Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 8. Merging back

[Guest guest]

In his 'regular talks', Shri Atmananda gave an ordered introduction to

some main prakriyas -- from the three states to the changeless

background. The prakriyas show different aspects of the same truth, to

which they each reflect. Each prakriya relates back there, to that

truth where each must point and get dissolved.

 

It's only thus, by merging back, that different prakriyas relate. The

order that relates them is a subtle one, which cannot be constructed as

a formal system. It can only be unfolded naturally, by a repeated

merging back into that single truth from which all prakriyas arise.

 

In fact, as shown by the background prakriya, we merge back into truth

at every moment of our various lives. But, through blind habit of

conditioned ego, we don't see just where it is that we are merged,

continually. What an advaita teacher does is to take a sadhaka to

truth, through a higher reasoning that makes it plainly and completely

clear just what truth is in itself, as the sadhaka is merged back

there.

 

When a sadhaka thus merges back with complete and utter clarity, Shri

Atmananda describes the experience as a 'visualization' of truth. And

here, it must be understood that the word 'visualize' is being used in

a special way. It does not refer to any partial seeing, of any physical

or mental perception. Whenever truth is rightly visualized, the

visualizing is an utterly impartial seeing, with no last remaining

trace of partial mind and body still confusingly mixed up with it. At

the time when it occurs, that visualizing is complete and clear, with

no smallest trace of any partiality or misunderstanding.

 

But, as the sadhaka's mind and body are thus left behind, to visualize

the truth, this mind and body may yet still retain impurities of

possessive ego, which have not yet been eradicated from the sadhaka's

character. If so, the lingering impurities will later reassert

themselves, so that the visualization gets obscured. Then, more work of

sadhana is needed.

 

Using the teacher's prakriyas, or any other prakriyas that may be

discovered or invented, the sadhaka must keep returning back -- from

ego's straying, to the truth that has been shown. By thus refreshing

the visualization, over and over again, the truth keeps being

emphasized, at the expense of mistaken ego.

 

As lingering impurities of ego get removed, the visualization gets to

be steadier and less easily obscured. Eventually, the ego gets

completely eradicated and the visualization stays completely steady and

uninterrupted. That unbroken seeing of the truth is called the 'sahaja'

or 'natural' state. The truth is then spontaneously understood, without

the need of any clarifying effort, no matter what may happen or appear.

In such a sahaja or natural state, the confused sense of a 'sadhaka' or

a 'seeker' is no more. This confusion has then gone -- by seeing it as

a facade of partial personality, whose changing tricks of made-up show

have made no real difference. In place of this personal confusion, the

'jnyani' or the 'sage' has irrevocably taken charge, upon a changeless

stand that is utterly impartial and spontaneous.

 

To describe the steadying of visualization into irrevocable

spontaneity, Shri Atmananda spoke of 'establishment' in truth. That

establishment is the specific aim of his last two points for sadhana,

the tenth and the eleventh. The tenth is:

 

"Another approach: Whatever is past is an idea. The entire world may

therefore be seen as idea. Idea is nothing but consciousness. Therefore

the entire world is consciousness."

 

Here, as indicated by the first two words ('Another approach:'), Shri

Atmananda is giving an example of further prakriyas that he encouraged

his disciples to discover or invent for themselves.

 

In this particular example, the prakriya takes an idealist approach, in

a special way. At the outset, it is pointed out that all our experience

of the world depends on past memories that come into the present

through our minds. So, at any point of time, what's actually present of

the world can be seen as an idea, made up from current memory in mind.

There's nothing here additional to present consciousness.

 

The outside world is thus reduced to inner mind. And then what's left

is only mind, with no outside things and no outside influence. In that

pure mind, there's nothing found to make it in the least bit different

from the present consciousness that knows it. Accordingly, the mind is

in its turn identical with the present reality of consciousness. And

that is no seeming triviality of physical or mental ego. Instead, it is

the non-dual truth of knowing self and everything that's known,

including the entire world.

 

In the last point for sadhana, the various prakriyas are implicitly

summarized, through a core argument for establishing non-dual truth:

 

"Summing up, thoughts, feelings, perceptions and the outside world are

nothing but consciousness. I am also consciousness. Therefore nothing

exists other than consciousness."

>From this summing up, a question may arise. Why is it centred upon

'cit' or 'consciousness'? What about the other two aspects, of 'sat' or

'existence' and 'ananda' or 'happiness'?

 

An answer comes from the nature of the prakriyas. They proceed through

reason -- starting with the assumptions and constructions of lower

reason and then going on to the reflective questioning of higher

reason. Such reasoned prakriyas are centrally concerned with knowing,

where consciousness comes first. To examine existence and happiness, it

must be asked how they are known. They are thus examined by reflecting

back to consciousness, and observing them from there.

 

This is not much of a problem for existence, because it is natural to

verify existence by observing it. But where happiness is concerned, the

same does not apply. For it is more natural to *feel* happiness, rather

than observing it. And such feeling implies a motivating depth

knowledge, which we call 'love'.

 

Accordingly, the aspect of happiness implies a further and deeper

approach, which concerns the motivating heart of reason and enquiry.

This deeper approach is of course the devotional love of bhakti. For

Shri Atmananda, advaita bhakti is a very delicate matter, between

teacher and disciple. He insisted that it is not subject to any

mind-initiated reasoning. Thus, he treated it as a deeply emotional

issue, which must be left to itself, beyond the reach of thinking

intellect.

 

All that he would say is that a teacher stands for truth itself, at the

centre of a disciple's heart. Once truth has been shown by an advaita

teacher, all further sadhana proceeds from there and comes back there.

Without that living guidance from within, no sadhana is rightly

meaningful.

 

For sadhana towards establishment in truth, his general advice to

disciples was in two parts. First, to face squarely whatever may come

up to confront the disciple in the world. And second, having faced each

occurrence squarely, to reflect upon it spiritually, thus returning to

the truth that stays always unaffected by what happens in both world

and personality.

 

But there is also a particular sadhana which he described by two short

injunctions: 'Sleep knowingly' and 'Sleep in consciousness.' To give an

idea of this sadhana, a series of quotations are appended below, from

Shri Nitya Tripta's 'Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda'.

These quotations may also help to relate this sadhana to some practices

and conceptions of traditional meditation.

 

Ananda

 

--------

 

1950, note 1

 

.... we get to our real nature by relaxing our mind from all forms of

activity, and at the same time not losing sight of the happiness and

peace experienced in deep sleep.

 

This positive aspect saves us from the probable shroud of negation and

slumber. We should not allow the mind to be active and at the same time

we should see that it does not become inactive. In other words: 'Sleep

knowingly.'

 

Thus, deep sleep can be utilized directly for establishing oneself in

the real centre.

 

 

1951, note 2

 

The poet Tennyson says [in the poem 'Ulysses']: Pursue 'knowledge, like

a sinking star, beyond the utmost bound of human thought'. It will take

you a long way if you think deeply about what Tennyson meant by this

statement.

 

'Sinking star' may mean this. Sinking implies relaxation. You have only

to retreat and retreat into the 'I'-principle, and rest there. Allow

yourself therefore to be led on. Sink, sink, sink... Sink from the

body, sink from the senses, and sink from the mind...

 

Ashtavakra says, in a similar context:

 

yadi deham prithak-kritya citi vishrAmya tishThasi

adhunai 'va sukhi shAnto bandha-mukto bhavishyasi

['Ashtavakra-samhita', 1.4]

 

This means: 'Separating body from you, if you take rest in

Consciousness, you stand liberated here and now.'

 

 

1951, note 75

 

'... Sleep away the whole world, clinging on to Consciousness,' said

the Sage [Ashtavakra].

 

The use of the word 'sleep' in the transitive form, though peculiar, is

specially meaningful. It means give up name and form, and rest in the

background.

 

 

1952, note 294

 

yadi deham prithak-kritya citi vishrAmya tishThasi

adhunai 'va sukhi shAnto bandha-mukto bhavishyasi

['Ashtavakra-samhita', 1.4]

 

This means: 'Sleep in Consciousness.' This is the royal road to the

natural state.

 

 

1952, note 296

 

How to sleep knowingly?

 

Know that you are going to sleep. Let that thought be as vague as

possible. Then empty your mind of all intruding thoughts, taking care

not to strain the mind in the least. Having understood from the Guru

that your real nature alone shines in its own glory in deep sleep, if

you relax into deep sleep as already suggested, the deep sleep shall no

longer be a state, but your real nature, even beyond 'nirvikalpa

samadhi'.

 

[This note is linked to the following statement -- from the appendix,

'Some Spiritual Statements ...':]

 

*Sleep involuntarily* and you will be taken to the ignorant man's deep

sleep. *Sleep voluntarily* and you will be taken to nirvikalpa samadhi.

*Sleep knowingly* and you will be taken right to your real nature (your

natural state) beyond all samadhi.

 

 

1952, note 365

 

In relaxation one should have something to hold on to. If you hold on

to the 'I' and relax the senses and mind, you get to real sleep.

 

Let the mind be asleep to the whole world, and wakeful to the 'I'.

 

 

1953, note 14

 

See that either end of your sleep is saturated with the thought of your

real nature, your native home.

 

 

1956, note 120

 

Experience is of two kinds: vastu-tantra [governed by reality] and

kartri-tantra [governed by a doer].

 

1. Vastu-tantra is begotten of Atma.

2. Kartri-tantra is begotten of doership.

 

All Experiences of duality, including even the yogin's nirvikalpa

samadhi, are kartri-tantra. The experience which takes me straight to

my real nature, of Peace and Consciousness, is alone vastu-tantra....

 

Vastu-tantra, being atmic, is beyond feeling. Kartri-tantra, being

mental, is capable of being felt, but is fleeting. Mental satisfaction

can be derived both from Truth as well as from untruth. Vastu-tantra is

not the result of any activity or inactivity. But kartri-tantra is

always the result of activity, which takes the form of desire and

effort for its fulfilment.

 

When the disciple -- who is a waking subject -- is told by the Guru

that even his phenomenal satisfaction is not derived from objects, but

that it is his own real nature shining in its own glory, his doership

(which is the centre of kartri-tantra) crumbles for ever. Desires

torment him no more, and satisfaction is transformed into permanent

Peace.

 

When this sublime Peace, vastu-tantra, is sought to be brought down to

respond to kartri-tantra, guided by varying tastes and tendencies, a

host of new concepts in the form of religions, heavens, objects of

pleasure and so on begin to appear. Therefore, give up your tastes,

tendencies and desires -- not violently, but by knowing, and by knowing

more and more deeply, that all satisfaction is the expression of your

own real nature of Peace -- and you shall be for ever free.

 

The state of Peace in deep sleep is the most familiar experience of

vastu-tantra in daily life. The annihilation of all kartri-tantra is

the ultimate goal of Vedanta. This establishes vastu-tantra without any

positive effort whatever. Look at deep sleep. You have only to give up

your attachment to body, senses and mind, in the waking and dream

states. Immediately, Peace -- vastu-tantra -- dawns, permanent and

self-luminous.

 

Deep sleep comes involuntarily, and without the help of discrimination.

Therefore it disappears, after a while. Establish the same state

voluntarily and with discrimination. When once you visualize it this

way, it will never disappear.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

>>

> To describe the steadying of visualization into irrevocable

> spontaneity, Shri Atmananda spoke of 'establishment' in truth. That

> establishment is the specific aim of his last two points for

sadhana,

> the tenth and the eleventh. >

> 'Sinking star' may mean this. Sinking implies relaxation. You have

only

> to retreat and retreat into the 'I'-principle, and rest there.

Allow

> yourself therefore to be led on. Sink, sink, sink... Sink from the

> body, sink from the senses, and sink from the mind...

>

 

Namaste, Shri Ananda Wood

 

Shall we say that the above 'establishment in Truth' and 'resting

in the I-principle' is the meaning of 'Atma-samstham manaH kRtvA'

in Gita VI - 25?

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji.

 

Your post 20177.

 

My comments/queries are in [ ].

 

Anandaji said:

 

"But, as the sadhaka's mind and body are thus left behind, to

visualize

the truth, this mind and body may yet still retain impurities of

possessive ego, which have not yet been eradicated from the sadhaka's

character. If so, the lingering impurities will later reassert

themselves, so that the visualization gets obscured. Then, more work

of sadhana is needed."

 

[That answers Gregji who wants this to be taken up as a separate

topic for discussion. We would then have a splendid opportunity to

revisit Atmandaji.]

 

 

Anandaji said:

 

To describe the steadying of visualization into irrevocable

spontaneity, Shri Atmananda spoke of 'establishment' in truth. That

establishment is the specific aim of his last two points for sadhana,

the tenth and the eleventh.

 

[i note that Prof. Krishnamurthyji has raised a query in this regard,

which, I am sure, you will definitely answer in detail. May I take

what you said as the stitaprajnatwam of the Bhagwad GItA that results

when the seeker virtually *becomes* the prajnAnam of Ahmam BrahmAsmi?]

 

[Atmanandaji, I note, has used the term *jnAni* for such a realized

soul. In this regard, I would request you to kindly go through one

of our most edifying posts (# 12177 dated 29th January 2002) by Shri

Atmachaitanyaji, where a jnAni and jnAnaniSta have been very subtly

differentiated. Did Atmanandaji have such a jnAni in mind when he

used the term?]

 

 

Anandaji said:

 

In this particular example, the prakriya takes an idealist approach,

in a special way. At the outset, it is pointed out that all our

experience of the world depends on past memories that come into the

present through our minds. So, at any point of time, what's actually

present of the world can be seen as an idea, made up from current

memory in mind. There's nothing here additional to present

consciousness.

 

[With regard to memories of the past, does AtmAnandaji acknowledge

the *traditional* vAsanAs and samskArAs of past lives? This is asked

because I find myself confronting at outside world of situations that

are not warranted by the memories of this life alone.]

 

 

Anandaji said:

 

Accordingly, the aspect of happiness implies a further and deeper

approach, which concerns the motivating heart of reason and enquiry.

