Nature of Self?

[Guest guest]

hi,

 

this article appeared in the hindu today. it also contains my

criticism and appreciation..... i think it wud be rather useful to

understand advaita better than it is being. i can say that it is being

grossly misunderstood.

 

 

<<Nature of the Self

CHENNAI, NOV.4. The Self (Atman) is unaffected by both the good merit

and sin resulting from the actions of an individual according to the

scriptures. But, in common parlance a person is referred to as

a " good soul " or a " sinner " depending on his conduct in life. In

reality it is the body and the mind, which are involved in man's

actions and also enjoy the Karma that accrues as a result; the Self

is untainted by Karma. >>

 

mostly it is agreed upon.

 

still, we must understand the meaning of self, before we say something

like this. while the gita says " na mAm karmANi limpanti... " , one shud

understand that the self is not the sense of 'I'. it wud be a pity if

someone concludes as such. if there is a sense of 'I', then the karma

affects the person. only if all sense of 'I' vanishes that a person is

unaffected by karma. " nirmamo nirahankArah, sa Santimadhigacchati "

 

<<Likewise, the Self is untouched by joy and

sorrow. This can be corroborated by the fact that no one enjoys joy

or sorrow always. >>

 

this corroboration is rather hasty. just because no-one enjoys, or

laments all the while, one cannot conclude that the 'self' is

unaffected by joy! it only tells me that joy and sorrow are

impermanent and therefore clinging to them is not of value. it is only

more sorrowful.

 

<<Moreover, one does not experience sorrow in sleep. >>

 

that's not true! ppl weep in sleep. ppl have nightmares also. they r

clear indications of deep rooted sorrows, aversions, craving etc.

which manifests in some form. what abt deep sleep? does one experience

sorrow or joy? how can one say, when there is no awareness of deep

sleep? deep sleep is charaterised by dullness.

 

<<Whether one enjoys joy or sorrow in the waking and dream states, the

recollection about sleep is always peaceful.>>

 

if at all there is a recollection of sleep (in terms of dreams) there

r mixed emotions about it. if it were deep sleep, one has no

recollection at all, whatsoever.

 

<<In his discourse, Sri Goda Venketeswara Sastri said Mantras enabled

a person to get over the agitations of the mind but they will not

reveal the Self. When the Vedic Mantras and sacrifices are adopted in

daily practice they enable the performer to enjoy the joys of this

world and the heaven. What then is the spiritual benefit of these

practices? The mind becomes calm and one-pointed in the process and

this is the basic requirement for further spiritual growth. >>

 

this is not true. for spiritual growth, one does not necessarily need

a one-pointed mind. along with a calm mind, one needs an equanimous

mind, unaffected by joy or sorrow. true, a mind becomes one-pointed by

mantras, but it becomes neither calm, nor equanimous through mantras.

 

if at all mantras acheive anything, they are meant only to serve

worldly purposes. they can at best be used for doing away with

temporary sorrow. but they hv nothing to do with spirituality. this

applies for all mantras - even the celebrated gAyatrI. (in fact i

wonder what it does. by chanting it a 100 times, one does not get

enlightened. but it is a mantra that asks for enlightening. i think it

might hv been a mantra taught by viSvAmitra to begin classes for his

students, a good-will sign. i can say this with conviction because, i

hv seen ppl chanting it with grt devotion and sincerity but still are

so vigorously swayed by passions and emotions. if it cannot help us

gain equanimity, wisdom or anything for that matter, it is not

conducive to liberation! i know this wud hv been very much breaking

away with tradition. but tradition is not as important as enlightenment.)

 

<<A tranquil mind is necessary to study Vedanta, reflect on the

scriptural teachings and meditate on the truth.>>

 

not to study vedanta, but it is necessary for spiritual growth. to

study vedanta, one does not need a tranquil mind. i hv known ppl who

donot hv a tranquil mind and hv read a grt deal of vedanta. right, a

tranquil mind is required for meditation. but what is reflection on

scriptural teachings? how does one reflect on it? there is no way to

know what is taught in the scriptures in the way ppl normally do. they

can at best make a person interested in learning more vedanta.

 

<<It is thus evident that the mind is the enjoyer and not the Self,

which is the witness (I). >>

 

the self here is equated to the sense of 'I'. this is what was warned

of right in the beginning. how does it become self-evident that that

the mind is the enjoyer? we dont know that when eating chocolates,

etc. how do we know that.

 

<<The Self is of the nature of consciousness. >>

 

this is extremely debateable. the nature of the self is something i

shall not comment abt. but that it is consciousness is something we

cannot so easily say. what it is, i donot know, but what it is not is

well documentable and is documented. the self is not:

 

1. the form

2. the senses

3. the feelings

4. the preceptions

5. the consciouness, wherein one is conscious of oneself and another.

 

when i say it is not consciousness, i donot mean it is unconscious. it

is undescribeable. as long as one is conscious of oneself and of

another, " non-self " , there is bondage and ego. thus complete

dissolution of ego comes along with dissolution of the idea of

" other " . then what does one point to and say " this is the self? " or

" that is the self? "

 

<<No one doubts his " I " identity, as it is self-evident. >>

 

this self-evident 'I' identity is the ego. this is not the self. but

here, this is said to be the self.

 

<<It is only to get objective knowledge that the five senses and the

mind are needed but not for knowing one's identity. >>

 

one can never get to know self-identity. even after enlightenment!

identity can be known only if it can be recognized as something know

prior to this knowledge. if there is any self-awareness, it cannot be

evn pointed to and said - " this is self-awareness " or " that is

self-awareness " .

 

<<Self-awareness is always there and no outside means is required to

gain this knowledge. >>

 

this is ego-awareness. but yes, self-awareness is not gained from

elsewhere.

 

<<Besides, the Self is blissful in nature. >>

 

how does one know? what is bliss? this is an extremely dangerous

conclusion. ppl hv faltered because of this kind of a conclusion. some

ppl hv misinterpreted this and hv formed a skewed sense of

enlightenment. they think an 'orgasm' is the best example of bliss.

there hv been and still r many grps that beleive like this.

 

<<Just as a person takes credit for all the joys he enjoys in life, so

also should he understand that he is responsible for his sorrows. He

may not have done anything to incur such tribulations in this life but

he must remember that they are the result of his actions done in

previous births. >>

 

perfectly agreed.

 

<<This human birth (body-mind-intellect) has been given by God to

enjoy the Karma of previous births, which a person enjoys during the

waking and dream states. >>

 

this is an entirely dvaita concept, and has nothing to do with

advaita. no god gives body. does he hv no other work?

 

<<There is brief cessation of Karmic enjoyment during sleep because

the senses and the mind (consciousness) retract into the blissful

space in the heart when a person falls asleep. As there is no

objective experience in sleep, the peace enjoyed in this state is a

reflection of the bliss of the Self. >>

 

agreed.

 

copy right: the Hindu-daily

 

-balaji