Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

This is the first time that the word "Buddhi" (or one of its derivatives) occurs in the Bhagavad Geeta, and since it is an important word used often, having a significant bearing on our understanding of its whole message, it would be good to get a proper understanding of it right here. Krishna says that what he has described till now, in verses 11 to 38, are in terms of "Buddhi-Yoga", and action done in its understanding would free him from bondage. It’s therefore important that we get a proper understanding of what "buddhi" means, as used in the Geeta. Many people use the word "buddhi" in a derogatory sense. Now buddhi is used quite positively in the Bhagavad Geeta, in a good sense. Then are these people contradicting the Geeta? The answer to that question depends on what they mean when they use the word buddhi, and what the Bhagavad Geeta means when it uses the word buddhi. If both mean the same thing then obviously they are contradicting the Bhagavad Geeta. But if they are using the word in a different sense, then they are not. We can get trapped by words here. It is important to be clear about the meanings meant when the word is used.

Many people the word buddhi to mean the mind, that part of us which comprises our thoughts and emotions. And since much of our thoughts and emotions are nonsense anyway, it is okay to speak of it in a derogatory manner. When thus used, the mind is more of a hindrance to our progress, than a help. Silencing the blabbering mind is an important part of our spiritual development, and if they use the word buddhi to mean mind, then they are quite right in denigrating it. Silencing the blabbering mind is an important step towards liberation. Says the Annapurna Upanishad in IV:11-25, "Those indeed who have known what is to be known and shed all attachments, whose intellect is great, the knots of whose hearts have been cut, are free, though living in the body. Dead is his mind who is unmoved in joy and sorrow, and whom nothing jerks out of equality, even as breaths stir not a mighty mountain. Dead is the mind of one who is undisturbed by danger, resourcelessness, energy, hilarity, dullness, or great rejoicing. The destruction of mind is twofold, determinate and indeterminate. In the state of liberation in life it is determinate; in that of disembodied liberation it is indeterminate. The presence of mind makes for sorrow; its destruction promotes joy. Attenuate the existent mind and bring about its destruction. The nature of mind, know, is folly, O sinless one! When that perishes one’s real essence, mindlessness, is won. The mind of one liberated in life, having qualities like friendliness, etc., is rich in noble impulses; it is never reborn. This ‘destruction’ of the Jivanmukta’s mind is determinate; Nidagha, with disembodied liberation comes indeterminate destruction. One liberated in disembodiment is he who realizes the partless Self; his mind, the abode of all excellent qualities as it was, is dissolved. In that supremely holy, blemishless status of disembodied liberation, marked by ‘mindlessness’, in that state of indeterminate destruction of the mind, just nothing remains, neither qualities nor their absence; neither glory nor its absence; nothing whatsoever of the world; Neither sunrise nor sunset; neither sensations of joy or anger; neither light nor darkness; neither twilight, day nor night; neither being, non-being, nor centrality marks the status. The spacious status of those, who have gone beyond the mind and the pomp of worldly life, is like the sky, the abode of the winds. The great Jivanmuktas whose bodies are the subtle ether become disembodied there; all their sufferings are cured; they are immaterial; totally quiescent, immobilized in bliss, beyond Rajas and Tamas. In that state dissolve the remnants of their mind. O great sage, Nidagha, rid your mind of all latent tendencies; concentrate your mind forcefully, and go beyond all mental constructions." Later on the same Annapurna Upanishad says in V:47-48, "Having renounced all mental constructions, equable, and with a quiescent mind, be a sage, wedded to the Yoga of renunciation, possessing both knowledge and freedom. The supreme Brahman is that which conforms to no act of mentation. It is what remains when mental activities completely die down and all masses of latent impulses have been liquidated." And in V:63, "When the mind is rejected, this duality on all sides is dissolved; but remains the tranquil supreme One, pure and untrammelled." And in V:102-104, "The cause of bondage is mental construction; give that up. Liberation comes through the absence of mental construction; practice it intelligently. In the context of objects, sense-organs and their contact by wary, perpetually and steadily avoiding states of mental construction. Do not succumb to objects; neither identify yourself with the sense-organs. Having renounced all constructions, identify with what remains."

