Realisation !

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

I have never met a realised being in my life. Hence I am putting forth

this question to you all. Have you ever asked a realised being how the

world seems to him/her ? I mean does the vision of the world changes

after realising the ultimate truth.

 

One thing also has confused me often. The masters saying "The self is

aleady attained. It is only ignorance which keeps us in our limited

state."

 

It sounds easy, but I know it is difficult to view the world as one

self.

 

Need your views on this.

 

Lots of love,

 

sai.

[Guest guest]

sai9701 <sai9701 > wrote: Dear All,

 

I have never met a realised being in my life. Hence I am putting forth

this question to you all. Have you ever asked a realised being how the

world seems to him/her ? I mean does the vision of the world changes

after realising the ultimate truth.

 

Dear friend,

I think realization does not happen to an individual that we understand to be in our existing erroneous, cognitive, vision. It is a state of being, the common ground, which is alike the source and witness of the illusory phenomena that we are confronted with. With the same doubt that you are having, I talked this issue to the late philosopher, J.K, who is averse to discussing all intellectual questions. He was kind enough to tell me that there are no realized individuals, but there is a timeless state of mind, which one can understand, when one realizes the illusory nature of thought at the pshychological level. He further told me that only a realized individual knows whether there are other similar individuals, modifying in the same strain his statement by a caveat that there are no two realized individuals. When I met Maharaj in Bombay in 1979 December, he asked me what J.K taught. At that time J.K's talks had been going on in Bombay. Maharaj told me

that J.K's views constituted nearest approximation to truth in this matter, and further that in his perception ( Maharaj's) in the mind of realized person these questions do not rage since he is in a constant state of abidance in Brahman, the trinity of jiva-iswara-jagat having been falsified. But in the perception of the others there is a psycho-somatic person passing for a realised person, who is unreal according to him.

sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

> ... But in the perception of the others there is a psycho-somatic person passing for a realised person, who is unreal according to him.

> sankarraman

 

Interesting answer (all of it, I just quoted the end).

 

_____

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;

the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt

the world to himself. Therefore, all progress

depends on the unreasonable man.

 

-George Bernard Shaw

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "sai9701" <sai9701 wrote:

>

> Dear All,

>

> I have never met a realised being in my life. Hence I am putting

forth

> this question to you all. Have you ever asked a realised being how

the

> world seems to him/her ? I mean does the vision of the world

changes

> after realising the ultimate truth.

>

> One thing also has confused me often. The masters saying "The self

is

> aleady attained. It is only ignorance which keeps us in our

limited

> state."

>

> It sounds easy, but I know it is difficult to view the world as

one

> self.

>

> Need your views on this.

>

> Lots of love,

>

> sai.

 

 

Namaste,

 

Here is the position of the Vedanta regarding the above:

On Realization

 

In the Vedanta, Realization of one's True Nature is a definite event

that is unique and discernable by the individual to whom it happens.

It is a momentous experience. That marks the culmination of the

sadhana that has preceded it. It is

called `Saakshaatkaara', `Aparoksha Anubhava', etc. It is marked by

a special mode of the mind, `akhandakara vritti', in which the mind

takes on the form of the Atman. This vritti arises, destroys avidya

and subsides. This event is the one that brings about the immediate

experience to the individual about his freedom from bondage, called

liberation, and ensures freedom from rebirth. There are many

references to this in the Bhashyam of Shankaracharya. He refers to

this personal experience, for example, thus in the Brahmasutra

Bhashya (IV.1.15):

 

Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to whether

or not the body is retained for some period (after enlightenment) by

the knowers of Brahman. For, when somebody has the conviction in his

heart that he has realised Brahman and yet retains the body, how can

this be denied by anybody else? This very fact is elaborated in the

Upanshad-s and Smriti-s in the course of determining the

characteristics of a sthita-prajna (the man of steady knowledge of

the Truth).

 

Again, if this unique, abrupt experience were not accepted, there

will be no definite way of one knowing that one is freed from

bondage.

The scripture advocates realisation of Brahman not in the sense of

knowing what is unknown but in the sense of getting rid of the

avidya-based superimposition on It.However, the mental vritti of the

form of Brahman destroys, as declared by the scripture, avidya that

rests in and veils Brahman and presents It wrongly.

 

{Bhagavatpàda writes in His bhashya on verse (XVIII.50) of the

Bhagavad-Grta:

What is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the

superimposition on Brahman through avidya, but no effort is needed

for knowing Brahman, for It is quite self-evident.

 

Again Shankara says in the Brahmasutra bhashya:

 

The Knower who has had the direct realization of the Brahman-Atman

does not experience himself as a samsarin as before. If anyone has

such an experience as before, he cannot be deemed to be a Knower of

Truth.

