SRIMAD BHAGAWAD GITA CHAPTER 17 (gita.17)
SRIMAD BHAGAWAD GITA CHAPTER 17
अथ सप्तदशोஉध्यायः ।
अर्जुन उवाच ।
ये शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य यजन्ते श्रद्धयान्विताः ।
तेषां निष्ठा तु का कृष्ण सत्त्वमाहो रजस्तमः ॥ 1 ॥
ये शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य यजन्ते श्रद्धयान्विताः ।
तेषां निष्ठा तु का कृष्ण सत्त्वमाहो रजस्तमः ॥ 1 ॥
श्रीभगवानुवाच ।
त्रिविधा भवति श्रद्धा देहिनां सा स्वभावजा ।
सात्त्विकी राजसी चैव तामसी चेति तां शृणु ॥ 2 ॥
त्रिविधा भवति श्रद्धा देहिनां सा स्वभावजा ।
सात्त्विकी राजसी चैव तामसी चेति तां शृणु ॥ 2 ॥
सत्त्वानुरूपा सर्वस्य श्रद्धा भवति भारत ।
श्रद्धामयोஉयं पुरुषो यो यच्छ्रद्धः स एव सः ॥ 3 ॥
श्रद्धामयोஉयं पुरुषो यो यच्छ्रद्धः स एव सः ॥ 3 ॥
यजन्ते सात्त्विका देवान्यक्षरक्षांसि राजसाः ।
प्रेतान्भूतगणांश्चान्ये यजन्ते तामसा जनाः ॥ 4 ॥
प्रेतान्भूतगणांश्चान्ये यजन्ते तामसा जनाः ॥ 4 ॥
अशास्त्रविहितं घोरं तप्यन्ते ये तपो जनाः ।
दम्भाहङ्कारसंयुक्ताः कामरागबलान्विताः ॥ 5 ॥
दम्भाहङ्कारसंयुक्ताः कामरागबलान्विताः ॥ 5 ॥
कर्षयन्तः शरीरस्थं भूतग्राममचेतसः ।
मां चैवान्तःशरीरस्थं तान्विद्ध्यासुरनिश्चयान् ॥ 6 ॥
मां चैवान्तःशरीरस्थं तान्विद्ध्यासुरनिश्चयान् ॥ 6 ॥
आहारस्त्वपि सर्वस्य त्रिविधो भवति प्रियः ।
यज्ञस्तपस्तथा दानं तेषां भेदमिमं शृणु ॥ 7 ॥
यज्ञस्तपस्तथा दानं तेषां भेदमिमं शृणु ॥ 7 ॥
आयुःसत्त्वबलारोग्यसुखप्रीतिविवर्धनाः ।
रस्याः स्निग्धाः स्थिरा हृद्या आहाराः सात्त्विकप्रियाः ॥ 8 ॥
रस्याः स्निग्धाः स्थिरा हृद्या आहाराः सात्त्विकप्रियाः ॥ 8 ॥
कट्वम्ललवणात्युष्णतीक्ष्णरूक्षविदाहिनः ।
आहारा राजसस्येष्टा दुःखशोकामयप्रदाः ॥ 9 ॥
आहारा राजसस्येष्टा दुःखशोकामयप्रदाः ॥ 9 ॥
यातयामं गतरसं पूति पर्युषितं च यत् ।
उच्छिष्टमपि चामेध्यं भोजनं तामसप्रियम् ॥ 10 ॥
उच्छिष्टमपि चामेध्यं भोजनं तामसप्रियम् ॥ 10 ॥
अफलाकाङ्क्षिभिर्यज्ञो विधिदृष्टो य इज्यते ।
यष्टव्यमेवेति मनः समाधाय स सात्त्विकः ॥ 11 ॥
यष्टव्यमेवेति मनः समाधाय स सात्त्विकः ॥ 11 ॥
अभिसन्धाय तु फलं दम्भार्थमपि चैव यत् ।
इज्यते भरतश्रेष्ठ तं यज्ञं विद्धि राजसम् ॥ 12 ॥
इज्यते भरतश्रेष्ठ तं यज्ञं विद्धि राजसम् ॥ 12 ॥
विधिहीनमसृष्टान्नं मन्त्रहीनमदक्षिणम् ।
श्रद्धाविरहितं यज्ञं तामसं परिचक्षते ॥ 13 ॥
श्रद्धाविरहितं यज्ञं तामसं परिचक्षते ॥ 13 ॥
देवद्विजगुरुप्राज्ञपूजनं शौचमार्जवम् ।
ब्रह्मचर्यमहिंसा च शारीरं तप उच्यते ॥ 14 ॥
ब्रह्मचर्यमहिंसा च शारीरं तप उच्यते ॥ 14 ॥
अनुद्वेगकरं वाक्यं सत्यं प्रियहितं च यत् ।
स्वाध्यायाभ्यसनं चैव वाङ्मयं तप उच्यते ॥ 15 ॥
स्वाध्यायाभ्यसनं चैव वाङ्मयं तप उच्यते ॥ 15 ॥
मनः प्रसादः सौम्यत्वं मौनमात्मविनिग्रहः ।
भावसंशुद्धिरित्येतत्तपो मानसमुच्यते ॥ 16 ॥
भावसंशुद्धिरित्येतत्तपो मानसमुच्यते ॥ 16 ॥
श्रद्धया परया तप्तं तपस्तत्त्रिविधं नरैः ।
अफलाकाङ्क्षिभिर्युक्तैः सात्त्विकं परिचक्षते ॥ 17 ॥
अफलाकाङ्क्षिभिर्युक्तैः सात्त्विकं परिचक्षते ॥ 17 ॥
सत्कारमानपूजार्थं तपो दम्भेन चैव यत् ।
क्रियते तदिह प्रोक्तं राजसं चलमध्रुवम् ॥ 18 ॥
क्रियते तदिह प्रोक्तं राजसं चलमध्रुवम् ॥ 18 ॥
मूढग्राहेणात्मनो यत्पीडया क्रियते तपः ।
परस्योत्सादनार्थं वा तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् ॥ 19 ॥
परस्योत्सादनार्थं वा तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् ॥ 19 ॥
दातव्यमिति यद्दानं दीयतेஉनुपकारिणे ।
देशे काले च पात्रे च तद्दानं सात्त्विकं स्मृतम् ॥ 20 ॥
देशे काले च पात्रे च तद्दानं सात्त्विकं स्मृतम् ॥ 20 ॥
यत्तु प्रत्त्युपकारार्थं फलमुद्दिश्य वा पुनः ।
दीयते च परिक्लिष्टं तद्दानं राजसं स्मृतम् ॥ 21 ॥
दीयते च परिक्लिष्टं तद्दानं राजसं स्मृतम् ॥ 21 ॥
अदेशकाले यद्दानमपात्रेभ्यश्च दीयते ।
असत्कृतमवज्ञातं तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् ॥ 22 ॥
असत्कृतमवज्ञातं तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् ॥ 22 ॥
ॐ तत्सदिति निर्देशो ब्रह्मणस्त्रिविधः स्मृतः ।
ब्राह्मणास्तेन वेदाश्च यज्ञाश्च विहिताः पुरा ॥ 23 ॥
ब्राह्मणास्तेन वेदाश्च यज्ञाश्च विहिताः पुरा ॥ 23 ॥
तस्मादोमित्युदाहृत्य यज्ञदानतपःक्रियाः ।
प्रवर्तन्ते विधानोक्ताः सततं ब्रह्मवादिनाम् ॥ 24 ॥
प्रवर्तन्ते विधानोक्ताः सततं ब्रह्मवादिनाम् ॥ 24 ॥
तदित्यनभिसन्धाय फलं यज्ञतपःक्रियाः ।
दानक्रियाश्च विविधाः क्रियन्ते मोक्षकाङ्क्षिभिः ॥ 25 ॥
दानक्रियाश्च विविधाः क्रियन्ते मोक्षकाङ्क्षिभिः ॥ 25 ॥
सद्भावे साधुभावे च सदित्येतत्प्रयुज्यते ।
प्रशस्ते कर्मणि तथा सच्छब्दः पार्थ युज्यते ॥ 26 ॥
प्रशस्ते कर्मणि तथा सच्छब्दः पार्थ युज्यते ॥ 26 ॥
यज्ञे तपसि दाने च स्थितिः सदिति चोच्यते ।
कर्म चैव तदर्थीयं सदित्येवाभिधीयते ॥ 27 ॥
कर्म चैव तदर्थीयं सदित्येवाभिधीयते ॥ 27 ॥
अश्रद्धया हुतं दत्तं तपस्तप्तं कृतं च यत् ।
असदित्युच्यते पार्थ न च तत्प्रेप्य नो इह ॥ 28 ॥
असदित्युच्यते पार्थ न च तत्प्रेप्य नो इह ॥ 28 ॥
ॐ तत्सदिति श्रीमद्भगवद्गीतासूपनिषत्सु ब्रह्मविद्यायां योगशास्त्रे श्रीकृष्णार्जुनसंवादे
श्रद्धात्रयविभागयोगो नाम सप्तदशोஉध्यायः ॥17 ॥
=
XVII
The Yoga of the Division of the Threefold Faith
Summary of Seventeenth Discourse
This discourse is termed the “Yoga of the Division of the Three Kinds of Faith”. The theme of this discourse arises out of the question asked by Arjuna in Verse 1 with reference to the final and closing advice of Lord Krishna in the previous discourse, contained in the last two verses therein (Verses 23 and 24). Arjuna asks, “What about those who, even though setting aside scriptural injunctions yet perform worship with faith?”
The Lord replies and states that the faith of such men who ignore the injunctions of the scriptures could be either Sattwic, Rajasic or Tamasic. This would be in accordance with the basic nature of the person himself. And, conversely, as is the kind of faith, so develops the nature of the man.
Thus, in all things like sacrifice, worship, charity, penance, etc., these qualities become expressed in accordance with the kind of faith in which the person concerned is based. They produce results in accordance with the quality of the doer’s faith. These acts done with right faith lead to supreme blessedness. When done without any faith whatsoever, all these actions become barren and useless.
Arjuna Uvaacha:
Ye shaastravidhimutsrijya yajante shraddhayaanvitaah;
Teshaam nishthaa tu kaa krishna sattwamaaho rajastamah.
Teshaam nishthaa tu kaa krishna sattwamaaho rajastamah.
Arjuna said:
1. Those who, setting aside the ordinances of the scriptures, perform sacrifice with faith, what is their condition, O Krishna? Is it that of Sattwa, Rajas or Tamas?
COMMENTARY: This discourse deals with the three kinds of faith, according to one’s inherent nature—Sattwic, Rajasic or Tamasic.
Sri Bhagavaan Uvaacha:
Trividhaa bhavati shraddhaa dehinaam saa swabhaavajaa;
Saattwikee raajasee chaiva taamasee cheti taam shrinu.
Saattwikee raajasee chaiva taamasee cheti taam shrinu.
The Blessed Lord said:
2. Threefold is the faith of the embodied, which is inherent in their nature—the Sattwic (pure), the Rajasic (passionate), and the Tamasic (dark). Do thou hear of it.
Sattwaanuroopaa sarvasya shraddhaa bhavati bhaarata;
Shraddhaamayo’yam purusho yo yacchraddhah sa eva sah.
Shraddhaamayo’yam purusho yo yacchraddhah sa eva sah.
3. The faith of each is in accordance with his nature, O Arjuna! The man consists of his faith; as a man’s faith is, so is he.
