« “Goodness,” “Desire,” and “Ignorance.”
These are the three qualities which spring from Nature and bind down the
eternal embodied soul in the body. »
(Bhagavad Gita)
We daily meet with questions and
answers in theosophical literature in which the problems of virtue and morality
are discussed from very opposite points of view, resulting in differences of
opinion, that could not be reconciled with each other, if it were not for the
fact that a thing looks different according to the aspect we take of it, and that
therefore of two opposite opinions each may be right in its own way.
This goes to show that for the
purpose of judging a thing correctly, it would be wise to regard it in all of
its aspects and not merely in one or two. Thus, for instance, if it is said
that a yogi looks with indifference upon the things of this world, one man
imagines such a yogi sitting with stupid indifference in his den, being entirely
ignorant of what is going on in the world and persuading himself that he did
not want to know it anyhow.
Another fancies such a yogi as
being a person thinking himself superior to all the world and being so full of
self-conceit that he really cares about nothing except his own person. A third
one will in his imagination find the yogi to be a person who for fear of losing
his chances in heaven, will submit to the torture of being extremely lonely in
this world and will put up with a great many disagreeable situations, expecting
that he will be recompensed for all his pains and worry in the next world.
Now all the speculations about
such things could be avoided and the problems made easy if we would always take
into consideration the fact that all the modes of thinking and all the actions
of mankind spring, as it is taught in the Bhagavad
Gita, from one or more of the three great Gunas or motives, and that each thought and act receives its
character from them.
We would then at once see that
indifference in regard to the things of this world may spring either from Sattwa, “goodness,” from Rajas, “desire,” or from Tamas, “darkness” or “ignorance,” and that
such indifference may be praiseworthy, or ridiculous or foolish, according to
the motive from which it springs.
Sattwa has been translated “goodness,”
which implies unselfishness and the recognition of truth; for without these two
qualities nothing is really good.
Goodness that springs from stupidity is not to be recommended, nor that
which originates in a selfish desire for reward. It would therefore be perhaps
better to translate sattwa as “wisdom,”
i. e., the recognition of truth.
Rajas means “passion,” desire or greed
for something that one wishes to obtain, and is therefore the product of
selfishness.
Tamas means “darkness” or “ignorance.”
A man who does no evil because he does
not know how to do it, is not to be admired on that account and deserves no
merit. The cause of his inaction is “ignorance,” and “ignorance” is not good.
The man is good who abstains from
doing evil, even when he might thereby profit, or who does good from his love
of goodness, or because he recognizes the real nature of evil.
If we consider
human thoughts, and acts, virtues and vices under these three different
aspects, we shall at once see what is to be recommended and what is not, and
thus we shall avoid many difficulties that trouble the investigator.
Let us for instance consider one
of the greatest motive powers in man, namely, “love,” in its threefold aspect.
Tamas refers to the inability to
recognize the true, the beautiful and the good. From this springs delusion,
perverted judgment and folly. “Love” that springs from Tamas is therefore “love” for something that is unworthy of being
loved, or for something detestable, which is mistaken to be good. If for
instance, a woman marries a fool because of his bearing the title of a nobleman
or on account of his wearing brass buttons on his coat, such a marriage is the
result of Tamas, because she mistakes
the title or the buttons for the man.
“Love” which springs from Rajas is that which springs from the desire
for possession. It is the self which desires this or that object and the real
end of such “love” is the self, although it may be and often is mixed up with a
higher kind of “love” having a different motive.
Thus, if a man marries a woman for
the sake of obtaining some one to attend to his comfort, it is because he loves
his comfort above all, although he may have at the same time a certain amount
of unselfish “love” for the woman, and, if he afterwards finds himself disappointed
in her, he may know that there was also a good deal of Tamas which entered into his “love.”
“Love” which springs from Sattwa, i. e., from the recognition of truth, is quite a different thing. If
nothing else but Sattwa enters into
it, the matter of possession will not come into consideration at all. Desire springs
from the perception of a desirable object; pure “love” is a self-born and self
existent power needing for its existence no object besides its own self.
As the sun would shine, even if
there were nothing upon which to shed its light; so spiritual “love” is all
sufficient in itself. An object will be required for its outward revelation,
but it is the object that requires the influence of “love,” and not “love”
itself needing an object.
“Love” that springs from the
realization of truth is identical with self-knowledge, because self-knowledge is
supreme wisdom. This self-knowledge requires no other object besides its own
self, but that self includes everything in the universe. Thus real “love” is
the love of “love” for its own divine self, which embraces everything, and
there is no room in it for the presence of indifference in regard to anything,
however small, that has any real existence.
Seen in this light the so-called
indifference of the yogi spoken of above assumes quite a new aspect. He could
not be a yogi if he were not penetrated by “love,” but his “love” springs from “wisdom”
and not from “ignorance” or “greed.”
Instead of loving nothing or
being only in love with himself, he in fact loves everything that has any real existence,
and cannot help loving it, because he recognizes the oneness of the eternal
reality in all things and therefore the essence of every individual thing as
his own Self.
The yogi is indifferent to
nothing except to that which is illusive and has no real existence, and he
could not be otherwise than indifferent to that, because he is above it and recognizes
its nothingness.
A true occultist is not
indifferent to his wife, his family or his people, the human or animal
kingdoms, or anything else. He is not a pious crank that sneaks about with
mournful looks, whose heart is full of fear for the salvation of his beloved
self, his mind full of discontent and his mouth full of sanctimonious
unctuosity.
He is an upright character, capable
of loving objects as much as one about to be married would love his bride. The
fire of his “love” is so strong in fact that it not only fills the objects
toward which it is directed, but reaches beyond them, embracing heaven and
earth, and even extending to the throne of the supreme.
Thus by taking into consideration
the three Gunas or “qualities” from
which all mental states originate, we may examine each virtue and behold it in
its three different aspects, a practice which is highly instructive and which
everybody may exercise for himself.
(Revue Theosophy, July 1896, vol. 11, p.110-112)
No comments:
Post a Comment