticism.  This fact indirectly points out that the injunction

about one having to perform actions throughout life does not apply in

the case of some people (e.g. monks).]  If it be that in the sixth

chapter (Dhyana-)yoga has been ordained for a householder who is

engaged in rites and duties, then, even though he were to fall from

(Dhyana-) yoga, he would still get the goal of actions, i.e. the

results of rites and duties.  This being so, the apprehension of his

ruin (see 37-9) will be illogical.  Since Liberation, by virtue of

being eternal, is not an effect, therefore, a duty when performed, be

it motivated (kamya) or obligatory (nitya), will certainly produce

its own result [brahman being self-existent, It cannot be the product

of rites and duties; and yet, rites and duties must have some result

because they have been enjoined by the Vedas.] (other than

Liberation).  And we have said that, since the nityakarmas (as also

the naimittika-karmas) are known on the authority of the Vedas,

therefore they must have some result.  For, otherwise, there arises

the contingency of the Vedas becoming purposeless.   And hence, so

long as rites and duties persist, the statement about 'falling from

both' does  not become meaningful,for, logically there is no cause

for the destruction of (the results of) rites and duties.

 

Objection:  May it not be said that, since actions are performed by

dedicating them to God, therefore the results of actions do not

accrue to their agent?

 

Reply:  No, because it is reasonable that dedication to God should

bring in greater results (to the agent).

 

Objection:  May it not be said that they are meant only for

Liberation?  When dedication of one's own accomplished duties to God

is conjoined with (Dhyana-) yoga, it results only in Liberation, not

in anything else.  And since he has become deflected from (Dhyana-)

yoga, therefore in his case it is certainly reasonable to apprehend

ruin.

 

Reply:  No, because renunciation of actions has been enjoined

in, 'alone, with body and mind controlled, free from expectations

(and) free from acquisition,' (10) and 'firm in the vow of a

celibate' (14). Moreover, in this context it cannot be imagined that

during meditation there is need for help from one's wife-to deny

which solitude has been enjoined. [Meditation, because of its very

nature, is practised in solitude.  Therefore,if the word ekaki

(alone) were interpreted as prohibiting the participation (in

meditation) of the wife of a householder, who otherwise needs her

presence during all such  Vedic rites as Agnihotra etc., that would

amount to a prohibition against a situation that does not arise at

all.]  And the sentence, 'free from expectations, free from

acquisition' (10), etc. is not applicable in the case of a

householder; besides, the question of 'falling from both'  becomes

illogical.

 

Objection:  Can it not be held that by the text, 'without depending

on the results of action,' etc., renunciation and meditation are

enjoined only for the men of aciton, and renunciation and meditation

have been prohibited for one who does not keep a fire and does not 

perform rites and duties?

 

Reply:  No, because that (verse) is meant as a eulogy of renunciation

of hankering for the results of actions, which is a remote aid to

Dhyana-yoga:  The one who simply does not keep a fire and is

acitonless is not a monk and a man of meditation.  What then?  Even a

man of aciton who, for the sake of purification of the mind, performs

the yoga of  Karma by renouncing attachment to the results of actions

may be considered a monk and a man of meditation.  The man of action 

is thus eulogized.

 

Besides, it is not logical that one and the same  sentence should

mean an eulogy of renunciation of hankering for the results of

actions and also a prohibition of the fourth stage of life

(monasticism).  Moreover, the  Lord is not prohibiting the well-known

renunciation and meditation enjoined by the Vedas, Smrtis, Puranas,

Itihasas and the scriptures on Yoga for a monk who does not keep a

fire, who is actionless, and a man of renunciation in the real

sense.  For that would contradict His own utterances as well.  And

the Lord has pointed out His own ideas in various places such

as, '(The embodied man) having given up all actions mentally,

continues (happily)...without doing or causing (others) to do

anything at all' (5.13); 'who is silent, content with anything,

homeless, steady-minded' (12.19);  'That man...who, after rejecting

all desires, moves about' (2.71); 'he who has renounced every

undertaking' (12.16).  The prohibition of the fourth stage of life

will run counter to these (verses).

 

Therefore,in the case of the sage who wants to attain to Dhyana-yoga

but has already entered the householder's life, Agnihotra sacrifices

etc., when performed without desire for their results, become a means

to ascent to Dhyana-yoga through the purification of the heart. 

Accordingly, he is praised by saying that 'he is a monk and a man of

meditation.'