|| Shri Shankar ||

Manobodh - a commentary

We are now going to closely consider the collection of verses by Swāmi Samartha Rāmdās known as Manobodh. This is a small collection of two hundred and five shlōkas, but, it is the essence of the entirety of Samartha's literature. This collection also famously goes by the name of Manāché Shlōk. Samartha's literary output is quite extensive, even enormous. From salt and seasonings in the kitchen to soaring experiences of spirituality, Samartha's literature has vigorously and definitively shown the way on all manner of subjects essential to living. This body of literature is vast and inspires wonder.

Even though the construction of much of Samartha's literature is in meter, its style and substance is more like prose. Soft language, tasteful content and tenderness of construction wasn't perhaps part of his personality, however the essence of his literary contribution, this Manobodh collection, does show tasteful and flowing language. Further removing pieces from this collection is quite difficult. Ambrosia cannot be reduced by boiling, it is not necessary, and shouldn't be. The same applies here.

Shri Vinobāji (Bhāvé), after his own style, considered the instructive literary works of Shankarāchārya, Dnyāneshwar, Nāmdev, Eknāth, and published abridgments as several small books under different names. But even he published Samartha's Manobodh in its entirety. He did not attempt to cherry-pick it in any way. In his preface he states that Samartha's literature is like a gold mine: much gold can be extracted from it. But Manobodh is not a mine, instead it is a cluster of gold nuggets. One might also say it is like a vault filled with gold. Shri Vinobā's opinion is exactly as it is.

Let me relate my own experience. Since a copy of the text easily fits into a pocket, and since it is also quite inexpensive, I purchased a new copy frequently when I needed something to read when traveling. I kept marking those shlōkas that I felt were good and I liked. This happened at least 5-6 times. Once, out of curiosity, when I looked at all of the copies of Manobodh together, I realized that out of two hundred and five, 164-165 of the shlōkas had been marked.

The point is that the whole text of Manobodh is rich with tastefulness, depth of meaning and instruction. We find different shlōkas desirable each time we read it. It is indeed a very beautiful collection.

Our dada (Sadguru Dāgaņu Mahārāj) was of the Samartha tradition, but he especially loved the poetry of Shri Tukobārāyā and the Dnyāneshwarī. He would get totally absorbed in those and forget himself. But our dear late Dada very much liked this Manobodh collection as well.

Across all of Samartha's literature, the Manāché Shlōk collection is brimming full with the highest type of simple, delightful, bold and excellent guidance. Through this singular text, Samartha appears before us in his full glory. Through these verses, one can also meet Shri Dnyāneshwar Mahāraj, Tukobarāyā and Shri Kabir as well, and the Manāché Shlōk also has its own distinct sweetness.

The prose-like, rhythmic but non metrical quality of Samartha's writing, as well as laxity of language is evident in these shlōkas, and one can find several grammatical defects. These shlōkas do not measure up to the standards of grammatical purity. This, however is not a fault unique to Samartha. Shri Vāman Pandit, Raghunāth Pandit, Rām Joshi, Prabhākar, all demonstrate the languid use of language. Our dearly departed Dada also never paid too much attention to grammar. All of them freely took the liberty to roll up and set aside the rules of grammar. A singular exception was Moropant. His poetry displays an exquisite purity of language in its construction. It is doubtful if one can find even 4-5 errors across all of his poetry. The doyen of poets, Kālidāsa also experiments on numerous occasions without hewing to of Pāņinī. For a certainty, these eminently glorious poets have not abused the language. But if abiding by the rigorous rules of grammar were to lead to their language to become dense, they certainly did not permit it to become so. Samartha's language is austere. It belongs to a seer, and as such it suits the seer well.

All in all, when a shining voice comes across with such full conviction, a little bit of slack in observing grammatical rules is actually quite becoming. It certainly does not take away from its inherent beauty. It is not true that the only way to make hair look good is to pull it into a tight bun. A free lock of hair fluttering in a light breeze increases its allure. On the other hand one should not wear unkempt, disorderly hair either. So also for language.

The defect of language vis-a-vis grammatical construction is really not very important. Does language come first, or does grammar? The rules of grammar follow the structure of language. Therefore, to hold eminent poets, and those great souls like Samartha who labored for the well-being of society, to the exacting standards of language is of no value. While the language of Manāché Shlōk is occasionally at odds with metrical structure or grammar, it has the glowing quality of rising consciousness, passion, realization, an intense pursuit of social wellbeing, and the pithiness of powerful guidance. It cannot be denied that this Manobodh collection has a mind-attracting and persuasive quality about it.

