The sequence of dependent origination starts (or ends) in 'avijja' or ignorance. Now what is ignorance .. the cause of all the other limbs and subsequently to all existential problems ?
It should be said upfront that this ignorance feeds into the samskaara, the latent tendencies which in turn feeds into the ignorance.
Can this ignorance be the conviction that there is this limited 'me' a spatio temporal reality ?
This feeling when arising with the samskara tendencies and other associates leads to birth etc. This seems consistent.
In classical dependent origination Theravada literature, the ignorance is decribed in negation as 'Not seeing the Noble Truths, Dukkha, Arisal of Dukkha, Cause of Dukkha - Tanha, Cessation and the Path'.
Well, initially it looked like this was written to make the philosophy self consistent. Looking deeper though, does it mean that the 'me' even if stripped down of sanskara and like, has the marks of Dukkha etc.? May be that's why the truths are The Nobel Truths ..
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
On continuity of self
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.
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.
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 !
Sunday, February 28, 2010
About Divinity
Into "Hindu" readings of late. The difference between this and "Buddhist" seems very blurd and seems to fade.
One glitch, a diffucilty that one feels when one enters the former is the personality inherently associated with the divinity.
What if one looks at the various gods as the various approaches to divinity itself ?
In reaching vishnu - krishna you take up an encompassing path - reject none, sarvam vishnumayam jagat. It does not really matter if u reach the feet of vishnu, the locale of vishnu, etc. etc.
In reaching auspicious (ness), siva, rudra you take up the path of denial, destruction or (going as it seems) beyond the imminent obvious conclusions about our selves and the surroundings.
It is sort of made obvious in the mother worship though. Sri chandi speaks about devi as eternal, but as if appears when there is a need an imbalance. The three charitas have mention about the taking form of the devi, and her disappearance after the task is done.
One glitch, a diffucilty that one feels when one enters the former is the personality inherently associated with the divinity.
What if one looks at the various gods as the various approaches to divinity itself ?
In reaching vishnu - krishna you take up an encompassing path - reject none, sarvam vishnumayam jagat. It does not really matter if u reach the feet of vishnu, the locale of vishnu, etc. etc.
In reaching auspicious (ness), siva, rudra you take up the path of denial, destruction or (going as it seems) beyond the imminent obvious conclusions about our selves and the surroundings.
It is sort of made obvious in the mother worship though. Sri chandi speaks about devi as eternal, but as if appears when there is a need an imbalance. The three charitas have mention about the taking form of the devi, and her disappearance after the task is done.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Meditations in dependent origination-cessation
In meditation, one seeks the personality that is evident at that state.
The birth - jati can be seen as
the present personality that is evident. This is pointed out by Ajan Chah.
The cause of that can be seen
as becoming-bhava. We became this (momentary) personality because we
held to something strongly - clinging (upadana). That clinging
happened because we liked it- we craved for it- tanha. The craving was
caused by the feeling- vedana, caused by the contact-phasso. contact
of sense objects with the sense spheres occurred as there are the
sense spheres - salayatanam. The senses are because of our mind and
body- this is the key link - nama rupa. This pertains to our mind made
body- the mental concept of our body. It is interesting that in the
components of nama rupa, the sankara is included.- it is due to our
past impressions that the present concept of our mind body exits. What
exits in the mind, as a cause of mind body ? what is beyond that ?
Buddha says it is consciousness-vinnanam. I think this is where a link
Ramana Maharshi's idea of self enquiry- "the feeling of I" exists. The
cause of that Buddha says is sankara. Sankara is caused by ignorance-
Avijja. What is this now ? Is it the concept of self ? It it the
limitedness one perceives ? Is it the concept that every one of the
above links exists because of the central concept of self ? Is it,
like in the Kachayana vacha gotta sutta, the extremes of the feeling
of "is" and the other extreme of 'is not' ? Or is it the substance
view- the view that all these are existent as absolute entities ?
The mind cannot perceive, the thought cannot touch. Here another link
to Krishnamurti's idea of "Precipice" looks close.
Now, at every step Nagarjuna's idea that each of these cause effect
links are not temporally connected and are not absolute, but each
exist because the other came to be will help us from falling into the
trap 'existentialism'- considering that each this links are absolutely
existent.
