Beware the man who thinks he understands

Question: In a recent discourse, one listener asked you about committing foul acts and then saying that even those acts come from the Source, the Truth.

Sir, is not non-doership, understanding, necessitated for this to occur? In other words, could one be unconditional without an understanding of knowing that the Source is the only doer?

To rephrase the question Sir, is understanding of non-doership incumbent to love one’s adversaries or are there people who feel no hate right from the onset?

Buddha would for instance, regarding someone hitting him like a twig falling on his head – each karma – each cause and effect, dependently originated in wholeness.

I, on the other hand, had to understand non-doership to feel no particular aversion to the state of affairs.

Shri Prashant: What is understanding? How do you know that you understand?

Is understanding a thought that can be witnessed? Is understanding a conclusion that can be stated? Is understanding anything that can be perceived?
What do you mean when you say “I understand non-doership”? You mean that you have been able to translate the word into a language that you are familiar with. The old game of principle-making and conceptualisation.
Non-doership is. It does not have to be analysed. IT IS. One does not accept it. If you have accepted non-doership, then you are still bigger than, and other than, non-doership.
Our normal language has brought down the word understanding to the level of the brain. One breathes understanding, one’s heart beats in understanding, one dissolves in understanding, one never possesses understanding.
Understanding is always innate. Remember how delighted I was to hear Spinoza’s words from you: intuitive pre-understanding. Remember, pre-rational understanding. Yours, but far deeper than your comprehension.
At the gross level:
The heart will beat perfectly fine whether or not you know that you have a heart.
You will be conscious even if you claim that you are unconscious. And one becomes no more conscious by shouting that he is conscious.
At a subtler level:
That is, only That is, and there is no question of understanding this. ‘Understanding’, as the rational mind knows it, is heresy, is apostasy.
‘Non-doership’ is nothing. A Zen monk may say that non-doership is such a bad word it spoils the mouth.
There were people crazy after words. So, Buddha tossed a few words at those who were not fit for silence. Those who could be in Buddha’s silence had nothing to do with non-doership.
Non-doership is the climate of the Buddha’s mind. Silent, flowing, vacuous. Fast, sharp, brilliant.
Don’t try to understand non-doership, or aatma, or anatma, or nirvana. The mind’s most deceptive trick will be to tell you that you have understood. Your words are alarming when you say that you understand non-doership. To say this is nirvana itself, and nirvana does not question.
Think if you must, think hard, think with humility, and then let the thinking evaporate without residue. What is the residue of thinking? A conclusion. This conclusion you mistakenly call as understanding. So think hard, but think without concluding. If you have concluded, then the entire thought condenses itself in the conclusion and sits comfortably in the mind. If you can let the strongest thought pass away without leaving its debris behind, well, you understand. 🙂
Questioner: Thank you for the reply.
I agree that the language I used was terrible. “I understand non-doership.” I was not meaning arrogantly. Anecdotally, yesterday, I was horrified by how rude I was to a loved one, and it passed, apology came and it passed, thoughts came and passed. No guilt no gathering. But this was when I was not there. My conceptual self-took off from your mail which I read in leisure.

The people crazy about words that you described, my conceptual mind might be one of them. When I am away, I don’t care to know. When I am not away, I try to know.

Unfortunately, my mind wants to grasp all the events and your mail and make an understanding and club it in the category of the understood. This is the pitfall. Language, words, garbage.

I don’t know if I understand. You are absolutely right. I am able to translate into language aka verbal ability.

I was hoping for a reply that will shake me up. What I have got is far more than that. 🙂

Thoughts flying furiously. Will avoid conclusions.

Thanks a lot Sir.

SP: Welcome.

Questioner: I have used terrible language “I understand non doership”. I did not mean arrogantly. The people you have described – crazy for words – my mind can be looked upon like that, to some extent.

In the last couple of days, I was horribly rude to mom, but it passed, apology came and it passed, trouble came and it passed, financial worries came and passed. Nothing. No residue. But all the while there was hardly any thinking.

Then on reading your mail in leisure and on reflection (thoughts, verbal ability, language). Garbage in, garbage out; conclusions have happened. No, I don’t know if I understand as a matter of fact. I can’t quantify anything and even the experience I described above as anecdotal can be just hallucinations of my thinking mind in its superciliousness.

Looking out from a window of a train at the trees. Thoughts flying fast. This I am not.

Was hoping for a reply to jolt me and I have much more. 🙂

Thank you so much.

SP: Let me share the reply with the group.

It will be a useful reminder to all, and me. We all often think that we understand 🙂
Questioner: 🙂

Yes Sir!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s