Two levels of consciousness

[Guest guest]

>"Madhavan Srinivasan" <maadhavan

>

>Sadananda wrote:

>

>>You are right - it is just two levels of understanding of what is

>>witnessed

>>- that is only from the point of Jeevanmukta.

>

>Are you a JeevanMukta? If not, you can't tell the point of view of

>JeevanMukta.

 

My wife keeps reminding me that I am not. But do not tell this to any one!

 

So my knowledge of the Jeevanmukta is based on the scriptures and what I

learned from Mahaatmaas, by my own observations and that which is

consistent with the whole teaching of Advaita Vedanta.

 

Whether I am or not, it would not matter since it is just a matter of your

faith in my words, and since by definition there are no objective litmus

tests to know whether one is Jeevanmukta or not, since it is the state of

ones understanding. There are scriptural descriptions as well as the

observations of lives of great mahaatmaas like Bhavagaan Ramana Maharshi,

Nisargadatta Maharaj and my own teacher Pujya Swami Chinmayanandaji

Maharaj.

>If you are, will you please explain about JeevanMuktha

>state.

 

By this statement I am not qualified to answer the rest. My answers

therefore are only hearsay and you have to confirm yourself when you reach

there.

> If one attained JeevanMukta state, how he react to worldly

>things? Will he suffer when he injured? Will he get different >states of

>mind like happiness, sorrow, anger etc.,

 

Everything is exactly the same as long as one identifies - Like any one

else, he is hungry, he is angry and he shows happy or sorrow etc., but the

difference is he also knows this is the external play. He gets angry but

anger does not get him. Hence he plays with those emotions as the

situation requires. Krishna was angry when he punished the wicked, yet

those who were punished were blessed. A father gets angry with a

misbehaving child but that is out of love and needed for the growth of the

child. It is like a actor playing the roles of the beggar or king or

villain or any other portion. He plays better than a real beggar or king

since he knows he is different from the roles he plays yet he is the roles

too that he is playing. Krishna knew that He is every where and everything

is in Him. Yet He differentiates Arjuana versus Duryodhana. Hence the

life is the game of life - Leelaa vibhuuti. Without emotions we will be

like stones - lifeless! - Emotions are not the problems, thoughts are not

the problem - the problem is the misunderstanding that I am those feelings

and thoughts etc -That is the problem. To stop this identification, as

Charles Whiker pointed, one needs certain detachment and there yogas helps

us. Detachment is the purification process and time required depends on

how much one is attached and how sincere one efforts are!

>

>>The subject-object distinction is apparent and I am the

>>subject and the object is only my projection - when one has that firm

>>conviction - Ramana says - druDhaiva nishhTa - then the distinction

>>becomes adhyaasa or only superimpostion on the reality. From the point

>>of

>>that reality there is no duality - I am the subject and I am the object

>>too.

>If one has the firm conviction that he is the subject and he is the

>object too, is it possible to keep that feeling always? Because, for

>long years, he had the feeling that the subject is different from him.

>So,I think, in order to be in wisdom, he has to think that firm

>conviction again and again for long years to get rid of his old

>thoughts.

 

That is the process of purification - yes it takes long time for the mind

to get rid of the notions and habits since they are deep rooted. Remember

even the notion that it is going to take a long time itself is also a

hurdle - it is like self-fullfilling prophesy. The truth is very simple

and self-evident.

 

Hence Ramana calls as druDhaiva - firm conviction so that there is no more

doubts that who one is - without anymore misunderstanding that I am the

object and not the subject. Hence JK calls this understanding as a fact

and not as a thought.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>

>Regards

>Madhavan

>

>------

>Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or

>service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit

>/advert.html for more information.

>------

>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

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

nanda chandran wrote:

> [...] Tat tvam asi - YOU are that. The

> Atman is not anything separate from you. YOU are a composite of both

> being and non-being. Our normal perception or "to know" is only

> applicable to objects. Objects are both gross (empirical objects) and

> subtle (mental objects - thoughts etc). YOU are the subject. To try to

> "know" the subject like you would a object, is but an effort in vain - a

> wild goose chase - for as the eye can't see itself, the knower can't

> know itself - but there's no need to know - for YOU are IT.

>

> Stop trying to "know" it. You are it. You can only talk about things

> which you are not. So if you talk of two different level of

> consciousness, one is apart from the other and hence one's not the Self.

>

> During meditation, there's one trap to avoid. There are states and

> there's YOU. By nature consciousness spreads out from you, there is a

> tendency for the consciousness to settle in a state, apart from

> yourself. With Advaitam in your mind, you might delude yourself into a

> "state" of bliss or emptiness or non-individuality or nirguna etc But

> remember whatever state one may evolve into, you can de-evolve from that

> too. Do not divorce yourself from reality with ideas. The truth - that

> which really matters and is constant - is only your natural state - no!

> not "state" - only YOU - whatever it may be. Just as the sun enlivens

> the world with it's rays, the Self enlivens the body with consciousness.

> "Suck" all your "consciousness" into yourself and just "be".

>

 

 

a cool and timeless ahhhw yeah(!).....this CLEARLY

nails down the pith and essence of advaita! make no

mistake, the real markers come simple, short and sweet.

 

this really could shut down the dog-chasing-its-tail

habit of grasping for the coveted ideal engineered by

the relative mind responsible for the belief that we

must behold some final condition of absolute awareness--

which is, afterall, ever in our very midst at all times,

and *not* available to relative-judgment "witnessing."

 

yes, and the natural state or I AM in-all-moments,

whether notionally "witnessed" as apparently positive

or negative, is itself atmabhavana, which is always

sahajanithyamounananda (the mere [everpresent] feeling

of Self is automatic natural eternal silent bliss).

 

this jnanaswaroop needs no relative qualification!

it merely is. so, regardless of what we may think,

at any moment in time, we ARE the Self Absolute.

 

om svaha!

[Guest guest]

>"T. Temple" <joklumji

>

>I wonder if, rather than ask who is Jeevanmukta, it might be wiser to see

>all except the perceiver in this way. Wouldn't our vision and receptivity

>change radically? Just an idea. What do you think?

>

>Tamra

 

Exactly you have redefined who is jeevanmukta in your words! - our visions

and receptivity change provided we idetify with the perceiver than

perceived. In the process it will then be perceived that even the perceived

is nothing but the projection of the perceiver, and the perceived is only a

adhyaasa or a superimposition.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Sadananda,

That sounds like what I've been calling projection and reflection or a

mirror. Someday maybe I'll learn words that aren't English. So many

words...

Tamra

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 nanda chandran <vpcnk wrote:

>>That's fine - we agree here, a quite important point. Atmananda speaks of

>>two levels of witnessing. The lower witness, which is what I've been

>>talking about, which is given to students who no longer see physical

>>objects, but just perhaps subtle objects. This level of witness gets them

>>to see the subtle apparatus and its objects as objects of consciousness.

>>Then the higher witness is taught, which is synonymous with Atman.

>

>How can there be two levels of witnesses?

 

To be fair to Greg, the point is not invalid -- in fact I mentioned

the witness to a motor accident and the witness in court. In the

context of being lost in a book etc, there needs to be a witness in

order to lay down the memory of that state, and our discussion revolved

around the validity of that state being egoless.

 

In his commentary to bRhad. 1.4.10 (part of which reads

tad AtmAnam eva-avet, ahaM brahma-asmi-iti,

It knew only Itself as 'I am Brahman')

Shankara referes to the passage "You cannot see that which is the

seer of sight" etc. (bRhad. 3.4.2) (Madhvananda's translation):

 

<BEGIN QUOTE>

 

OBJECTION: Tell me, what is that natural Self which Brahman knew?

 

REPLY: Do you not remember the Self? It has been pointed out as

the one entering into these bodies does the function of the prANa,

apAna, vyAna, udAna and samAna. [see comm. bRhad 1.5.3]

 

OBJECTION: You are describing It as one would describe a cow or a

horse by simply saying, 'It is a cow,' or 'It is a horse.' You do

not show the Self directly.

 

REPLY: Well then, the Self is the seer, hearer, thinker and knower.

 

OBJECTION: Here also you do not directly point out the nature of

that which does the functions of seeing etc. Going is surely not

the nature of one who goes, nor cutting that of a cutter.

 

REPLY: In that case the Self is the seer of sight, the hearer of

hearing, the thinker of thought and the knower of knowledge.

 

OBJECTION: But what difference does it make in the seer? Whether

it be the seer of sight or of a jar, it is but the seer under all

circumstances. By saying 'The seer of sight' you are simply stating

a difference as regards the object seen. But the seer, whether it

be the seer of sight or a jar, is just the same.

 

REPLY: No, for there is a difference, and it is this: If that which

is the seer of sight is identical with that sight, it always visualises

the latter, and there is never a time when sight is not visualised by

the seer. So the vision of the seer must be eternal. If it were

transitory, then sight, which is the object visualised, may sometimes

not be seen, as a jar, for instance, may not always be perceived by

the transitory vision. But the seer of sight never ceases to visualise

sight like that.

 

OBJECTION: Has the seer then two kinds of vision, one eternal and

invisible, and the other transitory and visible?

 

REPLY: Yes. The transitory vision is familiar to us, for we see

some people are blind, and others are not. If the eternal vision

were the only one in existence, all people would be possessed of

vision. But the vision of the seer is an eternal one, for the

Shruti says, 'The vision of the witness can never be lost' (4.3.23).

>From inference also we know this. For we even find a blind man has

vision consisting of the impressions of a jar etc. in dreams. This

shows that the vision of the seer is not lost with the loss of the

other kind of vision. Through that unfailing eternal vision, which

is identical with It, and is called the self-effulgent light, the

Self always sees the other, transitory vision in dream and waking

states, as idea and perception respectively, and becomes the seer

of sight. Such being the case, the vision itself is Its nature,

like the heat of fire, and there is no other conscious (or unconscious)

seer over and above the vision as the VaiSheshikas maintain.

It, Brahman, knew onlt Itself, the eternal vision, devoid of the

transitory vision etc. superimposed on It.

 

<END QUOTE>

>The fundamental point is being missed. Tat tvam asi - YOU are that.

[snip]

>Stop trying to "know" it. You are it.

[snip]

 

There are efforts to be made to purify the mind and remove

misconceptions. and mumukshutva itself is the final barrier

as you rightly observe. Shankara' commentary continues:

 

<BEGIN QUOTE>

 

OBJECTION: But knowing the knower is self-contradictory, for the

Shruti says, 'One should not try to know the knower of knowledge'

(3.4.2)

 

REPLY: No, this sort of knowledge involves no contradiction. The

Self is indeed known thus, as 'the seer of sight.' Also it does

not depend on any other knowledge. He who knows that the vision

of the seer is eternal, does not wish to see It in any other way.

This wish to see the seer automatically stops because of its very

impossibility, for nobody hankers after a thing that does not exist.

And that sight which is itself an object of vision does not dare to

visualise the seer, in which case one might wish to do it. Nor

does anybody want to see himself. Therefore the sentence, "It knew

only Itself," only means the cessation of the superimposition of

ignorance, and not the actual cognising of the Self as an object.

 

<END QUOTE>

 

Regards, Charles.

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 "T. Temple" <joklumji wrote:

> Would you please explain mumukshutva to me?

 

The desire for liberation.

 

Regards, Charles.

[Guest guest]

Charles (or anyone willing),

Would you please explain mumukshutva to me?

thanks,

Tamra

[Guest guest]

Mumukshutwa is the condition of being a mumukshu. A mumukshu is a person

who has a desire for liberation. Usually speaking it is not like a desire

for pizza, very mild by comparison, but a consuming, hair-on-fire, must-have

sort of desire. The person doesn't have to have ever heard of "liberation"

to have this mad urge to search until the longing is eased by knowledge of

the self.

 

A mumukshu is somebody who has discovered that doing the usual required

things doesn't work to gain happiness or satisfaction. In the ancient days

that might have meant figuring out that doing rituals didn't give lasting

results and then feeling frustrated because he didn't know what else one was

supposed to do. My guru called this recognition and the resulting

exasperation the "original problem" in Vedanta. These days it can take many

forms.

 

In our ashram the first talk each of us gave before the entire ashram was

supposed to deal with something we knew well. In most cases people talked

about what got them to study for three years, giving up jobs, careers,

homes, etc. to do that. And people's stories were good examples of how

"mumukshutwam" occurs today.

 

I remember one story by an Amnerican woman who told how she always thought

that studying in school would lead you to know the truth. She talked about

how she went through grammar school and then figured that the truth part

must come in high school Then she went all through high school and thought,

the truth must be taught in college. Then she went all through college.

When she realized that no one on the college level was particularly

interested in Truth with a capitol "T", she reached a pinacle of frustration

and began searching for the Real (Thing). She eventually found my guru and

settled in for three years of study in India.

 

Another story was told by a young Indian mother. Most of the Indian women

told about their arranged marriages, partly because the American women were

fascinated by the whole idea. This woman had a very unique story, however.

When she and her husband met for the first time in order to decide whether

they would marry each other, he decided to ask her two or three questions.

By her answers, he thought he could decide whether he wanted to marry her.

One question was "If you could have anything you wanted, what would it be?'

She was compeltely thrown by the questions and said that she really would

have to think about that. She was really annoyed too because she hadn't

thought of asking him any questions. They got married, had a son and 9 years

later, she said to her husband "Do you remember that day when we met when

you asked me what I would ask for if I could have anything I wanted? I have

an answer now." Turns out that the young wife had been attending vedanta

classes in her area given by a student of my guru. Now and then her husband

would drop in but she was a regular attendee. She told her husband that she

wanted to take their son and go to the ashram to complete the three year

course in Sanskrit and Vedanta. He agave her permission todo that. She and

her son arrived shortly thereafter. It took almost a year for the husband

to join but he also completed the course with us. I suppose these were

people who had done all the things their culture required of them and, on

exposure to the teaching, realized its worth and wanted to immerse

themselves in it.

 

The American version of the story involved a couple who were both very

successful in their careers. They had finished college, gotten married,

built careers, had a nice house, etc. They had a daughter too, but their

first daughter had an incurable heart ailment from birth and, when she was

around, three, they saw her die. So here were people who had done

everything their culture required of them but they still were struck with

terrible sadness and loss of something they prized more than all their

achievements. This inspired both of them to begin a spritual search, at the

end of which they found Shri Swami Chinmayananda and wound up studying

Sanskrit and Vedanta at our ashram.

 

Hope that helped.

 

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

 

T. Temple <joklumji

advaitin <advaitin >

Friday, November 20, 1998 6:55 AM

Re: Two levels of consciousness

 

>"T. Temple" <joklumji

>

>Charles (or anyone willing),

>Would you please explain mumukshutva to me?

>thanks,

>Tamra

>

>------

>Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or

>service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit

>/advert.html for more information.

>------

>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