Harsha/Sahaj Samadhi

[Guest guest]

Harshaji -

I just reread your message and noticed I spelled Sahaj Samadhi as

Sahaja in the message I just sent. I've seen it both ways.

Is Sahaj the more correct spelling?

 

Perhaps, Harshaji, you could explain your understanding of Sahaj Samadhi a

bit further. Perhaps you might clarify how a shift from Kevala Nirvikalpa

Samadhi "into" Shahaj Samadhi occurs, whether this is something for the

"average person" to be concerned about, or whether it is only for special

saints and teachers? I've read comments made by Sri Ramana regarding

Awareness as unsplit and without levels of "attainment," and then other

comments such as those you raise here regarding "special states" and

how they occur. It is said that he spoke according to the needs of

the "seeker". As he himself was not a "seeker," would it be right

to infer that regarding his own awareness, he didn't classify it in

terms of samadhi? Or did he explain himself as being in Sahaj Samadhi

and no longer incarnating? What isn't clear here when reading such

statements is "who" incarnates. If there is only Self, how can

incarnation be described as beginning or ending?

 

Any other comments that might shed light here would be appreciated.

 

Love,

Dan

 

>Sri Ramana took great care to distinguish between Kevala Nirvikalpa and

Sahaj Samadhi as indicated in his conversations. Sahaj Samadhi refers to

the permanent continuous and the ever awake stage and there can be no

rebirth after that.

>

>

>Harsha

>

>

>

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!

>Sign up for eLerts at:

><a href=" http://clickme./ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>

>

>------

>

>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of

Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is

Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality

of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge,

spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to

a.

>

>

[Guest guest]

"Dan Berkow, PhD" wrote:

> "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

>

> Harshaji -

> I just reread your message and noticed I spelled Sahaj Samadhi as

> Sahaja in the message I just sent. I've seen it both ways.

> Is Sahaj the more correct spelling?

>

> Perhaps, Harshaji, you could explain your understanding of Sahaj Samadhi a

> bit further. Perhaps you might clarify how a shift from Kevala Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi "into" Shahaj Samadhi occurs, whether this is something for the

> "average person" to be concerned about, or whether it is only for special

> saints and teachers? I've read comments made by Sri Ramana regarding

> Awareness as unsplit and without levels of "attainment," and then other

> comments such as those you raise here regarding "special states" and

> how they occur. It is said that he spoke according to the needs of

> the "seeker". As he himself was not a "seeker," would it be right

> to infer that regarding his own awareness, he didn't classify it in

> terms of samadhi? Or did he explain himself as being in Sahaj Samadhi

> and no longer incarnating? What isn't clear here when reading such

> statements is "who" incarnates. If there is only Self, how can

> incarnation be described as beginning or ending?

>

> Any other comments that might shed light here would be appreciated.

>

> Love,

> Dan

 

Thanks for raising those important points Dan. We bow to Adi Dan for his

brilliance!

 

First of all Sahaj and Sahaja mean the same thing. I am not a Sanskrit Scholar

but the alphabet "a" is added everywhere it seems in Sanskrit. Krishan become

Krishna, Raman becomes Ramana, Ashok becomes Ashoka and Harsh (pronounced Hirsh

or Hersh maybe) becomes Harsha (pronounced Hersha), etc. There are many dialects

in India, some emphasize certain sounds and others don't. Maybe a linguist could

offer a better explanation of this.

 

When Sri Ramana was asked when should Sahaj Samadhi be practiced, he replied,

"From the very beginning!" So what is the means for the practitioner is indeed

itself the goal as well. Consciousness itself is the tool and the means for its

growth process which is experienced in Consciousness and Consciousness is also

the end result. From the beginning, middle and end, it is only that thing only

but it appears to go through changes. The mind has the capacity to note and

categorize those changes in some instances.

 

The word Samadhi is part of the vocabulary of yoga. Yogis, through long term

experimentation on their own consciousness through meditation, reflection,

prayer, and other spiritual practices have noted the changes in their own

consciousness and in perception and in cognition and have categorized them to be

helpful to others. So the yogic literature (for example the ancient Patanjali's

Yoga Sutras) is full of description of various states of consciousness. Perhaps

just like books on psychology are full of certain descriptions about

psychological states as well.

 

A lot of what we express is simply a function of our own background and

experience and no one is an exception to that. Since my own background is in

meditation and yoga, I easily slip into terms like Samadhi and Nirvikalpa

Samadhi as I can relate to them through my experience.

 

You have raised some other important points Dan including "If the Self is One,

who incarnates? And how does Kevala Nirvikalpa become Sahaj Samadhi? You have

also asked that if Awareness is One Whole, how can we speak of various special

states? You raise the issue of spiritual materialism in which a seeker aspires

to experience various special states of consciousness. Those are all worth great

reflection Dan and I am sure others here can offer more insights into that.

 

Since you wish to be clear on Ramana Maharshi's views, may I request that you

read "Be As You Are." It is compilation of the essential conversations with

Ramana Maharshi by David Godman. Each important topic is given its own chapter

and discussed clearly. Many of the issues you raise, I believe, are addressed

there.

 

Love

Harsha

[Guest guest]

>"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

>

>"Dan Berkow, PhD" wrote:

>> Perhaps, Harshaji, you could explain your understanding of Sahaj Samadhi

a

>> bit further. Perhaps you might clarify how a shift from Kevala

Nirvikalpa

>> Samadhi "into" Shahaj Samadhi occurs, whether this is something for the

>> "average person" to be concerned about, or whether it is only for special

>> saints and teachers

 

Perhaps it's the passionate curiosity about such things that inspires the

discovery in one's own experience.

 

A quote relating to this subject from Paul Brunton, one of my favorite

Sages. His publisher is at

http://www.lightlink.com/larson/

 

"Ch'an does not consider sahaja to be the fruit of yoga meditation alone,

nor of understanding alone, but of a combination seemingly of both. It is a

union of reason and intuition. It is an awakening once and for all. It is

not attained in nirvikalpa and then to be held as long as possible.

It is not something, a state alternately gained and lost on numerous

occasions, but gradually expanded as it is clung to. It is a single

awakening that enlightens the man so that he never returns to ignorance

again. He has awakened to his divine essence, his source in Mind, as an all

day and every day self-identification. It has come by itself,

effortlessly." From Paul Brunton's Notebooks (25-2.142)

>The word Samadhi is part of the vocabulary of yoga. Yogis, through long

term experimentation on their own consciousness through meditation,

reflection, prayer, and other spiritual practices have noted the changes in

their own consciousness and in perception and in cognition and have

categorized them to be helpful to others. So the yogic literature (for

example the ancient Patanjali's Yoga Sutras) is full of description of

various states of consciousness. Perhaps just like books on psychology are

full of certain descriptions about psychological states as well.

 

I'm fond of Venkatesananda's interpertive translation of the yoga sutras on

line at:

http://dailyreadings.com/ys1-1.htm

 

>Since you wish to be clear on Ramana Maharshi's views, may I request that

you read "Be As You Are."

 

Thanks for the reference.

 

Roger

www.newu.org

[Guest guest]

>Thanks for raising those important points Dan. We bow to Adi Dan for his

brilliance!

>

>First of all Sahaj and Sahaja mean the same thing. I am not a Sanskrit

Scholar but the alphabet "a" is added everywhere it seems in Sanskrit.

Krishan become Krishna, Raman becomes Ramana, Ashok becomes Ashoka and

Harsh (pronounced Hirsh or Hersh maybe) becomes Harsha (pronounced Hersha),

etc. There are many dialects in India, some emphasize certain sounds and

others don't. Maybe a linguist could offer a better explanation of this.

>

>When Sri Ramana was asked when should Sahaj Samadhi be practiced, he

replied, "From the very beginning!" So what is the means for the

practitioner is indeed itself the goal as well. Consciousness itself is the

tool and the means for its growth process which is experienced in

Consciousness and Consciousness is also the end result. From the beginning,

middle and end, it is only that thing only but it appears to go through

changes. The mind has the capacity to note and categorize those changes in

some instances.

>

>The word Samadhi is part of the vocabulary of yoga. Yogis, through long

term experimentation on their own consciousness through meditation,

reflection, prayer, and other spiritual practices have noted the changes in

their own consciousness and in perception and in cognition and have

categorized them to be helpful to others. So the yogic literature (for

example the ancient Patanjali's Yoga Sutras) is full of description of

various states of consciousness. Perhaps just like books on psychology are

full of certain descriptions about psychological states as well.

>

>A lot of what we express is simply a function of our own background and

experience and no one is an exception to that. Since my own background is

in meditation and yoga, I easily slip into terms like Samadhi and

Nirvikalpa Samadhi as I can relate to them through my experience.

