One more time!: Is Enlightenment Personal?

[Guest guest]

As Sadaji has often pointed out, we

should not mix up the relative and

the absolute levels.

There is a saying, "Theoretically, there is no

difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." To

say that having any personality is not compatible with Jnana is to

limit Jnana..

A variety of reasonable explanations are possible on the the nature of

Self-Realization and Moksha or Nirvana. We

should keep in mind that these explanations are at the level of

relativity. Even Ajati-vada is a concept only in the field of

relativity. If something is useful for us and appears compatible with

common sense, we can accept it. There are enough philosophical

perspectives to satisfy everyone. One need not fear a shortage.

Sages tell us that

past karma, even in the case of Jnani, has to work itself out.

We need not view Self-Realization to be incompatible with the existence

of the form

or skeleton of the mind remaining, which essentially reflects the

karma that has come into fruition. In practice, one can say that the

Self dominates the form of the mind as it is fully saturated in

consciousness and can observes its arising from the Self while

remaining rooted in it. Therefore, the actions of such a person would

be effortless, natural, and authentic.

Another point that should be made, although it has been made before

many times, is what Bhaskarji has stated. The Self is not an object to

itself. However, it is not unconscious either. Certain statements made

by Nisargadatta indicate or have been interpreted by his students to

imply the equivalence between unconsciousness and consciousness.

Although the Self is not an object to itself, it is a continuous whole

and is of the nature of unbroken awareness. The suggestion that Self is

unconscious of it Self that is made by some is not based on

Self-Knowledge. Self is not an object to It Self but Self is not

unconscious. It is beyond both unconsciousness and consciousness as we

normally think of them. The nature of the Self is pure, unbroken

Awareness. Because its very nature is that of pure, pristine, full

awareness, and yet is not an object to It Self, the question of whether

Self is unconscious of itself is moot. It can be raised in the realm

of relativity, but its meaning or usefulness is unclear.

While we can respect the influence J. Krishnamurti and Nisargadatta

have had through their works, we can be indifferent to views which are

not compatible with Self-Knowledge and the Upanishads.

Sri Ramana is in a completely different category of very rare Sages

and should not be lumped with Krishnamurti or even Nirsargadatta. Much

of Nisargadatta's excellent teaching in "I am That" is clear and echoes

the essential teachings of Sri Ramana. However, certain statements made

by him and his disciple Ramesh Baleskar and then Ramesh's students are

not compatible with the Upanishads.

Not only did Sri Ramana Realize the Self, but he became fully

conversant with the scriptures and easily saw the congruence between

his experience and what the Upanishads were saying and was able to

explain it easily and fully. Based on what we know, the same cannot be

said about either Krishnamurti or Nisargadatta.

"Theoretically, there is

no

difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." :-).

Love to all

Harsha

Ganesan Sankarraman wrote:

Dear Sir,

There is no sense of otherness for the jnani. Does, as Ramana

says, the waking individual worry about the concerns of those with whom

he trafficked in the dream? The idea that there are others to be

enlightened is incompatible with both dhrist-shrishti vada and

ajati-vada. The yogavasishta is dead against the idea of personal

enlightenment. Do the others exist in the deep-sleep state? Their

existence vouchsafed by the other individuals of the waking state is

not apriori. When even in a state covered by avidya, there are no

others tentatively, there being only the otherness of the avidya

superimposed on the Witness, how could there be sense of otherness in

an enligtened consciousness? The sense of personality is only vis-a-vis

others, which is not compatibel with enlightenment.

Sankarraman

Sankarraman

-

 

community blog is at

http://.net/blog/

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

Sri Ramana

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

Imho, This relative and absolute {life} we are living is all about

experiences. What do we want to experience? And Who experiences?

How do we define Love?

I am takes any/every road in conscious-awareness-love, or not.

 

Love,

Ana

 

 

 

, Harsha wrote:

>

> *As Sadaji has often pointed out, we should not mix up the relative

and

> the absolute levels.

>

> There is a saying, "Theoretically, there is no difference between

theory

> and practice, but in practice there is." To say that having any

> personality is not compatible with Jnana is to limit Jnana..

>

> A variety of reasonable explanations are possible on the the nature

of

> Self-Realization and Moksha or Nirvana. We should keep in mind that

> these explanations are at the level of relativity. Even Ajati-vada

is a

> concept only in the field of relativity. If something is useful for

us

> and appears compatible with common sense, we can accept it. There

are

> enough philosophical perspectives to satisfy everyone. One need not

fear

> a shortage.

>

> Sages tell us that past karma, even in the case of Jnani, has to

work

> itself out. We need not view Self-Realization to be incompatible

with

> the existence of the form or skeleton of the mind remaining, which

> essentially reflects the karma that has come into fruition. In

> practice, one can say that the Self dominates the form of the mind

as it

> is fully saturated in consciousness and can observes its arising

from

> the Self while remaining rooted in it. Therefore, the actions of

such a

> person would be effortless, natural, and authentic.

>

> Another point that should be made, although it has been made before

many

> times, is what Bhaskarji has stated. The Self is not an object to

> itself. However, it is not unconscious either. Certain statements

made

> by Nisargadatta indicate or have been interpreted by his students

to

> imply the equivalence between unconsciousness and consciousness.

> Although the Self is not an object to itself, it is a continuous

whole

> and is of the nature of unbroken awareness. The suggestion that

Self is

> unconscious of it Self that is made by some is not based on

> Self-Knowledge. Self is not an object to It Self but Self is not

> unconscious. It is beyond both unconsciousness and consciousness as

we

> normally think of them. The nature of the Self is pure, unbroken

> Awareness. Because its very nature is that of pure, pristine, full

> awareness, and yet is not an object to It Self, the question of

whether

> Self is unconscious of itself is moot. It can be raised in the

realm of

> relativity, but its meaning or usefulness is unclear.

>

> While we can respect the influence J. Krishnamurti and Nisargadatta

have

> had through their works, we can be indifferent to views which are

not

> compatible with Self-Knowledge and the Upanishads.

>

> Sri Ramana is in a completely different category of very rare

Sages and

> should not be lumped with Krishnamurti or even Nirsargadatta. Much

of

> Nisargadatta's excellent teaching in "I am That" is clear and

echoes the

> essential teachings of Sri Ramana. However, certain statements made

by

> him and his disciple Ramesh Baleskar and then Ramesh's students are

not

> compatible with the Upanishads.

>

> Not only did Sri Ramana Realize the Self, but he became fully

conversant

> with the scriptures and easily saw the congruence between his

experience

> and what the Upanishads were saying and was able to explain it

easily

> and fully. Based on what we know, the same cannot be said about

either

> Krishnamurti or Nisargadatta.

>

> **"Theoretically, there is no difference between theory and

practice,

> but in practice there is." :-).*

> *

> Love to all

> Harsha

> *

>

>

> Ganesan Sankarraman wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sir,

> > There is no sense of otherness for the jnani. Does, as

Ramana

> > says, the waking individual worry about the concerns of those

with

> > whom he trafficked in the dream? The idea that there are others

to be

> > enlightened is incompatible with both dhrist-shrishti vada and

> > ajati-vada. The yogavasishta is dead against the idea of personal

> > enlightenment. Do the others exist in the deep-sleep state? Their

> > existence vouchsafed by the other individuals of the waking state

is

> > not apriori. When even in a state covered by avidya, there are no

> > others tentatively, there being only the otherness of the avidya

> > superimposed on the Witness, how could there be sense of

otherness in

> > an enligtened consciousness? The sense of personality is only

> > vis-a-vis others, which is not compatibel with enlightenment.

> > Sankarraman

> > Sankarraman

> >

> >

> > -

>

>

>

>

> community blog is at

>

> http://.net/blog/

>

> "Love itself is the actual form of God."

>

> Sri Ramana

>

> In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha

how come that your words so perfectly mirror that what this person feels regarding the issues you covered?????????

Thank you for your mail

sorry for answering sooo late - due to backlog in my emails....

yours

michael bindel

Harsha <harsha (AT) (DOT) com> wrote:

As Sadaji has often pointed out, we should not mix up the relative and the absolute levels.

 

There is a saying, "Theoretically, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." To say that having any personality is not compatible with Jnana is to limit Jnana..

 

A variety of reasonable explanations are possible on the the nature of Self-Realization and Moksha or Nirvana. We should keep in mind that these explanations are at the level of relativity. Even Ajati-vada is a concept only in the field of relativity. If something is useful for us and appears compatible with common sense, we can accept it. There are enough philosophical perspectives to satisfy everyone. One need not fear a shortage.

 

Sages tell us that past karma, even in the case of Jnani, has to work itself out. We need not view Self-Realization to be incompatible with the existence of the form or skeleton of the mind remaining, which essentially reflects the karma that has come into fruition. In practice, one can say that the Self dominates the form of the mind as it is fully saturated in consciousness and can observes its arising from the Self while remaining rooted in it. Therefore, the actions of such a person would be effortless, natural, and authentic.

 

Another point that should be made, although it has been made before many times, is what Bhaskarji has stated. The Self is not an object to itself. However, it is not unconscious either. Certain statements made by Nisargadatta indicate or have been interpreted by his students to imply the equivalence between unconsciousness and consciousness. Although the Self is not an object to itself, it is a continuous whole and is of the nature of unbroken awareness. The suggestion that Self is unconscious of it Self that is made by some is not based on Self-Knowledge. Self is not an object to It Self but Self is not unconscious. It is beyond both unconsciousness and consciousness as we normally think of them. The nature of the Self is pure, unbroken Awareness. Because its very nature is that of pure, pristine, full awareness, and yet is not an object to It Self, the question of whether Self is unconscious of itself is moot. It can be raised in the realm of relativity, but its meaning

or usefulness is unclear.

 

While we can respect the influence J. Krishnamurti and Nisargadatta have had through their works, we can be indifferent to views which are not compatible with Self-Knowledge and the Upanishads.

 

Sri Ramana is in a completely different category of very rare Sages and should not be lumped with Krishnamurti or even Nirsargadatta. Much of Nisargadatta's excellent teaching in "I am That" is clear and echoes the essential teachings of Sri Ramana. However, certain statements made by him and his disciple Ramesh Baleskar and then Ramesh's students are not compatible with the Upanishads.

 

Not only did Sri Ramana Realize the Self, but he became fully conversant with the scriptures and easily saw the congruence between his experience and what the Upanishads were saying and was able to explain it easily and fully. Based on what we know, the same cannot be said about either Krishnamurti or Nisargadatta.

 

"Theoretically, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." :-).

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

Ganesan Sankarraman wrote:

Dear Sir,

There is no sense of otherness for the jnani. Does, as Ramana says, the waking individual worry about the concerns of those with whom he trafficked in the dream? The idea that there are others to be enlightened is incompatible with both dhrist-shrishti vada and ajati-vada. The yogavasishta is dead against the idea of personal enlightenment. Do the others exist in the deep-sleep state? Their existence vouchsafed by the other individuals of the waking state is not apriori. When even in a state covered by avidya, there are no others tentatively, there being only the otherness of the avidya superimposed on the Witness, how could there be sense of otherness in an enligtened consciousness? The sense of personality is only vis-a-vis others, which is not compatibel with enlightenment.

Sankarraman

Sankarraman

 

-