The "I am" in Advaita Vedanta

[dwai]

Reading through the Nisargadatta Maharaj thread I noticed that the subject of what "I am" is was broached.

 

Most assumptions/assessment of the "I" and the "I am" in case of Advaita Vedanta are based on incomplete or incorrect knowledge of the technical terms there in.

 

There are the terms - "paramatman/ishwara and jiva" and then there is "brahman and atman".

 

Since Advaita Vedanta very correctly demarcates the two levels/degrees of reality/existence, it is therefore an incorrect premise to assume that the "I" (or Atman or Self) that is being referred to in AV is actually the Egoic self (or Jiva).

 

In the traditional sense, the Jiva is that which lives (and as a corollary thereof, ceases to live). It therefore is in the realm of vyavaharika (mundane) reality. Atman is that which is Paramartha (absolute/ultimate).

 

The vyavaharika level is dualistic and there is a separation between the Jiva and Ishwara and everything else in existence (or the living being and God). In the advaita level (paramarthika) there is no duality. So there is no separation...the Atman is also the Brahman.

 

A very interesting discussion on this topic with Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi might help shed some light on this topic (albeit it isn't directly answered, but provides the right cues towards thinking about it)

 

http://benegal.org/ramana_maharshi/books/tw/tw186.html

Edited November 4, 2014 by dwai

[steve]

You raise an excellent point. Unfortunately, I'm not terribly well versed in the technical terminology and intent of the original.

I think it is easy to mix up what is being pointed to with respect to the I.

In part, I think that may be the point - the method is an investigation into that I, at every level of human experience, even the most profound and subtle.

[Wayfarer]

The mundane is the absolute; the I and the not-I is One. All these terms we create for this and that - are dualistic

[idiot_stimpy]

The mundane is the absolute; the I and the not-I is One. All these terms we create for this and that - are dualistic

 

I like it.

 

The problem with me is, there is still an unconscious urge to be drawn into dualistic grasping.

[dwai]

I like it.

 

The problem with me is, there is still an unconscious urge to be drawn into dualistic grasping.

I think that is inevitable. The sages realize this and stop "fighting".

[forestofemptiness]

Just thinking out loud.

 

Looking at this again, I note that the word used by Ramana Maharshi is "aham vritti."

 

Vivekananda described the mind like a lake. Within the waters (chitta) there are ripples or waves (vrittis) that obscure the bottom (atman). Ramana Maharshi says the aham vritti is the vritti that underlies all other vrittis.

 

Now in the modern West, we tend to assume (incorrectly) that when we see a table, we are really seeing the table. But that is not really what we're seeing--- what we're seeing is not the table, but the mind in the shape of the table, i.e. a vritti. The same holds true for all forms--- our body, thoughts, emotions, etc.

 

This isn't some philosophical thought, but you can actually see the mind forming and unforming the world when you drift off to sleep or wake up.

 

So the first mistake is taking any of the vrittis to the be the Self, or in thinking any of the vrittis can capture the Self. The second mistake would be to take the mind (chitta) to be the Self.

[dwai]

Just thinking out loud.

 

Looking at this again, I note that the word used by Ramana Maharshi is "aham vritti."

 

Vivekananda described the mind like a lake. Within the waters (chitta) there are ripples or waves (vrittis) that obscure the bottom (atman). Ramana Maharshi says the aham vritti is the vritti that underlies all other vrittis.

 

Now in the modern West, we tend to assume (incorrectly) that when we see a table, we are really seeing the table. But that is not really what we're seeing--- what we're seeing is not the table, but the mind in the shape of the table, i.e. a vritti. The same holds true for all forms--- our body, thoughts, emotions, etc.

 

This isn't some philosophical thought, but you can actually see the mind forming and unforming the world when you drift off to sleep or wake up.

 

So the first mistake is taking any of the vrittis to the be the Self, or in thinking any of the vrittis can capture the Self. The second mistake would be to take the mind (chitta) to be the Self.

 

 

Yes, the Self (tadekam) is not the antahakarana (chitta, ahamkara, etc). Very nicely put there...

Any attempts to "capture" the Self in dualistic terms will naturally lead to contradictions and errors because there is never an elimination of the aberrations (vrittis).

 

Dr. Ramakrishna Puligandla, in his book "Jnana Yoga - The Way of Knowledge" describes this very nicely. He says "the mind is a field of objects". It is phenomenal, and it (since it) has a beginning and an end. The Self is not that.

 

A lot of our problems are a result of misunderstanding the original words. I see this with Tai chi practice more and more so now. Words are like the forms of Tai Chi. They take us close to the essence but if we get caught up in them, we miss the essence. The essence is a feeling. It is not rational (we rationalize it after the fact -- which is another vritti). But it is not irrational either. It is non-rational.

Edited November 6, 2014 by dwai

[steve]

The problem with me is, there is still an unconscious urge to be drawn into dualistic grasping.

 

That is the problem with all 'me's - it is the nature of the me to grasp and judge.

And that is useful from a teleological perspective, less so for the spiritual path.

[dwai]

And to lighten up the discussion, here is another type of "I am" --

 

[stefos]

Yes, the Self (tadekam) is not the antahakarana (chitta, ahamkara, etc). Very nicely put there...

Any attempts to "capture" the Self in dualistic terms will naturally lead to contradictions and errors because there is never an elimination of the aberrations (vrittis).

 

Dr. Ramakrishna Puligandla, in his book "Jnana Yoga - The Way of Knowledge" describes this very nicely. He says "the mind is a field of objects". It is phenomenal, and it (since it) has a beginning and an end. The Self is not that.

 

Hari OM TAT SAT

 

Phenomeno & Noumena constitute Name & Form/Things of the mind

 

When we see the seer we realize that we have imprisoned ourselves.

 

The point is to abide in that pristine awareness which is.

 

Homage!