• Briefly know about the bondage of the soul, types of attachment and how to cultivate non-attachment. 

1.   The pure Self-atman (puruṣa in Sāṁkhya) 1 has no personality. It is ‘pure consciousness’ – consciousness vacated of all content and will [Burley 2007: 150-51]. It is joined to prakṛti through ‘prakṛti-products’:- buddhi (mind-intellect), ahaṁkāra (I-ness) and the senses. These products stamp the ‘mark’ (liṅga) of prakṛti on the soul.

Bondage of the soul to ‘prakṛti’ 

2.   From the ‘mark’ of prakṛti on the soul, emerges Personality. From prakṛti products: buddhi and ahaṁkara, comes its essence: ‘the sense of own self’, ‘self-assertion’ and ‘ego’. Thus, buddhi and ahaṁkara produce the notions of ‘I’ and ‘mine’.

‘I’ and ‘mine’ when joined to the senses, prompt desire, action and attachment. Thus, the ‘I’ and ‘mine’ cause the ‘bondage of the soul’ [Chidananda 1991: 47]. But since they originate in the mark of prakṛti on the soul, it is said:

“binding the soul through the soul is prakṛti” (बध्नाति|आत्मानं|आत्मना प्रकृतिः) [Sk 63].

Liberation is by non-attachment

3.   Liberation or mukti is the freeing of Self-atman-puruṣa from prakṛti – by removing its ‘mark’ from the soul. Removing the ‘mark’ of prakṛti from the soul is like ‘dissolving’ prakṛti embedded in one’s own nature. This requires non-attachment. So, it is said:

“from non-attachment is the dissolution of prakṛti…” (वैराग्यात् प्रकृति-लयः) [Sk 45]

Non-attachment reflects in the sense of ‘not mine’ and attachment in ‘mine’. Hence, by ‘mine’, a person is bound and by ‘not mine’ he is released [GP: Shastri 2008: 948]. 2

4.  There are three types of attachment: 

a. to the fruit of action (phala),

b. to the form of action (saṅga) and

c. to doer-ship of action (kartṛtva).

All three types must be renounced for mukti or liberation of Self.

5.  Thus, Vedic non-attachment is wider in scope than the sufi ‘taming of the soul’, since the latter only requires overcoming of baser instincts. 3 But even after baser instincts are transcended, there remains attachment to forms of action (e.g. of worship and behaviour) and the sense of doer-ship. This explains why there is strong evidence of sufi involvement in martial jihad and other communal duties of Muslims [Neale 2017: passim], with some pre-modern exceptions reported mainly from India. 4

Cultivating non-attachment

6.  How to cultivate non-attachment? 

a. Study

For king Janaka, a study and proper understanding of mokṣa literature was enough. For lesser mortals however, some psychological self-(un)conditioning is required.

b. Meditation & jñāna      

It was pointed in para 1, that atman-puruṣa is pure consciousness, vacated of all content and will; and also that the soul’s bondage was only due to the ‘mark’ of prakṛti. In essence therefore, atman-puruṣa ‘stands alone’ – unattached to prakṛti. This is puruṣa-tattva, the essence of puruṣa.

By repeated contemplation on this essence, non-attachment to I-ness and ego is cultivated and jnana may be produced. Thus, it is said:

“From the practice of ‘essence’ (तत्त्व-अभ्यासात्)

is – ‘I’ am not, (न|अस्मि)

‘naught’ is for/of me, (न मे)

naught is the ego, in this manner (न|अहं इति)

… (complete pure) jñāna is produced.” (उत्पद्यते ज्ञानम्)[Sk: 64]

This practice of ‘essence’ is a kind of neti-neti exercise that is negative. A positive content is put into it by atma-yoga that seeks union with the Supreme spirit.

Here, considering atman to be merely an inward aspect of Brahman, one may use the atma-mantra: “I am the Brahman” [TBUp: Ayyaṅgar 1938: 31,32,40]. Alternatively, one may use ‘om’ to power meditation and union of atman with Brahman (Mu ii.2:4).

c) Bhakti

Bhakti or devotion is yet another vehicle that detaches one from I-ness. Expressing this process of non-attachment, the Christian mystic Hadewijch exclaimed:

“What has happened to me now? I have given away all that I am. I am not mine: Love has engulfed the substance of my spirit” [Baumer-Despeigne 1997: 278-79]

d. Niṣkama karma

Finally, the Gita advises action that is established in the state of yoga, undertaken with a renunciation of attachments. This is niṣkama karma.

