Articles for Saadhana

Through the Sankhya instructions, Krishna explains and emphasizes that the Soul is not involved in any action, interaction or its outcome. Because the scene is one of war, he uses frequently the words like kill, die, etc. Also Krishna denounces birth and death for the Self: Na Jayate mriyate va (never gets born or dies), na hanyate (is not killed), nityam avadhyah (is ever unkillable). If the Soul never gets born, then where is the question of further birth or re-birth? The soul then certainly is there. But the existence is not after birth or till death. It is transcending both birth and death.

That a thing comes into expression after birth and such expression will continue only till death is a law or feature applicable to matter and materiality – existence perceptible to the senses. The Self is entirely different form the body aggregate constituted of matter and materiality. And hence it is beyond the sensory range. By this single point of difference, the Soul is free of the event or process called birth. Once it is held to be devoid of birth, it is equally devoid of death too. Only a thing born will have to undergo death. If something remains unborn, it is by the same token undying. And for these reasons, the Soul, unlike the body, does not become perceivable to senses. Only that which is sensorily perceivable will become birthful and deathful.

There comes a question now. Without getting born, can anything exist at all? In fact, to be born means not to be existing before birth. Naturally to be existing always and alike, therefore, is not to be born and dying. Birth necessarily implies previous non-existence. Death similarly implies subsequent non-existence. If the Soul were to be born like the body or any other bigger product like the earth or sun, it would also mean that the Soul cannot exist ever and ever.

Krishna wants Arjuna as well as the others who read Bhagavad Gita to evolve in their mind a level of perception which rises above the senses. Sensoriness of existence is no doubt there. But perception as such is not limited to the senses. Perception itself is far deeper. Even in perceiving something sensorily, are the senses the only instruments or factors involved?

Before you open the eyelids with a view to see something in front, is there not something that works within your body, besides the eyes which open and close? That inner content or constituent is not a sensory product. Imagine a person lying asleep. Gently open his eyelids without disturbing his sleep, and hold a flower in front. Take away the flower and allow him to sleep undisturbedly. Next morning when he wakes up, ask him what was the flower he saw and how it looked. Would he ever answer you? Or will he deny having seen any flower at all?

What or who sees the objects outside becomes clear by this. The eyes are only the external instrument and process in bringing about visual perceptions. The real perceiving source, substance or person is something different. That inner perceiving substances is evidently not within sensory perception. For the same reason it is different from the body aggregate.

The “I” which perceives – meaning sees, hears, smells, tastes and touches through the various senses – is equally different from the mind and intelligence. Both mind and intelligence are again internal products, which the I sees or perceives. That I am the one which thinks with the mind, as it sees with the eyes, and knows with the intelligence. One is external perception through the mind and intelligence.

How can that mind –different and intelligence –different “I” be the same as the body? Birth and death are merely events and processes befalling and relevant to the body aggregate. They cannot involve or implicate that “I”, different from these aggregates. It is the thought, reflection, imagination and contemplation of such an inward most subtle presence that Krishna wants Arjuna to grasp and fix his attention to by listening to the exposition.

When the vision is thus taken away from the body – the visibles and the sensorily perceptibles – then the first impasse in resolving the problems of grief and doubt is overcome. Standing in such a transcendental level, away from and above the sensory range, Krishna explains how one should view the common instance of death, which denotes the falling of the body. It is but and explanation to reconcile oneself with the oft-occuring deaths of bodies. Do not confuse it with anything greater or finer. For Krishna’s words to become practical, such explanations are necessary, and they become highly relevant. But their message should not be taken amiss:

One living in the same body puts on clothes as a regular need and routine. In doing so, every one has to remove used clothes and take to fresh ones. Removing the soiled ones and putting on fresh ones is a regular practice with every man and woman. This is an act taking place within the sensory sphere of man. His body is a sensory product. The clothes he wears and removes are also sensory items. The difference between the two – body and dress – is thus clearly perceived by man.

Apply the same example, says, Krishna, to the body and the Soul. But be careful. The body is perceived by the senses. The Soul is not perceptible. That is why the instance of clothes, as an example, an illustration, is brought to explain the relationship. This fact should not be forgotten. And no example or illustration is applicable in full. Take the comparison to the extent it exemplifies and helps, and do not extend it beyond.

Removing or discarding old clothes and putting on fresh ones instead, are both done by man consciously. Such a conscious, willful action is possible in the case of clothes. When it comes to a question of the body as a whole, not just the clothes which are put on it, there is no scope for man’s will or consciousness. When the clothes are removed, then the body still remains there to be perceived and felt. When the body itself is left or discarded, nothing is left there to see or feel.

At death it is not the body that becomes absent. It only becomes functionless, incapable of generating any experience or knowledge. The inward imperceptible subjective presence is what becomes suddenly absent, or unmanifest. In fact, it is looking at the body alone that we come to know of death, or the doctor pronounces death. The elusive nature of the subjective presence, namely the Soul, is the problem here. Until this subject or subjective presence is clearly grasped in its own manner and level, the elusiveness will prevail. Krishna speaks taking this elusiveness into account and makes matters somewhat understandable to the common man. The word samyati, meaning leaves of its own accord, is thus quite relevant. Grhnati, meaning takes to or receives, is the word used in the context of clothes. In the case of clothes, leaving and taking are optional. But dying or death does not seem optional. To distinguish the character of the two, one transitive and one intransitive verbs are used.

But does the statement of Krishna stop here, or it has to make us introspect and reflect further? Is it right to say that the Soul goes or leaves the body? If leaving is admitted as a fact, then entering and holding must also have to be accepted alike. That would mean that the Soul also equally does all actions, which the body seemingly does. But Krishna has so far been stressing that the ‘soul does not do’ anything at all. Repeatedly he has emphasized that the Soul is not killed, does not kill, does not die, not born, is not involved in any action or its result.

In the instructions so far given to Arjuna, Krishna has taken a lot of pain to drive home the non-doing, non-actional, unborn and undying character of the Soul. He has also stressed that the Soul, unlike the body, is unlimited and all-pervasive. He has emphasized that it is eternal: Nityah, Sarvagatah, Sthanuh.

Present everywhere at the same time (all – permeating), ever-present or eternal, immovable and unmoving, are unmistakable descriptions about the Soul. Suddenly then how can Krishna suggest an opposite description as coming and going, holding and leaving, accepting and rejecting, etc.?

So, this verse can only be regarded as a preliminary or tentative statement, whereby the death of the body can be looked at from a higher angle, which will lead the seeker to rise above death and think of the undying and unborn Soul.

The body – different character of the Soul is the supreme point to be borne in mind. Once the body-different nature of the Soul is sufficiently absorbed, the difficulty in absorbing the Soul instructions is practically overcome. It is true that the student Arjuna too will not be able to easily overcome the Sensoriness of things, and get to the inward perception of the subject. Nevertheless, it has to be accomplished. Till it is gained, some tentative propositions are given, with a view to give a prop to the seeker.

It is never true that the Soul enters any body any time, and leaves it at another time. At best, the instance is like the waves emerging on the surface of the sea. Does the water enter any wave or leave it thereafter? How many waves are there on the surface at the same time?

Think of dream. The mind, the single expression of Consciousness, suddenly weaves out many dream objects, and all these objects remain one with the mind in one sense. The instance of the one Soul pervading many bodies is also somewhat similar.

This kind of preliminary statement, helpful view, is cited by Krishna in other places also. For instance, verses 26 and 27 of Ch. II speak of the Soul as constantly getting born and constantly dying. Is it true that the Soul does so?

“Assuming that the Soul, like the waves in sea, gets born in many places, and also dies in many others, “argues Krishna, “you should not be grieving like this. Because it is the very nature of the Soul. And every time it gets born, it will die also, and every time it dies, it will subsequently be born. What is there in the form of loss or disadvantage then? Let the continuity and sequence go on unhindered.”

Later also, Krishna presents such hypothetical or tentative propositions, merely to help the seeker who is unable to grasp the subtle concept of the Soul, the one Universal Subject. For example, verses 7 to 10 of 15^th chapter describe the Soul as getting into the body and exiting from it. Remaining in the body, the Soul, Krishna says, draws to itself the mind and the five senses from the prakriti. And when it leaves the body, it takes along these six senses.

These statements cannot be taken as absolute. The ideas is that within the body aggregate there is something central which alone keeps its identity unaltered. It is the wielder and instrumenter of all actions, sensations, thoughts and understanding. It is the witness. None should fail to grasp its presence. Viveka alone will help one to realize its supreme position.

To think of only the body as exhausting the human personality is wrong. The sensory functions like seeing and hearing, certainly imply a constant subject, which remains changeless and substantive. This is the Self, the Soul, that Krishna has been referring to and describing right form the second chapter. And that description is the basic and final one. All the others which Krishna gives here and there are tentative and auxiliary, and should not be taken as contradicting or invalidating the absolute truth. The message is clear and comprehensive.

(Part of the Series Essential-Concepts-In-Bhagavad-Gita)