how does self knowledge arise in the first place?

[Guest guest]

I agree with you. somewhere in a vedantic book i´ve read that discipline is

the result of freedom (absence of control), and not freedom the result of

discipline. by controlling dvaita/thoughts i cannot get to advaita - as it

seems. and choiceless awareness was fine for e.g. Jiddu Krishnamurti, i am

sure he was able to do it.

 

and how then does one approach that thoughtless state?

by just watching? watching one´s thoughts? till one realizes that they don´t

belong to one? how do i have to imagine this? watching my inner conflicts,

saying to myself, hey, Carolin it´s okay if you drink quite a bit of coffee,

even if you may get a heart attack, and also fine if you don´t prepare for

your exam either? and if you don´t feel like it, you needn´t get up early in

the morning for meditation either, you can get up at eight am instead, and

meditate at noon? or do you mean to say that by and by the very experience

in every day life that any attempt of control is of no avail will ultimately

stop the thought process, i.e. there will be a certain fatigue of thought

process or resignation of the thinker, a surrender of the brain or what? ;-)

jai guru datta.

 

 

> I fail to see how you can attain self knowledge through self restrictive

> practices. You shield yourself from the world and you tightly hold on to

> those self-illusioned pockets of security. In the end, this is just

> creating a fantasy / security that creates a separation between you and the

> dynamic truth of what is. If we consider the sense organs, they are

> designed almost exclusively to know "what was" (all information received by

> your sense organs, and later processed by the brain, must be processed in

> 'finite' time, therefore anything that you 'know' must have been an instant

> before, but isn't exactly what is truly the 'present'... however, the SELF

> cannot be something in the past, it must be that dynamic 'now'). My

> argument is that the world of "what is" cannot be seen, if the mind is

> busily engaged in processing "what was". Therefore, the SELF is mutually

> orthogonal to 'mind' which by definition operates on the past, that is on

> 'memories'. In some sense, using your mind to 'observe' reality, is like

> sitting backwards in the trunk of a stationwagon traveling in a certain

> direction -- you can see all the cars you've passed, but you can't see

> where you are 'right now' or 'where you are going'. I think perhaps you are

> mixing up the 'natural' process of awareness of self that arises through

> its own accord (by being aware), and forced spiritual practice (which leads

> to nothing in general except confusion). Training your mind to distinguish

> between 'dharma' and 'adharma' ends up binding you to the dualistic view.

> If advaitam is the final goal, then the dualism must be removed, but not

> cannot be removed forcibly (or again, it is binding). By forcing yourself

> to believe in "this is goodthis is evil" you can never achieve the state

> of equanimity which says "..." That is, the mind continues the process of

> judgement, how then can a man who has not achieved equanimity 'truly' say

> that "a lump of dirt and a lump of gold are one and the same"? If he says

> this verbally, this is artificial and he is only pretending; on the other

> hand, a realized person would never be given to such doubts and rejection

> of doubts in the first place... instead upon seeing a lump of dirt and a

> lump of gold ... the self realized man has no emotion or feeling towards

> either one (that is, he remains unbiased and unaware of the difference, and

> his mind remains silent) do you see? I believe there was a quote by swamiji

> in his recent speeches "true vairagya is being able to place a lump of

> sugar on the tip of one's tongue and not salivating". This is not to be

> taken "literally", but must be understood to mean that the senses no longer

> control the mind; instead there is a process of choiceless awareness of the

> SELF that dominates, leading to a natural state of quiessence. This alone

> can be considered that advaitic state of awareness. Not that where one

> distinguishes between advaitism and dvaitism in a conscious manner, nor

> that when one remains in the dvaitist mode and places judgement on the

> observed.

>

> This is very interesting from the standpoint of physics. In quantum

> physics, for example, there is a clear role of the observer in any

> measurement process. For example, if we claim that we can measure a

> particle's velocity or momentum (not both) then we must 'interrupt' the

> particle in order to make the measurement. This directly leads to the

> statement that 'observation destroys the reality'. That is, in an

> experiment to determine whether an object is behaving as a particle or a

> wave (the infamous wave-particle duality problem), if one makes a

> measurement, this causes the wavefunction (a statement about the

> probability of reality) to collapse into a definite 'reality' that is

> biased dependent on the method of measurement itself. That is, reality as

> we know it, is created moment by moment, by 'observation with bias', rather

> than choiceless awareness (which has nothing to do with observation itself

> in the strictest sense; it would be somewhat analogous to observing the

> process of observation itself).

>

> The state of advaitic awareness transcends duality, by not recognizing

> either duality or non-duality. Advaitic awareness cannot arise when one is

> still conscious of the difference between the dual and the non-dual.

> Further, forcing mind to follow a path, is not motiveless (as discussed

> earlier), therefore it can only lead to selfish ends, which in turn are

> binding. If you think about it, all efforts towards self-realization

> themselves are 'selfish' as they are 'seeking' -- I recall Swamiji saying

> that at some point one must give up even the seeking of self-realization

> because that becomes a limitation to itself. This is perhaps what he was

> referring to. That is, you are putting 'effort' into 'becoming' some

> idealized version of the 'self' that you imagine to be the 'correct' or

> 'good' version of yourself, rather than simply seeing who you are right

> "now". This process of 'becoming' constantly puts you at odds with who you

> 'are' -- leading to great conflict. Because fundamentally, you believe "I

> am not good now, I must become good by doing such and such" which is also

> equivalent to "I am not God now, God is not in me now, but if I do such and

> such, I will be God, I will have God in me." See what i'm saying? This

> denies the presence of the SELF within, which remains forever in 'truth' or

> 'goodness' if you want to 'label' it as that, but once labeled it loses its

> identity. This conflict leads to ego, because that ego constantly judges "I

> was this a few seconds ago, I must become this, I am not yet good" and

> likewise the same ego judges others on their "goodness" and "badness" etc.

> Any meditation in which the awareness is forced cannot be true meditation,

> because you are focusing the awareness on some projected reality, rather

> than simpy seeing what really "is". By guarding the "mind", how is this any

> different than guarding your "wealth" or "your children" or "your

> interests"? By guarding anything, you only increase your binding/attachment

> to it; therefore, guarding the mind cannot lead to freedom, and forcing it

> to concentrate on an ideal you have created cannot lead to knowledge of the

> truth of how things are, but only to a self-created illusion of how things

> "should be". In the end you find exactly what you look for.

>

> ----

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Maybe Pradyumna means to say that if you give up your constant inner

conflicts (i don´t refer to you in particular, but to everyone) the energy

for giving up smoking or whatever will come by itself, whereas you might lack

the energy for doing it if you consume your energy in constant

inner conflict " i should give up... i know, but i don´t like to... i cannot,

i just need it...

and so on? I do not claim that it is so, or that Pradyumna meant to say this,

i am just considering this possibility. jai guru datta.

 

 

>

> Jgd, Dear Prad., take for example smoking given that we are subjected to

> the effects of the gunas.

> .

> .

> Smoking is adharmic.

> Smoking is stupid. (i'm not saying that people who smoke are stupid!)

> So there is at least 1 adharmic thing which is stupid and against which one

> should guard oneself.

> In Mysore ashram many people their smoking etc habbits decrease they are

> following more dharma. They are destroying adharmic tendencies.

> Adharmamo Naashanamo Naashanamo!

> sgd,

> Win

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

also whether by giving up inner conflicts one gains or loses energy may be

something that cannot be discussed in theory, but it must be tried to know.

maybe one can only know by doing it, by just watching one´s own conflicts,

getting aware of them, without wanting to change them, without trying to hide

them from oneself, without judging, without justifying, just to watch. Again

i don´t claim that it is so. jai guru datta.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ramana Maharshi as for the proper method and for caring about the physical

body:

 

"Everyone finds an appropriate method according to/in line with his samskaras

(inclinations that stem from past lives)" - - -

 

"If you stick to the notion that the health of your body is necessary for the

health of your mind the sorrows having to do with the body will never end."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I fail to see how you can attain self knowledge through self restrictive

practices. You shield yourself from the world and you tightly hold on to those

self-illusioned pockets of security. In the end, this is just creating a fantasy

/ security that creates a separation between you and the dynamic truth of what

is. If we consider the sense organs, they are designed almost exclusively to

know "what was" (all information received by your sense organs, and later

processed by the brain, must be processed in 'finite' time, therefore anything

that you 'know' must have been an instant before, but isn't exactly what is

truly the 'present'... however, the SELF cannot be something in the past, it

must be that dynamic 'now'). My argument is that the world of "what is" cannot

be seen, if the mind is busily engaged in processing "what was". Therefore, the

SELF is mutually orthogonal to 'mind' which by definition operates on the past,

that is on 'memories'. In some sense, using your mind to 'observe' reality, is

like sitting backwards in the trunk of a stationwagon traveling in a certain

direction -- you can see all the cars you've passed, but you can't see where you

are 'right now' or 'where you are going'. I think perhaps you are mixing up the

'natural' process of awareness of self that arises through its own accord (by

being aware), and forced spiritual practice (which leads to nothing in general

except confusion). Training your mind to distinguish between 'dharma' and

'adharma' ends up binding you to the dualistic view. If advaitam is the final

goal, then the dualism must be removed, but not cannot be removed forcibly (or

again, it is binding). By forcing yourself to believe in "this is goodthis is

evil" you can never achieve the state of equanimity which says "..." That is,

the mind continues the process of judgement, how then can a man who has not

achieved equanimity 'truly' say that "a lump of dirt and a lump of gold are one

and the same"? If he says this verbally, this is artificial and he is only

pretending; on the other hand, a realized person would never be given to such

doubts and rejection of doubts in the first place... instead upon seeing a lump

of dirt and a lump of gold ... the self realized man has no emotion or feeling

towards either one (that is, he remains unbiased and unaware of the difference,

and his mind remains silent) do you see? I believe there was a quote by swamiji

in his recent speeches "true vairagya is being able to place a lump of sugar on

the tip of one's tongue and not salivating". This is not to be taken

"literally", but must be understood to mean that the senses no longer control

the mind; instead there is a process of choiceless awareness of the SELF that

dominates, leading to a natural state of quiessence. This alone can be

considered that advaitic state of awareness. Not that where one distinguishes

between advaitism and dvaitism in a conscious manner, nor that when one remains

in the dvaitist mode and places judgement on the observed.

 

This is very interesting from the standpoint of physics. In quantum physics, for

example, there is a clear role of the observer in any measurement process. For

example, if we claim that we can measure a particle's velocity or momentum (not

both) then we must 'interrupt' the particle in order to make the measurement.

This directly leads to the statement that 'observation destroys the reality'.

That is, in an experiment to determine whether an object is behaving as a

particle or a wave (the infamous wave-particle duality problem), if one makes a

measurement, this causes the wavefunction (a statement about the probability of

reality) to collapse into a definite 'reality' that is biased dependent on the

method of measurement itself. That is, reality as we know it, is created moment

by moment, by 'observation with bias', rather than choiceless awareness (which

has nothing to do with observation itself in the strictest sense; it would be

somewhat analogous to observing the process of observation itself).

 

The state of advaitic awareness transcends duality, by not recognizing either

duality or non-duality. Advaitic awareness cannot arise when one is still

conscious of the difference between the dual and the non-dual. Further, forcing

mind to follow a path, is not motiveless (as discussed earlier), therefore it

can only lead to selfish ends, which in turn are binding. If you think about it,

all efforts towards self-realization themselves are 'selfish' as they are

'seeking' -- I recall Swamiji saying that at some point one must give up even

the seeking of self-realization because that becomes a limitation to itself.

This is perhaps what he was referring to. That is, you are putting 'effort' into

'becoming' some idealized version of the 'self' that you imagine to be the

'correct' or 'good' version of yourself, rather than simply seeing who you are

right "now". This process of 'becoming' constantly puts you at odds with who you

'are' -- leading to great conflict. Because fundamentally, you believe "I am not

good now, I must become good by doing such and such" which is also equivalent to

"I am not God now, God is not in me now, but if I do such and such, I will be

God, I will have God in me." See what i'm saying? This denies the presence of

the SELF within, which remains forever in 'truth' or 'goodness' if you want to

'label' it as that, but once labeled it loses its identity. This conflict leads

to ego, because that ego constantly judges "I was this a few seconds ago, I must

become this, I am not yet good" and likewise the same ego judges others on their

"goodness" and "badness" etc. Any meditation in which the awareness is forced

cannot be true meditation, because you are focusing the awareness on some

projected reality, rather than simpy seeing what really "is". By guarding the

"mind", how is this any different than guarding your "wealth" or "your children"

or "your interests"? By guarding anything, you only increase your

binding/attachment to it; therefore, guarding the mind cannot lead to freedom,

and forcing it to concentrate on an ideal you have created cannot lead to

knowledge of the truth of how things are, but only to a self-created illusion of

how things "should be". In the end you find exactly what you look for.

 

----

 

Message: 4

Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:26:27 -0800 (PST)

rao bhogaraju

Re: on that quote...

 

 

Pradyumna,

I disagree with

 

'Pure awareness is meditation. It cannot come from guarding the mind -- which

becomes yet another burden to carry'.

Guarding the mind is the first step towards self realization. Its not a burden,

its a necessary first step.

 

 

 

______________________

 

Message: 5

Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:51:50 -0800 (PST)

Winand Abhelakh

Re: on that quote...

 

 

I have to agree with Rao, Prad. The mind has to be focussed on dharma Mind

has to be guarded against adharma. Its an important step i have no doubt about

that.

..

Adharmamo Naashanamo Naashanamo!

..

Jai Guru Datta,

Win

 

 

 

______________________________

The centipede was happy quite

until a bird said, in fun,

"Which foot goes after which?"

This raised his mind to such a pitch

he lay distracted in a ditch

considering how to run.

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jgd, Dear Prad., take for example smoking given that we are subjected to the

effects of the gunas.

..

..

Smoking is adharmic.

Smoking is stupid. (i'm not saying that people who smoke are stupid!)

So there is at least 1 adharmic thing which is stupid and against which one

should guard oneself.

In Mysore ashram many people their smoking etc habbits decrease they are

following more dharma. They are destroying adharmic tendencies.

Adharmamo Naashanamo Naashanamo!

sgd,

Win

..

..

 

Pradyumna Upadrashta <oneinfinitezero wrote:

I fail to see how you can attain self knowledge through self restrictive

practices.

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

 

 

[Guest guest]

The greatest truths are paradoxical. If there is truth in something and

also in its opposite, then together they are close to Truth. Thus

spiritual conversations, such as this one, that alternate between

opposing views can lead to a deep understanding. But only if you have a

deep respect for both sides.

 

I have found it necessary to both use some effort to maintain discipline

in my thought and action, and also to frequently remind myself to relax

into Swamiji's bliss and let my actions be guided spontaneously.

Swamiji's speech is full of exhortations to do both.

 

As I have grown I find I am able to maintain more discipline with less

effort. Sometimes it still takes a lot of effort, which is very

worthwhile. At other times I have found things that I thought I should

do require so much effort that they become counter productive, and it is

then better to adjust my thinking of what I 'should' do.

 

I have also found that with Swamiji's grace it is getting easier to

relax into His Spirit, and let myself be guided effortlessly. But this

can be tricky also, for I catch myself using effort to relax, or

pretending to be open to spirit when I'm just being lazy. And of course

a good deal of the time I'm still playing my old thought patterns, not

being conscious of maintaining a spiritual focus or being truly

spontaneous.

 

Ultimately total discipline becomes completely effortless and

spontaneous. But before that time, we must alternate between emphasis on

discipline and spontaneity. Depending on our nature, both in general and

in the moment, it may be best to focus more on one or the other extreme,

or on living the 'middle way' in that moment. Maintaining this balancing

act is one aspect of what has been referred to as "walking the razor

edge" of spiritual life.

 

Jai Guru Datta

Vasudeva