Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: prasaṅkhyāna (repetition)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,628
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: prasaṅkhyāna (repetition)

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté


    I wrote in the last post,
    With this false notion of ‘you’, it takes some getting use to, some explaining. Why ? Because most will say, I know myself. Well, this is in a general way. One knows their likes and dislikes, values, what to avoid, etc. This may be knowing some expression of you, but note one thing, the nature of ignorance (avidyā) is always dependent on something for its existence.
    sambandhokti ( ~ introduction~)
    I have been trying to think of ways to make this part simple to explain. Depending on who you read this śūkṣma śarīa (subtle body) may be defined as 17 components, some say 19 components, others may say 8, another says the city of 9 gates. See all the moving parts? What is one to do? Shoot for simplicity and for those that wish to see all the other components it is best to read up on them until you are satisfied.

    So, with that said, this post is aligned to the adhikāriṇaḥ pramiti jananko vedaḥ ( one who is eligible for this knowledge). This means if one reads and listens to this knowledge (of Self) and doesn’t ‘get it’ it just means he/she is not ripe for the information. What then to do ? Continue to listen , read, inquire etc. applying the ideas of post 6 above. It is all in the vein of prasaṅkhyāna or ‘repetition’, the core subject matter of this string.

    Let's Begin
    I often site the examples of I am happy, I am sad, I am big, I am little, I am ___( fill in the blank). Let’s see if I can offer a few ideas to get a better handle on this for those that still may be grasping at this. Let me borrow an approach from Ken Weber1 : I have feelings yet I am not those feelings; I have thoughts but I am not those thoughts, I have ideas, but I am not those ideas. I have a body, but I am not the body. In the same vein when I say I am Bob, Bob is just a name, and not authentically who I am. Just as saying I am a manager ( or teacher, student, taxi driver, maid, prime minister) , I really am none of these. Net-net ? People have confused what they do, or how they think, feel , behave, or how they are named for who they are. Why so? Because they have been conditioned in this manner over time ( again and again) and no one has told them otherwise. There are some simple ~proofs~ we can run to support these notions but let me stay out of the weeds for now.

    Click down one level ( and a bit more technical)
    You see , in the example above there is a perceiver, the method of perceiving, and the perceived ; the subject, the object, and the method of how this object is perceived or cognized.
    Cognized here means perceived, know, or become aware of. I can become aware of say a sound, I perceived the sound via my ability to hear. That is the method of perception for sound, the tongue for taste, the eyes for form, the skin and fingers for touch, the nose for smell. These are the methods of cognition... Yet too the mind and intellect also perceive and cognize , say an idea, a feeling ( I am happy, I am sad, I am frustrated, I am mad, etc.).

    Time to point out a thing or two
    When ‘I’ change from happy, to sad it went from one thing to another ( happy to sad), yet this ‘I’ only shifted from one cognition to another. Another example: ( and I think you will see the point). I hold an apple in my hands I perceive the apple via my eyes as an object; I then put it down and pick up a pencil.
    I now went to another object of perception, the pencil. I ‘chose’ in my mind to put my attention on the form of the apple and the pencil. I could have chosen the ‘feel’ of the apple and the pencil as the primary mode of cognition vs. sight. So, there are multiple ways to cognize, yet in each case we think ‘I’ am cognizing this apple or pencil ( this is an internal process) by sight or by feel.
    Within this cognition of the apple the intellect engages to discriminate; let’s say the person thinks ‘this apple is smoother than the pencil’ or 'the red of this apple is just about the same as this red pencil’. We have engaged some discrimination or comparison that occurs ( even a child can hold options on one thing being smoother or the same color as the other). In each case we take note that there is a perceiver, the method of perception (seeing, or touching, or smelling, etc.) and there is the object that is perceived ( the apple or pencil). Yet in these examples the ‘I’ that is the perceiver is the intellect. It serves as being ‘I’.

    What's the point ?
    Prior to this intellect there is something, and it is Self. One could say that this ‘I’ just mentioned ( intellect acting as 'I') is an object of the Self. That is, of all the things you think are very close to you as a thought, a feeling, etc. are also ~objects~ to the Self. Just when you think there is nothing behind ‘I’ , as the final stop in the progression of being ‘you’, there is something that is more refined than ‘I’ and that is Self. Some call Self the ultimate subject, as nothing can take it ( the Self) to be an object - as if it were a pencil or the apple just mentioned.
    So when I talked in brief about
    śūkṣma śarīa ( the subtle body) and all the moving parts of 17, 19, etc. components, the Self is not a part of these as all these ~components~ are external to Self - one could say they all are potential objects of the Self.

    But what is it ?
    If you read the paragraph again you will see I called out perception and awareness and cognition. Note we as humans say, I was aware of that,
    or I perceived a color, or smell, or taste, or what ever sense you are using ( including a thought); all these perceptions/cognitions are applying awareness in a direction. Yet the source of this is pure awareness, Self. It is pure consciousness, this is Self. Svāmī lakṣman-jū said the Self is like ākāśa ( pure space) filled with consciousness.

    You can see why this simple definition makes sense. If it is ~like~ pure space it is unbounded and with no constraints, yet it is filled with something, awareness itself. Seems simple, yet defining awareness takes some doing. We talk more of what it does than what it is,and will leave that for another time as speculation comes in.

    Yet just like space it does not announce itself! This seems to be one of the sticking points for people to ‘get’. For those looking for Self, they are looking for some-thing, some feeling, something special, some anouncement. Yet the Self is simple , pure, stainless, unbounded , it does not announce itSelf. You see if you experience some dazzle or bright light that then is an object and not the final subject of everything, the Self.

    Think of it this way ( as many use this example).
    • A movie is occurring on the movie screen. We see all the colors, all the movements on the screen, yet it all occurs on a white screen , that allows or ‘shows’ the movie. Like that, Self is that pure screen . It is something. Yet many of us are looking for It as something on the screen because we are conditioned to look for movement, color, action to compare and contrast.
    • The Self allows the field of action to occur. Think of this. Can anything ever happen, ever, without existence first? Self is pure existence; yet this existence is something, just as pure space is something. But people argue , hey space is nothing! I say you are right. It is no-thing! There is no-thing in space, as it is perfectly pure no-thing. Yet without space, tell me one thing that can exist out side of space? Even a thought which is close to no-thing still requires the ~space~ of consciousness to exist.
    • Go into an absolutely dark/black empty, soundless room. What do you perceive ? Nothing ( no-thing) - not in sound, sight, smell, etc. That in and of itself is a perception.


    So, one may leave with the impression that nothing occurs with the re-recognition of Self ( Self-realization). This is not the case , so says vasugupta-ji in his spandakārikā-s:

    तमधिष्ठातृभावेन स्वभावमवलोकयन्।
    स्मयमान इवास्ते यस्तस्येयं कुसृतिः कुतः॥११

    tamadhiṣṭhātṛbhāvena svabhāvamavalokayan|
    smayamāna ivāste yastasyeyaṁ kusṛtiḥ kutaḥ||11

    this says,
    when at that time ( or at that stage) you ( or he who abides - tasyeyaṁ āste) perceives the nature of Self (adhiṣṭhātṛbhāvena svabhāvam ) you will be wonderstuck (smayamāna iva).

    One must ask who then is doing the perceiving?

    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ


    1. Ken Weber – wrote the Forward section of Talks with Rāmaṇa Maharṣi

    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #12
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,628
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: prasaṅkhyāna (repetition)

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté


    I wrote in the post above,
    When ‘I’ change from happy, to sad it went from one thing to another ( happy to sad), yet this ‘I’ only shifted from one cognition to another. Another example: ( and I think you will see the point). I hold an apple in my hands I perceive the apple via my eyes as an object; I then put it down and pick up a pencil.
    There is a very revealing thing that occurs when one's perception\awareness goes from one object to another ( even a thought is an ~object~). In the example I offered an apple and a pencil.

    My attention is on the apple, but then I switch it to the pencil ( this too is quite interesting, this intent of switching from one thing to another, but will leave it for later). There is an in-between time of cognition #1 the apple and the switch to cognition #2 the pencil.
    Not many pay attention to this, but there is a small-small gap in-between ( madhya, middle most). What is there? It is pure awareness, just awareness by itself , undirected ~ as yet~ going to another object. This gap (madhya) is there between any two perceptions ( thoughts, touch, sightings) - here you can find this pure awareness. We even find it between wake and dream, dream and sleep - see post 6 & 8 here if there is interest:
    http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?14819-Self-Enquiry-vs-Open-Awareness-confusion&p=130407#post130407 .




    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ
    Last edited by yajvan; 18 May 2017 at 09:00 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  3. #13
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,628
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: prasaṅkhyāna (repetition)

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    from post 11 above,
    this says,
    when at that time ( or at that stage) you ( or he who abides - tasyeyaṁ āste) perceives the nature of Self (adhiṣṭhātṛbhāvena svabhāvam ) you will be wonderstuck (smayamāna iva).

    One must ask who then is doing the perceiving?
    I am hoping on reading post 11 a question comes to mind: if the intellect is in fact an ~ object~ when compared to Self, and Self is the final stop, there is nothing beyond r behind Self to view it as an ~ object~ who or what then perceives Self for enlightenment to occur? What is perceiving Self to be wonderstruct ?

    This re-enforces the notion that Self cannot be held as an object of perception like a pencil or apple , to be inspected. Yet consider this: Self in and of itself is pure awareness. This pure awareness fuels ( or is ) all other awareness ; the wise call it the rays from Self that take-on the form or enable the intellect, mind, etc. to function. Even if one cares to say I know the Self, this 'I' is nothing other than Self ( itSelf) as 'I'.
    So, this Self being awareness in fact has the capacity to know itSelf ... it needn't depend on any other function to know its Self ( by itself). Why ? Because it is completely independent - it depends on nothing ( no thing) for any thing. This was offered in post 10 above via the term
    svātantrya1 .

    Now this is supported ( the Self realizing, revealing 'vivṛ' itSelf) in 2 places, the kaṭhopaniṣat (kaṭha upaniṣad) and muṇḍaka upaniṣad 3.2.3. Let me point out the verse from the kaṭhopaniṣat 1.2.23 :

    यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यः
    तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम्
    ॥ २३
    yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ
    tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūṁ svām || 23

    pending how on translates the verse as there are some subtleties that bring out even more knowledge, the core message is (the) Self reveals (vivṛ) itSelf to whom it chooses. It also can be read as he chooses Self to whom the Self has chosen. Said in more ~ street terms~ , the one pursuing the Self is that one that the Self has chosen (already) to do so. This in many arenas is called His grace or kindness, favor (anugraha).

    For those that enjoy more connections in the matter, ādi śaṅkara-ji’s commentary on the īśavāsya upaniṣad 16th śloka says by the grace of thy Self I see that most auspicious form. I will let the reader look up this śloka and make the connections for their discovery.

    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ


    1. svātantrya - independence. It is said (in kaśmir śaivism) This Supreme independent (svātantrya) state of God Consciousness (caitanya) is the form. But the form of what? It is the 'form' of everything. This implies that solid ( body) or spiritual ( non-body) , material or non-material however subtle, has this form. It is the essence of everything, and this is the Supreme, Brahman.



    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •