HOLY YOGA
CHAPTER TWO
SAMKHYA YOGA OR THE YOGA OF KNOWLEDGE
VERSE NUMBER 16:
Text in Transliteration:
na ‘sato vidyate bhaavo naa ‘bhaavo vidyate satah
ubhayor api drshto ‘ntas tv anayos tattvdarsibhih
Text in English:
The unreal has no
existence; the real never ceases to be. The truth about both has been realized
by the seers.
COMMENTARY BY SWAMY CHIDBHAVANANDA:
Tatva-darsana is
seeing into the reality of things. Beings are seeking to have a correct
understanding of things about them. To the extent their understanding of things
is perfect their adjustment to get at the permanent in preference to the
impermanent. A man is attracted by a panoramic plot of land on a river bank and
he decides to put up a beautiful house there. But on investigation he finds out
that the land is liable to inundation during the rains. Though the plot happens
to be ideally situated it has to be rejected for valid reasons. Many things in
nature are unreal and unreliable while seeming to be real and reliable.
The seers of truth
behold the body and the pleasure and pain associated with it as unreal. Our
bodies were not existent in the distant past; they will not be in the distant
future. Though they are now, their existence is equivalent to
non-existence—“abhaavam”. The pleasure of wealth enjoyed in dream is unreal
even while enjoying it.
The body is devoid
of bhaava and therefore unreal. It was not in the past; it has come into being
now; it will not be in the future. What seems to be real now is only a
modification of the elements. It is therefore to be discounted as non-existent.
The man of understanding should not be affected by pleasure and pain which are
all born of identification with the body.
Atman is
Existence; it is Real; it is “bhaava” which means awareness or pure
consciousness. Awareness remains untouched by time, space and causation. States
of mind such as wakefulness, dream and sound sleep do not affect Atman.
Modifications which are characteristics of things phenomenal do not take place
in Atman. It is ever Itself. “Prajgnaanam Brahman” –Awareness is Reality. This
is the finale of the definition of the Absolute Reality. This is the finale of
the definition of the Absolute Reality.
COMMENTARY BY DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN:
“sadaakhyam brahma” Shankara defines real (sat) as that in
regard to which our consciousness never fails and unreal (asat) as that in
regard to which our consciousness fails. Our consciousness of objects varies bt
not that of existence. The unreal which is the passing show of the world veils
the unchanging reality which is for ever manifest.
According to Ramanuja, the unreal is the body and the real
is the soul.
Madhva interprets the first quarter of the verse as
asserting duality, vidyate-abhaavah. There is no destruction of the unmanifest
(avyakta) prkriti. Sat, of course is indestructible.
COMMENTARY BY SWAMY SIVANANDA:
The changeless,
homogeneous Atma or the Self always exists. It is the only solid Reality. This
phenomenal world of names and forms is ever changing. Henc it is unreal. The
sage of the Jivanmukta is fully aware that the Self alwys exists and that this
world is like a mirage. Through his Jnanachakshus or the eye of intuition, like
the snake in the rope, after it has been seen that only the underlying Essence
in all the names and forms, viz., Asti-Bhati-Priya or Satchidananda or
Existence-knowledge-bliss Absolute. Hence he is a Tattvadarshi or a knower of
the Truth or the Essence.
What is changing
must be unreal. What is constant or permanent must be real.
Comments by the blogger:
Truth is simple as well as multilayered and convoluted. We
simply call “mother”. That is the first word we learn in any language. Because
she is constantly with the baby and (at least in those days, in the West)
breast feed the baby. Mother is the simplest of the vocabularies the child
learns. But the motherhood is not so simple, and it is multi-layered and
convoluted. For, mother is not simply mother; she is a wife, too. In that
capacity the child should not understand what was don to bring the child into
the world. Not only convoluted, but Truth could be harsh to the extent we are
steeped in maya or God’s illusion. We see the world; we see the things, the
beings, the trees, the flower and fauna and the buildings, gadgets; we see
food, the implements that are required to produce food, rice or paddy of wheat
or beef, pork etc., we see beautiful things and we see ugli things. Like the
baby which sees the mother and calls her mom or mommy or amma, should not
understand any extraneous things about her. The baby should and could see just
the mother in the woman who was party to the lovemaking. And what was the thing
going on at the exact time of conception of the child, it should decide the
nature of the soul that enters the womb along with the man’s semen. That soul
was dependent after shedding the former body for a fresh one according as its
present needs. What were and are the needs of the woman who is called the
baby’s mother? Who knows that? Even the husband cannot know, then how could the
child know? Thus the simple word mother is very very complicated and convoluted
and beyond the pale of the real and complete understanding.
We use food; various ingredients go into the making of it.
