PDA

View Full Version : Exploring "I"



kallol
12 June 2011, 04:46 AM
A few questions :

1. Where does this "I" lie ?

2. What are the natures of "I" ?

3. There is a firewall between your "I" and my "I". This is true for all levels. Mine with my brain, my liver, my heart, etc and also at the next levels of the cells. All of them have "I" but I do not know or connect with that "I".

How are these "I"s interlinked ?

Love and best wishes:)

yajvan
13 June 2011, 11:02 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

A very noble question indeed.

aham is 'I' ... then it condences and we can call it ahaṃkaraṇa - the idea of being individual.
The 162nd śloka of Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, offers the following:
The fool (mūḍha) thinks I am the body (deho'ham). An intelligent one knows of the 'I' in the body;

I will wait for others views then respond with some ideas doe one's consideration.



praṇām

devotee
13 June 2011, 10:56 PM
Namaste Kallol,


A few questions :

1. Where does this "I" lie ?

2. What are the natures of "I" ?

3. There is a firewall between your "I" and my "I". This is true for all levels. Mine with my brain, my liver, my heart, etc and also at the next levels of the cells. All of them have "I" but I do not know or connect with that "I".

How are these "I"s interlinked ?

Love and best wishes:)

Answers :

1. This "I" arises in mind. The Mind is the Self looking outward from Itself.

2. This "I" is Ahamkaar. This separates itself from the "Universal I". Actually, there is only One "I" in reality emanating from Self.

3. The arising of "I" is the nature of the Self within first two states of waking and dreaming. This "I" vanishes in the third and fourth states of Self. You should read http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4824 thread in Advaita forum to understand how one consciousness of a dreamer gives rise to many "I"s which are unreal as the real "I" is not in the dream ... It actually is the dreamer.

4. Ramana Maharishi taught a technique of Self-enquiry ... "Who Am I" ? Read about it in details on the internet or from books on Ramana's teachings. This enquiry leads us to stage where there is no doubt that this "I" has no real existence. The point where this is realised is the point of Self-realisation.

OM

kallol
15 June 2011, 02:37 AM
Thanks for the responses till now. However I am looking for more intense discussion. I will slightly elaborate on the questions.

1. "I" does not belong to Mind (it is prakriti); "I" does not belong to consciosness (without prakriti, consciousness cannot manifest). "I" feeling arises due to mind's presence in the ocean of consciousness.

However we find that "I" in all layers of thoughts, action, etc (which again are prakriti only). How does it percolate ?

2. The nature of "I" can extend from nirguna consciousness to the saguna ahamkara. Between the boundary of mind and consciousness, and the saguna ahamkara there are many filters and layers. These brings in apparent distortion in the "I" How this can be defined and logically explained ?

3. All layers of the system (Cosmos) right from the absolute paraprakriti + aparaprakriti (God) to the manifested smallest particles have mind and thereby that sense of "I". I do not know your "I" or anyone else's "I". But each layer does for the next layer - unknowingly. The atoms does for molecules, the molecules for cells, the cells for organs, the organs for human, the human for God. How are these "I"s interlinked ? Do the above 2 questions have some clues in this question ?

Love and best wishes

devotee
15 June 2011, 04:17 AM
If you refuse to shake yourself from current state of your own created perceptions, the confusion will never go. You must be ready to listen to ideas offered otherwise there is no point in having a discussion.

You try to answer these questions :

a) What is Prakriti ? Where does it arise and why ? Does it have an independent existence ?

b) What is Mind ? How are you sure that mind is Prakriti ? If you have got the answer to the first question, does it fit into that definition of prakriti ?

c) If "I" doesn't belong to Mind & it also doesn't belong to Consciousness what does it belong to ? What did Ramana Maharishi say about Mind ?

d) "mind's presence in Ocean of Consciousness" --- what does it mean ? Is there anything which is not consciousness ? Do you know what Upanishads say about it ? What gives birth to mind ? In direct perception mind dissolves ... where does it go ? Any scriptural support for your proposition ?

e) What do you mean by Nirguna Consciousness ? Can "I" exist in Nirguna state of existence which is devoid of all attributes ?

f) What is Saguna Ahamkaar ? Are there two types of Ahamkars i.e Saguna and Nirguna ? Which Scriptures say this ?

g) "Between the boundary of mind and consciousness, and the saguna ahamkara there are many filters and layers. These brings in apparent distortion in the "I" " ---- Which boundary and what filters and layers you are talking about ? What is the scriptural or great saints' support for this understanding ? Or is this purely your own making ?


OM

kallol
15 June 2011, 05:24 AM
I am hardly literate in terms of scriptures. I listen to discourses Gita and little bit of Kaibalya Upanishad and Introduction to Vedanta. These are my only knowledge. I am here to learn but being a scientist I will probe hard. I do not believe something without rediscovering the same. New discovery is always a pleasure for me.

a) What is Prakriti ? Where does it arise and why ? Does it have an independent existence ?

Prakriti is the matter principal. Without Purusha / Brahman / paraprakriti this part does not have existence.

b) What is Mind ? How are you sure that mind is Prakriti ? If you have got the answer to the first question, does it fit into that definition of prakriti ?

Mind is also known as sukhsma sarira - subtle body. This is also a matter principal. That is why medicine we take can alter state of mind.

c) If "I" doesn't belong to Mind & it also doesn't belong to Consciousness what does it belong to ? What did Ramana Maharishi say about Mind ?

I have mentioned that "I" is the feeling which come in conjuction of Mind and Consciousness. Needs both this entity. However I would be glad to know what Ramana Maharshi has said about Mind. Please direct me to the link.

d) "mind's presence in Ocean of Consciousness" --- what does it mean ? Is there anything which is not consciousness ? Do you know what Upanishads say about it ? What gives birth to mind ? In direct perception mind dissolves ... where does it go ? Any scriptural support for your proposition ?

The consciousness is all pervading, unchanging, timeless, attributeless entity, which is the source of existence. Matter by itself is not consciousness but is unknown without consciousness.

Upanishads - I do not know much. Please guide me to the right link. As far as I know mind is permanent through life and death, through creation and destruction. It moves from susupti stage to manifestation stage and back during destruction and creation. Mind is the entity which brings life in a body and its departure makes the body lifeless.
Because mind is a part of the ahamkara, it will ever move through births and deaths of bodies. There is no perfect mind (even Brahma has to take birth).

e) What do you mean by Nirguna Consciousness ? Can "I" exist in Nirguna state of existence which is devoid of all attributes ?


Consciousness is Nirguna. Whether or not "I" is attributeful or attributeless is the topic - what is the nature of "I". As I mentioned earlier by itself "I" cannot reside in Consciousness. But the feeling of "I" in the mind is the proof of Consciousness.

f) What is Saguna Ahamkaar ? Are there two types of Ahamkars i.e Saguna and Nirguna ? Which Scriptures say this ?

Ahamkara is always saguna and it was put in conjunction with nirguna consciousness to distinguish the natures. Sorry for the confusion created.

g) "Between the boundary of mind and consciousness, and the saguna ahamkara there are many filters and layers. These brings in apparent distortion in the "I" " ---- Which boundary and what filters and layers you are talking about ? What is the scriptural or great saints' support for this understanding ? Or is this purely your own making ?

The boundary here is the point of self realisation or enlightenment. The filters are the gunas like ego, desire, envy, (which are part of ahamkara) etc.

Scriptures are knowledge out of the minds of spiritual scientists. All knowledge is within us. The fact that all spiritual scientists have said the same thing is a proof that TRUTH is one. The path defined based on the time, society, space and experience. In Hinduism, we are lucky that we had a galaxy of these spiritual scientists who could come out with a comprehensive (non personal) path to attain mokhsa.

I will go through the link provided by you in the 3rd post. Sorry for not exploring fully.

My intention is to discuss and know more as deeper implications of the knowledge might be discovered through our present scientific knowledge.

Love and best wishes

yajvan
15 June 2011, 07:55 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

First note that my POV is from kaśmir śaivism . Many of the points above albiet valid, are from the śāṁkhya school of thinking...
fine indeed, but for me to explain 'I' ( as I understand it) limits me in the offering, hence the kaśmir śaivism approach assists me in the explanation.


Let me , if I may offer the first brick of the foundation
We know ahaṃ is defined as 'I'. This aham is known as sṛṣṭi-bīja. This sṛṣṭi means letting go , letting loose i.e. creation. We know bīja is seed, any germ , element , primary cause or principle . Hence sṛṣṭi-bīja means the primary cause of all of creation. Within this word it gives us the direction our ~audit trail~ on this 'letting go'.

Aham can be viewed as a + ha + ṃ. We start with a as the fundamental letter of all creation, and denotes śiva - pure consciousness, even subtler then pure consciousness is Being itself, Brahman. This a has spanda or vibration, yet is called Self-referral - it is aware of Itself.
This in turn yeilds ha and denotes śakti. The energetic principle of śiva. This in turn brings all creation into existence
and brings about ṃ. This ṃ is called nara we can define as all objective creation , this must then include all man-kind.

So in this 'I', ahaṃ , we have a +ha + ṃ and this indicates what resides in 'I'.

...a bit deeper
This pure I, this ahaṃ that is rooted in Being, in śiva, is considered anuttaraṃ अनुत्तर्ं. Lets look at it this way: an+uttara. Uttara उत्तर means superior , chief , excellent , dominant; it also means more, additional, better, more excellent. When the prefix of 'an' is added ( or 'a' , 'an' is used before the vowel 'u') it is considered 'not'. Hence an+uttara means not additional. That is, there is no addition one can make, hence anuttaraṃ cannot be surpassed, no additions to it is possible, therefore it is Supreme.
Now the muni Abhinavagupta-ji informs us that this anuttara is Supreme Divine Consciousness and therefore the experient of all that there is. That is, there is none other who can have this Supreme as the object of his/her experience - hence it is the Self-Luminous Universal Consciousness that cannot be surpassed.

... now bring in 'i'
In our experience we are within the realm of 'i'. Note I use the lower case 'i' here to help us understand the distinction of the two. We can call this lower case 'i' ahaṃkaraṇa. What does this mean ? ahaṃkaraṇa = ahaṃ + karaṇa

ahaṃ = all we discussed above, yet for this lets just call it Self-Luminous Universal Consciousness
karaṇa = doing; making , effecting , causing ; instrument , means of action

Hence this 'i' = ahaṃkaraṇa = an instrument , means of action = the individual being and = ṃ (nara) from the paragraph aforementioned.Our experience as a doer, as this being on this earth as an instrument; On how the Supreme throttles down from infinite to finite within the realm of creation is done through individual beings. We are one of these beings.

More to follow.

praṇām

devotee
15 June 2011, 08:22 PM
Namaste Kallol,


I am hardly literate in terms of scriptures. I listen to discourses Gita and little bit of Kaibalya Upanishad and Introduction to Vedanta. These are my only knowledge. I am here to learn but being a scientist I will probe hard. I do not believe something without rediscovering the same. New discovery is always a pleasure for me.

a) What is Prakriti ? Where does it arise and why ? Does it have an independent existence ?

Prakriti is the matter principal. Without Purusha / Brahman / paraprakriti this part does not have existence.

b) What is Mind ? How are you sure that mind is Prakriti ? If you have got the answer to the first question, does it fit into that definition of prakriti ?

Mind is also known as sukhsma sarira - subtle body. This is also a matter principal. That is why medicine we take can alter state of mind.

c) If "I" doesn't belong to Mind & it also doesn't belong to Consciousness what does it belong to ? What did Ramana Maharishi say about Mind ?

I have mentioned that "I" is the feeling which come in conjuction of Mind and Consciousness. Needs both this entity. However I would be glad to know what Ramana Maharshi has said about Mind. Please direct me to the link.

d) "mind's presence in Ocean of Consciousness" --- what does it mean ? Is there anything which is not consciousness ? Do you know what Upanishads say about it ? What gives birth to mind ? In direct perception mind dissolves ... where does it go ? Any scriptural support for your proposition ?

The consciousness is all pervading, unchanging, timeless, attributeless entity, which is the source of existence. Matter by itself is not consciousness but is unknown without consciousness.

Upanishads - I do not know much. Please guide me to the right link. As far as I know mind is permanent through life and death, through creation and destruction. It moves from susupti stage to manifestation stage and back during destruction and creation. Mind is the entity which brings life in a body and its departure makes the body lifeless.
Because mind is a part of the ahamkara, it will ever move through births and deaths of bodies. There is no perfect mind (even Brahma has to take birth).

e) What do you mean by Nirguna Consciousness ? Can "I" exist in Nirguna state of existence which is devoid of all attributes ?


Consciousness is Nirguna. Whether or not "I" is attributeful or attributeless is the topic - what is the nature of "I". As I mentioned earlier by itself "I" cannot reside in Consciousness. But the feeling of "I" in the mind is the proof of Consciousness.

f) What is Saguna Ahamkaar ? Are there two types of Ahamkars i.e Saguna and Nirguna ? Which Scriptures say this ?

Ahamkara is always saguna and it was put in conjunction with nirguna consciousness to distinguish the natures. Sorry for the confusion created.

g) "Between the boundary of mind and consciousness, and the saguna ahamkara there are many filters and layers. These brings in apparent distortion in the "I" " ---- Which boundary and what filters and layers you are talking about ? What is the scriptural or great saints' support for this understanding ? Or is this purely your own making ?

The boundary here is the point of self realisation or enlightenment. The filters are the gunas like ego, desire, envy, (which are part of ahamkara) etc.

Scriptures are knowledge out of the minds of spiritual scientists. All knowledge is within us. The fact that all spiritual scientists have said the same thing is a proof that TRUTH is one. The path defined based on the time, society, space and experience. In Hinduism, we are lucky that we had a galaxy of these spiritual scientists who could come out with a comprehensive (non personal) path to attain mokhsa.

I will go through the link provided by you in the 3rd post. Sorry for not exploring fully.

My intention is to discuss and know more as deeper implications of the knowledge might be discovered through our present scientific knowledge.

Love and best wishes

You are already having some fixed ideas of the Reality which is faulty as it is a mix-up of philosophies from various schools of Vedanta. The answer you are seeking can be explained by any one school in its own way. However, I find the Advaita Vedanta the most scientific in explaining the Reality as It is.

So, my advice to you is to drop all your concepts first & then start afresh with what is being offered. The substratum of everything ... all the three states of Self is the Fourth which is neither Being nor Non-being. This state cannot be described in words except with "Not this", "Not this". We must be ready to accept the Reality which cannot be grasped by our mind and sense organs. This state is the material and efficient cause of the three states i.e. the waking state (this world with gross body, sense organs etc.), the dreaming state (the world in dream and after death .... the subtle world having subtle bodies and enjoyment is only through mind) & the Prajna or the God state which is the origin and end of the first two states and is its controller and lord of both these worlds.

To make our understanding easy, let's see everything that Is as Infinite Ocean of Consciousness. This Ocean of Consciousness is both manifest and unmanifest in various forms and formlessness ... with attributes and also without attributes depending upon its vibratory modes. The vibration in this Ocean of Consciousness gives rise to this world that we see. The mind arises in it with ahamkar i.e. "i". "You" and "Me" actually don't exist .... they exist only as long as there is vibration in the Ocean of consciousness. These modes of vibration are equated with sounds "A" and "U" (of AUM ) in Mandukya Upanishad. The Reality without any conditioning is the silence coming after "A", "U" and "M".

IMO, you are mixing up brain with mind. Brain is an instrument through which the mind works. Mind is not within "you" ... "you" are within mind. The mind is this world ... there is no world in absence of mind. And what is mind ? Mind is nothing but the Self looking outward (away from Itself). There is Self alone that exists ... there is Only one and not-two.

I wish I had time to engage you in a detail discussion on this subject but it would take many days. You can easily get your answers if you read the thread I asked you to go through thoroughly and ponder over it. Another thread I can recommend on this issue is this :

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5123

However, you must go through the entire thread with patience. I also recommend you to go through Mandukya Upanishad read with Gaudapad Karika.

OM

kallol
15 June 2011, 11:55 PM
Dear Yajvanji,
Thanks for your beautiful analysis of the Aham and Ahamkara. It gives a new perspective to look at the words.

Thanks again.

Dear Devotiji,

Thanks for your patience and guidance. I will definitely look into the Mandukya upanisha (the spider example is from there).

I have heard discourses only from Paramarthanandaji of Chinmaya Mission. He follows mostly Shankarachaya line of interpretation. Though he also brings in analogies from other interprepations (a few) and the present day science and society. You can google and find out.

As mentioned in the scriptures, I would like to go through Sravanam, Mananam and Nividhhasanam. Until and unless I experience myself (through my analysis and rediscovery), I will anyway remain static in terms of spiritual growth. Belief is the begining of any subject. Realisation is the begining of the end.

For the nature of God, we had an elaborate discussion earlier - "Is God = brahman + maya ? "

There would be many falacies which would come out if we fail to understand the higher and lower natures of God. This ofcourse is another topic.

The fourth Self as I understand from your explaination is the Brahman "which is neither Being nor Non-being. This state cannot be described in words except with "Not this", "Not this". We must be ready to accept the Reality which cannot be grasped by our mind and sense organs." This part is very true.

"This state is the material and efficient cause of the three states". I would put it as "This state is the cause of the other three states". This is also True.

"let's see everything that Is as Infinite Ocean of Consciousness. This Ocean of Consciousness is both manifest and unmanifest in various forms and formlessness ... with attributes and also without attributes depending upon its vibratory modes. The vibration in this Ocean of Consciousness gives rise to this world that we see."

Here is where the difference lies. Consciousness is by itself unmanifest. Neither it is subject to time, nor change, nor attribute. These are the basic natures of consciousness which is the Higher nature of God and all manifested bodies.

Vibration cannot happen in consciousness as it will involve time, change, attribute.

These all happen in the Lower nature of God which is both manifest and unmanifest. Though it is True that the Lower nature is known only through the Higher nature, otherwise its existence is not known.

Krishna body is the lower nature where as "I" the Krishna is the Higher nature. But together is what we know as Krishna.

Now as Yajvanji mentioned the "i" identifies with the ahamkara - how does the "I" percolate down to "i" ? Where does "i" reside and is there any connections with the "i"s of the organs, cells of my body ?

Love and best wishes

devotee
16 June 2011, 12:54 AM
Namaste Kallol,



"let's see everything that Is as Infinite Ocean of Consciousness. This Ocean of Consciousness is both manifest and unmanifest in various forms and formlessness ... with attributes and also without attributes depending upon its vibratory modes. The vibration in this Ocean of Consciousness gives rise to this world that we see."

Here is where the difference lies. Consciousness is by itself unmanifest. Neither it is subject to time, nor change, nor attribute. These are the basic natures of consciousness which is the Higher nature of God and all manifested bodies.

Vibration cannot happen in consciousness as it will involve time, change, attribute.

These all happen in the Lower nature of God which is both manifest and unmanifest. Though it is True that the Lower nature is known only through the Higher nature, otherwise its existence is not known.

That shows that you have not read Gaudapad (Guru of Adi Shankaracharya) Karika (Alatashanti PrakaraNa) which talks of vibration of Consciousness.

You have some very strong views & I think I can't help you at this stage. I, therefore, quit this thread here.

With best wishes ...

OM

kallol
16 June 2011, 01:29 AM
Sorry Devotee ji,

My intention is not to hurt or be obstinate but to understand & learn with conviction.

Just by believing does not take me anywhere. But getting into the analysis and thereby rediscovering bring in a conviction in the mind. Thereafter we do not need books to validate the points. We will be living those points.

I would appreciate if you explain to me where and why I am wrong logically.

Sorry for probing deeper.

Love and best wishes

Onkara
16 June 2011, 03:10 AM
Kallol, my dear friend, :)
I expect Yajvanji will expand on his well written post above (one I will enjoy re-reading), so I hope not to encroach, but would like to offer something to this thread from my personal perspective.

The ego-mind or 'i' has no independent existence. It is itself a thought in the stream of thoughts that pass in front of your Consciousness. This is why mediation, japa, puja can aid to sever the knot which binds us to the lower self. They create a gap from the thoughts and strengthen the Consciousness which observes.

The question about where "i" resides, will fuel itself with the attention we give it. The more we try to find a location, the more frustrated and important the question will be. This can be so for many questions because their source is the mind itself. It is like a dog chasing its own tail.

Abiding as the pure "I" - as divine Consciousness is the remedy. If the question "how to abide as divine Consciousness?" arises then it is the "i" (the mind) which is asking. In other words the answer (and question) is still in the realm of thoughts, in the mind. That is fine as that is where questions and answers belong, but one must recognise that realm and that one is that which recognises it. Now add meditation, sit and watch awareness itself, the question will become quite, perhaps forgotten, but the "I" (Consciousness) will remain, keep with that "I".




Here is where the difference lies. Consciousness is by itself unmanifest. Neither it is subject to time, nor change, nor attribute. These are the basic natures of consciousness which is the Higher nature of God and all manifested bodies.

Vibration cannot happen in consciousness as it will involve time, change, attribute.

These all happen in the Lower nature of God which is both manifest and unmanifest. Though it is True that the Lower nature is known only through the Higher nature, otherwise its existence is not known.

Krishna body is the lower nature where as "I" the Krishna is the Higher nature. But together is what we know as Krishna.

Now as Yajvanji mentioned the "i" identifies with the ahamkara - how does the "I" percolate down to "i" ? Where does "i" reside and is there any connections with the "i"s of the organs, cells of my body ?

Love and best wishes

kallol
16 June 2011, 04:23 AM
Dear Onkara, :hug:

I agree to your post totally.

However my intention is to find out if there is a co-relation of "I" as kallol and "i"s as the organs and cells which make kallol.

Do those "i"s affect or confuse my mind when I am trying to seek that "I" ?

Another way of asking the same would be "How is the body affecting the search for "I" ?

I am trying to prick the brains. Hope Yajvanji would dive deeper to show me the way to think.

Love and best wishes

Onkara
16 June 2011, 04:55 AM
Dear Kallol
Thanks for clarifying, I hope I can better address your point.

My response would be yes, the mind and body are material and consequently linked. The parts affect the whole. As your example above, what medicine we consume can affect the mind. The body is food and hence the mind is influenced by food. Likewise our search for the Self and sadhana is affected by the body.

The body, or lower self, is not a burden, it too is divine and can serve us. As it appears in the Srimad Bhagavatam, the mind can be used like a thorn to remove another thorn and arrive at the highest Self. This is why a human birth is an auspicious birth and we are told to use it well, to find the divine.

Here is an article on food and the mind, should it help (I have not yet digested it whole so cannot vouch for the quality of its content - pun intended :D, ):

http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection&section_id=860


Dear Onkara, :hug:

I agree to your post totally.

However my intention is to find out if there is a co-relation of "I" as kallol and "i"s as the organs and cells which make kallol.

Do those "i"s affect or confuse my mind when I am trying to seek that "I" ?

Another way of asking the same would be "How is the body affecting the search for "I" ?

I am trying to prick the brains. Hope Yajvanji would dive deeper to show me the way to think.

Love and best wishes

devotee
16 June 2011, 06:22 AM
Sorry Devotee ji,

My intention is not to hurt or be obstinate but to understand & learn with conviction.

Just by believing does not take me anywhere. But getting into the analysis and thereby rediscovering bring in a conviction in the mind. Thereafter we do not need books to validate the points. We will be living those points.

I would appreciate if you explain to me where and why I am wrong logically.

Sorry for probing deeper.

Love and best wishes

There is no question of hurt feeling here. I can understand your problem as I myself am an Engineer by profession and like to see things in a logical manner.

... and it is not at all a matter of probing deeper or otherwise. It appears to you that you are probing deeper ... to me it is just a matter of sticking to conditioned way of perceiving things and imho, you have to work towards that. Therefore, it is only you who can help you & no one else.

OM

kallol
16 June 2011, 08:49 AM
Dear Kallol
Thanks for clarifying, I hope I can better address your point.

My response would be yes, the mind and body are material and consequently linked. The parts affect the whole. As your example above, what medicine we consume can affect the mind. The body is food and hence the mind is influenced by food. Likewise our search for the Self and sadhana is affected by the body.

The body, or lower self, is not a burden, it too is divine and can serve us. As it appears in the Srimad Bhagavatam, the mind can be used like a thorn to remove another thorn and arrive at the highest Self. This is why a human birth is an auspicious birth and we are told to use it well, to find the divine.

Here is an article on food and the mind, should it help (I have not yet digested it whole so cannot vouch for the quality of its content - pun intended :D, ):

http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection&section_id=860

Dear Onkara,

Your part is again very true. Even in the link, I find the essence is true. However there is one point where I am a bit confused now.

If mind is purely out of food we take, then what medium the past karmaphals use to carry over. How is life / consciousness getting into a body ? As I know mind is the medium (reflector) through which life / consciousness gets int bodies.

I can understand that food nurtures mind state but mind being out of food only - I am not able to grasp. It leads to other falacies.

Is there any deeper analysis on this ?

Love and best wishes

Onkara
16 June 2011, 10:42 AM
Dear Kallol,
The subtle body (Liṅga Śarīra) is the medium. The beautiful Srimad Bhagavatam explains this well, for example:

I suggest: http://vedabase.net/sb/7/2/en

see Canto 7.2.47 for "subtle body": http://vedabase.net/sb/7/2/47/

Hope that removes more doubts :)




Dear Onkara,

Your part is again very true. Even in the link, I find the essence is true. However there is one point where I am a bit confused now.

If mind is purely out of food we take, then what medium the past karmaphals use to carry over. How is life / consciousness getting into a body ? As I know mind is the medium (reflector) through which life / consciousness gets int bodies.

I can understand that food nurtures mind state but mind being out of food only - I am not able to grasp. It leads to other falacies.

Is there any deeper analysis on this ?

Love and best wishes

yajvan
16 June 2011, 01:07 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kallol,


Dear Yajvanji,
Thanks for your beautiful analysis of the Aham and Ahamkara. It gives a new perspective to look at the words.

Thanks again.

This sets the stage to answer your questions more appropriately... We are not done yet and I can continue if you wish.



"let's see everything that Is as Infinite Ocean of Consciousness. This Ocean of Consciousness is both manifest and unmanifest in various forms and formlessness ... with attributes and also without attributes depending upon its vibratory modes. The vibration in this Ocean of Consciousness gives rise to this world that we see."

Here is where the difference lies. Consciousness is by itself unmanifest. Neither it is subject to time, nor change, nor attribute. These are the basic natures of consciousness which is the Higher nature of God and all manifested bodies.

Vibration cannot happen in consciousness as it will involve time, change, attribute.
Vibration in consciousness is how creation begins and is sustained. This is supported and reviewed in the spanda-kārikā-s, a kaśmir śaivism important śāstra (document).
This ~vibration~ is called Self-referral . This pure Being is aware of Itself - that is the 'throb' , the vibration if you will, that is reviewed in the spanda-kārikā-s. That is why it is different then śāṁkhya and in some cases vedānta schools of thinking.

You see, in kaśmir śaivism ( an advaya or non-dual view), pure Being, Brahman is not inert - we see this in the śāṁkhya view. The very 1st verse of the spanda-kārikā-s( based upon the sage's experience) suggests that this Self-referral quality ( spanda) is the basic nature of pure Being ( we call śiva, some prefer Brahman).

So if you are locked into one school of thought you will come to an end in your thinking that leaves you on a remote island without a ship to take you to the shores of understanding.
Note this is not an advertisement for you to pursue any one school over the other... Continue to explore, ponder.
The wise inform us, it is not what you do not know that is an issue, but what you do know that's just not correct, that gets one into a bind.

So, a bit more reading and study will be good, but also direct personal experience is the formula for greater understanding.

Various HDF members will be happy to help. May I suggest one issue/doubt at a time? It will lead to other answers for you.

If you are okay with that then my last post will be a foundation to answer your initial 3 to 4 questions , if we follow a progression of thought . If this is acceptable to you, I will be happy to proceed. If you care to go in another direction, let us know.

praṇām

kallol
17 June 2011, 12:02 AM
Dear Kallol
Thanks for clarifying, I hope I can better address your point.

My response would be yes, the mind and body are material and consequently linked. The parts affect the whole. As your example above, what medicine we consume can affect the mind. The body is food and hence the mind is influenced by food. Likewise our search for the Self and sadhana is affected by the body.

The body, or lower self, is not a burden, it too is divine and can serve us. As it appears in the Srimad Bhagavatam, the mind can be used like a thorn to remove another thorn and arrive at the highest Self. This is why a human birth is an auspicious birth and we are told to use it well, to find the divine.

Here is an article on food and the mind, should it help (I have not yet digested it whole so cannot vouch for the quality of its content - pun intended :D, ):

http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection&section_id=860

Dear Onkara,

I was thinking in your link and direction. Some light I see at the end of the tunnel. Though it is still hazy but it gives some kind of correlation - food and I.

The foods are different types - air, water, fruits, vegetables, etc. Again it varies at different levels. How we define food ?

At human level, the food is to sustain the body. At organ level, it is an external object to which they react. The reaction and the resultant outcome varies.

If I bring that phenomenon at human level it is similar to the external stimulii which are coming through the sense organs. The processing of those stimulii is done with help of mind and intellect and the outcome of it is done through mind and action organs. Based on this the state of mind changes. Which in turn affects or contributes towards the frequency / vibration at the higher levels. Again state of mind has huge effect on the body also.

The same is possibly happening at the lower levels. The resultant outcome changes / alters the state of the organ's mind - for better, worse. This outcome moves up to alter in the state of mind at human level. So the state of i s at lower level contribute towards the state of I at human level.

Basically they are pure and same as "I" but due the the external "food" over which both the lower levels and human have less control contributes towards the formation of the apparent i and I. Which arise due to the layers of karmaphals of the lower and human level covering the real "I".

This is just a thought process. Need to delve more.

Love and best wishes

sarangi dasi
17 June 2011, 07:27 AM
A few questions :

1. Where does this "I" lie ?

2. What are the natures of "I" ?

3. There is a firewall between your "I" and my "I". This is true for all levels. Mine with my brain, my liver, my heart, etc and also at the next levels of the cells. All of them have "I" but I do not know or connect with that "I".

How are these "I"s interlinked ?

Love and best wishes:)

I is conscious identity. It is an expression consciousness aware of itself. There is no firewall other than infinite potency. Your I and my I, while functionally the same, are each subjectively different (in content of experience). By culture (communciation of commnalities), spiritual, ethnic etc, we may decrease the diffrences in content but never extinguish the differences. As universal consciousness is infinite, so its minute microcosms (your I and my I and his I and her I), also have infinite range and scope.

kallol
17 June 2011, 09:53 AM
I is conscious identity. It is an expression consciousness aware of itself. There is no firewall other than infinite potency. Your I and my I, while functionally the same, are each subjectively different (in content of experience). By culture (communciation of commnalities), spiritual, ethnic etc, we may decrease the diffrences in content but never extinguish the differences. As universal consciousness is infinite, so its minute microcosms (your I and my I and his I and her I), also have infinite range and scope.

Thanks Sarangiji. What you said is eternally true as far my knowledge goes.

Love and best wishes

kallol
17 June 2011, 10:03 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kallol,



This sets the stage to answer your questions more appropriately... We are not done yet and I can continue if you wish.


Vibration in consciousness is how creation begins and is sustained. This is supported and reviewed in the spanda-kārikā-s, a kaśmir śaivism important śāstra (document).
This ~vibration~ is called Self-referral . This pure Being is aware of Itself - that is the 'throb' , the vibration if you will, that is reviewed in the spanda-kārikā-s. That is why it is different then śāṁkhya and in some cases vedānta schools of thinking.

You see, in kaśmir śaivism ( an advaya or non-dual view), pure Being, Brahman is not inert - we see this in the śāṁkhya view. The very 1st verse of the spanda-kārikā-s( based upon the sage's experience) suggests that this Self-referral quality ( spanda) is the basic nature of pure Being ( we call śiva, some prefer Brahman).

So if you are locked into one school of thought you will come to an end in your thinking that leaves you on a remote island without a ship to take you to the shores of understanding.
Note this is not an advertisement for you to pursue any one school over the other... Continue to explore, ponder.
The wise inform us, it is not what you do not know that is an issue, but what you do know that's just not correct, that gets one into a bind.

So, a bit more reading and study will be good, but also direct personal experience is the formula for greater understanding.

Various HDF members will be happy to help. May I suggest one issue/doubt at a time? It will lead to other answers for you.

If you are okay with that then my last post will be a foundation to answer your initial 3 to 4 questions , if we follow a progression of thought . If this is acceptable to you, I will be happy to proceed. If you care to go in another direction, let us know.

praṇām

Thanks Yajvan ji. I believe, I will take some time to understand this. At this point it is looking slightly perplexing. But I will surely do more research to have better understanding on this.

All persons being unique, they have different adhar to absorb and be comfortable. This ofcourse change with time (which affects body, mind, intellect). So are the differences in perceptions, opinions and approach.

Pardon me if I look a bit stubborn.

Love and best wishes

saidevo
17 June 2011, 10:41 PM
namaste Kallol.

I appreciate the sincerity and humility shown by you in seeking answers to your questions, admist various suggestions. Just like you, I am not much familiar with Hindu scriptures (because of no systematic study as yet). I am an advaitin who believes that advaita is the final answer, but then the answers of dvaita and vishiShTAdvaita also are real and fit at their own hierarchical levels below advaita, in the vyavahArika satyam--practical reality, of the jagat--world.

The most famous mahAvAkya says: tattvamasi--"That thou art", or in another words "The self is Brahman". The self, that is, the 'I-consciousness' in us works differently at different levels of abstraction/association.

• At the physical level, it is associated with the body. We commonly say, looking at a photograph of ours, "It is I (me)."

• At the mental level, it is a feeling and thought: "I feel, I think, etc." "I think, therefore I am" said Descartes, which is incorrect and should be, "I am, therefore I think" as BhagavAn DAs has pointed out.

• At the intellectual level, as associated with buddhi, it works as the voice of our mana-sAkShin--conscience.

• At the spiritual level, it identifies itself with the jIvAtman--individual self.

• At all levels, the I-consciousness, in essence, is the Self--Atman/Brahman, which amounts to an existential experience, which is ubiquitous among all the jIvas.

‣ Every individual self has this immanent nature of 'I' which transcends gender; and every individual self identifies another self it meets with as 'you', and a group of individual selves as 'we', with pronouns that transcends gender too.

• Of the nature of nirguNa brahman that is, sat-chit-Ananda, the individual self, 'I', readily knows about and experiences the sat--existence/truth, aspect, without being taught, right from the birth.

• The other two aspect are known and experienced in bits and pieces only. The more the individual self learns to know about and experiences the chit--consciousness/intelligence/knowledge, and the Ananda--bliss/peace, aspects of Brahman, the more it transcends the individual self and comes into the nature of the universal Self.

• What has the manas--mind, to do with, in all these facets of existence? Let us remember that all knowledge and proof we seek are only of the human mind, by the mind and for the mind. So long as the knowledge we gain is associated with the mind, it is shaded by avidyA--nescience. Only when we attain the knowledge that transcends the mind, we can experience its other aspects of chit, Ananda in full.

‣ Ironically, all knowledge--including the knowledge of our Self as identical to Brahman--is obtained through the mind. This means that the mind is the field of action and flow of knowledge.

‣ It is the field of activity for sensual information in jAgrat--waking level of existence. In svapna--dream level, it is the field of activity for its own creations, in whose drama, the self plays different roles. In suShupti--deep sleep, the darkness of avidyA completely dominates it, which is why the mind is not aware of the experience the peace and bliss, although it merges into its source, the Self in deep sleep.

‣ In the fourth state of existence--turiya, the mind increasingly becomes shuddha manas with only awareness and no thought pervading all over, so it becomes a perfect field of experience of the sat-chit-Ananda where the knower is rolled into the known and the knowledge.

*****

With this background observations, let us collect some shurti quotes for our ready reference, contemplation and meditation.

Brahman, the Self and the self

What do the mahAvAkyas speak about Brahman? If we look at them, we would find that except in two statements, they all speak from the viewpoint of duality. Arranging the mahAvAkyas from the viewpoint of advaita--non-duality, to dvaita--duality, we get:

01. ekam evadvitiyam brahma--Brahman is one, without a second.
--Chandogya upaniShad 6.2.1, of sAma veda

02. prajnAnam brahma--Consciousness is Brahman.
--aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda

03. sarvaM khalvidaM brahma--All of this is Brahman.
--Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda

04. ayam Atma brahma--This Self is Brahman.
-- mANDukya upaniShad 1.2, of Atharva Veda

05. tat tvam asi--Thou art that.
--Chandogya upaniShad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda, Kaivalya upaniShad

06. aham brahmAsmi--I am Brahman.
--bRhadaraNyaka upaniShad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda, mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad

Inasmuch as very term upaniShad requires a disciple to sit by the side of his guru and then both contemplate together on the meaning of the Reality, all the above mahAvAkyas might be considered as teachings, rather than statements. It's beautiful, the way the guru leads his disciples to the Reality of the Truth through these teachings:

• To start with, the guru makes a statement to indicate the target:
"Brahman is one, without a second."

• Then he describes the nature of that Brahman:
"Consciousness is Brahman."

• Lest the disciple think that only human beings with their superior consciousness are Brahman, the guru expands on the idea:
"All of this is Brahman."

• And then he gets personal, first by refering to the Self in everyone:
"This Self is Brahman." (This Self the big-I that Yajvan has indicated.)

• The disciple is anxious that if he and his guru can ever be equated because of the unity of Self, so the guru assures him:
"Thou art that." (The self referred to in 'thou' is the small-i that Yajvan indicated.)

This statement, which is the most famous, is perhaps the most significant one. Here Brahman is described as (a mere) tad--that, as if it is something distinct and located farther in space. tvam--thou, is more real to us than tad--that. The dhAtu--root, of both these terms simply indicate two entities: tad--that, tva--the other. The pronouns tad--that and tvam--you, have been derived from these roots.

The teaching of this mahAvAkya is "you are that": that is, what is considered 'you' and what is considered as 'that'--which is actually inside you--are not two different things but only an identical Reality.

• Finally, the guru zeros in on the first person and teaches "I am Brahman", and urges the disciple to have this thought persistently in mind at all times so he may eventually realize it. The aham is the small-i that gives the feeling of ahamkaraNa as Yajvan has explained.

Significantly, the teaching is, 'ahaM brahma asmi'--'I AM Brahman', not 'I was Brahman' or 'I will (one day) be Brahman'. I AM Brahman in my waking, dreaming and deep sleep states and the fourth state that I would be eventually be capable of existing--in this or in another birth.

The shikaram--peak, of all these mahAvAkyas of the upaniShads, is the cryptic statement of the Rg veda about the Reality: ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV 1.164.46.

*****

Nature of Brahman

aumiti brahma, aumitIdaM sarvaM |
--taittirIya upaniShad 1.8
"AUM is Brahma(n); AUM is all this."

satyam jnAnam anantam brahma
--taittirIya upaniShad 2.1.1
"Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite."

KAnchi ParamAchArya explains this verse as follows:

"sat-chit-Ananda brahmam is the meaning. anantam means infinite; also has the name bhUma. Only bhUmA--fullness, is the sukham--bliss, not the alpam--trifle. So anantam is sukham, Anandam. sat chit Anandam."

• In the vishiShTAdvaita vedAnta philosophy, Brahman has a two-fold nature: One substance, eternal, infinite, changeless, 'Ishvara', has two aspects, is animate and inanimate, chit and achit, conscious and unconscious, Self and Not-Self; and by its power, mAyA, shakti, this 'sove-reign Lord' causes interplay of the two, for its own high pleasure which there is none other to question, without any compulsion from without.

• The shAstra vAkyas--scriptural statements, that correspond to this philosophy are:

dve vAva brahmaNo rUpe, mUrtaM chaiva amUrtam cha |
--bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad 2.3.1
"It has two natures; one, Formless, the other Form;"

sa vai naiva reme, tasmAd ekAkI na ramate, sa dvitIyam aichchat, AtmAnaM dvedhA apAtayat | tataH patiSh cha patnI cha abhavatAM |
--bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad 1.4.3

"He was not at all happy. Therefore people (still) are not happy when alone. He desired a mate. He became as big as man and wife embracing each other. He parted this very body into two. From that came husband and wife."

sad asach cha |
--prashna upaniShad 2.5
"This god is the gross and the subtle."

sad asat cha ahaM arjuna |
--Bhagavad gItA 9.19
"I am also both the Sat and the Asat, O Arjuna!"

*****

• The taittirIya upaniShad statement above, "AUM is Brahma(n); AUM is all this", is very significant, because it marks the birth of the primeordial sound AUM, called nAda brahman, as the first manifestation of nirguNa brahman.

• It is from this AUM, the saguNa brahman who manifests as the trimUrti are born, which is one reason, AUM is part of most--if not all--lines of eulogy to a personal god.

• AUM is also the source and substratum of all the seven worlds, as the line AUM bhUr bhuva suvaH in the gAyatrI mantra, and the lines AUM buH, AUM bhuvaH, AUM suvaH, AUM mahaH, AUM janaH, AUM tapaH, AUM satyam in the prANAyAma mantra, indicate.

• In his book 'The Science of Peace', BhagavAn DAs synthesizes all philosophical knowledge--eastern and western--into the adhyAtma vidyA--knowledge of the Self and spells out the hierarchical levels where everything fits.

‣ He illustrates how the letters A, U, M in AUM stand for Atman--Self, anAtman--Not-Self, and niShedha--negation, and shows that the Self negates (as neti-neti), at every moment in time and point in space, the Not-Self (created by its own shakti--power) that arises to associate with, and because of this persistent negation, the creation of samsAra takes place, and moves in a cycle of sRShTi--creation, sthiti--sustenance, and pralaya--dissolution.

‣ Thus AUM as the praNava mantra is the sum total of Brahman in whom reside the Self, Not-Self and the power of negation.

I strongly recommend you and other seekers to read this book, which IMO, has all the answers for a seeker. I have serialized this book in sixteen threads here in HDF, starting with this thread:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2598

*****

kallol
18 June 2011, 12:30 AM
Dear Saidevo,

Brilliant content. Thanks. Thanks again for the well read and supported content. Definitely I will go through the content of your thread and try to get hold of the book.

I intend to go today to Sastraprakasika to get some more CDs on the discourses on upanishads.

Though nothing better than having a live Guru. I generally take refuge in Swami Paramarthananda (whose CDs I buy), whenever have doubt.

Thanks again for the guidance.

Love and best wishes