Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Namaste, On behalf of all of you I sincerely express my appreciation to Swamiji Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidyagurukulam for providing his commentary to benefit the list members. Part I: Verses 26 to 28 regards, Ram Chandran 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 WITHDRAWING THE SENSE ORGANS Krsna also repeats here that the group of senses are to be completely withdrawn by the mind alone, manasa eva, meaning by a mind endowed with discrimination.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. SEEING THE FACT REMOVES THE OBSTACLES Because the orientation that they are one is against our experience, there will naturally be some obstruction in appreciating this fact. Until it becomes clear, we can assume that there is some obstacle, which will be taken care of by seeing the fact. Therefore, we do not worry about the obstacles; we simply keep on attempting to see, for which courage, firmness, and commitment are necessary. To emphasise this point, Sankara defined, sanaih sanaih – slowly, slowly, here as, na sahasa, meaning `not immediately.' When he said, atma-samstham manah krtva, it does not mean that you immediately turn your mind to some object called atma. Atma is not something you can put the mind into or on; the mind itself is atma. There is no job to be done here; there is simply an appreciation. Therefore, a certain inner care is involved, wherein a contemplative atmosphere is created. In this atmosphere, recognition takes place for which no will whatsoever is involved. Slowly, slowly, during the period of time in which contemplation takes place, you take to atma. NO WILL IS REQUIRED IN CONTEMPLATION In meditation, will is only with reference to sitting and other preparations; once these are taken care of, the will does not do anything. In fact, will is the problem and therefore, has to be surrendered to the contemplation itself. The contemplation takes over your will, so to speak. The mind becomes as though possessed. You, as a person, the contemplator, are possessed by that very contemplativeness. Therefore, no will is required here. What will do you require to appreciate something beautiful? None; the very will gets resolved in the appreciation of that which is beautiful, that which is inspiring. What will is there when you have a love for something? Whatever will there is, just resolves. Similarly, in contemplation, you do not push your will in order to gain atma. You do not grind your teeth, roll up your sleeves, sit in your seat of meditation, and say, `Today I am going to get that atma.' There is no such thing. It is not like wanting to do something or gain something that the world has to offer. If you want to do a particular job, for example, you can assert your will and get it done, but you cannot sit down, crush your eyelids together tightly, and say that you are going to get the atma. All that you will get is a headache! A person who tries to gain atma by using his or her will, will not gain atma because the person is atma. Therefore, first one creates contemplativeness, which is taken care of by one's exposure to the teaching. You must know what you are aiming at, conveyed here by atma-samstham manah krtva na kincit api cintayet. Let the appreciation of atma take place in the mind, either by contemplating on the non-separation of knower-known-knowledge or by taking a particular expression such as `satya-svarupoham — I am the truth of everything,' and meditating upon it. This is a contemplation that is in keeping with the teaching. Nothing new, no new knowledge, is created here. Rather, your mind is brought to focus on what is already understood, again and again. This, then, is the meaning of the two expressions in this verse — atma-samstham manah krtva na kincit api cintayet. Having said this much, Krsna adds a little more. yato yato niscarati manascancalamasthiram tatastato niyamyaitadatmanyeva vasam nayet Verse 26 cancalam — always in a state of flux; asthiram — unsteady; manah — the mind; yatah yatah — for whatever (reason); niscarati — goes away; tatah tatah — from that (reason); etat — it (the mind); niyamya — bringing back; atmani — with reference to the self; eva — alone; vasam — into one's own hands; nayet — may one bring For whatever reason the unsteady mind, always in a state of flux, goes away, bringing it back from that, with reference to the self alone, may one bring (the mind) into one's own hands. Here, the mind is being dealt with, because it is the mind that is to be placed in atma, and it is the mind that has to contemplate upon atma. And also it is the mind, manas, that goes away — niscarati. For the mind, Krsna uses two words — cancala and asthira. Cancala means that the mind is always in a state of flux. This is in fact the nature of the mind. This is how the mind is made and it is good that it is made so. Otherwise, you would become stuck in one thought. And, the mind being cancala, it is also asthira, meaning that it is not at all steady. Always being in a state of flux, the mind is not steady, not firm. Thus, both words, cancala and asthira, qualify each other — being in flux, the mind is not steady — cancalatvat asthiram, and being unsteady, the mind is in flux — asthiratvat cancalam. THE MIND ITSELF IS NOT A PROBLEM Krsna further describes the mind here by saying that it goes out, niscarati. That it goes out is not a problem; it is natural. Because the mind's nature is cancala and asthira, it goes away from the chosen object of meditation for whatever reason, yatah yatah. You hear something, the sound of a bird perhaps, and you go along with the sound. You recognise it as the warble of a particular bird, and then you try to identify the kind of bird and so on. Or someone says something and off the mind goes. You do not even need the outside world for the mind to go away; there is a whole world right in your head. Is this not why we have gathered so many lifetime experiences — so that we can sit back and enjoy thinking about them? Even from inside then, all the birds warble; all the people you have ever known do this and that. Therefore, we have enough reasons for the mind to behave as it does. For whatever reason the mind goes away from the object of meditation, and from that reason, from that situation, disciplining it, niyamya, you bring it back. Here, Sankara gives an excellent piece of advice on how to do this. You do not try to pull it back; rather, you look at the very object to which the mind went. Let that itself be your object of attention for the time being. And what do you find? Does it exist independent of consciousness, atma? Does it continue to exist if you question it in this way? No, you find that it becomes mithya and you get back to satya, the truth of it, which is yourself. The entire Veda talks about the subject, object, action, instruments of action, and so on. And then, in the last chapter, it says that all that was said so far is not true, that it is all mithya. By looking into the very thought that took you away, the very object that took you away from the object of meditation, the thought itself, along with its object, is converted into mithya, simply by seeing the truth of it. Therefore, Krsna says that, one should bring the mind back into one's own hands — vasam nayet. As it moves away from you, may you bring it back to the object of meditation, meaning may you return to the contemplation of atma. No force is used here. You just look at whatever took your mind away, thereby converting the object of distraction into the object of meditation. In other words, your attention is turned from the distraction to the very vastu itself — to consciousness. Therefore, you have no problem. What object is going to distract you? By the strength of this practice of meditation, dhyana-yoga, the mind resolves in atma. There is no question of distraction or false identity for the person. The mind remains as a mind alone and, therefore, does not pose any problem. In the next verse, Krsna discusses the results of such meditation: prasantamanasam hyenam yoginam sukhamuttamam upaiti santarajasam brahmabhutamakalmasam Verse 27 prasanta-manasam — one whose mind is tranquil; santa-rajasam — one whose impurities have all resolved; akalmasam — one whose life is free from all defects; brahma-bhutam — one who has become Brahman; enam — this; yoginam — meditator; hi — indeed; uttamam — the most exalted; sukham — happiness; upaiti — reaches Indeed, the most exalted happiness reaches this meditator whose mind is tranquil, whose impurities have all resolved, whose life is free from all defects, who has become Brahman (through knowledge). Here, Krsna says that the most exalted happiness, uttama-sukha, reaches the person as a result of contemplation. This sukha is such that it cannot be compared with any happiness or joy that we know. It is a fullness, purnatva, that is the very svarupa of atma. In any moment of joy or happiness, the seeker-sought difference is resolved, there being nothing but atma even though there is an object or situation involved. Take music, for example. The music is there, the person enjoying the music is there, and the appreciation of the music in the form of thoughts, vrttis, is also there. In this music sukha, the division between these three is resolved; the differences between knower, knowledge, and known experientially coalesce into one whole experience, called sukha. And what makes the experience whole? Atma whose nature is oneness, consciousness, makes it sukha. Sukha is a word that we already know; therefore, it can be used as a definition, a laksana, to point out the svarupa of atma as the wholeness, the limitlessness, that stands undivided between an object and oneself. This undivided whole that is oneself, atma, is pointed out here by the word sukha. Therefore, it cannot be ordinary sukha, the sukha we know in moments of joy. It is not comparable to anything we know because it is atyantika-sukha, absolute sukha, uttama or ultimate sukha, a sukha that is the very nature of atma, svarupa-sukha. AND WHO QUALIFIES FOR ABSOLUTE SUKHA? And whom does this uttama-sukha reach? The person who meditates upon atma described here as prasanta-manas, santa-rajas, brahma-bhuta and akalmasa. Again, as we have seen before, these words describe the person and, at the same time, reveal the results of practising dhyana-yoga and the qualifications required by a person before the knowledge can be gained. A person who is prasanta-manas is one whose mind is resolved, tranquil, for whom the mind poses no problem. Therefore, this uttama-sukha reaches him or her. The person is also santa-rajas, one for whom all the impurities, rajas, are resolved. Sankara defines such impurity as the fascination for things that are totally false, mohadi-klesa, based on one's ragas and dvesas. Whereas the person being described here is one who is no longer in the hands of ragas and dvesas, which is why he or she is akalmasa. Kalmasa means a defect in terms of adharma, papa. Therefore, one whose pursuits in life are not improper is referred to as akalmasa. Such a person can become brahma-bhuta, one who has the niscaya, the definite knowledge that Brahman is everything — idam sarvam brahmaiva. And, because Brahman is everything, I am that Brahman — tat brahma aham asmi. Brahman being everything, I am everything — aham idam sarvam. Knowing this, the person is brahma-bhuta. And this brahma-bhuta, who is akalmasa, santa-rajas, and prasanta-manas, gains uttama-sukha, ananda, it being the svarupa of atma. Because of the knowledge of atma, this sukha as though reaches the person. DOES SUKHA REACH THE PERSON OR DOES THE PERSON GAIN SUKHA? In this particular verse, uttama-sukha is the subject of the sentence and the person it reaches is the object. Generally, we think of uttama-sukha, ananda, as something that must be gained, but here it is said that it reaches you, which is a different thing altogether. You become the object and ananda becomes the subject, the agent of the action of reaching. Thus the question may arise, does ananda reach me or do I reach ananda? In fact, either way is correct, as we shall see in the next verse: yunjannevam sadatmanam yogi vigatakalmasah sukhena brahmasamsparsamatyantam sukhamasnute Verse 28 evam — in this manner; sada — always; atmanam — the mind; yunjan — connecting; vigata-kalmasah — free from the conflicts born of adharma; yogi — the meditator; sukhena — easily; brahma-samsparsam — (born of) contact with (recognition of) Brahman; atyantam — absolute; sukham — happiness; asnute — gains The meditator, free from the conflicts born of adharma, always connecting the mind in this manner, easily gains absolute happiness (born of) contact with (recognition of) Brahman. In the previous verse, the karta, the subject, was uttama-sukha and the object, karma, was the yogi, the meditator, who receives the sukha. Whereas, in this verse, the karta is the yogi and the object gained is atyanta-sukha, atyanta being a synonym for uttama to complete the metre. Why does Krsna say that this sukha reaches the yogi in one verse and that the yogi gains it in the next? Does this mean there is some confusion about who is the karta, and who is the karma? No. He expresses the result of contemplation in both senses in order to resolve whatever confusion there may be, in fact. By saying uttama-sukha reaches the yogi, the yogi becomes an object. Now, does that mean that ananda comes and overwhelms the person? If so, there is a problem. It means that the meditator is drowned in the ananda. In other words, the ananda got the person! When one looks at it this way, the person seems to be an object, which is not so. The person is the only subject in the world; therefore, he or she cannot be the object. To make this clear, Krsna also puts it the other way, saying that the yogi gains ananda, uttama-sukha, which means that the difference between karta and karma is not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.