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