<< Previous - Longing - The Only Responsibility of a Jijnasu
To get some conviction to explore the innate hunch
that I am something more than the body and the mind is in itself a great
challenge. But once we get to that point somehow, there is a greater challenge on
the cards - to face the distraction caused by the massive market of ideologies
that compels one to go into the shopping mode. Which one to select? Which one
is correct? The Indian philosophies (Darshanas) in this market basically vary
in their opinion about Jiva (me), Jagat (world), Ishwara (God), and the
relationship among them (the same is true across religious systems). Some say all
are one reality, some say they are independent realities etc. This multitude of
perspectives on reality isn't a cause for concern by itself; the concern here is
the intense belief we carry that we must decide
which philosophy is true before
embarking on our personal spiritual journey. We believe that our journey will otherwise
be misguided. Here I question this very belief and present a case to show why
such a step - that of deciding on the correct philosophical conclusion - is
unnecessary, ridiculous and indeed, compulsorily dispensable for a true seeker.
The belief can be deciphered as follows. Having
realized the incompleteness and the discontent inherent in the physical and the
mental, the spiritual process for an individual begins with an intense
conviction - shraddha - that there is
a culmination to our journey, a reality beyond the body and the mind; in the
language of Upanishads - "That by knowing which everything is known".
This core conviction is natural, and is triggered out of the saturation with the worldly affairs. The mind is not the source of this conviction, and it just gets expressed through the mind. It is not a mental process of belief. But more
often than not, this conviction is made into a mental process by extending into the details of this presently-not-perceived reality, such as "I am the ultimate reality", "My soul is different from the super-soul", "Vishnu/Shiva is the ultimate reality" etc. And this is where
the problem lies.
This extended
conviction occurs because once it is accepted that there is something greater
which is yet to be known, very few are potent enough to carry in them the
intense emptiness of "I do not know anything about it" and wholeheartedly
boil in the pain of ignorance about the nature of that reality. Most are highly
impotent (incapable to acknowledge for long that "I do not know"),
and very quickly they will yield to some beliefs;
something like "I do not know.... but I think it is like this [mostly
because someone else told like that]", after which they start feeling good by concealing their ignorance from themselves, and thereby fooling themselves that they know something about reality. Seeking ends and
believing begins. Longing for a solution gives way to finding solace from
stories. After this it is only about strengthening the beliefs, finding more people/scriptures
who will endorse our belief, becoming aggressive towards other schools etc. The
seeker is lost, and a fanatic is born. And then we always speak so assertively
about the nature of reality, exactly as if we really know it. "Atman", "Brahman", and the relation
between the two are then somehow more familiar to me than my relation with my
spouse.
Of course, there are some arguments for why we become
so. Some may say that only if we believe in the reality in its actual details (i.e.
only if we have the extended conviction) we can get to it; so we
must believe in a particular
philosophical conclusion. That is, the belief about the nature of reality is being considered as the necessary part of the effort to perceive (to know firsthand) reality. But this is a fallacy;
because it amounts to saying that the nature of the reality is within the
reach of the mind (which belief is a part of) which all the systems have
unanimously rejected. Effort to perceive can have nothing to do with the psychological aspect of belief.
Reality, however it is, is there to be seen by anyone
who has enabled his perception of it,
and this perception cannot be mental; and if we do the right things to go
beyond the mind, we will perceive reality. Therefore, only the process of
enabling this perception is relevant for us, not believing the stories about
the reality we get to hear from others (regardless of whether they are true or
not). For instance, it is not that the sun exists only for those who believe
the sun to be round, and invisible for those who do not believe it to be round.
The sun is visible in whatever form it exists for anyone who has opened his
eyes; and for someone with closed eyes the sun doesn't exist irrespective of
what shape they believe the sun to be of. Therefore, any belief about the shape
and nature of the sun is simply irrelevant; only the effort to perceive the sun
is imperative (arising from the core conviction that there is a sun to be seen).
Furthermore, the extended conviction about reality is not
only irrelevant, it is also a hindrance. While the core conviction enables the
longing to know reality and go beyond the mind, the extended conviction - no
matter how logical - blocks it with
stories at the mental level itself. The core conviction enlivens the seeking
spirit, and the extended conviction kills it. "Too much of anything is bad", even conviction. The core conviction should intensify, but not extend. Thereby the process of enabling our perception - doing the right things to go
beyond the mind - right away excludes possessing (or rather being possessed by) beliefs about the reality. What
we need is only the core conviction, and the intense longing and the pain of
ignorance arising out of it. Awareness of "I don't know" is akin to vacuum. As it intensifies, reality is automatically revealed. When we step
aside, it steps in.
Apart from this essential point, there are several other supplementary
reasons against the extended conviction:
- A believer of a particular philosophical school, no
matter how learned he is, very often becomes hostile to other schools, while 'hostility' would ironically be listed as a "don't" in his own system. Thus extended beliefs lead to endarkenment, not enlightenment. This, actually, is the seed of terrorism
if you look at it keenly - "My belief is correct, yours is wrong". It is indeed ridiculous if two blind people went about debating about how sun is, instead of putting some efforts to get their sight.
- A believer begins to extract his primary joy from
the number of people that endorse his belief, rather than from his own
practice. This is then no more a spiritual process, but only a juvenile and social process
of mutual validation - "I am wearing blue, you are also wearing blue, yeaaaah!"
- If we keenly observe, the fundamental prescription
behind the teachings of all the schools for "enabling our perception"
is the same: to make the mind non-sticky (less compulsive and more conscious) so that we are freed of it. It is only that the techniques to achieve that may greatly vary - from breathing techniques and food regulation to charity and
service. If this is so, what does it matter which school I am following? The purpose
is only to outgrow the mind. It would be ironical to get stuck at the mental
level with an extended belief about the nature of reality - "Me and God are one; Me and God are different; etc.".
- The beliefs are basically someone else's statements (conclusions) which we have not yet realized. If we utter them as if they are our statements, it amounts to fraud. It is like copying the final mathematical equations from a friend without us deriving them. We should therefore focus on the path - the process of enabling our perception - rather than the conclusions.
The problem being discussed here is an ancient one,
and was precisely the reason why Gautama Buddha taught the way he taught. His teachings were founded on the four noble truths, which I put forth as follows:
"Are you at complete ease with existence? Are you blissful?" - No
"Do you think there is a reason behind this lack
of ease?" - Yes
"The cause behind your suffering can be
nullified"
"I know how to nullify it, and I can tell you
step by step"
That is all - methods to solve our fundamental
friction with existence and to fuel the longing for something more; and no metaphysical speculations
about the universe and God. Because he saw that they are only traps for a
seeker. Logic and contemplation should only be used to confront the dead-end of logic firsthand. This way, logic should be
used to gradually outgrow logic, not to believe in a logical metaphysical conclusion
and get stranded with the mind.
Ramana Maharshi elegantly summarized the matter as follows:
Whether dualism or non-dualism, an individual accepts that jiva (himself) exists.
So, resolve yourself first. There is plenty of time after that to decide
whether to merge with Brahman, or stay separate!
