Report of a Gita Satsang - Part I of 2

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

This is a recollected report of a Gita Satsangh to which I

was invited on Sunday last at Wilmington, DE as a guest

speaker. Since I was not ready for a speech directed at

the distinguished members of the satsangh (about 35 of

them) most of whom were themselves quite knowledgeable

about a good part of the Gita, it was suggested that right

away we may allow some questions to be asked and that might

be used as a jumping board for us for further discussion.

The very first question raised was itself enough to

generate an hour-long discussion. About seven or eight

persons participated in the discussion very actively. Most

of the others were silent listeners. In the following, the

names of the speakers are not identified. But each

paragraph pertains to one person’s observation or remark or

question. Only the sequence of discussion is maintained

below. The same person might have spoken in several turns.

Every one had a book of the Gita on hand. And here starts

the satsang.

 

It has been very often mentioned by speakers that silent

meditation has more spiritual value than vocalised japa.

But when we try to do silent meditation it becomes very

difficult to concentrate. What shall we do? And what is

silent meditation?

 

That is exactly what shloka #25 of the sixth chapter says.

Slowly and gradually – shanaiH shanaiH –one should withdraw

from all external distractions – uparamet. This should be

done by the exercise of intellect – buddhyA. And the

intellect is to be monitored and controlled by a will-power

-- dhRRiti-gRRihItayA. ‘dhRRiti’ means Will power. This

withdrawing corresponds to the ‘pratyAhAra’ of the

ashhTAnga-yoga of patanjali’s yoga-sAdhanA.

 

The question is, how is that withdrawal supposed to be

done?

 

That is why the word ‘buddhyA’ is there. In fact Krishna

has laid the foundation for it in the previous shloka.

#24. ‘sankalpa-prabhavAn kAmAn tyaktvA’. Renouncing the

desires that arise because of sankalpa. ‘sankalpa’ means

the determination to do a certain thing. The very

determination carries along with it the thought that ‘I

shall do it’. This ‘ahaM-kartA iti bhAvaH’ is called

sankalpa. All our desires originate from such a sankalpa.

 

Does desire come from sankalpa? Or does determination or

sankalpa come after desire? Which is first?

 

The Gita shloka is saying: Desires have all their source

in sankalpa. Shankaracharya says it is the seed of

sankalpa that sprouts and grows as desire. The shloka #24

says more. It says ‘tyaktvA sarvAn asheshhataH’. ‘sarvAn’

is ‘all of them’. ‘asheshhataH’ means ‘without anything

left out’. So one has to renounce all desires and all these

are born of sankalpa. Recall, earlier in the sixth chapter

Krishna uses the word ‘sarva-sankalpa-sannyAsI’ the

renouncer who has renounced all sankalpas: he is the one

who is said to have made the ascent of yoga.

‘yogArUDhas-tadochyate’.

 

Shloka #24 does not seem to be a complete sentence.

 

Yes, You are right. #24 has to be read with #25. The

sentence as well as the thought are continued. By mind one

has to control or monitor the gang of the senses.

‘indriya-grAmaM’ is a powerful word. It means all the

senses have ganged up to conspire in dragging us away from

spirituality. They have to be controlled from all sides.

‘samantataH’ means from all sides, in all aspects. Thus

controlling them, -- now we go to shloka 25 – thus

controlling them we have to withdraw: ‘uparamet’.

 

The word ‘manasA’ in 24 and the word ‘buddhyA’ in 25 seem

to be saying two different things. Do we control by our

mind or our intellect?

 

The word ‘manasA’ in #24 actually means ‘by the intellect’,

because that will suit the context correctly. Very often

in the literature, manas stands for intellect, if the

context demands it.

 

Now let us continue with the discussion of #25. The second

line of #25 is the punchline. ‘Atma-samsthaM manaH kRRitvA

na kimcid-api chintayet’. ‘na chintayet’ : Think not.

‘Kimcid-api’ of anything, even. Think not of even

anything. This is an important declaration of Krishna as a

bottom-line recipe for meditation. Do not think of

anything, says He. This is where the process ‘silent

meditation’ receives its authority.

 

But then we have only come back to the starting point. How

can the mind think not of anything? It is an impossible

task. In fact it is ‘the’ impossible task about which

today’s first question was raised!

 

Krishna says ‘how’ in the same shloka. We have not finished

with #25. ‘Atma-samsthaM manaH kRRitvA’: Making the mind

firmly established in the Atman. Krishna explains the

process of silent meditation. That is how one achieves the

feat of ‘not thinking about anything’.

 

‘Making the mind firmly established in the Atman’. I

understand each word here. But I don’t understand what you

mean.

 

This is in fact the punch of the punchline. There is

nothing other than Atman. The mind should be firmly

established in this thought. So the mind itself must vanish

of itself. It must rest in the Atman. Thereafter there is

only the Atman and nothing else. There is nothing of the

non-self, and therefore no mind, and consequently no

thought. So ‘na kimcid-api cintayet’ is then automatic.

 

The logic is alright. But can it be achieved?

 

That is exactly what is meant by sAdhanA. Recently we had a

discussion in our advaitin group – in fact the discussion

is still going on – whether sAdhanA is necessary for

Self-Realisation or not. One opinion says that the Self

cannot be obtained by any act or action. ‘na karmaNA na

prajayA dhanena .. ‘ is a famous vedic quote. We are all

the time the Self. We are never the non-Self. So what does

it mean to say that the non-Self makes effort, does

sAdhanA, to become the Self. There is nothing to become.

It is already so!

 

In fact that was my question too to one swami. But he

retorted by asking me ‘Who is asking this question?’ And

then he talked about Realized Souls and Unrealized souls.

It was all confusing. I came out not very enlightened!

 

The logic is right. There is nothing to be done by a soul

to Self-realize, because it is always the Self. But the

problem comes when we know that we are not realized souls

and we want to realize. This knowledge or feeling that we

are not realized souls is the crux of the problem. It is a

state of Ignorance. We have to get out of this state of

Ignorance. And effort is needed for that. That effort is

called sAdhanA.

 

Is silent meditation the right sAdhanA?

 

(To be continued and concluded)

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

 

 

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

 

New on my website, particularly for beginners in Hindu philosophy:

Empire of the Mind:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/ManversusMind.html

 

Free will and Divine will - a dialogue:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/FWDW.html