Gita Satsang - Chapter 6 : Verses 21-25 - Wed. Apr. 26, 2001

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

mat chittaaH mat gata-praaNaaH bodhayantaH parasparam.h .

kathayantaH cha maa.n nitya.n tushhyanti cha ramanti cha ..

 

shriimad-bhagavad-giitaa 10:9

 

'With their thought on Me, with their life absorbed in Me,

instructing each other, and ever speaking of Me,

they are content and delighted.'

Ch.10:v.9.

____________________

__

 

atha shhashhTho.adhyaayaH . Chapter 6 : Verses 21-25 [with

Shankara-Bhashya, tr. Sw.Gambhirananda]

 

dhyaana-yogaH. The Yoga of Meditation

 

Besides,

 

sukham aatyantikaM yat tad.h buddhi-graahyam-atiindriyam.h .

vetti yatra na chaiva ayaM sthitash chalati tattvataH .. 21..

 

 

21. When one experiences that absolute Blisss which can be intuited

by the intellect and which is beyond the senses, and being

established (thus) this person surely does not swerve from Reality;

yatra, when, at the time when; vetti, one experiences; tat, that;

aatyantikam, absolute-which is verily limitless, i.e. infinite;

sukham, Bliss; yat, which; buddhi-graahyam, can be intuited by the

intellect, intuited by the intellect alone, without the help of the

senses; and which is atiindriyam, beyond the senses, i.e. not

objective; (-when one experiences this kind of Bliss) and sthitah,

being established in the nature of the Self; ayam, this person, the

illumined one; eva, surely; na calati, does not swerve; tattvatah,

from that Reality-i.e. does not deviate from the nature of Reality-.

 

Further,

 

yaM labdhvaa cha aparaM laabhaM manyate na adhikaM tataH .

yasmin sthito na duHkhena guruNaapi vichaalyate .. 22..

 

22. Obtaining which one does not think of any other acquisition to be

superior to that, and being established in which one is not perturbed

even by great sorrow;

labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring which Self-attainment; na

manyate, one does not think; that there is aparam, any other;

laabham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, superior to that; and also,

sthitah, being established; yasmin, in which Reality of the Self; na

vicaalyate, one is not perturbed; api, even; guruNa, by great;

duhkhena, sorrow, as may be caused by being struck with weapons, etc.-

..

The yoga that has been spoken of as a particular state of the Self,

distinguished by its characterisics in the verses beginning with 'At

the time when the mind gets withdrawn,' (20) etc.-

 

 

taM vidyaad.h duHkha-sa.nyoga-viyogaM yoga sa.nGYitam.h .

sa nishchayena yoktavyo yogo .anirviNNa-chetasaa .. 23..

 

23. One should know that severance of contact with sorrow to be what

is called Yoga. That Yoga has to be practised with perservance and

with an undepressed heart.

vidyaat, one should know; tat, that; duHkha-sa.nyoga-viyogam,

severance (viyoga) of contact (sa.nyoga) with sorrow (duHkha); to be

verily yoga-sanj~nitam, what is called Yoga-i.e. one should know it

through a negative definition.

 

After concluding the topic of the result of Yoga, the need for

pursuing Yoga is again being spoken of in another way in order to

enjoin 'perservance' and 'freedom from depression' as the disciplines

for Yoga: sah, that; yogah, Yoga, which has

the results as stated above; yoktavyah, has to be practised;

nischayena, with perservance; and anirvinnacetasa, with an

undepressed heart. That which is not (a) depressed (nirvinnam) is

anirvinnam. What is that? The heart. (One has to practise Yoga) with

that heart which is free from depression. This is the meaning.

 

Again,

 

saN^kalpa-prabhavaan kaamaa.ns tyaktvaa sarvaan asheshhataH .

manasaivendriyagraamaM viniyamya samantataH .. 24..

 

shanaiH shanair uparamed.h bud.hdhyaa dhR^iti-gR^ihiitayaa .

aatmasa.nsthaM manaH kR^itvaa na ki~nchid api chintayet.h .. 6\.25..

 

24. By totally eschewing all desires which arise from thoughts, and

restraining with the mind itself all the organs from every side;

 

25. One should gradually withdraw with the intellect endowed with

steadiness. Making the mind fixed in the Self, one should not think

of anything whatsoever.

 

tyaktvaa, by eschewing; asheshhataH, totally, without a trace;

sarvaan, all; the kaamaan, desires; sa~Nkalpa-prabhavaan, which arise

from thoughts; and further, viniyamya, restraining; manasaa eva, with

the mind itself, with the mind endued with discrimination; indriya-

graamam, all the organs; samantataH, from every side; uparamet, one

should withdraw, abstain; shanaiH shanaiH, gradually, not suddenly;-

with what?-buddhya, with the intellect;- possessed of what

distinction?-dhR^iti-gR^ihiitaya, endowed with steadiness, i.e. with

fortitude.

kR^itvaa, making; manaH, the mind; aatma-sa.nstham, fixed in the

Self, with the idea, 'The Self alone is all; there is nothing apart

from It'-thus fixing the mind on the Self; na chintayet, one should

not think of; ki~ncit api, anything whatsoever.

This is the highest instruction about Yoga.

 

 

[to be cotd.

 

____________________

__

 

For Gita Dhyana Shlokas/Mantras and Mahatmya

/message/advaitin/6987

----

-----------------------

Adi Shankara's commentary, translated by Swami Gambhirananda, at URL:

[kindly supplied by Madhava-ji]

advaitinGita/Shankara1/gmbCH6.htm

____________________

________________

 

Swami Chinmayananda's commentary at URL:

[kindly supplied by Ram-ji]

advaitinGita/Chinmaya/COMM6.HTM

[Guest guest]

> sukham aatyantikaM yat tad.h buddhi-graahyam-atiindriyam.h .

> vetti yatra na chaiva ayaM sthitash chalati tattvataH .. 21..

 

Highly appropriate post that also helps us understand 'purity of

thought' issues.

 

Here Lord Krishna is referring to the Yogi experiencing the highest

state of Yoga, Nirvikalpa Samadhi that is the final result of all

purification efforts.

 

Madhusudana Saraswati's excellent commentary on the Gita (Gudharta

Deepika which by the way has a very strong Yoga perspective) has this

to say about 'sukham atyantikam' (absolute bliss):

 

It is not possible to describe orally that bliss which arises in

the mind that is totally freed from defects through samadhi and is

absorbed in the Self. This Bliss that is such is then intuited by the

internal organ (Maitryani Upanishad 6.34)

 

'By the internal organ' means 'by the mind in which all the

modifications have been totally restrained'.

>> labdhva, obtaining; yam, which-by acquiring which Self-attainment;

>> na > manyate, one does not think; that there is aparam, any other;

>> laabham, acquisition; tatah adhikam, superior to that;

 

When the Self is realized whatever has to be accomplished stands

accomplished, and whatever has to be acquired stands acquired. Hence

there is nothing higher than the relization of the Self

(Apastamba Dharma Sutras, 1.22.2)

(quoted from Sri Madhusudana Saraswati's Gudharta Deepkia)

 

Remembering Adi Sankara's Jayanthi,

At the Lotus Feet of Sringeri Acharyal,

Sundar Rajan

http://www.jagadgurus.org

[Guest guest]

>> sa nishchayena yoktavyo yogo .anirviNNa-chetasaa .. 23..

 

For enjoining conviction and non-despondency as disciplines leading

to the Yoga that is such, He says, 'That(Yoga has to be practised)

with conviction'. sah,that-the Yoga that has the result as stated;

yoktavyah, has to be practised; niscayena, with conviction, that the

object which forms the subject-matter of what is meant by the

instruction of the teacher and the scriptures is verily true;(and)

anirvinaa-cetasa, with a non-despondent heart.

 

Despondency means remorse in the form, "Even after such a lapse of

time Yoga has not been attained. What greater sorrow can there be

than this!";with a mind devoid of that, i.e. with a mind endowed with

patience in the form, "It will be attained in this life or the next.

What need for haste?" This fact has been illustrated by Gaudapada:

 

Just as an ocean can be emptied(utseka) with the help of the tip

of a blade of kusa-grass, which can hold just a drop, so also can the

control of the mind be brought about by absence of depression

(Mandukya Karika,3.41)

 

(quoted from Sri Madhusudana Saraswati's Gudharta Deepkia, translated

by Swami Gambhirananda, Advaita Ashrama)

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

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

Swamiji Dayananda Sarsawati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam for providing his

commentary to benefit the list members. His commentary starts from

verses 19 onwards. Due to length of this article, it is broken up into

two parts. and this is Part I

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

Swamiji's Commentary Part I:

 

THE DEFINITION OF AN ACCOMPLISHED PERSON

The person discussed here is free from the longing for all objects of

desire, both drs¶a and adrs¶a — nisprhah sarva-kamebhyah. The longing

for all objects, known and unknown, visible and invisible, has gone

away. Therefore, the person is said to be one who is accomplished —

yuktah ityucyate — meaning that the person's contemplation has become

successful.

Calling someone accomplished means what? How can being with oneself

cause all the longings to go away? The reason one longs for objects is

due to not knowing oneself. Therefore, when this self-knowledge has

been gained, when the mind abides in the self alone, the person is

fulfilled and happy. He or she knows that atma does not require any

improvement for one's security or perfection. Because there is no lack

in atma, the sense of lack is not there for the person. The nature of

atma being purna, full, the whole, there is nothing to improve it;

therefore, the person has no longings whatsoever.

ALL DESIRES COME FROM A SENSE OF LACK

Whatever desires that may exist in the person's mind are simple

desires and are fulfilled. In fact, the desires of such a person are

privileges in that he or she has a mind that is privileged to desire,

a mind that has this great capacity to desire, and therefore, there is

desire. The desire of such a person is born of fullness, not out of a

sense of lack. Whereas, for the ajnani, one who does not have

knowledge of the self, there is a sense of want centred on `I.' It is

not that the mind is lacking in something or that anything else is

lacking in anything. For example, when you say the body lacks, the

lack is centred on `I,' which you identify with the body. The body

naturally has its limitations and in that sense it can be said to

lack. But, that the body lacks in this way is not the problem; that I

lack is the problem, born out of the non-recognition of the svarupa,

the nature, of `I.'

All desires stem from this sense of lack centred on `I' alone. These

are the desires that are binding in nature because their fulfilment is

the basis upon which I think I am going to discover some sense of

security in myself, some kind of satisfaction from myself. This is why

fulfilling one's desires become one's main purpose in life. But,

sooner or later, you discover that desires have a knack of breeding

like rabbits and you either give up and become a hobo or go crazy. The

point here is that desires born of one's sense of lack are endless

and, having discovered this fact, your inquiry begins. Therefore, we

ask, `Who am I? `Am I really seeking something?' `Why I am seeking?'

`Am I seeking something other than myself or am I seeking myself?'

In fact I am seeking myself, the problem being that I have a sense of

lack centred on myself and I want to be free from this lack, This is

all I want. If I am a person whose nature is stuck with a sense of

lack, then I can never get rid of it. But now and then I see myself

free from this sense of lack. Whenever I open my eyes and see

something so beautiful that I also open my mouth and say, `Ah!' I find

myself free from any sense of lack. There is a heaven inside me.

Whenever I laugh, it is all heaven. Because I have these two versions

of myself — one with the sense of lack and one without it — a very

valid doubt arises in me. I begin to think that, perhaps I am confused

about myself, perhaps my conclusions are wrong. This doubt marks the

beginning of one's inquiry.

The person discussed in this verse has come to know the self by means

of such an inquiry, accompanied by whatever disciplines that were

necessary to prepare the mind so that the knowledge could take place.

The mind of this person has no more doubts and is totally awake with

reference to atma. There is no more guesswork or vagueness and the

person is naturally free from all longing and attachments. In the next

verse, Krsna uses an oft-quoted illustration to describe the mind of

such a person.

yatha dipo nivatastho nengate sopama smrta

yogino yatacittasya yunjato yogamatmanah Verse 19

yatha — just as; nivatasthah — protected from the wind; dipah — lamp;

na ingate — does not flicker; atmanah yogam — contemplation of the

self; yunjatah — of one who practices; yoginah — of the meditator;

yatacittasya — for the composed mind; sa — this; upama — illustration;

smrta — is cited

Just as a lamp, protected from the wind, does not flicker — for the

composed mind of the meditator who practices contemplation of the

self, this illustration is cited.

An illustration cannot give you the knowledge of the object for which

it is an illustration, but it can bring one's understanding of it a

little closer. To say, `A water buffalo is like a water buffalo,' is

not an illustration because one's understanding of `water buffalo' is

not brought any closer to the object `water buffalo' than it was

before the statement was made. Whereas the statement, `A water buffalo

is like a huge cow,' gives one a somewhat clearer understanding of

what a water buffalo is; it belongs to the cow family and it is huge.

When you actually see a water buffalo, you will then know exactly how

it differs from a cow. This statement, then, is an illustration,

upama.

Similarly, here, the people who have contemplated upon atma, who know

atma, have likened the mind of a wise person to a flame that is

protected from the wind. This mind, they say, does not tremble. This

does not mean that it awakens in any way, but, like the flame, there

is a continuous flow of light. In fact, a flame is not really a flame;

if you could reduce the speed at which the flame rises, you would find

that it is moving all the time. The point being made here is that, in

spite of this movement, the flame does not shake at all. Similarly,

the well-mastered mind of the yogi, the wise person, has a continuous

flow of vrttis, thoughts, but it does not tremble for any reason. It

does not tremble out of fear, agitation or anything else, meaning that

it is never swayed by the situations that confront the person,

whatever these may be. And only those who know the mind of a yogi can

cite such an illustration, upama.

WHY IS AN ILLUSTRATION NEEDED HERE?

An illustration must be known to both the person citing it and the

person to whom it is being cited. And it should be close to that which

is to be conveyed. Why was an illustration cited here by those who

know the mind of a wise person? Because the one being addressed

cannot, at this point in time, envision the mind of such a person,

just as a child cannot possibly envision the problems of an adult not

yet understanding the adult aspects of life. Suppose a child hears his

father saying, `Oh, no! The stocks have gone down.' He sees that his

father is unhappy, his mother is unhappy, and everyone around is

unhappy, but the child does not understand why the adults are crying.

All he wants is one more toy. This is because there are two different

minds here altogether. Only when the child becomes an adult will he

understand.

An adult mind can be stifled by the child's mind that he or she has

carried over into adult mind, but, until a child becomes an adult, his

or her mind will have only a child's problems. Even if a person who is

twenty-five years old still wants balloons, dolls, and marbles, the

person has no real problem, although the other people around may

naturally think otherwise! The problem only comes when you are an

adult with a child inside craving for all kinds of security and

attention. Such a person cannot relate well to another adult who is an

adult all the way, meaning a person with a mature mind, a mind that

does not pose a problem for the person, for whom the mind is only an

instrument. This mature mind is the one that is likened here to a

flame for those who cannot envision such a mind.

Something that can be seen or envisioned does not require an

illustration. If it is available, it can be shown to the person. For

example, I can say, `This is a crystal.' Since I am showing it to you,

I need not tell you that crystal is like glass. Because the crystal is

available, an illustration is not required. Whereas, if you do not

know what a bison is, but you know what a buffalo is, I can tell you

that a bison is like a buffalo. Because there is an approximation

between the two, your understanding of a bison is a little closer than

it was. Similarly, the flame is an illustration to help you understand

what the mind of a wise person is like, cited by people who know what

it is all about.

In this verse, the words, yogam yunjatah, can be taken to refer either

to a person who is following Patanjali's eight-fold yoga called

as¶anga-yoga or a person who contemplates upon atma. Yoga itself is

the practice, which means that the person attempts to unite his or her

mind with the desirable atma — yunjatah yogam atmanah. Sankara defined

yunjat here as one who practices this yoga, this contemplation,

uniting the mind with atma, which Krsna discusses further in the next

four verses:

yatroparamate cittam niruddham yogasevaya

yatra caivatmanatmanam pasyannatmani tusyati Verse 20

yatra — when; yoga-sevaya — by the practice of meditation; niruddham —

mastered; cittam — mind; uparamate — abides (in atma); yatra — when;

ca — and; atmana — by oneself; atmanam — oneself; pasyan — seeing;

atmani — in oneself; eva — alone; tusyati — one rejoices

When the mind, mastered by the practice of meditation, abides (in

atma) and when, seeing oneself by oneself alone, one rejoices in

oneself …

Here the word, atma, in the word atmanam refers to sat-cit-ananda-atma

— meaning that one sees oneself as Brahman. And with what does one see

atma as Brahman? By the mind, atmana, by the vrtti, the thought. And,

recognising oneself as Brahman, one rejoices in atma, oneself — atmani

tusyati. Thus, there are four case endings here for atma; the second

case or accusative, atmanam, meaning `oneself'; the third case or

instrumental, atmana, meaning `by oneself'; and the seventh case or

locative, atmani, meaning `in oneself.' And who rejoices? The yogi,

the self, atma, the first case or nominative, the agent of rejoicing.

Thus, seeing oneself by oneself, one rejoices in oneself — atmana

atmanam pasyan atmani tusyati. We will see the implications of this

verse in the discussion of the next verse.

The person rejoices in the atma, the nature of atma being ananda, free

from any sense of lack. Further, Krsna says:

sukhamatyantikam yattad buddhigrahyamatindriyam

vetti yatra na caivayam sthitascalati tattvatah Verse 21

yat tat — that which (is); atyantikam — absolute; buddhi-grahyam —

recognised by the intellect; atindriyam — beyond sense perception;

sukham — happiness; yatra — when; ayam vetti — one recognises; ca —

and; sthitah — being well-rooted (therein); tattvatah — from the truth

of oneself; na eva calati — one never moves away

(And when) one recognises this absolute happiness, which is recognised

by the intellect, which is beyond sense perception and when, being

rooted (therein) one never moves away from the truth of oneself…

The vrtti, thought, by which one recognises an object, and the object

of the vrtti are identical. That is, in order to recognise the object,

the vrtti must necessarily have the object in itself. If I have to

recognise a pot, gha¶a, the vrtti must assume the very form of the

pot. Therefore, the vrtti is called gha¶a-vrtti. By the gha¶a-vrtti

alone, one recognises the object gha¶a, pot.

