In the early days of my seeking, I was desperate to get to the bottom of spirituality. Intellectually I had to know what all these sages and guru’s had been taking about. They also said that the guru was always ‘in you’. I then made a model human who had a split mind.One that was personal and questioning ( which I called the Mind) and the other that was impersonal and answering that I called the GURU. This was only for the purpose of analysis or for pondering. The result of this discussion in the head was fascinating and this happened all in 10 minutes from my house to office while I was driving the car. How I reached office unaware of the drive was another question.
Discussion went on as follows :
Mind : What is it -that can remove -this sense of separateness- after I seem to have understood all the things that I have read about
Guru : The Most genuine answer is - Whatever creates this separateness.
Mind: This mind is always making a concept to understand things. The only last chance is -to make a concept that can transcend the mind.
Guru: What is your problem in ‘seeing’ or experiencing non- duality.
Mind : I don’t have any clear idea about what exactly it means. If I knew, I would have known it. The faintest idea that I have is that - We think the subject sees the object and the ''Realised' people ‘see’ this differently. ( I don’t know what they see).Guru : -Why do you see them separate in the first place. Where exactly do you see all these objects. Take a 'pen' for example. ( and replace it with objects, people or thoughts as required from time to time)Mind: At best, I can assume that I have a screen inside of me where this picture of the pen falls. I like to call it the mind screen.
Mind : Frankly speaking, posing this question has put me in confusion. However for sake of discussion or for practicality it may be assumed to be long screen covering head to heart.
Guru : That is not a bad idea. For a while we will work with this assumption. But do you have any faint idea of a particular spot in the body for this ‘mind –screen’-that sees the pen.Mind.: No idea of a particular spot. It could be in the head - like you say for data or the heart when attached with emotions or any other place. As long as I see it and know what I am seeing the purpose is served.Guru : Can we assume that this screen moves from head to heart automatically sensing some ‘thingness’ of the pen that can be linked to data or emotions?
Mind : It doesn’t matter, it is all the same. But Hold it a minute there. There is something fishy now. It's ok to sight the pen. But when I have to interpret this new point of view, - it seems now that the object which is the pen is simply the knowledge projected on the form and also a self projection as the subject or the ‘see-er’. Actually ‘our’ knowledge which is the mind screen is superimposed on the object and have become one. The mind is the object and its knowledge that is inseparable Now wait a minute. Where is the place for a ‘me’ here? What is happening. What my role now?Guru; Analyse some moreMind : If the I assume that the mind- screen was ‘I’ and ‘I’ became superimposed onto the object and inseparable from it, 'I' and the pen becomes one because 'I' seems to be at the pen and not in the body. That means the mind is formless taking shapes of all forms which is a powerful GOD like quality. Mind is everywhere.Guru : Was it not that you were taught that GOD is everywhere and in all things that you see?Mind: Now there seems to be some clarity. Guru : 'I' is a knowing mechanism, that is the essence of its own existence. It knows contents in the knowing, by being their knowing, and in a way that knowing is all there is, and knowing of being is the being just like knowing of pain is pain, and there cannot be a known apart from or separate from the knowing of it. So knowing of it is all there is. There are no contents, outside the knowing of the knowing of content. Mind: The last bit was easy to understand but difficult to experience. The knowing could not make into a content of knowing, because there are no contents 'as such' other than as a knowing of content. So knowing cannot be known. Its the unknown. lol
Guru: What is your problem in ‘seeing’ or experiencing non- duality.
Mind : I don’t have any clear idea about what exactly it means. If I knew, I would have known it. The faintest idea that I have is that - We think the subject sees the object and the ''Realised' people ‘see’ this differently. ( I don’t know what they see).Guru : -Why do you see them separate in the first place. Where exactly do you see all these objects. Take a 'pen' for example. ( and replace it with objects, people or thoughts as required from time to time)Mind: At best, I can assume that I have a screen inside of me where this picture of the pen falls. I like to call it the mind screen.
Mind : Frankly speaking, posing this question has put me in confusion. However for sake of discussion or for practicality it may be assumed to be long screen covering head to heart.
Guru : That is not a bad idea. For a while we will work with this assumption. But do you have any faint idea of a particular spot in the body for this ‘mind –screen’-that sees the pen.Mind.: No idea of a particular spot. It could be in the head - like you say for data or the heart when attached with emotions or any other place. As long as I see it and know what I am seeing the purpose is served.Guru : Can we assume that this screen moves from head to heart automatically sensing some ‘thingness’ of the pen that can be linked to data or emotions?
Mind : It doesn’t matter, it is all the same. But Hold it a minute there. There is something fishy now. It's ok to sight the pen. But when I have to interpret this new point of view, - it seems now that the object which is the pen is simply the knowledge projected on the form and also a self projection as the subject or the ‘see-er’. Actually ‘our’ knowledge which is the mind screen is superimposed on the object and have become one. The mind is the object and its knowledge that is inseparable Now wait a minute. Where is the place for a ‘me’ here? What is happening. What my role now?Guru; Analyse some moreMind : If the I assume that the mind- screen was ‘I’ and ‘I’ became superimposed onto the object and inseparable from it, 'I' and the pen becomes one because 'I' seems to be at the pen and not in the body. That means the mind is formless taking shapes of all forms which is a powerful GOD like quality. Mind is everywhere.Guru : Was it not that you were taught that GOD is everywhere and in all things that you see?Mind: Now there seems to be some clarity. Guru : 'I' is a knowing mechanism, that is the essence of its own existence. It knows contents in the knowing, by being their knowing, and in a way that knowing is all there is, and knowing of being is the being just like knowing of pain is pain, and there cannot be a known apart from or separate from the knowing of it. So knowing of it is all there is. There are no contents, outside the knowing of the knowing of content. Mind: The last bit was easy to understand but difficult to experience. The knowing could not make into a content of knowing, because there are no contents 'as such' other than as a knowing of content. So knowing cannot be known. Its the unknown. lol
Guru : Is there is feeling of seeing this pen in your head or Is it being seen in your heart.
Mind : Now this is a new twist and funny question too. Why is the question posed in this manner. What’s the logic behind this division at the neck.
Guru : When you see this pen with a lot of data, the screen seems to be in the head. If you have to see this pen with a lot of emotions attached to it, the screen seems to be shifting close to the heart.
Mind: I can accept such a automated movement.
Guru : Since it seems to be a wireless screen that moves on its own, does it make any difference if the screen is shifted -a little -outside of the body -say -a little behind the body. If this be so, how would you analyse the new situation?
Mind: Makes sense because in this situation, other than the pen, my body parts also seem to be taken care on the screen as I am seeing them all. The shift in way of imagination is a seems a good and practical move.
Guru : What if the mind -screen is slowly shifted backward and around the
body and put on to the pen itself so that the screen is ‘on the pen’.
No comments:
Post a Comment