Gita Satsang: Chapter 6 - Swami Dayananadaji's Commentary

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

On behalf of all of you I sincerely express my appreciation to Swamiji

for providing his commentary to benefit the list members. This

 

regards,

Ram Chandran

 

THE PURPOSE OF MEDITATION

Why should the person meditate? For the purification of the mind —

atma-visuddhaye. In this context, the word atma refers to the

antah-karana, the mind, and not sat-cit-ananda-atma, as

sat-cit-ananda-atma is already visuddha and needs no purification.

The word visuddhi can also be taken in a different sense. To be free

from the hold of raga-dvesas is suddhi. Visuddhi can also be in terms

of old memories, kasayas, that come up unexpectedly in contemplation

when the mind is quiet. These memories lie under the surface and are

like the decaying organic matter that lies under the water, producing

certain gases that bubble up to the surface. A pond can be quiet and

clean one minute, but then, if you keep watching, you will suddenly

see something coming up — blub... blub... blub. Why do the bubbles

come up? Because there is something underneath.

Similarly, the mind is quietened by meditation, which can be either

contemplative meditation or purely prayerful meditation. Prayerful

meditation is on Brahman with qualities, saguna-brahma, whereas

contemplative meditation is on Brahman without qualities,

nirguna-brahma. Here, the words are such that you can take them to

mean both saguna-brahma meditation and nirguna-brahma meditation, as

you will see later when the object of meditation, dhyeya, is

discussed. In fact, meditation includes both because you start with a

prayerful meditation and end with contemplative meditation.

YOUR THOUGHTS NEED NOT DISTURB YOU

When a certain peace, santi, is gained, the mind is composed,

tranquil, and in that tranquil mind, various thoughts may occur. These

thoughts are to be understood as kasayas, memories that may pop up in

a quiet mind at any time without any seeming connection or relevancy.

When you understand meditation properly, your thoughts will not

frighten you. You need not think you are disturbed; you just let the

thoughts bubble up and remain a witness.

Generally, when these thoughts come, we take them as ourselves. But

here, in the seat of meditation, because you have a certain composure,

it is possible for you to discover a distance between yourself and

these bubbles of thoughts. So, you are neither disturbed by them, nor

do you need to try to avoid them. Just be an observer, a saksi;

understand the thoughts as they are and do not be afraid of them. Let

them rise and watch them go away, like so many bubbles on the surface

of a quiet pond. This is what Krsna means here when he said that for

purifying the mind, may one practice meditation — atma-visuddhaye

yogam yunjyat.

HOW PRAYER PURIFIES THE MIND

Prayer can bring about atma-visuddhi because it brings about a certain

change on your part — a glad acceptance of what has gone before, or

what has happened in your life. Usually we spend our lives fighting

against this! This glad acceptance of the past requires a certain

intimate acceptance on your part, a prayerful acceptance of what has

already happened. Therefore, prayerful meditation takes care of your

raga-dvesas in terms of the past — what I would have liked to have

happened, what I should have done, what should not have happened to

me, etc., — all the things that usually bother a person. This, too, is

called atma-visuddhi. And again, the release of various kasayas —

samskaras or impressions, that are deep within the person, those

unassimilated, undigested, hurtful experiences that are stored in the

form of memories — is called atma-visuddhi.

Identifying oneself with one's thoughts or the physical body, thinking

that anything that happens to the body happens to me, is an

obstruction, pratibandhaka, a great impurity, asuddhi, for the one who

desires liberation. This identification has to be removed. Anything

that has to be removed, anything that is unclean, is called asuddhi.

To eliminate asuddhi, contemplation is helpful. Contemplation is not

for atma-jnana; it is for atma-visuddhi alone.

MEDITATION FACILITATES INQUIRY

Since atma-jnana is vrtti-jnana, it can only take place by the

operation of a pramana. Pramana-vicara alone produces vrtti-jnana and

destroys self-ignorance. And, for this vrtti-jnana to take place, the

various pratibandhakas that are there, due to raga-dvesas, kasayas, or

viparita-bhavanas, have to be removed, and this removal is taken care

of by dhyana, meditation.

Saying that pramana-vicara alone produces knowledge does not mean that

you give meditation or prayer a lesser place. There is no lesser

place, in fact. Because meditation is for atma-visuddhi, it occupies

an important position in the life of a seeker. Thus, Krsna says, `May

one do meditation — yogam yunjyat.'

