is there light in enlightenment

[Guest guest]

Sir,

 

 

Even before the advent of Sri Adi Shankara and his Advaita

philosophy, in the period of Tamil Sangam, which was before the birth

of Christ, there was worship of Lord Shiva in Tamil Nad. The

nayanmars had been faithful devotees of Lord Shiva. The book which

narrates the life of all these great men is called Periya Puranam. Of

these Appar, Sundarar, Thrugnasambandar and Manikkavachakar were

famous for their songs on god. Their renderings were known as

Thevaram and Thiruvachakam. There is a saying in

Tamil "Thiruvachgathku Urugadar Oru Vachagathukkum urugar" meaning if

a man's heart does not melt after hearing their songs then it will

not melt for any other songs.

 

The renderings of Saint Manikkavachakar are in Thiruvachagam. His

songs on the lord of thiruvannamalai (arunachala) are worth

listening. He sings all 10 verses praising the lord and admiring his

Shakti. Actually the holy hill of Arunachala itself is god and here

he gives Darshan in the form of light. No wonder Sage Ramana got

Enlightened here. Manikkavachakar says "Adhiyum Andhamum Illa Perum

Jyothi" which means there is no beginning or end to this light. Even

devas find it rare to worship the lighted feet of Lord Shiva, as He

is in the form of light.

 

In another song, he says the lord who is seated in Thiruvannamalai is

in the form of bright light. Every year a big light is lit on top of

the hill during the month of Karthikai.

 

cdr bvn

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "cdr b vaidyanathan" <

 

he says the lord who is seated in Thiruvannamalai is

> in the form of bright light. Every year a big light is lit on top of

> the hill during the month of Karthikai.

 

Namaste,

 

A testimonial to Advaita:

 

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/m_path/1964_4/october_1964_frameset.htm

 

How I Came to the Maharshi - IV

By Dilip Kumar Roy

 

Dilip Kumar Roy is known throughout India as a famous singer, apart

from which he himself composes songs and writes poems, especially

devotional songs and poems to Sri Krishna. For many years he was an

inmate of Sri Aurobindo Ashram at Pondicherry. Now he is the head of

the Hari Krishna Mandir at Poona where, aided by his foremost

disciple, Indira Devi, he acts as guru to the many Krishna bhaktas who

come. This account of his visit to the Maharshi is taken on his own

invitation, from his book The Flute Calls Still, reviewed elsewhere in

this issue.

 

It happened in 1945, I think. I was still living as an inmate of Sri

Aurobindo Ashram, even though I had come to feel a growing sense of

isolation and begun to surmise that I was a misfit there. My sadness

and sense of dereliction only deepened with time till what little

peace I had left me completely and I felt all but stranded. But I need

not go into the why and wherefore of it all; I would plunge straight

into what keeps me company as one of the most unforgettable

experiences I have ever had. It does, as it was a landmark in my life.

 

After having been for weeks in the grip of a deep gloom, I … wrote

straight to Sri Aurobindo. He wrote back at once giving me the needed

permission, which I deeply appreciated.

 

I took the train to Tiruvannamalai where Ramana Maharshi lived. But as

the train rolled on I felt a deep and growing malaise ... How could I

win the needed peace at the feet of one who was not my Guru when I

could not attain it at the feet of my revered Guru, Sri Aurobindo,

whose wisdom and greatness my heart had never once questioned.

 

Well, I alighted at the station in a mixed frame of mind...

 

But it was too late then, for I was already at the gates of

Ramanashram. How could I return now, after having crossed the Rubicon?

Besides, I was driven by an irresistible urge to meet in the flesh the

great Yogi who — unlike my own preceptor, Sri Aurobindo — was

available to all at all hours. And, to crown all, I wanted to test the

Maharshi for myself and see whether he, with his magic compassion,

could lift me out of the deep slough I had landed in.

 

But he did, and against my worst prognostications at that, so that I

could not possibly explain it away as a figment of autosuggestion. I

mean — if there were any auto-suggestion here it could only be against

and not in favour of my receiving the goods. But, as the Lord's ways

are not ours, I won an experience I could never even have dreamed of.

So listen with bated breath.

