Bhodham 100


असंयतात्मना योगो दुष्प्राप इति मे मतिः ।
वश्यात्मना तु यतता शक्योऽवाप्तुमुपायतः ॥ ३६ ॥ (6.36)

That the Yoga is difficult to be attained by one of the uncontrolled mind has My approval. But it is possible to be attained through the above means by one who is engaged in practice and has a controlled mind.

Even after the rise of direct experience of Reality, योग:, Yoga, restraint of the modifications of the mind; is दुष्प्राप, difficult to be attained, not possible to be attained even with difficulty—because of great unsteadiness of the mind caused by प्रारब्ध-कर्म–; असंयतात्मना, by one of uncontrolled mind, by one whose आत्मा, mind, has not been restrained through अभ्यास and वैराग्य, because of his passion for explaining Vedanta or because of the defects of laziness etc. even though he has had direct experience of Reality;– if you say इति, so; then मे मतिः, it has My approval, My affirmation is very similar in that matter. This is the meaning.

By whom then is it attained? The answer is तु, but; वश्यात्मना, one who has a controlled mind, by one whose आत्मा, mind, is under control, under one’s own control, free from the bondage of objects, when there has occurred वासना-क्षय as a result of perfection in वैराग्य;–the word तु is used either to show the difference from one of uncontrolled mind or for emphasis—यतता, by one who is engaged in practice, by one who, even though of this kind, undertakes the aforementioned अभ्यास for the sake of opening the flow of the mind towards the Self, even after having blocked its flow towards objects by dint of वैराग्य called यतमान; Yoga, the restraint of all mental modifications, शक्य:, is possible; अवाप्तुं, to be attained—possible to be acquired by overpowering even the प्रारब्ध-कर्म which are causes of the unsteadiness of the mind.

How are the very powerful actions that have begun yielding their fruits subjugated? This is being answered: उपायतः, through the above means.

The means is पुरुष-कार, self-effort, because, whether it is mundane or Vedic, it is stronger than प्रारब्ध-कर्म.

For, otherwise, efforts at agriculture etc. and Vedic efforts at ज्योतिष्टोम etc. become meaningless; because, if everything be dependent on the existence or the non-existence of प्रारब्ध-कर्म, the in the case of प्रारब्ध-कर्म exist, since the result accrues from that alone, what is the need for human effort?

And, on the other hand, in case they do not exist, since there can be no result in any way, what is the need of that (human effort)?

However, if it be argued that, since प्रारब्ध-कर्म which by itself is invisible, is incapable of producing any result without the combination of visible accessories, therefore human effort is necessary in such cases as agriculture etc. then even in the case of the practice of Yoga the answer is the same, because the goal attainable through it, जीवन्मुक्ति, too, being of the nature of unsurpassable bliss, remain included in the result of प्रारब्ध-कर्म.

Just a little aside on प्रारब्ध-कर्म. The human body, which is the creation of प्रारब्ध-कर्म, is meant for the experience of happiness and sorrow. And even in the last body in which one gets Liberation is a creation of प्रारब्ध-कर्म. The bliss of जीवन्मुक्ति that one enjoys in the last body is also a result of प्रारब्ध-कर्म. Thus, just as human effort is necessary for giving visible shape to the result of प्रारब्ध-कर्म in such cases as in agriculture etc., even so it is necessary to resort to Yoga, which is a form of human effort, in order to give expression to the bliss of जीवन्मुक्ति which is a result of प्रारब्ध-कर्म.

Back to where we left off.

Or, just as action that has commenced yielding its result is considered to be stronger than तत्त्व-ज्ञान because it is seen to be so, similarly let it be held that the practice of Yoga is stronger than that action, because it is a matter of experience that endeavour sanctioned by the scriptures is everywhere stronger that that प्रारब्ध-कर्म.

And so the venerable Vasishtha said in his मुमुक्षु-व्यवहार-वर्णन,

“O scion of the Raghu dynasty, indeed, everything is always achieved here in this world by all through the proper application of human effort (पौरुष). It is mentioned in the scriptures that human effort is of two kinds—opposed to and in accord with the scriptures. Of these that which is opposed to the scriptures leads to evil; that which is in accord with the scriptures leads to supreme human Goal.”

‘Opposed to the scriptures’ means ‘prohibited by the scriptures’; ‘leads to evil means ‘leads to hell’; ‘in accord with the scriptures’ means ‘enjoined by the scriptures’, which through purification of the mind ‘leads to the supreme human Goal’, i.e. to the highest among the four human goals, viz. Liberation.

Incidentally, the four human goals are—dharma, discipline that accrues पुण्य; artha is wealth; kaama is enjoyment and Moksha is Liberation.

Vasishtha continued in his मुमुक्षु-व्यवहार-वर्णन,

“The current of desire flows through the two channels of good and bad. Through human effort it should be made to flow through the good channel. O greatest among the valiant ones, lead your own mind which is engrossed in bad deeds to good alone, through the power of human effort.

“O destroyer of foes, when through अभ्यास your good desires arise quickly, then you should know that your practice has been successful.”

‘Desires’ are to be understood as good ones.

Again from Vasishtha in his मुमुक्षु-व्यवहार-वर्णन,

“Even in a difficult situation, you should take up without hesitation only the good ones. My son, there is harm if the good desires multiply! So long as you are unenlightened, so long as you have not known that Goal, you should behave in the way ascertained on the authority of the guru and the scripture. After that, even this good desire should certainly be discarded by you who want to get rid of the current of desires, and have known the Reality as a result of having burnt the कषाय (defects).”

So, even if transmigration to which the witness is subjected on account of non-discrimination, gets dispelled as a result of enlightenment through discrimination, one still becomes a supreme yogi, a जीवन्मुक्त, only when even the natural modifications of the mind which are sustained under the influence of प्रारब्ध-कर्म, are removed through persistence in the practice of Yoga. The conclusion is that, in the absence of restraint of the modifications of the mind, however, one is yogi of the highest class, even though he has तत्त्व-ज्ञान.

The remaining things in detail are to be found from the जीवन्मुक्ति -विवेक.

Thus in the foregoing text it has been said that one who has तत्त्व-ज्ञान, but does not have जीवन्मुक्ति , is not considered to be yogi of the highest class; on the other hand, one who has तत्त्व-ज्ञान and also जीवन्मुक्ति is a yogi of the highest class.

In both their cases there can be no doubt about their विदेह-कैवल्य, being liberated after the fall of their present bodies, because even after the eradication of nescience through enlightenment the aggregate of the body and organ persist only so long as the actions that have commenced yielding their fruits remain, and because there is no cause for their rebirth when the present aggregate of their body and organs cease to exist after the cessation of the actions that have begun yielding fruits.

But as far as the person who has attained purity of mind through the earlier performance of rites and duties, leading up to विविदिषा (the desire for the direct knowledge of the Self); and take up to the life of a sanyasi of the परमहंस class by renouncing all actions—by virtue of having performed all that had to be done–; and approaches a teacher who is a परमहंस सन्यासी and a जीवन्मुक्त by having realized the Self, and who is capable of enlightening others; and then gets from him the instructions about the great Upanishadic sayings; and with a view to getting rid of the obstacles to knowledge, viz. असम्भावना and विपरीत-भावना with regard to those Upanishadic sayings, resort through the grace of the teacher to श्रवण, मनन and निदिध्यासन—with the aid of Vedanta having the four sections of समन्वय, reconciliation though proper interpretation; अविरोध, non-contradiction; सधन, spiritual practice; and फल, result beginning with अतथो ब्रह्म जिज्ञास (‘Hence is to be undertaken thereafter a deliberation on Brahman’ and ending with अनावृत्तिः शब्दादनावृत्तिः शब्दात् || (Brahma sutra IV.iv.22) there is no return for the released souls he though imbued with faith, dies verily in the intermediate state while engaged in श्रवण, मनन and निदिध्यासन,
without attaining perfection in Knowledge because of his effort being limited by the shortness of life!

He does not become liberated, since his nescience is not destroyed in the absence of perfection of Knowledge; nor does he have the result that follows from the rituals associated with the worship viz. the experience of the world of gods, by passing through the Path starting from the deity of light; nor even does he experience the fruit of mere ritual viz. the experience of the world of manes, by passing through the Path of the deity of smoke; because of his having renounced both ritual and worship.

Hence, a person of this kind, who has failed in Yoga (योगभ्रष्ट), will either attain the painful states of being born as insects etc.—because in addition to being unenlightened he has no association with the Path of Gods and the Path of Manes, like one who has deviated from following the rules of varNa and Aashrama–, or he will not attain the painful states, because like Vaamadeva he is free from actions condemned by the scriptures.





Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bhodham 99

भगवानुवाच —
असंशयं महाबाहो मनो दुर्निग्रहं चलम् ।
अभ्यासेन तु कौन्तेय वैराग्येण च गृह्यते ॥ ३५ ॥ (6.35)

O mighty-armed one! It is doubtless that the mind cannot be controlled & is restless. But it is restrained through practice & detachment.

Being please thus—‘You have well understood the working of the mind. You will be able to restrain the mind’–, He addressed Arjuna as ‘महाबाहो, O mighty-armed one, one whose both arms are mighty, which has engaged in fight against great Lord Shiva Himself!’

By this he indicates extreme excellence.

Because of the predominance of प्रारब्ध, मनः, the mind; दुर्निग्रहं, cannot be restrained, cannot be controlled, even with great pains, by one with unrestrained mind.

This is said to be clubbing together the three adjectives—very turbulent, restraint and tough.

It is चलम्, restless by nature. This is असंशयं, doubtless; there is no doubt at all in this regard; i.e. you verily speak the truth.

Even though this is so, by the yogi who has trained mind and who has समाधि as his aid, that might गृह्यते, restrained, i.e. made free of all modifications; अभ्यासेन, through practice; च, and; वैराग्येण, through detachment.

The word तु, but, is used to highlight the distinction of the person who has trained and restrained mind from the one whose mind has not been trained nor restrained.

The word च, and, is used to make it understood that अभ्यास and वैराग्य are to be controlled for controlling the mind.

By addressing him as ‘कौन्तेय, O son of Kunti’, He implies, ‘Being the son of the sister of My father, you must be made happy my Me!’

By thus indicating the relationship of love, He gives reassurance.

Here, by the very half of the verse it is said that the mind cannot be restrained violently; and by the second half that its restraint through a regular method is possible.

The restrain of the mind is indeed of two kinds—through violence and through a regular method.

As to that, the sense organs such as eyes, ears, etc., and the motor organs such as speech, hands, etc., are restrained violently by merely stopping their loci.

Through their example a fool commits the error of thinking, ‘I shall restrain the mind also through violence.’

But it is not possible to restrain it in that way, because its locus, the lotus of the heart, cannot be restrained. For this very reason, too, restraint through a regular method alone is proper.

Therefore the venerable Vasistha has said this: By one who is aware of the nature of the mind cannot be conquered merely by sitting off and on without the faultless Yoga, as a wicked elephant is rut (cannot be controlled) without ankusha, the hooked goad.

Mastery of spiritual knowledge as also association with holy men, total giving up of desires, and control of the movements of the vital force—these are the means of Yoga which in their maturity, exist for the conquest of the mind.

When these means are there, those who control the mind violently are like people who rejecting lamp remove darkness with collyrium, says Vasishtha in आकाषगति-अभावादि-निरुपण.

In the matter of restraint through the regular method, the mastery of spiritual knowledge is one of the means.

For, it makes one understand that things seen are unreal, and that the witnessing Principle has supreme reality, supreme bliss and self-effulgence.

That being so, this mind, having understood the needlessness of the things within its range of perception because of their unreality, and having understood that the needed witnessing Principle, which is by nature real Truth and supreme bliss, is beyond its range of perception because of the self-effulgence, ceases absolutely of its own accord like a fire whose fuel is exhausted.

But he who does not understand fully the Reality even when It is taught, or he who forgets—for them the means is, verily, association with holy people. For, the holy people teach and remind repeatedly.

However, for one who, because of being tormented by the bad वासना such as pride of learning etc. is not eager to follow the holy men, the only means is the eradication of वासना through the discrimination stated before.

But, for one who is unable to eradicate the वासना because of their great power, the only means is the control of the movements of the vital force.

Since the वासना and the movements of the vital force are the impellers of the mind, therefore it is but natural that tranquility of the mind follows when they are restrained.

Vasishtha himself states this fact as such: “The tree of the mind has got two seeds—वासना and the movement of the vital force. Even when one of these is weakened both of them soon get destroyed. The movement of the vital force is stopped through the earnest practice of प्राणायाम according to the process taught by the guru, and practice of आसन and control of food. Through dealings without attachments, shunning of worldly thoughts, and observation of the perishability of the body, वासना ceases to be active. From the complete eradication of the वासना and from the stoppage of the movements of the vital force, the mind ceases to be what it is. Therefore choose as you like. I consider the nature of the mind to be nothing but thinking with relish the (external) objects as existing internally. When nothing in the form of something to be accepted or rejected is thought of by the mind, and it remains bereft of everything, then the mind ceases to be active. When the mind, becoming free of वासना, ceases for ever to think, then emerges the state of obliviousness of the mind, which leads to the goal that is the supreme Self.” (आकाषगति-अभावादि-निरुपण)

So it comes to this that, only two ways are there for the restraint of the mind—अभ्यास, practice, for the stoppage of the movement of vital force, and वैराग्य, detachment for getting rid of the वासना.

मनो दुर्निग्रहं चलम्’ इत्यत्र हे महाबाहो । O hero! That the mind is difficult to control and it is fickle.

किन्तु अभ्यासेन तु अभ्यासो नाम चित्तभूमौ कस्याञ्चित् समानप्रत्ययावृत्तिः चित्तस्य ।

But by means of practice it can be controlled. ‘Practice’ means making an unchanging idea to prevail on a given plane of mind.

वैराग्येण, वैराग्यं नाम दृष्टादृष्टेष्टभोगेषु दोषदर्शनाभ्यासात् वैतृष्ण्यम् ।

‘By detachment’—detachment means freedom from craving, by driving out the desire for covetable experiences in the spheres of the seen and the unseen, through the practice of discovering flaws implicit in them all.

But ‘association with holy men’ and ‘mastery of spiritual knowledge’, being helpful to अभ्यास and वैराग्य are not essential causes and stand included in those latter two themselves.

Hence only two have been spoken of by the Lord in ‘through अभ्यास and वैराग्य’.

For this very reason did the venerable Patanjali wrote in the Sutra: अभ्यासवैराग्याभ्यां तन्निरोधः॥

“Their restraint is through ‘अभ्यास and वैराग्य’’. (Yoga Sutra 1.12).

The modifications spoken of in Y.S. 1.6-11 which are infinite and are of 5 classes as प्रमाण, विपर्यय, विकल्प, निद्रा and स्मृति.

Explained under B.G. 6.2 these modifications which in their demoniacal aspect are painful–, of all modifications without exception, the restraint, the ending in what is called cessation, like a fire without fuel, comes about through the combination of अभ्यास and वैराग्य’.

So has it been said in the commentary of Yoga Sutra 1.12 ‘What is called the river of mind flows both ways—it flows towards good and it flows towards evil.’

Of these the one flowing towards good is that which, flowing along the channel (निम्न) of discrimination, ends on the highland (प्राग्भार) of Liberation.

But the one flowing towards evil is that which, flowing along the channel of indiscrimination, ends in transmigratory existence.

Among them, the current flowing towards objects of enjoyment is blocked by वैराग्य, and the current flowing towards good is opened by अभ्यास, practice, of discriminating vision.

Thus the two phrases, प्राग्भार and निम्न, are used to imply that the restraint of the modifications of the mind is subject to both अभ्यास and वैराग्य’.

तदा विवेकनिम्नङ्कैवल्यप्राग्भारञ्चित्तम्॥ (Y.S.4.26) is explained here thus:

Just as the flow of river having a strong current is stopped by erecting a dam, and by digging a channel a different diverted flow towards agricultural land is created, similarly by stopping through detachment the flow of the river of the mind towards objects, it is made to have a steady flow through the practice of समाधि.

Thus, since the means are different, therefore they have surely to be combined.

Should the means be only one, then as in case of paddy and barley there will be a case for option. (The scripture states that लुप्तपिण्डं–the sacrificial cake—is to be made of rice or barley. This option was kept in mind.)

It is possible to have a practice in the form of performing over and over again the repetition of a मन्त्र, meditation on some deity etc., which have been the characteristics of ‘action’.

But what kind of practice can there be of समाधि, which is characterized by cessation of all activities?

In order to dispel such a doubt Patanjali has presented अभ्यास in his Sutra: तत्र स्थितौ यत्नोऽभ्यासः॥ (1.13).

Continuance consists in the steadiness of the modificationless mind in the form of an unbroken flow of tranquility; यत्न:, effort, at that continuance; तत्र, in that, in the Witness established in his own nature, i.e. in the pure Self that is Consciousness; that is to say the mental preseverance in the form, ‘I shall in every way restrain the mind which is owing to its natural unsteadiness is apt to flow outward’; the persistence in that effort is called अभ्यास.

स तु दीर्घकालनैरन्तर्यसत्कारासेवितो दृढभूमिः॥

And that अभ्यास becomes firmly grounded when fully adhered to for a long time, without break and with regard.

तु, and; स:, it, that practice; becomes दृढभूमिः, firmly grounded, impossible of being moved by desires for enjoyment of objects; दीर्घकालनैरन्तर्यसत्कारासेवित:, when fully adhered to (असेवित) without despondency for a long time (दीर्घकाल); when fully adhered to without break (नैरन्तर्य); and when fully adhered to with regard (सत्कार), with great confidence.

If the time be not long, or if even though the time is long, it be adhered to intermittently, or if there be lack of great confidence, then on account of the predominance of the संस्कार of व्युत्थान (emergence) as a consequence of लय, विक्षेप, कषाय, सुख-आस्वाद (enjoyment of happiness) not having been removed, अभ्यास does not become firmly established, and so it does not become fruitful. Hence the three have been referred to.

The अपर is of four kinds according to the names यथामन, व्यतिरेक, एकेन्द्रिय and वशीकार.

With a view to speaking of gaining the next place and winning the preceeding one, Patanjali mentioned aphoristically only the fourth one among them thus:

दृष्टानुश्रविकविषयवितृष्णस्य वशीकारसञ्ज्ञा वैराग्यम्॥ (Y.S. 1.15)

“वैराग्य called वशीकार (complete control) is of one who has become desireless with regard to objects seen and those heard of from the Vedas.”

The ‘seen objects’ are women, food, drink, wealth, etc.

Heaven, the state of being विदेह (devoid of self-identification with one’s body), merged in Prakrti (प्रकृतिलय) etc. are the ‘objects heard of’, because they are known from the Vedas.

Only so long as desire persists with regard to both of those two kinds there occur the three kinds of वैराग्य viz. यतमान etc. depending on the grade of discrimination.

The ‘यतमान’, ‘engaged in effort’, is that where there is an actual endeavour with the idea ‘I shall know from the teacher and the scriptures what is essential and what is non-essential in this world.’

The व्यतिरेक, ‘exclusions’, is that where there is a consideration, as by a physician, in the form, ‘Among the pre-existing defects in my mind, these have been burnt through the practice of discrimination, these remain.’

The एकेन्द्रिय ‘centered in one organ’ is that in which, as a result of the realization that engrossment in ‘objects seen and heard of’ are painful, desire, though not producing outward activity or the organs, remains centred in the mind alone, merely in the form of longing.

The वैराग्य called वशीकार, ‘complete control’, is the absolute desirelessness that comes as a result of having no desires in the mind even; it is a mental modification opposed to desire, and is in the form of clearness of wisdom.

It is the direct means to संप्रज्ञात-समाधि, but an indirect means to असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि.

However the direct means to that असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि is ‘supreme detachment’, and Yoga Sutra (1.16) says:

तत्परं पुरुषख्यातेर्गुणवैतृष्ण्यम्॥ That is, the supreme (परं) consisting in the desirelessness (वैतृष्ण्यम्) for the गुण (प्रकृति) which results from the direct vision of the पुरुष.

From the mastery of the संप्रज्ञात-समाधि there follows क्यातिः, the direct vision, of the पुरुष, as distinct from प्रधान (प्रकृति) constituted by the three गुण.

तत्, that, desirelessness (वैतृष्ण्यम्) with regard to all kinds of dealings with the three गुण, which follows that vision as its fruit, is the परं, supreme, highest, वैराग्य.

And when as a result of maturity of that (पर-वैराग्य), the tranquility of the mind becomes perfect, Liberation follows without delay.

‘As far your question, “Since modifications of the mind will be generated—for fruition of their own results—by actions that have commenced yielding their fruits and are stronger than तत्त्व-ज्ञान, therefore how can it be possible to restrain them?”

The answer to that comes in the next sloka.







Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bhodham 98

चञ्चलं हि मनः कृष्ण प्रमाथि बलवद्दृढम् ।
तस्याहं निग्रहं मन्ये वायोरिव सुदुष्करम् ॥ ३४ ॥ (6.34)

The mind is indeed fickle, O Krishna! A tormentor, powerful and hard. I deem its control as extremely difficult like the blowing wind.

कृष्ण इति कृषतेः विलेखनार्थस्य रूपम् । भक्तजनपापादिदोषाकर्षणात् कृष्णः, the word Krishna is derived from the root कृष् meaning to cut through.

कृष्ण is so styled because He cuts off taints, sins etc., of His devotees.

हि, it is well known that; मनः, the mind; is चञ्चलं, very unsteady, ever fickle by nature.

कृष्ण, is one who removes (कृषति) the defects—even such as sins etc.—of devotees which are impossible to be removed in any way; or, it means one who makes available (आकर्षति) to those very devotees even those human goals that are impossible to be attained anyway.

By addressing Him in that way, Arjuna suggests, ‘By removing the unsteadiness of the mind even though it is difficult to be removed, you alone are capable of making available the bliss of समाधि even though it is difficult to attain.’

Not only it is very unsteady but also प्रमाथि, turbulent—that which has the nature of disturbing the body and the organs; i.e. as the source of disturbance, it is the cause of the aggregate of body and organs being uncontrollable.

Besides, it is बलवद् resistant; it is beyond the capacity of being weaned away from its intended purpose by any means whatsoever.

Further, it is दृढम्, tough. It is impossible to be destroyed, since it is entwined with thousands of वासना of objects.

Adi Sankara says: किञ्च —दृढं तन्तुनागवत् अच्छेद्यम् । It is hard to cut like the तन्तुनाग (a large shark).

तन्तुनाग means नागपाशा a sort of magical noose used in battle, or, it is a kind of creature living in large lakes, well known in Gujarat etc. a टान्तनी (a sort of octopus).

तस्य, of that, of the mind—which is resistant owing to its being very tough, which is turbulent on account of being resistant, (and) which is very unsteady due to its being turbulent; निग्रहं, the restraint, making it remain in state that is without modifications; अहं, I; मन्ये, consider; सुदुष्करम्, to be greatly difficult, impossible to achieve in anyway; वायो: इव, as of the wind, as of wild elephant in extreme rut.

The idea is that this is something like restraining the wind raging in the sky by making it motionless!

The meaning is this: Notwithstanding the dawn of तत्त्वज्ञान, the characteristics of the mind—in the form of agentship, enjoyership, happiness, sorrow, attachment, aversion, etc.–, even though continuing as the recurrence of what have been sublated, becomes bondages on account of being the cause of suffering in the case of the enlightened person who lives on to experience प्रारब्ध-कर्म.

However the removal of that bondage through Yoga in the form of restraint of mental modifications is called जीवन्मुक्ति, through the accomplishment of which that yogi, as it has been said, ‘is considered to be superior’.

The question that arises here is, Is the bondage removed from the witness stands already removed through तत्त्वज्ञान itself.

Nor the second, because it is not possible that the nature of a thing can be changed, and because the opposing factor persists.

(The mind is naturally unsteady; its nature cannot be changed. The opposing factor is the प्रारब्ध-कर्म.)

Indeed, it is not possible to remove moisture from water or heat from fire.

For according साङ्ख्य-कौमुदी, ‘All entities other than the power that is Consciousness is subject to transformation every moment’, the mind has the nature of being changeful every moment; and, in order to come to their own fruition, actions that have started the experience of their results in the present body keep the body, mind etc.
going on, even by obstructing the तत्त्वज्ञान that is engaged in destroying the whole of nescience and its effects!

And it is not possible for actions to bring about their own fruits, viz. experiences of happiness and sorrow, without mental modifications.

Therefore, अहं, I; just according to my own understanding, मन्ये consider; that though it is possible to control to some extent even the natural mental transformations through Yoga, still, since unsteadiness of the mind is inevitable due to the predominance of actions that have commenced yielding results over Yoga, just as they are predominant over तत्त्वज्ञान, therefore it is not possible to remove it, the unsteadiness, through Yoga.

So this is not justifiable that he is considered to be the superior yogi who, by holding himself as an example, has the sameness of outlook everywhere.’ This is Arjuna’s objection.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bhodham 97

यतो यतो निश्चरति मनश्चञ्चलमस्थिरम् ।

ततस्ततो नियम्यैतदात्मन्येव वशं नयेत् ॥ २६ ॥ (6.26)

The Yogin should bring the fickle and unsteady mind under the sole control of the Self, withdrawing it from all causes that make it sally forth.

यत: यत:, due to whatever causes—among visions etc that distracts the mind; मन: the mind; निश्चरति, wanders away; चञ्चलम्, by becoming restless, by tending towards the distractions, because of objects such as sound etc. and because of likes and dislikes, i.e. generates a modification—even one among the modifications in the form of प्रमाण, विपर्यय, विकल्प, निद्रा and स्मृति (see 6.2), which has a propensity towards objects and which are opposed to समाधि; so also, due to whatever causes such as drowsiness, over-eating, over-exertion etc., which are sources of लय (mental inactivity), it (the mind), अस्थिरम्, becoming unsteady, prone to लय, wanders away (i.e.) becoming inactive, generates the modification called निद्रा (sleep), which is opposed to समाधि; नियम, by restraining; एतत्, this, the mind; तत: तत:, from all those causes—of विक्षेप (confusion) and लय (i.e.) making it free from modifications, the yogi, who is thus practicing निरोध-समाधि, वशं नयेत्, should keep it subjugated; आत्मनि एव, in the Self Itself, in the self-effulgent, homogeneous, supreme Bliss, so that it becomes neither distracted or inactive.

The word एव excludes anything that is non-Self from being the object of समाधि.

This has been elaborated by the Great Teacher Gaudapaada in 5 verses of Mandukya Kaarika (3.42-46) as below.

उपायेन निगृह्णीयाद्विक्षिप्तं कामभोगयोः ।
सुप्रसन्नं लये चैव यथा कामो लयस्तथा ॥ ४२ ॥

The mind distracted by desires and enjoyments as also the mind enjoying pleasure in oblivion (trance-like condition) should be brought under discipline by the pursuit of proper means. For,the state of oblivion is as harmful as desires.

दुःखं सर्वमनुस्मृत्य कामभोगान्निवर्तयेत् ।
अजं सर्वमनुस्मृत्य जातं नैव तु पश्यति ॥ ४३ ॥

The mind should be turned back from the enjoyment of pleasures,remembering that all this is attended with miseryIf it be remembered that everything is the unborn (Brahman), the born (dualitywill not be seen.
लये संबोधयेच्चित्तं विक्षिप्तं शमयेत्पुनः ।
सकषायं विजानीयात्समप्राप्तं न चालयेत् ॥ ४४ ॥

If the mind becomes inactive in a state of oblivion awaken it again.If it is distracted,, bring it back to the state of tranquillity. (In the intermediary state) know the mind containing within it desires in potential formIf the mind has attained to the state of equilibriumthen do not disturb it again.

नाऽऽस्वादयेत्सुखं तत्र निःसङ्गः प्रज्ञया भवेत् ।
निश्चलं निश्चरच्चित्तमेकीकुर्यात्प्रयत्नतः ॥ ४५ ॥

(The mind) should not be allowed to enjoy the bliss that arises out of the conditionof Samādhi.It should be freed from attachment to such happiness through the exercise of discriminationIf the mindonce attaining to the state of steadiness seeks externalitythen it should be unified with the Ātman, again, with effort.

यदा न लीयते चित्तं न च विक्षिप्यते पुनः ।
अनिङ्गनमनाभासं निष्पन्नं ब्रह्म तत्तदा ॥ ४६ ॥

When the mind does not merge in the inactivity of oblivion,or become distracted by desiresthat is to saywhen the mind becomes quiescent and does not give rise to appearancesit verily becomes Brahman.

With the help of that process one should bring under discipline the mind that remains dispersed amidst objects of desire and enjoyment; and one should bring it under control even when it is full of peace in deep sleep (लय), for deep sleep is as bad as desire.

Constantly remembering everything is full of misery, one should expel desires and enjoyments from the mind.  On the other hand (तु), remembering ever the fact that the birthless Brahman is everything,  One does not perceive at all the born (viz. the host of duality).

One should wake up the mind merged in deep sleep, one should make the distracted mind tranquil again; one should know when the mind is tainted by the defect (कषाय) of likes and dislikes and is in a state of stupefaction.

One should not disturb the mind established in the Sameness (i.e. Brahman).

One should not enjoy happiness in that state, but one should become unattached (निःसङ्गः) through the use of discrimination (प्रज्ञया).

When the mind established in steadiness want to issue out, one should concentrate with diligence.

When the mind does not become lost nor again is it scattered when it is अनिङ्गनम्, motionless, and does not appear in the form of objects, then it becomes Brahman.

‘With the help of that proper process—through the practice of detachment going to be stated in the next Karikaa; ‘one should bring under discipline’, i.e. one should keep subjugated in the Self itself;  ‘the mind that remains dispersed amidst objects of desire and enjoyment’—the mind that has become changed through even any one of the modifications in the form of प्रमाण, विपर्यय, विकल्प, and स्मृति; the dual number in ‘objects of desire and enjoyment’ has been used bearing in mind the distinction between the states of thinking about objects of desire and enjoyment of them.

Further, लय is derived in the sense of ‘that in which one gets merged’, i.e. deep sleep.

One should verily bring the mind under control even when it is full of peace free from weariness in that deep sleep.

If it is in full peace, why should it be brought under control?

To that Gaudapaada answers: Just as desire is opposed to समाधि on account of its generating modifications in the form of प्रमाण etc. in relation to objects, similarly लय also is opposed to समाधि on account of its producing the modifications called deep sleep.

Indeed, समाधि consists in the full restraint of all modifications.

So the idea is that the mind should be restrained from deep sleep due to exertions etc., just as from distractions caused by desires etc.

It is being stated through what means the mind should be controlled:

Remembering that all duality, which is an appearance of nescience, is insignificant and surely painful, (i.e.) after having heard from the instruction of the teacher the purport of the Sruti,

यो वै भूमा तत्सुखं नाल्पे सुखमस्ति भूमैव सुखं भूमा त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्य इति भूमानं भगवो विजिज्ञास इति ॥

That which indeed is the Infinite is joy; there is no joy in the finite.  On the other hand, that which is finite is mortal; that is painful (Chandogyopanishad) (and) then cogitating on it, one should expel desires—objects in the state of being though of and enjoyments—objects in the state of being enjoyed; ‘from the mind’ is to be supplied.

Or the meaning is that one should withdraw the mind from desire and enjoyment.  Thus the ‘means’ is the attitude of detachment when the mind dwells on duality. This is the idea.

He says that the total forgetfulness of duality, however, is the supreme means: Remembering ‘the birthless Brahman is everything; there is nothing apart from it’, having heard this from the instructions of the scriptures and the teacher, one does not perceive at all the aggregate of duality which is opposed to It; because when the substratum is known, anything imagined on it ceases to exist.

The word, तु, on the other hand, is used to indicate distinction from the preceding ‘means’.

If the mind that is thus withdrawn from objects through the two means, viz. attitude of detachment and cognizance of Reality, tends towards deep sleep due to the daily habit of deep sleep, then by restraining the causes of deep sleep,  viz. drowsiness, indigestion, overeating and fatigue, one should fully wake up through an effort of rousing it.

If again, the mind that is being thus aroused becomes tossed about in the midst of desires and enjoyment, due to its habit of being so in the waking state, then through the attitude of detachment and visualization of Reality one should make it tranquil again.

When the mind of the person who is thus repeatedly practicing becomes aroused from deep sleep and withdrawn from objects, but without attaining tranquility remains in the intermediate state of stupor, then one should know to be tinged with desire, to be affected by the defect called stupefaction caused by powerful tendencies of likes and dislikes; through discrimination one should know to be different from a mind in समाधि.

And understanding from this that the mind has not merged in समाधि, one should withdraw it from the defects of stupefaction also, as from deep sleep and distraction.

And then, when deep sleep, distraction and the defect called stupefaction have been avoided Brahman that is same in all is finally attained by the mind.

And one should not disturb that mind which has attained the Sameness, mistaking it for stupefaction or deep sleep; i.e. one should not make it tend towards objects.

But distinguishing from attainment of stupor or deep sleep, with the help of one’s intelligence kept steady through perseverance, one should with great diligence keep the mind fixed in the Sameness Itself has been attained.

One should not enjoy happiness even in the समाधि though it is expressive of the highest bliss.

That is one should not create mental modification in the form ‘I have been happy for this long, this period of time’. for that would lead to the disruption of समाधि.

This has already been explained in the last verse towards the end.

‘Through the use of discrimination (प्रज्ञाय), though the idea, ‘Any acquired happiness is a fancied creation of nescience and is verily false’, one should become unattached, desireless, with regard to all kind of happiness.

Or one should (भवेत्) abandon ( नि:) attachment (सङ्घ) for प्रज्ञा, for any modification that is in the form of happiness and सविकल्प (i.e. involving knowler, known and knowable)

But it is not that one should not experience even the Bliss that is one’s true nature through a mind free of modifications; for it is impossible to avoid that Bliss which is present spontaneously!

When the mind that has been thus made steady through effort, by withdrawing it from everything, ‘want to issue out’, tend to move out towards objects due to its natural unsteadiness, ‘one should concentrate it with diligence’;  through an effort at restraining it, one should make it concentrated on the Sameness that is Brahman.

It is being stated what is the condition of the mind that is ‘established in Sameness’: When the mind neither becomes lost (in deep sleep) nor even stupefied—(stupefaction being added) because, the quality of  तमस् being equally present in both the states, the state of stupefaction is suggested by the word लय, getting lost, itself–; ‘nor again is it scattered’ does not experience the modifications in the form of sound etc,;  nor even does it enjoy happiness—(‘enjoyment of happiness’ is added) because, the quality of रजस् being equally present (in both scattering and enjoyment of happiness), the enjoyment of happiness is suggested by the word scattering; but the previous mention of these two separately in Mandukya Kaarika quoted above is meant for putting separate effort—; ‘when it is motionless (अनिङ्गनम्)’, when it thus becomes free from getting lost and stupefied, as also from being scattered and enjoying happiness– इङ्गनम् means motion, in the form of a tendency towards getting extinguished like a lamp in a windy place, (so अनिङ्गनम् means) free from that, like a lamp in a windless place; by which statement it is understood that the defect of desires and enjoyment of happiness stand mentioned ipso facto–.

(Because in the absence of the appearance of objects, there can neither be a desire for them nor their enjoyment).

When the mind thus becomes freed from four defects, then that mind becomes Brahman,  i.e. it attains the Sameness that is Brahman.

And the aphorism, योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः॥२॥ Yoga is the suppression (निरोधः) of the modifications (वृत्ति) of mind (चित्त), verily has this as its source. Therefore, the text, ‘By restraining this mind from all those causes whatever…the yogi should keep it subjugated in the Self Itself’ is appropriate.

Thus the mind of the Yogi settles down in the Self Itself by virtue of the power of the practice of Yoga.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bhotham 96


I am now explaining Sloka 6.15 of Bhagavat Geetha with a preamble for your full grasp of the import of the sloka.

The idea of meditation has to be clearly understood.

For that there must be an object to meditate for sure, then of course you and the medium or mode of meditation.

When you meditate on an object, you have to fully focus on it, which means all other objects have to be excluded from your purview.

The mode of meditation is of course the mind which should fully flow to the object that it sinks into the object that it takes the form of the object itself.

In this process there is an identity between you and the object is established. This is known as संप्रज्ञात-समाधि.

If you recall my tweets on Sri Chakra, there is a god, we use the word deva, occupying each object.

The object is that god’s स्थान.

The deva or devi as the occupier of the object is called a स्थानि.

Everywhere we see, we see gods, the devas and devis galore!

That is why we say god is everywhere not just in heaven or as atheist might claim nowhere.

Now back to the meditation, when you meditate, it is a भावना of actual devotion.

All gods grow in strength by the number of meditators devoted to them because this kind of meditation brings about the identity of the meditator and the deva of the object of meditation strengthening the Deva.

This in turn suggest that no god is willing to part with a devotee and protect him with all his might.

In this sloka of Bhagavat Geetha 6.15 Sri Krishna asks you to meditate on Him as your own Self.

In the commentary I drew attention to Vasishtha’s narration of Uddaalaka who was getting coaxed by the devas to whom he was devoted.

But Uddaalaka broke the bondage by going away from संप्रज्ञात-समाधि to निर्विकल्प-समाधि where the object is your own Self.

With this explanation let’s proceed to my commentary on Geetha 6.15

युञ्जन्नेवं सदात्मानं योगी नियतमानसः ।
शान्तिं निर्वाणपरमां मत्संस्थामधिगच्छति ॥ १५ ॥ (6.15)

“Concentrating the mind thus always, the yogi, whose mind is fully controlled, achieves the Peace that culminates in Liberation and the steadfastness in My true nature.”

Let us see how this idea is supported in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra while continuing with the explanation of the words of Geetha.

अभ्यासवैराग्याभ्यां तन्निरोधः॥१२॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.12)

युज्ञ्जान, concentrating, making absorbed in समाधि through practice (अभ्यास) and detachment (वैराग्य); आत्मानं, the mind; एवं, thus, by means of aforesaid rules of staying in a solitary place, etc.; सदा, always; योगी, the yogi, the one engrossed in Yoga; नियत-मानसः, whose mind is controlled, fully restrained, as a result of intense practice, or the one whose distractions in the form of thoughts are under control; व्युत्थाननिरोधसंस्कारयोरभिभवप्रादुर्भावौ निरोधक्षणचित्तान्वयो निरोधपरिणामः॥९॥ (Yoga Sutra 3.9); तस्य प्रशान्तवाहिता संस्कारात्॥१०॥ (Yoga Sutra 3.10),
becoming thus, अधिगच्छति, achieves; शान्तिं, Peace that is in the form of cessation of all thoughts, and the flow of which is steady; and निर्वाण-परमां, culminates in Liberation, which is of the nature of cessation of nescience together with its effects, as a result of the rise of direct experience of Reality, and मत्-समस्थाम्, steadfastness in the supreme Bliss which is My true nature.

तदेवार्थमात्रनिर्भासं स्वरूपशून्यमिव समाधिः॥३॥ (Yoga Sutra 3.3)

(Those who are interested further must study Yoga Sutra 3.16 to 3.56) though not necessary in this context so I omit them.)

But it is not that he attains the mundane yogic powers which are the fruits of समाधि (intense concentration) on objects other than the Self; for they are hindrances to the समाधि that is necessary for Liberation.

And accordingly, after stating the results of the respective समाधि (intense concentration), the venerable Patanjali says: “These are obstacles to समाधि (Self-absorbtion), but they are powers in the worldly state.” And “The Yogi should not feel allured or flattered by the overtures of the स्थानि (celestial beings, gods) for fear of evil again.”

So Vasishtha narrates that Uddaalaka, who even though coaxed by gods, did not feel allured thereby, nor did he feel flattered, and ignoring the gods, practiced निर्विकल्प-समाधि alone for warding off recrudescence of evil.

The kind of समाधि that has to be rejected by one seeking Liberation has been stated by Patanjali:

वितर्कविचारानन्दास्मितारूपानुगमात्सम्प्रज्ञातः॥१७॥ Yoga Sutra 1.17)

“When समाधि is reached with the help of वितर्क, विचार, आनन्द and अस्मिता it is called संप्रज्ञात-समाधि.

Let’s do a summation of what we have learnt so far on this sloka 6.15.

प्रज्ञा means awareness. प्रज्ञा involves (1) the object, (2) you and (3) the medium viz. the mind.

Complete awareness is when there is nothing but you and the object and your mind is fully and completely engaged with that object. This is called समाधि (intense concentration).

In समाधि all objects other than the one meditated upon are excluded. Reaching such exclusive state is समाधि.

But remember all objects are devas, the objects themselves their स्तान (seat).

In meditation you are actually engaging yourself with a deva/devi.

In समाधि you commune with that deva/devi that strengthens him/her.

When you wake up from this समाधि there is संस्कार, the impression of such experience is attached to you.

Now we come to the nitty-gritty of meditation.

It involves युज्ञ्जान, concentrating.

It involves अभ्यास or practice in being engaged in समाधि (intense concentration).

It requires वैराग्य in the mind. It can’t be occasional but सदा, always.

It has to make you नियत-मानसः as full and complete controlled mind.

Then you are called योगी a qualified samadhi-wala!

We talked of अभ्यास i.e. Practice. Meditation of fixing repeatedly in the mind the objects thought of, to the exclusion of other objects is called भावना.

I ask you this question: Who knows you best?

The only person who can know you best is your own self and none other. Now who are you?

Any answer is good enough in any given circumstance. You can say you are the body, you are the mind, you are the breath and so on.

All these – body, mind, breath etc are objects and you call them yourself by identifying them with yourself such as I am the body, right?

As long as you can identify yourself with an object you can call that object as yourself, is it not?

So, answer me, can you call yourself an apple?

We talked of अभ्यास i.e. practice. This I said before. Meditation of fixing repeatedly in the mind the objects thought of, to the exclusion of other objects is called भावना.

Now what can be object of meditation?

Anything can be an object but we can divide the object into three on the basis of its difference in perception.

They are: (a) An object of perception is ग्राह्य; (b) the means of perception is ग्रहण; and (c) the perceiver himself is ग्रहीत्र्.

Again these three can be divided into two as (i) स्थूल (gross) and (ii) (सूक्ष्म) subtle.

Thus an object is viewed in six different ways. There is a purpose in viewing so as we shall see as we go along.

What is the result of भावना?

Patanjali says it results in समापत्ति (absorption).

What is समापत्ति (absorption)?

When the thoughts are weakened, mind acquires fixity and identity.

What is this fixity and identity?

Mind acquiring fixity in and identity with the perceiver, the means of perception or the object of perception as does a transparent crystal. This is called समापत्ति (absorption).

How do the thoughts get weakened?

The thoughts get weakened in समाधि (intense concentration).

What kind of thoughts are we talking about?

The thoughts born of रजस् and तमस्. They get subdued in the intense concentration known as समाधि resulting in समापत्ति (absorption).

What actually is समापत्ति (absorption)?

समापत्ति is the fusion of you the perceiver, your mind which is the means of perception and the object that is being perceived. In other words you become that by which you know it completely.

Now, again, can you think you are an apple?

We have so far dealt with the general understanding of समाधि leading to समापत्ति.

Because cause is in the effect we call both (समाधि and समापत्ति) as समाधि only.

Now we are going to get little more focussed from the general term.

This is not about merging but understanding the nature of the object – We call it संप्रज्ञात-समाधि.

संप्रज्ञात-समाधि is a kind of meditation (भावना) through which the nature of objects of meditation is known clearly, it is known specifically (प्र-ज्ञायते), in its totality (सम्यक्) as devoid of doubt, misapprehension and uncertainty.

Meditation (भावना), verily, is fixing repeatedly in the mind the objects thought of, to the exclusion of other objects.

If you are meditating on, say your Ishta Devata, there is a concentration by which you and the Devata alone are in existence.

This kind of meditation where only you and the object are related as seer and seen is called भावना.

In the above example we considered only two viz. you and the devata. However there are three entities involved in भावना.

The three kinds according to its difference as ‘an object of perception, ग्राह्य, the means of perception, ग्रहण or the perceiver, ग्रहीत्र्’.

The object of meditation, ग्राह्य, too is of two kinds, according to its difference as (i) स्थूल (gross) and (ii) (सूक्ष्म) subtle.

क्षीणवृत्तेरभिजातस्येव मणेर्ग्रहीतृग्रहणग्राह्येषु तत्स्थतदञ्जनता समापत्तिः॥४१॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.41)

So Patanjali says: “When the thoughts are weakened, mind acquires fixity in and identity with the perceiver, the means of perception or the object of perception as does a transparent crystal. This is called समापत्ति (absorption)”.

When a perception is involved you may not see the object because of तमस् (ignorance) or you may tend to see it differently by partiality or bias caused by रजस्.

By means of repeatedly engaging the object रजस् and तमस् are weakened causing loss of doubt, misapprehension and uncertainty.

By this भावना arises by the ‘fixity in’ and ‘identity with’ those very perceiver, the means of perception and the perceived, (i.e.) (a)the self, (b)the organ of perception and (c)the object (of perception).

That is to say the mind has now been subdued in which rajas and tamas have been completely suppressed.

There follows prominence of the object of thought alone.

There occurs that kind of absorption (समापत्ति), a transformation similar to that object of thought.

For example when you take a blue lotus to a transparent crystal it acquires the blueness of the lotus.

This is called समापत्ति or समाधि, and these two terms are synonymous.

Though the Sutra says: “…with the perceiver, the means of perception or the object of perception”, still, it should be understood in a different order according to the succession of the level of समाधि.

So it has to be understood as “…with the objects of perception, the means of perception or the perceiver”, because in the beginning comes समाधि in the form of absorption in the object of perception itself, then follows absorption in the means of perception, thereafter the absorption in the perceiver.

The succession of the perceiver etc. will also be explained later on.

वितर्कविचारानन्दास्मितारूपानुगमात्सम्प्रज्ञातः॥१७॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.17)

As stated before संप्रज्ञात-समाधि is a kind of meditation (भावना) through which the nature of objects of meditation is known clearly.

This explains why two different words संप्रज्ञात-समाधि and भावना are used.

समाधि is reached with the help of वितर्क, विचार, आनन्द and अस्मिता and these are explained now.

It has already been pointed out that the objects are of two kinds, (i) स्थूल (gross) and (ii) (सूक्ष्म) subtle. They are part of प्रकृति, nature.

When meditation is undertaken on gross objects viz. the sixteen transformation of प्रकृति – nature consisting of five महाभूत (space, air, fire, water and earth) and eleven organs consisting of five ज्ञानेन्द्रिय and five कर्मेन्द्रिय plus the mind, along with the order of their succession and remembrance of their indicative words and their meaning, then come सवितर्क-समाधि.

In explaining this, what is known as समाधि here means “accompanied with reason or thought”.

So when you concentrate and meditate on the gross objects, on their nature and in relation to time and space, it is वितर्क समाधि.

वितर्क समाधि is समाधि with argumentation. It is स्थूल ध्यान.

Let’s take the ‘cat’ as a word, ‘cat’ as an object & the ‘cat’ as an idea, though different from one another, are cognised as indistinct.

You begin to analyse the word ‘cat’.

The characteristics of the word are different; the characteristics of the idea are different; and the characteristics of the object are also different.

Everything has a name which has some meaning.

When the mind apprehends a word and meditates on its meaning and form as well as on the understanding of both, and thus lose itself in the thing completely, it is called सवितर्क समाधि .

That is when the mind coalesces with the object, knowledge dawns resulting in perception or cognition of the object.

The mixture of these three, sound of the word, its meaning and its knowledge of what it is, constitute perception or cognition of an object. It is सवितर्क समाधि.

When meditation proceeds with regard to these three themselves, without considering the order of their succession (of word, meaning and knowledge) and
without remembering their indicative words and their meaning, then comes निर्वितर्क समाधि.

Both these are referred as वितर्क in the above Sutra of Patanjali.

When meditation proceeds with regard to subtle objects, consisting of the subtle elements as also the mind, as conditioned by time (काल), space (देश) and quality (गुण), then it is सविचार समाधि.

सविचार समाधि is a meditation on the subtle Tanmatras.

Tanmatras are five महाभूत of space, air, fire, water and earth.

सविचार समाधि is a meditation on Tanmatras on their nature and in relation to time, space and GuNa. This is सूक्ष्म ध्यान.

सविचार समाधि is सूक्ष्म ध्यान.

When the meditation proceeds with regard to these very objects as unconditioned by time, space and GuNa, and they are revealed only as objects, then it is निर्विचार समाधि.

Both are meant by the word विचार.

Vyaasa comments on this saying: “वितर्क is the mental realization of the true nature of objects; when this is with regard to subtle objects, it is विचार.”

This is called ग्राह्य समापत्ति (objective samaadhi).

When the mind which we refer to as internal organ, which is a product of सत्त्व गुण with a trace of रजस् and तमस् , is meditated upon then since the power of consciousness takes secondary position and the सत्त्व गुण, which is the object of meditation and is full of joy and light, becomes predominant, there comes सानन्द समाधि.

Those whose endeavour remains confined to this very सानन्द समाधि and who do not see any other reality in the form of प्रधान (प्रकृति, nature) or पुरुष (Person), they are referred to by the word विदेह, because they are devoid of self-identification with the body.

This is ग्रहण समापत्ति (समाधि with regard to the means of perception).

After that, when meditation proceeds by taking as the object of meditation the सत्त्व गुण that is pure and is not overcome by any traces of रजस् and तमस् , then since as a result of the सत्त्व गुण, the object of meditation, becoming secondary and the power of consciousness becoming dominant there remain one’s existence alone as a residue, it is called सास्मित समाधि.

And it should not be apprehended that अहंकार (egoism, awareness of one’s individuality) and अस्मिता are non-different;
because अहंकार occurs where the internal organ, the mind, perceives objects along with the awareness of “I”,
but that is अस्मिता which occurs when the idea of one’s mere existence flashes in the mind that has become merged in प्रकृति
as a result of a reverse transformation through an inward movement.
Those who remain satisfied in this very सास्मित समाधि, they, being unable to realize the supreme Purusha,
are said to be in प्रकृति लय (merged in प्रकृति) because their minds remain merged in प्रकृति.
This is known as ग्राहित्र् समापत्ति (समाधि in the perceiver),
for it is concerned with the perceiver in the form of an awareness of mere self-existence (अस्मिता).
Tweeted on 25th July 2017
1. We continue now with our next (5th) segment of the Bhaashyam on BHAGAVAT GEETHA– Chapter 6 – ध्यान योगा – Yoga of Meditation

विवेकख्यातिरविप्लवा हानोपायः॥२६॥ (Yoga Sutra 2.26)

But in the case of those who engage in meditation after distinguishing the supreme Person (Purusha) (from Prakrti),

although even their discriminative knowledge (विवेक क्याति) of the Purusha alone is a ग्राहित्र् समापत्ति (समाधि in the perceiver),

yet it is not सास्मित-समाधि; because in it the अस्मिता (awareness of self-existence) is discarded through discrimination. yet it is not सास्मित-समाधि;

because in it the अस्मिता (awareness of self-existence) is discarded through discrimination.

Consider the order of the following awareness.

The awareness of the means of perception is certainly preceded by the awareness of the perceiver;

the awareness of the subtle objects of perception is preceded by the awareness of the means of perception; and

the awareness of the gross objects of perception is preceded by the subtle objects of perception.

Thus both kinds of वितर्क (i.e. सवितर्क and निर्वितर्क), which are with regard to gross objects, remain associated with the four kinds of समाधि.

when a yogi is meditating on some gross object what does not happen?

Its subtle cause, the means of perception and the perceiver do not get eliminated.

So there still remains a possibility of the yogi attaining समाधि with regard to any of these three

when he is practising to attain समाधि with regard to the gross.

The second viz. विचार समाधि (meditation with subtle objects) is without वितर्क and remain associated with three viz. सविचार, सानन्द and सास्मित समाधि.

When a yogi practises समाधि with regard to subtle cause of a gross effect after rejecting the gross through समाधि what is the effect?

Rejecting the gross makes it non-existant for him so much so there remains no possibility of समाधि on the gross object i.e सवितर्क समाधि.

The third सानन्द समाधि is devoid of वितर्क and विचार, and remains associated with two viz. सानन्द and सास्मित समाधि.

The fourth सास्मित समाधि is devoid of वितर्क, विचार and आनन्द and has अस्मिता alone.

Thus this संप्रज्ञात-समाधि has four states (see below).

In this way the समाधि is in the states of सवितर्क, सविचार, सानन्द and सास्मित.

They are the sources of such mystical powers as disappearing from view, etc.

Such mystical powers are not conducive but are opposed to that समाधि which is the cause of Liberation.

Therefore संप्रज्ञात-समाधि should certainly be rejected by the seekers of Liberation.

So long as they are objects of thoughts even the perceiver (ग्रहित्र् ) and the means of perception (ग्रहण ) comes under the class of ‘objects of perception (ग्राह्य ).

For the sake of stating the division between what is to be rejected and what is to be accepted, the author of Sutra has elaborated only the ग्राह्य समापत्ति.

ग्राह्य समापत्ति is the समाधि in the object of perception.

ग्राह्य समापत्ति is also of four kinds.

In this that concerning the gross objects of perceptions are two kinds–सवितर्क and निर्वितर्क; and

the ones concerning the subtle objects of perceptions are of two kinds–सविचार and निर्विचार.

शब्दार्थज्ञानविकल्पैः सङ्कीर्णा सवितर्का समापत्तिः॥४२॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.42)

Among them, that (समापत्ति, समाधि) is mixed up with विकल्प.

विकल्प is an an imaginary relationship, between a word, its meaning and the corresponding mental impression.

This समाधि mixed up with विकल्प and it takes the form of an awareness of the gross object known as सवितर्क समाधि.

It concerns gross objects and is a mental modification involving विकल्प (imaginary relationship, false notion).

This विकल्प समाधि is caused by both Rajo Guna and Thamo Guna.

स्मृतिपरिशुद्धौ स्वरूपशून्येवार्थमात्रनिर्भासा निर्वितर्का॥४३॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.43)

When complete concentration the memory becomes purified, and the mind seems to be devoid of its own nature and

appears only as an object then the state is called निर्वितर्क समाधि.
Tweeted on 26th July 2017
1.We continue now with our next (6th) segment of the Bhaashyam on BHAGAVAT GEETHA– Chapter 6 – ध्यान योगा – Yoga of Meditation

The purification of the mind in this निर्वितर्क समाधि takes the following form.

The real nature of the object of perception becomes manifest after the elimination of the memory of the word and its meaning.

Then the corresponding ideation of the object becomes subordinate and as though itself nonexistent. This is निर्वितर्क समाधि.

That is to say, it has for its content the gross object and mental modification without विकल्प.

Once the argument as to whether the object is a man or monkey ceases by the determination of the object it results in निर्वितर्क समाधि

एतयैव सविचारा निर्विचारा च सूक्ष्मविषया व्याख्याता॥४४॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.44)

“By this much itself stands explained the सविचार and the निर्विचार समाधि which pertain to subtle objects.”

That समाधि which has for its object the subtle, uncompounded elements etc. is of two kinds–सविचार and निर्विचार.

These two kinds are according to the difference of their being with or without विकल्प.

विकल्प as already explained is the imaginary relationship between a word, its meaning, or object, and the corresponding ideation or mental impression.

These stand explained by this much itself, i.e. by सवितर्क and निर्वितर्क समाधि concerned with gross objects.

That is सविचार समाधि in which a subtle object becomes revealed, together with विकल्प,

and as conditioned by space, time, quality, etc.

By the specification that सविचार and निर्विचार समाधि are concerned with subtle objects, it stands explained ipso facto that the सवितर्क and निर्वितर्क समाधि they are concerned with gross objects.

सूक्ष्मविषयत्वं चालिङ्गपर्यवसानम्॥४५॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.45)

“The fact of having subtle objects as their content is inclusive of आलिङ्ग”.

It should be noted that what has been said about the सविचार and निर्विचार समाधि having subtle objects as their content extends up to the आलिङ्ग.

लिङ्ग means that by which anything is indicated, or which can be resolved into its cause, or source.

आलिङ्ग means that of which there is no cause, which cannot be resolved further into any other source, and which is not indicative of anything else.

Thereby सानन्द and सास्मित समाधि also, which concern the means of perception (ग्रहण )

and the perceiver (ग्रहित्र्), become included in the ग्राह्य समाधि itself.

That is to say ग्राह्य समाधि concerning the object of perception. This is the idea.

There are seven प्रकृति or sources.

They are the five monads of smell, taste, light, touch and sound and अहंकार and महत्.

सूक्ष्मविषयत्वं चालिङ्गपर्यवसानम्॥४५॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.45)

So has it been said: The earth-atom has for its subtle source the smell-monad; of the water-atom also the subtle source is the taste-monad; of the fire-atom, the subtle source is light-monad; of the air-atom, the subtle source is touch-monad; of the space-atom, the subtle source is sound-monad.

For all of the above the subtle source is the principle called अहंकार or egoism;

Of this अहंकार the subtle source is mere लिङ्ग.

Of this लिङ्ग the subtle source is महत् the Cosmic Intelligence.

Of even that महत् the subtle source आलिङ्ग or प्रधान.

And the subtlety of all the seven प्रकृति, the sources, culminate in the प्रधान itself.

Therefore it has been said, ‘the fact of having subtle objects as their content’ extend up to that प्रधान alone.

Then there is the पुरुष (Person) who is more subtle than प्रधान, still, but He is not the material cause (अन्वयी-कारण).

Therefore it has been explained that the utmost subtlety belongs to प्रधान alone which is the material cause of all things.

On the other hand, although the पुरुष exists as the efficient cause, He is still not fit to be called their subtle cause, because he is not the material cause.

However, if what is under consideration be not the fact of being the material cause, i.e. if the intention be not to state that subtlety belongs only to what is the material cause, then it should be noted that even the पुरुष is indeed subtle.

ता एव सबीज: समाधिः॥४६॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.46)

“These alone are the समाधि concerned with objects.

These four समाधि are called सबीज-समाधि since they occur in association with the बीज, literally seed i.e. object of perception.”

The four समाधिः viz. वितर्क, विचार, आनन्द and अस्मिता known as संप्रज्ञात-समाधि are also known as सबीज-समाधि since they occur in association with the बीज, i.e. object of perception.”

This was stated before in Yoga Sutra 1.17: वितर्कविचारानन्दास्मितारूपानुगमात्सम्प्रज्ञातः॥१७॥ and Yoga Sutra 1.46: ता एव सबीज: समाधिः॥४६॥

सवितर्क and निर्वितर्क are concerned with gross objects while सविचार and निर्विचार are concerned with subtle objects.

निर्विचारवैशारद्येऽध्यात्मप्रसादः॥४७॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.47)

“When निर्विचार is perfected, there follows the purity of the internal organ (mind)”

Though both सवितर्क and निर्वितर्क have gross objects as their content, the निर्वितर्क, which has the nature of being free from विकल्प, is still superior to सवितर्क, which is mixed up with विकल्प between word, meaning and ideation.

Superior to that is सविचार, which is concerned with subtle objects and in which they are revealed in association with विकल्प.

Superior even to that is निर्विचार, which is concerned with subtle objects and in which they are revealed unassociated with विकल्प.

Among them, the preceding three, being meant to lead to the निर्विचार become fruitful by the fruitfulness of the निर्विचार itself.

However, when the निर्विचार समाधि becomes perfected through the power of intense practice, and the quality of सत्व unimpeded by रजस् and तमस्, becomes dominant, ‘there follows purity of the internal organ’ in that mind, which is devoid of the impressions of क्लेस (pain bearing obstructions), there arises the clear light of insight (प्रज्ञा) with regard to an object as it is in its totality, without any sequential comprehension.

On this Vyasa comments: “The sorrowless man of insight, after attaining the ‘clarity of insight’, looks upon all the sorrowful people as does a man on a mountain peak the people on the ground.”

ऋतम्भरा तत्र प्रज्ञा॥४८॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.48) “The insight gained there is called ऋतम्भरा (filled with truth).

‘There’, when the purity of the mind is gained, the insight (प्रज्ञा) that comes to the yogi whose mind is in the state of absorption is called ऋतम्भरा–that which contains truth only, in which there is not even a trace of error.

The term ऋतम्भरा is indeed a derivative term. And that निर्विचार समाधि is a high state of Yoga.

On this Vyasa states: “One attains the high state of Yoga by cultivating प्रज्ञा in three ways. “Through scriptural texts (i.e. through श्रवण, अनुमान i.e. inference–मनन,
“and a liking for the practice of meditation known as निदिध्यासन.”

श्रुतानुमानप्रज्ञाभ्यामन्यविषया विशेषार्थत्वात्॥४९॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.49)

But that ऋतम्भरा प्रज्ञा is different from the knowledge gained through hearing (श्रुत) and inference (अनुमान), because it relates to specific characteristics of objects.

श्रुत means scriptural knowledge. That relates to objects in a general way only.

For, it is not possible to comprehend any relationship between a word and the specific characteristics of the object denoted by that word.

Similarly, inference relates to objects in a general way only; for it is not possible to understand the specific characteristics of an object thru a knowledge of व्याप्ति (invariable concomitance).

For example, from the general knowledge that ‘fire exists wherever there is smoke’, one may infer that at a certain place ‘there is fire because smoke is also seen there’. But from this inference he will not know the particulars of that fire.

Therefore no specific characteristic can be an object of scriptural and inferential knowledge.

Besides, there is no direct knowledge of this subtle, hidden and remote entity through ordinary perception.

But that specific characteristic, be it of some subtle element or of the Person, does become clearly comprehended through insight gained in समाधि.

Therefore great effort has to be put in by a yogi for the ऋतम्भरा प्रज्ञा itself, insight that is filled with truth, which arises on the perfection of निर्विचार समाधि.

This निर्विचार समाधि is different from the knowledge gained from scriptural text and inference; and whose contents are all the specific characteristics, be they subtle, hidden and remote. This is the idea.

While discussing Geetha Sloka (4.26) ( ) we discussed about the latent impression of व्युत्थान.

These latent impression of व्युत्थान are two sets called (a) क्षिप्त (scattered), मूढ (stupified), विक्षिप्त (restless) and also (b) the impressions originating from the सवितर्क, निर्वितर्क & सविचार समाधि that persist even in the state of एकाग्र (one pointedness).

So how can ऋतम्भरा प्रज्ञा, which is attained through the purity of the mind resulting from perfection in निर्विचार समाधि, become established in a mind that is moved by those impressions?

तज्जः संस्कारोऽन्यसंस्कारप्रतिबन्धी॥५०॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.50)

Patanjali says: “The impression arising from that ऋतम्भरा प्रज्ञा opposes the other impressions.”

The impression formed by that ऋतम्भरा प्रज्ञा, being powerful on account of having been born of the insight into reality, obstructs, renders ineffective or destroys, the impressions that are born of व्युत्थान (i.e. born of the states of क्षिप्त (scattered), मूढ (stupified), विक्षिप्त (restless) and of the states of समाधि (viz. सवितर्क, निर्वितर्क and सविचार).
since they are weak on account of having been born of the knowledge of unreal objects.

When those impressions are overpowered, then the perceptions arising from them cease to occur.

From that comes समाधि; from that the insight (प्रज्ञा) born of समाधि; from that the impressions (संस्कार) arising from insight.

Thus the store of the newer and newer latent impressions increases.

From that, again, arises insight (प्रज्ञा); and from that, (newer) impressions (संस्कार) again.

Now let’s consider an objection.

(Objection:) “Well, granted that the impressions (संस्कार) of व्युत्थान, which arise from the knowledge of unreal objects, “are obstructed by the impressions created by the insight gained in the संप्रज्ञात-समाधि which relates only to reality. “However, since these later impressions do not have anything to obstruct them, “therefore there can occur सबीज-समाधि in the plane of एकाग्र itself, “not, however, निर्बीज समाधि in the plane of निरोध (full restraint).

In answer, let us see what Patanjali says. तस्यापि निरोधे सर्वनिरोधान्निर्बीज: समाधिः॥५१॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.51)

“On the restraint of even that (संस्कार of संप्रज्ञात-समाधि), there follows the निर्बीज समाधि (the seedless समाधि) as a result of the elimination of all impressions (संस्कार).”

On the restraint, on the elimination through a special effort of the yogi, of that संस्कार of संप्रज्ञात-समाधि which originates in the plane of एकाग्र–the word ‘even’ implies ‘of the संस्कार of the क्षिप्त , मूढ and विक्षिप्त states as well’–, there follows the निर्बीज, objectless, असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि, as a result of the elimination of all, of the संस्कार of संप्रज्ञात-समाधि as well.
And that निर्बीज समाधि together with its means, has been stated in the Sutra:

विरामप्रत्ययाभ्यासपूर्वः संस्कारशेषोऽन्यः॥१८॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.18).

(असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि is the) other (type of समाधि) (अन्यः) that is preceded (पूर्वः) by the practice (अभ्यास) of stopping or rejection (विराम) of the mental fluctuations (प्रत्यय) (which is the natural fruit of the highest वैराग्य or Renunciation, but that) it (still) contains a residue (शेषः) of latent impressions (संस्कार).”

The other i.e. असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि is that in which only the संस्कार remain and which is preceded by the practice of the means of rejection of mental activity.

विराम, rejection, stands for that through which the rejection is achieved; so it means the giving up of the mental activities in the form of वितर्क, विचार, अस्मिता etc.

The प्रत्यय, the means of that which is पर-वैराग्य, supreme detachment.

Or the meaning of विराम-प्रत्यय is that it is a विराम, rejection, and also प्रत्यय, a particular form of mental modification (i.e. rejection which is a particular form of thought.)

The अभ्यास, practice, of that विराम-प्रत्यय means getting it repeatedly fixed in the mind.

So the alternative translation of the Sutra is: “The other is that in which only the impressions remain and which is caused by the practice of fixing the thought process in the form of ‘rejection of mental activity’. That of which that very thing viz. विराम-प्रत्यय-अभ्यास is the पूर्वम्, cause, is the अन्यः, other, which is distinct from सबीज-समाधि mentioned before.

That is to say, it is the निर्बीज-असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि, संस्कार-शेष:, in which only the संस्कार, latent impressions, remain (शेष); it is totally without any mental modification.

Indeed अभ्यास, practice, and वैराग्य (detachment), have been mentioned as the two means to असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि.

Of them since अभ्यास, which is dependent on some object, cannot be the cause of the objectless समाधि, therefore पर-वैराग्य (supreme detachment) itself which is not dependent on any object, is said to be the cause.

But अभ्यास becomes helpful as an indirect means to असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि through the medium of संप्रज्ञात-समाधि.

So it has been said in Sutra 3.7 (त्रयमन्तरङ्गं पूर्वेभ्यः॥७॥ as explained in detail before).

To give in succinctly, as compared with the group of five disciplines viz. यम, नियम, आसन, प्राणायाम and प्रत्याहार , the three disciplines viz. धारणा (concentration), ध्यान (meditation) and समाधि (absorption), are more intimate practices for सबीज-समाधि.

The word समाधि, when it occurs among the group of disciplines, denotes अभ्यास itself; because समाधि in the primary sense of self-absorption is the goal and not a discipline.

तदपि वहिरङ्गं निर्वीजस्य॥८॥ (Yoga Sutra 3.8) “Even that group of three disciplines is an external practice in respect of निर्बीज-समाधि.

Even that group of three disciplines viz. धारणा, ध्यान and समाधि, however, is an external practice indirectly helpful with regard to निर्बीज-समाधि.

That is to say, for that निर्बीज-समाधि, however, पर-वैराग्य (supreme detachment) is absolutely the intimate practice.

This निर्बीज-समाधि, again, is of two kinds–भव-प्रत्यय and उपाय-प्रत्यय.

(भवप्रत्ययो विदेहप्रकृतिलयानाम्॥१९॥ Yoga Sutra 1.19).

“The समाधि of the विदेह and प्रकृति-लय has for its cause (प्रत्यय) the mundane state (भव).

Of the aforementioned विदेह, who have achieved the सानन्द-समाधि, the निर्बीज-समाधि that comes as a result of some particular birth, particular medicine, particular incantation, or particular austerity is a भव-प्रत्यय–it is that which has the भव, mundane state, for its प्रत्यय, cause; it is that of which the प्रत्यय, cause, is भव, the mundane state characterized by
the absence of discrimination between the Self and the non-Self.

भव-प्रत्यय means that which is caused by the mere fact of birth, as in the case of birds flying into the sky.

(The विदेह and the gods are from their very birth endowed with such mystic powers as ‘becoming subtle’ etc.)

The idea is that this kind of समाधि should be spurned by people seeking Liberation, because it is a cause of mundane state again.

श्रद्धावीर्यस्मृतिसमाधिप्रज्ञापूर्वक इतरेषाम्॥२०॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.20)

The समाधि of others who follow the prescribed path comes from श्रद्धा, the delight in Yoga, वीर्य, enthusiasm, स्मृति, recollection, समाधि, concentration, प्रज्ञा, insight.

That समाधि, however, which is attained by those who see the difference between the Self and the non-Self, and who are distinct from those that have succeeded through birth, medicine, incantation and austerity, comes from श्रद्धा etc.; it is that which has श्रद्धा etc. as its पूर्व, means.

That is, it is an उपाय-प्रत्यय–it has उपाय, the prescribed means, as its प्रत्यय, cause.

Among them the means, श्रद्धा implies delightfulness of the mind with regard to Yoga.

Indeed that protects the Yogi like a mother!

From that springs वीर्य, enthusiasm, in the man who delights in Yoga and is a seeker of discrimination.

In the person in whom वीर्य has arisen, there comes स्मृति, recollection, regarding the preceding stages he has passed over.

And from the recollection of the mind, becoming free from anxiety, attains समाधि. समाधि here means onepointedness.

In the person whose mind has become one-pointed, there arises, through discrimination, insight into the object of meditation.

From the practice of that insight and through supreme detachment, पर-वैराग्य, follows the असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि in the case of seekers of Liberation. This is the idea.

Samkhya Kaumudi says: “All objects other than the power of Consciousness (ie. Purusha) are indeed changeful every moment, even in that state of निरोध (total restraint) of all mental modifications there does surely exist a flow of transformation of the mind as such as also a flow of the impressions (संस्कार) caused by that flow of transformation.

Perhaps having this in mind Patanjali says: विरामप्रत्ययाभ्यासपूर्वः संस्कारशेषोऽन्यः॥१८॥ (Yoga Sutra 1.18),

“The other ie. the असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि is that in which only the impressions remain..”

To explain, the mind can undergo changes in two ways–either with a tendency towards producing its effects, viz. the modifications in the form of प्रमाण, विपर्यय, विकल्प, निद्रा and स्मृति, or towards merging into its cause viz. the प्रदान.

In असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि the second tendency is in evidence.

Patanjali states the usefulness of that संस्कार in Yoga Sutra 3.10: तस्य प्रशान्तवाहिता संस्कारात्॥१०॥

“As a result of that संस्कार, the mind comes to have a steady flow.”

प्रशान्तवाहिता, steady flow, means the cessation–through a reverse transformation–of the mind that is devoid of modifications, like a fire that is without any more fuel.

As for instance, a fire blazes up by increasing gradually with the supply of fuel and offering of oblations such as clarified butter etc.

But when the fuel etc. get exhausted, it becomes slightly less intense at the first instance.

In the succeeding moments, however, it becomes more and more pacified. Thus it becomes gradually more subdued.

Similarly, the cessation of the mind that has become fully restrained becomes successively more continuous.

As to that, the impression born from the previous cessation is itself the cause of the succeeding cessation.

And then, like a fire without fuel, the mind, gradually becoming inactive, merges into its own source, together with the impressions (संस्कार) of the state of व्युत्थान (ie. क्षिप्त, मूढ and विक्षिप्त), समाधि (onepointedness) and निरोध (total restraint).

After that, when from the perfection of the resulting असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि there follows full realization born of the hearing of the great Upanishadic sayings, then there comes about the cessation of nescience.

From that follows the eradication of the contact between the ‘Seer’ and the ‘seen’ which is due to that nescience.

As a consequence, when there comes the cessation of all the five kinds of mental modifications, then the Purusha established in his own nature, is said to be pure, absolute and liberated.

Thus Patanjali says in Yoga Sutra 1.3 तदा द्रष्टुः स्वरूपेऽवस्थानम्॥३॥ “Then there comes about the establishment of the Seer in His own nature.”

‘Then’ means ‘when all the mental modifications have been restrained.’

But when the modifications are present, then although the Seer is ever pure in His nature as the eternal, immutable, Consciousness, yet from the beginningless contact with, ‘the seen’, which is caused by nescience and which leads to the superimposition on him of the idea of identity with the mind, He comes to possess the characteristics of the modifications of the mind, and though a non-enjoyer, becomes as it were a sufferer of sorrows!

Patanjali says of this in Yoga Sutra 1.4: वृत्तिसारूप्यमितरत्र॥४॥ ‘At other times’ means ‘when the modifications are manifest’.

This very fact is elaborated in Yoga Sutra 4.22: द्रष्टृदृश्योपरक्तं चित्तं सर्वार्थम्॥२३॥

“The mind being colored (affected) by the Seer and the seen, is said to be representing all.”

The mind itself, being colored by ‘the Seer and the seen’, appears as the perceiver and the thing perceived, as identified with the nature of the Conscious and of the insentient, as not an object though it is an object by nature, as sentient though insentient.

Mind is like a crystal, and it is said to be representing all.

Hence some persons, become deluded by this identification of the mind with sentience, say that mind is itself conscious.

तदसङ्ख्येयवासनाभिश्चित्रमपि परार्थं संहत्यकारित्वात्॥२४॥ (Yoga Sutra 4.24)

“That mind, though diversified by innumerable impressions, is for the enjoyment of the Other because it acts unitedly with others.”

He Himself, for whose enjoyment and liberation that mind exists, is the Other ie. other than the mind, the ununited Conscious Person.

But the mind, which is like a pot acts in unison with others, is not sentient. This is the purport.

विशेषदर्शिन आत्मभावभावनाविनिवृत्तिः॥२५॥ (Yoga Sutra 4.25).

“For one who has realized the distinction, the enquiry into the nature of the Self ceases.”

For one who has thus realized the distinction between the mind and the Person, the enquiry into the nature of the Self, which enquiry existed previously in his mind, due to indiscrimination, ceases, because when the distinction is perceived the erroneous notion of identity cannot occur.

The realization of the distinction between the mind and the Person is achievable through selfless action dedicated to Easwara.

The indication of this has already shown on the commentary of verse 4.24 ( ).

In the rainy season, from the sprouting of grass, the existence of its seeds can be inferred.

Similarly when in a person it is seen that due to love for the established conclusion of Vedanta there occurs horripilation of hair through thrill and shedding of tears of joy on hearing of the path of Liberation.

Here also it can be inferred that there exists in him the ‘seed’ of ‘perception of the distinction’ which is conducive to Liberation and which is accompanied through the performance of rites and duties.

On the other hand, take the case of one in whom that kind of ‘seed’ produced through rites and duties does not exist. For him, when he hears of the path of Liberation, there arises love for the anti-Liberation point of view.

He exhibits clear lack of love for the arguments on the side of the established conclusions of Vedanta.

But in him who has that ‘seed’, there arises a spontaneous enquiry into the nature of the Self–Who am I?

And this ceases once he has realized the distinction.

When this occurs, what follows?

The author of the Sutra gives the answer: तदा विवेकनिम्नङ्कैवल्यप्राग्भारञ्चित्तम्॥२६॥ (Yoga Sutra 4.26)

Then the mind, flowing along the channel of discrimination, ends on the highland of Liberation.

निम्न means a low land (channel) fit for the flow of water. प्राग्भार means a highland unfit for that flow.

And the mind, which ever flows on in the form of a running stream of modifications, is comparable to water.

That mind of this person, flowing before along the wrong channel in the form of indiscrimination between the Self and the non-Self, ended in the enjoyment of objects.

But now, flowing along the proper channel in the form of discrimination between the Self and the non-Self, it reaches up to Liberation.

And whatever hindrances there may be in this mind that flows along the channel of discrimination should be eliminated, together with their causes.

This is said in two Sutras: तच्छिद्रेषु प्रत्ययान्तराणि संस्कारेभ्यः॥२७॥ Yoga Sutra 4.27) & हानमेषां क्लेशवदुक्तम्॥२८॥ (Yoga Sutra 4.28).

“During the breaks that occur in that mind following the course of discrimination, there arises other perceptions originating from संस्कार.

“It is said that their elimination should be as in the case of क्लेश (affliction).”

In that mind that is following the course of discrimination there occurs during the breaks, during the intervening periods, other perceptions in the form of ‘I’, ‘mine’ etc. as are found in the state व्युत्थान (emergence from Samaadhi); they are born of the संस्कार formed by the experiences in the state of previous व्युत्थान, even though these संस्कार are fading.

The क्लेश viz. अविद्या etc. which through the fire of Knowledge are in a state like that of a burnt seed, do not sprout again in the ‘field’ of the mind.

Similarly the संस्कार which through the fire of Knowledge are in a state like that of a burnt seed, cannot give rise to other perceptions (different from the flow of discriminative knowledge).

The संस्कार which arising from the fire of Knowledge, however, continue so long as the mind lasts.

This point has been explained in great detail in the commentary to verse 5.22.

And thus when the mind following the course of discrimination becomes steady on account of the non-emergence of other perceptions, then प्रसङ्ख्यानेऽप्यकुसीदस्य सर्वथा विवेकख्यातेर्धर्ममेघः समाधिः॥२९॥ (Yoga Sutra 4.29), to the one who, in spite of having attained the knowledge of the distinction (प्रसङ्ख्यान) between the intellect and the Person, is an अकुसीद (non-seeker of its fruits), comes धर्म-मेघ-समाधि from the discriminative knowledge of the highest degree.

Those transformations of the बुद्धि (intellect) in which the quality of सत्त्व alone predominates undertakes संयम on the सात्विक transformations of the intellect.

What is संयम?

To the one who, in that state, underakes संयम (self-control consisting of धारणा,concentration, ध्यान meditation and समाधि absorption).

This was explained in detail in my commentary to verse 4.26 ( )

One who undertakes संयम on the सात्विक transformations of the intellect, comes as a result of the power of control.

This power of control is like that of a master i.e. rulership, over all transformations of the गुण (सत्त्व, रजस् and तमस् ).

This power of control brings in omniscience–consisting in the discriminative knowledge of them just as they are.

This discriminative knowledge is with regard to those very transformations existing as the substrata.

शान्तोदिताव्यपदेश्यधर्मानुपाती धर्मी॥१४॥ (Yoga Sutra 3.14)

The substrata possessed of characteristics that are quiescent (शान्त, i.e. past), present (उदित, risen) or future (अव्यपदेश्य, unmanifested).

(विशोका वा ज्योतिष्मती॥३६॥ Yoga Sutra 3.36).

The mastery over गुण and discriminative knowledge — these two are the mystic power called विशोका (free from afflictions).

And in the two Sutras it is said that Liberation comes from non-attachment (विशोका).

The Benefit of the discriminative knowledge is as follows:

“To the one who has only the realization of the difference between the intellect and the Person comes ruler-ship over all things and knowledge of everything.

तस्यापि निरोधे सर्वनिरोधान्निर्वीजः समाधिः॥५१॥ (Yoga Sutra 3.51)

“Form the renunciation of even that (the ruler-ship stated above) comes Liberation following the destruction of the seed of evil.”

Thus it has been said: Since in one who, even when he has that knowledge of the distinction between the intellect and the Person (प्रसङ्ख्यान) is an अकुसीद, a non-seeker of the mystic fruits, no other idea occur, therefore the knowledge of the distinction (between the प्रधान and पुरुष) becoming fully developed in every way, there follows धर्म-मेघ-समाधि.

In याज्ञवल्क्य स्मृति it is said: “As compared with sacrifices, good conduct, control of the external organs, non-injury, charity, scriptural study, and rites and duties, the highest virtue is this that is the realization of the Self through Yoga.

प्रसङ्ख्यानेऽप्यकुसीदस्य सर्वथा विवेकख्यातेर्धर्ममेघः समाधिः॥२९॥ (Yoga Sutra 4.29)

It follows that धर्म-मेघ means that which showers धर्म, virtue, the realization of the identity between the inmost Self and Brahman.

It means that धर्म-मेघ is the means to the realization of Truth.

From that follows the cessation of the क्लेस and the stock of संस्कार of actions.

From धर्म-मेघ-समाधि comes Liberation, from Liberation comes the total cessation of the five kinds of क्लेस–अविद्या (ignorance), अस्मिता (egoism), राग (attachment), द्वेष (aversion) and अभिनिवेश (clinging to life)–and of the stock of संस्कार of actions.

These संस्कार of actions are of three kinds–dhaarmic, adharmic and misram or mixed and they are rooted in ignorance.

The Liberation destroys these संस्कार because the seeds of karma become destroyed when ignorance ceases.

For, it is appropriate that when the cause ceases the effect should cease absolutely. This is the idea.

This being so संप्रज्ञात-समाधि attained in the place of एकाग्र (onepointedness) has been spoken of before in explaining the concentrating the mind.

We also referred to the ‘fully controlling of the mind’ when we talked of असंप्रज्ञात-समाधि attained in the plane of निरोध (full restraint).

By ‘Peace’ is referred the steady flow of the mind (प्रशान्त-वहिता), which is the fruit of the संस्कार born of the समाधि in the plane of निरोध.

धर्म-मेघ-समाधि is the cause of Liberation through the experience of Truth; by ‘steadfastness in My true nature’ has been shown the Liberation approved by the Upanishads.

The idea is that, since Yoga has such great result, therefore, it should be accomplished with great diligence.


















Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bhodham 94


I would talk of Nehru as two not one!

He earned the distinction of being part of my Dharma tweets because he had a role in the events leading to the partition of India.

It had been as controversial as has been the direction that he gave to the Indian nation as its first Prime Minister from 1947 to 1964. He died in 1964.

We are concerned here not with his politics but with the assumptions, the intellectual foundations.

These foundations on which he based his understanding of Indian society and its future.

From these foundations followed the policies of the Government of post-partition India.

There were two Nehrus: the Jawaharlal of 1933, who wrote Whither India?

It was published as a series of articles in the Indian press on 9 11 October of that year.

Jawaharlal of 1958, who wrote The Basic Approach, published in the A.I.C.C. Economic Review of August 15 was different.

Intellectually and emotionally, the later Nehru was as different from the earlier man, although not quite as radically so.

It was like the Manabendra Nath Roy of India in Transition had been from the Roy of India: Her Past, Present and Future.

The interesting thing is that the later Jawaharlal, of 1958, had beliefs more akin to the earlier Roy, of 1918.

It was a belief that Indian society can best be raised on that inner unity of all life, the divine impulse, or life force, that pervades the universe, as seen in the Vedanta.

But the earlier Jawaharlal, of 1933, had very nearly the same assumptions which the later Roy of the Marxist phase had.

That Hindu nationalism is the force of reaction, employed to keep the masses ignorant and oppressed, that India’s struggle to obtain freedom from British rule is part of the great struggle which is going on all over the world it was for the emancipation of peasants and workers and that socialism is the only future for India, as it is for the world.

In the same year in which Nehru wrote Whither India, 1933, soon after his release from prison he had written a series of letters, while he was in prison from October 1930 to August 1933, to his young daughter Indira.

He wrote to educate her in the history of India and the world, and in the philosophy of the Indian nationalist movement of course.

They were published in 1934 as Glimpses of World History, with a ‘Preface’ by him.

In his letter of 14 May 1933 he tells her how there were three different varieties of nationalism at work in India, the first two being Hindu nationalism and the second is the nationalism of the Muslims.

Of these, Nehru says, Muslim nationalism was not ‘true nationalism’, because it had at the same time religious international loyalties.

It was difficult to draw a sharp line between Hindu nationalism and true nationalism, for ‘The two overlapped, as India is the only home of the Hindus and they form a majority there.

It was thus easier for the Hindus to appear as full blooded nationalists than for the Muslims, although each stood’ for his own particular brand of nationalism’.

Nehru characterised, them, dismissively, as ‘religious and communal’.

He did so without examining what possible meaning could there be in his attaching the word communal’ to them as their main attribute.

This introduced into Indian perceptions much confusion.

For now the assumption was that any agenda that was Hindu, or Muslim, was communal and, to Jawaharlal, what was communal, the word itself had a bad smell.

He further assumed that what was ‘communal’ was always ‘religious’, and would thereafter use the two words together, ‘religious and communal’.

He would see in them the main problem of Indian society, and would separate them from ‘true nationalism’.

But he never really defined what ‘true nationalism, or what he also called ‘real or Indian nationalism” was.

He simply put that undefined entity in opposition to Hindu nationalism and Muslim nationalism.

Since these two were ‘religious and communal’, Indian nationalism ‘strictly speaking, was the only form which could be called nationalism in the modern sense of the word” Nehru argued.

In that case, his argument ought to have been, not that they were religious and communal, but that they were no nationalism at all, and he should have then proceeded to show how the assumptions on which they were based were false, and that ‘real’, or ‘true’, nationalism in India was Indian nationalism, to which he ought to have given not just a name but substance.

Nehru mentioned also ‘a third type of sectional nationalism’ Sikh nationalism.

He says that although ‘In the past the dividing line between the Sikhs and the Hindus had been rather vague’, one effect of the national awakening was that it ‘also shook up the virile Sikhs, and they began to work for a more distinct and separate existence.

Nehru’s theory is that ‘The bulk of them were peasant proprietors in the Punjab, and they felt themselves menaced by the town bankers and other city interests.

This was the real motive behind their desire for a separate group recognition.’

He says that in the beginning it took the form of agitating for ‘the possession of property belonging to shrines’, and ‘came into conflict with the Government over this’, but later they ‘turned to the political field and rivalled the other communal groups in making extreme demands for themselves.’

Nehru now talked of ‘Hindu and Muslim and Sikh nationalisms’.

Besides calling them ‘religious and communal’, he characterised them, in a muddle of political vocabulary, ‘group nationalism”.

By “Group Nationalism” he implied that the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs were not even communities but ‘groups’.

In his view ‘Non co-operation had stiffed up India thoroughly, and the first results of this shaking up were these group awakenings’.

This is even chronologically not correct. For Hindu nationalism was being advocated by Tilak and the earlier Aurobindo  for at least two decades earlier.

Its philosophical and emotional foundations had already been laid by very many people by the end of the nineteenth century.

Muslim nationalism was to grow from what Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan was telling the Indian Muslims soon after the events of 1857; and its premises were clear in the birth of the Muslim League in 1906 at Dacca.

Nehru spoke also of ‘many other smaller groups which gained self¬consciousness’, and mentioned the so called ‘Depressed Classes’.

‘These people’, he said, ‘long suppressed by the upper class Hindus, were chiefly the landless labourers in the fields.

It was natural that when they gained self consciousness a desire to get rid of their many disabilities should possess them and a bitter anger against those Hindus who had for centuries oppressed them.’

Just around that time Bhimrao Ambedkar was arguing, as we saw earlier, that the Depressed Classes were not a small group but constituted the largest part of Indian society, a part that produced also the most substantial portion of national wealth but were treated inhumanly.

Nehru concluded that ‘Each awakened group looked at nationalism and patriotism in the light of its own interests’:

‘The demands of the Muslim communal leaders were such as to knock the bottom out of all hope of true national unity in India.

To combat them on their own communal lines, Hindu communal organizations grew into prominence.

Posing as true nationalists, they were as sectarian and narrow as others’: ‘and, inevitably, there was conflict.’

‘As inter-communal bitterness increased, the more extreme communal leaders of each group came to the front’:

‘The conflict was aggravated in a variety of ways by the Government, especially by their encouraging the more extreme communal leaders, ‘So the poison went on spreading, and we seemed to be in a vicious circle from which there was no obvious way out.’

M.N. Roy had complained, as we saw, that the most outstanding feature of the Indian national movement has been its lack of theoretical foundation.

Some twelve years later, Nehru found the same lack.

‘It is worthwhile therefore to clear our minds of all the tangled webs that may have grown there’, he pleaded ‘and go back a little to basic facts and principles’; for ‘Right action cannot come out of nothing; it must be preceded by thought.’

The principles which the earlier Nehru invoked, and the concerns which determined his view of future India, were not of nationalism but of socialism.

With the foregoing assumptions firmly embedded in his mind, Jawaharlal asked: ‘What exactly do we want? And why do we want it, the same two questions which Roy had asked, in 1922, in his What Do We Want. ‘Whither India?’, the earlier Nehru asked.

´Surely to the great human goal of social and economic equality, to the ending of all exploitation of nation by nation and class by class, to national freedom within the framework of an international cooperative socialist world federation.’

To this he added, in the course of the debate that followed the publication of his article Whither India?, the following proposals.

‘I want to increase the wealth of India and the standards of living of the Indian people and it seems to me that this can only be done by the application of science to industry resulting in large scale industrialization’; ‘I believe in industrialization and the big machine.’

He proposed that the caste system is only a petrified form of class division and must be done away with.

So far as religion is concerned, he proposed that it should be a personal affair and must not interfere in political or economic questions.

The earlier Nehru had completely rejected the premises on which, in his Hind Swaraj, 1909, Gandhi had based his vision of future India.

Gandhi maintained till the last day of his life that India must not follow the ways of Western civilization.

‘That is because, he argued, modern Western civilization is based on industrialism, which by its very nature is raised on violence to the individual, and whatever is raised on violence can produce only evil.

Instead, Gandhi talked of Rama¬Rajya as an ideal system of social relationships.

In his letter of 11 January 1928 Jawaharlal was telling Gandhi: ‘You misjudge greatly, I think, the civilization of the West’;

‘I certainly disagree with this viewpoint and I neither think that the so-called Ram Raj was very good in the past, nor do I want it back.

I think that Western or rather industrial civilization is bound to conquer India, maybe with many changes and adaptations, but none the less, in the main, based on industrialism.’

A week later, on 17 January, Gandhi replied to Nehru, saying: ‘The differences between you and me appear to me to be so vast and radical that there seems to be no meeting ground between us’;

‘I see quite clearly that you must carry on open warfare against me and my views.’

But, Gandhi added, ‘I suggest a dignified way of unfurling your banner. Write to me a letter for publication showing your differences. I will print it in Young India and write a brief reply.’ Nehru did not do that.

And the socialists within the Congress party continued to attack Gandhi.

In 1918 M. N. Roy had advocated the Vedanta as the highest philosophy of life.

‘This concept of the unity of the universe, the realization of the identity of the individual with cosmic existence, is India’s contribution to the progress of humanity’, he had then believed.

All this would soon be superseded by his passion for Marxism and communism.

By 1946 he would abandon that passion and develop his philosophy of Radical Humanism.

It was Roy, more than India, who was in transition.

His biographer, and also an intimate colleague during the later part of his life, Sibnarayan Ray, tells us: ‘the misgivings about the ruthless pursuit of power and suppression of intellectual freedom which had arisen in his mind in consequence of his personal experience in the late 1920s, and the subsequent revelations of the ugly features of the Bolshevik regime during the 1930s and early 1940s gradually undermined his faith in the moral and the intellectual soundness of communism as an ideology’.

Roy now believed that ‘Freedom for the common man had become even more remote under the dictatorship of the Party than in the bourgeois democracies’.

Sibnarayan says: ‘Rejecting then nationalism, bourgeois democracy and communism, Roy now searched for a new body of principles which would both explain historic processes and provide guidelines for a restructuring of society towards freedom and justice in an increasing manner in the lives of the common people.’

Jawaharlal was on a similar path by 1958.

In The Basic Approach he had abandoned every one of the main theses he had propounded in Whither India?.

The chief elements of Gandhi’s vision of future India were now also what constituted Nehru’s profoundly changed perceptions.

The second Nehru now believed, with Gandhi, that Western economics has little bearing on India’s present day problems.

We have to do ‘our own thinking’, to find a path suited ‘to our own conditions’.

Communism has allied itself to the approach of violence: its language is of violence; its thought is violent.

Violence cannot possibly lead to a solution of any major problem.

Wrong means will not lead to right results; and this is no longer merely an ethical doctrine but a practical proposition.

There has got to be a moral and spiritual approach to human problems; materialistic considerations alone will not do.

The law of life should not be competition, nor acquisitiveness, but cooperation, the good of each contributing to the good of all.

In such a society, the emphasis will be on duties, not on rights; the rights will follow the performance of the duties.

It is the quality of human being that ultimately counts.

The touchstone should be how far any political or social theory enables the individual to rise above his petty self and thus think in terms of the good of all.

We have to give a new direction to education and evolve a new type of humanity.

This leads us to the Vedantic conception that everything finds a place in the organic whole; everything has a spark of the divine impulse.

This might help us to get rid of our narrowness of race, caste or class and make us more tolerant and understanding.

These are Nehru’s own words.

But these were the very propositions, all in the framework of Hindu nationalism of course, which were being advanced by Madhav Golwalkar as well.

Earlier having seen Nehru as a communalist, because he was talking of India as a Hindu nation, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as a communal organisation, because it was working to restore to Hindu society its disturbed unity, the later Nehru should have clearly acknowledged that he was now of the same mind as Golwalkar as regards the basic principles for which he had little use earlier.

Nehru did not quite do that. Nor did he acknowledge his debt to the Mahatma.

This failure had a crucial bearing on the policies which, with Nehru as Prime Minister, were being followed by the Government.

For those were mostly based on the theses he had advanced in 1933, but had now abandoned, but without replacing their intellectual premises with those he came to profess in 1958.

This meant that those policies continued, with assumptions he no longer believed in, and what he now believed in was of little consequence for official India.

Neither did the later Nehru break the mold of political debate which he had himself created, and which was always profoundly misleading.

Not the least part of that language is the assumed conflict between communalism and secularism, perceived also as a central issue in modern India.

In this there has been a confusion of terms, from which has arisen the confusion of perceptions.

Properly speaking, the conflict can be between communalism and nationalism, between the limited interests of a community and the larger interests of the nation, and not between communalism and secularism, for it is not to community that secularism is opposed but to organised religion.

It is entirely conceivable that, in being communal, a viewpoint may still be quite secular.

But the political debate in India has centred on communalism v/s secularism.

At no point of time was any serious effort made to examine what precisely did these words connote in the Indian context.

It was assumed, by Jawaharlal Nehru most of all, that there existed, corresponding to the words ‘communalism’ and ‘secularism’, a state of mind and a social situation in India.

This assumption, on which many State policies were based, was not only wrong but also dangerous.

It did not describe a situation, but created it.

With the publication of Basic Approach, the debate ought to have shifted from the controversy of communalism vs secularism to asking the question: what, indeed, is the swa, or ‘one’s own’, of Indian civilization, its distinctive nature, in the light of which must India build its future?

And it is about this that there have been huge misconceptions, in which lie the roots of Indian violence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bhodham 93

(26) – MODERN INDIAN PERCEPTIONS OF INDIA AND THE WEST (37): (xxxix) SOCIAL REFORM: UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS: (xxix) (h) Hindu Nationalism: (b)Pandit Dheendayal Upadhyaya

It is, in my view, in the writings and speeches of Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, especially those of his later years, that we find a clear departure from Golwalkar’s perceptions of India, a shift of emphasis so very fundamental that his vision of future India is not that of Hindu India.

Deendayal Upadhyaya was born on 25 September 1916, at Dhanakiya, a small village situated on the Jaipur Ajrner rail route.  His father was a railway station master, like his grandfather.

After his studies he dedicated his life to the Sangh.

He was one of those few eminent men of the RSS whose investigations into the real nature of Indian civilisation, and the problems that arose from its encounter with British rule, had a sound intellectual discipline.

After the formation of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh in 1951, he became one of its General¬Secretaries, and early in January 1968 its President.

Although the Jan Sangh set out as a political party, its intimate connection with the RSS remained, for not a few of its leaders came from the Sangh family, and retained its outlook.

When Deendayal Upadhyaya died on 11 February 1968, ironically, during a train journey, his body found sprawling on one of the train tracks of the Mughalsarai railway station yard, there was a commonly shared public grief, and a unanimous perception of him as a truly great man, which even the Marxists shared.

In fact he was very nearly a saint.

For he had achieved freedom not only from personal bitterness but also from the bitterness of collective memories.

His speeches and writings, in Hindi, were published in three collections: Rashtra Jivan ki Samasyaen, or ‘The Problems of National Life’, 1960; Ekatma Manavavada , or ‘Integral Humanism’, 1965; and Rashtra Jivan ki Disha, or ‘The Direction of National Life’, 1971.

What is the framework of Deendayal Upadhyaya’s social and political perceptions concerning India?

The essential thing to be observed is that that framework is not of Hindu nationalism.

His concerns are undoubtedly still with the Indian nation and its social and economic problems but those are viewed in the setting of dharma and not Hindutva, or ‘Hinduness’.

Excepting one place, nowhere else in his speeches and writings, if we consider the three works mentioned above, does he talk of Hindu rashtra, or Hindu nation.

He talks of dharma rajya instead.

And there is a world of difference between the two conceptions. Nor does he view dharma as a ‘Hindu’ category.

The proposition around which Deendayal Upadhyaya’s thoughts revolve, like those of Golwalkar, is that the existence of a nation lies in its distinctive consciousness.

It rises or falls in the same degree as that consciousness comes into light or is obscured.

But, unlike Golwalkar, who perceives India’s consciousness as ‘Hindu consciousness’, Upadhyaya perceives it as centred in dharma, about which, however, there are numerous misconceptions.

Golwalkar’s concern is to make Hindu society united and strong, and since in his view Hindu society is the Indian nation, to make the Hindu nation the chief object of every Hindu’s devotion.

Deendayal’s concern is to bring to light the real nature of Indian consciousness, its citi, as he calls it for it is only then that one can obtain a satisfactory answer to the question, ‘what direction shall India take?’

But what is dharma which gives to Indian society its distinctive consciousness, and should give to the Indian nation its direction?

He clears the ground by first saying what dharma is not. It is not ritualism. It is not a system of rites and ceremonies. It is not to be found necessarily in temple or mosque or church. They are not dharma any more than a school is knowledge.

They are a medium, but they are that only a medium.

Dharma is not a sect, nor a philosophical opinion, nor any one spiritual path. In short, dharma is not ‘religion’.

Wrongly translated as ‘religion’, in the next step all the social disorders which religion in the West produced are quickly attached to dharma as well.

And just as in the modern West, religion was progressively ousted from the political and economic affairs of nations, the doctrine of secularism taking its place; so also in India, the mention of dharma would be dismissed from the public domain, by the secularist leaders of independent India, as medieval religious stuff.

That happened because dharma was confused with ‘religion’.

‘Of the very many damages done to us by English, this (translation of Dharma to religion) is one of the greatest’.

The fundamental cause of the numerous problems that modern India is faced with lies, according to Deendayal Upadhyaya, are in the indiscriminate application of the Western forms of thought to Indian political life, obscuring thereby the true nature of Indian consciousness.

The policies that have been advanced after partition reflect, not that consciousness, but one Western ism of another.

Far from achieving coherence and harmony of social purpose, the national life of India has been turned into a battle ground of conflicting economic and political philosophies.

There are, he says, those who regard the means of production alone as the determining social factor; it is in their given ownership and distribution that they see the cause of all disorder, and in their transfer from private to social domain the cure of all social evils.

They believe that, as elsewhere in the world, Indian political life must be grounded in purely economic realities, culture and religion being secondary.

{Socialists and communists constitute this group. (Arun Jaitley and Narendra Modi too belong in this group).}

Then there are those who look upon political power as the ultimate factor. They assess religion, culture, and economics strictly in the light of political considerations. Most of them belong to the Congress (and the Hajpayee’s BJP) which runs the government.

Again, there are religious groups who want that India’s political and economic policies should be based on their respective religious principles.

Religious dogmatists belong to them.

And there are those who believe that India’s life is in its civilization, and the chief concern should, therefore, be to preserve it and enhance it.

They form a very large part of Indian society, many of them belonging to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and not a few once belonged to the Congress as well.

Or, to put it differently, there are, he says, three main groups: one holding the theory of ‘one civilization’ the second, of ‘two -civilizations’; and the third, of ‘many civilizations’.

The first group believes that there is in India only one civilization; it does not admit the existence of any other forms of civilization in India; and, if they do exist, it believes that they should all be assimilated in the one dominant civilization.

`The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is the advocate of this point of view.

The group that believes in the ‘two civilizations’ theory consists of those who advocate it openly and clearly, as in the Muslim League, contending that the Hindus and the Muslims are two distinct civilizations; and those, as in the Congress, that outwardly reject that theory, but in actual practice try, unsuccessfully, to reconcile one with the other, thus betraying their belief that the two are, after all, really different from one another.

Finally, the third group upholds the theory that India is ‘many civilizations’, those of different regions, and, applying the doctrine of self determination, contend that they all are autonomous.

The communists and the language-based regionalists form this group.

To the communists, it is the unity of economic and material interests that is the main thing, not the mythical unity brought about by civilization.

Those who believe in the existence in India of two or many civilizations are evidently mistaken.

But those who rightly believe in the existence of one civilization as the substance of the Indian nation can be mistaken about its nature.

So we return again to the question, what is the nature of Indian civilization?

Deendayal Upadyaya clears the ground further by taking up the question of ‘nation’ and ‘nationalism’.

For, he says, it is with that question that India’s future is linked, even as that future is linked with India’s contribution to mankind.

But the first thing to do is to remove the very many crippling misconceptions with which, in the Indian mind, ‘nation’ and ‘nationalism’ have come to be surrounded.

Nation is not just a political concept, a changing construct of the mind, much less just a territorial concept.

Nation is not a collection of the people that have historically lived together; nor is the people, jana, simply a collection of human beings living in a geographical space.

Nor is nation just a geographical space.

It is not born out of social contract, nor would it die should that contract be abrogated.

Nation arises out of a deeper life force; it is self created, swayambhuva.

It has a historical growth, of course, but history alone cannot explain it.

Language, culture, literature, are undoubtedly the basic elements of a nation’s unity, but they are basic because they reflect something even more fundamental that gives life to a nation its citi, or consciousness.

They are attributes of nation, not its cause.

Confusing attributes with cause, the Western thinkers, then, believe that a nation can be created by putting together somehow those attributes.

That cannot be done, for the common elements of a national life are only expressions of an inherent consciousness at work, which cannot be created artificially by political means.

Each nation has its own unique consciousness. That is what distinguishes it from others.

So long as that consciousness, the citi, lives, that nation lives; when it dies, the nation dies.

A nation dies, not by the loss of territory, or by decrease in its population; a nation dies when its consciousness ceases to exist.

Deendayal Upadhyaya mentions how the growth of nationalism in Europe meant also the aggression of one nation against another.

That was inevitable. In that regard he speaks of the dilemma of Western nations.

Should they remove from their minds the thought of their opponents and enemies, then they would themselves cease to be.

For the very basis of their nationalistic unity would then have been destroyed.

But if they continue on the basis of conflict, then their slogan of human unity and peace will come to nothing.

This dilemma must arise, he maintains, from the negative perspectives of Western nationalism, which originate in turn, in that characteristic Western world view where human life is seen as in perpetual conflict.

The Western thinkers perceive every unit of human life as conflicting with one another; when two or more of such units combine, producing a new formation, it is with the purpose of struggling against a more forceful power.

It was, he says, in this perspective that Darwin viewed biology, Hegel viewed philosophy, and Marx viewed history.

And in that lies the root, also, of those ideas of Nietzsche that were converted into Hitler’s Nazism.

The economic philosophy of capitalism assumes conflict, and competition to be the unalterable truth and scientific facts of life.

Socialism views conflict in its collective and organised forms and advocates a classless society by annihilating one particular class.

They all perceive ‘nation’ either as a useful means or as hindrance.

The nationalists, because nationalism helps the struggle they are engaged in those who oppose nationalism, because it can seriously impede their idea of world struggle.

This philosophy of life, he argues, is out of harmony with that co-operation, love and feeling of unity which the Western thinkers wish at the same time to bring about.

A conflict free society cannot be created on the basis of a philosophy which assigns primacy to the principle of conflict.

For if it were true that human nature, or life itself is rooted in conflict, and man’s every instinct is to survive by subjugating others, then nothing could make him live for others, or love others.

When he must, he would do so only as a policy, an expedient, and not as a natural part of his being.

If we want to keep the world from being destroyed, we would have to change such a philosophy of life.

That is because the whole creation is based on harmony and not on conflict.

In case there is a force at work in the universe, and in human consciousness, then that force is without doubt creative, unified, and positive; neither destructive, nor divisive.

Deendayal Upadhyaya advances the thesis that the traditional Indian perspective on nation and nationality is born out of a world view in which, giving primacy to creative harmony, everything is seen as connected with everything else.

The individual, having his distinct existence, his legitimate self interest, and desires and pursuit of happiness, fulfills himself in the larger life of society:

society derives the meaning of its existence from the still larger life of the nation: the nation finds its ultimate fulfilment in serving the universal interests of mankind.

All these units of life are interconnected, not in a hierarchy, but in a natural, innate, inviolable simultaneity of reverence for life.

Here the law is not conflict and competition for the mastery of the world, but harmony and co-operation, and ultimately the mastery of the self.

For the first condition of human happiness is the mastery of the self.

These, according to Upadhyaya, constitute the ideals of traditional Indian national life.

They form the Indian consciousness, its underlying life force, the purpose of its existence its citi चिति.

That consciousness finds its clearest expression in dharma, which is the sustaining force of all civilized life, indeed of all life.

Dharma is the vital impulse, the life breath, of Indian civilization.

The one ideal that India has kept before itself, through the numerous vicissitudes of its existence through centuries is respectful acceptance of the diverse forms in which life expresses itself.

After saying what dharma is not, Deendayal Upadhyaya, in the major part of his three works that we are considering here,  gives an exposition of what dharma is.

He then applies it to the social problems of India today.

He recalls the classical definition of dharma as that force which sustains, upholds.

Dharma is everything which has that characteristic.

It follows that it is only when the legal and the political arrangements adopted by post partition India will have that characteristic, that they will have any creative moral force.

He maintains that the State exists for the sake of the nation, and not the nation for the sake of the State.

Similarly, the nation is not a means of achieving political ends; rather, policies shall have the one aim of strengthening the nation, and shall express a nation’s deeper consciousness, the purpose of its existence.

The people will, rightly, decide who will govern; but neither those who are thus elected to govern, nor the people, can determine what principles will govern such governance; that can be determined by dharma alone.

Governments are elected by the will of the majority; but what truth is, what justice is, cannot be determined by the majority; those can be determined only by dharma.

In short, neither the State, nor the majority of the people, nor the government, is sovereign.

The force that is sovereign above them all is dharma.

This is the essence of Deendayal Upadhyaya’s understanding of traditional Indian thought.

It is from this understanding that arise his critique of the prevalent political ideas and policies and his vision of the future India.

He makes some obvious criticisms: that Indian politics has turned into a free hunting ground for the unscrupulous, the opportunists, and the unprincipled;  that the disorder of today is caused, first of all, by the lack of knowledge as regards the goal and direction of the national life; and the complete disregard for Indian consciousness.

His aim, however, is not to compile a list of all that is wrong with Indian polity today.

Rather, his concern is to battle with that one fundamental error of perception in which all the ills of Indian society originate.

That error, Deendayal Upadliyaya points out, lies in adopting a fragmented view of social reality, which leads to dividing what in reality are integrated and interdependent social units.

Liberal individualism and socialism alike, he says, are rooted in a view of the world where the individual is fragmented from society, on the underlying assumption, assumed to be the truth of human existence, that there is an innate conflict between the two, and that that conflict is permanent.

From this follows the political philosophy of the two separate domains, the individual and the social, and then the theory of separate rights. This fundamental error, he says, runs
through also the prevalent Indian political thinking.

But Indian thought, Upadhyay maintains, has never seen the individual and society as two conflicting and colliding entities.

Neither has it ever seen them in their separateness. One has no existence apart from the other; the two are inseparable.

The Western nations have divided themselves in two principal opposite camps: those that uphold the primacy of the individual and subordinate society to the interests of the individual; and those that uphold the primacy of society, and subordinate the individual to collective social interests.

Both these views are one sided, and must produce profound disorder.

Indian thought has throughout its history looked upon the individual and society as an indivisible unity.

Both have their distinct requirements, which can be fulfilled, not in the subjugation of the one to the other, but in their interdependence.

At the same time this interdependence is not a mean state, one of helpless dependence; rather, in the Indian conception, it is a state of mutual harmony, where one is not seen as a threat to the other, but as the natural part of one’s growth.

Deendayal emphasises the truth that higher than even interdependence is the state of ‘inter-harmony’, or ‘interagreeableness’.

In dependence, there is little dignity; in inter-dependence, there is genuine self respect.

It is only in a social order where this mutual harmony, or mutual–agreeableness, is the guiding principle of social and individual relationships, that true freedom is obtained for man.

But only he can be agreeable who in his own being is independent.

The true meaning of freedom is the freedom to be in harmony with others.

It is the freedom to summon one’s inherent physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual powers in the service of one’s own self and of others.

This, then, is the meaning of dharma; and dharma is the link which binds the individual and the social in an integral unity of humanness.

It was this world view that secured the foundation of the varnasystem, the Indian social order, in which there was perfect equality among all the different parts of society.

‘Many causes of the degeneration of that system lie not in the conception itself but in human pride and selfishness.

The agenda of future India must lie, Deendayal Upadhyaya suggests, in overcoming social disorder, which can be achieved only when India has regained its very self.

That self lives in its abiding faith in the truth that no social order can survive on the basis of inequality and division.

There is diversity in nature; but diversity is not inequality; nor is diversity division.

Inequality and divisiveness can only destroy human worth, not uphold it.

What can uphold and sustain is dharma.

Hence his vision of future India is dharma rajya, which is not a theocratic state, nor is there in it inequality and division.

From these traditional philosophical principles of Indian civilization he derives the political and economic contents of dharma rajya.

Set forth, with perfect clarity of principle and practical details, they are as follows:

a. Assurance to each individual of a minimum living standard, which will imply an assured opportunity to every able bodied individual of purposeful employment.

b. Beyond these, such increasing prosperity that will offer the means, to the individual and to the nation, to enable them to contribute, in the light of their distinctive consciousness, citi, to the progress of the world.

c. Taking into account the productive potential of the nation, to develop appropriate technology; to husband the natural resources; and to arrange for the safety of the country.

d. The question of ownership of different industries, whether it shall be with the individual, or the State, or any other organisation, shall be decided on the basis of what is most practical.

e. The order, advocated above, should be such that in no way must it disregard man; the order be an instrument of his full development; and that order protect cultural and other life values of Indian society.

This is that protective line which in no circumstances must the economic order transgress.

In Pandit Deendayal’s dharma rajya there will have to be, besides, free education for everybody.

It is inconceivable, education of the people being in the greatest interest of society, that anybody should have to pay to get himself or herself educated; or, if unable to pay, remain uneducated.

Education in traditional India was always free. That was the case, until 1947, in Indian states as well.

Primary and higher education shall be a charge on the nation.

It is equally inconceivable, he says, that people should have to pay for medical treatment, which, like education, will have to be made available, free, to everybody.

Health and education will be, in dharma rajya, the two primary concerns of society.

If two words are required to indicate the direction in which Indian polity should move, they are, he says, de-centralisation, and self-reliance.

Diversity, he says, is an inestimable gift of nature: Indian life, like nature, has been immensely diverse, where life has expressed itself in different colors, sounds, textures.

This excessive veneration for centralizing every social and economic function in one authority can produce only disorder, for it will be against life itself.

Authority must be dispersed, so long as the different centers of authority, and initiative, are all held together by dharma.

Similarly, self-reliance must take the place of this pathetic dependence on what is foreign, in practically every field, in thinking, social arrangements, methods, capital, the ways of production, technology, and standards of consumption.

This dependence on the others cannot be the way of progress.

But neither does it mean that India blindly follows only that which is ancient.

Many old institutions will change and the new ones take their place.

Finally, Pandit Deendayal advocates the thesis that dharma does not lie either in the rule of the majority or even in the people.

Dharma is eternal.

It is not sufficient, therefore, that democracy be understood only as the rule, of the people; it must also be a rule for the good of the people.

What the good of the people consists in can be determined only by dharma.

Hence democracy will have to be also dharma rajya, the rule of dharma.

True democracy is only that where both freedom and dharma combine.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment