.png)
Where do we look for answers? generally nearly outdoors, for utmost of our questions are related to the world, by which I mean commodity or someone who's nearly out there. We spend the day dealing with people and effects in the world and we spend the night dealing with people and effects in our dreams, except for a many fortunate twinkles in deep sleep when we aren't dealing with anybody or anything anywhere. But that kind of dreamless sleep is a teeny- weeny bit of our time. utmost of our lives are really spent in service of whatever is outside. There's a reason for this. The Kaṭhopaniṣad(2.1.1) says
पराञ्चिखानि व्यतृणत् स्वयंभू तस्मात् पराङ्पश्यति नान्तरात्मन् ।
parāñcikhāni vyatṛṇat svayambhūḥ, tasmāt parāṅ paśyati, na antarātman.
“ The Supreme Being destroyed the senses by projecting them outward. That's why a person sees what's outdoors, not the inner tone. ”
Our senses are designed to admit sights, smells, sounds, tastes, and touch from the outside. All we need to do is open our eyes and the world of color and form fills our being. analogous is the case with the other senses. The process is royal and it feels natural. What isn't natural is to turn our attention to the inside. Looking outside requires enormous trouble and does n’t feel natural at all. The Upaniṣad continues
कश्चिद्धीर प्रत्यगात्मानमैक्षत् आवृत्तचक्षुरमृतत्वमिच्छन् ।
kaścit dhīraḥ pratyag- ātmānam aikṣat āvṛtta- chakṣuḥ amṛtattvam icchan.
“ hankering for eternity, a wise person turns the senses inward and beholds the inner tone. ”
Turning the senses inward is easier said than done. Encountering the ātman is delicate. Not numerous want to do it, which isn't surprising, because numerous do n’t indeed know that there's an inner tone. The Upaniṣad(1.3.12) acknowledges that
एष सर्वेषु भूतेषु गूढोऽऽत्मा न प्रकाशते ।
eṣa sarveṣu bhūteṣu gūḍho’tmā na prakāśate.
“ Hidden in all beings, the ātman doesn't reveal itself. ”
also what stopgap have we of seeing the ātman? Can it ever be seen? Then's the Upaniṣadic assurance
दृश्यते त्वग्र्यया बुद्ध्या सूक्ष्मया सूक्ष्मदर्शिभि ।
dṛśyate tu agryayā buddhyā sūkṣmayā sūkṣma- darśibhiḥ.
“ But( the ātman) is seen through the sharp and subtle suspicion of those who perceive subtle realities. ”
Looking outside is neither easy nor natural. It demands heroic trouble, but and this is important — looking outside isn't insolvable. veritably many feel the appetite to do it and, among those who do, only a sprinkle succeed in doing it well. nonetheless this has n’t stopped a small number of stalwart and valorous people in every generation from giving it a serious pass. By and large, however, utmost people tend to follow the path of least resistance. They surrender meanly to the gregarious senses and the dispersed mind.
It's because of this kind of convivial disposition that we're more likely to ask questions similar as “ Why is this world the way it is ” rather of Why am I seeing the world this way? We turn to the news media or social networks with this question in mind “ What’s passing in my neighborhood/ my megacity my country ” How frequently have we asked ourselves Why am I so curious? Indeed in religious hobbies, we tend to ask “ Why did God produce this world? ” or “ Why is there evil in the world? ”, indeed “ Who's God? ”, rather of looking within and wondering Who's asking all these questions?
Not that the outside- directed questions should n’t be asked or are ever innately wrong, but the amazing oddity of tone- directed questions confirms the Upaniṣadic observation that the senses were “ destroyed, ” as it were, by their gregarious tendency. Why “ destroyed ”? Because it's this going out and getting muddied in the mind- boggling, intoxicating insanity of the world that's responsible for the stress, anxiety, fear, wrathfulness, and abomination in the mortal heart.
In deep sleep, both the mind and the senses are withdrawn and we witness no stress, no anxiety, no fear, no wrathfulness and no abomination — none of the effects that produce so important pain and suffering. It's easy to see the correlation between suffering and looking out. None of us can sleep indefinitely and who amongst us wants that anyway? Is it possible to reclaim the peace and bliss of deep sleep indeed when we aren't sleeping? Is it possible to be free from stress and anxiety indeed when we're in the midst of the noise and bustle of the world?
The answer is a resounding yes, with this qualifier I must first look within and also look outside while remaining within. Looking out while looking in is what's meant by looking at everything subjectively. In an 1899 letter to his convertE.T. Sturdy, Swami Vivekananda described this as “ the true Indian principle of looking subjectively for the cause of the ideal ”( CW 8. 472). In another letter, written three times before, this time to his convert and stenographerJ.J. Goodwin, Swamiji says “ We Vedantists in every difficulty ought to ask the private question, ‘ Why do I see that? ’ ‘ Why can I not conquer this with love? ’”( CW 8. 383). In the same time, to another convert Mary Hale, Swamiji wrote
“ The fact being that the Lord is in us, we're He, the eternal subject, the real pride, noway to be bodied, and that all this objectifying process is bare waste of time and gift. When the soul becomes apprehensive of this, it gives up objectifying and falls back more and more upon the private. ”( CW 6. 378)
We see the emphasis on the private pop up with remarkable chronicity in Swamiji’s public lectures as well. For case
“ It's the private world that rules the ideal. Change the subject, and the object is bound to change; purify yourself, and the world is bound to be purified. This one thing requires to be tutored now further than ever ahead. ”( CW 1. 426)
“ We can not possible conquer all the objective surroundings. We can not. The little fish wants to fly from its adversaries in the water. How does it do so? By evolving bodies and getting a raspberry. The fish didn't change the water or the air; the change was in itself. Change is always private. All through elaboration you find that the subjection of nature comes by change in the subject. Apply this to religion and morality, and you'll find that the subjection of wrong comes by the change in the private alone. That's how the Advaita system gets its whole force, on the private side. To talk of wrong and misery is gibberish, because they don't liveoutside.However, I noway feel angry, If I'm vulnerable against allanger.However, I noway feel abomination, If I'm vulnerable against all abomination. ”( CW 2. 137- 38)
“ We, as Vedantists, must always look at effects from an introspective standpoint, from its private relations. We, as Vedantists, know for certain that there's no power in the macrocosm to injure us unless we first injure ourselves. ”( CW 3. 166)
The counteraccusations of “ looking subjectively for the cause of the ideal ” are stunning. The practice is n’t easy, but when we begin to emphasize the private, there's a radical change in whatever we see outdoors. When we look out while looking in, what we see is surprisingly different from what we saw before. The change outside is directly related to the change outside. As long as I see myself in mortal terms, I can not but see others around me in the same way. But when I behold the godly light outside, I'm suitable to see the same godly light outside as well. In fact, the terms “ outside ” and “ outside ” come redundant also.
Indeed before I've perfected the practice, I'll formerly begin to see the world else. For case, māyā will no longer be commodity “ out there ” in the world. I'll see that it's “ in then ” within me and responsible for all the mischief — my crooked thinking, my careless conduct, my selfish connections. This is how māyā keeps me immersed in the darkness of ignorance. Looking out while looking in has the power to neutralize māyā and to lift the robe of ignorance.
When I persist with the practice against all odds, it'll be decreasingly delicate for me to condemn or detest others, for the problem isn't that they're bad but that I'm making the mistake of seeing a mortal being where I should have seen a godly being. It’s my mistake, not theirs. Would my seeing them else change them? Not inescapably. What will change, however, is my station toward them. The way I speak of them, the way I relate to them, the way I deal with them all of this will be different if I see them else. veritably probably, in time it'll also bring about some change in the way they see me.
Looking out while looking in will make me calmer and lower hypercritical. utmost distractions in contemplation spring from the studies arising from me judging others and from the stress created by others judging me. These will be significantly reduced, perfecting the quality of my japa and contemplation. I ’ll also come more tolerant, more patient, more forgiving. When I see others make miscalculations, rather of getting irked, bothered or angry, I ’ll look within and see that I make miscalculations too, so what’s the big deal if someone differently also makes miscalculations? miscalculations need to be corrected, of course, but the way I ’ll do it'll be different now. There will be further compassion, lower vexation; further love, lower wrathfulness.
When I see others do commodity well, I ’ll be suitable to appreciate it better and be more generous with my praise, for I ’ll look within and be reminded of the joy I ’ve had from a thing done well. I'll want to see the same joy in the heart and on the face of the person standing before me. It needs no saying that my getting calmer and lower hypercritical will ameliorate my interpersonal connections, bringing about lesser peace and harmony in my family and in my community.
still, it's a sign that my practice is going well, If I notice similar changes in me. All I need to do is stay the course with tolerance and perseverance. I ’ll behold the ātman — my own true tone — when my practice reaches perfection and when I no longer have to make trouble to look out while looking in. It'll come as natural as breathing. No longer will there be any distinction between what's “ in ” and what's “ out. ” There will just be the one abiding reality far and wide, inside me and outside me. That reality is me — the ātman. Period. This is how the Chāndogya Upaniṣad(7.25.2) describes the experience
आत्मैवाधस्ताद् आत्मोपरिष्टाद् आत्मा पश्चाद् आत्मा पुरस्ताद् आत्मा दक्षिण आत्मोत्तरत आत्मैवेदं सर्वम् ।
Ātmā- eva- adhastād, ātmā- upariṣṭād, ātmā paścād, ātmā purastād, ātmā dakṣiṇataḥ, ātmā- uttarataḥ, ātmā- eva- idaṁ sarvam.
“ The ātman is below, the ātman is over, the ātman is before, the ātman is in front, the ātman is to the south, the ātman is to the north. The ātman alone is all this. ”
Profound peace, everlasting bliss, eternal freedom, total fulfillment — everything that anyone would want comes from the direct hassle with the ātman. My experience of me as I really am returns me to myself. The exile is over.