 

I can still recapture the thrill of the apocalyptic experience that

came to me to charm away as it were the obstinate gloom which had

settled on my chest like an incubus. But, alas, words seem so utterly

pale and banal the moment you want to describe an authentic spiritual

experience which is vivid, throbbing and intense. Still I must try.

 

I entered a trifle diffidently a big, bare hall where the Maharshi

reclined morning and evening among his devotees and the visitors who

happened to call. Accessible to all, the great saint sat on a divan

looking straight in front at nothing at all. I was told he lived thus

all the time, in sahaja samadhi, that is a constant super-conscious

state. I was indeed fascinated by what I saw, but I will not even

attempt to portray with words how overwhelmed I was (and why) by what

met my eyes. For what is it after all that I saw? Just a thin,

half-naked man, sitting silently, gazing with glazed eyes at the

window. Yet there was something in him that spoke to me — an

indefinable beauty of poise and a plenitude that cannot be limmed with

words. I wrote afterwards a poem1 on him that may give a better idea,

but I must not get ahead of my story.

 

I touched his feet and then, without a word, sat down near him on the

floor and meditated, my heart aheave with a strange exaltation which

deepened by and by into an ineffable peace which beggars description.

My monthold gloom and misgivings, doubts and questionings, melted away

like mist before sunrise, till I felt I was being cradled on the crest

of a flawless peace in a vast ocean of felicity and light. I have to

use superlatives here as I am trying to describe as best I can my

experience of an ineffable bliss and peace which lasted for hours and

hours. I can well remember how deep was the gratefulness I felt

towards the Maharshi on that sleepless and restful night as I

reclined, bathed in peace, in an easy chair under the stars at which I

gazed and gazed in an ecstasy of tears. And I recalled a pregnant

saying of his: "Just be. All is in you. Only a veil stands between.

You have only to rend the veil and then, well, just be."

 

I had found this favourite remark of his rather cryptic heretofore.

But in that moment I understood for the first time and wrote a poem in

homage to the Maharshi.

 

To Sri Ramana Maharshi*

By Dilip Kumar Roy

 

A face that's still, like silent cloudless blue,

And eyes that even as stars drip holiness

Won from a source beyond our ken — a new

Messenger Thou, in this age, of a grace

 

Men ache for and, withal, are terrified

When it shines near — wan puppets of fool senses,

That would disown the soul's faith — even deride

The Peace they crave yet fear — for Life's false dances

 

And siren rhythms beguile the multitude!

And there they woo Time's whirls and wheels — for what?

At best a reeling moment — an interlude

Of half-lit laughter dogged by tears — of Fate

 

O Son of Dawn! who only knowest the Sun,

And through His eye of Light see'st all that lies

Revealed — a flawless plenitude which none

But Son's own children ever might surmise

 

For only the chosen few so far have won

The Truth that shines beyond world's wounds and cries

Who see Thee throned in high dominion

Of Self's invulnerable Verities.

__________________

* From the Golden Jubilee Souvenir, Sri Ramanasramam, 1946.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

sirs,

 

i am happy there are many people in this group who have realised the

light. i am a small man trying to see that. what i said is only with

respect to saint manikkavachakar, who sang all songs in praise of

this place. this was when we did not have the conflicts of shiva-

vishnu worship which is going on now. not that i am supporting any

particular group. the very fact lord shiva was worshipped to get

realised, and no form is attributed to him, except a linga. but when

lord Krishna came down, he also said there is no form for my actual

or real rupa. but he allowed them to worship him in the four armed

form that is vishnu. many alwars have sung his praise. in the final

out come the lord has no definete form. i think i am correct i want

to be corrected if i am wrong. i am also surprised why did lord

created this conflict by asking other philosophers to say theirs.

 

in the end song of thiruvachagam it is said,

 

the param jyoti took this form for doing the five tasks.the five

tasks are cause of birth,protect the men and destroy them. in

addition the jyoti remained invisible to our eyes and it granted

liberation to those who meditate and realised it. this form is not

visible because it is in gyana form. it does not have any particular

form so he says " gana is ambalam(temple) and ananda(bliss) is his

eternal dance.

