Deep Sleep & context

[Guest guest]

Rob,

 

Your reply is wonderfully thoughtful and a real gift. Thank you for the

great pains you've obviously taken to work through these issues with me.

Every line is worthwhile, but I am excising most of it to get to what I

think is the heart of the issue.

 

> Incidentally, although I have continually referred

> to this notion as Advaitin, it actually goes back

> at least as far as the Upanishads. See for exampe,

> the Mandukya Upanishad, verse 3.

 

I have relatively little acquaintance with the Eastern literatures, so I

appreciate your erudite references.

>

> I think Sri Ramana understood perfectly well

> that it is one thing to say, " I have observed that

> I remain aware when I sleep " and quite another

> to say " I have become convinced of the truth

> of the doctrine that the Self which is my true

> identity is eternally aware. "

>

When you put it that way, I'm strongly inclined to agree, since

experientially knowing that sort of difference is a key part of

enlightenment.

 

> The curious thing about his pronouncements, for

> me, is that he says neither. His remarks are actually quite

> peculiar. I can't find a single instance where he

> clearly makes the first claim. And these pronouncements

> often take the form: " There is always the feeling of 'I'.

> Otherwise do you deny your existence? You do not. "

> (That's an actual quote, although actual quotes in this

> context mean paraphrases by his editors.)

>

> What we have here is a very odd bit of

> discourse. This is neither a report of his

> experience nor an explanation. It's an argument.

> (Of course like all arguments it implies an

> explanation.)

 

I think one difficulty in interpreting any sacred text is that the original

CONTEXT is often lost. The spiritual masters never intended to be systematic

philosophers or scientists. They made statements that were appropriate in

particular settings, which are now lost to us. In systematic philosophy and

science you explicitly identify the context of your statements or

hypotheses. Take this example, Absence makes the heart grow fonder vs. Out

of sight out of mind. To ask you to pick between them is to mistake the sort

of affirmations they are. If there were general theses of a psychologist,

they would of course contradict each other. But in fact, they are folk rules

of thumb that don't identify under what conditions they are true. Under

certain conditions, absence does make the heart grow fonder. Under different

conditions, however, out of sight means out of mind. We enunciate rules of

thumb like this all the time, intuitively applying them where we think

appropriate. A great sage like Ramana Maharshi probably did that sort of

thing very well while being quite innocent of the theoretical distinction

between description and explanation even though, as enlightened, he was

quite aware within himself when he was perceiving and when he was thinking.

Later, however, it is helpful to sort things out, so that we can build a

systematic account of enlightenment. But doing that, we reduce ambiguities

and thereby reduce the chances of misunderstanding one another.

>

> The premise is: you know you exist. (He gives

> the argument in inverted order.) The

> second premise is (this is implicit, every Hindu

> understands it): existence and awareness are

> one and the same. Therefore you must feel " I "

> when you sleep, even if you don't... er.... feel it.

 

Yes, that would be a theoretical use.

>

> It's probably worth mentioning that when

> Sri Ramana and other gurus made these statements,

> their primary purpose was to make somebody

> wake up. These sages often admit quite

> explicitly that their comments are not literally

> true. So on their own terms, perhaps the

> appropriate truth-test is purely pragmatic, i.e.,

> " do the statements work? "

 

Yes, see my comments above about rules of thumb and context.

>

> " Consciousness " and " pure consciousness " are

> among the terms that make me uneasy. I don't know

> what anybody really means when they use them,

> and I don't see how I can ever know.

>

> I find it difficult to give much credance to any

> conclusion that results from the logical analysis

> of these ideas, since I don't know how they relate

> to the existents they purport to denote.

>

> I guess that unease, for me, applies to both the

> arguments you are refuting here and your refutation

> of them. If I am being unfair please point it out to

> me, because I confess that I have trouble with this

> kind of argument, and perhaps I am not trying

> hard enough to understand.

 

You are not being unfair at all. " Defining " consciousness is one of the most

notoriously controversial issues in the field of consciousness studies

today.

>

>> Fourth, why would I want to be so aware that I would be conscious while

>> sleeping? When I'm tired, I want to SLEEP, not watch myself sleep. Of

>> course, that may be a very unenlightened view. But I would like to have some

>> enlightened person tell me why I would ever want to become enlightened in

>> this way? And if you object that in pure awareness I'm not aware of

>> anything, so that I am not watching myself sleep, then how can I say that I

>> was aware while sleeping, unless I'm saying that theoretically?

>

> Do the old sages disagree with the first part of

> this (why is it desirable?). I can't remember many

> passages where they try to talk anybody into

> becoming enlightened. It's usually presented as

> something that happens because of destiny or karma,

> not from choice.

>

> My personal answer is: because I'm curious.

 

:-D But I wouldn't want to make a habit of it!

>

Thanks again for your very helpful remarks.

 

Gary

 

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

 

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho