Guest guest Posted April 9, 1999 Report Share Posted April 9, 1999 >But, it is always the wrong 'I' that speaks. The real 'I' does not act, >does not speak, does not hear. So how do you know that it even exists? Are you ever aware of yourself apart from seeing, feeling, willing etc? >(The two-bird analogy of the MunDAka >upanishad is very apt here.). It is the wrong 'I' that participates in >the worldly activities. If it's only the wrong "I" which participates in the worldly activities, where was the true "I" at that point in time? If you say it was absent, then the question would naturally follow, "then why shouldn't it always be absent?" >Realization may be viewed as >(1) removal of the wrong 'I'. It is not exactly physical removal, but if >we trace the source of the wrong 'I', we will see it will vanish and is >not there at all. So who's that who's doing the removal? It cannot be the true "I", as you've already said that the true I, doesn't act. >Realization may also be viewed as >(2) merging of the wrong 'I' with the real 'I'. In this case, the real 'I' >takes over. In this case also, the wrong 'I' is no longer there. >In either way of looking and particularly in (1) above, who is doing the >removal of the wrong 'I' or who is doing the sAdhana? It is the wrong 'I'. >That is, the wrong 'I' does the sAdhana to remove itself. Blessed is that >wrong 'I' who recognizes that sAdhana is an effort put by the wrong 'I' to weaken itself. I agree with this view for practical purposes only. What should be understood is that the false "I" is the only "I" - a psycho physical entity with no substance of its own. The platform on which it rests is the true I. But in actuality there's no "true" I. The truth is without individuality - the true "I" is the I in its most primal sense and actually is no "I" at all. The end of the rise of the "I" is the true dawning of knowledge. _____________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 1999 Report Share Posted April 9, 1999 ( >> Gummuluru Murthy's earlier post; > Shri Nanda Chandran's post) On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, nanda chandran wrote: > "nanda chandran" <vpcnk > >> But, it is always the wrong 'I' that speaks. The real 'I' does not >> act, does not speak, does not hear. > So how do you know that it even exists? namaste. I take your question to mean "How does the wrong 'I' know that the real 'I' exist? Without the real 'I', the wrong 'I' does not even exist. It is the real 'I' that makes the wrong 'I' speak, hear, act. You may consider my answer to be a bookish answer, but let me give it any way. The wrong 'I' is in deep sleep and is awake the next morning and says I (the wrong 'I') had a good sleep. How does the wrong 'I' know that it had a good sleep? Wrong 'I' is not there (is not conscious) when that sleeping is taking place. There must be something which is keeping up the continuity of the wrong 'I', even in situations where the wrong 'I' is absent. That one which is present all the time is the real 'I'. Unfortunately, the wrong 'I' thinks it is the real 'I' and hence the whole calamity of mAyA and the jagat. Whether the above answer is a simple parrotting of what the sages have said or if it is the experiential understanding of this wrong 'I', only this wrong 'I' knows. > Are you ever aware of yourself > apart from seeing, feeling, willing etc? > I (this wrong 'I') takes the question to mean "Are you the wrong 'I' ever aware of yourself (the wrong 'I') apart from seeing, feeling, willing, etc? Answer: No, not in a cognitive sense. The difficulty is, the wrong 'I' cannot make contact with the real 'I' in the vyavahArika, because the real 'I' is never there in the vyavahArika, and the wrong 'I' is never there in the paramArtha. But one (the wrong 'I') can infer intuitively that there is a real 'I' which is *always* there in the background which is making the wrong 'I' do whatever it (the wrong 'I') is making. The real 'I' can only be intuitively known by the wrong 'I'. >> (The two-bird analogy of the MunDAka >> upanishad is very apt here.). It is the wrong 'I' that participates >> in the worldly activities. > If it's only the wrong "I" which participates in the worldly > activities, where was the true "I" at that point in time? If you say > it was absent, then the question would naturally follow, "then why > shouldn't it always be absent?" > As I (the wrong 'I') said above, the real 'I' is *always* there and is *never* absent. >> Realization may be viewed as >> (1) removal of the wrong 'I'. It is not exactly physical removal, but >> if we trace the source of the wrong 'I', we will see it will vanish and >> is not there at all. > > So who's that who's doing the removal? It cannot be the true "I", as > you've already said that the true I, doesn't act. > It is the wrong 'I', as the continuation of my last post shows. >> Realization may also be viewed as >> (2) merging of the wrong 'I' with the real 'I'. In this case, the >> real 'I' takes over. In this case also, the wrong 'I' is no longer >> there. In either way of looking and particularly in (1) above, who >> is doing the removal of the wrong 'I' or who is doing the sAdhana? >> It is the wrong 'I'. That is, the wrong 'I' does the sAdhana to >> remove itself. Blessed is that wrong 'I' who recognizes that sAdhana >> is an effort put by the wrong 'I' to weaken itself. > > I agree with this view for practical purposes only. What should be > understood is that the false "I" is the only "I" - a psycho physical > entity with no substance of its own. The platform on which it rests is > the true I. But in actuality there's no "true" I. The truth is without > individuality - the true "I" is the I in its most primal sense and > actually is no "I" at all. > > The end of the rise of the "I" is the true dawning of knowledge. > You may call the true 'I' as a platform or Brahman. It does not matter. But, that is the only one that exists. I (the wrong 'I' GM) agree that it, the wrong 'I' is a psycho-physical entity with no substance of its own. But I cannot see that it is the *only* 'I'. If you are saying that this I is a psycho-physical entity with no substance of its own *and* it is the only 'I', then, are you denying existence? If what you call platform is not the true 'I', then it causes problems. Because they are two truths (the platform and the true 'I') which are independent. That cannot be the case. Further, the platform and the true 'I' have to be identical. If not, existence of the platform can be denied eventually. The true 'I' is the only one that exists and is identical with the platform. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 1999 Report Share Posted April 10, 1999 namaste. A small correction to my post of early this morning on this topic. On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > [...] > > > I (this wrong 'I') takes the question to mean "Are you > the wrong 'I' ever aware of yourself (the wrong 'I') apart > from seeing, feeling, willing, etc? > > Answer: No, not in a cognitive sense. > > The difficulty is, the wrong 'I' cannot make contact with > the real 'I' in the vyavahArika, because the real 'I' is > never there in the vyavahArika, and the wrong 'I' is never > there in the paramArtha. > I mean to say in the second and third line above, starting from "because", "... because the real 'I' cannot be got hold of (by the senses) in the vyavahArika..." I am sorry for the slip. It is late-night composing. > [...] Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.