Recently in a discussion with a friend I came to realize that there are different ways of understanding shama. Shama, translated as “mind control”, is one of the qualities listed in chatushtaya sampatti as valuable traits that need to be developed by the aspirant before he/she is considered qualified for jnana yoga.

To me shama has always meant that the seeker learns to deny agitative thoughts too much attention so that his mind will remain calm in the face of challenging life situations and therefore calm enough to study Vedanta and contemplate truth. I understood shama to be discipline of mind, yet it never occurred to me that it also could mean that, given the possibility, the seeker is supposed to shut out difficult or challenging facts of life.

For someone who is addicted to dramas, scandals, sensational news, gossip etc., I would deem it appropriate to abstain for a while from anything that could rekindle the addiction. Also I – having given away my TV set years ago – would not put the case for being informed about all and everything that goes on in the world.

But I think there is a fine line between a prudent use of discipline and habitually shying away from anything that could cause agitation. Peace (shanti) of mind that is based on either mental blockage or suppression of facts is as good as no peace of mind.

It is like someone being all calm and quiet while sitting in the serene heights of the Himalayas but loosing the same as soon as he comes down to the plains, entering noisy, polluted cities, being inconvenienced by beggars, scorching heat or pickpockets. Where did his mind control go? What worth is the calm and quiet he had had?

Even more: someone who shuts out the dark side of life in order to keep his peace of mind, also shuts down his heart to a degree. Being open to look at life’s horrors with compassion (ideally to victims and offenders alike), allowing oneself to be touched and still remaining calm inside, only this I will call shama.

And I doubt that this kind of shama will ever be acquired by someone who attempts to keep out anything that could be a disturbance. Needless to say that the attempt is unlikely to succeed anyway – luckily, I would say, as life will find its ways to test shama and turn it from something that is mere avoidance into something that is true acceptance. If life is lived without a basic openness to face its atrocities, resistance will come up in every challenging situation; so, too, dealing with such situations will not be learned. The automatic response to disharmonies being restricted to three basic reactions: trying to make them go away by either shutting the eyes to them or by shutting out what is considered to be the causal agent or by simply walking out of the situation, hoping that it solves itself or that the next situation will leave one in peace. In any case peace will depend on outer circumstances and will not be the result of shama.

There is another point to make in respect to shama. It seems to be considered as dharmic not to disturb the peace of mind of others. While at first sight this does sound perfectly reasonable, misunderstood, it will produce an attitude of denial, or even deceit and untruthfulness. To sweep difficulties under the carpet instead of addressing and tackling them may create a peaceful appearance. But underneath the carpet all those unaddressed issues will keep on accumulating and rotting. This creates unhealthy situations in many social contexts and I assume that the participants will have to constantly put energy into keeping up the peaceful appearance at least to such a degree that it does not suddenly collapse – energy that could much better be used in spiritual matters.

On a different level: as old age, decay and death disturb people’s peace of mind, all this is carefully hidden away in Western societies. Does this create peace of mind? No, it creates denial of very important facts of life, which would stir up valuable questions in people’s minds, likely to start them off on a spiritual quest instead of getting lost in superficialities.

The bottom line is: the attempt to protect the peace in other people’s minds can be as counter productive as the attempt to protect one’s own. There is no need to purposefully seek out disconcerting situations but to shun, ignore or wriggle out of them on principle is as harmful as dwelling on them.

And yet another viewpoint on the matter worthy of contemplation (following up my last blog):

There is no such thing as peace of mind. Mind means disturbance; restlessness itself is mind.

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

There are endless discussions on the „state“ of jivanmukta - needless to say amongst those who are not yet jivanmuktis and, interestingly, more among traditional advaitins than amongst Western advaitins. Among the traditional advaitins there are some who think that with enlightenment the world literally disappears, i.e. it is no longer perceived at all. Western advaitins usually adapt a more sober vision – also because their Gurus usually talk about the „state“ they are in and discourage such radical views. The Ashtavakra Gita[1] which is held in high esteem with all advaitins who know it, comments on the question thus:

 In chapter 18 we find the following verses describing the jivanmukti.

 54 Whether he is honouring a Vedik scholar, the gods, or holy places – seeing a woman, a king or a beloved one, not a bit of desire ever springs in the heart of the Wise-one.

 55 The Liberated is not at all perturbed even when scoffed and despised by his servants, sons, wives, daughter’s sons and other relations.

Reading up to here most seekers will happily agree: Yes, there is absolute equanimity in all situations in the jivanmukti.

Yet, having a closer look at those who are considered enlightened, they do display all kinds of behavior - not always as unperturbed and desireless as one would expect: Some get angry, others have addictions, some cry, others use abusive language etc. So the student will look at them and in order to not get confused at best shrug his shoulders helplessly and admit:“How can I know!“

 What is the problem, what does he not understand? This becomes obvious in the next verse:

 56 Though delighted, he is not delighted. Though afflicted, he is not afflicted. Only those who are like him understand this stupendous state.

 This key verse (and there are many like it in the Ashtavakra Gita) points to the crucial difference between the mind of the jivanmukti and the jivanmukti him/herself. Those who consider the jivanmukti as someone who has ceased to see the world usually also claim that he does not have a mind anymore – his mind being forever destroyed. He just seems to operate a mind due to the delusion of those who look upon him and project their own minds upon him. This is not how Swami Chinmayananda (and others) read this verse.

Though delighted, he is not delighted.

 Thus far agreement will be unanimous. It is the next sentence, which is the parting of the ways:

 Though afflicted, he is not afflicted.

 Why does this sentence part the ways? Because affliction should not even come up if there was perfect equanimity. The very word seems offensive if used in regard to the jivanmukti. Other possible translations for khinna don’t help either: sad, suffering, pain of uneasiness, disconsolate, wearied, depressed, distressed etc.

But: he is not afflicted - so the jivanmukti is none of these; why then mention the word khinna at all, saying “Though afflicted”? Is he or is he not?

Swami Chinmayananda: “The one who lives in the Self, as the Self, has transcended his mind, and therefore, if the mind is pleased, he is not pleased. It is the mind that feels ‘afflicted’, why should he feel afflicted?”

May I suggest that to put the first afflicted here in inverted commas is the work of one of those editors who just cannot bear such a word in this context. There really should be no inverted commas at all. The mind is the mind, a subtle instrument where all kinds of thoughts are processed: pleasure, affliction amongst many others. In principal there is no difference between this instrument and a gross instrument like the lungs where oxygen is processed. Whether the instrument belongs to the subtle or gross body of a jivanmukti or an ordinary mortal does not make a difference regarding the instrument.

Swamiji goes on: “The mind, the intellect and the body belong to us. We are the owners, possessors, proprietors (Svamins). If my buffalo gets dysentery, do I run to the hospital? No doubt the buffalo belongs to me! Possessor is not the possessed. The joys and afflictions of my body, of my intellect and of my mind cannot be joys and afflictions of me!”

So, there is a difference – not regarding the instrument but regarding the owner of the instrument. The jivanmukti knows himself as different from the instrument, that’s why, although he cannot prevent the instrument from functioning, he is not concerned with its functioning. In fact, because he is not concerned with its functioning why should he want to prevent the instrument from doing its work?

 For those who do not know themselves as different from the instrument this is a difference too subtle to grasp. Swamiji: “This stupendous state (Ascarya-dasa) cannot be described in words, or communicated in any other way to the egocentric man. There is no language by which it can be expressed.”

Disregarding the group who claims that because the jivanmukti lives as pure atma he does not have a mind anymore, I think a common mistake is to believe that the jivanmukti necessarily has a totally sattvic mind. A certain level of chitta shuddhi has to be there to be able to realize the Self, and chitta shuddhi means the predominance of sattva in the mind. Yet it seems that this “certain level” does not imply that the mind needs to be sattvic through and through. That’s why affliction can come up in it at all.

 I am an astrologer and in one group we once looked at anonymised charts; I asked the participants to determine which chart was of an enlightened being. I did not tell the participants that in fact all of the charts were of enlightened beings. Unanimously they decided that the chart of Ramana Maharshi was of an enlightened being. It is very balanced and emanates a flair of sattva. To me his chart reveals that if Ramana Maharshi had not been enlightened he would have had a balanced, soft, friendly – in one word sattvic – personality anyway. So the character traits that he displayed as a jivanmukti where sattvic.

Other jivanmuktis with other character traits - let’s say Bodhidharma – display other personalities.

Character traits are part of the personality, meaning they are part of the mind. They have nothing to do with jivanmukta. One character trait/mind pattern can be the tendency to get afflicted or delighted in a certain situation but the jivanmukti him/herself is free of character, free of delight, free of affliction.