Yajante saattwikaa devaan yaksharakshaamsi raajasaah;
Pretaan bhootaganaamshchaanye yajante taamasaa janaah.
Pretaan bhootaganaamshchaanye yajante taamasaa janaah.
4. The Sattwic or pure men worship the gods; the Rajasic or the passionate worship the Yakshas and the Rakshasas; the others (the Tamasic or the deluded) worship the ghosts and the hosts of nature-spirits.
Ashaastravihitam ghoram tapyante ye tapo janaah;
Dambhaahamkaarasamyuktaah kaamaraagabalaanvitaah.
Dambhaahamkaarasamyuktaah kaamaraagabalaanvitaah.
5. Those men who practise terrific austerities not enjoined by the scriptures, given to hypocrisy and egoism, impelled by the force of lust and attachment,
Karshayantah shareerastham bhootagraamamachetasah;
Maam chaivaantahshareerastham taanviddhyaasuranishchayaan.
Maam chaivaantahshareerastham taanviddhyaasuranishchayaan.
6. Senseless, torturing all the elements in the body and Me also, who dwells in the body,—know thou these to be of demoniacal resolves.
Aahaarastwapi sarvasya trividho bhavati priyah;
Yajnastapastathaa daanam teshaam bhedamimam shrinu.
Yajnastapastathaa daanam teshaam bhedamimam shrinu.
7. The food also which is dear to each is threefold, as also sacrifice, austerity and alms-giving. Hear thou the distinction of these.
COMMENTARY: A man’s taste for a particular food is determined according to the Guna prevalent in him.
Aayuh sattwabalaarogya sukha preetivi vardhanaah;
Rasyaah snigdhaah sthiraa hridyaa aahaaraah saattwikapriyaah.
Rasyaah snigdhaah sthiraa hridyaa aahaaraah saattwikapriyaah.
8. Foods which increase life, purity, strength, health,joy and cheerfulness, which are oleaginous and savoury, substantial and agreeable, are dear to the Sattwic people.
Katvamlalavanaatyushna teekshna rooksha vidaahinah;
Aahaaraah raajasasyeshtaa duhkhashokaamayapradaah.
Aahaaraah raajasasyeshtaa duhkhashokaamayapradaah.
9. The foods that are bitter, sour, saline, excessively hot, dry, pungent and burning, are liked by the Rajasic and are productive of pain, grief and disease.
Yaatayaamam gatarasam pooti paryushitam cha yat;
Ucchishtamapi chaamedhyam bhojanam taamasapriyam.
Ucchishtamapi chaamedhyam bhojanam taamasapriyam.
10. That which is stale, tasteless, putrid, rotten and impure refuse, is the food liked by the Tamasic.
Aphalaakaangkshibhiryajno vidhidrishto ya ijyate;
Yashtavyameveti manah samaadhaaya sa saattwikah.
Yashtavyameveti manah samaadhaaya sa saattwikah.
11. That sacrifice which is offered by men without desire for reward as enjoined by the ordinance (scripture), with a firm faith that to do so is a duty, is Sattwic (or pure).
Abhisandhaaya tu phalam dambhaarthamapi chaiva yat;
Ijyate bharatashreshtha tam yajnam viddhi raajasam.
Ijyate bharatashreshtha tam yajnam viddhi raajasam.
12. The sacrifice which is offered, O Arjuna, seeking a reward and for ostentation, know thou that to be a Rajasic Yajna!
Vidhiheenam asrishtaannam mantraheenam adakshinam;
Shraddhaavirahitam yajnam taamasam parichakshate.
Shraddhaavirahitam yajnam taamasam parichakshate.
13. They declare that sacrifice to be Tamasic which is contrary to the ordinances of the scriptures, in which no food is distributed, which is devoid of Mantras and gifts, and which is devoid of faith.
Devadwijagurupraajna poojanam shauchamaarjavam;
Brahmacharyamahimsaa cha shaareeram tapa uchyate.
Brahmacharyamahimsaa cha shaareeram tapa uchyate.
14. Worship of the gods, the twice-born, the teachers and the wise, purity, straightforwardness, celibacy and non-injury—these are called the austerities of the body.
Anudwegakaram vaakyam satyam priyahitam cha yat;
Swaadhyaayaabhyasanam chaiva vaangmayam tapa uchyate.
Swaadhyaayaabhyasanam chaiva vaangmayam tapa uchyate.
15. Speech which causes no excitement and is truthful, pleasant and beneficial, the practice of the study of the Vedas, are called austerity of speech.
COMMENTARY: It is said in the Manu Smriti: “One should speak what is true; one should speak what is pleasant; one should not speak what is true if it is not pleasant, nor what is pleasant if it is false. This is the ancient Dharma”. To be an austerity speech should combine all the attributes mentioned in the above verse.
Manahprasaadah saumyatwam maunamaatmavinigrahah;
Bhaavasamshuddhirityetat tapo maanasamuchyate.
Bhaavasamshuddhirityetat tapo maanasamuchyate.
16. Serenity of mind, good-heartedness, purity of nature, self-control—this is called mental austerity.
Shraddhayaa parayaa taptam tapastattrividham naraih;
Aphalaakaangkshibhiryuktaih saattwikam parichakshate.
Aphalaakaangkshibhiryuktaih saattwikam parichakshate.
17. This threefold austerity practised by steadfast men with the utmost faith, desiring no reward, they call Sattwic.
Satkaaramaanapoojaartham tapo dambhena chaiva yat;
Kriyate tadiha proktam raajasam chalamadhruvam.
Kriyate tadiha proktam raajasam chalamadhruvam.
18. The austerity which is practised with the object of gaining good reception, honour and worship and with hypocrisy, is here said to be Rajasic, unstable and transitory.
Moodhagraahenaatmano yat peedayaa kriyate tapah;
Parasyotsaadanaartham vaa tattaamasamudaahritam.
Parasyotsaadanaartham vaa tattaamasamudaahritam.
19. The austerity which is practised out of a foolish notion, with self-torture, or for the purpose of destroying another, is declared to be Tamasic.
Daatavyamiti yaddaanam deeyate’nupakaarine;
Deshe kaale cha paatre cha taddaanam saattwikam smritam.
Deshe kaale cha paatre cha taddaanam saattwikam smritam.
20. That gift which is given to one who does nothing in return, knowing it to be a duty to give in a fit place and time to a worthy person, that gift is held to be Sattwic.
Yattu pratyupakaaraartham phalamuddishya vaa punah;
Deeyate cha pariklishtam taddaanam raajasam smritam.
Deeyate cha pariklishtam taddaanam raajasam smritam.
21. And, that gift which is made with a view to receive something in return, or looking for a reward, or given reluctantly, is said to be Rajasic.
Adeshakaale yaddaanamapaatrebhyashcha deeyate;
Asatkritamavajnaatam tattaamasamudaahritam.
Asatkritamavajnaatam tattaamasamudaahritam.
22. The gift which is given at the wrong place and time to unworthy persons, without respect or with insult, is declared to be Tamasic.
COMMENTARY: At the wrong place and time—at a place which is not holy, where irreligious people and beggars assemble, where wealth acquired through illegal means such as gambling and theft, is distributed to gamblers, singers, fools, rogues, women of evil reputation; wealth that is distributed at an inauspicious time. This does not discourage the giving of alms to the poor.
Om tatsaditi nirdesho brahmanas trividhah smritah;
Braahmanaastena vedaashcha yajnaashcha vihitaah puraa.
Braahmanaastena vedaashcha yajnaashcha vihitaah puraa.
23. “Om Tat Sat”: this has been declared to be the triple designation of Brahman. By that were created formerly the Brahmanas, the Vedas and the sacrifices.
Tasmaadomityudaahritya yajnadaanatapahkriyaah;
Pravartante vidhaanoktaah satatam brahmavaadinaam.
Pravartante vidhaanoktaah satatam brahmavaadinaam.
24. Therefore, with the utterance of “Om” are the acts of gift, sacrifice and austerity as enjoined in the scriptures always begun by the students of Brahman.
Tadityanabhisandhaaya phalam yajnatapah kriyaah;
Daanakriyaashcha vividhaah kriyante mokshakaangkshibhih.
Daanakriyaashcha vividhaah kriyante mokshakaangkshibhih.
25. Uttering Tat, without aiming at the fruits, are the acts of sacrifice and austerity and the various acts of gift performed by the seekers of liberation.
Sadbhaave saadhubhaave cha sadityetatprayujyate;
Prashaste karmani tathaa sacchabdah paartha yujyate.
Prashaste karmani tathaa sacchabdah paartha yujyate.
26. The word Sat is used in the sense of reality and of goodness; and so also, O Arjuna, it is used in the sense of an auspicious act!
Yajne tapasi daane cha sthitih saditi chochyate;
Karma chaiva tadartheeyam sadityevaabhidheeyate.
Karma chaiva tadartheeyam sadityevaabhidheeyate.
27. Steadfastness in sacrifice, austerity and gift, is also called Sat, and also action in connection with these (or for the sake of the Supreme) is called Sat.
Ashraddhayaa hutam dattam tapastaptam kritam cha yat;
Asadityuchyate paartha na cha tatpretya no iha.
Asadityuchyate paartha na cha tatpretya no iha.
28. Whatever is sacrificed, given or performed, and whatever austerity is practised without faith, it is called Asat, O Arjuna! It is naught here or hereafter (after death).
COMMENTARY: Whatever sacrifice, austerity or charity done without being dedicated to the Lord will be of no avail to the doer in this earthly life here or in the life beyond hereafter.
Hari Om Tat Sat
Iti Srimad Bhagavadgeetaasoopanishatsu Brahmavidyaayaam
Yogashaastre Sri Krishnaarjunasamvaade
Shraddhaatrayavibhaagayogo Naama Saptadasho’dhyaayah
Iti Srimad Bhagavadgeetaasoopanishatsu Brahmavidyaayaam
Yogashaastre Sri Krishnaarjunasamvaade
Shraddhaatrayavibhaagayogo Naama Saptadasho’dhyaayah
Thus in the Upanishads of the glorious Bhagavad Gita, the science of the Eternal, the scripture of Yoga, the dialogue between Sri Krishna and Arjuna, ends the seventeenth discourse entitled:
“The Yoga of the Division of the Threefold Faith”
Swami Sivananda.
=
https://youtu.be/Gr7AKSMdasw
==
Commentary on the Bhagavadgita
by Swami Krishnananda
Discourse 46: The Seventeenth Chapter Begins – The Threefold Character of Faith
This word ‘shastra’ went into the mind of Arjuna so strongly that it raised a doubt in his mind, which led to his question in the beginning of the Seventeenth Chapter. Ye śāstravidhim utsṛjya yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ, teṣāṁ niṣṭhā tu kā kṛṣṇa sattvamāho rajastamaḥ (17.1): Arjuna asks, “O Lord! Those who do not follow the injunctions of the scriptures but work with faith, what do You say about them? Are they sattvic or rajasic or tamasic? Under what category do they come? Those who have intense faith and honestly do something without consulting scriptures—do You consider them as sattvic people? Are they good people or bad people? What is Your opinion?”
This is a very moot question that is raised by Arjuna, to which Sri Krishna gives a very devious answer. We have to read the meaning between the lines to make out what exactly is intended in this answer because a direct answer to the question is not given. The consequence of a direct answer seems to be there in the verses that follow, and we have to draw our own conclusions as to what would be the direct answer by reading the verses which Sri Bhagavan speaks—śrībhagavānuvāca—that follow in answer to Arjuna’s question.
Trividhā bhavati śraddhā (17.2): “You said ‘faith’. You asked about people who have faith but do not consult scriptures. Well, I shall tell you something. You said there are people with faith, but what kind of faith? There is sattvic faith, rajasic faith and tamasic faith. Therefore, we cannot unilaterally make a statement about those people who have faith. We have also to consider what kind of faith it is that they have.” Sāttvikī rājasī caiva tāmasī ceti tāṁ śṛṇu: “Now listen to me. I shall tell you what is sattvic faith, what is rajasic faith, and what is tamasic faith. According to one’s own nature, so does the faith arise in that person.”
Here a very direct answer is, to some extent, indicated. There is no use of saying, “I have a faith in this thing and, therefore, everything must be all right.” It need not be all right even if we have faith in it, because our faith may be tamasic faith or rajasic faith. It may not necessarily be the voice of what is sometimes called the inner conscience, which many people resort to and say, “My conscience says that and, therefore, I shall do it.” The tiger also has a conscience, the snake has a conscience, the scorpion has a conscience, the cannibal has a conscience, and a saint has a conscience. Do we think all these consciences are the same? Hence, there is no use merely saying, “I have a conscience, and I shall act according to it.” Our conscience will work according to the characteristic of our nature. According to what kind of person we are, from that we can know what kind of faith we may develop and how our conscience works. Therefore, we should not simply say, “My conscience says.” One may have a demoniacal conscience and, therefore, merely saying “my conscience works” is not enough. Thus, to say that faith is predominant and, therefore, scripture is not necessary is also not a proper way of looking at things, because it all depends upon what kind of faith we are referring to—whether it is sattvic, rajasic or tamasic. Depending on the character, the behaviour, the substance, and the very essence of a person, accordingly the sraddha, or the faith, is to be judged.
Sattvānurūpā sarvasya śraddhā bhavati bhārata, śraddhāmayo’yaṁ puruṣaḥ (17.3): A human being is nothing but a bundle of faiths. Reason does not operate always. Though we think we are reasoning people and highly intellectual, we are not actually working according to intellectuality and rationality in our daily life. If we carefully observe our behaviour, we will find that we act according to instinct only. We have certain instincts, predilections, whims and fancies, emotions, desires, and we try to justify all these instincts inside by a kind of round-about intellectual argument. Therefore, there is no point in saying that one is an intellectual philosopher, one is rational, etc. No one can be wholly rational, unconditioned by an instinct characteristic of the weakness of the human mind.
Śraddhāmayoyaṁ puruṣaḥ: So faith, of course, is embodied in a person. Whatever we do is according to our faith, not necessarily according to our considered reason. Yo yacchraddhaḥ sa eva saḥ: As our faith is, so is our person. Whatever we do, whatever we speak, whatever we think, the manner in which we behave, and the ideology that we hold aloft before us are some indications as to what kind of person we are, and are indications as to what kind of faith a person is entertaining—yo yacchraddhaḥ sa eva saḥ.
Briefly, in only two verses, the answer to Arjuna comes like a bombshell. This set of two verses is very concentrated, on which one could write a monograph explaining the implications of every word that is used. Though the answer seems to be only in two verses, it is a complete answer, I should say, in the pregnant expression of these two verses.
Now the Lord goes into details of the manner in which sattvic, rajasic and tamasic faiths operate. Sattvic people adore the gods in heaven. Ganesha, Devi, Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Lord Siva, Vishnu, Narayana, Siva, Skanda are the gods whom they worship if their mind is sattvic. Nara-Narayana, Vyasa, Vasishtha—these are their adored beings. Yajante sāttvikā devān (17.4): Lofty transcendent realities are the objects of people who are sattvic in their nature.
Yakṣarakṣāṁsi rājasāḥ: Rajasic people worship demoniacal, lower spirits which are likely to bless them with immediate results and then possess them and keep them under subjection. Yakshas, rakshasas and demigods are the objects of worship of people who are entirely rajasic, because they cannot wait for the blessings of a god in heaven. They want immediate results to follow, so they go to lesser divinities. But people with tamasic qualities worship actual demons—bhutas, pretas and spirits who hang in the air, working through Ouija boards and planchets, summoning dead people who speak through those who make this their profession. Pretān bhūtagaṇāñś cānye yajante tāmasā janāḥ: This is the tamasic way of living, where the lower spirits are considered as objects of adoration. Bhutas and pretas are their objects of worship.
aśāstravihitaṁ ghoraṁ tapyante ye tapo janāḥ dambhāhaṁkārasaṁyuktāḥ kāmarāgabalānvitāḥ (17.5) karṣayantaḥ śarīrasthaṁ bhūtagrāmam acetasaḥ māṁ caivāntaḥśarīrasthaṁ tān viddhyāsuraniścayān(17.6)
There are people who appear to be very religious, and practice austerities of an intensely painful nature for the purpose of showing to people that they are highly evolved individuals. These tortures in the name of religious austerities are not prescribed by the Shastras, or scriptures. They are terrific in their nature. Those people who adopt this kind of behaviour in the name of religion but are motivated by their inner vanity, egoism, desire for approbation from people, with an eye to the fruit or result that may follow from this kind of tapasya, torturing the inner soul, are completely deluded. Such people are to be considered as asura nischayat. They behave like rakshasas on account of the preponderance of an intensely rajasic nature with a touch of tamas.
Even the food that we eat is of three kinds. It can be classified into sattva, rajas and tamas. Ᾱhāras tvapi sarvasya trividho bhavati priyaḥ, yajñas tapas tathā dānaṁ teṣāṁ bhedam imaṁ śṛṇu (17.7): “There are three kinds of food—sattvic, rajasic and tamasic. There are three kinds of sacrifice—sattvic, rajasicand tamasic. There are three kinds of tapas, or austerity—sattvic, rajasic and tamasic. There are three kinds of charity, or philanthropy, which are also classifiable into sattvic, rajasic and tamasic. I shall tell you what these classified forms are.”
That kind of food which energises the system, which contributes to the enhancement of life, which increases strength in the body, which ensures health, which is delighting to the taste and enjoyable at all times, which is full of delicacy and the heart opens up, as it were, when we eat such food—that food is sattvic. Ᾱyuḥ sattva balārogya sukha prīti vivar-dhanāḥ, rasyāḥ snigdhāḥ sthirā hṛdyā āhārāḥ sāttvikapriyāḥ (17.8): A sattvic diet is that which delights us by even thinking of it, delights us when we actually take it, and delights us even after we have taken it. An alcoholic drink may delight us in the beginning, but it will lead us to sorrow afterwards. But a sattvic diet will be delightful in the beginning, in the middle, as well as in the end.
A rajasic diet is irritating, biting, burning, and very harsh in its action on the system. It causes a burning sensation at the time of eating it, and it affects the stomach, and it may even create a stomach ulcer. These diets are very much desired by people who are rajasic in their nature. But tamasic people want another kind of food. They do not want freshly cooked food; they only want yesterday’s food. “You have brought food that was cooked today. No, I can’t take it. I want food that was cooked yesterday.” They would rather have leftovers from yesterday than freshly cooked food. Yātayāmaṁ (17.10) refers not to food cooked yesterday but to food that has been cooked some three or four hours earlier. That also is considered as a tamasic diet. Gatarasaṁ is food whose taste has gone because it has been kept too long. Pūti is food that is not pleasant to the taste and is almost stinking. Paryuṣitaṁ is food which was cooked yesterday. Ucchiṣṭam is the leftovers from somebody’s meal. That should not be eaten. Amedhyaṁ is very impure food, kept in a dirty place, cooked by a dirty man in a dirty manner, with an impure mind, with emotions of unhappiness, tension, anger, and dislike. Food cooked by such persons should not be eaten. This is tamasic food.
Now the Lord goes into details of sattvic sacrifices, rajasic sacrifices, tamasic sacrifices, and the threefold classification of every blessed item in this world.
Faith is of the nature of the quality that is predominant in a person—namely, sattva, rajas and tamas. While going to greater detail on this subject, various other things were mentioned about the three kinds of food, the three kinds of tapas, the three kinds of worship, etc.
Aphalāṅkṣibhir yajño vidhidṛṣṭo ya ijyate, yaṣṭavyameveti manaḥ samādhāya sa sāttvikaḥ (17.11): That sacrifice can be called sattvic sacrifice which is performed by those who expect no particular fruit to follow from that performance. They do this sacrifice according to rules laid down in the Vedas and the Brahmana scriptures, and perform these sacrifices merely because it is obligatory on their part to do these sacrifices. These obligatory sacrifices have been described in the Fourth Chapter—daivam evāpare yajñaṁ yoginaḥ paryupāsate (4.25), etc., which we have already studied. Because it is obligatory, it must be done. It is a duty to do this kind of sacrifice.
There are varieties of sacrifice. We may bring back to our memory the details given in the Fourth Chapter. In this chapter, and also in the following chapter, a brief statement is made as to what actually is obligatory sacrifice. Obligatory sacrifice is mentioned as threefold: yajna, dana and tapas.
“It has to be done, and therefore, I shall do it.” Mostly, we do sacrifice because we are forced to do it due to certain circumstantial pressure. Voluntary sacrifice is what is intended here; we do not do it reluctantly or avoid it if we can.
The sacrifices mentioned here are external as well as internal. External sacrifices are those which are enjoined upon a good householder, which he continues to perform right from the time of his marriage until his death. He maintains three fires, called dakshinagni, ahavaniya and garhapatya. Garhapatya, dakshinagni, ahavaniya are the three forms of holy fire which are lit at the time of marriage, and they are always kept burning. It is with that fire that the person’s cremation is supposed to be performed because the belief, as ordained in the scriptures, is that fire will take him up to the higher realms. So we have to do it.
Another obligatory sacrifice is sandhya vandana, early morning prayers—Gayatri japa and prayer to the sun—which have to be done three times, or two times, or at least once. Sandhya vandana is an obligatory sacrifice, we may say, because it is a spiritual dedication before the great Lord of the universe, Suryanarayana Bhagavan, who is indwelt by Narayana, the spiritual Supreme Reality itself. Examples of obligatory sacrifices for householders are sandhya vandana or pancha devata puja.
The pancha devatas are Adhithyam, Ambikam, Vishnum, Gananatham, and Maheswaram. Aditya is Surya, Ambika is Devi, Vishnu is Narayana, Gananatham is Ganesh, and Maheswaram is Siva. These five are supposed to be the great gods whom every householder worships as the pancha devata puja. It is from among these great gods that the person chooses one as his ishta devata; and the image or the idol of that particular devata is kept in the centre, surrounded by the other gods. If he is a devotee of Vishnu, he places the idol of Vishnu in the centre with the other idols surrounding it. If he is a devotee of Lord Siva, a lingam is placed in the middle with the other images around it. If he is a devotee of Suryanarayana, he has a sphatika lingam as the central object of worship. If he is a Devi bhakta, he has a yantra which will be worshipped in the middle, and the other the gods will be outside, etc. Hence, there are performances which are obligatory and have to be done every day—such as sandhya vandana, Gayatri japa, pancha devata puja, and worship of the three fires. They are imperative, they have to be done, and one does them because they must be done.
