Author Topic: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:  (Read 35616 times)

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #75 on: March 07, 2013, 10:16:23 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

CONTINUES.....

4. "The Self is only one. If limited it is the ego. If unlimited it is infinite and is the Reality.  The bubbles are different from one
another and numerous, but the ocean is only one. Similarly the egos are many, whereas the Self is one and only one.
When told that you are not the ego, realize the Reality. Why do you still identify yourself with the ego?"

                                           - Talk No   146.

The beginning of this text is not properly formulated. The "If" is troublesome, as most 'Ifs' are. What it means is this.  The Self
is unlimited, and, because unlimited, it cannot but be an indivisible whole.  Now what happens is, as it has been said above, that
though the individual is the unlimited Self, he feels limited. To this feeling of limitedness he owes his separate individuality. In
other words, ego is the Self who is under the illusion of being limited and disappears when  the feeling of limitedness disappears,
which Sri Bhagavan clarifies in the end when He finds fault with the questioner that despite repeated assurances to the contrary
the latter continues to feel himself the limited ego.

As for the analogy of the bubble and the ocean, it has been amply dealt with in the last note. One thing more need to be said
here, namely like all analogies it suffers from the drawback of inadequacy, in that he bubbles in the ocean are insentient, material
bubbles (see next note), whereas the Jivas are imaginary, mere conceptions of limitedness.  That is why Sri Bhagavan always
reminds us that "if you search for the ego, it will disappear", its being an illusory conception.

*****

Arunachala Siva.
       

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #76 on: March 08, 2013, 02:20:20 PM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

continues....

5. Destroy the ego by seeking its identity (with the Self).  Because the ego is not an entity, it will automatically vanish and
Reality will shine forth by itself.  This is the direct method.

6. In Yoga Vasishta it is said, 'What is real is hidden from us, but what is false is revealed as true.' We are all along experiencing
the Reality, still we do not know it. Is this not a wonder?

                                                      -  Talk No. 146.

Notes:  This is very interesting in that it definitely declares the world to be false. Whatever is seen, thought or imagined is an
illusion --- a mere appearance; for the reality can never be perceived or conceived.  Even the Jivas, which are said to be real,
are not perceived and do not actually see one another as knowers, as Consciousness. What we see of each other are only
the insentient, objective parts of us, that is, the upadhis: height, breadth,color, smell, sound, mental abilities --- expressed
thoughts and action, etc., but never the mind itself, their container.  In other words, we see the outer coats of one another
and never the Self which they conceal and which is common to all.  This is he meaning of he above quotation from Yoga '
Vasishta. What we perceive does not exist and what exists always we cannot perceive.

To take an example, Mr. Paul is an actor in a play. Once he plays the role of judge, one of a lover, once of a dancer, once of
a dacoit and once he acts as a big bear or chimpanzee. All these entities are unreal, mere impersonations of Mr. Paul. Yet
they alone we perceive on the stage, and not their substratum Mr Paul, notwithstanding his being the only real presence.
Similarly, though the Reality is ever present as the seer and actor of all phenomena, like Mr. Paul on the stage, we perceive
only that which does not exist, namely the phenomena -- the chimpanzee, the bear etc., The world no more exists than the
chimpanzee and the dacoit  exist on the stage. This seeing what does not exist and remaining blind to what really exists in the
case of every person in the world and is the cause of all his misfortunes. Our science calls it Maya, Bhagavan puts it mildly,
when He exclaims,'Isn't that a wonder?' It is an unconscious mass blindness indeed, a mass hypnosis not to see Mr. Paul who
stands all the while before our eyes, but we swear to the reality of the bear and the dacoit who are not there at all.

*****

Arunachala Siva.   
       
   
 

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #77 on: March 09, 2013, 10:18:42 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

"There is only one consciousness, but we speak of several kinds of consciousness ---- body consciousness, self consciousness, etc.,
These are only relative states of the same Absolute Consciousness.  Without consciousness, time and space do not exist.
They appear in consciousness. It is like a screen on which these are cast as pictures, and move as in a cinema show. The Absolute
Consciousness is our real nature. Everyone's experience proves the existence of only one consciousness."

                                          -  Talk 199.

Notes:  Consciousness is 'one only' and changeless.  It cannot be otherwise.  Turn it however we may, the notion of a variety
of consciousnesses we meet with in certain schools of thoughts and in psychology proves untenable and defeats itself, being
based on the ignorance.  Being incognizable except in Yoga, there is all this confused thinking about it. Consciousness  or pure
mind is the formless intelligence through which we perceive all things.  Ideas, notions, sensations, perceptions, are representations
in the consciousness.  BUT NOT THE CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF.  They are in ceaseless flux, whereas the consciousness that is aware of
them is fixed, or else it would not be aware of their change. It is constant, for it has no qualities whatsoever to divide, multiply, or
change it.  Thus body-consciousness simply means awareness of the body and its behavior, like awareness of any other representation
made to it. Awareness is like the clean mirror which reflects all the objects that are presented before it.  What is known as states of consciousness does not qualify the consciousness, which has no  other state but its own. The states are mere appearances in the
consciousness, that is, in the subject, who witnesses them.

Sri Bhagavan compares consciousness to the screen on which pictures are projected. It is the pictures that change, and not the screen.
It is the acting of the aforesaid Mr. Paul and his impersonations on the stage that change, and not Mr. Paul, who is constant and can
act an infinite number of parts without himself changing. Time and space are, like other ideas and notions, objects of Consciousness outside of which they have no existence.

*****

Arunachala Siva.               

       

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #78 on: March 10, 2013, 09:57:20 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

8. "A madman clings to his samskaras, whereas a Jnani does not. This is the only difference between the two.  A man
running the course of his samskaras, when taught that he is the Self, the teaching affects his mind, and his imagination
runs riot. His experiences are only according to his imagination of the state of the Self.

"When a man is ripe to receive the instructions and his mind is about to sink into the Heart, the instructions work in a flash,
and he realizes the Self all right. In others there is always a struggle."

                                                                     - Talk No. 275.

Notes: The context of this text is the case of a young man, who when once was looking at the picture of Bhagavan in his own
house, saw the picture move, which frightened him considerably.  The fear continued even after he came to Tiruvannamalai and
saw Bhagavan in person.  As long as he was in the presence of the Master, he had no fear, but the moment he remained alone
the fear returned.

This is one of the varieties of experience which some people who came to the Asramam, or worship Bhagavan even from a distance   
without understanding Him, undergo, because they rely more on their imagination of Bhagavan rather than on what He in reality is,
or stands for. Bhagavan's answer is a warning against the tricks of their imagination.  I once witnessed a case which appeared
tragic in the beginning, but ended humorously.  The humour did not become apparent till very recently, after twenty years.  But not
all cases have a humorous denouement. Some are very tragic, indeed in that they affect permanently the mind, as for example, the fatal
case of the young man recorded in Talks.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.
     

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #79 on: March 11, 2013, 08:48:02 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

8. continues....

Others are tragicomedies, victims of which are both the sexes.  The comedies fall largely to the share of the fair sex, because
the "riot" of their imagination runs gentler than with their masculine counterparts, and move in the familiar grooves of saris,
color of dress, invasion of her heart and mind by the spirit of Bhagavan, or even petty conversations with Isvara - the Creator
-- whom Bhagavan 'sends' her, and so on.

But hallucinations of men are much more serious.  At least in one or two cases they led to the disruption of the family life.
That is why the seer of visions and super sensuous phenomena is constantly reminded to be on bis guard.  To aspire for
the Highest, one has to develop to be on his guard.  "To aspire for the Highest, one has to develop a strong common sense
and a solidly practical mind.

The ripe man, Sri Bhagavan tells us, forms a more or less clear notion of the Self when he hears of it, so that he is steady enough
to know the direction his sadhana should take and applies himself well, not allowing his imagination to have the better of him.
The others have much an uphill work to do before they become ripe. Even to understand the teaching itself, much effort will be
necessary. This is their struggle, the labor pangs of their salvation.

*****

Arunachala Siva.                   

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #80 on: March 12, 2013, 08:59:54 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

9.  It is said that the Guru can make his disciple realize the Self by transferring some of his own power to him. Is it true?

 Bhagavan:  Yes, the Guru does not bring about Self Realization, but removes the obstacles to it. The Self is always realized.
So long as you seek Self Realization, the Guru is necessary. Guru is the Self. Take the Guru to be the real Self and yourself as
the individual. The disappearance of this sense of duality is removal of ignorance. So long as duality persists in you, the Guru
is necessary,  Because you identify yourself with the body, you imagine the Guru to be the body. You are not the body, nor is
the Guru.  You are the Self and so is he. This knowledge is gained by what you call Self Realization.

Notes: It will be noticed that the question has not been given a direct answer.  For Bhagavan is very often reluctant to give
a direct contradiction to the statement, or the alleged statements, of a well known saint, but the contradiction is implied in
the answer. Sri Bhagavan does not recognize the possibility of transmitting a power to a person to make him realize the Self.
In fact, no such power is at all necessary.  What is necessary for the cognition of the Real is not an addition but a subtraction --
the removal of the sense of duality which covers the One consciousness.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.           

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #81 on: March 13, 2013, 09:09:44 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

9. continues....

This Consciousness is the seeker's own self, which is always present. It does not lie within the power of the personal Guru to
confer or withhold. It is there all the time, and if the disciple does not perceive it, it is because he mistakes his body for it; and,
as he fails to perceive himself as a thinker, he fails also to see the Guru as a thinker but a mere body,  thus establishing a duality;
himself as different from the Guru. All the Guru can do is to help him correct this false identification, so that the disciple may eventually
perceive himself in his true essence, as intelligence rather than as a pile of flesh.

Then the question turns to ask about the necessity or otherwise of the Guru, and the Master confirms the necessity, so long as this
false identification and the view of duality rule the day with the seeker, who is taken to be always in duality till he realizes the non-
duality, which is his Illumination or Jnana.

***

Arunachala Siva.     

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #82 on: March 14, 2013, 08:50:57 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

10.  Look how every person believes in his own existence. Does he look in the mirror to see his being?  His awareness of his
existence gives him the assurance of it.  But he compares it with the body, etc., Why should he do that?  Is he aware of his
body in sleep? He is not, yet he does not cease to exist while in sleep. He has therefore only to be aware of his being and this
will be evident to him.

                                                               -  Talk No. 363.

Notes:  This is extremely lucid. Paraphrasing it, it means this: no one need look in the mirror to know that he exists, for this
knowledge is already available to him. We are aware of our existence with a certainty which is unshakable.  Therefore, the certainty
of our being is the one element in us which can never be lost.  We may doubt all other things, but this one never. Even in deep sleep we exist as we admit it later in jagrat.  This is not an intuited knowledge, nor a reported knowledge, nor an inferred knowledge, but
a direct, immediate knowledge.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.         

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #83 on: March 15, 2013, 09:20:52 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

Notes for 10 continues.....


So long as we hold on to this pure knowledge of our existence, to this awareness of our being, there can be no difficulty, no
ignorance for us whatever.  BUT THE TROUBLE IS THAT WE DO NOT.  The moment we see the body, we immediately rush at it,
hug it and call it 'I'.  This is our fall. This is the genesis of our disturbed peace. So long as we do not see the body, as in dreamless
sleep or samadhi, we are in supreme peace --- we are in our own state, our own naked being. But as soon as we return to Jagrat
and re-enter the body, the body becomes that being, that 'I'.  We confer the consciousness of the being on the unconscious body,
and then woe betide us!

It can now be seen that when people speak of gaining MUKTI,  Bhagavan corrects them that there is nothing to be gained or added
by the sadhana, meaning that it is not gaining but returning to the status quo ante, to the condition which prevailed before the body
entered our sphere of our perception, to the bodiless being.

*****

Arunachala Siva.
             

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #84 on: March 16, 2013, 09:01:45 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

11.  "How is one to know the Self?"  The Master answers:  "Knowing the Self is being the Self. You are aware of yourself even
though the Self cannot be objectified.  It is because you have got accustomed to relative knowledge that you identify yourself
with it.  Who is to know the Self?  Can  the body know it?"

Notes:  This is a continuation of the previous text.  Supreme Knowledge and Supreme Being are one and the same. Chit is also
Sat.  Awareness of the Being means Knowledge of one's own existence, that is Self Knowledge.  Awareness and Being are
therefore simultaneous and identical.  To say, 'I am not aware of myself' is thus logically wrong  -- a contradiction in terms.
Self awareness is admitted in the confession 'I am'.   By 'you got accustomed to relative knowledge', is meant that in jagrat
we are aware of nothing but objects -- jagrat is the sphere of objects, though in fact, no objects at all exist. Jagrat is a mental
state, wherein the senses have a free hand to manifest their powers to our consciousness in the form of  smells, tastes, sounds,
colors, etc., which we assemble in our minds and interpret as objects. We thus lose the being in perception of imaginary, synthetic
objects. The 'I' though aware of its existence, gets confused by its own objectivity, and erroneously projects this awareness on the
insentient body, turning it into the sentient Self.  This the true Fall of Man.

****

Arunachala Siva.   
   
     

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #85 on: March 17, 2013, 09:39:22 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

continues....

12.  "Is there a sixth sense to feel 'I AM'?

Bhagavan:  'Do you deny your existence?  Do you not remain yourself even in sleep?  As for the senses, they work only periodically.
Their work begin and end; whereas the "I" continues in sleep as well as now. There must be a substratum on which the
activities of the senses depend. Where do they appear and merge?  There must be a single substratum.  That is the Self of which
they are not independent. It is the power which works through them.'

Notes: The questioner, like most beginners, is a bit confused about his I AM. He is perfectly aware of his own existence, but is unable
to place his fingers on the 'I' and say, 'This am I'. So he inquires whether a sixth sense can do it; for neither the five senses nor the
body can cognize the Self.  Bhagavan's counter question, 'Do you deny your existence?' implies that even a tenth sense cannot do it,
for the senses are (insentient) and can cognize nothing. The cognizer is Self alone.  A smell for example, is a smell only to the smeller,
without whom it is just nothing.  Moreover, the senses are functions of the Self only in jagrat.  Postulating a sense to know the Self
therefore, is postulating the contained to contain the container.

The Self, therefore, must attempt the knowledge of itself.  There only duality finds no accommodation.  There only the knower and
the known are identically the same "I AM", the substatum of both.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.     
     

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #86 on: March 18, 2013, 08:37:54 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY:

13.  "The individual is sentient and cannot be without consciousness.  The Self is pure consciousness. Yet man identifies
himself with the body which is insentient and does not say, 'I am the body'. Someone else says so.  The unlimited Self
does not say it either.  Who then is saying it ? A spurious 'I' which arises between the pure consciousness and the insentient
body and which imagines itself limited to the body.  Seek this and it will vanish as a phantom.  That phantom is the ego or
individuality.

"All the Sastras are written for the purpose of eliminating this phantom. The present state is mere illusion. Our aim should be
simply to remove this illusion --- to disillusion ourselves."
                                         
                                                                                              - Talk No. 427.

Note: In the  first four notes of this chapter, an extensive study of the relation of the ego to the Self and of the fictitious nature of
the ego has been made. 

Here Sri Bhagavan tackles the subject from a different angle.

The body is not sentient and, therefore, unaware of itself to say 'I am this body'.  The Self, though it is pure sentience, but,
because it is unlimited, it does not limit itself to a body to say 'I am this body' either. If neither pure sentience nor pure insentience
can say, 'I am the body', here must be a third principle which partakes of the nature of both, that can say it.  But a principle which
is sentient as well as insentient does not exist -- it contradicts itself.  Therefore, such a principle can only be imaginary --- 'spurious'.
We call it ego or individuality to mean sentience gone amuck, thoroughly under the influence of delusion, from which to save it
all the Sastras, have been written and all Gurus have taken birth.

To sum up, the ego is the Supreme Self itself imagining itself an insentient body.  An emphasis must be laid on this psychical
error ---- the imagination element, --- which is responsible for the spurious entity, man the ego, that is, man think this is a very
clear picture of the ego, which continues to give trouble till the Self is realized.

*****

Arunachala Siva.         

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #87 on: March 19, 2013, 08:41:38 AM »

THE SELF OR REALITY:

14.  "You speak of the vision of Siva.  Vision is always of an object, which implies the existence of the subject. Whatever appears
must also disappear. A vision can never be eternal.  But Siva is eternal. He is the Consciousness. He is the Self.

"TO BE is to realize --- hence I AM THAT I  AM.  I AM is Siva. Nothing can be without Him. Therefore inquire, 'Who am I?' Sink
deep and abide as the Self.  That is Siva as BE-ing. Do not expect to have visions of Him."

                                                                                           - Talk No. 450.

Notes:  This is an answer to a European lady who had embraced Hinduism in the Saiva cult and had been having  the blissful
vision of Siva off and on  since her initiation.  Now she desires this vision to be 'everlasting'. Bhagavan answers that she is asking
the impossible; visions can never be everlasting, for in their very nature, hey are mere appearances, which have no basis in reality.
Reality alone is everlasting.  Therefore to have the everlasting bliss of Siva is to be Siva Himself.  And Siva, being the Supreme
Consciousness, is the very self of all seers, all hearers, and all knowers, the inquirer herself.  Thus to be Siva merely means to be oneself as that Consciousness, stripped of all sights and all thoughts, that is, simply to BE.

"Nothing can be without Siva." implies that without a seer there can be be no sight and, so, no seen.  All that is seen therefore
must depend upon the percipient consciousness.  Consciousness is thus the substratum of all that exists, i.e. present in all experiences.

If Bhagavan mentions Siva as the BE-ing, it is merely in answer to the question of the inquirer.  Any other deity can be substituted
for Siva without prejudicing the answer, so long as we understand by it the subject, the knower himself. This is confirmed by the
next text.

*******

Arunachala Siva             

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #88 on: March 20, 2013, 08:42:04 AM »

THE SELF OR REALITY:

15.  "There is no being who is not conscious and therefore who is not Siva.  Not only he is Siva but also all else. Yet he
thinks in sheer ignorance that he sees the universe in diverse forms. But if he sees the Self he will not be aware of his
separateness from the universe. Siva is then seen as the universe. But unfortunately, the seer does not see the background.
Think of the man who sees only he cloth and not the cotton on which it is made, or the pictures and not the screen. Or the
letters which he reads and not the paper on which they are written.  Siva is both the Being assuming the forms in the universe
as well as the consciousness that sees them.  That is to say Siva is the background that sees them. That is to say Siva is the
background underlying both the subject and the object --  Siva in repose and Siva in action.  Whatever it is said to be, it is
only Consciousness, whether in repose or in action."



Notes:  It is now evident that Siva is not other than the seer.  The last part of this text which makes the absolute consciousness
to be 'in repose' as well as 'in action' is a good answer to the doctrinaire theory that Chaitanya does not include the active senses.
If it does not include them, that the senses do not exist at all  --- all is Maya, which implies that Maya is the creator of the senses,
which is absurd.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.
     
   

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: Reflections on Talks - S.S. Cohen:
« Reply #89 on: March 21, 2013, 10:17:17 AM »
THE SELF OR REALITY

15. Notes continue.....

The senses are, like memory, space-sense, time-sense, etc., undeniable, for they are responsible for the appearance of an
external world, whereas Maya is the name given to this appearance, this illusion. Maya is thus not the parent  but the offspring
of the senses. Therefore, the senses are the activity of Chaitanya, the Pure Consciousness, but, to repeat, an APPARENT activity,
which displays a world that does not exist, like a dream.  It is an activity which is within the consciousness, though it appears to be
without it, an activity which does not affect the consciousness itself.  And, being an appearance within the consciousness, it is the
consciousness itself, that is, of the same nature as its substratum;  for it cannot be of an alien nature, since there exist nothing but
pure consciousness. Thus the world is Siva Himself. He is BEING as well as DOING - Repose as well as Action. And this will not be
realized as such until Siva is first realized as BEING, because BEING is His very nature, whereas DOING is only an appearance in Him.

Unless action is understood to be a mere appearance in Being, the true nature of the object will ever remain a puzzle to the student
of metaphysics.  This is of fundamental importance for the proper apprehension of the relation of the perception to their seer, of the
changeless Self to the ever changing phenomena, of the screen, to use Sri Bhagavan's analogy, to the picture which move on it.

****

Arunachala Siva.