So "the mind" is that part of us which comprises our thoughts and emotions, and all our mental constructions. And since most of our thoughts and emotions and mental constructions are nonsense anyway, it is okay to speak of them in such a derogatory manner. But is that the meaning with which the word "buddhi" is used in the Bhagavad Geeta? To understand whether it is so, let’s first gather together all verses in which the word "buddhi" (or one of its derivatives like buddhah, buddhau, buddhaya, buddheh, buddhih, buddhim, buddhiman, buddhimatam, buddhivat, buddhva, budhah) is used in the Geeta. Here we temporarily translate these words as most translators and commentators do, as "intellect", "intelligent", "intelligence" etc., we see the exact meaning as it comes out from these verses as we go on. The following is a complete list of the verses in the Bhagavad Geeta where these words occur, and from the large number and significant usage, it is clear that this is a very important word. And since it is used positively, in a good sense, then most probably it is used in a different sense than the way some people use it.

The Sanskrit word "buddhi", is translated loosely to mean "mind" or to mean "intellectual understanding" or to mean "the knowledge that we gain from what we learn in school and college" But from its usage in the Bhagavad Geeta, it is clear that it does not mean that. For example, verse 2:63 says that "From anger arises delusion, from delusion bewilderment of memory, from a bewildered memory destruction of the intellect, with a destroyed intellect he perishes." Now when I get angry, even so angry that I am gripped thoroughly by it, I still do not forget or loose what I learnt at school and college. I can still add up a series of numbers and get their total. The verse says that my intellect is destroyed, so obviously intellect cannot mean what I learnt at school and college. Verse 5:22 says that "All experiences born of contact with the senses are sources of sorrow. They have an origin and an end, son of Kunti. The intelligent person does not involve in them joyfully." Now many well-educated people do involve themselves joyfully in the pleasures of the world! So obviously a good education does not have any connection with good intelligence! Verse 6:21 says, "That infinite happiness is obtainable by the intellect beyond the senses. Knowing that and situated in that, he moves in reality." Now there are many well-educated people in this world who are miserable! Good education has no connection with happiness. These things have to do with the "mind", a distinction which verses 7:4, 8:7 and 12:14 in fact make when they say, "Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect, ego - all these are my eightfold different natures", "Offering unto me your mind and intellect, certainly you will attain me without doubt" and "offering unto me the mind and the intellect, who is my devotee, that person is dear to me" respectively.

What then is "intellect"? If it is not what we learnt at school and college, if it is not our thoughts and emotions, then what is it? It is something far more, and far more important than what we learnt at school and college, or our thoughts and emotions. It is our discerning power, our ability to distinguish and discriminate between what is good and what is bad, between what is right and what is wrong, between truth and untruth, between the important and the unimportant, between the relevant and the irrelevant, between what is "short-term gain, long-term pain" and what is "short-term pain, long-term gain." This is clear from verses like 18:29-32, which say "The different kinds of intelligence and determination, according to the three properties of nature, now hear from me differently without anything being left out, winner of wealth. What to move towards and what to move away from, work that should be done and that should not be done, fear and fearlessness, bondage and liberation - the intellect which knows, Partha, is of goodness. The intellect which knows imperfectly dharma and adharma, what should be done and what should not be done, that Partha, is in passion. He who considers adharma as dharma, is a person covered by darkness. In all ways the intellect that works in the wrong direction, Partha, is in darkness." From these verses, it is obvious that there is an intellect which knows very well the distinction between "what to move towards and what to move away from", "work that should be done and that should not be done", the distinction between "fear and fearlessness", "bondage and liberation" Most people, even many well-educated people, are such zombies that they don’t know these distinctions! There is another intellect that knows these things imperfectly – there is a sense that these things are there, but this sense is not very well developed. Such an intellect is called "rajasi" in verse 18:31. Typically, many of such people are the "successful" people of the world, the "achiever" types. The third type is called the "tamasik" intellect in verse 18:32 which says that, "He who considers adharma as dharma, is a person covered by darkness. In all ways the intellect that works in the wrong direction, Partha, is in darkness." Such a person actually considers good as bad and bad as good! The drunkards, the drug-takers fall into this category. They not only indulge in such things, they glorify them and look down on and deride those who don’t indulge in these things as "those who don’t know how to enjoy life!"

There are other verses too that make clear that "intellect" means "discriminative power" in the Bhagavad Geeta. For example, verse 2:42 which says that "the undiscerning are engrossed in the flowery words of the Vedas" is contrasting "the intellect of the soul-concerned person" with "the intellects of those who are not so concerned" of verse 2:41 and is referring to the latter. And in verse 3:40 which says "The senses, the mind, the intellect are its seat", the mind and the intellect are actually called by different names! "The mind" is clearly not the same as "intellect" (manah is not the same as buddhi). Here "the mind" is the sum total of our thoughts and emotions. Similarly, verse 3:42 which says that "The senses are said to be superior, superior to the senses is the mind, superior to the mind is the intellect", also distinguishes between the mind and the intellect. So also, verses 7:4, 8:7 and 12:14. And verse 10:4 distinguishes between intelligence and knowledge showing that they are not the same.

Verse 18:37 says, "That which in the beginning is like poison but at the end like nectar that happiness is said to be of goodness, born of satisfaction of the self and the intellect." The distinction between what is "short-term gain, long-term pain" and what is "short-term pain, long-term gain" is an extremely important distinction to be made by anyone who wants to be even reasonably successful in this world, let alone live a truly good life. No self-discipline is possible without such a distinction. In fact self-discipline is nothing but giving up short-term gains for long-term ones, and accepting short-term pains to avoid long-term ones. And unless one distinguishes between the two, how can anyone discipline himself?

So that’s what "intellect" as used in the Bhagavad Geeta means. The meaning is more that of the word "viveka" which means judgment and which is obviously extremely important, but which is not used in the Geeta at all. The word buddhi is used instead. "Intellect" has got almost nothing to do with the understanding that we gain from what we learn in school and college. That’s why many people who may not have had a good school or college education are in higher positions in businesses and vice versa! They have better developed intellects i.e. abilities to discern between the important and unimportant, between the relevant and the irrelevant, between what is "short-term gain, long-term pain" and what is "short-term pain, long-term gain", plus better actions along those lines. On the other hand, many well-educated people languish at lower levels, because they have not developed their intellects well. It is a well-developed intellect that makes for a truly good and successful life, not good education, and there is no connection between the two. That’s what I believe "buddhi" means in the Geeta, and I am sure no one would denigrate that!

The intellect i.e. the ability to discern and discriminate between the important and the unimportant etc. is very important in Hinduism; the ultimate discrimination is supposed to be between the sat and the asat. A person who has developed this ability to the utmost and has come to see the Atman, the pure consciousness as all-pervading, is called "Paramhansa" in Hinduism. "Hansa" means "swan." The swan is supposed to have the ability to separate even milk from water in a mixture. The hansa in Hinduism, is a person who can separate the sat i.e. that which exists, from the asat i.e. that which only appears to exist. The Paramhansa is a person who lives in sat regularly.

A very important observation we make here is that Krishna makes his appeal to the intellect of Arjuna, i.e. to Arjuna’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad, between truth and untruth, between the important and the unimportant, between the relevant and the irrelevant. Rightly speaking, all appeals have to be made this way, to the intellect, our ability to discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad, truth and untruth. Unfortunately, all religions make their primary appeals to the heart, the seat of our emotions, even deriding the intellect, the discriminating power. The tear-jerker mythological serials, in which even those who are supposed to be the "good" people, burst into tears at the drop of a hat, are typical of such emotional appeals. People who are given to, and glorify mushy sentimentality are the perfect opposites of the ideal man described in the Bhagavad Geeta; the kind of man that Krishna wants Arjuna to be. Yes, the heart is to be finally touched, but it is to be touched by that which passes through our intellects! Not through maudlin sentimentality which reduces men to namby-pambies. God has given us intellects to guard what we let in. Just as watchmen guard who they let in into the building premises, screening out the harmful (robbers) and the unwanted time-wasters (sundry salesmen), similarly God has given us intellects to screen out what we let in into our minds and hearts: both the harmful (pornographic material) as well as the unwanted time-wasters (TV saas-bahu serials). Like the Geeta, the Bible too makes its primary appeals to the intellect but unfortunately, Christianity too has largely resorted to taking the easy way out, appealing to the emotions. The details of that are out of scope here. Here we only note that both the Geeta and the Bible rightly make their primary appeals to the intellect i.e. our ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad, between truth and untruth, between the important and the unimportant, between the relevant and the irrelevant. But both Hinduism and Christianity have largely resorted to the easy way out of appealing to people’s emotions.

Why is this so? Why is it that while the scriptures make their primary appeals to the intellects of people, the religions make their primary appeals to the emotions? Answer: it is so because the appeals to emotions many a times yield instantaneous results. Never mind that most of such quick results are not long-lasting, never mind that they have no root, that they whither the moment the first hot, dry wind blows over them. In today’s instant-age, people want instant results, not long-lasting ones. This is the age of fast-food, not well-cooked, nourishing diets. This is the age of instant gratification, not of long-lasting relationship building. The religions too, have fallen prey to the spirit of this age, and it’s no wonder that they take the easy way out of appealing to the emotions. And its no wonder that the people they build are namby-pambies; the real men preferring to give the religions a by-pass.

