Shloka 2

O noble mind, walk on the path of devotion |
You will find in Shri Hari a natural salvation |
Reject everything that the world so despises |
Take heed everything that the world well-praises ||2||

All these Manāché shlōk are composed in the Bhujanga metre. Every line in this meter consists of 12 syllables and 4 ya clusters. 3 syllables form a cluster. The structure of the ya cluster is such that the first letter is short whereas the next two are long. Due to this specific structure, poetry set to the Bhujanga meter begets an attractive tight staccato rhythm, and therefore instruction presented through this meter becomes emphatic.

Samartha wandered from house to house begging for alms in order to make a connection with the masses. This tradition of going house to house and begging must have served very well for the purpose of connecting with each and every house, and ensuring that the task of raising awareness in each place. No household would be avoided. Neither would any house be obligately burdened, nor would the activists face hunger. Interactions would occur with every person and each household would be observed through this straightforward idea, and this would also simplify the task of raising awareness. It is said that Samartha Rāmdās composed these shlōkas so that he would also prove to be useful to the people when he was looking for dole.

In Samartha's time muslim rule was firmly established. Muslim fakirs would wander house-to-house begging for alms. They would proselytize their faith using cadenced ghazals. They would win over innocent and simple minds. People would echo their hymns. They would make offerings at their dargahs. They would actively participate in their festivities. Pride in their own culture had been destroyed. Their own identity was lost. It was absolutely necessary to extricate the people from this calamity. The stalwart and thoughtful personality that was Samartha, fully cognizant of time, place and circumstance, could not stand aside and watch, but engaged directly in the goings on of the times. "The eye bears not the sight of these drowning people, and so anguish rises in me", such was his nature. This torment must have inspired him to compose this powerful poetry that is Manāché shlōk. It is quite possible that he chose the Bhujanga meter, which is similar in its rhythmic structure to the ghazals, so as to strongly counter their appeal.

Imagine the pleasant time of morning. A courtyard decorated by flowers and rangolis (sand art). In that courtyard, standing next to the tulsi vrindavan, the central podium bearing the holy basil plant, a radiant Samartha, the epitome of renunciation, accomplished yogi, rendering these shlōkas in his thunderous voice, stirring each person into ownership and pride in their own dharma and their own honor, and doubtlessly inspiring them to make any kind of sacrifice. Perhaps the alms that he was served were a small reflection of the sacrifice they felt impelled towards.

Far from indulging in neglect by saying things like, "They'll behave if they must. If they need me, they'll approach me.'', and just like a well-meaning mother would shake, or sprinkle water to startle her languid son enjoying a deep slumber, Samartha would himself, and through his students, take on the task of awakening the masses. Where the rest of Bhārat was being crushed under the heel of foreigners, Maharashtra saw the rise of self-determination, no doubt because of the invigorating words of Tukārām Mahārāj and Samartha were brought to nourish each and every household.

No matter how inseparable all saints are from each other in their intrinsic quality, in order to ferry people to the other side, they must nevertheless attire themselves in the duality of nature. During that period, without shirking from the duties of raising a reluctant community, sometimes cajoling by affectionately lifting the chin, and at other times by delivering a harsh slap that arose from a place of great compassion, these two saints, Tukārām Maharaj and Samartha Rāmdās accomplished the task of acculturation in Maharashtra. Both of them are quick to anger and brusque in manner, and both carry a staff. In that, neither of them are different from the fierce lightning crashes that accompany a raincloud delivering a compassionate rain.

I believe it was Rāmakrishna Paramāhamsa who said that great masters come in three types. Gurus of the first kind sit in repose where they may, and indicate the way by means of a few gestures and signposts. Those of the second type provide a great deal of specificity with respect to the obstacles, twists and turns, amenities, rest stops, secret traps and other minutia that one may encounter along the way. The third category of gurus not only do everything the first and second type do, but when the occasion calls for it, drag the student by the ear to success, forcing them and if necessary carrying them across the finish line. Gurus of the latter type are very rare. This type of guru displays an otherworldly trust in his own capabilities, but it is required that the student must also be just as devoted. If the guru raises his voice to chastise his student, or to behave contrary to the student's whim, and if this student is wont to immediately take offense and resign from his studies, then the guru is unlikely to want to discipline such a student, and truly, why should he? Even if the guru pulls on the student's ear, it comes only as a preliminary lesson that signifies that the guru expects the student to walk with his own feet. It is not to be construed as the medium of instruction. No matter how great a teacher as has been revealed to us, the proportion of people who have reached enlightenment has been exceedingly small. The aforementioned might shed light on why this is so. Anyway. Tukārām Maharaj and Samartha Rāmdās Swami are both squarely the third type of guru.

