phaḍiṅgā-bodha

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

phaḍiṅgā-bodha = grasshopper understanding

Within the business world it is said that employees rise to their level of incompetence.
That is, a person may get promoted or assigned more responsibilities again and again until his/her competence no longer can support a higher rise as they hit their level of incompetence for doing a job.

Within adhyātmika ( spiritual/relating to the Supreme) knowledge, one grasps in understanding to their level of comprehension about this whole vast ocean of knowledge that
one finds in sanātana dharma. This does not infer that mokṣa is not within the realm of possibilities for all, but that various levels of knowledge just might not be possible
to grasp ( the wise sometimes says ‘digest’) for some. Hence the notion of phaḍiṅgā-bodha . What does this mean and what is the point I am offering for one’s consideration ?

Let me explain
Take a grasshopper (phaḍiṅgā) and place it in a glass jar with a nice big opening at the top, then place the lid on top to seal the jar. Watch the grasshopper.
It will jump and hit the lid each time ( wishing to exit the jar no doubt). This will occur again & again. Yet over time the grasshopper becomes conditioned after
banging his head over-and-over again to stop short of the lid and avoid the banging. He has come to understand (bodha) that this behavior is fruitless, yet his nature
( guṇa - quality) is to jump; so now when he jumps it is in a limited way, to avoid the bumps and bruises.

From a human point of view
Now enter the person , the individual , with differentiated awareness (bhinnavedyatā¹) that wishes to know about spiritual things, about the expansion of awareness.
For humans, we can place them into 3 groups:

• the brute (nṛpaśu¹) – he/she has no interest in spiritual pursuits as their attention is else ware.
• the seeker (anveṣaka¹) the one with doubts, or the sādaka who is in pursuit
• muni or tṛptá – one that is satisfied; absorbed in their own Being which is none other than the Supreme

When it comes to being the śiṣya (student) of vijñānagrahaṇa¹ ( grasping knowledge of higher subjects) it is the seeker or anveṣaka. The muni has no need
for additional knowledge of any kind for he/she has arrived at the final station. And the brute? There is no interest or compunction for this type of knowledge.

We all come to HDF with differing levels of comprehension, with different views. For some, more comprehension is possible, for others they may be satisfied where they are
at -or- additional comprehension is somewhat unattractive, or difficult (prayāsa). Then one sticks to what one knows. They are satisfied with the height they have
attained (phaḍiṅgā-bodha). Hence within various conversations here a POV is taken based upon that height (phaḍiṅgā-bodha).
At times the conversations become let me prove to you that my phaḍiṅgā-bodha is correct, that this is the right view. Other times a person just wants to push back.
And in those ideal moments a person wishes to comprehend and ‘get’ what a person is saying his/her idea or knowledge.

What am I saying ?
It is my opinion and point of view that others can (help) expand your container, a catalyst if you will. You see, within HDF we care to talk about different schools (dárśana – seeing , observing, doctrine ,
philosophical systems). By considering other points of view you stretch the fabric of comprehension.
What I am suggesting is when there is a rub to you that when there is some friction (saṃgharṣa¹) you feel in a discussion, this suggests there is an
opportunity at hand that may allow you a learning moment. This moment may be as simple as a compare-and-contrast view of what you think compared
to another view or school ( or person’s view). This friction point is an opportunity.

You see, finding out more of another’s school or point of view does not suggest you have to ‘give in’ , that you have to comply to a new view, or that your views are not valid.
It is about more expansion; it is not about surrendering your views. In fact as the intellect becomes honed and groomed, being able to hold two opposing ideas in one’s mind
without consternation is of great use and assists in balancing the mind.

Questions help
Some ask questions to provoke or challenge. This may work for some. Yet one can be genuinely interested to find out more so they can
compare and contrast ideas, expand one’s knowledge set, discount one notion that is no longer valid with a new fresh view that makes more sense.
As I are taught, it is not what you don’t know that can cause confusion, but what you do know that is just not right.

So, you may think about this – asking a few more questions not to provoke but to expand such as:

• Tell me more about this view
• What brought you to this conclusion? Did you come to this view on your own or where you instructed?
• Is this your opinion on this matter?
• Did this knowledge you now have make you drop or discard an old idea that is no longer valid?
• What references did you use for this knowledge?
• Has your outlook changed based upon this point of view? How so ?
• Does this knowledge align to any school of thought ?
• If you look at your view and view X ( perhaps the one in question) what do you think are the key differences and/or similarities ?
• I know nothing about the views you have offered. Can you give me 3 main points that will help be ‘get it’
• Here is what I understand you have said... tell me if I got it right. What would you change in my understanding?

Let me leave with this…
I wrote on another post and found this to be 100% factual:

Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. A person that is the paśujana ( worldly, differentiated consciousness) reads the bhāgavadgītā or
say the bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha¹ will see/comprehend it much differently than the muni. But why so? Clarity of consciousness and ṛtam-bharā prajñā¹

This no doubt this influences our point of view, our values and our abilities to see the truth.

iti śivaṁ

words

• phaḍiṅgā = grasshopper; by using the long ā it is in the femine gender. I used this to suggest śakti ( or energy) of the hopping.
  
  • ​bodha = knowing, understanding

• bhinnavedyatā= bhinna+vedyatā bhinna = distinct , different from or other, ~differentiated~ + vedyatā = restrained or held ( yata) knowledge (veda) differentiated awareness or knowledge

• vijñānagrahaṇa = vijñāna+graha+ṇa : vijñāna = the act of distinguishing or discerning , understanding right judgement + graha = seizing, grabbing hold of + ṇa = nirvṛti = nir-vāṇa = liberation or Self-realization (~mokṣa~)
• nṛpaśu = man-beast or brute; some call paśujana ( worldly, differentiated consciousness)
• anveṣaka – searching inquiring
• saṃgharṣa – rubbing together, friction;
• bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha this is abhinavagupta-ji’s bhāṣya (or explanatory work) on the bhāgavadgītā
• ṛtam-bharā prajñā -becomes established within the individual. This ṛta is defined as right, or proper yet means enlightened , luminous, insightful, sincere, unblemished. Some call it unalloyed or pure. But it is much more - it is called out in the yogadarśana of patañjali ( the yoga-sūtra-s) Chapt 1, 48th sūtra, as ṛtam-bharā prajñā. This means essential cognition i.e. how one perceives the world, is filled with truth. Lets look a bit deeper:
  
  • ​ṛtam + bharā + prajñā = ṛtam (luminous, insightful unalloyed, pure) + bharā ( bearing, bestowing, carrying) + pra (great) + jñā ( to know). One perceives only the Truth. Some call this unalloyed, unvarnished great truth and becomes a part of one's daily vision. This is the practical value of knowledge + experience.

[Viraja]

Namaste Yajvan ji,

This is an excellent post. Thanks for the guidance regarding phadinga-bodha. How true of your observation that some of us are unable to grasp certain advanced subjects! Ofcourse it will be of advantage to incline towards learning more when there is a friction. Infact, speaking of our recent difference regarding 'Kamya bhakti', I learnt from you how one can truly progress in spirituality - you had stated that is via learning of the scriptures, practicing what is said there-in as a guideline for behavior, and also practicing virakthi, that is renouncing the 'I the doership' from the mind. I understand your above post means that pursuing what is said against one's line of thought will bring deeper comprehension on a subject. Thanks for this wonderful post.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Namaste Yajvan ji,

This is an excellent post. Thanks for the guidance regarding phadinga-bodha. How true of your observation that some of us are unable to grasp certain advanced subjects! Ofcourse it will be of advantage to incline towards learning more when there is a friction. Infact, speaking of our recent difference regarding 'Kamya bhakti', I learnt from you how one can truly progress in spirituality - you had stated that is via learning of the scriptures, practicing what is said there-in as a guideline for behavior, and also practicing virakthi, that is renouncing the 'I the doership' from the mind. I understand your above post means that pursuing what is said against one's line of thought will bring deeper comprehension on a subject. Thanks for this wonderful post.

Just a few ideas on what you wrote... this does not suggest what you said was incorrect. This is just a refinement at most.

The notion that 'I am not the doer' is excellent knowledge. We note it and proceed in action the best way we can. And what would that be? We do not yearn or crave for an outcome.
We do the best we can without this yearning. This creates deeper impressions, more vāsanā-s¹. ​Now a subtler note.... we do not pretend. We avoid walking
around saying, thinking, I am not the doer, I do nothing. Over-engaging the mind on this is not best. In fact, if one can get this to the level of feeling
that is useful.
Yet we bring ourselves no stress or strain about this. Nor do we try an convenience others of this. When their time comes , then this
knowledge too will arise for them. One then can think If I am not the doer , who is? how does it all work ? Am I an agent? If I am an agent
what is my responsibility? Is there a duty to being this agent? What does the wise say about this ( all of chapter 3 of the bhāgavad gītā is useful here).
What then is right action, balanced action that makes sense ?

Regarding progress
it is always a combination of knowledge + experience. The knowledge of the whole, of the full, of Being + the direct pursuit of the same.

Friction
Yes, friction says something to us. That I do not think like another. Why is that? What does that other person see that I do not? Now, that
does not suggest you have to accept it or that your way or the other way is incorrect. Yet is there a learning experience there? It is okay
to reject the view, but allow the mind to at least ponder it. Now friction (saṃgharṣa) becomes an asset and not a thorn.

iti śivaṁ

1. vāsanā - the definition is the impression of anything remaining unconsciously in the mind . Note it does not have to be 'unconscious' as a yearning is the manifest version of vāsanā-s.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

The notion that 'I am not the doer' is excellent knowledge. We note it and proceed in action the best way we can. And what would that be? We do not yearn or crave for an outcome.
We do the best we can without this yearning. This creates deeper impressions, more vāsanā-s¹. ​Now a subtler note.... we do not pretend. We avoid walking
around saying, thinking, I am not the doer, I do nothing. Over-engaging the mind on this is not best. In fact, if one can get this to the level of feeling
that is useful.

This notion of 'I do nothing…'
From a course point of view (sthūlábhāva¹) If one says oh, I do nothing, most likely they are thinking of actions: washing the car, shopping, picking up stone’s,
washing windows, some action that seems to a have a beginning and end to it, a discrete action. Then one says in their mind , I did not do that. Yet this notion of
doing nothing has a more profound (gāmbhīrya) deeper significance of one’s actual experiences. We take our support from the bhāgavad gītā (5.8-5.9) :

naiva kiṃcit karomīti yukto manyeta tattvavit
paśyañ śṛṇvan spṛśañ jighran aśnan gacchan svapañ
śvasan || 5.8

pralapan visṛjan gṛhṇan unmiṣan nimiṣan api
indriyāṇīndriyārtheṣu vartanta iti dhārayan ||5.9

I will not do word-for-word translation but use the words from my teacher…
One who is in union with the divine and who knows the truth will maintain ‘ I do not act at all’ , in:

• seeing
• hearing
• touching
• smelling
• eating
• walking
• sleeping
• breathing
• speaking
• letting go (visṛj = letting go, discharging or bathroom activities of elimination)
• seizing (gṛhṇa = to seize, grasp with the hands – sometimes people include grasping with the mind)
• and even opening and closing the eyes he holds simply that the senses act among the objects of the sense.
  

From an another translation, offered by svāmī lakṣman-jū , he adds to this and says, the organs are just doing their own job, what do I have to do with them ?
I am separate; I am aloof from this organic tamasa. I am just the observer, I don’t do anything.

So here is the point – in discrete actions where there is a beginning and an end , one can ‘pretend’ that I did not do that. The person can have a mental gymnastics discussion
with themselves and come to a logical conclusion they were not the doers of the action just completed. Yet what of seeing ? What of hearing , of breathing 21,600 times per day?
Even smelling when a smell presents itself to the nose? There are not discreet things that have a beginning and end – they are continuous.

In this case of continuious actions there is no other way to say “ I do not do any of these sense-related activities (indriyāṇīndriyārtheṣu)” unless one is the witness of all these things
done by our senses. Being the witness with the eyes opened ( that is, not in a meditative condition) suggests that one is possessed of the Self, of Being.

By inspection one can see ( I hope) just how intimate this non-doing becomes… it is not a concept or philosophical idea that is accommodated in one's outlook ; even one’s
own bodily activities are viewed as actions not done by ‘me’. Where ‘me’ has graduated to the status of the SELF, of Being, Presence.

iti śivaṁ
vāsanā - the definition is the impression of anything remaining unconsciously in the mind . Note it does not have to be 'unconscious' as a yearning is the manifest version of vāsanā-s
sthūlábhāva -coarseness , grossness , tangibility