Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 PraNAms to everyone. From my perspective: When we are discussing about Vedanta, there is always some concerns in terms of what has this go to do with my self-realization. Some people complain as to what this has all this to do with trying to realize who I am. I would rather sit and meditate who I am rather than getting lost in these finer and finer intellectual juggleries. Shree Sastriji has correctly pointed out that Shankara did not go through pages and pages of analysis from various angles to satisfy the intellect - all meant for arriving at who I am. First, I am who I am, whether I go through all this intellectual analysis or not. I am sat chit ananda that I am all the time whether I realize or not. No body in this universe can deny that. Hence I do not need anything for me to do or to study or not to do to be who I am. This part is definite. These discussions therefore are irrelevant for me to be what I am, that of course includes this post. Then why do we need these discussions? The fundamental problem that we have which Vedanta recognizes is that we have no faith in the statement that I am not 'this' that I take my currently my self to be, but I am that unlimited eternal sat chit ananda alone. That lack of faith comes only when the intellect is not fully convinced the nature of the reality. Until the intellect is fully and completely convinced, no knowledge can takes place. All this discussion is therefore ideally aimed at gaining that conviction in each of our mind that what is nature of the reality - that involves all the nine yards - not just who I am, since who I am involves what is this word, what is my relation to the world, why am I here, what is the meaning of all these transactions with the world involving notion of individuality that differ from other individuals, etc. The reason these are important is for my to be convinced that all these that I transact with is only apparently real and the true reality is very substratum for all this - since infinite does not exclude anything. Faith in the teacher's words, the teacher who has gone through all this himself in his sadhana, helps to overcome ones own ego in these discussions. Otherwise one can get entangled in the very thing that one is trying to eliminate. But when one realizes, then it is the step forward - we do not climb the mountain by climbing steeply up, we just go around and around to reach the top. Essentially depending on ones evolution, these are side tracks - that appear to be distractive but one will slowly get over as one progress, slowly and steadily. Normally the teacher would help for the ego not to rise, but when there is no direct teacher, there will be a problem. Eventually one will find one that is suitable for ones evolution - that is the promise of the Lord. A flower does not have to in search of a bee; the bee shall come once the flower starts blooming itself. Until then company of sat sangh where the discussion is centered on these spiritual things than on rock and roll music would help. sat sanghatva nissanghatvam. If the discussion centers on understanding the teaching rather than just repeating what others said, would help in assimilating the thoughts as our own - than just Shankara says this or Bhagavaan Ramana says this, etc. Question is what do I understand from these - becomes more important - that is what I meant by assimilating the teaching to make one's own. Hence as Frankji rightly pointed out Vedanta insists on the process of assimilation of the knowledge to make it ones own - shravaNam, mananam and nidhidhyaasanam - listening to scriptures, reflecting on them and assimilating them. Ultimately it is not what Vedanta says who I am - I should know who I am - that happens only I have that full conviction that I know who I am - irrespective of who says what. Abut JK's stuff, I have presented in the Analysis of the Mind I . Hari Om Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Dear All: In relation to the value of Vedantic discussions (the posting " Just a few thoughts), I can only speak through my own experience here. It is rare to find on the internet such a list like the one we share (I have been in some). So focused on Realization of Self, called Vedanta otherwise. Yes, these are ideas, concepts, but mainly and from the beginning, I took them as pointers. A good or " real " pointer is the one that ultimately, has the inherent (or embedded) possibility of giving you the experience of what is pointed at. And I believe for all of us here, that happened many times during the discussions. But one has to be prepared with the right attitude: to listen, explore and contemplate. Otherwise, yes, it sounds like intellectual gymnastics. But not all that is said is a good pointer, some of us, at times, write under the spell of vanity, or self-pity, anger, or just mechanical typing. For this, at all times, discrimination of what helps one's understanding is always useful, I would call it reading behind the lines, with the Heart on top of doing it with the Intellect. Reading in this way, sometimes shows the actual intention. After all, there is room for everything in this OneVerse, and is taken!! Many of you have been my gurus throughout these discussions, many many of the postings dissolved, at times, all sense of so-called Reality, leaving just the Big Silence shine of its own accord. At times, I even told myself, is that possible, through the Internet??!! But remember that the Guru has many forms (actually ALL of them) and one never knows when and how it manifests itself to point-out (or point-in) the way Home. Behind these postings there are people (and some of them very nice individuals, as I made recently the discovery), and behind these " people " there is... Could these discussions actually replace the need for a " real " guru? Don't know... But tell me, what is " real " ? Each of us takes what is needed. These discussions (like many other things) are like an ocean, if one comes with a little glass, one will take home just a few ounces of water, but if one goes with a big bucket or a water-truck... In any case, nothing will replace the sense of Existence that is happening at this very moment reading these lines, but, as being pointed out by Sadaji, are we really convinced of it? Words are also flowers that bloom, grow, and transmit a certain perfume. I see these discussions as a multi-colored garden that eventually help and keep reminding us what/who we Are. Yours in All, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 advaitin , " Mouna " <solracartist wrote: > Behind these postings there are people (and some of them very nice > individuals, as I made recently the discovery), and behind these > " people " there is... > Each of us takes what is needed. These discussions (like many other > things) are like an ocean, if one comes with a little glass, one will > take home just a few ounces of water, but if one goes with a big > bucket or a water-truck... In any case, nothing will replace the sense > of Existence that is happening at this very moment reading these > lines, but, as being pointed out by Sadaji, are we really convinced of it? > > Words are also flowers that bloom, grow, and transmit a certain > perfume. I see these discussions as a multi-colored garden that > eventually help and keep reminding us what/who we Are. praNAms Shri Mouna-ji, My thoughts echo yours. Some of the posts of the learned members resonate with me and that is why I read the posts here and participate, occasionally in the discussions. It is known that Vedas (and Vedanta) are said to be that which was listened by seers when they were meditating on the Self. In a similar way, if we accept the internet as a 6th way of perception, some of the members are seers, whose voices we are listening to, when we are in the receiving mode. Some times, our meditation is not mature enough that we understand what they are saying, but if we tune our radio correctly, we can listen to the Truth everywhere. > Could these discussions actually replace the need for a " real " guru? > Don't know... But tell me, what is " real " ? Though I understand and empathize your statement, I would think the verses from Vivekachudamani about " Go and Find a Guru " are still relevant. Instead of me giving my opinions, let me give a link to Kanchi Paramacharya's lectures (translated by our very respectable Professorji), which answers these questions. Please read them. I would dare to excerpt a small piece <BEGIN-EXCERPT> .... Would such a person [Guru] be available in modern times? Don't worry about it. If you are crying in true anguish with sincere mumukshhutA (longing for Release) the Lord will not fail to show you such a one. Whether he is a brahma-nishhTa or not all the time, you will be shown the best available one and the Lord Himself will enter into him at the time when you are being givn the mahAvAkya-upadesha. That is how it happens. That is how. No doubt about it. .... <END-EXCERPT> Please read the rest here http://www.geocities.com/profvk/VK2/Advaita_Saadhanaa.html#_Toc147894526 and all the lectures on " Advaita Sadhana " here http://www.geocities.com/profvk/VK2/Advaita_Saadhanaa.html praNAms again Ramakrishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Greetings and Blessings Sadananda Sir I was always confused about Intellectual understanding and Spiritual or Mystical kmowledge, till I could make the difference. To my mind and as I see it, Intellectual knowledge is an additive process, a cumulative process and leads at its end to knowledeability. On the other hand, spiritual knowledge is not an additive process or a cumulative process it is a balanced process where every bit of newly discovered knowledge is at the expense of its old counterpart. It is a process of replacement and restoration not addition and accumulation, it finally ends with this human knowing that he does not know anything and leaves all knowledge to the KNOWLEDGE (Chit) and becomes contented by simply watching how The KNOWLEDGE works. Further comments are between lines; Sadananda: First, I am who I am, hsin: This Is the most elequent and most truthfull thing ever said. Without any QUALIFICATIONS, even as Sri Ramana Said " Without, even this sense of I am " . Sri Atmananda said the same thing as Sri Ramana, but in a different way: " When one attains to the higher witness-aspect, one will realise that it is pure Consciousness; even without a tinge of witnesshood. " Sadananda: whether I go through all this intellectual analysis or not. I am sat chit ananda that I am all the time whether I realize or not. hsin: Yes, absolutely true, here The Truth, The Reality, Atma, is describing ITSELF as SAT CHIT ANANDA. It does not concern me except; if realised and established as the current EXPERIENCE, at the expense of my old worldly experience that might use the intellect or might not. Sadananda: No body in this universe can deny that. Hence I do not need anything for me to do or to study or not to do to be who I am. This part is definite. hsin: Here again Atma is describing ITSELF, most wonderful. Now about Conviction and Faith. To my mind What the Honoured Sadananda Sir said is true and applicable. To have the conviction and Faith that I Am Sat, Chit,Ananda and not the ego, which I have faith that this is me now; due to my ignorance and delusions. This is the Traditional Advatic way. Another method is that I Am NOT, EXPERIENCE IS, ABSOLUTE REALITY IS. Now I cultivate faith away; from my confused SELF/ego overlap; I cultivate faith in the EXPERIENCE, in the ABSOLUTE REALITY at the expense of my previous faith in the ego, this will help to surrender the ego to the EXPERIENCE, once the ego is seen as nothing (I am Not) as USELESS -a bag of air- and the source of MISERY and PAIN. Thank you very much Honoured Sadananda Sir for your elequent exposition. hsin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 --- hsin_shang <hsin_shang wrote: hsin_shang - PraNAms Here is how I see it - some of it is presented in the Knowledge and the means of knowledge. You may know this but I keep writing since it helps to clarify for others too – if not at least to me. > To my mind and as I see it, Intellectual knowledge is > > an additive process, a cumulative process and leads at its > > end to knowledeability. First if I may say so - all knowledge is only intellectual knowledge. When I do not know who I am, the ignorance is also centered at the intellect level only. Self does not have any ignorance Intellect is ignorant about the self. The ego - I am this- that this starts with identification with intellect - That is called chidaabhaasa - the consciousness reflects in the intellect and that reflected consciousness is the ego where it identifies with the notion that I am this – starting with intellect, then the mind and then the body identifications. When I realize who I am, that knowledge eliminates my self-ignorance - that is only at the intellect level. When I know who I am, what I will know is I am the substantive for all - the intellect, the mind and the body as well. Everything is just superficial entities superimposed on the true I am. Hence knowledge of I am, is shifting my attention from superficial chidaabhaas to the original chit. They are always together like ring and the gold. If I think I am a ring I have a problem since I am subject to modification. If I realize I am gold then nothing will happen to me even if ring becomes a bangle. Who should know that I am gold and not the ring! Ring that thinks I am the ring has to realize that ring is only a name and form my essential nature is not ring but gold that is substantive for the ring that I am. All this happens in the intellect of the ring only - Hence who am I inquiry is needed - who does that inquiry - It is intellect only. Hence intellect has to get convinced its superficial nature and also the substantive nature of aatma. On the other hand, spiritual knowledge > > is not an additive process or a cumulative process it is a balanced > > process where every bit of newly discovered knowledge is at the > > expense of its old counterpart. I am not sure I understand addictive vs cumulative. The desire to know about myself becomes more and more as one looses interest in other things - the reason one looses interest in other is one realizes that that is not of importantance. I do not call it addictive but all absorbing - but that is what is called mumukshutvam - that is required to get self-absorption. If one gets sense pleasure out it then it is addictive. It is a process of replacement > > and restoration not addition and accumulation, it finally ends with > > this human knowing that he does not know anything and leaves > > all knowledge to the KNOWLEDGE (Chit) and becomes contented by > > simply watching how The KNOWLEDGE works. If you are saying it is not knowledge of .. then you are right - it is the very knowledge itself as discussed in the knowledge series. > > Further comments are between lines; > Sadananda: First, I am who I am, > > hsin: This Is the most elequent and most truthfull thing > > ever said. Without any QUALIFICATIONS, even as Sri Ramana > > Said " Without, even this sense of I am " . Sri Atmananda said > > the same thing as Sri Ramana, but in a different way: > > " When one attains to the higher witness-aspect, one will realise > > that it is pure Consciousness; even without a tinge of witnesshood. " I think we have problem of language here. The truth is witnessing consciousness is ever present and never bound at any time and it does not have to realize anything. The ego who is interested to know who I am - in principle can never realize - it is always remain as ego. The problem is we are trying to separate ego one side and witnessing consciousness on the other - like trying to separate ring on one side and gold on the other. - we cannot have ring without gold. Witnessing consciousness need not have to realize anything - all realizations occur in its presence. It is the same even when one is not realized - like whether ring knows it is gold or not, it is gold only. Realization is to recognize my intrinsic nature is pure consciousness and my transactional nature is superimposed ego - just as ring has to realize that my intrinsic nature is gold and my superficial nature is ring. Nothing has happened other than shifting my attention to superficial to substantive. That is the understanding at the intellect level only. That is ring's intellect has to know that I am gold! > Sadananda: whether I go through all this intellectual analysis or > not. I am sat chit ananda that I am all the time whether I realize > or not. > > hsin: Yes, absolutely true, here The Truth, The Reality, Atma, > > is describing ITSELF as SAT CHIT ANANDA. It does not concern me > > except; if realised and established as the current EXPERIENCE, > > at the expense of my old worldly experience that might use the > > intellect or might not. When the ring understands that it is gold and its ring nature is only superficial while substantially it is gold, then whatever experiences the ring form goes there are no substantial changes in the gold - that shift in understanding is what is all about. Experience will come and go but I am not affected by those experiences since they are only superficial and not substantial. Ring will still have a problems - scratches here and there, etc. Ring understands that as gold I am never affected (as an example). People operated on Ramana – the superficial body like ring gets affected but nothing happens to its substantive. That firm abidance in the substantive is self-realization. Thanks for your kind comments - I hope those comments still stay after you read this post! True I am what I am irrespective of whatever happens at superficial level. That is true understanding. If one can stand back and look at oneself and the world - and enjoy the tamaasha or entertainment - life will look as beautiful drama. One can play the superficial roles as beautifully as possible knowing very well substantially nothing is affected. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 Sadananda Honoured Sir Your post is absolutely true, if Realization and Establishment did occur. I am more concerned about two points, which I tried hard to explain in my previous post, it seems that I failed utterly. The first point is the confusion that could happen when Truth is explained overtly. Meaning that I can mistake the ego for the SELF or Absolute CONSCIOUSNESS. The second point is how to work about on my path to REALISE AND ESTABLISH ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS AS an ACTUAL LIFE EXPERIENCE. Now, here is my answer to you Sadanana Sir: Knowledge has no IDENTITY. Has Nothing To Know. Now I will quote Atmananda: " KNOWLEDGE HAS NOTHING TO KNOW, BEING INSENTIENT; HOW CAN THE INSIENTS KNOWS. " I am this or I am that is an identity. That is why, I AM, with no QUALIFICATIONS applies only on to the ABSOLUTE. When man says, " I am Consciousness " . Man has identified and personified consciousness; it is the ego that claims this. To understand that ego/world complex has no existence. No existence means that the ego/world package is proven worthless and i start turning away from them looking for a more solid reality. A Reality underlying this worthless ego/world package, a Reality that kept unveiling Itself in the intervals when the ego/world package was at its lowest ebb. A Reality, that kept this " physical form " functioning and operational irrespective of ego/world complex. A Reality that showered on man with Its protection and Its guidance and companionship when his ego/world package was at moments and times of havoc. I mention these times, because it is easier to see that Reality at these incidences, where the ego cannot claim it to itself or attribute it to an outer specific entity. This is the Sat Chit Ananda unveiling ITSELF IN OBJECTS. Understanding that havoc is the only outcome of living through the ego/world package while Harmony, Bliss and Love are the outcome of turning my face to the Only Reality and away from the ego/world package. The Choice is mine, this is the only choice taken by man. Seeing that choice is the result of the wisdom of a dawned Insight. To follow this Insight, is the only available course, otherwise i would have lost the excellent opportunity offered to me. hsin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 --- hsin_shang <hsin_shang wrote: > I am more concerned about two points, which I tried hard to explain > in my previous post, it seems that I failed utterly. > The first point is the confusion that could happen when Truth is > explained overtly. Meaning that I can mistake the ego for the SELF > or Absolute CONSCIOUSNESS. hsin_shang - PraNams. I think I have discussed in the end part of post 7 of knowledge and the means of knowledge- what is involved in realization and who realizes. Explanation is supposed to clarify not to confuse. And I do not think there is a too much explanation - what is there is keep reminding the mind or refocusing the mind on the nature of reality. Hence study of Vedanta itself should be meditative. As one studies one has to see - not later but right there the truth that is pointed. It is not study now and meditate later - study becomes meditation since what is being pointed is right there. Realization is the recognition that Ego is not separate from the absolute consciousness since substantive of ego is consciousness alone. It is reevaluation of Ego as not separate entity from the consciousness that I am. - Just as the reflected light is not different from the original sunlight - but without reflection one cannot see the original. One sees the original through reflections without getting lost in the images that are formed in the reflections. There is no seeing the original. Seer does not see. > > The second point is how to work about on my path to REALISE AND > ESTABLISH ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS AS an ACTUAL LIFE EXPERIENCE. It is realization that all experiences are experienced by the conscious entity that I am - that is by seeing I am conscious of the experiences too. Then I am no more experiencer but observer of experiences - like looking at waves of experience and seeing the water content in those waves. One has to be dispassionate enough not to ride on the waves and get lost form one wave to the other. Riding on the wave is like getting lost in the experience itself. > Now, here is my answer to you Sadanana Sir: > > Knowledge has no IDENTITY. Has Nothing To Know. > > Now I will quote Atmananda: " KNOWLEDGE HAS NOTHING TO KNOW, BEING > INSENTIENT; HOW CAN THE INSIENTS KNOWS. " > hsin_shang - I would be careful - Without commenting on Swami Atmanandaji statement since I need to study the statement in context (perhaps Anandaji can comment on that) - I must say pure knowledge is same as consciousness it self - satyam jnaanam - anantam brahma is the Vedic statement. I have discussed pure knowledge vs. knowledge of in the series. See also what I see is Brahman post - where VP says knowledge in direct perception is consciousness alone. If one understands that way then knowledge is not inert. Hence I would be careful the context in which the particular statement has been made. These are one of the reasons why we need a live teacher to interact with - to get clear vision of the truth. > I am this or I am that is an identity. That is why, I AM, with no > QUALIFICATIONS applies only on to the ABSOLUTE. When man says, " I am > Consciousness " . Man has identified and personified consciousness; it > is the ego that claims this. Yes - hence words fail - but that is after the knowledge. The knowledge takes place in the mind itself - where 'I am this' is my superficial nature and I am in the I am this is my real nature - that understanding occurs in the mind - Like I am seeing reflected light in the room and say there is lot of light here. Even though I am seeing only reflected light due to walls etc, what I am seeing now is the original light in and through the reflections. These aspects are being brought out in the knowledge series. > To understand that ego/world complex has no existence. I would say they have no existence apart form Brahman - what ever that is seen or experienced is mithyaa - non-existent ones can never be experienced. Hence they are called mithyaa - neither existent nor non-existent. >No existence > means that the ego/world package is proven worthless and i start > turning away from them looking for a more solid reality. hsin_shangji You can never run way from mithyaa - since even the running away forms the mithyaa. The solid reality is where you are running away from - it is underneath the so called ego/world only - All you have to do is to look in - that is what JK statement -observe the mind to decondition it from the superficials to look at its substantive. Of course one needs a keen eye to look at ever changing transient to its changeless substantive - for that only Gita says one needs purity of the mind - Blessed are those whose minds are pure! A Reality > underlying this worthless ego/world package, a Reality that kept > unveiling Itself in the intervals when the ego/world package was at > its lowest ebb. A Reality, that kept this " physical form " > functioning and operational irrespective of ego/world complex. A > Reality that showered on man with Its protection and Its guidance > and companionship when his ego/world package was at moments and > times of havoc. I mention these times, because it is easier to see > that Reality at these incidences, where the ego cannot claim it to > itself or attribute it to an outer specific entity. hsin_shang - The reality is everywhere in and through - Hence Vedanta say everything is Brahman - like ring, bangle, bracelet etc are all gold only with different names and forms. Where do I look for reality - where do I look for gold? I have to look at everything as the expression of Brahman - that is the reality - Nothing can be away from reality. That is the knowledge. > > This is the Sat Chit Ananda unveiling ITSELF IN OBJECTS. Actually sat is obvious in everything is it not? For me to say the object is - the existence is obviously there. For me to say the object is, I have to be conscious of the object - Hence without consciousness present no one can say object is. What we are missing ananda - that comes when you can see existence-consciousness every where and in everything. That becomes knowledge where ananda comes in that awakening of the knowledge that there is no place where there is no sat and chit. > Understanding that havoc is the only outcome of living through the > ego/world package while Harmony, Bliss and Love are the outcome of > turning my face to the Only Reality and away from the ego/world > package. The Choice is mine, this is the only choice taken by man. > Seeing that choice is the result of the wisdom of a dawned Insight. > To follow this Insight, is the only available course, otherwise i > would have lost the excellent opportunity offered to me. hsin_shang - please read, you write up again - You cannot turn away from reality any time any where since it is everywhere and all the time. In the ego, in the world, in the one who is indulged, and in the one who is running away from - Hence Vedanta says brahmaivedamamRitam purastaata brahma paschaat ... Brahman is there in the front, in the back in the up, in the down, in the east, in the west, in the south and in the north - Now tell me how far you have to run away to meet Brahman. It is just the question of tuning the mind to see wherever you are and whenever you are - since you are that. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Realization is the recognition that Ego is not separate from the absolute consciousness > since substantive of ego is consciousness alone. It is reevaluation of Ego as not > separate entity from the consciousness that I am. - Just as the reflected light is not > different from the original sunlight - but without reflection one cannot see the > original. One sees the original through reflections without getting lost in the images > that are formed in the reflections. There is no seeing the original. Seer does not see. Greetings Saadananda Sir " It is the realization of one's self and the entire world AS one Consciousness, that is what is meant by the realization of Truth. " Sadananda, the above statment is the definition of realization by Sri Atmananda. Ego by definition is division and multiplicity. So ego can never be an expression to Oness or the Absolute Consciousness. When Atmananda said " AS ONE CONSCIOUSNESS " what does he mean? To my mind, self (ego) has lost its characteristics to be an individual entity; as a result of this the world lost its charecteristics of being experienced as separate entities and both self (ego) and world -what I called in my post ego/world package or complex- BEHAVE AS CONSCIOUSNESS DUE, TO THE LOSS OF THEIR CHARECTERISTICS. Now, what is the meaning of the ego losing its charecteristics? What are these charecteristics that are lost? Primarily, the sense of UNIQUENESS, Secondly, the ability to do or to act, thirdly, the resulting satisfaction or pain due to the first and the second. If these three charecteristics are lost from the ego, will the ego still be called ego? Honoured Saadananda Sir Said: It is realization that all experiences are experienced by the conscious entity that I am hsin:The consciousness of the entity I am is the conditioned consciousness which means seeing multiplicity. As I explained above when the ego (entity or the individual) is no longer ego, then ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS REIGNS. Honoured Saadananda Sir Said: that is by seeing I am conscious of the experiences too. Then I am no more experiencer but observer of experiences - like looking at waves of experience and seeing the water content in those waves. One has to be dispassionate enough not to ride on the waves and get lost form one wave to the other. Riding on the wave is like getting lost in the experience itself. hsin: What your Honour described is the OBJECTIVE WITNESS, which is a good primary stand on the way. When the ego is no ego, due to loss of its charecteristics, then we have OBJECTLESS CONSCIOUSNESS, which is the ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF. Now, here is my answer to you Sadanana Sir: Saadananda Sir Said: hsin_shang - I would be careful - Without commenting on Swami Atmanandaji statement since I need to study the statement in context (perhaps Anandaji can comment on that) hsin: Saadananda Sir, No need for warning me, the air is that of love and understanding. Chapter 21, ATMA NIRVRITI, bu Sri Gurunathan (Atmananda) " I- Knowledge has nothing to know. The insentient can never know, being insentient. II- Therefore no one knows anything. All beings stand established as pure consciousness. " Honoured Saadananda said: hsin_shangji > You can never run way from mithyaa - since even the running away forms the mithyaa. hsin: I did not say run away, I said turning away, as when one sees something and turns away his face to see something else. The solid reality is where you are running away from - it is underneath the so called ego/world only - All you have to do is to look in - that is what JK statement -observe the mind to decondition it from the superficials to look at its substantive. Of course one needs a keen eye to look at ever changing transient to its changeless substantive - for that only Gita says one needs purity of the mind - Blessed are those whose minds are pure! hsin: There is no mind that is pure, a pure mind in the true sense of the word is no mind atall. Sadananda Sir said: hsin_shang - The reality is everywhere in and through - Hence Vedanta say everything is > Brahman - like ring, bangle, bracelet etc are all gold only with different names and > forms. Where do I look for reality - where do I look for gold? I have to look at > everything as the expression of Brahman - that is the reality - Nothing can be away from > reality. That is the knowledge. hsin: As long as one is an ego there is no reality for him. He is the in world of diversity and multiplicity. If I are going to say that all this is a reflection of Brahaman, while I am still an ego, then I am decieving myself. Chapter 18 Atma Nirvriti by Gurunathan: " To the Mind If you are going to live as you please, claiming that you are I, how can you accomplish your desire? Don't believe hereafter that by such a claim, your vagaries will be accepted by Me " ......... To the end of the chapter. So Saadanada Sir, as long as we know with the mind not with the Being we are trapped in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 --- hsin_shang <hsin_shang wrote: > > Realization is the recognition that Ego is not separate from the > absolute consciousness > > since substantive of ego is consciousness alone. It is > reevaluation of Ego as not > > separate entity from the consciousness that I am. - Just as the > reflected light is not > > different from the original sunlight - but without reflection one > cannot see the > > original. One sees the original through reflections without > getting lost in the images > > that are formed in the reflections. There is no seeing the > original. Seer does not see. > > Greetings Saadananda Sir > > " It is the realization of one's self and the entire world AS one > > Consciousness, that is what is meant by the realization of Truth. " > > Sadananda, the above statment is the definition of realization > > by Sri Atmananda. > > Ego by definition is division and multiplicity. So ego can never be > > an expression to Oness or the Absolute Consciousness. > > When Atmananda said " AS ONE CONSCIOUSNESS " what does he mean? hsin_shing - PraNAms If one looks carefully - the statement I made does not differ from that of Shree Atamanadaji statement. Consciousness is one - it is substantive of all - that is what the world is - From which the world came, by which it is sustained and into which it goes back - is Brahman, the consciousness. Hence world is not separate from consciousness that I am. World is superficial called adhyaasa superimposed on Brahman, the consciousness - like ring is superimposed on gold. Hence all divisions or discriminations etc are just superimposition or adhyaasa on Brahman - name and form just like ring, bangle and necklace on Gold. Ring may have ego that it is ring and not a bangle. It has to look again to recognize the self of Rind is nothing the self of bangle and bracelet etc which is nothing but gold, from which it came,by which it is sustained and into which it goes back - which is the self in all other ornaments. Ring does have to turn away (or run away either or whatever it wants to do) from its ego to look for gold - all it has to do is to look within. Ring can remain as ring - but understanding of the ring that I am only the ring goes away with the realziation that I am the gold that pervades all the ornaments, but now in the form a ring. Hence hsin_Shangji please if one reads the first sentence again - >>Realization is the recognition that Ego is not separate from the > Absolute consciousness > > since substantive of ego is consciousness alone. It is > reevaluation of Ego as not > > separate entity from the consciousness that I am. When ego recognizes that it is only superficial entity and its substantive is nothing but absolute consciousness that I am - the statement of Atmanandaji follows. -Also the rest of what I wrote also follows. Ego itself cannot realize. Atmaa need not have to realize. I currently identify myself as ego that understanding has to change by shifting my attention from superficial to the substantive that I am. I can play the role of an ego if I want, knowing very well that I am that all pervading consciousness from which all the egos came, sustained and go back into! Once Ring realizes that it is gold, it can still exist as ring knowing very well ring has its value at transactional level but it is actually gold all the time even when it was thinking that it is only a ring. Realized person still operates with superficial 'ego' for the purpose of transactions but knows that he is that consciousness that pervades everywhere. That is jiivan mukta. There is nothing wrong with the ego - but giving reality to the ego is the problem. There is nothing worng in acting - father, son, husband, wife or friend etc - those are role and roles will have problems that is the nature of the roles. But giving a realty to the role is the problem. When I shift myself I am actor, the all pervading consciousness, but taking different roles then I know how to play the game of life - life will be a game then. - He is a jiivan mukta. That is my understanding of Advaita vedanta. Hari Om! Sadananda 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.