Who am I?

October 6, 1998

GMurthy and Greg, you've not understood what I said. Sadananda, Charles

and Frank have - except they don't agree with me. Or do they? :-)

October 7, 1998

>"nanda chandran" <vpcnk

>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.

Nanda - In upadesha sahashri - Shankara discusses this somewhat elaborately

in the prose section.

I will try to find it if I can.

About the deep sleep:

When a waker says I slept well - the statement is made by the waker's mind

- but that mind was folded in the deep sleep? So how can that mind which

was not there can make a statement that "I slept well". So from the mind

point what you say is indeed true - it is somewhat of an inferential

statement.

But yet there is an experience of the deep sleep - since it was of non-dual

nature it was free from fear and all other agitations that arise from the

presence of the second. Now who is the experiencer of this deep sleep?

There is still a subtler "I" which is aware of the absence of the mind when

it is folded and the presence of the mind when it is unfolded - that is

recorded as a memory in the mind. Hence I identifying with the woken mind,

now declare recognizing the experience of the folding and unfolding of the

mind says that I slept well. That I has to be there to recognize the

absence of the mind and the presence of the mind which we call sleep.

Hence if we ask the waker's mind what did you see - all it can say -

looking at its memory bank - nothing as nothing as object wise was

recorded. Where were you - "I don't know" - Essentially "I know nothing"

and " I don't know myself too" but yet "I know I slept well" -thus I see

the mind "rested". Hence in Vedanta there are two aspects of avidya - one

is non- apprehension and the second misapprehension. The non-apprehension

part is the anaadi - since it was there even before the thought or time is

born. misapprehension comes with the mind projecting something since it

does not know the truth. Yes it is beyond all comprehension since

comprehension is with the mind!

I have to dig my files- I wrote some time back an article on 'who is the

sleeper' - after listening to the discourse on Mandukya kaarika by Swami

Chinmayaanandaji. - May be Ram has it in his files.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

October 7, 1998

>"nanda chandran" <vpcnk

>

>GMurthy and Greg, you've not understood what I said. Sadananda, Charles

>and Frank have - except they don't agree with me. Or do they? :-)

Nanda - I do not think it matters if any of us understands or agrees or

disagrees - what matters is if if it is clear in our minds - is it not true?

Hari Om!

Sadananda

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

October 7, 1998

Refresh my memory... --Greg

At 03:29 PM 10/6/98 PDT, nanda chandran wrote:

>"nanda chandran" <vpcnk

>

>GMurthy and Greg, you've not understood what I said. Sadananda, Charles

>and Frank have - except they don't agree with me. Or do they? :-)

October 7, 1998

At 08:18 AM 10/7/98 -0400, sadananda wrote:

>sadananda <sada

>

>>"nanda chandran" <vpcnk

>

>>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.

Nanda,

Allan was saying something like this as well, a few months ago. Let me ask

-- if there was actually nothing in between, then why do we even think

there was sleep? Leaving the dream state aside for a moment, what you are

proposing here is exactly like a prolonged waking-state. In a stretch of

waking state, if there are intermittent gaps of absolute nothingness, they

would be recorded nowhere, and we wouldn't even know that there were gaps.

So, according to your explanation, what is the evidence that there are gaps?

--Greg

October 7, 1998

>"nanda chandran" <vpcnk

>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.

Nanda - it is not just the semantics - there is some problem in

understanding. If you still have the sense of me, as doer or meditator -

then you are still in the state of duality identifying with the upaadhiis.

If you are in that absolute state there should not be any more notions that

you are the doer and that is being done. In the avadhuuta Geeta- Bhagavaan

Dattatreya says:

aham dhyaataa param dhyeyam

akhanDam khaDate katham||

I am the meditator and this is to be meditated upon, how can one

differentiate in the undifferentiable.

The apparent distinctions need to be negated as part of the neti - since

they are only apparent and not real.

> It's actually as if the psychical "I" is the

>object of this consciousness.

Any thing that is the object of consciousness is not you, object being

jadam or inert. In the dR^ik dR^isya viveka - Bhagavaan Shankara makes it

very clear:

1. Object is different from the subject

2. Object can never be a subject

3. Subject can never be an object. Hence subject is singular.

4. That subject is you, the conscious entity.

>This is definitely not in accordance with

>the, "end of the rise of the I Ö", 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!

Sorry - I did not follow the logic or the arguments presented. We cannot be

conscious of the consciousness. If we are, then consciousness becomes an

object. Object being a jadam then there is contradiction since the

statement implies subject becoming an object.

>

>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.

The mechanics of 'the process' - is consciousness reflected through the

intellect - is the individual consciousness - That is the one which is

doing even the neti and neti - When the intellect is pushed to the limit of

inquiry - to inquire about the inquirer - the inquiry itself stops since

any further inquiry leads back to the question of who is that inquirer -so

on to another inquiry -

Then what happens is beyond explanations - analysis . There is where the

meditater and meditated become one - That is me. The inquirer, the

individual i or the reflected i disappears to the one I - as Bhagavaan

Ramana says:

ahami naasha bagyahamaham taya|

sprurati hRit svayam parama puurana sat||

when the false i falls the real I as aham aham aham - swayam spurati - that

understanding raises spontaneously and this I, is param, purnam and sat

swaruupam, - hence free from all limitations.

And that sat swaruupam is the chit swaruupam since it is puurnam and

paramam too, full and complete and supreme.

>

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

>states, "how can the knower be known?".

Yes knower cannot be 'known' as object. Hence it is not just

consciousness but self-consciousness entity. knows itself by itself.

swayam jyoti - it existence does not depend on another consciousness to

illumine. - hence Ramana's statement - aham aham swayam spurati.

Besides no means of knowledge is valid here. If you are in pitch dark room

and I ask are you there, your response will be yes I am - that you are an

existent and conscious entity - no means of knowledge is required. All

means are possible only because you are already there to validate all other

means.

> So generally the Soul is

>understood to be the ultimate knobbier. 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.

Nanda, one has to be careful here. When it is said it is knower - it is

from our point. From the point of the absolute - no statement can be made

or valid since it is absolute, undifferentiable and infinite. No

knower-known distinction. It is just sat chit ananda swaruupa to discard

any notions that it is suunyata. Even that statement that it is sat chit

ananda is only from the reference of jiiva.

> 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.

There is one difference - cause-effect recognition itself is not ignorance.

There are two terms - one is illusion and the next is delusion. Seeing the

plurality is the illusion. There is no ignorance in that. There can be

knower-known - the movement, the change etc., - all illusion.

The delusion is taking the illusion as real - that is the ignorance part.

Hence realization is not the absence of knower-known distinctions but

taking the distinctions as real. Baghavaan Ramana was transacting like

every body - eating, sleeping, helping in the kitchen etc. yet he has no

misunderstanding that the plurality is real. By knowledge the illusion

does not disappear only the delusion since the delusion is in the

individual mind while the illusion is due to the projection of collective

mind (objective illusions). These distinctions have to be clear. Other

wise we tend to jump from one reference to the other.

> And as with causes, no effect is

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

The self as absolute does not see other than itself. In the presence of

the self, the reflected consciousness see through the buddhi, mind and

senses. But understanding is I am the self and because of me every thing

is illumined. I am in all of them but I am free from all of them, because

there is no misunderstanding that the seen is real. I can see if I want or

I can turn the TV off and revel in myself. That is my glory! Even now it

is the same story, but I am getting carried away what is seen as real and

suffer the consequences of that misunderstanding.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

October 8, 1998

At 07:26 AM 10/8/98 -0400, sadananda wrote:

>2. In deep sleep, there is consciousness which is of the nature of

>Knowledge. In deep sleep consciousness can never cease to exist since it is

>self-existence entity and because of that only there is also knowledge of

>the absence of any thing in the deep sleep. Absence of nothing is a

>positive knowledge and not lack of any knowledge.

Another way of saing this is that absence of an object is still an object.

Let's say a person wakes up every morning and first thing, puts on his

glasses which were on the bedside table. During the night one night, he

knocks them off and they fall under the bed. When he wakes up the next

morning, he will not see the glasses. But he will also *not see the table

that the glasses had rested on*. What he will "see" is the absence of the

glasses. Like when you go to the parking lot and see your car is not

there. Someone stole it, and what you are seeing is the absence of your car.

In deep sleep and in some kinds of samadhi, you are seeing the ultimate

object, viz., the absence of all objects.

--Greg

October 8, 1998

nanda chandran wrote:

> GMurthy and Greg, you've not understood what

> I said. Sadananda, Charles and Frank have -

> except they don't agree with me. Or do they? :-)

i do agree with you, if by what you're saying

alludes to the idea of sat-chit-ananda in the

turiya state possessing the equivalent of the

quality of consciousness *in terms of awareness*

that, for example, a plant may have: which may be

termed as "unconsciousness." nevertheless, and

unmistakably however, a *form* of consciousness.

(remember how jung used the same terminology in

describing the hub within the archetypal human

paradigm as per our 'collective unconscious.')

if this isn't what you mean't, it seems likely

then you're alluding to the fact that the turiya

state defies definable attributes of any kind,

including consciousness, bliss, or even being.

therefore the reference has been made in this

light, maintaining "neti, neti," that the state

is technically: not without Being, not without

Consciousness, not without Bliss. as sadananda

has pointed out: "It is just sat chit ananda

swaruupa to discard any notions that it is

suunyata. Even that statement that it is sat chit

ananda is only from the reference of jiiva."

yes, the state itself causes all of this to collapse.

speculating, assessing, philosophising, become

themselves words without meaning. virtually nothing

can be said about this ever existent and utterly

automatic [regardless of the mind's attitude towards

it] sahaja atmanishta, which even now blazes within

our midst in its fullest glory!, if we have but eyes

to see it...simple eyes!...as even in the midst of a

flower, a tragedy, a demon: for these manifestations

are flashes of its unknowable mahamounam. therefore

nothing we can possibly say will ever describe It!

approaching the threshold of jnana diksha: in the

last stages of the philosophical pursuit, one begins

to recognize the impossibility of the existence of an

absolute question (viz. a conceivable question that

doesn't engage relativity), therefore all questions

are discovered to be intrinsically irrelevant.

peacepeacepeace

in om

October 8, 1998

>Gregory Goode <goode

>

>Another way of saing this is that absence of an object is still an object.

>Let's say a person wakes up every morning and first thing, puts on his

>glasses which were on the bedside table. During the night one night, he

>knocks them off and they fall under the bed. When he wakes up the next

>morning, he will not see the glasses. But he will also *not see the table

>that the glasses had rested on*. What he will "see" is the absence of the

>glasses. Like when you go to the parking lot and see your car is not

>there. Someone stole it, and what you are seeing is the absence of your car.

>

>In deep sleep and in some kinds of samadhi, you are seeing the ultimate

>object, viz., the absence of all objects.

>

>--Greg

Greg - you are right. I think there is a technical term for this as a

means of knowledge - (it is one of the 6 means of knowledge - pramaaNa)

It is like, if I know the type of shoes my beloved wares, and when I go to

the temple to meet her (where people leave the shoes outside and where some

people meet their beloveds too! ), I can infer her absence in the temple by

the absence of her shoes outside the temple. Both are absent! But the

knowledge is present. Knowledge of the absence of shoes is the direct

knowlege. Absence of her in the temple is the inferential knowledge.

But Shankara is trying to point out a more important aspect - that

consciousness is self-existent thing and it is pure knowledge. Its

existence does not depend on any means of knowledge, pramaaNa*. Hence it

can never cease to exist. Hence it shoud be present at all time including

in the deep sleep state. This is a very powerful argument. Consciousness

cannot be dismissed at any time since it has to be there even to dismiss.

Hence the validity of the neti neti approach to arrive at non-negatable

consciousness. Second aspect, of course, is what you pointed out - in the

deep sleep state absence of any thing is also known as a direct positive

knowledge and it is not an inferential knowledge as Nanda feels.

* This is one of the points I had discussions related to Vedanta shaastra

as the ultimate pramaaNa with Vidya and Anand in the advaita-L. They noted

that the Shastra as a pramaaNa points out the equation That consciousness

you are is the same consciouness as the Brahman". I am not sure if I need

Vedanta Shaastra to prove that - If consciouness is self-existent and it

cannot be an object of another consciousness - hence being single - it has

to be infinite and hence Brahman. I can deduce that logically without

knowing Vedanta shaastraas or without depending on the shaastraas to

provide that as a means of knowledge. Being a self-existent entity

Shankara proves that it is satyam, JNaanam and anantam - hence has to be

Brahman. Shaastra of course confirms the logical deduction too; and logic

confirms the statement of Shastraas. The truth is beyond the logic and the

shaastraas since no means of knowledge is needed for the self-existent

entity.

Hari Om!

Sadanadna

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

October 8, 1998

At 10:56 AM 10/8/98 -0400, f. maiello wrote:

>i do agree with you, if by what you're saying

>alludes to the idea of sat-chit-ananda in the

>turiya state possessing the equivalent of the

>quality of consciousness *in terms of awareness*

>that, for example, a plant may have: which may be

>termed as "unconsciousness." nevertheless, and

>unmistakably however, a *form* of consciousness.

I don't know whether I'm agreeing with Nanda or not, but I do agree with

what I think Frank is saying here. A plant doesn't possess consciousness,

and a rock doesn't fail to possess consciousness. Instead, they ARE

consciousness, appearing as images or forms within consciousness.

Yes, according to a teacher I know in the Chinmaya Mission, the sat, chit

and ananda are three "non-qualifying attributes" of Brahman. They aren't

supposed to define or characterize Brahman, but rather to illustrate that

Brahman or turiya is *not limited* by nonexistence, *not limited* by

unconsciousness, and *not limited* by suffering.

>approaching the threshold of jnana diksha: in the

>last stages of the philosophical pursuit, one begins

>to recognize the impossibility of the existence of an

>absolute question (viz. a conceivable question that

>doesn't engage relativity), therefore all questions

>are discovered to be intrinsically irrelevant.

Dare I say this is true... Sooner or later, it will be seen that absolute

questions, such as:

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" or

"Where does diversity come from?" or

"Whose identification is it?" or

"What is the cause of experience?"

can only be answered by further explanatory inroads into relativity of all

kinds -- into diversity, doership, causality, etc. Approaching the

threshold, one will feel the "tug" of these questions diminish...

--Greg

October 8, 1998

At 11:20 AM 10/8/98 -0400, sadananda wrote:

>>In deep sleep and in some kinds of samadhi, you are seeing the ultimate

>>object, viz., the absence of all objects.

>>

>>--Greg

>

>Greg - you are right. I think there is a technical term for this as a

>means of knowledge - (it is one of the 6 means of knowledge - pramaaNa)

In English this pramaaNa is called "non-perception," I've got notes at home

with the Sanscrit term.

>It is like, if I know the type of shoes my beloved wares, and when I go to

>the temple to meet her (where people leave the shoes outside and where some

>people meet their beloveds too! ), I can infer her absence in the temple by

>the absence of her shoes outside the temple. Both are absent! But the

>knowledge is present. Knowledge of the absence of shoes is the direct

>knowlege. Absence of her in the temple is the inferential knowledge.

>

>But Shankara is trying to point out a more important aspect - that

>consciousness is self-existent thing and it is pure knowledge. Its

>existence does not depend on any means of knowledge, pramaaNa*. Hence it

>can never cease to exist. Hence it shoud be present at all time including

>in the deep sleep state. This is a very powerful argument.

Yes, this is a very important aspect. And it's exactly relevant to this

understanding deep sleep as an object instead of as a nothingness.

Deep-sleep-as-object is like a prakriya. (Some teachers use this method,

and others at times call deep sleep an interval or gap or nothingness, such

as the gap between thoughts; but that method is to point out other

aspects.) Showing deep sleep as an object points to the fact that there is

Something to which this object appears. Hence this Something is present at

all times. So when the questioner says that there are times when

consciousness is absent, it can be shown that these times are instead

nothing other than subtle objects like the absence of thoughts.

>Consciousness

>cannot be dismissed at any time since it has to be there even to dismiss.

>Hence the validity of the neti neti approach to arrive at non-negatable

>consciousness. Second aspect, of course, is what you pointed out - in the

>deep sleep state absence of any thing is also known as a direct positive

>knowledge and it is not an inferential knowledge as Nanda feels.

>

>* This is one of the points I had discussions related to Vedanta shaastra

>as the ultimate pramaaNa with Vidya and Anand in the advaita-L. They noted

>that the Shastra as a pramaaNa points out the equation That consciousness

>you are is the same consciouness as the Brahman". I am not sure if I need

>Vedanta Shaastra to prove that - If consciouness is self-existent and it

>cannot be an object of another consciousness - hence being single - it has

>to be infinite and hence Brahman. I can deduce that logically without

>knowing Vedanta shaastraas or without depending on the shaastraas to

>provide that as a means of knowledge.

Yes, this is interesting, and seems an issue for the Vedantic theory of

epistemology. I'm not sure whether the pramaaNa's are hierarchical or not.

As far as using one of the pramaaNas to prove that the "consciousness you

are is the same as Brahman" this can get thorny. If a Zen master comes up

with the same idea in his language, never having read the Vedanta Shastras

-- has he a right to the conclusion? I think we'd say Yes, and point to

other pramaaNas that he used.

> Being a self-existent entity

>Shankara proves that it is satyam, JNaanam and anantam - hence has to be

>Brahman. Shaastra of course confirms the logical deduction too; and logic

>confirms the statement of Shastraas. The truth is beyond the logic and the

>shaastraas since no means of knowledge is needed for the self-existent

>entity.

Yes, the Truth requires no pramaaNa, and has no "mark" either (forget the

Sanscrit on that one too...)

Hari Om!

--Greg

October 8, 1998

Greg, Sadhana:

The Waker, Dreamer and Deep Sleeper are one and the same. Through each of

them the Self is ever present. Therefore, although I do not remember my

deep sleep state "I AM". Because of the constant interaction in the world

of thoughts, emotions, objects, me the ego does not realize who I really

am.