This deeper approach is of course the devotional love of bhakti. For

Shri Atmananda, advaita bhakti is a very delicate matter, between

teacher and disciple. He insisted that it is not subject to any

mind-initiated reasoning. Thus, he treated it as a deeply emotional

issue, which must be left to itself, beyond the reach of thinking

intellect.

 

[Well, when one understands prajnAnam brahmA, cit is logically

acknowledged. Since that cit is everexistent, it is sat too. It is

seen as encompassing and reflecting in everything. Then, it is only

a logical conclusion that everything is me and not other than me. If

everything is me and I love only myself, then universal love is my

natural default although I am not aware of it due to my ignorance.

One who is in such a universal love affair is naturally nothing but

happiness (Ananda) - a naturally surging ocean of love. Is there any

need then for emotional inducments to stir it up?]

 

[Regarding the valuable quotes on sleeping knowingly, let us look at

the practical side of it all.

 

I am resting, my eyes are closed. There is a visualization of my

body with only the sense of tactility supporting it. The object

visualized, the image of the body, is lighted up by the light of

awareness (like a luminous UFO hovering over some material object on

the earth's surface - this is pure imagery!). The object slowly

vanishes taken in by the light that lights it up. Then, there

remains only the light. There is no 'seer' of the light even. I am

pure light. No thoughts that worry about its physical properties of

size and magnitude of brilliance. Only light. Let us call it the

light of awareness. (For me personally, that is the Devi - that is

another matter.). Then, something unfortunate happens. The oblivion

of sleep greedily gulps the light down making the whole scenario a

blankness about which I can be aware only when I awake. That is no

different from an ignorant man's sleep! How then to sink down and

down a la Tennyson? Any personal tips that you have would be really

helpful to all of us.

 

At my current level of understanding, I only know that both the

unblemished light and the blankness that ensued, like the cat outside

my house and Saddam Hussein there in prison, are just me - Awareness.

When I love them all in default, is there a need to *sleep knowingly*

whatever that implies? ]

 

Sorry for the sloppiness of my post. I am just taking a quick respite

from year-end pressure of work due to my unmitigated love for

advaita. Kindly answer at your own convenience. I know that you are

very busy with several commitments in hand.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Hello Madathilji,

 

Regarding your comments on deep sleep, which I reproduce here:

>I am resting, my eyes are closed. There is a visualization of my

>body with only the sense of tactility supporting it. The object

>visualized, the image of the body, is lighted up by the light of

>awareness (like a luminous UFO hovering over some material object on

>the earth's surface - this is pure imagery!). The object slowly

>vanishes taken in by the light that lights it up. Then, there

>remains only the light. There is no 'seer' of the light even. I am

>pure light. No thoughts that worry about its physical properties of

>size and magnitude of brilliance. Only light. Let us call it the

>light of awareness. (For me personally, that is the Devi - that is

>another matter.). Then, something unfortunate happens. The oblivion

>of sleep greedily gulps the light down making the whole scenario a

>blankness about which I can be aware only when I awake. That is no

>different from an ignorant man's sleep! How then to sink down and

>down a la Tennyson? Any personal tips that you have would be really

>helpful to all of us.

 

You describe a light that dissolves all objects, a light that is shining by

itself, with no objects and no seer. And then this light disappears!

 

It is a magnificent image, a visualization. And as you express so vividly, it

comes and goes! As it functions in your example, this visualization is

something that probably occurs as the contents of a dream before deep sleep

ensues.

 

I take your comments on sleep as a question on how to sleep knowingly as Shri

Atmananda suggests. Sleeping knowingly happens when the onset of deep sleep is

no longer surprising. When deep sleep no longer seems to cover the light that

is the Self. How to do this? Take your stand knowingly as Consciousness (this

happens initially during the waking state). Then experience will come to

confirm it in every way. Taking your stand can be done by allowing the advaitic

teachings to take deep root in thought. I would say that if this image-of-light

example really happens in a dream, then the teachings *have already* taken deep

root in thought. After all, you could be dreaming of holiday shopping instead!!

 

Atmananda offers something in ATMA DARSHAN, Chapter 5, "Deep Sleep, Nirvikalpa

Samadhi and Natural State."

 

I

It is in Consciousness that objects arise.

Therefore when they disappear what remains

over is this Consciousness and not nothingness.

 

II

IF this truth takes deep root in thought,

deep sleep -- giving up its character of

veiling the Reality -- becomes transformed

into nirvikalpa samadhi.

 

III

When objects are also realised as nothing

other then Consciousness, one comes back

to one's true nature which is changeless

and above all states including samadhi.

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

I recently joined the site and have been looking through some of the

posts. This last one struck a cord, however – the comment (or

question) about alighting upon the experience of expansion and

illumination and then noticing (and naturally becoming frustrated)

that it denigrates into a slumber. It made me want to participate

and, though it might be off-topic, brought 2 issues to mind that I

have been giving thought to recently and am attempting to work with.

Your comments would be most appreciated.

 

The first concerns how to approach an experience such as this when it

arises in meditation; the second is how to approach it or work with

it when it arises—as it seems Madathilji was implying—at the

threshold of sleep, with the intention of carrying it into "conscious

sleep."

 

I agree with Gregory that what was described might be a hypnagogic

state—a transitional state of consciousness—but to maintain awareness

as the mind shifts to this state might be a feat in itself that, with

effort and intention, can segue into maintaining awareness in the

sleep and dream states – a practice that then reflects back on the

nature of the waking state, the nuances of maintaining awareness in

the waking state --and how in our ordinary nescient state, we are

just as automated and unconscious when awake as when we are in a

dreamscape. What is sadhana as an aspirant of jnana yoga than to

contemplate and work with this? This is what I've been thinking a

great deal about lately.

 

I think the experience described is a naturally occurring phenomenon

for those committed to meditation and other yogic practices. It

arises spontaneously and then there's the problem of imputing meaning

into it or grasping it when – I think -- it is a byproduct of moving

towards awareness and is a product of the catharsis of consciousness

that one has to go through to get to that point of actual luminous

awareness.

 

I am attaching a Web link to the Gaudapadiya Karika – Gaudapada's

exposition on the Manduka Upanishad. I think it is relevant to this

discussion.

 

http://www.philo.demon.co.uk/gaudapad.htm

 

 

Pranams

 

Dee

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> Hello Madathilji,

>

> Regarding your comments on deep sleep,

>

> You describe a light that dissolves all objects, a light that is

shining by itself, with no objects and no seer. And then this light

disappears!

>

> It is a magnificent image, a visualization. And as you express so

vividly, it comes and goes! As it functions in your example, this

visualization is something that probably occurs as the contents of a

dream before deep sleep ensues.

>

> I take your comments on sleep as a question on how to sleep

knowingly.....

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gregji and Dee-ji.

 

Thanks for your replies.

 

I am afraid I need more time and pondering on Dee-Ji's Gaudapada link.

 

About the rest of his post, I am sure Dee-ji hit the nail right on

its head when he said: *it is a byproduct of moving towards awareness

and is a product of the catharsis of consciousness that one has to

go through to get to that point of actual luminous awareness*.

 

But, the point I was trying to make can be summarized into the

following questions:

 

1. Isn't constant contemplation and prescribed sadhana sufficient

for the catharsis to result?

