Know Thyself - Attain Peace & Happiness E-Book

Dr. A.P. Sharma

• Herausgeber: V&S Publishers
• Kategorie: Ratgeber
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Seitenzahl: 212

Beschreibung

Attain peace and happiness

Leseprobe

KNOW THYSELFAttain to Happiness&Live a Good Life

Dr. A.P. Sharma

Published by:

F-2/16, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 011-23240026, 011-23240027 • Fax: [phone]Email: [email protected] • Website: www.vspublishers.com

Regional Office : Hydrabad

5-1-707/1, Brij Bhawan (Beside Central Bank of India Lane) Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095040-24737290Email: [email protected]

Branch Office : Mumbai

Jaywant Industrial Estate, 1st Floor - 108, Tardeo RoadOpposite Sobo Central Mall, Mumbai - 400 034022-23510736Email: [email protected]

Follow us on:

© Copyright: ISBN 978-93-505726-5-8

DISCLAIMER

While every attempt has been made to provide accurate and timely information in this book, neither the author nor the publisher assumes any responsibility for errors, unintended omissions or commissions detected therein. The author and publisher make no representation or warranty with respect to the comprehensiveness or completeness of the contents provided.

All matters included have been simplified under professional guidance for general information only without any warranty for applicability on an individual. Any mention of an organization or a website in the book by way of citation or as a source of additional information doesn't imply the endorsement of the content either by the author or the publisher. It is possible that websites cited may have changed or removed between the time of editing and publishing the book.

Results from using the expert opinion in this book will be totally dependent on individual circumstances and factors beyond the control of the author and the publisher.

It makes sense to elicit advice from well informed sources before implementing the ideas given in the book. The reader assumes full responsibility for the consequences arising out from reading this book. For proper guidance, it is advisable to read the book under the watchful eyes of parents/guardian. The purchaser of this book assumes all responsibility for the use of given materials and information. The copyright of the entire content of this book rests with the author/publisher. Any infringement/ transmission of the cover design, text or illustrations, in any form, by any means, by any entity will invite legal action and be responsible for consequences thereon.

 

Dedicated to

Shri Jiddu Krishnamurti

Preface

Began to contemplate on the theme around two and a half years back when my book titled, J.Krishnamurti: His Concept of Freedom was published. After giving much thought to it and going through the related literature for a considerable time, I started working on it in the early 1996. Several obstacles came on my way as I learnt about the Self, the more obscure it appeared to me. Perhaps, the only way to know it could be to talk to people about it, and to read more. I, therefore, talked to people. I interviewed, through an unstructured procedure, around 350 educated people in India, England and in the United States and tried to gather their opinion about what they thought of the Self. The interviews did not reveal more as most people said that they would think about it and reply later. Obviously, they did not. If some did say anything, their answers were fragmentary or religiously and culturally biased. I could not get a clear meaning of the Self. Then I tried to dig more into the philosophical books—both Western and Eastern. I found that philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and others in the West, and Buddha, Samkara and Krishnamurti in the East, did define the Self to a great extent.

It was simply an immense pleasure to know about it—especially through the examples quoted by Plato and the Buddhist masters’ and monks’ discourses. The first chapter of the book, therefore, talks about ‘The meaning of the Self, including my own reflections on ‘Why do we need to know the Self?’

The purpose of the book was not merely to know the characteristics of the Self. It was also to find out the meaning ‘To Know Thyself as well as to learn the process ‘How to Attain that Knowledge.’ Only then the individual would be able to get more in touch with himself and would discover his selfishness, vagueness, hatred, anger, fear and diversity, that he cradles everyday in his life. If the Self is pure and if it possesses spiritual and virtuous qualities as Plato and other ancient philosophers contended, why it would ever possess unvirtuous thoughts? The truth is that the Self often experiences those odd feelings too and plunges into gloom and disharmony. Does it mean that the duality is real and one’s getting deluded is natural?

The deluded Self is bound to leap into some kind of disharmony, resulting in breeding hatred, fear, selfishness and anger. Therefore, after knowing the meaning of the Self, it seemed to me imperative that one must also know ‘Why does the Self often feel divided and deluded?’ It led me to believe that the duality about which Plato, Aristotle, Samkara and the Gita talked, was not totally unreal?

I then contended that if one knew the nature of duality and understood the process that crystallized it, it would be easier to decipher the cause of the unvirtuous thoughts. Therefore, to learn the views of the philosophers it was very important as they could help clarifying the meaning of dualism. The second chapter contains all that.

The third and the fourth chapters provide explanations that duality (diversity) can be dissolved by attaining the unity of the Self. The divided Self, implicit with mean desires such as envy, fear, hatred, dissolution, lust and anger, may get rid of them and be united with its pure Self. To reach that goal one requires to follow a simple process that involves self-reflection and a balanced state of mind. In light of that, some important ideas have been presented to help the mind, decipher its meaning and base inclinations. Those ideas are highly inspirational and can help transcending to a higher plane without accomplishing big practices.

The book has some more important landmarks. These are:

Buddhist masters’ and monks’ lively discussions have been quoted to highlight the meaning of the Self. The style of the discourses is so natural and fascinating that the reader cannot escape enjoying them.

Comparative views of the Eastern and Western philosophers have been presented to clarify the meaning of the Self. Adequate quotes have been provided to make reading more attractive.

Some good examples, similes and myths have been quoted from the writings of the great masters to make their viewpoints more interesting and clear.

As some formal research was also made to discover the meaning of the Self, the material will surely be of great help to students of philosophy and education at the under-graduate level in most universities and countries.

The issue to understand the knowledge of the Self is very obscure. Yet the ideas presented in the book are not only lucid but also highly inspirational. I hope that the reader, who is desirous to know about his turmoil and disharmony and wants to attain peace of mind, happiness and stability in life, will surely welcome my efforts.

16th January, 1999

–A.P. Sharma

Acknowledgement

For kind permission to reprint certain copyright material grateful acknowledgment is hereby made as follows: Krishnamurti Foundation of America Ojai, California; Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Limited Brockwood Park, Hamphshire, U.K.; Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts; David Higam Associates Limited, London; Harper Collins Publishers, Hammersmith, London; Cliffs Notes Inc. Lincoln, NE, USA; Dover Publications, Inc. Mineóla, NY; Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, Mumbi; Osho, International Foundation, NY.

Though every reasonable care has been taken to trace ownership of copyright material, information will be welcomed that will enable the publisher to rectify in the subsequent editions any incorrect or missing reference or credit.

Contents

1. WHAT IS THE SELF?

The Western Point of View

Greek Concern

European Contention

Five Theories of Mind

Eastern Approach

Vedantic Saksin*

Gita’s Conceptions

Stream of Successive States

Jiva is a Conscious substance

Self as the Being

Self as an Entity

Retrospection

Why Know the Self!

References

2. CONCEPT OF DUALITY

Western Dilemma

Noumenal and the Phenomenal

Soul as Realization of Body

Worlds of Reality and Appearances

Mind controls the Body

Mind and Matter as parts of the Mechanical System

Eastern Approach

Atman and Brahman

Four Important Concepts of Advaita

Maya

Brahman

Sagun-brahman

Jiva

Empirical World is Impermanent

Retrospection

References

3. CONCEPT OF UNITY

Greek Master Thinker

Confucius’ Golden Rule

An Epitome of Morality

Embodiment of Love

Man of Steady Wisdom

Most Illumined

References

4. Quest of Unity

Man who provided the Procedure

Conditioning as a Barrier

Way to Self-knowledge

Self-knowledge leads to Freedom

Retrospective Reckoning

Why are we here?

Some Possible Procedures

References

Bibliography

1

What is the Self?

At times it seems difficult to get a clear meaning of a concept even though we feel that we know everything about it. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, when Ophelia’s father asked Hamlet, “What is the meaning of madness?”, Hamlet, after a brief pause, replied casually, “Madness is madness”. Well, we can accept it simply as kidding on the part of Hamlet. But if we ask someone ‘What is the meaning of the Self?’, he may not be able to respond so quickly and casually. It would surely regulate a lot of thinking to give an acceptable answer. It really happened so. When I asked a good number of people, ‘What they thought about the Self?’, most of them ignored the question. If anyone answered the question it contained his religious or cultural bias. I expected an answer on metaphysical grounds. Most of them found it difficult to define it. Perhaps that is the reason that philosophers from ancient times seem to be religiously busy in evolving a convincing and acceptable definition of the Self.

Both, in the Western as well as Eastern worlds, the quest to know the Self has been very intensive. As they go on defining it, it often seems that a majority of them do not possess a very clear picture of it in their minds. Not really that they have not tried hard, but because it is so difficult to go deeper into the Self and know it. Therefore, on my journey to find out ‘The Meaning to Know Thyself, my first milestone is to find out a clearer concept of the Self.

The Western Point of View

Greek Concern

In my quest to know the Self, I start by looking back at the scene, which took place in Athens some 400-500 years back, before the Christ. Socrates, accompanied by his friend Crito, is attempting to know from Mouse, the city potter, the meaning of beautiful.

Socrates asked, “What is this thing called beautiful, Mouse?”

“Beautiful,” said Mouse, and looked puzzled for a minute, and touched the shoulder of the pot he had been making. “Why like this, I suppose, and like that one over there…” Socrates put his hand on the pot, too, to feel the curve of it, but it seemed clear that he was not satisfied. “No, Mouse, not that way! That’s what people always do—points at things. They point at things and say, ‘Beautiful this, beautiful that’, and the things are all different. Beautiful pot, beautiful wrestling, beautiful courage—all different. But what is the sameness of them? There must be a sameness somehow.”

Mouse did not answer right away. At last, after some time, he said, “I don’t know about ‘the beautiful’, Socrates. I only know about good pots. A good pot is a beautiful pot to me.”

“But why is it good, Mouse?” Socrates asked him.

“See that pitcher over there?” Mouse said, pointing again “That is a good pitcher. It is good for something. It is good for pouring. Make the lip a little more deeply curved and wine will spill. Make the sides a little fatter and it will tip over easily. Then it is a bad pitcher. In fact, to my way of thinking, unless it does the thing that it is supposed to do it can hardly be called a pitcher at all…”

“Then it must be the goodness in things that makes them beautiful and useful. It must be the goodness in them that makes them anything at all,” Socrates said slowly1 Perhaps that was the beginning of the dawn of knowledge in him. He went on and on with his search for truth until he discovered that just being alive was not the important thing, but living rightly. For that he never compromised with truth, even at the cost of his life. It is because of that, the philosophic Europe has always considered Socrates such a great teacher.

Some eminent thinkers believe that had Socrates been born in India, he would certainly have been looked upon as an ‘Avatar’, an incarnation of Godhead. If he had been born in Palestine or Arabia, he would have figured as a Prophet of God, for he had something special in him that distinguished him from all ordinary persons. He claimed to be guided by an Oracle or sign, a kind of voice, which always forbade but did not command.2

He was known to be subject to trances. Symposium records that one morning he could not find a solution of what he was thinking. So he stood still in thoughts from early dawn till noon. As crowd gathered round him, he continued standing, lost in thoughts until the next morning.3

Socrates’ glory lies in his pertinacity with which he fought the battle of liberty of thought and the supremacy of righteousness in life, with such courage that he defied death. His message has come down to us through centuries. Who could utter such words other than him as he possessed the soul of a true and good person. He reflects:

The Apology unfolds that Socrates brought to his fellow citizens some special message from God. It was that it is the great business of life to practise the ‘care’ or ‘tendencies’ of one’s soul, to make it as good as possible. No one should ruin one’s life as most people do by caring for the body or for ‘possessions’ before caring for the soul. Socrates reflects that the fundamental thought is that the soul is most truly a man’s self. Socrates defined it as the normal waking personality, the seat of character and intelligence, “that in virtue of which we are called wise or foolish, good or bad”.

Consequently, the thought works out that “the soul is the man”.1* Our happiness or well being, therefore, depends directly on the goodness or badness of the soul. Socrates contends that there is no happiness in possessing health, or strength or wealth, unless one knows how to use these advantages rightly. He continues, ‘if we use them wrongly they will lead us to different kinds of misery’ This leads us to understand that the good state of the soul is precisely that state in which it never makes the mistake of taking anything to be good when it is not really good. To make one’s soul as good as possible one needs to attain the knowledge of good that will prevent him from using strength, health, wealth and opportunity wrongly2*

According to a famous myth which Socrates relates to Phaedrus on the bank of the Ilissus, the soul, in its original state, can be compared to a chariot drawn by two-winged horses. One is docile but thoroughbred. The other is a governable steed (the passion and sensuous instincts). This chariot is driven by a charioteer (reason) who strives to guide it properly. In a region above heaven the chariot travels through the world of the Ideas, which the soul thus contemplates, although not without difficulty. Trouble arises in guiding the flight of the two horses, and the soul falls, the horses lose their wings and the soul becomes incarnated in the body.5

Most primitive people thought of the soul as a kind of shadowy image or replica of the body—like vapour or breath. They thought it was capable of leaving the body during sleep and surviving it after death. Greek literature and philosophy are permeated with the idea of the soul as expressed by the Greek word, ‘psyche’. It carries a rich connotation of life, soul and consciousness. The earliest Greek thinkers believed in a “divine and animate essence”, immanent in nature, appearing in a person as the soul, the source of life and intelligence. This view found expression in Heraclitus’s doctrines. He thought that soul is a fiery vapour, which is identical with rational and vital fire-soul of the universe.6 The tendency towards the complete spiritualization of the soul leading to an uncompromising dualism, is observed in Plato and later on in the teaching of Saint Auguistine. Gradually it emerged into the doctrine of the existence of the two worlds, a mundane, material world, and a divine spiritual world. The body belongs to the former and the soul to the later.

Truly speaking, after Socrates, Plato’s description of the soul, is more distinctive. Socrates went on telling us more about the goodness and badness of the soul rather than about its nature. For Plato, the soul is an immaterial essence or being, imprisoned in the body, its nature having little in common with the earthly, its home and destiny being the world of eternal Ideas. They correspond with what we now refer to as reason, will and feeling. The latter two are close to the physical body and evidently are not immortal. The reason is the ‘divine’ part of the soul is separate and as independent from the body. Thus, Plato characterized the soul as having both, the mortal and immortal qualities. It has also been discovred by him in his ‘Simile of the Cave ‘ in the Republic. Aristotle emphasizes the reality and essential character of the soul not less than Plato, but he brings it into much closer relation to the body. He considers it the very ‘form’ and reality and perfection of the body. It is, according to Aristotle, the ‘primary actuality of a natural body’ endowed with life. The Nicomachean Ethics is probably the most popular of all Aristotle’s works, which consists of a search analysis of the human character and conduct and every reader may find in it some picture of himself. In it, he desired every one of us to search for the ‘good’ that he identifies with happiness. What then is happiness and how do we achieve it?

According to Aristotle, every creature is happy fulfilling just the functions for which nature designed him. In the case of an individual, his unique function is the activity of the soul in obedience to reason. Virtues for us then are states of character in which we choose our activities rationally and therefore properly. It is through virtues that we may arrive at the state of happiness which we all so greatly desire.7

In the Nicomachean Ethics, in the eighth chapter, Aristotle defines ‘good’ as having three classes: external goods—external as they are called, goods of the soul, and goods of the body. Of these three classes, goods of the soul are considered goods in the strictest and truest sense. Spiritual actions and activities are ascribed to the soul. This theory, though ancient, is accepted by the philosophers of the present time too. It is correct, in the sense, that we call certain actions and activities the end, because we put the end in some good of the soul and not in an external good. ‘By the similar theory a happy person lives well and does well. Happiness is, in fact, a kind of living and doing well… Now, most persons may find a sense of discord in their pleasure, because their pleasures are not all naturally pleasant. But the lovers of nobleness take pleasure, in what is naturally pleasant, and virtuous acts are naturally pleasant. Such acts are pleasant both to these people and to themselves. Therefore, happiness is always rooted in the soul that is both noble and good.’8

Elucidating further the meaning of the soul, Aristotle deals with it in his other book called by its Latin name, De Anima. Though it is a book on physics, Aristotle made his first systematic elaboration in it of the problem of the psyche. The essence of the soul is that it is a principle of life. For Aristotle, the life of an entity consists of its nourishment, growth and self-consumption. Thus, the soul is the ‘form’ or realization of a living body. The soul “informs” or gives form to the matter of a living thing, giving it its corporal being and making it a living body. Therefore, it is not a question of he soul’s being superimposed on the body or added to it. Rather, the body is a living body because it has a soul. Aristotle states in De Anima 11 on page 1, that the soul is the realization of a natural organic body. He explains his point with the help of an example. He says that if the eye were a living creature, its soul would be its sight. The eye is the matter of sight, and if sight is missing, there is no relevance of an eye. As the eye is the physical eye united with the power of sight, so the soul and the body make up living thing.9 Aristotle distinguishes different classes of souls. He professes that each living thing has only one soul, but human being, concretely, has a rational soul. It is the ‘form’ of his body. It was because of that he always professed that the form must be kept upright and be in possession of good thinking. It would lead a person to do good, that ultimately is the source of happiness.

European Contention

There have been thinkers in the Western world who have taken the soul as a collection of ideas or impressions only. For example, David Hume bluntly remarked that we have no experience of any such thing as a soul at all. We do not have any evidence for its existence. He thought that experience gave us nothing but a lot of impressions or perceptions and ideas or memory images. We had no way of showing or reason for believing that the soul is anything more than a collection of these impressions and ideas. He stated:

Hume strongly believed that if anyone attempted to think seriously and without prejudice, he would never have a different notion of himself than what he had reflected. If any one did possess something different than what Hume had reflected, to him he would simply say that he may be right. At the same time Hume himself was also right, and that they both were essentially different too. He would have perceived something simple and continued, which he called himself; though Hume was certain that there was no such principle implicit in himself.11

What is meant by self, according to Hume is, that the Self is simply the totality of experiences and nothing more. These experiences are mostly conditioned and organized by principles of association, such as contiguity and resemblance. Kant once reflected that Hume was correct in saying that the Self was simply the totality of experiences but he did not go far enough in his analysis of the situation. He thought that there lied in the very nature of the case that the Self could never become the object of experience. The Self, whatever else that might be, was in the indefeasible situation of being the subject of experience. Knowledge of the Self seemed to be difficult in Kant’s opinion. Well, without going into the subtleties and difficulties of Kant’s position it seems safe to say that Kant was in no doubt at all as to the fact of there being a self. He also stated that what that self was, was beyond the possibility of knowledge.

William McDougall revived the use of the word Animism.3* It is the term he gave to his philosophy of mind, that is just his soul theory. He states that the mind, or if we choose to use the other terms, soul, ego, self—is a unitary and distinct psychic being. It is not wise to get identified or confused with body with which it interacts. In the absolute or objective system the whole universe is rooted and grounded in mind or spirit. One may call it Absolute Ego, as did Fichte, or Absolute Idea with Hegel, or Absolute Will with Schopenhaur or Absolute Experience with Bradley, or Absolute Self with Royce. The soul of person is, therefore, intimate with, or participates in, or represents the very essence of reality. Mind is not that which accompanies matter or which is generated by an evolutionary process, but it is primordial and original; it is the very stuff of the Universe.12

The foregoing discussion leads us to understand that the philosophers have often used the word mind to replace self or vice versa. To some, these terms—mind, soul or spirit—are absolutely synonymous but to others the mind is defined as a flux of consciousness. How far the mind and consciousness are akin or synonym ours, need some attention. We will take it up a little later. Let us first discuss briefly the various theories of mind that may help us to know a little more about the Self, which is the sole objective of this chapter.

Five Theories of Mind