Beauty and the Form - III
Sudheendra Chaitanya
Is non-identification the way?
Let us remember that we began our quest, asking what Beauty really is, and how or what the role of the form is. Currently, all the Beauty or joy that we know is that which emanates from a form; we straightaway acknowledge this. On the other hand, there have been moments or sessions, where we experienced a Beauty that is unearthly, that made us forget who we were, for a while. These experiences trigger a pulse within us; we are curious – is there a Beauty that experiences no limit or limitation? We then begin to consider seriously the existence of a realm, which is truly infinite. Further, we are left wondering whether it is possible to immerse ourselves totally into such an experience, or stay in that realm without being disturbed. We do recognize that, if only we can stay there, by whatever means, we shall be spared of the tyranny of transaction, and the tumult of life. At the same time, we are also sceptical; is such a thing possible, or are some people faking it out! We hear stories of many saints and fakirs who are totally lost to this world of ours, and who have lived in such realms of Beauty and perfect order for a long time. In fact, it is said that such people have spent most of their lives this way. More and more of such stories and we are puzzled. We cannot disbelieve it either; neither can we come to swear by it. This is our condition, in essence.
Transactional life can never be given up, by anyone; it is not possible for the best of saints too, some say. This appears logical, for, how can the body withstand denial of food for long? Moreover, the body must execute all physiological functions like beating of the heart, circulation of blood, breathing, experiencing heat and cold, thirst, hunger, and so on. Is it possible for the body to stay locked in one posture or position for a very long time? It is safe to conclude, therefore, that one may only stretch the body and its requirements, but one cannot deny its wants totally.
So then, what is true sainthood? This needs to be addressed before we go any further. In India, most Vedantins believe that we are unable to recognize a Self beyond the body; they say that we are identified with the body. They contend that identification with the body is the key; all of us identify ourselves as Mr. A or Ms. B, purely from the idea of the body. Just as the audience in a theatre identify with the hero of the movie, and go through his trials, take his side against the villain, and feel sad at the loss of his wife or son, so too, Vedantins say, the Self apparently is lost in its identification with the body and its trials. It is a case of mistaken identity; this is the contention.
Most Vedantic literature asks us, “you are not the hero of the movie, so why are you sad or happy?” They correlate such examples to our sorrows and ecstasies, and ask us to stop this identification, somehow. Owning up an identity that is not ours, in their diagnosis, is the root of all human misery and conflict. They even say the Self is in fact untouched by this identification, and they would tell us without batting an eyelid, that this identification is a mere appearance, in the end! All movies end well, for there never was any identification, in the first place!
A man who listens to such simplistic comprehension then begins this whole attempt at de-identification! (I am deliberately not using the word non-identification, because we can never non-identify! We can never really clutch off! It is always an attempt, and this is why de-identification is a better word. It indicates a process). This is the tragedy that has struck spirituality in India. Most public speakers, saints, and Vedantins who interpret the scriptures don’t seem to be free of this simplistic picture! We have taken a map of India to be India, the nation itself. In India, monkhood and Sannyasa have come to mean a lot of this de-identification from the body. What a tragedy!
Some smarter ones extend this idea to the mind as well and promote that as ‘saakshi bhaava’! They identify the Self as that which stays objective and aloof, right now, from the ongoing parade of the mind. And, they ask us to de-identify from the mind and its ever-changing contents. Such smartness, unfortunately, does not work.
Separating the Self, or considering it to be away from the body, or imagining it to be intrinsic to the body, or continuously haggling internally about how the mind identifies……we must give up all such ‘holy activities’ and come to a direct inquiry about what the Self is, and how the form apparently limits it! Instead of doing this direct inquiry, we are still into ‘karma’, the activity of ‘non-identification’! This is another form of dishonesty the mind indulges in, without realizing that this de-identification is another wild goose chase. Discovering the freedom to inquire into a subject that is so intrinsic to us – this is the hallmark of a spiritual student! So long as we are caught in the ‘idea of identification’, we shall be lost to the Beauty that unfolds around us. We would have hit a serious roadblock.
Added to that, there seem to be immediate advantages in this pursuit of ‘idea of de-identification’. We must beware this short-term solution that the mind conjures up, which in fact is no solution at all. De-identification strips all objects around us of the power that they hold over us. Primarily, de-identification ensures that we shall no longer be carried away by objects in an endless fascination trip. Second, we shall not be harassed by any irritation or fear that develops in transaction, for we experience a distance within. Third, we do not seem to be working towards anything, for we are apparently desire-less! These seem to be the immediate reasons for us to extend a whole-hearted welcome to de-identification; this is how we ensure that we are no longer terrorised by the form or transaction.
However, like all short-term patching up, there is a catch here! We experience no positive Beauty when we de-identify. Neither is there anything significant in the comprehension that we reach. De-identification is truly a bland life; it definitely demystifies all the hype of the mind, no doubt, but it does not deliver to us the profound sanctity that there is in the movement of life. Like all psychological tools, de-identification has its advantages; but it is finally a tool. It has its limits! Giving it up, therefore, is to recognize the futility of possessing this tool, clearly. That, sir, is some awareness!
Only when we see through this psychological attitude of de-identification clearly, what it can do and what it cannot, can we come to true inquiry. Only then are we free to inquire the experience of Beauty, and how it is related to form.
What am I held by?
Dropping the attitude of de-identification frees us considerably. However, something else restricts us currently. Let us understand it with the following illustration.
Every house or building is built on a structure. Therefore, if my house is a small one, carrying just a single room, and is built on a small site, the space that it holds and the number of people that it can accommodate are limited. If the family has grown bigger over time, then a bigger house is needed to accommodate.
Similarly, we are born into this world with a certain structure. A structure that can hold certain talents, that exhibits certain physical characteristics, that contains some inherent disabilities, and so on. These constitute our personality; in fact, the structure that we are born with is like the skeletal system of the body. It can be small or big in size, and fragile or robust in constitution; in some cases, it can take extra-ordinary burdens, and it can in other cases, be swift and nimble, and so on. Each personality is thus a structure, cast at birth. Just as a house of certain dimensions can hold a certain number of people, the structure that we are born with can do only a few things. Not every personality is designed for a career in music, for example. Not every personality is designed for labour. Every personality has its inherent strengths and inherent limitations. This is defined by the structure that each one is born with at birth.
Some are born versatile and capable. They are born with a versatile structure, probably like a bigger house, which has more space. This gives them the flexibility to use the same space for various purposes, unlike a smaller structure where the functions of each spatial structure tend to be well defined. Therefore, what was earlier used as a living space in a bigger home, can for an occasion, be turned into a dining hall for more people, or even a larger home-theatre for watching a movie in a larger group. Small homes, that way, cannot be versatile or flexible. Extend this idea to many great personalities. They are born with bigger and even more versatile structures, such that they can use that personality for rigorous hard work sometimes, or they could use the same space to fill themselves with music, some other times. Some are even born with palatial structures; they are truly gifted, and they are indeed capable of many things. They exude extra-ordinary talent, and they are easily multi-disciplinary. So what, one may ask; to each his own!
However, there is a catch here. Whether we are versatile or small, we are all born with a unique structure. But, our aspirations and dreams rarely coincide with the kind of structure that we are born with. If I am born into a poor family, and if I have been denied a good education because of this background, yet, this does not prevent me from dreaming of becoming a millionaire! Our dreams are unrelated to the structure that we are born with. But, the fact that I am born poor is what makes the prospect of becoming rich, a great dream worth the strife! So, the structure that I am born with creates a lack in me, and at the same time, provides the direction for my life to move. It is as though every personality born poor directs its life to filling itself with riches. Therefore, the structure that we are born with, automatically and naturally guides us in a certain direction.
We gain a direction from the structure that we are born with, and being in this direction for a long time, we develop our comfort zone. As and when we are ensconced in this, we shall remain more and more contented, and an artificial peace would slowly envelop us. We begin twisting every situation to suit our comfort and convenience, if we can. If we cannot, we just become indifferent. Do we now see the play of the structure within us?
Great men do not compromise on their dreams. They do not pursue dreams that their structure allows them; in other words, they do not continue with the de facto direction; instead, they hold onto their dreams, and try to redesign a new structure that facilitates their dreams. Every dream requires a different structure, for it to be fulfilled. Such men realize this. To be a great and consistent cricketer, for example, one needs a certain kind of structure. To be a successful farmer, and to manage very large holdings, one needs to create a different structure. To pursue the career of a great writer, one needs a different structure. So, each dream requires of us to create and pursue a different structure; we cannot reach those dreams by leaning on the structure that we are born with. Therefore, such men are prepared for a drastic overhaul in their lifestyle, priorities, and attitudes. They give up the structure that they presently live by, and consciously redesign their life according to a new structure, that suits their dreams. They try to bring about this transformation in their daily life.
From a purely spiritual standpoint, there is a lesson in this for us. More important than the dream we pursue, we need to recognize that we are right now held by a structure. This recognition is very important. We must see the operation of the structure, right now. We must see how it prefers to stay in a comfort zone, not willing to move easily; how it reacts when accused of inadequacy or ineffectiveness. We must notice how we cling to the structure so much so that we actually fear change in us; this is why we seek stability!
Until we are conscious of the play of this structure within us, the fear that it creates, the clinging that it experiences, the false contentment that it displays, the way it manages threats from the outside, we shall never be able to discover the Beauty that we set out for, in the first place. Holding on to the structure, we can never take flight when required. The structure does not allow us the freedom to swim along the Beauty that unfolds around us. Our non-availability is due to this clinging to the structure.
For a man born pious, there is no great achievement in him practising ‘ahimsa’ or non-violence. For a man born rich, it is not such a great thing in him considering doing business, and furthering his independence. On the other hand, if such a man were to take up a salaried job in a company consciously, and if he were to accept the superiority of someone else, he is challenging the structure that he is born with. One born with an athletic body, is naturally inclined towards sports; but for him to pursue the job of a researcher in physics, may challenge his inherent structure.
It is far greater for a Ravana to relax on his insistence for Sita, and give her up to Rama, than for a Brahmin boy to recite the Vedas! Please understand that we are not discussing the importance of Vedic recitation here, rather, the manner in which the structure intrudes into our life. To be even mildly aware of the structure that we are born into is in itself difficult. To discover the freedom to do something that is resisted by our structure, is quite an adventure; in fact, this could be the best spiritual practice. Open mindedness is recognizing, right now, the power our structure holds over us; true transformation is in open mindedness, not in accumulating spiritual insights!
Being aware of the play of the structure within us, yet, experiencing an open freedom with our transactions, and allowing our talents and capabilities to flower, this is the only thing that we can do. An alert living where we release all our energy without the bias of the structure - that indeed is spiritual life at its best. Such a life alone is free to explore the Beauty that hides in this world.
We are still on the subject of Beauty and the form. Until the mind is free of the ‘idea of identification’, and at the same time, has released itself off the clutches of the structure that it was born with, it cannot easily appreciate Beauty at its best.
Why are appearances always deceptive?
Let us understand the following idea carefully. When we see a leaf, there are apparently two things. The first is the name ‘leaf’, and second, there is a thing that is signified by the name. So, there are two aspects in perception; the name, called as the leaf, and the object signified by the name.
Similarly, when we meet someone, what we see initially is the form, the physical characteristics like height, face, colour, etc. The more we get acquainted and become intimate with the person, we begin seeing a personality much beyond the form, more than what appeared to us initially. Here too, there are two aspects in perception. The first is the form, and second, the entity indicated by the form.
Let us push this idea further. When we read the newspapers about a terrorist attack, there are once again two aspects. First is what appears in the newspapers, what is known to the world; the second is what actually happens, the ground reality that provoked such an incident. When we visit a historical place like Hampi, something initially meets the eye – the various temples and the palace excavations. But, if one were to stay on in Hampi, many stories and facts emerge, and we are left gaping at huge mounds of information, many a time unconnected! Here too, something appears initially; other things reveal themselves as and when we spend more time.
What appears at first sight never remains true on further probing. Nevertheless, we do conclude easily! A student who has scored distinction repeatedly during his school days is found struggling to achieve even the bare minimum during his graduation days. When we come across such a thing, which looks perplexing, many of us stop to conclude that the student may be undergoing a bad time, or some such thing. What appears initially has the power to make us conclude prematurely! This is the power of form and name! We do not even know that we could have concluded prematurely!
In short, every perception of ours today is fraught with this double – the form and the unseen truth behind. Every time we conclude, we cannot stay convinced for long. For, we could be actually floating over a form, rather than touching the ground reality of the matter. Moreover, there is no way to know for sure, whether the conclusion that we have arrived at today, is indeed the final one.
This, in essence, is the conflict between the form, and the entity or truth that it hides. If the name (or form) is taken to be more real than the object that is signified by it, then we are rendered shallow. We shall be left battling in the world of words, generating noise, and never getting to the substance. If, on the other hand, we declare the name (or form) as just a simple appendage, an insignificant cover to the inherent substance, we will have to put up with the noise that anyway is produced by name (or form). The name (or form) is not eliminated, by merely asserting the substance.
Isn’t this what we face in our experience of joy or Beauty? A young girl found her husband to be charming, initially, because he appeared good, non-violent, and strong. She offered to marry him for she thought that her man had the right combination. She could not see that she was falling for an appearance, at that time. She seemed convinced. As she shared more of her life with her man, she began to recognize that what appeared as strength was in fact some fear of society! What appeared as non-violence was nothing but a blind compliance to the rules of society! Whatever appeared as goodness was fast turning into a mechanical duty! So what does she do now? Has she been deceived by her own shallow perception? Many women discover something more endearing in their husbands, later, to tide over the shock of this shallow perception!
However, the question remains. Why do things appear different from what they actually are? Even if they do so, how can we be happy at our conclusions? Is there an end to conclusions – revisions - searching for something deeper – fresh conclusions - …..cycle? Do we recognize the catch -22 syndrome that we are in? This way, there is no conclusion that we shall ever reach that shall be free of the form. Shankara proposes to address this conflict, this illusory nature of perception, in this exquisite insight.
In his commentary to the 1st mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad, he utilizes an opportunity brilliantly, to make sense of this conflict. But for Shankara, we would probably not even allude such profundity to this mantra.
SHANKARA – “………….Though the name and the object signified by the name are one and the same, still the first portion of the mantra explains everything as Aum from the standpoint of the name. Subsequently, the mantra hastens to clarify that Aum is that which is indicated by the name. The object of the mantra is to realize the oneness of the name and the entity indicated by the name.”
“……….The purpose of recognizing this unity, between the name (or form) and the entity signified by it, is to simultaneously remove, in a single effort, the illusion of both the name (or form) and the object signified by it. Simultaneously, the mantra aims to point out a reality which is beyond both, the name (or form), and the content that hides behind the name (or form).”
Shankara understands this whole conflict, between the form and the substance, as a problem of perception. He points it out as an error in perception. The mind has somehow split the object that it sees into two – the form and the essence/content. This entire split needs to be questioned, if we have to return to clean and straight perception, where we see a thing the way it is.
Let us say that we sit under a tree during one of our early morning walks. We are struck by the greenery of the tree, and we look closely at one of the leaves. It is ‘chlorophyll fresh’, rich green, and very smooth in texture. It gives us a joy, and transports us into a world of our own, of our past. The pleasant experience in the present triggers a pleasant memory of the past, and we are lost in our own world. Alternatively, we could end up dissecting the leaf, get into botany, the structure of the leaf, and so on. Alternatively, we might even get lost in one of our arguments for saving trees, all this within ourselves.
A simple perception of the leaf can split us up into various fragments. When we meet human beings, God save us! We are not split, in fact, we are splintered; our mind undergoes a fracture! Our mind undergoes this division during perception.
How do we completely purge ourselves of this violence in transaction? How are we to perceive that Beauty, that surrounds us? How do we completely disengage from conflict? Why can’t we see one thing, and why is it that what we see does not remain the same? Why aren’t we seeing everything that is there to be seen in a single shot? Why are we going on this illusory cycle of distorted perception?
Shankara hits the nail directly on its head, with this insight. Focus on the split that the mind undergoes; be aware of how the mind sorts things and issues; question the basis of this sorting. All this while transacting! We shall then come to see what Shankara indicates.
The structure that we are born with is the one that creates the form in the first place. As and when our perception is set free of the structure, we shall not be led astray in perception. On the other hand, de-identification denies us the freedom to perceive; it could either negate the reality of perception itself, or search for something deeper. Basically, by de-identifying, we are disregarding the form, and consequently, the power of the structure. Therefore, when we give up the ‘idea of identification’, we shall freely contend with whatever is available.
The entire battle between the form and the substance is created by the structure that we are born with, and the ‘idea of identification’ that we have cultivated. Steering clear of the two, we shall see the thing as it is; we shall no longer be worried whether we have made the right judgement or not. Seeing the whole necessitates no judgement; one does not have to make a judgement while one watches the sunrise!
Shankara sets the issue straight by bringing to fore the conflict between the form, and the substance.
That indeed is true Beauty when we are not splintered in our vision, and when we see the real. We do not have to get lost into a different world, when we see such a Beauty. It is there just in front of us, and there is no fear of ever losing it. There is no need to possess it, for it is ever going to be there. Neither is there any need to get that object pledged to ourselves, for it belongs to the whole. Nor do we have to guard that Beauty, for it knows no death, and there is no one to slay it.
In such a vision, there is no mundane; there is nothing beyond. There is no ordinary, there is nothing extra-ordinary. The form can limit nothing, and yet, it can carry glory.A PDF version of the article is also attached.