Summary:
Session 14 addresses Bhagavad Gita CH 2, verse 54, when Arjuna asks Lord Krisna “What is the description of a person of firm wisdom, one whose mind abides in the Self? How does such a person whose mind is not shaken by anything, speak, sit and walk?”
TOPICS COVERED:
- Wise people give up desires and fears as they arise in mind.
Wise people, or sthitaprajñas, give up desires and fears as they arise in the mind, not by suppressing them but by understanding their true nature. Desires and fears are seen as binding only when they are pursued with the belief that their fulfillment will lead to happiness and security.
A wise person, having realized the self as complete and non-dual, does not seek fulfillment through external objects or situations. This realization allows them to see desires and fears as transient mental modifications that do not affect their inherent wholeness. Therefore, when desires and fears arise, they are acknowledged but not pursued (unless of course necessary for work, projects, family, etc) — as the wise person understands that true happiness and security are found within, not in the external world.
This understanding is rooted in the teachings of the śāstras, which guide the mind to channel inherent desires into dharmic pursuits, such as appreciating Īśvara through pujas and prayers, teaching knowledge, and engaging in activities that benefit the community.
- Wise people go inwards like a turtle, when confronted with sense objects.
2.58:
yadā saṁharate cāyam kūrmo ‘ṅ gānīva sarva-saḥ
indriyāṇ-īndri-yārthe-bhyah tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitāWhen, like turtle the withdraws its limbs, this person is able to completely withdraw the sense organs from their objects, his knowledge is steady.
This verse beautifully illustrates the nature of true wisdom and self-control. Just as a turtle withdraws its limbs into its shell for protection, a wise person possesses the ability to withdraw their senses from external stimuli at will. This is not mere physical withdrawal, but a deep, conscious detachment from the allure of sense objects. When one achieves this state, their knowledge or wisdom (prajñā) becomes firmly established (pratiṣṭhitā). This steady wisdom is not swayed by the fleeting pleasures or pains of the external world. It's important to note that this verse doesn't advocate for complete sensory deprivation or escaping from the world. Rather, it emphasizes the cultivation of viveka (discrimination) and vairāgya (dispassion), allowing one to engage with the world without being enslaved by it. This mastery over the senses is a hallmark of a sthitaprajña (person of steady wisdom), who remains equanimous in all situations, firmly rooted in the knowledge of the Self (Atman).
- What is anger? What is cause of anger?
Anger is a strong emotional reaction to perceived threats or obstacles to one's desires or attachments.
The cause of anger is primarily rooted in attachment and fear. When we develop a deep attachment to something or someone, we become invested in maintaining that connection or possession. Simultaneously, we develop a fear of losing what we're attached to. When this attachment is threatened or obstructed by external factors or people, anger arises as a defensive mechanism.
In essence, anger is the mind's way of protecting what it values and fears losing. It's an emotional response aimed at removing or overcoming the perceived threat to our attachments or desires.
SUMMARY: Anger is thus nothing but a feeling that rises in us towards an obstacle between ourselves and the object of out attachment.
- Wise person is like an owl. Why?
2.69:
yā niśā sarva-bhūtānām
tasyām jāgarti sam yamī
yasyām jāgrati bhūtāni
sā niśā paśyato muneḥ
What is night for all beings, the self-controlled person is awake to; Where all beings are awake, that is night for the introspective sage.- What is “night” for ordinary beings is “day” for the wise:
For most people, the absolute reality of the Self remains obscure, like objects in the darkness of night. However, for the wise person, this very reality is clear and evident, like objects seen in broad daylight. The wise person is constantly aware of the non-dual nature of existence. - What is “day” for ordinary beings is “night” for the wise:
The world of objects and experiences, which seems vividly real to most people (like objects in daylight), is perceived by the wise as unreal or illusory (like objects in darkness). The wise person sees through the apparent reality of the phenomenal world to the underlying truth of Brahman.
- What is “night” for ordinary beings is “day” for the wise:
- Fruit of mokṣa.
A person who has attained mokṣa experiences a profound sense of acceptance and equanimity. This doesn't mean they are entirely free from human emotions or imperfections, but rather that they have a fundamentally different relationship with these aspects of themselves and the world.
Self-acceptance: They tend to be more at peace with all aspects of their personality, including those parts that might be considered “ugly” or undesirable. This acceptance stems from the understanding that the Body-Mind-Intellect complex, like the rest of the manifest world (jagat), is a manifestation of Īśvara.
Self-reflection: One might ask oneself, “Can I accept even the parts of myself that I find difficult or unappealing?” The answer to this can reveal one's level of self-acceptance and understanding.
Freedom of action: A self-realized person retains the ability to work on personal growth if they choose, but they're not driven by a compulsive need to “fix” themselves. Whether they decide to address certain traits or not, they maintain an underlying sense of peace, viewing all experiences as prasād (divine grace).
Contrast with bondage: In contrast, a person still in bondage (saṃsāri) often feels a constant pressure to resolve personal issues, believing their happiness depends on achieving certain states or overcoming specific challenges. They might think, “I must accomplish X to be content.”
—
Download visual mind map of this session that also summarizes session 13 (Karma Yoga).
7 Aug
Is it really unshakable “wisdom”? or is it simply unshakable “Reason” listening to these teachings it feels more and more that this has all been firmly “reasoned out” through centuries and centuries of solid debate and practice. Wisdom for me makes me think that it is some sort of “far away” mentally pretty mysticism not empirical fact which I’m beginning to accept these teachings really are. The toxic illusion of control, The acceptance that our desires control and define us, self understanding/mastery leading to lasting peace the whole scientific “theory” Advaita Vedanta is the truth.
Wisdom is applied knowledge. Meaning: Knowledge gained > reasoned out to remove any doubts > once lived/practiced, it then makes person organically WISE without trying. That’s why when we say “wise person” in Vedanta, we’re actually speaking of a jñāni (liberated person). Wisdom in sanskrit is vijñāna (means assimilated knowledge which was already reasoned out in the past by means of mananam/nididhyāsanam).
CH7 of B.Gītā is called: jñāna-vijñāna-yoga (Topic of indirect and direct knowledge). Vijñāna = wisdom = direct knowledge = one who is liberated.
We need to let go of word “wisdom” picked up in various books. In Vedanta language, wisdom always means one who is living the vision of oneness.
Thanks mate. I’m continuously astonished by the depth structured nature of the teachings. Let alone the entire thing being written in the form a rhyming song. The amount of effort that must have been put into this manual on the self is just crazy. Study continues….
“ I am that which cannot be objectified because I am that already “
I get a flash where I think I understand this, then it slides from my consciousness like sand through my fingers.
I sit and try and visualise myself.
Then I realise that is stupid.
I sit and try and feel myself, but I know that is happening in the mind, which is not myself, even though it is.
Wittgenstein said that “ language is the bewitchment of intelligence “.
I feel like I am trying to grasp something with the mind that can’t be grasped.
Yet it feels like a thin membrane between me and the truth.
And I feel as though the understanding of this is beyond language and reason.
I spend a lot of time during the day listening to your talks and reading Yogananda “ God Talks With Arjuna” The Bhagavad Gita.
Is there something else I should be reading or doing to help me to stop going around in circles and help me come to realisation?
Or do I just practice patience and keep on?
==========
Is there something else I should be reading or doing to help me to stop going around in circles and help me come to realisation?
Or do I just practice patience and keep on?
==========
When we’re first exposed to Vedānta, it’s likely we’re still reading something from the past.
Eventually one drops these texts, realizing they end up creating further resistance/conflict.
But “when to drop”? You’ll know.
I basically dropped the huge world of Yoga (Hatha/Rāja/Kriyā). It took me some time. But in retrospect realize it has nothing which Vedānta doesn’t already answer in a more practical and relatable format.
Thanks Andre.
I feel hugely resistant to limiting my reading to Vedanta only.
I am usually reading at least a couple of books at the one time and sometimes three or four.
Have done for the last fifty years.
It seems so restrictive to limit myself to one field of enquiry.
Maybe addiction to learning has become my Vanasa.
I will consider.
Do you think I should give up my yoga too?
That would be my reading, my meditation and my yoga.
That is how I spend most of my waking hours every day.
This would be a huge sacrifice and I am afraid I would get bored.
I am willing to do it if you think it is the right way.
One is not told do “THIS” or else. It’s your choice. One is only asked to consider:
A Vedanta teachers job is to simply point out the big picture. For example, it’s common to study the 6 schools of philosophy: https://www.yesvedanta.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/6-major-schools-of-philosophy-of-india.png
Meaning a teacher knows purpose and function of each school. Including Buddhism, Jainism, Yoga, Advaita.
For example purpose of life in cārvāka philosophy is: After death, that’s the end of your existence. Thus purpose of life is to Eat, marry and drink (pursuing sense pleasures). So cārvāka indulges in maximum enjoyment while alive.
Then after some lifetimes (or even same lifetime), person sees the pointlessness of cārvāka. And comes to Patānjali Yoga Sūtras (Sāṅkhya School). This school gets much credit for it’s advanced spiritual science. It’s ultimate aim in life is: samādhi.
Then after some lifetimes (or even same lifetime), person sees pointlessness of Yoga. And finally comes to Advaita Vedanta (uttara-mīmāṁsā), which permanently solves the beginningless problem of ignorance.
Reality is, even when teacher points this out, the student still resists becomes it’s so hard to undo years of spiritual notions that ironically lead to more seeking.
That’s why we’re not telling you what to do. We’re simply pointing out where you are in your journey.
Thanks Andre.
Because your teaching I have had a radical shift in my perspective on Yoga and The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.
My aim was to achieve samadhi.
I now see this is a means that has been mistaken for an end.
I understand that anything or any experience that takes place in time is limited and therefore cannot be the ultimate.
I am 65 years of age and apart from the spiritual benefits I use yoga to maintain fitness and flexibility.
Do you think it is advisable for me to continue my yoga practice and meditation with this revised attitude for the physical benefits and the mind purification as long as I don’t confuse the process as an end, or do you think this will only reinforce previously acquired mind distortions.
Of course I want to keep practicing, but how do I know this is not just another addictive Vasana?
I will make my own decision, but value your perspective.
====
Do you think it is advisable for me to continue my yoga practice and meditation with this revised attitude for the physical benefits and the mind purification as long as I don’t confuse the process as an end
====
This is definitely in line with more clear thinking. Not confusing Yoga practice/meditation as ultimate end. But only continuing it for it’s intended benefits like mental alertness/fitness/long-life/etc.
Anger, therefore, is only our attachment (rāga) for an object, expressed at an obstacle that has come between us and the object of our desire. (2.56)
Hi Andre.
Back here again.
Couldn’t help thinking when reviewing this talk,
“ what about anger when you see someone mistreating a vulnerable woman or a child purely through superior physical strength?
What about the urge to protect and intervene?”
I know you could counter by saying it is raga for a just outcome, but does a wish or innate urge to preserve dharma constitute raga?
You could also counter that you should intervene without anger because a knowledge of the person’s Vasana’s would lead you to understand why they act as they do.
Wouldn’t anger be appropriate and useful here to help you overcome your fear and risk physical injury to intervene on a weaker ( physically) parties behalf?
I only ask theses questions to make the vedantic definition of Anger useful to me in everyday life.
===========
“ what about anger when you see someone mistreating a vulnerable woman or a child purely through superior physical strength What about the urge to protect and intervene?”
===========
Let’s analyze step-by-step:
1) Eyes perceives the scene constituting: Woman, Treatment, Perpetrator.
2) The antaḥkaraṇa receives this information.
3) Information is processed by: memory, intellect, emotions.
4) Whatever conclusion took place in #3 is colored in by saṃskāras.
IE: Past habits or attitudes towards:
– woman (asian, caucasian, black, indian)
– treatment (fast/slow movement, knife, belt)
– perpetrator (black, indian, old, young, what is he wearing).
EG: If witness has general dislike towards “old woman”, then that will also alter the urge to protect her, then if she was “younger woman”.
In otherwords, your personal likes/dislikes will influence the natural urge to intervene and protect (which comes from dharma).
SUMMARY: Yes, person will intervene out of dharma. However the intensity/quality of intervening will also be influenced by likes/dislikes towards each object in the total scene.
Thank you Andre.
I accept what you are saying.
I am still left with the conclusion that anger is a useful emotion in a dharmic situation like this where intervention is required at some risk to the individual.
When Arjuna’s anger left him he was unable to act and had to be coaxed by Krishna.
There may not be time for this in a dynamic one on one situation.
I accept that ethically anger can be considered undesirable as a general principle.
It just seems to me that dharmically it may be sometimes required.
I will move on. 😊
Yes positive/constructive anger is useful in Arjuna’s case, motivating him to seek the solution. We can say Arjuna’s anger was also because he knew what was right (dharmic), but didn’t know HOW to resolve the enormity of situation. Thus Arjuna’s own ignorance was an obstacle between him and his desire for harmony. Hence sought Krishna’s help.
Then we have Bharat’s anger towards his mother Kaikeyi for telling King Dasaratha to exile Rāma (who was supposed to be the next king) for 14 years in forest and make Bharat the king instead.
Upon discovering this, Bharat disowned Kaikeyi as his mother for doing something so despicable. So Bharat’s anger was justified because Kaikeyi violated dharma.
However Rāma (God incarnate) wasn’t angry at Kaikeyi, even though showed displeasure on the outside. Because Rāma understood (1) Kaikeyi is doesn’t have all knoweldge (2) Loves her son Bharat (3) Wants Bharat to be happy.
One responds with anger. Another with compassion. And BOTH Bharat and Rāma are embodiment of dharma.
—-
Then we have Duryodhana’s anger which was negative/destructive on bases of his ambition for kingdom (like) and jealously towards Pandavas (dislike).
Hey Andre,
how does a jiva actually have FREE WILL to take certain actions, if we all are not the one taking decisions but the Self, Pure Consciousness, that which is above any attributes like good or bad, that which is AWARE of the B-M-I and uncontaminated by the world?
As we all know, the jiva’s “free will” from time to time also goes into the “bad” directions.
Wouldn’t this be predetermined anyway by ones vasanas? Where is the free will then?
Thank you!
Persons’s vasana pull is certainly strong. Meaning, it inclines one to think or choose in a certain direction.
However, amidst the pull, the jiva is also given:
a) Power to intellectually assess.
EG1: Should I marry her or her? (And yes, we know even this decision will be FIRST dictated by vasana. But what FOLLOWS UP is Intellectual assessment. So both vasana and power to override the vasana are in simultaneous operation.)
EG2: We assess subtle gestures of car drivers on the road, constantly evaluating and making corrections to keep us driving safely.
—
b) Power of self-awareness (IE: I know that I am now choosing A over B; vice-versa).
These 2 are what is defined: Freedom to will (or: “Freewill” in short).
====
CONCLUSION: Like a computer program designed to make decisions, it can’t unless electricity is flowing through CPU. Similarly, jiva’s subtle-body is capable of assessing due to being endowed with Consciousness.
Thanks for the answer and the answers to the other comments too. I guess where the unclarity was for me, WHO does the karma yoga, good deeds, takes decisions etc., also WHY, if we already are that.
I slowly hope to get it 🙂 So the way I see it now, I (Consciousness) already am whole, complete etc., but it‘s the B-M-I I‘m experiencing which has the free will, which can do karma yoga, inquiry etc.
So it‘s more or less a show where the B-M-I learns how to behave appropriately and takes decisions, but the real I is the eternal watcher, and the intellect has to be established in the fact that ‘I’ am totally unrelated to the happenings of the world.
But then, in theory, after firm establishment of Knowledge, wouldn‘t even free will be illusory (clearly part of mityah)?
Also, does the doer sense ever fall away, or how does it change?
Karma Yoga (KY) is an attitude change in our actions.
Without KY spirit: I am doing THIS (cooking, talking, asking a question, working for a boss) to BENEFIT me. I also expect positive results from my actions. If positive results are not guaranteed, I’m not interested in participating. IE: Focus is the selfish person. The individual who puts themselves in center of the universe.
With KY spirit: Actions done by this body-mind are only ever going to the Lord (which I am not apart from). I gladly contribute to this world the little that I can. Whether someone acknowledges or disrespects my work, it doesn’t bother me, as there is only God here.
—-
IN SHORT: Karma Yoga actualizes the knowledge into a concrete reality. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Intellectual knowledge of math is insufficient. It’s only when one tackles REAL LIFE math problems. In course of time, it solidifies one’s math knowledge. Self-knowledge is just the same.
======
real I is the eternal watcher
======
That’s true. But the world is not separate from the “real I”. If they are, that’s duality. If one is established in the self as the self, their body-mind will gladly participate in the world according to one’s skills.
Devotion to God (yourself) means: Glad participation in this world (according to Felix’es specific strengths), while never losing (even for a moment) the firm knowledge of the watcher.
Hi Andre,
From my understanding is that all jivan muktas are the same in realisation. I’ve also read that their level of consciousness as David Hawkins has said some have higher levels of consciousness than others. E.g. some are in a state of love, some are in a state of oneness, some have absolutely no sense of I and other people have to feed them etc. What is the reason for this, if all Jivan Muktas are the same in realisation? Is this due to the non binding vasanas in the subtle body?
Valid question Daniel. I can see how one can bring in David Hawkins power vs. force chart (which I’ve used for years, calibrating all sorts of things through kinesiology and it has helped to a degree), and mix that up with consciousness which Vedanta is revealing.
What David Hawkins chart is speaking of is how mature the mind is.
In the presence of I, there is pride.
In the presence of I, there is apathy.
In the presence of I, there is love.
In the presence of I, there is joy.
The left side above never changes. The right side changes as the person evolves, undo’s distortions, guilt, shame, works on one’s inner psychology, etc.
Also David Hawkins mistake is to put “Enlightenment” in the chart. It shows the authors ignorance of what Enlightenment is, classifying it as another mithya object, something that can be calibrated.