For the recognition of atma also, there must be a vrtti. This vrtti is

created by the sastra and it destroys self-ignorance. And this vrtti

is brought back by the contemplator in nididhyasana. In the

recognition of the svarupa of the self, the vrtti assumes the very

svarupa of atma, without objectifying it. This is not similar to

knowing an object such as the pot. In the recognition of the svarupa

of the atma there is only one operation involved; whereas in the

objectification of a pot, there are two operations.

One operation is the vrtti assuming the form of the pot and the second

operation is the recognition of that vrtti, thereby recognising the

pot. One is the objectification of the object (by the vrtti) and the

other is the recognition of the vrtti. The objectifying vrtti is

recognised by another vrtti, which is the dras¶a, the seer. I become

the seer, the knower of the pot. Therefore, this I-thought, the aham

vrtti, assuming the status of the knower, recognises an object through

a vrtti, the gha¶a-vrtti, and says, `This is a pot — ayam gha¶ah.'

Any piece of knowledge — where there is this peculiar connection,

atma-anatma-sambandha, between the self, the knower, you, and the

object that is objectified by that knower — takes place by these two

operations. That is, the object is objectified by the vrtti and you

cognise the vrtti. This is why you can say, `This is a pot.' But, you

cannot say, `This is atma.' Who is there to say it? I am the one who

has to say it and, if it were to be so, then, the self, atma, would

become an object of the self who is objectifying it. Therefore, it

would become anatma, not atma, just like any other object of your

knowledge.

SEEING ATMA IS DIFFERENT THAN SEEING AN OBJECT

Naturally, then, when Krsna said, `seeing atma,' in the last verse,

some difference was definitely implied. The difference is that in the

number of operations involved. Seeing atma implies only one operation;

there is no second operation at all as there is when one sees an

object. Only the first operation is there, the vrtti that objectifies

atma, that assumes the very form of atma. If I say atma is pure

consciousness, kevala-caitanya, suddha-caitanya, and the recognition

of this fact takes place, that recognition implies that the vrtti

assumes the very form of consciousness and there is no other object

involved. That particular form destroys the ignorance with reference

to the svarupa of the atma and then disappears. This, then, is the

only operation that takes place, meaning that there is no second

operation in the form of the recognition, `This is atma,' as there is

in the cognition of other objects.

The one operation that does take place is only with reference to one's

confusion about oneself, the self-ignorance that was there; that

ignorance is destroyed by the vrtti. This is what happens in

self-knowledge, in knowing the self, more of which we shall see later.

WHAT DOES A WISE PERSON HAVE TO REJOICE OVER?

Generally, a person rejoices only when he or she has something over

which to rejoice something other than knowing atma. Some revelling

situation is usually there for any rejoicing to take place. But what

is there for the person being discussed in this verse to rejoice over?

It is the recognition of the absolute happiness that is one's own

nature, a recognition by the intellect that is beyond sense perception

— sukham atyantikam yattad buddhi-grahyam atindriyam.

Atyantika-sukha, Sankara explained in his commentary, is a sukha, a

happiness, which is absolute — a happiness that is the nature of

oneself, svarupa-sukha. This means that it has nothing to do with the

vrtti, in reality. It is a particular vrtti, no doubt, but it is not

born out of a particular condition external to oneself. The word,

atmanam, mentioned in the previous verse is converted here into

atyantika-sukha. Seeing the self is recognising the self as

sukha-svarupa, one whose nature is absolute happiness,

atyantika-sukha. And this recognition takes place in the intellect, in

the buddhi alone. At the same time, this sukha is beyond sense

perception — atindriya.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABSOLUTE SUKHA AND RELATIVE SUKHA

This atyantika-sukha or atma-sukha is something quite different from

the pleasure you pick up because of a sense object or a situation,

visaya-sukha. Both atma-sukha and visaya-sukha are recognised by the

buddhi. There is no nasal sukha or other sukha that is not recognised

by the buddhi. A sukha born out of hearing something pleasant, for

example, is always inside, not outside. There is also a sukha born of

having solved a problem or a riddle for yourself, the kind of

happiness that causes you to say, `Eureka!' born of some recognition

or a piece of knowledge. This is called vidya-sukha. There is a

clarity there, which, to use the language of the Gita, increases your

sattva disposition. This heightened sattva makes the mind more

composed — gives rise to a santa-antah-karana. Because knowledge and

sattva go together, there is sukha. Thus, whenever you pick up a piece

of knowledge, no matter how simple or complex, there is some sukha,

which we call vidya-sukha. But the sukha that one picks up by a piece

of knowledge is still a relative sukha because it is subject to

change. A challenge is met successfully, sukha is discovered, and then

it is gone. If the sukha was the result of having unravelled a few

knots in a tangled ball of wool, you pick up the yarn again and begin

unravelling some more to gain some more sukha.

There is also visaya-sukha, a sukha born out of fulfilling a desire

for a particular object and the experience thereof. An object of

desire brings about sukha in different degrees. Just the sight of it

brings about certain sukha and owning it or experiencing it brings

about some more sukha. Thus, there are levels or degrees of

visaya-sukha. Everyone has this kind of sukha — even a cat or a dog —

whereas vidya-sukha is only for human beings. Vidya-sukha includes any

accomplishment and visaya-sukha implies a certain situational gain in

terms of a desire fulfilled.

There is also the sukha born of yoga. Yoga includes prayer and

meditation in which there is a certain sukha. Pranayama, etc., can

also bring about some sukha. Thus, there are these three kinds of

sukha — visaya-sukha, vidya-sukha, and yoga-sukha. Vidya-sukha and

visaya-sukha are experienced by everyone, whereas yoga-sukha is

experienced by a disciplined person, a karmayogi, a prayerful person,

a devotee. Because of the person's maturity, a certain sukha is there.

In the seat of meditation there is a sukha. Discipline, health, and so

on bring about a certain sukha, a satisfaction, all of which is

implied by yoga-sukha.

Then there is the fourth sukha, called turiya-sukha which does not

depend on any gain, accomplishment, or anything. It is not born out of

any particular piece of knowledge that you discover nor any object

that you gain; it is just the recognition of yourself alone, because

of which there is a sukha. This sukha is the sukha mentioned by Krsna

in this verse, atyantika-sukha, absolute sukha — this is also

recognised by the intellect, buddhi-grahya, and is beyond sense

perception, atindriya.

THE SUKHA THAT IS YOURSELF

This is where people sometimes commit mistakes. Atindriya-sukha, means

that the sukha is not due to sense perception. At the same time, every

sukha is buddhi-grahya, recognised by the intellect. Visaya-sukha,

vidya-sukha, and yoga-sukha are also buddhi-grahya but not atindriya,

whereas this absolute sukha is buddhi-grahya and also atindriya,

meaning that it is not due to any external situation or internal

condition. Yoga-sukha also is not born of an external situation, but

it is born of an internal situation, while visaya-sukha is born of

external situations. But the sukha that Krsna is talking about here is

not born of anything. It is yourself.

People naturally want to know what this sukha is born of, how can it

be brought into being. But this concept of sukha being `born' is due

to ignorance; it is a samsari's approach — an approach of the

ignorant, the non-discriminating person. Therefore, we have to be very

careful here. Absolute sukha is buddhi-grahya and, at the same time,

atindriya, which means it has nothing to do with sense perception or

anything. It is oneself.

When the person, the meditator, the seeker, comes to recognise the

atma-svarupa, yatra vetti, what happens? He or she does not slip away

from the truth, the truth of atma as absolute happiness, atyantikam

sukham — tattvatah na calati. Here tattva means the svarupa, the

essential nature of a thing — as expressed by the suffix `ness.' There

is no appropriate word in English for svarupa. Here, tattva is the

truth or svarupa of the atma, which is atyantika-sukha-svarupa, which

is free from any form of limitation, purna-svarupa. From this, the

person never moves away — na eva calati.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECOGNITION AND EXPERIENCE

This recognition marks the difference between ordinary yoga, meaning

as¶anga-yoga, and what we are talking about here. You must know this

well and not confuse this recognition with the samadhi of

as¶anga-yoga. As¶anga-yoga is a discipline which has its own place in

preparing the mind for the knowledge to take place. For this reason,

you should not think of it as useless or anything. As¶anga-yoga is a

great discipline, but if it is not understood as such, there can

naturally be confusion between it and the knowledge of oneself,

atma-jnana, which is the ultimate end, the freedom that everyone

seeks.

The samadhi that as¶anga-yoga talks about is in terms of experience.

In fact, if, as a samsari, you have to accomplish anything in this

world, that is in the world of samsara, samadhi is the greatest

accomplishment experientially; in this sense, as¶anga-yoga has the

last word in terms of nirvikalpa-samadhi, a state of absorption

wherein there is no second thing at all. The knower, known, and the

instrument of knowledge — all three of them — coalesce into one

experience lasting for a length of time. Although it does not take

away the samsara, it is definitely the last word in samsara.

Nirvikalpa-samadhi is the opposite of deep sleep. In deep sleep there

is nirvikalpa alright, meaning that the knower-known-knowledge

division is not there. But, in the nirvikalpa-samadhi the mind is

awake, unlike in deep sleep where the mind is sleeping. In both cases,

there is ajnana, the difference being that when the mind is asleep

there is no vrtti, whereas in nirvikalpa-samadhi, the mind is awake,

meaning there is vrtti. Therefore, the greatest thing you can have in

life is nirvikalpa-samadhi, which is why it is the greatest hooker

also. It baits people because it is the last thing that you can think

of accomplishing in samsara, in your life here in this world.

EXPERIENCE ALWAYS HAS AN END

But nirvikalpa-samadhi has an end; it is something you come out of.

All that is needed is for someone to drop something in front of you or

to start a vacuum-cleaner in the next house. As soon as you become

aware of the sound, you are not only out of nirvikalpa-samadhi, you

may be into anger as well! Why? This is because, nirvikalpa-samadhi is

something that does not last forever; you will come out of it in time.

And, once you are out of it, it becomes a past experience that you

then talk to others about — `Swamiji, yesterday I had the most

wonderful thing happen to me!' Even the language used to describe the

experience is different! But as soon as the thoughts come, or someone

begins hammering, or a child begins to cry, or a bug creeps up your

leg, real or imagined, it is gone; you have come out of

nirvikalpa-samadhi.

There are those who will tell you that once you experience

nirvikalpa-samadhi and you come out of that experience, the world will

be different. They also say that you experience the atma in

nirvikalpa-samadhi. How can this be? All that happened was that the

knower-known-knowledge difference coalesced. All differences

disappeared — a desirable experience, no doubt. It is recognised by

the intellect, it is buddhi-grahya, and is also beyond sense

perception, atindriya. But how has this experience changed the state

of your vision? In fact, you may become very sad. Before you knew

atma, you were only sad if you lost some money, some power, some hair,

or a relationship. Now, having known the atma, you have a new item

which can be lost and be a cause for sadness — yourself. Previously,

you lost certain things but retained yourself, but now you have

experienced a much greater loss — the loss of yourself.

Therefore, practitioners of samadhi may have a certain sadness —

sadness if samadhi does not come, sadness even when it comes, because,

it does not last. And even if it lasts for some time, there is sadness

because it ends. All that can be said is that I was eternal for half

an hour! For that period of time, the division between the knower,

known, and knowledge that is usually there went away; time itself went

away. For half an hour you were free from time, which means you were

timeless, eternal. And, after half an hour, you become what?

Non-eternal. Even if you have samadhi for two days, you become

non-eternal. In this way, it is no different than being in a coma for

two days and then coming out of it. While in the coma, there was no

division whatsoever and the person also did not know what was

happening. Therefore, the length of time that one is in

nirvikalpa-samadhi has no meaning.

DISCIPLINE IMPLIES A CERTAIN MASTERY OF THE MIND

As a discipline, however, nirvikalpa-samadhi is great because, when

you gather such an experience, it indicates that you have a certain

mastery. Otherwise, you would not have been able to have the

experience of nirvikalpa-samadhi. Because a certain mastery is

involved, nirvikalpa-samadhi is considered to be the height of

experience that one can gain; it is like a prize, the end for those

who want to gain experience. To say that it indicates a certain

sattvika-vrtti on one's part is fine, but to say that after you come

out of nirvikalpa-samadhi, you will see the world entirely differently

is not correct because how you see the world depends purely on your

vision of reality. Having experienced nirvikalpa-samadhi, you have to

interpret that experience. And to interpret the experience, you must

have a pramana, a means of knowledge.

Again, then, we come back to pramana because you do not interpret an

experience in any other way than by what you know. All interpretations

depend entirely upon your knowledge, which is dependent on the pramana

available to you. And all the pramanas that one has, perception,

inference, etc., operate by maintaining a duality — duality of karta –

the doer, karma – the object of doing, kriya – the act of doing

itself, karana – the instrument of doing, etc. All these are

collectively called as karakas. Retaining the duality alone, one's

pramanas, the various means of knowledge, operate.

Perception, pratyaksa, and inference, anumana, do not swallow the

karakas. Only the agama, the teaching, swallows them. It says that you

are not the knower, pramata; you are the very essence of the knower,

the knowledge, and the object of knowledge, all three of them being

one and the same. In this way, the agama resolves the division, which

is exactly what this verse is saying. Knowing atma, not moving from

the truth of atma there is no knower-known-knowledge division for the

person. Nor is there any question about when you are going to get out

of yourself — because both thought and the object of thought are you,

atma.

 

(to be continued)

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

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

Swamiji Dayananda Sarsawati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam for providing his

commentary to benefit the list members. His commentary starts from

verses 19 onwards. Due to length of this article, it is broken up into

three parts. and this is Part II

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

Swamiji's Commentary Part II: (Verses 22 & 23)

 

THOUGHT IS YOU

There is no way of getting out of yourself because, with thought, you

are and without thought, you are. Whether you are with the world or

without the world, it is you all the time. This we shall see clearly

later. Because the statement `tattvatah na calati,' in the verse under

study, implies jnana, knowledge, the word yoga is not to be taken in

its usual sense. It is more viyoga than yoga, as Krsna explains a

little later. Previously, due to ignorance, there was an association,

samyoga with duhkha, sorrow, taking it to be oneself, which was the

problem. Yoga means joining, association, and viyoga means

dissociation from the association. Previously, the person was in

association with the body, mind, and senses, which was not a simple

association because the person actually took the

body-mind-sense-complex to be himself or herself. Then, the person

dissociated himself or herself from sorrow by knowledge, which does

not imply as¶anga-yoga.

In order to remove any confusion here, Krsna first says, tattvatah na

calati, and then redefines the word yoga in one sentence later in

keeping with what he is teaching.

yam labdhva caparam labham manyate nadhikam tatah

yasmin sthito na duhkhena gurunapi vicalyate Verse 22

tam vidyad duhkhasamyogaviyogam yogasanjnitam

sa niscayena yoktavyo yogo'nirvinnacetasa Verse 23

ca — and; yam labdhva — having gained which; tatah adhikam — better

than that; aparam — other; labham — gain; na manyate — does not think;

yasmin — in which; sthitah — established; guruna api duhkhena — even

by a great sorrow;

na vicalyate — is not affected; tam — that; duhkha-samyoga-viyogam —

dissociation from association with sorrow; yoga-sanjnitam — called by

the name of yoga; vidyat — may one know; anirvinna-cetasa — with the

mind that is not discouraged; sah yogah — that yoga; niscayena — with

clarity of purpose; yoktavyah — should be pursued

And, having gained which, one does not think there is any other better

gain than that, established in which, one is not affected even by a

great sorrow (sorrowful event), may one know that dissociation from

association with sorrow, to be what is called as yoga. That yoga

should be pursued with clarity of purpose with a mind that is not

discouraged.

The person being discussed here does not slip away from the truth of

himself or herself, atma-tattva, because atma is not some place he or

she went to and can return from. When it is said that you go to the

abode of atma and rejoice there, some location comes to mind and the

question then becomes, for how long? All kinds of imaginations are

therefore, possible. You may think it is like going somewhere as a

guest, staying as long as you are entertained, and then, afterwards,

coming back. However, when it is clear that remaining with atma is in

terms of knowledge of the svarupa of atma, conveyed here by the

expression, tattvatah na calati, then there is no question of ever

being away from it because remaining does not depend even on memory.

People sometimes ask, `Swamiji, suppose I forget the atma?' You can

forget the words I use to point out the atma, but you cannot forget

the meaning of those words once you have understood it. The meaning of

the words is atma. You can forget sat-cit-ananda, but if sat is

understood by you, cit is understood by you, and ananda is understood

by you, how can you forget? The words themselves are only the laksana

of atma, for revealing the nature of atma; therefore, they can be

forgotten. But the meaning is you. How can you forget you? You cannot

because knowing yourself is not something that is memory-based. Even

if you lose your memory in an accident or whatever, it is the same.

DOES LOSS OF MEMORY NOT AFFECT ONE'S KNOWLEDGE?

People often pose this question also, `Swamiji, suppose a jnani, a man

who already has self-knowledge, has a car accident and loses the use

of all his brain cells. His head is so smashed up, he remembers

nothing, not even his own name. Isn't his knowledge of atma also

gone?' No, his knowledge is not gone because there was no `his'

knowledge. There was only `This self is Brahman — ayam atma brahma.'

Recognising this fact, he was already liberated. There is only one

moksa and that takes place while living — jivanmukti. Moksa is a

matter of understanding, not of memory. And once you gain this

understanding, this knowledge, there is no moving away.

Then, the question may come, `Swamiji, suppose I do gain atma. Then

what should I do?' Previously, you had many adventures and now you are

thinking about having an atma adventure. Naturally, then, you want to

know what your next adventure will be after atma has been gained. You

have been to the Caribbean, to Hawaii, you have scaled mountains,

skied the slopes, and you have learned how to roller-skate. All these

adventures being over, you say, `Let me do some atma adventure; let me

see what it is all about,' because there are people who keep talking

about it. Wanting to cover everything, you come to atma.

This wanting to cover everything is a different attitude than that of

a mumuksu, of course. Unlike the mumuksu, this person does not want

anyone to know more about anything than he or she knows. Perhaps the

person had heard the word atma or Brahman at some dinner party and he

or she wants to know what it is all about so as not to appear ignorant

in this particular area. Suppose, in the process of finding out, this

person gets caught in this particular pursuit and gets this

atma-jnana, atma now being covered, what would the person do next, is

the question.

Some people really think like this. They say they have tried this and

that and they have tried Vedanta also! This verse is for such people.

The word `gain' is used here with just this kind of person in view,

the one who always wants to cover all areas. The word, `gaining,'

labdhva, means `knowing,' jnatva. The jnana itself is the gain here

because it is sukha. This gain is in terms of human ends, purusarthas,

what people go after. Gaining atma, the person does not think, na

manyate, that there is anything other, apara, that is better than

atma, tatah adhikah, to gain.

IS THERE A BETTER GAIN THAN SELF-KNOWLEDGE?

Why is there no better gain, labha? Because a gain is something that

should make you better. If you gain something that makes you worse, it

is not a gain; it is a problem. You thought you bought a gain, but

instead you bought a problem, just like when you buy a property, the

property itself is a great gain, but the litigation against it is the

problem. And because you do not know how to get out of the problems,

the property is not really a gain; it is only a problem gained.

Gain, then, means that you must feel that you are better off than you

were before. If you gain atma, its svarupa being atyantika-sukha, a

sukha that is not dependent upon anything because atma is everything,

it is purna, what gain is greater than that? How are you going to

better it? By what are you going to better it? Therefore, the person

discussed in this verse does not even think there can be another gain.

He or she does not say, `Okay, I have seen atma. Now let me look for

something else.' There is no something else; something else is also

atma.

Even if this is accepted, the question may then be asked. Suppose the

person does not come out of this gain and go after something else,

there being nothing else, what happens if some great tragedy occurs to

him or her? Will the person's ananda not be disturbed? No, remaining

in that, yasmin sthitah, meaning knowledge of atma, the person is not

affected even by some colossal tragedy — duhkhena guruna api na

vicalyate. The word guru has many meanings; here it means `big' or

`heavy' and is the opposite of laghu, meaning `easy,' `simple,'

`lightweight.'

One may be able to endure a great deal of pain or sorrow without being

affected, but suppose a great tragedy happens? Will this person not

come out of that atma in which he or she remains and go somewhere

else? No. The person remains in atma. To come out of atma and go

somewhere else is not possible because somewhere else is also atma.

Therefore, whatever the duhkha, the person remains in atma, confirming

what Krsna had said previously when he said tattvatah na eva calati,

the person never moves away. Here, he says that this person is not

shaken, not affected, by any situation because, for this person, all

situations are also not other than atma.

This yoga Krsna is talking about here, is a yoga that is more a

dissociation than association. In verse 20, the word yoga referred to

the practice of contemplation, the object of which is atma seeing

which one rejoices in oneself — yatra uparamate cittam niruddham

yoga-sevaya; yatra ca eva atmana atmanam pasyan atmani tusyati. This

yoga is called jnana-yoga because atma is seen with the mind with the

help of knowledge. And, in the wake of this self-knowledge, naturally

there is self-rejoicing because self-seeking is no longer there. There

is freedom from seeking.

In verse 21, the nature of atma was said to be absolute happiness,

recognised by the intellect and yet beyond sense perception — sukham

atyantikam yat tad buddhi-grahyam atindriyam, knowing which one

remains in oneself, never moving away from the truth of oneself —

vetti yatra na ca eva ayam sthitah calati tattvatah. The truth of

oneself is absolute happiness, ananda, whereas all other happiness

always depends upon a mental condition. Ordinary enjoyments, bhogas

depend upon our external condition plus our mental condition. Some

external object must be available in a certain situation and in a form

that is desirable.

Even if the external situation is available, you may not be in the

mood for it. Therefore, it has to wait for you to be in a better mood.

You may have bought a particular tape of music that you generally love

— but not today. The music has to wait for you to enjoy it until you

are in the mood for it. This is because the sukha that is born of an

external condition depends upon two situations — the external

condition itself and a conducive internal, mental, condition. Whereas

the svarupa-sukha that we are talking about does not depend upon

either. Rather, it is born out of the recognition of the self being

free from any sense of limitation.

Krsna then points out that the person who recognises this

svarupa-sukha never comes out of it because there is nothing better to

be gained — yam labdhva ca aparam labham manyate na adhikam tatah.

This gain in the form of self-knowledge is also called yoga. It is not

a challenge that, once achieved and no longer holding your interest,

has to be followed by another challenge. Looking for greater and

greater challenges is based on the desire to prove oneself, to prove

that one exists, for which one has to do something adventurous,

something different, something new, something challenging. Only then

does one feel alive and not like an old piece of furniture. This

feeling is what keeps people going, in fact. Because they have to live

within themselves, a challenge can become so important that they

sacrifice everything for it. If a person does not feel that he or she

is a `somebody,' naturally the person has to create some challenge or

other in order to feel, `I exist,' `I am somebody,' etc.

THE RESOLUTION OF ALL SEEKING

Having gained, atma, then, would I still have to create new challenges

for myself? No, because gaining atma is a gain, gaining which there is

no better gain. The person does not move from the truth of oneself —

tattvatah na calati, meaning that the seeking after challenges is

resolved. This resolution is the gain in fact.

All seeking can be reduced to self-confusion. Therefore, the resolving

of the self-confusion is the resolving of the very seeking itself. In

this resolution, the seeker and the sought become one and the same,

which was what Krsna meant in verse 22, when he said, `And, having

gained that atma, one does not think that there is any other better

gain — yam labdhva ca aparam labham manyate na adhikam tatah.'

And if a big tragedy should occur, what happens to the person? Krsna

covers that also. He says, `Firmly established in that atma, he (or

she) is not disturbed even by great sorrow — yasmin sthitah duhkhena

guruna api na vicalyate.' Therefore, there is no question of getting

out of atma. No external situation is going to affect the person, nor

will the person become tired of himself or herself and get out. Moving

away from something can take place either by slipping away from it, or

by withdrawing from it, or by something else coming and disturbing

you. But fullness cannot be disturbed in any way. Neither the world

nor anything else can disturb fullness. Fullness accommodates every

event that can take place in one's life. Also, fullness is not

something that one can get out of because it is oneself.

Therefore, knowing all that has been discussed in the previous three

verses, there is no coming back from the sukha that is atma. The gain

of it, the joy of it, the fullness of it, the freedom of it — all that

has been pointed out — is called `yoga.' `Yoga-sanjnitam,' Krsna says.

Thus, he gave us a new way of looking at the word `yoga.'

ANOTHER DEFINITION FOR YOGA

The root yuj, from which the word `yoga' is derived, has two meanings

— yojana and nirodha. Yojana means connecting or uniting two things.

Thus, when two things are put together it is yoga. Whereas, nirodha

means control, stopping, mastering, which is how Patanjali defined

yoga in the second sutra of the yoga-sastra — yogah

citta-vrtti-nirodhah, meaning `yoga is the mastery of one's thinking

processes,' indicating that yoga is a discipline by itself. Since both

meanings for the word `yoga' are used in the Gita, we have to see from

the context whether the word is used in the sense of union or control.

Here, originally there seems to be union of the mind with atma. The

mind contemplates upon atma; therefore, atma becomes the dhyeya, the

object of contemplation. The mind is the one that becomes united with

the object of contemplation, atma, and the attempt to unite the two is

called yoga, which is the sense we generally get from the word `yoga.'

It implies two different things coming together, just as two people

come together in marriage, a connection, sambandha, of some kind,

whatever the nature of the connection may be.

WHAT IS JOINED TOGETHER CAN ALSO FALL APART

Now, whenever two things come together, there is a tendency for them

to fall apart also. Therefore, they have to be kept together somehow.

If two people are involved, the tendency is for them to move away from

each other, each one going off in opposite directions. Similarly, two

pieces of material tied together will stay together only as long as

that which binds them lasts. Once the binding factor wears out, the

two pieces of material will fall apart.

Here, too, the mind can move away from atma if it is attracted by some

external object. It can be disturbed by a vrtti, a thought, for which

there is an object, for which you are given senses, etc. And if your

senses do not operate, your memory is always there. Your memory is

good enough to provide you with the whole world! Because of memory,

the mind will never find itself wanting in terms of objects to think

about. Therefore, the sense of connection between the mind and atma,

conveyed by the word `yoga,' makes it seem that the mind,

contemplating on atma, will come away from atma. Because the word

`yoga' has this intrinsic problem, Krsna redefines it here in an

opposite sense. This redefinition is called viparita-laksana, meaning

that the word is used in its limited sense and then the limitations

are knocked off by redefining it. In fact, because words have to be

used, the whole teaching is like this. A particular word is used and

then its limitations are knocked off to reveal its absolute sense

which is atma.

