The perceiver and the perceived are both unreal
In a comment that he wrote on one of my earlier articles, What should we believe?, a friend called Venkat asked:
The something that certainly exists is only ‘I’, because if something called ‘I’ did not actually exist, it could not be aware of either itself or anything else. However, though this ‘I’ now seems to be an ego (a person called Venkat, Michael or whatever, who consists of a body and mind), it may not be what it seems to be, so we need to investigate it in order to ascertain what it really is — that is, to ascertain who am I.
What now perceives itself and the world is this ego, which seems to exist throughout its waking and dream states, but not in sleep, so it is something that temporarily rises into (seeming) existence in waking and dream and subsides again in sleep. Whenever it rises into existence, it perceives a world, and whenever it subsides its perception of the world also subsides and ceases.
So long as there seems to be a perceiver (the ego), there also seems to be a world that it perceives, so the perceiver and the perceived rise into being simultaneously and subside simultaneously. In the absence of the perceiver, nothing is ever perceived, and in the absence of anything perceived, there is a never a perceiver. The perceiver and the perceived are therefore mutually dependent.
As Sri Ramana says in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
Therefore the seeming existence of the perceived depends upon the seeming existence of the perceiver, so the perceived actually exists only if the perceiver actually exists. So does this perceiver, the ego, actually exist? It seems to rise into existence and to endure only by experiencing the perceived, so throughout the time of its seeming existence it never experiences itself alone, in complete isolation from everything else perceived by it.
Since it cannot rise or endure without experiencing some form or other (that is, something other than itself), if it tries to experience itself alone, in complete isolation from everything else, it will subside and lose its seeming existence. This is why Sri Ramana says in this verse: ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), ‘If sought, it will take flight’. That is, the ego seems to exist only so long as it is experiencing anything other than ‘I’, so if it tries to experience only ‘I’ (itself), it ‘will take flight’ — that is, it will subside and cease to exist even seemingly.
As Sri Ramana says in verse 17 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
When we look carefully at the snake, we will see that what we were seeing all along was never actually a snake but always only a rope. The snake never actually existed even when it seemed to exist. Likewise, when we look carefully at the ego, we will see that what we were experiencing as ‘I’ all along was never actually an ego but always only our infinite real self. The ego never actually existed even when it seemed to exist.
Since the world is perceived only by the ego, its seeming existence depends entirely upon the seeming existence of the ego, so if the ego does not actually exist, whatever world it seems to perceive also does not actually exist. Therefore, since the ego seems to exist only when we mistake ourself to be a form (something other than the pure ‘I’ that we actually are), when we experience ourself as we really are, the ego will not seem to exist, and hence no world will seem to exist.
When we look carefully at an illusory snake and thereby recognise that it is actually only a rope, we can at least say that before we recognised what it really is, the snake did seem to exist, but in the case of the ego and world, we will not be able to say even this, because they seem to exist only in the view of the ego, which does not actually exist. That is, since according to Sri Ramana our real self (our pure adjunct-free ‘I’) never experiences anything other than itself, in its view the ego and world never even seemed to exist, so it would not be true to say that when we experience ourself as we really are, we will recognise that the ego and world just seemed to exist but were actually only false appearances.
This is why the ultimate truth (paramārtha) is not that the ego and world are just false appearances, but only that they never even seemed to exist. This ultimate truth is what is called ajāta: ‘non-born’, ‘non-engendered’, ‘non-arisen’, ‘non-originated’ or ‘non-happened’. Therefore according to ajāta vāda or ajāta siddhānta (the argument or conclusion that nothing has ever come into existence) the ego and world are absolutely non-existent and have never even seemed to exist.
Though Sri Ramana told us that this was his experience, he taught us that so long as we experience ourself as an ego and consequently perceive the world as if it were something other than ourself, the theories that are closest to the ultimate truth while still accommodating what we now seem to experience, and that will therefore be most helpful to us in our endeavour to experience what is real, are ēka-jīva-vāda (the argument that there is only one ego or jīva), vivarta vāda (the argument that the ego and world are false appearances) and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (the argument the ego’s perception of the world is what creates its appearance or seeming existence).
This is why Sri Muruganar wrote in verse 83 of Guru Vācaka Kōvai (which I quoted towards the end of my previous article, Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana) that Sri Ramana set aside or excluded all other theories and conclusions and taught that only vivarta vāda is true. The other theories that he set aside or excluded include both ajāta vāda and all the many forms of sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda (the theory that the creation of the world preceded the perception of it, or in other words, that the world exists independent of our experience of it). Since vivarta vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda are essentially the same theory described in two different ways, and since this theory entails ēka-jīva-vāda, when Sri Muruganar wrote that Sri Ramana taught that only vivarta vāda is true, he clearly implied that he taught that both ēka-jīva-vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda are also true.
If we accept that this set of theories, ēka-jīva-vāda, vivarta vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, are true, it should be obvious to us that the only way we can experience what is actually real is not by investigating or doing any kind of research on the world or anything else that we experience, but only by investigating ‘I’ — that is, by trying to experience ‘I’ alone, in complete isolation from everything else (including not only everything that seems to be other than ‘I’ but also everything that we now mistake to be ‘I’, such as our body and mind).
So long as we experience the ego and world, it would be absurd to pretend to ourself that we believe that these things do not even seem to exist. We can believe that they do not actually exist, and that their seeming existence is therefore a false appearance, but how can we believe that they do not even seem exist when their seeming existence is so obvious to us? Therefore if we are serious in our desire to experience what is actually real, we must for the time being set aside ajāta vāda, even though it is the ultimate truth, and must instead accept that for all practical purposes ēka-jīva-vāda, vivarta vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda alone are true.
Bhagavan said that ajata vada was the ultimate truth, in his experience. He also said that eka jiva vada (drsti srsti vada) was the 'closest' to ajata vada.I replied to this in another comment:
How did Bhagavan see these two being different, given that eka jiva vada says there is no existent creation, it is just the perceiving of it (i.e. it is a dream)?
Venkat, you should be able to understand the answer to your question by reading my latest article, Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana, so I will give just a brief reply to it here.Venkat responded to this reply of mine in a comment on my previous article, Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana, in which he wrote:
According to ēka-jīva-vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, there is one ego or jīva who perceives this world, which does not exist except in the view (the perception or experience) of that one ego. Therefore what causes the appearance of creation (sṛṣṭi) is only the perception (dṛṣṭi) of the ego.
The rising or appearance of this ego and consequently of the world is the jāta (birth or coming into existence) that is explicitly denied by ajāta-vāda. That is, ēka-jīva-vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda accept the appearance of the ego and world (though they deny that their appearance is real), whereas ajāta-vāda denies even their appearance.
What ēka-jīva-vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda on the one hand and ajāta-vāda on the other hand agree upon is that the ego and world do not actually exist, but whereas ēka-jīva-vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda accept that the ego and world do at least seem to exist and are therefore a false appearance (vivarta), ajāta-vāda denies that they even seem to exist. This is why Bhagavan distinguished dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda from ajāta-vāda.
What you have wrongly assumed in your question is that ēka-jīva-vāda implies that there is no creation but only perception, whereas in fact if anything is perceived it will seem to have come into existence or been created. Ēka-jīva-vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda are complementary theories, because each implies the other, and according to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda creation does seem to exist but is just a false appearance. Therefore though there is ultimately no creation according to this pair of theories, they do accept that there seems to be a world that has come into existence, and they say that it has been created only by ego’s perception of it, just as the world we see in a dream is created only by our perception of it.
In your reply to my question, you said that eka jiva vada postulates the appearance of a creation, though it is unreal, and implying that in ajata vada there is not even the appearance of a creation.As Venkat observes, it does seem to us that ‘perception of myself and the world is clearly here’, but this does not mean that either myself (the ego) or the world actually exists, or that they actually are what they seem to be, because when we mistake a rope to be a snake, the snake seems to be clearly there, even though it does not actually exist and is therefore not what it seems to be. When we perceive ourself (the ego) and the world, what is actually certain is only that something exists, even though that something may not be the ego and world that seem to exist.
The question that arises is that perception of myself and the world is clearly here. But I guess you would respond that if one seeks the source of the ‘I’ / ego, then that will disappear and with it the world. And it is ONLY THEN that it can be experienced that there is no perceived world either.
The something that certainly exists is only ‘I’, because if something called ‘I’ did not actually exist, it could not be aware of either itself or anything else. However, though this ‘I’ now seems to be an ego (a person called Venkat, Michael or whatever, who consists of a body and mind), it may not be what it seems to be, so we need to investigate it in order to ascertain what it really is — that is, to ascertain who am I.
What now perceives itself and the world is this ego, which seems to exist throughout its waking and dream states, but not in sleep, so it is something that temporarily rises into (seeming) existence in waking and dream and subsides again in sleep. Whenever it rises into existence, it perceives a world, and whenever it subsides its perception of the world also subsides and ceases.
So long as there seems to be a perceiver (the ego), there also seems to be a world that it perceives, so the perceiver and the perceived rise into being simultaneously and subside simultaneously. In the absence of the perceiver, nothing is ever perceived, and in the absence of anything perceived, there is a never a perceiver. The perceiver and the perceived are therefore mutually dependent.
As Sri Ramana says in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
உருப்பற்றி யுண்டா முருப்பற்றி நிற்குThat is, the ego (the perceiver) rises into being, endures and is nourished only by clinging to forms (that is, to things that it perceives). However, according to Sri Ramana whatever it perceives does not exist in its absence, so before it rises there is no form for it to cling to, and hence when it rises it simultaneously projects the forms that it clings to.
முருப்பற்றி யுண்டுமிக வோங்கு — முருவிட்
டுருப்பற்றுந் தேடினா லோட்டம் பிடிக்கு
முருவற்ற பேயகந்தை யோர்.
uruppaṯṟi yuṇḍā muruppaṯṟi niṟku
muruppaṯṟi yuṇḍumiha vōṅgu — muruviṭ
ṭuruppaṯṟun tēḍiṉā lōṭṭam piḍikku
muruvaṯṟa pēyahandai yōr.
பதச்சேதம்: உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும், உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை. ஓர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṯkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum, uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai. ōr.
அன்வயம்: உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை உரு பற்றி உண்டாம்; உரு பற்றி நிற்கும்; உரு பற்றி உண்டு மிக ஓங்கும்; உரு விட்டு, உரு பற்றும்; தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும். ஓர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai uru paṯṟi uṇḍām; uru paṯṟi niṯkum; uru paṯṟi uṇḍu miha ōṅgum; uru viṭṭu, uru paṯṟum; tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum. ōr.
English translation:Grasping form, the formless phantom-ego rises into being; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving [one] form, it grasps [another] form. If sought [examined or investigated], it will take flight. Investigate [or know thus].
Therefore the seeming existence of the perceived depends upon the seeming existence of the perceiver, so the perceived actually exists only if the perceiver actually exists. So does this perceiver, the ego, actually exist? It seems to rise into existence and to endure only by experiencing the perceived, so throughout the time of its seeming existence it never experiences itself alone, in complete isolation from everything else perceived by it.
Since it cannot rise or endure without experiencing some form or other (that is, something other than itself), if it tries to experience itself alone, in complete isolation from everything else, it will subside and lose its seeming existence. This is why Sri Ramana says in this verse: ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), ‘If sought, it will take flight’. That is, the ego seems to exist only so long as it is experiencing anything other than ‘I’, so if it tries to experience only ‘I’ (itself), it ‘will take flight’ — that is, it will subside and cease to exist even seemingly.
As Sri Ramana says in verse 17 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
மனத்தி னுருவை மறவா துசாவWhen we mistake a rope to be a snake, the snake does not actually exist, even though it seems to exist, and it seems to exist only as long as we do not look at it carefully to see what it actually is. Likewise, the ego (of which the mind is just an expanded form) does not actually exist, even though it seems to exist, and it seems to exist only as long as we do not look at it carefully to see what it actually is.
மனமென வொன்றிலை யுந்தீபற
மார்க்கநே ரார்க்குமி துந்தீபற.
maṉatti ṉuruvai maṟavā dusāva
maṉameṉa voṉḏṟilai yundīpaṟa
mārgganē rārkkumi dundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: மனத்தின் உருவை மறவாது உசாவ, மனம் என ஒன்று இலை. மார்க்கம் நேர் ஆர்க்கும் இது.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): maṉattiṉ uruvai maṟavādu usāva, maṉam eṉa oṉḏṟu ilai. mārggam nēr ārkkum idu.
English translation: When [one] investigates the form of the mind without forgetting, anything called ‘mind’ does not exist. For everyone this is the direct [straight, proper, correct or true] path.
When we look carefully at the snake, we will see that what we were seeing all along was never actually a snake but always only a rope. The snake never actually existed even when it seemed to exist. Likewise, when we look carefully at the ego, we will see that what we were experiencing as ‘I’ all along was never actually an ego but always only our infinite real self. The ego never actually existed even when it seemed to exist.
Since the world is perceived only by the ego, its seeming existence depends entirely upon the seeming existence of the ego, so if the ego does not actually exist, whatever world it seems to perceive also does not actually exist. Therefore, since the ego seems to exist only when we mistake ourself to be a form (something other than the pure ‘I’ that we actually are), when we experience ourself as we really are, the ego will not seem to exist, and hence no world will seem to exist.
When we look carefully at an illusory snake and thereby recognise that it is actually only a rope, we can at least say that before we recognised what it really is, the snake did seem to exist, but in the case of the ego and world, we will not be able to say even this, because they seem to exist only in the view of the ego, which does not actually exist. That is, since according to Sri Ramana our real self (our pure adjunct-free ‘I’) never experiences anything other than itself, in its view the ego and world never even seemed to exist, so it would not be true to say that when we experience ourself as we really are, we will recognise that the ego and world just seemed to exist but were actually only false appearances.
This is why the ultimate truth (paramārtha) is not that the ego and world are just false appearances, but only that they never even seemed to exist. This ultimate truth is what is called ajāta: ‘non-born’, ‘non-engendered’, ‘non-arisen’, ‘non-originated’ or ‘non-happened’. Therefore according to ajāta vāda or ajāta siddhānta (the argument or conclusion that nothing has ever come into existence) the ego and world are absolutely non-existent and have never even seemed to exist.
Though Sri Ramana told us that this was his experience, he taught us that so long as we experience ourself as an ego and consequently perceive the world as if it were something other than ourself, the theories that are closest to the ultimate truth while still accommodating what we now seem to experience, and that will therefore be most helpful to us in our endeavour to experience what is real, are ēka-jīva-vāda (the argument that there is only one ego or jīva), vivarta vāda (the argument that the ego and world are false appearances) and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (the argument the ego’s perception of the world is what creates its appearance or seeming existence).
This is why Sri Muruganar wrote in verse 83 of Guru Vācaka Kōvai (which I quoted towards the end of my previous article, Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana) that Sri Ramana set aside or excluded all other theories and conclusions and taught that only vivarta vāda is true. The other theories that he set aside or excluded include both ajāta vāda and all the many forms of sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda (the theory that the creation of the world preceded the perception of it, or in other words, that the world exists independent of our experience of it). Since vivarta vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda are essentially the same theory described in two different ways, and since this theory entails ēka-jīva-vāda, when Sri Muruganar wrote that Sri Ramana taught that only vivarta vāda is true, he clearly implied that he taught that both ēka-jīva-vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda are also true.
If we accept that this set of theories, ēka-jīva-vāda, vivarta vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, are true, it should be obvious to us that the only way we can experience what is actually real is not by investigating or doing any kind of research on the world or anything else that we experience, but only by investigating ‘I’ — that is, by trying to experience ‘I’ alone, in complete isolation from everything else (including not only everything that seems to be other than ‘I’ but also everything that we now mistake to be ‘I’, such as our body and mind).
So long as we experience the ego and world, it would be absurd to pretend to ourself that we believe that these things do not even seem to exist. We can believe that they do not actually exist, and that their seeming existence is therefore a false appearance, but how can we believe that they do not even seem exist when their seeming existence is so obvious to us? Therefore if we are serious in our desire to experience what is actually real, we must for the time being set aside ajāta vāda, even though it is the ultimate truth, and must instead accept that for all practical purposes ēka-jīva-vāda, vivarta vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda alone are true.
Posts
26 comments:
Sir, you have clearly explained the meaning of the terms eka-jiva-vada, drsti-srsti-vada, vivarta-vada and ajata-vada in this and in your previous article.
How or where does advaita-vada fit in? Is it a synonym of vivarta-vada?
Thanking you and pranams
Sanjay, advaita means ‘non-two-ness’ (a-dvi-tā), so advaita-vāda is the argument or theory that there is absolutely no twoness or duality. The most complete and radical expression of advaita-vāda is therefore ajāta-vāda, because according to ajāta-vāda not only does twoness not actually exist but it does not even seem to exist.
However, vivarta vāda is also compatible with advaita-vāda, because according to vivarta vāda twoness does not actually exist even though it seems to exist. That is, vivarta vāda accepts that distinctions (dualities or twonesses) such as the perceiver and the perceived (the ego and the world) seem to exist, but it argues that their seeming existence is just a false appearance (vivarta) and hence unreal.
Because we now experience duality, we cannot apply ajāta-vāda in practice, so though ajāta was his actual experience, in his teaqchings Bhagavan (like Sankara and other advaitic sages) set aside ajāta-vāda and taught that vivarta vāda alone is true.
Sir, thank you for this clarification.
I think we can say that advaita (a-dvi-ta) vada is absolutely equal to ajata-vada, whereas these two are relatively equal to vivarta-vada. That is – as long as we experience ourself as this ego, mind or body, we can take vivarta-vada to be true relative to our experience of ego, mind or body.
Moreover if we believe in vivarta we are automatically believing in ajata (to a small or large extent), because after all all illusory dualities and triputis can only be experienced on the real, permanent, unborn and uncreated substratum of ajata.
Therefore, as you say, ‘Bhagavan (like Sankara and other advaitic sages) set aside ajata-vada and taught that vivarta-vada alone true’. Bhagavan, Sankara and other advaitic sages are ever established in ajata or pure-advaita, but for our sake they give seeming reality to this world of names and forms, without even experiencing these names and forms in any way.
Of course their only aim is to see that we also experience ajata or pure-advaita, beyond all dualities and triputis.
Thanking you and pranams.
Yes, Sanjay, ajāta vāda is pure advaita, and we can say that vivarta vāda is a relative or diluted form of advaita, because it is only true relative to our experience of ourself as an ego who perceives the world.
However, it is not quite true to say, ‘if we believe in vivarta we are automatically believing in ajata’, because strictly speaking we cannot believe in both vivarta vāda and ajāta vāda, since vivarta vāda acknowledges that the ego and world seem to exist (though only as false appearances), whereas ajāta vāda denies that they even seem to exist. So long as we experience ourself as an ego and therefore perceive the world, we cannot but believe that they do at least seem to exist, so we cannot truly believe in ajāta.
Since ajāta is the state in which the ego and mind do not even seem to exist, it is beyond the range of belief or mental conception. Therefore when we say that we believe in ajāta vāda, what we actually believe in is just the ideas that ajāta is the ultimate truth, that it is Bhagavan’s actual experience and that it will be our experience when we experience ourself as we really are, whereas ajāta vāda denies the existence or even the seeming existence of the one who believes these ideas.
Incidentally, when I wrote in my previous comment that Bhagavan set aside ajāta vāda and taught that vivarta vāda alone is true, I was paraphrasing Sri Muruganar’s words in verse 83 of Guru Vācaka Kōvai, ‘விவர்த்த சித்தாந்தமே மெய் ஆக விண்டார்’ (vivartta siddhāntam-ē mey āha viṇḍār), ‘[he] taught as true only vivarta siddhānta’, but to express the idea more clearly and to avoid ambiguity I should perhaps have written that he set aside ajāta vāda and taught that vivarta vāda alone is true for all practical purposes.
Yes sir, it makes clearer when you write: ‘vivarta-vada alone is true for all practical purposes’.
However is there much difference between our belief in vivarta-vada and our belief in ajata-vada? I think both are only mental beliefs or ideas or concepts till we transcend our mind. Like self-knowledge is also a concept till be attain it.
We may believe in vivarta-vada or that everything is an illusory dream, but can we ever fully experience vivarta till we transcend our mind? We may momentarily think while we are dreaming that what we are experiencing then is an illusory dream, but the very next moment we may take our dream to be real. Similarly I feel ajata-vada is also a belief, though it is a much more subtle belief.
Till our ego is intact we can never fully believe or be convinced of either vivarta-vada or ajata-vada. Of course as our ego gets more and more undermined we may start having stronger and stronger conviction in vivarta-vada. Similarly we may also start getting a taste of a relative ajata as our ego is close to destruction.
We can never fully believe or experience vivarta, we can only transcend it or wake up from the dream of self-ignorance by experiencing ourself as we really are, thereby we will become established in ajata.
Please clarify my understanding.
Thanking you and pranams.
Silence is not an idea or a concept. It's not an illusion, it doesn't require belief. It is here, now, always.
"That which should be adhered to is only the experience of silence..."
Sanjay, I have replied to your latest comment in a new article, We can believe vivarta vāda directly but not ajāta vāda, which I have posted here today.
Michael, your glorious article touched "my soul".
Michael,
your reply to Sanjay Lohia, dated 29 September 2014 10:24 has a little typo:
Sentence beginning with
"Because we now experience duality, ...,"
instead of "teaqchings" you wanted to write "teachings" .
Thank you, Josef, for pointing out this typo. I hope I do not distort his teachings in such an obvious way too often.
Oh Michael, any typo is not worth mentioning.
Surely your work is not distortion but clearing insight into Sri Ramana's teaching.
How can we ever thank you ?
Josef, when I can’t even spell ‘teachings’ correctly, how can I hope to expound them correctly?
Michael, how right you are.
Your interpretations are indeed highly dangerous for us perceivers.
We have to be constantly on our guard against any threat of humiliation.
Josef, humiliation can only be for our ego, and since the ego is our worst enemy (being the cause of all our troubles), if it is humiliated that is surely good for us. What we need to be on our guard against is it reacting adversely to humiliation instead taking it as a prompting to subside humbly within.
Michael,
don't worry ! My last comment was intended ironically and my complain about humiliation was in the sense of your reply.
Michael,
The article "The perceiver and the perceived are both unreal" is well written.
But we should be aware that the time to discuss the ultimate truth is not the present moment.
Because our only tool is the mind which is undisputed not a suitable means to think/speak about that theme we as current (seeming) ajnanis do not know anything about the ultimate truth.
Not at all we can understand ajata before becoming ajata by our own experience.
Just as much we could discuss if the far side of the sun is hot or cold.
Likewise when the ego looks carefully at itself (the ego), what will be the result ?
We should not be surprised that then our landing will be only in the port of „false appearance“.
So a wise man like Sri Ramana can do not more( for us) than point out that we firstly must set us in the pure adjunct-free state.
Only after it our then present omniscience may tell about ajata.
Only after it we may reflect or ponder about the absolute non- existence of a perceiving ego and a perceived world.
To put the cart before the horse does not help us. Therefore we cannot seriously accept any of the mentioned theories as true.
As you say rather we have to investigate 'I' with imperturbable and unwavering perseverance.
Kashyapa, Bhagavan mentioned that ajāta is the ultimate truth in order to prevent us having too many misconceptions about it, but as you say we cannot adequately conceive what ajāta is, but can only experience it by merging within and dissolving our illusory ego in the perfect clarity of pure adjunct-free self-awareness.
The closest our mind can come to understanding the ultimate truth is vivarta vāda: the view that the ego and world do not actually exist but only seem to exist. Even this is not the ultimate truth (because the ultimate truth is that they do not even seem to exist), but it is the standpoint that Bhagavan adopted for his teachings, because it is the most helpful view for us to adopt when we are trying to free ourself from our attachment to anything other than what we actually are.
Thanks Michael,
Yes, after merging within and dissolving our illusory ego in the perfect clarity of pure adjunct-free self-awareness we can (will)
experience ajata and in this way understand the ultimate truth.
It is curiously that just (my)the illusory ego now intensively desires for dissolving itself.
Now in this moment I do not care
about the idea if the perceiver and the perceived are both unreal...
Just now I cannot observe if there is a perceiver or if such one is only seeming to exist.
At the moment I am subsiding into the absence of a perceiver... into anything inside
and I am witnessing to the occurence happening (in me ?)...
Kashyapa, so long as there is an ‘I’ to say ‘I do not care’, ‘I cannot observe if there is a perceiver’, ‘I am subsiding’ or ‘I am witnessing to the occurrence happening’, that ‘I’ is the perceiver and these experiences are what is perceived by it. However, according to Bhagavan both of these are unreal, as we will discover if we cease observing or perceiving anything else and instead try to observe ourself alone.
Thank you Michael for correcting my woolly and confused view with which I wanted only to depict that I was just starting to try to subside the mind. But herewith I have been just demonstrating the perceiving 'I' and its perceived experiences.
Yes,yes trying to observe myself alone is a dictate of good sense in the present moment.
Sri Michael James,
Your answer to Kashyapa, 16 February 2015:
From the view of BHAGAVAN it is easy to say what is real and what is unreal.
But we ajnanis cannot be placed on the same level with him. We cannot play "Ramana".
What will be our benefit or advantage when we repeat Ramana's teachings and experiences parrotfashion ?
Maybe in one million years we may have learned to cease observing or perceiving anything else and instead to observe ourself alone.
Dear Micheal Sir,
Bhagavan also used to give an illustration of a play being enacted on the stage wherein we identify with one of the characters and suffer its pain and pangs when in reality we are like the screen unaffected.
This theory seems more in resonance with our empirical existence wherein we see many people (equivalent to the characters in the play- ourselves being one of them) - seemingly real because of their being associated with Brahman - but infact real.
In terms of the Eka Jiva , it would mean one of the characters not only dreams himself but also the screen and the other characters - this is also another way of presenting the same truth but so much more harder to accept, since we are so used to seeing the world as real.I think in the Ullada Narpadu,Laxmana Sarma propogates about the eka Jiva theory and in the Talks also Bhagavan sames the same thing.eg :- When one devotee talks about wife , relatives he says are they in you or you in them .However when Bhagavan says 'you' he means the real you or rather "I-I ".
To people of philosophical bent of mind,one of the above ways of presenting the truth would appeal and should spur them to the more immediate requirement of investigating oneself.
Micheal Sir, will appreciate one thing .In the context of both above theories , where does Bhagavan fit in our lives.
Will appreciate if you can make a demarcation,one in terms of devotees who lived with him in his lifetime and one in terms of us , who were not blessed to be associated with him , in his lifetime.
Regards,
Anand Sundaram.
I have corrected some inadvertent typo mistakes and reproducing for your kind feedback.
Dear Micheal Sir,
Bhagavan also used to give an illustration of a play being enacted on the stage wherein we identify with one of the characters and suffer its pain and pangs when in reality we are like the screen unaffected.
This theory seems more in resonance with our empirical existence wherein we see many people (equivalent to the characters in the play- ourselves being one of them) - seemingly real because of their being associated with Brahman - but infact unreal.
In terms of the Eka Jiva , it would mean one of the characters not only dreams himself but also the screen and the other characters - this is also another way of presenting the same truth but so much more harder to accept, since we are so used to seeing the world as real.I think in the Ullada Narpadu,Laxmana Sarma propogates about the eka Jiva theory and in the Talks also Bhagavan sames the same thing.eg :- When one devotee talks about wife , relatives he says are they in you or you in them .However when Bhagavan says 'you', I think he means the real you or rather "I-I ".
To people of philosophical bent of mind,one of the above ways of presenting the truth would appeal and should spur them to the more immediate requirement of investigating oneself.
Micheal Sir, will appreciate one thing .In the context of both above theories , where does Bhagavan fit in our lives.
Will appreciate if you can make a demarcation,one in terms of devotees who lived with him in his lifetime and one in terms of us , who were not blessed to be associated with him , in his lifetime.
Regards,
Anand Sundaram.
Anand Sundaram,
hope you do not easily take offence, but I notice that you have missed to correct some more inadvertent typos:
Michael instead Micheal
Ulladu Narpadu instead Ullada
propagates instead of propogates
(Bhagavan) says instead sames
Michael,
"What you have wrongly assumed in your question is that ēka-jīva-vāda implies that there is no creation but only perception, whereas in fact if anything is perceived it will seem to have come into existence or been created. Ēka-jīva-vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda are complementary theories, because each implies the other, and according to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda creation does seem to exist but is just a false appearance. Therefore though there is ultimately no creation according to this pair of theories, they do accept that there seems to be a world that has come into existence, and they say that it has been created only by ego’s perception of it, just as the world we see in a dream is created only by our perception of it."
This theories are highly interesting though it is hard to believe or at least surprising that we can apply the mentioned circumstances of creation and simultaneous perception in dream to the waking.
Thank you for your illumination on the theories of Sri Ramana Michael. It has been very helpful, as it dove tails perfectly with ACIM - which has been my path for 15 years. It is really nice to have those techings reduced down to the simple practice of self investigation. Arunachala Siva.
Post a Comment