SELF-KNOWLEDGE
(An Eighth-Century text by Adi Shankara)
"I
am composing this treatise on Self-Knowledge
for
those who are purified and peaceful,
calm
of mind, free of craving,
and
desirous of Liberation." (1)
THE JOY IS NOT IN
THE OBJECT
The business of life is the business of
happiness. Because we feel limited with
respect to happiness, everyone every minute is fully engaged trying to attain
greater happiness. When I take a job,
fall in love, read a book, eat a meal, go to the dentist, pray or meditate, I
expect the activity and/or its results to make me feel better than I do at the
moment. No matter how good I feel I can
always imagine a state of greater happiness.
If I’m feeling miserable, my actions will be calculated to remove or
lessen the misery, a situation I view as an increase in happiness. When a better state is inconceivable, I
refrain from activities that might compromise it. An investigation of the world’s tropical
beaches reveals countless people, flat on their backs, content as clams, not
moving a muscle.
Everything we do is for the sake of
happiness. Some accumulate money, not
necessarily for itself, but for the happiness it supposedly brings. Others seek happiness in life-threatening
sports which produce a "high," an aliveness beyond the
"normal" state. We ingest
chemicals, pills, drink, and drugs to change our state of mind for the
better. Belief in God is never intended
to make one miserable. Nobody gets
married to suffer.
At first glance activities seem to
produce happiness. I jog, garden,
meditate, or ski and feel happy. But if
happiness were in an activity the activity should produce happiness for anyone
performing it. Giving away millions
makes philanthropists happy. Letting go
of a dime is anathema to a miser. A
granny who knits for fun will not take pleasure in bungee jumping.
Can happiness be achieved getting and
possessing certain objects? A man
divorces his wife because she seems the cause of his misery but before the ink
is dry on the divorce decree she finds herself in the arms of another - who
sees her as his darling bundle of joy. A
steak makes a carnivore happy, a vegetarian unhappy. In spite of this fact we work overtime to get
happiness through objects and activities.
Some try to attain happiness through the
mind. Poets, writers, artists, and
intellectuals find happiness playing with thoughts and ideas, feelings and
emotions. Professionals subject their
minds to years of discipline with the conviction that intense and sustained
happiness can be found in knowledge.
An tiny minority, "spiritual"
questers, try to find happiness by disciplining themselves in prayer,
meditation, chanting, breathing, or "processing" to achieve altered
or "high" states of consciousness.
The psychological world believes
happiness can be attained by removing psychological barriers: disturbing
experiences and memories, self-limiting concepts, and unforgiving thoughts
lodged in the subconscious mind.
LIMITATION OF OBJECT HAPPINESS
Both approaches, the physical and the
psychological, share the belief that through self-effort certain objective
and/or subjective factors inhibiting happiness can be changed, resulting in
greater happiness. Conventional wisdom
supports this view and, to be fair, the kernel of truth it contains probably
accounts for the universal attempt to get happiness by changing objective and
subjective factors.
Why do we feel happy when we achieve a
goal or obtain a desired object?
According to spiritual science all human activities are motivated by a
separation from our natural state of happiness, a separation that gives rise to
two apparently contradictory instincts, Fear and Desire, both of which
extrovert and disturb the mind, producing many positive and negative
emotions. Beneath every desire a fear
lurks, behind every fear a desire. If I
don't get what I want I'll be unhappy.
Avoiding what I don't want makes me happy. So the fear of unhappiness is just the desire
for happiness. These two forces,
attraction and repulsion, attachment and aversion, likes and dislikes affect every
aspect of our lives.
The myriad fears and desires playing in
the mind, both subtle and gross, stem from a deeper need - the need to be free of fear and desire - the need to be fulfilled
or happy. When I say I want a new car or
a new lover I don't actually want the object.
I want the happiness apparently tied up with it.
REMOVING THE WALL
If
happiness or unhappiness doesn't come from objects, it has to be coming from
me.
If true, why does it seem to come from
objects?
Because the attainment of desired
objects or the avoidance of feared objects temporarily removes the wall of fear
and desire separating us from the Self, the source of happiness. When the dam bursts our lives are flooded
with happiness, from the ecstasy of love to the satisfaction in a cup of
coffee.
At the time of the removal of a fear or
desire the mind associates the happiness with the object, rather than with the
removal of the subjective limitation.
That human beings are universally attached to and frightened of objects,
physical, emotional, and intellectual confirms this poorly-appreciated truth.
Almost everyone at one time or another
believes happiness comes from giving and\or receiving love. As long as the love object gives and\or
receives according to the subject's special needs, everything is fine, but as
soon as the object stops cooperating the love dries up, at which point the
removal of the object is thought to make us happy. Why does the love dry up? Because the idea that it was coming from the
object acted like a switch in the mind which erected a wall between the mind
and the Self, effectively cutting off contact with one’s own unlimited
reservoir of love.
That switch, the belief that the joy is
in the object, can as well pull down the wall.
For example, loneliness often causes us fantasize about an ideal someone
who we wish would come into our lives and remove our unhappiness. When reality presents an approximation of our
fantasy, the dam holding our own limitless inner ocean of love breaks and love
wildly cascades into the mind, giving the experience of happiness. Because the process is unconscious and takes
place instantaneously the love seems to be coming from the object, or an
interaction with the object - but the object is only a catalyst, a trigger,
that activates the inner switch.
Let’s argue that since everyone's
innermost nature is happiness/love the joy is
in the object, in this case people. It
is, but since people invariably impose conditions on their love we can't count
on another’s love to make us happy. To
avoid this trap I should understand that though love is one, I can only count
on it when I’ve realized it's my nature.
To do that I must sacrifice the
fears and desires separating me from my own happiness/love. For example, people feel happy in deep sleep
because objective and subjective limitations, mental and emotional activity,
are absent.
OBJECT[1]
HAPPINESS NOT PERMANENT
If you can’t accept that happiness and
unhappiness aren’t inherent in objects, I think you’ll agree that
object-related happiness is impermanent.
If permanent happiness were attainable from objects the desire to have
the same or another object would never arise.
Conversely, were permanent happiness attainable by the removal of an
object (remember, this includes states of mind, bad feelings about oneself or
the world, for example) we would never have to remove that object again. But experience shows that desire for and fear of objects continue,
often increase, with their possession, enjoyment and renunciation. I may want more of what I want, less of it,
or something else altogether. One day I
may even crave something that previously made me miserable. The satisfaction of my desires and the removal
of my fears does not leave me permanently happy. For example, people who have associated
happiness with a certain object, say a drug or alcohol-induced state of mind,
try to achieve that state over and over, until it no longer yields
pleasure. Nobody was ever permanently
satisfied by a successful sexual encounter - or any other apparently
happiness-producing object. In fact
happiness-bringing objects often suddenly become unhappiness bringing objects.
The confusion about the nature of
happiness and unhappiness with reference to objects suggests that the question
of happiness and unhappiness must be
centered on me, the subject.
Am I whole and complete and therefore
immune to the pull of objects, or am I an incomplete being, one desperately in
need of things to complete me? Having
eliminated objects as the source, a confusion still exists about my nature,
prompting further analysis. When I think
about it I can see that sometimes I'm happy and sometimes unhappy. After careful consideration I can confidently
conclude that happiness is natural to me because when I experience it I always
cling to it. And when I’m unhappy the
reverse is true: I try feverishly to rid myself of it.
Therefore, if I'm happy by nature, don't
consistently experience happiness, and know it doesn't come from objects and
activities, how would I attain it?
Vedantic texts like Atma Bodh are
addressed to those who are convinced that objects and activities will not bring
lasting happiness. This conviction leads
to a state of mind, referred to above as “ peaceful and free of craving,” (for
objects) from which an inquiry into the nature of the Self can be
conducted. Without an inquiry the riddle
of one’s true identity will not be solved.
Another of Shankara’s texts, Vivekachoodamani, The Crest Jewell of
Discrimination, provides a detailed list describing the qualities and
qualifications that ensure success in Self Realization, the first of which,
discrimination,[2]
is defined as “a firm conviction that the Self alone is real and that the
phenomenal world is unreal.”[3] For “phenomenal world” read “objects. ” Objects are pursued precisely because they’re
thought to be real. The self-confidence
and self-esteem arising from the ability to separate the joy from the object is
the cornerstone of a qualified seeker’s psychology.
Discrimination leads to dispassion,[4]
“the desire to give up momentary enjoyments” a quality expressing as a healthy
feeling of indifference to the triviality and impermanence of existence. Not a cold uncaring state as one might
suppose, it is a feeling of spaciousness that insulates the mind from the
little pinpricks of life and enables one to confront tragedies with equanimity.[5] Because curiosity is its hallmark, the
dispassionate mind encourages the seeker to ask pertinent existential questions
and set out patiently in search of answers.
Dispassion inclines the mind toward an ironical, objective and humorous
view of oneself and others.
Combined with discrimination, dispassion
makes it possible for the seeker to cultivate the powers that ensure a quiet
mind, one in which the knowledge “I am whole and complete actionless Awareness”
can stick. These powers are described
as: (1) shama, “the peaceful state
achieved when the mind has detached from the sense objects after a careful
consideration of their defects; (2) dama,
“returning the active and perceptive organs to their respective (subtle-body)
centers; (3) Uparati, “a condition in
which the mind is free of the thought of external objects; and (4) samadhana (tranquillity), a state, not
gained through thinking, when the mind is constantly engaged in absorbed
contemplation of the Self.”[6]
But a discriminating, dispassionate,
quiet mind is not enough. Shankar
says, “That by which one understands the
inner meaning of scripture as well as the words of the preceptor is called
faith[7] by
the wise. By this alone does reality
become clear.”
Nor is a discriminating, dispassionate,
quiet, believing mind enough. To
successfully tread the path of Self knowledge two additional qualifications are
noted. The first, the impatient and
burning desire to release oneself from ignorance by realizing the Self,[8]
provides the motivation to carry the seeker through the many difficulties
encountered on the path. And secondly,
Shankara says “Among the instruments and conditions necessary for liberation,
devotion is supreme. A constant attempt
to inquire into the Self and live up to one’s own real nature is called bhakti, single-pointed devotion.”
When these and other qualities like
patience and determination are in full flower one is said to be capable of
scaling the sacred heights of Self-Realization.
"Just as chopping wood is the indirect cause
and fire the direct
cause of cooking,
spiritual practice is the indirect cause
and Self-knowledge
the direct cause of liberation."
(2)
Having concluded that happiness is not in
objects, that it’s the nature of the Self, I’m free to do nothing. After all, I’m it. What can I do to get me? I am me.
Unfortunately I cannot just accept
myself as a complete being. The message
has yet to sink into the subconscious - which is conditioned to action. It wants me to believe that I need to “get”
enlightened. And so I accept the
challenge and resolve to work on my self.
I take up religion, therapy or spiritual practice, whatever that means
to me. I change my diet, read scripture,
go to church, finance the New Age, pray and meditate.
But the resolution to change doesn’t
destroy the compulsion to act egoically.
I may not be chasing the objects any more but they continue to chase
me. People with addictions struggle to
break them, often resolving to quit once and for all, but within minutes of the
vow, the floodgates open sweeping away big rocklike resolutions as if they were
tiny grains of sand.
Nor does the resolution to change free
one of ego. In fact, not only does the
ego make the resolution, but in so far as it takes up spiritual practice
without changing its attitude toward the way it lives, it only saddles itself
with new expectations that reinforce its sense of limitation.
And finally since the actor, the ego, is
limited, the results are also limited.
An endless number of limited results does not add up to an unlimited
result - uncaused joy or limitless freedom i.e. the Self.
Spiritual practice is superior to
unexamined worldly activity in delivering limited happiness, however, because
it slowly breaks down the wall of fear and desire separating us from the Self.[9] Done in the right spirit,[10]
it cleans the Unconscious and neutralizes the negative states of mind that make
life unbearable and the Self unrecognizable.
