VISITOR: When I sit in meditation, I often get lovely
visions of my beloved Lord Rama, and I am engulfed in bliss.
MAHARAJ: And when you are not in meditation?
VISITOR: I think of the Lord Rama and see him in
everyone and everything.
MAHARAJ: And what do you mean by 'Rama'?
VISITOR: I don't understand the question. Rama is Rama.
MAHARAJ: When you see Rama in me, Rama in a dog and Rama in a flower, what
exactly do you mean by Rama? And how exactly do you see Rama? In his
traditional pose with a string-bow on his shoulder, and arrows in his quiver?
VISITOR: (Rather confused) Yes, I think so.
MAHARAJ: And the peace and joy that you feel, when you sit in meditation
and get visions of Rama, would it be something like the peace and joy one would
feel when, after a long and tiring walk in the scorching sun, one is able to
rest under the shade of a spreading tree, enjoy the breeze that is blowing and
drink some cool water?
VISITOR: You cannot really compare the two, because one is physical and the
other is, I would say, mental or psychic.
MAHARAJ: In any case, would your Sadhana enable you to have a clear
understanding of your true nature?
VISITOR: What is the use of such a discussion? Rama is God and I am only a
poor human who has surrendered himself to Rama.
MAHARAJ: Surrender is a very good and effective Sadhana by itself. But we
must very clearly understand what 'surrender' really means, though that is a
separate subject by itself. Are you aware that Rama, though a prince by birth,
was only an ordinary human being like you, who did not become a god until he
was duly initiated and instructed in knowledge by the sage Vasishtha? And what
was the teaching which Vasishtha imparted to the young Rama? Was it not
Atma-Jnana, the knowledge of the self, the knowledge of one's true nature?
I would suggest that you
throw away all the illusory concepts you have collected over the years, and
begin with your own self. Think along these lines:
- What is my true nature?
- What is the 'capital' I am born with and which has
remained faithful and unchanged with me from the moment I had the
knowledge that I exist?
- How did I acquire this body-construct along with the
Prana (the vital force) and the consciousness which gives me the sense of
presence?
- How long will all this last?
- What was 'I' before this body came into being?
- What will 'I' be after this body disintegrates?
- Who was really 'born' and who will 'die'?
- What am 'I'?
It was such knowledge
which turned Rama from a human being into a god.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why difference in
opinions between two people happen?
Because the
opinion-forming was done through an individual viewpoint and not through
integral perception. Both the images of the same person arose in the
imagination of the viewers, both were entirely their own mental creations and
basically unrelated to the object i.e. the person whose images these were
supposed to be. Creation of such images, said Maharaj, is due to the
functioning of dualistic discrimination
— the 'me' and the 'other one'. This is indeed what may be called the original
sin; this duality — the 'me' and the 'other' — is bondage. And if there is anything like liberation (in
essence there is no individual that is bound), it is indeed liberation from
this concept of 'me' and the 'other'. What is necessary, said Maharaj, is to
cease making snap conceptual judgments of things as objects, and to turn one's
attention back to the subjective source. He asked us to 'reverse' our
attention, to go back to the infant state, even to think of what we were before
this body-mind complex was born, so that we would stop conceptualizing about
others all the time and getting involved in mere mental images.
He then proceeded to
explain the process of objectification. Whatever your senses perceive and your
mind interprets is an appearance in consciousness, extended in space-time and
objectivized in a world which, the cognizing object (i.e. you) considers as
separate from himself. And this is where the whole error lies: in this process
perception is not total. What is necessary is whole seeing, seeing not with the individual mind, which is a divided mind, but
seeing from within, seeing from the source — seeing not from manifestation as a
phenomenon but from the source of all seeing. Then, and only then, will there
be total perception and correct seeing and apprehending. Maharaj concluded by
saying that what he had said was vitally important and needed (Manana)
pondering and meditating over it, not mere verbal discussion. ••
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The image one has about
oneself is not a faithful one; it keeps on changing from time to time according
to the changing circumstances, throughout the entire life span
Maharaj, with a
mischievous glint in his eyes, said: "I am a good actor. Am I not?"
The whole universe is my stage. I not only act but I construct the stage and
the equipment; I write the script and direct the actors. Yes, I am the one
actor acting the roles of millions of people — and, what is more, this show
never ends! The script is being continuously written, new roles are being
conceived, and new settings are propped up for many different situations. Am I
not a wonderful actor/director/producer?
The truth however is, he
added, that every one of you can say the same thing about himself. But, it is
ironic indeed that once you are really able to feel with deep conviction that
that is so, the show is over for you! Can you perceive that it is only you that
is acting the role of every character in the world? Or, will you confine
yourself to the limited one-bit role that you have assigned to yourself and
live and die in that petty role?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Numerous casual visitors
come to visit Maharaj just for a Darshan, perhaps because someone in their
group spoke highly of him and, having nothing better to do, they thought they
might as well drop in and see what the whole thing was about. But there are
many who are deeply interested in the one subject about which Maharaj talks.
Quite a few of them have attended several sessions and they honestly believe
that they have a firm grasp of what Maharaj so earnestly talks about. Perhaps
in answer to a query from Maharaj, if they have understood what he has been
trying to convey, one of them would say: "Oh yes, Maharaj, I have clearly
understood it. But, I have only one last question......."
The last question often
happens to concern manifestation of the noumenon as phenomena. The questioner
might say: Maharaj, you have said that the Absolute-noumenon is unaware of its
awareness until consciousness begins to stir and the first thought 'I am'
arises; and then the wholeness is broken up into duality and manifestation of
the universe takes place. My question is: Why did the first thought arise and
why manifestation took place at all?
Maharaj would look at
the questioner with an expression indicating several reactions. A mixture of
compassion, appreciation of the questioner's sincerity, a certain amount of amusement at the confidence with which he
thinks he has understood the subject, but — most important — a disappointment
that the questioner had not understood the point after all. Another failure!
Maharaj would than say,
very softly: I am afraid you have not really grasped what you have been
hearing. You have been hearing, but not listening. You have been hearing what I
have been saying, as a collection of little bits and pieces, not listening to
the whole; hearing words with the divided mind of the individual instead of
listening to the meaning with the whole mind; hearing as a separate hearer, not
listening after integrating yourself with the Guru. And I do not mean the
physical, individual Guru which you would have in mind but the Sadguru within
yourself.
Otherwise, this question
would not have arisen. But, in a way, I myself am rather fond of such enquiry
because it exposes the usual way of thinking; or rather, the thinking exposes
itself. Consider, to whom did this question occur? Where did it occur? Did the
question not occur to a 'you' who considers himself an entity with an
independent existence? And did it not occur in consciousness? There would be no
entity—this supposed pseudo-entity — in the absence of consciousness, and 'consciousness'
is only a concept without any objective quality whatsoever, and as such without
any phenomenal existence.
What we have arrived at,
then, is this: In the absence of the substratum of consciousness there is no
manifestation, and, therefore, no separate pseudo-entities to ask any questions
at all! And consciousness is only a concept. Therefore, I call the entire
manifestation 'the child of a barren woman.' In these circumstances, can
this-which-is, this-that-we-are, ever be understood by the tainted mind of a
conceptual pseudo-entity? Indeed, it is only when this entity disappears that
the mystery dissolves, for the simple reason that the searcher is what he is searching for!
Your question, moreover,
assumes that basically manifestation and non-manifestation are two different
'things' but they are not. They are essentially the same state, like waves on an expanse of water. When
coloured by a sense of feeing, it is consciousness in which manifestation
appears with its limitations; when colourless and limitless, it is the
Absolute, unaware of its awareness. The phenomena are only the mirroring of the noumenon; they are not different.
Noumenon is like (again a concept in order to make communication possible) the one source of electricity passing through a number of 'exhibits' such as lamps, fans, motors etc., or like the one source of light reflected in myriad of mirrors — consciousness manifesting itself through millions of sentient forms.
Now, do you see your
question in the correct perspective? A shadow wants to know 'why'? One of the
characters played by a single actor taking various roles in a one-man play
wants to know why? The answer could well be: Why not? Actually there could not
be any question — neither why nor why not —because there really is no
questioner at all, only a concept. Manifestation is like dream. Why does a
dream occur?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V: Sir, I would
have thought that you were making fun of me. But the look on your face suggests
that you could hardly be more serious.
M: Now, please try to understand. You have done quite a bit of reading and you should be able to apprehend what I am saying. Try, and for a moment forget all that you have accumulated by way of knowledge, and grasp with an empty mind what I tell you — remember, an empty mind, empty, but keen; not just void and inert.
Whatever the state is when we did not know anything, that is our true state, that is Reality. In that state, we did not even know our own existence. Then, spontaneously, came the message or thought, or the knowledge 'I am'. This knowledge 'I am' started the sense of duality — subject and object, sin and merit and the entire gamut of inter-related opposites. Whatever was before the knowledge 'I am' is truth; whatever is subsequent to the knowledge, or consciousness of 'I am', is false.
Understand this basic fact. I-am-ness, the sense of presence has been given various laudatory names like Maya, Prakriti, Ishwara etc., but nevertheless it is an illusion, pure ignorance. It is Prakriti that, with the co-operation of conceptual Purusha (both constituting the parenthood principle) creates the world and peoples it with innumerable physical forms. It is Maya in action that makes consciousness (which gives sentience to the sentient being) mistakenly believe that it is the particular form itself. Consciousness thus assumes the identity of the particular form, and forgets its true nature. Are you with me so far? Any questions?
V: Sir, I am following you single-mindedly. No questions.
M: Good. So far in this process, you will have noticed, there is no question of an 'entity' with independent existence. You are that, which is prior to the arrival of I-am-ness. What has come upon your true nature is like an illness, or an eclipse for a certain duration, at the end of which the physical form will 'die' and will be buried or cremated and will thereafter mingle with the five elements of which it was made. The life-force of breath will disappear and mingle with the air outside the body; consciousness will be freed of the limitation of the body and the three Gunas. In other words, the process will have reached its allotted end. Now, let us come back to your problem: Who is it that needs the Guru's grace in order to attain 'liberation'? And liberation from which 'bondage'?
V: Maharaj, you have turned the problem around 180 degrees. You have reduced all my labour of forty years to zero and you have nullified my very existence. You have liquidated me! What can I say? The only thing is that in liquidating me you have also liquidated the Guru!
M: Not quite, although that is not a bad reaction. Now listen further. The trouble is that you look upon yourself as an individual entity with a physical form; and you also look upon the Guru as another individual entity with another form, albeit with something in his head or heart or somewhere, which makes him an 'enlightened' person but nevertheless a 'person' all the same. This is the real mistake. The Guru however has realized that he is the Ultimate Reality; he sees every being as he sees himself, i.e. not as a 'person', nor as a mere 'form', or 'thing'. The other mistake is that the seeker, the disciple, as an entity, expects to learn and understand 'something'. But how can a mere conceptual object understand anything? What actually happens is that the understanding, as such, makes the seeker (the Sadhaka) disappear.
The individuality of the seeker gradually disappears, but, in the process, the Guru's grace, which is always present like the shining sun, becomes one with consciousness. The sooner the identification with the body as a separate entity is lost the sooner will the Guru's grace bloom in the consciousness of the disciple. And then he will realize that the Guru is none other than the consciousness within, and it is consciousness which, pleased with the faith and love of the disciple, will act as the Sadguru and unfold all the knowledge that is necessary.
However, there cannot be any progress (though 'progress' itself is an erroneous concept) if you continue to regard yourself as an entity and expect the Guru, as another entity, to give you some homework to do, and when that is duly completed, to award you a sort of certificate, or something, on a platter as 'liberation'. This whole concept is misconceived. You must realize the true significance of the Guru and his grace before the everpresent Guru's grace can smoothly and naturally flow towards you. The visitor sat dumbfounded for a few moments. When he could find words, he said: "Sir, you have opened my eyes and made me see the falsity and futility of what I considered to be knowledge and Sadhana. I have no words to express my gratefulness to you." He prostrated before Maharaj and left — an humbler and a wiser man.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment