Guest guest Posted July 26, 2002 Report Share Posted July 26, 2002 Dear All, is there a difference between the manolaya state and nirvikalpa samadhi and what is it? This answer of Ramana is of great importance. I have observed in my own practice the tendency to let the inquiry go as soon as the mind is silent and relax in this experience, but somehow not fully satisfied and with the impression to get stuck. So this here is a very important point. Ramana says clearly to keep on the inquiry then and drive the mind deeper until it merges in the Self. But what is the difference to nirvikalpa samadhi? That's not in full clear to me. Ramana was also for long streches not aware of the body - but his mind never arose after his death-experience, so nirvikalpa must be the final merger of the mind in the Self without body awareness, whereas manolaya is only a kind of trance which has to be overcome? Can someone say something about this? In HIM Gabriele Q: When I am engaged in enquiry as to the source from which the 'I' springs, I arrive at a stage of stillness of mind beyond which I find myself unable to proceed further. I have no thought of any kind and there is an emptiness, a blankness. A mild light pervades and I feel that it is myself bodiless. I have neither cognition nor vision of body or form. The experience lasts nearly half an hour and is pleasing. Would I be correct in concluding that all that was necessary to secure eternal happiness, that is freedom or salvation or whatever one calls it, was to continue the practice till the experience could be maintained for hours, days and months together? A: This does not mean salvation. Such a condition is termed Manolaya or temporary stillness of thought. Manolaya means concentration, temporarily arresting the movement of thoughts. As soon as this concentration ceases, thoughts, old and new, rush in as usual; and even if this temporary lulling of mind should last a thousand years, it will never lead to total destruction of thought, which is what is called liberation from birth and death. The practitioner must therefore be ever on the alert and enquire within as to who has this experience, who realizes its pleasantness. Without this enquiry he will go into a long trance or deep sleep (yoga nidra). Due to the absence of a proper guide at this stage of spiritual practice, many have been deluded and fallen a prey to a false sense of liberation and only a few have managed to reach the goal safely. The following story illustrates the point very well. A yogi was doing penance (tapas) for a number of years on the banks of the Ganges. When he had attained a high degree of concentration, he believed that continuance in that stage for prolonged periods constituted liberation and practiced it. One day, before going into deep concentration, he felt thirsty and called to his disciple to bring a little drinking water from the Ganges. But before the disciple arrived with the water, he had gone into yoga nidra and remained in that state for countless years, during which time much water flowed under the bridge. When he woke up from this experience he immediately called "Water!Water!"; but there was neither his disciple nor the Ganges in sight. The first thing that he asked for was water because, before going into deep concentration, the topmost layer of thought in his mind was water and by concentration, however deep and prolonged it might have been, he had only been able temporarily to lull his thoughts. When he regained consciousness this topmost thought flew up with all the speed and force of a flood breaking through the dykes. If this were the case with regard to a thought which took shape immediately before he sat for meditation, there is no doubt that thoughts which took root earlier would also remain unannihilated. If annihilation of thoughts is liberation, can he be said to have attained salvation? Sadhakas (seekers) rarely understand the difference between this temporary stilling of the mind (manolaya) and permanent destruction of thoughts (manonasa). In manolaya there is temporary subsidence of thought-waves, and though this temporary period may even last for a thousand years, thoughts, which are thus temporarily stilled, rise up as soon as the manolaya ceases. One must therefore watch one's spiritual progress carefully. One must not allow oneself to be overtaken by such spells of stillness of thought. The moment one experiences this, one must revive consciousness and enquire within as to who it is who experiences this stillness. While not allowing any thoughts to intrude, one must not, at the same time, be overtaken by this deep sleep (yoga nidra) or self-hypnotism. Though this is a sign of progress towards the goal, yet it is also the point where the divergence between the road to liberation and Yoga Nidra take place. The easy way, the direct way, the shortest cut to salvation is the enquiry method. By such enquiry, you will drive the thought force deeper till it reaches its source and merges therein. It is then that you will have the response from within and find that you rest there, destroying all thoughts once and for all. from Be As You are --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2002 Report Share Posted July 26, 2002 Hello Gabriele: There is a distinct difference, as I understand it. Manolaya is a state where thought ceases and is a temporary state of simple stillness. Nirvikalpa samadhi has been described in more than one way. One description is of a trance state where there is complete absorption and a complete cessation of a sense of individuated being. Another yogic school describes nirvikalpa samadhi as a permanent samadhi that comes as the fruition of salvikalpa samadhi. Bhagavan's samadhi, on the other hand, was permanent and "open eyed." He lived in samadhi in a natural way and this samadhi is referred to as sahaj or natural samadhi. Nirvikalpa is a very advanced samadhi and manolaya is simply a state of quiet mind that is an early development. Referring back to my earlier comments about needing a guru, this is a perfect example. Without guidance, one could practice manolaya for years (or even lifetimes) and not know that it's early attainment and never get past it. There are also references to this in Zen teaching. My observation is that many people misunderstand advaita to be a simple mental exercise where one quiets the mind and feels better in a psychological sense whereas it's actually quite a bit more deep and profound. Advaita practice is about the utter dissolution of the illusory sense of individuated being which is light years beyond simple mental exercises or a pleasant psychological state. Mark Dear All, is there a difference between the manolaya state and nirvikalpa samadhi and what is it? This answer of Ramana is of great importance. I have observed in my own practice the tendency to let the inquiry go as soon as the mind is silent and relax in this experience, but somehow not fully satisfied and with the impression to get stuck. So this here is a very important point. Ramana says clearly to keep on the inquiry then and drive the mind deeper until it merges in the Self. But what is the difference to nirvikalpa samadhi? That's not in full clear to me. Ramana was also for long streches not aware of the body - but his mind never arose after his death-experience, so nirvikalpa must be the final merger of the mind in the Self without body awareness, whereas manolaya is only a kind of trance which has to be overcome? Can someone say something about this? In HIM Gabriele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2002 Report Share Posted July 26, 2002 Dear Gabriel, You question is an important one. The wonderful peace of the silent mind is, as you know, not the end-point of practice. It is rather the place from which to really start you (deepest) practice. From the silence, if we continue to take the inquiry deeper (Who am I? or Who knows this silence? or For whom is this silence? all work equally well) then the Being which is the silent witness of the silence becomes more evident, then more obvious, then the seeker knows this Being as their own identity, and all (ego-borne) sense of separation dissolves. In "Talks" #392 6 April 1937 there is a chart of savikalpa samadhi and nirvikalpa samadhi. In summary it is said that savikalpa samadhi is attended with effort. Also that when in 'external' nirvikalpa samadhi (described as 'Merging in the one Reality underlying all the phenomena and remaining unaware of the transitory manifestations' and compared to 'the waveless ocean whose waters are still and placid.') and 'internal' nirvikalpa samadhi (described as Merging in the Inmost Being which is the One Reality,' and compared to 'a flame unagitated by currents of air, but burning quite steady.') are not attended with effort and that the internal nirvikalpa samadhi and external nirvikalpa samadhi are identical, then the state is said to be sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. It is this later sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi that is said to be Ramana's state. This is where the knower, the knowing and the known are all one this is the nondual. Clearly Ramana says that the seeker should not stop the inquiry until the nondual Reality is where the seeker stands (in which case there is no longer a separate seeker to seek anything, nor anything to be sought. I am less familiar with the term 'manolaya,' so cannot give a good characterization of it. I just know from my teachers and from Ramana that as long as there is someone to inquire, then the inquiry should continue. I know this from the teachers, not yet from the continuous state of this seeker. (So, back to the inquiry.) We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote: > Dear All, > is there a difference between the manolaya state and nirvikalpa > samadhi and what is it? > > This answer of Ramana is of great importance. I have observed in my > own practice the tendency to let the inquiry go as soon as the mind > is silent and relax in this experience, but somehow not fully > satisfied and with the impression to get stuck. So this here is a > very important point. Ramana says clearly to keep on the inquiry then > and drive the mind deeper until it merges in the Self. > > But what is the difference to nirvikalpa samadhi? That's not in full > clear to me. Ramana was also for long streches not aware of the body - > but his mind never arose after his death-experience, so nirvikalpa > must be the final merger of the mind in the Self without body > awareness, whereas manolaya is only a kind of trance which has to be > overcome? Can someone say something about this? > > In HIM > Gabriele > > > > Q: When I am engaged in enquiry as to the source from which > the 'I' springs, > I arrive at a stage of stillness of mind beyond which I > find myself unable > to proceed further. I have no thought of any kind and there > is an emptiness, > a blankness. A mild light pervades and I feel that it is > myself bodiless. > I have neither cognition nor vision of body or form. The > experience lasts > nearly half an hour and is pleasing. Would I be correct in > concluding that > all that was necessary to secure eternal happiness, that is > freedom or salvation > or whatever one calls it, was to continue the practice till > the experience could > be maintained for hours, days and months together? > > A: This does not mean salvation. Such a condition is termed > Manolaya or temporary > stillness of thought. Manolaya means concentration, > temporarily arresting the > movement of thoughts. As