The birth - jati can be seen as
the present personality that is evident. This is pointed out by Ajan Chah.
The cause of that can be seen
as becoming-bhava. We became this (momentary) personality because we
held to something strongly - clinging (upadana). That clinging
happened because we liked it- we craved for it- tanha. The craving was
caused by the feeling- vedana, caused by the contact-phasso. contact
of sense objects with the sense spheres occurred as there are the
sense spheres - salayatanam. The senses are because of our mind and
body- this is the key link - nama rupa. This pertains to our mind made
body- the mental concept of our body. It is interesting that in the
components of nama rupa, the sankara is included.- it is due to our
past impressions that the present concept of our mind body exits. What
exits in the mind, as a cause of mind body ? what is beyond that ?
Buddha says it is consciousness-vinnanam. I think this is where a link
Ramana Maharshi's idea of self enquiry- "the feeling of I" exists. The
cause of that Buddha says is sankara. Sankara is caused by ignorance-
Avijja. What is this now ? Is it the concept of self ? It it the
limitedness one perceives ? Is it the concept that every one of the
above links exists because of the central concept of self ? Is it,
like in the Kachayana vacha gotta sutta, the extremes of the feeling
of "is" and the other extreme of 'is not' ? Or is it the substance
view- the view that all these are existent as absolute entities ?
The mind cannot perceive, the thought cannot touch. Here another link
to Krishnamurti's idea of "Precipice" looks close.
Now, at every step Nagarjuna's idea that each of these cause effect
links are not temporally connected and are not absolute, but each
exist because the other came to be will help us from falling into the
trap 'existentialism'- considering that each this links are absolutely
existent.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Meditations
In meditation, on observation of any phenomena, the minds starts to go deeper, observes the reactions, and further deeper.
All the depth arising with the feel of layers of our consciousness are all creations of the mind.
A single sight -like the sights of Varanasi - has all the reaction, samskara, dependent origination built into it. The search of phenomena to observe is also a construct of the mind,
so is to mentally map dependent origination to the observed phenomena - although the latter leads to a deep silence within.
Why ? Lets go back to dependent origination. The Nama Rupa - name and form pertains to our own form and name - identity, inclusive of all the samskara- and not of the object. Sense bases are the evolute and contact and further it proliferates.
Retracing back takes us to ignorance.
Ignorance of what ? Ignorance of having a belief in a self- a person- defined, limited, reacting, conditionally substantiated living process bundle.
On a clearer perspective, once again we can connect with Kacchanna Gotta sutta. The Buddha says that having an opinion 'this exits' means eternalism and 'does not exist' means nihilism. Thus the feeling that some thing 'exits' - not even limiting as a self, is ignorance.
So what then is beyond the ignorance ?
Is this is the precipice versed by JK ?
Is this where the suttas stop and other spiritual paths continue verbalising ?
Indeed this should be the stoppage to all proliferations as we understand..
All the depth arising with the feel of layers of our consciousness are all creations of the mind.
A single sight -like the sights of Varanasi - has all the reaction, samskara, dependent origination built into it. The search of phenomena to observe is also a construct of the mind,
so is to mentally map dependent origination to the observed phenomena - although the latter leads to a deep silence within.
Why ? Lets go back to dependent origination. The Nama Rupa - name and form pertains to our own form and name - identity, inclusive of all the samskara- and not of the object. Sense bases are the evolute and contact and further it proliferates.
Retracing back takes us to ignorance.
Ignorance of what ? Ignorance of having a belief in a self- a person- defined, limited, reacting, conditionally substantiated living process bundle.
On a clearer perspective, once again we can connect with Kacchanna Gotta sutta. The Buddha says that having an opinion 'this exits' means eternalism and 'does not exist' means nihilism. Thus the feeling that some thing 'exits' - not even limiting as a self, is ignorance.
So what then is beyond the ignorance ?
Is this is the precipice versed by JK ?
Is this where the suttas stop and other spiritual paths continue verbalising ?
Indeed this should be the stoppage to all proliferations as we understand..
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Sights of Gaya sissa - readings in Fire sermon
Had the good fortune of gazing at the Gayasissa and recollecting the Aditta pariyaya sutta - the fire sermon.
A wrong impression one gets when one reads the suttas are they biased to the negative ? more mention of suffering, lamentation, grief ..
The awareness is the simple awareness. Awareness of the processes occurring in the senses, any thing as occurring as deep is a construct of mind, artificial.
The simile of fire pertains to transience as well as the process of proliferation. Thinking about the burning sensation causes irritation in mind something the mind wants to avoid. But it is to be noted that it is a reaction.
In a deeper perspective, it can be noted that the word 'Dukkha' creates reactions that are of the same nature as one created by 'hatred' - dwesha (dosa). That of pain - mind recoils and wants to avoid. Mind confuses between these two. But Dukkha is translated as unsatisfactoriness - a nature of dhamma and does not pertain to our minds reaction. When one tries to understand the suttas with this impression, the suttas look negative and biased towards the painful. When one notices that this is a reaction and does not address to it, the suttas look very clear and unbiased - as the truth should be.
Again, if one looks at the three roots of existence, raga dosa and moha as liking, disliking and delusion, rather than greed hatred and delusion, it can be seen to address all our types of reactions and is not biased to the painful.
This outlook clears much a mist from reading of the suttas. Suttas can be seen in a very different 'positive' light.
A wrong impression one gets when one reads the suttas are they biased to the negative ? more mention of suffering, lamentation, grief ..
The awareness is the simple awareness. Awareness of the processes occurring in the senses, any thing as occurring as deep is a construct of mind, artificial.
The simile of fire pertains to transience as well as the process of proliferation. Thinking about the burning sensation causes irritation in mind something the mind wants to avoid. But it is to be noted that it is a reaction.
In a deeper perspective, it can be noted that the word 'Dukkha' creates reactions that are of the same nature as one created by 'hatred' - dwesha (dosa). That of pain - mind recoils and wants to avoid. Mind confuses between these two. But Dukkha is translated as unsatisfactoriness - a nature of dhamma and does not pertain to our minds reaction. When one tries to understand the suttas with this impression, the suttas look negative and biased towards the painful. When one notices that this is a reaction and does not address to it, the suttas look very clear and unbiased - as the truth should be.
Again, if one looks at the three roots of existence, raga dosa and moha as liking, disliking and delusion, rather than greed hatred and delusion, it can be seen to address all our types of reactions and is not biased to the painful.
This outlook clears much a mist from reading of the suttas. Suttas can be seen in a very different 'positive' light.
Sights of Varanasi
Varanasi enlightens one.
The flow through the Ganga, one side all the ghats and the other, nothingness, infinitude.
The ghats represent various phases in ones life. As one moves through them, one can see the liking that the mind takes towards one, and the recoil that it goes thru at another.
And then it occurs that this bias of the mind is artificial. All the sights encompass life, all of this is life. This is all of life in one single snapshot.
When the boat reaches the ghat from the middle of the river, it all becomes clear. People involved in all activity- prayers, passion, poignant, faith - the faces reveal all the states, all the moods. Life comes in front of your eyes.
Then it occurs that all such facets have the same content of life in them - from gorgeous sights to that of a man gobbling a morsel of food- the choice of one to another is an erroneous construct of mind.
This construct involves our deeper impressions about things, the construct of an inner samskara and the various outcomes of the same is also an erroneous mind process.
An evolute of this thought process is all the sights that encompass life of various people various modes involves the ergodic theory. The theory says the observation of a system that evolves in time, as opposed of observation of various instantaneous snapshots of equivalent systems with different initial conditions and evolution equations, would result in the same conclusions.
Implies that all the snapshots of all the people around are snapshots of ourselves projected out in front of our eyes.
Explains why Herman Hesse's Siddhartha lives as a boatman in the Ganga.
The flow through the Ganga, one side all the ghats and the other, nothingness, infinitude.
The ghats represent various phases in ones life. As one moves through them, one can see the liking that the mind takes towards one, and the recoil that it goes thru at another.
And then it occurs that this bias of the mind is artificial. All the sights encompass life, all of this is life. This is all of life in one single snapshot.
When the boat reaches the ghat from the middle of the river, it all becomes clear. People involved in all activity- prayers, passion, poignant, faith - the faces reveal all the states, all the moods. Life comes in front of your eyes.
Then it occurs that all such facets have the same content of life in them - from gorgeous sights to that of a man gobbling a morsel of food- the choice of one to another is an erroneous construct of mind.
This construct involves our deeper impressions about things, the construct of an inner samskara and the various outcomes of the same is also an erroneous mind process.
An evolute of this thought process is all the sights that encompass life of various people various modes involves the ergodic theory. The theory says the observation of a system that evolves in time, as opposed of observation of various instantaneous snapshots of equivalent systems with different initial conditions and evolution equations, would result in the same conclusions.
Implies that all the snapshots of all the people around are snapshots of ourselves projected out in front of our eyes.
Explains why Herman Hesse's Siddhartha lives as a boatman in the Ganga.
While in the boat, we had to go into the centre of the river. The boat appeared stationary. I thought it had been anchored. Nandu the boatman said it is not anchored, and is not stationary also. It is wood, will move in the direction of the flow - he explained. But I could not feel it, not even see it looking at the water- it looked all the same. The sandy bank also gave the same feel. Nandu woke me up and said look at the Ghats - where were we and where are we now. It was amazing - we hade moved a considerable distance from our earlier location!
It occured that life also is similar. Every day looks the same, just like the other. But between two points in time, we would have moved a considerable distance - from within and without. Well, shucks, it also turns out to be only in one way ..
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Nagarjuna: musings on Mulamadhyamaka Karika - Chapter one
Pratyaya pariksha
1. Need for a cause is obvious. What is the interrelation of the cause and effect ?
An existent arisen from oneself would make the process redundant, and hence incorrect.
Arisen from another: If A was said to arise from B, when A is already existent, can we say B is the cause unless we brought in our memory, sanskara, equivalently substance view, Atta ? At present when A is, the action of B being a cause is redundant and not correct.
Arisen from both: would have the same fate being a mixture of both the ideas above.
Na vidyate -not evident- The Ariya is suggesting the way to look. It is like: is it not ? for us with a self view, the answer is no. So, why not ? there .. the self view comes to light. It starts making good sense when this is seen.
2. The four conditions correspond to the arising, existence, cessation, and the sustenance of any existent.
3. The existent is seen with a self nature for us. He is helping us look deeper. This self nature of the existent is not 'evident' in the conditions. Nor they seem to have any self that is completely other to the seen self nature in the existent. Something same yet different.
4. Activity is introduced to address the interactions between the conditions that would lead to the arising of the existent. Activity not constituted nor not constituted of conditions doesn't have an individual self. One would ascribe a self either by its existence, or its functionality. The latter is addressed in this verse. We would ascribe absolutism to conditions if activity constituted of conditions and absolutism to conditions if conditions constituted activity. The cause wouldn't be, without its potency to be one. But, the potency wouldn't be, without it being the cause either. Hence they are said to be not constituted nor not constituted of each other.
5. It is not correct to call anything a condition until the existent has arisen. But till then, it is not considered as a non-condition also - because we ascribe it a sense of self and hence continuity and 'predict' the existent. This is false view.
6. If something doesn't exist, naming a condition for it is not correct. If something is already existent, naming anything as a condition for it is rewinding its genesis in memory and hence not correct. Hence it turns out that naming a condition is not correct for an existent as well as a non-existent.
7. Producing cause: An existent is not produced, as its already there. A non existent would not be produced either. Hence a cause which produces is not correct. Hypothesize of a producing cause can lead to absolutist theories.
8. Objective Support : When an existent is seen, a supporting cause is not independently identified. Rather, when the supporting causes are independently identified, the existent no longer retains its 'self' nature. Eg. the cart simile from Milinda panha. A cart is said to be supported by wheels. But when wheels are independently identified, the rest is no longer a cart. Or a table being supported by its legs. Hence a supporting condition is not clear.
9. Immediate condition: Immediate condition before the arising of existent is incorrect as the existent is itself not defined. Immediate condition after ceasing of existent is incorrect as once ceased, ascribing any condition is not correct.
10. We perceive existent with self nature. As they have a self nature, they would not come to be because some other exists: the Buddhas words on dependent arising would be wrong. As the Buddhas words are true, existent should be perceived without the self nature. Again, another instance when the Ariya points the way to look at the errors in our perception.
11. When the conditions are separated the existent is not produced. Nor is it produced just by the combination of the conditions. If existent were a combination of the conditions would lead to hypothesis of an essence in the conditions becoming the existent. Bhaven implies self less ness of the existent.
12. However, if the effect were non existent in conditions, and were to spring forth from the same, any random cause could give rise to any effect, which is not the case. This sentence makes logical sense only because we presuppose a self to the effect ! Only if existences had self, a search of the effect in the cause, and a finding or a non finding would lead to either complications. In other words, search of an effect in a cause is actually search of the self of the effect in the cause.
13. The effect comes forth from conditions. Conditions are not made by themselves, they too had
other conditions to arise. How can we say that the effect arises from the condition, condition being a starting point ? deeper still, what is a condition other than a convention ? Thus, the effect is also a convention.
14. An effect made of conditions is not evident. It is not seen in the conditions nor by combination of the conditions, and is a seen as a convention. Effect constituting of non conditions is too not evident. Hence, the conditions that are called conditions supposing the existence of the effect are also not evident - and so are non conditions. And if they are evident, it is self view in action.
1. Need for a cause is obvious. What is the interrelation of the cause and effect ?
An existent arisen from oneself would make the process redundant, and hence incorrect.
Arisen from another: If A was said to arise from B, when A is already existent, can we say B is the cause unless we brought in our memory, sanskara, equivalently substance view, Atta ? At present when A is, the action of B being a cause is redundant and not correct.
Arisen from both: would have the same fate being a mixture of both the ideas above.
Na vidyate -not evident- The Ariya is suggesting the way to look. It is like: is it not ? for us with a self view, the answer is no. So, why not ? there .. the self view comes to light. It starts making good sense when this is seen.
2. The four conditions correspond to the arising, existence, cessation, and the sustenance of any existent.
3. The existent is seen with a self nature for us. He is helping us look deeper. This self nature of the existent is not 'evident' in the conditions. Nor they seem to have any self that is completely other to the seen self nature in the existent. Something same yet different.
4. Activity is introduced to address the interactions between the conditions that would lead to the arising of the existent. Activity not constituted nor not constituted of conditions doesn't have an individual self. One would ascribe a self either by its existence, or its functionality. The latter is addressed in this verse. We would ascribe absolutism to conditions if activity constituted of conditions and absolutism to conditions if conditions constituted activity. The cause wouldn't be, without its potency to be one. But, the potency wouldn't be, without it being the cause either. Hence they are said to be not constituted nor not constituted of each other.
5. It is not correct to call anything a condition until the existent has arisen. But till then, it is not considered as a non-condition also - because we ascribe it a sense of self and hence continuity and 'predict' the existent. This is false view.
6. If something doesn't exist, naming a condition for it is not correct. If something is already existent, naming anything as a condition for it is rewinding its genesis in memory and hence not correct. Hence it turns out that naming a condition is not correct for an existent as well as a non-existent.
7. Producing cause: An existent is not produced, as its already there. A non existent would not be produced either. Hence a cause which produces is not correct. Hypothesize of a producing cause can lead to absolutist theories.
8. Objective Support : When an existent is seen, a supporting cause is not independently identified. Rather, when the supporting causes are independently identified, the existent no longer retains its 'self' nature. Eg. the cart simile from Milinda panha. A cart is said to be supported by wheels. But when wheels are independently identified, the rest is no longer a cart. Or a table being supported by its legs. Hence a supporting condition is not clear.
9. Immediate condition: Immediate condition before the arising of existent is incorrect as the existent is itself not defined. Immediate condition after ceasing of existent is incorrect as once ceased, ascribing any condition is not correct.
10. We perceive existent with self nature. As they have a self nature, they would not come to be because some other exists: the Buddhas words on dependent arising would be wrong. As the Buddhas words are true, existent should be perceived without the self nature. Again, another instance when the Ariya points the way to look at the errors in our perception.
11. When the conditions are separated the existent is not produced. Nor is it produced just by the combination of the conditions. If existent were a combination of the conditions would lead to hypothesis of an essence in the conditions becoming the existent. Bhaven implies self less ness of the existent.
12. However, if the effect were non existent in conditions, and were to spring forth from the same, any random cause could give rise to any effect, which is not the case. This sentence makes logical sense only because we presuppose a self to the effect ! Only if existences had self, a search of the effect in the cause, and a finding or a non finding would lead to either complications. In other words, search of an effect in a cause is actually search of the self of the effect in the cause.
13. The effect comes forth from conditions. Conditions are not made by themselves, they too had
other conditions to arise. How can we say that the effect arises from the condition, condition being a starting point ? deeper still, what is a condition other than a convention ? Thus, the effect is also a convention.
14. An effect made of conditions is not evident. It is not seen in the conditions nor by combination of the conditions, and is a seen as a convention. Effect constituting of non conditions is too not evident. Hence, the conditions that are called conditions supposing the existence of the effect are also not evident - and so are non conditions. And if they are evident, it is self view in action.
Nagarjuna: musings on Mulamadhyamaka Karika - Dedication
These are the thoughts that occurred on reading the translation by Kalupahana's work.
Dedicatory verses:
The eight characteristics: non-ceasing non-arising, non-annihilation non-permanence, non- identity, non-difference, non-appearance and non-disappearance.
It is disturbing to read words non-arising, non-permanence, but the other two, non-ceasing and non-annihilation pass through without ripples. Why ? due to the substance or the inherent 'atta', 'athman' view - Ariya Nagarjuna is pointing to that. Thus the Ariya is pointing a way to look- the answer one finds is for ourselves.
In a balanced state of existence, one would feel the same reading all the eight. The opinion that the Ariya is presenting a negative logic is also, in the same footing, not balanced. Nor does he deconstruct everything, nor does he propose a new construct- the paticha samutpada- dependent co arising. He is simply stating the nature of the dharmas.
Pratitya samutpadam prapanchopashamam sivam: The state of appeasement of proliferations is the auspicious. They are not different, later it is stated that the dependent co arising and sunyata are one and the same. The path is the goal.
Dedicatory verses:
The eight characteristics: non-ceasing non-arising, non-annihilation non-permanence, non- identity, non-difference, non-appearance and non-disappearance.
It is disturbing to read words non-arising, non-permanence, but the other two, non-ceasing and non-annihilation pass through without ripples. Why ? due to the substance or the inherent 'atta', 'athman' view - Ariya Nagarjuna is pointing to that. Thus the Ariya is pointing a way to look- the answer one finds is for ourselves.
In a balanced state of existence, one would feel the same reading all the eight. The opinion that the Ariya is presenting a negative logic is also, in the same footing, not balanced. Nor does he deconstruct everything, nor does he propose a new construct- the paticha samutpada- dependent co arising. He is simply stating the nature of the dharmas.
Pratitya samutpadam prapanchopashamam sivam: The state of appeasement of proliferations is the auspicious. They are not different, later it is stated that the dependent co arising and sunyata are one and the same. The path is the goal.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The logic of negation
Why is that negation is used as the principal tool in Buddhism & related train of thoughts ?
I think it is because what we percieve something as positive if that is in sync with the strcture of our thoughts. This structure is inherently based on substance view, view about an individual existence.
As the purpose of the above said ideologies is to point to the fallacies in the substance view, all such arguements look negative. However, if seen from a non substance perspective, they are not.
I think it is because what we percieve something as positive if that is in sync with the strcture of our thoughts. This structure is inherently based on substance view, view about an individual existence.
As the purpose of the above said ideologies is to point to the fallacies in the substance view, all such arguements look negative. However, if seen from a non substance perspective, they are not.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
JK: awareness
When one puts an effort to be aware of oneself, all our moods, thoughts and issues come to be seen. Anger, frustrations, irritations, elation .. all ..
one also observes a certain pattern to it. This is the same way one is going to react, we know the 'memory chunks' from where many of the reactions arise. There is repetitiveness, and although it is a very different and new world, it is sort of tiring and also boring. And one also wouldn't know if that pattern is actual, or is mind hyping up some issues...
So this is also a form of interpretation. This observation would, instead of releasing, would strengthen our impressions.
This form of awareness is on the background of our impressions and the conditions on which our self the personality has been built. So, one needs to be aware of the self together with the moods and patterns. To be aware of the phenomena, and the activity of interpretation at the same time.
This is to be aware without any background, any base case. It is to be instantaneous- awareness of the moods as well as the self- or otherwise another pattern would form during meditation.
It is to say that the past meets the present and stops. That is the actuality.
one also observes a certain pattern to it. This is the same way one is going to react, we know the 'memory chunks' from where many of the reactions arise. There is repetitiveness, and although it is a very different and new world, it is sort of tiring and also boring. And one also wouldn't know if that pattern is actual, or is mind hyping up some issues...
So this is also a form of interpretation. This observation would, instead of releasing, would strengthen our impressions.
This form of awareness is on the background of our impressions and the conditions on which our self the personality has been built. So, one needs to be aware of the self together with the moods and patterns. To be aware of the phenomena, and the activity of interpretation at the same time.
This is to be aware without any background, any base case. It is to be instantaneous- awareness of the moods as well as the self- or otherwise another pattern would form during meditation.
It is to say that the past meets the present and stops. That is the actuality.
Thoughts on JK: Precipice
Suppose we anticipate a tough day in the office. Before we start off, we think of the ways to tackle the various issues that may come up. There are various methods to handle, many ways to solve the problems. All of those methods, would be invariably somethings that we know will work: we have seen this work before, or can interpolate from similar situations. Thus the methods are derived from our past experiences, our past impressions.
It is important note that all the impressions have been created from the response from outside.
So what are we actually doing ? what is in 'us' to solve the problem ? How are we ever going to solve anything ?
There is a precipice here.
If we see this completely, there is no energy wasted in building methods or solutions. Hence one sees the problem completely, and there is immediate action on it. There is perception and immediate action.
It is important note that all the impressions have been created from the response from outside.
So what are we actually doing ? what is in 'us' to solve the problem ? How are we ever going to solve anything ?
There is a precipice here.
If we see this completely, there is no energy wasted in building methods or solutions. Hence one sees the problem completely, and there is immediate action on it. There is perception and immediate action.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Thoughts on J Krishnamurti: Time
There is a concept of time inherent in all our actions. For doing a task, there is a sequential manner we develop and execute.
We use the same method in our mental realms too. If we like something, we expect the same actions next time to take us to the same sensations, stimuli and satisfaction. But how correct is this ?
If one understands that bringing in time, a future, a method, is wrong, one is relieved from the tangle of expectations, partial gratifications and disappointments. There is only perception and immediate action.
When we think on solving a problem, we are actually postponing them. Taking the mind away from the issue to a method of solving a problem, is the problem. Otherwise, as soon as the problem arises, it is dissolved.
We use the same method in our mental realms too. If we like something, we expect the same actions next time to take us to the same sensations, stimuli and satisfaction. But how correct is this ?
If one understands that bringing in time, a future, a method, is wrong, one is relieved from the tangle of expectations, partial gratifications and disappointments. There is only perception and immediate action.
When we think on solving a problem, we are actually postponing them. Taking the mind away from the issue to a method of solving a problem, is the problem. Otherwise, as soon as the problem arises, it is dissolved.
Musings on J Krishnamurti: Myself
There is the object and there is the observation. The personality, the 'me' arises between and interprets the observation according to our conditioning. The 'me' is the structure arisen due to all our impressions, ideologies, lifestyle, dreams, hurts and all that has made us what we are, in our life. It is our life reflected. It is 'I'. Also, all our decisions, intentions, and subsequent action
are all formulated as outcome of our personality, the myself. It is the aspect most intimate to us - we would never compromise on it.
This self has been formulated by impressions, the response we have obtained in the past from the environment. The presence of the outside factors are so evident in this self that it is in actuality a product of the outside than oneself. At this level, the 'oneself' is also questionable: is it in the genes ? again a result of some mutation of our biological parents..
Thus what is so much the 'me' is completely the 'other', the outside.
are all formulated as outcome of our personality, the myself. It is the aspect most intimate to us - we would never compromise on it.
This self has been formulated by impressions, the response we have obtained in the past from the environment. The presence of the outside factors are so evident in this self that it is in actuality a product of the outside than oneself. At this level, the 'oneself' is also questionable: is it in the genes ? again a result of some mutation of our biological parents..
Thus what is so much the 'me' is completely the 'other', the outside.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Meditations: The Mahamudra
Mahamudra the main text followed by Kagyu tradition of vajrayana - having the main centre at Rumtek, Sikkim (well, this is a personal note), is a comprehensive treatise on meditation - in the all encompassing aspects of the word. Some key points as was inferred by me till the pages covered are posted below.
Meditation is a state when mind is absorbed in tranquility in an object, generating insight about the object at the same time. Hence tranquility meditation and insight meditation- samata and vipassana - are not two types of meditation, rather are two features of a mind in meditation.
As a result of Samata, when the mind stands complete in itself the insight dawns that it is empty of self - so to say, 'generate' dhamma and sunyata simultaneously.
Hindrances for samata sensual distractions, is eliminated by the insight(vipassana) element of anatta. Hindrances of vipassana, dullness and lethargy are eliminated by samata aspects of concentration and focussedness. Without samata, insight wavers - like a lamp in a wind. Without vipassana no wisdom dawns.
Sensuality - objects and consciousness when in contact arise sensual stimuli. Interference of mental impressions- sankara- result in reaction- like or dislike. Clinging to objects or to the interfered truth about them is sensuality.
Samata meditation without object - Invoke concentration and focussednes in the mind, without generating or suppressing thoughts. Dwell absorbed in this state amidst thoughts. If dullness arises, listen (generate mentally) a startling noise to break the chain of thoughts, prevent the next thought to arise, concentrate on the emptiness in between. Stop mediation when an amount of tranquility is attained, come back to meditation again.
Samata Meditation should done at an optimum of exertion and relaxation. One should relax internally when complications arise. Not taking any sides, nor getting entangled with thought processses or carried away, one should be in tranquil absorption.
('Aanapanasati' by Vimalaramsi speaks about feeling the complications, relaxing it as if it were in the brain, and returning to equipose.)
Meditation is a state when mind is absorbed in tranquility in an object, generating insight about the object at the same time. Hence tranquility meditation and insight meditation- samata and vipassana - are not two types of meditation, rather are two features of a mind in meditation.
As a result of Samata, when the mind stands complete in itself the insight dawns that it is empty of self - so to say, 'generate' dhamma and sunyata simultaneously.
Hindrances for samata sensual distractions, is eliminated by the insight(vipassana) element of anatta. Hindrances of vipassana, dullness and lethargy are eliminated by samata aspects of concentration and focussedness. Without samata, insight wavers - like a lamp in a wind. Without vipassana no wisdom dawns.
Sensuality - objects and consciousness when in contact arise sensual stimuli. Interference of mental impressions- sankara- result in reaction- like or dislike. Clinging to objects or to the interfered truth about them is sensuality.
Samata meditation without object - Invoke concentration and focussednes in the mind, without generating or suppressing thoughts. Dwell absorbed in this state amidst thoughts. If dullness arises, listen (generate mentally) a startling noise to break the chain of thoughts, prevent the next thought to arise, concentrate on the emptiness in between. Stop mediation when an amount of tranquility is attained, come back to meditation again.
Samata Meditation should done at an optimum of exertion and relaxation. One should relax internally when complications arise. Not taking any sides, nor getting entangled with thought processses or carried away, one should be in tranquil absorption.
('Aanapanasati' by Vimalaramsi speaks about feeling the complications, relaxing it as if it were in the brain, and returning to equipose.)
Friday, January 4, 2008
blossoms
It is about a white lotus. In a very small pond .. with gentle ripples all around .. ripples that caress and care.
And the ripples spread curling outwards.. and the pond grew .. and grew ..
There were cities build around it.. and aircrafts flew over it .. and hoverctafts even ships sailed through the vast waterbody that it has become, sometimes very close to the sweet white lotus !
And the lotus stood and stood .. because the moon was its only consort and the sky the only playground .. and the moon was always there ...
And the ripples spread curling outwards.. and the pond grew .. and grew ..
There were cities build around it.. and aircrafts flew over it .. and hoverctafts even ships sailed through the vast waterbody that it has become, sometimes very close to the sweet white lotus !
And the lotus stood and stood .. because the moon was its only consort and the sky the only playground .. and the moon was always there ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)