Who is the Seer

[Guest guest]

<<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.>>

 

Dear Sadananda,

 

Interesting though this is, it does not seem to be a valid analogy on closer

analysis. The experience of the non-perception of the pot is happening now.

It is validated by pratyakSha. But the supposed experience of the absence of

the mind during sleep is nothing of the sort. The sleep was in the past and

I can see nothing at all of what was in the past. For all I know, I might

have been perfectly conscious of the whole experience and simply forgotten.

Surely pratyakSha is not a valid pramANa for past events?

 

I'd like to suggest a totally different reason for the feeling 'I slept

well'. I don't know whether this is original and it hasn't occurred to me

before. When one wakes up, there is a moment when there is no attachment to

any 'external object' or 'internal thought'. There is simply a pure

awareness of 'I am', if you like. This, having the nature of Ananda, what

else could we think, if and when we try to objectify this feeling, but 'what

a refreshing sleep or something of the sort'?

 

Regards,

 

Dennis

 

P.S. In fact, I've subsequently read Tony's post in which he, too, suggests

something similar.

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Dear Sadananda,

>

> Interesting though this is, it does not seem to be a

> valid analogy on closer

> analysis. The experience of the non-perception of

> the pot is happening now.

> It is validated by pratyakSha. But the supposed

> experience of the absence of

> the mind during sleep is nothing of the sort. The

> sleep was in the past and

> I can see nothing at all of what was in the past.\

 

Not true Dennis - It is not the sleep experience that

is implied here - what is the analogy here is the

recognition of the asence of the mind by the waker

mind which is current experience just as the

experience of the asence of the pot. - This is

actually considered as one of the six pramaana-s

according to advaita while other two, dvaita and

vishishhTaadvaita, bundle it as a degenerate form of

anumaana only.

 

Now based on that information - that is, there was an

absence for some period of time, time being again

measured by the mind from the memeory of when it's

absense started (when one went to sleep) and when it

absence ended (when one is awakened). That is all the

experience of the mind and based on that 'pratyaksha'

experience it now inferes (anumaaana) , underline

infers, that I slept well - since its absence was well

recognized like the presence of the pot's

non-existence.

 

Coming back to sleep experience itself - who is the

real experiencer of that sleep if one asks - and if

you go back to my previous posts - I have stated that

it is an invalid question since

experiencer-experienced is only a notion in the mind

and those notions along with the question has no

validity where the experiencer-experience duality

ceases. The rest of the discussion or stipulations

are of acadamic interest and I personally prefer to

take a shelter in Shankara's 'anirvachaniiyam' or

inexplicable concept than give a vilidity to an

explanations that this one is better or that one is

better.

I hope I am clear.

 

> For all I know, I might

> have been perfectly conscious of the whole

> experience and simply forgotten.

> Surely pratyakSha is not a valid pramANa for past

> events?

 

I am conscious all the time since that is my nature -

'I am' as notional thought' is not there since it

involves crystallization of the mind as aham vritti

and that is the point of discussion.

 

>

> I'd like to suggest a totally different reason for

> the feeling 'I slept

> well'. I don't know whether this is original and it

> hasn't occurred to me

> before. When one wakes up, there is a moment when

> there is no attachment to

> any 'external object' or 'internal thought'. There

> is simply a pure

> awareness of 'I am', if you like. This, having the

> nature of Ananda, what

> else could we think, if and when we try to objectify

> this feeling, but 'what

> a refreshing sleep or something of the sort'?

>

> Regards,

>

> Dennis

>

> P.S. In fact, I've subsequently read Tony's post in

> which he, too, suggests

> something similar.

 

Dennis I fail to see how what I said differs from what

you mentioned - only the fact that 'Bliss' is not an

expereience of the sort that involves

experiencer-emperienceed and that is what I have

pointed to Tony too. I am bliss all the time - whether

I know it or not. It is of the nature of

self-consciousness, not as conscious of (sleep or

whatever) - hence it does not involve

experiencer-experience duality.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

Sports - live college hoops coverage

http://sports./

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/14/02 12:03:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

kuntimaddisada writes:

 

> 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. . . . . . . . . . Everything is

> beautifully systematized and there lies the glory of

> Vedanta – and therefore no need to reinvent a wheel.

>

 

I have been intimately associated with many different circles of physical

scientists, the majority who will usually say something to the effect:

 

"We can minimize confusion if we restrict the use of technical words within

the broad domain of accepted physical definitions. There lies also the

importance of study of this supreme science of physics under proper format to

avoid misinterpretations. . . . (and also much later in such renderings) .

.. . Everything is beautifully systematized and there lies the glory of this

Theoretical Mathematical Physics – and therefore no need to reinvent a wheel

(and creating chaos by bringing in all of this religious belief and

supernatural type stuff)."

 

At more sophisticated levels, the two camps (Vedanta types and Physics types)

quietly tolerate each other, trying to remain out of sight of each other,

often biting their lips. At lesser sophisticated levels, we need only look

at the present moment Afghanistan and the presently activated

Jewish-Palestinian holocaust. Several different camps put together a highly

perfected intellectual rendition on the state of affairs (and on states of

consciousness), usually polished and re-polished over time with heavy

weighing tamasic habituated traditions.

 

Each party more or less says that, "I have my own well developed and

perfectly synchronous and complete vocabulary, so let us not try to reinvent

the wheel and bring in confusion with a new vocabulary. Such a thing might

cause our two camps to communicate with some type of common denominator, and

then I would have to give up some of the private suffering that I strive to

endure in order to maintain this aloof separateness from my brother over

there on the other side of the tracks."

 

I am willing to create my own world and then live according to the creation,

which suits my understand and which feels good. Presumably, my brother

across the tracks is doing some sort of similar thing. I need to communicate

with my brother, otherwise, sooner or later, he will kill me or I will kill

him. So to stay alive, I best try to find some additional, supplementary

vocabularies, to bridge the gap. If my own tight-knit evolutionary system of

affairs also includes the dogma that it is noble that I should die, rather

than stay alive, then I best hurry.

 

Therefore, sir, saints, swamis, rishis and all learned yoga and advaita folks

here, with greatest respect for everyone' and their deep knowledge of such

things, I feel that it is extremely useful and not out of place to challenge

closed system vocabularies, everywhere and on any topic, to link meaning and

order with other closed systems. Establishing such a link will allow a

greater flowing of bliss with resulting greater harmony. I'm sure that it

will turn out that the other guy ain't that bad afterall.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada>

wrote:

 

Namaste All IMO,

 

In the dream. When one is in deep sleep one is above the mundane

minds therefore there is no citta etc to function. However one is in

the thought of ignorance without mentation. Anyway this is all

speculation 'Bhaja Govindam'........ONS,,,Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda,

 

< Not true Dennis - It is not the sleep experience that

is implied here - what is the analogy here is the

recognition of the asence of the mind by the waker

mind which is current experience just as the

experience of the asence of the pot.>

 

Sorry, I think you are still missing my point here. My present perception is

that the mind is present (now); otherwise there would be no perception. The

fact that I find no memory now of the earlier period when I was asleep is no

guarantee that the mind was absent then, As I said, it is theoretically

possible that I was totally aware all of the time that I was in deep sleep

but that somehow the mechanism of changing from deep sleep to waking erases

the memory of it.

 

I agree that it is inference that 'we slept well' but it is not based upon

experience of absence of mind. If anything, it is based upon the fact that

we are unable to recall a memory. But my short-term memory is pretty awful

these days anyway. It seems quite plausible from an argumentative point of

view to suggest that the act of waking up disrupts that particular

short-term memory. After all, the experience is unlikely to contain much of

value so it could be in the interest of the organism to destroy it every

time we wake up in order to conserve memory!

 

Please note I am not disputing any of your conclusions (as I am sure you

realise); I agree with all of your essential statements. I am simply

suggesting that this particular point, which you have used as an argument to

reach those conclusions, does not seem to be valid.

 

sukhaM chara (sadA),

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Sorry, I think you are still missing my point here.

> My present perception is

> that the mind is present (now); otherwise there

> would be no perception. The

> fact that I find no memory now of the earlier period

> when I was asleep is no

> guarantee that the mind was absent then, As I said,

> it is theoretically

> possible that I was totally aware all of the time

> that I was in deep sleep

> but that somehow the mechanism of changing from deep

> sleep to waking erases

> the memory of it.

>

> I agree that it is inference that 'we slept well'

> but it is not based upon

> experience of absence of mind. If anything, it is

> based upon the fact that

> we are unable to recall a memory. But my short-term

> memory is pretty awful

> these days anyway.

 

Dennis - if we take the possibility you suggest, that

the mind was functional but the memory was lost - then

we have two problems that we need to deal with. If

mind was functional - it means I was thinking and I

was aware of my thoughts - both constitute the mind

since mind is nothing but thought flow and flow is

validated only if the consciousness illuminates those

thoughts flowing that these thoughts I am aware of and

I am also aware of that those are my thoughts - idam

vR^itti and aham vR^itti. If the mind is thus

functioning I submit I have not slept since duality

that those are the thought and I am who is aware of

the thoughts both present - that is true as universal

experience in the waking and dream state only - even

though many of the dreams we have no memory of. The

second is It is also universal experince - not one

forgetting and the other remembering etc or one day

forgetting and the other day remembering - It is

universally felt that they do not remember single

thoughts that went through during the dream state.

Based on that experince, we rule out the possibility

that the mind was not there at all. Hence it is

difficult to establish the functioning of the mind and

more easily the absence of the mind than its presence

and lack of memory.

 

Any way this is my understanding of the state of

affairs for whatever it is worth.

 

I would stop my contributions on this topic since I am

ready to sleep.

 

Hari Om!

sadananda

 

 

 

 

Sports - live college hoops coverage

http://sports./

[Guest guest]

--- edmeasure wrote:

> Therefore, sir, saints, swamis, rishis and all

> learned yoga and advaita folks

> here, with greatest respect for everyone' and their

> deep knowledge of such

> things, I feel that it is extremely useful and not

> out of place to challenge

> closed system vocabularies, everywhere and on any

> topic, to link meaning and

> order with other closed systems. Establishing such

> a link will allow a

> greater flowing of bliss with resulting greater

> harmony. I'm sure that it

> will turn out that the other guy ain't that bad

> afterall.

>

> jai guru dev,

>

> Edmond

>

 

Shree Edmond - as Dennis says to me that I am missing

the whole point - the same comment seems to apply to

your post.

 

Of course you can challenge any concept and definitely

Vedanta - It is a science and you are most welcome to

challenge anyway you can.

 

I was only driving the point that the communication

and the challenge makes meaningful provided the

concepts are communicated in the same language that

both can understand - hence we establish the

conventions that everybody agrees on - The same

applies to Vedanta. What I have provided in my last

post is first the vocabulary of Vedanta so that we use

the word mind, vritti, ahankaara memory etc we both

know what they are referring to. The definition

provides the acceptance of a common forum for

discussions. Otherwise the so-called challenge will go

waste.

 

I am not stopping you from challenging it - on logical

grounds. I am also a physicist/engineer too. So be my

guest - You are not challenging me anyway - so why

should I worry. You can challenge Vedantic concepts

and you can also challegne my understanding - If I am

wrong I will be very happy to learn - We have many

vedantins on this forum who try to keep me honest, if

I try to contradict myself or vedanta.

 

Hari OM

Sadananda

 

 

 

Sports - live college hoops coverage

http://sports./

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> Dear Sadananda,

>

> < Not true Dennis - It is not the sleep experience that

> is implied here - what is the analogy here is the

> recognition of the asence of the mind by the waker

> mind which is current experience just as the

> experience of the asence of the pot.>

>

> Sorry, I think you are still missing my point here. My present

perception is

> that the mind is present (now); otherwise there would be no

perception. The

> fact that I find no memory now of the earlier period when I was

asleep is no

> guarantee that the mind was absent then, As I said, it is

theoretically

> possible that I was totally aware all of the time that I was in

deep sleep

 

Namaste All IMO,

 

There is always memory in mind. There is a memory of deep sleep but

as deep sleep is a thought of nothing the memory is of nothing. Just

ignorance. In this dream we construct separate memory and subtle and

material organs kosas etc. Hence memories in one don't necessarily

became evident in another...However the Citta records them

all.......ONS...

[Guest guest]

--- aoclery <aoclery wrote:

>

> There is always memory in mind. There is a memory of

> deep sleep but

> as deep sleep is a thought of nothing the memory is

> of nothing. Just

> ignorance. In this dream we construct separate

> memory and subtle and

> material organs kosas etc. Hence memories in one

> don't necessarily

> became evident in another...However the Citta

> records them

> all.......ONS...

 

Just as ignorance is not positive, there cannot be a

thought of nothing. Thought is always has a locus of

an object - idam vR^itti or the subject as objectified

'aham'. One cannot think 'Nothing' with no object as

a locus. About ignorance - see the discussion of

shree Atmaanandaji - on the ignorance as abhaava

ruupa.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

Sports - live college hoops coverage

http://sports./

[Guest guest]

Edmond wrote:

> At more sophisticated levels, the two camps (Vedanta

types and Physics types)

> quietly tolerate each other, trying to remain out of

sight of each other,

> often biting their lips. At lesser sophisticated

levels, we need only look

> at the present moment Afghanistan and the presently

activated

> Jewish-Palestinian holocaust. Several different camps

put together a highly

> perfected intellectual rendition on the state of

affairs (and on states of

> consciousness), usually polished and re-polished over

time with heavy

> weighing tamasic habituated traditions.

>

> with my brother, otherwise, sooner or later, he will

kill me or I will kill

> him. So to stay alive, I best try to find some

additional, supplementary

> vocabularies, to bridge the gap. If my own tight-knit

evolutionary system of

> affairs also includes the dogma that it is noble that I

should die, rather

> than stay alive, then I best hurry.

>

> Therefore, sir, saints, swamis, rishis and all learned

yoga and advaita folks

> here, with greatest respect for everyone' and their

deep knowledge of such

> things, I feel that it is extremely useful and not out

of place to challenge

> closed system vocabularies, everywhere and on any

topic, to link meaning and

> order with other closed systems. Establishing such a

link will allow a

> greater flowing of bliss with resulting greater

harmony. I'm sure that it

> will turn out that the other guy ain't that bad afterall.

 

 

Namaste,

Advaita Vedanta does not merely have a "closed

system vocabulary". To so refer to Sanskrita is

missing the mark. Sanskrita has the most precise and

clear words of any language to indicate the inner,

psychological, and spiritual realms of any language

available to human beings. "Sanskrita" means "polished,

refined, perfected;" it is the language, linguists

agree, that has changed the least over time. How can

one compare Sanskrita, which alone has retained spiritual

import to this day, to the language of physics, which

refers only to the material world?

Sanskrita, the language of Vedanta, is not closed

or limited as you suggest. So, perhaps care is needed

when linking Sanskrita to any contemporary vocabulary or

terminology. The greatest and finest language cannnot

be contained in the small. This is not to say that

Vedanta cannot be expressed in terms of Western culture.

Vedanta needs must find expression in terms accessible

to the West. In the United States, for example, duirng

the formative period in American cultural life, Ralph

Waldo Emerson was able to present Vedanta to America and

profoundly influenced the direction of this country.

One should take care not to diminish Sanskrita.

The wise say that the greatest harmony and truth flow

from following the disciplines of meditation and the

study of Sanskrita.

 

Satchidananda (roughly, being/awareness/bliss),

Kenneth Larsen

[Guest guest]

One last attempt!

 

Dear Sadananda,

 

My apologies but you have again taken the wrong purport from my last post.

Let me go back to the element that triggered my comment in the first place.

This is the only aspect about anything that you have said to which I took

exception. My theoretical point about about 'forgetting' our awareness

during sleep was a red herring.

 

You used the metaphor of a pot that was present yesterday and is now not

present to 'explain' how it seemed to us that we had a waking experience of

having slept well. You claimed that our present knowledge of the absence of

the pot was analagous to our waking knowledge of the absence of the mind

during sleep. I claimed that this is not a valid metaphor.

 

My point is simply this. Our awareness of the absence of the pot is a

present experience of the waking mind. Our so-called awareness of the

absence of the mind, on the contrary, is a present inference of the waking

mind. We cannot have any awareness now of that absence (if indeed it was an

absence) because that is in the past.Obviously, the mind must be present

now, otherwise I could not make any perception or draw any conclusion. Note

that there is no need to start talking about the role of memory in all of

this; it is not relevant to the point being made.

 

Note that I am not arguing with you about the conclusion, merely pointing

out that you cannot use this metaphor as an aid to reaching that conclusion.

 

Hope I have now clarified the point that I was trying to make! If I have

failed again, I give up!

 

Best Regards,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> One last attempt!

I give up!

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Dennis

 

Dennis at last we have reached some agreement - to

give up!

 

Now only left is to give all these notions and

attempts.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

Sports - live college hoops coverage

http://sports./