Following is the translation of some discussion I had with my father. I have mostly omitted my comments (which were minimal). It starts with an abstract question and goes into a highly practical way to understand the world.
In scientific research one major guiding principle is “avoid bias as much as possible”. Get rid of bias-ness. If you are unbiased you will automatically see the truth; if you are prejudiced then you get biased. If there is unbiased fairness in your view then truth will automatically shine in front of you. And once you see the truth do as it guides.
For example people used to see snakes and they saw that snake-bite caused death. So they would kill the snake. Then they found that snake venom can be useful and one can also use snake skin; some may also eat snake. So its all about how you see.
Spirituality begins with “I” and ends with the demise of “I”. As long as there is “I” there will be conflict. But actually there is no “I”. Had there really been an “I” then there would have been no cause for conflict. But in reality there is no “I” and we assume an I-ness; and then starts conflict. And all conflict ends ... when one realises that there is no “I”.
The same thing is elucidated in Bhagavatam in Krishn’s Bastraharanam (Krishna taking away the clothes of Gopi-lasses). I-ness is our cloth... our mask which we all put all the time.
Thats what Jiddu Krishnamurthy tells when he says “an experiencer can not experience”. Are you able to grasp this? If you become an experiencer, can you experience? To experience you have to be vacuum; be like a mirror. If you become an experiencer then you become branded, biased with a personality. We tend to think an experiencer is an expert and can experience very sharp. But as soon as I put a brand, “experiencer”, I cease to see. I get attached, stranded with that brand. All the organs we need to experience, they are all perfect. They can experience whatever comes. Once you become “experiencer” you get conditioned and once conditioned how can you see the things as it is? Once I get used to experience, I get used to things I experience; I will start comparing with what I have experienced. But to see the present you have to die to the past.
And we should contemplate on this in our meditation. The Buddha has also told this. We will see the truth; how shall we see the truth? We can only see the truth if we are unbiased. To start the journey we have to first leave biased-ness. In scientific research we are always warned not to be biased at all. We are taught many methods how to avoid bias. And what is bias-ness? Bias-ness is nothing but your I-ness. The feeling that I do this or that. But where is the I? Is “I” the doer? As God says in Bhagwat Gita
“Prakruteyh-kriyamanani; guneih karmani sarbasah;
Ahamkara bimudhatma; karta-ham iti mandate”
(Nature functions by the Guna-karma of everything; but because of I-ness we think that we are the doer.)
Prakriti is active through the guna-karma (or the action of the gunas). What is the meaning of “guneih karmani”? Many translators explain this as the effect of the three gunas. But its simpler than all this. The meaning of guns is characteristic. So its about the true nature of things. E.g. the nature of water in room temperature is liquid; and it flows down. Similarly everything has its natural nature. Taking those into account things happen in nature. Simple! Can you understand it? Everything has its own nature and characters. Everything, every particle follows its own natural nature and things happen. Is there any “personal doer” here? As God says again:
“Aham baiswanarah vhritwa, praniaam dehamashirtah;
Pranapana samawitwa, pachayinom-chaturbhujah.”
(I am the digestion-fire in people’s bodies; who digests using the ingoing and outgoing energy of breath.)
So the God says I am doing digestion in you through the digestion-fire. What does it mean? Does it mean that only digestion is done by God and other actions by us? It means all biological processes are automatic; which means all are done by the natural nature of things; through their true-characteristics.
What we do usually is that in everything we look for a doer and then we look for God (the ultimate doer). We look for doer-ship. But in reality there is no need for a doer. The whole universe goes on working in unison. Whwere is the personal doer? Tell me one thing that can be done by a personal doer? Everything is interdependent. How can there exist an independent doer? As God told there is no doer; but we look for doer. Why? Because you have been fooled by ego or I-ness.
Similarly Patanjali (the father of Yoga) says: because of the lack of true knowledge we develop I-ness or ego. There is no real presence of I-ness; its baseless; its not there at all. Born out of ignorance I-ness emerges. And then Patanjali proceeds very logically: once you have I-ness you will develop likes and dislikes. Only when there is I you get mine. Whatever I like is mine whatever I feel like is my opinion. And once likes-dislikes come then comes clinging. We want to cling to what we like and cling away from what we don’t like. And what logically comes next is sorrow. The actual sutra (or formula) goes on like this:
Avidya Ashmita Raga-dwesah Abhinivesa: pancha klesa
(Ignorance, I-ness, like, dislike, clinging: the five-fold evolution of sorrow)
Some translators comment this as five reasons of sorrow. But where is five? There is only one cause, i.e. “Ignorance”. Without ignorance there is no I-ness. Without I-ness is there any likes or dislikes? Truth is truth; its neither your truth or my truth. Its not an opinion; its the truth. Opinions are personal; truth has no personal identity attached to it. For example when you say water flows from top to down. Do you say its your opinion? Do you feel bad when someone opposes it? You can just show: look water flows down. There is no controversy in truth or facts. All kinds of opinions: they can never be true. Opinion needs a person to be attached to. Fact needs no doer. Facts are there irrespective of anyone observing them or not. Gravitation was there from day one; Newton just discovered it.
When “experiencer” arises then arises I-ness. In every thing. For example while reflecting if the mirror finds a beautiful thing and holds on to that image then it becomes a photo plate. It can no more act as a mirror. That is what people call Chaitanya and Chitta (in our mind or human cognition). Chaitanya is like mirror. It reflects or shows the things as they are. There is no holding on to any image. There is no cyclic event in it. What is cycle? Its desire for repetition; let this come again and again and certain other events not come at all; the wish that a certain thing happen and some other event not happen. Chitta is when Chiatanya tries for repetition. Again Patanjali says:
“Yoga chitta vriti-nirodha”
(Yoga is to stop the repetition seen in Chitta)
How does Chitta arise? It arises when there comes I-ness; when you try to cling to your psychological memory. In Chiatanya there is no I-ness; its factual; it shows what comes ... as it is.
Chitta has become an “experiencer” already with I-ness. For example, to taste I have all the faculties needed: tongue, taste-buds, nerves etc. Whatever comes to my mouth I feel it as it is. If I eat something hot I feel its hot and if its too hot I feel that this is beyond what I can tolerate. These are facts as passed on to our brain. It may say that its painful. But it does not say that its sorrowful. Neither does it say that its bad. Whatever comes it shows. If its too much I will spit it out; but I will not dislike it. If I eat something sweet or yummy I will feel the good taste; but the taste buds stop their functions then and there. It does not say that sweet is good and hot is bad. So if we try to analyse …. all our biological systems are perfect. They never cling to anything. How do we cling then? We cling because of our psychological memory. Do you understand? You eat a sweetmeat; you feel its sweet; then you conclude “this is nice”. Then you cling to it. When many such things start clinging to you then that develops your I-ness or ego: a personality. A personality is nothing but the likes and dislikes of the person. Now you become an “experiencer”; you cease to experience further. Pure experience has no brand; pure experience has no like or dislike. Whatever person, object or event comes into its contact the pure-experience experiences it as it is. There is nothing bad; and nothing good. This is this and that is that.
If I am driving on the road and there comes a pothole. “There comes a pothole”….this is pure experience. Then I put clause or brake whoever I need to do I did. My whole awareness worked in that split second. Then the pothole is gone, its done. If you then continue to think and then start thinking "how bad are these roads. Rest every other place has nice road. And this place….”. Then you have taken the event further to psychological memory. Then arises the question of good and bad. Where was the need of this question of good and bad to act on the spot and to live? To live we needed to see that there is a pothole, its depth might be so and so and to avoid it I had to do so many things or its too big to cross and I divert to take another route. Whatever you need to do you do. As it says in the Upanishads: “Yatha-bhuta darshanam” (to see things as they are is philosophy). As things are so I see and so I do. Now there is no hole and road is empty; drive drive fast. But this is bad road and that is good road: this is in no way helpful for the “driver”. I am not the person making the road. I am a driver at that point and my goal is to pass that road. What is good or bad road? If the road is like this I drive a certain way and if the road is like that I drive some other way. If I know that my brake is loose then I will act accordingly and drive slow (and put the brake well ahead). All these are factual experiences. Factual.
Whatever person I come across let it be; whatever objects I come across let it be; whatever events I come across let it be. Where is the question of good and bad in an event? This is what occurred and accordingly your wholeness will act Try to think like a driver. Lets say the traffic on the road is unruly; don’t obey any traffic rules; don’t notice even if you hunk. The driver can conclude “Aha! this is how the traffic is here”. And she drives accordingly. As soon as traffic is gone its over. There is no reminisce. Is not it? Why? Because your wholeness acted there. If not then you will drive, yes. But you will be split. You will come blaming the road and traffic. And that is binding or “maya”. If there remains reminisce of an action then we are bound to it. Then you continue being bound to it. Freedom from attachment is not to be found in some other world; here itself you have attachment and detachment. When your wholeness works the work is complete and there is no reminisce. After the work is done if you have reminisce then while doing only a part of you has acted. Had your wholeness acted then who is left to brood?
Do you get it? Lets say I got angry today. At that time my wholeness acted. If its so then later who is left to lament? But what we do is that only a part of ours work at the moment. And the beauty is that when the wholeness works there is no “anger”. This is so and that is so. Lets say a kid is unknowingly running towards the fire. You stop it in a jolt. It might hurt the kid. But thats finished. At that moment my wholeness thought thats the action to take and I did it. But then its over. The work is finished and its done.
So most important thing is that to see the truth we have to stop being the “experiencer”. Once you become experiencer you can no longer see the truth. In life the only thing is truth. If you act on it then you just act; you do not react. If the road is like this you drive like that. Traffic is like this you drive accordingly. There is only action; no reaction.
Lets say I have a friend with whom I have no match in personality. Then I leave that friend. I see this is how the friend is. “yatha-bhuta darshanam”; and I leave that friend. The friend is not bad or good. There is no question of branding. We are not blaming anyone. If this is how he is this is how we act. And if needed a person can also be killed and that is what Arjuna did in the war. He killed as an Akarta (a non-doer).
In Vipasana meditation they say step in the path of truth; envision the truth. And they ask in Vipasana to start from your own self without seeking knowledge from outside. It is also called very clearly that Prajnya (the pure knowledge) can not come from outside: not by reading books nor by listening to Gurus nor by discourses. As it says in Mundaka Upanishad:
“Nayam atmah prabachanena labhyo; na medhaya na bahudha srutena”
(one can not achieve truth through discourses or just intellect or through different scriptures)
Very lucidly it says in Odia Bhagavatam
“mu jaku huai sadaya; gyana ta hrudaru udaya”
(If there is attachment to truth then springs knowledge from the heart)
It means the realisation comes from within. Its tuition vs. intuition. Everything outside is tuition. There is no way those can cause the mergence of true realisation. Whatever comes from within; if you go on observing things as they are then whatever emerges is intuition. There is no tuition in that. And what do they recommend (in Vipasana) to see the truth? Simple: observe your breath. There goes in the breath and out. Thats the simplest real thing you can observe anytime. For a conscious person breath is the most easily available and observable truth. Thats what he observes; here it goes and here it comes out. What else he observes? It feels cool and it feels warmer. What else he observes? This is impermanent. What else he sees? If its impermanent then what attraction or distraction do I have to the breath? It feels cooler; fine: I continue observing it. It feels warm; fine: I continue observing it. There is neither like nor dislike. Then he continues observing; also observe his own body. What he finds in his body? That there are body-reactions: Samvedana. Why do we need to watch the Samavedana? Because all our six senses create Samvedana when they perceive anything. Samavedana can be of three kinds: pleasurable, painful or neutral. If its pleasurable then fine. For example in a hot afternoon you drink some cool water; its pleasurable. Or in a cold night comes a gale of cold wind; its painful. Similarly if its neutral; its neutral. You observe it all but do not desire anything. Had you been an “experiencer” then you will want the pleasurable Samvedana to stay and the painful ones to go. That is the repetition that Patanjali mentioned. When there is pure observation it sees clearly what there is. And what else it realises? It realises that all the Samavedanas are shifting, impermanent, Anitya (Buddhist word for impermanent). There is neither attraction nor aversion. I observe my Samavedanas as they are. And all this I have been trying to look inside my bodily experiences. And when I can see these inside, this perfects the way I see outside world as well. Because I have “seen” these things inside it creates intuition from inside, then arises proper knowledge from inside.
In the outside world as well things/people/events can be pleasurable, painful or neutral. Observing them we are not caught in repetition again. I do not evaluate them and then I am not caught in Vriti or repetition. What it means? Sanskara or culture (the way our personality has been cultivated) will cease to act there. Because you are sharply conscious; the old Sanskara ceases to existt or bind you. Once you are conscious no Sanskara can act upon you. And new Sanskara can not be created any further.
“Kshina-purana nava-nati sambhava”
(The old (sanskara) thins out and new ones are not possible)
Old sanskaras thins out and new ones are no more possible to be created. In scientific terms this simply means that bias-ness has vanished. When that is gone you visualise truth.
And it is silly to ask “what will happen when I see the truth”! If you go one tutoring yourself from before hand on what all will happen; e.g. so and so will happen to me, or certain chakras will arise etc; then you are confused with self-projection. As you go one concentrating in a calm manner you start feeling the self-projection images; some chakra feels in your abdomen and so on. You have been told all that a priori and hence you start imagining those things. But what is the need to be told all these? One who goes on the road of truth………..for example on this road if you go you will see a traffic post; go little more you see a vendor selling sweet things to your left or a tea stall to your right; you will automatically see these things; may be further there is a drain….whatever comes you see. What is the need, here, to get preconceived and prejudiced or to imagine and to project?
Do you see the gist here? Once you have set foot on the road of truth then there is nothing to worry. You can walk on that road or drive an Audi; you will ultimately reach the destination, is not it? Lets say I have no mode and I start walking towards Puri. (From my home, at Bhubaneswar, if you drive east you reach Puri and if you drive west you reach Katak.) Let it take five days; I will ultimately reach Puri, is not it? But even if I have got the best vehicle but i have faced Katak. You can drive as fast as you may wish. You will only end up father from Puri. So the mode hardly matters. Its the path of truth that matters. Go seeing the truth on each step. Thats why in Buddishm they have different stages. A person who just starts his journey he is called Stream Runner. He may take many lives; but as he has set foot on the path of truth he WILL reach the destination ultimately. But we need not know any of these brands or theories. What is the use of all this if you are on the path of truth?
The only thing that matters is that there should be no bias-ness in me; there should be no I-ness or ego in me. And thats exactly what is also told in Bhagwat-Gita.
“Sarvadharman paritejya; mamekam saranam brajah”
(abandon all dharma and only take refuge in me)
But this is confusing as well. Because in the beginning in Gita the God says that whenever there is any discrepancy in dharma He comes to set it right.
"yada yada hi dharmasya glanir-bhabati bharata; abhyuthanam adharmasya tadatmanam srijamyaham”
(whenever there is hinderance in dharma I come to set it right)
And to the end He is saying to abandon all dharma! How? Is this not confusing? At one point He says whenever there is slightest hindrance in dharma I shall come to set it right; and how is he telling to abandon all dharma? What it means? It means abandon all dharma and take refuge in me, mamekam. Who is “me” or mamekam? It simply means take recourse to the truth. Mamekam means truth. Take refuge in the truth. Is God a separate entity? There is no God higher than truth. If “me” or mamekam would have meant Krishna the personified God then Arjuna (to whom Gita was discoursed) had Krishna; who do we have? Whosoever you may be take recourse to the truth.
So leave every other course and take recourse to the truth. As the God has also told before in Bhagwat Gita: that essence which is available always, available everywhere: what can that be? That is the truth. Is not it? Everything displays its own essence of characteristics naturally: that is truth. Whatever the properties of water they remain that; whatever the properties of fire they remain that way. There is no other way it can exist. So when the God says He is everywhere its the truth that is being referred to.
And here is something I have been thinking about for a while; and am sure every other person must have thought of this as well. The ego that gets created in us is because of psychological memory and not out of factual memory. Because facts can not create an I-ness in us. There is no meaning is addressing facts as “my opinion”. There is no mine or thine in facts. Psychological memory creates ego in us; and once ego comes there comes mine and thine. Once that comes then comes likes and dislikes; which in turn create clinging and then sorrow. A scientist does the same thing but in external things. Thats why the inner knowledge is not arising in him. If only he could meditate on the inner working of our body and thoughts then he would get the intuition. He would no more get guided by tuition. So whatever you do start from inside. And once you observe things inside you get the right understanding. And understanding brings immediate change. You have either understood it; or not understood it at all. Change is immediate. There is no time involved. And as God says in another line:
“yad gatwa na nibartante; tad dhamam paramam mamah”
(that, where once you enter you can not return, is my abode)
You get a change in your dimension. Like once a baby becomes boy or a boy becomes man or a man becomes an old-man there is no way he can return back to his past form. Similarly once you have understood there comes an immediate change in your dimensions. If there is time involved then again comes ego or I-ness. “Today I am ignorant; tomorrow I shall be more knowledgeable”: this is the play of the I-ness. Thats what Krishnamurthy means when he says “ending of time”. Ending of time does not mean the ending of the clock-time. Ending of time means this. There remains no past or future; only present. Beyond time. He also sometimes mentions this as “flight of the eagle”; what does that mean? There remains no mark after the eagle has flown. The screen is ever clean; it is not catching hold of anything. Flight of the eagle; no trace is left. Beyond time: present is beyond time. Time comes only when you bring comparison. Who is the one inside you who wants change? The same Iness. Once it has been created it is desiring change; because it is always evaluating. And based on what? Based on the knowledge from past. That is the experiencer; that wants the change. Like its been so long in life; what is left; now let me try to change my ways and try to seek peace and God. Who is telling all that? Thats the same I-ness. And that is the cause of all trouble; and that I-ness must die; no “die” is also not the right word. Because “die” means we acknowledge the existence of that I-ness. But I-ness does not exist at all. It got no existence. Die means you think it is existing now. And whatever you do is being done by it. Continuity is the cause and aim of this I-ness; and once continuity is broken would it not vanish? That ego never wants to not-exist and unknowingly we keep on making it stronger and stronger.
No comments:
Post a Comment