Guest guest Posted January 21, 2000 Report Share Posted January 21, 2000 Dear Advaitins, Harsh wrote: <Nirvikalpa Samadhi, there are no concepts what so ever at all. It is beyond imagination, thought, or doubt as the mind itself is absorbed in the Self. It is a yogic samadhi (usually) experienced after protracted period of sadhana.> That is correct. But it is also stated <When sages speak of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, they speak directly from experience> The condition sages actually speak of is not NIrvikalpa Samadhi but Sahaja Samadhi. Arthur Osborne (in "The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi in his own words") has given the differences between these two conditions in tabular form. Sri Ramana Maharshi clearly distinguished between the two: "Merging in Reality and remaining unaware of the world is nirvikalpa samadhi. Remaining in the primal, pure, natural state without effort is sahaja samadhi." This is the "state of samadhi while retaining full possession of human faculties" (Arthur Osborne). In answer to the question "What is samadhi?", Sri Ramana Maharshi said "In yoga the term is used to indicate some kind of trance ...But the samadhi I speak to you of is different. It is sahaja samadhi." Best wishes, Nitin Trasi Homepage: http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2000 Report Share Posted January 23, 2000 Nitin Trasi wrote: > "Nitin Trasi" <ntrasi > > Dear Advaitins, > > Harsh wrote: <Nirvikalpa Samadhi, there are no concepts what so ever at all. It is beyond imagination, thought, or doubt as the mind itself is absorbed in the Self. It is a yogic samadhi (usually) experienced after protracted period of sadhana.> > > That is correct. But it is also stated <When sages speak of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, they speak directly from experience> > > The condition sages actually speak of is not NIrvikalpa Samadhi but Sahaja Samadhi. Arthur Osborne (in "The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi in his own words") has given the differences between these two conditions in tabular form. > Sri Ramana Maharshi clearly distinguished between the two: "Merging in Reality and remaining unaware of the world is nirvikalpa samadhi. Remaining in the primal, pure, natural state without effort is sahaja samadhi." > > This is the "state of samadhi while retaining full possession of human faculties" (Arthur Osborne). > > In answer to the question "What is samadhi?", Sri Ramana Maharshi said "In yoga the term is used to indicate some kind of trance ...But the samadhi I speak to you of is different. It is sahaja samadhi." > > Best wishes, > > Nitin Trasi Thank you Nitin Ji for your post. I just saw it. I agree with everything that you said. I do not know if you came across my post "More on Nirvikalpa" earlier to Gausima. It covered some of the same ground. Given below is a reply I gave to Sri Danji (who is also on this list) on which addresses similar points. I sometimes refer to Sri Danji as Adi Dan in respect and good humor due to his insight and brilliance and I hope no one here takes offense to that. I thought Sri Danji's questions deserve a wider audience and perhaps others can comment on the issues raised by him. Love to all Harsha Dan Berkow, PhD" wrote: > "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > > Harshaji - > I just reread your message and noticed I spelled Sahaj Samadhi as > Sahaja in the message I just sent. I've seen it both ways. > Is Sahaj the more correct spelling? > > Perhaps, Harshaji, you could explain your understanding of Sahaj Samadhi a > bit further. Perhaps you might clarify how a shift from Kevala Nirvikalpa > Samadhi "into" Shahaj Samadhi occurs, whether this is something for the > "average person" to be concerned about, or whether it is only for special > saints and teachers? I've read comments made by Sri Ramana regarding > Awareness as unsplit and without levels of "attainment," and then other > comments such as those you raise here regarding "special states" and > how they occur. It is said that he spoke according to the needs of > the "seeker". As he himself was not a "seeker," would it be right > to infer that regarding his own awareness, he didn't classify it in > terms of samadhi? Or did he explain himself as being in Sahaj Samadhi > and no longer incarnating? What isn't clear here when reading such > statements is "who" incarnates. If there is only Self, how can > incarnation be described as beginning or ending? > > Any other comments that might shed light here would be appreciated. > > Love, > Dan Thanks for raising those important points Dan. We bow to Adi Dan for his brilliance! First of all Sahaj and Sahaja mean the same thing. I am not a Sanskrit Scholar but the alphabet "a" is added everywhere it seems in Sanskrit. Krishan become Krishna, Raman becomes Ramana, Ashok becomes Ashoka and Harsh (pronounced Hirsh or Hersh maybe) becomes Harsha (pronounced Hersha), etc. There are many dialects in India, some emphasize certain sounds and others don't. Maybe a linguist could offer a better explanation of this. When Sri Ramana was asked when should Sahaj Samadhi be practiced, he replied, "From the very beginning!" So what is the means for the practitioner is indeed itself the goal as well. Consciousness itself is the tool and the means for its growth process which is experienced in Consciousness and Consciousness is also the end result. >From the beginning, middle and end, it is only that thing only but it appears to go through changes. The mind has the capacity to note and categorize those changes in some instances. The word Samadhi is part of the vocabulary of yoga. Yogis, through long term experimentation on their own consciousness through meditation, reflection, prayer, and other spiritual practices have noted the changes in their own consciousness and in perception and in cognition and have categorized them to be helpful to others. So the yogic literature (for example the ancient Patanjali's Yoga Sutras) is full of description of various states of consciousness. Perhaps just like books on psychology are full of certain descriptions about psychological states as well. A lot of what we express is simply a function of our own background and experience and no one is an exception to that. Since my own background is in meditation and yoga, I easily slip into terms like Samadhi and Nirvikalpa Samadhi as I can relate to them through my experience. You have raised some other important points Dan including "If the Self is One, who incarnates? And how does Kevala Nirvikalpa become Sahaj Samadhi? You have also asked that if Awareness is One Whole, how can we speak of various special states? You raise the issue of spiritual materialism in which a seeker aspires to experience various special states of consciousness. Those are all worth great reflection Dan and I am sure others here can offer more insights into that. Since you wish to be clear on Ramana Maharshi's views, may I request that you read "Be As You Are." It is compilation of the essential conversations with Ramana Maharshi by David Godman. Each important topic is given its own chapter and discussed clearly. Many of the issues you raise, I believe, are addressed there. Love Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.