Tat tvam asi?(PART2)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nanda,

(Continuation of the previous post(Re: Tat tvam asi?(PART1))

> 4. The argument that we know ourselves as the same person who

> experienced the past and the present ie the "I"ness of the

> presentation continuum, is not a valid argument to prove "I"ness

of

> consciousness. Such an argument uses the faculty of memory as an

> integral part of the self where the self recognizes itself as the

> same witness which experienced the past and present events. But

there

> are cases of people who've lost their memory and have no

recollection

> of the past. If memory belonged to consciousness, it being the

ever

> present witness, such a thing as "loss of memory" would not be

> possible. So how can it be said that we are the consciousness?

> 5. Man is a psycho/physical/spiritual being – he's made up of

> the body, mind, senses and consciousness or spirit. While he is a

> compound of all these in the waking state, in the dream state the

> body and the senses are absent. In the deep sleep state he is said

to

> be one with the spirit ie consciousness is said to abide in

itself.

> But again when there's no I-consciousness in deep sleep ie we do

not

> directly experience the state of deep sleep as we do in the waking

> and dream states and only know the "peace of deep sleep" when we

come

> awake, how can we say that we are the consciousness that

experienced

> peace in deep sleep?

 

As it is detailed out in Kenopanishad and Bhashya on

the first few manthras, That because of which "I" say that

there is mind is consciousness. That because of which mind

has memory, intellignence is called consciousness.

 

It is also clearly borne out from science that mind is also

matter. How can material think unless it borrows

consciousness from a source which is "independently

consciousness per se"?. Just because there is hot water, you

cannot say heat is innate to water. Heat in water comes from

fire, goes away without it shows water appears hot.

Similarly mind appears conscious because of which is the

consciousness which is inherent in all our experinces.

Consciousness is not a product of memory. Memory is a

product of consciousness.

 

Recollection of anything is possible only if we have

cognisied it directly before. "I had a good sleep" is it not

a recollection? What is direct perception need not be like

in waking or dreaming but there is more direct perception

even without mind in sleep. Therefore sleep is quoted as

pure consciousness(Nirupadhika)

> 6. Also it is said that knower, known and knowledge are all

> merged together in deep sleep. If the knower also doesn't exist by

> itself in deep sleep then how can we claim to be that

consciousness

> of that state?

 

Knower, known, knowledge are like three ornaments of a

gold called consciouness. When ornaments dissolve where does

it resolve into?- from wherever it raises, from and in which

it remains after raising.

> 7. The presentation continuum which survives deep sleep and thus

> facilitates the persistence of the individual identity need not

> necessarily be the "I". A logically consistent explanation can

also

> be provided using the permanence of consciousness and the memory

as

> part of the brain to sustain one's identity through deep sleep and

> waking.

 

"I" it is related to a locus, an individual, is nothing

but the product of brain and memory - a bundle of notions,

prejudices, likes and dislikes. Consciouness is of a greater

degree of reality which supports, sustains and survuves in

the resolution of identities.

> 8. When we think about the states where we have the "I"

> consciousness ie the state of waking and dream, we find that the

"I"

> is always associated with the body. For even in the state of dream

> though it is purely a product of the mind, still we have a body

with

> which we run, jump etc. So can there be "I"ness without the body?

 

No. "Iness" can never be without the body. Infact I ness

is taken the form of body. But 'I' has nothing to do with

the body! I ness is the shadow of the I consciousness &

Gross body is a crystallised shadow of the I ness. Mind

itselfis not grasped by senses and how can mind grasp

consciousness - unless one grows in openness and subtlity

which is the cause and which is the effect remains a

mystery.

 

Ignorance - Avidya is not the cauce of suffering and so is

the sleep welcoming, a peaceful state (Ignorance is bliss) &

there is neither mistaken Iness in mind ,resolution only

when the mind is awake, ignorance presents itself as "Iness

in body" and asks the question can there be Iness without

body?! Wrong knowledge is in mind and can go only with right

knowledge. Knowledge is always in the form of thought and

hence any Sadhana to resolve thoughts cannot result in right

knowledge. If it were to be so, all could have been educated

by resolving mind and no need to sharpen the mind. The whole

crux of vedantha is in learning to use the mind regarding

atma which is not objectifiable to mind but at the same time

makes the mind to be mindful. Thw whole evolution of mind is

to make it satvic, where unprejudicied knowledge is possible

and cannot be in stoning the mind.

 

Dr H R Rama Phaniraj