अध्ययन विधि में - "सत्ता में संपृक्त प्रकृति" का बोध बुद्धि में ही होता है। अध्ययन करने वाले के चित्त में यह चित्रित नहीं हो पाता। यह बुद्धि में बोध ही हो पाता है।
प्रश्न: चित्रण और बोध में क्या फर्क है?
उत्तर: बुद्धि में जो बोध होता है उसका अनुभव-मूलक विधि से प्रमाण प्रस्तुत होता है। चित्त में चित्रण जो होता है वह प्रमाणित नहीं होता। संवेदना के रूप में व्यक्त हो जाता है। चित्रण और बोध में यही फर्क है।
अध्ययन-विधि में "सत्ता में संपृक्त प्रकृति" का तुलन से सीधा साक्षात्कार, फ़िर बोध ही होता है। चित्रण नहीं होता।
चित्त में सह-अस्तित्व साक्षात्कार होने पर बुद्धि में बोध ही होता है। बोध होने के बाद अनुभव-मूलक विधि से पुनः "प्रमाण-बोध" बुद्धि में होता है। प्रमाण-बोध को प्रमाणित करने का "संकल्प" होता है। संकल्प होने से उसका चित्त में चिंतन होता है - जो फ़िर चित्रित होता है। इस तरह जब अनुभव-संपन्न व्यक्ति में चित्रण होता है तो वह जीने में अनुभव को प्रमाणित करने का आधार बनता है, तथा दूसरे व्यक्ति में बोध कराने का स्त्रोत बनता है। इस तरह "सत्ता में संपृक्त प्रकृति" को अनुभव-संपन्न व्यक्ति चित्रित करता है। यदि यह चित्रण करना सम्भव नहीं होता तो अनुभव को जीने में प्रमाणित करने का, और दूसरे व्यक्ति को अध्ययन-विधि से बोध कराने का कोई तरीका ही नहीं होता।
विगत में कहा गया था - "अनुभव को बताया नहीं जा सकता।" मैं यहाँ कह रहा हूँ - अनुभव को ठोक-बजाऊ विधि से बताया जा सकता है। यदि शानदारी से बताने की कोई चीज है तो वह अनुभव ही है। इन दोनों में कितना दूरी है, आप ही सोच लो!
- बाबा श्री नागराज शर्मा के साथ संवाद पर आधारित (अगस्त २००६, अमरकंटक)
5 comments:
Babaji ne Anubhav kya hai, yeh to bataya par Anubhav kaisa hai yeh to nahin bataya. Anubhav kaisa hai yeh jaanne ke lye har saadhak ko swayam hi path par chalke anubhav karna hoga... Babaji to kisi ko Anubhav kara nahin sakte bus pyaase ko koovein tak pahuncha sakte hain. Paani ka swaad kaisa hai yeh to shabdon mein bataya nahin ja sakta.
Words indicate the path but cannot elucidate the experience itself. This has been my take on this thus far and even after reading MD it remains the same.
Rakesh,
What is the difference between Sakshatkar and Chitran ? If I understand when chitran exactly matches a reality , it is sakshatkar and as soon as chitran matches a reality , it becoames both in budhi...Budhi accepts it. Until chitran does not match reality ...budhhi keeps rejetcting it based on certain shortcomings or incompleteness.
Regards,
Gopal.
Hi Gopal,
No... chitran is merely description or visualization of reality. chitran is the result of receiving information about the way reality is. Sakshatkar is direct-observation of the reality. There is no chitran involved here. I have not achieved direct-observation of reality - so all that I can say is visualization of reality is not enough for one's fulfillment. sakshatkar (or direct-observation) is confrontation with the reality without any images about it, without having any words about it. Direct-observation (sakshatkar) is the purpose of directing one's imagination towards reality. Direct-observation is distinct from imagination. Imagination involves visualization, thinking, and selecting... While direct-observation is qualitatively distinct. Direct-observation of existence leads to activation of dormant powers of self - i.e. buddhi and atma. This gets oneself "rooted" in the reality of existence. This getting rooted in truth itself is the ability of realizing human-consciousness.
I agree with Jyotirmaya above - the one who has got rooted in reality, can use words to describe reality that he experienced/experiences, so that the others can visualize it, study it, and then directly-observe (sakshatkar) it, accept (bodh) it, and then experience (anubhav) in it.
best,
Rakesh...
Hi Rakesh,
When you say direct observation means, being able to see/understand the reality in existence. Like we can say "water" we see the actual water in existence and we dont have to visualize or imagine how water looks like. We understand it as a reality. Is this what is sakshatkar ? Being able to observe/understand/experience the reality directly in existence.
Chitran is when I say a black liquid ABC which is heavier than liquid. Now we have not really seen this liquid in existence but based on the information we start visualizing it. This is called Chitran.
Am I correct ?
Regards,
Gopal.
Hi Gopal,
The analogy of water is useful in understanding the process. But analogy has its limitation.
There are tactile realities, and there are non-tactile realities. The tactile realities are realities which we can be perceived through senses, measured, etc. The non-tactile realities are realities which can't be perceived through senses, but they can be understood. For example - jeevan, Space, etc.
Water is a tactile reality, but it also has a non-tactile aspect to it. Even though we recognize water in our present states - we don't recognize it "fully". Since the non-tactile aspects - its sva-bhav (purpose) and dharma (innateness) are still not understood.
jeevan is the entity that understands - both tactile and non-tactile aspects. we are able to understand the tactile aspects within the 4.5 kriya, through our imagination. the non-tactile aspects are like our blind-spots. we are simply oblivious to them...
The non-tactile aspect is about the being-ness of the realities, how they are in vyavastha. The essence of this knowledge is common across all realities in existence. When this essence is understood by oneself - one gets sakshatkar of existence, which is direct-observation of realities. My understanding is - sakshatkar wouldn't be partial... It will be of the whole. It wouldn't be possible for one to have sakshatkar of water, but not have sakshatkar of human-being. Things are inter-related, and the essence is common - therefore sakshatkar would be like a digital-shift from one plane of living, to another plane of living.
In other words, it is not possible to segment the knowledge of existence. Either one would have this knowledge, or one would have expectation for it.
best,
Rakesh...
Post a Comment