Why is it that it is the intellect that is in the best position to judge spiritual claims and spiritual appeals, and not the mind? Because it is the intellect that is closest to the Spirit of God. We will cover this subject more in detail when we look at verse 3:43 which says, "The senses are said to be superior, superior to the senses is the mind, superior to the mind is the intellect, but he is superior to the intellect also." The point to note here is that the order of closeness of association and increasing superiority is Bodily Senses – Mind – Intellect – Spirit. Thus the intellect is closer to the Spirit of God than the mind. Only a well-developed intellect can make a proper response to God. In fact as we will see there under verse 3:43, a well-developed intellect is nothing but an intellect that has made plenty of proper responses to God before, and so, has got habituated to it! Hence it is the intellect that all spiritual appeals have to be made to. In fact, towards the end of his discourse in verse 18:67, Krishna warns not even to speak about the teachings of the Geeta to people whose intellects are not well-developed: "All this is not to be spoken to one who is not austere, nor to one who is not a devotee, not even little; not to one who is not engaged in service nor who is envious of me." These are qualities displayed by a person of a well-developed intellect (how, we will see when we come to that verse). The Biblical equivalent of this "don’t-waste-your-time" wisdom is even stronger words from Jesus: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." It’s in Matthew 7:6. And how were the disciples to know which of the people were dogs and pigs and who weren’t? By their behavior; and behavior is determined by how well-developed the intellect is.

Coming back to the question of "heart vs. mind", there are "all-heart-no-mind" people whose actions are primarily based on what their heart says, and there are "all-mind-no-heart" people whose actions are primarily based on what their mind says. We are to be neither. The all-heart-people can be given to emotional extremes and harmful actions, the all-mind-people can be hard stones since the mind is self-serving. On the other hand, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). It is to be guarded, and it is the job of the mind and the intellect to guard it. "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life" (Proverbs 4:23). We are neither to be all-mind-no-heart-people nor all-heart-no-mind-people. There are situations where we have to keep our minds aside and act with our hearts, and there are situations where we have to keep our hearts aside and act with our minds. And it is the job of the intellect to distinguish which is which. "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace." (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8) This was time for war, not time for peace! And Krishna is rightly directing Arjuna towards war. In the situation in which Arjuna was, his heart was pulling him down, away from his wartime duties and responsibilities. "There Partha could see situated, fathers, grandfathers, teachers, maternal uncles, brothers, sons, grandsons, and friends, fathers-in-law and well-wishers also in both the armies. When the son of Kunti saw all these relatives, overwhelmed by great emotion, lamenting he said: "Seeing my own people present, Krishna, so eager to fight, the limbs of my body are quivering and my mouth is drying up. My whole body is trembling, and my hair is standing on end. Gandiva is slipping from my hands and my skin is burning. I am unable to remain in one state, and my mind is whirling." (1:26-30) The need of the hour was to get his emotions under control and do what was right. The appeal had to be addressed to his intellect, his discerning ability, to make him realize that this was time for war, not time for peace! That is what Krishna does. In another situation, if Arjuna would have wanted to take revenge against even outsiders out of anger arising from self-hurt, Krishna himself would have advised him to desist. There is "a time for war and a time for peace" and it is the job of the intellect to distinguish which is which.

The "heart-or-mind" dilemma is an important one, and the only correct answer to it is "give to the heart what is the heart’s and give to the mind what is the mind’s." This principle is very well illustrated in a legend connected with the Jyotirlinga of Mallikarjuna, in Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh, a legend concerning a princess by the name of Chandravati, that goes as follows:

A life encapsulating knowledge alone becomes insensitive with the individual becoming cold and heartless. These people find it difficult to appreciate the feelings of love and devotion, and cannot comprehend God. On the other hand, for those who choose the path of love, their minds may become enslaved by their own desires and emotions. Firmness and determination are lacking in the lives of such people. Looking at history, various sects and movements based on love alone, without knowledge, have at some time or the other, succumbed to immoral and unethical acts. One just never knows, where a man driven by only love and desire will end up. On the other hand, people pursuing pure knowledge alone lose their ability to "feel," and become as cold and hard as a stone. Neither paths, on their own, will enable man to achieve overall development.

How I wish that the gurus of today would follow this sane advice! Most gurus take either of the paths, and some of them even condemn the other. The followers of the Shankaracharyas take the path of the mind. The followers of ISKCON take the path of the heart. A Rajneesh, though primarily following the path of love, is for either of the paths but teaches that whichever path you follow, don’t even look at the other, else you will get confused. The truth about human beings is that God has created them with both a mind and a heart and both have to develop appropriately. There may be periods when there is focus on one of the two, but that should be only for a short while. A one-sided emphasis would create a distorted individual, rather like a Popeye who had bulging biceps but no body to match.

The next important point that comes out from this verse is that it is not mere understanding, but doing actions according to that understanding, that brings freedom from the bondage of works. "When you act in such understanding you will be freed from the bondage of works." It is easy to get fooled here and Arjuna himself got fooled as can be seen from his question in 3:1-2. It is easy to think that knowledge and understanding are the goal of life, and many people make it so. According to the Geeta, the goal of life is moksha or liberation from the cycle of birth and death, understanding is only one small step towards it. The more important of the steps towards moksha is living the life of a jeevan-mukta in this world, i.e. achieving freedom from the bondage of works in this world itself. Now what is "bondage of works?" Bondage of works can be looked at in two ways: firstly "the effect that work creates on you" and secondly, "doing actions to get certain results." It is the linkage between your actions and you, and the linkage between your actions and results. One concerns the past and one concerns the future. One is the linkage between your past actions and you now, and the other concerns the linkage between your present actions and you in the future. These are the bondages that need to be broken if you are to be free.

The first bondage is the linkage that your past actions have on you. It is amazing how many people become slaves to their past actions! Look at how many people are slaves to their education! Rather than their education freeing them to do what they really want to do, it constrains them to follow a career in a particular field that they are not interested in, just because they have invested so much time and effort and money. If this is not bonded slavery, what is? The decision at that time may have been made more due to peer pressure, or because friends were doing it, or because it was supposed to be good for the ‘career’, or because it was supposed to be the ‘in’ thing. Not because they were really interested in it. But now they feel bound for life. Rather than call it a bad decision and call a ‘waste’ the two or three years that they put in, they choose to waste the rest of their lives doing what they are not really interested in. They feel stuck. And they are. They are no longer free. They are bound. Bound to their past actions.

The second bondage is the reason why you are doing some work today. Most people work to get some benefits in the future. The Geeta calls such people pitiable in verse 2:49 when it says, "Those who desire for the fruits of action are pitiable." One of the most quoted (and least practiced) verses of the Bhagavad Geeta (2:47), says "You have control over action only, not even a little on its fruit. Do not act for the sake of fruit which may not come; neither let there be attachment to action."

Pitiable indeed are they, the vast majority of the people on earth. They give the best and major portion of their lives so that they will get something in the future. They are not doing it for the sheer joy of doing it, and they don’t feel they have the freedom to leave it if they want to. They may switch to something relatively better, but it’s still for the sake of getting benefits in the future rather than the sheer joy of doing it. Most children and collegians study so that they will get good marks, and then later on, good jobs because of those good marks, not for the joy of discovery, not because they are fascinated by the subjects and want to know more. If all this is not slavery, if all this is not pitiable, then what is? But it is not limited to the realm of this world alone! It extends to the next world as well! What’s the difference between slogging for the sake of the benefits you will get in the future in this world, and slogging for the sake of the benefits you will get in the future in the next world (whatever it is)? Nothing! Both are as pitiable! Krishna makes this point in 2:42-44, "The undiscerning are engrossed in the flowery words of the Vedas, Partha, and declare that there is nothing else. For the purpose of sense gratification, with heaven as their goal, they consider birth as the reward of action and prescribe many special rites for moving towards opulence. In those who are attached to, and whose consciousness is captured by that opulence, the soul-concerned state of the intellect does not take place." They too don’t get moksha! They too are tied up to the results of their actions!

So who are those who are not pitiable? Who are those who are not in bondage to their works? They are those who do things for the sheer joy of doing the right things. The student who studies for the sheer joy of knowing more and knowing better, the sportsman who plays for the sheer joy of playing better, the person who works for the sheer joy of doing the work he wants to do, these are the people who are not in bondage to their works. They are the free ones. They are the ones who are the slaves of none. They are the ones who are not the slaves of external results. The student who studies for the sheer joy of knowing more and knowing better is not much concerned about how many marks he gets. The sportsman who plays for the sheer joy of playing better is not much concerned about whether he wins or not. They are the ones who are not pitiable. Whether they know it or not, they are the ones who are moving towards moksha, having obtained freedom of being in this life itself. And guess what? It is generally they who get the better marks and win the games! "Even in this life, it is they who are victorious who are situated in equanimity." (5:19)