Resending with better formatting - Is Enlightenment Personal?

[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. 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.

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Harsha wrote: 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.

> Dear Harshaji,

I close this topic by the following observations by

way of attempting to clarify what I attempted to convey earlier. In the

enlightened state, there is no pramatar to know that he has been liberated, as

it is not a knowledge involving knower-known duality. This knowledge is possible

only in the waking state where the waking individual is aware that his dream has

ended. In the enlightened state such a knowledge is surely not possible; if it

were there it would be nothing short of a dualistic knowledge. The Witness does

not have anything to witness, but is a pure Light. Apropos absence of knowledge,

the knower-known knowledge, in the deep sleep state, the dualistic knowledge is

still there, being dormant, the individual coming back to the waking state

picking up the thread of the world of duality. If one were to enter sleep

consciously, one would steer clear of all the three states, and there would be

only the Self, the Witness, which is not a

witness of the kind involving duality.

But, unless one performs sadana in the waking state taking up the quest, "Who am

I," one cannot consciously enter into deep sleep. Since we can understand all

this only through sadhana, any amount of discursive knowledge will be of no

avail. All of us are correct in understanding these matters intellectually, but

we are using different words. The word is not the thing. Regarding the position

of Nisargdatta, I have already clarified that it is not one of equating the Self

with unconsciousness.

The Self is not an individual knower, but is not bereft of consciousness. Since

various seekers- the Buddhists of different school, the followers of

Krishnamurthy and even Osho and Punjaji, George Gurjiffe, and a host of others

-came to Maharaj, speaking in different languages, Maharaj was catholic enough

to appreciate some points meriting attention, even though relative truths.

Maharaj's language was some what unique. His central position is not equating

the realized state with deep-sleep. He time and again says that the three states

pertain only to the I am, and not that which is beyond the I am. The Beyond does

not admit of all these conceptualizations.

Thanking you for your kind response,

yours in Bhaghavan Ramana,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min

with Messenger with Voice.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sankarramanji:

 

My comments follow:

 

Ganesan Sankarraman wrote:

>

> > Dear Harshaji,

> I close this topic by the following

> observations by way of attempting to clarify what I attempted to

> convey earlier. In the enlightened state, there is no pramatar to know

> that he has been liberated, as it is not a knowledge involving

> knower-known duality.

 

Yes. Self is eternally liberated and beyond all thoughts and imagination.

> This knowledge is possible only in the waking state where the waking

> individual is aware that his dream has ended. In the enlightened state

> such a knowledge is surely not possible; if it were there it would be

> nothing short of a dualistic knowledge.

Self-Realization does not see duality. Therefore, it cannot be

incompatible with the waking or dream state. We can infer for all

practical purposes, at least from a relative perspective, that a

Self-Realized sage is capable of communicating through the form of

his/her mind. There are examples of that in the scriptures which Subuji

has given. If the argument is made that from the point of view of the

Absolute, no talking happens, no instructions are given, etc., we can

accept that as well. Statements about the Absolute within relativity

can be given whatever meaning one wishes.

> The Witness does not have anything to witness, but is a pure Light.

> Apropos absence of knowledge, the knower-known knowledge, in the deep

> sleep state, the dualistic knowledge is still there, being dormant,

> the individual coming back to the waking state picking up the thread

> of the world of duality. If one were to enter sleep consciously, one

> would steer clear of all the three states, and there would be only the

> Self, the Witness, which is not a

> witness of the kind involving duality.

> But, unless one performs sadana in the waking state taking up the

> quest, "Who am I," one cannot consciously enter into deep sleep. Since

> we can understand all this only through sadhana, any amount of

> discursive knowledge will be of no avail. All of us are correct in

> understanding these matters intellectually, but we are using different

> words. The word is not the thing.

Agreed. Words can have many shades of meaning to different people. The

use of language serves an important and critical purpose. The Truth of

the Self is beyond words. Our faith in the words of the Guru and

Upanishads forms the bridge that connects the words with the wordless.

Hearing the nature of the Self and meditating on it is the path.

Gradually, it makes the mind transparent to itself and the Self as an

immediacy is reflected in our intelligence. The Mahavakya says,

"Consciousness is Brahman". Sri Krishna says, "I am in the Heart of all

beings". Sri Ramana says, "Awareness is another name for you".

 

In Spiritual Instructions, in answer to the question,* * /What is the

end of the path of knowledge (jnana) or Vedanta? Bhagavan says: /

 

"It is to know the truth that the 'I' is not different from the Lord

(Isvara) and to be free from the feeling of being the doer (kartrtva,

ahamkara)."

 

If after hearing such words and meditating on these we gain the firm

conviction, "I am Brahman" and are conscious of the feeling awareness of

"I AM" as natural then we are on the Jnana path. So the path of looking

within at one's own consciousness as sacred has been laid out clearly.

This was also advocated by Maharaj as well.

 

Love to all

Harsha * *

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Harsha wrote:

>

> Dear Sankarramanji:

>

> My comments follow:

>

> >

>

>

> > .

> Self-Realization does not see duality. Therefore, it cannot be

> incompatible with the waking or dream state. We can infer for all

> practical purposes, at least from a relative perspective, that a

> Self-Realized sage is capable of communicating through the form of

> his/her mind. There are examples of that in the scriptures which

Subuji

> has given.

 

Dear Harshaji,

I am a bit confused here when you use the double

negative,"Cannot be incompatible," in the above sentence. It must be

only, 'cannot be compatible," as otherwise what you try to convey

gets distorted. Or you try to convey that the self-realization might

not be antagonistic to waking or dream state, which surely cannot

be. As I am confused, please clarify my doubt whether the above is

an inadvertent error. Please don't think I am quibbling, as this is

a serious topic.

yours in Bhaghavan Ramana,

Sankarraman

[Guest guest]

shnkaran wrote:

> Dear Harshaji,

> I am a bit confused here when you use the double

> negative,"Cannot be incompatible," in the above sentence. It must be

> only, 'cannot be compatible," as otherwise what you try to convey

> gets distorted. Or you try to convey that the self-realization might

> not be antagonistic to waking or dream state, which surely cannot

> be. As I am confused, please clarify my doubt whether the above is

> an inadvertent error. Please don't think I am quibbling, as this is

> a serious topic.

> yours in Bhaghavan Ramana,

> Sankarraman

>

Dear Sankarraman Ji,

 

Since you are a devotee of Bhagavan Ramana, I cannot presume to clarify

things for you. My feeling is that language fails us beyond a certain

point, at least it fails me. Here is my view. Just as an analogy,

consider that space is not incompatible with objects. Space does not

depend on them and the object exist only in space. Space exists

independent of objects but at the same time allows objects to appear in

it. In the same way, Self-Realization is not incompatible with other

states (waking, dreaming, super conscious states, etc.). These appear in

the Self and then disappear in it. When everything disappears, the Self

still exists Alone, Whole, Complete, as if nothing ever happened. That

is probably the reason behind the doctrine of Ajati Vada.

 

Yours in Bhagavan Ramana

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