 

pranams,

cdr bvn

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

All these references to Sri Aurobindo are a

coincidence. I am presently scanning 'The Secret of

the Veda' as the book has no index and Aurobindu

writes so prolificly a search facility is needed.

During today's scanning session the following 'leapt

out' at me so I thought it may be useful to post:

 

 

The Secret of the Veda The AngiraSa Rishis

 

'Knowledge itself was a travelling and a reaching, or

a finding and a winning; the revelation came only at

the end, the light was the prize of a final victory.

There is continually in the Veda this image of the

journey, the soul’s march on the path of Truth. On

that path, as it advances, it also ascends; new vistas

of power and light open to its aspiration; it wins by

a heroic effort its enlarged spiritual possessions.'

........................................

 

'................ Force in status, action, movement,

light, feeling is the inherent quality of the roots ag

and añg from which we have agni and angirah. Force but

also, in these words, Light. Agni, the sacred flame,

is the burning force of Light; the Angirasas also are

burning powers of the Light.

But of what light? physical or figurative? We must not

imagine that the Vedic poets were crude and savage

intellects incapable of the obvious figure, common to

all languages, which makes the physical light a figure

of the mental and spiritual, of knowledge, of an inner

illumination. The Veda speaks expressly of “luminous

sages”, dyumato viprãn and the word sun, a seer, is

associated with Surya, the sun, by etymology and must

originally have meant luminous. In 1.31.1, it is said

of this god of the Flame, “Thou, 0 Agni, wast the

first Angirasa, the seer and auspicious friend, a god,

of the gods; in the law of thy working the Maruts with

their shining spears were born, seers who do the work

by the knowledge.” Clearly, then, in the conception ol

Agni Angirasa there are two ideas, knowledge and

action; the luminous Agni and the luminous Maruts are

by their light seers of the knowledge, rsi, kavi; and

by the light of knowledge the forceful Maruts do the

work because they are born or manifested in the

characteristic working (vrata) of Agni. For Agni

himsell has been described to us as having the

seer-will, kavikratuh, the force of action which works

according to the inspired or supramental knowledge

(.sravas), for it is that knowledge and not

intellectuality which is meant by the word kavi. What

then is this great force, Agni Angirasa, saho mahat,

but the flaming force ol the divine consciousness with

its two twin qualities of Light and Power working in

perfect harmony, — even as the Maruts

are described, kavayo vidmanã apasab, seers working by

the ~flQwledge? We have had reason to conclude that

Usha is the divine Dawn and not merely the physical,

that her cows, or rays of the Dawn and the Sun are the

illuminations of the dawning divine consciousness and

that therefore the Sun is the Illuminer in the sense

of the Lord of Knowledge and that Swar, the solar

world beyond heaven and earth, is the world of the

divine Truth and Bliss, in a word, that Light in the

Veda is the symbol of knowledge, of the illumination

of the divine Truth. We now begin to have reason for

concluding that the Flame, which is only another

aspect of Light, is the Vedic symbol for the Force of

the divine consciousness, of the supramental Truth.'

 

Not Shankara I know but following the direction of

today's thread it may have its place,

 

 

ken knight

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- cdr b vaidyanathan <vaidyanathiyer

wrote:

> sirs,

>

> i am happy there are many people in this group who

> have realised the

> light. i am a small man trying to see that. what i

> said is only with

> respect to saint manikkavachakar, who sang all songs

> in praise of

> this place.

 

Namaste,

 

Recently I was preparing some study material on 'I am'

sayings in different traditions. Having noted that the

Tamil 'ullam' could also mean 'heart' I requested help

of a Tamil speaker. The following is part of his

e-mail reply:

 

'Now about uLLam. The root word is 'uL' which means

light, real, the inside

and anma. Meykandar uses this word to mean the anma.

.....................This is related to another sense

of Tamil. uL : to think, reflect,

meditate and so forth. So uLLam can be that which does

all these.'

 

If any Tamil speaker could pick this up and comment

within the parameters of this month's topic I would be

very interested. However if it is causing a diversion

please ignore this posting,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> Not Shankara I know but following the direction of

> today's thread it may have its place,

>

 

 

Namaste,

 

Shankara uses the word 'jyoti' numerous times in Upadeshasahasri.

 

He ends the Brahmajnanavalimala thus:

 

antarjyotirbahirjyotiH pratyagjyotiH paraatparaH .

jyotirjyotiH svaya.njyotiraatmajyotiH shivo.asmyaham.h ..

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ken:

 

I couldn't resist sending a reply to your question regarding the

Tamil word, 'uLLam.' For a clearer understanding, we need to focus on

three Tamil words which contain the root word – `uL,' and they are:

uLLam - Atman or Brahman

kaDavuL - God or Ishwar

uLagam - World

 

As stated by you, the meaning of the root word, `uL' is inside or

more correctly `deep inside or inner most.' The word, uLLam also

implies `mind' or `the non-physical heart.' The word `KaDavuL' can be

split into kaDa uL to convey that which transcends (kaDa) and yet

the heart of (uL) everything. The word, `uLagam' should be split

into `uL' and `agam' which imply that the world only exists inside

and it never existed outside!

 

With true wisdom, all these words mean the same and they are not

different. Neither the god nor the world exists as a separate entity

from the `pure uLLam or Atman.' We are like the `onion' with layers

of perceptions, we appear with a name and a form and if we remove

those layers, our name and form will disappear and finally we will be

able see our `True Being.'

 

As you may notice, your question is very much within the scope of the

topic under discussion. To see the light, we have look at

our `uLLam,' and light can never exist `puRam – outside.'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: This earlier discussion on the meaning of the word `kaDavuL'

took place some five years back and I have provided the discussion

below along with the source for the discussions.

 

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> Recently I was preparing some study material on 'I am'

> sayings in different traditions. Having noted that the

> Tamil 'ullam' could also mean 'heart' I requested help

> of a Tamil speaker. The following is part of his

> e-mail reply:

>

> 'Now about uLLam. The root word is 'uL' which means

> light, real, the inside

> and anma. Meykandar uses this word to mean the anma.

> ....................This is related to another sense

> of Tamil. uL : to think, reflect,

> meditate and so forth. So uLLam can be that which does

> all these.'

 

 

====================================

Ravi Mayavaram's message in Advaita-L List

Source: http://www.escribe.com/religion/advaita/m3843.html

 

Dated 3rd April 1998

 

namaskAram

 

In one of the recent mail, I mentioned that the meaning of the word

kaDavuL [God] literally means one has transcended the mind

(uLLaththai kaDandavar).

 

Last night when I was browsing through shrI vishhNu sahasranAma

bhAshhyam in tamizh (by aNNa (Venkataraman) published by shrI

Ramakrishna Mission), I found a more pleasing definition.

anaiththiRku uLLum anaiththaiyum kaDanthum iruppathAl avar kaDavuL

 

Since He is in everthing and He also transcends everything he is

known as kaDavuL.

………………………………………

 

Ravi

AUM namo nArAyaNAyA

 

=================================

My reply to Ravi with the following additional explanation:

Source: http://www.escribe.com/religion/advaita/m3894.html

Dated 7th April 1998

 

Greetings:

……………..

 

An additional reference on "KaDavuL" can be found in the chapter on a

Hinduism in The Gazetteer of India, Volume 1: Country and people.

Delhi, Publications Division, Government of India, 1965 (Author, C.P.

Ramaswamy Iyer and others)

 

"The peculiarity of the Saiva Siddhanta doctrine which calls itself

Suddhadvaita is its difference from the Vedanta Monism. God pervades

and energizes all souls and, nevertheless, stands apart. This concept

of the absolute is clear from the Tamil word for God, KaDavuL,

meaning that which transcends (kada) all things and is yet the heart

(ul) of all things. When the absolute becomes manifest, it is as

Force (Sakti) of which the universe is the product." …………..

 

- Ram Chandran

================================

[Guest guest]

Nair-ji:

 

The word "growth" here doesn't mean anything like a tumour or an

offshoot. It is a metamorphosis or an expansion. But, if I used

those words, there would certainly be an objection that such words

signify change. What can I do then? Accepting that it is an

inadequate metaphor, can you please suggest a better substitute?

 

Dennis:

Yes, I agree it is not possible to avoid the use of words that imply change.

I think it is more usual, however, to talk of loss rather than gain. What we

want to lose is the ignorance that is covering up the truth. E.g.

Ramakrishna spoke of removing the layer of green scum from the surface of

the pond in order to reveal the clarity that is always there below.

 

Nair-ji:

The sages seem to communicate with you just because you are tricked

by the sense of separation. You see them outside yourself. If it is

known that they are you, where is the communication? Your gurus are

your own projection. You are always self-taught!

 

Dennis:

Touché!

 

Nair-ji:

The reference to the possibility of such aliens existing is just to

drive home the point that our vision is coloured by the stimuli to

which we are exposed to in our vyAvahArikA. Darwin and evolution,

not to speak of the recent mind-boggling advances in genetics, are

our projections in this vyAvahArikA. As an Advaitin, while

acknowledging their theoretical and practical importance in this

vyAvahArikA, what I need to understand is only that they are all

because I AM.

 

Dennis:

Agreed. I was just saying that if we are talking about vyAvahArika

explanations within the phenomenal realm, Darwinian evolution still seems to

offer the best.

 

Nair-ji:

The vyAvahArikA is because I AM is the universality I am talking

about. It should be true anywhere in this universe because THAT IS

THE TRUTH. Well. The starfish is in my vyAvahArikA. When my

vyAvahArikA resolves into myself on self-realization, I should assume

that the starfish is also realized.

 

Dennis:

Sorry, still missing the point here I'm afraid. I suspect it is merely one

of those paramArthika-vyAvahArika confusions again. I cannot make the first

sentence here mean anything. Surely vyAvahAra has no real existence at all,

mithya only. As you say, it resolves into myself on realisation. So 'the

vyAvahArika is...'?

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji.

 

If I am late, please bear with me. I have to deal with this

avalanche of responses while I am struggling with my office and

personal work. My comments are in parentheses as usual:

> Dennis:

> Yes, I agree it is not possible to avoid the use of words that

imply change.

> I think it is more usual, however, to talk of loss rather than

gain. What we

> want to lose is the ignorance that is covering up the truth. E.g.

> Ramakrishna spoke of removing the layer of green scum from the

surface of

> the pond in order to reveal the clarity that is always there below.

 

[Nair: I believe I will be dealing with this point of losing when I

quote my brother in a couple of days. He has seen the meaning of

unburdening in the word 'light' in En'light'enment.]

 

> Dennis:

> Agreed. I was just saying that if we are talking about vyAvahArika

> explanations within the phenomenal realm, Darwinian evolution still

seems to

> offer the best.

 

[Nair: Although I have supposed the existence of aliens with a

different set of sense of organs just for the sake of discussion, I

admit that we have to necessarily go by what is available to us.

That would necessarily include Darwin.]

 

 

You quoted the following from my post:

 

QUOTE

> The vyAvahArikA is because I AM is the universality I am talking

> about. It should be true anywhere in this universe because THAT IS

> THE TRUTH. Well. The starfish is in my vyAvahArikA. When my

> vyAvahArikA resolves into myself on self-realization, I should

assume

> that the starfish is also realized.

 

UNQUOTE

 

and said:

 

> Sorry, still missing the point here I'm afraid. I suspect it is

merely one

> of those paramArthika-vyAvahArika confusions again. I cannot make

the first

> sentence here mean anything. Surely vyAvahAra has no real existence

at all,

> mithya only. As you say, it resolves into myself on realisation.

So 'the

> vyAvahArika is...'?

 

[ Nair: By universality, I meant the truth of Advaita should apply

at any point in the universe to any species, whether they are dealing

with the same sensory stimuli as we are or not. The starfish is a

separate issue altogether. My understanding is that, when I am

realized there cannot be a duality in which an unrealized one can

exist as an object. That would mean that there is only one self-

realizsation and I am the starfish and everything. Recall,

Atmachaitanyaji said there can be only one jnAni. I understand he is

quite right. A jnAni teaching us is our visualization

(objectification) of him in our vyAvahArikA duality which as you

rightly said is miTyA.] When you are self-realized, you are that

jnAni - the only One!

 

Best wishes and praNAms to all advaitins.

 

Madahil Nair