date & time for the brahman realization!!

[Guest guest]

Namaskar

I thank Shri Sadanandji for guidance on this subject.

I would like to submit my thoughts on this extremely

Important point of self-realization, which is achieved by a

very very few persons, out of millions who seek.

I would request learned members to excuse me for

the poor knowledge of language.

It is beyond doubt that Atma Sakshatkar or self-realization

is an experience.

My Guru used to utter this poetry in Marathi in his

mood to teach his sisyas. ….

Anubhavachi Sakshatkar,

Dila Ase Aadhar, Manavatachi.

“Self-realization is definitely an experience that is

possible to be understood only in human body”

Had it not been an experience of the human

being, it had no value. Shastras would not have

recommended and the Sadhak-s would not have tried

for realization offering the cost of life. Rishi-Muni or saints

would not have written about their own experience.

Self-realization must be an experience like other experiences

of human being, (by sense organs and/or mind) or else

self-realization would not have been a practical science but

only an idealism.

Our scriptures and the literature of the great saints is like

the books on the art of swimming. One can't guess about

the experience of swimming from the books. Those who

composed the Shastras were swimmers, not only writers

or speakers. Some of us try to understand the Shastras

and saints’ literature by meaning of the words like we do

in studying any other literature, and some of us do the

experiments like they do in the study of laboratory sciences.

Scriptures say that self could not be sensed by the

human senses, and that is true. Scriptures and saints

also say that one gets the Atmanubhava, this is also true.

How these controversial statements are true, is to be

understood by the experience only.

(Those interested may please read the books of Pundit

Nishchaldasji on Vedanta translated in many languages.

I think this point of self-realization is cleared in the book

Vichar Sagar Rahasya. Punditji has written as to how

It is possible that human being gets the Anubhava of

the self. I remember having read the Marathi translation

by Sakhare Maharaj, and that book was available

that time at Alandi - Samadhi place of Jnaneshwar Mahraj.

The original Grantha is in Sanskrit or Hindi, I do not

remember)

If Self-realization is an experience, then there must be two

stages. i.e. a stage before experience and after experience.

Also, if it is experience, then there must be somebody/thing

who takes the experience of self. (who understands self ) .

There has to be a chronological point when the later stage

(after-experience) begins. Also, there has to be some

understanding about self by the human organs, if realization

is an experience.

Shri Sadananda-ji has written, "It is just shift in awareness of

oneself as oneself not oneself as this or that." Apparently and

principally this sounds correct, but the questions/doubts remain :

1 Before the shift took place, chronology existed for oneself

because one was not aware of oneself and was in Vyawahara.

So, it is not wrong to think about the time and date of the

Brahama-realization if "Shift" theory is accepted.

2.It must be clear as to whether this shift was of the

permanent nature or temporary?

3.Who was a Shift Manager ? (?) At whose instance the

shift of awareness took place is an important point ?

We know from Scriptures that "Self" is Mukta and can't

bring about any change.

I think "Shift" theory needs lot of explanation. ..

Based on my little knowledge and experience I would

like to explain humbly on these two points as I have

understood..

Point 1. Whether there is a shift point regarding self-

Realization that could be Chronologically noted ?

Point 2 Whether Self-realization is a human experience?

1. Practically, the intelligence of a sadhaka which is a

true image of self when pure, understands the existence

of self and at the same time understands the illusionary

world. This is an experience of Turiya Sthti or fourth

state of mind. This is very difficult to explain in words and

so the saints avoid to tell about the self-realization.

My Guru used to tell me that it is like sitting on the

divider wall. This is a “Ardha Matra” or “Amatra” in

Omkar. One has a clear experience of Parmatma and

very clear understanding that there is nothing like

I,me,my, mine., and at the same time has the

experience of the senses.

“Why Lord Krishna was born at exactly 12.00 midnight.

Why Prabhu Ramchandrta was born at exactly 12.00

afternoon? Why Hanuman was born at 6.00 am and why

Shri Dutta Guru was born at 6.00 pm ? “ would ask

My Guru to me. “Why Gods had not found any other

good timing for taking births ? These are the indicative

times of the self-realization or the Atmanubhava.”

he would explain. “ Midnight and Midday are the

Sandhi Points in Patal and Swarga respectively.

Again, 6.00 am and 6.00 pm are the sandhi points

at morning and evening. Importance of Sandhi

Kaal is marked by the births of the Gods because

Sandhi is the Sakshatkar of Gods. (self realization).

Sandhi of Brhma and Maya experiences.

Self is experienced in the Sandhi Kaal of awareness.

So there is no shift in the awareness, because the

awareness could have both the experiences at a

time. No particular time be marked for this experience.

This is sudden with the kind Kripa of Parmatma and

difficult to tell when this knowledge started giving

experience.

2. We have thousand times read in Geeta, the sloka

“Atmanyewatmana Tushtah” (2) Who is “Tustah”. ?

Self is neither happy nor unhappy. So the “Tushtah”

has to be human being and nobody else.

Here the Atmanand is experienced by human being

but in state of Sandhikal or Turiya or the Amatra

state of the Omkar, which is a true Sthitaprjnya state.

In the same way the experience in the state of

awareness, when oneself is aware of oneself only,

the shifts to awareness as this or that are so

frequent and simultaneous in the realization

state that one has the “human” experience of

self –realization.

What I have written is subject to correction

by the learned masters in this blessed group

Aniljee

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada > wrote:

PraNAms to everybody.

 

Here is my understanding. Realization is not something in time; it is beyond the time concept. Firm abidance in the knowledge that one is beyond time is the realization of oneself as oneself that is eternal ever-existent presence. Hence realization can only occur NOW and HERE and no relation to chronological time- It is just shift in awareness of oneself as oneself not oneself as this or that. The one who claims that he has realized himslef on that particular day - who says that - a realized person or unrealized person. A realised person has transcended the chronological time and understood that I am is beyond the time, being eternal. An ego can only make a statement since it can only perceive a chrnological time. Hence most of the realized masters keep num about it.

 

The one who waits for this knowledge to take place at some point in time in future cannot realize since in the very awaiting one has missed what IS.

Any description of that from the point of chronological time is only trying to describe that which cannot be described. yato vaacho nivartante apraapya manasaasaH. Any description of it that which cannot be described is just pointers not the essence. Can there be a progression towards that - not in the real sense - but one has glimpse of that in the thinning of the ego or in the stillness of oneself - but firm abidance is the clear shift in understanding of what one is - I am that I am - 'spurati hRit swayam parama pUrNa sat' - I am - I am - I am - raise spontaneously in the very core of ones individuality- that I am is complete and full - says BhagavAn Ramana. Hence that complete abidance occurs when there is only a BEING - no more waiting to Be.

 

Purification of the mind invovles a process in the chronological time- As it gets purified its attention shifts from witnessed being to witnessing being. In the complete understanding there is factual understanding of oneness of being a witness and being witnessed.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Small Business.

[Guest guest]

Aniljee - My PraNAms

 

Here is my homework assignment that you have given graciously.

 

Let me give you my understanding of the situation. Let me address this from

different points. Laksmiji actually provided a very detailed account.

 

First - self realization implies realization of ones own self. As Dennis

Waite in his book says realization is actually re - analyze my true nature -

>From a mistaken identity of my self as I am this - To a clear understanding

that I am that I am - without any qualifications. It is an understanding of

-what I am all the time even when I do not know what I am and think I am

something other than what I am'. It is a re-education about myself. Hence

it is only a removal of ignorance of myself about myself than gaining

something other than what I am already all the time. Time and space time

concepts come only in vyavahaara - it is shifting my transactional state to

transcendental state. (This is actually the topic of my talk tomorrow as

Shree Ram Chandran announced on the list, to my own surprise). Ignorance is

not something you can remove - it gets removed with gaining clear

non-negatable knowledge. It is like darkness - with a dimmer switch

operating. As you turn slowly the small incandacent light turning into its

full glory. Can you say when the darkness is fully removed? Even the

darkness that I saw was only in the light of consciousness that I am. Hence

we have always have partical knowledge about ourselves - just as we have

partial knowledge of the rope that there is a vastu or object that I am

seeing.

 

To give a simple example - can you tell when you exactly go to sleep

chronologically? It is a shift from a waking state to a dream or deep sleep

state- is it not? Some time one slowly glides into deep sleep state as one

becomes sleepy. Some go through a prolonged drowsy state but has not slept

yet. You do call him he slept but characterize him as he is sleepy. Once he

sleeps, the mind and intellect that are in the realm of time are

transcended.

 

The second problem is with experience - experience is time bound but

knowledge is not. I think I have I discussed this to some extent in my

Mandukya introductory notes. Here is the relavent part ..

.................

For our benefit, we can summarize the differences between knowledge and

experience.

a) Experience is time bound while knowledge is eternal.

b) Experience can be contradicted by another experience.

d) Relative knowledge is valid at relative level and not at absolute level.

e) One relative knowledge can supersede another relative knowledge (like

quantum

mechanics superseding classical mechanics).

f) Knowledge should resolve the contradictory experiences.

g) Absolute knowledge cannot be contradicted.

h) All knowledge we know of .. is an attributive knowledge.

i) Attributive knowledge is only relative knowledge.

j) All attributive knowledge is supported by the absolute knowledge.

k) Brahman, as well as the subject ‘I’ cannot be known, since both are not

objects to be known.

l) Brahman cannot be different from the subject ‘I’ since absolute infinite

cannot exclude anything.

m) Brahman is sat-chit-ananda and the subject ‘I’ is also sat-chit-ananda.

n) sat-chit-ananda is indivisible, and identity of Brahman and ‘I’, the

subject is established. MAnDUkya upaniShad confirms that the self ‘I’ is

Brahman, ‘ayam Atma Brahman’.

o) Objects have no other substantive other than Brahman. Moreover no other

substantives other than Brahman can exist, since Brahman is absolutely

infinite. Scriptures confirm that ‘sarvam khalvidam Brahma’, everything is

indeed Brahman. And ‘neha nAnAsti kincana’, there is nothing other than

Brahman.

p) If one sees some thing other than Brahman, then that is mithya. Since it

is seen, it is not asat, and since it is not real, it is not sat. Hence, it

is called mithya (sat asat vilaxanam).

q) Conversely, anything that is seen is mithya. Anything that is experienced

is mithya, since Brahman cannot be seen or experienced since it is not an

object for experience.

r) All objective knowledge is only attributive knowledge since substantive

Brahman cannot be perceived. Hence all attributive knowledge is mithya.

s) Ignorance is not knowing who I am, as a result of which taking what I am

not, as I am.

t) Bondage is due to the ignorance of my self. Because of this, I take

something other than myself as myself and suffer the consequence of that

misunderstanding. Liberation is knowing my self as myself and for that

Vedanta is the only pramANa or means of knowledge.

---------------

 

We have advaitic experience all the time when we go to deep sleep state -

but there is no knowledge of that experience. We are Brahman all the time -

but we have no knowledge that we are Brahman.

 

The question is- is there a particular time when we know what we are.

Whenever we are happy - we know what we are -we are happy - but we think

that happiness that we are is due something other than what we are - that is

strange is it not?

We do not accept what we are even when the Vedanta keep screaming at us.

The problem is our preconceived conclusion about ourselves. The so-called

self-realization is shift in our understanding - not in state - but our

opinion about ourselves. It is not a shift in time or space but knowledge -

hence it is not purusha tantrum. It has to happen - and that happening is

not in time or space bound since it is beyond the mind and thought - it is

because of which the mind can mind.

 

anubhava is used in communication that which cannot be communicated. I

cannot say I am experiencing myself as myself - I am- period. There is no

experiencer-experience duality in the so-called self-realization - self is,

period.

 

This is also one of the reason why if we use the term Nirvikalpa samaadhi as

experience - then it is not. That we have experience in deep sleep state.

One cannot say this nirvikalpa samaadhi differs from the other nirvikalpa

samaadhi - we are making a distinction in advaita anubhava - which is a

contradiction in terms.

 

Hence according to advaita - nirvikalpa samaadhi involves nirvikalpa jnaanam

- that is a clear non negatable understanding that I am beyond all vikalpa

- I am there all the time - with or without vikalpas - that is also then is

the sahaja samaadhi.

 

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>Anil <selfanil >

>advaitin

>advaitin

> date & time for the brahman realization!!

>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:54:07 -0700 (PDT)

>

>

> Namaskar

>

> I thank Shri Sadanandji for guidance on this subject.

> I would like to submit my thoughts on this extremely

> Important point of self-realization, which is achieved by a

> very very few persons, out of millions who seek.

> I would request learned members to excuse me for

> the poor knowledge of language.

 

_______________

Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=42.336065~-109.392273&style=r&lvl=4&scene=3712634&trfc=1

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram Shri Sadanandaji and all Satsang members,

What a nice way of teaching us...no words to express the " ananda " one experience while and after reading this ...

It is like a mathematical problem being solved in steps...

explained with such a clarity, I have no doubt every one of us who read it will say, how subject is explained in so simple way. Blessed are we to have such a Satsang with people like you, Lakshimiji, Subbuji and so many many from whom we could pick up some threads to work on.

many many thanks.

However, may I request you to kindly spare a little more time and explain the last para of your posting please. I would very humbly request you to kindly elaborate it

Namaskaram once again to you and every one in here

with Prayers

ram mohan

 

Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

This is also one of the reason why if we use the term Nirvikalpa samaadhi as

experience - then it is not. That we have experience in deep sleep state.

One cannot say this nirvikalpa samaadhi differs from the other nirvikalpa

samaadhi - we are making a distinction in advaita anubhava - which is a

contradiction in terms.

 

Hence according to advaita - nirvikalpa samaadhi involves nirvikalpa jnaanam

- that is a clear non negatable understanding that I am beyond all vikalpa

- I am there all the time - with or without vikalpas - that is also then is

the sahaja samaadhi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai

<pairamblr wrote:

>

> Namaskaram Shri Sadanandaji and all Satsang members,

>

> What a nice way of teaching us...no words to express the "

ananda " one experience while and after reading this ...

>

>>

> However, may I request you to kindly spare a little more time

and explain the last para of your posting please. I would very

humbly request you to kindly elaborate it

>

> >

> Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda wrote:

> This is also one of the reason why if we use the term

Nirvikalpa samaadhi as

> experience - then it is not. That we have experience in deep sleep

state.

> One cannot say this nirvikalpa samaadhi differs from the other

nirvikalpa

> samaadhi - we are making a distinction in advaita anubhava - which

is a

> contradiction in terms.

>

> Hence according to advaita - nirvikalpa samaadhi involves

nirvikalpa jnaanam

> - that is a clear non negatable understanding that I am beyond all

vikalpa

> - I am there all the time - with or without vikalpas - that is

also then is

> the sahaja samaadhi.

 

Namaste all

 

I wish all of us read once again the following post by Sadananda-ji

on Nirvikalpa and savikalpa (15 Oct 2002):

advaitin/message/14998

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda-ji and Smt Lakshmi-ji

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Beautiful explanation Lakshmiji - My PraNAms.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

Not so fast, Sadananda-ji. There is more coming :-)

 

 

>

> Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu

> .......

"That being the case it is entirely possible for remembrance of the

date and time of the disappearance of avidya"

>> This is not acceptable.

 

Actually Lakshmi-ji, your reply itself contains the answer as to why

it should be acceptable but let me elaborate.

 

>>

The very first time in the human janma, when one hears the word

brahman, or Atma, the teaching has already begun. How can one

remember when this happened?

>>

Agreed. Absolutely, 100%, no questions asked :-). And nobody is

asking you to remember that.

 

The big question is this: Did the teaching/jnana (you just heard

first time) completely uproot avidya and therefore terminate re-

birth? Did this jnana generate in you "Sarvatma bhava" identity with

all. If the answer is NO then that Jnana is still incomplete.

 

As Sankara says

//

However when prior to the realization of identity with all he sees

difference even so little as the tip of a hair in the form "I am not

this" THAT is the state of ignorance.

//

 

So, while the teaching may have begun it has not culminated in

complete disappearance of Avidya.

 

>>

As one grows, through the use of valid means of knowledge,

one sheds ignoranace ajn~Ana.

>>

>>

Or may be the individual has worked in the previous janmas and in

the present janma he has gained brahmajn~na very easily.

>>

 

So even if someone has gained jnana/'knowledge' in a previous

birth, that knowledge was not enough to terminate rebirths by the

very fact the person has a present janma. As Sri Ramana puts

it 'Unsteady jnana is not enough to check rebirths.'

 

The 'jnana' that is talked about in the Mandukya mantra I quoted is

different. This 'jnana' uproots Samsara IN ITS ENTIRETY

(atmanyanarthaprapancanivrittilakÀsanam phalam parisamaptam).

 

and this is the knowledge or vritti that destroys Avidya

instantaneously

 

// quote

Jnanasya dvaitanivrittiksanavyatirekana ksanantaranavasthanat

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

Beyond the Ksana instant at which there is (dvaitanivrirtti) the

cessation of Duality

// end quote

 

And that Jnani has no more re-births

//quote

(sarvathaa vartamaano.api sa yogii mayi vartate .. Gita 6\-31..)

he exist in Me-in whatever condition he may be.

 

The yogi, the man of full realization; vartate, exists; mayi, in Me,

in the supreme state of Visnu; sarvatha api, in whatever condition;

vartamanah, he may be. He is verily ever-free. The idea is that he

is not obstructed from Liberation by anything.

// unquote

 

Meaning there is no rebirth or Samsara for him after the dawn of

realization. Even if he goes into coma immediately or dies in an

accident or whatever. Note the words "The idea is that he is not

obstructed from Liberation by anything."

 

On the other hand, the teaching may have certainly begun, for the

very first time in the human janma, when one hears the word brahman,

or Atma, but the scriptures do not say their Samsara is uprooted and

there is no more rebirths etc for that person.

 

Summarizing, while it is true one may or may not remember all the

intermediary process;

the dawn of knowledge that sublates Avidya COMPLETELY (and

terminates samsara and rebirths) is a unique, stupendous,

unforgettable event.

