Random Verses From Ashtavakra Gita : 17.9

 शून्या दृष्टिर्वृथा चेष्टा  विकलानीन्द्रियाणि च।

न स्पृहा न विरक्तिर्वा क्षीणसंसारसागरे॥१७- ९॥

Sunyaa : empty, vacant

drushtihi : look

vruthaa: purposeless

cheshta : actions

vikalaani: inoperative

indriyanni : senses

ca: and

na: not 

spruhaa : attachment

na : not

viraktih : aversion

va or

kshina samsara sagare = for one whom the ocean of world as dried down

There is no attachment or aversion for one in whom the ocean of the world has dried up. His gaze becomes vacant.his bodily actions are purposeless and his senses inoperative.

                                       --> Translation taken from Swami Chinmayananda's 

                                              Ashtavakra Gita 

====================================

The body has no purpose or destination in this life. The senses also are the same. Its the mind which drives the body towards a destination. When a person understands one's True nature, one no more seeks fulfillment through the objects of the world. Such a person is not "seeking" anything from the world for his own fulfillment. He is ever reveling in total satisfaction. This verse explains the life of a  person when he experiences total satisfaction and fulfillment and therefore stops looking at the world as a means to make himself happy. 

Even while acting in the world , there is no attachment or aversion. Money, pleasures, name and fame etc can at best give us comforts. Ill health may cause discomfort while a healthy body gives comfort but a Jnani clearly sees that discomfort cannot take away his happiness and comforts cannot add to it. There is total acceptance and so what ever IS, is totally accommodated. Just as space accommodates various objects but is neither attached to an object nor is averse to anything. 

You are not the mind !

OM!

 

Realization of Truth does not take place until one stops believing that manas is me. Unless one starts to look at the manas as a shadow ... it continues to appear real! It is like a shadow taken to be a ghost. The shadow continues to lurk in the darkness as a ghost unless i decide to stop believing that it is a ghost.

Annamalai Swami, a direct disciple of Ramana, says :

Quote:

How to give up this false idea that mind is real ? Annamalai Swami Answers: the same way that you give up any wrong idea. you simply stop believing in it. if this does not happen spontaneously when u hear the truth from a teacher, keep telling yourself "i am not the mind, i am not the mind. There is no mind; there is no mind. consciousness alone exists". if you have firm conviction that this is the truth, one day this firm conviction will mature to the point where it becomes your direct experience.

We perpetuate the idea that world is real, mind is real by believing it. They thrive upon over interest and attention. I give them the reality on the one hand and i myself want to see it as unreal! On the one hand i tell myself that i am mind and on the other hand i look for a way to "Transcend mind" !!
Do we see this please ?

When there are thoughts of agitation ... we say I am agitated.
when there is a relative calm in mind ... we say I am calm.
And we want to keep mind calm always ...
or kill the mind , as if its something Real.

and since we believe it to be so, it appears to be so. If you believe that the shadow is a ghost and see it as a ghost ... it appears like a ghost. if one stops believing its a ghost ... it eventually would be seen as a shadow. There is no ghost.

Mind is not you ... mind is "Witnessed By You" ... Leave it alone ... give it no attention ... it is helpless !! To withdraw attention its helpful to divert the attention to "I AM" and "Dissolve there"! Not identifying with the mind made notion of "I"

You are Purna (Complete)

 OM ! 

Vedanta teaches us that we are of the nature of Ananda, that we are ever Purna, Complete. We have to realize this in our day to day lives. There is a beautiful Slokha in Ashtavakra Gita:

सुखमास्ते सुखं शेते

सुखमायाति याति च।

सुखं वक्ति सुखं भुंक्ते

व्यवहारेऽपि शान्तधीः॥१८- ५९॥

Happy [Fully Satisfied] he stands, happy he sits, happy sleeps and happy he comes and goes. Happy he speaks, and happy he eats. Such is the life of a man at peace.॥18.59॥

We need to live this revel thus 24 7. But what stops us from realizing this Truth ? Why is it that we suffer and feel that we are incomplete despite the fact that we have studied in the shastras that we are Complete? One of the reasons for our not being successful in making this a reality in our lives is our attitude towards this teaching. The shastras are not saying "you shall be Purna" or "you can achieve purnatvam". They are clearly stating that you are purnaha here and now. You are ananda-svarupa here and now. This is what the Shastras are saying and yet, somehow we seem to be avoiding it (postponing it). We seem to be telling ourselves the reverse story: "Though the shastras claim that I am complete, this cannot be True or it does not apply to me ...". We have a tendency to find reasons to judge ourselves as "incomplete, insufficient etc" ! 
Lets take an example, Suppose I get angry. What this means is that in my own mind i have somehow taken myself to be an incomplete person. My anger stems out of an unfulfilled desire - a desire which can make me complete. This is the source of my anger. Ideally, I am supposed to take the scriptural teaching (with all its logic) within and correct this flaw. I am supposed to use the knowledge provided by vedanta to correct the mistake I have committed. Instead of doing this, I would tell myself that since I got angry I am incomplete and unfulfilled. My own inner dialogue is "How can I be purna when i get angry ?" Please see the problem here: I am angry because I think I am unfulfilled (and a desired object will make me complete) and since I am angry I declare myself as incomplete". This is precisely our problem. We seem to feed the wrong idea (that I am incomplete) instead of using the understanding from vedanta to correct it. So Vedantic knowledge is not used , or it does not "seep into me". If the vedantic knowledge is like a torch, I am not switching it on and perpetuating the darkness. Somewhere this links to lack of mumukshatvam. 
Annamalai Swamiji says it beautifully:
Q.: It is all very clear but I feel I need some help. I am not sure that i can generate this conviction by myself.
AS.: The desire for assistance is part of your problem. Don't make the mistake of imagining that there is a goal to be reached or attained. If you think like this you will start looking for methods to practice and people to help you. This just perpetuates the problem you are trying to end. Instead, cultivate the strong awareness, 'I am the Self. I am That. I am Brahman. I am everything.'.. The best way to (stop believing the wrong ideas about yourself) is to replace them with ideas which more accurately reflect the real state of affairs. ...
The Self is always attained, it is always realized; it is not something that you have to seek, reach or discover. Your vasanas and all the wrong ideas you have about yourself are blocking and hiding the experience of the real Self. If you don't identify with these wrong ideas, your Self-nature will not be hidden from you.
 
Here is one more:

Giving up the identity with the body and the mind is tapas, samadhi, dhyana and nishta.
Spiritual seekers have a very strange habit: they are always looking for a way to reach, attain,discover,experience, or realize the Self. They try many things because they cannot comprehend that they are already the Self. This is like running around looking for one's eyes with one's own eyes.
Why should you imagine that it is some new experience to be discovered or found ? You are the Self right now, and you are aware of it right now. Do you need a new experience to prove that you exist? The feeling "I am existing" is the Self. You pretend that you are not experiencing it, or cover it up with all kinds of false ideas, and then you run around looking for it as if it were something external to be reached or found. There is a story about someone like thus.
Once a king imagined that he was a poverty-striken peasant. He thought , "if I go and meet the king he may be able to help me by giving some money"
He searched for the king in many places but he could not find him anywhere. Ultimately he became very depressed because his search was not yeilding any results. One day he met a man on the road who asked him why he was so depressed.
He answered, " I am searching for the king. I think that he can solve all my problems and make me happy but I cant find him anywhere".
The man, who already recognized him, said with some astonishment, "But you yourself as the king!"
The king came to his senses and remembered who he was. His problems all ended the moment he remembered his real identity.
You may think that the king was fairly stupid but he had at least enough sense to recognize the truth when it was told to him.
The guru may tell his disciples a thousand times "You are the self, you are not what you imagine youself ot be", they all keep asking the guru for methods and routes to reach the place they are already are.

 
 The problem really is this: we are running after the objects of the world because we think they will make us complete. Since we are running after the objects of the world we consider ourselves incomplete. We also have some standards we have set for ourselves. A friend once told me "I shall consider myself liberated when neem leaves and ice cream taste the same to me" and thus he has condemned himself to incompleteness for ever ! We need to differentiate bodily conditions and mental states from our true nature. Discomfort need not mean unhappiness, when acceptance is complete. On a hot day a glass of cold water is comfortable and not getting water to drink is uncomfortable. When tired if we can not sleep that is discomfort. But discomfort need not mean unhappiness. When discomfort is not accepted and when we fight with it, we create unhappiness. We fight with an uncomfortable situation because we feel that the discomfort is going to make us incomplete. Its not discomfort but dissatisfaction with ourselves that is a problem. Thus we suffer. The solution is really to understand the upanishads and "Relax into our own being". Stop Running. We do not need to make any efforts for making ourselves fulfilled. We can be totally satisfied with ourselves as we are

Ashtavakra Gita says: 

मुक्ताभिमानी मुक्तो हि
बद्धो बद्धाभिमान्यपि।
किवदन्तीह सत्येयं
या मतिः सा गतिर्भवे त् ॥१-१ १ ॥
The one who considers himself to be free is free, and the one who considers himself bound is bound. The popular saying "one becomes what one believes" is true indeed. 

The story of Mind, From Yoga Vasishta:

There is a formidable and desolate forest in which there was a man. He was with a thousand hands and eyes. Apparently very confused, he would strike himself violently with iron bars and run about crying. Running about like that he fell in a dark well with a hidden way out.

It took him some time to find his way out and then he slowly got out of the well into a thorny forest. Then again, departing and beating himself often, running and laughing he managed to enter a cool forest of plantain trees. 

but he did not remain there for long. There also he started beating himself and running, he fell into the same well again ! He was as though drunk or semi conscious!!

Vasishta ji says: Having seen this for a long time , i held him by force ... and jolted him to consciousness. I then asked him " What is this ? Who are you? Why do you run in vain ?", thus asked, he said:
"I am no body, i do nothing. You are my enemy. Having seen by you, i am lost! Then , laughing, he gave up his limbs all around"
Thus in that forest, many men like him dwell, wandering about. That forest is there even today.

Sri Rama: Sage! What is that great forest ? What is it that they are intent on doing ?

Vasishta replies:

In this great forest of worldly existence, minds indeed wander about. They are lead by me , by discrimination, to supreme tranquility. Some, by disregarding me, fall down into hells. The forest of plantains is heaven. the affliction by sorrow is the thorn. "I am lost", when he said this, it was the cry of ego ... the feeling of me and mine ! The beatings are the blows of fancies or imaginations. They are indeed caused by oneself. The mind is reduced to a state of bondage only by its own imaginations and impressions. Like a silk worm in the cocoon one binds oneself by one's own imaginations and super-impositions.
This story of mind has been narrated to you. Contemplate on it with the mind , using this discrimination observe the mind and reject the fancies or imaginations of mind.

prahaaraaH kalpanaaghaataaH kriyante svayameva hi |
sa.NkalpavaasanaajaalaiH svairevaayaati bandhanam|
mano liilaamayaiH bandhaiH koshakaarakR^imiryathaa ||

प्रहाराः कल्पनाघाताः क्रियन्ते स्वयमेव हि।
सँकल्पवासनाजालैः स्वैरेवायाति बन्धनम्।
मनो लीलामयैः बन्धैः कोशकारकृमिर्यथा॥

The beatings are the blows of fancies (or imaginations). They are indeed caused by oneself. The mind is reduced to the state of bondage only by its own net of impressions of imaginations, just as the silk worm in the cocoon confines itself by bonds with ease.

THE STORY OF THE CHILD - YOGA VASISHTA

prapa~ncotpattireva.N hi baalakaakhyaayikaakramaat |
raajaputraaH trayaH santi shuuraa asati pattane ||

प्रपञ्चोत्पत्तिरेवँ हि बालकाख्यायिकाक्रमात्।
राजपुत्राः त्रयः सन्ति शूरा असति पत्तने॥

The origin of the world is indeed like this, in the manner of a tale narrated to a child (by the mother). There are three brave princes in a non-existent city).

Of these three, two were never born and the other one never indeed was stationed in a womb.

dadR^ishuH gagane vR^ixaan bhuktvaa svaadu ca tatphalam |
sarittritayamaaseduH pathi kallolamaalitam ||

ददृशुः गगने वृक्षान् भुक्त्वा स्वादु च तत्फलम्।
सरित्त्रितयमासेदुः पथि कल्लोलमालितम्॥

Once having gone out with the object of acquiring the best, they saw in the sky trees possessing fruits and having eaten those sweet fruits they reached three rivers crowned by large waves , on the way.
There [amongst those riverse], one was completely dry and there was not even a little water in the other two. Having bathed there and sported in the water, and having drunk the water... The three reached a city about to be (of the future), and the end of the day. There they saw three beautiful mansions. One was without walls and pillars, the other two houses were non-existent. There they obtained three pans (vessels) made of molten gold. In those pans they prepared food and served it to brahmanas who were without mouths ! Then they themselves ate the remnants and stayed there happily.

dhaatryaa hi kathitaametaa.N nirvicaaradhiyaa yathaa |
baalo nishcayamaayaati vicaarojGYitacetasaam |
iya.N sa.Nsaararacanaa.apyavasthitimupaagataa ||

धात्र्या हि कथितामेताँ निर्विचारधिया यथा।
बालो निश्चयमायाति विचारोज्ज्ञितचेतसाम्।
इयँ सँसाररचनाऽप्यवस्थितिमुपागता॥

Just as a child attains conviction in this tale narrated by the mother due to a thoughtless [unreflecting] mind, this creation of the worldly life too has assumed existence to those from whose minds reflection (or enquiry) has left (or dropped).

Living In Meditation

OM!

Hi Friends,

Everyone, regardless of their upbringing, faith, or beliefs, desires to live a happy life. This article explores the possibility of transforming our lives into a state of meditation. Here, meditation is used in an unconventional manner—not as a specific practice, but as a way of life or an attitude toward life. None of the practices are dismissed or opposed; all of them have their own place. However, this article is aligned with a different goal: leading a happy, satisfied life without inner conflicts.

I call this "living in meditation," which means not practicing meditation for a set period but transforming our entire lives into meditation. It is about living in continuous joy, making our lives a celebration. Every moment becomes a moment of immense joy in being—this is for exploring this dimension in our lives. It is a life with no sense of emptiness within and no inner conflicts. While external circumstances can never be entirely free of conflict, and we might avoid conflicts where possible, it is possible to live a conflict-free life internally, leading to inner harmony.

Friends, let us explore this dimension together and see for ourselves if it is practical. The idea is to bring about a cognitive change, one that will endure. From my experience, this approach does not conflict with any spiritual practices or our daily lives. It is simply a shift in cognition and attitude.

What Do We Want In Life ?

Let's begin by asking ourselves what we truly "seek" in life. We need this clarity to guide us through our entire discussion. Imagine that God appears before us and offers us a boon. We are given a set of options and allowed to choose only one, which will then be guaranteed in our lives. The remaining options will not be ensured. Here is a possible list of options:

• a) Money
• b) Pleasures
• c) Fame
• d) Luxury

...and finally, we add one extra element:

• (0) Satisfaction / Happiness / Peace

In this scenario, where we can choose only one guaranteed option, what would anyone choose? We conducted this experiment in a classroom, and everyone chose option (0). What is the use of money, fame, etc., if they do not bring happiness? It is essential to understand and appreciate that money, position, and similar things do not guarantee happiness.

Materially, whatever we seek, there is already someone who has it. Do we recognize this? If we believe money can make us happy, there are people who have all the money they could desire and yet remain dissatisfied and unhappy. If we think a high position or power will bring us happiness, there are individuals with exceptional status and power who still feel unfulfilled and unhappy. The poor man has hope; he believes, "If I become rich, I'll be happy." But the rich man doesn't even have that hope, or perhaps he thinks, "I'll be happier if I have more money." This is why we often see celebrities, who possess every kind of material wealth, turning to drugs in the search for happiness.

Friends, this is profoundly practical. We need to make the bliss of happiness our true nature, a constant part of our lives, 24/7.

Managing the Mind is Like Driving a Car:

Imagine receiving a car as a birthday gift. Excited, I get inside and start it, only to realize I don't know how to drive. I would likely end up in an accident. Similarly, if I don't know how to manage my mind, my life can become chaotic. With a car, I have the option to get in or stay out, but with my mind, I don't have such a choice. If I can't manage my mind, my entire life becomes an accident. Before I can learn to manage my mind, a few observations about the mind are essential. Just as I need to understand what a steering wheel does to drive a car, I need to understand how my mind works.

We must learn how to manage our minds. Understanding that we fundamentally seek a happy and satisfied life is crucial in this process. This understanding is very significant.

When I learn to drive a car, the goal is to navigate through traffic, not to keep it parked. Similarly, the mind is a powerful instrument. If we know how to manage it, we can use it to our advantage. If we think meditation means eliminating all thoughts, that's like sitting in a parked car all the time. The aim in mind management is not to stop all thoughts; without thoughts, no scientific discoveries would be possible. We need a sharp, active mind, but it should be under our control. We should be using it, not letting it use us.

This approach may differ from other meditation methods, which might aim to make the mind thoughtless. However, that is not the objective here, though such practices may have their own benefits. The mind is a wonderful blessing if we know how to use it. If we can handle our thoughts well, they are a blessing; if not, they can become a curse. This is evident in society. A poor village farmer with limited knowledge may be content, but his son, aware of city luxuries, cannot remain happy with what he has.

This is why ignorance is often said to be bliss—there are not many thoughts to manage. If you find someone who is happy due to ignorance, simply introduce a few thoughts into their mind, and their peace will be disrupted.

However, let us not condemn thoughts. It is through our thoughts that we have the opportunity for development. Without thoughts, no scientific progress would be possible. One must learn how to handle their thoughts, just as the person in the earlier example needed to learn how to drive his car. If I don't know how to drive a car, I will end up in an accident. Similarly, if I don't know how to manage my thoughts, my life can become chaotic. That is how crucial it is to manage one's thoughts.

Mind - Antahkarana, the Inner Instrument:

Let's explore the concept of the mind a little further. In Sanskrit, what we refer to as the mind in English is called "Antahkarana," meaning the inner instrument. This instrument operates in various modes, and depending on its mode of operation, it is given one of the following four names:

1. When the Antahkarana is engaged in remembering something, it is called memory or "Cittam."
2. When it operates in the "I am the Doer" mode, it is known as "Ahamkara," the "I" thought.
3. When it functions in the form of "Sankalpa-Vikalpa" (positive thoughts or doubts and dispersed behaviors), it is referred to as "Manas," the mind.
4. When the Antahkarana makes a decision or reaches a conclusion, it is known as the intellect.

For instance, if I leave home and suddenly remember, "Did I lock the door?" that is remembrance (Cittam). If I start doubting, "Did I lock it or not?" that's Manas. As long as I keep toggling between "Did I or did I not," it is Manas in operation. If I then decide, "I did lock it" or "Let me go back and check," that is the intellect at work.

All kinds of persistent thoughts and doubts are functions of Manas, while decisiveness is a function of the intellect. This encompasses the overall concept of Antahkarana. The key point to note is that there is only one Antahkarana, which takes on these various forms, aligning perfectly with neural science.

At the level of the brain, neural dynamics also suggest that there is one brain that undergoes various neural activities. This neural network synchronizes to a particular state or mode, taking a specific form, and that’s how it functions. For example, when I see a pot (Ghata), neural dynamics start with simple perception and then converge to a particular form (a specific set of active and inactive neurons). This convergence allows us to recognize the pot and recall its functions.

This model of the mind is very useful for us to see things clearly.

Imagine someone criticizes me. Initially, there is a small perception, followed by a series of mental processes, and ultimately, the intellect decides on a certain reaction. This is where we need to focus. The intellect makes various decisions, such as, “This person is insulting me,” or “This person is trying to encourage me through criticism to do better,” or even, “These insults don't bother me.” Do we understand how this works? The pure perception occurs in the mind, then various thoughts arise. Let's say all three thoughts emerge: “This person is insulting me,” “This person is encouraging me,” and “I don't care.” The intellect then assesses these thoughts and makes a final decision, such as, “I know this person, he is very nice, so he cannot be insulting me; this must be encouragement.” This is the final decision made by the intellect.

Do we see this? We will explore this more clearly and with various examples as we proceed with this study. This understanding is crucial because the antahkarana is an instrument. When I get a gadget, it comes with a user manual. If I know which operations lead to specific results, I can comfortably operate the gadget. If I randomly press buttons, the results may not be desirable. Similarly, there are many misconceived ideas among people. For example, if someone says, “I lack concentration,” people might give them techniques to improve concentration. However, concentration is not something to be gained anew; it is naturally present where we have interest. So, when a person says, “I am not able to concentrate,” it actually means there is a lack of interest. What we need to address is the interest, not the concentration.

Our Experiences are Shaped By Our Intellect:

We perceive the world through our intellect, or Buddhi. When we experience something, the initial perception of the event is just the first mental modification. What follows is the mind's interpretation of that event. Our mind and intellect play a crucial role in determining how we interpret and react to an experience. This is why one person might see a post and think it's a ghost, while another might see the same post and think it's a thief. Or consider someone who fails in an endeavor: one person might respond by saying, "I will work harder and turn this failure into a stepping stone for success," while another might feel disappointed and depressed. There is just one experience, but there are two different ways the mind reacts. Do you see this?

When we share ideas such as "Failures are stepping stones to success" or "Do not give up," these suggestions help the intellect develop a positive mindset when facing life's challenges. Any experience we have is ultimately colored by our intellect and presented to us. The experience itself is neutral and has nothing to say on its own.

What is the Basis Upon Which the Intellect Operates?

Consider a situation where someone criticizes me. Various thoughts might arise:

• "He wanted to insult me."
• "He wants me to do better and is actually a well-wisher."
• "I do not care."
• "I feel bad."
• "It's unfortunate; everyone insults me."
• And so on...

The intellect decides among these thoughts based on a "background mood." Suppose I am feeling depressed when I hear the criticism, or perhaps I am already excited because of a recent success. The intellectual disposition will be different in each case, and the same intellect may come to different decisions based on the mood.

So, we need to consider two factors: the right type of intellect and the right intellectual disposition. The right intellect ensures the right intellectual disposition. What defines the "right" intellect? It is determined purely by its utility value. For example, if the intellect always says, "I do not care what others think," it might protect me from being hurt by criticism but also prevent me from benefiting from constructive feedback.

Some people are sensitive to criticism, and initially, their intellect may generate hurt responses. Over time, they might learn to insulate themselves from these responses, and their intellect might eventually adopt a stance of "I don't care." This is a form of psychological adaptation to situations.

Another important point to understand is that the "center" of this entire process is the "ME" for whom all this is happening. The intellect has a notion of "Me." If I do not consider myself an intellectual person, any criticism related to intellectual abilities may not bother me much. But if I see myself as an intellectual person, I am likely to take such criticisms very seriously.

So, "Who I AM" is the center upon which the intellect bases its various conclusions. Whether something is perceived as "good" or "bad" is dependent on "Who I am." And this "Who I think I am" is really based on my self-conclusions, which are derived from my intellect.

The sole aim of Vedanta or Vedantic teaching is to align the "intellect" and intellectual disposition correctly, enabling us to perceive things accurately. In other words, it helps maintain balance and frees us from all forms of suffering. Vedanta provides this clarity, and as we delve deeper into this text, we will see how Vedanta can transform our lives once and for all.

An Example to Explain this Point Clearly:

The Story of the King Who Became a Beggar

There was once a king who disguised himself as a beggar to secretly roam his kingdom and understand the problems of his people. However, during his wanderings, he forgot his true identity and began to believe he was actually a beggar. He started living like one, completely unaware of his royal lineage.

His intellect now operated under the belief, "I am a beggar," instead of "I am a king pretending to be a beggar." This false belief led him into numerous troubles. He even tried various methods, including meditation, to escape his suffering, but nothing worked.

Eventually, he encountered his minister, who told him, "You are not a beggar; you are the king!" This revelation required the king to intellectually acknowledge his true identity. He needed to appreciate that he was not the beggar he believed himself to be, but the king. Once he accepted this intellectually, he needed to reclaim his kingdom. He did not need to do anything extraordinary to become the king again; he simply had to discard his mistaken identity as a beggar.

Initially, the king-turned-beggar did not believe the minister. However, he held some respect (sraddha) for the minister's words and was also fed up with his life as a beggar (vairagya). So he approached the minister and said, "Okay, I am ready to follow you. Please make me the king again."

The minister replied, "I cannot make you the king. You are the king."

The king-turned-beggar then said, "Okay, now show me how I am the king."

The minister began by convincing him intellectually, explaining, "You took on this disguise for a specific purpose. You did this and that, and now you're in this situation." Through this explanation, the beggar started to see himself as the king again (sravanam).

He returned to his humble hut (showing he was not yet fully convinced) and thought things over (mananam). Gradually, he became clearer in his understanding. Any doubts he had, he discussed with the minister and got them resolved.

The minister then said, "Now go to the palace and be the king. What more is there to do?"

With some hesitation, due to his long association with the beggar's life, he walked to the palace. As he entered, his understanding became firmer. However, he suddenly heard a loud shout and, thinking it was directed at him, he ran out. The minister reassured him, saying, "See, it's not about you. Someone else is being shouted at." Gaining confidence, the king decided to go back in (nidhidhyasana is living this truth and being free).

Slowly, he reclaimed his position and was completely free of his mistaken identity. He could now return and play the role of a beggar if he wished, but with full clarity of his true identity. The process of sravana (hearing), manana (reflection), and nidhidhyasana (deep meditation) were the steps he took to own his true self.

When he functioned from the understanding, "I am the king acting as a beggar," he never suffered from a lack of fulfillment, even if he received no money on a particular day. He remained fulfilled, knowing he was simply acting. However, when he operated from the belief, "I am a beggar," even receiving a little money made him feel like a "wanting individual."

Vedanta and the Role of the Guru

Vedanta functions in much the same way as the minister in the story. The guru acts as the minister, imparting the teachings of Vedanta, which convey the knowledge that "You are the King." This teaching aims to establish that we are ever fulfilled and free. This understanding is achieved by eliminating the notion of the "wanting person," allowing one to function from an inner sense of fulfillment.

A wise person is simply someone who operates from a state of fulfillment, as someone who has already reached their goal. An unfulfilled person can never become fulfilled, just as a seeker will never truly reach their destination, for the seeker is pursuing something that is omnipresent. Vedanta dismisses this constant seeking and leaves one as a person who is not "wanting" but is complete and whole (Purna) within themselves as they are.

This teaching helps us to truly "live" in the here and now. Let's explore how it aids us in doing so.

How Do I See Myself - What's My Self-Image?

When we experience something, we initially perceive the event as it is. Then, the mind processes it, generating various reactions or ideas about it. This means that even our notions of "me" are essentially mental constructs. My mind presents an image of "me" that reflects what I think I am. Whether we realize it or not, we view everything in this world, including ourselves, through the lens of our mind. We have no choice in this matter. So, when we view ourselves through our mind, what do we see? What is "me," according to me? This is a crucial question. How do I see myself?

It's important to understand that our entire world is shaped by how we perceive ourselves. If I see myself in a particular way, my experiences are colored by that perception. For example, someone who considers themselves a devotee sees God everywhere. Their mind is colored with "devotion."

We must grasp a fundamental point: it is always our mental world that affects us, not external perceptions. The perception or the "event" itself is neutral and lacks the ability to impact us directly. For instance, Prahlada cheerfully endured all the torture his father inflicted upon him, and Ramana remained untouched even when his body was ravaged by cancer.

What is my self-image? This question is critical for anyone who wants to lead a happy and satisfied life.

Discovering the Fulfilled Person Within:

This concept is both practical and essential. To lead a happy and satisfied life, I need to discover the fulfilled person within me. But how do I find this content and "happy" person inside, someone who lacks nothing? As I currently see myself, there are many things I feel I lack. There are numerous aspects that I believe could make me a better person. Maybe a better position, a nicer house, or more wealth could improve me? Doesn't this suggest that I am, in fact, lacking these things right now?

This is where Vedanta becomes relevant. Vedanta helps us see ourselves as fulfilled, even amid the things we perceive as lacking. It does not dismiss any of these perceived deficiencies, yet it teaches us to remain fulfilled regardless. This journey is an exploration into our true nature, helping us "discover" ourselves as we truly are. The assertion is that "We, as we are, are already Purna, Complete and Fulfilled." In other words, we lack nothing! This is a profound claim that requires thorough explanation. I ask the reader to allow me to delve into this in detail. For now, this section serves as a summary of what is to come—an abstract. The rest of this post will establish this claim, leaving no room for doubt.

Difference Between What I Have and What I Am:

The distinction between what I am and what I have is very significant. We often "define" ourselves based on our possessions, which makes us "small" or insignificant. Do we recognize the difference between what we have and what we are? For instance, if I say, "I have a dog," there is a world of difference compared to saying, "I am a dog." The former statement reflects sanity, while the latter indicates a serious misunderstanding of self. Isn't it?

While we may not literally say, "I am a dog," consider when we compare by saying, "My dog is better than your dog." The unspoken implication is, "Therefore, I am better than you." What have we done here? We have identified ourselves with what we possess and consequently lowered ourselves to the level of our dogs!

This is the crux of the problem. By comparing our possessions, we create feelings of inferiority, superiority, and all sorts of unnecessary judgments, hurting ourselves more than anyone else. When someone says, "My dog is an exotic breed," they derive their sense of fulfillment from that possession—in this case, the dog.

Most people might derive their sense of fulfillment from more expensive objects—perhaps their job, house, or car. The situation, however, isn't any better!

We need to carefully observe whether we derive our sense of "fulfillment" or satisfaction from any object. Depending on objects for our satisfaction is enough to lead a life of dissatisfaction.

Objects provide us with "comforts," not "happiness," "satisfaction," or a "sense of fulfillment."

Comfort is Not Fulfillment:

Suppose I come home on a very hot day and switch on the air conditioner. That brings comfort, a universal experience. Now, if the power fails, I experience discomfort.

Can we differentiate between "discomfort" and "unhappiness" and keep them separate?

The difference between discomfort and unhappiness is subtle. Externally, there are situations we prefer and those we do not. The example above illustrates this.

When an external situation is uncomfortable, can we keep the discomfort at the "external" level? In other words, when we face discomfort, we acknowledge it but do not dwell on it and turn it into suffering. When we perceive discomfort as making us unfulfilled and empty, that discomfort transforms into unhappiness. But when we accept and allow the discomfort to exist without internalizing it, it remains just that—a discomfort.

Imagine there is a power failure. I recognize the situation. If I can do something about it, I will. It is unpleasant, but I acknowledge it. If my efforts to change the situation are unsuccessful, I accept it and let it be. This attitude comes from understanding that while actions are within my control, results are not. This understanding helps me realize that I cannot control every outcome. If an uncomfortable result occurs despite my best efforts, it is wiser to accept it rather than fight it. This is intelligent living. Do not turn discomfort into unhappiness by "building upon it." If possible, take action; otherwise, accept it.

Let's explore this possibility by examining how we get affected by external events. What is the overall process through which objects or happenings impact us? And more importantly, who is this "me" that is getting affected?

Let's delve into it...

Fundamental Observations:

As I make these observations, we need to put aside the baggage of our preconceived ideas and see these truths as they are. They do not need validation against a set of preconceived notions or teachings, such as asking if this aligns with Ramana or Jiddu Krishnamurti. Just see the observation for what it is, as it is.

• Observation 1: No object can cause us a problem unless it becomes an object of our mind.
• Observation 2: Two objects collide at the same level. A physical object collides with a physical object, and a mental object can collide with a mental object. For example, a thought cannot collide with my chair but can collide with a mental image of a chair.
• Observation 3: A conflict is a collision. It occurs when two ideas, concepts, or objects collide. A mental conflict is a collision between two mental entities, such as two thoughts or two ideas.
• Observation 4: There are two kinds of thoughts: "Idam Vritti" ("this" thought), which is pure perception, and "Aham Vritti" (the "I" thought), which is my feeling, idea, or thinking about an event or what ought to have happened.
• Observation 5: When an event happens, the corresponding "Idam Vritti" or pure perception of that event is in the mind. The "Aham Vritti" arises and says, "I do not like it," "I want it this way," or "I love this," etc.
• Observation 6: A mental conflict arises when things are happening in one way, while I want them to happen in another way. In other words, it is a collision between "Aham Vritti" and "Idam Vritti." (Refer to Observation 3).

Case Study: Understanding Fear of Darkness

Let's take a case study to see these observations clearly.

Case Study:

We have considered six observations so far. Now, let’s take a simple case study to see how these observations make sense in context. The first case study we'll examine is: "I am afraid of darkness."

