On the Impersonal

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

I would like to ask a question regarding spiritual transformation. Let us

suppose a spiritual aspirant starts his sadhana by meditating on a certain Ishta

devata. He tries to take refuge in his Ishta and does his best regarding

yama,niyama.

It is certain that the Ishta he has in his mind or heart is coloured by his ego,

his personality. Therefore as his sadhana progresses, if he has been sincere,

his conception of his Ishta will also change. It will now reflect his sublimated

ego.

For example , Narendra who prefered the formless aspect of God for a time period

said, "What Sri Ramkrishna called as Kali, I call as Brahman."

So, though the bhaktha continues to refer to his experience by his Bhakthi, the

understanding of the entity to which he refers to changes.

At what point in time will his "personal" feelings to his Ishta change to the

impersonal?

I will be glad if someone can clarify this.

 

Sincerely,

Anand

 

 

------------------

Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin , anand_natarajan@i... wrote:

>

> Namaste,

> I would like to ask a question regarding spiritual transformation.

> Let us suppose a spiritual aspirant starts his sadhana by meditating

> on a certain Ishta devata. He tries to take refuge in his Ishta and

> does his best regarding yama,niyama.

>

> It is certain that the Ishta he has in his mind or heart is coloured

> by his ego, his personality. Therefore as his sadhana progresses, if

> he has been sincere, his conception of his Ishta will also change.

> It will now reflect his sublimated ego.

 

Not necessarily. A sublimated ego doesn't entail the absence of

personality. One's Ishta may have the coloring of one's personality

while one is blessed to have their idea of 'me' rendered impotent.

> For example , Narendra who prefered the formless aspect of God for a

> time period said, "What Sri Ramkrishna called as Kali, I call as

> Brahman."

 

This was a convenient way for Vivekananda to fit Ramakrishna's

teaching into his personal cosmological framework. At the end

of his life--arguably when his realization was the most profound

--Vivekananda said quite simply: "It is all Mother now."

> So, though the bhaktha continues to refer to his experience by his

> Bhakthi, the understanding of the entity to which he refers to

> changes.

>

> At what point in time will his "personal" feelings to his Ishta

> change to the impersonal?

>

> I will be glad if someone can clarify this.

>

> Sincerely,

> Anand

 

Why should it change at all? If one is living in the recognition

that all is Brahman, but one also knows that Brahman is actionless,

one must resort to some other explanation to describe the cause of

all the action in the world. Brahman becomes all things via the

agency of Shakti. Ramakrishna said "Brahman and Shakti are like

fire and its power to burn." Therefore, there is no need for an

impersonal Ishta. One can be blessed with Self realization and

observe directly that all is the Self, and still regard the

apparently crazy going-ons as the work of Shakti, regarded by the

devotee as Mother Kali. This is why Ramakrishna referred to Kali

as a personal Being for his entire life. He never felt the need

to make Her impersonal to fit any conceptions of comsmology. He

lived in the full and complete realization of the Self, seeing the

Self in all things, but still saw his Mother Kali as a living Goddess

that he could talk to and play with.

 

--jody.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The answer would appear to lie in Sri Ramakrishna's own

description of his experience.

 

He was determined to test every approach to Divinity. After

having been blessed by Kali Herself though various sadhanas, R. got

the opportunity to test the advaita method from Tota Puri. R.'s

biography by Sw. Saradananda, as well as The Gospel of Sri. R.

describes the evnts most graphically.

 

Sri R. could not get rid of Kali's form, till Tota Puri pierced

his forehead with a pointed piece of glass and asked him to

concentrate on it. R. had to 'cut' Kali with the 'sword of wisdom'

and went into nirvikalpa samadhi. When Tota Puri finally managed to

get him out of that state, R. was aked by Kali to remain in 'bhaava

samaadhi', to carry on his mission of teaching.

 

On the other hand, Sri R. convinced Tota Puri of the validity

of Kali's Maya when the latter tried to drown himslef in the Ganges

river after a severe bout of dysentery; he could not drown himself!

 

Sri R. describes his further life in the world as a 'puppet,

dancing to the tune of Kali or Brahman, whom he could not

distinguish.'

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

advaitin , anand_natarajan@i... wrote:

>

> Namaste,

> I would like to ask a question regarding spiritual transformation.

Let us suppose a spiritual aspirant starts his sadhana by meditating

on a certain Ishta devata. He tries to take refuge in his Ishta and

does his best regarding yama,niyama.

> It is certain that the Ishta he has in his mind or heart is

coloured by his ego, his personality. Therefore as his sadhana

progresses, if he has been sincere, his conception of his Ishta will

also change. It will now reflect his sublimated ego.

> For example , Narendra who prefered the formless aspect of God for

a time period said, "What Sri Ramkrishna called as Kali, I call as

Brahman."

> So, though the bhaktha continues to refer to his experience by his

Bhakthi, the understanding of the entity to which he refers to

changes.

> At what point in time will his "personal" feelings to his Ishta

change to the impersonal?

> I will be glad if someone can clarify this.

>

> Sincerely,

> Anand

>

>

> ------------------

> Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin , anand_natarajan@i... wrote:

> At what point in time will his "personal" feelings to his Ishta

change to the impersonal?

 

A Brahmo Devotee: "Sir, has God forms or has He none?"

 

Sri Ramakrishna : "No one can say with finality that God is only

'this' and nothing else. He is formless, and again He has forms. For

the bhakta He assumes forms. But He is formless for the jnani, that

is, for him who looks on the world as a mere dream. The bhakta feels

that he is one entity and the world another. Therefore God reveals

Himself to him as a Person. But the jnani-the Vedantist, for instance-

always reasons, applying the process of 'Not this, not this'. Through

this discrimination he realizes, by his inner perception, that the

ego and the universe are both illusory, like a dream. Then the jnani

realizes Brahman in his own consciousness. He cannot describe what

Brahman is."

Sri Ramakrishna continues-"Do you know what I mean? Think of Brahman,

Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute, as a shoreless ocean. Through the

cooling influence, as it were, of the bhakta's love, the water has

frozen at places into blocks of ice. In other words, God now and then

assumes various forms for His lovers and reveals Himself to them as a

Person. But with the rising of the sun of Knowledge,the blocks of ice

melt. Then one doesn't feel any more that God is a Person, nor does

one see God's forms. What He is cannot be described. Who will

describe Him? He who would do so disappears. He cannot find his 'I'

any more."

....

Sri Ramakrishna-"The Saguna Brahman is meant for the bhaktas. In

other words, a bhakta believes that God has attributes and reveals

Himself to bhaktas as aPerson, assuming forms..."

 

Devotee-"Sir, is it possible for one to see God? If so, why can't we

see Him?"

Sri Ramakrishna-"Yes,He can surely be seen. One can see His forms,

and His formless aspect as well. How can I explain that to you?"

Devotee-"What are the means by which one can see God?"

......

Sri Ramakrishna-"God has attributes;then again He has none. Only the

man who lives under the tree knows that the chameleon can appear in

various colours, and he knows, further, that the animal at times has

no colour at all...."

Sri Ramakrishna-"Kabir used to say, The formless Absolute is my

Father, and God with form is my Mother".

Sri Ramakrishna-"God reveals Himself in the form which His devotees

love most."

Sri Ramakrishna-"The forms and aspects of God disappear when one

discriminates in accordance with the Vedanta philosophy. The ultimate

conclusion of such discrimination is that Brahman alone is real and

this world of names and forms illusory..."

 

- From "The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna" by Swami Nikhilananda, Ch.4.

[Guest guest]

I found the answers to my question very interesting.

Smt. Colette wrote,

>The impersonal is in form too. Forms carry personality. >Waking to impersonal,

entails waking to you are not >>>>bound to a fixed persona.

 

Let me tell what a lady said about the impersonal experience. I am refering to

Sister Nivedita, the great disciple of Swami Vivekananda. When she arrived in

India permanently, she was very much attached to Swamiji and also to a

"personal" supreme. Swamiji was her Guru however, and he performed that task

"mercilessly".

According to her own account she could not take the strain anymore of Swamiji's

discipline. She says she fortunately did not consider leaving India and running

away. One of her companions was moved by her suffering and requested Swamiji

"Is'nt a change required now ?".

He kept quiet , went for a walk and came back and then answered, "Yes a change

is required". He then blessed Sister Nivedita by putting his hand on her head.

She then says,"when I sat for meditation that evening,

I felt the infinite ..... Sometimes the teacher destroys your personal

attachments, so that he can give you the impersonal "

When we come "down" we accept the impersonal in the personal and the personal in

the impersonal. But the awakening stage may be different.

Is the Bhatha's "awakening" always an experience of the personal?

 

Sri Jody wrote,

> Not necessarily. A sublimated ego doesn't entail the >absence of personality.

One's Ishta may have the >coloring of one's personality while one is

blessed to> >have their idea of 'me' rendered impotent.

 

That is a very high stage you are talking about. I think that happens only when

you can merge in your chosen Ishtam completely.

 

Sri Sunder wrote

>The answer would appear to lie in Sri Ramakrishna's own

>description of his experience. When Tota Puri finally >>managed to get him out

of that state, R. was aked by >>>Kali to remain in 'bhaava samaadhi', to carry

on his mission of >teaching.

 

Sri Ramakrishna's first experience of the Mother was

impersonal. He said, he could not bear the agony of separation anymore. He ran

to the inner chamber of the temple, took the sword of Kali and was about to cut

his head off when the divine mother revealed herself. It was a formless

experience where he saw waves and waves of light engulfing Him from all sides.

Is'nt this also an experience of a Bhaktha longing for the personal getting the

impersonal ?

 

Sri Raghava wrote :

> Sri Ramakrishna : "No one can say with finality that >>God is only 'this' and

nothing else. He is formless, >>>and again He has forms. For the bhakta He

assumes >forms. But He is formless for the jnani, that is, for >>>him who looks

on the world as a mere dream. The bhakta >feels that he is one entity and the

world another. >Therefore God reveals Himself to him as a Person. B ut >the

jnani-the Vedantist, for instance-always reasons, > >applying the process of

'Not this, not this'.

 

Would this mean that the experience of the Bhaktha is different from the

experience of the Jnani till the goal is reached?

 

My own understanding is that we all have our little Lilas in this world. Our

spiritual path cannot go contrary to that Lila try as you might. Therefore

Bhakthi and Jnana are like Lila and Nitya. Would this be correct ?

 

Anand

 

P.S. Sorry for the long mail.

 

------------------

Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin , anand_natarajan@i... wrote:

>

> I found the answers to my question very interesting.

> Smt. Colette wrote,

> >The impersonal is in form too. Forms carry personality. >Waking to

impersonal, entails waking to you are not >>>>bound to a fixed

persona.

>

> Let me tell what a lady said about the impersonal experience. I am

refering to Sister Nivedita, the great disciple of Swami Vivekananda.

When she arrived in India permanently, she was very much attached to

Swamiji and also to a "personal" supreme. Swamiji was her Guru

however, and he performed that task "mercilessly".

> According to her own account she could not take the strain anymore

of Swamiji's discipline. She says she fortunately did not consider

leaving India and running away. One of her companions was moved by her

suffering and requested Swamiji "Is'nt a change required now ?".

> He kept quiet , went for a walk and came back and then answered,

"Yes a change is required". He then blessed Sister Nivedita by putting

his hand on her head.

> She then says,"when I sat for meditation that evening,

> I felt the infinite ..... Sometimes the teacher destroys your

personal attachments, so that he can give you the impersonal "

> When we come "down" we accept the impersonal in the personal and the

personal in the impersonal. But the awakening stage may be different.

> Is the Bhatha's "awakening" always an experience of the personal?

 

I didn't know if this was a question Anand but I will share my

thought.

> Is the Bhaktha's "awakening" always an experience of the personal?

 

No.

 

Awakening could not happen at all without Realising the impersonal

Being first. The Real.

 

The play goes on & awakening is to the impersonal one (personally

playing) & more & more mystery & magic (bliss) being revealed. The

Real plays in many beautiful roles & qualities of existence.

Flavourless has flavour. That is the lila, the pleasure of the

impersonal .. created from the impersonal .. for the impersonal .. to

experience the many flavours of being personal. In my opinion. Each

person is really impersonal (at source).

>

> Sri Raghava wrote :

> > Sri Ramakrishna : "No one can say with finality that >>God is only

'this' and nothing else. He is formless, >>>and again He has forms.

 

This relates to what Frank calls being the fool who knows the mystery

keeps opening, imo.

 

Nice enquiry & sharing Anand, thanks,

 

love,

 

Col

[Guest guest]

advaitin , anand_natarajan@i... wrote:

>> Raghava quoted :

>>> Sri Ramakrishna : "No one can say with finality that >>God is

only 'this' and nothing else. He is formless, >>>and again He has

forms. For the bhakta He assumes >forms. But He is formless for the

jnani

> Would this mean that the experience of the Bhaktha is different

from the experience of the Jnani till the goal is reached?

 

Through the process of extrapolation, I am of an opinion at this time

that they are same. I can change my opininion when I know more.

 

Khandogya-Upanishad Prapathaka-6 Khanda-2: "n the beginning, my dear,

there was that only which is, one only, without a second....It

thought, may I be many. may I grow forth."...

....Then came names and forms.

Thus, from an individual's current state of name-and-form, to go back

(?), we need to first go back thru names and forms to the one-without-

second,in my humble opinion. Thus, the step of a 'form' seems

mandatory. I don't eliminate the possibility of bypassing all names-

and-forms to go directly to one-without-second. I don't know.

 

Maitrayana-Brahmana-Upanishad 6-22:

Two Brahmans are to be known, the word-Brahman and the highest

Brahman; he who is perfect in the word-Brahman attains the highest

Brahman... Let him/her worship these two, that he/she may obtain what

is higher than everything.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , anand_natarajan@i... wrote:

>

>

> Sri Sunder wrote

> >The answer would appear to lie in Sri Ramakrishna's own

> >description of his experience. When Tota Puri finally >>managed to

get him out of that state, R. was aked by >>>Kali to remain

in 'bhaava samaadhi', to carry on his mission of >teaching.

>

> Sri Ramakrishna's first experience of the Mother was

> impersonal. He said, he could not bear the agony of separation

anymore. He ran to the inner chamber of the temple, took the sword of

Kali and was about to cut his head off when the divine mother

revealed herself. It was a formless experience where he saw waves and

waves of light engulfing Him from all sides.

> Is'nt this also an experience of a Bhaktha longing for the personal

getting the impersonal ?

 

 

Namaste,

 

This experience is continued and described further:

[sri Ramakrishna, the Great Master, by Sw. Saradananda;5th revised

ed. 1978; publ. Ramakrishna Math, Madras; p. 163]:

 

....." But immediately after, I lost consciousness on account of

unbearable anguish, and then I saw that the form of the Mother with

hands that gives boons and freedom from fear---the form that smiled,

spoke and consoled and taught me in endless ways!"

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

[Guest guest]

Raghava Wrote:

> Through the process of extrapolation, I am of an opinion at this

time

> that they are same. I can change my opininion when I know more.

>

 

Gentlemen and Ladies: The above statement was a mistake. Though I had

posted it in the manner of a scientific investigation where I am open

to take what surprises may come, this statement is likely to be

misinterpreted to the extent that one may have to change opinions.

This is not the case and I deeply apologize.

 

I believe in the spirit of 'Unity In Diversity' where each opinion

adds to the 'beautiful' and each view I respect as much as my own.

 

With Love and Warmest Redards,

Raghava