Yaṣṭavyameveti manaḥ samādhāya sa sāttvikaḥ: We do it because it has to be done; it is our obligatory duty to do it, and we cannot desist from doing it. But if that yajna, that sacrifice, is voluntarily—not compulsorily—done for our own benefit and for everybody’s benefit, then it becomes sattvic. But it should be done without expecting any result. We should not ask God to give us a long life, and so on. We should ask God to grace us and bless us. When the great Narasimha manifested himself and told the devotee Prahlada to ask for a boon, the little boy said, “Bless me with that which is best for me.” Then, naturally, the ball is in the court of God Himself. He cannot give us anything but the best. The Lord said, “I give you devotion to Me. I consider that as the best.”
Aphalāṅkṣibhir yajño vidhidṛṣṭaḥ. Here, so many conditions are given for the performance of obligatory duty. One thing is that we should not expect any ulterior fruit to follow from the performance of our duty. Then it ceases to be a duty. It becomes a mercenary action, a job for salary. That cannot be regarded as sattvic yajna. It should be performed for the pleasure of God, the satisfaction of the deity which we are worshipping. Also, it should be done according to the rules and regulations laid down in the scriptures. It should not be done in a slipshod manner or in any manner we like, without any system and without knowing what mantra is to be chanted, at what time, for which deity. If the performance is done properly, it is wonderful, highly beneficial, and it is considered as sattvic.
Abhisaṁdhāya tu phalaṁ dambhārtham api caiva yat, ijyate bharataśreṣṭha taṁ yajñaṁ viddhi rājasam(17.12): That performance is called rajasic which is undertaken merely for the fruit that follows, the result that comes out of it. “Something very advantageous will accrue if I do this.” The eye is only on the advantage that will accrue and not on the means, which is the worship or the sacrifice. The puja is done by hurriedly mumbling something, because some great blessing will come from that deity. The blessing is the important thing, and the manner of worship is not important. The mind is concentrated only on the result that follows, and is filled with vanity—that kind of sacrifice is rajasic. Puja that is selfishness oriented, fruit oriented, and not done according to the ordinance of scriptures is rajasic because it is motivated by a distraction of the mind. It is especially defective on account of there being no devotion to the means of worship; the devotion is only to that which will follow from the worship.
Vidhihīnam asṛṣṭānnaṁ mantrahīnam adakṣiṇam, śraddhāvirahitaṁ yajñaṁ tāmasaṁ paricakṣate (17.13): Tamasic sacrifice, tamasic worship, tamasic yajna is that which is done contrary to prescribed rules and is totally oblivious to the regulations laid down in the Vedas, the Brahmanas and the Smritis, or even by tradition, and is bereft of charity. No offering is made to the deity, and no proper mantra is chanted, and no fee is given to the performer of the sacrifice. It is an unthinkably defective way of approaching things. The desired result will not follow. An example is a person who employs a pandit—a yajamana who engages a saint or a purohita for the performance of a worship—and does not properly respect him, does not give him his due, and he concentrates only on what he will get out of it, and not on the pleasure of the gods or the satisfaction of the deity whom he is invoking through the sacrifice. And he is faithless; inwardly, he has no faith in the very performance itself. “If something comes, well and good; and if nothing comes, that is also all right. I will pray to God, if God is there. If He doesn’t exist, that’s not a loss to me. O God, if there is a God, come and help me.” O God, if there is a God. If God is not there, we do not lose anything by the utterance of a few words.
Faithless performance is tamasic performance. When our heart is not in a thing, we are also not in that thing. Where our heart is, there we are; and if we ourselves are not there, what is the good of doing anything? We have to be present in the deed that we perform, we have to ‘be’ in the worship that we offer, and we have to ‘be’ in the meditation that we undertake every day. Whatever is manifesting itself from us is ensouled by us. That is, if we stand outside the performance, the performance becomes a corpse, a skeleton. It is without life because we have stood outside it. But if we have entered into it, the action itself is enlivened by our soul. We are entirely in it; then it is that the action becomes a real sacrifice. Where we are not in the work, it ceases to be a sacrifice. To the extent we are involved in the work, to that extent it is a sacrifice. If we are wholly involved in it, and we are not separable from the work that we are doing—we ourselves are the work, as it were—then it is the highest sacrifice, and it will bring us the best of benefits. Else, it is tamasic.
Devadvija guru prājña pūjanaṁ śaucamārjavam, brahma- caryam ahiṁsā ca śārīraṁ tapa ucyate (17.14). Yajna is of three kinds, which have been mentioned. Now we are being told that tapas is also of three kinds. Physical tapas, verbal tapas, and mental tapas are distinguished here by their own peculiar qualities. Worship of gods, worship of learned Brahmins, worship of the Guru, worship of wise persons, knowers of Brahman, purity inside and outside, straightforwardness of behaviour, self-restraint, ahimsa or non-injury to living beings—these are austerities of the body. We physically prostrate ourselves before the divinity whom we are adoring every day in worship, we prostrate ourselves before great men, divine people, preceptors, together with an internal self-restraint that we exercise on our own self, maintaining a purity of conduct and motive inwardly and outwardly—if this could be done, the body is performing a tapas. Physical discipline is described here as adoration of divinities, adoration of gods, adoration of learned, wise, spiritual preceptors, self-restraint, control of the ten sense organs, purity, and straightforwardness. If this can be maintained, we are physically restraining ourselves entirely.
Our speech also has to be restrained. In the same way as there is a restraint of the body by discipline of this kind, there has to be a discipline of the speech. Anudvegakaraṁ vākyaṁ satyaṁ priyahitaṁ ca yat, svādhyāyābhyasanaṁ caiva vāṅmayaṁ tapa ucyate (17.15): The discipline of the speech is considered to be that which is pleasing, which does not agitate the mind of the person who hears it, which is very beneficial, kind and sweet, and is also truthful and not camouflaged with any kind of untruth—purely factual, verbal expression, which is very dear and happy to hear, and good for the people who hear it. There is also daily study of the holy scriptures, svādhyāya. As we have discipline of the body, there is discipline of speech. What are these? They are sweet speech—not speaking like a thorn pricking people—truthful speech, kind speech, beneficial speech, and daily study of holy scriptures for our own inner illumination. The svādhyāya of the Veda Samhitas, patha of Ramayana, Bhagavata, Bhagavadgita, etc., all come under svādhyāya yajña, by which we purify and discipline our speech.
Manaḥprasādaḥ saumyatvaṁ maunam ātmavinigrahaḥ, bhāvasaṁśuddhir ityetat tapo mānasam ucyate(17.16): There is also mental tapas. The discipline of the mind is mental tapas—calmness, composure, satisfaction, happiness, contentment inside. Such a person is always happy, contented, and asks for nothing. “Everything is well with me. I want nothing. I am always very happy. I need nothing.” This kind of inner satisfaction is called manaḥprasādaḥ.
Saumyatvaṁ—we must be very composed in our behaviour, delightful for people to see, not putting on an agitated look. If we are very graceful in our behaviour, it is saumyatvaṁ.
We should not speak unless it is necessary to speak. Where it is necessary to speak, we speak. Where it is not called for on our behalf to speak, we do not speak. There are people who butt in. If two people are speaking, a third man comes and butts in, and says something else and spoils the entire talk. We should not interfere. We should not speak at all unless it is obligatory on our part to speak at a given moment. It is necessary for us to speak at this moment; therefore, we speak. When speaking is unwarranted and we can keep quiet, we should hold our tongue, and maintain peace in our mind. That is maunam.
Ᾱtmavinigrahaḥ is self-control—the restraint of the lower self by the higher self. Concentrating on the Universality of our selfhood puts a restraint or check on our lower, instinctive self. That is ātmavinigrahaḥ.
Bhāvasaṁśuddhiḥ: Our motive should always be pure. When we do an action, we must have a pure motive for the benefit of somebody. It does good to some person; it is doing good to at least one person, if not more. And if it does good to the whole of humanity, to the entire mankind, very good. It does good to the family, to the community, to the nation, or at least it does good to one person—that much is indicative of a pure motive. But if it is a concentration of the mind on our own personal, selfish welfare—let anything happen to others, we are not at all concerned with what is happening in the atmosphere around, but we very much are concerned with our own personal, physical welfare—if we are so selfish, then there is impurity in the mind. The unselfishness that characterises our motive is bhāvasaṁ-śuddhiḥ. This is mental tapas. Thus, we have here a description of three kinds of austerities—physical, verbal and mental.
Śraddhayā parayā taptaṁ tapas tat trividhaṁ naraiḥ, aphalākāṅkṣibhir yuktaiḥ sāttvikaṁ paricakṣate(17.17): Sattvic tapas is attended with intense faith that it will bring the noble fruit of inner spiritual illumination, and not because it will bring some material benefit. Spiritual aspiration is always a movement of our consciousness towards the higher values of life which are God-oriented in every way and, therefore, the question of expecting some material benefit out of our performance is totally out of point. If this tapas or worship is done with no such eye on fruit that is material in its nature, and is undertaken for the salvation of our soul finally, then the worship or tapas is considered to be sattvic.
Satkāramānapūjārthaṁ tapo dambhena caiva yat, kriyate tadiha proktaṁ rājasaṁ calam adhruvam(17.18): Fickle-minded people with no concentration whatsoever, with no understanding, with no knowledge of what they are doing at all, who are idiotic in their attitude and cause suffering to themselves as well as to others, and perhaps even harm other people—if that kind of undertaking is our desire, we should be considered as tamasic. Satkāramānapūjārthaṁ tapo dambhena caiva yat, kriyate tadiha proktaṁ rājasaṁ calam adhruvam: If we do sacrifice for respect, for gaining recognition from people, and for ostentation, it is rajasic; but if we do it for harming people, if our sacrifice is not motivated by pious intentions, then it is tamasic.
Dātavyam—now comes charity. There are three kinds of charity—sattvic, rajasic and tamasic. Dātavyam iti yad dānaṁ dīyate’nupakāriṇe, deśe kāle ca pātre ca tad dānaṁ sāttvikaṁ smṛtam (17.20): When we do charity, we should give to that person from whom we expect nothing, or rather, from whom we cannot expect anything. If we help a person from whom we cannot expect any kind of recompense—we may not get even a word of thanks from that person, yet we help that person—that is prattyupakārārthaṁ, expecting no recompense to follow from the good deed that we perform. We should not expect our charity to bring us something visible. We will be blessed by the divinities that rule the world. That will be enough for us. Unless we do that, it will not be real charity.
We must give in charity because it is necessary under that condition. We feel for the suffering of another because that person is deprived of physical, mental or social needs. If a person does have access to even the minimum needs of life, and we are in a position to help that person merely because it is good to be of assistance to people of that kind, that would be sattvic charity; and again, anupakāriṇe—we should not expect anything from that person.
Sattvic charity has to be given in the proper place, at the proper time, and to the proper person. Three conditions are there in order that charity may be sattvic. We should not give charity at a wrong place where it will be disturbing either to ourselves or to others; it has to be given at the proper time, and not when the person is not in the proper mood to receive it; and he must be a really deserving person, and not a person who does not need our gesture of goodwill. Deśe kāle ca pātre ca: If all these conditions are fulfilled, we give charity or express a gesture of goodwill because it is to be done in the case of a person who needs it, in the proper place, at the proper time, and to the proper person—that charity, that gesture of goodwill of ours, that kindness, the mercy that we show, is sattvic in its nature.
