Guest guest Posted September 25, 1998 Report Share Posted September 25, 1998 I've been meaning to write this for quite a while now, but haven't really got down to it till now. What I write, to a good extent sums up my understanding of 'spirituality' till date and I hope to get some valuable feedback from all the members. The fulcrum around which my view or rather argument, rotates, is the distinction between myself and my thoughts. In this I've been heavily influenced by the teachings of Ramana Maharishi, the saint of Thiruvannamalai, who taught an informal form of Advaitam. He states that what we call the mind is not a physical organ but just a bundle of thoughts. As the highest form of practice in meditation he suggests this method : Take a good hold of your "I" sense and try staying with it. Eventually your mind will run away. When you're aware that your mind has run away, try to analyze as to whom the mind has run away. And bring your attention back to the "I" sense. I practiced his method for a while. I would take a deep breath and grab a good hold of my "I" sense and try to stay with it. Eventually a thought on some subject or the other would spring up and I would be lost in it. But pretty soon I would realize that I've been swept away by my thoughts and then revert back to my "I" sense. Only to be lost again soon ... Let's try to analyze the above process. When I say I take a good hold of my "I" sense, what it means is I've a thought of the "I" and I try to stay with the one "I" thought. Here, careful analysis will reveal that you and the "I" thought are two different entities. Again when my attention is diverted, it's only due to the origination of new thoughts. As Rene Descartes says, "I think, therefore I am!". So I and the thought are two distinct entities. But for a normal person who lives in the empirical world there's no distinction between the two. Simply put, We are our thoughts. A monk at the Ramakrishna Mission, Madras, recently told me that if you're able to distinguish between yourself and the thought, the game is up. It's definitely a point, but I don't agree with him that it's the end of the process. Rather I feel that it's just the beginning - the point when you can start developing viveka. Since, I and my thought were different, it was only logical that I "was", when I didn't think! So during my meditation I would just try to stop thinking. This is easier said than done! If you try to stop thinking, there's initially the thought that you shouldn't think. Soon I would be hijacked by other thoughts. Only to be brought back to the state of the thought that I shouldn't think. Over a period of time, even the thought that I shouldn't think just passed away. Or so I thought! Ramana suggests that we should always be aware of ourselves in our normal life and be ever vigilant as to how thoughts hijacks our consciousness. Here I'm bringing in the much abused and incredibly ambiguous term, "consciousness". All Consciousness in our empirical sense, involves a subject and an object. We're conscious of the person standing next to us. We're conscious of the bad smell in the corner. We're conscious of the fan running over our head. Here the "We" is the subject and the person, the smell and the fan is the object. Ultimately even consciousness is just a thought, thought a very subtle one. (Ofcourse, I'm sure you're all aware that the Atman is equated with Consciousness. At this point, I can neither accept nor refute this claim). Thoughts can be broadly classified into three categories - 1. The "I" sense or the Ego, 2. The sense which perceives, which would be the consciousness and 3. The faculty of reasoning or the intellect, which is a very subtle one, which may also be what's called sub-consciousness. At any point in time, only one of them exists. So bringing your attention back to my experiments with meditation, when I felt that there was absolutely no thought, still I knew there was absolutely no thought. In Advaitam, it's said that in the state of sushpti or deep sleep, the Atman shines in all its glory. On the Advaita-L, I'd quite an argument about this with some guys. OK, we don't know if the Atman shines in all its glory, but what we do know is that both the senses and the mind (thoughts) are defunct in this state. On quite a few occasions, when struck by an overwhelming sadness or remorse over something, I've stared intensely into space. In that condition that my eyes are wide open, I don't see anything. Nor are there any thoughts. This I think is the primal I (without the "I" sense). So it was logical for me to move to the conclusion that if both my senses and my mind was defunct, I who am the Atman will shine in my glory. When one tries to do this during meditation, even when one has passed beyond the senses and the thoughts, there's still the will that we should be in this state. I'd raised a question about this on the Advaita-L, as to who's willing this? It took me a while to realize that even this "will" is but a thought, though a very subtle one. So how do I pass beyond this will? Pretty simple-give up willing. In meditation, the last residue of this will is felt in the tightening of the cheeks, however slight it may be. This just reflects that behind all thought, there's a purpose - a desire. (Cp. With Katha Upanishad - "when all desires in the heart fall away, the mortal becomes immortal and attains Brahman even here"). Just take a deep breath and let go. Relax. Fall into yourself. It's in this stage that meditation itself becomes easy and effortless. We can stay longer in the state of meditation. But there's a danger here - unless, you've practiced to sit with an erect spine, this letting go will result in slumping and inadvertently feeling sleepy. Some members on Advaita-L, had objected that this signifies wrong meditation. No, I don't think so. If sushupti or deep sleep signifies the state in which the Atman shines, the process whereby we're falling asleep signifies that it's the right way. Except that we've to practice more to ensure that we can be conscious while being relaxed. One mystery is that since we're not willing the thoughts, then from whence do these thoughts originate? This I suppose is Maya. I'm not sure if this state is the immutable Brahman or Atman. But what I've realized is that being in this state brings great peace and calm. Infact nowadays I feel sick if I get engulfed in all kinds of thoughts - be it anger or desire. There's this great desire to meditate :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 1998 Report Share Posted September 25, 1998 nanda chandran wrote: > > The fulcrum around which my view or rather argument, rotates, is the > distinction between myself and my thoughts. In this I've been heavily > influenced by the teachings of Ramana Maharishi, the saint of > Thiruvannamalai, who taught an informal form of Advaitam. He states that > what we call the mind is not a physical organ but just a bundle of > thoughts. As the highest form of practice in meditation he suggests this > method : Take a good hold of your "I" sense and try staying with it. > Eventually your mind will run away. When you're aware that your mind has > run away, try to analyze as to whom the mind has run away. And bring > your attention back to the "I" sense. > [...] > Ramana suggests that we should always be aware of ourselves in our > normal life and be ever vigilant as to how thoughts hijacks our > consciousness. Here I'm bringing in the much abused and incredibly > ambiguous term, "consciousness". [...] > So bringing your attention back to my experiments with meditation, when > I felt that there was absolutely no thought, still I knew there was > absolutely no thought. In Advaitam, it's said that in the state of > sushpti or deep sleep, the Atman shines in all its glory. On the > Advaita-L, I'd quite an argument about this with some guys. OK, we don't > know if the Atman shines in all its glory, but what we do know is that > both the senses and the mind (thoughts) are defunct in this state. On > quite a few occasions, when struck by an overwhelming sadness or remorse > over something, I've stared intensely into space. In that condition that > my eyes are wide open, I don't see anything. Nor are there any thoughts. > This I think is the primal I (without the "I" sense). So it was logical > for me to move to the conclusion that if both my senses and my mind was > defunct, I who am the Atman will shine in my glory. > > When one tries to do this during meditation, even when one has passed > beyond the senses and the thoughts, there's still the will that we > should be in this state. I'd raised a question about this on the > Advaita-L, as to who's willing this? It took me a while to realize that > even this "will" is but a thought, though a very subtle one. So how do I > pass beyond this will? Pretty simple-give up willing. In meditation, the > last residue of this will is felt in the tightening of the cheeks, > however slight it may be. This just reflects that behind all thought, > there's a purpose - a desire. (Cp. With Katha Upanishad - "when all > desires in the heart fall away, the mortal becomes immortal and attains > Brahman even here"). Just take a deep breath and let go. Relax. Fall > into yourself. It's in this stage that meditation itself becomes easy > and effortless. We can stay longer in the state of meditation. But > there's a danger here - unless, you've practiced to sit with an erect > spine, this letting go will result in slumping and inadvertently feeling > sleepy. Some members on Advaita-L, had objected that this signifies > wrong meditation. No, I don't think so. If sushupti or deep sleep > signifies the state in which the Atman shines, the process whereby we're > falling asleep signifies that it's the right way. Except that we've to > practice more to ensure that we can be conscious while being relaxed. > One mystery is that since we're not willing the thoughts, then from > whence do these thoughts originate? This I suppose is Maya. > > I'm not sure if this state is the immutable Brahman or Atman. But what > I've realized is that being in this state brings great peace and calm. > Infact nowadays I feel sick if I get engulfed in all kinds of thoughts - > be it anger or desire. There's this great desire to meditate :-) > one of the top 10 posts IMO. i'd like to respond further when i can. for now i'd like to offer these observations.. in my view, where you said: > Ramana suggests that we should always be aware of ourselves in our > normal life and be ever vigilant as to how thoughts hijack our > consciousness. is the gist of it all. the idea of eliminating thought isn't really the central issue. rather it's how to *manage* thought. the turiya state of sahaja samadhi isn't manolaya. thoughts, or the maya of brahman's lila, play inexorably through spacetime. whether we succumb to their limitation trap is the whole issue, which itself represents the living process of egoic generation. whether the mind gets ultimately destroyed is another matter, which is the [of course] unfathomable/anirvachaniya of videhamukthi. but that's besides the point of our immediate agenda: co-existing in peace with the specter of thought. (whether thoughts stop or continue, it's their active or static state's Substratum that we're really concerned with. which isn't affected by thought or no-thought. Its Being merely is. thought judgments about It don't stop It from being what it is. and could it be anything beyond what we are? thus thoughts are ultimately a hare's horn.) and i'll swear we're all already utterly doing it because Being it, in *reality*, *naturally*. it's *simply* our very nature. thoughts or judgments may play out lila's desire, but they're such insignificant fragments of the Absolute Self, as to be relatively meaningless. since relativity itself--i.e. *by* itself--is meaningless! honest Self-inquiry reveals it is so. there can be no other conclusion. the idea of multiple isolated egos becomes as unreal after an honest investigation as it appeared to be real before. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 1998 Report Share Posted September 25, 1998 Beautifully put and this points directly!!!! Love Jon Evans f. maiello wrote: > "f. maiello" <egodust > > nanda chandran wrote: > > > > The fulcrum around which my view or rather argument, rotates, is the > > distinction between myself and my thoughts. In this I've been heavily > > influenced by the teachings of Ramana Maharishi, the saint of > > Thiruvannamalai, who taught an informal form of Advaitam. He states that > > what we call the mind is not a physical organ but just a bundle of > > thoughts. As the highest form of practice in meditation he suggests this > > method : Take a good hold of your "I" sense and try staying with it. > > Eventually your mind will run away. When you're aware that your mind has > > run away, try to analyze as to whom the mind has run away. And bring > > your attention back to the "I" sense. > > > > [...] > > > Ramana suggests that we should always be aware of ourselves in our > > normal life and be ever vigilant as to how thoughts hijacks our > > consciousness. Here I'm bringing in the much abused and incredibly > > ambiguous term, "consciousness". > > [...] > > > So bringing your attention back to my experiments with meditation, when > > I felt that there was absolutely no thought, still I knew there was > > absolutely no thought. In Advaitam, it's said that in the state of > > sushpti or deep sleep, the Atman shines in all its glory. On the > > Advaita-L, I'd quite an argument about this with some guys. OK, we don't > > know if the Atman shines in all its glory, but what we do know is that > > both the senses and the mind (thoughts) are defunct in this state. On > > quite a few occasions, when struck by an overwhelming sadness or remorse > > over something, I've stared intensely into space. In that condition that > > my eyes are wide open, I don't see anything. Nor are there any thoughts. > > This I think is the primal I (without the "I" sense). So it was logical > > for me to move to the conclusion that if both my senses and my mind was > > defunct, I who am the Atman will shine in my glory. > > > > When one tries to do this during meditation, even when one has passed > > beyond the senses and the thoughts, there's still the will that we > > should be in this state. I'd raised a question about this on the > > Advaita-L, as to who's willing this? It took me a while to realize that > > even this "will" is but a thought, though a very subtle one. So how do I > > pass beyond this will? Pretty simple-give up willing. In meditation, the > > last residue of this will is felt in the tightening of the cheeks, > > however slight it may be. This just reflects that behind all thought, > > there's a purpose - a desire. (Cp. With Katha Upanishad - "when all > > desires in the heart fall away, the mortal becomes immortal and attains > > Brahman even here"). Just take a deep breath and let go. Relax. Fall > > into yourself. It's in this stage that meditation itself becomes easy > > and effortless. We can stay longer in the state of meditation. But > > there's a danger here - unless, you've practiced to sit with an erect > > spine, this letting go will result in slumping and inadvertently feeling > > sleepy. Some members on Advaita-L, had objected that this signifies > > wrong meditation. No, I don't think so. If sushupti or deep sleep > > signifies the state in which the Atman shines, the process whereby we're > > falling asleep signifies that it's the right way. Except that we've to > > practice more to ensure that we can be conscious while being relaxed. > > One mystery is that since we're not willing the thoughts, then from > > whence do these thoughts originate? This I suppose is Maya. > > > > I'm not sure if this state is the immutable Brahman or Atman. But what > > I've realized is that being in this state brings great peace and calm. > > Infact nowadays I feel sick if I get engulfed in all kinds of thoughts - > > be it anger or desire. There's this great desire to meditate :-) > > > > one of the top 10 posts IMO. i'd like to respond further when i can. > for now i'd like to offer these observations.. > > in my view, where you said: > > Ramana suggests that we should always be aware of ourselves in our > > normal life and be ever vigilant as to how thoughts hijack our > > consciousness. > is the gist of it all. the idea of eliminating thought isn't > really the central issue. rather it's how to *manage* thought. > the turiya state of sahaja samadhi isn't manolaya. thoughts, > or the maya of brahman's lila, play inexorably through spacetime. > whether we succumb to their limitation trap is the whole issue, > which itself represents the living process of egoic generation. > whether the mind gets ultimately destroyed is another matter, > which is the [of course] unfathomable/anirvachaniya of videhamukthi. > but that's besides the point of our immediate agenda: co-existing > in peace with the specter of thought. (whether thoughts stop or > continue, it's their active or static state's Substratum that > we're really concerned with. which isn't affected by thought > or no-thought. Its Being merely is. thought judgments about > It don't stop It from being what it is. and could it be anything > beyond what we are? thus thoughts are ultimately a hare's horn.) > > and i'll swear we're all already utterly doing it because Being it, > in *reality*, *naturally*. it's *simply* our very nature. thoughts > or judgments may play out lila's desire, but they're such insignificant > fragments of the Absolute Self, as to be relatively meaningless. > since relativity itself--i.e. *by* itself--is meaningless! honest > Self-inquiry reveals it is so. there can be no other conclusion. > the idea of multiple isolated egos becomes as unreal after an honest > investigation as it appeared to be real before. > > namaste > > ------ > Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or > service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit > /advert.html for more information. > ------ > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 1998 Report Share Posted September 26, 1998 Even in deep sleep the thought identifying the Atman with you, the present incarnated personality is there in some subtle form. Other- wise you might wake up as someone else. To digress, I always thought that would make a wonderful story, having a character wake up as someone else. I am new on this list. I am enjoying putting up commentary on Upadesha Saram by Ramana Maharshi on a new advaita website at http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ Trying to do more each day. nanda chandran <vpcnk advaitin <advaitin > Friday, September 25, 1998 4:17 PM Who am I? - A psychological analysis >"nanda chandran" <vpcnk > >I've been meaning to write this for quite a while now, but haven't >really got down to it till now. What I write, to a good extent sums up >my understanding of 'spirituality' till date and I hope to get some >valuable feedback from all the members. > >The fulcrum around which my view or rather argument, rotates, is the >distinction between myself and my thoughts. In this I've been heavily >influenced by the teachings of Ramana Maharishi, the saint of >Thiruvannamalai, who taught an informal form of Advaitam. He states that >what we call the mind is not a physical organ but just a bundle of >thoughts. As the highest form of practice in meditation he suggests this >method : Take a good hold of your "I" sense and try staying with it. >Eventually your mind will run away. When you're aware that your mind has >run away, try to analyze as to whom the mind has run away. And bring >your attention back to the "I" sense. > >I practiced his method for a while. I would take a deep breath and grab >a good hold of my "I" sense and try to stay with it. Eventually a >thought on some subject or the other would spring up and I would be lost >in it. But pretty soon I would realize that I've been swept away by my >thoughts and then revert back to my "I" sense. Only to be lost again >soon ... > >Let's try to analyze the above process. When I say I take a good hold of >my "I" sense, what it means is I've a thought of the "I" and I try to >stay with the one "I" thought. Here, careful analysis will reveal that >you and the "I" thought are two different entities. Again when my >attention is diverted, it's only due to the origination of new thoughts. >As Rene Descartes says, "I think, therefore I am!". So I and the thought >are two distinct entities. But for a normal person who lives in the >empirical world there's no distinction between the two. Simply put, We >are our thoughts. A monk at the Ramakrishna Mission, Madras, recently >told me that if you're able to distinguish between yourself and the >thought, the game is up. It's definitely a point, but I don't agree with >him that it's the end of the process. Rather I feel that it's just the >beginning - the point when you can start developing viveka. > >Since, I and my thought were different, it was only logical that I >"was", when I didn't think! So during my meditation I would just try to >stop thinking. This is easier said than done! If you try to stop >thinking, there's initially the thought that you shouldn't think. Soon I >would be hijacked by other thoughts. Only to be brought back to the >state of the thought that I shouldn't think. Over a period of time, even >the thought that I shouldn't think just passed away. Or so I thought! > >Ramana suggests that we should always be aware of ourselves in our >normal life and be ever vigilant as to how thoughts hijacks our >consciousness. Here I'm bringing in the much abused and incredibly >ambiguous term, "consciousness". All Consciousness in our empirical >sense, involves a subject and an object. We're conscious of the person >standing next to us. We're conscious of the bad smell in the corner. >We're conscious of the fan running over our head. Here the "We" is the >subject and the person, the smell and the fan is the object. Ultimately >even consciousness is just a thought, thought a very subtle one. >(Ofcourse, I'm sure you're all aware that the Atman is equated with >Consciousness. At this point, I can neither accept nor refute this >claim). Thoughts can be broadly classified into three categories - 1. >The "I" sense or the Ego, 2. The sense which perceives, which would be >the consciousness and 3. The faculty of reasoning or the intellect, >which is a very subtle one, which may also be what's called >sub-consciousness. At any point in time, only one of them exists. > >So bringing your attention back to my experiments with meditation, when >I felt that there was absolutely no thought, still I knew there was >absolutely no thought. In Advaitam, it's said that in the state of >sushpti or deep sleep, the Atman shines in all its glory. On the >Advaita-L, I'd quite an argument about this with some guys. OK, we don't >know if the Atman shines in all its glory, but what we do know is that >both the senses and the mind (thoughts) are defunct in this state. On >quite a few occasions, when struck by an overwhelming sadness or remorse >over something, I've stared intensely into space. In that condition that >my eyes are wide open, I don't see anything. Nor are there any thoughts. >This I think is the primal I (without the "I" sense). So it was logical >for me to move to the conclusion that if both my senses and my mind was >defunct, I who am the Atman will shine in my glory. > >When one tries to do this during meditation, even when one has passed >beyond the senses and the thoughts, there's still the will that we >should be in this state. I'd raised a question about this on the >Advaita-L, as to who's willing this? It took me a while to realize that >even this "will" is but a thought, though a very subtle one. So how do I >pass beyond this will? Pretty simple-give up willing. In meditation, the >last residue of this will is felt in the tightening of the cheeks, >however slight it may be. This just reflects that behind all thought, >there's a purpose - a desire. (Cp. With Katha Upanishad - "when all >desires in the heart fall away, the mortal becomes immortal and attains >Brahman even here"). Just take a deep breath and let go. Relax. Fall >into yourself. It's in this stage that meditation itself becomes easy >and effortless. We can stay longer in the state of meditation. But >there's a danger here - unless, you've practiced to sit with an erect >spine, this letting go will result in slumping and inadvertently feeling >sleepy. Some members on Advaita-L, had objected that this signifies >wrong meditation. No, I don't think so. If sushupti or deep sleep >signifies the state in which the Atman shines, the process whereby we're >falling asleep signifies that it's the right way. Except that we've to >practice more to ensure that we can be conscious while being relaxed. >One mystery is that since we're not willing the thoughts, then from >whence do these thoughts originate? This I suppose is Maya. > >I'm not sure if this state is the immutable Brahman or Atman. But what >I've realized is that being in this state brings great peace and calm. >Infact nowadays I feel sick if I get engulfed in all kinds of thoughts - >be it anger or desire. There's this great desire to meditate :-) > > >------ >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 1998 Report Share Posted September 26, 1998 Aikya_Param wrote: > > "Aikya_Param" <aikya > > Even in deep sleep the thought identifying the Atman with you, the > present incarnated personality is there in some subtle form. Other- > wise you might wake up as someone else. > > To digress, I always thought that would make a wonderful story, > having a character wake up as someone else. Namaste ! Don't you think this has been made in a masterly way by Franz KAFKA in his novel "The metamorphosis", where a man, most probably the author himself, I presume, once wakes up as an enormous cockroach, even worse than being just someone ( human being) else. Regards Guy W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 1998 Report Share Posted September 26, 1998 HEAVENS! Hadn't read that one. Was thinking this morning about the fact that karma cannot be accrued by animals because they cannot make conscious choice, but act due to instinct. And the Vedas say that as the result of certain actions one can be born such and such an animal. Wonder if we'll ever find out that some animals have more thinking ability than previously believed (just not language) and thus do make sorts of choices. Anyway being born as a dog, or a giant cockroach, would be an ironic vacation from the karma rat race. Rather a hellish alternative to being clear enough about the self that one realizes the illusoriness of the whole doer, action, result cycle. Aikya Guy Werlings <guy.werlings advaitin <advaitin > Saturday, September 26, 1998 6:53 AM Re: Who am I? - A psychological analysis >Guy Werlings <guy.werlings > >Aikya_Param wrote: >> >> "Aikya_Param" <aikya >> >> Even in deep sleep the thought identifying the Atman with you, the >> present incarnated personality is there in some subtle form. Other- >> wise you might wake up as someone else. >> >> To digress, I always thought that would make a wonderful story, >> having a character wake up as someone else. > > >Namaste ! > >Don't you think this has been made in a masterly way by Franz KAFKA in >his novel "The metamorphosis", where a man, most probably the author >himself, I presume, once wakes up as an enormous cockroach, even worse >than being just someone ( human being) else. > >Regards > >Guy W. > > > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 1998 Report Share Posted September 26, 1998 greetings. i've read this enlightening thread but still have questions because i'm confused. please, excuse this if it's too basic or already covered and misunderstood by me. nanda chandran wrote: >When one tries to do this during meditation, even when one has passed >beyond the senses and the thoughts, there's still the will that we >should be in this state. I'd raised a question about this on the >Advaita-L, as to who's willing this? It took me a while to realize that >even this "will" is but a thought, though a very subtle one. So how do I >pass beyond this will? Pretty simple-give up willing. how is it that these relenquishings, of will and thoughts, can transcend points of reference in which they're half a binary: willful/selfless, thought/I? i've read carefully about this problem in the posts, and i feel lost in ascending groups of reference points which are rejected. i understand the process and its background; however, i cannot comprehend its elimination or result, especially since a sense of self seems to include 1) the inadequacy of expressing itself, 2) an awareness of this inadequacy, and 3) a persistent awareness of what isn't there. >Thoughts can be broadly classified into three categories - 1. >The "I" sense or the Ego, 2. The sense which perceives, which would be >the consciousness and 3. The faculty of reasoning or the intellect, >which is a very subtle one, which may also be what's called >sub-consciousness. At any point in time, only one of them exists. how is it that only one of them exists at any point in time? where do they exist while existing, and where do others go while not existing? i apologize for such basic questions. the question of self is complicated much by other conceptions of identity. for example, thomas henry huxley's soft determinism seems very logical. it makes sense but seems not to correspond to personal experience with the self. his theory is that consciousness is a brain process which exists proportionally in all animals according to the physical complexity of their brains and nervous systems. he believes consciousness is a byproduct of the material. now, the first objection i can see to this is that huxley's consciousness is thought and not self, that the advaita conception of self is not incompatible with a material base for thought. however, it remains plausible to claim that any conception of the self, or identity with anything, is not a voluntary conception but materially produced. (this is why i asked above about points of reference and their outcome.) to me, it seems logical that sensory perceptions and the nervous system cause changes in the brain which evolve consciousness. huxley gives the example of running a pin into oneself and being immediately aware that the physical motion of the nervous system is the antecedent of a state of consciousness. again, the objection may be that this consciousness is not the self but thought or some other reactionary, not indigenous process. it's equally plausible that an extrapolation of degrees of consciousness can be inferred from huxley's example, and the corresponding material base is simply less gross. if fact, wordsworth makes the argument that those who are involved in less physical labor accrue "higher sensibility," and his argument unwittingly links consciousness to the material because lack of stimuli is clearly from the perspective of a material base. i've been wondering about these things and cannot think of a satisfactory answer. it's evident just by the existence of this list that certain conceptions of self are directly related to the material effects of one's life. sri ramakrishna continually makes this point, and i'm not sure how to reconcile it with advaita self. i'm sorry to write for so long. maxwell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1998 Report Share Posted September 27, 1998 Very good. You are quite right. One would have to retain a subtle idea of the past personality when waking up as "someone else" in order to enjoy the change. The Self that doesn't sleep or need to experience birth and death would of course still be there enlivening it all. Aikya Param Berkeley, CA http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ Gregory Goode <goode advaitin <advaitin >; advaitin <advaitin > Sunday, September 27, 1998 6:50 AM Re: Who am I? - A psychological analysis >Gregory Goode <goode > >At 11:36 PM 9/25/98 -0700, Aikya_Param wrote: >>"Aikya_Param" <aikya >> >>Even in deep sleep the thought identifying the Atman with you, the >>present incarnated personality is there in some subtle form. Other- >>wise you might wake up as someone else. >> >>To digress, I always thought that would make a wonderful story, >>having a character wake up as someone else. > >What a concept! But, how do we know now that we *do not* wake up as >someone else? Nothing that you can point to in the physical or subtle >surroundings can be used as evidence that you did-or-did-not wake up as the >same entity the day before. All of these surroundings are the product of >the same thing that produces the phenomenal subject in the first place. If >you really *did* wake up as someone else, you wouldn't know it. That is >the point. But in reality, the I-principle is not anything that wakes up >or goes to sleep. Or, otherwise, who you REALLY are wakes up as all >"beings" every day even now. So it makes no difference really, who the >waker thinks he is. The Identity never belongs to anything that wakes up. >The waker is the product of the waking dream, just like the dreamed subject >is product of the "dreamed" dream. The True individuality belongs only to >the Background, the Substratum. Not only is It the only thing that is >unique, it is the only (non-thing) that is. Because it is Isness. > >--Greg > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1998 Report Share Posted September 27, 1998 At 11:36 PM 9/25/98 -0700, Aikya_Param wrote: >"Aikya_Param" <aikya > >Even in deep sleep the thought identifying the Atman with you, the >present incarnated personality is there in some subtle form. Other- >wise you might wake up as someone else. > >To digress, I always thought that would make a wonderful story, >having a character wake up as someone else. What a concept! But, how do we know now that we *do not* wake up as someone else? Nothing that you can point to in the physical or subtle surroundings can be used as evidence that you did-or-did-not wake up as the same entity the day before. All of these surroundings are the product of the same thing that produces the phenomenal subject in the first place. If you really *did* wake up as someone else, you wouldn't know it. That is the point. But in reality, the I-principle is not anything that wakes up or goes to sleep. Or, otherwise, who you REALLY are wakes up as all "beings" every day even now. So it makes no difference really, who the waker thinks he is. The Identity never belongs to anything that wakes up. The waker is the product of the waking dream, just like the dreamed subject is product of the "dreamed" dream. The True individuality belongs only to the Background, the Substratum. Not only is It the only thing that is unique, it is the only (non-thing) that is. Because it is Isness. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1998 Report Share Posted September 28, 1998 >mpw6678 Greetings Maxwell: You have a valid point regarding the issues related to freedom from material base, samadhi and the automatic appendage at the end of the Email. Honestly, I do not have an answer to clear these doubts and any claim of "answer" is likely to be self-contradictory. Let me explain what I mean and leave the unexplained sections to others. Self-realization, Samadhi and Freedom from material base are the ultimate goals of Jiva. According to an analysis of these three states using the intellectual logic will determine these states are identical. However, Intellect also declares that these states are beyond the grasp of intellect! The statement, "Self-realization is an experience beyond human perception" necessarily implies that I - the experiencer can't explain this experience to a non-experiencer! We can only explain the perceptions of body, mind and intellect and Self-realization is an experience beyond the boundaries of body, mind and intellect. When we are inside the "Black Hole," we become part of it and that's it! How can I describe the Black-Hole when I am inside it? How can "I" describe "Death" when "I" am dead? We get into this logical trap and there is no escaping root except the path of "FAITH." I want to repeat the famous statement by St. Augustine: "Faith is to Believe what you don't see and the reward is to See what you Believe." In other words, we do need to have the faith on: (1) Self-realization (Destination) (2) Sadhanas prescribed by the Scriptures (Vedas, Gita and others). (3) Self-Realized Role Models (Sankara, Ramana, and other great saints and sages) (4) Most important that we believe that we are Brahmans If we read the biography of J. Krishnamurthy, we can see that he was conditioned from his childhood and he read scriptures from several great religions. He did not deliver his famous speech about "human freedom" in his childhood! The conditioning that he underwent didn't change his personality or damage his soul. His life experience confirms that he was able to go beyond his childhood beliefs! We have to Believe that we can go beyond our Believes! Do we have any other alternative? Do we have enough evidence to jump into any concrete conclusions? Ram Chandran Burke, VA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1998 Report Share Posted September 28, 1998 again and again, i've been reading what nanda chandran wrote: > >I'm not sure if this state is the immutable Brahman or Atman. But what >I've realized is that being in this state brings great peace and calm. >Infact nowadays I feel sick if I get engulfed in all kinds of thoughts - >be it anger or desire. There's this great desire to meditate :-) > now that i reconsider, i'm starting, without an opinion, to wonder about the 'i' sense and being swept away from and reverting back to it. the question of stimuli and its relation to the self appears insurmountable to me at this moment because it seems like there's the necessity of a material base for identifying the 'i' sense. the 'i' sense seems only definable (and maybe always identifiable) *outside* itself, from the perspective of 'thought' and in some constructed rhetoric. since definition implies language, its inadequacy is easy to dismiss as irrelevant, but then it's not demonstrable, outside radical individual experience, that *identification* of the self isn't constructed and dependent too. concerning j krishnamurti, for example, his definition of freedom, or his appeal to freedom, presupposes conditioning and dependence. the definition has no meaning outside the referent of conditioning, and even in his case, the experience requires and presupposes its opposite. this is similar with sri ramakrishna. often, there's a definition of samadhi which relies on not being in it. this is the point of a genuine paramahamsa who himself asks kali, why am i in this body? again, it presupposes materiality. so, the problem is one of experience. since i, maxwell, don't experience these things (freedom, samadhi), i'm left with expressions of them which require their lack. please, this is a question although it looks like a statement. (what kind of statement could i make about this, not knowing what it is in the first place?) i'm trying to understand how to relenquish a material base for identifying the self when its definition, if not recognition, falls inside and even presupposes materiality. this problem occurred to me after reading the excellent e-mail of nanda chandran and the subsequent discussion. here at the bottom, there's an automatic appendage: non-duality between mind and matter. it occurs to me that this applies, out of context, also to radical materialism, with which i'm uncomfortable. i'm rather lost at sufficiently expressing my dilemma and know i'm doing so, inadequately and vaguely, from an insufficient vantage. maxwell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1998 Report Share Posted September 28, 1998 Sri Nanda Chandran Greetings. > A monk at the Ramakrishna Mission, Madras, recently >told me that if you're able to distinguish between yourself and the >thought, the game is up. It's definitely a point, but I don't agree with >him that it's the end of the process. Rather I feel that it's just the >beginning - the point when you can start developing viveka. Here is my understanding and some thoughts to ponder about! Both are right. I would take the monks words mean 'firmly established in the knowledge of yourself' that you are not the 'I thought" anymore -- Which Ramana calls as "dRiDaiva nishhTaa". Then indeed the game is up, since there is no more misunderstanding of who you are. But till then what you say is also right, in the beginning of awakening. until there is no more confusion to get carried away and the notion that the ' I thought' is indeed I. According to vedanta, this intermediate stage persists until the mind is completely free from the pressures of the vasanas. On continuous meditation, oneself will neutralize ones likes and dislikes. Bhagavan Ramana's life history itself is an example. >Since, I and my thought were different, it was only logical that I >"was", when I didn't think! I take from your classification of thoughts, your ' I, and my thoughts" as two types of thoughts, which Ramana calls - aham vRitti and idam vRitti - I thought and this thought - but both are thoughts, one is more permanent than this other since idam keeps changing. Awareness is the you, different from both the I thought and this thought, although currently I take myself as this I thought. f.maiello touched on this aspect. By the by, awareness is not a thought, it is because of which one is aware of the I thought as well. The mechanics of the process involves actually three aspects (called tripura - hence Lord is called tripuraantaka, one who has transcended these three) awarer, awar-ed and the process of being aware, like experiencer, experienced and experiencing, since being aware of, is also an experience. In your above statement, I detect, which may not be true, that you are shifting yourself from awareness I, versus the ' I thought', i. When there are idam thoughts, you are aware of the idam thoughts then another thought arises to own the idam thoughts, and that is this 'I thought" which you are also aware of - since if I ask you 'how do you know that those are your thoughts' - You may scream at me saying that ' of course those are my thoughts, I did not steal from any body!' - That I thought that owns idam thoughts is the ahankaara thought. The central point is the awareness you, is aware of both idam and aham vRitti and hence you are different from both. 'Will' that referred to also belong to the aham vritti - what you will is the idam vritti and the accompanying thought that "I willed" or "I desired' etc. are aham vritti. You as a conscious entity aware of notion that you are willer! and that is willed. >.So during my meditation I would just try to >stop thinking. This is easier said than done! If you try to stop >thinking, there's initially the thought that you shouldn't think. Soon I >would be hijacked by other thoughts. Only to be brought back to the >state of the thought that I shouldn't think. Over a period of time, even >the thought that I shouldn't think just passed away. Or so I thought! One has to watchful here, mind plays lot of games. Yes, 'I donot think any more' is another thought - Vigilance is what is demanded of meditation. Actually, the very 'will' that I donot want to think any more, will create the thoughts including that the thought that " I want to stop thinking'. Trying to fight this process can drain the energy of the mind. >Ramana suggests that we should always be aware of ourselves in our >normal life and be ever vigilant as to how thoughts hijacks our >consciousness. Here I'm bringing in the much abused and incredibly >ambiguous term, "consciousness". All Consciousness in our empirical >sense, involves a subject and an object. We're conscious of the person >standing next to us. We're conscious of the bad smell in the corner. >We're conscious of the fan running over our head. Here the "We" is the >subject and the person, the smell and the fan is the object. Ultimately >even consciousness is just a thought, thought a very subtle one. The first part is right but the statement that even consciousness is a thought, is not. Consciousness is that because of which one is conscious of, all thoughts ( including what you referred as the thought of consciousness) is THE CONSCIOUSNESS. It cannot be objectified, since there has to be a subject who has to do the objectifying; and that subject has to be a conscious entity (since unconscious entity cannot objectify). That conscious entity is you - due to lack of any better term we call that conscious entity as 'consciousness'. In the end part of the Upadesha Sara that Aikya_Param is transcribing, Bhagavan Ramana discusses this very clearly. >(Ofcourse, I'm sure you're all aware that the Atman is equated with >Consciousness. At this point, I can neither accept nor refute this >claim). Thoughts can be broadly classified into three categories - 1. >The "I" sense or the Ego, 2. The sense which perceives, which would be >the consciousness and 3. The faculty of reasoning or the intellect, >which is a very subtle one, which may also be what's called >sub-consciousness. At any point in time, only one of them exists. I hope the above discussions clarifies about your understanding of consciousness as a subtle thought. The second one in your list actually is the same as the first one since ego involves the notion that I am perceiver(P), feeler(F) and thinker(T) - PFT is the ego, I. The third part you referer to is what Ramana calls as idam vRitti and that includes not only discriminative or logial thought of the intellect but also emotional feelings of the mind. Hence the three are reduced to two - aham and idam vRitti. > In Advaitam, it's said that in the state of >sushpti or deep sleep, the Atman shines in all its glory. On the >Advaita-L, I'd quite an argument about this with some guys. OK, we don't >know if the Atman shines in all its glory, but what we do know is that >both the senses and the mind (thoughts) are defunct in this state. Again what they said is right and what you say is also right. ( no I am not trying to be diplomatic) Atman shines in all its glory all the time not only in the sushupti. One simple logic is, if it's shining keeps changing, who will be aware of those changes in the glory of the Atman. Then we have to bring another conscious entity who can be aware of the changes in the Atman, and that conscious entity has to be shining all its glory - otherwise we run into what is called anaavastu dhosha. That changeless awareness is the Atman that is being referred to. You are also right that both senses and the mind are defunt - but that is the problem with the equipments and not with Atman. That because of which one is aware that both senses and the mind are defunt, is the Atman. Hence, one can declare after getting up from sleep that he slept very well - What did you see there - nothing - what did you feel there - nothing. But I was there to see nothing and feel nothing - no senses and no mind. I am able to recollect that experience because the law of memory is that the experiencer and the remember-er has to be one and the same. I was there in my fully glory to be aware of 'the nothing'. But no knowledge takes place since Budhi instrument to receive the knowledge is also not there. >When one tries to do this during meditation, even when one has passed >beyond the senses and the thoughts, there's still the will that we >should be in this state. I'd raised a question about this on the >Advaita-L, as to who's willing this? It took me a while to realize that >even this "will" is but a thought, though a very subtle one. You are absolutely right. But that will thought against falls into the I am the will-er and this is what I willed - aham and idam. > Except that we've to >practice more to ensure that we can be conscious while being relaxed. >One mystery is that since we're not willing the thoughts, then from >whence do these thoughts originate? This I suppose is Maya. >. There's this great desire to meditate :-) Beautiful - My best wishes in your pursuits. I am sure with the grace of Bhagavan Ramana, you will reach Him. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1998 Report Share Posted September 28, 1998 >Gregory Goode <goode >>To digress, I always thought that would make a wonderful story, >>having a character wake up as someone else. > >What a concept! But, how do we know now that we *do not* wake up as >someone else? Nothing that you can point to in the physical or subtle >surroundings can be used as evidence that you did-or-did-not wake up as the >same entity the day before. All of these surroundings are the product of >the same thing that produces the phenomenal subject in the first place. If >you really *did* wake up as someone else, you wouldn't know it. That is >the point. But in reality, the I-principle is not anything that wakes up >or goes to sleep. Or, otherwise, who you REALLY are wakes up as all >"beings" every day even now. So it makes no difference really, who the >waker thinks he is. The Identity never belongs to anything that wakes up. >The waker is the product of the waking dream, just like the dreamed subject >is product of the "dreamed" dream. The True individuality belongs only to >the Background, the Substratum. Not only is It the only thing that is >unique, it is the only (non-thing) that is. Because it is Isness. > >--Greg Greg - what you say is true at the paramaarthika level which of course is the reality level. Your arguments that it is only thing that counts is also true. But since the discussion is also taking place and the question pertains to that, one should also be aware what happens at the vyavahaara level. At vyavaharika level, there is a difference in terms of whom I wake up as, since I am waking up - as identified with the upaadhiies. There is a stored memory, chitta, identifying the stored information of who I am, what I know and what I do not know etc. at the vyavahaarika level. When I sleep, this is all folded but when I am awake, my identification with the body, mind, intellect and chitta also start. Hence I could use my yesterday's knowledge for transacting or doing vyavahaara, today. It is true if wake up as someone else, I may not know my previous personality, but since others may not know, in transacting with others I will be in a real mess . If this connection, memory is lost, as it happens with some accidents, one is still ignorant from paramaarthika level, but ignorant at the vyavahaarika level too. That in fact had happened to a friend of mine. He lost complete memory for few months and his wife and children suffered a lot as he could not recognize who he was and who they were, etc. Slowly that memory came back. One can get up as some other person (with different memory bank - unconnected with the former and he may not know it). This is what happens sometimes with people with split personalities. Each personality does not know what the other is up to! I heard that one lady had six personalities, and her doctor abused one of her personalities while the other personlity sued him! Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1998 Report Share Posted September 28, 1998 mpw6678 wrote: > > .. [...] .. the 'i' sense seems only definable (and maybe always > identifiable) *outside* itself, from the perspective of 'thought' > and in some constructed rhetoric. this is itself a thought. > since i, maxwell, don't experience these things (freedom, > samadhi), i'm left with expressions of them which require their lack. > how do you know you're not experiencing freedom or samadhi? thoughts are telling you, no? how reliant can one be with the content of thought? the apparent thought-generation machine is the dictator of awareness, *until* the matter is sufficiently examined: who is the receiver of these thoughts? and what do these thoughts have to do with the real state [of the 'receiver']? is the 'receiver' just waiting for them to run their gamut? or will they run in ever wider speculation-circles until the individual recognizes perhaps that they are eternal informants of an eternally receding condition of relativity, with no possibility of ever comprehending its *own* trans-relative/non-relative (nondual) source? > ... how to relenquish a material base for identifying the > self when its definition, if not recognition, falls inside > and even presupposes materiality. the question of 'recognition' is the result of the attempt by the ego-mind to comprehend (relatively grasp) parabrahman. the finite desperately wants to behold the infinte. > here at the bottom, there's an automatic appendage: non-duality > between mind and matter. it occurs to me that this applies, out > of context, also to radical materialism, with which i'm uncomfortable. the essential pairing of mind/matter, is itself merely an idea, created and sustained by thought. it's possible to prove that matter is, if not non-existent, at least not what we commonly believe it is, [and therefore, by definition, not really 'matter' anyway!]... if the thoughts are systematically effectively even ignored(!), the natural state starts emerging from behind the now benign thought veil... we are *automatically* That. nothing needs be positively accomplished or achieved--only the thoughts or judgments need be de-fused. (how or why they arose is not our concern. as sri ramana said, "if the house is burning, the thing to do is get out, not worry about what caused it.") namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1998 Report Share Posted September 28, 1998 On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Aikya_Param wrote: > "Aikya_Param" <aikya > > Even in deep sleep the thought identifying the Atman with you, the > present incarnated personality is there in some subtle form. Other- > wise you might wake up as someone else. > > To digress, I always thought that would make a wonderful story, > having a character wake up as someone else. > Namaste. From my view, that is not possible. I cannot quote any upanishhadic or advaitic text references to what I say below. It may look like science-fiction, but then I would like someone to refute it or hopefully give me a reference to some book where it might have been looked at sympathetically or otherwise. If you think it is out of base, please disregard this post. I would like to interpret what we call past, present and future as the past, present and future lives of the jeeva's "journey" to realization. The present full life of the jeeva is all in the present tense. Future is only when the jeeva's present life ends and the new life starts. In that scenario, the dream state and the deep-sleep state are very brief interludes to a wake-up state which is one hundred years long and all in the present tense. So, we can expect the jeeva to maintain continuity of memory during the present. But when the jeeva goes from one life to another (that is, going from present to the future) the jeeva does not carry any memory forward.(Jeeva's subtle body carries the effects of the actions forward). A miniature version of this is our dream state. We do not carry any memory from one dream to the next dream. All dreams are essentially random (I hope I am correct in saying this). But the dream can encompass a full life or many lives (while in the dream). Thus from one dream to the next dream, the spacing in dream time can be many many years or many many lives and the memory phenomenon would not have continuity. Thus we experience no continuity of memory from one dream to the next. Similarly we would not expect continuity of memory from one life to another. But, within any one life, all being the present, we would expect to have the memory continuity barring some incapacitation of the jeeva's organs. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute Katha Upanishhad II.3.14 When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here. ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1998 Report Share Posted September 28, 1998 "Aikya_Param" <aikya responded: >What if Self Knowledge provides a new clarity about the truth >of all experience (that it is not quite as real as the Self as Existent >Awareness, ever Full)? Then one need not destroy any aspect of ego or >I-sense because one would be clear that , other than the sat-shit-Ananda, >everything else in the I-sense file is part of the every changing, not quite >as real creation? > greetings. i wish to thank ram chandran for a clarification on belief, and aikya param for pointing out the difference between 'experience' and 'self knowledge' and also for agreeing that i'm confused. i'm unqualified to make a judgment on these terms but maybe can pose another insufficient question. it's very amenable to me to understand self-knowledge as outside 'experience.' what confuses me is that it's requisite to return to experience and use its products in making any statement about self-knowledge. the language itself implies and requires 'experience,' and then it casts something outside experience (self-knowledge) in experiential terms. the cyclical process of being in and out of self-knowledge enables its definition, so it's difficult to find self-knowledge outside this dilemma, outside its reliance on a sequence. "f. maiello" <egodust responded: > >the apparent thought-generation machine is the dictator of >awareness, *until* the matter is sufficiently examined: >who is the receiver of these thoughts? and what do these >thoughts have to do with the real state [of the 'receiver']? >is the 'receiver' just waiting for them to run their gamut? >or will they run in ever wider speculation-circles until >the individual recognizes perhaps that they are eternal >informants of an eternally receding condition of relativity, >with no possibility of ever comprehending its *own* >trans-relative/non-relative (nondual) source? > thank you. this is a very helpful picture to read. but the receiver of these thoughts *is* the receiver of thoughts and dependent on their reception for locating, but not being in, 'real' identity. these thoughts aren't awareness-generating, but i can't understand how they're not awareness-locating. what do these thoughts have to do with the real state? they look like markers for delineating that such a state is. this is not necessarily duality. although self-knowledge isn't a kind of experience, in saying that it's not so, i've just required 'experience' to qualify self-knowledge. in the case of j krishnamurti, going beyond childhood conditioning suggests the necessity of the conditioning as a reference point for where he's at once he's beyond it. again, i apologize for posing these questions which look more like statements. i'm genuinely sorry. i hope my confusions aren't too detrimental to the usual higher quality of posts on advaitin list. maxwell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1998 Report Share Posted September 28, 1998 All sincere questions are good questions. Didn't mean to say that you were confused, ony to refer to the confusion, very common, that Self-knowledge is a certain kind of experience, or that whether or not one has this self-knowledge can be judged by whether or not has such and such experience. Yes, it is true that the teaching is expressed in words and may refer to our experiences to make various points. In teaching anyone, the teacher must begin where the student's understanding is. Then a certain methodology is used to bring the student's understanding further. Vedanta is no different. There is a strict methodology to the teaching done well. The method uses words to tell what the Self is not, then what it is. Each word given to explain what it is can be misunderstood and so it is balanced by another word which removes the possible misunderstanding. So through this step by step process,words and sometimes references to experience are used to point out something that transcends both words and experience. We are rather stuck in needing to use words and experience because that is what students can understand. The masterful teacher can pull it off, though, and then, voila! the students have a clear vision of the Self beyond words and experience. Aikya Param Berkeley, CA http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya mpw6678 <mpw6678 advaitin <advaitin > Monday, September 28, 1998 6:00 PM Re: Who am I? - A psychological analysis >mpw6678 > >"Aikya_Param" <aikya responded: > >>What if Self Knowledge provides a new clarity about the truth >>of all experience (that it is not quite as real as the Self as Existent >>Awareness, ever Full)? Then one need not destroy any aspect of ego or >>I-sense because one would be clear that , other than the sat-chit-Ananda, >>everything else in the I-sense file is part of the every changing, not quite >>as real creation? >> > >greetings. i wish to thank ram chandran for a clarification on belief, and aikya param for pointing out the difference between 'experience' and 'self knowledge' and also for agreeing that i'm confused. i'm unqualified to make a judgment on these terms but maybe can pose another insufficient question. it's very amenable to me to understand self-knowledge as outside 'experience.' what confuses me is that it's requisite to return to experience and use its products in making any statement about self-knowledge. the language itself implies and requires 'experience,' and then it casts something outside experience (self-knowledge) in experiential terms. the cyclical process of being in and out of self-knowledge enables its definition, so it's difficult to find self-knowledge outside this dilemma, outside its reliance on a sequence. > >"f. maiello" <egodust responded: > >> >>the apparent thought-generation machine is the dictator of >>awareness, *until* the matter is sufficiently examined: >>who is the receiver of these thoughts? and what do these >>thoughts have to do with the real state [of the 'receiver']? >>is the 'receiver' just waiting for them to run their gamut? >>or will they run in ever wider speculation-circles until >>the individual recognizes perhaps that they are eternal >>informants of an eternally receding condition of relativity, >>with no possibility of ever comprehending its *own* >>trans-relative/non-relative (nondual) source? >> > >thank you. this is a very helpful picture to read. but the receiver of these thoughts *is* the receiver of thoughts and dependent on their reception for locating, but not being in, 'real' identity. these thoughts aren't awareness-generating, but i can't understand how they're not awareness-locating. what do these thoughts have to do with the real state? they look like markers for delineating that such a state is. this is not necessarily duality. > >although self-knowledge isn't a kind of experience, in saying that it's not so, i've just required 'experience' to qualify self-knowledge. > >in the case of j krishnamurti, going beyond childhood conditioning suggests the necessity of the conditioning as a reference point for where he's at once he's beyond it. > >again, i apologize for posing these questions which look more like statements. i'm genuinely sorry. i hope my confusions aren't too detrimental to the usual higher quality of posts on advaitin list. > >maxwell. > > > >------ >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 1998 Report Share Posted September 29, 1998 At 11:53 AM 9/28/98 -0400, sadananda wrote: >>The waker is the product of the waking dream, just like the dreamed subject >>is product of the "dreamed" dream. The True individuality belongs only to >>the Background, the Substratum. Not only is It the only thing that is >>unique, it is the only (non-thing) that is. Because it is Isness. >> >>--Greg > >Greg - what you say is true at the paramaarthika level which of course is >the reality level. Your arguments that it is only thing that counts is also >true. But since the discussion is also taking place and the question >pertains to that, one should also be aware what happens at the vyavahaara >level. Sadananda, Oh yes, this question posed by Aikya seemed to me more psychological, i.e., waking up as someone else. And in psychology and philosophy classes in college and grad school, we used to pose the same question. We ended up by deciding among ourselves (bunch of grad students) that we wouldn't know even *if* it happened, if the question were interpreted strictly. In a conventional sense it is waking up with a mix of memories. Along more orthodox or formal advaitin lines, of course, we have the vyavahaara level of this question being explained by the avastatraya prakriya (pls forgive spelling, I'm in Tokyo away from written references!). This teaching is a superb model that is unique in world philosophy, as far as I've seen. There is a waker, dreamer, sleeper, various identities and entities, according to the identification with the various upaadhies. And in this prakriya, what guarantees the continuity between one visva or waking-state entity and the previous one that woke up the day before is exactly the the seed-form intelligence stored in the causal body. According to the Pancadasi, which I do not have with me, the causal body is undifferentiated, so that one "person's" (or prajna's) causal body is not different from another's causal body. This is where and why the anandamayakosa is equivalent to the degree of omniscience in seed form held by Isvara or Antaryamin, the Inner Controller and sum of all causal bodies. All vasanas and memories are retained here. About waking up as someone else -- because of the retention of all memories and vasanas in the causal body, this prakriya can make sense out of exactly Aikya's question: waking up as someone else. It would be the freshly-awakened visva or waker finding himself with more than one set of coherent memories. Or a mix between his previous memories and someone else's. Exactly. As to the question, "How could this have happened?" it is easy to see, since in the intervening night, there was access to the causal body, which holds all memories and all vasanas. One might ask the question, "How is it that the mixup does not happen all the time? What is it that keeps track?" (because in cases of memory loss and split personality, it certainly does happen sometimes). Isvara is omniscient, and therefore knows who's memories and vasanas were who's!! And of course one might also ask, "Why is it that we're saying that two sets of memories means two people, and one set of memories means one person?" Exactly because of the identification with the upaadhies -- we think we are our memory stream. I was discussing Advaita with a Christian friend of mine. She was very sure that what she REALLY is, is her memories. This is what gives her a sense of identity, and she thinks the set of her memories is her true nature! --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 1998 Report Share Posted September 29, 1998 At 06:26 AM 9/28/98 PDT, Ram Chandran wrote: >We get into this logical trap and there is no escaping root except the >path of "FAITH." I want to repeat the famous statement by St. >Augustine: "Faith is to Believe what you don't see and the reward is to >See what you Believe." In other words, we do need to have the faith on: >(1) Self-realization (Destination) >(2) Sadhanas prescribed by the Scriptures (Vedas, Gita and others). >(3) Self-Realized Role Models (Sankara, Ramana, and other great saints >and sages) >(4) Most important that we believe that we are Brahman Greetings Ram and Maxwell! This is a beautiful quote and a beautiful paragraph. We cannot FORCE ourselves have faith, but not to worry! The faith that you speak of comes naturally to anyone, such as Maxwell, who is earnest and desirous to know the Truth. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 1998 Report Share Posted September 29, 1998 At 10:30 PM 9/28/98 -0700, Aikya_Param wrote: > >Yes, it is true that the teaching is expressed in words and may refer to our >experiences to make various points. In teaching anyone, the teacher must >begin where the student's understanding is. Then a certain methodology is >used to bring the student's understanding further. Vedanta is no different. >There is a strict methodology to the teaching done well. The method uses >words to tell what the Self is not, then what it is. Each word given to >explain what it is can be misunderstood and so it is balanced by another >word which removes the possible misunderstanding. So through this step by >step process,words and sometimes references to experience are used to point >out something that transcends both words and experience. We are rather >stuck in needing to use words and experience because that is what students >can understand. The masterful teacher can pull it off, though, and then, >voila! the students have a clear vision of the Self beyond words and >experience. Hi Aikya, I lost the thread of your reply (don't know what you were replying to here), but this nice and concise statement about skillful teaching is worth reading all by itself! The method outlined here is indeed what good Vedanta teaching is. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 1998 Report Share Posted September 30, 1998 mpw6678 wrote: > > [...] > ...the receiver of these thoughts *is* the receiver of thoughts > and dependent on their reception for locating, but not being > in, 'real' identity. these thoughts aren't awareness-generating, > but i can't understand how they're not awareness-locating. > what do these thoughts have to do with the real state? > they look like markers for delineating that such a state is. > this is not necessarily duality. > this defines a certain stage or position in understanding, with respect to methodology leading up to the path of jnana or advaita. the path itself will address the theory of Being, causal to thinking, as the primal original and One-without- a-second essence of reality: which is the noumenal hub of Life. everything else [as outbreaths from that a-priori causal center] is at once *only* that center! and as it's only that center, it has no separative importance. seeing this, everything can be put in its proper perspective...viz. that which appears is ever only brahman. (this is the key to sankara's triune formula.) namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 1998 Report Share Posted October 1, 1998 On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Gregory Goode <goode wrote: > I was discussing Advaita with a Christian > friend of mine. She was very sure that what she REALLY is, is her > memories. This is what gives her a sense of identity, and she thinks the > set of her memories is her true nature! There is a Fourteenth Century timeless devotional classic of the English Church called << The Epistle of the Privy Council >> which may help your friend overcome that limitation. It is included in the Penguin Classic << The Cloud of Unknowing and Other Works >>. Here is my favourite passage as a sample of the spiritual direction that it gives [last para. of first section, emphasis in original]: "So you must get down to the basic essentials of thought (some people, remember, consider it the most sophisticated!) and think of yourself in the simplest way (again, some think it is the wisest), not WHAT you are, but THAT you are. Why, for you to be able to think WHAT you are, you with all your characteristics and capacities, calls for a great deal of skill and knowledge and insight, and much shrewd inquiry into your natural intelligence. You have done this at some time already with the help of God's grace and now you know, at least in part and as much as is good for you, what you are: a human being by nature, and a filthy stinking wretch by sin. How well you know it! Perhaps, indeed, only too well all the filth that goes along with the wretch. Shame! Let go of it, I beg you. Don't keep stirring it up: the stench is frightful. But to know THAT one exists is possible for anyone, however ignorant or uncouth he may be; it does not call for any great knowledge or aptitude." Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.