 

2. Won't then 'knowingly sleeping' spontaneously result without any

need to put in deliberate efforts prior to falling asleep?

 

3. Or, do we have to necessarily include the practice of 'sleeping

knowingly' as an essential part of sAdhanA?

 

4. Isn't contemplation on the Truth (without any thought for what

may happen or follow) sufficient during the pre-sleep moments?

 

Yes, Gregji. You have a point there about the *light experience* (As

an advaitin, I am bound to call it an experience.). It occurs to me

in my dreams too (particularly during afternoon siesta and early in

the morning). It is really a heartening thought that this may be due

to some amount of catharsis actually taking place!

 

By the way, Dee-Ji, the *denigration* of the *light experience* into

the ignorance of slumber doesn't frustrate me as both are again

experiences. Although the former is sweeter than the latter, I have

to acknowledge that both are there because I AM. In saying this, I do

knowledge that the *light* is verily a close call from Reality.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Madathil-ji, thank so much for responding -- and with such good

content for discussion. As a new person, I'm heartened by being

acknowledged. Many of you have been in discussion for a long time and

I don't want to be an "interloper."

 

I kind of intuited the questions you posed here in your previous

posts. They are things that I wonder about myself. I have about a

half hour to put my thoughts together here before running off for a

few days for the Christmas holiday. I'll try to be brief but would

like to pick it up again on Friday.

 

..Here's the questions you posed and comments that come to mind

briefly:

> .the point I was trying to make can be summarized into the

> following questions:

>

> 1. Isn't constant contemplation and prescribed sadhana sufficient

> for the catharsis to result?

 

I would agree -- this is the point of sadhana and its effect is

catharsis. I think part of the training in sadhana, which is

sometimes missed or perhaps not understood by some sadhakas -- I say

this as a general statement -- is how to recognize and maneuver the

process. This is something I would like to discuss more fully at

some point.

>

> 2. Won't then 'knowing sleeping' spontaneously result without any

> need to put in deliberate efforts prior to falling asleep?

 

"Knowing sleep" will result spontaneously as an effect of sadhana,

certainly. --But deliberate yogic practices do exist to create the

effect as well. Kind of a non-linear way to get to the same place, I

guess. This goes with the next question. I think a "deliberate"

preparation would just go with the general practice of continual

mindfulness of sadhana. -- Or I think of it as deliberately

conditioning the mind -- put a deliberate "program" in there to

supercede the morass of unconscious programs that sadhana is supposed

to deconstruct. Tell yourself that you're not going to be unconscious

or go off into an anxiety dream, you're going to remain in a high and

fixed, meditative and luminous awareness. It can't hurt, huh?

> 3. Or, do we have to necessarily include the practice of 'sleeping

> knowingly' as an essential part of sAdhanA?

> 4. Isn't contemplation on the Truth (without any thought for what

> may happen or follow) sufficient during the pre-sleep moments?

 

This last question is something to consider. But do you mean a

continuation of meditation/sadhana into the sleep state? If anything,

it seems to be the appropriate state of mind to be in.

 

 

Blessings to you.

 

Dee

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Gregji and Dee-ji.

>

>

>

> But, the point I was trying to make can be summarized into the

> following questions:

>

> 1. Isn't constant contemplation and prescribed sadhana sufficient

> for the catharsis to result?

>

> 2. Won't then 'knowingly sleeping' spontaneously result without

any

> need to put in deliberate efforts prior to falling asleep?

>

> 3. Or, do we have to necessarily include the practice

of 'sleeping

> knowingly' as an essential part of sAdhanA?

>

> 4. Isn't contemplation on the Truth (without any thought for what

> may happen or follow) sufficient during the pre-sleep moments?

>

>

 

Namastge, Madathilji

 

I appreciate and commend your capability to pose your questions in

such a way that the other person learns just by doing nidhidhyasana

on your questions!.

Your #s 1 and 4 are right. Answer to #2 is yes. Answer to #4 is No.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

At 05:50 AM 12/24/2003 +0000, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

>But, the point I was trying to make can be summarized into the

>following questions:

>

>1. Isn't constant contemplation and prescribed sadhana sufficient

>for the catharsis to result?

 

Yes, it is sufficient. (Also, because anything additional you'd do would also

be sadhana as well.)

 

>2. Won't then 'knowingly sleeping' spontaneously result without any

>need to put in deliberate efforts prior to falling asleep?

>

>3. Or, do we have to necessarily include the practice of 'sleeping

>knowingly' as an essential part of sAdhanA?

 

The body/mind clusters of aspirants come in a huge variety. There is also a

large variety of sadhanas; the emphases of different yogas match the

characteristics of the different body/minds. For some body/minds, contemplation

of the Truth thru, say, the Mandukya Upanishad might be enough to allow knowing

sleep to occur. Other sadhakas might need an approach more focused on the

contemplation of sleep itself. For that person, a "sleeping knowingly" sadhana

is a better fit.

>4. Isn't contemplation on the Truth (without any thought for what

>may happen or follow) sufficient during the pre-sleep moments?

 

Yes, for example, contemplating the truth that Brahman is the substance of

thoughts, between thoughts and beyond thoughts. Contemplating the truth that

between thoughts is not a nihilistic void but consciousness itself.

Contemplating that deep sleep is in effect a gap between thoughts. With these

contemplations and investigations, deep sleep will come to be seen as

consciousness itself. Deep sleep will no longer be experienced as a surprise,

or as a loss or a veil.

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste ProfVK:

 

Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year!

 

It seems that you missed your morning coffee because, you wanted to

say, "Answer to #3 is No" instead you typed as "Answer to #4 is No."

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

>

> I appreciate and commend your capability to pose your questions in

> such a way that the other person learns just by doing

nidhidhyasana

> on your questions!.

> Your #s 1 and 4 are right. Answer to #2 is yes. Answer to #4 is

No.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gregji.

 

Let me put it this way. I know but I know not that I know. Am I

right? The whole thing means the removal of that 'not'. Isn't that

the reason there is no surprise in that realization?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________

 

 

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

 

>

> >4. Isn't contemplation on the Truth (without any thought for what

> >may happen or follow) sufficient during the pre-sleep moments?

>

> Yes, for example, contemplating the truth that Brahman is the

substance of thoughts, between thoughts and beyond thoughts.

Contemplating the truth that between thoughts is not a nihilistic

void but consciousness itself. Contemplating that deep sleep is in

effect a gap between thoughts. With these contemplations and

investigations, deep sleep will come to be seen as consciousness

itself. Deep sleep will no longer be experienced as a surprise, or

as a loss or a veil.

[Guest guest]

Nairji, your play of words reminds me of kenOpanishad 2.2, 2.3 !!

 

[ The disciple said: I think I know Brahman.

The disciple said: I do not think I know It well, nor do I think I do not

know It.

He among us who knows the meaning of "Neither do I not know, nor do I

know"-knows Brahman. ] - 2.2

 

[ He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It;

he by whom It is known, knows It not.

It is not known by those who know It;

It is known by those who do not know It. ] - 2.3

 

 

Hari Om

 

 

-

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

> Let me put it this way. I know but I know not that I know. Am I

> right? The whole thing means the removal of that 'not'.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dee-ji.

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Yes. I do mean that. Then, when is it that an advaitin not

meditating?! He does it all the time, whether driving, waiting for a

train or sitting on the toilet commode!

 

By the way, about your previous post, a thought occurred to me. The

state of the body is of paramount importance in meditation, although

the main thrust of advaitic practice is to dissociate with

identifying with it. That is why sitting with the spine erect is

prescribed in order not to doze off. That leads us to a different

conclusion - isn't the oneness *experienced* in deep meditation with

the spine erect in a way the same as *sleeping consciously*? Or, is

there any difference? One who can do that sitting should be able to

do that lying down too either on the back or all crumbled up like an

embryo. In effect, a yogi never sleeps! Am I right, Sir? So, the tip

should be to sit erect, contemplate, *be* One and then go to *sleep*

to continue to be the same One. Sleep has no meaning left to it

then. Such a one is *always* ThurIyA (the word -always- asterisked

because ThurIyA is timelessness). Am I right?

 

I believe we should discuss this when Anandaji and you return to the

pitch after the holidays .

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________

 

 

advaitin, "dee_rapp" <dee_rapp> wrote:

 

Madahtil asked:

> > 3. Or, do we have to necessarily include the practice

of 'sleeping

> > knowingly' as an essential part of sAdhanA?

>

> > 4. Isn't contemplation on the Truth (without any thought for

what

> > may happen or follow) sufficient during the pre-sleep moments?

 

 

Dee-ji replied:

 

> This last question is something to consider. But do you mean a

> continuation of meditation/sadhana into the sleep state? If

anything,

> it seems to be the appropriate state of mind to be in.

[Guest guest]

Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch wrote:

 

Nairji, your play of words reminds me of kenOpanishad 2.2, 2.3 !!

 

[ The disciple said: I think I know Brahman.

The disciple said: I do not think I know It well, nor do I think I do not

know It.

He among us who knows the meaning of "Neither do I not know, nor do I

know"-knows Brahman. ] - 2.2

 

[ He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It;

he by whom It is known, knows It not.

It is not known by those who know It;

It is known by those who do not know It. ] - 2.3

 

 

 

Namaste,

 

Here is my understanding about this:

The one who knows Brahman is the intellect, but i (Brahman) am still, changeless

and partless, so i don´t do anything and i don´t know anything. but i am

everything, i am Brahman, or simply (which is more correct) I AM.

And these are my guru´s words when i asked him about this:

"the self is the witness to both jnana and ajnana. the job of the knowledge of

brahman that happens in the intellect, is to remove the ignorance or wrong

knowledge. that is all. after that both cancel out (like neo and his anti in

matrix) and what remains is the sense of pure being, beyond knowledge and

ignorance, the pure consciousness that is aware of itself alone."

 

Hari Om!

Celine

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - 6MB, anti-spam e antivírus gratuito. Crie sua conta agora!

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

-

"Celine Tosta" <nirakaram

 

kenOpanishad 2.2, 2.3 !!

 

[ He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It;

he by whom It is known, knows It not.

It is not known by those who know It;

It is known by those who do not know It. ] - 2.3

 

Namaste,

 

Here is my understanding about this:

The one who knows Brahman is the intellect, but i (Brahman) am still,

changeless and partless, so i don´t do anything and i don´t know anything.

but i am everything, i am Brahman, or simply (which is more correct) I AM.

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

 

Namaste Celine-ji,

 

The interpretation given by SankarAchArya is somewhat different.

 

The statement "He by whom It is known, knows It not." talks about the

Ignorant. The Ignorant understands the limiting adjuncts such as the senses,

mind and the intellect to be Brahman. But actually, he doesnt know Brahman

(as the Self). So it is said "Knows it NOT".

 

The statement "He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It" talks about the

Enlightened. In the case of the Enlightened, he knows that the limiting

adjuncts are not Brahman. He sees the Self as Brahman. He "knows It".

 

I remember someone in this list posting multiple commantaries on this verse.

Maybe a quick search in the archive will get you something.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch wrote:

 

 

Namaste Celine-ji,

 

The interpretation given by SankarAchArya is somewhat different.

 

 

 

 

Namaste Ranjeet-ji,

 

Sorry. I gave my own interpretation out of ignorance. Thanks for the correction.

 

Pranams

Celine

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - 6MB, anti-spam e antivírus gratuito. Crie sua conta agora!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Knowledge is one thing. Ignorance is its absence.

Knowledge of one's own ignorance is yet another thing and you have realized

it !

Now the choice is yours..whether to remove it or not.

 

Hari Om

 

 

-

"Celine Tosta" <nirakaram

 

Sorry. I gave my own interpretation out of ignorance. Thanks for the

correction.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Professor Krishnamurthy,

 

Thank you very much for your 16 Dec message drawing my attention to

the Gita 6.25, with its description of 'Atma-samstham manaH kRtvA'.

Yes indeed, it does correspond to Shri Atmananda's descriptions of

'establishment in Truth' and 'resting in the I-principle'.

 

So too does the concept of 'sthita-prajnya' in the Gita 2.54-72.

Thanks to your help, I'll now be able to consider these references

from chapters 2 and 6 together on this issue.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Re: Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 8. Merging back

 

Namaste Shri Madathil,

 

I have some questions to try answering, from your 23 Dec post (#20297)

 

You asked:

 

"May I take what you said [about establishment in truth] as the

stitaprajnatwam of the Bhagwad GItA that results when the seeker

virtually *becomes* the prajnAnam of Aham BrahmAsmi?"

 

Yes, I would say that the 'sthita-prajnya' described in the Gita

2.54-57 could be interpreted as one who is 'established in truth', in

Shri Atmananda's use of this phrase. But, for that, the stanzas would

need to be interpreted from a jnyana approach. Here is how I would go

about it:

 

Arjuna asked:

 

What may be said of one who is

established in true knowledge and

stands there absorbed? How does that person

speak, sit down and move about? [2.54]

 

Krishna replied:

 

When all desires, going deep

into the mind, have finally

been given up, a person comes

to lasting peace and happiness:

in self alone, all by itself.

 

When someone gets to live there quite

spontaneously, remaining always

undisturbed, no matter what

takes place; that someone is then said

to be 'established in true knowledge'. [2.55]

 

Such a one, of steady understanding,

stays unshaken inwardly:

no longer driven by

possessive want, nor by desire,

fear and rage, through all the

miseries and joys that mind gets into.

 

Such a one, who stands upon

unchanging ground, is called a sage. [2.56]

 

Whatever happens, good or bad,

someone whose knowledge is established

stays impartial everywhere:

quite unaffected by complacency

when things go well, or by

frustration at receiving ill. [2.57]

 

You may well ask what might be so special about a jnyana

interpretation, to make it different from more usual interpretations.

Well, I would say that the usual interpretation is the one you imply

in your question, when you speak of realization as resulting "when the

seeker virtually *becomes* the prajnAnam of Aham BrahmAsmi". The

italicized word '*becomes*' here indicates a transformation of

personality, which implies a yogic approach of mind expansion and

character improvement through meditative exercise. And, quite rightly,

you qualify the '*becomes*' with the adverb 'virtually', in order to

indicate a shift towards an advaitic jnyana approach.

