The sneaky I and the practice of meditation

Normally, one's 'I' is thought of as one's physical body and whatever is inside. The 'I' may also define one's relationships with others. Liking something or someone also defines one's 'I', even more so dis-liking. Immediate, so-called instinctive, responses or thoughts also delineate one's personality, the I-me-my set of emotions, thoughts, sensations, actions, and memories in my conscious, subconscious, and unconscious.

One may also define one's 'I' by what one cannot or will not do, where doing includes thinking, speaking, and physically acting.

This is where sneakiness comes in.

In Living with the Himalayan Masters Swami Rama's Guru taught him graphically about perspective. [1] He suddenly hugged a tree and frantically begged to be rescued from it. It took a while for Swami Rama to calm down enough to realise who was grabbing what!

Now, think of meditation, an activity requiring little energy [2] and greater and greater relaxation over time. Its effects are palpable, but not instantaneous. In some ways, the effects are reductive, not additive, of the 'I'. Indeed after a particular stage, one has to deliberately relinquish the 'I'-sustaining thoughts in order to progress.

This may be one reason why people have trouble with meditation. They are so comfortable with their 'I' that they refuse to let go of it. Further, if meditation is defined as an effort-ful activity, they use the excuse of an inability for physical activity for not meditating and so losing their self-created 'I'.

NOTES

[1] The lesson was on mAya. mAya doesn't hold us, we hold it.

[2] In India, most things come with terms and conditions. If someone says, "It's easy to do that," there's generally some, or a lot, of context, background, and previous skill development left out. Meditation defined as effortless focus is not one of those things. When the focus is not effortless, one is not in meditation. In Heartfulness meditation, the situation is even easier, the source of the light in one's heart itself pulls one's attention inward and creates the effortless focus.

Samskara, Stithaprajna, and Robots

Think of an event which happens regularly every day.

A normal event.

I like or dislike it. [1]

The "like/dislike" creates an emotional residue - a saṁskāra. The "I" makes it my saṁskāra.

Technically, the first is called rāga/dveṣa and the second ahamkāra or abhiniveśa. Those naturally in a state beyond likes or dislikes and unconcerned about their self-image and other-images [2] have sthitaprajña - settled wisdom.

From philosophical to material, theory to real life.

How is a sthitaprajña different from a robot (or even a machine)? After all, both are naturally incapable of rāga and dveṣa and have no abhiniveśa, the subconscious fear of losing their self, mental or even physical. [3]

The answer, I believe, is love. Transcendental love flows always, but at its purest and most elevating through a sthitaprajña.

 

 

NOTES

[1] I may like or dislike only some part of it, or all of it. Also, I may like/dislike myself or the others [2] who are in the event. Trivial likes or dislikes, and their emotional residues, don't have long-term effects on one's future.

[2] I create a mental image not just of myself, but also of others. Some parts of those images are useful in normal life. Most are not just useless, but also false.

 

[3] Arguably. A robot programmed with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics will strive to protect itself in normal circumstances. Also, machines are designed to shut down if their inputs are too high or too low, outside operational parameters.