Words are funny things, just as thoughts are funny … in terms of them (words/thoughts) not really having any substanial reality of their own. And just as Bentinho comments on how the vigilant may come to the understanding that thoughts are colored by the perceiver (I avoided his use of the world “within” because as Sheldrake points out, the mind aparatus used by us (and animals) may not be limited to the body … i.e., not inside the body …see his experiments with animals … very interesting), - See Sheldrake’s experiments on people knowing when people standing behind them are looking at them, and on animal telepahty (particularly his work with parrots) … just so … it may also be that there is no “doer” and that the real freedom comes along from the recognition that consciousness is the one and only “doer,” and that otherwise there is none (belonging to you).
I am trying to convince anyone here. I am merely stating a possibility. I don’t wish to indicate that I have attained to the highest truth and wisdom, and that I need to straighten anyone out on this forum. Even if there was the feeling that some goofey things were said here (which I don’t) far be it from me to convince anyone differently. IN any case being “CONvinced” is usually going to create a false of security in the one who is CONvincED, and at that point, there is no longer a need to be vigilant, which … to put it bluntly, might not be such a great development. And, on the other hand, the more the merrier. In other words, it’s probably better to be in a state of confusion than to feel one has it all sorted out. At least that way, one stays vigilant, and doesn’t fall back to rely upon the mind, and let the mind’s grooves (samskaras) and the latent tendancies to gain the upper-hand once again, i.e., live for ego-fulfillment alone. Even so called yoga mastery can be a huge ego-trip.
I’m merely saying that often talk in terms of a “doer” or a controller - of any action - (which is often present in some of the better known translations of “yoga citta vritti nirodhah.” gives the knod to the suggestion that the non-dual finds its way to the dual! Of course, in the West (and now in the East) is the prevailing notion of the spiritual path, and of yoga. But while it may make sense to many, it also puts duality on firm footing (making it appear more real in fact than it in truth be.
I’m suggesting that while it may seem to make more “sense” to folks to have explanations couched in dualistic expressions that involve a doer (an “I” which in truth may not be much more than an “idea”), such explanations may lead one further from freedom than closer to it. See Swami Venkatesnanda non-dual and interpretive approach to translating words that don’t appear to have an exact English equivalent approach to the 2nd sutra here:
Y[B][U]oga[/U][/B] happens when there is [B][U]stilling [/U][/B](in the sense of continual and vigilant watchfulness) of the [B][U]movement of thought[/U][/B] – without expression or suppression – in the [B][U]indivisible intelligence[/U][/B] in which there is no movement.
I quoted that because I think it maintains what many are trying to say, but it odes it without the need to couch it dualistic terms, and it reminds us, when talking about the spiritual path that we can further confuse others, even without the intent of doing so, simply by the subject object verbiage we use. The limiting factor may in fact be the “I” or the “idea of I.” So when expressing, as we commonly do, or sadhana in terms of doership, in terms of a you or an I doing something, we might also point out that were doing so without the implication that we, or the self, exists outside of consciousness, and that the ego-sense may be nothing more than the controller of the senses, put there to keep us from getting hit by a bus as we cross the street.
Just another comment to add to the vast and expanding alphabet soup above.
- FileHead “Sadasiva” George Rem
