End Of Knowledge

Tag: hinduism

  • Steady Wisdom: Day 1

    The third stage of Vedanta is nididhyasana, the internalization and assimilation of self-knowledge to the extent that there’s no gap between what I know about myself and how I think, feel and act. At this point there’s no special effort put forth to invoke the knowledge. It’s spontaneously available whenever I want it, like a mental app running quietly in the background of my mind’s operating system. This is called jnana nishta, becoming established in self-knowledge.

    Becoming established in self-knowledge can be accomplished in two ways: The first is to continue dwelling on the teaching. I can read scripture and listen to it being taught (even though I’ve already realized the import of the scriptures directly). I can write about what I know, putting my self-knowledge into words. I can discuss what I know with friends, having my self-knowledge strengthened through both affirmation and challenge. I can teach others what I know. I can sit and meditate on what I know.

    The second way to become established in self-knowledge is to imitate the behavior of someone who’s already established in self-knowledge, a jivanmukta. If I don’t personally know such a person, the scriptures give me helpful examples. For instance, Ashtavakra Samhita 17:8 says, “Being fulfilled by self-knowledge alone, with their minds absorbed and contented, the wise ones live happily while seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and eating.” So even when I haven’t fully internalized self-knowledge, I can model my behavior after that of a jivanmukta from scripture until it becomes my own.

    What’s the surefire sign that I’ve become established in self-knowledge? The transformation of my thinking. More often than not, I’ll be mentally composed and free from negative emotional reactions such as attachment, fear, anger and anxiety.

    If I’m seriously interested in making progress on the path to jnana nishta, I might be tempted to judge myself based on the standard above. If that’s the case, I’ll be happy when I stay peaceful and composed—I’m totally a jivanmukta. But when I lose my cool, doubt about my jivanmukta status creeps in and ironically, I get even more upset than I already am because I feel like I’m not making progress. Now I have two problems: my initial negative reaction and the self judgement that follows it! In order to deal with my secondary reaction—that of judging myself—I consider the following points:

    1. My mind can never be totally free from disturbance. Krishna says as much in the Bhagavad Gita when he tells Arjuna that the mind of one with self-knowledge, although primarily peaceful, will continue to fluctuate. Mental disturbance, therefore, can only be reduced, not totally eliminated. Knowing this, my goal is clear and my expectations for my progress remain realistic.

    2. Reduction of mental disturbance isn’t instantaneous. Rather, it’s a gradual reduction in the frequency of disturbance, followed by a reduction in the intensity of disturbance. So first, I become upset less often. Then, when I do get upset, I’m able to keep the disturbance at the mental level alone, not letting it manifest as a physical or verbal reaction. After lessening the intensity of my mental reactions, I’m able to shorten the time it takes for me to regain composure between mental disturbances.

    But I always remember that this process will vary from person to person and from emotion to emotion. Perhaps for me anger goes slowly while depression goes quickly, whereas for someone else, anger goes quickly and depression goes slowly. Knowing this, I see that it’s not constructive to compare my progress to that of others.

    3. Reduction of mental disturbance isn’t a linear process where negative reactions continuously decrease. Fear, for instance, may temporarily lessen only to flare up again later. Knowing this, I don’t feel elated and declare victory over a particular negative reaction when it temporarily disappears. Conversely, I don’t get dejected and feel like a failure if it returns again later.

    4. Mental disturbance is caused by innumerable factors, many of which are unconscious and therefore unknown to me. If I can’t determine the cause of a particular mental disturbance, it’s unlikely I can change it (except by accident). Knowing this, I relax in the understanding that not every negative reaction is directly under my control.

    5. Not all mental disturbances can be controlled by self-knowledge. Knowing this, I don’t doubt my self-knowledge in the presence of a persistent mental disturbance. Nor do I expect self-knowledge to get rid of all of my mind’s undesirable tendencies and reactions. Some of them may stay with me my entire life, while others may need to be addressed with conventional methods such as diet, exercise, therapy etc. Some may go away on their own over time, in light of maturity gained from life experience.

    6. This is the most important point, the one that puts all the others in perspective: Reduction of mental disturbance is only the secondary purpose of self-knowledge. The primary purpose is to show me, with complete certainty, that I am not my mind nor am I affected by my mind. Knowing this, I’m not overly concerned with the conditions of my mind, bad or good.

    The logical conclusion of this understanding is: If I’m truly unconcerned about the condition of my mind and I’m convinced it doesn’t affect me in the slightest, I don’t need nididhyasana. If, however, I feel motivated to work on my mind (and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that), I do it in an objective manner, without anxiety or tension, not feeling upset when I fail or elated when I succeed. I view it as a lifelong process that I do for its own sake, without self-judgment or an inflated self-image.

    Further, I understand that doing nididhyasana doesn’t mean I don’t have self-knowledge. Nor do I think that not doing nididhyasana means I somehow have more self-knowledge than people who do want to do it. Why? Because feeling like I do or do not need nididhyasana is just a thought in my mind and I know that I am not my mind.

    As I said above, nididhyasana is simply changing the way that I think about myself. As the Ashtavakra Samhita says, “He who considers himself free is free indeed and he who considers himself bound remains bound. “As one thinks, so one becomes,” is a popular saying in this world, and it is quite true.” Previously, I thought I was the body-mind and I developed the habit of identifying with all of its flaws and limitations. Now I know I’m the perfect, limitless self. But because I’m so used to believing I’m the body-mind, it can take time to get used to thinking of myself as the self (even though I know it’s true!). To change this I can practice taking the stance, “I am the self” again and again until it becomes as habitual to my thinking as my former belief, “I am the body-mind.”

    One way for me to practice thinking of myself as the self is to take a statement of self-knowledge from the scripture and contemplate it’s meaning throughout my day. If I feel so inclined, I can do this this as a formal, sitting meditation. Or I can simply bring a statement of self-knowledge to mind amidst my regular activities, especially when negative thoughts and reactions contrary to self-knowledge arises. As I mentioned, there are many effective forms of nididhyasana. But contemplating statements of self-knowledge from the scripture will be the focus of this series.

    It’s important to note that I don’t have to have self-knowledge to practice nididhyasana—it can be done at any stage of self-inquiry. Granted, if I don’t yet know I’m the self, I may feel like doing nididhyasana is just trying to convince myself that I’m the self through mental tricks and repetition. Or worse, I may feel like I’m duping myself by indiscriminately adopting a belief system. To assuage my doubts, I consider that the result of either believing I’m the self or knowing I’m the self is the same: my thinking changes for the better. So it’s a win-win situation.

    But thankfully, as long as I’m diligently doing self-inquiry, I’m not tricking myself or being asked to believe anything. Instead, I conditionally take the scripture at its word to the extent that its claims seem reasonable, make me happy, grant me peace and give me clarity. I adopt an attitude of good faith, and with an open mind and heart I investigate and scrutinize the claims of scripture until I see for myself, in my own experience, whether or not they’re true.

    With that attitude, on the first day of the New Year, I accept the scripture’s challenge to think about myself in a radically different way, as the limitless reality I am. For the next 108 days I will contemplate a statement of self-knowledge each day while taking an honest look at how I think and act. By the grace of the sages from whom these statements come, may my thoughts, words and deeds be in harmony with what I know about myself. But at times when they aren’t, by the grace of Vishnu, may I always remember the true message of Vedanta, that I can’t be defined, limited or affected by the thoughts in my mind or the actions of my body. As the Avadhuta Gita 1:55 says: I am absolutely pure. I am without body and mind, and unaffected by the illusory world. I am not ashamed to say, “I am the self, the supreme reality.”

    Day 1

    Ignorance cannot create any doubt in me. Why should I care about thoughts? They appear and disappear like bubbles in the water.
    Avadhuta Gita 2:7
    Meditation

    Ignorance cannot create any doubt in me. It is merely a thought and thoughts come and go like bubbles in a can of soda—they aren’t real. Anything that isn’t real can’t affect me. For the very fact that I recognize ignorance to be the unreal thought that it is, no doubt about my true nature can arise—I am the self, unaffected by either the presence or absence of ignorance.

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra: Conclusion

    Read Part 46 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge
    CHAPTER 20

    This is the final chapter of the Ashtavakra Samhita.  It’s the conclusion of Janaka’s statement of self-knowledge from Chapter 19, one last declaration of what he’s realized about his true nature.  Like Chapter 19, I’ve edited the verses of Chapter 20 for the purpose of nididhyasana, converting Janaka’s statements from question form to first person statements that can be used for recitation, contemplation and meditation. 

    Some of these statements may appear confusing for someone still on the path to self-knowledge, seeing as they appear to contradict or negate the scripture and the path of inquiry itself.  It may make one wonder, “If scripture and the process of self-inquiry are eventually negated, are they even needed in the first place?”  The answer is a resounding and unequivocal “Yes.”  Only when, like Janaka, you’ve done self-inquiry and seen the truth of the scriptures for yourself do they become redundant. 

    Like I said in the last post, scripture and self-inquiry are like a boat used to cross a raging river.  Once you arrive safely on the opposite bank, you no longer need the boat.  But that doesn’t mean you didn’t need the boat in the first place!  Without it you would have lost your way and drowned.  Similarly, if you disregard scripture and self-inquiry before you see for yourself that you’re the self, you’ll be lost, left to drown in the turbulent river of samsara. 

    You can contemplate these statements even if you’re still doing self-inquiry.  Why?  Because they’re nonetheless true, even if you haven’t realized their truth for yourself.  Until that time, meditating on the meaning of these statements will provide positive reinforcement for your inquiry.  And further, they’ll protect you from clinging to the teaching as if it were a religion or dogma, rather than a relative—albeit indispensable—tool for understanding your true nature.   

    Janaka said:
    20:1 – Where are the elements, where is the body, where are the organs, and where is the mind? Where is the void? Where, too, is despair for me who am taintless by nature?

    There are no elements, there is no body, there are no organs and there is no mind.  There is not even nothingness.  There is no despair for me—I am ever-pure. 

    20:2 – Where are the scriptures, where is knowledge of the self?  Where is the mind not attached to sense-objects, where is contentment, and where is desirelessness for me who am ever devoid of the sense of duality?

    There are no scriptures and no self-knowledge.  There is no mind unattached to sense objects, no contentment and no desirelessness—I am devoid of the sense of duality. 

    20:3 – Where is knowledge and where is ignorance?  Where is “I,” where is “this,” and where is “mine”? Where is bondage and where is liberation? Where is an attribute to the nature of my self?

    There is no knowledge and no ignorance.  There is no “I,” no “this” and no “mine.”  There is no bondage and no liberation.  My true nature has no form. 

    20:4 – Where are prarabdha karmas, where is liberation-in-life (jivanmukta), and where is even liberation-at-death for me, the ever undifferentiated?

    There is no prarabdha karma, no liberation-in-life or liberation-in-death—I am changeless. 

    20:5 – Where is the doer or enjoyer, where is cessation of thought or the rising of thought, where is direct knowledge or it’s result for me who am ever impersonal?

    There is no doer or enjoyer, no thought or absence of thought.  There is no direct knowledge or its result—I am not a person. 

    20:6 – Where is the world and where is the aspirant for liberation?  Where is the contemplative person or the person with self-knowledge?  Where is the liberated one or the one in bondage when in my true nature, I am non-dual?

    There is no world or seeker of liberation.  There is no yogi or person with self-knowledge.  There is no liberation or bondage—my true nature is non-dual.   

    20:7 – Where are creation and destruction, where are the end and the means, where are seeker and success when in my true nature, I am non-dual? 

    There is no creation or destruction, there is no end or means.  There is no seeker or finder—my true nature is non-dual. 

    20:8 – Where is the knower, the means to knowledge, the object of knowledge or knowledge itself?  Where is anything or nothing for me who am ever pure?

    There is no knower or means of knowledge, no object of knowledge or knowledge itself.  There is not anything and there is not nothing—I am ever pure. 

    20:9 – Where is distraction, where is concentration?  Where is knowledge, where is delusion?  Where is joy and where is sorrow for me who am ever actionless?

    There is no distraction or concentration.  There is no knowledge or delusion.  There is no joy or sorrow—I am ever free of action. 

    20:10 – Where is the relative world, where is absolute reality?  Where is happiness or misery for me who am ever beyond thought?

    There is no relative world or absolute reality.  There is no happiness or misery—I am beyond all thought. 

    20:11 – Where is maya, where is samsara?  Where is attachment or detachment?  Where is jiva or brahman for me, who am ever pure?

    There is no maya and no samsara.  There is no attachment or detachment.  There is no jiva and no brahman*—I am ever pure. 

    *To say there’s no brahman is not to say that there’s no self.  This verse is merely pointing out that the idea that there’s a jiva as opposed to brahman is a false, dualistic notion.  Further, reality transcends all names and positive descriptions—it’s not a jiva, a brahman or anything else for that matter.  As the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says in verse 2:3:6, reality can only be accurately described as “neti, neti” (“not this, not this”), meaning it can only be described negatively, in terms of what it isn’t. 

    20:12 – Where is activity, where is inactivity? Where is liberation or bondage for me who am ever established in my immutable and indivisible self?

    There is no action or inaction.  There is no liberation or bondage—I abide in my immutable and changeless self. 

    20:13 – Where is instruction and where is scripture? Where is the teacher and where is the student? Where, indeed, is the goal of life for me who am absolute good and free from limitation?

    There is no teaching and no scripture.  There is no teacher or student.  There is no goal of life for me—I am the limitless reality. 

    20:14 – Where is existence, where is non-existence? Where is unity, where is duality? What need is there to say more? Nothing arises from me.

    There is no existence or non-existence.  There is no duality or non-duality.  There is nothing more to say, nothing more to do, nothing more to learn—there is nothing other than myself. 

    Thus ends the dialogue on self-knowledge between Ashtavakra and Janaka.
    OM TAT SAT.

    It’s hard to believe that this series has been going on for over a year.  Many thanks to the readers of this site for your continued support.  May the words of Ashtavakra and Janaka inspire you on the path to self-knowledge or help you become established in self-knowledge through nididhyasana. 

    For those interested in nididhyasana, stay tuned for the upcoming Steady Wisdom series.  For the first 108 days of the New Year, I’ll be posting a statement of self-knowledge from the scriptures each day and commenting on it. I challenge you to read and contemplate these statements daily, in order to get your thinking aligned with the truth of who you are.   

    Read Part 46 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge

     

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt.45

    Read Part 44 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge
    18:92 – Where is careless behavior, where is restraint, and where is determination of truth for the yogi who has obtained the goal and who is the embodiment of guileless sincerity?

    There’s no careless behavior or restraint from careless behavior for one who’s negated their identification with the doer, the body-mind.  There’s no determination of truth for the yogi (here meaning a self-realized person) who’s already seen firsthand, “I am the self.”  Whether such a yogi is the embodiment of guileless sincerity or not depends entirely on the condition of their mind.  But this is of no real consequence because of the aforementioned dis-identification with their body-mind.     

    18:93 – How and to whom can be described what is experienced within by one who is desireless, whose sorrow is destroyed, and who is contented with repose in the self?

    The point here is that to understand what enlightenment is like, you have to understand for yourself that you are the self.  Without that, the teaching will be a mere collection of words that point to what appears to be an ungraspable, abstract notion, namely, “I am the limitless self, free of desire and sorrow.”  At statement like that makes no sense until, through your own inquiry, you see that it’s true.    

    18:94 – Not asleep even in the sleep state, not dreaming even in the dream state and not awake even in the waking state, the steadfast one is contented in all states.
    18:95 – The person of knowledge is devoid of thought, even when engaged in thought, devoid of the sense-organs while having them, devoid of intelligence even though endowed with it, devoid of the sense of ego, even though possessed of it.
    18:96 – The person of knowledge is neither happy nor miserable, neither attached nor unattached, neither liberated nor an aspirant for liberation—they are neither this nor that. 
    18:97 – The blessed one is not distracted even in distraction, not meditative even in meditation, not dull even in a state of dullness and he is not learned even though possessed of learning.

    Verses 94-97 are essentially saying the same thing: the one with self-knowledge knows that as the self, they’re free at all times and all places from any conceivable state of mind or body.  

