Session 4: Sankhya, Yoga and Vedanta

Why does it happen so? There is a secret behind it. The secret is that if you reach this state of consciousness, then in the movement of action, something else begins to operate, which is not easily visible to us. In that state, when you have decided that you will neither be afflicted by the evil consequences, or what you think will be the undesirable consequences, or you will not be elated by the good consequences, in that state of consciousness, in that steadiness, there is a ‘true will’, of which you are not aware; that will, will be able to manifest through it; that will, will be the ‘divine’s will’. And the divine’s will, will be able to act through you, which is neither good, nor bad, but which is divine. Divine action is not good or bad, divine action is divine, it is perfect action, supreme action.

It is because of this secret that you can tell anybody whoever does not know about God, anybody, it does not matter; this is simply a technique. In a situation, when you do not know right or wrong, you are not able to decide, you take any action, towards which you are inclined most, predominantly, but you are not sure whether it is right or wrong; but you decide that, whatever the consequences of this action, “I will not be afflicted by it, I will take them in my own stride, whatever the consequences, but I will do this action perfectly well”. Then the ‘secret will’, which is behind your whole movement, because you have to be sure that behind our whole movement there is another will, of which you are not aware, you make that will operative. You were obstructing it till now, because our movement was unsteady; because we were unsteady, the real will was not able to manifest through us: we were obstructing all the time. But make it steady, then that will, will be able to, like a laser beam; that which is behind is a light, like a laser beam, it will go through it, because it is steady. There is no unsteady movement in you, and you are prepared in your consciousness to take whatever the consequences and you will not be afflicted by it, then the divine action will manifest. This is the truth behind this sentence:

buddhiyukto jahātīha ubhe sukṛtaduṣkṛte | tasmādyogāya yujyasva yogaḥ karmasu kauśalam ||2.50||

Question: Does it mean that the mental being cannot be quieted, but that the intellect can be?

Answer: Yes, it is easier; after all, the mind also can be controlled; your indrya(s) can be controlled also afterwards. First condition is ‘Buddhi’, you make Buddhi steady; then you arrive at a point when Sri Krishna will tell that even indrya(s) can be drawn back inward ‘like the tortoise’, ‘kūrma evam’: how the tortoise withdraws its limbs within itself, within its shell, similarly even indrya(s) itself will be able to be controlled; that also has to be done, but the secret is: first go to the Buddhi, because by that power, it is more easy for you to become steady.

Question: This can be done through meditation?

Answer: Yes, this is the meaning of meditation. That when you meditate…meditation has this particular purpose that you begin to ‘observe’; instead of becoming engaged in doing this, or even in thinking, you just withdraw and ‘observe’, become witness, and you observe and by observing your intellect will become quite steady; then things will become very clear to you.

You know a question was raised just before my coming here, that the function of Buddhi and the question of making Buddhi ‘steady’ is not very clear. In fact, I had already planned to speak on this very precise subject today.

The 2nd chapter is one of the most difficult chapters of the Bhagavad Gita. That is because it is the first complete answer to the questions of Arjuna. In a sense it is said that the 2nd chapter contains almost…many things that are afterwards elucidated in the rest of these chapters of the Gita. It assumes a good deal of background knowledge, much of which was familiar to Arjuna, but much of which may not be familiar to us.

Secondly, even that which was familiar to Arjuna, was being expounded by Sri Krishna with a larger connotation, by expanding the current ideas, and introducing a system of synthesis. The current ideas of that time were not synthetical. The current ideas had left many questions unanswered; conflicting views were rampant: for example, there was the word used very often at that time: ‘Sankhya’; the word ‘Yoga’ was very often used; ‘Karmakanda’, was very much known; ‘Vedavada’ was also very well known. The schools of karmakāṇḍa and jñānakāṇḍa were in opposition to each other; the idea that renunciation is superior to everything else was also currently believed. The idea that everyone should follow one’s own Dharma and not escape from Dharma was also current. With regard to Dharma also there were certain ambiguities.

It is in that situation that this teaching is introduced, and as Sri Krishna tells us in the fourth chapter, that He was expounding a knowledge, which He had expounded earlier in an earlier birth, to the Sun, Vivasvan, and to Manu and that knowledge was lost in course of time, and now again, He was expounding to Arjuna, after long lapse. In other words Sri Krishna was expounding something that was new, departing from the current ideas. That is why many terms are used which are understood in the current language, but Sri Krishna was trying to give a wider connotation, and with regard to the concepts which are in conflict with each other, He was trying to synthesise them.

If you want to understand the 2nd chapter properly, we have to understand the first three words properly: ‘Sankhya’, ‘Yoga’, and ‘Vedanta’. These three were very prominent schools of thoughts at that time. And the 2nd chapter synthesises the conflicts, which were present at that time between these three systems. Sri Krishna’s basic answer is that the questions that Arjuna had raised cannot be answered without presenting a very wide synthesis of knowledge, particularly the synthesis of Sankhya, Yoga, and Vedanta, and also the synthesis of Veda and Vedanta.

The entire basis of the teaching of Sri Krishna is that when there is a dilemma in regard to action, when there is a dilemma with regard to the question of will, will to action, then that dilemma or that question cannot be answered without a very sound basis in ‘knowledge’. The questions of will can be resolved only on the basis of ‘knowledge’. And if the question is as wide as the whole human life, if there is a question of an action and a will, which is to be applied to a problem, which is all–embracing, then the answer also has to be based upon a knowledge which is all–embracing. And all–embracing questions of action can be answered only on the basis of the all–embracing knowledge: ‘will’ can only be properly guided by the knowledge. As long as there is confusion in knowledge, there will be confusion in will and therefore confusion in action and therefore failure in action.

It is towards the end of the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna uses two important words: kṛtsnavit, and kṛtsnakṛt; these are two very important words in the Bhagavad Gita. kṛtsna, means ‘whole, total’, vid, means ‘knowledge’: “one who knows the totality”, kṛtsnavid. And kṛtsnakṛt, kṛt is ‘actor’, ‘one who acts’; kṛtsna means ‘total’: “one who does totality of action on the basis of totality of knowledge”. Sri Krishna says that you cannot resolve such a problem as Arjuna has raised, unless he decides to embrace action totally, on the condition that he also attains to the totality of knowledge. And when these two are combined together, there is also a third inspiring force, and that is of total surrender, total giving. So, total surrender, total action, and total knowledge, when these three are fully combined and synthesised, then only the question that Arjuna had asked can be answered. This is the basic thesis of the whole Bhagavad Gita.

But, what is total knowledge, what is total action, what is total surrender, these are not easy to expound. And that too, to expound in a climate where current ideas were in conflict with each other; and there were various kinds of emphasises; some emphasising karmakāṇḍa, some jñānakāṇḍa, some renunciation, some Dharma, some action. This was the climate of that time. When certain ideas are current and when you want to put forth a totality of everything, then how will you start?

Sri Krishna starts with some of the basic ideas, you might say, ‘partial truths’ are first stated, then further developed; in the statement of ‘partial truths’, certain hints are given; latter on hints are worked out more fully. Then, there is a return again to the totality; and then a further development, further exposition takes place. This is the style of the whole of the Bhagavad Gita: the Bhagavad Gita has to be studied as a whole, as a full dialogue. And if you rest only upon one statement, and not take into account the other statements, then we will get only a ‘partial truth’. And this is the reason why there have been so many conflicting interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita. If you really want to have the totality, then you have to be very patient, and go through the whole thing step by step, at the same time, every time to take stock of what we understood and move forward.

This is a good stage, having done at least 40 verses of the 2nd chapter, this is a good moment to take stock. We are here given first important words that distinguish between the ‘Perishable’ and the ‘Imperishable’: this is the starting point of the Bhagavad Gita’s teaching. When Sri Krishna says that, “you are thinking, of that you have not to think”, “you are worried about that which you should not be worried about”, “you are looking at the ‘Perishable ’as if…with that concern, which you should have concern for ‘Imperishable’”. This is the first starting point, you might say, if you compare it with the music: a good composer starts with a big ‘bang’ in the beginning as it were, in which many tunes are combined together and then as it spreads out, so many other tunes begin to scatter out, and develop rhythmically; similarly this is the first ‘bang’ as it were given, a ‘dong’ of knowledge: “There is a distinction between the ‘Perishable’ and the ‘Imperishable’”.

And He said that, “This is what is given through Buddhiyoga”.

Those who are not familiar with ‘Buddhi’, and ‘Yoga’, for them this a very big stumbling block. Sri Krishna speaks immediately that there is one poise of Buddhiyoga, which shows you the distinction between the ‘Perishable’, and the ‘Imperishable’, but “I shall now give you another poise, which even while doing action, gives you liberation from action: ‘karmabandhaṁ prahāsyasi’ (2.39), by which you will be liberated from the action”. And then, Sri Krishna speaks of one basic thing: ‘The state of equality even while performing action’, as a result of which you begin to perceive what is ‘action’, what is the ‘motive of action’, what is the ‘consequence of action’, and how these three things, motive, action, and the consequence, become bewildering when it is perceived by Buddhi which is not steady.

Buddhi can perceive the motive of action, action and the consequence on the two conditions: one, when the Buddhi is not steady, not stable, and when Buddhi is stable. When the Buddhi is unstable…one very important phrase that Sri Krishna uses is: ‘it is bahuśākhā’; when the Buddhi is unsteady it is ‘multi–branching’. With regard to motive, and action and the consequence, there is a constant hurried movement which moves hither thither: now grasping that, now grasping the other one, then going to the third, an unending movement. There is a groping and a search, and hurry, and hustle and bustle, in which you do not know what you really want, and what you want to grasp, and what you want to acquire, and having acquired, what you do not want further and what you want to select, what you want to choose and then, starting building castle for the future again. It is a hurried movement of action, in which we are all caught because Buddhi is unstable.

And He points out that this Buddhi is unsteady because of desire. This is the diagnosis He gives, like a doctor. That Buddhi’s unsteadiness is because of desire. And even with regard to desire, there is a further analysis, and says that the great test, reason, for this unsteadiness is “desire for the fruits of action”: this is the main cause of this unsteadiness. The individual normally pursues…(pursues means: ‘he is in action already’; all of us are born in action as it were: our whole birth movement is nothing but action). We find ourselves already, right from the beginning in the ocean of action. And yet we do not know what action is: how does it arise? What is its movement? What is called ‘fruit of action’? And how, from action to the fruit of action, and from fruit of action to another motive of action, and again to another action, how the whole chain is a constant building up that makes you flitting all the time? You are in a flux; it is in that flux, that we find ourselves bewildered.

Sri Krishna’s answer to Arjuna, as I said in the first place is to say: “Look there is the ‘Perishable’, and the ‘Imperishable’, and you are giving a greater importance to the ‘Perishable’, than to the ‘Imperishable’”: that was the first answer to Arjuna’s bewilderment.

The second answer is that, “You are giving such a great importance to the ‘fruits of action’, without realising ‘action’ itself…what is the ‘motive’ of action”. If you analyse the whole argument of Arjuna, the whole argument is based upon the 'consequences’, upon ‘the fruits’. The argument is that, “If I win this battle, I will have rājyaṁ and sukham, I will have the kingdom and the happiness and the pleasure”: that is one consequence. Then he says, “I don’t want this, why? Because I will have killed my people, and this kingdom will be blood–splattered, and it is that, which I do not like to enjoy”, (it is again a fruit of action), “How can I enjoy this kingdom, when it is blood–splattered kingdom?” It is again a question of consequence. Then, he says, “Killing is called a sin, if I do this it will be called a sin”. And then, there is the fear of the sin, that is the consequence of a sin: “If I engage myself into the war, then there will be a destruction of Dharma, the whole kulanaśam, the whole clan will be destroyed; the Dharma of the kula will be destroyed”, and then he says, “it is śuśruma, it is said that those who are responsible for it, they go into hell”, again consequence, the fruit of action. All his arguments are based upon ‘fruits of action’.

Sri Krishna says that, “when the Buddhi is incited by ‘desire’, then it constantly thinks of the ‘results’, ‘consequences’, ‘fruits of action’”. To such an extent that real action and the motive of action are as it were hidden; they are obliterated; they are not brought into the focus of our attention. That is why Sri Krishna says that “First of all realise that even the wisest do not know what is ‘action’, what is ‘inaction’ and what is ‘wrong action’: karma, akarma, vikarma. First of all, before you go to the consideration of the consequences, the fruits of action, first of all consider what is action, what is inaction, what is wrong action. It is only then that your question will have an answer”.

In other words you can see that Sri Krishna goes to the fundamentals. If the situation was simple, then a simple answer is possible, if the situation is superficial, a superficial answer is possible; but here, the question that was raised by Arjuna was fundamental, and therefore it cannot be answered superficially, or simply: it has to be answered fundamentally.

In the 2nd chapter basically with these two propositions: the distinction between the ‘Perishable’ and the ‘Imperishable’, and secondly the consideration of what is action, what is inaction, what is wrong action, which takes us into the question of what are the fruits of action, and how one must deal with the fruits of action and with the action itself.

With regard to these propositions, in the current ideas, there are four basic, very important philosophies: philosophies of Sankhya, of Yoga, Vedanta and Vedavada. And all the four are in picture in this 2nd chapter; and normally we are not very clear about these four things therefore, the whole chapter becomes difficult. If you read Sri Aurobindo’s ‘Essays on the Gita’, in his exposition, before starting the exposition of the Yoga of Buddhi, Yoga of intelligent will, he has deviated as it were, from the main course of argument of the Gita, so as to expound quite largely, also as he says, quite superficially, the ‘Sankhya and Yoga’, and ‘Sankhya, Yoga and Vedanta’, in which he has also included the consideration of ‘Vedavada’. These two chapters are introduced specially, so that the reader may be able to understand the arguments of the 2nd chapter. With my own exposition with you, I omitted to described what is Sankhya and what is Yoga, what is Vedanta, what is Vedavada, and we entered straight into the argument, which is very good, because then you really understand that there is a difficulty in understanding this chapter, because there is this background lacking, so at the right moment we can give the background. The difficulty is further compounded, because these words, Sankhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Vedavada, are even being used, in our own times.

Today when we use the word Sankhya, those who are familiar with the modern understanding, current understanding of Sankhya, it will have another meaning. That makes our reading of the Gita today much more complicated than it could have been otherwise: already, it was complicated, but today when we read it, it is doubly complicated. While expounding, I have to expound two things: what Sankhya meant at that time, what Sankhya means today; what Yoga meant at that time, what yoga means today; what Vedanta meant at that time, what Vedanta means today. What was the controversy about Vedavada at that time and what is the controversy today? Having understood all this, and then, when we plunge into the 2nd chapter, it will become much easier.

Let us start now with Sankhya first.

Sankhya generally meant at that time, a method of knowledge by which one can be enabled to withdraw from activity by renunciation, and one can enter into a supreme peace and inactivity. The activity and movements of activity, the totality of activities were all grouped under one word: prakṛti. The very word Prakriti refers to action: kṛ, means ‘to do’ in Sanskrit; pra, means ‘moving forth’. prakṛti, is ‘a power that acts forth’, that is Prakriti. Sankhya meant the knowledge of Prakriti and the knowledge of the state of silence for which the word that was used was puruṣa. And then, Sankhya meant a process by which one can liberate oneself from the movement of Prakriti, and enter into the silence of the Purusha. The emphasis was upon renunciation of action so as to enter into the peace of the Purusha. And that was regarded as liberation, and that was regarded as the highest process by which one can resolve the problems of life and attain to peace.

It is because of this reason that Arjuna, when he says, ‘I will not fight’, in his mind, there was this idea that he will withdraw from action and enter into liberation, which is wonderful! It is because of the Sankhya that was prevalent at that time.

This Sankhya was a very elaborate system. Although I expounded in two lines, it was basically a very elaborate system. The elaborate system maintained that Prakriti, although it is original, uncaused, it is never alone. It is always found in the juxtaposition of Purusha, that which is inactive. The principle of Inactivity and the principle of Activity are always found to be in juxtaposition of each other. Wherever there is Prakriti, be sure that Purusha must be present somewhere, nearby. Wherever there is Purusha, you should remember that there must be Prakriti somewhere, in one condition or the other. Prakriti may be in the position of activity, or it may be in the position of inactivity: inactivity, not in the sense in which Purusha is inactive, but as yet un–manifest, active, but un–manifest. The original condition of Prakriti was called avyakta, un–manifest. It is the condition of ‘un–manifest’, the Prakriti was supposed to be moving between two conditions: un–manifest and manifest. Prakriti is a movement; in this movement, you can roll up yourself fully or unroll up yourself.

Question: When it was rolled up, it was Purusha?

Answer: No. Even then it is Prakriti, but it is an ‘active’ principle which is ‘un–manifest’. In Purusha, there is not even the possibility of action; it is really silent, inactive. Prakriti may be manifest or un–manifest, but even un–manifest Prakriti is a kind of a potential action.

Purusha is conscious, Prakriti is unconscious. Purusha is as much ultimate as Prakriti, both are un–caused. Prakriti enters into action from an original state of equilibrium. The state of equilibrium is reached when, although it is a single reality, it has three qualities: it has Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas. It is one but triple you might say. The movement of action is opposed within itself by the tendency towards inaction, inertia. And both of them are opposed by a movement of harmony, of knowledge, of happiness: Sattwa is harmony, knowledge and happiness. These are the three fundamental characteristics of Sattwa: wherever there is Sattwa, there is…When you say: ‘such and such individual is Sattwic’, what you mean is that this person has a natural tendency to learn, to know. Secondly, a Sattwic person is a harmoniser; he does not like conflicts around; he wants to bring about harmony. And, by knowledge and by harmony, there is some kind of happiness, inward happiness, saṁtoṣaṁ, some contentment.

This is opposed to Rajasic: in Rajasic there is no tendency to learn, to know. Rajas is prepared to fight and to conflict. Rajas has a fever, in which pleasures and pains are both feverishly enjoyed. There is not a movement towards any kind of equilibrium or rest. Equilibrium of the Sattwa or rest of inertia, of the Tamas: Rajas has a constant fever of movement.

Tamas on the other hand, has constant inertia to cling to ignorance, just as Sattwa wants to move towards knowledge; Tamas always wants to move towards ignorance, to move towards mechanical activities and towards inertia, towards sleep, rest, idleness, sloth: all this is Tamas.

According to Sankhya, Prakriti surprisingly is three fold. It does not explain how these three fold Prakriti happens to be there originally, from where has it come. According to Sankhya, it is original; there is no source of it. But how these three contradictory things are put together originally, there is no answer in the Sankhya. It simply says: ‘there is such a Prakriti’. And what is the proof of it? The proof of it is… ‘Look, look at the movement, any movement you analyse, and you will find these three tendencies there’. And if you ask the question: ‘from where has it come?’ Sankhya says, ‘I don’t find from where it has come, I don’t see the origin of it anywhere’. Therefore, it is, ‘anādi’, it is ‘eternally there’, it is ‘like that’. But how did these contradictory things come to be together, originally? That is a mystery and Sankhya has no answer to that question: its answer is what you call ‘a scientific answer’. A scientific answer to a question is: “see what it is and describe what it is, try to explain as much as you can, and if you can’t, you can simply say that ‘this is there’”. That is why Sankhya philosophers were called also great scientists of India. They are describing what is there in the world, and they found in this world a huge ocean of action, but surprisingly consisting of these three elements which are warring with each other.

Then, it analyses further this threefold energy and finds that this energy which is manifested into such a huge universe, if you analyse it, you will find that all can be reduced to five elements. You can distinctly distinguish between five elements in this world: there is first one physical element that you call ‘earth’, physic, physical, something solid, something that is tangible, something when you press that gives a reaction, something in which once placed, another thing can not be placed. Such is the principle of “earth”. You cannot put two pieces of matter at the same place; this is the simplest definition of matter, you might say. Matter is such a stuff that this space occupied by a piece of earth or matter cannot be occupied by another piece of matter. This is such an important principle that if it was not valid then our driving in the cars would have been impossible. If two cars could move in the same space, then driving would be impossible. It is because where one car ends, and another car cannot enter into that space that we can drive safely. Such is the principle of “Matter” first of all; this is what we see in the world.

The second is liquid. You can distinguish very clearly between that which is solid and that which is liquid; although liquidity has some solidity, it is not that kind of solidity which you find on earth, in pure Matter. Because you can distinguish between them very clearly, therefore Sankhya says that apart from earth, pṛthivī, there is jala, there is liquidity.

Then, there is a third element which is neither material… it is material but it is not material like Matter, it is not material like liquid, but it is something by which…it is subtler than water and by which you can bring matters, even physical matters together, you can weld. Water cannot weld between two matters, two points: if you want to weld one piece of iron with another piece of iron then you need a third element which is called ‘fire’; it is by fire that you can, it is such a subtle thing, it can touch both the matters and can bring them together.

And then, there is something even subtler than fire and that is ‘air’. Fire at least is visible, just as water is visible, earth is visible; but there is another element which is invisible but which exists, you can prove it, you can experience it, even physically experience it. When there is a breeze in a breezeless atmosphere, you can really experience it. When there is fire and there is a breeze on it, it can extinguish the fire. It is even subtler than the fire.

But it is even subtler than the air, subtler than vāyu; vāyu is also called anila; agni is also called anala. So, there is pṛthivī, jala, agni or anala, and vāyu or anila. And then there is ākāśa; even subtler than air, is what they call ‘ether’. Of course, modern physics tells us that ether does not exist. But Sankhya affirms that there is even subtler than air and that is ‘ether’, which is called ākāśa. Not only that ether exists according to Sankhya but it is the very basis of what we call ‘hearing’. Just as pṛthivī is the basis of smell, similarly ether is the basis of hearing: if ether did not exist, you would not hear. How is it that we distinguish between sounds coming from this side or from that side, by what quality, by what means? Not by means of earth, or water, or fire, or by air. The ākāśa, the directions are recognised by us by a subtler activity of us and that is because of the ether. Our hearing seems to be determined by the presence of ether. That was the discovery of the Sankhya thinkers.

They say that although Prakriti is one, it is triple, but produces five great elements in the world, and all of them are one because in all of them three Gunas are present. And the general nature of Prakriti is present in the activity. All the pañca mahābhūta(s), as they are called, five elements, all the pañca mahābhūta(s), are active in nature; all of them are riddled with the oppositions of Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas. Therefore it can be concluded that there is one Prakriti which is capable of triple force and which is capable of producing five big elements.

These five big elements are sensed by us; this is also a fact of experience. Therefore, Sankhya takes into account that all these five elements are experienced by us. There is, in other words, an experiencing activity: not only the five elements exist in the world, they are objects in the world, but there is a subjective movement in us; so Prakriti just as it is an objective movement, there is also a subjective movement. They can all be sensed. This sensing is done by five senses corresponding to five bhūta(s); so, according to Sankhya there are five senses by which we can sense: the sense of smell, sense of sight, sense of touch, sense of taste, and the sense of hearing. These are the five senses, which are called jñānendriya(s). They are the instruments of knowledge.

These instruments of knowledge are all of them capable of being reduced to one; these are five specialities you might say, of the basic sense. That basic sense is called manas. Manas can be translated as ‘sense–mind’: it is a ‘mind’ which ‘senses’. What is the proof that these five senses can be summed up in one sense? The proof is first that different senses give you different sensations…And if there is not one sense behind it, who will coordinate all the sensations? If only five senses were distinct from each other then we would only hear, taste, smell, etc…but we could not put them together, coordinate them together; so, there must be a coordinating sense in us which senses all: there must be a sense which at once hearing, smelling, touching, tasting, seeing, at once! We also can prove by the fact that when Manas is absent, even when the sense objects are present, they are impeding upon our senses, we cannot take cognisance of them. If a mosquito is biting me, but if I am engaged in talking to you, in whom I am interested and absorbed, I may not even recognise that there is a bite; that means that although there is sensation, it is not sensed. Why? Because, the real sense is not attached to it. Therefore, they concluded there is a sense, which you can call sense–mind, Manas. They use the term…Indian term is manas: wherever the word Manas is used in Indian psychology, it means sense–mind.

This sense–mind is capable of distinguishing between touch, smell, hearing, very distinctly; even a child who is untaught understands the distinction between taste and hearing, and so on. The sense–mind is able to discriminate between these five activities. And because of that reason it can discriminate between all the pañca mahābhūta(s): how do you know that this is liquid and this is fire? It is because the sensations of fire and the sensations of water are different, and therefore the mind can distinguish between water and fire and air and earth and the ether.

You can see that in this subtlety, you are arriving at a notion of discrimination. The Manas is able to discriminate, and it finds in discriminating that each object tends to be itself; there is a tendency in everything in the world to remain what it is: there is something in it, in every little thing; it tends to remain what it is. It can be changed but it tends to remain what it is: the earth remains earth as much as possible and atom tries to remain an atom; a bird tries to remain a bird, everything tends to remain what it is; sense of its own individuality, its own self, its identity. This is what the Sankhya call ahaṁbhāva: the egoism, the “egoity”. There is ahaṁkāra. In every little thing in the world, there is this tendency to remain what it is: ahaṁkāra.

A basic question is asked: from where, by what process the Prakriti is able to create such a variety: pañca mahābhūta(s), and five objects of sensations, five senses, their coordination, their individuality, such tremendous variety which may be called the world of determinations. Prakriti which is one, which becomes triple and which manifests in so many determinations, hundreds and billions and trillions, how does it happen? There must be a principle in Prakriti, a principle of determination. ‘One’ energy capable of determining itself in millions and billions and trillions of forms and discriminating between one and the other and maintaining the individuality of each, such capacity must be present! That capacity is called by Sankhya as ‘buddhi’. Buddhi has two important functions: it determines and discriminates. You might say Prakriti originally is indeterminate: it is like the ‘dough’ for the cook, who makes various kinds of preparations out of dough. Prakriti is like dough, indeterminate. It is by the operation of the power of determination that this indeterminate becomes determined, and so many forms are brought out as it were; and by the power of ahaṁbhāva, each determination is maintained as a result of which all the objects of the world are perceived as determinate objects. But according to Sankhya all ‘this’ is unconscious.

According to Sankhya all this is unconscious, this principal function, it is like a machine; and machines can have various kinds of cogs, isn’t it? various kinds of elements, so that if there is one machine which brings out of indeterminate so many forms, so you call that machine “Buddhi”; all the determinations come out of…it is unconscious! But all determinations come out because its structure is such that so many things come out: all determinations. Buddhi itself is not conscious of determinations. Even the sensations are unconscious. As long as they are products of Prakriti they are all unconscious: it is ‘jaḍa’. Prakriti is unconscious according to Sankhya.

Then how does this (when we say, “Buddhi” as a discriminating intelligence), we call it intelligence? The answer is that this unintelligent movement of Prakriti, when it is reflected in the Purusha, which is conscious, then what we call ‘intelligent will’ arises. The process of discrimination is unintelligent; but reflected in the conscious Purusha, it becomes conscious discrimination. If you ask the question, who knows determinations? Prakriti does not know determination. One who knows determinations is Purusha. Who senses? It is Purusha.

According to Sankhya, Prakriti is always found near Purusha, always. Both are independent of each other, but always found to be together, coexistent; not only that, but Prakriti for its manifestation from avyakta(unmanifest), if it is to become vyakta(manifest), it cannot become vyakta by itself: this is a total dependence. Not only that Purusha and Prakriti sit side by side, but Prakriti’s movement, although it exists by itself, but its movement is entirely dependent upon Purusha: such is the account given by Sankhya. If you find surprising the answer of Sankhya is, this is what it is! If you think that is not satisfying, Sankhya’s answer is that this is what it is: ‘Reality’ is like that: Sankhya’s concern is to describe Reality as it is, and if there are certain things which remain questionable, Sankhya’s answer is that this is the nature of reality. If you are dissatisfied with it, what can you do about it? The Reality is like this. That Prakriti, although independent, existing by itself, finds itself always existent in juxtaposition to Purusha, always, it cannot be helped, it is like that. Secondly, even its movement is entirely dependent upon Purusha. Such is the nature of it, it cannot move except when Purusha ‘glances’ at it. There is something like a ‘glancing’ of Purusha; Purusha which is there, independent of Prakriti ‘glances’ at Prakriti. Now, this ‘glance’ is a very important element in Sankhyan philosophy. Let us develop it for a minute.

Prakriti to begin with is in a state of equilibrium; a state of equilibrium is one in which it is ‘unmanifest’: avyakta. If you ask the question: when it is filled with three forces of energy, of action, and inertia, and harmony, how does it reach a condition of avyakta, if there are three forces together? The answer is that Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas are constantly in different proportions: as long as the proportions are different, it remains ‘manifest’. This movement of Prakriti is unintelligent, unconscious, it has no control over the proportions in which they are constantly combining, it goes on unconsciously. Therefore, a moment can easily come or a difficulty can come when all the proportions are equal, that possibility always exists and the moment the proportions of Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas become equal, it becomes ‘unmanifest’. The pulls are so equal that manifestation ceases. This can happen any time. Therefore, logically, you start with that moment and when it is in a state of complete proportions, it becomes avyakta, then, how can this kind of equilibrium be ever broken? Once this kind of equilibrium is reached, all the proportions are equal…if they are unequal they will go on moving out, but once they have become equal, and there is a complete equilibrium, avyakta, by what force can it become broken? Unequal distribution of proportions will always work itself out to make it more and more unequal or whatever, but once they become equal, and they reach a state of ‘unmanifest’, then they can continue to be like that, unless something else happens by which this can be broken. Sankhya’s answer is: when Purusha ‘glances’ at it, it is a kind of a movement that starts from somewhere else. When Purusha glances at it, then this disequilibrium arises, some new force has entered into it and Prakriti begins to manifest.

Therefore, Prakriti is dependent upon Purusha for its movement, not for its existence, but for its movement it is dependent upon Purusha. Again you have to remember that this is a statement inconsistent with a basic proposition that Prakriti is active by nature and Purusha is inactive by nature. If Purusha is inactive, how does He ‘glance’? Glancing is an act! And if in His very nature He is inactive, how does Purusha happen to glance at it? There is no answer to this question in Sankhya: it simply says there must be this glancing! Purusha is really, absolutely quiet. It has no principle of activity in it; then if you don’t grant that there is this capacity of glancing, then the whole Prakriti can never move, but Prakriti moves. How can we explain it? There are only two realities: inactive Purusha and active Prakriti. Prakriti at one time must be in equilibrium: therefore it must become quiet, in a state of unmanifest condition. But we find Prakriti moving, therefore there must have been a moment when it has been struck from outside; it cannot be struck from inside. There is only another reality namely Purusha; other than Prakriti there is only Purusha existing in the world. Therefore the starting point must come from somewhere else, not from Prakriti within itself, it must come from outside; it is of course an inactive principle. But unless you grant this beginning, at least this starting point, you cannot explain the world, because the world exists as we see it: it is moving. We are obliged to grant that there must be ‘one’ basic activity of Purusha; although inactive, you may call it self contradictory. So far, so good, all right, but such is the nature of reality, it is surprising but this is so!

We come to Purusha. It is inactive, devoid of three Gunas; it has no Gunas at all, always side by side with Prakriti. Purusha is never found alone, it is the speciality of Sankhya philosophy: Purusha always finds itself to be near Prakriti. It is conscious therefore it knows Prakriti; Prakriti does not know Purusha, but Purusha knows Prakriti because it is conscious. Although inactive, because it is conscious it is capable of taking cognisance. The power of consciousness is: “taking cognisance”. Of course, you may again say that, ‘taking cognisance’ is an activity and Purusha being inactive cannot take cognisance, but if there is any cognisance at all, it is possible only for Purusha and we are aware of all kinds of cognisance, therefore the only answer possible for us is that if there is cognisance, it can be only Purusha who can take cognisance: there is no other principle by which cognisance can be explained. Once again there is a mystery, a self contradiction is present but the answer is that ‘such is the nature of reality’: it is surprising, self contradictory to our mind, but it is so;

There is no other way of explaining…

The activity of cognisance in the world; we do find consciousness in the world, do we not? (That is the question of Sankhya). Therefore, this cognitive activity must be connected with Purusha; although inactive, it is conscious, conscious therefore it is capable of reflecting. Consciousness can be understood in terms of an analogy with a mirror: what is the difference between an opaque glass and a transparent… and a glass, which is a mirror (specially manufactured mirror)? What is the meaning of it? By polishing…polishing is a process of clarifying; clarifying is a process of illumining and that is the meaning of consciousness. All consciousness is about clarity, light; therefore, consciousness is capable of reflecting: so, Prakriti can be reflected in Purusha.

The whole world, why is it that you are able to see it? Because it is being reflected in your consciousness. The moment your consciousness becomes ‘down’, unconscious, there is no reflection, the world may be existing all around but you are not conscious of it at all, there is no reflection of the world in you: there is no cognisance of the world at all. In sleep you don’t cognise anything. So, the world is cognised by the process of reflection. This is the special quality of consciousness: consciousness means a capacity to reflect. Again the word capacity is inconsistent, because capacity is something that acts and Purusha is inactive. But once again this is an original mystery you might say. But such is the nature of Reality: because of His cognisance, It normally reflects the world, but It also ‘glances’ at the world: this is an important subtlety. When Purusha ‘glances’…merely reflecting Prakriti is not enough because that will not trigger the movement of Prakriti: there must be a glancing; the Purusha must be wanting to glance at Prakriti. In other words He must be wanting to know what is Prakriti? It is sitting side by side with Prakriti, to begin with you might say, He does not know Prakriti, or He only knows that there is only something other than Itself, which is unmanifest and the moment He says, ‘I want to know’, there is a glance at it to know, and Prakriti which is entirely dependent upon this triggering begins to manifest.

Question: The pleasures you get out of your senses, it is coming from the Purusha, is it not right to get pleasures? …

Answer: The question you are raising is a central question of Sankhya. And it is this: by ‘glancing’ at Prakriti what happens? Purusha gets ‘engaged’ in Prakriti: it is not only ‘glancing’. As Prakriti begins to manifest, it begins to get ‘engaged’ in Prakriti. This engagement produces three results: by ‘engaging’ in looking at it, It ‘forgets Itself’, that is the first result. Secondly, It gets ‘identified’ with Prakriti. And thirdly It begins ‘to experience’ the various movements of Prakriti: self–forgetfulness, self–identification, and experiencing. The various movements of Prakriti are reflected in Purusha, and as Purusha goes on glancing It becomes engaged in it, and this engagement has three results: you become identified with the object while looking at it, you become identified with it, in the meantime you forget yourself and you begin to experience what is in Prakriti.

Prakriti is nothing but all kinds of movements, varieties, multi coloured reality before you: pleasure, pain, indifference, honour, dishonour, all kinds of experiences that are given in the world, you begin to experience and because you are identified, you feel: “you” are pain, “you” are pleasure. Instead of saying that it is different from you, because you are identified, the Purusha is identified, therefore it thinks: ‘this pain is my pain’; ‘this pleasure is my pain’. And we know that in Prakriti there is this element of ‘egoism’, everywhere. And now Purusha also becomes identified with this egoism. Therefore this egoism begins to be a kind of a key for Purusha. It gets hooked to this egoism, and therefore not only identifies with everything, as if universally, but identifies with everything individually, egoistically. There is an egoistic identification with the movements and it goes on, until one day it realises that this is intolerable, the pain, the indifference, the activity of Prakriti begins to dawn upon him: this is also an experience.

Because it is originally different from Prakriti, it finds this to be a burden. If it was not at all different…Prakriti does not find the burden of its own manifestation; but because Purusha is basically different, therefore one day, suddenly it begins to feel ‘burden’ of it. It begins to ‘react’; it begins to manifest its separateness from it, its difference from it. Therefore the natural tendency of Purusha is to ‘deal’ with Prakriti, to ‘change’ it, to unburden itself from it. It begins to feel that it is imprisoned, it is bound: bondage is experienced. And from there, arises in Purusha a tendency to liberate itself, it wants to come out of it: this is called ‘mumukṣutva’, it wants, desire to liberate.

If Prakriti was the only reality in the world, then the mumukṣutva would not arise at all, nobody could explain; who wants to be liberated? Only somebody who is different from it wants to be liberated! So, the fact that there is a tendency in every human being to…at least, minimum thing is to deal with the circumstance. Everybody who deals with the circumstance wants to unburden himself from the circumstance, wants to be master of the circumstance, and wants to sit on the top of the circumstance. That means that there is something in us, which is different from circumstance.

And then with this movement, it begins to find out, ‘how’ it can come out of this bondage. Then, among all the faculties which are produced by Prakriti, which are reflected in Purusha, and through the faculties it is able to experience all this, among these faculties, it finds out there is ‘one’ faculty which capable of discrimination. That faculty, not only determines and discriminates the various elements of Prakriti, but also can be utilised to discriminate between Purusha and Prakriti themselves. This Buddhi therefore can be utilised as a means by which Purusha can know it is different from Prakriti, can realise that it is identified with Prakriti. You can be identified only when you are different from something.

It realises that it is identified with Prakriti, and then finds that this Buddhi however, is itself caught up by three guṇa(s), by ahaṁkāra, and by manas, constantly. These indriya(s) are very powerful, senses are very powerful, they are constantly moving out like horses. Now in this movement of ‘horses moving out’ constantly, you cannot discriminate easily; there is a tremendous pressure on you to act all the time, go on acting; and indriya(s) are nothing but a constant movement, overpowering movement in fact. Senses are so dynamic: you just open your eyes, it does not take time for you to recognise objects immediately, such a great activity; you put something in your mouth and immediately you taste it. It does not take much time at all, so dynamic! So long as indriya(s) are running all the time, identification is constant. Then if you turn to Manas, some possibility of control is possible. But even Manas is nothing but constantly driven by these forces. Only if you can do something by which some quietude is brought about in all this movement! But because Purusha by nature is quiet, it is possible to introduce some quietude in this movement; if Purusha was not quiet by its nature, this would have never happened.