Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 > > > Hi Tony, > > Here is an exerpt from a David Godman interview about the > functioning of the dead mind in a Jnani. > > > Maalok: You have mentioned that final Self-realization is when the > mind actually 'dies' irreversibly in the Self. You have also mentioned > how Papaji used to sometimes give an account of his life based on > memory of his earlier narration. The idea of memories and a dead mind > seem contradictory. Could you please clarify this? > > > > David: Many people are puzzled by this apparent conundrum. A dead mind > is one in which there is no thinker of thoughts, no perceiver of > perceptions, no rememberer of memories. The thoughts, the perceptions > and the memories can still be there, but there is no one who believes, > 'I am remembering this incident,' and so on. These thoughts and > memories can exist quite happily in the Self, but what is completely > absent is the idea that there is a person who experiences or owns > them. > > Papaji once gave a nice analogy: 'You are sitting by the side of > the road and cars are speeding past you in both directions. These are > like the thoughts, memories and desires in your head. They are nothing > to do with you, but you insist on attaching yourself to them. You grab > the bumper of a passing car and get dragged along by it until you are > forced to let go. This in itself is a stupid thing to do, but you > don't even learn from your mistake. You then proceed to grab hold of > the bumper of the next car that comes your way. This is how you all > live your lives: attaching yourself to things that are none of your > business and suffering unnecessarily as a result. Don't attach > yourself to a single thought, perception or idea and you will be > happy.' > > In a dead mind the 'traffic' of mental activity may still be > there, usually at a more subdued level, but there is no one who can > grab hold of the bumper of an idea or a perception. This is the > difference between a quiet mind and no mind at all. When the mind is > still and quiet, the person who might attach himself or herself to the > bumper of a new idea is still there, but when there is no mind at all, > when the mind is dead, the idea that there is a person who might > identify with an object of thought has been permanently eradicated. > That is why it is called 'dead mind' or 'destroyed mind' in the Ramana > literature. It is a state in which the possibility of identification > with thoughts or ideas has definitively ended. > > Let me go back to Papaji and what I said about his memories. > Papaji said in an interview he gave in 1990 to two American dentists, > 'When I speak, I never consult my memory or my past experience'. When > I asked him about this, he said that people with minds always go back > to the past in order to formulate their next sentence, whereas the > words of enlightened people are prompted by the Self in the present > moment, and are not the consequence of past memories or experiences. > This is the difference between using your mind to have a conversation > and allowing the Self to put the necessary words into your mouth > whenever it is necessary to speak. When there is no mind, words come > out spontaneously, as and when they are required. If those words > happen to take the form of a story from the past, one should not come > to the conclusion that there is an 'I' who is delving into past > memories and retrieving them. When we see an enlightened person do > this, we assume that this - a mind retrieving information from the > memory - is what is happening because this is the way our own minds > work. We project the mechanism of our own minds onto the enlightened > person and assume that she too must think and function in this way. We > do this because we can't conceive of any other way that thoughts and > memories can be articulated. Just for fun, I once asked Papaji how he > managed to do his shopping without using his memory or his past > experiences. I should mention here that he was a ferocious bargain > hunter when it came to buying vegetables. He always insisted on the > best quality at the cheapest price. > > 'How can you do this,' I asked, 'without a memory? To know > whether you are getting a bargain, you have to know what the price was > yesterday or last week, and to know whether or not a carrot is in a > good condition, you need to need to have a memory and a prior > experience of what a good carrot looks like.' > > At first he just said, 'What a stupid question!' but then he > laughed and more or less summarized what I have just explained: that > there is no one who thinks, decides and chooses while he is out > shopping. The Self does all these things automatically, but to an > onlooker it appears as if there is someone inside the body making > decisions based on past experience and knowledge. > > I heard U. G. Krishnamurti talk about his shopping habits in very > similar terms in the late 1970s. > > He said, 'I push my trolley down the aisle and watch an arm reach > out, pick up a can and put it in the cart. It's nothing to do with me. > I didn't tell the arm to move in that direction and select that > particular can. It just happened by itself. When I reach the checkout > counter, I have a basketful of food, none of which I have personally > selected.' > > from: http://davidgodman.org/interviews/al3.shtml > > Monsoonhouse Int. Kovalam/Kerala contact: christianecameron Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.