Actions
don’t do themselves. In fact, action is
done egolessly by the Self, but the ego thinks it’s the author. Allowing the ego to believe spiritual
practice is the direct cause of liberation is inviting the fox to tend the
chicken coop. The purpose of practice is
to empty the Unconscious and create a clear conscious mind so Self knowledge
can destroy the ego’s limiting “I am a doer/enjoyer” idea.
The spiritual practice business may seem
a cruel catch 22. If action won’t free
me then I’ll drop out and wait for “Grace” or the miraculous touch of a
guru. But I can't get free unless my
mind is purified and peaceful. And the
only way to achieve a quiet mind is to roll up my sleeves and get to work.
In fact it's not a catch 22. Spiritual practice simply creates the
conditions that contribute to the feast, but doesn't "cook the
food." The knowledge arising from
direct experience of oneself as a non-dual limitless being is the fire
necessary for a proper meal, meaning a blissful life free of pain and
ignorance. Hard work, spiritual or
otherwise, by well-intentioned egos will not produce Realization. Why?
Because...
"Action cannot remove ignorance
for they are not
opposed.
Self-Knowledge
removes it
as light removes
darkness."
(3)
Ignorance means (1) not knowing that I am a
complete, limitless, blissful being and (2) thinking of oneself as incomplete,
limited, and inadequate. Ignorance
causes me to chase objects or perform actions I believe will complete me. Even spiritual activities won’t complete me
because they are also motivated by ignorance.
No matter what I do, I can’t get
something I already have. One day a man
asked God for a head on this shoulders. God
thought about it and said, “In spite of the fact that I’m omnipotent I’m afraid
you’ll have to ask for something else. I
can give you another fatter head, an additional brainless head on top of the
present one, or ten tiny pointed heads facing in different directions. But I’m afraid I can’t give what you already
have.”
Doing or non-doing won't wipe out
ignorance because the Self is not an attainable object. Action, no matter how enthusiastic and
well-intentioned, will not produce something one already has. Nothing can be done because the
"object" is you. Only
knowledge will reveal it.
SELF NOT KNOWN THROUGH (MOST) MEDIA
Though the Self cannot be accurately
described, It can be known because It is us.
Always present and accounted for, the Self is the most intimate and
essential component of every experience.
However, we don’t know It the way we know an idea, emotion, or sense
object, aspects of outer reality known through media. Sounds, for example, require ears. Information, stimuli, pass through the ears,
enter the hearing center in the mind, and are interpreted by the mind according
to past experience. Whatever knowledge
we have is dependent on the means through which it comes.
But the Self cannot be objectified so it
cannot be known through media. Anyone
can read scripture and claim Self knowledge but their knowledge of the Self
would be inferential, conditioned by how the intellect interpreted certain
words. If the knowledge of the Self
isn't mediate, intellectual knowledge what kind is it?
EXPERIENCE VERSUS KNOWLEDGE
Some claim enlightenment can't be
experienced, others that it can. If
enlightenment is described as an experience, a transaction between subject and
object, it is a peculiar kind of experience.
Ordinary experience is a straightforward interaction between a human
being and the world. If the mind,
consciousness with a small "c," the subject, is a gross and limited
transformation of Pure Consciousness, how will it fully know or experience Pure
Consciousness, the Self in its unlimited form?[11] Just as the senses can't experience the mind,
nor the material world the senses, so the mind/ego entity can't “experience”
the Self.
According to spiritual science
everything is Consciousness, even the material world, an effect of which
Consciousness is the cause. But as
Consciousness involves itself with itself as matter, its "light"
apparently gets absorbed into the object and, on the physical level at least,
stops shining. For example, even though
light reflecting off my body falls equally on a mirror and the black wall on
which it hangs, I will only see myself in the mirror. It also gets absorbed into a mind clouded
with emotion and thought, making it unexperiencable for all intents and purposes. It can, however, be “experienced” in a pure
mind.
The non-experience school claims the
Self is the “light” illumining all experiences.
Humans, they say, are two-tiered: existing on one level as a subject
interacting with objects, which necessarily means experience, and on another as
Consciousness, the "Light" that illumines the subject's
experiences. So in scriptural literature
you will find definitions of the Self as transcendent, beyond, uninvolved, and
unattached to anything, living in its own hermetically sealed world, the shining
world of knowledge, unaware of anything other than itself or, as the witness to
outer events.
Many in the spiritual world, unaware of
this fact, incorrectly believe the ego will experience enlightenment like it
experiences everything else. So to save
them the grief of trying to "get" a mind-blowing cosmic enlightenment
experience, the knowledge people point out that enlightenment is not that type
of experience. Mind-blowing blissful
cosmic experiences, which come by the grace of God, not individual effort, are
simply mind-blowing blissful cosmic experiences, reportable only because they
are observed by the Self which as disinterestedly watches non mind-blowing
unhappy mundane experiences.
That experience doesn't always lead to
true knowledge is another dimension in the "experience vs. knowledge"
debate. For example, from the point of
view of a person standing on the equator the sun seems to rise in the east and
set in the west, but at certain times of the year the same person can stand on
the North Pole and experience the sun going around in a circle. Which is true? Knowledge has it that though apparently
rising and setting, with reference to the earth the sun is stationary and the
earth turns. Similarly, if the Self is
experienced in one way at one time, as a blazing light without circumference,
for example, at another as a cosmic vibration, which is true? Neither.
Knowledge has it that the Self is the Awareness that illumines both
experiences.[12]
Another example of the contradictory
nature of experience, psychic fact, is that sometimes we experience ourselves
as miserable suffering creatures and sometimes as radiantly happy beings. Which is true? Again, knowledge has it that we are miserable
suffering creatures when identified with ego and happy adequate beings when
identified with the Self. Still,
experience can't be discounted because the experience of oneself as a complete
happy being is true and corresponds to scripture,[13]
even though it’s contradicted by another more common experience.
Finally, the non-experience of
enlightenment has tremendous implications in terms of experience. If the knowledge/experience of the Self
didn't change experience what would be the point of seeking it? The way the Self realized experience the
world is radically different from those whose experience is projected by the samskaras.[14] Or, more accurately, the Self realized enjoy
a completely different relationship to samskara-projected
experience[15]
than those who don’t know themselves to be the Self. Precisely because a limited and painful
experience of life becomes unlimited and joyful upon knowledge/experience of
the Self do so many seek it.
The purpose of this discussion is not to
weigh in on one side or the other of a weighty spiritual argument, but to show
that when talking about the Self, we should have an acute appreciation of the
limitation of concepts born solely of experience. And, secondly, because concepts are
necessary, we should have concepts that are as close to the truth as
possible. Otherwise, false concepts
about the nature of the Self, its bodies, and states may deny our inquiry its
fruit.
The spiritual world is chock full of
undiscriminating seekers who have formed irrational concepts about the Self on
the basis of personal experience, uninformed interpretation of scripture, and
the words of enlightened or so-called enlightened beings. Without comprehensive and accurate knowledge,
Self realization, except in occasional cases, is impossible. In
fact Self realization is rare precisely because the Self, which is the nature
of everyone, is thought to be a unique experience.
One day a man called his servant saying,
"Here's a shovel and bucket. Go to
the cellar and empty out all the darkness." The servant did as instructed returning
several hours later to report that though he had removed hundreds of bucketsful
the room was still dark. "So,"
said the master, "any ideas?"
"Well," replied the servant,
"why don't I just turn on the light?"
"The Self seems limited because of ignorance.
Destroy ignorance and the limitless Self is revealed,
like the sun when clouds pass away."
(4)
The belief in my insignificance comes
because I take the body-mind-sense complex to be me. I look around and see how small I am compared
to the vast and complex world surrounding me.
I see six billion other bodies and know I'm a dispensable nobody. My planet, like my solar system, is a
fly speck, a meaningless living oddity
in an apparently dead cosmos, my modest life span a trillionth of a nanosecond
on the cosmic clock. Nothing remains the
same; everything rushes headlong into the jaws of death. Without so much as a by your leave, a tiny
virus can destroy my life. Is it any
wonder I see myself as limited?
Yet some part refuses to accept
limitation. As I travel along my path
struggling to distinguish myself at peak moments the clouds part, the sun
shines through, and my inner voice thunders, “You are adequate, limitless, and
whole. You are pure love.”
Something tells me this knowledge should
last forever.
My friends and family don't understand,
my explanations fall on deaf ears.
Undeterred, I start to meditate.
One day in the stillness all boundaries dissolve and I again know
freedom. I see radiance behind the eyes
of people on the street and hear the universal sound everywhere.
And when the experience fades, the
memory, a sacred object in my mind, keeps me striving to become something I
already know I am.
How
absurd! When I see the wind blowing away
the clouds obscuring the sun, I can't wait for an inner wind to blow away the
misconceptions keeping me in ignorance.
But is there such a wind? It
seems conscious effort is required. This
effort is constant practice of knowledge.
Constant practice of knowledge
neutralizes ignorance
as a
base neutralizes an acid,
purifying the individual self.
(5)
The individual self is the
body-mind-intellect-ego entity, the person we’ve been led to believe is
"us." We’re certain this
entity is real but it is little more than a reflection caused when
Consciousness[16]
shines on the bundle of experience-impressions[17]
making up our minds. If our experiences
have been predominately positive the mind will be peaceful and we’ll think of
ourselves as happy people; if our experiences have been positive and negative
in equal measure we’re likely to have a confused view of ourselves. If we’ve experienced wounding, betrayal, and
abandonment, the mind will be wounded, resentful, and despairing and we’ll see
ourselves as miserable beings. The
‘stains of ignorance” are the mental and emotional residue that arise out of
an identification with the mind, the
past. To experience and consequently know
our true, immediate, self-evident nature, the mirror of the mind should be
clean and undistorted.
To purify the mind we need to become
mindful of Self ignorance by watching our thoughts, monitoring our feelings,
and observing our speech. After examining
a particular misconception discard it as “not Self.” The verse calls for “constant” practice of
knowledge because Self ignorance
continually manifests in our consciousness as the four following
limiting concepts, major limbs on the tree of non-apprehension from which
myriad minor branches grow.
These self-limiting concepts, referred
to as “not Self” are:
I AM THE BODY[18]
Our most pervasive and severely limiting
concept is "I am the body," the source of much grief - the immense
fear of disease, old age and death, for example. Why am I not the body?
First, because it is perceivable, an object of my awareness. I see or feel it, therefore it is other than
me. The Self is the perceiver.
Second, because it is insentient. If I were
the body the body would know me just as I know it, but the body has no idea who
I am. The Self is eternally sentient.
Third, because it is limited and not
constantly present. If I'm the body,
why don't I exist in the dream and deep sleep state? I do, in fact, exist in those states - but
not as a physical body. Even in the
dream state where I may have a body, the dream body is not the same as the
waking state body. If I’m the two
bodies, there are two “me’s,” an obvious impossibility. In deep sleep I have neither a gross waking
nor a subtle dream body. Therefore the
body isn’t me. The Self is unlimited and
omnipresent.
Forth, because it changes. The Self is
immutable.
Fifth, because the body has a shape. The
Self is formless being.
Sixth, because the body depends on its constituent parts and the elements.
The Self is partless and self-dependent.
I AM THE MIND[19]
At a dinner party the hostess looked down
her nose at one of her guests who was, in her opinion, unsuitably attired. The husband, noticing that his wife was
miffed, solicitously inquired,
"What's the matter dear?"
"She hurt me," sniffed the
wife.
The statement "She hurt me"
indicates a confusion of the "me," the Self with mind, the emotional
function.
We aren’t our feelings and emotions for
the same reasons we aren’t the body.
I AM THE INTELLECT
The third pernicious layer of ignorance is
our identification with ideas, thoughts, and ideals. "I'm a doctor, lawyer, communist,
capitalist, Christian, Republican, mother, father, gay, black, lesbian,
beautiful, ugly, rich, poor, intelligent, stupid etc. are spiritually incorrect
statements. The "I" is the
Awareness in whose light all ideas are known.
The intellect is not the Self for the reasons listed above.
