घटनाओं को देख कर नियम समझ नहीं आता, परन्तु नियम समझ में आने पर घटनाएं स्वतः ही आपस में उस नियम की अनुरूपता में जुडी हुई नज़र आती हैं|
अधिकतर हम घटनाओं को देख कर नियम को समझने का प्रयास करते हैं| जैसे, एक पत्थर का जमीन पर गिरना एक घटना है| वह पत्थर जमीन पर क्यों गिर रहा है इसकी समझ नियम की समझ है| घटनाओं को देख कर नियम समझ नहीं आता| घटनाओं के आधार पर हम केवल किसी नियम के होने का अनुमान लगा सकते हैं, नियम के उस अनुमान के प्रति आश्वस्त नहीं हो सकते| जैसे एक पत्थर के जमीन पर गिरने के कई सारे कारण बताये जा सकते हैं जैसे, हर दो इकाइयां एक दूसरे को आकर्षित करती हैं, ठोस वस्तु ठोस वस्तु के साथ रहना चाहती है, पदार्थ पदार्थ के साथ रहना चाहता है, हर इकाई दूसरी इकाई से एक निश्चित दूरी पर रहना चाहती है और भी कई सारे अनुमान हम नियम के प्रति लगा सकते हैं| घटना क्रम को देख कर नियम के अनुमान को अक्सर हम वास्तविक नियम मान लेते हैं| नियम के प्रति बनी यह मान्यता तब तक बनी रहती है जब तक कोई ऐसा घटना क्रम उपलब्ध ना हो जो उस नियम की अनुरूपता में कार्यरत ना हो| जैसे ही ऐसा कोई घटना क्रम उपलब्ध होता है जो उस नियम की अनुरूपता में कार्य नहीं कर रहा हो या फिर जिसको उस नियम के आधार पर नहीं समझाया जा सकता हो, तो उस नियम को रद्द कर दिया जाता है या फिर उस नियम में फेर बदल कर के एक नए नियम का अनुमान लगाया जाता है जो पहले हो चुके घटना क्रमों तथा अभी नए उपलब्ध घटना क्रमों को समझ पाने में मदद करे| यह कार्य प्रणाली है प्रचलित विज्ञानं की, घटनाओं को देख कर नियम को समझने का प्रयास करना| प्रचलित विज्ञानं में ऐसा माना जाता है कि नियम के इस अनुमान में फेर बदल तब तक होती रहेगी जब तक अस्तित्व में होने वाली सारी घटनाएं उस नियम के आधार पर समझाई न जा सकें| उस नियम को समझ पाने को तथा उस नियम को वे लोग “युनिवर्सल थ्योरी ऑफ़ एवेरिथिंग” कहते हैं|
अगर हम मानव तथा मानवीय व्यवहार की बात करें तो उसमें भी हम घटनाओं को देख कर ही कई सारे नियमों का अनुमान लगाते हैं| जैसे बचपन से अगर मैंने ऐसा देखा है कि लोगों के ऊपर चिल्लाओ तो वो नाराज़ हो जाते हैं तो मैं यह नियम की तरह अपने आप में स्वीकार लेता हूँ कि किसी भी मनुष्य के ऊपर चिल्लाया जाना उसे अच्छा नहीं लगता| फिर मैं यह भी देखता हूँ कई बार लोग नाराज़ नहीं होते अगर उनके ऊपर मजाक में चिल्लाया जाए, या फिर अगर दूसरा व्यक्ति यह बात समझ रहा है कि उसके ऊपर क्यों चिल्लाया जा रहा है तो भी कई बार वह नाराज़ नहीं होता, फिर कई साधुओं के बारे में सुनने में आता है कि वे नाराज़ ही नहीं होते| यहाँ पर यह समझ में आता है कि मैंने सबसे पहले जो नियम बनाया था “किसी को भी उसके ऊपर चिल्लाया जाना अच्छा नहीं लगता” उसमें बदलाव करने की आवश्यकता महसूस होती है, क्योंकि अब मेरा ध्यान कुछ ऐसी घटनाओं पर गया है जो कि मेरे बनाये हुए नियम के आधार पर समझाई नहीं जा सकती| अब मैं एक नया नियम बना लेता हूँ “किसी व्यक्ति के ऊपर चिल्लाये जाने पर वह नाराज़ होगा या नहीं यह उस व्यक्ति की मनोस्थिति और समझदारी पर निर्भर करता है”| अगर हम ध्यान से देखें तो हर व्यक्ति अपने आस पास में होने वाली घटनाओं चाहे वे मनुष्य से सम्बंधित घटनाएं हों या प्रकृति से सम्बंधित हों, उनके प्रति किसी न किसी नियम के होने का अनुमान लगाता ही है और उस नियम को तब तक सही माने रहता है जब तक कोई ऐसा घटनाक्रम उपलब्ध ना हो जो उनके द्वारा बनाये गए नियम के द्वारा समझाया न जा सके| अगर हम ध्यान से देखें तो विज्ञानं के काम करने का ढंग किसी भी अन्य मनुष्य के काम करने के ढंग से बहुत अलग नहीं है|
यहाँ पर एक अंतर जो एक सामान्य आदमी और एक वैज्ञानिक में नज़र आता है, वह है कि एक वैज्ञानिक कई कई सारे घटनाक्रमों से अवगत रहता है तथा पहले हुए अन्य वैज्ञानिकों के द्वारा अनुमान लगाये गए नियमों से भी वह अवगत रहा है| उसके पास कई सारे यन्त्र उपकरण भी रहते हैं जिनके द्वारा वह उन घटनाक्रमों का भी अवलोकन कर सकता है जिन्हें आँखों द्वारा सीधे सीधे नहीं देखा जा सकता| इन चीज़ों के कारण एक वैज्ञानिक के अवलोकन तथा विश्लेषण करने का दायरा बहुत ही बढ़ जाता है जो कि एक सामान्य आदमी के लिए संभव नहीं हो पाता| पर एक सामान्य आदमी और वैज्ञानिक दोनों की कार्य प्रणाली एक ही होती है “घटनाओं को देख कर नियम को समझने का प्रयास”|
यहाँ पर एक चीज़ और भी होती है वह है कि हर व्यक्ति समान घटनाओं को देख कर अलग अलग नियम के होने का अनुमान लगाता है और अपने द्वारा बनाये गए उस नियम को ही वास्तविक नियम मान लेता है| स्वयं के द्वारा बनाये गए इन नियमों के आधार पर ही वह दुनिया को देखता है| यही उसकी दुनिया के प्रति दृष्टि का आधार रहता है| क्योंकि अलग अलग लोगों ने समान घटनाओं के प्रति अलग अलग नियमों का अनुमान लगाया रहता है उसके कारण यह आंकलन कर पाना मुश्किल होता है कि किसके द्वारा बनाया गया नियम सही है या वास्तविक नियम है? या फिर कोई वास्तविक नियम है भी या नहीं? यह सब चीज़ें ही व्यक्तिनिष्ठता (subjectivity) को जन्म देती हैं कि यह आपका सच, वह मेरा सच और अंततः हम इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुचते हैं कि “सबका अपना अपना सच होता है”|
यहाँ पर कुछ जो मूल प्रश्न खड़े होते हैं वे हैं, क्या घटनाओं को देख कर नियम को समझा जा सकता है? हमें नियम समझ कैसे आता है? हमें वास्तविक नियम की समझ कैसे होगी? कोई वास्तविक नियम है भी या नहीं?
इस चीज़ को समझने के लिए हमें यह समझना होगा कि समझना क्या है? हम समझते कैसे हैं? हमारे समझने की प्रक्रिया क्या है? हमारे ज्ञान में वृद्धि कैसे होती है?
उपरोक्त प्रणाली में अगर हम देखें तो यह दीखता है कि समझने के क्रम में हम घटनाओं का अवलोकन करते हैं और फिर उनके पीछे के नियम का अनुमान लगाते हैं| अगर हम यहाँ पर ध्यान से देखें तो यह दीखता है कि नियम का अनुमान हम विचार के आधार पर लगाते हैं| विचार स्वयं ही जितना हम जानते हैं उसके ऊपर निर्भर करता है| विचार का स्वतंत्र अस्तित्व नहीं है| विचार स्मृति के आधार पर काम करता है| जितना हम जानते हैं उसके आधार पर जो हम नहीं जानते उसको नहीं जाना जा सकता| जो हम जानते हैं उसके आधार पर जो हम नहीं जानते वहां पर कुछ नियम के होने का अनुमान लगाते हैं जो की वास्तविक नियम को जानने के लिए पर्याप्त नहीं होता| यह है विचार की सीमा| यहाँ पर यह तो समझ में आ जाता है कि विचार के आधार पर नियम को नहीं समझा जा सकता और हमारा संपूर्ण नियम को समझने का प्रयास विचार के आधार पर ही है|
यहाँ पर यह प्रश्न खडा हो जाता है कि अगर विचार के आधार पर हमारे ज्ञान में वृद्धि नहीं होती, हमें नियम समझ नहीं आ सकता तो हमारे ज्ञान में वृद्धि होती कैसे है?
जितना हम जानते हैं उससे अधिक का जानना अवलोकन के आधार पर होता है| यही अंतर है विश्लेषण और अवलोकन में| अवलोकन में विचार नहीं है| अवलोकन का अर्थ है बिना किसी पूर्वाग्रह के, बिना किसी मूल्यांकन के घटनाक्रम का दर्शन करना| ऐसा करने पर एक व्यक्ति की जितनी नियम को समझने की पात्रता होती है उसके अनुसार वह कुछ आगे की वस्तु का दर्शन कर पाता है| यह आगे की वस्तु का दर्शन ही उसके ज्ञान में वृद्धि करता है| विश्लेषण विचार के आधार पर काम करता है| जितना जानते हैं उसके आधार पर ही विश्लेषण काम करता हैं| जो नहीं जानते उसके होने का अनुमान विश्लेषण के आधार पर लगा सकते हैं| यह अनुमान केवल एक संभावना की तरह बना रहता है, वास्तविकता नहीं रहता| वास्तविकता का दर्शन तो केवल अवलोकन के आधार पर ही होता है|
यहाँ पर एक प्रश्न यह तो खडा होता ही है कि किसी नियम को समझने की पात्रता विकसित होती कैसे है? पात्रता का विकास कैसे होता है? या कैसे हो सकता है? इस बारे में मैं बस इतना ही कहना चाहूँगा की धीरे धीरे सतत अवलोकन से पात्रता का विकास होता रहता है|
यहाँ पर एक उदाहरण लिया जा सकता है| “हर व्यक्ति संबंध को ही सहज रूप से स्वीकारता है ना कि विरोध को”, इस वाक्य का मूल्यांकन स्वयं में अवलोकन के द्वारा ही संभव है, विश्लेषण के द्वारा इस वाक्य के सही होने की संभावना नज़र आ सकती है पर इस तथ्य के प्रति विश्लेषण के द्वारा निर्विकल्प नहीं हुआ जा सकता| किसी तथ्य के प्रति निर्विकल्प हो जाना ही नियम की समझ है| यह केवल अवलोकन मात्र से ही संभव है| जब मुझे यह चीज़ अपने में नज़र आती है कि संबंध पूर्वक जीना ही मुझे सहज रूप से स्वीकार है तो मैं इसके अन्यथा और कुछ नहीं सोचता, संबंध को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए ही मेरे सारे प्रयास जारी रहते हैं|
यहाँ पर एक चीज़ और भी देखने में आती है कि इस तथ्य का मूल्यांकन कि “संबंध ही मुझे सहज रूप से स्वीकार है” यह मुझ में खुद में ही हो सकता है| कोई दूसरा व्यक्ति, कोई यन्त्र या कोई पुस्तक मुझे यह बात नहीं समझा सकती| दूसरा व्यक्ति, पुस्तक या यन्त्र केवल इस तथ्य की तरफ मेरा ध्यानाकर्षण मात्र कर सकते हैं पर मुझे समझा नहीं सकते| समझ में आने का काम तो खुद में ही होता है| बाहरी घटनाक्रम या आतंरिक घटनाक्रम के विश्लेषण से नियम `समझ नहीं आता| इनके अवलोकन से समझ में आने की संभावना उपलब्ध रहती है| जैसे आतंरिक घटनाक्रम का उदाहरण लें तो यह देखने में आता है कि जैसे ही विरोध का भावः हमारे मन में आता है तो हम परेशान हो जाते हैं यह एक घटना है इससे संबंध क्या है और संबंध में जीना ही सहज रूप से हर मनुष्य को स्वीकार होता है, यह नियम समझ नहीं आता| यह तो अवलोकन से ही समझ आता है| यहाँ पर यही देखने में आता है कि घटनाक्रम आतंरिक हो या बाहरी, घटनाक्रम को देख कर नियम समझ नहीं आता|
घटनाक्रम के आधार पर केवल गति पकडाई में आती है, स्थिति नहीं| जैसे सुख पूर्वक जीने कि चाहना, संबंध पूर्वक जीने कि चाहना, विश्वास तथा सम्मान पूर्वक जीने कि चाहना एक मनुष्य में नित्य ही बनी रहती है, यह नियम है, स्थिति है| जो चीज़ बनी रहती है, जो नियम है उसका प्रतिफल है घटनाक्रम, हर गति के मूल में कोई न कोई स्थिति है, नियम की अनुरूपता में होती हैं घटनाएं| घटनाओं को देख कर नियम समझ नहीं आता| लेकिन जब नियम समझ आता है तो उसकी अनुरूपता में घटनाएं स्वतः ही जुडी हुई नज़र आती हैं| जैसे जब मुझे यह समझ आता है कि हर व्यक्ति संबंध ही सहज रूप से स्वीकारता है तब मुझे यह चीज़ अपने आप ही समझ आ जाती है कि मनुष्य के सभी प्रयास संबंध को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए ही हो रहे हैं पर समझ कि कमी के कारण वह संबंध को सुनिश्चित कर नहीं पा रहा है| पर उसकी मूल चाहना संबंध को सुनिश्चित करने की ही है| साथ ही नियम जैसे संबंध पूर्वक जीने की चाहना, यह यन्त्र की पकडाई में नहीं आता| दूसरा व्यक्ति भी मुझे इसे नहीं समझा सकता जब तक मैं खुद इस पर ध्यान न दूं| नियम, स्थिति तो खुद में ही समझ में आता है|
यहाँ पर अगर हम वैज्ञानिकों तथा मनोवैज्ञानिकों के कार्य करने का तरीका देखें तो यही समझ में आता है कि वे केवल गति और उसमें भी मुख्यतः आवेशित गति का ही अध्ययन कर पाते हैं| जैसे एक इंसान अगर एक ही जगह पर शांति से बैठा हो हमारे मनोवैज्ञानिक कुछ निष्कर्ष पर नहीं पहुच सकते| मनोवैज्ञानिक मनुष्य के कार्य व्यवहार को ध्यान में रख कर वह ऐसा क्यों कर रहा है इसका आंकलन करते हैं| गति के आधार पर और उसमें भी आवेशित गति के आधार पर स्थिति को समझने का प्रयास करते हैं| वैज्ञानिक भी यही करते हैं गति के आधार पर स्थिति का आंकलन| उसमें भी मुख्यतः आवेशित गति| जैसे एक परमाणु में इलेक्ट्रोन न्यूक्लियस के चारों ओर घूम रहे हैं और उस परमाणु में बाहरी उर्जा देने पर उस परमाणु का कैसा आचरण होता है यह यन्त्र तथा प्रयोग विधि से देखने को मिलता है पर उस परमाणु में इलेक्ट्रोन न्यूक्लियस के चारों ओर क्यों घूम रहे हैं यह यन्त्र तथा प्रयोग विधि से समझ नहीं आता| आँखों या यंत्रों से तो आवेशित गति या गति ही दिखती है स्थिति तो न आँखों से और ना ही यंत्रों से दिखती है| स्थिति तो केवल मनुष्य ही देख सकता है| स्थिति कि समझ ही नियम कि समझ है|
अब प्रश्न यह खडा होता है कि नियम खुद में कैसे समझ आता है?
इसके उत्तर में मैं बस यही कहना चाहूँगा कि नियम या तो स्वयं में, से, के अनुसन्धान से समझ आ सकता है या फिर जिस व्यक्ति ने अनुसन्धान किया है उसके मार्गदर्शन में अध्ययन से|
इस बारे में तथा इससे जुड़े हुए विषयों पर आगे के कुछ लेखों में और चर्चा होगी|
Tribulations of A Fledgling Mind 
Dear Devansh,
This is very nice article.
Can you please elaborate what “avlokan” means?
Is avolokan activity some “higher” kriya of jeevan – other than aasha, vichar, ichchha (i.e. kalpanasheelta)?
How do you know, if it is something higher or it is in the purview of kalpana only?
You have also written that avlokan of niyam of existence is possible by anusandhan or adhyayan. Can you elaborate how avlokan happens/happened in you during adhyayan. Can avlokan (or sakshatkar) be partial or segmented? Are there stages to it? If there are stages to it – are they universal? If there are stages to it – can they be described in words? if no, why not?
Regards, Rakesh…
Dear Rakesh Jee,
Thanks for the comment.
I will try to respond without using terminology of MD.
1.
Can you please elaborate what “avlokan” means?
Is avolokan activity some “higher” kriya of jeevan – other than aasha, vichar, ichchha (i.e. kalpanasheelta)?
How do you know, if it is something higher or it is in the purview of kalpana only?
Response:
At least we see that our attention goes on to things which we did not know previously. For example, I never knew in my life that I have this expectation of Unconditional Acceptance in me from others (Nyay ki Yachna). I came to know about it. Nobody had drawn my attention towards it before. I came to know it myself with observation within. If I observe some incidents and see it with the drishti of past then I can never gain new knowledge, this is for sure. This thing got clicked automatically. With observation.
First thing which happened was I started seeing discontinuity of pleasure in physical facility. It made me to search for Happiness somewhere else. My attention started going on things like relationships more. Here I began to realize that I want Unconditional Acceptance. Trust, Right Evaluation and Continuity of these two. This was something which was totally new for me. Here I realized that this expectation is there within me.
One thing is also for sure into it, this expectation of Unconditional Acceptance is something which is universal (in the beginning due to lack of knowledge), which when I saw within myself I was able to see it in others too.
So here I can say that I have not achieved Anubhav but I still see something which is universal.
Now I started exploring what does this unconditional acceptance mean? I found that it is currently dependent on other person’s perception, thinking, feelings, behavior towards me. When other person’s behavior, thoughts, feelings, perception towards me are as per my expectations/preferences then I feel good otherwise feel bad. I found myself totally partantra in this, since my feeling of goodness was completely dependent on other person. Since I had seen uncertainty, inconsistency of happiness in physical facility so I could not go back also. I had no option other than exploring further.
I started evaluating the basis of my Trust and Respect and when I am feeling Trust and Respect. I found that it is totally dependent on other person. In this process I began to see several small small things at several times like respect on the basis of a thing which is outside and relative can not ensure its continuity. My evaluation towards myself is dependent on other person’s evaluation of me. So I need to work on my evaluation. I need to know myself.
Here I began to realize that It is lack of self-knowledge which is actually manifesting as a need Respect and Trust !!
I do not say that I had or have gained self-knowledge but I began to realize that I am searching for a required thing at a wrong place!
I have been expecting these things from other person till now. Now this thing reduced my level of expectations from other person. Which actually reduced my feeling of opposition with them. The more I explored within myself I found that I have this expectation of “feeling good about myself” continuously in me. When I find myself bad then I feel bad and when I find myself good I feel good. This feeling of good and bad which I am feeling are dependent on my assumptions and their categorization in good and bad. Lets say I feel that eating in a restaurant in bad. Now if I eat out, out of temptation then I feel bad. I feel that I am bad. So my perception towards myself is deciding my feeling towards myself, the feeling of trust within me. If any of my close friends looks down at me then I feel that I am bad and my trust shakes. I found all this and I kept exploring. The more I explored within myself the more I found uncertainty, inconsistency of happiness in various manyatas. When I see uncertainty, inconsistency of happiness in something then I begin to loose it. My expectation of deriving happiness from there decreases. The more swatantra I feel. The more independent I feel.
Now this seeing of inconsistency of happiness in a thing or manyata has to happen within. This is what I am referring to as avlokan. Avlokan se asthirta dikhti hai. Asthirta dikhne par galat cheez/manyata chhoot jaati hai.
In this way I am being more and more free from Manyatas. In fact verification of proposal does nothing but the same thing. The thing which is happening inside is “asthirta ka darshan, usase chhutkara tatha sthirta ki taraf gati”.Sthirta kahan hai uska anuman MD ke prastav ke adhaar par lagta hai.
This is a continuous process. Since I have seen asthirta in many prejudices and assumptions of mine so I no longer get affected if environment is in accordance with those manyatas. Like previously I used to live like an idealist so when any person used to comment on my idealism I used to get hurt. I realized that this idealism is also nothing but my one of the assumptions, my own creation. When I saw this then I became free from this manyata. Now if somebody says you are not an idealist then it doesn’t affect me much. I see the difference between reality and manyata more clearly than before. At least I see that this manyata is not the reality. This itself is increasing more comfort. This has increased my comfort level within.
Since I am more comfortable within than before so my behavior with others has also improved. My relationships with people have also improved a lot. Now I do not get disturbed easily. My capability to accept has increased. The more I am seeing asthirta the more vishwas I am feeling inside, the more I am NOT recognizing my value on the basis of manyatas the more free I feel.
I do not say that I have achieve complete anubhav and have become free from manyatas. I am in process. I just want to say that this process involves “astrirta ka darshan aur strirta ki or gati”, which is a continuous process. The more asthirta I see in material, assumption the less I recognize myself with it.
In this process involves the observation within. Without observation I can not see asthirta. Without seeing asthirta I have no motivation to leave it.
One more thing, previously my object of thinking used to be material, then it shifted to relationships then it shifted to samadhan. This is not something which can happen in a moment. It is a continuous process. My temptation have reduced a lot in past sometime and my life style is also changed. This can not happen without seeing asthirta.
I also see that due to lack of understand of right evalution, recognition of our selves we recognize it with our manyatas. Which is causing the problem. When I see this for myself then I see it also for others. In fact this is what is happening.
I did not want to indulge into terminology because I have gained a lot without using them. MD/JV has taught me how to look within, what is the process of seeing within, which I found “Look outside but observe within”. There was a time when I used to try to understand things on the basis of terminologies which did not take me anywhere. Observation within and the process I learned made me to look within myself and made me to learn a lot of things about myself, others, relationships and many more.
With Regards,
Devansh
Thanks for your response Devansh.
It is not really possible to say that we are talking about the same reality, unless we have a common terminology. Sukh, Jeevan, Samadhan, Nyay, Sakshatkar, Anubhav, etc – are words used in Madhyasth-Darshan literature for indicating realities in existence which one human-being experienced (experiences), and every human-being can experience. Similar/Same words are used in other presentations (including yours here) for indicating to some realities.
Best Regards,
Rakesh…
Dear Rakesh Jee:
I just wanted to emphasize on the continuity of process. It is not that one doesn’t understand anything before Anubhav. Understanding of Sah-Astitva will happen only after Anubhav but at least Asakti is decreasing and comfort level within is increasing in this journey. That is all I wanted to say.
I do not say we can not experience what one person experienced, experiences(Anubhav). First thing is we are not traveling the way he traveled. We are traveling in a different way here. I am talking about the experiences in the journey. These experiences I may not be able to map to the words which are used for destination like Anubhav.
The experiences which I see/feel in the journey are also universal. It happens the same way with everybody. Without having realized the need for Unconditional Acceptance nobody will work towards the fulfillment for the need of Vishwas.
This need for Unconditional Acceptance one feels in the journey, which is actually the need of Vishwas. One may not be aware of this Vishwas will be completed in Anubhav, but expanse of definition of Vishwas keeps increases in the journey and will ultimately end up into Anubhav.
I can at least say that I am able to Trust more number of people than before and others are also reciprocating it. Its expanse is increasing. I also see that it is not complete so I keep working to increase it. It will complete in Anubhav, this is a belief.
In this way I say that it is a continuous process.
With Regards,
Devansh
Dear Devansh,
I think, we are together on the following two points:
1. What one human-being achieved/understood (through whatever method) every other human-being can achieve/understand through method of education (adhyayan).
2. Terminology (words+definitions) is essential for any meaningful communication from one who understood and the others who want to understand; and also between those who want to understand.
Now this study indeed is a “continuous process” – involving able guidance by teacher, keen observation by student, dialogue between the two, mulyankan, expression of gratitude – till it achieves a “definite accomplishment”.
This “definite-accomplishment” is a digital-shift from animal-consciousness to human-consciousness. Or a shift from living in the purview of 4.5 kriya to living in 10 kriya. Or a shift from living in the purview of imagination (kalpanasheelta) to living in the wake of anubhav.
The “continuous process” is important and essential – since without it there is no “definite-accomplishment”.
What one finds as “accomplishments” during this “continuous process”, are also important to recognize – otherwise how would someone stay joyous for the journey?
Still it is important to be aware that these “accomplishments” don’t have “continuity”. There is every possibility of regressing to old status – since the shift of consciousness hasn’t happened till the irreversible transilience (sankraman) of “definite accomplishment”. Regression happens, I can say it from my own experience. “accomplishment” is something from which regression is not possible.
There is nothing mystical about it.
Regards,
Rakesh…
Dear Rakesh Jee,
I am in agreement with you here at some points, especially that after Anubhav the progression will be irreversible (I must also mention that this is also just an imagination, but belief in this imagination has got strengthened in past).
I was intentionally refraining to talk about something like Anubhav which is there is my (if you allow me to use ‘our’) imagination only. Imagination is not experience, needless to say this to you, I have learned this from you only.
The thing on which I wanted to emphasize was, this Anuman of Anubhav (possibility of continuity of happiness) keeps on getting strengthened in course of Adhyayan. The thing which was not there in my Anuman comes into my Anuman in course of Adhyayan. The thing which was not there in my smriti comes into my smirit in course of Adhyayan, in my tulan “nyay” and “dharm” start dominating, which were not at all there previously. I start finding it more, in fact very difficult to misbehave with others, having a feeling of non-acceptance for others which used to be easy for me before. I agree to the point that Vishwas ka bhav (whatever be the basis of it) is shaky before Anubhav but at least I realized that for happiness I need continuity of it and working towards it. When my vishwas ka bhav shakes I may need some external support to sustain myself for some time, but at least I am aware of it that it is happening. The anuman of Anubhav remains in my smriti which keeps on propelling me more and more.
The more strong my Anuman of Anubhav becomes the more my smriti keeps on aligning in accodance with it. The issues which used to hurt me before are no longer issues for me (Sanskar se nivritti).
In all, my awareness level towards myself in increasing. Believe me it is a process of traveling within. Proposal just gives how the existence actually is with some logic associated with it. I see proposal only useful to initiate a “self investigation” and “self verification” process in me and to train me “how to see within”. That is all. How existence actually is, I will not understand by continuous repeating within me that this is how existence is, but observation within can take me closer to it.
Rest of the work in mine. Continuous “observation” (avlokan) within myself can only help. Even if we talk about Anubhav, how will it help us? Even if somebody experience existence, how will it help me? I can not understand a thing at this stage which I do not have patrata for. My patrata increases with observation within.
The first thing which I had noticed within myself was, “asvadan apeksha”, then I started seeing my tulan, then my ichchha, meanings of vishwas and samman started changing for me.
If I start with the definition of Vishwas as “Samagra astitva apne aap mein vyavastha hai swayam mein is baat ki swikriti” then in my opinion it is a meaningless definition for me. This definition is not mine, somebody else who experienced something gave it to me. This is not my own. You might say I was to make it mine so I am working and I will completely agree to it. In addition I will say that I can not start with this definition of vishwas. In the beginning one sees vishwas in relation to other person, then he starts seeing the possibility of it being independent of other person and process continues.
My own definition of Vishwas will be in accordance with my patrata. With increase in my patrata the my own definition of vishwas keeps on increasing. The “bigger” definition is not at all mine. It is very important to know what my current definition of vishwas is or my current situation is. Without it, I do not accept the process which is involved in Adhyayan and want to jump to the bigger definition which is given to me by somebody else. It is also a partantrata. It leads to a sever amount of dissatisfaction and deprivation within. It increases my dependency on environment and people and I expect other around me to assure me rather than me assuring them. It created frictions in relationships.
The things which I said are not “Accomplishments” of mine, but I see them the stages which comes in the process of adhyayan. Patrata once gained never lost. As I said Vishwas may be shaky in Adhayayn but Patrata will not be!
As I said in my previous comments, my relatioship have got improved in past some time when I started seeing the “PROCESS” of Adhyayan more clearly. Now I do not do the “Hadbadi” to jump to Anubhav. This “Hadbadi” rather stops me to it. This acceptance towards to the “Process” has made me more calm than before. Unless I see the “Continuity” of “Process” of Adhyayan and accept, I am bound to have lack of Kritigyata for those who have travelled more than me, lack of samman for shreshthata, bound to have feeling deprivation, frictions in relationships. The continuity of “Process” can only be seen with observation within. With the assurance of continuity of process it increases my comfort level within. This continuity of process is not something which is just my imagination, but it is like this.
I think I have a lot of points in this comment of mine and in my previous comments too. They may be in different words but I am sure are pointing to the same thing. In case of anything kindly look at them again.
With Regards,
Devansh
Dear Devansh,
I think, we are together on the following three points:
1. What one human-being achieved/understood (through whatever method) every other human-being can achieve/understand through method of education (adhyayan).
2. Terminology (words+definitions) is essential for any meaningful communication from one who understood and the others who want to understand; and also among those who want to understand.
3. Understanding (adhyayan) is a continuous-process which culminates in irreversible accomplishment of human-consciousness.
Now the question is what is this “continuous-process” and how does it work?
I will not be able to give my conclusive-views about it yet, since I am still working on it. You seem to have made some good progress on it – which is very nice to hear. I think, the correctness of process is not an issue at all. If it works for you, that’s all is required. It it stops working for you after sometime, then you will figure out something else.
“Imagination” (kalpanasheelta) is not a derogatory-word. Imagination is the inexhaustible conscious-power that we realize NOW, in our “illusioned states” also. In this sense, it is within our adhikaar. The powers of human-imagination is not a concept for me (and for anyone else), it is something that I realize in my living today.
In my view, this Imagination (which is my adhikaar) itself is the link for activating the dormant powers of my self (jeevan).
The proposal of Madhyasth-Darshan (its terminology and proposals) is there in my imagination (in my smriti). Which is a good thing – I feel… As this is the link for recognizing the realities of my self and everything else in existence. In my view, this is the only link we have.
So “Anubhav”, “Jeevan”, “Nyay”, “Dharm” – and using the definitions of these words, I direct my Imagination to these as Realities. This, as you said, is an Anumaan. Now as I extend my imagination, I may not get to see these realities as they are – due to my present patrata of paying attention. Now there are two ways for me – one, I could “redefine” these words for myself based on my present status. and two, I could continue further on building my patrata of paying-attention. The former can be more comforting than the latter – but I choose the latter. I think, one chooses the former after getting tired of the latter.
Thanks,
Rakesh…
Dear Rakesh Jee,
Thanks again for your response.
Your last comment is the one on which I agree on most of the points, except the point of “former”, “latter” and redefinition of words, since I had said in my last comment that definition “evolves” (keeps increasing its expanse, like the example which I gave in Vishwas) in process and it may match the bigger final definition (which is given to me by somebody, which is not at all mine, but yes helps me in predicting the possibility of having absolute definition, absolute vishwas) in future probably in Anubhav.
Anyways, if it is a matter of choice then there can not be any discussion.
I found that I was wrong in doing this “hadbadi” or having this craver to jump to end, without traveling through this process. I found that it was my lack of understanding of process. The only thing which I have in my hand is the process or Adhyayan and not the outcome or end. When I do not see the process then I do not recognize the changes which are happening within me in due course and I want final thing only. In fact lack of being aware about ourselves is what is leading to lack of understanding of process. This becomes a cause of unhappiness. Seeing the process or paying attention to ourselves is not a way out as you call/feel it, out of unhappiness. It is just becoming more aware of oneself. Not seeing process is like I am trying to be aware of entire existence without paying attention to myself or without even being aware of myself! I do not know how it works! If you recognize it as a way/choice for you, kindly go ahead.
I have nothing more to say than what I said in my previous comments and this one (which is in fact is repetition of what I said earlier, probably in different words).
Anyhow, It was a nice discussion. It drew my attention towards some more things for which I am thankful to you.
I always feel free with you to express my opinion since I have assurance that it is not going to affect our relationship. Its really a privilege indeed.
Thanks a lot for your ideas and time 🙂
With Warm Regards,
Devansh
Thanks to you also!! It’s rare to see such honesty.
best,
Rakesh…
I agree with the description you have given for scientific analysis and human analysis.
I wonder why you were expecting a blast 😛
The only thing not acceptable to me is
>>घटनाक्रम को देख कर नियम समझ नहीं आता
When one observes something he will make an analysis in his mind and in his (conscious or subconscious) mind he would be left with some rules.
Now the thing you are pointing towards is that correct ‘rule’ should be absolute which one cannot grasp just from observation. But then my argument is that person is not dependent on rule, rather rule is dependent on person. Its again relativity and absoluteness where we always digress.
One more thing, knowing the ‘rule’ is not necessary to work upon it. For example, my body knows how to sweat or how to dream; but I consciously don’t know how to sweat yet I am capable of sweating.
Therefore the knowledge of rules can be redundant(not necessary) also.
For example, it is important(one’s own choice though) to seek happiness not the knowledge that happiness is ‘acceptance’.
Thanks for the comment.
I will not continue on the absolute and subjective part of it.
“Now the thing you are pointing towards is that correct ‘rule’ should be absolute which one cannot grasp just from observation.”
This is not my statement. I had said that knowing the rule is not possible just by “analysis” and not the observation.
Anyways, we have already talked about this topic many times, so I will not continue the same thing again.
Thanks,
Devansh
माना है लम्बा लेकिन सँवाद बङा गहरा है.
देवांश, राकेश, सुकेश में सम्बन्ध गहरा है.
सम्बन्ध गहरा है, हो निर्वाह जागृति-क्रममें.
लाभ हमें भी मिले, तभी तो शामिल हुये हैं इसमें.
कह साधक कवि जागृति-मार्ग अभी है लम्बा.
सँवाद बङा गहरा है, लेकिन मान लिया है लम्बा.
जीवन, भाई, निरंतर है, यह संवाद सारांश के लिए छोटा है…
सागर से भी गागर ना भर पाए, तालाब तो कितना छोटा है…
खारा पानी प्यास बुझाए ना, यह सागर भी तो छोटा है…
मन बंजारा हो जाए तो, यह जीवन-थल भी छोटा है…
भाई, जीवन-थल भी छोटा है!!
Dear Sukesh and All,
I hope we could take our little dialogue to some conclusion! 🙂
You had written:
“When one observes something he will make an analysis in his mind and in his (conscious or subconscious) mind he would be left with some rules.”
I agree with that. Let’s probe this further.
(1) Who observes?
and (2) What is the object of observation?
These two questions are existential and most fundamental. These spawn out further questions – on what is conscious and subconscious? what is mind? what is rule? And whether the phenomenon being observed is an illusion, whether it’s there without the observer, or it is relative to observer?
But the fact remains that we human-beings observe the events around us – and try to make sense out of them, and we try to arrive at the “principle” behind the events happening. We do this all the time – ceaselessly… We humans have the “need to know”. This is a very defining trait of human-specie, making it distinct from animals. This is essentially the function of “imagination” that we are born with.
We try to arrive at “principles” which explain the “events” around us, through use of our imagination. So we human-beings are the “observers” and what what we observe is the “existence – which includes our self”. We observe with our “imagination” – is also clear enough. At some level, we desperately “wish” there to be some principle that explains the events. Chaos or randomness doesn’t qualify as principle.
Let’s assume there is a principle that explains existence, and human-being as observer has capacity to comprehend it. If we can’t assume that we can exit from this dialogue now…
Until the “gap” between our “figment of imagination” about the principle and “The Principle” is there, our “Need to Know” will not be fulfillment. In this way – our “Need to Know” is related with our “Fulfillment” or “Happiness”.
Now there are two ways of addressing this gap – by “Blue Sky Exploration” or by “Guiding our Imagination”.
“Blue Sky Exploration” is a hit and trial method or anusandhan. This is a lonely pursuit.
“Guiding our Imagination” is the method of Adhyayan – in which is there is someone who has discovered “The Principle” that explains the Existence, and that person inspires your imagination to see the realities of existence in the light of his experiencing them. This process of extending the imagination to achieve a shift in the way of seeing or a shift in one’s consciousness – so that one becomes rooted in the Principle. Since the principle explains Self (or the observer) also, along with the observed (i.e. Existence).
The latter is the submission of Madhyasth-Darshan discovered through blue-sky exploration (anusandhan) by Nagraj Ji. I find myself in the process of studying it…
I hope we can take this dialogue to its destination.
regards,
Rakesh
“वार्तालाप को किसी लक्ष्य या प्रयोजन के सिलसिले में नियंत्रित करने पर संवाद कहलाता है। लक्ष्य और प्रयोजनों से जुड़ा न हो, ऐसे वार्तालाप को गप-शप कहते हैं। संवाद की सार्थकता उसकी गम्य-स्थली (या लक्ष्य) से स्पष्ट होती है।”
– ए नागराज शर्मा
Dear Rakesh Jee,
I am extremely impressed and very happy with this comment of yours. Really appreciable.
Kindly keep visiting and commenting 🙂
You have written it with utmost clarity 🙂
With Warm Regards,
Devansh
What you are saying requires a lot of insight to understand. I express my apologies on behalf of Sukesh for slightly insincerity which he has shown towards your comment 🙂
What you have said is not easy to understand to a person who has not started Adhyayan (what we call Adhyayan), kindly use much simpler examples, words etc. which people can relate to, so that something is communicated across otherwise it unnecessarily leads to problems.
With Regars,
Devansh
@Rakesh:
rofl…
why I am rolling on floor laughing? —
1. I don’t think anybody has ever advertised some product the way you have. (I am not 100% sure here if you were advertising or you were boasting about your achievements of the readings you have done)
2. If I had any curiosity then I would have become scientist. Sorry, that I am one of those guys who if he knows that airplane flies and one can just sit and enjoy your travel, he won’t ask the air-hostess why/how the plane flies…
3. The telling and believing that there are people who actually have filled the so called ‘gap’ is pure instance of gullibility. I don’t think anyone else ‘can’ find what is good for me to make me happy and no one ‘should’, too. I believe in myself and don’t need someone telling me if I am a loser or a winner.
4. If by ‘destination’ you mean ‘being impressed by the methods’, then you caught a wrong person.
5.
>>“वार्तालाप को किसी …………स्पष्ट होती है।”
I don’t think A Nagraj Sharma is an authentic dictator of definitions of Hindi terms…
I have replied with well-intentions, it’s just that I am being very frank.
cheers…
Hi Sukesh,
I am glad that you found my “sales-pitch” for Madhyasth-Darshan amusing! 🙂 It is a sales-pitch indeed… which you would “buy”, only if you have tapped your “need to know”. As you said, if you had “any curiosity” you would have become a Scientist. I would like to say that each of us have curiosity awakened at some degree or the other. The world today around us mainly presents two paths for addressing this curiosity – (1) Science, (2) Religion (not the crude caricatures of it… but the genuine pursuits of truth). What I am pitching for is the “third-path” which is neither (uncertainty indefiniteness rooted) Science nor (mystry rooted, God centric) Religion.
“Destination” doesn’t mean the “method” or “path”. I think, Science and Religion also are with the hope to achieve same destination of identifying “The Principle” – understanding/experiencing which would realize human-fulfillment and universal-harmony. Where these two approaches have reached, is not a matter of speculation anymore.
But again, to take any of these three paths seriously – one needs to have one’s curiosity (or “need to know”) piqued somewhere. So it’s not about gullibility at all… Gullibility is being a blind follower.
* If someone has indeed bridged the “gap” for himself by understanding “The Principle”, wouldn’t he help others by guiding them as well?
* What other way is possible for this person, apart from living that Principle himself and guiding/inspiring others by talking about this proposal?
* What other way is possible for a person who is following this guidance, though still hasn’t quite reached – to share this proposal with others?
Whether you want to study this proposal or not, you are welcome either ways! 🙂
Devansh: Thanks for rushing for my support! 🙂 But I didn’t find Sukesh’s observations “insincere” at all. He’s just saying – I don’t feel the “need” for it right now. Also, there’s no division of “insiders” (the ones who are doing adhyayan or prabodhan) and “outsiders” (the ones who are not doing adhyayan or prabodhan). I think, there are people who have understood “The Principle” and are living it. And there are people – like myself – who have the need (at different degrees) for understanding “The Principle”. The complementariness is “but natural” between these two – and that itself gets played out as process of “guiding the imagination” we briefly talked about.
best,
Rakesh…
Dear Rakesh Jee,
I am glad that you did not find Sukesh’s comment insincere. I was just feeling that probably the explanation might become tough for him to understand. I do not deny the fact that everybody is willing to know, it is just about the terminology and conceptual level of the argument you made I was talking about.
I appreciate your efforts again 🙂
With Regards,
Devansh
Perhaps you are right… We talked a little about the need for common-terminology (words+definitions) in this very dialogue earlier. I am OK for “dilution” of my presentation, but not for “altering” it. If I were to try saying above differently, I would only say more of the same thing. What part of my answer could be dropped? What needs to be said in addition?
I think, if anyone asks a question – it means he has the receptivity (patrata) to receive its answer also.
best,
Rakesh..
Dear Rakesh Jee,
When you talk about Patrata and if I reply to it then it will again lead to those long debates which we have already have in past. I will not go into it again.
I would just say that,
1. I have no doubts in what you are saying. It is absolute perfect in my knowledge.
2. I am not also saying to dilute or alter “content”.
I would like to put forward a proposal, “Start doing Prabodhan”. I must say it gives an immense insights within ourselves as well as lets us know “What to say”, “How to say”, “Why to say” and “Whom to say”. It gives us a lot of idea about what to say to whom or what answer will make other person understand. It gives us a lot of clarity in evaluating other person right and then putting forward the proposal.
Have you ever attended Ganesh Jee’s shivir? If not then I would strongly recommend them to you. While doing this I must mention it again that I am not doubting your knowledge of MD. Ganesh Jee’s shivir gives immense insights in how to handle various questions and evaluating other person’s patrata as well.
With Regards,
Devansh
Thanks Devansh…
I have not attended Ganesh ji’s shivir. I am not particularly keen about it either.
I don’t see Jeevan-Vidya as a class-room exercise out of “teaching-profession” or any sort of “activism” or a training in “presentation skills” that lets us know “What to say”, “How to say”, “Why to say” and “Whom to say”.
I see Jeevan-Vidya as an understanding with which a human-being lives harmoniously in family with children and parents, does some meaningful production-activity, does seva of guests and elders, and exhibits thorough open-ness about oneself – and thereby realizes Compassion towards everyone else. And for that I am studying with Nagraj ji. My energies are fully-engaged to “receive” what I am “getting” from my interactions with him.
I will start doing prabodhan when I feel fulfilled myself – and can say that I am living with sva-dhan. Before that “prabodhan” word would be an imposition on myself – I feel. Though I feel quite at ease while sharing what I understood, in my capacity as student – and declaratively saying so. JV shivir is not the only way in which a human-being can express himself, I feel…
Thanks anyways,
Rakesh…
Thanks, nice to know your ideas.
If you feel that you are able to understand and make other person understand well then nothing better than that. In my opinion your presentations were not at all easy to understand for a beginner. On your blog as well I see you replying to many comments and starting directly from the existence and I wonder how a person will understand it! If you feel otherwise, well enough.
With Regards,
Devansh