withdrawal? Many questions arise due to a mix-up of philosophical doctrines, as well
as practical difficulties. Some of them are: What is it from which the mind is being
abstracted? Is it from the form of the object or from the reality of the object, the very
existence of it?
The omnipresence of the spirit should preclude any kind of withdrawal. Also, there is
the doctrine of devotion which recognises the presence of God in everything, and the
all-pervading characteristic of God would not demand a withdrawal of the mind from
anything, inasmuch as God is present everywhere. Next, there is a doubt that the
abstraction of the mind may mean a kind of psychological introversion, which is what
is objected to by psychoanalysts, because the introverted attitude is the opposite of
the extroverted one, and it is equally bad—as bad as the extroverted attitude.
Whether we are tied up inwardly or bound outwardly, it makes no difference—
anyhow we are bound. And, topping the list there is the painful aspect of it, because it
is impossible for the mind not to think of that which it desires. If it is not to think of
what it desires, then of what is it to think? What else are we to think—what we don’t
like? We are expecting the mind to wipe out the thought of things from its memory,
including even those thoughts which it wants and regards as valuable and
worthwhile. What else is it to think, if everything is removed from its memory? All
these are the difficulties.
Questions of this type all arise because of an improper grounding in a philosophical
background, which is the preparatory stage of the practice of yoga. Yoga is a practical
implementation of a doctrine of the universe. An outlook of things is at the
background of this very technique. This is what is perhaps meant by the oft-repeated
teaching of the Bhagavadgita that yoga should be preceded by samkhya. Here the
words ‘yoga’ and ‘samkhya’ do not mean the technical classical jargons. They simply
mean the theory and the practice. Eṣā te’bhihitā sāṅkhye buddhir yoge tv imāṁ śṛṇu
(B.G. II.39): “I have talked to you about samkhya up to this time. Now I shall speak
to you about yoga,” says Bhagavan Sri Krishna. There should be a correct grasp of
what is to be done. This is what we may call the samkhya, or the philosophy aspect.
And when we actually start doing it, that is the yoga aspect.
In every branch of learning there is the theory aspect and the practical aspect,
whether it is in mathematics, or physics, or any other aspect of study. Here it is of a
similar nature. Why is it that the mind is to be withdrawn from the object? The
answer to this question is in the theoretical aspect which is the philosophy. What is
wrong with the mind in its contemplation on things? Why should we not think of an
object? Why we should not think of an object cannot be answered now, at this stage,
when we have actually taken up this practice. We ought to have understood it much
earlier. When we have started walking, it means that we already know why we are
walking and where is our destination. We cannot start walking and say, “Where am I
walking to?” Why did we start walking without knowing the destination? Likewise, if
our question as to why this is necessary at all is not properly answered within our
own self, then immediately there will be repulsion from the mind and it will say, “You
do not know what you are doing. You are merely troubling me.” Then the mind will
not agree to this proposal of abstraction.
Hence, there should be a very clear notion before we set about doing things; and this
is a principle to be followed in every walk of life. Without knowing what is to be done,
why do we start doing anything? Even if it is cooking, we must know the theory first.