Relevance of the Bhagavadgita to Humanity : 24-2.Swami Krishnananda

 ========================================================================

======================================================================

Wednesday, August 17, 2022. 19:00.

Chapter 24: Sannyasa and Yoga are One -2.

=======================================================================

Now, incidentally, it will be learned that the Self is consciousness. There is the identity of what we call consciousness with the fact of selfhood. There is nothing that can be called a self except consciousness. Consciousness is that which knows, and it cannot become the known object at any time. It cannot become other than what it is. It cannot become an object. It cannot move out of itself. A question of consciousness moving out of itself would imply the possibility of consciousness becoming other than what it is, and consciousness becoming other than what it is would mean consciousness becoming unconsciousness, because that which is not consciousness, that which is other than consciousness, is unconsciousness, non-consciousness, externality, materiality and spatiality. Such a thing is not possible because the term ‘self' is applied to that position which cannot brook any interference from outside, and a self cannot become a non-self. That establishment of the Self in itself is the ultimate yoga. Hence, sannyasa goes with it. Attachment cannot go with yoga because union with oneself, which is the fact of yoga, cannot be at the same time a union with the contrary to it. One cannot be a non-sannyasin and at the same time be a yogi.

Here the Bhagavadgita uses the word ‘sannyasa' in a specialised sense, not in the usual socially-interpreted traditional sense of an isolated life of retreat, socially speaking. These are external forms taken by the retreat of consciousness into oneself. However, the Bhagavadgita wants us to be very cautious here. The prescription here by the Bhagavadgita is extremely precise – namely, that renunciation and union are not two things, which is to be understood and borne in mind carefully. With what are we going to be in union in the state of yoga, and from what are we going to detach ourselves in sannyasa? Most people – every one of us, I should say – will one day or the other come a cropper in probing this theme. None of us can be so sure that the matter is very clear. It may look that it is clear for a moment, but suddenly a cyclonic dust may blow over our heads and our vision can be blurred, and it would not be easy to make out what exactly is required of us in leading a spiritual life, which we call the life of yoga, and incidentally, the yoga of renunciation also. We are likely to commit a mistake, and a mix-up is likely to be made.

It was mentioned briefly in the Second Chapter itself that sankhya, which is right understanding, on which yoga, which is right action, is based, is a clarity of intention in regard to everything in the world, namely, one's association with things, one's relation to things. We may be unrelated to things physically while in a state of physical retreat. If we are on top of a hill, we are in a state of retreat with no contact whatsoever with apparently attractive things in the world. But the Bhagavadgita tells us that this is not the way of looking at things. Contact with an object does not necessarily mean non-physical contact because the bondage of the spirit, which is engendered by contacts of various types, is not to be connected with a physical juxtaposition of things.

The person is there wherever the person's mind is. Wherever our mind is, there we are sitting. We are sitting here, but if our mind is not here, we are not here, because we are not the body. It is easy with a little bit of investigation to accept that the so-called ‘I' is not this physical frame only. The great status that I am maintaining as the me or the I or the myself cannot be wholly associated with the physical body. My requirement is not necessarily a bodily requirement. Hence, where I am is not to be decided by the position of the physical body. Therefore, the freedom and the bondage of a person is not identical with associations which are entirely physical. Non-contact with the physical objects may go hand in hand with psychological contact. An abstemious person may be physically unconnected with the things of the world, but that person may be psychologically connected. Taste for things is one thing; absence of contact for things is another thing. There can be absence of physical association with things with the taste for the very same thing from which one is away, and the sannyasa that is spoken of, and to which reference was made here as sankalpa tyaga, is the absence of taste for things, and not a physical isolation, because it matters not where the body is, but it matters very much where the mind is.

To be continued ...

========================================================================