Self - the pure mind?

[Greg Goode]

At 10:26 AM 11/7/97 -0700, Nanda Kumar wrote:

>In the waking state the reality of the mind and body are felt.

Would you really say "Reality"?  How about this alternate description:

   In the waking state the mind and body are felt.

>In the dreaming state the 'I' lacks the body and is felt only at the mind
>level.

>In the dreamless sleep both the body and mind are not felt.

>OK, but who exactly sets the standards for the 'I', body, mind.  For
>sometimes even in the dream state the physical body is affected.

Yes, sometimes the same things happening to the body in the dream state are
actually happening to the body in the waking state.  But the dreamer
doesn't know this, the waker does.

Who sets the standards?  Sastra, I'd say.  You know about these equivalencies:

  Brahman identified with the waking mind/body is called VAISVANARA
  Brahman identified with the dreaming mind is called TAIJASA
  Brahman identified with the deep sleeper is called PRAJNA

> Why
>can't it just be a natural state of the mind to shut down and reawaken
>when the body wakes up? Is there any rule which says it should always
>be up and running?

Let's say the mind DOES shut down in deep sleep.  How is it that you know
that consciousness is absent during deep sleep?  Something must be there to
record the coming and going of consciousness, the coming and going of the
mind.  The something is the Self.

>In deep sleep even the conciousness is absent. So how can it be
>positively said that the Self alone shines during susupti?

Because the Self is there even if consciousness is not there.  Nisargadatta
is a good one to read about this, he's clearer than most other teachers on
this point.

>Even the shruti says the Self is beyond the reaches of the senses and
>the intellect. So in the process, at a mature stage, a mystical Self
>overcomes the mind and envelopes the being, might be true, but can only
>be certified or claimed by 'experienced' beings. Whether it's just a
>modification or altered state of the mental process itself cannot be totally
>proved.

A swami told me recently :-) that none of these models should be taken as
absolute metaphysical truths.  They are teaching points, to get the student
to stop identifying with the body, mind, causal body, or one of the 5
sheaths, etc.  You don't need any proof (just careful introspection) to see
that there is Something that sees whatever appears in any of the 3 states
in the world, and that this see-er itself cannot be seen.  This is the
Self, and it's not really that mystical....

--Greg