yayā dharmamadharmaṁ ca kāryaṁ cākāryameva ca |
ayathāvat prajānāti buddhiḥ sā pārtha rājasī ||18.31||
That mind, with which one wrongly knows what is proper and improper, what is to be done and what this not to be done, Pārtha (Arjuna)! is rājasī.
This is the buddhi by which a given person knows dharmam-adharmam, what is enjoined by śāstra and what is prohibited by śāstra. And what is to be done and not to be done - kāryaṁ cākāryameva ca. It looks like repetition from previous verse, but with the word ayathāvat - knows them wrongly, it changes the meaning of the verse. One quotes and reads śāstra wrongly, interpreting it according to his likes and dislikes (convenience).
adharmaṁ dharmam iti yā manyate tamasāvṛtā |
sarvārthān viparītāṁśca buddhiḥ sā pārtha tāmasī ||18.32||
The mind, which covered with ignorance considers what is improper as proper, and all things the reverse (of what they are), that (mind), Pārtha (Arjuna)! is tāmasī.
The person in the previous verse, with rājasī buddhi, knows but not properly. He may know a value, but not the value of the values, therefore he compromises. But the person with tāmasī buddhi knows things as just the reverse of what they are - sarvārthān viparītāṁśca manyate. Adharma even may seems to be a virtue for him.
The value of values
“Value” indicates some esteem by the value holder with regards for a thing, situation, or attitude. Therefore it should be different from one person to another. But the value under the discussion here is ethical value which generally can be defined as dharma. Even though dharma usually is part of the religious teaching but actually it is a common sense, because it is a norm of conduct derived from the way in which I wish other to behave or treat me. If my standard of dharma is the way I expect other to do, means I am caught in the value system, which is a two-way system. If this two-way system is done only one way, then conflict would be there.
Why values as the collection of qualities of the mind stated in śāstra are taken as secondary means for self-knowledge to takes place? Secondary means in the sense that gaining of the values alone doesn’t bring about self-knowledge, but are necessary because without the assimilation of these values in some measure, the primary means which is listening to śāstra teaching will not work. Just like fire or heat is the primary means for cooking food, but without fuel or some energy source, there is no fire to enable cooking. Fire alone cooks, but there won’t be effective fire without fuel. In the same manner, enquiry of ātmā-jñānam through listening, one gains self-knowledge, but there would be non effective listening in the buddhi which is not prepared by these values.
The mind is the place when knowledge takes place. If the self-knowledge is being properly revealed, and the subject matter “I” is always available to myself, then the words of śāstra should give me direct knowledge about myself. If the knowledge doesn’t take place as direct knowledge (own up the nature of sat-cit-ānanda) then there must be some obstacles that are responsible for preventing the knowledge taking place. That is called ranjana - colouration of the mind which can be purified by assimilating certain universal values and ethical attitudes.
Comments