Fwd: Selections from TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI-65

[Guest guest]

ThePowerOfSilence , " saikali6362 "

<saikali6362 wrote:

 

Selections from TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI-65

 

TALK 314:

 

In yesterday's answers, Sri Bhagavan said that the Self is pure

consciousness in deep slumber, and He also indicated the Self of the

transition from sleep to the waking state as the ideal for

realisation. He was requested to explain the same.

 

Sri Bhagavan graciously answered: The Self is pure consciousness in

sleep; it evolves as aham (`I') without the idam (`this') in the

transition stage; and manifests as aham (`I') and idam (`this') in

the waking state. The individual's experience is by means of aham

(`I') only. So he must aim at realisation in the way indicated

(i.e., by means of the transitional `I'). Otherwise the sleep-

experience does not matter to him. If the transitional

`I' be realised the substratum is found and that leads to the goal.

Again, sleep is said to be ajnana (ignorance). That is only in

relation to the wrong jnana (knowledge) prevalent in the wakeful

state. The waking state is really ajnana (ignorance) and the sleep

state is prajnana (full knowledge). Prajnana is Brahman, says the

sruti. Brahman is eternal. The sleep-experiencer is called prajna.

He is prajnanam in all the three states. Its particular significance

in the sleep state is that He is full of knowledge (prajnanaghana).

What is ghana? There are jnana and vijnana. Both together operate in

all perceptions. Vijnana in the jagrat is viparita jnana (wrong

knowledge) i.e., ajnana (ignorance). It always co-exists with the

individual. When this becomes vispashta jnana (clear knowledge), It

is Brahman. When wrong knowledge is totally absent, as in sleep, He

remains pure prajnana only. That is Prajnanaghana. Aitareya

Upanishad says prajnana, vijnana, ajnana, samjnana are all names of

Brahman. Being made up of knowledge alone how is He to be

experienced? Experience is always with vijnana. Therefore the

pure `I' of the transitional stage must be held for the experience

of the Prajnanaghana. The `I' of the waking state is impure and is

not useful for such experience. Hence the use of the

transitional `I' or the pure `I'.

 

How is this pure `I' to be realised? Viveka Chudamani says, Vijnana

kose vilasatyajasram (He is always shining forth in the intellectual

sheath, vijnana kosa). Tripura Rahasya and other works point out

that the interval between two consecutive sankalpas (ideas or

thoughts) represent the pure aham (`I'). Therefore holding on to the

pure `I', one should have the Prajnanaghana for aim, and there is

the vritti present in the attempt. All these have their proper and

respective places and at the same time lead to realisation.

 

Again the pure Self has been described in Viveka Chudamani to be

beyond asat, i.e., different from asat. Here asat is the

contaminated waking `I'. Asadvilakshana means sat, i.e., the Self of

sleep. He is also described as different from sat and asat. Both

mean the same. He is also asesha sakshi (all-seeing witness). If

pure, how is He to be experienced by means of the impure `I'? A man

says " I slept happily " . Happiness was his experience. If not, how

could he speak of what he had not experienced? How did he experience

happiness in sleep, if the Self was pure? Who is it that speaks of

that experience now? The speaker is the vijnanatma (ignorant self)

and he speaks of prajnanatma (pure self). How can that hold? Was

this vijnanatma present in sleep? His present statement of the

experience of happiness in sleep makes one infer his existence in

sleep. How then did he remain? Surely not as in the waking state. He

was there very subtle. Exceedingly subtle vijnanatma experiences the

happy prajnanatma by means of maya mode. It is like the rays of the

moon seen below the branches, twigs and leaves of a tree. The subtle

vijnanatma seems apparently a stranger to the obvious vijnanatma of

the present moment. Why should we infer his existence in sleep?

Should we not deny the experience of happiness and be done with this

inference? No. The fact of the experience of happiness cannot be

denied, for everyone courts sleep and prepares a nice bed for the

enjoyment of sound sleep.

 

This brings us to the conclusion that the cogniser, cognition and

the cognised are present in all the three states, though there are

differences in their subtleties. In the transitional state, the aham

(`I') is suddha (pure), because idam (`this') is suppressed. Aham

(`I') predominates. `Why is not that pure `I' realised now or even

remembered by us? Because of want of acquaintance (parichaya) with

it. It can be recognised only if it is consciously attained.

Therefore make the effort and gain consciously.

 

--- End forwarded message ---