One more time!: Is Enlightenment Personal?

[Guest guest]

*As Sadaji has often pointed out, we should not mix up the relative and

the absolute levels.

 

There is a saying, "Theoretically, there is no difference between theory

and practice, but in practice there is." To say that having any

personality is not compatible with Jnana is to limit Jnana..

 

A variety of reasonable explanations are possible on the the nature of

Self-Realization and Moksha or Nirvana. We should keep in mind that

these explanations are at the level of relativity. Even Ajati-vada is a

concept only in the field of relativity. If something is useful for us

and appears compatible with common sense, we can accept it. There are

enough philosophical perspectives to satisfy everyone. One need not fear

a shortage.

 

Sages tell us that past karma, even in the case of Jnani, has to work

itself out. We need not view Self-Realization to be incompatible with

the existence of the form or skeleton of the mind remaining, which

essentially reflects the karma that has come into fruition. In

practice, one can say that the Self dominates the form of the mind as it

is fully saturated in consciousness and can observes its arising from

the Self while remaining rooted in it. Therefore, the actions of such a

person would be effortless, natural, and authentic.

 

Another point that should be made, although it has been made before many

times, is what Bhaskarji has stated. The Self is not an object to

itself. However, it is not unconscious either. Certain statements made

by Nisargadatta indicate or have been interpreted by his students to

imply the equivalence between unconsciousness and consciousness.

Although the Self is not an object to itself, it is a continuous whole

and is of the nature of unbroken awareness. The suggestion that Self is

unconscious of it Self that is made by some is not based on

Self-Knowledge. Self is not an object to It Self but Self is not

unconscious. It is beyond both unconsciousness and consciousness as we

normally think of them. The nature of the Self is pure, unbroken

Awareness. Because its very nature is that of pure, pristine, full

awareness, and yet is not an object to It Self, the question of whether

Self is unconscious of itself is moot. It can be raised in the realm of

relativity, but its meaning or usefulness is unclear.

 

While we can respect the influence J. Krishnamurti and Nisargadatta have

had through their works, we can be indifferent to views which are not

compatible with Self-Knowledge and the Upanishads.

 

Sri Ramana is in a completely different category of very rare Sages and

should not be lumped with Krishnamurti or even Nirsargadatta. Much of

Nisargadatta's excellent teaching in "I am That" is clear and echoes the

essential teachings of Sri Ramana. However, certain statements made by

him and his disciple Ramesh Baleskar and then Ramesh's students are not

compatible with the Upanishads.

 

Not only did Sri Ramana Realize the Self, but he became fully conversant

with the scriptures and easily saw the congruence between his experience

and what the Upanishads were saying and was able to explain it easily

and fully. Based on what we know, the same cannot be said about either

Krishnamurti or Nisargadatta.

 

**"Theoretically, there is no difference between theory and practice,

but in practice there is." :-).*

*

Love to all

Harsha

*

 

 

Ganesan Sankarraman wrote:

>

> Dear Sir,

> There is no sense of otherness for the jnani. Does, as Ramana

> says, the waking individual worry about the concerns of those with

> whom he trafficked in the dream? The idea that there are others to be

> enlightened is incompatible with both dhrist-shrishti vada and

> ajati-vada. The yogavasishta is dead against the idea of personal

> enlightenment. Do the others exist in the deep-sleep state? Their

> existence vouchsafed by the other individuals of the waking state is

> not apriori. When even in a state covered by avidya, there are no

> others tentatively, there being only the otherness of the avidya

> superimposed on the Witness, how could there be sense of otherness in

> an enligtened consciousness? The sense of personality is only

> vis-a-vis others, which is not compatibel with enlightenment.

> Sankarraman

> Sankarraman

>

>

> -

 

 

 

community blog is at

 

http://.net/blog/

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Sri Ramana

 

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthyji, Harshaji, Subbuji et al.

 

Here is how I see it.

 

The unenlightened seeks enlightenment.

 

For him/her, enlightenment is a concept, a goal to be reached or

achieved - a noun which enjoys the company of an adjective.

 

However, the enlightened is Englightenment Himself/Herself, for whom

there isn't anything, either himself/herself or other than

himself/herself, remaining to be enlightened.

 

What then about the ecstatical exclamatory statements encountered in

the Upanishads, Panchadasi, Brahmasutra etc. about the unfettered

bliss of the enlightened?

 

Well, those things belong to the world of the yet to be enlightened.

We must thank them for their existence, for they horripilate and

enthuse us to seek what we already are!

 

To sum up, enlightenment is personal for the unenlightened. If one

very badly needs an adjective for the enlightenment of the

enlightened, well, we can consider the word 'universal' for a change

as enlightenment implies (in the incapable words of the

unenlightened, of course) cellular individuality's emancipation into

universal wholeness or fullness.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Harsha wrote: *As Sadaji has often pointed out,

we should not mix up the relative and

the absolute levels.

 

 

..

 

A variety of reasonable explanations are possible

 

 

However, it is not unconscious either. Certain statements made

by Nisargadatta indicate or have been interpreted by his students to

imply the equivalence between unconsciousness and consciousness.

Although the Self is not an object to itself, it is a continuous whole

and is of the nature of unbroken awareness. The suggestion that Self is

unconscious of it Self that is made by some is not based on

Self-Knowledge. Self is not an object to It Self but Self is not

unconscious. It is beyond both unconsciousness and consciousness as we

normally think of them. The nature of the Self is pure, unbroken

Awareness. Because its very nature is that of pure, pristine, full

awareness, and yet is not an object to It Self, the question of whether

Self is unconscious of itself is moot. It can be raised in the realm of

relativity, but its meaning or usefulness is unclear.

 

While we can respect the influence J. Krishnamurti and Nisargadatta have

had through their works, we can be indifferent to views which are not

compatible with Self-Knowledge and the Upanishads.

 

Sri Ramana is in a completely different category of very rare Sages and

should not be lumped with Krishnamurti or even Nirsargadatta.

 

 

*

 

 

>

>

> -

Dear sirs and ladies,

May this forum excuse me for

perpetuating this discussion still further, in spite of Sri Subramanium's

extensive expatiation on this subject, quoting from the scriptures,

substantiating it through reason as well, which should set at rest all our

thinking on this subject. I am not troubling Mr Subramanium to reply to my

points, which may be naive.

 

I have understood from my study of some Tamil

scriptures on Advaita that the term Self refers to three notions: "Primary,

secondary and illusory selves." The self-hood born of identification with son,

family, etc, is known as secondary self. In empirical usage, when both the

enlightened and the unenlightened make the statements such as, " I am fair, I am

lean, I am ignorant; I have not achieved the goals of life; somebody has hurt

me; I have been overlooked by my family," etc etc, the self referred to is born

of the confounding of the pure nature of the Witness with that of the ego,

foisting the qualities of the latter on the former, the impartite Witness.This

is the illusory self. However, the enlightened, though appearing to be similar

to the unenlightened by virtue of the coalescence of these two, the ego and the

Witness, know the distinction between the two, and remain anchored to the

Witness in all their goings on. The primary Self is

only the Witness, and not the other two. Hence, the knowledge, rather the

psychosis, in the form, "I am enlightened," should pertain to only the illusory

self, and definitely not the Witness, which does labour under the notions, " I

am enlightened; I am not."