 

In such a jnyana approach, it is acknowledged that the seeker already

is the truth which is sought, so that there is no need to attempt any

'becoming' through yogic meditation. The only need is for the sadhaka

to realize that she or he was never bound, and to keep returning to

that realization until it becomes steady and spontaneous.

 

As Shri Atmananda put it, even after a disciple has been taken fully

to the truth, she or he may lapse into a remaining phase of

identification, as one who still thinks that she or he has realized. A

mistaken identification thus persists for a while. But the mistake of

ego has been cut at its very root, so that the mistake does not go on

being replenished as before. Instead, it is irrevocably on the way to

working itself out. The working out is then best assisted by returning

back to realization, over and over again, through a direct enquiry

whose sole target of concern is only truth and nothing else. All

character improvement is thus left behind, to function as a mere side

effect, in the seeming paradoxes and confusions of partial personality

and world.

 

You ask further:

 

"Atmanandaji, I note, has used the term *jnAni* for such a realized

soul. In this regard, I would request you to kindly go through one of

our most edifying posts (# 12177 dated 29th January 2002) by Shri

Atmachaitanyaji, where a jnAni and jnAnaniSta have been very subtly

differentiated. Did Atmanandaji have such a jnAni in mind when he used

the term?"

 

As far as I can see, Shri Atmachaitanya's distinction of 'jnyani' and

'jnyana-nishtha' is used to describe the paradox of a seeming person

who has realized that she or he is truly impersonal. Such a person

then stands for the impersonal self, which Shri Atmachaitanya calls

the 'jnyani', saying that 'there is only one jnyani'. But there are

also many seeming persons who are seen as established in truth, as for

example Shri Gaudapada and Shri Shankara. And these Shri Atmachaitanya

calls 'jnyana-nishthas'. The distinction is not just subtle, but

inherently paradoxical.

 

Shri Atmananda had a different way of dealing with the paradox. He

pointed out that the term 'jivan-mukta' is a contradiction in terms,

since a 'jiva' or personality is inherently bound to circumstance and

hence cannot be 'mukta' or 'free'. So he simply used the word 'jnyani'

for both the 'jnyani' and the 'jnyanan-ishtha' of Shri Atmachaitanya's

distinction. And he explicitly acknowledged the paradox involved,

saying that the mind would always be confounded in its attempts to see

or describe such a jnyani as a person in the world.

 

A seeker can only resolve the paradox by getting established in the

truth and seeing things from the jnyani's impersonal standpoint. For,

from that impersonal stand, all persons are seen as jnyanis, as mere

expressions of the truth -- with different-seeming personalities of

various egos each found to be doing nothing more or less than

expressing the one, non-dual self.

 

Next, you ask about memory:

 

"With regard to memories of the past, does AtmAnandaji acknowledge the

*traditional* vAsanAs and samskArAs of past lives? This is asked

because I find myself confronting at outside world of situations that

are not warranted by the memories of this life alone.'

 

Yes, Shri Atmananda did sometimes use ideas of transmigration and he

did have insights into the past life samskaras of particular persons.

But he did not generally require or even encourage his disciples to

get involved with the this conception of past lives. In fact, he

specifically told his disciples that they would be better off seeing

this conception as a metaphor for the more immediate death and rebirth

that each person keeps experiencing in the present -- as each thought

dies into pure consciousness, from which alone all thoughts continue

to be born.

 

Then you go on to ask about love:

 

"If everything is me and I love only myself, then universal love is my

natural default although I am not aware of it due to my ignorance. One

who is in such a universal love affair is naturally nothing but

happiness (Ananda) - a naturally surging ocean of love. Is there any

need then for emotional inducements to stir it up?"

 

Here, I think Shri Atmananda might draw a distinction between a

universal love approached through the idea of a cosmic deity and an

inherently individual love between teacher and disciple. The word

'individual' is not here used in its secondary and corrupted sense of

'personal', but rather in its primary sense of 'indivisible' and

'unique'. That primary sense points to an impersonal and non-dual

self, which is expressed paradoxically in the personal communication

of teacher and disciple. Then, of course, any emotional inducements

are merely secondary. They can have use and meaning only in so far as

they express their impersonal source of motivation and life.

 

And finally, you ask about the practical side of the injunction 'Sleep

knowingly':

 

"There is a visualization of my body with only the sense of tactility

supporting it.... The object slowly vanishes taken in by the light

that lights it up. Then, there remains only the light.... I am pure

light. No thoughts that worry about its physical properties of size

and magnitude of brilliance. Only light. Let us call it the light of

awareness.... Then, something unfortunate happens. The oblivion of

sleep greedily gulps the light down making the whole scenario a

blankness about which I can be aware only when I awake. That is no

different from an ignorant man's sleep! How then to sink down and down

a la Tennyson? Any personal tips that you have would be really helpful

to all of us.... is there a need to *sleep knowingly* whatever that

implies?"

 

Here, I must confess that you have put me on a spot where I just can't

answer at all adequately. As a fellow sadhaka, I can only compare

notes about our respective sadhanas. And here, I'm at a loss, because

all my sadhana depends on what I take to be a visualization received

from Shri Atmananda. The trouble is that I cannot show that

visualization to anyone else. Nor can I describe it for anyone else;

nor rightly claim to have received it. For, as long as the taint of

ego remains in my character, which it most certainly does at present,

such a claim must be treated with a thorough scepticism. All I can do

is to keep reflecting back, in various different ways, towards a truth

that I take to have been visualized.

 

But perhaps it might help to point out that I here use the word

'visualization' in a way that is quite different from your description

above. What you seem to be describing is a process of meditation which

progresses from bodily tactility to clear light and pure awareness,

before getting engulfed in the blankness of sleep.

 

For me, the word 'visualization' refers to a timeless understanding

that is reached at the background of experience, where all sense of

time and process has completely disappeared. That timeless

understanding is not built up through any meditative process. Rather,

it's more like a sudden throwback into timelessness, which somehow

follows doubting reason or some other stimulus to inner reflection.

And this 'throwback' happens in a quirky and paradoxical way that

undermines any talk of its location or duration in time. It must after

all be a paradox to talk of when or for how long one has been thrown

out of time. Or, indeed, to talk of what one is in that

timelessness -- where no change occurs so as to make comparison

possible.

 

The throwback is indeed into utter dissolution of appearances, and in

that sense it is into an oblivion of the world. But it is not into a

blank and meaningless nothingness. Instead, it is into peace and

light, which somehow means just that for which all things are done.

And it means that without saying it, or thinking it, or feeling it.

 

But, of course, it is completely absurd and utterly inadequate to

describe such a visualization in this way. The whole thing happens in

a flash, so that it's over as soon as it started. And there can be no

memory of it afterwards in mind. So it always must get lost and quite

misrepresented, whenever it is drawn out into some long-winded

description in words, or when some big thing is made of it in grand

ideas or sentimental feelings.

 

Such a visualization does its work best when it is done quietly, by

relaxing into it. That is the aim of trying to 'sleep knowingly'. This

sadhana is intended to promote an increasingly relaxed visualization

of the truth. When the visualization gets to be completely relaxed,

the visualization occurs with utter spontaneity, of its own accord.

Then it is permanent, with no effort required to induce it. The

sadhaka has then dissolved, established in the truth.

 

I am afraid that I have very little experience of the kind of

meditation which you describe. And what little experience I remember

having was rather negative, since it wasn't my way. Greg and others in

this group are evidently much better equipped to discuss this issue

with you, as they seem to have done pretty effectively.

 

But just one odd-ball suggestion occurs to me, which might possibly

help, provided you treat it with sufficient skepticism. Perhaps it

would help to question what actually happens at the point which you

describe by saying: "Then, something unfortunate happens. The oblivion

of sleep greedily gulps the light down making the whole scenario a

blankness about which I can be aware only when I awake."

 

Is this really such an unfortunate happening? What's actually gulped

down in sleep? Is it not the scenario that is gulped, leaving only the

pure light of jAnAmi to illuminate the dissolution of appearances into

itself? Is it so unfortunate that a masquerading scenario should be

utterly dissolved in self-illuminating light? Does not the blankness

belong to the waking masquerade that has come to dissolution in the

very light that makes it shine?

 

I've found such questions sometimes helpful, in tackling a sense of

blankness which has troubled me from time to time. And the questions

seem to have affinities with those you ask in your 27th Dec post

(#20337).

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji.

 

Thanks for your long, wonderful reply. I may have to come back again

with some clarifications/doubts, but this New Year business wouldn't

let me immediately.

 

So, let us postpone it to some time well after the Year has set in.

 

A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND ALL ADVAITINS.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> Re: Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 8. Merging back

>

> Namaste Shri Madathil,

>

> I have some questions to try answering, from your 23 Dec post

(#20297)

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste and Best wishes for a very happy 2004,

 

I utilised the holiday today for re-reading and pondering over Shri Ananda's

excellent posts on Atmanandaji's teachings. In his post under the above caption

Shri Ananda wrote:

 

In the last point for sadhana, the various prakriyas are implicitly summarized,

through a core argument for establishing non-dual truth:

 

"Summing up, thoughts, feelings, perceptions and the outside world are nothing

but consciousness. I am also consciousness. Therefore nothing exists other than

consciousness."

>From this summing up, a question may arise. Why is it centred upon 'cit' or

'consciousness'? What about the other two aspects, of 'sat' or 'existence' and

'ananda' or 'happiness'?

 

Shri Ananda's explanation was as usual very lucid. But pondering over it today,

I had some insights which I would like to share for whatever it is worth with

everybody.

 

The question is if Consciousness or chit alone is, what about existence (sat)

and happiness (ananda) of Satchidananda? Thinking over it today, it appears to

me that the statement, 'Consciousness alone is' does not exclude sat and ananda

as it appears at first sight.

 

It is obvious that the 'is' in the statement represents 'exisitence' or 'sat'.

We cannot say consciousness is, unless it existed.

 

Unhappiness is nothing but a sense of lack or limitation and the resultant

discomfort srising there from. If so 'happiness'or 'ananda' should stand for

'limitlessness' or 'anantam' for the Upanishads also say 'Satyam Jnanam Anantam

Brahma'. And 'limitlessness' is what 'alone' in our statement indicates because

whatever is limitless or infinite alone can be 'alone'. So 'alone' in our

statement stands for 'ananada'.

 

So when the Upanishads say 'Satchidananda' or 'Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam' what

they actually say is, 'Consciousness Alone Is'.

 

Q.E.D.

 

Pranams,

 

Venkat - M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download

Messenger Now

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji.

 

Reference your post # 20394 of 31st December 2003.

 

You have interpreted Bhagwad GItA verses 2.54 – 2.57 from a *jnAna

approach*. I am happy with the meaning you have read in to them.

But, I notice that your interpretation is not in any way much

different from other standard interpretations that we have for these

verses.

 

The Bhagwad GItA very clearly identifies only two specific paths when

it says dwividhA prOktA and they are karma yOga and samnyAsA (jnAna

yOgA). If we analyse them, jnAna is of paramount importance in both

and, even in samnyAsa, there are elements of karmayOga still

inherent, as the samnyAsi, who has renounced the life of a grihasta,

has to necessarily operate in this world even after taking to

samnyAsa.

 

So, the jnAna approach is valid to all advaitins from time

immemorial. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand why you say the

stanzas need to be interpreted from a jnAna approach to understand

Atmanandaji, when your interpretations are in line with established

ones. Is there any subtle difference that my eyes have failed to

discern in what you wrote that places Atmanandaji in an altogether

different perspective with regard to these verses?

 

Further down your post, I notice that you have explained why the

jnAna interpretation is different from *more usual interpretations*

and that I have implied one of the usual interpretations. There is a

fallacy here. I used the asterisked verb *becomes* in order to drive

home the point that one is *becoming* something that one already is

and not to indicate the end result or culmination of some yogic

practice as you have clearly misunderstood. The word *becomes* in my

post stands for the very realization highlighted by you, i.e. the

sAdhaka was never bound.

 

I can understand the paradox you mentioned about distinguishing

between a jnAni and a jnAnaniSta and see that Atmanandaji's stand on

this issue is very logical. I also understand that the paradox will

be resolved only when the seeker gets established in the Truth.

 

In my universal love affair, I didn't involve the idea of a cosmic

deity although I have one. Looks like it is your knowledge that I

have one that made you bring in the deity here. Well, since She has

been brought in, let me state that the deity in my case is the guru

and, from that point of view, can't there be a sort of personal

communication of teacher and disciple out of the *individual* love

between the two? As I have said before, in my bhakti, the deity is

understood as the Consciousness of advaita. In your discussion, the

guru represents that Consciousness. Do you then still see any

qualitative difference between the two approaches?

 

I am sorry the *sleep knowingly* questions in my post *put you on a

spot*. The intention was not to create difficulties but to elaborate

our understanding in this very tricky area that words are incapable

of unraveling. I am extremely grateful to you for the pains you have

taken to clarify. Nevertheless, I must confess that I am a little

disappointed that you did go only upto that special word

*visualization* which is essentially ineffable.

 

I believe it is still possible for us to excavate at the foot of that

*visualization* for some logical answers. With your permission, may

I endeavour in that direction?

 

Before doing so, let me first remove another misunderstanding. You

said that I was describing a process of meditation, which progresses

from bodily tactility to clear light and pure awareness before

getting engulfed in the blankness of sleep. I don't follow any

specific meditation techniques. In fact, I keep myself miles away

from them. What all that I do is to ask questions and endeavour my

best to dispassionately witness the goings-on around me, my physical

sensations and thoughts. Thus, pre-slumber sensations and thoughts

are simply watched till the blankness of sleep envelopes and covers

them all leaving no scope for *conscious sleeping*. This witnessing

I believe is in line with what Atmanandaji has prescribed.

 

Now to come to my understanding of *sleeping consciously* – as I have

explained in my previous posts, I begin from my waking moments and

ask the question: Am I consciously awake? The surprising answer is

that I am not most of the time. Let us then ask: What is being

consciously awake like? The answer that comes to mind is a very

*absorbing* (I am using the very verb you used in your interpretation

of BG 2.54) situation where I am totally engrossed or fully attentive.