Tatacarya explains that the renunciation of attachments envisaged by Gita can be of three kinds:

One: giving up the desire for the fruit, such as heaven, of an action. Two: giving up the sense of ownership, expressed in words such as, 'this action belongs to me', when performing an action. And three: giving up the sense of being the agent of an action, expressed in words like, 'I am doing this action'. 

These three kinds of giving up are characterized as giving up (i) of fruit  (phala), (ii) of attachment (sanga) and  (3) of agency (kartṛtva) [Tatācārya R. 2004: 189].

Notes

1. Whereas Sāṁkhya seems to identify puruṣa with ātman, they seem to be distinct in Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad.

2. However saying ‘na mama’ (not mine) in yajñas is only formal, involving the giving up of things not of the fruit resulting from the action [Śāstrī 2004: 187]. It is not true renunciation.

3. Sūfis understand ‘taming of the soul’ (riyāḍat al-nafs) merely as ‘self-control’, as battling baser instincts, for which various ascetic practices are employed [Knysh 2000: 107 fn110, Hatina 2014: 50].

4. These exceptions include be-shara sūfis like the malāmatī Suhrawardis [Subhan 1938: 234, 247-49], Haidaris [Singhania 2017] Madaris, Qalandars, Malangs and other heterodox fakirs [Ray 2003: 121-24].

5. In the Mahabharata, king Janaka declares that he had ‘cut off’ bondage to attachments ‘with the sword of renunciation whetted on the stone of scriptures relating to emancipation’ [Ganguli 1883-96a].

Abbreviations

Mu: Muṇḍaka; TBUp: Tejo Bindu Upanishad;

References

Ayyaṅgār T.R.S. (1938) The Yoga-Upaniṣads, Tr. T.R.S. Ayyaṅgār, ed. Pt. S. Subrahmaṇya Sāstrī, Vasanta Press, Adyar, Madras.

Baumer-Despeigne O. (1997) “Hadewijch of Andwerp and Hadewijch II: Mysticism of Being in the Thirteenth Century in Belgium”, in Mysticism in Shaivism and Christianity, Ed. Bettina Bäumer, D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd., New Delhi.

Burley M. (2007) Classical Sāṁkhya and Yoga: An Indian Metaphysics of Experience, Routledge, London.

Chidananda Swami (1991, 1999) The Philosophy, Psychology and Practice of Yoga, 2^nd Edn, WWW site: http://www.rsl.ukans.edu/~pkanagar/divine/

Hatina M. (2014) Martyrdom in Modern Islam: Piety, Power and Politics, CUP

Knysh A. (2000) Islamic Mysticism: A Short History, Brill, Boston.

Neale H.S. (2017) Jihad in Premodern Sufi Writings, Palgrave Macmillan.

Ray R.K. (2003) The Felt Community: Commonalty and Mentality before the Emergence of Indian Nationalism, OUP.

Ganguli K.M. (1883-96)a The Mahabharata: Bk 12 Santi Parva, in The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa, Tr. Kisari Mohan Ganguli, Scanned at sacred-texts.com, 2003. Redaction at Distributed Proofing, Juliet Sutherland, Project Manager. Additional proofing and formatting at sacred-texts.com, by J. B. Hare

Subhan J.A. (1938) Sufism: Its Saints and Shrines: An Introduction to the Study of Sufism with Special Reference to India, Lucknow Publishing House, Lucknow.

Singhania N. (2018) Indian Art and Culture, 2nd Edn., McGraw Hill Education, Chennai

Tatācārya R. (2004) ‘Comments on Staal’s View of Dravya Tyāga Tr. Dr. Mukund Lath, in Discussion and Debate in Indian Philosophy: Issues in Vedānta, Mimāṁsa and Nyāya, ed. Daya Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research, New Delhi.

Śāstrī R.S (2004) ‘Comments on Staal’s View of Dravya Tyāga Tr. Dr. Mukund Lath, in Discussion and Debate in Indian Philosophy: Issues in Vedānta, Mimāṁsa and Nyāya, ed. Daya Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research, New Delhi