 

In the UpadeshasaahasrI (XIV – 14) the Acharya says:

A knower of the Self having the ideas of acceptance and rejection

should be regarded as not fit for liberation, but must be considered

to be certainly rejected by Brahman.

 

There is a reference to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi replying to this

effect, to a question: I see a sheet of Consciousness everywhere.

 

The Knower of Atman sees everything as non-different from the Atman

even as the ornaments made of gold are not different from the gold

they are made of.

 

In the Gita too this is said, for example, in VI. 29, 30, 31.

 

The Vedanta Paribhasahaa also mentions that the destruction of

Avidya is through the realization of the purport of the

Mahavakya `Tat tvam asi', etc.

 

The import of all this is: The experience of being free from

ignorance and the experiencing of the unitary Self are there for the

individual who has Realized the Truth as the culmination of the

sadhana namely shravanam, mananam and nididhyasanam.

 

Pranams to all sadhakas,

subbu

[Guest guest]

namaste sai,

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi states the following:

 

"A Jnani does not find anything different or separate from the Self. All are

in the Self. It is wrong to imagine that there is the world, that there is a

body in it and that you dwell in the body. If the Truth is known, the

universe and what is beyond it will be found to be only in the Self. The

outlook differs according to the sight of the person. The sight is from the

eye. The eye must be located somewhere. If you are seeing with the gross

eyes you find others gross. If with subtle eyes (i.e., the mind) others

appear subtle. If the eye becomes the Self, the Self being infinite, the

eye is infinite. There is nothing else to see different from the Self."

('Talks' 106)

 

Regards,

 

Peter___

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of sai9701

11 July 2006 05:26

advaitin

Realisation !

 

 

 

Dear All,

 

I have never met a realised being in my life. Hence I am putting forth

this question to you all. Have you ever asked a realised being how the

world seems to him/her ? I mean does the vision of the world changes

after realising the ultimate truth.

 

<snip>

[Guest guest]

This is a very important question:

"Self is already realised......"?

We can have a better understanding by taking resourse to Agamas. Here we can have some sort of self experience.

Virendra

P. S. - I am tempted to sum up the divine experience in just two words. Let me await the response.

 

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

advaitin, "sai9701" <sai9701 wrote:

>

> Dear All,

>

> I have never met a realised being in my life. Hence I am putting

forth

> this question to you all. Have you ever asked a realised being how

the

> world seems to him/her ? I mean does the vision of the world

changes

> after realising the ultimate truth.

>

> One thing also has confused me often. The masters saying "The self

is

> aleady attained. It is only ignorance which keeps us in our

limited

> state."

>

> It sounds easy, but I know it is difficult to view the world as

one

> self.

>

> Need your views on this.

>

> Lots of love,

>

> sai.

 

Namaste,

 

Here is the position of the Vedanta regarding the above:

On Realization

 

In the Vedanta, Realization of one's True Nature is a definite event

that is unique and discernable by the individual to whom it happens.

It is a momentous experience. That marks the culmination of the

sadhana that has preceded it. It is

called `Saakshaatkaara', `Aparoksha Anubhava', etc. It is marked by

a special mode of the mind, `akhandakara vritti', in which the mind

takes on the form of the Atman. This vritti arises, destroys avidya

and subsides. This event is the one that brings about the immediate

experience to the individual about his freedom from bondage, called

liberation, and ensures freedom from rebirth. There are many

references to this in the Bhashyam of Shankaracharya. He refers to

this personal experience, for example, thus in the Brahmasutra

Bhashya (IV.1.15):

 

Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to whether

or not the body is retained for some period (after enlightenment) by

the knowers of Brahman. For, when somebody has the conviction in his

heart that he has realised Brahman and yet retains the body, how can

this be denied by anybody else? This very fact is elaborated in the

Upanshad-s and Smriti-s in the course of determining the

characteristics of a sthita-prajna (the man of steady knowledge of

the Truth).

 

Again, if this unique, abrupt experience were not accepted, there

will be no definite way of one knowing that one is freed from

bondage.

 

The scripture advocates realisation of Brahman not in the sense of

knowing what is unknown but in the sense of getting rid of the

avidya-based superimposition on It.However, the mental vritti of the

form of Brahman destroys, as declared by the scripture, avidya that

rests in and veils Brahman and presents It wrongly.

 

{Bhagavatpàda writes in His bhashya on verse (XVIII.50) of the

Bhagavad-Grta:

What is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the

superimposition on Brahman through avidya, but no effort is needed

for knowing Brahman, for It is quite self-evident.

 

Again Shankara says in the Brahmasutra bhashya:

 

The Knower who has had the direct realization of the Brahman-Atman

does not experience himself as a samsarin as before. If anyone has

such an experience as before, he cannot be deemed to be a Knower of

Truth.

 

In the UpadeshasaahasrI (XIV – 14) the Acharya says:

A knower of the Self having the ideas of acceptance and rejection

should be regarded as not fit for liberation, but must be considered

to be certainly rejected by Brahman.

 

There is a reference to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi replying to this

effect, to a question: I see a sheet of Consciousness everywhere.

 

The Knower of Atman sees everything as non-different from the Atman

even as the ornaments made of gold are not different from the gold

they are made of.

 

In the Gita too this is said, for example, in VI. 29, 30, 31.

 

The Vedanta Paribhasahaa also mentions that the destruction of

Avidya is through the realization of the purport of the

Mahavakya `Tat tvam asi', etc.

 

The import of all this is: The experience of being free from

ignorance and the experiencing of the unitary Self are there for the

individual who has Realized the Truth as the culmination of the

sadhana namely shravanam, mananam and nididhyasanam.

 

Pranams to all sadhakas,

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> advaitin, "sai9701" <sai9701@> wrote:

> >

> > Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to whether

> or not the body is retained for some period (after enlightenment) by

> the knowers of Brahman. For, when somebody has the conviction in his

> heart that he has realised Brahman and yet retains the body, how can

> this be denied by anybody else? This very fact is elaborated in the

> Upanshad-s and Smriti-s in the course of determining the

> characteristics of a sthita-prajna (the man of steady knowledge of

> the Truth).

>

> Dear sir,

Does not Bhaghavan Ramana say that the retention or

otherwise of the body is purely from the viewpoint of the bystanders,

the jnani himself seeing only the one flood of the light of the self?

The disapperance of the body, I believe, is a sine qua non for

enlightemnent only in the yoga viewpoint. Saint Ramalingar and others

have stressed this aspect, which Bhaghvan deems as irrelevant from the

exalted viewpoint of the advaita of the non-existence of anything

alien to the atman from the beginning and its annihilation

subsequently. The, 'Who am I,' enqiry taught by Bhaghavn is only to

generate the akhandahara vritti, by ignoring attention towards the

externals, but directing it towards the very source of the phenomena

by tracing the I thought. This search does not presuppose, I think, a

search for a relative object, but constitutes the search for the very

Light itself, which witnesses alike the presence and absence of the

objects. This vritti, in the vedantic parlance, does not admit of any

phala other than the essential chytanya.In the dualistic language one

cannot say anything further.

Sankarraman

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "shnkaran" <shnkaran wrote:

>

> advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v@>

> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to

whether

> > or not the body is retained for some period (after

enlightenment) by

> > the knowers of Brahman. For, when somebody has the conviction in

his

> > heart that he has realised Brahman and yet retains the body, how

can

> > this be denied by anybody else? This very fact is elaborated in

the

> > Upanshad-s and Smriti-s in the course of determining the

> > characteristics of a sthita-prajna (the man of steady knowledge

of

> > the Truth).

> >

> > Dear sir,

> Does not Bhaghavan Ramana say that the retention or

> otherwise of the body is purely from the viewpoint of the

bystanders,

> the jnani himself seeing only the one flood of the light of the

self?

 

Namaste Sir,

 

The words of Acharya Shankara quoted above from the Sutrabhashya may

be understood better in the light of the following quotes, a

selection from the Panchadashi. The jnani's vyavahara is clearly

brought out by these verses.

 

Chapter 6 of the Panchadashi"

 

249. (Doubt): But even after realisation I suffer from hunger and

thirst. (Reply): Who denies it? This suffering is in your egoity (a

product of duality) expressed in your use of `I'.

 

250. (Doubt): The sufferings may come to the immutable Self, because

of identification with the body. (Reply): Do not subject yourself to

this identification which is due to mutual superimposition, but

practise discrimination for its removal.

 

251. (Doubt): The superimposition, which is due to the first

impressions, suddenly may occur, because of the beginningless

association of Jiva and Avidya. (Reply): Then begin new impressions

of non-duality by means of repeated discrimination of the truth.

 

263. By the force of the fructifying Karma, a knower may be subject

to desires, as in spite of theoretically knowing the truth you are

not satisfied.

 

264. A man who has overcome egoity and realised identity with the

changeless consciousness is not distressed by desires or diseases

and other changing conditions of body and fortune, just as the

growth and death of trees in a forest do not affect him.

 

265. (Doubt): But it is well known that the immutable Self is ever

unaffected by desires even before illumination. (Reply): Do not

forget this truth. The realisation that Kutastha is ever dissociated

from desires is called the `snapping of the knot of ignorance'. It

is this knowledge which leads to the attainment of the purpose of

life.

 

266. (Doubt): The dull-witted are ignorant of this truth. (Reply):

This is what we mean by the `knot of ignorance', nothing else. The

difference between the ignorant and the wise, is the existence of

doubt in the former group and its destruction in the latter.

 

267. From the point of view of the body, senses, mind and intellect,

there is no difference between the ignorant and the illumined when

they engage themselves in action or abstain from them.

 

268. The difference between one who has been initiated into the life

of Brahmacharya and one who has not is that the former studies the

Veda, whereas the latter does not. But as regards food etc., there

is no difference. The same applies to the wise and the ignorant.

 

269. In the Gita it is said that the wise man who has destroyed his

desires does not hate what is present nor does he hanker after what

he has not. He sits like one who is disinterested. This is

called `snapping the knot of ignorance'.

 

9. (Doubt): How can the idea of egoity arise in the detached

Kutastha ? You have to attribute egoity to it. (Reply): `I' is used

in three senses, of which one is primary and the other two secondary.

 

Chapter 7:

 

10. The immutable Kutastha becomes identified with the reflected

intelligence, Chidabhasa, due to mutual superimposition. This is the

primary meaning of `I' in which the spiritually dull people use it.

 

11. `I' in the two secondary senses refer to either Kutastha or

Chidabhada but one is differentiated from the other. The wise use

the same word `I' either in the worldly or in the philosophical

sense, meaning Chidabhasa or Kutastha respectively.

 

12. From the conventional standpoint, the wise use the expression `I

am going', meaning Chidabhasa, differentiating it from Kutastha.

 

13. From the philosophical standpoint the wise mean by their `I' the

pure Kutastha. In this sense they say: `I am unattached. I am the

Spirit Itself'.

 

Pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

Due to other commitments I have been away from this group but this

thread caught my attention recently as I am also reading up on a

related subject.

 

>>

This vritti arises, destroys avidya and subsides.

>>

 

Sri Subrahmanian has explained this very well - here is a little

more to expand from Acharya's bhasyas.

 

In His commentary on the 7th mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad

Sankara says:

 

Antahprajnaditvapratisedhavijnanapramanasamakalameva

atmanyanarthaprapancanivrittilakÀsanam phalam parisamaptam

 

samakalameva - Concurrently itself with valid knowledge brought

about by

the pratisedha - negation of attributes such as being conscious of

what is within as during dream

parisamaptam - is fulfilled

phalam - the fruit characterized by the cessation of the phenomenal

world of misery superimposed on the atman.

Thus Knowledge dawns and straightaway Avidya is destroyed.

 

It is important to note here that the emphatic 'eva' after samakalam

points out that Avidya is destroyed immediately and not gradually.

 

Shankara explains this a little further in the same commentary:

Jnanasya dvaitanivrittiksanavyatirekana ksanantaranavasthanat

 

Knowledge or the Vritti does not remain even for a (Ksana) instant

beyond the (Ksana) instant at which there is the

cessation of Duality (dvaitanivrirtti)

 

Thus the categorical position of Bhagavatpadal is that knowledge

arises, avidya is promptly sublated and the vritti too disappears

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

 

 

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> advaitin, "sai9701" <sai9701@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear All,

> >

> > I have never met a realised being in my life. Hence I am putting

> forth

> > this question to you all. Have you ever asked a realised being

how

> the

> > world seems to him/her ? I mean does the vision of the world

> changes

> > after realising the ultimate truth.

> >

> > One thing also has confused me often. The masters saying "The

self

> is

> > aleady attained. It is only ignorance which keeps us in our

> limited

> > state."

> >

> > It sounds easy, but I know it is difficult to view the world as

> one

> > self.

> >

> > Need your views on this.

> >

> > Lots of love,

> >

> > sai.

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> Here is the position of the Vedanta regarding the above:

> On Realization

>

> In the Vedanta, Realization of one's True Nature is a definite

event

> that is unique and discernable by the individual to whom it

happens.

> It is a momentous experience. That marks the culmination of the

> sadhana that has preceded it. It is

> called `Saakshaatkaara', `Aparoksha Anubhava', etc. It is marked

by

> a special mode of the mind, `akhandakara vritti', in which the

mind

> takes on the form of the Atman. This vritti arises, destroys

avidya

> and subsides. This event is the one that brings about the

immediate

> experience to the individual about his freedom from bondage,

called

> liberation, and ensures freedom from rebirth. There are many

> references to this in the Bhashyam of Shankaracharya. He refers

to

> this personal experience, for example, thus in the Brahmasutra

> Bhashya (IV.1.15):

>

> Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to

whether

> or not the body is retained for some period (after enlightenment)

by

> the knowers of Brahman. For, when somebody has the conviction in

his

> heart that he has realised Brahman and yet retains the body, how

can

> this be denied by anybody else? This very fact is elaborated in

the

> Upanshad-s and Smriti-s in the course of determining the

> characteristics of a sthita-prajna (the man of steady knowledge of

> the Truth).

>

> Again, if this unique, abrupt experience were not accepted, there

> will be no definite way of one knowing that one is freed from

> bondage.

>

> The scripture advocates realisation of Brahman not in the sense of

> knowing what is unknown but in the sense of getting rid of the

> avidya-based superimposition on It.However, the mental vritti of

the

> form of Brahman destroys, as declared by the scripture, avidya

that

> rests in and veils Brahman and presents It wrongly.

>

> {Bhagavatpàda writes in His bhashya on verse (XVIII.50) of the

> Bhagavad-Grta:

> What is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the

> superimposition on Brahman through avidya, but no effort is needed

> for knowing Brahman, for It is quite self-evident.

>

> Again Shankara says in the Brahmasutra bhashya:

>

> The Knower who has had the direct realization of the Brahman-Atman

> does not experience himself as a samsarin as before. If anyone

has

> such an experience as before, he cannot be deemed to be a Knower

of

> Truth.

>

> In the UpadeshasaahasrI (XIV – 14) the Acharya says:

> A knower of the Self having the ideas of acceptance and rejection

> should be regarded as not fit for liberation, but must be

considered

> to be certainly rejected by Brahman.

>

> There is a reference to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi replying to this

> effect, to a question: I see a sheet of Consciousness everywhere.

>

> The Knower of Atman sees everything as non-different from the

Atman

> even as the ornaments made of gold are not different from the gold

> they are made of.

>

> In the Gita too this is said, for example, in VI. 29, 30, 31.

>

> The Vedanta Paribhasahaa also mentions that the destruction of

> Avidya is through the realization of the purport of the

> Mahavakya `Tat tvam asi', etc.

>

> The import of all this is: The experience of being free from

> ignorance and the experiencing of the unitary Self are there for

the

> individual who has Realized the Truth as the culmination of the

> sadhana namely shravanam, mananam and nididhyasanam.

>

> Pranams to all sadhakas,

> subbu

>

[Guest guest]

Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan > wrote: Namaste All,

Due to other commitments I have been away from this group but this

thread caught my attention recently as I am also reading up on a

related subject.

>>

This vritti arises, destroys avidya and subsides.

>>

 

In His commentary on the 7th mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad

Sankara says:

Antahprajnaditvapratisedhavijnanapramanasamakalameva

atmanyanarthaprapancanivrittilakÀsanam phalam parisamaptam

samakalameva - Concurrently itself with valid knowledge brought

about by

the pratisedha - negation of attributes such as being conscious of

what is within as during dream

parisamaptam - is fulfilled

phalam - the fruit characterized by the cessation of the phenomenal

world of misery superimposed on the atman.

Thus Knowledge dawns and straightaway Avidya is destroyed.

It is important to note here that the emphatic 'eva' after samakalam

points out that Avidya is destroyed immediately and not gradually.

From

Sankarraman

The negation of the objcective consciousness and the revelation of the true Self are simultaneous, being outside the pale of time and space, though for external purposes an event in time. That event cannot be converted into an experience. When once the false attributes of the self, such as its being a subjective state or objective state, are removed, the reality of the turiya shines self-resplendent no instrument of knowledge being necessary for this to happen, and there being no time intervel between the destruction of the unreal attributes of the self and the recognition of the self, which is self-cognizant. When once duality is destroyed, all instruments of knowledge are also no longer there. Hence Nisargdatta Maharaj says that the primal Being, which is Awareness, is not conscious of itself, but only its reflection in time which is Consciousness. This consciousness, instead of identifying itself with phenomenal objects

through a vyakti, should turn back upon itself to understand its source. Maharaj says that Consciousness is our only capital which we should pay our attention to. When this consciousness also merges in the primal unicity of Being, which is Awareness, there is nothing to experience. When Maharaj uses the term consciousness (without the capital letter ), he means our individual avidya which he calls vyakti; when he uses the word with the capital letter, he refers to the Manifest Brahman known also by the term Maya, which he calls Vyakti. Finally, he uses the term Awareness to refer to the primordial Being.

with warmful regards,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta.