Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 2. The three states

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

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

> I must say that I tend to agree with Benjamin so far regarding this

> fascinating subject (I could see this one topic continuing for most

of

> November!). I think that the key point appears in this comment from

Raj:

>

> "According to Shri. Atmananda, the point to note in this prakriya is

> that we have to analyze the three states from an independent

> standpoint without any partiality to any one state. Each state

should

> be analyzed in relation to the experiences within that state

> alone. When we try to explain the deep sleep experience in terms of

> waking time, we are being partial to the waking state. The waking

> time as an object cannot be seen to exist outside of waking

> state and hence cannot be used to explain deep sleep state

> experience. So the analysis must be from a standpoint which is

> commonly available in all three states."

>

> I don't see how we can 'analyse the three states from an independent

> standpoint'. Surely the only state in which we can conduct any

analysis at

> all is the waking state. Thus any commentary on what occurred

during the

> dream or deep sleep state is going to be biased to say the least! I

am

> assuming here, of course that by 'analysis', Raj is referring to the

> objective and rational pursuit of the mind-intellect which, as far

as I am

> aware, only operates in a 'controlled' manner during the waking

state.

> Accordingly I am still not convinced that we do anything other than

infer

> what 'happened' during deep sleep. (In fact, my own experience is

that I

> always seem to awake from a dream state so that I rarely - ever? -

awake

> direct from a deep sleep of 'absence' of any sort of awareness.)

>

 

I agree that from the waking state, the deep sleep experience is

just an idea. Also, I agree that we do the analysis of the three

states from the waking state alone. We have to recognise that the

aim of this prakriya is not to recreate the deep sleep state

experience in our minds - it is not possible to objectify that

experience. The aim of this prakriya is to find that "independent

standpoint". In waking state, we identify with a lot of objects - our

body, senses, mind, intellect, memory, thoughts, feelings, race,

nationality, sex etc. In dream state too, we identify with a

different sets of similar objects. But when we try to recall the deep

sleep state experience, there are no such objects to identify with.

So it proves that none of the above-mentioned objects provide us with

an "independent standpoint" to analyze all the three states.

Now, to know that there were no objects in deep sleep state, there

must have been an entity, and that entity has to be the real I-

Principle. None of the above-mentioned objects with which I identify

can be that Real I-principle just since deep sleep state experience

negates the existence of all those objects. Thus, this prakriya helps

to get rid of the wrong identifications that we have in our waking

state.

 

Pranaams,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Dennis wrote:(in reply to Raj 7th.Nov)

It does not seem possible to say that the deep sleep

'experience' is like anything at all.

 

Hello Dennis,

 

Yes you can pull a rabbit out of a hat but you can't

pull a nothing out of a nothing. That construes the

problem as an operation to be done on something. But

suppose that it is the transition itself that allows

you to realise that there was something. I stress

that this is a non-inferential, immediate knowledge.

 

In the traditional view of the witness as being pure

consciousness with the upadhi of the mind (with the

mind as limiting adjunct) it is clear that in Deep

Sleep the witness is no more because mind is no more.

There is just a pure state knowing itself as a pure

state. As wakefullness kicks in the witness begins to

operate. What you then know is a felt difference not

a recall from within the deep sleep state.

 

Best Wishes, Michael

[Guest guest]

Hi Nair-ji,

 

I liked your summary statements:

 

"As far as we can safely express, deep sleep is the experience of not

experiencing. It indicates the presence of an absence like zero does

in mathematics."

 

I did not, however, follow your next comments:

 

"Sleep and wakefulness are, therefore, mutual complementaries. They have to

be seen as one."

 

I understand waking to have objects and sleep not to have them. How does

this make them complementary? And why do they then have to be seen as one?

 

I was even more confused by your conclusion:

 

"Besides, sleep is something desired or craved after. So, there is

happiness in it. It can't therefore be an empty blank."

 

The second statement does not follow from the first - surely you mean that

the waking state feels happiness after its rest. There is no reason to

suppose that there was happiness in the deep sleep itself. (After all we

feel happiness after ceasing to bang our heads against a brick wall!)

Furthermore, if your last statement followed, it would contradict the

earlier one - either deep sleep is an absence or it is not an empty blank.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

P.S. I was not offended by the 'arjava' comment. Hopefully all

clarifications/corrections will always be gratefully received!

[Guest guest]

Dennisji,

 

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

> Hi Raj,

>

> You asked:

>

> "Are you able to recall your experience when you reached that total

> stillness?"

>

> It seems to me that this question is again missing the point and

returning

> us to the original query. The question is not about recall - memory

and its

> validity/relevance in the present are new questions, which could

occupy

> further discussions - the question is about present awareness. My

point was

> that, in deep meditation, one is aware, though without specific

objects of

> awareness, and one is aware that one is aware. In deep sleep, there

is no

> awareness of being aware. And it seems to me that this is what

> differentiates deep sleep from enlightenment - in the latter, one

is always

> aware that one is aware (as well as knowing that there are no

separate

> objects, gross or subtle).

>

> I agree that I am now referring to a remembered experience in order

to be

> able to communicate the idea but feel that to pursue this aspect is

to cloud

> the issue. Certainly, if you insist, I would say that I have

memories of

> meditative stillness whereas I do not have memories of deep sleep.

So, yes,

> in answer to your final question, I would say that there is a

difference

> between your two cases (samAdhi vs falling asleep).

>

 

As I mentioned earlier, I have never had the experience of

nirvikapla samadhi, and hence I am not qualified to comment on your

experience.

Usually in our everyday experience, we will find that there are

several occasions when we lose ourselves in the depth of

consciousness. But while recalling those experiences, we associate

the experience with the events that preceded that, rather than the

experience itself. This happens when our focus is on objects rather

than the consciousness that supports them.

There are several examples in our everyday life. For example, I

say that today I enjoyed a tasty meal. But if we investigate that act

of enjoyment, we find that at the precise moment of enjoyment neither

I, nor the meal was present in the consciousness. It was pure bliss.

But we fail to recognise this, since our focus is on the objects that

we believe to have provided that enjoyment.

The importance of the deep sleep state and nirvikalpa samadhi is

that they provide a glimpse of those depths of our consciousness,

free from any mentations, free from any objective distractions. I

know that you still cannot agree that deep sleep provides such an

experience. The only thing I can suggest is to try keeping awake for

couple of days, and sleep after that. Then probably, you will be able

to appreciate the bliss that comes from absence of mentations.

The aim of this prakriya, as Anandaji pointed out earlier, is to

find our real identity, free from all objective appearances, and

which is a common standpoint for all our experiences in waking, dream

and deep sleep states. And for those who can appreciate the

objectless-bliss of deep sleep state, it provides that common

standpoint. Once we identify with that, we will start

seeing its presence in our everyday experiences too, instead of

getting lost in the clutter of objects.

 

I am afraid that all this might seem to you like a broken tape

replaying the same thing again and again. Sorry about that.

 

Pranaams,

Raj.

 

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Devil's Advocate mode <<

 

We all know that we are not the body (except, perhaps, when it is in pain or

other discomfort)! We never tend to think that we are the circulation of the

blood or the movement of hormones and energy to muscles and other tissues.

Why, then, should we identify with the mechanical operation of the brain?

The latest scientific research on sleep and dreams is putting together

substantial evidence that deep sleep is simply the brain's way of resting

those parts of the brain that have been heavily used during the day,

restoring depleted chemical resources etc. Bursts of REM sleep are then

instigated to test out the restored parts to ensure correct functioning

while the body is offline. Typical experiment: One side of a rat's whiskers

are trimmed, and the rat is put in a new maze, so that it has to learn to

find its way through. The side of the brain responsible for the cut whiskers

has to work harder and, the following night, goes into much deeper sleep in

order to recover. It has long been known that dolphins and some birds and

fish sleep with one half of their brain at a time so none of this is at all

unbelievable.

 

Is it not possible that all of the ideas that we have been discussing are

convenient rationalisations made in ignorance, analogous to the

flat-earthers devising explanations as to why we don't fall off the edge

when we carry on sailing in a straight line?

 

Devil's Advocate mode off >>

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Actually, Dennis, you answered your own question! You asked why we think that

we are "the mechanical operation of the brain." Then you proceeded to answer

from the authority of science (D-A mode on, of course). Science is very

authoritative, and because of studies just like the one you mention, people tend

to think that the little humunculus driving everything must be (in) the brain!

 

--Greg

 

At 09:59 AM 11/10/2003 +0000, Dennis Waite wrote:

>Devil's Advocate mode <<

>

>We all know that we are not the body (except, perhaps, when it is in pain or

>other discomfort)! We never tend to think that we are the circulation of the

>blood or the movement of hormones and energy to muscles and other tissues.

>Why, then, should we identify with the mechanical operation of the brain?

>The latest scientific research on sleep and dreams is putting together

>substantial evidence that deep sleep is simply the brain's way of resting

>those parts of the brain that have been heavily used during the day,

>restoring depleted chemical resources etc. Bursts of REM sleep are then

>instigated to test out the restored parts to ensure correct functioning

>while the body is offline. Typical experiment: One side of a rat's whiskers

>are trimmed, and the rat is put in a new maze, so that it has to learn to

>find its way through. The side of the brain responsible for the cut whiskers

>has to work harder and, the following night, goes into much deeper sleep in

>order to recover. It has long been known that dolphins and some birds and

>fish sleep with one half of their brain at a time so none of this is at all

>unbelievable.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

You wrote (9 Nov, message 19641):

 

"I was somewhat amazed by the following passage: 'Thus, in

remembering a past enjoyment, you are actually enjoying it afresh,

once again. But some people stop short at the point where the body

begins to relax, and they miss the enjoyment proper.'

 

"I find this extremely difficult to accept - is it really meant to be

understood as it reads? ... this present memory is of subtle thoughts

and imaginings, not of supposed objects in an external world. Thus

there is no actual equality between the original experience and the

present memory at all. I could accept that the nature of the

happiness that was experienced originally and the nature of the

happiness that the reminiscence brings are the same - after all, true

happiness is one and our real nature - but to suggest that 'you are

actually enjoying it afresh' seems preposterous."

 

In the passage to which you refer, I read the word 'enjoyment' to

mean the happiness in which the experience culminated. That happiness

is not a state, but the background itself, the same that you

call 'turiya'. That is happiness itself. In that sense it is the same

in either case -- of both the past incident and its preseent

remembrance. The remembering has two parts. It first reproduces an

imperfect facsimile of remembered events; and it uses that imperfect

facsimile to return to the background, as the remembered events had

similarly returned.

 

In the case of the events, the similarity is imperfect and dubious.

But in the case of the culminating background, there is not just a

seeming similarity in mind, but an actual identity in consciousness.

The background is identical in either case. It is in this sense that

one is 'actually enjoying it afresh'. The background is happiness

itself, consciousness itself, existence itself.

 

That background is exactly the same, no matter how one returns to it -

- whether through remembering past events or through new events that

lead to a merging back into its peaceful and shining reality, as

one's own self. Thus going back to it through past remembrance is

necessarily a going down to it in the present.

 

As you say a little later:

 

"...'we can return to an experience' sounds like reminiscing, which

is a self-delusional pastime to my mind!"

 

Yes indeed, if 'reminiscing' is only a mental (and thus imagined)

reproduction of past events, then it is just a pastime to the mind.

But if it is as well a return to the background from which each

thought in mind arises, then the pastime dissolves itself in that

timeless reality to which passing does not apply.

 

And of course I wholeheartedly agree when you say (in your concluding

paragraph):

 

"... the consciousness is within, so how is the superimposition seen

from outside? What is there outside to see anything?"

 

Indeed there isn't anything outside to see. The outside seeing and

the superimposition isn't real. It doesn't actually occur. That's why

it's only enquiry that can penetrate the superimposition.

 

Cultivating yogic samadhis stays in the superimiposed unreality

unless the cultivated states are questioned unrelentingly, with a

thorough skepticism of the halo that surrounds them. In their inner

content, deep sleep and the yogic nirvikalpa are identical. The only

difference is in how the states are entered and left.

 

Deep sleep is entered through everyday relaxation and it is left with

a sense of emergence from absence and rest. So in the waking world,

deep sleep has generally a halo of blankness and peace.

 

The yogic nirvikalpa is entered subsequent to great intensity of

thought and feeling and it is left with a sense of tremendous

satisfaction and potential. This produces a waking halo of

incomparable happiness and meaning.

 

In either case, the halo exposes waking prejudice, which compromises

our understanding of the impartial truth that each state shows. To

find that truth, the prejudices thus exposed must be open to an

uncompromising enquiry, which penetrates right through the halo into

the illuminating principle that shines impartially within.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Blessed Members,

 

Pain is for whom? and bliss is for Whom? Who is the enjoyer, and doer here? if

we really question it, we will get the answer. As long as we feel we are mortals

then all this problems occurs.

 

The elimination of doership and enjoyership, makes each one to enjoy the bliss

of the Self. There is no becoming, there is only the state.

 

With Love & OM!

Krishna Prasad

 

 

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg (and Benjamin),

 

You said "Actually, Dennis, you answered your own question! You asked why

we think that we are "the mechanical operation of the brain." Then you

proceeded to answer from the authority of science (D-A mode on, of course).

Science is very authoritative, and because of studies just like the one you

mention, people tend to think that the little humunculus driving everything

must be (in) the brain!"

 

I think you are (wilfully?) missing the point here. I was asking (in D-A

mode of course) why we, as Advaitins, were making such a big deal about

something which is obviously just a mechanistic aspect of the brain.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

namaste Venkat,

 

 

 

since this subject appers at many forums in synchronicity: I think the univ=

erse wnats

  us to work on it

from H:

 

F: My teacher once told me. "Illumination is deep sleep".I

answered, can there be full consciousness while there is deep sleep?" He sa=

id "Full consciousness is deep sleep, only the background remains, which is =

consciousness.

 

One may remain working with mind but not identified with it as people usual=

ly are."

 

H:

The light of the Self is always there as It Self, as pure consciousness.

Fully awake, it is the nature of freedom. How brightly the light of the Sel=

f is reflected depends on the purity of

the mind, and the subtlety of the intellect.

 

A mind that is more or less unconscious during the awake state will be

so in sleep as well and lie merged in the Self. Coming out of the Self, it =

is still the same mind.

 

A mind that is becoming pure and aware has the possibility of entering

the deep sleep state while conscious.

 

That is Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Coming out, it is still the same mind, but the =

Self recognizes It Self even in the presence of the mind. That is why aham B=

rahm Asmi (I Am the Self) is one of the Mahavakyas.

 

Sri Ramana has pointed out that deep sleep must be experience while

awake. The Realization is that that the Same Self is present in all states.=

 

Only, the Self is experienced in its fullness if one enters the sleep

while awake.

 

As long as the latent tendencies are strong, Self remains covered to some d=

egree in association with the mind. Self never fully loses sight of itself, =

its nature being that of Pure

Self-Sight. It Sees Only It Self..

 

B G.: I was glad to read this. Your insight seemed pointed at me as I was

pondering this question of deepsleep yesterday.

 

In a conversation last week with a fellow named Sandeep about discriminatio=

n he mentioned something about 'Bobby's World' disappearing in deep sleep an=

d I remembered this staying awake while the

  mind was stilled.

 

E: I see sooo many dearones go to lala-land

 at this point: to belive that they reincarnate

 like a clone into the next life and than the

next; some even recall who they were in a previous life,

 

pathetic!

 

we resonate with an essence familiar to us at the most, as did Buddha recog=

nise his previous self's essence <---!

 

there are only essences held by and

essences getting slowly refined

by living organisms

 

it is so simple

 

all life depends on on life-force, on god-force, its present in every livin=

g thing and in deep sleep its not aberrated by the small self: its pure: one=

can say its pure *Consciousness

 

B: The faculty of discrimination being active in a sense, in

discrimination between the Self and not-Self, seems to see thoughts and dis=

card the involvement in them.

 

I was wondering if you had any further

insight about this. I hope you and yours

are well by the way.

-----

SG: really many children have very valid past life recall......

who says anyone is like a clone ? i have past life knowledge which was quit=

e instrumental in understanding what was being played out within this one an=

d why ......

 

E: yes, that can be useful for processing

I hate to tell you this, but all these

holy expenses awakening visions are

created

by the mind

 

in other words by Lucifer

 

***mind is the Lucifer the APPLE we

should not have

 

to derail us to test us and to keep the

gate toward god clean

some are kept up by great spiritual

sages and mystics, the Bardo belongs

to these also

 

ETHICS!!

 

because STRAIGHT is the way and

NARROW is the gate what leads to

god [life]

 

--all the inner plane holy visions and

 and glimpses, experiences

belong among these

above the supracausal plane, where

the god planes start, there is a final

gate; to go through it mind must be left

behind

 

it can NOT go there, very very few have

the courage to trough that one because

it literally feels like death

 

and that meditation is storyless

 

monks who went trough recognise

each other but has no story to share

just a consciousness an understanding

 

SG: past life experience ?

 

E: -- are mindgames or processing the

'story'

but NOT from god

 

plus 'wants' are a no no one can only

without wanting innocent like a child can

pass into the god planes

 

E: there are only essences held by and

essences getting slowly refined

by living organisms

it is so simple

just to have the RIGHT VIEW

and the right ETHICS

do not want "IT" for yourself

 

SG: the essence is always pure

 

E: no, still its "personalised' its not

-- all life depends on on life-force, on god-force, its present in every li=

ving thing and in deep sleep its not aberrated by the small self: its pure: =

one can say its pure *Consciousness

but that state can not be held in waking a state

--even Sri Ramana could not hold this

motionless samadhi where he had to

be taken care of by others

the difference between deep sleep and

deep meditation lies from where one

exist the body; in deep sleep mostly

through the hara

that is why siting is stressed for meditation its better to stoop forward

than fall back, there is a geometry involved what makes the crown or thirde=

ye exit

easier

-------------

 

--if someone "gets it" it is from Grace, not through any wise text; those a=

re

  pointers only rather it can be grasped

 in an instant, by osmosis and in that

 same instance s/he is onto a higher

 essence sharing with like and the

knowledge who dwell in there is

available

 

--and if someone is lucky enough and

deserved through correct spiritual

ethics and collects essences what are

  useful form mankind its very possible

that such essence will manifest on the

physical plane all the way in value of

  an Avatar like Buddha

 

ONLY if its helpful for elevating mankind

 

--its not a reincarnation of anykind

of small selfs

 

--this is a very crucial point, where

 the android the small ego tries to

claim god Not possible God is a flow,

 can NOT be claimed grabbed onto or

owned the minute you try its for the

android and puff its gone

 

It is all on a razors edge and all

razors have 2 sides

 

--I have two cyberfriends who gone

stray at this crucial point they want

  to be 'saved' and reincarnate but

the minute one has an AGENDA instead

  of a VOID where god can flow in thos

the sadhana goes to the android

 

--one of them is meditation laying

down forgetting, that the sacred

geometry at play as the the God-Tumo:

  Life-Force is coming from above not

 form the North Pole, once on is 'up'

 already its ok to lay down but the

value of that meditation we called

sleepitaion and its less

 

Era

> Namaste Shri Ananda,

>

> In this message, you have dealt with a subject that intrigues me the most=

- that of deep sleep. While the way you have analysed it is certainly valid=

, to me it does not appear to be conclusive of the existence of a Self beyon=

d the body-mind complex because there is an alternative common sense analysi=

s that is equally valid.

>

> When a person wakes up in the morning and runs through his memory tape, h=

e finds a record of events up to a point of time. Therafter the recording is=

resumed only after a blank in the morning. So his statement that he slept w=

ell and did not experience anything during sleep, is more an inference made =

by his 'day to day self' rather than a positive experience of 'nothing' by a=

n eternal changeless Self.

>

> I know that advaita cannot be established only by logic and that the scri=

ptures and teachers like Shri Atmananda, use logic only as a teaching aid. I=

also know that I have to let go of logic at some stage or the other even as=

the pole-vaulter has to let go of the pole at a certain stage to make the l=

ast leap over the bar on his own. But unfortunately, probably because of the=

way we live our daily lives, there is a reluctance to do this. And the alte=

rnative, more straight forward, 'inference' explanation of the deep sleep ex=

perience somehow seems more logical.

>

> Did this problem come up during the discussions with Shri Atmananda? I w=

ill be happy to know how he tackled it.

>

> praNAms

> Venkat - M

> Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> To describe some prakriyas that Shri Atmananda taught, it might help to q=

uote from a

>

>

>

> Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messe=

nger

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

You mean that we think we are the brain because that's what the brain determines

us to think? So if we know that we are the Self, is it also because the brain

determines that?

 

--Greg

 

At 09:00 PM 11/11/2003 +0000, Dennis Waite wrote:

>Hi Greg (and Benjamin),

>

>You said "Actually, Dennis, you answered your own question! You asked why

>we think that we are "the mechanical operation of the brain." Then you

>proceeded to answer from the authority of science (D-A mode on, of course).

>Science is very authoritative, and because of studies just like the one you

>mention, people tend to think that the little humunculus driving everything

>must be (in) the brain!"

>

>I think you are (wilfully?) missing the point here. I was asking (in D-A

>mode of course) why we, as Advaitins, were making such a big deal about

>something which is obviously just a mechanistic aspect of the brain.

>

>Best wishes,

>

>Dennis

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennisji.

 

Your post 19639.

 

I am sorry for the delay. I wanted to give you a thoughtful reply.

My comments are in brackets:

 

Dennisji:

 

I liked your summary statements:

 

"As far as we can safely express, deep sleep is the experience of not

experiencing. It indicates the presence of an absence like zero does

in mathematics."

 

[Madathil: At my level of understanding, I like to go by what is

known and that is the above summary.]

 

 

Dennisji:

 

I did not, however, follow your next comments:

 

"Sleep and wakefulness are, therefore, mutual complementaries. They

have to be seen as one."

 

I understand waking to have objects and sleep not to have them. How

does this make them complementary? And why do they then have to be

seen as one?

 

[Madathil: You are right waking has objects and sleep has none.

This is the waker's point of view - the one who thinks that he is the

waker who goes to the oblivion of sleep. The terms wakefulness and

sleep are relative and have no meaning independent of each other

(like zero has no existence of its own without the other numbers).

Waker is the one who sleeps and sleeper the one who wakes. The

latter is not without the former and vice versa. The waker to be

waker has to wake from sleep and the sleeper to be sleeper has to

fall into sleep from wakefulness. If the two cannot exist independent

of each other, then we are bound to consider them together. Aren't

we?

 

To the one who 'sees' both, they are one and the same continuity.

Don't we 'see' both - the wakefulness populated by objects and the

uninhabited experience of not experiencing anything daily? To that

one who thus 'sees', there is no waking or sleeping. To call

that 'eternal waker' is a misnomer simply because the 'seer' here

never sleeps (So, where is the question of waking?). There is no

word in the dictionary for that. That 'indescribable' should be

understood as Consciousness - i.e. despite apparent waking and

sleeping - I AM.]

 

 

Dennisji: I was even more confused by your conclusion:

 

"Besides, sleep is something desired or craved after. So, there is

happiness in it. It can't therefore be an empty blank."

 

The second statement does not follow from the first - surely you mean

that

the waking state feels happiness after its rest. There is no reason to

suppose that there was happiness in the deep sleep itself. (After all

we

feel happiness after ceasing to bang our heads against a brick wall!)

Furthermore, if your last statement followed, it would contradict the

earlier one - either deep sleep is an absence or it is not an empty

blank.

 

[Madathil: I have to bring in an example. I am fully awake and

listening to a versatile vocalist. I lose myself in the melody. For

some time, I am not aware of my surroundings, the passage of time,

the vocalist and his movements. I am completely lost. What is

happening here? I am being one with my experience wherein I as the

experiencer and the singing as an object of my expereince have

vanished. There is no experience anymore in it! But, when I am

alerted to my surroundings again, I recall that I had in fact been

lost and that recall logically is actually a recall of 'not

expereincing anything' although we would generally like to believe

that that was an enjoyment of the singing. If there was any

happiness in it, that was because the whole thing was happiness

itself without divisions. However, I say "sukhEna mayA gAnAlApanam

anubhUyata" (I enjoyed the singing with happiness).

 

Now let us take sleep. I am tired and each and every cell of my body

craves for rest. This is when I fall asleep. Since I am fresh when

I awake, I have to infer that the body did undergo the required rest

or relaxation while I slept. So relaxation or rest is the experience

that I underwent in my sleep. I recall it only after waking as an

experience of not experiencing anything like the experience of not

experiencing anything in listening to the vocalist when listening

ceased to be an expereince in a big Oneness. And then I say as

Sankara said: "sukhEna mayA nidrA anubhUyata" (I enjoyed sleep with

happiness). This is why I said 'the experience of not experiencing

called sleep can't be a blank'.

 

Incidentally, this is what is taught in devotion too. The deity is

not an object of devotion. The dovotee is asked to fully identify

with Him/Her. In the meditation verse to be chanted before

commencing the thousand names of Devi LalitA, the devotee is required

to identify with LalitA Herself (ahamityeva vibhAvayE bhavanIm).

True devotion thus aims at annihilating duality and separation so

that ultimately only Lalita remains as the One without a second. I

don't therefore understand why the impotance of devotion was lost on

Shri Atamanandaji.

 

Again, Sankara calls Lalita 'traiyantavEdyavibhavA' in his famous

Lalita Pancaratna StOtra. This means Lalita (Consciousness) is

omnipresent and sumptuously available in all the three states -

waking, dreaming and deep sleep. If She is there in sleep with all

Her sumptuousness, how can sleep be a blank? Dennisji, I hope I have

made my point clear.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Many Pranams all. Let me bring my fear out in the open.

My belief is that all the paths devotion, karmayoga and vichara are

necessary. Ramana Maharshi had this infinite love for Arunachala,

Shankaraji's devotion to Shakti, Devi etc. is well Known.

 

Prasadji says:

" ask the Pain is for whom? and bliss is for Whom? Who is the

enjoyer, and doer here? if we really question it, we will get the

answer. As long as we feel we are mortals then all this problems

occurs."

 

Sridhar continuing:

We also know that the mind will not get an answer as it is still

a 'me' looking for the answer and after repeated questioning and not

getting an answer the mind will tend to become quiet.

 

[[ An excerpt from Shri Ramesh Balasekhar's website-

http://www.consciousnessstrikes.org/teachings.htm)

"Ramana Maharshi, an Advaitic Guru much revered by Ramesh, frequently

recommended a spiritual practice called 'Self Enquiry', which is

often erroneously taken to be one of the usual sadhana practices, as

Ramesh explains in these two excerpts. "You said that, as recommended

by Ramana Maharshi, you questioned yourself "Who Am I?' for several

days - and absolutely nothing happened. You can ask yourself 'Who Am

I?' until you are blue in the face, and absolutely nothing will ever

happen, so long there is a 'me' wanting to know the answer - because

the answer, whatever it is (actually there is no answer), would

naturally be at the intellectual level "]]

 

Sridhar continuuing further:

 

In that quietitude will there be clarity, light or oneness with

Brahman? I doubt. This is more like handling a childs question. The

child asks why does this happen or that and if everytime the parent

snubs it saying stop asking such questions will there be any growth?

There will only be stunting and stifling. If however, enquiry and

devotion were to proceed parallely, then may be in the quiet mind

divine grace can plant the seeds of self realization. In conclusion,

no pure and dry enquiry such as who am I? to whom is this thought

arising? etc. can ever lead to enlightment unless there is that Rasa

of Bhakti.

 

Vachaka Doshaha Kshandavyaha. Many thousand pranams to all

Sridhar

advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99>

wrote:

> Hari OM!

>

> Blessed Members,

>

> Pain is for whom? and bliss is for Whom? Who is the enjoyer, and

doer here? if we really question it, we will get the answer. As long

as we feel we are mortals then all this problems occurs.

>

> The elimination of doership and enjoyership, makes each one to

enjoy the bliss of the Self. There is no becoming, there is only the

state.

>

> With Love & OM!

> Krishna Prasad

>

>

>

>

>

> Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

As long as any question remains separated from the person who asks

that question, there will be duality of pleasure and pain! 'Self-

inquiry' is an integrating process by which the question merges with

the person that asks the question and duality evaporates

instantaneously!!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> Many Pranams all. Let me bring my fear out in the open.

> My belief is that all the paths devotion, karmayoga and vichara are

> necessary. Ramana Maharshi had this infinite love for Arunachala,

> Shankaraji's devotion to Shakti, Devi etc. is well Known.

>

> Prasadji says:

> " ask the Pain is for whom? and bliss is for Whom? Who is the

> enjoyer, and doer here? if we really question it, we will get the

> answer. As long as we feel we are mortals then all this problems

> occurs."

[Guest guest]

Sorry for jumping in, but this reminds me something I have read in

Western psychological literature. There is something

called "Observing self" they also call it as "Observing Ego".

However I got confused with the writings because of the lack of

clarity in their Ego definition and its implications for

understanding of the self.

 

The concept fascinated me because it closely relates to our

upanishadic explanation "two birds sitting on a tree one indulged in

eating and the other is watching"

 

Western psychology says that the observer self, a part of who we

really are, is that part of watching both our false self and our

True self. We might say that it even watches us when we watch.

 

It is our consciousness. And consciousness pervades the whole

universe, it is individual at the same time it is collective.

 

Yours,

Madhava

 

advaitin, Greg Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> Hi Dennis,

>

> You mean that we think we are the brain because that's what the

brain determines us to think? So if we know that we are the Self,

is it also because the brain determines that?

>

> --Greg

>

> At 09:00 PM 11/11/2003 +0000, Dennis Waite wrote:

> >Hi Greg (and Benjamin),

> >

> >You said "Actually, Dennis, you answered your own question! You

asked why

> >we think that we are "the mechanical operation of the brain."

Then you

> >proceeded to answer from the authority of science (D-A mode on,

of course).

> >Science is very authoritative, and because of studies just like

the one you

> >mention, people tend to think that the little humunculus driving

everything

> >must be (in) the brain!"

> >

> >I think you are (wilfully?) missing the point here. I was asking

(in D-A

> >mode of course) why we, as Advaitins, were making such a big deal

about

> >something which is obviously just a mechanistic aspect of the

brain.

> >

> >Best wishes,

> >

> >Dennis

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

> >Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> >Messages Archived at:

advaitin/messages

> >

> >

> >

> >Your use of is subject to

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dear Madhava:

 

I am delighted to see you back into the list and I look forward to

your active participation if and when time permits,

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "Madhava Turumella" <madhava@m...>

wrote:

> Sorry for jumping in, but this reminds me something I have read in

> Western psychological literature. collective.

>

> Yours,

> Madhava

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Blessed Sridharji,

 

What is the purpose of all questions, an answer right... When you

listen to the answer what happens... you will just agree or disagree,

most of the time the mind says YES YES YES... etc... So That itself

makes the mind calm and recieve the knowledge. Bhakthi and Jnana is

the two wings of one bird. Without any of this wings the brid cannot

fly. All the questions and answers are in the level of intellect

only. As long as we are identified with our intellect, questions pop

up. The "ME" which is looking for an answer is a problem. We need to

play the role, as a basic person, not identifying with the role even

after the play is over.

 

The enquiry should only after purifying the mind, when the mind is

purified it becomes quiet.

 

With Love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> Many Pranams all. Let me bring my fear out in the open.

> My belief is that all the paths devotion, karmayoga and vichara are

> necessary. Ramana Maharshi had this infinite love for Arunachala,

> Shankaraji's devotion to Shakti, Devi etc. is well Known.

>

> Prasadji says:

> " ask the Pain is for whom? and bliss is for Whom? Who is the

> enjoyer, and doer here? if we really question it, we will get the

> answer. As long as we feel we are mortals then all this problems

> occurs."

>

> Sridhar continuing:

> We also know that the mind will not get an answer as it is still

> a 'me' looking for the answer and after repeated questioning and

not

> getting an answer the mind will tend to become quiet.

>

> [[ An excerpt from Shri Ramesh Balasekhar's website-

> http://www.consciousnessstrikes.org/teachings.htm)

> "Ramana Maharshi, an Advaitic Guru much revered by Ramesh,

frequently

> recommended a spiritual practice called 'Self Enquiry', which is

> often erroneously taken to be one of the usual sadhana practices,

as

> Ramesh explains in these two excerpts. "You said that, as

recommended

> by Ramana Maharshi, you questioned yourself "Who Am I?' for several

> days - and absolutely nothing happened. You can ask yourself 'Who

Am

> I?' until you are blue in the face, and absolutely nothing will

ever

> happen, so long there is a 'me' wanting to know the answer -

because

> the answer, whatever it is (actually there is no answer), would

> naturally be at the intellectual level "]]

>

> Sridhar continuuing further:

>

> In that quietitude will there be clarity, light or oneness with

> Brahman? I doubt. This is more like handling a childs question. The

> child asks why does this happen or that and if everytime the parent

> snubs it saying stop asking such questions will there be any

growth?

> There will only be stunting and stifling. If however, enquiry and

> devotion were to proceed parallely, then may be in the quiet mind

> divine grace can plant the seeds of self realization. In

conclusion,

> no pure and dry enquiry such as who am I? to whom is this thought

> arising? etc. can ever lead to enlightment unless there is that

Rasa

> of Bhakti.

>

> Vachaka Doshaha Kshandavyaha. Many thousand pranams to all

> Sridhar

> advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99>

> wrote:

> > Hari OM!

> >

> > Blessed Members,

> >

> > Pain is for whom? and bliss is for Whom? Who is the enjoyer, and

> doer here? if we really question it, we will get the answer. As

long

> as we feel we are mortals then all this problems occurs.

> >

> > The elimination of doership and enjoyership, makes each one to

> enjoy the bliss of the Self. There is no becoming, there is only

the

> state.

> >

> > With Love & OM!

> > Krishna Prasad

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Many pranams All. Prasadji, You have correctly identified the

objective as quietening the mind. I may sound obtuse, but allow me to

persist with this just once more. My anxiety is as follows.

Let us assume i do not interpret the teachings correctly and just

focus on

the questions such as 'who am I' ? ' To whom do these thoughts

arise?' 'Am i feeling this or is feeling happening?' etc.,

Now, one of these questions or the variants there of can be posed for

every action, thought or feeling/ experience.

You too agree that there will be no answer as it is 'me' that seeks

an answer.

Let us say I manage to repeat these questions endlessly, adequate

number of times, the mind gets quietened out of frustration of not

finding an answer ( or it is suppressed by repeated application of

force?).In this kind of quietness, which seems like a tamasic

quietness can there be a blossoming of the higher? In all this I am

assuming one has completely given up any thoughts/ meditation on any

deity or saguna/Nirguna Brahman as pure questioning is the sadhana.

Some how for me without atleast a crutch of a positive answer like,

say, 'I am Brahman' practise of just questioning 'who am I?'

or variants thereof may lead to a suppression of the mind rather than

a sublimation. could there be deterimental outcomes in spiritual

evolutionary terms with suppression or a Tamasic quietness of the

mind?

Many Pranams all

Sridhar

 

advaitin, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99>

wrote:

> Hari OM!

>

> Blessed Sridharji,

>

> What is the purpose of all questions, an answer right... When you

> listen to the answer what happens... you will just agree or

disagree,

> most of the time the mind says YES YES YES... etc... So That itself

> makes the mind calm and recieve the knowledge. Bhakthi and Jnana is

> the two wings of one bird. Without any of this wings the brid

cannot

> fly. All the questions and answers are in the level of intellect

> only. As long as we are identified with our intellect, questions

pop

> up. The "ME" which is looking for an answer is a problem. We need

to

> play the role, as a basic person, not identifying with the role

even

> after the play is over.

>

> The enquiry should only after purifying the mind, when the mind is

> purified it becomes quiet.

>

> With Love & OM!

>

> Krishna Prasad

>

> advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19>

wrote:

> > Many Pranams all. Let me bring my fear out in the open.

> > My belief is that all the paths devotion, karmayoga and vichara

are

> > necessary. Ramana Maharshi had this infinite love for Arunachala,

> > Shankaraji's devotion to Shakti, Devi etc. is well Known.

> >

> > Prasadji says:

> > " ask the Pain is for whom? and bliss is for Whom? Who is the

> > enjoyer, and doer here? if we really question it, we will get the

> > answer. As long as we feel we are mortals then all this problems

> > occurs."

> >

> > Sridhar continuing:

> > We also know that the mind will not get an answer as it is still

> > a 'me' looking for the answer and after repeated questioning and

> not

> > getting an answer the mind will tend to become quiet.

> >

> > [[ An excerpt from Shri Ramesh Balasekhar's website-

> > http://www.consciousnessstrikes.org/teachings.htm)

> > "Ramana Maharshi, an Advaitic Guru much revered by Ramesh,

> frequently

> > recommended a spiritual practice called 'Self Enquiry', which is

> > often erroneously taken to be one of the usual sadhana practices,

> as

> > Ramesh explains in these two excerpts. "You said that, as

> recommended

> > by Ramana Maharshi, you questioned yourself "Who Am I?' for

several

> > days - and absolutely nothing happened. You can ask yourself 'Who

> Am

> > I?' until you are blue in the face, and absolutely nothing will

> ever

> > happen, so long there is a 'me' wanting to know the answer -

> because

> > the answer, whatever it is (actually there is no answer), would

> > naturally be at the intellectual level "]]

> >

> > Sridhar continuuing further:

> >

> > In that quietitude will there be clarity, light or oneness with

> > Brahman? I doubt. This is more like handling a childs question.

The

> > child asks why does this happen or that and if everytime the

parent

> > snubs it saying stop asking such questions will there be any

> growth?

> > There will only be stunting and stifling. If however, enquiry and

> > devotion were to proceed parallely, then may be in the quiet mind

> > divine grace can plant the seeds of self realization. In

> conclusion,

> > no pure and dry enquiry such as who am I? to whom is this thought

> > arising? etc. can ever lead to enlightment unless there is that

> Rasa

> > of Bhakti.

> >

> > Vachaka Doshaha Kshandavyaha. Many thousand pranams to all

> > Sridhar

> > advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99>

> > wrote:

> > > Hari OM!

> > >

> > > Blessed Members,

> > >

> > > Pain is for whom? and bliss is for Whom? Who is the enjoyer,

and

> > doer here? if we really question it, we will get the answer. As

> long

> > as we feel we are mortals then all this problems occurs.

> > >

> > > The elimination of doership and enjoyership, makes each one to

> > enjoy the bliss of the Self. There is no becoming, there is only

> the

> > state.

> > >

> > > With Love & OM!

> > > Krishna Prasad

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

You asked: "You mean that we think we are the brain because that's what the

brain determines us to think? So if we know that we are the Self, is it

also because the brain determines that?"

 

No. I think my powers of communication must be atrophying or something! I'll

try again.

 

As Advaitins, we are all fairly happy with the idea 'I am not the body'. We

may still not quite adhere to this in practice all the time (e.g. when we

get ill, we may conveniently forget about it for the duration) but, by and

large, we fully to the belief and we do not, therefore, waste time

arguing about whether we are the digestive system or the endocrine system or

whatever. It is all physical stuff and is summarised by the simple belief 'I

am not the body'.

 

Now when it comes to these so-called 'states of consciousness' we are on

much more shaky ground. We have tended to talk about dreaming as being in

the subtle realm or deep sleep as in a causal realm, i.e. we have tended to

talk about them as though they are not at all the same thing as the gross

body. Now I was merely suggesting that modern science, as it discovers more

and more about the functioning of the brain, is explaining things in

materialistic, mechanistic ways. The recent reports that I quoted from New

Scientist suggested that deep sleep and dreaming might be fully explicable

as mechanistic functioning of the brain. In principle, therefore, science

may soon be able to explain away these states in terms of the gross realm,

with nothing left for subtle or causal.

 

It will therefore mean that all of our speculations and discussions on this

topic have been misguided and ultimately meaningless. Note that this does

not reflect in any way upon consciousness. I am confident that science will

never explain this, and that regardless of the outcome of any of the above,

the fundamental Advaitin position is not affected.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

(I can see that, if you insist on querying my position each time, I will

eventually answer my own question. I guess this is what most teachers

usually do!)

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:59:31 -0000

"Dennis Waite" <dwaite

RE: Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 2. The three

states

 

Devil's Advocate mode <<

 

We all know that we are not the body (except, perhaps,

when it is in pain or

other discomfort)! We never tend to think that we are

the circulation of the

blood or the movement of hormones and energy to muscles

and other tissues.

Why, then, should we identify with the mechanical

operation of the brain?

The latest scientific research on sleep and dreams is

putting together

substantial evidence that deep sleep is simply the

brain's way of resting

those parts of the brain that have been heavily used

during the day,

restoring depleted chemical resources etc. Bursts of

REM sleep are then

instigated to test out the restored parts to ensure

correct functioning

while the body is offline. Typical experiment: One side

of a rat's whiskers

are trimmed, and the rat is put in a new maze, so that

it has to learn to

find its way through. The side of the brain responsible

for the cut whiskers

has to work harder and, the following night, goes into

much deeper sleep in

order to recover. It has long been known that dolphins

and some birds and

fish sleep with one half of their brain at a time so

none of this is at all

unbelievable.

 

Is it not possible that all of the ideas that we have

been discussing are

convenient rationalisations made in ignorance,

analogous to the

flat-earthers devising explanations as to why we don't

fall off the edge

when we carry on sailing in a straight line?

 

Devil's Advocate mode off >>

 

Hello Dennis,

excellent intervention in a discussion

which was threatening to become very mentalistic. The

latest thought on the brain is that it is a massive

parallel processing setup. Simultaneous operations go

on in many different areas to produce what we know as

perception. The action of the fine hairs in our ears

that are vital for balance is something we don't need

to know about. There are many more such as you will be

aware of. The phenomenon of blindsight may be an

instance where the last stage of actual perception may

be denied due to damage but the completed processes are

there to affect the result of a 'guess'.

 

Deep Sleep ought to be another thing that we don't need

to know about. It is important that we have it and it

is not important that we know that we have had it. Yet

it's here. Is this something we can use? Its very

blankness is a boon if we hold to the theory that the

knowledge of the knower can never be lost because self

effulgence is demonstrated. Inferential knowledge of

having been in a state of deep sleep would, I think,

not reveal how consciousness pervades continously.

 

Best Wishes, Michael