Blog
Advanced Techniques
Published: 10/10/2011 by Thom Knoles
In Vedic Meditation, an Advanced Technique is designed to take one’s awareness to that stratum, that layer of consciousness, that comprises the interface between thinking and pure silent consciousness.
During meditation, sometimes we experience a state where the mind is, as if, virtually in the “no mantra, no thought” condition, and yet we are experiencing something that is so fulfilling – we may not be able to pinpoint what exactly it is — but nonetheless it is something — it is not the Absolute, not the pure silent awareness of transcendence. Instead, there is some faint thinking there, extremely subtle, but there nonetheless.
The point here is that there is a layer in meditation in which our mind can think and also can Be simultaneously (here, Being is the innocent silent witness to thinking). That condition has a Sanskrit name: “Ritam Bhara Pragya”, also known simply as Ritam. The word, Ritam, is expressive of ‘whole truth’. So Ritam is ‘the state of consciousness that contains the ‘whole truth’.
What do we mean by whole truth?
It is not the whole truth that our true nature is limited to our body, this individualised mortal set of physiological functions with a history (when it was born, where it has been, what experiences it witnessed, etcetera). However, nor is it the whole truth that [after meditation has revealed the Absolute state of Being] our reality solely is That immortal unboundedness of Being, the unmanifest source of everything.
The whole truth, the Ritam, is that one is both these realities simultaneously; we are relative and Absolute at the same time. There is a place in our consciousness, a level, a stratum, deep in the least excited state in meditation where Ritam can be experienced; and it is right on the cusp of transcendence, in the super-subtle field where thinking and other cognitive phenomena are adjacent to Being, just emerging from Being.
With our “First Initiation” technique, the mind glimpses occasionally this in-between Ritam state, but the First Initiation technique is designed to cause the mind to jump into pure transcendence (the state of “no mantra, no thought”) quickly and to bounce back into the grosser fields of thinking as the body releases its stress.
An Advanced Technique is designed to take the awareness into Ritam (the in-between state) and to linger there; to familiarise the mind with Ritam.
When the mind becomes familiar with Ritam, the subtle perceptual capability of the senses is very engaged; the state of Ritam is absorbing and the senses become enchanted by their experience–something akin to experiencing nectar. Simply the phenomenon — the mere process — of experiencing, intrinsically is fascinating to the senses.
So, this fascination [experienced in Ritam, during meditation] gives the senses a naturally refined liking for and a capacity for discernment of the subtle. The senses develop an habituation to find that super-subtle layer outside meditation, in the eyes-open state. The regular daily experiences of that super-subtle value in Ritam hones the senses to a razor-sharpness, giving them acuity — an acuteness– of sensory perception with eyes open, whilst engaged in activity.
Now, outside of meditation (with eyes open) the senses will delve into their objects in order to locate that same level of satisfaction that they acquired inside meditation (with eyes closed). Consequently, one’s capacity for super-subtle sensory perception outside meditation is enhanced markedly.
Possession of highly-enhanced sensory acuity gives one the advantage of being able to detect subtle change occurring in the phenomenal world.
At every moment, everything is changing to assist the inexorable process of evolution. All seeds of future events are available here in the present. If only we possess the sensory sensitivity to be able to detect change-in-genesis, then we are able to detect the future-in-the-making. When we can detect the subtle shifts that occur constantly causing progressive change, then, also, we will find that our expectations spontaneously align themselves with what actually is going on, rather than our relying utterly upon the shoddy guesswork of a speculating intellect— whose capacity for forecast and prediction, notoriously, is inaccurate.
Much suffering in life is brought about by our being blind-sided by changes that occur when change is not expected by us.
This suffering makes it extremely difficult to understand how change is evolutionary, and this can cause deep sadness.
However, when, through regular practise of our Advanced Technique, the senses gain that capacity for super-subtle perception of minute progressive changes, then we are more attuned; we are able better to sense probabilities, better equipped to avert dangers before they become inevitable, and able better to be in the right place at the right time, able to identify opportunities and to make the most of them.
In addition, the greater joy of subtler, more acute perception in daily life increases our wisdom, our ready insight into and understanding of everything. Ultimately, one is liberated by ever-increasing degrees to enjoy life more and more, and thereby to fulfil life’s purpose.
It is good after each successive year of regular, twice-daily meditation to learn the next iteration of one’s meditation technique, to enhance the depth and the regularity of the experience of Ritam.
Advanced Techniques are available to be taught by specially-qualified Initiators of Vedic Meditation worldwide.
Love and Jai Guru Deva, Thom
Determinism versus Free Will
Published: 04/13/2011 by Thom Knoles
For millennia, a deep philosophical discussion and debate over the subject “Free Will versus Determinism” has continued to grow.
The Vedic worldview neutralises “versus”, by demonstrating that it is a false notion that there are as many as two things in the universe.
Most arguments of “Free Will versus Determinism” revel in the assumption that there exist two or more entities with separate capabilities:
1. conscious individual wills that think freely and commit actions freely, as opposed to – or in combination with -
2. other, more influential, unconscious forces or conscious entit(ies) which determine, control, or affect the experiences of the conscious individual wills.
In point of actual scientific fact, it is axiomatic that everything that exists is simply an aspect of solely one, indivisible, whole, conscious thing.
Everything, therefore, is oneself, including all the laws of nature. Free will and determinism are two behaviours within the same one, indivisible, whole, conscious thing.
The Veda’s insistence (and the recently-echoed insistence of quantum physics) that the laws of nature are not separate to the self, neutralises all questions of “other influences” that cause or affect thinking, desires, and action.
Sources, causes, and all experiences and interactions exist solely within the self.
All forms and phenomena witnessed by the self emerge from within the self, having been stimulated by the self to become manifest.
The notion that:
“laws of nature cause thinking phenomena to occur in the brain, so one is not responsible for manifesting every thought”, is an argument which assumes that the laws of nature are “other” than oneself. But there is no evidence for that notion.
The free will of the one, indivisible, whole conscious self determines the experience of the one, indivisible, whole conscious self. There is only unity, since the self is the source and very being of the laws of nature, and cannot become separate to them.
In the highest state of consciousness – unity consciousness – this oneness is not only self-evident, it is the only evident, tangible-to-the-senses reality. Regular daily practise of Vedic Meditation brings about unity consciousness systematically.
In states of consciousness still growing to become full unity consciousness (for example, 10% unity, 50% unity, 95% unity, etc.), the appearance of “other” (that is, something – or anything – ‘other’ than the self) becomes less and less convincing and then dissolves, proportionate to the remaining percentage of unity one has yet to realise.
A life of unity is a life with no fear, no anger, no confusion. Everything is an extension of the self; there is no such thing as “other”.
Love and Jai Guru Deva, Thom
What does “Jai Guru Deva” mean?
Published: 01/15/2011 by Thom Knoles
Jai = “joy, hail, glory to”
Guru = “remover of darkness”
Deva = “a shining one”, source of English word “divine”.
Thus, “Jai Guru Deva” literally means “Glory to the shining remover of darkness.”
Who is “Guru Deva” to the individual user of the phrase, almost is beside the point.
The phrase, “Jai Guru Deva”, has become a universal salutation, blessing, greeting, opening and closing phrase used by Vedic meditators for millennia.
It is a way of reminding oneself regularly and acknowledging with others the truth that the knowledge we enjoy so freely came from a source other than one’s small self, and offers gratitude to that source.
It is a beautiful-sounding phrase, feels good to intone, is good for surrendering small self to Big Self, and I commend its use by every meditator.
When saying “Jai Guru Deva”, Initiators (teachers) of my tradition are, almost invariably, referring to Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, the man who throughout his elder years in Jyothir Math, in the Indian Himalaya, held the title of “Shankaracharya”. It was this “Guru Deva”, sometimes called “Shri Guru Deva”, from whom we received this knowledge of Vedic Meditation, and to whom we pay homage when new meditators are initiated. This Guru Deva, also referred to his master as “Guru Deva”, and our “Guru Deva”‘s Guru Deva, likewise, referred to his own master by that same soubriquet, “Guru Deva.”
So, you see, there is a tradition of many Guru Devas, so, ultimately, the sobriquet, “Guru Deva”, refers simply to whomever perceives a “Guru Deva” to be their Guru Deva— and that identity is not limited only to one.
Our Guru Deva’s title of “Shankaracharya” expresses his status as viewed by millions that he was the pre-eminent Master of the masters of yoga, meditation, and Vedic knowledge; the undisputed King of the Yogis during his lifetime.
Thank you for asking me, it gives another opportunity for me to write:
Jai Guru Deva!
Love, Thom
Death and Grieving the Loss of Loved Ones
Published: 04/01/2010 by Thom Knoles
I often get very thoughtful questions from meditators that represent experiences that may be shared by other meditators. Knowing that you are having experiences in common with other meditators, along with my answers to these questions, might be beneficial to many of you. I therefore like to share these exchanges with our community from time to time. I hope you get something from the following exchange.
This particular question came from one of our Initiators.
Dear Thom,
Several people around our community have lost loved ones recently. Today I found myself telling the group at the knowledge meeting:
“Everyone in this room is going to die; and the rest of us are going to watch as one by one we leave, and we will experience the feelings of loss that those leavings bring. The longer we stay, the more loss we’ll have to experience. And one of us is going to be the last one standing, will have borne the loss of every other one leaving, and we’re going to call that one the lucky one.”
Could you give me your thoughts on how to address this with our meditators?
My response:
Let us incite some contrast; what of the experiences of loss had by our ancestors in times of world war or during the great ice ages? Is today’s American urban youth-to-middle-age death-rate really so extreme that it beggars belief? Do we fail to see ignorance as the most common cause of early death?
We have become a fainthearted generation of shallow thinkers who first dread the obvious, then rail at its being so self-evident, and then fulminate against its being incontrovertible. This simply is the world that we have to change.
Yes, it is true that the death rate is 100%, and thank God for that, for its being impossible to stop. Imagine the difficulties we all would have if our fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers, great grandfathers, great grandmothers and great great great great grandparents, and so on, all continued to live today, dining and sleeping in their families’ homes.
Imagine if Genghis Khan were still alive, and Attila and Alexander and Adolf; if Jesus of Nazareth were still alive, along with Siddhartha Gautama Sakya. Imagine if, amongst these stellar opposites, all the billions of forgotten souls had kept their old stressed bodies, too!
No one would inherit anything, no space would be available for anyone not already here. And the dead-wood factor on this Earth would consist of tens of billions of humans whose bodies’ relevance had expired. But how many would volunteer to “die” if “death” continued to be avoidable simply by choosing? Earth shudders at the very concept of our having choice, but laughs as she continues to recycle every last body.
“Death” –as commonly it is conceived– is utterly unreal. “Death” is birth; it is evolution itself. The common conception of the word, “death”, has reality only for those who do not understand the experience being had by the one who supposedly “died”. Since the “dead” one did not experience “death” [see below], then for whom else is “death” real? For whom, over what experience, do we grieve? This rhetorical question is answered in this selected snapshot from a response that I wrote last week to someone examining the “horror” of the “death” of a loved one.
From a letter I wrote in August 2009:
‘… of course, it is human to grieve, notwithstanding that in the final analysis we are grieving for our own failure to grasp what happened, somewhat wallowing in our pain as [hopefully] we try to adapt to new ways of locating our loved one, the one who no longer is locatable in the old body with which we had become so familiar. That was the body that held the soul for which yet so many unfulfilled plans existed; the plans still remaining as unrealised as they were while that body breathed.”
The degree of pain while grieving is in proportion to one’s attempt to control or to negate the irrevocable change that has occurred. Grief reactions range from absolute dismissal of the “dead” [existential numbness] to, at the extreme opposite pole, attempting to get the “dead” to continue to relate to one on one’s own terms by badgering their newly-liberated consciousness with our non-acceptance, by petitioning them [or someone in power] to restore the former experience, or by wanting to establish with the “dead” shared resentment-of-loss; to reverse the irreversible change.
Meanwhile, the subject of our pain, our loved one, did not experience – is not experiencing- “death”; he experienced “birth” into a whole new state of consciousness that is so fascinating [and so subtly familiar] that the body left behind becomes entirely forgettable. Reports of so-called “near” death experiences (–actually they are experiences of body-death, not “near”–) verify and validate that “dying” involves a consciousness transition into a new and fascinating state. However, when grieving, we do not actually care about that – rather pathetically, we care only about what we are experiencing, not actually what the “dead” one is experiencing.
Here is what we must face:
Do we really believe that “death” means “cessation of experience”, or “extinction of consciousness”? If so, a whole new lecture on consciousness must begin here [watch this space]. If not, then we need not ask “who dies?”, but rather, “what dies?”
“Death” has reality only as a word to describe the experience of loss of control of whomever didn’t “die”. In grieving “death” we should be trying to learn new ways of understanding the experience of our loved one.
Unfortunately, the word “death” is used to explain what happened to cause the emotional pain of the one left behind. Perhaps the one left behind “gave up” on gaining any coherent understanding of “death” at all. The griever’s pain is attributed to the disappearance of and the loss of shared experience with the loved one.
The word “death” cannot describe a shared experience with the “dead”. Likewise, grieving is not an experience that is shared by the “dead”. One’s remaining bitter or sad [about losing a previous method of relating to a loved one] is not an experience shared by the one who “died”.
The fact is, the griever is sad or bitter about their own loss of their loved one’s location; at the loss of shared experience through familiar means. Since grief is not a shared experience, it does not strengthen one’s relationship with the “dead” person’s consciousness. At best, the process of grieving allows for pain-expression; it provides for the venting of one’s loss of control of a shared-experience era of a relationship.
An entirely separate spectre may raise its head for the more illuminated: inexplicably, when a loved one “dies”, one may feel non-attached equanimity, while the ‘mistaken intellect’, demanding conformity with social expectation, insists upon one grieving. Then one may feel guilt for not grieving!
Ultimately, knowledge [experience + understanding] eliminates undue bondage to any of these incomplete interpretations.
Love and Jai Guru Deva, Thom
Averting World Disasters
Published: 02/01/2010 by Thom Knoles
Question: How can there be any intelligence in the laws of nature when hundreds of thousands of innocent people suffer and die from an earthquake, as is happening in Haiti?
What thoughts go through your mind, Thom, when you hear of such an event?
How does meditating help a suffering world?
Aren’t we just turning a blind eye when we meditate?
Thom:
Every single day, much of our world’s vast population experiences appalling suffering of every kind; most of it is unimaginable to us. The deaths, the gruesome suffering, the starvation and thirst after the earthquake in Haiti is well-covered by the media; it is shocking to learn of these horrors, and it is extremely frustrating to witness the obstacles to bringing meaningful help after-the-fact.
This notwithstanding, the media has not documented the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who suffer horribly in myriad ways every minute that we sleep, wake, and eat.
When given no alternative, occasionally the media will pause its program of reporting upon trivia and the “rich-people-problems of the non-entities” (by the latter term I mean ‘persons of little consequence or significance’). Then the media will present us with a few days’ snapshots of one horrible set of events in one place outside the bubble of safety from which we view –and it is shocking to us. Remember: we see only a snapshot before the trivia reports recommence. What else is happening to our fellow humans while we gorge ourselves on trivia? The experiences of the rest of our world’s people will go unreported.
Because no one knows what to do about the suffering of the world, unfortunately, the response of the majority of people in developed nations is merely to continue to ignore it. The media simply reflects its constituents’ willingness to ignore. This collective reaction is unsustainable; it invites destruction.
The true problem in our suffering world is the chronic failure of people in developed nations to correct their priorities. A developed nation that is fascinated by trivia and willing to ignore is, in fact, engineering its own demise. Stress accumulation and obsolete education are twin causes of developed nations’ ignorance of the true needs of their fellow humans. Stress makes one ignorant by causing chronic brain failure collectively.
Haiti was a disaster waiting to happen. An earthquake triggered that disaster, but humans inside and outside of Haiti set up the initial conditions for the magnitude of the catastrophe. Far from its being unlikely, only the most likely outcomes eventuated in Haiti, caused by humans failing to foresee the obvious future-in-the-making. After the disaster hit, we moved to provide aid provoked more by conscience than by other motives. To do so is a laudable act of charity, but it is not enough.
Consider this: how many more major disasters are waiting to happen right now in our world? I suggest to you that these are too numerous to catalogue. Can we deal with another ten or another fifty if they all happen together? Of course we cannot.
The use of available human brain power has bottomed-out in our generation, averaging just 2%. Let me congratulate you for practising your meditation technique regularly; you have joined a growing cadre of people who can see the reality of the world around them, because, like them, you are no longer averaging a mere 2% use of your available brainpower.
We cannot help the world by conforming with the majority who use only 2% of their brains. We must continue to develop our fullest potential in order to make a significant difference. I invite you and your friends to help me realise the plan of bringing a new age to this suffering world by popularising meditation and thereby decreasing ignorance.
After practising a session of meditation, dynamic activity stabilises the deep inner silence (Being) that we locate within. Once Being is stabilised, 100% of the brain’s organising power is unleashed. Regular twice daily meditation allows your entire brain to be fit and available fully for the big, important and urgent projects in the world that deserve high-quality attention, in order to achieve “what should have been done” before disasters underscore it.
Now, as regards nature’s intelligence, if one were to watch impassively as a child crawled excitedly toward a glowing ember and is burned, does this sequence of events negate the existence of intelligence in the laws of nature? Perhaps it does, for those who use 2% of their brains. You are not one of those.
What I teach is that ignorance creates the weakness that attracts destruction. A suffering population is a symptom of a world that is ignorant and weak; the suffering population is not blameworthy. Blame lies with those who do nothing new and thereby enable the world’s capability to ignore its fellow humans.
Don’t wait for others, especially don’t wait for governments. Identify and address now what is being ignored. Take that brilliant meditator’s brain of yours and put it into action!
Jai Guru Deva, Thom
Why Bliss is Not Always Blissful
Published: 07/09/2009 by Thom Knoles
In the teaching, one surprise may arise from my assertion that “bliss is not blissful”! Instead of being merely great happiness, I assert that bliss is a state of a supreme inner contentedness that mutes the thinking process. Let me explain.
Any time we are conscious, thinking happens incessantly. It is the nature of the unfulfilled mind, via thought, to move in the direction of greater happiness, whenever choice can be detected; thought contemplates action to bring greater happiness.
In meditation, though, occasionally we find that it is time to return to the mantra even though we cannot identify any thought having taken us away from the mantra. Clearly, the mantra was not there, since we are returning to that; but if the mantra was not there, and no other thought was there either, then what
was there?
There are two possibilities: either “I was asleep (unconscious)”, or “I was awake (conscious)”. If we were asleep, then that explains why we cannot recall any thought having taken us away from the mantra. But if we are quite certain that we were not asleep–if, for example, the head did not drop suddenly— then we were awake —but apparently without thought.
“Awake without thought” is the definition of pure consciousness, also described as “Being”.
So why do we say it is “bliss”?
Conscious silence must be bliss, since it is the mind’s nature never to stop thinking until it arrives at bliss, the mind’s ultimate goal that transcends mere happiness.
An unconscious sleeping mind, naturally, does not think. But one could not claim that thought-free unconsciousness is bliss, since no experiencer is present when we are unconscious.
However, if the mind is conscious –that is, if, due to being conscious, the mind is capable of detecting charm (greater happiness); and if, due to its being conscious, the mind is capable of producing thoughts– yet it is not producing thoughts, then why did thinking not occur in consciousness, even if thinking ceased only for a few seconds?
From simultaneity of consciousness with no thought we can infer that the mind must have had an experience of satiety so great that the mind’s search was fulfilled– even if only for a few seconds. This is what we mean by bliss.
We say “bliss is not ‘blissful’ “.
Blissful, in this context, would mean active waves of happiness and joy. Though bliss is not blissful, contact with bliss causes thinking and perception to have a blissful orientation outside of meditation.
The beach is not the sea.
However, after diving into the sea, returning to the dry sand refreshed by the sea gives the beach’s dry sand that refreshing orientation. Saccharine is not sweet- it is beyond sweet: bitter to the tongue. However, diluted saccharine is intensely sweet. Like that, though bliss itself is not blissful, contact with bliss makes life blissful in every way.
Jai Guru Deva, Thom
Sleeping or Meditating?
Published: 07/07/2009 by Thom Knoles
We should re-examine ‘the purpose of meditation’.
To do this, first we must clear away preconceived ideas of “what should be happening during my meditation”.
In this meditation, we do not try to control our experience. What we want is to transcend control; to let go, to allow Nature’s intelligence to take over. That is why we say that this is a natural practice. Nothing is involved but the nature of the mind and the nature of the body. No intervention by one’s individuality is necessary. And that is why during this practice we do not use effort. Effort means control and its use in meditation takes away naturalness.
When we say ‘nature of the mind’ and ‘nature of the body’ we mean this: By nature the mind’s tendency is always to move toward greater happiness (whenever a choice presents itself). It is this that causes the mind to follow the mantra, whose nature, in turn, is to become more and more subtle simply through effortless repetition silently in meditation. The subtler strata of thought intrinsically are more charming than the gross conscious thinking level.
As the mantra becomes subtler it also becomes more charming. This increased charm attracts the mind inward—and here is the crucial point – as far as the body will allow. Why do we say ‘as far as the body will allow’? Because mind and body are intimately connected. If the body is storing some fatigue (and whose body is not?), then, in the midst of meditation, the body may recognize an opportunity to rid itself of that fatigue. Dozing will indicate that the body has used a portion of the meditation sitting to purify itself of deep tiredness; the body is attempting to normalize – that’s all.
However, if intellectually we decide that that natural function does not match our concept of ‘the purpose of meditation’, then we may reject our own natural response, and resent our body’s need to rest in that way. Then we are in danger of using effort to stay awake because of an intellectual idea we cherished about ‘the purpose of meditation’.
Instead of that approach, what we should know is: “the use of effort defeats the purpose of this meditation”.
So the true purpose of this meditation is simply to allow whatever happens naturally to happen and not to wish that it shouldn’t happen. The true purpose of meditation should be to allow our own intelligence to be one with nature’s intelligence. To that end, we take it as it comes. This is why we do not reject any experience that occurs spontaneously in meditation.
By the way, there is a limited amount of fatigue in the physiology, so the dozing trend will clear up.
Jai Guru Deva, Thom
Killing Our Way to Peace
We must have learned that killing our way to peace does not work.
Last century, 170 million people were killed in wars alone, but now we are more frightened than ever. Governments cannot create peace; peace could come only from change in the collective consciousness since government truly is merely the product of collective consciousness. What is it that governs the collective consciousness? It turns out to be individuals.
What did you radiate into the atmosphere today? Did you contribute to the atmosphere of fear, neediness, and desperation? Did you put into the world the idea that your fulfilment is going to come from outside you, or that your fulfilment is blocked by others? Did you ‘water the weeds’ in the garden of your mind? To the extent we do that, then we contribute to a weak and needy collective social fabric, and government simply will reflect that to us. If we cannot adapt to change, if we require others to be adaptable in our stead, then we are robbing the collective of its much-needed capacity to interact with change.
Every meditator contributes greater adaptability to the collective on a daily basis by being super-creative and super-adaptable. When dealing with people who just oppose everything, who appear to favour negativity, it’s best to be indifferent. People behave exactly according to their personal state of consciousness, anyway; nothing else. Our own state of consciousness is our responsibility—not the behaviour of others—we improve their state by expanding our own potential.
In India, an elephant enters a village and all the dogs, dozens of them, come barking from everywhere. The elephant doesn’t mind—she’s just happy that some dogs are enjoying barking. She just keeps moving gracefully through the village. The elephant is in no rush. Her huge foot could even hang mid-air with a dog barking underneath it—that showing off kind of barking, to impress the other dogs—but the elephant waits patiently until the dog, having made his point, scurries away. Then she continues on her own way, comfortably treading the road to her destination.
We can afford to enjoy the elephant’s royal pace, because as meditators our awareness becomes attuned twice daily to that elephantine cosmic consciousness that bestows infinite organising power. We know how to Be one with That, so everything is O.K.—there is nothing to worry about. We can’t stop anyone from behaving according to her level of consciousness, anyway. What we can do is raise our consciousness and thereby raise the consciousness of all those around us. Have our attention on our own evolution; de-excite to create order. Don’t give too much importance to the behaviour of others—just keep moving at our royal pace—in that evolutionary direction. Nature knows best how to organise.
Jai Guru Deva,
Thom © 2011 The Veda Center, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thom Knoles is an independent meditation teacher. He is not affiliated in any way with the Maharishi Foundation, or with any organization that is affiliated with, or a licensee of, the Maharishi Foundation.
