Is Detachment Key to Liberation?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Carlo Frua and all.

 

You are drawing a line between image of detachment and realization-

awareness of detachment. Is it at all necessary?

 

I am afraid we are again peeping through the keyhole. Let us

suppose, I need to know what New York City looks like. I can't do

that standing at Time Square. I would rather board a helicopter and

take an aerial view (Of course, only if I am sure they won't shoot me

down!). Would you mind boarding a helicopter with me?

 

This flight has nothing to do with eastern or western minds. All

minds are welcome aboard. The view from the top would be alike for

all of them.

 

The fundamental question that we ask in Vedanta is "Do I exist?".

Well, the simple fact that the question is asked proves the existence

of the asker. There is then no need to debate my existence. That I

exist is self-evident and that is the only self-evident fact in this

world. People would like to call this "I" that is self-evident as

ineffable. Well, they are right as long as they are trying to

describe it in words. But, the fact is that a self-evident `entity'

simply doesn't call for description.

 

Then, what about the things other than this self-evident `entity'

that are experienced by it? The obvious conclusion is that they are

because I am. If I am removed, the rest also is removed. We all

infer that the world would remain after our `death'. Well, based on

the vedantic conclusion above, if the world remains as we infer, then

naturally the self-evident `entity' should also remain. There is

thus an inseparable link between "I" and the world. Both are

together in a single Whole ever there. The delusion therefore is the

feeling that the world is aside or apart from me. Advaita undoes

this feeling and establishes the Whole as self-evident.

 

Seeing the Moon is Moon Consciousness. A separate "I" as the subject

is not appreciated at that `moment'. For convenience of

understanding, let us visualize this as the self-evident "I"

transforming itself into the Moon. A separate "I" as the subject of

the `experience' and Moon as the object appears later on recalling.

Then again, it is a Recall Consciousness, where again, on analysis,

there is no separate "I" as subject or a recall as object. The

separation dawns on the recall of the recall. At the time of the

second recall again, there is no separation. This logic is

interminably applicable to each detail of our analysis, although, in

toto, we are left with a delusion of experiencership, which turns out

to be non-existent on enquiry! Thus, the whole world of experiences

(internal as well as external) is a constant "I know", which Sankara

calls "jAnAmi" (the Sanskrit translation for "I know") in his famous

Hymn to Lord DakshinamUrthi. This is the Light I am that advaita

extols, which is self-evident and the world is not other than It.

The separateness of objects and their apparent individuality as other

than Me is a delusion. As long as the objects are seen as separate,

they are said to shine after the Light that shines them, which is

Me. If everything is seen as one Whole, then the world is Me (and

not in me as "I" cannot be of parts) and, therefore, the Light Itself.

 

Now to come to your `neti, neti'. The phrase "neti" is actually a

combination of "na" + "iti" which, if rightly translated into

English, should read "not like this" or "not in this manner". In

essence, my personal conclusion, which I have repeated ad nauseum on

this forum is that "neti" is an appeal to us not to see the

experienced world in our mundane objective manner as separate from

us but to know it in the right manner as the "Whole" which is

ourselves. Only then can the Upanishidic verse "pUrNamatha,

pUrNamidam, pUrNAt pUrNamudachyate. pUrnasya pUrNamAdAya,

pUrNamevAvashiSyate" can stand vindicated.

 

Thus, the Moon is Me, the Sun is Me, the much worrying "image of

detachment" is Me – everything is Me.

 

In one of my very initial posts on this forum, I did endeavour to

understand Christ's experience on the Cross in this light. The Cross

is Me, my tormentors are Me, the nails are Me, the blood is Me, the

pain is Me ……. Then, can the pain hurt Me? I can only smile. That is

what exactly Christ did.

 

There is a hugging Mother who hails from my State in India. She hugs

one and all, be he a leper or a filthy rich tycoon. Does She hug

them because She sees them as objects separate from herself and sees

a need to draw them physically close to her? No way. She knows that

all are Her and is just spontaneous in that knowledge.

 

And, in India, we had a man called Gandhi. There is an uproar

currently going on against a magazine that pictured him and the value

of non-violence for which he sacrificed his life as being challenged

by a muscle man. When his assassin raised a pistol on him, he smiled

at him calling out "Ram, Ram!". He didn't cringe, walk on four, and

plead "Oh, don't kill me.". Why? Not because he was blinded by some

blind faith like the suicide-terrorists who kill others but because

he knew he was the "Whole" and the assassin and the pistol were his

own "dear Ram", the Whole !

 

I am citing these examples here to understand detachment. When we

know that we are the "Whole", is there any need to attach to

anything? There is no need to deliberately detach either. Only an

inadequate entity will run after the objects of the world in a frenzy

of aggrandizement. Our history books are full with them …… Alexander

The Great (why Great!?), Napoleon, Hitler... the list runs miles!

All the world is in us, nay, us. Then, where is the need to attach?

That knowledge and spontaneously operating from that point of view is

detachment (without of course the sense of separation this English

word unfortunately imparts).

 

So, let us know that Saddam Hussein is Me, each and every hair on the

thick moustache that adorns his otherwise cherubic face is Me. My

hugging mother would just take him in her arms and fondle that

moustache, I am sure. (Please send this to President Bush and assure

him that She will accord the same care to him too.)

 

Shri Frua, please, therefore, know that you are truly detached

without any urge for detachment when such feelings spontaneously

emanate from your logical knowledge that you are the Whole and

nothing at all is separate from you, and, mind you, that detachment

is self-evident reality and, therefore, not an image for us to debate

on. That is your realization-awareness of detachment.

 

This knowledge is just academic in most of us although we have had

glimpses of such detachment here and there emanating from our

occasional sense of fullness. Nevertheless, we cannot (at lest I at

the current moment) visualize ourselves in the place of Bh. Ramana

with a gory sarcoma on the shoulder. Bhagwan knew the sarcoma was

Himself. He, therefore, laughed at those who advised surgery and

treatment. If at all, he heeded their advice, it was just to satisfy

them. If we have at least the seed of this supreme knowledge within

us that we are the Whole, then why are we not watering it and growing

it? That is the abhyAsa part for which we have ample guidance in the

texts that you often quote. If an earnest effort is made to live

this knowledge, can spontaneity be a far away destination that being

our real nature? The roughness of the path, the stones and thorns

thereon, the pains they cause – all these are us. Then do we need to

see them as separate from us and worry about imagined hardships?

Isn't there the assurance in the Bhagwad Geeta that even a bit of

this knowledge will save you from the worst of fears?

 

So, what we can best do is to contemplate and ruminate on our logical

wholeness as much as possible even as we perform our daily chores so

that it consumes us completely. When that happens there won't be any

distinction between Mother Mary and Mary of Magdalene (sp?). There is

no point asking the question when because that shows worry and lack

of conviction. Knowing that we are immortality, what are we worried

about or afraid of? The time in hand? Oh boy, isn't that very

silly? Be sure, Sankara's "jAnAmi" will stand by you without switch-

off. No need to run helter-skelter for other stand-by generators. Let

us, therefore, enjoy the picnic in the Light!

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The Vedantic theorem, "I exist" contains the subtle corollary, "I

Alone Exist!" Neither the theorem nor the corollary needs any proof!

Those who are aware don't need any proof and those who are deluded

will miss the punch line.

 

Our problem is that we are suffering from amnesia, forgot our ever

existing changeless identity, "I" and chose and dwell in the non-

existing-changing identity, 'i'. Vedanta recognizes that the mistaken

identity happens due to 'mAyA.'

 

As Vedantins, we can recognize that 'I' is always detached. The

small 'i' takes birth, dies and the cycle of birth and death

continues until it gets rid of the delusion. The small 'i' presumes

that it possesses the world and its belongings and wants to hold on

it. Even this is a contradiction because at the time of our birth, we

bring nothing and after death, we take nothing! With our delusion, we

believe that we possess and we want to carry a heavy baggage during

the journey of endless cycle of birth and death.

 

A good starting point for us to understand the root of our problem is

to grasp the message of Gita. The lessons of Gita contain answers

to 'Everything one needs to know about I and afraid to ask.' Instead

of focusing on "How did I get the amnesia?," we are better off to

recognize that we have the problem and take efforts to get rid of

them!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair

<madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote:

>

> The fundamental question that we ask in Vedanta is "Do I exist?".

> Well, the simple fact that the question is asked proves the

> existence of the asker. There is then no need to debate my

> existence. That I exist is self-evident and that is the only

> self-evident fact in this world. People would like to call this "I"

> that is self-evident as ineffable. Well, they are right as long as

> they are trying to describe it in words. But, the fact is that a

> self-evident `entity' simply doesn't call for description.

>