This is an important point to note because it is commonly thought that

Vedanta is only a theory and it is dhyana, the practice of meditation,

that produces the knowledge. This is not true. Dhyana is for

atma-visuddhi, not for atma-jnana, even though ultimately it enables

atma-jnana to take place. The knowledge itself depends entirely upon

antah-karana-visuddhi, because it depends on a mind that is fit for

the knowledge. In making the mind fit for knowledge, dhyana is

important. Although there is a certain order involved here in terms of

dhyana being necessary for the first step of preparing the mind,

dhyana itself does not produce knowledge. The vrtti-jnana produced by

pramana-vicara alone produces knowledge.

Having described the asana and what is to take place while in the seat

of meditation, Krsna then talks about how one is to sit:

samam kayasirogrivam dharayannacalam sthirah

sampreksya nasikagram svam disascanavalokayan Verse 13

prasantatma vigatabhirbrahmacarivrate sthitah

manah samyamya maccito yukta asita matparah Verse 14

kaya-siro-grivam — body, head, and neck; samam — in one straight line;

acalam — without moving; dharayan — holding; ()sthirah (san) — (being)

firm; svam nasikagram — the tip of one's nose; sampreksya — (as

though) looking at; disah ca — and directions; anavalokayan — not

looking; prasanta-atma — one whose mind is tranquil; vigata-bhih — one

who is free from fear; ()brahmacarivrate sthitah (san) — (being)

established in one's commitment to the life of a brahmicari; manah —

mind; samyamya — controlling; mat-cittah — thinking of Me; mat-parah —

having Me as the ultimate goal; yuktah — yogi (meditator); asita — may

he (or she) sit

Holding oneself firm without moving, holding the body, head, and neck

in one straight line, (as though) looking at the tip of one's nose and

not looking in all directions, being the one whose mind is tranquil,

who is free from fear, established in one's commitment to the life of

a brahmacari, may (that) yogi (meditator) sit thinking of Me, having

Me as the ultimate goal.

To hold the body, head, and neck in one straight line means not to

bend them in any way — in other words, one should sit erect for

meditation. But, even though the body, head, and neck are vertical,

you may sway or rock a little; therefore, Krsna adds the word acalam,

meaning that the body is to be kept still, and also sthira, meaning

that one should be very firm in one's seat. This means that, prior to

meditation, the legs and feet are placed in such a way that they do

not require any kind of change. Thus, there is both stillness and

firmness in one's seat of meditation.

DOES ONE REALLY MEDITATE ON THE TIP OF ONE'S NOSE?

The posture described in this verse brings out a certain attitude or

disposition in the person that is conducive to meditation. This

posture includes one's gaze also. The expression, `looking at the tip

of one's nose — sampreksya nasikagram,' is sometimes misunderstood to

mean that one should meditate on the tip of the nose! There are even

two schools of thought on this, one saying you should meditate on the

spot between the eyebrows and the other saying that you should

meditate on the tip of the nose itself. Because it could be literally

taken and therefore, misunderstood, Sankara explains what Krsna means

by this expression in his commentary of this verse.

In explaining the gaze, Krsna says, one `sampreksya nasikagram —

looking at the tip of one's nose.' This does not mean that one must

sit cross-eyed. Rather, given the position of the eyes as they look

out, they naturally fall or converge upon a particular point and that

is where they are to remain. This means you neither look up nor down;

you look `as though' at the tip of your nose. Therefore, looking at

one's nose is not what is being enjoined here by the expression —

sampreksya nasikagram; it simply addresses where the gaze should fall.

This is explained by Sankara as follows. Sankara says that there is

the word, iva, understood here. The word, sampreksya, looking, should

be understood as `as though looking' — darsanam krtva iva. The eyes

are not even closed in fact; they just look out in such a way that

they do not look directly at any particular object, which is another

way of avoiding distractions.

Sankara questions what would happen if the person were asked to look

at the tip of the nose. Looking at the tip of the nose, where would

the person's absorption be? At the tip of the nose, of course — which

is not what is desired here at all. In contemplation, the mind is to

be absorbed in atma alone and, for this, your mind must be available.

If you are busy looking at the tip of the nose, how are you going to

make use of the mind to contemplate upon atma? Therefore, the object

of meditation, dhyeya, is not the tip of the nose but something

entirely different, as we shall see.

Sankara also clarifies Krsna's words, disah anavalokayan, as meaning

`not looking in any particular direction.' When you are sitting in

meditation, it is possible to look to the left, to the right, to the

front, and to the back, as well as up or down. Krsna already covered

the possibility of looking up and down here by saying, `samam

kaya-siro-grivam dharayan — keeping the body, head, and neck in one

straight line.' Since one can also look to the left and right, why not

meditate that way? Because you will develop a pain in the neck. Thus,

to avoid such discomforts, the position for meditation was

established.

Sitting outwardly in meditation is one thing, but there is also

another sitting involved, an inside sitting. This inner sitting is

what is meant by the word `meditation' and is what is referred to by

the words mat-cittah and mat-parah.

Having already talked about the place of meditation, the seat itself,

and the sitting posture, Krsna points out the object of meditation and

also the nature of the meditator here. In fact, there are not many

verses in the Gita that talk about meditation as such, whereas the

meditator is talked about a lot. If you look at the entire Gita, you

will find only one or two other sentences on meditation itself.

The emphasis throughout the Gita is on the meditator. Who it is that

meditates is what makes the difference between a successful meditation

and an unsuccessful one — a mere act of meditation. The present verse

also talks a lot about the meditator, referring to the person as

prasanta-atma, one for whom the atma, the mind, the antah-karana, has

gained certain degree of tranquillity.

Krsna talks about the real santi later, the santi that is

gained as a result of meditation and knowledge. In this verse,

however, because the person being discussed is a mumuksu, a seeker,

the santi talked about is relative, and refers to the degree of

tranquillity one has gained by living a life of karma-yoga. We know

this by the context since, in the previous verses, Krsna had been

talking about the meditator and what he or she had accomplished thus

far, all of which is conveyed here by describing the person as

prasanta-atma. The prasanta-atma is one who has lived a life of

karma-yoga, who has taken care of his or her raga-dvesas and is

therefore, no longer pressurised by them.

Such a person is free from fear, vigata-bhi. There are many varieties

of fear. The fear of death, for example, is said to be a very common

fear for some people in the seat of meditation. When the body is as

relaxed as it is in meditation, we generally go to sleep and there is

no fear because there is nobody to be afraid of. But when the body is

relaxed and you do not go to sleep, there may be a feeling of going

out of the body, which may give rise to the fear of death if what is

happening is not properly understood. The physical relaxation itself

is as though you are going out of this body. Then, the entire internal

defence system sends out an alarm and the person experiences fear.

DISSOLUTION OF THE DOER IS REALLY RESOLUTION

No matter how old you are, there is a fear in giving up the body even

though you know you have to give it up one day. However, what is

involved here is the dissolution of the doer, the karta. This means

the very subject, the meditator, is resolved, which is a kind of

suicide. And because the person does not want to dissolve himself or

herself, there is fear. In fact, there is no dissolution; there is

only resolution. The resolving of the ahankara is also false because

the ahankara is atma, but atma is not ahankara. In contemplation the

ahankara, the meditator, naturally resolves into atma.

THE SOURCE OF FEAR

The meditator is atma, the meditated is atma, and the attempt is

called meditation. If the attempt is successful, the meditator is

gone, having resolved into atma. Therefore, the means and the end

become one and the same. The meditator resolves into the very object

of meditation as he or she attempts meditation. This is the situation

that some people are afraid of because they feel as though they are

being decimated or destroyed. Thus, some people see fear where there

is no fear at all. They feel as though something is going to disappear

and they retain it. In fact, the retention of the ahankara is the only

source of fear there is, the ahankara itself being the source of fear.

If the ahankara does not want to quit, naturally there will be some

fear. This fear, then, is due to avicara, a lack of inquiry alone. A

person who inquires is free from fear and is called vigatabhi here.

FEAR OF TOMORROW

Vigatabhi can also be taken as a person who is not afraid of tomorrow,

a very common fear. People often ask, `If I keep on meditating, what

will happen to me? Suppose I go into samadhi and I don't come out.

What will happen then? Or, suppose I get enlightened, then what will

happen to me? How will I behave? How will I hold a job?' Because the

person being described in this verse is a sannyasi, this fear of

tomorrow is not possible. But a meditator need not always be a

sannyasi; therefore, he or she may have all these fears.

I read once that a woman approached Swami Vivekananda after a talk he

had given and asked, `Did you say that the ego is to be destroyed?'

`Yes,' he replied. `But if my ego is destroyed, who will run the

house?' she asked. `Who will do the dishes?' This kind of problem

arises because of the use of the word `destruction.' Destruction of

the ego has to be properly understood. The ego is not really

destroyed. It remains even for the person who is qualified to talk

about it. But it is an enlightened ego. The `I' is independent of the

I-thought, whereas the I-thought is not independent of `I.' Thus, the

I-thought is already nullified. It is only a shadow `I.' It is not the

`I' itself.

The problem is only in the `I.' If the I-thought is taken at one time

as `I,' and at other times as I-thought, then `I' become a yo-yo — now

up, now down, now sukhi, now duhkhi. Because the person identifies

with the conditions of one's mind, the person is subject to samsara.

To be free of this identification is often described as the

destruction of the ego, but if it is not explained in this way, all

kinds of problems and fears are possible. However, for the person

discussed here, vigatabhi, there is no fear of tomorrow or of anything

else.

THE LIFE OF A BRAHMACARI

The vigatabhi can also be called brahmacari-vrate sthitah, one who

remains with the vows or the commitment of a brahmacari. And what is

that commitment that implies living the life of a brahmacari? Sankara

defines it in terms of service to the teacher, guru-susrusa, eating

happily whatever food comes one's way as alms, etc.

bhiksa-anna-bhuktyadi. A person with this kind of commitment does not

bother about tomorrow and is called a brahmacari. Since Krsna is

talking about meditation, the context in which the word brahmacari is

used here also implies an emphasis on the study of the sastra;

therefore, it is assumed that the meditator has done a lot of sravana

and manana.

How to live a life of a brahmacari is also mentioned in this verse.

One must withdraw from the various forms of thinking that takes place

in the mind, manah samyamya. And, because you cannot withdraw from

them unless you apply the mind to the dhyeya, the object of

meditation, Krsna says here, `Thinking of Me, may the meditator sit —

mat-citto yukta asita.'

THE IDENTITY BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE LORD

Mat-citta means one whose mind is in Me, Paramesvara — mayi

paramesvare cittam yasya. The `Me,' of course, is Krsna as

Paramesvara. Paramesvara has two meanings and is a common expression

throughout the sastra. It can mean either the Lord as the cause of the

world, jagat-karana, or the Lord in his essential form, Brahman,

paramatma.

The word, paramatma is used because the jiva, the self, the individual

who thinks, `I am the jiva,' is equated to Paramesvara, even though

there seems to be a difference between the two. In reality, there is

no difference.

THE NEED FOR TWO TYPES OF VAKYAS

The resolution of the seeming difference is Krsna's upadesa and the

teaching of Vedanta. Thus, the jiva's predication as Paramesvara, the

Lord, is the upadesa, for which there are two types of statements,

vakyas, in the vedanta-sastra. One kind of vakya reveals the nature of

atma, Paramesvara, and the other reveals the non-difference between

the jiva and Paramesvara.

The nature of atma is revealed either by saying that

satya-jnana-ananta is Brahman or by saying that sat-cit-ananda is

atma. It is the same revelation in that both are one and the same. The

words that reveal the nature of the self or the paramatma by

implication are always the same. But there is also the equation

between the jiva and Isvara, the equation itself being the upadesa,

the teaching. Thus, there are these two types of vakyas —

vastu-svarupa-para-vakya, a statement revealing the nature of atma,

and ekatva-para-vakya, a statement revealing the identity between the

individual and the Lord, such as, `You are that Brahman — tat tvam

asi,' or I am Brahman — aham brahma asmi.

How is an identity between the jiva and Isvara possible? It is because

the jiva is sat-cit-ananda and Paramesvara is sat-cit-ananda. The

svarupa of atma being sat-cit-ananda, this jiva-isvara-aikya-vakya,

the equation stating that the jiva and Isvara are one and the same, is

valid. If the svarupa of atma were not sat-cit-ananda, the equation

would have no validity at all. Therefore, both types of vakyas are

important. The jiva-isvara-aikya-vakya can be understood only when the

vakyas revealing the nature of atma are available. If such vakyas were

not there, the equation vakya would be meaningless. The jiva would be

a jiva and Isvara would be Isvara.

When we say that the wave is ocean, the water itself must be

understood. Then only is the vakya talking about the identity of wave

and ocean will be meaningful. If someone says to a wave that thinks it

is a wave, `Hey, you are the ocean!' the statement will only be

understood by the wave if it has the knowledge that satya is water.

Because of the seeming difference, upadhi, one is called `wave' and

the other is called `ocean.' In fact, there is no `one' or the

`other.' There is only one, water. Therefore, together, both types of

vakyas do the job.

KÎâNA AS ISVARA, THE LORD

Here, Krsna uses the first person singular, `Me,' in the sense of

Paramesvara, the Lord. Whether or not the historical Krsna is the Lord

is not our concern. We are talking about Krsna who is the Lord because

he talks as Isvara. Because the word Krsna indicates Paramesvara

alone, whenever Krsna uses the word aham, the first person singular,

Paramesvara is to be understood. Whether there was such a person as

Krsna who danced and played beautiful music on the flute is besides

the point. These accounts are all stories designed to create a certain

appreciation of the historical person who walked along the banks of

the Yamuna as an avatara.

Any wise person can use the word aham in the same way. There are such

vakyas in the sastra in fact — `I was Manu – aham manuh abhavam,' `I

am the Sun,' `I am everything' — all of which are statements that any

wise person can make. What happened before, what is here and now, and

what is going to come later are all purusa, atma, alone, there being

nothing separate from this purusa. And who is the purusa? The one who

knows the purusa as oneself, as `That I am – so'ham,' becomes free

from all mortality — sa iha amrto bhavati. He or she is atma.

There is only one purusa and that is atma; thus the purusa is the one

who is everywhere, but available only in the heart. `That which is

within my heart is atma' is an expression that anyone can say; Krsna

is not the only one who can say it. The point being made here is that

Krsna always presents himself either in the sense of Paramesvara, the

cause of the world, or pure paramatma. Either way it is one and the

same.

The word Paramesvara here can be taken as saguna-brahma, meaning

Isvara, the Lord, the one who creates, srs¶i-karta, the one who

sustains the creation, sthiti-karta, and the one who resolves creation

into himself, laya-karta. In this way, Paramesvara is the karta and

performs these three jobs simultaneously. All three activities are

going on at the same time. At this second, an object is born; as it is

born, it is; and as it is, it is gone. It is cyclical and therefore,

we do not know which is first, second, or third — is/born/gone;

gone/born/is; gone/is/born, or born/is/gone. Nor does it matter

because all three occur simultaneously.

Since the whole creation is in time, it is called mithya, time itself

being mithya. Is this present second, this micro-second, picosecond,

etc., born or is it gone? It is born and, as it is born, it is going.

Going, it is born, which means there is no `birth.' This, then, is the

nature of time and everything is in time, which is mithya.

MEDITATION ON PARAMESVARA

The nature of time is nothing but the trick of the mayavi, another

name for the great magician, Isvara, who is the agent, karta, of

srs¶i, sthiti, and laya. If you absorb your mind in this Paramesvara,

it is called saguna-brahma-dhyana. To do this, you meditate on the

virtues of Paramesvara. Thus, for you, Paramesvara is one who is all

compassion, all mercy, all ananda. Or, Paramesvara is the one who is

the creator, sustainer, and resolver of everything —

srs¶i-sthiti-laya-karta. In this way, any one virtue can be taken in

its absolute sense and meditated upon. Or, the meditation can be in

the form of a simple prayer — `Unto that Lord, my salutations –

paramesvaraya namah.'

The word `mat' in the compound, mat-citta can also mean Paramesvara,

the cause of everything — param brahma. And that Brahman is

satya-jnana-ananta-brahma, atma. Here, the one whose mind is

contemplating upon the svarupa of the atma, pure consciousness, is

called mat-citta. With reference to this caitanya-atma there are other

revealing words also, words that reveal the svarupa of atma upon which

you contemplate. With the help of these words, you contemplate upon

the meaning and this contemplation is called meditation.

MEDITATION IS NOT A TECHNIQUE

The person being discussed in this verse is also called mat-para,

another word that describes the person in terms of the object of

meditation. The person who meditates in order to lower his or her

blood pressure may be a blood-pressure-para but he or she is

definitely not mat-para. People meditate for many reasons — for one

hundred percent spiritual success or one hundred percent material

success. This only proves that nothing is sacred. This also proves

that meditation is not properly understood. Meditation is not a

technique; meditation is life. Therefore, Krsna refers to the

meditator as mat-para, one for whom the Lord, Paramesvara, is

everything. The mind of such a person will stay with the object of

meditation because there is nothing other than Paramesvara, paramatma,

to be gained. And this is everything. The one for whom what is to be

accomplished is that paramatma alone is called mat-para, Krsna says.

Sankara adds here that such a person is very careful in terms of the

objects that he or she desires. For example, the person does not think

of a particular woman or man as the ultimate end, para; instead, this

person has another para in that his or her mind is committed to

Isvara, the Lord, as the ultimate end. The svarupa of Isvara, the

paramatma, as the ultimate end, para is called parama-pada and the

person who has this as the only pursuit is called mat-para.

THE ULTIMATE END

The expression `ultimate end' can give rise to another problem if its

meaning is not properly understood. `ultimate end' does not mean,

`Ultimately, I will reach that; in the meantime, I have other ends to

reach.' Thus, `ultimate end' is not to be interpreted here as an end

to be gained later in time, like after retirement. The ultimate end is

the predominant end, meaning there is no other end. All other

`so-called' ends subserve this ultimate end. Everything one does is

for the ultimate end alone; one even eats to gain this end alone as

Krsna says later.

The study of Sanskrit also serves the same purpose. The study of

Sanskrit is not so that you may become a Sanskrit scholar! I study

whatever is to be studied as a discipline, as a means to gain access

into what is being taught in the Vedanta-sastra. The `ultimate end'

here is not to champion the cause of Isvara in any way, although there

are self-appointed champions who say they want to propagate Isvara.

Surely, Isvara does not need any such help! By the very definition of

Isvara, he should be able to achieve whatever he wants to accomplish.

He does not want you to champion him at all. If he wants to accomplish

something, he can accomplish it without you! Your commitment is only

to understand what Isvara is.

Isvara, paramatma, is the only end for the meditator, the dhyana-yoga.

His or her mind is lost in Me; he is mat-citta, Krsna says here,

speaking as Isvara, the Lord. In the mind of this person who is

mat-citta, the predominant object is Isvara. Also, by calling the

person, mat-para, Krsna conveys the fact that Isvara is something to

be accomplished; in fact, Isvara is the only end to be accomplished

for this person. Both these words, mat-citta and mat-para indicate the

person's exact understanding of what he or she wants to accomplish, to

know.

Further, Krsna says:

yunjannevam sadatmanam yogi niyatamanasah

santim nirvanaparamam matsamsthamadhigacchati Verse 15

evam — in this manner; sada — always; atmanam — the mind; yunjan —

connecting; niyatamanasah — the one whose mind is mastered; yogi — the

meditator; nirvana-paramam — that, which is the ultimate liberation;

matsamstham — that, which is centred on Me; santim — peace;

adhigacchati — gains

Always connecting the mind in this manner, the meditator, the one

whose mind is mastered, gains the peace, which is centred on Me (which

is in the form of an absorption in Me), which is the ultimate

liberation.

In this verse, Krsna mentions the ultimate end to be gained as a

result of dhyana-yoga, meditation.

Here, the word sada, `always,' may raise the question, when does the

meditator have time for other activities such as eating, bathing, and

sleeping? Sada here simply indicates that the person does not waste

time, using whatever time is available for this particular pursuit.

Atma here, refers to the mind, which is always connected in this

manner — yunjan evam sada atmanam — meaning in all the ways already

described, starting from finding the place and preparing the seat,

etc. — sucau dese … caila-ajina-kusottaram. The mind is connected,

absorbed, in Brahman, which is Paramesvara, paramatma, the svarupa of

atma.

And how does one connect the mind to the svarupa of atma? Through

contemplative words, sabda, which is why words are so important.

Through a word you can connect yourself to atma. And what kind of

words? In contemplation we make use of revealing words, words that

reveal the svarupa of atma and thereby connect the mind to atma.

Yunjan means `meditating' or `connecting' — connecting the mind, the

antah-karana, to the object of meditation, which in fact is the act of

meditating.

In this verse, the person is again described as one who has mastered

the mind, one whose mind is tranquil, whose mind is absorbed,

niyatamanasa. And what does this niyatamanasa-yogi gain? Meditating,

the person comes to understand properly what is being said. All that

is taught becomes clear because there are no obstructions for the

person. Therefore, the teaching becomes real and he or she gains santi

— santim adhigacchati.

THE MEANING OF SANTI

Santi usually means peace. Does this mean that after doing meditation,

all you will get out of it is the same peace that can be gained from a

tranquilliser or a shot of something? No, this santi is not that kind

of peace; it is mat-samstha and nirvana- parama. In his commentary,

Sankara defined santi as uparati, uparati meaning resolution or

sarva-karma-sannyasa, wherein doership and enjoyership are renounced

as discussed at length previously. Nirvana means moksa. Therefore,

this is a santi that has its basis in mo