 

Further, when one comes back to the waking state, the freedom

that one gets from the agonies and fears experienced in the dream, does not

belong to the dream-self, the dream-subject as well as its objects having been

falsified by the waking state. Neither does it belong to the waking individual

as the waking subject didn't have all these botherations. One might urge that

the waking self has the memory of the agony suffered, though illusory, the agony

having disappeared not by virtue of taking some treatment, but having been

realized to be illusory; so also in the transcendental state, there will be a

definite awareness of oneself being enlightened. But, I think that there is no

causal relationship between the enlightened state of the Witness and the waking

ego, similar to the one between the waking and dream states, which if it were

so, the enlightened state will also be another waking state or dream, both being

illusions from the perspective of the

transcendental. When one enters into sleep, one does not have the knowledge

simultaneously that one has entered into sleep, or is sleeping, which if it were

so, it would not be a state of sleep but one of waking or sleep. This position

has been brought into clear relief by Kannudaya Vallal in his work, "Ozhivil

Odukkam." ( This does not refer to Sri Ramalinga Vallalar who did not

to these ideas.)

 

Apropos the respondent's sitting in judgment on the statement

of Nisargdatta Maharaj, as giving rise to the idea of equivalence of

consciousness and unconsciousness, I wish to make the following clarification.

According to Maharaj, Awareness is of the Absolute; Consciousness, a reflection

of Awareness against the surface of matter, which is also purely notional and

not transcendental, is relative. The Awareness is not conscious of itself as an

individual set of against an other. Hence, Maharaj uses the term unconscious to

refer to Awareness, the primal unicity of Being. Hence, it is characterizing the

teachings of Maharaj to say that smacks of the idea that Consciousness is a not

a continuous whole and is not of the nature of unbroken awareness. The

attribution made to Maharaj, " The suggestion that Self is unconscious of it

Self that is made by some is not based on

Self-Knowledge, etc etc..." is also quoting him out of context. When Maharaj

uses the word Awareness, he means the transcendental, which is not conscious of

an other to refer to which position he says that the primal Self is unconscious.

When he uses the term consciousness, he refers to a lower reality aware of an

other. This is also only notional, being meant for communication to the minds

attached to duality excessively, says Maharaj. To characterize the teachings of

Maharaj as not based on Self-knowledge is, to say the least, presumptuous,

flying from the face of facts. When based on mere scriptural knowledge, we

ourselves are aware of these things intellectually, how could a Mahapurusha like

Maharaj have taught something incompatible with Self-knowledge. Just because

Maharaj had not studied the traditional knowledge, what he has said cannot be

deemed to be irrelevant to Self-Knowledge. Even Bhaghavan Ramana in a place says

that in the Self there is not the personal

feeling of consciousness. The personal feeling of consciousness, which is

purely a mentation, ideation, cannot be equated with unbroken feeling of

Awareness where there is no distinction of Awareness and Existence, a point

clarified by Bhaghavan in the invocatory verse of the work, "Ulladu Narpathu."

Sankarraman

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: Namaste Murthyji,

Harshaji, Subbuji et al.

 

Here is how I see it.

 

The unenlightened seeks enlightenment.

 

 

What then about the ecstatical exclamatory statements encountered in

the Upanishads, Panchadasi, Brahmasutra etc. about the unfettered

bliss of the enlightened?

 

Well, those things belong to the world of the yet to be enlightened.

We must thank them for their existence, for they horripilate and

enthuse us to seek what we already are!

 

To sum up, enlightenment is personal for the unenlightened. If one

very badly needs an adjective for the enlightenment of the

enlightened, well, we can consider the word 'universal' for a change

as enlightenment implies (in the incapable words of the

unenlightened, of course) cellular individuality's emancipation into

universal wholeness or fullness.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

Dear sir,

You have removed the tangled skein excellently by your pithy

observation. I am able to see eye to eye with you.

yours,

sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste everyone,

 

I am a newbie in Advaita but I have been under the guidance of a

Guru for some seven years now. Anyway this is just how I see this

question:

First one realizes one is not the body. Then one realizes one is

not the mind. Then one realizes that one is pure unbroken awareness

devoid of ego. Then one realizes that one is either nothing-ness,

the originating principle of consciousness (nirguna) or everything

(saguna). In this realization that of Nirguna is superior to that of

Saguna. This is just my humble opinion.

Pranams,

fred

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

>

> Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: Namaste

Murthyji, Harshaji, Subbuji et al.

>

> Here is how I see it.

>

> The unenlightened seeks enlightenment.

>

>

> What then about the ecstatical exclamatory statements encountered

in

> the Upanishads, Panchadasi, Brahmasutra etc. about the unfettered

> bliss of the enlightened?

>

> Well, those things belong to the world of the yet to be

enlightened.

> We must thank them for their existence, for they horripilate and

> enthuse us to seek what we already are!

>

> To sum up, enlightenment is personal for the unenlightened. If

one

> very badly needs an adjective for the enlightenment of the

> enlightened, well, we can consider the word 'universal' for a

change

> as enlightenment implies (in the incapable words of the

> unenlightened, of course) cellular individuality's emancipation

into

> universal wholeness or fullness.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> Dear sir,

> You have removed the tangled skein excellently by your

pithy observation. I am able to see eye to eye with you.

> yours,

> sankarraman

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

>

>

> advaitin

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously

low rates.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nairji, Thank you for your excellent comments. I do not have the level

of your erudition or scholarship or that of other members here. Some

points are made below in English.

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> Namaste Murthyji, Harshaji, Subbuji et al.

>

> Here is how I see it.

>

> The unenlightened seeks enlightenment.

 

OK.

>

> For him/her, enlightenment is a concept, a goal to be reached or

> achieved - a noun which enjoys the company of an adjective.

 

We do not pursue concepts. Enlightenment or Self-Realization is pursued

due to a fundamental pull from within. The intense desire to know the

Truth is at the foundation of it. This does not allow one to rest until

one gets to the heart of the matter. This has been explained clearly by

Sages and Scriptures. In Sanskrit, the term is Mumukshatva. Now one can

say that it is only due to ignorance that a person has a desire for

liberation (because the Self is already Realized) and one would be quite

right in theory.

>

> However, the enlightened is Englightenment Himself/Herself, for whom

> there isn't anything, either himself/herself or other than

> himself/herself, remaining to be enlightened.

 

Very True!!

>

> What then about the ecstatical exclamatory statements encountered in

> the Upanishads, Panchadasi, Brahmasutra etc. about the unfettered

> bliss of the enlightened?

 

The Sages are simply approximating and communicating through the vehicle

of the mind in the field of relativity.

In that sense Sanskrit is a very precise language. At least the few

words I know seem perfect.

>

> Well, those things belong to the world of the yet to be enlightened.

> We must thank them for their existence, for they horripilate and

> enthuse us to seek what we already are!

 

The desire for liberation, or the desire to know the complete truth of

our nature, is not the same as the desire for bliss.

In my experience, people do not get on the path of Self-Knowledge

because they hear stories of intense bliss experienced by the enlightened.

>

> To sum up, enlightenment is personal for the unenlightened.

 

The Self is One without a second. The scriptures say that it is closer

than your own breath.

These statements are meant for those who intensely desire liberation.

> If one very badly needs an adjective for the enlightenment of the

> enlightened, well, we can consider the word 'universal' for a change

> as enlightenment implies (in the incapable words of the

> unenlightened, of course) cellular individuality's emancipation into

> universal wholeness or fullness.

 

Ultimately, the words we use are not critical. They are simply medium

for communication at this level and serve a purpose. The words of

scriptures and the words of the Guru, if we grasp them and meditate on

them with faith, simply make us aware of the Truth. Sri Ramana used to

say that just like an elephant wakes up, upon seeing a lion in his

dream, similarly, the devotee wakes up seeing the Guru in the dream of

the relative world. All the words, associated with thoughts, and their

mind as a reflection on individuality all disappear in the Heart, and

the Self recognizes It Self as the eternal and perpetual recognition.

 

One of the learned members has given an excellent quote on the topic

which I reproduce below.

 

"Do you want to know what Completeness is? And do you want to know

what finitude is? Here is the definition," says Sanatkumara [ the

the seer of the vidya] . "Where one sees nothing except one's own

Self, where one hears nothing except one's own Self, where one

understands nothing except one's own Self, that is Bhuma, the

Absolute; and where one sees something outside oneself, where one

hears something outside oneself, where one understands or thinks

something outside oneself, that is the finite."

 

This knowledge is only expressed through the remaining form of the

mind. That is what we find in the Upanishads.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

community blog is at

 

http://.net/blog/

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Sri Ramana

 

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sankarraman Ji,

 

My comments are below of what I could make out and understand from your

post.

 

Ganesan Sankarraman wrote:

> But, I think that there is no causal relationship

> between the enlightened state of the Witness and the waking ego,

> similar to the one between the waking and dream states, which if it

> were so, the enlightened state will also be another waking state or

> dream, both being illusions from the perspective of the transcendental.

 

OK. That is a long sentence and I am not sure what you are saying. It is

the waking ego/waking mind itself that must consciously merge into the

Enlightened state. In the Enlightened state, the witness consciousness

disappears. Self has nothing to witness. It is in perpetual

Self-Recognition. It Sees nothing except the Self. Seeing and Being are

the same in the Self.

> When one enters into sleep, one does not have the knowledge

> simultaneously that one has entered into sleep, or is sleeping, which

> if it were so, it would not be a state of sleep but one of waking or

> sleep.

 

Sleep can be entered consciously. There are variety of states possible

between sleeping and waking. When the mind/ego due to grace enters deep

sleep consciously, the mind merges in the Heart, and Self reveals It

Self as eternal Self-Recognition whose nature is that of Sat-Chit-Ananda.

> This position has been brought into clear relief by Kannudaya Vallal

> in his work, "Ozhivil Odukkam." ( This does not refer to Sri Ramalinga

> Vallalar who did not to these ideas.)

 

I do not know anything about this work and cannot comment.

>

> Apropos the respondent's sitting in judgment on the

> statement of Nisargdatta Maharaj, as giving rise to the idea of

> equivalence of consciousness and unconsciousness, I wish to make the

> following clarification. According to Maharaj, Awareness is of the

> Absolute; Consciousness, a reflection of Awareness against the surface

> of matter, which is also purely notional and not transcendental, is

> relative. The Awareness is not conscious of itself as an individual

> set of against an other. Hence, Maharaj uses the term unconscious to

> refer to Awareness, the primal unicity of Being. Hence, it is

> characterizing the teachings of Maharaj to say that smacks of the idea

> that Consciousness is a not a continuous whole and is not of the

> nature of unbroken awareness. The attribution made to Maharaj, " The

> suggestion that Self is unconscious of it Self that is made by some is

> not based on

> Self-Knowledge, etc etc..." is also quoting him out of context.

 

I have heard such things quoted from Ramesh Balsekar and also his

students on the Internet. Here is a quote from Ramesh Balesekar. "So

Consciousness-at-rest is not aware of Itself

<http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1spcuu9quf8m0?method=4&dsid=2222\

&dekey=Self-awareness&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc06a>.

It becomes aware of Itself only when this sudden feeling, I-am, arises,

the impersonal sense of being aware." Many of Ramesh's students parrot

some variation of this. Ramesh Balsekar's statement essentially appears

to equate and confuse deep sleep with Self-Realization. These two are

very similar. This is why the Advaitic method involves a very

substantive and deep analysis of waking and sleeping states. Self is One

without a second. It Sees It Self only. Seeing is Being. It is perfectly

Self-Aware, not as an object to It Self but because Its nature is that

of Awareness. Self is Self-Consciousness not because it is split in two

with one part being aware of another but because simply its nature is

that of pure awareness. I believe that the type of statements Ramesh and

his disciples make are not consistent with personal (sorry)

Self-Knowledge or the teachings of the Upanishads.

> When Maharaj uses the word Awareness, he means the transcendental,

> which is not conscious of an other to refer to which position he says

> that the primal Self is unconscious. When he uses the term

> consciousness, he refers to a lower reality aware of an other. This is

> also only notional, being meant for communication to the minds

> attached to duality excessively, says Maharaj. To characterize the

> teachings of Maharaj as not based on Self-knowledge is, to say the

> least, presumptuous, flying from the face of facts.

 

It is quite possible, I am misunderstanding Maharaj. If we are pure, our

dedication must ultimately be to the Truth and not a person.

> When based on mere scriptural knowledge, we ourselves are aware of

> these things intellectually, how could a Mahapurusha like Maharaj have

> taught something incompatible with Self-knowledge.

 

I don't know. I simply stated my view and the reason for holding it.

> Just because Maharaj had not studied the traditional knowledge, what

> he has said cannot be deemed to be irrelevant to Self-Knowledge. Even

> Bhaghavan Ramana in a place says that in the Self there is not the

> personal

> feeling of consciousness. The personal feeling of consciousness, which

> is purely a mentation, ideation, cannot be equated with unbroken

> feeling of Awareness where there is no distinction of Awareness and

> Existence, a point clarified by Bhaghavan in the invocatory verse of

> the work, "Ulladu Narpathu."

 

I agree with the above statement.

 

 

 

 

community blog is at

 

http://.net/blog/

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Sri Ramana

 

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Harshaji,

 

Please see inside .

 

advaitin, Harsha wrote:

>Some points are made below in English.

 

[i believe I too wrote English.]

 

> Enlightenment or Self-Realization is pursued

> due to a fundamental pull from within. The intense desire to know

the

> Truth is at the foundation of it. This does not allow one to rest

until

> one gets to the heart of the matter.

 

[in fact, this pull is there behind everything that we pursue - be it

the perverted pleasure of the masochist or saddist. The ignorant

seek external pleasures while the wise follow the scriptures.]

>

> The Sages are simply approximating and communicating through the

vehicle

> of the mind in the field of relativity.

> In that sense Sanskrit is a very precise language. At least the few

> words I know seem perfect.

 

[As an advaitin, I would rather that "I am projecting the sages as

simply approximating and communicating through the vehicle of the

mind...". The precision of the language is also a projection. That

is why I said all these belong to the world of the yet to be

enlightened.]

 

[i am not quoting the rest of your message as I am in agreement with

most of what you say. But, one question remains and that is: "Is

Enlightenment personal?" Have you answered that somewhere?]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

>

> [i am not quoting the rest of your message as I am in agreement with

> most of what you say. But, one question remains and that is: "Is

> Enlightenment personal?" Have you answered that somewhere?]

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

Dear Nair Ji,

 

I don't know if I have answered that question or can answer that question to

universal satisfaction. I am personally satisfied.

 

Because the Self is only One, whether we call it Personal or Impersonal, it

amounts to the same thing. Either term may suffice as the context calls for it.

 

In the blog article, I have taken some poetic license based on my experience in

saying that the Self is both Personal and Impersonal.

 

http://.net/blog/index.html

 

The difficulty, of course, and the reaction to, is with the term Personal

Enlightenment and perhaps the connotation of ego associated with that. The title

of the article was "Is Enlightenment Personal? *The Self as

Satyam-Shivam-Sundram (Truth, Consciousness, Beauty)*".

 

The article never mentions the term Personal Enlightenment. The closest it comes

is in saying the following:

 

"Some people say that Enlightenment is not personal. That is just a fashion

statement. Enlightenment is as personal as it gets. The Self is both personal

and impersonal. It is personal because it is you. How can it be any more

personal? It is impersonal because its existence (your ultimate nature) is not

dependent on time and space bound relationships."

 

There is nothing in the above statement that I wish to change.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

community blog is at

 

http://.net/blog/

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Sri Ramana

 

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma