Is Bliss a part of the non-dual state?

[Guest guest]

Greetings Advaitins,

 

I'm writing because I am wondering what place bliss has in the

teachings of Advaita. I know that many masters describe the Nature of

God or the Absolute as existence-consciousness-bliss, but I've read

conflicting accounts relating to the bliss part. Some teachers or

masters talk of neverending bliss and ectasy, while others talk of

great peace, stillness, and silence, but not necessarily of bliss. I've

also observed that the masters of Advaita are the ones who speak only

of peace and stillness, while some of the masters who weren't really

teachers of non-duality like Sri Ramakrishna or Sri Aurobindo, speak of

great bliss and ecstacy. Does one have a choice to accept or reject

bliss? Is the great peace, stillness, and silence only the negative

aspect of Nirvana, and the bliss part of the postive aspect? Is bliss

an attribute of the active Brahman (manifest existence), and is not

talked about by Advaita because it essentially denys the active Brahman

(or does it?).

 

-Nathan

[Guest guest]

Nathan

 

Bliss is one's natural state, free from superimposed agitations and

conflicts. Freedom from limitations is bliss which is same as happiness

and which is same as ones understanding of ones nature that one is

infinite which is limit less. All human sufferings comes from feeling

of limitation - space wise, time wise and object wise - it is called

parichinnam or feeling that one is finite. Bless is freedom from all

these notions that one is finite. Hence it is advaitic state - state of

non-duality since duality limits one another. It is also called Nirvana

- it is also called liberation. All are just name one use to designate

that which cannot be described any other way since any description is

only finatization of that which is infinite. Hence no amount of

description is sufficient for that which cannot be described by words.

Speech cannot go there, mind cannot go there.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

--- eport924 <eport924 wrote:

> Greetings Advaitins,

>

> I'm writing because I am wondering what place bliss has in the

> teachings of Advaita. I know that many masters describe the Nature of

> God or the Absolute as existence-consciousness-bliss, but I've read

> conflicting accounts relating to the bliss part. Some teachers or

> masters talk of neverending bliss and ectasy, while others talk of

> great peace, stillness, and silence, but not necessarily of bliss.

> I've

> also observed that the masters of Advaita are the ones who speak only

> of peace and stillness, while some of the masters who weren't really

> teachers of non-duality like Sri Ramakrishna or Sri Aurobindo, speak

> of

> great bliss and ecstacy. Does one have a choice to accept or reject

> bliss? Is the great peace, stillness, and silence only the negative

> aspect of Nirvana, and the bliss part of the postive aspect? Is bliss

> an attribute of the active Brahman (manifest existence), and is not

> talked about by Advaita because it essentially denys the active

> Brahman

> (or does it?).

>

> -Nathan

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Nathan.

 

I see Sadanandaji has given you a very good explanation for bliss.

 

You have singled out 'bliss' (Ananda). It cannot be understood

properly without appreciating the other synonyms for the Absolute,

i.e. Sat and Chit [loosely translated as Existence and Knowledge

(Consciousness)].

 

I hope the followng quote from my post # 18710 of September 1, 2003,

which can be accessed at:

advaitin/message/18710

might help:

 

QUOTE

 

Sat, loosely translated into English as Existence, is Being

(deliberately capitalized to differentiate from the pedestrian

meaning of the term) unconditioned by time (space as well

therefore). As the intellect needs an academic interpretation, we

are forced to express and understand It as an awareness that I am

always everywhere without birth or death. Space and time still

afflict this understanding.

 

Chit, again loosely translated as Knowledge, is a fusion of knower,

knowing and known. As such, Knowledge cannot be the usual knowing

through the mind-intellect-sense-organs combination. The intellect

again has to necessarily understand it as an all-knowing, a lighting

up of everything or the light that lights up everything.

 

Ananda, known as fullness, is that I am everything, limitless without

any beyonds and that everything, including a sense of duality (the

beginning-less error – perhaps the Christian's original sin that

threw Adam and Eve into samsAra if their story is looked at from the

advaitin's point of view?) abides in me without apparent divisions.

But, as long as the intellect operates, duality will be apparent

despite the logical, academic deduction that I am everything.

However, when the intellect is transcended, (I must confess I

haven't.), there is no compartmentalization possible or even

warranted. There can logically be only One without a second without

any wants, without an 'inside' or 'outside'. This awareness of one's

fullness, being without wants, gives rise to a sense of contentment

and that is why probably fullness is loosely translated as bliss.

 

On final analysis, it will be found that all three (Sat, Chit and

Ananda) are just synonyms pointing at the same Truth.

 

When this intellectual appreciation of Sat–Chit-Ananda, as explained

above, grows on the advaitin and reaches fruition, of course through

constant contemplation and sAdhana, the grip of time and space,

duality and other limitations slowly slackens and one `realizes' that

one oneself is Sat-Chit-Ananda or, in other words, 'becomes' verily

Sat-Chit-Ananda. One has to intellectually assume that the mind and

intellect then become totally defunct. There in fact is no then or

now then. The proof for that is not the ultimate result, because

that cannot be a result in the normal sense, but the aspirant's

intuitive understanding of his/her progress, the scriptures and the

words of the teacher.

