Gita Satsang - Ch. 6 - v. 33-34 Swami Dayanandasarawati's commentary

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

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

Pujyaswami Dayanandasaraswati for providing his commentary to

benefit the list members.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Part I: Verse 33 and 34

 

INSECURITY IS THE PROBLEM

That you cannot hurt another without being hurt in the process is a

fact for which there is a very simple rule: all human beings must

follow what we call the order of dharma. This is the common basis for

everyone, although it is not commonly pursued because of a fundamental

insecurity. This fundamental insecurity is the human problem. The

insecure person acts in unbecoming ways because there are priorities

for the person, based on likes and dislikes. Wherever these priorities

are, there will be confusion in terms of values, unless the person

frees himself or herself from the sense of being small. The person who

does this sees the sameness in all beings always — sarvatra samam

pasyati. It is very clear to such a person that whatever is good for

himself or herself, is good for others also. This, then, is the yogi

whom Krsna praises here.

Even a mature person who tries to follow dharma will breach it now and

again because some priority or other will always be there. Thus, you

find that there is legitimate criticism, legitimate hurting. Because

you cannot always take the hurt, sometimes you will hurt back, and

this is considered to be legitimate in human interaction. Only a jnani

is able to view sukha or duhkha in the same manner and, therefore,

only a jnani can be free. This is why, with reference to all people,

he or she is considered to be the most exalted — sa yogi paramo matah.

Thus, we have these two ways of looking at the verse — the first in

keeping with the sastra and the other in terms of behaviour. One

refers to the vision of the person and the other is expression in

one's interaction.

This much having been said, the topic of dhyana-yoga, meditation,

contemplation, is complete. In fact, Krsna has actually covered the

topic twice, in two different ways. Thinking that he had done a good

job Krsna may have sat back a bit. Seeing that Krsna had finished,

Arjuna thinks it is a good time to ask a question, and does so in the

next two verses. These verses make the nature of Arjuna's problem very

clear.

arjuna uvaca

yo'yam yogastvaya proktah samyena madhusudana

etasyaham na pasyami cancalatvatsthitim sthiram Verse 33

arjunah — Arjuna; uvaca — said;

madhusudana — O Slayer of Madhu! (Krsna); tvaya — by you; samyena —as

sameness; yah ayam yogah — this yoga; proktah — which was talked

about; etasya — of this; sthiram — steady; sthitim — state (vision);

cancalatvat — due to agitation; aham — I;

na pasyami — do not see

Arjuna said:

This yoga that you have talked about as sameness, O Krsna, I do not

see its steady vision due to agitation.

Here, Arjuna presents his problem, saying that this vision of sameness

that Krsna had just talked about was not as simple as it seemed, given

the condition of his own mind. He describes his mind as agitated,

cancala. In fact later he is going to say, `agitation is mind.'

Because of this agitation, Arjuna does not think that, there is any

such thing as a steady vision of sameness and, even if there were, it

would be very difficult to deal with his mind in order to gain such a

vision.

Arjuna presents a problem that everyone can identify with, one that is

very common for anyone who has a mind. What Krsna had taught thus far

seemed to have gone into Arjuna's head, but still he has a very valid

doubt. For him, the whole teaching seems to boil down to two things —

the mind that is composed and steady is the proper receptacle for this

knowledge and the knowledge had to be clear. This clarity could

perhaps be gained easily by proper inquiry, etc. — if the mind were

composed and steady. Therefore, Arjuna's question relates to the means

for making the mind steady.

He finds his mind very turbulent. He also says that, it has its own

roots. This proves that what is considered to be modern psychology can

also be found in the Gita. The mind does not seem to follow any

rational way of operating. One may reason very clearly about how silly

the mind can be, but still it has its own roots and its own modes of

thinking. Therefore, Arjuna is asking, in a sense, whether there is a

means, upaya, for making this mind steady enough to gain the

knowledge.

HOW DOES ONE GAIN THE MIND THAT CAN GAIN THE VISION?

Introducing Arjuna's question, Sankara indicates that the yoga Krsna

has been discussing thus far, that is, seeing the sameness in

everything, has the status of being difficult to gain. Seeing that it

is thus difficult to gain — yathoktasya samyag-darsana-laksanasya

yogasya duhkha-sampadyatam alaksya — Arjuna wants to know the ways and

means of gaining a mind that will easily assimilate this knowledge.

That which is common in everything, the truth of everything, is called

samyag-darsana or atma-darsana, the vision of the sameness that is

Brahman, that is atma. Because this vision is gained through the mind,

Arjuna wants to know how to gain that particular frame of mind through

which the knowledge could be gained.

Arjuna addresses Krsna as Madhusudana, meaning the destroyer of Madhu,

the name of a particular demon Krsna had slain. Madhu also means honey

and is another name for the ego, ahankara, in Sanskrit. Everyone loves

his or her own ego and wants to fatten it up, it seems. As a teacher,

then, Krsna was capable of destroying the ahankara, the false ego,

with right knowledge. That is why Arjuna addresses him as Madhusudana

here.

Arjuna wants Krsna to know that he does not think he could have this

abiding vision of sameness. Occasionally, he might gain a little

insight, but he knows that his mind does not remain steady for very

long. Not only does Arjuna not see how this vision could remain

steady, but he also knows the reason. It is because, his mind is

always in a state of agitation — cancalatvat. Because his mind was

always in this state, he does not see the possibility of an abiding

vision. The mind seems to have its own logic, its own roots, and even

though he might gain some knowledge, that knowledge seems to have its

own quarters, with no connection between the two. Naturally, then,

Arjuna wants to know what could be done about this.

Further, Arjuna says:

cancalam hi manah krsna pramathi balavad drdham

tasyaham nigraham manye vayoriva suduskaram Verse 34

krsna — O Krsna!; hi — as we all know; manah — mind; cancalam — is

agitated; pramathi — tyrant; balavat — strong; drdham — well-rooted;

aham — I; tasya — of it; nigraham — control; vayoh iva — like the

wind; suduskaram — too difficult (impossible) to do; manye — think

As we all know, Krsna, the mind is `agitation,' a strong, well-rooted

tyrant. I think of it as impossible to control as the wind.

Using a rather long compound, Sankara defines Krsna here as

bhakta-jana-papadi-dosa-akarsanah, one who removes, akarsati, all the

limitations, dosa, such as sins, etc., papadi, of people who are his

devotees, bhakta-janas. This, then, is why the Lord is called Krsna in

the Gita.

The words pramathi, balavat, and drdha are attributes of the mind that

Arjuna talks about. Not only is the mind cancala, it is also a tyrant,

pramathi — that which shakes one up. To say that the mind is agitated

is not enough. In fact, the mind is agitation.

The mind has the capacity to bring one's senses, body, reason,

everything, under its control; it just takes charge of everything.

One's reason does not seem to have any say over this mind. For

instance, no one volitionally wants to become sad, but one is sad. No

one wants to be angry, but one is angry. Emotions like sorrow and

anger are all conditions of the mind and seem to have a hold over the

person. One's culture, upbringing, status, and knowledge do not seem

to have any say when one is angry.

In fact, one's culture seems to be totally forgotten and an entirely

new language emerges — one that is not found in any dictionary! This

language, although generally understood by everyone, since everyone

uses it occasionally, is usually kept suppressed. Culture implies

language, but when a person becomes angry and uses such unbecoming,

unexpected language, the person's culture is gone. No matter how

refined and cultured, no matter how manicured and pedicured, all the

culture the person has ever cultivated is nowhere to be seen in

moments of anger.

The person's knowledge also is not available at such times. Everyone

knows very well that sadness does not produce a desirable result. The

sadder one is the more problems one has. No one has solved any problem

through sorrow. This is all very clear, very rational, as Krsna

himself had said when he first began his dialogue with Arjuna saying,

`You grieve for those who should not be grieved for and yet you speak

words of wisdom — asocyan anvasocastvam prajnavadan ca bhasase.'

Everyone knows this and other people tell you also. But sadness seems

to be something that does not take your permission. If it did, you

would definitely not give it. Who wants to be sad? Only when

permission is sought is there a question of you granting it or not.