Commitment in advaita sadhana - Diff between *knowledge* and *experience*

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji,

Thanks for your lucid explaination of Advaita Sadhana and the commitment reqired to pursue the sadhana.

Also very well said is the fact that all paths lead the same common truth and one should choose one particular path and be steady with it.

I have some questions regarding the difference between *knowledge* and *experience*.

By *experience* here I mean the experience in NS, where the Ago has been effaced, there is no mind as such in that state, all our samskaras have been destroyed, only self is experienced by self.

What is the difference between the *experience* (as mentioned above) and the *knowledge* that is gained by Atma Vichara?

The ultimate truth, common truth is Brahma the attributeless.

Now it is well accepted that the mind cannot comprehend the entity which is attributeless

and Atma Vichara involves mind and thinking. Is it not contradictory?

If it is not contradictory, does the final state of atma vichara trancend the mind to comprehend the attributeless?

Does that comprehesion of attributless same as the *experience* of NS?

My understanding is that to have the *knowledge* of the ultimate truth, to remove the ignorance (avidya), we have to *experience* that ultimate truth

That *experience* is only possible by being in a state where self experiences self (which is nothing but NS)

I am still wondering how atma vichara which involves mind (product of maya or avidya) and thinking (a process still in maya)

can help comprehend the ultimate truth. How can it give experience of that ultimate truth?

E.g - a blind man questioning about the color 'Red'. is it just by questioning and reflecting over it is he able to comprehend the color red or does he require *experinece* of actually seeing what color Red is to comprhend it?

and in our case the final truth is even more difficult, it is attributeless.

is it that just by questioning and reflecting over self we will get the *knowledge* of self or is *experience* of self necessary?

I appeal other learned members as well (like Sadaji, Harshaji, Nairji, Sunderji, Rajanji, Bhaskarji and all others whom I may have missed mentioning)

to throw some light on my above questions.

This will help the begineers and un-learned members like myself and the other silent majority.

Om tat sat

Vishal

 

 

 

Get your email and more, right on the new .com

[Guest guest]

Bhaskar wrote, in part, :

 

..... I am getting one more doubt about NS (camp-A members,

kindly excuse me:-)), if the self is experienced by self from the self

itself, if there is no trace of mind & its activities, if there is no dirt

of vAsana or vrutti-s, if the *ego* itself has been completely effaced,

what is that thing that is bringing back the experiencer of NS to this

avidyA plane onceagain ?? In otherwords, is there any *avidyA* in the

state of NS?? if the answer is yes...then how can this state be a *all

self* state?? if no, then what makes him the *return journey* from that

absolute non-dual state?? Kindly clarify this doubt.

 

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

 

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

 

You might consider reading and reflecting upon the passage from "Maha Yoga"

that you posted here for the edification of other members.

 

Kind regards,

 

Peter