 

One may not remember when one when to sleep but one can certainly

remember snapping awake from a bad dream  - as the quote from Sri

Ramana's near death experience pointed out

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Lakshmi Muthuswamy

<lakmuthu wrote:

"Neither by perceptual knowledge, nor by logic, nor by

intellectual reasoning this knowledge, nor by yoga,

nor by samadhi can be gained. Its a process. Though

all these help in gaining citta shuddhi and citta

naischalyam alone, preparing and refining the mind to

gain inner leisure to understand and assimilate the

teaching that "brahman is a siddha vastu which already

'IS'. Nothing ever new is to be gained. Even when one

is an ajn~Ani and ignorant of the fact, one is always

brahman." For this, one has to earn Atma kR^ipa,

shAstra kr^ipa, guru kR^ipa and isvara kr^ipa."

 

Pranams Lakshmi-ji

Wonderfully put.

 

There is a perception or perhaps an inference that any

person negating a separate "Brahman experience" as his

chosen goal is somehow vague about his sadhana or does

not have adequate mumukshutvam, wheras a seeker who

considers attaining nirvikalpa samadhi as verifiable

proof of him "being brahman" has teevra mumukshutvam,

and is a uttama adhikari. I disagree with this

perception.

 

I agree with you that the question of a

date,time,minute for realization is absurd. Does

anyone remember what dream date and dream time you

woke up from? Even if you were watching the clock in

your dream at the time you woke up, does that dream

date and time persist in having any meaning to you

when you wake up? A jnani or realized seer is Brahman.

You cannot ask "him" when "he" attained jnanam - His

answer, if he chooses to answer such a question, will

always be "I was never deluded!" - (emphasis on the

word "I")

 

To ascribe self-realization as a defining moment to a

jnani's life is ascribing avidya a reality it

unfortunately does not possess. Avidya is mithya. It

exists only from the standpoint of ignorance.

Can you ask the rope "when did you know you were no

longer a snake"

There was/is/will be no snake - period - where is the

question of knowing when a nonexistent snake ceased to

exist??

Not only is avidya beginingless it also does not enjoy

any subtantive existence per se. The concept of avidya

is just that - a concept - it has its use in

explaining creation to the ignorant and in helping him

deal with this problem of searching for his true

identity but beyond that it does not enjoy a

subtantive existence. If it did it could never be

destroyed. The fact that it is as though destroyed

shows that it never really "existed" to begin with.

 

Now the question of knowledge vs experience.

Sadananda-ji's post is full to the brim of a detailed

analysis of this.

I will add a very humble, unscholarly perspective.

 

These are two examples well known to vedantic

students.

A college student, as leaves his home everyday, sees

some beautiful flowers in his garden. They are large

and red and it pleases him to look at them. In his

class he is taught about a beautiful plant called

Hibiscus (pardon my poor botany knowledge!) and given

a very detailed description of it. One day his teacher

visits his house and tells him - you have a wonderful

Hibiscus plant in your garden. He is astonished. Is

this really the Hibiscus flower he had been studying

in class. Yes affirms the teacher, smiling. "This

indeed is that!" In that sentence - "This is That" the

students ignorance about the identity of that

beuatiful flower is gone. Now what was he experiencing

all along?? Only the Hibiscus flower. Will the

Hibiscus flower look any different to him now that he

knows it is a Hibiscus flower - will its beauty be

enhanced or diminished one tiny bit? No. Will he ever

be in doubt that it is not a Hibiscus flower if he has

shraddha in the words of his teacher? Of course not.

Will he or did he need a separate Hibiscus flower

experience to know this. No. Before knowing it was a

Hibiscus flower what was he experiencing? A hibiscus

flower.

 

The second and very famous example is given by

Bhagwaan Sankara Himself in his chapter tat tvam asi

(Ch18) of the Upadesa Sahasri.

And this is the 10th man example.

It needs no retelling but just to re"count" - 10 men

cross the river and a head count is established to

make sure everyone crossed over safely.

The person counting can only count till 9 each time.

One benevolent passerby comes by and says let me help

you and counts the ten men and says "That 10th man you

were searching for is you. That thou art"

Again this is the example given by Bh. Sankara in one

of the most important chapters of one of his most

comprehensive works. What does this indicate? That for

the 10th man, knowledge imparted was not about a new

object, was not about a new experience. It was only

removal of his ignorance about he himself being the

very same self he had been searching all along!

 

[This chapter actually helps wonderfully clarify many

of the confusions we are dealing with in our

discussions as well, as do the upanishadic references

it contains.]

 

And so it is with selfignorance and selfknowledge. I

am so-and-so is my ignorance for now. I need a Guru to

say "tat tvam asi" and knowledge dawns - about whom?

about me. in whom? in me.

It is a question of "getting it"

Now is it easy? Is it book knowledge? Of course not.

Why not? Because it needs adhikaritvam. It needs a

prepared mind.

E = mc2 is knowledge. But to impart it to a student he

needs to be prepared for that knowledge.

Once he is fully prepared his teachers explanations

will work. He may still have some lingering doubts

after an inital understanding but finally at some

stage his knowledge crystallises by a complete and

permanent removal of his ignorance about this

equation.

Now what is the preparation for brahmavidya - an

antahkaranam that has been purified by sadhana - that

is all. [but what a "that is all" it is!!!] What are

the qualities we need to be considered uttama

adhikaris. These the shastras themselves outline -

viveka vairagya mumukshutvam and shamaadi shat

sampatt- shama, dama, upariti, shraddha, titiksha,

and samadhana. Please not ability to repeatedly

achieve trance-like states such as samadhi is not one

of these qualifications. How long will it take to

cultivate these qualities? Who knows - for some it

could all be in place. For most others - it takes

years and years, sometimes decades, sometimes even

lifetimes and janmas to cultivate. When we say we are

doing sadhana as vedantins - what does it mean? The

most important sadhana is introspect and recognize

which of these qualities we most lack and hastily but

patiently work towards improving on our deficiencies

as Swami Chinmayananda-ji says in his book Self

Unfoldment - "hasten but slowly"!

No one needs absolute values of these to be considered

a uttama-adhikari - only a realized seer would have

all of these values in absolute measure. But certainly

without these values in abundance no hope of

assimilating vedantic knowledge can ever be

entertained.

 

Previously brahmavidya was only imparted to uttama

adhikaris by a shrotriya brahmanishta after "verifying

their credentials" or helping their acquire them in an

ashram by the Guru. So students were initially given

menial tasks like sorting husk, cleaning the ashram,

etc and such to build up their adhikaritvam (- again

training in yogic techniques to attain nirvikalpa

samadhi may not necessarily have been part of this

training!). Only when the Guru was confident that the

student had the necessary shatsampatti in adequate

measure was the teaching initiated. In such a context,

the teaching of tat tvam asi can hit the mark with

ease and the teaching itself be fruitful ere long.

 

The modern context of vedantic teaching thanks to the

digital revolution is an "open access" teaching. All

the texts, commentaries, subcommentaries, glosses, etc

are freely available. Mysticism has in many places

replaced tradition. Now we have a unprepared student

with intellectual knowledge. Intellectual doubts about

the teaching are cleared away even before internal

purification has commenced. What sadhana should

someone like this do? The answer is obvious. Build up

shama dama etc. And also do mananam and nidhidhyasanam

For what? Will some new knowledge be gained at the

end? No. What will be gained will be nishta in this

knowledge. Along the process old doubts may reappear

and hitherto unknown doubts may appear. These need to

be processed and resolved with the help of Guru and

selfeffort. It is a continuous series of selfeffort,

selfeffort, and selfeffort - at every step of the way.

For this one of the shatsampattis - samadhana -

ability of the mind to focus on the teaching - becomes

vital. When will samadhana become more polished - when

shama dama upariti and titiksha become very strong -

their order of listing is wonderfully accurate! With

samadhana, with singlepointed focus he needs to dwell

upon the words tat tvam asi. Every pore of his inner

faculty needs to be filled to the brim with this

knowledge till it is no longer necessary for him to

remind himself of this truth from moment to moment,

his selfknowledge is permanent, and he is no longer

under the so called "clutches of avidya". [This

dwelling on the words tat tvam asi is not to be

confused with the yogic attainment of nirvikalpa

samadhi by a process of stoppage of mental activity.

In fact mental activity is very much made use of in

this process of dwelling on tat tvam asi.] Such a

person is then a "Seer". [Now again in such a case,

how can a time frame be assigned to his

self-realization??] Again, his knowledge even then is

no different from tat tvam asi. His experience of

himself is no different from what it always has been.

But now without effort he knows that when his body

feels pain, he is still poornam. He is the substratum

that enables the body/mind to experience anything and

everything - pleasure as well as pain. He is bliss not

in an experiential way of a bliss that is opposed to

nonbliss or sadness but in a sense of completeness

that transcends time. The dosha with everyday bliss is

that it is timebound. This is why it is not bliss -

because it is subject to decay. What is not subject to

decay is sat, and hence it is ananta or endless or

limitless and hence it is alone that it is bliss. Now

this abidance in Himself - you want to call it samadhi

or sahaja samadhi - thats fine. Call it jnanam? -

thats also fine. Whatever you want to call it,

understanding what it is is what is important.

 

The trouble in awaiting a mystic brahman experience or

having that as one's goal is that avidya may let go of

you but you may not let go of avidya! There is a

sentence in Ashtavakra Gita -" If the mind thinks it

is bound there is bondage. If the mind thinks it is

free there is freedom" It is more profound than it

sounds of course - but Swami Chinmayananda-jji used to

give this wonderful illustration in his inimitable

style of a person holding tightly to the trunk of a

tree, and crying out "help, I am stuck to this tree!"

and the Guru patiently telling him "let go of the tree

- let go of the tree" and the man retorting "but i am

stuck to the tree - how can I let go?!"

 

I will end by repeating Smt Lakshmijis wonderful

words, only in a prayer.

May Atma kR^ipa, shAstra kr^ipa, guru kR^ipa and

isvara kr^ipa be on each and every one of us.

 

I also want to extend my heartiest congratulations and

gratitude and very best wishes to the moderators and

creators of this wonderful wonderful e-group - I like

to think of it as the "Rishikesh" of the virtual

world.

 

Let me take this opportunity to extend my sashtang

pranams to all the wonderful learned and noble souls,

who take time away from their lives and more

importantly from their sadhana, and post here on a

regular basis and provide us a wonderful oppurtunity

to grow, evolve and enrich our spiritual lives.

 

Shri Gurubhyo namah

 

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

If self-knowledge occurs in the mind, and if

the mind is subject to time, then why would

there not be a 'moment' or instant when

self-knowledge occurs in the mind, or perhaps

more correctly stated, when self-ignorance is

destroyed?

 

My teacher has often said, "It is the mind

which has the problem (ignorance), and it

is the mind which needs the solution

(knowledge). Brahman has no problem."

 

So from the point of view of Brahman,

the absolute, of course there is no

time, and no problem. From the point of

view of the jnani who knows that he or she is

Brahman, then that person knows directly that

there was never a point in time that they were

not Brahman.

 

But from the point of view of the mind

which had the ignorance, and which

gained the knowledge, or which recognized

what was always the case, it seems to me

that time does apply, as the mind is subject

to time.

 

Previously the mind did not know what

was true, now it does. When the wise

old man tells the boy, "You are the tenth man."

does the boy's instant recognition of

what was always the case take place in

time or not? It seems to me that it does.

 

It is the mind which has the problem,

and the mind which needs the solution.

 

If we want to take it to another level,

we could say there is no problem, and

there never was. That indeed is also

true. But tell that to an ajnani who

is suffering due to incorrectly identifying

Brahman with the body/mind. That information

is not much use to that person.

 

"You are already free. Go in peace.

You are already that which you seek."

Those types of statements only made me

feel worse.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadananda-ji,

 

> (This is actually the topic of my talk tomorrow as

> Shree Ram Chandran announced on the list, to my own surprise).

 

Good luck with your talk. Sounds very interesting. Let me know when

you are in Sacramento, Bay area next time. Would like to have you

over for a talk etc.

 

BTW What TIME is this talk? Is this beyond time, Brahmaji's time,

Deva's time :-) just kidding.

 

>>

Ignorance is

not something you can remove - it gets removed with gaining clear

non-negatable knowledge. It is like darkness - with a dimmer switch

operating. As you turn slowly the small incandacent light turning

into its

full glory. Can you say when the darkness is fully removed? Even the

darkness that I saw was only in the light of consciousness that I

am.

>>

 

This is a very nice example and I was thinking about something

similar when I was going over Mandukya 7th mantra - a dark room,

yes, but not with a dimmer switch but a regular on/off switch :-)

 

The dimmer switch example beautifully explains how avidya gradually

reduces.

 

Reminds me of Bhagavatpadal's words about Avidya I read somewhere

(appreciate if anyone in the group can post the actual text or

reference)

// quote

Vidyayam utkrishya manayam..

 

Avidya automatically decreases as knowledge improves and when

knowledge reaches the zenith with the accomplishment of "Sarvatma

bhava" identity with all avidya goes away totally "sarvatmana

nivarthate"

 

Yatthuu sarvatma bhava arva..

 

However when prior to the realization of identity with all he sees

difference even so little as the tip of a hair in the form "I am not

this" THAT is the state of ignorance. Only when Avidya is totally

eradicated by the realization "I am Brahman therefore I am ALL" is

avidya said to have gone totally and the person is said to be fully

and truly realized.

 

// end quote

 

The problem with the dimmer switch example is with 'rebirth'.

 

'Rebirth' requires boolean logic: A Jnani HAS NO rebirth and a

Ajnani HAS to be re-born. No choices here. There is no middle

ground - there is no graduated birth process. There can't be a

partial re-birth for a partial ajnani.

 

A Jnani has no re-birth because his Avidya is totally sublated.

Hopefully you see by this time the complication(s). Is there a

specific point in the dimmer switch example you can determine when

Avidya fully vanished?.

 

Let us say the process started around 9:00 AM - if the removal of

Avidya was gradual and lasted say 1 hour (all these are examples so

please don't beat me up on this!).

 

Is HE realized at 9:05 AM, 9:20 AM, 9:55 AM, 9:59 AM?

 

If you say 'Who cares', the answer is 'Yama'. Poor Yama has to make

a determination if this person if going to be thrown back into

Samsara or let go as a free bird!. The final awakwening, the FINAL,

complete destruction of Avidya and termination of Samsara has to be

instantaneous.

 

This is why Sankara's comments on the Mandukya 7th Mantra are so

significant. I have heard there are similar descriptions by Sri

Sureshwaracharya on this subject..

 

// quote

Sankara provides a brilliant insight into the final process of

realization. However many years, births, kalpas someone might have

performed Sadhana, the final awakening IS instantaneous, momentous

and an unforgettable event. Like snapping awake from a dream.

 

Jnanasya dvaitanivrittiksanavyatirekana

ksanantaranavasthanat

 

Liberating 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)

 

Compare the words of Sankara above to a 20th century example of Self

realization (Sri Ramana):

>>

>From that moment onwards the `I' or Self, focused attention on

Itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death had vanished

once and for all. ABSORPTION IN THE SELF CONTINUED UNBROKEN FROM

THAT TIME ON.

// end quote

 

>>

To give a simple example - can you tell when you exactly go to sleep

chronologically? It is a shift from a waking state to a dream or

deep sleep

state- is it not? Some time one slowly glides into deep sleep state

as one

becomes sleepy. Some go through a prolonged drowsy state but has not

slept

yet. You do call him he slept but characterize him as he is sleepy.

Once he

sleeps, the mind and intellect that are in the realm of time are

transcended.

>>

 

The scriptures give the example of snapping awake from the terrible

dream of Samsara or darkness of delusion, not going back to 'sleep',

Sri Sadanandji. I agree that we don't when we exactly go to sleep

but that is not the case with waking up.

 

// Sankara at the end of Mandukya bhasya

I make obeisance with my whole being to those holy feet—the

dispellers of the fear of the chain of births and deaths—of my own

great teacher, who, through the light of his illumined wisdom,

destroyed the "darkness of delusion" enveloping my mind; who put an

end, for ever, to my appearance and disappearance in this terrible

ocean of innumerable births and deaths; and who enables all others,

too, that take shelter at his feet, to attain unfailing knowledge of

the scriptures, peace and the state of perfect non—differentiation.

//

 

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

 

 

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Namaste, minor correction please

 

If you say 'Who cares', the answer is 'Yama'. Poor Yama has to make

a determination if this person is going to be thrown back into

Samsara or let go as a free bird (if the person dies during the

process)!.

 

Thanks

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

 

ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr >

 

However, may I request you to kindly spare a little more time and explain the last para of your posting please. I would very humbly request you to kindly elaborate it

Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda@ hotmail.com> wrote:

This is also one of the reason why if we use the term Nirvikalpa samaadhi as

experience - then it is not. That we have experience in deep sleep state.

One cannot say this nirvikalpa samaadhi differs from the other nirvikalpa

samaadhi - we are making a distinction in advaita anubhava - which is a

contradiction in terms.

 

Hence according to advaita - nirvikalpa samaadhi involves nirvikalpa jnaanam

- that is a clear non negatable understanding that I am beyond all vikalpa

- I am there all the time - with or without vikalpas - that is also then is

the sahaja samaadhi.

---------------------

 

 

Shree Ram Mohan ji - PraNAms.

 

 

The last two paragraphs actually follow the above statements. Realization is not an experience but knowledge about myself. Hence description that it is an experience falls short of it - since in any experience there is an experiencer and experienced duality. Here the knowledge is not knowledge of where there is knower and the known - that comes under relative knowledge. This is knowledge itself - as consciousness principle. Hence all knowledge of or all objective knowledge sublimates into pure knowledge that I am. Hence Knowledge also cannot be defined, and what ever that can be defined is only objective knowledge.

The above paragraphs pertain to the discussion that is going on Nirvikalpa samaadhi. If the term means an experience of some state - then it involves an experience and not necessarily knowledge. If vikalpa involves thought process then nirvikalpa samaadhi involves a quite mind similar to the deep sleep state where there is anubhava of advaita - non-duality. Hence it is called anandamaya and not ananda swruupa as Shankara points out in his bhAshya. If sleep is advaita anubhava and also if nirvikalpa samaadhi is advaita anubhava - then, is there any difference between the two anubhavas? If it is advaita anubhava then there cannot be two types of advaita anubhavas - we are creating a duality in non-dual experience. That is what I meant by self-contradiction.

Actually realization involves understanding that there is nothing other than consciousness-existence that I am. That is what Mandukya analyses - both microcosm and macrocosm are nothing but the existence-consciousness that I am. Hence in that there is no vikalpa. From Brahman point there is no duality - all dualities exist in Brahman as apparent but not real. Even those appearances are only from the point of vyavahaara. Hence Nirvikalpa samaadhi is realization that I am is beyond any vikalpas or dualities. I am non-dual in spite of duality. Hence it is not absence or elimination of duality but transcendence of duality. I am non-dual in spite of apparent duality- just as I am gold in spite of existence as different verities of ornaments. I am in all ornaments but I am different from all the ornaments. I am one without a second. The apparent second do not count. Hence Krishna says I am in all of them yet I am different from all of them- Look at my Glory Arjuna.

That is jnaanam and that is Nirvikalpa samaadhi or sahaja samaadhi - or self-realization or God realization - or just BEING.

 

Self-ignorance can be eliminated by self-knowledge - it is as simple as that. Everything else is only preparatory for the mind to get rid of worng notions about oneself. We should not get confused the means for purification of the mind with the ultimate goal. Vedanta teaches through mahavaakya the essence of this teaching. The rest is all clarification to understand this simple truth. If we understand the mahavaakyas we have understood the essence - the rest is preparatory to internalize that knowledge that we understand.

 

 

Hope I am clear.

 

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Durgaji PraNAms.

 

In the self-realization - it is also realzed that there is no mind other

than I am. I am that Brahman that is one without a second. I am the mind

too and I am that beyond the mind - the total mind that is Iswara. Hence all

notional thoughts drop out in the clear understanding - that includes the

notion of time and space too. I am not in time and space but time and space

are in me. All thoughts in me, nay the whole world is in me - Look at my

Glory. And that is the knowledge of self-realization.

sarva bhutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanica aatmani - or

yo maam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati -

Self in all all in oneself or who sees me everywhere and everything in me -

that is the clear understanding of I am.

 

Hope it is clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

>"Durga" <durgaji108 >

>advaitin

>advaitin

> Re: date & time for the brahman realization!!

>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:55:13 -0000

>

>Namaste,

>

>If self-knowledge occurs in the mind, and if

>the mind is subject to time, then why would

>there not be a 'moment' or instant when

>self-knowledge occurs in the mind, or perhaps

>more correctly stated, when self-ignorance is

>destroyed?

>

 

_______________

Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo

ttp://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com/

[Guest guest]

Pranams Sundar-ji

Why such care about Lord Yama??

 

As Bhagwaan says

Asochyan anvasochastvam pragnyavaadaams cha

bhasase..!!

 

Mumuskhutvam is definitely a wonderful and necessary

trait,

BUT at the same time fear of death/rebirth as an

impediment to selfknowledge is totally unrequired.

 

The only samsara is ones false-sense of separation

from the whole, and the only liberation consists in

realizing your nonseparateness from the whole.

 

This being the case even if death precedes your full

and complete attainment of selfknowledge what makes

you think that it will result in your sadhana going

waste like a burst cloud?

 

Will not the same Laws of Ishwara and His Grace that

brought you up to this stage continue to resolutely

work in your favor and get you to your goal?? Why not

have at least this much trust in Him?

Be like Markandeya and rest secure at His altar - then

there is no fear!!

 

Once there is selfknowledge then let there be a

million births - who cares? - it is not rebirth which

is a problem, it is rebirth with a false sense of

separateness and hence limitedness from the whole that

is the problem..is it not?

 

My very best wishes and pranams

Shyam

 

 

 

 

--- Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan > wrote:

 

 

> If you say 'Who cares', the answer is 'Yama'. Poor

> Yama has to make

> a determination if this person is going to be

> thrown back into

> Samsara or let go as a free bird (if the person

> dies during the

> process)!.

>

> Thanks

> Sundar Rajan

>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbuji, Shyamji, Sunder Rajan-ji et al.

 

I have been perusing the labyrinthine deliberations on this and other

related threads and compelled to present the following understanding

of mine. Please bear with me if I am wrong.

 

We have a habit of using `samAdhi' as a state into which we enter and

then emerge out. That is a basic misconception.

 

The truth is that we (the real we) are samAdhi all the time (not in

samAdhi). Vedanta teaches us this fact without an iota of doubt.

 

That Vedanta has to teach us this shows that there is a need for the

teaching. So, without any doubt, there is a person to be taught.

Let us call him `A1'. `A1' thus is the person who needs the

knowledge of himself, who should be taught who he really is.

 

Any teaching has to really and effectively sink in for the desired

knowledge or understanding to occur. `A1', through vedantic

teaching, realizes that he is really `A' – the one-without-a-second

Self that is beyond change and attributes - and that `A1' is or has

been a non-existent (miTyA) superimposition on the changeless `A'

(like snake on rope).

 

`A' , who is beyond change, has never changed into `A1'. `A1' is

known as non-existent like the snake on the rope (miTyA) and, as

such, there is actually no need for `A1' to change back into `A'. He

is and has always been `A' whether he misunderstands himself as `A1'

or not.

 

The clearing of the misunderstanding can be said to occur at a point

in space-time and, from `A1's' point of view, there is justification

in considering his realization as an event in space-time. But, A1

has always been non-existent (miTyA) and his point of view can't

therefore escape miTyAtwam.

 

Thus, it derives that time-space is relevant only to miTya or

essential ingredient of miTya. Realization then becomes the removal

of this miTyAtwam superimposition on Truth with which space-time also

disappears. In other words, there is no space-time in realization.

The removal of a non-existent thing is no removal at all! That is

why the misunderstanding (ignorance) is termed anAdi, where anAdi is

to be understood as describing something that has not actually begun

for it to have an end.

 

To say the same thing differently, realization or liberation NEVER

TAKES PLACE as `A' has never been unrealized or bound. `A' is always

samAdhi.

 

Then, why these nirvikalpa and sahaja samAdhis?

 

Let us consider an example for `A' – Bhgawan Ramana Maharshi.

 

He is awake. We (A1s) see him dealing with the world. Yet, He is He

(`A' is `A' inspite of all the apparent transactions.). Bhagwan is

now in sahajasamAdhi, whereas an A1 performing the same transactions

would be operating in total ignorance of his real nature. He is

just wakeful. Bhagwan's wakefulness from the point of view of and in

the language of A1 is sahajasamAdhi where he is firmly wakeful only

to his real nature!

 

When there is no apparent world (vikalpAs) for Bhagwan to perform

apparent transactions, he is in nirvikalpa samAdhi. A1 in the same

position would be fast asleep. Bhagwan's sleep from the point of

view and in the language of A1 is nirvikalpa samAdhi, where he is

fully wakefully (wakeful to his real nature) 'asleep'!

 

Bhagwan is always fully awake to himself. Sahaja and nirvikalpa are

just adjectives for the convenience of `A1', who is hell-bent on

explaining the differences in Bhagwan's apparent perambulations and

dispositions. `A1' gropes in total darkness both in frenetic

wakefulness and fitful sleep.

 

Despite the above difference, Bhagwan and A1 are really always

samAdhi (not in samAdhi). They are both the same `A'. The initial

plural pronoun and verb (They are) are miTya. Only `A' is all there

is. That is the advaitic Truth.

 

Thus, the realized one `wakes' into sahaja samAdhi and `sleeps' into

nirvikalpa samAdhi and is ever always wakeful to the Self.

 

Whether samAdhi is needed for self-realization or not is now

anybody's guess. The realized one can't just escape `it' because he

is it.

 

This I understand is what Subbuji wanted to tell us through his

lengthy story of the Master and disciple having nirvikalpa samAdhi.

If I am wrong, Subbuji, please feel free to bash and correct me.

Afterall, I am still 'A1' and ignorance is my birth-right!

 

Kindly read my post 25725 of 15.01.05 for Sw. Dayanandaji's

clarification on experience in self-knowledge.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Nairji.

You have put it beautifully. We are samAdhi all the time, i.e. we are

brahman all the time. But we do not know it. vedAnta makes us realize what

we really are.

S.N.Sastri

 

 

On 9/2/06, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbuji, Shyamji, Sunder Rajan-ji et al.

>

> I have been perusing the labyrinthine deliberations on this and other

> related threads and compelled to present the following understanding

> of mine. Please bear with me if I am wrong.

>

> We have a habit of using `samAdhi' as a state into which we enter and

> then emerge out. That is a basic misconception.

>

> The truth is that we (the real we) are samAdhi all the time (not in

> samAdhi). Vedanta teaches us this fact without an iota of doubt.

>

> That Vedanta has to teach us this shows that there is a need for the

> teaching. So, without any doubt, there is a person to be taught.

