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

Meditation as a relaxing exercise

A simple technique to focus on the object of meditation easily:
 
Start your meditation by thinking of the object
 
After a while, you notice:
    your attention has been caught by a different object, or,
    you are thinking of something else.
 
Relax your attention.
 
Your attention goes back, automatically,
   to the previous object, your starting object.
 
Keep relaxing, very gently, very patiently, and consistently.
 
Don't judge, analyse, or otherwise engage with the distraction.
 
The duration of your attention on the initial object will increase with each meditation.
 
(The first distractions will be at the conscious level. Then distractions will start coming up from the subconscious. These may be stronger, and then it may even take many meditations to let go of them easily and completely.)

Teaching technique from Indian spirituality/culture

arundhati nyāya [1]
 
1. Describe a concept using an analogy
2. Extend/modify the analogy to modify the learning progressively
3. Finally, work directly with the concept
 
(4. For tough concepts, give other analogies for different perspectives)
 
Example (Chāndogya Upaniṣad):
 

1. Analogy 1 


Pluck a fruit from that huge banyan tree, slice it open, and take its seeds
 
Learnings
 
• a huge tree may have a small seed
• c.f. Mulla Nasruddin's story about pumpkins growing on thin vines while a huge oak has much smaller acorns
• simple direct reasoning - large effect from large cause - may be wrong in Nature
• a near-infinite cycle - from seed to tree and back


2. Analogy 2/modify analogy 1
 
Cut open a seed and look inside, it's practically empty/invisible.
 
Learnings
 
• something large can manifest from something small
  
• everything in the huge tree came from something so negligible
• variety (roots, trunk, leaves, fruit, seeds) can come from simplicity
 
3. Directly working with the concept [2]:
 
That thou art, Śvetaketu.

 
Learnings
 

• that simple, practically invisible, thing - within the seed, the tree, and various parts of the tree - is within you as well.
 
• how so?
 
• you are a human being, with a large, complex system, like a tree
• the same nothingness, or practically nothingness, in the seed, that became a tree has also become you
 
 
 
Discussion
 
But-but-but, animal vs. plant, human being vs. tree, thinking-moving being vs. unthinking stuck-in-the-mud organism - the analogies are incorrect/nonsensical!
 
Yes, yes, fine! Go read up on at least these two complex concepts before reading this again [3]:
 
1. the scientific theory of creation of the universe from a similar nothingness (a naked singularity?)
2.  creation and evolution of the vast variety of living beings from either:
1. non-living matter - the scientific theory - or
2. from conscious entities - Indian and other philosophies
 
 
Notes
 
[1] arundhati nyāya, or arundhati logic, is based on the technique of locating the arundhati star (Alcor) by first looking at the right area of the sky using a nearby tree or building, then locating nearby brighter stars, and finally the arundhati-vasishtha dual-star system.
 
[2] Other analogies (dissolving salt in water - uniform density, distribution) describe other aspects, but follow a similar sequence.
 
[3] While the answer may come across as a bit snarky, the example illustrates the depth of thinking needed to really grok the Upanishads. This thinking is called nididhyāsanam, essentially ruminating over a lesson, e.g. for inconsistencies, incomplete details, linking to earlier lessons, etc. nididhyāsanam forces students to update their conceptual models. As mananam means thinking, some traditions consider this to be mananam and nididhyāsanam to be a different learning activity - like meditating on the concepts.

Mind Sandwich

An ice block in a brook on a warm summer day.

 

Think of its bottom and top surfaces. One is in water, the other is in air.

 

Compare it with one's mind - think of range, stability, movement, changing state or vibratory levels. (Ignore evanescence, solidity, physics of ice.)

 

            ATMOSPHERE

     {{vapour}}

     {{{{{ }}}}

          I

       BLOCK

          E

     ~~~~~~~~~~

     ~~liquid~~

       A BROOK

 

Compare:

 

    {{Subtle vibrations}}

    {{{{{{{{{{ }}}}}}}}}

              M

              I

              N

              D

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ~~ Gross vibrations~~

 

Ponder:

What is at either end of the mind?

At one end, it's obvious - the body. But at the other?

Is there another end? Or does the mind just become subtler and subtler?