Sadananda is not dreaming this!

August 6, 1999

At 06:12 PM 8/6/99 -0700, you wrote:

>"Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda

>

> Only when awaken to the higher state he realizes that he was the Iswara of

>the total Jagrata avasta too.

>

Putting it that way is very misleading (in my opinion). I'd say the waking

of "the higher state" is the on-going presence of being-consciousness-bliss

with the significant *absence* of the person you refer to as "he". I'd say

the dream-like waking state world is most definitely not *our* creation but

God's. We are part of that dream-like creation, so how could we be its

creator? Balsekar says this is *the* critical fact to realize and he is

much closer to the truth of this than you seem to be (in my opinion).

I say we are not the creating this dream-like waking state world and you

*seem* to imply you (as the "he" mentioned above) are creating it along

with Prof. Krishnamurthy who definitely said it was *our* dream not God's.

So to set the record straight, will you tell me whether you consider

yourself to be the creator of this dream-like waking state world or whether

you consider yourself to be just another created part of that world? I'm

not asking you to speak on behalf of Sankara but to give a simple direct

answer about yourself only -- are you creating this or are you being

created along with the rest of it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"... the fundamental fact of Advaita, [is] that a sentient being, like any

other phenomenal object in manifestation, has no independent nature of its

own because it is only an appearance. This means, therefore, that there are

no 'perceivers' as factual entities - and most important, it means that

what perceives is a SINGLE SOURCE OF ENERGY, perceiving through millions of

physical forms. What then really is each of us, who is conditioned to

think of himself as the perceiver? The answer must be repeated again: as

objects we are not perceivers; as objects we are what are perceived by that

single source of energy through one another. If this single fact is deeply

apperceived, nothing further need be understood."

- p.59 "Experience of Immortality" by Ramesh Balsekar

being a commentary on Jnaneshwar's Anuhavamrita

(or Amritanubhava as it is better known).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

August 8, 1999

>a c <ac

>

>At 06:12 PM 8/6/99 -0700, you wrote:

> >"Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda

ac you are kidding! in a way sadaananda is dreaming this!

> > Only when awaken to the higher state he realizes that he was the Iswara

>of

> >the total Jagrata avasta too.

> >

>

>Putting it that way is very misleading (in my opinion). I'd say the waking

>of "the higher state" is the on-going presence of being-consciousness-bliss

>with the significant *absence* of the person you refer to as "he". I'd say

>the dream-like waking state world is most definitely not *our* creation but

>God's. We are part of that dream-like creation, so how could we be its

>creator? Balsekar says this is *the* critical fact to realize and he is

>much closer to the truth of this than you seem to be (in my opinion).

ac you are the judge of that and what is the truth has to be decided by you

and that becomes clear when you are awaken. If the explanation offered

satisfies you, then there is nothing better than that. Next thing to do is

how to establish that truth in your way rather what Balsekar says or

sadananda says or even Shankara says. These are all words and words and

words, and sounds logical to themselves. They provide only a working

hypothesis for us and it is we who are going to confirm or denay what is the

real truth. For that we need to wakeup!

>

> I say we are not the creating this dream-like waking state world and you

>*seem* to imply you (as the "he" mentioned above) are creating it along

>with Prof. Krishnamurthy who definitely said it was *our* dream not God's.

>So to set the record straight, will you tell me whether you consider

>yourself to be the creator of this dream-like waking state world or whether

>you consider yourself to be just another created part of that world? I'm

>not asking you to speak on behalf of Sankara but to give a simple direct

>answer about yourself only -- are you creating this or are you being

>created along with the rest of it?

ac simple answer is this. If I consider that I am only a jiiva - sadananda,

who has a limited body, mind and intellect, occupying some coordinate space

and time then, I consider that waking world is not created by me and I am

not that Iswara and Iswara is God or Sreeman Naarayana ( you see I am a

viashavate!) and the world is his leela vibhuti or glory of the Lord.

If and When I consider I am nothing but real sadananda (it means eternally

blissfull)who has no limitations of space, time or object wise, then I am

that Narayana or amam brahmasmi. But unfortunately you will be part of me

only along will all other advaintin list memebers and the non-advaitin list

memebres too. It is now my glory to project when I want what I want and if

I want.

Hence simpe answer dependes on what I thing I am!

Hari Om!

Sadananda - trying to be real Sadananda

August 8, 1999

>

>a c <ac

>

>Truth itself is satisfying -- trying to talk about it is frustrating (but

>also fun). I have no real complaint with Advaita -- I know you are talking

>about the truth and it is very helpful to many sadhaks. I prefer to talk

>about it differently only because I value the appearance of this world

>(with Sadanandas and Rams in it). Yes, I know it is all God but the

>distinction between God-as-Sadananda and God-as-Ram is real (for me) and it

>has genuine value (for me). There is no separation between God and

>Sadananda or God and Ram yet they are not identical. I know you are God

>but I do not fail to see the difference between God as Sadananda and God as

>Ram.

ac look it this way - distinctions and differentiations are in the realm of

intellect. There are three distinctions that have been established -

sajaati, vijaati and swagata bedhaas - they come into picture because of

the distinctions or limitations in terms of space wise, object wise and time

wise. True, Ram is different from sadananda - but where these differences

between Ram and Sadananda exist - Forms at the gross level or body level,

minds at the feelings level and intellects at the thought level. My

inclinations or tendencies or the way I think or act is different from

Ram's. But those again manifest in terms of action at the body level,

feelings at the mind level and thoughts or ideas or concepts at the

intellects. Can you find any other levels of differenence between Ram and

Sadananda? When you perceive the difference between the two of us, it can

only be these differences that your mind can comprehend. Ultimately all the

differences that one can see in other objects or subjects belong to body,

mind and intellect - levels which are themselves reflections of the vasanaas

of individual - There is no difference in the consicousness that illumines

these distinctions. Ram as conscious entity is not and cannot be different

from sadananda as a conscious entity. What advaita resorts to is

consciousness is indivisible, homogenious and one without parts - there are

no internal distinctions or external relations says Vidyaaranya in

Panchadasi. Dream establishes a conveniet example to establish his fact.

If there are such distinctions in the consciousness then who will be

conscious of these distinctions and differences? - we have to bring some

higher consciousness which again should have no distinctions and

differentiations and that higher consciousness is the one we are taking

about. Consciousness cannot be an object of some other consciouness. Hence

it is one without a second.

Brahman is defined as sat, chit and ananda - or satyam JNaanam and Anatam or

existence consciousness and unlimited or blissful is braham and when one

awakes to this turia state one has realized that one is not a body, mind or

intellect since these are objects and one is subject that illumines these

objects that is the sat chit ananda. Hence when sadananda realizes he has

to realize that he is not the forms that remain still distinct from the form

of Ram - but he is the consciousenss becauses of which the whole the world

is projected, sustained and goes back into. When Ram realizes he has to

realize the same thing that he is not the Ram form or his intellect or his

mind. It is because of which the whole universe is projected. - That is the

definition of Brahman that T.U gives -

etova imaani bhuutaani jaayante

ena jaataani jeevanti

etprayam tyabhisam vishanti - tat viJNaanaswa - tat brahmeti|

That from which the whole world rose, sustained and goes back into - know

that - that is brahman

..

This together with the teaching

Tat twam asi - you are that

and aham brahmaasmi - I am that Brahman -

since body is limited, mind is limited and intellect is limited, they can

not be Brahman - it is only the indivisible consciousness that the scripture

is talking about. Advaita takes the scripure as the pramaaNa to establish

the advaitic nature of the reality.

Hence Krishna declares as one who is a true yogi or realized soul is

sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanica atmani -

one who has realized that he is in all beings and all beings are in him

-B.G. Ch.6.

Hence advaitic understanding is established based on shruti or scriptural

declarations, logic and confirmed by experience of realized souls.

I realize that these things cannot be established by just arguiging. I

would like you not accept anything I wrote but do not off-hand reject either

since what I am saying is not new but providing what I understand from the

sciprutures and the teachings of the great souls like Bhagavaan Ramana and

Nisargadatta Maharaj - to name a few of the recent times.

I do not know if you have read - Peace Pilgirm - the American lady who

walked for 25,000 miles in fiftees. She never learned any vedanta or

advaita or she considers herself ' religious'. Yet her writings are simple

and very profound and an eye-opener.

What I presented is what I understand as advaitic concepets. I grow up as

vishishTaadvaitin and had to reject those concepts and embraced advaita

since advaita appealed to my mind and intellect.

You are welcome to reject the advaitic concepts and pursue that which

appeals to your heart as the truth. Nothing wrong in that and I am sure the

Lord will bless you in your path and show you the light. - Krishnas declares

- ye yatam mam prapadyantate tamstataiva bhajaamyaham - Whatever path one

tries to approach me, I will bless him in that approach.

> I thought Adavaita says all distinctions vanish when God is realized. If

>advaita says this, I don't agree -

No adviata does not say the distinctions vanish when God is realized. what

advaita says, god realized person sees the distinctions but realizes that

these distinctions are only apparent and not real. The real is without

distinctions. It is like gold in the bangle realizing that I am the gold,

yet can exit in the bangle form. Bangle is still different from the ring and

neckless. names and forms and utilites are different - just as Ram and

Sadananda are different. But those distinctions are only at supreficial

level -at the level of form and name - naama and ruupa - but the essence of

the bangle, ring and neckless which is gold (Au) that cannot be

differented. It is the gloy of the gold to be in variety of the forms, yet

remaining as one homogeneous material,Gold. . Gold plus many, many

ornaments are not plurality - they are just one gold - Gold it was, gold it

is and it will be. names and forms keep changing, yet in and through the

names and forms, gold remains as one gold, adviteeyam. World will still

remain and plurality is still seen by the Jeevan mukta but he has no more

notions that what is seen is real. Here real is that which is unchanging,

ever existing and the very substratum of all that is seen, heard and

experienced. Please read the answers in the "I am that" - by Nisargadatta

Maharaj - Many of your questions were asked and answered.

- when God is realized separation

>vanishes but not distinctions. To say distinctions vanish (except in

>temporary meditative states) is not true to the facts of anyone's life,

>even Sankara's. If distinctions really vanished why did he labor to

>re-form religion in India? If you say "he didn't , we just dreamed he did

>" I think I'm going to have to stop talking to you about this -- because

>you would have to consider I wasn't talking to you but you were dreaming I

>was or .... ???!!!

I guess I have addressed that above - true distinctions do not vanish, but

the distinctions are realized that they only supreficial projections on the

substratum just as the waves in the ocean. Each wave is different yet ocean

is one and remains one inspite of many waves existing.

> >If and When I consider I am nothing but real sadananda (it means

>eternally

> >blissfull)who has no limitations of space, time or object wise, then I am

> >that Narayana or amam brahmasmi. But unfortunately you will be part of

>me

> >only along will all other advaintin list memebers and the non-advaitin

>list

> >memebres too. It is now my glory to project when I want what I want and

>if

> >I want.

> >

> >Hence simple answer dependes on what I think I am!

> >

> >Hari Om!

> >Sadananda - trying to be real Sadananda

> >

>

>Before you can decide to be the real Narayana you must first exist but

>existing in the first place is the gift of Narayana.

It is not exist but transcend - 'I am that' even now - and I donot become

that after realization. only my wrong notions that I am this body, mind and

intellect dropes with the realization I am that subject the consciousness

which illuminies my body, mind and intellect. There is no disappearence of

body, mind and intellect - it is the realization that they are in me and I

am in them -

antar bhahischa tat sarvam vyaapya naaraayaNastitaH||

That Naaraayana is inside me and out side me and everwhere - (inside being

referred to with respect to equipments, body, mind and intellect, the

boutika shareera and shuushma shareera - the gross body and subtle body.

>It is possible to

>realize this continuous gift of existence moment after moment.

Realization is by a conscious entity. the one who realizes this moment and

the next moment has to be the same consciouseness - if the consciousness

also changes with each moment then each consciousenss is aware of only that

one moment and the next consciouness, since it is different from the

previous consciousness, will not be aware of the previous moment - then

there will be one moment or one momentary existence. But I as conscious

entity am aware of the flow of time and - I was there when I was child when

my body, mind and intellect were all differnet, I am thre where I became an

adult, ever conscious of all the momentary changes in my body mind and

intellect - I am that consciousness unchaning in all these moments to

recognize all these changing moments. I cannot be changing and that

changeless consciousness I am or my intrinsic nature, declares the

scirptures -

>This is

>union with the real Narayana and the best if not only way to really be

>Narayana (as far as I know). It's also the truth of our situation (as I

>see it).

Is this the conclusion of your intellect or the experience that you

realized. If it is intellecutual conclusion, I advise you to analyze more

deeply what advaita proposes before you reject it fully. If you have

already analyzed and rejected, my hats off to you and my best wishes in your

path. God bless you.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>

>- with respect for all real and apparent readers... :-))

>

>-A.

>

August 8, 1999

Namaste Sandananda,

>

>ac you are the judge of that and what is the truth has to be decided by you

>and that becomes clear when you are awaken. If the explanation offered

>satisfies you, then there is nothing better than that. Next thing to do is

>how to establish that truth in your way rather what Balsekar says or

>sadananda says or even Shankara says. These are all words and words and

>words, and sounds logical to themselves. They provide only a working

>hypothesis for us and it is we who are going to confirm or denay what is the

>real truth. For that we need to wakeup!

>

Truth itself is satisfying -- trying to talk about it is frustrating (but

also fun). I have no real complaint with Advaita -- I know you are talking

about the truth and it is very helpful to many sadhaks. I prefer to talk

about it differently only because I value the appearance of this world

(with Sadanandas and Rams in it). Yes, I know it is all God but the

distinction between God-as-Sadananda and God-as-Ram is real (for me) and it

has genuine value (for me). There is no separation between God and

Sadananda or God and Ram yet they are not identical. I know you are God

but I do not fail to see the difference between God as Sadananda and God as

Ram.

I thought Adavaita says all distinctions vanish when God is realized. If

advaita says this, I don't agree -- when God is realized separation

vanishes but not distinctions. To say distinctions vanish (except in

temporary meditative states) is not true to the facts of anyone's life,

even Sankara's. If distinctions really vanished why did he labor to

re-form religion in India? If you say "he didn't , we just dreamed he did

" I think I'm going to have to stop talking to you about this -- because

you would have to consider I wasn't talking to you but you were dreaming I

was or .... ???!!!

>If and When I consider I am nothing but real sadananda (it means eternally

>blissfull)who has no limitations of space, time or object wise, then I am

>that Narayana or amam brahmasmi. But unfortunately you will be part of me

>only along will all other advaintin list memebers and the non-advaitin list

>memebres too. It is now my glory to project when I want what I want and if

>I want.

>

>Hence simple answer dependes on what I think I am!

>

>Hari Om!

>Sadananda - trying to be real Sadananda

>

Before you can decide to be the real Narayana you must first exist but

existing in the first place is the gift of Narayana. It is possible to

realize this continuous gift of existence moment after moment. This is

union with the real Narayana and the best if not only way to really be

Narayana (as far as I know). It's also the truth of our situation (as I

see it).

- with respect for all real and apparent readers... :-))

-A.

August 9, 1999

Dear Sadananda,

>> I thought Adavaita says all distinctions vanish when God is realized. If

>>advaita says this, I don't agree -

>

>No adviata does not say the distinctions vanish when

>God is realized. what advaita says,

>god realized person sees the distinctions but realizes that

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>these distinctions are only apparent and not real. The real is without

>distinctions.

>

Oh... ok. The realized soul *DOES* continue to perceive distinctions! You

use the example of gold and gold ornaments -- I'll use the example of white

light refracted through a prism. The white light is comparable to Brahman

-- the prism is the body/mind created by God out of Himself and the rainbow

spectrum is the world of appearance as projected in and by the human mind.

If a realized soul continues to perceive distinctions I don't see why we

should call them illusory or caused by flawed perception. These

appearances may not be unchanging but they are not therefore unreal -- they

are just not indeterminate like the unmanifest God but they do *not*

disappear (except temporarily in meditative states) after realizing the

truth. When a realized person sees red or blue light they know "yes, this

too is light. it all comes from one light" just as you say about the gold

in the ornaments.

>

>Is this the conclusion of your intellect or the experience that you

>realized. If it is intellecutual conclusion, I advise you to analyze more

>deeply what advaita proposes before you reject it fully. If you have

>already analyzed and rejected, my hats off to you and my best wishes in your

>path. God bless you.

Yes it's my experience (or God's experience) -- as far as I'm concerned all

experience is God's experience and anyone can say so. :-)) To me it

seems Advaita's conclusion is absolute and therefore beyond the experience

of actual human beings whereas visistadvaita is a better description (to

me) of how it actually is for us in relation with the absolute. Now that

you inform me advaita accepts the continuing appearance of distinctions

after realization I have no further complaint -- I just prefer to talk

about the distinctions as being meaningful ones because I think Advaita

leaves the impression that such distinctions are not relevant. This can

give rise to bad human behavior, carelessness, etc.

-A.

August 10, 1999

"a c" <ac wrote: