Fwd: Having rejected all, the awareness that remains is 'I'

[Guest guest]

PathofSriRamana , " uarelove " <uarelove>

wrote:

 

Pages 56 & 57:

 

" In deep sleep,

 

the ego is still alive

 

in the very subtle form

 

of tendencies;

 

it is this form

 

which is the base and cause

 

for the rising of

 

the subtle and gross bodies,

 

and therefore it is called the causal body.

 

Even in death, it is in this causal body that we exist.

 

This causal body is not destroyed by the death of this gross body.

 

The reason for asserting that even this causal body is not 'I',

 

is that we exist there to know even that state to be alien to us.

 

There, our existence alone is real, and we cannot be the form

 

(darkness or ignorance) which we assume there.

 

Just as we rejected the gross body of the waking state as

 

'I am not this body',

 

even though it appeared to be 'I',

 

and just for the same reason

 

we rejected the subtle body of the dream state as 'not I',

 

let us now also reject this causal body

 

(darkness or ignorance) of deep sleep as 'not I',

 

since it is only a form which comes on us and goes.

 

Therefore, having firmly eliminated all these three bodies as

 

'not I, not I',

 

what then remains, that knowledge,

 

the consciousness of our existence,

 

alone is 'I'.

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

>

> Therefore, having firmly eliminated all these three bodies as

>

> 'not I, not I',

>

> what then remains, that knowledge,

>

> the consciousness of our existence,

>

> alone is 'I'.

 

but even an attachment to such a consciousness of existence must not

exist. existence is itself an impermanent feature. it becomes, decays

and diappears on its own in cycles. when consciousness exists as in

knowing that 'this exists', the 'this' which refers to something

pointed to as different from the self exists as a separate entity and

a clinging for the 'this' exists. when such consciousness, is also

very carefully discerned, one observes the fact that it is in fact

impermanent and hence through what consciousness does one know that

this is soul or self? what does he point to as 'self'? it is this

freedom from perceieving one separate from another that is called

nirvana or mukti.

 

when we begin with an assumption that this consciousness is 'I', we

are creating another form of ignorance, based on assumptions made in

the realm of avidya. hence donot begin with assumptions. donot however

think that nirvana is unconscious. " there is a kind of consciousness

that is very subtle and undescribable " - the buddha. in the upanishad

this is called 'turIya'. but it is undescribable. while nirvana can be

said to consist of a non-unconsciousness, like turIya, that it is the

self is an assumption made in the realm of avidya and one shud be wary

of it. all such assumptions lead to trouble, for it creates another

object fof clinging. since this idea of self is formed, one wud want

to perceive it as the self. so when he perceieves such a thing, he

calls it 'self' without knowing the truth abt it. donot fall in this

trap of intellectually created ego, which is other than the

psychological ego.

 

-balaji