Yama and Niyama
Dr Parimal Devnath
12B174-Valvan
Lonavla, Pune-410403.
Practical guidelines of
Yama and Niyama
From among all the components of Yama and Niyama Animsa and Satya
assume maximum significance as has been
emphasized in the traditional scriptures and as also we see in day to day
life. In comparison to other components
of Yama and Niyama these two aspects are chiefly responsible for internal as
well as external harmony, social amity and integrity. Moreover, these are undoubtedly obligatory
for spiritual growth of a person. This
is the reason why Patanjali declared Yama and Niyama to be Sarvabhauma and Mahavratas.
However, putting Ahimsa and Satya
into practice is real life is not an easy task.
It has several complications.
There are certain complex practical issues which need to be looked into
and discussed with a view to suggest probable solution.
Let us first consider the practice
of Ahimsa—
Ahimsa-- It means non-violence, absence of violence at
all three levels of mind, speech and action against any and all living
beings. It includes even absence of a
iota of even a stray through of perpetration of harm physical or mental or any
other form of harm towards any living creature.
According to Mahabharata (Anusasana—11.13) ‘Ahimsa paramo dharmah’—non-violence
is considered the ‘supreme virtue’. This
also forms an eternal virtue irrespective of time and space (geographical
location), i.e. it equally applies to all times, all places and all living
beings.
Supposing an assassin approaches to kill someone, then what the
possible victim should do? Should he
allow the assassin to kill or save his own life by killing the assassin which
will amount to violence and therefore go against this set rule of Yama? In Manusmriti (8.350) a suggestion has be given for such complex
situation. It is suggested here that
even if a close person approaches to kill, one should take to arms and attack
the offender to save his own life. Even
though it goes against the principle of Yama, it has been recommended.
Moreover, in the context of the Gita, a perplexed Arjuna was prompted by
Let us consider the statement of Arjun in Mahabharata (Shanti—15.26)
wherein Arjuna says that ‘there are innumerable tiny living creatures which
cannot be seen with eyes but can be imagined to be present all around, who might
be getting killed all the time even by blinking of eyelids, which (violence) is
certainly not intentional’. What kind of
a stand can one take in such cases?
To learn the meaning of Ahimsa a Brahmana was sent to a butcher. The
butcher put forth—Jivo jivasya jivanam (Bhagavata—1.13.46) – jiva – a living
creature-- is the food for another living creature. And this is a continuous cycle that we
observe in the nature around us— an
insect eaten up by a bird and so on. The
same content has been found supported in the Upanishads also (Chandogyo-5.2.1
and Brihada—6.1.14).
Moreover, if all give up violence at all levels, then how the virtue
of a Kshatriya (warrior class) would be explained? If the Kshtriya (military) resolves to total
non-violence, how the borders of the states would remain safe? How would the law and order condition be
maintained? In such a condition, there
would be widespread anarchy all around and the wicked and evil agents will gain
ground. Innocents, weak and women will suffer
immensely.
Therefore, in Mahabharata (Vana—28.6.8) Prahlada suggests to
Satya—Truthfulness. To speak the
Truth. This makes another well-known and
well-accepted universal virtue. Its
importance is accepted in all times, in all sections of the society.
According to Rigveda (10.190.1), the creation has bee evolved from
Rita and Satya. Rigveda (10.85.1) also
states that the universe is sustained and covered by Rita and Satya alone. Similarly, Mahabharata (Shanti-162.24)
declares that there exists no Dharma superior to Satya. Satya denotes that which never changes, which
remains consistent in all times.
Mahabharata (Adi—74.102) eulogies importance of Satya by saying that
Satya is superior even to a thousand performance of sacrifices like Ashvamedha. Speaking truth should be upheld as a great
virtue. Manu (4.256) said—“All human
dealing is done through speech. There is
no better medium of communication for men.
Thence speech should be an integrated one”. Such a stance has been alos maintained in
Taittiriya—1.11.1 – satyam vada, dharmam cara—speak the truth, do virtuous deeds. Bhishma while lying on the bed of arrows at
the end of the Mahabharata war (Anu—167.50) says that there remains only one
virtue to be followed and that is Satya which is also the only strength.
However, is there any possibility of exception in speaking truth in
real life? If we look closely around, we
notice that the world is certainly not full of virtuous people. There are more vicious people that virtuous
truth-loving people. Therefore, will it
be possible top speak truth for a virtuous person in all circumstances? Take an example of a situation wherein a
bunch of assassins are chasing an innocent victim to take his life, and a
virtuous person sees the victim hiding in a safe place. While being enquired by the assassins
regarding the whereabouts of the victim, should the virtuous person speak the
truth thus disclosing the victim and thus jeopardizing his life for sure. Commonsense says ‘certainly no’. simply because in this particular context to
save the life of a person is more
important than speaking truth. Here
speaking truth will be equal to killing an innocent life. Take another example wherein the plunderers
are brandishing swords and asking fro the booty. What should a householder victim should
do? Certainly to speak the truth and
save his own life which is more precious.
It there can be said that ‘speaking truth’ does not particularly
mean only ‘uttering a few words corresponding to certain facts. One needs to consider whether speaking truth
is serving good and wider purpose or not.
Thence the very interpretation of ‘speaking truth’ or Satya has been given differently in Mahabharata
(Santi—329.13;287.19) in the following words— ‘undoubtedly one should speak the
truth. Rather one should speak what is
acceptable to all. According to me Satya
is that which serves all purpose’.
In the above discussion with practical examples we can see that like
in case of Ahimsa, Satya too has exception.
Mahabharata (Anu—82.16) therefore tries to provide some exceptional
occasions when one might speak untruth.
It says, “While cracking a joke, settling a marriage, saving a life and
property one may like to speak untruth”.
This provides only an indication and no way should be considered
exclusive. For example, one may need to
speak untruth to a severely sick person to save his life. Although these are exceptions and speaking
untruth may be compulsion and demand of the situation, but ‘speaking untruth’
is still considered a sin by the ancient sages.
To extol from such deviation from truth, the savants recommended Prayaschitta
(atonement).
One should apply conscience to determine an appropriate context of
exception in regards to other components of Yama and Niyama as well. Such a clue has been given by the ancients
when they defined Brahmacarya (celibacy,
sexual purity ) differently (instead of recommending complete abstinence from
sex) as – Ritau ritau svadaresu-- to engage in physical relationship with one’s
life partner at an appropriate and prescribed time or Ritu (after the menstrual cycle).
Virtue of Santosa
(contentment) and Aparigraha
(non-hoarding) are closely interrelated.
Aprigraha leads to Santosa or a person who is contented will not indulge
in hoarding. It is to be considered
that a person having no decent and consistent way of livelihood will hardly
find it practicable to exercise Contentment.
As regards to Sauca
(cleanliness—both external and internal), it can have an exception while a
person is sick.
***
Comments
Post a Comment