Knowledge and Experience

[Guest guest]

I, for one, am greatful for Swami Atmaanandaji's beautiful article where he

has not only discussed the difference between "what is experience and what

is knowledge" but also about ego. I am presenting some of my thoughts as I

went on reading the article.

>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.

 

 

Here the question boils down to can I have a sense of "identity" without

the sense of the limitations of the what I identify with. I can see that

a Mahaatmaa identifying himself with the body, says I am hungry or I am

sleepy or identifying with mind and intellect says I am not sure that is

right thing to do or I donot understand this, etc., he is expressing the

limitations of the equipments of Body, mind and intellect - as he transacts

with the universe. Yet he has the knowledge that he is not the body, mind

and intellect per sec. The limitations of the body, mind and intellects

while bothersome to some extent (when the body catches cold or mind tired

etc.) but also he knows that he is not limited by the limitations of the

equipments in a general sense. Hence that implies his identity with the

BMI is only superficial identity for the purpose of transactions.

(Otherwise he has to use cumbersome language - this body is sick or hungry

or this mind is too tired - Or one should ask a mahaatmaa - Sir has your

body slept or has your intellect understood this joke - After a vedanta

talk - one person intoduced his wife to a swami - "Sir that body is married

this body" ! That itself becomes a joke!)

>Thereafter this conscious entity free from all sense of limitations becomes

>a blessings for all, inspite of their upaadhiis, thoughts and experiences.

>They are the Brahmanishtha.

 

Hence his conscious entity not only conscious of the limitations of the

particular equipments - BMI -which he identifies for the purpose of

transactions, but also conscious of the totality - BrahmanishTatvam. A

duel identity - an apparent and real. Without the second part - the

BrahmanishTatvam, the identity with the limited leads to taking the

limitations of identified objects are taken for granted as his limitations.

 

Can we say - what is ego - it is the identity with the limited but without

the knowledge of the unlimited. But when the knowledge takes place - it is

not the knowledge of 'this' and 'this" but the knowledge that I am not only

this and this, but total that includes this and this and excludes nothing.

I can still operate with this and this, but have background knowledge I am

everything including this and this.

 

But the question that is being addressed also includes "Does ego exist in

the present" - As I understand - ego is the identification that I am only

this and this - with only the limitations of this and this automatically

superimposed along with 'this'. This and this constitute the upaadhiies -

the BMI - where MI include the notions of what I think I am. I am this

body - Here I am not only identifying the gross matter - but most

importantly also with the knowledge of the body. 'I am hungry' - It is the

awareness of the reactions of the body it its present state - that

knowledge is reflected as " I am hungry" similarly 'I have back pain' or 'I

am sick' etc., - I am best baseball player - It is the knowledge of the my

skills in baseball play at my MI level. Hence 'this' that I am identifying

- 'idam vRitti' and 'aham idam vRitti' - or more correctly 'aham idameva

vr^itti' in contrast to the knowledge of 'aham Brahmaasmi'.

>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.

 

Hence jiiva is a notion that 'I am this PFT alone' - this perceiver, this

feeler and this thinker 'alone' - is the ego too - Although perceiving,

feeling and thinking etc. happens in the present alone, what is perceived,

felt and thought is a past stored as memory. Now do I identify my self as

this PFT - with relation to the perceiving in the present or to the

perceived up to the minute second past, feeling to felt and thinking to

what was thought - This may be mute or too subtle or splitting the second -

but seems to be related to the question related to Ego -pertains to Shree

Charles Whiker point of discussion.

 

>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.

 

May be the above discussion addresses this question in some form- "does not

depend on the constant awareness of our BMI complex" - "manifests in an

unmanifested condition" - Here was the problem related to 'who slept well?

- If it exists in the unmanifested form who is aware of the identity of

that - " I didn't know any thing - in the deep sleep" - a statement of

inference or fact and who has the awareness of the unmanifest (locus of

the idetity). In my paper - I left with the final conclusion that the

question itself is invalid - since the notion of I am jiva is also not

there in the deep sleep state! - and is a conclusion made out in the waking

state or dreem state where there is a locus and one is aware of the locus

of the idetification. In the unmanifested condition, say deep sleep, what

is the locus of the identity since mind and intellect are folded.

 

>

>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.

 

 

True indeed. The discussion of who is the ego or in effect reduces to who

am I? Becomes a vichaara if we can extract knowledge out of our day to day

experiences using Vedanta as pramaaNa.

 

 

>"' 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

 

 

Thank you Swamiji for your input - I agree whole heartedly with you that

the very purpose of these discussions too is to go beyond the discussions

to see the truth by identifying where the problem is. What I wrote

in-between is reflection of my thinking aloud in relation to what was

presented - to stimulate some more thinking to go beyond the thinking.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Hari om !

 

Sh. Sadananda in his nice in-depth reflections wrote :

>But the question that is being addressed also includes "Does ego exist

>in the present" - As I understand - ego is the identification that I am

only

>this and this - with only the limitations of this and this automatically

>superimposed along with 'this'. This and this constitute the upaadhies -

>the BMI - where MI include the notions of what I think I am.

 

The question whether the ego exists in the present indeed calls for

an understanding of what is exactly meant by the word 'ego'. Is the

'conditioned consciousness' ego, or the erroneous presumption that

'I am this conditioned consciousness' is ego ? As long as the glass-

like BMI complex will remain so long the reflection-like 'conditioned

consciousness' will exist. The moment I know that 'I am not this', then

I am not really bothered with its limitations. Looking at this 'upahita-

chaitanya' - the conditioned consciousness, we come to realise

that the moment it comes into being, the dimension of time & space

becomes a matter of our experience. Further more, there is 'subjective

time' as well as 'objective time'. The former comes into being the

moment there is dwaita of seeker & sought. During moments of joy,

unconsciousness or deep-sleep this dwaita is not a matter of our

awareness, yet the 'objective time' ticks by, the hairs continue to turn

grey. As long as upadhi will remain, the time will exist, and so will the

'conditioned consciousness' with its continuum of time & space, yet I

may still be untouched by it all - by this understanding that 'I am

not this alone', and later 'I am not really this at all'.

>I am this

>body - Here I am not only identifying the gross matter - but most

>importantly also with the knowledge of the body. 'I am hungry' - It is the

>awareness of the reactions of the body it its present state - that

>knowledge is reflected as " I am hungry" similarly 'I have back pain' or 'I

>am sick' etc., - I am best baseball player - It is the knowledge of the my

>skills in baseball play at my MI level. Hence 'this' that I am identifying

>- 'idam vRitti' and 'aham idam vRitti' - or more correctly 'aham idameva

>vr^itti' in contrast to the knowledge of 'aham Brahmaasmi'.

 

 

It is a fact that all our statements like 'I am so & so' do have some

reference to our past, but attainment of a state where there are no

reference to past whatsoever is neither possible nor desirable. Try

any thought or statement, some direct or indirect reference to

past will be discovered in it. Even though excessive dwelling in past

is always counterproductive, and denies us the present moment which

alone is, yet references to past does not really matter, as long as you

know that it is the 'dreamer-like mithya entity' which is being referred to.

>Hence jiva is a notion that 'I am this PFT alone' - this perceiver, this

>feeler and this thinker 'alone' - is the ego too - Although perceiving,

>feeling and thinking etc. happens in the present alone, what is perceived,

>felt and thought is a past stored as memory. Now do I identify my self as

>this PFT - with relation to the perceiving in the present or to the

>perceived up to the minute second past, feeling to felt and thinking to

>what was thought - This may be mute or too subtle or splitting the second -

>but seems to be related to the question related to Ego -pertains to Shree

>Charles Whiker point of discussion.

 

 

As the word 'present', being a relative term itself, has no existence apart

from 'past' or 'future', so we can not really divorce the present from past,

and thus our erroneous identity, of taking ourselves as the PFT, is both

with reference to our past & present, and also an extended ideal

somewhere in the future. Purity of mind implies relatively greater living

in present. This ego, the experiencer, has to be first taught the lesson of

giving importance to present, rather than what has gone by or is yet to

come. Such a person who can turn greater attention to what is 'here &

now', has not transcended the ego, but is considered the right adhikari

to discover that which pervades this ego yet transcends it too. Thereafter,

even though the eyes may be illuminating some forms, yet I dont limit

myself by saying 'I am the perciever' of these forms. Just because I am

writing something right now, my real identity does not become that of a

'writer'. Let those who see the writing call me what they like, but I know

that this word doesnt really describe me. If just by writing something I

start

taking myself as writer, then indeed I have identity problem, and all

problems which follow baseless presumptions. He alone is the PFT, the

ego, who just because of percieving some objects starts taking itself as

this alone, who just because of playing some gme, takes himself as this

alone. So it is not really the perception which matters but the subsequent

conclusions. As long as conditioned consciousness is there so long time,

space, limitations all will be inevitably be there, yet I can be free from

all

these by greater in-depth understanding, is the thunder of the Rishis.

 

Love & om,

 

Swami Atmananda

[Guest guest]

>"Swami Atmananda" <atma

> He alone is the PFT, the

>ego, who just because of percieving some objects starts taking itself as

>this alone, who just because of playing some game, takes himself as this

>alone. So it is not really the perception which matters but the subsequent

>conclusions. As long as conditioned consciousness is there so long time,

>space, limitations all will be inevitably be there, yet I can be free from

>all

>these by greater in-depth understanding, is the thunder of the Rishis.

>

>Love & om,

>

>Swami Atmananda

 

 

That indeed is true. Thanks Swamiji, for providing more insight into the

conditioned consciousness.

With Pranaams.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623