> Let us call him `A1'. `A1' thus is the person who needs the

> knowledge of himself, who should be taught who he really is.

>

> Any teaching has to really and effectively sink in for the desired

> knowledge or understanding to occur. `A1', through vedantic

> teaching, realizes that he is really `A' – the one-without-a-second

> Self that is beyond change and attributes - and that `A1' is or has

> been a non-existent (miTyA) superimposition on the changeless `A'

> (like snake on rope).

>

> `A' , who is beyond change, has never changed into `A1'. `A1' is

> known as non-existent like the snake on the rope (miTyA) and, as

> such, there is actually no need for `A1' to change back into `A'. He

> is and has always been `A' whether he misunderstands himself as `A1'

> or not.

>

> The clearing of the misunderstanding can be said to occur at a point

> in space-time and, from `A1's' point of view, there is justification

> in considering his realization as an event in space-time. But, A1

> has always been non-existent (miTyA) and his point of view can't

> therefore escape miTyAtwam.

>

> Thus, it derives that time-space is relevant only to miTya or

> essential ingredient of miTya. Realization then becomes the removal

> of this miTyAtwam superimposition on Truth with which space-time also

> disappears. In other words, there is no space-time in realization.

> The removal of a non-existent thing is no removal at all! That is

> why the misunderstanding (ignorance) is termed anAdi, where anAdi is

> to be understood as describing something that has not actually begun

> for it to have an end.

>

> To say the same thing differently, realization or liberation NEVER

> TAKES PLACE as `A' has never been unrealized or bound. `A' is always

> samAdhi.

>

> Then, why these nirvikalpa and sahaja samAdhis?

>

> Let us consider an example for `A' – Bhgawan Ramana Maharshi.

>

> He is awake. We (A1s) see him dealing with the world. Yet, He is He

> (`A' is `A' inspite of all the apparent transactions.). Bhagwan is

> now in sahajasamAdhi, whereas an A1 performing the same transactions

> would be operating in total ignorance of his real nature. He is

> just wakeful. Bhagwan's wakefulness from the point of view of and in

> the language of A1 is sahajasamAdhi where he is firmly wakeful only

> to his real nature!

>

> When there is no apparent world (vikalpAs) for Bhagwan to perform

> apparent transactions, he is in nirvikalpa samAdhi. A1 in the same

> position would be fast asleep. Bhagwan's sleep from the point of

> view and in the language of A1 is nirvikalpa samAdhi, where he is

> fully wakefully (wakeful to his real nature) 'asleep'!

>

> Bhagwan is always fully awake to himself. Sahaja and nirvikalpa are

> just adjectives for the convenience of `A1', who is hell-bent on

> explaining the differences in Bhagwan's apparent perambulations and

> dispositions. `A1' gropes in total darkness both in frenetic

> wakefulness and fitful sleep.

>

> Despite the above difference, Bhagwan and A1 are really always

> samAdhi (not in samAdhi). They are both the same `A'. The initial

> plural pronoun and verb (They are) are miTya. Only `A' is all there

> is. That is the advaitic Truth.

>

> Thus, the realized one `wakes' into sahaja samAdhi and `sleeps' into

> nirvikalpa samAdhi and is ever always wakeful to the Self.

>

> Whether samAdhi is needed for self-realization or not is now

> anybody's guess. The realized one can't just escape `it' because he

> is it.

>

> This I understand is what Subbuji wanted to tell us through his

> lengthy story of the Master and disciple having nirvikalpa samAdhi.

> If I am wrong, Subbuji, please feel free to bash and correct me.

> Afterall, I am still 'A1' and ignorance is my birth-right!

>

> Kindly read my post 25725 of 15.01.05 for Sw. Dayanandaji's

> clarification on experience in self-knowledge.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbuji, Shyamji, Sunder Rajan-ji et al.

 

Whether samAdhi is needed for self-realization or not is now

> anybody's guess. The realized one can't just escape `it' because

he is it.

 

[ Pranams Nair ji,

Once again, it is joyful to see the characteristic conciliatory tone

in your post. My point was 'what is that transition that makes a man

in ignorance a man of realization ?']

 

 

This I understand is what Subbuji wanted to tell us through his

> lengthy story of the Master and disciple having nirvikalpa samAdhi.

If I am wrong, Subbuji, please feel free to bash and correct me.

> Afterall, I am still 'A1' and ignorance is my birth-right!

 

[it is also bliss !!]

 

 

[if i am allowed to lift a line from your earlier post and re-present

it with a minor change, it would look like this:

"Any day, I like to go with the anubhUti-wallahs". What necessitates

the change, in my 'understanding' is, 'understanding' is paroksha

jnanam and 'anubhUti' is aparoksha jnanam.]

 

Pranams.

subbu

Om Tat Sat

 

 

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

[Guest guest]

SUBBUJI!

 

AND ANY DAY, I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH YOU, FOR I DON'T NOW KNOW

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNDERSTANDING AND EXPERIENCE, BOTH HAVING

MERGED WITHIN EACH OTHER LIKE PROTOPLASM WITHOUT CELL BOUNDARIES!

 

THE ULTIMATE TRANSITION IS WITHIN MITHYA AS ALSO THE ULTIMATE

UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNDERSTANDINGWALLAHS. I MEAN THE OCCURRENCE OF

IT (UNDERSTANDING), NOT THE KNOWLEDGE ITSELF WHICH WE ARE ANY WAY ALL

THE TIME. I DO, THEREFORE, APPRECIATE THE ULTIMATE TRANSITION FULLY

AS A MITHYAWALLAH AS I DO THE ULTIMATE UNDRSTANDING AS AN

UNDERSTANDINGWALLAH! AS SELF, I CAN'T REMAIN A 'WALLAH' AND,

THEREFORE, WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF AGREEING OR DISAGREENING WITH

ANYBODY? NO DISAGREEMENTS THEREFORE WITH ANYBODY.

 

THANKS, PRANAMS AND REGARDS. WELL, ALL THESE THREE WORDS HAVE MERGED

WITHIN ONE ANOTHER FOR THE ADVAITIN IN ME. MAY I, THEREFORE, REMAIN

A HUMBLE SALUTATION TO YOU ALL ADVAITINS LIKE THE LAMP INSIDE THE

MANY-HOLED POT OF DAKSHINAMURTHYASHTAKAM? OH, WHAT PEACE AND

FULLNESS!

 

MADATHIL NAIR

__________________

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

.....My point was 'what is that transition that makes a man

> in ignorance a man of realization ?']

>

>

>....>

> [if i am allowed to lift a line from your earlier post and re-

present

> it with a minor change, it would look like this:

> "Any day, I like to go with the anubhUti-wallahs". What

necessitates

> the change, in my 'understanding' is, 'understanding' is paroksha

> jnanam and 'anubhUti' is aparoksha jnanam.]

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> SUBBUJI!

>

 

> THE ULTIMATE TRANSITION IS WITHIN MITHYA AS ALSO THE ULTIMATE

> UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNDERSTANDINGWALLAHS. I MEAN THE OCCURRENCE OF

> IT (UNDERSTANDING), NOT THE KNOWLEDGE ITSELF WHICH WE ARE ANY WAY ALL

> THE TIME.

 

Namaste Nair ji,

 

You have said it !!

 

Many thanks,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Hence according to advaita - nirvikalpa samaadhi involves nirvikalpa

jnaanam

- that is a clear non negatable understanding that I am beyond all vikalpa

- I am there all the time - with or without vikalpas - that is also then is

the sahaja samaadhi

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You have clarified the difference between anubhava (experience) & jnAna

(knowledge) beautifully prabhuji without any trace of ambiguity. Infact,

if one studies deeply the tattu samanvayaat adhikarana, he will come to

know shankara's stand on purusha tantra *anubhava* and vastu tantra

*jnAna*.

 

Somebody might argue that shankara explicitly endorses *samAdhi* in gIta

bhAshya...but it will be interesting to note that shankara talks about

samAdhi as you said above *nirvikalpa jnAnaM (vikalpa-varjitA manaH). No

doubt, it's agreed that gitA talks about *achalatva* of samAdhi but

shankara in his bhAshya makes it clear that *acalA tatrApi vikalpa varjitA

ityE tat* after talking about sAdhya & sAdhana (shruti vipratipannA anEka

sAdhya sAdhana saMbhanDha prakASana shrutibhiH etc.). Going through the

context, here samAdhi cannot be meant patanjali's *achala nirvikalpa

samAdhi or asaMprajnAtha samAdhi or nirbIja samAdhi* here samAdhi is the

implicit meaning of Atma jnAna itself which has been explained as *adhyAtma

yOga in kAtaka shruti. Arjuna's forthcoming queries confirm this. He

asks the lord sthitha pragnasya kA bhAsha, kim AsIta, kim vrajEta etc. If

bhagavan what is meant here is ashtANga yoga's achala samAdhi, then

arjuna's question & bhagavan's subsequent answers do not make any sense to

the context.

 

Further, in *samAdhyabhavAchha* brahmasUtra commentary, shankara tells us

that presuming the sAdhaka's sense of oneself as a doer (katrutva bhAva),

samAdhi is taught as the means to know the real Self, and quotes chAndogya

sentence, "sa anveShTavyas sa vijijnAsitavyaH" along with muNDaka and

bRhadAraNyaka quotations. In the relevant commentary on chAndogya upanishad

itself, he says, "anveShTavya vijijnAsitavya iti cha

niyama vidhir eva." But again here also context has the paramount

importance to understand shankara siddhAnta. According to strict advaitic

sense, as we know, jIva is only a notional concept and if the jIva concept

itself *avidyAkrutam* where is the question of his sAdhanA-s & his

attainment of NS ?? Here jIva has been accepted as kartru just to complete

the formalities in karma vidhi and NOT to uphold patanjali's NS!! IMHO, it

is highly impossible for us to say that shankara endorsing here NS/AS of

patanjali & saying NS/AS is also one of the valid means to realise our true

nature. Because, shruti mAta, time & again throwing her verdict on the face

of us that Atma tattva is NOT an extraneous thing that can be realized at

some point of time!!!

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

"Kuntimaddi Sadananda" >

>

>

> Durgaji PraNAms.

>

> In the self-realization - it is also realized, that there is no mind other

> than I am. I am that Brahman that is one without a second. I am the mind

> too and I am that beyond the mind - the total mind that is Iswara. Hence all

> notional thoughts drop out in the clear understanding - that includes the

> notion of time and space too. I am not in time and space but time and space

> are in me.

 

 

Namaste

 

I sense a difference between the 'consciousness' of Meher Baba and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. IMO the later realized BrahmaJnana; realized Ramana's "Self" with the attributes you are describing here, OTOH I sense a god-like ego-stance, self-consciousness in MB, also when he talks about Self-realization

 

Do you think, tha there is an intermediate state before BrahmaJnana called Self-realization ?

 

 

 

 

All thoughts in me, nay the whole world is in me - Look at my

> Glory. And that is the knowledge of self-realization.

> sarva bhutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanica aatmani - or

> yo maam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati -

> Self in all all in oneself or who sees me everywhere and everything in me -

> that is the clear understanding of I am.

>

> Hope it is clear.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

<durgaji108

> >Namaste,

> >

> >If self-knowledge occurs in the mind, and if

> >the mind is subject to time, then why would

> >there not be a 'moment' or instant when

> >self-knowledge occurs in the mind, or perhaps

> >more correctly stated, when self-ignorance is

> >destroyed?

> >

 

Era

[Guest guest]

Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

> <lakmuthu@> wrote:

> "Neither by perceptual knowledge, nor by logic, nor by

> intellectual reasoning this knowledge, nor by yoga,

> nor by samadhi can be gained. Its a process. Though

> all these help in gaining citta shuddhi and citta

> naischalyam alone, preparing and refining the mind to

> gain inner leisure to understand and assimilate the

> teaching that "brahman is a siddha vastu which already

> 'IS'. Nothing ever new is to be gained. Even when one

> is an ajn~Ani and ignorant of the fact, one is always

> brahman." For this, one has to earn Atma kR^ipa,

> shAstra kr^ipa, guru kR^ipa and isvara kr^ipa."

>

> Pranams Lakshmi-ji

> Wonderfully put.

>

> There is a perception or perhaps an inference that any

> person negating a separate "Brahman experience" as his

> chosen goal is somehow vague about his sadhana or does

> not have adequate mumukshutvam, wheras a seeker who

> considers attaining nirvikalpa samadhi as verifiable

> proof of him "being brahman" has teevra mumukshutvam,

> and is a uttama adhikari. I disagree with this

> perception.

 

Namaste,

 

In Nirvi Kalpa tremendous fine-tuning is taking place but it is in a 'stupor' [looking for better word, I don't know Sanskrit and English is my second language] and a fleeting state

 

In Patanjali Yoga Sutra in the Samadhi Pada translated by Shibendu Lahiri Maharaj is describing Nirodha [aka Sehaja ?] Samadhi; liberation a permanent 'natural state', but many mix this state up with an-ego-euphoria occurring at the beginning of the journey

 

39. (VIII) Yathabhimatadhyanadva Any meditation in accordance with one's own understanding and intuition would lead to the essential freedom. (There is no method of meditation).

 

40. Paramanuparamamahattvaantosya vasikarah Meditation (which converts borrowed knowledge into one's own knowing) brings about a mastery over everything from the highest to the lowest phenomenon.

 

41. Ksinavritterabhijatasyaeva manergrahitirgrahanagrahyesu tatsthatadanjanata samapattih

 

In an accomplished one, wherein traits and tendencies (gunas and vrittis) are disappearing (ksina), the cogniser and the object of cognition become one unitary movement due to the purity of sensory perception that remains untouched by sensuality (mind), just as a clear crystal takes the colour of that on which it rests. (A brief comment on the meaning of the word samapatti which is often substituted by samadhi:

Samapattti = sama + apatti = equal/choice-less + aloofness. This means equally aloof from all centrifugality. In other words complete absorption in equanimity. The difference between choice-less awareness and choice-less aloofness is that in choice-less awareness one is still available to the exterior whereas "equally aloof" indicates total absorption in the interior. So samapatti can be substituted by samadhi.)

 

42. Tatra shabdarthajnanavikalpaih samkirna savitarka sama pattih Thereafter, the shallow and argumentative consciousness, arising out of choices and flowing from words with their interpretation and associated concepts and conclusions, is completely absorbed.

 

43. Smritiparishuddhau svarupashunyevarthamatranirbhasa nirvitarka The ending of all images about oneself (svarupashunyeva) leads to deconditioning (smritiparishuddhau) and the ending of argumentative consciousness resulting in subtle simulation of reality (arthamatra-nirbhasa).

 

44. Etayaiva savichara nirvichara cha suksmavisaya vyakhyata Thus subtle matters of mind and "no-mind" are explained and understood.

 

45. Sukshmavisayatvam chaaliingaparyavasanam Understanding these subtle matters leads to the ending of all forms and formulations of the mind (alinga).

 

46. Ta eva sabijah samadhih

Even in all this freedom, the seeds of mind may still be present.

 

47. Nirvichara-vaisharadyeadhyatma-prasadah The excellence and perfection of "no-mind" (pure intelligence) results in the benediction of knowing the 'otherness'(adhyatma).

 

48. Ritambhara tatra prajna

In "no-mind" is the wisdom of cosmic intelligence - the otherness - ritam.

 

49. Shruta-anumana-prajnabhyam amanya-visaya vishesa-arthatvat This ritam has very special significance, it is beyond intellectual matters or the knowledge that the mind acquires through testimony and inference.

50. Taj-jah samskaro-anya-samskara-pratibandhi Cosmic intelligence (ritam) generates pure consciousness and this keeps us free from conditioning and fragmentation.

 

51. Tasyapi nirhodhe sarva-nirodhan nirbijah samadhih Absolute and unconditional freedom without any seed of the mind is the ending of all endings.

 

<http://santmat-meditation.net/yoga/samadhi.html>

[Guest guest]

 

Era Molnar <n0ndual (AT) webtv (DOT) net>

 

 

Namaste

 

I sense a difference between the 'consciousness' of Meher Baba and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. IMO the later realized BrahmaJnana; realized Ramana's "Self" with the attributes you are describing here, OTOH I sense a god-like ego-stance, self-consciousness in MB, also when he talks about Self-realization

 

Do you think, tha there is an intermediate state before BrahmaJnana called Self-realization ?

 

All thoughts in me, nay the whole world is in me - Look at my

 

 

 

Era - PraNAms.

 

I do not think there is any difference in the understanding of Nisargadatta Maharaj or Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi - I have not read any teachings of Mehar Baba.

I am = Brahman is the realization - hence knowing the self is knowing that I am Brahman. I am sat-chit ananda - ananda means bliss and it involves limitless that is infiniteness that is Brahman - hence self - knowledge is I am Brahman. Hence inquiry into Brahman is inquiry into Aatma. one self. Please read the expiation of the Mantra 2 of the Mandukya posted recently.

I do not think there is an intermediate states - according to Mandukya there are only 3 states - waking, dream and deep sleep states and 'I am' pervades all the three states but different from all the three states - that I am is paramam puurNam and sat swaruupam says Ramana - that is supreme and infinite and of the nature of existence - that is Brahman.

 

 

Hope it is clear

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

> I sense a difference between the 'consciousness' of Meher Baba and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. IMO the later realized BrahmaJnana; realized Ramana's "Self" with the attributes you are describing here, OTOH I sense a god-like ego-stance, self-consciousness in MB, also when he talks about Self-realization

>

> Do you think, that there is an intermediate state before BrahmaJnana called Self-realization ?

>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-

> All thoughts in me, nay the whole world is in me - Look at my

>

>

>

> Era - PraNAms.

>

> I do not think there is any difference in the understanding of Nisargadatta Maharaj or Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi - I have not read any teachings of Mehar Baba.

> I am = Brahman is the realization - hence knowing the self is knowing that I am Brahman. I am sat-chit ananda - ananda means bliss and it involves limitless that is infiniteness that is Brahman - hence self - knowledge is I am Brahman. Hence inquiry into Brahman is inquiry into Aatma. one self.. Please read the expiation of the Mantra 2 of the Mandukya posted recently..

> I do not think there is an intermediate states - according to Mandukya there are only 3 states - waking, dream and deep sleep states and 'I am' pervades all the three states but different from all the three states - that I am is paramam puurNam and sat swaruupam says Ramana - that is supreme and infinite and of the nature of existence - that is Brahman.

>

>

> Hope it is clear

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

 

Yes, thank you Sadananda, please be patient with me, I don't understand Sanskrit and speak English poorly as second language. I used the word 'state', should of write 'state of mind', or "quality of consciousness" what I find different of a realized Vedantist compared to an Advaitin, [or to a zen monks']

 

I feel great affection and respect toward Ramana Maharshi.

 

Meher Baba is known more in the West, he was popular in the US in the eighties, he talked bout Self-realization and walked around being convinced, that he is God. IMO Ramana did not. And here lies the difference I tried to express. My own karana-guru was also in a being-god-frame-of-mind; a Dvaita Sant Mat guru, who talked about reincarnation in the linear time, when I knew, that time is part of maya.

 

Vedantist, not Advaita belive in the individual Atman vs the nondualist no-self and when they say "realized the self" IMO they refer to this atma-self, not to Ramana's term the undivided: "Self". The Self what you described so beautiful.

 

Whom is from the school of this 'individual-atma' go through an intermediate frame-of-mind what I feel is just BEFORE BrachmaJnana realization, but it is not yet the same mindset as Sri Ramana had.

 

rgds, Era

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meher_Baba

[Guest guest]

 

Era Molnar <n0ndual (AT) webtv (DOT) net>

 

 

 

Yes, thank you Sadananda, please be patient with me, I don't understand Sanskrit and speak English poorly as second language. I used the word 'state', should of write 'state of mind', or "quality of consciousness" what I find different of a realized Vedantist compared to an Advaitin, [or to a zen monks']

 

Era - PraNAms.

Do not worry about Sanskrit or English words. The truth is beyond the words anyway.

Experientially there are only three states - waking state, dream state and deep sleep state. Since the states are changing but three is one experiencer who is common in all the three states who does not change with the states - and that changeless entity is "I am" - I am a waker, I am dreamer and I am a deep sleeper - I am - remains the same the waker, dreamer and deep sleeper states keeps changing.

 

Consciousness is unqualified since it is eternal and unlimited or infinite. Qualities belong to only for finite things. When you say quality of consciousness what you actually mean is quality of the things or mental moods that ' I am' conscious of. The consciousness that I am is unqualified since it is infinite ever existent entity - that is the same as 'self'. Realization of my true nature is self-realization since currently I am taking myself as only a waker or dreamer or deep sleeper or I am this or I am that, etc

--------------------

I feel great affection and respect toward Ramana Maharshi.

 

Maher Baba is known more in the West, he was popular in the US in the eighties, he talked bout Self-realization and walked around being convinced, that he is God. IMO Ramana did not. And here lies the difference I tried to express.

----------------

The truth is the same and only one - "I am that ever present or eternal pure consciousness principle and unlimited or infinite (which also the same as Brahman). - One cannot speak about it or say anything about it. Hence all descriptions fall short of the truth. Hence grate sages have described it various ways to make the disciples to go beyond the words. Hence we cannot compare one sage with the other sage. But the truth they point out has to be same since there is only one truth. Hence the differences that one notices between the teachings of different mahatmas are only at superficial level and one has to dive deeply to see what the truth is that they are pointing of the essence of the teaching. All advaitic masters or self-realization masters point to the same truth. I am that I am. - You can call it as God, self-realization - advaitic understanding etc - these are only words that cannot truely describe the state of understanding that is beyond the words.

----------------

My own karana-guru was also in a being-god-frame- of-mind; a Dvaita Sant Mat guru, who talked about reincarnation in the linear time, when I knew, that time is part of maya.

 

Vedantist, not Advaita belive in the individual Atman vs the nondualist no-self and when they say "realized the self" IMO they refer to this atma-self, not to Ramana's term the undivided: "Self". The Self what you described so beautiful.

------------------------

 

Eraji - without knowing the specific details of the teaching of your master, I can only comment that if you have a full faith in the teachings of your master - go with that understanding - The truth will be revealed to you. In this advaitin list - the teaching is about the non-dual nature of the self - that is the truth is non-duel (only one) that which is eternal, ever existing consciousness. Being infinite it cannot be described since any description is finitization. It is because of which everything else exists and beings are conscious and that one feel happy, etc.

----------------------

Whom is from the school of this 'individual- aatma' go through an intermediate frame-of-mind what I feel is just BEFORE BrachmaJnana realization, but it is not yet the same mindset as Sri Ramana had.

 

rgds, Era

--------------

What one goes through as one evolves is a clearer and clearer understanding of the nature of the reality as the mind becomes purer and purer. It is like an opaque screen becoming translucent and ultimately transparent as the mind becomes pure. In the pure mind the full glory of that eternal reality shines through. One can scream out that I am God - one can scream out that I am that I am - one can scream out that I am no more - All are these same statements from different perspectives. There are no divisions or distinctions in the nature of the truth - whether it is Maher baaba, Ramana or Sai Baaba, or Jesus Christ - All just one reality - the eternal ever existing infinite consciousness principle.

Hope this helps.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Meher_Baba

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

S:..three states - waking state, dream state and deep sleep state. Since the states are changing but theree is one experiencer who is common in all the three states who does not change with the states - and that changeless entity is "I am" ....

> Consciousness is unqualified since it is eternal and unlimited or infinite. Qualities belong to only for finite things. When you say quality of consciousness what you actually mean is quality of the things or mental moods

 

 

 

 

I meant, that there is a difference in the quality of consciousness of an advaitin realized being [after brachmajnana] and a non-advaita one [after self-realizatio]

 

 

 

> that ' I am' conscious of. The consciousness that I am is unqualified since it is infinite ever existent entity - that is the same as 'self'. Realization of my true nature is self-realization since currently I am taking myself as only a waker or dreamer or deep sleeper or I am this or I am that, etc

 

 

 

 

What are you saying, that we are all realized beings ? Like the neo-advaitin teach ?

 

 

> --------------------

>

>e: I feel great affection and respect toward Ramana Maharshi.

>

> Maher Baba is known more in the West, he was popular in the US in the eighties, he talked bout Self-realization and walked around being convinced, that he is God. IMO Ramana did not. And here lies the difference I tried to express.

> ----------------

>S: The truth is the same and only one - "I am that ever present or eternal pure consciousness principle and unlimited or infinite (which also the same as Brahman). - One cannot speak about it or say anything about it. Hence all descriptions fall short of the truth. Hence grate sages have described it various ways to make the disciples to go beyond the words. Hence we cannot compare one sage with the other sage. But the truth they point out has to be same since there is only one truth. Hence the differences that one notices between the teachings of different mahatmas are only at superficial level and one has to dive deeply to see what the truth is that they are pointing of the essence of the teaching.

 

 

You are right dear Sadananda

 

 

 

>All advaitic masters or self-realization masters point to the same truth. I am that I am. - You can call it as God, self-realization - advaitic understanding etc - these are only words that cannot truely describe the state of understanding that is beyond the words.

> ----------------

>

>e: My own karana-guru was also in a being-god-frame- of-mind; a Dvaita Sant Mat guru, who talked about reincarnation in the linear time, when I knew, that time is part of maya.

>

> Vedantist, not Advaita belive in the individual Atman vs the nondualist no-self and when they say "realized the self" IMO they refer to this atma-self, not to Ramana's term the undivided: "Self". The Self what you described so beautiful.

> ------------------------

>

> Eraji - without knowing the specific details of the teaching of your master, I can only comment that if you have a full faith in the teachings of your master - go with that understanding - The truth will be revealed to you. In this advaitin list - the teaching is about the non-dual nature of the self - that is the truth is non-duel (only one) that which is eternal, ever existing consciousness. Being infinite it cannot be described since any description is finitization. It is because of which everything else exists and beings are conscious and that one feel happy, etc.

 

 

 

My Master died 2 years ago and now I'm drawn toward advaita

 

It is hard to replace a living master, ..my master now is the Nam, Shabd, or Logos

 

 

> ----------------------

>e: Whom is from the school of this 'individual- aatma' go through an intermediate frame-of-mind what I feel is just BEFORE BrachmaJnana realization, but it is not yet the same mindset as Sri Ramana had.

>

> rgds, Era

> --------------

 

> What one goes through as one evolves is a clearer and clearer understanding of the nature of the reality as the mind becomes purer and purer. It is like an opaque screen becoming translucent and ultimately transparent as the mind becomes pure. In the pure mind the full glory of that eternal reality shines through. One can scream out that I am God - one can scream out that I am that I am - one can scream out that I am no more - All are these same statements from different perspectives. There are no divisions or distinctions in the nature of the truth - whether it is Maher baaba, Ramana or Sai Baaba, or Jesus Christ - All just one reality - the eternal ever existing infinite consciousness principle.

> Hope this helps.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

Thank You,

Era