Practical Advaita

[Guest guest]

Namaste All

 

This past few days, some thoughts have risen in my mind, taking me back

to about 3 or 4 years ago, back when there was no one else to discuss such

profound thoughts with. I believe that the time is now most appropriate in

this satsangha to take up on the subject, so i wrote a short article about

it.

This to me seems to be the most underated/misinterpreted topic in

western philosophy. After having been taught the basic concepts of it in

college, such concepts layed dormant in my subconscious mind, due to the

misapprehension of the "use", or purpose of discussing them. Only after

taking up eastern philosophy, as the seeds of self-realization, in a book

by Sw. Krishnananda-ji, embracing jnana-yoga, such thoughts resurfaced in

the proper light of interpretation.

 

First Steps to Silencing the Mind: The Concept of Dialectics

 

Dialectics is a rather main-stream topic that has been taught over and

over in any college or highschool with a humanities based back-ground, but

the unfortunately low level of spiritual evolution from teachers themselves

prevents students from grasping the concept and ideals within. It is

needless to say, at least in my view, that it stands as a very important

step in the path of self-realization, and to achieve one-pointedness of mind

one surely has to deal with it.

The root of the concept of dialectics lies in the functioning of the

human mind and its fundamental cognizant aspects. Its fundamentals declare

that in order for a human to understand a basic concept of anything that is

(in most cases) abstract, it is necessary to relate it to the direct

opposite of such concept. Whereas to understand the concept of "light", one

must also understand "darkness", better yet, "darkness" without "light" is a

meaningless concept. To understand "shallow", we must understand "deep" and

so forth. And so we dive into an endless cycle of pairs of opposites that

takes us anywhere but to the true concept of things.

Such is the appeal of the pairs of opposites to the human mind, that the

true elements being ascribed dialectical attributes are instantly thrown to

the background. For instance, "rock" is a concrete concept. We instantly

know what the word "rock" stands for, and it most definitely needs no

opposite to be understood. If we try to better describe "rock", we relegate

its meaning to the background in the absurd speed of thought. Just say

"dark-rock", and what remains in the subconscious level of our minds is

"dark". "Dark-rock" is now a concept in our minds that is the opposite of

"light-rock".

Just ascribe one single abstract attribute to anything being described,

and a multiple chain of thoughts, each with its own opposites, rises to take

away the focus from the fundamental concept itself. Adding the word "rough",

as opposite to "smooth", we now have "rough-dark-rock". The chain grows,

such as the distance to the fundamental concept. "Rough" overpowers "dark",

that overpowers "rock" in our minds. Not coincidently, both overpowering

concepts bear direct relation to our senses, as sense objects, "light"

relating to vision, "rough" to touch. "Rock" relates to mind, but mind is

overpowered by vision and touch. The concept is hidden from mind behind the

sense objects thru the senses.

And just as an uprooted tree, mind is lost in a digression of

self-relating concepts. "Rock", which started in mind, gets a mind-link to

'light". "Light" activates a vestigial memory from the sense of vision,

which now is pulled in by mind. "Rough" activates touch thru sense-memory,

and now we have two senses pulling mind outwards, from a concept that has

risen itself only in mind. No "rock" needed to be seen - having been

ascribed two sense-attributes - to activate a third different sense. From

mind, sparked vision and, from vision, touch. And so on, and on, until the

concept "rock" dries out the relation to true self completely, situating the

apparent individual in the world of extrovertion and multiplicity

completely.

As of now, i am reminded of a message posted by a new user in the list,

saying that he could not help himself making instant judgement of others.

What is judging others if not assigning different attributes to someone? For

instance, starting from human (concept), mind links: girl (as opposite of

boy); dark-skinned (as opposite of light-skinned); nosy (as opposite of

reserved) and so on. What started as a human is now a

"dark-skinned-nosy-girl", "which i don't like". True-self is miles away, and

for such a person, walking and interacting with different people is enough

to pulverize the notion of true-self in an ocean of multiplicity. All that

sparking from the pairs of opposites in the mind itself.

What, then, is the key to progressing towards unity? To go beyond

dialectics is to go beyond assigning attributes and opposing concepts. Is to

state, be told or see concepts, and not ask for further cognition-related

aspects of concept. Is to silence cognition with satisfaction in the initial

concept itself. Is to see, or think "rock" and know enough to not ask

anymore. Is to look around and see "human","human","human". And not needing

anymore cognizant specifications, turn inwards, back to contemplation on

true-self.

 

-----------------------------

 

Ps: Last week, another thought came to mind: "the senses should withdraw

from the sense objects, as a frightened turtle withdraws in its shell".

Opinions, methods and further development on both this topics (mostly

because they are intertwined steps) are most welcome.

 

My Warmest Regards...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

doce lar. Faça do sua homepage.

http://br./homepageset.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Felipe-ji,

 

advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema"

<fcrema> wrote:

> What, then, is the key to progressing towards unity? To go

> beyond dialectics is to go beyond assigning attributes and

> opposing concepts. Is to state, be told or see concepts,

> and not ask for further cognition-related aspects of concept.

> Is to silence cognition with satisfaction in the initial

> concept itself. Is to see, or think "rock" and know enough

> to not ask anymore. Is to look around and see "human",

> "human","human". And not needing anymore cognizant

> specifications, turn inwards, back to contemplation on

> true-self.

 

Once upon a time, I wrote these words in another discussion forum:

 

We see nature and ask: what is it? In the question is a mystery, for

without the mystery of already knowing that about which we ask there

would have been no question.

 

We see nature before our eyes, and yet ask: what is it? Is then

nature something other than what we see? Or is our eye blinded, as it

were, in the seeing? Must a veil be removed, to see her and rest

content?

 

We set sail, in our quest, over distant seas and distant lands. We

obtain strange answers to our questions - that she is an illusion, or

a shadow of another, or a superfluity to which we give meaning, or a

jigsaw puzzle, a complex of things incomprehensible.

 

The restless spirit that drove us on heaves and sighs and is not

quelled, for how can nature be - she whom we saw healthy and lusty -

a mere ethereal form, or a surrogate, or a vanishing shadow, or a

fractured jumble of pieces?

 

After unnumbered years we return to a homecoming - to the intimacy of

our home and our being - and in that very being we find an eye, an

intimate eye, to see her yet again - nature healthy and lusty - and

not another, neither from itself; neither from our own self.

 

 

BTW, Felipe-ji, I think your article has approached adhyaropa and

apavada in a novel way!

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan