Gita Satsang - Ch. 6 - v. 35-36 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 III: Verse 35-36

 

ARJUNA'S PROBLEM IS UNIVERSAL

If Arjuna's mind was nothing but agitation, what about those minds

given to the modern phenomenon called stress? Something happens in

Iran and, having read about it in the morning paper, you are already

upset before you even have your shower! Anyone living in today's

world, where the input is so much, can identify with Arjuna's problem

and ask the same question. The problem is very well known, as Sankara

also confirms. In Arjuna's time the question was relevant. In

Sankara's time it was relevant. And today it is relevant. In fact, the

nature of the mind being what it is, it will always be relevant.

Therefore, one has to know the ways of the mind by paying attention to

it and gain a certain mastery.

In the next verse, Krsna answers Arjuna's question about how to manage

the mind:

sribhagavanuvaca

asamsayam mahabaho mano durnigraham calam

abhyasena tu kaunteya vairagyena ca grhyate Verse 35

sribhagavan — Lord Krsna; uvaca — said;

mahabaho — O Mighty-armed! (Arjuna); asamsayam — no doubt; manah —

mind; durnigraham — very difficult to control; calam — agitated; tu —

but; kounteya — O Son of Kunti! (Arjuna); abhyasena — by practice; ca

— and; vairagyena — by objectivity; grhyate — is mastered

Sri Bhagavan said:

No doubt, O Mighty-armed (Arjuna), the agitated mind is very difficult

to control. But, O Son of Kunti, by practice and objectivity, it is

mastered.

Here, Krsna first addresses Arjuna as `O Mighty-armed! — mahabaho.'

Being a great warrior, Arjuna was of course considered to be mighty.

But his might, his strength, should include his mastery over his mind.

One's strength may be useful for knocking the heads of others, but it

is not enough to take care of one's own silly mind. Krsna confirms

this here by saying, asamsayam, `no doubt,' indicating that there was

no doubt that the mind is restless and difficult to master.

Who says the mind is not restless? To recognise that the mind is

restless is to have won half the battle. Suppose someone tells me that

his or her mind is agitated and I say that getting agitated is not

good at all, that it does not solve anything and therefore, do not get

agitated. All that will happen is that the person will become more

agitated! What use is such advice? It is not as though the person

wants to get agitated. Therefore, this particular advice is useless.

Telling someone not to get agitated does not help at all. Whereas, if

one accepts agitation as the nature of the mind, half the battle is

won.

ACCEPTANCE IS THE FIRST STEP

In the programme of recovery sponsored by Alcoholics Anonymous, the

first step is for the person to say that he or she has no power over

alcohol. This has to be accepted first; otherwise, there is no hope of

recovery. The same thing is true with everything, not just alcohol. I

have no power over anger. I have no power over this restless mind.

When I accept this, then half the battle is won.

Krsna accepts this one great psychological fact — that the nature of

the mind is agitation. One does not try to remove the agitation; one

simply accepts that it is agitation. Do not get agitated over

agitation, thinking that it is something you are going to solve. Also,

do not think that your mind is something peculiar, because, it is not.

Any mind is agitation. Agitation is the nature of the mind because the

mind has to change, it is meant to change. Try to imagine a mind that

has a constant thought. A constant thought means that you cannot see

anything else. Ten miles ago, you saw one tree, and still the tree is

right in front of you! Nothing else is there, no car, no person,

nothing. You would not even survive with such a mind.

The mind must necessarily change. Just as in a movie, the frame must

always be changing at a certain speed for you to be able to see

objects, movement, etc., here too, the mind has to keep changing all

the time so that you can see. This is why the mind is called ksanika.

One particular thought is always ksanika, meaning that it does not

even last for a second. Just to say the word `second,' involves so

many parts, so many frames, so many changes — all of which are

ksanika. This is the nature of the vrtti, the thought. Even to

recognise this fact, the mind has to be ksanika.

Since the nature of the mind is ksanika, naturally it is going to

change. Therefore, Krsna says, `There is no doubt about it, Arjuna,

the mind is cala, cancala, restless.' The word cala also means

agitation. `And, being cala, it is very difficult to control — manah

durnigraham calam,' he said. In other words, he agrees with what

Arjuna has said about the mind, that it is as difficult to have

mastery over the mind as over the wind. By repeating what Arjuna has

said, he is saying that the nature of the mind should be accepted as

such. Accept the fact that the mind is agitation, that it has its own

roots, that it has its own logic, and that therefore, it is never

illogical.

We always think the mind is illogical, but that is not correct. The

mind does have its own logic. If we suddenly think of something, we

think that the thought has come from nowhere. But it has not come from

nowhere; it has come from somewhere, meaning there is some logic for

it. But, why, when nothing has happened outside, when everything is

calm, do I suddenly have this thought? This simply means that outside

situations are not required for a thought to occur. We have enough

going on inside for this to happen! Why, for example, in the midst of

meditation, do I suddenly think of okras? And why, when I am talking

and wanting to come up with some funny word, did this word `okra' come

to me? There must be some logic for it. The point here is that

whatever suddenly occurs in your head has its own logic.

THERE IS NOTHING ILLOGICAL IN THE WORLD

There is nothing illogical in this world; there is always some logic.

Originally, of course, everything is illogical, but then, afterwards,

it is all logical. Within the illogical, we find there is a logic.

That is, we understand that when something occurs, there is some

reason for it. We must understand, then, that the mind is like this;

this is its nature.

Does this mean that I should leave the mind as it is? We could say,

`Yes; the mind is agitation. Forget about it. Do not worry about it.'

The problem, however, is that when the mind is agitation, I am

agitation. Therefore, we have to learn to discover the distance

between the mind and `I.' This is the whole trick here, which is why

Krsna tells Arjuna that the mind can be mastered by practice and

objectivity — abhyasena tu kaunteya vairagyena ca grhyate.

CARING FOR THE CHILD WITHIN

By addressing Arjuna here as Kaunteya, meaning the son of Kunti, Krsna

is indicating that the child was still there in Arjuna, which is where

the mind has its own roots. This child has to be taken care of by the

person. Therefore, there is double child care. When you were a child,

someone else took care of you, but now you have to take care of your

inner child. The first child care is done by one's parents or certain

other adults, whereas this child care must be done by the person.

Everyone nurses a child inside and that child has to be taken care of;

everyone has to do it.

There is always a child who was disappointed in his or her

perceptions, `My mother does not like me. My father hates me.' These

were the child's perceptions and, because of the behaviour of the

people involved, they have some validity. This is why the child

remains inside the person. There is always a crying child, a weeping

child, down below, which is why the mind suddenly takes off —

especially when you reach the age of 35 years and over. This is the

time that all the disappointments of the child come out one by one.

And if you begin to study Vedanta, they all come out!

Studying Vedanta means that you look at yourself. Previously, you were

doing other things. Looking at yourself is the first thing that must

be done here, which is when the child comes out. When else will this

child be taken care of? It has to be taken care of; it has to be

addressed. Otherwise, you become seventy-five years old and are

still a child. This, then, is the point Krsna is making here by

calling Arjuna, as Kaunteya. First, he refers to Arjuna as an adult,

mahabaho, and then asks him to take care of the child by addressing

him as Kaunteya.

Krsna then tells Arjuna how this is to be done, saying that by

practice and objectivity the mind can be mastered — abhyasena

vairagyena ca grhyate. And what is this practice, abhyasa? The

practice is the practice of yoga just discussed by Krsna, through

which a certain distance is gained between your mind and yourself.

This distance enables you to look at yourself positively, to see

yourself exactly as you are, to see what the nature of `I' is. In this

way, you come to understand that every thought is you, no doubt, but

that you are free from thought. Seeing this particular fact more and

more, seeing it inside very clearly, is what is meant by abhyasa,

practice. Seeing this particular situation — thought being `I,' while

`I' is not any thought — is what is called nididhyasana. And doing the

same thing again and again is called abhyasa, which enables you to

gain mastery over your mind — abhyasena grhyate.

PRACTICE OF JAPA

Here the practice, abhyasa, of japa can also be included. Because the

mind's nature is not predictable, what your next thought will be is

also not predictable. It can be anything. And, since the next thought

can be anything, since you cannot predict what it will be, you create

a predictable situation. Then only can you understand how the mind

moves, etc. In this way, you get to have a certain hold over the mind,

over the thinking process itself. This is why the mental repetition of

a given mantra, a meaningful name, word, or sentence, called japa, is

a must and is never given up, even by a sannyasi.

THE USEFULNESS OF A MANTRA

A brahmacari has a mantra, a grhastha has a mantra, a vanaprastha has

a mantra, and a sannyasi also has a mantra. There is no one who is

without a word that is meaningful, either chosen by the person or

given to that person. A particular mantra is important because it

gives you a certain hold. That is why japa of some sort is common to

all traditions; it gives you this particular capacity of knowing

exactly what is going to happen next. It is the only situation where

the mind is predictable.

Even when you find yourself dwelling upon a particular object, you do

not know what your next thought is going to be. And when you decided

to dwell upon a given object, to inquire into it, you are not very

clear about how the inquiry is going to proceed. Whereas, here,

repetition being what it is, you have a definite occupation. This

gives you a handle over the mind so that when it moves away, you

understand what is happening, and again, and again, you bring it back

to the object of meditation.

Here, atma is `as though' the object of meditation in order to make

the mind abide in the atma — to make the mind atma-samstha. This

abhyasa, this practice, is the meditation that is in keeping with the

teaching.

The repetition itself is called abhyasa. Even is Sanskrit grammar,

abhyasa means duplication. Because of this abhyasa, you learn the ways

of the mind; you come to have some insight about it. In this

particular abhyasa, even the object of distraction becomes an object

of meditation, as discussed earlier. Wherever the mind goes, there I

turn my attention — yatra yatra mano yati tatra tatra samadhayah. This

turning the attention from one thing to another becomes contemplation

in which the attention moves from the object to the very basis of the

object, atma. Therefore, there is no real distraction.

CONTEMPLATION IS APPRECIATION OF A FACT

In this way, the distance between the thought and the self becomes

very clear. `The thought is this; thought is not everything; thought

is imbued with the self'— this becomes very clear. And, if I turn my

attention towards the self, it becomes contemplation. I appreciate the

self as independent of the thought. The more you appreciate this fact,

thought becomes purely a role; it is not taken as everything. This is

the distance that we come to know, a distance that does not imply

physical distance or a particular condition of the mind. It is

insight, appreciation itself, and this appreciation becomes the

reality. This, then, is the practice that Krsna says would enable one

to master the mind.

WHY THE MIND WANDERS

The second means for making the mind abide in itself, mentioned here

by Krsna, is vairagya, objectivity. Why does the mind go here and

there in the first place? The mind goes elsewhere purely due to lack

of interest. The nature of the mind is to go wherever there is some

kick, wherever there is something more interesting. Some interest must

be there and towards that it goes. Thus, without your trying to dwell

upon anything in particular, the mind naturally goes towards the

objects that it finds more interesting.

The mind goes towards an object of love and towards an object of pain

also, since pain means that something requires attention. These are

the two places towards which the mind goes without any effort on your

part. Why? Because one is interesting and the other requires

attention. In an object of love there is a certain joy, a certain

pleasantness, to which the mind naturally goes. And, towards any

object that hurts you or has hurt you, the mind also goes quite

naturally. One is positive, whereas the other, being something that

requires attention, is negative.

Objects of pain can be taken care of by abhyasa, whereas vairagya is

with reference to objects of love. By abhyasa, a certain distance can

be developed between oneself and the pain, although this may take some

time. Vairagya is mentioned here separately because the source of all

desires for happiness and security is what we call sobhanadhyasa,

meaning that you superimpose certain attributes upon various objects

in the world, and then think these will bring you happiness and

security. That a particular object is going to make me more secure is

one such attribute. Or, by achieving this or that, I am going to be

different; I am going to become somebody. I am going to be acceptable

to myself and to others, first to others and thereby to myself.

WHY WE SEEK ACCEPTANCE FROM OTHERS

This seeking acceptability from others is nothing but self-acceptance,

self-acceptance through others. Why should anyone accept you? So that

you can accept yourself. Therefore, seeking the acceptance of others

can always be reduced to self-acceptance. Whether you seek the

acceptance of others or you seek self-acceptance, it amounts to

self-acceptance alone. Thus, either you seek acceptance through others

or you yourself understand that you do not accept yourself and try to

find out whether the self is acceptable, which is the real way of

dealing with the problem in fact.

Seeking self-acceptance, then, we superimpose certain attributes upon

certain objects, thinking that a particular object is capable of

giving something more than it can really give. Superimposing

attributes that do not belong to the objects is what we call adhyasa.

When what is superimposed, adhyasta, is something positive, according

to your thinking, it is called sobhanadhyasa, meaning that which is

very pleasing, for which there is a certain enchantment and

infatuation. This infatuation or obsession is nothing but a

superimposition, sobhanadhyasa.

THE MEANING OF VAIRAGYA, OBJECTIVITY

The absence of sobhanadhyasa is what is meant by vairagya. Vairagya

enables one to separate the objective attributes of any object from

the subjective superimpositions one may have placed upon it. When

superimposed attributes are understood as attributes that are

superimposed, the object is reduced to its own status.

To think, for example, that the absence of money makes you a nobody is

not true. The absence of money makes you money-less, that's all. This

is a fact — the absence of money makes you money-less. Money-less, I

cannot buy things, is another fact, which can be followed by still

more facts. That you cannot buy is true and that you cannot buy on

credit is also true, since you have no money to pay later. Even if you

buy on credit and do not pay it back, the time will come when you

cannot buy on credit either. Who is going to give you credit if you do

not pay? Endlessly, then, one can talk about facts.

But, that I am a nobody is not a fact; it is a superimposition. The

feeling of being a nobody is something very intimate because one has a

stereotype of success, a conditioning that takes place by growing up

in a society where money is respected with awe and wonder. In such a

society, a person's success is talked about only in terms of money. To

value money in this way is meaningless really. Any Mafia Don, any

mercenary or hit-man, may also have a lot of money. Just because a

person has money does not mean that the person is successful.

Nevertheless, this is the orientation of some societies in the world.

There is also another orientation that to be money-less is something

wonderful. This orientation holds that without money one should be

able to live one's life. Therefore, the person who lives without

money, even a beggar who lives in the streets, is highly praised. This

orientation is equally silly. Both orientations place a value on

money, which is a problem. The problem is not the money itself; money

is just money. It is neither the problem, nor the solution, although

money can solve some problems, like anything else. Even a toothpick

can solve certain problems.

THE SUPERIMPOSITION IS NOT DELIBERATE

Therefore, to think that money is the source of the problem is not

correct. There is a superimposition here, which is not deliberately

done by a person, but is something innate in a psyche that is exposed

to a certain value structure obtaining in a given society, causing the

person to place an attribute on money that is not really there. This

superimposition, sobhanadhyasa, has to be neutralised by looking at

money as money is, nothing more. To say that money has no value is

just another adhyasa. You are seeing something that is not true.

Similarly, if you add something more to money than is really there, it

is also adhyasa. Reducing the objects to their own status is enough.

By doing this, you will find in yourself a certain dispassion, which

is vairagya.

A person is dispassionate in the sense that he or she is objective in

his or her judgements. Vairagya is understood more in terms of

objectivity. Unless we understand its meaning clearly, there will be

more problems. It does not mean that there are no desires. To think so

means that every desire becomes a new source of problems! We are not

creating ideals here, which would only further distance ourselves from

ourselves. Therefore, we must be careful not to pick up any further

confusion here. Vairagya means to be free of the longing that implies

superimposition, sobhanadhyasa. And this is accomplished by

neutralising the sobhanadhyasa, thereby judging situations properly.

NEUTRALISING THE SUPERIMPOSITION

Any object of liking can become an object of obsession, sooner or

later, and therefore, a problem. There are books being written today

about people who love too much, meaning they cannot love at all.

Because they cannot keep an object of love in its proper perspective,

it becomes a problem for them. The object of love can consume a person

so completely that it becomes an obsession, leading to attempts to

control, vying for position, etc.

To neutralise a sobhanadhyasa, one has to understand the difference

between the objective value and the subjective imposition of values

upon the object. And how is it possible to see this difference?

Sankara defined vairagya here as the capacity to repeatedly see the

limitations in both the seen and unseen objects of enjoyment, meaning

here and in the hereafter — vairagyam nama drs¶a-adrs¶a-bhogesu

dosa-darsana-abhyasat vaitrsnyam.

Limitations here refer to what a given object can and cannot give. Any

object has some virtues, gunas, and some defects, dosas, or

limitations. Therefore, one must see these limitations clearly. For

example, money can buy, but it cannot make you enjoy. Seeing this is

what makes you dispassionate. And, once you are dispassionate, then

your relationship with money is proper. It is an objective

relationship, which is what we are talking about.

SEEING THINGS AS THEY ARE

The capacity to look at things as they are is called objectivity.

There is no judgement involved here, just an understanding of things

as they are. This objectivity is especially important in terms of our

subjective values because we do not know the objects of these values

as they really are. We are not concerned here with the physical

structure of objects, only with the value we superimpose upon them.

When I look at a given object, I see that there are a lot of

projections involved. Therefore, I see these projections for what they

are and I deal with them. By separating them in this way, I can look

more objectively at how the object is going to make my life any better

than it is now. Doing this again and again is abhyasa and seeing the

limitations of the objects is vairagya. Repetition is essential

because the subjective value does not go away just like that. This is

because the value is something that is not deliberately imposed upon

the object by you.

OBJECTIVITY AND SUBJECTIVITY

Suppose you buy a piece of bronze, thinking it is an antique. In fact,

it has been oxidised to make it look very old. An ear has been cut,

the nose poked, and some scratches put on it to make it look as though

it has fallen down a few times. All of this has been deliberately done

to increase its value. And you buy it, thinking it is an ancient

piece. And when you realise that it is not an antique, you are

disappointed and experience a sense of loss. Now, what did you lose

here? Only the subjective value that you had superimposed on it. The

bronze does have a certain objective value. Thinking it is an antique,

you had placed a subjective value on it. That subjective value has

little or nothing to do with the objective value of the object. To

think of a simple piece of bronze as something great is purely

subjective, nothing more.

People do the same thing with blue jeans, buying new jeans that have

been made to look old. These jeans may even come with patches! Why? To

make it look as though you have been around, for which you are

prepared to pay a higher price. Again, this is purely a subjective

value. From this we can understand the difference between the

objective and subjective value of an object.

Previously you looked at the piece of bronze as an antique and now,

knowing it is not an antique, you look at it as bronze. The object

itself is the same as when you bought it — it had no ear then and it

has no ear now! Only in your look is there a change. For all you know,

it may be an antique. Perhaps the person who told you that it is not,

wants to take it off your hands and sell it for a fortune! If this

were to happen, you would feel like a fool — if you find out, of

course. In the realm of subjective value, anything is possible.

The point I am making here is that if the vision of the object as an

antique goes away, then the attitude you will have is dispassion

towards the object. If it is an antique, it is an antique — there is

no problem. You simply look at it as an antique. That, society has

jacked up the price because of the subjective value placed upon it,

need not concern you at all. Whereas if you are an antique collector,

everything about you becomes antique!

There are people who want to collect and own certain objects to the

point that it becomes an obsession with them. They call it an

investment, but they will not part with it. For something to be an

investment, you have to be able to sell it, but they will not sell

because they have developed such an attachment for the object. There

is no investment here; there is only a new problem that has been

created. Only when the antique buddhi goes away, when the person can

look at the object objectively, can there be vairagya.

VAIRAGYA IS KNOWING THAT AN OBJECT IS JUST AN OBJECT

When a subjective value superimposed upon an object is gone, then the

object is just the object. This holds for all objects. That there is

sobhanadhyasa, a superimposition that has taken place naturally, an

extra attribute that does not really exist in the object, has to be

recognised. Therefore, again and again, I see the object as it is.

And, in the wake of this knowledge, the superimpositions go.

This does not mean that you need to continually remind yourself, `This

is not an antique, this is not an antique.' Such a japa you need not

do. But, with reference to money, power, and the acceptance of others,

abhyasa and vairagya are both necessary. Seeing the limitations of

objects and situations, over and over again, is very important if one

is to master the mind. Repetition is necessary because the

superimposition is not a deliberate thing; it is not a mistake that

you have made by taking something to be more valuable than it is. If

it were a mistake, a one time correction is adequate. Then there is

objectivity. But, here, it is not by a one time mistake that there is

superimposition. It is by your being what you are, a psychological

being, very firmly rooted in terms of your concept of success.

All concepts of success and vairagya, dispassion, are within the range

of psychology alone. Vairagya is nothing but the emotional growth of

the person. Growth is strictly in terms of understanding the

limitations of an object or situation, again and again, until the

superimposition falls apart. Then the world does not have a hold over

you. Otherwise, the mind runs towards certain objects naturally

because they have been given such importance by the society.

There is a certain pain involved with reference to certain old objects

— what you could not get before, what you have lost in the past —

which can cause problems in the mind. Whereas, if vairagya is there,

the old failures, those things that were sources of some pain for you,

fall apart and new objects also do not have any hold over you. This is

what is meant by seeing the limitations, dosa-darsana, again and

again, thereby bringing about a cognitive change, which frees the mind

to a greater extent.

By abhyasa and vairagya, then, the mind can be mastered, manah

grhyate. The mind that is always chattering, always preaching, the

mind that is in the form of agitation because it is away from the

dhyeya, the object of meditation, atma, this mind, this agitation,

that is so difficult to master, can be mastered. But you cannot simply

sit there and expect the mind to take care of itself. You have to pay

some attention to it, as Krsna says here.

asamyatatmana yogo dusprapa iti me matih

vasyatmana tu yatata sakyo'vaptumupayatah Verse 36

asamyata-atmana — by the one for whom the mind is not mastered; yogah

— yoga; dusprapah — difficult to gain; iti — thus; me — My; matih —

vision; tu — whereas; vasyatmana — by the one whose mind is mastered;

yatata — by the one who makes effort; upayatah — with the proper means

(i.e., practice and objectivity); avaptum sakyah — (it) can be gained

Yoga is difficult to gain for the one by whom the mind is not

mastered. This is My vision. Whereas it can be gained by the one whose

mind is mastered, who makes effort with the proper means (i.e.,

practice and objectivity).

One who does not practice meditation, abhyasa, and who does not have

objectivity, vairagya, is called asamyata-atma in this verse, meaning

that the mind is not brought under control. And can the mind be

brought under control? Yes, Krsna says, but with difficulty — it is

dusprapa. Furthermore, unless the mind is mastered, it is not possible

to gain the yoga being discussed here, the capacity to see the

sameness that exists in all beings and in which all beings exist. What

Krsna says here is his vision, mati, which is not the same as an

opinion since it is not something that can be contended and dismissed.

By the practice of abhyasa and vairagya, the mind is brought into

one's own hands, which is why the person who can do this is also

called vasya-atma here. Such a person is always alert. Alertness is

something that should always be with you, not something practised for

a period of time. For example, you cannot say that you practised

alertness for six years and it was very good, just as you cannot say

you practised breathing for six years. It is not as though you give up

breathing after having practised it for some time; it is your very

life. Alertness is the same. By such a person who continues to

maintain this alertness, yatata, by the one who has a certain mastery

over his mind, vasyatmana, it is possible to gain the vision of

sameness, yogah avaptum sakyah..