soon as this concentration ceases, > thoughts, old and new, > rush in as usual; and even if this temporary lulling of mind > should last a thousand > years, it will never lead to total destruction of thought, > which is what is called > liberation from birth and death. > > The practitioner must therefore be ever on the alert and > enquire within > as to who has this experience, who realizes its > pleasantness. Without this > enquiry he will go into a long trance or deep sleep (yoga > nidra). Due to > the absence of a proper guide at this stage of spiritual > practice, many have > been deluded and fallen a prey to a false sense of > liberation and only a few > have managed to reach the goal safely. > > The following story illustrates the point very well. A yogi > was doing penance > (tapas) for a number of years on the banks of the Ganges. > When he had attained > a high degree of concentration, he believed that continuance > in that stage for > prolonged periods constituted liberation and practiced it. > One day, before going > into deep concentration, he felt thirsty and called to his > disciple to bring > a little drinking water from the Ganges. But before the > disciple arrived with > the water, he had gone into yoga nidra and remained in that > state for countless > years, during which time much water flowed under the bridge. > When he woke up from > this experience he immediately called "Water!Water!"; but > there was neither his > disciple nor the Ganges in sight. > > The first thing that he asked for was water because, before > going into deep > concentration, the topmost layer of thought in his mind was > water and by > concentration, however deep and prolonged it might have > been, he had only been > able temporarily to lull his thoughts. When he regained > consciousness this > topmost thought flew up with all the speed and force of a > flood breaking through > the dykes. If this were the case with regard to a thought > which took shape > immediately before he sat for meditation, there is no doubt > that thoughts which > took root earlier would also remain unannihilated. If > annihilation of thoughts > is liberation, can he be said to have attained salvation? > > Sadhakas (seekers) rarely understand the difference between > this temporary > stilling of the mind (manolaya) and permanent destruction of > thoughts (manonasa). > In manolaya there is temporary subsidence of thought- waves, > and though this > temporary period may even last for a thousand years, > thoughts, which are thus > temporarily stilled, rise up as soon as the manolaya ceases. > > One must therefore watch one's spiritual progress carefully. > One must not allow > oneself to be overtaken by such spells of stillness of > thought. The moment one > experiences this, one must revive consciousness and enquire > within as to who it > is who experiences this stillness. While not allowing any > thoughts to intrude, > one must not, at the same time, be overtaken by this deep > sleep (yoga nidra) > or self-hypnotism. > > Though this is a sign of progress towards the goal, yet it > is also the point > where the divergence between the road to liberation and Yoga > Nidra take place. > The easy way, the direct way, the shortest cut to salvation > is the enquiry method. > By such enquiry, you will drive the thought force deeper > till it reaches its > source and merges therein. It is then that you will have the > response from > within and find that you rest there, destroying all thoughts > once and for all. > > > from Be As You are > --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2002 Report Share Posted July 26, 2002 Gabrielle: Reading my response to your question I realized that my comments about the psychological approaches may have sounded like a criticism of your practice and I didn't mean to imply that. If it came across that way then I wasn't being clear and I apologize. I wasn't referring to you or your practice. I get rather "testy" about this subject because I see popularized versions of inquiry being marketed that are inaccurate and misleading. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2002 Report Share Posted July 26, 2002 Dear Mark, dear Richard, thank you so much. You both gave very good explanations and made the difference very clear. That comes exactly in the same direction I felt, but at the moment I would not have been able to express it properly and make it so clear. So thanks, you both did, not only for me, but also for those silent ones who are in need. Dear Mark, I did not hear any criticism in your first answer at all. (Besides constructive critizism is always wellcome.) I run in this trap for some time (that's normal with me that I run in all kinds of spiritual traps. I have stopped to care about so much but instead try to come out as soon as possible and learn from it, and sometimes I share it then with this group here.) Because of this the repeated openhearted reading, study and meditation of Ramana's teaching is of such importance. Sometimes much is not understood in the moment of reading, but when experience happens one will remember the teaching and it becomes clear then. A Guru is absolutely necessary on the spiritual path. In HIM Gabriele RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Gabrielle: > > Reading my response to your question I realized that my comments about > the psychological approaches may have sounded like a criticism of your > practice and I didn't mean to imply that. If it came across that way then I > wasn't being clear and I apologize. I wasn't referring to you or your practice. > > I get rather "testy" about this subject because I see popularized versions of > inquiry being marketed that are inaccurate and misleading. > > Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.