Know him to be a ‘renunciate, every moment’, who does not desire or hate. O mighty armed, the one given to nirdvandvatva (rising beyond dual notions) is comfortably freed from all kinds of bondage.
Sannyasa literally means renunciation. One who has taken to renunciation is called a renunciate, a sannyasin. But is sannyasa a mere order of life, as it is understood generally, like the other orders – brahmacarya (celibate life), garhasthya (householder-life) and vanaprastha (anchorite life)? Can anyone, who has taken up the sannyasa order of life, be, by that very fact, considered a sannyasin? Is not a consideration, an evaluation, of this nature called for, as it should be in any other field or pursuit?
Krishna discusses the subject, responding to the question of Arjuna. Bhagavad Gita thus becomes a very significant and fundamental scriptural composition, in which concepts, disciplines, values, ideals and goals of life are very critically analyzed and presented. See the manner in which Krishna throws insight into sannyasa and sannyasin.
Sannyasa is an attainment, inner and wholesome, relating to the mind and intelligence of man, he clarifies. It is an outcome brought about by the seeker’s perception and assessment about life, his understanding of the world around and the interactions with it. Rather than accepting things as such, the seeker must look at everything with a fundamental and integral point of view. The hold of conventional notions has to fall as a result. And a bold, clear vision is evolved. In fact, the Bhagavad Gita strives to make the seeker grow and develop such a deep, wholesome, elevated view of life. Herein lies the distinction and superiority of the dialogue.
The essence of sannyasa, Krishna says, lies in the mind getting freed of its subjugation. Desire and hatred grip the mind, right from one’s birth. Krishna had earlier called these duals as raga-dvesha, iccha-dvesha or kama-krodha. Now he describes them as kanksha and dvesha.
Whoever frees himself from the dual of desire (kanksha) and hatred (dvesha), points out Krishna, is a constant-sannyasin. Desire and hatred dwell in the mind. To be a sannyasin, the seeker has to get into the mind and free it from the stranglehold of desire and hatred. It is the same message that Krishna made earlier too, right from the 2nd chapter.
The first note is when he described life as “an interaction between senses and objects of the world (matra-sparsa) producing dual effects on the mind” – (2.14). He then enlarged the scope of samatva to cover all kinds of dvandvas of the mind (2.38) and gave a call for nirdvandvatva, to rise above all pairs of opposites. The seeker has to transcend the dual creations of the three gunas of nature and be transparent. He confirms and enriches this transcendence by calling yoga the “key to excellence in action” (yogah karmasu kausalam – 2.50).
Krishna has clearly alluded to the sublimity of renunciation when he emphasized that by dint of yoga-buddhi (integrated intelligence) one truly abandons both virtue and vice (sukrta and dushkrta – 2.50). The excellence and elevation of the mind, when it is freed from the ‘duals’ of raga and dvesha, are again the subject of his sthitaprajnasthitadhi descriptions (2.55, 56, 64). To transcend raga-bhaya-krodha is verily to be like Krishna himself. It is to attain the lofty state of the Knower, of Godliness (4.10).
It is the same sublimity and enrichment the mind begets, when it is rid of the usual ‘duals’ of desire and hatred; this is what Krishna emphasizes here too. The samatva of the mind, or the purity and sublimity it achieves, is in fact, the only secret and fruition of spirituality and religion.
Sannyasa normally means abandoning the usual worldly life. Worldly life means life and interactions with the world objects and environments, with their usual impacts. Krishna has already explained that every sensory object carries with it the tint of raga (attraction or desire) and dvesha (dislike or hatred). To be interacting with the sensory objects will thus imply falling a prey to raga and dvesha. That is why he warned that one should not become a victim to these, calling them as stark enemies on the path of the seeker (3.34).
Sannyasa, in the way of renouncing worldly life, has this simple, basic purpose – of not being subdued by raga-dvesha. If this is the real purpose of renunciation, then, says Krishna, one should discreetly strive to eliminate the raga-dvesha duo wherever and whenever it assails the mind. That is why in describing the sthita-prajna and sthita-dhi, he clearly laid down the principle of “employing the senses to interact with the objects, being mentally free of attraction and repulsion”. The words he used are: “raga-dvesha-viyuktaistu vishayan-indriyaiscaran” (2.64). One who adopts and pursues this principle, will get enriched inwardly by interactions themselves. And he will attain abundant tranquility (prasadam adhigacchati).
Does it mean that those who take up the sannyasa order of life and move about as sannyasins are really not so? Does true sannyasa consist in something deeper and subtler, which the general lot of sannyasins even fail to grasp? Is it that sannyasa, as an order of life, or discipline, is primarily aimed at helping and facilitating the true inner spiritual attainment?
Krishna states very clearly that the essence of yoga is the essence of sannyasa too. In other words, sannyasa is an inner attainment, consisting of enlightenment on the one hand and sublimation and enrichment on the other, both of which relate to the intelligence and the mind. He explains beautifully what this inner attainment of enrichment and sublimation is.
‘To be a sannyasin is in reality to be free of desire and hatred’, is the preface Krishna makes. The mind of anyone is normally given to love and hatred. You will find this trait even in the new born child. If you put a little sugar on his tongue, the child will start licking quite happily. On the other hand, if you give him something bitter, his reaction will be quite visibly different. He dislikes the taste outright. This ‘dual’ note which finds expression in every sensory interaction, continues to grow and dominate the human, even when he grows up.
Unless a wholesome effort is made, this stranglehold on the mind cannot be removed. The mind given to love and hate is clearly under the spell of dvandvas (opposites). A nirdvandva is one who is not caught up by this dvandva-fostering-attitude. The nirdvandva orientation, Krishna points out, will enable the seeker to be freed of all inner bondages.
‘Sukham bandhat pramucyate’ are the words he uses (5.3). The word ‘sukham’ (easily) is to be noted. Sannyasa may carry a measure of hard ascetic discipline and exclusiveness. But in yoga-pursuit this fate is avoided skillfully by taking to the pursuit of nirdvandvatva.
We should not fail to understand that the whole dialogue is between rulers. Kings are given to the comforts as well as the burdens of the throne. For them any spiritual discipline and austerity must be in keeping with their royal life and responsibilities. The usual ascetic renunciation naturally will not be harmonious with them. At the same time, they should not be denied the great benefits the ascetic life and sublimation bestow. How then to fill the gap, and club the two distinct ways? Krishna’s whole effort has been to accomplish this great task of integration – integrating spiritual wisdom and karma-yoga.
Krishna defined sannyasa and sannyasin in his own novel and sovereign manner, rendering clarity and purpose to the subject matter. The dialogue, thus, lives as an immortal exposition and interpretation of the ageless Upanishads, which have but one theme and mission – imparting Brahmavidya, the knowledge and realization of the Soul!
To discuss spirituality is to deal with the eternal problems of human mind and intelligence. Analyzed closely, tormenting thoughts trouble the mind and various kinds of doubts eclipse the intelligence. Both subtly conspire to create all the troubles and travails for humans. The plight, in its full depth and intensity, is called bondage (bandhana). Arjuna’s plight is, in fact, a bondage of this kind. Krishna is bent upon redressing it in all thoroughness.
The Upanishads declare:
The knot of the heart gets broken, all the doubts are dispelled, all the actions and their results get attenuated – when the supreme Truth is perceived in the high as well as in the low.
The granthih, the knot or tuft of the heart, is the complex ego every human inherits when the body is born. The ego is no doubt vital for the existence and functioning of the body, mind and intelligence. But it causes undue pressure and oscillation to the mind and intelligence of everyone. The disturbing notes have to be removed if the mind and intelligence have to function effectively and harmoniously. The role of spiritual wisdom is to accomplish this. Unless this inner process of relief and sublimation is activated, no extent of knowledge will render the desired benefit.
Krishna does not want Arjuna to miss this point. For, despite his decade long resolve and preparation to fight the inevitable war, Arjuna’s trouble and torment arose from his constricted ego and the host of doubts it irresistibly engendered. Unless this grave inner tragedy is treated and cured, how can there be any meaning and purpose of life and the activities it calls for?
Arjuna was yet to overcome the fear of sin. The only rescue for him lay in sannyasa, the ultimate refuge and culmination for all! The plunge into renunciation alone, he thought, could relieve his mind and intelligence of the cloud and confusion. But Krishna is relentless in disallowing such irregular thoughts of doubt and escape. For that, he must fill the gap in Arjuna’s mind, the gap caused by the denial of the ascetic redress Arjuna so frantically craves for. This is where Bhagavad Gita and its author excel.
Spiritual competence through yoga
Only children, those of immature minds, hold sankhya (the exclusive pursuit of wisdom) and yoga as different; not the enlightened ones. The benefit of both will be had if the seeker pursues any one of them resolutely.
A great assertion indeed! The Upanishads uphold and declare at the top of their voice, how sublime and rewarding is a life of renunciation, however hard and challenging it be. The ascetics revel in the exclusive pursuit of wisdom, where scriptural reading and introspection alone engulf the mind and intelligence, making them greatly luminous and joyful.
But, do they not live and move, however selective such movements be? Does not the world surrounding them present similar scenes, as encircle all else? No renunciation can ever invalidate any of the five senses and their perceptions. Where lies the difference then? Krishna wants Arjuna to think well and arrive at his finding. He will only help in this inner pilgrimage.
In ascetics, introspection may have its special dominant role. And it is helped, no doubt, by renouncing the usual secular activities. But can anybody rule out the scope for similar introspection in the case of others – non-ascetics?
Yoga, the way Krishna defines it, is a subtle and sovereign pursuit of the mind and intelligence. The one given to yoga-sadhana never loses sight of his basic spiritual nature. Equally so, he is ever aware of the supremacy of mind over the body and senses; and also, of the superiority of the intelligence over the mind. The inner personality is his constant focus. Its potentials and possibilities are supreme to him. The expansion, depth and loftiness he sets for himself are thus unbounded.
Is not the human capable of such elevated perception and pursuit? Or else what is the meaning of human life, in which knowledge and rationality count first and last? When constant introspection (manana) graces one’s active pursuits, the whole life is bound to change. Then one overcomes ignorance and delusion. The new insight and vision, the spiritual enlightenment, begins to guide and rule everything of the body, senses and the mind. Will not then the yogic pursuer derive the full benefit of the life of ascetic introspection? Where then is any difference between sankhya and yoga?
If one means is to be regarded as truly different from another, then the two must have distinctly divergent aims or results. Is not the means merely a process to attain a set objective? With the same aim in view, two means cannot be said to differ, in reality, from each other.
Thus, whether the seeker is given to the pursuit of total exclusive wisdom (sankhya), or instead to the yoga of action in which regular activities are not shunned but blended with spiritual introspection, what difference does it make? The difference, if at all, can only be in the seeker’s natural qualities, tendencies and maturity – in which practice, he finds his natural harmony and attunement.
Has not Krishna already said: “In this world there is only one nishta, though it is two-fold in application”? Dvividha nishtha are the words he used (3.3). For those who pursue sankhya, it is jnana (wisdom-pursuit), he said, and for the yogi, it is karma (action pursuit). The ripeness, maturity or competence of the seeker to fit into either the first phase (karma) or the second (jnana) - both of the same nishtha - can alone be the relevant consideration. Will the psychological as well as the physical constitution of the seeker permit him to remain exclusively introspective, or it calls for supplementing his introspection with a measure of bodily and sensory activity too? It is a question of adhikara-bhedah – difference in the degree of spiritual competence.
“If the seeker is resolutely given to either of the disciplines, sankhya or yoga, the result and fruition of both will be gained”. For, in both the pursuits, what is to be purified and refined is the inner being – the mind, intelligence and their offshoots. Actions are performed with the senses, but the motivation for them lies within the domain of the mind. Do the results that follow change the perception of the senses? They doubtlessly delight and enrich the inner part alone. This truth holds whether the seeker is given to wisdom-pursuit or action-pursuit. Once this fact is recognized, the two paths do not pose any contradiction at all.
Krishna adds in a confirmatory tone, to assure Arjuna and those like him:
The same goal is attained through sankhya and yoga. He who sees the two as one, alone has the right vision.
And therefore, he who looks at both as leading to the same end, and hence the same, is the real seer. Any other view or assessment is thoroughly wrong and immature, affirms Krishna.
Krishna has something more to say, quite relevantly. It is a clear guidance for ardent seekers and students. In a way, it is a timely information. But, it is also a caution, even a warning:
The path of sannyasa is very hard to adopt, without the strength and support of yoga. The seeker who is integrated through yogasadhana, attains before long, Brahman – the Supreme Reality.
Sannyasa is, no doubt, the natural culmination of spiritual wisdom and fullness. But it is not meant for everyone and all. The hold of prakrti (Nature) with its gunas is too strong to be set aside. The gunas are relentless in generating the impetus for sensory and bodily activities in all. To substitute these normal activities exclusively with sravana, manana and nididhyasana – the three-fold disciplines the Upanishads emphasize – is not feasible for all.
One must have the depth and strength of exclusive seeking or the undeniable benefit of age and the consequent withdrawal. Taking this into account, Krishna is quite emphatic that without the progressive purity and refinement, which active involvement brings about, exclusive renunciation is not feasible. To plunge into the exclusive wisdom pursuit will be to force self-denial, to invite disharmony and conflict.
On the other hand, if the seeker is patient and resolute to gain the benefit of yoga-pursuit and orientation, his emotional and intelligential propensities will get sublimated. Before long, he will be quite ripe to take up the wisdom pursuit, even exclusively, as Krishna alludes in the 18th chapter (18.50-53). To adopt the wisdom-path all of a sudden, disregarding the compulsions of Nature, will be to cause a grave violation and disharmony.
***
(From the Series Essential Concepts In Bhagavad Gita - Volume 3)