Let It Go

You certainly need to see the funny side of this "search for inner calm". Last night I was composing an email to my daughter and I was trying to express in words what I felt was the essence of the spiritual advice that accepted masters were trying to pass on to a benighted humanity. I suddenly came up with the phrase let it go.

This can be interpreted in two main ways; firstly in the sense of not following through on a reaction to something that is upsetting or hurtful. For example, if somebody insults me, I can react and insult them back or choose instead to let it go. In another sense it can mean not holding on to things. This is a practically impossible task because I can hold on to quite subtle things like my beliefs, my value systems, my memories, my plans for the future etc. This doesn't mean that I shouldn't have such things, only that I shouldn't hold on to them.

Once I hold on to something such as a belief, I am wanting it to remain the same. When I do this my belief becomes less flexible and I'm less open to facts that might challenge that belief. I become less tolerant of alternative beliefs. Worse still I come to identify with this and other beliefs and build up a belief system. This system become part of how I define myself and of who I think I am. But of course I'm not this or that or anything else. By holding on and not letting go, the likelihood of identification with what is held on to increases. For example, the more I hold on to the past, the more I am shaped by it.

The hapless chicken in the above cartoon has held on to a need to devote its life to the search for inner calm. Of course the more intense the devotion, the more elusive that inner calm becomes. The chicken's goal-oriented mindset ensures failure and consequent anger at the failure to achieve a life-long goal. By letting go of the goal, and everything else, inner calm arises. It was always there but by grasping at this and that I created turbulence and disturbed that calm. Let it go.

Sanskaras

"Sanskaras" is the plural form of the Sanskrit word "sanskara" that is translated usually as "impression" or "imprint". However, I'm reluctant to use the word "sanskaras" when speaking with people who are unfamiliar with the term but using the terms "imprints" or "impressions" is equally unsatisfactory because these words by themselves don't convey what I'm trying to communicate. Interestingly and not surprisingly, the Wikipedia article on the term makes mention of Meher Baba in the following context:

According to Meher Baba, in the course of evolution sanskaras play a vital role in that they aid in the formation of conscious experience, and thus eventually bring about self-awareness in the human form, but then serve no further purpose. According to Baba they are actually a hindrance once full consciousness is achieved in the human form because they slant our experience of things as they are. The goal for the human being then is to be rid of them by "unwinding" them or through "shakings" caused by progressive variously opposite life experiences over many human lives in reincarnation, thereby eventually unveiling and revealing the true nature of reality and the true identity of the self. According to Meher Baba the ridding of sanskaras can be quickened by the help or guidance of a perfected master or satguru.

The article likens the effect to Sanskaras to that of "a lens through which the subjective aspects of our experience arise. Thus when we perceive (either thoughts or external objects) we apperceive those objects through the lens of past experience. We perceive through the imprint or conditioning of past impressions or sanskaras." Apperception is explained as:

The process by which new experience is assimilated to and transformed by the residuum of past experience of an individual to form a new whole" (Ledger Wood in Runes). In short, it is to perceive new experience in relation to past experience.

Example 1: We see a fire (visual perception). By apperception we correlate the appearance of fire with past experiences of being burned. Having combined present and past experience we realize this is a situation in which we should avoid placing our hand in the fire and being burned.

Example 2: A rich child and a poor child walking together come across the same ten dollar bill on the sidewalk. The rich child says it is not very much money and the poor child says it is a lot of money. The difference lies in how they apperceive the same event - the lens of past experience through which they see and value (or devalue) the money.

I was sitting in the garden this morning pondering such matters. Nearby somebody was revving a motorcycle and I was observing the impression that the sound was having on me. As always the impression was negative and I thought about some related words. One of them was oppression because from my perspective I was being oppressed, in the tranquillity of my garden, by the sound of the motorcycle. I struggled to suppress negative thoughts such as wishing the offender ill-fortune when he finally mounted his steed and roared away. It would seem that impressions may be the source of oppressions, suppressions, repressions and depressions so it is important to properly understand their mechanism.

The sound of the motorcycle was not loud enough to cause discomfort, only annoyance, and I was certainly apperceiving by taking the perception of the sound and relating it to my mainly negative experiences with motorcycle riders on the streets of Jakarta. Somebody else, hearing the same sound, might be reminded by happy bike riding days, wishing to be in the saddle once again and heading off on the open road. So I sat there and got slightly annoyed but at least I was reflecting on my annoyance. Reflecting on ones reactions is the best that can be done initially by becoming a witness as well as a participant in what is happening subjectively. If lost completely in subjectivity, there is no chance to perceive rather than apperceive. All spiritual masters are unanimous on the importance of this witnessing.