locus of avidya: the story of mr.pott

To understand the issue of where is the locus for avidya let us take a story of a pot, lets say his name is Mr.Pott.

Mr.Pott is in reality clay, the same clay that all other claypots are. He takes himself to be only the pot. As long as he entertains a notion that he is a pot he is small, he has aged 20 years since he was born, lives in a poor home, has lost some of the colour on his head, etc.. Now avidya is Mr.Potts ignorance about himself not being just a pot, but in reality being clay. And as clay he is neither born nor will he die - na jaayate mryate va kadacit.. Now if you ask who does this ignorance belong to? The answer is - it belongs to Mr.Pott. Well isnt Mr.Pott clay? Yes. Then does the ignorance belong to clay. No. The clay never has anything really to do with the "pot notion", although without the clay, the pot cannot have any subtantive existence.

Well then isnt Mr.Pott also a pot.
Yes
Then does the ignorance belong to the pot.
No again.
The pot by itself is nothing but clay.
Then who is Mr.Pott.
He is the I-sense that feels itself to be "a" pot separate from clay, and doesnt recognize itself to be clay even though all along it is clay, and nothing but clay.

When did it get ignorant? This is a wrong question because it assumes an absence of ignorance prior to the onset of ignorance which is impossible.
Who needs the right knowledge to get liberated?
The clay? No
The pot? No
Mr.Pott - Yes!

When you say avidya is lighted by atman you are linking two things which share no relation really. It is like saying the clay lights up Mr.Potts ignorance. Assigning a locus for avidya is possible only when there are two distinct realities - not when both pot and clay are in essence one. For example, there are two sides to a coin, and yes - you can assign a locus to the head - one side vs the other. In the case of avidya, this cannot be done - because what is real, what IS is always the clay alone.

The pot is nondifferent from clay. If you mark a large "X" on the pot are you marking it on clay or the pot? If you say the pot, then one can say, OK remove the clay and lets see the X mark on the pot now - see the difficulty in doing this? The X marks are none other than mind, intellect, etc etc. Yes they all belong to the pot- but there really is no pot - only clay! What Mr.Pott needs to realize is that he is not the pot, that these marks he thinks are his are also in reality nothing but clay which he himself his. There is no question of the clay needing to make the pot-ignorance of Mr.Pott its object. How can you objectify ignorance? It is truly absurd to postulate.

And for the sake of argument even if one were to do this, then that means you had ignorance about ignorance itself - because now that ignorance has been resolved, and this can only result in infinite regress.. Who will see this ignorance for what it is? Certainly not the clay for which there never is ignorance. Certainly not the pot which is not even existent Certainly not Mr.Pott because he himself already IS what he is ignorant about. To use a different analogy, it is like saying the tenth man must first see his ignorance about being the tenth man as an object before he can be satisfied that he indeed is the tenth man.

Avidya is never "real". It is not "unreal" either because after all poor Mr.Pott thinks he is small and old, and in so doing reveals the workings of avidya. But this is a mere notion on his part. With the dawn of knowledge from an appropriate means of knowledge (i.e.Ma Shruti), this ignorance is once and forever dispelled. He realizes he is clay, not then, in the future, but in and through all times forever in the past and forever in the future. And again, ignorance did not "create" the pot. The clay is the ONLY material cause for the pot. Mr.Pott's ignorance about him being a limited pot is beginingless and hence there is no creation of someone creating it as we have already seen.

The adhyasa is this only - that Mr.Pott mistakes the pot for a pot without realizing it is clay. As clay not only is he immortal, but he is nonseparate from the whole clay-universe, and, to go one step further, the entire clay-universe is arising from him alone and will dissolve unto him alone. "Mayyeva sakalam jaatam.. mayyeva sakalam jaatam mayi sarvam pratishtitam, mayi sarvam layam yaati.."
The recognitions
- I am clay and hence not limited by my notion of being a pot.
- The entire world is nothing but clay and hence nonseparate from me, and rather than I being a product of the world as i had originally thought, i am actually the very substratum on which this whole universe of pots is seemingly created and destroyed.
- I the clay alone am
are all in essence one and the same recognition. One cannot realize one of these three realities without being "Realized" about the other two. In that sense there is no differentiating on the basis of a scorecard, any of the Great Masters, Seers, and Prophets who have come to this realization.

Suffice to say, the simplest and really the only answer to any question on avidya's locus will be "i" or me. "i" who is ignorant am the locus of avidya because "i" know not that really speaking "i" am "I"

the pure form of brahman

Everything we see/perceive IS Atman or Brahman. It already is Brahman as it is. In fact it alone IS.

The plurality we perceive, we experience, we objectify is not "hiding" or "covering" Brahman - it IS verily Brahman. This has to be very clearly understood.

Let us take the example of a flower. What do you see? A flower. What do you really see? Brahman. Then what is flower? It is a nAma-rUpa - name and form. Is it for a nanosecond different from Brahman? No. In order to see its "Brahmanness" in an unalloyed, pure and pristine form, do I need to remove the corolla, the corona, the pistils, the stamen, etc. one by one because they are not letting me see the Brahmanness in the flower? Of course not. The flower IS Brahman in its pure form. It is only in understanding that we say the flower is Brahman plus "flower" nAma-rUpa. In reality there is no "plus". There is no "flower" other then Brahman. In fact there is only Brahman.

How many times is this idea repeated in the Upanishads?

IshAvAsyam idam sarvam - All this IS Ishvara.

Omityetadaksharamidam sarvam - Om IS the whole of this universe.

sarvam khalvidam brahma - All this IS Brahman.

Every leaf, every drop of water, every cloud in the sky, every object, animate and inanimate, is all Brahman. Whatever you perceive at any time at any place is only Brahman and nothing but Brahman.

And the Self or Brahman is ever-pure, ever-pristine. Impurity is possible only when there is duality. When one alone IS, where is the question of impurity in relation to it? This has to be clearly understood.

Any concepts of an impure form of Brahman, adulterated form of Brahman, partially pure form of Brahman, purest form of Brahman, real form of Brahman, need to be completely squashed, if we are to progress in our right understanding of Vedanta. In fact Atman is formless. What then would it mean to talk about a pure form??

Let us take the example of a clay pot. The potness is only a notion. The pot is clay. There is no "pure" form of clay that needs to be objectively experienced to know that the pot is a nAma-rUpa only for clay. The clay pot IS clay in its pure form. The potness is only in the (mis) understanding.

Now suppose there is a particular "form of clay" which is available for viewing in Vaikuntha or Kailasha or is available for special viewing between 9am to 10am (like a matinee show). If this clay is in essence any different from the clay that constitutes the clay pot then the two clays are decidedly different. Then the statement all this (in the pot world) is verily clay becomes unsubstantiated. If all this is clay is a truth in the pot world then every pot IS clay. Every pot is "pure" clay.

Now another point. The pot does not cover the clay. The pot CANNOT cover clay. For the pot to cover clay it needs existence. The "pot" borrows its notional existence from clay. Something unreal cannot "cover" something real. In the pa~ncha kosha prakriyA, when we negate the gross body, we do not need to peel off our skins to know what is underneath - it is a "negation" only in the understanding that this gross body is non-separate from the vastu and does not exist separate from the vastu. Not for a moment should we think of the gross or the subtle body in any way "covering" the Atman.

In the immortal verse (7) from the mANDUkya upaniShat:

turIya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non-dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (turIya). This is the Atman and this has to be known.

The Atman can NEVER be objectified. It can never be perceived. It can never be inferred. It is not a "mass of consciousness" It is the Subject, the Witness, the Self. This has to be known or realized.

Hari OM Shri Gurubhyo namah, Shyam

a vegetarian diet

The food which caters to people with differing temperaments is clearly listed by Bhagwan Krishna in the Gita. ayuh-sattva- balarogya- sukha-priti- vivardhanah rasyah snigdhah sthira hrdya aharah sattvika-priyah Aharah, foods; ayuh-sattva- bala-arogya- sukha-priti- vivardhanah, that augment life, firmneess of mind, strength, health delight; [Life-a brilliant life; firmness of mind or vigour; strength-ability of body and organs; happiness-pleasure of mind; delight-great joy even at seeing other persons prosperous.] and which are rasyah, succulent; snigdhah, oleaginous; sthirah, substantial, lasing in the body for long; [Beneficial to the body for long.] and hrdyah, agreeable, to one's liking; are sattvika-priyah, dear to one endowed with sattva. katv-amla-lavanaty- usna- tiksna-ruksa- vidahinah ahara rajasasyesta duhkha-sokamaya- pradah Aharah, foods; ayuh-sattva- bala-arogya- sukha-priti- vivardhanah, that augment life, firmneess Foods that are katu-amla-lavana- atyusna-tiksna- ruksa-vidahinah, very bitter, sour, salty, very hot, pungent, dry [Without fat.] and burning; and duhkha-soka- amaya-pradah, which produce pain, sorrow and disease; [Pain, immediate suffering; sorrow, grief arising from not having that desired food.] are rajasasyaistah, dear to one having rajas. yata-yamam gata-rasam puti paryusitam ca yat ucchistam api camedhyam bhojanam tamasa-priyam Bhojanam, food; which is yata-yamam, not properly cooked [Yata-yamam lit. means 'crooked three hours ago', that which has lost its essence; but here it is translated as 'not properly cooked to avoid tautology, for the next word gata-rasam, too, means lacking in essence.-Tr. ] (-because food that has lost its essence is referred to by the word gatarasam-); gata-rasam, lacking in essence; puti, putrid; and paryusitam, stale, cooked on the previous day and kept over-night; and even ucchistam, ort, remnants of a meal; and amedhyam, that which is unfit for sacrifice;- this kind of food is tamasa-priyam, dear to one possessed of tamas. Not only does this mean that these foods are liked by people of the varying temperaments but also, on the flip side, these foods develop the respective qualities in the individual. For example consuming spicy food tends to make a person get better endowed with rajas while alcohol no doubt helps the tamasic qualities in an individual gain ground. Hence Bhagawan Shankara prefaces these slokas by saying "The liking of persons possessing the qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas for foods that are divided into three groups, viz succulent, oleaginous, etc., is respectively being shown here so that, by knowing the presence of the qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas (in oneself) from the indications of the degree of one's preference for particular foods as are succulent, oleaginous, etc., one may avoid foods having the characteristics of rajas and tamas, and accept food with the characteristics of sattva." The food we consume has three constituents - the first portion that caters to the tongue or the organ of taste, - and whether it is samosas or chocolate this is the portion that drives our eating for the vast majority of us the second portion caters to the gross body - this is what is medically known as carbs,fat,protein, caloric value,etc. the third portion caters to the subtle body - this principle is of course outside the realm of objective science, but is endorsed by our scriptures as well as can be a matter of our own experience. Consuming sattvic foods will make the mind-intellect develop sattvic qualities, and so on. So when prescribing food for a warrior who needs to have great valor, bravery, and hence a predominantly rajasic temperament, rajasic food is of course best. But for someone who wants to undertake a study of vedanta, and study and understand the subtle turths about his own nature, wants to lead a life of contemplative self-enquiry, the best diet is one that is sattvic. A rajasic temperament will ease our mind to stray in a hundered directions and a tamasic temperament will ease it into sleep or dullness. A alert, pleasant, sattvic mind endowed with sufficient vitality is the most ideal mind for undertaking atmavichara. What are some dietary items that fit the sattvic qualities listed - fresh fruits, cooked vegetables, milk and milk products such as ghee, butter, yogurt, sweets - all this fall in this category. They are pleasant to eat as well. Now vegetariansim is not specifically mentioned - but can be inferred by two ways. One of course is that no meat products will ever fit into the "sattvic" mould, based on the qualities listed. Secondly, in the 13th chapter, Bhagwan has clearly listed ahimsa as one of the foremost qualities in a ideal student. Ahimsa is nonviolence. There is no meat-eating without violence, without killing another living being. There is of course no two thoughts about this. Now one may argue that even plants are living things, and there is certainly himsa involved in killing them as well. Let us consider this. First of all, when we eat fruits and vegetables, these are products of the plant which will go to waste eventually. The ripe fruit will at some point simply drop off from the plant and so as far as fruits and vegetables go, there is no violence to the plant itself. Moreover, the plant is not something which has an advanced level of consciousness that enables it to feel fear,pain, and distress unlike say a lamb or a cow. Many people who consume meat will choose not to consume it on certain holy days or occasions - showing that there is a part of them that does regard this practice as being less desirable. Sant Kabir writes with his characteristic conviction: "They fast all day, and at night they slaughter the cow; here murder, there devotion; how can this please God? O' Kazi, by whose order doth thou use thy knife." "When you declare the sacrifice of an animal as your religion, what else is sin. If you regard yourself a saint, whom will you call a butcher ?" So clearly, the writings are clear. Vegetarianism is a well-accepted and universal recommendation for a spiritual seeker. At the same time, being judgemental about people who do not embrace it is also best avoided. Being vegetarian does not make you a saint nor does consuming meat a demon - far from it. With regards to the valid point about all this being movement in the one or "all this is brahman" - this is actually a beautiful sloka from the Gita that many Hindus recite prior to the meal "Brahmarpanam Brahma Havir Brahmagnau Brahmana Hutam Brahmaiva Tena Ghantavyam Brahmakarma Samadhinaha" "The act of offering is Brahman, the oblation is Brahman By Brahman it is offered into Brahman." The point here is - yes - the eater, the eating and the eaten are all the One, but when you regard yourself as a eater, then you are already in duality - what you intend to eat cannot then be clubbed into a homogeneous set. One has to exercise choice in this regard. Finally I understand our innate discomfort at "standing out" - its always a bit awkard to declare your choice in the midst of people who dont understand. This is almost as true for alcohol as well - most people in the West would consider not consuming alcohol as being an oddity as well ("not even wine?" is a common question) This of course should not be just cause for us to indulge in alcohol. Standing up for what you believe to be right and drawing a line for what you think is acceptable for you is a must for us as seekers, and I think there are plently of people who will appreciate you for it as well. If one wishes to not inconvenience one's host, one can always find something to eat which is vegetarian, or better eat and then go! Moreover this also forces you to an extent to develop satsangati - a friend circle consisting of people who share your beliefs and value-structures.

selfworth vs pride

There is a subtle but crucial difference between self-esteem and pride, between self-worth and vanity. Pride, vanity, arrogance are all related to external features- either real as in the case of pride or imagined – as in the case of vanity. So pride has for its basis a very extra zeros in your bank account, a few extra letters in your title, position, power, etc. It is fickle – meet with someone with an extra zero or an extra title and it is pricked, quickly metamorphosing into its other side – envy and jealously. Self-esteem and self-worth are attributes that have for their basis my own view of myself. I find myself acceptable. I find myself worthy – not by yardsticks that others may draw – but in my own eyes. My self-esteem is intrinsic, and never related to anything I possess materially. Hence money, power, possessions may come and go but if my self-image is strong then these do not significantly dent it. Self-image is enhanced by a life lived with values. I may be poor but if I have lived a life with a commitment to values and principles I hold dear or regard highly, then my self-image is decidedly positive. An ideal student of vedanta is cheerful with a healthy dose of self-esteem, with a positive self-image, who does not look down upon himself, or consider himself inferior. So while we expectedly condemn "ego" as a manifestation of abhimana or pride let us not forget that selfrespect or swabhimana is also a manifestation of the very-same ego. A student who was a failure as a student, could never work hard, has been a chronic underachiever, has been perennially unsatisfied, and lacks the guts and gumption to affect positive changes in his life, and develops a disillusionment to the world, and condemns himself – he certainly does not have much of an "ego" - but this is not someone who is anywhere close to being fit for Vedanta. His disillusionment is not the vairagya that stems from a mature outlook to life, that stems from viveka. In fact there is a danger of vedantic teachings of jagat is mithya etc being misinterpreted by such a tamasic individual. So encouraging the growth of a healthy ego or a healthy sense of self-esteem right from childhood is a very positive thing. An everything that builds this self-worth – that helps enhance a person's self-image – has a role – values play a role, scholastic endavors play a role, music and dance play a role, - nothing is unimportant if the attitude is right. Take Arjuna's case – he was an archer par excellence and of course took great pride in that knowledge – he was known to conquer sleep – as he would keep practicing all-night long – all this had its importance in building his sense of esteem – had he been a failure of an archer – his chosen calling - he would have never achieved success either in a materialistic realm nor in the spiritual. Vedanta as a teaching has ever been a "Royal secret". This is because it really is not for everyone. A certain evolution in thought and a maturity in outlook is necessary – paramount is the birth of a seeker who is able to recognize he is searching. Only then can an enquiry begin. And then alone can Vedanta help. Again, take Arjuna's case – Krishna had been his friend for so many years and yet never chose to clue him into the deeper meaning of life, even in the least bit. Not until Arjuna came to him in a spirit of surrender and asking for help was this teaching unfolded. The point is - efforts at spreading the message of vedanta to youth in a general way or a mass-marketing if you will may not necessarily be either appropriate or useful. Having said that the Gita does teach us how to live intelligently. It teaches the student to be objective in life, and this helps him or her to deal with the numerous situations- positive and negative - that he or she faces throughout the struggle and journey we call life. Fame/name are achieved not by seeking them for their sake but by dedicated and diligent hard work done efficiently and intelligently. This is exactly what the Gita's teachings help with. The best advice we can give students is to work hard, avoid complacency and laziness, value discipline, set lofty goals, dream big, and uphold ethics and values more than anything else. Life itself will lead them towards vedanta, if they remain true to their ideals.

free will

Everything in srshti is Ishwara's order. Time, the laws of nature,
the forces of gravity, the properties of atoms, the physiological
functions of the body, the laws of action and result, Death, etc etc
are all wonderfully perfect only because they are all in accordance
with the Supreme order.
In fact Ishwara's order is non-separate from Ishwara - the order
verily is Ishwara.
When I feel a pulse on my wrist more than a pulse i am feeling the
order that is Ishwara Himself. Similairly when you perceive a rising
Sun, that verily is Ishwara

Now part of this Divine order is icchashakti and kriyashakti - the
former being peculiar to humans.

As a result of this alone humans are endowed with free will, whether
we like it or not [- it is a negative because it can lead us into
adharma -(Duryodhan's famous assertion - "i know what is dharma and
i know what is adharma but there is something that impels me as it
were to adharma") and it is a positive because it alone leads us to
dharma and ultimately to moksha.]

Now this free will being a Divine expression is ever a Divine free
will - it is ever a impersonal tool of Ishwara as you rightly point
out.

However when tainted as it were with man's raga-dveshas, arising out
of beginingless avidya, it is then that it can be said to be a man's
free will as we understand it.

Free will + raga dvesha = "man's will"
Free will - raga dvesha = "divine will"

So when we do anything we are doing it impelled by our vasanas, and
our ragadveshas. We have many occasional where we failt o understand
what is "the right thing to do" - we can only surrender at those
times to Ishwara and pray that whatever steps we are thinking of
undertaking are in keeping with dharma, in keeping with His order
and for this we need him to bless us with sat-buddhi.

Now let us apply this to a jnani. Since to a Mahatma like Bhagwaan
Ramana Maharshi His ego-identification has ended as it were, He no
longer has any raga-dvesha - binding likes or dislikes. It is
the "binding" likes and "binding" dislikes that produce karma and
consequently karmaphala. The earth is not doing any karma by
revolving around the sun, even though moving - as such its movement
is in perfect accordance with Ishwara's order.

Simialirly whatever karmas a jnani performs, whatever free will He
exercises, whatever words He speaks, and whatever thoughts He thinks
are, by their very nature, with no effort whatsoever on His part,
dharma - they are not in violation of the order that is Ishwara - in
fact they are the shining jewels of Ishwara's order representing the
very best and the most beautiful and the most exalted of everything
in Ishwara's srshti.

Faith or shraddha

Shraddha is the very basis for self-enquiry.

Sefenquiry and scientific enquiry differ because the
means employed are different.

Any knowledge (pramaa) needs a valid means of
knowledge. You are surely more wellversed than me with
the six accepted pramanas - Pratyaksha (perception),
Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison), Arthapatti
(assumed postulated inference), Anupalabdhi
(non-apprehension), and Sabda (authoritative word).

Of them anupalabdhi and upamana, of course, do not
apply to knowledge of something that is existence
itself, and, nondual respectively.

Similairly arthapatti and anumana(which of course
includes invariable concomitance) would also not be
valid means of universal knowledge of the vastu for
obvious reasons.

That leaves pratyaksha and sabda.

Cognition of Brahman as an object is of course never
possible (and without sabda cognizing it as our own
self is similairly not possible.)

That leaves sabda or agama - the authoritative word -
which word - of Ma shruti alone. Without shraddha in
the shruti as a valid independent and indeed
benevolent means of knowledge one cannot attain
selfknowledge.

If i have shraddha in my eyes as a pramana, and see a
flower in my hands, I "know" it is a flower, even if a
hundred others tell me i picked up a fruit not a
flower. That is shraddha in the pramana.

For a student of physics to understand e=mc2 requires
him to make his intellect fully available for the
enquiry, but he can choose to fully keep his ego
safely intact, raise all manners of objections, and if
possible, try his hardest to disprove the teaching
based on accepted rules and laws of mathematics and
physics.

Not so with an enquiry into the self. The foremost
requirement of shraddha is sharanaagati or surrender -
my Ego(or ahankara) is surrendered at the doorstep of
the Guru - I come to Guru and shruti with a complete
acknowledgement of my helplessness in having any other
valid means of knowledge and hence a full and
resounding "faith" in the teachings that will ensure
forth. I may leave ego at the doorstep but certainly
need to bring my intellect to the table and hear the
teachings in a logical framework. I still should issue
forth doubts and counterquestions - but - the
difference is - these are in no way intended to
disprove the teachings themselves or question their
validity - but these are to help me gain clarity about
the teaching - the validity of which i have already
fully accepted.

My only reassurance, if you will, is my Guru (and
other realized Seers both present and in the past)
whom this teaching has, as surely as the Sun shines,
blessed and continues to bless. "If it worked for
them, it will work for me"

So doubt I must, and frequently, but within the
overall construct of faith, so the very clearing of
the doubts serves to enhance the clarity of what my
faith knows to be true. Your doubt isn't the opposite
of your faith; it is an element of faith. As Gibran
puts it -
"Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his
twin brother."

Hence shraddha.

Is shraddha ever tested? Only in the sense that no
person without this key ingredient has ever attained
selfknowledge "shraddhavaan labhate jnanam - the man
of faith attains knowledge" and the doubter never
attains peace, neither here nor in the hereafter.


Reasoning, without shraddha is philosophy, and will
ever be at best a wonderful passtime with no end in
sight.
Shraddha, without reasoning is blind faith, with no
possibility of transformation into understanding and
release.
Reasoning and shradhha without devotion is dry enquiry
and will not transform understanding into realization.

does devotion or bhakti have a role in nonduality?

The bhakti that is talked about in a vedantic context is parabhakti -
devotion for the sake of devotion, a severe longing of seeking oneness
with Ishwara - not the bhakti which asks Ishwara to bless me with a
better job, etc.
This form of bhakti is not an option. Why? Any option is volitional.
I can choose to either take tea or coffee - it is an exercise of my
free will. Bhakti is not volitional. I cannot get up one fine day and
say "You know I am not happy with how my sadhana is progressing, let
me buy some camphor and incense sticks and start practicing bhakti
today" It does not work that way.
You cannot write a instruction manual of "How to practice bhakti"
or "How to develop bhakti." You dont find bhakti - if you are lucky
and God's and Guru's grace is smiling on you, bhakti finds you.
Says the Narada Bhakti Sutra "Primarily,however, one develops bhakti by the mercy of great souls, or by a small drop of the Lord's mercy!

Try as you might you cannot take bhakti out of the equation in
vedanta.
You can take a stance and say I am only seeking my true Self, not
Ishwara - well your true self is Ishwara, and in fact Lord Krishna
will say you are his favorite bhakta, because you are trying to be
one with Him who is your inner self alone.
The Ganges as it runs along at some point may get an idea that all
this running it is doing is perhaps ultimately going to lead it
somewhere - the closer it gets to its destination it may get a small
glimpse of the ocean and in that glimpse develops a reverential
attitude - to what? - to the very source it is going to lose its
identity in! This reverential attitude that spontaneously develops in
the heart of a seeker as he gets closer to the goal is what is
parabhakti. You cannot cultivate it, you cannot will it, it is not a
matter of choice!

The clouds on a really cloudy day mask the sun completely, but as
they start to clear even a little bit, you have an unmistakable
glimpse of the sun.

Similair is it in atmavichara. What blinds us from Ishwara, our own
self, is our own thick cloud of avidya in the form of this five
hundred pound Egosense.
Once this egosense starts to be cut at by means of shastra shravana
and mananam, automatically, a faint glimpse of the destination takes
effect in your antahkaranam, and this is the initial sprouting of
parabhakti. You cannot will it to happen. If it has not happened,
there is one and only one reason - the ego cloud cover is still very
dense, the destination is still likely very far away.

At no time in the search nor at any time after the search is this
parabhakti sublated, let alone sublation of Ishwara. If one sublates
or annihilates Ishwara then why should any jnani, even a single
jnani, be a devotee?? And yet you find each and every one of them to
be inspirations to us seekers for bhakti. Bhakti even to a jnani is
nonvolitional - it is inherent to his very corebeing. Our innermost
self is Ishwara. There is no getting away from this - no mater which
creation model you use. So a statement that "Ishwara is sublated" at
some advanced stage of my development has to be understood in the
context of "my egosense of being an entity separate from Ishwara is
sublated" - in other words "Shivoham Shivoham" not the other way
round

Forgiveness

Forgiveness is one of the qualities we find hardest to develop.

Most of the time we are unable to be forgive because we feel our hurt, our resentment, our anger, our hatred is justified. Justified by what? by the other person's actions.

The trouble is this - the action "was" the "other's" and the negative feelings "is" "mine" - its my mind which is tied up in the threads of hurt, my heart which still smolder with the embers of a fire that should have been put out a long time ago.

Forgiveness is about letting go.
I recognize there is a poison in my heart. It needs to be purged. There is nothing I can do about the past. What I can do is make my present more fragrant so my future becomes more meaningful. And the smokescreen that is erected by my firm holding on to the past is never going to allow my present to manifest its fragrance. A firm and gentle goodbye to the past is what is in my own self-interest.

Forgiveness is about understanding. Whatever any one does is because that particular individual at that point in time in those peculiar set of circumstances could have done that and that only. This is because whether we like it or not, there is a perfect Order that is set in place here, and everything that happens is ever in accordance with that Order alone. The other person's actions are no doubt heinous. But perhaps if i had the upbringing that he or she did, the temperament, the value structure, the social environment etc etc then my own actions may have been exactly the same.

Forgiveness is about acceptance. The past is a ghost. It has no existence save our remnances. There is nothing about it i can change. What i can do is wish it goodbye and move on. The present is ever here, every moment, waiting for me. To embrace it, i need to accept the death of the past. There is ever a resistance towards forgetting the past. This resistance stifles my growth as an individual. Resisting this resistance only creates more resentment. Acceptance is the only antidote to the poison of resistance and forgiveness is the only key to acceptance.

Forgiveness is about learning. We often mistake that by forgiving we will not learn from our mistakes. The truth is to the exact contrary. Forgiveness helps us be objective about the past. It removes our negatively distorted view about things. We see why things turned out the way they did and what we can do to prevent this from happening in the future to the extent possible. We have to learn to forgive and forgive to learn.

Forgiveness is about being strong. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi "The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
It takes courage to forgive. It takes a mature outlook that is not afraid to let go. Deep inside we are afraid to let go of the unpleasant - there is fear of this loss. Overcoming this fear takes courage and strength.

From a vedantic perspective, the person who has caused you hurt has in a way done you a favor. He has helped you examine your own capacity to hate, to be angry, he has helped test your mettle, your capacity to act and not react, he has helped measure the depths of your forgiving spirit. After all only pain can help you guage your capacity to withstand pain. Moreover pain and hurt much more than pleasure is what motivates man to enquire, to reflect, to seek.

On a final note, forgiveness applies most importantly to one-self. Self-forgiveness is an extremely important quality esp for a student of vedanta. As a severely limited ignorant entity, i am guilty of an infinite number of transgressions of omission and comission, many known and most unknown. There are so many things i knowingly did wrong, people I knowingly hurt, or perhaps did care enough about, or said the wrong things to, etc etc. Is it ever possible for me to settle accounts with each and every one of them? Most are no longer in my life, some may no longer be in this world. How am I do purge myself of this guilt? For the same negatives that we associate with hurt are exactly applicable to guilt. There is fortunately one way to settle the score. And that is Ishwara. Settle our accounts with Ishwara and in one sweep we settle our infinite debts. "O All-Knowing Lord, in my ignorance have i been guilty of multiple acts of omission and commission in body, speech and mind. O Ocean of compassion, forgive them" "karacharaNakRitaM vaakkaayajaM karmajaM vaa
shravaNanayanajaM vaa maanasaM vaa.aparaadham; vihitamavihitaM vaa sarvametatkshmasva jaya jaya karuNaabdhe shrii mahaadeva shambho"
This acknowledgement of our own incapacity slowly frees us from the sense of our "do-ership". This in turn helps us accept the present with cheer and accept the future without pervasive anxiety. What we get and will receive will be nothing but His prasad, the very fruits of my own past deeds which are being bestowed on me by His Order and my only prayer to Him is strength, that i may accept them - with cheer.

A cheerful accepting mind and disposition has been always considered a MUST for any student who wishes to proceed along the delicate path of self-enquiry.

Thus is forgiveness one of the most treasured qualities that a sincere seeker of the truth would do well to nourish and nurture.

Hari OM
Shri Gurubhyo namah
Shyam