Please however, do not misunderstand that the Manāché Shlōk is somehow persuasive because of its grammatical defects.

The Manobodh collection is primarily consisting of 200 shlōkas. The addition of the first shlōka of invocation, and the last four comprising an epilogue make it a collection of 205 shlōkas. There are some references to the Manāché Shlōk consisting of 210 verses, but the edition in circulation consist only of 205 verses. I have come across the edition with 210 verses, but since I am not a scholar, I am not interested in research on the various editions.

If the Manāché Shlōk is a collection representing the essential wisdom, then why is it so large at 200 shlōkas? Why can't it be small and pithy with 25-30 shlōkas? This is a natural question. It is not at all that it could not be so. Several of Shankarāchārya's works are small and very effective. Manobodh is not so small as all that, and typically, when considering a person's nature and tendencies, very small texts frequently are insufficient for the purpose of instruction. A person's intelligence, his proclivity, and his circumstances may be so diverse that if one really needs to be led on a path towards realization, then the method of instruction needs to be elucidated, just as if one needs to go to an unfamiliar destination, one needs a detailed address for the place. One single phrase such as, "discard the six enemies and realize Brahman" is not effective instruction. If indeed a small sentence were sufficient for enlightenment, then the four great sayings from the __Upanishad__s such as "That thou art" etc. would have sufficed completely for humanity and for all time. In fact the main idea is just that. Millions of volumes written by numerous great souls, the critiques and commentaries thereon, and enormous associated literature would have never come into existence. Humans are not satisfied by being told in brief. The intellect is not as focused and sharp as it needs to be. It is competed away through channels such as ignorance, temptation, indiscipline, egotism, and so on. Whatever remaining intellectual prowess is fractured and distributed. Therefore a person's situation is akin to, "एक धड ना भाराभर त्या चिंध्या कशाला" (`Not one good piece of clothing among all these rags').

Secondly, even if ultimate realization is highly sought after, it does not engender the same level or type of insistence, tenacity and desire that worldliness brings. All manner of brevity, frugality, making-do, and putting-off is directed towards the pursuit of realization. There is time for worldliness, and none for the pursuit of realization. Therefore numerous doubts and tendencies motivated by circumstance are entertained in one's mind. Without the resolution of these thoughts, there is no feeling of interestedness. Without interest, there is no emergence of insistence or urgency. To resolve skepticism, answer doubts, and to untangle questions it is necessary to provide an elaborate explanation. Something overtly verbose can become tiresome and dense too. In the midst of providing clarifications, interpreting, persuading and entertaining, the main point can sometimes get obscured or lost. Therefore the great philosophers, when describing the rules for writing and speaking have cautioned us with, नातिसंक्षेपविस्तरम् (``neither too brief nor verbose''). It is evident that Samartha is cognizant of this decree when composing the Manāché Shlōk.

What is the benefit of these Manāché Shlōk or Manobodh? What is the expected fruit of this text? Rāmdās Swāmi himself offers this at the end of the epilogue in the very last stanza. Samartha says,

Defects vanish, hearing these mind-lessons |
The weak of intellect become fit for devotions |
A knowledge-austerity and inner strength awaken |
The servant assures that you will find true freedom ||

The result of listening to Manāché Shlōk is that the faults within a person are diminished. These defects can be of several types. Being scatterbrained, the mind's desires and objectives, indiscretion in the enjoyment of the senses, and the resulting physical movements that occur in the wrong place at the wrong time, these are all the seat of the faults within a person. Anger and lust are also included in here. All of these deficiencies begin to diminish upon hearing Manāché shlōk. We realize where we begin to go astray. Which defects, and where & how they manifest begins to become clearer. We realize why these defects should be regarded as defects in the first place, and as a consequence we begin to understand how to avoid them. That overcoming these defects is necessary becomes clearer, and the urge that we must overcome them begins to grow.

Samartha also says that those with a weaker intellect also begin to come to this realization. It is a given that any one person's intellect differs in sharpness, purity and abundance from another's. However, everyone who is born is nonetheless granted some modicum of intelligence. It may be more or less, but nobody is completely bereft of it. Therefore it is possible for each one to make progress in their own way, and each one is capable of increasing in wisdom in degrees. It also becomes clearer that in order to retain this wisdom, one must necessarily inculcate some dispassion and to dedicate themselves to practicing along the path that they feel a conviction towards.

All this will occur is beyond a doubt. However, it is necessary also for a person to have faith. Philosophical scriptures, the inspirational literature of saints, and the instruction of teachers, all these are for the benefit of humanity. However, in the absence of strong faith, no effort by the hand of man will carry with it the power of decisiveness or consistency, and so any inspiration or the natural gifts bestowed unto him will amount to anything. Instead of progress, skepticism can cause regress and in some cases one may even slip all the way to total ruin. And so, Samartha says that you may have any fault, or you may even be intellectually challenged, even then you will find benefit and you will make progress. You will be able to experience first-hand a sense of complete freedom, \emph{Moksha} or infinite bliss. But, you must walk this path with full faith and complete conviction.

Progress is to be achieved in degrees based on present circumstances, and not everyone can be expected to be at the same stage together. Whether one is at the beginning of the journey towards the prime goal of realization, or has traveled further along the way, progress always constitutes one step forward. Further, one must continue to proceed along the chosen path without tiring, or without indulging in laziness and the illusory satisfaction arising from it. Unending faith is therefore necessary for progress.

Ultimate realization is for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it. However true this may be, it is incorrect to assume that such persons who do not have the wherewithal to controlling the pull of worldly desires will be successful in finding enlightenment. Just as intelligence is required to navigate worldly existence, so also intelligence is necessary for the prime motive. Perhaps it requires even more than a little, because people more readily believe the material world around them, and to a lesser degree in realization. As a result people's accomplishments are more readily attained in the material world, than in their spiritual pursuits. People are blessed with both intelligence and emotion. Intelligence is very useful in keeping control of emotions, but the rational approach alone can be quite dry. Emotions on the other hand have the ability to reach the goal directly. The nature of water is to flow and it does so until it reaches the ocean. All that is necessary is for it to keep flowing. Emotions are much the same.

Extremely intelligent people are sometimes seen to be driven to insanity as a result of failure. But a passionate, emotive person doesn't appear to reach that fate, at least not as frequently. Highly sensitive people may be seen as impractical from the perspective of everyday people and people may even consider them to be mad. But such madness is good if it is in the form of a passion for an objective. Such highly motivated persons find success and can also exemplify a path to success.

Faith is a good manifestation of emotional sensitivity. He who has faith in the right place never finds himself short on effort, and can, "याचि देहीं याचि डोळां" with his own body and his own eyes experience the festival of complete freedom.

Describing the nature of the experience of Salvation, Moksha, Kaivalya is not easy. They say that even Saraswatī herself would not be able to describe it. This freedom, that is beyond all sensual experiences, of the form of pure bliss, and reality without being limited by the body and mind, is a matter of personal realization and experience alone. And Samartha asserts that by means of the Manāché Shlōk, this too can be experienced first hand.

Without getting into a deeper explanation, it can be said here that it is entirely possible that the Manāché Shlōk can lead to a life that is grand, divine, sublime, peaceful, pleasant, contented, competent, energetic and glowing. But for that, one needs strong faith. Mere reading, mere listening is not sufficient to get there. Just like it is not remotely possible to be healed by simply reading an advertisement about a therapeutic, nor can one benefit by drinking a tea made by steeping the paper on which it is printed, so also mere reading and listening is not going to lead anywhere. Right after reading, one must immediately proceed to understanding, meditating upon, and acting upon what is understood. To say that one must have strong faith is to motivate these next steps. Many people will announce their faith in God, but this is a connivance. Any one who confesses a faith in God necessarily demonstrates a progressive growth in discipline and virtue. True faith is evinced in a person's "come-what-may" tenacity in their efforts.

Although without thinking through, without deeply probing and behaving a certain way by merely assuming something or the other, does not constitute a devout life. Intolerable truths aren't something a person wants to confront. This is not faith. Believing oneself to be disease-free without undergoing a complete physical examination from a competent physician cannot be considered believing. It is cowardice. Oh well! The subject of belief and faith will be dealt with later in the Manāché Shlōk anyway. In order to understand the frame of mind necessary when listening Manāché Shlōk, the last shlōk pertaining to the fruit of this practice is mentioned.

Manāché Shlōk is a clear, sweet-water lake. It is brimming with life. We can draw as much water from it as we may. We are limited by our energy, intelligence, capability and our sense of urgency. Just as a small cup can hold only so much water, so also we must remember that that same thing will happen to me as I try to describe the Manāché Shlōk. But please let us not say that since this cup is too small, dipping it in any stagnant pond will do! Thus the decision to share something about Manāché Shlōk. Taking inspiration from Dnyāneshwar Maharaj, and with slight alteration, let me also say, 'Pay heed with attention | the receiver shall be happy | this affirmation of Samartha | Listen freely ||' (Dnya. 9/1)