Vedanta - Samadhi.

[Guest guest]

JOHN: But I thought the goal was sahaja samadhi.

 

 

 

Ram: It's only a means. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the

samadhis are not the final goal. Sahaja just means `continuous' and

`natural.' So in terms of the mind it means a continuously still

mind, one that values everything equally. That is the meaning of

Samadhi. Sama means equal. You actually have this samadhi

naturally all the time without doing a lick of work.

 

 

 

JOHN: Oh, how is that?

 

 

 

Ram: As the Self. Though the Self is out of time and the word

`continuous' is an experiential term referring to time, from the

mind's point of view the Self, which is every form of experience, is

continuous…and natural. It is your nature.

 

 

 

Anyway, no samadhi is equivalent to enlightenment because samadhis are

only states of mind or no mind, no mind being a state of mind.

Nirvikapa samadhi is non-dual but unfortunately it is a state that can

easily be destroyed. And there is no one there in that state, so when

it ends one's ignorance about the nature of one's self is not removed

and one experiences limitation once more.

 

 

 

Samadhi helps to purify the mind and is a great aid to enquiry but if

you remove the mind, how will you make an enquiry? Who will make an

enquiry? You make an enquiry with the mind for the mind…so it can

shed its ignorance…and no longer trouble you. The mind is a very

useful God given instrument. Would God have given a mind if He had

intended for you to destroy it? And, in fact, Yoga isn't about

killing the mind either because how will you experience a samadhi if

you don't have a mind? The mind is the instrument of experience.

 

 

 

If you argue that you are aiming at nirvikalpa samadhi where there is

no mind, fine, but the problem with nirvikalpa samadhi is that a fly

landing on your nose can bring you out of it, not that there is anyone

there to come `out'. And when the `you' who wasn't there does `come

back,' as I just mentioned, you are just as stupid as you were before…

because you were not there in the samadhi to understand that you are

the samadhi. If you are the samadhi you will have it all the time

because you have you all the time…so there will be no anxiety about

making it permanent.

 

 

 

Samadhi is actually just a word that describes the nature of the Self.

It means equal vision in the sense that whatever object you see has

equal value to every other object. Why try to get your mind in this

state when you have it already…as the Self? So this description is

just as pertinent when the mind is active as when it is dead. If that

is so, what is the value of a dead mind?

 

 

 

JOHN: OK. You're saying that samadhi is not the goal, that it is

just the means?

 

 

 

Ram: Yes. Not the means. A means. There are other ways to purify

the mind. Misunderstanding this teaching is perhaps responsible for

more despair, confusion, and downright frustration than any other.

 

It is commonly believed that this `removal' means that all the vasanas

need to be physically eradicated for enlightenment to happen. And

many people believe that Ramana had `achieved' that state. If you

study Ramana's life you will see that by and large he was a very

regular guy…a large part of his appeal… head in the clouds, feet

firmly planted on the earth. He walked, talked, cooked, read, and

listened to the radio. If he did not have a mind, who or what was

doing all these things?

 

No vasanas means no mind because the vasanas are the cause of the

mind. How did he go about the business of life? So I think we need

to look at the word `removal' in a different way.

 

 

 

Ramana was called a jnani because he had removed the idea of himself

as a doer…it is called sarva karma sannyasa… which happens when you

realize you are the total. Or you realize you are the total when you

realize you are not the doer.

 

 

`Not the doer' means the Self. It doesn't mean that the ego becomes a

non-doer. The ego is always a doer. As the Self he understood that

while the few vasanas he had left (which were non-binding and are not

a problem even for a worldly person) were dependent on him he was not

dependent on them. So for him, as the Self, they were non-binding.

How can a thought or a feeling affect the Self? It can only affect an

ego, a limited being...and then only if that ego lets it. For a

person who thinks he or she is the doer, allowing the vasanas to

express or not is not an option. Actions happen uncontrollably

because the ego is pressurized to act in a certain way by the vasanas.

For a jnani vasanas are elective, for an agnani they are compulsory.

 

 

 

So the `removal' that Ramana talks about is only in terms of

knowledge. He often uses another metaphor which he borrowed from

Vedanta, the snake and the rope. In the twilight a weary thirsty

traveler mistook the well rope attached to a bucket for a snake and

recoiled in fear. When he got his bearings and his fear subsided he

realized that the snake was actually only the rope. There was no

reason to take a stick and beat the snake to death (which is

equivalent to trying to destroy the mind) because the snake was only a

misperception. When he calmed down and regained his wits (did some

sadhana) he inquired into the snake and realized that it was just a

rope. And in that realization the snake was `removed.'