Yat tu prattyupakārārthaṁ (17.21): If we give in charity because something will come out of it, because if we give something a double benefit will follow—that cannot be regarded as real charity, because we expect something from the good that we do. It cannot be called a really good deed. Phalam uddiśya vā punaḥ: Because we always concentrate on what follows from this little sacrifice that we have performed, it is not real sacrifice.
Dīyate ca parikliṣṭaṁ: If we give charity with great difficulty, reluctantly, niggardly, throw it at the face of a man and say, “Go! Don’t come again!” it is not charity. Dīyate ca parikliṣṭaṁ is when we give charity with great reluctance and sorrow inside. “Hey, the wretchedest thing has come. Here. Go!” We must offer help with delight in our heart, with satisfaction in our mind, seeing divinity in things, as God manifests in that person who is requiring assistance from us. The kind of charity that is done with an eye on fruit, or what we expect from somebody else, and is done with reluctance, is rajasic charity.
Adeśakāle yad dānam apātrebhyaś ca dīyate, asatkṛtam avajñātaṁ tat tāmasam udāhṛtam (17.22): If we offer something in a wrong place, at a wrong time and to a wrong person, without understanding the pros and cons of it, if it is totally out of place and unwarranted—that kind of gesture on our part, the work that we do, the charity, whatever we do which is blunderous in its effect, should be considered as tamasic. That is the worst kind of charity.
In the verses that follow, we shall be taken to a very lofty thought of the highest kind of contemplation on the Supreme Being. Om Tat Sat will be described—what it means, and how we have to meditate upon it. We shall discuss its meanng etc..next time.
=
This word ‘shastra’ went into the mind of Arjuna so strongly that it raised a doubt in his mind, which led to his question in the beginning of the Seventeenth Chapter. Ye śāstravidhim utsṛjya yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ, teṣāṁ niṣṭhā tu kā kṛṣṇa sattvamāho rajastamaḥ (17.1): Arjuna asks, “O Lord! Those who do not follow the injunctions of the scriptures but work with faith, what do You say about them? Are they sattvic or rajasic or tamasic? Under what category do they come? Those who have intense faith and honestly do something without consulting scriptures—do You consider them as sattvic people? Are they good people or bad people? What is Your opinion?”
This is a very moot question that is raised by Arjuna, to which Sri Krishna gives a very devious answer. We have to read the meaning between the lines to make out what exactly is intended in this answer because a direct answer to the question is not given. The consequence of a direct answer seems to be there in the verses that follow, and we have to draw our own conclusions as to what would be the direct answer by reading the verses which Sri Bhagavan speaks—śrībhagavānuvāca—that follow in answer to Arjuna’s question.
Trividhā bhavati śraddhā (17.2): “You said ‘faith’. You asked about people who have faith but do not consult scriptures. Well, I shall tell you something. You said there are people with faith, but what kind of faith? There is sattvic faith, rajasic faith and tamasic faith. Therefore, we cannot unilaterally make a statement about those people who have faith. We have also to consider what kind of faith it is that they have.” Sāttvikī rājasī caiva tāmasī ceti tāṁ śṛṇu: “Now listen to me. I shall tell you what is sattvic faith, what is rajasic faith, and what is tamasic faith. According to one’s own nature, so does the faith arise in that person.”
Here a very direct answer is, to some extent, indicated. There is no use of saying, “I have a faith in this thing and, therefore, everything must be all right.” It need not be all right even if we have faith in it, because our faith may be tamasic faith or rajasic faith. It may not necessarily be the voice of what is sometimes called the inner conscience, which many people resort to and say, “My conscience says that and, therefore, I shall do it.” The tiger also has a conscience, the snake has a conscience, the scorpion has a conscience, the cannibal has a conscience, and a saint has a conscience. Do we think all these consciences are the same? Hence, there is no use merely saying, “I have a conscience, and I shall act according to it.” Our conscience will work according to the characteristic of our nature. According to what kind of person we are, from that we can know what kind of faith we may develop and how our conscience works. Therefore, we should not simply say, “My conscience says.” One may have a demoniacal conscience and, therefore, merely saying “my conscience works” is not enough. Thus, to say that faith is predominant and, therefore, scripture is not necessary is also not a proper way of looking at things, because it all depends upon what kind of faith we are referring to—whether it is sattvic, rajasic or tamasic. Depending on the character, the behaviour, the substance, and the very essence of a person, accordingly the sraddha, or the faith, is to be judged.
Sattvānurūpā sarvasya śraddhā bhavati bhārata, śraddhāmayo’yaṁ puruṣaḥ (17.3): A human being is nothing but a bundle of faiths. Reason does not operate always. Though we think we are reasoning people and highly intellectual, we are not actually working according to intellectuality and rationality in our daily life. If we carefully observe our behaviour, we will find that we act according to instinct only. We have certain instincts, predilections, whims and fancies, emotions, desires, and we try to justify all these instincts inside by a kind of round-about intellectual argument. Therefore, there is no point in saying that one is an intellectual philosopher, one is rational, etc. No one can be wholly rational, unconditioned by an instinct characteristic of the weakness of the human mind.
Śraddhāmayoyaṁ puruṣaḥ: So faith, of course, is embodied in a person. Whatever we do is according to our faith, not necessarily according to our considered reason. Yo yacchraddhaḥ sa eva saḥ: As our faith is, so is our person. Whatever we do, whatever we speak, whatever we think, the manner in which we behave, and the ideology that we hold aloft before us are some indications as to what kind of person we are, and are indications as to what kind of faith a person is entertaining—yo yacchraddhaḥ sa eva saḥ.
Briefly, in only two verses, the answer to Arjuna comes like a bombshell. This set of two verses is very concentrated, on which one could write a monograph explaining the implications of every word that is used. Though the answer seems to be only in two verses, it is a complete answer, I should say, in the pregnant expression of these two verses.
Now the Lord goes into details of the manner in which sattvic, rajasic and tamasic faiths operate. Sattvic people adore the gods in heaven. Ganesha, Devi, Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Lord Siva, Vishnu, Narayana, Siva, Skanda are the gods whom they worship if their mind is sattvic. Nara-Narayana, Vyasa, Vasishtha—these are their adored beings. Yajante sāttvikā devān (17.4): Lofty transcendent realities are the objects of people who are sattvic in their nature.
Yakṣarakṣāṁsi rājasāḥ: Rajasic people worship demoniacal, lower spirits which are likely to bless them with immediate results and then possess them and keep them under subjection. Yakshas, rakshasas and demigods are the objects of worship of people who are entirely rajasic, because they cannot wait for the blessings of a god in heaven. They want immediate results to follow, so they go to lesser divinities. But people with tamasic qualities worship actual demons—bhutas, pretas and spirits who hang in the air, working through Ouija boards and planchets, summoning dead people who speak through those who make this their profession. Pretān bhūtagaṇāñś cānye yajante tāmasā janāḥ: This is the tamasic way of living, where the lower spirits are considered as objects of adoration. Bhutas and pretas are their objects of worship.
aśāstravihitaṁ ghoraṁ tapyante ye tapo janāḥ dambhāhaṁkārasaṁyuktāḥ kāmarāgabalānvitāḥ (17.5) karṣayantaḥ śarīrasthaṁ bhūtagrāmam acetasaḥ māṁ caivāntaḥśarīrasthaṁ tān viddhyāsuraniścayān(17.6)
There are people who appear to be very religious, and practice austerities of an intensely painful nature for the purpose of showing to people that they are highly evolved individuals. These tortures in the name of religious austerities are not prescribed by the Shastras, or scriptures. They are terrific in their nature. Those people who adopt this kind of behaviour in the name of religion but are motivated by their inner vanity, egoism, desire for approbation from people, with an eye to the fruit or result that may follow from this kind of tapasya, torturing the inner soul, are completely deluded. Such people are to be considered as asura nischayat. They behave like rakshasas on account of the preponderance of an intensely rajasic nature with a touch of tamas.
Even the food that we eat is of three kinds. It can be classified into sattva, rajas and tamas. Ᾱhāras tvapi sarvasya trividho bhavati priyaḥ, yajñas tapas tathā dānaṁ teṣāṁ bhedam imaṁ śṛṇu (17.7): “There are three kinds of food—sattvic, rajasic and tamasic. There are three kinds of sacrifice—sattvic, rajasicand tamasic. There are three kinds of tapas, or austerity—sattvic, rajasic and tamasic. There are three kinds of charity, or philanthropy, which are also classifiable into sattvic, rajasic and tamasic. I shall tell you what these classified forms are.”
That kind of food which energises the system, which contributes to the enhancement of life, which increases strength in the body, which ensures health, which is delighting to the taste and enjoyable at all times, which is full of delicacy and the heart opens up, as it were, when we eat such food—that food is sattvic. Ᾱyuḥ sattva balārogya sukha prīti vivar-dhanāḥ, rasyāḥ snigdhāḥ sthirā hṛdyā āhārāḥ sāttvikapriyāḥ (17.8): A sattvic diet is that which delights us by even thinking of it, delights us when we actually take it, and delights us even after we have taken it. An alcoholic drink may delight us in the beginning, but it will lead us to sorrow afterwards. But a sattvic diet will be delightful in the beginning, in the middle, as well as in the end.
A rajasic diet is irritating, biting, burning, and very harsh in its action on the system. It causes a burning sensation at the time of eating it, and it affects the stomach, and it may even create a stomach ulcer. These diets are very much desired by people who are rajasic in their nature. But tamasic people want another kind of food. They do not want freshly cooked food; they only want yesterday’s food. “You have brought food that was cooked today. No, I can’t take it. I want food that was cooked yesterday.” They would rather have leftovers from yesterday than freshly cooked food. Yātayāmaṁ (17.10) refers not to food cooked yesterday but to food that has been cooked some three or four hours earlier. That also is considered as a tamasic diet. Gatarasaṁ is food whose taste has gone because it has been kept too long. Pūti is food that is not pleasant to the taste and is almost stinking. Paryuṣitaṁ is food which was cooked yesterday. Ucchiṣṭam is the leftovers from somebody’s meal. That should not be eaten. Amedhyaṁ is very impure food, kept in a dirty place, cooked by a dirty man in a dirty manner, with an impure mind, with emotions of unhappiness, tension, anger, and dislike. Food cooked by such persons should not be eaten. This is tamasic food.
Now the Lord goes into details of sattvic sacrifices, rajasic sacrifices, tamasic sacrifices, and the threefold classification of every blessed item in this world.
Faith is of the nature of the quality that is predominant in a person—namely, sattva, rajas and tamas. While going to greater detail on this subject, various other things were mentioned about the three kinds of food, the three kinds of tapas, the three kinds of worship, etc.
Aphalāṅkṣibhir yajño vidhidṛṣṭo ya ijyate, yaṣṭavyameveti manaḥ samādhāya sa sāttvikaḥ (17.11): That sacrifice can be called sattvic sacrifice which is performed by those who expect no particular fruit to follow from that performance. They do this sacrifice according to rules laid down in the Vedas and the Brahmana scriptures, and perform these sacrifices merely because it is obligatory on their part to do these sacrifices. These obligatory sacrifices have been described in the Fourth Chapter—daivam evāpare yajñaṁ yoginaḥ paryupāsate (4.25), etc., which we have already studied. Because it is obligatory, it must be done. It is a duty to do this kind of sacrifice.
There are varieties of sacrifice. We may bring back to our memory the details given in the Fourth Chapter. In this chapter, and also in the following chapter, a brief statement is made as to what actually is obligatory sacrifice. Obligatory sacrifice is mentioned as threefold: yajna, dana and tapas.