 

This is a quality Mata Amritanandamayi Devi is credited with and

which She stresses in Her advice. I find that I can be fully

attentive and lose myself without the distinction of the attender,

attention and attended only when I am involved in something I am

interested. Say, a musical rendering or good poetry. But, in the

case of the Mata, She is attentiveness all through be the object of

attention music or a leper in physical abomination.

 

She is like water seeping through the inter-molecular spaces of sugar

granules making a sugar solution whereas I am like the same water

surrounding sand granules and imbibing only the soluble substances

around them. Alas! In my case, the sandy solidity of duality stands

out without giving up, whereas the Mata is a virtual ocean of

attentiveness dissolving the whole creation without leaving any

traces of duality.

 

Now what happens when the Mata goes to sleep? Obviously and

logically, sleep dissolves in Her and She remains the ocean of

attentiveness even then. I surmise that is *sleeping consciously*

and that *sleeping consciously* isn't any different from *being

consciously awake*. There is no sleep or wakefulness then. There is

only attentiveness and that is Awareness.

 

Will you agree with me, Sir, and does this all resonate with your

visualization?

 

My understanding, therefore, is that we are one with duality

including sleep all the time but we don't simply pause to acknowledge

it. Here, *acknowledge* implies a total *absorption*. The impediment

as you rightly point out is the ego. You have brilliantly cautioned

that as long as a taint of ego remains, any claims of a

*visualization* must be treated with thorough skepticism.

 

Back to sleep again, it has been reported that the lower parts of the

body like feet go to sleep first. That is awareness. Then, when the

whole body sleeps, the awareness of total sleep should logically

remain. But, we don't notice it just because we don't want to

acknowledge our totality as awareness. We do want to remain

separate, like Michael – L-ji pointed out in one of his recent posts

here on ego-elimination, and we sleep an ignorant man's sleep.

Rightly, we are everything that we *experience* , good or bad, music,

poetry or the leper, including the oblivion of deep sleep. We would

be able to sleep consciously only when this understanding really

sinks and removes our unfortunate separation from creation.

 

We have had a brilliant opportunity discussing Atmanandaji. All my

questions are simply aimed at bringing out the nectar in his

teachings. If I have been obtrusive, kindly pardon the

inconvenience. The driving force is the desire to hear more of

Atmandaji's wisdom.

 

(Since the Net plays devil with apostrophes and quotation marks, I

have been compelled to use asterisks around words that have special

significance.)

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Re: Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 8. Merging back

 

Namaste Shri Madathil,

 

In your message # 20476 of 9 Jan, you write:

 

"... the jnAna approach is valid to all advaitins from time

immemorial. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand why you say the

stanzas [Gita 2.54-57] need to be interpreted from a jnAna approach to

understand Atmanandaji, when your interpretations are in line with

established ones."

 

Yes, I agree that the interpretation made is in line with a long

established advaita one. What I had in mind was that the Gita does

have quite pronounced yoga and deva bhakti aspects along with its

advaita aspect; and I was trying to focus on the strictly advaita

aspect, rather to the exclusion of the others. This wasn't (or at

least it shouldn't have been) to say that the other aspects are

invalid or ineffective, but rather to try explaining the kind of

sadhana I learned from Shri Atmananda.

 

You go on to say:

 

"Further down your post, I notice that you have explained why the

jnAna interpretation is different from 'more usual interpretations'

and that I have implied one of the usual interpretations. There is a

fallacy here. I used the asterisked verb *becomes* in order to drive

home the point that one is *becoming* something that one already is

and not to indicate the end result or culmination of some yogic

practice as you have clearly misunderstood. The word *becomes* in my

post stands for the very realization highlighted by you, i.e. the

sAdhaka was never bound."

 

Yes, you are right to protest a sort of petty one-upmanship on my

part, and I must apologize for it. I did realize that your asterisked

*becomes* indicated just what you now explicitly say; and I did try to

acknowledge that, though not effectively enough. What I was trying to

get at was that my sadhana has rather excluded certain yogic and deva

bhakti elements which seem to be included in the descriptions that you

give of your sadhana. But of course, such traditional elements were

included in Shri Atmananda's sadhana (as you have rightly pointed

out). So it is clearly absurd of me to engage in any one-upmanship on

this account, to whatever extent the pettiness of ego makes me do

that.

 

You write further:

 

"In my universal love affair, I didn't involve the idea of a cosmic

deity although I have one. Looks like it is your knowledge that I have

one that made you bring in the deity here. Well, since She has been

brought in, let me state that the deity in my case is the guru and,

from that point of view, can't there be a sort of personal

communication of teacher and disciple out of the *individual* love

between the two? As I have said before, in my bhakti, the deity is

understood as the Consciousness of advaita. In your discussion, the

guru represents that Consciousness. Do you then still see any

qualitative difference between the two approaches?"

 

Yes, I do see a difference, but of approach only. The goal, of course,

is the same. So, as the approaches proceed towards it, the differences

get less and disappear. In effect, they turn out to be insubstantial.

Then why point out the differences? Well, I would say that there is a

positive reason why this differentiation is essential. It is needed to

avoid a loss of focus that can result from a confusion of approaches.

 

To find truth, an extreme commitment is required, towards the

particular approach that one is engaged in. As Einstein put it, to get

through from one side of a board to the other, it isn't any use

drilling lots of shallow little holes. What's needed is to concentrate

and persist upon a hole that goes right through.

 

And you continue:

 

"I am sorry the 'sleep knowingly' questions in my post 'put you on a

spot'. The intention was not to create difficulties but to elaborate

our understanding in this very tricky area that words are incapable of

unravelling. I am extremely grateful to you for the pains you have

taken to clarify. Nevertheless, I must confess that I am a little

disappointed that you did go only upto that special word

'visualization' which is essentially ineffable."

 

No need at to apologize. You were quite right to put me on the spot,

and I am grateful for it. I had come to the limits of what I could

reasonably say, and you provided a much-needed opportunity for me to

admit that. As a sadhaka, I can wholeheartedly attempt a reasoned

questioning that aims at ever-present truth. But I can't reasonably

speak of concepts like 'visualization' and 'establishment', which

imply a judgement of some sadhaka's state of realization. A sadhaka's

ego must interfere with any such judgement, and hence with any talk of

'visualization' and 'establishment'. These concepts are not quite

rightly for the use of sadhakas, but only for those who are no longer

sadhakas.

 

So at this point, for a sadhaka like yours truly, words fail and ego

interferes, as you have pointed out. Here, I am afraid that you can

only expect me to be inadequate and disappointing.

 

Yes, as you go on with your message, there is much that resonates

suggestively with my understanding. But I can't go beyond this

suggestiveness to a clearer reasoning, on the issues that you raise. I

can only tell you of a progressive impression that deep sleep is not

blank or oblivious but rather something indescribably positive. But

how far this impression is false ego showing off, I cannot tell.

 

No, I don't find your questions obtrusive. Just sorry I can't answer

better.

 

Ananda