Guest guest Posted March 6, 2002 Report Share Posted March 6, 2002 Namaste. Visualize the following seers and objects:- Person-A <-sees-----> Person-B <---sees---> a nail in front Person-A cannot see the nail which B can see. When one sees an object, the knowledge of the object is registered by what we call as oneself. If some other thing registers it and relays it inside, then one does not have direct knowldege (like nail for A above) but indirect knowldege, which is not true. Hence, in all seeing, it is one's own self that sees, which has to be Atma. If for example, B is made of transparent glass, A can see the nail directly. This is the role of sense organs. I think :-) Please feel free to correct/advise. Thanks, Raghava Try FREE Mail - the world's greatest free email! / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2002 Report Share Posted March 6, 2002 Namaste Shri Raghava Kaluri, I assume that "A" knows that "B" is seeing the nail. This is not clear from your post. If my assumption is right, then we have to rewrite the happening as below (from "A"'s point of view, of course): "A" knows that he sees "B" "A" knows that "B" claims to see the nail "A" knows that he ("A") cannot see the nail. This is all direct knowledge and, from "A"'s view-point "Jaanaami" (I know) experiences. (Any experience in this world can thus be reduced to "I know" statements.) In other words, all that follow after the word "knows" in the above statements are the objects of knowledge and, advaitically, no different from knower "A" (Consciousness). When "A"'s sense of plurality with regard to them ends, he is said to be awakened. Even a negative statement (indicating ignorance) becomes an active object in the third statement. If your example is, therefore, extended to our avidya/adhyaasa discussion, those concepts also become active objects amidst the plurality we experience as jagat although avidya is considered the cause of the jagat and adhyasa the process thereto. Advaitically, therefore, they are no different from the "knower" and cannot remain independent of him. In fact, nothing is outside the "knower" as stated in "viswam darpanadrisyamana nagari". The "mirror-image" metaphor is skillfully employed by Sankara here to stress the "unreality" of our plurality. Thanks and regards. Madathil Nair advaitin, Raghava Kaluri <raghavakaluri> wrote: > Namaste. > > Visualize the following seers and objects:- > > Person-A <-sees-----> Person-B > <---sees---> a nail in front > > Person-A cannot see the nail which B can see. > > When one sees an object, the knowledge of the object > is registered by what we call as oneself. If some > other thing registers it and relays it inside, then > one does not have direct knowldege (like nail for A > above) but indirect knowldege, which is not true. > Hence, in all seeing, it is one's own self that sees, > which has to be Atma. > If for example, B is made of transparent glass, A can > see the nail directly. This is the role of sense > organs. > > I think :-) > > Please feel free to correct/advise. > > Thanks, > Raghava > > > > > > Try FREE Mail - the world's greatest free email! > / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 Namaste. Beneath the 5-kosas/3-shariras, Atman is the one who has direct knowldege. The function of the many kosas is something like a transmission and the final knowldege is one at Atman and the individual kosas do not have ability to know knowledge, just like an eye on its own cannot see and manas on its own cannot know like it deep-sleep. The previous example may be extended with 'A' replaced by Atman and 'B' replaced by Jiva and nail for Jagat. My understanding, anyway. Thanks, Raghava --- madathilnair <madathilnair wrote: > Namaste Shri Raghava Kaluri, > > I assume that "A" knows that "B" is seeing the nail. > This is not > clear from your post. > > If my assumption is right, then we have to rewrite > the happening as > below (from "A"'s point of view, of course): > > "A" knows that he sees "B" > "A" knows that "B" claims to see the nail > "A" knows that he ("A") cannot see the nail. > > This is all direct knowledge and, from "A"'s > view-point "Jaanaami" (I > know) experiences. (Any experience in this world can > thus be reduced > to "I know" statements.) In other words, all that > follow after the > word "knows" in the above statements are the objects > of knowledge > and, advaitically, no different from knower "A" > (Consciousness). > When "A"'s sense of plurality with regard to them > ends, he is said to > be awakened. > > Even a negative statement (indicating ignorance) > becomes an active > object in the third statement. If your example is, > therefore, > extended to our avidya/adhyaasa discussion, those > concepts also > become active objects amidst the plurality we > experience as jagat > although avidya is considered the cause of the jagat > and adhyasa the > process thereto. Advaitically, therefore, they are > no different from > the "knower" and cannot remain independent of him. > In fact, nothing > is outside the "knower" as stated in "viswam > darpanadrisyamana > nagari". The "mirror-image" metaphor is skillfully > employed by > Sankara here to stress the "unreality" of our > plurality. > > Thanks and regards. > > Madathil Nair > > advaitin, Raghava Kaluri > <raghavakaluri> wrote: > > Namaste. > > > > Visualize the following seers and objects:- > > > > Person-A <-sees-----> Person-B > > <---sees---> a nail in > front > > > > Person-A cannot see the nail which B can see. > > > > When one sees an object, the knowledge of the > object > > is registered by what we call as oneself. If some > > other thing registers it and relays it inside, > then > > one does not have direct knowldege (like nail for > A > > above) but indirect knowldege, which is not true. > > Hence, in all seeing, it is one's own self that > sees, > > which has to be Atma. > > If for example, B is made of transparent glass, A > can > > see the nail directly. This is the role of sense > > organs. > > > > I think :-) > > > > Please feel free to correct/advise. > > > > Thanks, > > Raghava Try FREE Mail - the world's greatest free email! / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 As I understand: The seer-seen distinction arises with the manifestation of the mind (prakRiti). Seer is there with reference to seen. Consciousness cannot, in principle, be a seer of an object since there is nothing other than consciousness. The prakRiti cannot see since it is jadam. The seer notion arises in the mind in the presence of consciousness- illumined by consciousness. aham kartaa or aham j~naata and aham dR^ishhTaa , I am the doer, knower and seer etc are all 'ego-centric' activities due to apparent 'interplay' of consciousness in the mind/intellect complex. adhyaasa is superposition of the activities of the mind on the consciousness. It is as though the same beam of consciousness splits into two - seer and the seen. Seer is there with reference to the seen and when both are transcended or understood as the apparent interplay of the consciousness - the whole distinction between seer and the seen becomes apparent and not real. - the seen and the seer are understood as just apparent and not real. In dRik-dRisya viveka - which is attributed to Shankara - it says: antar dRik dRisyayoH bhedam bahishcha brahma sargayoH| aavRinostya paraaskhaktiH saa samsaarasya kaaranam|| The difference between the seer and the seen in the mind and the difference between the Brahman and the world outside is due to the power of maaya - The delusion arising from the misunderstanding that it is real is due to covering Of the truth (adhyaasa) and that is the root cause for samsaara or suffering. maaya kalpita dRisyamaana nagaarii .. the projection of the universe of objects(seen-s) are are due to maaya - and the definition of maaya is yaa maa saa maaya - that which is not there is maaya. Hence maaya really cannot cover it since it is not there to start with. But for the mind that sees the plurality, the seer-seen distinction is there. For a j~naani, he understood that the distinction is only apparent and not real. Maaya is brought in to explain the unexplainable. In The Ch. Up. after discussing the existence of 'sat' - as one without a second - the teacher goes on to say - tat aikshataa - bahusyaam - prajaayateti - That existence which is one without a second - 'saw' and decided to become many- Brahmasuutra refers to this in iikshataadhikarana to establish that the sat that was existing before was of the nature of consciousness since it says it saw and as inert existence (prakRiti) cannot see. Here when the seeing implies that it is only seeing itself - the seer and the seen are one and the same since it just mentioned that there is nothing else other than it. Hence it refers to 'self-consciousness' nature of the existence-consciousness-unlimited - satyam-j~naanam-anantam Brahman. How does one consciousness become both seer and the seen - this is the riddle to be understood - since it is not real but apparent due to play of the mind - it is left what I consider as -indeterminate problem - or under the extended definition of 'anirvachaniiyam'. When the mind is not there as in deep sleep - there is no seer-seen distinction either. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 I am afraid there is a seeming contradiction between the first para and the last sentence of Shri Sadananda's message quoted below. Let me explain the doubt: I enjoyed eating a mango. The enjoyment was experienced because of the mind. Now, let us take another enjoyment. I enjoyed deep sleep (Sukhena maya nidra anubhooyatha). In deep sleep, as Shri Sadananda said in the last sentence, there is no mind. So, how was the sleep enjoyed and who enjoyed? If we say, Consciousness as witness was ever there bridging the gap, then won't we be contradicting the statement in the first para that "Consciousness cannot, in principle, be a seer of an object since there is nothing other than Consciousness"? Besides, deep sleep is not a direct experience like mango enjoyment. Deep sleep is an experience recollected in wakefulness (Praagasvapsvamiva prabhodhasamaye yah prathiabhijnaayathe). In other words, it is only a memory of an experience that occurred in the absence of the mind! But the memory cannot be without the experience getting registered somewhere. The enjoyership notion could not have registered in the mind because the mind was not there during sleep and, therefore, no enjoyer-enjoyed distinction is possible as in the mango experience. So, my question: Isn't it simpler to explain everything experienced (including mind (thoughts), intellect, memory, body etc.) as a lighting up of Consciousness (Jaanaami) because they are all in our awareness? In other words, the world (both inner and outer)is Consciousness misunderstood as separate from us. When the misunderstanding ends, the knowledge of the misunderstanding is also a lighting up of Consciousness. Thus, in ultimate analysis, whatever the name of the misunderstanding (avidya etc.), whatever the mechanism by which it projects itself (adhyaasa etc.) as plurality (maaya etc.), and whatever our conjectures relating thereto (logical or otherwise) - aren't they all superficial alike because all of them are in our awareness and part of the mistaken plurality? Madathil Nair _______________________________ In advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > > As I understand: > > The seer-seen distinction arises with the manifestation of the mind > (prakRiti). Seer is there with reference to seen. Consciousness > cannot, in principle, be a seer of an object since there is nothing > other than consciousness. The prakRiti cannot see since it is jadam. > The seer notion arises in the mind in the presence of consciousness- > illumined by consciousness. aham kartaa or aham j~naata and aham > dR^ishhTaa , I am the doer, knower and seer etc are all 'ego- centric' > activities due to apparent 'interplay' of consciousness in the > mind/intellect complex. adhyaasa is superposition of the activities > of the mind on the consciousness. It is as though the same beam of > consciousness splits into two - seer and the seen. Seer is there > with reference to the seen and when both are transcended or > understood as the apparent interplay of the consciousness - the whole > distinction between seer and the seen becomes apparent and not real. > - the seen and the seer are understood as just apparent and not real. > > In dRik-dRisya viveka - which is attributed to Shankara - it says: > > antar dRik dRisyayoH bhedam > bahishcha brahma sargayoH| > aavRinostya paraaskhaktiH > saa samsaarasya kaaranam|| > > The difference between the seer and the seen in the mind and the > difference between the Brahman and the world outside is due to the > power of maaya - The delusion arising from the misunderstanding that > it is real is due to covering Of the truth (adhyaasa) and that is the > root cause for samsaara or suffering. > maaya kalpita dRisyamaana nagaarii .. the projection of the universe > of objects(seen-s) are are due to maaya - and the definition of maaya > is yaa maa saa maaya - that which is not there is maaya. Hence maaya > really cannot cover it since it is not there to start with. But for > the mind that sees the plurality, the seer-seen distinction is there. > For a j~naani, he understood that the distinction is only apparent > and not real. Maaya is brought in to explain the unexplainable. > > In The Ch. Up. after discussing the existence of 'sat' - as one > without a second - the teacher goes on to say - tat aikshataa - > bahusyaam - prajaayateti - That existence which is one without a > second - 'saw' and decided to become many- Brahmasuutra refers to > this in iikshataadhikarana to establish that the sat that was > existing before was of the nature of consciousness since it says it > saw and as inert existence (prakRiti) cannot see. Here when the > seeing implies that it is only seeing itself - the seer and the seen > are one and the same since it just mentioned that there is nothing > else other than it. Hence it refers to 'self-consciousness' nature > of the existence-consciousness-unlimited - satyam-j~naanam-anantam > Brahman. > > How does one consciousness become both seer and the seen - this is > the riddle to be understood - since it is not real but apparent due > to play of the mind - it is left what I consider as -indeterminate > problem - or under the extended definition of 'anirvachaniiyam'. > When the mind is not there as in deep sleep - there is no seer-seen > distinction either. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > -- > K. Sadananda > Code 6323 > Naval Research Laboratory > Washington D.C. 20375 > Voice (202)767-2117 > Fax:(202)767-2623 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2002 Report Share Posted March 9, 2002 This is an attempt to clear the doubt of Mr. Madathil Nair as to how we remember the happiness enjoyed during sleep though the mind was sleeping then. This puzzle has bothered many seekers but the advaita school of Sankara has postulated what they call pratyabijnA to explain this. Certainly the mind did not enjoy the happiness. But the mind, after it woke up, says that it enjoyed it. It recalls something which it did not experience. Even the word 'recalled' here is wrong. Because one can recall an experience only if that one has experienced it. So what mind 'recalls' is an experience of something else. So whose was this experience? The jIva experiences its ordinary worldly mundane occupations , because of its identification with the body mind intellect. If there is no such identification, there is no such experience. But when the body mind intellect go to sleep the jIva is one with the sat-chid-Ananda swarUpa inside. In other words it is one with Bliss. When the body mind intellect wake up, the jIva again idenitifies itself with this body mind and intellect. The jIva had been one with Bliss during the sleep of the mind. The waking mind appropriates this trace of bliss with which the jIva comes back to it and 'recalls' it as if -- mark it, as if -- it was its own experience. This phenomenon is pratyabijnA. praNAms to all advaitins profvk You can access my 'Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice' from my Science and Spirituality Website: www.geocities.com/profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2002 Report Share Posted March 9, 2002 Dear profvk Thank you for your posting about the seeming remembrance of the bliss that is revealed in deep sleep. It was very clear and direct. Warm regards Warwick - V. Krishnamurthy advaitin Sunday, March 10, 2002 3:21 AM Re: Re: Who is the Seer This is an attempt to clear the doubt of Mr. Madathil Nair as to how we remember the happiness enjoyed during sleep though the mind was sleeping then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2002 Report Share Posted March 9, 2002 Thanks. Appreciate the guidance provided. However, may I respectfully present a different point of view? A postulate is something taken for granted or an assumption on which further reasoning is built. Advaitins have taken recourse to a postulate to explain the recalling of an experience that has occurred in the absence of the mind and, in the process, granted the word "prathyabhijna" a special meaning distinct from ordinary "recalling". I am afraid they had to do that because too much significance was attached to the "body-mind-intellect complex". Let us take another look at the problem: Mango experience can be split into the following essentials: Eating of the mango - the actual event, Recalling the mango enjoyment – recalling memory. If similarly considered, sleep experience becomes: Actual sleep - A non-experience – hence, a non-event, Recalling sleep enjoyment - It cannot be a recalling of memory as there cannot be any memory. However, enjoyment is "recalled" (sukhena maya nidra anubhooyatha ithi). If each one of the above statements is taken as a lighting up of Consciousness, then the above sequences can be rewritten as below: Mango experience: 1. I know I am eating a mango, 2. I know I enjoyed eating the mango or I know mango enjoyment. Sleep experience: 3. I know there was a "blank" (This is a "later" deduction from circumstances, such as a watch or some other similar indicators existing around.), 4. I know I enjoyed sleeping or I know sleep enjoyment. Now let us delete statement 1 above. Can statement 2 stand? If the "body-mind-intellect complex" is brought in, the answer is a big NO. Then we need postulates. But if the question is looked at from the point of view of Consciousness, YES. Simply stated, "I know I enjoyed eating the mango" can light up without there being any previous mango eating. (In other words, a mango eating will be there in that lighting up without any previous mango eating having taken place!). On a similar line, "I know I enjoyed sleeping" can also light up without there being any actual sleeping event. After all, "my sleeping event" is somebody else's experience as he or she happens to see me on bed and later reports to me about it. Then that reporting becomes another lighting up: "I know his/her claim of seeing me sleep". It can also be my visualization – a thought. Then that visualization (thought) is lighted up in my awareness as an image of my body lying on bed. I thought "postulates", however effective they are, could be avoided if such a simple approach is adopted, which is totally in line with Sankara's verse in Dakshinamoorthy Sthothram: Naana chidra ghatodarasthithamahaa deepa prabhaabhaasvaram Jnaanam yasya thu chakshuradikaranadvaara bahispandathe Jaanaami ithi thameva bhaantham anubhaathyethath samastham jagath Thasmai sree gurumoorthaye namaha idam sree dakshinamoorthaye This is what I concluded in the last para of my post which unfortunately has not been answered. Madathil Nair ____ advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote: > This is an attempt to clear the doubt of Mr. Madathil Nair as to how we remember the happiness enjoyed during sleep though the mind was sleeping then. This puzzle has bothered many seekers but the advaita school of Sankara has postulated what they call pratyabijnA to explain this. Certainly the mind did not enjoy the happiness. But the mind, after it woke up, says that it enjoyed it. It recalls something which it did not experience. Even the word 'recalled' here is wrong. Because one can recall an experience only if that one has experienced it. So what mind 'recalls' is an experience of something else. So whose was this experience? > The jIva experiences its ordinary worldly mundane occupations , because of its identification with the body mind intellect. If there is no such identification, there is no such experience. But when the body mind intellect go to sleep the jIva is one with the sat-chid- Ananda swarUpa inside. In other words it is one with Bliss. When the body mind intellect wake up, the jIva again idenitifies itself with this body mind and intellect. The jIva had been one with Bliss during the sleep of the mind. The waking mind appropriates this trace of bliss with which the jIva comes back to it and 'recalls' it as if -- mark it, as if -- it was its own experience. This phenomenon is pratyabijnA. > > praNAms to all advaitins > profvk > > > > You can access my 'Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice' from my Science and Spirituality Website: > www.geocities.com/profvk > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2002 Report Share Posted March 11, 2002 Shree Mudathil Nair, First let me thank you for stimulating discussions. I also want to thank Prof. V.K. for providing his input. I am going to present my understanding on the issues you have raised. MN: I am afraid there is a seeming contradiction between the first para and the last sentence of Shri Sadananda's message quoted below. KS: Thanks for the right choice of the words: seeming contradiction! Yes, if one deeply thinks about it the contradiction is also the essence of the problem here - since we are analyzing the state of apparent experience where the mind is not there. Thus it is an analysis of the mind by the mind of the state where it is not there to start with. Hence in principle any analysis is invalid - and seeming contradictions are inevitable in this invalid analysis. Please note that I am not justifying any contradictions in my thinking (if there are present I need to correct them) but only highlighting seeming contradictions inherent in the problem definition. I would like to go one step further - this is not only of the bliss state of experience in the deep sleep state as Prof. V.K. rightly pointed out, it is true with the bliss state even during the waking and dream states too! Logic fails to account logically any state of bliss 'experience'- hence the scriptural statement - naishaa tarkena matiraapaneya' - Fundamentally because there is no 'experiencer-experienced' duality in the state of bliss and explanations come down to within the realm of the duality of 'explainer-explained'. There is no problem in this duality until one misunderstands the duality as reality and looks for a logical or consistent explanation. Let us look at the apparent inconsistencies more carefully. MN: I enjoyed eating a mango. The enjoyment was experienced because of the mind. Now, let us take another enjoyment. I enjoyed deep sleep (Sukhena maya nidra anubhooyatha). In deep sleep, as Shri Sadananda said in the last sentence, there is no mind. So, how was the sleep enjoyed and who enjoyed? If we say, Consciousness as witness was ever there bridging the gap, then won't we be contradicting the statement in the first para that "Consciousness cannot, in principle, be a seer of an object since there is nothing other than Consciousness"? Shree MN - is this not true in all our so called experiences - Consciousness cannot in principle - underline in principle - does not enjoy anything, not only the deep sleep even the mango in the waking state. And yet, I, the conscious entity goes around saying that I enjoyed the mango - You are zeroing on the very essence of 'adhyaasa' - Hence in Avadhuuta giita Bhgavaan Datratreya screams out 'aham dhyaata param dhyeyam akhandam khandate katham?' How can you divide the indivisible into seer and the seen or experiencer and the experienced. Yet the inconsistency happens - How that happens? That question itself is invalid since explanation is sought by the intellect about the state that which is beyond the intellect- hence other than recognition that it is an invalid problem there cannot be any logical explanation. Hence I prefer to bundle all this into 'anirvachaniiyam' only. MN: Besides, deep sleep is not a direct experience like mango enjoyment. Deep sleep is an experience recollected in wakefulness (Praagasvapsvamiva prabhodhasamaye yah prathiabhijnaayathe). In other words, it is only a memory of an experience that occurred in the absence of the mind! But the memory cannot be without the experience getting registered somewhere. The enjoyership notion could not have registered in the mind because the mind was not there during sleep and, therefore, no enjoyer-enjoyed distinction is possible as in the mango experience. KS - As I discussed above, if one analyzes deeply even the happiness experienced eating mango is also comes under the same category - When the agitations arising from desire to eat mango are fulfilled during eating mango, the mind becomes quiet and calm - that we call happy mind - is it not. The bliss experienced even in that state is of my own nature - I am back to myself (adviatic state of 'experience') Hence Shree Vidyaranya says in Panchadasi - 'vishayaanande paramaanandaH'- the bliss of happy experience even in the sensuous enjoyment is only my own state of happiness since he already established in earlier verses that 'iyam aatma paraanandaH para premaaspadam yataH'- love for mango is only a reflection of love for myself - so is the love for sleep too. Hence the 'enjoyment' of any bliss involves no mind - but mind which is nothing but though flow - comes out with the notion - underline the notion that 'I enjoyed the mango' or I slept well' - Is it recollecting the experience or is it in an inferential statement of the mind. The law of memory is - the enjoyer and the recollector of the memory of the enjoyment has to be one and the same - But examine even this law of memory - which is again in the so called logical realm is itself based on the prior experiences of the mind which are again questionable if one goes into deeper analysis. My understanding is mind which is not there at the time of bliss - (if it is there then there is no bliss of sleep either since one is thinking and not sleeping!) comes backs only recognizes its absence (missing tape) which in fact is the basis of the bliss too - and makes a false declaration that 'I slept well' - it is false only because it was not there to sleep well - Thank god it was not there so that one could sleep well. Then who really slept well? - I am going to hide behind the question that it is an invalid question for two reasons - (1) logical answer cannot be provided since logic which is in the realm of thoughts is invalid for a state which is beyond the thoughts. (2) Shutting down of the mind itself is the definition of the sleep (bliss is unagitated mind) and once it is awake or spring into activity it can recognize that it was blank during some time, even that time is measured with reference to the activated mind since time itself is a concept of the mind. The activated mind - activated with all its understandings or misunderstandings that were left behind in the memory before it blanked out - hence if aj~naani slept he wakes up as an aj~naani and if j~naani slept - (here sleep of a j~naani is only from the notion of an aj~naani) he gets up as j~naani. MN: So, my question: Isn't it simpler to explain everything experienced (including mind (thoughts), intellect, memory, body etc.) as a lighting up of Consciousness (Jaanaami) because they are all in our awareness? In other words, the world (both inner and outer)is Consciousness misunderstood as separate from us. When the misunderstanding ends, the knowledge of the misunderstanding is also a lighting up of Consciousness. Thus, in ultimate analysis, whatever the name of the misunderstanding (avidya etc.), whatever the mechanism by which it projects itself (adhyaasa etc.) as plurality (maaya etc.), and whatever our conjectures relating thereto (logical or otherwise) - aren't they all superficial alike because all of them are in our awareness and part of the mistaken plurality? Madathil Nair Shree MN - I am not sure if your statements are any different from mine. If you think that you are happy and contended with your explanation then so be it. It is as good as any and we are here trying to explain that which is beyond any explanation. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2002 Report Share Posted March 11, 2002 Shri Sadananda, Thanks indeed for your enlightening comments. I am happy I am not calling out from wilderness. I have posted a reply to Shri Krishnamurthy's comments. Please be kind enough to tell me if you would consider my thoughts expressed therein acceptable advaitically. If I am preposterous, please be forthcoming. Thanks and regards. Madathil Nair __________________ advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > Shree Mudathil Nair, > > First let me thank you for stimulating discussions. I also want to > thank Prof. V.K. for providing his input. I am going to present my > understanding on the issues you have raised. > MN: > I am afraid there is a seeming contradiction between the first para > and the last sentence of Shri Sadananda's message quoted below. > > KS: Thanks for the right choice of the words: seeming contradiction! > Yes, if one deeply thinks about it the contradiction is also the > essence of the problem here - since we are analyzing the state of > apparent experience where the mind is not there. Thus it is an > analysis of the mind by the mind of the state where it is not there > to start with. Hence in principle any analysis is invalid - and > seeming contradictions are inevitable in this invalid analysis. > Please note that I am not justifying any contradictions in my > thinking (if there are present I need to correct them) but only > highlighting seeming contradictions inherent in the problem > definition. I would like to go one step further - this is not only of > the bliss state of experience in the deep sleep state as Prof. V.K. > rightly pointed out, it is true with the bliss state even during the > waking and dream states too! Logic fails to account logically any > state of bliss 'experience'- hence the scriptural statement - naishaa > tarkena matiraapaneya' - Fundamentally because there is no > 'experiencer-experienced' duality in the state of bliss and > explanations come down to within the realm of the duality of > 'explainer-explained'. There is no problem in this duality until one > misunderstands the duality as reality and looks for a logical or > consistent explanation. > > Let us look at the apparent inconsistencies more carefully. > > MN: > > I enjoyed eating a mango. The enjoyment was experienced because of > the mind. Now, let us take another enjoyment. I enjoyed deep sleep > (Sukhena maya nidra anubhooyatha). In deep sleep, as Shri Sadananda > said in the last sentence, there is no mind. So, how was the sleep > enjoyed and who enjoyed? If we say, Consciousness as witness was > ever there bridging the gap, then won't we be contradicting the > statement in the first para that "Consciousness cannot, in principle, > be a seer of an object since there is nothing other than > Consciousness"? > > Shree MN - is this not true in all our so called experiences - > Consciousness cannot in principle - underline in principle - does not > enjoy anything, not only the deep sleep even the mango in the waking > state. And yet, I, the conscious entity goes around saying that I > enjoyed the mango - You are zeroing on the very essence of 'adhyaasa' > - Hence in Avadhuuta giita Bhgavaan Datratreya screams out 'aham > dhyaata param dhyeyam akhandam khandate katham?' How can you divide > the indivisible into seer and the seen or experiencer and the > experienced. Yet the inconsistency happens - How that happens? That > question itself is invalid since explanation is sought by the > intellect about the state that which is beyond the intellect- hence > other than recognition that it is an invalid problem there cannot be > any logical explanation. Hence I prefer to bundle all this into > 'anirvachaniiyam' only. > > > > MN: > Besides, deep sleep is not a direct experience like mango enjoyment. > Deep sleep is an experience recollected in wakefulness > (Praagasvapsvamiva prabhodhasamaye yah prathiabhijnaayathe). In other > words, it is only a memory of an experience that occurred in the > absence of the mind! But the memory cannot be without the experience > getting registered somewhere. The enjoyership notion could not have > registered in the mind because the mind was not there during sleep > and, therefore, no enjoyer-enjoyed distinction is possible as in the > mango experience. > > KS - As I discussed above, if one analyzes deeply even the happiness > experienced eating mango is also comes under the same category - When > the agitations arising from desire to eat mango are fulfilled during > eating mango, the mind becomes quiet and calm - that we call happy > mind - is it not. The bliss experienced even in that state is of my > own nature - I am back to myself (adviatic state of 'experience') > Hence Shree Vidyaranya says in Panchadasi - 'vishayaanande > paramaanandaH'- the bliss of happy experience even in the sensuous > enjoyment is only my own state of happiness since he already > established in earlier verses that 'iyam aatma paraanandaH para > premaaspadam yataH'- love for mango is only a reflection of love for > myself - so is the love for sleep too. Hence the 'enjoyment' of any > bliss involves no mind - but mind which is nothing but though flow - > comes out with the notion - underline the notion that 'I enjoyed the > mango' or I slept well' - Is it recollecting the experience or is it > in an inferential statement of the mind. The law of memory is - the > enjoyer and the recollector of the memory of the enjoyment has to be > one and the same - But examine even this law of memory - which is > again in the so called logical realm is itself based on the prior > experiences of the mind which are again questionable if one goes into > deeper analysis. My understanding is mind which is not there at the > time of bliss - (if it is there then there is no bliss of sleep > either since one is thinking and not sleeping!) comes backs only > recognizes its absence (missing tape) which in fact is the basis of > the bliss too - and makes a false declaration that 'I slept well' - > it is false only because it was not there to sleep well - Thank god > it was not there so that one could sleep well. > > Then who really slept well? - I am going to hide behind the question > that it is an invalid question for two reasons - (1) logical answer > cannot be provided since logic which is in the realm of thoughts is > invalid for a state which is beyond the thoughts. (2) Shutting down > of the mind itself is the definition of the sleep (bliss is > unagitated mind) and once it is awake or spring into activity it can > recognize that it was blank during some time, even that time is > measured with reference to the activated mind since time itself is a > concept of the mind. > > The activated mind - activated with all its understandings or > misunderstandings that were left behind in the memory before it > blanked out - hence if aj~naani slept he wakes up as an aj~naani and > if j~naani slept - (here sleep of a j~naani is only from the notion > of an aj~naani) he gets up as j~naani. > > MN: So, my question: Isn't it simpler to explain everything experienced > (including mind (thoughts), intellect, memory, body etc.) as a > lighting up of Consciousness (Jaanaami) because they are all in our > awareness? In other words, the world (both inner and outer)is > Consciousness misunderstood as separate from us. When the > misunderstanding ends, the knowledge of the misunderstanding is also > a lighting up of Consciousness. Thus, in ultimate analysis, whatever > the name of the misunderstanding (avidya etc.), whatever the > mechanism by which it projects itself (adhyaasa etc.) as plurality > (maaya etc.), and whatever our conjectures relating thereto (logical > or otherwise) - aren't they all superficial alike because all of them > are in our awareness and part of the mistaken plurality? > > Madathil Nair > > Shree MN - I am not sure if your statements are any different from > mine. If you think that you are happy and contended with your > explanation then so be it. It is as good as any and we are here > trying to explain that which is beyond any explanation. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > -- > K. Sadananda > Code 6323 > Naval Research Laboratory > Washington D.C. 20375 > Voice (202)767-2117 > Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2002 Report Share Posted March 12, 2002 >Shri Sadananda, > >Thanks indeed for your enlightening comments. I am happy I am not >calling out from wilderness. > >I have posted a reply to Shri Krishnamurthy's comments. Please be >kind enough to tell me if you would consider my thoughts expressed >therein acceptable advaitically. If I am preposterous, please be >forthcoming. > >Thanks and regards. > >Madathil Nair >__________________ Shree Madathil Nair - thanks for the response. Since you asked me to respond, I have provided my input from my understanding for whatever it is worth. Sadananda. ------------------------- MN wrote: A postulate is something taken for granted or an assumption on which Further reasoning is built. Advaitins have taken recourse to a postulate to explain the recalling of an experience that has occurred in the absence of the mind and, in the process, granted the word "prathyabhijna" a special meaning distinct from ordinary "recalling". I am afraid they had to do that because too much significance was attached to the "body-mind-intellect complex". ----------- Shree MN - three are more fundamental issues involved than the body-mind-intellect complex per sec in differentiating the paramaarthika, praatibhaasika and vyaavahaarika. These are related to the ontological issues and these issues cannot be resolved independent of the epistemological issues. I think I have addressed some of these in some of my earlier posts. Advaita doctrine rests squarely with the Vedic statements (pramaaNa) - that existence-consciousness-bliss that which is one without a second - is the only reality. Satyasya satyam. Everything else comes under phenomenal - vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - it is only an apparent transformation. The fundamental issue - is how one entity can became many - that too how a conscious entity becomes unconscious jadam, the world. Added to this is the statement of conservation principle applied across the board by Krishna - naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate sataH - that which exists can never cease to exist and that which is non-existent can never come into existence. Hence creation can only be a transformation of what is there - which is existent-consciousness-bliss - satyam-j~naanam-anantam to something other than conscious entities and transient entities. Hence elaborate analysis has been provided in terms of the analysis of the reality - and knowledge of the reality - these are called khyaativaada-s. What constitutes 'prama' and what constitutes 'bhrama' is an ontological question and closely related to this is the issues of how does one know - the epistemological issues. Different aachaarya-s have made different hypotheses all trying to explain the jiiva-jagat and in the process the creation and created etc. The beauty of advaita is it is absolutely scientific and perfectly logical while the truth is beyond logic as I explained in my last post. In the past I had an extended discussions with Shree Nanda Chandran few months ago and one can pullout the discussion from archives. Pertaining to your statement - the mind/intellect complex becomes the essential prism through which the yyavahaara and pratibhaasika satyams manifest. Just to give you a glimpse - mind is the one that provides a basis for the existence of an object and thus the world. World is nothing but objects - objects are known only through their attributes or qualities which are measured or perceived by the senses - mind integrates input from different senses and provides a locus for these attributes and say that there is an object out there with these attributes. Object by itself sans the attributes cannot be 'seen' or experienced. Is there an object independent of the mind! Whether it is there or not there can never be established - without the mind - which has to be backed up by consciousness. Hence body-mind-intellect complex is inherent in the world, in the perception of the world - world which is reduced ultimately to nothing but thoughts in the mind. Hence no thoughts no world either. This is true in the waking state or Dream State. In all other experiences - including experience of pain and suffering - thoughts are involved. People are put to sleep so that they do not feel the pain and suffering. Where as the experience of 'bliss' is a separate issue since there is no thoughts involved - it is 'so called experience of ones own self - here we call it swayam jyoti - the self-consciousness entity - or objectless awareness - the subject/object duality ceases in this experience. This experience is the same whether one is j~naani or aj~naani - Hence I differentiated the experience from self-knowledge. Even in aj~nnana kaale, in the state of ignorance also, we experience ourselves but we have mistaken notion what we experience is different from ourselves. Hence we need a Vedantic knowledge to teach what we are - Hence Shankara's statement - na yogena na saakhyena karmanaa no na vidyayaa| brahmaatmaika bodhena mokshaH siddhyati naanyathaa|| neither by yoga, not by saankhya nor by action nor by erudition but only by the teaching of the oneness of Brahman and aatma one can gain moksha. The bottom line is body/mind/intellect complex is the crux of the problem for projection of the plurality and identifying with these upaadhi-s only jiiva notions arises. Yvaavahaarika, praatibhaasika and paaramaarthika are brought in to explain the experiences in waking, dream states and in the turiiya state, experiences contradictory to the reality. The rest are relative realities and gradations in terms of vyavaaharika versus pratibhaasika comes in differentiating the objective reality versus subjective realities - for example snake is a subjective reality and rope is an objective reality - but both are relative realities - one is 'I see it, therefore it is' and the other is 'it is therefore I see it' - but in both cases - its existence is confirmed only after 'I see it'. (About an year ago Prof. VK had summarized a talk I gave on 'Logic of Spirituality' where these aspects are discussed in detail and one can access from advaitin archives) ---------- MN: Let us take another look at the problem: Mango experience can be split into the following essentials: Eating of the mango - the actual event, Recalling the mango enjoyment – recalling memory. If similarly considered, sleep experience becomes: Actual sleep - A non-experience – hence, a non-event, ------------- Shree MN - I would be little careful here - I would not call it as non-event. It is only a non-event from the point that the recording the mind is not there. But remember when the mind comes back, the event is its absence which it recognizes and declares that I slept well - sleeping experience from the mind point is its absence only - There has been an interesting epistemological discussion in terms of the absence of the pot on the floor - The pot that was there yesterday is no more there on the floor if I say - Is that a positive experience of the pot or negative experience of the pot! Pot is not there- how do you know? I can see! I can see what? I can see that I cannot see the pot there! I am experiencing the absence of the pot by seeing that the pot was not there. Where is the pot - I do not know- what happened to the pot - I do not know - here the presence of the absence of the pot is recognized by the perception of its non-existence. This is exactly what happens in so called in the knowledge of the sleep in its recognition of its own absence by the mind. The event is presence of its absence! - like the presence of the absence of pot. MN: Recalling sleep enjoyment - It cannot be a recalling of memory as there cannot be any memory. However, enjoyment is "recalled" (sukhena maya nidra anubhooyatha ithi). KS: What is recalled is actually 'apparent experience of the absence of the mind which we call as sleep. One cannot pinpoint who is the true experiencer of the actual state of the absence of the sleep other than mind's absence just as the absence of the pot. Since there are no thoughts to disturb, it is an enjoyable state - what is enjoyed is ones own bliss only where the enjoyer-enjoyed duality ceases and therefore who is the enjoyer in that state is only an academic question with no valid answer since the question is invalid as I stated in my last mail. ----------------- MN: If each one of the above statements is taken as a lighting up of Consciousness, then the above sequences can be rewritten as below: Mango experience: 1. I know I am eating a mango, 2. I know I enjoyed eating the mango or I know mango enjoyment. Sleep experience: 3. I know there was a "blank" (This is a "later" deduction from circumstances, such as a watch or some other similar indicators existing around.), 4. I know I enjoyed sleeping or I know sleep enjoyment. KS: As I discussed in my last mail, the experiencer of the enjoyment in mango as well as sleep - involves only the glimpses of self only where the enjoyer-enjoyment or seer- seen duality is absent. Anything else is only an explanation of that using a dualistic notions and hence only of incidental or apparent value to satisfy the mind so that it can beyond all these. ----------------- MN: Now let us delete statement 1 above. Can statement 2 stand? If the "body-mind-intellect complex" is brought in, the answer is a big NO. Then we need postulates. But if the question is looked at from the point of view of Consciousness, YES. Simply stated, "I know I enjoyed eating the mango" can light up without there being any previous mango eating. (In other words, a mango eating will be there in that lighting up without any previous mango eating having taken place!). On a similar line, "I know I enjoyed sleeping" can also light up without there being any actual sleeping event. After all, "my sleeping event" is somebody else's experience as he or she happens to see me on bed and later reports to me about it. Then that reporting becomes another lighting up: "I know his/her claim of seeing me sleep". It can also be my visualization – a thought. Then that visualization (thought) is lighted up in my awareness as an image of my body lying on bed. KS: Frankly I lost the chain of thoughts here. There seems to be some mixing up of consciousness with duality that is perceived. ------------- MN: I thought "postulates", however effective they are, could be avoided if such a simple approach is adopted, which is totally in line with Sankara's verse in Dakshinamoorthy Sthothram: Naana chidra ghatodarasthithamahaa deepa prabhaabhaasvaram Jnaanam yasya thu chakshuradikaranadvaara bahispandathe Jaanaami ithi thameva bhaantham anubhaathyethath samastham jagath Thasmai sree gurumoorthaye namaha idam sree dakshinamoorthaye KS : I am sorry I fail to understand connection between the contents of the Dakshanamuurty sloka to the logic of your views, since the previous paragraph was not clear to me. Here Shankara is elucidating the "I am a knower and this is known - that complex seer-seen duality arises when there actually no such duality really present other than appearance of duality. It is a beautiful sloka brought in to explain the unexplainable by way of an example that we experience in the waking state. ---------- This is what I concluded in the last para of my post which unfortunately has not been answered. Madathil Nair Shree Madathil Nair - I tried my best to present my understanding. In the final analysis we both agree that the absolute reality, Brahman, is one without a second and all other phenomenal appearance only relative and explanations of the relatives are can only be relative at best. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2002 Report Share Posted March 12, 2002 Namaste, Can we say that, the difference in Seen and Seer arises only when the concept of memory and awareness exist simultaneoulsy? If awareness is absent, like in deep sleep, there is no differentiation. If memory is absent, like in Samadhi, again there is no differentiation. It is due to memory that the feeling of time arises. Hence differentiation arises between the two events, the concept of the existence of the object and concept of the act of perception of that object. With time (or memory) the same consciouness becomes as if divided, because our PERCEPTION IS DISCRETIZED. Hence can we say that without memory and with awareness, there cannot be any difference between the seer and the seen? Anand > The bottom line is body/mind/intellect complex is > the crux of the > problem for projection of the plurality and > identifying with these > upaadhi-s only jiiva notions arises. Yvaavahaarika, > praatibhaasika > and paaramaarthika are brought in to explain the > experiences in > waking, dream states and in the turiiya state, > experiences > contradictory to the reality. The rest are relative > realities and > gradations in terms of vyavaaharika versus > pratibhaasika comes in > differentiating the objective reality versus > subjective realities - > for example snake is a subjective reality and rope > is an objective > reality - but both are relative realities - one is > 'I see it, > therefore it is' and the other is 'it is therefore I > see it' - but in > both cases - its existence is confirmed only after > 'I see it'. (About > an year ago Prof. VK had summarized a talk I gave on > 'Logic of > Spirituality' where these aspects are discussed in > detail and one can > access from advaitin archives) > ---------- Try FREE Mail - the world's greatest free email! / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2002 Report Share Posted March 12, 2002 Anand - here is my understanding. Concept of seer/ seen arises with the thought - first thought - event one - second thought event two - recognition of the gap between the two sequential thoughts is the birth of the time. Flow of thoughts is the mind. Memory is the stored information or thoughts of the past. One can loose memory, for example by accident - one can still think and have the seer-seen duality. Thoughts have a locus -idam or aham become locus for the thoughts - idam vR^itti and aham vR^itti. Consciousness ever present is the basis of all the thoughts. - I am the seer and this is the seen - one based on aham vR^itti and the other based on idam vR^itti - Consciousness essentially appears to split into two - seer-seen - even though the substratums for both is the same consciousness. This is essence of one become many - one ocean becoming many waves - while every wave is nothing but a perturbation with its essence nothing but oceanic waters only. Hari Om! Sadananda >Namaste, > > Can we say that, the difference in Seen and Seer >arises only when the concept of memory and awareness >exist simultaneoulsy? If awareness is absent, like in >deep sleep, there is no differentiation. >If memory is absent, like in Samadhi, again there is >no differentiation. >It is due to memory that the feeling of time arises. >Hence differentiation arises between the two events, >the concept of the existence of the object and concept >of the act of perception of that object. >With time (or memory) the same consciouness becomes as >if divided, because our PERCEPTION IS DISCRETIZED. > >Hence can we say that without memory and with >awareness, there cannot be any difference between the >seer and the seen? > >Anand > -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2002 Report Share Posted March 12, 2002 In a message dated 3/12/02 4:33:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, aoclery writes: > It seems to me that deep sleep can only be in the mind itself, and > that bliss is also in the mind or memory. Hence these are attributes > of Saguna as opposed to Nirguna. Some people would find the ecstasy > of bliss a great attachment to Saguna, hence an impediment to > Nirguna. I believe it was the Buddha that wrote on this somewhere..Of > course if one is realised one can be a witness of all the states of > the unreal dream....ONS...Tony. > I take the notion of bliss more simplistically, just as it feels -- great -- give me more -- even if all full of attachment in saguna. From such a blissful state, movement into nirguna is rather natural and spontaneous, i.e., quick an automatic, far away from being an impediment. Can we consider bliss to be quite the same as a flow of soma, say, giving rise to tingling sensations in the body? That is, cannot such a flowing bliss be considered the communication media that differentiates the experiences of saguna from nirguna? The thought of bliss and the flowing experience of bliss seem to be two quite different things. Or, might we then ask what it is that discriminates between a thought of bliss and an experience of bliss. I can have many thoughts, including some past blissful experience, but this is altogether different from a spontaneous new experience of bliss. jai guru dev, Edmond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2002 Report Share Posted March 12, 2002 Shri Sadananda, That was a wonderful and lucid post. Thanks for the efforts put in. I had endeavoured to go through Advaitin archives and seen the "na asato" and other discussions. However, I cannot claim I have done a complete job and thoroughly understood everything. There appears to be a communication gap between us with regard to the Dakshinamoorthy sloka quoted and its connection with the point I am trying to make. I believe it has resulted from my sloppy language and hurried enthusiasm to get across to you. Please, therefore, let me have some time to read, reread your messages several times, try to locate the "gap" and present my question in greater detail for your consideration. I am fully with you in the final conclusion. The "cobwebs" are en route. I have got to get them cleared, lest I won't be doing justice to myself. So, I will be right back shortly. Best regards. Madathil Nair _____________________ advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > >Shri Sadananda, > > > >Thanks indeed for your enlightening comments. I am happy I am not > >calling out from wilderness. > > > >I have posted a reply to Shri Krishnamurthy's comments. Please be > >kind enough to tell me if you would consider my thoughts expressed > >therein acceptable advaitically. If I am preposterous, please be > >forthcoming. > > > >Thanks and regards. > > > >Madathil Nair > >__________________ > > Shree Madathil Nair - thanks for the response. Since you asked me to > respond, I have provided my input from my understanding for whatever > it is worth. > Sadananda. > ------------------------- > MN wrote: > A postulate is something taken for granted or an assumption on which > Further reasoning is built. Advaitins have taken recourse to a > postulate to explain the recalling of an experience that has occurred > in the absence of the mind and, in the process, granted the > word "prathyabhijna" a special meaning distinct from > ordinary "recalling". > > I am afraid they had to do that because too much significance was > attached to the "body-mind-intellect complex". > ----------- > Shree MN - three are more fundamental issues involved than the > body-mind-intellect complex per sec in differentiating the > paramaarthika, praatibhaasika and vyaavahaarika. These are related > to the ontological issues and these issues cannot be resolved > independent of the epistemological issues. I think I have addressed > some of these in some of my earlier posts. Advaita doctrine rests > squarely with the Vedic statements (pramaaNa) - that > existence-consciousness-bliss that which is one without a second - is > the only reality. Satyasya satyam. Everything else comes under > phenomenal - vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - it is only an > apparent transformation. The fundamental issue - is how one entity > can became many - that too how a conscious entity becomes unconscious > jadam, the world. Added to this is the statement of conservation > principle applied across the board by Krishna - naasato vidyate > bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate sataH - that which exists can never cease to > exist and that which is non-existent can never come into existence. > Hence creation can only be a transformation of what is there - which > is existent-consciousness-bliss - satyam-j~naanam-anantam to > something other than conscious entities and transient entities. > Hence elaborate analysis has been provided in terms of the analysis > of the reality - and knowledge of the reality - these are called > khyaativaada-s. What constitutes 'prama' and what constitutes > 'bhrama' is an ontological question and closely related to this is > the issues of how does one know - the epistemological issues. > Different aachaarya-s have made different hypotheses all trying to > explain the jiiva-jagat and in the process the creation and created > etc. The beauty of advaita is it is absolutely scientific and > perfectly logical while the truth is beyond logic as I explained in > my last post. In the past I had an extended discussions with Shree > Nanda Chandran few months ago and one can pullout the discussion from > archives. Pertaining to your statement - the mind/intellect complex > becomes the essential prism through which the yyavahaara and > pratibhaasika satyams manifest. Just to give you a glimpse - mind is > the one that provides a basis for the existence of an object and thus > the world. World is nothing but objects - objects are known only > through their attributes or qualities which are measured or perceived > by the senses - mind integrates input from different senses and > provides a locus for these attributes and say that there is an object > out there with these attributes. Object by itself sans the > attributes cannot be 'seen' or experienced. Is there an object > independent of the mind! Whether it is there or not there can never > be established - without the mind - which has to be backed up by > consciousness. Hence body-mind-intellect complex is inherent in the > world, in the perception of the world - world which is reduced > ultimately to nothing but thoughts in the mind. Hence no thoughts no > world either. This is true in the waking state or Dream State. In > all other experiences - including experience of pain and suffering - > thoughts are involved. People are put to sleep so that they do not > feel the pain and suffering. Where as the experience of 'bliss' is a > separate issue since there is no thoughts involved - it is 'so called > experience of ones own self - here we call it swayam jyoti - the > self-consciousness entity - or objectless awareness - the > subject/object duality ceases in this experience. This experience is > the same whether one is j~naani or aj~naani - Hence I differentiated > the experience from self-knowledge. Even in aj~nnana kaale, in the > state of ignorance also, we experience ourselves but we have mistaken > notion what we experience is different from ourselves. Hence we need > a Vedantic knowledge to teach what we are - Hence Shankara's > statement - na yogena na saakhyena karmanaa no na vidyayaa| > brahmaatmaika bodhena mokshaH siddhyati naanyathaa|| neither by yoga, > not by saankhya nor by action nor by erudition but only by the > teaching of the oneness of Brahman and aatma one can gain moksha. > > The bottom line is body/mind/intellect complex is the crux of the > problem for projection of the plurality and identifying with these > upaadhi-s only jiiva notions arises. Yvaavahaarika, praatibhaasika > and paaramaarthika are brought in to explain the experiences in > waking, dream states and in the turiiya state, experiences > contradictory to the reality. The rest are relative realities and > gradations in terms of vyavaaharika versus pratibhaasika comes in > differentiating the objective reality versus subjective realities - > for example snake is a subjective reality and rope is an objective > reality - but both are relative realities - one is 'I see it, > therefore it is' and the other is 'it is therefore I see it' - but in > both cases - its existence is confirmed only after 'I see it'. (About > an year ago Prof. VK had summarized a talk I gave on 'Logic of > Spirituality' where these aspects are discussed in detail and one can > access from advaitin archives) > ---------- > > MN: > Let us take another look at the problem: > > Mango experience can be split into the following essentials: > > Eating of the mango - the actual event, > Recalling the mango enjoyment – recalling memory. > > If similarly considered, sleep experience becomes: > > Actual sleep - A non-experience – hence, a non-event, > ------------- > Shree MN - I would be little careful here - I would not call it as > non-event. It is only a non-event from the point that the recording > the mind is not there. But remember when the mind comes back, the > event is its absence which it recognizes and declares that I slept > well - sleeping experience from the mind point is its absence only - > There has been an interesting epistemological discussion in terms of > the absence of the pot on the floor - The pot that was there > yesterday is no more there on the floor if I say - Is that a positive > experience of the pot or negative experience of the pot! Pot is not > there- how do you know? I can see! I can see what? I can see that I > cannot see the pot there! I am experiencing the absence of the pot > by seeing that the pot was not there. Where is the pot - I do not > know- what happened to the pot - I do not know - here the presence of > the absence of the pot is recognized by the perception of its > non-existence. This is exactly what happens in so called in the > knowledge of the sleep in its recognition of its own absence by the > mind. The event is presence of its absence! - like the presence of > the absence of pot. > > MN: > Recalling sleep enjoyment - It cannot be a recalling of memory as > there cannot be any memory. However, enjoyment is "recalled" > (sukhena maya nidra anubhooyatha ithi). > > KS: What is recalled is actually 'apparent experience of the absence > of the mind which we call as sleep. One cannot pinpoint who is the > true experiencer of the actual state of the absence of the sleep > other than mind's absence just as the absence of the pot. Since > there are no thoughts to disturb, it is an enjoyable state - what is > enjoyed is ones own bliss only where the enjoyer-enjoyed duality > ceases and therefore who is the enjoyer in that state is only an > academic question with no valid answer since the question is invalid > as I stated in my last mail. > ----------------- > MN: > If each one of the above statements is taken as a lighting up of > Consciousness, then the above sequences can be rewritten as below: > > Mango experience: > 1. I know I am eating a mango, > 2. I know I enjoyed eating the mango or I know mango enjoyment. > > Sleep experience: > 3. I know there was a "blank" (This is a "later" deduction from > circumstances, such as a watch or some other similar indicators > existing around.), > 4. I know I enjoyed sleeping or I know sleep enjoyment. > > KS: As I discussed in my last mail, the experiencer of the enjoyment > in mango as well as sleep - involves only the glimpses of self only > where the enjoyer-enjoyment or seer- seen duality is absent. > Anything else is only an explanation of that using a dualistic > notions and hence only of incidental or apparent value to satisfy the > mind so that it can beyond all these. > ----------------- > > MN: > Now let us delete statement 1 above. Can statement 2 stand? If > the "body-mind-intellect complex" is brought in, the answer is a big > NO. Then we need postulates. But if the question is looked at from > the point of view of Consciousness, YES. Simply stated, "I know I > enjoyed eating the mango" can light up without there being any > previous mango eating. (In other words, a mango eating will be there > in that lighting up without any previous mango eating having taken > place!). On a similar line, "I know I enjoyed sleeping" can also > light up without there being any actual sleeping event. After > all, "my sleeping event" is somebody else's experience as he or she > happens to see me on bed and later reports to me about it. Then that > reporting becomes another lighting up: "I know his/her claim of > seeing me sleep". It can also be my visualization – a thought. Then > that visualization (thought) is lighted up in my awareness as an > image of my body lying on bed. > > KS: Frankly I lost the chain of thoughts here. There seems to be > some mixing up of consciousness with duality that is perceived. > ------------- > > MN: I thought "postulates", however effective they are, could be avoided > if such a simple approach is adopted, which is totally in line with > Sankara's verse in Dakshinamoorthy Sthothram: > > Naana chidra ghatodarasthithamahaa deepa prabhaabhaasvaram > Jnaanam yasya thu chakshuradikaranadvaara bahispandathe > Jaanaami ithi thameva bhaantham anubhaathyethath samastham jagath > Thasmai sree gurumoorthaye namaha idam sree dakshinamoorthaye > > KS : I am sorry I fail to understand connection between the contents > of the Dakshanamuurty sloka to the logic of your views, since the > previous paragraph was not clear to me. Here Shankara is > elucidating the "I am a knower and this is known - that complex > seer-seen duality arises when there actually no such duality really > present other than appearance of duality. It is a beautiful sloka > brought in to explain the unexplainable by way of an example that we > experience in the waking state. > ---------- > > This is what I concluded in the last para of my post which > unfortunately has not been answered. > > Madathil Nair > > Shree Madathil Nair - I tried my best to present my understanding. > In the final analysis we both agree that the absolute reality, > Brahman, is one without a second and all other phenomenal appearance > only relative and explanations of the relatives are can only be > relative at best. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > -- > K. Sadananda > Code 6323 > Naval Research Laboratory > Washington D.C. 20375 > Voice (202)767-2117 > Fax:(202)767-2623 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2002 Report Share Posted March 12, 2002 advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote: > Shri Sadananda, > > That was a wonderful and lucid post. Thanks for the efforts put in. > I had endeavoured to go through Advaitin archives and seen the "na > asato" and other discussions. However, I cannot claim I have done a > complete job and thoroughly understood everything. Namaste All, With regard to the feeling 'I slept well'; I think this is just a memory in the mind of the bliss feeling as one come down from the deep sleep state. Sometimes if one wakes up quickly in the morning directly from deep sleep instead of tarrying too long on the dream plane, one will have feelings of bliss. So the deep sleep state is a thought and perhaps a state of bliss itself...Bliss is the last impediment......ONS.......Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2002 Report Share Posted March 12, 2002 > >Namaste All, > >With regard to the feeling 'I slept well'; I think this is just a >memory in the mind of the bliss feeling as one come down from the >deep sleep state. Sometimes if one wakes up quickly in the morning >directly from deep sleep instead of tarrying too long on the dream >plane, one will have feelings of bliss. > >So the deep sleep state is a thought and perhaps a state of bliss >itself...Bliss is the last impediment......ONS.......Tony. Tony - I am not sure what you mean by the last impediment - Anandamaya kosha - bliss sheath is only a notion in the mind that "I want happiness' rather recongnizing that "I am happiness'. longing for oneself with the notion that I am unhappy is the concept of anandamaya kosha. Bliss that paasth understanding (understanding meaning a thought process) is myself - very basis of the understanding. As long as i am seeking myself I will never find it since in the very seeking I have resolved that seeker is different from the sought. Hence the very seeking becomes an impediment not the bliss per sec since I am 'that' what I am seeking. Also I do not understand the statment 'deep sleep state is a thought' - thought is in the realm of the duality and arises with rise of the mind. I am there in the waking state and I am there in the dream state and I am there in the deep sleep state and bliss is not different from me. Limitlessness is the state of bliss and I am that limitless is the teaching and also experience whenever we are happy. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2002 Report Share Posted March 12, 2002 HariH Om Sadanandaji, I guess we are using different words for the same thing. I was defining memory as any impression cast on the mind which is the same as Vritti. Are'nt thoughts by themselves Harmless? Sri Ramana Maharshi said, He did have thoughts when someone spoke to Him etc. But these thoughts happened spontaneously. Upadesa Saara as somebody mentioned says "Vrittayasvaham Vrittimaashrita Vrityomano Vidhayaham Manaha" (From memory so may not be fully correct). Here Sri Ramana Maharshi identifies the mind, the ego as Vrittis only. When we identify thoughts with something called the mind, then it is a Vritti. But thoughts by itself are not a Vritti. Just as our mind conjures up a dream world in sleep, The supreme consiousness conjures up thoughts which when percolating through various levels of Gunas constitutes the SEEN and the SEER. Hence thoughts cannot be Vrittis, but the Gunas make the thoughts look like Vrittis. Does'nt the Bhagavad Gita differentiate between Seen and Seer on the basis of the Gunas? Anand > One can loose memory, for example by accident - one > can still think > and have the seer-seen duality. Thoughts have a > locus -idam or aham > become locus for the thoughts - idam vR^itti and > aham vR^itti. > Consciousness ever present is the basis of all the > thoughts. - I am > the seer and this is the seen - one based on aham > vR^itti and the > other based on idam vR^itti - Consciousness > essentially appears to > split into two - seer-seen - even though the > substratums for both is > the same consciousness. This is essence of one > become many - one > ocean becoming many waves - while every wave is > nothing but a > perturbation with its essence nothing but oceanic > waters only. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > Try FREE Mail - the world's greatest free email! / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2002 Report Share Posted March 12, 2002 advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > > Tony - I am not sure what you mean by the last impediment - > Anandamaya kosha - bliss sheath is only a notion in the mind that "I > want happiness' rather recongnizing that "I am happiness'. longing > for oneself with the notion that I am unhappy is the concept of > anandamaya kosha. Bliss that paasth understanding (understanding > meaning a thought process) is myself - very basis of the > understanding. As long as i am seeking myself I will never find it > since in the very seeking I have resolved that seeker is different > from the sought. Hence the very seeking becomes an impediment not the > bliss per sec since I am 'that' what I am seeking. > > Also I do not understand the statment 'deep sleep state is a thought' > - thought is in the realm of the duality and arises with rise of the > mind. > > I am there in the waking state and I am there in the dream state and > I am there in the deep sleep state and bliss is not different from > me. Limitlessness is the state of bliss and I am that limitless is > the teaching and also experience whenever we are happy. > Hari Om! > Sadananda Namaste Sadananda et al, It seems to me that deep sleep can only be in the mind itself, and that bliss is also in the mind or memory. Hence these are attributes of Saguna as opposed to Nirguna. Some people would find the ecstasy of bliss a great attachment to Saguna, hence an impediment to Nirguna. I believe it was the Buddha that wrote on this somewhere..Of course if one is realised one can be a witness of all the states of the unreal dream....ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2002 Report Share Posted March 13, 2002 Dear Shri Sadananda, That I have to clarify my question in greater detail to you was foremost in my mind this morning when I sat to pray. As usual, I showed incense to the deities in front of me at my prayer place. There is a hanging batik of the Devi seated on a tiger a little away from my prayer place where also I normally show burning incense. This requires my getting up and moving to that picture. Because I was pondering over the issue under discussion between us, I can't recall if I really showed the incense to the Devi today. I don't even recall if I moved from my seat at all. However, as showing the incense to Her is my daily practice, I don't think I could have missed doing it. I believe, the Devi is perhaps helping me present my question to you clearly by inducing this forgetfulness! Here, we perhaps have an event for which there is no memory registered. If my daughter were around then, she would have certainly pointed out to me: "Hey, dad, why are you so forgetful? I saw you getting up and waving those incense sticks in front of the Devi.". The simple explanation for this forgetfulness would be that the mind was not there behind the act. In other words, it was an absent-minded act. Agreed. But, for the purpose of this discussion, let us keep this "mind" aside for a little while. I don't think we need it now. Here, in simple language, we have an event that has taken place without leaving any "record" in the memory. Now my question is: Is the reverse possible? That is, can a memory light up without an "event" having taken place? This was what I was asking with regard to the mango experience. I know what I am trying to say is a little tricky and difficult to express. It also sounds preposterous, to say the least. To remember a mango enjoyment, is it mandatory that one should have had a previous mango eating? Remembering a mango enjoyment is basically a glow of Consciousness like any other experience and that glow could include the details of a previous mango eating. Those details are right within that glow. Whether a mango eating had taken place or not in the past is irrelevant when the whole matter is considered as a "jaanaami" glow of Consciousness. However, if we bring the concept of mind and try to explain, a previous mango-eating where the mind was actively behind the act becomes mandatory. In other words, a "logical" sequence becomes necessary. So, if we keep the concept of mind aside, all things that happen can be explained as a continuous, ever-present "I know" glow. We don't have to worry about their sequence. The "glow" will include the required coherence and continuity. If the glow relates to a point in year 45 of my age, it will necessarily include details of the "past" to make it coherent. All the details are there at that very point and moment. I, the limited being, have no control over them and, due to my ignorance, consider those details as belonging to the past or part of a sequence. To elaborate further, let us take the case of two persons "A" and "B" both of whom have almost the same type of knee pain. Both consult a doctor. X-rays are taken. "A" is summoned by the doctor and told that there is nothing serious and asked if there is any history of previous injury as some old concussion has been noticed. "A" recalls (or, for that matter, he does not recall but his daughter does) that quite some time back he had been hit on the knee by a wayward cyclist. The doctor prescribes some analgesic balm and hot water fomentation which eventually take care of the problem. "B" instead is referred to the nearest cancer facility where the experts pour over his case, which is then diagnosed as a very malignant bone sarcoma. To save his life, the doctors advise immediate amputation. Here, we have two examples of how Consciousness lights up as daily "reality" (karmaphala). In "A"'s case, the "add in" details for the diagnosis lighted up as a past incident which he had almost forgotten or completely forgotten, whereas in "B"'s case the "add ins" just poured in as the medical examination progressed. Does it really matter from which direction (i.e. from the past or future) the "add ins" come in? The only difference is that those from the past are called "known" and those from future "unknown" and this difference exists only in relation to the mind which grope for a logical sequence. From the point of view of Consciousness, it is all the same and ever there. If this is applied to the sleep example, there is no need of a sleep event for sleep enjoyment to glow. There is no need to rack our brains asking questions like where the sleep enjoyment was registered, who witnessed the event, etc. etc. When Consciousness lights up as sleep enjoyment, the required "add ins" are spontaneously included making the sleep-enjoyer know that he slept and enjoyed that experience. In fact, it is the mind that needs the "add ins" and a sequence. If we keep it out, the problem is better understood. It is to drive home this point that I used the Dakshinamurthy verse. This very moment is a big "jaanaami" glow. Everything is included here. Look this way, the "add ins" pour in, look that way, worlds crash in, look any way, things fall in place. Consciousness is a big "jaanami", isn't It? Now, about this sleep business, I have another crazy thought. Let us suppose a guy was put in space in zero gravity. There are stars around which look like fixed points without any relative change in their positions. These are there to give our friend the "feeling" of space, because the concept of "space" cannot sustain without matter. Other than feeling his heartbeats, which gives him a sense of continuity (time), this guy is not aware of any biological activity. Even his hair does not grow. In these circumstances, either of the following two can happen. He may doze off due to boredom or he may "create" a world of his own due to extreme sensory deprivation a la Henri Charriere's Papillon. (Papillon was kept in solitary confinement by French authorities for a long time in French Guyana. Sensory deprivation resulted in Papillon creating a world of his own, which among several other nice things included a beautiful lady too. It is said that, after escape from prison, Papillon came across the same lady in "real" life and married her! Please refer to Charriere's novel (based on real-life experience) "Banco" – a sequel to his more famous work "Papillon". By the way, I do not know whether Pailllon's experiences are vyavahaarika or prathibhaasika.). Let us assume that our friend is not fortunate like Papillon. He falls into deep sleep, remains in that state for a long time and wakes up. What will be that experience like? Nothing around him has changed when he slept. So, there is nothing to tell him about the passage of time. He felt his heart-beat before he dozed off. He can feel it now. He does not, however, know how many thousands of times his heart beat when he slept. Will he now say "I enjoyed the sleep"? I doubt. I feel he would not even know that he slept. In this crazy example, there is awareness of time (heartbeats) and there is awareness of space (the fixed stars). What is missing? Obviously, an awareness of biological processes. Does that mean that it is just a sense of physical well being due to rest that makes us all say "sukhena maya nidra anubhooyatha ithi"? God forbid. I want thoughts from everyone. However, whatever you all have to say, I am sure the big "jaanaami" light keeps shining for this guy. And, is it not the only important thing? Lastly, isn't there a flaw in that "absence of pot" argument? The absence of pot is known by the observer, whereas, in mind understanding its own absence, the observed and observer are one and the same. I am sorry if this long post bores. I couldn't help it. Best regards and pranams to you and all Advaitins. Madathil Nair advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > > MN: > Now let us delete statement 1 above. Can statement 2 stand? If > the "body-mind-intellect complex" is brought in, the answer is a big > NO. Then we need postulates. But if the question is looked at from > the point of view of Consciousness, YES. Simply stated, "I know I > enjoyed eating the mango" can light up without there being any > previous mango eating. (In other words, a mango eating will be there > in that lighting up without any previous mango eating having taken > place!). On a similar line, "I know I enjoyed sleeping" can also > light up without there being any actual sleeping event. After > all, "my sleeping event" is somebody else's experience as he or she > happens to see me on bed and later reports to me about it. Then that > reporting becomes another lighting up: "I know his/her claim of > seeing me sleep". It can also be my visualization – a thought. Then > that visualization (thought) is lighted up in my awareness as an > image of my body lying on bed. > > KS: Frankly I lost the chain of thoughts here. There seems to be > some mixing up of consciousness with duality that is perceived. > ------------- > > MN: I thought "postulates", however effective they are, could be avoided > if such a simple approach is adopted, which is totally in line with > Sankara's verse in Dakshinamoorthy Sthothram: > > Naana chidra ghatodarasthithamahaa deepa prabhaabhaasvaram > Jnaanam yasya thu chakshuradikaranadvaara bahispandathe > Jaanaami ithi thameva bhaantham anubhaathyethath samastham jagath > Thasmai sree gurumoorthaye namaha idam sree dakshinamoorthaye > > KS : I am sorry I fail to understand connection between the contents > of the Dakshanamuurty sloka to the logic of your views, since the > previous paragraph was not clear to me. Here Shankara is > elucidating the "I am a knower and this is known - that complex > seer-seen duality arises when there actually no such duality really > present other than appearance of duality. It is a beautiful sloka > brought in to explain the unexplainable by way of an example that we > experience in the waking state. > ---------- > > This is what I concluded in the last para of my post which > unfortunately has not been answered. > > Madathil Nair > > Shree Madathil Nair - I tried my best to present my understanding. > In the final analysis we both agree that the absolute reality, > Brahman, is one without a second and all other phenomenal appearance > only relative and explanations of the relatives are can only be > relative at best. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > -- > K. Sadananda > Code 6323 > Naval Research Laboratory > Washington D.C. 20375 > Voice (202)767-2117 > Fax:(202)767-2623 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2002 Report Share Posted March 13, 2002 Shree Anand, As I understand 'Memory' - is for the stored information- they are impressions of the thoughts - and we have - short time memory and long time memory. With age the first one fades rapidly but the second one lasts long. Vritti - is repeated thoughts - as Bhagavaan Ramana uses - they are idam vrR^itti and aham VRitti. - 'this' this' thoughts and I am - I am thoughts. Mind is the flow of thoughts. You are right - thoughts are not the problem if one understands correctly- but identification with the thoughts and providing reality to the thoughts is the problem. Idam thoughts centered on 'idam' or objects or dR^sya and aham thoughts centered on 'aham' the 'I am' - with the notion that I am this and this is mine etc - ahankaara and mamakaara. - aham vRitti is what Ramana considers as ego as 'I am this' "I am this' etc. notions. When he says - manaanasantukim maargane kR^ite naiva maanasam - this inquiry of the mind - what is the mind if one pursues, there is no more mind -that is there is no more the notional mind. that notions disappear- This process of inquiry he next illustrates in the most beautiful sloka - dR^isya vaaritam chittam aatmanaaH, chitta darshanam tatva darshanam - When one examines - dR^isya or the objects of perception - 'seens'- as seen in the mind by the mind - that is object is nothing but idam thoughts in the mind and if one examines those idam thoughts - if we removes the dR^isya part from those thoughts - that the name and forms - but look at the very content of those thoughts discarding the names and forms - dR^isyebhaH vaaritam manaH - Then we are left with the very essence of the contents of the thoughts sans the objects (since object only an a name and form for that thought wave) then the objects themselves disappears leaving behind the essence of the thought - that is nothing but Ramana says is tatvam - the vision of that chitta or the mind from from those objects is nothing but the very consciousness that is substratum of the thoughts - it is like seeing the contents of the wave discarding the superficiality of the wave but looking at its essence - the essence is nothing but water and water alone - similarly every thought wave is nothing but consciousness and consciousness alone says Ramana - That is what is involved in the meditation or even in the inquiry of who am I - ahami naashabaagyahamaham taaya spurati hR^itsvayam parama puurna sat. When the process is done as Ramana suggests then 'the falls I or aham - I am 'this' falls since it is false and what raises is an understanding and he says it raises spontaneously - as aham aham aham etc I am I am I am -and this I am is no more I am this but I am as puurnam and sat swaruupam - complete without any limitations since limitations belong to this and this and not aham. and it is of the nature of existence since it can never cease to exist. True thoughts are not the problem - just as waves are not the problem - but identification with the thoughts taking them as real is the problem. Hence meditation is not dismissal of the thoughts but dismissal of the super imposed notions of the thoughts and examining the thoughts in their bare essence - that is the secret of japa Yoga also - where one identical thought is provided for the mind to chant and since it is easier to stand apart examine a single repeated thought than a flood of different types of thoughts. The concept of seer - that I am a seer and this is seen - is due to the operation of the mind. Thus object-subject distinction is part of the mind operation. To think is the glory of the mind - it is called aiswaryam - Hence Ramana also says - thinking is not a problem - the problem comes only giving a reality to the thoughts - and that is due to misunderstanding. In giving that reality - we end up with two realities; I, the seer, is real and this, the seen, is also real. When duality becomes a reality, then problem comes since one limits the other and neither can be puurnam. - Hence Vedic declaration - puurna madaH puurnam idam - since there cannot be two infinities - puurnaat purnam udachate - idam only arise in me and I am the very substratum of the idam too. In Giita also Bhagavaan says two ways - yo maam pasyati sarvatra, sarvan ca mayi pasyati - those who can seem me everywhere and everything in me - and also from aham point - sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutani ca aatmani - all beings in me and I am in all beings (Dennis is counting how many times I am repeating this quote ) - is it not the essence of Ramana-s sloka - dR^isyavaaritam ...... Krishana again declares - mayaa tatam idam sarvam jagat avyakta muurtinaa - I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form - like the water in all waves or consciousness in all thought waves. - pyasyame yogamaisvaram - see my glory in these - Thoughts and thus objects and thus the whole world is nothing but my glory - Therefore thoughts are not the problem but forgetting the essence of the thoughts and giving importance only to the superimpostions - adhyaasa - is the problem. I see consistency in Bhagavaan Ramana's teaching and Geetopadesha. I am only glorifying Bagavaan Ramana's teachings. Hari OM! Sadananda >HariH Om Sadanandaji, > > I guess we are using different words for the same >thing. I was defining memory as any impression cast on >the mind which is the same as Vritti. >Are'nt thoughts by themselves Harmless? > >Sri Ramana Maharshi said, He did have thoughts when >someone spoke to Him etc. But these thoughts happened >spontaneously. > >Upadesa Saara as somebody mentioned says >"Vrittayasvaham Vrittimaashrita >Vrityomano Vidhayaham Manaha" >(From memory so may not be fully correct). > >Here Sri Ramana Maharshi identifies the mind, the ego >as Vrittis only. When we identify thoughts with >something called the mind, then it is a Vritti. >But thoughts by itself are not a Vritti. Just as our >mind conjures up a dream world in sleep, The supreme >consiousness conjures up thoughts which when >percolating through various levels of Gunas >constitutes the SEEN and the SEER. >Hence thoughts cannot be Vrittis, but the Gunas make >the thoughts look like Vrittis. >Does'nt the Bhagavad Gita differentiate between Seen >and Seer on the basis of the Gunas? > >Anand -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2002 Report Share Posted March 13, 2002 It is important that I understand what you are saying here, so I would ask you to expand on the following problem that puzzles me. In a message dated 3/13/02 8:32:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, sada writes: > > . . . Vritti - is repeated thoughts - as Bhagavaan Ramana uses - they are > idam vrR^itti and aham VRitti. - 'this' this' thoughts and I am - I > am thoughts. Mind is the flow of thoughts. . . . Yes, mind is the flow of thoughts. However, I am not thoughts, as 'I' is the subject, the seer, of the object, the seen thoughts, mitigated through a relationship media yet not identified. Apparently you are saying that the subject, 'I', is composed of aham vrtti while the object, seen, is composed of idam vrtti. Two kinds of vrtti are thus postulated to suggest a Seer-Seeing-Seen relationship. There's a big problem here though. One can identify, at least in principle, with fluctuations of the mind due to the idam vrtti communicated via the physical senses. But in trying to eliminate a big problem of "Who am I?" it creates a new problem of identifying the composition of this 'aham vrtti' stuff, surely another object of attention. After all, here it is defined as a noun. This gives rise to yet an even greater problem: who or what is it that comes to know about or identify with this 'aham vrtti' stuff? Vrtti by any particularized or specialized name is still vrtti, that is, it is stuff or waves or fluctuations or feelings or of communication mechanizations of some sort. It is an object of perception for some seer, somewhere, and we are back to the earlier more simplistic problem of 'Who am I', but now also having to explain this new intermediary coupling mechanism of aham vrtti. Now one might state your proposition with a slightly different vocabulary, to try to eliminate some of these problems. The 'idam vrtti' part of the equation exists in the atma stage of consciousness while the 'aham vrtti' part of the equation exists in a transformed stage of bhraman consciousness. A quickly oscillating series of transformations between atma and brahman might describe the coupling mechanism of Seeing between the Seer and the Seen. Even so, we're still not out of the woods here, as the objective substantive noun problems attributed to 'aham vrtti' still exist. We can't give it a name and simultaneously say that it is not an object for a Seer. I am sure you will shed more light on this dilemma. jai guru dev, Edmond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2002 Report Share Posted March 13, 2002 Dear Sri Madathil Nair You had quoted DakshinAmUrti ashTakam sloka No.4 and expressed the intention to take some time to explore it in detail. Just as an information let me draw your attention to the postings on dakshinAmUrti ashTakam by Kathirji on this list two years ago, the matter being an extract of portions from my web-pages on the same subject. The pages start from the following www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/63.html praNAms, yours, profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2002 Report Share Posted March 14, 2002 edmeasure wrote: It is important that I understand what you are saying here, so I would ask you to expand on the following problem that puzzles me. In a message dated 3/13/02 8:32:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, sada writes: > > . . . Vritti - is repeated thoughts - as Bhagavaan Ramana uses - they are > idam vrR^itti and aham VRitti. - 'this' this' thoughts and I am - I > am thoughts. Mind is the flow of thoughts. . . .. Shree Edmond - Greetings. First let me welcome you to the advaitin list. Here is my understanding to the points you have raised. From your introduction I appreciate your interest in the seer/seen topic. The essence of meditation involves consciousness as a witness - that is seeing without getting involved in the seen-s. Before I jump into answering the specific points you have raised, I have to state from the traditional vedantic terminology and classification. We can minimize the confusion if we restrict the use of these technical words within the definitions. There lies also the importance of study of the scriptures under proper format to avoid misinterpretations. I am sure being a physicist/engineer you can appreciate the definitions for words so that communication through the words can be done with least confusion. In Advaita Vedanta - thoughts constituting anthaH KaraNa, which is called subtle body or instrument (suukshma shariira) are classified into four types based on their functional roles, if I can use that word. –In VivekachuuDamani - three is a sloka that defines these - nigadyatentahkaraNam mano dhiiH, ahamkR^itiH chittam iti swa vR^ittibhiH ……. Here the word swa vR^ittibhiH - the word vR^itti is used for all the thought patterns in terms of their functional roles. But this becomes more clear if we look carefully what are the differences in their vR^itti-s. Manas, buddhi, ahankaara and chit – mind, intellect, ego, and memory – The functions or activities or vritti’s of each are slightly different. All together are sometimes referred to mind etc and dropping out ‘etc’ for convenience just as the five ‘praana, apaana etc are collectively referred to just as praana. Mind is doubting type of thoughts – to do or not to do – shamshaayaatmikam,- determining thoughts, nishchaatmikam, are referred to as intellect,- ego is ‘I’ and ‘I want’ (here it includes ahakaara, a notion that I am the doer and mamakaara – notion that this is mine – thus it includes ‘I am this’ and ‘this is mine’ – this is what is also referred to aham vr^itti – under this category all the notions that I am a doer, I am enjoyer etc which includes I am a seer notion too – this pertains to your question), and the finally the chitta the memory aspect that includes – both notional and objective thoughts – that is notions of how great I am and what are things I have done etc along with what all things I know. In a general sense all are thoughts only a subtle matter – but specific contents and texture of the thoughts are different. Bhagavaan Ramana in his Upadesha saara which Shree Anand referred to bundles these into two categories based on the locus of the thoughts – this thoughts are locused on ‘idam’ – this, and ‘aham thoughts are locused on the – ahankaara and mamakaara where the locus is on the ‘I am’ where an identification of the consciousness with the local instrument is involved. Since this locus is on I am itself – it is more permanent and survives the death of the gross body – transmigrates until the identification of I am this ceases with the correct understanding that I am the totality – aham brahma asmi – thus ignorance that result in ‘I am this which includes I am a doer, I am a seer and I am an enjoyer’ survives – the death or the identification with a particular gross body ceases. It remains until that ignorance is removed by the right knowledge that involves I am not this but I am the total that includes this and this too. If these are correctly understood then the rest of the questions get cleared easily at least from the point of common forum for discussion or communication. Let us examine the points you have raised in the light of above background. ---------- Edmond: Yes, mind is the flow of thoughts. However, I am not thoughts, as 'I' is the subject, the seer, of the object, the seen thoughts, mitigated through a relationship media yet not identified. Apparently you are saying that the subject, 'I', is composed of aham vrtti while the object, seen, is composed of idam vrtti. Two kinds of vrtti are thus postulated to suggest a Seer-Seeing-Seen relationship. There's a big problem here though. One can identify, at least in principle, with fluctuations of the mind due to the idam vrtti communicated via the physical senses. But in trying to eliminate a big problem of "Who am I?" it creates a new problem of identifying the composition of this 'aham vrtti' stuff, surely another object of attention. After all, here it is defined as a noun. This gives rise to yet an even greater problem: who or what is it that comes to know about or identify with this 'aham vrtti' stuff? Vrtti by any particularized or specialized name is still vrtti, that is, it is stuff or waves or fluctuations or feelings or of communication mechanizations of some sort. It is an object of perception for some seer, somewhere, and we are back to the earlier more simplistic problem of 'Who am I', but now also having to explain this new intermediary coupling mechanism of aham vrtti. Now one might state your proposition with a slightly different vocabulary, to try to eliminate some of these problems. KS: Edmond we need to be very careful - That is one of the reason why Vedanta insists on following a tradition or sampradaaya teaching so that most of the confusion in the usage of terms is correctly sorted out. We do not reinvent a ‘wheel’ with new vocabulary every time someone with different background uses the words in a different sense. More than vocabulary, I see more fundamental problem in the above statements in trying to see who is that seer I. This is where Shankara has presented analysis of error or adhyaasa before he goes into discussion of the brahmasuutra. Shree Dennis Waite has included in his website – notes on adhyaasa taking out all the Sanskrit terms in the Brahmasuutra notes stored in the advaitin archives. In principle I, the conscious entity, is not ‘seer’ either – This is a notion in the mind that I am a seer – and arises due to adhyaasa or error due to misunderstanding. Seer is also a notion in the mind only. When the thoughts arise in the mind, there is (an apparent) split of consciousness as subject and object with inter-relation between the two – thus seer and seen are both notions in the mind – one taking the subject part and the other taking the object part – Truly there is neither there is a seer nor there is seen and of course the inter-relationship ‘seeing’ – also vanishes – these three – seer-seen and seeing together are three fold demon called ‘tripura’ in mythological usage and Iswara is called tripuraantaka – destroyer of these three. The point is there is no seer when there is no seen. But during the meditation as a technique – one is asked to see the seen as a witnessing agent as a seer witnessing the seen – this is a process so that one slowly stops the seen-s – since seen-s are not given importance since the attention is shifted to seer than seen. This is what is called observing the mind – also involves inquiry of the seer – or the essence of the inquiry of who am I too. – when there is no more seen-s – the seer notion also drops out since both are notions – What is left is only I am ‘ without the qualifications as I am ‘a seer’ – since ‘seer’ concept is due to adhyaasa or error – Thus this seer concept is also a notion in the mind – it is not there in the deep sleep state since the mind is not there. If you go back to all the discussions that I have presented you see the self-consistency – and it is not mine but what Vedanta teaches us systematically. This is also the crux of japa yoga too. In order to stand apart from the seen-s – one needs certain detachment –or a mind trained to do that –That is what essentially called purification of the mind and for that only the yoga shaastra – Bhagavad Geeta where depending on the qualification of the mind or saadhak – karma, bhakti or j~naana as yoga is taught. Everything is beautifully systematized and there lies the glory of Vedanta – and therefore no need to reinvent a wheel. ------------ Edmond: The 'idam vrtti' part of the equation exists in the atma stage of consciousness while the 'aham vrtti' part of the equation exists in a transformed stage of bhraman consciousness. A quickly oscillating series of transformations between atma and brahman might describe the coupling mechanism of Seeing between the Seer and the Seen. Even so, we're still not out of the woods here, as the objective substantive noun problems attributed to 'aham vrtti' still exist. We can't give it a name and simultaneously say that it is not an object for a Seer. I am sure you will shed more light on this dilemma. jai guru dev, Edmond ://sports./ Edmond I request you to study what I have written which may differ from your understanding of what is involved in the error or adhyaasa. I also request to study what Dennis has presented in his web pages on adhyaasa. If I am still not clear I will be more than happy to clarify myself. Hari OM! Sadananda Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2002 Report Share Posted March 14, 2002 advaitin, edmeasure@a... wrote: > In a message dated 3/12/02 4:33:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, > aoclery writes: > > > > It seems to me that deep sleep can only be in the mind itself, and > > that bliss is also in the mind or memory. Hence these are attributes > > of Saguna as opposed to Nirguna. Some people would find the ecstasy > > of bliss a great attachment to Saguna, hence an impediment to > > Nirguna. I believe it was the Buddha that wrote on this somewhere..Of > > course if one is realised one can be a witness of all the states of > > the unreal dream....ONS...Tony. > > > > I take the notion of bliss more simplistically, just as it feels -- great -- > give me more -- even if all full of attachment in saguna. From such a > blissful state, movement into nirguna is rather natural and spontaneous, > i.e., quick an automatic, far away from being an impediment. Can we consider > bliss to be quite the same as a flow of soma, say, giving rise to tingling > sensations in the body? That is, cannot such a flowing bliss be considered > the communication media that differentiates the experiences of saguna from > nirguna? The thought of bliss and the flowing experience of bliss seem to be > two quite different things. Or, might we then ask what it is that > discriminates between a thought of bliss and an experience of bliss. I can > have many thoughts, including some past blissful experience, but this is > altogether different from a spontaneous new experience of bliss. > > jai guru dev, > > Edmond Namaste Edmond, IMO it seems that bliss can only be an experience and hence of the illusory saguna brahman. Nirguna cannot be experienced as it is not of the field of experience, that is Saguna. One may not be able to move from bliss to nirguna anymore easily than being in the waking state, as they are states in the one mind. One mostly only experiences the memory of bliss rather than bliss, unless one is in a savikalpa samadhi. Even Sat-Chit-Ananda is a description of Saguna! Anything other than Nirguna is only a thought hence unreal mind....ONS....Tony. 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.