Behind My Hand

31-1-1935 Talk 21. Mr. Ellappa Chettiar, a member of the Legislative Council of Madras Presidency and an influential Hindu, asked: “Why is it said that the knowledge born of hearing is not firm, whereas that born of contemplation is firm?” M.: On the other hand it is said that hearsay knowledge (paroksha) is not firm, whereas that born of one’s own realisation (aparoksha) is firm. It is also said that hearing helps the intellectual understanding of the Truth, that meditation makes the understanding clear, and finally that contemplation brings about realisation of the Truth. Furthermore, they say also that all such knowledge is not firm and that it is firm only when it is as clear and intimate as a gooseberry in the hollow of one’s palm. There are those who affirm that hearing alone will suffice, because a competent person who had already, perhaps in previous incarnations, qualified himself, realises and abides in peace as soon as he hears the Truth told him only once, where

Bhakti, vichara, japa are only different forms of our efforts to keep out the unreality. The unreality is an obsession at present. Reality is our true nature. We are wrongly persisting in unreality, that is, thoughts and worldly activities. Cessation of these will reveal the Truth. Our attempts are directed towards keeping them out. It is done by thinking of the Reality only. Although it is our true nature it looks as if we are thinking of the Reality. What we do really amounts to the removal of obstacles for the revelation of our true Being. Meditation or vichara is thus a reversion to our true nature. D.: Are our attempts sure to succeed? M.: Realisation is our nature. It is nothing new to be gained. What is new cannot be eternal. Therefore there is no need for doubting if one would lose or gain the Self. --- --- --- - Ramana Maharshi in Talk 401

Bhartrhari (The Grammarian) asserts that powers such as kālaśakti (time), karanaśakti (causality), dikśakti (direction), sādhanaśakti (means) and kriyaśakti (action) are non-different from Brahman. Although they might be considered in some philosophies, such as by the Vaißesikas, to be separately existing entities, in the Vakyapadiya, they are considered powers of Sabdabrahman. They always appear united in the same object, function together, and have no independent reality at any level of discussion. A multiplicity of powers belonging to the Ultimate reality is admitted in preference to postulating multiple entities. The latter moves too far from the fundamental assertion that Brahman is one.

Once on a journey Tzu-ch'i saw a huge tree with strange knots, big enough to shelter a thousand chariots in its shade.  Tzu-ch'i said, "What kind of tree is this?  It must have unusual potential." Looking up at its branches, he saw they were too crooked to be used as beams. Looking down at its roots, he saw it was not solid enough to be used for coffins. When he tasted the leaves, his mouth became inflamed; and they had a smell that would madden a person for days. Tzu-ch'i said, "This is in fact a useless tree.  That's how it got to be this big." Yes, this is why sages cannot be exploited. --- --- --- The Essential Tao, Thomas Cleary (1993; 93)

Brahman is other than the universe. Brahman is not other than the universe. Note: bhedābheda - a seeming contradiction which serves as an interesting koan. “Different and the same.”

This death process is yoga, not the hundreds of postures and breathing exercises. When the thought process stops splitting itself in two, the body goes through a clinical death. First the death must take place, then yoga begins. Yoga is actually the body's skill in bringing itself back from the state of clinical death. This is supposed to have happened to a few people, like Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana Maharshi. I wasn't there and have no interest or resources to find out if this is so. This yoga of renewal is an extraordinary thing. (UG Krishnamurti in Mind is Myth)