YOGA: DISSOCIATION FROM ASSOCIATION

Until now, Krsna uses the word yoga in its limited sense. And, here,

he knocks off the limitations. In fact, he knocks off the very word

itself by presenting yoga in a different way. He defines yoga as

samyoga-viyoga. Samyoga has the same meaning as yoga, union, the

prefix `sam' conveying the sense of being very well united. When the

prefix `sam' is replaced with the prefix `vi,' the resultant word is

viyoga which conveys exactly the opposite meaning — that of

dissociation. Samyoga means `association,' and wherever there is

association, there can be dissociation, which is the meaning of

viyoga. In either case, the word yoga remains, one prefix being

replaced by the other to create the opposite meaning.

For this reason, prefixes, upasargas, are very important in Sanskrit.

In English also, prefixes can be used in this way, as in `declinable'

and `indeclinable,' for example, where a negative prefix is used to

arrive at the opposite meaning of the word. Similarly, the prefix `vi'

added to `yoga' points out the negative aspect or the absence of yoga.

In this way, Krsna is saying that the yoga we are talking about here

is more a dissociation than an association.

All that was said before in terms of yoga — how to sit, how to live

one's life, etc. — all the disciplines that were advised earlier, are

for the sake of which yoga? For the yoga being discussed here in the

previous three verses. May one know that, tam vidyat. May one know

that yoga as what? As duhkha-samyoga-viyoga, as the dissociation from

the association with sorrow. This is what Krsna calls `yoga' here and

this is the yoga that is to be known — yoga-samjnitam tam vidyat.

Association with duhkha means association with pain, with sorrow.

Anything undesirable is connected with duhkha — there is duhkhena

samyogah. And this union or association with duhkha is no ordinary

association; it is a very well-entrenched association. Because this

association with sorrow is not ordinary, Krsna uses the word samyoga

here. No one wants to have duhkha, but the yoga with it, the union

with it, is so complete that, although you want to get out of it, you

cannot. Even though no one wants sorrow, everyone is subject to it.

Since we do not want to be sad, why do we become sad? It is not that

one wants to get into a state of sadness, but then there is yoga with

sadness and that yoga seems to be samyoga, a connection that is very

difficult to pull out of. In fact, you cannot pull out; there is no

way of pulling out.

WHY IS SORROW SO WELL ENTRENCHED?

People have been trying to pull out of duhkha-samyoga but are not able

to. Why not? Because it is the duhkhi, the sad person, who wants to

pull out of duhkha. The very person who wants to pullout of duhkha has

created the duhkhi by taking himself or herself to be limited and

therefore, there is association with sorrow. Being associated with

duhkha, how can he or she pull out?

`I am a human being, I am a mortal, I am a man, I am a brahmana or a

ksatriya, I am young, I am old, I am only this much,' — for the

duhkha, the one associated with sorrow, this is exactly what `I' is.

The person thinks of himself or herself as limited, small, a samsari,

one who is subject to pain and sorrow. That very aham, `I,' the ego,

by its very standing, is doomed. Its very standing is on duhkha, on a

sense of limitation. In fact, it is nothing but the sense of

limitation. Therefore, all you have to do to be sad is to remember

yourself!

You just need to remind yourself of how limited you are. What happens

sometimes is that you forget yourself because the samsara has so many

fascinating objects that can take your attention away from yourself

for the time being. That is when you forget yourself, when you laugh

and pick up those gleaming moments of joy. Then, afterwards, you come

back to remember yourself. And that is enough to make you sad!

Whenever I forget myself I am fine and, whenever I remember myself, I

feel sad because of the `I' that I am. Therefore, duhkha-samyoga is my

self-identity. Because I identify with the body-mind-sense-complex,

which is limited, I take myself to be limited and I say, `This is me.'

If this is me, then of course I am duhkhi. Fortunately, however, this

is not me.

When I say `This is me,' then I want to get rid of myself. But how can

you get rid of yourself? Wherever you go, you are there very much.

This is why, wherever you go, you carry your duhkha with you. You do

not even need a situation to cause you duhkha; you just go and it will

be there with you. Furthermore, you will contribute your duhkha to

others, even if you go to a place where everyone is laughing. Sitting

in a corner, you will create duhkha in that place because you have

brought duhkha with you. This, then, is the nature of a samsari. It is

not something unique to a given person. Every samsari, wherever he or

she goes, is going to create duhkha in that place, because he or she

is a duhkhi. Then this is samyoga — the union between atma and anatma

— atma-anatma-samyoga.

The word, duhkhi reveals an `I,' a person. And that person is separate

from what causes the person sorrow, duhkha. The person is what we call

atma and what causes the person duhkha is anatma. And between this

person, this atma, and anatma, there is samyoga. How did the person

get this samyoga? Atma, as we have seen, is pure caitanya,

consciousness. Its nature is consciousness. It does not have any kind

of attribute. If atma had any attribute, it would stick there always

and you would not be able to know anything new. The nature of atma,

consciousness, then, does not have any particular attribute. This

being so, how is it that, this consciousness has samyoga? How is that,

between atma and anatma there is samyoga?

IGNORANCE MAKES THE IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBLE

Consciousness has no samyoga, in fact. Samyoga is possible because of

ignorance, avidya. By definition, ignorance is capable of making the

impossible possible. Avidya is capable of doing anything; it can even

make a snake out of a rope and mirage water out of a desert. Ignorance

can do all these things because, there is a lack of knowledge. This

means that the connection between atma and anatma,

atma-anatma-sambandha, is brought about purely by aviveka, the lack of

discriminative knowledge. Therefore, that there is duhkha-samyoga is

established.

When duhkha-samyoga is established, and I understand this samyoga,

then, the next step is to find the way to withdraw from this duhkha.

But, because the connection itself is born of avidya, there is no

physical withdrawal possible. The association with duhkha being born

of a lack of discrimination, dissociation from the association that

Krsna refers to here as duhkha-samyoga-viyoga can only be by

knowledge. Association with duhkha is due to a self-loss, a

self-confusion, and therefore, a self-not-self identity. That is

resolved by discriminative knowledge. In other words, I have to know

that atma is atma and anatma is anatma, but that atma is not anatma.

Therefore, there is nothing separate from me.

If atma and anatma were two separate entities enjoying the same

reality, then there could be no moksa. Any inquiry would just bring in

one more item because of which one would feel separate. Atma would be

one entity sitting somewhere and the many anatmas would be something

different. Again, you would have the same problem, but you would be

extending it to include the separate entity called atma.

THERE IS ONLY ATMA

Unfortunately, or fortunately, anatma is never separate from atma at

any time. No thought can exist apart from consciousness that is atma.

While one depends upon the other, the other does not depend upon it.

Viyoga means seeing atma as distinct from atma. Now you have a

situation wherein duhkha-samyoga itself is not there — unless you take

the thought or any other anatma as `I.' This is because anatma is not

distinct from atma. This, then, is the yoga of duhkha-samyoga-viyoga,

which is more a dissociation than an association, the binding material

could go away, but since it is a dissociation, there is no possibility

of the mind coming away from atma.

Whatever you are bound to can go away, which is what happens with any

happiness that depends on time and various other conditions. When the

conditions change, any experience, whatever it is, is gone. Therefore,

anything experiential is definitely dependent upon or associated with

conditions, and it will go away. But if it is not experiential, if it

is more a dissociation from your false association, it will not go

away. This dissociation is what is called dissociation by knowledge —

jnanena viyogah. There is nothing physical about it. Because anatma is

atma. You cannot pull atma away from anatma. Nor is there any

necessity to do so because atma is in no way involved with anatma.

This recognition, this knowledge, which is more a dissociation than an

association, is what Krsna calls yoga here. `May one know that

dissociation from the association with sorrow is yoga — tam

duhkha-samyoga-viyogam yogam vidyat,' he says.

THE BINDING FACTOR IS IGNORANCE

If an association with someone or something is a legal association,

then you can only become dissociated from it legally. And if the

association is physical, the dissociation will also be physical. If

two physical objects are brought together, they can be separated by

removing whatever binding factor that closed the physical distance

between them in the first place. Here, the binding factor between atma

and anatma is avidya, ignorance. The binding factor being avidya, what

removes the association is vidya, knowledge.

That yoga, that duhkha-samyoga-viyoga, from which there is no question

of loss, beyond which there is nothing greater, which is an end in

itself, which is yourself, is not an association. It is more a

withdrawal from duhkha; and therefore, it is easy, just as it is

easier to drop something than to lift it. The only problem here is

that the dropping happens to be the dropping of ignorance, dropping

all one's false notions about oneself, which is not easy to do. It is

not just a matter of surrendering them unto the Lord, as some would

have us think.

ERRONEOUS NOTIONS CANNOT BE SURRENDERED

It has been said that in the present age, Kali Yuga, devotion is the

easiest path. You simply surrender to the Lord and He will take care

of everything. But what do you surrender? Whom do you surrender? Since

everything belongs to the Lord, who are you to surrender anything?

This is like my taking your coat and then telling you that I am

surrendering it to you. There is no surrendering here. Then what are

you going to surrender? And where does it go? Whatever is surrendered

does not go anywhere. It all just remains there as it is.

If you surrender something to the Lord and he says, `Thank you,' picks

it up, and goes away, then you may have surrendered something. But he

does not pick up anything; therefore, you do not surrender anything.

And who is it that surrenders? `Myself,' you say. But how are you

going to surrender yourself? This only means that you want to

surrender, perhaps because you think your ego is a little bloated and

needs to be kept in check by performing acts of surrender. But who is

this `I' that has to surrender? I cannot surrender the `I.' There has

to be another `I' to surrender this `I.'

The `I' that wants to surrender is the ahankara, the ego. It is a

false entity; it is not aham, `I,' atma. The ahankara is a notion and

it cannot go away unless you falsify it. This falsification of the ego

is what is called jnana, knowledge, and surrender as well. The yoga

discussed here is also the same. That is the yoga that has to be

undertaken — sa yogah niscayena yoktavyah — meaning that it definitely

has to be practised by you.

Dropping notions about oneself is difficult because ignorance is

involved. At the same time, it is easy because all you have to do is

destroy the ignorance. The destruction of ignorance is only difficult

if your mind is not prepared. Trying to make a two-year-old child

understand that one plus one is two does not work because the child's

mind is not yet prepared, whereas once the child has undergone the

necessary preparation, it is very easy.

LIVING INTELLIGENTLY PREPARES THE MIND

Similarly, if you are already cheerful, it is easy for you to

understand that you are Brahman, that you are the whole. Samsara can

give you this preparation; it can make you a fairly cheerful person —

if you live very intelligently. But, samsara also gives you duhkha

and, if you come to Vedanta to remove this duhkha, Vedanta will just

become another pain in your neck. Vedanta is meant for a cheerful

person because, to understand you are ananda, you have to be fairly

cheerful. Thus, Vedanta is not an answer for the ordinary sorrows of

samsara, which is why there is karma-yoga, which includes as¶anga-yoga

and other such disciplines.

 

to be continued

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

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

Swamiji Dayananda Sarsawati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam for providing his

commentary to benefit the list members. His commentary starts from

verses 19 onwards. Due to length of this article, it is broken up into

three parts. and this is Part III

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

Swamiji's Commentary Part III: (Verses 24 & 25)

SELF-KNOWLEDGE IS THE ONLY PURSUIT THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM

Nor does one have to have all the qualifications — viveka, vairagya,

sama-dama, etc., and mumuksutva in full measure. Such people exist

only on paper. Living a life of karma-yoga means living a religious

life, not a secular life. A prayerful life prepares the mind for the

knowledge that is Vedanta. In the wake of this knowledge, all the

notions about oneself get dropped. Therefore, it is easy and it is

difficult. And it has to be done — yoktavyah. If it is difficult, you

had better go for it because there is nothing more appealing, more

inspiring. And, if it is easy, where is the difficulty? Go for it

also.

 

There is nothing more attractive or more purposeful because the whole

pursuit is for me and is the only one that solves the problem.

And how is this knowledge to be pursued? Niscayena — by understanding

what is real and what is unreal, by knowing with certainty that this

clarity is to be gained by me by viveka, discrimination. Further,

Krsna says, `anirvinna-cetasa — by a mind (cetasa) that is not

dejected, frustrated, tired (anirvinna), by a mind that is not

indifferent, afflicted, or discouraged.' Can you understand all this

without becoming discouraged? Of course you can because it is more a

dissociation, viyoga, from sorrow. Therefore, there is nothing to

discourage you on any score. There is nothing greater either, so, what

is there to be discouraged about? Even if it were discouraging, there

is nothing else available, so, what are you going to do? Thus, without

being discouraged, anirvinna-cetasa, and with a singleness of purpose,

niscayena, this yoga should be undertaken by you, yogah yoktavyah.

In fact, we are always trying to get rid of sorrow, to drop

duhkha-samyoga. We are constantly searching for duhkha-samyoga-viyoga.

This, then, is the yoga that gets rid of the sorrow. Thus, Bhagavan

uses the word `yoga' here in the sense of viyoga, about which he talks

further in the verses to come.

sankalpaprabhavan kamamstyaktva sarvanasesatah

manasaivendriyagramam viniyamya samantatah Verse 24

sanaih sanairuparamed buddhya dhrtigrhitaya

atmasamstham manah krtva na kincidapi cintayet Verse 25

sankalpa-prabhavan — born of thought; sarvan — all; kaman — desires;

asesatah — totally; tyaktva — giving up; manasa — by the mind; eva —

alone; samantatah — completely; indriya-gramam — the group of sense

organs and organs of action; viniyamya — withdrawing; dhrti-grhitaya —

endowed with perseverance; buddhya — with the intellect; sanaih sanaih

— slowly, slowly; uparamet — may one resolve (the mind); atma-samstham

manah krtva — making the mind abide in the self; kincit api — anything

else; na cintayet — may one not think of

Giving up totally all desires, which are born of thought, completely

withdrawing the group of sense organs and organs of action by the mind

alone, with the intellect endowed with perseverance, may one resolve

the mind (in atma). Making the mind abide in the self, may one not

think of anything else.

In verse 23, we saw that yoga, which means `union,' was defined as

dissociation, viyoga, from one's association samyoga with duhkha. In

other words, in the present context, the union is more a dissociation

than an association — dissociation from duhkha, meaning dissociation

from one's identification with the body-mind-sense-complex —

karya-karana-sanghata. Dissociation from this identification, which

takes place by knowledge alone, is called yoga — yoga-samjnitam. This,

then, is the yoga that has to be pursued, sa yogah yoktavyah, Krsna

says.

Krsna also says that this yoga can be pursued without the mind being

afflicted by any sense of despair or discouragement, anirvinna-cetasa.

This is because it is more a dissociation than association. The

pursuit of knowledge is not like climbing Mount Everest; it is more

like dropping a rock that you are holding in your hand. Because it is

more dropping than climbing, it is not as difficult as one might

think. It is simply a question of dissociating oneself from one's own

identity of being only so much. Thus, there is no cause for despair.

Having summarised what he had said before in this way, Krsna begins to

discuss the same topic again. Why? Because this yoga is something that

has to be pursued, certain problems tend to arise; therefore, Krsna

emphasises certain points again and again. In the verse under study,

he presents the same topic in a slightly different form, repeating two

statements made several times before.

THE BASIS OF ALL DESIRES

First, there is the complete giving up of that from which all desires

are born — he says, `sankalpa-prabhavan sarvan kaman asesatah

tyaktva.' We have seen how kama can refer to either a desire itself or

to the object of desire. Here, kama means the desire for objects, the

source of which is sankalpa. From sankalpa alone, desire is born.

Sankalpa is a thought such as, `May this be for me,' `May this come to

me,' etc., which immediately turns into a desire. This source of all

desire, sankalpa is what is given up totally asesatah. Therefore,

renunciation here is in terms of the sankalpa, the basis of the

desire, and not for the desire itself.

Sankalpa is one simple thought and because that thought is capable of

becoming a desire, sankalpa is said to be the root of all desire.

Desire is that which the mind returns to over and over again. Sankalpa

comes and then goes away, but once it becomes a desire, the desire has

to be fulfilled. Therefore, sankalpa is what has to be dealt with.

Sankalpa is dealt with by analysing the thought itself. For instance,

the thought, `May this come to me,' is analysed. By this particular

inquiry, vicara, sankalpa is dealt with.

The desires themselves need not be dealt with. Sankalpa alone is the

problem and therefore, it is the only thing that has to be dealt with.

If you deal with the sankalpa, `May I have this or that,' desires are

not a problem at all. They become only fancies because they are not

backed up by sankalpas. The backing up of a desire is only from your

sankalpa, `May I have this,' which slowly becomes, `I should have

this.' Once this sankalpa has turned into `I should have this,' then

you have had it! Therefore, the sankalpa is to be analysed.

WITHDRAWING THE SENSE ORGANS

Krsna also repeats here that the group of senses are to be completely

withdrawn by the mind alone, manasa eva, meaning by a mind endowed

with discrimination. The common meaning for grama is village, which

does not work here. Therefore, we go for its other meaning, jata,

group, meaning the group of sense organs and organs of action,

indriyani. Indriya-gramam viniyamya, means putting these indriyas in

their place, which is to withdraw them from their respective fields of

activity. Again, then, we have here a piece of advice, to be followed,

with reference to the mind while sitting in meditation. And that is,

seated in meditation, let the mind be brought back to the object of

meditation. Krsna talks about this later.

Withdrawing the sense organs or putting them in their places means

that they do not go towards their various sense objects because the

sanklpas have been taken care of. Because they are withdrawn from all

activity, this withdrawal is described here as total, samantatah.

What is said in verse 24, is intended to cover all that was said

before about how to sit in meditation — the posture, the gaze, etc. —

and is completed in verse 25.

Dhrti means firmness and also dhairya, courage, which imply care and

wisdom as well. Dhrti-grhita, here, means that the buddhi is endowed

with courage, firmness, and wisdom, meaning discrimination, viveka.

With this kind of buddhi, then, the mind is made to abide in atma,

which we shall come back to later.

The use of repetition in this verse, `sanaih sanaih,' meaning `slowly,

slowly,' is typical of Sanskrit. And what does one do slowly, slowly?

May one resolve, uparamet, the mind, meaning oneself, in this

particular way — by making the mind abide in atma, without thinking of

anything else — atma-samstham manah krtva na kincit api cintayet,

thinking only of atma, the object of meditation.

In this verse, two things have to be understood — what are this

courage and discrimination that are required and what does it mean to

place the mind in atma, the object of meditation, dhyeya-visaya. What

kind of placing is involved here? Is the mind to be placed in atma

like one places an orange in a basket? Or is the mind to be placed on

top of atma perhaps? If `atma-samstham manah krtva' is not properly

understood, making the mind abide in atma becomes a very big problem.

But once `atma-samstham manah krtva' is clearly understood, there is

no problem and dhrti also becomes clear.

DEFINITION OF ATMA

In the expression, atma-samstham manah krtva, what does atma mean? It

is that wherein another thing is not heard, yatra anyat na srunoti, as

the Chandogya-sruti points out. It is that wherein another thing is

not seen, yatra anyat na pasyati, wherein another thing is not known,

yatra na anyat vijanati. The sruti also reveals atma as one that is

free from all attributes, nirvisesa, and that is purely in the form of

caitanya, consciousness, alone — cinmatra-svarupa eva.

Then, again, atma is presented as one that is the seer but not the

seen – dras¶a na tu drsyam, the hearer but not the heard – srota na tu

srutam, the knower but not the known – vijnata na tu vijneyam, the

thinker but not the thought – manta na tu mantavyam. This is how the

nature of atma is defined by the sastra.

Given this definition of atma, how can I place the mind upon atma? How

can I even think about atma? To think of atma means that atma becomes

the object of my thought, which contradicts what the sruti says.

Therefore, I cannot think of atma and that is why it is said in the

Taittiriyopanisad that, having not gained atma, all the words come

back, along with the mind — yato vaco nivartante aprapya manasa saha.

It is as though the mind and the words join forces and go after atma,

only to return without it, having found it too tough a nut to crack!

Unfortunately, this is how atma is sometimes presented.

HOW CAN ATMA BECOME AN OBJECT OF ONE'S MEDITATION?

Still, how is one to place the mind upon atma? How can atma become an

object of one's meditation? There is no way of placing the mind upon

atma because the mind is atma. It is not that one takes the mind to

atma and, having had the mind sitting upon it for some time, atma

eventually yields because of the mind's pressure, etc. Some

translations have taken this verse to mean this way and therefore, can

be very misleading.

In the expression atma eva idam sarvam, atma, oneself, is defined as

`all this is atma alone.' `Idam sarvam' implies the knower, jnata, the

knowledge, jnana, and the object of knowledge, jneya. Sarva, meaning

`all,' means all three with nothing left out. Within this sarva is the

seer, the object seen, and seeing – dras¶a, drsya and darsana, the

hearer, the object heard, and hearing – srota, sruta and sravana,

etc., all of which come under jnata, jnana and jneya, knower,

knowledge, and that which is known.

Any object, anything that is there, is jneya, an object to be known

alone. Even what is unknown is known and is therefore, included under

jneya. Thus, we deal with these three, jnata, jnana, and jneya alone.

Jnata, the knower, is non-separate from atma because jnata is atma

alone. And, although we may clearly see the fact that the jnata is

atma, we still think of jnana as belonging to atma, saying `This

knowledge belongs to me. This is my knowledge.' I have the knowledge

of a particular object, a tree. The tree is the object of knowledge

and the vrtti, the knowledge itself, belongs to me. Therefore, I take

myself to be different from this knowledge whose object is the tree.

THE KNOWER, KNOWLEDGE, AND KNOWN ARE ONE

This notion is nullified here by recasting it into an entirely

different mould altogether. And what is this mould? Jnata, jnana,

jneya — all three are made into one atma. Everything is myself alone —

atma eva idam sarvam. Jnata is atma, jnana is atma, and jneya is also

atma.

The example that is always used here is the dream. In dream, there is

a knower of the dream, there is a known dream world, and there is

knowledge of the dream itself. And these three are nothing but one

light, jyotih, one consciousness, caitanya. Consciousness alone is the

knower, known, and the knowledge in dream. All three of them are

nothing but one caitanya-atma alone.

In terms of the dream, this is very clear to you. Getting up, you

understand that the dream knower, the dream known, and the dream

knowledge all resolve into you again. Therefore, jnata is nothing but

consciousness, knowledge, is nothing but consciousness, and jneya is

also nothing but consciousness.

Defined in this way, we understand that consciousness is as though

qualified or limited by the status of being a knower —

jnatr-avacchinna-caitanya. We can refer to this as

knower-consciousness, knowledge-consciousness, and

known-consciousness, there being no knower, knowledge, or known apart

from consciousness. Can a known object ever be separate from

consciousness? It cannot. When the known object is, consciousness is.

When the known object is not, consciousness still is. You can destroy

the object, but you cannot destroy the is-ness.

NOTHING IS SEPARATE FROM EXISTENCE

Thus, with reference to the nature of existence, there is a two-fold

argument, one in terms of existence itself and the other in terms of

knowledge. In terms of existence, no object is apart from what is

existent. For example, when you say, `The table is' or `The chair is,'

the `is-ness' that is there is qualified by the object — the name and

form, nama-rupa, called table or chair. Further, if you analyse what a

chair is, you find that the chair does not have any existence of its

own; only the wood out of which the chair is made has an existence.

And, if you analyse the wood, you find that it also has no existence;

only the pulp from which the wood is made has existence. Similarly,

the particles that form the pulp has existence, whereas the pulp does

not. If you keep on shifting in this way, you find that existence

always remains.

Only that which is self-existent can be called existence, satya, which

is nothing but consciousness, caitanya. Consciousness alone is

self-evident and everything else is evident to the self. Anything that

you come to know, everything that you question, is all for the knower,

the person who is using the pramanas, the various means of knowledge,

to ascertain the validity or the veracity of a particular object or

statement of proof. Whereas, the existence of the very knower requires

no proof. The knower must be a self-evident person. But who is this

knower?

There is a part of the knower that is known to me. I know that I am

the seer of the pot, gha¶a-dras¶a, for which there is a thought

aspect, an adjective, visesa, for the consciousness that is `I.' The

thought aspect is an adjective and the substantive is nothing but

atma, consciousness. Therefore, for the knower there is consciousness,

for the knowledge of course consciousness is present, and for the

known also consciousness, — the self-existent aspect of consciousness

— is present. All three — knower, known, and knowledge — are

non-separate from the presence of consciousness. Appreciation of this

fact is what is meant here by atma-samstham manah krtva.

REDIRECTING THE MIND TO THE VERY BASIS OF THOUGHTS

This appreciation enables me to see the mind, whereas, previously, the

mind was always engaged in thinking about this and that. The mind will

still think about a variety of things, but now my attention is not

upon what I see because I turn it away from the thoughts themselves

and direct it to the very basis of the thoughts. This turning the

attention is what is called dhyana, contemplation. You turn your

attention from the object of thought, whatever it may be, to the basis

of thought.

The basis of thought is consciousness, whereas the object of thought

can be anything, for example, a tree. The object of a tree-thought is

the tree and the basis of the thought is consciousness. Therefore, the

tree-thought is not separate from consciousness, the tree is not

separate from consciousness, and the knower of the tree-thought is not

separate from consciousness, all three being nothing but

consciousness, atma.

This very appreciation is also a thought. And what does this thought

do? It simply destroys the ignorance that the three are separate and

then it resolves. By not thinking of anything else but the oneness of

all three, it resolves. Therefore, Krsna says here, `May one not think

of anything else, na kincit api cintayet.' In fact, there is nothing

else because everything is atma.

The point being made here, of course, is not to move away from the

appreciation of atma as non-separate from everything else because if

you think of something else, this appreciation will go. One can also

appreciate that a certain object is a tree and that he or she is

someone who is looking at the tree, which is true. But, then, the

tree, the thought of the tree, and the atma, the one who looks at the

tree, are all one and the same. Turning one's attention to the basis

of these three is the appreciation, the contemplation, being referred

to in this verse.

In order not to think of anything else, you require dhrti, wisdom

which is gained by exposing the buddhi to the teaching. Only with the

insight gained, with the help of the knowledge alone, can one practice

this contemplation. Dhrti also implies courage here because

contemplation requires a certain steadiness, firmness, or commitment

in order to understand that knower, known, and knowledge are one and

the same, given that our orientation has always been that they are

separate.