Immortality

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 Aikya_Param <aikya wrote:

>Regarding the following:

>

>> Besides,

>>consciousness, as having the indwelling Self as its content,

>>is alone held to be the cause of immortality.

>

>Is not immortality the fact, in fact, because of the nature of

>consicousness (without form)?

 

Yes. Deep down each knows that he is immortal, and that it is

only the name and form that is transient; however, being caught

up in samsAra, that knowledge is obscured by ignorance and we

take the name and form as more immediately credible, so that

immortality is sought vicariously through children, heaven, etc.

>Is there not quite a leap for the individual to first, understand that he is

>not this, this, this and this, but consciousness sufficient,

 

To understand that one is 'not this' requires an observer of 'this':

that detached and neutral observer is ultimately the Witness, Atman,

Consciousness, after all the layers of ignorance have been peeled away.

>and then to see

>what is that consciousness?

 

Consciousness is never an object, so you cannot see it: what is

seen is the limited and transient with which we usually identify.

Without a clear sense of this observer/witness, there is the danger

of assuming all sorts of strange and sentimental notions about the

nature of consciousness, and then being caught up in the glamour

of some New Age nonsense (such as put out by self-proclaimed sages

of Ramana's non-existent "lineage"), so that realisation is falsely

understood as some blissful experience limited to the individual person.

>Many people acknowledge consciousness but do

>not associate it with immortality

 

Immortality as such is not an issue, but it does contrast with the

ephemeral nature of the transient, which is mortal.

>nor any "outside" consciousness with

>themselves.

 

The is no consciousness outside the Atman, as you well know,

but the way that you have phrased it could also be understood

as meaning that there is only my personal consciousness and

no other consciousness, which is of course not correct.

 

Regards, Charles.

[Guest guest]

Regarding --

>The is no consciousness outside the Atman, as you well know,

>but the way that you have phrased it could also be understood

>as meaning that there is only my personal consciousness and

>no other consciousness, which is of course not correct.

 

In using the word "consciousness," one must be careful. My reference

here --

 

Many people acknowledge consciousness but do

not associate it with immortality nor any "outside" consciousness with

themselves.

 

is pretty confusing. In saying "May people acknowledge consciousness," I

mean the usual (erroneous) way we may use consciousness to mean a quality of

some objects. When most people talk about the consciousness of insects of

plants or other people, they do not associate that with immortality. When

they acknowledge that consiousness in objects other than themselves, they do

not see that the consiousness in themselves and the consicousness outside is

the same substantive rather than a characteristic. At that stage people are

confusing the instrument using consiousness, the minds, with consciousness

itself. I found a little suggestion of that in your comment when you said--

 

The is no consciousness outside the Atman, as you well know,

>but the way that you have phrased it could also be understood

>as meaning that there is only my personal consciousness and

>no other consciousness, which is of course not correct.

 

What is one undivided is consciousness. As advaita shows, it is "my"

consciousness and "your" consciousness and the consciousness of anything

else past, present. or future. Hoever, my mind is not your mind or God's

mind or the mind of the bird or whatever. There is a way to talk about a

modified consciousness like Bird-consciousness, God-consciousness, etc.

which truly muddies matters.

 

Maybe if we were very disciplined about our word use, we would never use the

word "consciousness" to mean my mind and thoughts verseus your mind and

thoughts. It is the content of both however and so the confusion comes out

again.

 

Aikya Param

P.O. Box 4193

Berkeley, CA 94704-0193

Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics)

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

Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version)

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

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that consciousness is ... and that it is on a need to know

basis or perhaps as it is in each basis. That seems like the beauty of the

dance and the body of the Lord. To use the word consciousness in ways that

isolate or exclude parts rather fragments the whole. But, just as in my own

body, I have so many cells performing different functions according to

which DNA bits on on or off, aren't we all the portion of consciousness

that is on, yet still containing the whole? Does this make sense? Probably,

it seems so simple, but I'm just learning and consciousness, as Aikya

points out, is a word used in many ways.

 

Questions that may or may not make sense ...

What is the word for consciousness as all that is?

What is the word for portions within each individual?

What word describes observer?

What word is awareness without observer or observed?

 

Aikya,

I received your mail and will respond later. I have a class soon.

Tamra

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 Aikya_Param <aikya wrote:

>When most people talk about the consciousness of insects of

>plants or other people, they do not associate that with immortality. When

>they acknowledge that consiousness in objects other than themselves, they do

>not see that the consiousness in themselves and the consicousness outside is

>the same substantive rather than a characteristic. At that stage people are

>confusing the instrument using consiousness, the minds, with consciousness

>itself. I found a little suggestion of that in your comment when you said--

>

>>The is no consciousness outside the Atman, as you well know,

>>but the way that you have phrased it could also be understood

>>as meaning that there is only my personal consciousness and

>>no other consciousness, which is of course not correct.

 

You have clearly understood the point where confusion may arise:

the difference between nirguNa and saguNa Brahman, and then the

individual limitations within saguNa. As you say, it can be

confusing, for the word "consciousness" has a worldly meaning

relative to objects, as well as referring to Consciousness Itself.

 

Regards, Charles.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Charles Wikner wrote:

> Charles Wikner <WIKNER

>

> Besides,

> consciousness, as having the indwelling Self as its content,

> is alone held to be the cause of immortality. Immortality does

> not surely consist in the Self becoming a non-Self. Immortality

> being the very nature of the Self, it is certainly without any

> cause. And thus mortality consists in the Self being perceived

> as the non-Self through ignorance.

>

> Regards, Charles.

>

 

Namaste.

 

When I saw Charles' comments quoted above in the thread "Re: Reply

to Charles Wikner", I was thinking of writing a few words on

immortality. Lo and behold, Charles initiated a thread on the same

very topic, which gives me an opportunity to express my understanding

of that precious parameter. My comments below follow closely Swami

Nikhilananda's expressions on the topic.

 

The most important thing in the attainment of immortality for a jeeva

is desirelessness. Katha Upanishhad verse II.3.14, which is the same

as the Br^hadAraNyaka Upanishhad IV.4.7 (and this verse is the most

important one to understand and digest, as far as my appreciation

of Upanishhads goes) says

 

Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah

atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute

 

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

mortal becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.

 

The human only attains happiness through fulfillment of desires

through repeated births in different bodies. Yet, the human realizes

that she/he has not attained immortality. Then the human gives up

desires and in the twinkling of an eye discovers immortality

through the Knowledge of the SELF. This would arrive like a flash

of lightning.

 

Immortality is not the effect of knowledge (knowledge which the

humans strive for in this world, knowledge with lower case k).

Immortality is not something that can be acquired. All that the

seeker of immortality has to do is to get rid of ignorance. It

is the ignorance which causes ego and desire. How does the human

get rid of ignorance? Through self-effort and discipline

[sarvAgamAnA mAcArah prathamam parikalpate ! - Sage VyAsa in

MahAbhArata (Vishhnu sahasranAma) - for all incoming Knowledge,

discipline is the most fundamental], which is of course the result

of the grace of God.

 

How does the human know that he/she has attained SELF-Knowledge ?

There are many clues. One is the Knower of Truth is not afraid of

death. Secondly, the Truth being the only one that exists and the

only one that can never be contradicted, the Knower of Truth has

compassion for everything around. Thirdly, the Knower of Truth,

while living in the world of duality, is unperturbed by the pairs

of opposites of the world. Fourthly, in the presence of such a

great soul, the turbulent minds become quiet.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------