Automatic Remembrance

[Guest guest]

Odysseus wrote/Michael wrote:

Nisargadatta ,

ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

> Various images and analogies have been

> used in Vedanta to give a sense of the

> self. It has been called the Fourth in

> the Mandukya Up. as though it were

> additional to the other three states or

> modalities of consciousness, waking,

> dreaming, and deep sleep. In fact it is

> not separated from any of the three

> states and may be regarded as their

> substratum. 'Turiya (the Fourth) has for

> its valid proof, the single belief in

the

> Self'. The analogy of material identity

> is sometimes used; clay is the basic

stuff

> out of which platters, jugs, dishes are

> made; gold is the identity of ornaments

> and so forth. Clearly if

> consciousness/self/Turiya is the

> unchanging identity of the person, the

> same thing cannot have two beginnings in

> time and thus it is preserved through

the

> state of deep sleep. That indicates that

> it is not to be viewed as the subject of

> a state of consciousness. There are no

> neural correlates of consciousness in

the

> sense that on the one hand you have a

> state of the brain and on the other hand

> you have a state of consciousness.

>

> Is the Upanisad saying that the belief

in

> the Self is the proof of the Self? In

> his commentary on that part of the

> Mandukya Upanisad, Sankara refers to the

> Brhadaranyaka Up. I.iv.7:

>

> " This (universe) was then

> undifferentiated. It differentiated only

> into name and form - it was called such

> and such, and was of such and such form.

> So to this day it is differentiated only

> into name and form - it is called such

> and such, and is of such and such form.

> This Self has entered into these bodies

> up to the tip of the nails - as a razor

> may be put in its case, or as fire,

which

> sustains the world, may be its source.

> People do not see It, for (viewed in its

> aspects) It is incomplete. When It does

> the function of living, It is called the

> vital force; when It speaks, the organ

of

> speech; when It sees, the eye; when It

> hears, the ear; and when It thinks, the

> mind. These are merely Its names

> according to functions. He who meditates

> upon each of this totality of aspects

does

> not know, for It is incomplete, (being

> divided) from this totality by

possessing

> a single characteristic. The Self alone

> is to be meditated upon, for all these

> are unified in It. Of all these, this

> Self alone should be realised, for one

> knows all these through It, just as one

> may get (an animal) through its foot-

> prints. He who knows It as such obtains

> fame and association (with his

> relatives). "

>

> 'Turiya (the Fourth) has for its valid

> proof, the single belief in the Self'.

> Tentatively, could that mean that by the

> very fact that we have a concept of the

> self, there must be a self or that its

> existence causes belief in it. The word

> belief is used because knowledge or

> evidence is not appropriate. In any case

> " the remembrance of the Self comes

> automatically....It could not arise

> otherwise " (Sankara)

>

> Michael

 

****************************

 

Wonderful, Great!

 

Just one thing. Any belief can be taken as

proof of Turiya's

existence. Beliefs are from the mind or

thoughts. Turiya is beyond

the mind or thoughts. Only direct

experience of it is the proof of

its existence. The one who leaves

permanently in Turiya is

considered a true guru. Here comes the

divine Lineage. But of course

all this can be learned in few days. Just

by reading Ramana, if you

have good intellectual skills!?! Absolutly

not! Too bad :0)

 

Love

Odysseus,

 

& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

 

Hi Odysseus,

As was written in the upanisad

- " This Self has entered into these bodies

up to the tip of the nails - as a razor

may be put in its case, " . This gives the

sense of the nonduality of the Self and

its limiting adjuncts. Other texts speak

of saturation and in the Kena Up. II.3

" It (i.e.Brahman) is really known when It

is known with (i.e. as the Self of ) each

state of consciousness " . You are right

to say that it is not to be identified

with any particular state of

consciousness.

 

These mental gymnastics as you suggest are

set aside by the darshan of a master,

even their tombs are powerful. The cave

where Ramana spent a long time in samadhi

had a powerful effect on me probably more

than a ton of syllogisms. I never had

the darshan of Nisargadatta but if I get

back to India I should like to visit his

tomb. Where is it?

 

Michael