… Continued from the previous post
Preliminary
Bhagavan’s short works are really special. The shortness implies that Bhagavan could include only the crucial aspects of practice, and only the mandatory theory thereof, with respect to His teachings. For the devotee then, Bhagavan’s short works provide a unique insight into what Bhagavan Himself considered critically important in relation to sadhana. Especially true for a work like Anma Viddai, which concerns Self-Knowledge, and was composed without any significant contextual influences.
And so, the portions of the hymn as were cut away in Part I comprising of the mandatory theoretical framework for the practice, are no less important. They are not being especially considered in this post only because I thought to keep the focus on practical aspects only. But as an example, let me mention the sublime first verse here, as it serves as an introduction to the whole work. This then provides a prerequisite of sorts for the practice; the basic theme being that the world is unreal, so don’t run after it. This is pure Advaita, Sri Sankara himself could have written it:
Also, before we start on our discussion, let me mention that am mindful of the fact that each one of us would have evolved his or her own style of doing Vichara. Spiritual practice of this nature requires a high level of conviction on part of the sadhaka. This naturally makes for strong views to be held by all as to what constitutes Vichara. But still, I believe, it is really important to exchange ideas now and then, one simple way to refine and grow our practice. It is in this spirit that these ideas on Vichara are presented, a very humble effort at sharing views. Let me, however, sincerely apologize in case any one feels upset at anything presented herein, or in part I.
The role of “Who am I?” or “Whence am I?”
Bhagavan’s instructions with respect to Vichara practice as given in Anma Viddai are short and simple:
“Enquiring within, ask, ‘Who am I? and whence is this thought?’All other thoughts vanish.”
I thought to pick up on this very basic instruction first, as a not-uncommon line of thinking with regard to Vichara practice goes something like this:
<<< “Who am I?” or “Whence am I?” is just the tool to draw the mind back to the “I” within. After all, the instructions are: whenever attention breaks and a thought arises, ask “to whom has this thought happened?” The answer is, “I have this thought”. Then ask “Who am I?”, and thus attention is directed back from outside matters to the sense of “I” within. But if the sense of “I” is locatable and holdable otherwise, “Who am I?” is not needed at all. Also, any alternate tool to focus attention on the “I” is equally good, and may be used equally effectively. >>>
It may be the experience of those who do Vichara regularly, that the sense of “I” within, starts to appear almost instantaneously after a while. Then ‘Who am I?” may not be needed at all to initiate focus on the “I”. For a while thereafter, “Who am I?” may be used occasionally to tackle the problem that outside thoughts may still keep flooding the mind in waves. But even in this, in due course, the mind gets trained into thinking the outside thoughts for a few minutes, and then switching back, on its own, to thinking of the “I” for a few. The “Who am I?” query is found to be superfluous somewhat. Thus for the regular practitioner, it is certainly possible to focus attention on the “I” without the use of “Who am I?” or “Whence am I?” at all.
[The foregoing comes from chatting around over the years with people doing Vichara regularly. And also, I must confess, from personal experience. There was a phase when I would do Vichara without much of “Who or Whence am I?”; I would perhaps say it mentally a couple of times to start-off with, in a routine sort of way lacking any intensity. I found I was 'holding' on to the “I” all right, but after a while felt as if it was not really getting me anywhere. The mind is such a clever brat, it does just a little bit to lull one into thinking that something is being achieved …].
The approach outlined above, in my humble opinion, is a significant climbdown from the optimum position. It changes Bhagavan’s powerful ‘Enquire and Seek’, into a limp ‘holding on to the “I”’ approach. To use Bhagavan’s great simile of the pearl diver, the sadhaka then floats on the surface of the ocean so to speak, periodically dipping his or her head under water, but never diving deep into the depths to find the pearl hidden below.
I find myself struggling to put this idea into words, but here goes anyway: there is of course a sense of “I” locatable quickly and immediately by most of us even without the “Who am I?”; but if the “I” within is approached with an intensely focused sense of enquiry and search contained in the statements “Who am I?” or “Where am I from?”, the sense of “I” that arises does so with a slight but significant difference to the ‘base’ sense of “I” referred to earlier. It is as if there is a composite sense of “I” and “Who am I?” and “Where am I from?” all mixed together which arises, a feeling disconcertingly on the edge when compared to the sense that arises otherwise; and which has the natural tendency to sink-in deeper within. Of course it is not as if there is a different “I” which is thus found. But it seems that the intense “intuiting-within” of the sense of “Who or Whence am I?” when approaching the “I”, causes the “I” to be gripped with ever increasing strength without additional conscious effort. If we were to use Bhagavan’s second great simile of the doggie seeking his master by following the scent, the scent of the “I”, slowly but surely, becomes stronger on its own.
After all, when we seek the Source of the “I” we are not seeking it in any physical spot within the body or even anywhere else. The Heart is considered as ‘located’ simply where the “I” can be traced back to. And the “I” is traced, not from one physical spot to another within the body for instance, but wherever the “scent” of the signal takes us. So, using Bhagavan’s simile, the doggie sniffs away at the master’s scent on the ground all right, but he is oblivious to the ground he is covering in his search; he simply goes wherever he finds the scent is increasing in strength. Similarly, in my humble opinion, in Vichara, we try to exclude all locational aspects of where the “I” is, and chase It down in terms of – we go where the strength of the sense of “I” is increasing, oblivious to all else. And this happens naturally if “Who or Whence am I?” is intrinsic to our Vichara practice.
In virtually every work composed by Bhagavan, and in the major chunk of the conversations recorded, the teaching for Vichara practice has invariably been, ‘ask “Who am I?” or “Whence am I?”’; enquire, and seek the Source. Only infrequently, in the conversations mostly, are mentioned variations like, “try and be without thoughts”, “hold on to the “I” (as distinct from seeking It’s Source)”, “watch the breath”, “watch the gap between two thoughts”, and so on. I believe Bhagavan insisted on going-in via the “Who or Whence am I?” route because, in a way not really understood by the sadhaka, the internal impact is radically different than otherwise. Even though, admittedly, this made the practice so much more difficult. So, “Who or Whence am I?” is certainly also the ‘tool’ to draw attention back to the “I” when the mind wanders; it is, however, much more than that, at the first.
[Note: For those who may be not familiar with Bhagavan's similes of the 'pearl diver' and the 'doggie seeking his master': they are covered in more detail in my post "Arunachala Pancharatna Varttikam and Vichara" of 20th April 2012.]
Also, in my humble opinion, there is another reason too for using “Who or Whence am I?” all the time, whether required or not. In the Indian tradition it is incumbent for the sadhaka to follow the instructions of the Guru implicitly and fully; that is his primary duty. And the true shishya (disciple) will do that without any quid-pro-quo expectations of any sort, not even of Grace from the Guru. Bhagavan has anyway consistently held that the Grace is ever-flowing, ever-available to all without exception. But in an inexplicable way, I believe, things go better if the instructions of the Guru are followed to the dot. And then, why give Someone the chance, up ‘above’, to say “but he never followed the instructions of his Guru …” !
In this context, am reminded of the reminiscences of “Sundaram” (Swami Trivenigiri Sadhu) as recorded in the marvellous “Ramana Smriti Souvenir” [From the 1980 edition, published by Sri Ramanasramam; the pages are not numbered in this edition with me, but the extract below is taken from the article “Bhagavan’s Cooking”, which is towards the middle of the book]:
“With time I realized that working with Bhagavan in the kitchen was not mere cooking, but definitely a form of spiritual training. The first lesson in spiritual education to learn, and to learn for good, is to obey the Guru implicitly without questioning or using one’s judgment in the least. Nothing would make him so happy as when he saw that we had grasped this essential point, that the commands of the master should be immediately carried out, and not be delayed by the desire to please him or even to do it correctly. Even if we knew a better way of doing it, we had to do it exactly as the master told us. It might have appeared that by obeying him the work would be ruined, but still one had to obey. One must master this art of instantaneous and unquestioning obedience, for the secret of realization lies in utter surrender and renunciation of one’s own judgment.”
What great words written by a very simple man!
Also, the following note by Sampurnamma [from “Bhagavan in the Kitchen”, the same Ramana Smriti Souvenir]:
“As long as we followed his instructions, everything would go well with our cooking. But the moment we acted on our own we would be in trouble. Even then, if we sought his help, he would taste our brew and tell us what to do to make the food fit for serving. Every little incident in our kitchen had a spiritual lesson for us. We thus learnt the art of implicit obedience while perfecting our culinary skills under Bhagavan’s guidance.”
Let me finish this part by quoting the same instruction, as the one in “Anma Viddai”, from “Nan Yar?” (Sri Ramanasramam: Q & A version):
Q10. How will the mind become quiescent?Answer: By the inquiry ‘Who am I?’. The thought ‘who am I?’ will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. Then, there will arise Self-realization.
-------------------------
To be continued …
[Apologies, folks, for the stop-start approach on these posts. But I thought to put up what is finished anyhow, since there is still some writing to do on the one other point left to cover. Part III, the last, should follow shortly … ]
No comments:
Post a Comment