54. "My Philosophy is Correct" - Deciphering the Parody of Faith

<< 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!

27. Spirituometry

<< Previous - Part 4 - The Final Chapter

The scriptures describe the qualities of a Jnani in very much detail. For e.g. the last 18 verses of the second chapter of the Gita are fully dedicated to explaining Sthita Prajna Lakshana. It has been repeated in several other places in the Gita as the qualities of a true devotee, qualities of a Karma yogi etc. They all finally describe the same – Realized state – by various names. Adi Shankaracharya, in his commentary of the Gita, mentions that these qualities are described for two purposes – to describe the Jnani, and to exhort what qualities a practitioner should try to build in him/her.

The qualities of a Jnani, are of great reference value for a seeker. It is like the goalpost on which we should always have an eye, even if we are at the other end of the field. Else the sense of direction itself will be lost. So, without doubt, and with common sense, knowing the Sthita Prajna Lakshana is a necessity for the practitioner.

But then, for direction vector to be meaningful, there have to be two points. Beginning and the end. A friend of mine once asked me “Suppose I tell you now ‘Let us go to the market’. What is the first thing that you will do?”. I said “Dress up myself”. He asked back “Before that?”

“Get up from the chair”         “Before that?”

“Agree to come with you”     “Before that?”

“Before that? I listened to your request of going to the market”

“You are very close. After you listened to me, and before agreeing to come, you did something. It happened so fast and spontaneously, that you are taking it for granted”

“I do not know”

“You located your current position relative to the market. Before the smallest activity that you do, this is the very first thing you do – decide where you are with respect to the target. It may not only be with respect to distance. It will be with respect to anything – distance, time, money, abilities etc. Locating the current coordinate the first essential step before moving to another coordinate.”

I thought over it, and you too imagine with me. Suppose I am suddenly left in an unknown place, in the middle of a street in a city. I want to go back home. What is the first thing I ask the people around? It is “What is this place?”, isn’t it? My first question can be nothing else apart from locating my current coordinate. Destination coordinate gets meaning only after I know my current coordinate. When I am in that unknown place, I very well know the map of my country. I very well know where my hometown is, in the map. I even know the latitude and longitude of my house. But will any of that help without locating my current coordinate? Only if both are known, current coordinate and destination coordinate, there can be a meaningful direction vector and hence, a journey.

In a situation such as the one above, this fact is very conspicuous. But this happens all the time in all our activities. Even if I am in my house and decide to go to the market, this is the very first reckoning that my mind does – locating the current position. But it is so fast that it goes unnoticed. When in my house, it only takes a fraction of a moment for locating the current position, as mind has done it several thousand times before.

And after locating the current position, immediately mind tries to locate the destination w.r.t. the current coordinates. Suppose I am new to the city and I do not where the market is. Now I would enquire about the location of the market w.r.t. the location of my house only. It does not mean anything to me if someone says “Market is next to the Central movie theatre”, because I do not know where that movie theatre is w.r.t. my current location. Then I will try to find land marks one by one, in a chain, until I get one known land mark – a land mark whose coordinates are known to me w.r.t. my current location. That first land mark may be just a few yards away from my house. And then the whole picture becomes clear to me. I get a clear idea about the path joining my location and the market. So, finally, what matters to me is the shortest path between my location and the market, not all the paths that lead to market.

During my journey, although my goal is market, initially I ask for the directions to the landmarks, and not the market (assuming that the market is quite far from the house). This may be everybody’s experience. And once a particular landmark is reached, we ask for directions for the next landmark and so on until finally we ask for the market itself. We do that because, if we directly ask for market initially, the guide (?) dumps a heap of right-left-straight information on us that leaves us more confused. We finally walk away from him, pretend to walk a few feet, wait for that enthusiastic guide to disappear from the scene, so that we can ask another person ;) And now that we have learnt our lesson, we ask for directions to the next land mark in the list, and not the market directly. But all the while, our aim is market and not the landmarks.

Now let us end this market business and look at how to apply this to what really matters. If we summarize the market example we can note several points:

First, we should note our current coordinate. Perhaps some of the earlier posts did that to a certain extent – honestly accepting to ourselves all our negativities openly without hiding anything from ourselves – no Self Cheating. At the same time we note our strengths as well. But soon I realized that accepting all the negativity in myself itself boosted positivity! So, there was no need of a specific identification of the strengths. Strength was always there, only hidden by weakness.

Second, we note the destination coordinate. Scriptures describe the final state as we saw earlier.

Third, only bother about the shortest path between the source and the destination. Do not dump ourselves with the whole map of the city. There may be hundreds to paths, but we have to choose what is easiest and shortest for us – mainly enquiry or surrender – Jnana Marga or Bhakti Marga. Even a mixture of two or three paths helps as per masters. But certainly not keeping our foot in every road that we see, just because it is very neat and clean. Or if we start walking on a road just because many are walking on it, it may lead us nowhere. Who knows where those people are walking to? Their aimed destination may be name-fame, money, health, miracles etc, and not realization.

Fourth, initially aim at the landmarks and not the destination directly. If we directly look at the destination, it may only leave us confused and stranded, as we saw in the Miraculous Mistake and the Extrication of Extremes. When we get sufficiently closer to the destination, then we may aim directly at the destination itself and ditch the landmarks.

Fifth, do not stick to the landmarks so much that they themselves become the goal. Always remember the final destination even if we are currently aiming at the landmarks.

It may be a good idea to look at the fourth point (landmarks) in detail.

Jnani, Mukta, Sthita Prajna – these are all the different names of the final realized state.

Jijnasu, Mumukshu, Sthita Prajnabhilashi – these are all different names for a genuine seeker (well, the last one was coined just now, I don’t know if it exists in scriptures! Let Samskrita scholars worry about that, not our head ache!)

As we saw earlier, the qualities of a Jnani (the destination coordinate) is already very well explained by the scriptures. Let us have our eye on this goalpost constantly, but for the time being aim at the landmarks. Qualities of a seeker would serve as the landmarks. The qualities of a seeker (the landmarks) are also well explained in certain scriptures, especially the Viveka Chudamani of Adi Shankaracharya. In fact, without our knowledge, we have looked at details of several qualities of a Jijnasu in the earlier posts. Now, let us look at these Jijnasu Lakshanas as per the scriptures, in simple terms. This may act as a summary to some of the earlier posts. And just notice that the middle path is a common factor in most of them.

He, who uses his common sense to clarify things to himself, rather than going after blind beliefs, or dry logic, is a Jijnasu (Viveka – Discrimination – I prefer ‘Common sense’, I believe you too opt for simple terms!).

He, who tries neither to suppress, nor to give free vent to his strong likes, but believes in slow and gradual withdrawal from the likes, is a Jijnasu. (Vairagya – Dispassion)

He, who intelligently cuts down external sense objects one by one very systematically over a period of time (neither with a sudden and blind cut-down of everything at once nor with lack of any efforts to cut down anything whatsoever), is a Jijnasu. (Dama – External sense control – Matches with Pranayama of Ashtanga Yoga). This sounds as simple regulation of life style by moderating everything one by one.

He, who constantly monitors his sense inputs and what the mind munches, regulates them and moderates them to taper off the Prana expenditure gradually over a period of time, again without blind suppression or free day dreaming, is a Jijnasu. (Shama – Internal sense control – matches with Pratyahara of Ashtanga Yoga)

He, who while constantly waging the war against his sense demands and the mind as above, loses the war very miserably thousands of times, but still does not feel like a loser, and keeps the war-drums beating, finally to taste victory one day is a Jijnasu. (Titiksha and Samadhana – withstanding the loses and saying “We will see next time” with the same determination and poise after each lose). The game ends only when we win!

He, who finds interest, curiosity and hence a sense of effortlessly being occupied, while contemplating about spiritual concepts, Self-enquiry etc, and develops it over the years into a huge tree whose branches begin to occupy all the activities of the day, is a Jijnasu (Uparati – enjoying the proximity of our ego to our own true Self, finally to merge into the Self one day). This is opposite of Shama-Dama-Vairagya. There we gradually cut down one set of trees, and here we aid the growth of another set of trees.

He, who has unshakable faith that the destination exists, without the slightest of doubts, solely based on his spiritual longing, although he has never seen the destination, is a Jijnasu. This is something like, even if someone has never seen water in his life, he will have to believe the existence of water solely based on his thirst. Existence of water cannot be denied, because there is thirst. (Shraddha)

And finally and obviously, he, who begins to feel the spiritual thirst, feels a great void in the worldly affairs, goes into frequent depressions, cries for it constantly, and begins to find light gradually, is a Jijnasu. (Mumukshatva – Longing for liberation)

Since this chapter talked about the various the coordinates of the spiritual journey – source, destination and the intermediate coordinates, it is named as Spirituometry (you know… Geometry).