You - I - We

Interdependence was popularised by Steven R. Covey in his "Seven Habits ..." book [1]. Basically, it means that human beings (as well as organisations, and nations) need each other to thrive.

From You to I to We.

First is dependence - the ‘you’ phase, where the child looks to others for its safety, wellbeing, and pleasure. If someone withholds, the child is deprived. With caring others, the child thrives.

Second is independence - the ‘I’ phase, where the child develops into adolescent and young adulthood. If all goes well, the young adult develops independent traits - taking responsibility, making sound decisions, and becoming self-reliant.

Third is interdependence - the ‘we’ phase, where the independent adult chooses to increase their circle of concern, to include ever widening groups of people.

Interdependence is the recognition that people – and the social system within which they exist – are mutually dependent. We cannot function alone, we need social cohesion and the work of others to thrive.

And for the group or social system to be viable it needs us to make our contribution. Only independent people can choose to be interdependent.

(Paraphrased)

While this staging is neat, real life is messier. Children may be more independent as toddlers than as teenagers, and teenagers more interested in looking after their peers and the world at large than adults. But, in general, yes, adults are expected to care about others and themselves - it is a sign of greater emotional maturity.

Compare with Vidura Niti in the Indian/Mahabharata context.

NOTES

[1] Covey, Stephen R. 2004. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People : Restoring the Character Ethic [Rev. ed.]. New York: Free Press.

Occam's Razor (PoP) and turiya

In scientific research there is an old [1] idea known as Occam's Razor or the Principle of Parsimony. Basically, it says choose the simplest conceptual model that explains all the data. Mathematically, prefer the equation with the smallest number of terms to describe something. E.g., E=mc^2 describes the maximum energy present in a mass 'm' using just one other term 'c'.

Similarly, the elegance of Advaita lies in its theoretical notion of everything in the universe arising from just one single thing. Unlike Einstein's equation, though, it is not possible to test, let alone prove that through "objective" experiments. A bit like the Big Bang theory! [4]

Advaita, while parsimonious in its axioms of initial (or eternal) state, does end up resorting to earlier concepts from Sāṁkhya (which has two foundational entities) to explain our world. Thus Māya is practically the same as Prakṛti, and Ātma, or Jīvātma, the same as Puruṣa. 

In Sāṁkhya, consciousness and non-consciousness are eternally separate and so it is easy [2] to understand that states of mind (a non-conscious thing) are different from a state [3] of consciousness. Thus, jāgrata, svapna, and suṣupti - all mental states - are different from turīya. Or they are orthogonal to turīya. Turīyātīta, posited as another state of consciousness, subsumes easily into turiya in combination with a different mental state.

NOTES

[1] Traced back to Aristotle per Wikipedia.

[2] Sāṁkhya is a realistic philosophy which does not deny the existence of anything, including mental states.

[3] Strictly speaking, consciousness, or Purusha, in Sāṁkhya is absolutely non-interactive. So there is only one state.

[4] But see first comment below - at least one prediction of the Big Bang theory has been tested and proven, and so it is more valid than, say, the steady-state theory. In general, though, it is not theoretically possible to prove a theory - it can only be disproven.

Anonymity and other spiritual rules

Anonymity

Spiritual practice, especially work done for others, must be done without fanfare, in fact, even without acknowledgement.

Perhaps this is to imitate Nature. Nature works - creates, maintains, and destroys - automatically and without fuss, because work or dynamism is its inherent nature.

Some other, little-known, rules:

Generosity

One who gives, gets more and more - to give.

E.g., one who gives money to others gets more and more money, but to keep giving, not to hoard.

Generosity opens up one's heart.

One definition of spiritual progress is large-heartedness. Another is soft-heartedness.

Work

(Corollary to previous rule)

One who works efficiently is rewarded - with more work.

So how does one avoid the management principle "Work going to the most efficient worker multiplies until he drowns?"

Teach others how to do your present work and keep working on new things. Also see Rest.

Work efficiently, and with interest. Try to improve in terms of energy expended, especially emotional energy, and reduced strain.

Rest

    Change of work is rest.

Chariji [1] was a wonderful exemplar.

Change

Change is constant. Accept or tolerate it, at the very least. At best, welcome it.

There is an intriguing paradox though. Spiritual progress is sometimes assessed by how boring or routine one's life is. Such a life gives ample time and opportunity for spiritual practice. Those who lead exciting or complicated lives seldom think about going inward. On the other hand, spiritual masters who lead busy lives, though, have gone through their periods of boredom or internal focus to acquire a solid base of emotional stability.

Constant Practice

(In the midst of constant change, unremitting spiritual practice is the stable foundation and background.)

Do the practice for the long-term. 12 years is a magic number.

Do with interest, and yet light-heartedly - without frowning or a "castor-oil" face. [2]

        Observe patterns in practice over the short, medium, and long-term.

If the effects are stagnant (and you are convinced of the practice, its practitioners, and its propounder), then you are not following the steps correctly. Re-read, or get clarified, the introductory material. Reboot, in other words.

Depth in practice is accompanied by increasing subtlety and lightness. Often thoughts are fewer and decision-making clearer.

Courageous thinking

Think freely, unmindful of emotional pressure. Act, once convinced, fearlessly. Accept mistakes.

Yet, follow rules aimed at maintaining peace and routine. Yet again, abusive people need not be encouraged.

Serious disciples understand the spirit of the practices in a system and can respond positively to hints or unwritten rules.

Notes

[1] Chariji, Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari of Chennai, was the third guru in the Sahaj Marg tradition. He was famed for his indefatigable and unflappable workstyle, often working continuously without rest for a very long time while switching between different tasks.

[2] Swami Sivananda of DLS, Rishikesh used this phrase often to mock those who did their spiritual practice with a frown. (People who regularly drank a dose of castor oil, for health, generally puckered up their faces at its taste.)

Stalactites and separation

Think of a cave.

A limestone cave.

A cold climate.

Water seeps in from the ground above and covers the ceiling.

It freezes into ice.

Water keeps seeping in, and the layers and projections of ice start to descend.

They lengthen as icy water keeps flowing inside, and each stalactite grows, separated from the others.

Now, imagine the water in a stalactite coming alive. It wants to fully experience its original unity, its commonality, with the others. Resisting gravity, it returns to the ceiling and the flowing water beyond.

Next, imagine your mind, weighed down by its identification with your body. It seeks its original lightness, balance, understanding, and expansiveness. It wants to become subtler and relaxed, but has to strive against its own habits of painful effort, of experiencing and expressing itself grossly, through the body, and against others.

Thinking and meditation

(from Daaji - mostly verbatim)

Meditation as an act is resting the attention on something effortlessly.

Every human being does this activity multiple times every day, especially when doing something enjoyable (such as eating ice-cream).

This also happens during work, business, planning meals for the family, etc.

Spiritual meditation is effortless focus on an infinite object.

(based on Daaji's talks & writings; paraphrased and extended)

Meditation training using one's own mind is about effortless focus on something that is not immediately enjoyable.

In Sahaj Marg meditation, one places one's attention on the divine light in one's heart. The source of that light then pulls one's attention towards itself.

The source being infinite, one's mind cannot grasp it and has trouble resting stably in the heart.

When attention has drifted away from the light onto another object, and one becomes aware of that change, one should simply relax the attention, the mental grip. It will naturally glide back to the previous object, the heart and the light within.

Learning to focus effortlessly for a long time on an object means using lesser and lesser energy to deal with the movement of attention. [1]

One should also understand that attention is one's mind gripping something, consciously or subconsciously. Relaxing is all that is needed to un-grip, not yanking it away or cutting it or anything else needing more effort.

Progress in meditation may be defined as the ability to focus on subtler and subtler objects for longer times. But in Heartfulness meditation, the object of meditation stays the same (being already infinite and deliberately undefined) but our understanding becomes subtler.

(My speculations)

Cleaning is a way of returning to the condition (of our heart, mind, and body) received, or gifted to us, by our morning meditation.

Prayer meditation, along with going over the day's activities, is introspection; so as to change ourselves with the help of that which is inside our own hearts, as well in the heart of each and every human being.

NOTES

[1] Daaji writes that after thinking - effortless focus - on the object comes feeling the object - without words or thoughts, and after feeling comes being the object. The Yoga Sutras put it differently - the object alone stays in conscious awareness, and awareness of meditation and meditator are lost during that time.

Daaji also says that after being there is becoming and then one goes beyond. These two are subtler states leading to the next level.

The important point, though, is thinking is only one of the many activities of the mind.

Rote learning and traditional learning methods

Rote learning - simple memorisation and regurgitation of textual/teacher-enforced knowledge - directly causes atrophying of two of the three traditional ways of getting valid knowledge - direct perception, analysis and prediction based on direct perception, and authoritative or authentic sources.

How does a baby learn?

I think primarily with its sense organs. Its brain is used mainly for memory, and for innate processing of physical events such as hunger, discomfort, and pain. [1] But, it is also used for emotional learning - happiness, surprise, etc. - from the moods of people and other living things around the baby. It is probably fair to say that a baby learns through direct perception of its physical and mental world and simple rule-making or analysis of its perceptions.

How does a child learn?

A child (in India at least!) is stuffed with facts, generally randomly and confusingly put together sans a consistent/logical framework. Such facts are often completely out of sync with the child's world, making them even more difficult to memorise and regurgitate. It learns to behave primarily based on physical, emotional, and mental reactions of surrounding adults to its own behaviour, and not from being allowed to explore freely in a safe and prepared environment. Ultimately, a baby's natural capacity to learn through its own senses and independent thinking is lost by childhood's end.

Why does it matter?

A child who depends mainly, or completely, on inputs, assessments, and discipline from the outside world and other people has lost the ability to sense its internal world - its own body [2] and mind. It has lost confidence in its own conceptual frameworks of its world. It is not taught how to travel skillfully among sensations, percepts, and concepts - basic ones or higher degrees or layers of concepts. It does not know how to validate what it reads and hears against its frameworks since insistence on rote memorisation means ignoring or deleting the frameworks. Nor does it know how to subsume, expand, or otherwise modify its frameworks since a child is not encouraged to experiment and analyse. [4]

Isn't it inefficient to teach through experimentation and self-analysis?

It depends on the definition of inefficiency. In the animal kingdom, a human child is already the most inefficient because it takes about twenty years to learn to fit into adult human groups.

Compared to other, more specialised, animals, humans are general-purpose, and are not the best at anything physical. Humans have succeeded as a species due to the evolution of their mental capabilities. This evolution came from original ideas and their sharing. There is also an exponential growth of knowledge across generations. So, yes, it is more efficient to learn from the experience of others (authoritative sources). After all, they have already gone down many mental and physical blind alleys and found viable paths that save time. Also, teaching is often a more efficient process than replicating an experience.

However, evolution of human consciousness requires the evolution of a majority of human beings, not just the rare special ones. Also, useful learning, understanding, and perhaps most importantly, creativity, result only when each human child, teenager, and adult has learned to generate and validate its own sensations, percepts, and concepts.

What is validation of knowledge or true understanding?

In a traditional Indian darśana, something is true or valid if it is found to be valid according to all the pramāṇas or channels of knowledge for that darśana. Thus, in sāṁkhya-yoga, something is obviously valid, true, or factual if one has directly experienced it (pratyakṣa), it fits into one's conceptual frameworks (anumāna), and it has been recorded precisely and faithfully by authorities (āgama).

However, all three validations are not necessary or even possible. So they are ranked. A directly-experienced sensation - a physical sensation, a thought, a mood/emotion, or even an energy sensation - always has precedence over concepts and authoritative sources. This is because concepts and their relationships change. So does understanding of authoritative sources, with more and different direct experiences, and changes in one's ideas, and different (deeper, wider) inputs from authorities. A truly original experience or conceptual framework, never experienced or thought-of by anyone else before, obviously means āgama cannot be used for validation.

Finally, in the oral tradition of yoga, āgama (arrival, etc. in Sanskrit) is construed to mean the transfer of the direct experience or inference of the authority into the student or practitioner. [5] For the first, an experience transfer, or evocation, requires a prepared mind or brain. In the spiritual context, that preparation comes through meditation and contemplation. When āgama is considered as transferring theories or concepts or ideas, we have the more usual meaning of teaching a concept after assuming that the student knows the concepts required to understand it.

Conclusion?

In both material and spiritual contexts, simple rote-memorisation isn't enough for "future-proofing" human beings. In a dynamic world filled with new ideas, cross-linkages across scientific and other fields of knowledge, and regeneration of traditional approaches to life, skills in validating one's own experiences and ideas and those of others are increasingly essential. Paradoxically, such skills come not from frenetic external activity, but an elegantly simple and relaxing journey inside oneself - leading one to concur with true sages that a natural human life can be both simple and stress-free, though not necessarily easy!

NOTES

[1] Sounds - language and play-acting, touch, taste, etc. as well. Babies are often stopped from experiencing things using all their senses. Unfortunately, this teaches behaviour at the expense of direct perception.

[2] One's reaction to hunger, for example, and eating only till one's body is naturally satiated, is trained artificially based on precepts like "finish your plate" [3] and mindless intake of over-processed food.

[3] This makes sense only if one is also allowed to take only as much as needed.

[4] Essentially, an experiment is a prediction of sensations, or percepts, based on concepts and their implications.

[5] A matter seen or inferred by an accomplished person (āpta) is taught in the form of words in order to transfer one's knowledge into another. The vṛtti from that word, with its matter and meaning as the object, is the listener's acquisition (āgama) - Vyāsa Bhāṣya for PYS I.7, translated by Swami Veda Bharati in his PYS w/ VB, vol.I, Samādhi Pāda, pg. 149

Samādhi - a simple definition

Here's a very simple way to understand samādhi.

Think of a sentence as subject, verb/activity, and object.

I - meditate upon - something.

Initially, there is awareness or consciousness of all three parts. Then, one loses consciousness of the subject. Work/activity/thought gets done unselfconsciously. Then, if one is sitting with closed eyes, one loses consciousness of the activity also. What is left is awareness only of the object. This is a simple idea of samādhi.

 

Since one's mind is not used to systematically or regularly doing this, it keeps jumping around the three parts. Much like falling asleep though, even meditation, let alone samādhi, does not occur by doing something, but by relaxing and letting go of activities.

 

dhāraṅa - dhyāna - samādhi form a progression of states. [1] One might say all three (I, meditate, object) are present in dhāraṅa, only two (meditate, object) in dhyāna, and only one (object) in samādhi. [2]

 

NOTES

[1] In the Kūrma Purāṅa, as quoted by Sw. Vivekananda in Raja Yoga, dhāraṅa is a thought that lasts 12 seconds, dhyāna 12x12 or 144 seconds, and samādhi 12x12x12 or 1728 seconds or 28 minutes.

 

[2] samādhi, according to PYS, is not just one state or epiphany. Depending on the type of object and the type of mental activity, it is of multiple types. This is probably why it is widely misunderstood.

Losing one's identity

To continue with the floating up metaphor from Why meditate?, if one's body becomes vaporous to the point where the skin is also gas, wouldn't wind and other physical forces in the sky dissipate it? Wouldn't one's identity get lost?

Yes, that is possible or can definitely be imagined.

So, by analogy, what about losing one's mind or sanity when it goes to subtler and subtler levels?

There are a few traditional reassurances regarding spiritual practice.

One, if subtler levels are reached by one's own volition through relaxation, without chemical or other means that overwhelm the brain's natural processes [1], that will not happen. It is like walking to a strange place versus being taken there in a windowless vehicle.

Two, if one's mind is guided by someone to different levels, that same person will guide it back. [2]

Three, subtler states without jealous individuation or sharp separation from others are more natural, or sane, than our usual fear and other negative emotions-ridden states. In other words, so what if you lose your self? You have gained your Self!

NOTES

[1] Hence the injunction in spiritual paths to avoid alcohol and drugs. The clarity, peace, affection, and joy in subtler mental states far outweigh the relaxation, stupor, and carefree feeling that come with alcohol.

[2] How, or even if, this happens is a matter of experience.

Why meditate?

Why meditate?

Or, why do spiritual practice at all?

One interesting reason is, to evolve one's mind to subtler levels, to expand its capabilities. A different perspective, somewhat complementary, is to prevent one's mind from atrophying, from losing its ability to sustain subtle, but simple, thoughts. The dynamic nature of the mind means it either progresses or regresses.

Let me try to explain with a simple model of a human being [1]

 

I           E

N    D

SI

--------

M    D

IN

--------

BODY

--------

OUTSIDE

Humans are primarily distinguished by their ability to think, to use, more than other species, that part of themselves which is not physical, the non-body. But, like other species, humans also naturally learn and share their knowledge with their own species.

So, thinking is natural to the mind, the non-physical part of a human being.

What kind of thinking does the mind do? Consider these four types of increasingly subtle thoughts, about what is outside the physical body, about the physical body itself, about what is inside the body - the mind - itself, and lastly, about other mental concepts inside the mind. [2]

The mind is constantly thinking. But it may or may not be aware of its own activity. If one observes one's thoughts, the vast majority of them - in frequency, duration, and intensity - are about the outside. Fewer are about the body, and even fewer about the mind. Very rarely are our thoughts about the inside. Conceptual thoughts, yes, but again about the outside - the world and other people. And, if at all about oneself, thoughts about oneself in relation (and usually negative at that) to others.

Consider this analogy. A diver can sink naturally to a certain depth just by body weight. Using momentum - by diving - one can go deeper. Once the buoyant force of water matches the body weight, the diver stays, or is held, at that depth. Greater depths can be reached by increasing one's weight, by holding a boulder, as done by pearl divers, for example.

Imagine the opposite situation, floating or diving up into the sky. Instead of increasing weight, one has to reduce weight to counteract gravity. One can  float up to even greater heights naturally by converting the solid matter of one's body to gaseous matter.

Now, consider thoughts in the mind.

Thoughts about the body are heavier or grosser than the lighter or subtler thoughts about the mind itself. Thoughts about concrete material things outside the body are similarly grosser. Thoughts about ideas and concepts, and about the inside of the mind, are subtler.

Think about energy.

How much energy is needed by mentally to contemplate changing the position of a window in a room? How much energy is needed by one's mind and body to physically make the change?

Obviously, thinking is subtler than physical action.

Extend the idea of reduction in energy to subtlety of thoughts. A subtler thought should require less energy than a grosser thought. Or, if that may be tough to swallow, a simpler idea should require less energy than a complex one. As one's thoughts go to subtler and subtler levels [3] inside, less and less energy is needed. Not less time, but less energy.

But, like one's physical solidity having to become physical vapour to float higher in the sky, one's thoughts have to become lighter to reach more subtle levels. It is easy to understand or imagine that more and more relaxation of one's mind is needed to have subtler and subtler thoughts. So, the opposite and generally-accepted idea, that spiritual practice - or subtle thinking - must be mentally strenuous is axiomatically wrong. Research [4] has validated this assumption.

Reaching simpler or subtler levels of thought requires not just a relaxed mind, but also time. And thus patience. [5]

Finally, habit. If one has never or rarely thought at a subtle level, what are the chances one will do so? Once habituated to thinking only at a particular gross level, or to particular types of thought, one's mind continues that type of activity. Habits, after all, can comfort and give emotional support. But, the nice thing about the mind is its plasticity - it gets used to thinking at simpler and subtler levels also very easily. It just needs time to relax without nagging!

NOTES

[1] A sad attempt (!) at showing arcs of concentric circles, from smaller to larger:

inside -> mind -> body -> outside.

[2] The concept of something beyond the mind, which the mind cannot and will never be able to grasp, is not considered here.

[3] At subtler and subtler or deeper and deeper levels inside, attributes and concepts become simpler, with minimal details. E.g., at the subtlest conceptual level of a principle common to everything is simple be-ing, or existence, in philosophical terms. Another example - in Advaita, Brahman is described using only three words - existence, consciousness, bliss.

[4] See brief note on Krishna and Buddha in Spiritual Illiteracy

[5] Imagine a wildlife photographer. She may have to wait for days or weeks in the jungle for the animal to show up, be visible long enough, and also when there is sufficient light to get a decent shot! Fortunately, such external circumstances are not needed in meditation.

Spiritual illiteracy

Scientific illiteracy is a problem, in India particularly, due to rote learning. My understanding of science boils down to the idea that shallow/direct/surface-level models or theories need not be valid. A simple example - eating fat causes fat build-up in the body. The idea seems commonsensical, but it is not supported by research, after removing confounding factors. Such as eating other things and not just fat alone. Or changing one's usual diet while adding fat to it. One cannot then pinpoint the cause of fat gain. An illiterate might even argue that I am making the opposite statement - eating fat reduces fat build-up in the body! In science, statements should be made carefully, especially those subject to research.

Spiritual illiteracy, or functional spiritual illiteracy, is more a problem outside India. [1] Here again, there are misleading ideas due to the complexity of the domain. E.g., atheistic/agnostic scientists may think that random life events are better than purposeful or directed events. Or, thinking distractedly and unstoppably is normal, so strenuous effort is needed to focus or be free of thoughts. At a higher or subtler level is the idea that one should focus on competing with others to improve, or that life is a zero-sum game - I win only when others fail.

 

Especially pernicious is an idea popular in gym culture - no pain, no gain. This has led to absurd physical and mental "spiritual" practices, debunked millenia ago by Lord Krishna and the Buddha, who said that moderation is most effective for spiritual progress. [2] In a more recent example, Daaji's definition of spiritual meditation as "effortless focus on an infinite object" was an eye-opener - more relaxation than stressing is needed during spiritual practice.

Most theories in spirituality have not been put to experimental verification with large numbers of people. A huge confounding factor is the idea of faith in others, supposedly better or higher in some way. Chariji had said that faith should come after first, belief - based on experience, and then, trust. Much like reasoned brand loyalty in business.

There are strict experimental paths - Heartfulness Way/Sahaj Marg is one - which ask practitioners to validate their spiritual journey based on, first their own experiences, second, their inferences, deductions and predictions, based again on their own experiences and theories, and only third, on what was said by the Guides.

A certain level of guidance or training is however needed to observe one's own experiences. Some of that is needed to set expectations - absolute peace or extreme bliss, in the very first sitting, is unlikely. And some again to change the way one observes - like describing and comparing the mental condition before and after, instead of only during, the meditation. [3]

 

Invariably, though, a difference is felt after a session when introspection is done at various levels. [4] People may not report it to others, like trainers, for various reasons. But if they acknowledge it to themselves, and find that similar effects occur in their solo practice, they may be interested enough to explore further.

 

Spiritual literacy, then, is more about learning to observe in a relaxed and interested way than indulging in frenetic, often strenuous, mind-numbing exercises. It is also about developing an attitude towards an infinite journey.

NOTES

[1] Spiritual researchers have been working in India for two millennia and more. So India has a cultural understanding of valid spirituality, backed up by popular expositions of spiritual theories in storytelling form. Much like public lectures in the US.

 

[2] The Buddha is well-known for having done harsh physical practices, dropping them as ineffective, and getting enlightenment. Lord Krishna's instructions, or arguably Vyasa's, on yoga sadhana in the Gita come after many years, possibly centuries, of difficult practices based on hints in the Vedas.

 

[3] This idea makes sense only if one understands that meditation can also be a cleaning session, and so the effect of cleaning is more important than the stuff coming up during cleaning.

 

[4] One way for systematic observation after a session - check how the heart feels, generally in the chest area; check the mind, generally in the head area; all the joints of the body, including the spine.

Another way - observe how you felt physically, emotionally (mood), mentally (thoughts) - before, during, after. Did your subjective time match the clock time? How were your thoughts? More, less, zero, the same? Jumpy, smooth, obsessive? Did any scenes appear? Colours? Vibrations? Movement from bottom to top of the body? Along the spine?

5 mental states

In traditional Indian psychology [1], the mind is considered to be in one of these five states at any time:

1. kṣipta - jumpy, agitated, disturbed, unsettled on any object for an extended time (rajasic),

2. mūḍha - torpid, dull, stuporous, disinclined to think (like a TV addict!) (tamasic),

3. vikṣipta - a better or special kind of kṣipta - still unsettled and distracted, but can think about objects for a longer time or do self-reflection, (rajasic+sāttvic),

4. ekāgra - settled state, on any object, for an extended period, but subject to distraction without conscious control. A surface calm, with turbulence/distraction at deeper levels, (sāttvic),

5. niruddha - effortless settled state, with calmness at deeper levels as well due to removal of impurities and complexities that cause distractions, (greatest level of sattva).

The Vyāsa Bhāṣya [3] says that the esoteric state called samādhi is characteristic of *all* the states of citta or consciousness. Traditionally though, only the fourth and fifth states are considered conducive to, or examples of, samādhi.

NOTES

[1] Vyāsa talks about them in his very first comment on Pātañjala Yoga Sutras [2] sutra 1.1

[2] Some 2000 years ago, a systematic compilation of yoga tenets known at the time was made. It was called Pātañjala Yoga Sūtras (PYS) after its compiler, Patañjali who put them into sūtra (thread/suture) form.

[3] The PYS are not easy to grasp as, e.g., many terms are not defined before their first use. So, as with the other famous Sūtras, contextual information, or explanation, was given as a bhāṣya, or commentary, on each sutra. Traditionally, the first bhāṣya on the PYS is called the Vyāsa bhāṣya because, again traditionally, it was done by Vyāsa. Now, one meaning of vyāsa is "compiler". And so there is a theory that both the Yoga Sūtras and the first and most important bhāṣya upon it came from Patañjali!

Map of mental evolution - inward and outward

A simple map of progressive mental evolution with meditation

1. focus outward
2. focus inward
3. change focus easily
4. willed focus to natural awareness - both inward and outward awareness

In more detail:

1. be able to focus outward easily - on outside objects - basically on incoming sensations
• shift easily and lightly from sensation to sensation (sound to sound, e.g.)
  
2. be able to focus inward easily - on inside objects - percepts and concepts - thoughts, ideas, emotions, maybe as representations of sensations (visions, sounds, etc.)
   
3. be able to change focus 
• from outward to inward easily and without stickiness or drag. E.g., sit down and go into deep meditation - as effortless inward focus - within seconds. 
• the reverse, i.e., to resume "normal" activity after meditation, easily and lightly.
  
4. willed focus becomes diffused attention or awareness - of inside and outside objects - one aspect of what Daaji calls a 360-degree awareness:
• with eyes closed
• with eyes open

Om kham brahma - Space and Brahman

Think of a rectangular box.

Fill it with marbles. 

There will be some space left over, in between the marbles, and between the sides of the box and the marbles.

The space occupied by all the marbles put together - think of it as immanent space. The space of the entire box - of all the marbles and the spaces outside them - think of it as transcendent space.

Now let the box and the marbles dissolve into mere outlines. The box-space and the marbles-space are unaffected and they can still be traced.

Now let them dissolve completely. Both spaces are now indistinguishable from each other or the surrounding space.

Imagine, if possible, physical space dissolving into the idea of space.

NOTES

1. This is an analogy of laya yoga progression, from sthūla to kāraṇa śarīra.
   
2. These are also some implications of "om kham brahma" - "Om space [is] Brahma[n]" (Br.Up. khila kāṇḍa V.1.i) when space is used as an analogy for Brahman as consciousness.

Descriptions (of gunas)

Water: clear, either still or moving

Water: turbulent and agitated

Water: torpid and stagnant

Air: clear, either still or moving

Air: windy, stormy, directionless or quickly changing direction

Air: heavy, foggy, still

Mind: clear and thoughtless or thinking easily - flowing clearly

Mind: distracted, agitated, unsettled

Mind: foggy, torpid, unable to think clearly

Sattva

Rajas

Tamas

Two bodies or what do we really know?

Indian philosophy uses terms like bodies and layers to discuss different categories of concepts. Much like human biology uses "systems" - the nervous system, the skeletal system, the circulatory system, etc. In Vedantic philosophy, after many centuries of discussions, three bodies and five sheaths are defined.

Let us, though, try to start from basics or first principles.

I have a physical body as do all other human beings [1] - I can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear my own physical body, and interact physically with those of others.

Simple.

I also have "something" which is non-physical. Yet it can feel and act. Indirectly, it perceives, and responds, to certain sounds - words in a language, e.g. - and symbols - the English letters of this article on a screen, e.g. Its action is called 'thinking' [2] and it can also cause creation of sounds and symbols. My "something" is called my mind or my mental or subtle body. Even though it is not visible or physically palpable, my mind's activity is obvious. [3]

Thus, human beings have two bodies, one physical, and the other non-physical.

So what?

Well, that takes us to an interesting and ancient philosophical problem. How do I "know" or perceive anything? By physical interaction alone? Or by mental interaction alone? Or both? Is there any other way?

Since we have accepted two bodies, both physical and mental interactions are obviously ways in which we know something.

There is also another way which involves the sensation-percept-concept triad described earlier. My physical senses work with sensations. My mind works with percepts. But, my mind also works with concepts. If I take a set of sensations or percepts and create a conceptual framework based on them, my mind's activity is called "inferring" or "induction". If I then predict physical events outside me or percepts within me based on that framework, I 'deduce" them, or the activity is 'deduction'.

The three bodies and five layers or sheaths described in Vedanta [4] are either one or the other of the two bodies described above. Experiences beyond these two immediately palpable bodies are called 'mystical', 'transcendental', 'revelations', etc. Reports of such experiences form the bases for various religions and spiritual paths.

To answer the question in the Mind sandwich article, on the grosser side of the mind (or the liquid side of the ice block) is the physical body. On the other side is something very like the subtlest level of the mind. Yet, that something is always described as un-graspable by the mind.

Notes

[1] And as do all living things, in fact, in some form or the other.

[2] in general. Cogitating, cognising, analysing, comparing, etc. may all be included in thinking.

[3] The Cārvāka philosophers denied the mind, or mental activity, using, ironically, logical and not physical arguments!

[4] Three bodies (gross, subtle, causal) further sub-divided or categorised into five sheaths (physical, energetic, mental, intellectual, and bliss) are used to discuss philosophical and/or psychological problems and theories.

"Quantum" rant

<rant>

 

There's one fundamental problem with all this quantum stuff.

We human beings don't act at the quantum level, i.e., subatomic scales.

It's a bit like saying a tree has the same stuff as a seed and so a tree should behave like a seed.

Or that I am made up of subatomic particles like electrons and so I should behave like a fuzzy electron cloud.

If I can somehow access a part of me at a subatomic level, would the supra-atomic "I" still work? Would it even "be" there? Is there a subatomic "I" or does my multi-trillion-molecular "I" somehow shrink down to a subatomic one?

Simple test for "creating" one's own universe - walk through a solid wall by moving all one's particles from one side of the wall to the other - an electron can do that, at subatomic distances. So surely humans who believe in quantum tunnelling effects at human scales can too, right?

Emotional "stuff" makes sense, not matter. By changing my attitude towards my life and everything in it, I can rewire my brain, and apparently a large part of my genes. Not my subatomic particles - they literally can't care whether they are in an optimistic or pessimistic brain. They work the same way in both.

A car is made with tyres. Does it normally roll like a tyre? It rolls ON tyres - a big  and comfortable difference. A petrol car has controlled explosions in its engine. Would you want to ride in a car that explodes every second?

Surely it's not difficult to understand that what happens at a very, very minuscule scale of space need not be the same as what happens at the scale of an adult human being.

</rant>

Internal and external focus

In physics, or science, it's easy to understand that going inward, towards greater subtlety, is going towards unity. Differences reduce. E.g., going from ores to molecules to subatomic particles like protons and electrons. At the level of subatomic particles or energy fields, an electron can skip from a hydrogen atom to an iron atom and be completely undistinguishable from any of its other electrons.

 

In spirituality too, the mind that looks outward notices differences and separation. Looking inward makes it realise the commonality and universality at subtler levels.

 

Here's another way of thinking about it. The idea of a house is subtler than a physical house. Two physical houses are different in many ways, not the least of which is their different location in space. Yet, one who understands the idea of houses knows what to expect inside different houses.

 

Understanding commonality and universality makes understanding differences and individuality much easier.

 

The human mind is geared to look for patterns and use those patterns to predict future events. A simple example - noticing the layout of furniture in daytime and expecting the same layout at night. A more complex one - learning pious statements like "Be honest" as a child, and expecting everyone to be honest. Finding commonality, or acceptable commonality, in situations where everyone does not speak honestly according to the child is considered emotional maturity or growing up. Yet, as the mind reaches subtler states, understanding of words or understanding the various meanings of words in different contexts increases. Hence the meaning of truth - as, e.g., the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - can be used to condemn or to accept. Negatively or positively.

 

Turning the mind inward is one description of meditation. Being able to go inward and outward equally easily is one measure of progress.

Simple technique for peaceful, affectionate relationships

Lalaji [1] gave a wonderfully-simple technique [2] for working on relationships with people, especially those you fear or dislike, or vice versa.

• Think of one person.
• Imagine that the person is breathing in.
• With the inhalation, positivity about you goes in.
• Then, the person is breathing out.
• With the exhalation, negativity about you goes out.

Repeat only 2-3 times at a time.

Tips

• it works best if you do it first for that person (you exhale negativity and you inhale positivity about them)
• it must be done in absolute secrecy and anonymity (to prevent any mental reaction or egotism)
• don't modify the steps, keep it simple and general

Notes

[1] Lalaji, Ram Chandra of Fatehgarh, was the first Guru of the Sahaj Marg tradition. He developed and taught simple yet highly effective spiritual and psychological techniques.

[2] A more detailed version, called Seeding Positive Thoughts, is in the Fear Detox chapter of Daaji's Simple Heartfulness Practices.

Whirlpool and Ocean

Whirlpool: "I want to be as vast and mighty as you."

Ocean: "You are already that. Dissolve yourself and see."

 

Whirlpool: "But then I won't exist!"

 

Ocean: "You asked to be like me, not like me while                        staying yourself!"

Ocean: "All right then, just realise that you are

                   already a part of me. 

              And in that sense, already vast and mighty."

 

Whirlpool: "But I am too aware of my smallness

                           even while connected to you."

 

Ocean: "You are thinking more of what contains

                   you, not of what you truly are.

             A little earth, water, and more water

                 define you as a whirlpool.

             Think more about water

                 in all the whirlpools of the ocean.

             Think only of the water

                 across the entire ocean.

             And you will forget yourself.

             And your limitations."

All creatures, indeed all living and non-living things in the universe, are made of atoms. Or subatomic particles. A carbon atom from a 80-year old human or 200-year old tree is identical to the carbon atom from a just-born baby or a 1-day old sapling. This is an axiom of science. Once you reach the level of electrons, protons, and neutrons, nothing distinguishes one subatomic particle from another.

Space is amazing. It exists before everything else. In a sense, stars are congealed and "locational" space, much like a whirlpool is "congealed" ocean in a place.

 

Science posits consciousness arises from a collection of atoms, from a collection of organic molecules. This is easy to accept because I have been trained from babyhood to call the collection of molecules making up my body by my name. Yet, 55-90% [1] of living cells in my body are bacteria, viruses, fungi and other microbes. In my body, even the vast majority of human cells, RBCs, live just 3-4 months. Separated from the body by a blood donation, bereaved RBCs last barely a month. My body is continuously being rebuilt. Still, its cells are recognisably mine. At the deeper, or subtler, level of molecules, though, it is anonymous!

NOTES

 

[1]  https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bodys-bacteria-dont-outnumber-human-cells-so-much-after-all

Time as not-space (avākaśa)

It is very difficult to think of time, or a measure of time, without using a word related to time! E.g., "continued sequence of events" is part of the definition of time in Wikipedia. "Continued" connotes something remaining the same over time. Sequence of events is related to successive changes of something in a length of time (again!) or in space. So a definition of time may also involve space in some way or the other.

How does one know that time has passed if there is no measurable or palpable change?

One very subtle definition of time in Indian philosophy is: [that which is] not space (ākaśa). [1]

Here is a simple way to experience time as avākaśa (a-ākaśa):

Look at something blank or featureless, a white wall, for example. Go close to the wall so that it fills your entire vision.

Gently close your eyes and then open them.

If nothing has changed in space, i.e., all sensations are the same before closing the eyes and after opening the eyes, what has occurred or changed is time.

Opening and closing the eyes changes your sensation of space a little. So repeat the exercise with eyes open.

To get the same duration without using something else (like a stopwatch!), start counting mentally from 1 when closing the eyes and stop when they are fully open. Then, for the eyes-open variant, make the same count.

(Surprisingly, given the definition of time as not-space, every physical instrument that works with, or measures, time does so using change in space in one way or another. The time taken to close and re-open the eyes, a spatial activity, is called kṣaṇa [2]. Another example: the SI definition of a second [3] counts a certain number of energy changes in a Caesium atom. These energy changes occur due to subatomic transitions, essentially changes in subatomic space.)

Notes

[1] Space is the first of the five material elements in Indian philosophy. All other elements contain space.

[2] https://www.sanskrita.org/wiki/index.php?title=kSaNa [c.f. M.Bh. III.6.52-77, vana-parva, Nalopaakhyana]

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics#The_unit_of_measurement_of_time:_the_second

Sensation, percept, and concept vs. śabda, artha, jñāna

Consider an object, e.g., a coconut tree. Sunlight falling on it gets reflected, and on reaching our eyes, cause "sensations". These sensations are converted or encoded into electromagnetic and/or chemical signals and sent through the optic nerves to the brain's visual centres. Call these signals "percepts". Once at the brain centres, further processing or encoding takes place, creating "concepts".

For the coconut tree example, then, the sequence of signals or information is "coconut tree sensation", "coconut tree percept", and "coconut tree concept".

Sensations and percepts are immediate and directly related to the object. Concepts may be direct or indirect, of many layers. The first concept, or the first layer of concept(s), is immediate and direct. As analysis, remembering, comparison, classification, etc. are done by the brain, more concepts and layers of concepts may be generated.

In the example, "tree", "coconut tree", "green", "brown", etc. are direct concepts, closest to the actual sensation of the coconut tree object. "Tall", "short", "old", "young", etc. are indirect or derived concepts. "Dancing", "swaying", "elegant", "healthy", "diseased", etc. are even more indirect.

There are three well-known terms in traditional Indian psychology/philosophy - śabda, artha, and jñāna. Each has multiple meanings. But, in the context of the sensing-perceiving-conceptualising framework, śabda may be equated to sensation, artha to percept, and jñāna to concept.

 

As a more direct example, consider someone saying your name. The sound waves coming to your ears is śabda, the signals from the ears to the brain centres is artha, and the signals in the brain processing the artha are jñāna. Like concepts, jñāna could have many levels.

Sāttvic state of mind

The sāttvic [1] state of mind can be given one very simple and functional meaning - positivity, but towards others or the outer world.

Whenever one feels naturally positive [2] about someone or something else, one's mind is in a sāttvic state.

What can one do to make one's mind more sāttvic?

Simply expand [3] this condition to include as many people as you can visualize in a few seconds, or at most a minute.

Intensify it too, if possible.

Try to keep increasing or changing the number of people and groups of people every time. Whoever comes to mind then is fine. Don't stagnate, and use the same set of people every time.

The easiest way, of course, is to think "everybody" or the "universe" or "infinity" at the very beginning. But then it becomes more of an intellectual exercise.

Also, try not to force the sāttvic state. That can create "wrinkles" in your consciousness which have to be removed later.

The technique is like increasing the speed and height of a swing. A gentle effort at the tops of the arc is enough - the swing goes faster and higher very quickly!

 

Notes

[1] Also spelt sattvic/sattwic

[2] It could be any positive feeling - friendliness, compassion, happiness, optimism, contentment, peace, compassion, confidence, etc.

[3] Derived from 'E' of Daaji's AEIOU technique, for post-meditative conditions in general

A universal prayer and I

Prayer generally involves two, oneself and another superior or higher self.

Then there is the aspect of for what one prays. One generally prays to get something or for the well-being of someone (which could also be oneself).

Then there are prayers at higher levels, for the well-being of every living being in the universe. One such prayer, very popular from the Sivananda Yoga classes, called a loka kalyāṇa or loka kṣema prayer [1], goes like this:

sarveṣām svastiḥ bhavatu [2]

sarveṣām shantiḥ bhavatu

sarveṣām pūrṇam bhavatu

sarveṣām mangalam bhavatu

Translated roughly as:

[May] well-being be everywhere {or ,May all be well}

[May] Peace be everywhere {or, May all be at peace}

[May] auspiciousness be everywhere {or, May things happen as expected, may everything occur naturally}

[May] fullness be everywhere {or, May all be content, may all lack nothing}

This prayer may be chanted with the idea that the outside world and everything/everybody there should become as prayed for. But, another, subtler, meaning is about one's attitude. How do I regard everything and everybody else - starting from one's immediate surroundings and one's family, to the entirety of one's species, to all living and non-living things?

By wishing positivity and a natural life (peaceful, contented, full, lacking nothing, natural changes and events) for everybody and everything else, my attitude and way of thinking changes by way of reduced biases, groupism/tribalism, envy, jealousy, and vengefulness. At least for the nonce, I have expanded my scope of tribe or group to the highest or largest conceivable possible.

Put differently, the state of my "I" has changed from immanent to transcendent. One way to gauge spiritual progress, therefore, is how easily one makes this change and how natural is one's attitude in such situations.

Notes

[1] A nice article on possible sources and variants of this prayer

[2] Pronounced normally as: sarveShaam-svastir-bhavatu. The ending 'ḥ' + beginning 'b' becomes 'rb' in Sanskrit. Much as two vowels, one ending a word and the other starting a word, are separated by an 'r' in English (law-r-and-order)

Expanding selfishness

(A follow-up to Ahamkara paradox - I needed to lose the I)

There was a discussion many years ago on a series of prioritisations:

 

• for the family, sacrifice oneself
• for the village, sacrifice the family
• for the country, sacrifice the village
• for the atma, sacrifice everything

This series has a lot of history and commentary/explanations. It was probably first documented (but in different words) in the Mahabhārata in Vidura Nīti (details/commentary).

 

Now, try replacing 'sacrifice' by 'deciding for' or 'thinking for'. [1]

 

In the context of the "I", it is a straightforward expansion till the atma:

• A child thinks or decides only for itself.
• Parents decide primarily for their immediate family.
• A leader's decision is primarily for their organisation
• (business, country, kingdom, etc.)

But, what about sacrificing everything, or deciding only, for the atma? Isn't that regressing to a selfish/childish stage?

 

Yes, definitely, if one considers the atma to be an embodied, separate, creature. The immanent stage, in other words.

 

No, if the atma is considered as that which underlies or gives life to all of creation - the transcendental stage. The individuated "I" has been replaced by the transcendental "I". [2]

NOTES

 

[1] "Renunciation" or "sacrifice" has negative connotations. A better perspective is "expansion", e.g., from love only for one to love for all of their family. A related example: sannyasa is considered selfish because, among other things, one renounces family and society. But, a true sannyasi's concept of family expands 

tremendously, from a few members of his species to infinity!

 

[2] Purists may rightly quibble about the lack of rigour in equating the atma and the "I". My apologies, this is not a rigorously argued article.

Ahamkara paradox - "I" needed to lose the I

Consider:

• I practise
• I realise
• My goal is liberation
  
• I want to be a better/spiritual person
• Babuji said, "Forget the I," not "Understand thyself."
• Spiritual practice is also about releasing/ignoring I (self-arrogating) thoughts
• Surrender to situations, don't respond selfishly
• Traditional Indian spiritualists rail against the "I" unremittingly
  

What are the characteristics of the I?

• self-arrogation
• self-image
• self-consciousness (c.f., shyness, introversion)
• a set of self-created, artificial, illusory thoughts

What if there is no paradox?

Assume that there are (at least) two stages in spirituality.

In the first, lower, stage, the I is actively needed. Why?

• immanent stage
• individual perspective
• sense of self needed to evolve consciously
• comparison of my self with other selves
• comparison of my self with itself at different times and contexts
• simplify or integrate many relative, context-dependent selves into a single coherent, consistent self
• be the same inside and outside
• be natural - don't think something and say something else
• yet - satyam bruyāt, priyam bruyāt
  (speak [the] truth, affectionately speak [it])
• actively work on becoming a more ethical and moral person
• accept the current situation as it is, but act positively to create different future situations
• acceptance presumes an "acceptor", and 
• choosing positive actions a "chooser"

In the second and higher, stage, the "I" is not needed actively. Why not?
 

• transcendent stage
• universal perspective
• jivanmukti (freedom from separate individuality)
• the divine inside and outside oneself drives one's evolution
• "I surrender" is not surrender
• Kabir's "prem galI" doha:
  
• Love's lane [is] very narrow; in it two cannot be.
• When "I" was, He was not; now He is, "I" am not.
• complete expansion and freeing of consciousness occur only if there is no self-image or self-consciousness
• the only freedom is the freedom is to do the right - Babuji
• no choice, hence no chooser necessary

The two stages need not be, and are generally not, sequential in time.
They may occur many times, and for differing periods, until the seeker reaches a particular level of purity, simplicity, and lightness. A seeker may have to deliberately shift down to the immanent stage regularly for some activities [1].
This may confuse the spiritual seeker.

Finally, a minimal I is still needed to use one's body and mind while alive: 

• I scratch my arm.
• That book is for me.
• I booked a flight to Chennai to reach in a few hours.
  

Notes

[1] Practice of maxim 10 (and maxim 9) requires self-examination at the individual level