'AWARENESS', 'CONSCIOUSNESS' AND 'UNDERSTANDING' IN THE CONTEXT OF VEDANTA

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

> Dear Mohan-ji,

> The words `manobuddhyahankAracittani nAham' form the first line of

the

> work known as nirvANaShaTkam of 6 shlokas. These are given with

> English translation at

> www.geocities.com/snsastri/nirvanashatkam.pdf

>

> Best wishes,

> S.N.Sastri

Pranams Sri Sastriji,

I studied the Nirvanashatkam and your commentary . This was the

beautiful prayer sung by Swami Vivekananda when he visited the

Amarnath Lingam. I think it is recorded by Sister Nivedita in one of

her books. Your explanations are cogent and precise. Thanks.

 

A small doubt arises. In the Sloka 1, there is a mention of `Chit'

in the first line as part of the four attributes of the mind, as

explained by you. In the last line, the word `Chidananda' appears. I

have also heard the word, `Chidabhasa' and `Chidakasha' used

somewhere. Is this only the declension according to the rules of

Sandhi, that is, `Chit + AnandA' = chidananda or do the terms `Chid'

and `chit' have somewhat different connotations?

 

Warm regards and Pranams

Mohan

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Dennisji,

>

> You might have seen that I have already accepted Shri Sastriji's

> clarification that chitta is contextually understood as the

faculty

> of memory - a part of the whole mind.

>

> Now, I have to counter your question quoted below with another

> question. When we say chittashuddhi, do we really mean the

shuddhi

> of the whole mind or only a 'washing' of the memories? >

 

Pranams Sri Madathil Nairji,

Warm wishes for the New Year !

You state : " When we say chittashuddhi, do we really mean the

shuddhi

of the whole mind or only a 'washing' of the memories? "

May this novice raise a query?

We are agreed that `Chitta' connotes `memories' when used as part of

the various components such as manas, buddhi etc. What are

these `memories'? These are construed as nothing other

than `vasanAs' embedded in the Anandamaya kosha, a part of which has

been `downloaded', to use software terminology, to the mind for

working out in this lifetime. Thus, the `memories' are the root

cause of this birth itself. `Chittashuddhi' or the `cleansing of the

vasanas' arising either from sadhana (self effort) or anugraha (or

grace of Guru or God) results in the purification of the mind as a

preparatory step towards self-realization.

Thus it appears that `chittashuddhi' results in cleansing of the

mind. So it is acceptable to state that `chittashuddhi' relates to

the memories alone but as a consequence, the total mind gets

purified.

Warm regards and Pranams

Mohan

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 1/1/09, smnm1010 <smnm1010 wrote:

 

 

> Now, I have to counter your question quoted below with another

 

> question. When we say chittashuddhi, do we really mean the

 

shuddhi

 

> of the whole mind or only a 'washing' of the memories? >

 

 

PraNAms

 

When I say plate has to be cleaned - whatever that is dirt has to be removed.

 

Chitta here stands for mind and impurities are wrong notions in the mind -

purification therefore involves removal of wrong notions - wrong notions can

only be removed by right knowledge - since wrong notions are based on false

understanding of what is real and what is not real.

In the mind series I addressed some of these.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mohan-ji.

 

Thanks for your response and New Year Wishes which I heartily

reciprocate.

 

I can gladly go with you if you can extend your ingenuity to about

twenty derivates of chitta that MW Online lists, like chittaja,

chittatApa, chittaprashama, chittaprasannata, chitaprasAda etc., all

of which relate to or denote the mind. A reading of Apte also gives

the same impression.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , " smnm1010 " <smnm1010 wrote:

>

> You state : " When we say chittashuddhi, do we really mean the

> shuddhi

> of the whole mind or only a 'washing' of the memories? "

> May this novice raise a query?

> We are agreed that `Chitta' connotes `memories' when used as part

of

> the various components such as manas, buddhi etc. What are

> these `memories'? These are construed as nothing other

> than `vasanAs' embedded in the Anandamaya kosha, a part of which

has

> been `downloaded', to use software terminology, to the mind for

> working out in this lifetime. Thus, the `memories' are the root

> cause of this birth itself. `Chittashuddhi' or the `cleansing of

the

> vasanas' arising either from sadhana (self effort) or anugraha (or

> grace of Guru or God) results in the purification of the mind as a

> preparatory step towards self-realization.

> Thus it appears that `chittashuddhi' results in cleansing of the

> mind. So it is acceptable to state that `chittashuddhi' relates to

> the memories alone but as a consequence, the total mind gets

> purified.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " smnm1010 " <smnm1010 wrote:

> A small doubt arises. In the Sloka 1, there is a mention of `Chit'

> in the first line as part of the four attributes of the mind, as

> explained by you. In the last line, the word `Chidananda' appears.

I

> have also heard the word, `Chidabhasa' and `Chidakasha' used

> somewhere. Is this only the declension according to the rules of

> Sandhi, that is, `Chit + AnandA' = chidananda or do the terms

`Chid'

> and `chit' have somewhat different connotations?

>

> Warm regards and Pranams

> Mohan

 

Dear Mohan-ji,

In the first line of shloka 1 of Nirvanashatkam there are four words

which are combined into one. These are- manas, buddhi, ahankAra and

cittam. The last word is cittam and not cit. cittani is the plural

of cittam. Because four words are combined, the last word takes the

plural form. As I have stated in my explanation, cittam is the name

for the mind with reference to the function of storing memories. cit

is a different word and it means `consciousness'. The distinction

between these two words should be remembered.

cidAnanda means cit and Ananda—Consciousness and Bliss. brahman is

sat-cit-Ananda. Here brahman is referred to by the two terms cit and

Ananda as cidAnanda.

cidAbhAsa- AbhAsa means reflection. cidAbhAsa means reflection of

cit or pure Consciousness which is brahman in the mind. The jIva is

a cidAbhAsa.

cidAkAsha means the heart-space where cit or brahman is to be

meditated on.

Modification of the word cit as cid in some places is due to the

rules of sandhi or combination of words according to Sanskrit

grammar.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

Here brahman is referred to by the two terms cit and

> Ananda as cidAnanda.

> cidAbhAsa- AbhAsa means reflection. cidAbhAsa means reflection of

> cit or pure Consciousness which is brahman in the mind. The jIva is

> a cidAbhAsa.

> cidAkAsha means the heart-space where cit or brahman is to be

> meditated on.

> Modification of the word cit as cid in some places is due to the

> rules of sandhi or combination of words according to Sanskrit

> grammar.

> Best wishes,

> S.N.Sastri

 

Pranams Sri Sastriji,

Many thanks for your clear explanation. I have been reading your

beautiful essays on 'Mind according to Advaita Vedanta'. I await with

eagerness the third part. Thereafter, with your kind permission, I

will seek some clarifications.

Warm regards and Pranams

Mohan

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

> I can gladly go with you if you can extend your ingenuity to about

> twenty derivates of chitta that MW Online lists, like chittaja,

> chittatApa, chittaprashama, chittaprasannata, chitaprasAda etc., all

> of which relate to or denote the mind. A reading of Apte also gives

> the same impression.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

Pranams Sri Madathil Nairji,

TOUCHE ... as the French would put it ! You certainly floored me !

Is the conclusion that 'chitta' representing memories

connotes 'vasanAs' a correct surmise? Hence, 'chittashuddhi'

means 'eradication of vasanAs'?

Warm regards and Pranams

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Dear Mohan-ji,

 

Yours no doubt is a new angle and welcome. However, to keep my

understanding simple, I would like to go Sadaji's way in # 42782.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin , " smnm1010 " <smnm1010 wrote:

> Is the conclusion that 'chitta' representing memories

> connotes 'vasanAs' a correct surmise? Hence, 'chittashuddhi'

> means 'eradication of vasanAs'?

> Warm regards and Pranams

> Mohan

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " smnm1010 " <smnm1010 wrote:

>We are agreed that `Chitta' connotes `memories' when used as part of

the various components such as manas, buddhi etc. What are

these `memories'? These are construed as nothing other

than `vasanAs' embedded in the Anandamaya kosha, a part of which has

been `downloaded', to use software terminology, to the mind for

working out in this lifetime. Thus, the `memories' are the root

cause of this birth itself. `Chittashuddhi' or the `cleansing of the

vasanas' arising either from sadhana (self effort) or anugraha (or

grace of Guru or God) results in the purification of the mind as a

preparatory step towards self-realization.

Thus it appears that `chittashuddhi' results in cleansing of the

mind. So it is acceptable to state that `chittashuddhi' relates to

the memories alone but as a consequence, the total mind gets

purified.

 

> Is the conclusion that 'chitta' representing memories

> connotes 'vasanAs' a correct surmise? Hence, 'chittashuddhi'

> means 'eradication of vasanAs'?

> Warm regards and Pranams

> Mohan

>

Hari Om Shri Mohanji, Pranaams!

 

When you say vasanas are embeded in the anandamaya kosa, it belongs

to causal body.

 

When you accept chitta as one aspect represent the faculty of memory -

thro which we recollect and recognize, and as whole mind itself,

bothways it becomes part of subtle body.

 

Whatever you do with the effect(subtle body) will not affect the cause

(causal body).

 

Further by shuddha chitta we mean pure,sattvic antahkarana and not a

mind devoid of memories. Or when it is said go to the teacher as a

clean slate we do not mean totally without any vasanas.

 

What a seeker has to do is declared as 'ato vicAraH kartavyo

jijnAsorAtmavastunaH' - Do AtmavicAra - (VivekacUDAmaNi V 15).

Because yAvad shavAkAraM bhajati tAvad manujaH ashuciH; yadA AtmAnaM

shivAkAraM shuddhaM kalayati tadA tebhyo muktaH bhavati - as long as

a man worships his body, he is impure and when he thinks of himself

as pure and auspicious, he becomes free from them(defects). (Verse

397).

After knowing the nature of the Self, by remaining in Self, the

yogi's mind ends and cessation of vasanas follow. svAtmanyeva sadA

sthitvA mano nashyati yoginaH. vAsanAnAM kShayashcAtaH

svAdhyAsApanayaM kuru. (verse 277).

 

The same only Shri. Nairji and Shri. Sadanandaji also stated. All

notions/superimpositions to be removed.

 

OR if one wants to put efforts first for removing the impurities of

one's mind; then the method is enumerated by Sage Naradaji to King

Yudhistra in just 4 verses (Bhagavad Canto 7 Chapter 15 Verses 22-25)

 

'One should conquer desire by the non-entertainment of fanciful

thoughts; anger by renouncing desire; greed by observing the

calamitous nature of wealth; fear by understanding of the Truth.

Grief and delusion should be conquered by Self-knowledge, hypocrisy

by serving the noble ones, obstacles in yoga by silence, and injury

to anyone by controlling one's physical activities.

Sorrow caused by other beings should be overcome by compassion,

phenomenal sorrow by practicing equanimity of mind, bodily affliction

by yoga, and sleep by sattvika habits.

The qualities of rajas and tamas should be conquerred by sattva, and

sattva by samadhi(meditation). ONE CAN CONQUER ALL THESE IN A QUICK

MANNER BY DEVOTION TO HIS GURU.

 

So back to the same VC Verse 15, samAsAdya guruM ato vicAra

kartavyaH - after approaching the Guru vicara has to be done.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Sri Mohan wrote...

 

" The English terms `Awareness', `Consciousness' and `Understanding'

are used interchangeably and to mean the same concept in Western

philosophy.

 

The Oxford Dictionary defines the meaning in almost identical terms

and basically states that they represent a state of knowledge which

enables one to understand something clearly.

 

`Awareness' appears to be a state of existence or

being. `Understanding', however, is the end result of acquisition of

knowledge. `Awareness' is a state that is free of any definitive

action or process. It can be described as `endowed' or `self-

existent' rather than `acquired' or `achieved'.

 

`Understanding', on the other hand, clearly connotes the acquisition

or achievement of some kind of intellectual clarity, following a

process of learning or striving.

 

This difference can be demonstrated by the idea of `being aware that

one has understood a situation'. `Awareness' and `Un-awareness' are

states of being, while `Understanding' is an intellectual

achievement. "

 

 

response....

 

Awareness, Consciousness and Understanding are not the same

concept. Awareness does not necessarily have to represent a state

of knowledge. Awareness is beyond being and non-being.

Understanding is perhaps a combination of knowledge and being.

Understanding may well be a result of knowledge acquired in

previous existences, since the organ chitta, the seat of

understanding, accompanies the jiva in transmigratory existence.

Children are born with different degrees of understanding, different

qualities of chitta accompany them.

 

Memory and understanding are related since understanding could be

said to be the result, in part, of past remembered knowledge. Chitta

includes therefore both memory and understanding. Knowledge

can be forgotten but true understanding is not lost, since it has

passed into the subtle organ. Understanding is not merely an

intellectual achievement since individual understanding directly and

proportionately varies with the quality of the being of the

individual.Purify your being and you will see and understand more even

with the same knowledge.

 

The casual use of the words 'awareness', 'consciousness' and

'understanding' interchangeably, debases language and ensures no

one understands what is being said. It is reasonable to suspect that

such words are being used interchangeably because it is not known

what they indicate or mean. In fact a study of the English words

'awareness, consciousness, and understanding' leads to some

comprehension of the quite different levels and natures of atman,

Brahman and Parabrahman. However, what the corresponding

Sanskrit originals of these words are, remains something of a

mystery? The meanings given by the Oxford English Dictionary

can never exceed the level, mundane and spiritual, of the compiler.

Original meanings found in an etymological dictionary tend to

give greater insight, as if the creators of language were at a finer

level than subsequent generations of users. Language seems to

start at a surprisingly high level and then slowly degenerates with

time? Ancient Panini's and Bhartrhari's comprehension of the

spiritual structure which is the basis of the sanskrit language is

astonishingly profound and no one since, eastern or western,

appears to have again approached such a level of understanding.

 

Sri Mohan wrote...

 

`Vijnana', `Prajnana' and `Sujnana'. These words describe a kind

of ascending scale of knowledge.

 

`Vijnana' can be said to be `experience' or `wisdom', which is

knowledge gained from experience. `Prajnana' is a wider and more

profound knowledge of matters beyond the ken of the mind and

intellect. `Sujnana' is pure knowledge of the Supreme and

corresponds to `Consciousness'. The terms `Pragnana' and `Sujnana'

can be said to state the same concept.

 

response....

 

Looking up these words in the Monier Williams and Macdonell

sanskrit dictionaries subtle differences are found.....

 

'Vi' indicates 'separation', 'apart', 'without', possibly derived from

'dvi' meaning 'in two parts', 'in different directions'.

'Vi' as a prefix to nouns indicates 'division', 'distinction'. 'Jnana'

simply means 'knowledge'. Vi together with the root jna

means to distinguish, discern, observe, recognize, know,

understand. Therefore vijnana literally means without knowledge,

separation knowledge, or possibly knowledge in two directions,

knowledge of duality? Monier Williams lists the meanings:

'the act of distinguishing', 'discerning', 'comprehending',

'understanding'. Macdonell offers the meanings: 'discernment',

'knowledge'.

 

'Pra' with verbs means 'before', and with nouns means 'great',

but with adjectives means 'exceedingly'.

Therefore prajnana literally means great knowledge. Monier

Williams lists the meanings: 'wisdom', 'knowledge'.

Macdonell offers the meanings: 'cognisance', 'knowledge'.

He also equates prajnana with Sarasvati, the shakti of Brahma.

 

'Su' has many meanings and indicates 'to move', 'possessing

supremacy', 'extract', 'beget or bring forth', 'good',

'right', 'excellent', 'virtuous'. Simply and literally, sujnana

means good knowledge. Monier Williams lists the meanings:

'possessing good knowledge', 'easy to be known'. Macdonell

offers the meaning: 'good knowledge'. 'Su' is indicative of a

high ethical quality.

 

In summary.... Vijnana is knowledge of the principle of duality,

knowledge of the subtle world. Prajnana is great knowledge which

transcends human knowledge, knowledge of the causal world.

Sujnana is knowledge of the highest ethics, goodness, knowledge

of dharma, knowledge of the single principle of creation,

love-existence.

 

The buddhi is capable of looking in two directions, outward to

the material world and inward towards the subtle world, It reaches

to the causal world but it cannot penetrate into the causal world.

Therefore someone who uses predominantly the buddhi is able to

discriminate between the real and the unreal, but having no direct

knowledge of the cause of anything cannot claim to be a possessor

of great knowledge. Aham is latent in the buddhi and once it

comes into manifestation it could be further stated that no

'I' can be a great man, no 'I' can know great knowledge.

Sujnana is knowledge at the level of the creator. Since

Brahma is merely a personification of one of

the gunas, such knowledge, although magnificent, does not

transcend parkriti, and is located within the Vyavaharika.

 

 

Prajnana and Sujnana clearly do not represent the same concept.

Sujnana is not consciousness. Since the Absolute does not know

himself and has no knowledge, neither vijnana, prajnana,

or sujnana, nor jnana or any word prefixed to it, can apply to the

Parabrahman.

 

What has been said is simply playing with the etymology of the

words. Whether these were the true original meanings of the words

is very difficult to be certain. One can only guess. Sri Mohan has

eloquently given some of the current meanings and naturally they

predominate in the contemporary understanding of jnana and its

several derivatives.

 

 

Sri Mohan wrote....

 

It is in this context that an important sloka from the Aitreya

Upanishad is translated thus:

Sarvam Thath Pragnanetram Pragnane Prathistitam Pragnanetro

Lokaha Pragna Prathista Pragnanam Brahma

 

'All these are guided by consciousness and are supported by

consciousness. The universe has consciousness for its guide.

Consciousness is the basis or stay of all. Verily consciousness

(Prajnanam) is Brahman.'

 

response...

 

Since nowhere, in the sanskrit dictionaries quoted, is prajnana

translated other than 'knowledge' or related to knowledge,

therefore Prajnana in the Aitreya Upanisad cannot accurately

be translated as consciousness.

 

I suspect we are not going to get very far merely consulting

dictionaries in distinguishing Awareness, Consciousness, and

Understanding. Also the word Knowledge could well be added to

these three since it is frequently interchanged with Consciousness

by Vedantic authors. It is necessary to hear what a jnani has

to say? Nisargadatta uniquely has distinguished these four.

 

First Nisargadatta distinguishes between Western and Indian

concepts of consciousness-knowledge. His explanation shines light

upon the basic conceptual confusion....

 

" In the West the name for consciousness is the mind,

in India the name for consciousness is Jnana, knowledge. "

 

So there is the explanation... the majority of Western Advaitins

and Western philosophers simply do not understand the concepts

present in the Indian mind.

 

It is acknowledged, as Sri Dennis Waite says, that Nisargadatta

uses the word consciousness differently from the majority of

Vedantins, however it believe this is because he has managed

to transcend consciousness while they appear not to have,

perhaps regarding it mistakenly as an absolute?

 

Nisargadatta uses the word 'chetana' (=cetana) for consciousness,

which Monier Williams lists as 'visible, conspicuous,

distinguished, consciousness, soul, mind'. and 'caitanya' as

'consciousness, sensation, intelligence', and the Samkhya

usage as 'Universal spirit'. Macdonell translates cetana,

the adjective as 'manifest, distinguished,

sentient, animate, conscious', and the noun as 'perception,

appearance', and with a final long 'A' vowel as 'consciousness,

intelligence, mind'. And 'caitanya' similarly as 'consciousness, mind'.

 

Occasionally Nisargadatta uses the word 'chitananda' for

consciousness, indicating, I believe, a universal non-dual level

of consciousness that differs from 'cetana' the consciousness

which has a manifold nature and can assume innumerable forms.

Nisargadatta spoke in Marathi and one can only hope his

translator understood the subtleties of the different words

used for consciousness.

 

Philosophy, both Western and Vedanta, is essentially words talking

about other words, words defining and refining other words... and

one may well ask what is the point of it all? It could be justified as

the mind trying to understand the mind? If so, that seems

to be a useful process in the quest to transcend our limited

nature, which most of us, if honest, find ultimately unbearable.

 

What follows is a collection of quotations by Nisargadatta,

scatted throughout the many transcripts of his talks. Sri Dennis Waite

will possibly comment that it is too long.... but only

those who want to understand the essential difference between

Awareness, Consciousness, Understanding and Knowledge will

read this far, and certainly any further... and that is just

how it must be. I sincerely believe that reading just a

little of Nisargadatta will enable one never again to confuse,

or interchange, the concepts of consciousness and

awareness. Nisargadatta also reveals what understanding is and the

great usefulness but ultimate limitations of knowledge. Some

Advaitins may suggest that extensive quotations should not be made

on this forum, rather one's own understanding. To that one

counters that this collection is not ordinarily available,

and the clear voice of Brahman seems to be speaking through illiterate

Nisargadatta's mouth, and there is no desire to alter, enhance,

imitate, or précis it. I am just amazed by what he says.

 

------------------------------

 

Nisargadatta on consciousness....

 

" Everything takes place in consciousness.

 

As Absolute, I am timeless, infinite, and I am awareness without

being aware of the awareness. As infinity I express myself as space,

as timelessness I express myself as time. Unless there is space and

duration I cannot be conscious of myself. When space and time

are present there is consciousness, in consciousness the total

manifestation takes place, and various phenomena come into being.

 

 

You are not the consciousness but have to become one

with the consciousness. Consciousness is normally associated

with an individual. But it is not really the individual that has

consciousness, but it is the consciousness that assumes

innumerable forms. Out of the same consciousness, with the

formation of a Krishna body a Krishna is born; a donkey also

is formed accordingly. Consciousness is the same. There is

no end to what this consciousness can do. This consciousness

that one has is of a manifold nature.....it can adopt any form

it likes.....whereas your true nature is full in itself, unchanging.

 

Just like in a cinema all is light, so does consciousness become

the vast world. Look closely and you will see that all names and

forms are but transitory waves on the ocean of consciousness, that

only consciousness can be said to be, not its transformations.

 

Consciousness is like light. Just like in a cinema all is light,

so does consciousness become the vast world. Consciousness

does not shine by itself. It shines by a light beyond it.

Having seen the dreamlike quality of consciousness, look

for the light in which it appears, which gives it being. If you

are alert, be aware of yourself, and you will see light in the

deepest recesses of your core. You are the light.

 

This consciousness, because of which everything else is,

is itself merely the light of That which is, a reflection of That

which is.

 

This consciousness is nothing but energy. When the body essence

grows weaker, the consciousness grows weaker, and ultimately

will leave. I am not consciousness, nor its contents. Whatever you

perceive is not you, nor yours. It is there is the field of

consciousness, but you are not the field and its contents, nor even

the knower of the field. Cease taking yourself to be within the

field of consciousness. Consciousness comes into being and

goes out of being. Sometimes we are conscious and sometimes

not. When we are not conscious, it appears to us as a darkness

or a blank. But a jnani is aware of himself as neither conscious

nor unconscious, but purely aware, a witness to the three states

of mind and their contents. There is the content of consciousness

as well as the awareness of it.

 

Consciousness has identified with a form. Later it understands that

it is not that form and goes further. In a few cases it may reach

the space, and very often there it stops. In a very few cases, it

reaches its real source, beyond all conditioning. Consciousness

must seek its source. Not as an individual, the knowledge

" I Am " must go back to its source.

 

Whenever a form is infused with life (prana), consciousness

(chetana) appears by reflection of awareness in matter. The

combination of the body and the vital breath generates this

consciousness. You are not the consciousness.

 

Because of the mistaken identity we think of personalized

consciousness, but actually it is vast and limitless. The source of

consciousness is prior to time and space, prior to manifestation.

Consciousness itself is an impurity, because it is the result of

procreation, and cannot exist without a body. Consciousness is

made of material and is therefore temporary. People do not really

understand that the body, breath, and consciousness are time-bound.

At the end of the day the consciousness will disappear.

 

Being in consciousness is time-bound. Consciousness is a temporary

condition which has come upon the total, timeless, spaceless,

changeless state. It is a happening which has come and which will

disappear. Entering the consciousness drags you down into

the suffering. Consciousness brings you trouble. Understand the

nature of the consciousness and feel you have nothing to do with it.

Consciousness is a guest with you, it was not originally there and

will not be there in the future. It is temporary. In the temporary

knowledge about the consciousness you want to understand

everything in that consciousness itself. Understand that consciousness

is conditioning. Consciousness is concepts, ideas, hopes, and all

things. Awareness is already beyond consciousness.

 

Be aware of being conscious and seek the source of consciousness.

That is all. Consciousness comes upon one by itself, spontaneously,

and goes away in the same manner. Consciousness is a time-bound

state. Go back to your state before this consciousness came upon you.

The original state is before the consciousness came upon you.

That which you do not know, that is the right state. Everything

that comes after this consciousness is attained is useless.

Consciousness is useless.

 

Consciousness is the product of the five elements and

their interactions. Consciousness is present as long as the five

elements are present. When the great dissolution of the universe

occurs, there is dissolution of the five elements, and consciousness

also finishes. But the knower of consciousness, the Absolute state,

is unaffected. In that state there is no fear of anything. Even

when there is total destruction, the Absolute is merely watching,

being in a state of witnessing.

 

What remains when consciousness, or the sense of Being goes,

is the Original, which is unconditioned, without attributes, and

without identity. It is Parabrahman, the Absolute.

 

The Guru tells me that this consciousness, which I love so much,

is only an illusion. This consciousness is the basic cause of all

unhappiness. My true state is before this consciousness arose,

and beyond all concepts. Consciousness cannot be separated

from the world and the universe, it is the same. This is my maya,

it has come out of me, and I know that I am not the maya.

I am the witness of this play.

 

All consciousness is limited and therefore painful. At the root

of consciousness lies desire, the urge to experience.

 

Consciousness cannot stand still. Consciousness is the same

as movement. The movement takes place through the three gunas

which are inherent in this knowledge " I Am " . All movement takes

place through these gunas and this consciousness keeps on vibrating.

 

The whole consciousness is already there. No great man

having taken birth has wrought an iota of change in the consciousness.

What is, is. It will never change. The experience

is there and somebody comes later to experience it. Unknowingly

this knowingness has appeared in you, and you have to go

through it, willingly or unwillingly. No one can change what

he has to face as experience so long as he is identifying

with the body and mind.

 

Consciousness happens in the universal consciousness or mind,

called the ether of consciousness. All the objects of consciousness

form the universe. Beyond both, supporting both, is the supreme

state, a state of utter stillness and silence. Whoever goes there,

disappears. It is unreachable by words or mind. It is called God,

or Parabrahman, or Supreme Reality, which are names given by

the mind. It is the nameless, contentless, effortless and spontaneous

state, beyond being and not being. Just as the universe is the body

of the mind, so consciousness is the body of the supreme.

 

There is a state beyond consciousness, which is not unconscious.

Some call it super-consciousness, or pure consciousness, or supreme

consciousness. It is awareness free from the subject-object nexus.

Which is first, consciousness or awareness? Awareness becomes

consciousness when it has an object. The object changes all the time.

In consciousness there is movement; awareness by itself is

motionless and timeless, here and now. In pure consciousness nothing

ever happens.

 

`I-am-ness' is consciously receding from the Absolute.

Consciousness is slowly extinguishing itself, knowingly it is

disappearing. But nothing affects you, the Absolute.

You can never isolate yourself from the consciousness unless

consciousness is pleased with you and gets rid of you.

Consciousness opens the gate for you to transcend consciousness.

 

Look at consciousness as something that happens to you and not in

you, as something external, alien, superimposed. Then, suddenly

you are free of consciousness, really alone, with nothing to intrude.

And that is your true state. You cannot step out of consciousness

for the very idea of stepping out is in consciousness. But if you

learn to look at your consciousness as a sort of fever, personal

and private, in which you are enclosed like a chick in its shell,

out of this very attitude will come the crisis which will

break the shell.

 

All that is to be done, if anything, is to sit and let

consciousness unfold itself, and unfold knowledge about itself.

You must have a thorough knowledge of this consciousness,

and having known everything about the consciousness you come

to the conclusion that it is all unreal, and then it should

drop off.

 

You know that you are not the consciousness. You witness your

consciousness. Consciousness is the reflection of the Awareness

that is the Absolute.

 

Nisargadatta on awareness......

 

Awareness and consciousness are not the same. Awareness is

primordial, it is the original state, beginningless, endless,

uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change.

Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface,

a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness,

but there can be awareness without consciousness, e.g.. as in

deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its

content since consciousness is always consciousness of something.

Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless

calm and silent, and is the common matrix of every experience.

Consciousness comes and goes, awareness shines

immutably.

 

When the content of consciousness is viewed without likes

and dislikes, the consciousness of it is awareness. But there is

still a difference between awareness as reflected in consciousness

and pure awareness beyond consciousness. Reflected awareness,

the sense: `I am aware' is the witness, while pure awareness is the

essence of reality. Reflection of the sun in a drop of water is a

reflection of the sun, no doubt, but not the sun itself. Between

awareness reflected in consciousness as the witness, and pure

awareness, there is a gap, which the mind cannot cross.

 

 

 

Nisargadatta on knowledge.....

 

All knowledge is a form of ignorance. All knowledge is in

memory; it is only recognition, while reality is beyond the duality

of the knower and the known. How is it known that everyone is

completely ignorant? Consider, where did it all start? It is part of

the knowledge " I Am " , and this knowledge and the particular form,

the whole bundle, has been created out of the 5 elements, and the

5 elements have no knowledge, so the whole thing is pure ignorance.

 

All these ideas of yours are binding you. Understand that there is no

knowledge, that it is all ignorance. There is no knowledge whatsoever.

When you understand yourself, both knowledge and ignorance

disappear. You only require knowledge so long as the ignorance

is there.

 

Can you understand that knowledge itself is ignorance? If knowledge

were real it would have been there eternally.....it would not have had

a beginning and an end.

 

People consider themselves ignorant and want knowledge. They

come to a jnani and listen and they get knowledge, and

ultimately they give the knowledge up again as being unnecessary.

When you want knowledge you want something in the

manifestation. You are amassing knowledge for an individual.

You are amassing knowledge that is not going to help you,

because it is in a dream.

 

 

Can there be true knowledge of things? Relatively.....yes.

Absolutely.....there are no things. To know that nothing is

is true knowledge.

 

The no-knowingness state is a total, complete, perfect state.

In the knowingness state everything is imperfect and is never

complete. In your nothingness you are perfect, you are total,

and in your knowingness you are imperfect.

 

Knowledge and ignorance both disappear into vijnana.

Jnana is knowledge, ajnana is ignorance, both disappear into

vijnana.

 

You can never have knowledge about your Self because

Parabrahman cannot be witnessed. You know what you are not.....

what you are you cannot know. The Ultimate knowledge

does not have any knowledge.

 

Ultimately one must go beyond knowledge.

 

When you are convinced you are the Knower of the consciousness,

there is still a mental identification with the body which makes

you feel that something good is going to happen to you. Now you

have a certain amount of knowledge and it makes you feel

very happy. This knowledge has driven away ignorance. In the

washing away of the ignorance the knowledge will also disappear,

only you remain.

 

 

The Absolute does not know Itself.

 

 

 

Nisargadatta on understanding....

 

Consciousness and whatever appears in consciousness is nothing

but a gigantic fraud. It is a spontaneous happening, there is no

perpetrator of this fraud. There is nothing that can be done

about it, therefore all that can happen is for the understanding

to take place.

 

All experiences are due to memories and are merely movements in

consciousness and therefore they cannot last. All experiences will

be a means of suffering if one has not realized what they are.

Whatever happens is a mere movement in that consciousness. Once

this is understood, nothing remains to be done, there is nothing

you can or need to do. What you think you have understood is

only a movement in your consciousness, and you are separate

from that consciousness. As far as the Self is concerned there

is no question of understanding or not understanding.

 

Understand your own mind and its hold on you will snap. The mind

misunderstands, misunderstanding is its very nature. Right

understanding is the only remedy. by all means use your mind to

know your mind. It is perfectly legitimate, and also the best

preparation for going beyond the mind.

 

You can not know perfection, you can know only imperfection.

For knowledge to be, there must be separation and disharmony.

You can know what you are not, but you can not know your real

being. You can only be what you are. The entire approach is

through understanding, which is the seeing of the false as false.

But to understand, you must observe from outside.

 

The correct understanding will be when you realize that

whatever you have understood so far, is invalid. In Jnana-yoga

all that is understood is made unreal. Understanding is a stage.

You must go beyond this understanding stage, to a stage beyond,

you must come to a state of " I have not understood anything " .

Come to the conclusion that the various stages from childhood

up to old age.....whatever you have understood and got stabilized

as your identity.....has proved false. Similarly, whatever you have

tried to understand during your spiritual, search will prove false.

Therefore nothing is to be understood. The ultimate point of

view is that there is nothing to understand, so when we try to

understand, we are only indulging in acrobatics of the mind.

You have not understood until you have solved the riddle of

the one who thinks he has understood.

 

 

Nisargadatta on distinguishing atman, Brahman and Parabrahman....

 

This consciousness which makes perception possible is the Atman.

That which is aware of the consciousness is the Brahman.

The Paramatman is that knowledge that indwells the body, " I Am " ,

and that cannot be described.

 

 

Brahman means the emanation of the world, simultaneously

confirming that " I Am " . In this Brahman everything is illusion.

The principle that understands, realizes, and witnesses,

is the Parabrahman. Witnessing happens to the Parabrahman.

 

 

 

The Parabrahman is the highest Self. It is subtler than space.

One who is Parabrahman does not know whether he is or

is not. Non-beingness or beingness have absolutely no effect on him.

That is nirguna. Saguna and nirguna are one in Parabrahman.

There is only the Supreme. In movement it is saguna. Motionless it

is nirguna. But it is only the mind that moves or does not move.

The real is beyond, you are beyond.

 

In the Absolute state there is no one to be conscious, so there is

no question of reaching the Absolute state as long as consciousness

is present. The Absolute state is where knowledge is absorbed

in knowledge, and knowledge is not aware of itself.

 

 

 

How is Brahman to be recognized?.....

 

When you are absolutely one with Brahman, you do not use the mind.

There is no sound, and you cannot talk. You keep quiet. To talk you

have to use the instrument of the mind, and so you need to

detach a little from Brahman, then talk can come out.

 

How is Brahman to be transcended?....

 

Once stabilized in the Brahman, there is no longer any use for

knowledge of the Brahman, that is, knowledge of the Self.

Therefore I, the Brahman, do nothing, and need nothing. This is

videhisthiti, the body-free state. There is no high nor low, no real

nor unreal, no inside nor outside, and no dimension of any kind

in that state. You are the Brahman who loses identification with

the body, no longer a human being. You are not ever the

Brahman, but the Parabrahman, the witness of that Brahman.

All this Brahman is illusion, ignorance. Brahman is created out

of your beingness. Your beingness is ignorance only, from the

Absolute standpoint.

 

With the transcendence of the knowledge " I Am " , the Absolute

prevails. The state is called Parabrahman, while the knowledge

" I Am " is termed Brahman. This knowledge " I Am " or the beingness

is illusion only. Therefore when Brahman is transcended only the

Parabrahman is, in which there is not even a trace of the knowledge

" I Am " .

 

How is the Parabrahman to be recognized?....

 

Nobody becomes a Parabrahman, nobody can become a Parabrahman.

It is. Before the knowledge " I Am " appeared on you, that is

Parabrahman. In the Parabrahman state the quality of knowingness

is not present, nor does the Parabrahman state have any

embellishments like the manifest consciousness. The Parabrahman

state does not know it is, neither does it have this manifestation.

In spite of the dissolution of universes and cosmos that Absolute

is untouched. It exists.

 

In the Parabrahman there is no awareness of existence, there is

awareness of awareness only. As soon as awareness of existence

comes, there is a duality and manifestation comes.

 

Even the dissolution of the manifest universe, the Brahman, cannot

destroy the Self. Prior to, during, and after the dissolution, I,

the Absolute, ever prevail, untouched, untainted, and unchanged.

 

 

----------------------

 

 

Part of the confusion of the interchangeability of consciousness

and knowledge is because they are located in our structure side by

side. One helps the other. When there is consciousness there is

also simultaneously knowledge. When there is knowledge,

consciousness is enhanced. This may cause some Vedantins to

believe that consciousness and knowledge are one and the same,

but they are quite separate in us and seen by awareness which is

located behind and watching this pair.

 

Nisargadatta's language is astonishing and provocative.

How can Nisargadatta's words be known to be true or false?

There is simple test, which can be done each and every day of one's

life. Observe at the moment of awaking in bed each morning.

You will awake as simple awareness. In that first brief instant you

are pure awareness. It is realize that you have not been asleep.

Someone may have been asleep, asleep throughout the whole of

the night, but you have never slept. You have remained throughout,

day or night, in your natural state.... pure simple awareness.

All this is in one instant moment. The next moment something

occurs, there is a thought that you do not know who you are.

You identify with the suggested thought... you ask the question:

Who am I? It is a fatal question. The next instant something comes

in from the left hand side, and covers you, completely obliterates

you, like a cloak covering its wearer. Consciousness appears

and you remember you are your familiar self living in such

and such a house, with all the people in your life, and

all your work to do. And you realize it is all pseudo.

Of course you get up and go about your activities being

the person you are in ordinary life.... but if you

are quick, very very quick, you realize that you have been

completely covered over by consciousness. You have disappeared.

 

Consciousness, the vyavaharika, has been superimposed upon

awareness, the paramarthika.

 

It is completely unnecessary to know who I am. The self is

awareness that does not know who it is. Having made a serious

mistake, having been deceived by suggestion, I wonder who or

what is the source of the suggestion? I also wonder how I am

going to be able to resist the suggestion tomorrow?

 

I spend the rest of the day, and the next day, and every day,

saying: neti, neti... I am not this person who I believe I am.

This person loves himself....neti, neti. This consciousness does

not want to disappear.... neti, neti. I want to be my true self....

neti, neti.

 

John Ward..... neti, neti.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Ward,

 

Refernece your marathon 42818.

 

I read the entire post. Is that a matter for self-congratulation? I

don't know. You seemed to suggest so somewhere in your mail.

 

Anyway, thanks for going so very much into details. Appreciate the

pains you have taken.

 

Your quotes of Maharaj are indeed both fascinating and provocative.

I am afraid we here at Advaitin are not adequately prepared to take

him up and, as such, quoting him on several issues without the

benefit of a proper study, might result in further bewilderment and

confusion.

 

In order to prove the veracity of Maharaj's teachings, you aksed each

one of us to remember and analyse that very first moment of pure

awareness immediately after waking. I have seen several Advaitins

also recommending this. I have a doubt here. Any memory of that very

nascent moment and any analysis of it are possible only after the

surging vyAvahArika tsunami has completely drowned and swept that

pure awareness away. Of what use is such understanding of a

refracted memory then - an understanding corrupted by the very

phenomenal from which you are asking us to stand apart? Is it then

really necessary to seek that pure awareness at all when all that we

are left with is this phenomenal of ours? Isn't it then that we have

to find the truth here itself in the midst of all this hallabaloo?

Why not then sit right here and try to understand the very soul of

this din and hallabaloo? To my eyes, that seems to be what Advaita

is doing and should be doing.

 

Kindly comment.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:

> >

> Hari Om Shri Mohanji, Pranaams!

>

> When you say vasanas are embeded in the anandamaya kosa, it

belongs

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

> sattva by samadhi(meditation). ONE CAN CONQUER ALL THESE IN A

QUICK

> MANNER BY DEVOTION TO HIS GURU.

>

> So back to the same VC Verse 15, samAsAdya guruM ato vicAra

> kartavyaH - after approaching the Guru vicara has to be done.

>

> In Shri Guru Smriti,

> Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

 

Pranams Sri Br Pranipata Chaitanyaji,

Heartfelt respects and thanks for your compassionate and profound

post on this subject in response to my queries.

I am still studying your post and trying to reconcile it/understand

it in the context of my own `conditionings'. I am aware that my

mental `conditionings' is the cause of confusion.

Kindly give me some time to absorb and understand. I will revert to

you for further guidance.

Warm regards and Pranams

Mohan

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " selwyndyffryn " <selwyndyffryn

wrote:

>

> response....

>

> Awareness, Consciousness and Understanding are not the same

> concept. > It is completely unnecessary to know who I am. The self

is.............................................................

 

> I spend the rest of the day, and the next day, and every day,

> saying: neti, neti... I am not this person who I believe I am.

> This person loves himself....neti, neti. This consciousness does

> not want to disappear.... neti, neti. I want to be my true self....

> neti, neti.

>

> John Ward..... neti, neti.

 

Pranams Sri Wardji,

I am moved by the trouble you have taken to clarify a humble query.

Thanks.

I am aware of the contribution of Sri Nisargadatta Maharajji. Like

the expositions of Sri Atmananda Menonji, I became aware of Sri

Nisargadatta Maharajji through the kind writings of Western students

of Advaita. I have, however, not studied his writings either in

Marathi( I have a very small familiarity with Marathi) or English so

far. I have noted some sharp exchanges on this forum in Sept 2008.

I do not mind the reference to Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. After all,

in our quest for the truth, one is bound to come in touch with

several viewpoints. Within this limited lifetime at our disposal,

the objective is to maximize understanding. Ultimately the

realization of truth will override everything including our

intellectual attempts at understanding. The Sruti says : " Ekam Sat

ViprAha BahudA Vadanti " !( The truth is one, learned people call it

by many names).

The points you make are deep and will take some time for me to

absorb and understand. Please bear with me.

Warm regards, Pranams, and a Happy New Year

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Sri Madathil Nair wrote...

 

" In order to prove the veracity of Maharaj's teachings, you asked each

one of us to remember and analyse that very first moment of pure

awareness immediately after waking. I have seen several Advaitins

also recommending this. I have a doubt here. Any memory of that very

nascent moment and any analysis of it are possible only after the

surging vyAvahArika tsunami has completely drowned and swept that

pure awareness away. Of what use is such understanding of a

refracted memory then - an understanding corrupted by the very

phenomenal from which you are asking us to stand apart? "

 

response...

 

I agree that any analysis of the first moment upon waking from

deep sleep in the morning can only occur after the consciousness

of 'oneself and the world', that is characteristic of the vyavaharika,

has swept over and obliterated pure awareness. But, I suspect,

memory is different? Something was watching what occurred.

And that something which was watching, objectively and impartially,

is perhaps Cit, which is related to chitta? Chitta accompanies one

everywhere, and it is the same chitta that was present before and at

the awakening moment as well as after the awakening moment in

the vyavaharika, and in this chitta is now the unerasable memory of

what happened. I believe it is an objective memory, but I can not

be completely sure about this.

 

I mentioned the 'nascent moment' because it had happened to myself

just a few days previously... the first time in one's life that, upon

awakening from deep sleep, there was pure awareness with the

realization that I had never slept and, exactly as Nisargadatta says,

I did not know myself. Obviously that was not the absolute state,

because it was lost. Lost in the sense of being covered over, avarana.

The witness also saw the induced disturbance into which the

suggested question " who am I? " was placed. Once the stillness was

broken the consequences inevitably unfolded... identification with

the question took place and 'I wanted to know who I was'. Instantly,

the world and my ordinary self swept in with the appalling full flood

of mundane consciousness. All that is in objective memory, I believe,

but it is true that later I analyzed the experience as.... it is

unnecessary to know who I am, the imperative of remaining as the

stillness, the necessity to know the source of suggestion entering the

mind, and non-identification with questions, in fact

non-identification with anything. Such analysis is very likely to

contain flaws, I agree.

 

This daily superimposition of consciousness upon pure awareness

happens bewilderingly fast... it is very difficult to observe it

accurately and objectively. Something must be able to observe the

phenomenon.... otherwise " several Advaitins would not be able

to recommend this " ?

 

Of what use is such an understanding, especially a probable

corrupted understanding? This is difficult to answer.... all I can say

is that now I know that my familiar self, and indeed the separate

world, is completely pseudo. Up until that moment I knew it

relatively theoretically.... now I saw it with absolute certainty.

What use is that? I now know what I am not.

 

I don't think I have to seek that pure awareness. Clearly it is there.

All that seems to be necessary is to avoid the trap by which

it gets covered over every fresh morning. For that it is necessary

to stop identifying with everything that occurs in the mind. And

so, just as Advaita recommends, I now diligently practice neti,

neti.... as often as I can remember. Why? Something in myself no

longer wants to fall for the deception. There is nothing I can do

about it. I am unable to change anything.... except my attitude.

The attitude now is: quietly avoid falling for the deception.

 

" Why not try to understand the very soul of this din and hullabaloo? "

Yes, agreed. For that it seems necessary to discover its source? The

source seems to be Maya? If so, then you have to penetrate the

causal world. You seem to have set yourself a remarkable task.... I

truly wish you good fortune.

 

Blessings

 

John Ward.... neti, neti.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Ward,

 

Thanks for your 42851. I admire your humility.

 

I won't and can't question your personal experience of that nascent

moment of pure awareness. But, in Vedanta, Shankara is said to put a

lot of emphasis on common experience (consensus).

 

Vedanta also talks about non-erasable memory. But it relates to the

enjoyment of deep sleep, which is the experience of all, where the

mind was not evidently present. The enjoyment is recollected upon

waking. Such memory is termed pratyabhignA.

 

I can vibe with you well about your experience of pure awareness upon

waking and share the realization that `I had never in fact slept'. I

do to the view that a realized person like Maharaj is awake

to his own nature all the time and beyond the sway of the three

states. That we saw him going to bed regularly and all that is only

part of our own ignorance.

 

Thus, a realized one can't be having the type of mind that we are

familiar with, which becomes quiescent during deep sleep. He is like

a light that lights up all the time without flickering and casting

shadows.

 

Witnessing through non-identification is very much there in Vedanta

and recommended in the study of avastAtraya where we are asked to

stand apart from the three states and analyze them. Needless to

point out such witnessing is possible only in and from what we call

the waking state – the same corruption we confront in analyzing the

first moment of pure awareness after waking up.

 

You are right one doesn't have to seek pure awareness. It is in fact

our own self-evidence and our continuous availability to ourselves in

all that we do and experience. From this point of view,

attentiveness is the key to ourselves and that I think is not in any

way different from the `completely being in the now' Tolle

advocates. We Indians extol our Devi as the one who resides as

shraddA (which I translate in this context as attentiveness) in all

beings! Devi is Consciousness. Perhaps, in this understanding lies

the key to endearing and coaxing the phenomenal hullabaloo to reveal

the secret of its essence to us. Be attentive – open your eyes and

ears; don't close them and sit in caves seems to be the message.

 

To reinforce my understanding that that self-evident availability of

mine to me is in fact permanent and not subject to time, birth and

and death, I take recourse to a more open, wakeful path. And that is

this: I keep asking myself if the objective world, this universe of

ours, would survive if all intelligent life in it is completely

obliterated in an unprecedented cataclysm. The answer is a big `NO'

that yells out to me the fact that a desolate, lifeless earth that is

usually visualized in such a scenario to survive the calamity would

need an intelligence to appreciate and validate its existence. I

suppose that is the pure consciousness Maharaj is talking about,

which is you and me and everything! That intelligence is Fullness

(pUrNAM) and remains Fullness whether or not the phenomenal is there

or not. Nothing is added to or subtracted from it.

 

How do we then shed our mortal attire of falsity and be naked in our

pure nature? Someone here suggested meditation and others exercising

the intellect. The latter has already been exercised in apprehending

the existence of that pure awareness. No doubt, we can continue to

use it in reflecting on and deciphering the scripture. However and

perhaps, some additional in-puts are required, which may be

meditation, austerities (sAdhana inclusive of devotion and Ishwara)

and, as you say, continuous `neti, neti' to reinforce the

intellectual appreciation of truth till falsity melts away to leave

us permanently anchored in our Fullness. The path is indeed many-

pronged. No one prong can claim exclusivity.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Madathil Nair

 

" How do we then shed our mortal attire of falsity and be naked in

our pure nature? " By letting go. By continual letting go the clothes

of personality fall away in a heap at our feet. Then we are naked

in our being. Reach that state and fullness is not far away, in fact

it is the next wider step.

 

" Someone here suggested meditation and others exercising

the intellect. " Japa meditation is excellent. Jyotirananda, some

years ago, published a book on meditation as practiced by the

dandhis at the math of Shankaracharya. In it is everything

necessary for a lifetime of meditation. Many techniques, not

only japa.

 

" However and perhaps, some additional in-puts are required " ?

Nisargadatta didn't only teach the 'knowledge' part of advaita,

interspersed among his talks are suggestions, both direct and

indirect, for sadhana. Some years ago I made a study of the

then published books of transcripts of Nisargadatta talks and

collected together, among other things, all the sadhana practices

he recommended. It is a large file, too large to post here, so if

I may, I would like to send it to you (and to anyone else naturally)

via a private email. I think you may find several sadhanas there

which may appeal to your own individual nature. Collectively

they are the very ones by which Nisargadatta himself reached

Self Realization. The practice of 'self remembering' is one of

the most important.

 

" The path is indeed many-pronged. No one prong can claim

exclusivity " . Beautifully put. Possibly there are as many paths

as there are individuals? In a certain state of attention one

can learn from every passer-by. Who ever you are with is

your teacher.

 

John Ward neti neti

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Ward,

 

Thank you very much.

 

I have seen your off-List mail. Kindly send me the complete file on

sAdhana.

 

I appreciate whatever you have said and I now know how profoundly you

are into what you are saying and where you stand.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , " selwyndyffryn " <selwyndyffryn

wrote:

 

> Nisargadatta didn't only teach the 'knowledge' part of advaita,

> interspersed among his talks are suggestions, both direct and

> indirect, for sadhana. Some years ago I made a study of the

> then published books of transcripts of Nisargadatta talks and

> collected together, among other things, all the sadhana practices

> he recommended. It is a large file, too large to post here, so if

> I may, I would like to send it to you (and to anyone else naturally)

> via a private email. I think you may find several sadhanas there

> which may appeal to your own individual nature. Collectively

> they are the very ones by which Nisargadatta himself reached

> Self Realization. The practice of 'self remembering' is one of

> the most important.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:

>

> Shri Sankaracharyaji also gives the same in verse 9 of Sadacara -

>

> layavikShepayoH sandhau manastatra nirAmiSham.

> sa sandhiH sAdhito yena sa mukto nAtra samshayaH.

>

> But the adhikAri of the text is a yogi.

>

> In Shri Guru Smriti

> Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

 

Pranams Sri Br. Pranipata Chaitanyaji,

I feel embarassed to ask you to kindly advise the source of the sloka

and a translation.

Warm regards and Pranams

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Respected Pranipatacaitanyaji.

 

This is some free thinking on the free translation.

 

Could the verse mean this:

 

" At the meeting point between sleep and waking, the mind is

desireless. He who can reside there, he is the liberated one. "

 

Afterall, sleep is laya (absorption in oneself) and waking is

vikShepa (projection).

 

Kindly pardon me if this is way off the mark. Coincidentally, your

translation reminded me of Shri Ward's recent reference to

the " moment of pure awareness immediately on waking up " and

Nisargadda Maharaj's teachings relating to that topic.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

advaitin , " Pranipata "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:

The free flowing translation of the verse quoted is:

 

There at the junction of the dissolution and projection, the mind is

without any object of enjoyment(desires). That is sandhi. By whom it

is possible to achive (that position), he is a liberated one. There

is no doubt in this.

 

The sandhi which is referred as the state of mind at the junction

without any object, is also referred as nirvikArA, anAdhArA and

unmanI state. (verse 35)

 

> >> layavikShepayoH sandhau manastatra nirAmiSham.

> >> sa sandhiH sAdhito yena sa mukto nAtra samshayaH.