The three states (was Whao am I?)

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

> > Charles Wikner says "I had a good sleep last night." I did too. :-)

> > But that "I" is the Self identified with this particular human body

> > here in Cape Town on 12 November 1998, which is a very small part

> > of the not-Self.

>

> So, as you say, it is the not-SELF which is saying "I had a good sleep

> last night."

 

No, it is the individual, Self identified with not-Self, that says so.

> Surely, you will agree with me that the not-SELF is not

> there witnessing the deep sleep.

 

The Self witnesses it.

> So, the not-SELF is inferring it.

 

The individual, Self plus not-Self, commonly infers it. There is a

difference between these two experiences:

 

absence of knowledge of objects

knowledge of absence of objects

 

The first is the view of deep sleep from the individual's point;

the second is the view from the perspective of the Self.

> The SELF, which is the witness to the not-SELF sleeping, is not saying

> anything.

 

The Self just witnesses: the Self plus not-Self speaks. Unlike us,

the jnAni is not identified with some limited aspect of the not-Self:

in that sense the Self speaks through the instrument of not-Self.

> Now, what is the basis for this inference by the not-SELF "I had a good

> sleep." ? Is it not the false assumption by the not-SELF that it is the

> same in the wake-up state and that it is the wake-up state not-SELF that

> has gone to sleep and has woken up again ? If that false assumption were

> not there, there is no need for the above inference.

 

The individual, Self plus not-Self, remains identified with his

personal nature in both waking and sleep states: in one state that

nature is active; in the other it is not, but remains in its causal

state. Does it matter whether the individual infers sleep through

the feeling of being rested afterwards, or whether the Self is aware

of an absence of objects during the sleep?

> It seems to me, that

> accepting the not-SELF is not the same from one state to the other is

> closer to the TRUTH and involves lesser number of assumptions than

> clinging to the thinking that it is the same not-SELF that is going

> through these three states.

 

The underlying assumption is then multiplicity.

> By natural extrapolation of that argument, we can say that the three

> states and the existence of the not-SELF are all in the realm of the

> not-SELF. That may give a clearer perspective of the separation of the

> not-SELF from the one that really is there, the SELF.

 

You presume that the not-Self is not there? The not-Self is not

separate from the Self, but a superimposition upon it. The entire

universe is the (lower) nature of the Self: a product, an effect

of Its higher nature (BG 7:1-5). The lower nature is ever-changing;

the higher nature is constant. The Self Itself is the Witness of

the play of Its ever-changing lower nature.

 

In the absence of Self-knowledge, we take the individual, Self

plus not-Self (a tiny aspect of Its lower nature), to be real,

and see everything relative to that individual. The task is

not to discard the not-Self, but separate the tight bond between

the Self and not-Self: when the Self is realised, the not-Self

is seen for what it is, the play of Its lower nature which

encompasses all three states.

 

Regards, Charles.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Charles Wikner wrote:

 

( > and >>> are Charles's and >> Gummuluru's comments)

> Charles Wikner <WIKNER

>

> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

>

> > > Charles Wikner says "I had a good sleep last night." I did too. :-)

> > > But that "I" is the Self identified with this particular human body

> > > here in Cape Town on 12 November 1998, which is a very small part

> > > of the not-Self.

> >

> > So, as you say, it is the not-SELF which is saying "I had a good sleep

> > last night."

>

> No, it is the individual, Self identified with not-Self, that says so.

>

 

Namaste.

 

SELF pervades all. So, there is no entity without the SELF. That is,

there is no not-SELF anywhere by itself.

 

Further, the SELF does not mis-identify as not-SELF. It is the not-SELF

that (i) can mis-identify itself as SELF or (ii) can mis-identify itself

as not-SELF (that is, by itself, without the SELF). To put it in other

words, the SELF cannot mis-identify, the not-SELF cannot but mis-identify.

For us jeeevas, to say that we are SELF + not-SELF is still a

mis-identification, unless we have that nishchalatvam of the SELF and

behave like nishchalatvam manasA, vAcA, karmA. Further, when we say

that we are the SELF + not-SELF, the not-SELF component is still there.

Until and until that not-SELF component is fully erased, it is a

mis-identification and the individual jeeva behaves like a not-SELF.

 

Now, the entity that says "I had a good sleep" is the mis-identifying

not-SELF. You may call it the individual jeeva (SELF identified with

not-SELF), but it is still a mis-identification.

> > Now, what is the basis for this inference by the not-SELF "I had a good

> > sleep." ? Is it not the false assumption by the not-SELF that it is the

> > same in the wake-up state and that it is the wake-up state not-SELF that

> > has gone to sleep and has woken up again ? If that false assumption were

> > not there, there is no need for the above inference.

>

> The individual, Self plus not-Self, remains identified with his

> personal nature in both waking and sleep states: in one state that

> nature is active; in the other it is not, but remains in its causal

> state. Does it matter whether the individual infers sleep through

> the feeling of being rested afterwards, or whether the Self is aware

> of an absence of objects during the sleep?

>

 

This again presumes the same not-SELF superposed on the SELF in all the

three states. That is against the logic provided above ( and in the previous

post) where the existence of the not-SELF itself is questioned, not to

talk of the sameness of the not-SELF.

> > It seems to me, that

> > accepting the not-SELF is not the same from one state to the other is

> > closer to the TRUTH and involves lesser number of assumptions than

> > clinging to the thinking that it is the same not-SELF that is going

> > through these three states.

>

> The underlying assumption is then multiplicity.

>

 

It *appears* multiplicity. But is not so. The logic is for non-existence

of the not-SELF. SELF pervades all and there is no not-SELF anywhere

anytime without the SELF. It is the SELF which, although does not have

shape or form, does not speak, hear or act, which allows the not-SELF to

claim existence or speak, hear or act. The not-SELF does the imitation,

and further claims to be the subject and continuity of itself through

all the states. The way to dissect and annihilate the not-SELF (the ego)

is to disprove its continuity from state to state and even in one state.

If that is done, the ego, the not-SELF that claims to be the subject,

would not have a locus and would disintegrate. Thus, rather than implying

multiplicity of the not-SELF, the above logic attacks the very existence

of the not-SELF.

 

In the case of statement "I had deep sleep", it is easier to refute it

because it is an inferential statement. Statements attributable to the

wake-up state like "I acted, I ate..." also lack reality because the

very existence of not-SELF is questioned.

 

(Very likely, similar sentiments might have been expressed and discussed

early on in the vast advaitic literature. May be they are called under

some technical advaitic concept. It will be very much appreciated if any

reference is provided by knowledgeable members).

> > By natural extrapolation of that argument, we can say that the three

> > states and the existence of the not-SELF are all in the realm of the

> > not-SELF. That may give a clearer perspective of the separation of the

> > not-SELF from the one that really is there, the SELF.

>

> You presume that the not-Self is not there? The not-Self is not

> separate from the Self, but a superimposition upon it. The entire

> universe is the (lower) nature of the Self: a product, an effect

> of Its higher nature (BG 7:1-5). The lower nature is ever-changing;

> the higher nature is constant. The Self Itself is the Witness of

> the play of Its ever-changing lower nature.

>

> In the absence of Self-knowledge, we take the individual, Self

> plus not-Self (a tiny aspect of Its lower nature), to be real,

> and see everything relative to that individual. The task is

> not to discard the not-Self, but separate the tight bond between

> the Self and not-Self: when the Self is realised, the not-Self

> is seen for what it is, the play of Its lower nature which

> encompasses all three states.

>

 

Why not discard the not-SELF ? Are we closer to the TRUTH by not

discarding the not-SELF ? When SELF alone is all that exists and

the not-SELF is just a superposition which just melts away upon

removal of ignorance, why do we need to hang on to that perspective

of the not-SELF ?

> Regards, Charles.

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah

atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute Katha Upanishhad II.3.14

 

When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal

becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.

------