Guest guest Posted August 10, 2001 Report Share Posted August 10, 2001 I have gained a lot of insights from my study of Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. However the explanation for not being conscious or aware or even a witness during deep sleep does not make sense. In fact the total absence of awareness during deep sleep suggests that other than the workings of our conscious mind we do not exist! Thus we are just a projection of our brain as the scientists are insisting. Any explanation will be helpful. ______________________ With Love, Cyber Dervish ```````````````````````````````````````` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Hi Jan, I'd like to try to answer this message but I'm having a little trouble because I don't understand which " explanation for not being conscious " you're referring to. Taking Ramana Maharshi as an example, my understanding is that his teaching was the opposite of what you're asking about here. He taught that we *are* aware during deep dreamless sleep, but we don't experience any mental representations during that time because the mental apparatus that produces them has shut down. Regards, Rob - " Jan Sultan " <swork <sworkalpha Friday, August 10, 2001 10:02 PM Deep Sleep > I have gained a lot of insights from my study of Advaita Vedanta and > Buddhism. However the explanation for not being conscious or aware or even > a witness during deep sleep does not make sense. > > In fact the total absence of awareness during deep sleep suggests that > other than the workings of our conscious mind we do not exist! Thus we are > just a projection of our brain as the scientists are insisting. > > Any explanation will be helpful. > > ______________________ > With Love, > Cyber Dervish > ```````````````````````````````````````` > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Hi Rob & Jan: I think it depends on how we define that which is aware during deep sleep. It is most likely the same beingness that is aware during waking and sleeping dreaming. It is beyond the mind so the mind can never understand it, it can only accept it. Peace, Michael At 05:52 AM 8/11/2001, you wrote: >Hi Jan, > >I'd like to try to answer this message but I'm having >a little trouble because I don't understand which > " explanation for not being conscious " you're referring >to. > >Taking Ramana Maharshi as an example, my understanding >is that his teaching was the opposite of what you're >asking about here. He taught that we *are* aware during >deep dreamless sleep, but we don't experience any >mental representations during that time because the >mental apparatus that produces them has shut down. > >Regards, > >Rob > > > >- > " Jan Sultan " <swork ><sworkalpha >Friday, August 10, 2001 10:02 PM > Deep Sleep > > > > I have gained a lot of insights from my study of Advaita Vedanta and > > Buddhism. However the explanation for not being conscious or aware or even > > a witness during deep sleep does not make sense. > > > > In fact the total absence of awareness during deep sleep suggests that > > other than the workings of our conscious mind we do not exist! Thus we are > > just a projection of our brain as the scientists are insisting. > > > > Any explanation will be helpful. > > > > ______________________ > > With Love, > > Cyber Dervish > > ```````````````````````````````````````` > > > > > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > > > Email addresses: > > Post message: Realization > > Un: Realization- > > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > > http://www.realization.org > > ................................................ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > I have gained a lot of insights from my study of Advaita Vedanta and > Buddhism. However the explanation for not being conscious or aware or even > a witness during deep sleep does not make sense. > > In fact the total absence of awareness during deep sleep suggests that > other than the workings of our conscious mind we do not exist! Thus we are > just a projection of our brain as the scientists are insisting. > > Any explanation will be helpful. > > Another thing that I have failed to get a clear answer on is the question > about freewill. > > Are we here just as witnesses, observers and nothing we do influences any > worldly outcome as suggested by Ramana and Nisargadatta. > > Or do we have an active role to play to make this world a better place as > suggested by others? > > Your opinions and explanations will be highly appreciated. ______________________ > With Love, > Cyber Dervish > ```````````````````````````````````````` What great questions! They, along with Rob and Michael's replies provide a good opening to discuss some previous comments about " going beyond philosophy " . I wanted to address it before but didn't know how to do it economically. I think this recent exchange may provide a way. Rob answered: > Taking Ramana Maharshi as an example, my understanding > is that his teaching was the opposite of what you're > asking about here. He taught that we *are* aware during > deep dreamless sleep, but we don't experience any > mental representations during that time because the > mental apparatus that produces them has shut down. If RM taught that " we " are aware during deep dreamless sleep, then he is empirically wrong, since I certainly am not. Perhaps he and others are. On the other hand, he may very well be talking theoretically or ontologically rather than descriptively or phenomenologically. That is, he may not be reporting his own *experience*, but providing his *theory* about consciousness. Rob's comments about free will demonstrate this distinction between phenomenology and ontology (between description and theory or explanation) very nicely. In my opinion, overlooking this distinction is the most common mistake made in all teachings about spirituality, oral or written, causing everlasting confusion and unnecessary mystification. > Advaita's teaching on this question really isn't > about free will. It's about a sort of mental illusion > (like an optical illusion) which it calls " doership. " > > Here's the illusion: there seems to be " something " > in our minds (a part of our minds or a particular > kind of thought) that decides what we are about to > do in the immediate future. Then that part of the > mind directs the rest of the body/mind to take that action. > > That's what it feels like, right? > > Well, if you meditate, you can see that this is > an illusion. That " part " of the mind that seems to > be making decisions and directing the " rest " of > us to act is actually just a mental representation, > a fantasy. You can see this by the fact that it > can completely vanish and your body/mind will > still be acting. > > Incidentally, this " part " of the mind is what Ramana > Maharshi calls the I-thought. The basic idea of > self-enquiry is that you focus attention on this I-thought > and keep it there. If you do that for a while, the > I-thought vanishes and you see through the illusion. Rob very nicely describes the illusion of an inner agent. It is an illusion of the imagination. When we mindfully look at what is going on, we find nothing there. There is no inner agent. However, that's speaking phenomenologically or descriptively. In fact, the notion of an agency, rightly understood, is a theoretical explanatory concept that has a very useful function in understanding human behavior. It's like gravity in explaining falling objects. Newton didn't claim to SEE gravity. He created that theoretical concept to explain falling bodies and other phenomena. Rob's instructions above concerning gravity would be like saying: Very carefully watch the ball fall and you will see that gravity is an illusion! There is no gravity pulling that ball toward earth. Of course not, since gravity isn't an observable, but a theoretical concept. The same's true about agency, free will, habit, and other such concepts. When you mix up the two you get superstition. It would be like some " unawakened " physicist looking for gravity like we would look for a key that we had misplaced. So Jan's point that we don't exist when asleep is both right and wrong. Descriptively it is right. If you are talking about " we " descriptively, then of course there is no imagined " we " there when we're asleep, since we're not imagining anything. But our common sense " we " is a theoretical concept designed to make sense out of ALL our experience. You and I know very well what is meant when I say that " we " had a good night's sleep. Here, " we " points to the whole bodymind complex that I call Gary and you call Jan. Michael added: > Awareness knows what to do because it sees, > it doesn't have to think about whether this is a > right or best choice...it KNOWS !!! > With respect, Michael, this is the sort of over-valuation of awareness that comes from confusing several things, among them the above distinction. Briefly, awareness doesn't KNOW. It is fallible like everything else. But the half-truth in what you say is that awareness is our best source. We should follow our awareness (or feelings or unconscious or intuition) rather than our mind (ego) not because awareness KNOWS, but because it has access to more information (much of it unconscious) than does mind (ego). Most importantly, awareness KNOWS what we are ready for right now. Awareness therefore tells us our best choice right now, given the limitations of what we know. It is not some mystical, infallible insight into reality. Finally, to the point about philosophy. Everything I did above was critical, not speculative, philosophy. It was identifying thought processes that we use. Doing this is part of our self-knowledge. If we don't get philosophically acquainted with our own thought processes, then we get lost in a lot of unnecessary puzzles and pseudo-mysteries. Best wishes to all, Gary Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Hi Gary, > If RM taught that " we " are aware during deep dreamless sleep, then he is > empirically wrong, since I certainly am not. Perhaps he and others are. On > the other hand, he may very well be talking theoretically or ontologically > rather than descriptively or phenomenologically. That is, he may not be > reporting his own *experience*, but providing his *theory* about > consciousness. I hope you won't mind if I answer this somewhat pedantically because it's an opportunity to collect some notes for a future article. Ramana Maharshi is putting forward the doctrinal position of Advaita Vedanta and also describing his own experience. But this has a third dimension as well: he believes that your empirical observation is faulty. He thinks that your observation is a maya-illusion like doership. According to both him and Advaita Vedanta, you *are* aware during deep sleep but fail to recognize it because you confuse awareness *of* something with awareness itself. When somebody becomes self-realized, the illusion ends and he or she recognizes that awareness continues during all three states (waking, dreaming, and the dreamless state). The objection you raise here, that you observe that you are not aware during deep sleep, is raised again and again in the Advaitin literature. I just checked the first Advaitin text ever written, the Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sri Sankaracharya, and find that he devotes a chapter (II.iii.8) to this objection and its refutation. He ends with: " As for the objection that the people in sleep etc. [the etc. refers to things like coma and fainting] have no awareness, that is answered by the Upanishad itself when it says with regard to the sleeping man, 'That (the soul) does not see in that state is because, although seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But (then) no second thing exists there separate from it which it can see' (Br. IV.iii.23), etc. This is what is meant: This appearance of absence of awareness is owing to the absence of objects of knowledge, but not owing to the absence of consciousness. " (BSB, II.iii.18.) In satsang dialogues, Ramana Maharshi often tried to talk people into seeing things his way, e.g.: " The 'I' is always there -- in deep sleep, in dream and in wakefulness. The one in sleep is the same as that who now speaks. There is always the feeling of 'I'. Otherwise do you deny your existence? You do not. You say 'I am'. Find out who is. " (Talks, 162.) Regards, Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Rob, > Hi Gary, > >> If RM taught that " we " are aware during deep dreamless sleep, then he is >> empirically wrong, since I certainly am not. Perhaps he and others are. On >> the other hand, he may very well be talking theoretically or ontologically >> rather than descriptively or phenomenologically. That is, he may not be >> reporting his own *experience*, but providing his *theory* about >> consciousness. > > I hope you won't mind if I answer this somewhat > pedantically because it's an opportunity to collect > some notes for a future article. No apology necessary. Style needs to match the nature of the communication. In detailed analysis, the style can't help but be " pedantic " in the innocuous sense in which you use the term. > > Ramana Maharshi is putting forward the doctrinal > position of Advaita Vedanta and also describing his > own experience. I would find it more credible that he is describing his own experience if I knew that he understood the difference between descriptive and explanatary concepts. RM was a nice man but I'm not aware that he had any scientific or philosophical training. Without such instruction, people, even geniuses, mix the two kinds of discourse (description and explanation) up all the time, as I believe is done in some of your quotes below. See my comments below. > But this has a third dimension as well: > he believes that your empirical observation is faulty. > He thinks that your observation is a maya-illusion > like doership. According to both him and Advaita Vedanta, > you *are* aware during deep sleep but fail to recognize > it because you confuse awareness *of* something with > awareness itself. When somebody becomes self-realized, > the illusion ends and he or she recognizes that awareness > continues during all three states (waking, dreaming, > and the dreamless state). There are several concerns here. First, there is still considerable controversy over whether there is pure consciousness or perhaps people, even spiritual geniuses, who report pure consciousness are overlooking some subtle " impurities " . If you say that RM couldn't possibly be overlooking impurities, since he was fully enlightened, then you are begging the question and making him your pope. If you say that you yourself experience pure consciousness and know that you're not overlooking something, the question then is how you know you're not overlooking something. How can anyone ever know that? Second, I can put myself almost at will into something that might be called pure consciousness (though I am not sure that I am not overlooking something), so that I don't confuse it with awareness *of* something. Yet I don't experience that during sleep. Third, it is self-contradictory to say that someone is aware but unaware of it. Take a less exotic example, pain. It is self-contradictory to say that I am in pain but don't know it. That is, it is self-contradictory if " pain " is here used phenomenologically or descriptively. We could, however, use it in an explanatory sense, to refer to certain bodily reactions, like muscle tension. Then we could meaningfully say that I am in pain but don't know it. That is, we can see that I am tensing up like I am aware of pain, only I'm not aware of any pain. Here, " pain " is a theoretical term explaining why I'm tensing up. It is explaining that the body is reacting to something in the way that it reacts when I am aware of pain, though in this instance the awareness is not there. Fourth, why would I want to be so aware that I would be conscious while sleeping? When I'm tired, I want to SLEEP, not watch myself sleep. Of course, that may be a very unenlightened view. But I would like to have some enlightened person tell me why I would ever want to become enlightened in this way? And if you object that in pure awareness I'm not aware of anything, so that I am not watching myself sleep, then how can I say that I was aware while sleeping, unless I'm saying that theoretically? > > The objection you raise here, that you observe that > you are not aware during deep sleep, is raised again > and again in the Advaitin literature. I just checked > the first Advaitin text ever written, the Brahma Sutra > Bhasya of Sri Sankaracharya, and find that he devotes > a chapter (II.iii.8) to this objection and its refutation. > He ends with: > > " As for the objection that the people in sleep etc. [the > etc. refers to things like coma and fainting] have no > awareness, that is answered by the Upanishad itself > when it says with regard to the sleeping man, 'That > (the soul) does not see in that state is because, although > seeing then, it does not see; See my remarks above about self-contradiction. > for the vision of the witness > can never be lost, because it is immortal. Here is an obviously explanatory-theoretical inference. The claim here is not that of a particular witness who says that her awareness is never lost. It is the hypothesis that the vision is immortal, from which it follows that it can never be lost. This is not description of experience, but theory. I am not interested here in arguing for or against the theory. My point is that when we're not clear whether we're describing or theorizing, we cause ourselves considerable confusion. > But (then) no > second thing exists there separate from it which it can > see' (Br. IV.iii.23), etc. This is what is meant: > This appearance of absence of awareness is owing > to the absence of objects of knowledge, but not owing > to the absence of consciousness. " (BSB, II.iii.18.) See my remarks above. > > In satsang dialogues, Ramana Maharshi often tried to > talk people into seeing things his way, e.g.: > > " The 'I' is always there -- in deep sleep, in dream > and in wakefulness. The one in sleep is the same as > that who now speaks. There is always the feeling of > 'I'. Otherwise do you deny your existence? You do > not. You say 'I am'. Find out who is. " (Talks, 162.) > Thanks for the quote, which goes to the heart of the issue, but only as text that raises the question, not answers it. And, again, thanks to you, Jan, and Michael for pursuing these questions. The exchange is helping me both clarify my thinking and awaken more to my experience. Best to all, Gary Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Hi Gary & Rob: My experience is that my emotional self takes over my life even when, especially when I don't want it to. I can be conscious as hell and still the mind takes over my body, my thoughts and my mouth. So now it is time for me to shut the hell up. What can anyone say to help someone else realize the unrealizable. Intelluctual discussions can be challenging and sometimes fun, but for me they generelly cause more emotional pain than clarity, at least in the beginning. Why do some people love to debate and some people hate it? Why does it invoke fear in the hearts of some and pride in others to be able to outwit another and in the process message their ego while trampling on the feelings of others? Michael Realization, Gary Schouborg <garyscho@a...> wrote: > Rob, > > > Hi Gary, > > > >> If RM taught that " we " are aware during deep dreamless sleep, then he is > >> empirically wrong, since I certainly am not. Perhaps he and others are. On > >> the other hand, he may very well be talking theoretically or ontologically > >> rather than descriptively or phenomenologically. That is, he may not be > >> reporting his own *experience*, but providing his *theory* about > >> consciousness. > > > > I hope you won't mind if I answer this somewhat > > pedantically because it's an opportunity to collect > > some notes for a future article. > > No apology necessary. Style needs to match the nature of the communication. > In detailed analysis, the style can't help but be " pedantic " in the > innocuous sense in which you use the term. > > > > Ramana Maharshi is putting forward the doctrinal > > position of Advaita Vedanta and also describing his > > own experience. > > I would find it more credible that he is describing his own experience if I > knew that he understood the difference between descriptive and explanatary > concepts. RM was a nice man but I'm not aware that he had any scientific or > philosophical training. Without such instruction, people, even geniuses, mix > the two kinds of discourse (description and explanation) up all the time, as > I believe is done in some of your quotes below. See my comments below. > > > But this has a third dimension as well: > > he believes that your empirical observation is faulty. > > He thinks that your observation is a maya-illusion > > like doership. According to both him and Advaita Vedanta, > > you *are* aware during deep sleep but fail to recognize > > it because you confuse awareness *of* something with > > awareness itself. When somebody becomes self-realized, > > the illusion ends and he or she recognizes that awareness > > continues during all three states (waking, dreaming, > > and the dreamless state). > > There are several concerns here. > > First, there is still considerable controversy over whether there is pure > consciousness or perhaps people, even spiritual geniuses, who report pure > consciousness are overlooking some subtle " impurities " . If you say that RM > couldn't possibly be overlooking impurities, since he was fully enlightened, > then you are begging the question and making him your pope. If you say that > you yourself experience pure consciousness and know that you're not > overlooking something, the question then is how you know you're not > overlooking something. How can anyone ever know that? > > Second, I can put myself almost at will into something that might be called > pure consciousness (though I am not sure that I am not overlooking > something), so that I don't confuse it with awareness *of* something. Yet I > don't experience that during sleep. > > Third, it is self-contradictory to say that someone is aware but unaware of > it. Take a less exotic example, pain. It is self-contradictory to say that I > am in pain but don't know it. That is, it is self-contradictory if " pain " is > here used phenomenologically or descriptively. We could, however, use it in > an explanatory sense, to refer to certain bodily reactions, like muscle > tension. Then we could meaningfully say that I am in pain but don't know it. > That is, we can see that I am tensing up like I am aware of pain, only I'm > not aware of any pain. Here, " pain " is a theoretical term explaining why I'm > tensing up. It is explaining that the body is reacting to something in the > way that it reacts when I am aware of pain, though in this instance the > awareness is not there. > > Fourth, why would I want to be so aware that I would be conscious while > sleeping? When I'm tired, I want to SLEEP, not watch myself sleep. Of > course, that may be a very unenlightened view. But I would like to have some > enlightened person tell me why I would ever want to become enlightened in > this way? And if you object that in pure awareness I'm not aware of > anything, so that I am not watching myself sleep, then how can I say that I > was aware while sleeping, unless I'm saying that theoretically? > > > > The objection you raise here, that you observe that > > you are not aware during deep sleep, is raised again > > and again in the Advaitin literature. I just checked > > the first Advaitin text ever written, the Brahma Sutra > > Bhasya of Sri Sankaracharya, and find that he devotes > > a chapter (II.iii.8) to this objection and its refutation. > > He ends with: > > > > " As for the objection that the people in sleep etc. [the > > etc. refers to things like coma and fainting] have no > > awareness, that is answered by the Upanishad itself > > when it says with regard to the sleeping man, 'That > > (the soul) does not see in that state is because, although > > seeing then, it does not see; > > See my remarks above about self-contradiction. > > > for the vision of the witness > > can never be lost, because it is immortal. > > Here is an obviously explanatory-theoretical inference. The claim here is > not that of a particular witness who says that her awareness is never lost. > It is the hypothesis that the vision is immortal, from which it follows that > it can never be lost. This is not description of experience, but theory. I > am not interested here in arguing for or against the theory. My point is > that when we're not clear whether we're describing or theorizing, we cause > ourselves considerable confusion. > > > But (then) no > > second thing exists there separate from it which it can > > see' (Br. IV.iii.23), etc. This is what is meant: > > This appearance of absence of awareness is owing > > to the absence of objects of knowledge, but not owing > > to the absence of consciousness. " (BSB, II.iii.18.) > > See my remarks above. > > > > In satsang dialogues, Ramana Maharshi often tried to > > talk people into seeing things his way, e.g.: > > > > " The 'I' is always there -- in deep sleep, in dream > > and in wakefulness. The one in sleep is the same as > > that who now speaks. There is always the feeling of > > 'I'. Otherwise do you deny your existence? You do > > not. You say 'I am'. Find out who is. " (Talks, 162.) > > > Thanks for the quote, which goes to the heart of the issue, but only as text > that raises the question, not answers it. And, again, thanks to you, Jan, > and Michael for pursuing these questions. The exchange is helping me both > clarify my thinking and awaken more to my experience. > > Best to all, > > Gary > > Gary Schouborg > Performance Consulting > Walnut Creek, CA > garyscho@a... > > Publications and professional services: > http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Michael, more good questions: > Hi Gary & Rob: > > My experience is that my emotional self > takes over my life even when, especially > when I don't want it to. I can be conscious > as hell and still the mind takes over my > body, my thoughts and my mouth. > > So now it is time for me to shut the hell up. > > What can anyone say to help someone else > realize the unrealizable. Intelluctual discussions > can be challenging and sometimes fun, but for me > they generelly cause more emotional pain than clarity, > at least in the beginning. The problem with online discussions is that an email necessarily targets a general audience. Effective analysis, like everything else, requires timing. What I write helps me and I post it hoping it may help others. Sometimes the timing is wrong; sometimes it well never be useful to someone else. More below. The issue that Rob and I were discussing is not directly relevant to your issue above. The " answer " to your issue is " just sit " . Sit quietly with your emotions and learn not to identify with them. This creates a distance, so that you can experience, not repress, your emotions but still not feel compelled to follow them. Even what I just said is only a general answer. Perhaps sitting is not right for you right now. We know little about who can be helped my meditation and who cannot. I do not know you, so I have no idea if meditation is something you should even try. > > Why do some people love to debate and some people > hate it? Why does it invoke fear in the hearts of > some and pride in others to be able to outwit another > and in the process message their ego while trampling > on the feelings of others? > First of all, we need to distinguish between debate meaning to argue to win, and debate meaning to discuss an issue to understand it. Opposing views, clearly formulated, can help one another to the truth, like two rock climbers using each other's body like a moving ladder to get to the top. I'd like to comment just about debate as discussion to find the truth. Some people love this sort of debate because they love the truth and know it takes a lot of work to get there. Others hate it because they just want to feel good and aren't really interested in the truth, or don't want to make the effort necessary to find it. Others are just not interested in debate, because that is not their way to move toward enlightenment. Hinduism identifies three ways: karma yoga, getting there by deeds; bhakti yoga, getting there by emotion or piety; and jnana yoga, getting there by inquiry. Jnana yogi are debaters (among other things). I have the impression that there are several karma and bhakti yogi in Realization.org who may find my emails useless and even repugnant. That is neither their fault nor mine. Best to all, Gary Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Dear Michael, No no no don't shut up. If anything I said caused you pain, I'm so sorry! Your honest expression from your heart is very moving. If I was oblivious to the feelings in your earlier messages, I apologize. > My experience is that my emotional self > takes over my life even when, especially > when I don't want it to. I can be conscious > as hell and still the mind takes over my > body, my thoughts and my mouth. Yes it is the same for me. Maybe it's the same for everybody except those who don't feel their emotions and they are probably worse off since they are also being taken over but have no idea by what. Don't give up. My experience has been that if you can see what happens clearly enough, it does make a difference. I found that it's not enough to keep watching with the same degree of penetration. I did that for a long time and got nowhere. It's like doing ten pushups every day -- you won't get stronger unless you keep increasing the number. I found I had to keep going deeper and deeper until something extraordinary and unexpected happened. If my experience holds true in general then being conscious as hell is only a skill that has to be used as a tool for a certain purpose. It must be used to look for something, the source of your feeling of personal identity. > What can anyone say to help someone else > realize the unrealizable. Some helpful things have been said to me by the old books. That's why I take such an interest in trying to understand them. Some other things that helped me were, having people encourage me by telling me their experiences. It made me feel like I could have the same experiences. The thing that helped me most, hugely beyond anything else in this realm, were the directions for self-enquiry given by Ramana Maharshi. I had meditated for 27 years before I ran across them and could have (I think) meditated for another 27 without a glimpse of enlightenment. But self-enquiry has given me a glimpse and changed my life. Regards, Rob - <michael <Realization > Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:55 PM Re: Deep Sleep > Hi Gary & Rob: > > My experience is that my emotional self > takes over my life even when, especially > when I don't want it to. I can be conscious > as hell and still the mind takes over my > body, my thoughts and my mouth. > > So now it is time for me to shut the hell up. > > What can anyone say to help someone else > realize the unrealizable. Intelluctual discussions > can be challenging and sometimes fun, but for me > they generelly cause more emotional pain than clarity, > at least in the beginning. > > Why do some people love to debate and some people > hate it? Why does it invoke fear in the hearts of > some and pride in others to be able to outwit another > and in the process message their ego while trampling > on the feelings of others? > > Michael > > Realization, Gary Schouborg <garyscho@a...> wrote: > > Rob, > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > >> If RM taught that " we " are aware during deep dreamless sleep, > then he is > > >> empirically wrong, since I certainly am not. Perhaps he and > others are. On > > >> the other hand, he may very well be talking theoretically or > ontologically > > >> rather than descriptively or phenomenologically. That is, he may > not be > > >> reporting his own *experience*, but providing his *theory* about > > >> consciousness. > > > > > > I hope you won't mind if I answer this somewhat > > > pedantically because it's an opportunity to collect > > > some notes for a future article. > > > > No apology necessary. Style needs to match the nature of the > communication. > > In detailed analysis, the style can't help but be " pedantic " in the > > innocuous sense in which you use the term. > > > > > > Ramana Maharshi is putting forward the doctrinal > > > position of Advaita Vedanta and also describing his > > > own experience. > > > > I would find it more credible that he is describing his own > experience if I > > knew that he understood the difference between descriptive and > explanatary > > concepts. RM was a nice man but I'm not aware that he had any > scientific or > > philosophical training. Without such instruction, people, even > geniuses, mix > > the two kinds of discourse (description and explanation) up all the > time, as > > I believe is done in some of your quotes below. See my comments below. > > > > > But this has a third dimension as well: > > > he believes that your empirical observation is faulty. > > > He thinks that your observation is a maya-illusion > > > like doership. According to both him and Advaita Vedanta, > > > you *are* aware during deep sleep but fail to recognize > > > it because you confuse awareness *of* something with > > > awareness itself. When somebody becomes self-realized, > > > the illusion ends and he or she recognizes that awareness > > > continues during all three states (waking, dreaming, > > > and the dreamless state). > > > > There are several concerns here. > > > > First, there is still considerable controversy over whether there is > pure > > consciousness or perhaps people, even spiritual geniuses, who report > pure > > consciousness are overlooking some subtle " impurities " . If you say > that RM > > couldn't possibly be overlooking impurities, since he was fully > enlightened, > > then you are begging the question and making him your pope. If you > say that > > you yourself experience pure consciousness and know that you're not > > overlooking something, the question then is how you know you're not > > overlooking something. How can anyone ever know that? > > > > Second, I can put myself almost at will into something that might be > called > > pure consciousness (though I am not sure that I am not overlooking > > something), so that I don't confuse it with awareness *of* > something. Yet I > > don't experience that during sleep. > > > > Third, it is self-contradictory to say that someone is aware but > unaware of > > it. Take a less exotic example, pain. It is self-contradictory to > say that I > > am in pain but don't know it. That is, it is self-contradictory if > " pain " is > > here used phenomenologically or descriptively. We could, however, > use it in > > an explanatory sense, to refer to certain bodily reactions, like muscle > > tension. Then we could meaningfully say that I am in pain but don't > know it. > > That is, we can see that I am tensing up like I am aware of pain, > only I'm > > not aware of any pain. Here, " pain " is a theoretical term explaining > why I'm > > tensing up. It is explaining that the body is reacting to something > in the > > way that it reacts when I am aware of pain, though in this instance the > > awareness is not there. > > > > Fourth, why would I want to be so aware that I would be conscious while > > sleeping? When I'm tired, I want to SLEEP, not watch myself sleep. Of > > course, that may be a very unenlightened view. But I would like to > have some > > enlightened person tell me why I would ever want to become > enlightened in > > this way? And if you object that in pure awareness I'm not aware of > > anything, so that I am not watching myself sleep, then how can I say > that I > > was aware while sleeping, unless I'm saying that theoretically? > > > > > > The objection you raise here, that you observe that > > > you are not aware during deep sleep, is raised again > > > and again in the Advaitin literature. I just checked > > > the first Advaitin text ever written, the Brahma Sutra > > > Bhasya of Sri Sankaracharya, and find that he devotes > > > a chapter (II.iii.8) to this objection and its refutation. > > > He ends with: > > > > > > " As for the objection that the people in sleep etc. [the > > > etc. refers to things like coma and fainting] have no > > > awareness, that is answered by the Upanishad itself > > > when it says with regard to the sleeping man, 'That > > > (the soul) does not see in that state is because, although > > > seeing then, it does not see; > > > > See my remarks above about self-contradiction. > > > > > for the vision of the witness > > > can never be lost, because it is immortal. > > > > Here is an obviously explanatory-theoretical inference. The claim > here is > > not that of a particular witness who says that her awareness is > never lost. > > It is the hypothesis that the vision is immortal, from which it > follows that > > it can never be lost. This is not description of experience, but > theory. I > > am not interested here in arguing for or against the theory. My point is > > that when we're not clear whether we're describing or theorizing, we > cause > > ourselves considerable confusion. > > > > > But (then) no > > > second thing exists there separate from it which it can > > > see' (Br. IV.iii.23), etc. This is what is meant: > > > This appearance of absence of awareness is owing > > > to the absence of objects of knowledge, but not owing > > > to the absence of consciousness. " (BSB, II.iii.18.) > > > > See my remarks above. > > > > > > In satsang dialogues, Ramana Maharshi often tried to > > > talk people into seeing things his way, e.g.: > > > > > > " The 'I' is always there -- in deep sleep, in dream > > > and in wakefulness. The one in sleep is the same as > > > that who now speaks. There is always the feeling of > > > 'I'. Otherwise do you deny your existence? You do > > > not. You say 'I am'. Find out who is. " (Talks, 162.) > > > > > Thanks for the quote, which goes to the heart of the issue, but only > as text > > that raises the question, not answers it. And, again, thanks to you, > Jan, > > and Michael for pursuing these questions. The exchange is helping me > both > > clarify my thinking and awaken more to my experience. > > > > Best to all, > > > > Gary > > > > Gary Schouborg > > Performance Consulting > > Walnut Creek, CA > > garyscho@a... > > > > Publications and professional services: > > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2001 Report Share Posted August 12, 2001 Dear Gary, > > Jnana yogi are debaters (among other things). I have the impression that > there are several karma and bhakti yogi in Realization.org who may find my > emails useless and even repugnant. That is neither their fault nor mine. I have always been an austere intellectual sort of guy. I was always an atheist. Jnana's my game. But the more I practiced Jnana Yoga, the more I became a bhakta. This was unasked-for and unexpected. There are days now when waves of feelings of the divineness of the universe wash over me and I cry for hours. In fact I am in something of that kind of state right now as I write. Jnana Yoga also led me to the experience of non-doership. What is Karma Yoga except the attempt to emulate through effort the effortless recognition of non-doership? In David Godman's three volume biography of H.W.L. Poonja, Poonjaji says that he distrusted Sri Ramana and refused to regard him as his guru until he saw Sri Ramana holding a picture of Krishna and crying. Then Poonjaji realized that Sri Ramana was a bhakta in addition to everything else. Perhaps the paths really do necessarily converge, as the old books say. Rob - " Gary Schouborg " <garyscho " Realization " <Realization > Saturday, August 11, 2001 5:31 PM Re: Re: Deep Sleep > Michael, more good questions: > > > Hi Gary & Rob: > > > > My experience is that my emotional self > > takes over my life even when, especially > > when I don't want it to. I can be conscious > > as hell and still the mind takes over my > > body, my thoughts and my mouth. > > > > So now it is time for me to shut the hell up. > > > > What can anyone say to help someone else > > realize the unrealizable. Intelluctual discussions > > can be challenging and sometimes fun, but for me > > they generelly cause more emotional pain than clarity, > > at least in the beginning. > > The problem with online discussions is that an email necessarily targets a > general audience. Effective analysis, like everything else, requires timing. > What I write helps me and I post it hoping it may help others. Sometimes the > timing is wrong; sometimes it well never be useful to someone else. More > below. > > The issue that Rob and I were discussing is not directly relevant to your > issue above. The " answer " to your issue is " just sit " . Sit quietly with your > emotions and learn not to identify with them. This creates a distance, so > that you can experience, not repress, your emotions but still not feel > compelled to follow them. Even what I just said is only a general answer. > Perhaps sitting is not right for you right now. We know little about who can > be helped my meditation and who cannot. I do not know you, so I have no idea > if meditation is something you should even try. > > > > Why do some people love to debate and some people > > hate it? Why does it invoke fear in the hearts of > > some and pride in others to be able to outwit another > > and in the process message their ego while trampling > > on the feelings of others? > > > First of all, we need to distinguish between debate meaning to argue to win, > and debate meaning to discuss an issue to understand it. Opposing views, > clearly formulated, can help one another to the truth, like two rock > climbers using each other's body like a moving ladder to get to the top. I'd > like to comment just about debate as discussion to find the truth. Some > people love this sort of debate because they love the truth and know it > takes a lot of work to get there. Others hate it because they just want to > feel good and aren't really interested in the truth, or don't want to make > the effort necessary to find it. Others are just not interested in debate, > because that is not their way to move toward enlightenment. Hinduism > identifies three ways: karma yoga, getting there by deeds; bhakti yoga, > getting there by emotion or piety; and jnana yoga, getting there by inquiry. > Jnana yogi are debaters (among other things). I have the impression that > there are several karma and bhakti yogi in Realization.org who may find my > emails useless and even repugnant. That is neither their fault nor mine. > > Best to all, > > Gary > > Gary Schouborg > Performance Consulting > Walnut Creek, CA > garyscho > > Publications and professional services: > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2001 Report Share Posted August 12, 2001 > Dear Rob You said > The thing that helped me most, hugely beyond > anything else in this realm, were the directions > for self-enquiry given by Ramana Maharshi. > I had meditated for 27 years before I ran > across them and could have (I think) meditated > for another 27 without a glimpse of enlightenment. > But self-enquiry has given me a glimpse and > changed my life. Can I request you for more? However if you do not wish to share for any reason that is ok. But be sure that you will have other glimpses coming your way. I keep referring to them as " Messages " . Sometimes there have been shifts in my life which in retrospect seems unreal. For example, I was upset over some trifle one day and feeling terrible because of that, a student calls to clear a doubt. The doubt was a word, which lead me to think the answer to my own problem. I felt as if a Message had been sent to me to think on those lines. I'd like to believe that if we become more aware, one starts to recognise Messages and act upon them. This does not mean that any action may be justified as being a Message. The awareness itself may bring about the understanding of what is to be done and what is not. I think I have been vague enough God Bless Raghu P.S. Why the sudden change to 'Raghuji', Robji? > > > - > <michael > <Realization > > Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:55 PM > Re: Deep Sleep > > > > Hi Gary & Rob: > > > > My experience is that my emotional self > > takes over my life even when, especially > > when I don't want it to. I can be conscious > > as hell and still the mind takes over my > > body, my thoughts and my mouth. > > > > So now it is time for me to shut the hell up. > > > > What can anyone say to help someone else > > realize the unrealizable. Intelluctual discussions > > can be challenging and sometimes fun, but for me > > they generelly cause more emotional pain than clarity, > > at least in the beginning. > > > > Why do some people love to debate and some people > > hate it? Why does it invoke fear in the hearts of > > some and pride in others to be able to outwit another > > and in the process message their ego while trampling > > on the feelings of others? > > > > Michael > > > > Realization, Gary Schouborg <garyscho@a...> wrote: > > > Rob, > > > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > > >> If RM taught that " we " are aware during deep dreamless sleep, > > then he is > > > >> empirically wrong, since I certainly am not. Perhaps he and > > others are. On > > > >> the other hand, he may very well be talking theoretically or > > ontologically > > > >> rather than descriptively or phenomenologically. That is, he may > > not be > > > >> reporting his own *experience*, but providing his *theory* about > > > >> consciousness. > > > > > > > > I hope you won't mind if I answer this somewhat > > > > pedantically because it's an opportunity to collect > > > > some notes for a future article. > > > > > > No apology necessary. Style needs to match the nature of the > > communication. > > > In detailed analysis, the style can't help but be " pedantic " in the > > > innocuous sense in which you use the term. > > > > > > > > Ramana Maharshi is putting forward the doctrinal > > > > position of Advaita Vedanta and also describing his > > > > own experience. > > > > > > I would find it more credible that he is describing his own > > experience if I > > > knew that he understood the difference between descriptive and > > explanatary > > > concepts. RM was a nice man but I'm not aware that he had any > > scientific or > > > philosophical training. Without such instruction, people, even > > geniuses, mix > > > the two kinds of discourse (description and explanation) up all the > > time, as > > > I believe is done in some of your quotes below. See my comments > below. > > > > > > > But this has a third dimension as well: > > > > he believes that your empirical observation is faulty. > > > > He thinks that your observation is a maya-illusion > > > > like doership. According to both him and Advaita Vedanta, > > > > you *are* aware during deep sleep but fail to recognize > > > > it because you confuse awareness *of* something with > > > > awareness itself. When somebody becomes self-realized, > > > > the illusion ends and he or she recognizes that awareness > > > > continues during all three states (waking, dreaming, > > > > and the dreamless state). > > > > > > There are several concerns here. > > > > > > First, there is still considerable controversy over whether there is > > pure > > > consciousness or perhaps people, even spiritual geniuses, who report > > pure > > > consciousness are overlooking some subtle " impurities " . If you say > > that RM > > > couldn't possibly be overlooking impurities, since he was fully > > enlightened, > > > then you are begging the question and making him your pope. If you > > say that > > > you yourself experience pure consciousness and know that you're not > > > overlooking something, the question then is how you know you're not > > > overlooking something. How can anyone ever know that? > > > > > > Second, I can put myself almost at will into something that might be > > called > > > pure consciousness (though I am not sure that I am not overlooking > > > something), so that I don't confuse it with awareness *of* > > something. Yet I > > > don't experience that during sleep. > > > > > > Third, it is self-contradictory to say that someone is aware but > > unaware of > > > it. Take a less exotic example, pain. It is self-contradictory to > > say that I > > > am in pain but don't know it. That is, it is self-contradictory if > > " pain " is > > > here used phenomenologically or descriptively. We could, however, > > use it in > > > an explanatory sense, to refer to certain bodily reactions, like > muscle > > > tension. Then we could meaningfully say that I am in pain but don't > > know it. > > > That is, we can see that I am tensing up like I am aware of pain, > > only I'm > > > not aware of any pain. Here, " pain " is a theoretical term explaining > > why I'm > > > tensing up. It is explaining that the body is reacting to something > > in the > > > way that it reacts when I am aware of pain, though in this > instance the > > > awareness is not there. > > > > > > Fourth, why would I want to be so aware that I would be conscious > while > > > sleeping? When I'm tired, I want to SLEEP, not watch myself sleep. Of > > > course, that may be a very unenlightened view. But I would like to > > have some > > > enlightened person tell me why I would ever want to become > > enlightened in > > > this way? And if you object that in pure awareness I'm not aware of > > > anything, so that I am not watching myself sleep, then how can I say > > that I > > > was aware while sleeping, unless I'm saying that theoretically? > > > > > > > > The objection you raise here, that you observe that > > > > you are not aware during deep sleep, is raised again > > > > and again in the Advaitin literature. I just checked > > > > the first Advaitin text ever written, the Brahma Sutra > > > > Bhasya of Sri Sankaracharya, and find that he devotes > > > > a chapter (II.iii.8) to this objection and its refutation. > > > > He ends with: > > > > > > > > " As for the objection that the people in sleep etc. [the > > > > etc. refers to things like coma and fainting] have no > > > > awareness, that is answered by the Upanishad itself > > > > when it says with regard to the sleeping man, 'That > > > > (the soul) does not see in that state is because, although > > > > seeing then, it does not see; > > > > > > See my remarks above about self-contradiction. > > > > > > > for the vision of the witness > > > > can never be lost, because it is immortal. > > > > > > Here is an obviously explanatory-theoretical inference. The claim > > here is > > > not that of a particular witness who says that her awareness is > > never lost. > > > It is the hypothesis that the vision is immortal, from which it > > follows that > > > it can never be lost. This is not description of experience, but > > theory. I > > > am not interested here in arguing for or against the theory. My > point is > > > that when we're not clear whether we're describing or theorizing, we > > cause > > > ourselves considerable confusion. > > > > > > > But (then) no > > > > second thing exists there separate from it which it can > > > > see' (Br. IV.iii.23), etc. This is what is meant: > > > > This appearance of absence of awareness is owing > > > > to the absence of objects of knowledge, but not owing > > > > to the absence of consciousness. " (BSB, II.iii.18.) > > > > > > See my remarks above. > > > > > > > > In satsang dialogues, Ramana Maharshi often tried to > > > > talk people into seeing things his way, e.g.: > > > > > > > > " The 'I' is always there -- in deep sleep, in dream > > > > and in wakefulness. The one in sleep is the same as > > > > that who now speaks. There is always the feeling of > > > > 'I'. Otherwise do you deny your existence? You do > > > > not. You say 'I am'. Find out who is. " (Talks, 162.) > > > > > > > Thanks for the quote, which goes to the heart of the issue, but only > > as text > > > that raises the question, not answers it. And, again, thanks to you, > > Jan, > > > and Michael for pursuing these questions. The exchange is helping me > > both > > > clarify my thinking and awaken more to my experience. > > > > > > Best to all, > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > Gary Schouborg > > > Performance Consulting > > > Walnut Creek, CA > > > garyscho@a... > > > > > > Publications and professional services: > > > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > > > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > > > Email addresses: > > Post message: Realization > > Un: Realization- > > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > > http://www.realization.org > > ................................................ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2001 Report Share Posted August 12, 2001 Dear Robji This is just incredible. I just mailed you asking for more of your own experiences and out this one pops. Swami Dayananda Saraswathi is supposed to have said that all paths do indeed converge and at that point we do not need any of the techniques that we may have practiced so far, including mantra, asanas or jnana yoga. One of my favourite books I downloaded from this site called " Ellam Ondre " and for my own reference and joy I illustrated it on the computer. I don't think I have ever drawn in my life other than school (where it was mainly abstract art). Robji, you don't just run this board, you are more evolved and deeper than I guessed. Thanx friend. Take Care, and may It always be with you Raghu Rob Sacks wrote: > Dear Gary, > > > > Jnana yogi are debaters (among other things). I have the > impression that > > there are several karma and bhakti yogi in Realization.org who may > find my > > emails useless and even repugnant. That is neither their fault nor > mine. > > I have always been an austere intellectual > sort of guy. I was always an atheist. Jnana's > my game. But the more I practiced Jnana Yoga, > the more I became a bhakta. This was > unasked-for and unexpected. There are days > now when waves of feelings of the divineness > of the universe wash over me and I cry for hours. > In fact I am in something of that kind of state right > now as I write. > > Jnana Yoga also led me to the experience of > non-doership. What is Karma Yoga except > the attempt to emulate through effort the effortless > recognition of non-doership? > > In David Godman's three volume > biography of H.W.L. Poonja, Poonjaji says > that he distrusted Sri Ramana and refused to > regard him as his guru until he saw Sri Ramana > holding a picture of Krishna and crying. Then > Poonjaji realized that Sri Ramana was a bhakta > in addition to everything else. > > Perhaps the paths really do necessarily converge, > as the old books say. > > Rob > > > - > " Gary Schouborg " <garyscho > " Realization " <Realization > > Saturday, August 11, 2001 5:31 PM > Re: Re: Deep Sleep > > > > Michael, more good questions: > > > > > Hi Gary & Rob: > > > > > > My experience is that my emotional self > > > takes over my life even when, especially > > > when I don't want it to. I can be conscious > > > as hell and still the mind takes over my > > > body, my thoughts and my mouth. > > > > > > So now it is time for me to shut the hell up. > > > > > > What can anyone say to help someone else > > > realize the unrealizable. Intelluctual discussions > > > can be challenging and sometimes fun, but for me > > > they generelly cause more emotional pain than clarity, > > > at least in the beginning. > > > > The problem with online discussions is that an email necessarily > targets a > > general audience. Effective analysis, like everything else, > requires timing. > > What I write helps me and I post it hoping it may help others. > Sometimes the > > timing is wrong; sometimes it well never be useful to someone else. > More > > below. > > > > The issue that Rob and I were discussing is not directly relevant > to your > > issue above. The " answer " to your issue is " just sit " . Sit quietly > with your > > emotions and learn not to identify with them. This creates a > distance, so > > that you can experience, not repress, your emotions but still not feel > > compelled to follow them. Even what I just said is only a general > answer. > > Perhaps sitting is not right for you right now. We know little > about who can > > be helped my meditation and who cannot. I do not know you, so I > have no idea > > if meditation is something you should even try. > > > > > > Why do some people love to debate and some people > > > hate it? Why does it invoke fear in the hearts of > > > some and pride in others to be able to outwit another > > > and in the process message their ego while trampling > > > on the feelings of others? > > > > > First of all, we need to distinguish between debate meaning to > argue to win, > > and debate meaning to discuss an issue to understand it. Opposing > views, > > clearly formulated, can help one another to the truth, like two rock > > climbers using each other's body like a moving ladder to get to the > top. I'd > > like to comment just about debate as discussion to find the truth. Some > > people love this sort of debate because they love the truth and know it > > takes a lot of work to get there. Others hate it because they just > want to > > feel good and aren't really interested in the truth, or don't want > to make > > the effort necessary to find it. Others are just not interested in > debate, > > because that is not their way to move toward enlightenment. Hinduism > > identifies three ways: karma yoga, getting there by deeds; bhakti yoga, > > getting there by emotion or piety; and jnana yoga, getting there by > inquiry. > > Jnana yogi are debaters (among other things). I have the impression > that > > there are several karma and bhakti yogi in Realization.org who may > find my > > emails useless and even repugnant. That is neither their fault nor > mine. > > > > Best to all, > > > > Gary > > > > Gary Schouborg > > Performance Consulting > > Walnut Creek, CA > > garyscho > > > > Publications and professional services: > > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > > > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > > > Email addresses: > > Post message: Realization > > Un: Realization- > > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > > http://www.realization.org > > ................................................ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2001 Report Share Posted August 12, 2001 Dear Raghuji, lol, well, keep reading, more synchronicity is lurking in your e-mail folder. There's another message there from me to Michael that answers your question about the self-inquiry stuff. Terrifically glad you liked Ellam Ondre. Would you send me some of the illustrations? Would love to see them. > Robji, you don't just run this board, you are more evolved and deeper > than I guessed. Thanx friend. Wow. What a funny thing. I've always been an average jerk (well, let's be honest, a below-average jerk). Recently some experiences have happened that seem to finally give me a little bit of a first-hand look at what's going on. I'm still the same jerk, though. The only difference is, now I'm a jerk with a little bit of a view. I went to Arunachala Ashrama last night (the American branch of Sri Ramanashrama, it happens to be here in New York where I live) and it put me into a sort of bhakti mood that is still with me today. Maybe the mood is coming through. Seriously, I found it extremely moving to be in the ashram. > > Take Care, and may It always be with you Now THAT is a REALLY good prayer. Talk to you later, Rob - " raghunandan " <raghu57 <Realization > Sunday, August 12, 2001 1:39 PM Re: Re: Deep Sleep > Dear Robji > This is just incredible. I just mailed you asking for more of your own > experiences and out this one pops. Swami Dayananda Saraswathi is > supposed to have said that all paths do indeed converge and at that > point we do not need any of the techniques that we may have practiced so > far, including mantra, asanas or jnana yoga. > > One of my favourite books I downloaded from this site called " Ellam > Ondre " and for my own reference and joy I illustrated it on the > computer. I don't think I have ever drawn in my life other than school > (where it was mainly abstract art). > > Robji, you don't just run this board, you are more evolved and deeper > than I guessed. Thanx friend. > > Take Care, and may It always be with you > Raghu > > > Rob Sacks wrote: > > > Dear Gary, > > > > > > Jnana yogi are debaters (among other things). I have the > > impression that > > > there are several karma and bhakti yogi in Realization.org who may > > find my > > > emails useless and even repugnant. That is neither their fault nor > > mine. > > > > I have always been an austere intellectual > > sort of guy. I was always an atheist. Jnana's > > my game. But the more I practiced Jnana Yoga, > > the more I became a bhakta. This was > > unasked-for and unexpected. There are days > > now when waves of feelings of the divineness > > of the universe wash over me and I cry for hours. > > In fact I am in something of that kind of state right > > now as I write. > > > > Jnana Yoga also led me to the experience of > > non-doership. What is Karma Yoga except > > the attempt to emulate through effort the effortless > > recognition of non-doership? > > > > In David Godman's three volume > > biography of H.W.L. Poonja, Poonjaji says > > that he distrusted Sri Ramana and refused to > > regard him as his guru until he saw Sri Ramana > > holding a picture of Krishna and crying. Then > > Poonjaji realized that Sri Ramana was a bhakta > > in addition to everything else. > > > > Perhaps the paths really do necessarily converge, > > as the old books say. > > > > Rob > > > > > > - > > " Gary Schouborg " <garyscho > > " Realization " <Realization > > > Saturday, August 11, 2001 5:31 PM > > Re: Re: Deep Sleep > > > > > > > Michael, more good questions: > > > > > > > Hi Gary & Rob: > > > > > > > > My experience is that my emotional self > > > > takes over my life even when, especially > > > > when I don't want it to. I can be conscious > > > > as hell and still the mind takes over my > > > > body, my thoughts and my mouth. > > > > > > > > So now it is time for me to shut the hell up. > > > > > > > > What can anyone say to help someone else > > > > realize the unrealizable. Intelluctual discussions > > > > can be challenging and sometimes fun, but for me > > > > they generelly cause more emotional pain than clarity, > > > > at least in the beginning. > > > > > > The problem with online discussions is that an email necessarily > > targets a > > > general audience. Effective analysis, like everything else, > > requires timing. > > > What I write helps me and I post it hoping it may help others. > > Sometimes the > > > timing is wrong; sometimes it well never be useful to someone else. > > More > > > below. > > > > > > The issue that Rob and I were discussing is not directly relevant > > to your > > > issue above. The " answer " to your issue is " just sit " . Sit quietly > > with your > > > emotions and learn not to identify with them. This creates a > > distance, so > > > that you can experience, not repress, your emotions but still not feel > > > compelled to follow them. Even what I just said is only a general > > answer. > > > Perhaps sitting is not right for you right now. We know little > > about who can > > > be helped my meditation and who cannot. I do not know you, so I > > have no idea > > > if meditation is something you should even try. > > > > > > > > Why do some people love to debate and some people > > > > hate it? Why does it invoke fear in the hearts of > > > > some and pride in others to be able to outwit another > > > > and in the process message their ego while trampling > > > > on the feelings of others? > > > > > > > First of all, we need to distinguish between debate meaning to > > argue to win, > > > and debate meaning to discuss an issue to understand it. Opposing > > views, > > > clearly formulated, can help one another to the truth, like two rock > > > climbers using each other's body like a moving ladder to get to the > > top. I'd > > > like to comment just about debate as discussion to find the truth. Some > > > people love this sort of debate because they love the truth and know it > > > takes a lot of work to get there. Others hate it because they just > > want to > > > feel good and aren't really interested in the truth, or don't want > > to make > > > the effort necessary to find it. Others are just not interested in > > debate, > > > because that is not their way to move toward enlightenment. Hinduism > > > identifies three ways: karma yoga, getting there by deeds; bhakti yoga, > > > getting there by emotion or piety; and jnana yoga, getting there by > > inquiry. > > > Jnana yogi are debaters (among other things). I have the impression > > that > > > there are several karma and bhakti yogi in Realization.org who may > > find my > > > emails useless and even repugnant. That is neither their fault nor > > mine. > > > > > > Best to all, > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > Gary Schouborg > > > Performance Consulting > > > Walnut Creek, CA > > > garyscho > > > > > > Publications and professional services: > > > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > > > > > > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > > > > > Email addresses: > > > Post message: Realization > > > Un: Realization- > > > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > > > > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > > > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > > > http://www.realization.org > > > ................................................ > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2001 Report Share Posted August 12, 2001 Dear Sri Raghunandan, > I think I have been vague enough. I thought saw too, but then I read the message again, and it made perfect sense. > > P.S. Why the sudden change to 'Raghuji', Robji? Did I start with the ji's? I thought you started it! Om shanti shanti shanti. Rob - " raghunandan " <raghu57 <Realization > Sunday, August 12, 2001 1:29 PM Re: Re: Deep Sleep > > > > Dear Rob > > You said > > > The thing that helped me most, hugely beyond > > anything else in this realm, were the directions > > for self-enquiry given by Ramana Maharshi. > > I had meditated for 27 years before I ran > > across them and could have (I think) meditated > > for another 27 without a glimpse of enlightenment. > > But self-enquiry has given me a glimpse and > > changed my life. > > Can I request you for more? However if you do not wish to share for any > reason that is ok. But be sure that you will have other glimpses coming > your way. > > I keep referring to them as " Messages " . Sometimes there have been shifts > in my life which in retrospect seems unreal. For example, I was upset > over some trifle one day and feeling terrible because of that, a student > calls to clear a doubt. The doubt was a word, which lead me to think the > answer to my own problem. I felt as if a Message had been sent to me to > think on those lines. I'd like to believe that if we become more aware, > one starts to recognise Messages and act upon them. This does not mean > that any action may be justified as being a Message. The awareness > itself may bring about the understanding of what is to be done and what > is not. I think I have been vague enough > God Bless > Raghu > P.S. Why the sudden change to 'Raghuji', Robji? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > <michael > > <Realization > > > Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:55 PM > > Re: Deep Sleep > > > > > > > Hi Gary & Rob: > > > > > > My experience is that my emotional self > > > takes over my life even when, especially > > > when I don't want it to. I can be conscious > > > as hell and still the mind takes over my > > > body, my thoughts and my mouth. > > > > > > So now it is time for me to shut the hell up. > > > > > > What can anyone say to help someone else > > > realize the unrealizable. Intelluctual discussions > > > can be challenging and sometimes fun, but for me > > > they generelly cause more emotional pain than clarity, > > > at least in the beginning. > > > > > > Why do some people love to debate and some people > > > hate it? Why does it invoke fear in the hearts of > > > some and pride in others to be able to outwit another > > > and in the process message their ego while trampling > > > on the feelings of others? > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > Realization, Gary Schouborg <garyscho@a...> wrote: > > > > Rob, > > > > > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > > > > >> If RM taught that " we " are aware during deep dreamless sleep, > > > then he is > > > > >> empirically wrong, since I certainly am not. Perhaps he and > > > others are. On > > > > >> the other hand, he may very well be talking theoretically or > > > ontologically > > > > >> rather than descriptively or phenomenologically. That is, he may > > > not be > > > > >> reporting his own *experience*, but providing his *theory* about > > > > >> consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > I hope you won't mind if I answer this somewhat > > > > > pedantically because it's an opportunity to collect > > > > > some notes for a future article. > > > > > > > > No apology necessary. Style needs to match the nature of the > > > communication. > > > > In detailed analysis, the style can't help but be " pedantic " in the > > > > innocuous sense in which you use the term. > > > > > > > > > > Ramana Maharshi is putting forward the doctrinal > > > > > position of Advaita Vedanta and also describing his > > > > > own experience. > > > > > > > > I would find it more credible that he is describing his own > > > experience if I > > > > knew that he understood the difference between descriptive and > > > explanatary > > > > concepts. RM was a nice man but I'm not aware that he had any > > > scientific or > > > > philosophical training. Without such instruction, people, even > > > geniuses, mix > > > > the two kinds of discourse (description and explanation) up all the > > > time, as > > > > I believe is done in some of your quotes below. See my comments > > below. > > > > > > > > > But this has a third dimension as well: > > > > > he believes that your empirical observation is faulty. > > > > > He thinks that your observation is a maya-illusion > > > > > like doership. According to both him and Advaita Vedanta, > > > > > you *are* aware during deep sleep but fail to recognize > > > > > it because you confuse awareness *of* something with > > > > > awareness itself. When somebody becomes self-realized, > > > > > the illusion ends and he or she recognizes that awareness > > > > > continues during all three states (waking, dreaming, > > > > > and the dreamless state). > > > > > > > > There are several concerns here. > > > > > > > > First, there is still considerable controversy over whether there is > > > pure > > > > consciousness or perhaps people, even spiritual geniuses, who report > > > pure > > > > consciousness are overlooking some subtle " impurities " . If you say > > > that RM > > > > couldn't possibly be overlooking impurities, since he was fully > > > enlightened, > > > > then you are begging the question and making him your pope. If you > > > say that > > > > you yourself experience pure consciousness and know that you're not > > > > overlooking something, the question then is how you know you're not > > > > overlooking something. How can anyone ever know that? > > > > > > > > Second, I can put myself almost at will into something that might be > > > called > > > > pure consciousness (though I am not sure that I am not overlooking > > > > something), so that I don't confuse it with awareness *of* > > > something. Yet I > > > > don't experience that during sleep. > > > > > > > > Third, it is self-contradictory to say that someone is aware but > > > unaware of > > > > it. Take a less exotic example, pain. It is self-contradictory to > > > say that I > > > > am in pain but don't know it. That is, it is self-contradictory if > > > " pain " is > > > > here used phenomenologically or descriptively. We could, however, > > > use it in > > > > an explanatory sense, to refer to certain bodily reactions, like > > muscle > > > > tension. Then we could meaningfully say that I am in pain but don't > > > know it. > > > > That is, we can see that I am tensing up like I am aware of pain, > > > only I'm > > > > not aware of any pain. Here, " pain " is a theoretical term explaining > > > why I'm > > > > tensing up. It is explaining that the body is reacting to something > > > in the > > > > way that it reacts when I am aware of pain, though in this > > instance the > > > > awareness is not there. > > > > > > > > Fourth, why would I want to be so aware that I would be conscious > > while > > > > sleeping? When I'm tired, I want to SLEEP, not watch myself sleep. Of > > > > course, that may be a very unenlightened view. But I would like to > > > have some > > > > enlightened person tell me why I would ever want to become > > > enlightened in > > > > this way? And if you object that in pure awareness I'm not aware of > > > > anything, so that I am not watching myself sleep, then how can I say > > > that I > > > > was aware while sleeping, unless I'm saying that theoretically? > > > > > > > > > > The objection you raise here, that you observe that > > > > > you are not aware during deep sleep, is raised again > > > > > and again in the Advaitin literature. I just checked > > > > > the first Advaitin text ever written, the Brahma Sutra > > > > > Bhasya of Sri Sankaracharya, and find that he devotes > > > > > a chapter (II.iii.8) to this objection and its refutation. > > > > > He ends with: > > > > > > > > > > " As for the objection that the people in sleep etc. [the > > > > > etc. refers to things like coma and fainting] have no > > > > > awareness, that is answered by the Upanishad itself > > > > > when it says with regard to the sleeping man, 'That > > > > > (the soul) does not see in that state is because, although > > > > > seeing then, it does not see; > > > > > > > > See my remarks above about self-contradiction. > > > > > > > > > for the vision of the witness > > > > > can never be lost, because it is immortal. > > > > > > > > Here is an obviously explanatory-theoretical inference. The claim > > > here is > > > > not that of a particular witness who says that her awareness is > > > never lost. > > > > It is the hypothesis that the vision is immortal, from which it > > > follows that > > > > it can never be lost. This is not description of experience, but > > > theory. I > > > > am not interested here in arguing for or against the theory. My > > point is > > > > that when we're not clear whether we're describing or theorizing, we > > > cause > > > > ourselves considerable confusion. > > > > > > > > > But (then) no > > > > > second thing exists there separate from it which it can > > > > > see' (Br. IV.iii.23), etc. This is what is meant: > > > > > This appearance of absence of awareness is owing > > > > > to the absence of objects of knowledge, but not owing > > > > > to the absence of consciousness. " (BSB, II.iii.18.) > > > > > > > > See my remarks above. > > > > > > > > > > In satsang dialogues, Ramana Maharshi often tried to > > > > > talk people into seeing things his way, e.g.: > > > > > > > > > > " The 'I' is always there -- in deep sleep, in dream > > > > > and in wakefulness. The one in sleep is the same as > > > > > that who now speaks. There is always the feeling of > > > > > 'I'. Otherwise do you deny your existence? You do > > > > > not. You say 'I am'. Find out who is. " (Talks, 162.) > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the quote, which goes to the heart of the issue, but only > > > as text > > > > that raises the question, not answers it. And, again, thanks to you, > > > Jan, > > > > and Michael for pursuing these questions. The exchange is helping me > > > both > > > > clarify my thinking and awaken more to my experience. > > > > > > > > Best to all, > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > Gary Schouborg > > > > Performance Consulting > > > > Walnut Creek, CA > > > > garyscho@a... > > > > > > > > Publications and professional services: > > > > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > > > > > > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > > > > > Email addresses: > > > Post message: Realization > > > Un: Realization- > > > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > > > > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > > > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > > > http://www.realization.org > > > ................................................ > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2001 Report Share Posted August 12, 2001 Excellent, Rob. I realized after I posted my email that I made the three approaches sound like separate, water-tight compartments. When we translate them into English -- thought, emotion, action -- we can see that they are the three dimensions of consciousness, so that we can't have one without the others and avoid pathology. There are individual differences only in seekers' starting point and emphasis. Gary > Dear Gary, > >>> Jnana yogi are debaters (among other things). I have the impression that >> there are several karma and bhakti yogi in Realization.org who may find my >> emails useless and even repugnant. That is neither their fault nor mine. > > I have always been an austere intellectual > sort of guy. I was always an atheist. Jnana's > my game. But the more I practiced Jnana Yoga, > the more I became a bhakta. This was > unasked-for and unexpected. There are days > now when waves of feelings of the divineness > of the universe wash over me and I cry for hours. > In fact I am in something of that kind of state right > now as I write. > > Jnana Yoga also led me to the experience of > non-doership. What is Karma Yoga except > the attempt to emulate through effort the effortless > recognition of non-doership? > > In David Godman's three volume > biography of H.W.L. Poonja, Poonjaji says > that he distrusted Sri Ramana and refused to > regard him as his guru until he saw Sri Ramana > holding a picture of Krishna and crying. Then > Poonjaji realized that Sri Ramana was a bhakta > in addition to everything else. > > Perhaps the paths really do necessarily converge, > as the old books say. > > Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 Dear Gary, Sorry for having taken so long to answer this message. I'll try to compensate by taking time to reply to each of your main points. In general I agree with you that when description and explanation are mixed indiscriminately, confusion is likely to result. And I agree that this thesis from the Advaitin literature (that awareness is " on " during sleep) is a particularly nasty example. Incidentally, although I have continually referred to this notion as Advaitin, it actually goes back at least as far as the Upanishads. See for exampe, the Mandukya Upanishad, verse 3. > I would find it more credible that he is describing his own experience if I > knew that he understood the difference between descriptive and explanatary > concepts. RM was a nice man but I'm not aware that he had any scientific or > philosophical training. Without such instruction, people, even geniuses, mix > the two kinds of discourse (description and explanation) up all the time, as > I believe is done in some of your quotes below. See my comments below. The alternative to his having mixed things up from ignorance or naivite is that he did it intentionally. I incline toward the latter. I think Sri Ramana understood perfectly well that it is one thing to say, " I have observed that I remain aware when I sleep " and quite another to say " I have become convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Self which is my true identity is eternally aware. " The curious thing about his pronouncements, for me, is that he says neither. His remarks are actually quite peculiar. I can't find a single instance where he clearly makes the first claim. And these pronouncements often take the form: " There is always the feeling of 'I'. Otherwise do you deny your existence? You do not. " (That's an actual quote, although actual quotes in this context mean paraphrases by his editors.) What we have here is a very odd bit of discourse. This is neither a report of his experience nor an explanation. It's an argument. (Of course like all arguments it implies an explanation.) The premise is: you know you exist. (He gives the argument in inverted order.) The second premise is (this is implicit, every Hindu understands it): existence and awareness are one and the same. Therefore you must feel " I " when you sleep, even if you don't... er.... feel it. It's probably worth mentioning that when Sri Ramana and other gurus made these statements, their primary purpose was to make somebody wake up. These sages often admit quite explicitly that their comments are not literally true. So on their own terms, perhaps the appropriate truth-test is purely pragmatic, i.e., " do the statements work? " It may also be worth mentioning that he very rarely described his own experience. To my knowledge, the only time he acknowledged that he was enlightened was when he was asked under oath in court. > First, there is still considerable controversy over whether there is pure > consciousness or perhaps people, even spiritual geniuses, who report pure > consciousness are overlooking some subtle " impurities " . If you say that RM > couldn't possibly be overlooking impurities, since he was fully enlightened, > then you are begging the question and making him your pope. If you say that > you yourself experience pure consciousness and know that you're not > overlooking something, the question then is how you know you're not > overlooking something. How can anyone ever know that? Up until now my reply has been in the realm of intellectual history -- I've been trying to clarify and understand what Sri Ramana said. But now lets consider this from our actual vantage point in the 21st century with the benefit of what we've learned from the methods of science. Concepts make me uneasy unless they are either mathematical or can be defined unambiguously in terms of experience. In the latter case, operational definitions are particularly excellent. Einstein's " time is what we measure with a clock " is a good example, but so is " red is what we see when we look at this rose. " " Consciousness " and " pure consciousness " are among the terms that make me uneasy. I don't know what anybody really means when they use them, and I don't see how I can ever know. I find it difficult to give much credance to any conclusion that results from the logical analysis of these ideas, since I don't know how they relate to the existents they purport to denote. I guess that unease, for me, applies to both the arguments you are refuting here and your refutation of them. If I am being unfair please point it out to me, because I confess that I have trouble with this kind of argument, and perhaps I am not trying hard enough to understand. > Second, I can put myself almost at will into something that might be called > pure consciousness (though I am not sure that I am not overlooking > something), so that I don't confuse it with awareness *of* something. Yet I > don't experience that during sleep. I don't think this observation invalidates his statements because he is claiming (I think) that the experience he describes only becomes evident in the fourth state, i.e., after full self-realization, meaning (in his terms) that the mind permanently dissolves in the heart. The salient point is that your " pure consciousness " is a transitory state but he claims that " awareness of Self during sleep " only becomes apparent when the person is in that state of awareness permanently. Of course this doesn't mean that he's telling the truth or that his description is accurate, but it does mean, I think, that this observation doesn't invalidate his claim. > Third, it is self-contradictory to say that someone is aware but unaware of > it. Take a less exotic example, pain. It is self-contradictory to say that I > am in pain but don't know it. That is, it is self-contradictory if " pain " is > here used phenomenologically or descriptively. We could, however, use it in > an explanatory sense, to refer to certain bodily reactions, like muscle > tension. Then we could meaningfully say that I am in pain but don't know it. > That is, we can see that I am tensing up like I am aware of pain, only I'm > not aware of any pain. Here, " pain " is a theoretical term explaining why I'm > tensing up. It is explaining that the body is reacting to something in the > way that it reacts when I am aware of pain, though in this instance the > awareness is not there. I agree completely. I can only reply that I don't think these people were unaware of this. I think they expressed themselves paradoxically for deliberate reasons. And I don't mean to suggest that the reasons were necessarily good ones. > Fourth, why would I want to be so aware that I would be conscious while > sleeping? When I'm tired, I want to SLEEP, not watch myself sleep. Of > course, that may be a very unenlightened view. But I would like to have some > enlightened person tell me why I would ever want to become enlightened in > this way? And if you object that in pure awareness I'm not aware of > anything, so that I am not watching myself sleep, then how can I say that I > was aware while sleeping, unless I'm saying that theoretically? Do the old sages disagree with the first part of this (why is it desirable?). I can't remember many passages where they try to talk anybody into becoming enlightened. It's usually presented as something that happens because of destiny or karma, not from choice. My personal answer is: because I'm curious. Your second point here is, I think, a particularly strong objection. I suspect that if I look through Sankara's books I'll find his answer to it. (Like all professional Indian philosophers, his books are in the form of dialogues between himself and opponents, and the opponents' positions are put in the strongest possible form.) The phenomenological answer to this second point, I suppose, is the general point the sages make over and over: you can't observe the Self, you can only be it, and you won't understand what that means until you experience it yourself -- except that you won't exactly be there and it won't really be an experience. > > for the vision of the witness > > can never be lost, because it is immortal. > > Here is an obviously explanatory-theoretical inference. The claim here is > not that of a particular witness who says that her awareness is never lost. > It is the hypothesis that the vision is immortal, from which it follows that > it can never be lost. This is not description of experience, but theory. I > am not interested here in arguing for or against the theory. My point is > that when we're not clear whether we're describing or theorizing, we cause > ourselves considerable confusion. I agree but again I want to say (I'm sorry for repeating this so much) that I think this is deliberate. They knew what they were doing and they thought it was a valid mode of discourse. Regards, Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.