"Pseudo"-Realisation?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sanjayji;

 

First it is nice read a message from someone with the divine name,

Sanjay. If we look back, Sanjay is the communicator of entire

Bhagavad Gita from the conversations between the Lord and Arjun that

he witnessed through Divine Grace. The Sanjay of Mahabharat is very

symbolic - reminds us to get the Divine Grace to experience the Self

without any distortion.

 

I don't want to say whether I agree or disagree with what you say or

claim. All that I can say is that our experience of 'SELF' is

distorted by the intellect and we mistake the 'self' as the 'SELF.'

Bhagavan Sri Krishna through Sanjay repeats in many places that we

identify 'SELF' as 'body, mind and intellect.' Through Sadhana, we

can detach the 'body, mind and intellect' and experience the True

Self. All examples that we state are always subject to 'ifs and buts'

and most of the time we forget to provide the list of 'ifs and buts.'

Unfortunately, we use the 'intellect' to list all the 'ifs and buts'

which fails to comprehend the entire list!

 

What is true understanding of the Self? This is the big question and

answer to this question according to the sages of the Upanishads is

the following: "Brahman truly understands the Brahman!" I would label

this answer as "Mystic Truth" which is beyond our 'intellect.' Any

understanding of "Mystic Truth" requires 'Divine Grace' and only with

that we can experience the 'SELF.' What is 'Divine Grace'? This is

part of the spell of Maya and only the Brahman can resolve this

puzzle.

 

All that we can do is to speculate. Shankara advises us that instead

of making new speculations, we are better off understanding

the 'mystic words' of our scriptures - the Upanishads, Brahmasuutra

and the Bhagavad Gita. He further advises that reeading these

scriptures alone will not make us 'understanding the Self' but only

by practicing (not by words but by deeds). Once again Shankara brings

the importance of "Divine Grace" in resolving the puzzle!

 

 

Warmest regards,

 

Happy Holidays!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin, "Sanjay Srivastava"

<sksrivastava68@h...> wrote:

>

>

> Instead of "knowledge of sugar" this case is much like "knowledge

of

> geometry of earth". I experience the earth all the time but

consider it

> flat. Untill a teacher comes with a pramAna and points out that it

is

> actually flat. The routine experience of earth that I already have

is backed

> by true understanding --- not a new and special experience of

earth.

> Similarly I experience self all the time but consider it limited,

untill the

> teacher comes with a pramAna and points out that it is actually

limitless.

> The routine experience of self I already have --- not any new and

special

> experience of self--- is backed by true understanding and a new

meaning

> unfolds.

>

> I think that fine distinction is necessary in advaita in order to

eliminate

> the possibility of "experiential approach" entering through back

door.

>

> Regards,

> Sanjay Srivastava

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sanjayji!

 

advaitin, "Sanjay Srivastava"

<sksrivastava68@h...> wrote:

>

>

> I respectfully disagree. The example of sugar tells

that "intellectual

> understanding" of sugar was incomplete because I did not have the

prior

> "experience" of sugar. This gives me an impression that in order to

make my

> understanding complete, I have to go out and get the experience of

sugar

> separately. This is not comparable to the knowledge of self.

>

 

Yes, I see the difference between the two.

> In case of sugar, there was a time when I did not have the

experience of

> sugar and therefore needed to go out and get that experience. Is

this the

> same with self? Was there a time when I did not have experience of

self? I

> experience self all the time. Do I need any special experience of

self over

> and above my normal experience of self? Certainly not. What I am

lacking

> here is not the experience of self, but the understanding of it. I

have

> enough experience of self. In fact I experience it all the time. I

need not

> go out and and get some special experience of self to make my

knowledge

> complete. All I need is to understand the experience of self which

I already

> have. I need a pramAna that can explain me the true meaning of my

experience

> of self.

>

> Instead of "knowledge of sugar" this case is much like "knowledge

of

> geometry of earth". I experience the earth all the time but

consider it

> flat. Untill a teacher comes with a pramAna and points out that it

is

> actually flat. The routine experience of earth that I already have

is backed

> by true understanding --- not a new and special experience of

earth.

 

Here, I would add that the previously routine experience of flat

earth is totally different from the experience of the earth now. Our

interpretation of many other phenomena change as a result of the new

understanding. This, to me, is a fuller experience of the earth than

before.

> Similarly I experience self all the time but consider it limited,

untill the

> teacher comes with a pramAna and points out that it is actually

limitless.

> The routine experience of self I already have --- not any new and

special

> experience of self--- is backed by true understanding and a new

meaning

> unfolds.

>

 

Yes, there is no new experience, and I guess there is a new dimension

to it which is profound. Today, being a student of advaita vedanta, I

may have a theoretical understanding of the Self and this goes

against my everyday experience. When I come to assimilate this idea

as a 'fact' and *abide* in it, will it not lead to a new 'drishti' or

way of viewing everything, not just the Self? I hope I am getting my

meaning across here.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

 

> Regards,

> Sanjay Srivastava

>

>

> Robert H. Smith School of Business

> University of Maryland, College Park

> U.S.A.

>

> Ph: 301-434-3773

>

> _______________

> Searching for your soulmate? Zero in on the perfect choice.

> http://www.astroyogi.com/newmsn/astrodate/ Try MSN Astrodate now!

[Guest guest]

Sri Ram Chandran wrote: 

 

 

 

"All that I can say is that our experience of 'SELF' is distorted by the

intellect..."

 

 

 

Kindly look into it again. Is our "experience of self" distorted or our

"understanding of experience of self" distorted? Experience of self is just

as it is-- an experience. There is no way for an experience to be distorted.

Whatever it is--good, bad or ugly-- is the experience. The way we interpret

that-- good, bad or ugly-- can be correct or incorrect but not the

experience itself. If the experience is "distorted", we need a new

experience that is not distorted. If the "understanding of experience" is

distorted we need a new understanding that is not distorted. The seemingly

minor difference can lead to two very different paths. Only one of them is

Advaita as taught by Bhagwan Shankara.

 

 

 

"... Bhagavan Sri Krishna through Sanjay repeats in many places that we

identify 'SELF' as 'body, mind and intellect."

 

 

 

Again what is distorted here? Experience itself or our understanding?

 

 

 

"Through Sadhana, we can detach the 'body, mind and intellect' and

experience the True Self."

 

 

 

I can detach something only when it is attached. If it is actually detached

and by mistake I take it to be attached, what is needed of me is -- correct

understanding. Nothing else is required. Sadhana is just to prepare my mind

for that understanding -- not for detaching something which is anyway not

attached.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

<html><div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">

<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><STRONG>Sanjay Kumar

Srivastava</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<H1 class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=1>8102, 14th

Avenue, Apt # 3</FONT></H1>

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Hampshire Village

Apartments</P>

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">MD-20783, U.S.A.</P>

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Ph: 301-332-9082 (Cell)

301-434-3773 (Res)</P>

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><IMG height=2

src=" " width="100%"

vspace=9></P></SPAN></div></html>

 

_______________

Chat with 1000s of singles.

http://www.bharatmatrimony.com/cgi-bin/bmclicks1.cgi?74 Let

BharatMatrimony.com's Instant Messenger show you how.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sanjay:

 

Honestly I don't want to engage in intellectual debate on what you

are saying with respect to what I am saying. I believe that there is

only semantic difference between these two expressions. As long as we

use the intellect as the means to understand an experience then such

an understanding will be likely distorted. What we need is an

understanding independent from - 'body, mind and intellect' paradigm.

As I have said before, I neither agree nor disagree with your

interpretation because at the best, we just speculate. When we

have 'pure experience' with the purified mind, we will be able go

beyond all distortions.

 

Thanks again for sharing your thoughs,

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Sanjay Srivastava"

<sksrivastava68@h...> wrote:

>

> Sri Ram Chandran wrote: 

>

>

>

> "All that I can say is that our experience of 'SELF' is distorted

by the

> intellect..."

>

>

>

> Kindly look into it again. Is our "experience of self" distorted or

our

> "understanding of experience of self" distorted? Experience of self

is just

> as it is-- an experience. There is no way for an experience to be

distorted.

[Guest guest]

Ramji, Sanjayji, Nairji,

 

PraNAms to all.

 

This topic is getting interesting.

 

I would like to reiterate essentially what Ajay-ji has been talking

about. It is important to differentiate between In-Direct Knowledge

and Direct Knowledge to clarify this further.

 

Let us take a slightly different example since the example of sugar

has already been beaten to death and the example loses some of its

impact because all of us have tasted sugar!

 

I have been to Niagara Falls. I am trying to explain to you what

Niagara Falls is like. It was a really long drive to the Falls and in

the car I was wondering if the trouble is really worth it. We had

great difficulty finding parking and that makes me wonder yet again

if all the trouble is worth it. As we walked, a bit tired from the

trip, towards the Falls, from a distance it seems like a large

waterfall. Then we waited to board the 'Maid of the Mist', the boat

that takes you close to the Falls. However, we had to wait for an

hour and a half in the heat before we boarded the boat. I was growing

a bit thirsty and also tired after having stood in the heat for that

long. Within a few minutes, the boat got rolling and soon the waters

began to get rough and there seemed to be a thundering roar in the

background. My ears were trying to get tuned to the thunder of the

waters that increased in intensity every passing minute and drowned

the hum of the engine. The air had also gotten misty. Suddenly, then

we saw a huge waterfall to our delight. It was a waterfall that I

hadn't seen anything like before!! It was really large. I told

someone, look, 'How wonderful Niagara is'. At that time, one of the

seasoned visitors who stood beside me, with a rather grim countenance

remarked to me,' That is just the American Falls 'Wait till you get

to the Horseshoe falls'. Now I was even more excited. What is he

talking about? If the American Falls itself was so great, what would

the Horseshoe Falls be like? Then the boat suddenly began to rock.

The original thunder died away and the earth began to shake with a

rolling thunder that was of an entirely different magnitude. One knew

that one is approaching something very BIG. The mist in the air wet

my face completely. Through my wet eyelids, I saw a great milky wall.

The milky wall of foaming waters grew larger and larger as the boat

approached it. So did the thunder and the boat shivered in fear as it

approached the great Falls. Soon the boat was in the middle of the

Horseshoe shaped Wall of Milk. I held on to the railings lest the

mighty waves toppled the boat. I started chanting praises to the Lord

of the Waters for the blessed sight. This was the Niagara in all its

glory. This was creation itself in all its might. I was in awe. The

fear of the waves did not seem to matter any more. The tiredness of

the trip did not matter any more. My thirst did not matter any more.

This was Niagara and the power of the waters ripped through ones ego

making every cell of the body tremble. This was Niagara!!

 

Now the above description gives a person who has not visited the

Niagara Falls, an Indirect knowledge of what the Falls is about.

It will bring in a desire to see the falls and experience the falls.

As I unfolded a description of the falls, the mind that was listening

to me would be filled with various images of what the falls would be

like. However, we all know that no amount of words, no matter however

picturesque can capture the beauty and majesty of Niagara. I can

never communicate to you what Niagara is really about no matter how

much I write about it. Because all you have is Indirect knowledge of

it. When you make a trip to the Niagara, you can relate to exactly

what I said and then you have Direct Knowledge. The above gap between

the Indirect Knowledge and the Direct Knowledge exists simply

because 'You are not Niagara'!!

 

Now lets see the situation with respect to the Self. Are the

scriptures providing Direct Knowledge or Indirect Knowledge?

The key difference to note from the Niagara example is that 'You ARE

the Self'. The 'Self is immediately available', unlike Niagara. It is

not remote like the 'Niagara', which has to be visited at a different

point in space, time. It is here and now. However, the issue is that

we entertain misconceptions about ourselves. These misconceptions

about the Self, in a prepared listener, can be knocked off here and

now by the words of the scriptures unfolded by a teacher who is

familiar with the Parampara for weilding the words. The Sampradayvit

GURU knows how to strip words taken from common parlance to indicate

something that is not so common. A prepared mind in the Shrota can

grasp the understanding that is conveyed by the Guru. This is

Sravanam. This is much like the tenth man whose ignorance was knocked

off by the words 'You are the tenth man' from an Apta Purusha. He

gained a certain increment in knowledge, just by words, that was able

to knock off his ignorance.

 

One has to have clarity that gaining any increment in knowledge

(transactional or spiritual) requires a Pramana, a means of

knowledge. There is no escape from this law. The Pramana has to have

an alignment with the Object of which Knowledge has to be gained.

This alignment is a part of the natural ORDER in the creation. If the

alignment is there, Knowledge takes place without any exercise of

choice, will. On the other hand, using a Pramana that is not

compatible with the object of which knowledge has to be gained, no

matter how much will is exercised, it doesn't help. To gain knowledge

of form of an apple, we use our eyes (perception) and not our nose.

To gain knowledge of the existence of fire when we see smoke, we use

inference and not perception because we cannot see (perceive) the

fire itself. Hence, the right Pramana has to be chosen for the

specific purpose.

 

In the case of the Knowledge of the Self, the Object of Knowledge is

the Subject itself! Perception, Inference are not valid Pramanas

because the Self is not available to any of them. Experience also is

not a Pramana. Every Experience has to be interpreted by the right

Pramana to get to the Truth about it. Only Sabda Pramana can provide

the increment in knowledge about ONESELF that is essential to dispose

off Samsara caused by misconceptions about oneself. And no other

Pramana (much less any other practice) except the Sabda Pramana can

do this. And the resultant knowledge is not Indirect. It is very much

Direct!!

 

Many regards,

--Satyan

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sanjayji;

>

> First it is nice read a message from someone with the divine name,

> Sanjay. If we look back, Sanjay is the communicator of entire

> Bhagavad Gita from the conversations between the Lord and Arjun

that

> he witnessed through Divine Grace. The Sanjay of Mahabharat is very

> symbolic - reminds us to get the Divine Grace to experience the

Self

> without any distortion.

>

> I don't want to say whether I agree or disagree with what you say

or

> claim. All that I can say is that our experience of 'SELF' is

> distorted by the intellect and we mistake the 'self' as the 'SELF.'

> Bhagavan Sri Krishna through Sanjay repeats in many places that we

> identify 'SELF' as 'body, mind and intellect.' Through Sadhana, we

> can detach the 'body, mind and intellect' and experience the True

> Self. All examples that we state are always subject to 'ifs and

buts'

> and most of the time we forget to provide the list of 'ifs and

buts.'

> Unfortunately, we use the 'intellect' to list all the 'ifs and

buts'

> which fails to comprehend the entire list!

>

> What is true understanding of the Self? This is the big question

and

> answer to this question according to the sages of the Upanishads is

> the following: "Brahman truly understands the Brahman!" I would

label

> this answer as "Mystic Truth" which is beyond our 'intellect.' Any

> understanding of "Mystic Truth" requires 'Divine Grace' and only

with

> that we can experience the 'SELF.' What is 'Divine Grace'? This is

> part of the spell of Maya and only the Brahman can resolve this

> puzzle.

>

> All that we can do is to speculate. Shankara advises us that

instead

> of making new speculations, we are better off understanding

> the 'mystic words' of our scriptures - the Upanishads, Brahmasuutra

> and the Bhagavad Gita. He further advises that reeading these

> scriptures alone will not make us 'understanding the Self' but only

> by practicing (not by words but by deeds). Once again Shankara

brings

> the importance of "Divine Grace" in resolving the puzzle!

>

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Happy Holidays!

>

> Ram Chandran

>

>

>

> advaitin, "Sanjay Srivastava"

> <sksrivastava68@h...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Instead of "knowledge of sugar" this case is much like "knowledge

> of

> > geometry of earth". I experience the earth all the time but

> consider it

> > flat. Untill a teacher comes with a pramAna and points out that

it

> is

> > actually flat. The routine experience of earth that I already

have

> is backed

> > by true understanding --- not a new and special experience of

> earth.

> > Similarly I experience self all the time but consider it limited,

> untill the

> > teacher comes with a pramAna and points out that it is actually

> limitless.

> > The routine experience of self I already have --- not any new and

> special

> > experience of self--- is backed by true understanding and a new

> meaning

> > unfolds.

> >

> > I think that fine distinction is necessary in advaita in order to

> eliminate

> > the possibility of "experiential approach" entering through back

> door.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Sanjay Srivastava

[Guest guest]

Namaste Satyanji, Srivastavaji, Neelankantanji and Ramji.

 

Satyanji, thank you for that beautifully written Niagra account.

 

We could have extended Srivastavaji's earth example to achieve almost

the same impact.

 

I am illiterate. A teacher comes by with a geography book and tells

me that the earth is not flat but it is actually round. That is

understanding # 1 for me. I ask him surprised: "Oh, is it so?".

Surprise here has an element of experience in it.

 

The same teacher then takes me to the seashore and points to the mast

of a big ship that is approaching land. First the tip of the mast,

then half the mast and then the full mast appear. Finally, the ship

is fully in view. My teacher tells me that the ship appeared first

mast and then full due to the curvature of the earth. That is

understanding # 2 for me backed by the thrill of the new experience.

 

Yet that is not conclusive proof. My knowledge is more or less

inferential.

 

So, my teacher accompanies me in a space craft into space. As the

craft moves farther and farther away from earth, the curvature of

earth becomes more and more evident until it is a `blue marble' in

space. I exclaim: " Ah, me!". That is understanding # 3 backed by a

full direct experience of the object of knowledge. I now doubtlessly

know that the earth is round as my teacher taught.

 

Well, as Satyanji pointed out, neither this space experience nor the

Niagra visit is in itself adequate to understanding self-realization

because in the latter it is the already known that is realized.

 

Yet, it is our normal experience that an ordinary person who has not

done effective shravaNa (listenining) to a stOtriya falsely believes

he is the BMI. In other words, he experiences the Self that way.

When he has *effectively* listened to the stOtriya, the earlier false

experience gives way to Knowledge. This could be outright sudden

with an "Ah me!" exclamation or progressive depending on the

chittashuddhi of the listener. If the shuddhi is complete, the

Knowledge is instantaneous. Otherwise, there is the possibility of

mystic experiences like horripilation, glowing etc. etc., which are

inevitable. Do we have to decry them while we ask the aspirant to do

neti, neti on these experiences and seek the experiencer? In fact,

we should encourage him by saying that all these experiences only

show that he is on the right track and ask him to guard himself

against getting unhealthily fascinated by them.

 

I remember we discussed all this in our September 2003 discussion

on "Light in Enlightenment".

 

Now let us go to the `end-result'. (As I am using language to

explain, such a term suggestive of progress in time is

unavoidable.). What is self-realization? As far as we are

concerned, it is just a concept, as we consider it as an `event'

that takes place in time. The Truth being space-timelessness, we all

logically know that it cannot be an event. That it why it is best-

described as Silence, where words shudder to enter.

 

When we use terms like understanding or experience, there is always

something understood or experienced. They all belong to the apparent

realm of adhyAsa. It is therefore a futile exercise in language to

stress either on understanding or experience. As Neelakantanji

pointed out and as brought out from the Niagra and earth examples,

understanding backed by experience is a better alternative strictly

within this realm of adhyAsa knowing full well that we ought to turn

off the radio in the land of wordlessness to *know* that we are

afterall Silence.

 

Till then, as we do neti, neti, let us live with both understanding

and experience as the two go hand in hand. Let us also not decry

mysticism because mystic experiences are almost unavoidable en

route. Otherwise, we may be closing our eyes to such glittering

experiential `paths' as Kundalini yoga which all lead to the same

Silence of Advaita and which were eloquently covered by Sankara in

his brilliant works outside the bhAshyAs (e.g. Soundarya Lahari).

 

I say this because I cannot envision a human who can help his

horripilation when he knows that he is all. Advaitic understanding

is essentially experience as long as it is an understanding. We

can't escape this fact.

 

As I chanted the great LalitAtrishati this morning, Mother riveted my

attention to Her divine name "HAhAhUhUmukhastutyA". I am yet to

look up Sankara's interpretation of the name. Yet, to my eyes as a

thrilled devotee of Mother as the Consciousness of Advaita, there is

a lot of both experience and understanding in that HAhAhUhU.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Satyanji, Srivastavaji, Neelankantanji and Ramji.

>

> Advaitic understanding

> is essentially experience as long as it is an understanding. We

> can't escape this fact.

>

 

Namaste,

 

A different view can be expressed on this subject.

 

Understanding is on a subtler plane than experience.

Whatever is experienced is inherently a dualism, and 'anitya'

(ephemeral, empirical, phenomenal, etc.). Understanding may precede a

sensory experience, but not necessarily so. For example, frequencies

of light or sound exist beyond what can be experienced by the human

senses, but the understanding that they can exist is of a different order.

 

In the 'nitya-anitya-vastu-viveka' (discrimination

between the eternal and ephemeral), the

understanding of 'nitya' is of a superior order, and still higher is

the intuitive confirmation of all the Upanishadic 'mahavakyas'.

 

Just my 2 cents!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji!

 

Thank you very much for this post. I cannot really add to this

beautiful summary. However, I have to share the following experience

with the group.

 

I was trying to explain what jackfruit was to another friend from

Maharashtra. I did not know what jackfruit was called in Marathi and

so was describing the fruit to him in detail. He kept getting misled

into thinking of different fruits or puzzled. Finally, another

gentleman passing by happened to hear us. He turned to the Marathi

friend and told him I was talking about 'phanas'. The moment he heard

that, the Marathi friend, as if in a flash, realized what jackfruit

was. He knew the fruit very well, but still no words of mine could

describe it to him adequately earlier! Now, all of a sudden, my

description seemed to make sense!!

 

If words can fail us even in describing a jackfruit, what to say of

That which is beyond words.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Nairji and Sunderji,

 

PraNAms for your thought provoking posts. PraNAms to all learned

members for expressing their views.

 

Nairji, When I have been using the term Experience, much like what

Sunderji points out, I mainly look at it as the raw sensory/mental

input that needs to be processed by the Buddhi before an

Understanding (Definitive Knowledge) takes place about the nature of

the 'I' and the 'This'. The Buddhi that processes the Experience

could be Worldly or Scriptural. The former understanding binds, the

latter understanding liberates. Hence, by defining Experience as the

raw input, there is no shortage of Experience at all. What makes the

difference is the Buddhi and the resultant understanding.

 

Nairji, often if the distinction is not pointed out, the Experience

itself becomes sought after. As the Prarabdha of the body/mind

unfolds, there is no guarantee of an Experience (as defined above)

being repeated. If the Lord ordains it, so be it. If the Lord doesn't

ordain it, so be it!!

 

A few pithy assertions can be made in this regard:

 

1) With the right understanding, Every experience is Freedom.

 

2) Without the right understanding, Every experience is Samsara.

 

3) Hence what really liberates is the understanding and not the

Experience.

 

Mano eva manushyAnAm kAraNam bandha mokshayo (Amrita Bindu Upanisad)

 

The Mind alone is the cause of both bondage and liberation of men.

 

Many Regards,

--Satyan

> Namaste,

>

> A different view can be expressed on this subject.

>

> Understanding is on a subtler plane than experience.

> Whatever is experienced is inherently a dualism, and 'anitya'

> (ephemeral, empirical, phenomenal, etc.).

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji, Satyanji, Maniji, Neelakantanji, Sridharji, Ramji

et al.

 

A standard English dictionary defines experience thus:

 

"The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the

senses or mind".

 

Self-realization means the apprehension of one's own real nature. It

is therefore an experience as an apprehension. The only difference

is that the experiencer here knows that he is the experience, i.e. if

he really lives his realization. (That is a very tall order indeed

as there is usually a big gap between understanding and living that

understanding.) That is why I contend that experience and

understanding go hand in hand. Neither really precedes or follows

the other. They are the two sides of the same coin.

 

I will illustrate this by quoting excerpts from Maniji's brilliant

post # 25509. Please see within .

 

 

 

Maniji says:

 

"The self knowledge i.e. the I, the essence of Jeeva or Ego and the

Ultimate Reality are one and the same, (Jeeva Brahama eva naapara) is

like any other knowledge, and therefore it has to take place in the

intellect only."

 

 

[The apprehension of one's true nature thus takes place in the mind

and, as per the above definition, it is an experience in which the

mind goes totally universal.]

 

 

Maniji says:

 

"Once the Ego or Jeeva gets this knowledge (rather once the intellect

appreciates this knowledge) or enlightened with this knowledge, and

with the wisdom backed by this knowledge, its entire attitude towards

itself and others (aham and idam) totally changes. One continues to

live but with a totally changed attitude. Such an Ego, knows for

certain with its wisdom resulting from the knowledge that in

essence it is nothing but the ultimate reality, that whatever appears

to take place for it, whether pleasure or pain, are not real, and are

just passing shows, because all such experiences continue to change

every minute; and deep in mind such an Ego is always calm. This

calmness itself is the Bliss or Ananda or whatever one calls."

 

 

[isn't this calmness an experience? The dawn of knowledge

corresponds to mental equipoise.]

 

 

Maniji continues:

 

"I do not think (IMHO) any special or new experience will take place

on Realization, nor is it required. Even if any such new/special

experience takes place, that too must be floating on awareness only."

 

[This is a contradiction of the previous statement having said that

calmness (an experience) results from the apprehension of one's own

real nature. In my opinion, the right approach would be to realize

that the experienced calmness is oneself instead of seeing it as

floating on awareness. The experiencer of calmness is thus

calmness. There is no more dwaita there.]

 

 

Maniji says:

 

"Waiting for such an experience takes one nowhere. We always

experience Awareness, or Consciousness or Brahman, which is one's

Real Nature, which never changes, in and through all

our experiences. Experience of Brahman is never absent, but we miss

that experience, due to ignorance of our own nature."

 

[Well, if we miss that experience and regain it on self-realization,

there undoubtedly is an experience in self-realization.]

 

 

Maniji says:

 

"The purpose of Vedanta particularly Advaita is not to get any new or

special experience. With the assimilation of Self Knowledge, Wisdom

shines in one, and such a person is not disturbed by mental

agitations resulting from empirical transactions, and he is always at

peace. He knows, through his wisdom that all such transactions/

experiences, being unreal, are "passing shows" and he remains

calm always."

 

[The problem, as I see, is that we see experience as an untouchable

relegating it to the realm of senses and do not want to admit that

understanding itself is essentially experience. Intuitive

understanding is a transcendental experience although the term would

sound like an oxymoron. That is more due to the inadequacy of

language. In conclusion, understanding or knowing that one is

everything is a thrill that is both boundless Love and Lahari. The

word calmness is inadequate to describe it. That is why we break

into rapture with Sankara's Dakshinamurthy Ashtakam, Soundarya

Lahari, Shivananda Lahari etc. Swami Dayanandaji, whom Maniji has

quoted, often recalls how an American quantum physicist was totally

enraptured when the message of advaita was effectively impressed on

him. That only shows that there is rapture in understanding or true

understanding of one's true nature is nothing but rapture. Most of

our sages have sung this rapture. Sunderji, isn't there rapture in

the NirgunamAnasa PUja that you are posting these days in

instalments? Doesn't it effect an intuitive, advaitic catharsis and

at the same time impart thrill? Is it more due to the beauty of

Sankara's language than his thoughts, which blossom to exude

rapturous frangrance in our understanding? Satyanji, true

understanding IS freedom and freedom is experience - the rapture that

is me!]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantanji.

 

Enjoyed your anecdote.

 

But just imagine the following funny situation:

 

You didn't know the right name of the jackfruit in Marathi.

Supposing the passer by too didn't understand your description and

named another fruit in Marathi. Your friend will get false knowledge.

 

That is what is happening to most people most of the time with regard

to the Self. Thus, the insistence on brahmanishta stOtriya guru in

Self-enquiry.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________

 

advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

>

> I was trying to explain what jackfruit was to another friend from

> Maharashtra. I did not know what jackfruit was called in Marathi

and

> so was describing the fruit to him in detail. He kept getting

misled

> into thinking of different fruits or puzzled. Finally, another

> gentleman passing by happened to hear us. He turned to the Marathi

> friend and told him I was talking about 'phanas'. The moment he

heard

> that, the Marathi friend, as if in a flash, realized what jackfruit

> was. He knew the fruit very well, but still no words of mine could

> describe it to him adequately earlier! Now, all of a sudden, my

> description seemed to make sense!!

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

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

That only shows that there is rapture in understanding or true

> understanding of one's true nature is nothing but rapture. Most of

> our sages have sung this rapture. Sunderji, isn't there rapture in

> the NirgunamAnasa PUja that you are posting these days in

> instalments? Doesn't it effect an intuitive, advaitic catharsis and

> at the same time impart thrill? Is it more due to the beauty of

> Sankara's language than his thoughts, which blossom to exude

> rapturous frangrance in our understanding?

 

Namaste,

 

One may rephrase this to say: one can remain as an ocean

of Bliss, or as an ocean enjoying the Bliss of Its own manifestations

of bubbles (ekaa.nshena sthito jagat - by just a particle of Myself do

I exist in this world - Gita 10:42).

 

Or in Jnaneshvara's words, the difference is as much as

between the moon on the 14th night of the waxing phase and the Full Moon.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder