Gita Satsang - Chapter 6 : Verses 26-28 Swami Dayananda's commentary

[Guest guest]

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withdrawn by the mind alone, manasa eva, meaning by a mind endowed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.