Hi
Ram,
Yes,
I like what you say about the mind being Maya. I can't see how one can
argue against this point. However, Ramana says in other places in
"Talks," for instance, that the mind is merely a bundle of thoughts.
What could he possible mean by this? Again, I think this just
brings us back to the problem of "definitions," and also, context. To
whom was he speaking, and what was the purpose of the message? Allow me
to explain, from my perspective.
Ram:
The teaching that the mind is just a bundle of thoughts is meant to help a
person dis-identify with it. It means that your
thought life is impermanent and you should not build your life on ideas. You
should build it on something permanent i.e. the Self.
Ken:
In the quote I sent you a while back, he says that there can be no peace when
there is a "disturbance" of thoughts. I think this is the key
in this discussion. Obviously, the jnani must have thoughts in order to
function in the world of forms, and to communicate the non-dual message to
others. I was never suggesting that a jnani did not have thoughts.
This is absurd. There are examples, however, like "bench baba", or the wandering "masts" -- where
identification with the body/mind is so gone that there is no verbal
communication or "functioning" to the point where people have to put
food in their mouth for the body to survive. This, to me, is more like what
happens when the body dies, or like deep sleep, as you say. So, this can
happen, but it is not very "practical," so to speak. The
individual might be a jnani, but how to tell?
Ram:
I think the issue of to whom the teaching is addressed is relevant here. Obviously
if you know you are the Self the thoughts, irrespective of their nature, can't
disturb you. You are peace itself. The idea Ramana is expressing is Yoga
doctrine…goes right back to Patanjali and beyond. On the mind/ego level
thoughts can be a problem if you identify with dualistic thoughts. I say ‘can
be' because I do not subscribe to the ‘total annihilation' doctrine. Only the
thoughts that are not sourced in non-duality can disturb your peace…the rest
can stay since they do not agitate the mind and keep the attention from
wandering away from the Self. This is why savikalpa samadhi, samadhi with
thought, is the only suitable samadhi for moksha. Presumably the person to whom
Ramana is speaking is a candidate for…or a practitioner of…Self inquiry.
One
of Ramana's definitions of Self inquiry is ‘holding the mind on the Self' so
one's thought life is important in so far as it impacts on one's ability to do
this. However, nobody holds the mind on the Self, particularly in the face of
strong extroverting vasanas, without the thought that it is useful to do this.
So some thought is operating in this inward looking phase of the sadhana.
However, a person who is advanced in Self inquiry, whose mind is locked on the
Self, is only really dealing with two factors…the Self and the mind. In Vedanta
the method of Self inquiry is called Viveka, discrimination. Moksha is simply
knowing clearly what is the Self and what are the
changing forms of the Self and not identifying with the forms. When the
difference between the Self and its forms is known you are free of the mind.
You are free because you understand that identification with the thoughts
brings pleasure and pain and that non-identification forces you do identify
with the Self since it is the only other option. Yes, this ‘identification'
with the Self is also a very subtle thought but it is a thought that has great
value…it is the centerpiece of Vedantic teaching…since it destroys
identification with the thoughts altogether. And it is not a problem because it
is in harmony with reality. When the identification with the thoughts is
completely broken the ‘I am the Self' thought disappears too…since it has done
its job…leaving you as you are and always were.
As
far as the issue of how to tell if a mouni, a non-verbal person, is a jnani,
you can't. You can only tell when he or she opens his or her mouth and starts
to speak. Then you can figure out whether or not the ‘I' is sourced in the Self
or in ignorance. I'm always suspicious of these mouna people. Are they mouna
out of fear that words can destroy their peace or are they mouna because they
are so identified with the Self that they can' be bothered to think? People
easily confuse mounis with jnanis because they tend
to have a lot of shanti and shakti, both of which are
taken for enlightenment by experience-oriented people. But shanti and shakti are not necessarily the result of jnanam; they can
come about through yoga, control of the mind.
Ken:
My sense of it is that the Jnani is simply identified with the "substratum"
as Ramana called it many times, and not with any phenomena that may be arising
-- which one could say leads to the firm knowledge and conviction, verified by
direct experience, that one is this substratum, and none else; so he notices
thoughts arising, as they are needed, but there is no identification with them.
This is Liberation, is it not? There is no, "this is MY
thought;" or "these thoughts are MINE or ME" -- this is Ego.
Thoughts, then, are simply seen as temporary, ephemeral phenomena arising
within, or against the backdrop, of the substratum, with which he is
continually identified, and which is, indeed, the Self.
Ram:
I agree with this completely. This is my experience and pure Vedanta doctrine.
Ken:
So, my concept (for ultimately this is all it is) is that no thought -- even
the most sublime, such as "I am Enlightened", or "I am
Liberated" -- can be the Truth. I do not believe that by merely
saying, "I am Enlightened" that this is the case. This is
merely a trick of the ego. I agree with you that awakening to the fact
that "all there is, is Enlightenment" is only had by knowledge --
verified by direct experience. But an intellectual statement such as,
"I am Enlightened" is merely a thought, and an egoic ruse.
Ram:
Again I agree that no thought can be the Truth. The ‘truth' is the awareness of
thought. But, just as Ramana urges Self inquiry…which is a thought…there is a
thought that is completely necessary at the final stage of one's sadhana when
the war with the mind is in full tilt and that is the thought “I am the Self.'
It will destroy the thought ‘I am limited, inadequate, incomplete and separate'
if applied with conviction. And it is important to do this because the thought
of limitation…which is basically a definition of ego…is the source of all the
mind's dualistic thoughts and negative emotions. So Self inquiry…the classic
Vedanta sadhana…is not asking a question but it is the application of the
thought “I am the Self' over and over until the ‘mind'…meaning Maya…dies.
Ken:
Anyway, back to the problem of "thoughts." The way I see it,
they are only temporary phenomena that are arising against the backdrop of the
Self, or the substratum, as Ramana often called it. However, I do agree
with you that to the Jnani, these phenomena are also seen as the Self, since
ultimately all there is is Self, which, by
definition, can only mean that thoughts must be included. So, once again
we are back to the paradox.
Ram:
I know you don't like my ‘if you can't make it, fake it' idea but I'll try to
make the argument in this way. Is the knowledge that the thoughts are the Self
only useful to a jnani? Why shouldn't an agnani, a seeker, use this knowledge
to ‘destroy' the mind? The scriptures are just the thoughts of the jnanis and
they unreservedly urge the ‘practice' of asserting oneself to be the Self.
Ken:
If I may, I will take a stab at solving the paradox: if one is
Self-Realized, then, thoughts must be included (as simply a phenomenal
appearance like any other), but there is no identification with them; however,
IF one is identified with thoughts, then, one can not be Self-Realized.
The identification is the key. If you are identified with the
thought, "I am Enlightened," then, you are in a conceptual prison.
The Truth is beyond all concepts; and yet, paradoxically, is also
inclusive of them - again, because there is only Self.
Ram:
I'm ninety five percent with you. The only contribution I have to make…which
I've made above…is the thought “I'm the Self' imprisoning? Yes, it is from an
absolute point of view but (here's that famous ‘but' again) isn't this thought
rather like the hacksaw that is hidden in the cake and smuggled into the prison
by the prisoner's wife for his birthday? He may be still in jail but with a few
strokes of the saw he is a free man.
Ken:
Furthermore, the Truth is both noumenon and phenomenon, and neither. This is an
insight that came to me recently, while pondering the Mystery: "The
darkness of the void in which the Light dances is my true nature; and yet, this
Light is what makes possible the Knowledge of what I truly am. When seen
for what they are, the shadows (forms) that appear because of the Light, simply disappear into the immense Void of the
Reality. The Light can only Be as a result of
the darkness; and the darkness can only Be as a result of the Light. In
Truth, I am both and neither." Sorry for waxing poetic; but this is
usually how these insights come to me.
Ram:
It's beautifully expressed and absolutely true. “I am both and neither' means I
am Awareness.
Ken:
How this relates to our topic -- "meaning of destroy" -- is that
thoughts (shadows) disappear back into the darkness of the Void from which they
came like all other phenomena; hence, one could say, they naturally
self-destruct. We can only "see" the arising and falling away
of all phenomena, including thoughts, if we are truly identified with that
which never changes -- i.e. the Self -- and this is NOT a thought; if it was,
it would also be something that is changeable, and, therefore, by definition,
cannot be the Reality.
Ram:
Good, Ken, you joined the jnani's club. I take the
dust of your lotus feet. There is only one small point (just to keep the
satsang going) and that is this: is identification a thought? I say yes and no.
It can be a useful thought at the stage where one is struggling with the mind
but I say ‘no' because you only have ‘identify' until you are one hundred
percent certain that you are the Self; then it becomes hard and fast knowledge.
And that finishes the search. Then you go on living without having to
consciously remind yourself that you are the Self. If you are asked, however,
who you are you certainly don't have to do Self inquiry to find out. The answer
appears instantly in Awareness, “I am the Self.'
Ken: Wow! Awesome response to the "meaning of
destroy" email, Ram. It seems we are approaching a 'space' that one
might name, common ground. The great thing is that the common ground is
neither you nor me, or our opinions; but is That which
Is.
An example is that I agree completely with your use of the "one"
thought that ends the dominance of the thinking mind. Ramana used the
metaphor of the funeral pyre stick, which is used to stir the fire so
everything burns, and then is finally, itself, thrown into the fire. This
agrees with the Vedanta teaching, I'm guessing.
Ram:
Yes, it does.
Ram