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 ?
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:
- When the Antahkarana is engaged in remembering something, it is called memory or "Cittam."
- When it operates in the "I am the Doer" mode, it is known as "Ahamkara," the "I" thought.
- When it functions in the form of "Sankalpa-Vikalpa" (positive thoughts or doubts and dispersed behaviors), it is referred to as "Manas," the mind.
- 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:
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!
