This is a profound philosophy that is
hidden behind performance of sacrifice, self-control, practice of yoga, the
control of senses, the restraint of the mind and the stabilising of the
intellect and the reason. We have to perform a double process - sometimes
mentioned in the Bhagavadgita and also in Patanjali - of vairagya and abhyasa, a dual action of
withdrawal and union. The performance of this dual function may be said to be a
simultaneous action taking place, as recovering from illness is also the
regaining of health and the going away of night is the coming in of day. There
is no temporal successiveness in these processes; they happen to be a
simultaneous occurrence. Thus, the vairagya that we speak of in yoga, the dissociation of consciousness from erroneous
thinking and contact, is simultaneously a concentration of consciousness on
that which lies above itself - the lower self concentrates itself on the
higher.
Now I am coming to that point as to what
the lower self is and what the higher Self is. The lower self is that state of
consciousness which is conditioned by the urge in the direction of objects. The
higher Self is that which is the condition of freedom, attained by even a
single step taken by this involved consciousness in the direction of
disentanglement with objects. Thus every ascent is a regaining of one's Self,
and an asset on the side of strengthening of one's personality. Vairagya and abhyasa mean detachment and
communion. Here, many people may get misguided due to the difficulty in
understanding the true meaning of these terms, vairagya and abhyasa - renunciation, abrogation, detachment or non-attachment, going together with
concentration, meditation, etc. We have to correctly understand what detachment
means in order to know what communion is; and the whole of yoga is this much.
If we commit an initial error, then we would be piling error over error in our
subsequent actions or performances. Thus, we have to be vigilant at the very
beginning.
Detachment is a success that we achieve in
freeing our consciousness from involvement in any kind of objectivity - whether
it is the form of intense liking or intense dislike, or finally even in the
complacency that things really are outside. The initial step or stage in
self-control would require us to free ourselves from emotional involvements,
either in the form of intense like or intense dislike. But even if we are
emotionally free and there is no great passion for things either positively or
negatively, we may yet be unfit for the higher requirements in yoga. A mere
good man need not necessarily be a fit person for yoga, because while goodness
is a great thing indeed, a highly valued thing, it is itself not sufficient
because yoga is super-ethical - it goes beyond the morality of mankind. It is
not merely goodness, charitableness and a humanitarian feeling, though all
these things are wonderful in themselves. So, when there is a freedom achieved
to some extent from emotional involvements in the form of love and hatred, we
might have attained a great thing indeed - it is a very important success - but
yoga is something deeper and more difficult to grasp because, as we make a
distinction between abnormal psychology and general psychology or rather, the
psychoanalytical process and the study of ordinary psychological functions, we
may have to make a distinction between two types of involvement of the mind in objectivity
- the one emotional and the other perceptional.
Emotional involvements are studied in
psychoanalysis, sometimes known as 'abnormal psychology'. By a deep
understanding of our own self, we may be a healthy person psychically, and
psychoanalytically we are perfectly hale and robust. But from the point of view
of yoga, we may still be an abnormal person - because abnormality does not
necessarily mean being a psychoanalytic patient. There can be a 'metaphysical
error' as philosophers would put it, apart from a mere social, political or
emotional mistake that we commit. Here it is that yoga goes beyond mere human
ways of thinking, much less social and political ways. It is a cosmic way of
envisaging everything, which will inject a sort of shock into us. We may begin
to shudder even to think of the possibility of there being such a way of
encounter with things, and this is the reason why sometimes we feel tremor in
the body when we go deep into meditation - a shock which the pranas receive by the impact of
the mind upon them, due to the intensity of our concentration on a supernormal
level, which goes beyond ordinary human thinking.
So even if we are emotionally free and a
good individual indeed, well adored and respected in humanity, we may not be
prepared for yoga; because yoga is a preparation to embrace a reality, which is
not necessarily a human world. This is also touched upon, pithily, in some of
the aphorisms of Patanjali, which is not my subject at present - I am concerned
with the Bhagavadgita. So, coming to the point of yajna, sacrifice, self-control, we seem to
conclude that every sacrifice which is true to its spirit involves a
metaphysical injection that we give to the psychological process of the mind, a
spiritual adventure more than any other kind of human activity or a religious
routine. We ascend into a supernormal degree of comprehension in our adventure
of vairagya and abhyasa - withdrawal and
union. From what do
we withdraw ourself, and with what do we commune ourself? The withdrawal, as I
mentioned, is not from the substance of the persons and things or the five
elements, but from the way, the manner in which they are perceived by the
senses, the mind and the intellect. Our opinion about things is what is
important, rather than the things themselves. Our understanding is what is our
concern, and not what we are understanding - the thing as such. The world,
physically speaking, is not so much our concern in yoga as the way in which we
are understanding it, and the manner in which we react to it.
Thus the process of vairagya, or detachment, is
more a psychological activity rather than a physical performance. It is
something that is happening inside in the mind. So we can detach ourselves from
things even in the midst of things. Even in the thick of the bustle of people
and the noises of the world, we can be detached, because the bustle and the
haste, the movement and the noise are not the things that trouble us; the
trouble arises from our reaction to them. The world is what it was, and perhaps
it will be what it was - nobody can change it, and perhaps there is no need to
change it; but there is necessity to change our understanding of it. It is
possible to be free from concern with the external events in the world by a
modification or an amendment of our outlook or perspective in life, even in the
midst of thick activity. Here is the principle of karma yoga coming again: in the midst of intense
activity one can be in a state of deep communion with the Ultimate Reality
because of the fact that the mind is in the state of vairagya - completely
withdrawn from erroneous associations with the events taking place with
persons, with things, with activities. On the other hand, one may be in the top
of Mount Everest, yet one may be involved in the world process. The thick of
the jungle is not necessarily a safe place for the practice of yoga, because
the absence of the presence of things, though it is an important thing indeed,
is secondary considering our attitude to them. A deeply involved person may be
involved even in the thickest forest - and an inwardly detached person may be
detached even in the thick street of a large city. If we are honestly intent
upon achieving true success in what is called 'yoga', we should not merely pat
ourselves on the back and imagine that we are in a state of yoga or religious
activity merely because it appears to be so, and people also say so. People may
say anything - the saying of the people is no matter with us; it is another
thing altogether that worries us and perhaps is our concern.
So, the yoga, the sacrifice - which is
control of the senses, restraint of the mind, and the stabilising of the
reasoning process, which is the yajna,
the various types of yajna mentioned in the fourth chapter: prana,
manas, indriya etc. mentioned there - all these suggest a single
action on the part of our consciousness, namely an awakening into a higher
Self. We may wonder why we should go on using the word 'Self' again and again,
as if there is nothing else and no other word will connote what is our
intention. The word 'Self' is a very important thing, because it suggests the
true nature of things. We are not likely to understand the meaning of it
because we are accustomed to identify self with our personality: 'yourself', '
myself', 'himself', 'herself', 'itself'. These grammatical words that we use
suggest a wrong meaning of the term 'Self'. Self does not mean a person or a
thing, though it is associated with a description of persons and things,
yourself and others. The word 'Self' actually means the non-objective status
occupied by everything in the world. Here is a sentence on which we have to
bestow deep thought. A
non-objective status which everyone enjoys and everything enjoys -
this is called the Self. The Self is that which cannot be externalised, cannot
be objectified, cannot become other than what it is; it cannot know itself as
an 'other'. It is not an 'other' - it is just what it is. The real 'you' or the
'I' is what we call the 'Self'. This 'I' cannot become a 'you', a 'he', 'she', 'it'
- it is just what it is. Inasmuch as this is the condition of everyone and
everything, in a way we may say the whole universe is just the Self - Atmai eva sarva. The whole
universe is a Self, only to be understood in its proper significance. If the
whole universe is a Self and it cannot be objectified, because a Self is a
non-objectified status, it would mean the universe is an intense
self-consciousness; actually, what you call God is nothing but this. It is a
highly enhanced condition of universal self-consciousness. This Self, which is
principally and primarily a universal being, gets conditioned, by degrees, into
lower forms of experience, until it descends into our personality-consciousness
of the so-called physical 'I', the physical 'you', the physical 'it'. Thus it
is self-control - I am coming to the point again - self-control means the
restraining of the lower experience of the self by uniting it with the higher
experience of its own Self. It is not a communion with somebody else. You are
communing with your own self only in a larger, pervasive form than the
condition in which you are at present. Your connectedness with things ascends
in a series of larger pervasiveness until it reaches the apex of this
pervasiveness in God-consciousness or Universal-realisation.
So, self-control begins with a little
action of restraining the senses, and then becomes wider and wider, by degrees.
These are the samapattis or samadhis mentioned in the sutras of
Patanjali. These are the seven stages of knowledge. These are the communes
attained with the levels of being, the realms of consciousness, the planes,
etc. - these are the forms of Self. Gradually we get united with them until we
become wider and wider, deeper and deeper, heavier and heavier, more and more
comprises us, and nearer and nearer to our own self than we are now. Now we are
far away from us. What a pity, we are far from our own selves. In the sense we
are not this self we are thinking ourselves to be, as conditioned by this body;
there is a larger kingdom in which we are residing, even now, from which we are
apparently exiled into this grossness of the prison-house of this body
consciousness. These are the fundamentals, and this is the background of all
forms of self-control, which is the final meaning of any form of sacrifice - yajna.
|