Guest guest Posted October 7, 1998 Report Share Posted October 7, 1998 Subtle ego or more substantial ego. Just what is it? There is an apparent focus for consciousness in the individual. That one remains as long as the individual life remains, even for the jnani. Since it began and ended, and we say the truth, the Self, remains the same in all three periods of time, we say that focus for consicousness is not as real, is only apparently real. This focus, from a psychological point of view you don't want to get rid of, or you become mentally ill in some way. The main thing is to understand that it is not as real, in the sense of remaining the same in all three periods of time, as is the Self. Aikya Param Berkeley, CA http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ sadananda <sada advaitin <advaitin > Wednesday, October 07, 1998 10:46 AM Re: Who am I? >sadananda <sada > >>"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 > > > > >------ >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 October 8, 1998 Report Share Posted October 8, 1998 Nanda - here are some notes from Upadesha Saahasri by Bhagavaan Shankara pertinent to deep sleep state. Translation by Swami Jagadaananda of Ramakrishna Math. >From Chapter II -Entitled - THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGELESS AND NON-DUEL SELF. Paragraphs: 90 - 93 Disciple: Sir ... Pure consciousness itself has to be admitted to be adventitious like waking and dream. For it is not known in deep sleep. Teacher: No. Think it over. It is not reasonable to say so. ....... We have already discussed that existence of consciousness does not depend on another - another being what we are conscious off. It exists by itself, while waking and dream etc. do not exist for themselves. We have already stated that whatsoever does not exist for itself is not self-existent. As pure consciousness, the self is self-existent. No one can prevent its independence of other things in as much as it never ceases to exist. Disciple: But I have shown an exception, namely I have no consciousness in deep sleep. Teacher: No, you contradict your self. Disciple: How is it a contradiction? Teacher: You contradict yourself by saying that you are not conscious when, as a matter of fact, you are so. Disciple: But sir, I was never conscious of consciousness or anything else in deep sleep. Teacher: You are then conscious in deep sleep. For you deny the existence of the OBJECTS of knowledge (in that state), but not that of the knowledge (since you made a statement that you are not consciousness of any thing in the deep sleep). I have already told you that what is your consciousness is nothing but absolute knowledge. The consciousness owing to whose presence you deny (the existence of things in deep sleep) by saying 'I was conscious of nothing'. is the knowledge, the consciousness which is your Self. As it never ceases to exist, its eternal immutability is self-evident and does not depend on any evidence; for an object of knowledge different from the self-evident Knower depends on an evidence in order to be known. Other than the object of the eternal Knowledge, that is indispensable in proving non-conscious things other than Itself, is immutable; for it is always of a self-evident nature. Just as iron, water etc. which are not of the nature of light and heat, depend for them on the sun, fire and other things other than themselves, but the sun and fire themselves, always of the nature of light and heat, do not depend for them on anything else. So being of the nature of pure Knowledge It does not depend on an evidence to prove its exists or that it is the Knower. ------- Then the discussion drifts into the nature of the Knowledge itself with the disciple asking about the transitory (object-knowledge) vs. self Knowledge. The arguments put forth by Bhagavaan Shankara rests on two aspects: 1. He first establishes that Consciousness is self-existent. and that self-existent consciousness is one own Self, who is self-existent. Any self-existent thing has to be Self-conscious since its existence or proof of its existence does not depend on existence of another. Any self-existent thing has to be eternal existence, that is, it never ceases to exist. If it does, then its cessation becomes an object of knowledge for some other existent entity which is conscious. Hence consciousness can never cease to exist. 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. It is like one entering into a dark room - If I ask, can you see any thing - the answer is, no it is too dark here, I cannot see any thing - How can you say you cannot see any thing. Becuase I can see - I can see the darkness - Vedanta declares: Andho anandho bhavati - the blind man is no more blind there- Blind man may say that I don't see any thing, I am born blind. But if asked, can you see that you are blind -He would answer, Yes I can see - I can see that I cannot see - ? If you can see - how can you say you are blind? andho anandho bhavati! 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 October 13, 1998 Report Share Posted October 13, 1998 Frank writes : >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. Yes. >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. No, you're misinterpreting me. It's beyond all definitions. Neither being, nor non-being. Neither consciousness or non-consciousness. > 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." And that's the position of Ramanuja, if I'm not mistaken. His Narayana is the highest product of *our* intellect. But I doubt if it corresponds with the Nirguna Brahman of Adi Shankara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 1998 Report Share Posted October 14, 1998 nanda chandran wrote: > > >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. > > No, you're misinterpreting me. It's beyond all definitions. Neither > being, nor non-being. Neither consciousness or non-consciousness. > ultimately, i can't disagree. but if someone inquires into whether the turiya state lacks consciousness, one would also have to say that such a thing cannot be either asserted or not-aaserted. (in fact, it was for this very reason, i believe, that Buddha remained silent when asked if the soul was real. viz: the answer is in the Heart and not the Mind.) now, depending on where on the so-called path of return one may be, i would say there are many [valid unto themselves] perspectives possible in this matter. here's my view: well, let's just say that from whatever we can conceive and therein assert in the attempt to allude to what the apriori turiya state is: however we refer to it, we cannot rightfully conclude it is such isolated characteristic as 'empty' or 'void' and thus, by definition, is without being and therefore--again, by definition --without consciousness. we have to acknowledge that it is not *merely* shuunya; but technically shuunya infused sathya / sathya infused shuunya. the absolute Base Essence brahman Constant is a void that is also full precisely because it is itself both void/plenum and beyond void/plenum. namaskaaram om shaanthi 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.