niradh ~surrender~

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


I have heard many times over the years (and as of late) on HDF that one should surrender (niradh) to the Lord.

This rā¹ is a very tall order. As humans many think, oh yes, I will surrender via the lips and then go on my way. One begins to convince one's self that the surrender occurs by voice and nothing else.

Some may think of partial surrender, others complete surrender, unconditional surrender, and others may not be sure what this all means. The implications to this endeavor is substantial yet we will not start there as this well is a bit deep, and starting there will get us in over our heads.

First, if I may, let me open this up the esteemed reader on HDF and ask what you think this niradh¹ means to you. Is it something on your mind, an action you think you may entertain or are presently entertaining?

Some questions could be :

• what are you surrendering ?
• and to whom ?
• what does it look like?
• what do you do or not do?
• do you as the niradhyati (niradh+yati¹) find your behaviors have changed or , not so much?

iti śivaṁ

words

• niradh ~surrender~ some people may know it by śaraṇāgati which is defined as approach for protection, yielding.
• niradh+yati = surrender + one who strives
• rā - yield or surrender

[ameyAtmA]

Namaste

It is indeed a tall order and not 'lip service' of "Here I surrender unto Thee"

The thing is, the one (ego) who has surrendered is no more around, to talk about it. Only the AtmA to Whom they surrendered knows about the legacy and may or may not perform the leelA of manifesting to talk about it. If this leela is performed, say, out of compassion, the leela-maker has to pretend to be a normal human with an ego, just in order to communicate - not for themselves, but for others.

what are you surrendering ?

The ego. AhaMkAra - that identifies with the local personality.

• and to whom ?

To the AtmA

• what do you do or not do?

Preferably stay in ekAnta involuntarily, in complete solitary bliss, minimizing the 'vyavahAra' (worldly interactions).
The voluntary mundane interactions diminish to a great extent as they become heavier and heavier. Looking outward becomes a heavy job compared to staying inward - in the inner world. If at all you interact, it is for the others, not for yourself. You have nothing to gain, seek, figure out, discover, accomplish, acheive, assert, establish - for 'yourself' anyway.

• do you as the niradhyati (niradh+yati¹) find your behaviors have changed or , not so much?

speaking on behalf of either the one who has surrendered or the niradhyati, yes.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

What is one surrendering?
One says, 'I give up myself'. What does that suggest ? It infers no desires are one's own. All is given to the Lord and one becomes satisfied with what ever the Lord gives. Others say 'I give up my actions'. Yet people still act.

As long as one thinks they are the doer of actions, the action and desire still exist. What was given to the Lord ? It was pretending that one has surrendered. Pretending is a meaningless exercise, but may just convince the pretender that he/she is doing something noble.

Others say I am offering all my possessions to the Lord; I say were they really yours in the first place? Even holding the deed to a home, a car , etc. suggests that you own it, but this is just mundane ownership. Every molecule of that house, car or boat was here before we set foot on this earth. We are not owners, but renters ( even of our body). So, if you give this to the Lord are you not just giving something He already owns?

How do we crack the code on this ? What knowledge is missing from our purview that makes this surrender valuable and noble ?

We get a slight hint in the word surrender: niradh = ni + radh

• ni = in , into , within + radh = to become subject to , be subdued or succumb

And another word for surrender is paridā - giving one's self up to the favor of another. These ideas may help us in a more robust look at this subject.


iti śivaṁ

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

I mention,

One says, 'I give up myself'. What does that suggest ? It infers no desires are one's own. All is given to the Lord and one becomes satisfied with what ever the Lord gives. Others say 'I give up my actions'. Yet people still act.
AS long as one thinks they are the doer of actions, the action and desire still exist. What was given to the Lord ? It was pretending that one has surrendered. Pretending is a meaningless exercise, but may just convince the pretender thathe/she is doing something noble

We need not go too far to find an answer. If we look to the 2nd chapter (71st śloka) of the bhāgavad gītā kṛṣṇa-jī informs us:
when a man acts without longing, having relinquished all desires, free from the sense of 'I' and 'mine' he attains to peace.

If one is free from the sense of 'I' and 'mine' this person has gone beyond the ego, as the ego's other name is 'i' and 'mine'. That of individuality , of holding on to, of being small.
The word offered in the 71st śloka is nirahaṅkāra or nirahaṃkāra. This is nir + ahaṃkāra.

• nir = nis = away from; without, free from
• ahaṃkāra = 'I' doer or conception of one's individuality

Hence nir + ahaṃkāra = away from or without the notion of one's individuality. Individuality is promulgated by the ego ( and is one and the same).

So , the notion of really surrendering or paridā is giving up one's self. This self ( note spelled with a small 's') is none other then ahaṃkāra.

BUT, if you say okay then I give-up my self, and you do this via the lips, and by nothing else , nothing has changed. You still are the window shopper , never entering the store, always looking though the window thinking how good that new coat may look on you, but never getting it done.

Now, how then does one really 'give up' ? We can say surrender, we can pretend at niradh and 'look the part', but all this is just one more behavior that is empty. What to do ?

iti śivaṁ

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam:

I give up.

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Vannakkam:

I give up.

Aum Namasivaya

rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi would perhaps ask you this...
Who is this 'I' that is saying 'giving up' ? Find out who this 'I' is and give it up completely. What possibly can be left if this 'I' is given up ? What remains ? You have found the thief that steals your real Being.

This approach is called ātma-vicāra or the approach to Self (ātma) via vicāra or deliberation , consideration , reflection , examination. The examination is not composed of books and books of reading, but just one question that is pondered ... who is this I ?

This is one method of many... the vijñānabhairava karaka-s offer 112 approaches.

iti śivaṁ

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Speaking of the great sage of Arunachala... his 'I' has to be one of the most misunderstood, and misused 'I' of all time. Sad that.... very difficult to speak of it even, for then there is this 'his' problem.

Now, as per the quip you quoted, it was a simple attempt at whimsy, but seems it failed.

As for surrender, it's such a difficult topic on many levels. 'Proud of your humility' comes to mind. So one who is proud of surrendering surely as missed the point, no?

'This embodied jiva gives up."

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Vannakkam: Speaking of the great sage of Arunachala... his 'I' has to be one of the most misunderstood, and misused 'I' of all time. Sad that.... very difficult to speak of it even, for then there is this 'his' problem.

Now, as per the quip you quoted, it was a simple attempt at whimsy, but seems it failed.

As for surrender, it's such a difficult topic on many levels. 'Proud of your humility' comes to mind. So one who is proud of surrendering surely as missed the point, no?

'This embodied jiva gives up."

Aum Namasivaya

... regarding the quip. It did not fail. I just took the opportunity to bring out more knowledge that was hidden in the quip. Making lemonade from lemons they say.
Now this

proud of surrendering surely as missed the point, no?

If there is 'pride' in surrendering , then the surrendering did not occur. Pride is the 'food' of the ego, and hence the ego has not been resolved.

I am always interested in your thoughts. Please feel free to offer what you see from your POV.

iti śivaṁ

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Yajvan: The idea is a difficult one.

Obviously, anybody can say anything. Words are meaningless. The same words can be used for intellectual knowledge, experiential knowledge, or knowledge gleaned from meditation. So one would have to be a mind-reader to determine from whence the words came.

An individual would have to be incredibly sensitive and understanding of his own thoughts to determine from whence the words that came out of his mouth (or written ones) came. There is much self-reflection. (Not to be confused with Self-reflection, which is probably a paradox)

So perhaps 'surrender' is seen in actions such as:
- giving without thought of reward
- discussing without any sense of 'right and wrong', or who's smarter

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Vannakkam Yajvan: The idea is a difficult one.

Obviously, anybody can say anything. Words are meaningless. The same words can be used for intellectual knowledge, experiential knowledge, or knowledge gleaned from meditation. So one would have to be a mind-reader to determine from whence the words came.

An individual would have to be incredibly sensitive and understanding of his own thoughts to determine from whence the words that came out of his mouth (or written ones) came. There is much self-reflection. (Not to be confused with Self-reflection, which is probably a paradox)

So perhaps 'surrender' is seen in actions such as:
- giving without thought of reward
- discussing without any sense of 'right and wrong', or who's smarter

Aum Namasivaya

Thank you for your thoughts and ideas... here's how I see it.
We are stuck with words, yet the best communication is perfect silence (mauna). Yet, the receiver then is curious as to what is going on. Silence we are told is the great mantra.

On further inspection we can see how this silence can be powerful. Words are the interruption of silence. Speech comes from mind, mind comes from subtle thought, and thought emerges from silence. So, if one just cuts out the middle man ( thoughts and speech) we're left with mauna . This perfect silence is para-vac.
And this word mauna comes from muni. So there is the perfect alignment to para-vac and muni from the point of view of silence. This suggests the most potent wisdom is rooted in silence.

But we are again stuck with words... and with words we try and be clear as possible, and this clarity comes by pointing one to the silence.

Some do this well... some not.

iti śivaṁ