Who is the deep sleeper, I?

[Guest guest]

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

>Namaste.

>

>I wonder if Shri Sadananda can publish again his article on who is the

>sleeper which he said he wrote after contemplating on MAnDUkya kArika.

>I am quite interested in seeing that article and that perspective.

 

Murthy Gaaru here is the article I found in my files buried deep somewhere.

The thoughts were reflection of my state of understanding at that time.

Hence I cannot be accountable now! Sorry for so many paranthetical notes,

everytime I read it I feel like changing it. Sri Ram Chandran, provided

the BMI chart to understand the BMI-PFT-OET. I must say one of the

beautiful contribution of Sri Swami Chinmayanandaji is the condensation of

the Vedanta into this simple looking chart. He was always using that to

explain the very difficult concepts. All my learning was under His

guidance and under Sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati, when he was in the

Chinmaya Mission. I have also learned a lot from Swami Tejomayaanandaji,

the current chaiman of the Chinmaya Mission. My humble pranaams to all of

them.

 

--------

REFLECTION: WHO IS THE DEEP SLEEPER I?

 

K. Sadananda

 

This article was written after listening to Sri Swami Chinmayanandaji's

discourses on Mandukya Karika at Houston camp during Dec. 1992. This was

my offering to Gurudev as my Gurudashina. Gurudev after reading it, send

it to Tapovan Prasad for publication, and it was published with some

corrections in May or June 1993 issue.

-------------------

 

The question, "Who is the experiencer of the deep sleep?" is discussed

extensively in Vedanta texts. It is much easier to recognize the

experiencer "I" in the waking and dream states since the subtle body

comprising of mind and intellect, is active in both states. Whereas in

deep sleep state, the identity of the experiencer is questioned since (a)

the mind and intellect are folded completely and (b) it is an experience of

absence of every thing including the feeler, thinker "I". In the deep

sleep state, the consciousness is enlivening only the causal body, and

there is an experience of absence of "every thing or any thing". According

to Vedanta, a thing or object is experienced only through mind, and the

absence of the mind is reflected as absence of "every thing". Then, who

experiences the deep sleep? Is there an experiencer at all? When I get up

in the morning and declare that "I slept well" - Is that statement an

inferential statement or a statement born out of positive experience? I

know "I" was there when I was dreaming, and I am there after I am awake,

but in the intermediate stage, during deep sleep, I do not know whether "I"

was there or not, since my experience is that I do not know any thing.

Since I was there before I went to deep sleep and I am there when I was

awake, by inference, "I" must have been there in the deep sleep as well,

experiencing the absence of duality. But if it is only by inference, I can

not make a statement, that I enjoyed the bliss of the deep sleep, unless I

was present during the deep sleep too enjoying that deep sleep. It is like

a plate of laDDu on a table. LaDDu and I were alone there in the room when

the lights went out. When the lights came back, I was there but laDDu was

not. By circumstantial evidence, I infer that I must have eaten the laDDu.

Unless that laDDu literally disappeared into my stomach, and I have the

satisfaction that I enjoyed that laDDu, "I am the experiencer of that

LaDDu" is only an inference but not the truth. Since I enjoyed the deep

sleep, my deep sleep, therefore, is an intensive experience and not an

inferencial sleep. Furthermore, the law of memory states that the

experiencer and the remember has to be one and the same. Since "I" could

recollect the experience and declare that "I slept well", I must have been

there in the deep sleep state experiencing the sleep. The logic looks very

simple and straight forward: Who is the sleeper? I am the sleeper,

experiencer of the sleep and I enjoyed that experience.

 

But in truth, it is not that simple. We need to know who is that

"I" who claims that he is the experiencer. Let us reflect on the statement

more deeply. Let us go back to our basics. When I say, I was the

experiencer or enjoyer, who is making that statement. Obviously, it is the

statement made in the waking state. The consciousness, symbolized as OM,

identifying with the body is the perceiver, I, identifying with mind is the

feeler I, and identifying with intellect is the thinker, I. The perceiver,

feeler and thinker, "I" is the "ego", or the Jeeva. In the waking state,

the consciousness identifies with all the three bodies, the gross, the

subtle and the causal (Vasana) bodies, although most of the identification

in the waking state is centered around the gross body. Because of this

identification, a notion, a thought or mano vritti rises in the mind that I

am the perceiver, feeler, thinker, the Jeeva, perceiving, feeling and

thinking the world of objects, emotions and thoughts (OET), that is the

waking world. This identification is so complete that limitations of

bodies, the gross and the subtle, are taken to be my limitations. Thus, in

the waking state there is an experiencer, I, experiencing the world of OET.

Hence, the life becomes a series of experiences.

 

Coming back to the deep sleep experience, when I say I enjoyed the

sleep experience, "That I am the enjoyer, experiencer, etc.," is also a

mano vritti or a thought just as the I am the perceiver, feeler thinker, I,

the ego. Thus, at the outset, the ego is the experiencer. But when

analyzed deeply, ego can exit only with reference to the past or future,

and it has no existence in the present. Whereas all actions or enjoyments

or experiences are in the present. (Note that present is beyond the concept

of time - what is there in the present is the our presence). Thus when ego,

ahankar, says "I am the doer, experiencer, or enjoyer", it is a false

statement, or expressed differently, it is an inferential statement of the

mind and not the truth. Ego was there before the action, and present after

the action, and therefore falsely infers or claims that it is the performer

or enjoyer or experiencer. With reference to deep sleep, mind was there

before and after the sleep, but not during the sleep. But when awake a

thought arises in the mind that "I slept very well". Hence, from the point

of the mind or thought or ego, it is only an inferential statement, since

it was not there during the experience. In fact, even in the waking state,

ego (ahankar) has the feeling that " I am doing or I am the doer". In

truth, it was never a doer, when the action was being done since it was not

there to do any thing at the time of action or experience or at "Present".

(Note added: Who is the doer then is an involved question and I will

address in the internet some other time!) ( A note added now - that promiss

was never fulfulled!)

 

Then, we are back to the main question - Who is the sleeper? We

have established that it is an experience and not an inference. In fact, we

can ask the same question for experiences in the other states too? Who is

the perceiver, feeler, thinker or experiencer of waking state, dream state

or deep sleep state. Since perceiving, feeling, thinking or experiencing

can only be done not in the past or future but in present alone, and since

ego has no bearing in the present, we are forced to conclude that

experiencer, feeler, thinker, doer and as well as non-doer is nothing but

OM alone, even though ego falsely claims that it is the doer. This in fact

is the truth. ( Note added: When I say I am the doer, or even the

perceiver, feeler and thinker etc. - it is also a thought - when that

thought arises, at that very second, the thought - I am the doer - is

being entertained by the mind and at that very second, momentarily at

least, all the doing has stopped, since the mind is busy entertaining that

thought. Thus Ego just pops in and claims the agency of action - when the

action or enjoying is going on - that is when the mind is preoccupied with

the action or enjoyment - the mind is free from the thought that I am the

doer and thinker - free from the ego. - Therefore ego is never an doer or

enjoyer - it is not really the perceiver, feeler, thinker). I am the doer

referring to the Ego as the doer is only an inferential conclusion. Hence

the statement it is only the OM alone that is the doer, feeler thinker and

enjoyer, since doing can be done by a conscious entity.

 

Now we know who is the experiencer or sleeper - it is nothing but

Om, the consciousness, I, experiencing the waking state by identifying with

the gross body, experiencing the dream state by identifying with the subtle

body, and experiencing the deep sleep state by identifying with the causal

body. Ego, which is nothing but a modification of mind or thought process,

due to non-apprehension of this truth that consciousness alone is the doer

or enjoyer, misapprehends and makes a false claim that ego is the doer or

enjoyer. Now we have an answer to the question, "Who is the sleeper, doer

or enjoyer?" It is nothing but OM!

 

Oh! But that is not true either. From the point of consciousness-

it is described as "akartAham, abhOktAham - ahamEvAhamavyayah". "I am

neither doer nor enjoyer (experiencer). I am that immutable and eternal,

one without a second without any modifications". From this statement, OM

can not be the sleeper or experiencer or doer either. Therefore we are

back to the base - Who really is then the sleeper, experiencer?

 

There is no true answer to the question because the question itself

is invalid. The problem is that we are trying to seek the subject with an

intellect which is in the realm of time and thus limited and bound, about

the subject or experiencer of the experience, who is beyond time. ( Note

that time concept itself is folded in the deep sleep state since it is a

single experience rather than two experiences needed to define the time).

And the truth lies beyond the intellect, transcending time and space. (Note

added: it is beyond the intellect in the sense it is beyond the normal

means of knowledge available for the intellect such as pratyaksha, anumana

etc. or beyond the logic and inference). Only way to solve the problem is

to recognize that the problem is invalid. From the point of the limited

intellect, the answer is analytically correct that OM is the true

experiencer or doer, or sleeper etc, and we have to reject the false claims

of the ego that it is the doer, experiencer or enjoyer, since it has no

existence in the present when doing or experiencing is taking place. From

the point of OM, it is neither doer or enjoyer, since it is non-duel, one

without a second, and full and complete, and beyond all causes and effects

and thus beyond time. In fact, doer, non-Doer, experiencer, experienced,

sleeper or non-sleeper are all projections of the mind, recognizing its

presence as well as its absence. Only way to realize the truth by

rejecting all false (non-self) and recognizing that I am that subject who

is neither the doer nor the enjoyer. (Note added- These is where Sastra

pramana comes in providing that JNaana that I am that - no other pramana is

valid - that is why Sankaracharya says JNaanam vinaa moksho na sidhyati -

without JNaanam Moksha is not obtained)

 

Now, answer to the question, "Who is the sleeper?" depends on who

is asking the question. For an ego centric samsari, one who is turned

outwards, the simple answer is it is the little 'i', the guy who has a dot

on his head, the ego, who transacts in the world with the notion that 'I am

the doer and enjoyer'. For a contemplative student or sadhak, it is OM

that is the doer or experiencer, since OM alone is present when doing or

experiencing is taking place. From the point of realized master, the

question has no meaning, since there is neither the sleep nor the sleeper,

experience or the experiencer and even the question and the questioner.

"Jyotir Jyotihi, Swayam Jyotihi Ahamevahamavyayah". "Aakartaham, Abhoktaham

-Ahamevahamavyayah". I am the light of all lights, self-effulgent mass of

consciousness, I am neither doer nor enjoyer I am one without the second,

without undergoing any modifications!

 

Hence Krishana declares:

prakR^ityaivacha karmaaNi kriyamaaNaani sarvashaH|

yaH pasyati tadaatmaanam akarthaaram sa pasyati||

 

All actions are being done by the prakRiti itself. One who sees that one

is a non-doer in all actions is the one who really sees the truth!

 

He repeats again:

 

praKR^iteH kriyamaaNaani gunaiH karmaaNi sarvashaH|

ahankaara vimuuDhaatmaa kartaahamiti manyate||

 

All actions are due to the the prakRiti due to its nature or guNaas.

It is only out of ignorence that one feels that one is the doer.

 

Who is the real sleeper - Body(grosser and subtle) slept but nobody really

slept to answer that question!

----------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Hi Sri Sadananda,

 

Two things I especially like about this article:

 

1. >the simple answer is it is the little 'i', the guy who

>has a dot on his head

 

Nice metaphor!

 

2. In the last paragraph, the technique of showing that the question can be

answered from three different levels, according to who is asking. This is

a technique I have seen in the Chinmaya lessons with my teacher Sri George

Romney -- that is, showing how the answer depends on whether the question

is asked from the viewpoint of the "little i," from that of the sadhak, or

that of the realized master. Great teaching technique. Another way to

give the three levels is: From the standpoint of the BMI, the standpoint

of Brahman identified with the uphaadies, or from unconditioned Brahman

Itself.

 

--Greg

Greg Goode (e-mail: goode)

Computer Support

Phone: 4-5723

[Guest guest]

Hello everyone,

 

Perhaps you've had the experience of being deeply asleep and oblivious to

very loud noises in the environment when you suddenly awaken because of one

small but significant sound ( maybe a baby stirring ) ? Something seems to

be deciding which sounds are important and which are not and this

"something" has the ability to switch on the waking state if necessary. I

don't see how this "something" could function and be asleep at the same

time. Are there levels of mind which are also continuous or is Atman the

only continuity through the 3 states?

 

--

<ac

 

P.S.

 

Thanks to Ram for addressing an awkward issue on behalf of us all.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I am grateful to Shri Sadananda for making his article available. It is

indeed nice of him to dig that out of his files. It is a fine artcle.

While I realize the article was written sometime ago, I wonder if the

following point can be clarified.

 

 

> sadananda <sada

>

> --------

> REFLECTION: WHO IS THE DEEP SLEEPER I?

>

> K. Sadananda

>

> This article was written after listening to Sri Swami Chinmayanandaji's

> discourses on Mandukya Karika at Houston camp during Dec. 1992. This was

> my offering to Gurudev as my Gurudashina. Gurudev after reading it, send

> it to Tapovan Prasad for publication, and it was published with some

> corrections in May or June 1993 issue.

> -------------------

>

> [...]

> Coming back to the deep sleep experience, when I say I enjoyed the

> sleep experience, "That I am the enjoyer, experiencer, etc.," is also a

> mano vritti or a thought just as the I am the perceiver, feeler thinker, I,

> the ego. Thus, at the outset, the ego is the experiencer. But when

> analyzed deeply, ego can exit only with reference to the past or future,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> and it has no existence in the present. Whereas all actions or enjoyments

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> or experiences are in the present. (Note that present is beyond the concept

> of time - what is there in the present is the our presence). Thus when ego,

> ahankar, says "I am the doer, experiencer, or enjoyer", it is a false

> statement, or expressed differently, it is an inferential statement of the

> mind and not the truth. Ego was there before the action, and present after

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> the action, and therefore falsely infers or claims that it is the performer

> or enjoyer or experiencer. With reference to deep sleep, mind was there

> before and after the sleep, but not during the sleep. But when awake a

> thought arises in the mind that "I slept very well". Hence, from the point

> of the mind or thought or ego, it is only an inferential statement, since

> it was not there during the experience. In fact, even in the waking state,

> ego (ahankar) has the feeling that " I am doing or I am the doer". In

> truth, it was never a doer, when the action was being done since it was not

> there to do any thing at the time of action or experience or at "Present".

> (Note added: Who is the doer then is an involved question and I will

> address in the internet some other time!) ( A note added now - that promiss

> was never fulfulled!)

 

Why does the ego not have existence in the present? My perception is:

it is the ego's thinking that there is a past and a future that sets up

the tri-kAlAs. Without that thinking, there are no tri-kAlAs, it (the

kAlA) is always in the ever-present mode.

 

The only situation when ego is not present is in the deep sleep or in

the wake-up state at realization. Am I correct in that thinking?

> [rest of the fine article deleted]

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

This is a comment regarding Gurumurthy's questions and comments on the essay

by Sadananada (both included below).

 

It is my understanding that, according to Einstein, time is a necessary

dimension of the creation. So it is not an entirely subjective phenomenon

like my seeing the cloth as purple and your seeing it as red. It's still

part of the entire perceived reality, or Maya.

 

I also would like ot hear more about how "ego" doesn't exist in the present.

Maybe what I need to know to understand this is what is meant here by ego.

Also, whose ego are we discussing. Is it the ego of an ignorant person who

always has a vritti "I am so-and-so, child of my parents, born in

such-and-such country, so many years old, having somuch education and no

more." Or are we talking about the jnani?

 

I would venture to say that ego is not present also in a moment of joy and

love as well as in deep sleep. The experience of the individuality

dissolving in the totality happens to everyone but they don't recognize it

for what it is.

 

Aikya Param

P.O. Box 4193

Berkeley, CA 94704-0193

Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics)

http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/

Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version)

http://members.tripod.com/~aikya/

 

 

The preceding referred to --

>> Coming back to the deep sleep experience, when I say I enjoyed the

>> sleep experience, "That I am the enjoyer, experiencer, etc.," is also a

>> mano vritti or a thought just as the I am the perceiver, feeler thinker,

I,

>> the ego. Thus, at the outset, the ego is the experiencer. But when

>> analyzed deeply, ego can exit only with reference to the past or future,

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> and it has no existence in the present. Whereas all actions or

enjoyments

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> or experiences are in the present. (Note that present is beyond the

concept

>> of time - what is there in the present is the our presence). Thus when

ego,

>> ahankar, says "I am the doer, experiencer, or enjoyer", it is a false

>> statement, or expressed differently, it is an inferential statement of

the

>> mind and not the truth. Ego was there before the action, and present

after

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> the action, and therefore falsely infers or claims that it is the

performer

>> or enjoyer or experiencer

 

and these questions/comments --

>Why does the ego not have existence in the present? My perception is:

>it is the ego's thinking that there is a past and a future that sets up

>the tri-kAlAs. Without that thinking, there are no tri-kAlAs, it (the

>kAlA) is always in the ever-present mode.

>

>The only situation when ego is not present is in the deep sleep or in

>the wake-up state at realization. Am I correct in that thinking?

>

>> [rest of the fine article deleted]

>

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

>

>

>

>

>

>

>------

>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

[Guest guest]

> I would venture to say that ego is not present also in a moment of

joy and

> love as well as in deep sleep. The experience of the

individuality

> dissolving in the totality happens to everyone but they don't

recognize it

* for what it is.

 

I remember reading in a small monograph on Advaita that the ever

discriminating subjective self is absent whenever one is absorbed in a

'happy' experience - such as listening to a piece of music, enjoying good

game etc. It is only after we are through with the experience that we become

our 'discriminating selves" to declare that "I enjoyed the music", "I was

happy watching the game". The author states that it is not the object per se

that is responsible for the enjoyment as much as the temporary absence of

the ego with all its discrimination and possession.

 

T. Hari Krishna

[Guest guest]

At 08:31 AM 10/19/98 -0700, Aikya_Param wrote:

>"Aikya_Param" <aikya

>

>This is a comment regarding Gurumurthy's questions and comments on the essay

>by Sadananada (both included below).

>

>It is my understanding that, according to Einstein, time is a necessary

>dimension of the creation.

 

Yes, but in Advaita Vedanta, creation is just one of the teachings. In the

Mandukya Upanishad, (which is usually taught towards the end of the

student's Upanishadic training) Gaudapada in effect does away with cause,

effect, creation and destruction. Here is sloka II.32, which I happen to

have from a previous e-mail, and there are certainly more appropriate

passages (But the book is at home, sorry.)

 

"There is no dissolution, no birth,

none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom,

no seeker of liberation, and none liberated.

This is the absolute truth."

>I also would like ot hear more about how "ego" doesn't exist in the present.

>Maybe what I need to know to understand this is what is meant here by ego.

>Also, whose ego are we discussing. Is it the ego of an ignorant person who

>always has a vritti "I am so-and-so, child of my parents, born in

>such-and-such country, so many years old, having somuch education and no

>more." Or are we talking about the jnani?

 

The reason that the ego doesn't exist in the present is that anything that

makes a situation NOT the present contains some kind of element of the

past, the future, or counterfactuality. And these are the only components

that the ego can be made of. The past ("I graduated summa cum laude"), the

future ("My next book will revolutionize quantum mechanics") or

counterfactuality ("I wish this weren't happening; I want that to happen

instead.") Desires fall into the category or of counterfactuality.

 

But many experiences are great examples of the presence of the Present,

such as profound prayer, reading a good book, listening to music you love,

playing a sport (in "The ZONE" as athletes say) -- even the pain from

stubbing your toe in the dark. In these cases, there are none of the above

elements, that is, no past, future, and desire or other departure from the

present. Also there is even "anyone" there to know or suspect these

elements. Proof is that during these times, there is no monitoring, no

chatter, no evaluation, comparison going on. Any of that stuff comes in

only AFTER or BEFORE one of these pure experiences. And that irruption is

the ego, making some claim seemingly about the experiences.

 

My teacher, Francis Lucille, says of the appearance of the ego at these

times, "It is like the clown coming on stage after the ballerina's

performance, taking the bow for her."

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

>"Tadepalli, Hari K" <hari.k.tadepalli

>

>I remember reading in a small monograph on Advaita that the ever

>discriminating subjective self is absent whenever one is absorbed in a

>'happy' experience - such as listening to a piece of music, enjoying good

>game etc. It is only after we are through with the experience that we become

>our 'discriminating selves" to declare that "I enjoyed the music", "I was

>happy watching the game". The author states that it is not the object per se

>that is responsible for the enjoyment as much as the temporary absence of

>the ego with all its discrimination and possession.

>

>T. Hari Krishna

 

True - as long as mind is preoccupied with a single experience -But happy

state more particularly since at that instant, the mind is free from the

thoughts. In those moments, there is no observer and the observed -

thinker and the thoughts - It is only the present where there is only the

presence of the conscious, existent entity. I am happy is the experience

rather than I have happiness. When one is in sorrow - one is flooded

with too many thoughts. Since mind gets so tired soon, the time appears

to go very slow in relation to the observation of the clock or sun outside.

Examplifies the intense subjectivity of the time concept.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

I love this --

>My teacher, Francis Lucille, says of the appearance of the ego at these

>times, "It is like the clown coming on stage after the ballerina's

>performance, taking the bow for her."

>

>--Greg

 

 

Thanks so much for sharing that with us.

 

Aikya Param

P.O. Box 4193

Berkeley, CA 94704-0193

Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics)

http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/

Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version)

http://members.tripod.com/~aikya/

[Guest guest]

Question from the newbie: in your statement that ego is never present,

i.e. in the moment, I offer the following example of what I think is a

statement from ego without reference to past or future.

 

I am the best baseball player alive.

 

I like your ideas in the post to which this is a response but I question

whether or not ego cannot be present. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

 

 

 

 

Love and light,

Eric.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 Gregory Goode <goode wrote:

> The reason that the ego doesn't exist in the present is that anything that

 

Ego and creation are concurrent: you cannot have one without the other.

> makes a situation NOT the present contains some kind of element of the

> past, the future, or counterfactuality.

 

CounterFACTuality? Who determines what is a fact and what is not?

A smoker trying to give up his habit is faced with conflicting

desires: which of the two is a fact?

> And these are the only components

> that the ego can be made of. The past ("I graduated summa cum laude"), the

> future ("My next book will revolutionize quantum mechanics") or

> counterfactuality ("I wish this weren't happening; I want that to happen

> instead.") Desires fall into the category or of counterfactuality.

 

This seems to be limiting the ego to manomayako"sa.

> But many experiences are great examples of the presence of the Present,

> such as profound prayer, reading a good book, listening to music you love,

> playing a sport (in "The ZONE" as athletes say) -- even the pain from

> stubbing your toe in the dark. In these cases, there are none of the above

> elements, that is, no past, future, and desire or other departure from the

> present.

 

So the chatterbox (manas) is quiet, and there is a direct connection

between buddhi and the senses.

> Also there is even "anyone" there to know or suspect these

> elements.

 

Then what interacts with the sensory world?

> Proof is that during these times, there is no monitoring, no

> chatter, no evaluation, comparison going on. Any of that stuff comes in

> only AFTER or BEFORE one of these pure experiences.

 

Manas is quiet. This is a natural way of intereacting with the world:

it is free of stress and uncommonly efficient.

> And that irruption is

> the ego, making some claim seemingly about the experiences.

 

It seems that for most people, manas is in a continual flux of swirling

thoughts and feelings, except in deep sleep. Once buddhi has clearly

seen the difference in working with and without this sort of running

commentary provided by manas, one is highly motivated to drop that

energy-sapping habit. The ego, however, resides in the buddhi and not

in manas: it is the sense of agency in the present moment. You have

described a very limited aspect of the ego, limited to claiming the

fruits of action, before or after: it is a lot more subtle than that.

> My teacher, Francis Lucille, says of the appearance of the ego at these

> times, "It is like the clown coming on stage after the ballerina's

> performance, taking the bow for her."

 

The clown can also appear _during_ the performance, as a show-off, for

example: "Hey! Everyone, look at me! See how well I danc...oops!" But

even without the clown there _at_all_ there is still the ego controlling

th performance of the ballerina's body as the supervisor, if not the doer.

 

Nonetheless, given the sequence described, i.e. the clown claiming the

fruit of the past performance of the ballerina, that activity of claiming

can only take place in the present moment.

 

Regards, Charles.

[Guest guest]

>"Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82

>

>Question from the newbie: in your statement that ego is never present,

>i.e. in the moment, I offer the following example of what I think is a

>statement from ego without reference to past or future.

>

>I am the best baseball player alive.

 

Thanks for your post.

 

Suppose if I ask you, how can you say that your are the best baseball

player - assuming that you are not playing, when I am asking - You have to

dig out your historical record - record of your past. In that statement 'I

am' part relates to the present - the rest of the part is identification

with the past - is it not?

 

Suppose you are playing at this very moment - obviously you cannot answer

my question, unless you stop at least for a second to answer; at which

time you will not be playing. Your response will be back to the history

up to the point you answer my question. Is it not? Please think about it.

When you are actually doing - ego does not come in -

Hence Krishna's statement - The activities belong to prakriti itself. Ego

unnecessarily goes there and claims.

 

The next point is if I ask who is that 'I' who thinks that he is the best

baseball player - you again provide loads of information about that "I'

(ego) that is being referred to in that statement but all references are

again related to the past, nothing about the present.

 

I hope that answers your question.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

At 02:17 PM 11/3/98 -0500, sadananda wrote:

>sadananda <sada

>

>>"Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82

>>

>>Question from the newbie: in your statement that ego is never present,

>>i.e. in the moment, I offer the following example of what I think is a

>>statement from ego without reference to past or future.

>>

>>I am the best baseball player alive.

>

>Thanks for your post.

>

>Suppose if I ask you, how can you say that your are the best baseball

>player - assuming that you are not playing, when I am asking - You have to

>dig out your historical record - record of your past. In that statement 'I

>am' part relates to the present - the rest of the part is identification

>with the past - is it not?

 

This is a great question! The reference points for the statement

 

"I am the best baseball player alive."

 

take you out of the "now" (think of all my past games), and out of the

"here," since you compare all other baseball players. Besides, at the

moment of uttering the statement, there was just uttering, no comparison,

no past, no future, etc.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

This has relevance to Eric Stewart's question of yesterday and my comment

of October 20 (Digest # 41) on the topic.

 

I see Shri Sadananda's point that the ego is not there at the present

instant and is there in the past and in the future. However, as we know,

there is no past or no future. It is always ever present. Hence we can

argue that ego is never there. But in the wake-up world, for the

unrealized, there is always ahaMkAra vyAghra vyathitam, the tormentation

by the tiger of ego.

 

Thus, intellectually, the argument that (i) the ego is not there at the

present instant, but only in the past and the future, (ii) further, the

past and future are never there, it is always present, (iii) hence, the

ego cannot be there at any time and is unreal; holds.

 

However, in practice, the feelings such as for e.g. (i) "I am the best

baseball player alive, (ii) I am the best or the worst interpreter of

Shri Shankara's advaita, (iii) I am the enjoyer of the fruits and I am

the doer of the actions, (iv) I am suffering the misery of this jagat;

all these which Shri Shankara calls ahaMkAra vyAghra vyathitam are the

ones to be eradicated. While technically it is not there in the present,

ego is the one that torments us in the present.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------