End Of Knowledge

Tag: nididhyasana

  • 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 Pt.46

    Read Part 45 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge
    CHAPTER 19
    Janaka said:
    19:1 – Using the pincers of self-knowledge, I have extracted the thorn of different opinions [about my true nature] from my heart (mind).

    Like a pair of tweezers removes a thorn from your hand, Vedanta removes different (false) opinions you have about your true nature.  The remaining verses of the text are Janaka’s statement of self-knowledge which show he’s divested himself of such false opinions.

    19:2 – Where is dharma, where is kama, where is artha? Where, too, is discrimination, where is duality, and where, even, is non-duality for me who abide in my own glory?

    Dharma, kama and artha—the three aims of life—are no longer relevant when self-knowledge negates the reality of the doer and the world in which the doer acts.  Even non-duality is negated, seeing as it’s just the conceptual opposite of duality.  Then only the self remains.  And although that last statement makes it sound very much like the self is non-dual, it’s not the case—the self is “not this, not this” and “that from which words and the mind return, unable to reach it.”  That means no words or ideas apply to the self even though the teaching uses words and ideas to help you understand this fact for yourself.

    Like a stick used to stoke a fire is eventually thrown into the fire to be burned, all concepts used in the initial stages of the teaching to stoke the fire of self-knowledge are eventually burned in the selfsame fire.  This is the main theme of Chapter 19.

    The takeaway is this: once Vedanta helps you understand what your true nature is, feel free to let the teaching go.  You don’t have to keep taking the medicine once you’ve been cured.  You don’t have to carry the boat on your head after it’s helped you cross the river.

    One caveat: When you’ve spent your entire life believing that you’re the limited, flawed and inadequate body-mind, it can take a while to reorient the mind to the fact that you’re the limitless, perfect self.  If that’s something you want to do, then continuing to dwell on the teaching is a constructive practice called nididhyasana.  But always remember that successfully changing the mind in no way adds to you.  And not changing the mind in no way diminishes you.  Enlightenment is knowing that you’re not affected by the mind either way.

    That being said, I’m going to edit the remaining verses for the purpose of nididhyasana. They can be used for recitation and contemplation, both by the enlightened and the unenlightened.  Because even if you’re not enlightened, you will be someday.  So you might as well start thinking of yourself as the self right now (especially considering that you already are the self).  You can “fake it until you make it” as one of my old teachers was fond of saying. Even if you feel like you’re faking it, it’s no problem because the statements you’re making are nonetheless true.

    19:3 – Where is past, where is future, where, even, is the present? Where is space and where even, is eternity for me who abide in my own glory?

    There is no past, present or future.  There is no space or eternity for me who abide in my own glory.

    19:4 – Where is the self and where is the non-self, where, likewise, are good and evil? Where is anxiety or non-anxiety for me who abide in my own glory?

    There is no self* or not-self, no good or bad.  There is no thought or thoughtlessness for me who abide in my own glory.

    *While your true nature is often referred to as “self” in the Vedanta scriptures, this is merely out of necessity because you can’t teach something as subtle as Vedanta without words.  Understand that “self” is just a word used to point to a reality beyond all words and concepts.

    19:5 – Where is dreaming, where is deep sleep, where is wakefulness, and where is the fourth (turiya)? Where, even, is fear for me who abide in my own glory?

    There is no dream state, no deep sleep state and no waking state.  There is not even that which is called the “fourth.”* There is no fear for me who abide in my own glory.

    *Turiya is often mistranslated as “the fourth state” in relation to the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep.  But it just means “fourth” and refers to the fact that the self is distinct from the three states.  But you can no longer refer to the self as the “fourth” when you know that the three states don’t really exist.

    19:6 – Where is nearness or farness? Where is interior or exterior?  Where is grossness or subtlety for me who abide in my own glory?

    There is no nearness or farness, no interior or exterior.  There are no gross objects or subtle objects for me who abide in my own glory.

    19:7 – Where is life or death, where are the worlds and where is worldliness?  Where is dissolution of the world or absorption into the self for me who abide in my own glory?

    There is no life or death, no world or worldliness.  There is the dissolution of the world or absorption into the self for me who abide in my own glory.

    19:8 – To talk about the three ends of life is needless, to talk about yoga is purposeless, and even to talk about wisdom is irrelevant for me who repose in the self.

    No editing is required here.  The meaning of this verse—and its implications—are unambiguous:  spiritual practice is only relevant until the dawn of self-knowledge, at which point the reality of doership (as well as the reality of every other aspect of the relative world) is negated.  Yes, life will continue much like it did before.  Your body-mind may continue to pursue things, practice spirituality or discuss the teaching.  But you know those things are 1) unreal and 2) that they have nothing to do with you.

    Read Part 45 / Ask a Question / Support End of Knowledge

     

     

  • How to use the word “I” in Vedanta

    L: What is the correct way to speak using the word “I” with all of the knowledge of vedanta?

    V:  To use the word “I” the way any other person does, while knowing that it refers to your true nature instead of the body/mind.  That’s all.  Saying the word “I” or referring to yourself as “I” is only a problem if you think “I” means the body/mind.    

    L: It seems like the word itself has problems.  It is a habit to use “I” to refer to the thoughts, feelings, and memories that consciousness is illuminating.  But this is not the most real essence of what I truly am.    

    V:  True, but it’s impossible to communicate without using words that refer to concepts.  So it’s okay to use “I” as long as you know what “I” really means.  If you identify yourself with the thoughts, feelings and memories that “I” refers to, then it’s a problem.  If not, then it’s not.   

    L:  On the other hand, it seems very difficult to use the word “I” to refer strictly to atma, because to my way of thinking, pure atma alone doesn’t think, feel, or remember, except as a differentiated illusion. 

    V:  Like I said previously, it’s like the water / wave metaphor.  If the illusion of the wave says, “I am water” then it’s a true statement.  Likewise, if the illusion of Lee says, “I am atma” it’s a true statement. 

    If there is any thinking, feeling or remembering going on, even if it’s illusory, that thinking etc. is none other than atma.

    One of the key features of Vedanta is switching back and forth between different viewpoints or ‘levels’ of truth in order to make sense of reality.  Let’s call the real truth the absolute viewpoint and the relative truth the empirical viewpoint.  From the absolute viewpoint, there is no actual Lee, no thinking etc.  This is not a viewpoint you ever experience directly but simply understand to be true.  On the other hand you have the empirical viewpoint where you undeniable experience Lee and his thinking etc.  To ignore one of these viewpoints is to not view reality as a whole, and doing so can make your life very difficult.  Strictly taking the empirical viewpoint is obviously problematic because Lee has a whole host of problems, most notably sadness, sickness and death. 

    But simply taking the absolute viewpoint (even though it is true) is not helpful either as I think you’re starting to notice.  The reason is that even if Lee is an illusion he is undeniably there, along with the world he inhabits.  When you understand that Lee isn’t real and that you are actually atma, the world is still there, just the same as before.  This means you have to interact with it like you always have.  You can’t simply sit in one place not speaking, thinking, eating or breathing.  The world demands that you act.  To acknowledge the world and act accordingly is allowing for the empirical viewpoint, the relative truth.  You simply do it knowing the absolute truth and you can switch back to that viewpoint in your mind any time you need to. 

    But you don’t need to look at things from that viewpoint all the time (you can’t even if you want to because it isn’t helpful).  For instance, if I know my name I don’t have to remind myself of it constantly, lest I somehow forget it.  It’s there in the back of my mind all the time.  When someone asks me what it is, I simply recall it.  This means that if you are sitting there eating a sandwich you don’t have to do it thinking, “I am not really eating this sandwich.  Lee is not real nor is this sandwich.  I am the real, action-less atma.”  You just eat the sandwich.  If for some reason you need that knowledge (namely, if you find yourself mentally suffering) simply recall it.  Otherwise, live your life.       

    L: Perhaps it is best to say “I have this thought,” or feeling, or memory? 

    V:  Initially, yes.  This is a required practice in order to break our normal identification with the mind.  Usually, “I have a thought” equates with the belief “I am the thinker.”  So at first we need to objectify our thoughts to see them as the ‘separate’ objects that they are.  This is the artificial duality we spoke about previously.  When the practice of objectifying our thoughts bears fruit, namely the fruit of the knowledge “I am atma,” then the practice is no longer necessary. 

    L:  But the concept of a separate “I” is essentially an illusion.  To some extent, is it necessary to participate in the illusory drama, to play the role of the “I”?

    V:  Yes.  The only way not to participate in the illusion is to die.  And even though you are the immortal atma, I don’t recommend that 🙂 Besides, the illusory drama can be a very interesting and enjoyable thing, especially when you know that you are free of it.  You simply ‘participate’ knowing that you are not really participating.  

    L:  It would sound odd to say “The illusory Lee-creature is wondering what book to read next” but this seems like the most truly accurate way to speak. 

    V:  It would be the most accurate way to speak but as you’ve pointed out, it would in fact be odd.  And it would also be a bit contrived and pretentious.  Luckily, as I’ve said, it’s not necessary.  Once you’ve gotten it absolutely crystal clear that you atma instead of Lee, you simply say “I’m wondering what book to read next” with the full understanding that none of that is actually true.  You are like an actor in a movie, knowing who you really are (without any conscious effort) while playing a role.  As long as you’re not a method actor, losing yourself in the character, you’ll be just fine.     

    L:  I’m getting the feeling that truly arriving at the deepest level of understanding of this knowledge of non-duality must require the “I-ness” to stand down, to figuratively self-immolate. 

    V:  Yes, it is figurative because the “I-ness” doesn’t stand down in any literal fashion.  It stands down only through knowledge.  You make it stand down by recognizing it for what it is:  an illusion.   

    L:  I have an inclination to undertake a process of detaching from the habits that feed the “I-ness” for a few weeks, long enough to break the habit.  But this does not seem to be a practice in traditional vedanta.

    V:  I’m not sure what the details are of this process you’re thinking about so I’m not sure if it aligns with traditional Vedanta or not.  But if you think it will help, give it a try.  There is no rule that you have to conform to traditional Vedanta.  Besides, a cursory investigation of the history of Vedanta will show you that there’s not even a consensus about what traditional Vedanta actually is.  

    L:  I had the thought to develop a set of sequential affirmations or thoughts to step through each day.  Is there already a standard sequence of realization statements in vedanta?  Things along these lines:

    – This body and mind are temporary and limited illusions within infinite consciousness. –– My true nature is infinite and eternal conscious awareness.                                                    – This entire universe is an illusion created within one single consciousness.                        – I am the infinite and eternal consciousness that underlies this universe.

    V:  Yes, that pretty much sums it up Lee.  But at the end I would add:

    -I am not the universe but the universe is none other than me.

    This means the appearance of the universe is you but does not affect your true nature in any way.  And this heals the artificial duality between atma and anatma (not-self).       

    L:  Most of the questions that arise in my mind are resolved by coming back to one of these statements.  My thought was to repeat them and dwell on them every day.

    V:  Yes!  In Vedanta this is called manana (reflecting on what you’ve learned until you understand it clearly) and nididhyasana (fully assimilating the implications of what you know to be true).  These are some of the fundamental practices of Vedanta.    

    All my best – Vishnudeva

    Have a Question? ASK HERE

    Want to Show Support?  MAKE A DONATION HERE