Article Base

Listen to Prabhaata-rashmih Audio

Harih Om Tat Sat. Jai Guru. Jai Guru.

I am writing “The Science of Inner Redemption” and touching a very, very subtle point, abstruse on the one hand and extremely subtle and transcendental. Naturally my mind thinks about it. The subject is not new to me. In connection with that, I think it is a kind of revelation to me to emphasize this point. I thought of sharing this with you.

I am discussing the ‘Sapta Bhoomika’ - The four spiritual states of a seeker. These states are pertaining to one’s own personality, but which part of the personality if you ask, it is not a physical transformation as takes place till we grow up to the age of twenty-one. We were in the mother’s womb, we came out and became a child, then grew from there, became a boy or girl, grew from there, adolescence, grew from there, youthfulness, grew further from there or grow, will grow. So, these are all physical transformations. But in that, we reach a stage of full adulthood of the body. Thereafter it will not grow. Now this is not pertaining to the biological growth. This is pertaining to the inner psycho-intellectual growth, maturity, sublimation and refinement. Will you understand it as that?

There, Vasishta goes on saying, we enter into the fifth bhoomika, then sixth bhoomika and seventh bhoomika. The seventh bhoomika is a state where supreme nirvana is struck. It is something that does not become an object of perception nor does it submit itself to words and description. So, the question necessarily arises, if it cannot submit itself to the words of description, how do people say that there is such a state? ‘There is such a stage and there it can be like this, it can be like this, it is like this.’ - How do they say that? I don’t know whether you get the enigma there.

If somebody speaks about it, it is very clear that as he is speaking about many other things, this is also very clear. If this cannot submit itself to anything like an object of perception, then how does he say that there is such a state? If it cannot submit itself to direct perception, what else is there? We have got something called reasoning and inferential knowledge. So, I am putting the two and two, one and one together and arriving at a two. I don’t know whether I will be able to explain it well and you can understand it. But still as part of my thinking, I would like to place it before you.

Whatever we call direct experience, invariably is related to the senses. Though it is related to the senses, you tell me, are the senses capable of perceiving? Then, the eyes in a dead body must perceive. Senses are used in perception. Who uses? The mind uses it. What is the mind? Consciousness. Consciousness may work as the mind, as the intelligence, as the ego, it does not matter. It is just like our legs walking, running, squatting, sitting, lying. All these different poses are had, movements are had by the same legs. Likewise, it is the same consciousness, the supra-physical presence, the body-different presence, that does all these functions. When it functions as the mind, it uses the senses. Though it uses the senses, the senses do not register the experience or keep the memory. Our eyes may see many objects. I don’t think the eyes have any registration of these objects. When we lose our memory, when we grow old or otherwise, the eyes are still there, but whatever is seen, the eyes cannot bring back in the form of a memory.

Who uses the senses? The mind. And the mind is a supra-physical presence - Consciousness. So, the consciousness employs the senses and employing the senses, it perceives. The actual perception is in the mind, registration is in the mind, imprints are in the mind, the mind uses the senses to have its own imprint and these imprints are stored. So, though it is a sensory experience and we call it direct, the experience itself is in the level of consciousness. Well, normally it is the mind that connects and brings direct experience. Okay?

Think further. Whatever the mental data are there, the intelligence processes it, rationalize them and arrives at its own finding, knowledge. That knowledge, in what way is it different from direct knowledge? This is my revelation. The direct knowledge is also of the consciousness, by the consciousness, in the consciousness. And you say it is functioning as the mind. What functions as the mind? The consciousness. The same consciousness then, the mental role stops and the intellectual role starts. The mind used the senses to perceive, the intelligence uses the mental data to think, to reason. As are the senses and sensory objects for the mind, so are the mental data, mental objects for the intelligence. But what functions as the intelligence is again consciousness.

So, if the first direct experience is wrought and it belongs to consciousness, the second experience also equally belongs to consciousness. The mental data are already formed. So, the intelligence doesn’t have to use the senses for it. The data are already there. And these data, the intelligence reasons about and arrives at its understanding. Whether it is an understanding in the level of the mind or in the level of the intelligence, what difference does it make? In both cases, it is consciousness. So, if the mental data are called direct experience, then the intellectual finding data also should be called direct experience. Am I clear?

You cannot distinguish between one is direct, another is indirect. In both cases, what is inside the body alone works. You call one kind of working, mind and mental, another kind of working, intellect and intellectual. But both are references to the one factor called consciousness. So, at one point of time, please listen to me, at one point of time, the knowledge derived by reasoning and the knowledge derived by the mind sensorily, have no difference. When you become aware of the consciousness, consciousness, consciousness, consciousness, even your body is a recognition or cognition made by consciousness. This is what Krishna says

बुद्धिग्राह्यमतीन्द्रियम् ।
Buddhi-grāhyam Atīndriyam |
(Bhagavad Gita 6.21)
यं लब्ध्वा चापरं लाभं मन्यते नाधिकं ततः ।
यस्मिन्स्थितो न दुःखेन गुरुणापि विचाल्यते ।। 
yaṁ labdhvā cāparaṁ lābhaṁ manyate nādhikaṁ tataḥ |
yasmin-sthito na duḥkhena guruṇāpi vicālyate ||
(Bhagavad Gita 6.22)

These are statements not by the mind but by the intelligence. So, whether it is a finding by the intelligence or a data collected by the mind, there is no difference. After sometime, the whole of spirituality becomes a beautiful coupling and harmony of the mind and intelligence, means direct experience and inferential finding.

Rama went on listening to Vasishta. Vasishta spoke words, they hit or touched the ear drum, to that extent alone mind and senses came. Then, the entire rest is a conveyance of knowledge and that knowledge was received, retained, thought about, reflected upon, questions raised, all by the intelligence. The result is that Sri Rama went to do a state of spiritual absorption. So, the references to Saptami Bhoomika, that there is something called the Saptami Bhoomika and it will come and be like this, like this, it is not observable as an object, it is only experiential as a subject and the seeker can get to that level, get to that level, get to that level.

One idea that comes to me is that we have a number of thoughts and emotions, a full variety. All these thoughts are from the mind, they emerge from the mind, they subside into the mind. So, don’t you think for every thought there is a source from which it emerges and the same source into which it subsides? So, if thought is experiential, please listen to me, if thought is experiential, just one moment before the thought what was there, that is also experiential. And half a moment after the thought, where it has dissolved, that is also experiential. So, if one can be thoughtful, you can also be thought free.

In thought-freeness there is no different substance. In thoughtfulness also, there is no different substance. The substance is the same. What was free of thought becomes full of thoughts. Again, it becomes free of thought. So, for every thought, before and after, there is thought-freeness. If thoughtfulness can be your experience, why not thought-freeness also? As we are thoughtful now, the seeker at one point of time will become thought free.

See, I am sitting in the computer. Very often, I get into a sleepy mode, but I disallow the sleep and continue to work. I am simply wondering, is it only a physical fatigue? I am wondering. I have slept. I have got up. Very briskly I have walked. After my breakfast, hardly half an hour or one-hour passes, I become sleepy. So, I was wondering, what is this sleep mode that comes to me often and what is this sleep? It is only a stillness. Not stillness of the body alone, but stillness of the mind also.

I am talking to you now. To me it is a strained talk, but I talk. As I hear my sound, I understand the sound is a later formation. There is something preceding it which I am not able to feel, ideational formation. You mean to say sound alone is and not ideation? And if ideation is there, the source from which ideation commences is also there. So, if ideation can be in me, the source of ideation also surely is in me. At least by reasoning, you become conscious of it. That consciousness or realization I can call it, which is brought about by reasoning in this manner is no different from any other experience, my dear souls. I am very sorry to call it reasoning. I am not satisfied but I use it, what can be done? This is what some people would like to call, intuitive experience. It is not striking them as a reason, it is simple. ‘I sometimes feel this is the one. That feeling I don’t know why it comes to me.’ It is not a feeling based upon an objective observation or finding. I call it feeling to distinguish it from reasoning.

See, whether we will have the global event of Gita or not with my, this kind of a recession that is settling in me, I don’t know, I don’t know. It is good if you can do it. Then, the present information is “Why go in for Varanasi? Let us have it in New Delhi. That is, get better outreach, our own people, our own place etc. are there.” Okay if people say so, it is a fact. Then ‘X’ comes up with a statement “If you are not particular about 108 times recitation etc. why have a five-day or a nine-day event, can it not be three days? The press will find it very difficult to report an event beyond three days.” See where has it come to now.

If you ask me, I still feel we must hold it in Varanasi. This is a feeling I have, much against reason perhaps. Now this feeling, I call it feeling, I don’t know what else do I have. It is not a strained reasoning that makes me feel so. Reasoning is against Varanasi but I feel Varanasi is a holy place and so many pata-salas are there. We will connect them, connect with them and we will find out what is going on in Varanasi. It is a holy place. Any such holy event, we are giving it a kind of a modern administrative touch, but the fact is that it is holy and it should be best held in a holy place. This is what I am feeling. So that is out of the point or connected to the point. Will you deliberate on this and let me know ‘X’, ‘Y’ and whoever else is capable of doing and feeling like doing?

A realization that comes to me, a revelation is that, the experience, the resultant experience you get from reasoning is no different from direct experience you get in the mind through the senses. After all, where are the senses? Which are the senses? What do they do in developing an experience? Nothing! You say in the waking state they work. Okay. Think of the dream. The same mind produces all the objects, all the world, all the senses and it is begets the experience. Is it not fully mental in dream? Should it not be equally mental in the waking? But there is a delusion that it is not. It is to overcome this delusion that the whole spiritual effort takes place.

Just see, Pareekshit only listened to Suka-Muni. If at all, it was a transaction, was it anything direct? Like seeing an object, eating food etc? No. Word was the medium which Vasishta could employ to convey the knowledge he wanted to. So, it was an interaction from the intelligence to the intelligence, not from the ear to the ear, mouth to the ear. No, no, no, no, no, no. It was from intelligence to intelligence. And the only way he could communicate was through sound. When we read Yoga Vasishta Ramayana, Vasishta communicates to us through letters. I don’t know whether I have conveyed anything.

Harih Om Tat Sat.  Jai Guru.