prophylactic that is provided so that the instinct may not come at all. It is not that we
should treat the disease after it has come; it should not come. Hence, one has to
guard oneself in the beginning itself by a continuous pratipaksa bhavana practice,
even when the inclination towards the opposite has not arisen.
It is not that we should try to control the impulses when they have come. They should
not come, because once they come, they cannot be checked. So, it does not follow
from this instruction that the pratipaksa bhavana, or the counterposing attitude,
should be developed in the mind at the time of the attack. The attack should not take
place, because one knows very well that once it takes place, there is no remedy for it.
We cannot check ourselves when we are already under subjection of an impulse. This
is also a kind of daily sadhana that is prescribed.
This is something very interesting and very subtle to understand. The thinking of the
opposite generally and normally implies a subtle thinking of that which we want to
avoid, because it is impossible to think of the opposite of a thing unless that thing
also is thought in the mind simultaneously. It should be a positive entertainment of
an idea, and not merely a negative check that is placed before an undesirable
impulse. When the pratipaksa bhavana ‘I should not kill’ is entertained, the idea of
killing is already there in the mind. Though we are thinking that we should not kill,
we are using the word ‘kill’ and also thinking of that idea. This should not be allowed
in the mind because the opposing idea is not supposed to have any kind of
psychological relationship with that which is being opposed.
Pratipaksa bhavana is not merely a negative substitution method. It is a method of
developing a positive attitude, such as love instead of hatred. It is not thinking of
non-hatred, but of love. So we need not think of non-killing. The idea of non-killing is
not the point there. The point is the positive aspect of it that when there is a
fraternity of feeling and affection and love, which is the movement of the mind in the
direction of a unity of things—when that arises in the mind, the substitution is
already adopted.
Also, a way is prescribed in one of the sutras of how this pratipaksa bhavana can be
entertained in the mind. The daily contemplation on the positive aspects of these
principles should be along these lines, says the sutra. What is the line? Vitarkaḥ
hiṁsādayaḥ kṛta kārita anumoditāḥ lobha krodha moha pūrvakaḥ mṛdu madhya adhimātaḥ
duḥkha ajñāna anantaphalāḥ iti pratipakṣabhāvanam (II.34). One has to contemplate the
consequences of one’s actions. It is because we cannot properly have an insight into
what will follow from what we do that we commit a deed which is objectionable. At
the time of the impulse manifesting itself into an action, the consequences are
forgotten because the impulse takes a stand at that given moment of time on a
particular aspect of the experience only, and completely ignores the other aspects.
We get angry and we want to hit somebody on the head. That is the only aspect that
comes to mind, and no other aspect comes, such as, “What will happen afterwards if I
do this?” We are not bothered about what will happen afterwards. The mind will not
allow us to think like that because if it does, the impulse will get weakened. Hence,
the vehemence of the impulse mainly depends upon the restriction of the impulse to
a particular mood and emotion, completely oblivious of consequences.
The consequences should be deeply pondered over, says the sutra. What are the
consequences of a wrong deed? Nature will revolt against us. It is not only human