Continuity is a tricky issue. To understand that the feeling of continuity - the feeling that I existed for so long- arises due to the desire to exist, as Buddha puts it due to bhava tanha (desire to become) is a revealing insight. Having said that, if one believes, by wrongly grasping Anatta as a principle, that there is no 'I'; only dhammas exist, is also equally wrong. It is actually vibava tanha, desire for non existence. But it is inherent that we tend to believe that the 'I' the enemy and tend to ignore it.
The result is that when faced with a tough situation, we tend to solve the situation with immediate instincts, which is the reaction, the only arsenal we have at hand. We don't want to bring our good nature, our strengths that we acquired when facing the issue. Inherently we miss the continuity of our personality !
To note that it's the 'I' feeling that brings in our good conditioning and our past strengths is a wonderful insight, that's the key.
The trick is that what inherently we should not hold on to as oneself is the accumulated past actions and their effects on the psyche. What one should hold on to oneself is the feeling of oneself. The latter is inherently just a feeling but it is a true feeling.
Ramana maharishi says that holding on to this feeling and seeking leads to the beyond. That is for one to see.
Friday, May 14, 2010
On Self Enquiry
Ramana Maharishi propounds self enquiry. The method, as I understand is
1. Every being has an irrefutable feeing of 'I', of one self.
2. Observe the feeling.
3. See the attributes of 'I' as different from the 'I' feeling.
For eg. If I say I am Krishnan. Krishnan is my name, not me. Who am I ?
Iam a man - again my gender, not me ... the sequence to be applied to all the mental personalities that we observe when in introspection.
4. Bhagavan says that this I feeling is like a knot that between the mortal life and the divine. A knot is not an entity in itself. He also says that the I world and God arise and vanish together.
5. If we could de link all the modifiers from the I feeling, the 'I' feeling would dissapear and Divinity would shine forth. This is the most important point, one feels.
This method is marvellous. A one step method. Notice JK speaks about observing oneself in action and speaks about observing all the conditioning in it's completeness and the mind would be silent.
One feels an instinctive connection to dependent arising. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha speaks about the mental concept of body-mind (nama rupa), conciousness, sankara (samskara) and at the last ignorance in the reverse order. But what is ignorance ? Is it not the feeling of 'Iam' ? To be distinguished from 'Iam this vs that' which acomes in nama rupa etc.- Just the feeling of this limited I, separate independent but existing in this space time ?
This feeling of I, as in dependent arising is the basis of samskara. But what causes this feeling ? remember each limb arises depdendent on the other-it is not a linear chain. Hence, the feeling of I is nourished by the samskara itself.
Isn't Bhagavan's instruction directly leading to the 'ignorance'- avijja - first step in the dependent arising ? However, observation of this 'I' without the backdrop of Dhamma could mislead the mind to constructing some theories about the 'I self' - Iam consiousness and the kind.
Ok, suppose that we observed the 'I' on the backdrop of dependent arising, dropped all of its attributes (one should be very very careful not to have any mentations at this point too), what's left ? Would that result in the JK's state of observaing the conditions in its totality ?
we are somewhere, but what's the next step ? Is that the last step ?
On a different note, the textual versions of dependent arising some how do not stress the I feeling, although that feeling is most obvious and potent. It is not surprising, as the guiding principle is anatta. So it would be tricky to emphasise about the self-I feeling- at the beginnning and reject there after. Unless of course one where to resort to a Bhakthi kind of approach where the Other personality is emphasised.
A practisioner could be at cross roads - he/she feels the 'I' but can't accept it- bacause of wrong grapsing of Anatta. Negetivism creeps in. Practising the Bhagavans self enquiry in the same plane as the dependent arising seing the harmony of both, one feels, would help.
1. Every being has an irrefutable feeing of 'I', of one self.
2. Observe the feeling.
3. See the attributes of 'I' as different from the 'I' feeling.
For eg. If I say I am Krishnan. Krishnan is my name, not me. Who am I ?
Iam a man - again my gender, not me ... the sequence to be applied to all the mental personalities that we observe when in introspection.
4. Bhagavan says that this I feeling is like a knot that between the mortal life and the divine. A knot is not an entity in itself. He also says that the I world and God arise and vanish together.
5. If we could de link all the modifiers from the I feeling, the 'I' feeling would dissapear and Divinity would shine forth. This is the most important point, one feels.
This method is marvellous. A one step method. Notice JK speaks about observing oneself in action and speaks about observing all the conditioning in it's completeness and the mind would be silent.
One feels an instinctive connection to dependent arising. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha speaks about the mental concept of body-mind (nama rupa), conciousness, sankara (samskara) and at the last ignorance in the reverse order. But what is ignorance ? Is it not the feeling of 'Iam' ? To be distinguished from 'Iam this vs that' which acomes in nama rupa etc.- Just the feeling of this limited I, separate independent but existing in this space time ?
This feeling of I, as in dependent arising is the basis of samskara. But what causes this feeling ? remember each limb arises depdendent on the other-it is not a linear chain. Hence, the feeling of I is nourished by the samskara itself.
Isn't Bhagavan's instruction directly leading to the 'ignorance'- avijja - first step in the dependent arising ? However, observation of this 'I' without the backdrop of Dhamma could mislead the mind to constructing some theories about the 'I self' - Iam consiousness and the kind.
Ok, suppose that we observed the 'I' on the backdrop of dependent arising, dropped all of its attributes (one should be very very careful not to have any mentations at this point too), what's left ? Would that result in the JK's state of observaing the conditions in its totality ?
we are somewhere, but what's the next step ? Is that the last step ?
On a different note, the textual versions of dependent arising some how do not stress the I feeling, although that feeling is most obvious and potent. It is not surprising, as the guiding principle is anatta. So it would be tricky to emphasise about the self-I feeling- at the beginnning and reject there after. Unless of course one where to resort to a Bhakthi kind of approach where the Other personality is emphasised.
A practisioner could be at cross roads - he/she feels the 'I' but can't accept it- bacause of wrong grapsing of Anatta. Negetivism creeps in. Practising the Bhagavans self enquiry in the same plane as the dependent arising seing the harmony of both, one feels, would help.
The symbolism in Sri Chandi
Sri Chandi-Devi Mahatmyam- is a very potent text. It has so many symbolisms and inner meanings, one feels.
A powerful sequence is when Devi takes on Rakthabhija - the Asura, where a drop of blood falls on earth gives rise to a new Asura of the same kind. As all the manifestations of Devi attack the asura, so much blood is spilled, so many new asuras are formed and the whole world is covered by them. To solve this mess, Devi entrusts Kaali to expand her mouth and drink up all drops of blood before it touches the earth and the asuras if formed. The idea is that subsequently the asura would become deficient of blood and finally collapse. Devi attacks the Asura with all weapons, blood flows profoundly, and Kali drinks up all the blood not letting it fall on the ground. Finally the asura falls.
Clearly the symbolism indicates the vasanas - the tendencies. The tendencies, when fallen on the soil of our samskara - accumulated potencies in a very loose manner - gives rise to a personality. And, tendency is just a celebrated name for desire. So desire takes life on the ground of accumulated tendencies. A detour here, is to note that this is in similar light to the Buddhas Paticha Samuppada-desire arisen in the base of sanskaras give rise to jati. A point to be remembered that the dependent arising is not a linear chain-mutual dependence of every limb is a prerequisite for the other.
Fine, so what does this whole act mean ? Let me jot down some possibilities:
1. The desire fallen on a different base - Kalis tongue, divinity -does not take a new life. In principle similar to Thakur's (Sri Ramakrishna) path of directing the desire to the divine. Lets investigate the 'tongue' a bit more. Tongue is baseless and structureless in itself. It leads to the internals where digestion takes place-a state of flux. So does this symbolism mean that when the desire is taken by a system which does not have the fixed structure - the structure of personality feeling (ignorance and sankara of Paticha Samuppada) - it would not take life.
2. The asura needed attack by two forces to be destroyed: Devi attacking him, making the blood to flow and Kaali to take up all that blood. Does it mean that to eliminate all the negativism we need two pronged attack ? On in which the tendencies flow out, and another in which they are annihilated ? Interesting to note that this two forces faintly resemble the Vishnu Siva tatvas respectively.
This point needs some thought. Every spiritual path has symbolisms about both the facets. One presenting ('out going') , the other withdrawing. Shakti-Siva, Pravritti-Nivratti, Prakruti-Purusha, Yin-Yang. In one perspective, the Theravada principle of Nirvana faintly resembles the latter where as the Mahayana principle of Bodhisatta resembles the former. In Chandi too, the blessing the Vaisya seeks is to attain 'Sanga vichyuti karaakam', to go beyond the self identity (the latter) where as the king sought the former to be born as Manu. Is there some deeper message here ? Is it impied that for complete going beyond, one needs creativity as well as renunciation in the same potency ?
3. The assurance of Devi is most encouraging. She says 'Ksheena raktha bhavisyati' will be depleted of blood - about the asura. Wow ! so is it a promise that tendencies will be depleted on practice ? There is of course, only a limited amount of blood-but I guess this works if the depleting process is quicker than the rate at which blood is regenerated !
A powerful sequence is when Devi takes on Rakthabhija - the Asura, where a drop of blood falls on earth gives rise to a new Asura of the same kind. As all the manifestations of Devi attack the asura, so much blood is spilled, so many new asuras are formed and the whole world is covered by them. To solve this mess, Devi entrusts Kaali to expand her mouth and drink up all drops of blood before it touches the earth and the asuras if formed. The idea is that subsequently the asura would become deficient of blood and finally collapse. Devi attacks the Asura with all weapons, blood flows profoundly, and Kali drinks up all the blood not letting it fall on the ground. Finally the asura falls.
Clearly the symbolism indicates the vasanas - the tendencies. The tendencies, when fallen on the soil of our samskara - accumulated potencies in a very loose manner - gives rise to a personality. And, tendency is just a celebrated name for desire. So desire takes life on the ground of accumulated tendencies. A detour here, is to note that this is in similar light to the Buddhas Paticha Samuppada-desire arisen in the base of sanskaras give rise to jati. A point to be remembered that the dependent arising is not a linear chain-mutual dependence of every limb is a prerequisite for the other.
Fine, so what does this whole act mean ? Let me jot down some possibilities:
1. The desire fallen on a different base - Kalis tongue, divinity -does not take a new life. In principle similar to Thakur's (Sri Ramakrishna) path of directing the desire to the divine. Lets investigate the 'tongue' a bit more. Tongue is baseless and structureless in itself. It leads to the internals where digestion takes place-a state of flux. So does this symbolism mean that when the desire is taken by a system which does not have the fixed structure - the structure of personality feeling (ignorance and sankara of Paticha Samuppada) - it would not take life.
2. The asura needed attack by two forces to be destroyed: Devi attacking him, making the blood to flow and Kaali to take up all that blood. Does it mean that to eliminate all the negativism we need two pronged attack ? On in which the tendencies flow out, and another in which they are annihilated ? Interesting to note that this two forces faintly resemble the Vishnu Siva tatvas respectively.
This point needs some thought. Every spiritual path has symbolisms about both the facets. One presenting ('out going') , the other withdrawing. Shakti-Siva, Pravritti-Nivratti, Prakruti-Purusha, Yin-Yang. In one perspective, the Theravada principle of Nirvana faintly resembles the latter where as the Mahayana principle of Bodhisatta resembles the former. In Chandi too, the blessing the Vaisya seeks is to attain 'Sanga vichyuti karaakam', to go beyond the self identity (the latter) where as the king sought the former to be born as Manu. Is there some deeper message here ? Is it impied that for complete going beyond, one needs creativity as well as renunciation in the same potency ?
3. The assurance of Devi is most encouraging. She says 'Ksheena raktha bhavisyati' will be depleted of blood - about the asura. Wow ! so is it a promise that tendencies will be depleted on practice ? There is of course, only a limited amount of blood-but I guess this works if the depleting process is quicker than the rate at which blood is regenerated !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)