Krishnamurti on What We can do in this World

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkx1njE95fs

As per Krishnamurti, the question of human responsibility is not easy, but it can be understood by starting with some basics which we need to ingrain in ourselves deeply. Then, we can freely enquire into the question of what our responsibility as a human being is. 

1. The first is the power to observe with deep attention, but without jumping to conclusions, getting depressed, or taking sides. We need to observe things going on in the world, but without merely taking sides or getting depressed, etc. He goes on the describe the world as a place with great advancements in technology, but with uncertainty in the economic and social environment, and with destructive attutides being cultivated the world over through wars and through parochial attitudes - including patriotism, which for Krishnamurti, had turned into nothing but glorified tribalism. 

He clarifies that this observation is different from analysis, and does not necessarily involve tearing things to pieces. Like when we look at a flower - we first notice the sheer beauty of it, and only then does the analysis start. That kind of simple, but deep attention is needed. Later, he goes further and says that even the distance between "what is" and "what should be" is a division which creates conflict. To see with deep attention is to see without conflict, and so, we need the quality of attention where even the difference between the analyzer and the analyzed vanishes, he says. I don't think K ever tries to say that technology or analysis don't have their place in our lives. In fact, he starts with these things as necessities which are of obvious importance. Just that in the field of this larger enquiry on human responsibility, what is needed, he says, is that quality of deep attention where one can see without conflict.  

2. The second prerequisite is to deeply understand the common background that all human beings  share, underneath our divisions of nations, races, etc. This is the common experience of anxiety, sorrow, loneliness, a search for something beyond (whether we call it God or something else), the feeling that our consciousness is uniquely ours, etc. Countries might differ peripherally due to better food or even slightly better governance, but underneath these divisions is the common shared experience of all human beings. Even if our brains refuse to accept it, we must accept the irrefutable fact of these experiences being common to all of us. In that sense, "we are the world" and our problems are more similar than dissimilar. 

He adds that even when we think about what our responsibility is, we tend to think in terms of our individual isolated selves, which is wrong because we are again creating a division which is not deep attention. He says that it is important that people do this enquiry together the entire world over, because otherwise there is a tendency for a lone voice of sanity to get submerged in the confusion and commotion of the rest of mankind.

Once we completely lay down this foundation of observing what's going on without conflict and understand deeply how similar people are in their emotional consciousness (beneath superficial physical differences) then the mind would be ready to enquire into what we can do in this situation of today's.  

Finally, Krishnamurti mentions the power of this deep attention in the context of problems of everyday life. If you are angry, see this anger within yourself without thinking of yourself as being different from the anger and without various such escapist thoughts. In doing this, the mind gets cleaned of anger. If you have been hurt by somebody, look deeply at what the hurt is doing to you (i.e., its consequences), and the "flame of attention" will cleanse the wound. If you are in a relationship, enquire whether it is based mainly on a need or a dependency (rather than on love). Ask whether love is possession or whether attachment is love? All action due to a motive (dependency, need for gratification, etc.), he says, leads to conflict at some level and must end somewhere. Cause-less love, on the other hand, seems to be the one thing which is eternal. 

Sadanand Tutakne

Vivekananda on Idol Worship

(Posted on Facebook the day before Eid)

Eid Mubarak, friends! I thought since it is Eid tomorrow, I would share this comment by no less a person than Swami Vivekananda on idol worship. 

#. We may worship anything by seeing God in it, if we can forget the idol and see God there. We just not project any image upon God. But we may fill any image with that Life which is God. Only forget the image, and you are right enough---for "out of Him comes everything". He is everything. We may worship a picture as God, but not God as the picture. God in the picture is right, but the picture as God is wrong. God in the image is perfectly right. There is no danger there. This is the real worship of God.

Here's one link. In his books, though, Swamiji has also quoted from sciptures too, to tell people that these ideas too, are very ancient and are even found in the Upanishads.

http://greenmesg.org/swami_vivekananda_sayings_quotes/religion-oncept_of_image_worship.php

Krishnamurti on Dealing with Hurt

Friends, I recently saw/heard a video recording of a powerful speech by J. Krishnamurti - the famous one of course. It seems he was saying that if we really pay attention to the hurt we often carry within ourselves, without trying to entertain escapist thoughts that dissipate energy, then we would deeply understand and see what that hurt is doing to us. Then, being intelligent beings, we would run from that hurt (which we have been cultivating) with the same speed as we would run away from a large vehicle that we fear is coming our way to hit us! With that deep an understanding, the (psychological) action would be immediate and the deep attention would burn or "cleanse" the wound (permanently). He adds that a mind with such a "power" of attention becomes "completely incapable of hurt", which is good because a hurt mind is no longer innocent and cannot really explore and understand reality. I don't have the link ready with me but it's there on YouTube if you feel interested. My own feeling is that the message is really powerful, the approach is probably highly practical, very easy, and requires only a little openness to use the method being prescribed. K is not asking anyone to convert or something. There is a method suggested and I believe it deserves an open mind from the listener.

Sadanand Tutakne

The Yoga of the Body and the Yoga of the Mind (or, "The Ignorant only Torture the Nose!")

In a sense, yoga is all about the subtle, with no room for the gross. What I mean is that the highest weightage in yoga is to the subtle, with the gross being an aid or means to getting there. So when we compare external to internal practices, the internal get a higher weightage. Among physical and mental, similarly, the mental dominates. Within a set of mental activities, the subtler are considered more effective - for example, when silently chanting a mantra, it is better if the throat muscles and lips are not moving either, and so on.

While this is agreed to by the prominent texts and their interpreters, it so happens that some texts accept the grosser (physical) aspects more than others and give it a reasonably high level of importance. Sometimes this can create some confusion. Books on Hatha Yoga go into volumes on various ways of controlling different parts of the body (including the breath) and thereby getting to a higher level of preparedness for Raja Yoga. In Raja Yoga, the mind (and working with it) dominates, but in texts like Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, the physical preparation still retains some importance. Some physical practices have been indicated as "basics" by Patanjaliji, which could mean that they are "necessary". The same Raja Yoga, when expounded by famous Advaitist texts like "Aparokshanubhuti," becomes almost completely a mental and supra-mental discipline, with the physical preparations of Hatha Yoga accepted only as a support for the relatively weaker willed. For the relatively more mature-minded, only the mental and even higher practices are recommended.

Aparokshanubhuti is ascribed to the great Sri Shankaracharya, the renouned Advaitist guru of medieval India whose commentaries on various scriptures are quoted even today in India by the most learned of scholars. Swami Vimuktananda says that even if its authorship is disputed, the teachngs are definitely Advaitist. So the book is at least from the same school of thought which Sri Shankaracharya is so widely known for.

The book starts out by accepting that the attributes of Brahman mentioned in the scriptures are so different from the attributes of the physical body, that it is clear that the body is by itself, not Brahman. However, it goes on to add that while this is so, emphasising this distinction does not help the greatest of the four objectives of Man - i.e., liberation. (Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha are the four objectives referred to here.) On the other hand, focusing on other famous scriptural declarations like "this whole universe is nothing but Brahman," or "Brahman is indeed the substratum of all varieties of names, forms and actions," we would see that the body too, could not be anything but the Brahman. So the changing body could be viewed as a false perception, like seeing a snake in a rope. An illusion which has its rise and fall in time, but is not an enduring reality. Keeping this in mind would then constitute a great meditation - a meditation on the only true (enduring) reality, and would help in actually realizing that universal consciousness.

Whether due to this philosophical background or due to the direct experiences of the author, the book then goes on to expound the steps of Raja Yoga in a way that places almost all the emphasis on the mental and spriritual aspects - those aspects which are considered advanced in Patanjaliji's sutras and in commentaries on the sutras. The basic preparations of Patanjali (physical and mental disciplines, posture, breathing techniques, etc.) are explained in the following way by Aparokshanubhuti.

1. Yama (mental disciplines): Restraint of all senses is the only yama.

2. Niyama (physical disciplines): The continuous flow of one thought is the only real niyama - and following earlier discussion, it is clear that only thoughts about Brahman are to be encouraged here. There is no importance (or even mention) here of interim "sabija" samadhis, which could, at least in principle, use grosser objects of attention to develop meditative skills in the practitioner.

3. Renunciation, Silence and Space: There is no "lower versus higher renunciation" as in Patanjali's sutras. The only real renunciation comes of a perception of the "Purusha" (pure consciousness), which takes one away from the unreal (transient) world. The only silence is that born of an understanding of the state beyond words and speech. The only real space worth mentioning is the space where Brahman is perceived to exist without past, present or future. So does time also refer to none other than the indivisible Brahman, from who everything has come about.

4. Asana (posture): The only mentionable posture is one in which meditation on Brahman happens naturally and unceasingly. Even Patanjaliji makes no mistake in saying that the main purpose of posture is to sit comfortably to enable meditation, but here, even that much mention of physical comfort is done away with. In fact, the only Siddhasana (a meditative posture in other texts) is a posture that gives consciousness of Brahman - a state known to the adepts.

5. Moola Bandha (root lock): The only real moola bandha is that state of absorption in Brahman which causes the mind to restrain itself from going to objects of attention.

6. Dehasamya (straight posture): Here, there is no talk of keeping the spine erect, etc., which is commonly found in discussions of good posture. When the entire body is homogeneously absorbed in deep meditation on Brahman, dehasamya is said to have been achieved.

7. Focusing attention on the tip of the nose: Absorption in the thought of Brahman is the real focus of (internal) vision. Just looking at the tip of the nose or in that general direction is of no importance.

8. Pranayama (inhalation, exhalation and suspension of breath): The only real exhalation is where thoughts of the phenomenal world are thrown out. The only inhalation is where we take in the reality of our being one with Brahman. The steadiness of this thought is the only real "suspension of breath." The ignorant merely torture the nose.

9. Dharana (fixing attention): As said earlier, fixing attention on grosser objects has no importance and is not even mentioned as a preparatory exercise. The only real dharana is that on the highest universal consciousness. So also for meditation - the only real meditation is that on Brahman. No point discussing meditations on anything lower.

After thus elucidating the steps of Raja Yoga, dismissing all lower (physical) preparations for Raja Yoga as being essentially of no importance, the book suggests that this discipline should be mastered by the practitoner to the point where he/she can use it within an instant, whenever needed. For this mastery, the mind should stay merged in the thoughts of Brahman all the time.

Finally, then, in the second-last shloka, the author clarifies and (reluctantly) accedes that for the less mature, the above practice should be combined with some physical preparations (Hatha Yoga), but comes back in the last shloka to emphasize that for a practitioner with the required maturity of mind, the above alone produce the highest results, speeded by faith in the guru and the dieties (so at least these mature practioners should stay away from grosser aspects of the discipline and focus completely on the finer).

Patanjali's sutras are completely aligned with this on the importance of the higher (mental and spiritual) practices. Just that they do include some of the physical practices as an integral or basic part of the process. The Aparokshanubhuti, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly a Yoga of the Mind, telling us to focus only on the finer aspects, unless we just don't have enough maturity. For the mature-minded (paripakva), there is no point just "torturing the nose."

Sadanand Tutakne

But does all this help me in my daily work?

There are at least 3 different ways in which I believe yoga can help us normal people in our daily lives - i.e., through exercise, awareness and focus.

1. To begin with, some parts of yoga (asanas and pranayama) involve physical exercises, and via TV (Baba Ramdev's extra-political contributions), these parts have become highly popular in India these days. Needless to say, the right kind of exercise at the right time, etc., can help us in various ways. As for the need for expert help, some believe that these exercises are completely harmless, but common sense suggests that before taking up anything strenuous, it might be better to take expert advice. That risk is perhaps common to all kinds of exercise. I believe some research has been done on the helpful effects of Yoga Nidra and other such exercises for different kinds of health issues (cardiovascular problems, diabetes, etc.) and yoga is gaining acceptance as a helpful aid in reducing medication and helping patients manage their ailments better, in general. It seems that part of the benefit is because yoga is also supposed to be a training for the mind, in addition to the body, and that helps patients manage their diseases better, overall.

However, that is not what we typically want to discuss in these kinds of discussions, is it? So let me also go into some of the less researched aspects which give yoga a little mystique and make such discussions more charming.

2. Besides physical exercise, yoga typically involves some training of the mind too and this is likely to help practioners in their daily work as well. The most fundamental of these is the idea of Nivritti or Nirodha, i.e., consciously getting out of, or controlling, the whirlpools of the mind. The impact might depend upon what your daily work is. If your work involves making some important choices each day (or each week, say), then this habit of nivritti for a few minutes every day is likely to provide you with crucial seconds to think from different perspectives and break monotony and its consequences. I believe that yoga can help reduce errors in execution too, but I don't have a research study to support this and it is possible that this is just because of "more oxygen in the right places," etc. Either way, I believe yoga has this effect.

3. This nivritti is also a great stress buster - but that's intuitive, isn't it? Anything that consciously trains the mind to get out of its "rot" on days when it is in misery does this trick. This teaching is integral to yoga. Not integral to performing asanas and exercises, but an integral aspect of the preaching of yoga, i.e., an integral part of the training of the mind in Raja Yoga. Before we jump to put Raja Yoga in a separate box, I would like to draw your attention to Swami Swatmarama's opening shlokas in "Hatha Yoga Pradeepika," where he says more than once that Hatha Yoga is mainly (or, basically) a preparation for Raja Yoga. So let's not put all yoga away by classifying Raja Yoga as a branch dealing with "esoteric aspects," not to be considered the "mainstream" of yoga. What is the importance of stress-busters? I think it will be clearer when I give it the name "dukkha-buster" too. It takes the mind away from dukkha, stress being a common kind of dukkha, a common whirlpool (literally, vritti) of the mind.

4. To end the nivritti discussion, let me illustrate the impact of unconscious living, by which I mean a zombie-like state where the mind is caught-up with something unhappy, and work gets done mostly mechanically. I think the term "going through the motions" says it all. The Bhagawad Gita mentions the following when discussing anger, but I think the jist holds for any emotion that causes the zombie-like state. It says, in chapter 2, that anger causes a mesmerized state of the mind, which, in turn, causes forgetfulness. This kind of forgetfulness (perhaps in its advanced stages) "destroys intelligence", which in turn is the cause of decline of the person / practitioner. By making awareness (or, consciousness) an integral part of the training of the mind, yoga tries to take practioners away from these harmful effects.

5. Renunciation is often misunderstood as being the reason for not paying attention to one's work. However, yoga texts do not advocate taking one's current tasks lightly, and the Gita is a great example of that. In fact, focus is one of the grandest themes in Raja Yoga. Focus, or concentration, when cultivated sincerely, would probably help day-to-day work unequivocally. To go one step further, the highest state of samadhi, called nirvikalpa samadhi, is said to be a state in which all bodily functions can be performed with attention, yet with the mind being in touch with universal consciousness (or, God). Why would anyone speak of these elevated states this way if they thought that daily work should be neglected, or rushed through? Of course, I agree that those who feel that their calling lies elsewhere, should perhaps take that idea seriously and do those other things, but that is not about neglecting. It is very much a positive state of focusing!

If material life was not reconciliable with yoga, could the disciples of Paramahansa Yogananda have created a course titled "Material Success through Yoga Principles"? I have not purchased it, but please feel free to if you are interested. It will be there on the Ananda Sangha website.

Sadanand Tutakne

How important is it to give up wealth?

I think we all know where this question comes from, don't we? Take, for example, Patanjali's Yoga Sutras where "not accumulating" is one of the basic mental disciplines to be practiced on the path of yoga. This has also been the tradition of monks in India and perhaps elsewhere too. By force of tradition, it becomes an indication of a high level of moral purity.

And yet, I will try to comfort those who cannot do so and I will make a case based on the same texts which are quoted in favour of renunciation. Or, arguments based on an understanding of the same texts.

1. The important thing for seekers (as opposed to those who are fully self-realized) is to keep the mind in the "mode of goodness" (saatwic state). In the sattwic state, work is done out of a simple sense of duty. I insist on the word "simple" because the word "duty" distorts the meaning by being associated with the high pride of "doing one's duty" and "sacrificing for it". That excessive pride is not the state of goodness. So I use the words - a "simple" sense of duty, not the mental "kick" and prestige of doing one's "duty". This state is most conducive to other actions which can be of help in balancing out the "gunas", leading to higher understanding. It helps bring about true “desirelessness", which is not the state of repressing the mind of all good and kind emotions. True desirelessness is more like calmly doing the needful, since it ought to be done.

However, we cannot force this state to come about by going to the jungle or giving up the prestigious positions we are in. It is a state of the mind, not easy to force. So as long as the actions and the mentality are working in that direction, retiring to the jungles (with mosquitoes) might not be necessary. It might sometimes harm, rather.

2. The state of goodness helps deepen meditation too. It makes for right meditation. Severe austerities and harsh penances are not recommended in the last few chapters of the Gita - in fact, they are denounced as being typically not in line with scriptures and done more out of anger and

incorrect pride. Going to the jungles should not just be a punishment to the body due to misplaced

pride.

3. By accumulating, perhaps most of us take on a fair amount of tension, grief, mental hurt, excessive pride or mirth, desires, etc. These states of the mind are not the calm balance of the state of goodness. I believe this might have been the simple reason why Patanjaliji might have recommended not accumulating as a required step. If giving up wealth is the right way or the only way to undo these tensions, then fine. Else, perhaps we need to look at other ways to take the mind off these things.

4. This very line of sages revered Janaka - Sita's father - like no other yogi, despite his being a king and staying in his palace throughout.  The greatest of the yogis sent their disciples to him to learn.

5. In fact, relative to dullness and lethargy, the state of passion (where the desire for the fruits of actions dominates) is said to be better. Let not the hut be just a place to indulge in laziness!

6. Patanjaliji's own treatise mentions several other steps which are helpful in the process. They culminate in deep meditation (samadhi), which is itself described to be of several types. If putting wealth aside did the trick on its own, these other steps could have been dismissed in a few sutras.

I hope I have given the seeker some solace and comfort!

Sadanand Tutakne

The Food Chain - Is God Responsible for Killing?

To those who want to believe, the problem of the food chain is often a tough paradox in the sense that it seems to be a very basic evidence of brutality and violence being part of "God's creation". So is God responsible for killing and is the food chain evidence of this?

I don't know how God would reply, but in the context of Man - who has the capacity to feel deeply and also the intelligence to do something about it - we see that there have been cases where the problem of food has also been resolved without killing - at least the kind of killing we normally talk about.

1. Tulsidas, it is said in books, survived 12 years on leaves fallen on the ground, probably because the thought of killing plants for food was not acceptable to him. Well, maybe he didn't care about microbes, but at least he avoided killing plants and animals in the name of food.

2. Giri Bala, a widow who could not bear some remarks made by her family regarding her food habits, confided in a yogi about the problem. She was given a yogic practice which she did with all her zeal, and it is said (in Autobiography of a Yogi) that she survived only on water and sunlight till her ripe old age. Her unique achievement made her a revered figure in her area, but that is a different issue. Maybe the villagers did not know of Sir Jagadish Bose's discovery that even metals display some qualities of life and respond to stimuli in ways that can be called intelligent. If the world is thoroughly imbued with "chaitanya", any eating (even metals) will involve a change of the eaten material which would be akin to killing. However, she did show them a way to live without killing - at least the way we undertand the word normally.

3. Another catholic saint - I believe the name is Therese Neumann - also survived on water and just one consecrated wafer a day, as per "Autobiography of a Yogi".

4. In a famous episode, a hatha yogi stayed buried underground for 40 days without food or water, and resumed normal life once this demonstration to the king (Ranjit Singh) was complete.

All these people, intentionally or unintentionally, solved the problem of killing for food, at least the way we understand the word "killing" in usual discussions (brutality, insensitivity, etc.). If scientists were to really get down to it, couldn't we have had some kind of "photosynthesis equipment" ready by now, to resolve the problem of killing? Or, a food processing industry based on leaves and fruits fallen to the ground?

Brutality and violence are therefore not necessarily from God. Maybe the truth is that the problem has never been important enough for society as a whole to find a way out. If it was, then the above cases suggest that a solution would probably have been found already.

Sadanand Tutakne

Hi

This is a test post to see if I am clicking the right buttons. This is the first time I am creating a blog for myself. Your best wishes are solicited. With regards.
Sadanand