Guest guest Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 How can an experience, no matter how profound, help to attain the Self which is the Ultimate Subject and beyond experience? The questions sometimes arises whether there is a need for a specific spiritual/psychic experience or experiences like Nirvikalpa Samadhi to achieve Self-Realization and therefore liberation. The framing of the question assumes the relative (Vyavaharika) perspective and therefore a useful answer has to be given at that level. Although such questions (or answers to it) are not meaningful from the perspective of the Absolute Self, from a relative point of view, many answers can be given. The difference between Parmarthika (Absolute) and Vyavaharika (Relative) perspectives has been discussed before and it has been pointed out that if we mix the two in our logic, there is bound to be confusion. Both the Parmarthika view (Absolute perspecive) and the Vyavaharika view (Relative perspective) are expressed only in Vyavaharika (at the level of relativity). If the parmarthika (Absolute) perspective is expressed, no matter how eloquently, it is still at its foundation a vyahvaharika (Relative) view. Self is Always Self-Realized. The problem is not for the Self. The difficulty is for the Jiva (Individual Soul) who does not recognize its identity with Brahman (Universal/Supreme Soul) as the Self. It is the Jiva that experiences bondage. Therefore, it is the Jiva which must experience freedom. There should be no mystery here. It is the Jiva that upon receiving the right knowledge recognizes its identity with Brahman as Sat-Chit-Ananda. This moment of recognition that contains eternity and is eternity itself can certainly be called an experience from the perspective of the Jiva. The experience of Jiva that reveals the Self reveals knowledge of Identity with the Self. There is the example of castor oil which some people take as a laxative for constipation. If one takes castor oil to relieve the stomach of its contents, does one also have to worry about how the castor oil it self will come out? Will one have to take an extra second dose of castor oil to get the first dose out of the body? No. Castor oil after doing its job, also disappears. The nature of the experience of Self-Realization is like that. By grace, what starts out as experience in duality ends up in pure nonduality. The experience which removes ignorance and reveals knowledge also then dissappears in the Heart of Knowledge. Certainly, our sages have talked about this experience (in terms of their own personal experience) at length. No one who has read the biographies of the great seers can miss it. Where does the term Sat-Chit-Ananda come from if not from experience of the Jiva? This term is not a mere sanskrit book term but comes from direct experience of men and women whose mind became immersed in the Self. The ancient sages were very precise and did not waste words. Sat-Chit-Ananda, Nityam, Poornum. Existence-Consciousness-Bliss as eternal wholeness is the nature of the Self as experienced by the Jiva and as expressed by our sages. The pure fullness and the complete bliss that does not have any support other than itself, that is the nature of the Self. This space of bliss (devoid of sorrow) as pure Self-Nature is unmistakable. It cannot be understood by logic. It can be approached through logic and reasoning but these must be left behind in order to enter the Heart of one's own mystery. In his poem, Atma Vidya (Self-Knowledge) overwhelming with sacred beauty, Bhagavan Ramana mentions Bliss at the end of virtually each stanza in describing Self-Realization. Here are examples of the last sentences of Sri Ramana's poem Atma Vidya (Self-Knowledge) in the various five verses. 1. Bliss wells up. 2. This stillness, this abode of bliss. 3. The blossoming of bliss. 4. The experience of Eternity: absence of all fear; the ocean vast of bliss. 5. True, Grace is needed; Love is added. Bliss wells up. These words are coming from direct realization and what comes from the Truth, if meditated upon, leads us back to their source. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 , Harsha wrote: > How can an experience, no matter how profound, help to attain the Self > which is the Ultimate Subject and beyond experience? > > In his poem, Atma Vidya (Self-Knowledge) > overwhelming with sacred beauty, Bhagavan Ramana mentions Bliss at the end of virtually each stanza in describing Self-Realization. Here are examples of the last sentences of Sri Ramana's poem > Atma Vidya (Self-Knowledge) in the various five verses. > > 1. Bliss wells up. > 2. This stillness, this abode of bliss. > 3. The blossoming of bliss. > 4. The experience of Eternity: absence of all fear; the ocean vast of bliss. > 5. True, Grace is needed; Love is added. Bliss wells up. > > These words are coming from direct realization and what comes from the Truth, if meditated upon, leads us back to their source. > > > Love to all > Harsha Namaste Harsha-ji, Yes you and I have had this discussion on an off for years. I still opine that Bliss is Saguna and not full realisation. I will admit that the realisation is only one and that Saguna and Nirguna are realised simultaneously. However Bliss is of the mind and experience and may exist as long as there is a body/mind complex of some kind. However on dropping the body it all disappears as never having happened at all not even the illusion itself happened.....Ajativada.........ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 Tony OClery wrote: > > Namaste Harsha-ji, > > Yes you and I have had this discussion on an off for years. I still > opine that Bliss is Saguna and not full realisation. I will admit > that the realisation is only one and that Saguna and Nirguna are > realised simultaneously. However Bliss is of the mind and experience > and may exist as long as there is a body/mind complex of some kind. > However on dropping the body it all disappears as never having > happened at all not even the illusion itself > happened.....Ajativada.........ONS...Tony. > Namaste Dear Sri Tony-ji: Yes, I have enjoyed our discussions and we always agree on substantive things. Tony-ji, You say that, "However on dropping the body it all disappears as never having happened at all, not even the illusion itself happened... What you say makes perfect sense. However, for the sake of discussion, may I ask Tony-ji whether you are saying this having dropped the body or still being in the body? Love, Harsha > _ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2006 Report Share Posted October 8, 2006 >Namaste Harsha-ji, >Yes you and I have had this discussion on an off for years. I still opine that Bliss is Saguna and not >full realisation. I will admit that the realisation is only one and that Saguna and Nirguna are >realised simultaneously. However Bliss is of the mind and experience and may exist as long as there is >a body/mind complex of some kind. >However on dropping the body it all disappears as never having happened at all not even the illusion >itself happened.....Ajativada.........ONS...Tony. A question A snip with >> "1. Ajata vada (the theory of non-causality). This is an ancient Hindu doctrine which states that the creation of >> the world never happened at all. It is a complete denial of all causality in the physical world. Sri Ramana endorsed this view by saying that it is the jnani's experience that nothing ever comes into existence or ceases to be because the Self alone exists as the sole unchanging reality. It is a corollary of this theory that time, space, cause and effect, essential components of all creation theories, exist only in the minds of ajnanis and that the experience of the Self reveals their non-existence. " Is this statement originally David Godman's, or is there another specific source? Could it be a reference to a big bang theory? Personally I believe, to make it appear not to be a remark at closing time in a bar, more information is needed, like, what is following in 'be as you are'. Here is another statement: "This is supported by the great Sage Nisargadatta Maharaj who indicated that we start out by; first believing we are making things happen, then we move to realising things are in fact happening to us and finally that nothing is happening at all." Now it does look better, but using 'happened' to me there is a 'twist' only being set straight with words like this, (actually if not said as a repetition, but as a honest presentation, ommitting them does not make sense) "This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only of the creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking from his own experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware that the world is real, not as an assemblage of interacting matter and energy, but as an uncaused appearance in the Self. He enlarged on this by saying that because the real nature or substratum of this appearance is identical with the beingness of the Self, it necessarily partakes of its reality. That is to say, the world is not real to the jnani simply because it appears, but only because the real nature of the appearance is inseparable from the Self. The ajnani, on the other hand, is totally unaware of the unitary nature and source of the world and, as a consequence, his mind constructs an illusory world of separate interacting objects by persistently misinterpreting the senseimpressions it receives. Sri Ramana pointed out that this view of the world has no more reality than a dream since it superimposes a creation of the mind on the reality of the Self. He summarised the difference between the jnani's and the ajnani's standpoint by saying that the world is unreal if it is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete objects and real when it is directly experienced as an appearance in the Self." As both Ramana and Nisargadatta are in the present as far as I can see. What is actually being said, when presented as 'looking back'? Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2006 Report Share Posted October 8, 2006 , "Alan" <alan wrote: > > > >Namaste Harsha-ji, > > >Yes you and I have had this discussion on an off for years. I still opine > that Bliss is Saguna and not >full realisation. I will admit that the > realisation is only one and that Saguna and Nirguna are >realised > simultaneously. However Bliss is of the mind and experience and may exist as > long as there is >a body/mind complex of some kind. > >However on dropping the body it all disappears as never having happened at > all not even the illusion >itself happened.....Ajativada.........ONS...Tony. > > A question > > A snip with >> > > "1. Ajata vada (the theory of non-causality). This is an ancient > Hindu doctrine which states that the creation of > >> the world never happened at all. > It is a complete denial of all causality in the > physical world. Sri Ramana endorsed this view by saying that it is > the jnani's experience that nothing ever comes into existence or > ceases to be because the Self alone exists as the sole unchanging > reality. It is a corollary of this theory that time, space, cause and > effect, essential components of all creation theories, exist only in > the minds of ajnanis and that the experience of the Self reveals > their non-existence. " > > Is this statement originally David Godman's, or is there another specific > source? > Could it be a reference to a big bang theory? > Personally I believe, to make it appear not to be a remark at closing time > in a bar, more information is needed, like, what is following in 'be as you > are'. > > Here is another statement: > > "This is supported by the great Sage Nisargadatta Maharaj who indicated that > we start out by; first believing we are making things happen, then we move > to realising things are in fact happening to us and finally that nothing is > happening at all." > > > Now it does look better, but using 'happened' to me there is a 'twist' only > being set straight with words like this, (actually if not said as a > repetition, but as a honest presentation, ommitting them does not make > sense) > > "This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only of the > creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking from his > own experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware that the > world is real, not as an assemblage of interacting matter and energy, > but as an uncaused appearance in the Self. He enlarged on this by > saying that because the real nature or substratum of this appearance > is identical with the beingness of the Self, it necessarily partakes of > its reality. That is to say, the world is not real to the jnani simply > because it appears, but only because the real nature of the > appearance is inseparable from the Self. > The ajnani, on the other hand, is totally unaware of the unitary > nature and source of the world and, as a consequence, his mind > constructs an illusory world of separate interacting objects by > persistently misinterpreting the senseimpressions it receives. Sri > Ramana pointed out that this view of the world has no more reality > than a dream since it superimposes a creation of the mind on the > reality of the Self. He summarised the difference between the > jnani's and the ajnani's standpoint by saying that the world is > unreal if it is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete > objects and real when it is directly experienced as an appearance in > the Self." > > As both Ramana and Nisargadatta are in the present as far as I can see. > What is actually being said, when presented as 'looking back'? > > > > Alan > the world is as real as you are... yosy (for real) ps. thank you, alan, for demonstrating the difference between jnani and ajnani. <a bow> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.