ananda

[Guest guest]

Hello group,

 

I have read the weekly definition of ananda but have a question

concerning the nature of ananda, which has been called happiness.

 

Is ananda considered to be an exuberant happiness or is it a calm and

peaceful joy?

 

All input would be appreciated.

 

Best wishes,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Is ananda considered to be an exuberant happiness or is it a calm and

peaceful joy?

 

Best wishes,

Richard

============================

 

Dear Richard,

 

Perhaps one way to look at it is that the ananda associated with the

anandamaya kosa could be of any type.

 

With regards the bliss, Ananda, which *is* the Self both Sri Sankara and

Gaudapada say that is indescribable:

 

" The highest bliss is based upon the realization of Self, it is peace,

identical with liberation, indescribable and unborn... One with the unborn

Self. "

(Gaudapada MK III: 47)

 

" The above-mentioned Bliss, which is the highest Reality, and which is

characterised by the knowledge of Atman is centred in the Self. It is all

peace, characterised by the cessation of all evils. It is the same as

liberation. It is indescribable as nobody is able to describe it; for it is

totally different from all objects....It is unborn because it is not

produced like anything resulting from perceptions. "

(Sankara's commentary on the above verse.)

 

Best wishes,

Peter

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> Hello group,

>

> I have read the weekly definition of ananda but have a question

> concerning the nature of ananda, which has been called happiness.

>

> Is ananda considered to be an exuberant happiness or is it a calm and

> peaceful joy?

>

> All input would be appreciated.

>

> Best wishes,

> Richard

 

Namaste Richard,

 

IMO, Sri Shyamji answered this question very

thoroughly in post # 35686.

 

Ananda is not a changing state of the mind, such as

an experience of exuberant happiness or an experience

of calm and peaceful joy. Ananda does not refer to

any changing mental state.

 

Some teachers prefer to use the word 'ananta' instead

of ananda. Ananta means limitless. Another good word

is `purna.' Purna means fullness.

 

So, I am that which is full, complete and limitless.

If I am full, complete and limitless, can there be any

lack for me? Do I now need to look out into the creation

and try to find something there to make my mind happy?

 

If there is no lack, and the mind has recognized

that that which has no lack and is full and complete,

and is actually my self, then the mind now knows that

passing mental states of joy and sorrow never touch

'me.' They are as if scenery, but they don't

touch 'me.' I never change. My fullness, my

limitlessness doesn't flicker for an instant.

 

In this knowledge my mind may relax. It is

no longer a vagabond seeking happiness in

this and that changing circumstance. It has found a home.

And in that relaxation the mind may experience happiness.

 

But that is not the 'ananda' which sat chit ananda

refers to. That sat chit ananda is my very nature,

which is full, complete, limitless and unchanging.

 

The use of the word ananda is very confusing to

many, IMO, because most take it to refer to

a particular mental state. That's because most

of us take the very self, which we are, to be dependent

upon changing states of mental experience. So we take

our self to be a changing mental experience.

 

This is the dehatmatbuddhi in operation.

 

The dehatmabuddhi is the strongly held (and incorrect)

belief that the atma (the self) is dependent

upon the body and the mind (and their various changing

states). The dehatmabuddhi is a self-ignorant thought,

which everyone has until they have made the differentiation

between my self, which never changes, and the body and the

mind, which constantly change.

 

This self-ignorant thought labels the mind as 'me,'

and the self as the mind, and then it goes on to say,

" Now 'I' am happy. Now 'I' am sad. " When the

truth is 'I' am never either happy or sad.

 

Then, incorrectly taking my self to be

dependent upon a mental state, and hearing

that the self is 'ananda' some people understandably

may think that if they can maintain a certain

mental state, they will then be 'enlightened,'

or that if the mind seems to be peacefully happy

much of the time perhaps they are 'enlightened.'

 

This leads the mind of the seeker on a wild goose chase,

in an effort to experience and maintain

more and more rarified states of mental happiness,

or some experience of mental happiness which matches

up to what they think 'enlightenment' is.

 

This pursuit is doomed to failure, first of all

because no mental state lasts, but more importantly

because 'enlightenment' is not a state of mental

happiness. It is the recognition by the mind that

the self which I am is limitless, full, complete,

and unchanging, and dependent upon no passing mental state.

'I' am not a mental state.

 

But the words, 'limitless, full and complete,'

again need to be properly explained, unpacked,

and used as pointers to that which is actually here.

Otherwise the mind will just grab onto these words

and pursue what it thinks they refer to in ephemeral

changing experiences.

 

So this is where the teaching of Vedanta comes in.

Showing the mind over and over again, using a variety

of teaching methods, that 'I' am not the mind. Pointing,

pointing, pointing to that 'I' which is ever full and

complete. That 'I' which never changes. And because 'I'

am here (in fact 'I' am always here) that 'I' can be

differentiated from that which changes (the body and

the mind). And once this is seen, the dehatmabuddhi,

that knot of self-ignorance, is broken.

 

So the word ananda refers to my Being, which

is ever pure, ever complete, never changes,

and, as opposed to the mind, is never is lacking

in any way.

 

Best wishes,

Durga