अंधेरा और उजाला / Darkness and Light

>
गौर से देखिए अंधेरा भी रौशनी है,
जिसमें दिखाई देता है वज़ूद अपना,
गौर से देखिए रौशनी भी अंधेरा है,
एक अंधेरे से दूसरे तक का सफ़र ।
--
पहली दो पंक्तियाँ महत्वपूर्ण हैं, जिसमें यह विचार प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि घुप अंधेरे में भी मनुष्य अपने-आपके अस्तित्व के प्रति सुनिश्चित होता है, 'अपने चारों ओर का जगत्' भले ही अंधेरे में हो और उसके बारे में वह कुछ जान-समझ न भी पाए, अपने अस्तित्व के बारे में उसे कोई संशय कदापि नहीं होता, और यदि कहें कि तब भी अपना परिचय ’मैं’ क्या / कौन हूँ नहीं समझ में आता, तो भी ऐसा संशय करनेवाली चेतन-सत्ता के अस्तित्व को नकारा नहीं जा सकता । इसे समझने के लिए न तो शास्त्र चाहिए, न किसी प्रकार का कोई बाहरी गुरु या शिक्षा आदि । इसे ही ’वज़ूद’ / (अस्ति) कहा गया ।
बाहरी अंधेरा और उजाला भी उस चेतन-सत्ता को छिपाने में असमर्थ होता है ।
यह चेतन-सत्ता निरपेक्ष, चेतन-प्रकाश है, जबकि तीसरी-चौथी पंक्तियों में कहा गया प्रकाश जगत्-सापेक्ष, भौतिक प्रकाश है ।  उस सापेक्ष प्रकाश का अपना सीमित महत्व और उपयोगिता ’अंधेरे से अंधेरे तक का सफ़र’ है, इस दृष्टि से वह केवल अंधकार ही है क्योंकि वह मनुष्य को अंततः कहीं नहीं ले जाता ।
--
See with keen attention,
Darkness too is a Light,
Where one instinctively,
Asserts one's own being.
See with keen attention,
Light is too but Darkness,
A journey towards Darkness,
From a Darkness only.
--
The first two lines are rather more important. Even in pitch-black Darkness, one is not uncertain of one's own being, though may not exactly understand 'Who' / 'What' I am. Even though the World is surrounded by the Dark, one may be uncertain about the world no-one doubts one's own existence, as a concrete fact. If the existence of such a fact / Reality is doubted, that is again irrefutable evidence of that 'conscious-being'. To grasp this simple fact no external Guru, Teacher or scripture is needed.
In the third and the last lines, the Physical Light has been likened to spiritual Darkness which takes one from Darkness to Darkness, or just no-where at all.
The Light of 'Awareness' that is spontaneous and steady lets us know our Real Being, while the external light helps in dealing with the day-to-day external life where one is an individual only.
--
   

       

प्रेम वैराग्य है

प्रेम और संबंध
--
संकल्प और अन्तर्द्वन्द, दुविधा साथ-साथ नहीं हो सकते ।
संकल्प अर्थात् निश्चय, निश्चय अर्थात् जो सुनिश्चित हो गया ।
यदि परिस्थितियों के बदल जाने पर वह बदल जाता है, अप्रासंगिक या अर्थहीन हो जाता है तो वह न तो निश्चय था न संकल्प था, केवल विचार के आधार पर लिया गया तात्कालिक अनुमान था । किसी आदर्श, कर्तव्य या आवेश में, किसी बाह्य दबाव में जिसे सोचा गया था । इसलिए निश्चय या संकल्प अटल और अडिग होता है और मूलतः स्वतन्त्र भी । इसलिए संकल्प आग्रह नहीं हो सकता । आग्रह दुविधा और अन्तर्द्वन्द्व, इच्छा और भय से युक्त होता है, आग्रह कल्पना से प्रभावित होता है और कल्पना परिस्थितियों से । प्रेम संकल्प है, संबंध व्यवस्था पर निर्भर है । इसलिए प्रेम में द्वन्द्व या आग्रह नहीं होता । संबंध में सदा आग्रह, भय और शंका, भावी के अनुमान तथा अतीत के अनुभव की छाया से प्रभावित होता है ।  इसलिए प्रेम वैराग्य है, अनासक्ति; जबकि संबंध है, राग - विराग । 
--   

Freedom and Creativity.

©
The ‘process’.
--
‘What is it?’
He asked.
‘It is what Is’.
‘What do you mean?’
‘A fact that was hidden, concealed; not manifest a few hours ago!’
‘What do you mean?’
‘I didn’t know how it might appear before us when it assumes this form.’
There was an Art-exhibition in my city.
My friend a great Artist, though not a ‘successful’ or famous one, had put on a few works of his on the show.
A visitor was trying to understand the ‘meaning’ of his Art.
‘You see, there is nevertheless a ‘process’, the mind of the painter who creates the painting. Please tell me how this happens with you. When you paint, don’t you already have an ‘idea’, theme or inspiration that you decide to express through your work.’
‘No, This happens without any deliberate thought, without any specific intention.’
‘Don’t you have at least a ‘title’ to it?’
‘Oh! Not at all …! That too takes its due time and even after the painting has been ‘finished’, this may not happen.'
 ‘Then how could you explain what you had in mind that leads you to creating a painting.’
‘All I know, there arises an urge, kind of anxiety that takes me by my hand, and as the same works through my brushes, Aisle and colors. Sometimes this takes a few hours, but can’t say that either. Sometimes a few days or even may remain just unfinished. Some of my paintings gather dust and some of them are taken away by some friend also. The same may eventually return to me in circumstances unbelievable and for reasons unimaginable.’
‘So you don’t worry?’
‘Yes, sometimes I do worry, or just forget. I see the unknown that sprouts in me takes his own course and takes a shorter or rather a longer time.’
‘What do you mean? How can you know the unknown?’
‘Just when the painting is finished. It is like the opening up of a blossom. Natural, Spontaneous. The title, the theme, the objective, the intention or the spirit, all just get a release when the work is finished. For me, this is what I call the unknown. And I too relax as if freed from a great burden’
‘Oh! I think I got your point.’
--        

The Benediction.

Come upon it!
--

’राष्ट्र’, ’देश’, ’राज्य’, ’पृथिवी’ / ’पृथ्वी’

’आर्य’ और ’आर्येतर’
--
वैदिक आधार पर ’राष्ट्र’ का अर्थ ’देश’ या ’राज्य’ न होकर संपूर्ण ’पृथिवी’ / ’पृथ्वी’ है । वाल्मीकि रामायण में विभिन्न ’जातियों’ का उल्लेख है जो पूरी ’पृथिवी’ पर भिन्न-भिन्न ’देशों’ पर जनमीं और उनकी अपनी ’सभ्यता’ विकसित हुई । ’आर्य’ और ’आर्येतर’  इसलिए ’आर्य’ जो ’जाति’ नहीं है पूरी पृथिवी पर सर्वत्र हैं । ’राष्ट्र’ का वैदिक अभिप्राय यह पूरी पृथिवी है ।
ऋग्वेद में (परम-सत्ता रूपिणी) ’देवी’ कहती हैं :
अहं राष्ट्री संगमनी वसूनामं चिकितुषी प्रथमा यज्ञियानाम् ...
(ऋग्वेद मंडल १०- १२५, १०- ८)
’पृथिवी’ नाम भी पृथ्वी को तब प्राप्त हुआ जब राजा वेन ने भूमि पर कृषि के द्वारा ’राज्य’ की स्थापना की ।
राजा वेन की ही संतान वैन्य था जिसे शिव ने उपदेश दिया (विरूपाक्ष पञ्चाशिका)।
राजा वेन के ही दक्षिण ’कर’ से वैन्य का जन्म हुआ ।
’क्षत्रिय’ वर्ण का जन्म ’राज्य’ के आधार पर ’धर्म’ के अनुसार समस्त पृथ्वी पर ’शासन’ के लिए है ।
इसलिए ’राष्ट्र-रक्षा’ ’धर्म के राज्य’ के शासन और रक्षा के लिए क्षत्रिय का एकमात्र ’धर्म’ है ।
इस सन्दर्भ में श्रीमद्भग्वद्गीता अवश्य ही स्पष्ट निर्देश देती है ।
’क्षात्र-धर्म’ का पालन न केवल ’अर्जुन’ बल्कि समस्त क्षत्रियों का परम कर्तव्य और सबके कल्याण के लिए है ।
यहाँ संक्षेप में ... विस्तार के लिए मेरे ब्लॉग्स देख सकते हैं, विशेषकर ’स्वाध्याय’ के अतर्गत ।
--   

Alchemy : The Radical Transformation.

Does this text imply that 'mutation' in the brain-cells brings about 'The  Radical Transformation'?
Or perhaps 'The  Radical Transformation' triggers a 'process' that brings about the 'mutation' of the brain-cells?
--

Attention and the question of ‘Freedom’

What is freedom?
Obviously this question is asked only by a living person.
A machine or computer can’t think of asking this question.
There is ‘a consciousness’ where-in this question arises as a thought.
This consciousness, whatever name it is given, is essentially associated with a physical body, and the ‘one’ that says ‘I’ is too the essence of the food, a very subtle refinement though of the food it consumes.
Thought is thus a word-structure on one hand, there is also a ground where a sequence of such many thoughts keep continuously arising and subsiding. We can also see there may be a crowd of such thoughts and thought-sequences. We can’t perhaps have a single thought that stays on the fore as the prominent one. There is always the movement of thoughts in ‘mind’ and only one or some of those in a group, come up on the topmost layer of this mind.
Again there is an element of ‘attention’ that holds a specific thought firmly in ‘consciousnesses’. This ‘attention’, though seems to be the fixed, static, unmoving, unchanging aspect of consciousness, is not an attribute of consciousness, on the contrary, the ‘consciousness’ is the moving part / aspect of attention.
This ‘attention’ lacks the sense of ‘me’ and ‘I’ though the ‘consciousness’ inevitably and always is accompanied by ‘me’ and ‘I’.
‘Attention’ is devoid of person while consciousness is always of and about a person or the living being.
“What is Freedom?”
Is not the ‘consciousness’ and all that is the content of it, the result of food only? If the food intake is no more, this consciousness gradually becomes weak and weaker, until finally it fades away and is just totally dispersed and lost. This food is either in the form of whatever is eaten, or in the form of ‘information’, and ‘knowledge’ that is stored up as ‘memory’ in the brain.
Along-with the memory a sense of a center assumes existence in thought only. This center through memory, is translated into ‘I’ and ‘me’ which is not something true, but appears and accepted as thought only.
‘consciousness’ and the content of consciousness that is thought; keep moving in ‘attention’, though attention is the fixed, static, unmoved, immovable not-moving, unchanging background where all this movement takes place.
Exactly ‘Who’ or ‘What’ is the thing that asks:
“What is Freedom?”
Is not ‘Freedom’ an idea only?
‘Who’, ‘What’ and the consciousness along-with ‘I’ and ’me’, and its whole paraphernalia, as a whole are the one indivisible totality only, where division is imposed upon by thought only.
As is said, consciousness, along-with ‘I’ and ’me’ and thought as well are the result of the food that is consumed. Isn’t a result a consequence only, an effect of its cause?
Could we rationally and logically too, talk of the ‘Freedom’ of a result?
A result is always dependent inevitably upon its cause.
On account of this ‘fact’, there is no Freedom for the consciousness, neither for the person or the entity that in terms of thought, thinks it can have / find Freedom.
There is no Freedom of choice, but in choice-less awareness only, if and when the attention comes upon this Reality, the significance of the question of 'Freedom' is just no more.
--

“What is Freedom?” / "मुक्ति क्या है?"

“What is Freedom?”
She asked.
“Do we want an answer or need really, seriously this to know, to understand. What the existential meaning of ‘Freedom’? With deep earnestness, prevailed by equally deep sense of urgency? Just like a drowning one seeks to be rescued and needs help and not a discussion?”
“Well, please elaborate…”
“If that is the urge really there in the mind or the one who asks this question, before asking this, will he not first ask :
‘When, in what circumstances does one ask this question for oneself?’
Isn’t that only after having a sense of bondage, being somehow thwarted, restricted or obstructed that is difficult to bear with, this question comes out as a consequence only?”
“ …”
 “Because the real question is :
Exactly who / what is that is in the grip of this problem at the existential level and has no ‘real time’ to deal with it intellectually, -in terms of the intellect, so as to find release?
Only when there is an immense sense of being in captivity, the idea / urgency of being / becoming free is there. … Then you don’t ask :
“What is Freedom?”
Then you seek to break-down the shackles that have caught you unawares captured you in the first place. 
--
मुक्ति क्या है?
--
"मुक्ति क्या है?"
उसने प्रश्न किया ।
"हम इसका केवल कोई सतही, बौद्धिक, कोई सैद्धान्तिक उत्तर चाहते हैं, या  सचमुच गंभीरता से इसे पूछ रहे हैं, और समझना चाहते हैं?" ’मुक्ति’ या ’स्वतंत्रता’ का अस्तित्व से संबंधित तात्पर्य, -मुक्ति या ’स्वातन्त्र्य’; हमारे जीवन से जुड़े एक अत्यन्त महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न की तरह? गहरी उत्कंठा के साथ, जिससे उतनी ही गहरी आसन्न आवश्यकता भी उसमें हो? जैसे पानी में डूब रहा कोई मनुष्य डूबने से बचने के लिए किसी की सहायता खोजता है, और उसके पास इस बारे में चर्चा के लिए समय नहीं होता । "
"ठीक है, आप बताइये...!"
"यदि मन में ’मुक्ति क्या है?’ इसे जानने के लिए उत्कंठा, आकुलता है, तो इस प्रश्न को किए जाने से पहले क्या हमें इससे अधिक महत्वपूर्ण यह प्रश्न नहीं पूछना चाहिए कि किन स्थितियों में, किस परिस्थिति में यह प्रश्न मन में उठता है? किसी बंधन में अवरुद्ध अनुभव होने के बाद ही, अर्थात् किसी ऐसी असह्य स्थिति के, जिसे बर्दाश्त करना बहुत कठिन हो गया हो, उस स्थिति के पैदा होने के बाद ही; क्या यह प्रश्न उससे छूटने की बेचैनी के कारण स्वाभाविक और प्रासंगिक नहीं हो जाता?"
" ..."
"किसी भी प्रकार से कुंठित और बाधित होना महसूस हो जाने के बाद ही, उसे और अधिक न झेल सकने पर ही क्या उसका अंत हो, ऐसा आग्रह नहीं पैदा होता? अर्थात् उस अवरोध का अंत हो जाना ही पर्याप्त और वास्तविक चीज़ है, न कि ’मुक्ति’ नामक कोई दूसरी और एक नई चीज़ पा लेना जिसे संजो कर रख सकें ।
व्यावहारिक अर्थ में ’मुक्ति’ यही है कि उस अवरोध का अंत हो जाए ।"
" ..."
"क्योंकि मूलतः प्रश्न यह है कि ठीक-ठीक ’वह’ क्या / कौन है, जिसके लिए ’मुक्ति’, न कि ’मुक्ति क्या है?’ यह प्रश्न एक अस्तित्वगत, जीवन-मरण से जुड़ा प्रश्न है? चूँकि इस प्रश्न का कोई भी बौद्धिक उत्तर, शास्त्रीय, सैद्धान्तिक उत्तर हमारे ध्यान को मूल प्रश्न से हटाकर उससे दूर ले जाता है, इसलिए वह समस्या का संतोषप्रद समाधान नहीं हो सकता ।
केवल तभी जब अपने आपको किसी प्रकार से क़ैद में पाया जाता है, मुक्ति की, क़ैद से छूटने की कल्पना और तीव्र अकुलाहट पैदा होती है । तब आप :
’मुक्ति क्या है?’
यह नहीं पूछते ।
तब आप अपनी सारी शक्ति उन श्रंखलाओं को, उन दीवारों को तोड़ने में लगा देते हैं, जिन्होंने आपको आपकी दुर्बलता, असतर्कता और असावधानी, या लापरवाही के कारण क़ैद किया होता है ।
--

काल / kāla / Time. and 'Death'.

काल / kāla / Time. and 'Death'.
 --
अक्षरात् संजायते कालः कालात् व्यापक उच्यते ...
व्यापको हि भगवान् रुद्रो भोगायमानो  ...
यदा शेते रुद्रो संहरति प्रजाः ...
(शिव अथर्वशीर्षम्)
--
यह दृष्टव्य है कि ’काल’ शब्द का प्रयोग ही समय तथा मृत्यु दोनों अर्थ में किया जाता है ।
’अक्षर’ अर्थात् ’अविनाशी’ से ’काल’ का सृजन होता है ।
’काल’ (कलन से) व्यापक रूप में ’समय’ तथा ’स्थान’ की तरह से व्यक्त होता है ।
यह व्यापक रूप शिव का भगवान् रुद्र रूप है,
जब इस रूप को शिव स्वयं में समेट लेते हैं अर्थात् स्वयं में इसका संहरण कर लेते हैं तब भोगायमान अर्थात् जगत् की तरह विलास में संलग्न होते हैं । यही ’प्रजा’ अर्थात् ’समय’ तथा ’स्थान’ रूपी व्यक्त जगत् लय हो जाता है । इस प्रकार जागतिक काल तथा स्थान ’विचार’ और कल्पना में ही है, जो प्रत्येक ’जीव’ में भिन्न-भिन्न रूप ग्रहण करता है, किंतु उसका संयुक्त वह वैश्विक रूप है ही नहीं जिसका वैज्ञानिक आकलन करते हैं ।
-- 
akṣarāt saṃjāyate kālaḥ kālāt vyāpaka ucyate,
vyāpako hi bhagavān rudro bhogāyamāno ...
yadā śete  rudro saṃharati prajāḥ ...

(śiva atharvaśīrṣam)
--

The word काल / kāla in संस्कृत / saṃskṛta  /   is used in the sense of ‘Time’ as well as ‘Death’.
This काल / kāla is ‘generated’ when शिव / śiva, in His rudra aspect is engaged in enjoyin the play of manifestation.
When asleep He (शिव / śiva) withdraws this काल / kāla within.
This काल / kāla is of the nature of expansion and is at once ‘Time’ and ‘Space’ together. So, काल / kāla and Time exist in the individual imagination only, and not at the world-level, which ‘science’ tries to study about. The individual too as ‘person’ is likewise in imagination only, really there exists no such person as an individual or the collective Truth. So death is never a Reality, Neither is birth or rebirth. Where can then be there 'past' and future?

 --

अनवधानता / प्रमाद - ignorance of the 'Self' / 'Reality'.

अनवधानता / प्रमाद
--
जब मैं कहता हूँ :
’मेरा मन शून्य / मौन / रिक्त  खाली है’,
वस्तुतः वह क्या / कौन है जो कि ’मेरा मन शून्य / मौन / रिक्त  खाली है’, ऐसा कहता है?
या, जब यह शून्य / मौन / रिक्त  खाली होता है, क्या तब यह कुछ भी कह सकता है?
केवल क्षण भर बाद ही जब ’मेरा मन शून्य / मौन / रिक्त  खाली है’, -यह विचार आता है, ठीक उसी समय वह ’मन’ अस्तित्व में है यह प्रतीत होता है ।
’विचार’ किस प्रकार अपना ताना-बाना बुनता, फैलाता है यह देखना रोचक है ।
और यह देखना भी कम रोचक नहीं कि ’विचार’ किस प्रकार कल्पना से ही ’विचारकर्ता’ / ’मन’ को भी अस्तित्व प्रदान कर देता है, जिसे ’मैं’ के रूप में भी जाना जाता है ।
इस प्रकार से ही ’विचार’ तथा ’विचारकर्ता’ में कल्पित दूरी ’विचार’ द्वारा ही पैदा की जाती है, जिसे विचार कभी नहीं पाट सकता ।
यह सारा घटनाक्रम केवल प्रमाद / अनवधानता से ही घटित होता है ।
इसी अनवधानता / प्रमाद में मैं अपने-आपको जानता हूँ / नहीं जानता का विचार पैदा होता और पनपता है ।
ऐसे किसी ’विचारकर्ता’ के स्वतन्त्र अस्तित्व को उसके अस्तित्व की सत्यता की परीक्षा किए बिना स्वीकार कर लेना और उसे ’मैं’ मान बैठना मनुष्य का मूल अंधविश्वास है ।
--
Inattention .
--
When I say :
"My mind is blank",
Exactly who / what knows that it is blank?
Or, when it is blank, could it possibly say so?
Only a moment later when the thought
"My mind is blank"
emerges, the mind that says so along-with the notion of 'a mind' appears to exist so. This is really interesting to see how thought itself spins out its cobweb and gives rise to the notion of a 'thinker' / 'mind' in this, the very same thought, and the imaginary distance between the thinker and thought is also created / assumed by it at the same time.
Without due and careful examination giving reality to such an independent 'thinker' and assuming this 'thinker' as 'I' / 'me' is the blind faith only.
--
     

The 'consciousness' and the 'Awareness'.

We were discussing about realization by the brain cells. Let me share with you my understanding about it from where you left. What is this consciousness which, you say, is going to realize and not the brain cells? Isn't it made up of the contents which thought has created and put there? Without thought there won't be any consciousness. And this consciousness is the creation of thought which arises from memory held in the brain cells. So, the realization has to be at the level of the brain cells where all memories of past experiences are stored. From these memories thought arises and feeds the consciousness and then it emerges from it. So, the whole consciousness is caught up in time, and operates within the field of time which is a vicious circle. Now, any effort that the consciousness makes to free itself of itself only strengthens consciousness. This realization that 'I' or the 'me' or brain cells/consciousness, can do nothing to get out of this vicious circle is very important. This realization or the 'seeing' is the insight; and the timeless energy of this insight alone can free consciousness from time. I would like to know what you think about it.
--
This consciousness ‘that is going to realize’ is not the brain-cells.
The consciousness that is going to realize’ is  not the brain-cells. It isn’t made up of contents which thought has created and put there. Thought is dead matter and can never ‘create’ consciousness which is a living cause where-in thought is a secondary movement in a pattern depending totally upon memory only. The memory, that imposes upon the experiences, an assumed continuity and sequence in imagined ‘time’.
Vedanta deals with this squarely.
(And let me say “Vedanta is not a philosophy or pattern of thinking or thought-process, nor a ‘method’ but only a ‘tool’ of ‘Self-inquiry’.
The 6 such tools are : सांख्य,
sāṃkhya, मीमांसा, mīmāṃsā, न्याय, nyāya, वैशेषिक, vaiśeṣika,  योग, yoga, and वेदान्त, vedānta,
--

Vedanta is important because that gives us a direct platform to talk about the ‘Reality’, in terms of the existential quest. 

J.Krishnamurti deliberately skips away all scriptures, because if one can attain the ‘Reality’ through scriptures, he doesn’t need J.Krishnamurti. And if one finds the scriptures of no help then J.Krishnamurti speaks directly about ‘what is’. In this ‘what is’ He deals with the consciousness that is synonymous of thought only. But He always emphasizes upon ‘attention’ and ‘awareness’ at the same time.
This ‘awareness’ is never the ‘personal’ though whatever is stored up in consciousness is the content of the consciousness itself.
Vedanta and other 5 ‘tools’ of the spiritual or the existential quest maintain and agree that the only light and the source of light (Brahman) is the substratum (support) of the manifestation. This manifestation itself becomes the individual self and the world as is perceived by him. The quality of development of an organism decides how complicated or simple form is assumed by this perception in the individual.
Summarily the consciousness that is manifest in the individual is but the reflected light of the source of light (Brahman) which could not be given a name, nor could be grasped by senses, thought (intellect), or as ‘experience’.
Therefore J.Krishnamurti has to insist upon the ‘urgency’, the eagerness, the ‘maturity’ of mind.
This is my understanding.   
This Awareness is but the 'Intelligence' with no distinctions of any kind.
The One whole Reality, but the word 'one' is again incapable of describing it correctly and satisfactorily.
--
Thanks. But the consciousness as we know it can only know what is within it, it cannot know anything which is beyond it until it empties itself, without any effort of the consciousness. Whatever is said about something which is beyond our consciousness will be only an idea which if accepted will not be helpful for the emptying of consciousness. It’s very difficult to grasp this point. By repeating, “I am Brahman”, one doesn’t become Brahman. The self or the consciousness must come to an end for that ( Brahman or Truth whatever name you give to that state) to come into being, which is beyond the self. So, what is important is to understand the self and end the self without any effort of the self, and without any idea of something which is beyond the self.
--
This is your view. I fully agree as you said : But the consciousness as we know it can only know what is within it, it cannot know anything which is beyond it … Vedanta doesn’t insist upon imagining or contemplating about what is ‘beyond’ consciousness. Vedanta rather gives a clue to empty this consciousness, even to discard it totally, unconditionally. This is instructed by ‘neti’-‘neti’. One can ask: Exactly what / who is to discard this? Such a one is instructed to inquire into the very nature of ‘I-thought’ itself. This very ‘I-thought’ is illusory and is unable to eradicate / root out itself. Rationally too that is impossible, because the one who inquires is itself the very ‘I-thought’. But it dissolves on its own, and no rules could be made, or speculation be done, ‘how’ and ‘when’ this happens. ‘I-thought’ can’t even bring about this transformation in itself. That is again a logical impossibility. Any effort results into its survival and strengthens it only.
--
This is where the instructions of Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaja are extremely helpful.
They both the same way to one who needs help and ready, even eager to listen what they say.
Maharaj suggests to stay in ‘I am’. In whatever way, either just bringing attention repeatedly upon this simple, bare fact. Or you can do repeat ‘I am’. Not like a mantra, but verbally to remind yourself of this fact and come upon this again and again. Some-one is also given a mantra to repeat as ‘practice’. Some day he becomes stable in this practice and can be mature enough to ask himself the Impossible Question:”Who am I?”
No general rules could be laid down.
This is why I sometimes think:
For some, Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj is the only clue to the J.Krishnamurti-puzzle.       
--

कराभ्याम् / वाम-दक्षिण

> 
द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते ।
तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वादवत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति ॥
(मुण्डकोपनिषत् ३, १)
--
वैसे तो यह श्लोक आध्यात्मिक सत्य को रेखांकित करता है, किन्तु शायद इसे मस्तिष्क और हृदय से जोड़कर भी देखा जा सकता है। 
--
कराभ्याम्  
डार्विन के अनुसार मनुष्य किसी चार पैरों पर चलनेवाले मानवेतर प्राणी का विकसित प्रकार है ।
जब वह अपने पैरों पर खड़ा होने लगा तो उसने चलना, दौड़ना और खेलना, नृत्य, कुश्ती, और युद्ध आदि जैसी अनेक क्रियाओं का आविष्कार किया और ’लिखना’ तथा हाथों से अनेक कार्य करना सीखा / सिखाया ।
’विकास’ के इसी क्रम में उसे कुछ ऐसे कार्य करने पड़े जिसे केवल एक हाथ से किया जाना कभी-कभी मज़बूरी तो कभी-कभी सुविधाजनक होता था । इसका मतलब यह हुआ कि उसका दूसरा हाथ उस समय कोई और कार्य करता था या उसके पास कार्य  नहीं होता था । कुछ कार्य ऐसे भी हैं जिनमें दोनों हाथों का समान उपयोग होता है, जैसे पैदल चलना, तैरना या दौड़ना ।
’यन्त्र-युग’ आने पर मशीनें भी ऐसी बनी जिनमें दोनों हाथों की गतिविधि का बेहतर तालमेल सुनिश्चित किया गया । जैसे बाइसिकल चलाना या टाइप करना ।
एक हाथ से कार्य करने के अपने-गुण-दोष हैं, और दोनों हाथों से काम करने के भी अपने गुण-दोष हैं । यह कार्य के प्रकार पर भी निर्भर है । तैरना या साइकिल चलाना जैसे कार्यों में मस्तिष्क को अतिरिक्त कार्य नहीं करना पड़ता जबकि टाइप करने या तबला या बाँसुरी बजाने के कार्य में ’ध्यान’ का विभाजन हो जाता है । शायद मनुष्य के मानसिक-विखंडन, द्वन्द्वप्रधान होने का एक कारण यह भी हो । मनुष्य एक द्वन्द्व / अन्तर्द्वन्द्व है ।
कुछ लोगों के लिए बाँया हाथ प्रमुख होता है, दाहिना सहायक, तो कुछ लोगों की स्थिति में इसका विपरीत होता है ।
इसका मनुष्य की मानसिकता से भी किसी हद तक संबंध अवश्य है । यह भी सच है कि मस्तिष्क स्वयं भी दो भागों में विभाजित है और स्नायु-तन्त्र (नाड़ियाँ) के माध्यम से शरीर के बाँए अंग मस्तिष्क के दाँए हिस्से से तथा दाहिने अंग बाँए हिस्से से संचालित होते हैं । इस प्रकार मनुष्य के कार्य की विविधता और मस्तिष्क के कार्य करने के विभिन्न प्रकार असंख्य संभावनाओं को जन्म देते हैं ।
इससे ही जुड़ा है एक और विषय । कुछ लिपियाँ दाँए से बाँई ओर लिखी जाती हैं जबकि कुछ दाहिने से बाँई ओर । क्या इन लिपि-समूह से ’वर्गीकृत’ मनुष्यों के सोचने-विचारने के तरीकों और जीवन की मूल-प्रेरणाओं  में कोई विशेष अंतर होता है?
--   
संस्कृत में सामि का अर्थ है ’आधा’, जिससे अंग्रेज़ी में बना ’सेमी’ (semi) जो अंग्रेज़ी में उपसर्ग / प्रिफ़िक्स की तरह प्रयुक्त होता है । (सं > सम् > समान > अर्थात् आधा) दूसरी ओर सेमिटिक Semitic तथा नॉन-सेमिटिक non-Semitic ये दो विभाजन भी मानव-सभ्यता में हैं ही । इस मूल विभाजन के बाद ही पैगन Pagan संस्कृति जो पहले विश्व-व्यापी तथा समन्वयात्मक थी, टूटती चली गई ....  । यदि हम नाम से किसी समूह-विशेष की संस्कृति ’तय’ करने और उनमें श्रेष्ठ या हीन होने के विचार से परिचालित हुए बिना इस पूरे प्रश्न को देखें तो शायद मनुष्य जाति पुनः उस समन्वय और परस्पर प्रीति का आविष्कार कर सकती है जिसे हमने पिछले पाँच हज़ार वर्षों के इतिहास में लगभग नष्ट कर दिया है ।
--
सं > com > संयुञ्ज > commune > community > क़ौम > कंम्यूनिस्ट  भी दृष्टव्य हैं।
--

प्रपञ्च-सार / prapañca-sāra

आज की  संस्कृत रचना
saṃskṛta composition
--

प्रपञ्च-सार / prapañca-sāra 

पञ्चेन्द्रियाणि पञ्चविषयाः पञ्चभूतात्मकं जगत् ।
पञ्चप्राणाः अन्तःकरणञ्च इदमीशात्मकप्रपञ्चः ॥
(अन्तःकरणचतुष्टय तथा ईश्वर)
--
pañcendriyāṇi pañcaviṣayāḥ pañcabhūtātmakaṃ jagat |
pañcaprāṇāḥ antaḥkaraṇañca idamīśātmakaprapañcaḥ ||
(antaḥkaraṇacatuṣṭaya tathā īśvara)
--
अर्थ :
पाँच इन्द्रियाँ (ज्ञानेन्द्रिय तथा कर्मेन्द्रिय भी) हैं,
उनके पाँच ही विषय भी हैं,
पाँच ही तत्वों से जगत् सृष्ट है,
पाँच प्राण हैं, अन्तःकरण (चार),
तथा सबका एक ही ईश्वर,
ये भी पाँच हैं, यही प्रपञ्च भी है । 
--

Meaning : 

Five are the senses, 

Five are the the sense-objects, 

Five-elements are the world.

Five are the vital-breaths,

Four the psyche and The One,

The Lord of all, is The Manifest.

--

Quest in the Existential Truth.

असंगत और असंभव प्रश्न
The Invalid and the Impossible Question.
--
J.KriShnamurti often puts an impossible question before the listener.
This is a remarkable point on His part. This is, what one should go into; what makes Him to do so?
‘Impossible’ here refers to a question that takes you by surprise. To such a question, there is really no answer in the ‘known’. You are just awestruck and your mind goes blank for a moment. In that moment either you can perhaps see the beauty and the strength / power of silence that comes up to the fore for a while. There is no need to answer the question. Neither He looks forward for your answer, though just as He is aware of all other things in the moment, He is also only aware of your reaction / response. This is an undivided whole thing. If you just listen to Him, may be you could at once understand the silence standing as a rock behind His words. And if you could sense that silence it will engulf you into its fold. What words / language He speaks out becomes secondary to this silence. And it is not that you get the answer to His question either, Rather you share His consciousness. Then your own mind drops and you come-out from your ‘knowledge’, ‘the known’.
This session with Him takes you on a flight to the ‘unknown’.
And even if the listener is only in a dialogue with Him only, and does not sense the ‘silence’ he atleast has left out the ‘known’ and the dialogue keeps him connected to the ‘present’ where past and future interfere not. Past and future are but facets of the known only. Though as memory and imagination they look as two different things, there essence is but ‘thought’ only. So listening is important. The way we listen is really the most important factor of listening. And listening without interpretation, without trying to understand the verbal meaning is no less important either. Listening to the chirp of the birds in the morning or in the evening, of the sound and even noise and shrill caused by an old engine, without focussing yet carefully is quite lightening. Putting resistance means we are trying to escape ‘what is’. 
This is why “Impossible Question” helps to go beyond the ‘known’
When we are having a dialogue with some-one, then also listening in this way we can see carefully understand what is unsaid, by just the gestures only. This way there is a trmendous release of the energy that is otherwise wasted and dissipated in resistance or in holding firmly onto our opinion and stand.
Again for the meaningful communication it is equally important that the questions that are raised should not free of contradicton in themselves.
Usually in our dialogues or conversations with people, our teachers or our students, or who-so-ever we are concerned with, we come across questions that are either clear, well-formed, or not so clear, extraneous, superficial, extra-urgents as well ridden with with paradoxes, or basically of no relevance at all. May be to the point, absurd, direct, indirect, invalid, rational or irrational, or just beyond the scope of the discussion itself. A question evokes a right response only when it is well-framed  without inherent bias, prejudice.
The question that one asks is usually  a reflection of the past of the questioner.  Such a question could surely and mostly be dealt within the intellectal framework of logic. The appropriate questioning, doubts and removal of doubts depend upon how clearly we see the problem. In the right context and in due reference there is always a smooth communication that could erase the differences of opinion whatsoever. A right attitude and approach always culminate into a satisfactory conclusion. This is true about the usual questions that we come across almost every moment in our day to day life. Such questions are based upon the knowledge and emanate from the past (either as information or rxperience). The so-called scientific or Mathematical questions are also kind of intellectual exercise only, because ‘Science’ and ‘Mathematics’ which form the back-bone of our ‘knowledge’ are supported by concepts only. These concepts are the general truth supported by sensory experience and intellectual logic / reasoning. And ‘Science’ and ‘Mathematics’ are not the Ultimate Truth, when we try to understand the ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness’ and have to come across such existential quest.
This what is ‘objective’ knowledge.
No doubt, this has practical use. This ‘knowledge’ could be transmitted through the appropriate language. This knowledge depends upon the sensory-perception, which is accepted in terms of (the word) ‘the experience’. Thus the ‘sensory-perception’ which is just pure contact of the senses with the object of perception is stored as experience which is again either acceptable or inacceptable, pleasant or unpleasant.
There is the inbuilt program or a programing that happens on the foundation of such varied experiences, and the sensory-perception which is basically only the contact-point of the sensory-world and the ‘one’ that is a counter-result of the perception is furthur divided in terms of the quality of the various kinds of sensory-perceptions. Broadly speaking they are of the kind of sound, smell, taste, sight and touch. These sensory-perceptions are basically ‘experience’ of the contact between what (the object) is perceived and the conscious entity that perceives them, and is remembered as an experience in the brain. Thus experience takes the form of sound, smell, taste, sight and touch according to the specific bridge between the ‘object’ and the conscious entity that defines this as ‘experience’. This is the sensory-perception at two levels. One is the ‘ouside-world’, the world that is beyond the physical body and is taken as the ‘outer’, the external world. The conscious-entity when devoid of this external world and the sensory exaperience of this external outer world in any form, still exists and perceives something that is basically but the memory of that external world remembered in the form of such variety of kinds of perceptions. This is the ‘dream-state’ of the conscious entity. But again in this state there are blanks, when the conscious entity is devoid of any memory or the memory stirs not. But a state of utter stillness and peace is perceived by the organism that is associated with this conscious entity. The same in contrast to its waking state is called ‘sleep’. By the way, we can understand how an infant keeps sleeping blissfully for quite long hours. Then may be something disrupts the sleep. Either the bodily needs like hunger or the physical pain only. In that state of an infant the conscious entity is not even an internal or external to the world that is perceived by it while in waking or the dreaming.                   

The Impossible Question is a quest about the nature and the function, working and activity of this conscious entity which; we can name ‘the mind’ for the sake of simplicity.
This conscious entity is though already free of any disctinction within itself, of what-so-ever of the outer / inner or external / internal kind, with reference to the physical body of an organism in a world , manifests itself in those two forms, namely an external world and an internal ‘me’ / ’I’ respectively. This division is again though formal, assumed in memory as a true-one.
A question that is about the world has ‘thought’ as the foundation for its formation. But the thought itself has this conscious entity as foundation. The conscious entity associated with memory, takes the name and form what we have said ‘the mind’.
The Impossible Question takes our attention back to the source wherefrom the attention took a turn towards the division of the external and the internal.
To grasp this point ‘thought’ needs to withdraw from this mind and memory, and attention should be free of ‘thought’, whatever form thought assumes time to time.       
 The Impossible Question is thus existential inquiry into the ‘self’ and ‘the mind’.
Interestingly no one can deny the existence of this (apparent or real fictitious or true whatever) ‘self’ or ‘the mind’, by what-so-ever logic. No one could deny this by way of ‘experience’, claimimg to have ‘experienced’ that it doesn’t exist. Neither by arriving at a conclusion after elaborate thought over it. The very refusal, refuting is assertion that there is a ‘self’, ‘the mind’.
Interestingly though no one denies the existence of ‘me’ / ‘self’ / ‘the mind’, this conscious entity is mentioned in two ways. We say ‘my mind’. We say ‘mind’. We inadvertantly look at the mind in these two ways and impose upon the mind a quality of being ‘mine’ or ‘not mine’ also. Is this division not a thought only? Is this division not in thought only. Thought is an expression of ‘the mind’, and thus ‘the mind’ through ignorance, appears as ‘mine’ or ‘not mine’. Through that very thought that itself has created this division of ‘the mind’, the conscious entity becomes a captive of ‘thought’. Thinking and thought are intellectual processes, while Understanding / Intelligence / attention is never a process but either an illumination or the lack of this illumination.
वेदान्त vedānta / like  साँख्य / sām̐khya / मीमाँसा / mīmām̐sā / न्याय / nyāya / वैशेषिक / vaiśeṣika  / and  योग / yoga  / is not ‘Philosophy’, but an instrument / tool / device that facilitates this ‘self-enquiry’ or the ‘inquiry’ into the nature and truth of this ‘self’.
‘Philosophy’ is about intellectual pondering over by means of ‘thought’ that is the result of memory and the habits of thinking.
Intellect is a good and perhaps an approximate tool while conducting the matters of day-to-day life, even the thinking in the line of so-called exact theories like ‘Science’ and ‘Mathematics’ as well, yet it could not reach its limits so far.
The way we question ‘why’, ‘what’ ‘where’, ‘time’, ‘matter’, ‘space’, ‘energy’ about the things of physical kind, is quite inapplicable in dealing with the understanding the ‘Existential’.
The intellectual kind of inquiry about the existence therefore leads nowhere.
An intellectual question, however perfect, orderly or logical could often fail in understanding the Existential and so may even prove absurd, invalid, unrelated, in the parlance of discovering the Reality. In the Discovery of The Existential.
--   

--
 

असंगत और असंभव प्रश्न

The Impossible Question
असंगत और असंभव प्रश्न
--
जे. कृष्णमूर्ति ’असंभव’ प्रश्न करते हैं ।
यह विचारणीय अवश्य है । ’असंभव’ अर्थात् ऐसा प्रश्न जिसका उत्तर उनसे संवाद करनेवाले के लिए, उसके ’ज्ञात’ के दायरे में नहीं होता । और यदि वह उन्हें केवल सुनता भी है और वे क्या कहते हैं उसे समझने भर का प्रयास करता है तो उस प्रश्न का सामना ’ज्ञात’ के दायरे को तोड़कर बिलकुल नए सिरे से करता है ।  जे. कृष्णमूर्ति के साहित्य में ऐसे प्रश्न का उल्लेख ’असंभव’ प्रश्न (impossible question) की तरह किया गया है ।
संवाद की सार्थकता के लिए यह तो आवश्यक है ही कि प्रस्तुत किए जानेवाले प्रश्न अपने-आप में विसंगतिपूर्ण न हों । सामान्यतः कोई प्रश्न सुसंगत, विसंगतिपूर्ण, असंगतिपूर्ण, असंबद्ध अथवा अतिप्रश्न हो सकता है जिसका आगमन प्रश्नकर्ता के मन में उसके ’ज्ञात’ से होता है । ऐसे प्रश्न का औचित्य प्रतीत होने पर ही उचित संदर्भ में उत्तर दिया जा सकता है । किंतु प्रश्नकर्ता के लिए भी यदि यह स्पष्ट हो कि उसका प्रश्न कोरा बौद्धिक प्रलाप न होकर औचित्यपूर्ण अर्थात् सुसंगत है और व्यावहारिक रूप से उसकी जिज्ञासा भी है, तो संवाद सुचारु और सार्थक हो जाता है ।
सामान्यतः मनुष्य के मन में उठनेवाले सभी प्रश्न ’ज्ञात’ के ही दायरे में सीमित होते हैं इसलिए उस स्तर पर उनके ’उत्तर’ भी उसी दायरे के अन्तर्गत हो सकते हैं । गणित या भौतिक-शास्त्र के सभी ’संभव’ प्रश्न ’ज्ञात’ कहे जानेवाली ’जानकारी’ के आधार पर पैदा होते हैं और उनके बौद्धिक सर्वाधिक उपयुक्त उत्तर भी अवश्य ही उसी दायरे और संदर्भ में हो सकते हैं । यह हुआ ’विषय-ज्ञान’, जिसका आदान-प्रदान अवश्य ही किसी ’भाषा’ में संभव है, और व्यावहारिक उपयोग भी है ही । ’विषयात्मक’ ज्ञान प्रतीति, इन्द्रिय संवेदन, और संवेदनकर्ता के मन में उत्पन्न उस प्रतीति की प्रतिक्रिया के रूप में होता है । इसे संक्षेप में ’अनुभव’ कहा जा सकता है । 
दूसरी ओर अस्तित्वगत प्रश्न ’अस्ति’ से संबंधित प्रश्न जिनका संबंध अस्तित्व के अपेक्षाकृत गहनतर पक्षों से है, ’मन’ नामक वस्तु जिसका सबके द्वारा स्वीकार किया जानेवाला सर्वाधिक प्रकट रूप है । इस प्रकार ’मन’ की सत्ता से किसी भी तार्किक, व्यावहारिक या निष्कर्षात्मक स्तर पर इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता क्योंकि ऐसा इनकार स्वयं ही इस ’सत्ता’ के अस्तित्व की पुनः पुष्टि ही करता है ।
यह ’मन’ वैसे तो हमेशा ’स्वपरक’, लेकिन व्यवहार के स्तर पर ’विषयात्मक’ है । अर्थात् एक ओर तो ’मन’ को ’स्व’ के रूप में ग्रहण और स्वीकार कर लिया जाता है तो दूसरी ओर उसका उल्लेख किसी ’विषय’ (object) की तरह से भी किया जाता है । इसलिए विभाजन की एक प्रक्रिया जन्म लेती है जिसमें ’मेरा मन’ के रूप में ’मन’ नामक इस सत्ता को ’मेरे’ और ’जो मेरा नहीं है’ के रूप में बाँट दिया जाता है ।
हृदय और मस्तिष्क की स्वाभाविक या प्रतिक्रियात्मक गतिविधियों को भी ’मन’ के अन्तर्गत  ’मेरा’ से संबद्ध मान लिया जाता है । किंतु हृदय तथा मस्तिष्क के अलावा शरीर के दूसरे अंगों में होनेवाली गतिविधियाँ भी हैं जो अपने स्वाभाविक रूप में उनके अपने ढंग से संचालित होती हैं और उनकी ओर हमारा ध्यान (attention) तभी जाता है जब उनकी स्वाभाविक गतिविधि में कोई व्यवधान होता है । इस प्रकार ’मन’ का कार्य चेतन और अचेतन इन दो स्तरों पर होता है ।
मस्तिष्क की ही तरह हृदय का कार्य भी शारीरिक और मानसिक इन दो प्रकारों में होता है । मानसिक रूप से, जैसे मस्तिष्क ’विचार’ और ’बुद्धि’, ’स्मृति’ और यंत्रचालित अभ्यास (आदत) से कार्य करता है, वैसे ही हृदय भावनामात्र से संचालित होता है । भावना ही हृदय का एकमात्र प्रकट मानसिक रूप है, जबकि मस्तिष्क ’विचार’ और ’बुद्धि’ ’स्मृति’ और यंत्रचालित अभ्यास (आदत) के अनेक रूपों में प्रकट ’तथ्य’ है ।  हृदय भावनात्मक ’तथ्य’ है जबकि मस्तिष्क ’विचार’ और ’बुद्धि’ ’स्मृति’ और यंत्रचालित अभ्यास (आदत) का सम्मिलित प्रकट रूप ।
’मन’ की सत्ता का विचार यद्यपि ’स्मृति’ के माध्यम से कल्पित अतीत और कल्पित भविष्य के संबंध में ही संभव है, किंतु चित्त के रूप में ’मन’ को मस्तिष्क और हृदय की संयुक्त और सतत गतिविधि के रूप में पहचाना जाता है । अर्थात् चित्त को ही व्यवहार में ’मन’ कहा-समझा जाता है ।
इस सारे ’घटना-क्रम’ में संवेदनकर्ता कौन / क्या है?
यह हुआ असंभव प्रश्न । और ’अस्ति’ (व्हॉट इज़ ?/ what Is?) के रूप में यह हुआ ’आत्म-जिज्ञासा’ ।
जे.कृष्णमूर्ति के साहित्य के संदर्भ में यह शायद ’असंभव’ प्रश्न होगा ।
क्योंकि ’ज्ञात’ के दायरे में इसका उत्तर संभव नहीं है ।
ठीक इस प्रकार वेदान्त भी ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा या आत्म-जिज्ञासा के माध्यम से हमारे समक्ष ’असंभव प्रश्न’ रखता है, जो हमारे लिए औचित्यपूर्ण, सुसंगत, विसंगतिपूर्ण, असंगतिपूर्ण, असंबद्ध अथवा अतिप्रश्न हो सकते हैं ।
कोई कह सकता है यह भी कोई पूछने की बात है? ’मैं मैं हूँ!’ उसके लिए इस प्रश्न का कोई अर्थ और महत्व है ही नहीं ।
कोई कह सकता है ’मैं फलाँ-फलाँ हूँ’ और अपना ’परिचय’ देगा, जो व्यावहारिक रूप से असत्य भी नहीं है ।
कोई और इसे ’वैचारिक’ प्रश्न मानकर इस पर उस ढंग से बौद्धिक विवेचना किए जाने / सुनने की अपेक्षा करेगा ।
जैसा कि दर्शन-शास्त्र के प्रारंभ से ही होता रहा है ।
किसी और के लिए यह एक विसंगत, नितांत उपेक्षणीय प्रश्न होगा, शायद व्यर्थ भी ।
किसी और के लिए यह समझ से परे का प्रश्न होगा इसलिए असंबद्ध भी ।
वेदान्त में इसका उत्तर पात्र के लिए चार महावाक्यों के रूप में उपलब्ध है ।
वेदान्त में ही अपात्र के द्वारा यह प्रश्न उठाया जाना अतिप्रश्न है, क्योंकि वह उसके द्वारा मर्यादा का उल्लंघन है ।
अनधिकारी द्वारा उठाया जानेवाला ऐसा प्रश्न (और उस पर वाद-विवाद) वितंडावाद होकर रह  जाता है ।
संवेदन / संवेदनकर्ता ही सत्ता (being / भविता) का अधिष्ठान है ।
प्रसंगवश :
अभी जे.कृष्णमूर्ति से जुड़े एक मित्र ने चर्चा करते हुए अपना मत प्रकट करते हुए कहा :
 … When the brain-cells realize …!?
क्या यह प्रश्न ब्रैन-सेल्स (brain-cells) द्वारा किया जा रहा है? ब्रैन-सेल्स (brain-cells) को जाननेवाला ’संवेदनकर्ता’ जो भी / जिस भी रूप में हो, क्या उस ’संवेदनकर्ता’ का अस्तित्व ही ब्रैन-सेल्स के जानने / न जानने का प्राथमिक और मूलभूत  (authentic) प्रमाण नहीं है?
Brain-cells is secondary, a conclusion and inference, confined within the ‘known’. 
--

सर्वत्र विभाषा गोः

--
सर्वत्र विभाषा गोः
(लघुसिद्धान्त कौमुदी ४४)
अष्टाध्यायी ६/१/१२२
लोके वेदे चैङन्तस्य गोरति वा प्रकृतिभावः पदान्ते ...
लोके वेदे च एङन्त गोः अति वा प्रकृतिभावः पदान्ते ।
लोक और वेद में एङन्त गो शब्द (गोशब्दावयव ओकार) को अत् - ह्रस्व अकार-परे रहने पर पदान्त में विकल्प से प्रकृतिभाव होता है ।
संस्कृत भाषा के दो रूप हैं  :
१ लौकिक, २ वैदिक,
लौकिक भाषा लोक में प्रयुक्त होती है, काव्यों में प्रयुक्त भाषा लौकिक ही है । पाणिनि और कात्यायन ने इस लौकिक भाषा के लिए केवल ’भाषा’ शब्द का भी प्रयोग किया है । यथा --- ’प्रथमायाश्च द्विवचने भाषायाम्, प्रत्यये भाष्याम् नित्यम्’ ।
वैदिक भाषा वह है जो वेदों में प्रयुक्त हुई है ।
वैदिक भाषा के कुछ विशेष नियम हैं । वे यहाँ ’पृथक्’ कहे गए हैं । इस सूत्र (सर्वत्र विभाषा गोः) का कार्य ’सर्वत्र’ कहा गया है, अर्थात् लौकिक भाषा में भी और वैदिक भाषा में भी ।
--

एकं सत् विप्राः ... / ekaṃ sat viprāḥ ...

एकं सत् विप्राः बहुधा वदन्ति ...
ekaṃ sat viprāḥ bahudhā vadanti ...
--
Glossary : द्विजत्वम् / dvijatvam : twice born figuratively a bird, but in spiritual sense who has born just like an egg, inert, unenlightened, and subsequently initiated by the गुरु / guru and in the company of the गुरु / guru is the egg so hatched by the hen.
विप्रता / vipratā : One who has acquired proficiency in Veda (the verbal knowledge of scriptures) and has keenly tested and attested the truth there-in.
पुंस्त्वं / puṃstvaṃ : The action with a purpose, an objective.
ज्ञानी / jñānī : A Realized one, though this word is often used in the worldly sense which means skilled and knowledgeable.
द्विजत्व का त्याग / द्विजातीत / अतिक्रमण / dvijatva kā tyāga / dvijātīta / atikramaṇa  : Transcending the state of dvijatva and abiding in Self-Realization as a ज्ञानी / jñānī, who is beyond clan, caste, creed and class. 
गुरु / guru  : The Teacher, The Master (संस्कृत > महत्तर > mahattara >  the Senior)
बुद्धत्व / buddhatva /  संबुद्ध / saṃbuddha, Enlightenment / Enlightened synonymous with  प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म : prajñānaṃ brahma : The understanding that the one who knows, the known, and the knowledge (wisdom) are 3 aspects of the one and unique Reality only.
It follows that an Enlightened one may have been released from the cycle of reincarnation, He may or may not be a competent गुरु / guru for others who are still in bondage of birth and rebirth, the repeated incarnations.
पुरुषार्थ / puruṣārtha / Efforts and inclination, urge to attain a goal,
The only goals worth attaining for a wise one are :
धर्म, अर्थ, काम मोक्ष / dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa.
धर्म should be understood in contrast with the अधर्म / adharma.
Gita helps and elaborates this preliminary पुरुषार्थ / puruṣārtha .
ब्राह्मण / brāhmaṇa : One who has intense urge for attainment of the knowledge of  ब्रह्मन् > brahman, ब्रह्म > brahma, so if deserving, such an aspirant may achieve this goal while alive, yet not free of the bondage and has to abide in this knowledge as long as is not free from other desires and tendencies that bar him entering the ब्रह्म > brahma, -eternal. He is born in 'ब्रह्मलोक / brahmaloka', -the sphere of pure Consciousness (ब्रह्मा > brahmā ) who confers upon him the ultimate instruction and he then becomes a free one.
विप्र > vipra ,
वि / vi,
प्र / pra,
उपसर्ग / upasarga,
प्रतीयन्ते विधीयन्ते प्रत्यया: > प्रतीयन्ते विधीयन्ते प्रत्ययाः >
उपसर्ग वि, प्र, > upasarga vi, pra,
>  विप्र > vipra > One who has mastered the knowledge of Veda and is prepared for understanding the higher knowledge that helps him emancipate.
 >  ब्रह्मन् > brahman, ब्रह्म > brahma, > The Cosmic Universal Knowledge in pure seed form.
 ब्रह्मलोक / brahmaloka > this sphere of ब्रह्मा > brahmā.
 / मोक्ष / mokṣa / The state of Realization while alive or after the physical body is no more.
निर्वाण / nirvāṇa / Dissolution of the self, the person, in the Ultimate Principle, the ब्रह्म > brahma.
ब्रह्मज्ञान / brahmajñāna > knowledge of ब्रह्म > brahma, either scriptural or authentic within oneself..
आत्मज्ञान / ātmajñāna > The understanding that this self is verily the Self only.
 ईश्वर-साक्षात्कार / īśvara-sākṣātkāra > The Realization of the ब्रह्म > brahma as a Superior entity (God) that is the causeless (only) cause of Creation, Preservation and Dissolution of the Existence.
मुमुक्षा / mumukṣā : intense longing for freedom.
'नेति-नेति’ /’neti-neti’ : Negating whatever really exists not. discarding the 'mind' that is but a bundle of thoughts only. 
विवेक : viveka : discrimination between what lasts and what lasts not.
वैराग्य : vairāgya : Dispassion, equanimity towards pleasures and pains.
मुमुक्षा : / mumukṣā : intense longing for freedom.
षट्-संपत्ति /  ṣaṭ-saṃpatti : The six qualifications / means that enable one to attain the right understanding.
विचार / vicāra / The inquiry ito the nature of 'Thought', mind, Consciousness (the knowing-aspect of  ब्रह्मन् > brahman),
आत्म-अनुसंधान / ātma-anusaṃdhāna : 'self' and 'Self'-inquiry.
This presumes the existence of a 'self' which could never be denied, neither by logic, nor by experience, though it is a 'notion' it is also a Reality of the kind. This dual nature of 'self' / 'Self' is the core-point of वेदान्तिक / vedāntika आत्म-अनुसंधान / ātma-anusaṃdhāna > 'self' and 'Self'-inquiry.   
महावाक्यानि / mahāvākyāni :The 4 great aphorisms and instructions.
--
प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म :
येनेक्षते शृणोतीदं जिघ्रति व्याकरोति च ।
स्वाद्वस्वादु विजानाति तत्प्रज्ञानमुदीरितम् ॥
(पञ्चदशी अध्याय ५, श्लोक १)
--
अहं ब्रह्मास्मि :
स्वतः पूर्ण परात्माऽत्र ब्रह्मशब्देन वर्णितः ।
अस्मीत्यैक्यपरामर्शस्तेन ब्रह्म भवाम्यहम् ॥
(पञ्चदशी अध्याय ५, श्लोक ४)
तत्त्वमसि :
श्रोतुर्देहेन्द्रियातीतं वस्त्वत्र त्वंपदेरितम् ।
एकता ग्राह्यतेऽसीति तदैक्यमनुभूयताम् ॥
(पञ्चदशी अध्याय ५, श्लोक ६)
अयमात्मा ब्रह्म :
स्वप्रकाशापरोक्षत्वमयमित्युक्तितो मतम् ।
अहंकारादिदेहांतात्प्रत्यगात्मेति गीयते ॥
(पञ्चदशी अध्याय ५, श्लोक ७)
--
prajñānaṃ brahma :
yenekṣate śṛṇotīdaṃ jighrati vyākaroti ca |
svādvasvādu vijānāti tatprajñānamudīritam ||
(pañcadaśī adhyāya 5, śloka 1)
--
ahaṃ brahmāsmi :
svataḥ pūrṇa parātmā:'tra brahmaśabdena varṇitaḥ |
asmītyaikyaparāmarśastena brahma bhavāmyaham ||
(pañcadaśī adhyāya 5, śloka 4)
tattvamasi :
śroturdehendriyātītaṃ vastvatra tvaṃpaderitam |
ekatā grāhyate:'sīti tadaikyamanubhūyatām ||
(pañcadaśī adhyāya 5, śloka 6)
ayamātmā brahma :
svaprakāśāparokṣatvamayamityuktito matam |
ahaṃkārādidehāṃtātpratyagātmeti gīyate ||
(pañcadaśī adhyāya 5, śloka 7)
--

विवेकचूडामणि २९७
त्यजाभिमानं कुलगोत्रनाम-
रूपाश्रमेष्वार्द्रशवाश्रितेषु ।
लिङ्गस्य धर्मानपि कर्तृतादीं
स्त्यक्त्वा भवाखण्डसुखस्वरूपः ॥
--
त्यज्-अभिमानम् कुलगोत्रनाम रूप-आश्रमेषु आर्द्र-शव-आश्रितेषु । लिङ्गस्य धर्मान् अपि कर्तृता-आदीन् त्यक्त्वा भव-अखण्ड-सुखस्वरूपः ॥
--
vivekacūḍāmaṇi 297
tyajābhimānaṃ kulagotranāma-
rūpāśrameṣvārdraśavāśriteṣu |
liṅgasya dharmānapi kartṛtādīṃ
styaktvā bhavākhaṇḍasukhasvarūpaḥ ||
--
tyaj-abhimānam kulagotranāma rūpa-āśrameṣu ārdra-śava-āśriteṣu | liṅgasya dharmān api kartṛtā-ādīn tyaktvā bhava- akhaṇḍa-sukhasvarūpaḥ ||
--
विवेकचूडामणि २
जन्तूनां नरजन्मदुर्लभमतः पुंस्त्वं ततो विप्रता ।
तस्माद्वैदिकधर्ममार्गपरता विद्वत्त्वमस्मात्परम् ॥
आत्मानात्मविवेचनं स्वनुभवो ब्रह्मात्मना संस्थिति
-र्मुक्तिर्नो शतजन्मकोटिसुकृतैः पुण्यैर्विना लभ्यते ॥
...
vivekacūḍāmaṇi 2
jantūnāṃ narajanmadurlabhamataḥ puṃstvaṃ tato vipratā
tasmādvaidikadharmamārgaparatā vidvattvamasmātparam |
ātmānātmavivecanaṃ svanubhavo brahmātmanāsaṃsthitiḥ
-rmuktirno śatajanmakoṭisukṛtaiḥ puṇyairvinā labhyate ||
--

The Conclusion :
An aspirant of Truth / Reality attains the Ultimate, Supreme either by his keen urge for the Truth / Reality either through sheer efforts and earnestness. One can also reach to it by sheer curiosity but really has no importance of This, because the idea of apparent reality of the world and its permanency has captivated his mind so powerfully that he has other goals and aims that keep him attached to this world.
Such a one for a split moment however short or long is convinced about the description as is given by the scriptures, yet feels this ‘experience’ has slipped away from his control.
He may write beautiful wonderful treaties about God, spirituality and the Brahman, can perform some miracles also but in fact is far more in bondage than the other ordinery men of the world.
Then there are ‘Enlightened’ who have realized fully without least trace of attachment to the world and though may want to help others, but are unable to do so because of many reasons. The first and the foremost reason is the others are neither interested nor understand, nor value the compassion of the ‘Enlightened’. For the ‘Enlightened’ there are no ‘others’ and is not concerned for helping those who appeared to him in his dream-like state that they call ‘a world’.
A few are truly capable of transmitting their wisdom and give a taste of this to those who are devoted to them though otherwise neither even learned, nor prepared. Such ‘devotees’ can worship an ‘Enlightened’ One, and this ‘Worship’ gradually purifies and matures their mind. They thus involuntarily ‘meditate’ upon them (the ‘Enlightened-ones’). Constant thinking of them results into transformation into psyche.
This doesn’t imply that one can attain this state by meditating upon any-one either an ‘Enlightened’ or not so ‘Enlightened’.
Then as is narrated in  पुराण / purāṇa , there are incarnations of God (ईश्वर / īśvara ), which do exist in their relative spheres and one can approach them by performing the due वैदिक-अनुष्ठान / vaidika-anuṣṭhāna / rituals meticulously, or just by inborn faith / devotion only. But that too is for the rare.
However, there is no place for ‘compromise’ in spiritual quest.
--
In this context,  J.Krishnamurti sets an example before us.
He is honest, even compassionate, but never entertains people who he has no communication with. He himself was designed into becoming a ‘Master’, a ‘World-Teacher’. Those who tried to make Him so, really tried best to hamper his spiritual progress. He simply moved away from their designs.
That is one reason why he is so harsh against all tradition, scriptures, authority.
In a way he is perfectly right.
This doesn’t mean He is not a ‘Master’.
There is another angle as well .
He insists discarding all ‘knowledge’, scriptures, ‘methods’, Gurus or spiritual guides.
This is also true that what He asserts “Truth is a pathless land ...” leaves no clue how to come across Reality. He says there is no “How”.
His whole teaching thus is though perfect yet partial.
Discarding, emptying the mind (or consciousness) of its content is the only need prior to having an understanding of that ‘immesurable’ which is beyond the comprehension of the nind.
Interestingly This forms only the first half of the वेदान्तिक / vedāntika approach, i.e. ‘नेति-नेति’ /’neti-neti’ which points out negation of what is not Real, thought-structures, intellect, opens up doors to the ‘iti-iti’. ‘iti-iti’ is the obvious consequence of ‘नेति-नेति’ /‘neti-neti’.
Then again The traditional Vedantik approach also asserts that ‘Reality’ the Brahman could not be attained without going beyond the intellect.
It is true those who have no urge for the truth मुमुक्षा / mumukṣā, are not mature enough to see the transient nature of things, The four requisites  विवेक, वैराग्य, मुमुक्षा, षट्-संपत्ति / viveka, vairāgya, mumukṣā, ṣaṭ-saṃpatti form the very foundation upon which the ‘inquiry’ into the ‘Brahman’ and in the ‘self’ / ‘Self’ begins with.
Summarily only a student could benefit from J.Krishnamurti if he has these 4 requisites already with him. / विचार / vicāra,  आत्म-अनुसंधान / ātma-anusaṃdhāna,  ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा / brahma-jijñāsā  follow only when these 4 conditions are fulfilled on their own or with deliberate proper attention and understanding of them.
--
There is absolutely no contradiction between the approach of J.Krishnamurti and the approach of वेदान्तिक / vedāntika way of finding out the truth.
-- 

Transcending द्विजत्वम् / dvijatvam?

Transcending द्विजत्वम् / dvijatvam?

--

>
विवेकचूडामणि २९७
त्यजाभिमानं कुलगोत्रनाम-
रूपाश्रमेष्वार्द्रशवाश्रितेषु ।
लिङ्गस्य धर्मानपि कर्तृतादीं
स्त्यक्त्वा भवाखण्डसुखस्वरूपः ॥
--
त्यज्-अभिमानम् कुलगोत्रनाम रूप-आश्रमेषु आर्द्र-शव-आश्रितेषु । लिङ्गस्य धर्मान् अपि कर्तृता-आदीन् त्यक्त्वा भव-अखण्ड-सुखस्वरूपः ॥
--
vivekacūḍāmaṇi 297
tyajābhimānaṃ kulagotranāma-
rūpāśrameṣvārdraśavāśriteṣu |
liṅgasya dharmānapi kartṛtādīṃ
styaktvā bhavākhaṇḍasukhasvarūpaḥ ||
--
tyaj-abhimānam kulagotranāma rūpa-āśrameṣu ārdra-śava-āśriteṣu | liṅgasya dharmān api kartṛtā-ādīn tyaktvā bhava- akhaṇḍa-sukhasvarūpaḥ ||
--

विवेकचूडामणि २
जन्तूनां नरजन्मदुर्लभमतः पुंस्त्वं ततो विप्रता ।
तस्माद्वैदिकधर्ममार्गपरता विद्वत्त्वमस्मात्परम् ॥
आत्मानात्मविवेचनं स्वनुभवो ब्रह्मात्मना संस्थिति
-र्मुक्तिर्नो शतजन्मकोटिसुकृतैः पुण्यैर्विना लभ्यते ॥
...
vivekacūḍāmaṇi 2
jantūnāṃ narajanmadurlabhamataḥ puṃstvaṃ tato vipratā
tasmādvaidikadharmamārgaparatā vidvattvamasmātparam |
ātmānātmavivecanaṃ svanubhavo brahmātmanāsaṃsthitiḥ
-rmuktirno śatajanmakoṭisukṛtaiḥ puṇyairvinā labhyate ||
--
The text describes :
It is indeed rare that a living being is born as a human, then again as one who is full of urge and enthusiasm to engaging into efforts to attain a goal (पुरुषार्थ / puruṣārtha)..
Then as there are only 4 पुरुषार्थ / puruṣārtha, worth striving for namely धर्म, अर्थ, काम मोक्ष / dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa according to Veda, it is further even more rare that one has the tendencies / inclinations of the ब्राह्मण-वर्ण / brāhmaṇa-varṇa that create an intense urge for knowing the nature of Reality, ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा / brahma-jijñāsā -विप्रता / vipratā that makes one deserving for learning the enquiry into the  Reality, ब्रह्म / brahma.
Further, Having mastered the learning and thus having the knowledge of That, does not free one from the cycle of reincarnation, but only after relinquished that as well one is indeed free and One with the Ultimate Reality / ब्रह्म / brahma.
--
Remark :
A Realized one thus transcends the bondage of the clan, caste, creed and class of the society as well and discards pride of being of a higher clan, caste,class creed and class as well.
--

J.Krishnamurti : Talks (Meditation)

The Hindi Translation of the original English text., 
(as is given below the Hindi text).
ध्यान : मन के रिक्त होने की एक प्रक्रिया
ध्यान अतीव महत्वपूर्ण है । ध्यान क्या है, इसे न जानना उस फूल की तरह होना है, जिसमें सुगंध न हो । ध्यान जीवन की सुगंध है ; इसमें असीम सौन्दर्य है । यह उस द्वार को खोलता है जिसे मन कभी नहीं खोल सकता ; यह उस गहनता तक जाता है जिसे कोई सुसंस्कृत मन कभी छू तक नहीं सकता । इसलिए ध्यान बहुत महत्वपूर्ण है । किंतु हम हमेशा गलत प्रश्न करते हैं और उसके परिणाम में कोई गलत उत्तर ही हमें मिलता है । हम कहते हैं, "मैं ध्यान कैसे करूँ?" और तब हम किसी स्वामी के पास जाते हैं, किसी मूढ मनुष्य के पास जाते हैं, या हम कोई किताब उठाकर पढ़ने लगते हैं, या इस आशा से किसी प्रणाली का अनुसरण करने लगते हैं, कि ध्यान कैसे किया जाता है इसे सीखें । अब, यदि हम स्वामियों, योगियों,  व्याख्याकारों, श्वास का और निश्चल-स्थिर बैठने का अभ्यास करनेवालों, और ऐसे दूसरों को, इन सबको एक ओर रख दें, तो हम अपरिहार्यतः "ध्यान क्या है?" इस प्रश्न पर आएँगे ।
इसलिए, कृपया ध्यानपूर्वक सुनिए । तो अब हम "ध्यान कैसे करें, या जागरूक होने की क्या तकनीक है?"  यह नहीं, बल्कि यह पूछ रहे हैं : "ध्यान क्या है?" ... जो कि प्रश्न को सही ढंग से पूछना हुआ ।
ध्यान क्या है? इसे आप नहीं जानते । और इसी आधार पर ध्यान करने का आपका प्रश्न अवलंबित है । [हँसी..] कृपया सुनिए! इसे हँसी में मत उड़ाइए !
क्या आप "मैं नहीं जानता ।" की सुन्दरता देख पाते हैं?  इसका मतलब यह हुआ कि तब मेरा मन समस्त तकनीकों से, ध्यान से संबंधित समस्त जानकारियों से, दूसरों ने इस बारे में क्या कहा है, आदि सबसे पूरी तरह मुक्त है । मेरा मन नहीं जानता । ध्यान क्या है, इसका पता करने के लिए हम तभी तत्पर हो सकते हैं जब हम ईमानदारी से यह कह सकें कि हम नहीं जानते; और जब तक कि आपके मन में उधार की जानकारियों, गीता या बाइबिल या सैंट फ़्रैन्सिस ने चिन्तन-मनन या प्रार्थना के फल के बारे में-- जैसा कि आधुनिकतम प्रचलन है, जिसकी चर्चा लगभग हरेक पत्रिका में पाई जाती है  -- क्या कहा है, आदि का महत्व है, ...
-तब तक आप, "मैं नहीं जानता" नहीं कह सकते ।
अतः (प्रश्न यह है कि) क्या मन ऐसी अवस्था में हो सकता है जहाँ यह कह सके "मैं नहीं जानता"?
यह अवस्था ही ध्यान का आरंभ और अन्त है क्योंकि उसी अवस्था में प्रत्येक अनुभव को , -- प्रत्येक अनुभव को -- समझ लिया जाता है,  संचित नहीं किया जाता ।
आप समझ रहे हैं? क्या आप यह देख पाते हैं कि आप अपने विचार पर नियंत्रण करना चाहते हैं और जब आप अपने विचार पर नियंत्रण करते हैं जब इसे भटकने से रोक लेते हैं तब आपकी ऊर्जा विचार में नहीं, बल्कि नियंत्रण करने में लगी होती है । समझ रहे हैं न?  ऊर्जा का संग्रहण तभी हो सकता है जब नियंत्रण, किसी प्रकार की दासता, भटकावों (विक्षेपों) से संघर्ष, मान्यताओं, लक्ष्य-प्राप्ति की चेष्टाओं और विभिन्न प्रेरणाओं में इसका अपव्यय न होने दिया जाए; और विचार की यह प्रचंड संचित ऊर्जा अचल होती है ।
समझ रहे हैं न आप? जब आप कहते हैं, "मैं नहीं जानता", तब विचार का वेग नहीं रह जाता, या कि रह जाता है? विचार का वेग केवल तभी होता है जब आप पूछते हैं, कुछ पता लगाना चाहते हैं, और आपका यह पूछना, यह पता लगाना ज्ञात से ज्ञात तक होता है । यदि आप नहीं समझ पा रहे हों तो शायद बाद में इस बारे में सोचिए ।
ध्यान मन के रिक्त होने की एक प्रक्रिया है । मन का रिक्त हो पाना केवल तभी संभव होता है जब कोई नियंत्रणकर्ता न हो; नियंत्रण द्वारा, नियंत्रणकर्ता ऊर्जा को बिखरा देता है  ... अब, जब आप कहते हैं, "मैं नहीं जानता", तब विचार उत्तर पाने के लिए किसी दिशा में नहीं दौड़ता;  मन पूर्णतः निश्चल होता है ।
जे.कृष्णमूर्ति
ओक-ग्रोव, आठवीं वार्ता,
अगस्त 28, 1955
पृष्ठ : 144-146
--

The original J.Krishnamurti-Talk.                         

It is enormously important to meditate. If you do not know what meditation is, it is like having a flower without scent.. . Meditation is the perfume of life; it has immense beauty. It opens doors to that the mind can never open; it goes to the depths that the merely cultured mind can never touch. So meditation is very important. But we always put the wrong question and therefore get a wrong answer. We say, "How am I to meditate? " so we go to swami, some foolish person, or we pick up a book, or follow a system, hoping to learn how to meditate. Now, if we can brush all that aside, the swamis, the yogis, the interpreters, the breathers, the "sitting - stillers", and all the rest of it, then we must inevitably come to this question: What is meditation?
So, please listen carefully. We are now asking, not how to meditate, or what the technique of awareness is, but what is meditation? -- which is the right question.. . . What is meditation? You don't know. And that is the basis on which to meditate.[ Laughter ] Please listen, don't laugh it off. " I don't know." Do you understand the beauty of that? It means that my mind is stripped of all techniques, of all information about meditation, of everything others have said about it. My mind does not know. We can proceed with finding out what is meditation only when you can honestly say that you do not know; and you cannot say, "I do not know", if there is in your mind the glimmer of secondhand information, of what the Gita or the Bible or Saint Francis has said about contemplation or the results of prayer -- which is the latest fashion; in every magazine they are talking about it.. .
So, can the mind be in a state in which it says, " I do not know "? That state is the beginning and the end of meditation because in that state every experience -- every experience -- is understood and not accumulated. Do you understand? You see you want to control your thinking, and when you control your thinking, hold it from distraction, your energy has gone into the control and not into thinking. Do you follow? There can be the gathering of energy only when energy is not wasted in control, in subjugation, in fighting distractions, in suppositions, in pursuits, in motivations; and this enormous gathering of energy, of thought, is without motion. Do you understand? When you say, " I do not know ", then there is no movement of thought, is there? There is a movement of thought only when you begin to inquire, to find out, and your inquiry is from the known to the known. If you don't follow this, perhaps you will think it out afterwards.
Meditation is a process of purgation of the mind. There can be purgation of the mind only when there is no controller; in controlling, the controller dissipates energy.. . . Now, when you say, " I do not know ", there is no movement of thought in any direction to find an answer; the mind is completely still.
J. Krishnamurti
Eighth Talk in the Oak Grove, August 28, 1955, From: As One Is, pp. 144-146

A street-car named 'Desire'.

"A street-car named 'Desire" :

--
It is desire to be something that breeds enmity and violence.
- J.Krishnamurti
Could we stop desiring? Isn't that too a desire? And, if 'somehow' we could stop desiring as we often knowingly, deliberately or because forced by circumstances tend to do, is that what of K might have pointed out by this statement? If we derive the conclusion that He is condemning desire, then we perhaps miss what He has pointed out. I'm not trying to interpret His words, I'm rather trying to understand what He might have said through these words. Desire is a 'fact'. We have no doubt whatsoever about what mental state is denoted by the word 'desire'. But either we get carried away by desire, or condemn, justify or criticize desire. But if we look at 'what is' desire, without any explanation or comment, without classifying desire in terms of good, bad, evil, harmful, valid or invalid, we can see for our-self that desire is a movement of consciousness. Not mine or yours, but of human psyche. (We can sure further extend this to other living beings as well, but that is superfluous on our part here.) And we are not even concerned about stopping desire, nor we are concerned of its possible consequences, -good or bad, for that has been the traditional approach, right or wrong, but lets us not look directly 'what is' desire. If this happens, we could see the futility, absurdity or meaning of desire and then we (whatever is 'we') will not be slave to desire, nor desire a slave to us. Desire as such will show its colors (blossom, flower and wither away, just as 'Thought blossoms') and its truth stands revealed before us.
--

D.N.A., 'Mutation' and 'recombination' .

श्रुति-स्वर / śruti-svara
--
डी.एन.ए. के संवर्धन के कुछ उदाहरण शायद सनातन-धर्म में कुरु-वंश के विस्तार में (अम्बा, अम्बिका, अम्बालिका) के प्रसंग में, परशुराम और भगवान् श्री राम के प्रसंग में ’चरु’ में देखे जा सकते हैं । कुंभज ऋषि की कथा भी इससे मिलती जुलती है । गरुड और सर्प की कहानी (विनता और कद्रु) भी उल्लेखनीय है । किंतु जहाँ तक ’नस्ल’ या वंश को शुद्ध रखना आवश्यक है उसके लिए आज के तथाकथित ’आनुवांशिकी-वैज्ञानिकों’ को अभी बहुत दूर तक प्रयास करने होंगे । ’म्यूटेशन’ तो सीधा तरीका है जो तप और वैदिक अनुष्ठान से भी संभव है, जो आज के युग में केवल अपने लिए ही किया जा सकता है, वह भी बहुत कठिन है । रिकॉम्बिनेशन का अर्थ हुआ गुणसूत्रों का संयोजन । व्यावहारिक और दूसरे अर्थों में यह केवल ’वर्ण’ को शुद्ध रखने से ही संभव है, न कि प्रयोगशाला के माध्यम से । संभवतः ’स्पर्म’ (sperm) और ’एम्ब्रायो’ (embryo) के संरक्षण से भी हो सकता है । किंतु ’वर्ण’ की ’लिंक’ link तो ओरिजिनल होनी ही चाहिए ।
प्रसंगवश इस पर दृष्टि गई तो पोस्ट करने का विचार आया ।
--
’सोम’ पर आपने बहुत अध्ययन किया है । यह चेतना ही सोम है । मूर्धा का एक नाम सुषुम्ना भी है ।
गामाविष्य च भूतानिधारयाम्यहमोजसा ।
पुष्णामि चौषधीः सर्वाः सोमो भूत्वा रसात्मकः ॥
(गीता अध्याय १५, श्लोक १३)
यही सोम गुण-सूत्रों (genes, genomes, genetics > गुण, जननम्) का आधार है । या तो भौतिक वैज्ञानिक विधियों से ’म्यूटेशन’ घटित किया जाए, या प्रत्यक्ष अपनी आत्मा में ही ’सोम’ के आवाहन से, या वैदिक अनुष्ठान के द्वारा, इन सभी से यह संभव जान पड़ता है ।
--   

The noun and the verb.

The noun and the verb.

Consciousness: Thought and Awareness.

English Translation of my Hindi Post :
"विचार का पर्यवसान विवेक में"
--                 
Consciousness: Thought and Awareness.
Thought about anything in any form as such is the very distance from the object that is thought about. Thought separates the object from the subject. Thought is the wall that stands between the object and the subject. On one side of this wall is the object and on the other, is the subject.
The subject faces the wall on one side, while the object on the other. On the one side of the wall is the consciousness as the ‘thinker’, while on the other is the object which perceived through the thought. 
All such ‘knowledge’ is of the mediate-kind.
‘Awareness’ or the perception that is synonymous with consciousness is so defined because the perception takes place only through senses, namely the sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing faculties of this fundamental consciousness that is again synonymous of an organism, a living being only.
In between there is the ‘mind’, the acquired ‘knowledge’ in terms of memory which begets itself. This gives rise to the idea of a continuity and existence of a ‘person’ which in consciousness, is taken as ‘me’.
‘Awareness’ of this whole phenomenon at once points out to the fact that there is no such individual ‘me’ as is projected by thought in mind, on the wall that is ‘memory’ and knowledge.     
 This ‘Awareness’ thus takes the form of consciousness and again further, the form of ‘perception’. That is, how the ‘perception’ that is essentially always pure, gets colored and becomes tarnished by memory.
This tarnished perception is the medium through which pass the pure sensory perceptions and are treated as ‘experience’.
‘Awareness’ is thus ever so pure, becomes the individual consciousness.
This individual consciousness is the distance that is the ‘wall’ that separates the ‘Awareness’ and the ‘world’. 
The individual consciousness is thus the filter and the wall, in between, that segregates the perceived and the 'one' who perceives. It is the distance between the fact and the image of the fact as is created by thought in the mind.    
Seeing the world through this wall, which is not even quite a window, is itself the very distance of the consciousness from the perceived world. The ‘me’, the apperception of a separate entity, on the other hand is quite an illusion on the part of the mind.
Therefore, there is an infinitude of thoughts and individuals who though ‘share’ the same and the unique ‘Awareness’, are thought of as different and myriad countless entities.
This distance though, is smaller or bigger, is never zero. If it is zero, thought ceases and does not survive. ‘Meaning’ of a thought is again a thought and in thought-form only. Hence, all thought is but division, a dividing barrier, mistaken as ‘means’, fragmentation and separation from the Reality.
This way, all thought-based knowledge is truly ignorance of Reality. Thought implies wandering away, departure from Reality. When thought is still, whilst the ‘Awareness’ is shining; the mind becomes the very reflection of Reality only.
The knowledge in terms of thought though an activity, is but lack of wisdom.
So far, thus was treated the theoretical part of ‘Consciousness: Thought and Awareness’.
Now, let us deal with the practical part.
When ‘thought’ is used as a means for acquiring an objective, this becomes a tool, an intellectual instrument and method; because such an objective is set in some imagined distant ‘future’ only. This imagined distant ‘future’ is dependent upon a past memory always. That past memory could be either in the form of an ‘experience’ or in the form of contemplation of the experience in terms of a verbal or in some other abstract thought-form. This ‘contemplation’ may take a different form, though the ‘Experience’ is essentially of the form of sensory perception. This verbal or abstract contemplation how-so-ever simple or complex is but re-imaging of the past-experience. This re-imaging is only a sequential arrangement of an event in terms of many smaller parts of the same. These smaller parts are given continuity, though there is no such a thing in fact. Whatever is imagined is secured as past because strung upon this thread of continuity. That ‘event’ is re-lived repeatedly and the event assumes a stupendous form as if for a real happening. Giving reality to memory and through memory to the event keeps stuck into the idea of a ‘past’. This makes the mind slave of self-imagined, self-imposed sorrows, torture and self-pity. Even though such is the way one is caught in this trap, one doesn’t want to get rid of the sorrow, just because one is the sorrow itself. Freeing the mind from sorrow implies, the very survival of the self is threatened. One can carefully watch this whole somehow interesting phenomenon though. 
Seen in this way, the whole past stored-up in memory is only the transformation of the innumerable ‘events’ accumulated into thought and thinking. There is absolutely ‘no-one’, no ‘subject’, that went through all those events. The centre was but an assumption though never existed. Call this the illusion of the intellectual kind. 
Again, this objective could also be projected purely on the thought-level only.
Just as we come across in the case of trying to find out the answer to a mathematical or purely a scientific one. This problem-solving may also involve a part of imagination as happens in the case of studying and thinking about some ‘Social’ or ‘Economic’ problems. 
The memory and the knowledge of the past that is purely of the individual, lets us believe we can achieve the anticipated goal, the objective. 
But the tremendously important question still remains un-answered.
Exactly, ‘Who’ achieves the goal, the objective? Is there really some-one, an individual, a person, or the society that is benefited? Is not the ‘person’ or the ‘society’ or the ‘world’ itself not in thought only?
In the absence of thought, is there a person, individual or a world?
Do we cease to exist then?
Is it not thought that gives out a multitude of thoughts? Yet the rise of thought could never be stopped. And still one is bemused by the illusion ‘I think’. Though thought happens, ‘I’ never happens or disappears. One is deluded by the thought ‘I think’ and gets entangled in the false notion that one is free to think. Though the notion ‘I am free’ takes place in intellect, that is the natural movement of intellect only, and never an assertion that ‘I think’. That is never an evidence of an entity which is accepted, expressed and assumed to have an independent existence of itself apart from the thought.
This truth is clearly understood in Awareness.
--         
In the absence of the calipers that is the intellect, thought can’t walk a single step, and in the absence of the balance that is wisdom, the calipers are of no use, whatsoever.                          

--       
बुद्धि की बैसाखियाँ न हों तो विचार एक कदम भी नहीं चल सकता, और विवेक का संतुलन न हो तो इन बैसाखियों के होने-न-होने का कोई मतलब नहीं रह जाता ।
--

विचार का पर्यवसान विवेक में

चेतना, विचार और दर्शन
--
किसी वस्तु का, अर्थात् विषय-मात्र का विचार ही उससे विभाजन है ।
विचार वह दीवार है जिसके एक ओर विचारकर्ता और दूसरी ओर वह वस्तु अर्थात् विषय होता है जिसके विचार का सामना विचारकर्ता करता है ।
दर्शन ही दूरी है । किसी वस्तु का, अर्थात् विषय-मात्र का दर्शन ही उससे दूरी है ।
दर्शन वह पारदर्शक दीवार है जिसके एक ओर देखनेवाला और दूसरी ओर वह वस्तु अर्थात् विषय होता है जिसकी आकृति का सामना दर्शक करता है ।
इसलिए विचार असंख्य प्रकार का और दर्शन भी असंख्य प्रकार का होता है ।
संस्कृत ’चर्’ धातु से बने ’विचरण’, ’विचारण’, और ’विचारणा’ का अर्थ हुआ किसी दिशा में गतिशील होना । यह दिशा दूरी है जो कम या अधिक हो सकती है किंतु शून्य नहीं हो सकती । तब विचार का अस्तित्व ही नहीं रहता । ’अर्थ’ का अर्थ है एक विचार का दूसरे विचार में रूपांतरण होना ।
इस प्रकार समस्त विचारपरक-ज्ञान केवल अपरिचय ही है । एक वस्तु अर्थात् विषय का ’वैचारिक-ज्ञान’ विशिष्ट प्रकार का अपरिचय मात्र है ।
संस्कृत ’दृ’ > (आ)द्रियते का अर्थ है आदर करना,
संस्कृत ’दृ’ > दृणाति, दारयति का अर्थ है फाड़ना (विस्फारयति), तोड़ना,
संस्कृत ’दृश्’ > पश्यति / दर्शयति का अर्थ है देखना, दिखलाना ।
ये सभी क्रियाएँ विचार की जानेवाली वस्तु अर्थात् विषय से विचारकर्ता का विभाजन और देखी-दिखलाई जानेवाली वस्तु से दर्शक की दूरी उत्पन्न करती हैं ।
यह विभाजन और दूरी आभासी और कृत्रिम है और इसकी आभासी प्रकृति पर ध्यान जाते ही समस्त आभासी और कृत्रिम ज्ञान की परिसमाप्ति हो जाती है ।
यह तो हुआ ’विचार और दर्शन’ प्रकरण का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष ।
अब इसी प्रकरण के व्यावहारिक पक्ष की विवेचना इस प्रकार की जा सकती है :
जब ’विचार’ का प्रयोग किसी लक्षित ध्येय की प्राप्ति के साधन के रूप में किया जाता है तो वह एक बौद्धिक यत्न होता है, क्योंकि किसी लक्षित ध्येय (की प्राप्ति) का विचार सदा ही किसी कल्पित भविष्य के सन्दर्भ में ही हो सकता है । और यह कल्पित भविष्य / लक्षित ध्येय सदा ही पूर्वस्मृति पर अवलंबित होता है । यह पूर्वस्मृति या तो अनुभव के रूप में होती है या अनुभव के किसी वैचारिक या परिकल्पनात्मक अर्थात् मूर्त या अमूर्त चिन्तन के रूप में होती है । यह मूर्त या अमूर्त चिन्तन भी विचार का ही एक प्रकार है और जिस (वस्तु, विषय अर्थात् अनुभव) का चिन्तन किया जाता है वह मूलतः केवल एक घटनाक्रम होता है जिससे ’अतीत’ का कृत्रिम सृजन कर उस पर निरंतरता आरोपित की जाती है । घटनाक्रम की जैसी कल्पना की जाती है उसे उस पर निरंतरता के इसी आरोपण के कारण घटनाक्रम के रूप में ग्रहण और स्मृति में सुरक्षित रखा जाता है । यह आरोपण भी केवल कल्पना है, वस्तुतः ऐसा कोई घटनाक्रम सतत व्यतीत होता रहता है ।
’व्यतीत’ > वि अति इतः, अर्थात् वह जो यूँ तो जा चुका है किन्तु अति इतः अर्थात् अतीत के रूप में जिसे स्मरण किया जाता है । इस प्रकार से स्मृति में स्थित संपूर्ण अतीत वस्तुतः घटनाक्रम का चिन्तन में घटित रूपांतरण मात्र है, उसका कोई स्वतंत्र अस्तित्व या सत्ता कदापि नहीं हो सकती । इसे बुद्धि का भ्रम भी कहा जा सकता है ।
यह लक्षित ध्येय केवल वैचारिक भी हो सकता है जैसे किसी गणितीय या वैज्ञानिक प्रश्न का उत्तर पाने का यत्न, या इसमें कल्पना का अंश भी हो सकता है, जैसे किसी सामाजिक या अर्थिक प्रश्न पर चिन्तन करते समय होता है । अतीत के ज्ञान और उससे जुड़ी विशिष्ट वैयक्तिक स्मृति पर अवलंबित होने के कारण इस चिन्तन से उस लक्षित ध्येय की प्राप्ति होती हुई अवश्य ही दिखाई भी देती है ।
किन्तु एक प्रश्न यह तो बना ही रहता है कि इस ध्येय की प्राप्ति ’किसे’ हुई या होती है? क्या वह ’कोई’ समाज है व्यक्ति है? क्या समाज या व्यक्ति भी पुनः विचारमात्र ही नहीं है? क्या विचार के न होने पर उनके होने या न होने का प्रश्न हो सकता है? क्या यह ’विचार’ ही नहीं है जिसके परिणाम में असंख्य काल्पनिक और आभासी प्रश्न पैदा होते हैं? किन्तु विचार के उद्भव को रोका भी नहीं जा सकता । क्योंकि विचार स्वयंभू है । ’मैं सोचता हूँ’ इस कल्पना / विचार से यद्यपि ’मैं’ सोचने के लिए स्वतंत्र हूँ  यह भ्रांति उत्पन्न होती है, और अपने स्वतंत्र अस्तित्व के होने का विचार बुद्धि में अवश्य पैदा होता है, किंतु वह बुद्धि की स्वाभाविक गतिविधि है न कि ऐसे किसी स्वतंत्र ’मैं’ के होने का प्रमाण, जो ’विचार करता’ हो ।
--
बुद्धि की बैसाखियाँ न हों तो विचार एक कदम भी नहीं चल सकता, और विवेक का संतुलन न हो तो इन बैसाखियों के होने-न-होने का कोई मतलब नहीं रह जाता ।
--                 

God : Faith, Logic or conviction?

This is the English translation of my
Hindi Post 
God : Faith, Logic or conviction?
Comprehension of that Art was as much difficult for me as the understanding those great literary works, which hold a higher place in literature, and I just like an illiterate one, look them in wonder without grasping a bit.
Because so great scholars adore them, how I could dare not accept their authority?
As a child, one day while visiting a Shiva-Temple, I was thinking : Swami Dayananda Saraswati (of Arya Samaj) might have been right. But my intellect interrupted my thinking :
“O.K., that was the intellectual-logic of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, just because he saw a mouse climbing over the Shiva-lingam, and picking-up the sweets and the things offered to Shiva that made him think so.” 
The next day when I was there in the temple as soon as the Pundit (the priest) entered the place, I asked him:
“Is not the God formless?”
There was no-one else except me and him.
On that circular-path which surrounds the holy hill and the devotees perambulate the same, there are many a Shiva-temples big and small, or only just a single stone Shiva-Lingam placed on an altar, and most of them have no visitors any.
He just cast a smiling glance over me and started, cleaning the temple-premises as usual. I too helped him as every day I usually do.
Soon the place was washed well and he performed the ‘Rudra-pATha’.
When finished, he asked me:
“What do you think …? If the God is formless, with no form any whatsoever, who could worship Him? Then, is not He in everything, and everything in Him only?”
 “But then He could neither be confined either an idol or an image..”
“So why worship, what purpose is fulfilled by worshipping Him?”
“But then how the one, who feels strongly about worshiping Him can do this?”
“ …”
“Who knew if the God is formless or has a form, or even if He exists or not at all?”
“Does not The God have existence at all?”
“Answer my question: Who knew if the God is formless or has a form, or even if He exists or not at all?”
“That is according to individual faith.”
“The faith keeps changing its form and content, how the faith can deal with the question about the God if He is formless or has a form, or even if He exists or not at all?”
“Is then, the idol-worshipping (idolatry) right?”
“Is then, the idol-worshipping wrong?”
“God is formless implies that worshipping an idol with a form is verily wrong only.”
“What do you think? If the God is formless, with no form any whatsoever, who could worship Him? Then, is not He in everything, and everything in Him only? But before answering this, let me know your view about ‘who knew if the God is with or without a form, or even if there is the God?”
“That is what I try to see!”
He smiled once again.
--
And then I could sense, may be, he had no answer to my question, but that doesn’t mean he was wrong.
Before saying that worship of an idol is right or wrong, should we not first understand if God has a form, or has no form, or even God exists or doesn't exist?
Thus, we accept some notion about God, just because tradition has forced upon us either such a notion of God (or no God), whatever are the tradition and our own imagination, and we tend to believe such a concept of God. We just become a robot driven by such a concept and the word dictates our behavior which becomes a habit. Then we are instrumental in following the dictates which are different from person to person and group to group, cult to cult and culture to culture, and of course from sect to sect and religion to religion.
But when the existence and the truth (whatever) of what we call ‘God’ becomes the very question of life and death, only then we try to see with due attention what ‘God’ is or might be.
There is another aspect of this problem.
Do we really ‘need’ a ‘God’?
Just as we need air, water, food and a home to live and survive, do we really need a ‘God’ without which our very survival and existence is threatened?
The fact is as a collective species, man is far more threatened and in danger because it has embraced the notion of ‘God’ and religion.
When we treat this question in this light either we discard this notion altogether by understanding its absurdity and the relevance, or we work out what we mean by ‘God’.
 --
" If You are trying to arrive at a conclusion, just as most of the intellectuals try, the logic and thought keep moving relatively in a smaller or a bigger circle, and you are stuck into thought only. First the imagination of a 'God' is accepted quite without knowing such a thing, so that thought can find a centre where it is tethered firmly, and then keeps wandering in a circle around this centre.
Is not the the worship of such a mental image also kind of idolatory?"
" ..."
"Could we perhaps start from some hypothesis about suc a God and deduce this hypothesis till the end so as to find out if it is proved true or false?
For example when we start to see if the square-root of  the number 2 is a rational number or an irrational one. That is, if it could be expressed in terms of a fraction as an arithmatic divison of two integers, which have no common divisor.
Then working on this we ultimately find we reach a result which is false.
This leads us to say  the squuare-root of the number 2 is not a rational number.
This is called the method of Mathematical induction."
" That exercise is quite appropriate for finding out a result in terms of Mathematical Logic. But is ‘God’ a Mathematical notion?
“Who knew if the God is with or without a form, or even if there is the God?
Or, perhaps if there is or is not a God?”
He returned to the same earlier stand (presumption?).
“Some-one might have known for sure and therefore this thing ‘God’ assumed an object for contemplation, thinking and pondering over.”
“And then many a such people might have ‘known’ and ‘experienced’ too…!”
He remarked with a bit a sense of ridicule and smiled.
I could guess what he might have in his mind.
“So, do you doubt the existence of God?”
“Neither have I doubted the non-existence of God.”
“What do you mean?”
“I just want to say some-one must have known about the existence or non-existence of God, or might had have imagined about God.”
“From here, we can talk about this further more…!”
“But the one who ‘knew’ or imagined must have been a human only.”
“Of course, we can’t talk for the animals and birds, and fish and the trees! We could sure restrict our discussion to humans only.”
“Is God a subject to intellect?”
“What do you mean?”
“Could the intellect grasp ‘God’ and deal with it just as it deals with other things?”
“ …”
“Whatever is called ‘God’ is either imagination or thought or conclusion because it is not known in terms of sensory-experience.”
“ …”
“Is it also untenable as a conclusion?”
“A conclusion is also either an experience or a guess only.”
“Or a principle.”
“A principle is again either immediate (direct im-mediate) or mediate (indirect), where there is a medium that enables one to ‘know’ in terms of ‘knowledge’ or ‘information’. In such knowledge there is the knower, the knowledge and the known. The three collectively define knowledge or experience. Such a knowledge is always incomplete and partial.”
“Please further elucidate this.”
“This means when such knowledge is dealt with at the practical level it appears to be true, but this ‘truth’ is but in thought only.”
“This means knowing the God is almost impossible.”
“Yes, Because God is the knower, the known and the knowing all at once together.”
“Isn’t this also again a principle only?”
“Yes, when applied in practical, this is apparently true, but when structured in a word-form it reduces to a mere thought only.”
“Could we call it the immutable unchangeable fundamental support, in comparison to which the ‘world’ seems to undergo change constantly?”
“Is there a thing that exists different apart from and other than this, and could be compared with this?”
--
I candidly accept, I could not honestly debate, argue or even converse with him upon a topic like ‘God’.
Meanwhile, at my home, I used to tutor a student and taught him Calculus.
After a few days one day he asked :
“Sir, what is this ‘Calculus’?”
I had already expected to face sooner or later such a question from him, and was well-prepared in advance. Will full self-confidence, I told him:
“In simple words, Calculus is the Mathematics of change, precisely the Mathematics where the rate of change of two or more variables is studied about. There are two mathematical quantities, the two variables, where one is treated as dependent upon the other, while the other is said to be the independent variable.”
“I can understand the idea of the dependent variable, but can’t see how (the other) could be a variable as well as independent at the same time? Parden me, if it is independent it could not be variable, and if it is variable it could not be independent.”
 “How could you say?”
“I think it will be subject to some condition or a certain law.”
“And the law?”
“The law could never be formulated nor explained by the intellect.”
“Why?”
“Because the law is Intelligence the immutable Reality, while the intellect is but a faculty of brain. The intellect is a variable all the time, -a dependent variable indeed, while the Intelligence is a steady unwavering light and intellect is but a reflected ray of this light. The intellect can never understand the Intelligence, but can sure understand it is there which activates intellect, though is ever so unaffected by the intellect.”
 Once again, I candidly accept, I could never have come across such a straightforward deduction of intellect and Intelligence.
“O.K. let us say, under Mathematical conventions, one variable is the dependent and another is the independent.”
“Just as ‘time’ and the ‘velocity’ …”
My student helped me overcome my loss of self-confidence.
“Yes, the world is a totality of changes.
Accordingly, we can choose two variables and call the Mathematics of the ratio of the measure of their mutual change relative to each-other, ‘Calculus’. And of course we suppose one the dependent upon the other which we call the independent variable.”
After a few days, when I visited the temple, Pundit asked:
“Couldn’t see you since so long! Were you away somewhere?”
“Oh no, I was just busy!”
“O.K. now get those old flowers and garlands and take away them from here, and fetch a bucket water from the outside well…”
 I obeyed his orders rather reluctantly.
 “Don’t want to help me in the cleaning of the temple today?”
“Now-a-days I do my cleaning home.”
“Why then you come here?”
He asked with a subdued smile.
“Just to have a ‘darshana’, though am I still under your orders.”
After this, for some time I lived there and almost regularly visited the temple too, but altogether stopped discussing, debating or exchanging the views about ‘God’.
--