Recent discussions and two Jnanis point of view...

[Guest guest]

Dear All, Pranams,

In view of recent discussions I found two related excerpts, from two

" Jnanis' point of view " .

Regards,

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

 

............................

 

Talks with Ramana Maharshi

 

TALK 499 (excerpt).

 

D.: So it amounts to this. To see a Jnani is not to understand him.

You see the jnani's body and not his jnanam. One must therefore be a

Jnani to know a Jnani.

M.: The Jnani sees no one as an ajnani. All are only jnanis in his sight.

In the ignorant state one superimposes his ignorance on a Jnani and

mistakes him for a doer. In the state of jnana, the Jnani sees nothing

separate from the Self. The Self is all shining and only pure jnana.

So there is no ajnana in his sight.

There is an illustration for this kind of allusion or

super-imposition. Two friends went to sleep side by side. One of them

dreamt that both of them had gone on a long journey and had strange

experiences. On waking up he recapitulated them and asked his friend

if it was not so. The other one simply ridiculed him saying that it

was only his dream and could not affect the other. So it is with the

ajnani who superimposes his illusive ideas on others.

Regarding ajnana in early youth and jnana at the present time, Sri

Bhagavan said: There is no jnana as it is commonly understood. The

ordinary ideas of jnana and ajnana are only relative and false. They

are not real and therefore not abiding. The true state is the non-dual

Self. It is eternal and abides whether one is aware or not.

It is like kanthabharana or the tenth man.

D.: Someone else points it out.

M.: That one is not external. You mistake the body for the Guru. But

the Guru does not think himself so. He is the formless Self. That is

within you; he appears without only to guide you.

 

TALK 65.

 

A visitor: Is the jagat (world) perceived even after Self-Realization?

M.: From whom is this question? Is it from a Jnani or from an ajnani?

D.: From an ajnani.

M.: Realise to whom the question arises. It can be answered if it

arises after knowing the doubter. Can the jagat or the body say that

it is? Or does the seer say that the jagat or the body is? The seer

must be there to see the objects. Find out the seer first. Why worry

yourself now with what will be in the hereafter?

Sri Bhagavan continued: What does it matter if the jagat is perceived

or not perceived? Have you lost anything by your perception of jagat

now? Or do you gain anything where there is no such perception in your

deep sleep? It is immaterial whether the world is perceived or not

perceived.

The ajnani sees the Jnani active and is confounded. The jagat is

perceived by both; but their outlooks differ. Take the instance of the

cinema. There are pictures moving on the screen. Go and hold them.

What do you hold? It is only the screen. Let the pictures disappear.

What remains over? The screen again. So also here. Even when the world

appears, see to whom it appears. Hold the substratum of the `I'. After

the substratum is held what does it matter if the world appears or

disappears?

The ajnani takes the world to be real; whereas the Jnani sees it only

as the manifestation of the Self. It is immaterial if the Self

manifests itself or ceases to do so.

 

 

............................................

 

I Am That, Nisargadatta Maharaj (excerpt, page 203)

 

Q: When I ask a question and you answer, what exactly happens?

M: The question and the answer -- both appear on the screen. The lips

move, the body speaks -- and again the screen is clear and empty.

Q: When you say: clear and empty, what do you mean?

M: I mean free of all contents. To myself I am neither perceivable nor

conceivable; there is nothing I can point out and say: 'this I am'.

You identify yourself with everything so easily, I find it impossible.

The feeling: 'I am not this or that, nor is anything mine' is so

strong in me that as soon as a thing or a thought appears, there comes

at once the sense 'this I am not'.

Q: Do you mean to say that you spend your time repeating 'this I am

not, that I am not'?

M: Of course not. I am merely verbalizing for your sake. By the grace

of my Guru I have realised once and for good that I am neither object

nor subject and I do not need to remind myself all the time.

Q: I find it hard to grasp what exactly do you mean by saying that you

are neither the object nor the subject. At this very moment, as we

talk, am I not the object of your experience, and you the subject?

M: Look, my thumb touches my forefinger. Both touch and are touched.

When my attention; is on the thumb, the thumb is the feeler and the

forefinger -- the self. Shift the focus of attention and the

relationship is reversed. I find that somehow, by shifting the focus

of attention, I become the very thing I look at and experience the

kind of consciousness it has; I become the inner witness of the thing.

I call this capacity of entering other focal points of consciousness

-- love; you may give it any name you like. Love says: 'I am

everything'. Wisdom says: 'I am nothing' Between the two my life

flows. Since at any point of time and space I can be both the subject

and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am both,

and neither, and beyond both.

Q: You make all these extraordinary statements about yourself. What

makes you say those things? What do you mean by saying that you are

beyond space and time?

M: You ask and the answer comes. I watch myself -- I watch the answer

and see no contradiction. It is clear to me that I am telling you the

truth. It is all very simple. Only you must trust me that I mean what

I say, that I am quite serious. As I told you already, my Guru showed

me my true nature -- and the true nature of the world. Having realised

that I am one with, and yet beyond the world, I became free from all

desire and fear. I did not reason out that I should be free -- I found

myself free -- unexpectedly, without the least effort. This freedom

from desire and fear remained with me since then. Another thing I

noticed was that I do not need to make an effort; the deed follows the

thought, without delay and friction. I have also found that thoughts

become self-fulfilling; things would fall in place smoothly and

rightly. The main change was in the mind; it became motionless and

silent, responding quickly, but not perpetuating the response.

Spontaneity became a way of life, the real became natural and the

natural became real. And above all, infinite affection, love, dark and

quiet, radiating in all directions, embracing all, making all

interesting and beautiful, significant and auspicious.