Guest guest Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 > > In fact book-knowledge is an> > additional source of bondage to those that are satisfied> > with it, instead> > of striving to obtain actual Experience of the central> > Truth conveyed in> > the books. Dear All, reviewing this recent posting by Alan (quoting the Garland of Guru's sayings), I would like to raise the question of "Experiencing of the Truth" as opposed to (or complementary to) "Knowing the Truth" about Oneself. Bhagavan always remarked that: "To know the Self is to Be the Self". In many traditional advaitic circles, there is the notion that Self-Realization is NOT an experience, but rather the dissapearance of a misunderstanding about oneself (since was always the Self), the dissolution of Ignorance, and these phenomena happens in the mind, place where the confusion first arose. Since it is true that every experience requires an "experienc-er" (so dualistic in nature), the non-dual cannot be experienced because precisely...it is non-dual, there is no duality of experiencer-experienced possible. Should the word "Experience" of the posting cited above be understood differently? and if yes, in which sense? If anyone would be inclined to share her/his insights on this topic, will be appreciated. Thanks and Happy western Holidays to everyone. Yours in bhagavan, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 upadesa wrote: > > In fact book-knowledge is an > > additional source of bondage to those that are satisfied > > with it, instead > > of striving to obtain actual Experience of the central > > Truth conveyed in > > the books. Dear All, reviewing this recent posting by Alan (quoting the Garland of Guru's sayings), I would like to raise the question of "Experiencing of the Truth" as opposed to (or complementary to) "Knowing the Truth" about Oneself. Bhagavan always remarked that: "To know the Self is to Be the Self". In many traditional advaitic circles, there is the notion that Self-Realization is NOT an experience, but rather the dissapearance of a misunderstanding about oneself (since was always the Self), the dissolution of Ignorance, and these phenomena happens in the mind, place where the confusion first arose. Since it is true that every experience requires an "experienc-er" (so dualistic in nature), the non-dual cannot be experienced because precisely...it is non-dual, there is no duality of experiencer-experienced possible. Should the word "Experience" of the posting cited above be understood differently? and if yes, in which sense? If anyone would be inclined to share her/his insights on this topic, will be appreciated. Thanks and Happy western Holidays to everyone. Yours in bhagavan, Mouna Dear Mouna, It might be useful to describe what generally is accepted as an experience. The six senses receive impressions also during sleep. But only when a sensory impression exceeds a threshold, that could result in for instance "I had this or that experience". Any sensory impression implies a change with respect to a preceding condition, so in summary, all experience regards enough change to pass a threshold (a variable one: attention lowers it) before it can be noticed as experience. The term "Self" is one out of many equally valid terms to describe what can't be properly described. But sometimes a description is useful, like "the Unchangeable". That term suggests the impossibility of making any sensory impression because all such impressions regard change with respect to a preceding condition. From that perspective, no such thing as "realization of the Self" is possible. Yet, something (an experience) must have occurred to coin the term "Self-realization". But what happened wasn't the realization of the Self - its unchanging nature escapes experience and yet, that fact cannot be known without an experience - it's just of a different kind. Hence the use of the capital E, in the same sense that there may be many gods, but only one God. So there is no conflict with classical advaita, only a different way to describe the same. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 , " upadesa " <maunna wrote: > > > > > In fact book-knowledge is an > > > additional source of bondage to those that are satisfied > > > with it, instead > > > of striving to obtain actual Experience of the central > > > Truth conveyed in > > > the books. > > Dear All, reviewing this recent posting by Alan (quoting the Garland of > Guru's sayings), I would like to raise the question of " Experiencing of > the Truth " as opposed to (or complementary to) " Knowing the Truth " about > Oneself. > Bhagavan always remarked that: " To know the Self is to Be the Self " . > In many traditional advaitic circles, there is the notion that > Self-Realization is NOT an experience, but rather the dissapearance of a > misunderstanding about oneself (since was always the Self), the > dissolution of Ignorance, and these phenomena happens in the mind, place > where the confusion first arose. Since it is true that every experience > requires an " experienc-er " (so dualistic in nature), the non-dual cannot > be experienced because precisely...it is non-dual, there is no duality > of experiencer-experienced possible. > > Should the word " Experience " of the posting cited above be understood > differently? and if yes, in which sense? > > If anyone would be inclined to share her/his insights on this topic, > will be appreciated. > > Thanks and Happy western Holidays to everyone. > > Yours in bhagavan, > Mouna > Namaste, The experience of union with the sakti is an experience, and is the only memory of bliss. The simultaneous realisation of Nirguna Brahman cannot be remembered or experienced at all..........In the end that is the full truth. THAT TRUTH CANNOT BE EXPERIENCED...Cheers Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 , " Tony OClery " <aoclery > Namaste, > > The experience of union with the sakti is an experience, and is the > only memory of bliss. The simultaneous realisation of Nirguna Brahman > cannot be remembered or experienced at all..........In the end that > is the full truth. THAT TRUTH CANNOT BE EXPERIENCED...Cheers > Are you sure that is the full truth? :-). Exactly how do you know? Possibly, through your mind? The way that can be talked about is not The Way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 , " harshaimtm " wrote: > > , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > > Namaste, > > > > The experience of union with the sakti is an experience, and is the > > only memory of bliss. The simultaneous realisation of Nirguna Brahman > > cannot be remembered or experienced at all..........In the end that > > is the full truth. THAT TRUTH CANNOT BE EXPERIENCED...Cheers > > > > Are you sure that is the full truth? :-). Exactly how do you know? > Possibly, through your mind? > > The way that can be talked about is not The Way. Harsha, That is what I am saying----the full truth---is neti neti through to NirGuna. As it is beyond the illlusory mind there can be no experience - -hence the truth cannot be experienced..........Anymore than you can recollect sahaja samadhi. Though one can experience bliss on the way down from it so to speak.I can measure my mind to see by experience it isn't the truth.........Cheers Tony 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.