 

In my present stage, I can only intuit the Ultimate and that

intuition again has the sad tinge of a visualization.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Thus, bliss points at a freedom from all wants. What is there to

want and know when you you are everything without birth or death?

Call it 'bliss'. A name doesn't matter. Right understanding does.

 

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "eport924" <eport924> wrote:

> Greetings Advaitins,

>

> I'm writing because I am wondering what place bliss has in the

> teachings of Advaita. I know that many masters describe the Nature

of

> God or the Absolute as existence-consciousness-bliss, but I've

read

> conflicting accounts relating to the bliss part. Some teachers or

> masters talk of neverending bliss and ectasy, while others talk of

> great peace, stillness, and silence, but not necessarily of bliss.

 

Namaste N,

 

Sat-Cit-Ananada are called qualities by Ramana Maharshi, another

name could be attributes. So we are talking of Bliss as a quality of

Brahman, but this is only of Saguna Brahman or Sakti. One can be in

a non-dual state or samadhi experiencing Bliss and one with

everything that is projected.

 

However this is also an illusion for 'it never happened at all'

there is only Nirguna Brahman, which is a description of the

inexplicable in the negative. Peace, Stillness and Silence indicate

a negative description.....Bliss is actually the last

impediment...............ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

> However this is also an illusion for 'it never happened at all'

> there is only Nirguna Brahman, which is a description of the

> inexplicable in the negative. Peace, Stillness and Silence indicate

> a negative description.....Bliss is actually the last

> impediment...............ONS....Tony.

 

I asked in another thread, about my personal "last impediment", but in

my case it is not Bliss, but an inconmensurable Fear, about loosing

the human form, about the "nothingness", "egoless" state that is left.

 

Is that correct? Or it is another level?

 

 

 

Manuel Delaflor

 

_________

Thinking is what a great many people think they are doing

when they are simply rearranging their prejudices

 

-William James

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Manuel Delaflor <delaflor@g...> wrote:

> I asked in another thread, about my personal "last impediment", but

in

> my case it is not Bliss, but an inconmensurable Fear, about loosing

> the human form, about the "nothingness", "egoless" state that is

left.

 

Namaste M,

 

Fear is not the last impediment really but the first IMHO it is the

most common to all beings. Based on the fear of being separated from

our true selves or 'God' or whatever you believe.

Attachment to the form is just the Ego and fear of extinction, it can

be thought of another way, an expansion to our reality rather than an

extinction. The Egoless state is achieved at two levels at the same

time, union with everything or Sakti/Praneaswara and the realisation

of Nirguna, so there is nothing to be afraid of. The Ego will be found

to be a thief in the palace a non-existent mind entity. Nothing really

ever happened ultimately...........ONS...Tony.

 

PS. If you lived as a pig or a mouse and liked it for a while, but

realised you were really a human. Would you be scared to come back to

being a human or would you be attached to your mouse things.?..Tony

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Manuel Delaflor <delaflor@g...> wrote:

> >

>

> I asked in another thread, about my personal "last impediment", but

in

> my case it is not Bliss, but an inconmensurable Fear, about loosing

> the human form, about the "nothingness", "egoless" state that is

left.

>

> Is that correct? Or it is another level?

 

Namaste, Manuel-ji

 

Your 'incommensurable Fear' reminds me of a conversation that I had

fifty years ago with a mathematician colleague of mine, who was a

devout Christian. He used to tell me that whenever he had any fear,

especially of the fear of the kind you are trying to describe, or for

that matter whenever he had any problem either in the material world

or in the spiritual efforts of his, he used to recite again and again

a particular paragraph from the Bible, called the Armour of God. He

said it was his spiritual armour and he used to recite it by heart to

me. At that time I did not note the particular reference but the words

are fresh in my memory. So when today I read your mail above, I

searched for this 'Armour of God' in the Bible and located it as

Ephesians 6 - 10 to 18. I am reproducing it below for your use, if you

think it fit.

----

 

Be strong with the Lord's mighty power. Put on all of God's armor so

that you will be able to stand firm against all strategies and tricks

of the Devil. For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and

blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen

world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world,

and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms.

 

Use every piece of God's armor to resist the enemy in the time of

evil, so that after the battle you will still be standing firm. Stand

your ground, putting on the sturdy belt of truth and the body armor of

God's righteousness. For shoes put on the peace that comes from the

Good News, so that you will be fully prepared. In every battle you

will need faith as your shield to stop the fiery arrows aimed at you

by Satan. Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the

Spirit, which is the word of God. Pray at all times and on every

occasion in the power of the Holy Spirit. Stay alert and be persistent

in your prayers for all Christians everywhere.

 

----

 

In Hinduism too the corresponding prayers are called 'kavacham' which

means 'armour'. There arfe Kavachams almost for every deity in the

Hindu pantheon. Particularly in South India, Tamil region, Shashti

Kavacham for Lord Subrahmanya is very famous and most often used.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

> On 8/3/05, Tony OClery <aoclery wrote:

> Fear is not the last impediment really but the first IMHO it is the

> most common to all beings. Based on the fear of being separated from

> our true selves or 'God' or whatever you believe.

 

Is the fear of being separated for the known self (not that is more

real, in any way) and leaving the confort of living as a human

individual among other individuals. You can say that is fear to be

alone, to be the only one, to be a completely different "thing" and

not what you have believed to be for so many years.

> Attachment to the form is just the Ego and fear of extinction, it can

> be thought of another way, an expansion to our reality rather than an

> extinction.

 

If it was an expansion it would be desirable (at least for me) but,

again for me, it resulted in the anihilation of what "I" was "before"

the non-dual all encompasing nature. Maybe was too soon, too strong?

Maybe Im not ready?

> The Egoless state is achieved at two levels at the same

> time, union with everything or Sakti/Praneaswara and the realisation

> of Nirguna, so there is nothing to be afraid of. The Ego will be found

> to be a thief in the palace a non-existent mind entity. Nothing really

> ever happened ultimately...........ONS...Tony.

 

I understand your words, thank you for them, but for me (me me me, I

hate when I sound this "egomaniac") :-( but if it is not with you,

the members of this group, it is not possible to discuss this matters

with anyone else in the world ;-)

 

> PS. If you lived as a pig or a mouse and liked it for a while, but

> realised you were really a human. Would you be scared to come back to

> being a human or would you be attached to your mouse things.?..Tony

 

Tony, thats precisely the thing. After being aware of "that" for four

months in a row! I was desesperated to become a pig, a small mouse

again. Now, 11 years later, I love to be a "simple" human, I love to

be a being among other beings, a friend, a father, a lover, a son... I

love things as they are, here and now. I might "return" (as absurd as

this sounds because what is real is "that") someday, but Im not in a

hurry.

 

Thank you.

 

Manuel Delaflor

_________

Thinking is what a great many people think they are doing

when they are simply rearranging their prejudices

 

-William James

[Guest guest]

> On 8/3/05, V. Krishnamurthy <profvk wrote:

> In Hinduism too the corresponding prayers are called 'kavacham' which

> means 'armour'. There arfe Kavachams almost for every deity in the

> Hindu pantheon. Particularly in South India, Tamil region, Shashti

> Kavacham for Lord Subrahmanya is very famous and most often used.

 

Thank you for your words, it is difficult to wear an "armour" when you

have no deities at all. Having seen "the void" that is left when one

enters the non dual, I have close to zero beliefs. In any case, maybe

I missunderstood what you tried to tell me.

 

Manuel Delaflor

_________

Thinking is what a great many people think they are doing

when they are simply rearranging their prejudices

 

-William James

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Swamiji explains Aanandam (of) Brahman as follows:

 

Tai. Upanishad describes Brahman as

 

“Sat Chit Anantham” (Not Aanandam). However, the Anantham goes with Sat and

Chit, i.e. Brahman is Anantham Sat and Anantham Chit. Anantham is limitless,

full (poornam), infinite. Anything that is Poornam (or complete or full) lacks

nothing and therefore there is no agitation for that thing to change itself so

that it becomes poornam.

 

 

 

Further the Upanishad states “Aananda: Brahma iti vyajaanat” i.e. he knew

Brahman as Aanandam, because Brahman is poornam, full, or complete.

 

It is because of this Poornatwa It is Aanandam.

 

The Upanishads unfolds through many vakyas and Mahavakyas viz: “Tat Twam Asi”

“Aham Brahmasmi” etc. etc.

 

i.e. “That (Brahman) is You, and I am that (Brahman). “I” in essence, rather

the “I” principle, is Sat Chit Anantham and therefore Anandam. It is not a

state. AMF it is that on which all other states appear to manifest.

 

Bliss is not a part but bliss, i.e. Aanandam, being Swaroopa of Brahman, is the

substratum, bliss being Brahman alone. It is not an adjective or visheshana of

Brahman, but it is Swaroopa of Brahman, i.e. Brahman cannot be separated from

Anandam, or Anandam cannot be separated from Brahman, as Brahman is Anantham

Satyam and Anantham Chit.

 

When the Upanishad states “Speech cannot go there, mind cannot go there” it is

because, That Itself is Speech and That Itself is Mind, and since the Speech and

Mind are already That, there is no way of their going to That. It is like a gold

chain wanting to go to the gold! It is a question of recognition and

appreciation of a fact.

 

There is a popular saying in Tamil:

 

“Kallai kandavan naayai kaanaan

 

naayai kandavan kallai kaanaan”

 

Meaning, looking at a granite idol/sculpture, the one who

sees/appreciates/recognizes the granite, sees the granite, and the one who

sees/appreciates/recognizes the dog in the granite, sees the dog.

 

It is all how one sees, “yaha pashyati saha pashyati”

 

Sri Nairji has mentioned, “when the intellect is transcended, (I must confess I

haven't.)” I do not know how many of us have been successful in this

transcending, but the Upanishads and our revered Acharyas help us at least to

end the “trance” we are in!

 

Warm regards

 

Mani