The yogin experiences, but at the height of his practice there is neither object nor subject in his experience. The kavi experiences, and in the pinnacle of his practice his world is unified under increasingly robust ontologies. When he attains mastery he becomes an AchArya who expounds shAstra-s. Indeed the great indra bestows on few the profound shAstra-s as that is indra himself. Hence, the kavi states:
yash ChandasAm R^iShabho vishvarUpaH |
Chandobhyo .adhyamR^itAt saMbabhUva ||
sa mendro medhayA spR^iNotu |
amR^itasya deva dhAraNo bhUyAsam ||
The old thinkers of our tradition had opined that vidyA lies at the junction between the AchArya and the antevAsin. But the adhyAyin has to be suitable else the vidyA is not transmitted and even its creation might be aborted. An adhyAyin who is an embodiment of tamas and lacks aptitude for the grahaNa of the shAstra should be cast aside like a stone. Such can indeed be ruinous for the AchArya and the very transmission of the shAstra-s. Unlike the opinion of the mlechCha-s, our tradition holds that the adhikAra for shAstrAdhyAya is not for all and should not be disbursed to all and sundry without appropriate testing of the adhyAyin’s aptitude and attitude. The more involved a shAstra, fewer can approach it. Hence, at rarefied heights there are only a few vidvAn-s who engage in discourse of the shAstra. At this point, these, in a sense, become like yogin-s, because the lay society cannot scale the kailAsa-like peaks atop which they are stationed. Thus, like a yogin meditating in the solitude of a cave in kailAsa these shAstrAdhikArin-s dwell in the pinnacles of knowledge. The greatest among them are the sarva-shAstra-vid, who span the shAstra-s like an oceanic vyAsa or a chANakya or bhIShma pitAmaha. In the society of Arya-s such vidvAn-s are allowed to remain atop their pinnacles. They are important to the plebeian because their insights can guide and inform mundane matters which are central for the former. However, under the influence of the mlechChAdi the society can turn inimical to the vidvAn-s: It might choose to place obstacles in their practice, or it might set up fake individuals who sound like vidvAn-s but peddle hollow and faith-dependent doctrines. Even more dangerously, because the plebeians in such a perverted society cannot scale the heights attained by the vidvAn-s, it might start believing that the little mud mounds, which its plebeians scale are truly pinnacles of shAstra-s. Finally, there are those who are not kavi-s, but dharma-virodhaka-s, who because of the systems of the mlechChAdi might have acquired shAstra-j~NAna and might place themselves as AchArya-s. Such might infuse perverted teachings along side the shAstra-s and penetrate the plebeian masses with confusion.
The old Arya society had both the yogin and kavi. The yogin attaining his state of subject-object-less consciousness occasionally returns to society and expounds on the profound bliss of that condition. The plebeian without having the proclivities and aptitude of the yogin wants to experience the same. Not having the means he turns to a dangerous proxy known as bhakti and sets off on the unguided path. On the way he seriously conflates the mantra-shAstra of the yogin with the songs of bhakti. He is unable to distinguish the charyAgIti-s of a yogin from a bhakti outpouring. His indulgence in such takes him farther away from the realism that emerges at the interface of the kavi and his students, which produces hard works like the dharmashAstra or the arthashAstra. Thus, we are left with a mass driven by false yearning for the unbroken consciousness of the inner world but a lack of understanding of the world. This might be exacerbated by the delusions of secularism and modernism wafted in by the mlechChAdi. The directives for the path of a kavi as laid out by kShemendra are ignored and there is neglect of the study of kANAdaM and pANinIyaM from which understanding of the world stems.
In the world confused by the mlechChAdi, the puruSha-dharma as laid out by the old dharma-shAstra-s is seen as a horrible perversion. In contrast, the ideals of secularism, modernism, egalitarianism and blindness to sex, inter-individual and inter-ethnicity differences are seen as superb guiding principles. The great kAlidAsa had said:
purANam ity eva na sAdhu sarvaM | na chApi kAvyaM navam ity avidyaM ||
Yet, before adopting the navam shAstraM and discarding the purANaM we must apply the tests to check out their relative robustness. For this just as the yogin strives for to excavate the basis of the experiential I the kavi needs to unearth the foundations of the objective human existence. This can only be done when he seeks to answer: Why is this human ape so constructed?