I
think we all know where this question comes from, don't we? Take, for example,
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras where "not accumulating" is one of the basic
mental disciplines to be practiced on the path of yoga. This has also been the
tradition of monks in India and perhaps elsewhere too. By force of tradition,
it becomes an indication of a high level of moral purity.
And
yet, I will try to comfort those who cannot do so and I will make a case based
on the same texts which are quoted in favour of renunciation. Or, arguments
based on an understanding of the same texts.
1.
The important thing for seekers (as opposed to those who are fully
self-realized) is to keep the mind in the "mode of goodness" (saatwic
state). In the sattwic state, work is done out of a simple sense of duty. I
insist on the word "simple" because the word "duty"
distorts the meaning by being associated with the high pride of "doing
one's duty" and "sacrificing for it". That excessive pride is
not the state of goodness. So I use the words - a "simple" sense of
duty, not the mental "kick" and prestige of doing one's
"duty". This state is most conducive to other actions which can be of
help in balancing out the "gunas", leading to higher understanding.
It helps bring about true “desirelessness", which is not the state of
repressing the mind of all good and kind emotions. True desirelessness is more
like calmly doing the needful, since it ought to be done.
However,
we cannot force this state to come about by going to the jungle or giving up
the prestigious positions we are in. It is a state of the mind, not easy to
force. So as long as the actions and the mentality are working in that
direction, retiring to the jungles (with mosquitoes) might not be necessary. It
might sometimes harm, rather.
2.
The state of goodness helps deepen meditation too. It makes for right
meditation. Severe austerities and harsh penances are not recommended in the
last few chapters of the Gita - in fact, they are denounced as being typically
not in line with scriptures and done more out of anger and
incorrect
pride. Going to the jungles should not just be a punishment to the body due to
misplaced
pride.
3.
By accumulating, perhaps most of us take on a fair amount of tension, grief,
mental hurt, excessive pride or mirth, desires, etc. These states of the mind
are not the calm balance of the state of goodness. I believe this might have
been the simple reason why Patanjaliji might have recommended not accumulating
as a required step. If giving up wealth is the right way or the only way to
undo these tensions, then fine. Else, perhaps we need to look at other ways to
take the mind off these things.
4.
This very line of sages revered Janaka - Sita's father - like no other yogi,
despite his being a king and staying in his palace throughout. The greatest of the yogis sent their disciples
to him to learn.
5.
In fact, relative to dullness and lethargy, the state of passion (where the
desire for the fruits of actions dominates) is said to be better. Let not the
hut be just a place to indulge in laziness!
6.
Patanjaliji's own treatise mentions several other steps which are helpful in
the process. They culminate in deep meditation (samadhi), which is itself
described to be of several types. If putting wealth aside did the trick on its
own, these other steps could have been dismissed in a few sutras.
I
hope I have given the seeker some solace and comfort!
Sadanand
Tutakne
