Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 namaste. :-) please forgive the simplicity of my question and know that it is sincere, if naive. i have recently begun to seek communion directly with the divine through meditation. i do this by becoming still, nurturing a deep connection and love with all that is, and inviting the divine in. does this path sound like a fruitful one? thank you. rachMiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Rachmiel - PraNAms These are simple facts. Whatever that has beginning must have an end. The divine that can come must go afterwords. That which comes and goes is mithyaa or not absolutely real. The one who is inviting the divine to come and go seems to be more permanent than the coming and going divine. The truth is that which remains more permanent than the the coming and going one. And you seem to be more real than the divine that comes and goes. Hence I would spend more time trying to find out who is that I that is seeking the divine to come and go and for what purpose. That is better way of spending the time - by enquiring with in who is that I that wants some divine to come and go and why? Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Sun, 5/10/09, rachmiel <rachmiel wrote: please forgive the simplicity of my question and know that it is sincere, if naive. i have recently begun to seek communion directly with the divine through meditation. i do this by becoming still, nurturing a deep connection and love with all that is, and inviting the divine in. does this path sound like a fruitful one? thank you. rachMiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Namaskar Sadanandaji, Does this activity of inviting the divine through meditation, which comes and goes, in the mithya order of reality, a fruitful one? What is that fruit ? If one prefers to do such activity, in what attitude it should be done ? More importantly, what does scriptures say about this activity, its fruit and the attitude in which it could be done ? Thank You. Regards, Vengatesh. On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda < kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > Rachmiel - PraNAms > > These are simple facts. Whatever that has beginning must have an end. The > divine that can come must go afterwords. That which comes and goes is > mithyaa or not absolutely real. The one who is inviting the divine to come > and go seems to be more permanent than the coming and going divine. The > truth is that which remains more permanent than the the coming and going > one. And you seem to be more real than the divine that comes and goes. Hence > I would spend more time trying to find out who is that I that is seeking the > divine to come and go and for what purpose. That is better way of spending > the time - by enquiring with in who is that I that wants some divine to come > and go and why? > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > --- On Sun, 5/10/09, rachmiel <rachmiel<rachmiel%40hotmail.com>> > wrote: > > please forgive the simplicity of my question and know that it is sincere, > if naive. > > i have recently begun to seek communion directly with the divine through > meditation. i do this by becoming still, nurturing a deep connection and > love with all that is, and inviting the divine in. > > does this path sound like a fruitful one? > > thank you. > > rachMiel > > > -- Vengatesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 > Rachmiel - PraNAms namaste, dr. sadananda. thank you so much for replying to my message. > These are simple facts. Whatever that has beginning must have an end. The divine that can come must go afterwords. That which comes and goes is mithyaa or not absolutely real. yes, i understand. > Hence I would spend more time trying to find out who is that I that is seeking the divine to come and go and for what purpose. That is better way of spending the time - by enquiring with in who is that I that wants some divine to come and go and why? i feel that the divine is always there, has always been there, will always be there. my " invitation " is ongoing, my door is always open. but it is easy to forget, to get lost in the helter skelter of the world. that is why i take the opportunity to remind myself to open the door during meditation. i do not want the divine to come and go. in fact, i don't believe it CAN come and go; it is always here. but i can lose conscious sight of it. and, again, that is why i invite it in during meditation: to consciously reconnect. am i on the right path, dr. sadananda? thank you again. rachMiel ---------------------- > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > --- On Sun, 5/10/09, rachmiel <rachmiel wrote: > > > > please forgive the simplicity of my question and know that it is sincere, if naive. > > i have recently begun to seek communion directly with the divine through meditation. i do this by becoming still, nurturing a deep connection and love with all that is, and inviting the divine in. > > does this path sound like a fruitful one? > > thank you. > > rachMiel > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Shree Vengatesh - PraNAms From the fundamental point, there are essentially two things - aatmaa and anaatma. Atma is real and self-existent and self-effulgent and sat chit ananda swaruupam which also means anantam or infinite or Brahman, the one with out a second. Hence anaatma cannot independently exist since Atma being infinite. Hence anaatma exists or appear to exist - and its existent depends on the aatmaa as it’s substantive. To invoke a divine I have to be a devotee different from the divine that I am invoking. Since I am the subject and that what I invoke is an object of invocation. Any object is anaatma while the subject that I am is a conscious entity. Hence even the divine that is objectified ultimately is nothing but anaatma only if I am seeking elsewhere. It is alright to seek divine outside in the beginning since mind needs an alter for the meditation or for invocation to quiten the mind. But as one matures or when the mind becomes purer and purer, Vedanta itself directs the disciple to look within -Kena says - it is not that what you worship is Brahman, it is that because of which you are able to see, hear, talk, think - that alone is Brahman. Bri Up. -in the discussion between Yagnavalka and Gaagi - declares it cannot be seen but it is seer, it cannot be heard but it is the hearer, it can be thought off but it is the very thinker, etc. Bhagavaan Raman echoes this teaching in sat darshaNam- sloka 22 - yadiishitur viikshaNam Ikshitaaram aviikshya tanmaanasikekshaNam syaat na drashturanyaH paramo hi syaat viiskhaa svamuule praviliiya nishTaa|| - Which condenses the above Upanishad teaching in simple words. In essence without recognizing who is the seer any vision of Iswara as an object is only a mental vision or objectification of Iswara or maanasikam or mental vision. There is no other Iswara other the seer who is of the nature of sat chit ananda swaruupa. Understanding of the essence of the seer is the real vision of the Iswara only. This does not mean one can not invoke Iswara following the upaasnaas prescribed in the scriptures in the form that one imagines Iswara to be. That which is all pervading can be in the object of invocation too but it cannot be limited by it. Hence with invocation He can come in any form that one invokes - but what do I do with the form. If he is compassionate he has to teach me that He resided as my very essence in the very core of my personality (as I am). Otherwise, If I am immature and still long for some temporal pleasures I will ask for boons that I want this or that. I am still dependent on something other than myself for my happiness. That is slavary. Remember Bhagavaan appeared even for Bhasmaasura. Hence one can invoke him in any form but final understanding should be the substantive of jiiva, jagat and Iswara is nothing but I am. There is no other Iswara. Hence if invocation outside helps me to recognize ultimately that He is inside and outside - the very substantive of everything- if that understanding comes then it is useful. Otherwise, the compassionate God that is invoked will somehow help in teaching the above fact via teacher or via experience. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Vengatesh <vengat83 wrote: , Does this activity of inviting the divine through meditation, which comes and goes, in the mithya order of reality, a fruitful one? What is that fruit ? If one prefers to do such activity, in what attitude it should be done ? More importantly, what does scriptures say about this activity, its fruit and the attitude in which it could be done ? Thank You. Regards, Vengatesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 --- On Sun, 5/10/09, rachmiel <rachmiel wrote: i feel that the divine is always there, has always been there, will always be there. my " invitation " is ongoing, my door is always open. but it is easy to forget, to get lost in the helter skelter of the world. that is why i take the opportunity to remind myself to open the door during meditation. i do not want the divine to come and go. in fact, i don't believe it CAN come and go; it is always here. but i can lose conscious sight of it. and, again, that is why i invite it in during meditation: to consciously reconnect. am i on the right path, dr. sadananda? ------------ Rachmiel - PraNAms Yes - Indeed. My salutations to you. You are on the right path - The very consciousness -existence because of which you are able to invoke even the divine is the very expression of the divine itself. Hence do not look fore any where but try to see Him in every thing - in every expression, in ever thought, in every experience, in every thing that is seen, perceived since one can not but be conscious of all these without the living presence of consciousness of that Iswara. Ultimately the recognition I am that consciousness because of which I am conscious off all the seen, experiences or perception is the realization of God or realization of the self too. Continue your search, but also listen to the teaching about both Iswara and the self that you are to insure proper understanding of the subject without objectification or conceptualization. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Brilliant Ks ji.i am ,i am fulfilled as i am...thanks.superb sir.big hugs to you. suresh. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Shree Vengatesh - PraNAms > > From the fundamental point, there are essentially two things - aatmaa and anaatma. Atma is real and self-existent and self-effulgent and sat chit ananda swaruupam which also means anantam or infinite or Brahman, the one with out a second. > > Hence anaatma cannot independently exist since Atma being infinite. Hence anaatma exists or appear to exist - and its existent depends on the aatmaa as it’s substantive. > > To invoke a divine I have to be a devotee different from the divine that I am invoking. Since I am the subject and that what I invoke is an object of invocation. Any object is anaatma while the subject that I am is a conscious entity. Hence even the divine that is objectified ultimately is nothing but anaatma only if I am seeking elsewhere. > > It is alright to seek divine outside in the beginning since mind needs an alter for the meditation or for invocation to quiten the mind. > > But as one matures or when the mind becomes purer and purer, Vedanta itself directs the disciple to look within -Kena says - it is not that what you worship is Brahman, it is that because of which you are able to see, hear, talk, think - that alone is Brahman. Bri Up. -in the discussion between Yagnavalka and Gaagi - declares it cannot be seen but it is seer, it cannot be heard but it is the hearer, it can be thought off but it is the very thinker, etc. Bhagavaan Raman echoes this teaching in sat darshaNam- sloka 22 - > > yadiishitur viikshaNam Ikshitaaram > aviikshya tanmaanasikekshaNam syaat > na drashturanyaH paramo hi syaat > viiskhaa svamuule praviliiya nishTaa|| - > > Which condenses the above Upanishad teaching in simple words. In essence without recognizing who is the seer any vision of Iswara as an object is only a mental vision or objectification of Iswara or maanasikam or mental vision. There is no other Iswara other the seer who is of the nature of sat chit ananda swaruupa. Understanding of the essence of the seer is the real vision of the Iswara only. > > This does not mean one can not invoke Iswara following the upaasnaas prescribed in the scriptures in the form that one imagines Iswara to be. That which is all pervading can be in the object of invocation too but it cannot be limited by it. Hence with invocation He can come in any form that one invokes - but what do I do with the form. If he is compassionate he has to teach me that He resided as my very essence in the very core of my personality (as I am). Otherwise, If I am immature and still long for some temporal pleasures I will ask for boons that I want this or that. I am still dependent on something other than myself for my happiness. That is slavary. Remember Bhagavaan appeared even for Bhasmaasura. > > Hence one can invoke him in any form but final understanding should be the substantive of jiiva, jagat and Iswara is nothing but I am. There is no other Iswara. > > Hence if invocation outside helps me to recognize ultimately that He is inside and outside - the very substantive of everything- if that understanding comes then it is useful. Otherwise, the compassionate God that is invoked will somehow help in teaching the above fact via teacher or via experience. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > > > > --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Vengatesh <vengat83 wrote: > , > Does this activity of inviting the divine through meditation, which comes > and goes, in the mithya order of reality, a fruitful one? > > What is that fruit ? > > If one prefers to do such activity, in what attitude it should be done ? > > More importantly, what does scriptures say about this activity, its fruit > and the attitude in which it could be done ? > > Thank You. > > Regards, > Vengatesh. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 namaste, dr. sadananda. and thank you again for your generous reply. last night, after i read your previous response, i meditated. i realized that it was a misconception on my part to believe i had to " invite " the divine into my being. the divine is ALWAYS in my being, as it is everywhere, everytime. so, instead, i felt that i must strive to open my being to realize what is already there. is this correct, dr. sadananda? or am i once again fooling myself? thank you. rachMiel ------------------------- > i feel that the divine is always there, has always been there, will always be there. my " invitation " is ongoing, my door is always open. but it is easy to forget, to get lost in the helter skelter of the world. that is why i take the opportunity to remind myself to open the door during meditation. i do not want the divine to come and go. in fact, i don't believe it CAN come and go; it is always here. but i can lose conscious sight of it. and, again, that is why i invite it in during meditation: to consciously reconnect. > am i on the right path, dr. sadananda? > ------------ > Rachmiel - PraNAms > Yes - Indeed. My salutations to you. You are on the right path - The very consciousness -existence because of which you are able to invoke even the divine is the very expression of the divine itself. Hence do not look fore any where but try to see Him in every thing - in every expression, in ever thought, in every experience, in every thing that is seen, perceived since one can not but be conscious of all these without the living presence of consciousness of that Iswara. Ultimately the recognition I am that consciousness because of which I am conscious off all the seen, experiences or perception is the realization of God or realization of the self too. Continue your search, but also listen to the teaching about both Iswara and the self that you are to insure proper understanding of the subject without objectification or conceptualization. > Hari Om! > Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 --- On Mon, 5/11/09, rachmiel <rachmiel wrote: last night, after i read your previous response, i meditated. i realized that it was a misconception on my part to believe i had to " invite " the divine into my being. the divine is ALWAYS in my being, as it is everywhere, everytime. so, instead, i felt that i must strive to open my being to realize what is already there. is this correct, dr. sadananda? or am i once again fooling myself? ------ Rachmiel - PraNAms Yes you are right. The divine is pure all pervading and ever effulgent eternally present principle that illumines everything in its very presence - it is that because of which I am conscious of everything else. That pure object-less consciousness is my essential nature too since I am a subject and not an object. Any thing that I can objectify cannot be I the subject, but the capacity to objectify comes from the consciousness that I am. If I can see that in myself and recognizes I am that self - everything else becomes only my glory or vibhuuti. It is not conceptualization of yourself but that because of which you are even able to conceptualize yourself - that is free from any conceptualization, that your are, where words fail to express since words are conceptualization of that which cannot be conceptualized. That pure knowledge free from all objectifications remains. All the best Hari Om! Sadanand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 namaste dr. sadananda. :-) > It is not conceptualization of yourself but that because of which you are even able to conceptualize yourself - that is free from any conceptualization, that your are, where words fail to express since words are conceptualization of that which cannot be conceptualized. That pure knowledge free from all objectifications remains. i am SO confused by the above. my little brain has gotten all dizzy. could you please help me understand? thank you. rachMiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Rachmiel - PraNAms All that means, the ultimate truth is -self that I am - I am being a subject, who am I? cannot be answered by 'I am this' since this is an object. I cannot even say I am Iswara - since Iswara is also a concept. Any conceptualization of the truth is an objectification - and any object is finite different from the subject. Hence by mutual exclusion neither the subject nor the object can be infinite. Hence the ultimate truth is - I am - that existence-conscious principle which is the substratum of - the individual (jiiva) - the world of objects (jagat) and the Lord who is the creator of this world - all three resolve into I am - pure existence-consciousness. The realization of that substantive without objectification is the self-realization- god realization - enlightment - pure knowledge - moksha - nirvaaNa - And beyond all names that one can give since naming itself conceptualization only. Hence words fail to describe that since words only try to conceptualize that which cannot be conceptualized - that means it is not objectifiable. Hope this helps Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Tue, 5/12/09, rachmiel <rachmiel wrote: > It is not conceptualization of yourself but that because of which you are even able to conceptualize yourself - that is free from any conceptualization, that your are, where words fail to express since words are conceptualization of that which cannot be conceptualized. That pure knowledge free from all objectifications remains. i am SO confused by the above. my little brain has gotten all dizzy. could you please help me understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 members, best way to say it,is not to say it=mounam.as bhagavan says. suresh. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Rachmiel - PraNAms > > All that means, the ultimate truth is -self that I am - I am being a subject, who am I? cannot be answered by 'I am this' since this is an object. I cannot even say I am Iswara - since Iswara is also a concept. Any conceptualization of the truth is an objectification - and any object is finite different from the subject. Hence by mutual exclusion neither the subject nor the object can be infinite. > > Hence the ultimate truth is - I am - that existence-conscious principle which is the substratum of - the individual (jiiva) - the world of objects (jagat) and the Lord who is the creator of this world - all three resolve into I am - pure existence-consciousness. The realization of that substantive without objectification is the self-realization- god realization - enlightment - pure knowledge - moksha - nirvaaNa - And beyond all names that one can give since naming itself conceptualization only. Hence words fail to describe that since words only try to conceptualize that which cannot be conceptualized - that means it is not objectifiable. > > Hope this helps > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > --- On Tue, 5/12/09, rachmiel <rachmiel wrote: > > > > It is not conceptualization of yourself but that because of which you are even able to conceptualize yourself - that is free from any conceptualization, that your are, where words fail to express since words are conceptualization of that which cannot be conceptualized. That pure knowledge free from all objectifications remains. > > i am SO confused by the above. my little brain has gotten all dizzy. could you please help me understand? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Dear Rachmielji, namaste since you adressed Dr. Sadananda, I hope it is alright if I try putting the passage which confused you in different words, (although I did not follow the whole thread in detail.) Maybe it helps a bit. Usually in this life we are carrying lots of concepts in our mind, i.e. ideas about this or that, also ideas about sacred things, like God, Shruti, Brahman . Concepts are a subtler form of gross objects. So it is appropriate to talk of concepts and objects as one and the same. Anything you can perceive is object. You can perceive things, situations, thoughts, feelings, - the world, your own body, your own mind, So, all these are objects. Objects come and go, concepts come and go. What you look for, though, is what is limitless in space and time. Doesn' come, doesn't go. As you cannot find that in any object, you have to switch your attention away from objects (and concepts) to the subject - which is you (but NOT your body, NOT your mind - they are objects, concepts.) If you do that you will find that there are no words which can fathom this, it cannot even be thought, so, it is not a concept. It purely IS. This is pure knowledge. This is you. Om Shanti Sitara advaitin , " rachmiel " <rachmiel wrote: > > namaste dr. sadananda. :-) > > > It is not conceptualization of yourself but that because of which you are even able to conceptualize yourself - that is free from any conceptualization, that your are, where words fail to express since words are conceptualization of that which cannot be conceptualized. That pure knowledge free from all objectifications remains. > > i am SO confused by the above. my little brain has gotten all dizzy. could you please help me understand? > > thank you. > > rachMiel > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 On Thu, 14 May 2009 11:18:46 +0100, Sitara <smitali17 wrote: > Dear Rachmielji, > > namaste > > since you adressed Dr. Sadananda, I hope it is alright if I try putting > the passage which confused you in different words, (although I did not > follow the whole thread in detail.) > > Maybe it helps a bit. > > Usually in this life we are carrying lots of concepts in our mind, i.e. > ideas about this or that, also ideas about sacred things, like God, > Shruti, Brahman . > > Concepts are a subtler form of gross objects. > > So it is appropriate to talk of concepts and objects as one and the same. > > Anything you can perceive is object. > You can perceive things, situations, thoughts, feelings, - the world, > your own body, your own mind, > So, all these are objects. > > Objects come and go, concepts come and go. > What you look for, though, is what is limitless in space and time. > Doesn' come, doesn't go. > > As you cannot find that in any object, you have to switch your attention > away from objects (and concepts) > to the subject - which is you (but NOT your body, NOT your mind - they > are objects, concepts.) > > If you do that you will find that there are no words which can fathom > this, it cannot even be thought, so, it is not a concept. > > It purely IS. > > This is pure knowledge. > > This is you. > > Om Shanti > Sitara |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Namaste Sitara-ji, If I might add my comment. The notion of concepts as any sort of object should be regarded as an airy metaphor of little use in the formulation of advaitic thought. In the central works of Shankara a rigourous distinction is made between objects, mental modifications, limiting adjuncts (upadhis) and the like. " Therefore an object and its knowledge differ " This profound statement occurs in B.S.B.II.ii.28 Call me a fuddy duddy scholastic if you wish but unless we adhere to a certain strictness regarding terms we will end up being unable to communicate with each other Best Wishes, Michael. ---------- ---------- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.29/2114 - Release 05/14/09 06:28:00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: Dear Michaelji, pranams thank you for the correction. The statement you refer to was an airy metaphor and I should have been more careful. It was not essential to what I was trying to convey though (actually I thought it was even helpful). Anyway, I hope that Rachmielji was not put off by it. Om Shanti Sitara > Namaste Sitara-ji, > If I might add my comment. The notion of concepts as any sort of object > should be regarded as an airy metaphor of little use in the formulation of > advaitic thought. In the central works of Shankara a rigourous > distinction is made between objects, mental modifications, limiting > adjuncts (upadhis) and the like. " Therefore an object and its knowledge > differ " This profound statement occurs in B.S.B.II.ii.28 Call me a fuddy > duddy scholastic if you wish but unless we adhere to a certain strictness > regarding terms we will end up being unable to communicate with each other > > > Best Wishes, > Michael. > ---------- > > > ---------- > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.29/2114 - Release 05/14/09 06:28:00 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 thank you, everyone, for helping me with this. i believe i have moved one step towards understanding, with your assistance. now: mounam. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.