Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 --- Harry Gardener <spiritofmolly wrote: > Dear Mr Sadananda, > > that is truly a surprise to me, that there are no grand illuminations. Shree Harry - Thanks for your mail. Let us analyze. Suppose there is a grand illumination. Who sees that grand illumination? Since you have to be there to see or experience the grand illumination, you are obviously different from the 'seen'. Then the seen becomes an object different from you, the subject, 'I'. What Vedanta propounds is the subject, I, is a consciousness that illumines everything and subject cannot become an object. What is implied in all self-realization is that I am that illuminating factor that illumines myself and the world around - tasya bhaasaa sarvam idam vibhaati -everything shines after you. In the temples the priests chant this as they wave the flame or light at the alter. Oh lard neither the sun nor the moon nor the starts not the electricity illumines you, how can this silly lamp illumine you - it is because of you everything is illumined. The meditation is recognize that illuminating factor is your self - the self that pervades all. That is the grand illumination - recognizing that which illumines even the light and darkness without destroying neither! 'I know it is dark outside' if one say - in what light I am able to see the darkness - that is the light of all lights which can even illumine the darkness. Other lights destroy the darkness. This light is not opposite to darkness - not even opposite to ignorance - since I know 'what I do not know' in this light of consciousness only. > > I must have read dozens of stories about awakenings, and they > certainly were made to sound pretty grand. Yes - Words fail to express the realty - sages used the words that can take the minds beyond the normal three states - experience-experienced-and experiencing. > The way the stories were told, ultimate truth was revealed. And even > the source of suffering was revealed, so the awakened one was released > from suffering. You mean these are just fairytales? Suffering is due to identification that I am the body, mind and intellect. Realization is to recognize that body-min-intellect are objects and I am the subject who is different from the object. Subject can never become object. Meditation is to shift my attention from the object to the subject, I - neti - neti - I am not 'this', not this' etc. When I establish myself in myself - I recognize that self that I am is unlimited an unbound and everything is in me and I am in everything. That my friend is the grand illumination - it is knowledge that shines through my understanding. > > What do the other members of this group have to say about it? Does > illumination happen or not? If it does, is it a ho hum kind of affair > or is it worthy of being called grand or transcendental? Shree Nair has given reference to the discussion on the topic - perhaps he or Shree Sundarji can provide the reference no. of the posts that pertain to that discussion. > > Does it belong exclusively to times gone by or does it happen > nowadays? Transcendental aspect is transcending the three aspect - experiencer-experiened-and experience since these are time-space bound - Hence you are transcending the cause-effect relations and time concept itself. The self that you are transcends all the concepts. In that sense it is unlike any that I experience and one can use the word 'grand illumination' as long as I am not longing for some 'experiential grand illumination'. There are always few of the realized souls in any time- but to recognize them one needs a proper frame of mind - Normally no realized person will say that ' believe me I am a realized person'. Scriptures say it is only due to the blessings of good deeds of many lives that one encounters such mahatam and get blessed by his/her presence. A true disciple recognizes that his teacher is the 'god realized soul' - That faith will takes him beyond. Hari OM! Sadananda > Best regards > > Harry > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: Dear Shree Sudananda, Thank you for this thorough explanation. It was very clearly and logically presented - you have a gift for presenting material in such a way that it is easily grasped. Does this mean that you are illuminated, if you don't mind my asking? And if I understand what you say, does this mean that I am illuminated? Sure doesn't feel like I'm awakened - still have the same set of apprehensions hanging around - in fact I would have thought that something much more transformative that learning the theory was involved - not that I know anything about it experientially. Thanks and blessings Harry Shree Harry - Thanks for your mail. Let us analyze. Suppose there is a grand illumination. Who sees that grand illumination? Since you have to be there to see or experience the grand illumination, you are obviously different from the 'seen'. Then the seen becomes an object different from you, the subject, 'I'. What Vedanta propounds is the subject, I, is a consciousness that illumines everything and subject cannot become an object. What is implied in all self-realization is that I am that illuminating factor that illumines myself and the world around Hari OM! Sadananda Find local movie times and trailers on Movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > --- Harry Gardener <spiritofmolly> wrote: > > Dear Mr Sadananda, > > > > that is truly a surprise to me, that there are no grand illuminations. > > Shree Harry - Thanks for your mail. Let us analyze. Suppose there is a > grand illumination. Who sees that grand illumination? > > > Suffering is due to identification that I am the body, mind and > intellect. Realization is to recognize that body-min-intellect are > objects and I am the subject who is different from the object. Subject > can never become object. Meditation is to shift my attention from the > object to the subject, I - neti - neti - I am not 'this', not this' etc. > When I establish myself in myself - I recognize that self that I am is > unlimited an unbound and everything is in me and I am in everything. > That my friend is the grand illumination - it is knowledge that shines > through my understanding. > > > > > What do the other members of this group have to say about it? Does > > illumination happen or not? If it does, is it a ho hum kind of affair > > or is it worthy of being called grand or transcendental? > > > > Does it belong exclusively to times gone by or does it happen > > nowadays? > > Transcendental aspect is transcending the three aspect - > experiencer-experiened-and experience since these are time-space bound - > Hence you are transcending the cause-effect relations and time concept > itself. The self that you are transcends all the concepts. In that sense > it is unlike any that I experience and one can use the word 'grand > illumination' as long as I am not longing for some 'experiential grand > illumination'. > Namaste, Harry-ji and all. Sadaji has said it all. If you are looking for an illumination in the physical sense, then you are on the wrong track. Because, any illumination that is physical, has a starting point and therefore will have an ending point. The 'illumination' that scriptures talk about and the mystics talk about is only a way of saying. Having your spectacles hanging around your neck and yourself searching for it all over and finding it finally on yourself, does not mean that it was not there before you 'discovered' or 'realised' it. Again this example does not meet the situation fully, because you can still argue that there was a point of time when you realised it and before that point of time you did not have the realisation that the spects were just hanging from your neck. This is the fate of all examples. All examples and analogies are related to the concepts of space and time and so they fail to meet the standards of advaitic absoluteness. In the case of the Realisation of the Absolute (which is what they call 'grand illumination') the concepts of space and time are invalidated. (Now I am just repeating the words of great seers and the Upanishads): The 'Illumination' is the 'Realisation' that you have been the Absolute all along. There is no time element involved here. So there is no 'before' or 'after'. So the question: 'When does the illumination take place?' is wrongly posed. Consequently, the question: 'At that point of time, what happens?' does not arise! PraNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Shree Harry Gardener - here is my understanding. --- Harry Gardener <spiritofmolly wrote: > > > kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > Dear Shree Sudananda, > > Thank you for this thorough explanation. > > It was very clearly and logically presented - you have a gift for > presenting material in such a way that it is easily grasped. > > Does this mean that you are illuminated, if you don't mind my asking? Everybody is a conscious entity, and hence is an illuminating factor. If your question pertains to whether I am a realized soul or not- Before I say yes or no – let me ask you a question - If I say yes - are you going to believe me? Now from your point is it a belief or truth? Do you recognize the problem in the question and the answer - As you see - in no way you are going to test whether my answer is right or wrong. It requires full faith on your part to believe what I say is true. What I am driving at is asking someone else if they have realized or not is a useless pursuit? One can only know if one has realized or not. Hence faith in the scripture and in the teacher is an essential ingredient in this. Question to ask oneself is - Have I realized? One fellow went and asked swami Chinmayanandaji - Sir I understand that I am Brahman - but how come I am suffering? The very question itself tells that he has not understood that he is Brahman. > > And if I understand what you say, does this mean that I am > illuminated? > If you understand what is said, then the second part of the question does not arise. as JK puts it: "It is not an understanding as an understanding as a thought, it is an understanding as understanding as a fact"- Here you can think of it ‘as though’ it is an experience. Let me give you an example. Let us say you know the taste of Classic Coca Cola - suppose an Martian hears about Coca Cola on his TV and asks you what is it and how does it taste. You can give an eloquent discourse on chemistry and processing of Coco Cola and how it tastes - all that intellectual discourse would only make him understand as 'a thought' - but he has not realized it as a fact' Suppose along with discourse you give him a glass of coca cola - He knows now as a fact - that is knowledge supported by personal experience - that is what is called Vijnaana in contrast to intellectual knowledge jnaaana. Suppose someone gives him a drinks Coca Cola and he likes and but does not know what it is. He has experienced but no knowledge of his experience. Experience as Prof. VK pointed out is time-bound. Knowledge of the experience is eternal. Experience can be contradicted. Knowledge can account contradictory experiences. Knowledge cannot be contradicted. In the self-knowledge - it is not lack of experience but lack of understanding of what one experiences. But then by reading or listening to scriptures do I understand it? - yes or no. Yes if I have prepared the mind since my previous mental notions about my self and the world and my relationship with the world block my clear understanding of myself. Major problems for us what JK calls as 'conditioned mind' mind conditioned not to accept what the scripture says -tat tvam asi - you are that what you are looking for. Yoga or saadhana and the meditation etc are all meant for purifying the mind so that when the scripture says you are what you are looking far all along- the understanding becomes factual. > Sure doesn't feel like I'm awakened - still have the same set of > apprehensions hanging around - in fact I would have thought that > something much more transformative that learning the theory was > involved - not that I know anything about it experientially. Those apprehensions are all part of growing up. Listening to the scriptures, reflecting on them and contemplating on the truths expounded in the scriptures are all the means for the transformation - or These are yogas that integrate ones personality to help you to go beyond all the apprehensions which are all preconceived notions in the mind (conditionings of the mind). I hope it is clear. Hari OM! Sadananda > > Thanks and blessings > > Harry > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > --- Harry Gardener <spiritofmolly> wrote: > > Dear Mr Sadananda, > > > > that is truly a surprise to me, that there are no grand illuminations. > > Shree Harry - Thanks for your mail. Let us analyze. 'I'. What Vedanta propounds is the > subject, I, is a consciousness that illumines everything and subject > cannot become an object. What is implied in all self-realization is > that I am that illuminating factor that illumines myself and the world > around - > > Hari OM! > Sadananda > > > Best regards > > > > Harry > > > Namaste Advaitins Very interesting and true positions. At one end of the spectrum shree Harry presents the picture of an earnest seeker who could be wondering what the destination is like-Is there bliss or great light or what could it be? At the other end, Sadaji, very kindly presents the picture of the true self where the erstwhile seeker cannot see the grand illumination for he is the grand illumination himself, the subject and not the object ( Pardon my english). Let me come in between and interrupt with the kind permission of all. I look in Harryji's direction and to Harryji I'd say, yes, as the seeker progresses with various spiritual practices or enquiry, there are levels and levels of mystic experiences, from basic sense of calmness, occasional tranquility- ( Technically, Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi or Mano Laya) etc. to probably mystic visions ( including grand light), acquisition of Siddhis ( supernatural powers of 8 types) etc. To remember, a sense of seeing grand illumination could be one of the above such experiences. I'd quickly look at where Sadaji is standing and hasten to turn to Harryji's side and tell Harryji to beware. These intermediate states described above are mere by products. The seeker, all the while tries to focus his/her mind on that which sees/ experiences and does not get carried away by what is seen/perceived/experienced.Why not? For if the attention is on the seen/ perceived then the bliss or light lasts only as long as that which is seen lasts.Objects and experiences are not enduring, that which sees is. If the seeker is thus focussed on the Self, he/she *becomes* the seer or the *grand illumination*, the subject as Sadaji says. Further on in discussions, it may turnout Harryji,that you are the grand Illumination/ consciousness/ Bliss already and what a seeker attempts, is to eliminate by discrimination and practise, the notion that he/she is what is seen/ experienced. Many thousand Namaskarams to all advaitins Sridhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Respected Members, I came across a very interesting saying "before illumination you cut logs and fetch water, and after illumination also you cut logs and fetch water". (Probably a Buddist sayig) Only difference is your attitude changes towards the logs and water, towards the cutting and the desire for cutting, etc. No more fetching water or cutting logs for getting happiness, no more desire to be happy. The difference is all about one's attitude towards his self, towards others i.e. Idam and Iswara. Hari Om and Namaste asridhar19 <asridhar19 wrote: advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > --- Harry Gardener <spiritofmolly> wrote: > > Dear Mr Sadananda, > > > > that is truly a surprise to me, that there are no grand illuminations. > > Shree Harry - Thanks for your mail. Let us analyze. 'I'. What Vedanta propounds is the > subject, I, is a consciousness that illumines everything and subject > cannot become an object. What is implied in all self-realization is > that I am that illuminating factor that illumines myself and the world > around - > > Hari OM! > Sadananda > > > Best regards > > > > Harry > > > Namaste Advaitins Very interesting and true positions. At one end of the spectrum shree Harry presents the picture of an earnest seeker who could be wondering what the destination is like-Is there bliss or great light or what could it be? At the other end, Sadaji, very kindly presents the picture of the true self where the erstwhile seeker cannot see the grand illumination for he is the grand illumination himself, the subject and not the object ( Pardon my english). Let me come in between and interrupt with the kind permission of all. I look in Harryji's direction and to Harryji I'd say, yes, as the seeker progresses with various spiritual practices or enquiry, there are levels and levels of mystic experiences, from basic sense of calmness, occasional tranquility- ( Technically, Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi or Mano Laya) etc. to probably mystic visions ( including grand light), acquisition of Siddhis ( supernatural powers of 8 types) etc. To remember, a sense of seeing grand illumination could be one of the above such experiences. I'd quickly look at where Sadaji is standing and hasten to turn to Harryji's side and tell Harryji to beware. These intermediate states described above are mere by products. The seeker, all the while tries to focus his/her mind on that which sees/ experiences and does not get carried away by what is seen/perceived/experienced.Why not? For if the attention is on the seen/ perceived then the bliss or light lasts only as long as that which is seen lasts.Objects and experiences are not enduring, that which sees is. If the seeker is thus focussed on the Self, he/she *becomes* the seer or the *grand illumination*, the subject as Sadaji says. Further on in discussions, it may turnout Harryji,that you are the grand Illumination/ consciousness/ Bliss already and what a seeker attempts, is to eliminate by discrimination and practise, the notion that he/she is what is seen/ experienced. Many thousand Namaskarams to all advaitins Sridhar Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages advaitin/ advaitin 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.