Karma Yoga Sastra -Tilak
THE INTUITIONIST SCHOOL AND THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BODY AND THE ATMAN
(ADHIDAIVATA-PAKSA AND KSETRA-KSETRAJNA-VICARA)
This is the order of the mental functions. When that buddhih out of the two- ( namely the vyavasayatmika ) which has to decide between the- doability and the non-doability of any particular Action is functioning properly, the Mind is not palluted by improper- Desires (buddhih) entering it. Therefore, the first theorem of the Karma-Yoga preached in the Gita is that the vyavasa- yatmika buddhih (Pure Reason) must be made pure and steady  Not only the Gita, but also Kant has- differen- tiated between two kinds of buddhih and he has described the functions of the vyavasayatmika buddhih (Pure Reason) and of the vyavaharika or vasanatmika buddhih (Practical Reason) in two different books. Really speaking, steadying the Pure- Reason is the subject-matter of the Patanjala Yoga-Sastra, and not of the Karma- Yoga Sastra. But in considering any particular act, one must, according to the doctrine of the' Gita, first consider the desire or the vasanatmika buddhih of the doer of the act, before one looks at the effect of the act  and in the same way when one considers- the question of Desires it will be seen that the man whose pure Reason has not become steady and pure, conceives different shades of desire in his mind, and therefore), it is not certain that these desires will be always pure or holy ( And if the desires themselves are not pure, how will the resulting Action be pure ? Therefore, one has to consider in detail, even in the science of Karma-Yoga, the methods or means which have to be employed to keep the vyavasayatmika buddhih pure, and therefore, the Patanjala Yoga has been, described in the sixth chapter of the Bhagvadgita as one of the means by which the vyavasayatmika buddhih can be made pure. But some doctrinal commentators have disregarded this fact and drawn the inference that the Gita supports and" preaches the Patanjala Yoga ! From this it will be clear- to my readers how necessary it is to bear in mind the above- mentioned two meanings of the word ' buddhih ' and their mutual relation.
I have in this way explained what the respective functions- of the Mind and the Reason are, after explaining the internal working of the human mind, and I have also mentioned the- other meanings of the word 'buddhih.'. Having in this way differentiated between the Mind and the ' vyavasayatmika buddhih' (Pure Reason), let us see how this aspect affects the question of the deity which discerns between good and evil (Sad-asad-viv-ka-devata). As the only purpose which this deity serves is to choose between good and evil, it cannot be included in the (minor) Mind; and as there is only one 'vyavasayatmika buddhih' (Pure Reason) which considers all matters and comes to a decision on them, we cannot give an independent place for the sad-asad-vivecana sakti (power of discriminating between good and evil).
References And Context
- (Gi. 2. 41).
- Kant calls the vyavasayatmika buddhih Pure Reason; and the vasanatmika buddhih Practical Reason and he has dealt with these - two kinds of Reason in two separate books.
- ( Gi. 2. 49 );
- GI. 2. 41).