Observation 1: If I am unaware that I am in darkness, such as when I am in deep sleep, I cannot be afraid. I must recognize that I am in darkness for fear to arise. Therefore, darkness has to "enter" my mind as a thought or situation.

Observation 4: There is "Idam Vritti"—the thought of darkness, and "Aham Vritti"—the "I am afraid" thought present in my mind.

Observation 5: A series of thoughts arise as follows: Idam Vritti—"this darkness," "I don’t know what is there in the darkness," "I am all alone in the darkness," "I don’t like this," "I am afraid," etc. The Idam Vritti represents what is, while the Aham Vritti represents the "I" and what it says about the situation.

Observation 6: The darkness, or Idam Vritti, is simply as it is. The Aham Vritti comments on its discomfort with the situation.

Observation 3: The Idam Vritti and Aham Vritti collide. The Aham Vritti says, "I am not comfortable with this situation outside, which is darkness."

Observation 2: Only two Vrittis (mental modifications) are colliding. The physical darkness outside does not collide with me. The thought of darkness (Idam Vritti) does not collide with anything either. It is the Aham Vrittis that are colliding.

Who is this "I" That is Getting Affected?

Let's consider another case study. Imagine I am seated in meditation and I hear someone outside say, "This is a wonderful movie." Initially, I perceive this as a simple sound. Then a stream of thoughts follows: "They are watching a movie," "I am missing it," "They say it is a wonderful movie," "What could it be?" "Could it be my favorite movie?" "Oh! That movie I always missed," "The CD is not available," "But I should not get up from meditation."

Observe this sequence of thoughts carefully, as if in "slow motion." This is a very subtle analysis.

The initial perception is pure perception: Idam Vritti, or "this" thought.

The following thoughts contain an "I": Aham Vrittis, or "I" thoughts.

What is happening here?

Clearly, an Aham Vritti is not me, because I outlive it. A thought arises and disappears in the very moment. If I perished with a thought, there would be no one to have the next thought. So, I cannot be a thought. What is happening here? Aham Vritti is not me, and moreover, let’s consider two consecutive "I" thoughts: "I like that movie," and "I am missing it now." Is the "I" of the first thought the same as the "I" of the second thought?

They are parts of two different "I" thoughts and have no commonality. The first "I" and the second "I" are not the same person; they are two different entities, two different thoughts. It’s like a movie: a series of fast-moving static pictures creates the illusion of a continuous film. The first static picture and the second static picture are different, but the mind does not notice the gap. By the way, I am not suggesting that we should start focusing on the gaps. That is a good practice, but it’s not the point here.

The point is that there is no continuous entity between these "I" thoughts. There are only sparks of "I" thoughts that arise and die, but like a movie, they create the illusion of a continuous entity called "I."

The awareness, which is the uniform basis of all thoughts, is continuous. Its continuity is superimposed on the "I" thoughts, which are disjointed. There is really no entity called "I." There is only awareness within, and a few "I" thoughts happening like sparks and then disappearing. There is no continuity between them. Ah ah! Where is this "me" now?

Let's Explore Further with More Examples:

Let me reiterate what I just presented. When we watch a movie, there is no actual motion. What we are seeing is a series of static images that change rapidly, creating the illusion of movement.

The same concept applies within us. There is no continuous "I"—just a series of "I-thoughts" that arise and fade away in an instant. Each "I-thought" ceases to exist the moment it arises. So where is the "I"?

Imagine I am sitting in a room, and someone knocks on the door. I react. But if someone keeps knocking on the door of an empty room, who is there to respond? This body is like a room, and the sense organs are like the doors. External perceptions occur through these sense organs. When someone says something to me, it's like knocking on the doors of the room.

Inside, the "space" represents awareness or consciousness, and thoughts are like pebbles flying in the room, perhaps thrown from outside. If there is "someone" sitting in the room, the pebbles might hit and hurt them. However, the space itself is never harmed. When I identify as the space, no event can "hit" me!

Living a happy and satisfied life means living with a sense of fulfillment, without allowing a "lacking" person to form within. This "lacking" person is created by a series of "I-thoughts," as explained earlier.

These thoughts are like a series of static pictures that create the illusion of a movie. The illusion of a movie can only occur on a non-changing screen. Similarly, these changing thoughts create the illusion of a "me" against the backdrop of mental space, which is awareness.

When a "lacking me" is not allowed to form, life becomes fulfilling. If I form a relative identity within, that identity becomes something that can be affected.

We play various roles in our lives. To my father, I am a son; at my office, I am an employee; at home, I am a husband or wife, father, mother, etc. These are various roles we play. What are these roles based on? They are based on the "fictitious" "I" notion formed by "I-thoughts." So, these roles are just that—fictitious notions of "me."

When I function in one of these roles, I must be careful not to let the roles create a "lacking individual" within me.

Understanding These Ideas:

I hope these concepts are clear. Consider this: if someone says, "Your ideas are stupid," that does not mean, "I am stupid." If the ideas are indeed stupid, they can be validated and corrected. But having stupid ideas does not mean labeling oneself as stupid.

Similarly, if I have a brilliant idea, I should not label myself as brilliant. The ideas are brilliant or stupid; both exist in my presence.

Similarly, an action can be good or bad. I do not need to label myself as good or bad based on my actions. If an action is wrong, it can be corrected. If it is right, it can be repeated.

Labeling oneself based on actions as good or bad leads to guilt and pride. If we leave the labels with the actions, we can correct and improve upon them.

Do we see where this is leading?

The mind and body are ever imperfect, and we can improve upon them. We play various roles at the mental level, which are also imperfect. However, we need not let these imperfections touch the "me" who is playing these roles.

Playing various roles in life is like wearing different clothes. We wear various mental garments, the fictitious "I" formed by a series of "I-thoughts." Let’s not condemn the "I-thoughts" because, without them, we cannot function in the world and play our roles. Having a mental dress does not mean we must always wear it. The "I" thought can be used as a dress to play our respective roles in life while recognizing it as "Mithya" (an illusion), merely an appearance. This is liberated living. There is no "I" even when it appears. There is no "I" even when we function using it!

Consider playing a role in a drama: the role is not real, even when I play it. Similarly, the ego appears and remains an appearance. There is no need to remove it because it is always a shadow, a myth. There is no real entity called "I" as we have seen. Yet, for functional purposes, the appearance can be used.

How peculiar it is that thoughts, with their brief lifespan, can weave a web of fear, worry, and sorrow in our lives. There is no "I," only a few passing thoughts creating the illusion of an "I" that feels hurt, worried, and so forth. What needs to be addressed is not this "I." We do not need to stop it from appearing. All we need is the understanding that there is no real "I" even when a thought appears. It is just a shadow, a myth. This realization does not require any new experiences.

OM TAT SAT!

Where is the I ?

Let's take an example and see if there is a "I" really

Statutory Warning: All the "I"'s in this post are merely mithya and have no real resemblance to anything Real  

            I am seated in meditation and I hear from outside "This is a wonderful movie" . So at first I hear this as simple perception. Then the next thoughts: "they are watching a movie"; "I miss it";"it is a wonderful movie thye say"; "what could it be?" ; "could it be my fav. movie?" ; "oh! that movie i always missed"; "CD is also not available"; "but i should not get up from meditation" ...

Please see the stream of thoughts carefully. This is a very subtle analysis. The first perception is pure perception... its called idam vritti, this thought. The next few thoughts have an "I" in them ... they are called aham vrittis or "I" thoughts. What is happening here? Clearly an aham vritti is not me. Coz, i outlive it. thought comes and dies that very moment. This is what happens. Please observe this carefully and i am sure it will really work wonders during the actual attempt to do self inquiry. so, aham vritti cannot be me.

For example when t he thought "I miss this movie " arises, is there any such "I" apart from the thought? IF there was such an "I" apart from the thought, then the experience of that "I" should have been in the absence of the thought also. Since there is no such "I", we need the thought "I miss this movie" to really miss the movie! Now, that thought arises and passes away! What remains before and after that ? Awareness ! and Awareness does not have any of this "missing" . And then the next thought "I want to see this movie" arises. How is this thought getting connected with the previous thought?

Lets take two consecutive "I" thoughts: "I like that movie" ; "i miss it now" ... is the "I" of the first thought same as the "I" of the second thought? They are parts of two different "I" thoughts. they have no commonality. Please see this. The first "I" and the second "I" are not same persons. they are two different entities. two different thoughts. its like a movie. a series of fast moving static pictures create the illusion of a movie. the first static picture and the second static picture are different. but mind does not see the gap. BTW, i am not suggesting that we should start watching gaps. that’s a good practise, but that’s not the point here.

The point here is that there is really no continuous entity between these "I" thoughts ... there are only sparks of "I" thoughts that come and die... but like a movie ... they create the illusion of a continuous entity called "I". the awareness which is uniform basis of all thoughts is continuous and its continuity is superimposed on the "I"'s which are disjoint. there is really no entity called "I" !! There is only awareness within and a few "I" thoughts happening like sparks and dying there and then. there is no continuity between them. Do we see this carefully ? Its really a mistery that momentary thoughts are able to create trouble. The lifespan of a thought is a moment! A series of such momentary thoughts create a feeling that there is a continuous "I" thats getting affected by the events !!

Where is an "I" thats affected by the perceptions ? There is nothing like that. Only a few "I" thoughts which arise and pass away. The Sense of "I" is only a illusion created by a series of fast moving "I" thoughts. On a static movie scree a lot of still photos are projected -- and when they are projected at a fast enough pace, it appears as if there is a movie! Really speaking the continuity of the screen is "superimposed" on the thoughts ! The thoughts are momentary, they pass away. This is what is meant by saying that its a maya! How strange, momentary thoughts are able to create a web called samsara for us !! Self inquiry breaks this illusion.

Self inquiry is merely to break this sense of continuity. What one is expected to do is not ask "who am i" and wait for an answer ... but to simply shift attention towards the "Awareness" which is like the screen of the movie of these "I" thoughts and remain there. so one remains as awareness seeing that there is really no "I" ... only static and disjoint "I" thoughts occurring like sparks. every time an "I" thought arises, it has the tendency to build the train of thoughts and create the illusion of a continuous "I" entity. So, Self inquiry simply breaks this ... by shifting attention away from that thought and remaining as Awareness.

We shift attention to the subject of the "I" thought. That is Self inquiry. The moment attention is shifted to the subject, the "I" thought continuity is destroyed. what this does is breaks the tendency to create a train of thoughts ... and breaks the possibility of the creation of an "I" notion... which is anyway an illusion as seen from above analysis. thus one remains as awareness or with the sense of "I AM" which is the "I" of the "I", i.e., the Subject of the "i" thought ... or the Awareness. This is Self inquiry ... to remain without an "I" notion within... that means: there is awareness within, which is pure witness and there is this physical body which is jada and has no knowing of its own ... and there is no "I" within to fight with happenings etc.

There is really no "I", Awareness within and jada body outside thats all an a series of momentary "I" thoughts arising! Knowing this and being thus, there remains none to react to a happening. What IS, simply IS.