Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Self-Knowledge

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all

 

First I would like to stress some aspects which are pertinent to the topic in

particular and for general discussion as well.

 

This is also with reference to Shree Anandaji's comment relating to source of

knowledge.

 

We respect all aachaaryaas. We consider Bhagavaan Ramana also as advaitic

teacher only since both his texts - Upadesa saara and Sat DarShaNam echoes

Vedantic teaching only. I am sure that when Sastriji mentioned that we respect

all the aachaaryaas - all the way down many advaitic teachers, he only means

that we respect their analysis of the scriptures only not the individuals as

pramANa. He is emphasizing the above fact to counter that there are some

aachaaryaas who claim that post Shankara teachers did not interpret Shankara

properly. Sastriji can correct me if I am wrong.

 

As he outlined clearly, even if the aachaaryaas deviated from others

understanding of Shankara, it is only providing a different perspective of the

teaching only. None of the masters have deviated from the basic advaitic

teaching, since that comes from the Scriptures only.

 

Hence ultimate pramANa or means of knowledge is Shastra's only. There is no

compromise of this by any aachaaryaas of the tradition. That is what sanaatana

dharma involves. shaastrasya guruvaakyasya satyaa budhyaavadhaaraaNa is

Shraddhaa -faith is that the statements of the Shaastra as interpreted by the

teacher are indeed true -says VevekachUDAmaNi.

 

As I have mentioned Bhagavaan Ramana is also considered as Vedantic teacher

only, in spite of what others may view him as.

 

What that implies is also important. It only means saastras are the ultimate

pramANa - not individual teachers per sec - We take their interpretations as a

means to understand Shaastra but not as independent means of knowledge.

Ultimately a right teacher is one who directs the disciple to the Shaastra as

pramANa not to himself as pramANa. This is important to recognize. If one finds

that some of the statements of teachers contradict the Shaastra, it is the later

that forms the pramANa not the former. The reason is very simple. Teachers

answers questions depending on the students and their reference and therefore

should be understood with proper reference or context. Even in the texts, they

will be addressing some of the puurvapakshaas or objections prevailing at that

time. Without the historical perspectives and contextual understanding that is

from what reference the discussions or talks are made, it is difficult to

understand clearly. Scripture itself

tell us that if you find the teacher is deviating from Shaastra, then follow

the Shaastra, not the teacher.

 

Ultimately it is not what Bhagavaan Ramana said in this talk or in that talk etc

or Shankara said in this bhaaShya which contradicts in another bhaaShya etc are

relevant - what is relevant is what is samanvayam - the self-consistency that

agrees with the essence of Vedantic teaching - This is true in any science and

this is true in Vedanta too. We revere all the teachers - but more than that -

we revere the truth - that is independent of a teacher, time or space - that

which is eternal and that which is sanaatana. The only thing that is true is -

the self that I AM - which is described as turiiyam in MAnDukya, referring to

which Bhagavaan Ramana says in Sat DarshaNam- pertinent to the topic:

 

nidraa na vidyaa grahaNam na vidhyaa

gRihNaati kinchinna yathaartha bodhe|

nidraapadaartha grahaNetaraa syaat

cideva vidyaa vilasantii ashuunyaa||

 

There is no knowledge that takes place in the deep sleep (in the absences of the

mind). Perceptual knowledge in the waking and in dream is not knowledge also

(when the mind is present) – perceptual knowledge is the knowledge of ‘this

and that’. In the pure knowledge there is no knowledge of 'this' or 'that'.

Pure knowledge cannot be defined but any knowledge we know consists of knowledge

of this and that - that is objective knowledge which can be grasped by intellect

only. Absolute knowledge (yathaartha bodhe) does not involve therefore any

objective knowledge or the absence of objective knowledge (echoing Kena Up.

statement which says - viditam vaa aviditam vaa - is not knowing something nor

not-knowing something) - it is the pure consciousness (chideva) because of which

both knowing and not-knowing takes place. It is neither grasping (grahaNam) nor

non-grasping – it is neither objectification nor non-objectification

(nidraapadartha

grahaNetaraa syaat) – Then what is Brahma vidyaa?

 

Brahma vidyaa is dropping the misconceptions in the mind about oneself as I am

‘this’ - avidyaa janya adhyaasa nivRittiH brahma vidyaa. This takes place

in the general reflection of the mind only as ‘akhandaarthaka bodhaka

vRittiH’ – unbroken ‘thought’ that I am – I am – which Bhagavaan

Ramana says – aham aham tayaa – sphurati hRit swayam which is paramam and

puurNam – which is the supreme and full. Consciousness is all pervading but

knowledge of brahma vidyaa has to take place in the mind only – it is not

nirvikaplaka samaadhi – where absence of thoughts but it that because of which

all thoughts can exists – yan manasaa na manute yenaahur manomata – that

which mind cannot think off but because of which mind can think off – that

alone is Brahman – say Kena. That is the ‘aham brahmaasmi’ knowledge that

occurs in the mind only as the above sloka says – vilasatii – illuminating

or reflecting all the time in the

pool of the mind – Hence it is not absence of mind – as in deep sleep (na

nidraa) neither the presence of objectifiable thoughts also (na grahaNam) –

but brahma vidyaa is that which eliminates two important misconceptions:

 

1. I am a jiiva different Brahman – meaning I am finite different from

infinite – abhrahmatvam – along this misconception of finiteness – all the

notions of mortality, notions of samsaara – or in essence all the notions that

are associated with notion that I am finite being – all get destroyed. Hence

when Ramana says mind is no more – it is the notional mind that gets destroyed

not the objective mind.

 

2. The second misconception which is also equally important is the notion that

‘I have to realize Brahman†– every body is looking for some realization

as if it is something to happen in time and space – One day I am going to

realize. Underlying that I have to realize is implicit assumption that there is

something to realize and that is Brahman. Brahma vidyaa therefore removes this

misconception that Brahman is some object to realize.

 

It has neither guNa nor has not-guNa – it is guNa atiita that is beyond guNa

and not-guNa – It is in spite of guNa – since guNas belong to prakriti (see

B.G. Ch.14) and I am purusha that is not prakRiti that has guNas. I am the

illuminating reflecting consciousness because of which all guNas as well as

their absence are known.

 

Hence Bhagavaan says in the above sloka – it is ashuunyaa – it is not

blankness either – it is that which enlivens everything else in its

self-effulgent ever present entity – sat –chit –ananda swaruupam –

hence Bhagavaan says – paramam – puurNam – sat swaruupam – aham aham

tayaa sphurati hRit swayam – I AM – I AM – I AM – spontaneously rises in

the core of the mind which is of the nature of supreme (there is nothing beyond)

and Infiniteness (puurNam) and of the nature of SAT and CHIT.

 

That is the absolute Shruti declaration as echoed beautifully in Sat DarshaNam

of Bhagavaan Ramana in sloka 14.

 

Could not resist the joy of sharing the sat DarshaNam.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sada-ji:

 

That is very beautifully written and explained. If you don't mind, I will put

this in my notes to remind me to upload it.

 

Namaste and love to all

 

Yours in Bhagavan

Harsha

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of

kuntimaddi sadananda

Sunday, May 03, 2009 9:34 AM

advaitin

Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Self-Knowledge

 

 

PraNAms to all

 

First I would like to stress some aspects which are pertinent to the topic in

particular and for general discussion as well.

 

This is also with reference to Shree Anandaji's comment relating to source of

knowledge.

 

We respect all aachaaryaas. We consider Bhagavaan Ramana also as advaitic

teacher only since both his texts - Upadesa saara and Sat DarShaNam echoes

Vedantic teaching only. I am sure that when Sastriji mentioned that we respect

all the aachaaryaas - all the way down many advaitic teachers, he only means

that we respect their analysis of the scriptures only not the individuals as

pramANa. He is emphasizing the above fact to counter that there are some

aachaaryaas who claim that post Shankara teachers did not interpret Shankara

properly. Sastriji can correct me if I am wrong.

 

As he outlined clearly, even if the aachaaryaas deviated from others

understanding of Shankara, it is only providing a different perspective of the

teaching only. None of the masters have deviated from the basic advaitic

teaching, since that comes from the Scriptures only.

 

Hence ultimate pramANa or means of knowledge is Shastra's only. There is no

compromise of this by any aachaaryaas of the tradition. That is what sanaatana

dharma involves. shaastrasya guruvaakyasya satyaa budhyaavadhaaraaNa is

Shraddhaa -faith is that the statements of the Shaastra as interpreted by the

teacher are indeed true -says VevekachUDAmaNi.

 

As I have mentioned Bhagavaan Ramana is also considered as Vedantic teacher

only, in spite of what others may view him as.

 

What that implies is also important. It only means saastras are the ultimate

pramANa - not individual teachers per sec - We take their interpretations as a

means to understand Shaastra but not as independent means of knowledge.

Ultimately a right teacher is one who directs the disciple to the Shaastra as

pramANa not to himself as pramANa. This is important to recognize. If one finds

that some of the statements of teachers contradict the Shaastra, it is the later

that forms the pramANa not the former. The reason is very simple. Teachers

answers questions depending on the students and their reference and therefore

should be understood with proper reference or context. Even in the texts, they

will be addressing some of the puurvapakshaas or objections prevailing at that

time. Without the historical perspectives and contextual understanding that is

from what reference the discussions or talks are made, it is difficult to

understand clearly. Scripture itself

tell us that if you find the teacher is deviating from Shaastra, then follow

the Shaastra, not the teacher.

 

Ultimately it is not what Bhagavaan Ramana said in this talk or in that talk etc

or Shankara said in this bhaaShya which contradicts in another bhaaShya etc are

relevant - what is relevant is what is samanvayam - the self-consistency that

agrees with the essence of Vedantic teaching - This is true in any science and

this is true in Vedanta too. We revere all the teachers - but more than that -

we revere the truth - that is independent of a teacher, time or space - that

which is eternal and that which is sanaatana. The only thing that is true is -

the self that I AM - which is described as turiiyam in MAnDukya, referring to

which Bhagavaan Ramana says in Sat DarshaNam- pertinent to the topic:

 

nidraa na vidyaa grahaNam na vidhyaa

gRihNaati kinchinna yathaartha bodhe|

nidraapadaartha grahaNetaraa syaat

cideva vidyaa vilasantii ashuunyaa||

 

There is no knowledge that takes place in the deep sleep (in the absences of the

mind). Perceptual knowledge in the waking and in dream is not knowledge also

(when the mind is present) – perceptual knowledge is the knowledge of ‘this

and that’. In the pure knowledge there is no knowledge of 'this' or 'that'.

Pure knowledge cannot be defined but any knowledge we know consists of knowledge

of this and that - that is objective knowledge which can be grasped by intellect

only. Absolute knowledge (yathaartha bodhe) does not involve therefore any

objective knowledge or the absence of objective knowledge (echoing Kena Up.

statement which says - viditam vaa aviditam vaa - is not knowing something nor

not-knowing something) - it is the pure consciousness (chideva) because of which

both knowing and not-knowing takes place. It is neither grasping (grahaNam) nor

non-grasping – it is neither objectification nor non-objectification

(nidraapadartha

grahaNetaraa syaat) – Then what is Brahma vidyaa?

 

Brahma vidyaa is dropping the misconceptions in the mind about oneself as I am

‘this’ - avidyaa janya adhyaasa nivRittiH brahma vidyaa. This takes place

in the general reflection of the mind only as ‘akhandaarthaka bodhaka

vRittiH’ – unbroken ‘thought’ that I am – I am – which Bhagavaan

Ramana says – aham aham tayaa – sphurati hRit swayam which is paramam and

puurNam – which is the supreme and full. Consciousness is all pervading but

knowledge of brahma vidyaa has to take place in the mind only – it is not

nirvikaplaka samaadhi – where absence of thoughts but it that because of which

all thoughts can exists – yan manasaa na manute yenaahur manomata – that

which mind cannot think off but because of which mind can think off – that

alone is Brahman – say Kena. That is the ‘aham brahmaasmi’ knowledge that

occurs in the mind only as the above sloka says – vilasatii – illuminating

or reflecting all the time in the

pool of the mind – Hence it is not absence of mind – as in deep sleep (na

nidraa) neither the presence of objectifiable thoughts also (na grahaNam) –

but brahma vidyaa is that which eliminates two important misconceptions:

 

1. I am a jiiva different Brahman – meaning I am finite different from

infinite – abhrahmatvam – along this misconception of finiteness – all the

notions of mortality, notions of samsaara – or in essence all the notions that

are associated with notion that I am finite being – all get destroyed. Hence

when Ramana says mind is no more – it is the notional mind that gets destroyed

not the objective mind.

 

2. The second misconception which is also equally important is the notion that

‘I have to realize Brahman†– every body is looking for some realization

as if it is something to happen in time and space – One day I am going to

realize. Underlying that I have to realize is implicit assumption that there is

something to realize and that is Brahman. Brahma vidyaa therefore removes this

misconception that Brahman is some object to realize.

 

It has neither guNa nor has not-guNa – it is guNa atiita that is beyond guNa

and not-guNa – It is in spite of guNa – since guNas belong to prakriti (see

B.G. Ch.14) and I am purusha that is not prakRiti that has guNas. I am the

illuminating reflecting consciousness because of which all guNas as well as

their absence are known.

 

Hence Bhagavaan says in the above sloka – it is ashuunyaa – it is not

blankness either – it is that which enlivens everything else in its

self-effulgent ever present entity – sat –chit –ananda swaruupam –

hence Bhagavaan says – paramam – puurNam – sat swaruupam – aham aham

tayaa sphurati hRit swayam – I AM – I AM – I AM – spontaneously rises in

the core of the mind which is of the nature of supreme (there is nothing beyond)

and Infiniteness (puurNam) and of the nature of SAT and CHIT.

 

That is the absolute Shruti declaration as echoed beautifully in Sat DarshaNam

of Bhagavaan Ramana in sloka 14.

 

Could not resist the joy of sharing the sat DarshaNam.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

[Guest guest]

sadananda ji :

 

thank you for explaining so lucidly.bhagavan was/is sathya swaroopam.

 

suresh.

>

> Hence Bhagavaan says in the above sloka †" it is ashuunyaa †" it is not

blankness either †" it is that which enlivens everything else in its

self-effulgent ever present entity †" sat †" chit †" ananda swaruupam †"

hence Bhagavaan says †" paramam †" puurNam †" sat swaruupam †" aham aham

tayaa sphurati hRit swayam †" I AM †" I AM †" I AM †" spontaneously rises in

the core of the mind which is of the nature of supreme (there is nothing beyond)

and Infiniteness (puurNam) and of the nature of SAT and CHIT.

>

> That is the absolute Shruti declaration as echoed beautifully in Sat DarshaNam

of Bhagavaan Ramana in sloka 14.

>

> Could not resist the joy of sharing the sat DarshaNam.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

tony ji :

 

nir gunam =attributeless formless brahman. or did i not understand?isn't our own

'self' atma nir gunam?

 

suresh.

 

 

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> advaitin , " surf2raj " <surf2raj@> wrote:

> >

> > Tony OClery,

> > Yes. The problem is with semantics only. The statement " Samadhi

transcends the mind " should not be stretched to an extent where the terms " Nir

guna " and " non-existent " appear to be one and the same ! Nir guna is NOT

something that is non-existent.

> > You say, " ... So any bliss or experience belongs to the realm of

Saguna....even if it is samadhi with the universal energy or sakti. "

>

> Namaste,

>

> Nir Guna means exactly that 'non existent'..it is not some finer form of

Saguna ......Cheers Tony.

>

[Guest guest]

Paranam to all

Nirguna and saguna are classified only in duality. In nondual reality

there is neither nirguna nor saguna, everything is one. Therefore

nirguna and saguna are one in essence, that is Ataman/sprit. Saguna

is mind because when the mind is present then all the attributes are

present, and when the mind is absent then the attributes are absent.

Samadhi is natural state of the true self/soul. In natural state the

attributes are nonexistent and in duality/mind all the attributes are

present. Thus the duality and non duality is state of the self, not

some theory. The whole objective awareness is created out of one

formless substance, and that formless substance itself is the witness

of the dual and nondual experiences which appear and disappear as

three states. Until one becomes aware of the formless substance and

witness of the duality, he experiences the duality as reality. Thus it

is very much necessary to realize the fact that there is no second

thing exits, other then Ataman/sprit, in the experience of

diversity/duality, to bring unity in diversity. This is my observation

from deeper inquiry and reasoning. Please Correct me if I am wrong.

 

Santthosh

 

On 5/4/09, sureshbalaraman <sureshbalaraman wrote:

> tony ji :

>

> nir gunam =attributeless formless brahman. or did i not understand?isn't our

> own 'self' atma nir gunam?

>

> suresh.

>

>

> advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>>

>> advaitin , " surf2raj " <surf2raj@> wrote:

>> >

>> > Tony OClery,

>> > Yes. The problem is with semantics only. The statement " Samadhi

>> > transcends the mind " should not be stretched to an extent where the

>> > terms " Nir guna " and " non-existent " appear to be one and the same ! Nir

>> > guna is NOT something that is non-existent.

>> > You say, " ... So any bliss or experience belongs to the realm of

>> > Saguna....even if it is samadhi with the universal energy or sakti. "

>>

>> Namaste,

>>

>> Nir Guna means exactly that 'non existent'..it is not some finer form of

>> Saguna ......Cheers Tony.

>>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

thank you,santosh kumar ji.very well explained.brahman sathyam jagath mithyam.

 

suresh.

[Guest guest]

Dear all

Absent of duality is Ashuunyaa. Duality/mind rises from Ashuunyaa and

dissolves as Ashuunyaa. Thus, Ashuunyaa is nothing but Ataman, the

true self. The nature of the true self is

Ashuunyaa/emptiness/nonduality. This is my observation derived from

deeper inquiry and reasoning. Please correct me, if I am wrong.

With respect and regards

Santthosh

 

 

On 5/4/09, sureshbalaraman <sureshbalaraman wrote:

> sadananda ji :

>

> thank you for explaining so lucidly.bhagavan was/is sathya swaroopam.

>

> suresh.

>>

>> Hence Bhagavaan says in the above sloka †" it is ashuunyaa †" it is not

>> blankness either †" it is that which enlivens everything else in its

>> self-effulgent ever present entity †" sat †" chit †" ananda swaruupam

>> †" hence Bhagavaan says †" paramam †" puurNam †" sat swaruupam †"

>> aham aham tayaa sphurati hRit swayam †" I AM †" I AM †" I AM †"

>> spontaneously rises in the core of the mind which is of the nature of

>> supreme (there is nothing beyond) and Infiniteness (puurNam) and of the

>> nature of SAT and CHIT.

>>

>> That is the absolute Shruti declaration as echoed beautifully in Sat

>> DarshaNam of Bhagavaan Ramana in sloka 14.

>>

>> Could not resist the joy of sharing the sat DarshaNam.

>>

>> Hari Om!

>> Sadananda

>>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Santthosh Kumaar <santthoshkumaar wrote:

>

> Paranam to all

> Nirguna and saguna are classified only in duality. In nondual reality

> there is neither nirguna nor saguna, everything is one. Therefore

> nirguna and saguna are one in essence, that is Ataman/sprit. Saguna

> is mind because when the mind is present then all the attributes are

> present, and when the mind is absent then the attributes are absent.

> Samadhi is natural state of the true self/soul. In natural state the

> attributes are nonexistent and in duality/mind all the attributes are

> present. Thus the duality and non duality is state of the self, not

> some theory. The whole objective awareness is created out of one

> formless substance, and that formless substance itself is the witness

> of the dual and nondual experiences which appear and disappear as

> three states. Until one becomes aware of the formless substance and

> witness of the duality, he experiences the duality as reality. Thus it

> is very much necessary to realize the fact that there is no second

> thing exits, other then Ataman/sprit, in the experience of

> diversity/duality, to bring unity in diversity. This is my observation

> from deeper inquiry and reasoning. Please Correct me if I am wrong.

>

> Santthosh

 

Dear Santthosh et al,

 

It's been my observation that most who say " correct me if I'm wrong " don't

really want to be corrected. Probably this is not your case.

 

In any event, this is not a correction but a request for clarification as I may

have misunderstood.

 

In your post you speak of duality and non-duality and then mention the witness

of duality. Once you bring in the witness (of duality) you are back in duality

(triality?) again: the witness, that which is witnessed, and the witnessing.

 

What am I misunderstanding here?

 

Thank you,

Richard

[Guest guest]

richard ji :

 

{What am I misunderstanding here?}=is it the witness=et al for all.

 

suresh.

 

> Dear Santthosh et al,

>

> It's been my observation that most who say " correct me if I'm wrong " don't

really want to be corrected. Probably this is not your case.

>

> In any event, this is not a correction but a request for clarification as I

may have misunderstood.

>

> In your post you speak of duality and non-duality and then mention the witness

of duality. Once you bring in the witness (of duality) you are back in duality

(triality?) again: the witness, that which is witnessed, and the witnessing.

>

> What am I misunderstanding here?

>

> Thank you,

> Richard

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

> Dear Sada-ji:

>

> That is very beautifully written and explained. If you don't mind, I will put

this in my notes to remind me to upload it.

>

> Namaste and love to all

>

> Yours in Bhagavan

> Harsha

 

Namaste,

 

 

If Sankara said the world is appearance.....is it not that a mind is necessary

to project appearance..and isn't that duality. The projector and the projected?

 

The second part of the question is.....How can NirGuna project? That is not

possible.....................Tony

[Guest guest]

Harshaji - PraNAms, By all means.

Sada

 

advaitin@ s.com, " Harsha " wrote:

>

> Dear Sada-ji:

>

> That is very beautifully written and explained. If you don't mind, I will put

this in my notes to remind me to upload it.

>

> Namaste and love to all

>

> Yours in Bhagavan

> Harsha

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

 

> Namaste,

>

>

> If Sankara said the world is appearance.....is it not that a mind is necessary

to project appearance..and isn't that duality. The projector and the projected?

>

> The second part of the question is.....How can NirGuna project? That is not

possible.....................

Hi Tony,

 

It's my understanding that the teachings say

that the world is a projection of nirguna brahman

through the power of maya shakti. Maya shakti

is the 'power' of brahman, inherent in brahman.

 

Ishwara is defined as brahman (nirguna), plus

the maya upadhi (the world, or the creation).

 

It is not the individual's mind which projects

the creation, although it is the individual's

mind which comments upon it. It is maya shakti

which projects the creation.

 

Our minds are capable of cognizing duality,

and our minds are also capable of knowing,

" all this appearance has for its reality,

its being, nirguna brahman alone. "

 

It is this that the jnani's mind, which has nishta

in jnanam, knows absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt.

 

So, what accounts for the 'apparent'

(and this is where the word 'apparent'

comes in, as the world 'appears' to be

many and varied, and yet it is really

only on 'thing'), what accounts for

the appearance of duality, when in reality

there is only one thing here? Maya.

 

This is the understanding, which I have gathered

from the teachings. I'm sure there are many

others on this list who may understand, and

be able to explain this much better than I can.

 

And yet, it is this very topic, which I seem

often to be contemplating, and more and more

it does seem to make sense.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

tony ji :

 

Gyaanis experience Brahman as Nirgunam and Bhakthas experience Brahman as

Sagunam.

 

 

suresh

[Guest guest]

> advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

>

Namaste,

> >

> >

> > If Sankara said the world is appearance.....is it not that a mind is

necessary to project appearance..and isn't that duality. The projector and the

projected?

> >

> > The second part of the question is.....How can NirGuna project? That is not

possible.....................

Hari Om Shri Tony-ji, Pranaams!

 

1. Yes. The mind is also required for projecting the world. But mind, being

inert is not capable of projecting, still manages with the chidAbAsa or

reflection of consciousness on it.

 

2. Correct. Nirguna Brahman cannot project i.e. it can neither be the material

or instrumental cause of the world. But mention of creation is adhyaropa by

shruti to be negated(subject to apavAda) for realising Brahman. Without this,

there is no other gateway to Brahman which is not knowable by other pramAnAs.

Rest one will come to the conclusion that Brahman is non-existent which it is

not. It is Existence-Knowledge-Bliss.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

List Moderators' Note: Durgaji doesn't say that Ishwara is Nirguna and that is

your own interpretation. The moment when a word is spelled out to explain from

anyone including you, duality prevails! You are just repeating and starting

another cycle of oranges and apples!!

 

> advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

>

 

Namaste Durga,IMO.

 

Ishwara is not NirGuna as it is a personal god. The Maya sakti that you saying

is Nir Guna can only be Saguna. Nir Guna is inexplicable, and if Nir Guna

projects an appearance. that is duality so can only be Saguna.....It is easier

not to try and limit or describe Nir Guna and leave it as

inexplicable.....Otherwise one gets to the point of 'It never happened'. On can

only understand that concept after much effort and meditation etc.....Cheers

Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi all

 

 

When the true self [Ataman] is not bound at all, and if one thinks self

is bound, and practices yogic Samadhi; this indeed is bondage. If one

analyze and realizes the fact that self is neither the ego, nor the

body. Both body and ego are part of the duality [illusion/mind]. Thus

practicing Samadhi on base of body/ego is the greatest obstacle in

acquiring the nondual wisdom.

 

True Self is unattached from experience of diversity and action less and

self-effulgent. Seeker practicing Samadhi on the base of false self

, within the false experience [duality/mind], is indeed his bondage

[through ignorance] that he practices Samadhi [suppression of thoughts].

Due to ignorance the seeker expects to get Ataman/Brahman through yoga.

Seeker has to practice Samadhi only for discipline, and he has to know

that he must go beyond it to acquire nondual truth.

Yogic Samadhi is not a means to acquire nondual wisdom. Samadhi in

itself is useless, because the mind is withdrawn and there is no memory

of it until after it is over and one returns to waking experience /

ignorance. This is true of yogi who attains mind control: it is only

sleep.

In Pursuit of truth requires the mind to be active and receptive in

order to examine the world and discriminate. Hence spiritual Sahaja

Samadhi/natural state means knowing that experience of diversity is not

different from the true self, as the dream ocean is not different from

Mind, knowing which they automatically come under control. This is

different from Yogic Nirvikalpa samadhi, which is only deep sleep.

The Yogis want meditation, sitting still in a yogic posture, etc. only

because it gives them pleasure: the satisfaction is for their own selves

only; hence it is something sought by the ego and cannot get ultimate

truth/Brahman in consequence.

There is nothing to drive out. Even the yogi's ecstasies may be

retained, provided he do not let himself be deceived about them and

accept them like everything else, as part of Ataman.

The world must be seen before one can know its true nature in wisdom.

The yogi, who shuts it out, thereby deprives himself of the opportunity

to achieve nondual wisdom.

The yogi lulls the senses into blissful slumber, renders truth

impossible. He has to be awakened! both states are harmful and take one

away from the path of inquiry into truth.

The yogi thinks that by getting to Nirvikalpa Samadhi he reaches the

highest; the religious man thinks that by getting God he reaches the

highest, But they are unaware of the fact that they are not the highest

because their idea of Samadhi and god is based on the false self

within the false experience[mind/duality].

Before one can arrive at knowledge that the external world is really an

idea, he must study, investigate, face and then know the external world,

hence, insufficiency of yoga as source of truth.

Yogis think that keeping out thoughts will give experience of

Brahman/Ataman. How can he keep out a portion of Ataman/ Brahman of his

mind? It is utterly impossible. To say that such thoughtless experience

is not possible, moreover even if it were possible, what is it that the

yogis will keep out? They will only be keeping out Ataman/ Brahman! The

mind is none other than Ataman /Brahman in its substance, as everything

is Ataman/Brahman. The yogi has got the idea of duality and therefore

cannot realize truth.

Yogi's experience of bliss is not Ataman/ Brahman, for Bliss is

something one has to experience, therefore it will have to go as it

came; hence it is only duality/illusion. Yogis seek bliss through

ignorance.

Religion, god glorification, and yoga are nothing to do in pursuit of

truth or spirituality.

When there is an urge for final truth, when doubts come to a man, it

indicates that he has begun thinking. Neither Yogic Samadhi-bliss nor

worldly pleasure should be allowed to draw the mind away from evenness;

for neither can give the ultimate truth / Brahman. When the mind is

distracted by either, either internal or external bliss, it should by

effort be drawn back to steadiness, evenness. This state alone yields

Self-knowledge. This my personal research derived from deeper inquiry

and reasoning.

Santthosh

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

> Dear Friends,

>

>

>

> Enjoy if appropriate. Comments welcome.

>

>

>

> nirvikalpa-samadhi-and-self-knowledge

>

>

>

> Yours in Bhagavan

>

> Harsha

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Pranaams!

 

Limiting the mind to the physical entity is the cause of all

confusion. Therefore, there is need to know what is mind ,and what is

the substance of the mind, to overcome all the confusion. Deeper inquiry

and reasoning on the true base revels the fact that, the man and the

world exists within the mind, and mind itself is the world. By limiting

the mind to the physical entity [ego] and viewing and judging the

worldview, makes one think that he is apart from the world, which is

the cause of experiencing the duality as reality. There is neither

projector nor projection when one becomes aware of the true self is

Ataman, because, Ataman pervades dual and non dual experiences as their

formless clay. Thus no second thing exists other then Ataman in the

experience of diversity/duality. The mind [world] is non existent on

the standpoint of Ataman which is the true self. The mind/world is myth

on the standpoint of Ataman as self.

Santthosh

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:

>

> > advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> >

> Namaste,

> > >

> > >

> > > If Sankara said the world is appearance.....is it not that a mind

is necessary to project appearance..and isn't that duality. The

projector and the projected?

> > >

> > > The second part of the question is.....How can NirGuna project?

That is not possible.....................>

> Hari Om Shri Tony-ji, Pranaams!

>

> 1. Yes. The mind is also required for projecting the world. But mind,

being inert is not capable of projecting, still manages with the

chidAbAsa or reflection of consciousness on it.

>

> 2. Correct. Nirguna Brahman cannot project i.e. it can neither be the

material or instrumental cause of the world. But mention of creation is

adhyaropa by shruti to be negated(subject to apavAda) for realising

Brahman. Without this, there is no other gateway to Brahman which is

not knowable by other pramAnAs. Rest one will come to the conclusion

that Brahman is non-existent which it is not. It is

Existence-Knowledge-Bliss.

>

> In Shri Guru Smriti,

> Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sureshji.

 

advaitin , " sureshbalaraman " <sureshbalaraman wrote:

>

> thank you,santosh kumar ji.very well explained.brahman sathyam jagath mithyam.

>

> suresh.

>

[Guest guest]

--- On Tue, 5/5/09, santthoshkumaar <santthoshkumaar wrote:

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

Thus no second thing exists other then Ataman in the

experience of diversity/duality. The mind [world] is non existent on

the standpoint of Ataman which is the true self. The mind/world is myth

on the standpoint of Ataman as self.

 

----

PraNAms Santhoshkumarji -

 

You sound like our friend Tony more and more, but with different name.

 

Can you tell me who says that there is no second thing other than Atman and that

there is no mind other than the Atman - is it the mind or the Atman that is

making these declarations? Atman cannot say that there is no mind; and mind is

not there to say that there is no mind as per your statement as you mentioned,

after deep thinking by the non-existent mind. Is it not like shouting at the top

of my voice that I have no tongue to speak?

 

Mithyaa does not mean non-existent - it has no independent existence. Sat asat

vilaxanam mithyaa. It has no independent existence therefore it is not sat but

it is there to experience therefore it is not asat either.

 

It is only from absolute reference there is only one and from that reference

nothing can be said - yatho vaacho nivartante apraapya manasaa saha - the words

and the mind return back. That is called paaramaarthika satyam and nothing can

be said from that reference. Even the word nirguNa is only from the point of

seeker to negate that which has guNa cannot be that. One has to be careful from

what reference the teaching is - jnaani does not need any teaching and for

jignyaasu who wants to learn- the teaching is to the mind only. What one has to

drop is the erroneous mind or adhyaasa - that involves wrong conclusions,

leaving behind the objective mind as part of the vibhuuti of the Lord or as

Goudapaada says - natural or swaabhaavikam. Hence realization is with the mind

only as Pranipaataji emphasized. mana eva manushyaanaam kaaraNam bandha moxayoH!

-saus amRitabindu Up. Mind is responsible for both bondage as well LIBERATION.

Without the mind there is no

liberation also as in deep sleep state as emphasized by Ramana in the sloka -

na nidraa .. quoted before.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Mind is responsible for both bondage as well LIBERATION. Without the mind

there is no liberation

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

The subtle point one should understand here is when we say mind is the

medium for liberation, mind does not objectify the Atman as such & such a

thing and give us the knowledge of IT!! It cannot do so, since Atman is

colourless, genderless, attributeless, nameless and formless, objectifying

it is really impossible!!..So what does it mean when shruti says

manasaivedaM AptavyaM nEha nAnAsti kiMchana?? Or what does it mean when

shankara says shamadamAdi susaMskrutaM manaH Atma darshane karaNaM?? can

we have the 'Atma darshana' with the help of susaMskruta mana?? I dont

think so, it is because of the simple fact that it is nirguNa, niravayava,

nirAkAra etc. etc. Then what exactly we have to contextually understand

here when Acharya says *Atma darshana*?? Any thoughts from the esteemed

prabhuji-s??

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

 

 

[Guest guest]

bhaskar ji :

 

doesn't consciouness exist without mind too,as an independent chaitanyam or as

sat chit ananda.?

 

suresh.

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> Mind is responsible for both bondage as well LIBERATION. Without the mind

> there is no liberation

>

>

> praNAms

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> The subtle point one should understand here is when we say mind is the

> medium for liberation, mind does not objectify the Atman as such & such a

> thing and give us the knowledge of IT!! It cannot do so, since Atman is

> colourless, genderless, attributeless, nameless and formless, objectifying

> it is really impossible!!..So what does it mean when shruti says

> manasaivedaM AptavyaM nEha nAnAsti kiMchana?? Or what does it mean when

> shankara says shamadamAdi susaMskrutaM manaH Atma darshane karaNaM?? can

> we have the 'Atma darshana' with the help of susaMskruta mana?? I dont

> think so, it is because of the simple fact that it is nirguNa, niravayava,

> nirAkAra etc. etc. Then what exactly we have to contextually understand

> here when Acharya says *Atma darshana*?? Any thoughts from the esteemed

> prabhuji-s??

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

>

[Guest guest]

bhaskar ji :

 

doesn't consciouness exist without mind too,as an independent chaitanyam or

as sat chit ananda.?

 

suresh.

 

 

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Yes ofcourse prabhuji, consciousness is an independent (svatantra) &

self-existing (svayaM siddha) entity...But the irony of the situation is

that to 'know' that we need the karaNa (instrument) like upAdhi in the

form of mind...But what happens to this individual mind after liberation??

can this individual identity of mind still continue even after the

realization of secondless Atman?? that is the subject matter we had

discussed couple of months back but in vain :-))

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> The subtle point one should understand here is when we say mind is the

> medium for liberation, mind does not objectify the Atman as such & such a

> thing and give us the knowledge of IT!! It cannot do so, since Atman is

> colourless, genderless, attributeless, nameless and formless, objectifying

> it is really impossible!!

 

Bhaskarji PraNAms

 

Here is my understanding for whatever it is worth.

 

Mind is the reflecting pool and the all pervading nirguNa aatma 'as though' gets

reflected in the pool of the mind - that is general reflection. Any reflection

of consciousness involves knowledge. Since this does not have any specific

VRitti - it can also be called - aham vRitti or constant 'I am'. – also can be

called akhaDaakaara vRitti.

 

The specific thoughts arise in the mind are vRitti jnaana centered in the

objects out side as grasped via senses. These also get reflected by the all

pervading consciousness. This is vishesha jnaanam since it is related to

vishiShaNa that belongs to the objects. This is called 'idam' vRitti or 'this'

thought.

 

Pure consciousness is all pervading and need not be known, cannot be known

either, neither it can know also. That is what nirguNa, niraakaara and nitya

caitanya and ananta involves.

 

Then what is self-realization? Mind being inert cannot know and Atma as nitya

shuddha caitanya need not know.

 

I am - pure existence-consciousness taking myself as the reflected consciousness

in the vRitti and forgetting that I am the reflecting light but get carried away

with the vRitti as I am this. Sadhana involves shifting my attention from the

vRitti as I am not this but I am that because of which VRitti are known - yan

manasaa na manute yenaahur manomatam - It is not those that mind can think off

but that because of which mind has the capacity to know the thoughts -says kena.

Sadhana is then shifting from the medium of reflection to the source for

reflection. Without reflection the light cannot be seen but it is neither the

reflection nor the reflecting medium but the very source for the reflecting

illumination -That shift in understanding occurs when the mind is still

reflecting only. That is what is implied when one says mind is needed for

self-realization. In deep sleep saakshii is there but no reflecting medium to

see the reflection from which the

source for reflection can be known.

 

In the understanding that I am the reflecting light of consciousness, I also

shift in understanding that light of reflection comes from me which is without

any reflection - like looking at the sun light reflecting from all over I

understand that sun is shining – I am not the reflections but the very source

for the light of reflection. That is the realization that I am Brahman – in

the mind only. Hence Ramana says ‘aham aham tayaa – I am – I am – I am

spontaneously raises in the mind – that is the understanding.

 

This is the closest that one can explain but one has to realize this which is

beyond the words to explain.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> List Moderators' Note: Durgaji doesn't say that Ishwara is Nirguna and that is

your own interpretation. The moment when a word is spelled out to explain from

anyone including you, duality prevails! You are just repeating and starting

another cycle of oranges and apples!!

>

> > advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> >

>

> Namaste Durga,IMO.

>

> Ishwara is not NirGuna as it is a personal god. The Maya sakti that you saying

is Nir Guna can only be Saguna. Nir Guna is inexplicable, and if Nir Guna

projects an appearance. that is duality so can only be Saguna.....It is easier

not to try and limit or describe Nir Guna and leave it as

inexplicable.....Otherwise one gets to the point of 'It never happened'. On can

only understand that concept after much effort and meditation etc.....Cheers

 

Namaste,

 

This is what Durga said: Which is an oxymoron.

 

" Ishwara is defined as brahman (nirguna), plus

the maya upadhi (the world, or the creation) " .

 

I know my interpretation of ParaAdvaita/Ajativada is unpopular amongst many who

are still into Bhakti or have residual beliefs from Bhakti. In fact many would

say that my interpretation is Buddhistic or that I am a Nastika or something.

What the moderator said above is true, once we try and describe NirGuna--duality

prevails. That is why the old masters were wise in referring to it in the

negative because that is all one can say about it neti neti NirGuna.

It seems that many cannot let go of the corner on the envelope of surrender, and

it is comforting in some way to not accept literally what NirGuna actually

means. Many continue to try and draw a connection between NirGuna and the Saguna

manifestation, when there isn't one. For if NirGuna projected the 'appearance'

of the world then it would require a mind and that is duality. As it is

impossible for NirGuna to have duality then it can never have happened at all.

That is the 'natural state' that Ramana refers to; A state above appearance

which is consciousness also.

 

Where does the appearance go to in Nirvikalpa Samadhi?...Cheers Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

 

You are clearly perfectly entitled to have your own views (and to call that

view by whatever name you like). The problem only arises, as far as this

group is concerned, when you present these views and pass them off as those

of traditional advaita. You must realize that the consequence of this is

that those members who are not so familiar with the teaching may be

confused. And you must also appreciate that it is the responsibility of the

moderators not to allow this to happen if possible.

 

The fact of the matter is that, according to traditional advaita, one has to

speak of two levels of reality, the absolute and the empirical. These have

an relationship to each other which is analogous to that which the waking

state has to the dream state. Whilst we are in the dream, the dream seems

real and is only shown not to be so on awakening. Similarly, the world and

its duality have seeming reality until such time as self-knowledge is

gained. [Thereafter, the appearance continues even though it is now known

that all is mithyA. Note to Bhaskar Prabhu-ji - this is not an invitation to

reopen that discussion! :-)]

 

Accordingly, from the empirical viewpoint, the jIva is real, the world is

real and Ishvara, as the creator of the world, as saguNa brahman, is also

real. The absolute truth is that no jIva has ever been born, no world has

ever been created and Ishvara is also mithyA. That is the teaching of

traditional advaita and, whilst you are posting to this group, you have an

implied responsibility to accept that, whether or not you agree with it.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Tony OClery

Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:21 PM

advaitin

Re: Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Self-Knowledge

 

 

 

<<I know my interpretation of ParaAdvaita/Ajativada is unpopular amongst

many who are still into Bhakti or have residual beliefs from Bhakti. In fact

many would say that my interpretation is Buddhistic or that I am a Nastika

or something. What the moderator said above is true, once we try and

describe NirGuna--duality prevails. That is why the old masters were wise in

referring to it in the negative because that is all one can say about it

neti neti NirGuna.

It seems that many cannot let go of the corner on the envelope of surrender,

and it is comforting in some way to not accept literally what NirGuna

actually means. Many continue to try and draw a connection between NirGuna

and the Saguna manifestation, when there isn't one. For if NirGuna projected

the 'appearance' of the world then it would require a mind and that is

duality. As it is impossible for NirGuna to have duality then it can never

have happened at all. That is the 'natural state' that Ramana refers to; A

state above appearance which is consciousness also.

 

Where does the appearance go to in Nirvikalpa Samadhi?...Cheers Tony.>>

 

_

 

..

 

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4

4847/stime=1241638385/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848585/nc3=5579907>