The Upanishads say that God-realisation is not possible through the mind; just as ‒
१. यन्मनसा न मनुते येनाहुर्मनो मतम् । (केन॰ १ । ५)
२. न तत्र चक्षुर्गच्छति न वाग्गच्छइत नो मनः । (केन॰ १ । ३)
३. नैव वाचा न मनसा प्राप्तुं शक्यो न चक्षुषा । (कठ॰ २ । ३ । १२)
But along with this, there is also talk of realising the Paramatmatattva (Supreme Reality) through the mind; just as ‒
१. मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम् (बृहदा॰ ४ । ४ । १९)
२. मनसैवेदमाप्तव्यम् (कठ॰ २ । १ । ११)
How is one to strike a balance between these two sets of statements ? We share a few thoughts on this here.
There are two types of spiritual disciplines to realise the Paramatmatattva. ‘Karan sapeksh’, that is, where there is predominance of actions and ‘Karan nirpeksh’, that is, where there is predominance of ‘vivek’ (The power of discrimination). In ‘Karan sapeksh’ spiritual discipline, the predominance of the inner senses (meaning, the mind, intellect etc) remains. Whereas, in the ‘Karan nirpeksh’ spiritual discipline, through the power of discrimination (discretion), severing the assumed affinity with the inner senses is predominant. Thus, the verse in the Upanishad ‘यन्मनसा न मनुते’ etc. is about ‘Karan nirpeksh saadhan’ and the verse ‘मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ is about “Karan Sapeksh saadhan”.
A spiritual discipline, whether it is ‘Karan Nirpeksh’ or ‘Karan Sapeksh,’ God Realization is only through ‘Karan Nirpeksh’ (meaning, without the aid of the mind-intellect instrument), i.e. it is only through the predominance of ‘vivek’. The reason being, that Divinity, is beyond the senses; in other words, none of the senses can reach that ‘tattva’ (Divinity).
In a form of illustration it can be said that with the words ‘यन्मनसा न मनुते’ etc., there is pervasion of the fruit (फलव्याप्ति है) and in the words, ‘मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ the pervasion of the mind and intellect (वृत्तिव्याप्ति है). But as an illustration, this point does not sit well. In fact, in the realization of the Divinity (meaning Truth, Paramatmatattva), there is neither pervasion of the mind and intellect, nor the fruit.
In God-realization, the mind and intellect pervasion can only be (परमात्मतत्त्वकी प्राप्तिमें वृत्तिव्याप्ति तभी हो सकती है), when it is the subject of the mind and intellect. However, it is not a subject of the mind and intellect; the mind and intellect cannot reach there. In that Divinity, which is free of the mind and intellect instruments, how is it possible for vrutti (meaning, the mind and intellect) to reach ? How can the mind and intellect, which are created and which perish, be in that divinity which is unborn, and which is without any modification ? If we accept the mind and intellect in the sentient divinity, then how can divinity be ‘gunateet’ (meaning, beyond the modes of nature) and how can it be free from any modifications ?
The aspect that is captured is smaller than the one catching it. You can only see with the eye that which is within the viewing periphery of the eye. The senses can only have knowledge of (meaning, grasp of) that which is smaller than the senses.
In performing an action, the instrument that performs the action is there, but the instrument cannot come under the influence of the action; just as earth (clay soil) is in a clay pot, but the earth cannot come within the realm of the pot. Nature is the instrument (meaning, cause) and the mind and intellect are the kaarya (meaning, actions). When one cannot grasp Prakriti (Nature) with the mind and intellect, then how can one grasp that divinity (Paramatmatattva) which is beyond Nature ? When even Nature cannot reach that divinity, how can the actions in Nature reach the mind and intellect ?
In ‘मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ , the mind has to sever assumed affinity with worldly inert objects. The mind can move away from inertness, and it cannot grasp the sentient divinity, and then getting tired and exhausted, it quietens on its own. [*]
It means that in Dhyan yog, an aspirant becomes disinclined (removes his mind) from the world, practices to engage the mind in God. The disinclination of the mind from the world, is itself engaging the mind in God. Therefore the mind-intellect (vruttis) are only useful in renouncing the world. Just as, by burning wood, the fire quietens – settles down on its own, in the same way, on renouncing affinity with the world, the mind-intellect (vruttis) are also renounced on their own. Therefore in reality, the mind-intellect are only useful in becoming disinclined (nivrutti) towards the world, not in realizing the Divinity (God, Truth). Therefore, ‘मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ ‘manasaivaanudrashtavyam’ means that it is only in negation, not in process and method (विधि)[†] ।
Just as some king, sitting on his chariot, goes to the queen’s quarters, then he leaves the chariot outside, and goes into the queens abode alone, by himself, in the same way, he who does “karansapeksh saadhan” (discipline with the aid of mind-intellect) too, in the end has to sever affinity with the mind-intellect (करणों) and by himself (स्वयं), has to enter that Divinity. (Paramatma tattva). Just as a man is called a charioteer on associating with the chariot, in the same way, on having affinity with the ego (aham), the soul (atma), is called a “jeev’ (embodied soul). When he leaves the assumed affinity for the I-ness (aham), then the sense of being an embodied soul (identity) does not remain, rather only the Divinity remains. Therefore, “jeev” does not realize “Brahma”, rather only “Brahma” realizes “Brahma.” ‒‘ब्रह्मैव सन् ब्रह्माप्येति’ (बृहदा॰ ४ । ४ । ६). It means that when the sense of being an embodied soul (jeev) is wiped out, only the One Brahma as it is remains.
There is one exceptional point that, inertness cannot be renounced by the inert (insentient, jada). Rather only through the sentient (chetan) can one renounce the insentient (inert). Therefore, it is the sentient only becomes disinclined from the world, not the mind-intellect. Because the mind-intellect themselves are inert, then how can they have a disinclination of the inert ?
The main point is the sentient (chetan) cannot be known through the insentient (jada, inert). If one can know the sentient through the insentient, then the significance is of the insentient (inert), not of the sentient (chetan); because the insentient (inert) would be the king of knowledge, the knower.
‘यन्मनसा न मनुते’ and ‘मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ etc. verses also have the feeling that mind-intellect cannot reach that Divinity, but the almighty and all pervading Supreme spirit (Paramatma) can reach the mind-intellect. Not only that, it is through the mind-intellect that one can fasten on to the Supreme Spirit (Paramatma); because besides Paramatma, there is no other existence whatsoever. Therefore God says ‒
मनसा वचसा दृष्टद्या गृह्यतेऽन्यैरपीन्द्रियैः । अहमेव न मत्तोऽन्यदिति बुध्यध्वमञ्जसा ॥ (श्रीमद्भा॰ ११ । १३ । २४)
Manasa vachasa drshtvaa gruhyatenyairpeeindriyaih | Ahameva na mattonyaditi budhyadhvamanjasaa || (Srimad Bhagwat 11/13/24)
Whatever is perceived, through the mind, speech, and other senses, all that is Me and beyond Me there is nothing else – you should quickly understand i.e. accept this doctrine.
Question‒ In Gita, the immense bliss that comes on realizing God, has been called as “Buddhigrahya” “बुद्धिग्राह्य” ‒‘सुखमात्यन्तिक यत्तद्बुद्धिग्राह्यमतीन्द्रियम्’ (६ । २१) When that the intellect cannot grasp, the joy that is beyond Nature, then how is it “Buddhigrahya” “बुद्धिग्राह्य” ?
Answer‒ By calling the आत्यन्तिक’ (supreme) bliss as “buddhigrahya” “बुद्धिग्राह्य” it does not mean that it is the kind to be grasped by the intellect. The intellect is the functioning of Nature (Prakriti), then how can it grasp the joy that is beyond Nature ? Therefore, to say that the supreme and transcendental bliss is “buddhigraahya” means, that the bliss is certainly more exceptional than the tamasic pleasures (pleasures born of ignorance and inertia). The pleasure derived from sleep, laziness, and negligence (pramaad), is Tamas (born of inertia)[1] In deep sleep (shushputi), the intellect merges into ignorance, and in laziness and negligence, the intellect is not entirely awakened. But in the axiomatic eternal bliss, the intellect does not merge into ignorance, rather it remains completely awakened. Therefore it is only from the perspective of the awakened intellect that it has been called “buddhigraahya” ‘बुद्धिग्राह्य’. In reality, the intellect cannot reach there at all. In the same way, by calling the imperishable bliss ‘आत्यन्तिक’ (supreme) it is said to be more supreme than the sattvic pleasure, and by calling that bliss ‘अतीन्द्रिय’ (transcendental), is revealed to be more exceptional than the rajasic pleasure.
Just as the sun does not appear in the mirror, rather it is the Sun’s image, in the same way, the endless bliss does not come in the intellect, rather only an image of that bliss, an appearance comes, therefore it is called “buddhigrahya” ‘बुद्धिग्राह्य’.
It means that, the eternal bliss that comes from the “self” (swayam), is more exceptional than sattvic (mode of purity), rajasic (mode of passion) and tamasic (mode of ignorance) pleasure. In other words, it is “gunateet” (beyond the modes of nature). Even on calling it “buddhigraahya” ‒‘शरीरस्थोऽपि कौन्तेय न करोति न लिप्यते’(गीता १३ । ३१) । Sharirasthopi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate || (Gita 13/31) ” The real self though dwelling in the body neither acts nor gets tainted.”
It has come in the Upanishads ‒
इन्द्रियेभ्यः परा ह्यर्था अर्थेध्यश्च परं मनः । मनसस्तु परा बुद्धिर्बुद्धेरात्मा महान्परः ॥
महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः । पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः ॥
(कठ॰ १ । ३ । १०-११)
Indriyebyaha parã hyarthã arthebhyascha param manaha Manasastu parã buddhirudherãtmã mahãn paraha॥ Mahatha paramvyaktam’
– ‘The objects of senses (sound, taste, form etc) is superior to the five organs of senses (indriyas, eg. eyes, ears, nose etc.). Superior to the five objects of senses, is the mind. The intellect (buddhi) is superior to the mind. The atma is superior to the buddhi. And superior to the atma is ‘Avyakta’ (mool prakriti). And superior to Avyakta is Purush or Purushottam or Paramatma’ That is the ultimate limits, that itself is the end state. (Katha Upanishad 3/10-11).
[1] यदग्रे चानुबन्धे च सुखं मोहनमात्मनः ।
निद्रालस्यप्रमादोत्थं तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् ॥
(गीता १८ । ३९)
Narayan ! Narayan !! Narayan !!!
From Book in Hindi – “Jin Khoja Tin Paayiya” by Swami Ramsukhdasji
www.swamiramsukhdasji.net
Comments are closed.