Reclaiming the Self: Chapter 2

Sacrifice in Defense of Dharma: Transcendence Through Action and Participation in the Bhagavad Gita

He who sees the Infinite in all things, sees God. He who sees the Ratio only, sees himself only. Therefore God becomes as we are, that we may be as he is--William Blake

The call of a god is a call to transcendence in its clearest and most familiar form. The Western monotheist tradition, while it is hardly predominantly mystical-usually portraying the relation of Man to God as one of absolute Otherness(see note #1--nevertheless has examples of such a call: the shattering cry of Christ to Saul of Tarsus ("Why do you persecute me?") on the road to Damascus, the stern charge of Gabriel to Muhammed--"Recite!" (iqra!)-on Mount Hira, and the irresistible command given to Hildegard of Bingen by a "voice from heaven" to "Write down what I tell you," illustrate the essential pattern of such a call. The life of the individual is interrupted-often violently. Saul is blinded; Muhammed is squeezed with superhuman force three times until he submits; Hildegard "had a vision so deep and overpowering that [she] trembled over [her] whole body and began to fall ill" (Hildegard of Bingen 5). The individual then sheds the former self (the putting off of "the old man"-ton palaion anthropon-and putting on of "the new man"-ton kainon anthropon-of Ephesians 4:22-24) and puts on a new Self. Initially what is required is a joining, or a coming together, of the caller and the called; through this putting off of the old-the narrow ego-and putting on of the new-the Self-what is realized is that caller and called were one from the start. This realization is, for the mystic devotee, the transcendent moment.(see note #2

In the Bhagavad Gita-an addition (generally dated between 200 B.C.E. and 200 C.E.) to Book VI of the Mahabharata (an 18-volume epic poem of over 100,000 Sanskrit stanzas)-a warrior named Arjuna faces the param-is'vara, the Supreme Lord, in the form of Krishna. A terrible war is about to take place in which fathers, sons, uncles, nephews, cousins and brothers will kill and be killed. Arjuna faces a choice: will he obey dharma and take part in the unavoidable battle, or will he renounce dharma, withdrawing from the battle and from the duty to which he is called, both by his own nature and by Krishna?

Arjuna is about to go into battle with friends, teachers, and members of his family in order to defend the claim of his older brother, Yudhishthira (who is actually dharma incarnate), to the world-throne of the Kurus. The Kauravas-led by the unscrupulous Prince Duryodhana, the son of the blind and "illegitimate" king, Dhritarashtra-have managed to exile Arjuna and his brothers, collectively known as the Pandavas, in the wilderness for thirteen years in an attempt to prevent Yudhishthira from dethroning Dhritarashtra and thereby preventing Duryodhana from eventually succeeding to the throne. After long years of exile and humiliation-during which time everything they once possessed has been stolen from them-the Pandavas, led by the mighty warrior Arjuna, intend to reclaim their kingdom from the Kauravas. The Kauravas have no intention of voluntarily returning what they have gained,(see note #3 and choose to go to war with the Pandavas-their cousins-rather than give up the kingdom.

As the conflict is about to begin, Arjuna asks Krishna-who has agreed to drive Arjuna's chariot, although he himself has sworn to be a non-combatant-to drive between the two armies, so that he might survey the battlefield and the combatants before the fighting begins. What Arjuna sees-friends, relatives, and honored teachers on each side of the battlefield-gives him pause; he is filled with compassion for those who will kill and be killed. Arjuna is no longer willing to fight this battle: sin and corruption-pâpam-would overcome him and his brothers were they to fight and kill their relatives and friends in this battle. Even though the enemy, mastered by greed-lobha-see no evil in killing family members in order to retain their illegitimate hold on the kingdom, Arjuna does not wish to bring pâpam upon himself and his brothers by fighting against the enemy's aggression. He then defines his own original motive for fighting as being the same sort of greed that motivates his enemy:

   We are prepared to kill our own relatives out of greed for the pleasures of a kingdom (Easwaran 56.).

Arjuna then casts aside his bow and refuses to fight-sokasamvignamãnasa (I.47)-"his mind agitated with grief" (Feuerstein 56).

Krishna responds by berating Arjuna for displaying kasmalam (II.2), which is variously rendered as weakness (Easwaran 61), faintness (Feuerstein 59), and timidity (Sargeant 87). Arjuna is behaving as shamefully as do the anârya, the non-Aryans (the ignoble, non-spiritual,uncivilized masses). Krishna tells Arjuna to avoid giving into klaibyam (II.3), "cowardice," (Sargeant 88) or "a eunuch's nature" (Feuerstein 59).

Arjuna will accomplish no good through renunciation. What appears at first glance to be a transcending of the desire to regain a kingdom rightfully his, and a refusal of the violent means necessary to achieve that goal, is actually a desire to avoid the risk of incurring pâpam and a refusal of service to dharma. Thomas J. Hopkins, in his The Hindu Religious Tradition, puts Arjuna's initial refusal to fight, and his uncharacteristic urge to renounce dharma, in the context of a Buddhist challenge to the traditional Hindu social structure. In the Buddhist vision, the caste system of brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas, and shudras, and the dharma appropriate to each caste, are to be renounced. Hopkins describes the Buddhist position as highly individualistic:

Salvation is an individual problem. A person starts where he is and works toward enlightenment by his own efforts. All that he need know is that existence is in the last analysis always characterized by duhkha [suffering] because all phenomena are impermanent. (57)

This individualistic challenge to the more communally-oriented Brahmanism renounces the concept of dharma as a duty to the larger social order. The famous story of the Buddha sitting under the Bo Tree, resisting the urgings of Mara to return to his princely station and duties illustrates the nature of the Buddhist challenge.(see note #5 Hopkins writes of the traditional Brahmanic "concern for the ongoing life of society, largely ignored by the Buddhists" (63, emphasis added). Arjuna, in succumbing momentarily to the temptation to renounce dharma, is not so much transcending selfish concerns by renouncing his societal role as he is indulging selfish concerns: Arjuna's momentary weakness is one of individualism and sentimentality.

Dharma is narrowly translated in this context as "duty." However, the word has a much larger sense than that; it is derived from the Sanskrit root dhri, meaning to support, hold up, or bear. Dharma is the central organizing principle of the cosmos; it is that which supports and maintains all existence, that which must be if anything is to continue to be. It is similar to the Chinese Tao, the Egyptian Maat, and the Sumerian Me (Campbell 113). It is a reflection of the idea that manifested itself in the magnificent ziggurats of the Sumerian hieratic city-states: humans must put themselves, individually and societally, in line with the cosmic order-on earth as it is in heaven. By refusing to serve dharma, Arjuna is not only neglecting his duty, he is refusing to put himself in the service of that order which must be maintained if the universe and all life in it is to be preserved. He is, at this point, too attached to his limited viewpoint; he cannot see past the immediate situation-the actions he is called upon to perform, and the fruits he feels will come from those actions. Attachment to the fruits of action leads to karmic binding. Arjuna can transcend this binding by engaging in action proper to his dharma-on the individual level, duty and inner nature-without personal attachment to the outcomes of his actions. Krishna recommends to Arjuna the path of karma yoga-the path of selfless action in service to others-and yajna-sacrifice.(see note #6 If Arjuna will only perform all of his actions as yajna to Krishna, then no karmic cause-and-effect consequences will accrue to Arjuna and he will be that much closer to achieving union with Krishna.

Arjuna is also being called upon to transcend the limited, personal ego; the ahamkara, or I-maker (literally, "the making of the sound 'I'"). Getting caught up in the ahamkara prevents one from attaining to the realization of unity with divinity (Krishna). Transcending the ahamkara is the essential (not absurdly literal) meaning of nirvana (nir-out + vana-blown). Nirvana-primarily a Buddhist, rather than a Hindu term-may be understood in the present context as the shattering-or "blowing out"-of the limited ego due to an expansion of consciousness resulting from realization of, and contact with, a greater whole or Self (see Paul's experience on the road to Damascus and his "putting on the new personality" for analogous ideas-inexactly alike of course, as are all analogies-in the Christian tradition).

Arjuna is a member of the kshatriya caste. Kshatriya can be rendered as "warrior," but such a rendering is neither entirely accurate nor entirely honest. The word is derived from the root ksi-destroyer, killer-but the role of the kshatriya is to protect dharma by destroying the enemies of dharma. However, war, in the literal sense, was not their only function: "Kshatriyas were assigned the duties of protecting the people, giving gifts, sacrificing, and studying the Veda; their means of livelihood was 'bearing weapons for striking or throwing'" (Hopkins 76). The war that Arjuna is faced with at the beginning of the Gita is to take place on dharma-kshetre (I.1), the field of dharma. The war about to take place between the Pandavas and the Kauravas is an allegorical struggle between the forces of dharma-universal order, the central principle which organizes, maintains, and supports all that which is-and adharma-universal chaos, entropy, the fault lines in any central organizing principle which threaten to transform that which is into that which is not. As a kshatriya, Arjuna's primary duty is to protect dharma from injury. The Gita does affirm the necessity of struggle, but to read it simply as an endorsement of war is to miss its point entirely. A war in which the warrior will be forced to kill his loved ones is used here as a metaphor for the most difficult, unpleasant,and threatening struggle any individual will have to face: the inner struggle to overcome the sentimental attachments to ego and the ego's narrow experience of the phenomenal world in favor of seeking a connection with a deeper, or higher level of being. A similar idea is expressed by Jesus of Nazareth:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth: I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (Matthew 10:34-37).

Here it might be added that whoever loves ego or self more than "me," is not worthy of "me." The analogy between Western and Eastern traditions is inexact and potentially misleading; I am making no claim to metaphysical precision here. I am not suggesting that there are no differences between these ideas. What I am suggesting is that there is a fundamental similarity-a similarity which I find more interesting than I find the differences-in the ideas being expressed: sentimental attachment to the ego, and all those things in which the ego takes pleasure, is precisely what must be transcended if the self is to realize its connection to what the ego has previously considered the Other.

Transcendence Through Action

It is the attachment, and the refusal to transcend that attachment, to loved ones, and to the things of the manifest world which makes those who are unable or unwilling to transcend their attachments "not worthy" of Christ. Similarly, it is Arjuna's momentary confusion, his hesitation in seeing the necessity to transcend his attachment to loved ones in favor of his duty to serve dharma which causes Krishna to berate him for displaying kasmalam-weakness-and klaibyam-impotence. Arjuna's renunciation of action on dharma-kshetra is a renunciation which does not require him to confront and transcend his attachments. As a kshatriya, Arjuna achieves transcendence through action taken in defense of dharma:

Not by abstention from actions does a man enjoy action-transcendence (naiskarmya), nor by renunciation (samnyâsa) alone does he approach perfection (Feuerstein 71,72).

"Action is superior to inaction" (III.8. Feuerstein, 72) according to Krishna; action, even if simply on the level of the autonomic nervous system, simply cannot be avoided. However, to avoid the cause-and-effect cycle of karma, and the pãpam or sin which Arjuna fears will be the result of engaging in the battle, Krishna advises him to engage in action as sacrifice to divinity:

This world is bound by action, save when this action [is intended] as sacrifice (yajña). With that purpose [in mind], o son-of-Kunti, engage in action devoid of attachment (Feuerstein 72).

By detaching himself from his actions, Arjuna would not simply be acting with no objective in mind. Instead, he would be acting without personal, ego-bound motives, freeing himself from the karmically binding effects of action by transcending his attachment to the personal repercussions of his actions. In this way he would be thinking about what is best for dharma. Mahatma Gandhi called this nishkama karma, action-karma-free of-nish-selfish desires-kama (Easwaran 33). By directing his actions as sacrifices to divinity,(see note #7 Arjuna can transcend his attachments and act as necessary in the defense of dharma without incurring pãpam or further karmic binding. Krishna himself engages in action without attachment, action designed to defend dharma:

If I stopped working I would be the cause of cosmic chaos, and finally of the destruction of this world and these people (Easwaran 77).

Mircea Eliade speaks of such actions/sacrifices as "transpersonal dynamisms contributing to the maintenance of the cosmic order" (Yoga: Immortality and Freedom 157). Such sacrificial action supports the world by bringing forth life and maintaining the universal order:

Prajâpati of old said, emanating creatures together with sacrifice: "By this shall you procreate; let this [sacrifice] be this wish-fulfilling cow (kâmadhuk) [of your] desires (Feuerstein 72).

The idea of action as sacrifice to divinity is paralleled in the Judeo-Christian tradition by the idea of doing all to the"glory of God":

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Colossians 3:17).

The idea of action as sacrifice, as service in a struggle against the enemies of divinity, is also found in the Q'uran:

We have surely given you pre-eminence . . . So serve your Lord with full dedication and sacrifice. It is surely your opponents whose line will come to end (108:1-3).

Transcendence Through Participation

Eliade raises another facet of sacrificial action when he goes on to say that "Krsna reveals that man, too, can collaborate in the perpetuation of the divine work . . . by all his acts" (Yoga 157). Participating in the work of divinity-the work of defending and maintaining dharma-is the invitation which Krishna makes to Arjuna in exhorting him to follow bhakti-yoga, the path of devotion. This devotion is total: the follower of bhakti-yoga becomes, in a sense, one with divinity. Bhakti leads the devotee to samadhi,(see note #8 or transcendence of the self and union with the object of devotion. Samadhi can be variously translated as deep equanimity of mind, meditation in which the mind is quieted to the point of stillness and "one-pointedness," and apotheosis or union with divinity (sam-together with + adhi-Lord or divinity).(see note #9 It is also explained as a synthesis, a putting of the mind, or intellect, together in a unified meditative state through a contemplation of the divine (sam-together + a + dhi-mind or intellect). Krishna is essentially inviting Arjuna to become one with him through devotion and participation:

Fill your mind with me; love me; serve me; worship me always. Seeking me in your heart, you will at last be united with me (Easwaran 136).

Bhakti is a deliciously tricky concept. The etymology is disputed: bhakti is variously derived from the root bhanj-to separate (Klostermaier 221), and from the root bhaj-to worship, to be devoted to, to participate in. We're definitely in the court of the sacred here. The bhakta (devotee) experiences an unbearable separation from the object of devotion (usually a god) and closes that gap, transcends that division-that fragmentation-through devotion and worship so intense that the separation between knower and known, between worshiper and worshiped, is erased. The devotee participates in the being of the object of devotion. In the case of Arjuna, this devotion is a personal devotion to saguna brahman (god with attributes-as opposed to the nirguna brahman, or god without attributes of the principle Upanishads) in the form of Krishna. Krishna says repeatedly that he is Arjuna's-and all other living creatures'-deepest Self.(see note #10

Yoga itself, whether of the karma, jnana, or bhakti varieties, implies a union. It is derived from the root yuj, "to bind together," "hold fast," or "yoke" (Eliade, Yoga 4). According to Mircea Eliade, "the 'bond' in which this action of binding is to result presupposes, as its preliminary condition, breaking the 'bonds' that unite the spirit to the world . . . . 'To bind together,' 'to hold fast,' 'to yoke'-the purpose of all this is to unify the spirit, to do away with the dispersion and automatism [the fragmentations] that characterize profane consciousness. For the 'devotional' (mystical) schools of Yoga this 'unification,' of course, only precedes the true union, that of the human soul with God" (Yoga 5).

The idea of participation in divinity, becoming one with the divine object of devotion, is also found in Western Gnosticism. The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas emphasizes the opportunity for the worshipper to join with the worshipped:

Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become like me [here is the archetype for the hubristic dream of Faust-esse sicut deus (You shall be like God)-spoken of, in this context, not as an hubristic dream of usurpation, but as an urge springing from the deepest devotion]. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him." (Robinson 137; verse 108)

Identification with a larger Self is the essential structural idea behind Jung's concept of individuation; it is also analogous to what Jung calls the transcendent function, "the union of conscious and unconscious contents."(see note #11 "The confrontation of the two positions generates a tension charged with energy and creates . . . a living birth that leads to a new level of being" (Jung, vol VIII, 90). For Jung, the ego, or the everyday waking consciousness-in this way he does not significantly differ with Freudian psychoanalytical doctrine-is the merest tip of the psychological iceberg. It is often fragmented, incomplete, and contradictory in its desires and motivations. Each individual, however, does have the potential to achieve a state of greater completeness; this state is achieved through the transcendent function, what Jung calls the integration of the ego within the Self (the Self is the totality of conscious and unconscious contents). This completeness, or wholeness, is often archetypally represented as a god or goddess figure. This god- or goddess-image(see note #12 represents the wholeness of a person in connection with the Other without and within. Identification with the divine is, in this sense, identification with a deeper Self than that contained in everyday fragmented consciousness. This consciousness is precisely what is to be transcended-not abandoned or left behind, but integrated into a larger whole-through love. This idea is also found in the teachings of the 10th-century C.E. Sufi mystic Al-Junayd:

He taught that 'fana (annihilation) [the stripping away of identification with the narrow ego-in Jungian terms-or the "old man"-in more familiar Western scriptural terminology] must be succeeded by baqa (revival) [the union of conscious with unconscious contents, of the ego with the larger Self-again in Jungian terms-or the putting on of the "new man" in Biblical terms], a return to an enhanced self . . . . al-Junayd taught that a Muslim could be reunited with his Creator and achieve that original sense of God's immediate presence . . . . It would be the end of separation and sadness, a reunion with a deeper self that was also the self that he or she was meant to be . . . . The emphasis on unity harks back to the Koranic ideal of tawhid: by drawing together his dissipated self, the mystic would experience the divine presence in personal integration (Armstrong, 227-228 emphasis added).

The bhakta's union with the loved object (Krishna) is similar to what is, in Teilhard de Chardin's view, the evolutionary future of the human race, a future in which individuality is both transcended and "exalted" through union with what he calls the Omega Point. It is a natural process which will take place through an increasing mutual affinity between individuals (such as the affinity-the obvious love-between Arjuna and Krishna). This affinity is largely what Teilhard de Chardin means by his use of the word love:

Because we love, and in order that we may love even more, we find ourselves happily and especially compelled to participate in all the endeavours, all the anxieties, all the aspirations and also all the affections of the earth-in so far as these embody a principle of ascension and synthesis. (The Future of Man, 99)

For Teilhard de Chardin evolution is a constant process of transcendence in which creation moves from simple matter to complex matter, from unconsciousness to consciousness, then finally to God: Erit in omnibus omnia Deus. The wholeness, the unity which is the ultimate goal of transcendence is to be achieved in a union with divinity. It is similar-although not the same-in the Gita. Through an "evolutionary" process, all vehicles of atman will eventually realize that they are already united with brahman. Samsara (in its aspect as the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth) is, in a sense, the evolutionary process by which humans progress spiritually through numerous lifetimes-embodying a principle of ascension and synthesis-into a convergence with Krishna. This convergence is not to be understood in terms of ascension to a Western concept of God; rather, the convergence is one of inner realization, expressed in the Chandogya Upanishad by the words tat tvam asi -that thou art. The convergence is, in a sense, psychological, yet it is beyond psychology. It is the transcendent realization of samadhi-coherent awareness, non-fragmentation-and of sat-truth or true unchanging being.

Krishna tells Arjuna that he is not, in his truest essence, merely the Pandava ksatriya prince, a warrior about to kill or be killed in battle. Arjuna's true Self is an immortal part of the immortal saguna brahman that is Krishna himself:

The body is mortal, but he who dwells in the body is immortal and immeasurable. Therefore, Arjuna, fight in this battle. One man believes he is the slayer, another believes he is the slain. Both are ignorant; there is neither slayer nor slain. You were never born; you will never die. You have never changed; you can never change. Unborn, eternal, immutable, immemorial, you do not die when the body dies (Easwaran 63).

Krishna finally gives Arjuna an ultimatum: fight the forces of adharma willingly and without attachment, or fight selfishly while further binding himself to karma. Arjuna's own dharma-essential nature-as a ksatriya will not allow him to stick to the path of renunciation of action; he will fight one way or the other. Will he be able to transcend himself (the ahamkara) and his attachments to loved ones, treasured possessions, and the fruits of his actions, and fight exclusively for dharma, for the maintenance of the cosmic order? Arjuna's answer shows that he already has:

Arjuna said: You have dispelled my doubts and delusions, and I understand through your grace. My faith is firm now, and I will do your will (Easwaran 212).

Through action without attachment,(see note #13 and through participation in the divine work of defending and maintaining the cosmos, Arjuna manages transcendence, overcoming his identification with the ahamkara, or I-maker, by truly climbing out of himself and joining with that larger Self which is the ground of all being. He transcends attachment to the fruits of his actions by performing those actions as yajña, sacrifice, to Krishna. He fights, not for himself or his family or his kingdom, but for everyone and everything dependent upon dharma. He has taken off the "old man" and put on the "new man"; by uniting with the deeper Self in all things, he reaches brahmananirvãna-the bliss of God.

Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Works Cited List
 

Notes

1)The relation of Yahweh to Job: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding,"-even though it is framed in the terms of a personal conversation-is more typical of the Otherness of the Western, monotheistic conception of divinity than are the "mystical" experiences of divinity described above.Back to main text

2)The notion of an essential unity between humanity and divinity, between worshiper and worshiped, is comparatively rare in the Christian tradition, but it is well-represented in Western philosophy. Epictetus, the so-called "slave philosopher," represents this unitary view particularly eloquently:

You are a superior thing; you are a portion separated from the deity; you have in yourself a certain portion of him. Why then are you ignorant of your own noble descent? Why do you not know whence you came? Will you not remember when you are eating, who you are who eat and whom you feed? When you are in conjunction with a woman, will you not remember who you are who do this thing? When you are in social intercourse, when you are exercising yourself, when you are engaged in discussion, know you not that you are nourishing a god, that you are exercising a god? (Discourses lib. II, ch. viii)Back to main text

3)In the Kauravas' view the gain is legitimate, since Dhritarashtra, as the older brother of Pandu, would ordinarily have been the "legitimate" king, were it not for the fact that he had been born blind. Pandu-after killing two deer who were joined in copulation, and subsequently being cursed by the dying buck to die if he ever again engages in sex with one of his own wives-renounces the throne to become a forest ascetic. Dhritarashtra is then made king. For those-including the present author-who are neither Sanskrit specialists nor specialists in the scholarship of comparative religions, the version of this story which may be most immediately accessible is found in William Buck's "retelling" of the Mahabharata (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).Back to main text

4)All Roman transliterations of the original Sanskrit-and the accompanying interlinear translations-are taken from Winthrop Sargeant, The Bhagavad-Gita (State University of New York Press, 1994)Back to main text

5)"'Up, up, O noble prince!' he ordered, with a voice of divine authority. 'Recall the duties of your caste and abandon this dissolute quest for disengagement. The mendicant life is ill suited for anyone born of a noble house; but rather, by devotion to the duties of your caste, you are to serve the order of the good society, maintain the laws of the revealed religion, combat wickedness in the world . . ." (Campbell 18).Back to main text

6) Karma-yoga (the yoga of work and action) and bhakti-yoga (the yoga of devotion and participation), which are the two paths to transcendence treated in this chapter, are but two of the four paths outlined in the Bhagavad Gita. A brief outline of the four yogas discussed in the Gita may be found in the Appendix at the end of this essay.Back to main text

7)tad-artham karma kaunteya-work for the sake of Him, son-of-Kunti; the tad, or Him, here is analogous to the Tat of the expression found in the Chandogya Upanishad:Tat tvam asi-"That thou art."Back to main text

8)Eliade speaks of samadhi as a kind of collaboration between two kindred entities-the object of devotion and the devotee.Back to main text

9)This last translation of samadhi as "together with divinity," is disputed. Huston Smith, Professor of Comparative Religion at Syracuse University, explains it this way:

Etymologically sam parallels the Greek prefix syn, as in synthesis, synopsis, and syndrome. It means "together with." Adhi in Sanskrit is usually translated Lord, paralleling the Hebrew word for Lord in the Old Testament, Adon or Adonai. Samadhi, then, names the state in which the human mind is completely absorbed in God. (The World's Religions, 49)

Lloyd Pflueger (who has been kind enough to read and critique this essay), Professor of Religion at Northeast Missouri State University, objects to this etymology and suggests the following: sam-a-dhi, in which sam translates as "together," while dhi translates as "thought (especially religious thought)," "mind" or "intellect." Samadhi, like the Greek syn-thesis, is a putting the mind together, an achieving of coherent awareness (although the similarity between thesis-from the IE dhe-and theos/thesos-from the IE dhes-leads me to suspect that the concept of synthesis implies, at least vestigially, a re-union with the divine). This "putting the mind together," this samadhi, which Eliade describes as an "enstatic experience"-literally an experience of standing within-is "the state of contemplation in which thought grasps the form of the object directly . . . the state in which the object is revealed 'in itself'." In this state "it is said that the yogin has ceased to employ 'imagination,' [and] no longer regards the act and the object of meditation as distinct from each other" (Yoga 77).

It is also possible to look at sam-a-dhi in this way: the Sanskrit a, like the Greek , the Latin in-, and the Germanic un-, is often an expression of negation (this has come down to us in such English words as "atypical," "asymptomatic," etc.). Taking sam roughly as "together with," and dhi as "thought/intellect," sam-a-dhi could be translated as "together with non-thought," or "together with that which is beyond thought." This would fit nicely with the Brahminical "description" of Brahman as neti, neti (not this, not this). In this case the pursuit of samadhi would be the search for that which is beyond fragmentation, beyond images, beyond the categories of human thought. Heinrich Zimmer, in his Philosophies of India, discusses two sides of samadhi: 1) savikalpa, samprajnata-"absorption with a full consciousness of the duality of the perceiver and thing perceived, the subject and object, the beholding inner sense and the beheld Self"; and 2) nirvikalpa, asamprajnata-"nondual absorption, absolutely devoid of any consciousness of a distinction between the perceiver and the thing perceived" (435, 436). There is, in this latter state, no longer any meaningful separation of knower and known; devotee and object of devotion become one. So while the etymology may be disputed, the basic idea of samadhi as a unitary state which transcends fragmentation seems clear.Back to main text

10)IV: 9, 10; VII: 16-19; VIII: 3, 4; VIII: 22; IX: 16-19; X: 20, 22, 39; XIII: 22, 24, 27, 28; XIV: 26; XV: 15-17Back to main text

11)It should be kept in mind here that the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita is beyond the unconcscious; he is beyond-though he sustains-the entirety of the manifest universe:

I pervade the entire universe in my unmanifested form. All creatures find their existence in me, but I am not limited by them. Behold my divine mystery! These creatures do not really dwell in me, and though I bring them forth and support them, I am not confined within them. (IX. 4,5, Easwaran 132)Back to main text

12)Jung goes into the details of how he formulated this idea through clinical experiences with his patients in volume VII of the Collected Works, pars. 202-295:. He speaks of his experiences with one patient in particular who had developed an unusually strong transference relation during therapy, and "weaned" herself in a way he had never seen in his practice before: "I saw how the transpersonal control point developed . . . a guiding function . . . . that expressed itself symbolically in a form which can only be described as a vision of God" (Jung, vol VII, 134,135).Back to main text

13)karma-phala-tyaga-"renunciation of the fruits of action" (Easwaran, 202).Back to main text

Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Works Cited List