Who am I?

October 3, 1998

Both Charles and Sadananda, seem to support the concept of the Self

being defined as consciousness, which is not quite the way I feel about

it. And Maxwell, your questions are anything but basic J In the

traditional way, using both reason and scripture, let me explain :

According to Advaitam (as per Shankara) and the shruti, these are the

points with reference to the Atman :

1. The Katha Upanishad states that the Self is beyond the reach of the

senses and the intellect.

2. In the Chandogya Upanishad, Yagnavalkya uses the neti, neti doctrine

to describe the Self. That is, you can only say what is not the Self,

but cannot exactly point to what it is.

3. Be it Nagarjuna or Adi Shankara, both are unanimous in their opinion

that, "the end of the rise of the I is the true dawning of knowledge".

All Individuality must go.

The above points form the fundamental base of the teachings of the

Upanishads.

In his Bhashyam on the Brahma Sutras, the peerless non-dualist, refutes

the doctrine of the Lokayatas of Caravaka. The Lokayatas or the

materialists (rather hedonists) argue that since the spirit cannot be

perceived apart from the body, it doesn't individually exist. Shankara

points out that since we're conscious of the body, we cannot be the

body.

Let's use the same yardstick for our analysis. Whatever we're conscious

of, we cannot be that - neti-neti.

I think all of us agree that the body can be negated. Thoughts of

desire, passion, anger, sorrow etc can be shown the door too. What's

left is the intellect, the ego and the sense of perception.

When we do an analysis or engage in an intellectual exercise, we're

conscious of the thoughts. So the intellect can go too.

When somebody slights me, I feel a sudden rush of anger, as to how "I"

can be treated this way. This "I" will also surface in a moment of pride

when we gloat over our achievements. This "I" is the Ego on the surface.

This is a form of thought too and passes when the emotion subsides.

There also exists a mid-level Ego. This is the "I" when we're unexcited.

This is relatively free from emotion. In a moment of reflection or when

the mind is concentrated on a single issue, there exists this form of

Ego. But even this is vulnerable to emotion, though in a slighter

degree. When I give a couple of bucks to hungry looking urchins or do

some good deed, there's this sense of happiness. When somebody dear to

us acts stupidly, there's this slight feeling of hopelessness of it all.

OK, let's go deeper. There's also this subtle Ego. During meditation *

on the Self *, when we're free from thoughts and probably descended to

the objectless-subject level, this exists. This is the primal "I" and is

also called the Consciousness. One can stay in this state for a

considerable period of time. This is the base platform on which all the

thoughts seem to flow.

So is this the Self?

I don't think so.

When I'm in this state, there's still the sense of me, who am sitting in

the state - the doer. It's actually as if the psychical "I" is the

object of this consciousness. This is definitely not in accordance with

the, "end of the rise of the I …", condition quoted above. And it also

fails the Caravaka yardstick mentioned above, since we're conscious of

this consciousness. And since we're conscious of this consciousness and

are able to write about it, it means it's not beyond our intellect! And

hence no need for neti, neti!

In my previous article where I spoke of "letting go", one falls even

beyond this state of the base consciousness. The result is not

consciousness. And when in this state, my consciousness keeps surfacing

again and again. And when we're conscious, it's then that there's

somebody who's conscious - individuality! It's not very easy to stay in

this state for long, for you're fighting the habit of a lifetime -

Individual Consciousness. This individuality is also reflected in the

subtle will - even when we're trying to "be". Physically it's reflected

in the set of the jaw - which in turn reflects the purpose - to become

something which you're not. And it's this individuality which is at the

root of all Maya. For the individual is always bound up in the process

of becoming. To just "be", we've to let go of the individuality.

Regarding Charles objection, that one will fall asleep - the process in

Advaita Vedanta is Brahma Vidya or the knowledge of the Self that always

is. We're just clearing all the rubble around us and drawing into

ourselves to just "be". Not Patanjala Yoga, where the process is

advancement from one state to another. Infact it's wrong to call our

process meditation. All techniques in meditation are only secondary, for

if knowledge of the primary - that's the Self - is absent, the rest is

meaningless. Anyway with practice the process is getting easier by the

day, without one feeling drowsy or sleepy.

I don't agree with Sadananda that we were conscious during deep sleep.

No, it's just inference. We remember being conscious before falling

asleep. When we wake up, we remember that last moment of consciousness

and the dream state and nothing in between. So we infer that in the time

between we were in deep sleep. No, I'm not going the Naiyayika way and

stating that the Soul is unconscious. Just that, it's beyond all

comprehension.

Actually in, "Talks with Ramana Maharishi", Ramana talks about going

beyond the state of consciousness.

And yesterday I was reading a booklet on Bhakti Vedanta - Swami

Prabhupada, talks of it too! If Shankara is saying that the Soul is pure

consciousness, IMO, it's only because that's the highest level of

comprehension of the intellect. The rest can only be experienced.

(Anyway, can somebody give the whole set of possibilities of

translations for, "prajnAnam brahma"?).

There's this famous verse in Chandogya Upanishad, where Yagnavalkya

states, "how can the knower be known?". So generally the Soul is

understood to be the ultimate knower. I don't think Yagnavalkya was

actually referring to the Soul as the knower, but just making a point of

comparison. The Atman is generally referred to as the Changeless -

Eternal - Absolute. If it be said that it is the knower, it'll fail the

definition. For to know something means moving from a state of ignorance

of the thing, to knowledge of the thing. CHANGE. Perception is the cause

and greater knowledge is the effect. And as with causes, no effect is

eternal. The same logic will apply to identifying the Self as the Seer.

As the eye cannot see itself, so can't the mind know itself. The same

way we can just "be".

October 5, 1998

Namaste.

Shri Nanada Chandran wrote a series of articles that reflect his

understanding of consciousness and certainly his keen desire to

understand That. I like to put my view below and hopefully that may

help him obtain what he is seeking.

Yes, the Self is guhyAti guhyam, deep in the cave of the heart. But it

is also the all-pervader. Self is everywhere and we "see" the Self

everywhere. See It not only in the deep cave of the heart, but also in

the outer reaches of space, see It in the classrooms, in the grocery

store, in everyday everytime activity. It is the Self that make us see,

hear, do what we do, it is the Self that powers us.

While it may be useful to negate the body, mind and intellect, it may

be much more useful to see all this (jagat)and the body, mind, thoughts

and intellect as superposition only, on a substratum which is the Self,

which is Brahman. You cannot see that substratum through these eyes.

Just know by your intellect that there is this substratum on which

everything that is seen or thought of is superposed. Beyond that, the

mind or intellect cannot pierce. [There are many upanishhadic statements

which caution that too much enquiry is dangerous.]. The human mind, being

in the realm of mAyA, cannot pierce mAyA.

That is not to say that no enquiry is needed. Brahma sutrAs start of

with "athAto brahmah jignAsA". So, enquiry is needed. But more important

than the enquiry is the purity of heart, so that the human mind can find

satisfaction. The human mind finds this satisfaction when all the desires

are dissolved (not the desires are satisfied, but dissolved), even the

desire to find Atman. Know that the Atman cannot be deciphered by the

human mind. Know that the desires are all a tool of mAyA. Be contented and

find that natural bliss, which comes to us naturally when all the desires

that dwell in the heart fall away.

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.

------

October 5, 1998

At 12:05 PM 10/5/98 -0230, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>While it may be useful to negate the body, mind and intellect, it may

>be much more useful to see all this (jagat)and the body, mind, thoughts

>and intellect as superposition only, on a substratum which is the Self,

>which is Brahman. You cannot see that substratum through these eyes.

>Just know by your intellect that there is this substratum on which

>everything that is seen or thought of is superposed. Beyond that, the

>mind or intellect cannot pierce.

This is important to realize, even if it is intellectual only -- that the

substratum cannot be seen, felt, cognized, or made into any kind of object

at all. We can know however, from sruti and the testimony of sages THAT it

exists. But to know it as an object of knowledge will be impossible ("The

Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao..."). Later, about the time

that the desires fall away, it will be realized at every level that all