June topic: mAyA in the Vedas: RV. X..177/ Individual Soul

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya> wrote:

> Namaste all,

>

> Individual soul

>

> I wonder if the people of the Vedic times had such a

> concept?

>

Namaste Kenji and All

 

Just pondering about this question from far lower levels where my

thinking unfortunately stands today.

>From an individual stand point, what is unique to the individual is

not probably something like the *soul*. The non-existent thing called

the *Ahamkara* attributes to itself the perceptions of the senses,

actionsof the sense organs etc.? These equipments or the body, mind,

intellect equipment act energised in the precense of *that* and

*that* is all pervading, omniscient, of the nature of existence,

consciousness and bliss?

Thus what *animates* this body ( In body, I am including the causal

body or the bundle of vasanas that acquire the appropriate subtle and

gross bodies as appropriate) and makes it think, act etc., is not

some individual soul with special and unique charactersitics and

unique animating powers but *that* or *brahman* that pervades all and

is present in equal and impartial measure in everything- moving and

unmoving.

 

Typical analogy one comes across is one electricity principle that

ligths bulbs, heats heaters, rotates fan blades- each equipment made

to work according to its nature. It is not as if each of these

equipments have an individualised powerer that makes them function in

a certain way though, if they had a ego, the ego would attribute

lighting up, providing air etc. to itself depending on which

equipment it is in.

 

Many thousand namaskarams to all

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

--- asridhar19 <asridhar19 wrote:

>

> From an individual stand point, what is unique to

> the individual is

> not probably something like the *soul*. The

> non-existent thing called

> the *Ahamkara* attributes to itself the perceptions

> of the senses,

> actionsof the sense organs etc.? These equipments or

> the body, mind,

> intellect equipment act energised in the precense of

> *that* and

> *that* is all pervading, omniscient, of the nature

> of existence,

> consciousness and bliss?

 

 

Namaste Sridhar,

I have been waiting for you to turn up, now we must

stir Madhava from his silence.

You are correct in what you say but may we lose the

word 'ego' for it is a mongrel of an expression. Keep

to ahaMkAra. For those who are not familiar with the

word it means the 'Aham', feeling of existence,

attached to the action. It dominates the days from the

moment we wake up and we say 'I like..' or 'I don't

like'. It is the result of our claim to be the 'doer'

or the action or the feeling.

Our question about the individual Self is really in

the area of the Aham, which we may translate as 'I

am'.

There is an excellent paper on this by David Godman

who is a Ramana devotee. You can Google it quite

easily.

When the other posting on this site talk about 'Grand

Illumination' then I was reminded of the following. It

is now relevant to your posting as well.

I downloaded it from the Internet and it is part of, I

think, a Dutchman's site. This man had something to do

with the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math and he quotes

the answer to a question about transcendental

experiences and the feeling of stillness or of the

touch and taste of Aham. It is also relevant to the

recent discussion on Purnamidam:

 

The Shankaracharya said:

'…………………………… as for the touch of Aham, the taste of

Aham — it is a misunderstanding of the terms.

Aham and Idam constitute this creation. Aham is Sat,

Chit and Ananda. Aham contains everything that

reflects Sat, Chit and Ananda through elements,

essences, sensations, thinking and feeling. Aham is

stil1, although it provides all the energies necessary

for the Idam and its multifarious forms of this

creation to exist, provides all sensations through the

elements and their qualities, and all thinking and

feeling.

 

To know anything, to think about anything is to know

and think of Idam. It is done by Aham. When one

experiences the beauty of vision or the essence of

form and colour or touch and taste one can do so only

from Idam. One never sees or touches or tastes the

Aham. To be Aham is to be still. One can’t touch it.

Aham is beyond experience because it is the

experiencer. The eyes see beauty, but who does really

feel the bliss of beauty? Eyes are instruments and the

real witness of beauty and bliss is the Al-tam, the

Atman, which provides the power to see. If that force

is missing eyes can’t see. They see through the light

of Atman. Same applies to all organs of senses, organs

of action and also the Antahkarana, with manas,

buddhi, chitta and ahankara. Consciousness is not

movement, Consciousness knows itself, and knows

everything through these agencies. When it knows

Itself then no Idam will be there. . It is all in

stillness. So the taste of Aham or touch of Aham is a

mistake in terms. It is existence, consciousness or

bliss itself.”

 

That is a clear statement of the advaitin view,

 

 

Ken Knight

 

> Thus what *animates* this body ( In body, I am

> including the causal

> body or the bundle of vasanas that acquire the

> appropriate subtle and

> gross bodies as appropriate) and makes it think, act

> etc., is not

> some individual soul with special and unique

> charactersitics and

> unique animating powers but *that* or *brahman* that

> pervades all and

> is present in equal and impartial measure in

> everything- moving and

> unmoving.

>

> Typical analogy one comes across is one electricity

> principle that

> ligths bulbs, heats heaters, rotates fan blades-

> each equipment made

> to work according to its nature. It is not as if

> each of these

> equipments have an individualised powerer that makes

> them function in

> a certain way though, if they had a ego, the ego

> would attribute

> lighting up, providing air etc. to itself depending

> on which

> equipment it is in.

>

> Many thousand namaskarams to all

> Sridhar

>

>

 

 

=====

‘From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed forth.’

 

 

 

 

 

Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya> wrote:

> --- asridhar19 <asridhar19> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sridhar,

> Aham is beyond experience because it is the

> experiencer. The eyes see beauty, but who does really

> feel the bliss of beauty? Eyes are instruments and the

> real witness of beauty and bliss is the Al-tam, the

> Atman, which provides the power to see. If that force

> is missing eyes can't see. They see through the light

> of Atman. Same applies to all organs of senses, organs

> of action and also the Antahkarana, with manas,

> buddhi, chitta and ahankara. Consciousness is not

> movement, Consciousness knows itself, and knows

> everything through these agencies. When it knows

> Itself then no Idam will be there. . It is all in

> stillness. So the taste of Aham or touch of Aham is a

> mistake in terms. It is existence, consciousness or

> bliss itself."

>

> That is a clear statement of the advaitin view,

>

>

> Ken Knight

>

>

Namaste Kenji

My salutations to the felicity with which you have illuminated the

thread underlying grand illumination', 'Purnamidam' and 'Maya in

Vedas'.

Madhavaji seems very busy with his work and service activities. Will

see if I can draw him in.

My understanding of 'Ahamkara' just went up a few notches. It is a

thrilling feeling.

On the question of Soul, at a language level I am trying to

understand if what is called the soul does really have an equivalent

in Advaita as a word or concept. My feeling is that the concept of

kArana Sharira or Causal body does away with the posiibility of an

individualized soul with its own 'energising agent', so to say,

moving from body to body.

If this is a digression would seek your valuable guidance offlist.

Many pranams to all Advaitins

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

--- asridhar19 <asridhar19 wrote:

>> On the question of Soul, at a language level I am

> trying to

> understand if what is called the soul does really

> have an equivalent

> in Advaita as a word or concept.

 

Namaste Sridhar,

(Hopefully we can meet up again in the summer.)

 

Personally I do not use the word 'soul' normally. In

the West there is great confusion about 'soul' and

'spirit' and I only use these terms when addressing a

gathering that may have non-dual interests, such as

neo-Platonic groups, but no knowledge of Sanskrit. Or

I use it with my friends who are clearly on the

dualistic path in the general forms of Islam and

Christianity.

For yourself there is to be enquiry into the real

meanings of Atman and the mahatattva 'Aham.'

 

I will pass on one of those simple statements that we

may hear but that stick, it did for me anyway.

'Birth and death are events only noticed by others.'

This was spoken casually by a man interested in

advaita.

Chapter after Chapter of the Bhagavad Gita explains

what that means.

 

Incidentally we keep using the word 'individual' to

mean separate. And this has been the common usage for

a long time but there is a sense that we may have

turned the word on its head a long time ago. 'In-' as

a prefix often means 'not'. So individual could mean

also 'not divisible.' Now there's an idea to play

with.

 

Hope your family are well

 

Ken Knight

 

=====

‘From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed forth.’