PDA

View Full Version : 'adhyAtmavidyA' in Synthesis: 4. Self and Not-Self



saidevo
29 January 2008, 10:15 AM
From now on, the chapters are voluminous, but surcharged with vital points and quotes for knowledge, discussion and contemplation. I shall therefore post the material under each chapter, spread across many messages under each thread, for easy interaction. The quotes from Hindu texts are given as in the book in most cases, both in the main text and in notes (several notes are brought up to the main text by me), with minimum paraphrasing; the quotes from the Western sources, however, are paraphrased in the main text and minimized in the notes; interested readers may refer to the book.--saidevo

The Priliminaries of the Third and Last Answer: Self and Not-Self

The second answer, though wavering and satisfactionless, is a great advance in that it reduced the multifariousness of the world to a duality; but then explanation of the world, which is the sole purpose of philosophy, by means of two factors, can only be a tentative, and not a final, solution.

What the seeker wants, however, is a Unity; in this respect, the first answer was indeed better than the second, for it reduced all things to a unity, the will of an omnipotent being.



As a fact, some earnest seekers, having arrived at the second answer, but not satisfied, and unable to advance to the third, deliberately go back to the first, and take up the bhakti-mArga, 'the path of devotion' to a Personal God.

The case of those who have advanced to the third answer, yet also, deliberately, revive the touch of personal bhakti, is different; as that of Vyasa composing the Bhagavata after having compiled the Mahabhttrata and written the Brahma Sutras, or of Shankara, singing hymns to Vishnu, Shiva, Devi and establishing maThas (celibate-Sannyasi-convents) and temples. In such cases the bhakti is consciously directed to a very high mukta soul, acting as a spiritual administrator of a department, globe, system, of the visible world.

देहबुद्धया तु दासोऽहं जीवबुद्धया त्वदंशकः ।
आत्मबुद्धया त्वमेवाहं, इति भक्तिश्रद्धा मता ॥

dehabuddhayA tu dAso&haM jIvabuddhayA tvadaMshakaH |
AtmabuddhayA tvamevAhaM, iti bhaktishraddhA matA ||

"Bhakti is threefold: As a physical body, I am Thy servant; as a soul, I am a piece of Thee; as Spirit, I am Thy-Self." -- Hanuman to Rama.


The unity by the will of an omnipotent being, however, is a false unity, because it has no element of permanence in it. Tenure of immortality at the will of another is a mockery and a contradiction in terms.

The penultimate and the ultimate duality

Therefore the Jiva, however reluctantly, however painfully, has to give up that first unity, and search for a higher one. In this search, his next step leads him, by means of a close examination of the multiplicity which presses on him from all sides, to a duality which seems to him, and indeed is, at the time, the nearest approach to that higher unity that he is seeking.

The forms of this duality, wherein he is centred for the time being, beginning with rough general conceptions of Spirit (or Force) and Matter, end in the subtlest and most refined ideas of Self and Not-Self.

These, the Self and the Not-Self, are the last two irreducible facts and factors of all Consciousness. They cannot be analysed any further. All concrete life, in cognition-desire-action, and substance-attribute-movement, begins and ends with these. They are the two simplest constituents of the last result of all philosophical research.

Existence of Self: no one doubts it!

No one doubts "Am I or am I not". This has been said over and over again by thinkers of all ages and of all countries.



न हि जातु कश्चिदत्र संदिग्धे 'अहम् वा नाहम् वा' इति ।

na hi jAtu kashcidatra saMdigdhe 'aham vA nAham vA' iti |

says Vachaspati's Bhamati (p.2) about the nature and existence of the Self.

"This (self) is known through indubitable, non-erroneous and immediate experience of the nature of "I," as distinct from the body, the organs, the mind, the intellect, their objects, (in short) from whatever may be designated by the term "this"; (this experience exists) in all living beings from the worm and the moth to gods and sages; hence the self cannot be the object of a desire to know. No one indeed doubts "Is this I or not-1?" or makes the mistake "this is not I at all". (Translation from The Bhamati Catussutri by S.S.Suryanarya Sastry and C.Kunhan Raja. This book can be downloaded at: http://www.archive.org/details/bhamaticatussutr029636mbp [25 MB]--sd)

Descartes' famous maxim, Cogito, ergo sum, 'I think, therefore I am,' reverses cause and effect. It would be truer to say, Sum, ergo cogito. The Bible logion, "I am that I am...I am hath sent me to you" (Exodus), should be noted.


The existence of the Self is certain and indubitable. It proves the existence of everything else that is provable. It is not and cannot be proven by anything else. The very instinct of language, in East and West, past and present, bears eloquent, insistent, irrefrangible evidence to the fact, in the words sva-tah-pramANa, self-evident, sva-yam-siddha, self-proven (the technical Samskritam name for the geometrical axiom), evident and proven in, by, and to it-Self, the finality of all testimony, on which alone the purely 'imaginary assumptions', 'metaphysical concepts', of even that so-called exactest and most certain of sciences, mathematics, in all its departments, are veritably and utterly founded.

Nature of Self: The changeless amidst the changing

The next question about it is: What is it? Is it black--white--flesh and blood and bone--or nerve and brain--or rocks and rivers, mountains, heavenly orbs,--or light or heat or force invisible,--or time or space? is it identical or coextensive with the living body, or is it centred in one limb, organ, or point or spot thereof?

The single answer to all this questioning is that "That which varies not, nor changes, in the midst of things that change and vary, is different from them";



तस्माद्वेषु व्यावर्त-मानेषु यद अनुवर्तते तत् तेभ्यो भिन्नम् यथा कुसुमेभ्यः ।

tasmAdveShu vyAvarta-mAneShu yada anuvartate tat tebhyo bhinnam yathA kusumebhyaH |

"Hence, that which is constant in whatever is variable, that is different from the latter, as a string from the flowers (strung thereon)."

-- Vachaspati's Bhamati (p.3)


therefore the I Consciousness, which persists unchanged and one, throughout all the many changes of the material body and its surroundings, is different from them all. 'I' who played and leapt and slept as an infant in my parent's lap so many years ago, have now infants in mine own. What unchanged and persistent particle of matter continues throughout these years in my physical organism? What identity is there between that infantine body and this aged one of mine? But the 'I' has not changed. It is the same. ( for the persistent Jiva-atom--footnote #1)

Talking of myself, I always name myself 'I', and nothing more nor less. The sheaths in which I am always enwrapping the 'I' thus: I am happy, I am miserable, I am rich, I am poor, I am sick, I am strong, I am young, I am old, I am black, I am white, I am a god in dreams, a very helpless human creature on waking--these are accidents and incidents in the continuity of the 'I'. They are ever passing and varying. The 'I' remains the same. Conditions change, but they always surround the same 'I', the unchanging amid the changing; and anything that changes is, at first instinctively, and later deliberately, rejected from the 'I', as no part of itself.

And as it remains unchanged through the changes of one organism, so it remains unchanged through the changes and multiplicity of all organisms. Ask anyone and everyone in the dark, behind a screen, through closed door-leaves: "Who is it?" The first impulsive answer is: "It is I." Thus potent is the stamped impress, the unchecked outrush, the irresistible manifestation of the Universal Common 'I' in all beings.



आमन्त्रितस्.ह् .अहम् अयम् इत्येव अग्रे उक्त्वा, अथ अन्यन्नाम प्रब्रूते यदस्य भवति ।

Amantritas.h .aham ayam ityeva agre uktvA, atha anyannAma prabrUte yadasya bhavati |

I-iv-1: In the beginning, this (universe) was but the self (Viraj) of a human form. He reflected and found nothing else but himself. He first uttered, "am he". Therefore he was called Aham (I). Hence, to this day, when a person is addressed, he first says, 'It is I,' and then says the other name that he may have. Because he was first and before this whole (band of aspirants) burnt all evils, therefore he is called Purusha. He who knows thus indeed burns one who wants to be (Viraj) before him.

-- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, I.iv.1


The special naming and description: "I am so and so," follows only afterwards, on second thought. So real is the 'I' to the 'I', that it expects others (who really are not 'others') to recognise it as surely as it recognises it-Self.

Again, what is true of the 'I' with regard to the body, is also true of it with regard to all other things. The house, the town, the country, the earth, the solar system, which 'I' live in and identify and connect with myself, are all changing momentarily; hut 'I' feel myself persisting, unchanged through all their changes.

Beginning or ending of the 'I': never experienced

'I' am never, and can never be, conscious of myself having ever been born or of dying, of experiencing a beginning or an end...



Births and deaths of 'others' are always felt as only 'incidents' in our life, 'my' life, which is always felt as permanent, impossible to begin or end 'I' never realize that 'I' was born or shall die. 'I' can only 'see' in 'imagination', a tiny infant body being born, and a grown up one dying, and, in thought, connect the two with "my-self', 'me', 'T'. So I can, and do, see, with physical eyes, the bodies of 'others' being born or dying. We cannot realize that 'I' shall die.

That we 'fear death' is really only fearing the loss of enjoyment of our possessions, especially of our body, through which we enjoy the possessions, with which 'I' have identified my-self, by means of which I feel my separate individual 'self'-existence. We do not fear sleep, nay, we welcome it, in its due time, and stand in terror of insomnia, because, and only so long as, our body and possessions are not menaced by or during sleep.


maasa abdaa yuga kalpeshhu gat aagamyeshh vanekadhaa |
nodeti na astamety ekaa sa.nvid eshhaa svayaM prabhaa ||

--Panicha-dashi i.7.

"In all the endless months, years, and small and great cycles, past and to come, this Self-luminous Consciousness alone ariseth never, nor ever setteth."

But as regards all the things other than 'I', that 'I' am conscious of, 'I' am or can become conscious also of their beginnings and endings, their changes.

"Never has the cessation either in time or in space of consciousness been experienced, been witnessed directly; or if it has been, then the witness, the experiencer, himself still remains behind as the continued embodiment of that same consciousness." (Devi Bhagavata III.32.15-16)



It may be objected "But this is only negative proof, show me positive proof, that the 'I'-Consciousness stretches through all time". The answer is: "First, it is not negative proof that is advanced here, but negation of negation of Consciousness , and two negatives make a positive. Second, in order that you may have positive proof of the kind you have in mind, i.e., witnessing the everlastingness of the 'I', you must watch it everlastingly, you can scarcely have direct positive proof of evcrlastingness compressed into a few seconds or a few minutes of answer to your query, can you?

Lack of memory of past births is no disproof of rebirth. Far the larger part of daily knowings, feelings, actings, is completely forgotten Yet nothing of them is wholly annihilated, it all remains buried in the sub- or supra-conscious; and is revivable under special conditions; as is proved by the work of hypnotists and psycho-analysts. How and why--the scientists admit they have no satisfactory purely physical or physiological explanation. The superphysical explanation, given by Indian and other yoga and mystic traditions, is that all, the minutest, details of experience are 'photographed' and 'phonographed' in the sUkSma sharIraM, subtle body, on which the successive physical bodies of the same soul are strung. The complete explanation is to be found in the metaphysical aphorism, sarvam sarvatra sarvadA, 'all is every where, every when, everyway or all-ways' (Yoga-Vasishtha IV.33.1--sd).


When-so-ever and where-so-ever I imagine myself, my consciousness, i.e., all Consciousness (for consciousness is always and only My consciousness), as ceasing, in that same act of imagination I see the subsequent time and the further space as devoid of Me--a contradiction in terms.

Every when and where, every then and there, every instant of time and point of space, at which I may try to imagine myself (i.e., the 'My-consciousness,' the consciousness which is Me, which is I, the subject, and not the body which is an object) as ending, is itself within me, in my imagination; I am all around and about and beyond it always and already. Thus may we determine what the 'I' is.

Omnis determinatio est negatio, "all determination is negation," is a well-known and well-established maxim (found in Spinoza’s letter to Jarigh Jelles dated June 2nd, 1674--sd). We determine, define, delimit, recognise, by change, by contrast, by means of opposites; so much so that even a physical sensation disappears entirely if endeavoured to be continued too long without change; thus we cease to feel the touch of the clothes we put on, after a few minutes.

Scrutinising closely, the enquirer will find that everything particular, limited, changing, must be negated of the 'I'; and yet the 'I', as proved by the direct experience of all, cannot at all be denied altogether. It is indeed the very foundation of all existence.

'Existence,' 'being', (using the two words roughly as synonymous at this stage), means nothing more than 'presence in our consciousness,' 'presence within the cognition of the I, of the Self, of Me'. What a thing is, or may be, or must be, entirely apart from us, from the consciousness which is 'I', of this we simply cannot speak. It may not be within our consciousness in detail, with its specifications; but generally, in some sort or other, it must be so within consciousness, if we are to speak of it at all.

**************************************************
Footnotes:
**************************************************
1. The persistent Jiva-atom

What truth there is in the view, that some one or more particles of matter persist with persistent consciousness (two forms of which view are the theosophical doctrine of the auric egg, jIva-kosha, and Weismann's theory of cell-continuity) may appear later. (See the chapter on Jiva-atoms, infra.)

saidevo
02 February 2008, 03:41 AM
Immortality of the 'I': a logical follow-up

The third step, the immortality of the 'I', necessarily follows from, is part of, the very nature of the 'I'. What does not change, what is not anything limited, of which we know neither beginning nor end, in space or time, that is necessarily immortal and infinite, nitya, and vibhu; it cannot be created by and dependent on anything or anyone else.



As the Charaka (I.xi.), one of the principal works on Samskrt medicine, says

अनादेः चेतनाधातोर् न इष्यते प्रनिर्भितिः ।
परः आत्मा, स चेद हेतुर् इष्टाऽस्तु प्रनिर्भितिः ।

anAdeH cetanAdhAtor na iShyate pranirbhitiH |
paraH AtmA, sa ceda hetur iShtA&stu pranirbhitiH |

"The notion cannot be entertained that the beginningless 'Substance of Consciousness,' 'Conscious-stuff' has been created by another. If such another be said to be Atma, the Self, i.e., Consciousness itself again, then we are willing to agree."


Let us dwell upon these considerations; let us pause on them till it is perfectly clear to us that

336
(diagram by sd)

Let us make sure, further, that by eliminating the common factor 'our' from both sides of the equation, the proposition stands, and stands confidently, that "Consciousness is the only basis and support of the world."

This is so because, how can we distinguish between 'our' consciousness and 'another's' consciousness, between 'our' world and 'another's' world? That another has a consciousness, that another has a world, that there is 'another' at all, is still only 'our' consciousness!



For the story of Ribhu and Nidagha check: http://wisdomportal.com/Enlightenment/RibhuGita.html

There is also a similar story in the Yoga V&sishtha. "I am a character in your dream, and you are a character in my dream." Here, 'I' and 'your' and 'you' and 'my' are all in 'each' consciousness, and 'each'--the notion of 'many single ones' that is implied by 'each'--is also One and the Same consciousness. The vicious circle is solved by adding, "and I and you both are creatures of the dream of the Universal Self". A real, final, distinction between '1' and 'you' is impossible and 'unreal,' 'illusory' for both are in the I which is speaking.

That both are there, at the same time, in the same consciousness, negates the cruder forms of individualistic solipsism, but supports the Universahstic Solipsism which says, not that I, the individual self, know only my own modifications, or states, but that the Universsl Self experiences Its own (sup-posed and negated) modifications or states in an infinite number of individual-seeming selves.


And as this holds true for every one, at every point, does it not follow that all these 'every ones' are only One, that all these 'our' consciousnesses are only one Universal Consciousness, which makes all this appearance of mutual intelligence and converse possible? For it is really only the One talking to itself in different guises.

More may be said on this, later on, in dealing with Consciousness from the standpoint of the final explanation of the Worid-Process.

Thought and brain: senses unsensed

In the meanwhile, we need not be disturbed by any random statements that "thought (or the 'I'-consciousness) is the product of the brain as much as the bile is the product of the liver." This is fallacious logic because the brain and liver may be similar in constitution but the bile and thought are not!

Again, we know about our brain and liver because we see and feel them, but how are we sure that we see and feel? The eyes that see do not see themselves, the hands that touch do not touch themselves. We are sure of our seeings and feelings only because we are conscious of such things?



The word 'Consciousness' is used for brevity, it should be understood to mean 'the Principle of Consciousness', the 'Self's Awareness', 'which includes all States or kinds or degrees of Consciousness, waking, sleeping, slumbering, and all those varieties which psycho-analyst and other writers on psychology endeavour to distinguish minutely, as pre-, fore-, co-, sub-, supra-consciousness, hypno-pompic and hypnagogic consciousness, etc.

All these fall within the main three states, waking-dreaming-sleeping, in Samskrt terms, jAgrat-svapna-sushupti, or in Yoga technique, udara-tanu-prasupta, from a different point of view.

saidevo
02 February 2008, 03:43 AM
The one proof of all proofs

Argue as we may, we are always driven back, again and again, inexorably, to the position that Consciousness is verily our all in all, the one thing of which we are absolutely sure, which cannot be explained away; and that the Universal Self, the one common 'I' of all creatures (or the Universal, all-including 'We,' if that word is more significant to us, but it is One We, We as the Unified many I's) is our last and only refuge.'



यानि प्रमाणि अवलम्ब्य बहुलं वाग्व्यवहारास् तेषामेव प्रमाणां किं प्रमाणम्?

yAni pramANi avalambya bahulaM vAgvyavahArAs teShAmeva pramANAM kiM pramANam?

"What is the proof of our proofs"--Shri-harsha, Khandana-KhAdya

यैर् एव तावद इंद्रियैः प्रत्यक्षम् उपलभ्यते, तानि एव संति च अप्रत्यक्षाणि;

yair eva tAvada iMdriyaiH pratyakSham upalabhyate, tAni eva saMti ca apratyakShANi;

"the senses which sense, are themselves unsensed"; (pratyaksha is here used in the limited sense of 'sensation,' not the essential one of 'direct cognition')--Charaka, I, xi.

श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं ... चक्षुश्चक्षुः ...

shrotrasya shrotraM ... cakShushcakShuH ...

"the Hearer of the ear, ... the Seer of the eye ... is the Self ...--Kena Upanishad

प्रत्यक्षपरा प्रमितिः

pratyakShaparA pramitiH--Nyaya-Bhasdya, I.i.3.

"All proofs, all evidence, ultimately depends upon, all mental processes work back to, pratyaksha, or sensation," in the narrow sense; all experiences ultimately base upon experience, direct cognition, consciousness, in the larger sense, as in the following:

"As the ocean is the abiding place of all waters, so the proof of all proofs is pratyaksha, direct cognition--the adhi-aksha or overlord of each and all the senses, prati-aksha--vedana, feeling, anubhUti, experience, pratipatti, awareness, samvit, consciousness; it is the jIva, it is the pumAn or purusha, the 'person,' personality, of the nature of the I-feeling; and its samvit-s, cognisings, modifications, states (which always involve the notion of 'another-than-I, though that notion is also within the I, and so a 'modification' of it) , are padArthas, 'things,' 'meant by words'."


Is Self only a series of experiences?

Perhaps, in our long-practised love of the concrete, we like to tell ourselves that the 'I' is only a series of separate experiences, separate acts of consciousness. We have then only explained the more intelligible by the less intelligible.

The separate experiences, or acts of consciousness, are intelligible as a series, only by pre-supposing a one continuous Consciousness, a Self. The acts or modifications are of and belong to the Self, not the Self to the former.

Wherever we see unity, continuity, similarity, there we see the impress of the Self, the One. The concrete is held together only by the abstract, the two being always inseparable, though always distinguishable.



पराञ्चि खानि व्यतृणात् स्वयम्भूः तस्मात्प्राङ् पश्यति नान्तरात्मन् ।
कश्चिद्धीरः प्र्त्यागात्मान्मैक्षत् आवृत्त चक्षुरमृतत्वमिच्छन् ॥

parA~jci khAni vyatRuNAt svayambhUH tasmAtprA~g pashyati nAntarAtman |
kashchiddhIraH prtyAgAtmAnmaikShat AvRutta chakShuramRutatvamicChan ||
--Katha Upanishad,ii.1

"The Self-born pierced the senses outwards, hence the Jiva seeth the outward and the concrete 'many'; not the inner Self. One seeker, here and there, turneth his gaze inwards, desirous of immortality, and then beholdeth the Pratyag-atma, the abstract Self."

This word Pratyag-atma (pratyAg-AtmA), significant as it is, and made classical besides, by use in one of the most famous of the Upanishads, is somehow, notwithstanding, not much used in current Vedanta works. But it occurs
often in the Bhagavata. See also Yoga-bhashya, i.29, and, further, ii.20, and iv.21, as regards "The Seer Ego is 'aware' of all mental functionings," and "To say that ideas cognise one another, is to say too much".

Ego-complex and Ego-simplex

The school of 'the New Psychology,' of psychoanalysis, speaks of the 'ego-complex'; it regards the notion of 'self' (as a concrete 'personality') as a 'complex' of many thoughts, feelings, sentiments, etc. But it fails to recognize that there must be a contrasting Simplex (the abstract 'I') also, to serve as background for the Complex, which background makes the complex possible.

Subject-I and Object-This

इदं बुद्धिस्तु बाह्यार्थे, अहं बुद्धिस्तु तथाडात्मनि ।

idaM buddhistu bAhyArthe, ahaM buddhistu tathADAtmani |
-- Suta-Samhita

"What is this 'I' that is neither this nor that?" Any definition of the 'I' as 'this' or 'that' is bound to fail because the very being of the 'I' is the negation, the opposite, of all 'not-I's', all that is 'object,' all that can be known as a knowable object by the knower subject 'I', all that is particular, limited, defined, all that can be pointed to as a 'This'. If we attempt to evade this inevitable conclusion by denying 'I' altogether, we will only stultify ourselves.

Let us ponder deeply on this for days and days, and weeks and months and years if necessary; as Indra did (for a hundred years and one), when trying to learn the secret of the Self from Praja-pati, in the Upanishat-story, till we see the pure, unique, universal, and abstract being of the 'I'.

We will do so if we are in earnest with our search; and when we have done so, more than half the battle is won. We have attained to the Pratyag-atma, the 'inward,' abstract and universal, Ego, and are now in sight of the Param-atma, the 'Supreme,' the 'Ab-sol-ute' Self, the Self 'solved,' loosed, freed, from all conditions, limitations, relations. This Paramatma is the 'whole', 'full', significance and Nature of the Self, so named for special reasons (explained at the end of chapter 8). It is the Brahman, final goal, and ultimate place of Peace.

saidevo
02 February 2008, 06:09 AM
The Infinite is not graded, not comparative

Perhaps we have difficulty in identifying the commonplace 'I' that everyone glibly talks about and acutely relishes every moment in life, with the mysterious, marvellous, and mystic vision of beatitude and perfection that we hoped for. "I that am so small, so weak, how can I be the unreachable, all-glorious, Supreme!"

We should be clear here about what we seek: suppose it is only a 'glorious vision' of something graded on to our present experience instead of immortality or for an enlargement of our powers and worldly possessions albeit of a subtler kind, and we are earnest in our efforts, we should sure acquire them, but then it would be far less than the final consummation. To realize the Self, to seek the Ultimate, we should, like Nachiketa, refuse such glorious states and want only immortality.

We do not, at present, seek for anything that is only comparative and circumscribed and limited by death at both ends. We want an immortality that is unlimited and uncomparative. Such can be found only in the Universal 'I'.

Thoughtlessness says, "This thing is commonplace and unimportant," only because it is familiar. Serious thought, on the other hand, perceives, in that same ever-and-everywhere-presence of the 'I'; in that familiar nearness and pervasion, by the 'I', of all life and all consciousness and all universal processes; the conclusive evidence of the Self's unlimitedness and true immortality and everlastingness.

This Pratyag-atma declares its utter purity, transparency, transcendence of all limitations whatsoever, gross and glorious, through the mouth of Krshna: "The 'I' is the origin, the middle, and the end of all the worlds. It is the womb, also the tomb, of all of them. There is nothing higher than the 'I', O thou who wouldst win the wealth of wisdom! All this multitude of worlds is strung together on the 'I', even as jewels on a thread."! (Bhagavad-Gifa, vii.6.7.)

Vague versus clear, direct versus indirect knowledge

Perhaps we have a lurking doubt, "1 knew this 'I' indeed before I started on my quest!" We knew it then, it is true, but how vaguely, how doubtingly, bandying it about between a hundred different and conflicting hypotheses. Compare that knowledge with the utter all-embracing fullness of the knowledge of the nature of the 'I' that we have now attained to.

Indeed it is the law of all enquiry about anything and everything, that we begin with a partial knowledge, and end with a fuller one. None can turn attention to that of which he knows nothing at all; none needs to enquire about that of which he knows all already (Yoga Vasishtha).

As everything in the universe is connected with everything else therein, so every single piece of knowledge is connected with every other; and therefore every Jiva possessing any piece of knowledge is potentially in possession of all knowledge; and enquiry and finding, in the individual life, mean only the passing from the less full to the fuller, from the potential to the actual knowledge. In other words, the unfolding of the knowledge existing, but concealed within the Jiva, appears as enquiry and finding.

"The heedless ones condemn the 'I' embodied in the human frame, unwitting of the supreme status of that 'I', as the Great Lord of all that hath come forth." (Bhagavad-Gita, ix.11.)

In the concrete, material knowledge, as set down in books, there may be a difference between direct and indirect knowledge. Such difference will always hold good as regards things material, whether gross or subtle (even those loosely but not accurately called spiritual).

But as regards abstract principles, the universal 'I', and the abstract laws and subordinate principles that flow from the Nature of that 'I', directly, and are imposed by Its being as laws on the World-Process--in their case, knowledge and finding are one; there is no distinction between direct and indirect knowledge, intellectual cognition and realisation. In this respect, metaphysic is on the same level as arithmetic and geometry.

What the true significance is of the distinction currently made, between so-called 'mere intellectual cognition' of Brahman, and 'realisation' thereof; between knowledge which is paroksha, 'beyond sight,' and that which is a-par-oksha, 'not beyond sight'; will appear later (in the final pages of the book).

saidevo
02 February 2008, 06:12 AM
Metaphysics and mathematics

Indeed the level of metaphysics may well be said to be higher than that of mathematics. All the root-conceptions of mathematics are essentially metaphysical.

Arithmetic

In Arithmetic, the mathematics of time:

• the only one that is not-a-many at the same time, which we know of, is my-Self: every sens-able one, is a many too;

• the only ratio, relation, that really comes home to us, is that of memory, expectation, reason, in which the principle of oneness or identity, working in the many, assumes the forms of relativity, causality, generalised law, invariable succession, proportion, etc.

Geometry

In Geometry, the mathematics of space:

• the only point that we really know of as having position, posit-ing, but no definable magnitude, is again this same my-Self; all sens-able points have magnitude;

• the only length without breadth is the line of memory-expectation;

• the only surface without depth is imagination's;

• the only perfect sphere is the infinite One of the All-Consciousness, indicated by the logion which embodies the final answer to our questionings;

• the only perfectly equal radii are the number-less individual selves or souls;

• the only intelligible postulate is the free feel of the will. The first proposition of the first book of Euclid may well be interpreted as Purusha and Prakrti interlacing, to give birth to the triple-functioned, triune-minded, 'equi-lateral' man; and other propositions similarly.

Dynamics

In Dynamics, the mathematics of force or energy:

• the only force or energy that we understand is that of 'my-will'.

It is in this sense that the Vedas, and their climax and essence, Vedanta, Brahma-vidya, are svatah-pramANa, 'self-evident,' and a-pauru-sheya, 'not the inventions of any particular persons, purushas but universal (or, as they may be poetically called, divine) truths.

In this sense also are the Vedas, in their entirety, said to be infinite, anantAh vai vedAh. Science must be as infinite as the world-objects with which it deals.

The comparatively small texts, currently known as the four Vedas, are only an infinitesimal fragment of this Universal Science; but they apparently contain the fundamental laws and facts of the world-process, and at the same time constitute, it would seem, a manual of super-Physical science and art of a special kind, all ultimately based on metaphysics and psychology, and intended to give access to the more or less individualised forces, devas or shaktis, of the subtler worlds, particularly by means of 'sound' and 'fire'; either for the sake of the immediate joy of communion and intercourse with them; or for the sake of helping human life on earth, in respect of the elemental requirements of timely sun and rain, abundance of corn and cattle, physical and mental health and vigour, knowledge and long life, etc.

The Science of the Sacred Word, or The Pranava-Vada of Oargyayana should be perused by those interested in this line of thought; also H.P.Blatvatsky's The Secret Doctrine.

Self and the pseudo-generalised Not-Self

Having thus necessarily abs-tract-ed and separated out from the World-Process, the true, universal, and unlimited One, out of which all so-called universals borrow their pseudo-universality, we equally necessarily find left behind a mass of particulars. And just as it is not possible to define the 'I' any further than by naming it the 'I', so is it not possible to define this mass of particulars otherwise than by naming it the 'Not-I', 'Not-Self', 'Non-Ego', 'This', 'Mula-prakrti', 'Root-Nature', 'Root- Matter' (Sankhya-Karika, 11.).

Take it at any point of space and moment of time, it is always a particular something which can be cognised as Object in contrast with the cognising Subject. As the characteristics of the 'I' are universality and abstractness, so are the characteristics of the 'Not-I' particularity and concreteness.

It is always a 'This', a particular something that is always, in ultimate analysis, limited and definable in terms of the senses. Its special name is the Many, nAnA, an-ekam, as that of the Self is the One, ekam. That it is generalised under the word 'Not-Self' is only a seudo-generalisation, by reflection of the universality of the 'I'.

The word 'pseudo' is used to distinguish the universality of the One from that of the Other. It does not mean false in the sense of 'non-existent,' but only in the sense of 'apparent,' 'not real,' 'borrowed,' 'reflected'. The physical fact of the continuance and indestructibility of matter illustrates this distinction.

Because the 'I' and the 'Not-I' always imply each other and can never be actually separated, they are always imposing on each other, one another's attributes. The 'I' is always (becoming particularised into individuals, and the 'Not-I' is always becoming generalised into the elements and classes and kinds of matter, because of this juxtaposition of the two, because of their immanence within each other.

Further treatment of this point belongs to a later stage of the discussion. It is enough to show here that the searcher necessarily comes, at the last stage before the final finding, to these two, the Self and the Not-Self.

Unstable partial peace

It should be added that, at this stage, having traced his ego into the universal Ego, the Jiva finds a partial satisfaction and peace. Seeing that the universal Ego is unlimited by space and time, he feels sure of his immortality, and does not yet feel any great care and anxiety precisely to define the nature of that immortality. He is, for the time being, content to take, it as a universal immortality, in which all egos are merged into one, without any clear distinction and specialisation; for he feels that such specialisation is part of the limited and perishing, and so incapable of such immortality as belongs to the Pratyag-atma.

Later on, he will begin to ask whether there is any such thing as 'personal immortality' also; he will find that in the constitution of the material sheaths which make of him an individual ego out of the universal Ego, there is a craving for such personal immortality, for a continuance of existence as 'separate'; and he will also find that such is possible, nay certain, in its own special sense and manner. Just now, there is but one last remaining doubt that makes him feel that he has found but a partial peace and satisfaction in the finding of the universal Ego.

yajvan
02 February 2008, 04:03 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste saidevo,

You have given us much to think about , thank you.

As I ponder this, I am anchored in the thought and notion that the existence of the SELF, of Atman, of Brahman revelation is svatasiddha, self proved.

We are blessed to have the rishis assist us and give us a helping hand to form a construct of this Brahman, yet at the end of the day , the only way one knows the taste of a banana, is to bite into it.

Thank yo again for these wonderful posts.

pranams

saidevo
02 February 2008, 08:24 PM
Namaste Yajvan.



We are blessed to have the rishis assist us and give us a helping hand to form a construct of this Brahman, yet at the end of the day , the only way one knows the taste of a banana, is to bite into it.


A first step to the actual eating of the banana is to become convinced of its wholesomeness. Or rather the banana ('I') is so commonplace that everyone of us have tasted it, pausing for a moment at a wayside stall in the bustle of the worldly life, but never contemplated on the taste.

While I am happy with your appreciation of my compilation, I remind myself that I have only re-arranged and re-presented the material in the great book by Bhagavan Das, which in its old form looks rather messy and perhaps uninviting for the neophyte. The book has all the guidance for the neophyte and nuggets of gold for the advanced seeker.

Adi Shankaracharya synthesized the six darshanAs and evolved Advaita. After his life, three important and apparently opposed sects--the Dvaita, the Vishistadvaita and the Sakta--were established and are ruling the spiritual world today, with Advaita as the bhUmi, the land they rule. Bhagavan Das perhaps has the amsa (features) of Adi Shankara in his abilities of debating and uniting, and has successfully synthesized (in my opinion) not only the three major and other sects of Hinduism but also the Western philosophy, Theosophy and science and evolved a hierarchical system of philosophy that has Advaita all through and at both ends--the base and the summit.

yajvan
02 February 2008, 08:44 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan.
A first step to the actual eating of the banana is to become convinced of its wholesomeness. Or rather the banana ('I') is so commonplace that everyone of us have tasted it, pausing for a moment at a wayside stall in the bustle of the worldly life, but never contemplated on the taste.

While I am happy with your appreciation of my compilation, I remind myself that I have only re-arranged and re-presented the material in the great book by Bhagavan Das, which in its old form looks rather messy and perhaps uninviting for the neophyte. The book has all the guidance for the neophyte and nuggets of gold for the advanced seeker.

Adi Shankaracharya synthesized the six darshanAs and evolved Advaita. After his life, three important and apparently opposed sects--the Dvaita, the Vishistadvaita and the Sakta--were established and are ruling the spiritual world today, with Advaita as the bhUmi, the land they rule. Bhagavan Das perhaps has the amsa (features) of Adi Shankara in his abilities of debating and uniting, and has successfully synthesized (in my opinion) not only the three major and other sects of Hinduism but also the Western philosophy, Theosophy and science and evolved a hierarchical system of philosophy that has Advaita all through and at both ends--the base and the summit.

Namate saideveo,
thank you for the post... you mention,

the banana ('I') is so commonplace that everyone of us have tasted it, pausing for a moment at a wayside stall in the bustle of the worldly life, but never contemplated on the taste - this is true...that is why vivekaš ( discrimination) is so key. This SELF is so subtle so all pervasive, we pass it up.

You mention,
six darshanAs I have been taught it is 6 ways of looking at the truth, six lenses. The 6 ways are so complete in themselves, many a follower picks up one and says 'Oh yes, this is it, this is the real way' . Then the debates begin. Yet these ways are complimentary, not adversarial.

It's one's vantage point of viewing the truth, pure, homogeneous, nirguna Brahman, or a view as saguna Brahman in all it's diversity? This is my teaching, it is all Brahman - this is not new news to anyone. Both together, saguna and nirguna is the Full Glory of this Being, this Bhuma. It is the choice of the risi to describe it for others to assimilate and appreciate.

pranams

1. viveka - the power of separating the invisible Spirit from the visible world ; discrimination , distinction ;rue knowledge , discretion , right judgement , the faculty of distinguishing and classifying things according to their real properties ;

atanu
03 February 2008, 05:19 AM
Pranam Saidevoji, thanks for the nice arrangement.



By saidevo
A first step to the actual eating of the banana is to become convinced of its wholesomeness.

This is the upadesha. Why else should one even try?



By Yajvan
I have been taught it is 6 ways of looking at the truth, six lenses. The 6 ways are so complete in themselves, many a follower picks up one and says 'Oh yes, this is it, this is the real way' .

Pranam Yajvan ji,

What about the one who looks through the six lenses? Is he untrue and the view through the six lenses true?

Om

yajvan
03 February 2008, 01:34 PM
Pranam Yajvan ji,

What about the one who looks through the six lenses? Is he untrue and the view through the six lenses true?

Om

It is HE who is really looking though all the lenses. It is HE who created all this to know more about HIMself.

curving back onto mySELF I create again and again...

pranams