>

>You have raised some other important points Dan including "If the Self is

One, who incarnates? And how does Kevala Nirvikalpa become Sahaj Samadhi?

You have also asked that if Awareness is One Whole, how can we speak of

various special states? You raise the issue of spiritual materialism in

which a seeker aspires to experience various special states of

consciousness. Those are all worth great reflection Dan and I am sure

others here can offer more insights into that.

>

>Since you wish to be clear on Ramana Maharshi's views, may I request that

you read "Be As You Are." It is compilation of the essential conversations

with Ramana Maharshi by David Godman. Each important topic is given its own

chapter and discussed clearly. Many of the issues you raise, I believe, are

addressed there.

>

>Love

>Harsha

 

 

O.K., Harshaji. I'll look into it. If you have a copy with you, could

you give the publisher or ISBN number? If not, I'll look into it

regardless. Thanks for your response.

 

Although you seemingly deferred a couple

of questions, I can infer (i.e., construct)

"answers" from your earlier statement.

If I put together your earlier statement about Sahaj Samadhi being the

beginning, middle, and end - I'd say awareness is never in different

states, it has the appearance of being so; the mind categorizes these

appearances, and the mind itself is an appearance. Incarnation, then

is mind-constructed appearance, and the ending of incarnation is the ending

of the perception of such appearance as "reality". Sahaj samdhi is

the ending of any erroneous fixation on appearance as Reality, and seeing

only always Reality in all apparent conditions. If incarnation is ended

for this "one", it is ended for all, as no apparent "separate self" can

be taken as Reality ever, regardless of apparent conditions or beliefs.

Sahaj Samadhi then is the transformation of apparent conditional realities

into what is always already the case. It is transformation simply by

being itself - nothing is done and nothing ("special" or ordinary) occurs.

 

Hopefully, you don't mind how I'm interpreting your response -

please correct me if such interpretation is disagreeable or otherwise

off-base. As you say, "others" may have their own perspective to

contribute here. Appreciating your kind heart, wisdom and humor --

 

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" wrote:

 

First of all Sahaj and Sahaja mean the same thing. I am not a Sanskrit

Scholar but the alphabet "a" is added everywhere it seems in Sanskrit.

Krishan become Krishna, Raman becomes Ramana, Ashok becomes Ashoka and Harsh

(pronounced Hirsh or Hersh maybe) becomes Harsha (pronounced Hersha), etc.

There are many dialects in India, some emphasize certain sounds and others

don't. Maybe a linguist could offer a better explanation of this.

 

Hi Harsha,

I think it should be obvious to anyone that the 'a' in Harsha is for ananda.

Ananda means bliss and this is the all time natural state of our friend and

leader Harsha. It is a little long to be writing Harshananda all the time so

we can sometimes just write Harsha and know that the joy and bliss are

always there.

 

BTW Samadhi is a combination of Sama meaning evenness and dhi meaning

intellect. This evenness of intellect is the tranquil quality of mind that

is a natural quality of the self realized. It is sometimes compared to a

candle in a windless place that does not flicker.

 

Namaste,

Dirk

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan:

 

Some of the confusion with the 'a' on words comes from the Devanagari (the

official Sanskrit alphabet) script itself. The grammar rules are rather

complex but one of them is that if there is no vowel added at the end of a

word it is assumed that there is an 'a' there. So without reading the

official script and seeing the symbol that indicates the word ends with the

consonant one can not know if there should be an 'a' or not. Looking up one

word in a Sanskrit dictionary can take hours...for instance I notice that

some people will refer to the deity as Ram or Rama and both words have

become acceptable. It is a fascinating language, there are 3 different

letters for 's'....two contain the 'h' and one does not. We often see the

spelling of Shiva but a 'purist' will spell the same word as Siva knowing

that the 's' is one that contains the 'h'. There are multiple listings for

many of the letters. My own theory is that many of the letters were added

because of the effect the sound would have on the chakras. If we add up the

letters of the alphabet to the different petals of the chakras they are

equal in number (50 I believe but I'm not positive).

 

A contribution of more facts to add to the simplicity of life.

 

Namaste,

Linda

>"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

>Harshaji -

>I just reread your message and noticed I spelled Sahaj Samadhi as

>Sahaja in the message I just sent. I've seen it both ways.

>Is Sahaj the more correct spelling?

 

..