Guest guest Posted December 11, 2000 Report Share Posted December 11, 2000 >You say “By inquiring oneself - who am I- one can arrive to a stage that I >am not this, not this. By negating everything - I may reach a conclusion >that I am none of this but yet what I am - I would not know.” But this is not realization. It is at best an advanced state. In realization, as the shruti says, "knowing that, he knows everything". There's absolute certainity - brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati - when you know brahman you'll become brahman. The shruti is not needed to confirm your experience. You'll have no doubt at all. As Shankara himself says, if even after realization you still needed the shruti to confirm your experience, then there'll be duality - the shruti and you - so no Advaita, but only dvaita. The Vedas are just apara vidhya - lower knowledge. They teach you about the unreality of the world, the reality of brahman and how to attain brahman - after that their utility ceases. From Yagnavalkya to Shankara, this is the approved view of the status of the shruti. Anubhava or integral experience of brahman, Atma jnaanam or knowledge of one's own self, is the para vidhya or higher knowledge, which is not different from brahman itself. As an aside, I endorse Frank's suggestion. The fundamental problem in seeking the truth is the unceasing curiosity of our intellect which wants to understand everything - even that which cannot be understood. Learn the true significance of ajaativaada - it is very abstract and intellectual - but it will kill your intellect and open the way to the true search. ______________________________\ _____ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2000 Report Share Posted December 11, 2000 >Dear Sadanandaji, > >When you stated ," since there 'is' nothing to cross" >I am sure you meant to state ,"since there 'was' >nothing to cross" !! > >Warm regards, >Hari Om! Yes - There was never a time I was bound - never a time I was ignorant - "The ignorance I never had, I lost!" - The snake that never was - disappeared to become a rope! - Till then I needed a light, a pramaaNa, to see if the snake that I see is real or not since the wise say it is actually a rope and not a snake. I have to make sure it is rope and there was never a snake. The snake of course did not became a rope. It was rope from the beginning even when I thought it was a snake. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2000 Report Share Posted December 11, 2000 > >You say “By inquiring oneself - who am I- one can arrive to a stage that I >>am not this, not this. By negating everything - I may reach a conclusion >>that I am none of this but yet what I am - I would not know.” > >But this is not realization. It is at best an advanced state. In >realization, as the shruti says, "knowing that, he knows everything". >There's absolute certainity - brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati - when >you know brahman you'll become brahman. The shruti is not needed to >confirm your experience. You'll have no doubt at all. > >As Shankara himself says, if even after realization you still needed >the shruti to confirm your experience, then there'll be duality - the >shruti and you - so no Advaita, but only dvaita. > >The Vedas are just apara vidhya - lower knowledge. They teach you >about the unreality of the world, the reality of brahman and how to >attain brahman - after that their utility ceases. From Yagnavalkya >to Shankara, this is the approved view of the status of the shruti. > >Anubhava or integral experience of brahman, Atma jnaanam or knowledge >of one's own self, is the para vidhya or higher knowledge, which is not >different from brahman itself. > >As an aside, I endorse Frank's suggestion. The fundamental problem in >seeking the truth is the unceasing curiosity of our intellect which wants to >understand everything - even that which cannot be understood. Learn the true >significance of ajaativaada - it is very abstract and intellectual - but it >will kill your intellect and open the way to the true search. True - From that state no questions asked and nothing can be said and pramaaNa has no meaning. Till then one needs it. That was what was intended and emphasized but came out little differently in over enthusiasm. Gratifying that members and reading and analyzing rather than just accepting what is written! Hair Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2000 Report Share Posted December 11, 2000 "Silence" has its opposite in "speach" Brahman is without "opposites". So, what is Dakshinaamurty teaching his deciples by being "silent"? I feel that this 'silence' is only a means to the end. Vimuktatma Bhagavan in his invocatory sloka in his Ishta sidhi says: "Atmaiko Nishkriyo Ananto Advayo ANUBHAVA VIGRAHAHAA, Atamastajja Atmastho Jyotisham Jyotihi Atmabhaah." The Drg Drsya Viveka states: Existance,Conciousness and Bliss which are the natural characteristics of Sakshin appear to inhere in the Jiva.With the disappearance of the Jivahood they merge in Sakshin,that is,Brahman, which is none other than the Self itself. Again, The Sruti declares thus: "Sad eva idam agra aaseet,Ekam eva Adviteeyam". Realising this Original State of 'Sat',the ultimate Truth, should not the sadhaka give up even Conciousness and Bliss and be just " IS " ? Then again, any state of "being" for the sadhaka has to be in this state of ' Vyavaharikaa' only!! If so, is not the entire purpose defeated? Is this some sort of Satyaanruta mithunikaraNam ? Could someone take me further in this to an undisputead conclusion? Hari Om! Swaminarayan. nanda chandran <vpcnk wrote: > > Anubhava or integral experience of brahman, Atma > jnaanam or knowledge > of one's own self, is the para vidhya or higher > knowledge, which is not > different from brahman itself. > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2000 Report Share Posted December 11, 2000 Swaminarayan T [tvswaminarayan] The Drg Drsya Viveka states: Existance,Conciousness and Bliss which are the natural characteristics of Sakshin appear to inhere in the Jiva.With the disappearance of the Jivahood they merge in Sakshin,that is,Brahman, which is none other than the Self itself. Again, The Sruti declares thus: "Sad eva idam agra aaseet,Ekam eva Adviteeyam". Realising this Original State of 'Sat',the ultimate Truth, should not the sadhaka give up even Conciousness and Bliss and be just " IS " ? Then again, any state of "being" for the sadhaka has to be in this state of ' Vyavaharikaa' only!! If so, is not the entire purpose defeated? Is this some sort of Satyaanruta mithunikaraNam ? Could someone take me further in this to an undisputead conclusion? Hari Om! Swaminarayan. __________ The ancient sages and scriptures use the term Sat-Chit-Ananda to indicate the Self-Nature. The beauty of these terms lies in their precision. This can be understood through experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and knowing Consciousness to be at rest in its own nature fully independent of all bodies, subtle and gross. Although it appears as such, Sat-Chit-Ananda does not refer to three separate attributes of the Self. The words are uttered from the perspective of the mind that has experienced absorption into the Self and then has sprouted back into relativity realizing that it is the One Self that shines through the mind. Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2000 Report Share Posted December 11, 2000 advaitin , "nanda chandran" <vpcnk@H...> wrote: [snip] > But this is not realization. It is at best an advanced state. In > realization, as the shruti says, "knowing that, he knows everything". > There's absolute certainity - brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati - when > you know brahman you'll become brahman. The shruti is not needed to > confirm your experience. You'll have no doubt at all. It may be a bit more precise to state it thus: When you know Brahman, you'll realize that you *are* Brahman. We cannot become what we already are, but we can realize that we are It. --jodyr. [snip] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2000 Report Share Posted December 12, 2000 >But this is not realization. It is at best an advanced state. In >realization, as the shruti says, "knowing that, he knows everything". >There's absolute certainity - brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati - when >you know brahman you'll become brahman. The shruti is not needed to >confirm your experience. You'll have no doubt at all. >>It may be a bit more precise to state it thus: When you know >>Brahman, you'll realize that you *are* Brahman. We cannot become >>what we already are, but we can realize that we are It. To be even more precise : brahman is not to be known as an object. The search is subjective - to known ones own self. Brahman is the innermost essence of our self. So knowing brahman is only knowing oneself - you are it. Here the common question can arise : how can I know myself? The phenomenal self - the "I" - is nothing but the sum total of all experiences. Meditation will show that it has no essence. When ones awareness rids transcends its ego, then it realizes that apart from its ego with which it confused itself, it knows not itself. This is the first step in the realization of oneself. ______________________________\ _____ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2000 Report Share Posted December 12, 2000 >But this is not realization. It is at best an advanced state. In >realization, as the shruti says, "knowing that, he knows everything". >There's absolute certainity - brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati - when >you know brahman you'll become brahman. The shruti is not needed to >confirm your experience. You'll have no doubt at all. >>It may be a bit more precise to state it thus: When you know >>Brahman, you'll realize that you *are* Brahman. We cannot become >>what we already are, but we can realize that we are It. To be even more precise : brahman is not to be known as an object. The search is subjective - to known ones own self. Brahman is the innermost essence of our self. So knowing brahman is only knowing oneself - you are it. Here the common question can arise : how can I know myself? The phenomenal self - the "I" - is nothing but the sum total of all experiences. Meditation will show that it has no essence. When ones awareness thus transcends its ego, then it realizes that apart from its ego with which it confused itself, it knows not itself. This is the first step in the realization of oneself. ______________________________\ _____ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2000 Report Share Posted December 12, 2000 Namaste, This 'SILENCE' is NOT the opposite of 'speech'! This state is 'anirvachaniiya', yet holds in Itself infinite potential of everything 'vachaniiya'. Even the word 'IS' can produce a thought of 'WHAT IS NOT'. The sages who have traversed the path tell us that THAT state is 'svataH pramaaNa' only, and Guru and Shastra pramaaNa are aids only. The undisputed conclusion is 'svataH pramaaNa' only. Regards, s. advaitin , Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan> wrote: > > "Silence" has its opposite in "speach" > Brahman is without "opposites". > So, what is Dakshinaamurty teaching his deciples by > being "silent"? > > I feel that this 'silence' is only a means to the end. > > Vimuktatma Bhagavan in his invocatory sloka in his > Ishta sidhi says: > "Atmaiko Nishkriyo Ananto Advayo ANUBHAVA VIGRAHAHAA, > Atamastajja Atmastho Jyotisham Jyotihi Atmabhaah." > > The Drg Drsya Viveka states: Existance,Conciousness > and Bliss which are the natural characteristics of > Sakshin appear to inhere in the Jiva.With the > disappearance of the Jivahood they merge in > Sakshin,that is,Brahman, which is none other than the > Self itself. > > Again, The Sruti declares thus: > > "Sad eva idam agra aaseet,Ekam eva Adviteeyam". > > Realising this Original State of 'Sat',the ultimate > Truth, should not the sadhaka give up even > Conciousness and Bliss and be just " IS " ? > > Then again, any state of "being" for the sadhaka has > to be in this state of ' Vyavaharikaa' only!! If so, > is not the entire purpose defeated? > > Is this some sort of Satyaanruta mithunikaraNam ? > > Could someone take me further in this to an > undisputead conclusion? > > Hari Om! > > Swaminarayan. > > nanda chandran <vpcnk@H...> wrote: > > > > Anubhava or integral experience of brahman, Atma > > jnaanam or knowledge > > of one's own self, is the para vidhya or higher > > knowledge, which is not > > different from brahman itself. > > > > > > > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. > / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2000 Report Share Posted December 12, 2000 advaitin , "nanda chandran" <vpcnk@H...> wrote: [snip] > To be even more precise : brahman is not to be known as an object. > The search is subjective - to known ones own self. Brahman is the > innermost essence of our self. So knowing brahman is only knowing > oneself - you are it. While Brahman cannot be an object of the mind, Brahmajnana is. That is, when one is blessed with realization, one finds that a special kind of knowledge exists within the mind. This knowledge is the result of the direct awareness of pure awareness, always present in the mind. Pure awareness underlies all thought and feeling. It is the "carrier wave" of all experience. As such it has a "frequency, amplitude, and modulation" all its own. When a mind has been made subtle by the practice of meditation and/or the grace of the guru, it can "detect" this pure awareness, which is actually the direct awareness of pure awareness, always present. Once it has been found, it is an easy step to come to the realization that we *are* this pure awareness, for there is nothing else for it to be. --jodyr. [snip] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2000 Report Share Posted December 12, 2000 In the translation of the Drg-Drsya Viveka by Swami Nikilananda, the following explanation is given. "Vyavaharika Jiva and Pratibhasika Jiva include the worlds or non-egos perceived in the waking and dream states. This relationship is seen from the relative standpoint. From the standpoint of Brahman there is no Jiva, Vyavaharika or Pratibhasika and hence no relation. As with the merging of foam , wave etc in water, their fluidity dissappear therein, even so with the mergence of the Pratibhasika Jiva and Vyavaharika Jiva in Sakshin (that is Brahman at the time of deep sleep and Mukti respectively), the charecterestics such as existence etc. inhering in them dissappear in Brahman. They appear out of and dissapear into Brahman or Sakshin.The Vyavaharika Jiva and the world it perceives are non-existent before creation and after dissolution. As foam amd wave have no existence apart from Brahman , the entire universe consisting of ego and non-ego has no existence apart from Brahman." Anand > > Swaminarayan T > [tvswaminarayan] > > The Drg Drsya Viveka states: Existance,Conciousness > and Bliss which are the natural characteristics of > Sakshin appear to inhere in the Jiva.With the > disappearance of the Jivahood they merge in > Sakshin,that is,Brahman, which is none other than > the > Self itself. > > Again, The Sruti declares thus: > > "Sad eva idam agra aaseet,Ekam eva Adviteeyam". > > Realising this Original State of 'Sat',the ultimate > Truth, should not the sadhaka give up even > Conciousness and Bliss and be just " IS " ? > > Then again, any state of "being" for the sadhaka has > to be in this state of ' Vyavaharikaa' only!! If > so, > is not the entire purpose defeated? > > Is this some sort of Satyaanruta mithunikaraNam ? > > Could someone take me further in this to an > undisputead conclusion? > > Hari Om! > > Swaminarayan. > __________ > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2000 Report Share Posted December 13, 2000 >While Brahman cannot be an object of the mind, Brahmajnana is. >That is, when one is blessed with realization, one finds that >a special kind of knowledge exists within the mind. This >knowledge is the result of the direct awareness of pure awareness, >always present in the mind. Mind is aware of the pure awareness. So here we've three entities 1. knower (mind), 2. knowledge (awareness), 3. pure awareness (known). But how would you distinguish the second from the third. Both are awareness only and hence the same in nature. So how can awareness be aware of pure awareness - are they one or two? Plus we have the mind. Is the mind different from the awareness with which it is aware of the pure awareness? If so how is it aware of the awareness? For it to cognize the awareness (knowledge)it has to be aware too. So now we've three entities which are aware. What bridges these three? Another awareness? What bridges this awareness with the other awarenesses? Another awareness? So on, ad infinitum. Mind - awareness - pure awareness - are all but different names for the same thing. As Gaudapaada says in his kaarikaa, consciousness in empirical terms is only a vibration of the pure consciousness. It is neither identical nor different from the pure consciousness. Just as a moving firebrand appears as straight or curved, so does consciousness in action appear as the subject and object. And just as an unmoving firebrand produces no illusion, so does firm knowledge produce no subject-object duality. The appearances of the firebrand are not produced by anything else and when the firebrand doesn’t move, the appearances don’t rest in anything else. Nor do the appearances enter into the firebrand or do they go out of it. They are mere appearances because they are essentially indescribable or unthinkable, neither real nor unreal, neither existent nor non-existent. When the mind is stilled - when it vibrates no more - consciousness loses its objectivity - then pure consciousness. ______________________________\ _____ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2000 Report Share Posted December 13, 2000 advaitin , "nanda chandran" <vpcnk@H...> wrote: > > While Brahman cannot be an object of the mind, Brahmajnana > > is. That is, when one is blessed with realization, one finds > > that a special kind of knowledge exists within the mind. > > This knowledge is the result of the direct awareness of pure > > awareness, always present in the mind. > > Mind is aware of the pure awareness. > > So here we've three entities 1. knower (mind), 2. knowledge > (awareness), 3. pure awareness (known). > > But how would you distinguish the second from the third. > Both are awareness only and hence the same in nature. So how > can awareness be aware of pure awareness - are they one or > two? Plus we have the mind. Is the mind different from the > awareness with which it is aware of the pure awareness? If > so how is it aware of the awareness? For it to cognize the > awareness (knowledge)it has to be aware too. So now we've > three entities which are aware. What bridges these three? > Another awareness? What bridges this awareness with the > other awarenesses? Another awareness? So on, ad infinitum. Think of it this way. We have a clear vessel full of dirty water. Most of the time the dirt and water are mixed, producing a uniform murkiness. However, by the effects of meditation and the grace of the guru, we find the dirt has begun to settle. Near the top of the glass, the water is clear. This is the pure awareness of Atman, shining in the mind. It shines all the time, but it is obscured by the murkiness. Now that part of the mind has become clear, and therefore identical with pure awareness, it can recognize it as such. > Mind - awareness - pure awareness - are all but different > names for the same thing. As Gaudapaada says in his > kaarikaa, consciousness in empirical terms is only a > vibration of the pure consciousness. It is neither identical > nor different from the pure consciousness. > Just as a moving firebrand appears as straight or curved, so > does consciousness in action appear as the subject and > object. And just as an unmoving firebrand produces no > illusion, so does firm knowledge produce no subject-object > duality. The appearances of the firebrand are not produced > by anything else and when the firebrand doesn't move, the > appearances don't rest in anything else. Nor do the > appearances enter into the firebrand or do they go out of > it. They are mere appearances because they are essentially > indescribable or unthinkable, neither real nor unreal, > neither existent nor non-existent. > When the mind is stilled - when it vibrates no more - > consciousness loses its objectivity - then pure > consciousness. The mind can exist as stilled in section. That is, one section of the mind is stilled while another is active. The section that is stilled can be called pure mind. I've heard it referred to as such by Swami Bhaskarananda of the Ramakrishna Math. Therefore, the Atman can be experienced by a mind that has been made pure in part. The Atman is the basis of all experience, but it Itself can be a kind of experience as well, as Its *detected* presence. The way this is experienced is as an emptiness or silence. A complete absence, a nothingness. Though He is hidden in all things, That Self shines not forth. But He is *seen* by subtle seers With superior, subtle intellect. ..... By the *mind*, indeed, is this to be attained:-- There is no difference here at all! He goes from death to death Who seems to see a difference here. ..... The Inner Self of all things, the One Controller, Who makes his one form manifold-- The wise who *perceive* Him as standing in oneself, They, and no others, have eternal happiness! Kena Upanishad -------------- When a seer *sees* the brilliant Maker, Lord, Person, the Brahman-source, Then, being a knower, shaking off good and evil, Stainless, he attains supreme identity [with Him]. This Self (Atman) is obtainable by truth, by austerity, By proper knowledge, by the student's life of chastity constantly [practiced]. Within the body, consisting of light, pure is He Whom the ascetics, with imperfections done away, *behold*. Mundaka Upanishad ----------------- The upshot is this, it is possible to have an experience of Atman. This isn't saying that we can have an experience of *being* the Atman. We are *always* the Atman. It is our base state from which our lives spring. However, when the mind has been made pure by the effects of meditation and the grace of the guru, the presence of pure awareness can be discerned by those sections of the mind that have been made pure. --jodyr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2000 Report Share Posted December 17, 2000 >Think of it this way. We have a clear vessel full of dirty >water. Most of the time the dirt and water are mixed, producing a uniform >murkiness. However, by the effects of >meditation and the grace of the guru, we find the dirt has >begun to settle. Near the top of the glass, the water is >clear. This is the pure awareness of Atman, shining in the >mind. It shines all the time, but it is obscured by the >murkiness. Now that part of the mind has become clear, and >therefore identical with pure awareness, it can recognize it >as such. > >The mind can exist as stilled in section. That is, one >section of the mind is stilled while another is active. > >The section that is stilled can be called pure mind. I've >heard it referred to as such by Swami Bhaskarananda of the >Ramakrishna Math. Here when you say that the dirt is begun to settle and the water clears, how would you equate it with the mind/consciousness? Mind is made up of thoughts - so dirty thoughts and clear thoughts? One part of the mind is pure and another impure? Fundamental rule in philosophy - one thing cannot have/be made up of - two qualities opposed in nature. Can light and darkness exist together? Ofcourse in empirical terms it is OK to use such analogies. But you cannot take it as the absolute truth. The problem with analogies especially in Indian philosophy is that mind/consciousness/knowledge is unique in nature - there's nothing in the world which can be equated with them and hence all such comparisons will prove as flawed, ultimately. >The upshot is this, it is possible to have an experience of >Atman. This isn't saying that we can have an experience of >*being* the Atman. We are *always* the Atman. If you're already the Atman then why are you doing sadhana? Do not confuse an ultimate/transcendental teaching in the empirical sense. >It is our >base state from which our lives spring. However, when the mind has been >made pure by the effects of meditation and >the grace of the guru, the presence of pure awareness can >be discerned by those sections of the mind that have been >made pure. That it is the source of our lives and all the rest is true. But your "pure sections of the mind" is only a preliminary teaching - you should strive to understand the higher teaching of spiritual absolutism. Understand the significance of the four states - waking, dream, deep sleep and enlightenment. _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2000 Report Share Posted December 18, 2000 advaitin , "nanda chandran" <vpcnk@H...> wrote: > > >Think of it this way. We have a clear vessel full of dirty > >water. Most of the time the dirt and water are mixed, producing a uniform > >murkiness. However, by the effects of > >meditation and the grace of the guru, we find the dirt has > >begun to settle. Near the top of the glass, the water is > >clear. This is the pure awareness of Atman, shining in the > >mind. It shines all the time, but it is obscured by the > >murkiness. Now that part of the mind has become clear, and > >therefore identical with pure awareness, it can recognize it > >as such. > > > >The mind can exist as stilled in section. That is, one > >section of the mind is stilled while another is active. > > > >The section that is stilled can be called pure mind. I've > >heard it referred to as such by Swami Bhaskarananda of the > >Ramakrishna Math. > > Here when you say that the dirt is begun to settle and the > water clears, how would you equate it with the > mind/consciousness? Mind is made up of thoughts - so dirty > thoughts and clear thoughts? One part of the mind is pure > and another impure? Fundamental rule in philosophy - one > thing cannot have/be made up of - two qualities opposed in > nature. Can light and darkness exist together? It's a matter of definition. Mind is not only thought, it is also the capability of thought. A mind can be capable of thought yet not have any thoughts present. Likewise, a mind can have some thoughts on one level and yet remain free of thought on another level. The mind is much more than the one dimensional instrument you are proposing. > Ofcourse in empirical terms it is OK to use such analogies. > But you cannot take it as the absolute truth. The problem > with analogies especially in Indian philosophy is that > mind/consciousness/knowledge is unique in nature - there's > nothing in the world which can be equated with them and > hence all such comparisons will prove as flawed, ultimately. So why even discuss them? All we have are the analogies in the realm of these forums, as we cannot provide our experiential knowledge for others to examine. Mind and its contents are quite well known, and there is a broad basis for the discussion of these. Atman however is another matter, as there are many less individuals who have the kind of experiential knowledge *and* the language skills to communicate this knowledge adequately. The only way we can discuss any of this is via analogy, keeping in mind that that's all they are, and that ultimately it must come down to one's own experiential evidence. > >The upshot is this, it is possible to have an experience of > >Atman. This isn't saying that we can have an experience of > >*being* the Atman. We are *always* the Atman. > > If you're already the Atman then why are you doing sadhana? > Do not confuse an ultimate/transcendental teaching in the > empirical sense. We are *all* the Atman. I am not a special case. However, being the Atman and being in realization of being the Atman are two different cases, which is why we need to do sadhana. > >It is our > >base state from which our lives spring. However, when the mind has been > >made pure by the effects of meditation and > >the grace of the guru, the presence of pure awareness can > >be discerned by those sections of the mind that have been > >made pure. > > That it is the source of our lives and all the rest is true. > But your "pure sections of the mind" is only a preliminary > teaching - you should strive to understand the higher teaching > of spiritual absolutism. Understand the significance of the four states - > waking, dream, deep sleep and enlightenment. Advice noted, thank you. --jody. 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.