A request and a disclaimer: Before you begin to read this blog, request you to first read the 3 parts of ‘Stroke in the canvas called ‘The Value of Values’. You may also choose to read the blogs on the values of amAnitvam, adambhitvam, ahimsA (the value of ahimsA is in three parts) kshAntiH, Arjavam, AchAryopAsanam, Saucam, Sthairyam, AtmavinigrahaH, indriyArthesu vairAgyam, anahankAraH and janma-mrtyu-jarA-vyAdhi-duHkha-dosAnudarsanam, asaktiH, anabhisvangaH putra-dArA-grhAdisu and nityam samacittatvam istAnistopapattisu though they are not a prerequisite to reading this value. The language and explanations used by pUjya swAmiji is so profound, that I wish I do justice by aligning my understanding to his explanation, as I parallelly try to relate it to day to day living.. Any error in the way I have blogged upon these values, is due to an error in my understanding alone.
mayi ananya-yogena bhaktiH avyabhicArinI means steadfast devotion to God due to the recognition of non separateness from God..
avyabhicArinI means unswerving or steadfast
bhaktiH means devotion
ananya-yogena means not combining with anything else / non separateness
mayi means ‘in me’
You may substitute the word God with lord / almighty / supreme power.. I would be using the word God, in this blog post.
This value in my perspective seems different from the others. The reason for this is that it brings in the notion of placing trust in not just in oneself but in someone who is ‘seemingly’ outside but is not. Confusing, is it? I too hope to get clarity as I blog on this value.
For perhaps the first time, I see two values intricately connected – nityam samacittatvam istAnistopapattisu (accepting the outcome that we get, in the same state of mind whether it is something we like or something that we don’t) and this value. Each of these 2 values lead to each other. This blog post will also unfold on how they lead to one another.
There are two meanings to non separateness from god..
- God is not away from me or separate from me. God is me. Personally this is one statement that has always confused me. How can God be me? I am not as big as god is because god is everywhere, god knows everything are some of the answers I give myself. In which case, am I not separating myself from god now? Then I look at me and god as two different entities, isn’t it? To look at it from another perspective – So ‘God is me’.. Now can I also say ‘I am God’? Semantically it is the same BUT somewhere there remains a difference. When I say ‘God is me’, there is a sense of responsibility that comes in and I feel that cannot misuse that responsibility. When I say ‘I am God’, there seems to be a sense of power that does not ring well and certainly NOT positively..
- God is everything and I take security under him. I get my inspiration from him. Whatever is the outcome of my actions, it is from him. Bhakti or devotion stems from here..
This value is more from the second meaning of non separateness.. Whatever I get as results of what I do, comes from God. As it comes from God, I accept it with the same state of mind, be it something I prefer or something that I don’t (ityam samacittatvam istAnistopapattisu). Easier said than done!!!
It is true that what I need to do is in my hands (which is the choice / free will / freedom that I have). The moment I take the action, the outcome is not in my hands as the factors that contribute to the outcome is dependent on others as well. I hence don’t have control over the outcome / results. This seems fair enough!!
So there are different laws / factors at play, which I am not aware of and which are not visible to me. I hence have NO control over them. Fair enough again!!
Where it does not seem fair is when the actions that I make and the actions that someone else makes remain the same, but the outcome is different for both of us; and when the outcome for the other person is better than what I think I have got. This is when accepting an outcome with a state of mind that is the same, irrespective of the outcome, becomes difficult. This is when I am not able to say ‘Fair enough!’ :-).
Which then gives rise to the question, “What is that invisible law that is at play, which has given this outcome?”; and this question arises when the outcome is not favorable or preferred by me. I am able to ask “What?” but NOT “So what?” samacittatvam is not even in the horizon :-(. And this is when I get to feel “God is not fair.”
Strange enough, I don’t ask “What?” when the outcome is favorable to me. “So what?” hence becomes redundant. Invisible laws, what are they?
So how can this devotion to god be cultivated in me?
A thought that strikes me now – if I don’t ask “what?” and “So what?” when the outcome is favorable to me and I also don’t ask “what?” and “So what?” when the outcome is unfavorable to me, then it is samacittatvam, isn’t it? Now this seems fair enough!! The onus then comes on me to cultivate this samacittatvam. Interesting!!
Which means that if God is the giver of the outcome of my actions, then I need to take what God gives as a prasAdA (a blessing). When I go to a temple, whatever prasAdA they give, I accept it without refusing it. I may give it away to someone else if I don’t want it but I WON’T throw it away, certainly. I may not be able to give the outcome of my actions to anyone else BUT I can certainly accept it with grace.The more I fight the unfavorable outcome, I am the one living in disharmony. Graceful acceptance!! What a beautiful term!! Writing it gives so much of pleasure that I wonder if I write this term everyday, can I cultivate the value of devotion / non separateness from God?
Another thought strikes – if God is me, and God is the giver of the outcome / results, than am I not the giver to myself? If I am the giver, then should I blame myself or should I start acting more responsibly, while all the time being aware that there are laws that I am NOT aware of which are at play? Also being aware that the results that I get may not be to my expectations. It actually helps when we are prepared mentally for either outcome 🙂 – samacittatvam..
This also means that I am existent in a form and if God is me, than I am only an instrument. In that case, neither the doer is me, nor the experiencer of the outcome is me.. Both of this is GOD. This is a paradigm shift in thinking!! samacittatvam..
Isn’t this then cultivating vairAgyA (dispassion) also?
Looks like cultivating this value of mayi ananya-yogena bhaktiH avyabhicArinI is cultivating so many other Values!! Pujya swAmiji says “God is NOT a matter for belief, God is a matter for understanding.” The understanding blogging on this value has given, is certainly mind boggling 🙂
I sincerely think that this blog needs a few readings before clarity emerges.. I am going to do that and I request each of you readers to do that as well..
.
May 3, 2017 at 4:57 am
In the entire bunch of twenty prerequisites for a person to become ‘Truly enlightened’, the re only two places where personal references are made, the rest of them all being pure attributes, valuable of course. Of course, second person (the taught) and first person (teacher) are underlying in the entire BhagavaTgITA (BG). The first person (the teacher doesn’t shun from very categorically stating everywhere in BG that He is the cause of all and therefore Almighty in whom the second person has to unflinchingly trust! (Of course, as He is supposed to have stated BG in a form (mortal) that is familiar to us and not in the ‘Godly’ form (we do not know what that form has to be or form has to be there at all!!). This is what perhaps puts the intellectuals (!!) who want a scientific explanation in a dilemma. All along the teachings have been fine, but a little discomfort here, perhaps purposely to remind the reader you are after all what you are, be aware!!!
Does n’t matter let us now come to the subject. Express references as to the first person and third persons are in the two out of the bunch of twenty.
The two where personal references made are:
1. mayi cha ananya-yogena bhakti: avyabhicArinI
2. asakTiranabhishwanga: putradAragrihAdishu
‘mayI’ and ‘putradAra” in the above context are the two we refer to.
In ‘mayI’ it is ‘ananyayogena bhakTi’ is required and in ‘puTradAra Adi’ asakTi is a must. one moving towards and the other withdrawal! The second person (the taught) is the one who has to take action.
The above is drawn attention to in order to better appreciate who this ‘mayI’ is and who the taught is and who are the ‘uTradAra etc’., He wants the taught not to be over-attached.
The BG is an instructive manual advocating that the universe is deterministic with a solitary cause that is clearly stated everywhere in BG. Therefore, any reference to in BG can not conveniently ignore its context and the setting, stating them to be just abstract and the rest are all real.
The ‘mayI’ wants the listener to have unswerving devotion to ‘mayI’ and no excessive attachment to puTraDAra etc.
Let us not build up the “God is me’ ‘I”, “you” or ‘He’ also is God in this context, as it is too huge a subject that warrants a very detailed discussion for which we do not know whether we are equipped. But one thing is certain this view doesn’t alienate us from being a ‘God material’. To that extent, because all of us happen to be God material, we have to have unflinching faith in all of us together without a single entity excluded and make the existence together living divinely. That much is certain. This is possible only in the case of total selfless living.
If that is achieved then the question of giver being different, acceptance outcome, loser, gainer, prasADa and the whole lot (of confusions) go into the back ground.