'Who am I?' vs. 'I am'

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

I've been wondering which method is more effective, inquiring 'who am

I?' as taught by Sri Ramana, or holding on to the sense 'I am' taught

by Sri Nisargadatta. Holding to the sense 'I am' seems easier, but I

think it might be a little dangerous, because it could possibly

reinforce the idea they we're the body if we feel 'I am' while

associating with our bodies(?). I'd be interested in hearing from

members who have used one or both of these methods.

 

Regards,

Nathan

[Guest guest]

These are essentially the same methods. Sri Ramana

taught holding on to the sense of "I Am" as well. Sri

Ramana used to say that one should do what appears the

most natural and easy. So whatever way of practice

appeals to you, you can go that route. Gradually things

become clear as one makes the effort. We think we pick

the method, but it is not a choice. We walk the path

and then see that we are the path. So do we practice

the "I Am" or does the "I Am" assert It Self in us? If

the "I Am" is asserting It Self, it means the method

has already been picked and the path is laid out.

 

Harsha

 

_____

 

advaitin

[advaitin] On Behalf Of Nathan

Port

Saturday, August 27, 2005 9:13 PM

advaitin

'Who am I?' vs. 'I am'

 

* Dear members,

 

I've been wondering which method is more effective,

inquiring 'who am

I?' as taught by Sri Ramana, or holding on to the sense

'I am' taught

by Sri Nisargadatta. Holding to the sense 'I am' seems

easier, but I

think it might be a little dangerous, because it could

possibly

reinforce the idea they we're the body if we feel 'I

am' while

associating with our bodies(?). I'd be interested in

hearing from

members who have used one or both of these methods.

 

Regards,

Nathan

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Reference Nathanji's post of the above caption.

 

The effectiveness of a method lies in the end-result. This question

should therefore be answered by those who are self-realized, as self-

realization is the result brought about by methods of enquiry. Since

both Bh. Ramana and Maharaj are realized souls, I should imagine both

methods are equally effective. Otherwise, they wouldn't have

prescribed them. In this light, I would say that a comparison between

the two is inadvisable.

 

Personally, I feel an "I am all" method should yield the same result.

But, beware! It has the drawback of coming from an unrealized soul.

One could also try "I am pure Awareness or Consciousness" meditation or

constantly dwell on Sankara's famous verse "asanghoham asanghoham

asanghoham punah punah, satchitAnandarUpoham ahamekAhamavyayam". Wow!

There are methods and methods!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

May I quote "Naanya Pantha ayanaaya vidyate"

Whatever may be the method, if it ultimately takes one to the right path, as no

other path (na anya pantha) is known to take (?) one to his HOME.

Hari Om

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste.

 

Reference Nathanji's post of the above caption.

 

The effectiveness of a method lies in the end-result. This question

should therefore be answered by those who are self-realized, as self-

realization is the result brought about by methods of enquiry. Since

both Bh. Ramana and Maharaj are realized souls, I should imagine both

methods are equally effective. Otherwise, they wouldn't have

prescribed them. In this light, I would say that a comparison between

the two is inadvisable.

 

Personally, I feel an "I am all" method should yield the same result.

But, beware! It has the drawback of coming from an unrealized soul.

One could also try "I am pure Awareness or Consciousness" meditation or

constantly dwell on Sankara's famous verse "asanghoham asanghoham

asanghoham punah punah, satchitAnandarUpoham ahamekAhamavyayam". Wow!

There are methods and methods!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Personally, I feel an "I am all" method should yield the same

result.

> But, beware! It has the drawback of coming from an unrealized

soul.

> One could also try "I am pure Awareness or Consciousness"

meditation or

> constantly dwell on Sankara's famous verse "asanghoham asanghoham

> asanghoham punah punah, satchitAnandarUpoham ahamekAhamavyayam".

Wow!

> There are methods and methods!

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Dear Madathil-ji,

 

I don't know what effectiveness affirmations such as "I am all",

or "I am Brahman" would yield, but Sri Ramana didn't seem to

recommend them. Here are some excerpts from talks with Sri Ramana in

which He illustrates this:

 

Q: Shall I meditate on 'I am Brahman' [aham Brahasmi]?

A: The text is not meant for thinking 'I am Brahman'. Aham is

known to every one. Brahman abides as aham in every one. Find out

the 'I'. The 'I' is already Brahman. You need not think so. Simply

find out the 'I'.

 

Q: Is it not better to say 'I am the supreme being' than ask 'Who am

I?'

A: Who affirms? There must be one to do it. Find that one.

 

Q: Is soham [i am he] the same as 'Who am I'?

A: Aham alone is common to them. One is soham. The other is koham

[Who am I?]. They are different. Why should we go on saying soham?

One must find out the real 'I'. In the question 'Who am I?' 'I'

referes to the ego. Trying to trace it and find its source, we see it

has no separate existence but merges in the real 'I'. You see the

difficulty. Enquiry is different in method from the meditation 'I am

Siva' or 'I am he'. I rather lay stress upon Self-knowledge, for you

are first concerned with yourself before you proceed to know the

world and its Lord. The soham meditation or 'I am Brahman' meditation

is more or less a mental thought. But the quest for the Self I speak

of is a direct method, indeed superior to the other meditation. The

moment you start looking for the self and go deeper and deeper, the

real Self is waiting there to take you in. Then whatever is done is

done by something else and you have no hand in it. In this process,

all doubts and discussions are automatically given up just as one who

sleeps forgets, for the time being, all his cares.

 

So IMHO I don't know which methods are the most effective, just that

Bhagavan recommended self-inquir above affirmations. Holding on to 'I

am' though isn't really an affirmation, because everyone knows that

they exist, so holding on to 'I am' is just a simple statement of

existence, the only thing we know for certain, just 'I am', not 'I am

the body' etc.

 

Humble Regards,

Nathan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mani-Ji:

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

The process of knowledge involves "the correct" use of vowels in

combination with "the correct vya.njana" to form "the correct word"

that expresses and conveys the knowledge. This is also the reason why

shanti mantra emphasizes – bhadar.m karNebhi shraNuyaa.m devaaH.

 

The over all process represents formation of knowledge itself. That

is why lord Ganesha can be experienced by the individual vyavahaaraic

levels as well and became the divinity of knowledge.

 

OM is a complete vowel that encompasses all the vowels. That is why

our shixa valli recommends the svara shuddhi by through pronouncing

vowels loudly and clearly "ghoshavnto balavanto".

 

That is also the reason why giitaa telll us - na hi J~nnena

sadR^isha.m pavitramiha vidyate || BG 4.38 ||

 

For the abobe mentioned reasons I would like to say there is no place

like "OM" because that takes the saadhakaa "HOME" and prevents him

from wandering in the academic exercise of futility.

 

Just my two cents !!

 

Hari Om

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> May I quote "Naanya Pantha ayanaaya vidyate"

> Whatever may be the method, if it ultimately takes one to the right

path, as no other path (na anya pantha) is known to take (?) one to

his HOME.

> Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

When I "Googled" the first word of the "famous verse" quoted below in

order to find a translation (which, I believe can also be found in the

archives) I found under a slightly different transliteration,

"asangoham," a beautiful, moving (to me) prayer/mantra:

 

http://www.svbf.org/sringeri/journal/vol4no1/brahma.pdf

 

Thanks so much for quoting Shankara!

 

Bob Freedman

 

Namaste.

Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

>

> One could also try "I am pure Awareness or Consciousness" meditation or

> constantly dwell on Sankara's famous verse "asanghoham asanghoham

> asanghoham punah punah, satchitAnandarUpoham ahamekAhamavyayam". Wow!

> There are methods and methods!

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

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

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sri Nathan Port wrote:

> I've been wondering which method is more effective, inquiring 'who am

> I?' as taught by Sri Ramana, or holding on to the sense 'I am' taught

> by Sri Nisargadatta.

 

Constant enquiry of "Who am I?" is a meditation to reorient all the

seeking towards the self. This is the last step in self knowledge when

mind has earlier been exposed to teaching and doubts clarified from a

competent teacher. This is the final step after one has assimilated

the knowledge and only abidance is lacking. It is at this stage that

constant remembering of self whether through "who am I?" or "I am"

gives rise to the steady knowledge of self. Without earlier going

through the process of shravana and manana, asking "who am I?" or "I

am" is plain meditation-- not nididhyAsana. Constant remembering of

self is fruitful at a stage when the nature of self has been

understood through exposure to shAstra but not yet internalized. Swami

Dayanandaji has clarified in his biography that it was at this point

that he was stuck for quite some time untill bhagvAn ramana's disciple

yogi ramayya clarified the process.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nathan-ji.

 

You seem to to the view that "Who am I?" is enquiry just

because it is grammatically in the interrogative, whereas "I am all"

or similar statements are affirmations simply because they are

grammatically in the affirmative.

 

"I am all" is not an auto-suggestive reinforcement like smokers are

asked to repeat "I hate the smell of cigarette smoke". It is a call

to contemplate on scriptural statements, more importantly and

particularly the mahAvAkyAs.

 

I don't think "I am all" can be done without a preliminary vedantic

vision as a pre-requisite. So is the case with "Who am I?". One

who is not expertly guided in the latter will end up asking "Who am

I?" interminably without getting a real good answer unless he has a

traditional methodology as aide or a positive credit to his account

from previous births. Don't you think one who has a good vedantic

background understands Bh. Ramana better than a novice? At least,

in my case, the traditional teaching to which I was initially

exposed, helped me understand Bh. Ramana better. Because of my

traditional background, I could relate very well with his

UpadesasAra and other similar works. That can't be said about a

novice who is listening to the words of Bh. Ramana for the first

time, unless he had evolved to a very knowledgeable level in his

previous birth!

 

So, in my opinion, there is no difference between affirmations and

interogatives. Both of them call for contemplation in the light of

scriptural statements. Contemplation is the soul of enquiry - not

the grammatical mode in which the method is captioned. And that

underscores the supremacy of the traditional over the so-called

hastily concluded "direct whatever".

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________

 

advaitin, "Nathan Port" <eport924> wrote:

>>

> I don't know what effectiveness affirmations such as "I am all",

> or "I am Brahman" would yield, but Sri Ramana didn't seem to

> recommend them. ................

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Nathan-ji.

>

> You seem to to the view that "Who am I?" is enquiry just

> because it is grammatically in the interrogative, whereas "I am all"

> or similar statements are affirmations simply because they are

> grammatically in the affirmative.

 

Namaste All,

 

If I remember rightly, Ramana indicated that 'Who am I?' didn't imply

any separation of dualism, as in Aham Brahmasmi etc. Where there is

duality in the question. Ramana's position was Who am I? drove the

mind inwards to find out there really was no ego, and only the Big I.

 

So there is a difference between dualistic affirmations and the Self

enquiry of Ramana. Perhaps the end result may be the same, but Ramana

was one for the most simplest and direct route.........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

It is difficult to understand why there is no duality in 'Who am I?'

where 'a mind is seen driven inwards to find out there really was no

ego, and only the Big I'. If Aham and Brahman in Aham Brahmasmi are

suggestive of daulity, then well the 'mind' and 'Big I' in 'Who am I?'

are also equally suggestive of duality. There is someone asking the

question (Aham)and realizing 'Big I-ness' (Brahman). The question and

the mahAvAkya thus have the same import and, whichever way one goes,

i.e. 'direct' or 'traditional', the most important requirement is

contemplation. The traditional has the advantage that it offers a

solid methodology and a treasure-house of scriptural statements for

doing contemplation.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

> If I remember rightly, Ramana indicated that 'Who am I?' didn't imply

> any separation of dualism, as in Aham Brahmasmi etc. Where there is

> duality in the question. Ramana's position was Who am I? drove the

> mind inwards to find out there really was no ego, and only the Big I.

>

> So there is a difference between dualistic affirmations and the Self

> enquiry of Ramana. Perhaps the end result may be the same, but Ramana

> was one for the most simplest and direct route.........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

praNAm,

 

Tony-ji wrote:

If I remember rightly, Ramana indicated that 'Who am I?' didn't imply any

separation of dualism, as in Aham Brahmasmi etc. Where there is duality in

the question. Ramana's position was Who am I? drove the mind inwards to find

out there really was no ego, and only the Big I.

 

praveen:

There are many a vedaantic works(forgive my failing memory) that give the

following analogy for people who think "aham brahmaasmi" or "tat tvam asi"

is dualistic in the beginning: consider the statement "you are Mr.Tony". Are

*Mr.Tony* and *you* two different people or does it make a dualistic

statement? IMHO, not.

 

 

Tony-ji wrote:

So there is a difference between dualistic affirmations and the Self enquiry

of Ramana. Perhaps the end result may be the same, but Ramana was one for

the most simplest and direct route.........ONS..Tony.

 

praveen:

Many people have had different interpretations of even the direct path of

Ramana. David Godman says something to the effect that lot of people thought

it was a series of questions, or something to meditate on, or a one time

question to find an answer to, etc. Later, David says that he thinks that it

doesn't matter what you meditate on, its okay as long as the

commitment/feeling/bhaava is right. Anyway, it may be David's opinion

against yours or mine, but I thought I'll quote him to say that its not so

simple and direct for everyone

 

ramaNArpaNamastu,

--praveen

shivam shaantam advaitam

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> It is difficult to understand why there is no duality in 'Who am I?'

> where 'a mind is seen driven inwards to find out there really was no

> ego, and only the Big I'. If Aham and Brahman in Aham Brahmasmi are

> suggestive of daulity, then well the 'mind' and 'Big I' in 'Who am

I?'

> are also equally suggestive of duality. There is someone asking the

> question (Aham)and realizing 'Big I-ness' (Brahman). The question

and

> the mahAvAkya thus have the same import and, whichever way one goes,

 

Namaste,M-Ji et al,

 

IMHO It really isn't about asking a verbal question, which is

different in every language anyway Nan Yar etc. It is about

a 'feeling', and the little 'I' subsides leaving only the extant

feeling or big 'I'. Who am I actually refers back to oneself not

another concept that's why there is no duality in the question. It

doesn't create another condition or seek to create another

condition.....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

I am keeping indoors mostly and cannot read any posts, unless we have

electricty. I wanted to write on this issue of self, but before that I

beg you to recall my last post and a reply to that.

 

To my last post one gentleman comments that "it is quite arrogant to

think that only my idea of enlightenment is truly" so and not any

other. I agree with him fully. Yet I donot assert anything of that

sort.

 

If someone holds the reaching of heaven to be a greater virtue than

enlightenment, he may very well do so, but his heaven cannot be

enlightenment. For example, the poorva meemamsakas held heaven as

greater than enlightenment, and ritual as the means of salvation

(reaching heaven). Now according to your arguement, we should leave it

to them and let them beleive that heaven is greater than

enlightenment. Yet Sankara argued with Mandana Misra and proved it

otherwise. Was it his arrogance to point out that only his idea of

enlightenment is truly enlightenment?

 

I hope you see my point. As long as one desires for a 'thing',

'object', 'experience', 'abode', etc., he can never be enlightened.

Enlightenment cannot be desired. In the same way, becoming a slave to

God, or reaching his abode etc. are all inferior to enlightenment. The

Yogavasishtha points out - "Sri Rama, even the happiness of a thousand

Vishnus is nothing when compared to that of the supremely enlightened

one."

 

Now, leaving the old dead buried aside, let me discuss this fresh

topic of 'Who am I?'. I request you all to kindly read my whole

article before forming opinions about me or second-guessing any non-

existent intentions. I do understand that Bhagwan Ramana was a great

sage of modern India, and I pray, plead you to understand that I am

not offending him in any way. I present here the view of the Buddha on

this question.

 

According to the Buddha the statement that 'There is a self' is

equally as ineffective as 'There is no self'. This I understand is the

basic reason for which Advaita Vedanta rejects Buddhism. If there's no

self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? If

there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books

try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali Canon --

the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings -- you won't find

them addressed at all.

 

The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve

a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an

analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question;

those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the

questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last

class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of

suffering and stress. The Buddha said that there are two types of

people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements

that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't

draw inferences from those that should.

 

These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's

teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat anatta, we

find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the "no-

self" interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of

an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to draw an inference

from a statement the Buddha forbade to draw inference from.

 

So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there

is a self -- interconnected or separate, eternal or not -- the Buddha

felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how

you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self

involves an element of self-identification, ego and clinging, and thus

suffering and stress. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no

attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for

however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

 

What is acheived in saying "Yes, I have a self." or "I exist"? These

statements donot help in the arising of knowledge and removal of

ignorance which is the root cause of suffering. The evidence for this

reading of the Canon centers around four points:

 

1. The one passage where the Buddha is asked point-blank to take a

position on the ontological question of whether or not there is a

self, he refuses to answer.

 

2. The passages which state most categorically that there is no self

are qualified in such a way that they cover all of describable

reality, but not all of reality which may be experienced.

 

3. Views that 'there is no self' are ranked with views that that

'there is a self' as a "fetter of views" which a person aiming at

release from suffering would do well to avoid.

 

4. The person who has attained the goal of release views reality in

such a way that all views -- even such basic notions as self & no-

self, true & false -- can have no hold power over the mind.

 

With regard to the first point, the Buddha was concerned not to

contradict "the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self"

not because he felt that this knowledge alone was metaphysically

correct, but because he saw that its arising could be liberating. It

is important to note that he stressed 'not self' as a strategy for

enlightenment rather than as a metaphysical assertion of 'no self'.

Instead of being an assertion that there is no self, the teaching on

not-self is more a technique of perception aimed at leading beyond

death to Nibbana -- a way of perceiving things with no self-

identification, no sense that 'I am,' no attachment to 'I' or 'mine'

involved. This is the same as the 'neti neti' technique of the

Upanishads.

 

Such a dimension of non-differentiation or non-duality, although may

not be described, may be realized through direct experience. Below is

a passage from the Pali Canon.

 

"Monks, that sphere is to be realized where the eye (vision) stops and

the perception (mental noting) of form fades. That sphere is to be

realized where the ear stops and the perception of sound fades...

where the nose stops and the perception of odor fades... where the

tongue stops and the perception of flavor fades... where the body

stops and the perception of tactile sensation fades... where the

intellect stops and the perception of idea/phenomenon fades: That

sphere is to be realized. That sphere is free from sorrow, suffering,

and despair." - SN xxxv.116

 

This is similar to the Upanishadic statement: "Yato vaaco nivartante,

apraapya manasaa saha, anandam brahmano vidvaan, na bhibheti

kadacaneti."

 

Although the passage from the Canon indicates that there is a sphere

to be experienced beyond the six sensory spheres, it should not be

taken as a "higher self." This point is brought out in the Great

Discourse on Causation, where the Buddha classifies all theories of

the self into four major categories: those describing a self which is

either (a) possessed of form (a body) & finite; (b) possessed of form

& infinite; © formless & finite; and (d) formless & infinite. He

then goes on to reject all four categories, because they have the

intrinsic nature of CLINGING TO A OF SELF, or "I" and this will NOT

LEAD TO ARISING OF KNOWLEDGE OR WISDOM.

 

In one passage, the Buddha states that the meditator attains Awakening

by seeing the limits of all things that are conditioned, by seeing

what lies beyond them, and clinging to neither. He describes it as a

removing or doing away of all dhammas -- and thus it goes beyond "all

dhammas" and any possible statement that could be made about them.

Once the meditator has done this, no words -- being, not-being, self,

not-self -- can apply.

 

Although the concept "not-self" is a useful way of disentangling

oneself from the attachments & clingings which lead to suffering (also

referred to as "right view"), the view that there is no self is simply

one of many metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to

suffering. Thus although the person on the Path must make use of Right

View, he or she goes beyond all views on reaching the goal of release.

For a person who has attained the goal, experience occurs with no

'subject' or 'object' superimposed on it, no construing of experience

or thing experienced. There is simply the experience in & of itself.

 

A view is true or false only when one is judging how accurately it

refers to something else. If one is regarding it simply as a

statement, an event, in & of itself, true & false no longer apply. To

the enlightened, for whom there is no other, howcome the judgement of

the accuracy of a statement by comparing it something else?

 

Thus for the Tathagata, who no longer imposes notions of subject or

object on experience, and regards sights, sounds, feelings & thoughts

purely in & of themselves, views are neither true nor false, but

simply phenomena to be experienced. With no notion of subject, there

is no grounds for "I know, I see;" with no notion of object, no

grounds for, "That's just how it is." Views of true, false, self, no

self, etc., thus lose all their holding power, and the mind is left

free to its Suchness: untouched, uninfluenced by anything of any sort.

 

Thus it is important to remember his primary aim in presenting the

doctrine of not-self in the first place: so that those who put it to

use can gain release from all suffering & stress. It is not an

onotological or metaphysical assertion of any kind. In one place, the

Buddha tells a queen intending to learn the Dhamma, the following:

 

"Both formerly & now, Anuradha, it is only stress (suffering) that I

describe, and the stopping of stress." - S xxii.86

 

In my opinion, therefore, those who wish to be truly enlightened

should not ask vain questions like "Do I exist?", "Who experiences

this?", "Who am I?" etc., but should ask the questions "I am

sorrowful; is the whole world full of only sorrow?", "What is the

cause of this sorrow?", "Is there an end to sorrow?", "How do I do

away with this sorrow?". These questions can be answered thus:

 

1. "The whole world, everything that we can see with the eye or

describe, with the voice or hands, is full of sorrow."

 

2. "Ignorance is the root cause of sorrow."

 

3. "Yes, there is an end to sorrow."

 

4. "There is an eightfold path to this cessation of sorrow. The anatta

(not-self) strategy (equivalent to the neti, neti technique of

Upanishads) will help you see how you have been clinging and attaching

yourself to the various fetters, and will teach you to undo it."

 

What are the fetters that one has been clinging to? One's subconscious

binds oneself to the:

 

1. body

2. feelings

3. perceptions

4. fermentations

5. consciousness

 

Thus the subconscious clings to these as the "self", the "I notion",

the "ego", the "self-identification" etc. When this ignorant incorrect

cognition of "self" is done away with using the not-self technique,

through right discernment of anicca (same as the Vedantic nitya-

anitya-vastu-viveka), knowledge/wisdom arises and the person becomes

enlightened.

 

"Knowledge of what?" one may wish to ask. It is tempting to answer it

as "Knowledge of true Self." But that question is misguided, and the

answer is ignorant. When there is no 'other' to be known, in the realm

of non-duality, where can there be a knowledge 'of something', let

alone a "true self". It is pure knowledge - arising independent of any

object or subject. There is neither a seer nor a seen. Just knowledge

in and of itself.

 

I beg pardon for dragging the article so long, but I had a difficult

point to make. I hope that the notion of 'self' does not haunt anyone

again, and we truly concentrate on the goal of knowledge and wisdom.

Yet, if one wishes to hold on to such a thicket views, I cannot change

him/her and can only let him be.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhikku Yogi,

 

Please remember that the word 'Self' is just a word. Advaita philosohpy

is consistent with much of what you said. For example, Sri Nisargadatta

Maharaj also speaks of the non-dual Reality as being beyond both being

and non-being, etc. In Advaita as in Buddhism, enlightenment occurs

when the death of the ego takes place. Many realized Advaitins say that

they feel no sense of personal identity and feel no difference between

themselves and others.

 

I think that the Buddha was wise not to use the word 'self' so that

people didn't have anything to identify with. But as long as words have

to be used, there will be these problems. In the same way that some may

become attached to the word 'Self' and have all sorts of ideas attached

to it, people will also become attached to the word 'Nibbana' and have

wrong ideas about it too.

 

Asking 'Who am I?' is a way to try and locate the ego. When this

practice is done for long enough the ego is found not to exist, and

then enlightenment occurs. 'I am' is a simple statement of existence,

and is useful because people usually say 'I am a body' or 'I am a

doctor' etc. Holding on to the sense 'I am' is meant to eventually

reveal the source of 'I am.' Sri Nisargadatta, who advocated 'I am'

said that it is not the final goal. Eventually the 'I' disappears, and

only 'am' remains. Eventually even 'am' disappears.

 

I think the only difference between Advaita and Buddhism is a

difference of words and techniques, nothing else. They are both

excellent non-dual teachings.

 

Regards,

Nathan

[Guest guest]

Dear spiritual, respected, and very valuable brother (Nathan),

 

I wish every moment shower of peace and happiness is coming from God

Father forever to all.

 

'I' always stand for SOUL, so we can say ‘I AM A SOUL’ but because of

body conscious people are using for name, property, position and so on. So if

anyone use for body that mean he will go down and if anyone use for soul that

mean he will elevate, so one can come to a decision that he wish to go down or

up.

 

Any one wish to achieve something in life then he has to develop soul

conscious state as under: - I am a soul, very small self luminous point of light

(non-physical). I am everlasting, cannot be created or cannot be destroyed,

indivisible, invisible, but very well realisable. I am a soul, residing between

two eye-brows, seeing through eyes, hearing through ears and speak by tongue,

but I am separate from all these bodily organs.

 

 

Nathan Port <eport924 wrote:Dear members,

 

I've been wondering which method is more effective, inquiring 'who am

I?' as taught by Sri Ramana, or holding on to the sense 'I am' taught

by Sri Nisargadatta. Holding to the sense 'I am' seems easier, but I

think it might be a little dangerous, because it could possibly

reinforce the idea they we're the body if we feel 'I am' while

associating with our bodies(?). I'd be interested in hearing from

members who have used one or both of these methods.

 

Regards,

Nathan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

Go to http://.shaadi.com

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear respected sir,

 

I donot want to offend you. Kindly note that the errors that I point

out are not your errors per se, but the errors of the statements that

was written by you in history. I donot expect you to defend your

position, and donot advise you anything either. Also please note that

I am not criticizing your statements, only analyzing them.

> 'I' always stand for SOUL, so we can say `I AM A SOUL'

 

1. Pray what is this soul? Have you seen it? If only you have seen it

can you say that 'This is soul', 'That is I' and conclude finally that

'I am soul'.

 

2. But your statement goes further to say 'I am A soul'. The use of an

article there indicates the possibility of many souls. From Advaitic

standpoint it is not correct.

 

3. But for analysis sake, let us assume it is correct, then, how many

souls can I see? Can I see the souls of all people as separate

entities?

 

Conversely, let me also point out that it would not be correct to say

that all enlightened persons will say 'I am soul'. Why? If one does

become enlightened, he would not be able to say 'This is soul' or

'That is soul' or 'This is I' or 'That is I' and even if it were true,

a statement like 'I am soul' would be entirely futile for him. Will

anyone say "Water is Water"? So the statement whether repeated often,

or never repeated will not yield any results. So truly it would make

no sense to talk of 'self', 'no-self' etc.

 

> But

> because of body conscious people are using for name, property,

> position and so on. So if anyone use for body that mean he will go

> down and if anyone use for soul that mean he will elevate, so one

> can come to a decision that he wish to go down or up.

 

 

I shall not be fussy about the use of terms 'going', 'up' and 'down',

and shall assume that you made use of these terms only figuratively.

However, I shall discuss the other problems.

 

1. Using for body and using for soul, is not a matter of choice as you

say. We are born with that defect of always using the term 'I' for

body. Subconsciously we always make that error. Only people who have

become stream-runners (those who will surely become enlightened after

a few births, by virtue of their constant spiritual practice) lose

their attachment for body. For enlightenment, one needs to lose the

attachment for many more things including views such as 'soul',

'self', 'no-self', 'both self and no-self', 'neither self nor no-

self', 'God', 'religion', 'Advaita', 'Buddhism', 'Sankara', 'Buddha',

or anything else. As long as attachments exist, one cannot become

enlightened.

 

2. To say "Using it for body will make one go down and using it

otherwise will help one go up" is also an assumption and only a view.

Truly, there is no way to prove that. We may say "I am soul" and gloat

that it will lead us somewhere 'up' (I expect you mean become

enlightened), but all the while the subconscious is telling you "I am

body". Will you or I sit carefree like Sankara fully knowing that a

Kapalika is going to behead you or me? Will you or I be ready to give

up your life to stop Bimbisara from killing an animal, like the Buddha

did? Just making such a different use for the term 'I' will not solve

the problem. The problem is deep within. Also, when one is

enlightened, then there is no other, then what is body and what is

soul?

 

3. Although you donot say this anywhere in your statement, I extend my

analysis to show how it happens very often in India among many

sanyasis to illustrate a point. Even the use of a different word for

denoting oneself does not make one free from ego. In India there is a

custom among some sanyasis to use the term 'Aap' meaning 'You' for

'I'. So instead of saying "I am going" they say "You are going". Yet,

attachment for body, possessions, views etc. does not go away.

 

> Any one wish to achieve something in life then he has to develop

soul conscious state as under: - I am a soul, very small self luminous

point of light (non-physical). I am everlasting, cannot be created or

cannot be destroyed, indivisible, invisible, but very well realisable.

I am a soul, residing between two eye-brows, seeing through eyes,

hearing through ears and speak by tongue, but I am separate from all

these bodily organs.

 

 

I donot wish to directly point out any errors here, because I donot

have any opinion in this matter, but evidently you have not read

Sankara's Upanishad Bhashya or the Gita Bhashya. Surely your opinion

is more akin to that of the dualists or the qualified non-dualists

than to the non-dualists. However, they are just opinions and hence

hardly matter. I only hope that you would transcend all views/opinions

whether dual, non-dual or otherwise.

 

 

-Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

On Sri Bhikkuyogi wrote:

> To my last post one gentleman comments that "it is quite arrogant to

> think that only my idea of enlightenment is truly" so and not any

> other. I agree with him fully. Yet I donot assert anything of that

> sort.

 

Kindly recall the context of original post. The issue was that

different people have different things in mind when they use the term

enlightenment or liberation or mukti etc. Arrogance is implied only

when someone insists that it cannot be so.

> For example, the poorva meemamsakas held heaven as

> greater than enlightenment,..

 

Did they? As far as I am aware pUrva mImAmskas held heaven as the only

enlightenment since (in their view) it was established so in veads.

> and ritual as the means of salvation

> (reaching heaven). Now according to your arguement, we should leave it

> to them and let them beleive that heaven is greater than

> enlightenment.

 

This is not the context of the debate between shankara and manDana.

Both of them were only trying to establish the true purport of veda--

not the superiority/ inferiority of their goals.

> Yet Sankara argued with Mandana Misra and proved it

> otherwise. Was it his arrogance to point out that only his idea of

> enlightenment is truly enlightenment?

 

Not really. None of them was trying to prove the superiority of "my

enlightenment" vs. "your enlightenment". All they are interested in

knowing what vedas declare as the supreme goal. Any notion of

superiority/ inferiority is only in reference to whose stand is truly

vedic.

 

Without any common reference, contesting the meaning of "true

enlightenment" is your word against mine. Or as Russell puts it more

cynically: my brand of non-sense is better than yours.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

> Kindly recall the context of original post. The issue was that

> different people have different things in mind when they use the

term

> enlightenment or liberation or mukti etc. Arrogance is implied only

> when someone insists that it cannot be so.

 

I think it is more arrogant to say that one is stupid enough to say

that people can't have different opinions. The point I insisted on was

that, although people may have different opinions of enlightenment, no

opinions are correct. There is no way for the intellect to understand

enlightenment, and all notions, whether duality, non-duality,

qualified duality, qualified non-duality, or any other would be

erroneous to assume. Till the supreme truth is truly realized one

cannot have any correct view of reality - this is Sankara's position

on avidya and so is it in Buddhism.

 

As far as I am aware pUrva mImAmskas held heaven as the only

> enlightenment since (in their view) it was established so in veads.

....

 

So be it. It does not alter the purpose of my statement. My original

message clearly maintains that no opinions are correct. My reply in

citing Sankara's arguement with Mandana Misra was to deal with the

unnecessary implication of arrogance that you draw from my insistence

of the futility of all metaphysical assertions.

 

I think you donot get my point of the example that I drew. Although it

appears as though I am saying that Sankara was establishing his view,

I guess I left another part of the arguement unsaid. While Sankara

established Advaita, there were the Dvaitists and the

Vishishtadvaitists who later rejected Advaita and tried to establish

their metaphysical statement. Does that mean that Advaita is

necessarily wrong? It only shows the futility of metaphysical

assertions since they only lead to another debate and yet another

metaphysical assertion.

 

Nevertheless, the requirement to understand the goal necessitates some

intellectual understanding of the method of reaching the goal. Hence

the need for Sankara to argue.

> Without any common reference, contesting the meaning of "true

> enlightenment" is your word against mine. Or as Russell puts it more

> cynically: my brand of non-sense is better than yours.

 

I donot see the need to drag this issue beyond the scope of what I

have stressed already - that no opinions can be correct - to the

extreme that you have made it.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

praNAm,

 

Sanjay-ji has already shown out errors in understanding mandana mishrA's

discussion with Shankara, etc; I'm going to humbly point out the others.

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

....He (Buddha) then goes on to reject all four categories, because they have

the intrinsic nature of CLINGING TO A OF SELF, or "I" and this will NOT LEAD

TO ARISING OF KNOWLEDGE OR WISDOM...

 

praveen:

In fact, Ramana mentions this as the *most direct* approach to

self-realization. Please note that the word *Self* is frequently used in

many works and *self-realization* itself being the goal, "clingling on to

the self not leading to arising of knowledge (self-realization)" is a

contradictory statement in itself! So, clearly, its the usage of words that

seems to be at fault or grave misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what

*self* means. The suffering that Buddha talks of is purely

*body/mind/intellect* suffering that has nothing to do with *self*.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

....4. "There is an eightfold path to this cessation of sorrow. The anatta

(not-self) strategy (equivalent to the neti, neti technique of

Upanishads)...

 

praveen:

Sorry, the eightfold path may be akin to the eightfold path of patanjali's

yoga. In fact, I feel that the entire mail of yours can be equated to

patanjali's "drastaa drishi maatra" (The Seer is but the force of seeing

itself). There are two more faults that I see in your comparison, please:

one, advaita doesn't talk of ending sorrows, happiness is also considered as

a stumble that puts forth karma. Second, and more importantly, *neti-neti*

is not done in vacuum, its done on a substratum.

 

shankaraarpaNamastu,

--praveen

[Guest guest]

Sri Bhikku Yogi wrote:

> I think it is more arrogant to say that one is stupid enough to say that

people can't have different > opinions. The point I insisted on was that,

although people may have different opinions of

> enlightenment, no opinions are correct."

 

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were giving your opinions

when you said,

 

On Aug 26: "Enlightenment cannot be different for different people, if

they know what it is. Everyone has to be enlightened in the same way

to be called enlightened."

 

Or on Sept 2: "In the same way, becoming a slave to God, or reaching

his abode etc. are all inferior to enlightenment."

 

Or in the same post: "It is tempting to answer it as "Knowledge of

true Self." But that question is misguided, and the answer is

ignorant"

> So be it. It does not alter the purpose of my statement. My original

> message clearly maintains that no opinions are correct."

 

...and

> I do not see the need to drag this issue beyond the scope of what I

> have stressed already - that no opinions can be correct - to the

> extreme that you have made it."

 

There is a vast territory between "every opinion is correct." and "no

opinions can be correct." The worth of an opinion can be decided only

after knowing from where it is coming. It is therefore useful if

proper reference is provided when an assertion is made. The tacit

reference on this list is shruti. If you are adopting a different

reference, it will be helpful for the reader if it is spelled out

clearly. What is the reference when you are talking of "nirvana" or

"enlightenment"? Is it some sacred text? Is it your personal

experience? Is it your opinion?

 

In the absence of any such reference, a reader may get confused when you write,

 

On Aug 16: "There is something to be attained .... if it does not

exist, then nirvana is meaningless....".

 

and on Aug 26: "By saying that "nirvana is beyond attainment" I

clearly mean that one can never "attain" nirvana. Only a thing can be

attained."

 

> While Sankara established Advaita, there were the Dvaitists and the

> Vishishtadvaitists who later rejected Advaita and tried to establish

> their metaphysical statement. Does that mean that Advaita is

> necessarily wrong? It only shows the futility of metaphysical

> assertions since they only lead to another debate and yet another

> metaphysical assertion."

 

....therefore it is futile to make assertions such as ..

 

" Nirvana is beyond, objectification, attainment, consciousness or

anything that we can think of." or

"Those who wish to be truly enlightened should not ask vain questions

like "Do I exist?", "Who experiences this?", "Who am I?" etc.,

or

"The anatta (not-self) strategy (equivalent to the neti, neti technique of

Upanishads) will help you see how you have been clinging and attaching

yourself to the various fetters, and will teach you to undo it."

 

The point is that a legitimate response to such assertions can be made

only when the reader knows from what reference you are speaking. If

your reference is shruti, I can agree or disagree based on my

understanding of shruti. If it is dhammapad, I can move aside and hear

the comments of other knlwledgeable members. If they are from your

personal experience, I can only bow to you. If they are just your

opinions, it would not be illegitimate for me to insist that: "my

brand of nonsense is better than yours"

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Nathan Port" <eport924> wrote:

> Dear members,

>

> I've been wondering which method is more effective, inquiring 'who am

> I?' as taught by Sri Ramana, or holding on to the sense 'I am' taught

> by Sri Nisargadatta. Holding to the sense 'I am' seems easier, but I

> think it might be a little dangerous, because it could possibly

> reinforce the idea they we're the body if we feel 'I am' while

> associating with our bodies(?). I'd be interested in hearing from

> members who have used one or both of these methods.

>

> Regards,

> Nathan

 

I don't think either is "better". I think (as someone else here said)

the grammatical difference is secondary, and what's important is the

sense if "inquiry" - i.e. what you are doing, even with "I am", isn't

either affirming anything, or repeating any set formula, but sort of

putting a "?" to the very sense of '"I", "I", "I", revolving tightly,

tightly in the heart' (as was beautifully put by a Tibetan Lama).

 

What you are doing is trying to catch that "I" sense in the act, as it

were. At a certain point you may feel a peculiar kind of vertigo or

dizziness, like a momentary, sharp sense of insanity, which may scare

you a bit and make you drop the meditation; however, although it's a

bit scary, if you get this it's a good sign, a sign that you are going

in the right direction, chasing the right kind of "I" so to speak.

Recover your equilibrium, take courage and press on!

 

Then, at some point, beyond the vertigo-moment, that "I" sense

disappears, or you see _through_ that "I", to ...

 

This is more a kind if art or a sort of "knack" than it is a magic

formula or a set, mechanistic technique that automatically produces a

result, and only by doing it lots of times and varying the way you do

it slightly, sort of "playing" with it, will you get to the "right" way

of doing it, the proper "groove". It's like you are feeling around in

the dark, and you gradually "home in" on the right "thing" - very

difficult to put into words. Or again, as the Buddha said, it's like

tuning an instrument - it has to be not too tight, not too loose. Or

again, it's like a "window of opportunity", or the "re-entry corridor"

when a spaceship comes down to earth. It's a ... _thing_ you have to

find, that can't quite be put into words, but you'll know it when you

find it.

 

It's like the end of a thread found in the dark, and if you firmly but

gently grasp that thread and follow where it leads, it will lead you

THERE.

 

(Btw, I should say that this is from mere memory of the few occasions

when I had a "result" from this practice when I was a child - I am

not "There" now, so this is advice from a very ordinary George,

FWIW And I should be taking my own advice, rather than dispensing

it <slaps own wrist>! But ... this is the truth, this is the truth,

this is the truth.)

[Guest guest]

> There is a vast territory between "every opinion is correct." and "no

> opinions can be correct."

 

If you mean to say that "all opinions are correct", I would only say

that we disagree. I am clearly asserting that "no opinions are

correct" as you rightly quoted me.

 

 

The worth of an opinion can be decided only

> after knowing from where it is coming. It is therefore useful if

> proper reference is provided when an assertion is made. The tacit

> reference on this list is shruti.

 

I have provided references wherever required. The term shruti for you

may be only a certain specific set of texts. I have also quoted the

Yogavasishtha - an Advaitic text for your convenience, where it was

possible. Since most of my discussion was around the Buddha's opinion,

Buddhist texts have been quoted wherever necessary. Still, where you

demand reference, I may submit it. However, if one were to keep

writing only from references, there would be no original writings here

other than vain arguments like these.

 

> In the absence of any such reference, a reader may get confused when

you write,

>

> On Aug 16: "There is something to be attained .... if it does not

> exist, then nirvana is meaningless....".

 

 

AP-xxvii-24 from Pali texts

>

> and on Aug 26: "By saying that "nirvana is beyond attainment" I

> clearly mean that one can never "attain" nirvana. Only a thing can be

> attained."

 

It is a widely accepted interpretation of AP-xvi-2 from Pali texts.

This might seem contradictory to the earlier statement, but it isn't.

The earlier assertion talks of non-duality, which needs to be

attained. But non-duality is not nirvana. Nirvana is said to be "on

the other side of non-differentiation (or non-duality)" -

MN-xxxviii-12 from Pali texts

 

Just experiencing non-duality is not enough. You do so in coma and

even in deep sleep. But nirvana is the result of wisdom in such a

non-dual "state". I may stress that my use of the term "state" is

unfortunate, since I cannot but find a better way of expressing it.

However, nirvana is not a state.

 

> > While Sankara established Advaita, there were the Dvaitists and the

> > Vishishtadvaitists who later rejected Advaita and tried to establish

> > their metaphysical statement. Does that mean that Advaita is

> > necessarily wrong? It only shows the futility of metaphysical

> > assertions since they only lead to another debate and yet another

> > metaphysical assertion."

>

> ...therefore it is futile to make assertions such as ..

>

> " Nirvana is beyond, objectification, attainment, consciousness or

> anything that we can think of."

 

This assertion only asserts the impossibility of a metaphysical

assertion.

 

or

> "Those who wish to be truly enlightened should not ask vain questions

> like "Do I exist?", "Who experiences this?", "Who am I?" etc.,

 

Again an assertion establishing the futility of metaphysical

assertions. I donot see that it can be applied to the very same

statement, since this particular statement is hardly metaphysical.

> or

> "The anatta (not-self) strategy (equivalent to the neti, neti

technique of

> Upanishads) will help you see how you have been clinging and attaching

> yourself to the various fetters, and will teach you to undo it."

 

The technique of enlightenment is not a metaphysical assertion. If I

say that enlightenment is like this or like that, it would be.

 

> The point is that a legitimate response to such assertions can be made

> only when the reader knows from what reference you are speaking. If

> your reference is shruti, I can agree or disagree based on my

> understanding of shruti. If it is dhammapad, I can move aside and hear

> the comments of other knlwledgeable members.

 

Then you may "move aside and hear the comments of other knowledgeable

members"! Many of what I have said here is from the Pali texts. I

think I repeatedly indicate right at the beginning of my articles that

I am talking about the Buddha's teachings, and am not making any

assertions of my own.

 

> If they are just your

> opinions, it would not be illegitimate for me to insist that: "my

> brand of nonsense is better than yours"

 

I cannot say if your opinion that "Bhikku yogi has not provided any

references for his assertions" or "bhikku yogi is contradicting

himself" would evoke a response like "my brand of nonsense is better

than yours." You have formed opinions about my statement, but don't

stop to say that these are my own opinions.

 

Finally, certain statements are clearly my own statements, but are

supported by Pali texts. I donot think that this would be so much of a

problem to the Buddhist community atleast.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

Note from the List Moderator:

The list appreciates your interest in propogating the teachings of Buddha.

Please be aware that this list pertains to the teachings of Adi Sankara' Advaita

Vedanta Philosophy. Your point that it is impossible to verify or prove the

"metaphysical assertions" is quite accurate. Sankara was quite aware of this

fundamental fact and consequently Vedantic Truth derives the support for its

assetions from the Vedas (Shruti). Sankara and all of us who have strong

convictions in Sankara's advaita vedanta philosophy have also faith in

convictions in the revealed words of the Seers through shruti. With this

fundamental understanding, there can never be any contradiction to and in the

Vedantic Philosophy. Any contradictions and varied assertions or opinions

should be attributed to lack of faith. Though I appreciate your well articulated

postings relating to "Buddha's teachings" in this list, I do not see its

relevance to this list which is dedicated to Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Siddham.

Please note that the members of this list do not belong to "Buddhist Community."

We do admire, respect and revere Gautama Buddha who is considered as one of the

Avatars. At the same time we do have the greatest reverence for "VEDAS" the

revealed Truth with no beginning or end! This last statement is a metaphysical

assertion and as such does not need any verification!!

[Guest guest]

bhikkuyogi wrote:

> > There is a vast territory between "every opinion is correct." and "no

> > opinions can be correct."

>

> If you mean to say that "all opinions are correct", I would only say

> that we disagree. I am clearly asserting that "no opinions are

> correct" as you rightly quoted me.

>

>

>

> ------

>

"No opinions are correct" is itself an opinion and hence a logical

fallacy. To my knowledge "no opinions are correct" is not exactly what

the Buddha said, but since you are an expert on that, I dont wish to say

anything further.

 

Yours in the Dharma

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Sri Bhikkuyogi wrote:

> However, if one were to keep

> writing only from references, there would be no original writings here

> other than vain arguments like these.

 

Ah, that explains it. Originality has not been considered a virtue in

spirituality-- at least till recently. In advaita tradition, any talk

of liberation etc. is considered valid only if it is supported either

by shruti or to a lesser degree by ones personal realization. When

bhagvAn kr^SNa teaches Gita to arjuna, he does not claim it to be

*his* teachings. He refers it to a beginningless succession of

teachers. In bauddha tradition also, the need is addressed by

predating the historical figure of Gautama Buddha by a-historical

beginningless lineage of bodhisattvas.

 

There is a strong tradition of advaitins that holds that constant

contemplation on the truth of "Who am I?" is the nididhyAsana

enjoined by shruti. Therefore when someone opines that...

> > "Those who wish to be truly enlightened should not ask vain questions

> > like "Do I exist?", "Who experiences this?", "Who am I?" etc.,

 

...... it cannot be considered anything but pure mental speculation

unless one can demonstrate that enquiring "Who am I?" is not the

purport of shruti or that one has already explored this method

inside-out and found it useless. Note that even if one claims the

futility of contemplating on "who am I?" based on ones personal

experience, it will not be considered valid to the same degree if it

is in line with shruti. A sAdhaka could have some bandhakas that were

peculiar to him/her that obstructed the fructification of the enquiry

but shruti has been validated by sages since times immemmorial.

 

kr^shNa bhagvAn goes to the extent of saying that even those who

worship other devas for gaining even material goals should not be

disturbed in their shraddhA since ultimately all worship goes to Him.

And here a shraddhAvAn sAdhaka asks about contemplating on "who am I?"

- a method sanctioned by shruti and declared effective by realized

sages but then he is advised that it is vain to ask such questions--

not on the basis of shruti, not on the basis of any other sacred text,

not even on the basis of ones personal experience-- just that someone

happens to hold that view.

 

praNAm