Whether in worldly matters, or those of the sprit, man is reluctant to hear the truth. He even actively denies the truth. If there is a guru who will corroborate with one's mind and validate one's behavior, then such a guru is considered acceptable. Therefore I personally feel that gurus of the first type who point the way, or at most those of the second type are convenient. The present time does not appear to be conducive to a guru of the third category. More likely that such a guru will reach for the ear and might get insulted in return. The teacher's role is like the signpost that points the direction towards Pandharpur. Whether or not Pandharpur is one's destination is left to one's own decision. Sometimes the signpost may even be standing amidst a pile of muck, but the sign nevertheless continues to point the way.

No matter how modestly people may act, they are frequently reluctant to let go of what they have. Just as some diseased peop le ask everybody around them for advice on diet and medicine, and then, at their convenience adopt a diet from one and a medicine from another, in the same way many people pick and choose what they like on the path of spirituality. They are scarcely reverent about anything. Nor are they apprehensive about anyone. To the extent that there is a display of humility and deference, it likely stems from a latent selfishness. The one who professes respect and awe comes off as chaste, and the person who is the object of these feelings is considered to be elevated and their prominence spreads. If a person truly held a sense of respect and fear, then the person would never commit an act that was unwelcome by the object of their respect. Saying, ``listen for your own good'' when it is touched with the subtle conceit of thinking oneself as humble isn't something that is received well by people. Neither do people pay heed to objectively and bluntly presented truths, and thus it is of no practical no use to drag a person by their ear. It just turns into unnecessary coercion. Samartha though is not one to sit still because no one is interested. Taking all the circumstances into account, he perseveres with the appropriate insistence. Samartha has directly addressed the mind, and just as one would cajole and flatter an inattentive child into doing his chores, he has addressed the mind as noble.

The root cause of all impediments on the path to Absolute Reality is the mind alone.
For the same reason, Shri Sadhguru Dāsgaņu Maharaj has also reiterated, **"What oh what shall I do? | This mind does not comply | The intellect reaches for virtue | but the mind pulls me astray ||". This is the likely observation for everyone and for all time. The great philosophers similarly say, "The mind alone is the cause of both bondage and freedom of men". Even a person as capable and extraordinary as Arjuna had to concede by saying,

The mind is fickle, O Krishna, it torments the strong and steady.
Governing it, methinks is difficult like controlling the wind (BG 6/34)

The mind is unyielding, powerful, heedless, stubborn, and like a wayward child. It is also ignorant, and therefore saying, ``such a smart child!' creates the possibility of the message getting through. It is difficult to mould it forcibly, and so a little artifice is necessary. If the mind were truly noble, then it would not have been necessary to applaud it into embarking on the path of devotion.

While the above is true, the mind has one valuable quality.
Shri Dnyāneshwar Maharaj says, "This mind dwells on each | That promises it sweetness | And so the bliss of experience | We illustrate || (Dnya 6/420). The mind tends to stick to something when it finds it pleasant. The mind is inherently righteous. That is why most people are naturally pious. "The human race appears largely conscientious by nature" (Dnya 4/67)). However this inherent munificence of the human mind is occluded by the qualities of passion and indolence accrued over lifetimes. The diseases of desire, anger, greed, temptation etc. arising from selfishness envelope a person's life. They also leave an imprint on the mind. The mind has, by its own doing, descended to the level of wickedness. If the immediate circumstances are not conducive to good upbringing, then this defect becomes progressively worse, and can reach a detrimental level. Unfortunately in the last fifty -- seventy-five years the concept that a traditional acculturation should be imparted to every mind has begun to be considered old-fashioned. History and geography ought to be studied, mathematics is taught, but why bother teaching morality? With this attitude, even those lessons on ethics and morality that might appear in primary education are being ridiculed, jeered and set aside. Lessons on morality are held in contempt. As a result the youth of today have been waylaid. Despite their schooling they don't appear cultured. Even among tender adolescents about to step across the threshold of adulthood, the incidents of filthy venereal disease are on the rise. Wouldn't any thinking person find this fact heart-wrenching? The majority of households do not provide a civilizing influence. Consequently, even if the rare home displays propriety, it does not follow that a child raised in it will be necessarily cultured. If all a child sees is that the breadwinner of the household or the father stands in front of the mirror shaving his beard, or the mother who applies her makeup, and if such parents have impolitic, derogatory comments for everyone from politicians of the highest office to teachers in school, if they don't care to hide their own vices and underhandedness in their daily dealings in front of their child, then will such a child expect to learn good conduct?

Excluding the extremes of wholesome and abominable personalities, the middle 80-90% of the people are affected by their nurture. They follow their upbringing. While it is true that even if the parents are extremely well-behaved and conscientious, the children may turn out otherwise, it is not an argument against the role of a good upbringing. On occasion a child may be fed as much as one can and yet refuses to put on any weight. Food doesn't appear to benefit him. To ask, ``Why feed a child like this?'' will never do. Sometimes a disease doesn't seem to be helped by any amount of medicine. But if the disease is stopped in its advance by the medicine, isn't that a benefit of the medicine? Likewise with good conduct, and thus it is necessary to continue to inculcate these qualities. Instruction must be positive. Even if teaching manners appears fruitless, creating an environment where there is constant exposure to positive culture is necessary. Constant attention is required towards that end. Samartha is therefore addressing the mind as such. Since the mind has inherently pure tendencies, he calls the mind noble. He is pointing out its essentially pure nature, and he may also be understood to gently cajole the wayward ones into listening.

Samartha says, oh mind, you are great. You are noble. As one with a pure mind, you must also act graciously. It is not good for you to dwell in your selfishness, your hedonistic pursuits,, your propensity for greedy enjoyment, deception and evil. Embarking on the path of gratitude and walking the way of devotion are truly befitting a dignified person. Hold fast to the path of devotion, and you will naturally and straightforwardly attain to Shri Hari, Lord the Highest. Compared to any other method, effort or path, the path of devotion proves to be the simplest, the most approachable and the most definitive in order to reach the Absolute. Each of the Manāché shlōk will describe this path of devotion in detail and in all its manifold aspects.

In the first shlōk, Samartha asks us to enjoin the path of Rāghava, and in the this next one, he says that traveling this path of devotion leads to a uniting with Shri Hari. This proves that Samartha felt no distinction between R=aghava and Shri Hari, or R=am and Krishna. And yet it is unfortunate that some W=arkari pilgrims express divisiveness towards Samartha R=amd=as Swami. Anyway, this reference is only so that the new, young generation may steer clear of this discriminatory attitude. The path of R=aghava and Shri Hari is identical -- not distinct. With a mind purified by worship, and when the mind is dissolved into a Samādhī, what is experienced is the essence of the singular Spirit, the awareness of one and only one Consciousness. It is variously described by great souls, masters of words, in ways and manners to aid the progress of different seekers. A thinking person should not be distracted by the distinction in name. I feel that Samartha references Rāghava once and Shri Hari next to draw our attention to the statement in the Vedas that behind the different names exists only one essence. Even though a devotee is naturally inclined to prefer a specific form, he should not let go of the power of discernment and should not become obstinate. Even in the path of devotion, Samartha insists that this is worth remembering.

Samartha especially asks us to enjoin on the path of devotion. He does not mention the other existing paths of action, meditation, or knowledge. This is because from the perspective of the mental makeup of the typical person, the appeal of the path of devotion is unmatched in other paths. The other paths provide little opportunity to fix mistakes. The path of devotion provides the greatest opportunity to make amends for missteps compared to the other paths. And therefore, just like other saints have encouraged, Samartha insists everyone should join the path of devotion.

What does one need to do to set out on the path of devotion? Samartha will tell us all about that in incremental steps. Whatever is evil, contrary to one's well-being should be cast away and whatever good and conducive to well-being should be accepted with conviction. This is the first step of conduct on the path of devotion. How do determine what is good and evil? Using reason and scriptural testimony at this stage would be akin to entering a tangled forest. Therefore Samartha is instructing us with a practical approach: generally speaking, whatever society at large considers to be an evil should be cast away, and whatever great people say is good, should be pursued with effort and one should strive to bring into practice with great mindfulness.

Even nefarious people generally do not openly flaunt their unscrupulous ways. Or at least they didn't used to. Even honor among thieves is necessary. In our ancient philosophies, the Chārvāka embodied atheistic, materialistic ideas. But it may argued that he too was far more civilized than the views expressed by modernists today. Taking out a loan to eat ghee was considered the epitome of materialism. This he considered the good life. Eating ghee strengthens the intelligence helps clarify thoughts. The body also becomes stronger and life is prolonged. Taking a loan requires creditworthiness. In effect all of these outcomes are beneficial. Even the Chārvāka does not promote theft in order to indulge in alcohol. Even he does not promote cruelty and vices. When the body forms the habit of rejecting bad and pursuing good, resulting in the improved ability to discern between the two. Discipline becomes muscle memory.

In society the concepts of good versus evil are founded on the collective experiences of many generations, and so are more empirically reliable than the judgement of an idea by an individual, and so at least in the beginning, Samartha asks us to pay respect to public opinion.