I AM
THE EGO
Two technical Vedantic words, jiva and ahamkara refer to different but related ego ideas. A jiva[20]
or ego is the Self embodied, a living being. Plants and animals, insects and microbes, as
well as humans are embodied beings. This
definition says nothing about the views of these egos, what they think about
themselves or the world, or how the behave.
These embodied beings, you and I, are variously conceived of as “rays”
or “emanations” of nameless formless Consciousness, “man cast in the image of
God.” The jivas are apparently separate from
Consciousness. Just as a wave is the
ocean in a limited form, the jivas are
said to be embodied Consciousness.
Though actually the one Self they seem to be different entities owing to
their association with many bodies.
Ahamkara is a
compound. Aham means “I” and kara means
a notion or idea. So ahamkara is the notion or idea a jiva has about itself. Egos who have no notion they’re one with the
Self have a plethora of ideas about themselves.
This more reasonable and helpful definition sees ego not as an
inherently flawed person but as a perfect being temporarily flawed by an
incorrect self-concept - the idea that it is separate from the world, from other
beings, and from the Self.[21]
The
ego is not the Self because it lives and dies, is a object of perception,
subject to change, and limited.
The knowledge of who I am not is only
useful until I wake up whereupon it dissolves into the limitlessness of my
re-discovered identity.
"The
world like a dream
full
of attachments and aversions
seems
real until the awakening."
(6)
We all believe the desires, feelings,
emotions, thoughts, ideas, fears, intuitions, opinions, memories, etc.
constantly playing in our minds are real.
Though temporarily existent, they are not ultimately real, i.e.
substantial and enduring. Reality, the
Self, exists in all periods of time, past, present, and future, before the past
and after the future, and in all states of consciousness, waking, dream, and
deep sleep and beyond. Reality, unlike
everything we know, doesn't depend on anything else for its existence nor can it
be resolved into anything else.
The inner phenomena projected on the
screen of Consciousness as our personal worlds are only a flow of tendencies
and short-lived subjective events devoid of lasting meaning - like a
dream. In a dream everything seems real
to the dreamer. Someone kisses me and I
feel love. One of my thoughts in the
form of an angry beast bites me and I feel pain. As soon as I wake up, however, I see that,
with reference to my present state, it was all unreal.
Self knowledge is waking up from the
belief that the waking, dream and deep sleep state “worlds” are real. “World” means field of experience, the
experiencing subject and the experienced objects. As revealed in the following analysis,[22]
that any or all of these worlds are considered reality is simply an opinion.
THE WAKER, DREAMER,
AND DEEP SLEEPER
As human beings we are not one, but three
experiencing entities. The first, the
waking state ego (See the bottom left
third of fig.1.) is Consciousness, the Self shining through the
body-mind-intellect bundle experiencing the world of material objects and the
world of feelings, emotions, thoughts, ideas, memories, etc.
Everyone primarily views him or herself
as a waker. When I say “me” in common
conversation, I am referring to myself as a waking state entity. The belief that I am a waker comes with the
conviction that the waking state physical, emotional, and intellectual objects
are real, enduring.
The waker’s consciousness is turned outward - the Self shining
through the senses, mind, intellect, illumining their respective objects. Idealistic metaphysics’ statement that no
world exists apart from the perceiver means the Self doesn’t see a world unless
It shines through the
THE WAKER, DREAMER, AND DEEP SLEEPER
|
fig.1 |
body,
mind or intellect, not that the physical world doesn’t exist. Though the material world exists
independently of the waker’s perceptions it doesn’t exist apart from
Consciousness, the Self.
The waker is a non-stop consumer. The Sanskrit literature describing the waker
calls it “the one with thirteen mouths:” the ten senses, mind, intellect, and
ego. The physical body consumes the five
elements in their various permutation combinations,[23]
the mind constantly chews emotion, the intellect eats ideas, and the ego
devours any experience it (incorrectly) believes will make it feel whole,
adequate, and happy.
The dreamer (lower right third of fig.1), Consciousness turned inward, enjoys a world similar in some respects to the
waking state world and radically different in others. In the dream state The Self illumines only
subtle objects. Subtle objects are
dreams, the samskaras, appearing in
the subtle body in pictorial form. Like
the waker, the dreamer believes he or she and his or her world is real, and is
equipped with dream senses to consume dream objects, a dream mind to emote and
feel, a dream intellect to think dream thoughts, and a dream ego to experience
the dream life. In the ancient texts the
dreamer is referred to as the “shining one”,[24] a
term indicating its nature as Consciousness.
Dreams appear bathed in light, even though the waking senses are
inactive, because the Self, Consciousness, shines through the dreamer, just as
it shines through the waker.
The sleeper is called pragna or mass of
consciousness. In waking and dream
states, consciousness flows either outward and inward but in sleep it looses
direction and becomes formless. The
sleeper ego is extremely subtle, its presence only known through inference:
when we return to the waking state we know we slept well, experienced the Self
as limitlessness/bliss. Since the Self
is the only other factor in the deep sleep state (there are no subtle or gross
objects) It has to be limitlessness/bliss, the object of the sleeper’s
extremely subtle ego.
The deep sleep state is free of the waking
and dream egos and objects because the samskaras
that projected them have become dormant, hence it is referred to as the “seed”
state. When the “seeds” sprout, one
becomes a waker or a dreamer and experiences the appropriate world
Experience contradicts the view that the
sleep state is a void. Sanskrit
literature refers to it as “the womb,” because our waking and dream worlds
emerge from it. When one wakes up in the
morning one’s whole life is neatly laid out, consistent with the past, to the
degree that we even remember the same language spoken the day before,
suggesting that previous experience had simply entered a dormant state.
These three states and egos are known to
everyone and constitute the totality of our experience. An interesting question posed by this
analysis is "Who am I?" If I'm
the waking ego, which I’ve been totally conditioned to think I am, what happens
to me when I become a sleeper? I’ve
quite willingly surrendered everything essential to my idea of myself (my body,
mind, intellect, and all my physical possessions) to turn into a mass of
consciousness and experience limitlessness.
If I’m the sleeper ego, the blissfully limitless
subtle being, then why do I sacrifice that status for all the limitations and
insecurities of the waking or dream worlds?
The dreamer identity is insufficient because I always sacrifice it to
become a waker or a sleeper. So my
status as any one ego or ego aspect is limited and my true identity open to
question.
IF I'M REAL, I HAVE
TO EXIST ALL THE TIME
The answer to "Who am I" is that
I am not any off these egos or ego states.
If I'm real, I have to exist all the time. I can't suddenly be one thing one minute and
something else the next. Irrespective of
my state, I experience life as a simple single complete conscious being because
I exist in the waking, dream, and deep sleep states independent of the waker,
dreamer and deep sleeper.
As what?
As the Self, the Awareness, witness to the
three states.[25] Outside of meditation, the Self is probably
easiest to recognize in the dream state because the physical senses are
inactive. The dream is playing on the
screen of the mind like a movie. Though
physical light is absent and the eyes closed, the dream ego and the dream
events are clearly illumined, a phenomenon referred to as “lucid”
dreaming. The lucidity is the Self
temporarily functioning as the dreamer, “the shining one.” However, identification with the dream ego
and its doings prevents us from properly appreciating the dream light, the
Self.
The Self is unknown in the waking state for
the same reason. Preoccupied with the
happenings in our worlds, we are unaware that the sense objects and our
thoughts and feelings are bathed in Awareness.
In deep sleep the waking and dream egos are
dissolved into their source, the dormant seeds of their past actions, so they
aren’t aware of anything external.
However, even though one doesn't exist as an externally or internally
conscious ego in the deep sleep state one can report a good sleep because a
very subtle ego remnant remains, permitting the experience of limitless and
bliss.[26]
Like
the appearance of silver in mother of pearl, the world
seems real until the Self, the underlying
reality, is realized.”
(7)
On seeing the non-dual
Self, the underlying reality, one wakes up from the dream of life.
Just as the apparent quarter borrows its luster from the real brightness of the bottlecap, the shiny and attractive world of the senses seems an independent self-sustaining reality, but its attractiveness is borrowed from the Self, luminous