Guest guest Posted November 6, 1998 Report Share Posted November 6, 1998 Hari om, Discussions are indeed like manthan. In this churning not only the very vichara has its own joy & kicks, but also brings amruta in the end. But as the story goes, more often than not it is the visha which comes out first. Those who do not get deterred by this painful phase alone get the prasad of divine elixir of right appreciation - the amruta. It is a joy to witness some very good discussions in the advaitin list. At times I do feel like jumping in but then resolve to wait a little bit more. When the amruta is just round the corner then why deny the joy of its discovery to the person discussing the issue. The discussion on 'What is the ego' has now taken an interesting turn, and I am propelled to share my understanding too on the topic. The Oxford Dictionary defines ego as 'a conscious thinking subject, as that part of the mind which reacts to reality and has a sense of individuality, and also a sense of self-esteem.' The sanskrit parallel of ego is 'jiva-bhava'. In vedantic scriptures the word jiva is described as that conscious entity which has a definite sense of individuality, it has a definite identity-which is a sum total of the properties of its various upadhis blessed by the ever-existing & self-effulgent substratum. When we hear that ego is the root cause of all problems then we want to eliminate it lock, stock & barrel. But it is better if we first try to understand as to what is the 'real problem'. That I am a conscious thinking subject is no problem, it is in fact one the greatest blessings. That I can react to a situation is no problem again. If I have a sense of self-esteem then also it should be no problems, and individuality by itself too is no problem as such. The only problem is that the moment we define ourselves as so & so then along with this identity we also impose limitations on us. It is this intrinsic sense of limitation which doesn’t seem to be natural & acceptable to us. The mind naturally reacts to all limitations. Moksha implies freedom from all sense of limitations. A man of knowledge also has his own definite identity on this stage of life, each & everyone is unique, yet the beauty of Self-knowledge is that he has no sense of limitation whatsoever. So what we are trying to address is this sense of limitation alone. Thereafter this conscious entity free from all sense of limitations becomes a blessings for all, inspite of their upadhis, thoughts and experiences. They are the Brahmanishtha. The moment we get this beautiful body, mind & intellect (BMI) complex by our prarabdha karma's, then the omnipresent consciousness gets reflected in it. Blessed by the reflection of consciousness, the antahkarana gets activated, and thereafter a conditioned consciousness comes into being. This is the aham-vritti which because of the prarabdha karma's identifies itself with the entire BMI complex and comes to take itself as all this, including the experiencer (PFT) of objects, emotions & thoughts. This is what we call as the jiva. None of this is a problem. The problem is when I take my ultimate identity as this PFT alone. He who knows that 'I transcend this experiencer yet I pervade all the roles of this experiencer' knows the truth of himself. Such a person has transcended all sense of limitations and inspite of knowing that I am not this individuality alone, doesn’t bother if he appears as a perceiver to someone at a given time. It is extremely important to know the difference between 'experiencing' the conditioned consciousness, and 'knowing' oneself to be conditioned consciousness. The former is a blessing while the latter is a curse. Even though taking oneself to be this entity starts with the experience of BMI but the thought that 'I am the limited PFT- the jiva' doesn’t depend upon the constant awareness of our BMI complex. This implies that even when we are not conscious of our mind etc. this identity can & does exist, manifest or in an unmanifest condition. During the moments of joys or the deep sleep the experience etc. I as a limited guy is not experienced, yet we never say sushupti is same as samadhi. Experience of a state free from all limitations is not what Vedanta is professing. What is required is drawing the right lessons from the whole spectrum of experiences which we are getting even without any efforts on our part. The experience of sushupti is available to one & all, but what lessons have we learnt from it is the million dollar question. Yoga shastra (all kinds of Yogas included) helps us get sattvic experiences, while Vedanta shastra teaches us to get right lessons from the whole range of experiences we are getting every moment. Vedanta declares again & again that 'by knowledge alone you liberate yourself, and not by any experience.' A student of medicine having completed his degree course, is in the beginning intensely conscious of his having become a doctor. 'I am now a doctor' is his 'experience', in which he continuously & joyously revels. Later after some time even though he may not be consciously retaining that thought that 'I am a doctor', yet the initial effort of consciously & continuously reveling in that thought now culminates into a 'knowledge' that 'I am a doctor', and this 'knowledge' operates on all his thoughts, plans & relationships - unconsciously. Now it is immaterial whether the fellow is conscious of it or not, the knowledge will continue to operate. It may be easy to handle experiences, or at times even shove the experiencer on one side, but the real thing is to handle the deeply ingrained 'knowledge' that I am a PFT alone. Can we root out those mis-apprehensions which have trickled down deep into our psyche or rather our unconscious mind ? That alone is the challenge in front of all Vedantic scriptures & teachers. Real freedom is freedom from those baseless presumptions and apprehension of the truth of ourselves as revealed by the Upanishads - the pramana granths. It is a fact that the experiencer has almost infinite facets, the kinds of possible experiences are also almost infinite. Some time the time flies by, while at other times it doesn’t seem to move. Sometime the very experience of time is not there at all. During such moments the experiencer too will not be perceived, yet the ego remains, ready to jump in when the conditions are ideal. Experience of the absence of the experiencer by itself doesn’t effect our 'jiva-bhava' resting deep within the recesses of mind. Yes, the analysis of such moments does help a lot, in eliminating our erroneous apprehensions. We realize the relativity and thus the non-permanence of this guy, and thereafter if the intensity of awareness of this truth is deep & intense enough then this right appreciation will also trickle deep down in our psyche and root out the mis-apprehension. Bhagwan Bhasyakara Sri Sankara refutes the contention of Yogis in a very strong words that the non-experience of the thoughts or experiencer amounts to its elimination. The nature of moksha for such people will be to just sit down thoughtlessly, preferably eternally - a thoughtless act indeed. The Vedantic teachers fearlessly move around, free from all sense of limitations, inspite of their limited body, mind or intellect equipment's. Their knowledge alone is worthwhile. That's the unique & divine prasad of the great Vedic Rishis. Our prostration's at their feet, again & again. With love & om, Swami Atmananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1998 Report Share Posted November 9, 1998 On Sat, 7 Nov 1998 "Swami Atmananda" <atma wrote: > Bhagwan Bhasyakara Sri Sankara refutes the contention of Yogis in a very > strong words that the non-experience of the thoughts or experiencer amounts > to its elimination. The nature of moksha for such people will be to just sit > down thoughtlessly, preferably eternally - a thoughtless act indeed. That's brilliant! If you recall where he said that, do please share the reference. A corpse is thoughtless, so is deep sleep -- so what, it is not enlightenment! So often people are accused of being thoughtless, whereas they are in fact very thoughtful -- full of thoughts -- about something or someone else! What a burden it is to be thoughtful; what a joy to be thought-free. It is amazing how few people appreciate that being thought-free transcends the pairs of opposites, thoughtful and thoughtless. It is the same with the words careful, careless, and carefree: people are so careful, so full of cares and worries about their own concerns, that they become careless of the concerns of others. Children and the wise are carefree. Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 1998 Report Share Posted November 10, 1998 >Charles Wikner <WIKNER >It is the same with the words careful, careless, and carefree: >people are so careful, so full of cares and worries about their >own concerns, that they become careless of the concerns of others. >Children and the wise are carefree. > >Regards, Charles. Should one be carefully carefree - that involves effort - a constant struggle! - or carelessly carefree -that involves unconcern to others or carefreely carefull! - spontaneously carefull! - Concern without worry! Children are carefree because of the lack of understanding. Ignorently innocent. Wise are carefree because of understanding. Hence careful in helping others. Thanks. 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 November 10, 1998 Report Share Posted November 10, 1998 Well done Charles W. However, it is my humble opinion that :non-experience of the thoughts or experiencer amounts to its elimination" does not mean being thoughtless. Swami Chinmayananda's famous BMI chart explains this the best. I, meena am the ego, the Perceivor, Feeler and Thinker and I act in the world of Objects, Emotions and Thoughts. I act according to the texture of my vasanas. As Khalil Jibran says: "your hearts know in slines the secrets of the days and nights, but your ears thirst for the sound of your heart's knowledge. The heidden well-spring of your sould must nedds rise and run murmuring into the sea; and the treasure of your infinite depths would be revealed to your eyes." The thirst to know the Infinite that I Am That is there, but we have to become thought-less (mind and intellect must be quiet) in order to experience the Infinite. Meena Bhaga Grimsby, ON ---------- > Charles Wikner <WIKNER > advaitin > Re: Experince & Knowledge > Tuesday, November 10, 1998 2:46 AM > > Charles Wikner <WIKNER > > > On Sat, 7 Nov 1998 "Swami Atmananda" <atma wrote: > > > Bhagwan Bhasyakara Sri Sankara refutes the contention of Yogis in a very > > strong words that the non-experience of the thoughts or experiencer amounts > > to its elimination. The nature of moksha for such people will be to just sit > > down thoughtlessly, preferably eternally - a thoughtless act indeed. > > That's brilliant! If you recall where he said that, do please share > the reference. > > A corpse is thoughtless, so is deep sleep -- so what, it is not > enlightenment! So often people are accused of being thoughtless, > whereas they are in fact very thoughtful -- full of thoughts -- > about something or someone else! > > What a burden it is to be thoughtful; what a joy to be thought-free. > It is amazing how few people appreciate that being thought-free > transcends the pairs of opposites, thoughtful and thoughtless. > > It is the same with the words careful, careless, and carefree: > people are so careful, so full of cares and worries about their > own concerns, that they become careless of the concerns of others. > Children and the wise are carefree. > > Regards, Charles. > > > ------ > 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 November 10, 1998 Report Share Posted November 10, 1998 Although children are carefree and careless, they are taught to be careful. However, their innocence and not always ignorance is replaced with knowledge. Meena Bhaga Grimsby, ON ---------- > sadananda <sada > advaitin > Re: Experince & Knowledge > Tuesday, November 10, 1998 7:18 AM > > sadananda <sada > > >Charles Wikner <WIKNER > > >It is the same with the words careful, careless, and carefree: > >people are so careful, so full of cares and worries about their > >own concerns, that they become careless of the concerns of others. > >Children and the wise are carefree. > > > >Regards, Charles. > > Should one be carefully carefree - that involves effort - a constant struggle! > - or carelessly carefree -that involves unconcern to others > or carefreely carefull! - spontaneously carefull! - Concern without worry! > > Children are carefree because of the lack of understanding. Ignorently > innocent. > Wise are carefree because of understanding. Hence careful in helping others. > > Thanks. > 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 November 11, 1998 Report Share Posted November 11, 1998 On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 sadananda <sada wrote: > Should one be carefully carefree - that involves effort - a constant struggle! > - or carelessly carefree -that involves unconcern to others > or carefreely carefull! - spontaneously carefull! - Concern without worry! Without concern, without worry, without anxiety -- carefree. > Children are carefree because of the lack of understanding. Ignorently innocent. > Wise are carefree because of understanding. Hence careful in helping others. Not careful, but carefree. The wise man has no concern for results, no worries about tomorrow, and no anxieties about what others think -- *therefore* he is able to respond simply, naturally, and fully, to whatever is presented. The suffix -free has the sense of "liberty from": etymologically it is closely connected with the Sanskrit priya (of asti-bhAti-priya fame). The point regarding children and their ignorance is valid, nonetheless their behaviour is carefree for they connect with the play of creation; it is we ignorant adults that take it seriously. :-( Meenakshi made a telling point in this regard: > Although children are carefree and careless, they are taught to be careful. > However, their innocence and not always ignorance is replaced with > knowledge. ___________ On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 "Meenakshi Bhaga" <mbhaga wrote: > However, it is my humble opinion that :non-experience of the thoughts or > experiencer amounts to its elimination" does not mean being thoughtless. So far as I am aware, the suffix -less has two senses: (1) absence: in this sense deep sleep is thought-less. (2) cognate with loose, meaning slack, unconfined, unrestrained: in this sense daydreaming, absent-mindedness, pre-occupation, and a generally busy state of the mind "elsewhere", is what is referred to when one is accused of being thought-less. .... > but we have to become thought-less (mind and intellect must be > quiet) in order to experience the Infinite. While the principle is sound, but I would use thought-free rather than thought-less. The difference lies in whether the thoughts are master or servant. Thought does have a practical role in logic, planning, mental jApa, mamanam, and so on; however, imaginary conversations, running commentaries, churning of hurt feeling, and so on, that seem to run on by themselves, are certainly undesirable. The question is whether one is _free_ to use thought as an instrument when appropriate, and lay it aside when not needed. Thought-free thus transcends the polarity of thought-ful and thought-less. In this sense, the mind is quiet whether thoughts are present or absent, for one is not attached to them, identified with them, and certainly not governed by them. Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 1998 Report Share Posted November 14, 1998 Dear Friends, Kindly delete my name from your list. I am travelling and will not be able to access internet for certain periods. Thanks! Best regards, i.advani >Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:54:09 +0200 >Charles Wikner <WIKNER >advaitin >Reply-to: advaitin > Re: Experince & Knowledge > >Charles Wikner <WIKNER > > >On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 sadananda <sada wrote: > >> Should one be carefully carefree - that involves effort - a constant struggle! >> - or carelessly carefree -that involves unconcern to others >> or carefreely carefull! - spontaneously carefull! - Concern without worry! > >Without concern, without worry, without anxiety -- carefree. > >> Children are carefree because of the lack of understanding. Ignorently innocent. >> Wise are carefree because of understanding. Hence careful in helping others. > >Not careful, but carefree. The wise man has no concern for results, >no worries about tomorrow, and no anxieties about what others think >-- *therefore* he is able to respond simply, naturally, and fully, >to whatever is presented. > >The suffix -free has the sense of "liberty from": etymologically it is >closely connected with the Sanskrit priya (of asti-bhAti-priya fame). > >The point regarding children and their ignorance is valid, nonetheless >their behaviour is carefree for they connect with the play of creation; >it is we ignorant adults that take it seriously. :-( > >Meenakshi made a telling point in this regard: > >> Although children are carefree and careless, they are taught to be careful. >> However, their innocence and not always ignorance is replaced with >> knowledge. >___________ > >On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 "Meenakshi Bhaga" <mbhaga wrote: > >> However, it is my humble opinion that :non-experience of the thoughts or >> experiencer amounts to its elimination" does not mean being thoughtless. > >So far as I am aware, the suffix -less has two senses: >(1) absence: in this sense deep sleep is thought-less. >(2) cognate with loose, meaning slack, unconfined, unrestrained: > in this sense daydreaming, absent-mindedness, pre-occupation, > and a generally busy state of the mind "elsewhere", is what > is referred to when one is accused of being thought-less. >... >> but we have to become thought-less (mind and intellect must be >> quiet) in order to experience the Infinite. > >While the principle is sound, but I would use thought-free rather >than thought-less. The difference lies in whether the thoughts >are master or servant. > >Thought does have a practical role in logic, planning, mental jApa, >mamanam, and so on; however, imaginary conversations, running >commentaries, churning of hurt feeling, and so on, that seem to >run on by themselves, are certainly undesirable. The question is >whether one is _free_ to use thought as an instrument when appropriate, >and lay it aside when not needed. Thought-free thus transcends the >polarity of thought-ful and thought-less. In this sense, the mind is >quiet whether thoughts are present or absent, for one is not attached >to them, identified with them, and certainly not governed by them. > >Regards, Charles. > > >------ >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...
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.