request for correction

[Guest guest]

--- Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote:

The solution for the ignorant-person is

> the

> Experience of pure Being (or equivalently the

> Experience of Non-experience of being " this " .),

> following which the " person " though as if part of

> experiences is inherently non-aware of them (or

> aware

> of unreality of them, or of the Reality that is not

> them). The ego-world loses all significance.

>

> UNQUOTE

 

Actually, the correction I want is primarily with

regard to the above. This is a small mention in my

essay. However I recall people here arguing on

samadhi, etc. and am not sure how serious these issues

are. Would Advaitins of the shankara sampradaya object

seriously to the above statement, that realization is

consequent of an Experience of pure Being (can also

take this as the transcending of

vasanas/superimposition). Or would it be admissible as

one of the ways to look at it (similar to the

objective and subjective explanations of Creation,

etc. )? Thanks.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

http://searchmarketing./

[Guest guest]

This may be one way of expressing it -

 

The solution for the ignorant-person is the Knowledge of his Real

nature - which is Satyam/Jnanam/Anantam, following which the " person "

though as if part of experiences, is inherently aware of Reality that

is immanent as well as transcendent, and verily forms the basis for,

all of them. (I alone provide both satta and sphurti, to the

experiencer, the experienced and the experiencing, as even as I,

remain unaffected by them) The Reality of the ego-world is now understood.

 

Humble pranams

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Hari OM

Shyam

 

advaitin , Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote:

>

>

> --- Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote:

> The solution for the ignorant-person is

> > the

> > Experience of pure Being (or equivalently the

> > Experience of Non-experience of being " this " .),

> > following which the " person " though as if part of

> > experiences is inherently non-aware of them (or

> > aware

> > of unreality of them, or of the Reality that is not

> > them). The ego-world loses all significance.

> >

> > UNQUOTE

>

> Actually, the correction I want is primarily with

> regard to the above. This is a small mention in my

> essay. However I recall people here arguing on

> samadhi, etc. and am not sure how serious these issues

> are. Would Advaitins of the shankara sampradaya object

> seriously to the above statement, that realization is

> consequent of an Experience of pure Being (can also

> take this as the transcending of

> vasanas/superimposition). Or would it be admissible as

> one of the ways to look at it (similar to the

> objective and subjective explanations of Creation,

> etc. )? Thanks.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

>

>

>

______________________________\

____

> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

> http://searchmarketing./

>

[Guest guest]

Sri Shyamji, thanks for this explanation. But is this attainment of " Knowledge

of one's Real nature " equivalent to a (sudden?) illumination/transcendence of

limitations: something like becoming " one " with the Reality (jivatman becoming

paramatman, etc.). Can that be termed " Experience of pure Being " , i.e. ~

samadhi? The knots of the heart have to be cut asunder. Would it be wrong to

suggest that realization follows this Experience of pure Being/our Real nature?

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

shyam_md <shyam_md wrote:

This may be one way of expressing it -

 

The solution for the ignorant-person is the Knowledge of his Real

nature - which is Satyam/Jnanam/Anantam, following which the " person "

though as if part of experiences, is inherently aware of Reality that

is immanent as well as transcendent, and verily forms the basis for,

all of them. (I alone provide both satta and sphurti, to the

experiencer, the experienced and the experiencing, as even as I,

remain unaffected by them) The Reality of the ego-world is now understood.

 

Humble pranams

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Hari OM

Shyam

 

advaitin , Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote:

>

>

> --- Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote:

> The solution for the ignorant-person is

> > the

> > Experience of pure Being (or equivalently the

> > Experience of Non-experience of being " this " .),

> > following which the " person " though as if part of

> > experiences is inherently non-aware of them (or

> > aware

> > of unreality of them, or of the Reality that is not

> > them). The ego-world loses all significance.

> >

> > UNQUOTE

>

> Actually, the correction I want is primarily with

> regard to the above. This is a small mention in my

> essay. However I recall people here arguing on

> samadhi, etc. and am not sure how serious these issues

> are. Would Advaitins of the shankara sampradaya object

> seriously to the above statement, that realization is

> consequent of an Experience of pure Being (can also

> take this as the transcending of

> vasanas/superimposition). Or would it be admissible as

> one of the ways to look at it (similar to the

> objective and subjective explanations of Creation,

> etc. )? Thanks.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

>

>

>

________

> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

> http://searchmarketing./

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Autos new Car Finder

tool.

 

 

[Guest guest]

<<Sri Shyamji, thanks for this explanation. But is this attainment of

" Knowledge of one's Real nature " equivalent to a (sudden?)

illumination/transcendence of limitations: something like becoming " one "

with the Reality (jivatman becoming paramatman, etc.). Can that be termed

" Experience of pure Being " , i.e. ~ samadhi? The knots of the heart have to

be cut asunder. Would it be wrong to suggest that realization follows this

Experience of pure Being/our Real nature?. >>

 

Hi Putran-ji,

 

Apologies for butting in (and I can't really afford the time either but...)

 

One cannot 'become one with reality' because one is already one. You cannot

'experience pure being' - who would experience what in non-duality? And what

can 'knots of the heart cut asunder' possibly mean?

 

Realization is synonymous with self-knowledge which comes when

self-ignorance is removed -whether this is a gradual or a sudden process. I

would favour the former, with knowledge being gained as the teaching is

heard. But it seems inevitable that there must be one 'final' self-knowledge

vRRitti - the akhaNDAkAra vRRitti - whose happening may well be a dramatic

leap. Subsequently, it is known that one is (and was always) free but life

goes on, outwardly much as before.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis _,___

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams Shri Putran-ji

 

With regards to the experience of " pure being " or " pure atman " i had penned

some thoughts a few moons ago and i am reproducing that here - perhaps it is of

some help.

There had been a extensive discussion on self-realization and samadhi and

experience and knowledge at that time in this forum, and I think you may want to

browse the archives for those threads to get the different perspectives and

viewpoints.

Humble pranams,

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

Everything we see/perceive IS Atman or Brahman.

It already is Brahman as it is.

In fact it alone IS.

 

The plurality we perceive, we experience, we objectify

is not " hiding " or " covering " Brahman - it IS verily

Brahman. This has to be very clearly understood.

 

Let us take the example of a flower.

What do you see? a flower.

What do you really see? Brahman.

Then what is flower - it is a namaroopa - name and

form.

Is it for a nanosecond different from Brahman? no.

In order to see its " Brahmanness " in an unalloyed,pure

and pristine, do i need to remove the corolla, the

corona, the pistils, the stamen, etc etc one by one

because they are not letting me see the Brahmanness in

the flower.

Of course not. The flower IS Brahman in its pure form.

It is only in understanding that we say flower is

Brahman plus " flower " namaroopa. In reality there is

no " plus " . There is no " flower " other then Brahman.

In fact there is only Brahman.

 

How many times is this idea repeated in the Upanishads

 

Ishavasyam Idam Sarvam

All this IS Ishwara.

 

Omityetadaksharamidam sarvam

Om IS the whole of this universe

 

Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma

All this IS Brahman.

 

Every leaf, every drop of water, every cloud in the

sky, every object animate and inanimate, is all

Brahman.

Whatever you perceive at any time at any place is only

Brahman and nothing but Brahman.

 

And the Self or Brahman is everpure, everpristine.

Impurity is possible only when there is duality.

When one alone IS where is the question of impurity in

relation to it?

This has to be clearly understood.

 

Any concepts of impure form of Brahman, adulterated

form of Brahman, partially pure form of Brahman,

purest form of Brahman, real form of Brahman, need to

completely squashed, if we are to progress in our

right understanding of Vedanta. In fact Atman is

formless. What then to talk about a pure form??

 

Let us take the example of a claypot.

The potness is only a notion. The pot is clay.

there is no " pure " form of clay that needs to be

objectively experienced to know that the pot is a

namaroopa only for clay. The claypot IS clay in its

pure form. The potness is only in the

(mis)understanding.

 

Now suppose there is a particular " form of clay " which

is available for viewing in Vaikuntha or Kailasha or

is available for special viewing between 9am to 10am

(like a matinee show). If this clay is in essence any

different from the clay that constitutes the claypot

then the two clays are decidedly different.

Then the statement all this(in the pot world) is

verily clay becomes unsubstantiated.

If all this is clay is a truth in the potworld then

every pot IS clay. every pot is " pure " clay.

 

Now another point. The pot does not cover the clay.

The pot CANNOT cover clay. For the pot to cover clay

it needs existence. The " pot " borrows its notional

existence from clay. SOmething unreal cannot " cover "

something real. In panchakosha prakriya when we negate

the gross body, we do not need to peel off our skins

to know what is underneath - it is a " negation " only

in the understanding that this gross body is

nonseparate from the vastu and does not exist separate

from the vastu. Not for a moment should we think of

the gross or the subtle body in any way " covering " the

atman.

 

In the immortal verse of Shri Gaudapadacharya

 

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner

(subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the

outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious

of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It

is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness.

It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible,

uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The

essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self

in the three states, It is the cessation of all

phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual.

This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is

the Atman and this has to be known.

 

The Atman can NEVER be objectified. It can never be

perceived. It can never be inferred. It is not a " mass

of consciousness " It is the Subject, the Witness, the

Self. This has to be known or realized.

 

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

Shape in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Dennisji, Shyamji,

 

Thanks for your inputs. By consensus, I will attempt a modification on that

point. In ~ four dense pages, I think that paragraph is all that really

addresses " how " realization occurs; it is a small mention, and I wanted to

escape with that for it makes the thing look grand !! (Not to mention: the

capitalization of E in experience was supposed to evade the potential objections

! )

 

As for " knots cut asunder " , I think that is a scripture statement and worthy

of analysis in itself: knots ~ vasanas or the false identifications of I as

'this'. If a man thinking he is buffalo, realizes (gradually? well, the dramatic

leap!) that he is not, then the buffalo-thinking is cut asunder. As you said, in

this sense, one doesn't experience " man-hood " anew for the man was always man.

There may be some room here for experiencing our being a man (as man comes with

certain limitations), but in the case of the Self that I am, there is no such

room. In another sense, the process of negation may be an experience of

affirmation; and the loss of the mind (dualistic identifications) may be related

to an Experience of pure Being. I guess these points would have been beaten on

in the archives.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

<<Sri Shyamji, thanks for this explanation. But is this attainment of

" Knowledge of one's Real nature " equivalent to a (sudden?)

illumination/transcendence of limitations: something like becoming " one "

with the Reality (jivatman becoming paramatman, etc.). Can that be termed

" Experience of pure Being " , i.e. ~ samadhi? The knots of the heart have to

be cut asunder. Would it be wrong to suggest that realization follows this

Experience of pure Being/our Real nature?. >>

 

Hi Putran-ji,

 

Apologies for butting in (and I can't really afford the time either but...)

 

One cannot 'become one with reality' because one is already one. You cannot

'experience pure being' - who would experience what in non-duality? And what

can 'knots of the heart cut asunder' possibly mean?

 

Realization is synonymous with self-knowledge which comes when

self-ignorance is removed -whether this is a gradual or a sudden process. I

would favour the former, with knowledge being gained as the teaching is

heard. But it seems inevitable that there must be one 'final' self-knowledge

vRRitti - the akhaNDAkAra vRRitti - whose happening may well be a dramatic

leap. Subsequently, it is known that one is (and was always) free but life

goes on, outwardly much as before.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis _,___

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

IMO - Process of acquiring knowledge is analogue but knowledge itself

when it gets assimilated has to be digital. It's value is either " 0 "

or " 1 " .

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> <<Sri Shyamji, thanks for this explanation. But is this attainment of

> " Knowledge of one's Real nature " equivalent to a (sudden?)

> illumination/transcendence of limitations: something like

becoming " one "

> with the Reality (jivatman becoming paramatman, etc.). Can that be

termed

> " Experience of pure Being " , i.e. ~ samadhi? The knots of the heart

have to

> be cut asunder. Would it be wrong to suggest that realization follows

this

> Experience of pure Being/our Real nature?. >>

>