Q: Seeing-feeling that ‘I’ am not this body (aggregate of cells) and not this external world (job, house, possessions) is much easier for me than seeing that I am not this mind (thoughts, memories, personal history, feelings). The body seems like a suit of clothes, and the external world like a bunch of random stuff. But the mind seems real. At a deep level, I identify with it, feel I am it.
It’s hard to see mental ‘arisings’, particularly those that have strong emotional resonance, as impersonal objects. It feels like my internal, mental life is the ‘real’ me.
A: If you are the mind, what happens to you in the deep sleep state?
Q: I’ve been on the direct path for a few months, limiting the scope of ‘what I know’ to what I directly experience. Speaking from that point of view, I have no clue what happens to ‘me’ in deep sleep. I don’t even know there is such a state as deep sleep, because I have no memory of having experienced it.
A: Presumably there is elapsed time between waking/dream periods. Since you have no experience or knowledge of it, do you think the Self ceases to exist during that period?
Q: No. But I can’t prove it from first-hand experience. I can’t prove that the Self exists or doesn’t exist from first-hand experience, even from my waking state. Perhaps I might have an experiential ‘realization’ that Self is eternal and all-that-is (= brahman), and I might feel that I know this afterwards. But I haven’t had an experience that has left me utterly sure (knowing, rather than speculating) of this, so I can’t say.
Barring first-hand experience, presumably I have to rely on logical inference and trust/faith in the word of the Vedantic sages?
A: Who is this ‘I’ that you keep talking about?
Q: ‘I’ is what feels like the subject of all that is experienced (sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc.) and done (actions).
A: ‘Feels like’ to whom?
Q: Again, more ‘what’ than ‘whom’. Awareness/consciousness does the low-level ‘pure’ feeling and then the mind jumps in and ‘storifies it’ (walking > I’m walking > I’m taking a walk > I love taking walks, etc.).
A: I’m sure you know what I am saying. No matter what is thought, felt, done, said, etc. there is always an ‘ultimate’ subject who does not take part but ‘witnesses’ what is happening (or can do if Fred does not get in on the act and claim responsibility). This ‘witness’ is the nearest you get to the ‘Self’/brahman/Consciousness, which is ‘who’ you really are. It witnesses all of the intellectual ratiocination indulged in by Fred and witnesses the blankness of the deep-sleep state.
Q: Yes, I understand. Witnessing (for me at least) divides the world (subtly) into witness/witnessed. When I relax or surrender, this division disappears and all that remains is ‘things as they are’ (or something like that). So it’s no longer subject/object, witness/witnessed, self/world. It’s just ‘what is’. That’s why my answers to your questions “Who is this I? Feels like to whom?” are not really answers. I’m sure you know what I mean, yes?
A: “When I relax, surrender…” is an event in time. This ‘just is’ has a beginning and an end in time. Happenings in time are all experiences and do not really help you to understand who you are. But you must appreciate that, if you can ‘see’ something (body, thoughts, feelings, world) then ‘you’ who are doing the seeing must be separate from what is seen. You cannot appreciate this ultimate subject by ‘seeing’ it. It is always the ‘seer’ and never the ‘seen’.
Q: Yes, I understand. Witnessing (for me at least) divides the world (subtly) into witness/witnessed. When I relax or surrender, this division disappears and all that remains is ‘things as they are’ (or something like that). So it’s no longer subject/object, witness/witnessed, self/world. It’s just ‘what is’. That’s why my answers to your questions “Who is this I? Feels like to whom?” are not really answers. I’m sure you know what I mean, yes?
A: “When I relax, surrender…” is an event in time. This ‘just is’ has a beginning and an end in time. Happenings in time are all experiences and do not really help you to understand who you are. But you must appreciate that, if you can ‘see’ something (body, thoughts, feelings, world) then ‘you’ who are doing the seeing must be separate from what is seen. You cannot appreciate this ultimate subject by ‘seeing’ it. It is always the ‘seer’ and never the ‘seen’.
”Understanding who you are” is part of the thought process that tries to conceptualize this “I”, this “self”, this “me”. Is there a self or an ‘I’ to understand apart from the mind and its thought process? An ultimate subject? Is this not an interpretation of the mind that continues its identification with “something” instead of understanding its own nature of cognition and the absence of any existing entity? Once you posit this “I”, this ‘Self”, you become trapped in the ignorance that this projects through all activities and perceptions of human life.
As soon as you try to think about this ‘ultimate subject’, of course it becomes an ‘interpretation of the mind’ but this is not to deny its existence. Indeed, if you deny it, this is only to reinforce the fact that it exists.
On the other hand, to ‘understand the mind’s own nature of cognition and absence of any existing entity’ makes no sense.
******
Can I ask you to explain to us what your purpose is in posting to this site? Are you hoping that eventually we will convince you of the truth of Advaita? (Presumably you would acknowledge that the chances of your persuading us that we are mistaken are pretty slim!)
Do you feel that all the people who visit the site in order to further their understanding of the teaching are deluded and it is your duty to persuade them of this?
Do you simply enjoy arguing for its own sake? Have nothing better to do? Cannot find a site that discusses your beliefs?
I’m sure we would all genuinely like to hear your reasons. Please answer honestly and do not treat these comments as merely facetious.
Well, Dennis, it is certainly not that I’m hoping I will be convinced by anyone here of Advaita’s supremacy. It is more my own response to what I think are mistaken views. If you see no value in it, that’s okay. Perhaps I also see no value in my responses, or at least I am less inclined to see any value of discussing these things deeply. You can always ban me. I won’t think badly of you.