Karma Yoga Sastra -Tilak
|
CHAPTER VI
THE INTUITIONIST SCHOOL AND THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BODY AND THE ATMAN
(ADHIDAIVATA-PAKSA AND KSETRA-KSETRAJNA-VICARA) This illustration does not appear literally in the Bhagavadgita. Yet, the description of the control of the organs in the above-mentioned stanzas has been made keeping this illustration in mind, as cannot but be noticed by anybody who keeps in sight the previous and posterior context of this subject-matter. Ordinarily, that is, when it is not necessary to make subtle scientific distinctions, this is known as 'manonigraha (control of the Mind) ; but when, as mentioned above, a distinction is made between the manas (Mind) and the buddhih ( Reason), the function of control falls to the share, not of the Mind, but of "the pure (vyavasayatmika) Reason. In order this vyavasayatmika. buddhih should become pure, the principle that there is only one Atman in all human beings, must be deeply impressed on the mind by realising the true nature of the Paramesvara whether by the mental absorption (samadhi) taught in the Patanjala Yoga, or by Devotion or by Knowledge ( jnana ) or by Meditation (dhyana). This is what is known as Self- devoted (atma-nistha) buddhih. When the vayvasayatmika buddhih has in this way become Self-devoted (atmanistha), and the Mind and the organs have learnt to act according to its directions as a result of mental control, Desire, Intention, or other mental functions (manodharma) or the vasanatmika buddhih (Practical Reason), naturally become pure and chaste, and the bodily organs naturally tend towards sattvika actions. From the Metaphysical point of view, this is the foundation of all good actions, that is to say, the esoteric teaching (rahasya) of the science of Proper Action (Karma-Yoga). My readers will now have realised why our philosophers have not accepted Conscience as an independent deity, in addition to the ordinary functions of the Mind and the Reason. From, their point of view, there is no objection to looking upon 'the Mind or the Reason as deities by way of glori- fication; but they have come to the conclusion that con- sidering the matter scientifically, there is no third element like Conscience which is distinct from and in addition to the two things which we call manas (mind), and buddhih (Reason) and which is inherent. We now clearly see the propriety of the word satam having been used in the phrase 'satam hi srimdeha padesu ' etc. Those whose minds are pure and Self- devoted (atmanistha), need not at any time be afraid of con- sulting their Conscience (antahkarana). We may even say that they should purify their Mind as much as possible before performing any Action, and consult their Conscience, But, there is no sense in dishonest people saying : " We do the same thing ", because, the Conscience of both is not the same, and whereas the Conscience of saints is sattvika, that of thieves is tamasa. In short, that which the Intuitionist School refers- to as ' the Deity which discerns between Good and Evil' (the sad-asad-viveka-devata), is seen not to be an independent deity when the matter is considered from the philosophical point of view, but to be only the Self-devoted and the sattvika form of the vyavasayatmika buddhih. This is the theory of our philosophers, and when this theory is accepted, the Intuitionist point of view naturally falls to the ground.
|
|