    Pay special attention to verse 95.  It clearly states that even though the enlightened person has an ego, they’re devoid of a sense of ego.  This means they don’t identify with the ego even though it continues to exist after enlightenment.  So anyone out there who thinks enlightenment is a literal destruction of the ego, take note and save yourself the unnecessary frustration of trying to destroy a figment of your imagination that 1) doesn’t belong to you and 2) has no real existence.  Trying to kill the ego is as pointless as killing a monster in a dream:  it’s not there in the first place so how can you really kill it?  Instead wake up and realize the ego has no reality, just a like a dream monster, and leave it be.        

    18:98 – The liberated one who abides in the self under all conditions is the same everywhere and free from craving.  They are free from the idea of what is to be done or not done and they do not reflect on what they’ve done or not done. 

    This is another one of those verses that describes the hypothetical gold standard of behavior for an enlightened person.  It’s a great goal to strive for if you wish, but wouldn’t it be better to just, as the verse says, “abide in the self under all conditions (identify with the self)” and accept the body-mind as it is?  Considering the quest for enlightenment is generally motivated by dissatisfaction with the shortcomings and limitations of the body-mind, I’d say yes.  Because if you don’t, at what point does the quest end?  At what point do you stop trying to fix the illusory body-mind and just be happy with the fact that you’re the perfect, limitless self?    

    18:99 – Praised, the wise one does not feel pleased.  Blamed, they do not feel annoyed. They neither rejoice in life nor fear death.

    To feel pleased when complimented or annoyed when blamed is a totally normal reaction.  But it’s misguided seeing as the body-mind (to whom the praise or blame belong) has absolutely nothing to do with you, the self.  It’s the same as feeling pleased or annoyed when someone compliments or blames your dog (or child, or house, or job or car etc.) when in reality their behavior or attributes have nothing to do with you. 

    18:100 – The tranquil-minded one seeks neither the crowded place nor the wilderness.  They remain the same under any conditions and in any place.

    Realize you’re the self.  Let the illusory body-mind live as it sees fit.  End of story.   

    Read Part 44 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge

     

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt.44

    Read Part 43 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge
    Ashtavakra said:
    18:87 – Blessed is the wise one who stands alone, who is attached to nothing, who is without any possession, who moves freely and at pleasure, who is free from the pairs of opposites, and whose doubts have been rent asunder.

    Once you get enlightened, you should give away all your possession, leave your home and wander about aimlessly.    

    Actually, I’m just kidding.  If your doubts have “been rent asunder (removed),” meaning you’ve realized that you’re the self that “stands alone” (exists independently) and is attached to nothing (not affected by the body-mind or external circumstances), it doesn’t matter how your body-mind lives. 

    This verse highlights the monastic bias of the author.  Being a monk is suitable for some, while living like a normal person is suitable for others.  Either way is fine depending on the temperament of the person.  This verse should be understood in that context. 

    18:88 – Glorious is the wise one who is devoid of the feelings of “mine,” to whom earth, a stone and gold are all the same, the knots of whose heart have been rent asunder, and who has been purged of rajas and tamas.

    As in verse 67 above, such a person would indeed be glorious.  But to the one with non-dual vision to whom “earth, a stone and gold are all the same,” wouldn’t the presence of rajas*, tamas* or the feeling of “mine” in the mind be the same as their absence? Yes. This understanding is key because as I’ve pointed out, the mind will always retain some sense of “mine” because it’s essential to functioning in everyday life (despite being ultimately unreal).  And as the Bhagavad Gita (a key Vedanta text) points out in verse 14:23 , rajas and tamas will always be present in the mind to some degree.  But they are never present in you, the self.      

    *See Bhagavad Gita Chapter 14 for a more detailed description of rajas and tamas.  For now, in this context, rajas is desire, agitation and activity.  And tamas is dullness, inertia and ignorance. 

    18:89 – Who is there to stand in comparison with the liberated soul who has no desire whatsoever at heart, who is contented and indifferent to everything?

    Possibly no one because it’s unlikely that such person exists, unless by “liberated soul” the author is referring directly to the self, which is always free from desire, malcontent and care. 

    If he’s referring directly to the self, there’s nothing for it to stand in comparison to because the self is non-dual and comparison is only possible between two different things.  If the author is referring to an enlightened person, I’d argue that comparison between the enlightened and the unenlightened isn’t productive because the point of enlightenment is to see that you’re not a person.  And by extension, to be free from the pain of comparing yourself to other people and trying to be different, rather than just accepting yourself as the perfect, limitless reality that you are.   

    18:90 – Who but the desireless one knows not though knowing, sees not though seeing, and speaks not though speaking?

    In other words, who but the self knows not though knowing etc.?  No one, because there’s nothing but the self. 

    18:91 – Whether they be a mendicant or a king, the one who is unattached and whose view of things has been freed from the sense of good and evil excels.

    Your body-mind can be a beggar with nothing or a king with everything.  But this doesn’t matter when your vision (understanding) has been freed from the sense of good and evil (duality). 

    Read Part 43 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge

     

  • A Conversation with Ashtavakra Pt. 43

    Read Part 42 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge
    Ashtavakra said: 
    18:82 – The desireless one neither praises the peaceful nor blames the wicked.  Contented and same in happiness and misery, they find nothing to be done.

    On the relative level of everyday life, peacefulness is certainly worthy of praise and wickedness is deserving of blame.  But the “desireless one” (one with self-knowledge) knows that ultimately peace and wickedness belong to the illusory body-mind alone.  As such, who is there to really praise or blame for such things?  Only the self exists and seeing as its actionless and free of all qualities, it can’t be praised or blamed for anything

    18:83 – This wise one neither abhors birth and death nor wishes to perceive the self.  Free from joy and sorrow, they are neither dead nor alive.

    The wise one doesn’t abhor birth and death because birth and death only apply to the body-mind, not the self.  Because the wise one is the self, not the body-mind, they’re neither dead nor alive.  They’re free from joy and sorrow because joy and sorrow pertain to the mind alone.  And they don’t wish to perceive the self for two reasons: 1) they know the self isn’t an object of experience available for perception and 2) they know they can’t perceive the self because they are the self.       

    18:84 – Free from expectation and attachment to family, free from the desire for objects and free from concern for body, the wise one shines. 

    Taken literally, this verse is potentially problematic.  How so?  Because it could give the impression that the standard of enlightenment is to have a mind completely free of expectation, attachment to family, desire for objects and bodily concern.  It isn’t.  Rather, it’s to know you’re the self.  And as the self, you have no expectation, attachment to family, desire for objects or concern for the body—even if the mind does. 

    To put it differently, it makes no sense to say, “I’m not the body-mind, I’m the self…and the proof that I’m the self is the behavior of the body-mind.”  Because how can the condition of the body-mind validate or invalidate your status as the self if 1) You’re always the self no matter what and 2) If the illusory body-mind has no association with the self or effect on the self whatsoever? 

    So figure out that you’re the self.  Then let the body-mind do what it’s going to do, whether that be taking care of a family or looking after its own health because ignoring family or health is no sign of enlightenment.  On the issue of health, I’ve often wondered if great teachers like Ramana Maharshi and Swami Chinmayananda (whose bodies succumbed to cancer and heart disease, respectively) could have continued their work longer if they’d paid more attention to the condition of their bodies. 

    Of course, this shouldn’t be viewed as criticism of either teacher, especially not coming from someone who, at times, has shown great neglect for his own health.  But I think it bears mentioning in order to illustrate the point that matters of the illusory world don’t disappear at the dawn of self-knowledge.  Relative matters continue to apply on the level of the relative world even though they don’t apply to the self at all.      

    18:85 – Contentment ever dwells in the heart of the wise one who lives on whatever happens to come to him, and who wanders about at pleasure, resting wherever he is when the sun sets.

    This verse describes a very extreme lifestyle that isn’t necessary or suitable for everyone.  After all, numerous verses in the text clearly state that the one with self-knowledge can live however they please, seeing as they understand they aren’t the body-mind. 

    All the same, this verse correctly points out that living simply and accepting what comes to you in life generally leads to contentment—relatively speaking. 

    18:86 – Reposing on the foundation of their own being, and completely transcending birth and rebirth, the great-souled person does not care whether their body dies or is born.

    “Reposing on the knowledge of their own being” means to dwell in the knowledge, “I am the self.”  Because the self is eternal and unchanging, it’s of no consequence whether the body dies or is reborn again. 

    Read Part 42 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge