बालादपि सुभाषितम् ग्राह्यं

--
मानवे धर्मशास्त्रे भृगुप्रोक्तायाम्
(मानव-धर्मशास्त्र में महर्षि भृगु द्वारा वर्णित)
मनुस्मृति अध्याय २
--
श्रद्दधानः शुभां विद्यामाददीतावरादपि ।
अन्यादपि परं धर्म स्त्रीरत्नं दुष्कुलादपि ॥ २३८
--
श्रद्दधानः शुभां विद्याम् आददीत अवरात् अपि ।
*अन्यात् अपि परं धर्म स्त्रीरत्नं दुष्कुलात् अपि ॥
--
विषादप्यमृतं ग्राह्यं बालादपि सुभाषितम् ।
अमित्रादपि सद्वृत्तममेध्यादपि काञ्चनम् ॥ २३९
--
विषात् अपि अमृतं ग्राह्यम् बालात् अपि सुभाषितम् ।
अमित्रात् अपि सत्-वृत्तम्- अमेध्यात्-अपि काञ्चनम् ॥
--
स्त्रियो रत्नान्यथो विद्या धर्मः शौचं सुभाषितम् ।
विविधानि च शिल्पानि समादेयानि सर्वतः ॥ २४०
--
स्त्रियः रत्नानि अथः विद्या धर्मः शौचं सुभाषितम् ।
विविधानि च शिल्पानि समादेयानि सर्वतः ॥
--
*पाठान्तर : अन्यात् अपि, अन्त्यात् अपि ...
--
 केवल सन्दर्भ हेतु  

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.
--   

--