The Rise from Savitarka to Nirvitarka
Divine Life
Society Publication: Chapter 47 - The Study and
Practice of Yoga by Sri Swami Krishnananda
The contemplation of an object
in the process of yoga is quite different from the contemplation of objects in
that people usually engage themselves in ordinary workaday life. In yoga, in
the meditation process, the essential features or characteristics of the object
cooperate and coordinate themselves with the meditating consciousness, whereas
in ordinary sensory perception there is the opposite process taking place.
There is an inherent repelling
attitude, a kind of disparity of character between the subject and the object
in ordinary perception, because of a peculiar selfish interest that is present
in the subject in its contact with the object. Why does the subject crave for
the object? The intention is purely self-centred, and this is what cannot be
tolerated by the selfhood of the object. The interrelated connectedness of the
forces in the world is of such a nature that it prevents the utilisation of any
object for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation is abhorrent to the nature
of truth, and the forces of nature will not tolerate it.
So our affection for the
object, our contemplation of the object, our thought of the object and our
desire for the object is contrary to the law of nature, and therefore there is
always bereavement in the end. All union ends in separation. All love ends in
sorrow. The reason is that there is a mistake committed by the subject, and
inasmuch as everyone is a subject from the point of view of another, and everyone
is an object also in a similar manner, there is a universal confusion that has
been created. This confusion is called samsara – a great
mix-up of values that has taken place, totally unintelligible to the mind which
is involved in this mix-up. The yoga process is a remedy that has been
prescribed for the illness that has been created in this manner.
We have a peculiar mode of
thinking 'objects', and we are born into this mode from which we cannot usually
extricate ourselves. There are at least three elements involved in the
perception of an object – the object as such, which is called artha; the idea of the object which
is called the jnana of the object; and the
nomenclature, the epithet, the name, the way by which we designate the object.
These three are mixed up as if they are one single thing, though they are
distinct features. When an object is generated, when it is born or brought into
existence, it does not come with a name. It is doubtful if the tree knows that
it is called tree.
Likewise, nothing in this
world is associated with a designation of this character. It has a status of
its own, independent of all these associations. But the worst of all things is
the idea of the object. We have an idea about everything in this world, and the
idea that we hold about things is regarded as identical with the nature of the
thing itself. Our opinion about an object is made a part of the nature of the
object, so that we compel the object to subserve the definition that we give to
it, according to our own perception of it.
The idea or opinion one holds,
about anything for the matter of that, is a part of the structure of one's mind
at that given moment. The idea, therefore, is not different from the mind. The
idea is mind itself. Inasmuch as the idea is one with the mind, and the mind is
one with individuality, the individual holding that opinion or idea cannot, at
any time, imagine that the idea can be wrong. How can we think that we
ourselves are wrong? We are self-identical.
So, we are the supreme judge
of everything, and the whole world becomes a client before us, cringing before
us for judgement, and whatever judgement we pass must be the final one. This is
the opinion, this is the attitude, and this is the intention of every person,
every individual in the world – from A to Z. There is a mutual suspicion
created in the body of individuals, on account of this internal compulsion
exerted by the subject upon the object. This difficulty that has been created,
this intolerant attitude that has been projected towards the object, is
naturally repellent to the object. There is, therefore, when it is deeply
analysed, no such thing as love of an object by the subject.
The method of meditation is a
reverse one, where the subject and the object are enabled to stand on a par,
and the fact that they really are on a par becomes recognisable. There is no
such thing as subject or object, ultimately. It is only a creation of the minds
of certain individuals. Every individual, having a status of his own, her own
or its own, cannot be regarded as an object of someone else, because the moment
one becomes an object, the status of selfhood vanishes. There is a selfhood
present in even an atom. It has a say of its own; it has a purpose of its own
and an intention behind its activity, which is not for the fulfilment of
someone else. It has a mission of its own which it is trying to achieve through
the process of evolution, through which it is moving. The fact that there is an
inherent status in everything in this world is recognised in yogic meditation.
There is, therefore, no meditation by the subject on an object.
According to the sutra of Patanjali, that which
creates this false distinction between the subject and the object and wrongly
compels the subject to look upon another as an object, is a peculiar complex –
it is the idea, the name, and the space-time relation. These are the things
that have to be given up. We cannot isolate the idea from the presence of
space-time. So, ultimately, it is a problem of space-time. The two types of
meditation that Patanjali refers to have relevance to the conception of
something as located in space and time, and the conception of the same thing as
not located in space and time. The first one is called savitarka; the other is called nirvitarka. The contemplation of an
object as situated in space and time, and therefore defined by our idea of that
thing, is savitarka. The freedom from these
associations is nirvitarka.
Nirvitarka
is a non-relational contemplation, whereas savitarka is a
relational contemplation. The relations are spatial, temporal, and
individualistic. Desa kala vastu sambandha,
is the Sanskrit term. The sambandha of desa is spatial. The sambandha of time is temporal; the sambandha of vastu is individualistic. This
means to say that an object is in space; an object is in time, and an object
has a relation with another object, which is the causal relationship. To put it
more philosophically, space-time-cause are the obstacles before the subject in
its attempt to enter into the nature of the object, or to try to possess it, or
enjoy it, or become one with it, etc.
By repeated meditation on the
substantiality of the object, independent of these relations, a revelation
takes place. The mist before the mind is cast out. There is a response from the
object in a friendly manner, which was absent up to this time. The response
from the object in a friendly manner becomes possible when there is a gesture from
the subject that the selfhood of the object is recognised. Likewise, the
subject begins to accept the point of view of the object, though it has not
taken action on this point of view. This is the stage where the mind begins to
rise up from the condition of savitarka to that
of nirvitarka.
Excerpts from:
The Rise from Savitarka to Nirvitarka - Chapter 47 - The Study and
Practice of Yoga by Sri Swami Krishnananda
If you would like to purchase the print edition, visit:
http://www.dlshq.org/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?
http://www.dlshq.org/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?
If you would
like to contribute to the dissemination of spiritual knowledge please contact
the General Secretary at: generalsecretary@sivanandaonline.org
No comments:
Post a Comment