Advaita Bhoda Deepika #16

[Guest guest]

>From the end of post #15...

 

D.: Now what is the conclusion?

M.: The 'false-I' is the experiencer and the other one who

is unconcernedly watching the states and their experiencer is

the witness.

 

37. D.: In that case, for the three states are there three

different witnesses or is there only one?

 

M.: The witness is only one whereas the states alternate one

with another; the witness does not change. The same continuous

awareness runs through the appearance, staying and disappearance

of the three states. Thus the witness of the three states is the Self.

The witness-hood of the Self has thus been described.

 

=================================================

 

38. In this manner the tatastha lakshana of the Self has

been described. Now we shall consider Its swarupa lakshana. It

is Being-Knowledge-Bliss, single, all permeating, untainted,

perfect, unchanged and non-dual.

 

39-41. D.: What is meant by Its 'Being'?

 

M.: Always It remains witnessing the appearance and

disappearance of all the states superimposed on It. Nay more -

It was the Witness not only of the waking, dream and deep sleep

states but also of the births, growths (childhood, youth, old age)

and deaths of previous bodies (just as It is of this body and will be

of future bodies). It is thus the one, continuous, ever existent

witness of all these. Its "Being" is thus obvious.

 

42. D.: What is meant by Its being 'Knowledge'?

 

M.: Inasmuch as It always remains illumining and

manifesting the three states and their relative 'false-I', Knowledge

is self evident.

 

43-46. D.: What is meant by Its being 'Bliss'?

 

M.: Always being the one object of supreme joy, rather

supreme joy itself, the Self is Bliss.

 

D.: Is not the non-self also pleasing?

M.: No.

 

D.: Why not?

 

M.: Not by itself but only as an object of enjoyment for

the individual self, the non-self is dear as husband, wife, child,

wealth, home, pleasing unguents, sweet scents etc.

 

D.: Why are they said to be not pleasing by themselves?

M.: Should they be so, they must always remain so. At one

time, one thing is pleasing and at other times, the same thing is

nauseating.

 

D.: How?

M.: Take a woman, for instance. When the man is lustful,

she is fancied to be pleasing; when he suffers from fever, she is

not wanted; for a man grown desireless, she is of no interest at

all. According to circumstances the same woman can be pleasing,

unwanted, or of no interest. The same applies to all other objects

of enjoyment. Thus the non-self cannot be pleasing.

 

47. D.: Is the Self always pleasing?

M.: Certainly; never do you know It to be otherwise.

 

48-49. D.: In cases of unbearable pain, the Self is given up

in disgust. How can it be said to be always pleasing?

M.: The Self can never be given up because he who in

disgust relinquishes the sufferings that are alien to him, does

not give up himself.

 

D.: It is the Self that is given up by himself.

M.: In that case, if the Self is given up, there must be

another who gives it up. On the other hand, he being the one

who gives up, gives up the painful body which is different from

himself, and not himself. Furthermore the very fact of occasional

disgust with the body etc., proves that the non-self is painful

and the Self joyful.

 

D.: How does it prove this?

M.: Should the Self be painful, pain could never be disliked.

Because one's true nature is joy, one dislikes pain in the shape of

body etc. Not being natural but only adventitious, ailments are

not liked. Had they been natural, they could not be disliked.

Just as the dislike of illness etc., shows that they are not natural

but only adventitious, so also the dislike of the body etc., shows

that these are similarly not natural and that joy is one's own

eternal true nature. Therefore a sudden and intense disgust with

the body etc., makes a man rid himself of them but not of the

Self. This very fact teaches that the body etc. are not the Self. It

must now be obvious how the Self can never be the object of

dislike to any one.

 

50-51. D.: Even if the Self cannot be detested, can It not

be an object of indifference?

M.: No. Being oneself the one who is indifferent, one can

be indifferent to the non-self e.g. a pebble or a blade of grass but

not to oneself. Therefore the Self is not an object of occasional

dislike like the body, woman etc. nor of indifference like a blade

of grass or a pebble. Always It is Joy Itself.

 

52-53. D.: If the Self is always pleasing and so are senseobjects

at the time of enjoyment, let them also be regarded as

pleasing.

M.: The delight in any object is not lasting but what is now

delightful soon yields its place to another more so. There are

degrees of pleasure and succession of the objects liked. The pleasure

in objects is only wanton and not steady. This is possible only if

the pleasure is born of one's own delusion and not of the intrinsic

value of the object. For example, see how a dog chews a dry,

marrowless bone until blood comes out of the wounds in its

mouth, fancies the taste of its own blood to be that of the marrow

of the bone and will not part with it. Should it find another

similar bone, it drops down the one in its mouth and takes the

other. In the same way, superimposing his own joyful nature on

the detestable objects of fancy, the man delights in them by

mistake, for joy is not their nature. Owing to the ignorance of

man the objects which are really painful by nature seem to be

pleasing. This seeming pleasure does not remain steady in one

object but often shifts to other objects; it is wanton, graded, and

not absolute, whereas the Joy of the Self is not captious. Even

when the body etc., are cast off, this joy endures in the Self for

ever; it is also absolute. Therefore the Self is Supreme Bliss. So far

the Being-Knowledge-Bliss nature of the Self has been established.

 

54. D.: Do these three - Being, Knowledge and Bliss

form the qualities or the nature of the Self?

M.: These are not qualities but the very Self. Just as heat,

light, and redness form the nature of fire and are not its qualities,

so also Being, Knowledge and Bliss are the nature of the Self.

 

=============================

Taken from Advaita Bhoda Deepika

as published by Sri Ramanasramam

Tiruvannamalai 2002.

 

To be continued...

 

You can download at

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/downloads/downloads.htm

[Guest guest]

43-46. D.: What is meant by Its being 'Bliss'?

 

M.: Always being the one object of supreme joy, rathersupreme joy itself, the Self is Bliss.

 

D.: Is not the non-self also pleasing?

M.: No.

 

D.: Why not?

 

M.: Not by itself but only as an object of enjoyment forthe individual

self, the non-self is dear as husband, wife, child,wealth, home,

pleasing unguents, sweet scents etc.

 

D.: Why are they said to be not pleasing by themselves?

M.: Should they be so, they must always remain so. At onetime, one

thing is pleasing and at other times, the same thing isnauseating.

 

D.: How?

M.: Take a woman, for instance. When the man is lustful,she is fancied

to be pleasing; when he suffers from fever, she isnot wanted; for a

man grown desireless, she is of no interest atall. According to

circumstances the same woman can be pleasing,unwanted, or of no

interest. The same applies to all other objectsof enjoyment. Thus the

non-self cannot be pleasing....

 

.....M.: Should the Self be painful, pain could never be

disliked.Because one's true nature is joy, one dislikes pain in the

shape ofbody etc. Not being natural but only adventitious, ailments

arenot liked. Had they been natural, they could not be disliked.Just

as the dislike of illness etc., shows that they are not naturalbut

only adventitious, so also the dislike of the body etc., showsthat

these are similarly not natural and that joy is one's owneternal true

nature. Therefore a sudden and intense disgust withthe body etc.,

makes a man rid himself of them but not of theSelf. This very fact

teaches that the body etc. are not the Self. Itmust now be obvious

how the Self can never be the object ofdislike to any one.

 

50-51. D.: Even if the Self cannot be detested, can It notbe an object of indifference?

M.: No. Being oneself the one who is indifferent, one canbe

indifferent to the non-self e.g. a pebble or a blade of grass butnot

to oneself. Therefore the Self is not an object of occasionaldislike

like the body, woman etc. nor of indifference like a bladeof grass or

a pebble. Always It is Joy Itself.

 

~ Taken from Advaita Bhoda Deepikaas published by Sri

RamanasramamTiruvannamalai 2002.... courtesy of Joyceji (Jai Joycee!)

Dearest Joyce (A Sparkle Clear Voice),

This particular piece, oh Dear One, how piercingly clear, and how

cast-offing of the ignorance of the Self it affords - if one hears

this, sees this, and realizes just this bit of wisdom, just so - for

it is such an immensity of "'what is' wisdom" in a most concisely

perfect nutshell.

For myself, Joyceji, this wealth of wisdom hits home, and it does not

miss its mark - for I have been embarked, as you know, on a most

crash-coursing come-forthedness afforded me by this body which

attempts to demand that the helm of this corporeal realmship, be

given over to belief in itself as real ... and running this show ...

but no, "...the Self is not an object of occasional dislike like the

body.... Always it is Joy Itself."

Today ... I Am ... Joy Itself! Jai to I Am ... and Jai to you, my

Cherished Friend Joyce, for this choice morsel from our Beloved Sri

Ramana. It is the Gift to my Self, Grace of my Self. Ah! Such Joy we

cannot say it, cannot convey it, cannot play it out like all the

other lovely things that life brings ... for it Sings alone ... and

yet It Sings with everything that is, and I am bowled down and over

in humble Gratitude for you, for Sri Ramana, for Blessed Brother

Harshaji, for all my Beloved Friends, for my Beautiful Bob, for my

Self, for this life which brought me here to this, this precise,

perfect moment of knowing .... I am.

As I Am,

Mzie