“It has to be done, and therefore, I shall do it.” Mostly, we do sacrifice because we are forced to do it due to certain circumstantial pressure. Voluntary sacrifice is what is intended here; we do not do it reluctantly or avoid it if we can.
The sacrifices mentioned here are external as well as internal. External sacrifices are those which are enjoined upon a good householder, which he continues to perform right from the time of his marriage until his death. He maintains three fires, called dakshinagni, ahavaniya and garhapatya. Garhapatya, dakshinagni, ahavaniya are the three forms of holy fire which are lit at the time of marriage, and they are always kept burning. It is with that fire that the person’s cremation is supposed to be performed because the belief, as ordained in the scriptures, is that fire will take him up to the higher realms. So we have to do it.
Another obligatory sacrifice is sandhya vandana, early morning prayers—Gayatri japa and prayer to the sun—which have to be done three times, or two times, or at least once. Sandhya vandana is an obligatory sacrifice, we may say, because it is a spiritual dedication before the great Lord of the universe, Suryanarayana Bhagavan, who is indwelt by Narayana, the spiritual Supreme Reality itself. Examples of obligatory sacrifices for householders are sandhya vandana or pancha devata puja.
The pancha devatas are Adhithyam, Ambikam, Vishnum, Gananatham, and Maheswaram. Aditya is Surya, Ambika is Devi, Vishnu is Narayana, Gananatham is Ganesh, and Maheswaram is Siva. These five are supposed to be the great gods whom every householder worships as the pancha devata puja. It is from among these great gods that the person chooses one as his ishta devata; and the image or the idol of that particular devata is kept in the centre, surrounded by the other gods. If he is a devotee of Vishnu, he places the idol of Vishnu in the centre with the other idols surrounding it. If he is a devotee of Lord Siva, a lingam is placed in the middle with the other images around it. If he is a devotee of Suryanarayana, he has a sphatika lingam as the central object of worship. If he is a Devi bhakta, he has a yantra which will be worshipped in the middle, and the other the gods will be outside, etc. Hence, there are performances which are obligatory and have to be done every day—such as sandhya vandana, Gayatri japa, pancha devata puja, and worship of the three fires. They are imperative, they have to be done, and one does them because they must be done.
Yaṣṭavyameveti manaḥ samādhāya sa sāttvikaḥ: We do it because it has to be done; it is our obligatory duty to do it, and we cannot desist from doing it. But if that yajna, that sacrifice, is voluntarily—not compulsorily—done for our own benefit and for everybody’s benefit, then it becomes sattvic. But it should be done without expecting any result. We should not ask God to give us a long life, and so on. We should ask God to grace us and bless us. When the great Narasimha manifested himself and told the devotee Prahlada to ask for a boon, the little boy said, “Bless me with that which is best for me.” Then, naturally, the ball is in the court of God Himself. He cannot give us anything but the best. The Lord said, “I give you devotion to Me. I consider that as the best.”
Aphalāṅkṣibhir yajño vidhidṛṣṭaḥ. Here, so many conditions are given for the performance of obligatory duty. One thing is that we should not expect any ulterior fruit to follow from the performance of our duty. Then it ceases to be a duty. It becomes a mercenary action, a job for salary. That cannot be regarded as sattvic yajna. It should be performed for the pleasure of God, the satisfaction of the deity which we are worshipping. Also, it should be done according to the rules and regulations laid down in the scriptures. It should not be done in a slipshod manner or in any manner we like, without any system and without knowing what mantra is to be chanted, at what time, for which deity. If the performance is done properly, it is wonderful, highly beneficial, and it is considered as sattvic.
Abhisaṁdhāya tu phalaṁ dambhārtham api caiva yat, ijyate bharataśreṣṭha taṁ yajñaṁ viddhi rājasam(17.12): That performance is called rajasic which is undertaken merely for the fruit that follows, the result that comes out of it. “Something very advantageous will accrue if I do this.” The eye is only on the advantage that will accrue and not on the means, which is the worship or the sacrifice. The puja is done by hurriedly mumbling something, because some great blessing will come from that deity. The blessing is the important thing, and the manner of worship is not important. The mind is concentrated only on the result that follows, and is filled with vanity—that kind of sacrifice is rajasic. Puja that is selfishness oriented, fruit oriented, and not done according to the ordinance of scriptures is rajasic because it is motivated by a distraction of the mind. It is especially defective on account of there being no devotion to the means of worship; the devotion is only to that which will follow from the worship.
Vidhihīnam asṛṣṭānnaṁ mantrahīnam adakṣiṇam, śraddhāvirahitaṁ yajñaṁ tāmasaṁ paricakṣate (17.13): Tamasic sacrifice, tamasic worship, tamasic yajna is that which is done contrary to prescribed rules and is totally oblivious to the regulations laid down in the Vedas, the Brahmanas and the Smritis, or even by tradition, and is bereft of charity. No offering is made to the deity, and no proper mantra is chanted, and no fee is given to the performer of the sacrifice. It is an unthinkably defective way of approaching things. The desired result will not follow. An example is a person who employs a pandit—a yajamana who engages a saint or a purohita for the performance of a worship—and does not properly respect him, does not give him his due, and he concentrates only on what he will get out of it, and not on the pleasure of the gods or the satisfaction of the deity whom he is invoking through the sacrifice. And he is faithless; inwardly, he has no faith in the very performance itself. “If something comes, well and good; and if nothing comes, that is also all right. I will pray to God, if God is there. If He doesn’t exist, that’s not a loss to me. O God, if there is a God, come and help me.” O God, if there is a God. If God is not there, we do not lose anything by the utterance of a few words.
Faithless performance is tamasic performance. When our heart is not in a thing, we are also not in that thing. Where our heart is, there we are; and if we ourselves are not there, what is the good of doing anything? We have to be present in the deed that we perform, we have to ‘be’ in the worship that we offer, and we have to ‘be’ in the meditation that we undertake every day. Whatever is manifesting itself from us is ensouled by us. That is, if we stand outside the performance, the performance becomes a corpse, a skeleton. It is without life because we have stood outside it. But if we have entered into it, the action itself is enlivened by our soul. We are entirely in it; then it is that the action becomes a real sacrifice. Where we are not in the work, it ceases to be a sacrifice. To the extent we are involved in the work, to that extent it is a sacrifice. If we are wholly involved in it, and we are not separable from the work that we are doing—we ourselves are the work, as it were—then it is the highest sacrifice, and it will bring us the best of benefits. Else, it is tamasic.
Devadvija guru prājña pūjanaṁ śaucamārjavam, brahma- caryam ahiṁsā ca śārīraṁ tapa ucyate (17.14). Yajna is of three kinds, which have been mentioned. Now we are being told that tapas is also of three kinds. Physical tapas, verbal tapas, and mental tapas are distinguished here by their own peculiar qualities. Worship of gods, worship of learned Brahmins, worship of the Guru, worship of wise persons, knowers of Brahman, purity inside and outside, straightforwardness of behaviour, self-restraint, ahimsa or non-injury to living beings—these are austerities of the body. We physically prostrate ourselves before the divinity whom we are adoring every day in worship, we prostrate ourselves before great men, divine people, preceptors, together with an internal self-restraint that we exercise on our own self, maintaining a purity of conduct and motive inwardly and outwardly—if this could be done, the body is performing a tapas. Physical discipline is described here as adoration of divinities, adoration of gods, adoration of learned, wise, spiritual preceptors, self-restraint, control of the ten sense organs, purity, and straightforwardness. If this can be maintained, we are physically restraining ourselves entirely.
Our speech also has to be restrained. In the same way as there is a restraint of the body by discipline of this kind, there has to be a discipline of the speech. Anudvegakaraṁ vākyaṁ satyaṁ priyahitaṁ ca yat, svādhyāyābhyasanaṁ caiva vāṅmayaṁ tapa ucyate (17.15): The discipline of the speech is considered to be that which is pleasing, which does not agitate the mind of the person who hears it, which is very beneficial, kind and sweet, and is also truthful and not camouflaged with any kind of untruth—purely factual, verbal expression, which is very dear and happy to hear, and good for the people who hear it. There is also daily study of the holy scriptures, svādhyāya. As we have discipline of the body, there is discipline of speech. What are these? They are sweet speech—not speaking like a thorn pricking people—truthful speech, kind speech, beneficial speech, and daily study of holy scriptures for our own inner illumination. The svādhyāya of the Veda Samhitas, patha of Ramayana, Bhagavata, Bhagavadgita, etc., all come under svādhyāya yajña, by which we purify and discipline our speech.
Manaḥprasādaḥ saumyatvaṁ maunam ātmavinigrahaḥ, bhāvasaṁśuddhir ityetat tapo mānasam ucyate(17.16): There is also mental tapas. The discipline of the mind is mental tapas—calmness, composure, satisfaction, happiness, contentment inside. Such a person is always happy, contented, and asks for nothing. “Everything is well with me. I want nothing. I am always very happy. I need nothing.” This kind of inner satisfaction is called manaḥprasādaḥ.
Saumyatvaṁ—we must be very composed in our behaviour, delightful for people to see, not putting on an agitated look. If we are very graceful in our behaviour, it is saumyatvaṁ.
We should not speak unless it is necessary to speak. Where it is necessary to speak, we speak. Where it is not called for on our behalf to speak, we do not speak. There are people who butt in. If two people are speaking, a third man comes and butts in, and says something else and spoils the entire talk. We should not interfere. We should not speak at all unless it is obligatory on our part to speak at a given moment. It is necessary for us to speak at this moment; therefore, we speak. When speaking is unwarranted and we can keep quiet, we should hold our tongue, and maintain peace in our mind. That is maunam.
Ᾱtmavinigrahaḥ is self-control—the restraint of the lower self by the higher self. Concentrating on the Universality of our selfhood puts a restraint or check on our lower, instinctive self. That is ātmavinigrahaḥ.
Bhāvasaṁśuddhiḥ: Our motive should always be pure. When we do an action, we must have a pure motive for the benefit of somebody. It does good to some person; it is doing good to at least one person, if not more. And if it does good to the whole of humanity, to the entire mankind, very good. It does good to the family, to the community, to the nation, or at least it does good to one person—that much is indicative of a pure motive. But if it is a concentration of the mind on our own personal, selfish welfare—let anything happen to others, we are not at all concerned with what is happening in the atmosphere around, but we very much are concerned with our own personal, physical welfare—if we are so selfish, then there is impurity in the mind. The unselfishness that characterises our motive is bhāvasaṁ-śuddhiḥ. This is mental tapas. Thus, we have here a description of three kinds of austerities—physical, verbal and mental.
Śraddhayā parayā taptaṁ tapas tat trividhaṁ naraiḥ, aphalākāṅkṣibhir yuktaiḥ sāttvikaṁ paricakṣate(17.17): Sattvic tapas is attended with intense faith that it will bring the noble fruit of inner spiritual illumination, and not because it will bring some material benefit. Spiritual aspiration is always a movement of our consciousness towards the higher values of life which are God-oriented in every way and, therefore, the question of expecting some material benefit out of our performance is totally out of point. If this tapas or worship is done with no such eye on fruit that is material in its nature, and is undertaken for the salvation of our soul finally, then the worship or tapas is considered to be sattvic.
Satkāramānapūjārthaṁ tapo dambhena caiva yat, kriyate tadiha proktaṁ rājasaṁ calam adhruvam(17.18): Fickle-minded people with no concentration whatsoever, with no understanding, with no knowledge of what they are doing at all, who are idiotic in their attitude and cause suffering to themselves as well as to others, and perhaps even harm other people—if that kind of undertaking is our desire, we should be considered as tamasic. Satkāramānapūjārthaṁ tapo dambhena caiva yat, kriyate tadiha proktaṁ rājasaṁ calam adhruvam: If we do sacrifice for respect, for gaining recognition from people, and for ostentation, it is rajasic; but if we do it for harming people, if our sacrifice is not motivated by pious intentions, then it is tamasic.
Dātavyam—now comes charity. There are three kinds of charity—sattvic, rajasic and tamasic. Dātavyam iti yad dānaṁ dīyate’nupakāriṇe, deśe kāle ca pātre ca tad dānaṁ sāttvikaṁ smṛtam (17.20): When we do charity, we should give to that person from whom we expect nothing, or rather, from whom we cannot expect anything. If we help a person from whom we cannot expect any kind of recompense—we may not get even a word of thanks from that person, yet we help that person—that is prattyupakārārthaṁ, expecting no recompense to follow from the good deed that we perform. We should not expect our charity to bring us something visible. We will be blessed by the divinities that rule the world. That will be enough for us. Unless we do that, it will not be real charity.
We must give in charity because it is necessary under that condition. We feel for the suffering of another because that person is deprived of physical, mental or social needs. If a person does have access to even the minimum needs of life, and we are in a position to help that person merely because it is good to be of assistance to people of that kind, that would be sattvic charity; and again, anupakāriṇe—we should not expect anything from that person.
Sattvic charity has to be given in the proper place, at the proper time, and to the proper person. Three conditions are there in order that charity may be sattvic. We should not give charity at a wrong place where it will be disturbing either to ourselves or to others; it has to be given at the proper time, and not when the person is not in the proper mood to receive it; and he must be a really deserving person, and not a person who does not need our gesture of goodwill. Deśe kāle ca pātre ca: If all these conditions are fulfilled, we give charity or express a gesture of goodwill because it is to be done in the case of a person who needs it, in the proper place, at the proper time, and to the proper person—that charity, that gesture of goodwill of ours, that kindness, the mercy that we show, is sattvic in its nature.
Yat tu prattyupakārārthaṁ (17.21): If we give in charity because something will come out of it, because if we give something a double benefit will follow—that cannot be regarded as real charity, because we expect something from the good that we do. It cannot be called a really good deed. Phalam uddiśya vā punaḥ: Because we always concentrate on what follows from this little sacrifice that we have performed, it is not real sacrifice.
Dīyate ca parikliṣṭaṁ: If we give charity with great difficulty, reluctantly, niggardly, throw it at the face of a man and say, “Go! Don’t come again!” it is not charity. Dīyate ca parikliṣṭaṁ is when we give charity with great reluctance and sorrow inside. “Hey, the wretchedest thing has come. Here. Go!” We must offer help with delight in our heart, with satisfaction in our mind, seeing divinity in things, as God manifests in that person who is requiring assistance from us. The kind of charity that is done with an eye on fruit, or what we expect from somebody else, and is done with reluctance, is rajasic charity.
Adeśakāle yad dānam apātrebhyaś ca dīyate, asatkṛtam avajñātaṁ tat tāmasam udāhṛtam (17.22): If we offer something in a wrong place, at a wrong time and to a wrong person, without understanding the pros and cons of it, if it is totally out of place and unwarranted—that kind of gesture on our part, the work that we do, the charity, whatever we do which is blunderous in its effect, should be considered as tamasic. That is the worst kind of charity.
In the verses that follow, we shall be taken to a very lofty thought of the highest kind of contemplation on the Supreme Being. Om Tat Sat will be described—what it means, and how we have to meditate upon it. We shall discuss its meanng etc..next time.
=
Discourse 47: The Seventeenth Chapter Concludes – The Meaning of Om Tat Sat
We are now on the concluding portion of the Seventeenth Chapter of the Bhagavadgita.
oṁ tat sad iti nirdeśo brahmaṇas trividhaḥ smṛtaḥ
brāhmaṇās tena vedāś ca yajñāś ca vihitāḥ purā (17.23)
tasmād om ity udāhṛtya yajñadānatapaḥkriyāḥ
pravartante vidhānoktāḥ satataṁ brahmavādinām (17.24)
tad ityanabhisaṁdhāya phalaṁ yajñatapaḥkriyāḥ
dānakriyāś ca vividhāḥ kriyante mokṣakāṅkṣibhiḥ (17.25)
sadbhāve sādhubhāve ca sad ityetat prayujyate
praśaste karmaṇi tathā sacchabdaḥ pārtha yujyate (17.26)
yajñe tapasi dāne ca sthitiḥ sad iti cocyate
karma caiva tadarthīyaṁ sad ityevābhidhīyate (17.27)
aśraddhayā hutaṁ dattaṁ tapas taptaṁ kṛtaṁ ca yat
asad ity ucyate pārtha na ca tat prepya no iha (17.28)
The Supreme Being—Brahman, the Absolute—is designated as Om Tat Sat in a threefold definition or description. Knowers of the Vedas, known as Brahmanas, and the Veda mantras, and the yajnasor sacrifices, are all purified and consecrated by the recitation of this mystic symbol Om Tat Sat. The threefold description of Brahman as Om, Tat and Sat is always recited in all religious performances—during the study of the Vedas, at the conclusion of sacrifices or yajnas, and whatever rituals that Brahmanas, that is, the knowers of the Vedas, may undertake. Sacrifices (yajna), charities (dana), austerities (tapas), are undertaken by people according to the rules and regulations of the scriptures and as laid down by knowers of Brahman, beginning with the chanting of Om: om ity udāhṛtya yajñadānatapaḥkriyāḥ. Whenever we commence any holy act, we say Om. We never see people commencing a worship without chanting Om first. Whether it is a prayer, a meditational session, a worship or a svadhyaya, all this commences with an inward recitation of Om.
Tad ityanabhisaṁdhāya phalaṁ yajñatapaḥkriyāḥ, dānakriyāś ca vividhāḥ kriyante mokṣakāṅkṣibhiḥ: Similarly, yajna, dana and tapas are associated with the other letter, Tat, in the same way as Om is associated with yajna, dana and tapas, and with all religious performances. Sat is the third symbol, which signifies goodness. We say satsanga, sant, saint, mahatma, which all come from the word ‘Sat’. Sacchabdaḥ pārtha yujyate: Whenever there is something good or saintly, we call that Sat. Whenever there is something auspicious, then also we use the word Sat in regard to that auspicious beginning. The words yajna, dana and tapah—sacrifice, austerity and charity—are repeated again and again, but they become stable and meaningful, and bear the requisite fruit, only when they are associated with Sat, or Pure Existence. All the activities that we perform for the sake of fulfilling yajna, dana and tapas—karma caiva tadarthīyaṁ—anything that we do for the welfare of our own self as well as that of others, for the fulfilment of our spiritual aspirations, all come under Sat, or immense goodness.
Actually, the terms ‘Tat’ and ‘Sat’ signify the transcendent aspect of Brahman and the immanent aspect of Brahman, both of which are blended together in a universalised connotation, or denotation, as we may call it, which is Om. The Supreme Being is called Om because of the inclusiveness of the Supreme Being. Though the Supreme Being is inclusive, it manifests itself as transcendent and immanent when creation takes place. We are in this world of creation, and we know very well that every nook and corner and particle of every atom is pervaded and indwelt by the Supreme Brahman, yet this Brahman is not exhausted in this world. The whole of Brahman is present in this world, and yet the whole of Brahman is above this world. Pūrṇam adaḥ, pūrṇam idam, pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate (Isa). The whole Brahman manifests the whole universe, and the whole Brahman enters wholly into this whole universe. Though the whole Brahman enters wholly into this universe, the transcendent aspect of Brahman is not in any way affected by this entry of Brahman into the cosmos.
The usual idea of location that we have in our minds is that if we are in one place, we cannot be in another place; and if Brahman is inside this world, Brahman cannot be outside the world. That is to say, if God is involved in this world as the immanent principle enveloping the whole world completely, there would be no God left beyond the world. There would be no transcendence. But it is not so. The entire Brahman remains there, uninvolved in the creational process in spite of the entire Brahman controlling the whole universe and entering into it, even to the smallest particle.
Thus, the Tat is the transcendent, the otherwordly, impossible to grasp, beyond the reaches of space and time; and the Sat is that very same thing involved in this creation. It is here, and also there. Our minds have a peculiar difficulty in imagining the connection between transcendence and immanence because we always think that transcendence means something getting beyond our control and remaining far above, so distant from us that we cannot even imagine where it is. Far, far, infinitely far, is that unreachable Supreme Brahman. But Brahman which is so far, apparently unreachable even by the mind with its speed of thought, is also here, immanently involved as the soul of all beings. Therefore, it is necessary to visualise a total picture of this transcendent existence as well as the immanent existence of God, and to overcome the limitations of the mind which compel us to make a distinction between that which is far and that which is near. We cannot, even for a moment, imagine how something that is very far away can also be something that is very near. It is impossible to imagine such a thing. The near thing cannot be the distant thing. But here is a peculiar situation where the most distant thing is also the nearest. That is the reason why we say that spatial definitions are not to be introduced into the characterisation of Brahman, the Absolute.
Our difficulty in blending together the notions of distance and nearness arise on account of our thinking in terms of space. When we say God is far away, we think in terms of spatial distance. When we say that God is very near us, then also we think in terms of some location in space juxtaposed to our body, as it were. But, try to think a thing minus the measurable characteristic of space. The mind cannot perform this feat. Minus space, nothing can be thought and, therefore, an immeasurable thing, or non-measurable thing, cannot be conceived in the mind. This is why God cannot become an object of thought. Nobody can think God because thinking is a process involved in space and time, and that which is called God is not in space and time.
Hence, that which is not involved in the distance of space and the duration of time cannot be thought by the human mind, which always thinks in terms of distance and duration. Yet, in spiritual meditations we are expected to wean the mind from this involvement of thinking in terms of distance and duration, and bring together the concepts of transcendence and immanence, Tat and Sat, together in an Om that is all-inclusive.
This inclusiveness is signified by Om, or pranava, which is partly a vibration that creates all substances constituting the universe, and is partly scriptural because it is a name or nomenclature for God. Tasya vācakaḥ praṇavaḥ (Y.S. 1.27), says Patanjali in one of the sutras. If we want to designate God, we have to designate Him only by the term Om, pranava. We cannot call Him by any other name, because all names arising from language denote some object which is in some place. When we say tree, the name ‘tree’ denotes some object which is in some place. Everything else is also of the same nature. When we utter any word that designates some object—it could be any word in the dictionary—that word connotes or denotes something that is in some place or at some time, but it cannot denote something that is everywhere and for all time. So, no word in any language can designate That which is everywhere and at all times.
Hence, Om is specially regarded as a symbolic expression which embodies in itself the total process of sound production. All the letters of the alphabet, when they are uttered, create a vibration in the vocal cords. The sound box operates in some way when one letter is uttered, and in another way when another letter is uttered; and there are varieties of operations of the vocal system when different letters are uttered. But when Om is chanted, the entire sound box vibrates—Aaaaauuuummm. This process originates from the deepest beginning of the process of sound and ends with just a rarefied form of the sound ‘m’, which merges into a soundless, ethereal, pervading something. This total sound vibration goes beyond the process of sound production and becomes an intangible super-sensory force. In this kind of Omkara, the transcendent aspect and the Sat aspect are clubbed together.
Thus, the threefold definition of Brahman—Om Tat Sat—means God here, God above and God below, and God everywhere. The everywhereness of God includes the aboveness and the hereness of God. The aboveness is Tat, the hereness is Sat, and the everywhereness is Om. Therefore, Om Tat Sat is a complete mystical symbol which was evolved by ancient Masters. This is why in all auspicious beginnings, Om is chanted; and when we conclude anything, we say Om Tat Sat, dedicating the performance to the Almighty.
Aśraddhayā hutaṁ dattaṁ tapas taptaṁ kṛtaṁ ca yat, asad ityucyate pārtha na ca tat prepya no iha: Faithless performance is asat, whether it is a performance in the form of yajna or sacrifice, charity, a philanthropic deed, or an austerity or tapas. Anything that is done without faith is asat. This chapter is devoted entirely to the question of what faith is in its sattvic, rajasic and tamasic aspects. Performance without faith is devoid of the immanent force of divinity because it is not conducted with the operation of the soul, which is called the faith of the person. Faith is nothing but the action of the soul and, therefore, it is more powerful than any other faculty working in a person. If this faith is not there, the performance brings no result either in this world or in the other world: na ca tat prepya, not after death; na iha, not even here. Faith is supreme, and its threefold character has been beautifully explained in the Seventeenth Chapter. With this, we conclude the Seventeenth Chapter.
We are now on the concluding portion of the Seventeenth Chapter of the Bhagavadgita.
oṁ tat sad iti nirdeśo brahmaṇas trividhaḥ smṛtaḥ
brāhmaṇās tena vedāś ca yajñāś ca vihitāḥ purā (17.23)
tasmād om ity udāhṛtya yajñadānatapaḥkriyāḥ
pravartante vidhānoktāḥ satataṁ brahmavādinām (17.24)
tad ityanabhisaṁdhāya phalaṁ yajñatapaḥkriyāḥ
dānakriyāś ca vividhāḥ kriyante mokṣakāṅkṣibhiḥ (17.25)
sadbhāve sādhubhāve ca sad ityetat prayujyate
praśaste karmaṇi tathā sacchabdaḥ pārtha yujyate (17.26)
yajñe tapasi dāne ca sthitiḥ sad iti cocyate
karma caiva tadarthīyaṁ sad ityevābhidhīyate (17.27)
aśraddhayā hutaṁ dattaṁ tapas taptaṁ kṛtaṁ ca yat
asad ity ucyate pārtha na ca tat prepya no iha (17.28)
brāhmaṇās tena vedāś ca yajñāś ca vihitāḥ purā (17.23)
tasmād om ity udāhṛtya yajñadānatapaḥkriyāḥ
pravartante vidhānoktāḥ satataṁ brahmavādinām (17.24)
tad ityanabhisaṁdhāya phalaṁ yajñatapaḥkriyāḥ
dānakriyāś ca vividhāḥ kriyante mokṣakāṅkṣibhiḥ (17.25)
sadbhāve sādhubhāve ca sad ityetat prayujyate
praśaste karmaṇi tathā sacchabdaḥ pārtha yujyate (17.26)
yajñe tapasi dāne ca sthitiḥ sad iti cocyate
karma caiva tadarthīyaṁ sad ityevābhidhīyate (17.27)
aśraddhayā hutaṁ dattaṁ tapas taptaṁ kṛtaṁ ca yat
asad ity ucyate pārtha na ca tat prepya no iha (17.28)
The Supreme Being—Brahman, the Absolute—is designated as Om Tat Sat in a threefold definition or description. Knowers of the Vedas, known as Brahmanas, and the Veda mantras, and the yajnasor sacrifices, are all purified and consecrated by the recitation of this mystic symbol Om Tat Sat. The threefold description of Brahman as Om, Tat and Sat is always recited in all religious performances—during the study of the Vedas, at the conclusion of sacrifices or yajnas, and whatever rituals that Brahmanas, that is, the knowers of the Vedas, may undertake. Sacrifices (yajna), charities (dana), austerities (tapas), are undertaken by people according to the rules and regulations of the scriptures and as laid down by knowers of Brahman, beginning with the chanting of Om: om ity udāhṛtya yajñadānatapaḥkriyāḥ. Whenever we commence any holy act, we say Om. We never see people commencing a worship without chanting Om first. Whether it is a prayer, a meditational session, a worship or a svadhyaya, all this commences with an inward recitation of Om.
Tad ityanabhisaṁdhāya phalaṁ yajñatapaḥkriyāḥ, dānakriyāś ca vividhāḥ kriyante mokṣakāṅkṣibhiḥ: Similarly, yajna, dana and tapas are associated with the other letter, Tat, in the same way as Om is associated with yajna, dana and tapas, and with all religious performances. Sat is the third symbol, which signifies goodness. We say satsanga, sant, saint, mahatma, which all come from the word ‘Sat’. Sacchabdaḥ pārtha yujyate: Whenever there is something good or saintly, we call that Sat. Whenever there is something auspicious, then also we use the word Sat in regard to that auspicious beginning. The words yajna, dana and tapah—sacrifice, austerity and charity—are repeated again and again, but they become stable and meaningful, and bear the requisite fruit, only when they are associated with Sat, or Pure Existence. All the activities that we perform for the sake of fulfilling yajna, dana and tapas—karma caiva tadarthīyaṁ—anything that we do for the welfare of our own self as well as that of others, for the fulfilment of our spiritual aspirations, all come under Sat, or immense goodness.
Actually, the terms ‘Tat’ and ‘Sat’ signify the transcendent aspect of Brahman and the immanent aspect of Brahman, both of which are blended together in a universalised connotation, or denotation, as we may call it, which is Om. The Supreme Being is called Om because of the inclusiveness of the Supreme Being. Though the Supreme Being is inclusive, it manifests itself as transcendent and immanent when creation takes place. We are in this world of creation, and we know very well that every nook and corner and particle of every atom is pervaded and indwelt by the Supreme Brahman, yet this Brahman is not exhausted in this world. The whole of Brahman is present in this world, and yet the whole of Brahman is above this world. Pūrṇam adaḥ, pūrṇam idam, pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate (Isa). The whole Brahman manifests the whole universe, and the whole Brahman enters wholly into this whole universe. Though the whole Brahman enters wholly into this universe, the transcendent aspect of Brahman is not in any way affected by this entry of Brahman into the cosmos.
The usual idea of location that we have in our minds is that if we are in one place, we cannot be in another place; and if Brahman is inside this world, Brahman cannot be outside the world. That is to say, if God is involved in this world as the immanent principle enveloping the whole world completely, there would be no God left beyond the world. There would be no transcendence. But it is not so. The entire Brahman remains there, uninvolved in the creational process in spite of the entire Brahman controlling the whole universe and entering into it, even to the smallest particle.
Thus, the Tat is the transcendent, the otherwordly, impossible to grasp, beyond the reaches of space and time; and the Sat is that very same thing involved in this creation. It is here, and also there. Our minds have a peculiar difficulty in imagining the connection between transcendence and immanence because we always think that transcendence means something getting beyond our control and remaining far above, so distant from us that we cannot even imagine where it is. Far, far, infinitely far, is that unreachable Supreme Brahman. But Brahman which is so far, apparently unreachable even by the mind with its speed of thought, is also here, immanently involved as the soul of all beings. Therefore, it is necessary to visualise a total picture of this transcendent existence as well as the immanent existence of God, and to overcome the limitations of the mind which compel us to make a distinction between that which is far and that which is near. We cannot, even for a moment, imagine how something that is very far away can also be something that is very near. It is impossible to imagine such a thing. The near thing cannot be the distant thing. But here is a peculiar situation where the most distant thing is also the nearest. That is the reason why we say that spatial definitions are not to be introduced into the characterisation of Brahman, the Absolute.
Our difficulty in blending together the notions of distance and nearness arise on account of our thinking in terms of space. When we say God is far away, we think in terms of spatial distance. When we say that God is very near us, then also we think in terms of some location in space juxtaposed to our body, as it were. But, try to think a thing minus the measurable characteristic of space. The mind cannot perform this feat. Minus space, nothing can be thought and, therefore, an immeasurable thing, or non-measurable thing, cannot be conceived in the mind. This is why God cannot become an object of thought. Nobody can think God because thinking is a process involved in space and time, and that which is called God is not in space and time.
Hence, that which is not involved in the distance of space and the duration of time cannot be thought by the human mind, which always thinks in terms of distance and duration. Yet, in spiritual meditations we are expected to wean the mind from this involvement of thinking in terms of distance and duration, and bring together the concepts of transcendence and immanence, Tat and Sat, together in an Om that is all-inclusive.
This inclusiveness is signified by Om, or pranava, which is partly a vibration that creates all substances constituting the universe, and is partly scriptural because it is a name or nomenclature for God. Tasya vācakaḥ praṇavaḥ (Y.S. 1.27), says Patanjali in one of the sutras. If we want to designate God, we have to designate Him only by the term Om, pranava. We cannot call Him by any other name, because all names arising from language denote some object which is in some place. When we say tree, the name ‘tree’ denotes some object which is in some place. Everything else is also of the same nature. When we utter any word that designates some object—it could be any word in the dictionary—that word connotes or denotes something that is in some place or at some time, but it cannot denote something that is everywhere and for all time. So, no word in any language can designate That which is everywhere and at all times.
Hence, Om is specially regarded as a symbolic expression which embodies in itself the total process of sound production. All the letters of the alphabet, when they are uttered, create a vibration in the vocal cords. The sound box operates in some way when one letter is uttered, and in another way when another letter is uttered; and there are varieties of operations of the vocal system when different letters are uttered. But when Om is chanted, the entire sound box vibrates—Aaaaauuuummm. This process originates from the deepest beginning of the process of sound and ends with just a rarefied form of the sound ‘m’, which merges into a soundless, ethereal, pervading something. This total sound vibration goes beyond the process of sound production and becomes an intangible super-sensory force. In this kind of Omkara, the transcendent aspect and the Sat aspect are clubbed together.
Thus, the threefold definition of Brahman—Om Tat Sat—means God here, God above and God below, and God everywhere. The everywhereness of God includes the aboveness and the hereness of God. The aboveness is Tat, the hereness is Sat, and the everywhereness is Om. Therefore, Om Tat Sat is a complete mystical symbol which was evolved by ancient Masters. This is why in all auspicious beginnings, Om is chanted; and when we conclude anything, we say Om Tat Sat, dedicating the performance to the Almighty.
Aśraddhayā hutaṁ dattaṁ tapas taptaṁ kṛtaṁ ca yat, asad ityucyate pārtha na ca tat prepya no iha: Faithless performance is asat, whether it is a performance in the form of yajna or sacrifice, charity, a philanthropic deed, or an austerity or tapas. Anything that is done without faith is asat. This chapter is devoted entirely to the question of what faith is in its sattvic, rajasic and tamasic aspects. Performance without faith is devoid of the immanent force of divinity because it is not conducted with the operation of the soul, which is called the faith of the person. Faith is nothing but the action of the soul and, therefore, it is more powerful than any other faculty working in a person. If this faith is not there, the performance brings no result either in this world or in the other world: na ca tat prepya, not after death; na iha, not even here. Faith is supreme, and its threefold character has been beautifully explained in the Seventeenth Chapter. With this, we conclude the Seventeenth Chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment