Levels of Self

[Guest guest]

Sometime back I'd protested against Greg's quotation of Atmananda's

concept of the two levels of the Self. For the past three weeks my

experiments with meditation has enabled me to understand it better (I

hope this is what Atmananda was referring to.)

 

When you're able to sit down with your eyes closed for a few minutes and

you are able to distinguish yourself from the streams of thought, there

still remains the problem of pin pointing the source of ourselves. I try

to draw into myself, but this is not all that easy. For consciousness

being what it's, very soon it's gets objectified.

 

When we persist in trying to abide in ourselves soon we get to notice

that the concentration is in the region of the brain. There's that much

pressure in the head and in the region between the brows on the

forehead. But even as this implies there again is the observer who's

able to make this observation.

 

On repeated practice the "I" descends from the point between the brows

to somewhere in the region of the nose. This is when we identify it with

prAjnA (atleast I did :-) Still it remains elusive and again as before

there is the unmistakable feeling of being the observer of this nasal

"I".

 

Some more weeks of practice and the "I" descends once more to the region

on top of the throat. Here I better mention that even when we descend to

the region of the nose or the throat, there's still the activity of the

brain to contend with. The brain is the normal "I" which interacts with

the world. Even when you try holding onto "yourself" at the top of the

throat, the consciousness keeps vacillating between yourself and the

brain (which is also you).

 

The key here is to draw into yourself instinctively using your

intuition. No so much the ideas as to what you are - brahman, atman,

nirguna etc. But deep breaths, with eyes closed, trying to center in on

yourself. I would ask myself repeatedly, How can it be so difficult to

know myself? How can it be so difficult to be myself? Me! Me! Sometimes

I've given up in frustration and at other times have stretched back in

resignation.

 

But again practice makes perfect!

 

More meditation and my feeling of myself has slid from the top of the

throat into the area of the solar plexus - right in the center of the

chest. With this "I", there's no feeling of an external observer. When I

draw myself into this I, I instinctively know this is me in my primal

element. The brain with it's consciousness is still there, but there's

the acute feeling that the I in the chest being the true I. No it's not

feeling, for one can only "feel" objects - it's a kind of certainty.

 

The brain is still powerful. And the consciousness keeps being

objectified by the brain. But with repeated practice it's getting easier

to be myself.

[Guest guest]

>"nanda chandran" <vpcnk

>

>But again practice makes perfect!

 

Nanda - you have zeroed in the problem. Hence Krishna's declaration that

is supported by your own labour pains -

abhyaasenatu kounteya vairaagyeNa cha gR^ihyate || Ch.6

by practice and by detachment even to the longing mind that is longing for

some experience!

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

At 11:57 AM 12/14/98 PST, nanda chandran wrote:

>"nanda chandran" <vpcnk

>

>Sometime back I'd protested against Greg's quotation of Atmananda's

>concept of the two levels of the Self. For the past three weeks my

>experiments with meditation has enabled me to understand it better (I

>hope this is what Atmananda was referring to.)

 

In a strange way, you are much closer to what he meant.

 

Atmananda doesn't speak of two levels of the Self, but two kinds of

witness. In the Preface to his ATMA DARSHAN and in the text itself, he

refers to two kinds of witness (albeit in different places, for different

purposes). One aspect of the witness seems to observe the jiva, the other

aspect is Atma Itself. A way to reach the second level of the witness

(Atma) is via the first level. When the second level is reached, all

witnessing, which is superimposition, drops away. But this is a prakriya

only, one of many. In explaining this prakriya, he talks about prakriyas

in general:

 

"Neither the great Masters nor the Vedantic works insist

that the different Prakriyas or modes of approach represent

absolute truth. On the other hand, according to them,

they are several means towards the same end, namely

that of attaining Reality."

 

--Preface, ATMA DARSHAN, p. 3

 

He then quotes Sureshwaracharya (disciple of Shankara) as follows:

 

"That path alone, by following which a man becomes grounded

in the knowledge of the real 'I' principle, is the right path

for him. There is no one single path which suits all alike."

 

Atmananda goes on to comment that there's no need to reconcile the

different prakriyas with each other. So if his own model, which involves

the notions of memory, sensations, jiva, and levels of witnessing, does not

match up with some other Vedantic prakriya, it shouldn't be expected to.

It's a mode of approach only. Not to be attached to the words.

>When you're able to sit down with your eyes closed for a few minutes and

>you are able to distinguish yourself from the streams of thought, there

>still remains the problem of pin pointing the source of ourselves.

 

How could this be possible? If the source were pin-pointed, then what

would be aware of it? Can we see our eyes?

>When we persist in trying to abide in ourselves soon we get to notice

>that the concentration is in the region of the brain. There's that much

>pressure in the head and in the region between the brows on the

>forehead. But even as this implies there again is the observer who's

>able to make this observation.

 

.... more steps narrated ...

 

It's interesting that you are narrate this line of approach in the same

posting as you mention Atmananda. Because one of Atmananda's great

students, the late Jean Klein, uses a yogic body-sensing approach to

illustrate that everything which arises in consciousness (mind, body,

world) is something that is witnessed, and therefore not the source... The

witness disappears when the objects that arise disappear. There is only

source at that point, and it is not seen as source. At that point, one is

one's true Self, "seeing Atma everywhere."

 

--Greg