We might know the recipe too, but do we know the chemical properties each
ingredient is made of. And do we know about it atomic structure. We say I love
you, how far do we understand when we actually propose to our sweethearts? We
only see her now in her present state of body, and after twenty-five years she
might have developed ugly limbs and contracted one or two diseases. We know
generally. Do we know fully to the point of being acutely conscious of what is
in store in the future and how would we react to it, to the one that we
propose! We say, “I love you!” What do we exactly love; her hands, legs,
breasts, torso, or other parts? We simply say, “I love you!” like we said some
scores of years ago to another woman, “I love you, mom!”
How far a child understands its mother? And how far do we
know each other when one proposes to the other?
So, not the body alone! Ok, the child likes the mother
because she feeds the baby milk from her own body and always cuddles the baby,
calls drippy names. The child like the mother, and her milk, her sweet words,
her body smell and above that there is some umbilical thing that connects the
mother and the baby.
Likewise, there is something umbilical in the relationship
and the chemistry between two individual beings for them to fall in love.
But ask the baby what mother means. Can it tell? Likewise,
we cannot tell what drew us to our sweet heart. Ok, the milk is there for the
baby, the body is there for the man and woman. But so also the woman next door
has milk in her breasts to feed her baby. So, what’s so special about this
particular woman? There are any number of girls, any number of men; but one
does not fall in love with every one! What’s so special? But there is something
special, ok? We simply call it chemistry. Or the body chemistry. And what is
the chemistry for the child? Milk and drippy names? Beyond all these things
there is something in one’s mother and one’s man and woman, ok? And, we don’t
understand our food beyond the recipe. Do we know its atomic structure? A man
can drive a car if he has the money to buy a car. But does he have to be a car
mechanic to own one. Now a nine-years-old child has smartest of phones. At
ninety too we have smarty phones. What exactly do we know about the electronic and
mechanical things about the smart phones? We need not know, ok?
The baby does not know everything about the woman who is its
mother. But the chemistry works for it and for its mother too. The lovers need
not know the atomic structure of each other, and genetic facts. The eater of
food need not know the stuff and nonsense it is made of. The smart phone owner
can flaunt it as though he invented it, without knowing many things about its
use and utility even. So?
Where is the truth in the word, “mother”?
Where is the truth in the word, “lover”?
What is the nature of truth in the word, ”eater or consumer”
What is the status of the man owning costly things and
gadgets vice a vice its making and structuring?
So?
Without knowing the basics, we can go through life, ok?
Without knowing the basics of the universe we can live a
beautiful life, ok?
Without knowing anything about the creator of the universe
we can live a full and beautiful life, ok?
We can, apart from not knowing the creator, live an
excellent life by denying the existence of God and calling the devotees all
sorts of bad names, ok?
Everything is True!
But everything is multilayered and complicated and
convoluted!
And, of all things is the one that holds that this universe
itself is a beautiful thought by its creator!
The baby has something in it that enjoys the relationship
with its mother.
The lovers have something in each of them to enjoy each
other.
The eater of idlies and dosas have something in them to
enjoy the food without even understanding any thing in the nature of recipe
even, much less the atomic structure thereof!
The gadgets can be operated by complete fools and congenital
idiots even!
So there is something in all of us to enjoy this universe.
What is that?
And to enjoy this universe we need the medium of the body!
Not a complete and stable one, but even like that of the
famous scientist, Stephen Hawk.
We need not have a complete body; even a disabled body will
do!
And we are all the enjoyer of this universe!
And the food makers enjoyed inventing a recipe. And the
gadget makers enjoy making them. Inventing them.
The same goes for the discoverers. They enjoy doing that.
So everything is for enjoyment. But who is the enjoyer.
The baby’s mouth, or stomach or mind or any other things?
The eater of food enjoys through the tongue alone?
The owner of gadgets enjoy through the mind alone? Then why
has he got to flaunt it? Even if he does not have the compulsion to flaunt it,
how does he enjoy it?
If we catch cold, we suffer? Or our nose?
If we contract some disease, who suffers? The particular
body part alone?
The nice woman having the breast cancer should not suffer
after the breast has been removed. But does that happen. Who feels the loss?
Who feels the joy?
Who feels the pain?
Who feels the loss?
Who feels virtuous?
Who suffers in one’s private self for one’s wrongs or sins?
So, even though there is this universe, it being a cause,
there should be an effect, ok? And we would not become small if we call him
God, ok?
And this universe is full of enjoyments and sufferings, ok?
We go through both, ok?
We love so much that it hurts, ok?
So, who is the enjoyer in the baby, eater, lover and car
owner?
If there is an
enjoyer, there is nothing wrong to give it a name, ok?
So, this is how the “atman” or “self” or “soul” got to be
identified and named. But mind you, no one of us invented it. We can only
realize it. And that too not in one breathe. Not in one birth. Not in ten
births. Not even in a hundred births.
The seers of the Truth, so, don’t take this world and its
pains and pleasures seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment