The "I", the soul, change and salvation

[Guest guest]

Man is a compound of the mind, body and spirit. The existence of the

spirit is proved in deep sleep where when we wake up, we wake up as

the same person who went to sleep. And the state of deep sleep is not

an abstract, objective state which we only infer as state between the

dream state and waking up - for when we wake up we wake up with the

full realization of having experienced peace and bliss for a

particular period of time after the dream state. Thus are we the

spirit.

 

Here in reference to the compounded psycho/physical/spiritual entity

that is every human being, where does the identity - the "I" - rest?

In the waking state it rests in the tri-combitnation of the

mind/body/spirit. In dream state it is the bi-combination of mind and

spirit. In deep sleep it is the spirit in itself.

 

One thing to be noted is that, of the three states it is only during

the waking state that we've the will/control over our being. The state

of dream is beyond our control where the mind creates its own world

based on prior experiences in the waking state. In the deep sleep

state we've no "I" consciousness as it is in the waking state.

 

When we talk about saadhana where human will/effort is implied, we're

primarily talking about only the state of waking. And in the state of

waking man is a psycho/physical/spiritual complex.

 

In the compounded human being, when we talk of change, change can be

either with respect to the body or mind - the spirit is considered to

be changeless. One way to prove the changelessness of the spirit is

that while we experience the changes in the mind, body and objects

around us, still we who experience are always the same - constant - as

the experiencer. So the "I" in its spiritual sense remains changeless

and constant.

 

So in the constant expressions in our normal lives where we say to

another person whom we meet after a long time : "you've changed" -

what does the "you" refer to here? It cannot refer to either the body

or the mind seperately for if the person's physical appearance has

changed - he's grown bigger or fatter or slimmer - we don't say "your

body has grown or fattened". We say "you've grown tall or fattened".

Or if we detect a changed perspective of life in the person - some

seriousness or frivolity - we don't say "your mind has changed" - we

say "you've changed".

 

The body changes - we grow/age/become old. The mind also changes -

thoughts flow in an unceasing stream; we also "acquire knowledge". But

changes to the body doesn't necessarily imply any change to the mind

and vice versa. Even if it does, change is necessarily limited to the

object it changes - to the mind or the body. But neither the body nor

the mind is the "you" or "I" in itself. So how does any change on

either get translated into a "you've changed" or "I've changed".

 

So what's the normal "you" or "I" refer to?

 

The "you" or "I" in our normal life which we use either to address

other people or ourselves is with regards to the compounded psycho

physical entity - the combination of the mind/body/spirit. Coming

together these give rise to the identity of the "I". As human beings,

in the waking state, we are the whole package together - the mind,

body and spirit.

 

But again it should be noted that when we talk about essence or

substance or soul, this "I" has a dual perspective. Because as a

compounded entity, without the things that make up the compound the

"I" cannot be said to exist in itself. But again since the base or the

essence of the "I" lies in consciousness - since we're conscious

beings and the knower - and while the body and mind have no existence

in themselves apart from the spirit (even as it is in deep sleep or

death), still the spirit can exist in itself as it does in deep sleep

- from that angle the spiritual "I" is the essence or soul of man.

 

The great problem in philosophy lies in the confusion between the

compounded "I" whose identity lies in the compound of the

psycho/physical/spiritual being and the true "I" which is the spirit

or pure consciousness which "powers" the psycho physical being. All

change is only from the stand point of the compounded identity and not

the true identity or the soul - which is the changeless absolute.

 

This understanding has great relevance to spiritual practice too. If

we mistake the compounded "I", which is nothing but the Ego, for the

true I, then there will only be strengthening of the Ego and there

cannot be any salvation.

 

But again what is salvation and what's spiritual effort?

 

When we talk about salvation, it is necessarily interpreted as

becoming something else - becoming something which we already aren't.

Such a view is natural for human beings as becoming is the nature of

psycho/physical entities who constantly experience change and

becoming.

 

The spirit is the true "I" and is already part of our compounded

identity. To be the spirit we need not become something else, cause in

our essence we're already it. If we transcend our compounded identity

and abide in our true "I", that's salvation. All that conduces to this

state is true spiritual practice. To be the spirit, one should

necessarily avoid identification with the body and mind. Action, both

physical and mental, is what reinforces our identity with the body and

mind. To be still is to abide in the spirit. That's the reason Advaita

teaches that karma (action) is the anti-thesis of jnaana (knowledge).

Hence the significance of the teaching of silence of Dakshinaamurti

and Ramanamaharishi. As the Tamil siddas say "summa iru" or "keep

quiet" or as the Bible says : "be still and know you are God".

[Guest guest]

advaitin, vpcnk@H... wrote:

.....> Advaita

> teaches that karma (action) is the anti-thesis of jnaana

(knowledge).

> Hence the significance of the teaching of silence of Dakshinaamurti

> and Ramanamaharishi. As the Tamil siddas say "summa iru" or "keep

> quiet" or as the Bible says : "be still and know you are God".

 

 

I bow to you;

I humbly offer the following thoughts:

The bible actually says: "Be still and know that I Am God." There is

no "you" or another. Advaita teaches that there is "not two." Neither

is there a separate body or mind. There is no one to

practice "sadhana."

 

Anything that may be conceived of is not real in an absolute sense.

Even spirit is not real. Jnana is inexpressible, and where it is

expressed it becomes action or form, which is transitory. "The way

that is followed is not absolute. That which can be spoken can never

be real." (Tao Te Ching 1).

 

Love and grace,

~ Janak.

[Guest guest]

>The bible actually says: "Be still and know that I Am God." There

>is no "you" or another. Advaita teaches that there is "not two."

>Neither is there a separate body or mind. There is no one to

>practice "sadhana."

 

Then what's the meaning of "neti, neti"? Why is there a sustained

effort by the Advaita aachaaryas in their works to teach you how to

distinguish between yourSelf and the non-self. Where would there be

any efficacy to ethics, practice of the control of the senses, body

and mind or samnyaasam?

 

Paramaartha should not be indiscriminately mixed with vyavahaara.

 

The objective is to attain nirvaana - not to merely "know" the truth

in the conceptual sense, but become the truth - brahma vid brahmaiva

bhavathi.

 

All philosophy is thus only useful to structure the best path to

liberation. In itself philosophy has little value : "those who value

knowledge in itself go to worlds of blinding darkness" - Isha

Upanishad.

 

This is the fundamental reason that the Buddha protested against

metaphysical speculation. All conceptions like : "there's nothing

other than you", "all in you and you in all" - all these might sound

grand, but have little utility in actual spiritual practice. Being -

all in you and you in all - is to be experienced and not

conceptualized. Infact from what I've seen, even as in this post,

such conceptions are actually counter productive.

 

The mind is very strong. So for most Vedantists, Vedanta is only at a

conceptual level - an idea.

 

People should learn to distinguish between epistemology, psychology,

metaphysics and ontology. Practically only the first two are needed

for spiritual practice where we learn to distinguish between the "I"

and the non-"I" - the second two is to be experienced.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

advaitin, vpcnk@H... wrote:

> Man is a compound of the mind, body and spirit. The existence of

the

> spirit is proved in deep sleep where when we wake up, we wake up as

> the same person who went to sleep. And the state of deep sleep is

not

> an abstract, objective state which we only infer as state between

the

> dream state and waking up - for when we wake up we wake up with the

> full realization of having experienced peace and bliss for a

> particular period of time after the dream state. Thus are we the

> spirit.

>

Respectfully, I would like to disagree that this alone proves the

existence of spirit. One has no awareness of having been blissful or

peaceful in deep-sleep. One at best has an idea of being nothingness

and with no personal identity. Deep-sleep may only serve as a pointer

to the Realized-state.

--

> Here in reference to the compounded psycho/physical/spiritual

entity

> that is every human being, where does the identity - the "I" -

rest?

> In the waking state it rests in the tri-combitnation of the

> mind/body/spirit. In dream state it is the bi-combination of mind

and

> spirit. In deep sleep it is the spirit in itself.

>

> One thing to be noted is that, of the three states it is only

during

> the waking state that we've the will/control over our being. The

state

> of dream is beyond our control where the mind creates its own world

> based on prior experiences in the waking state. In the deep sleep

> state we've no "I" consciousness as it is in the waking state.

>

 

Though we may say so by and large, there is no proof that one has no

control in dream-state. On the contrary, I read in this list sometime

in March/April that control is possible in dream-state [Refer to

discussions on Whether-Jnani-dreams].

Is there a possibility then that as long as there is an identity, it

may rest beyond body-mind-spirit ? Is there an identity at all? These

are some possibilities.

-

 

>Action, both

> physical and mental, is what reinforces our identity with the body

and

> mind. To be still is to abide in the spirit. That's the reason

Advaita

> teaches that karma (action) is the anti-thesis of jnaana

(knowledge).

> Hence the significance of the teaching of silence of Dakshinaamurti

> and Ramanamaharishi. As the Tamil siddas say "summa iru" or "keep

> quiet" or as the Bible says : "be still and know you are God".

 

Action need not reinforce identification with mind or body - Nishkama

Karma attests to it. Such action is even used to transcend them thru

Karma-Yoga.

"Be still and know that you are the Self" and "Find stillness in

activity and activity in stillness" were both propounded by Sages.

 

Kind Regards,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

advaitin, vpcnk@H... wrote:

>

> All philosophy is thus only useful to structure the best path to

> liberation. In itself philosophy has little value : "those who

value

> knowledge in itself go to worlds of blinding darkness" - Isha

> Upanishad.

>....

> The mind is very strong. So for most Vedantists, Vedanta is only at

a

> conceptual level - an idea.

>

 

I bow to you.

Thank you for pointing out the philosophical bent of my post. All who

follow philosophy trying to ascertain its veracity are following very

obscure markers indeed. Conceptualisation arises only after

awareness. The words of the one who perceives clearly may be

perceived by others to be mere speculation. He who says that he is

one with God is in danger of being stoned to death.

 

I cannot use the philosophical classifications which you used in your

post, for they are alien to me. I will concur with the Buddha that

idle speculation is fruitless. Direct perception, or "experience" as

you called it, is the only path. (Buddhism seems to me to be a vast

and intricate philosophy.)

>From the absolute perspective, which I assume each one here is

interested in realising, there is only Consciousness, and in

consciousness there is not "me" or "another." What would happen if

the sages and masters did not express themselves in this way because

of the danger of being written off as mere philosophers? The blind

and thirsty seeker would be left to their own devices in a trackless

wilderness (so to speak).

 

Nevertheless, such a one needs only to give heed to that which is at

the root of apparent existence, pare away at the conditions and the

transitory qualities which define existence as we see it, to come to

That Which Is prior to manifestation. Is it then counter-productive

to declare What Is?

>From my own story, unless I had heard the shattering news

that "there's nothing other than you" I may not have sought to know

my absolute nature. Yes, this was my actual spiritual practice before

the understanding of "spiritual practice." I sat with the agonising

and urgent idea that "I am not real" and "the universe exists only

due to my ignorance." Astavakra Gita was the first spiritual

philosophy I had read (outside of the Bible). My Guru gave me the

name Janak because it was Astavakra who taught me.

 

Where is the philosophic speculation in perceiving? There is only

Original Consciousness. All else is conceptualisation (or, if you

will, philosophy).

 

As an aside, please explain to me the terms used in your post: "neti,

neti", "paramaartha" and "vyavahaara."

 

Humbly, from a mere jnani,

Janak.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, vpcnk@H... wrote:

>

>

> The mind is very strong. So for most Vedantists, Vedanta is only at

a

> conceptual level - an idea.

>

> People should learn to distinguish between epistemology,

psychology,

> metaphysics and ontology. Practically only the first two are needed

> for spiritual practice where we learn to distinguish between

the "I"

> and the non-"I" - the second two is to be experienced.

 

 

Sorry, there is more:

Yes, the mind is very strong only because we believe it to be, and is

thus assigned absolute believability. The problem with this is that

the mind always is right! (haha) If the mind can say "I am real" in

one moment, and "I am not real" in the next, how real is that?? No,

for absolute perception the mind may be given the task of the

conceptualiser after the "event" (so to speak).

 

Can you tell me what is the meaning of another word you

used: "samnyaasam"? You even had me scurrying to my dictionary to

determine the epistemology, psychology, metaphysics and ontology of

your philosophy. Such things are not necessary to the understanding

of absolute principles. Nisargadatta was a cigarette seller; Ramana,

when he awoke, was a youth. Where was the need for a dictionary for

them?

 

Thank you for pointing out my need to de-philosophise.

 

Love and grace,

~ Janak.

[Guest guest]

Dear Janak (named after the kshatriya jnaani of yore, I guess),

 

What I wanted to say I've already said in my first post and that if

understood properly conduces to silence.

 

neti, neti means "not this, not this" - as a psychological practice to

discriminate between the "I" and non-"I" - between yourself and the

senses/body/mind etc. This is taught by the great sage Yaagnavalkya in

the Brhadaaranyakaa Upanishad and is considered one of the

mahaavaakyas or the great teachings of the Upanishads. This is the

basic practice in the method of Atma Vichaaram or self-introspection

taught by Advaita as the way to know the truth.

 

Vyavahaara and Paramaartha are concepts in Advaita - they've their

parallels in the samvritti and paramaartha concepts in Maadhyamika

Buddhism.

 

Vyavahaara refers to the phenomenal reality - samsaara or the world of

becoming - the world that we live and die in - which is characterised

by relativity and dependence.

 

Paramaartha refers to the absolute reality which is self-existent. It

is brahman/moksham/nirvaana.

> I bow to you.

> Thank you for pointing out the philosophical bent of my post. All

who

> follow philosophy trying to ascertain its veracity are following

very

> obscure markers indeed. Conceptualisation arises only after

> awareness. The words of the one who perceives clearly may be

> perceived by others to be mere speculation. He who says that he is

> one with God is in danger of being stoned to death.

>

> I cannot use the philosophical classifications which you used in

your

> post, for they are alien to me. I will concur with the Buddha that

> idle speculation is fruitless. Direct perception, or "experience" as

> you called it, is the only path. (Buddhism seems to me to be a vast

> and intricate philosophy.)

>

> From the absolute perspective, which I assume each one here is

> interested in realising, there is only Consciousness, and in

> consciousness there is not "me" or "another." What would happen if

> the sages and masters did not express themselves in this way because

> of the danger of being written off as mere philosophers? The blind

> and thirsty seeker would be left to their own devices in a trackless

> wilderness (so to speak).

>

> Nevertheless, such a one needs only to give heed to that which is at

> the root of apparent existence, pare away at the conditions and the

> transitory qualities which define existence as we see it, to come to

> That Which Is prior to manifestation. Is it then counter-productive

> to declare What Is?

>

> From my own story, unless I had heard the shattering news

> that "there's nothing other than you" I may not have sought to know

> my absolute nature. Yes, this was my actual spiritual practice

before

> the understanding of "spiritual practice." I sat with the agonising

> and urgent idea that "I am not real" and "the universe exists only

> due to my ignorance." Astavakra Gita was the first spiritual

> philosophy I had read (outside of the Bible). My Guru gave me the

> name Janak because it was Astavakra who taught me.

>

> Where is the philosophic speculation in perceiving? There is only

> Original Consciousness. All else is conceptualisation (or, if you

> will, philosophy).

>

> As an aside, please explain to me the terms used in your post:

"neti,

> neti", "paramaartha" and "vyavahaara."

>

> Humbly, from a mere jnani,

> Janak.

[Guest guest]

> Respectfully, I would like to disagree that this alone proves the

> existence of spirit. One has no awareness of having been blissful or

> peaceful in deep-sleep. One at best has an idea of being nothingness

> and with no personal identity. Deep-sleep may only serve as a

pointer

> to the Realized-state.

 

If you watch a movie the force of your consciousness is centered on

the object. When the movie finishes, the consciousness to an extent

returns back your psycho/physical being. When you reflect about the

movie, consciousness is centred more on your mind.

 

Such is the variation in the flow of consciousness from object to

subject. For the spiritually untrained consciousness is more objective

in nature.

 

Even till recently I was asking the same question that you raised. But

when you learn to be silent and abide in yourself, the consciousness

of your own self grows - that's the benefit of spiritual

practice/meditation etc - then the experience (even deep sleep)

becomes much more subjective - fundamentally due to

greater self-consciousness and lesser ignorance (which is nothing but

the objective nature of consciousness).

[Guest guest]

advaitin, vpcnk@H... wrote:

> when you learn to be silent and abide in yourself, the

consciousness

> of your own self grows - that's the benefit of spiritual

> practice/meditation etc - then the experience (even deep sleep)

> becomes much more subjective - fundamentally due to

> greater self-consciousness and lesser ignorance (which is nothing

but

> the objective nature of consciousness).

 

 

If I may humbly comment: Within the totality of original

consciousness there is neither subjective nor objective. Such things

are conceived by the human mind.

 

The Silence of course is not the end. Silence may be beneficial, as

it is within the Silence that the inexpressible reality is perceived.

 

All love,

~ Janak.

[Guest guest]

> Can you tell me what is the meaning of another word you

> used: "samnyaasam"?

 

Samnyaasam is the traditional practice of renouncing the world or

phenomenal life and spend the rest of ones days practicing control of

the mind/body/senses and developing knowledge, to attain nirvaana.

>Nisargadatta was a cigarette seller; Ramana,

> when he awoke, was a youth. Where was the need for a dictionary for

> them?

 

Yes, sure. Ramana had no guru but directly expereinced the truth all

of a sudden (more than anybody he's been my primary teacher).

Nisargadatta had a guru and experienced reality.

 

I'm only objecting to metaphysical speculation - knowing who you are

is the key and not speculating about your true nature or the

relationship between the true nature and the world. These you will

automatically know when you know yourself.

>You even had me scurrying to my dictionary to

> determine the epistemology, psychology, metaphysics and ontology of

> your philosophy. Such things are not necessary to the understanding

> of absolute principles.

 

Sure. But the problem is the more intelligent/cerebral you are, the

greater is the scope for ignorance (but again the true intellect has

the greater chance of realizing its own relativity). The greater

the ignorance the more the tools we need to control/inform the mind of

what it seeks - you have to tell it what to pursue and what to refrain

from. To know yourself - psychology and epistemology - are what is

needed. But even this is not half as effective as the practice of

silence. Silence is not merely making no sound - but absolute

relaxation of the mind and body - when the mind and body become

inactive/silent, then the Self having nothing to distract it, knows

and abides in itself. Even this expression is only from the standpoint

of the psycho/physical/spiritual compound - for the Self always and

ever abides in itself.

[Guest guest]

> If I may humbly comment: Within the totality of original

> consciousness there is neither subjective nor objective.

 

Then to whom and why are you writing this post (to)?

 

Anyway thanks for the interest/discussion. Let me go back to my

silence.