Vedanta Student Learns Context Determines Suffering Meaning

Being a student of Vedanta
Bede Clifford
Inhoud
Being a Student of Vedanta Part 1 ..................................................................... 2 Being a Student of Vedanta Part 2 ...................................................................... 7 Being a student of Vedanta part 3 ..................................................................... 12 Being a Student of Vedanta Part 4 .................................................................... 18 Being a Student of Vedanta Part 5 .................................................................... 24 Being a Student of Vedanta Part 6 .................................................................... 27 Being a Student of Vedanta Part 7 .................................................................... 35 Being a student of Vedanta part 8 ..................................................................... 45 Being a Student of Vedanta Part 9 .................................................................... 51 Part 1 Conversations ............................................................................................. 56 Part 2 Conversations ............................................................................................. 58 Part 3 Conversations ............................................................................................. 66 Part 4 Conversations ............................................................................................. 67 Part 5 Conversations ............................................................................................. 77 Part 6 Conversations ............................................................................................. 79 Part 7 Conversations ............................................................................................. 80 Part 8 conversations ............................................................................................. 89 Part 9 conversations ............................................................................................ 90
Being a Student of Vedanta Part 1

Everything that happens in our lives has a meaning to us. When we are loved, that means something to us. When we are hated, this hatred has a different meaning to us than when we are loved. So everything that we see has a meaning for us. Now here is the thing. What determines how we understand ourselves, other people and our world? Obviously everything that happens to us means something to us. We go I like that. Or I dont like that or I am indifferent to that. Before we make conclusions like these we have ascertained what the event or person means to us. When someone says that rotten person did a horrible thing. That person is communicating the meaning that that person has for them. But again here is the interesting question. What determines the meaning? If you asked the person who thinks that the person is rotten why they think that way they will tell you that it is because of what they have
2
done. This sounds reasonable however this is not the determining factor that determines the meaning you have about the things that happen to you. Another factor remains hidden in the background.
Let us say that I told you about a guy who ripped open another guys belly with a knife. Now that means something to you straight away. You probably wont like the guy because you dont like violent actions like that. But what if you found out that the guy was a young surgeon trying to save anothers life under enemy fire. Now the same event has an entirely different meaning for you. You see it differently. Now the point we need to take from this is this. THE CONTEXT FROM WHICH WE LOOK AT PEOPLE AND EVENTS DETERMINES THE MEANING THAT PEOPLE AND ENVENTS HAVE FOR US.
The oxford dictionary defines context in this way.
Context: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood
this is a good definition but we are going to modify it slightly for our Vedantic our purposes here Context: the standpoint that forms the setting for an event, statement, or idea, in terms of which the event, statement, or idea is understood.
When you found out that the setting was a battlefield and the guy was a surgeon there was a sudden context shift which transformed your cognition of the event. Within this context and only within this context could you understand this event in the right way? This shifting
4
of our way of seeing or cognising Swami Dayananda gives the term cognitive shift.
Now you may be thinking Bede has gone of on a tangent. This is supposed to be about Vedanta. In fact it is about the most important thing for us as students of Vedanta. The most important thing for us as students of Vedanta is to study Vedanta from the right context. If we fail to do this we will not understand the teaching in the right way. We will understand it in our way.
My teacher early on in my Vedantic studies made it very clear that there was only one context and one context alone that Vedanta can be understood. If we dont study from WITHIN this context Vedanta will have a meaning for us but not the one intended by the scriptures. We will be wasting our time. Everything we hear will be taken in the wrong way. This was very important thing for me to
5
understand and I wish to share this with my fellow students. I will do it in parts so I can go step by step. I just wanted to set the context first so you would understand me in the right way.

When I first meet up with Swamini Atmaprakasananda on skype I asked her why there was suffering. I didn't say why am I suffering that was too close. I wanted to know what she would say. I had never talked to a guru before and it was embarrassing to ask. In the past I had rubbished people who needed them. It seemed to me like weakness. Swamini said the following. the reason people suffer is that that are dependant of people and things for their happiness. Because I had lost most of the things I depended on for my happiness and was suffering extremely as a result what she said made complete sense. She also said in this first conversation people and things never hurt us they are just instrumental in revealing the pain that is already with us. This understanding is the beginning of emotional
maturity.
I got the point very clearly. I did not like it but I could see that what she was saying was that people and events which SEEM to be the cause of our misery and unhappiness. I mean the experience of being hurt by events and others seems to be convincingly real. But here she was saying that MY DEPENDENCE ON PEOPLE AND EXTERNAL CONDITIONS FOR MY HAPPINESS WAS MY PRIMARY PROBLEM. So here I was with my atrophied discrimination giving consent to what she was saying but in terms of experience and a very convincing experience at that, what she was saying did not seem to true. This was the first time and no means the last that the standpoint of the scriptures was in direct opposition to my own standpoint which is based on my experience which APPEARS so true. I mean I had a whole life time of experiencing the absence of objects CAUSING me pain
8
and a whole lifetime of the presence of objects CAUSING me pain. Swamini was making it very clear that blaming was not only futile but incorrect. What was causing my pain was my dependence.
Until I met this Vedanta teacher I lived entirely in the context of a world of objects (people and conditions) that were giving me happiness or taking it away. All I wanted was the happenings of the universe to line up with what I wanted so I could be happy. Because if it did not I was very unhappy. I also knew that the fault lay with the universe not me. I looked at the world and drew a big line down the middle. I put all the things that MADE me happy on the left hand side and put all the things that MADE me unhappy on the right hand side. Then I built my life around staying on the left hand side because my happiness depended on staying on that side. This context WITHIN which I lived
9
determined entirely how I lived in the world and what everything that happened meant to me. My way of seeing was determined by this context and the way I lived in my world came out of this way of seeing. My living in my world was my way of seeing the world in action. Any efforts to improve myself was like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. It seemed like I was doing something but it was all done within the same context that was the problem. So the same old suffering in new forms kept on appearing no matter what I did.
This is what we call samsara- the dependence upon another person, another situation, for your own sense of well-being Swami Dayananda.
Before my conversation with Swamini I thought like the Buddhists that life was samasra. Life was suffering. Something was wrong with life because it was suffering.
10
From appearances this seemed to be very true. But this was not was being said here. This teacher was saying that my dependence on objects was MY problem. This made me wrong of course but at the same time I knew that if the problem lay with me and not the world maybe something radical (going to the root) might be able to take place in my life. I felt I was beginning something. 8I just didn't know what it was. Even though she was saying was very tough she was very kind at the same time which enabled me to take on board what she was saying. Something within me knew that the problem lay with me in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
11
Being a student of Vedanta part 3

note:This is part of a series. For understanding please make sure you have read the previous ones with the same title and in order from part one.
This is what we call samsara- the dependence upon another person, another situation, for your own sense of well-being Swami Dayananda.
So here I was living in the context of complete and utter dependence on objects other than myself and trying to get a sense of well being from them. According to this Indian teacher my entire life was built around this but I did not know it and I did not know that I didn't know it. It was only in the presence of certain experiences (objects) and the absence of certain other experiences (objects ) did I feel secure, peaceful and happy. What could I say this was true.
12
What was being suggested here was that there was a sense of well being (security, peace and happiness) that stands alone in and as itself. A well being which is unshakable in the face of any circumstance even such extreme extreme ones like failure, social rejection, imprisonment, the physical pain of sickness and the fact of and experience of death. A well being which could not be acquired by effort but was ever present as the truth of myself. It was also pointed out that the only distance between myself and this absolute freedom was ignorance. Not the world. Not other people. Not even myself. There was something very important I was not seeing and the only solution was seeing it.
I didn't even recognise the existential condition of samsara let alone have any notions of its solution. I just wanted to be happy. Freedom from dependence was not
13
my issue. My emotional upsets and unhappiness lay with things other than my self. The relief from these things also lay with things other than myself. At the time this basic conclusion or notion seemed fairly obvious. This was my entrenched standpoint on life. This was the context in which I lived moved and had my being but it as a context was entirely hidden from me though it determined entirely how I lived in the world. .
This was my first encounter with the standpoint of the Vedanta scriptures. They were scriptures that werent telling me what to do but rather what to see. Frankly from my Christian Judaic background scriptures used in this way is unknown. In the light of this scripture I could see myself and my situation in an entirely different way. From my own standpoint life looked one way. From the standpoint of the Vedantic scriptures it looked entirely different. I did not know I was seeing my life in the light
14
of the Vedantic Vision. I was talking to a stranger who was unfolding a way of seeing which was entirely new to me. I was yet to appreciate she was the scriptures in living form. I wasn't Indian so I didn't know about such things.
In this first conversation I asked Swamini what was the best way to approach this problem of dependence on objects. She said that I must depend on the guru, scripture and God. I could already see that talking to her opened my eyes to things that I could not see myself. Depending on my own standpoint had proved to be very unhelpful given my emotional misery at the time. I knew the teaching was from the Vedantic scriptures so I thought that was acceptable. The God thing was hard. I just wanted the teaching without the religious stuff. I knew from her photos she was some kind of Hindu monk because she wore yellow clothing. Also she was often
15
surrounded by Hindu deities which made me uncomfortable. I could not understand how she could have such clarity about life and living but be so religious and prayerful at the same time. I had rejected prayer long ago. Also I didn't have a religious bone in my body. However I set aside all my misgivings about that and just stuck to what did make sense which was what she had unfolded so clearly to me . I was desperate at the time so I had nothing to lose.
So at the end of that conversation I was prepared to depend on her as a teacher. Not only was she wise she was also very kind. I was a stranger to her of a different race and a different culture. Yet she was willing to talk to me and she had such a accepting manner about her I could speak frankly without reservation. I opened up like a clam which was unusual for me. After the first conversation I didn't feel as helpless and as unhappy as
16
before we talked. I knew I had finally come across something good. Looking back I had no idea what I was getting myself into.
17

When we talk about depending on the scriptures we really need to see what this really means. Swamini told me that the scriptures are like a mother. They look after us. This was strange to me because I was brought up Roman Catholic and it was more of a weapon of coercion to keep me in line. The threat of hell fire and and the rules to obey to avoid it were contained in the scriptures.
The idea that the scriptures were a way of seeing was an entirely new thing for me. One such way of seeing was that behind all my suffering was my dependence on people and situations for my happiness. We can easily
18
accept this as a philosophical proposition where we agree with it or not based on our intellectual background. But agreement is not seeing in the Vedantic sense. Because mental agreement is not based on listening, awareness and discrimination it is simply a mental reaction. If I said to you I think the republican party is the best party to run the country you will find agreement or disagreement will arise automatically without awareness or our faculty of discrimination coming into play. I could say you are the Self, distinct from the mind body complex and give you the reasoning behind this and you can agree with it or not depending on your intellectual or religious background. The Vedantic vision arises entirely from a different context than these mental reactions of agreement.
What I started to do after that first phone call was whenever I noticed myself getting upset I would pause
19
and consciously and deliberately look at the situation from the scriptural standpoint that this suffering was a result of my dependence on people or things for my happiness. Now you can't do this sort of practice without committing to it. You won't commit to it unless you see the value of it. You won't see the value of it unless you discover it. You won't discover it unless you see it. You won't see it unless it is unfolded by someone who sees it this way and helps you see it this way yourself. You also need someone who knows how to unfold it in the right way otherwise you won't see it in the first place. Once you have seen it you have to actively depend on it if you wish to establish this way of seeing in your life. What we are looking at here is constantly shifting from looking at our lives from our own standpoint , which SEEMS so true and real, to looking at our life in the light of the scriptures. If we do not depend on the scriptures this way we will study Vedanta but continue to look at ourselves,
20
others and the world in the same way. There will be no change in our vision because we are looking at our lives from the context of our own standpoint not from the context of the vision of the scriptures.
What would happen was that something would happen that I became unhappy about. At the beginning I would forget to pause and look at in in the light of what Swamini had unfolded to me. But the more I did this the more I remembered. We only learn in the real sense when we assimilate experience in the light of the teaching. This makes the teaching clearer. The initial understanding is not complete it is a starting point. The more I paused in the middle of an upset and consciously looked at my upsets as another expression of my dependence the more I saw my upsets from an entirely different light. And strangely enough the less upset I got. You see when I get upset with people my attention is
21
riveted on them and what they have done. But here is the thing. When we reawaken to the vision of the scripture, right in the middle of our upsets this vision gathers us up and lifts us beyond our upset. We are still in the same situation but seeing it in an entirely different light. Swami Dayananda calls this a cognitive shift. The more we depend on the scriptures in this way the more we live in the light of the Vedantic vision.
We can only learn by assimilating experience in the light of the scriptures. To do this we have to rely on the standpoint of the scripture to look at ourselves, others and events. We still very much live in the world but from an entirely different context. Try this. The next time you are upset. Pause and consciously and deliberately recall an understanding you were given in class that is relevant to this present upset and look at this event in the light of this understanding. Bear in mind you don't
22
have to transform how you see this event because the understanding you were given will do that. This is what is meant by dependence. This understanding is a gift from the lord and will lift you above your upsets if you rely on it not yourself. I am going to say more about this later . But at this point I just wanted to start on the practical meaning of relying on the scriptures and how valuable this is. There is nothing that beats practice so long as it is the practice is in the context of understanding.
23
One of the most interesting things that Swamini has made clear to me is the growth of clarity and what it involves. What we become clear about is ever present and therefore beyond time. It is rather our clarity concerning what is ever present that undergoes a change and this change happens over time. Clarity of vision does not just happen. Swamini talks about how as we listen to the teaching layers of vagueness is removed bit by bit. The range and the depth of our SEEING is what is transformed not ourselves. What we are in reality does not undergo any change it does not need to. Sunlight in
24
the morning does not produce what is seen it just reveals what is already there. The light becomes slowly evident until it takes up all the room. This transformation of our vision or our way of seeing is what Vedanta is all about. As Swamini pointed out to me from the start. Vedanta is a vision not a philosophy. Swami Dayanada uses the analogy of a developing photo to describe the growing of clarity from small beginnings to the total vision.
When I first met her I was confused and unhappy. I did not know my problem was lack of clarity. I thought the self that I took myself to be was the problem and I knew all my efforts to fix it had failed and I had no hope of any resolution. I did not just have despair as something that existed by itself. I was suffering from self despair. My life appeared to me as a very convincing tale told by an idiot and as Swami Dayanada says we can't stand being unacceptable to ourselves. I couldn't stand it but
25
there was nothing I could DO about it. And you know what I was about to find out that there was nothing I could do about it. My problem was not that I was DOING wrongly it was I was SEEING wrongly. This teacher had no interest in fixing me she just proceeded to correct how I saw myself, other people, the world and God. She really did not see me as the problem.
The shift from struggling with myself and trying to improve myself and my life to correcting how I was seeing myself and my life was the real beginning of my vedantic studies. Seeing the value of knowledge shifts our lives into an entirely different context. It is our real starting point as students of vedanta.
26
When I asked Swamini about how do we know right from wrong. She was unequivocal. You know what is right and wrong but you don't know the value of doing the right and avoiding the wrong. She also said that when you go against your knowledge of right and wrong you become split and become disturbed within your self and in conflict with the environment.
As I found out, through our conversations in which she clarified this whole issue, she was not talking about being a nice person or being good at social relations. Sociopaths and politicians have great social skills. What
27
she was saying was that a life of dharma involved being aware of each situation as it presented and responding in ways that are terms of what needed to be done. What she calls doing the needful with presence of mind.
A knowledge of right and wrong is an innate part of us as an individual and as we relate ourselves to the world in the light of this knowledge we come into harmony with the whole. What was interesting to me here was that by coming into harmony with the whole we come into harmony with ourselves. Dharma is written into us. We find it there. It is a dynamic ( has force and direction) tendency within us. As Swamini says we don't have to go to university to learn what is right or wrong. By making our way of living conform to what we know to be right or wrong, our way of living and our knowledge of right and wrong become one complete unfragmented whole. Our minds become relatively peaceful within themselves
28
and our relation to other people and situations become relatively free of conflict.
Later on after much difficultly with the God thing I came to see that each situation was given to me by the hand of the Lord and it was given as something to be done or responded to. And that by offering my mind and body in the service of that given task ,the best way I could, was the life of a devotee. Swamini said this was real devotion. This was not some form of religious slavery but is a way to truly living in the world happily, peacefully and responsively. This was not some external code to be followed and obeyed. It was responsiveness in terms of what is in our very best interests. I might feel like (a desire)speaking in a harsh manner to my spouse because of real or imagined wrongs (aversion). But when I do, my knowledge of right and wrong and my way of living come into conflict and so I become
29
disturbed within myself. Because talking in harsh ways is an attack on my spouse I come into conflict with my spouse. So here I am doing something that feels right to do yet I cease to live happily with myself because I have violated what is basic to myself as an individual (my knowledge of right and wrong) and cease to live happily and peacefully with others. This is really not in my best interests. Swamini says when you protect dharma dharma protects you. This I have found is a dependable rule.
In the context of the Vedantic understanding of God, everything has an entirely different meaning than in the context of our desires and aversions. Our understanding of God becomes the basis of a way of living in the world characterised by graceful acceptance and beneficial responsiveness. This is opposed to when our desires and aversions are the basis of our way of
30
living in the world. This way of living is characterised by refusal to accept facts, resistance and harmful acts prompted by our emotional reactivity, disturbance within ourselves and conflict with others.
In English duty means to give what is due. Each situation that is given to us. Before I met my teacher I never saw situations as something given to me they were just there to please me or annoy me) I did not see situations requiring something from me in terms of bringing some value to it by doing what is needful. I wanted the world to give me the happiness that I hoped for and often I found it was not doing a very good job at doing this and like a child I would spit the dummy. An orientation to life that is characterised by contribution is far different from the give me give me orientation of this wonderful consumer culture we live within. When we give or offer what is due we are doing our duty. Duty is
31
not a stick that whips us into line. Rather it is the fullest and finest expression of our lives. We live in a consumer society. We want to get happiness rather than living happily and peacefully which requires contribution on our part. Without duty in the real sense of that word (responsiveness to the needs of the moment by giving what is due) living happily and peacefully is not possible for us.
Our desires and aversions are so very strong when we are unhappy within ourselves. This is because we make things that be believe can make us happy so very very important. The more miserable we are the more desperate we are about objects that seem to take the unhappiness away. Now here is the beautiful thing about living a life of dharma. Living in the context of God (dharma) transforms the quality of your mind into a relatively happy an peaceful one. Certain objects are
32
craved for because in their presence we feel happy and peaceful inside. This is why they are important to us and desperately feel the need for them. These desperate desires that we depend on for our happiness, Swami Dayananda calls binding desires because we seem to be held by them. But if we become relatively happy within ourselves the desperate needs are neutralised because they no longer have the same value because we already have what they give. They become redundant.
Swamini helped we with a particular issue that I always found difficult. I asked her how could I be happy in a world where there was so much misery and pain. She told me that if I was unhappy and miserable in myself I would by necessity harm people. Looking back at my harmful acts which have been many and varied I really saw what she was saying was true. When I was unhappy in myself certain things became inordinately important
33
and I would tend to pursue them irrespective of the harm to myself and others.
One thing for sure. I was going to have to learn to live in the light of dharma not in the light of my desires and aversions if I wished to live a happier and more peaceful life. It was not like she was being moralistic and threatening me with pain or damnation. None of that. She was offering me a choice like if you go that way it will not be in your best interests because you will fall off the cliff and get smacked up. If you go this other way that I am suggesting you won't fall, the trip will be pleasant and will get pleasanter as you go along and on top of that you will get to the same place you have been trying to get to by the other way; being more happier and peaceful within yourself.
Not much of a choice really is it?

34
I was sitting down by a bus stop reading a a very interesting book. There was an old person sitting next to me. They tried to start up a conversation with me. Somewhat hesitantly because indifference to their existence is normal. I answered politely but then went back to reading my book what was what I was interested in doing.
God obtains in us in the form of dharma. I clearly was given awareness of what was happening. I could sense this person was lonely and wanted to talk. Also a clear indication as to what be the most beneficial act which
35
would meet was needed in the best way. What I needed to do was also obtaining in me loud and clear. Give my attention to this human being and talk with her. Also a prompting obtained within me in the direction of this needed responsiveness. What did I do. I continued to read this very interesting book on Vedanta which by the way was probably talking about dharma.
Now did I act impolitely. Not at all. Did I break social convention. No. I was very polite. Is it a good thing to read a Vedanta book. Of course it is. So here I was not violating any social rules and doing my thing as is my right. So in terms of social conventions, interpersonal relations and my individual rights there is absolutely no problem. However in the light of dharma, which is an entirely different context from social conventions, interpersonal relations and my personal liberties (though it includes them all) my actions towards that
36
old lady have a different meaning.
The light of dharma is a clear and guiding light which is ever present. It is what we would really want if we were really free. When we listen to and respond to it our way of living in the world undergoes a radical change. According to my teacher , if we don't discover the value of a life of dharma, commit to it and live in the light of it the knowledge that is Vedanta won't take. Discovering the value of dharma is knowing that it is in our very best interests to live in accordance with it. This depends on us seeing clearly how we benefit from living in the light of it and how we lose by not living in the light of it.
When we violate dharma we become unhappy with ourselves. When we live in its light we become happy with ourselves because we are consciously living in harmony with the whole. Now living a life of dharma is not a set
37
of rules that we live by or try to live up to. It is an awareness of the situation in terms of what needs to be done and a beneficial responsiveness based on that awareness. This involves doing the right and avoiding the wrong. We know what is right and what is wrong. This is the fundamental discrimination in living. We are always aware of this but that does not mean we live our lives in the light of this awareness.
I know if I am lonely it is nice to be able to talk to someone. I did not learn this at university. I know how I like to be treated by others. This knowledge is natural to me. I also know that I don't want to be betrayed or talked about behind my back in a bad way. I know this. There is no uncertainty here. I know I want to be paid back if I lend money. This is not a vague or uncertain knowledge it is loud and clear. I know I don't wish to be hurt. Because I know how I would like others to treat me
38
I know that this is the best way to treat others.
If I was honest it is far more important for me that others treat me in ways I like than to treat others in the same way. I value this far more than I value treating others in the same way. The hit man knows he would not like to be shot. He is very clear on this. We know what is the right way to treat others. Swamini says the scriptures don't bother unfolding this knowledge to us because there is no need. What the scriptures unfold to us is the value of living in this way with others because if we don't we become very unhappy within ourselves and come into conflict with others and unavailable to the teaching of Vedanta.
Once you understand the value of living a life of dharma and commit to living you have to choose daily what voice you will listen to. Dharma or our binding
39
desires and aversions. This applies to every situation. We know when we need to write an email that it would be the best thing for us to do to do but but don't do it. We don't follow the promptings of dharma in this situation but rather we follow the promptings of our desires. Even though this brings about a satisfaction it puts us at odds with ourselves. We neglect to respond in the best possible way. Like I neglected that old woman because I desired to read a book even though the promptings of dharma was loud and clear. What is important here is that all these little things add up. Going against dharma builds unhappiness into us. A feeling of rightness within ourselves is not possible when we violate our awareness of what is right and what is wrong. How can we be at peace with ourselves be we are constantly building disturbance within ourselves. Swami Dayananda says if you rub against the law and order the law and order rubs against you Even though I continued to read my
40
Vedanta book I did not feel comfortable in myself. Because I refused the promptings of dharma which always obtain in me in a loud and clear way, I paid for it by not feeling right within myself. Add up all the little violations and they add up to a mind which is disturbed within itself and it becomes full of desires for things that we hope will remedy this unhappiness within ourselves.
When I started learning to live a life of dharma I became very much aware how I loved doing my own thing at the neglect of what the presenting moment needed. When I would go out with my kids along time ago when they were little I would sit with them in a cafe with them reading a book. Doing my own thing was more important than doing the needful in terms of what the situation needed. I had no knowledge of the value of serving the situation let alone the lord by offering what was needed. I didn't have a relationship to others and
41
situations on the basis of contribution. I was just busy extracting whatever pleasure I could. Did I know what the best thing to do was. Of course I did . I have always known this but as a human being I got very skilled at minimising the wrongness of my acts and maintaining rightness in the face of wrong living on my part.
When I spoke to Swamini at my horror at what I was now seeing she told me that Vedanta was not here to add to my burden but that the correct study of it lightens the load. She told me from the beginning that living a life of dharma was hard. I just had to acknowledge to myself when I was violating dharma and then recommit. My practice of dharma mainly consists of this constant acknowledging and recommitting. Acknowledging and recommitting. Is it hard? Yes it is. I have not reached the maturity that swami Dayananda talks about. Which is reached when
42
we want to do what needs to be done. At this point we have assimilated the value of living a life of values. He also said at the beginning we will have a conflict between what we want to do and what we need to do. In this he is so right. When the lord appears in the form of dishes to be done I often would like to do something else. Do I serve him or myself. If I serve him it not self sacrifice or being virtuous. This is the very best way to live as evidenced by the improvement in the quality of our mind and the way we live with others and the world. This quality of mind is what we call a contemplative disposition.
Without a contemplative disposition, which is the disposition of mind that takes us home to ourselves as we really are, we will not become established in the Vision which frees us from self ignorance. The ground out of which this disposition can arise is living a life of values.
43
This is what makes this way of living and committing to this way of living so valuable.
44
Being a student of Vedanta part 8
This is a part of a series. For understanding best to start from part 1
All my life friction and conflict have played a central role. I have been in friction with myself. I have been in friction with others and I have been in friction with the circumstances that I have found myself to be in. What I mean by friction is refusal to accept facts, a resistance which renders a strong feeling of being against. A feeling of fighting or struggling against.
Swamini had an unusual understanding of the meaning of love. It was non fault finding accommodation. Now accommodation in English means to make room for. What she was talking about was a relation to whatever was happening, including
45
my reactions in which there was no fault finding and a relation in which there was no resistance or refusal but rather making room for whatever was there. I saw at once this was not some sweetness and light spiritual notion of love. I also knew it was important because Swami Dayananda has made it very clear. If we can't accommodate people totally the Vedantic vision will not be available to us. I was in trouble. I was a chronic fault finder in relation to myself, others and the world. I was not willing to make room for a lot of things especially things I found unpleasant and disagreed with.
Now just so we are clear it was not being suggested that I like or agree with unpleasant facts. It was suggested that I make room for these facts no matter how disagreeable or unpleasant without friction or conflict. I knew straight away that this was big and what she was talking about was being in harmony with what is. It was
46
strange. I would have said of course I want to live peacefully and happily with others and the world. Well the truth was I was only willing to have this non fault finding relation which was accommodative with others and the world when I found these others and the world in ways that were peasant and agreeable.
When we are in friction or conflict our minds are disturbed. When our minds are disturbed we react we don't respond. Doing our duty (meeting situations in the best possible way) requires responsiveness. Being in harmony with what is no matter what that is is the ground out of which responsiveness arises. Being in harmony with what is produces a stable and clear quality of mind. Being in friction or conflict with what is produces a mind that is disturbed and not seeing clearly. Here again was this very interesting idea that the problem is not in our mind but in our relation to
47
people and things other than ourselves which also includes our psychological reactions because these are also other these ourselves. This sort of emphasis was new for me. I had always assumed the problem was in my mind and if I could fix that everything would be honky dorrie. But here what was being suggested was that my problem was MY RELATION to people and things that was the problem and this determined the quality of my mind. What I was looking at now was what attitudes did I hold that came between myself and my mind, between myself and others and between myself and the world. A fault finding non accommodating attitude was always there between myself and others or between myself and situations that I found unpleasant or disagreeable.
Again the problem was not people and situations that were causing my being in conflict with them or the
48
unpeaceful quality of my mind. They were not to blame even though often this seemed to me to be true. The attitudes I held and held on to for dear life, that came BETWEEN myself self and my mind, myself and others and myself and situations were ensuring that I constantly in conflict and friction. These attitudes were determining the kind of relation I had with my psychological reactions, with other people even the ones I cared about and situations that kept cropping up again and again. It was clear unless these attitudes were replaced I could look forward to more of the same for the rest of my life. Looking back on my life this was not a good prospect.
I was starting to look at my life from a different light. A very revealing light at that. This was revelation in a real sense. It was not some Indian spiritual trip even though I was talking to a very Indian looking teacher.
49
It was not some new age peace and love philosophy it was just a clear light which was enabling me to see things that have always been with me but that I never saw. Thankfully it did not come from me. Rather it was given. It was a blessing and so was this teacher who was unfolding it to me. I have a lot more to say about non fault finding accommodation because it is for me the value of it is one of the most important discoveries I have ever made. Because of this I wish to go into a lot of detail about it which I will do in the next few parts. I just wanted to set up the ground work.
50
All my life a had thought of my mind as something within me and the world as something outside of me. All through my formal training as a psychotherapist was the idea that the problem lay with the mind. The work of Freud, which is brilliant in my opinion, especially his work on ego defences and unconscious forces exerting influences on our conscious life is a major achievement of Western thinking. However the premise is that the problem is within the mind and this is where the solution is to be found. Modern cognitive psychotherapy say that the problem lies in cognitive distortions or irrational thinking and if these can be changed or
51
removed this is the solution. Again the problem is in the mind which is on the inside and if this can be fixed the then the persons emotional responses and behaviour will improve. The behaviourist psychologists think that unhelpful behaviour is the problem and if that can be modified and people get better behavioural outcomes this is a better direction to go. This means that the behaviour patterns which are within the individual are what need to be dealt with. I could go on but the premise is always the same. The problem is inside the individual and there is where the solution is to be found.
Vedanta views all this in a new and extraordinary light. It starts with the individual in the universe and that the universe and the individual are different. Well this is nothing new. But here is the thing. In the Vedantic vision the mind and all its contents are part of
52
the intelligent working this enormously complex and vast universe. We are not the author of what we call our mind and don't determine how it functions. This means that the mind is not in me but is simply a part of the universe like every other thing. It gets worse. Well when I first had this explained to me this is how it felt. Everything was happening as it should according a law and order which was the working of infallibility itself. It gets worse! EVERYTHING THAT WAS HAPPENING WAS THE RESULT OF THIS PREVAILING LAW AND ORDER WAS OUT OF MY HANDS ENTIRELY EXCEPT MY CHOICE OVER ACTION. It gets worse!! EVERYTHING IS GIVEN INCLUDING ME AS INDIVIDUAL. I as an individual was included in the whole much the same way that a wave is part of the ocean. Without ocean there is no wave. In my case there was no village idiot without a village. You know that pop song what about me...it isn't fair etc. That expressed my disconcerting feelings about all this. It gets worse!!! I
53
asked Swamini in exasperation what are you telling me that all the killing and violence in Iraq is the Lord? She said of course it is the Lord I was stunned. I did not know what to say. I thought to myself why am I listening to this woman who could have such a strange idea It just seemed so outrageous. EVERYTHING WAS GOD. WHAT SHE WAS SUGGESTING WAS EVERYTHING WAS GOD. My Christian Judaic notions of God started to rattle and jump around in my head. What really exasperated me was the matter of fact tone she said it. As if it was a plain fact that could be seen by anybody. Well I was not anybody. However her disarming manner allowed me to at least consider it. She was so clear on other things I could not dismiss it out of hand. The idea seemed mad on one hand but made sense on another.
Everything was given. Everything was in order. Everything was out of my hands except choice over
54
action. Everything was God which included me as an individual. Talk about clashing against all my basic assumptions about myself, the world and God. Was it going to get worse. It certainly was!!!!
55
Part 1 Conversations
o o o
12 people like this.
Shivaram Krishnan Om shri gurubhyo namaha June 7 at 1:50pm via mobile Like
o
Subbu Subramaniam This wrong context takes us on a chaotic route ... takes a while to set it right and onto the scenic route .. June 9 at 2:46am Like 2
o
Shalini Shukla Infact it already took us on a chaotic route . June 10 at 8:43pm via mobile Like 2
o
Bede Clifford Well said Subbu Subramaniam June 10 at 11:36pm Like

o
Shantti Chandra WE should study from the right context and understand the meaning in a right way. One more important things is we should learn Vedanta through a proper guru if not we will understand this knowledge according to our frame of mind.
56
June 11 at 1:27pm Like 3

o
Bede Clifford I could not have put it better. We can't rely on our own personal standpoint because this standpoint is our problem June 11 at 11:55pm via mobile Like 2
o
Bede Clifford Sounds self negating doesn't it shantti but it happens to be true June 11 at 11:59pm via mobile Like 1
57
o o o
Ashwani Kr Lodhi Rajput Very interesting. Plz keep it on. thanks a lot for sharing. June 7 at 11:17am via mobile Like
o
Shanta Sankaran We know that we lean on the outside world and people but dont like giving that up. It is wonderful how you bring a modern context and reasoning for Uparati. June 7 at 12:28pm Like 2
o
Ashwin Khambadkone This is insightful; Samsara=dependence upon another person, another situation for validation of own sense of well being. Therefore, it follows, freedom is being free from this need. June 7 at 1:50pm Edited Like 2
o
Sudha Jayagopal Somewhere down the line we all come to realise this. But realisation and acceptance is one thing, and working on it entirely another cup of tea.. not easy as it leaves very little else for one to lay the blame on..people, things, circumstances, etc, etc! Felt like someone was reading into my own thought process as I
58
was reading your wonderful insights. Looking forward to more on the same:-) June 7 at 2:03pm Like 3
o
Sush Vij So amazing. Realizing and practicing are two different things. It is so nice to read this and keep up the practice. Thank you for sharing. June 7 at 3:50pm via mobile Unlike 2
o
Anjani Duddu This is so true that we all depend on people ,external objects, situations and gadgets to make us feel happy and secured . they give us only temporary happiness and security , until we wake up to this reality we are caught up in this samsara. June 7 at 5:31pm Like 2
o
Shivaram Krishnan I feel realizing and practicing are the same thing. June 7 at 7:43pm Like 3
o
Shivaram Krishnan If not, one just needs to listen again. hear again. June 7 at 7:44pm Like 2
o
59
Bede Clifford you might discover the value of non harmfulness and be clear about what you get by living that value as a way of life and understand what you lose by nor living that way. But to assimilate that value you must consciously and deliberately make that understanding and your way of living come together to form a whole. Swami Dayananda is very clear on this in his book value of values. To assimilate a value requires awareness and the exercising of our discrimination between what is right and what is wrong and our choice over action. These are the three faculties my teacher says makes us human beings different from Animals.When our understanding and our way of living are one and the same our realizing and practicing are one and the same. the bridge to this is awareness, discrimination and choice over action. Value of values is my existential bible. It deals with existential knowledge. knowledge of values related to how we live our lives. this knowledge is distinct from the ontological (truth of being) knowledge which is the truth of what we are. in the context of this knowledge the discrimination that applies is between what is eternal and what is transient. in the context of our daily living the discrimination between what is right and what is wrong is the important one. The practice of karma yoga transforms the quality of our minds in order to make it subtle enough to listen to and understand the ontological teaching. This is the only way the teaching can work according to my teacher. Our fundamental choice in terms of living is being a mindless reactor or being a conscious, discriminative and responsive doer. Without this we can't change our way of living. if we don't change the way we are living our minds remain the same. Understanding and living must be brought together. This is what firmly establishes the understanding in us.I suggest you read "Action and Reaction" and "Value of Values" they contain the
60
existential teaching. the teaching that deals with the transformation of the way we live in the world. June 7 at 8:17pm Like 5
o
Shivaram Krishnan In some cases I trusted SPS ji, in other cases I did not follow what he told, and learnt the hard way June 7 at 8:47pm Like 1
o
Shanta Sankaran Our usual problem is that we view these values as something that we 'have to' rather than what we 'want to'. When reasoning given in this article is understood, we can see that the practice can reduce and eventually remove our mental suffering in our every day life. That additional immediate gain in terms of mental peace and health can provide us the motivation. June 8 at 5:20am Like 2
o
Bede Clifford Shanta you make a very good point here. If a value is not our value then our minds will not tend towards it. It is only by the discovery for ourselves the value of a value. Swami Dayananda says "when the value of the value becomes valuable to me it is only then that the value is mine. Without trying i will have a striving in me that tends toward that value. Only then can I effectively practice living it. Dharma is written in our hearts. It is the voice of God. in every situation we
61
face we will listen to the voice of God in the form of a prompting to do what is right or we will listen to the voice of our disires and aversions prompting us to do they prompt us to do. my teacher says that surrendering our will to dharma is the true bharkti because we surrender to the lord in the form of dharma. June 8 at 6:23am Like 5
o
Bede Clifford we either serve the Lord by responding to what is given by his hand. or we serve our desires and aversions. It is in our very best interests to serve the lord by listening and obeying. this brings us into harmony with the the universe obtaining as the law and order. god does not punish us for our sins. Swamini says it is like if we eat poisonous food we get a belly ache this is simply how the laws work. it is not personal. If we protect Dharma Dharma will protect us. we can rely on this principle because it is relying on God. June 8 at 6:31am Like 2
o
Vinita Lakshmy Venkataraman This part of your article raised a doubt - is it necessary to first experience the suffering due to this dependence in order to gain freedom ? Is there a natural sequence here - first samsara and then moksha ? June 8 at 7:43am Like
o
62
Ashwin Khambadkone Suffering happens due to wrong assumption that I am with limited adjuncts...if there is no wanting or wanting to become..it is freedom. Atman is always free...confusion causes the assumption that one is limited...removal of that false notion removes the need for external objects. Concept of freedom is only for them who assumed that they were not free. June 8 at 7:46am Unlike 3
o
Shivaram Krishnan So have I done a mistake by assuming I am not free.; ) ( trick question ) June 8 at 7:55am via mobile Like
o
Bede Clifford Dayanada says something to the effect that only when we see that we suffer the disease will we see the value of the solution. with this said Vedanta study will make this clearer as well. the recognition of our dependence on objects as an existential condition of slavery. the condition is an "as though condition". it is not a reality but an expereince. if it was our reality there would be no solution. but the desire for moksha is what will make our minds turn to vedanta more and more .good desire to have. a blessing in fact even though it is resolved in the final vision. when you need objects for your happiness you will suffer. every time people don't do what you want you will hate consciously or unconsciously.when you lose what you think you need you will be sad.the thought that you might lose what you have is the basis of fear. June 8 at 7:59am Unlike 3
63
Shivaram Krishnan I think its like watching a 3d movie with 3d glasses. Guru gives you a nice 3d glass ( teaching) one has to wear it and see. But in order to wear it we need some preparation, the head does not accept this 3d glass. So we do karma yoga and finally the glass that is in the pocket all the time ( enough shravanam nidhidhyasansm) and you just wear it and see . Things become bit clearer. Same old movie though June 8 at 8:02am via mobile Unlike 2
o
Ashwin Khambadkone Assumption is I am limited and I need something or need to become someone. Freedom is need from external objects and circumstances. June 8 at 8:03am Like
o
Bede Clifford Shivaram very nice analogy June 8 at 8:09am Like

o
Bede Clifford here is a few quotes by my teacher the last one is very important and tends to be overlooked. June 8 at 8:16am Like
o
Bede Clifford Stillness Stillness is always with us. When it is discovered, you
64
never lose it; if it is attained, it does not stay. Love Love is nonfaultfinding accommodation. Meditation Meditation upon anything other than the nature of the Atma will simply result in mental steadiness. Meditation upon the nature of the Atma alone (contemplation) will result in its ascertained vision, which itself is moksha. Moksha Karma yoga without jnanam (knowledge) will be incomplete. Jnanam without karma yoga will be impossible. June 8 at 8:16am Unlike 8
o
Shivaram Krishnan Ya I often felt the last one was important. Thanks for this. June 8 at 8:18am via mobile Like
o
Ashwin Khambadkone Excellent! Stillness discovered. Swami Dayananda says Karma Yoga is attitude. Attitude comes from knowing what is most important. June 8 at 2:28pm Edited Like 1
65
o o o
Shantti Chandra Depend on the guru, scripture and God Is the truth.It will lead us to the right path and it will open our eyes to the things that we could not see ourself. June 16 at 7:40am Like 2
66
o o
Prashant Parikh and 18 others like this.
Dinesh Vasandani Your discussion is very similar to the teaching of observing or witnessing the mind. Ex - I am upset with someone vs oh my mind is upset and I the self is the observer of the mind. Pretty cool stuff June 11 at 4:59am via mobile Like
o
Bede Clifford When it comes to the teaching about observing or witnessing the mind Swami Dayananda has an interesting take on this. He says you are the problem you are the solution. We tend to think other things are the problem. People, conditions and in this case the mind. This is an unfortunate erroneous idea. One my teacher cured me of early on thank God. I had suffered from this erroneous all my life and as a result engaged in a lot of wasted effort struggling with the mind. When I was formally studying psychotherapy I was taught and believed the problem was the mind. This is understandable because people present with depression, anger, anxiety, interpersonal conflict, compulsively doing things that are not in their best interests and compulsively not doing what would be in their best interests. Because people think that the mind is the problem they think that the mind is upset and because of this they set about trying to do something about it. If they take a spiritual approach they try to deal with the mind by witnessing it in order to deal with the problem.
67
This is a misdirected effort. Swami Dayananda has a radically different view and a radically different approach. A mental reaction is a happening and it can be unpleasant just like cold weather. But that is never the problem. The problem is not centred on the mind it is centred on I. I am the one who is angry say. Not my mind is angry. When the I sense and the emotional reaction become one and the same then I have a sense of identity with the emotion. It is as though I have become the mind. In this case the mind in the form of the anger. (we never become anything in terms of reality because we are always ourselves) If the mind is the problem then the solution is out of our hands. Through the teaching I can come to a sense of myself as distinct from the mind /sense/ body complex. Not the idea that I am distinct from the mind, but a real sense of myself as distinct from my mind. When a mental reaction occurs I either don't become it but am myself in spite of it. Or if I do become it as soon as I take ownership of my sense of myself as distinct from the mind there is no problem. This happens when the understanding (what I am in the light of the scriptures) becomes active in me because when this happens I will recover this sense of myself. The mind was never the problem it was my being identified with the anger. I am also the solution. The differentiation of the subject of knowledge from the objects of knowledge is vital as a first step In Vedanta. This is not an idea but the discovery of a sense of myself as distinct from the mind body complex. My teacher made it very clear from the beginning you can't contemplate what you don't know. The contemplative disposition of the mind can't arise without this first
68
basic step. This is not mystical or some spiritual la la land. It is simply cognitive. This disposition is simply the disposition towards simply being with myself as myself. This is not possible when my sense of self is the same as my physical condition, sense organs, organs of action and the condition of the mind. When I am with myself as myself the mind is never a problem. It is true that in the ultimate vision the truth of the observer and the truth of the object are one and the same. But there is no epistemological(in terms of knowledge) leap from identification with the mind to the total vision . Unless you happen to be a Ramana Marharshi. We have to discover a distinctness as a knowing subject from the mind/body/sense complex first. June 11 at 9:52am Like 9
o
Ashwin Khambadkone Nidhidyasana! continuous and conscientious effort to bring in the teaching in every moment. June 11 at 1:11pm Like 1
o
Ravi Easwaran The Yoga Sutras also given a keen insight into this. I am giving the first four sutras in Chapter 1; along with my commentary (any defects are solely mine )- The fourth Sutra tells us that as long as we do not see the mind as something separate from "I" , we are bound to experience its modifications. .
69
Now begins the study of Yoga .
Atha = Now. : Yoga= Yoga-the science of Unity; Anushashanam study, discipline. Atha means Now. It can be taken to mean that this is the appropriate time to begin the study of Yoga Sutras. What is meant by Now ? The present moment. The past is over. No action is possible in the past. The future has not yet come. No action is possible in the future. Therefore the only time to begin the study is the present moment. The import of this statement is that that best time to begin the study of yoga is just now. Do not wait for the future, for there is no certainty about the future. Begin now. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------: ||1.02|| Yoga is the cessation of modifications of the mind. (a) YogaDerived from the Sanskrit root Yuj meaning to yoke, join, unite. Yoga is therefore the term used to describe the practices through which we (Jivaindividual consciousness) unite with the Atman (Universal Consciousness). (b) Citta.. There is no exact equivalent in English for Citta. It may be noted that Citta used in the Yoga Sutras is not the same as the Citta of Vedanta. Citta of Vedanta is one role in the four roles played by the mind ie Manas, Buddhi, Citta and Ahankar. In Vedanta Citta is used to refer to the mind when it is delving into memory. Patanjali however uses the term to refer to the total mind, a use which has led commentators to coin expressions like mind stuff to explain the meaning of the phrase. If one consults the Sanskrit dictionary, one sees various meanings adduced to it eg. noticing,
70
wishing, thinking, aiming, intending, reasoning, observing, imagining, reflecting, memory, attending,knowledge, intelligence etc. For our purposes it is simpler to equate the Citta here to the human mind and as the dictionary analysis it will consist of the sum totality of the various tasks performed by the mind ie to say Citta takes on the task of the manifestation of Consciousness in us. It may be noted that the word comes ftom the Sanskrit root Cit meaning to be made aware or conscious. (c) Vritti- Derived from root Vrt meaning to moving, turning. Thus the word Vritti indicates movement -Where ? In the Citta. In the mind. The Citta at rest can therefore be thought of as the Ocean and the Vrittis as the waves in the Ocean. A very apt comparison as the force of the Vrittis are as much, if not more, than the force of the waves. (d) Nirodha- meaning prevention, stilling, confinement, suppression. As noted above, Vritti is movement in the mind. What are these Vrittis ? When the mind moves, it gets modified and it is this modification which is called a thought. These are thoughts, emotions, desires, likes and dislikes which arise in the mind. It is important to realize that the Vritti is not a different entity from the Citta. That is why we use the term modification in the same sense that we understand a Wave to be a modification in the otherwise calmness of the Ocean. Hence when the modifications have ceased, thoughts have ceased. Many spiritual and meditation teachers tell us Empty your mind. It is not as if you can take vacuum cleaner and take away the Vrittis. These are part of the Citta and the only way to calm the mind is to take steps to see that the
71
disturbances die away. For that we need to look at the root cause of such disturbances. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------: .
Then, the witness regains his own form. (a) Tada- Then (b) Drustr (uhu)- witness (of) of the witness (c) Sva Own (d) Rupe form (e) Avasthana- residence, abiding, taking up, standing The word Tada is usually paired with Yada ie Yada Tada ie to say Yada condition X Tada Condition Y. In English we can translate roughly as When.then. Therefore in the previous Sutra Yada is to be understood. Therefore the two Sutras are to be read in conjunction and the meaning is to be understood as When the modifications of the mind cease, then the Witness resides in his own nature, own true form. Who is the witness ? The individual soul the Jiva. The Jiva is the one who resides in this body and uses this Body-mind-Intellect complex as a vehicle for its journey through life. Unfortunately, the Jiva, through ignorance, is completely identified with the Body MindComplex and is convinced that this (complex) is his true nature. This being so, all the experiences which the body mind complex is subject to in the journey of life are taken by the Jiva as its own experiences and therefore the Jiva(we) experience all the ups and downs of life which we call likes, dislikes, joy, sorrow etc. It is not the experiences themselves which bother us ..it is our
72
reactions to those experiences which cause the pleasure and pain. These reactions are what we call thoughts..the Vrittis in the Citta. These Vrittis are disturbances and, as we all know, at times when the flow of thoughts slow down ( early morning, approaching sleep or just getting up ), we experience a sense of peace. This peace is because as the thoughts slow down, the veil between Atman, our true nature-Svarupa, and us gets thinner. In truth, the thoughts themselves are the material from which this veil is constructed. As thoughts thin down, it is the faint ray of bliss of the Atman, shining through the veil, that causes us to be more peaceful at such times. Imagine then the Bliss that will arise when all thoughts cease, the veil completely vanishes and we are established in the Atman. The Sutra confirms this by stating that when thoughts have been stilled, what remains is our true nature (Svarupa), the Atman. -------------------------------------------------------------------------| |1.04|| At other times he is identified with the Modifications. (a) Vritti- modifications in the Citta, ie thoughts (b) Sarupa- like, resembling, having the same form. Sarupya therefore means having the same form as (c) Itaratra- on the other hand, at other times, else At other times, ie when the witness is not resting in his true nature, when the mind is not free of thoughts, the witness takes on the form of the Vritti, the thought. Therefore, when there are thoughts in the mind and you are therefore not in a state of Yoga, at that time you are
73
identified with whatever thought has arisen in the mind. Thus if you are reliving an experience which was joyful, you will be happy, if the thought is a sad one, you will be sad. These four sutras form the philosophical backbone of Raja Yoga. They tell us that as long as we allow our mind to reign uncontrolled, there will be thoughts and whenever there are thoughts, we have forsaken our basic nature which is Bliss, and we are doomed to experience the emotional content of those thoughts. June 14 at 10:11am Like 2
o
Bede Clifford This is a group whose subject matter is the teaching of Vedanta as unfolded by swami Dayananda . It is no a forum for other things even things that in another context my be very good and valuable. There are other forums dedicated to such matters. If you wish to discuss the subject matter that this group is restricted to you are most welcome. But please stick to topic June 15 at 2:00am via mobile Like 6
o
Bede Clifford I see that the post I was referring to has been deleted. June 17 at 3:34am via mobile Like
o
Shanta Sankaran You are very right about the process of becoming determined about the practice. This is especially true as societal opinion is opposed to it and so
74
one needs a real strong sense of affiliation to the teacher and the idea. But I believe that the practice itself gives one a strong internal motivation and an enthusiasm in every-day life. Would you agree? June 22 at 11:20am Like
o
Bede Clifford Yes I do agree in this sense. Because we are talking about Vedanta it always starts with inquiry and the fruit of that inquiry is discovery and understanding. This forms the context for practice. When our understanding and the way we live becomes one and the same a sense of wholeness becomes very evident. This is what the practice of an understanding is. We consciously and deliberately make our way of living conform to our our understanding with the result being that our understanding and our way of living ARE ONE AND THE SAME. As you say an enthusiasm becomes evident. Because practice is understanding in the form of our way of living in the world it is important in itself as you say. It is not understanding and then practice as a lesser thing. It is the understanding in the form of practice. In this way practice is very meaningful. June 24 at 2:51am Like 1
o
Shanta Sankaran My experience is that serious practitioners exude enthusiasm and motivation even when they are doing the mundane tasks. While others complain and moan, these people are not mindlessly happy, but they are aware and thinking about what they are doing - only they manage to see the good and
75
positive missed by others. I used to think that it was the result of their constant practice and it's associated effort. Now, reading your analysis, it seems that they are just living their understanding - not making a marathon effort for maintaining their motivation. Yesterday at 9:13am Like
o
Bede Clifford That right. we can practice when we are not enthusiastic about it.we start to practice when we might feel alot of inertia but then we go into activity despite how we feel. and then we often move into a lighter state.but maybe not. the feelings are not the point. because we realize the value of knowledge we engage in practice despite feelings. if we see the value of practice we will practice even if we don't feel like it which in the beginning we won't. at least this is what i found. we can't judge our practice on the basis of feeling. when i began to withhold saying what i felt and did not give expression to the urge it was hard because i wanted to. I would not feel good about it but i understood it was in my best interests for me to speak unless it was helpful. Awareness and discrimination and acting on these is the whole point of practice. leave results up to God.. feelings come and go they are not the basis of evaluation of our practice or our understanding. what we do is because this we have choice over action not the feelings. in spite of not feeling motivated we can just do it. i hope this is helpful Yesterday at 9:43am Like 1
76
o o o
You, Prashant Parikh and 15 others like this.
Ashwin Khambadkone @Bede: In order to come to the understanding that it is the way of seeing and not doing there should have been a certain amount of receptivity to the teaching. In addition, from what you describe there is a certain amount of acceptance that I can't fix myself as I have tried it. This would lead to surrendering the doing and becoming. This acceptance would be brought about by living the values. Living a life of values is making deliberate choices. It will appear I am doing something if I believe I have an object to achieve. However, if there is shradha in teaching, this apparent doing is also acceptance: acceptance of Ishwara. So it looks like to get to the real starting point of vedanta, one needs both the acceptance of the teaching and living in the light of teaching. Otherwise the living in light would be perceived by me as selfimprovement. June 16 at 4:49am Like 2
o
Bede Clifford when you discover something that your intellect can't help but give consent to it. knowledge does not depend on the choice nor is it an action. when we see the value of values making our acts conform to them is seen in our best interest. in this as you say there is not trying to improve our self but only making our acts conform to what we know to be good and right. we
77
are not trying to be a "good person" but be in harmony with the law and order in the form of dharma. June 16 at 9:29am Like 4
78
o o o
9 people like this.
Ashwin Khambadkone Beautiful! June 17 at 1:55pm Like

o
Shantti Chandra Harih Om! "Learn to live in the light of dharma not in the light of my desires and aversions if I wished to live a happier and more peaceful life". Very clear explanation. Its my morning Prasad, Thank you ji! June 18 at 3:17am Like 1
79
o o
9 people like this.
Ashwin Khambadkone While growing up I have seen many people (including my mother) living a life where they went about doing things that needed to be done and not what the desired to do. But poor understanding of Dharma by me and people around made it sound as if these people were sacrificing their lives (desires and ambition) for others. Karma yoga interpreted as work without desire for fruits of action added to the confusion and made their lives sound like life in servitude. Swami Dayananda's explanation shows how Karma yoga is about making an informed choice in light of knowledge (Karma kausalam) and acting out with understanding of Ishwara makes karma yoga an act of love (devotion to Ishwara). If that attitude is continuously recognized then it would make life of dharma smoother else it is very difficult indeed. One acts foolishly then feels the pain of dharma rubbing against you, wakes up to the values and rededicates to following dharma. - Thanlks for the thought provoking write Bede. June 22 at 4:30am Like 3
o
Shivaram Krishnan It is to be sensitive and live real by heart. It may be difficult but it is more lovely. June 22 at 4:53am via mobile Like 1
o
80
Raj Kumar Bede ji, Lets say, the old woman saw you immersed in reading the book. Wasn't her dharma to not disturb you ? She wanted to strike a conversation so that she could get some pleasure from it and drive away the loneliness. this might be a rather simple scenario. But in case of a more complex scenario, are we to honour our dharma just to please someone who is adharmic ? Say, there is a terrorist who is wounded and wants your help to get medical help. Once you offer the help he is going to be healthy again and maybe blast a bomb. What should be your dharma in that case ? June 22 at 7:27am Like 2
o
@Raj ji take him to a military hospital June 22 at 7:31am via mobile Like 1
o
Raj Kumar @Shyam... In that case they are going to kill him anyways June 22 at 7:33am Like
o
yes thats what usually happens. but yes we can let him die! June 22 at 7:38am via mobile Like
o
81
Bede Clifford From what I understand dharma comes to us as a clear and distinct sense of right or wrong given the situation we find ourselves within and a prompting to move in that direction. This disire to follow dharma is not present without seeing the value of it. When I studied philosophy we would talk about what is right and what is wrong. Dharma in the sense I am talking about it is not philosophical it is rather a responsiveness based on awareness and discrimination. It is not a prescription or a rule or a question as to what is right or wrong. We do or not do or do differently in the light of it. June 22 at 7:39am Like 1
o
On the other hand pujya swamiji says there is no criminal only criminal mind/personlaity June 22 at 7:39am via mobile Like
o
Bede Clifford Also dharma is not a measure we apply to others. That puts our attention on the wrong issue which is always our awareness of the situation we are in and the basis from which we act. our binding desires and aversions or our awareness of dharma. June 22 at 7:42am Like 3
o
Gokul Kenath Raj. Well said. Mostly, an act of Dharma will not be complete, if it is unilateral.
82
Yes. One can only play his part to perfection. Thats the 'Swadharmaparipalanam'. But, in a common cause, that Swadharmaparipalanam needs to occur from all concerned. June 22 at 10:38am via mobile Like 1
o
Bede Clifford true, however I have found if my sense of dharma involves any sense of demand about how others act and forms the basis of my judgement of them I will resist facts and re actively act. Applying dharma to others is fine in the sense of an objective view of their behavior. Any more than that causes trouble and we become disturbed by our own demands.i am speaking of something that occurs at each moment of our ordinary lives and its effect on our mind so we can appreciate the teaching.the conflict between what i would like to do as opposed to the best thing to do based on awareness, discrimination and choice over action. We all have a tendency to move away from what we are doing, what we are saying and how we are saying it.Our guilt makes us judge others to relieve a sense of defect that lies with ourselves. In a relative world none of our daily acts will be perfect but can be good enough for us to change the quality of our minds in order to hear the teaching. what other people do is Gods business. I do the best I can by making my way of living conform to dharma.. June 22 at 11:00am Like 3
o
Gokul Kenath Bede ji - Thats right. Making my act of Dharma dependant on any other person's application of the same or not has its own draw backs.
83
But, I was not commenting from an individual point of view. However, from the Dharmic point of view itself and for it to be comprehensive. June 22 at 1:17pm via mobile Like
o
Shanta Sankaran While I understand your concept of the acceptance of Dharma, one thing I dont understand is how you arrived on what you consider as your Dharma. I know that my understanding is lacking and I cannot be sure that what I want or like is really the best thing for me. My wants are changing and my likes are fickle. So, how can I trust them for determining Dharma? As vaideeka followers we are traditionally told that this is not something we as individuals can pick and choose - no more than how a drama character cannot pick and choose the story line. What is the vedantic approach to identifying one's Dharma? Yesterday at 11:32am Like
o
Bede Clifford there are two different cognitive orders. one is in reference to desires and aversions. we can't trust them in terms of what is right or wrong. the other is awareness and discrimination. the discrimination between what is right and wrong is given. we know what is right and know what is right and what is wrong. the question is do we see the value of what is right and what
84
is wrong. we might feel like saying something critical of another. but on the other hand we know that we would not like others to speak about us behind our backs. what do we choose to do. Listen to dharma which is in the form of our knowledge of right and wrong and make our acts conform to that. in other words don't speak badly of another. Or do we go with the desire to say something bad about another. as you say desires come and go dharma in the form of our knowledge of right and wrong is always with us.i only know what i have been taught by my teacher. It is not my dharma it is the light of dharma. Swami Dayananda says we can desire to live a dharmic life.it is one of the human strivings. there is a satisfaction in satisfying it.there is such a thing as a dharmic desire and it is a very good desire to have. it becomes active in us when we discover the value of dharma which means that we see it is in our very best interests to follow dharma. in this tradition disires are fine it is the binding ones that are the problem. Yesterday at 1:26pm Like 3
o
Bede Clifford we have to choose which voice to listen to on a daily basis the voice of dharma or the voice of our desires and aversions. this tradtion teaches that dharma is not an external code to be followed but a knowledge to conform our acts to. Yesterday at 1:52pm Like 3
o
Shanta Sankaran Living a dharmic life is a very important goal that underpins everything else, which is why I think we need to be clear about how to decide
85
what are roles, duties and how to perform them. It is the knowing the right and wrong part you mention that I still dont get. A spiritually evolved person may 'know', but the majority of us dont - at least at the time of action. Which is why you have the saying about hind-vision being 20-20. A great saint once talked about how he tried to save a beetle that had fallen from the roof and was being attacked by ants. So he saved the beetle and then found later that it went about eating up all the ants. He explained how this made him question his notion of right and wrong. So what is right and what is wrong? Does each individual gets to decide this? If so, then chances are that we will delude ourselves and manage to reason everything we like as dharmic and everything that we dont like as adharmic. Bhagavad Geeta chapter 1 and beginning of 2 provide an excellent example of this. 13 hours ago Like
o
Shivaram Krishnan I thought elders and gurus can guide. And generally one has an idea, when one feels guilt etc. Its also in the family. 13 hours ago Like
o
Bede Clifford The knowledge of right and wrong is not what we can decide on. It is given. We can only conform our acts to it. I KNOW I don't want to be cheated. Therefore on this basis I KNOW that others would find this painful. I KNOW I dont wished to be betrayed and because I KNOW this I KNOW others would not like that
86
to happen to them. I KNOW I don't like being attacked so I KNOW it is not right to attack.I don't find for myself think that this knowledge is a delusion. This according to Swami Dayananda is the basis of our knowledge of right and wrong. This is not something we decide it is a blessing that we have been given. If I discover the value of this value of living a life of Dharma I will desire to live this way and will learn to live in this way. The value of non harmfulness is not possible without the knowledge of what is harmful and what it is not. If we don't have a knowledge of right and wrong we would as you say making a guess or relying on others to guide us. Not to say that in some situations we seek guidance about issues. We do justify ourselves when we commit harmful acts. And we do rationalise why following our desires that harm others is good. This is true. But Swami Dayanada and my teacher emphatically state that we are blessed with a knowledge of right and wrong. If you read the value of values I think it might clear up this matter. Even though we may be ignorant about the truth of ourselves we are not ignorant of right and wrong. It is knowledge it is given and there involves no choice about it except in making our actions conform to it. It is an important point you raise and one that we need to be very clear about. 13 hours ago Like
o
Gokul Kenath Samanya Dharma is there 'built in' everyone. Thats in the Human DNA, so to speak. One only needs to have Chittha Suddhi for this Samanya Dharma to get clear for him. Only Vishesha Dharma needs to be learned or thought.
87
No one needs to teach a fish to swim. That knowledge is 'built in' for a fish. Same with, Samanya Dharma for a Human. Yes, the Prarabdha Karmas or the acquired Vasanas from many births could overpower this sense of Samanya Dharma in one and make him act against it. Thats where factors like Ishwars's Grace or Chittha Suddhi come into picture for not letting that happen. 13 hours ago Like
o
Shanta Sankaran You are very lucky if your mental powers are always under control and the process of dharmic life is as simple as just 'know and make a choice'. But knowledge and intellect are limited. When there is no emotional attachment, the intellect does a good job of discrimination and helps figure the correct course of action. However, when emotions run high, it can and will kidnap the intellect and the intellect is put to task to find a reaon to support the emotional need. This is the plight of the ordinary person. We are ones whose will weakens and makes an excuse to eat another bar of chocolate when we 'know' it is bad for us. The knowing just leaves us guilty, and obviously we need more help. That is what I am trying to get ask about. 9 hours ago Edited Like
88
Part 8 conversations
o o o
Prashant Parikh and 7 others like this.
Ashwin Khambadkone Can relate to the writing very well...struggling with the same friction...keen to read what comes next... Yesterday at 1:23am Like 1
o
Subbu Subramaniam This is the difference between when we're in the middle of traffic on the street vs watching the traffic below from a tall building Yesterday at 2:39am Like 1
89
Part 9 conversations
o o o
Shanta Sankaran likes this.
Shanta Sankaran Bede, there are 2 Part 7s. Would it be possible to renumber this and newer ones? If not, at least make this one 7A? But keep them coming even if you choose to number them backwards about an hour ago Like
o
Shanta Sankaran I guess hindu children are exposed to similar logic from a tender age in our traditional bedtime stories. I had my share of stories and Q&A sessions with my grand-mother. For example, there was Ravana, the bad rakshasa king of Lanka was killed by Sri Rama. Now what happened to him? Did he go to hell? No he was killed by Sri Rama and so he did not. The story of Lord Krishna in Bhagavatam is even more explicit. A number of these sinful characters try to kill Lord Krishna. Putana had killed a number of babies before she tries her hand with Krishna and meets her end. Bhagavatam states clearly that these characters were merged into Krishna or entered swarga. It is this same grand-mother promising me dire consequences if I lied or cut up the garden plants, now telling the story of all these bad beings rescued. You can imagine the questioning from the child 'why?' 'not fair'
90
etc.. and the answer from the grand-mother would be 'It is Bhagavan's leela'. 12 minutes ago Like
91

Vedanta Student Learns Context Determines Suffering Meaning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vedanta Student Learns Context Determines Suffering Meaning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Being a student of Vedanta

Being a Student of Vedanta Part 1

The oxford dictionary defines context in this way.

Being a Student of Vedanta Part 2

Being a student of Vedanta part 3

Being a Student of Vedanta Part 4

Being a Student of Vedanta Part 5

Being a Student of Vedanta Part 6

Not much of a choice really is it?

Being a Student of Vedanta Part 7

old lady have a different meaning.

I know that this is the best way to treat others.

Being a student of Vedanta part 8

This is a part of a series. For understanding best to start from part 1

Being a Student of Vedanta Part 9

12 people like this.

Bede Clifford Well said Subbu Subramaniam June 10 at 11:36pm Like

June 11 at 1:27pm Like 3

16 people like this.

Bede Clifford Shivaram very nice analogy June 8 at 8:09am Like

13 people like this.

Prashant Parikh and 18 others like this.

Now begins the study of Yoga .

You, Prashant Parikh and 15 others like this.

9 people like this.

Ashwin Khambadkone Beautiful! June 17 at 1:55pm Like

9 people like this.

Prashant Parikh and 7 others like this.

Shanta Sankaran likes this.

You might also like