Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 Namaste Sunderji. Yes. I agree with you that tEjas as the third step in `evolution' would apply to the congenitally blind. I don't want to embark on a grammar misadventure on the meaning of `tEjas' as I did in the case of `prakAshA'. However, we have to admit that `tEjas', like prakAshA, has a wider amplitude and deeper subtlety than its gross manifestation called agni (fire). Besides, light is just one of the two qualities of fire. The other, heat, caters to the sense of touch and is very much available to the blind. In our current debate, we also have to take into consideration the wildest supposition of creation taking place in unknown domains with more or less number of the elements (bhUtAs) known to us or even an altogether different set of them presenting a different set of stimuli. (Am I straying into the forbidden land of heresy here?). Also, we need to overlook our firmly held beliefs about acEtana (or nishcEtana?) beings existing around us. I am here reminded of an SF novel by Sir Fred Hoyle [of the steady-state (Hoyle-Narlikar) theory of the universe fame]. The book "The Black Cloud" has a large cloud of matter, much more advanced in intelligence than humans, approaching the earth. (See: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0899683444/103-1488616- 2420619?v=glance). It is a very very wild idea . Yet, I cannot help wondering about the possible ways Consciousness can work. Are the Himalayas brooding silently utterly scornful of our deeds at their very feet? How are we to know? Now to things personal. Something strange happens to me while I meditate. The attention wanders to certain parts of the body probably because of muscular relaxation or tension in those areas – particularly the knees, thighs, feet, abdomen and forehead. Then all of a sudden, the appreciation of muscular tactility in those areas converts itself into visual pictures – like my abdomen becomes a mountain side, the knee a rock washed by a passing stream, the numbness on the feet a mass of electric brilliance and so son. This, I am sure, should be happening to others too in different ways and measures. I am highlighting this just to drive home the point that sensory stimuli are interconnected at subtler levels although we always put them in water-tight compartments in the gross. At a deeper level, therefore, they may all be existing in a very overlapped manner indistinguishable from one another. Let us now take the case of sound. My eyes are closed and I hear a sound. Although, technically, it is a stimulus falling on the eardrum, the mind immediately conjures up a vision – like if the sound is the tick of a clock – a clock appears on the mental screen. It may be an altogether different clock than the one which is actually ticking. Am I then hearing a sound or seeing a vision or doing both? The world we experience is thus a mass presented by inter-connected sensory appreciation. It is never one stimulus alone. We, being so very much predominantly influenced by the stimulus called light, conjures up immediate visions? Will a congenitally blind person do that? Yet, he could possibly have an inner `vision' (I have no other word for it! See how chauvinistic the non-blind me can be!) for a sound he hears or a tactility he experiences. We cannot guess the nature of that vision. It is simply beyond us although we are sure that, as a sachEtanA being, he has an inner world like us, the fabric of which is beyond our understanding. The subtlety behind fire (tEjas), which does't fully blossom outwardly in the blind, is very much existent there lending a specific quality to his inner `vision'. Nevertheless, don't you think we would do better by not christening it light which, in the gross form we know it, is unavailable to him. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _____________________ advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > Regarding Nairji's references to congenitally blind persons, > the Panchamahabhutas (5 great/subtle elements - constituents of > Srishti) include Tejas as the 3rd step in the 'evolution' , and it > definitely would not be different for them. Fire is the 'gross' > representation of Tejas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: It is simply beyond us although we are sure > that, as a sachEtanA being, he has an inner world like us, the fabric > of which is beyond our understanding. The subtlety behind fire > (tEjas), which does't fully blossom outwardly in the blind, is very > much existent there lending a specific quality to his > inner `vision'. Nevertheless, don't you think we would do better by > not christening it light which, in the gross form we know it, is > unavailable to him. Namaste Madathilji, Even granting all the suppositions of other worlds, etc. a congenitally blind person in this world must have lived previous lives when the faculty of sight was intact. If spiritual maturity had been acquired over the course of such lives, such sanskaras and vasanas are bound to be associated with this body, and 'visualization' could not be ruled out. Surdas, one of the greatest poet-saints (said to have been congenitally blind)of Hindi literature, could describe Krishna Lila which a person with sight would envy. Of course, he had the grace of Vallabhacharya. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 Namaste all, A quick quote as we are about to be invaded by visitors: I have before me a favourite LP: 'The Bauls of Bengal'. The LP notes include these words of a Baul song: 'I am blind, I cannot see the darkness.' A favourite quote for the last thirty five years, and music to listen to when the heart needs to open. Many thanks Sunder for Wilson ref. I have downloaded most of that site. By the way, have I referred you to this site before: http://flaez.ch/rv Very helpful site. Many thanks ken Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote: > Wilson ref. By the way, have I referred you to > this site before: http://flaez.ch/rv > Very helpful site. Namaste Ken, Yes, thank you. For some strange reason, the URL without the 'rv' works better! http://flaez.ch/ then proceed to the RigVeda. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 Namaste. Thanks Sunderji for bringing in Surdas. We need to think about it. Yes. The blind are perhaps not what we take them to be. Can you please look for some research material on the subject so that we can have a better picture? I had found some reference before but don't remember where. Perhaps, somebody touched upon this topic on our list. Kenji, your song of the blind will be melodious even to the deaf. It definitely has a big message for the deaf and blind in me. Thanks. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > Surdas. We need to think about it. > Yes. The blind are perhaps not what we take them to be. Can you > please look for some research material on the subject so that we can > have a better picture? Namaste, Here are a few sites: http://www.veddham.org/saint_surdas_saint_series.htm http://www.itihaas.com/medieval/surdas.html http://www.indiayogi.com/content/indsaints/surdas.asp http://www.musicindiaonline.com/music/l/02000I0101 [audio] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > Namaste. > > Thanks Sunderji for bringing in Surdas. We need to think about it. > Yes. The blind are perhaps not what we take them to be. Can you > please look for some research material on the subject so that we can > have a better picture? > > Madathil Nair Namaste. I stumbled upon the following sonnet of Shakespeare just now. What does it tell us about 'the sight of the blind' is not clear to me. But it seems to be relevant and interesting. Note line 8 and line 10. ------------------------------- Shakespeare's Sonnet 27. The Soul's Imaginary sight. Weary with toil, I haste to my bed, The dear repose for limbs with travel tired; But then begins a journey in my head, To work my mind, when body's work's expired; For then my thoughts, from far where I abide, Intend a Zealous pilgrimage to thee, And keep my drooping eyelids open wide, Looking on darkness which the blind do see Save that my soul's imaginary sight Presents thy shadow to my sightless view, Which, like a jewel hung in ghastly night, Makes black night beauteous, and her old face new. Lo, thus, by day my limbs, by night my mind, For thee and for myself no quiet find. ------------------------ PranAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: some research material on the subject so that we can > have a better picture? Namaste, Some modern views on the issue: (blindness, dreaming, &c.) http://www.seeingwithsound.com/imagery.htm http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm272448.html http://www.rommes.org/blind/dreams.html http://www.dreamgate.com/dream/articles_rcw/ed2-1bli.htm It is of interest tha 'synesthesia', mentioned in one of the articles, is a striking phenomenon in spiritual sadhana. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji. A bunch of daffodils from Wordsworth right on this Onam* morn to all Advaitins and to you especially for the Shakespaere quote: "For oft, when on my couch I lie In vacant or in pensive mood, They flash upon that inward eye Which is the bliss of solitude; And then my heart with pleasure fills, And dances with the daffodils." The bard, in your quote, seems to decry the usual belief that the blind see only darkness, as he does his pilgrimage in utter darkness to behold the JEWEL that makes the ghastly night of our miseries bright. Since the JEWEL is beheld in viewlessness, we have to assume that it is done with the internal eye which the blind too do possess. The "no quiet find" at the end might point at our restless quest day and night for happiness - i.e. ourselves. (If the Advaitin in me has raised his head obtrusively in this understanding, please bear with it for the sake of the goals of this Forum.) HAPPY ONAM* TO EVERYONE ONCE AGAIN. PraNAms. Madathil Nair (* For those who do not know - Onam is the harvest festival of Kerala where I hail from.) _______________________________ advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote: > I stumbled upon the following sonnet of Shakespeare just now. What > does it tell us about 'the sight of the blind' is not clear to me. > But it seems to be relevant and interesting. Note line 8 and line 10. > ------------------------------- > Shakespeare's Sonnet 27. > The Soul's Imaginary sight. > > Weary with toil, I haste to my bed, > The dear repose for limbs with travel tired; > But then begins a journey in my head, > To work my mind, when body's work's expired; > For then my thoughts, from far where I abide, > Intend a Zealous pilgrimage to thee, > And keep my drooping eyelids open wide, > Looking on darkness which the blind do see > Save that my soul's imaginary sight > Presents thy shadow to my sightless view, > Which, like a jewel hung in ghastly night, > Makes black night beauteous, and her old face new. > Lo, thus, by day my limbs, by night my mind, > For thee and for myself no quiet find. > ------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 Namaste all. I had mentioned before that I would be quoting my electronic dialogue with my elder brother, Shri Narendran. The same is given below in three parts with the permission of the List Administrator. It is a little long. Request your patience. Grateful for your views in order to build further on this lively discussion. PraNAms to all advaitins. Madathil Nair _____________________________ PART 1 Narendran: 1. What is the definition for "enlightenment"? Is it just the individual's personal experiences during meditation? I feel enlightenment should cover all activities in which the individual engages including meditation. If so, how does one experience the light? If so, what is the significance of the term "light"? Therefore, before embarking on a serious discussion on this subject we need to define both the terms "light" and" enlightenment". Madathil: I said I meant self-realization by enlightenment. It cannot be defined because it is an 'area' where descriptions and definitions fear to tread. Self-realization, in true advaitic sense, cannot be objectified although we labour interminably and in vain in our vyAvaharikA with inadequate descriptions and definitions in order to make people understand. Narendran: 2. The word light is used in English both as noun and adjective. As a noun it has the meaning you intended in your essay, but as an adjective it is used as opposite to "heavy". Therefore, is it not possible to think of a different meaning to enlightenment using light as adjective. If so how does one enlighten oneself? What is the burden that he has to foresake? Going by the scriptures the burden that the individual soul carries is the personal ego, the sacrifice of which lightens oneself beyond the experience of a worldly person, difficult to express in words. Madathil: But, in self-realization, if you look at it logically, there cannot be any feeling that one unburdened oneself. Isn't such a feeling in the realm of the objectified? Self-realization is the end of objectification. It is 'realizing' that one never had an ego and, as you pointed out, difficult to express in words. Narendran: 3. Such an enlightened person having sacrificed his personal ego is ever in unison with the cosmic Self (or Paramaatma as termed in the scriptures) and what would be his experiences like? Madathil: Logically, there cannot be experiences! Narendran: 4. Let us examine what is meant by the term cosmic Self. As all Advaitins believe matter emerged from consciousness and not vice versa as modern scientists believe. It is, of course, absurd to think that dead matter can evolve by itself to a conscious being. If so, consciousness ever exists, because nothing else can produce it. Since the entire universe is its creation, anything in the universe cannot destroy it as well. As such, consciousness creates, sustains and destroys the universe at its free will. What is free will? Free will is the power that controls all activities of the consciousness, viz. creation, sustenance and destruction of the universe - the term that is termed as Isvara in the scriptures. What is the activity of consciousness? The activity of consciousness is sankalpa - the term that is termed as Maya in the scriptures. Therefore, the free will creates, sustains and destroys all the activities through sankalpa. We can, therefore, sum up that other than the trinity of consciousness, free will and its power of sankalpa, everything else is unreal, as the products of sankalpa are dreamlike. Madathil: This is the tricky part. No activity can be ascribed to Consciousness (Bhagwat Geetha Chapter 9). It is only from the viewpoint of the deluded that Consciousness seems to project. Soundarya Lahari, which we are currently discussing at Advaitin, begins with Shiva-ShaktyA yuktO, and LalitA SahasranAmAvali ends with Shiva-Shaktyaikya SwarUpini. These two terms, in ultimate analysis, mean that Shiva and Shakti are one and the same. From that point of view, there actually is no creation taking place. So, creation and duality exist only for the deluded. That the deluded himself is Shiva and Shakti at the same time is self-realization and it cannot be a realization in the pedestrian sense. We use the verb 'realize' just because we are in the grip of vyAvahArikA delusion. Once freed from it, there cannot be any creation and there cannot be any 'memory' of the previous error, because memories again belong to the realm of the objectified. There is only silence. No wonder then that jnAna is known as Silence. One is then everything without compartmentalization. That is just another way of saying 'being One without a second and any beyonds' - the advaitic fullness. Mother is called samayAntastA and gaganAntastA, by which names it is implied that She pervades space-time continuum (the building block of delusion) from within. At self-realization, the realized one verily becomes both space and time (and for that matter all objectified phenomena) without any differentiation between them and, for him, both are no more objective phenomena. In fact, they never had been! Narendran: 5. How is the individual soul different from Isvara? Individual soul (though the part of the same consciousness as Isvara) is so much tied up with products of sankalpas, the producer of ego, that it has lost all its memories of free will (its father), Isvara's sankalpa sakthi (its mother) or the pure consciousness (its Guru. What is ego? Ego is nothing but false sankalpas about self. Therefore, the purpose of meditation is to clean up one's consciousness of the effect of past sankalpas so that little by little one comes to experience his/her free will. Again by not allowing the free will to play with sankalpas and meditating on its true form of pure consciousness the saadhaka regains the lost free will and becomes one with the bliss of the pure consciousness - swaswaroopanusandhaanam (a synonym for Bhakti) as defined by Adi Sankara in Vivekachudamani. The non-duality which the Advaitin understands is that the trinity of consciousness, free will and sankalpa is actually one and without a second. These are three for the saadhaka, but one for the siddha. Having attained unity with the Paramaatma through consistent efforts (abhyaasa), a saadhaka learns not to lose sight of the reality during the three states of Jaagrat, Svapna & Sushupti as well. Only such a person can be considered enlightened. How can one describe a person who becomes one with this true state of self and ever experiences the pure consciousness, except by the term enlightened? What else but light describes the consciousness best? Can anyone associate consciousness with darkness. Is not the consciousness, the inner light of every being? Madathil: No objections here about swarUpa-anusandhAnam and the need for abhyAsa. I accept that part fully. The point I was trying to drive home is association of light (the noun) with all this in order to sift fancy away from facts. That was why I thought aloud about the possible existence of other beings who don't have to deal with the visual stimulus. If they exist, then in their abhyAsa, there won't be any place for light. Another external stimulus, as granted to them by Ishwara, will substitute light. Your 'inner light' will then be another 'inner external stumulus' for those beings. Do we, therefore, have to be chauvinistic about 'light' - the main external stimulus available to us? If the 'inner light' is known as jnAna, then I have no objections. That is a matter of mere linguistics. Narendran: 6. To sum up, I feel there is light in enlightenment in both the senses of the word light - i.e. noun as well as adjective. But the term light is to be understood to mean the inner light of pure consciousness. Madathil: Well. I said above there cannot be any 'feeling' of a removal of burden in self-realization as that 'state' (sorry for the word) is not within the objectified. This applies to light also as long as it is not used to represent jnAna. JnAnA refers to the 'state' itself because the jnAni becomes verily Knowledge without the division of knower, knowing and known. Narendran: I did not really understand the difficulty in answering your daughter's question? "Aren't there worlds which are completely dark without light?" Yes, if Isvara wills there could be worlds of any kind. But understand these worlds are only creations of sankalpas and exists only in the consciousness of Isvara, and at will can be brightened up. Consciousness cannot be associated with darkness in anyway. Madathil: I have answered this under 6 above. PART 2 Narendran: Thank you for your prompt comments and for the invitation to take Advaitin membership. I agree with you that non-duality cannot be objectified. Is it not the reason why Dakshinaamoorthy sits silent explaining the state through chinmudra. But why we write about it and try to explain it is to make it understandable to people who have only "experiences" and not anything beyond it. Such explanation can be done only within the limitations of language and in relation to their experiences. The reason why I do not want to join any group is because I think contemplation (within oneself) rather than discussions, where ego crops up often without one's knowledge, would help me to get the knowledge I am seeking. I do not profess to know much on the subject and I am still a vidhyaarthi (or for that matter a lazy vidhaarthi). But I prefer to listen to my internal Guru rather than those outside. In a way you may even interpret it as my ego blocking me from discussion because it does not want to get hurt. I am a person who is bound with Maya (i.e sankalpas) and the only way I can express myself is through Sankalpas. I am sure that you will agree that the question whether there is light in enligtenment itself is a product of Maya. We are presuming that there is a 'state' (or whatever name you may call it) called enlightenment, and within that state there is something called 'light'. In a world without sankalpa, what meaning does this question have? It is also true that in enlightenment there is no feeling of unburdenment. But how does a man burdened with ego look at it? As a ligtened state, is it not? Well that is why me, who is a person burdened with ego likes to call the jnaani enlightened. I agree with you when you say that there should be no fancies about enlightenment? I also agree that enlightenment and self-realization are same. Enlightenment or self-realization cannot be expressed in words. But if you ask me to explain these terms I would only refer you to the lakshanaas of "Sthithaprajna", "Jnaani" and "Bhakta" so beautifully described in Srimad Bhagavad Geetha. Sorry if I have attributed any activities to the Paramaatma. I will not go against Geetha in this respect. But as we all know that this magical universe has as its source, Paramaatma. Paramaatma though is nirvikaara & nishkarma, it does awaken its Mayasakhti (through Chilleela, to go by its Bhagavatic term) which then gives birth to all the non-existent actions, non-actions, experiences and everything in the universe. Scriptures also say that all these activities take place under the control of Isvara. Therefore to the uninitiated it would be difficult to explain what it is to be without any activity, say not even sankalpas. Chances are that such a person would easily confuse it with death, which is a state without consciousness, whereas samaadhi is where consciousness "shines" with its full glory. The light which is referred to here is that inner light which is not the object, but self itself. It may sound a little outspoken, but to me "Aham Brahmaasmi" means "I am consciousness" or "I am the inner light". The self is nothing but consciousness which pervades all beings. I interpret the word Brahma as cosmic consciousness. Once again, I agree that Brahma is a word that transcends definition. But my interpretation of it is only to make myself understand the word at least in its partial sense. Madathil: That is just wonderful! I accept it fully. In fact, the purpose of the discussion is to bring out this conclusion in words which again is in the realm of mAya. I would be quoting you at Advaitin. PART 3: Narendran: Here are some more thoughts on "Enlightenment" which crossed my mind this morning. As Vedas are the Pramaana for Advaitins of Sankara School, I thought it might be helpful analyzing "Enlightenment" in the light of Vedasirsha, the four Mahaavaakyas of the four Vedas. I am sure that you will agree with me if I say that there is nothing more authoritative than the four Mahaavaakyas in explaining the ultimate truth, the realization of which is "Enlightenment". Let us take these one by one and examine how they proceed to enlighten one. Prajnaanam Brahma, Aham Brahmaasmi, Tat Tvamasi & Ayam Aatma Brahma being the four we have to analyse. In the first of the above Prajnaanam Brahma you will note that there is no mention about the aham or Self. The Mahaavakya totally appears to be objective and dealing with outside element. Explaining Brahma, the Ultimate Reality, as Prajnaanam a combination of Prajna and Jnaanam (in English it would be equal to a combination of awareness, consciousness and knowledge). This Mahavaakya, though not directly referring to self, implies that the ultimate truth is nothing material and can be attained only through awareness, consciousness and knowledge all three being attributes of the Self. Another quotation, though not a Mahaavaakya Brahmavith Brahmo Bhavathi also states that the way to become Brahma is knowing Brahma. Therefore, the Mahavaakya helps one turn inward and look for the ultimate truth within - the first essential for the saadhaka. The second of the Mahavaakyas, Aham Brahmaasmi makes the saadhaka realize that the ultimate truth is himself. This happens when one realizes that self is nothing but awareness, consciousness and knowledge, as without these one is nothing. Contact with outside universe is possible only through Prajnaanam. In other words, the universe exists only in Prajnaanam. If not for Prajnaanam, there is no universe for any being. This knowledge makes the person immortal coming to know that Prajnaanam has no past, present or future - it is a continuum without beginning, middle or end. This is the beginning of Enlightenment. When this identity is complete, one wishes to make this knowledge known to others who are earnestly seeking the ultimate reality. The only way this new knowledge can be expressed is through the third of the Mahaavaakyas, i.e. Tat Tvamasi. Tat Tvamasi being the Mahaavaakya this is studied, analyzed and discussed most by Vedaantins of all schools, I do not think there is any need to explain the meaning of this Mahaavaakya here. When one makes this known to a disciple who understands and realizes the Guru's statement in its true sense we have a Guru Parampara, that in time branches out to several schools of Vedantaas which explains the same truth, but in different worldly lights. Having completed the Guru's worldly duty of sharing the knowledge with the contemporaries, it becomes necessary to redefine the statement once again lest its true meaning be not limited to the Guru and Sishya only. Thus rises the forth of the Mahavaakyaas "Ayam Aatma Brahma", the Mahaavakya expanding to embrace all beings, whose inner light is the same as the Guru and Sishya. The difference between the enlightened and non-enlightened therefore is only the realization or absence of this knowledge, the ultimate truth being all-pervading. All that is good in this world, universal love, universal brotherhood, samabhaavana, bhakti (the glorification of eternal truth) etc. springs from this knowledge. The light is a symbol of this knowledge - hence the term enlightened. I was keeping away from expressing myself to others basically I think all that is to be said has already been told by many others much more beautifully than I can do and it would be superfluous of me (with half knowledge) to speak out where I am not called. Anyway, your views on enlightenment have woken up the philosopher (I hope not pseudo) and have compelled me to share my views with you and some others. Madathil: I have no disagreement. What I have to say below is then only an unnecessary addendum! The mahavakyas represent the lofty heights of vedanta and the ultimate pramana advaitins go by. They are all one, in fact, like the three - Sat, Chit and Ananda - are verily One. The duality of four is just for the intellect to appreciate and understand them from different angles. Any such understanding is still outside self-realization. The purpose of our discussion, as I said several times before, is to sift fancy away from facts. Pramanas are the facts and reading wrong iterpretations into them by alluding to our ordinary mundane stimuli like light, sound (as it happens in a vision of the deity etc.) is fancy. I am not decrying visions. They are all a blessing in disguise en route self-realization. Only that we should not get enmeshed in their dalliance and misunderstand self-realization. To an aspirant, the mahavakyas are still in the realm of the objectified - statements that are appreciated and understood. When he or she becomes verily the object represented by them, he or she ceases to be. There is then no object any more. The feeling then that a realized guru teaches him/her is also a delusion. It is a projection created by the aspirant's intense sadhana or earnest wish. The guru is none other than he/she himself/herself. When he or she becomes the Truth, there is no more any knowing in the pedestrian sense. Then the noun Knowledge replaces knowing, knower and known. There are no more any adjectives, verbs and adverbs. There are only nouns which is all One and the Same, like Sat, Chit and Ananda. And that Knowledge is Brahman, verily the erstwhile aspirant and Prajnanam too. That is when Tat and Twam fuses together without any beyonds or duality. There cannot be any light or sound left then in the oridnary sense because both light and sound are then the aspirant without distinctions. It applies to the whole erstwhile experienced universe too without any need for the universe to be refuted. Thanks for your input. ____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 Namaste Sunderji. I am sure my reference to the visual substituting tactile led you to the synesthesia links. There is an awful lot of material on the net on this subject, which are beyond my competence and means to dwell on in detail. The neuropsychological aspect of the phenomenon is just awesome. Synesthesia is understood as a *condition* in which people have *difficulty* distinguishing between various sensory inputs (asterisks mine to highlight how science looks at the subject!) I don't know for sure how many of us experience synesthesia (of the beneficial variety) in meditation. However, after glancing through your links and results of my net search, I am tempted to believe that most successful kundalinsts are subject to synesthesia in as much as the tactile (muscular tension or relaxation) is substituted in them by the visual (blazing charkas). It is said about neonatal synesthesia that, early in infancy, probably upto about four months of age, all babies experience sensory input in an undifferentiated way. The big question then to be asked is if we are `regressing' into a state of childhood innocence through spiritual sAdhana and resultant chittasuddhi whereby the distinct differentiation of sensory stimuli (credited to evolution!) merges back into a brilliant mass of Unity where all senses exist together. Then, no doubt, there is some sense in the talk of light in Enlightenment. Of course, that light then cannot be light alone but a nucleus of total sensorial activity wherefrom the universe of diversity blossoms forth through the mind and sense organs. As an aside, it is also my personal experience that a feeling often occurs that we see without the eyes and hear without the ears. Let me put in more words to explain. I am up from the morning and engaged in different activities. During all this time, I didn't give any thought to the existence of my body and eyes and yet operated smoothly. Only when attention is called to the body or eyes that I am aware that I have a body and eyes and, then, all the explanations follow – about the working of the body, brain, the mechanics of seeing such as light falling on the retina, neuronal transmission of information to the brain etc. etc. Aren't all these additional inputs that I `invent' to explain duality granting it a validity that it doesn't really deserve? In spiritual sAdhanA, our endeavour is to refrain from such dualistic thinking and fall back on the Unity behind it by reminding ourselves: "CONSCIOUSNESS I AM". It is an endeavour to understand the upanishidic eye that sees the eyes and the ear that hears the ears. Sensory perception of objective phenomena, therefore, should take place without the intermediacy of sense organs unless we are direly in need of them. Is this understanding or realization an inevitable element en-route the `regression' to the original state that I tried to elaborate above with the help of synesthesia? I would be most grateful for thoughtful insights from all. However, kindly do not read any allusion of spiritual accomplishment or claims on my part in what I have written above. It is sheer loud thinking. PraNAms. Madathil Nair __________________________ advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > > It is of interest tha 'synesthesia', mentioned in one of > the articles, is a striking phenomenon in spiritual sadhana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > I am sure my reference to the visual substituting tactile led you to > the synesthesia links. The big question then to be asked > is if we are `regressing' into a state of childhood innocence through > spiritual sAdhana and resultant chittasuddhi whereby the distinct > differentiation of sensory stimuli (credited to evolution!) merges > back into a brilliant mass of Unity where all senses exist together. > Then, no doubt, there is some sense in the talk of light in > Enlightenment. Of course, that light then cannot be light alone but a > nucleus of total sensorial activity wherefrom the universe of > diversity blossoms forth through the mind and sense organs. > Aren't all these additional > inputs that I `invent' to explain duality granting it a validity that > it doesn't really deserve? In spiritual sAdhanA, our endeavour is to > refrain from such dualistic thinking and fall back on the Unity > behind it by reminding ourselves: "CONSCIOUSNESS I AM". It is an > endeavour to understand the upanishidic eye that sees the eyes and > the ear that hears the ears. Sensory perception of objective > phenomena, therefore, should take place without the intermediacy of > sense organs unless we are direly in need of them. Is this > understanding or realization an inevitable element en-route > the `regression' to the original state that I tried to elaborate > above with the help of synesthesia? Namaste, Actually the key search words I used were : congenital blindness and dreaming; synesthesia was a reference in one of the articles, and I made an incidental mention of it. The word 'regression' is properly in quotation marks, because in a biological or psychological sense it indicates a less advanced or adaptive state of existence! We may have to coin a different word (or one may already exist that I am not aware of) to describe this spritual 'progress'. Re: the remark on the perception without intermediacy of sense organs, it in fact occurs in the dream state (in the sukshma or subtle body). Unfortunately, few retain the capacity to analyse this state in dreams, and only in the waking state we are able to make the effort to comprehend the 'Unity' ('advaita'). The synesthesia in regression, whether induced by hypnosis or hallucinogenic drugs, may superficially resemble or mimic that in enlightenment, but cannot be identical - if judged by the post-regression behavior. When Mandukya upanishad defines sushupti (deep sleep) as "...yatra...na kanchana svapnam pashyati...", I think it does not limit itself to the visual organ. It must include all senses. Also, one of the many meanings of the verb 'pash' is 'to understand; experience; learn,' etc. In regard to the hypothesis of other worlds where 'darkness' (by our definition) and duality rule, there still would a word for knowing reality, though it may not be 'enlightenment'! In fact, are not the words, hell, naraka, 'asuric', etc. descriptive of precisely this 'dark' dimension? Shankara has composed the poem Kashi Panchakam, where he says: kosheshhu paJNchasvadhiraajamaanaa buddhirbhavaanii pratidehageham.h . saakshii shivaH sarvagato.antaraatmaa saa kaashikaaha.n nijabodharuupaa .. 3.. "...whose sway extends over the five sheaths (koshas), whare Buddhi is Bhavani, woth Her abode in every human body, where the all-pervading Inner-Self, the Witnes, is Shiva - I am that Kashika, of the form of pure consciousness of Self". kaashyaa.n hi kaashyate kaashii kaashii sarvaprakaashikaa . saa kaashii viditaa yena tena praaptaa hi kaashikaa .. 4.. "In Kashi, indeed, shines the effulgent one, Kashi (Self) is the bringer of everything in the universe to light. He who has known that Kashi has indeed attained Kashi (salvatio)." [Publ. Sw. Buddhananda, Advaita Ashrama, Mayavati] Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 Namaste Sunderji. `Pash' or `Kash', we seem to be gravitating towards the conclusion that the light of Englightenment, as far as we terrestrial Homo sapiens are concerned, cannot be attributed to any particular stimulus. We have already arrived in KashI, therefore. Thanks for the quote from kAshIpanchaka. If I may bring you and Shri Ananda Wood together here, isn't the kAsh of kAshAyA, kAshika and kAshi the same as in prAkAshA? All the more reason, therefore, to understand that prAkAshA is not mere light relating to one sense organ. What a beautiful statement : kAshI sarva prakAshikA (Self is the bringer of everything to light!). It indeed is a verse where the subtlety in words is sublimed to the highest possible level for unending interpretation and contemplation. No wonder, therefore, the kAshikA's attire is called kAshAya. What a symbolism! How silly we are to mistake it for the particular colour of sanyAsis' attire when it actually means the `prakAshA' the self is `clothed' in! Regarding your reference to perception without the intermediacy of sense organs in dream state, I have always had problem coming to grips with MandUkya and GaudapAdA's kArika. In an ordinary human being, aren't still senses in operation in the dream state? Let us take an example: the dreamer can have an eye or ear pain in dream state whereas such complaints are non-existent when he is awake. Which ear or eye has the ache? The answer definitely is dream ear or eye of the dreamer, isn't it? Isn't it with that ear and eye dream music is enjoyed and dream scenes are seen? Then, we have to conclude that even in dream state the intermediacy of the dream sense organs operates. Am I right? >From personal experience, I find that advaitic analysis occurs even in dream state, perhaps, with more clarity than in waking. In certain situations, which science normally attributes to motor paralysis in day-time sleep and partial reception of external stimuli, I become aware of myself as a mass of resonating brilliance with continuous ringing in the head. This is the description of only one such experience. The realization that I am asleep then dawns with an urge to wake up but I cannot wake up. This is a condition of great levity and often, of late, I deliberately attempt to enjoy the levity by taking to flying. Sometimes, I call out to AmbAl for help who then appears in all her brilliance with the result that I either wake up or pass into another dream to repeat the entire process all over again. This is the time advaitic thoughts overcrowd the mind and scriptural texts and hymns are remembered and understood with greater clarity than in wakefulness. I should, therefore, assume that dreams or dreamlike experiences are a great help in spiritual progress. There of course is an inability in wakefulness to recapture the advaitic insights and thoughts that occur in dreams in their entirety. However, dreams being an expression of the subconscious, I should imagine that the `richer' advaitic wisdom of dreams is still available somewhere there in an `underground' storehouse to derive inspiration from in wakefulness. Grateful for the thoughts of all Advaitins. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ___________________ advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > Re: the remark on the perception without intermediacy of sense > organs, it in fact occurs in the dream state (in the sukshma or subtle > body). Unfortunately, few retain the capacity to analyse this state > in dreams, and only in the waking state we are able to make the effort > to comprehend the 'Unity' ('advaita'). > > > When Mandukya upanishad defines sushupti (deep sleep) as > "...yatra...na kanchana svapnam pashyati...", I think it does not > limit itself to the visual organ. It must include all senses. Also, > one of the many meanings of the verb 'pash' is 'to understand; > experience; learn,' etc. > > > Shankara has composed the poem Kashi Panchakam, where he says: > > kosheshhu paJNchasvadhiraajamaanaa > buddhirbhavaanii pratidehageham.h . > saakshii shivaH sarvagato.antaraatmaa > saa kaashikaaha.n nijabodharuupaa .. 3.. > > "...whose sway extends over the five sheaths (koshas), whare Buddhi is > Bhavani, woth Her abode in every human body, where the all-pervading > Inner-Self, the Witnes, is Shiva - I am that Kashika, of the form of > pure consciousness of Self". > > kaashyaa.n hi kaashyate kaashii kaashii sarvaprakaashikaa . > saa kaashii viditaa yena tena praaptaa hi kaashikaa .. 4.. > > "In Kashi, indeed, shines the effulgent one, Kashi (Self) is the > bringer of everything in the universe to light. He who has known that > Kashi has indeed attained Kashi (salvatio)." > > [Publ. Sw. Buddhananda, Advaita Ashrama, Mayavati] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Namaste all. Reference the several parameters set in my lead post of 1st September. I notice that the following departments of this debate need your kind attention as very little or no inputs relating to them have yet been received: (b) Your own efforts and experiences towards self-realization and if you have any reasons to think that my point of view is either wrong or right (I am learning and, therefore, subject to correction.) (d) Teachings and reported experiences of personages whom you consider to be realized souls (They can be anybody. The choice is yours. No bars. Don't worry about Sarlo's guru ratings.) (e) Any other logical parameter that you can think of. However, please detail it as a foreword to your post. Those who have so far participated constitute only a small percentage of our Membership. May I, therefore, invite greater participation with thoughtful insights on the above areas which have not been covered. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Just a note about the way that people blind from birth perceive the world, since there has been a fair bit of discussion on this recently. In case anyone wants to pursue the subject further, there is an excellent book on the topic (Sight Unseen. Bryan Magee and Martin Milligan. Phoenix Paperback, 1995. ISBN: 0-75380-503-0) which takes the form of an exchange of letters between two philosophers, one who was effectively blind from birth. Extremely interesting! I refer to it briefly in my book: "Bryan Magee points out in (Ref. 65) that people blind from birth have no experiential feeling of being deficient in their perception of 'reality'. They do not 'know' the meaning of 'darkness' other than as a concept relating to a decreased ability to perceive something owing to external conditions. All of us are deficient in a multitude of ways. If we had the sonar capability of bats, we would function much better in the dark and so on. We do not feel ourselves to be inferior because of this but, most importantly for this discussion, we do not realise that the lack of such senses must mean that there are an infinite number of ways in which we are failing to perceive other aspects of 'reality'." Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Namaste Dennisji. That is real enlightenment. The blind cannot have darkness, which for us non-blind is an absence of light! How sadly we miss the obvious! If the world were to be populated only by the blind, then they would operate as efficienlty as the non-blind without the burden of imagined inadequacies imposed on them. The bats should be considering us deficient, who knows? PraNAms. Madathil Nair advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > "Bryan Magee points out in (Ref. 65) that people blind from birth have no > experiential feeling of being deficient in their perception of 'reality'. > They do not > 'know' the meaning of 'darkness' other than as a concept relating to a > decreased > ability to perceive something owing to external conditions. All of us are > deficient in > a multitude of ways. If we had the sonar capability of bats, we would > function > much better in the dark and so on. We do not feel ourselves to be inferior > because of > this but, most importantly for this discussion, we do not realise that the > lack of > such senses must mean that there are an infinite number of ways in which we > are > failing to perceive other aspects of 'reality'." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Namaste all. ** About the topic "Is there "light" in Enlightenment?", Sri Madathil Rajen= dran Nair asked: ------------------- "I notice that the following departments of this debate need your kind attention as very little or no inputs relating to them have yet been receiv= ed: (b) Your own efforts and experiences towards self-realization (....)." ------------- ** Very modestly, I bring here my own experience. I experienced frequent = moments as steps towards self-realization. They were firm enough for giving= to me a constant confidence in the Advaita. Then, in front of your question= s, was there "light" in the "Enlightenment"? For me, not at all. ** In these moments, there was no 'light', but the feeling of an Absolute Presence. This presence existed amid a strong feeling both of personal soul= and of relationship with all. It was neither only collective, nor only pers= onal (hence some of my preceding posts), but both. Light was not concerned. ** Concerning "light": I consider it as metaphorically, but precious for ot= her people, many of them more advanced than me. Indeed, if I were blind, it would be possible to continue along the Path of Unity. But I admire also th= is sentence from a Swami (I alas forgot his name): "The Truth shines, whatever= we attribute to it". "Shining" is probably here a metaphor, but a good one.= My poor feelings do not offer me 'Light' in Enlightenment. But I know that som= e people see it, and it helps the blinds. And, perhaps, this sentence is a collateral answer to: "Is there 'Light' in the Enlightenment?". The words '= light' or 'shining' are both immanent and transcending themselves, like all partia= l but good, useful tools in Unity. ** Best regards to all Advaitins. ------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Namaste Madathhilji, Responses in parentheses below: advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > `Pash' or `Kash', we seem to be gravitating towards the conclusion > that the light of Englightenment, as far as we terrestrial Homo > sapiens are concerned, cannot be attributed to any particular > stimulus. We have already arrived in KashI, therefore. #####[ In Bhu Loka, existence without the Sun would be an impossibilty,and the eye will have to function as the chief intermediary sense. The importance of the Gayatri/Savitri is thus incalculable.] > > Thanks for the quote from kAshIpanchaka. If I may bring you and Shri > Ananda Wood together here, isn't the kAsh of kAshAyA, kAshika and > kAshi the same as in prAkAshA? All the more reason, therefore, to > understand that prAkAshA is not mere light relating to one sense > organ. #####[ Agree; but it certainly cannot exclude light. ] > > What a beautiful statement : kAshI sarva prakAshikA (Self is the > bringer of everything to light!). It indeed is a verse where the > subtlety in words is sublimed to the highest possible level for > unending interpretation and contemplation. No wonder, therefore, the > kAshikA's attire is called kAshAya. What a symbolism! How silly we > are to mistake it for the particular colour of sanyAsis' attire when > it actually means the `prakAshA' the self is `clothed' in! ######[ Very interesting point. Will have to do some research on the history of this. ] > > Regarding your reference to perception without the intermediacy of > sense organs in dream state, I have always had problem coming to > grips with MandUkya and GaudapAdA's kArika. In an ordinary human > being, aren't still senses in operation in the dream state? Let us > take an example: the dreamer can have an eye or ear pain in dream > state whereas such complaints are non-existent when he is awake. > Which ear or eye has the ache? The answer definitely is dream ear or > eye of the dreamer, isn't it? Isn't it with that ear and eye dream > music is enjoyed and dream scenes are seen? Then, we have to > conclude that even in dream state the intermediacy of the dream sense > organs operates. Am I right? #####[ This topic may need a separate thread! The subtle body operates without the need for 'external' stimuli, and the jiva identifying itself with the subtle body is called 'taijasa'. The enlightened person does not identify with the gross body, so regards our 'waking' state also as a long dream. ] > > From personal experience, I find that advaitic analysis occurs even > in dream state, perhaps, with more clarity than in waking. ###### [ Agree. The dream state has to reflect what is in the waking state also, but few have that intensity of purpose for this to occur, or it may be that that particular individual has a different path marked out. ] Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > Namaste Dennisji. > > That is real enlightenment. The blind cannot have darkness, which > for us non-blind is an absence of light! How sadly we miss the > obvious! If the world were to be populated only by the blind, then > they would operate as efficienlty as the non-blind without the burden > of imagined inadequacies imposed on them. The bats should be > considering us deficient, who knows? Namaste, We are far from understanding the way in which the brain parts compensate for any particular 'deficit'. I had a friend who took the most exquisite color photographs, and was admired and envied for his art. It was years later that he casually remarked that he was 'color-blind'!! (of course since birth!). I have not met anyone yet who is 'tone-deaf' and yet an accomplished musician. Of course, such persons do appreciate good music, how we cannot say! For the spiritually mature, the Spirit provides for them, no matter what 'deficit' they may have to endure. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 Namaste! Sri Nair said: "At least read the lead post of 1st September, if you please! Thanks for your inspiring inputs anyway." I did read the article, and it was quite interesting. I would like to comment on this excerpt: "external stimuli like sound, taste, touch etc. that we are familiar with, there could be worlds whose beings would not need ears, tongue, skin etc. They may have entirely different sense organs to deal with the stimuli available to them. We would not know what such stimuli are! Besides, we will never come to know about their existence! Will their realized teachers then speak of light, effulgence etc.?" It is indeed quite fascinating to speculate about what other kinds of senses there might be. Imagine being born blind and suddenly recovering one's sight. You will be amazed! However, I do think that there is something special about sight. None of the other senses that we are familiar with have such a wealth of detail, especially as far as spatial relationships are concerned. (And yes, I do agree that space is an illusion within consciousness, projected by the mind on an imaginary 'outside'. It is this illusion that I am talking about.) It is truly sight that makes us aware of the 'universe' in all its detail. Sound is a distant runner up. Imagine how extremely limited the mind and life and consciousness of a mole or worm must be, who has only touch and perhaps smell. So sight is far and away the king of the senses, and the only one that gives us a representation of reality it all of its vast expanse and exquisite detail. Furthermore, although I totally agree with Advaita that only consciousness exists and that any notion of an 'external' objective world is an illusory projection, I nevertheless do not feel any need to denigrate sight, as sometimes seems to be the case in those spiritual paths which look with suspicion upon the so-called body. That is, I believe that this mayic illusion of a whole vast universe, with all its color and glory, is fundamentally a good thing, provided our attitude is purified. If we can see it all as a magical projection of the mind of Brahman, then it becomes a fascinating spectacle and entertainment. I see nothing wrong with this, as long as we do not become attached to any of it or identify with any of it. (Purists may not like my reference to the 'mind' of Brahman, since the conceptual mind is sort of the 'enemy' for advaitins. But if the universe is a projection of Brahman, then form and color must be fundamentally 'good', and these are closely associated with the 'mind', in some sense. Again, it is our attitude that must be purified.) Finally, I would like to reiterate what I said before, that the 'illumination' that mystics sometimes speak of may simply be the enhanced sensitivity of consciousness when it is purified. To be quite specific, I believe that when we see everything as the magical projection of the consciousness of Brahman, then the universe appears as a kind of glowing paradise, even in those places and planets where people still suffer from ignorance and delusion. As consciousness becomes more pure and intense, our senses become more acute, and everything seems to be glowing with a heavenly light. Please don't think I am there yet, but I do like thinking and speculating about it! Let us remain idealistic and strive for the ultimate. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:20:46 -0400, Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > I did read the article, and it was quite interesting. I would like > to comment on this excerpt: > > "external stimuli like sound, taste, touch etc. that we are familiar > with, there could be worlds whose beings would not need ears, tongue, > skin etc. They may have entirely different sense organs to deal with > the stimuli available to them. We would not know what such stimuli > are! Besides, we will never come to know about their existence! Will > their realized teachers then speak of light, effulgence etc.?" <snip> > Imagine how extremely limited the mind and life and consciousness of > a mole or worm must be, who has only touch and perhaps smell. <snip> > Finally, I would like to reiterate what I said before, that the > 'illumination' that mystics sometimes speak of may simply be the > enhanced sensitivity of consciousness when it is purified... > As consciousness > becomes more pure and intense, our senses become more acute, and > everything seems to be glowing with a heavenly light. Namaste, Guy Murchie wrote in "The Seven Mysteries of Life" of "the difference between, say, a horsefly, who can easily see the gaps between frames in a standard movie, and a garden snail, who, researchers have found, cannot react to any visual event in less than four seconds and therefore theoretically could see a continuous movie when the frames were changing at about the pace of a slide show." A snail would not notice a gigantic explosion if the light and sound thereof lasted less than four seconds, even if it happened in close proximity. Our own organs of perception and reaction have the same sort of limits, but, living as we do "inside" the box, we are not ordinarily aware of phenomena outside our range. X-rays and a host of other light phenomena are either too slow or too fast for us to see, a whole world of sounds are too deep or too high for our hearing. It makes one wonder what sort of beings may be fluttering all around us, outside the range of perception. And it raises the question of what we would be be able to see and hear were the mind to become more quick or more still. Along this line, consider the implications of the findings presented in the article "ORGAN MUSIC 'INSTILS RELIGIOUS FEELINGS'" By Jonathan Amos, BBC News Monday, September 8, 2003: "People who experience a sense of spirituality in church may be reacting to the extreme bass sound produced by some organ pipes. Many churches and cathedrals have organ pipes that are so long they emit infrasound which at a frequency lower than 20 Hertz is largely inaudible to the human ear. But in a controlled experiment in which infrasound was pumped into a concert hall, UK scientists found they could instil strange feelings in the audience at will. These included an extreme sense of sorrow, coldness, anxiety and even shivers down the spine." --longer article online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3087674.stm Regards, Ramlal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2003 Report Share Posted September 9, 2003 advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote: > > One of the great european musicians, Beethoven was supposedly deaf. I don't know if he was totally deaf or not. Namaste Venkatji, Thank you. His deafness started in adulthood. Here are two interesting articles: http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/4098/deafbio.html http://www.uwsp.edu/music/bharbach/classes/BeethovenHair.htm Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2003 Report Share Posted September 10, 2003 Namaste All, I am off to Wales today for a week of conferences at which I am lucky to have the opportunities to present papers on spiritual experience. Hence I will not be able to keep up with this topic for a while. I look forward to reading all the postings later in the month. I also have a friend critically ill in hospital so please forgive the rushed element of this posting but I would like to offer a final few thoughts and quotes before going to visit her. I had hoped to post a few thoughts on RgVeda I.110 to explain why I felt it was so important to this topic but her illness has taken priority in time. Please note also that I understand quite fully the advaitin teaching on this topic but the following has relevance for us as long as we cling on to seeing 'another'. The following may bind us but also remove some veils; that is the paradox arising from our attachment to becoming. My forthcoming talks will centre on the words 'madhur', 'svadha' or 'svad' in recorded testimonies but rarely using these words as the audiences will not have any knowledge of Sanskrit. My refs. will be from the Rgveda and the Upanishads and I hope that 'all will be sweetness and light'. Again, these experiences are not 'realisation' but valid pointers. A lady wrote: 'I was then aware of a curious light which seemed to grow up within me, and become stronger and more defined as the minutes passed….........the ecstasy lasted over roughly three weeks. The main sensation was of being loved, a flood of sweetness of great strength, without any element of sentimentality or anything but itself. The description is quite inadequate. I also felt a unification of myself with the external world; I did not lose my own identity, yet all things and I somehow entered into each other; all things seemed to 'speak' to me………’ This 'light' experience is often reported in accounts and can be known at the subtle as well as gross levels. The writer acknowledges that the words are inadequate to explain the fullness of the experience but please dwell awhile on: 'The main sensation was of being loved, a flood of sweetness of great strength, without any element of sentimentality or anything but itself.' 'Anything but itself ' should ring a few bells with those who know the Creation Hymn RgVeda. X.129: 'Without breath, That One breathed by its own inherent might.' Understanding here far transcends the ability of words and 'We know no way of teaching this.' ( Kena Up.) Skeat in his etymological dictionary links the English word sweet back to the Sanskrit svad ( to please). Could this be close to 'its own inherent might...svadh? Must go. I will be able to follow your discussion on light but unable to join in so may I wish you all the Light of the True Sun's enlightenment. As the Rgveda says, 'By Agni Agni is inflamed.' Best wishes Ken Knight Signing off words come from the diksha ceremony granted by Papa Ramdas at Anandashram: 'Sugar is sweet. By nature it is sweet. It can never be bitter. So the Name is by nature sweet. It can never be bitter. But when this sweet sugar is put in the mouth of a man who is having some kind of fever, he finds it not sweet but bitter. He throws it away. That shows the man is diseased. Sugar is sweet. So when we are diseased with low desires, the Name does not taste sweet to us. We must go to the doctor who can cure us of that disease. That doctor is guru, who by his presence removes our disease of desires and gives us this nectarine Name and you find in that instant that it is sweet and sweetness comes to you as long as you are repeating the Name, until at last you become sweetness itself, not merely the taster of sweetness but sweetness itself. So you drink and drink and drink the Name until the drinker and the drink become one.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2003 Report Share Posted September 10, 2003 Namaste Ericji. Thanks for your input. I can relate very well to what you have said. I wish others too join in and narrate their personal experiences, particularly those involving light. I haven't said all that I experience for fear of digressing out of the parameters of this discussion. Frankly speaking, as a Devi upasaka, I hear the sounds of anklets and music in my ears most of the time. Even if I close my ears tight, these very pleasant sounds persist. Some spiritually knowledgable persons suggest that it may be due to kundalini awakening. They advise me not to divulge the matter to others. I haven't followed their advice as, if it is the Devi's Grace indeed (I hope it is), She should have no reason to withhold it from me when I continue with my devotion for Her. I am not superstitious. I confess I have slight hearing impairment on both my ears. To a lady ENT specialist who studied my case, however, I pleaded not to interfere with the anklet sounds and music as they do not in any way interfere with my activities and are in fact very sweet to live with. The lady understood. In fact, I take her to be the Devi appearing before me in person, therefore. Thank you one again, Eric. May your input inspire others also to share their expereinces. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ___________________ advaitin, "Eric Jautee" <eric.jauteev@w...> wrote: > ** Very modestly, I bring here my own experience. I experienced frequent = > > moments as steps towards self-realization. .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2003 Report Share Posted September 10, 2003 Namaste Sunderji, As usual, my comments are in brackets. Sunderji: In Bhu Loka, existence without the Sun would be an impossibilty,and the eye will have to function as the chief intermediary sense. The importance of the Gayatri/Savitri is thus incalculable. [i wish someone on our List had talked about Gayatri/Savitri japa and its prakAshik (I don't want to use the word visual) significance in spiritual development. This (Light in Enlightenment) is the most opportune time to do that. Since Gayatri has figured in our recent discussions, I am sure someone among us can narrate their experiences and understanding in this regard.] Sunderji: Very interesting point (the symbolism in kAshAya as the attire of the Self). Will have to do some research on the history of this. [Hope you are working on it and will be back soon with your findings. Others are also invited to join in with their understanding of the suggested symbolism.] PraNAms. Madahtil Nair 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.