Guest guest Posted October 28, 1999 Report Share Posted October 28, 1999 Now hear this and ponder! The Self, the transpersonal or causal Witness, is not - like the ego or the soul--a "personality," since it has no specific characteristics whatsoever - it is pure Emptiness and the great Unborn, except for the fact that it is an Emptiness still separate from Form, a Witness still divorced from that which is witnessed. As such, the Self or Witness is the seat of attention, the root of the separate-self sense, and the home of the last and subtlest duality, namely, that between the Seer and the seen. It is both the highest Self, and the final barrier, the final knot to nondual One Taste. Once we push through or inquire into the Witness position, the Self dissolves and there is only this shimmering play of non- dual Awareness; Awareness that does not look at objects but is completely one with all objects. ~dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 1999 Report Share Posted October 28, 1999 Dave Sirjue [Dave_Sirjue] Thursday, October 28, 1999 4:05 PM advaitin The Self "Dave Sirjue" <Dave_Sirjue Now hear this and ponder! The Self, the transpersonal or causal Witness, is not - like the ego or the soul--a "personality," since it has no specific characteristics whatsoever - it is pure Emptiness and the great Unborn, except for the fact that it is an Emptiness still separate from Form, a Witness still divorced from that which is witnessed. As such, the Self or Witness is the seat of attention, the root of the separate-self sense, and the home of the last and subtlest duality, namely, that between the Seer and the seen. It is both the highest Self, and the final barrier, the final knot to nondual One Taste. Once we push through or inquire into the Witness position, the Self dissolves and there is only this shimmering play of non- dual Awareness; Awareness that does not look at objects but is completely one with all objects. ~dave Self It Self Is the Nondual Awareness. Objects? What objects? Look at? Does not look at? What is all this? When the Witness itself has disappeared who is one with what -- and who will look at or not look at who!? To be one with objects, there must me objects to be one with! Self Is the Ultimate Simplicity -- obvious without logic. It is the Look, Looking at It Self. Where else to Look? Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 1999 Report Share Posted October 28, 1999 At 04:43 PM 10/28/99 , Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: >"Dave Sirjue" <Dave_Sirjue > > > >Now hear this and ponder! > >it is pure Emptiness >and the great Unborn, except for the fact that it is an Emptiness >still separate from Form, a Witness still divorced from that >which is witnessed. Huh?? >Once we push through or inquire into the Witness position, >the Self dissolves and there is only this shimmering play of non- >dual Awareness; Awareness that does not look at objects but is >completely one with all objects. Harsha writes: >Self It Self Is the Nondual Awareness. Objects? What objects? Look at? Does >not look at? What is all this? When the Witness itself has disappeared who >is one with what -- and who will look at or not look at who!? To be one with >objects, there must me objects to be one with! Self Is the Ultimate >Simplicity -- obvious without logic. It is the Look, Looking at It Self. >Where else to Look? You said it, Harsha-ji! Love, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 1999 Report Share Posted October 29, 1999 To exchange comments about the Self is a worthwhile occupation for the seeker of advaitic enlightenment. I give below an attempted essay on The Self. It all started with my attempting to explain Verses 5 and 6 of Ch.6 of the gItA to an audience of students. It tries to say too many things within too short a space. So it is very highly amenable for criticism. If members would help me to tear it to pieces, maybe I will see more light. 1. What I refer to by 'oneself' (svayaM in Sanskrit) is the psychological personality, including the physical. mental and intellectual. 2. What I refer to as 'one's self' is the one which travels from body to body. To it clings all the vAsanAs and the balance of karma that has to be experienced. It is called jIva in Sanskrit, also as the kshara-purusha, the perishable purusha (of the 15th chapter of the gItA). In common English parlance it is the Soul. Expositors on advaita philosophy use also the English terms 'the outer self', 'the lower self' and 'the phenomenal self'. To identify these two (namely, Nos.2 and 1) is the fundamental error of Man. This identification gives the common notion of 'I'. It is the false 'I' from a spiritual point of view. All our problems arise from this identification. So identified, the jIva becomes the agent (doer) of all actions and thoughts. This is what leads to further birth (and therefore ) death. 3. What I refer to as one's Self is the one which 'witnesses' without attachment or involvement, all actions and thoughts of the individual. In Sanskrit it is the Atman, also jIvAtman, also akshara-purusha (of the 15th chapter) . This is the 'tvaM' of 'tat-tvam-asi' or the 'aham' of 'aham brahma asmi'. To identify No.2 with No.3 (i.e. one's self with one's Self) is the correct identification that the advaita seeker should aspire for. It leads to the right conceptualisation of 'I'. This is what 'That Thou Art' requires of us. Sage Ramana asks us to seek this 'I'. Once this identification is done, the jIva (one's self identified with one's Self) can live in the blissful state: 'I am neither the doer nor the experiencer'. In this state, pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow, will not touch the jIva. This is the state of jIvan-mukti', the state of 'moksha' even when the body is breathing. 4. The Self is the param-Atman, purushottama, 'tat' or brahman. It is the transcendental Absolute. That there is no essential difference between No.3 and No. 4 can be logically (?) argued out. The mahA-vAkyas 'tat tvaM asi' and 'ahaM brahma asmi' say there is no essential difference between No.4 (brahman) and the 'tvaM' or 'ahaM' denoted by 'one's-self-identified-with-one's-Self' (namely No.2 identified with No.3). If someone wants to see the whole thing in a chart form, please go to http://www.geocities.com/profvk/TheSelf.html The floor is yours!. PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk Prof. V. Krishnamurthy The URL of my website has been simplified as http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ You can access both my books from there. Bid and sell for free at Auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 1999 Report Share Posted October 29, 1999 On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, V. Krishnamurthy wrote: > "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk > > > To exchange comments about the Self is a worthwhile occupation for the seeker of advaitic enlightenment. I give below an attempted essay on The Self. It all started with my attempting to explain Verses 5 and 6 of Ch.6 of the gItA to an audience of students. It tries to say too many things within too short a space. So it is very highly amenable for criticism. If members would help me to tear it to pieces, maybe I will see more light. > > 1. What I refer to by 'oneself' (svayaM in Sanskrit) is the psychological personality, including the physical. mental and intellectual. > > 2. What I refer to as 'one's self' is the one which travels from body to body. To it clings all the vAsanAs and the balance of karma that has to be experienced. It is called jIva in Sanskrit, also as the kshara-purusha, the perishable purusha (of the 15th chapter of the gItA). In common English parlance it is the Soul. Expositors on advaita philosophy use also the English terms 'the outer self', 'the lower self' and 'the phenomenal self'. > > To identify these two (namely, Nos.2 and 1) is the fundamental error of Man. This identification gives the common notion of 'I'. It is the false 'I' from a spiritual point of view. All our problems arise from this identification. So identified, the jIva becomes the agent (doer) of all actions and thoughts. This is what leads to further birth (and therefore ) death. > > 3. What I refer to as one's Self is the one which 'witnesses' without attachment or involvement, all actions and thoughts of the individual. In Sanskrit it is the Atman, also jIvAtman, also akshara-purusha (of the 15th chapter) . This is the 'tvaM' of 'tat-tvam-asi' or the 'aham' of 'aham brahma asmi'. > > To identify No.2 with No.3 (i.e. one's self with one's Self) is the correct identification that the advaita seeker should aspire for. It leads to the right conceptualisation of 'I'. This is what 'That Thou Art' requires of us. Sage Ramana asks us to seek this 'I'. Once this identification is done, the jIva (one's self identified with one's Self) can live in the blissful state: 'I am neither the doer nor the experiencer'. In this state, pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow, will not touch the jIva. This is the state of jIvan-mukti', the state of 'moksha' even when the body is breathing. > > 4. The Self is the param-Atman, purushottama, 'tat' or brahman. It is the transcendental Absolute. That there is no essential difference between No.3 and No. 4 can be logically (?) argued out. The mahA-vAkyas 'tat tvaM asi' and 'ahaM brahma asmi' say there is no essential difference between No.4 (brahman) and the 'tvaM' or 'ahaM' denoted by 'one's-self-identified-with-one's-Self' (namely No.2 identified with No.3). > namaste. This discussion of the SELF is quite interesting. In profvk's essay, I wonder why he called his #3 as one's Self. IT does not belong to ^^^^^ anyone. Is it not more appropriate to say IT is the SELF, without "one's" ? > > profvk > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 1999 Report Share Posted October 29, 1999 wrote] The Self, the transpersonal or causal Witness, is not - like the ego or the soul--a "personality," since it has no specific characteristics whatsoever - it is pure Emptiness and the great Unborn, except for the fact that it is an Emptiness still separate from Form, a Witness still divorced from that which is witnessed. As such, the Self or Witness is the seat of attention, the root of the separate-self sense, and the home of the last and subtlest duality, namely, that between the Seer and the seen. It is both the highest Self, and the final barrier, the final knot to nondual One Taste. Once we push through or inquire into the Witness position, the Self dissolves and there is only this shimmering play of non- dual Awareness; Awareness that does not look at objects but is completely one with all objects. [Harsh wrote] Self It Self Is the Nondual Awareness. Objects? What objects? Look at? Does not look at? What is all this? When the Witness itself has disappeared who is one with what -- and who will look at or not look at who!? To be one with objects, there must me objects to be one with! Self Is the Ultimate Simplicity -- obvious without logic. It is the Look, Looking at It Self. Where else to Look? First, let me congratulate you for presenting your counter- arguments. In fact, I understand, great debates were the means to ascertain Truth and used effectively by both Janaka and Shankara. During debates like these, I feel it is important that all parties first try to understand the meaning behind the words and definitions, used by the other is trying to express an experience, given the limitations of words itself to define such a subtle reality. Your definition of 'Self' seems to convey the same transrational experience, which I expressed as 'non-dual Awareness'. However, you should have noticed that when I used the word 'Self' it was in relation to the Self at the causal level. My criticism above was with regards to a spiritual pathology that affect many seekers, resulting in them being fused or stuck at that level of Self-Realisation (causal or Nirvikalpa) - absorbed in their own subjective witnessing silence. They have not truly transcended or graduated to the Turiya "State" but merely performed a trick, simulating immunity from responsibilities, worldly or otherwise, so eloquently expressed in texts such as Tripura Rahasya, and pointed out by Acharyas of the Bhakti school of Vedanta, notably Madhavacharya - from Self-Realisation to God-Realisation (or no-self realization). You also ask what 'object' I was referring to since you seem to say, correct me if I'm wrong, that at this 'stage' objects and subjects cease. Please remember, what really ceases is your false concepts of subject and object, but only in your mind. What you really pass through is a mind-cleanse or anti-brainwashing, purified of all that rubbish you read or heard, back to its primordial innocence. Reality - the real object - I was referring to ( we must use words here!), shines in all its glory. If you check Ramana writings, he refers to this 'object' as a primordial Shakti that remains when the all has died. Aurobindo himself called it the "Para-Prakritti" or "Para-Shakti", beyond illusory objects (apara-prakritti) . In Vedanta it is called "That" in Taoism called "Tao", Shankara, himself, praises "That Shakti" in his text, Saundaryalahari and so on... Regards ~dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 1999 Report Share Posted October 29, 1999 dave's message brings to my mind a quote of sri nisargadatta maharaj: "the clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only,the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realize that you are the limitless being" -devendra. >"Dave Sirjue" <Dave_Sirjue >advaitin >advaitin >Re: The Self >Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:27:36 -0500 > > > >Q : Please, in the question "Who am I?" what does "I" mean? > Does it mean the essence of life? > > A : "Who am I?" is not really a question because it has no answer to >it; > it is unanswerable. It is a device, not a question. It is >used as >a mantra. > When you constantly inquire inside: "Who am I? Who am I?" > you are not waiting for an answer. Your mind will supply >many >answers; > all those answers have to be rejected. Your mind will say: > "You are the essence of life. You are the eternal soul. You are >divine," > and so on and so forth. All those answers have to be rejected: > neti neti -- one has to go on saying: "Neither this nor that." > > When you have denied all the possible answers that the mind can >supply > and devise, when the question remains absolutely unanswerable, > a miracle happens: suddenly the question also disappears. > When all the answers have been rejected, the question has no props, > no supports inside to stand on any more. It simply flops, it >collapses, > it disappears. > > When the question also has disappeared, then you know. But that >knowing > is not an answer: it is an existential experience. Nothing can be >said >about it, > or whatever will be said will be wrong. To say anything about it is >to >falsify it. > It is the ultimate mystery, inexpressible, indefinable. > No word is adequate enough to describe it. Even the phrase "essence >of >life" is > not adequate; even "God" is not adequate. Nothing is adequate to >express >it; > its very nature is inexpressible. > > But you know. You know exactly the way the seed knows how to grow > -- not like the professor who knows about chemistry or physics or >geography > or history, but like the bud which knows how to open in the early >morning >sun. > Not like the priest who knows about God; about and about he goes, >around >and > around he goes. Knowledge is beating around the bush: knowing is a >direct > penetration. > > But the moment you directly penetrate into existence, you disappear >as > a separate entity. You are no more. When the knower is no more then >the > knowing is. And the knowing is not about something -- you are that >knowing > itself. > > So I cannot say, what "I" means in the question "Who am I?" > It means nothing! It is just a device to lead you into the unknown, > to lead you into the uncharted, to lead you into that which is not >available > to the mind. It is a sword to cut the very roots of the mind, so only >the >silence > of no-mind is left. In that silence there is no question, no answer, >no >knower, > no known, but only knowing, only experiencing. > > That's why the mystics appear to be in such difficulty to express it. > Many of them have remained silent out of the awareness that >whatsoever > you say goes wrong; the moment you say it, it goes wrong. Those who >have > spoken, they have spoken with the condition: "Don't cling to our >words." > > Lao Tzu says: "Tao, once described, is no more the real Tao." > The moment you say something about it you have already falsified it, > you have betrayed it. It is such an intimate knowing, incommunicable. > > "Who am I?" functions like a sword to cut all the answers that the >mind > can manage. Zen people will say it is a koan, just like other koans. >There > are many koans, famous koans. One is: "Find out your original face." > And the disciple asks the master: "What is the original face?" And > the Master says: "The face that you had before your parents were >born." > > And you start meditating on that: "What is your original face?" >Naturally, > you have to deny all your faces. Many faces will start surfacing: >childhood >faces, > when you were young, when you became middle-aged, when you became >old, > when you were healthy, when you were ill.... All kinds of faces will >stand >in a queue. > They will pass before your eyes claiming: "I am the original face." >And you >have to > go on rejecting. > > When all the faces have been rejected and emptiness is left, you have >found > the original face. > > Emptiness is the original face. Zero is the ultimate experience. >Nothingness > -- or more accurately no-thingness -- is your original face. > > Or another famous koan is: "The sound of one hand clapping." The >Master >says > to the disciple: "Go and listen to the sound of one hand clapping." >Now >this is > patent absurdity: one hand cannot clap and without clapping there can >be no > sound. The Master knows it, the disciple knows it. But when the >Master >says: > "Go and meditate on it," the disciple has to follow. > > He starts making efforts to listen to the sound of one hand clapping. >Many >sounds > come to his mind: the birds singing, the sound of running water.... >He >rushes > immediately to the Master; he says: "I have heard it! The sound of >running >water > -- isn't that the sound of one hand clapping?" > > And the Master hits him hard on the head and he says: "You fool! Go >back, > meditate more!" > > And he goes on meditating, and the mind goes on providing new >answers: > "The sound of wind passing through the pine trees -- certainly this >is the >answer." > He is in such a hurry! Everybody is in such a hurry. Impatiently he >rushes >to the > door of the Master, a little bit apprehensive, afraid too, but maybe >this >is the answer.... > > And even before he has said a single thing the Master hits him! He is >very >much > puzzled and he says: "This is too much! I have not even uttered a >single >word, so > how can I be wrong? And why are you hitting me?" > > The Master says: "It is not a question of whether you have uttered >something or not. > You have come with an answer -- that is enough proof that you must be >wrong. When > you have really found it you won't come; there will be no need. I >will >come to you." > > Sometimes years pass, and then one day it has happened, there is no >answer. >First the > disciple knew that there was no answer to it, but it was only an >intellectual knowing. > Now he knows from his very core: "There is no answer!" All answers >have >evaporated. > > And the sure sign that all answers have evaporated is only one: when >the >question also > evaporates. Now he is sitting silently doing nothing, not even >meditating. >He has forgotten > the question: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" It is no >more >there. It is pure silence. > > And there are ways...there are inner paths which exist between a >Master and >a disciple. > And now the Master rushes towards the disciple. He knocks on his >door. He >hugs the > disciple and says: "So it has happened? This is it! No answer, no >question: >this is it. > Ah, this!" > > ~dave > > > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin >Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 1999 Report Share Posted October 29, 1999 Q : Please, in the question "Who am I?" what does "I" mean? Does it mean the essence of life? A : "Who am I?" is not really a question because it has no answer to it; it is unanswerable. It is a device, not a question. It is used as a mantra. When you constantly inquire inside: "Who am I? Who am I?" you are not waiting for an answer. Your mind will supply many answers; all those answers have to be rejected. Your mind will say: "You are the essence of life. You are the eternal soul. You are divine," and so on and so forth. All those answers have to be rejected: neti neti -- one has to go on saying: "Neither this nor that." When you have denied all the possible answers that the mind can supply and devise, when the question remains absolutely unanswerable, a miracle happens: suddenly the question also disappears. When all the answers have been rejected, the question has no props, no supports inside to stand on any more. It simply flops, it collapses, it disappears. When the question also has disappeared, then you know. But that knowing is not an answer: it is an existential experience. Nothing can be said about it, or whatever will be said will be wrong. To say anything about it is to falsify it. It is the ultimate mystery, inexpressible, indefinable. No word is adequate enough to describe it. Even the phrase "essence of life" is not adequate; even "God" is not adequate. Nothing is adequate to express it; its very nature is inexpressible. But you know. You know exactly the way the seed knows how to grow -- not like the professor who knows about chemistry or physics or geography or history, but like the bud which knows how to open in the early morning sun. Not like the priest who knows about God; about and about he goes, around and around he goes. Knowledge is beating around the bush: knowing is a direct penetration. But the moment you directly penetrate into existence, you disappear as a separate entity. You are no more. When the knower is no more then the knowing is. And the knowing is not about something -- you are that knowing itself. So I cannot say, what "I" means in the question "Who am I?" It means nothing! It is just a device to lead you into the unknown, to lead you into the uncharted, to lead you into that which is not available to the mind. It is a sword to cut the very roots of the mind, so only the silence of no-mind is left. In that silence there is no question, no answer, no knower, no known, but only knowing, only experiencing. That's why the mystics appear to be in such difficulty to express it. Many of them have remained silent out of the awareness that whatsoever you say goes wrong; the moment you say it, it goes wrong. Those who have spoken, they have spoken with the condition: "Don't cling to our words." Lao Tzu says: "Tao, once described, is no more the real Tao." The moment you say something about it you have already falsified it, you have betrayed it. It is such an intimate knowing, incommunicable. "Who am I?" functions like a sword to cut all the answers that the mind can manage. Zen people will say it is a koan, just like other koans. There are many koans, famous koans. One is: "Find out your original face." And the disciple asks the master: "What is the original face?" And the Master says: "The face that you had before your parents were born." And you start meditating on that: "What is your original face?" Naturally, you have to deny all your faces. Many faces will start surfacing: childhood faces, when you were young, when you became middle-aged, when you became old, when you were healthy, when you were ill.... All kinds of faces will stand in a queue. They will pass before your eyes claiming: "I am the original face." And you have to go on rejecting. When all the faces have been rejected and emptiness is left, you have found the original face. Emptiness is the original face. Zero is the ultimate experience. Nothingness -- or more accurately no-thingness -- is your original face. Or another famous koan is: "The sound of one hand clapping." The Master says to the disciple: "Go and listen to the sound of one hand clapping." Now this is patent absurdity: one hand cannot clap and without clapping there can be no sound. The Master knows it, the disciple knows it. But when the Master says: "Go and meditate on it," the disciple has to follow. He starts making efforts to listen to the sound of one hand clapping. Many sounds come to his mind: the birds singing, the sound of running water.... He rushes immediately to the Master; he says: "I have heard it! The sound of running water -- isn't that the sound of one hand clapping?" And the Master hits him hard on the head and he says: "You fool! Go back, meditate more!" And he goes on meditating, and the mind goes on providing new answers: "The sound of wind passing through the pine trees -- certainly this is the answer." He is in such a hurry! Everybody is in such a hurry. Impatiently he rushes to the door of the Master, a little bit apprehensive, afraid too, but maybe this is the answer.... And even before he has said a single thing the Master hits him! He is very much puzzled and he says: "This is too much! I have not even uttered a single word, so how can I be wrong? And why are you hitting me?" The Master says: "It is not a question of whether you have uttered something or not. You have come with an answer -- that is enough proof that you must be wrong. When you have really found it you won't come; there will be no need. I will come to you." Sometimes years pass, and then one day it has happened, there is no answer. First the disciple knew that there was no answer to it, but it was only an intellectual knowing. Now he knows from his very core: "There is no answer!" All answers have evaporated. And the sure sign that all answers have evaporated is only one: when the question also evaporates. Now he is sitting silently doing nothing, not even meditating. He has forgotten the question: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" It is no more there. It is pure silence. And there are ways...there are inner paths which exist between a Master and a disciple. And now the Master rushes towards the disciple. He knocks on his door. He hugs the disciple and says: "So it has happened? This is it! No answer, no question: this is it. Ah, this!" ~dave 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.